DWP Wishlist

Sukhoi Su-30MKM from the 11th Squadron - M52-09 and M52-18.

SHAH ALAM: DWP Wishlist. Appended below and in BM is the DWP wishlist.

ATM dipertanggungjawabkan untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan negara meliputi wilayah daratan, perairan wilayah dan ruang angkasa di atasnya. Kawasan ini merangkumi sempadan daratan dan maritim yang dikongsi bersama negara jiran, dilitupi hutan hujan tropika yang padat serta bergunung-ganang dengan garisan pantai yang panjang. Anasir luar seperti kumpulan militan, mampu menyusup masuk dan bertapak di dalam kawasan hutan di Malaysia bagi menjalankan operasi insurgensi. Insiden pencerobohan Lahad Datu pada tahun 2013 merupakan satu pengalaman getir bagi Malaysia dan telah memberikan satu pengajaran berguna tentang pentingnya ketumbukan Angkatan Masa Hadapan untuk terus membangunkan keupayaan pertempuran hutan dan melawan insurgensi (counter-insurgency, COIN) yang kekal relevan dalam zaman moden ini.

Kawasan teras telah mengalami urbanisasi akibat dari kemunculan bandar-bandar besar berikutan kepesatan pembangunan ekonomi negara. Situasi ini menimbulkan cabaran baharu kepada ATM terutamanya dalam kemampuan bertempur di kawasan bandar dengan berkesan. Kesan operasi di kawasan terbina (Operations in Built-Up Areas, OBUA) yang tidak teratur boleh mengakibatkan kehancuran seperti yang berlaku di Mosul dan di Marawi pada tahun 2017. Oleh yang demikian, Angkatan Masa Hadapan mestilah berupaya untuk melaksanakan OBUA dengan lebih cekap dan pertempuran jarak dekat (Close-Quarter Battle, CQB) bagi memenuhi keperluan peperangan masa kini dan masa hadapan.

Sebagai sebuah negara maritim, dengan wilayah utamanya dipisahkan oleh Laut China Selatan dan mempunyai lebih daripada 800 buah pulau di sepanjang perairannya, ATM akan mewujudkan Angkatan Amfibi bagi melindungi kepentingan negara melangkau Kawasan teras. Angkatan Amfibi ini perlu dilengkapi Kapal Sokongan Pelbagai Guna (Multirole Support Ship, MRSS) yang baharu kerana kapal bantuan logistik sedia ada tidak direka untuk pelaksanaan operasi amfibi1. Selain itu, MRSS juga penting dalam pelaksanaan operasi dua wilayah dan MOOTW apabila diperlukan.

*1Kapal KD Sri Indera Sakti (1503) dan Kapal KD Mahawangsa (1504) yang telah beroperasi sejak tahun 1980 dan 1983 telah melebihi tempoh masa perkhidmatan

Dalam tempoh pelaksanaan KPP ini, keutamaan diberikan kepada peningkatan keupayaan pengesanan dengan menggunakan sistem ISTAR yang moden yang disokong dengan keupayaan membuat keputusan pantas melalui rangkaian komunikasi di bawah inisiatif NCO. Dalam penggal pertama KPP ini, ATM akan meningkatkan aspek keupayaan pengesanan. Untuk tujuan ini, Angkatan Masa Hadapan memerlukan penambahan sistem radar pertahanan udara, sistem radar pengawasan pantai dan sistem tanpa pemandu (unmanned systems) yang baharu untuk menyokong operasi di kawasan teras. Peralatan komunikasi semasa juga perlu ditingkatkan untuk mencapai komunikasi selamat dan liputan yang lebih meluas.
ATM perlu meningkatkan keupayaan kuasa tembakan tidak langsung bagi atur gerak pantas dan menembak sasaran melangkaui daratan untuk menghalang pihak yang mengancam daripada menghampiri kawasan teras. Angkatan Masa Hadapan memerlukan 155mm self-propelled howitzer (SPH) sebagai bantuan tembakan tidak langsung yang utama yang juga boleh digunakan untuk pertahanan pantai. ATM juga perlu menggantikan 105mm howitzer ringan yang telah usang dengan senjata baharu yang mempunyai jarak tembakan yang lebih jauh dan mempunyai ketepatan menembak yang lebih baik. ATM akan mengekalkan Sistem Pelancar Roket Berganda (Multiple Launch Rocket System, MLRS) sedia ada untuk kuasa tembakan tidak langsung jarak jauh.
Penggunaan pesawat pejuang moden dan Senjata Jarak Jauh (Stand-Off Weapons, SOW) bermakna ATM perlu memiliki keupayaan pertahanan udara yang lebih berkemampuan untuk mempertahankan kawasan teras dan ruang udara di atasnya. Angkatan Masa Hadapan memerlukan sistem Pertahanan Udara Jarak Sederhana (Medium Range Air Defence, MERAD) baharu yang boleh menewaskan ancaman udara dari jarak sederhana. ATM akan mengekalkan sistem Pertahanan Udara Jarak Sangat Dekat (Very Short Range Air Defence, VSHORAD) sedia ada untuk perlindungan angkatan. Dengan penambahan MERAD, ATM akan memperoleh sistem pertahanan udara berlapis bersepadu seperti yang ditetapkan dalam Strategi Pertahanan Udara Nasional (SPUN).
Mobiliti dan kuasa tembakan penting untuk maneuver dan bertempur dalam peperangan moden. ATM perlu menggantikan Kenderaan Perisai (Armoured Vehicle, AV) yang uzur kepada yang lebih baharu dengan perlindungan yang lebih baik, meningkatkan daya tembak, ketahanan yang lebih tinggi dan kemampuan amfibi. Bagi memastikan pasukan Armor dan Mekanize boleh diatur gerak di seluruh kawasan teras yang bentuk muka buminya boleh menjadi sangat mencabar terutama di Sabah dan Sarawak, Angkatan Masa Hadapan juga memerlukan Helikopter Pengangkut Taktikal (Tactical Transport Helicopter) untuk diatur gerak secara cepat dan bot tempur untuk operasi sungai dan pantai. Sementara itu, ATM akan mengekalkan kenderaan perisai sedia ada untuk keperluan operasi semasa. Kenderaan Pembawa Trup (Troop-Carrying Vehicle, TCV) dan kelengkapan jambatan jurutera tempur perlu ditambah untuk meningkatkan daya mobiliti dalam kawasan teras.

Bagi melindungi ruang udara dan menyokong operasi daratan, operasi maritim dan operasi amfibi di kawasan teras, Angkatan Masa Hadapan memerlukan Pesawat Tempur Ringan (Light Combat Aircraft, LCA) untuk Bantuan Udara Rapat (Close Air Support, CAS), Serangan Udara Medan Tempur (Battlefield Air Interdiction, BAI) dan operasi pemintasan untuk menyokong Pesawat Tempur Pelbagai Guna (Multirole Combat Aircraft, MRCA). LCA juga akan melaksanakan peranan berganda sebagai pesawat latihan pejuang (Fighter Lead-In Trainer, FLIT) yang kini ditugaskan kepada pesawat BAE Hawk 108/208 dan Aermacchi MB-339CM. Pesawat baharu ini akan menjadi aset yang dapat mencapai keberkesanan kos serta boleh digunakan untuk pelbagai jenis misi, operasi dan latihan. ATM memerlukan LCA dengan kadar yang segera untuk meningkatkan program latihan juruterbang dan memastikan pesawat tempur yang mencukupi untuk operasi akan datang.

Bagi operasi maritim di dalam kawasan teras, ATM akan mengaturgerak Kapal Misi Pesisir (Littoral Mission Ship, LMS) yang boleh menjalankan pelbagai misi termasuk SAR dan HADR, antikeganasan dan antipelanunan, pengumpulan risikan dan peninjauan, hidrografi dan antiperiuk api. LMS adalah reka bentuk modular dan boleh dilengkapi dengan senjata dan sistem tambahan untuk memenuhi keperluan operasi masa hadapan. Oleh sebab keperluan operasi yang mendesak, ATM perlu memperoleh LMS tambahan dalam tempoh KPP ini. Angkatan Masa Hadapan juga memerlukan Bot Pemintas Pantas (Fast Interceptor Craft, FIC) dan Bot Pasukan Khas (Special Force Boat, SFB) yang sesuai untuk melaksanakan operasi di laut pesisir. ATM juga merancang untuk memperoleh Kenderaan Bawah Permukaan Autonomi (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, AUV) dan Kenderaan Pemusnah Periuk Api (Mine Disposal Vehicle, MDV) untuk menyokong operasi maritim di kawasan teras.
Kawasan Lanjutan
ZMM sangat luas meliputi ZEE, pelantar benua dan ruang udara di atasnya. Keupayaan udara dan maritim diperlukan untuk meningkatkan MDA untuk memberi gambaran operasi yang lebih baik di kawasan lanjutan. ATM perlu mencapai Kawalan Laut (Sea Control) di permukaan dan bawah permukaan melalui Penafian Laut (Sea Denial) dan Penegasan Laut (Sea Assertion). Justeru, ATM bergantung pada dua kelas kapal perang iaitu Kapal Tempur Pesisir (Littoral Combat Ship, LCS) dan Kapal Ronda Generasi Baru (New Generation Patrol Vessel, NGPV) yang mampu melaksanakan operasi di kawasan ini dengan jarak, ketahanan dan keupayaan yang diperlukan. LCS baru yang dilengkapi dengan helikopter memiliki keupayaan Peperangan Anti Udara (Anti-Air Warfare, AAW), Peperangan Anti Permukaan (Anti-Surface Warfare, ASuW) dan Peperangan Anti Kapal Selam (Anti-Submarine Warfare, ASW) untuk kegunaan setiap misi yang dilaksanakan. Sementara itu, NGPV sedia ada juga boleh dilengkapi dengan sistem senjata tambahan jika diperlukan. LCS baru ini bakal menggantikan frigat dan korvet yang lebih berusia secara berkala.
MDA akan dipertingkatkan lagi dengan Pesawat Ronda Maritim (Maritime Patrol Aircraft, MPA) dan Sistem Udara Tanpa Pemandu Aras Sederhana Ketahanan Tinggi (Medium Altitude Long Endurance Unmanned Aerial System, MALE UAS) untuk melaksanakan rondaan pengawasan maritim dari udara. ATM memerlukan Helikopter Misi Maritim untuk meningkatkan keupayaan kapal tempur baru yang dijangka beroperasi pada akhir tempoh KPP ini. Setiap sistem penderia (sensor) dan sistem komunikasi dari kapal tempur, MPA, MALE UAS dan helikopter akan dirangkaikan ke Pusat NCO ATM untuk MDA yang lebih menyeluruh di kawasan lanjutan. Sistem Radar Pertahanan Udara tambahan akan membantu mencapai litupan radar yang menyeluruh dan pengawasan ruang udara sepanjang masa 24/7, kawalan ruang udara dan tindakan penguatkuasaan.
Kerajaan memperakui bahawa melindungi dan mempertahankan kawasan lanjutan adalah sangat mencabar untuk ATM. Sehubungan itu, kerjasama dengan agensi keselamatan yang lain seperti APMM dan pihak berkuasa seperti Jabatan Perikanan dapat memperluaskan liputan untuk melindungi ZMM. ATM juga dipertangggungjawabkan untuk membantu tugas penguatkuasaan bagi menyokong agensi keselamatan yang lain.

