LCS, LMS Batch 2 and Radome

A graphic of the Hisar class OPV. Two of this OPV is expected to enter Turkish Navy service. The OPV is a derivative of the ADA class corvette. ASFAT.

SHAH ALAM: The Dewan Rakyat in its sitting on November 23 passed the Defence Ministry budget for 2024 which is RM19.7 billion. This was simply procedural – the Dewan must pass all the agencies and ministries budget individually – even though the 2024 budget has been passed earlier.

Anyhow as part of Dewan Rakyat procedure, members of parliament were given the time to pose questions on the budget to the Defence Minister, prior to the approval vote. DS Mohamad Hasan was given 25 minutes to answer the questions. For the full transcript please check the Dewan Rakyat website.

Thales Ground Master 400 Alpha. Thales

On the question on the long-range radar contract, Mohamad told the Dewan Rakyat the radome for the GM400 long-range radar will be supplied by Thales, the manufacturer.

Kubah itu kalau dibina di sini, dia
mahal. Jadi, apa yang kita lakukan ialah kita, atas nasihat daripada pihak pembekal, bahawa
kita mengimport modem ataupun kubah tersebut daripada luar negara daripada benua
Eropah dan ia dapat menjimatkan kosnya sebanyak RM10 juta dan kita terus pasang
mengikut spesifikasi dan ianya daripada OEM, Tan Sri Pengerusi ya

On the LCS, Mohamad said the increase in cost was due to the cost of the missiles (though he did not say which missiles, LCS is equipped with SSM and SAM)

Kalau kita tengok dalam kita punya, PAC punya laporan itu, yang RM2 bilion itu
dengan secara jelas telah pun PAC terangkan apa dia tambahan tersebut. Dia bukan
tambahan kerana cost overrun. Tambahan kerana kita— dulu semasa kita membuat projek
LCS ini, kita belum lagi identify ataupun kenal pasti missile mana yang kita nak pakai.
Jadi, kita telah kenal pasti dan itu sahaja, combatant itu sahaja, missile itu sahaja,
RM1.029 bilion. Lepas itu lagi, kos insurans banyak. Kos design. Macam-macam lagi, Dato’
Yang di-Pertua

The first summary of the PAC report on the LCS from June to October 2023. Note the section which detailed the cost increase.

His statement differed from the Public Accounts Committe (PAC) report which stated that cost increase of RM2 billion was due to design, insurance and warranty costs already supplied. According to a testimony the additional cost for the missiles was only RM103 million.

Mohamad also acknowledged that the cost of the LCS project will be around RM13.2 billion once it is fully taken over by Ocean Sunshine Bhd, a Ministry of Finance Inc. company. Malaysian Defence was the first to highlight this fact.

Dato’ Sri Ikmal Hisham bin Abdul Aziz [Tanah Merah]: Yang Berhormat Menteri,
fasal LCS lah. Sebenarnya hari ini saya tak sentuh langsung LCS, yang sentuh LCS, Ipoh
Timur. Tetapi apabila Yang Berhormat MENHAN bangkitkan tentang LCS ini dan saya bila
dengar kata, “No problem, tak ada masalah”, sebenarnya saya lagi risau. Sebab apa Yang
Berhormat Menteri? Ini kajian yang telah saya buatlah.
Mengikut laporan terkini PAC, hutang terkumpul BNS kepada vendor adalah
sebanyak RM848.45 juta. Hutang BNS kepada vendor. MOF juga, sebelum MOF hendak—
jadi MOF juga perlu selesaikan hutang ini untuk memulakan LCS. Jadi kalau nak selesai—
nak mulakan Projek LCS ini balik, kena bayar ini. RM848.45 juta.
Secara tak langsung, kalau kita pegang kepada jawapan MENHAN dalam Dewan
tempoh hari, kos RM2.1 bilion tempoh hari yang kononnya tidak melibatkan recurring cost
campur hutang BNS kepada BHSC. Ingat ya. Hutang BNS ke BHSC sebanyak RM389.4 juta
dan campur hutang BNS kepada vendor termasuk kepada Naval Group untuk luluskan detail
design, sebanyak RM848.45 juta. Kalau saya campur-campurkan Yang Berhormat MENHAN,
ia dah jadi RM13.2 bilion. Jadi, kos projek sekarang untuk lima kapal bukan lagi RM11.2 bilion
iaitu sekarang ini kalau kiraan sudah jadi RM13.2 bilion. Jadi sebenarnya, terus-terang saya
katalah.
Orang kata inilah trust deficit. Saya tak nampak yang satu kapal pun boleh siap sebab
kos sekarang dah melambung, lebih daripada RM12.1 bilion. Dah jadi sekarang RM13.2
bilion. Jadi, sebab itulah saya harap Yang Berhormat MENHAN, saya tahu ini legasi tetapi
legasi yang MENHAN terpaksa pikul dan tanggung.

Saya harap perkataan “no problem” itu betul-betul no problem. Saya nampak ada
problem. Terima kasih.

Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Mohamad bin Haji Hasan: Pengerusi, semua perkiraan yang
disebut oleh Tanah Merah tadi, semua dah dimasukkan perkiraan Dato’ Yang di-Pertua ya,
sebelum kita buat innovation dan juga menyerahkan ataupun pengambilan alih oleh OSB,
kepunyaan milik Kementerian Kewangan tersebut. Itu semua telah pun dikenal pasti dan
ianya akan diselesaikan oleh pihak Kementerian Kewangan, insya-Allah

On LMS Batch 2, Mohamad said due diligence on the selected shipyards has been conducted and the matter will be finalised by the Finance Ministry.

RMN officers poring over the model of the ADA class at LIMA 2023. Malaysian Defence picture

Perolehan LMS Batch 2, ini daripada YB Bagan Serai. Pihak pengguna TLDM telah
mendapatkan request for proposal (RFP) daripada 11 syarikat pembina kapal dari beberapa
negara. Daripada 11 RFP yang diterima, lapan syarikat pembina kapal telah memberikan
maklum balas terhadap RFP tersebut. Susulan itu, pihak TLDM telah melaksanakan penilaian
kepada tawaran tersebut.
Hasil penilaian tersebut, pihak TLDM telah mengenal pasti beberapa pembina kapal
daripada Turkiye yang menepati spesifikasi yang diperlukan oleh TLDM. Oleh itu,
kementerian telah mengangkat perkara ini kepada Jemaah Menteri pada 20 Ogos 2023 dan
kerajaan telah meluluskan perolehan kapal Littoral Mission Ship Batch 2 (LMS Batch 2) untuk
dilaksanakan menerusi pendekatan government-to-government Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua, iaitu
G2G dengan negara Turkiye. Status terkini, kementerian sedang buat due diligence terhadap
syarikat yang diluluskan oleh kerajaan dan perkara ini akan diangkat kepada Kementerian
Kewangan untuk dimuktamadkan, insya-Allah.

Dearsan C92 corvette. Dearsan.

Mohamad also acknowledged that the ministry was aware the RMN capability gap due to the delays to the LCS. So much so it had approached a country to buy a newly completed ship but it was rebuffed. He did not name the country, but I believed it may well be Turkey, Pakistan or Ukraine.

Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Mohamad bin Haji Hasan: Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua, itu
sebabnya sehingga kami pergi merata tempat untuk membeli kapal yang dah siap. Begitulah
urgency-nya, begitulah kehendak kami untuk kita mempertahankan perairan negara kita.
Tetapi malangnya kapal-kapal yang dah siap semua dah berpunya. Sehingga kami memujuk
sebuah negara tersebut bagi kami kapal tersebut, kami bayar sikit lebih tak apa, tetapi dia
kata tak boleh. Itu adalah hasrat, bagaimana hasrat untuk kita menjaga perairan dan benteng
pertahanan negara kita Puan Yang di-Pertua. Terima kasih.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2095 Articles
Shah Alam

114 Comments

  1. Actually why evaluate 11 proposals if they are only keen on Turkish designs or will only do G2G with Turkey? Why not solicit RFP just from Turkey? Is this a case of RMN may want something else but are being told to choose only from Turkey?

  2. 5 LCS frigate (Gowind) and 3 LMS corvette (Ada). Total of 8 new combatant ship addition. Plus 2 old Lekiu frigate and 2 old Kasturi corvette so RMN will have 12 combatant (frigate / corvette) in the future. Okay, its better than nothing.

  3. Radome cheaper from overseas?

    We have plenty of expert composite radome manufacturers. One of it is CTRM.

    Also the details of LCS Gowind project. A lot of the latest explanation that does not tally with previous details.

    On the missile, I believe we need to spend extra to buy the VL MICA NG, as the NSM has been fully paid for.
    https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/lima-2019/2019/04/lima-2019-kongsberg-started-production-of-nsm-anti-ship-missiles-for-malaysia/

    This would also be the opportune time to decide if we want to have a common MERAD missile with LCS Gowind.

    The reply from MENHAN on looking at readymade ships reinforces the fact that the LCS Batch 2 need is really because to make up for the LCS Gowind delay, and the want for new hulls right now. Signing for newbuild LCS Batch 2 now will not have those ships delivered before the 1st LCS Gowind touches the water, making the LMS Batch 2 exercise moot. So is the LMS Batch 2 something really needed by TLDM?

    Until our politicians really include APMM (and not just TLDM) in their maritime security plans, we will have big issues to secure our waters. Our main challenge right now is the blatant encroachment by Chinese Coast Guard in Malaysian maritime zones. We cannot tend to this issue just by using TLDM and buying TLDM ships. Solving this issue using resources given to APMM will be much better option in the overall scheme of things.

  4. From what I understand, the LMS Batch 2 is definitely from Türkiye. Did I read that correctly?

    Maybe the RMN wanted Türkiye or Ukraine to transfer one of theirs to Malaysia but that was blocked. Cannot be the Pakistani ones because they are too big.

  5. For our peacetime maritime security scenario, do we really need LMS Batch 2 Corvettes?

    I am of the opinion that it is not needed

    To support 6 large ships always at sea off sabah and sarawak (to monitor Chinese Coast Guard ships plus ASW surveillance of the Spratlys), plus 1 each off east and west coast of the peninsular, quantity as per pictured below would be needed
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_nBAO1bEAA8GbP.jpg
    All large OPVs & Frigates to be operational at sea for at least 30 days at a time.
    with other near shore areas covered by LMS-X, NGPC, new 25m PC, FIC and RHFB.

    To have 1 ship always at sea, we usually will need 3 of the same, so that:
    1 operational at sea
    1 return from operations/maintenance/rest
    1 training/standby/ready to go to sea

    We can easily achieve 18 large OPV + 3 OSV Rescue/Tow/Patrol ships for APMM for a budget as low as USD 400 million spent in this and next RMK (RMK12 2021-2025 and RMK13 2026-2030). APMM would be the primary service for the day to day security of Malaysian Maritime Zone.

    A leaner TLDM with 10 Frigates, 6 Scorpene Submarines and 24 LMS-X would take up the deterrence side of Malaysian Maritime Security scenario. When out at sea, a Gowind frigate would sail with at least 2 LMS-X that acts as loyal wingman/distributed lethality node/ASW multistatic sensors towing cheap towed sonars such as the Kraitsense/SeaSerpent system
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/pac-report-on-lcs-october-9-2023/

    All of this able to be achieved within the current levels of development budget.

