Its LUNAS!

SHAH ALAM: Lumut Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd on January 24 formerly announced that it’s acronym should be LUNAS instead of LNS. The new name came from its rebranding from Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS). The company is now a MOF Incorporated company.

The release:

Lumut, Perak, Malaysia – 24 January 2024: Lumut Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (LUNAS), formerly known as Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (BNS), announces a significant rebranding activity, marking a new era of maritime and defence excellence. This strategic move reflects LUNAS’ commitment to re-align with its stakeholders’ objectives and values, setting sail for a trajectory of accelerated growth.

Driven by a vision to be a trusted partner for innovative solutions, LUNAS’ rebranding goes beyond aesthetics. It’s a meticulously crafted strategy designed to navigate the dynamic tides of the maritime industry. LUNAS remains an unwavering pillar for national security through naval shipbuilding, while expanding its horizons for comprehensive maritime services.

LUNAS embodies the essence of our brand, and the company’s dedication to nation building and uncompromising excellence in every endeavours.

Fuelled by a legacy of success and a dynamic spirit, LUNAS remains committed to supporting Malaysia’s maritime ambitions. The company pledges to uphold the highest standards of excellence, delivering innovative solutions that meet the evolving needs of the industry and its clients.

About Lumut Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (LUNAS):

LUNAS is a leading player in the Malaysian maritime and defence industries, boasting a rich heritage and an unwavering commitment to technological advancement. The company specializes in naval shipbuilding and a range of maritime services, serving as a trusted partner and delivering excellence since 1991.

It is interesting to note that the literal translation to English of Lunas is settle. Let us hope the company and its personnel settled its debt to the taxpayers, RMN and the nation by completing the LCS project. Whether or not the taxpayers feels that the company had settled its debt by completing the project, is beyond me.

And will be the final cost or damage? My current calculation is that the LCS project will cost around RM14 billion. And it could go higher when the dust finally settles.

–Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2186 Articles
Shah Alam

64 Comments

  1. The write up is factually wrong. Its a brand new start up ( unless of course BNS is still managing it) n so cant make claims of past success. Anyway, what past success?.
    The whole exercose is a waste of time n money. Why do we start where we left off again?. Who is going to manage it?. Who is going to make sure the project is completed successfully?. Why do we need to reinvent the wheel?. We have a burgeoning ship building industry in Sarawak. The Sarawakian yards had won international tenders n delivered on time on budget. Just invite one of the bigger yards to complete the project n rent the lumut yard from Boustead.
    This new entity w9nt do any better than the old entity

  2. lmao the name and tagline are full of irony. Either they’re tone deaf or whoever did this made it as an inside joke

  3. Lunas, Kedah was also where PKN (before renamed PKR) got its first electoral win, so I guess its fated to be named as such by the PH Govt?

  4. Shahren – “This a joke ‘Fuelled by a legacy of success and a dynamic spirit’

    Before it got into the ship construction business the Naval Dockyard’s primary business was refits and it did that fairly well.

  5. Lee – “ Why do we start where we left off again”

    Ok. What do you suggest? We write it off and – to use an Americanism – start from scratch? Sell all the hulls for scrap and recycle what we can? How long do you reckon this whole exercise wil take?

    Whilst we’re at it; shut down what use to be known as BNS; never mind that it’s the largest naval refit yard in the country and located within the country’s main naval base?

    Great for the Sarawakian yards but are you saying that with the right management; no political interference; with the right oversight and with an achievable/realistic schedule that no local yard west of the South China Sea can deliver within budget; on schedule and on specification? What we really should be doing is making a concentrated and apoltical effort ensuring another cockup of this magnitude doesn’t reoccurr. To much to ask I guess.

  6. @Shahren
    They prolly meant the “legacy of success and a dynamic spirit” of PKR(PKN) which started their path to eventually ruling way back in Lunas, Kedah. So calling it LUNAS is apt, no?

  7. “start from scratch?”
    That would be a very bad idea. Additional time to restart all the back is one thing, we have spent 6Bil on this and even if we can recoup 3Bil that leaves us needing to foot another 11-13Bil more for a restart, as compared to spending an extra 5-6Bil to complete 6 LCS.

    Even so with a restart, who can guarantee similar shit will not happen again?

  8. From PSC to BNS to LUNAS.
    Repeat the same action and hopping different result is stupid.
    The problem’s root is not the shipyard but political issue in procurement.

    Joe:”Even so with a restart, who can guarantee similar shit will not happen again?”

    No restart. After NGPV and LCS cases,building a warship locally is worse than import it directly.

    ” as compared to spending an extra 5-6Bil to complete 6 LCS.”

    Fincantieri is offering their thaon di revel to indonesia only 700-800 million euro for 2 ship.
    Yes, it is worth stop the LCS.

  9. @Romeo
    “After NGPV and LCS cases,building a warship locally is worse than import it directly.”
    We have just as much problems with CBU ships. Remember the Laksamanas?

  10. @ Romeo

    ” Yes, it is worth stop the LCS ”

    I beg to differ.

    Whatever it is we do moving forward, we have spent RM6 billion in the Gowind project, which we will not recover if we stop the project.

    Current estimate to complete 5 Gowinds is to spend RM5 billion more. So the estimate of RM6 billion (around USD1.27 billion) to complete 6 is about there.

    If we are to stop the LCS project now, 0 Gowinds will be completed. Then spending 800 million Euro (about RM4.1 billion) just to get 2 thaon di revel OPV/Frigate. 400 million euro each price is for the lowest spec OPV version, with almost everything FFBNW. The thaon di revel also uses gas turbines, do we have the operational budget to fuel up such a thirsty ship?

    I would prefer spending RM6 billion to get 6 Gowinds, compared to RM4.1 billion to get just 2 thaon di revel OPV.

  11. Sure we also have problems with CBU ships but at least the ship are there not stuck in the yard for what 7 years now..need at least 2 years more to complete the first one..That too if we are lucky enough (which pardon my pesimistic tone i highly doubt it).Imagine it take almost 10 years to complete a single 111m ship.If that predicament are not considered a failure i dont know what is

  12. Dont get me wrong.I really like the Gowind design for our LCS program ( the ship overall design,stealthness,radars,sensors and armament ) i really do but we tend to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.No wonder our Navy readiness are below 60 percent now compared to proposed 75 percent readiness.

  13. @ joe

    The laksamana’s are left unused for more than 10 years before we bought them in the 90s. It is filled with obsolete early 80s electronics when we first used them.

