LIMA 2023 Budget

ROKAF Black Eagles T-50s with their display at Lima 2017. Malaysian Defence

SHAH ALAM: In the article on the unapproved 2023 budget put forward by the previous government, Malaysian Defence wrote that the RM25.3 million was allocated in the Defence Ministry funds for organising Lima 2023, scheduled for this May 23 to 27. As the Transport Ministry is jointly organising the show at Langkawi island, it is also getting a one-off budget of RM5.5 million for the event.

For the new 2023 budget proposed by the new government on February 24, the same amount of money was allocated for Lima 2023, RM25.3 for defence and RM5.5 million for transport. It must be noted that the-then Defence Minister Mohammad Sabu had stated in April 2019 that the cost for Lima 2019 was RM15 million, some 25 per cent less than what was spend in 2017 (RM20 million).

As the government has never detailed the spending expenditure for organising the LIMA series, I am unable to say exactly what the allocation had been spent on in the past nor for the latest one.

That said it is likely to pay for fuel, transport, accommodation, and other expenses of government personnel assigned to the air and maritime show – directly for the event or training days leading to the actual show itself.

It is also likely that we pay for the expenses of foreign militaries as well their VIPs invited to the event. Some of course – due to their respective national policies – will pay for their own transport, fuel, accommodation, and other expenses to participate or just for attending the show.

Only private visitors and companies – local or foreign – pay to visit or take part in the show. And of course, the public.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2147 Articles
Shah Alam

49 Comments

  1. Marhalim, what is happening with the ANKA and ATR 72s. They were approved by H2O before the elections, but no mention with the new government. Are they still going ahead now?

  2. Nothing much PH Govt can do about the cost, everything is expensive nowadays. With the LCA/FLIT decision & renewed interest in LMS2, perhaps more suppliers will be interested to take part as compared to previous show.

  3. Marhalim, are you saying the LCA, UAV, MPA and LMS batch 2 are all progressing. The SPH KJA are now going to tender right?

  4. Tom Tom – ” Are they still going ahead now?”

    The Defence Minister has made it crystal clear that certain things approved by the previous government will proceed as planned. There’s also the issue that a Hawk and Beechcraft replacement are much more pressing than the M-109s years ago and can’t be further delayed.

    ” perhaps more suppliers will be interested to take part as compared to previous show.”

    Participating is essential as it shows presence which is essential as it’s a long term exercise and competition is tight. Companies understand this and they have to attend although their presence might be scaled down. As a British Aerospace guy told me years ago; even if they fail to get an order for the next decade they still have to come. Since the first LIMA and DSA in the 1990’s [at PWTC] I’ve seen companies which have yet to sell a single thing but still attend.

  5. No, lah, it’s their best bet. It’s been there since 2017 , and it should have been signed if not for the 2018 GE. Of course, if possible, RMAF wants the P-8A, but we cannot afford it.

  6. “Isn’t the ATR-72 MPA something that the TUDM explicitly does not want”
    Well the alternative could be worse, they could get nothing! They would have learnt by taking a leaf from the M109 fiasco and seeing TDM are still without their SPH til today.

  7. Is the SPH a priority program under 4nextG? Wasn’t the big picture goal of 4nextG to have enough assets to defend East and West Malaysia at the same time? A second MBT unit to be based in East Malaysia? More MLRS and a second order of 155mm towed howitzer for East Malaysia? Or, is East Malaysia’s defence sufficient with just 4×4 and 6×6, while the SPH stays in West Malaysia with the MBTs?

  8. The decision to acquire ATR 72 is quite sound IMHO. Its a matured product, build on a plane we have the technical know-how & infrastructure & scale already established to maintain and most importantly it’s one of the few rare occasions that we actually bought an off the shelf products rather than a ‘prototype’.

    Hopefully the off the shelf purchased continue on with the SPH & 4×4. Not that Turkish products are bad but both their SPH & 4×4 is essentially a prototype. And as Elon musk once said, building prototype is easy, building final product is not.

  9. The SPH was done through direct nego & that falls under risk of being re-evaluated. Maybe its for the best as the army still have their option open.

