SHAH ALAM: All ahead, LCS. It appears that the RMN is preparing for the resumption of the LCS project. Yesterday, it announced First Admiral Franklin Jeyasekhar Joseff assumed command of the LCS project team from Captain Abdul Jamal Mohd Nasir.
Majlis Serah Terima Tugas Ketua Pengarah Projek Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) di antara Kept Hj Abdul Jamal bin Mohd Nasir TLDM dan Laksamana Pertama Ir. Ts. Franklin Jeyasekhar Joseff telah disaksikan oleh Asisten Ketua Staf Perancangan Pembangunan, Laksamana Muda Mohamad Azuwan bin Harun.
RMN did not announced Abdul Jamal’s appointment when the previous LCS director, First Admiral Shaiful Bahari Baharuddin was promoted as the head of the RMN’s Logistics Department in January, this year. Perhaps it did but I did not notice it.
Both of Shaiful Bahari and Abdul Jamal are also engineers like Franklin. Just like previous RMN’s LCS team directors including the current RMN chief engineer, Rear Admiral Shaiful Adli Chung Abdullah and Captain (retired) Azhar Jumaat. Azhar was of course the second Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) LCS project director and currently the CEO of the shipyard which build the LCS of course. Even the first BNS LCS director Anuar Murad, was the RMN chief engineer before he left the service with the rank of Captain.
It is also interesting to note that the handing-over ceremony of the LCS project team head was witnessed by the RMN assistant chief of staff for development, Read Admiral Mohamad Azuwan Harun, who was also one of the LCS project team director at one time. Azuwan was formerly the commanding officer of KD Lekiu and KD Laksamana Tun Abdul Jamil before his promotion as a flag officer.
Even though, the RMN is getting geared for the resumption of the project – supposedly early next year – Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation, the owner of BNS has yet to appoint a new project director. Perhaps Azhar, the CEO of BNS will do double duty. It may well be prescient as Pakatan Harapan’s anointed Prime Minister, DS Anwar Ibrahim has stated that it is better to scrap the LCS project. That said it remained to be seen whether he will follow up this up if his coalition wins Putrajaya this Saturday.
*updated on November 16 to correct both Shaiful and Abdul Jamal as engineers.
— Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Yeah but at what cost? Im not feeling it..Certainly cant accept a 3 to 4 billion LCS perunit pricetag..below 2 billion still acceptable..above that well..
If anwar appointed as our PM, it will a disaster and getting worst. Maybe mpa also will be cancel and most of our army requirements cant be fullfil in near future. Its just my opinion.
I am all for scrapping the project.
But only if they have a detailed Plan B in place, and an alternative frigate design that can be quickly bought, build and be fitted with all the weapons and sensors that has already been bought for the gowinds. Also a recovery plan for Lumut Shipyard, and reparations for Naval Group and other suppliers.
Better just continue if they don’t have a watertight Plan B that they can immediately execute.
Might as well resume the project as government has paid billions. To scrap it is not a good ideas because it would be a waste of money and time. It was already delayed and navy need ships badly.
Pjan – ”Maybe mpa also will be cancel and most of our army requirements cant be fullfil in near future. Its just my opinion.”
Maybe. Maybe the Zoroastrians will invade Batu Pahat and Layang-Layang or the Malian army will conduct a mass para drop over Bukit Bintang. Its just my opinion.
Whether Anwar becomes PM or whoever; it won’t change the fact that citizens and the armed services will continue to get screwed/buggered and that our highly flawed defence policy will be mantained.
Technically speaking Anwar’s manifestos offer more defense related ‘promises’ rather than the other 2. PN promised is basically more money for veterans,assets purchased & salaries while BN promised nothing defense related in their manifestos.
PH promised is to purchase everything under the DWP, reform the acquisition strategy, military industrial complex, more jointness among the service, more money for veteran and a unified single border agencies.
But as always take everything with a pinch of salt as manifestos bukan kitab suci.
zaft – PH promised is to purchase everything under the DWP, reform the acquisition strategy, military industrial complex, more jointness among the service, more money for veteran and a unified single border agencies.
