SHAH ALAM: RMN chief Admiral Reza Sany today announced that the service has sign the contract to purchase three maritime operations helicopter (MOH) on September 20 last year. The first helicopter will be delivered on October 20, 2022; second on May 31, 2023 and the third on February 28, 2024.
He did not named the helicopters contracted though it is likely to be the Leonardo AW139 as hinted previously.
RMN is looking to buy another batch of MOH in RMK12 together with a batch of anti-submarine helicopters though the chief did not revealed any numbers. It is likely three for the MOH and six ASW helicopters as had been reported previously.
As RMN is getting another six ScanEagles gifted by the US in June, to add to the six already delivered last year, the service wants to get VTOL drones though he did not cite the figures being sought.
Also on the wish list are the MRSS and the LMS though there was also no numbers. It is likely that three MRSS are being sought though one of them could be funded in the next RMK. As for the LMS it likely it will be the batch two being sought though again it may well be funded in two RMK.
Other items being sought are fast combat boats for the RMN proper and another one for the Paskal, the naval special forces command. The RMN also wants a new bridge tactical trainer or simulator.
Interestingly there was no mention of the LCS in his speech though it must be said that it is now the purview of the minister.
— Malaysian Defence
Good news. This is something the RMN has long wanted as moving PASKAL teams and other stuff is very problematic with the Lynxs and Fennecs.
Thank God, thank you for the good news sir..a good year to start with. I believe MRSS and LMS batch 2 is a priority for the RMN.
Why do you keep blocking my comments marhalim?
Cant I give constructive comments?
Do you prefer me to post the exact same thing elsewhere?
Do we really have the money to buy MRSS and 2nd batch LMS?
Nice question ASM…
ASM,
It’s not entirely beyond our means. The buy could be staggered and funding could be partially obtained or carried forward to a next Malaysia Plan.
Ultimately it’s the job of the armed services to lift out their operational requirements. It’s the job of the government to inform the armed services in a timely manner if funding can be made available or if it can’t; to give a likely period so the services can plan accordingly.
I assume the Damen 8313 corvette is only for illustrative purposes only? Or is it a possible contender for LMS batch 2, since we have had success with the building (so far) of the Damen OPVs.
Reply
It is used for illustration purpose only. Of course its also a possible contender for LMS Batch II not because of the MMEA OPV contract but because it ticks most of the requirements. That said if I got some US$1 billion to spare, I will definitely use it to pay for them so RMN can finally retire the FAC fleet within the next five years. I am of the opinion that a corvette is a good fit for work in the Andaman/Selat Melaka/Selat Singapura/Laut Sulu which is the reason RMN wants them.
Indeed. A corvette is perfectly suitable for various roles in certain areas which won’t require a frigate. The trick is for them to work in conjunction with other assets and to not be placed in a situation where they will be required to punch above their weight.
It’s how they are equipped and the support they receive from other assets; as well as the operational circumstances which determines their effectiveness; not the fact that they are “corvettes” (merely a designation which can mean everything or nothing) or the fact that they are not as well armed as a frigate.
Just like how the RMAF desires a high/low end mix; so does the RMN.
Just my self wondering, MMEA already got 3 tun Fatimah, 2 langkawi, 2 Pekan and 6 Bagan dato for total 13 for off shore role. RMN getting 4 lms and already got 6 Kedah plus 4 laksamana also for 14 offshore patrol role. If combine, there are 27 various vessels for this role. Maybe rather than more LMS, for RMN, they should try to squeeze 1 or 2 LCS during Rmk12 instead?
Reply
I dont think they could asked for extra LCSes with none of the original ones delivered yet. If indeed they had stick to the plan or at least not in the same predicament, delays are inevitable in new builds, yes it is likely that the government may add to the original order. RMN had planned for another six LCS
@Azlan,
I hope so. Besides the Navy, the Air Force also requires more helicopters following the Nuris’ retirement. Plus the LCAs too…
Is our economy in a good enough shape to handle all of these purchases? (Honest question)
Kamal – “4 laksamana”
The Laksamanas are planned to be retired once the LMSs are in service.
Kamal – “If combine, there are 27 various vessels for this role”
Every single RMN asset has a peacetime role. The thing is; not all are operational at any given time. Same goes for MMEA assets.
Also; offshore patrol is a primary duty of the MMEA. It’s is a role the RMN performs but it is not its primary duty. As such; this has to also be taken into account when looking at numbers.
Kamal – “rather than more LMS, for RMN, they should try to squeeze 1 or 2 LCS”
Why? The LMSs are intended for a different role to the LCSs – both are intended for different things. Also; the LMSs are badly needed to replace the FACs and Laksamanas which are long overdue for retirement. Even if all the LCS were delivered; there would still be a need for LMSs.
ASM,
What the armed services need and what they actually get can differ. It’s their job to lay out their requirements and the job of the politicians and bureaucrats to decide what and how many to buy.
The RMN needs 3 MRRSs but will probably only get an initial one; the RMAF needs 36 LCAs but will get an initial 18; so on and so forth. The buys will be staggered and certain requirements will not be fulfilled.
Reply
Based on the current situation even with the four LMS in the books, it is likely that the Laksamanas will continue in service until 2025 at least. I don’t think the RMN can afford to retire them as the FAC fleet under goes their obsolescence programme. Whether or not the Laksamanas will continue to be operated beyond 2025 is a big question but I am of the opinion that if the first LMS batch 2 is not in service by then it is likely they will be
As for the ASW helicopter, if they can get an MRSS, they could go for bigger platform than EC-725. H-92/CH-148 is a good candidate for a dedicated ASW.
For the corvette, it depends on whether or not RMN wanted to stick with LMS. If they wanted a dedicated corvette, then technically those Gowind can be downscaled to corvette size.
Reply
Every one else called our Gowind a corvette, we called them LCS due to the issues I explained already. And it is corvette even at 3100 tonnes. They want another less expensive, smaller corvette to replace the FACs and Laksamanas as well for duties in areas where the LCS are not needed like Selat Melaka/Laut Andaman/Selat Singapura and Laut Sulu.
Dundun- “ it depends on whether or not RMN wanted to stick with LMS”
Of course it does. As has been widely reported the RMN intends to have another class of fully fitted out LMSs.
Dundun – “.If they wanted a dedicated corvette”
What’s a “dedicated” corvette? One navy’s “corvette” can be another’s “frigate”. Another navy’s “frigate” can in another navy be a “destroyer”. You can have a 700 tonne platform armed only with guns and call it a “corvette”. You can have a 1,600 tonne platform armed with a 16 cell
VLS and still call it a “corvette”.
It’s not the designation that’s important but how it’s fitted out and how it’s employed. Traditionally “corvettes” or “sloops” were intended as escorts and to perform various secondary type duties; the line is now
blurred.
The LMSs are larger than a FAC but smaller than a frigate so it’s a “corvette” sized vessel which in RMN service has the “LMS” designation. The Kasturis are designated “corvettes” but they were also called “light frigates”. It’s merely a designation.
Dundun- “if they can get an MRSS”
The 3 helos already ordered are ideal to operate from the MRSS for the utility/transport role.
The downside is that the RMN will have to operate 3 different types; not including the future ASW helos; assuming it’s not the Wildcat which is unsuitable for ASW work; being short legged and having limited lift capacity.
I will be very surprised if funding for the ASW helos are approved and allocated anytime soon.