  10. Zaft,

    As it stands there have long been plans to deploy MBTs to East Malaysia if needed but the longstanding paper plan for another regiment’s worth of MBTs was so we could have a MBT brigade organic to the division which we’ve long been trying to make into a combined arms one.

    Note the pertinent fact that as it stands there is no live range in East Malaysia which can handle live MBT or MLRS fire.

    The Yavuz isn’t a “prototype” in the truest sense of the word as it uses a gun already widely in service and as a complete system has completed development.

    On whether “East Malaysia’s defence sufficient with just 4×4 and 6× it depends on the threat level doesn’t it… Yes it does depend. If the threat level was high everything we have in the Peninsular might be insufficient.

    Kel – ” it’s one of the few rare occasions that we actually bought an off the shelf products rather than a ‘prototype”

    Kindly share with me the other occasions. Please do. The A400M BTW doesn’t count as when we bought it it had already almost fully completed development. Neither does the Sibmas, Laksamana, Jernas and Tebuan [armed variant of the Tutor] count. What “rare occasions” have we bought of the shelf?

  11. ”Well the alternative could be worse, they could get nothing!”

    So you keep saying and claiming every time you get the opportunity but in reality the
    M-109 deal was driven by political and financial factors prevalent then – conflating the MPA issue with the M-109 is misleading and overlooks the nuances. There is also the pertinent fact that the MPAS are urgently needed to replace the Beechcrafts but the M-109s were not replacing anything per see but enabling a new capability. Unlike with the M-109s the government knows it can put off the MPA deal any longer.

    ”They would have learnt by taking a leaf from the M109 fiasco and seeing TDM are still without their SPH til today.”

    What lesson? What ”leaf”? The army has long well understood the machination of things; the politics and bureaucracy involved.

    It wasn’t as devastated as you perpetually claim over the M-109 cancellation. From discussions with a couple of people [one was in the Artillery Directorate] I know the army was more than willing to wait a bit longer for a system it found suitable rather than being straddled with something it found unsuitable for its unique/specific requirements. You will also be no doubt aware that due to having a smaller footprint and being cheaper to sustain the army since the early 2000’s has preferred a wheeled SPH which BW the M-109 isn’t.

  12. I have seen a few long read threads on twitter about the army 4NextG

    As for off the shelf buys, things we buy as is

    – Commando V-150s
    – C-130s. Even the C-130H-MP was designed for Indonesia, although we bought more at 3 units.
    – Laksamana class. We did not modify it to our needs and had it as is.
    – Sri Inderapura LST
    – starstreak. nothing was custom made for malaysia
    – RPG-7s
    – M4

    want to say F-5, but the RF-5E was custom made for malaysia, although saudi and later singapore bought more.

  13. Azlan “The Yavuz isn’t a “prototype” in the truest sense of the word as it uses a gun already widely in service and as a complete system has completed development”

    Yes all the components are essentially off the shelf but one would still require to integrate the various components into 1 final product. Even if the components works in a vacuums there’s no guarantee it would work when combined. Thus the question is Why bother reinventing the wheel when Ceaser is available? What benefits do we get?

    While the A400 is also a reinvention of the wheel. It justify itself by having bigger cargo capacity while Buying early get us tech transfer,industrial ties up & components contract as ‘compensation’ for us sharing the risk of said program. Those counter trade does goes a long way in subsidizing the cost of A400 for us.

    Nothing wrong with acquiring the Yavuz & Nurol MKN as long as the gov can provide the justification for it in dollar & cent.

    @kel

    There’s are 2 way to do it.

    1) hired lot of soldiers, introduces conscription, buy lot of ATGM,tanks,IFV etc etc and preposition them early, harden the Public infrastructure like U/G mrt station highway & parking to be convertible bunkers.

    2) don’t conscript, don’t hire lot of soldiers, don’t buy lots of Tank,IFV & APC and the money would be instead be reinvested into sealift & airlift capabilities to move army around while at the same time acquire GBAD, jet & surface combatants for A2/AD complexes & turn ourselves into a fortress.

  14. >m109

    Between the cramped interior, it being a manually loaded SPH,not having air conditiong (sans the cabin being pressure positive for nbc purpose) and malaysian soldiers being on the small side the guy operating inside thing will have a bad day

    Ever seen how the guys loading the G5? try doing that in a closed box. No wonder the army didnt even shed a crocodile tear when they didn’t get them

  15. zaft – ”Even if the components works in a vacuums there’s no guarantee it would work when combined.”