Good, hope the DWP can be carried out without interuption by anymore selfish political clowns and frogs after this.
Yes we do really need our Frigates ASAP. But new techs means that traditional orthodox ship like a conventional Corvette for LMS Batch 2 is probably not the best way to go in the future.
Looking at US Navy and Royal Navy experiments (RN with XV Patrick Blackett), a cheap platform with modular weapons and sensors is the way to go in the future. Something similar to a jet fighter, you hang (install) weapons that is suitable for your mission. Many cheap platforms also means distributed lethality, where weapons are placed on many platforms distributed widely, making destroying every node difficult.
If you think you can still trust PH promises, let me remind you of their GE14 manifesto promises….
Malays should know this term; mulut cakap manis
They can promise a lot but what actually did they do during their 2 years? Even the DWP was not worth the paper it was printed on.
KC Wong – ” But new techs means that traditional orthodox ship like a conventional Corvette for LMS Batch 2 is”
Yes but have you noticed that some navies have not adopted the modular payload approach and have you wondered why? Depends on individual requirements/preferences.
On paper ships with modular payloads provide flexibility but they also come with penalties.
On another topic. A lot of assumptions have been made regarding the war in the Ukraine and a lot of trumpet blowing has been made on UASs with many adamant we should prioritise them; many putting them on a pedestal as if they are the best invention since sliced bread. As I never tire of pointing out UASs are not a panacea; they don’t operate in a vacuum and they are very vulnerable if an opponent has the right GBAD. Also, the Ukraine war reminds us a lot of what we already knew rather than new lessons per see which is the impression many are under.
A recent finding has shown that the average life expectancy of a UAS in the Ukraine is seven days and that because of their vulnerability TB2s are being used more for target spotting rather than the direct strike role.
Should we buy UASs : yes no doubt but we have to avoid the tendency to see them as a one size fits all solution and bear in mind that not only in the Ukraine but in Libya and Syria we know that UASs need permissive airspace in order to survive to do their job. They [and loitering munitions] also need to be fully integrated with other assets and to have the right C3 in order to be operated effectively.
Azlan – because of their vulnerability TB2s are being used more for target spotting rather than the direct strike role
If small and low RCS TB2 is vulnerable, the huge ANKA will be much easier target to be shot down.
Using TB2 for target spotting is good enough, as 1 ANKA cost as much as 4 TB2, losing a single TB2 is much more bearable than losing 1 ANKA. Can we afford to lose any ANKA to be shot down?
With reports coming in the ringgit might reaches its lowest since at 1 dollar equal to rm5.00 the cost will be further increased. And the rakyat will pay for it. That is to assumed that BNS will build it perfectly according to NG standards. Mind you the last 6 ngpv came with all kind of defects & sub par manufacturing standards. It was a big mess. LCS might cost 12-13 billions for 5 ships and the equipments also not all are paid for.
We couldn’t afford to lose a single Flanker in combat, really or any of the other aircraft in RMAF
It is impossible not to lose any aircraft in a conflict, not planning for attrition is really not planning for a conflict.
USD 70 million – will get us 3 ANKA
USD 60 million – will get us 13 TB2
If lose 1 UAV per day in a conflict
ANKA – available only for 3 days of hostility
TB2 – available for 13 days of hostility
“Many cheap platforms also means distributed lethality”
Distributed lethality according to UsNI is the condition gained by increasing the offensive power of individual components of the surface force (cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships [LCSs], amphibious ships, and logistics ships) and then employing them in dispersed offensive formations.
Those containerised module or UAV,UUV,USV are meant to expanded for example the LMS2 situational awareness & firepower and not as a replacement for an actual warships.
“Using TB2 for target spotting is good enough, as 1 ANKA cost as much as 4 TB2”
There’s a huge difference with survivability for a platform which acquired target “within visual range” and one that locked on beyond visual range.
Anka & TB2 are complementary rather than a replacement of one another.
