SHAH ALAM: IN the previous post on the nationalisation of Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS), Malaysian Defence speculated that the cost of the project is now RM12.4 billion. This is because Ocean Sunshine Bhd (OSB) – the government owned company set up to take over BNS will be paying the BHIC and LTAT (the previous owner of BNS) some RM1.2 billion in liabilities and debt.
Defence Minister DSU Mohamad Hasan (who did not say that the project cost is now RM12.4 billion) told Parliament on Monday (September 19) that the cost of the project had gone higher due to the change of specification of key systems. From FMT:
In his winding-up speech, Mohamad also said the increase in budget was primarily due to changes in the specifications of key systems, namely the surface-to-surface missile system (SSM), decoy launching system (DLS), and integrated platform management system (IPMS).
“Despite reducing the number of ships to five, this cost increase was unavoidable as it represents non-recurring costs for the construction of the entire ship,” he said.
Do note that Malaysian Defence had already stated in the past that the cost of the project will go above the RM9.1 billion ceiling contract due to the changes to the items mentioned in bold, above. Malaysian Defence has also pointed out that the increase in cost had been pencilled in since 2017 but it was not fixed as the-then government thought it would do so after the 2018 general elections. Of course, that did not happened.
On May 26, BHIC and BNS announced that the cost of the project had went up to RM11.2 billion. As mentioned above with the payments for BHIC and LTAT, which need to be paid due to the nationalisation, the cost is now RM12.4 billion.
Do note that I am using the FMT story as the parliament official record – the Hansard – has not been published when this post goes live.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
“surface-to-surface missile system (SSM), decoy launching system (DLS), and integrated platform management system (IPMS).”
I thought SSM were already choose early on (NSM), is it actually SSM or SAM? If it was the SAM change, it could be ESSM block 2 with mk41 vls or mk56 vls. Why I said this? Well RMN did get the SSM that they wanted but not the SAM and this was mentioned in the PAC report
The change of DLS is something that was also mentioned in the PAC report but not IPMS as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong, IPMS is not CMS right?
SSM changes from what? Exocet to NSM?
well the total cost in MYR should be higher now due to exchange rate
USD to MYR in 2014 was around 3.3
USD to MYR now in 2023 is 4.7
So RM9.1 billion in 2014 is about USD2.76 billion for 6 ships
Now say RM12.4 billion in 2023 is about USD2.64 billion for 5 ships.
We lost money paying people for years to do nothing and to pay liabilities and debts not related at all to the building of the Gowinds.
Yet most of the hardware to build the 6th ship is already paid for and included in the RM12.4 billion figure for 5 ships. To add manpower cost to build the 6th ship should not be a lot.
This is more reason why RMN should consider not ordering LCS batch 2. LMS, if configured correctly could even do exactly what LCS can
– 8-cell mk41 vls self-defence version
– 16x ESSM block 2 quad packed into 4 cells + 4 SM2 Block3c
– or 16x ESSM block 2 quad packed into 4 cells + 4 ASROC
– or 32 ESSM block 2 quad packed into 8 cells
– Thales NS100 AESA (Smart-s mk2 if really need to save money, change to 400km NS200 if can or)
– Thales Kinglip mk2 and CAPTAS2/4C size sonar
– 1x Millenium CIWS or GOKDENIZ (whichever that is cheaper) + 2x DS30
– 8x NSM
You can fit all of this in a 2000+ design with lower range at lower cost. But I still think better just go for Iver Huitfeldt/ Type31
That mean ESSM , is still a possible choice?
Never again we should allow local company to get shipbuilding contracts to build navy ship. All navy ships from now on should be and shall be made outside of the country.
Mark my words, the true final cost will likely be higher than RM 12.4Bil. As it is, thanks to the change of Govt and the cost actualisation was not done by subsequent Govts, people are still fixated that it is a RM 9Bil project and the cost increase must have been due to corruption, leakages. Yes, these are present but not to the extent where you could get a new redesigned ship with all the bells & whistles for the same price elsewhere. But is it the Govt fault? Yes! It is still their fault for hiding the true costing.
I am piqued by that statement on changes to SSM, wasn’t NSM already bought & delivered for LCS fleet? Are they going for another missile?
Nope
Yup, NSM.
Yes, chosen but not yet signed officially before the supplementary contract. IPMS is the integrated platform management system. Read my previous LCS stories.
Akmal – ”Never again we should allow local company to get shipbuilding contracts to build navy ship. ”
You playing Nostradamus now? Are you saying that if the yard is put through a learning curve; if there’s no external interference and other things; that it can’t deliver a hull on spec; within budget and on time? Is this written in stone?
Luqman – ” LMS, if configured correctly could even do exactly what LCS can”
[1] A LMS does not have the range, endurance or seakeeping of a LCS; nor will it have a helo
[2] The LMS Batch 2s will be modestly armed [count your lucky stars if it has a 8 cell VLS and not a stabilised MANPADS mount] and has 4 not 2 SSMs
[3] The RMN sees it’s LMS as performing secondary type duties; not a main combatant which is the LCS. Just like how for the RMAF the more serious stuff will be the responsibility of the MRCAs not the LCAs.