If I had USD $1Bil to spare, I would use it to complete the LCS. A fully kitted LCS is far more potent than corvettes.
What will constitute a fully fitted lms? Fully armed with Chinese made anti ship missile such as C803 and anti aircraft missile such as FN300 or HQ7? This is assuming off course the updated Chinese design from 1st batch are selected
Reply
No, the second batch will not include a Chinese design
@Azlan
“What the armed services need and what they actually get can differ. It’s their job to lay out their requirements and the job of the politicians and bureaucrats to decide what and how many to buy.”
I am aware of that. The thing is, could we afford it? We are buying things in batches, yes, but with the recent payouts plus the money to get the vaccines one has to wonder where they are getting the money for all of these. Malaysia is not getting any investment from outside either…
Reply
What do mean that we are not getting any investments, we do lah
Kamal – “what will constitute a fully fitted”
The answer is a LMS which is fitted out the way the RMN intends; in order to fulfil operational requirements.
There is little intention to fully fit out the 4 LMSs; priority (in addition to getting the LCSs moving) is in another class of fully fitted out LMSs which won’t come from China.
ASM – “I am aware of that. The thing is, could we afford it?”
I’m aware you’re “aware” of it. There’s a reason I mentioned what I did was to partly answer your question.
We obviously can’t afford everything on the wish list so only certain things will be funded and only in certain quantities. Not only will buys be staggered but funding might come from a subsequent Malaysia Plan to lessen the financial impact.
This answers your question.
@marhalim
Sorry, didn’t mean no investment, but a good chunk of foreign investment went to SG, Indo & vietnam.
Reply
That’s what happened when you setup several state owned automotive companies which need perpetual protection from competition
regarding the questions here, my single reply that marhalim censored could answer 80% of the questions here.
but it was censored.
due to the best interests of malaysia my ideas are blocked and i cannot contribute my ideas?
Reply
Not censored, it didn’t get through into the comments page even in the bin and spam pages
What I meant is using smaller gowind design. Gowind is originally meant to be a corvette (just that ours are the biggest variant). then why dont we get a gowind corvette?
E.g Anzac class and Kedah class ship belong to the same family of Mako ship but one is obviously much bigger and more capable than the other
Why RMN not propose in this RMK to secure the budget from government to upgrading it six NGPV kedah class withTerpedo, Sam, SSM. At least we have the Full spect our NGPV until we can operate our LCS
Harun – “Why RMN not propose in this RMK to secure the budget from government to upgrading it six NGPV ”
The RMN did try for many years. Now the intention is for new hulls (to replace the FACs and Laksamanas), the LCS and other things. Upgrading the Kedahs will consume money which can be put to better use for for other things.
Harun – “. At least we have the Full spect our NGPV”
It won’t change the fact the FACs and Laksamanas have to be retired sooner rather than later.
Dundun – “is originally meant to be a corvette”
What really constitutes a “corvette” can be a broad definition depending on various factors. A lot of “corvettes” in use are designated “corvettes” but are not really “corvettes” if one wants to apply the term in the strictest sense.
The RMN’s size/displacement preference for the LMS is something in the 600-800 tonne category; give and take. Going by the 5/15 the idea (assuming this hasn’t changed) is for free space on the quarter deck/fantail for modular payloads. Personally I doubt the RMN will ever widely adopt this approach.
.Dundun -“Anzac class and Kedah class ship belong to the same family of Mako ship”
Following the Kedah programme and the disaster it was; national interests/politics dictated we world with another yard; even though the cockup wasn’t the fault of the Germans. There were plans in place – on paper – to offer follow on designs based on the Meko A-100.
Whilst adopting a common hull certainly makes sense; what’s more important is commonality with the various systems selected. Unfortunately the RMN will have 2 classes of LMSs; both with little commonality.
From the looks of thing, the RMN’s 15-to-5 programme is crawling at a very slow pace; forcing the old Laksamana class & FAC to continue soldier on. Before you know it, the Kasturi class corvette & Lekui class frigates will be in the same boat.
Our Navy needs more ships; ASAP. Its sad to see our neighbours in SEA (namely SG, IN, TH, MR, VN & even PH) are operating frigate with stealth or RCS design; while our LCS program struggling away owing to corrupted souls.
Steven – “From the looks of thing, the RMN’s 15-to-5 programme is crawling at a very slow pace”
The plan is evolving. What we know as the “5/15l” and what it will look like in years to come will be very different. Putting aside the question of whether it was the plan the RMN actually needed; it never has a chance of being fully implemented. For one it was spread over too long a period and it was subject to various factors beyond the RMN’’s control.
It was a plan introduced in desperation, was a PR exercise which impressed many and did contain certain things which were sound (i.e. reducing the number of different systems) but it was never really workable.
Steven – “are operating frigate with stealth or RCS design”
Ships with low observable features are useful/needed but are not a panacea or a “game changer”. “Stealth” (as many refer to it) has become the in thing; the cliche many are too focused on but it’s various other elements which are far more vital and determine effectiveness..
Steven – “ (namely SG, IN, TH, MR, VN & even PH)”
All those navies are in different stages of development and have different priorities and operational requirements. The PN is like us; buying in bits and drabs due to funding issues but has undergone a far longer period of neglect.
The RSN is the only one to date with has really made progress in acquiring tertiary capabilities and having the ability to change conduct sustained and integrated tri service ops.
The RMN’s main problem is indeed the lack of hulls (to perform both wartime and peacetime duties); why the 4 LMSs are so needed (despite not being fully fitted out) and why emphasis is on getting the LCSs moving; as well as a 2nd batch of fully fitted out LMSs.
“Why RMN not propose in this RMK to secure the budget from government to upgrading it six NGPV kedah class withTerpedo, Sam, SSM. At least we have the Full spect our NGPV until we can operate our LCS”
I’ve not posted anything for about 6 months.
I’m one who’d be very much want to see the Meko-100 to be fully armed. But a check at the price of the weapon system which supposedly to be installed on the Kedah just showed us how cruel the real world is…
In an ideal world the Kedah would be armed with RAM at the B position, and one on top of the hangar, 4 x MM40 Exocet and maybe 2 x 3 lightweight torpedo. Just take a look at how expensive these munitions are.
RAM- 1 Million USD per missile, so 21 missiles take up 21 million USD( RM 84 million) just for a close in anti-missile system.
Exocet – I don’t know the price, but open source data says AM-39 costs 3 million Euros. I suppose if we get MM-40 II it’d be similar in price, and MM-40 III would be cheaper. Let’s just say it’s 4 million Euro. 4×4=16 million euros(RM 80 million)
Torpedo – online sources suggest that one MU-90 LWT costs USD 5 million, so I suppose the A244S is somewhat cheaper being the older generation product. Just say it’s USD 3million. 6×3=USD 18 million (RM 72 million)
So in order to fully arm a Kedah, it’ll take RM 236 million just to buy the missiles+torpedo, (for a single RAM setup) or RM 320 million (for a 2 RAM setup). Note that I’m assuming the FFBNW is real, means all the electronics are in place, and launchers cost nothing! Else it could easily add the cost to maybe RM 400 million per ship.
So do we have 400 x 6 ships= RM 2.4 billion to arm the Kedahs?
Hornet Lover – “In an ideal world the Kedah would be armed with RAM at the B position”
Not really. First of all take into account that the reason the class was to be modestly armed was due to the the secondary wartime rules they were expected to perform. Roles which wouldn’t have called them to be in a high risk environment.