Kawasan Hadapan
Untuk melindungi dan mempertahankan kepentingan nasional di luar negara dan memenuhi tanggungjawab global serta melaksanakan operasi di kawasan hadapan, ATM bergantung pada kuasa udara (MRCA, Pesawat Pengangkut Bahan Api, Pesawat Pengangkut Strategik), Angkatan Kapal Selam, dan Pasukan Khas. Untuk mempertahankan kawasan hadapan secara efektif, MRCA berupaya melaksanakan serangan strategik dan Gerak Balas Serangan Udara (Offensive Counter Air, OCA) terhadap sasaran udara, maritim dan darat. Pada masa kini, ATM bergantung kepada pesawat F/A-18D dan SU-30MKM untuk misi ini dan penggantian akan dibuat setelah pesawat-pesawat ini mencapai tempoh tamat perkhidmatan pada Rancangan Malaysia ke-14 dan ke-152. MRCA adalah sebahagian daripada elemen penting bagi mencapai kekuasaan udara (control of the air) yang merangkumi radar (sensor) dan pesawat pejuang (shooter).
Bagi serangan jarak jauh dan cegah rintang oleh angkatan laut di kawasan hadapan, ATM kini mengoperasikan dua kapal selam kelas Perdana Menteri dengan keupayaan terhad antiperiuk api serta antikapal untuk melaksanakan maneuver jarak jauh secara halimunan.3 Kedua-dua kapal selam ini telah ditauliahkan masing-masing pada tahun 2009 dan 2010, yang memberi ATM keupayaan unggul dalam memantau pergerakan kapal perang dan kapal selam asing yang melalui perairan negara.
ATM memberi keutamaan tinggi kepada kemampuan Pasukan Khas dalam melaksanakan operasi khas di kawasan hadapan. Pasukan Khas memberi kelebihan kepada kerajaan dalam melindungi kepentingan negara di kawasan hadapan. Keutamaan akan diberikan kepada Pasukan Khas ATM dalam perolehan senjata dan peralatan khusus untuk melaksanakan operasi mereka. Di samping itu, latihan dan pembangunan keupayaan akan diteruskan dengan negara sahabat dan rakan pertahanan Pasukan Khas.
ATM sentiasa menyokong Operasi Pengaman (Peacekeeping Operations, PKO) Pertubuhan Bangsa- Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) di seluruh dunia dan operasi pemantauan badan antarabangsa yang lain. ATM mengambil bahagian secara aktif dalam misi PKO dan Staf Pemerhati PBB sejak tahun 1960 sehingga sekarang dengan penempatan utama sebuah batalion di United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). ATM akan terus menyokong komitmen dasar luar Malaysia untuk keamanan sejagat serta keselamatan kolektif.
Keupayaan operasi ATM di kawasan hadapan telah terbukti berkesan dan berjaya melindungi kepentingan rakyat dan negara di luar negara. Pasukan Khas ATM adalah antara anggota keselamatan Malaysia yang pertama berada di Wilayah Donetsk, untuk merundingkan pemulangan ‘kotak hitam’ pesawat dan jenazah kakitangan dan penumpang MH17 pada tahun 2015. Pesawat TUDM telah membawa pulang 3,482 rakyat Malaysia yang terperangkap dalam konflik di Mesir melalui Op Piramid pada tahun 2011. ATM juga terlibat dalam operasi antipelanunan di Teluk Aden, Laut Arab dan Lautan Hindi semasa Op Fajar. Kapal TLDM dan Pasukan Khas ATM diatur gerak untuk mengiringi kapal-kapal dagang Malaysia dan negara lain di sepanjang perairan berisiko tinggi dan berjaya menyelamatkan MT Bunga Laurel dan anak kapalnya daripada rampasan lanun Somalia pada tahun 2011 tanpa sebarang pertumpahan darah.

* TUDM berhasrat untuk melengkapkan No 18 Skuadron kepada 18 buah pesawat Hornet dalam RMKe-12. Kombinasi F/A-18D dan SU-30MKM adalah paling ampuh di rantau ini yang memberi kelebihan kepada Malaysia berbanding negara-negara terdekat.
3 KD Tunku Abdul Rahman dan KD Tun Razak dibina berasaskan kapal selam Scorpene yang direka bentuk oleh DCNS Perancis merupakan kapal selam tercanggih di rantau Asia Tenggara.

maklumat, keselamatan dan risikan-balas serta operasi perisikan khas perlu dilaksanakan di seluruh kawasan lapisan berpadu. Risikan juga boleh dilaksanakan melalui kerjasama dengan agensi perisikan di peringkat negara, serantau dan antarabangsa.
Aset dan peralatan yang lebih canggih diperlukan untuk meningkatkan pengumpulan risikan pada tahap taktikal, operasi, dan strategik. Aset-aset ini diperlukan untuk mengesan tindakan subversif atau campur tangan asing sebelum menjangkau perairan negara. Antara aset yang diperlukan termasuklah Sistem Maklumat Geografi (Geographic Information System, GIS), Sistem Pemantauan Satelit dan pengembangan Pusat Perisikan Bersepadu (Integrated Intelligence Centre, IIC).
Network-Centric Operation (NCO)
Perangkaian sistem perintah dan kawalan adalah penting untuk memastikan kelancaran pelaksanaan perintah dan penyelarasan bersama daripada pelbagai perkhidmatan ATM dalam melaksanakan operasi pelbagai wilayah. Kesinambungan dan kelancaran integrasi operasi dari peringkat taktikal ke strategik memerlukan peralatan dan sistem komunikasi yang baharu serta peningkatan komunikasi satelit yang selamat untuk dioperasikan dalam lingkaran membuat keputusan, perintah dan kawalan serta penyampaian maklumat secara optimum. Perkara ini membolehkan keputusan dibuat dengan lebih cepat untuk menghasilkan tempo operasi yang lebih pantas.
ATM perlu meningkatkan keupayaan Pusat NCO melalui perolehan peralatan dan prasarana termasuk keupayaan remote sensing yang diperlukan bagi Pemerintahan, Kawalan, Komunikasi, Pengkomputeran, Perisikan, Pengawasan, Peninjauan dan Penyasaran (Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Targeting, C4ISRT). Pusat NCO ini juga bakal mengendali Operasi Bersama yang optimum menggabungkan domain darat, laut, udara dan siber elektromagnetik untuk mencapai kesedaran situasi yang maksimum dan proses membuat keputusan yang cepat dalam mengatasi dan menewaskan ancaman pelbagai domain secara serentak.
Sistem rangkaian perintah dan kawalan penting untuk memastikan kelancaran perintah dan penyelarasan bersama unit ketenteraan pelbagai perkhidmatan ATM di beberapa medan operasi. NCO adalah sistem yang menggunakan penderia rangkaian untuk mencapai kesedaran bersama di kawasan operasi dan pusat kawalan. Pada masa kini, keupayaan NCO telah dibangunkan berdasarkan persekitaran operasi bersama secara eksperimen bagi membolehkan ATM beroperasi bersama dan operasi bersepadu melalui perkongsian maklumat masa nyata untuk beroleh keputusan cepat dan tindakan tepat bagi mencapai impak yang maksimum.
C4ISRT menyumbang secara signifikan ke arah keunggulan maklumat dalam mencapai keberkesanan misi. Elemen ini bermatlamat untuk mendapatkan kelebihan berbanding pihak lawan di kawasan operasi. Kerajaan komited dalam meningkatkan keupayaan NCO yang diperlukan dalam tempoh KPP.
Domain Siber Elektromagnetik
ATM, melalui kerjasama rapat dengan NACSA dan agensi berkepentingan lain, memainkan peranan penting dalam menyokong perlindungan CNII dari serangan siber dan elektronik yang berterusan. Operasi ATM bergantung kepada kesambungan internet dan komunikasi siber yang selamat dalam memastikan keanjalan tindakan dalam operasi harian. NCO juga memerlukan penggunaan prasarana siber yang sangat besar bagi pautan data. Semua nod ini adalah terdedah kepada tipu helah, eksploitasi atau serangan siber. Secara jelasnya domain siber adalah satu wilayah kedaulatan baru yang perlu dipertahankan dan dilindungi sepanjang masa.
Justeru, ATM merancang untuk menubuhkan Pemerintahan Siber Elektromagnetik (PSE) bagi memperkasa dan menyelaras CEMA. Tanggungjawab PSE yang dirancang untuk ditubuhkan akan meliputi operasi-operasi berikut:
i.Meningkatkan Operasi Ruang Siber. Operasi pertahanan ruang siber, operasi eksploitasi ruang siber, ofensif ruang siber serta pembangunan kepakaran siber, selaras dengan konsep pertahanan aktif seperti yang terkandung dalam MCSS;
Meningkatkan Keupayaan Peperangan Elektronik. Mengawal spektrum elektromagnetik, serang balas serangan elektronik, perlindungan elektronik dan sokongan peperangan elektronik; dan
Meningkatkan Pengurusan Spektrum. Merancang, menyelaras dan menguruskan penggunaan Spektrum Elektromagnetik melalui prosedur operasi, kejuruteraan dan pentadbiran bagi menyahkonflik semua sistem ini.

Di bawah PSE, ATM bakal menubuhkan Pusat Sokongan Peperangan Elektronik (PSPE), Pusat Peperangan Elektronik dan Siber (PPES) serta Pusat Penggabungan Maklumat Aktiviti Siber Elektromagnetik (PPM-ASE) yang akan mengoperasi CEMA, seperti di Rajah 4.2.
Rajah 4.2: Pengoperasian Aktiviti Siber Elektromagnetik ATM.

Pemangkin Bagi Membangunkan Angkatan Masa Hadapan
Keupayaan dan aset yang diterangkan dalam dokumen KPP untuk Angkatan Masa Hadapan adalah keperluan ATM bagi mendukung Visi Pertahanan Negara. KPP menyatakan keperluan realistik yang diperlukan ATM untuk melaksanakan strategi Cegah Rintang Berpadu berteraskan keupayaan sebenar. Kerajaan akan terus mengukuhkan struktur dan postur angkatan agar ATM dapat melindungi kepentingan negara dan mempertahankan kedaulatan dan keutuhan wilayah.
ATM akan terus bersandar kepada perkongsian berwibawa untuk meningkatkan keupayaan pertahanan negara. Pada masa yang sama, ATM akan mengkaji semula peranan sekundernya yang melibatkan aset dan kelengkapan yang bernilai tinggi dan kritikal dalam membantu tugas pihak berkuasa awam serta peranan dalam pembangunan negara bangsa.
Perancangan keupayaan pertahanan yang diterangkan dalam bab ini akan memacu penyusunan semula dan penyediaan keupayaan ATM untuk pembangunan Angkatan Masa Hadapan. Pembangunan keupayaan pertahanan yang dikenal pasti ini membolehkan ATM mencapai objektif yang ditetapkan berteraskan kepentingan negara manakala pembiayaan yang mapan, menjamin kejayaan perancangan ini.

— Malaysian Defence.

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1178 Articles
Shah Alam

123 Comments

  1. Interesting but to me at least; it doesn’t add much to what we already know; i.e. the increased importance placed in urban warfare training, the RMN’s acute need for MPSSs, GAPU’s requirement for a medium range system, tri-service network centric capabilities, etc.

    Looks great on the White Paper and will undoubtedly excite some but unless the government actually has the will and drive to take things to the next step; all these will remain just long-standing paper requirements….

  2. …”TUDM berhasrat untuk melengkapkan No 18 Skuadron kepada 18 buah pesawat Hornet dalam RMKe-12. Kombinasi F/A-18D dan SU-30MKM adalah paling ampuh di rantau ini yang memberi kelebihan kepada Malaysia berbanding negara-negara terdekat.”

    So another 10 Hornets more likely from Kuwait?

  3. “* TUDM berhasrat untuk melengkapkan No 18 Skuadron kepada 18 buah pesawat Hornet dalam RMKe-12.”

    Good news, the intention to get ex-Kuwaiti F-18 Hornet become reality. Kalau dapat lebih lagi baik Hornet Kuwait ni.

  4. Ayat dibawah saya tak faham:

    “Bagi memastikan pasukan Armor dan Mekanize boleh diatur gerak di seluruh kawasan teras yang bentuk muka buminya boleh menjadi sangat mencabar terutama di Sabah dan Sarawak, Angkatan Masa Hadapan juga memerlukan Helikopter Pengangkut Taktikal (Tactical Transport Helicopter) untuk diatur gerak secara cepat dan bot tempur untuk operasi sungai dan pantai”

    Nak aturgerak pasukan armor dan mekanize guna helikopter dan bot tempur!? Boleh ke kenderaan armor diangkat guna helikopter atau masuk ke dalam bot tempur?