[4] [4] From the 1970’s the RMN has seen the need for a high/low end mix. In the 1970’s and 1980’s the FACs were the Team B; as part of a fleet in being. in the 1990’s the plan was 6 Lekius and the NGOPVs [replacements for the FACs and PCs]. As of 2023 LCSs and LMSs.
@Akmal
“All navy ships shall be made outside of the country.”
The Govt that does that will be the next to lose their seat of power. So which one will dare?
@Luqman
As I mentioned, a smaller hull (LMS2) will have limited potential for future upgrades and this is not what TLDM wants.
There is no need to be a cheerleader or echo chamber of a lost cause. There simply aren’t enough long-term orders to justify supporting a local industry for large warships. In 22 years, the country has only built 6 warships, none of which are complex (no missiles). In 30 years (out to 2031), the country would if lucky, build only 10 warships (6 Kedah + 4 LCS) – none delivered on time or on budget. For a Navy with small budget, sometimes its ok to be a clairvoyant if the facts speak for itself. Especially since the approach for local production involves wasting money on buying the IP for custom design instead of proven design (e.g., DCNS does not offer 3100 Gowinds, nor does FNSS offer Gempitas). No need to hedge bets and take neither here nor there positions for fear of being wrong, when the facts speak for itself.
kel – ”There is no need to be a cheerleader or echo chamber of a lost cause”
Unlike you naturally? In your wisdom you have it all figured out haven’t you ….
Instead of losing the plot make the effort to understand what others meant; it’s also easier because other use paragraphs instead of lumping all like a lump of turd.
kel – ”none of which are complex (no missiles)”
”Complex” would mean a ship of large displacement; one with high spec DC standards; etc, etc.
kel – ”No need to hedge bets and take neither here nor there positions for fear of being wrong, when the facts speak for itself.”
By all means write to your MP; the Defence Minister and the MINDEF Secretary General. Also; who’s ”afraid of being wrong” – you?
kel – ”or a Navy with small budget, sometimes its ok to be a clairvoyant if the facts speak for itself. ”
More often than not making blanket sensationalist statements without taking things into context [the ”facts”] is a fools errand … Or do you want to play clairvoyant?
Kel – ”none delivered on time or on budget.”
Why? Were any of the companies actually qualified or in a sound financial position? Was BNS put through a learning curve? Was there the needed corrective mechanisms in place? Ultimately it’s not the companies at fault but the rotten system [national interests selected those companies – the patronage system] we have which enabled shite to erupt ….
You playing Nostradamus now? Are you saying that if the yard is put through a learning curve; if there’s no external interference and other things; that it can’t deliver a hull on spec; within budget and on time? Is this written in stone?- Azlan
Learning curve? Have our yard learn? I say no. I do know our yard are extremely good for maintenance, but finishing the ships? No.
The Govt that does that will be the next to lose their seat of power. So which one will dare?- joe
Are you sure that’s what the public are thinking? They don’t care where our warships are being built. All they care about is having food on the table. The party that can provide, got voted into power.
The justification is political not economical, so your harping on the wrong viewpoint.
@hulubalang
“well the total cost in MYR should be higher now due to exchange rate”
I share this opinion too previously (and some people disagree, that’s fine) but not all the additional costs are due to exchange rate only. If RMN immediately follow with order of Batch 2 LCS, the price will be almost the same as current ones.
@Azlan
[1] – yes the trade offs are it wont have the same endurance and seakeeping as LCS but RMN can accept in for LMS Batch 2. Some shipbuilders showed they could provide hangar for a helo.
[2] – I don’t think I have any lucky stars haha, but VLS is a possibility if RMN want the LMS to ‘replace’ LCS.
[3&4] – RMN can opt for the same hulls but configured differently (much like the Itallian PPAs). If RMN really want a high end combatant, then they should configure current LCS differently.
@joe
“As I mentioned, a smaller hull (LMS2) will have limited potential for future upgrades and this is not what TLDM wants.”
Yes I agree also. But what kind of upgrades TLDM are seeking? extra USVs/UUVs? 400km range radar/Anti ballistic missile radar? Sylver A70 cells/Strike length mk41 cells? 16x NSM? 32/48 cells vls? As of now we only see RMN removing/maintaining equiptments from ships even though electronics are getting smaller (of course we know why but the same thing can happen again and again)
If hulls for future upgrades are what RMN are seeking, then 5000+ tones hulls are out there…
Luqman “This is more reason why RMN should consider not ordering LCS batch 2. LMS, if configured correctly could even do exactly what LCS can”
If you look at the original 1525 plan. The LCS batch 2 is to be ordered 25 years after the LCS batch 1 completion thus it’s a replacement rather than an addition.
The LMS2 comes about as the mergers of the original 1525 plans for 18 LMS + 18 NGPV into 8 LMS2.
Kel “There simply aren’t enough long-term orders to justify supporting a local industry for large warships.”