  14. Romeo “Fincantieri is offering their thaon di revel to indonesia only 700-800 million euro for 2 ship.
    Yes, it is worth stop the LCS.”

    Its doesn’t matter what ship it is, whose the designer or who get to build it. it is always a cheaper to buy an off the shelf product then a customise one of a kind product.

    Just look at the hunter class and her Canadian sister, buying British ship then putting american system and effector mean paying 300% more per ship.

    So even if you go around and buy thaon di revel but then put Essm & NSM on it then it won’t be 800 mil anymore.

    Another option is to just thaon di revel it as it is. But doing so mean we like before would have a zoo of effector & equipment with no economics of scale whatsoever.

  15. @Firdaus
    “Imagine it take almost 10 years to complete a single 111m ship”
    Nonsense. It took that long because our ever revolving Governments sat their hands on making a decision to continue, instead they turn it into a political shitshow throwing accusations at each other while the works remain unfinished. If PH1.0 had pumped in the 5-6 Bil that the current PH2.0 decided it needed to be done anyways, the project would have gone smoother baring of course Covid & lockdowns that caused even further delays.

    The ship design is not the problem nor do we lack the technical capability nor facility to make such high tech ships; the failure was onset the ridiculous expectations from then Govt we could make all 6 here, the unrealistically low budget for these 6 high tech warships which got further cut to upgrade BNS, the overconfidence & lack of understanding by BNS to con everyone that they could actually design, and meddling by so many various parties with vested interest. Any of these would have doomed a build even if done overseas. Mind you even they are not infallible (see the QE carriers fiasco).

  16. Joe:”We have just as much problems with CBU ships. Remember the Laksamanas?”

    It was for iraqi but later we bought it and asked for modification. Remember the nakhoda ragam class built for brunei which later bought by TNI? No problem.

    “The ship design is not the problem nor do we lack the technical capability nor facility to make such high tech ships;”

    The LCS blue print is not 100% approved by Naval. It is a modification one, no one knows how it will perform. By executing an unapproved design we have technical problem and management issue.

    Hulubalang:”Whatever it is we do moving forward, we have spent RM6 billion in the Gowind”

    By camceling it, it is moving forward. Didnt you see we keep on moving from delay to another delay with LCS project?

    “400 million euro each price is for the lowest spec OPV version, with almost everything FFBNW. The thaon di revel also uses gas turbines,”

    Nope, the offer is for the later ship. The first ship is the light one. The engine is CODAG not COGAG. The gas turbine is used to dash and reach its 31 knots top speed, for cruising using the diesel only. It is not FFBNW, nobody will buy it, steel is cheap. TNI will go for another batch of fully armed AH140 for 400 mio euro.

    Zaft:” it is always a cheaper to buy an off the shelf product then a customise one of a kind product.”

    No customization needed for thaon di revel. So it is cheap enough.

  17. There was no modification to the Laksamana apart from perhaps the installation of radios and the actual weapons. Never work right from the start.

  18. After all LCS is done i would go for Sigma 11515 for air defense frigates with at least 32 VLS silos..After all,RMN want sigma design in the first place or that claim is just an unverified assumption? Sigma 12516 maybe to big for us with more than 64 vls silos

  19. For LCS requirement right? that already fullfilled by LCS gowind..Or does navy also want the same design for their LCS batch 2 if any?..So its true then the navy really want that sigma 10516/martadinata class for LCS in the first place?

  20. Romeo “The LCS blue print is not 100% approved by Naval. It is a modification one, no one knows how it will perform. By executing an unapproved design we have technical problem and management issue.”

    Technically that’s the navy fault. They wanted bigger ship to carry more personal then go ahead and delete the automation. They also the one wanted a different SSM, SAM & CMS.

    ” No customization needed for thaon di revel. So it is cheap enough.”.

    Then you’ll have a zoo of a navy with with different classes having different effector, CMS etc etc. Which sounds cool on paper and would stroke nationalistic pride but in reality a mess with high sustainment cost and inefficiency. Basically a good choice if the country intend to have a paper tiger.

  21. AFAIK LCS 2 should be in the same class/specifications as the LCS. Of course if the LCS project was going smoothly batch 2 would be ordered already. Now it is unlikely they will order the LCS Batch 2 from the same design. So it will be a similar ship but a different one design altogether.

  22. @ marhalim

    The original plan and requirement in 15 to 5 released in 2018; is to have 12x LCS aka 12x Gowind.
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Presentation1.jpg

    The plan was to have :
    1x LCS in RMK11 (2016-2020)
    5x LCS in RMK12 (2021-2025)
    4x LCS in RMK15 (2036-2040)
    1x LCS in RMK16 (2041-2045)

    Well that was the original plan. Due to constant change of requirements and political instability, the Gowind project was considerably delayed. Currently only 5 Gowinds are paid-for and will be commissioned between 2026-2029. As late as a few months ago there was a big possibility that the LCS Gowind project could be scrapped altogether, and predictably TLDM changed the LMS Batch 2 requirements to cover that possibility.

    Planning to build frigates to exact same requirements as 2018 in 2036 (nearly 2 decades into the future) is silly at best. Even after less than 5 years they radically changed the LMS specifications, which is by now a corvette that is 3-4x the displacement of the original chinese-built LMS (1800-2400 tons vs 600 tons).

    As of now, nobody in our neighborhood is building a new frigate that is smaller than the Gowinds. Even Philippines Navy new “Corvette” is bigger than the Gowinds!!!

    New frigate plans in ASEAN
    – Philippines >>> Hyundai HDC-3100 corvette x2
    118.4m, 3200 ton displacement
    planned commissioning 2025

    – Indonesia >>> Fregat Merah Putih (Arrowhead 140) x2
    140m, 6000 ton displacement
    planned commissioning 2026

    – Singapore >>> Multi-Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) x6
    OMT-design based on Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead 140
    planned commissioning 2028

    Why are they larger? Because of the greater threat perception (than previous) and the need to carry more weapons and unmanned systems

    Why do we also need larger frigates? Why do i prefer the Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead 140 design?
    – need to replace KD Kasturi, KD Lekir, KD Jebat and KD Lekiu in 2031-2040. At the time, KD Kasturi and KD Lekir are more than 45-55 years old, and KD Jebat and KD Lekiu 30-40 years old without significant upgrades done to them.
    – the need to carry more missiles, better radars and other sensors, helicopters, UAS, USV and UUV, and longer range/endurance than the Gowinds.
    – Arrowhead 140 can carry 2x the missiles, 2x the guns, 2x rigid inflatable boats, 2x the helicopter hangar space compared to the Gowind.
    – fully diesel engine powered, which is fuel saving and lower operating cost.
    – cost similar to current gowinds
    – commonality with Royal Navy (Type 31), Singapore (MRCV) and Indonesia (Fregat Merah Putih).