    You make it sound like a hypersonic spaceship. It’s a gun based SPH; nothing revolutionary in terms of tech…

    zaft – ”Thus the question is Why bother reinventing the wheel when Ceaser is available? What benefits do we get?”

    Caesar is expensive; has a very complicated FCS; French parts are expensive and the Turks offered slightly better prospects in terms of ToTs and other things we have a hard on for compared to Nexter. Plus buying from Turkey is in line with our desire for strategic cooperation with the country. Enough answers?

    zaft – ”Nothing wrong with acquiring the Yavuz & Nurol MKN as long as the gov can provide the justification for it in dollar & cent.”

    Correction. ”Nothing wrong with acquiring the Yavuz & Nurol MKN” or anything else for that matter if it’s what the end user wants and suits its requirements.

    zaft – ”While the A400 is also a reinvention of the wheel.”

    Don’t want to know what your personal definition of ‘reinvention of the wheel” is but in short it was an attempt to replace the European C-130 and C-160 fleet with a new generation platform offering superior capabilities.

  16. Azlan “You make it sound like a hypersonic spaceship. It’s a gun based SPH; nothing revolutionary in terms of tech…”.

    You be surprised how complex simple item is. Everyone can make a vape pen prototype for example. It just a combination of off the shelf battery,cotton, a chip & wire. But to make a vape pen that’s reliable & long lasting. That’s the hard part.

    Fun fact it took the Chinese decades & millions and only recently they managed to produce a pen.

    Azlan “Turks offered slightly better prospects in terms of ToTs”

    What kind of TOT? If it’s about sistem Intergration to be able to stand on our two feet & be self reliance how is such knowledge is useful to our economy or security? Why not ask for TOT on dual use part & contract manufacturing like the European once offered to us for the A400? That’s a whole lot more useful.

    Azlan “Correction. ”Nothing wrong with acquiring the Yavuz & Nurol MKN” or anything else for that matter if it’s what the end user wants and suits its requirements”

    Nope. It’s about buying what the country need to meet it all it strategic objectives. Be it in security,diplomacy,trade, economics & financial. Anka S in itself seem like a compromise on the RMAF part, They would probably rather have the predators B. But US are unlikely to provide TOT on drones and drones have very low barrier to entry as well as having growth potential due to it status as being expandable item & relatively infancy.

    It going to took a whole lot of money to turn Anka s to be as capable as predators but at least it’s justifiable.

    Azlan “but in short it was an attempt to replace the European C-130 and C-160 fleet with a new generation platform offering superior capabilities.”

    Unlikely as when the project started they bickered with one another about whether it would be a tactical or a strategic lift. You don’t do that if you have a clear idea what you military need is. Thus they are doing it mostly for socioeconomic reason. They then proceed to build IFV with more armour & thus heavier to justified the plane existence. Their military spending are considered as socioeconomic spending rather than a purely for defense. Same to with uncle Sam & China but not Russia. Something that sounds simple but again lots in Malaysia can’t rapped their heads around such concept.

  17. “So you keep saying and claiming every time you get the opportunity”
    Oh? And where are our TDM SPHs now?

    “army was more than willing to wait a bit longer for a system it found suitable”
    Its been ongoing since 2018 when the M109 contract was signed and if we stuck to it by now we’d have them already in service, and yet til today what we have? NOTHING. Well TDM can continue to wait for nothing.

  18. Yes, I have also seen those. Those are just basically power point presentation that it is not affirmed by anyone. It can be changed in an instant unlike the RMN and RMAF ones, faulty as there are.

  19. ”Its been ongoing since 2018 when the M109 contract was signed and if we stuck to it by now we’d have them already in service, and yet til today what we have? NOTHING”

    ”NOTHING” else to say but the same thing? Again; the army was more than willing to wait a bit longer rather than being straddled with a system it didn’t really want. Unless of course you know better than the end user as to what’s suitable and what isn’t.

    ”Well TDM can continue to wait for nothing.”