ST engineering experience shown otherwise. There’s are enough orders but only for a single shipyards
Luqman – ”RMN can accept in for LMS Batch 2. ”
Because the Batch 2s are supposed to be secondary combatants; used for roles which do not require a LMS
Luqman – ”f RMN really want a high end combatant, then they should configure current LCS differently.”
As I’ve said : what we get is driven not only by funding about also threat perceptions – understand this pertinent fact.
We don’t see the requirement for the MAF to be engaged in a high intensity industrial scale protracted war; that’s why the MAF is equipped/structured the way it is and why we spend the bare minimum.
Akmal – ”You playing Nostradamus now?”
No you are and by you’re assumptions and blanket generalised statements it’s shoew.. I’m saying that the reason the LCS programme went ratshit is due to various factors. If it had been put through a learning curve; if there were checks and balances; if there were effective mechanisms; in place; if priority was on th end user and taxpayer rather than national interests; would things have still gone ratshit??
That’s the point I’m making …
Akmal – ”Learning curve? Have our yard learn?”
Do you even know your facts? BNS was not put through a learning curve. After not constructing anything for years; instead of having the first hull constructed abroad; BNS embarked on a very ambitious programme because that’s what the politicians who are interested in hubris rather than substance; wanted.
Zaft – ”If you look at the original 1525 plan.”
The 5/15 is as dead as a dodo an Elvis [same as the Kedahs which were originally included in the plan and the so called time lines for various things]. It was politically expedient and was never intended to be fully adhered to and from Day One the intention was always for LMS to supplement the LCSs. As the RMN itself said : the LMS can perform various roles the LCS can at fraction of the cost.
Luqman – ”Yes I agree also. But what kind of upgrades TLDM are seeking? extra USVs/UUVs? 400km range radar/Anti ballistic missile radar? Sylver A70 cells/Strike length mk41 cells? ”
Are you serious? Even getting a 16 cell VLS on the LCS was a challenge and the LMS Batch 2s might have a 8 cell VLS and as a costs cutting measure maybe a 30mm rather than a 57/76mm mount and you’re talking about ”400km range radar/Anti ballistic missile radar? Sylver A70 cells/Strike length mk41 cells?”?
Luqman – ”If hulls for future upgrades are what RMN are seeking, then 5000+ tones hulls are out there…
Been done to death with. We do not have a requirement for a 5,000 tonne hull because [1] Our threat perceptions don’t call for it [2] We don’t need the range and endurance a 5,000 tonne hull enables [as it stands wherever they are – in the EEZ or the periphery – RMN ships are never more than 2-3 days sailing time away to the nearest base/harbour and it’s not as if we deploy ships at sea for weeks[3] We can’t even afford to fully fit out the LCS and LMS they ay the RMN would like and you’re going on about a 5,000 tonne hull?
Azlan “We do not have a requirement for a 5,000 tonne hull because [1] Our threat perceptions don’t call for it [2] We don’t need the range and endurance a 5,000 tonne hull enables”
Deja vu really. Kinda remembered you also claimed sometime back that RMN has NO need for a 2000 tons LMS2.
RMN doesn’t have a requirement for a 5000 tonne combat ship today. RMN wants more hulls and missiles to go around. Investing in a 5000 tonne combat ship today or in the next 10 years is basically saying buy 1×5000 ship instead of 2×2500 ship. That means an order for 3×5000 is equivalent to 6×2500 – 3 ships vs 6 ships. How can the RMN deal with attrition with just 3 ships? Longer-term, yes, RMN will have a need for 5000 tonne combat ships as part of the evolution from becoming a richer country – richer being the caveat. Until then, just focus on smaller ships – attrition is a real problem and is getting worst with no new ships joining the fleet for another 3 years.
@Azlan
“used for roles which do not require a LMS”
– Roles that LMS can also do if it was configured properly.
“Are you serious? Even getting a 16 cell VLS on the LCS was a challenge and the LMS Batch 2s might have…..”
– Difficult? SG’s Formidables are same in size and have 32 Sylver cells (twice the LCS), Egypt Gowind (smaller than LCS) have 16 Sylver vls with deck space for more. So difficult indeed.
“LMS Batch 2s might have a 8 cell VLS and as a costs cutting measure maybe a 30mm rather than a 57/76mm mount and you’re talking about ”400km range radar…”
– joe was mentioning about LCS upgrades and I just merely asks what upgrades RMN desired on such small hulls, not about LMS batch 2s. Talking about costs cutting measures, a bigger Gowind LCS (3100t) built locally with ToT doesn’t looks like cost cutting to me, but maybe you are reffering to LMS batch 2, sorry if I am mistaken.
“We do not have a requirement for a 5,000 tonne hull because [1] Our threat perceptions don’t call for it [2] We don’t need the range and endurance”
– So we dont need such ships in an environment where PLAN ships are larger and also have quantity advantage plus neighboring countries build larger and larger ships, well that threat perception doesn’t call for it, is it. Range and endurance are not the only thing 5000t hulls offered.
@Akmal
“Are you sure that’s what the public are thinking?”
Why did Lumut changed to PKR very early on when the shipbuilding was in the doldrums? People need to eat, agree, so when there is no jobs what will people do hmm? You think people still don’t care if politicians with an angle tells them these jobs are going overseas while they go hunger?
