SHAH ALAM: Not a problem. Foreign Minister DS Hishammuddin Hussein has been reported in the media as saying that no China coast guard or naval ships have encroached Malaysian waters since 100 days ago, the time he had been appointed to head Wisma Putra. He was commenting on the Auditor General’s report which stated 89 China coast guard and naval vessels have encroached Malaysian Maritime Zone from 2016 to 2019.
From the Malay Mail.
KUALA LUMPUR, July 15 — Chinese coast guard and navy vessels have not been seen encroaching into Malaysian waters of late, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said.
He said bilateral ties between both countries have been strengthened further in the 100 days since he was appointed to helm Wisma Putra.
“One area I’ve had to work on since helming Wisma Putra is to improve Malaysia’s ties with China, India, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates so when we talk about South China Sea, of course the relationship with China is important.
“The latest, in the 100 days of helming Wisma Putra, Chinese vessels have not been seen in our waters, so how did we manage this? This is between us and the Chinese leadership… my stand is very clear, we will not compromise on our sovereignty,” he told a media conference in Parliament today.
However, Greg Poling, a Senior Fellow for The Center for Strategic and International Studies Southeast Asia and the director Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative has debunked the minister’s claim. In his personal Twitter feed, Poling posted on July 16:
Malaysia’s FM says there have been no Chinese ships in Malaysian waters for 100 days. But there have been. Every. Single. Day.
CCG 5203 patrolled Luconia Shoals from Apr 2; replaced by 5204 on May 22; replaced by 5202 on July 7. Here it is today.
He also posted a photograph of an AIS data of the SCS which clearly showed a China Coast Guard ship as mentioned in his post.
I have retweeted Poling’s post while tagging Hishammuddin. Hopefully the minister will respond though I was reminded by a colleague that he (Hishammuddin) had never responded to my social media posts. The only time he did, was to delete a Twitter post after I replied/retweeted on it.
Hishammuddin has issued a statement on what he said yesterday as well as in response to the US statement on South China Sea. On his statement that no China coast guard and navy vessels have been detected in Malaysia waters since he became Foreign Minister, he said he was not wrong and invoked another issue, the West Cappella issue, to justify his original statement.
*post updated with Hishammuddin statement.
— Malaysian Defence
.If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
CCG is there today. How about our presence there today?
seen that video of his claim yesterday. he should not have lie/twist things. people can check easily and debunk nowadays. hope other politician will push hard for more ship for MMEA and RMN now. we really need it.
So can we trust what the Minister will say?? It depends I guess. Hope that this statement would not lead the current government to further reduce the spending for RMN and MMEA to procure the needed equipment for monitoring and patrol SCS.
H2O sudah u-turn with his latest statement. Nowhere mentioned about the ” Chinese vessels have not been seen in our waters “.
Really no respect for this person.
Weeeelll, it’s like NOT a single Chinese CG vessel HAS BEEN SEEN near the East coast of the Peninsular. …that is ‘essentially’ RIGHT since the Luconia Shoals is nearer to Sarawak’s coastline. Does that mean Sarawak is ‘actually’ RIGHT in its decision to build its own maritime@fisheries enforcement unit, the so-called Sarawak Coast Guard? If that’s the case, well then, more applause is appropriate for that Borneo territory! Pardon my sarcasm.
Hishamuddin might have made a faux pas in this case, but I’m inclined to think that our foreign relations have improved somewhat since he took over. I hope he could slow talk US some more to provide more goodies to us. Perhaps additional radar + UAVs?
” If that’s the case, well then, more applause is appropriate for that Borneo territory! Pardon my sarcasm. ”
With China maintaining full time presence in that area and the MMEA stretched thin, I feel the formation of SCG is justified so that MMEA can concentrate in dealing with the CCG. Be sarcastic all you like but the reality is MMEA is lacking hulls to handle all its commitments. At the moment MMEA needs all the help it could get until it could get additional hulls.
Luqman- “So can we trust what the Minister will say??“
Can we trust what any politician says?
As citizens it’s our right to question and scrutinise authority.
We have to.
The audit great. To those in the know; little of what was mentioned was a revelation. The question really is what comes out of it? Will those in authority take steps to rectify what’s mentioned in the audit? Who ensures that those in authority actually takes the necessary steps to do so?
As it stands there will no pressure on the part if the government ti rectify things and unfortunately no incentive to do so as the average voter is indifferent.
Everything wrong/flawed mentioned in the audit is a reflection of how we view and handle defence; a lack of focus and urgency and the lack is a manageable and holistic policy which is based on an honest and realistic long term assessment of the threats we face and our ability to handle them.
This is the statement regarding beting serupai from US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo.
” The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the “southernmost territory of China.” International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it ”
If this is not a bullying, neo colonizing move from China, then what is it? China has no respect to the UNCLOS law it agreed to, to sarawak and malaysian people by fabricating the absurd story about beting serupai being China’s southenmost territory.
Either the Auditor General or the Minister does not know their facts. Please find out before issueing statements
“As it stands there will no pressure on the part if the government ti rectify things and unfortunately no incentive to do so as the average voter is indifferent.”
When the voters becomes not indifferent and they assume the politician in power “didnt’t hear” them, we will see street rallies/protests lah.
Just wondering. If an underwater feature is made to appear by building a Chinese airbase ontop, does it then legalise their claims to territory?
Nope. Thats why they put their military to stake up their claim
If the day comes when voters are not as indifferent as they are now towards defence issues; then the politicians will take notice.
As it stands the average voter is worried about various issues but defence is on the very bottom of the list. The politicians will address issues that are concern to the voters.
We need to be clear on this and reject the notion of chinese historical claim to south china sea. Why IMO we need to really embrace our maritime heritage. Why we need to rediscover our sailing prowess. Why we need to educate our youths and for the government to give support for them to take fishing as a viable way of life. Why we need our royal families to show our maritime heritage, commission builds of our traditional Jong, Bahtera and Bedar to sail the seas.
Standing firm for our rights, and having a strong defence to back it up is a must. Now the rhetoric has been notched up, this is really not the right time to lower our defences. Whatever happens, we will be the one that will bear the consequences. Having a decimated economy, loss of oil and gas resources, loss of our fishing rights is a real possibility with the looming colonization of our EEZ by China.
The problem now with our politicians, that they are more than willing to sell thair soul to the highest bidder, with the nation and peoples interest very far down in their priority list.
” If the day comes when voters are not as indifferent as they are now towards defence issues; then the politicians will take notice.”
Agreed. There is an increase in awareness compared to say 10 years ago. But still not enough to shut people like Charles Santiago and Koon Yew Yin.
” We need to be clear on this and reject the notion of chinese historical claim to south china sea. Why IMO we need to really embrace our maritime heritage. Why we need to rediscover our sailing prowess.”
We can if we decide to not look down on ourselves and “angkat” the mat sallehs. And if we want to do this we need to respect ourselves and our history.
Look at the way we treat our museums and heritage; hardly any appreciation for them, our exhibits are worn and tarnished, some even rotting, like in the case of the RMN museum in Melaka. Or the vehicles in the army museum in PD just left to languish out in the open. Contrast this to say the Imperial War Museum in the UK or Les Invalides in France, the way they treat their heritage and history is many times better than ours.
At least now the youth doesn’t believe in “Melayu malas” or “mudah lupa” rhetoric peddled by a certain old man. it may be a case of too little too late
Our historical link to an influential & powerful maritime legacy was broken in 1511 with the fall of Melaka. Their descendant royalties states could hardly claim a proud maritime heritage when under the yoke of colonialism ever since.