KC Wong – “If small and low RCS TB2 is vulnerable, the huge ANKA will be much easier target to be shot down”
Yes but on that basis; we shouldn’t buy any? Frigates have a larger RCS and IR compared to corvettes; thus we shouldnt buy frigates? Anka in our context will be used for peactime monitoring of the maritime domain and won’t be exposed to AD systems. Also, Anka may be a bit larger than the TB2 but doesn’t necessarily mean it’s more susceptible to hard and soft kill means. See the difference?
BTW way before the Ukraine we learnt the vulnerability of UASs in various places. Also UASs have to be seen as a consumable not as an aircraft; they will be lost to armed action.
KC Wong – “Using TB2 for target spotting is good enough, as 1 ANKA cost as much as 4 TB2”
No it isn’t “good enough” as it’s a strike platform. As has been explained Anka is intended as a ISR platform and has the payload capacity for the various roles its intended to perform. The TB2 is a strike platform with less endurance and lift capacity; as such both shouldnt be compared although there is a temptation and tendency to do so…
BTW in Syria the Turks used both types; Anka to detect targets and the YB2 to hit them. Things of different categories tend to complement each other; not replace them or be a substitute.
“As I never tire of pointing out UASs are not a panacea”
Nobody needs reminder as you have said it before and no one has raised this point since. You highlighting this is pointless.
It is to be expected that UAS in war time will have significantly shortened lifespan, if they weren’t brought down by enemy fire, it is some malfunction due to high tempo use, inclement weather, or grounded for lack of spareparts. But for use in peace time operations, it should be expected to have far longer operation life, it will be more due to skipping maintenance, or natural phenomenas ie sudden change in weather, fog, bird strikes, that would commonly lead to a crash. Otherwise would be operator error/ poor training. These can be preventable/avoidable.
We only need to buy the right types of UAS in the right quantities suited for our needs. There are no one size fits all so we should be looking at different classes of UAS; handheld DJI, light types ie Fulmar, medium MALE, sea patrols UAS, and later on tactical UCAVs when we see the need and sorted out the UAV playbook. I see a MQ Triton-type in future to replace the manned MSAs for long endurance patrols.
kakadu – ”not planning for attrition is really not planning for a conflict.”
Planning for attrition will depend on what type of conflict one foresees. One can’t just blindly plan for attrition without knowing what type of conflict to cater for.
kakadu – ”USD 70 million – will get us 3 ANKA
USD 60 million – will get us 13 TB2”
Yes but so? This isn’t a fancy, neat PowerPoint brief. For the cost of a single NLAW one can get 7-8 or more RPG-7s but such comparisons can’t be made.
kakadu – ”ANKA – available only for 3 days of hostility
TB2 – available for 13 days of hostility”
Depends on the operational circumstances. What type of ”hostility” and against whom?
A high intensity protracted war against an opponent with a GBAD density such as the Russians? BTW on your ”13 days” some TB2s were lost in Syria and Libya in a matter of days. Depends on the context; on the operational circumstances.
zaft – ”There’s a huge difference with survivability for a platform which acquired target “within visual range” and one that locked on beyond visual range.”
”There’s a huge difference” between targets within the engagement zone of say a Buk or a S-300 and those at low level facing Iglas and Strelas. Ultimately all UASs [including the TB2s which some are fixated on] emit electronic signals which make them vulnerable to detection.
In other news, UK just awarded BAE a contract extension for 5 more Type 26 frigates at a cost of RM22.5bil or RM 4.5 bil each as compared with LCS estimated figures of RM 2-2.5Bil albeit the Type 26 is a bit bigger and better armed.
Food for thought on how much a decent frigate should cost nowadays.
“It is impossible not to lose any aircraft in a conflict, not planning for attrition is really not planning for a conflict.”
I guess the general rules is to Bought stuff from the enemies of the enemies and maybe they replaced the lost asset quickly or if not possible, bought the licencing & manufacturers it yourself.
“alternative frigate design that can be quickly bought, build and be fitted with all the weapons and sensors that has already been bought for the gowinds”
Thought one of the major disagreement is the weapons & sensors. No?
Malaysia, especially Angkatan Tentera Malaysia will be back on track in terms of development after this Saturday
Zaft – Thought one of the major disagreement is the weapons & sensors. No?