@Luqman
“But what kind of upgrades TLDM are seeking?”
Am not a clairvoyant and neither is TLDM so what will come in future, nobody knows but one have to plan for it anyhow. Perhaps one coming soon is drones and LCS will have a hangar big enough to fit medium sized chopper plus a small UAV. A smaller LMS class hull COULD have a chopper hangar but it will be cramped and unlikely to fit anything else.
“then 5000+ tones hulls are out there…”
Which isn’t in TLDM’s doctrine or plan….
@Zaft
“RMN has NO need for a 2000 tons LMS2.”
They don’t, actually, if the LCS plan was on track.
The 2000ton LMS2 was their backup plan in view the LCS will take even longer to complete and might not be fully armed, an assumption that is gaining traction as per Marhalim’s last report.
Kel “attrition is a real problem and is getting worst with no new ships joining the fleet for another 3 years.”
China are not Russia.
China like us,SG,JP,SK etc etc with it export base economy & high dependency on import for basic necessity like electricity & food does not have the capabilities nor interest in attritional warfare.
All of these countries are investing in Naval fleet to primarily to keep their sea lines of communication open and not just going around their coast playing coast guard. Thought the ship could & wou5be used to patrol their water during peacetime but there’s no denying that all of these countries are investing in ship capable of forward deployment.
Logically speaking if RMN just wanted to go around playing coast guard like they used to do then they won’t need a 2000 tons LMS nor a 3000 tons LCS nor a MRSS since as Azlan like to say, our bases is closed by.
Joe “The 2000ton LMS2 was their backup plan in view the LCS will take even longer to complete and might not be fully armed, an assumption that is gaining traction as per Marhalim’s last report.”
Most modern navies nowdays employed 3 type of surface combatants while all of them are multirole each would have it specific specialization in AAW,ASW & general purpose + MCM. Our LMS2 isn’t that much different in concept compared to USN LCS, RSN LMV, PhN HHI 2000 OPV, RN type 31&32.
@Zaft
“RMN playing coast guard won’t need a 2000 tons LMS nor a 3000 tons LCS”
You forget they also need to play coast guard at our EEZ, our off shore rigs, our hold on in Spratlys, all of them far away from our shores and sometimes they have to be out there for many days to shadow waiting CCG ships.
“Most modern navies nowdays employed 3 type of surface combatants”
Which we don’t have such luxuries. We have a main combatant (LCS) and a secondary one (LMS). The LMS was not originally envisioned to usurp the role of LCS but rather to replace the legacy boats while providing support to LCS taking part of their duties during peacetime as it supposed to be more economical to operate vs LCS. The heavily armed LMS2 only came about due to LCS delays. It has nothing to do with the concept of other navies rather its the circumstances TLDM found themselves in today without any firm date when LCS can complete plus the reduction of 1 boat.
Zaft – I recommend checking the dictionary for the term attrition in the context of RMN’s needs, reread what the previous Chief of Navy said about the average age of the fleet, reread the reason why the Navy was forced to rehull (and repower) ships that they would prefer to retire 20 years ago, and revisit the purpose of the NGPV program (which continues today with the LCS). I believe you will have a better understanding of what is afflicting the Navy’s ability to do its job, and why no one except a few people, thinks RMN needs 5000 tonne ships, and also why MRSS is not on the agenda at least until the completion of LCS and LMS2. Once all the information is at hand, one should be able to generate the big picture.
zaft – ”Deja vu really. Kinda remembered you also claimed sometime back that RMN has NO need for a 2000 tons LMS2.”
It didn’t; not until about 2 years ago. Why don’t learn to look things up and do research before hitting the keyboard ….
Zaft – ”China like us,SG,JP,SK etc etc with it export base economy & high dependency on import for basic necessity like electricity & food does not have the capabilities nor interest in attritional warfare.”
Do you really read what you write or do you have voices in your head which dictate some of the nonsense which appears?
Zaft – ”Logically speaking if RMN just wanted to go around playing coast guard like they used to do then they won’t need a 2000 tons LMS nor a 3000 tons LCS nor a MRSS since as Azlan like to say, our bases is closed by.”
The RMN would like nothing better than divest itself of constabulary types duties but as it stands until the MMEA is better resourced there is no entity apart from the RMN which can prop up the MMEA. BTW the RMN has no plans to acquire any assets to be used as ”OPVs” or largely for the coiat guard role.
If we operated our ships thousand of NM away for protracted periods and if operational requirements and policy dictated that we had more heavily armed ships then yes we would need a 5,000 tonne hul but as things stand we don’t.
Luqman – ”– Roles that LMS can also do if it was configured properly.”
No. ”Roles” in which a smaller less well armed platform with inferior seakeeping, range and endurance won’t be required to punch above its weight category.
Luqman – ”– So we dont need such ships in an environment where PLAN ships are larger and also have quantity advantage plus neighboring countries build larger and larger ships, well that threat perception doesn’t call for it, is it.”