The same, Communist China could hardly claim any historical linkage to past imperial presence. Otherwise it would be easy of them to claim rights to whatever land that Zheng He had sailed to, including parts of Africa & America!
But if you want to play with “historical” datas, malays and south east asians are a much more maritime and seafaring people than china. Why there are malay rulers in the Philippines when magellan discovered them. There is no chinese words on the oldest recorded writing (laguna copperplate) in the Philippines, but the main language was malay. Why the lingua franca of prehistoric south east asia is malay, not chinese. Why even the english name for the main chinese language (mandarin) is based on a malay word!
In the U.K. and other countries funds for museums/collections are drawn from a variety of sources. Over here even operational funds are tight; let alone funds for museums. Sure private companies (local and foreign) can contribute but they need to recoup the investment by gaining contracts.
The way the Europeans preserve their military heritage is due to a number of reasons; namely in their much longer history they’ve experienced many wars – it’s more ingrained in their national psyche than it is here.
ASM – “may be a case of too little too late”
Well I won’t go into matters of race but they way we handle defence issues is indicative of various things which are flawed in the country as a whole. We’ve been doing things in a flawed manner for so long that it’s going to take a real desire, effort and time to undo the damage – deeply ingrained in the system – that has to been done.
Everything; from our defence policy; to the way we justify procurement; to the part the local industry plays (the armed services should come first – not the industry) is in need of a major revamp.
ASM “We can if we decide to not look down on ourselves and “angkat” the mat sallehs. And if we want to do this we need to respect ourselves and our history.”
Those who are pro-China are only too happy to see us get worked up over the mat sallehs and the fact that we were once a colony. On an every day basis, their trolls seize any chance to shout about white privilege and the sins of the Europeans in the colonial era. For them to see us talk about erasing traces of the era and hating or distancing ourselves from their hated west fits very nicely with their narrative. I only see their trolls helping to play up emotions by encouraging our anger.
Yes, we must stand tall but we must do this without hating for hate’s sake. There is no point in engaging in angry rhetoric over a bygone colonizer while we lose actual territorial rights and wealth to a new one.
joe “Our historical link to an influential & powerful maritime legacy was broken in 1511 with the fall of Melaka. Their descendant royalties states could hardly claim a proud maritime heritage when under the yoke of colonialism ever since.”
Well, the fact that China fell into isolation and backwardness in the ages after Zheng He does not stop them from invoking Zheng He’s legacy when it suits them. There is nothing stopping us from being proud of our history.
ASM “At least now the youth doesn’t believe in “Melayu malas” or “mudah lupa” rhetoric peddled by a certain old man. it may be a case of too little too late”
Those phrases are provocative, but when it came to defence and territory, many administrations actually took it easy compared with the old man’s. It was then that we began to mark and garrison our offshore possessions. However flawed, his term saw a long period of growth for the MAF and a transition to a focus on conventional operations transition to a focus on conventional operations. Both within and beyond defence matters, he did a lot to raise Malaysia’s stature.
Unfortunately, things have slowed down since and we still rely heavily on many of the the major acquisitions made in the day. We also have not moved on from the practices that blight these acquisitions.
” Yes, we must stand tall but we must do this without hating for hate’s sake. There is no point in engaging in angry rhetoric over a bygone colonizer while we lose actual territorial rights and wealth to a new one. ”
Agreed. I didn’t elaborate further in the post but as you pointed we should be proud of our own heritage but not to the point of being arrogant. I mentioned the mat sallehs as our people (some, has a rather unfortunate habit looking up at the West so much that anything local is disdained.
” Those phrases are provocative, but when it came to defence and territory, many administrations actually took it easy compared with the old man’s. It was then that we began to mark and garrison our offshore possessions.”
I agree that the GOM (Grand Old Man) has done his fair share of good things, in view of the political situation at that time. Clinton wasn’t too fond of him
Salami slicing on the sea, nothing new here. There is no time to waste, it is high time that we strengthen our Navy. Not necessary to flex, but to proclaim our territorial existence. Can’t really be dependent on diplomacy on bilateralism alone. No one would help if we aren’t equipped to help ourselves in the first place. It would work back then when we had the British, but not today.
AM, what that Old Man did was buy assets that whilst very good on paper, were flawed in that they didn’t integrate well. The Germans were amused (my mates were!) when they knew we had Russian fighter aircraft alongside American ones. They thought that’s funny since quickly rid themselves of Russian wares when they became a united Germany! Our ships aren’t fully armed equipped & upgraded. We couldn’t respond properly to Chinese SCS incursions from Day 1. What Atok cared about was political expediency. Period.
AM / “However flawed, his term saw a long period of growth for the MAF””
That’s one way of looking at it.
Another way is that we got a MAF which didn’t reflect (in terms of actual capability) all the cash we spent in it. Also one we couldn’t adequately sustain and one equipped with various systems (based on political imperatives) which led to immense logistical/support issues. The policy of placing emphasis of the local industry; at the expense of the armed services and .tax payer.
The present state of the MAF (one we have problems sustaining and one in which its actual capabilities doesn’t reflect what we actually spent on it, including various programmes which went rat shit but benefited certain companies/individuals)
is largely due to policies introduced by him.
AM – “a transition to a focus on conventional operations transition to a focus on conventional operations”
It would have happened anyway even if he hadn’t been in power – natural progression.
Plans to expand the MAF and focus on external security were first made in the mid-1970’s driven by the fall of South Vietnam; the invasion of Kampuchea and the declaration of our EEZ in line with the 1979 Peta Baru. A lot of the actual planning that went into PERISTA was made before he came to power.
Ultimately as far as defence goes; he may have made some right or sound decisions but he also made decisions that were disastrous for the MAF and taxpayer. For him it was a price with incurring as long as it benefited the country in other ways and Malaysia was never in danger of being involved in a conflict anyway – so the thinking went.
Taib – “ Old Man did was buy assets that whilst very good on paper”
Whether or not it actually suited the MAF’s requirements was secondary. Priority was on how it would benefit the country; whether in overall bilateral trade/investment; TOTs and offsets and the other ways.
Thus the policy of buying “a bit of everything but not enough of anything” from everyone. Objections did come from the MAF but it was told keep quiet and accept the decisions which were made for the sake of overall national good.
Taib – “they knew we had Russian fighter aircraft alongside American ones”
According to the plan; the purchase would have led to various joint trade/investment deals with the Russian Federation and would benefit the local industry. The fact that the Fulcrum wasn’t suitable for the RMAF was secondary. The story behind the Laksamanas is also an “interesting” one.
ASM – “Clinton wasn’t too fond of him””
A lot of people weren’t too fond of him and vice versa. He said somethings which should have been says but at times said preposterous things which shouldn’t have been said.
Although he’s known for his critical remarks on the U.S. ironically it was during his time that we established a close defence relationship with Uncle Sam. During a visit to the Pentagon in 1983 signed an agreement for U.S. ships to dock here and for exercises and exchanges to be taken to a new level.
Ironic (to be expected given our hedging strategy and the fact that the U.S. presence in the region gives us great comfort) in that we are not known for a pro U.S. stance and always declare ourselves impartial when it comes to big power rivalry but it’s the U.S. with which we have more intensive and regular training/exchanges/exercises with than any other country; followed by Australia.
Taib – “They thought that’s funny since quickly rid themselves of Russian wares when they became a united Germany”
Yes and it wasn’t so much due to technical inadequacy of the equipment but because of interoperability and integration issues with NATO stuff.