    My suggestion for TLDM 20 year plan to 2040

    RMK 12 2021-2025 (USD2.0 bil)
    – LCS Gowind 1.15 Project continue (assume balance RM5.2bil need to be budgeted in RMK12)
    – LCS Gowind 0.125 Assembly cost for 6th Gowind (KD Mat Kilau, a name we should never leave out)
    – 13 FIC batch 2 0.03 Gading G2000 MkII FIC
    – 12 LMS-X Damen FCS5009 0.4 including surface attack missile module.
    – 3 70-80m OSV 0.1 auxillary ship, MCM mothership, SF support, SUB support, UAS support, pipeline security/surveillance
    – 5 AW139 MUH batch 2 0.1
    – 4 RQ-21A Blackjack UAV (used) 0 4systems of 5airframe each. ex USMC retired. Free US EDA
    – total USD1.905 billion

    RMK 13 2026-2030 (USD2.0 bil)
    – 1 Scorpene Evolved SSK 0.6 assembled in Sepanggar
    – 12 LMS-X damen FCS5009 0.4 including surface attack missile module.
    – 2 Fast RORO (used) 0.04 replacement for MPCSS. Similar concept to Spanish Navy Ysabel
    – 1 Fleet tanker 0.09 replacement of BM5, BM6. STM Turkiye fleet tanker 17,000 ton. MMHE
    – top up NSM and VL MICA NG missiles 0.3
    – 8 SH-60J Seahawk 0.2 ex-JMSDF airframe + new avionics, radar, sonar
    – 2 MCM modular system set 0.15
    – 6 ASW module for LMS-X 0.12 KraitSense system / Sea Serpent system
    – total USD1.9 billion

    RMK 14 2031-2035 (USD2.4 bil)
    – 1 Scorpene Evolved SSK 0.6 assembled in Sepanggar
    – 2 Arrowhead 140 Frigate 1 Kasturi Class replacement
    – 1 Fleet tanker 0.09 replacement of BM5, BM6. STM Turkiye fleet tanker 17,000 ton. MMHE
    – top up LMS-X surface attack module missiles 0.3
    – 2 MCM modular system set 0.15
    – UAS, USV project 0.2
    – total USD2.34 billion

    RMK 15 2036-2040 (USD2.4 bil)
    – 2 Scorpene SSK 1.2 assembled in Sepanggar
    – 2 Arrowhead 140 Frigate 1 Lekiu class replacement
    – 30 FIC replacement 0.1 For PASKAL SF support, replacement CB90, G2000
    – total USD2.3 billion

    TLDM 2040 Fleet
    6x Scorpene SSK
    4x Arrowhead 140 Frigate
    6x Gowind Frigate
    24x LMS-X Damen FCS5009
    30x FIC
    2x Fleet Tanker
    2x Fast RORO
    3x OSV support
    1x Sub Rescue (leased)
    8x SH-60J ASW
    8x AW139 MUH
    RQ-21 Blackjack UAV
    MQ-27 Scaneagle UAV

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8tFa6KbgAEkcfq.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8IncFcaEAAJytG.jpg

  23. Huh? So considering our tight budget (most of navy budget will go to LCS), we doesnt need to go the way our neighbours going then?..start small and getting bigger ships from time to time?..Im not obsessing
    about ships size here just asking cuz we all knew indonesia currently building 5000+ tonnes ah140,next our southern neighbour will kick start their close to 10000 tonnes MRVC dubbed the drone mothership in near future..im asking purely just for the sake of discussion here from fellow enthusiast

  24. So if its up to you what your suggestion or preferred design for LCS batch 2,if any? Go for AH140 like the indonesia would boost our presence for sure but the question now whether the navy wants them and we can afford them or not

  25. And i guess newer french design like FTI/FDI/Belharra will be out of the question as they will cost at least twice as much compared to LCS

  26. There was no change of requirements for the LCS, the changes made were just for the weapons being procured, the navy wanted ESSM/NSM, BNS wanted the MICA/Exocet combo, in the end Najib ordered the compromise, MICA and NSM. If BNS followed what the navy wanted from the start, the Sigma, again it is pointless to go down that road.

    As for the redesign of the Gowind, it was BNS that had decided on that route so as to meet RMN requirements.

    As for the IPMS and decoy launcher, it was made on the fly as the ones that were supposed to be procured due to delays on getting them (IPMS) and obsolesence issues (decoy). If the change not made to the IPMS, we might still be waiting for it, which would have made the 2019 target date an issue (though in the end due to other issues it did not make it).

    Any shipyard worth its salt would have taken the changes in stride, but as you all know BNS – now Lunas – was never up to it.

  27. But then the Navy doesnt really want that much LMS isnt it? their original 15 to 5 plan only calls for 12 LCS,18 NGPV,18 LMS,3 MRSS and 4 submarines.Unless they combine/merge NGPV and LMS requirement into one modular design,then they need 36 LMS/corvette and opv/patrol type ships.I mean 36 ships is a lot to ask considering our tight budget.Currently we can assume per original 15 to 5 plan,the navy still need 6/7 LCS,12 NGPV,14 LMS ,3 MRSS and 2 more subs to fullfil their plan but ofcourse that will not be the case anymore.So hulubalang base on your suggestion RMN’s current 6 Kedahs and 4 Keris class will be handed to APMM right?

  28. … – “Even Philippines Navy new “Corvette” is bigger than the Gowinds!”

    Which goes back to my point that it’s just a name. One can have a “corvette” better armed than a “frigate” and what would be a “corvette” in one navy would be a “frigate” in another.

    … “1 Fleet tanker”

    A “tanker” transports fuel and an “oiler” enables replenishment at sea. We’ve never had a requirement for an “oiler” and we will likely never have one due to operational reasons related to geography. Superfluous for our needs given that our ships are usually at sea for 2 weeks and carry emergency fuel in case the have to stay on station longer; are never more than 2/3 days sailing time away to the nearest base/port and we hardly ever ever venture out of our waters; nor have an expeditionary role.