Arming them with a 2nd RAM mount would mean we intend on employing them in a high environment : isn’t the case. “In a perfect world” the LCS would have a CIWS in the B but alas in real world policy, application and resources come into play. “In a perfect world” the LCS would also have deck space for additional SSMs and would have a UAS to complement the helo.
Hornet Lover – ““Just take a look at how expensive these munitions are.”
It’s not a question of how expensive they are but the fact that the RMN would rather put its cash to better use elsewhere.
That’s the reason unlike in the past; the RMN at this juncture is not seeking to fully arm them.
Arming the Kedahs results in the RMN having more ships which are armed but it doesn’t do away with the fact that it badly needs new hulls and that there are ships long overdue for retiring. It also doesn’t do away with the fact that there are things more in need of funding.
Hornet Lover – “Torpedo”
There is practically zero deck space for a pair of triple torp tubes. The only free space is the B position (like on the Kasturis) but this means RAM can’t be fitted and it’s not the most optimum place for torp tubes.
Hornet Lover – Note that I’m assuming the FFBNW is real, means all the electronics are in place, and launchers cost nothing”
It “means” that enough deck space is kept free and that the existing CMS, trackers and other things are already integrated – “plug and play; (as I pointed out in a previous post) takes 24 hours to install RAM). From Day One COSYS was intended for RAM and Exocet. A deck system is not possible for the B position.
Hornet Lover – “So do we have 400 x 6 ships”
The pertinent question is not whether we have the cash but what’s the best use for the cash we have? As it stands the priority is follow on fully fitted LMSs; getting the LCSs delivered, a MRSS, helos and to replace various things which will soon turn expire – arming the Kedahs soaks up resources.
@Azlan: I was replying to a post which called for the Kedahs to be fully armed, and I stated that the cost of the munitions alone is enough of a put off. I know full well the navy is not keen up-arm the Kedahs, needless to say arm fully arm it.
Please read in context.
Now as to your oft repeated ‘secondary wartime roles’ to be played by the Kedahs, what exactly is that? What role can be played by a ‘modestly armed’ OPV in wartime, fitted with electronics to launch RAM and exocet?
I think it’s a case of putting the cart before the horse. It’s precisely due to the lack of weapon systems that relegate these ships to ‘secondary wartime role’. Who in the world is so ‘unwise’ to burn billions just to buy gunboats for ‘secondary wartime role’? The logic is funny.
Hornet Hornet – “Please read in context”
I have. Have you? What did I say which was not in “context”?
I mentioned the issues faced; that cash wasn’t the pertinent question (but other things – policy, application and resources) and why the RMN isn’t eager.
Hornet Lover – “What role can be played by a ‘modestly armed’ OPV in wartime”
Secondary roles in scenarios which don’t call for a frigate in a an environment which it’s modest weapons load out doesn’t require it to punch above its weight level – period/full stop.
Roles such as escort; coastal protection or even combat against similarly equipped units. Also keep in mind (this point is often overlooked) is that should the circumstances arise; they are also intended to operate alongside other assets; as such their modest load out won’t necessarily be an issue if employed in a proper manner.
Using your line of argument one could also ask why we need LCAs which are less capable than a MRCA? It’s part of the high/low end mix; the LCAs operate in certain circumstances and if needs be alongside MRCAs.
Hornet Lover – “ It’s precisely due to the lack of weapon systems that relegate these ships to ‘secondary”
From Day One they were meant to play a secondary wartime role; the Lekius (as was the plan then) playing a primary role. That was the plan from the start; just like with the FACs and other things : a secondary role.
Their intended “modest” fit out reflected this. Just like how the modest fit outs of follow on LMSs will reflect the roles they are intended for.
Hornet Lover – “ Who in the world is so ‘unwise’ to burn billions just to buy gunboats for ‘secondary wartime role”
They were overpaid for because the programme went ratshit.
These “gunboats” as you call them (itself a misleading term) are equipped with a 3D multi mode radar; a decent CMS, 2 trackers, a obstacle avoidance system; a deck landing system and various other things – quite a lot for a “gunboat” as you called it.
Hornet Lover – “The logic is funny”
To you but if you take into account the overall context as to why they were procured; the reason they were fitted out the way they were; the need for a high/low end mix (same logic behind the LMSs) and other factors; it’s not “funny at all”.
Personally I would like to see them fully fitted out but the reality is that the cash would be put to better used for things which are more urgently needed. Personally I don’t see the need for anymore because of limitations with its design and the fact that we should have just 1 design for secondary type roles.
@Hornet Lover
The SGPV class are suppose to be support ships to the frontline frigates, which is the Lekiu class and the LCS (previously was Lekiu batch 2). With the current plan, the LMS are to fit into this role now.
In an ideal world, our LCS class would have been armed to similar levels with RSN Formidable class and they would have been delivered on time and within budget.
Hornet Lover – “’. Who in the world is so ‘unwise’ to burn billions just to buy gunboats for ‘secondary wartime role”
The same can be asked of various other projects we undertook: in the name of political expediency. We “built” locally for (ostensibly) long term tangible benefits and literally paying more was seen as a penalty worth incurring.
To be fair; the reasoning behind the Kedahs was sound : a design whose primary peacetime role (to replace the Vospers) would be EEZ enforcement/patrols and whose wartime roles would be various roles which didn’t require a frigate. All this based on a common design which could be later tweaked to offer slightly larger more capable variants. Force planning during this period called for 6 Lekius to constitute our “Team A”.
The high end sensor/electronic fit was driven by it wartime utility; just like how the modest weapons load out was driven by the type of intended (read secondary/low threat) wartime roles the class was to perform; as well as a self defence means.
Even within our current budget, we could build a vastly better TLDM by 2030 if you plan it properly
This is just an example
RMK12 2021-2025 USD2.1bil
6 Hyundai HDF-2600MY 1 all weapons and electronic components from gowind project
2 MRSS 0.3 Based on RORO 2700 design. basic roro cost Eur55.5 mil
16 FIC 0.05 FIC batch 2, batch 1 RMK11. All CB90 refit and passed on to PASKAL
3 AW139 MUH batch 2 0.05 for a total of 6 MUH. Batch 1 in RMK11.
6 Lynx ASW upgrades 0.15 all new ASW Heli in RMK15 2035-40. Lynx can be used as ASW as TLDM will now have 6 MUH for utility tasks.