This is no more about any disagreement. This is about how much more money we need to pump into getting 6 Frigates for our Navy, and how quickly can our Navy be given those badly needed Frigates.
Whatever disagreement in the past, will not matter much for the future. All of the weapons and sensors has already been bought and paid for, except for the air defence missiles.
If the money and time needed to finish all 6 Gowinds is much more than just buying 6 alternative Frigates, then we need to take the hard decision and cancel the Gowind project.
Getting another more experienced shipyard that can start and finish Frigates from scratch much more faster than BNS to restart on the Gowinds and do it at a lower cost is something that should be looked at.
IMO if we resume the project but we cannot have KD Maharaja Lela and Syarif Masahor floating in the water undergoing final fitout by end of 2023, and all 6 operational by 2026, just forget about it.
Current Gowind build time benchmark is 2 years from keel laying ceremony to commissioning ceremony. As Maharaja Lela supposedly already launched, it should take no more than 1 year from restart for the ship to be officially commissioned.
Kakadu – “All of the weapons and sensors has already been bought and paid for, except for the air defence missiles”
You need to add in the costs to replace various things which will no longer be supportable when the class does enter service
Kakadu – “Getting another more experienced shipyard”
As it stands there is no other “more experienced” yard in the country when it comes to frigate sized combatants. The issue with BNS was less to do with experience per see but lack of oversight; political meddling; the lack of a learning curve and hubris and misguided priorities on the part of the politicians.
Kakadu – “As Maharaja Lela supposedly already launched, it should take no more than 1 year from restart for the ship to be officially commissioned”
Already launched but not fully fitted out; as well as a long list of things yet done. Rushing all that and getting her through trials in a year is something I see as unlikely.
UASs tend to to have shorter airframe hours than manned platforms; irrespective of peacetime or not.
They have to be employed in the right manner; with the right enablers and the right C3 set up. They also must never be seen as a panacea.
Here’s another “reminder”: they have to be bought in the right quantities; have to be seen as a consumable and like everything else are not a one size fits all solution; nor do they operate in a vacuum
We have not reached the stage where unmanned platforms can replace manned ones. Not yet. A problem with unmanned platforms is that they can’t react as fast in changing situations compared to manned platforms. As it stands unmanned platforms can supplement not replace manned platforms.
Azlan – As it stands there is no other “more experienced” yard in the country when it comes to frigate sized combatants.
I know. And I am inferring to foreign shipyards with good delivery records, South Koreans for example. Let the frigates be build overseas while we sort out BNS Lumut. Local naval shipbuilding at BNS can continue say 2027? In the meantime there is quite a few other shipyards that can build large ships, MMHE pasir gudang and various shipyards in east malaysia for things other than frigates.
Maharaja lela launch is just a big sham. The pipings, insulations not done & you cannot start work if these are not done. Propellers not installed which means the engines too.Heck even the detailed 3d design not completed. The Psim model that cost rm400k ( price of 2 storey semi-d house) is also meant to deceive thr public. This project is a bad news magnet. How stupid can they be? The ppl managing the project :/
“Let the frigates be build overseas while we sort out BNS Lumut. Local naval shipbuilding at BNS can continue say 2027?”
jumping around is something we already did for 2 decades now starting in the 2000s with f2000,Kedah,gagah& gowind. One can argue it pretty much a failure that didn’t contribute anything be it to military nor industry.
I think what important is to think carefully what BNS should be. Is it something like DCNS, which get a monopoly on MN ship and thus it highly competent in building warship that it received order from other navies or we wanted to immitate HHI. HHI mainly build commercial products, the lucrative navy contract mostly act as free capital from the gov, an indirect subsidise to make HHI commercial products more competitive.
If it’s the former than BNS would need to be given a monopoly to RMN ship and churn out 1 ship a year for a total fleet of 30 or biannually for a naval fleet of 15. if it’s the latter then merge BNS & MHHE.