    Lagi satu pernyataan yang ganjil dan pelik:

    “ATM kini mengoperasikan dua kapal selam kelas Perdana Menteri dengan keupayaan terhad antiperiuk api serta antikapal untuk melaksanakan maneuver jarak jauh secara halimunan”

    Kapal selam boleh lakukan operasi antiperiuk api, atau bahasa lainya menyapu ranjau? Baru pertama kali tahu kapal selam boleh lakukan antiperiuk api. Ataupun sebenarnya tersalah tulis keupayaan terhad anti-kapal selam?

  5. On electronic warfare

    serang balas serangan elektronik (electronic attack).

    This is an area very few countries are good at. Those that are good- israel, russia, china, france, italy, belarus, turkey.

    I have suggested before to get the Aselsan HAVASOJ on Global 6000 aircraft for TUDM. But for the army? Something like the thales TRC 274 comm jammer system? Or the army should have radar and gps jammers too? Do we also want to have active jammer systems on our LCS SGPV Gowind using something like the NETTUNO-4100 jammer?

    Other than jammers, we should also do research on low cost radio decoys. Radio decoys using modified SDR radios could be scattered say in urban areas to confuse enemy ESM systems.

  6. Hope to see 5 full sqdns of MRCA/LCA in RMAF inventory soon. Full exercise of the options planned will see our air force to have at least 98 fighters i.e. 36 MRCA n 62 LCA. That should suffice as a force to be reckoned with, at least for the next 10 years. Well done.

  7. Interesting, the LCA requirements do not call for supersonic interdiction, more close support. Therefore my thoughts about the 346 Master might prove correct. Other thing, reading about the Hornet, they specifically mention FA18 D, so the Aussie Hornets are out because they are A/B. Also looks like we may need a Medium range SAM too. Other question I have is why the TLDM needs 3 MRSS, won’t 2 do now that we can also transport by A400?

    Reply
    Three because one in operation, number two in reserve/training and the third in maintenance. A fourth one would be better though. That’s the number proposed for the submarine fleet but only two bought.

  8. Doing the maths, it’s all possible. The prices I used are inflated to add for spares, training and integration, etc. If there is a shortfall, there is always a ‘special allocation, Also remember these figure for procurement are at bare minimum 1% GDP with a very modest 4% growth in GDP.

  9. Major requirements are written but how to materialized them is another thing. The list is too long to materialized. Another thing is how defence budget only 1% of gdp can support operation and maintenance? Malaysia’s gdp is too small.

    Stop saying that FA18/MKM paling ampuh and scorpene adalah tercanggih di rantau ini. Today is not 10 years ago.

  10. Long wish list, near impossible granting of those wishes. Am not sure we’re able to maintain immediate assets in current use if DWP pegs spending at 1%. It’s way too low and should be put at 1.5-2% minimum for the next 10 years before sliding off the scale. Trouble is, the local pollies aren’t ex military (unlike in say, Indonesia) ‘don’t think so’ unless there’s political justification for the spending. Defence? We’ll drift into a lull like when the Lahad Datu Incident blew in our faces. Don’t trust pollies of any shade here.

  11. @ tomtom

    There is a requirement for QRA Intercept

    “Angkatan Masa Hadapan memerlukan Pesawat Tempur Ringan
    (Light Combat Aircraft, LCA) untuk Bantuan Udara Rapat (Close Air Support, CAS), Serangan Udara Medan Tempur (Battlefield Air Interdiction, BAI) dan operasi pemintasan untuk menyokong Pesawat Tempur Pelbagai Guna (Multirole Combat Aircraft, MRCA)”

    operasi pemintasan untuk menyokong MRCA – intercept operations in support to the MRCA tasks.

  12. a few requirements that need to be bought according to the KPP

    – dedicated urban training area
    – Cyber warfare system
    – Electronic warfare system
    – Ground air defence radars
    – Ground maritime defence radars
    – UAVs (for army?)
    – 155mm SPH
    – 105mm pack howitzer replacement (please with additional LG1, not 120mm mortars)
    – MR-SAM (CAMM?)
    – armoured vehicles
    – amphibious operation systems
    – tactical transport helicopters (nuri replacement?)
    – 10 more used legacy hornets
    – LCA/LIFT
    – MPA
    – MALE UAS (TUDM)
    – LCS SGPV
    – LMS
    – MRSS
    – maritime mission helicopters
    – Fast Interceptor Craft, FIC
    – Special Force Boat, SFB
    – Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, AUV
    – Mine Disposal Vehicle, MDV

    It is quite a long list for a small budget…

  13. Tom Tom

    Basically 3-ship cycle, one in operation, one in repair and one on standby. Seems like we could get by with 2-ship cycle tho since most of the vessels the navy bought are in 2s

    Romeo

    Did any countries in SEA have anything better right now? Other than Singapore and their F-15SG, there’s none, and they still haven’t had their F-35 yet. And don’t tell me you think the scorpene isn’t better than Kilo class or type 209s that are prevalent in the region

    Reply
    Its likely 3 MRSS, two in RMK12 and the other in RMK13.

  14. Yes, it’s a long list but this is the start. If there is one thing I have learned in life is:
    A. Everything must have a plan. If you want any chance of success, you must have a plan, which is what this is. Kalau tak ada plan, there will be no chance of success. It is tight but is doable if everything goes on schedule (which is the real challenge).
    B. Do not wish for everything at once. It’s better to get them in stages. Then, you don’t have to replace all at the same time.

    I calculated 9.2 billion USD in procurement over 10 years, at 1% GDP growing at 4.5% annually. It not all bad news with money. It more the political will.

  15. At this rate, any MR SAM is better than nothing at all. For commonality purpose having VL Mica for the army (as with the navy) would be the most logical sense and it could take both role as short and medium range air defence.

  16. -“ Those that are good- israel, russia, china, france, italy, belarus, turkey”

    One of the main reasons is they have an indigenous base to rely on and don’t have to rely on external sources; Turkey of course being a new comer. A country which had a decent capability and industrial base was South Africa but in this regards things have largely stagnated.

    Tom Tom – “ you want any chance of success, you must have a plan, which is what this is””

    Actually “implementation” is the key. Without “implementation” which requires a strong political commitment a plan is merely a plan; just one of many that have been drawn up over the decades. The only difference is that this plan has been issued in the form of a White Paper.

    Tom Tom – “Do not wish for everything at once. It’s better to get them in stages”

    Obviously and precisely what the armed services have long been doing to increase the chances of approval. The problem is when plans are presented and registered for approval; only to have tight fisted bureaucrats and politicians to stretch things even further.

    Dundun – “At this rate, any MR SAM is better than nothing at all”

    A medium range system has been a requirement (like most things listed) since the early 2000’s, to provide an extra defensive layer. An issue is that it will have to be integrated to GAPU’s existing network (easier with a Western system) and as you pointed out; will make sense if MICA is selected; assuming it’s GAPU’s requirements.

  17. @ dundun

    “Did any countries in SEA have anything better right now? Other than Singapore and their F-15SG, there’s none, and they still haven’t had their F-35 yet. And don’t tell me you think the scorpene isn’t better than Kilo class or type 209s that are prevalent in the region”

    To be very clear, KPP is to be the plan for 10 years into the future (to 2030). So why do you compare to what is around right now??

    So you need to predict and see what will become all around us by 2030.

    By 2030, Singapore will have its F-35, Indonesia at least 4 squadrons of F-16 and starting to induct its KF-X. We will have two 20 year old submarine by 2030, while indonesia will have 12 submarines by then.

    As for MR SAM, last I checked we still have not decided on the missile for our Gowinds. Not too late to change to CAMM, and also get CAMM for MR SAM requirements.

    @ tomtom

    there is 2 issues with your statement.

    1. the KPP is not exactly a plan. It is just a document of what the defence should have. Plans have timelines, budgets. KPP has none of that (except this is to be done by 2030)

    2. Of course everything is done in stages. But you need to benchmark with regional countries too. Indonesia will be getting F-16s, SU-35, AWACS and T-50/FA-50 in just 5 years while we plan to get 24-30 FA-50 in 10. By the time we get our FA-50, indonesia has already gotten 5th Gen KF-X.

  18. Taib – “Long wish list, near impossible granting of those wishes”

    It’s a long list yes, because the requirements have accumulated and most, if not all listed have been requirements for many years now; nothing new.
    The armed services first register their requirements. Then those requirements have to be approved and then wait to be funded. An issue is how plans might be subject to significant change in the event (or rather “when”) there is a change of political leadership.

    What really interests me is not these requirements or the fact they’ve been listed in a White Paper but whether in the coming years we”ll actually adopt a new way of doing things. Not too long ago the Deputy
    Defence Minister spoke of a revamp and a review of our procurement system, including the role vendors play. For me, that’s the thing to watch out for because as long as we base purchases mainly on political factors (the wrong things getting selected and priority given to the local industry) and as long as defence is not a priority; we’ll never get out of the rut we’re in – the MAF will continue to be straddled with stuff ill suited for its requirements and the government will continue to delay funding; not only for purchases but also for support/maintenance.

  19. Us Aussies have a very apt term for all of this: “Get on with it”. It means exactly what it says, just start the work and stop bickering. Another term is ‘bum up, head down’ meaning hard at work. Now we need the will to start and implement, as Azlan correctly pointed out. You know, even the Australian navy only has 2 Canberra class ships. I am not completely sold on the 3 ship MRSS idea. Just saying because it will save money to just have 2 well maintained ones.

    Reply
    On the need for 3, just look at the situation with the submarines, there was a period in 2016/2017 where both were not available as one was undergoing refit with the other going into refit. At the moment only one is operational with the other one still refit. Things happens yes even if we have 3 MRSS there will be a time when all three might not be available, so we plan for the best. Not too long ago even the Defence Minister lamented that there were only 6 Flankers available with the rest undergoing maintenance…

  20. Another interesting part in the DWP is about self reliance in defence. Will that translate to more equipment that are locally produce, cost less to procure, hence bigger number can be acquired?

  21. Tom Tom – “I am not completely sold on the 3 ship MRSS idea”

    You may not be “sold on the idea” but standard practice calls for a minimum of 4 ships to ensure one is always available to put to sea at short notice. Note that the RMN’s requirements call for 4 MPSSs but this is the ideal number; it’s under no illusions that 4 will be funded and it has to provide ample legitimate reasons to justify why it needs 4. The RMN will also have pointed out the limitations of having less than 4 hulls.

    Take the army’s Nuris as an example; at the best of times only 2-4 were available at short notice; “x” will be busy doing other things (whether qualification flights for new air crews or lifting stuff) and “x” will be undergoing maintenance.

  22. On the Kuwaiti legacy hornets

    http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/what-s-that-buzz-.html

    They have 31 single seat C model and 8 dual seat D models. Yes they are going to sell all of them after receiving brand new Super Hornets.

    The 1st Super Hornet will arrive in 1st quarter 2021. It would probably take 2 years to fully receive their Super Hornets. So it would be around 2023 the earliest for us to get our hands on the Kuwaiti legacy hornets.

  23. lalok – “Another interesting part in the DWP is about self reliance in defence”

    I don’t think it’s “interesting” but “expected”. At the end of the day unless it’s cheaper and more practical to produce stuff locally rather than buying from abroad: it makes no economy’s sense. It sounds good saying we can produce stuff locally (never mind that most if the raw materials ate imported and are payed for in foreign currencies) and makes the government look good but it has to be economically feasible and beneficial. Quantity and consistency are needed ….

  24. Yes we need consistency if we want to be self-reliant in defence equipments. Why we need to have quantity and consistency. Why IMO we need to continue with batch 2 of LCS SGPV, Gempita, NGPC and Damen OPVs immediately after batch 1 is completed, and not going to get yet another different design.

  25. Its viable ONLY IF we doing it G2G not through middlemen. I hate it when i heard the latest news about our gowinds, md530g & 18 FIC’s

    Reply
    The FIC tender was for the supply 18 boats from local suppliers, one don’t to GtG for a supply tender.