12 Camcopter S-100 UAV 0.015 6 systems, 2 UAV per system
8 LMS2 0.2 Based on damen FCS5509 (6 base, 2 hydrographic version)
3 Offshore OSV (used) 0.05 used 80-90m length – MCM, survey, salvage, PASKAL support, as auxillary ship
2 Support tanker 0.18 Brand new Malaysia, STM Turkey FRS 158m design. BM5 BM6 replacement, as auxillary ship
1 Heavilift RORO (used) 0.01 used – additional transport – as auxillary ship
1 Autonomous MCM system 0.06
1 Scorpene 0 barter with 6 gowind hulls
RMK13 2026-2030 USD2.1bil
6 Hyundai HDF-2600MY 1.2 No TAS
1 Scorpene NG 0.5 Scorpene no.4
10 LMS2 0.2 Based on damen FCS5509 (10 base version)
2 Floating Base 0.04 used – tanker ship conversion semisubmersible
3 Autonomous MCM system 0.18
LMS
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/old-is-gold-part-2/#comment-444678
MRSS
As for the MRSS, i am now inclined to go the radical path and get a modified fast RORO for this task. We actually need a fast logistical bridge from west to east malaysia more than actually need an amphibious landing capable ship. This could be had for around USD100-150 million each.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbhPrgaWoAEkkjy.jpg:large
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ED2CjfoXoAEDv6S.jpg:large
Tanker
http://www.defenceturkey.com/files/content/5b1d981e60f4c.jpg
MCM system
http://www.econostrum.info/photo/art/grande/35666803-32184975.jpg
OSV
Multi purpose, PASKAL support, MCM support, Salvage/Rescue support, UAV support, Diving support, patrol.
http://g7a6v6x7.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/BSAOM-Champlain-French-Navy.jpg
Floating base
http://defpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/USNS-Hershel-Woody-Williams-T-ESB-4.jpg
Heavilift RORO
http://www.shipit.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/A-heavy-lift-vessel-offloading-a-harbor-tug-as-breakbulk.jpg
So proposed TLDM fleet 2030
– Undersea Combatants
4x Scorpene
– Surface combatants
12x HDF2600MY
2x F2000 Lekiu (to be retired and replaced by Type 31 Frigate post 2030)
2x FS1500 Kasturi (to be retired and replaced by Type 31 Frigate post 2030)
16x LMS2 FCS 5509
2x MRSS RORO2700
2x Floating bases
– small crafts
32x G2000 FIC
16x CB90
– auxiliaries / training
2x Gagah Class Training Ship
1x KLD Tunas Samudera
2x LMS2 FCS 5509 Hydrographic Survey
2x Support tankers
3x OSV
1x Heavilift RORO
1x Submarine rescue
– PSSTLDM
1x KD Hang Tuah
1x KD Hang Nadim
6x FAC(G)
6x Vosper PC
– To be passed to MMEA
6x Kedah class OPV
4x LMS68
8x FAC (M) (to be retired by 2035)
@…
Is the entirety of the Navy’s funding, including OPEX? Because we need to spend money on training, maintenance, infrastructure upgrade/development etc too not just procuring vessels.
@ ASM
no that is just development expenditure (DE) for 5 year rancangan malaysia, what we have spent for the navy for DE for the past few rancangan malaysia’s (around usd2 billion for each RMK).
which is why the navy IMO cant afford to run the planned 12 frigate, 18 OPV and 18 LMS fleet of 15 to 5.
my planned LMS batch 2 FCS5509 will have a lean crew of about 22 person only, while the LMS68 keris class has a crew of 45 person.
a mostly new fleet would also reduce the maintenance requirements significantly.
… – “rew of about 22 person only”
A higher level of automation is always welcomed as it leads to lower manning levels which in turn leads to costs savings but the downside it has been found is there’s less people to perform damage control if required. This is one of the drawbacks of smaller crews.
Another issue (not one that should necessarily dictate crew numbers) is if the ship intercepts a foreign trawler or ship of immigrants. A problem faced here is that the CO has to allocate a number of his crew to take the trawler/boat back to shore; leaves him with less crew members on his ship. This is a common problem faced by RMN and MMEA ships.
@Azlan:
Azlan – “I have. Have you? What did I say which was not in “context”?
I have, and you obviously did not get what I was replying to an earlier post, especially the term “in an ideal world”.
Azlan – “I mentioned the issues faced; that cash wasn’t the pertinent question (but other things – policy, application and resources) and why the RMN isn’t eager.”
Again, I strongly believe you don’t read in context. I was stating EVEN IF we’d like to arm the Kedahs, we need to fork out RM 2.4 billions, and that’s the money that we don’t have. I didn’t even touch on whether to fully arm the Kedahs or to invest the precious money into other ill project is the best option for the RMN. And you said money is not the main issue? Really?
Azlan – “Secondary roles in scenarios which don’t call for a frigate in a an environment which it’s modest weapons load out doesn’t require it to punch above its weight level – period/full stop.”
Which was why I called it gunboat, and what is the so call secondary role that cannot be carried out by something like a Damen 1800 OPV? What was the original price tag of the Meko 100 before the project went ratshit? Is it as cheap as a Damen 1800 and then shot up sky high to 1.2 billion per ship? If it’s not, then what was the originally intended role for it, or the then planners were just too ‘unwise’ to invest into a Mercedes when a Saga can do exactly the same job?
Azlan – they are also intended to operate alongside other assets; as such their modest load out won’t necessarily be an issue if employed in a proper manner.
Such as, to provide another target to the enemy? Seriously, how would you plan a mission for the Kedahs with its’ ‘modest’ load out, say when we go against another navy in SEA?
I can fully accept what you wrote above if the Kedahs can at least boost the number of Exocets carried , or serve as a goal keeper role in a fleet. But with 76mm? Shore bombardment???
Hmm…
Azlan – These “gunboats” as you call them (itself a misleading term) are equipped with a 3D multi mode radar; a decent CMS, 2 trackers, a obstacle avoidance system; a deck landing system and various other things – quite a lot for a “gunboat” as you called it.
I know all the things that you mentioned here. Yeah, funny that it’s equipped with all the necessary electronics and only to play a so call ‘secondary wartime role’ . What’s so powerful a light frigate like Lekiu can provide that there’s a need to slash, say 70% of its’ capability to relegate it to a ‘secondary wartime role’? If it’s about constabulary role, anti-piracy, sea lane patrol etc, then can’t it be carried out by a Damen 1800 which is of similar tonnage and presumably similar sea keeping quality? Why the needs for all the advanced sensory systems?
The only logic left for the FFBNW concept is to save on the amount of weapon systems purchased, and to perform a role swap for ships of the same class.
And I think you missed the elephant in the room. We have NOTHING to fit the Kedahs when called for! If there’s a shooting war tomorrow, what are we going to do with the Kedahs, and what would be the role that can be completed with mere sensors and 76mm and 30mm guns?
As you rightly mention the hi-lo mix of the MRCA and LCA? Would you accept the F-50 with all the latest bells and whistles but only armed with guns?
…. – a mostly new fleet would also reduce the maintenance requirements significantly“
Yes it would. Achieving and maintaining greater communality by reducing the footprint and sticking to Western sourced gear rather than then going for non Western stuff (as the RMN intends to do) would also go a very long way.
@ azlan
” but the downside it has been found is there’s less people to perform damage control if required ”
for a cheap small ship with small crew like the LMS batch 2, it is better to abandon ship anyway if the ship is terminally damaged (anyway you even do damage control to a say FAC if it is hit by exocet?). it is not like we need to save the ship to save hundreds of sailors.
” if the ship intercepts a foreign trawler or ship of immigrants ”
The FCS 5509 can be sailed by just 3 persons actually. so you have 19 other persons available to do VBSS and commandeer a foreign trawler.
@ hornet_lover
Its better to spend those little budget that we have to actually buy a real frigates rather than pouring money to arm those kedah’s. even fully armed, it won’t stand a chance in high intensity conflicts. as it is, it is a great OPV, and lets leave it at that. Removing the CMS and other electronic systems when it is obsolete and pass the ship to MMEA as a basic OPV would be the best course of action for those kedah class.
Yes we need a hi-lo surface warship combo. but a hi-lo combo of 12x HDF-2600MY frigate (its now 2021 and is a lost cause to save those Gowinds IMO) and 4x Type 31 frigate is what we should aspire for. let OPVs of corvette/frigate size be operated by MMEA.