  6. That HISAR class is seriously armed for an OPV. How can they possibly afford 3, let alone a total of 8 on the current budget?

  7. If the corvettes from Turkiye is mostly unarmed and FFBNW like the Kedah class due to the low budget, I don’t see why we should bother with the LMS Batch 2.

    Buy cheaper OPV for MMEA instead.

  8. Transfer of ready made ships?

    There was a rumor on the Italian PPA OPV/Frigates, but those are way above the LMS Batch 2 budget.

  9. How many million times must it be said. Ships dont get build by a click of the button and war doesnt happen only when everyone is ready. How are you expecting the transition from peacetime to wartime to happen?

  10. If we do really want a ready made ship ASAP…

    There is 3 really nice MEKO A-200 frigates sitting idle somewhere in Africa.

    I believe an offer for the budget of 3 LMS Batch 2 would be a sensible offer for those ships, and would enable them to maintain and refit other ships in their fleet (especially their submarines).

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQnn1HeXwAIbivn.jpg

  11. @ Kel

    “How are you expecting the transition from peacetime to wartime to happen?”

    peacetime
    APMM – primary service
    TLDM – secondary/support/deterrence

    wartime
    TLDM – primary service
    APMM – secondary/sidelines (surface ships are very vulnerable anyway)

    Peacetime missions is not what if, but a reality 24Hrs/265days in a year.

    Concentrate on what is reality first. Secondary would be preparedness fr war (which is TLDM primary task)

    Anyway kel, do you have a better idea then?

  12. … – “I am of the opinion that it is not needed”

    I’m of the opinion that various things at the right mix are needed; all operating in tandem/jointly; all to some extent having both peacetime and wartime utility. Nothing being more vital than the other and nothing being put on a pedestal or seen as a panacea.

    I’m also of the opinion that we have to make a distinction between reality and wish lists/personal preferences. In an ideal world the RMAF and RMN would only respectively have MRCAs and frigates and not also LCAs and corvettes but we don’t live in lala land. Would be nice if we did.

    …: – “We cannot tend to this issue just by using TLDM and buying TLDM ships”

    Well hallelujah and all praise but there is no such intention. Never was. The problem as always is political indifference… Another problem is there is such a thing as “bureaucracy” – the MAF and MMEA answerable and given funding from different entities.

    … – “For our peacetime maritime security scenario, do we really need LMS Batch 2 Corvettes?”

    The same can be asked : do we need various other things for “peacetime scenarios”? News flash: the RMN is not getting the LMS Batch 2s or anything else for that matter to only or mainly perform “peacetime maritime security scenario” …

    As far as the RMN and RMAF goes; almost every or all assets have both peace and war time utility; as should be.

    … – “All large OPVs & Frigates to be operational at sea for at least 30 days at a time.”

    Is it really needed? Extra time at sea equals to extra wear and tear and that equates to extra maintenance when the ships return. All RMN ships routinely are at sea 2-3 weeks anyway and each ship has reserves of fuel, food and water which can be utilised at the CO’s discretion should the ship be required to stay a bit longer.

    Wong – “Buy cheaper OPV for MMEA instead”

    If you want to conflate things must as well say don’t get cell phones and rely on cheaper to buy and operate walk or talkies.

  13. “It is designed like the Kedah class, fitted for but not equipped with.”

    I thought navy want them armed?

  14. Better option? Buy LMS Batch 2 la. What else? Talk peacetime wartime, primary vs seconday roless but never answer how will the transition happen from peacetime to wartime. Is the other side going to ask how much time you need to be ready, and agree to wait until we are ready? So we say wait, I need 5 years to build my new warship and upgrade my current ships. The other side says ok, you got deal, we fight 5 years later. Is that how you envisage the transition to be?

  15. Is the fitted for but not equipped with mean they will have the launchers but not the missiles? Presumably they will OE the missiles in the future when the ships are delivered? Or is this like the Kedah, no launchers installed but conceptually can be retrofitted when required? If no launchers, RM2.4b is too much for 3 patrol vessels, more so Malaysia almost never upgrades or adds new weapons to existing ships – the chance of future installation is near 0%, the chance of the 3 ships remaining patrol vessels for their life is near 100%. If no launchers, then its a bad buy.

  16. ..:: – (surface ships are very vulnerable anyway”

    Subs can be ”vulnerable”. Being less “vulnerable” on paper doesn’t make them ”invulnerable” in reality …

    An opponent could resort to various means to reduce the effectiveness of subs or to prevent from operating. We only have to look at the experiences of WW1/2. An opponent might have a numerical or qualitative edge; he might have his own subs in the area; underwater sensors; UUVs; mines and air and surface ASW units. He will also understand the limitations of subs.

    With only 2 subs the RMN will be very selective in deploying them; in circumstances where they can operate in an advantageous circumstance as possible. Also, in the event of troubles breaking out in the Spratlys and us being involved; not given we’d deploy subs there as it will be “crowded” with subs of various navies – wouldn’t want a “blue on blue” now would we …

    Another issue is that subs are inherently resource intensive to procure and maintain. Acquiring a pool of submariners is also challenging: for all navies; more so for small all volunteer resource strapped navies like the RMN. Submariners need a higher level of technical competency; wash out rates are high and retention rates low.

    This is not too say that we shouldn’t get subs; merely that it would be tomfoolery to take it for granted or assume they will always be less “vulnerable” or more “survivable”. Also depends on the context; they type of conflict; the operational challenges and circumstances.

  17. Apologies. The recurring use of FFBNW or FF but not equipped with is scary based on Malaysia’s experience. Having SSM is assuring but based on experience, doubt the SAM will ever be fitted.
    It will be like- “Sudah ada kapal apa lagi nak.” -“Boss kapal tak ada SAM missile. Launcher pun tak ada.” -“Kita tak perang, tidak perlu missile sekarang. Bila perang baru order.”
    I guess the LCS will be providing the fleet air defense. But wait… govt havent even decided on the SAM missles, or whether it will even be bought…

  18. ” Also depends on the context; they type of conflict; the operational challenges and circumstances ”

    Okay lets set the context

    Context – malaysia maritime security – TLDM to 2040. Development budget of around USD2 billion per 5 year RMK. APMM to 2030 development budget of around USD500 million per 5 year RMK (all within current levels of budget allocation)

    Type of conflict (war) – The danger of china declaring war and unilaterally blocks all economic activities in the 9-dash line and declares it chinese territorial waters. To hold the line on our own (distributed lethality, striking back and foiling chinese attempt of full control of the area) for at least 1 week before help from allies / UN ceasefire.

    Operational challenges (peacetime). Pushing back chinese coast guard on day to day basis. Enduring presence (always have a ship at sensitive areas 24/7/365) to show effective control of malaysian maritime zone. Enabling full freedom of economic activities by malaysian entities in malaysian maritime zone. Preventing illegal activities such as IUU fishing, smuggling of goods and people. Maritime safety, SAR, rescue of distressed ships. Tracking and shadowing foreign naval ships and submarines. Full situational awareness of malaysian maritime zone (on surface, below surface and in the air)

    My plan is based on the above context
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/lcs-lms-batch-2-and-radome/#comment-883726

  19. Can someone explain why they need 3 more years to complete LCS 1? From the latest picture of the LCS 1 in Lumut already on the water. Now if it’s on the water that means it is almost completed? So why need 3 more years to complete LCS 1? It doesn’t make sense! You could build new ship from scratch in less that 3 years. It doesn’t adds up. Seriously?

  20. Its not on the water, its on the dockyard. Furthermore, as reported BNS still need around 17 per cent of the drawings to be approved by Naval Group. Yes it normally takes 3 years to build a ship, two years to build and one year for commissioning. The problem is the LCS 1 has not really completed two years of work…

  21. As for the FFBNW concept, you can blame the Old Man for it as well the “we are not going to war” mentality.

    The thing about the LCS, its elementary even if the government said it not decided on the SAM. BNS has already bought the Sylver launchers, and it is already here. The ship is cut for the launchers (all six shipsets) and the CMS is set up to fire them. What else can we buy but the MICA?

  22. …. – “Okay lets set the context”

    You mean your “context “ …

    Like I said : I’m of the opinion that various things at the right mix are needed; all operating in tandem/jointly; all to some extent having both peacetime and wartime utility. Nothing being more vital than the other and nothing being put on a pedestal or seen as a panacea.

    There are threats we can FACs and those we can’t. We plan as best we can based in the resources we have. In a full blown high intensity war against an opponent who enjoys a numerical and qualitative edged; nothing we get will really be “survivable”.

  23. … – “To hold the line on our own (distributed lethality, striking back and foiling chinese attempt of full control of the area) for at least 1 week before help from allies / UN ceasefire”

    This is delusional thinking. Firstly we are small fish. If China declares war it won’t be on us. In the event troubles do break out it’s not given we’d automatically be involved. To put it bluntly; China is focused on Taiwan and American, Japanese and Australian reaction. Not us and if doesn’t have to go to war with us if it intends on not playing nice.

    The notion that we can “hold the line” for a week and “foil” anything is delusional cloud cuckoo land thinking. Sounds great; like a motivational talk but doesn’t square with reality: we don’t have the numbers; the skill sets; the sustainability; etc. As a purveyor of links and a diligent online researcher; you’d realise it if you actually put some objective non emotional thought in it. Also, if you want to [yet again] mention Vietnam and Finland; I’ll [yet again] explain in detail for your benefit why comparisons with those 2 are spurious; the circumstance were very different and ultimately Finland had to sue for peace; sign a peace treaty and give land away.

    Terms like “distributed lethality [your quote]; “deep strike”; “multi domain”; “force multiplier”, etc, sounds great; especially for fanboys and in PowerPoint slides but I’m dealing with reality here. Not what we can do based on links and wish lists.

    There are some threats we can deal with and some we can’t – cant say this enough. If anyone is daft enough to say what’s the point of having a MAF if can’t handle the PLA: I’ll call him an two face idiot to his face and damn the niceties. We can’t square off or “hold the line” against the PLAN and we cant “fool” anything; even if we had 10 of the subs which you speak of like they’re a silver bullet and 60 of your LMS Xs.

    We can strike back” but we can’t replace what we lose and we’d run out of consumables after a couple of strikes. China on the other hand can afford to lose assets; we sink 5;,it’ll send another 5. It can also resort to non kinetic means; cyber/EW strikes on our power, cell and phone grid; radar, SATCOM; etc. Don’t tell me something silly like what can corvettes do because if China goes all the way; whatever asset we have will count for nothing.

    Then what? We sing patriotic songs; hit our chests to self motivate; appeal to the Muslim would [hasn’t been united since the time of the Crusades and even then] and start labelling anyone who gives up “defeatist”? Or you going to adopt [again] the silly notion that I’m [in your mind] suggesting we sit back and do nothing? Another reminder; whilst you’re all focused on China the MAF has various other possible regrets to worry about.

    Notably missing from all your narratives is that the enemy has a vote. He also can react and his has much more resources then we do; plus the tertiary skill sets. After all he trains to deal with the likes of the U.S, Japan and Australia; who are we? We can barely meet our peacetime commitments.