    Which it’s more than willing to do as FYI although it needs SPHS it has other immediate priorities. If in doubt do ask anyone in the know if you get the opportunity…

    zaft – ”You be surprised how complex simple item is.”

    I’m surprised at the things you come up with.

    zaft – ”What kind of TOT? If it’s about sistem Intergration”

    The Turks know what makes us tick and is one reason [apart from the fact we prefer when we can to buy from a Muslim country] they got the Adnan and AV-8 contract. As it stands you can go on about integration till your face is red or your keypad needs changing but Yavuz does not require much integration [if any] and it’s based on a gun which is widely operated. The most complex piece of kit on a SPH BTW is the FCS. This BTW is not me extoling the virtues of Yavuz but pointing out flaws in your arguments/statements.

    zaft – ”Nope. It’s about buying what the country need to meet it all it strategic objectives.”

    It’s that narrow bureaucratic attitude/mindset which has led us to the rut we’re in. Priority; in case you’ve missed it; should be on getting the end user the capability it needs based on its requirements on spec; on schedule and within budget and for the taxpayer to get the money’s worth. It’s your type of thinking which led to the Steyr, Kedah, LCS, Laksamana, Fulcrum and other cockups which wasted a lot of money/resources and led to various issues.

    Uncertain about what I’m referring to? Ask….

    zaft – ”It going to took a whole lot of money to turn Anka s to be as capable as predators”

    Silly…. Even the Turks don’t claim Anka will ever be ”as capable as predators” and don’t intend to. Neither to existing Anka users or those contemplating on buying it. Nor are we looking at a UAS with the same capabilities/specs as Predator…. So what on earth are you on about?

    Also FYI it’s not so much the efficacy of a UAS at a platform level which determines things but interoperability; the right C3; etc….

    zaft – ”Unlikely as when the project started they bickered with one another about whether it would be a tactical or a strategic lift.”

    Before claiming somethings as gospel with a straight face; make the attempt to engage in some objective research. It saves others the effort to correct you and you actually learn something. All European programmes have been hit by cost overruns and delays but the whole idea of the A400M was so Europe could have a homegrowwn new generation platform to replace the C-130 an C-160 fleet…. Just like how many years ago they came up with the Horizon programme, MBT-70 and other things…

  20. Dundun – ” No wonder the army didnt even shed a crocodile tear when they didn’t get them”

    Probably but the main reason is the army wanted a wheeled platform for reasons well known. Another issue I was told was long term sustainment costs.

    The plus point, a major one, is that crews are not out in the open exposed to shrapnel and the elements. A tracked SPH has also better mobility then a wheeled one but a wheeled one is more comfortable on account of having less vibration.

    If anyone says that the M-109 was fine for others; thus it should be fine for us; I’ll rubbish that claim like in the past because each army has its own preferences and concerns.

    An issue with SPHs in which crews are enclosed is the AC and ventilation system. Quite often the rear hatches are left open when there is little risk of enemy fire.

    I remember seeing a photo of Dutch Panzerhaubitze 2000’s in Afghanistan; rear hatches were left open during a live fire. Same photos circulated of Brit AS-90s in Iraq with rear hatches open. There was also an incident in 1982 when a IDF M-109 which had it hatches open and had rounds and charges outside was destroyed by enemy fire.

  21. “the government knows it can put off the MPA deal”
    The Govt can put off any deal however it likes, it just needs to tell that particular branch of service its request for budget was not approved. There are plenty of other things that which should not be put off any longer but the Govt steadfast still not buy. Everything is politically driven and it is the politicians in Govt that decides what to and what not to buy, urgency be damned.

  22. SPH requirement is not since 2018. Its been there since a very very long time. I remember the first time Ceasar was featured in the Perajurit magazine. Yes, the SPH requirement has been that long and old. I don’t think the MPA deal can be cancelled without penalty since it has been mentioned the government has issued the LOA/SST. Unless both sides cannot agree contractual terms, in which case the LOA/SST just lapses.

  23. ”the government knows it can put off the MPA deal”

    That was a typo. I really meant ”the government knows it ”can’t” put off the MPA deal”.