Hornet Lover – “ have, and you obviously did not get what I was replying to an earlier post”
Actually I did ….
If you care to check; in my previous post I dealt with the issues you raised …. I like the way you go on about me supposedly not seeing things in context merely because I don’t adopt your narrative.
Hornet Lover – “ was stating EVEN IF we’d like to arm the Kedahs, we need to fork out RM 2.4 billions, and that’s the money that we don’t have”
Really? And I clearly stated that it was not a case us having the money but deciding how to best use the money we have in order of priorities.
Hornet Lover – “funny that it’s equipped with all the necessary electronics and only to play a so call ‘secondary wartime role”
Sorry …. Is there a yardstick that ships intended for secondary roles should not be equipped to a high standard?
Hornet Lover – “The only logic left for the FFBNW concept ”
The “logic” in your mind. The main plan was to have them fully fitted out soon after being commissioned but the cash spent to salvage the programme and the need to also focus on other areas meant that the powers that be were later reluctant to fork out the cash needed.
Hornet Lover – “And I think you missed the elephant in the room”
Right. So unlike me you haven’t “missed” anything and haven’t seen anything out of context …
Hornet Lover – “. We have NOTHING to fit the Kedahs when called f”
Decide what you want to discuss rather than obfuscate things. The topic was clearly about the role the class was originally intended to perform, why it was intended to be armed that way it was planned and the roles that were intended for the class ….
Hornet Lover – “? Would you accept the F-50 with all the latest bells and whistles but only armed with guns?”
Obviously not but to remind you; the discussion (if you’d care to look at previous posts) was not centred on “what ifs” but the original plans behind the whole exercise of having the class …
Hornet Lover – “Which was why I called it gunboat”
Called it what floats your ship but it’s a total misnomer to call it a “gunboat” going by the official definition of what constitutes a “gunboat” …
Hornet Lover – “And you said money is not the main issue? Really?”
Yes really. Because you didn’t get it the first time around let me try again. Even if we had the cash; the main issue would not be the actual cost of arming the class but the fact that the RMN would rather use the cash for various things which are more vital – self explanatory really ….
Hornet Lover – “when we go against another navy in SEA?
In what context? You’re generalising. Again : like various other things; the Kedahs (like the LMSs and FACs) are not supposed to be placed in operational circumstances where they will be required to punch above their weight level.
You mentioned “F-50s”. They are also not intended to be placed in situation which places them in a disadvantageous position. In other words; just like how the Kedahs, LMSs and FACs will never operate against more capable ships of a different category; the F-50s will never directly go against MRCAs.
Also; since it’s not the 1950’s or 60’s anymore; it’s things at a “systems level” rather than “platform level” which is the deciding factor. Nothing; not the subs, LCSs or MKMs are intended to operate by themselves ….
Hornet Lover – “especially the term “in an ideal world”.”
Really… I gave you a clear example of other things we could do if “in an ideal world” and I explained why in the “real world” it’s “policy, resources and application which determines why things are done the way they are.
As a caveat (as there seems to be a level of disconnect and you’ve interpreted the facts to suit your narrative); no I don’t believe we got our money’s worth with the class; yes they should have been fully fitted out; yes in a stage on state conflict they won’t be useful against more capable opponents and no we shouldn’t get anymore because of issues inherent with the design but the fact remains they are a product of the period they were conceived and eventhough you find it difficult to grasp; they were intended for specific roles in line with their actual capabilities …
Hornet Lover – “If it’s not, then what was the originally intended role for it”
I have explained in what the intended roles were …
In various statements made by the RMN and Defence Minister during that period (carries by the local press, ADJ and AS&D) it was clearly also explained what the projected peacetime and wartime roles were.
Hornet Lover – “then planners were just too ‘unwise’ to invest into a Mercedes when a Saga can do exactly the same job?”
Firstly; the planners didn’t have a free say in what they wanted. It was the industry and the government. If they had their way the ships would have been commissioned fully fitted out.
Secondly; if you noticed; we tend to gold plate all our big ticket purchases. A driving factor on the part of the end user is the fact that they’ll get a bare fraction of what they need; hence the need to equip what little they have to as high a standard as possible.
Thirdly; the Merc/Saga cliche is often heard but it’s misleading. There’s also nothing to indicate that just because a class is not intended to be a primary combatant; it should have a modest or cheap sensor/electronic fit out …
… – “you even do damage control to a say FAC if it is hit by Exocet”
The whole point of be bringing this up is to point out that DC is labour intensive and that a penalty of having smaller crews means less people for DC.
With the Stark, Sheffield, Inderapura and many other examples more than 1/3 of the crew were involved in DC efforts.
On your question ; obviously DC would only be performed if it’s felt there is a reasonable chance of saving a ship and quite often that’s only known after some level of DC is performed. As you well know; DC could be the result of anything from a mine hit to a collision to running aground.
…. – “. it is not like we need to save the ship to save hundreds of sailors”
We need to make all efforts to save the ship because it’s a national asset and assets are scarce and take time to replace.
… – “The FCS 5509 can be sailed by just 3 persons actually. so you have 19 other persons”
On paper maybe bit in reality it will never work that way. 3 people to “sail” but others are needed to maintain watch; amongst other things.
That’s also assuming we get the FCS 5609; as it stands a big issue when taking over ships is that the CO has to allocate men for the seized ship.
Hornet Lover – “But with 76mm? Shore bombardment???
Hmm…”
Your turn to look at the context …
NGFS was never on the top of our list. The Super Rapid was the only gun integrated with COSYS at a time when the RMN had not decided what was to be the calibre of its main gun; the fact that the Laksamanas were armed with Rapid played a part; notwithstanding the Bofors Mk2s on the Lekius.
Also; following the retirement of the Compacts the Super Rapids were the only guns with sufficient range and bang for NGFS in the off chance we needed to.
Again – the modest fit out planned for the Kedahs was due to their planned secondary role which did not foresee the need for anything heavier. Precisely why I mentioned that if a 2nd RAM mount was added (which you mentioned) it would first depend on the threat environment the class was expected to operate in..
… – “ won’t stand a chance in high intensity conflicts. as it is”
Yes but that’s not the issue.
The issue is they are not intended to be placed in a situation where they have to punch above their weight level and if they were deployed in a high risk environment; they obviously would be operating alongside other assets.
Same goes with the LCAs or Adnans; it’s like saying they are great but “ won’t stand a chance in high intensity conflicts” in which they respectively has to operate alone (when nothing should be alone) against MRCAs and MBTs. Both are not intended to be placed in such a situation and both would not be operating alone.
Even a 6,000 tonne frigate with a cell VLS and 16 SSMs would face an issue of operating alone in “a high intensity conflict”. It also depends on what type of “high intensity conflict”.
@Hornet Lover
Am not sure what’s ur beef with Kedahs and attempts to compare with Damen 1800 class. IINM this Damen type didn’t exist when the Mekos were selected way back in 1997.
Look, the Damens, while it is a good OPV boat for low threat environments, has no place during war time conflict. Fully armed Kedahs OTOH was planned to support our frigates on the frontline. That was the plan, now the LMS class are to fulfill this role.
These are books worth reading and should be on the reading list of every RMN officer.
“Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat” (Hughes)
“Network Centric Warfare”
How Navies Learned To Fight Smarter Through 3 World Wars (Friedman)
“Anti Access Warfare” Countering A2/AD Strategies (Tangredi)
Most of what’s mentioned is applicable to us; merely in slightly different contexts.