    We need an “oiler” like we need a hole in our head. Sure, on paper one can list all the reasons why we need one but then on paper we also need various other things and it’s a question of what we really need given our requirements.

    On a larger hull; let’s also look at the drawbacks. Higher procurement and operating costs [we barely allocate for what little we currently have] and a larger RCS and IR signature; a deeper draught; etc. Do we need larger combatants? Yes but we also need to look at the penalties and not just the plus points. Also, it’s questionable if a main line combatant would need to be fitted with UUVs and USVs; not discounting the value of both though.

    A larger hull enables a larger weapons fit; assuming our threat perceptions and finances require/enable it but as it stands even getting a 16 cell VLS requires lots of convincing and we don’t see the need for a primary combatant to be operating in a highly non permissive environment. A larger hull also enables superior range, endurance [assuming we need it] and seakeeping and a larger hangar means there is more space to work on the helo and store other things.

    Lot of plus points which in turn have to be balanced with threat perceptions; operational requirements and financing.

  29. Don’t know why people refuse to read, preferring bits and pieces and then filling up the blanks with hypotheticals and assumptions. The PAC reports are publicly available and it’s free. Despite the LCS term, it is still known as Second Generation Patrol Vessel (SGPV) – providing historical context on RMN’s preferences. BNS partnered DCNS and proposed Gowind. RMN wanted Sigma. At that time, not today, but back then, Sigma was proven and Gowind was considered a prototype design. As for the larger size, it wasn’t requested by Navy to account for future growth or whatever reason has been floated. RMN wanted a ship similar in class to the NGPV (the original program being called Second Generation PV). RMN’s initial preference was the Sigma 10614, which is a larger version of the 2400t Sigma 10514 – not a 3100t sized ship. Gowind 3100 design is owned by BNS not DCNS/Naval Group. A buyer wanting 3000+ from Naval Group today would have been offered the LaFayette class.

  30. … – “The laksamana’s are left unused for more than 10 years before we bought them in the 90

    A major issue was that it was built for Iraqi requirements: the narrow, confined waters of the Persian Gulf. Poor seakeeping.
    Other issues would include the Aspide/director combo; a Lt. once told me of now the crew had more faith in the main gun.

    Prior to the Laksamanas we had looked at a pair of Lupos; also constructed for Iraq. Luckily we binned the plan.

  31. “So it will be a similar ship but a different one design altogether.”
    Indeed even if LCS1 went on smoothly it is doubtful TLDM will want more the same. In the 1st place, Gowind was not their preferred platform as it was forced onto them by the then BN Govt & BNS, so now with PH at the helm if they see a way to convince the ‘new management’ on the merits of going with Sigma (or another choice of their own) they will surely take it.

    Also the original intention was to get a 2000+Ton corvette but was ‘persuaded’ to upsize to a 3000Ton frigate/LCS, so wanting to go back to a corvette size it would not be a repeat of the bigger LCS.

    And in the case if they want something bigger, there is no other Gowind variant as LCS is the biggest one. Rather than reinventing the wheel with another ship, if we want something that can fit more armament, lets just go with Formidable class.

  32. @Firdaus
    It is nice to always want to go bigger. Who doesnt want a bigger house, a bigger car or a bigger boat? But whether we have a need for them, can afford to buy it, in sufficient numbers that make sense, fully equipped them, man them, and operate them without going bankrupt, is another story.

    Others have bigger budgets and/or stronger economy to afford better things than us. So no need to keep up with the Jones unless it fits into our policy, defence planning, meeting the enduser needs, & not rattling anyones cages. No need to angan taik ayam when others are getting more planes & bigger ships, they do they and we do us.

  33. IF the LCS went smoothly, RMN will be hard pressed to say no to second batch of LCS. It was not persuaded on the extra tonnage, if the Sigma was chosen, it is likely it will go up in tonnage as well as RMN prefer more manpower than automation.

  34. Kel – “Don’t know why people refuse to read, preferring bits and pieces and then filling up the blanks with hypotheticals and assumptions”

    Sounds strikingly familiar that.. Of you perhaps?
    Also are you one of these “people” you routinely and pedantically make reference to.

    Also, you missed the pertinent part of the displacement of the LCS being dictated by the RMN’s operational requirements and the fact that the government would not approve of anything larger or more high end. Contrary to your claim the RMN did not want a ship similar “in class to the NGPV”. How on earth did you conjure that up? It was officially a continuation of sorts of the NGOPV programme but there was a major political bureaucratic element at play and the RMN was looking at a very different ship; hardly the “similar in class” toss you claim. And it’s always useful to have some free deck and below deck space and it enables future growth; look at the add the RSN was able to do with its Formidables.

    BTW paragraphs are not a new invention.

  35. ” RMN’s initial preference was the Sigma 10614, which is a larger version of the 2400t Sigma 10514 – not a 3100t sized ship ”

    ” Also the original intention was to get a 2000+Ton corvette but was ‘persuaded’ to upsize to a 3000Ton frigate/LCS, so wanting to go back to a corvette size it would not be a repeat of the bigger LCS ”

    When people comment without knowing the original context…

    The LCS was originally (before 15to5 even written) to be just a NGPV batch 2, which is to be a fully-armed corvette-sized ship (not unlike the current LMS Batch 2 requirement really). For that original requirement yes TLDM preference was for the SIGMA 10614…

    When the Gowind was chosen, it was actually TLDM idea and persuasion to increase the size and budget for the Gowind to become a Frigate. TUDM persuaded and got the approval from the government for additional budget for the gowind 2500 corvette to become frigate sized.

    Why did TLDM do that? Because their plan for a Frigate (F2000 batch 2) was cancelled by the government in 2009. The Gowind project was approved in early 2011 (for RM6 billion) and by the end of 2011, TLDM got the approval for additional RM3 billion and the 2500 ton Corvette is now morphed into a 3200 ton Frigate. In the end getting approval for 6 rather than just 4 Frigate they originally going to get.

    Why did TLDM insist on ESSM? Because that is what the F2000 batch 2 is supposed to be armed with.