ASM “Agreed. I didn’t elaborate further in the post but as you pointed we should be proud of our own heritage but not to the point of being arrogant. I mentioned the mat sallehs as our people (some, has a rather unfortunate habit looking up at the West so much that anything local is disdained.”
The important thing for our times is not whether we are arrogant per se but whether we fall into the trap of blindly condemning anything that is western. There will always be people who look up to mat sallehs, just as there will be people who hate the mat sallehs and look up to China. Those who are pro-China want to see us become more accepting of what China is doing in the region and more critical of those countries who oppose China’s actions. They are only happy to see us distance ourselves from western countries by playing up emotions on middle eastern politics and our colonial past, and indeed alleged racial injustice is the most common theme of their message.
The fact is the British, while obviously having been here for self interest, ultimately developed and raised the stature of the country and left us off to a better start than many other countries. Even after independence, they fought with us against the communists and Indonesians and we got along well as sovereign nations in our own right. Some people have recently started to claim that the “whites” did it purely out of their own self interest or that their soldiers were here only because they were following orders. It is quite obvious when the same people who peddle such a racially charged anti-western narrative also creatively blame western countries for China’s actions in the SCS, along with everything else that is wrong in the world.
Azlan “Well I won’t go into matters of race but they way we handle defence issues is indicative of various things which are flawed in the country as a whole.”
Indeed. I would say that we have many pressing issues in the country, but where possible we ought to go about them without making reference to race. Many of these issues have no racial dimension at all, and ironically those who seek to defend what is wrong often bring in race as a means of justifying what they are doing.
IMO it is not so much as “anti” china. We cannot be anti china as we will always be neighbors. But that does not mean that we just roll over and just accept china behaving like a neo colonizer justifying it with fairy tale stories. They are doing the exact same thing that they condemned the westerners was doing to asians in the past.
The british set the same high standards of governance as their own homeland in their colonies. That we can be thankful for. But they did bring with them divide and rule tactics along racial lines that our politicians are still taking advantage of.
As for our defence situation right now, we are closer to losing parts of our sovereignty now compared to any other time since our independence. We cannot afford to have superfluous buys that looks great on parades but operationally does not give any significant increase in capability. Day to day security capabilities under say MMEA should be the utmost priority, then deterrence (real, not just superficial) from our army, navy and air force.
…. – “ cannot afford to have superfluous buys that looks great on parades but operationally does not give any significant increase in capability”
We also cannot afford to buy stuff which is ill suited for the MAF but is selected based on national interests; including benefiting the local industry. The Little Bird saga or should I say fiasco is a prime example. A local company was appointed the middle man but provided zero added value for what it was paid.
We have a tendency to keep repeating the same mistakes.
We should look at history contextually, without pride nor shame.
Even in the West, the BLM movement are literally tearing down the prejudiced history long favoured by the Whites, exposing their evil and cruelty instead of the glorious narrative taught by their institutions & Governments.
“Why IMO we need to really embrace our maritime heritage”…my ancestors did their time in SCS and Sulu Sea,as pirate and fighters-for-hire.
“Even in the West, the BLM movement are literally tearing down the prejudiced history long favoured by the Whites, exposing their evil and cruelty instead of the glorious narrative taught by their institutions & Governments.”
The problem with this narrative is that “whites” do not have state systems that oppress minorities and are no longer in the colonial game. While at the same time, an Asian country is oppressing an entire people at home based on their religion, and garrisoning and robbing the territories of fellow Asian countries while holding itself as a glorious leader of Asians against “evil” whites.
If whites were so inherently “evil” they would not have embargoed certain white-ruled countries in Africa with nothing to gain from doing so, nor attracted millions of non-white immigrants to live as minorities in their countries.
” The Little Bird saga or should I say fiasco is a prime example ”
This is not only the issue of the middlemen but also politicians and the armed forces leaders.
IMO attack helicopters when we consider the cost of getting the capability, and considering our defence situation, does not give a high increase in overall capability, compared to say a utility helicopter with armed capability.
Army leaders and politicians wanted an attack helicopter since like the early 90s. The latest was for the Eurocopter Tiger before reality hits, and still the requirement morphed into the six units of MD530G little bird acquisition.
When even medium lift helicopter capability is in shambles as we retired our nuris without a replacement or even a dignified and proper military send off, something like the little bird should not even be thought of. But there it is, even politicized by wrongly trying to get out of the deal. Army leaders should shoulder the blame too for wanting something that is not a high priority for our defences, and politicians who pushed hard for this to go through.
Australian army special forces helicopter requirement is to be decided in a few weeks time. I wish that we could offer those unneeded MD530G little birds to Australia in exchange for their retired Blackhawks. We need those Blackhawks as our nuri replacements much more than we need those MD530G. Blackhawks can also be used as a fire support helicopter with quick change weapons system. Armed observations missions could be done by our AW109LOH, however much perceived disadvantage it has as a platform compared to the six MD530G we ordered.
Other programmes that i think should be stopped is the navys 18 follow on Kedah class (should leave the buying of opvs to MMEA), the army 6×6 cavalry vehicle programme (mission can be done by cheaper J-LTVs instead so thst we can have them in numbers), and TUDM new MPA programme (should concentrate on building the best MPA out of our CN-235 instead of having 2 different MPA to fly).
Unlike what happened to the blacks, the british did not enslave us. As a nation yes they plundered our riches, but as a people, they still treat us dignifully, unlike what they did in africa.
Talking of helicopters. Why not consider the Chinooks?
It’s a different class altogether more suitable for the Army really. But its a big a helicopter so its role must first be integrated with the Army needs. Personally I don’t see the need for it currently seeing how the Army is set up
… – “This is not only the issue of the middlemen but also politicians and the armed forces leaders.””
I never suggested as such …
As I’m fond of repeating; the whole system is rotten and is in need of a major revamp.
The fact that we have local companies which do nothing but are paid for services which in the first place are not needed is because of a flawed policy which we’ve long had in place …
…., – “Other programmes that i think should be stopped is the navys 18 follow on Kedah class (should leave the buying of opvs to MMEA”
Again – you’re looking at it from the “OPV constabulary perspective. The RMN seeks follow on Kedahs not mainly for the “OPV” role but because it sees a need for them to perform roles in a low threat environment in which a LCS or a Lekiu would be an overkill. The Kedahs or even the LMSs for that matter are not intended to punch above their weight and it’s silly to suggest they would do so …
… – “6×6 cavalry vehicle programme (mission can be done by cheaper J-LTVs instead so thst we can have them in number“
Depending. As mentioned before the JLTV (despite its virtues) is not a IFV. Whilst you’re enamoured of it (so am i to a certain extent); it is not an IFV : the army’s requirements call for a 6×6 IFV and the JLTV (as you’re aware) is not an IFV …..
I see a role for the JLTV but not as a substitute for an IFV. The JLTV was designed to meet U.S. operational requirements in Iraq and Libya and I do see a role for it to equip certain units such as the Border Regiment, Para Pathfinders and battalion weapons companies.
… – “Army leaders and politicians wanted an attack helicopter since like the early 90s””
Since the mid to late 1990’s …
It was the RMAF which first wanted the capability and it was later decided that the army should have it. This was before plans for the army to take over the troop carrying/utility role from the RMAF.
…, – “our AW109LOH, however much perceived disadvantage it has as a platform compared to the six MD530G we ordered”
No direct comparisons can be made as both are of a different weight category.