    The Beechcrafts are overdue for retirement and really can’t be put off any longer. Yes you’ll probably say that various things are are overdue for retirement but there are some things which the decision makers deem more of a priority. In sharp contrast the SPHs were intended to be organic to maneuver elements and are not a replacement for anything per see.

    ”Everything is politically driven ”

    It is as I keep harping and am well aware of but thank you.

  24. kel – ”SPH requirement is not since 2018. ”

    From the early 2000’s but it only really gained momentum in the 2018 period when the EDA offer was made [contrary to what some may believe it wasn’t the first time]. At various times there has been uncertainty on whether to go wheeled or tracked; at one point we were gung ho on the K-9 but that waned and Casaer gained more political backing at a time when the political leadership was fond of things French. A wheeled version is cheaper to buy and sustain and in line with longstanding army policy can be flown east; thus the army prefers wheels.

    kel – ”I remember the first time Ceasar was featured in the Perajurit magazine.”

    It was first at LIMA 1997. Giat [now Nexter] at point were convinced we’d be the first customer.

    kel – ” I don’t think the MPA deal can be cancelled without penalty ”

    No idea but since the government is aware and agrees with the fact that MPAs are needed and should not be postponed I’d be very surprised if anything is further delayed or cancelled. There is also the fact that the government is placing more importance on the air and maritime domains.

  25. Beechcraft retirement is now being replaced with the CN-235 MSA, which is actually much more capable than the old beechcraft. So actually to have another type of MPA now is not so critical.

  26. So actually to have another type of MPA now is not so critical

    Oh but we do. It’s critical as to patrol
    the increasingly contested SCS as well as the ever busy shipping lane of the malacca straight. Never forget that to maintain one plane to be on the sky regularly, we need 3 planes; one on patrol, one on maintenance/service and one on standby so unless the AF wanted to burn the horse. For SCS we would like to have at least 2 planes patrolling from peninsula side and S&S side to cover different area. That leaves out the malacca strait and sulu sea
    (though they could be patrolled by smaller planes like beechcraft or a Male UAS). So

    Right now we’re lucky the RAAF is helping to shoulder up patrol with their P8

  27. Wong – ” So actually to have another type of MPA now is not so critical”

    Well the pedantic or fastidious amongst us here will say one’s a “MSA” and one’s a “MPA”. Not that I’m bothered about the distinction or in acronyms so beloved by the industry.

    As the saying goes “there’s a certain quality in quantity”.’ Are a handful of CNs sufficient to monitor the whole EEZ and national waters stretching from the northern approaches of the Melaka Straits southwards towards the Singapore Straits and eastwards towards the South China Sea and Sulu Sea? If you think about it and the fact that at any one time ‘X’ number will not be operational; is it really not “critical” as you proclaim?

  28. If we assumed that we are operating solo and not part of a coalition of willing partners then sure MPA isn’t really needed.

    If we assumed we are part of a coalition then multirole platform that have ASW function like MPA,MALE,LCS,wildcat & MRSS is extremely important.

  29. “the army was more than willing to wait”
    They are willing to wait? Okay no problem, the beancounters are just as happy not to fund them. Waited almost 5 years and NOTHING to show? Sure. How about wait another 5 more years? No problem for TDM rite, since they waited the previous 5. And since they are more than willing to wait, as you said, why not wait for another 10 more years?

  30. Joe – what exactly are your points across all topics? The waiting is not a new thing. Its been happening for 25 years. The reasons are known – money, politics versus a long list of requirements. That the process is full of lekages is factual. That the problem is due to national polices (such as affirmative action and national interest) is also understood. What exactly is the point of what you’re trying to say across topics? What are the implementable or actionable solutions are you proposing? What are the decisions and choices to make given the constraints?

  31. Zaft – ”If we assumed”

    Not ”we’ but ”you” assume. We don’t assume anything. As sure as you need oxygen to survive; we need MPAs in certain numbers and of a certain quality. Without MPAs how do we monitor the maritime domain? Does the Maritime Institute have some hypersonic balloons fitted with radars/sensors with a 1,000km range that we don’t know about?

    Why don’t you next claim that if we try hard and have discipline we can win the World Cup within a decade or have a tech base as capable as Japan’s..