  36. Yeah, Sigma 10614 was a larger version of the standard Sigma 10514, likely incorporating RMN’s redundancies requirement. Gowind 3100 was just plain money grab. In the history of Malaysia’s Naval ship procurement, there has been no upgrades that added more equipment and weaponry to an existing ship, requiring a ship to be larger when delivered for future upgrades – Kedah is basically FFBNW until it retires. Luckily LMS2 will have its SSM while its SAM is for “future upgrades”. Its no different than the MRSS speculation. The 15to5 strategy document says a LHD or LPD meant for amphibious assault missions. The only issue is why would RMN spent on such a MRSS when the Army hasn’t committed to building up the forces required to utilise the dock. Why should RMN spent extra for capabilities no one has committed to utilising? RMN pays extra for a well deck for future upgrades? RMN buys a LHD in the hope Army would buy enough helis to utilise the additional aviation capacity?

  37. If anyone wants a sense on what could happen with the LCS with BNS/LUNAS still leading the design and construction plus the impact of delays, have a read of the JKSTUPKK report on the LCS program where RMN raised some concerns based on NGPV – free from the Parliament PAC website – Paragraph 2.12. MILGEM was one of 6 designs that was initially evaluated by RMN – Paragraph 2.16. EPU / UPE actually proposed a reduction to 5 ships in 2013 – Paragraph 2.33. As to a hint on why it is now 5 ships, the steel kits for the 6th ship was due to arrive in 2019 – Paragraph 6.3.2. To see the RMN equipment original proposal vs. the BNS proposal vs the final equipment – Paragraph 6.1.12. As to whether BNS or Malaysia had the know-how to design the ship, read Paragraph 6.3.11 – that should dispel any notions that Malaysia has such skills. On the 2 options proposed by JKSTUPKK and the possible reason why Option 1 to continue with BNS was chosen, it is in Section 7 also included in the 2022 PAC report page 54. And as to a reason why the Gowind’s size went up, it’s in the 2022 PAC report and it’s not really related to “future upgrades” – page 79.

  38. “IF the LCS went smoothly, RMN will be hard pressed to say no to second batch of LCS”
    Well I dont doubt that since it was redesigned & refitted to fit to TLDMs criteria but if they were to encounter manning issues then the more obvious choice would be smaller ship with lesser crew.

    “Sigma was chosen, it is likely it will go up in tonnage ”
    Perhaps so but likely not to the size of Gowind as the original requirement didnt specify for up to that sizing.

    @hulubalang
    “When people comment without knowing the original context…”
    Indeed this is what written in Wiki: “the SGPV program had been awarded to Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation (BHIC)/Naval Group, with the ceiling price increasing to RM9 billion (US$2.8 billion) from RM6 billion (US$1.9 billion). The RM9 billion (US$2.8 billion) contract included intellectual property rights and technology transfer. The ships’ sizes had also changed in accordance with the increase in ceiling price, increasing from 2,700 tonnes (2,700 long tons) to 3,100 tonnes (3,100 long tons).”
    Clearly the original NPGV requirement was for a 2x00Ton vessel but when the contract was awarded (by the Govt) it was for an enlarged vessel to 3100Ton. Who made that decision? TLDM? Quite obviously not!

    So context is all important here. Not just delusions or presumptions.

  39. @ kel

    What part of TLDM 15to5 plan is obsolete and does not reflect the current requirements and realities that everyone is telling you that you still don’t get?

    No point of discussing why this why that of that document… Just take it as what the navy aspires and accept what they want then sometimes is not something that is relevant right now.

    @ azlan

    Ironic that you commented that it is okay for ppl call ships by different terminology but straight away complain about the “fleet tanker”

    That is the exact terminology that the STM Turkiye design is called, and that is what i describe it as. It is a replenishment oiler whatever its name is.
    https://www.stm.com.tr/en/media/news/pns-moawin-built-stm-pakistan-races-turkiyes-aid

    Why?
    – to be able to do escort/convoy missions of Malaysian flagged merchant ships far from home waters (BM5, BM6 mission)
    – extending endurance of TLDM ships on critical missions, enabling ships to be on station longer.
    – enabling remaining ships to do longer patrols to cover those that are in refit/overhaul.
    – replenishment support of allied or friendly countries sailing in malaysian maritime zone.
    – HADR/MOOTW

  40. @kel

    If we take pot shot at BNS management we indirectly taken the pot shot at RMN as well because BNS management’s is fills with retired navy officers.

    Managerial incompetency is not the same as technical incompetency, while there are technical challenges listed on the reports but most of the reports listed out weakness in decisions making process by all the various actor.

    Personally the LCS seem to follow the same scripts as Jose rizal where A company pushing her products hard thorough legal or illegal mean and if they got their way the accompanying economic of scale mean they get themselves a captured clients for future contracts.

    While not indicated in the reports the decisions makings mess seems to be a a result of attempting corruption rather than due to incompetency.

  41. @Zaft
    “we indirectly taken the pot shot at RMN as well because BNS management’s”
    Just because they came from TLDM doesnt mean they will do whats best for TLDM interest post retirement, usually they will do whats best for THEIR OWN interest. As seen nobody from BNS got the rap for LCS fiasco, or in fact anyone else for that matter.

    “most of the reports listed out weakness in decisions making”
    Its what I have been saying the fault came from wrong decision making at every step due to unrealistic expectations (angan taik ayam) rather than technical. We have the capability to build those ships if there was a sound progression steps to learn & do ourselves but that process was cut out, again by poor decision making.

    “they get themselves a captured clients for future contracts.”
    BNS was a GLC so its given it be such a way but then so as ST Marine for Spore. The difference is their projects was done thru sound management unlike ours. Look at their Formidable class build project vs our LCS.

    “a result of attempting corruption rather than due to incompetency”
    Maybe not so but its due to incompetency and the many loopholes & grey areas it created that allowed corruption to worm its way in. That BNS exec that got charged wasnt looking to corrupt on the onset but spotted an opportunity to get kickbacks. The 47 DNAA DPM & exMenhan also alleged in some dirty behind scenes but nothing came out of this speculation. Rather the money was not purposefully to ensure the project success but rather to rescue BNS as they had rescued the SGPV project. As I had speculated which came true, LCS project was budgeted in such a way that funding was for the primary purpose (save BNS) and secondary objective (build the LCS) which will require further funding injections to complete the secondary objective. The change in Govt had obviously put paid to that 2nd part until today.