The Little Bird – obviously – has weight, range and endurance disadvantages compared to larger helis but in the context of ESSCOM it still has a role to play as fast reaction asset and to conduct certain roles that would be encountered in ESSCOM.
…, – “but also politicians and the armed forces leaders””
The “armed forces leaders” never specified a need for a light attack/recce helicopter for use in ESSCOM or to be employed as a substitute for a dedicated gunship………..
I hate convulated history lessons. Had that in political science class in spades when the historical dimensions of an issue is raised. The current issue is of China being a regional bully. Period. The sooner we are on the same page the better. Especially for the armed forces and H²O.
Agreed. It’s a question of how it will fit in the overall force structure and the added value it provides; weighted against other things we have a requirement for.
I do see a need for a heavy rotary lifter: amongst other things it can be used to better deploy troops and it’s under slung capability is useful. It’s something however that lies in the very distant future.
Even if procurement and operational funds were available the army is in no immediate position to operate anything beyond a squadron’s worth of Nuri replacements and the
A-109s as its training/support infrastructure will be stretched to the maximum.
I’m not even sure if the RMAF in the 1990’s ever had a requirement for a heavy rotary lifter; notwithstanding Syed Albar’s flight in a Chinook and other various attempts to market it to us.
The Chinook was offered for the Nuri replacement programme which led the procurement of the EC725. When I was told about it I immediately thought that it was too much of a helicopter for RMAF needs at that time and even now actually
Yes it was strange that it was even offered given that it was in a different weight category.
Years ago I came across a NST report from the 1980’s. To address a trade surplus with the Soviet Union they offered us various things. We sent a team to look at the MiL-8. As it turns out they were reluctant to sell it but offered us the MiL-26 which we of course had no need for.
For our future needs a Chinook with its lift capacity would be useful (whether to lift things or troops) but understandably it’s not even on the shopping list at the moment.
TLDM should not be the one to cause our EEZ to be lost. Having 18 follow on Kedah class is an ideal excuse for china to unleash the full force of PLAN onto us. Any incidents against China Coast Guard by TLDM will be the perfect excuse for China to escalate and finally annex and colonize the south china sea. It is the current diplomatic and strategic scenario that makes the 18 follow on Kedahs a no go. Our current and future security scenario needs the MMEA to be bigger in size and bigger in presence in our EEZ than TLDM. TLDM needs to be a fit but potent force as a deterrence, not a big force to do MMEA daily tasks. History has shown that it is the tiniest of reasons that could start a war.
The army has 2 distinct armoured vehicle requirement right now. one is the 6×6 KJA and another the HMPV
The 6×6 KJA is to be the replacement of condors in the cavalry regiments to be paired with 30mm, 30mm ingwe ATGM and Vigtaqs+squire radar av8 gempitas. That is a requirement for around 160-200 units. Those condors in the cavalry regiment are used for the classical cavalry missions such as armed recce, fire support, convoy escort etc. Those missions does not really require in IFV. The other requirement for HMPVs would be covering missions that while was also done by condors but for those that need to mainly transport troops. I can see the para armor squadron to be equipped with JLTVs, but for battalion weapon companies i am seeing something like the KLTV (which is armoured but cheaper than the JLTV) to be the ideal vehicle to replace the gwagens and unarmoured vamtacs.
AW109LOH and MD530G might be different in weight and size, but for armed observation missions, fulfill the same tasks, and basically can be similarly armed. AW109LOH has the advantage of bigger EO turret, and in the context of ESSCOM, can do basically all the tasks that the MD530G can do.
As for the Chinooks. It is a great capability to have (especially for east malaysia artillery and logistics movement) but in our current predicament, we dont have the budget to buy and operate something like that. We need to solve our medium lift helicopter capability plus many other higher priority things before we can even think about the chinook.
The Kia KLTV
It is of the same size as humvee or vamtac. Costs around usd120k each. Bit cheaper than the unarmoured vantacs we bought. Not as capable off road or as survivable (armour and mine blast capability) as the JLTV but would be similar to the performance of the current unarmoured vamtacs but in an armoured form. With the obvious political advantage of strengthening our ties with south korea.
on the para armour squadron with the JLTV.
Actually the JLTV armour and mine resistance capabilities are higher than the Scorpion and Stormer that equips the para armour squadron previously. It has been tested for paradrop from C-130 and C-17s. With the british buy of the JLTV, it would surely be tested with the A400M too. I personally prefer the ZBD-03 for the para armour squadron, but realistically the JLTV is the best fit for the task.
A company-sized leading para battlegroup mounted on both the JLTVs (4) and Polaris DAGOR A1s (12) would be a significant upgrade in our rapid deployment capabilities.
…. – “Having 18 follow on Kedah class is an ideal excuse for china to unleash the full force of PLAN onto us””
Yet as it stands; until the MMEA has sufficient resources the Kedahs are the most ideal platforms for the role of routine patrolling. They are lightly armed and are recognised as “OPVs” / they don’t carry the same impact as a frigate.
What will result in “china to unleash the full force of PLAN onto us” will be the use of a military asset in the constabulary role but us resorting to certain measures deemed by China as “aggressive” or “provocative” – irrespective of whether we use RMN or MMEA assets.
Note that Vietnam has acted much more assertively than us but China hasn’t seen fit to deploy PLAN. I still see the need for the MMEA to be the lead agency but until that happens the RMN has to play a major role.
will “not” be the use of a military asset in the constabulary role ..
” Yet as it stands; until the MMEA has sufficient resources the Kedahs are the most ideal platforms for the role of routine patrolling ”
Yes of course for the current 6 Kedah class OPV. Not for the current 15 to 5 plan to build 18 more follow on Kedahs to be operated under TLDM. Diplomatically the impact is not on the ship type used, but under what service those ships are operated under. MMEA is seen as a civilian enforcement unit, unlike TLDM which is a military force. Even china coast guard is using ex PLAN frigates painted white as OPVs, for the effect.
” Note that Vietnam has acted much more assertively than us but China hasn’t seen fit to deploy PLAN ”
Because vietnam also uses their coast guard assertively against chinese coast guard, not its navy.
…. – “Because vietnam also uses their coast guard assertively against chinese coast guard, not its navy””
I mentioned it as an example of why us using the Kedahs won’t necessarily lead to PLAN being deployed : it’s how we act, not so much what we deploy that will see China deciding that their Coast Guard and Maritime Agency ships can’t handle the situation.
Continuing to deploy RMN operates Kedahs won’t necessarily lead to “an ideal excuse for china to unleash the full force of PLAN onto us” as you suggested …..
….. – “the current 15/5”
Again : the rationale for follow Kedahs is for them to perform certain wartime roles to complement our frigates.
Whilst they are indeed intended to also perform peacetime constabulary types roles (until the MMEA can fully take over( that is not the main factor why they are included the 5/15.
The fact that they were originally intended to be armed with RAM and Exocets is indicative of the fact that they also were intended to have wartime utility and the fact that the RMN sone years ago wanted to arm then for the ASuW and ASW is indicative of the fact that the RMN plans to use them in a different way (as AM suggested in another thread).
The fact that they won’t survive against better armed opponents (as you keep mentoring) shouldn’t arise because the are not intended to – same goes with the LMSs. Even if they were deployed in a high risk area they would probably be operating along with other better armed assets.
I personally don’t see a need for anymore; not because they are “OPVs” but because I’m not convinced we need both the Kedahs and LMSs to perform secondary roles. For that matter I doubt that anymore will ever be ordered.