  24. P.S.

    In case you – yet again – see fit to bring up Vietnam and Finland; I’ll – yet again – point out that it’s an apples to others comparison; different dynamics at play and ultimately Finland has to sue for peace and give land away.

    If faced with a threat the MAF will do its very best like it always does but against a much better resourced opponent; only so much it can do in terms of actual abilities and sustaining things.

  25. Actually, I now wonder if the RMN will accept a smaller LMS B2 like the Dearsan C74 or an enlarged derivative of it?

  26. Is it RM13.2 billion for 5 LCS now? Okay, I believe it.
    Out of RM13.2 billion some RM 6 billion are already paid so there are still RM 7.2 billion still on hand.
    We can get 3 FREMMs or 4 Arrowhead140s.

    And still, we choose to continue LCS although the design is not fully approved by Naval and how good they are when delivered.

  27. “we don’t have the numbers; the skill sets; the sustainability; etc”

    That is the situation currently, not our future.

    Future which is something we can still change within our means. It can be done. Ammo depth can be increased within the current budgets to have enough ammo and missiles to last an all out 1 week of war (as i included in my plan, example RMK13 – top up NSM and VL MICA NG missiles USD0.3 billion; RMK14 top up LMS-X surface attack module missiles USD0.3 bil).

    TLDM unencumbered with shouldering the task of peacetime patrols will have more resources to run more submarines and frigates.

    APMM empowered with the right resources and priority will do peacetime maritime security much more efficient and at lower cost than if we depend mostly on naval forces.

    Not everything is unwinnable. If any war is really unwinnable, we can still concentrate fully on APMM and just do peacetime security. Then it is no to any LMS Batch 2 and yes to more APMM OPV then.

  28. “His statement differed from the Public Accounts Committe (PAC) report”
    Can the Menhan be subpoena for telling a different explanation with a totally different costing than that presented to the public and that which had previously reported in Parliament? I mean this is what Tanah Merah is talking about; trust deficit. And even the sitting MPs are starting to question the figures being thrown in Parliament.
    If the current Govt cannot be trusted, then who else?

  29. @KC Wong
    “Buy cheaper OPV for MMEA instead.”
    I will rehash this again, That is a wrong thinking as these are TLDM ships and they must have a war time function. An OPV (without the sensors & mounting spaces) will not have any use during wartime, while the premise is that a FFBNW ship can be rearmed within 24hrs.

    @hulubalang
    “There is 3 really nice MEKO A-200 frigates sitting idle somewhere in Africa.”
    More other nation specced boats? Err no thanks, we got burned by that experience.

    “for at least 1 week before help from allies / UN ceasefire.”
    Nice to dream but unless it badly affects commerce or totally stops commercial vessels from going thru, UN wont give a frack about Chinese grabs. Dont forget that China is also a UN veto power too.

    “What else can we buy but the MICA?”
    Actually Sylver is a lot more versatile than that. If we wanted the whole hog, we could go with Aster instead.

    “the SSM is given, the SAM is FFBNW”
    If that is the case, then its better to commonise between the Kedahs & LCS. If SSM is given then it should be NSM but preferably Exocet as it can interchange with Kedahs, as well as the SAM launchers too.

  30. … – “That is the situation currently, not our future”

    I’m referring to the present and the foreseeable future because for the foreseeable we are unlikely to have the numbers or skill sets. Not unless or until something happens to really change how we view the strategic calculus which in turns changes how we view defence and how we allocate funding. A policy shift is needed and what we do is based on long prescribed policy.

    If you want to talk about future possibilities then make the distinction because if it’s the future you’re focused on then the proverbial the “skies the limit” kicks in and we can talk about anything and everything.

    … – “Not everything is unwinnable”

    A war/clash with a country which spends a hell of a lot more than us; which has a larger economy and population; which has a strong tech base and which has a military which far surpasses the MAF in quality and quantity is “not winnable” even if you’re the sort who believes in divine providence or like Der Fuhrer believed that sheer patriotic will power and zeal could overcome whatever shortcomings.

    … – “ we can still concentrate fully on APMM and just do peacetime security. Then it is no to any LMS Batch 2 and yes to more APMM OPV then“

    Whatever floats your boat if you want to conflate things but the MAF and MMEA are different entities; answerable and funded from different entities and which do different things. Conflating things and saying that one can do away with the other is silly/simplistic.

    Again, there are threats we can handle and those we can’t. As it stands we’d be severely disadvantaged against immediate neighbours; never mind China which you’re mesmorised with; as if it’s ordained by a higher being.

    … – “TLDM unencumbered with shouldering the task of peacetime patrols”

    As I have said many times before : even if the MMEA had dozens of OPVs the RMN; like all navies would still have a peacetime function.

    … – “Ammo depth can be increased within the current budgets”

    Save the sales pitch, the prices and possibilities. We don’t plan for extended wars – full stop/period. We’re not exactly pre 1979 Iran which bought years of spares for its F-14s and F-4s or Singapore which maintains a huge stockpile. Policy ….

    If we actually planned for a high threat protected wars and were serious with defence the MAF wouldn’t have the force structure it has; we wouldn’t have capability gaps; we’d be running larger joint exercises with whole units as opposed to elements; we wouldn’t be penny pinching with sustainment funds; we’d be well on our way to being a systems centric military and we wouldn’t be rehulling decades old ships which should have been retired in the 1990’s.

  31. … – “enough ammo and missiles to last an all out 1 week of war”

    You realise that a lot can happen in one week; that one week can be like eternity or that in a couple of days; never mind a whole week; we can lose the bulk of what little assets we have which can’t be replaced. You’re a diligent online researcher and proliferator of links; realise how wide the gap is in capabilities and resources between the Malaysian Armed Forces and the People’s Liberation Army?

  32. Look at the map. SCS is important to China not only because of the resources. It is the only route to the Pacific that is not blocked by Taiwan and Japan. It is also the fastest route in which the US can redeploy its middle east and Atlantic CVBGs into the Pacific. Thus to have the ability to degrade China’s control over SCS is enough of a deterrence. Again, deterrence means to dissuade the adversary from considering a particular course of action – in this case military action. China will never put everything they have in SCS so its a pointless exercise to assume a conflict would involve the full weight of the PLA,PLAN,PLAF. If one wants to be precise, research on the assets China positions in the region (e.g., the South Sea Fleet), look at which bases are the most criticial – including Yulin naval base in “mainland China”. Understand the capabilities and vulnerabilities of in theatre forces, assets, and bases. State the intended goal of the military strategy – deterrence. Determine the required assets to achieve the goal. Hint, China’s SCS islands require control of the airspace and waters to defend. It you start with the military goal of being able to defeat China, there will never be a force structure that Malaysia can afford.

  33. Hulubalang, you are suggesting RMN doesnt buy LMS2 and instead give the money to MMEA to buy more patrol vessels? And your idea or plan is RMN will buy their ships when war happens? And the transition from peace to war happens in years if not decades or the other wide will give us the heads up and be willing to wait? And the plan B is acknowledge cannot win therefore shouldn’t bother with wartime preparations, i.e., forget about RMN? Assuming you understand the national defense strategy as articulated in the DWO, in fact any country’s strategy, is deterrence, how does your plan deter adversaries? Interested to understand your definition of deterrence.

  34. Kel – “China will never put everything they have in SCS so its a pointless exercise to assume a conflict would involve the full weight of the PLA,PLAN,PLAF”

    It’s also “pointless” not to note that whatever China deploys in the event of troubles will still not have a quantitative and qualitative edge over what we or any regional player can deploy …
    Also note that like the U.S. which has a global presence and commitments; China does not.

    Kel – “Understand the capabilities and vulnerabilities of in theatre forces, assets, and bases”

    Do you understand? Also, have you read widely on the subject beyond what you can find on the net?

    Recommended.

    “The Great Wall at Sea: China’s Navy in the Twenty-first Century” [Cole]
    “Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific” [Kaplan]
    “Anti Access Warfare” [Tangredi]
    “Fleet Tactics: Theory and Practice [Hughes]

    Kel – “Look at the map. SCS is important to China not only because of the resources”

    Taking Taiwan better enables China to deploy power in the region and to break out of the 1st Island Chain.

    Another pertinent fact is that China’s land borders re the most secure they have been in centuries. It’s the maritime domain which is of concern now; the maritime domain which enables outside powers to humiliate and someone subjugate China in the past.

    Kel – “Thus to have the ability to degrade China’s control over SCS is enough of a deterrence”

    Ok von Clausewitz but what happens if one’s “deterrence” does not”deter”? Ponder on that … Anyone who says this is “defeatist” or not “patriotic” needs a realty check.

    Kel – “It you start with the military goal of being able to defeat China, there will never be a force structure that Malaysia can afford”

    Correction : can “afford” and “sustain”.

    Malaysia can never play catch up or “deter” or “foil” a country with the resources China has – period/full stop: irrespective of any delusions one’s under.
    To think otherwise is delusional cloud cuckoo land thinking. The MAF is not equipped, trained or structured; neither does the country have the resources needed.

    Ta for the insightful and thought provoking analysis of the calibre you’d find at stomping grounds of the most capable military thinkers/theorists but paragraphs instead of turd like blobs.

  35. @ kel

    You are talking without understanding my plans at all.

    Buying 3 FFBNW Corvettes even if you pay it now, you cannot get them to be completed before the Gowinds. Much better to get all 6 Gowinds instead, which are fully armed.

    Compare TLDM current plan to 2030, with my alternative plan to 2030

    TLDM original plan to 2030
    – 2x SCORPENE SUBMARINE
    – 5x LCS Gowind fully armed
    – 2x Lekiu
    – 2x Kasturi
    – 8x LMS Batch 2 FFBNW
    – 6x Kedah class FFBNW
    – 14x FAC gun only
    – 4x LMS68 30mm gun only

    My alternative TLDM + APMM plan to 2030
    – 3x SCORPENE SUBMARINE (plus 3 more 2031-2040)
    – 6x LCS GOWIND fully armed
    – 2x Lekiu (replaced by 2x ARROWHEAD 140 2036-2040)
    – 2x Kasturi (replaced by 2x ARROWHEAD 140 2031-2035)
    – 24x LMS-X 55m fully armed 12x Cakir SSM

    With APMM of
    – 6x Tae Pyung Yang OPV
    – 3x DAMEN 1800 OPV
    – 3x KM Pekan class (ex Japan CG OPV)
    – 6x ex Kedah Class
    – 3x 70+m OSV Rescue/tow/patrol vessels.

  36. @ joe

    “More other nation specced boats? Err no thanks, we got burned by that experience”

    No choice if you really want hulls in the water right now.

    IMO better hulls than the LMS Batch 2 corvettes.

    Use them as is now till say 2027/8. It will be at best used as OPV as most of its electronics are in need of modernisation.

    Do SLEP to close to Egyptian A-200 specs, with VL MICA and NSM when all of the Gowinds are in commission.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENS_Al-Aziz

  37. @ azlan

    You are still talking about the future in present and past tense.

    As i said, what i write about plans FOR THE FUTURE is to give second opinions to those in power (and not you azlan) on what can be planned and done FOR THE FUTURE.