  42. 15to5 is not obsolete. The core framework remains valid. 1) to reduce the type of ships to 5 types. 2) to be able to support a 55 ship fleet. 3) to lower the average age of the fleet. 4) To increase the average size of ships – Navy wants to double the fleet’s tonnage (page 74). Item 1 is slipping but 2, 3 and 4 are still happening. Just because the nomenclature changed does not mean the 15to5 is obsolete – sure the Navy isnt aiming for 6 submarines, or a certain class of ships. In page 52 of the strategy document the Navy has indicated it aims for a fleet of 12 combat ships (the LCS), 4 submarines and 3 MRSS as its core fighting force. LMS2 is in my opinion qualified as a combat ship (because it will have its SSM but not SAM). Had LMS2 been ordered as fully FFBNW, then it is no different than the NGPV which is classified as a patrol ship.

    What this also means is, the Navy could still achieve its 5 type of ships objective (reduce the number of ship types) by ordering in a follow up order, fully FFBNW version of LMS2 to fill up the NGPV type patrol ship slots. 5LCS and 3LMS2 will lead to the Navy having 8 combat ships out of 12 planned in 15to5 excluding the Kasturis which will likely be retired. So the question becomes should Navy order a 2nd batch of LCS as part of its original plan to reduce the number of ship types, or order enlarged versions of whichever design chosen for LMS2, or order a totally new design? So far nothing suggests the Navy has deviated from the plan. It might have lowered its ambition of 12 LCS type ships, likely due to losing RM3b+ in shipbuilding funds to the LCS program (which could either add more LMS2 or buy the SAM for LMS2 or both or just get the first 3 ships signed off by now). So no 15to5 is not obsolete from a planning perspective. Once people see the “plan” then there will be less need to fill in the blanks with assumptions and hypotheticals. It’s already there. If I’m wrong then I’m wrong, but the more what ifs is being floated, someone might pick up those what if ideas, think its awesome, and throw a wrench in the 15to5 plan.

  43. And why is the Navy beyond reproach? The fallacy that MAF is always right. We focus on the BNS dictating the requirements, yet ignore the Navy also complicating the design by requesting changes to equipment DCNS already certified for use in the Gowind. I understand user requirements is important, but the decision is to go Gowind not Sigma. Nothing the Navy could do about it. Should the Navy tinker with the requirements and design, adding on to the cost and time – which is what happened and one of the contributer to delays in the design, or focus on making sure BNS and DCNS deliver what they promise with their design, making only the most critical changes? So what do people think of LMS2 going Turkish? Is it ok the SSM is not NSM and the FFBNW SAM is not VL-MICA? Should RMN insist to swap out all the Turkish certified weapons to match what the LCS will have?

    Call it fraud or corruption but one cannot be selective in judgment and choose the narrative that one prefers. The fact remains there is a lack of competency at the parliament level, at the government level, at BNS level, and at the project team level to manage the project, including putting in the controls to prevent fraud and corruption. That to me is incompetency.

  44. That and lets be real here..There are a serious misjudgement by the govt of that day like mentioned in previous PAC report that stated govt of that day failed to appraise BNS financial status/cash flow at the time contract were awarded.When a company have a bad cash flow theres always a chance anything will go south.But yeah RMN is not innocent either.I mean RMN LUMUT HQ are only a stone away from BNS but how come they let this project becomes this Bad.Or they dont really care at all

  45. My TLDM plan would be supported by development of APMM fleet too. A reason why in my opinion TLDM does not really need NGPV in their planning

    For a development budget of USD500-800 million for each Rancangan Malaysia, we could get APMM :

    RMK 12 2021-2025 (USD0.5 bil)
    – ~ additional budget to complete 2x DAMEN OPV 1800 0.05
    – 2 Ex JCG OPV 0.02 sisterships of KM Pekan
    – 3 OSV AHT 70-80m used 0.04 As OPV/rescue/salvage/tow/firefighting
    https://media.fleetmon.com/cache/newsroom_article_images/ALMIRANTESTORNI5/984cd4056b8638619ac4fbacd007d369.jpg
    – 2 ex Ulsan transfer (intrim OPV, to be retire 2035) 0.03
    – 6 DAMEN FCS 4008 Patrol NGPC2 0.09
    – 30 12.5m RHFB Perkasa 0.01
    – 10 Penggalang FIC 0.02
    – 30 various RHIB 0.01
    – 4 AW189 0.07
    – total USD0.35 billion

    RMK 13 2026-2030 (USD0.8 bil)
    – 3 Hyundai HDP-3000 Tae Pyung Yang 113m OPV 0.2
    – 3 60m sail patrol vessel (based on Rainbow Warrior) 0.12
    – 12 DAMEN FCS 4008 Patrol NGPC2 0.18
    – 6 ex Kedah Class transfer refit 0.04
    – 4 ex Keris Class transfer 0
    – 15 25m PC 0.05
    – 60 12.5m RHFB Perkasa 0.02
    – 10 Penggalang FIC 0.02 FIC recapitalisation
    – 30 8m RIB 0.006 RIB recapitalisation
    – 4 Beech B260 MSA 0.07
    – 1 CL-415EAF 0.035
    – 3 AS365N3 used 0.01
    – 3 AW139 used 0.02
    – Total USD0.771 billion

    RMK 14 2031-2035 (USD0.8 bil)
    – 3 Hyundai HDP-3000 Tae Pyung Yang 113m OPV 0.2
    – 3 60m sail patrol vessel (based on Rainbow Warrior) 0.12
    – 12 DAMEN FCS 4008 Patrol NGPC2 0.18
    – 30 25m PC 0.1
    – 60 12.5m RHFB Perkasa 0.02
    – 10 Penggalang FIC 0.02 FIC recapitalisation
    – 30 8m RIB 0.006 RIB recapitalisation
    – 6 Beech B260 MSA 0.1
    – Total USD0.746 billion

    RMK 15 2036-2040 (USD0.8 bil)
    – 3 Hyundai Tae Pyung Yang 115m OPV 0.2 ex-JCG OPV replacement
    – 6 60m sail patrol vessel (based on Rainbow Warrior) 0.24
    – 6 DAMEN FCS 4008 Patrol NGPC2 0.09
    – 15 25m PC 0.05
    – 30 12.5m RHFB Perkasa 0.01
    – 10 Penggalang FIC 0.02
    – 30 8m RIB 0.006
    – 6 new helicopter 0.1 AS365 replacement
    – Total USD0.716 billion