  26. @Tom Tom
    Those who works with budgeting would go like this:
    Wishes for 4
    Asked for 3
    Gets only 2
    What we really wanted was 2

  27. … – ”we need consistency if we want to be self-reliant in defence equipments.”

    ‘If’ we want the whole exercise to be economically feasible and justifiable ….

  28. @ azlan

    ‘If’ we want the whole exercise to be economically feasible and justifiable

    This is the biggest problem right now. Those that is given the trust to lead does not have the best interest of the country first and foremost. There should not be an IF, but a MUST. Those in power cannot be complacent and treat defence budget as their own personal bank. Unlike any point of time since our Merdeka, the external threat to our country is IMO at its highest, and we dont have the might of a large power behind us like during the confrontation. We can seriously lose a big part of our EEZ, to China or even to Indonesia, which contribute something like 25% of our revenue.

  29. @…
    “Not too late to change to CAMM”
    The wiring & plumbing system for VL Mica have been baked into the Maharajalela design and installed in the built units. Are you sure its not too late? Because if so, I would rather we go for ESSM & Aster instead.

    “Yes we need consistency if we want to be self-reliant”
    Even if we are consistent, we still lack economic volume to be viable. Our Armed Forces needs and budget is just too small and uneconomical for us to develop our own weapons. At best, we could do is hardware related gear such as comms (by Sapura) or infra (base design & construction) or ammo (by SME) or software (CMS by T7). We cannot compare the in-depth knowledge & financial muscle of the industry big boys, but we can find niches as I see above which we could grow. Imho this is more viable use of our meagre defence budget and our local defence industry could survive. No need to talk about reinventing the wheel by locally developing rifles or mortars.

    TheStar has splashed on their front page today how our budget is 2x to 3x less than our regional neighbours. Food for thought.

  30. @Joe
    I like you idea. If you want 2 ask for 4. That’s what happens in Australia as well. If you want 10 million, ask for 20 million first up…..then you can ‘compromise’ at 10 million!

    2 MRSS is adequate IMHO. Look at RAN with 2 Canberra class LHD and also two QE 2 class aircraft carriers for UK.

    Reply
    They asked for 4, 3 is the compromise. From conversations previously, the plan is to buy 2 in RMK12 with the other one in RMK13

  31. @ joe

    The advantage of CAMM is that it is system agnostic. It can operate with any kind of radar or CMS. ESSM and ASTER larger size cannot go into the space that is already reserved and designed for the air defence missiles.

    ” TheStar has splashed on their front page today how our budget is 2x to 3x less than our regional neighbours. Food for thought ”

    That is not a surprise for many, and what I usually take into account when i write here.

  32. By the way…..anybody noticed the report in Janes about the MD 530?

    Reply
    Yes we did as I already mentioned earlier its not what the manufacturer wanted is the issue

  33. Tom Tom – “I like you idea. If you want 2 ask for 4”

    It’s not anyone’s idea per see but the way things have been done for a very long time…..

    As part of its report justifying the need for MPSS’s the RMN would have explained in great detail why 4 hulls is the optimum number it needs (even with 4 hulls there is no guarantee that 1 will always be ready to put to sea at short notice but the chances are higher) and what it can and can’t realistically do with less than 4 hulls.

    The RMN has long laid down a paper requirement for 4 hulls not only because it knows that at best only 2 will be funded initially but also because 4 is the number it actually needs to ensure greater operational flexibility. The requirement for a new MPSS arose even before the loss of Inderapura.

  34. @Tom Tom
    Imho we should have 3, based each one at Lumut, Kuantan, & Sepanggar. With one at each of our major coastline (East Coast, West Coast, S&S), the MRSS can be part of rapid response for their respective coastline and the others could be on standby to support. In operation, it will be the singular unit or 2 units supporting each other on station and to ensure there is constantly 1 unit in operation when the other goes for resupply.

    Reply
    No the ships will be based in Lumut with TDY to other bases

  35. The MRSS is urgently required n 4 is the needed numbers. As it is the logistic ships n the old US transport we bought were extensively used to transport materials n men to n fro east n west Malaysia. The demand for support from the Army especially is great. Although AIR ASIA provides expedient flights to the troops it cant carry bulk cargoes which only the ships can do

  36. “No the ships will be based in Lumut”
    Yes, I am aware of the intention to centrally based them at 1 base, but what I am proposing is basing them where they can be effective in quick response when called upon. Otherwise, it will take at least 1-2 days for a MRSS to traverse from Lumut to Tawau. Don’t you agree?

    Reply
    There are other issues as well such housing, logistics and other stuff. Yes it will take them longer to go from Lumut to other places but that’s already factored in staff planning. As I said these ships will be doing TDY to the places you mentioned. I am not sure the ships can go to Tawau as the waters around there are shallow and there are many corals along the way, I stand to be corrected of course. AFAIK RMN frigates and the logistic ships have docked only at Sandakan and not at Semporna where it has a base and Tawau port.

  37. Sounds like RMK 12 will a hive of activity for the Angkatan Tentera. There’s the KJA, LCS, MPA, LMS, first batch LCA, first 2 MPSS and 10 Hornets.

    You know what is needed? Somebody tough and no nonsense like a retired general or similar to keep it all on track. Almost like a Minister for Defence Materials. We had one last Australian government (Chris Pyne). Really not a bad idea because someone to keep oversight on all this. It’s a Major Splurge Malaysia had to have. The last major splurge was a long time ago when Najib as defence minister bought the subs, MBTs and the SU 30s, remember?

  38. @ marhalim

    “In that’s the case we will get a Fifth generation fighter by 2025”

    LoL!

    IMO plenty of other things you can RND, on cyber, electronic warfare systems, small boats, soldier systems, small things that can make a huge difference.

  39. Reply
    In that’s the case we will get a Fifth generation fighter by 2025

    Hopefully, they will walk the talk this time. They can achieve it if everyone play his/her part with full determination and sincerety to get the DWP alive and kicking at full throttle as set and stipulated.

  40. Another thing that is relevant for future warfare that our scientist, engineers and defence conglomarate could give a try to develop and deploy in MAF is laser weapon system. we shall not let ourselves from being lagged behind others in this field.

  41. Tom Tom – “Look at RAN with 2 Canberra class LHD and also two QE 2 class aircraft carriers for UK”

    Apples to orange comparison that shouldn’t be made.

    Firstly the RN is in no position to afford more than 2 carriers, secondly unlike the USN it does not have a requirement to always have carriers at sea and thirdly the U.K’s capabilities are designed to augment that of the the U.S. Even if the RN found itself in a high intensity conflict without its carriers; there would always be a USN carrier around.

    Same goes with the RAN who will always operate alongside the USN and who has assault ships much more capable than our future MPSSs and configured for high intensity warfare. You mentioned the RN’s 2 carriers and the RAN’s 2 assault ships. Why not mention how many LSTs the RSN has and why it has that number?

    Back to the RAN even with 6 Collins having one at sea at all times is a huge challenge, which is why they are looking at more than 6 for their future SSK. A few years ago it was reported that the IN has issues having 2 subs at sea at any given time and how many subs does it have?

  42. @ azlan

    The same reason why IMO we should get another scorpene before 2030.

    BTW if we follow the 15 to 5 plan to the dot, we will be using 2 40 year old submarines in 2050, in addition to 2 more post 2040.

  43. “factored in staff planning”
    While staffing for these big boats are critical for their operations, I am more towards their response time to any situation. Tawau was just an example of how far our soil does the MRSS have to reach from their base and if time is critical, they need to be on station ASAP. Having to travel from the other side of Malaysia would mean critical time was wasted on the journey and such time-critical missions such as HADR, SAR, sea blockades, could be compromised or lives lost. Just an example, perhaps could our response to MH370 be better if we could deploy 2 MRSS to search at Malacca Straits & SCS.

    Reply
    MH370 is not really a good way to make an example of your point. Even if we had 100 ships our initial response was wrong as the first search location was SCS when it went the other way around. As the first decision was to look at SCS, there was no way any ships would be tasked to look at Selat Melaka. We turned around almost 24 hours later.

  44. Lalok – ”Hopefully, they will walk the talk this time.”

    We need ”consistency” and ”quantity”….. The government has to buy enough from local companies to keep prices down and to enable the companies to recoup their costs.
    The whole exercise also has to be in the long run more practical and cheaper than buying from abroad; hard to do without economics of scale and when almost all the raw materials have to be imported and paid for in foreign currency ….

    Lalok – ” try to develop and deploy in MAF is laser weapon system”

    Right …. We actually have the technical know how and the funds for R&D? As it stands we can’t do a lot of easier things without foreign technology providers and you’re talking about lasers ……

    For the past few decades [since the 1980’s when i first started taking an interest] there has much been talk of local production & research; of collaboration involving the private sector, academics, universities; of committees being formed, of the possibility of joint ASEAN procurement and production; etc.
    Till now we have nothing tangible to show for …..

    It’s nice to talk about local production/manufacture, self sufficiency, reading about it in Perajurit and all that stuff but the reality is different ….

  45. If we had 2 ships then the turn around response would have happened very quickly instead of waiting for those in SCS to sail into Malacca Straits & into Indian Ocean.

  46. ….

    Which is why on numerous occasions I’ve stressed that the 5/15 looks good on paper [most things do] but is not really feasible, might not provide the desired capability and will [due to politics, funding, threat perceptions, etc] die a natural death …..

    I’ve also questioned how the RMN is supposed to maintain commonality and lower its support footprint [the main idea behind the 5/15] when follow on classes of ships are intended/planned to enter service many years after the initial batch.

  47. Collin class submarine is plagued with troubles from the get go so it might not be the best example either.

    A more down to earth example is the Pohang class corvette philippines is getting on a free transfer. Unlike other countries who only had one or 2, philippines is requesting for more so they would have 3 Pohang-class corvette in its fleet due to rule of 3.

  48. Haven’t read MYDWP, how was it compared to Perista? To keep these procument ontrack do “ring fencing allication” like Brit MOD or someone else in EU did to finance their buy. No need someone tough, they can change every 5years (or less if there is cabinet reshuffle). MOD have a long wishlist, it also includes additional border posts at least 20 more to reach parity with Indonesia at MY-ID land border

  49. Azlan….”For the past few decades [since the 1980’s when i first started taking an interest] there has much been….”

    Yeah right.. we share the same interest, albeit I started earlier, circa 76.. yeah..i know your frustation, ive been to all the DSA since its inception minus last 2 due to that same feeling of frustration.
    But it doesnt mean I will lose hope for this nation defence industry. I still harbor hopes that one day we will change for the betterment. And with what has been set in the DWP, and the will to change of our new government, I would like to concur now, that is it.. this is the time to change. I might be wrong again, but deep in me still place some hope to be positive with our capabilities.
    Cant wait to revisit DSA again next year…

  50. @ lalok

    “ive been to all the DSA since its inception minus last 2 due to that same feeling of frustration”

    Wow tabik hormat sir!

    Anyway what we can do is to channel those frustations into something positive. As for R&D we can start to propose doing small things. Probably dping laser weapons is too much, but what about researching on say low cost radio frequency decoys to mimic radar and radio transmissions, something we can leave around in our operating area that can randomly switch on and off, frequency hop, and response to other radio signals so it looks like a live unit? Or more research into landmines that use IED concepts like EFP? Or jammers to target UGVs? Or better littoral speed boats with active stabilising systems? Or integrate ourself systems for MPA on available aircrafts? Or adapting open source coding to make mini CMS for our small vessels or even FIC?

    Lots of things can be done, and it does not need to be lasers or 6th gen fighters.

  51. Nimitz – “Haven’t read MYDWP, how was it compared to Perista””

    2 slightly different things. The White Paper details the country’s policy, threat perceptions, priorities, shopping list, etc (of course whether what’s written is actually implemented is a completely different story). A lot of what was contained was actually already know to many and didn’t contain any surprises.

    PERISTA on the other hand was a long term plan to progressively improve the MAF’s ability to defend the country against external threats following the declaration of the EEZ and concerns about the Vietnamese following the invasion of Cambodia.