    Every future plans should done with a context and to what extent we can do and afford the plan. Being a small country does not mean we cannot plan ourselves to defend our country from bigger nations.

    Also you always say about conflacting TLDM and APMM. I am of the opinion that both are defending the same Malaysian Maritme Zone, and APMM is much more relevant right now due to our challenges is now mainly from the encroachment of Chinese Coast Guard, not the Chinese Navy. Planning the defence of our maritime zone not including both APMM and TLDM in a comprehensive single plan is a waste of resources and is a bad planning execution.

  38. Amidst all this talk about China and the fantasy of the MAF being able to “deter”, “foil” and hold China off for a whole week [in the future off course and predicated on the decision makers listening to “…”]; what will be the economic affects?

    The economic effects of Covid were bad enough; what would be the effects of troubles with China; given that China is one of the largest FDIs here and is where the bulk of our exports end up.

    Another question; since we have in the company of thinkers/theorists here with impeccable credentials; how much of our procurement should be threat and not capability driven? As it stands our longstanding policy was to acquire a bit [but never enough of anything] to acquire a minimal self defence capability in line with our view that we only faced limited and not existential or protracted state on state threats. This simple bit surprisingly not realised by some policy drives what we do.

    My view is that unless or until something happens which drastically changes our threat perceptions and how we view the strategic calculus; nothing will change – we’ll continue buying in dribs and drabs; i.e. Jernas will be replaced by a similar number of systems but nothing more; our ships will be modestly armed; etc.

    The same goes with our overall defence policy; procurement will continue to be based with national interests in mind rather than the needs of the armed services and taxpayers.

  39. … – “You are still talking about the future in present and past tense”

    At least I know what I’m on about and am not conflating things and making assumptions based on my personal preferences.

    Also, unless you believe in divine miracles; in the future we will still not be able to acquire the assets, skill sets and sustainability needed to “deter”, “foil” and hold off for a whole week the PLA. Fantasy.

    In the future the PLA would still be far better resources and have the various tertiary capabilities. It worries even the U.S. and Japan but you’d have us believe that in the future we can
    “deter”, “foil” and hold off for a whole week” the PLA.
    Must as well yell about Cinderella and Rapunzel.

    … – “is to give second opinions to those in power (and not you azlan”

    I’ll blow your trumpet for you and sing endless songs of praise but you’re actually under the illusion that decision makers will make decisions based on what they read here? Wow …. You must think very highly of yourself.

    … – “FOR THE FUTURE”

    More upper case letters please since they are needed for you to make a point …

    As I said : “If you want to talk about future possibilities then make the distinction because if it’s the future you’re focused on then the proverbial the “skies the limit” kicks in and we can talk about anything and everything”.

    … – “ am of the opinion that both are defending the same Malaysian Maritme Zone”

    It’s not an “opinion”; a fact but ultimately both are different entities; intended to do slightly different things and are answerable to different entities. Saying that the RMN should not get X because the funds would be better off channeled to the MMEA to get Y is off; to put it mildly.

    … – “You are talking without understanding my plans at all”

    When others disagree with you and point out flaws or holes in the narrative it’s because they don’t understand but if they agree with you it’s all good right?

  40. “The thinking is to put NSM on Kedah”
    Indeed logically it should be this way, looking forward, but then we would have to buy additional NSM launchers for Kedahs as well as the integration cost. If LMS2 were to use Exocet it can share more commonality with the Kedahs as well as transplant their launchers & missiles to either ships, the point of a FFBNW config.

  41. … – “No choice if you really want hulls in the water right now.”

    Yes but for the sake of discussion is that a penalty the RMN is willing to incur? As it it it has rejected a plenty of offers for pre owned hulls and as part of the 5/15 reducing its footprint is a priority.

    … – “Much better to get all 6 Gowinds instead, which are fully armed”

    But that doesn’t solve the need for a secondary combatant to fulfil a numbers of roles which don’t call for a LCS and to fulfil roles at a fraction of the cost compared to the LCS; as stated by the RMN.

    So in essence it’s not “better” … Also what’s to say that those hulls you’re referring to won’t be more expensive to operate compared to Batch 2s; due to any number of reasons.

    … – “Compare TLDM current plan to 2030, with my alternative plan to 2030”

    And you do have a tendency make simplistic conflations based on what looks sound on paper and what you think looks sound. Not everything is like a P/O sheet or a PowerPoint slide.

  42. Hulubalang, what you listed if a force structure with timelines for certain assets. Anyone can understand what the structure is and what it can do. But the question on transitioning from peacetime to wartime is about how it happens. Based on your plan, are you assuming the risk of conflict, the 1% eventuality, will never happen until 2040? There is no right or wrong, just have to articulate some of the assumptions so people can understand. There’s nothing wrong with getting Arrowheads or more submarines – since ultimately its a matter of dollar and cents. For me, 8 new ships with SSM, of which 5 has SAM arriving by 2030 is a significant expansion of RMN’s warfighting capability and allows retiring of very old ships. Buying 9 new ships (3 new OPVs and 6 new NGPC) for MMEA at a little bit more than 3 Tae Pyung Yang, provides MMEA with more ships to cover more areas – to curb illegal fishing, smuggling, piracy, etc. That’s just it. 17 new ships is better than 9 new ships.

  43. Actually, I now wonder if the RMN will accept a smaller LMS B2 like the Dearsan C74 or an enlarged derivative of it? (Tom Tom)
    Always liked the looks of this ship@ Dearsan C74. Even better if we can get the larger C92. Or better still the STM Ada-class.
    But whatever Turkish ship gets built for our Navy (InsyaAllah) I hope the level of hanky-panky is gone or minimized.
    Our idiot politicians hopefully are corralled in a holding area whilst our PM, the Finance and Defence Ministers hammer out the selection of the shipbuilders!

  44. “used as OPV as most of its electronics are in need of modernisation.”
    “Do SLEP when all of the Gowinds are in commission.”
    The beancounters wouldnt wear it if a supposedly <5 yo owned boat already needs extensive modernisation and a costly SLEP, something we always liked to defer, delay or outright cancel.

    "My alternative TLDM + APMM plan to 2030"
    Unfortunate to tell you but that has an uneconomical TLDM to run during peacetime duties and an MMEA that is too numerous to be useful during wartime.

  45. Okaylah Mr. Azlan,

    Let say all my suggestions and Malaysian Maritime Security context is all wrong like you say it is.

    As you are the defence expert with your own writing here has:
    – known and read all the defence, military and historical books under the sun
    – has personal contacts up to the highest levels in the military
    – has written for many defence and military magazines before

    With your vast knowledge of defence matters, could you please list down what you see as the correct context for Malaysian Maritime Security in the future (not the 70s or 80s)? So what would be the type of conflict; the operational challenges and circumstances that would be faced in the future for Malaysian Maritime Security?

  46. There are at least four to eight NSM launchers and eight missiles available as they are not completing the sixth LCS. So, enough launchers and missiles the six Kedah class. The plan was to fit two SSM on the Kedah anyways. If the LMS 2 is built in Turkey, it will be equipped with Turkish SSM.

  47. @ kel

    “For me, 8 new ships with SSM, of which 5 has SAM arriving by 2030 is a significant expansion of RMN’s warfighting capability”

    Can you even read back what you say and compare to my plan to 2030???

    My plan to 2030 has
    – 3x SCORPENE SUBMARINE each with heavy torps and Exocet SM missiles
    – 6x LCS GOWIND fully armed each with 8x NSM
    – 24x LMS-X 55m fully armed each with 12x Cakir SSM

    How is that much ships and missiles, all can be bought within current budgetary limits is less significant warfighting capability than the current TLDM plan????

    @ joe

    3x Meko A-200 with CODAG-WARP is ready on the water (now idle due to lack of money to operate and upgrade it), compared with 3x Turkish Corvette/OPV all with FFBNW weapons like the Kedah class that is probably only be commissioned after the 1st GOWIND is in the water. From now up to 2027 you will still have zero ships. After that it will still be at best also an OPV because of all the FFBNW.

  48. …. – “With your vast knowledge of defence matters, could you please list down what you see as”

    Frustration speaking? Sound like a jilted lover.

    I never claimed all the things you listed and it’s typical that you perennially revert to the same theme : asking others to play the game you play; giving alternate plans/wish lists based on personal preferences and sheer assumptions. If they agree with you all’s fine’s;when they don’t it’s because they can’t understand. You don’t get to demand things …

    Like I said; you’ve a very high opinion of yourself.

    … – “Radome cheaper from overseas”

    Various things can be “cheaper from oversees” if the manufacturer has economics of scale and ready production and if the local company has a “healthy” markup; amongst the reasons. We only have to look at small arms ammo; cheaper to acquire from abroad.

    … – “SCORPENE SUBMARINE”

    Whilst you’re at it must as well post everything in upper case since you feel it helps others understand.

    Kel – “is no right or wrong, just have to articulate some of the assumptions so people can understand” Indeed there’s no “right or wrong” but we have to stick within the realms of reality and not base things on sheer assumptions; wishful twinkling and dismissing what others say simply because they don’t fit in with one’s line of reasoning.

    Paragraphs make it easier it easier for others to digest; shoes consultation and was taught at primary school

  49. “If the LMS 2 is built in Turkey, it will be equipped with Turkish SSM.”
    Would it be better if we switch to NSM (or even Exocet) in the design stage?
    Would it have been better to take a hit with upfront higher integration cost but long run we only have to stock for 2 SSM types or is it more cost efficient (and likely less problems that plagued LCS) if we went with OEM Turk SSM but then we are saddled with 3 types of them?

  50. “Beggars cannot be choosers.”
    Haha you know, thats what keep saying but to some people our Armed Forces can choose to wait & wait & wait & wait until kingdom come or until they get what they wanted. But hey, its not like were at war with anyone soon rite?

  51. If I’m included in the “some people” it’s because we have a history of getting stuff which we’d normally wouldn’t get and which caused us issues in the long run. Quite a list. So it’s really the proverbial “Catch 22”.

  52. “Catch 22”
    It depends on our threat perception and percentage risk of us going to war.
    If we stand a higher chance it happening, then its more of a matter of having something to shoot with and worry to maintain it later. In an active war, hardware usually dont last that long for long term sustainment concerns to crop up.
    If we continue to maintain our benign state and a low risk environment, then yeah better to spend more money to get brand new and where we can get support & spares aplenty, where it fully meets the users needs, and where they can be integrated with our allies & friendlies. But then our politicians & beancounters will ask; whats the point of spending billions buying such weapons where the chance of using them is low then. So thats another Catch 22, isnt it? So which Catch 22 scenario we wanna be in?

  53. ”It depends on our threat perception and percentage risk of us going to war.”

    Well, as it stands we do not believe that we’ll be in a protracted state on state war and this drives what we do; i.e. the way we buy things; the numbers we buy and the actual priority we place in defence.