We can be as desperate as we wanted but thinking from the gov perspective, they aren’t. For them, The lekir & Lekiu which the gowind will ultimately replace would only reach end of life by 2030. The Kedah & gagah which probably be replaced by lms2 would only reach 30 by 2035. Lms1 is pretty much the same load out & displacement as the laksamana, the CB is being replaced bit by bit with the FIC. The FAC would likely not see a replacement as it is probably more cost effective to let MMEA be incharge of gunboating activities & TDM in charge of coastal defense using land based asset.
kakadu -”And I am inferring to foreign shipyards with good delivery records”
I fully agree but the key problem is; as its stands; you know as well as I do that for political reasons it’s unlikely a foreign yard will be selected to construct anything. National interests.. For us it’s all hubris, politics and bragging rights. For the politicians ensuring the end user gets something on schedule; per spec and within budget is secondary.
kakadu – ”there is quite a few other shipyards that can build large ships”
Nonetheless they will still have to undergo a learning curve and we have to ensure the politicians/policy makers/bureaucrats don’t bugger things up again.
”Nobody needs reminder as you have said it before and no one has raised this point since. You highlighting this is pointless.”
Tough kitties”. Don’t like it; make a complain then or find a way to channel out pent up frustrations…
Qamarul – Maharaja lela launch is just a big sham.
Waiting for someone to say it. Why realistically i don’t see any hope they can complete all by 2026.
Launch is usually floating into the water, not just spraying water onto it. And Ex PTL a few days ago put his neck out to defend this sham. So at least now we know he is on which side of the fence.
Anyway who got the big fat 400k cheque for the fake plywood PSIM module?
We were trying for both DCNS (NG) and HHI actually. But the commercial side never happened, and the military order is too little. Merging MMHE and BNS will not solve the issue of too little order and therefore little profits
zaft – ” One can argue it pretty much a failure that didn’t contribute anything be it to military nor industry.”
Is it surprising? When there’s a lack of apolitical oversight and when connected but not suited companies [the South Korean training ships and the Little Birds come to mind] that things go ratshit?
zaft – ”I think what important is to think carefully what BNS should be.”
”I think what important is to think carefully what BNS” was originally : a refit yard. The problem only started when it got into the ship construction business and when our defence policy took a sharp turn for the worst.
zaft – ”the FAC would likely not see a replacement as it is probably more cost effective to let MMEA be incharge of gunboating activities & TDM in charge of coastal defense using land based asset.”
What does ”gunboating” really mean : do you even know? FYI the MMEA is in charge of constabulary type duties at sea and the RMN is responsible for other things – ”not coastal defense using land based asset” as you put it; whatever the holy hell that means.
zaft – ”We can be as desperate as we wanted but thinking from the gov perspective, they aren’t.”
Because for them defence is only something to be spent on when times are good and that since the country will never be in an existential war; defence gear will never be used for real [please don’t make the silly comment again of the PLA being the same]; thus it’s national interests; not the end user which takes precedence. Lets not even mention the taxpayer who gets perpetually buggered in every orfice.
Qamarul – ”Qamarul – Maharaja lela launch is just a big sham.”
I have no idea but I do know that when a ship undergoes a traditional and symbolic launching/naming ceremony; she’s far from completed and that it’s well understood.
Kakadu – ”Launch is usually floating into the water”
The key word is ”usually” not ”always”.
Kakadu – ”fake plywood PSIM module?”
The former RMN chief who was there said nothing; including; the mast; was a dummy.
Marhalim – Merging MMHE and BNS will not solve the issue of too little order.
I am not a manager or something, but i can see lots of advantage of merging both.
– MMHE with petronas backing has stronger financials and engineering resources to do big projects.
– too little order? frigates, LMS, OPVs for MMEA, MRSS, NGPC new batches etc etc. There is a need of at least 20 large vessels and at least 20 medium vessels even before 2030.
Alzan – The key word is ”usually” not ”always”
Can you give me just 1 other example of naval ship launching without the ship being put into the water, without the propeller even installed? Have RMN ever launched a ship without putting the ship into water before? So you really believe the maharaja lela launching was legit?