    Dundun -“Collin class submarine is plagued with troubles”

    I knew someone would bring this up. Even if the class was not “plagued” with troubles: ensuring 1 was ready to put to sea at any given time; whilst another is at sea and others are undergoing refit or other things is extremely challenging. Why is precisely why the RAN would like more than 6 in the future and as I’ve mentioned even the IN had issues although it has more than 6 hulls.

  52. Or we can even start by designing a comfortable backpack system for our asian stature and hot and humid climate for a start. And modify our uniforms like what the us army has done for its Improved Hot Weather Combat Uniform (IHWCU)

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/06/26/tired-of-sweating-in-your-acus-try-these-new-hot-weather-cammies/

    Another thing IMO is to develop our own independent drone operating software and app for say DJI drones so no data will be sent to DJI servers.

  53. @ azlan

    “Which is why on numerous occasions I’ve stressed that the 5/15 looks good on paper [most things do] but is not really feasible”

    Yes i understand but at least it is on paper, out in the open for us to read and comment, unlike the army and airforce plans. All your questions like follow on classes of ships are intended/planned to enter service many years after the initial batch actually i have also included in my 15 to 5 write up.

    http://www.malaysiandefence.com/another-look-rmn-15-to-5/

    Interestingly in the recent KPP there is no mention of batch 2 for NGPV although there is a mention of uparming the current 6 ships if needed. So there goes the original 15 to 5 plan as in the plan is to build 6 PV in RMK13.

  54. 3 dots, i reckoned most of your listed things that we can start with have already been done by our people, such as the decoys, CMS and stabilised fast boat, they even built flying boats before. No doubt we are capable. Time to move on to futuristic weapon of choice. Laser weapons have varieties of function and purpose. If we joined the league of laser weapon producers from now, I can only leave it to the imagination of our innovators of what our armed forces and security agencies can do to surprise our potential adversaries. Its not a star wars thingy, the big powers have done it, we have 10 years to reach our goal of being a developed country, its not too early to start, we are already 5 years behind.

  55. Having read through the comments, actually things are not as bad as it seems.
    However, to start a credible defence industry we need to be brave n start doing things from a politically unacceptable way. Just take for example our ships. The LCS are all locally manufactured. No issue with that. But the question is we have been manufacturing all our capital ships through one shipyard only.
    There is literally no open competition to choose the yard with the best capability n best price n Malaysia is not short of yards that can build such ships. Our local yards had even designed n produce naval ships n exported to the middle east. But just because they want to give business to Boustead which is a Tabung Angkatan subsidiary. But even with such contracts being given Tabung gave a very bad return n past year returns came from sale of land n funds not yet received but recognised causing the chairman to resign.
    So the matter is for future contracts it should be on an open tender basis. Choose based on meritocracy. But can our gov do that?

    Reply
    Yes and no really. The shipyard was taken over by Boustead following the NGPV fiasco. Of course they then have to make sure that Boustead got further contracts to justify that investment. Which is to show again that the current problems were really mistakes in the past. Yes it is likely that in the future the ship building contract will be done by open tenders.

  56. @ lalok

    Regarding lasers.

    The easiest method to store massive amounts of energy is still chemical (aka explosives). How do you power lasers if your national electricity grid can easily be destroyed or hacked? USA is doing research on small deployable nuclear generators, can we have something like that to power lasers? It does not matter how sexy laser sounds but as a small nation we cannot afford to outspend bigger countries in doing R&D. We dont even have enough budget to buy new things, where on earth we would find maseive amounts of money to do R&D that might totally fail?

  57. @ lee yoke meng

    I think we should follow south korea way of shipbuilding. Give 1 contract to 2 or more shipyard. Not really meritocracy, but a competition of 2 shipyards will cause them to do the best. We did the same when we build the 2 KLCC towers, 2 different contractors race to build and finish their towers 1st.

  58. Suprisingly the no mention of aewsc but rather MR SAM. Should we focus on our surveillance first than only the offensive stuffs like sam

    Even our ground radar is aged

  59. Lalok – “ been to all the DSA since its inception minus last 2 due to that same feeling of frustration”

    From PWTC to Mines to along the old Subang airport road to PWTC again.

    Lalok- “But it doesnt mean I will lose hope for this nation defence industry””

    We can have all the hopes, plans, committees and White Papers we want but unless there is a radical change in our mindset and policy with regards to defence as a whole; things will not change.

    Lalok – “If we joined the league of laser weapon producers from now”

    Maybe but then again who knows maybe one day there will be supersonic arty shells and the Jamaican Defence Force will have a mechanised corps; maybe but I doubt it.

    The key differences us and other countries is they have the industrial base and economics of scale; we do things in half measures, have no economics of scale and are wholly dependent on foreign technology providers.

    …. – “Yes i understand but at least it is on paper, out in the open for us to read and comment, unlike the army and airforce plans””

    That’s the least of my concerns.

    No point having a plan in glossy Power Point format for the public to see and be mesmerised and for people to discuss/debate if the plan is not achievable and there are huge question marks having over it with regards to whether it’s what the RMN really needs and whether it will provide the service with the needed capability…

    … – “i have also included in my 15 to 5 write up”

    Appreciate the reminder.

  60. turkey had develop their own small, containerized laser system. They even use such system to shoot down iranian and chinese UAVs. By the looks of it, the system uses mobile generators, not unlike the ones used by TNB and SESB for emergency power so it doesn’t have to be connected to the grid.

    Also, laser, like other stuff like railgun, isn’t sci fi stuff anymore. People on YouTube could make this stuff using off the shelf parts so why can’t us. we already have both academic and industrial base to kickstart the project so at least these kind of stuff should be given some academic-level funding for proof of concept and prototype

  61. @ alex

    You can crash a slow lumbering UAV by burning its communications antennae. Can you do the same against fast and maneuvering missiles or jet fighters? How many laser shots per minute can it do, how big the power source it needs to be to have rapid multiple laser firings? Then how many millions of dollars do we need to spend to develop ingeniously something like that?

  62. Alex, thank you for answering on my behalf. As usual, we can learn a lot from the Turks. Our defence cooperation and join production with them must be expanded to a greater scale.

  63. In 2009, the American had successfully built and tested an electric laser capable of producing a 100-kilowatt ray of light, powerful enough to destroy cruise missiles, artillery, rockets and mortar rounds.An electric laser is theoretically capable, of being mounted in an aircraft, ship, or vehicle because it requires much less space for its supporting equipment than a chemical laser.
    That was in 2009, we are 10 years behind and still think its not possible. DWP ambitious plan to be self reliant in defence will remain as plan if our people remain rigid in their old ways of thinking. It will need a hard work to change.

  64. Why is it that everything is viewed as be all end all solution?

    A laser attached to these mobile genset would cost anywhere from 2000-5000 ringgit to run per hour. Sounds pretty expensive until you see the price tag of a single jernas missile. Even C-UAV that we have are limited to those anti drone guns in police inventory used mainly against these dji toys drones and quadcopter, not MALE UAV or even TUAV with likely increased resistance against EW compared to these dji drones.

  65. To lalok and alex

    Read this

    http://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/5/29/18644581/us-navy-uss-preble-helios-high-energy-laser-military-destroyer

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31309/navy-amphibious-warfare-ship-uss-portland-spotted-heading-to-sea-with-new-laser-turret

    Think about how much money they have spent to create these laser weapons. Look at how much is the cost of a single operational unit (USD75 million). Look at what is the range of this laser weapon, it is at best just a short range weapon.

    Right now we are contemplating to need 10 years to buy cheap lightweight jet fighters and trainers. Do you guys think we wven have spare money to burn on trying to create ourselves a laser weapon that is anything close like the US has done? (and even that it is still a close range weapon).

  66. @Lee Yoke Meng
    Our defence needs are not economical for significant research funding unless they can market the product/tech to other countries in order to amortise the cost of R&D. If we have to market it into the outside world, we have to make it competitive in cost and/or capabilities vs the competition because it would then be fighting based on merits.

    What should we make then? If conventional weapons/systems, it would be vs established industrial juggernauts with deeper R&D pockets. If new radical techs, it would need to have substantial R&D funding to get breakthru tech plus the expertise needed or else something really innovative which the established R&D teams haven’t come up. Both which I see are highly unrealistic in our situation, whatmore with limited funding in both R&D and defence expenditure. Mr … have pointed out niche areas which got less players and where we could get maximum returns from limited money in the R&D, and imho this is the best bet we could have for local defence industry.

  67. Azlan, you mentioned the Kuwaiti Legacy Hornets being disposed off only in 2023. Is there any actual mention of our government’s intentions to procure these Hornets from the Kuwaitis? Over to you bro…

  68. Hybrid warfare. Something we must really address in the near future, more so than our preparation for conventional warfare. This is important, especially regarding our EEZ now being challenged by chinas military and coast guard might.

    http://www.defence.gov.au/ADC/Publications/AJDSS/documents/volume1-issue1/3-Competition-short-of-war.pdf

    Reply
    Unless we ourselves say it as something we should be ready to confront it in the most starkest terms it will not be

  69. “who knows maybe one day there will be supersonic arty shells”

    Actually, artillery shells do travel at supersonic velocities.

  70. Imho if there is any area we could focus on, I would say R&D into rocket propelled guided munitions. A simple arty piece could turon into a smart weapon where it could land an arty shell with pinpoint accuracy.

    Reply
    Why rocket propelled artillery, its not like we have many of them

  71. “Back to the RAN even with 6 Collins having one at sea at all times is a huge challenge, which is why they are looking at more than 6 for their future SSK. A few years ago it was reported that the IN has issues having 2 subs at sea at any given time and how many subs does it have?”

    The thing is, being “at sea” and “available” are not always the same. If a ship is returning from a mission, it is “at sea” but is not available for a new tasking because it is in need of rest, repair and replenishment. Or it could be in various stages of crew certification or be busy developing tactics in an exercise- either way, it is unavailable for some period of time.

  72. “As for R&D we can start to propose doing small things … Lots of things can be done, and it does not need to be lasers or 6th gen fighters.”

    Stride has a history of coming up with things that the end user is not keen on using.

  73. on amphibious forces.

    Do we really need an amphibious or a marine corps? Or actually what we need is a robust logistics bridge between east and west malaysia? Any additional forces from west malaysia will be considered a follow on force and reinforcement to units already on the ground in Sabah and Sarawak. Even this will be the 2nd wave, as the 1st wave would surely be those of the 10PARA brigade.

    Will getting something like this be the answer for our needs, instead of a LPD type MRSS?
    http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-closer-look-at-the-littoral-strike-ship-concept/
    “The MRV is based on the FSG 4100 ro-ro ship that is already in commercial service. Four of the original six Point class vessels in service with the MoD were built by FSG to a similar design. The 7,500 tonne DWT vessel uses an efficient hull form that has good seakeeping qualities. Simple twin diesels will propel the ship up to 20 knots with an endurance of 28 days and 10,000nm. There are about 2,428 lane-meters available for vehicles and the vessel can accommodate an embarked military force of up to 400, although the ship’s core crew requirement would be just 35. The vessel is compliant with SOLAS Passenger Ship Rules, being fitted with davit-launched lifeboats, rescue boats and life-rafts. The MRV can carry the equivalent of 90 C-17 Globemaster aircraft loads of stores and, for example, could get from Plymouth to the Caribbean in under 7 days while transporting its own helicopters, boats and headquarters to enable a substantial operation on arrival.”

    A ship like this based in Tanjung Gelang Kuantan (the main kuantan port has a substantial chinese stakeholder, so IDK if Kuantan Port is safe to use during conflicts) could carry 1 whole mechanized battalion and arrive in sabah in less than 2 days. We could also use this as a rapid deployment for our mechanized forces for UN peacekeeping operations, able to arrive at any asian ports in 1 weeks time.

    This needs to be protected and escorted by frigates, and 24/7 air cover. This needs long endurance MRCAs, which we fortunately have in SU-30MKMs.

    @ joe
    Let indonesia R&D whatever they want. I dont see the need for us to R&D rocket artilleries.