    ”But then our politicians & beancounters will ask; whats the point of spending billions buying such weapons where the chance of”

    Not ‘will ask” but ‘still’ do ask. Everything has to be justified and everything as far as possible must also have a peacetime utility. The Kasturis went from being ”frigates” to ”light frigates” to corvettes” and I was told is because the policy makers believe we should only have or need so many frigates. Take Jernas, It will be replaced by a regiment’s worth of new missiles; nothing more because we see the need to have a ”minimal” capability. The longstanding SPH requirement is for a sole regiment’ worth; nothing more and when the G-5s are retired the army will again be left with a sole 155mm regiment.

    As I explained to ”…” when he started claiming we can do this and that in the future; unless or something drastic happens to change our mindset; we will continue with our ”minimalist” approach; a bit of everything and the MAF will continue to be overstretched, underfunded and lacking numbers in various key areas. Overall policy will not change.

  54. Which brings me back to – We don’t need the LMS Batch 2 then.

    If all we need is peacetime utility, then we should not concentrate on TLDM, but APMM instead.

    APMM is a primarily peacetime security force. Now with real, quatifiable daily security challenges from foreign coast guard encroachments, to IUU and traficking.

  55. Hulubalang, suppose I take your plan as being the one, to have 28 new RMN ships by 2030. How would you propose to pay for 3 new submarines, a 6th LCS and 24 LMS-X in 6 years, and is it physically possible to build 28 ships in 6 years?

    Azlan, suppose we are all realist, we have not read all the books in the world, but we are bound by minimalist objectives, we have an undefined regional peer, we wish to not define what constitutes a protracted conflict, and we don’t want to tell the world what we mean by deterrence, what should Malaysia be getting?

  56. … – “Which brings me back to – We don’t need the LMS Batch 2 then”

    In turn that “brings me back to” we need the LMS because it’s an RMN asset; the MMEA in truth needs its OPVs. Two different things and since I have to make another reminder; like all RMN assets the LMSs will have both a war and peacetime utility.

    … – “then we should not concentrate on TLDM, but APMM instead”

    You’re not intentionally being glib right?

    This is as silly as saying we should focus on the army and not the RMAF or the Home Ministry and not MINDEF.

  57. “You’re not intentionally being glib right?”

    Continue putting words in other ppls mouths as you do.

    In your own words we cannot be able to fight a war with PLAN.

    The current maritime security reality is the encroachment of Chinese Coast Guard

    So if you are so smart then what should be malaysian priority to tacke the main maritime security problem which is the encroachment of Chinese Coast Guard??

    @ Kel

    “Hulubalang, suppose I take your plan as being the one, to have 28 new RMN ships by 2030. How would you propose to pay for 3 new submarines, a 6th LCS and 24 LMS-X in 6 years, and is it physically possible to build 28 ships in 6 years?”

    I have put all of it down.

    It is only 1 new submarine (for a total of 3 by 2030)

    Each 5 year malaysian budget for the last 20 years has consistently allocate USD2 billion for TLDM, and that is the ceiling cost i planned to.

    We have plenty of shipyards around Malaysia. Ships can also be build outside of malaysia

    RMK 12 2021-2025 (USD2.0 bil)

    – LCS Gowind USD1.15 bil Project continue (assume balance RM5.2bil need to be budgeted in RMK12)
    – LCS Gowind USD0.125 bil Assembly cost for 6th Gowind
    – 13x FIC batch 2 USD0.03 bil Gading G2000 MkII FIC
    – 12x LMS-X Damen FCS5009 USD0.4 bil including surface attack missile module.
    – 3x 70-80m OSV USD0.1 bil auxillary ship, MCM mothership, SF support, SUB support, UAS support, pipeline security/surveillance
    – 5x AW139 MUH batch 2 USD0.1 bil
    – 4x RQ-21A Blackjack UAV (used) USD0 4 systems of 5 airframe each. ex USMC retired. Free from US EDA
    total cost of USD1.905 billion

    RMK 13 2026-2030 (USD2.0 bil)

    – 1x Scorpene SSK USD0.6 bil assembled in Sepanggar (or overseas whatever)
    – 12x LMS-X damen FCS5009 USD0.4 bil including surface attack missile module.
    – 2x Fast RORO (used) USD0.04 bil replacement for MPCSS. Similar concept to Spanish Navy Ysabel
    – 1x Fleet tanker USD0.09 bil replacement of BM5, BM6. STM Turkiye fleet tanker 17,000 ton. built at MMHE Pasir Gudang
    – top up NSM and VL MICA NG missiles USD0.3 bil
    – 8x SH-60J Seahawk USD0.2 bil ex-JMSDF airframe + new avionics, radar, sonar
    – 2x MCM modular system set USD0.15 bil
    – 6x ASW module for LMS-X USD0.12 bil KraitSense system / Sea Serpent system
    total cost of USD1.9 billion

    LMS-X is based on a commercial 55m vessel that can be built by many shipyards in malaysia. There are dozens of competent shipyards in malaysia that can easily build a 55m vessel. Petronas for example, under Project Safina is planning to build up to 100 of similar ships in local Malaysian shipyards within 5 years time. Or you could even buy the LMS-X from Turkiye if you want, as many of the same design has been built in Turkiye (including the Ocean Warrior, that went on non-stop patrols against Japanese illegal whalers in harsh antarctica waters for 93 days straight).

    The LMS-X, unlike LMS Batch 2 Corvettes, will have the same top speed, the same range and the same endurance as GOWIND LCS, enabling it to sail together with the LCS Gowinds as a loyal wingman/distributed lethality node, enhancing the capability of the frigates. Planned to be a part of a larger fighting ecosystem, and not as a single ship. The larger quantity also enables to do peacetime patrols on its own, with its long range and high speeds handy to get to any point of malaysian maritime area quickly. Its modular missile system (surface module of 12x Cakir SSM and 24x VL HELLFIRE MMR) will carry much larger amount of missiles than what is planned for LMS Batch 2, and will be bought and fitted for all ships.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F__vEehacAA7nvS.jpg

    https://www.bernama.com/en/business/news.php?id=2239272

  58. Kel – “we don’t want to tell the world what we mean by deterrence, what should Malaysia be getting”

    What we can afford to procure and sustain in line with whatever our threat perceptions are. Capability or threat driven? In threat driven; against what level of threat?

    All these factors determine how we do things.

    Simple questions deserve simply answers and don’t require “all the books in the world” … That is the answer whether you like it or not or whether you want to unnecessarily make something convoluted.

    Kel – “we wish to not define what constitutes a protracted conflict”

    A “protracted conflict” is one which is not prolonged; the type we foresee. A type which does not spiral out of contro like the Peru//Ecuador border war or “Football War” or closer to home the Thai/Laos clash in 1987.

    Kel – “ we don’t want to tell the world what we mean by deterrence”

    Why “we don’t want to tell the world what we mean by deterrence”. I asked you a question earlier; amidst all this talk about “deterrence; a word which has become cliche like “deep strike” and “for multiplier”; what does one do if one’s “deterrence” fails to “deter”?

    Kel – “ How would you propose to pay for 3 new submarines”

    My question is how we afford to sustain them? Subs are inherently resource intensive and how do we acquire the needed pool of submariners to operate the subs; as well as shore support people? Retention rates are low and wash out rates high; compounding things is that the RMN is a small all volunteer navy.

  59. “Overall policy will not change.”
    Indeed so why are we still talking about it and hanging on to the hope that will change someday? Since it will never happen, lets think about how to make the best out of a rotten system. If we cant change the box into a ball, lets think within the box.

    We cant change the patronage system, so why not make it work for us. Award contracts only those who can perform, or say they can perform (dubious as it may be), and put in measures & performance goals otherwise they have to pay heavy penalties if they fail to deliver. If its to GLCs then it must have quarterly progress reporting to Parliament.

    We cant change the fact that projects will have ancillaries cost such as upgrading of facilitieslah, astronaut to spacelah, staycation trips to vendor countrieslah, payments to translatorslah, that has nothing to do with the actual equipment itself, so why not put extra budget safety factor to cater for all these non-essential expenditures.

    We like to do everything by ourselves until we dunno to ukur baju di badan sendiri, so why not put in contract clause where the super confident vendor has to have permanent attached advisors from the principal partners to thrash out any technical issues that are above our head.

    There is a lot we can still do to improve the system (no matter how rotten) rather than moaning there is nothing to do unless we change the system, which “will not change”. So lets focus on that instead.

  60. “Indeed so why are we still talking about it and hanging on to the hope that will change someday”

    If we go on the basis that it will not change or anytime soon; then we must as well not talk about various things.

    Also, I mentioned the policy because it was in reference to ‘….’ claiming we can do various things in the future but as it stands what we do is driven by policy; hence my mention of the need for a change in policy if we’re going to do something significantly different; like stock piling munitions in large number; equipping the RMAF to operate in a highly non permissive environment, etc.

    “There is a lot we can still do to improve the system (no matter how rotten) rather than moaning there is nothing to do unless we change the system, which “will not change”. So lets focus on that instead”

    You can “focus” on it; by all means. I’ll continue with my position that nothing will fundamentally change until or unless deep rooted changes are made. Until then we’ll continue to buy in bits and drabs; won’t get the best value for what we spend and will have a MAF whose capabilities don’t reflect all we’ve spent on it.

    As for your “there is a lot we can still do to improve the system (no matter how rotten” – what exactly is it that “we can” do if institutionalised changes are not made? If neither the government or opposition or the bulk of the voter base is calling for change or a revamp in the way we handle defence issues?

  61. If there is no money to buy subs, the question of sustainment is moot. If the country can afford to to buy subs, there will be money to sustain. If can buy but cannot sustain, then the subs wont dive just like the SU30 wont fly. Does it always matter if the subs cant be sustained? No because in Malaysia, to some its all about having the capability rather than the usefullness and effectiveness – the so called system. A bit more OO in the OODA usually helps, instead of straight to DA without the OO.

  62. … – “Continue putting words in other ppls mouths as you do.”

    I asked a question; know the difference between asking a question and “putting words”? Also, when and where did I “put words” in your gap?

    “In your own words we cannot be able to fight a war with PLAN.”

    Yes can’t and it’s clear we can’t but if you want to partake in cloud cuckoo land delusion and insist we can; knock yourself out.

    Even the likes of the U.S. and Japan would struggle but here you are insisting the MAF can. Only if it followed your plan and only if the decision makers took note of your plans – dear me; someone has an inflated opinion of himself.

    “The current maritime security reality is the encroachment of Chinese Coast Guard”

    So you keep saying like a circus seal but who said otherwise? Who said we don’t need a well equipped MMEA – where was it said? I’m dealing with the same ‘….’ and not an imposter right because you have this knack of reverting to the same theme even though it has been explained on innumerable occasions.

    The same ‘…’ one who once moaned about supposedly being censored and asked if anyone here could recommend alternative sites? The one who suggested our subs surface in the vicinity of Chinese ships as a warning?

    “So if you are so smart then what should be malaysian priority to tacke the main maritime security problem which is the encroachment of Chinese Coast Guard”

    Frustration talking. In reference to ‘smart’ are you subconsciously making the reminder that you’re ‘smart’?

    If I made simplistic assumptions; dismissed anything and everything that didn’t fit in my line of reasoning and conflated things; would I be “smart”?

    Also, again; you don’t get to demand things. Typical of you to expect others to do what you do with your wish lists and alternative plans. Forgot; if they disagree with you it’s because they can’t understand right?