Azlan-Is it surprising? When there’s a lack of apolitical oversight and when connected but not suited companies [the South Korean training ships and the Little Birds come to mind] that things go ratshit?
The SGPV program has its own project team & overseers board but they were bypassed by one key person & he is still out there probably trying to crawl back in.The singaporeans have DSTA as their sole military procurement planners & overseers. What do we have?
Kakadu – “frigates, LMS, OPVs for MMEA, MRSS, NGPC new batches etc etc
Having a paper requirement and having a government actually willing to commit to sustained funding are two different things. Lack of continuity and indecision of the part of the government is a major problem for local companies.
Kakadu – “Have RMN ever launched a ship without putting the ship into water before? ”
Actually I can and if you ask; I’ll tell you; here and elsewhere – not totally unheard of. You see I tend to keep conclusions in check until I know the full story. I doubt know much about the launch apart from what I’ve read and I don’t have the same level of contacts within the service which I can ask.
Kakadu – “So you really believe the maharaja lela launching was legit?”
I really have no idea but as I said the former RMN chief did say the mast wasn’t a dummy. Also as I pointed out it’s normal for ships to be launched whilst in an uncompleted state – it’s a launch; not a commissioning. Do you have anything firm to indicate the launch involved a ship which was a dummy or contained external parts/components which were?
Qamarul- The SGPV program has its own project team & overseers board but they were bypassed by one key person”
There’s much more to it than that. You only have part of the narrative. Again; it’s the system which enables the shit to happen; a system which is flawed and rotten to the very core.
Qamarul – “What do we have?”
In the past I have stressed the need for an independent procurement agency to oversee tri service procurement; to ensure that contractors/vendors fully meet contractual obligations and to vet the awarding of contracts; like Sweden’s FMV or South Africa’s Armscor.
Ultimately it depends on us having the prerequisites in place; having a sound apolitical policy and a realistic and holistic assessment of what we intend in achieving and what we actually can.
It is politically suicidal for any sitting Govt and politicians to even suggest that as the thinking will be; thousands of potential jobs lost and no economic benefits from expenditure of billions RM gone to waste for weapons we won’t use cuz we’re not at war with anyone. This regardless of whom is the Govt.
“I fully agree but the key problem is; as its stands; you know as well as I do that for political reasons it’s unlikely a foreign yard will be selected to construct anything. National interests.. For us it’s all hubris, politics and bragging rights. For the politicians ensuring the end user gets something on schedule; per spec and within budget is secondary”
To be fair¹, We are doing it because we HAS to not because we WANTED too. No one in their right mind are a gluten for punishment. Most actually prefer to take the easy way out.
And that exactly the problems lies. Gluten for easy fixes.lets reboot these, let try other platforms from other countries and so on and so forth. We do not live in the 90s anymore. Our salaries aren’t cheap anymore, the FDI for low end manufacturing that grow like mushroom before had dried up, along with it full employment, satisfied citizens due to fast increase in standard of living, huge amount of foreign currencies reserve, high growth economics and so on. The good time of being a developing economies is over! It’s now VN,ID & PH turn to enjoyed those fun times. Just like tw & SK enjoy it 20/30 years before us.
Things we can easily afford 20/30 years ago like import or a zoo of every platform available under the sun is no longer within our reach.
“The problem only started when it got into the ship construction business and when our defence policy took a sharp turn for the worst”
When a country reach the upper middle income status, we would have less & less of foreign currencies, increasing unemployment rate however we still have low value added manufacturing, low amount of R&D activities, low amount of high paying jobs to make the transition to develop economy status. An economy can’t just stay still, they need to move up the value chains. Thus one of the solution to these problems a military industrial complex just like what SK & tw did 20/30 years ago.
Economically speaking we are around 30/20 years behind SK/TW & 20 years ahead of PH & ID. Thus It not exactly surprising that we are doing what SK/TW did 20 years ago or that ID & PH is behaving the same as us 20 years ago.