Quite obviously we don’t try to reach parity with a country which spends much more than us and even if w had a dozen 12,000 tonne destroyers you seriously think it would make the PLA worry?
As for threat perceptions and attitudes; understand that right or wrong; agree or disagree our policy is to have a minimum deterrent capability to meet possible low intensity non protracted threats…. A few days ago Anwar acknowledged the our defence capabilities are behind other countries but as things stand we do not intend to surpass or reach parity with others – this sums it up in a nutshell….
Luqman – ”Range and endurance are not the only thing 5000t hulls offered.”
Someone would only go for a 5,000 tonne hull if they have a need for it; i.e. range, seakeeping, endurance and the below and above deck space to accommodate things.
We have no such requirement…. As it stands we have issue sustaining what we have yet you’re seriously suggesting [as … did in the past] we get 5,000 tonne combatants which are inherently more expensive to sustain. Also quite a bit of our operating areas are not conducive for the draught of a 5,000 tonne hull and not every RMN based has jetties deep enough ….
Luqman – ”– Difficult? SG’s Formidables are same in size and have 32 Sylver cells (twice the LCS), Egypt Gowind (smaller than LCS) have 16 Sylver vls with deck space for more. So difficult indeed.”
I was referring to funding; the willingness of the decision makers and bean counters to adequately fund things. Wasn’t referring to whether things were technically feasible or not … As I said; as things stand we’d be lucky if the LMSs don’t end up with a 8 cell VLS; a 30mm gun and 2 ASMs. We’ll also be lucky if various things which won’t be supportable soon will be replaced on time rather than leaving a capability gap. We even had to store a couple of Lynxs dur to the lack of sustainment funds.
You ponder about that before thinking about ”2 Sylver cells ” and other stuff ….
Luqman – ” just merely asks what upgrades RMN desired on such small hulls, not about LMS batch 2s”
I ‘merely ‘ replied that the RMN is not thinking about ” extra USVs/UUVs? 400km range radar/Anti ballistic missile radar? Sylver A70 cells/Strike length mk41 cells? ”….
It’s main worry at the moment is getting the actual ship and making sure they’re armed – yes things are that bad if you haven’t noticed. It simply is not at a point [due to funding and other reasons] where it can even contemplate ”extra USVs/UUVs? 400km range radar/Anti ballistic missile radar? Sylver A70 cells/Strike length mk41 cells”. The priority is getting the LCSs delivered; getting the 1st Batch of LMSs and other pressing things.
zaft – ”while all of them are multirole each would have it specific specialization in AAW,ASW & general purpose + MCM.”
On a generalised note yes but if you look deeper; no.
zaft – ”Our LMS2 isn’t that much different in concept compared to USN LCS, RSN LMV, PhN HHI 2000 OPV, RN type 31&32.”
It is actually very dissimilar given the RMN’s specific requirements and the various limitations it faces.
zaft – ”All of these countries are investing in Naval fleet to primarily to keep their sea lines of communication open and not just going around their coast playing coast guard.”
No…. They are intended to serve national objectives by deploying power; safeguarding SLOCs and yes; even to perform ”coast guard” roles; if the needs dictate. Tell me; when PLA ships were in the Gulf of Aden were they keeping their ”their sea lines of communication open” [to quote you] or going going ”around their coast playing coast guard” [to quote you again]? When a RN Type 23 is in the Caribbean on anti drug duuties; what’s it doing?
“Anwar acknowledged the our defence capabilities are behind other countries”
Acknowledge is one thing, what is he going to do about it? Or rather if that is the defence posture all these while why bring it up.
For decades we have been behind a few big spending neighbours (Thai has more MBTS, Indo has more planes, SG has more of everything). But that didnt perturb us for so long or altered our procurement policy so perhaps our stance has always been to be slightly behind so as not create an arms race but rather to keep pace with the big boys. If so, why would PMX even need to say this Im perplexed.
”Acknowledge is one thing, what is he going to do about it? Or rather if that is the defence posture all these while why bring it up.”
The reason I mentioned it was to show that policy has always been to spend the minimum on defence in the belief or hope that we’ll only encounter low intensity non protracted threats….
”If so, why would PMX even need to say this Im perplexed.”
you ”perplexed”? Why? A politician is indulging in politics [which you’ve a lot to say on] and merely continuing longstanding policy.
Luqman,
This was taken from a very recent article out there –
”Asked about whether Malaysia is beefing up its defence capabilities, Anwar acknowledged that these are “probably a bit weak” in the region. I think there is a need to strengthen (the country’s defence) – but not go beyond that because our relations with our neighbours are excellent. There’s no reason to be unduly concerned about the possibility of tensions,” he said.”
Does this sound like a country which would fund ”extra USVs/UUVs? 400km range radar/Anti ballistic missile radar? Sylver A70 cells/Strike length mk41 cells” [to quote you]? No, it sounds exactly like what I said – a country which wants to spend the minimum on defence in order to have a minimal deterrent capability to deal with non protracted non high intensity threats. To believe anything else is delusional wishful thinking and a misreading of the situation. Like I said; we’ll be lucky if the LMS Batch 2s have more than a 30mm main gun; a 4 or 8 cell VLS and 2 ASMs.
what is the point of our defence, our navy specifically in this topic?
can it be a credible option to fight another navy (of which in a large possibility, not from an ASEAN country) if all diplomacy fails?