    If indeed we don’t need MPAs unless we’re ”part of a coalition of willing partners” why on earth has the RMAF been pressing for MPAs since the early to mid 2000’s? Merely to waste taxpayer’s money or because it can’t see the true picture as well as you?

    Zaft – ”we are part of a coalition then multirole platform that have ASW function like MPA,MALE,LCS,wildcat & MRSS is extremely important.”

    Are you on hallucinogens? Whether we’re alone or part of a grand coalition we need various things both for peacetime and in times of conflict.

  32. ”why not wait for another 10 more years?”

    Have you made your point or is more rhetoric needed to ease off inner frustrations?

    Yes the army was willing to wait because they do not want to be in a position yet again when they are straddled with something ill suited for their needs and something they have concerns about from a sustainment perspective. If you have more to say on the issue; are in need of more chest banging; need the last say or are not satisfied; by all means write to the Artillery Directorate. The address is easily found.

    BTW since you have a penchant for upper case letters and need it to make a point; why be selective and why not have whole posts in upper case?

  33. kel – ”Its been happening for 25 years.”

    – The RMAF first issued a requirement and requested an AEW platform in 1986 and has been waiting for a Beechcraft replacement since the 2008/9 period.
    – The RMN waited for almost 2 decades for its SSKs.
    – The army waited a decade and a half before getting ATGWs and disposable shoulder launched weapons.

    I can go on but in the army’s case; like its sister services; it fully understands the problems which arise its they are forced to operate something ill suited [shite hits the fan and flies in multiple directions]; thus it don’t mind waiting a bit longer; not withstanding ‘joe’s powers of deduction in making ”5” and ”10” year predictions and his view that the army should have willingly gone for M-109s despite wanting a wheeled platform with cheaper sustainment costs and smaller footprint. It was also not the army per see which cancelled the contract.

  34. Azlan “why on earth has the RMAF been pressing for MPAs since the early to mid 2000’s? Merely to waste taxpayer’s money or because it can’t see the true picture as well as you”

    The argument we need X because RMAF said we need it are a horrible sell pitch. No wonder Historically speaking why a lot of MAF wishlist no matter how important they say it is aren’t getting funded.

    KC Wong questions are quite valid, the biggest between MPA & MSA is it ASW capabilities. And There’s nothing the Chinese can do to us with a subsurface asset that they can’t do already with their rocket, surface & air asset.

    Kel “What are the implementable or actionable solutions are you proposing? What are the decisions and choices to make given the constraints?”

    Some people should start living in the real world where one can’t have it cake & eat it too rather then continue living in an Ideal lalaland but only exist in their mind?

  35. zaft – ”The argument we need X because RMAF said we need it are a horrible sell pitch. ”

    If the armed services aren’t the ones who are in a position to declare what’s needed based on the fact that they do what we discuss here on the cyber world for real; then pray tell who should tell us? The likes of you? You make it sound [you aren’t the first] like the armed services are asking for the earth and moon or for transcontinental missiles at the cost of the nation having less schools and hospitals.

    zaft – ”No wonder”

    ”No wonder” you come up with the things you do. It behooves you to do some research rather than continuing to spew comedy- i.e. the army selected Deftech and the First Win; we should buy kit based on national interests; the army ”screwed” itself; the MAF and industry ”dicking” around and being in collusion; isn’t the MAF’s birth right to demand 1 percent of the GDP – I could go on.

    zaft – ”KC Wong questions are quite valid, the biggest between MPA & MSA is it ASW capabilities.”

    [1] We need MPAs in numbers for reasons well known. [2] Your assertion that we might not need MPAs [refer to your previous post] is nonsensical. Did the RMAF demand 85 MPAs and specify that they must be fitted with AsuW and ASW ordnance or they’ll be rejected? Did it say that it absolutely must get P-8s or nothing at all? As it stands is there a substitute for a MPA?

    Also, did he say or infer what you’re saying he did?

    zaft – ”There’s nothing the Chinese can do to us with”

    Spare me the Chinese BS and no need to go off tangent. We aren’t getting stuff to confront the Chinese and even if our budget was raised by a tenfold we still wouldn’t be able to.

    zaft – ”Some people should start living in the real world”

    Not you naturally; given by some of the comedy you spew out with a straight face like it’s holy writ; you seem to have it all figured out.

    zaft – ”Ideal lalaland but only exist in their mind?”