    MMEA 2040 Fleet
    – Large OPV
    3x DAMEN 1800 OPV
    6x Kedah Class OPV
    9x Hyundai HDP-3000 Tae Pyung Yang OPV
    3x AHT OSV OPV
    1x ex JCG (training)
    – PV/PC
    4x LMS68 68m
    12x Sail Patrol Ship 60m (long endurance, very low operating cost for presence missions)
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-udZWhasAEEWSW.jpg
    6x NGPC 44m
    36x FCS 4008 Patrol 41m
    45x 25m PC
    – FIC/RHIB/RIB
    50x FIC
    150x 12.5m RHFB Perkasa – 48 knots
    18x Banggi SEALEGS
    60x Misc RIB

    Picture of HDP-3000 aka Tae Pyung Yang class OPV
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GB6i1yGbkAEn_Vc.jpg

    Below picture is the FCS 4008 Patrol built by DAMEN Antalya Turkiye for Romanian Border Guard. It would be a perfect ship for next batches of NGPCs.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeE4gayXgAsGfFR.jpg
    Specs
    Length – 41.2m
    Top speed – 30 knots
    range at TOP SPEED (yes not a typo) – 2,800nm. Yes it can run around chasing others at 30 knots for 2,800nm

    This is also the same platform for UK Royal Navy’s XV Patrick Blackett, a R&D ship for future naval warfare systems.

    Compare to current bagan datuk NGPC specs
    top speed – 24 knots
    range – 2,000nm at 12 knots cruise speed.

    The FCS 4008 Patrol design would be a good choice to replace all the ex PX, ex PZ, ex bahtera, ex Bay class ships of APMM. To have proper project management and to leverage the economy of scale, building of these FCS 4008 patrol locally could be slotted into PETRONAS Project Safina, which is a project to locally build 100 OSVs of different types for PETRONAS contractors in the next 5 years.

  46. Joe “Just because they came from TLDM doesnt mean they will do whats best for TLDM interest post retirement, usually they will do whats best for THEIR OWN interest. As seen nobody from BNS got the rap for LCS fiasco, or in fact anyone else for that matter.”

    Thus the question becomes if they were corrupt post retirement are they corrupt during services? How do they become so brave? Is it the system that enables them to do so? If it is wouldn’t their predecessors and successors would grab the opportunity as they do? And we would never get a true answer only speculation as the gov decide not to gauge how deep the rabbit holes go.

    Personally if you already have a meko, and there 3 different meko in considerations be it do it oneself, with help of Germany or the turks and the finalist is either between the Dutch & French throwing away all the buzz words like commonalities, economic of scale and so on then something is truly wrong.

    It’s likely as HM sultan nazrin said, it’s an endemic because the PAC report shows at every step of the way there’s always someone who abuse their power to out stop decisions by committee being effectively executed.

    Kel “Should the Navy tinker with the requirements and design, adding on to the cost and time”.

    My take is they should. After all that’s how most gov do decisions making. They just let their department go royalle rumble on one another and once one department have accumulated enough weigh the direction the winning department want to go become the norms. Remember that the navy & CG used to fight one another for the privilege of operating patrol vessels and the army and AF are still fighting over SAM.

    As for the navy obviously they don’t want to be the next Argentinian AF. Not saying that the French would deny us exocet someday. Just saying why take the risk when we know almost for sure that uncle Sam and her merry band of friends would be more than happy to part with their stockage If something like that happen. Thus just by changing effector the deterrence factor increases many folds.

    Though at the cost of economics of cause because the Chinese aren’t going to believe our words of not going to take side when we stock ourselves up with uncle Sam effector won’t they? which probably why some try to push the French equipments in the first place.

    Kel “So what do people think of LMS2 going Turkish? Is it ok the SSM is not NSM and the FFBNW SAM is not VL-MICA? Should RMN insist to swap out all the Turkish certified weapons to match what the LCS will have?”

    From the PAC reports it does seem that the ADA is essential a meko 100 underneath the heavy makeup. So the design cost may not even reach north of RM 2 billions marks as the gowinds. Probably.

    Its also not set in stone yet that vl mica would be chosen for the LCS & LMS2 ,it’s the most logical conclusions but still a speculation at this point. Mica is after all one of the reasons why stop orders was issue not to mention current politician favorite ada class is already integrated with mica. So if mica is the SAM of choice then they wouldn’t take public outcry hit by saying the SAM for LMS2 is FFBNW.

    It does seem the navy still hasn’t give up their desire for sweet sweet freedom flavors SAM.

  47. @Zaft
    “are they corrupt during services?”
    Thats a question only MACC can answer. Rather than actual corruption (which may happen either ways), its more of continuing the legacy of patronage and building cables so they can pull these strings when their ‘outside’ after retirement. If your exBoss who pushed you all the way to top job now ask for favours and you see no problems as it ‘somewhat’ meets your needs, Im sure you are more than likely to bias favouring it over others.

    “wouldn’t their predecessors and successors would grab the opportunity”
    What makes you so sure they didnt and they hasnt done so in the past?

    “as the gov decide not to gauge how deep the rabbit holes go”
    Because there is no political will, only political suicide, to do such thing and there is no political merits to gain even if the country future generations might thank you for doing so. The last person who fought the old establishment with his own establishment is now in jail and he was defacto the most powerful person in Msia. That tells you how well entrenched, powerful & influential these shadows entities are. As I said before to really fix this problem is fixing Msia, from the country, rakyat mindset, the Govt, the civil servants, economy, & basically how we do things on a daily basis. Basically its impossible, simple as that.

    “Not saying that the French would deny us exocet someday”
    The Norwegians, moreso than the French, would be more than obliged to withhold any new missiles (NSM) & spares if Uncle Sam comes making demands.

    “some try to push the French equipments”
    No there are different reasons, some explained in the first paragraph, but mainly because we cannot afford much US made stuff.The Europeans are a lot cheaper, politically more tolerable, and willingness to accept flexible modes of payment & willing to do deals and offsets. Nothing to do with the Chinese as what we do will hardly be significant against them.

    “vl mica would be chosen for the LCS & LMS2”
    LMS2 perhaps, but for LCS is a foregone conclusion we have to go with Mica simply because the launchers onboard LCS are fitted for Mica. The reason its still hanging is because we couldnt afford to buy enough to fill out all the LCS fleet. Hence its likely these ships will come out FFBNW-VL MICA until we got the money to buy them and basing on the precedent Kedahs its possible we wont do it unless there is urgent need.

  48. Joe “What makes you so sure they didnt and they hasnt done so in the past?”

    Thus beg the question, which changes is truly for operational purposes and which is due to attempted corruption.

    Changing Missiles is one thing and it easily quantified based on the perceived deterrence value vs cost.