    … – “I have put all of it down”

    Shouldn’t be hard; you routinely do …

  63. Kel – “If there is no money to buy subs, the question of sustainment is moot”

    It isn’t “moot” because it’s in reference to “…”’s statements. A valid point. We simply can’t significantly increase the number of our subs over a short period even if we had the cash.

    He made reference to Vietnam and Singapore in comparison to the RMN in a different thread. Vietnam has a much larger navy and for its own reasons focused on subs at the expense of its surface fleet. Even then; reports from that period indicated a few of the Kilos remained at their berthing space due to crewing issues. The RSN isn’t an all volunteer navy and had years; plus the resources; to enable the sub fleet to be expanded.

    Kel – “Does it always matter if the subs cant be sustained”

    Can’t speak for you but to me; if we have an asset but are unable to fully utilise it because we lack manpower or other resources; defeats the whole purpose…

    Kel – “No because in Malaysia, to some its all about having the capability rather than the usefullness and effectiveness”

    What “capability” if you can’t effectively operate it but yes; to some; as long as it looks good and gives bragging rights.

    The good news is that even though we only have a pair of subs; we’ve progressively created the shore support infrastructure for them and what we’ve created can be utilised for follow on boats. The issue is trained manpower; that takes time and resources; lots.

    Kel – “A more OO in the OODA usually helps, instead of straight to DA without the OO”

    Wonder what Boyd would say.

  64. “pihak TLDM telah mengenal pasti beberapa pembina kapal
    daripada Turkiye yang menepati spesifikasi yang diperlukan oleh TLDM”

    I am wondering is it really RMN who ‘identify’ these shipyards? Is it only Turkiye able to meet RMN specs? Or are there other shipyards from other country that also met the spec but just because Turkey shipyards also on the list of meeting the spec, the politicians chose Turkey due to political reasons?
    Below are my opinion

    – The chosen design is likely to be between Dearsan92 and Hisar due to their lower cost than Ada. Both ship also share or can share many of same subsystems like CMS, radars, ESM, guns.
    – They both might be offered with the newer Advent CMS and MAR-D aesa radar that able to use ESSM (already integrated on MLU Barbaros), but Dearsan offered either MICA or KM-SAM only. Not sure why no ESSM although technically they can.

  65. If the Hisar class is chosen, it will need more powerful engine to reach 28+ knots speed.

    If Dearsan 92 is choosen, then it need to be integrated with ESSM or MICA or KM-SAM to the CMS and radar (Dearsan said they initially offered MICA or KM-SAM). If Dearsan use the newer ADVENT CMS and MAR-D radar (just like Hisar), it is already integrated with ESSM as per on MLU Barbaros class

  66. “we must as well not talk about various things.”
    Fully disagree. You want to moan about things outside the box, I am saying we can talk a lot about improvements within the box.

    “I’ll continue with my position”
    Well thats your prerogative but that doesnt add any value to this blog discussions doesnt it. If ideas cannot be thrown back & forth.

    “what exactly is it that “we can” do”
    See my paragraph 2 to 4 for some examples. Of course there is a lot more issues but the gist is there, there are ways to improve things. Will it forever solve the issue or stop new shits from happening? No it will require to change everything but to mitigate the effects of a rotten system, it can help. At least the mistakes we made with LCS & OPV will not be repeated.

  67. @Luqman
    “chosen design is likely to be between Dearsan92 and Hisar”
    I think the direction is pointing towards an ADA derivative…

    “Not sure why no ESSM although technically they can.”
    Not really important if we are to standardise VL SAM to Mica as with LCS.

  68. There are many things we can do.

    G2G is a decent start although it seems to be subjected to political intervention – like why solicit 11 proposals from different countries when it’s a G2G with Turkey? I get it could be RFI exercise to be able to say to the yard “I want this and that based on A design” but it seems unnecessary and time wasting if the decision has been made. Still a good start to avoid affirmative action companies from driving the decision.

    We can also remove affirmative action requirements from defence contracts. Unlikely so maybe start with contracts above certain value that represents a high financial risk to the government and services. Easier to sell the idea as well given the debacles with LCS, MMEA OPVs and the direct negotiated Turkish SPH. Basically, go G2G on certain deals bypassing local agents for large contracts.

    We could also stop using the defense industry as an affirmative action tool. If there is a real desire to build up the industry appoint 1 to 3 GLCs to be national champions. Instead of relying on MOF to provide the oversight, use Khazanah and EPF which has stronger corporate culture to drive results – stop hiding behind National Security to cover affirmative action decisions.

    Be clear and honest about what we can and cannot build. There is no basis to support the idea that BNS should be given a third chance and the opportunity to go through learning curves. There is also no basis to waste money for local assembly of fast jets. But we do have the market and resources to build up a MRO business. We seem to be capable in the manufacturing of FICs, RHIBs, smaller boats, so let’s focus on that – there is strong pipeline in Malaysia and a huge market in ASEAN.

    I would also like to see the Army’s 4NextG articulated more clearly and transparently, at least like the CAP55 and 15to5.

    Are those as straight forward to implement? No, but we did start with G2G. We also currently almost exclusively order FICs from local yards. It is absolutely reasonable to request the Army to be more transparent with its 4NextG considering RMN and RMAF has been able to do so.

    Very very easy to make broad statements that the system is flawed and everyone is at fault and wrong. The hard part is coming up with workable solutions. Not to mention, as Joe articulated, blaming everyone and offering no solutions doesn’t contribute to making thigs better.

  69. @ luqman

    In any case, you will not get a fully armed corvette to what your specifications for the RM833 million (USD179 million) target price that KEMENTAH has set for LMS Batch 2 Corvette.

    It will be a FFBNW ship just like Kedah class.

    Cost of the 1st ADA class corvette for Ukraine (without armament) is 8 billion Hryvnia or about USD220 million. That is a delta of USD41 million compared to LMS Batch 2 budget.

    @ Kel

    wanna see Army 4 Next G?
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlwWdb1aAAEj3cU.jpg

    That is just 1 part of the whole plan. It is divided into
    – Tempur (combat)
    – Bantuan Tempur (combat support)
    – Bantuan Khidmat (service support)

    and of course I do have alternatives for Army 4Next G too.

  70. @hulubalang
    “That is a delta of USD41 million compared to LMS Batch 2 budget.”
    It is that delta which is worrying. Even if we go the route of Kedah and FFBNW everything except the gun, we still need to have the sensors, electronics, FCS, & subsystems catered for these equipment anyhow so these cost will be there. How much can an ADA be pared down while still retaining these functionality under a budget of USD179 million is a big question, and where the Turks will cut corners to meet this price. If that budget has to cater for TOT & local build, even moreso concerning. Which is why if the budget constraint us from a larger ship, lets be realistic and go for a smaller & cheaper hull.

  71. @ joe

    Which brings me back to why my proposal is what it is.

    What can we do with 3x LMS Corvette for RM2.5 billion plus 5x more for RM4.1 billion that we know with a big probability would be nothing more than just another Kedah class OPV aka FFBNW ships?

    Why not just get real proper fit for purpose OPV for APMM that is cheap, and instead of the LMS Batch 2, That RM6.6 billion (USD1.42 billion) LMS Batch 2 budget to be used as my plan to buy:
    in RMK12
    – 12x LMS-X damen FCS5009 USD0.4 bil including surface attack missile module.
    in RMK13
    – 1x Scorpene SSK USD0.6 bil assembled in Sepanggar (or overseas whatever)
    – 12x LMS-X damen FCS5009 USD0.4 bil including surface attack missile module.

    Does additional fleet of 1x Scorpene (with 18x torpedoes/missiles) plus 24x LMS-X (with a total of 288x Cakir SSM missiles) that has way more speed, range and endurance than the LMS Corvette is less useful, less lethal than just 8x FFBNW LMS Corvettes while costing the same?

    LMS-X
    length 55m
    width 9m
    crew 18-24 person, with cabin for up to 30.
    speed 30 knots
    range more than 5,000 nautical miles
    Endurance at least 4 weeks
    Sensor – Saab Giraffe 1X 4D AESA radar + HGH SPYNEL-X rotating IRST system
    Gun – 30mm ASELSAN SMASH
    Surface missile module – 12x Cakir SSM + 24x VL HELLFIRE MMR
    ASW module – 1x triple torpedo launcher + Kraitsense lightweight towed sonar module. ASW mode operating together with GOWIND CAPTAS 2 towed sonar in multistatic sonar operation concept.

  72. … – “with a big probability would be nothing more than just another Kedah class OPV aka FFBNW ships”

    One difference is that it will be better armed; i.e. ASMs.

    … – “Why not just get real proper fit for purpose OPV for APMM that is cheap, and instead of the LMS Batch ””

    That solves one problem but still – as you’re aware but ignore – leaves the RMN without its LMSs which are a needed to form a vital element in its future force structure. So in essence there really is no “better” and never was because you’re advocating the proverbial rob Peter to pay Paul.

    … – “Does additional fleet of 1x Scorpene”

    Yes so you say but different requirement and if one wants to conflate the two; many other spurious contortions can be made such as saying a UAS is “better” than a attack heli .

    A sub is good for certain things; as you well know and a surface ship for other things.

  73. kel – ”Very very easy to make broad statements that the system is flawed and everyone is at fault and wrong.”

    Who’s doing this? You? I’m not making ”broad statements but stating the facts as they stand. It’s also ”very easy” to engage in rhetoric and insist on answers which you yourself lack.

    kel – ”The hard part is coming up with workable solutions.”

    Who said otherwise? You have solutions or are just stating cliches?

    kel – ”so let’s focus on that – there is strong pipeline in Malaysia and a huge market in ASEAN.”

    Right.. In line with delusions we could export at competitive prices M-4s, AV-8s, Adnans and other things in a market which has no shortage of cheaper or similarly priced homegrown alternatives. Next are you going to educate us about the benefits of ”self sufficiency and ”local production”?

    kel – ”Be clear and honest about what we can and cannot build. There is no basis to support the idea that BNS should be given a third chance and the opportunity to go through learning curves. ”

    That’s the point – in case you missed it – we don’t have a realistic assessment of what were intend to achieve and what we actually can; hubris. As for BNS I will stick to my position if all the prerequisites were in place; there’s nothing to suggest BNS could not have delivered on time; on spec and within budget and I will remind you that was not BNS which insisted on all 6 hulls constructed locally.

    kel -”as Joe articulated, blaming everyone and offering no solutions doesn’t contribute to making thigs better.”

    All due respect to ”Joe” nobody’s blaming anyone per see but the system we have and if you have the solutions by all means do give them. Not only that but the idea that we shouldn’t talk about stuff for which there are no solutions is pure tosh and how have you contributed to ”making thigs better”?

    ”You want to moan about things outside the box, I am saying we can talk a lot about improvements within the box.”

    I will ”moan” all I want [watch] thank you and like I said : if you want to talk ”a lot about improvements within the box” nobody’s stopping you. Nor may I add that I’m suggesting we don’t ”talk a lot about improvements within the box”. I will also ask; if indeed the system can’t be changed [at least not in the near future] will things really improve in the long run or will there only cosmetic changes?