About a dozen yards competed for the NGOPV programme – all offered designs comparable in size/displacement.
At that time it was already known that the formation of the MMEA was years away; thus the RMN wanted more than merely having something which could replace the Vospers. The sensor/electronic load out and the plan weapons fit which would have happened had the ships been delivered on time and within budget was a clear reflection of this.
The Kedahs were never intended to be our primary combatants but were intended wartime roles in which they wouldn’t have to meet heavier/better armed enemy units. If there was a chance they would meet such units; they would operate alongside other friendly units – I can’t explain this in a simpler manner.
Amidst talk about “high intensity warfare”; it depends what type – can’t generalise. You can have “high intensity warfare” but still have “low intensity” engagements within the overall “high intensity” conflict and there’s nothing to say that a non primary lightly armed (compared to a frigate) combatant will be unable to perform simply because it’s lightly armed – spurious.
Like other mega national interest plans we had; it was well thought out on paper but actual implementation was highly flawed. As it stands there is zero chance of us getting more Kedahs and for reasons inherent with its design; I’m personally against the idea.
There are other designs far more suitable for a secondary type combatant – what the RMN calls a “LMS” a term which could include a 500 tonne ship to one 5 times the displacement; big doesn’t automatically means unsuitability for littoral work.
Even if the cash were available to arm the Kedahs (anything other than RAM and Exocet is problematic as both are integrated with COSYS and deck space dimensions are for them); the RMN would prefer to spend it on things of far more importance in other of needs – policy, resources and application are factors which drive things in the real world.
Reply
The RAM could be replaced with a 30mm RWS or a stand alone remote launcher for Manpads like the Tetral or Sadral by MBDA. The Oto Melara at the rear could also be replaced with the same weapons as I mentioned above. It will be cheaper of course but then there are other things that need replacing as well
@ azlan
we are specifically talking about bringing confiscated fishing vessels back to port. there is no need for changing watch if the ship is returning to port. This is a picture of the Ocean Warrior stopping illegal chinese fishing vessel in Timor Leste. Or what we could also do is to launch a few FICs to bring additional manpower to man and escort those ships back to port, while the LMS batch 2 FCS 5509 to continue with its patrols.
http://mb.cision.com/Public/14017/2351864/97773b92ef7d6421_org.jpg
… – @we are specifically talking about”
I was specifically talking about manpower being an issue when seizing ships. I’m aware of what the scope of discussion was.
… – “there is no need for changing watch if the ship is returning to port”
You’re assuming. A lot of intercepts occur in the edge of the EEZ. Getting back to base can take a day; especially if weather conditions are bad.
Also; my mention of watch was merely to highlight one of the reasons why a CO would be concerned about having less crew onboard.
Intercepting and seizing ships is a laborious and time consuming task – not popular.
After boarding and checking a ship it has to be brought to shore – the RMN ship has to abort its patrol and allocate men to the ship. If a passing MMEA ship is encountered the ship and crew can be handed over. Once at shore the CO has to make a police report and hand over the ship and crew. Any catch will have to be catalogued and handed over to the police – a lot of paper work. On top of that the CO and some of his crew will later have to appear at court as chief witness.
A CO I spoke to recounted a seizure he took part in. On the way back to Gelang rough sea conditions were encountered (normal in the area) and a certain technical issue faced was harder to fix given that there was a shortage of crews (about 15 men were assigned to a trawler). Along the way another trawler was encountered.
… – “do is to launch a few FICs to bring additional manpower to man and escort those ships back to port@
Depends entirely on where the intercept occurs …… Distance and sea conditions might preclude the use of a FIC.
Marhalim,
I thought the rear gun was a Mauser?
Yes various things can be mounted on the B but it has to be a non deck penetrating system. Personally I see no issues with RAM as a point defence system
Reply
Its an Oto Breda 30mm gun/though the gun itself is made by Mauser. I have no issues with the RAM either just pointing out cheaper but less capable possible replacements. The new generation RWS could also be fitted with missile launchers such as the LMM
@Azlan
Azlan – Really… I gave you a clear example of other things we could do if “in an ideal world” and I explained why in the “real world” it’s “policy, resources and application which determines why things are done the way they are.
I find it funny here because your ‘ideal world’ is not that ideal, in that you’ve not enough money to fully arm the Kedahs, and AT THE SAME TIME get whatever LCS, LMS, MRSS, ASW helicopters and what not. LOL
As for the ‘REAL WORLD’, I know it too well and it’s here for everyone to see. It won’t be more real just because you restate it.
Azlan – “As a caveat (as there seems to be a level of disconnect and you’ve interpreted the facts to suit your narrative); no I don’t believe we got our money’s worth with the class; yes they should have been fully fitted out; yes in a stage on state conflict they won’t be useful against more capable opponents and no we shouldn’t get anymore because of issues inherent with the design but the fact remains they are a product of the period they were conceived and eventhough you find it difficult to grasp; they were intended for specific roles in line with their actual capabilities …”
You seemed to have problem to see others have the ability to understand whatever simple things that you so like to repeat ad-nauseum. Can you be more specific about what facts were interpreted to suit MY narrative? Did I twist the facts? Did I twist and truncate your words just to show your flawed logic?
@Azlan
Azlan – “I have explained in what the intended roles were …
In various statements made by the RMN and Defence Minister during that period (carries by the local press, ADJ and AS&D) it was clearly also explained what the projected peacetime and wartime roles were.”
I think as I said you missed the elephant in the room. ADJ and AS&D explained it with the assumption that the Kedahs at least will have their ‘modest load out’ when time comes, where as you repeated the story here, without considering there’s NOTHING to be installed on the Kedahs under the FFBNW concept. Don’t turn this into the money better spend elsewhere story ya.
Azlan – “Firstly; the planners didn’t have a free say in what they wanted. It was the industry and the government. If they had their way the ships would have been commissioned fully fitted out.
Secondly; if you noticed; we tend to gold plate all our big ticket purchases. A driving factor on the part of the end user is the fact that they’ll get a bare fraction of what they need; hence the need to equip what little they have to as high a standard as possible.
Thirdly; the Merc/Saga cliche is often heard but it’s misleading. There’s also nothing to indicate that just because a class is not intended to be a primary combatant; it should have a modest or cheap sensor/electronic fit out …”
All of us who live long enough and who frequented here know the jerung perkasa story about Mr. Shah, the various defence projects turned fiasco, and why the RMN need to ‘ask for more’. But RMN don’t and shouldn’t ask for something that, in the Kedah class if it has NO USE.
As explained earlier, if you’re as rich as Saudi Arabia, you can use a Ferrari as a school bus. But you’re not. As in your third point, what good would it be if it’s fitted with all the sensors with NOTHING to shoot? Play simulator games?
@joe – Am not sure what’s ur beef with Kedahs and attempts to compare with Damen 1800 class. IINM this Damen type didn’t exist when the Mekos were selected way back in 1997.
I was pulling it out of the back of my head as an example for patrol vessels of similar size, but lightly armed. If you insist, then I’d replace it with Marikh and Musytari.
@joe – Look, the Damens, while it is a good OPV boat for low threat environments, has no place during war time conflict. Fully armed Kedahs OTOH was planned to support our frigates on the frontline. That was the plan, now the LMS class are to fulfill this role.
LMS is nowhere near the capability of the Meko, at the very least the ability to take damage and sea control on the virtue that its’ at least 3 times the tonnage. If the LMS is to fulfill the second fiddle role it’s due to the circumstances and never due to it being the optimal choice.