    But deleting automation despite we bought mostly from advanced countries who has vested interest in doing automation which leads to increase in ship size and the desire to change everything from IPMS to CMS to almost every equipment doesn’t seem to be able to generate much return of investment.

  49. “How do you Norway will be obliged to withold new missiles?”
    Norway is a NATO founding nation and unlike the more fiercely independent French, have been very cooperative with USA demands. France more or less, have been doing things their own way; from developing jet planes independently post WW2 unlike the other EU nations that sought US platforms, to having their own doctrine in nuke warfare ie the Pluton missile system, the French are a proud nation that had been dancing to their own tune until recently.

    @Zaft
    “which is due to attempted corruption.”
    That only TLDM will know for sure, as a few of the current ministers are even implicated meaning it would have happened right from the drawing board stage. Deleting automation is probably due to TLDMs more conservative nature to trusting the man than machine.

  50. … – ”ironic that you commented that it is okay for ppl call ships by different terminology but straight away complain about the “fleet tanker”.

    ”Ironic” to you [perhaps look up the definition of ”irony”] but if you really thought about it; not ”ironic”. The issue of a ”corvette” in one navy being a ”frigate” in another is wholly different to the distinction between a ‘tanker” and an ”oiler”. A ”tanker” transport fuel; an ”oiler” enables replenishment at sea – that is an irrefutable fact; there is no navy which calls a ”tanker” and ‘oiler” or vice versa.

    … – ”that is what i describe it as.”

    You can ”describe it as ”goldilocks” or ”rumpelstiltskin” if you’d like but an ”oiler” is as different to a ”tanker” as a ”UAS” is to a ”loitering munition”. Look it up; the nuance is there for a reason.

    … – ”– to be able to do escort/convoy missions of Malaysian flagged merchant ships far from home waters (BM5, BM6 mission)”

    Right and how often would we be doing that? like I said; we can’t cater for every possibility; irrespective of how great one thinks the idea is or how grand the idea looks on paper. There is a sound legitimate reason why the RMN has no need for tankers, oilers or hospital ships. We’ve gone through all this before …

    If say we had to send of the Saktis to Lebanon; cheaper to have it refuel along the way rather than have an ”oiler” accompany it.

    kel – ”And why is the Navy beyond reproach? The fallacy that MAF is always right. ”

    Nobody is ”beyond reproach” or infallible but as the people who actually do for a living what we discuss in the cyber world; the armed services are in a much better position to know what they need and what they don’t… Another issue is that the armed services have to factor in a host of issues which might might be apparent to us.

    kel – ”15to5 is not obsolete. ”

    Who said it’s ”obsolete”? As I have been pointing out way before there was an individual with the ”kel” nom de guerre here; it’s as dead as Elvis and has been for a long time. For starters nobody – except maybe fevered minded fanboys – were under any illusion that it would be followed through or actually implemented. It was politically expedient; a product of the political scene then and it will be adhered officially adhered to for the foreseeable future for the simple reason that it has received a political stamp of approval.

  51. P.S. Another issue is that the armed services have to factor in a host of issues which might ”not” be apparent to us.

  52. … – “A reason why in my opinion TLDM does not really need NGPV in their planning”

    Does your “opinion” take into account that although follow on Kedahs were originally included in the 5/15 thuggery is no such plan at present [any more than there are plans to acquire ray guns] and that although included [years ago]; they were intended to be used as secondary type combatants and not as “OPVs” per see; irrespective of their “OPV” designation?

    Kel – “ What this also means is, the Navy could still achieve its 5 type of ships objective (reduce the number of ship types) by ordering in a follow up order, fully FFBNW”

    As likely as you waking up next morning and discovering you have chest implants courtesy of the Tooth Fairy or Togo buying surplus Leo 2s. For one the LMS Batch 1 will be different to the Batch 2s and plans for modular payloads have been ditched. Also, the idea now is not so much to have a few different classes as possible for for the different classs to have as much commonality as possible.

    BTW the LMS Batch 2s will be considered “combat ships” even if they’re only armed with flintlocks or muzzle loaded cannons because that’s the intention; not because they’ll be fitted with ASMs but fitted for SAMs. The Kedahs may not be fully armed and have as their reason for being EEZ patrols but they’re still also sen as “combat ships”. The qurstion really is combat under what conditions?

    BTW the MPSSs are mainly for “amphib movement” [we lack the enablers for amphib assault and would likely not have a requirement as such] and the 4 landing spots we decided on are also for RMN and RMAF helicopters. The fact that we haven’t gotten the MPSSs aren’t for the reasons you came up with.

  53. … – ”I have no idea why someone is irked”

    Firstly who’s ‘’irked’. Secondly look at the context and note that way before you even reference the Turk link I had pointed out the profound difference between an ‘’oiler’’ and a ‘’tanker’.

    As mentioned in a previous post: ”Ironic” to you [perhaps look up the definition of ”irony”] but if you really thought about it; not ”ironic”. The issue of a ”corvette” in one navy being a ”frigate” in another is wholly different to the distinction between a ‘tanker” and an ”oiler”. A ”tanker” transports fuel; an ”oiler” enables replenishment at sea – that is an irrefutable fact; there is no navy which calls a ”tanker” and ‘oiler” or vice versa. An ”oiler” is as different to a ”tanker” as a ”UAS” is to a ”loitering munition”. Look it up; the nuance is there for a reason.’’. There are also legitimate reasons why the RMN has no need for ”oilers” or tankers”; anymore than it does for hospital ships or the army Corps level artillery groups. Maybe now you have an ”idea”; the one you said you were lacking …

  54. . – ”By all means azlan, please tell off Pakistan Navy and STM Turkiye that their designation for their ship is super wrong”

    ”By all means” since you’re a proliferator of links; a purveyor of assumptions and have this insatiable pedantic need to insist on things which fit your narrow lens; get a link and look it up. Also, are you suggesting that navies and yards are infallible? If you’re gong to insist there is no ”difference between an ”oiler” and a ”tanker” you must as well insist the earth is flat; that aliens constructed the pyramids and that a ”UAS” and a ”loitering munition” are the same thing. ‘The USN and RN – navies which pioneered the use of ”tankers” and ”oilers” and replenishment at sea; make a distinction; yet you’d insist otherwise. Does NATO call a ”tanker” an ”oiler”? Are the ships which ferry oil from Port A to B called “tankers” or “oilers”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*