…. – “AW109LOH and MD530G might be different in weight and size, but for armed observation missions, fulfill the same tasks, and basically can be similarly armed””
No doubt but the army has no desire for additional A-109s and never specified a need for the Little Bird.
As mentioned the way it was I selected and way handled is a prime example of the highly flawed, rotten and self defeating system we have in place. One that has to be totally revamped if we want to be serious in defence and get our money’s worth.
…. – “as armed recce, fire support, convoy escort etc. Those missions does not really require in IFV””
Depends entirely on a user’s preference/requirements and the threat level.
I see a utility for the JLTV but for the roles I previously mentioned; not as a substitute for a IFV.
… – “JLTV armour and mine resistance capabilities are higher than the Scorpion and Stormer”
Hardly surprising. The Scorpion was originally intended to be a recce vehicle; one that in line with British doctrine didn’t call for recce assets to tangle with the enemy. Emphasis was on a fast, agile and light platform. So light it’s hull and turret could be penetrated by 7.62mm AP.
on the malaysian army cavalry regiments.
From the early 80s, they are structured with a mix of Sibmas with 90mm cokerills, and condors with 20mm oerlikons. Since we started to organize mechanized infantry battalions, they are always employed in the classical cavalry role.
Right now all mechanized infantry battalions are equipped with either adnans/mifv or the AV8 gempita. The only remaining condors are with KAD and those in lebanon.
KAD cavalry regiments are now completing their replacement of the SIBMAS with the AV8 Gempita. So now they will have a mix of AV8 Gempita and Condors. They still see a need of a more agile vehicle to complement the AV8, which brings them to the 6×6 KJA requirement.
Ideally the best is to have an an all gempita fleet with both 8×8 and 6×6 version of the gempita. But that would be very costly.
my reasoning for JLTV is that IMO a 3rd gempita mechanized infantry battalion (to create a fully gempita mechanized brigade) and enough complements of AV8 gempita for all 4 cavalry regiments (because right now it seems the 4 KAD Sarawak still without its genpitas) is much more important than the 6×6 KJA. Why i think we really need a gempita batch 2 program.
The JLTV is a known capability and a known cost. Each one from lithuania DSCA costs less than USD350 thousand. It is also going to be the intrim reconnaissance vehicle for US Army. Intrim for US Army should be good enough for our permanent cavalry reconnaissance capability IMO.
I posted one last night somehow it didn’t appear again…
” The current issue is of China being a regional bully. Period. The sooner we are on the same page the better. Especially for the armed forces and H²O.”
Everyone agrees on this at least. There are somehow some diehard Chicom supporters in our country who supports China’s blatant actions, but I think that’s a minority of the population. However that are some rumours that there are undocumented China people in country, given fake IDs to influence GEs. How true that is remains to be seen…
” We sent a team to look at the MiL-8. As it turns out they were reluctant to sell it but offered us the MiL-26 which we of course had no need for.”
This is quite curious. Could you clarify the reason behind this reluctance? Nothing special on the Hips that I could see. Rugged and simpler to maintain even by Afghans apparently, that the US DoD attempts at replacing the Hips with Blackhawks have not been going smoothly.
Going back to our case, I think TUDM should have acquired more EC725s, lets say 36, but with 1/3 fully equipped with sensors and the like, and the rest are standard models for normal utility uses.
From 2016-2019 (see the same audit report of the maritime defence isssue) there are 214,398 non citizens entered malaysia and but with no record of exiting from malaysia.
In the early 90s, russia wanted to export the Mi-26 to prop up the factory building that helicopter. They know if they make available the Mi-8 (which is selling like hot cakes and has other ready buyers anyway) to malaysia, we would not take a look at the Mi-26.
On the should have part, there is a lot of things that we should have done. But that are already water under the bridge. What we need to think about of what we can do in the future, in consideration of the limited budget that we have. Getting 24 more EC725/EC225M now while can be done, will mean many other more important priorities (like MPA, MALE UAV, LCA/LIFT) will be deferred, cancelled or need to get a compromise. Why we need to juggle with our priorities, some to buy new, some modified from existing assets, some used and some as donations from friendly countries.
…. – “they are structured with a mix of Sibmas with 90mm cokerills, and condors with 20mm oerlikons”
Up to the mid 1980’s a sizeable portion of the armoured fleet consisted of V-100/150s and Ferrets.
…. – “ employed in the classical cavalry role”
Also as a fire support platform. The availability of IFVs configured in various ways and inadequacies of the Cockerill has done away with the need for 90mm armed vehicles.
…. – “The JLTV is a known capability and a known cost”
Yes, yes I’m aware of that. You’ve mentioned this numerous times; as well as the prices and the usual links. I’m not disputing it’s a flexible and inexpensive platform.
As I said : I see a utility for it. It’s just that what I have in mind for it differs slightly to you; that’s all.
I see it used as a main patrol asset for the Border Regiment; to equip elements of 10 Para, including the Pathfinders and the Support Companies of various battalions. Whilst it can be used as a substitute for a IFV it really depends on operational requirements and the preferences of the end user.
The article did not mention why the Soviets were not keen on us acquiring MiL-8s and why the pushed the MiL-26.
ASM – Nothing special on the Hips that I could see””
A rugged and tough platform that will keep flying without the needed maintenance checks/period which would long have grounded a Western platform. Up to September 11th 2001: the Western Alliance has a Hip that was flying daily over high altitudes (some parts were held together by chicken wireand with minimal maintenance despite having missed a MRO for a few years.
In certain altitudes and temperatures it apparently also performs better; as stated by a former BOMBA pilot in an article.
There”a a book “Gunship Ace”. The pilot flew Hips and Hind in Africa for Executive Outcomes. He also flew a flying ambulance for a while in Sarawak.
The issue long has been for the need for certain customers to modify it to enable flying in IFR conditions and the needed integration/certification it entails as well as issues related to support/maintenance and MBTF/TBO of various things in comparison to Western equivalents.
It’s a great, inexpensive (provided it’s not modified too much) and versatile platform; designed originally for Soviet requirements/operating philosophies and doctrine in mind.
There was a RMAF requirement for 36 Cougars with 24 to be acquired initially. Only 12 were approved. The RMAF by the early 2000’s was eager to go away with the troop carrying/logistics role for the army and concentrate on SAR and special forces insertion.
…. – “What we need to think about of what we can do in the future, in consideration of the limited budget that we have””
To move forward we need to have an honest appraisal of what we keep doing wrong because we have a tendency to make the same mistakes for the sake of national interests. We need to ensure that we get our money’s worth; which we haven’t.
Fundamental deep changes are needed and this will require a lot of soul searching and a complete departure from how we’ve gone about doing things. This also takes a lot of political Will because there will be political implications.
The dozen EC725s are sufficient for TLDM’s shore to ship & vice versa operations. The one Force that urgently needs utility choppers is TDM. The role was originally handled by TUDM Nuris which was supposed to pass over to TDM with the setup of PUTD but they spurned the Nuris so now they are in serious need of choppers, today relying on other Forces and leasing choppers.
Buying civie of-the-shelf medium choppers straight from the production lines (ie S-70i) could start to lift this shortfall in chopper availability. A low level buy of 6 units per year (total cost= USD $80mil) could fill up the gap left by Nuri retirement within just 6 years.
Of course we need to do fundamental deep changes. In the maritime domain and land border defence domain we really need to reset how we go about with our business.