    @ AM
    Australia sub issue is compounded by manning and maintenance issues. Why IMO we need to have at least 3 scorpenes by 2030. By 2030 nearly every country in south east asia will have their own submarines, and south china sea will have one of the highest concentration of submarines in the world.

  74. “Why rocket propelled artillery”
    Not for the ASTROS, sorry if I made some confusion, what I meant was rocket propelled 105 & 155mm arty shells that could be actively guided. Since these are NATO calibre, we could market to other countries that are using these calibres.

  75. AM – ”The thing is, being “at sea” and “available” are not always the same.”

    The idea [on paper] is that with 4 – one’s at sea, another is ready to put to sea and the remaining 2 are either being used for training or undergoing maintenance. Which is why 4 is the minimum needed.

    AM – ”not available for a new tasking because it is in need of rest, repair and replenishment.”

    In emergencies a ship/boat could return to base; be refueled, receive the most needed maintenance and have certain crew members replaced; before heading out to sea. It happens; even with the RMN.

    …. – ”more so than our preparation for conventional warfare.”

    Depends entirely on the circumstances. Certain scenarios will require different approaches/responses or a combination of both. The problem with peacetime militaries [especially one as under resourced as the MAF] is that it can plan for several contingencies but can’t devote the same level of attention/focus to all; depending on threat perceptions and actual operational requirements. Another problem is that every time we start training or practicing new things; it results in less attention/focus to other existing things.

    Reply
    Yes this what happened shortly after the tsunami in Aceh. One of the logistics ship had sailed towards Aceh when it developed a fault which cannot be fixed. So the ship turned back to Lumut and the things on board were moved to the second logistic ship. The captain of the first ship, become the CO of the second logistic ship, as the CO had already been transferred out without a replacement. The captain became the one and only CO in RMN who commanded two ships at one time. This went on until the ship returned from deployment.

  76. 3 dots,
    its ok, whatever it is, laser weapons will be part of future warfare, Who knows, it might render missiles, bombs, and aircraft useless one day. In mean time, we can continue buying our MAF needs as usual. No need to spend on R n D la.. wasting money only.

  77. AM – “Stride has a history of coming up with things that the end user is not keen on using”

    Or stuff which has utility but doesn’t progress beyond initial development/research stage. The Slovak 120mm mortar that STRIDE acquired was intended to be the basis of a lightweight mortar but there has been no news about it.

    Marhalim,

    ‘Cannibalisation” is also a common occurrence, out of sheer necessity, i,e, uninstalling parts of a fully functional radar from a ship in dry dock to a ship about to leave for a routine 2 week patrol.

  78. … – “Do we really need an amphibious or a marine corps?”

    In my view we need a small unit whose primary role would be to garrison the Spratlys (mostly done by PASKAL) and to perform various roles in a coastal/littoral environment (slightly different to a ‘marine” regiment) per see. Ideally this unit would start off as a battalion size formation with HQ and supporting elements and would be an RMN unit – funding, manpower and inter services issues being a big problem here.

    Whilst this unit would naturally be “amphibious” trained; in essence it would be a light special reaction unit with a light footprint whose operating environment is in a coastal setting and who trains to deploy by ship.

    For our operational requirements the chances of us having to retake a ‘captured” island (which can also be done by non “amphibious” units – the bulk of units deployed to the Falklands were not “amphibious’ trained – and involves securing control of the surrounding seas) or landing on a defended beachhead (which nobody in this day and age does) are slim. Amidst all this talk about the Chinese; if things got hot; they wouldn’t have to physically occupy our reefs; they would just have to dent us sea and air access ….. Also even if one wanted to physically occupy the reefs; with the exception of Layang- Layang all
    are the size of extra large basketball courts.

    … – “Will getting something like this be the answer for our needs”

    Whilst I’m of the option that the RMN needs a MPSS capability; on numerous here I’ve pointed out that when it comes to delivering men and equipment to a fully equipped port rather than a beachhead with zero facilities; a commercial ship can do the job just as well. Some pointed out commercial ships aren’t capable as they’re built to “commercial specs”
    but this is nonsense as many commercial freighters/bulk carriers/tankers are actually built to higher standards and just because a ship is navy operated doesn’t acrobatically mean it’s built to higher standards compared to naval equivalents. The advantage a naval ship will have are onboard weapons but in time of conflict or tensions; both naval and commercial ships would have escorts.

  79. @…
    “LPD type MRSS?”
    If we wanted such ships, we would have gone for the Mistrals which backed out by the Russkis. At the moment, I don’t foresee we need an amphib assault force. If we need aerial cover for our landing forces, we have TUDM. For that we should have LCA with competent ground attack, and refuel tankers (I am leaning towards having 2 A400M with permanent dual-role duties).

    @AM
    One of STRIDE’s noted development I saw was in last DSA, a proposal for a vehicle testing course that mimics the terrain from all over Malaysia. This could be the better testing & proving ground for future land vehicles we buy.

    Reply
    Mistral is an LHD…LPD is the Makassar et al

  80. @ lalok

    You missed the point. We barely have enough money to buy LCAs. The cost of those laser thingies can buy 2 LCAs, or hundreds of MANPADS or RCWS. That is the price of an operational system, how many hundreds of milllions of RND budget does it take to get to that point? I dont say we dont need to do RND, but we dont have the budget to do big RNDs such as laser weapons. Same as jet fighters. The RND budget for KF-X is estimated at USD10 billion, with USD2 billion to be paid for by Indonesia. Can we set aside that much money just for RND? If you can say yes to the budget, then of course we must proceed with the RND.

    @ azlan

    “In my view we need a small unit whose primary role would be to garrison the Spratlys (mostly done by PASKAL) and to perform various roles in a coastal/littoral environment (slightly different to a ‘marine” regiment) per see. Ideally this unit would start off as a battalion size formation with HQ and supporting elements and would be an RMN unit – funding, manpower and inter services issues being a big problem here.

    Whilst this unit would naturally be “amphibious” trained; in essence it would be a light special reaction unit with a light footprint whose operating environment is in a coastal setting and who trains to deploy by ship”

    I concur but IMO they dont need to train to deploy by ship, if you meant something like the MRSS. IMO they should be already based in the littorals, with compact and fast boats like the CB90s and such used as their IFVs. Something similar like the Swedish Coastal Jaegers.

    ON MRSS, it is a compromise we need to take as we dont have unlimited budgets. the difference between commercial and something like the MRV is that it can carry both troops and armoured vehicles at the same time, has aviation facilities, and can be a mother ship parked off the beach to support units ashore. The roro ship that it is based on has a cruising speed of 21knots, which is faster than something like the Makassar class LPDs.

    http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A-closer-look-at-the-Littoral-Strike-Ship-1014×487.jpg

  81. “Mistral is an LHD…LPD is the Makassar et al”
    The LSS shared by Mr… is much more similar to LHD than LPD. Our MRSS doesn’t need a platform large enough to launch a heli-borne assault from the ship simply because we don’t have a need for such a tactic.

  82. …. – “I concur but IMO they dont need to train to deploy by ship””

    Whether by a RHIB tied up along a jetty, from
    a MPSS (or any other ship) to a small boat and then to shore or from a CB90; what sets this unit apart from other units is not only it’s primary operating environment but also its means of deployment.

    …. – “ the difference between commercial and something like the MRV“

    I wasn’t competing both; merely emphasising that in addition to MPSSs in times of need – depending on the circumstances – commercial ships can move men and heavy gear just as well as purpose built naval ships.

  83. @ azlan

    It is a given if the main operating environment is the littorals, they would be going around mainly on boats, and boats should be a part of the battalion, not an external supporting unit.

    @ joe

    The Littoral Strike Ship does not have as much aviation capabilities as a LHD. It just has 2 spots for chinook and 2 spots for blackhawk, with hangar for 4 helicopters. At best it could support heliborne special operations, not to transfer say a battalion strength force by helicopter. The LSS also has no well dock.

    We dont really need a dedicated marine force to land on our own territory. Usually there should already be our own force where our reinforcement would need to go, either locally based battalions or of the 10PARA brigade.

  84. Off topic

    Thailand is quickly reacting to the news that Myanmar is going to get its first submarine this month.

    http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-navy-base-to-monitor-myanmar-sub-in-andaman-73931.php

    We need to get prepared for increased submarine activity around our waters in the near future. If buying new MPA cannot get us ASW capability, then we seriously must look at either used or converting our CN-235s to get ASW capability. Same goes for ASW helicopters.

  85. “commercial ships can move men and heavy gear”
    During Lahad Datu, the government then did just that and they got slammed by the Opposition and ridiculed by the netizens. Go figure.

  86. Azlan “In my view we need a small unit whose primary role would be to garrison the Spratlys (mostly done by PASKAL)”

    What is the current purpose of stationing PASKAL on the reefs? Is it to garrison the location per se, or to stage them there in anticipation of a contingency beyond this? Can other troops, such as the littoral unit being discussed, perform this mission in place of PASKAL?

  87. Azlan “In my view we need a small unit whose primary role would be to garrison the Spratlys (mostly done by PASKAL)”

    What is the current purpose of stationing PASKAL on the reefs? Is it to garrison the location per se, or to stage them there in anticipation of a contingency beyond this? Can other troops, such as the littoral unit being discussed, perform this mission in place of PASKAL?

    Reply
    If given the right training any other unit can do what the Paskal team are doing at the reefs.

  88. “During Lahad Datu, the government then did just that and they got slammed by the Opposition and ridiculed by the netizens. Go figure.”

    Inaccurate. After Air Asia tweeted a picture of one such troop carrying flight, the government was ridiculed by ignorant netizens but was not “slammed by the Opposition” as you put it.

  89. Im pretty sure each service already got their own wishlist from dwp and next rmk.So they need to prioritize their procurement plan.Try to get the most demanding and critical equipment first, whether in the form of new equipment or upgrade package.

  90. @ AM

    PASKAL is garrisoning the GSP as all of the stations there are owned by the Navy.

    There is a plan to double the size of PASKAL. Is that still on? Should the new littoral battalion akin to the Swedish coastal jaegers be under the navy (as an additional PASKAL battalion), or be under the army?

    Reply
    Any plans to double the Paskal will depend on them getting their right recruits and getting them to qualify through the training. In a good year they may get 30 recruits who will qualified to become Paskal out off 100 who started the training. It will take several more years before the newly qualified Paskal to be combat ready. Its the same for the GGK. That’s why the death of the GGK major in a demonstration/training incident was a big loss

  91. – “boats should be a part of the battalion, not an external supporting unit”

    Yes but the the unit has to also be trained to be deployed by assets not organic to it.

    AM – “What is the current purpose of stationing PASKAL on the reefs”

    For security. Apart from that regular RMN personnel who are there are also trained to operate small
    arms but I guess the top brass feels placing PASKAL there is needed. I’m my view, whilst obviously PSAKAL should have a presence there (as they did when the reefs were physically occupied), there is a need for a separate unit (of course this is unlike to happen anytime soon). Security at RMN bases are the responsibility of the Provost unit but against more serious threats PASKAL’s responsible. One can argue that the unit only needs a small presence there as more than that is misuse.

    This new unit should be an RMN unit as it’s operating environment will be along the coast and at sea (the army naturally would object) and it should be a separate unit; a fast reaction light unit that could perform some of PASKAL’s roles (it doesn’t necessarily have to be a “special forces” unit).

    I’m against enlarging PSAKAL as it leads to a downside in quality, it’s for this reason the Brit’s keep SAS and SBS numbers small.

    Reply
    Yes all the SF teams in the world wants to have more personnel for their units. But by their tough selection and qualifying process, ramping up numbers are very hard even for armies double or triple our strength. The British Army which has a similar strength like ours but with even higher operational tempo than ours also finds it difficult to do so to increase their SF numbers

  92. @…
    “2 spots for chinook and 2 spots for blackhawk, with hangar for 4 helicopters”
    Imho that is a real waste of deck space. For me, Makassar type makes more sense as a MRSS since the interior space could be use more flexibly than housing a small chopper fleet. As I said, we don’t have a need for heli-borne assault so any more than 1-2 landing spots for choppers on the MRSS is unnecessary.