What is the primary mission capability of our navy? How do we equip our navy to 100% fulfill its primary mission capability within our limited budget?
what kind of pounding the navy should be able to take? what kind of force the navy should have to hit back at the agressor? What kind of long range precision effectors should the navy have? How could we disperse our lethal capability so that the enemy would have a difficult time to wipe out our navy? What kind of area denial capability do we need to defend our country from potential attacks?
I believe even within our current budget allocation for TLDM, we can create a fleet than can be called upon to to defend our waters in the times of tension. The current TLDM problem is not the budget allocation, but it is the very bad execution of its main acquisition, the Gowind project that derails all the other plans.
But for our day to day peacetime maritime security, we need to empower APMM to take this up as its primary task.
This is TLDM 2023 allocation
2023 OE – RM1.531 billion
2023 DE – RM1.7009 billion
APMM 2023 allocation
2023 OE – RM0.6231 billion
2023 DE – RM0.719 billion
IMO a APMM OE of around RM1.2 billion, and DE 0f RM0.8 billion would be good to fulfil its operational obligations and to have its needed fleet of 20 large OPVs even by 2030. RM0.8 billion DE annually 2024-2030 (7 years) is about RM5.6 billion. Even if only half of DE is to buy OPVs, that is about USD600 million available. That is enough to buy 10-12 more brand new large OPVs by 2030. Add that to getting used OSVs, additional used OPVs from Japan etc. the target for 20 large OPV can be met by 2030.
Current APMM large OPV fleet
2 Ex Musytari OPV
2 Ex japan OPV
3 DAMEN 1800 OPV
Selected new OPV costs
DAMEN 1800 OPV (83m) – USD61 mil
Vikram class OPV India (97m) – USD30 mil
Tae Pyung Yang Class OPV Korea (115m) – USD55 mil (latest ship pennant no. 3016 cost)
Anwar is saying what every previous Prime Ministers’ have been saying – that defence is not a national priority. Anwar is also repeating the same mantra as previous Prime Ministers’ so the government of the day doesn’t have to commit monies that doesn’t get votes. When the same “minimal deterrence” and “low-intensity” has been repeated for at least 20 years, voters accept it as the right strategy and policy. Yet, every country in the region that has ambitions and goals also increase their military spending because it signals to the rest of the world a country’s ambitions and ability to defend itself, enforce its claims, and being useful as a friend and ally – allies and friends won’t defend a weak country that has no hope of surviving long enough. The issue at hand is how successive governments, and the populace does not see military as an element of national power, believing only Diplomacy, Information and Economic elements as sufficient. “Minimal deterrence” paired with “low intensity” becomes “minimal deterrence against low-intensity” conflicts which can be defined as “bare bones”. If people insist on “minimal deterrence” stop using “low-intensity”. Minimal deterrence by itself simply means making it sufficiently painful for any adversary that they will not attack or challenge Malaysia’s rights – its not to win in a fight but to prevent the fight from happening. This changes the perspective and narrative on what constitutes minimum. When low-intensity is added to the mix, it simply says, if someone attacks we only plan to hold on for X amount of time, which by itself isn’t a deterrence because it means will only maintain a bare bones military. Doesn’t matter what the military leadership says. If the voters (including those commenting) continue to repeat the same “minimal deterrence” and “low intensity” mantra, nothing will change. Its the same with re-hulling and repowering FACs. The general narrative is these are essentially new ships. But these are still ships based on old design and are ships the Navy wants replaced with bigger ships. Yet there are people who buy into the fallacy that the rehulled ships are new ships and sufficient for certain tasks (the “minimal deterrence” and “low intensity” mindset creeping into the thought process). This becomes, why should we spend on new Navy ships when the Navy has gotten a new ship that is minimally effective.
kel – ”’Anwar is saying what every previous Prime Ministers’ have been saying – that defence is not a national priority.”
You’ve missed the plot because we’ve kind of figured out what you’re proclaiming. That was why I included the quote in the first place.
kel – ”Yet there are people who buy into the fallacy that the rehulled ships are new ships and sufficient for certain tasks ”
They’re those who still believe in Father Christmas.
kel – ”believing only Diplomacy, Information and Economic elements as sufficient.”
Incorrect. It’s diplomacy and having a minimal deterrent capability to deal with the threats we think we’ll face.
… – ”Minimal deterrence by itself simply means making it sufficiently painful for any adversary that they will not attack or challenge Malaysia’s rights – its not to win in a fight but to prevent the fight from happening.”
You sound like a preacher or a car salesman. It was meant to ”deter” yes but ”deter” the threats we thought we’d face and there is a difference between the types of threats we thought we face and the type we thought we could handle.
kel – ” If people insist on “minimal deterrence” stop using “low-intensity”.”
What nonsense .. Just like your claim that ”low intensity” warfare was only the in thing in the 70’s and 80’s [or something to that affect].