    Spent the morning looking at the mirror? Do the statements you make fall into the ”lalaland” or cloud cuckoo land category?

  36. “Have you made your point”
    Nope. Until such when TDM wakes up from their lala dreamland hankering their wishlist SPH not even considering alternatives, and the Govt had been adamant not giving to their wishes, I will continue to MAKE MY POINT.

    @Kel
    “What are the implementable or actionable solutions are you proposing? What are the decisions and choices to make given the constraints?”
    That everyone must get off their high horse and stop living in dreamland. The Govt must stop hoping the Armed Forces could help in national economic building and stop abusing the system for their own benefits. They must provide sufficient budget to meet the Armed Forces needs and not overexpecting a puny budget could do wonders as if can buy 3 for the price of 2. That’s one of the reason what doomed LCS & OPV from the start.

    The rakyat should be educated and be self aware that defence matters do matter and that some sacrifices HAS to be made to their economic welfare & social safety net in order to boost defence expenditure to that of our regional peers, they should not allow politicians to hijack defence matter to insinuate the Govt & Armed Forces or to further gain political chuztpah.

    The Armed Forces too mustn’t live in lala dreamland hankering on their wishlist and not considering alternatives. If the Govt threw them a bone with M109 they should have welcomed it instead of looking for the 1st opportunity to scupper that deal in a slim hope of getting what they wished for and til today they aren’t getting what they wanted. That was a missed opportunity.

  37. ”Until such when TDM wakes up from their lala dreamland hankering their wishlist SPH not even considering alternatives, ”

    Right. So you know better than the end user as to what it should and should not get. That BTW is the mindset some politicians and policy makers have long had. Also there was an alternative; if you consider it; the alternative was a wheeled platform which the army always wanted and was willing to wait longer for. Not a platform with a large footprint and which the army found recourse extensive to operate and sustain.

    The reasoning that the army did not want to be straddled with something ill suited for its requirements is self explanatory; yet as par for the course you’d make a mountain over nothing and give the incorrect impression [nothing else to say] that the army has too high expectations; is in ”lalaland” [a place not alien to you it would seem] and should have insisted that it get the M-109s which BTW it had rejected years previously. It was also the government BTW which scrapped the deal not the army.

    ”I will continue to MAKE MY POINT.”

    Remember the cliche that opinions are like rear orifices : everyone has one. Including you I would believe.

    Continue with the upper cases [everyone needs to channel out frustrations]; why limit it to a few words and continue with your apparent ”points”.

  38. ”The Armed Forces too mustn’t live in lala dreamland hankering on their wishlist and not considering alternatives.”

    The issue you’ve blissfully missed is that they do give ”alternatives” but at times even their ”alternatives” are not approved and if approved are put on hold indefinitely. When presenting a requirement to be registered for approval at MINDE; ”alternatives” are always presented and it’s never a case of ”this” and only ”this”. Same goes when rejecting something.

    ”That was a missed opportunity.”

    To you no doubt but not to the end user who has to operate and sustain it. Note that this is an end user which has had ample experience of being straddled with ill suited things and who is told to make do when sustainment and other issues arise.

  39. Azlan “like the armed services are asking for the earth and moon or for transcontinental missiles at the cost of the nation having less schools and hospitals”

    There’s no such thing as a free lunch. everything the military buy do come at a cost of either less policing, less school or hospital or road or MRT or train. All of the latter however contribute to socioeconomic well being as a health, educated citizens with easy access to job in a secured environment makes money. Spend money on overseas purchase doesn’t. It’s not rocket science to figure why this gov Unlike other gov which has a local military industrial complex aren’t interested & committed to defence spending.

    Our MIC are shit no doubt but rather than a victim the military itself are one of the reasons why it is shitty in the first place. Is the firstwin is so horrible that the better alternative is literally to have nothing?

    As it is now the fundings for the 4×4 & SPH announced under BN gov had likely move to the LMS2 under PH gov. There’s no doubt that on TDM perspective armour vehicle is great. But what they failed to realise is when you try to sell something you marketed it in a way to make your customers wet not what makes you wet. RMAF & RMN sells pitch however does make the gov wet.