Just maybe think it in another way, if you have 6×650 tonnes LMSs all wired up with western sensors and electronics, you’ve 6 RAMS and 12 exocets missiles, where do you want to install them to?
Hornet Lover – “You seemed to have problem to see others have the ability to understand whatever simple things that you so like to repeat ad-nauseum”
Self serving and rich. Me with the “problem”, me who can’t see things in “context” and me who fails to see the “elephant in the room” … never mind that these points are subjective and debatable.
Hornet Lover – “at you so like to repeat ad-nauseum”
If you don’t like it : tough kitties ..
I’ll repeat what I want to repeat if I think there’s need to and if it’s pertinent to the subject/discussion.
Hornet Lover – “Did I twist the facts”
Who said you did? I did say you’ve obfuscating things and implying that you’re steering the discussion in another direction. I’ll also say (again) you’re ignoring things that don’t fit in your narrative when presented with “facts” which you don’t agree with are presented but I mentioned nothing about “twisting” words.
You keep harping about the class not being useful in a safe on state conflict because they are not armed : I agreed. You spoke about the class being too lightly armed (if fully fitted out) : I pointed out that they were intended to operate in certain situations and that anyhow; we are in a “systems centric” era rather than a “platform” one.
You asked what the wartime roles were : you were told. You talked about what FFBNW really entails : you were told. You expressed your opinions about arming the class : others gave/shared their opinions.
To remind you : I merely (again) gave the rationale behind having the class and why they were fitted out the way they were. I also pointed out that when it comes to arming them; the pertinent question really is not whether the cash is worth it or if we have it (obviously if we thought it was a priority we’d get the cash) but whether it was an optimum use of the cash; given that there are other more vital areas in need of funding.
Having said all that; you seem to know better because you see things in “context”, see the “elephant in the room”, don’t present “flawed reasoning, don’t have a “problem”and don’t repeat yourself.
Hornet Lover – “ADJ and AS&D explained it with the assumption that the Kedahs at least will have their ‘modest load out’ when time comes”
What I said was that the RMN and the defence press clearly stated the roles the class were not intended to perform … full stop/period. This was in reference to you asking about the roles they were intended to perform.
And yes (I assumed – mistakenly – you’d see the obvious); those roles were on the assumption they were fully fitted out. So why make something out of nothing?
Hornet Lover – “Don’t turn this into the money better spend elsewhere story ya”
Oh I will “ya” …….
Cash that can be used to arm the Kedahs will be better spent on other things; namely follow on LMSs; helos, getting the LCSs moving and replacing soon to be time expired stuff. At this point arming the Kedahs will be a drain on scare resources.
Hornet Lover – “fully arm the Kedahs, and AT THE SAME TIME get whatever LCS, LMS, MRSS, ASW helicopters and what not. LOL”
Which is precisely why the RMN is not seeking to arm them at this juncture; because it has other priorities and why I didn’t suggest we arm them … “LOL”
Yet you’d mention this for some unknown reason when nobody said otherwise or disagreed. Nobody also disagreed that the class should originally have been fully armed. “LOL”
Thus (again) me pointing out (in a previous post) that the pertinent question was whether we should arm them at this juncture. You on the other hand went on another track detailing the costs and whether we had the cash.
anybody can ask questions. what we should do is to offer answers.
anyway another graphic of 15 to 5. now with just 2 MRSS instead of original 3.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FUj7MD1lnO4/YAvNiZ5K5JI/AAAAAAABSVU/zT-QhbjfcZgIv4bI18cYxw2Vv4tkHyZBQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1238/RMN%2BFuture%2BFleet_2.png
to have 12 frigates and 18 OPVs, with big manpower and systems maintenance opex costs, would need an opex more than double of the current opex.
the want of OPVs/kedah class to be fully armed will have high maintenance costs.
manpower if each frigate and OPV needs lets say 100 person, that is already 3000 personnel. Add 45 persons each for 18 LMS (with the want of a bigger LMS for future batches), that is additional 810 personnel, for a total of 3810.
My plan for 12 HDF2600MY + 4 Type 31 + 16 LMS2 FCS5509 would need around 1900 personnel only.
Still another question that is not answered. Why do we need a total of 38 large OPVs (on top of 12 frigates) as laid out in both TLDM 15 to 5 plan and MMEA PPSMM2040 ? Do we need a total of 38 OPVs (no , as most calculations put thr number at 20), or is it just a matter of no planning coordination at all between TLDM and MMEA (the most likely answer)?
Hornet Lover – “It won’t be more real just because you restate it.”
Sorry to beak it to you but it’s a two way street : you can keep harping on certain things and conflate things (like my reference to official statements made in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s on the intended wartime roles and the fact that at present cash is better spent on other things rather than arming them – both two related things which you conflated in your previous post) all you like but it’s isn’t fling to be factual no matter how many times it’s said …
Hornet Lover – “it’s fitted with all the sensors with NOTHING to shoot? Play simulator games”
Sarcasm …
You’re talking based on hindsight; going off tangent when the initial discussion was in another direction.
RMN planners had no oracle or crystal ball (my turn at sarcasm after you); thus has no way of knowing that the programme would incur huge overruns and delays; leading to politicians later being reluctant to allocate the funds needed to arm the class.
Yet you make it sound like it was preordained or preplanned to equip the class to a high standard of electronics/sensors but not to fully arm them – nothing could be further from the truth.
@Marhalim, I’ve 4 other posts that went down the drain. Am I being censored?
Reply
Of course
…
Operational expenditure/support costs is also a major issue for the MMEA. A major problem is its large footprint on account of having so many types of ships – hopefully over the next few years it can achieve a higher level of commonality.
It’s for this reason that the MMEA will resist any attempts to given the Kedahs (not that I think it will happen); maintenance/support costs will be a major issue. Not to mention that even stripped of its sensors and other gadgets; they will be an overkill for the MMEA.
On top of its existing problems; there is also a need for an improved shore infrastructure.
Amidst all the talk about the Kedahs; just occurred to me that although Marikh and Mystari were cheaply build; we spent quite a bit in them; a decent radar (DA-05), ESM, 2 trackers (one for the Emerlec) and a 100mm Compact.
Both were pretty worn out when transferred to the MMEA.
Azlan – “Which is precisely why the RMN is not seeking to arm them at this juncture; because it has other priorities and why I didn’t suggest we arm them … “LOL””
Do you have any problem in understanding what I wrote about ‘in an ideal world’? You seemed not to understand it.
Azlan – “Yet you’d mention this for some unknown reason when nobody said otherwise or disagreed. Nobody also disagreed that the class should originally have been fully armed. “LOL””
I think you’re the lone guy who can’t get what I meant. You said some well known thing and make it sounded like I need to learn it from you.
Azlan – “Thus (again) me pointing out (in a previous post) that the pertinent question was whether we should arm them at this juncture. You on the other hand went on another track detailing the costs and whether we had the cash.”
Please, please, read carefully my first reply together with the FULLY quoted text, I was replying to another post, as I said repeatedly. And is this thread OWNED by you that the ‘track’ must be determined by you?
Why do we need a total of 38 large OPVs (on top of 12 frigates) as laid out in both TLDM 15 to 5 plan and MMEA”
Actually the answer has long been there.