For the maritime domain, of course tldm will be worried if the budget cut because they will not be the main constabulary force anymore. We need to maintain the current level of CAPEX budget, while asking TLDM to be more into the deterrence role. For MMEA, they need a proper maintenance budget under OPEX, not CAPEX like it is now. Spending a little bit more to stop billions in losses of maritime resources each year is a no brainer. Protecting it is one thing, we also we need to fully exploit those resources, more attention needed to rapidly develop a modern high tech fishing fleet and expand downstream fisheries businesses.
While we need to do fundamental changes, that does not mean we do not need to plan for the future. Planning and changing how we do decisions must be done concurrently.
…. – “that does not mean we do not need to plan for the future””
We’ve always “planned” and nobody suggests we shouldn’t but it’s one thing having a “plan” and the armed services having to redraw their plans to meet funding difficulties but a profoundly different thing having the government maintain some level of commitment with regards to funding and continuity.
Not only that but ensuring what we get is what we need and not driven by the need to benefit the local industry.
Hence the need for deep and fundamental changes to how we go about doing things. That has to be sorted out first in order for plans to be implemented efficiently and effectively over the long term …..
Another thing about plans is they are subject to change by the government. Priorities are always changed for the simple reason that funds are insufficient and politics determines what is a priority. One moment the government may decide that MPAs or radars are a priority and will approve the requirement subject to funding allocation. A year later however the politicians may decide that IFVs or helis are needed.
The end result is that both might end up on the shopping list for years waiting allocation or we acquire a bit of both; enough to give us some level of capability (not enough to make an operational difference if trouble erupts) but with zero indication when a follow on batch will follow.
Still, our plans have serious flaws in them.
For example the TLDM 15 to 5 plan was created without taking the MMEA PPSMM2040 plan into account. It also seems not to take into account the logical way to build new ships, with similar ships being planned haphazardly in different times in the future, not in continuous batches.
Then there is the often times planning out of the logical budget that can be made available. Rafales mrca, Tiger attack helis, to name a few. Things like this need to stop.
We also need to stop getting a token capability that looks nice on paper or in parades, but will be useless when the shooting starts. For example with just 6 MD530G, can that sustain say daily operations on a month long insurgency conflict like what happened in marawi? Why IMO we need to have batch 2 of quite a few existing programmes rather than moving on to get the next token capability.
They always work in silo actually and it is not like RMN to go around asking for input from others especially a junior service. I remember a few years ago there was a conference in Putrajaya – cannot remember what it was – the navy representative asked why MMEA did not share the Swasla data with RMN as the command centre is located next to the RMN base in Lumut. The MMEA representative said it is available the RMN just need to ask for it and pay for the connection. When I checked with my industry sources back then, they said it was offered to RMN from the start but the navy did not want to pay for the high speed line to connect so they can exchanged the data.
As i always said, we need a long term stable budgetary commitment from the government for our defence. Why i always start my plans writing about the need for a long term committed budget. A specific RUU on defence budget would be a good solution for this matter.
Only then those plans can be executed properly.
Unfortunately this did not happened even when the DWP was formulated and later put to a vote in Parliament, which was voted and passed unanimously, making the tome, basically, just another wasted effort apart from the bragging rights that they did it first.
BTW those dozen EC725 in TUDM are not for exclusive use of TLDM. Why it wants to have the MUH.
Buying new S-70i (which are still military helicopters, but sold direct by manufacturer not through DSCA FMS) for PUTD according to your plan will still cost usd480 million overall. Spending that much will mean less budget for other stuff for the army. There is also no difference in capability of used or brand new blackhawks. Then there is the obvious issue of us using our assets for a long time. Nuris when we bought them are state of the art, and before even UK using them in the guise of the Westland Commando. In a few years next generation vertical lift technologies will be available and blackhawks will be yesterdays technology.
For example, this is my plan for the army to 2030. so please choose which capability you want to remove to get new S-70i
RMK12 2021-2025 USD1.4bil
Cyber warfare 0.1
4 Vera-NG ESM 0.1
165 AV8 Gempita batch2 0.5
125 J-LTV 0.05
45 LG-1 105mm 0.06
70 PT-91M batch2 0.28 refurbished PT-91 include upgrade of batch1
26 S-70A-9 used 0.06 ex Australian Army + swap with MD530G
10 A109E Power 0.02 used commercial. utility, training, medevac, VIP (taking over tudm vip helicopter taskings)
220 Polaris DAGOR A1 0.04 10PARA + GGK
20 SH-15 155mm SPH 0.05
260 KIA KLTV 0.04
20K SOLDIER SYSTEMS 0.1
RMK13 2026-2030 USD1.4bil
Cyber warfare 0.1
Electronic warfare 0.05
400 Bushmaster HMPV 0.25
250 J-LTV 0.1
36 CAMM 0.3 (replacement for Jernas)
45 LG-1 105mm 0.06
48 AH4/AHS4 155mm 0.1
6 Fulmar X UAV 0.008 (ISTAR for RAD)
6 PAC 750XL 0.015 ISTAR and SF support
4 PC-12NG used 0.015 utility, medevac, SF support
Arthur upgrade + add 0.1 (arthur upgrade + additional 6 used units)
60 LIG Nex1 Chiron MANPAD 0.05 (replacement for IGLA)
72 LIG Nex1 Raybolt ATGM 0.05 (replacement for ERYX, Metis-M)
260 KIA KLTV 0.04
20K SOLDIER SYSTEMS 0.1
” Unfortunately this did not happened even when the DWP was formulated and later put to a vote in Parliament ”
Yes of course it did not happen, which is why i am still talking about it, and will continue to talk about it until it happens.
…. – “For example the TLDM 15 to 5 plan was created without taking the MMEA PPSMM2040 plan into account””
As discussed previously this is simply untrue. The 5/15 clearly took into account the plain fact that the RMN has for the foreseeable future still have to shoulder a part of the constabulary burden. The Kedahs were intended to perform a constabulary type role but also have wartime utility: performing secondary roles.
…. – “Things like this need to stop“
Of course ….
It won’t happen however until we fundamentally change the way we do things; including reducing the level of political interference and taking a hard look at how we select stuff for procurement and go about the whole process.
…. – “As i always said, we need a long term stable budgetary commitment from the government for our defence””
As I keep saying ; it goes way beyond that…
We have such a flawed, rotten and self defeating policy in place that everything has to be revamped. Having a sufficient budget for a sustained period is great but it has to be handled in a proper manner. Having sufficient funds is one thing; ensuring one gets the best value for one’s guns is another different challenge.
… – “We also need to stop getting a token capability that looks nice on paper or in parades””
As I keep saying : a “buy a bit of everything but not enough of anything” syndrome which leaves the MAF in a “neither here nor there” position – a prime example of a defence policy long overdue for change ….
… – “till, our plans have serious flaws in them.”
What plans anywhere are infallible in that they have no flaws?
Plans are what they are “plans”. Plans which are subject to change, have the needed odds which the services are willing to incur and are based on projected requirements for a certain period; based on stuff approved for procurement by the politicians and bureaucrats.
Unfortunately many of the plans submitted by the armed services get torpedoed by the politicians who make drastic changes (without taking into account the consequences) and also keep shifting priorities.
” As discussed previously this is simply untrue. The 5/15 clearly took into account the plain fact that the RMN has for the foreseeable future still have to shoulder a part of the constabulary burden. The Kedahs were intended to perform a constabulary type role but also have wartime utility: performing secondary roles ”
Why it is untrue? Okay lets look at the facts.
1) planning to build PV 30 more years into the future (2045-2050) is not a “foreseeable future”. That is really planning to forever do the constabulary duties.