”A paragraph is a group of at least five sentences, a paragraph is half a page long, etc. In reality, though, the unity and coherence of ideas among sentences is what constitutes a paragraph.”
kel – ”If the voters (including those commenting) continue to repeat the same “minimal deterrence” and “low intensity” mantra, nothing will change.”
Which part of the fact that our policy of having a ”minimal deterrent” capability is institutionalised policy did you not understand? That’s been our policy for decades and drives what we do. Yo’re obviously unware of this pertinent fact …
kel – ”If the voters (including those commenting) continue to repeat the same “minimal deterrence” and “low intensity” mantra, nothing will change.”
Which part of the fact that our policy of having a ”minimal deterrent” capability is institutionalised policy did you not understand?
That’s been our policy [not ”mantra”] for decades and drives what we do. You’re obviously unware of this pertinent fact … Perhaps ask around or indulge in some research? If having a ”minimal deterrent” capability is not the reason we do things in dribs and drabs and if you know better then educate those who are ignorant rather than present them a long pedantic post which is neither here nor there and which display as total misreading of the situation.
“A politician is indulging in politics”
He is a politician alright but as PM he wears a different hat and should representing all of Malaysia not just as ketum PH & PKR. His statement & actions should represent the best of Malaysia and not undermine & question her. Is a big disappointment that he was waiting for so long to be PM yet don’t act like one when given the chance. Sigh…
@hulubalang
“what is the point of our defence, our navy specifically in this topic?”
It is to deter and enforce our sovereignty rights against peer contestant neighbours, that means Indo, Thai, Viet & Pinoy. No it is not to take on any form of superpower be they Eastern or Western.
“The current TLDM problem is not the budget allocation”
Nope the current problem is the budget allocated, and then how much gets pared down for other things ie part of LCS budget was used to upgrade BNS facilities, WTF!
@ joe
“It is to deter and enforce our sovereignty rights against peer contestant neighbours, that means Indo, Thai, Viet & Pinoy”
We have overlap claims with those countries, ie. both us and that country can claim that area under 200nm UNCLOS. But none of them actively using their navy to encroach and constantly be in our waters.
So i ask you, which country is currently constantly encroaching our EEZ, harassing our economic activities in our EEZ?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5t0hfKWYAU48r0.jpg
What kind of things do we need to have and to use to deter that encroachment activity? Do we use LMS Batch 2 and shoot missiles at them?
The whole thing is going back to threat vs. capability again. Define minimal deterrence and low-intensity. What constitutes minimal deterrence, and what is a low-intensity situation? Put both concepts together “minimal deterrence in low intensity” conflicts and then figure out does the country need big ships, fast jets, tanks, etc for such conflicts? Minimal deterrence is simply to deter someone from attacking (or taking action) – the level in which its minimal will evolve as the threat level changes. If our concern are neighbours, then in 2023, the level in which minimal deterrence is achieved is higher than 10 years ago – Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam have expanded their militaries while Malaysia has not. But we know the real threat is coming outside of the region. Against such a threat, the level that constitutes minimal deterrence is even higher. Minimal deterrence by itself evolves according to the threat. The meaning of low-intensity is fairly consistent over time because it involves defining situations based on specific assumptions and conditions. Is low-intensity guerilla warfare, Lahad Datu type incursions, the occasional ship ramming in SCS, no more than 48 hours of combat operations, no mass armour combat, small skirmishes, a battalion sized engagement, a company sized engagement, light arms only, a few ships shooting guns at each other? If yes, does the country need big ships, fast jets, main battle tanks, attack helicopters, etc?
… – ”But none of them actively using their navy to encroach and constantly be in our waters.”
Not really…. Like I have said before quite a bit has happened which did not make the headlines. Let’s just say there have been incidents which were much more ”tense” compared to what was/is faced with the Chinese and that certain actors acted ”provocatively” …
kel – ”the whole thing is going back to threat vs. capability again.”
The ” whole thing” is understanding the pertinent fact that what we do is driven by policy and threat perceptions as we view it.
A paragraph is a series of sentences that are organized and coherent, and are all related to a single topic.
… – ”What kind of things do we need to have and to use to deter that encroachment activity? Do we use LMS Batch 2 and shoot missiles at them?”
Just like anything else; the LMS Batch 2 [as has been explained countless times] is intended to be used in the right way; i.e. not punch above its weight category. BTW the rhetorical question you asked about the Batch 2s is something I can ask about our subs. If an opponent had subs in the area; strong surface and air ASW units; underwater sensors and UUVs and understood the limitations of subs; would the pair of Scorpenes be able to accomplish anything or would they be too busy trying to evade detection [and the destruction that comes with detection] rather than perform their roles [look up the WW1/2 experince; as well as othe onflicts].
@hulubalang
“which country is currently constantly encroaching our EEZ”
Vietnam those days, with their fishing boats. The same today are Chinese deep sea fishing boats. Hence the enforcement of EEZ primarily is on MMEA laps but while they are around the area, TLDM too has the role to play in the enforcement as well. That is their peacetime duties.
When the shooting starts, their role & responsibility changes.