    @AM
    Some then Opposition politicians were asking why TLDM didn’t transport the troops in their new submarines that time and instead relied on AA.

  93. @ azlan

    “This new unit should be an RMN unit as it’s operating environment will be along the coast and at sea (the army naturally would object) and it should be a separate unit; a fast reaction light unit that could perform some of PASKAL’s roles (it doesn’t necessarily have to be a “special forces” unit)”

    I agree, but it does not need to be a fast reaction unit. It just has to be an infantry unit thoroughly adept to fighting on water and around the littorals, not just using the littorals as a means to go somewhere else.

    @ joe
    But the FLSS/MRV can carry IFVs and personnel for a whole mechanized battalion. The makassars cant. It is also faster. I would not say we dont have a need for heli-borne assault, just we dont have the resources to do so.

    http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A-closer-look-at-the-Littoral-Strike-Ship-1014×487.jpg

    http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Prevail-Partners-Multi-Role-Vessel-1.jpg

    Cost? we know that the base RORO ship design cost around 55 million euro. Can we build a modified design for USD100 million each? I think we can.

    worldmaritimenews.com/archives/225709/turkeys-alternative-wins-ebrd-loan-to-buy-roro-ship/

    https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/meleq_9809112_11816984/photos/2262601/

  94. Marhalim – “higher operational tempo than ours also finds it difficult to do so to increase their SF numbers”

    They also intentionally keep numbers small as increasing numbers – especially over too short a period – can decrease quality. The only way to rapidly increase numbers over a short period is to lower requirements.

    Decades ago a change in policy allowed recruits to attempt selection for Gerak Khas without spending “x” amount of time in the army (this wasn’t a popular move within the unit when it was introduced). It’s the same with PASKAL and the Royal Marines (which Gerak Khas is modelled on). With the 11th Regiment (our SAS equivalent) men can only attempt selection after spending some time in the army, the idea being that they would already have the basic skill sets and some level of experience and maturity. In the RMN technically any current member can apply for PASKAL selection but the majority of the unit consists of those who applied straight after recruit training.

    Reply
    Yes I know they head hunt people especially those who grew up around the the coast

  95. “Security at RMN bases are the responsibility of the Provost unit but against more serious threats PASKAL’s responsible. … I’m my view, whilst obviously PSAKAL should have a presence there (as they did when the reefs were physically occupied), there is a need for a separate unit.”

    Is Protela a military police force in the traditional sense or or are they capable of providing a more tactical defence (“force protection” as opposed to mere access control), along the lines of the RMAF Regiment? If it is the former, then it would be odd that we don’t have an option for the purpose between them and PASKAL. If so, I would say we need a separate unit not only for the reefs but also one capable of tactically defending all naval bases.

  96. AM – “Is Protela a military police force in the traditional sense””

    It is; which is why I mentioned that it’s PASKAL with deals with more serious stuff.

    AM – “o, I would say we need a separate unit not only for the reefs but also one capable of tactically defending all naval bases””

    Call it what you want – the “RMN Regiment”, “Littoral
    Battalion”, “Marines”. etc but there is clearly a need for such a unit to perform service centric stuff in a littoral environment.

  97. …., – “I agree, but it does not need to be a fast reaction unit””

    It needs to be a unit which can rapidly deploy anyway in a coastal area. “Fast reaction” not in terms of ready for immediate deployment to all four corners of the country and elsewhere like 10 Para but able to be rapidly deployed within the confines of its operating environment; whether to reinforce a certain area in Eastern Sabah or to reinforce Layang-Layang should the need arise.

    How capable the unit is naturally depends on its size, equipment, supporting elements and support it gets from its parent service but prudently given manpower and financial constraints it would start out as a battalion size formation with HQ, signals, mortar. fast assault boats and other elements.

    Ultimately even if funds were not an issue this unit would never see the light of day as the army would protest: arguing that one of its units can perform the role and that the RMN has no need for such a unit.

    …, – “It just has to be an infantry unit thoroughly adept to fighting”

    For a start I would substitute “fighting” for a unit adept at “operating” effectively and being deployed by a variety of means (whether from a helo, RHIB or from a RMN ship). Whether it’s in a jungle, littoral, desert, mountainous or arctic environment troops have to first learn how to adapt to specific conditions and operational circumstances. Whilst this unit would overlap in certain areas with PASKAL (i.e. both having a recce tasking) the idea is that it would perform various roles that PASKAL (by virtue of being a small special operations unit with various specialised skillsets) shouldn’t be performing.

    Whether it’s dealing with landings from non state actors, providing security for RMN ships on “show the flag” visits, providing a security element on our reefs or other tasks at sea or in a littoral environment; those would be the primary roles.

  98. @ azlan

    “Whether it’s dealing with landings from non state actors, providing security for RMN ships on “show the flag” visits, providing a security element on our reefs or other tasks at sea or in a littoral environment; those would be the primary roles”

    So basically we are on the same page here. A littoral/riverine/whatever its name force should be under the navy. Along with the MRSS, will that be the whole of this point in KPP:
    x. Membangunkan kemampuan amfibi.

    What could the army contribute other than the current 10PARA exercises in amphibious landings? Does the army really want to take up a bigger role in amphibious tasks, and with it investments on amphibious capability?

  99. “It is; which is why I mentioned that it’s PASKAL with deals with more serious stuff.” “there is clearly a need for such a unit to perform service centric stuff in a littoral environment.”

    So that’s how little we have in the way of force protection, even for the major bases. Is that to say that should threat levels escalate, we will have to improvise with borrowed army troops or ships’ companies? There can’t be enough PASKAL even if they aren’t busy doing the things they were meant to.

    “Call it what you want – the “RMN Regiment”, “Littoral
    Battalion”, “Marines”. etc but there is clearly a need for such a unit to perform service centric stuff in a littoral environment.”

    Security of reef facilities could come under the remit of a more general installation defence unit. One could argue that compared to a larger and more general littoral operations unit, an installation defence unit is an easier and more urgent goal, that should be pursued to get it up and running more quickly. The roles might be similar enough for one unit to handle, but I know which role I would focus on first.

    Reply
    If there is deemed that the bases are under high security threat of course more Protela personnel will be added to the roster for base protection. You don’t roster SF operators for base protection even in wartime, first of course is the numbers, and even if they are called in to assist it will be for hostage rescue and SF duties. Furthermore it is likely the operators will definitely will go AWOL if they are rostered for guard duty, instead of doing SF stuff. Yes some of them are trained and operate as bodyguards but that is another specialist role in the SF community

  100. There is a really rubbish DWP comment by Kua Kia Soong, a Suaram advisor on Malaysiakini.

    He said the contract for the scorpene was more than RM7 billion. The actual cost was only about RM4.3 billion (1.08 billion euro). Then he goes on to babble about wasting money on MRCA and such, when it is clearly written in DWP that there will be no MRCA before 2030. Then he rants to reduce our defense spending as it will make a more peaceful asean. Can you create a more peaceful asean with a weaker defence? Does he even know what our neighbours are buying or planning to buy in the near future? All of our neighbours are actually increasing their defence budget, and right now our defence budget is actually smaller than even the Philippines. How much lower do you want the budget to be??

    Probably his proficiency in Bahasa Melayu is too weak to read the DWP that he did not comprehend all the information stated in the DWP.

    In all, really a rubbish comment. Wasted 15 minutes of my precious time to read it.

  101. “Along with the MRSS, will that be the whole of this point in KPP:
    x. Membangunkan kemampuan amfibi. … What could the army contribute other than the current 10PARA exercises in amphibious landings? Does the army really want to take up a bigger role in amphibious tasks, and with it investments on amphibious capability?”

    You mentioned recently that you would like to see 10 Para operate AAVs from a MRSS. So if you’re talking about the same, maneuver-type marine unit, then yes the army would obviously have much to contribute.

    I am not convinced that we need such a unit. And while I support creating a light, littoral operations unit, I don’t believe that we need the MRSS to play any more than a supporting role for such a unit.

    “Some then Opposition politicians were asking why TLDM didn’t transport the troops in their new submarines that time and instead relied on AA.”

    No, the two are separate matters of criticism. Ignorant people mocked the government for apparently not having its own transport aircraft and having to rely on AA. Ignorant people also somehow expected the submarines to have detected or prevented the intrusion. But I never heard anyone conflate the two matters, much less a politician.

    However, one can argue that submarines did not prove useful at Lahad Datu not because they were ineffective, but because they are not useful for the intrusion type threats that we should be paying attention to. Submarines are very resource intensive and not only are not useful in many other areas, but also take resources away from them. It’s also true that we paid a lot more for them than we should have.

  102. “Then he rants to reduce our defense spending as it will make a more peaceful asean. Can you create a more peaceful asean with a weaker defence? Does he even know what our neighbours are buying or planning to buy in the near future?”

    Rich of him! He doesn’t even understand that most Asean members are under resourced and are spending much, much less than they should be. Especially SCS claimants. He might as well tell us to hand over the EEZ and contend ourselves with fishing from the jetty.

    I’ve called out his motives before here and this justifies me more for doing so.

  103. AM – “So that’s how little we have in the way of force protection, even for the major bases. Is that to say that should threat levels escalate, we will have to improvise with borrowed army troops or ships’ companies””

    What do you expect? The MAF is a under resourced volunteer force on a peacetime footing. It can and does plan for a variety of contingencies but it can only
    deal with so much and place emphasis on the most likeliest of threats. Even if we take the RAF and RN as an example; both have “x’ many bases but the RAF Regiment, Royal Marines and SBS; as well as base protection units can only do so much in the event of large scale determined and concentrated attacks.

    AM – “Security of reef facilities could come under the remit of a more general installation defence unit”

    Why utilise the resources for a unit that is limited to only or mainly one role? All the reefs with the exception of Layang-Layang are the size of extra large basket ball courts : do we need a unit whose primary role is reef/base protection? It’s not as if all bases are under the same level of threat or we’re currently in a state of tensions with anyone.

    The fact remains that on paper the RMN is in need of a non special operations unit that can perform a variety of roles including some which are only currently able to be performed by PASKAL. Never mind recce, security in the Spratlys and other stuff; as it stands the only people trained to conduct NGFS (put aside that we don’t have large calibre ship main guns with long range) is PASKAL.

    ….

    I got acquainted with his views years ago. He asked why we’re spending on defence when the Confrontation ended decades ago and why the RMAF needs fighters when “drones” can do the job. He’s not the only one. There was an article a few days ago in which the writer spoke of subs that “can’t dive” ….

  104. AM – “, I don’t believe that we need the MRSS to play any more than a supporting role for such a unit”

    Agreed. Whether it’s from a RHIB, CB-90, land or from a RMN helo; the unit would be capable of deploying or conducting its duties by various means. In fact there would be many operational scenarios which don’t call for a MPSS.

    We need the type of unit we’ve been discussing but not necessarily as mainly an “amphibious” unit per see; although naturally it would be “amphibious” trained, i.e having the ability and being trained to be deployed by a variety of means from sea, if needed.

  105. …. – “A littoral/riverine/whatever its name force should be under the navy”

    Of course given its operating environment and rules of roles it’s likely to perform.

    PGA has a riverine unit/boat section called “Anaconda”.

    …, – “Does the army really want to take up a bigger role in amphibious tasks”

    I suspect the army’s answer is that it’s willing to do whatever is required or asked of it provided it has the needed funds for training, to expand the capability and to maintain such a capability that goes beyond what it has now.

  106. @ am

    While i would like to have an army unit with AAVs, with the DWP published, i dont think we can afford to have one. With the mention of Cyber, EW, NCO, ISTAR, SPH, medium helicopters, armours i dont see the army can spare some budget to raise a dedicated amphibious unit.

    @ azlan

    On the MRSS, probably we are not really going to use it for traditional amphibious assault role. Its role will be mainly to be on ready stanby to transport say a full complement of mechanized infantry battalion from west to east malaysia (or even to emergency situation under UN like timor leste). So what we need is 1 ship to be always on stanby, not like needing the MRSS to be always on patrol. If that is the case, would 2 MRSS ships be enough?