    ”that doesnt add any value to this blog discussions doesn’t it. If ideas cannot be thrown back & forth.”

    What ”adds value” is really your prerogative and opinion. Does everything you say really ”add value” and nobody said ”ideas cannot be thrown back & forth”; they can but we have to make a distinction between what’s possible and what are personal preferences which aren’t really possible.

    ” At least the mistakes we made with LCS & OPV will not be repeated.”

    We said that prior to the LCS programme; that mistakes from the Kedah programme will not be repeated because we supposedly learnt; see how well that turned out.

    I will stick to my position that until or unless fundamental changes are made; nothing will really change.

    ”there are ways to improve things. ”

    You referring to minor changes here and there or institutionalised changes; from top to bottom [the bottom being the MAF] and implemented laterally across the various entities; from MINDEF to the Ministry of Finance to the PM’s EPU Unit. Also, apologies if;m not as sanguine as you about being able to ” to improve things” as a whole.

  74. How did you arrive at the USD400m cost for 12 LMS-X or USD33m per ship? As far as I am aware there is no such configuration on a Damen FCS5009 design – not even the TRIFIC program. Also the TRIFIC version isnt as highly equipped, not meant to be able to fire by itself, requiring a “mothership” to target and launch. If I assume you mean the US Hellfire missile, 1 missile costs around USD150,000 which means 1 ships 24 Hellfire loadout costs USD3.6m, meaning 12 ships would cost USD43.2m just for the Hellfire missiles. Also the Damen FCS5009 delivered to Trinidad and Tobango coast guard with much less equipment was USD210m for 4 ships or USD52m per ship. Just curious who managed to cost out a ship like that.

  75. Ok so why say others are wrong when in fact they are not? Not about sanguine, more of afraid to be wrong. Not baiting but I’ve seen enough people that CYA in projects. CYA executed poorly often leads to the person digging his own grave. So to play this out, using your own words, what type of fundamental change needs to happen and how does it happen?

  76. kel – ”Ok so why say others are wrong when in fact they are not? ”

    ”Ok”. Who exactly is ”wrong” per see? And who decides if they ”aren’t? You? If I disagree with something I explain why. Yet to see you do it.

    If you think someone is indeed ”wrong” then it behooves you to point out how; rather than spinning more ambiguity and rhetoric; asking questions which you yourself can’t answer; talking about ”ways to improve things” when you obviously can’t and conveniently claiming you haven’t received answers when the plain fact is you either don’t understand the answers or they aren’t the ones you’re seeking. Lead by example.

    BTW if someone thinks they are quick fixes to what is essentially a deep rooted problem and it does not require immense political will and maybe some ‘incentive’ to do and when individuals make erroneous claims; then they’re wrong but don’t adopt the pontificating position that anyone is wrong merely because you don’t know any better or lack info…

    kel – ” Not about sanguine, more of afraid to be wrong.”

    Speaking for yourself are we now? You keep making reference to being ”afraid”. What really are you trying to say and does it actually refer to you?

    kel – ”So to play this out, using your own words, what type of fundamental change needs to happen and how does it happen?”

    Have gone through this many times; including way before there was a ‘kel’ here. Perhaps seek your own answers or indulge in you own research; rather than spinning the same tune about what others aren’t supposedly doing and expecting to be continuously spoon fed with your requests/demands. BTW it’s readily obvious what changes are needed; provided of course you really know what the problem is.

  77. Anything can be happen.
    As long the budget is not yet released
    As long there is no contract signed by both parties for ship building.
    We should not be over excited and at the end of a day we are all disappointed.

  78. “I will ”moan” all I want”
    Of course everyone has prerogative to talk or not to talk. But to put down other opinion without offering alternatives…

    “see how well that turned out.”
    Well AFAIK the issues that plagued Kedah was different & under different circumstances that had doomed LCS. I never said the next project will surely be success, but at least if actions were taken, the issues of Kedah & LCS should not be repeated in LMS2(or whatever).

    “minor changes here and there or institutionalised changes”
    Can we institutional change without changing everything from top to bottom? I dont think so, Im not as sanguine as you are. So if we cannot make a total change then why not make changes that can improve how we work altho it wont solve the real issues?

    You spoke that if BNS had all these enablements, your confident they could deliver the project, rite? So Im saying to give as much these enablements and find solutions to mitigate those which cannot be moved. Im also confident if BNS had NAVAL oversight & design lead, direct tech support, with a longer lead time, plus sufficient budget, they will also deliver all 6 locally made ships.

  79. @Jun
    “at the end of a day we are all disappointed.”
    I was already cautiously disappointed when I knew each ship only has a budget of RM 1.5Bil (when others realistic pricetag is RM 2-2.5bil for similar boat) and I became totally disappointed when it was revealed that a chunk of the budget was used for ancillaries costs, so meaning per boat actually has less than that 1.5Bil to build and equip. It was already a disaster written on the wall.

  80. @ kel

    Trinidad & tobago contract was for
    – 4x SPa 5009 version (which is different than the FCS 5009)
    – 2x FCS 5009 Patrol (same as my proposed LMS-X)
    – 6x DAMEN Interceptor 1102 FIC
    – 5 years maintenance contract

    My LMS-X cost calculation

    – FCS 5509 – USD9.5 mil (based on Ocean Warrior Euro 8.3 million)
    https://thesun.my/archive/1989167-NSARCH398439
    – 30mm ASELSAN SMASH – USD1 million
    – SAAB Giraffe 1X 4D AESA radar – USD2.33 million. Based on UK buy of 11 for USD25.6 million
    – Misc electronics, HGH Spynel-X IRST, FLIR turret, low cost ESM sensor (eg ESROE micro ESM) – USD3 million
    – Roketsan Cakir SSM (150km range) x12 – USD12 million
    – Hellfire MMR (8km range) x24 – USD3.6 million

    Total cost of USD31.43 million, spare of USD1.57 million to cover miscellaneous items.

    ASW module are budgeted separately, 6 systems for USD120 million (which i think probably can get more than just 6 systems)

    In wartime situation, the LMS-X will mainly sail together and operate as loyal wingman and distributed lethality node for the Gowind Frigates. As such yes it would have datalink of information from the Gowinds Radar, ESM and sonar. It would also have information from other inputs such as geospatial satellites, MPA and MALE UAVs.

    Longbow Hellfire MMW with the direction from Giraffe 1X 4D AESA and SPYNEL-X IRST can do limited air defence of the LMS-X against drones, loitering missiles, Naval helicopters, UAVs and subsonic aircrafts. Hellfire is already used as air defence missile by US Army Strykers.

    A strike group of say 1x Gowind Frigate + 3x LMS-X will have at its disposal 8x NSM missiles + 36x Cakir missiles for surface strike, with 72x Hellfires to defend against fast boat swarms and FACs. Cakir missiles with datalink can use swarm tactics from multiple directions against a single target. It also can be used for land attack.

  81. @hulubalang
    Regarding the LMS-X ‘very good’ sea keeping, South African Navy chief, Vice Admiral Monde Lobese, said that
    “although these MMIPVs (StanPatrol 6211 with 62m axe hull at 1000t) may look very impressive, they are simply not large enough to effectively patrol our waters in these conditions. Thus, we simply must have larger multi mission offshore patrol vessels to work in these conditions”

    Even with the larger axe hull Damen ship than your LMS-X, the South African Navy still have no confidence operating it in open waters hence I also not sure if LMS-X is suitable for RMN to operate in SCS, but maybe you are still convinced it can. Keep in mind that it is the user who is saying LMS-X not suitable for open waters operations

    Hence we can scrap the LMS-X and go for LMS-XL using larger hull like Damen OPV 1800 hull which also can solve LMS-X drawbacks of no helicopter pad and hangar while having better sea keeping but will cost more to operate and maintain. If die die don’t want any helicopter capability (which RMN will not prefer) then the helicopter pad can put dozens of AShM

  82. Also just to add, the genesis of LMS-X is the TRIFIC program. That program never envisaged missile carriers to substitute proper warships. That is, the missile carriers are not patrol or combat ships. Meaning for 99% of the LMS-X’s existence, it is either operating close to shore (hence why such ships tend to be operated by coast guards), docked or participating in exercises, but not patroling the deeper SCS waters. Also everything from containerised modules and the networking software, does not exist today, which the TRIFIC program is seeking to develop. In other words, the costs ignored asking Rokestan and LMT as the makers of the missiles, to design, develop, manufacture and certify such modules – if its that simple, RMN would have developed their mission modules for the LMS1. The costs also ignored design costs since the FCS 5009 is obviously not designed to fire missiles. Lastly the costs ignored the software development piece – which doesnt exist. Concept makes sense, just not in the LMS-X format.

  83. @ Luqman, Kel

    Reminder. South China Sea ≠ open waters of southern Atlantic Ocean. SCS is more like a closed lake when compared to really open oceans around south africa.

    If you want to really know what is the sea conditions of SCS, please follow TLDM National Hydrographic Centre twitter. It has daily updates on wave heights around Malaysia. If you have followed that for years, you will know that more than 80% of the time, wave heights in SCS in malaysian 200nm EEZ is less than 1.5m in height. Even in severe weathers, the wave heights rarely reach 5m, of which the FCS 5009 can still operate safely.

    SPa 6211 is not large enough for SA Navy ≠ not good seakeeping. It could simply be the want for an OPV with as you say a helicopter facility, which the 6211 does not have, and of course a different requirement and mission to the LMS-X.

    Kel, LMS-X was not based on TRIFIC, this is an idea that was presented here even before the TRIFIC was conceived. It is just that when TRIFIC was launched by a real navy, that my idea was somewhat vindicated.

    For helicopter operations. There is simply no need for a 55m ship to operate one. Even if it is a ship large enough to operate a helicopter, what is the primary mission for that helicopter in the context of LMS-X operations together with LCS Gowind?

    “if its that simple, RMN would have developed their mission modules for the LMS1”

    There was no budgeted requirement for missile modules for the LMS68.

    Please do your research on technical ability of naval ships and missiles before commenting as it is quite tiring to school basic technical things here.

    Launching anti-ship missiles is not rocket science. If houthis can fire anti-ship missiles at ships from the beach with only rudimentary equipments, it can be done from a ship. Technically you only need to input approximate coordinates of the targeted ship, that is it. A ship, even going full throttle (which is rare), will be about 50-60km away from its last known location within 1 hour. If you know the direction of the ship is sailing, then easier it is to calculate its approximate location. That said, it is totally different to attacking air targets, that is of course very complicated and complex operation. Over the horizon targeting (for a 150km missile like Cakir) is over the range any onboard sensors (radar etc) of a ship anyway, so target coordinates will be from offboard sensors (geospatial satellite, ESM, MPA, MRCA with targeting pod, MALE UAV etc.), from LCS Gowind or other frigates that is located nearer to the target; and the final terminal attack is by the sensors on the missile itself.

    As for FCS 5009 seakeeping ability, just look at this

    93 days patrol off Antarctica. That is a much more severe operating location than SCS, at an endurance (93 days unrefuelled) no ships in TLDM or APMM fleet can even manage to do.