“Because for them defence is only something to be spent on when times are good and that since the country will never be in an existential war; defence gear will never be used for real”
never mind existential crisis. we aren’t even in any existential risk. The solution for this problems is actually rather simplistic. As JFK once said never ask what the country can do for you, ask what you could do for the country. military isn’t a tools that exist just in case of an existential crisis. Most military nowadays are a economics or diplomatic tools. SK, Italy & Fr are using military as cross subsidies tools for their industry. RN & afterwards USN discovered that having monopoly on violence at high sea is such a profitable business. US (now) & UK (before) is such an innovation Mecca because in some part due to their military need to keep their monopoly on violence on the high sea, SK,TW,SG military corporation with US get their economy a huge boasts with preferential access to US tech, industry & market access.
“FYI the MMEA is in charge of constabulary type duties at sea and the RMN is responsible for other things”
Neither The gov nor the taxpayer could care less on the technicality of things of what is a military & what isn’t. They wanted something to get done and those whose offer the most bang for their bucks win their fundings.
“thus it’s national interests; not the end user which takes precedence. Lets not even mention the taxpayer who gets perpetually buggered in every orfice.”
Reality is some of the end user interest some are just self servings request and thus doesn’t benefit anyone else other than themselves.
It’s no secret that RMN trying hard to get away from cutting hull, personel & bases number like most other navies had to do. Who sacrifice those in order to afford fewer but highly modern & capable ship to go further out from own shore and extend the country defense & observation bubble.
“The singaporeans have DSTA as their sole military procurement planners & overseers. What do we have?”
SG DSTA, SK ADD, turkey DIA are more or less equivalent of an empowered STRIDE.
“Merging MMHE and BNS will not solve the issue of too little order and therefore little profits”
To be fair Most European navies are pretty small,RN & MN which supposed to be the largest in would only eventuall have 15 to 20 surface combatants only.
I am sure you probably understand malay more than me.
So here it is, and its actually in the PAC report. Totally contradicts the former RMN chief.
They put on a show to get payment from the govt, when they did not actually complete the ship to a launch-able standard, which is into the water, and test its stability before further fitting out while floating. Look at the Tun Fatimah launch, that is the usual way how it is done, not just sprayed with water and remained on dry land.
kakadu – ”Totally contradicts the former RMN chief.”
Then it boils down to 2 things then –  The RMN Chief was saying something untrue?
 Is the PAC report infallible? I have no idea.
I personally have no idea thus I will not rush in forming conclusions.
zaft – ”We are doing it because we HAS to not because we WANTED too.”
You have a perpetual knack for forming the wrong conclusions and coming up with flawed and bizarre reasoning. We build locally BECAUSE we want the political spin offs [keeping a local yard afloat; creating jobs; ToTs; etc] and this is because the priority IS national interests and hubris NOT ensuring the end user has the capability needed. If this is something you are still unable to fathom….
zaft – ”No one in their right mind are a gluten for punishment. ”
The situation you describe is exactly what we’re in given that since the 1990’s we’ve been repeating the same mistake and have an incapacity to learn.
zaft – ”we aren’t even in any existential risk. The solution for this problems is actually rather simplistic. As JFK once said never ask what the country can do for you, ask what you could do for the country. ”
Spare me the monologue about JFK and the other stuff. The point is NOT being at ”existential risk” but having some level of capability to deal with expected threats. In our context even equipping the MAF with a minimal deterrent level to deal with limited threats and for it to meet peacetime operational commitments is an issue.
To lower the unit cost, any chance we might go with the same type for LCS batch 2?
That might bring cost down if lets say we build 12-18 of them.
That was the plan the last time around. Now? Your guess is as good as mine. My conversations with people involved, nope
The original timeline for LCS2 under 1525 is 30 years from the original one. So it more a replacement rather than additional. originally the plan is to have 3 strategic sealift, 6 warship,2 submarine, 24 gunboat at any one time.
Thought currently it seem to evolve into a pretty conventional force mix of 6 ASW frigates, 8 general purpose corvette & 2 strategic sealift.
If current structure hold, then it easy to predict that after the MRSS. They would order at least 2 AAW warship & few more tactical sealift.
Ok,10th PM is here. Scrap or continue? :p