2) The name of the ship (PV) bellies its primary task. Its primary task is patrolling. The fact that it is also FFBNW (current kedah class) and planned with just guns on the concepts shows that is basically just an opv. If the primary task is for war, it would be called corvettes and armed as such like the Braunschweig-class corvette (which are really sister ships to our kedah class opvs).
3) The combined total large ships for TLDM and MMEA if both 15 to 5 plans and PPSMM2040 is followed to the dot would be 50 ships. That is like 4 times the size of our current large ship fleet, and would probably be the largest fleet in south east asia. Can you tell me if that even feasible to buy and operate for malaysia? If both plans are created by consulting each other, then why are the numbers came out not logical? The ideal combined large ship fleet for malaysia is around 30 ships, to enable a constant at sea fleet of 10.
4) Wartime utility. For the follow on PV, we know that it is wanted to be purely PV and without any FFBNW systems to reduce cost.
So what is the point of this actually? This is much more expensive than coast guard opvs like the damen 1800 opv or the korean Tae Pyung Yang-class opvs
5) Why constabulary duties not to be done by the navy.
“just need to ask for it and pay for the connection.”
Hopefully they have the connections done. If not, make do by take screenshot/videocall thru whatapps…and pay data internet from own pocket.
Thanks for the info.
AsI have said before, the chopper platform works. We don’t need a high tech, state of the art, likely expensive and unproven, new type of rotary lifter to perform utility work. That is like trying to buy a Ferrari for your daily to & fro travels for work. That’s insane. What we need is a Toyota, so lets get a Toyota. Simple.
And if we only need it for work, we don’t need the extra costs of bodykits, sports rim, gaudy spoiler, & super fat tyres. So by trimming all the excesses to just a baseline, we can get a vehicle that is affordable to buy new and use reliably for a long time. The same goes with utility choppers. Based on the defence budget for 2020, if each Force gets ~Rm5bil per year, a yearly outlay of USD $80-100mil is only 13% of TDM budget. Per year. They still have plenty for other big buys like 6×6 IFV (req 200 units so 40 units per year, for an outlay of est. RM1.5Bil, or 33% of their yearly budget).
I cannot emphasise enough, if TDM was willing to spend 33% of their budget on yet another IFV, paying 13% for choppers that they seriously needed is nothing.
” if each Force gets ~Rm5bil per year ”
I thought you want the budget to be cut! We would be spending like kings if we can get that much budget. What i request is RM6 billion (usd1.4 billion) for army for 1 RMK (5 years). That is about RM1.2 billion per year and even that amount is actually an increase from our current budget.
So your request for new S70i would eat up 33% of what my proposed budget. And our real budget now for rmk11 is probably a bit less that that. I am hoping the rmk12 2021-2025 budget could be up to what i proposed.
Can’t RMAF and the Army do a joint purchase for the helicopters? Based on what said earlier (in the comments) RMAF wanted to transfer all the utility roles to the Army leaving the RMAF with SF and CSAR. The EC725 is suitable for all these roles, and at least there’s a common helicopter platform, and logistics would be simplified too.
It depends whether they can harmonise their requirements
No i never said that. What I said is the realities of today’s situation meant it is more difficult to justify large multi-billion RM expenditure for defence when due to COVID, we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, businesses shutting down left and right, economy is looking at a recession, and the sitting Government needing to placate the rakyat by easing their suffering to cement their shaky seats. Moreso now they had revised the poverty line, ‘officially’ we have over 400k poor households that will get Government support.
I am not going to touch on your plans nor budget I respect that is your opinion and suggestions. The Rm15.6bil (total) is what was budgeted by the Government for 2020, so I am running with these figures.
For my reference, see
Read carefully your reference lah.
” The Operational Expenditure for the Defence Ministry is RM12.5 billion while the Development Expenditure is RM3.1 billion ”
Soldiers also need their salaries. That is what the RM12.5 billion is for. Budget to buy new stuff is just RM3.1 billion overall.
…. – “Why it is untrue? Okay lets look at the facts.””
It is indeed untrue for the reasons I stated here and in another post.
The Kedahs are intended to perform constabulary type roles until a time when the MMEA can fully take over but they are also intended to perform secondary wartime roles. They were never intended to perform solely as a peacetime constabulary type vessel – as you keep insisting.
Only a few years ago there were reported plans to convert a number into ASuW platforms and the remainder info ASW ones. Also, if they were intended to perform as you keep insisting; they would never have the sensor/electronics fit they have; nor would they have been plans then with RAM and Exocets.
Not only that but during the period they were ordered and were coming into service; statements made by the RMN, which were carried local press and industry magazines, made it plain as day that they were also intended to have a wartime utility; as secondary role vessels alongside the Lekius and Kasturis.
These are the “facts” but if you insist on saying otherwise; by all means – no skin of my back.
The issue is there is no money for more helicopters. TUDM wants LCA/LIFT, UAVs and MPAs. Army wants more armoured vehicles, and future soldier systems. Nobody wants to sacrifice other stuff to get more helicopters.
…. – “5) Why constabulary duties not to be done by the navy””
My question is : is anyone saying otherwise?
Again : the hard fact is that until the MMEA can fully take over; it’s incumbent on the RMN to also perform this role as nobody else can.
Not only that but for the peacetime constabulary role; the most ideal RMN asset is the Kedah; which must be stated – yet again – is also intended to have a wartime tasking; operating in roles that would not require a frigate or in roles where they wouldn’t have to punch above their weight.
…. – “v. If the primary task is for war, it would be called corvettes””
You are putting emphasis on the designation rather than other factors.
The designation can vary depending on the end user. You can have av”OPV” fitted with a 26 cell VLS and a “corvette” fitted with just guns; over the years the actual designation has become blurred; depending on the user.
If you want to look at traditional roles certain types of vessels were intended to perform; then an”corvette” or a “sloop” was mainly for convoy escort/patrolling. What one navy means by a “corvette” or even “frigate” can and does differ to what another does – not holy writ or set in stone.
A lot of times the actual designation is also for reasons apart from operational ones ; ever wondered why the Kasturis at time were “mini frigates” and also “corvettes”?
The fact that the Kedah was designated a “PV” doesn’t mean EEZ patrolling was its only role. It’s main role MDT have been EEZ patrolling but it wasn’t it’s role and it’s fit out reflects this.
“The fact that the Kedah was designated a “PV” doesn’t mean EEZ patrolling was its only role. It’s main role “may” have been EEZ patrolling but it wasn’t it’s “only” role and it’s fit out reflects this
I am comparing vs the overall budget equally divided per Force but if there was a misunderstanding I am sorry on that. It still doesn’t take away the fact that on a purchase basis the 200units 6×6 IFV would still cost more compared to 36 S-70i and they need the choppers more than another IFV, yet TDM seemed to willingly spend more for the IFV
Because the extra IFVs have long been part of the Army overall plan, the helicopters only become one in recent times and it has yet to be fleshed out how they are they going to be part of the overall Army structure. The 6X6 is part of the KAD ToE
So does a plan for a total of 50 large ships is really what we need (and can afford to operate) and reflect discussion done by both parties when they drafted the plans?
No I never implied that but this doesn’t alter the fact that the Kedahs also have a wartime role (then and now), that EEZ patrols (which the RMN would like get away from) is their only role, that the Kedahs are intended to punch above their weight and that just because they are designated “PCs” that they are intended to only perform a certain role.
So can you see why thorough and proper planning for defence procurement is very important?
Yes helicopters should be an important priority. 6×6 IFV is what the army want to replace condors in KAD Cavalry Regiments ToE.