The RMN does not see those follow on Kedahs as “OPVs”per see; although some are too fixated on the term and assume that just because the Kedahs were designated “OPVs”/“NGOPs” that they and follow on ones are intended to perform mainly “OPV” roles per see. This is not the case.
For me; (we’ve discussed this before; including with “AM”); the pertinent question is why both the LMS and follow Kedahs when ideally (to lower the footprint) it can be performed by a single class. Academic anyway as zero chance follow on Kedahs will ever be ordered.
…. – “a matter of no planning coordination at all between TLDM and MMEA (the most likely answer”
Both agencies are in tight competition with one another to gain funding. Both believe each understands certain things better and that does certain things better.
The RMN sees itself as having to divert resources doing the MMEA’s job; no fault of the MMEA as it’s the politicians who haven’t done their duty of providing adequate funding.
The MMEA sees itself as having broke free from the RMN’s shadow; from the period when the MMEA was initially staffed by seconded and transferred RMN people who introduced an RMN way of doing things. There was a lot of tension and to an extent still is.
Should there be better coordination/synchronisation between the RMN/MMEA : yes. Same also applies to the services within the MAF.
On the 5/15 I wouldn’t put too much focus on what it contains; it was a PR driven exercise driven by various factors; internal and external. The RMN had no illusions that it would come to fruition and a lot of what was included was based on circumstances a few years ago and is no longer part of it; irrespective of whether it has been officially dropped or not.
Within the RMN itself there wasn’t a common consensus (the main force behind it was the then service Chief) and the present leadership is not very enthusiastic about it.
Certain things in the 5/15 were there to keep the politicians and bureaucrats happy. Politics. Same reason why certain things weren’t addressed and why it was dragged over such a long period.
@ hornet lover
” maintenance/support costs will be a major issue ”
It has high maintenance costs due to the need to maintain the CMS, radar and EO/Fire Control Radars (FCR) in opesational condition, that is way more than what is needed by the ship. With all those things taken out, and the FCR could be reused on future frigates (the FCR is the same as those bought for the Gowinds), the operational and maintenance costs would drop significantly.
Without all the expensive sensors, the kedah class is similar in size and capability as the MMEA Damen OPV1800.
Reply
Nope the FCR cannot be reused
Hornet Lover – “You said some well known thing and make it sounded like I need to learn it from you.”
Not to piss on your parade but as mentioned in a previous post; my mention of certain things was to emphasise points related to the discussion.
It was not to teach you anything (that self serving notion exists only in your mind); which by the looks of things is totally unneeded as you seem to have figured out everything by yourself.
Hornet Lover,
OH! Goodness me. I’m sorry …
To refresh your memory; the discussion started off by a talk on arming the Kedahs (yes I know you responded to another post). Since you spoke about putting things in “context” let’s do so.
To again refresh your memory (after all you alone understand things); I touched on issues relating to arming the class and I also pointed out the wartime roles it was expected to perform (which you were apparently or seemingly hazy about). I also touched in other issues which you brought up: such as the “FFBNW” thing and issues related to RAM.
In a previous post I also pointed out that you were basing things on hindsight; that it wasn’t preordained that the class wouldn’t be fully fitted out – it was due to circumstances and yes it wasn’t an ideal situation. Again : the initial plan was to fully arm the class. Yet you gave the false impression that it was and thar I was alright with it – in your mind o doubt.
But then since you alone “understand”: can see things in “context”, don’t present “flaws” facts and can see the “elephant in the room” (all your quotes – telling really and self serving); there’s really no point telling you things that you’re apparently well acquainted with.
… – “It has high maintenance costs due to the need to maintain”
Not only that. If they are ever transferred; they will already have served for several years and issues related to age and high mileage (which a refit can mitigate but not totally) and does lead to maintenance issues later; which in turn leads to extra costs and ships spending less time at sea.
Having long operated a very mix fleet: some several decades old; the MMEA will be very conscious of the need to keep support/maintenance costs as low as possible; same with commonality.
In the long run it’s makes far more sense for the MMEA to just receive follow on batches of its existing OPVs; rather than an aged one with zero commonality to what it has.
Also; the whole idea of the Kedahs going to the MMEA (which the MMEA will resist anyhow) is based on the premise that the RMN gets sufficient hulls to the extent that it can willingly do away with the Kedahs . Unlikely to happen anytime soon; by the time it happens the Kedahs will have even more mileage on them.
… – “as the MMEA Damen OPV1800.”
Yes but its a much newer hull which by virtue of that will be less maintenance intensive compared to the Kedah.
Azlan – “(obviously if we thought it was a priority we’d get the cash)”
Trust me, this is sincere, if there’s a choice for us to choose a Defence minister or finance minister, I’d definitely vote for you! How I wish money grow on trees.
@ … – ” @ hornet lover maintenance/support costs will be a major issue ”
Just to avoid confusion, the above statement, and the subsequent statement and reasoning is not from me.
I understand your proposed idea to transfer the Kedahs to the MMEA.
At its’ current state, the Kedahs with the sensors and electronics are nothing but glorified gunboats. MMEA doesn’t need that. But I don’t know if the maintenance cost of the Kedahs will be lower without the electronics compare to the Damen. I’d think that this Mercedes is still more expensive to maintain compare to, say the Honda Accord (Damen)
I’d take a different approach. Since they’re built to a higher standard, and since RMN/MMEA can’t get rid of them, we might as well arm them. Instead of arming all 6 we could choose to arm ‘some’ of them. Just make sure we choose something that’s common with what we might install in whether LMS 2 or whatever new class of ship. In this case it’s RAM and Exocet. However there’ll be problem if these weapons are not the top choice for LMS 2.
@Hornet Lover
“never due to it being the optimal choice.”
Of course not. It is a ship class expected to replace multiple function types of legacy ships. ‘Jack of trades, master of none’ fits aptly, but that is the workaround that TLDM has devised to work within the constraints they have.
Whatever weapons fit out you foresee can be mounted as a mission payload, provided that capability is desired by TLDM, such modules have been developed, and bought in sufficient numbers.
Hornet Lover – “ if there’s a choice for us to choose a Defence minister or finance minister, I’d definitely vote for you”
Hip hip hooray ……….
Hornet Lover – “How I wish money grow on trees”
And how desirable if leprechauns and the tooth fairy would grace us with their presence.
You have the gall to insist others (not you naturally) can’t see things in “context” and can’t “understand” things yet ..
My ““(obviously if we thought it was a priority we’d get the cash)” statement was self explanatory which really left no doubt as to its intended meaning; especially when viewed in context with was was mentioned before that statement.
(1) Arming the Kedahs is not a priority as we’d rather spend the cash elsewhere (2) If arming the Kedahs was a priority then obviously we’d cut back on other areas and use the cash for the specific purpose of arming the Kedahs; thus my “obviously if we thought it was a priority we’d get the cash)” statement which is self pretty self explanatory ….
Having Azlan as Mindef wouldn’t do much as he would still have to ask Mahathir for the cash and he would also probably have to pass the contracts to his cronies too.
Reduce the power of the PM, introduce the technocrats and take out the businessmen in government, then probably we would have a more efficient administration
ASM,
The highly flawed way we handle defence is unfortunately a reflection of many things plaguing the country. To really change things we have to have an honest appraisal of where we’ve erred and a genuine desire to change things.
The rot is so deeply ingrained that there are no fast and easy solutions. Not only is there insufficient funds for defence but what funds we have are not put to optimum use. One of the various issues is the part the local industry plays; under the illusion of self sufficiency.