“But none of them actively using their navy to encroach and constantly be in our waters.”
Are you so sure about that?
“use to deter that encroachment activity”
Standard protocol of shadowing, hailing, & informing, and use sufficient nonthreatening force if necessary. Then the diplomatic back channels if things are that serious. We aren’t at war, just because we have a gun doesnt mean we must shoot at something.
What is minimal deterrence in low intensity conflicts? Or minimal deterrence against low intensity conflicts? Or just low intensity conflicts?
PDRM
kel – ”What is minimal deterrence in low intensity conflicts? Or minimal deterrence against low intensity conflicts? Or just low intensity conflicts?”
– A ”minimal deterrence” refers to the level of resources a country is willing or able to invest in its military in relation to the threats a country feels it might face based on the strategic calculus as seen by the country in question.
– Threat assessment is traditionally based not on intentions but actual capabilities because unlike intentions; capabilities can’t evolve overnight.
– A low intensity conflict refers to a conflict which is limited in scope and intensity but not necessarily in duration.
– We – for the past few decades [I know you have issues fathoming this so maybe do your own research] – have discounted the possibility of an all out state on state war to be unlikely; in contrast to a limited or low intensity war or clash [i.e. The clash between Thailand and Laos in the 1980’s; the clast between Thailand and Cambodia some years ago and the clash between Thailand and Myanmar at the turn of the millennium].
– People can assume and insist all they want but the MAF [like most regional armies] is not equipped, trained or structured to handle a protracted high intensity war; insisting otherwise is a fool’s errand.
– In the 1970’s and right up till the elections in Kampuchea; we were worried about Vietnam [then in Kampuchea]. The worry that Vietnam would move westwards into Thailand and further south [that was why the SAF trained to come north; why the FPDA gained relevance; why we were involved in the UN supervised elections in Kampuchea; why bought what we did under PERISTA and why we contributed to a massive ammo reserve in Thailand]. Another area which worried us very much [way before people started worrying about China] was the EEZ; potential trouble with Vietnam and the Philippines [over the Peta Baru which we released in 1979]; way before China entered the equation.
– From the 1980’s onwards as it became clear the insurgency issue would be eventually over soon and it became clear that unresolved overlapping claims with certain neighbours might be a source for trouble we started focusing more on external security which started actually years prior under PERISTA. The worry was not a full scale war but a short limited one over an overlapping claim.
– Today, potential trouble with certain neighbours is still a cause for worry [albeit les so compared to previous times] but what really worries us is trouble over the Spratlys between other countries and how this might affect us. We are realistic in that we could enlarge the budget 10 times over but we still would not be able to face – either heads on or with asymmetric warfare [which others too can practise] against a country which spends much much more on defence; has a much larger economy; a much larger population; a more extensive and advanced industrial base and a much much lager military.
As it stands it’s not holy writ that if trouble breaks out in the Spratlys that we’ll by default be involved – not necessarily. If we are; it’ll be part of a coalition and lets not fool ourselves; our lack of capability means we’ll be operating on the periphery.
As such the MAF we have is catered [right or wrong – disagree or not] with the limited types of conflicts we think we’ll face. Can we face off with an opponent who has a qualitative and numerical edge? No… Obviously not… Do we need a major fundamental rethink in policy? Yes … Just like how we need deep rooted changes in how we view and approach defence; to get the prerequisites in place rather than staying the same rotten and self defeating course.
Good history lesson. Now that we have eatablished planning is based on threat or “threat calculus” rather than just capability, what is the threat calculus? What is minimal deterrence against that threat calculus? And what is the definition of low intensity for Malaysia?
kel – ”Good history lesson”
Wasn’t a history lesson per see but you quite obviously needed it.
kel – ”What is minimal deterrence against that threat calculus?”
”Minimal” is what we are able to afford based on what we are willing to afford spend which is turn driven by policy… Need sources; ask.
kel – ”Now that we have eatablished planning is based on threat or “threat calculus” rather than just capability”
Not really and don’t assume or see things which aren’t there [we have enough of it here as it is]. We do what we do because of the strategic calculus as we see it and yes our policy for years [which you were seemingly oblivious to] was to have some level or minimal deterrent capability against various threats as we perceive them.
At times acquisition is threat not capability driven but it has mostly been capability driven.
kel – ”And what is the definition of low intensity for Malaysia?”
Being flippant; asking a question which I’ve already answered in this post and in others or just being pedantic?
For your benefit; conflicts/clashes of limited duration/scope which remain contained; i.e. the clash between Thailand and Laos in the 1980’s; the clast between Thailand and Cambodia some years ago and the clash between Thailand and Myanmar at the turn of the millennium]. For us; for quite a period tensions with Indonesia were a cause of concern; at other times certain issues with the Philippines related to the issue of Sabah and alleged support for the MNLF and later the MILF; etc; and of course various times when tensions were really hot with Singapore [do your own research]. At other times [i.e. Op Petaling and Ops Tugu] we were worried about Vietnam.
Today of course we are worried about China; not so much as us being in conflict with China but us being caught in the middle of a war involving China and other countries.