We cannot live without a medium lift helicopter capability. While the condors need to be replaced with more capable vehicles.
That is why we need to see the overall picture, not to see each equipment individually.
In my opinion, a 3rd AV8 Gempita Mechanized regiment is much more important than getting 6×6 IFV. Because a fully gempita Mechanized Brigade will give a bigger overall capability increase, fully exploiting the AV8 gempita mobility advantages, and not bogged down by tracked elements. But that is just me. Nuri replacement and Condor replacement is basically to maintain our current capability. Why in my plans i wanted the AV8 Gempita batch 2. Then I also put HMPV, howitzers, air defence missiles and anti tank missiles as priority too. Because my aim is to increase our army capability compared to current. IMO if we need to do 6×6 IFV, we could end up spending a lot like AV8 gempita batch 1. We should leverage all the money sunk in AV8 Gempita program to get a batch 2 for it. So that we would have a complement of 3 Mechanized infantry regiment and 4 Cavalry regiment with AV8 Gemopita.
We can buy new helicopters, new 6×6 IFVs, but for the same amount of money, are we actually increasing our army capability and lethality? Remember we need to build up our army capability in Sabah and Sarawak too.
…. – “s. For example with just 6 MD530G, can that sustain say daily operations on a month long insurgency conflict like what happened in marawi””
Firstly; whose to say they we’ll be faced in a similar situation; of intensity or duration? If indeed we did then the 6 Little Birds would be augmented by the A-109s and other assets. Thirdly, our ability to sustain ourselves indefinitely – either in a low or high threat scenario – is governed not just be the number of assets but the levels of ammo, spares, fuel and other consumables.
The Little Birds were not selected by the army and the way they were selected and handled is a prime example of a rotten, flawed and self defeating system we have in place; one in which various practices are so highly ingrained.
” that EEZ patrols (which the RMN would like get away from) is their only role ”
It is their primary role. If RMN wants to get away from EEZ patrols, there should not be a plan to build PVs in 2045-2050 in the first place.
” If indeed we did then the 6 Little Birds would be augmented by the A-109s and other assets ”
Arming up the A-109LOH can do the same tasks as the 6 little birds can. In our situation, adding 6 more A-109LOH would be a whole lot common sense rather than buying those 6 little birds.
” The Little Birds were not selected by the army and the way they were selected and handled is a prime example of a rotten, flawed and self defeating system we have in place; one in which various practices are so highly ingrained ”
So why did you bother to back and reason for the MD530G existance?
…. – “So why did you bother to back and reason for the MD530G existance?””
In your mind I did but in reality I didn’t. You suggested the army wanted it : it didn’t. I have never said it was what we needed but i have said that since we’re going to have it; there is utility in it.
…. – “Arming up the A-109LOH can do the same tasks as the 6 little birds”
Again : the army doesn’t desire anymore A-109s and although the A-109 can perform what the Little Bird can; the army in the very first place never specified a need for it.
…. – “It is their primary role””
Only if you insist.
In reality a large part of what the class will perform will be peacetime EEZ patrol but only until the MMEA can fully take over the time. Also; as has been mentioned dozens of times just because the class spends a large pert of the time on EEZ patrols; doesn’t mean it doesn’t also have wartime utility performing secondary type roles.
If that were the case they would never have entered service fitted out the way they are and plans would never have been made some years ago to convert them for ASuW and ASW. Not only that but statements made by the RMN in the past clearly defined what their peacetime and wartime roles are.
We are going around in endless circles. Like other things if you desire on insisting on things which are not true; by all means continue.
…. – “ RMN wants to get away from EEZ patrols”
How can the RMN get away from the peacetime constabulary role when the MMEA at present is unable to completely take oner and will be unable do so for the foreseeable future.
It’s not as if the government can give a clear date as to when the MMEA can be adequately funded so that the RMN can plan accordingly. And not as if for wherever reason the RMN wants to hold on to the constabulary role.
“Because the extra IFVs have long been part of the Army overall plan”
But plans can change when the factors and needs have changed. TDM didn’t plan for utility choppers because they thought they could continue to rely on TUDM but obvious this is not the case anymore. So that means they had to restack their priorities and that means they had to replan their wants and needs based on the new priorities.
I never said thorough & proper planning isn’t needed. But what I said was plans should be realistic and according to the Forces wishes, not yours. Your plan is good and I don’t think anyone here disproves of it but it probably have a different end objective than what is envisioned by the top brasses in the Armed Forces. Again, no right no wrong.
The thing I like about modern equipment are that they can do more for less. In the past, you can only concentrate to shoot down 1 plane each but today you could simultaneously take down 6-10 adversaries. In the past you may need hundreds of fighters to achieve air superiority but today a dozen modern planes can achieve the same objective. Before we even talk about increasing capability, we should first look at recovering whatever lost capability, as in TDM needs to recover their lost airlifting capability with the retirement of Nuri before they could even look to add on to it, and IMHO they don’t have replace Nuri 1 for 1 as again I said, a modern Blackhawk could do far more that a Nuri.
“The thing I like about modern equipment are that they can do more for less. In the past, you can only concentrate to shoot down 1 plane each but today you could simultaneously take down 6-10 adversaries.”
I don’t see anything to like since a peer adversary’s equipment also grows in its ability to do the same to one’s own side.
“In the past you may need hundreds of fighters to achieve air superiority but today a dozen modern planes can achieve the same objective.”
If you’re talking about two countries whose threat perceptions include fighting each other for air superiority, then the high cost of today’s combat aircraft is the major limiting factor for the numbers those countries can afford.
Countries don’t consciously buy fewer aircraft than before because the aircraft themselves are more capable, but rather because they and their adversaries are subject to the same dynamic. If your enemy can only afford to come at you with x aircraft then you only need a force structure of y aircraft to counter them.
You only need to cap the unit costs of aircraft to test this assumption. If aircraft were as cheap as they were fifty years ago, then these two countries would have larger fleets regardless of how marvelously capable the aircraft are.
“you can only concentrate to shoot down 1 plane each but today you could simultaneously take down 6-10 adversaries.”
The ability of a radar to engage detect, track and engage more than one target at a fine has been there for a while; the main difference is that it can now be done faster, more efficiently and on a larger scale. Technology aside; it also boils down to other factors.
“The thing I like about modern equipment are that they can do more for less”
Even more so when networked and sharing a common picture.
Each platform having its own strengths and having its weaknesses mitigated by operating in conjunction with other assets.
The problem here is that the costs of doing business has also risen – regular realistic training is needed and the data link bandwidth is not cheap. All this also necessitates the vital need for real “jointness” on the part of the services – something hard to achieve; even for those who started the “jointness” business long before us.
The downside of “modern” gear is that they have become not only mote expensive to acquire but also to operate/maintain. More extensive training is needed for the manpower to operate and maintain all the increasingly sophisticated/complex systems which are needed (in increasing numbers compared to before) that come with all the “modern” gear.
The fighter thing is merely an example of how the face of warfare has changed, and that with modern tech, we could have the same effect (or more) with less resources than we used to require. Azlan above have elaborated with more clarity on that. Doing things better, faster, more efficiently, will negate the need for more resources than in the past. Of course with technological parity, the side with more resources have the higher chance of winning.
Yes the more high-tech & more complex a particular equipment, the more expensive it is and more costly to operate, so whatever planned buys must have a nett positive cost-benefits vs older platforms. Like it or not, we have to move up the cost chain in procuring of equipment so its up to us how best to maximise their capabilities vs the costly expenses.