    The budget for the 3rd MRSS ship then would be used to get something like a mini MV Asterix. A container ship converted into a replenishment oiler. Could we get 2 for the budget of 1 MRSS? Would be a good asset to replace the BM5 and BM6 capability, while enabling us to replenish frigates and OPVs that need to stay put on station for a longer time. Something a bit bigger than BM5 or BM6 would be nice (around 150m overall length) but not as large as the MV Asterix.

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDEakHSXkAIW–L.jpg

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIOA81OWIAALgOM.jpg

  107. …. – “probably we are not really going to use it for traditional amphibious assault role””

    We are most certainly not going to given our operational requirements and the lack of other stuff in numbers which are needed to support such a tasking : surface escorts, lift assets, air cover, etc

    In short the MPSSs are intended to be able to perform a variety of roles in line with our requirements ( a “jack of trade” so to speak) and limitations : beach assaults (whether with AAVs or not) is simply not on top of the list.

    …- “So what we need is 1 ship to be always on standby”

    In reality “always” having something on “standby” is hard given the numbers we have. On top of that the ships might be doing something else. The thing to also factor in is that we’ll probably also have advanced warning; there might be a period of tension before actual hostilities; enabling if some level of lead time. Then there is also the chance that although the ship is ready to put to sea at short notice; the army unit isn’t and needs some time.

    …, – “role will be mainly to be on ready stanby to transport say a full complement of mechanized infantry battalion from west to east malaysia”

    That has always been the main reason behind the requirement. In short it can be used to transport anything to anywhere it’s needed ; even from East to
    West Malaysia should a need arise. Other stuff like HADR and supporting UN deployments are of course factored in (respective of how slim or rare the possibility) and will be used as one of the various reasons to justify funding with the bureaucrats.

    …. – “ that is the case, would 2 MRSS ships be enough”

    Depending. At times yes, at times no. Even with 4 hulls at times there might be instances where even all 4 are not ready to put to sea at immediate notice.

    As to whether the “lift capacity” is enough depends on the situation. If we were faced with a situation where we had to rapidly move large quantities of men and equipment and our military sea and air lift assets were insufficient; commercial means world be utilised.

  108. @ azlan

    Basically the new MRSS will be tasked for
    – strategic stanby to rapidly move 1 complete mech battalion, equipment and men at a short notice.
    – enduring support platform for littoral warfare against a non state actor (marawi-type scenario)
    – support for UN sanctioned intervention (timor leste-type scenario)
    – HADR, floating hospital (tsunami-type scenario)

    The mini MV Asterix will be tasked for
    – replenishment
    – long range SLOC escort missions (ops fajar-type scenario)
    – floating base for ESSCOM type scenario
    – HADR, floating hospital (tsunami-type scenario)

    “On top of that the ships might be doing something else”
    We must make sure 1 always on standby. The other one can be doing something else, or in refit/maintenance.

    “Then there is also the chance that although the ship is ready to put to sea at short notice; the army unit isn’t and needs some time”
    The army always have 1 ready to deploy battalion, what it needs is a transpot to rapidly deploy.

    “even from East to
    West Malaysia should a need arise”
    That would be a secondary importance as west malaysian are bigger and better equipped.

    “As to whether the “lift capacity” is enough depends on the situation”
    That is why the MRSS scope must be very specific, and not to be the only option. We must look at having pre-positioned equipment at east malaysia (why not just equip the units in east malaysia with the equipment some ask? One is added training for the units, another is not to shift the status quo on borneo island.). Then there is the 10PARA with its quick deployment by parachute. Civilian shipping would of course be used, but mainly ìn sustainment of the effort, not at the initial rapid response stage.

    So by 2030 we would have
    2x MRSS (of the littoral strike ship concept) http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDyfT5vW4AI4em7.jpg

    2x replenishment oiler converted from a container ship (mini MV Asterix, around 150m length)
    http://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/59/3f/0d593f90b3561d59b2f9c6e3bd6b655b.jpg

    2x floating base converted from oil tankers (tun azizan replacement). Around 150m length. Semisubmersible with lower flooded garage/dock for FIC and RHIBs
    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHVE5X4UwAAyF9A.jpg

    Target cost
    MRSS USD125-150 million each newbuild
    AOR USD60 million each conversion from used container ship
    Floating staging base USD30 million each conversion from tanker ship.

  109. …. – “We must make sure 1 always on standby”

    Easily said than done. It’s not like we have an abundance of hulls to the extent that we can ensure that 1 hull at any given time is in constantly doing nothing else but on standby …. We take into account that in most cases things will not break out overnight with little warning but instead will gradually escalate enabling some lead time which in turn enables needed adjustments and planning to be made.

    …. – “That would be a secondary importance””

    Not necessarily so and we shouldn’t assume so. Units based in West Malaysia if faced in a high intensity conflict would be overstretched and most of our units are not up to strength. There might be a scenario where it’s deemed absolutely necessary to reinforced troops on the Peninsular with those from Sarawak and Sabah; especially if things in Sarawak and Sabah are quiet.

    ….. – “The army always have 1 ready to deploy battalion””

    On paper. In reality not all elements of this unit might be readily available (there are varying alert/standby levels and elements on the unit might be elsewhere on exercise) and this unit will still have to move to the nearest port or base. Note that the “alert” unit is indeed capable of deploying faster and is on higher readiness than other units but being a designated “alert” unit doesn’t mean the whole unit is on constant standby ….

    …. – “Then there is the 10PARA with its quick deployment by parachute””

    Depending on the circumstances, i.e. the availability of air lift assets at that given time, is there a need for it to be deployed by parachute?, etc.

    …. – “mainly ìn sustainment of the effort, not at the initial rapid response stage””

    No. Depending. During a period of tensions and assuming commercial assets were delivering men and gear to a fully equipped airport/base or port; they can be used for the initial buildup just as effectively as military assets. There is absolutely no reason why commercial assets can’t be used to augment military ones in the “initial response stage” ..

  110. @ azlan

    “Easily said than done”
    It needs to be done. Not that you need a 200m long ship to go on eez patrol. Something you need to juggle. Why also it needs to be looked at with other things, like batch 2 gowinds, more cheap OPVs for MMEA, the 2 converted AOR and floating bases.

    “Not necessarily so and we shouldn’t assume so”
    We really need to assume so. If not we need at least 4 (if not 6) MRSS to enable 2 to be on stanby, one each in west and east malaysia. But its not like we have heavy hardwares in east malaysia that is unavailable in west malaysia. If you need reinforcement troops from east malaysia, just fly them over, why use ships?

    “On paper”
    We have 4 mechanized infantry battalions and 4 parachute infantry battalions. There is no excuse why we can have 1 of each on ready standby status at any one time. There are 6 other battalions that can be on anything other than on ready stanby status. Having one MRSS large enough to transport a whole mechanized battalion, its men and equipment would be a new dimension to our mechanized ready battalion. We currently have the means to deploy 1 para battalion by air (no matter landed or paracuted to location)

    “There is absolutely no reason why commercial assets can’t be used to augment military ones in the “initial response stage”
    How many commercial roro or bulk cargo ships are flying the malaysian flag? Will foreign flagged ships want to sail to a war or conflict zone? Yes it can be augmented, but what is the condition of our malaysian merchant fleet? MISC now is mostly tankers, as is most other major malaysian shipping firms.

  111. “We have 4 mechanized infantry battalions and 4 parachute infantry battalions. There is no excuse why we can have 1 of each on ready standby status at any one time.”

    Not if you’re exercising said units in brigade or divisional strength somewhere. Not only when the exercise is ongoing, but also after when equipment has to be repaired. Unless you have mountains of equipment squirreled away in driclad depots like some rich people.

    It’s hardly necessary to have “1 of each” at all times. The idea is to have just enough elements of each arm necessary to support your response to anticipated scenarios under the current conditions. If things are not threatening then you may only need subunits on standby. Eg you might ordinarily need x battalions of infantry, y companies of Paras or Guards, z engineer or logistics groups etc able to conduct movement in four hours, because you know that Neighbour A’s everyday posture will allow him to mobilize and move a w-sized formation into striking distance within u hours. If A’s posture changes than so does yours.

    Define “standby” and the time frames within which your unit must be present in camp, have equipment ready to move etc.

  112. @ AM

    the main reason that they set up a ready battalion is just that, to have 1 mech battalion ready to go at a short notice.

    The lead time IMO would be to sail away around 48h from the go decision, and with say 1-2 week notice to be on high alert for a go decision. Port of embarkation would be set as tanjung gelang naval base kuantan. So both the ship and the battalion have time to get to kuantan, if not already there. Some stores and equipment should already be on stanby in kuantan naval base, and loaded to the MRSS in participation of a go decision. Vehicles and soldiers be driven to kuantan naval base when the green light is given.

    Reply
    AFAIK the Army units on standby are based at the brigade level, so no matter what the units are they are, and not based on whether they are the PAC or other ready battalions. The readiness are based on hours level. I have no idea on how many though and their rotations

  113. @ marhalim

    What do you mean “based at the brigade level”? One thing is to be ready for normal rotational pre-planned deployments like to ESSCOM or UN Peacekeeping Mission. Another is to standby to rapidly deploy in case of something happens. Units from say 10PARA regularly deploy for operations, but behind the scenes they also have units on standby to deploy at a moments notice as our strategic reserve. I dont know how the rotation works but IMO there are 4 para battalion that should enable:
    1 undertaking training and exercises
    1 on standby for rapid deployment
    1 on regular deployment
    1 at rest from deployment

    Yes there would be individuals from 10 PARA seconded to various other tasks, but that would not involve the formation as a whole.

  114. On the sealift. Should TLDM have a dedicated auxiliary ship squadron (skuadron kapal bantuan), something like the us navy military sealift command or the royal fleet auxiliary?

    All navy owned ships with KA prefix, chartered ones with MV prefix. Tugs, offsohore platform supply vessels, roro ships could then be bought or chartered to have a secure sealift, operational support, special force support and floating base capability.

  115. “The lead time IMO would be to sail away around 48h from the go decision, and with say 1-2 week notice to be on high alert for a go decision. Port of embarkation would be set as tanjung gelang naval base kuantan.”

    I assume you’re referring to our known ready battalion, 7 RRD at Mentakab. Four hours is a good standard for the whole unit leaving the camp gates, on the assumption the tank transporters are there to begin with. Another four to march and get organized at Kuantan is a realistic expectation, on the assumption of clear roads. It would take longer to get vehicles lashed aboard ship. There is no need for weeks’ notice to achieve a four hour standard, armies everywhere do this on a rotational basis.

    I’m wondering why our mechanised “ready battatlion” is based at Mentakab though, It is equally distant from the ports, airports and economically important population centers on either coast. If the intention is to embark at or protect these locations, why Mentakab?

    “Ready battalion” in 7 RRD’s context probably implies a higher state of readiness than other battalions which would themselves rotate on and off a heightened posture, ready to roll out on x hours notice. No unit would arrive faster than PAC though, which has air portable equipment and is located near an operational airport (Melaka airport is small but it would certainly be faster to use it than the camp airstrip.)

    Reply
    Ready Battalion is also meant that its already structured for a typical UN Peacekeeping mission with all the additional units already attached and report to a single commander

  116. @ AM

    Why i go into this in the first place is to see what kind of MRSS ship do we need for our desired capability. Which IMO is to use the MRSS for rapid deployment to reinforce east malaysia with west malaysian mechanized units.

    Of course any initial attacks will be contained by units in east malaysia. initial rapid reinforcements will be with 10PARA, and BIS battalions flown in from west malaysia. Then will the MRSS will come in. In non time critical situations that does not need rapid deployments, of course commercial ships can be used.

    So IMO we dont really need a MRSS to be a LPD, for amphibious type of landings. What we do need is a ship big enough to hold all the equipment and men of 1 mechanized battalion and its stores. That would be around 400men, 80 IFVs, 20 trucks plus 10-20 TEU containers. Why IMO we should look at large roro conversions like what UK is looking at for its Future Littoral Strike Ship (FLSS)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.