    Never did I say MPA is not needed, that’s what happened when you cut my whole statement in half and reply in segments changing it very meaning.

    Overall I do understand why some are pushing for CN,M109, Brunei & SK Blackhawks. Basically even if they treated it as stopgap for 10 years. Doing so allowed them to bring forward their procurement plan for the next 10 years today allowing to cover 2 gaps in one go. Off course no one say it would fit perfectly like a glove & going to do everything they wanted it to do. But even if it does 80% of what needed it’s still something. Beggars can’t be choosers because If they choose then they end up with absolutely nothing. Which seem to be the case right now.

  40. zaft – ” All of the latter however contribute to socioeconomic well being as a health, educated citizens with easy access to job in a secured environment makes money. Spend money on overseas purchase doesn’t. ”

    Save the political/economic themed talk. Save it. The MAF exists to defend the country and it’s the duty of care of the government to adequately fund the MAF which has long been starved of resources and a victim of neglect – period/full stop. You make it sound like what the MAF is asking is excessive and superflous for its operational needs. Nonsense.

    zaft – ”Never did I say MPA is not needed,”

    Refer to your earlier post… Whilst at you’re at it; refer to a lot of posts you’ve made.

    zaft – ”you cut my whole statement in half and reply in segments changing it very meaning.”

    For brevity and no other reasons. The question is do you actually understand or aware of what you’re saying? Given your propensity to come up with various things; a legitimate question. I assume you’re the same ”Zaft” who posts some of the outrageous and ludicrous things he does and not a troll or someone on hallucinogens?

    zaft – ”Beggars can’t be choosers because If they choose then they end up with absolutely nothing. Which seem to be the case right now.”

    Spare me your cliches. It’s fine to say ”beggars can’t be choosers” but when sustainment issues arise because the armed services are straddled with things ill suited for their needs and when the government does nothing; not you who saves the day. It’s the armed services who have to deal with the mess and the taxpayer who pays the penalty. Then again off course you’d know better; after to you the MAF ”screwed” things up and is ”dicking” around. Behooves you to check your facts.

  41. @zaft
    “Beggars can’t be choosers because If they choose then they end up with absolutely nothing. Which seem to be the case right now.”
    Exactly! Yet some here thinks we can fight an adversary with NOTHING. What a joke.
    Beggars can choose not to eat when they are not hungry but since situation is now dire how can they still choose what they want to eat? Sure the ATM can choose to wait since we’re not at war but what happens if such suddenly arises and when we need them but we don’t have them?

    Some here thinks we have a choice, but weapons, like the military themselves, is akin to insurance, you buy what you can and a poor insurance is better than no insurance cuz if the situation comes when you need them, nobody will be around to sell you one.

  42. ”Yet some here thinks we can fight an adversary with NOTHING”

    Who exactly? Really a joke or one you think it is?

    BTW just like it’s telling how at times people resort to vulgarities as a means of reinforcing their point; it’s telling how at times some have this insatiable need to resort to upper case letters for want of anything better to make a point.

    ”but what happens if such suddenly arises and when we need them but we don’t have them?”

    If you care to look at the dozens of wars which have broken out for the past 2 centuries you’ll see that the vast majority have ” broken out” after a period of tensions. Granted the unexpected can happen but wars rarely break out overnight so to speak.

    ”Some here thinks we have a choice, but weapons, like the military themselves,”

    Do ”some ” understand a key legitimate valid point? That the army has ample experience of being stuck with kit which was never really suited for its needs? When shite hits the fan as it does and the government is unwilling to rectify things; the army [like its sister services] are left to pick up the pieces and the taxpayer gets buggered. Can the ”some” who apparently understand [think they do] and who insist the army should accept things not suited for its specific operational requirements provide assistance? The ”some” who are arrogant enough to insist they know better than the actual end user who has to operate and sustain things?

    Do ”some” [those who argue for want of anything else to knock or to score points] realise there are key legitimate operational reasons why the army needs a wheeled platform? Do the ”some” have the same attitude as the indifferent pen pushing tight fisted bureaucrats who hold the view that the armed services should just keep mum and accept what’s offered to them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*