    Ocean warrior – €8.3 million – speed 30+ knots
    https://www.seashepherdglobal.org/who-we-are/fleet/

  84. @hulubalang

    Yes the SCS is not as rough as South Atlantic on average but it is the severe weather that can give concerns to RMN especially when there is no LCS available to operate in the area due to circumstances and they require LMS to do the job. Your plan your sea keeping based on average but maybe RMN plans their see keeping based on worst case scenario ie LMS can operate in the worst SCS sea state. LMS-X being able to survive that kind of seas doesn’t mean RMN is comfortable operating that ship as per what South Africa Navy doing even though technically they could.

    On the helicopter topic, what if RMN need LMS-X to operate far from LCS (hey there is less number of LCS than LMS-X) and that mission requires LMS-X to operate helicopters or even UAVs, hence LMS-X is not suitable for such missions (which indeed will happen in real scenarios). If you say South African Navy need larger ships due to need to operate helicopter, than the same can goes for RMN…..

    @Kel
    “if its that simple, RMN would have developed their mission modules for the LMS1”
    There are a few subsystems that already containerized on the market though not sure RMN prefer them or not.

  85. Hulubalang do you swim? Again, the concept is legitimate, just not in the current form, because the costing is unrealistic. For example, has your budget accounted for Rokestan and LMT approval to containerised their rockets – if you’ve going to use Houthi rebels (and indirectly the IRCG) as an example, then just fire off the Kedah and Keris class, don’t need to develop the LMS-X? The FCS5009 will also need to be redesigned to handle the increased electrical load plus to see if there is a need to change the ballast to account for changes in the ships stability when there is downforce applied to the deck – water is fluid. Not to mention perhaps the superstructure of the FCS 5009 will need to be modified to accommodate all the additional sensors and equipment – might even need to reinforce the aluminium superstructure with steel and install a new mast. Then to see how the entire ship’s tonnage, balance and draught changes because of the additional load – maybe need a bigger ship. If it’s not TRIFIC then the genesis would be the Stanflex. If its not Stanflex then the USN’s LCS program. Again, if its that simple and cheap, everyone would have done it – maybe the Houthi’s and the IRCG have. The concept is legitimate, just not in the LMS-X form.

  86. @ Luqman

    “now” situation is not going to be for 5-10 years. You don’t plan future thinking it will exactly be like “now” situation.

    You don’t plan for the future something assuming LCS Gowind will forever not be around. You don’t plan assuming LMS needs to replace 100% of the mission set LCS Gowind needs to undertake.

    If you want a ship that can do the mission of the LCS Gowind, that should be another Frigate, not a FFBNW Corvette that is probably just be an OPV all but in name.

    Which is why I would prefer all 6 Gowinds to be completed, as Corvettes are not the answer to do the mission that the LCS Gowind is supposed to do.

  87. @hulubalang
    Assuming I understand correctly what your “now” and “future” meant based on my words which where I assume (correct me if I am wrong) “Your plan your sea keeping based on….”,

    I think “now” ≠ average wave heights, and “future” ≠ worst case (very high) wave heights

  88. @ luqman

    I am very sorry, was replying to kel🙏

    On wave heights

    FCS 5009 has operated in Antarctica waters for 93 days straight. Is there any more harsher location on earth than around Antarctica?
    http://youtu.be/MGMnv1ZfM_M

  89. @Hulubalang
    “Is there any more harsher location on earth than around Antarctica?”
    North Atlantic probably. FCS5009 can survive Antartic ocean but is RMN willing to operate it given their experience with FACs, Laksamanas, Gagah Samuderas and Kedahs? It also remains that South African Navy deemed the larger sea axe hull 1000t StanPatrol6211 not large enough to operate in such conditions.

  90. @ Luqman

    It is all in the mission profile (LMS-X mission does not need many space or personnel as it is not intended to do boarding mission, or operate helicopters) and the design of the hull itself (FAC and Laksamanas is just not designed to operate in offshore conditions, unlike the sea axe hull which is explicitly designed to sail in harsh sea state, also with technological advances in hull design over 4 decades since the perdana FAC was first designed)

    Take the bow design of the FCS 5009 and compare to la combattante (perdana) FAC or even the Laksamana corvettes. The FCS 5009 bow is like 5m tall, compared to around just 2m for FAC.

    and again, SCS isn’t the north atlantic ocean or southern antarctic ocean, far from it. It is a relatively small body of water when compared to oceans.

  91. Just because it could do it on a one time voyage doesnt mean it can consistently do the same for the rest of the ships life. The Sea Shepard fleet are hardly an example as they are staffed by a bunch of loonies whom dont mind taking great risks on their lives. Who knows if they have taken that boat to its maximum structural limits and greatly reducing its lifespan on just one sail into the Antarctica. They have also been known to ram much bigger ships and often coming out the loser sinking a few of their boats and harming both crew members. I doubt MMEA nor TLDM will want to do that on a regular basis, we tend to keep boats for 30-40 years in active service and prefer to keep it that way.

    “Is there any more harsher location on earth than around Antarctica?”
    The Arctic sea during hurricane season is quite the challenge inc reported cases of rogue waves.

  92. @ joe

    Clearly TLDM won’t go crazy and regularly sail around south china sea for 93 days straight. But it is nice to know that the vessel can do that if needed. What i aim for is for the LMS-X able to sail together (equal or more speed, range, endurance) with LCS Gowind, which none of the LMS Batch 2 candidates can do.

  93. So again

    For the budget of RM6.6 billion (USD 1.41 billion)

    Option 1 (TLDM plan)
    – 8x LMS Batch 2 corvettes (big possibility FFBNW)

    Option 2 (Hulubalang crazy outofthebox plan)
    – 1x Scorpene Submarine
    – 24x LMS-X FCS 5009 each with missile module of 12x Cakir SSM and 24x longbow hellfire MMR

    Which option is much more lethal?

  94. Why not spend US$400m to develop the mission modules that could be used by the Kedah, Keris and the LCS instead of buying the LMS-X? Because 90% of the time, the LMS-X being a Fast Crew Supplier design will stay in port or stick close to shore. If it is does go out on patrol deeper in SCS waters it will be naked with just the 30mm gun, like the Keris class except with probably less survivability in combat. If it does go out on patrol always loaded with a mission module, why not build a ship with the weapons built in instead of spending money on designing and manufacturing the modules – where the costs still have not been factored into the US$400m, unless the genesis of the concept is to have RMN operate based on IRCG swarm boat tactics but with bigger weapons – since Houthi’s are the baseline for how easy it is to fire missiles.

  95. @hulubalang
    Its just to highlight to you that different people have different risk factors that governs what they can or cannot do. SS might be crazy enough bringing small crafts into a hurricane and risk capsizing it but TLDM might see things differently and not take such risk.

    In such a scenario, PLAN+CCG with their bigger boats would able to ride out and sail thru bad weather but TLDM would have to make do with only 6 LCS to face off the PLAN fleet if their alternative is only your LMSX.

    So I agree with others that LMS2 have to be appropriately sized to ride out the worst of SCS weather so as to be present in any situation, and also able to be fully fitted for war.

  96. @hulubalang
    “Which option is much more lethal?”
    Neither options are more lethal against your intended target. Against ships armed with conventional SSM (circa 300-450km range), half your LMSX fleet would be sunk before reaching their max firing range. Of those that managed to fire, the missiles would face against a carrier air superiority and control over airspace, and escorts with CIWS & dazzlers. Even if some managed a hit its likely only on the periphery ships and the main target (carrier) remains unscathed and their mission continues. As for the sub, good luck against a carrier battlegroup.

    As to your question, for the budget I prefer 4x fully fitted LMS corvettes but land their missiles, torps plus launchers into storage during peacetime usage. Then later a cheaper follow on batch of 4x FFBNW LMS2 comes only with guns so they could divvy up and share the landed missiles whatnot amongst the 8x units.

  97. Please lah, follow TLDM Hydrography Centre
    https://twitter.com/nathydrocentre

    Follow it everyday (like me for years) and you will see waves in SCS rarely exceed 1-1.5m 90% of the time.

    Don’t la ASSume

    Waves in SCS is not that big. It is dangerous because you are sailing in boats (FAC and such) not designed and built for rough seas.

    FCS 5009 is explicitly designed and made to work a hard life in oil and gas sailing through rough seas. It can sustain full speed even in 5m high waves, which almost never happens in SCS.

  98. @ joe

    “Against ships armed with conventional SSM (circa 300-450km range)”

    Please list out to me which conventional SSM that has 300-450km range?? Even NSM has 200km range. Current TLDM Exocet MM40 block 2 on Lekiu and Kasturi class has a range of just 72km. Harpoon on Singaporean Formidable class Frigate has a range of 130km.

    Also can’t you see the single scorpene submarine (along with 24x LMS-X) in my plan that we can get with the same amount of budget if we don’t buy the 8x LMS Batch 2? Isn’t an additional Scorpene (for a total of 3) would give much more lethality than those FFBNW Corvettes?

    Look at this video.
    https://youtu.be/4A-U5GQQ1hk
    Those waves the FCS 5009 are going through at full speed would easily make a FAC go completely underwater. Even with a 5meter high bow, the water went nearly up to the top of the bow, the FAC with a 2m high bow would not be able to go full speed in that condition.

  99. @hulubalang
    That is really uncomfortable. A larger ship will less likely move a lot like that. Can survive? Yes. More comfortable than bigger ship, probably not. Maybe crew comfort is not in your planning who knows. Would RMN personnel able to do work with that kind of waves? For sure not. Just get 1800t ship

    Whatever it is, RMN will never purchase 24 LMS-X as they are committing to buy 8x 1600t+ corvette. Suck it up and accept the truth. If indeed LMS-X is to be purchased, it will be in 8-12 units as secondary ships to not just LCS but also LMS B2

  100. @ luqman

    As is said, please lah, follow TLDM Hydrography Centre.

    Now is already monsoon season, but ALL AREAs of malaysian EEZ in South China Sea the waves are at average 1m in height. At the worst point of the monsoon season, the wave heights would be 2-3m on average, which is hell for the FAC with a bow of just around 2m high, but not the axe-bow hull design.

    If you want 1800 ton OPV, yes i am for it but for APMM. A 1800 ton OPV, or even Kedah class OPV does not have the speed, the missiles, the small size to make detection difficult to take the fight to another navy.

    Distributed lethality concept. What do you understand about this??

    It means that anti-ship/strike missiles are installed on as many ships as possible, enabling attack from multiple directions, and being able to undertake counter strike to the enemy even if some ships are sunk.

    For example:

    1 frigate, even very heavily armed, when the enemy is successful in punching a missile through that frigate, then 100% of the fighting capability is lost.

    In distributed lethality concept, say a task force of 1x LCS Gowind, together with 3x LMS-X, with all of the ships in the task force having same top speed, endurance and range. Let say the LCS Gowind is attacked and sunk, then the LMS-X can strike back at the enemy. The enemy needs to keep track of 4 ships attacking instead of just 1, complicating the task.

    And if need to do patrols for illegal fishing, 24 long range boats, that is proven to chase illegal fishing from Antarctica, to Timor Leste, Africa and Galapagos islands are more than up tp the task. 24 ships could be at more places than just 8.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*