Ready for RIMPAC 2024

KD Lekiu being towed to her berth at the RMN naval base adjacent to the Lumut naval shipyard. Screenshot of Lunas video.

SHAH ALAM: Lumut Naval Shipyard (Lunas) announced today that KD Lekiu had been towed to the RMN naval jetty in Lumut on April 12. The shipyard had stated on February 6 stated that the ship came into the yard -six days earlier for an emergency defect repair as preparation to take part in the 2024 RIMPAC exercise in Hawaii, later this July.

Lunas stated that with the work completed she is ready to take part in the exercise. The post by Lunas:

KD Lekiu being down-slipped into water at the shipyard. The same method will be used when the first LCS is ready for her trials.

As Lekiu was towed back on April 12, this meant her emergency repair work was completed in about three months. It is unclear what work had been done though as the shipyard and RMN had not outlined the scope. Checks on the Eperolehan website revealed that most of the tenders for Lekiu were for the purchase of spare parts of various accessories.
As KD Lekiu is towed to her berth at the adjacent RMN base, one could see KD Kasturi berthed on the right. She has been under refit since late 2021. Screenshot of Lunmas video.

From the video on the Lekiu, one could also see that KD Kasturi is tied up at the shipyard jetty. This meant work on the ship – which went into a refit at Lunas in late 2021 – has not been completed. This meant that the ship had been out of service for almost three years now.
KM Langkawi and KD Lekiu on the Lunas hardstand in March 2024.

With Lekiu out for her trials, Lunas now has only KM Langkawi on the hard stand undergoing her refit. Other ships under the shipyard hard stand are the five LCS.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2190 Articles
Shah Alam

43 Comments

  1. The only class with VLS in the fleet. Only 2 hulls with proper combatant ability (assuming the seawolf is active). How embarrassing

  2. The only embarrassing is that Lekiu class is the best that we can send to Rimpac and even that we have to do emergency repairs to the ship. I wonder if these repairs werent so ’emergency’ if it wasnt for Rimpac maybe.

  3. Not as embarrasing as last edition of RIMPAC where RMN are only able to send 40 years old KD LEKIR to Hawaii.But then during that edition KD LEKIR sucessfully fired Exocet missile.Still its a shame really when even Philippines are sending BRP antonio Luna

  4. firdaus – ”where RMN are only able to send 40 years old KD LEKIR to Hawaii”

    You do realise that some of the USN assets there were also roughly the same age.

  5. “Not as embarrassing as last edition of RIMPAC”
    How was that embarrassing when that ship was in fighting condition and successfully fired a missile? It would have been even more embarrassing if Lekiu broke down along the way there. And age has nothing to do with embarrassment.

  6. Others have 40 years plus ship is fine or their problem – not sure why people like to use such information as the basis to justify something unfavourable. But as mentioned in this post, while we applaud the successful refit of KD Lekiu in time for RIMPAC 2024, it seems KD Kasturi, one of 4 ships in RMN that could fire a SSM is out of commission since 2021. So RMN only has 3 ships with missiles? When KD Lekiu goes to Hawaii in July, there will only be 2 RMN ships with missiles in Malaysia. So, in a way, it qualifies as embarrassing. One good news is, given the current PM’s desire to use soft power – something the NDP and DWP lists as a role of MAF – it is likely there will always be money to participate in such exercises (e.g., RIMPAC and Cobra Gold comes to mind). MAF should be able to find the small monies to participate, upgrade, fix, and buy new gear. Meaning, if RMN sends a different ship each year, then different ships may be able to get “emergency repair” funds singed off quickly. When Army went to Cobra Gold, they must have gotten some allocation quickly signed off to better represent Malaysia. Might have been the same with RMAF when they went to Pitch Black – maybe RMAF will get some small items signed off quickly if they are going in 2024.

  7. RMAF not going to Pitch Black 2024 as Oz had announced the participation countries. We will be there as observers like in the past few years.

  8. kua – ”not sure why people like to use such”

    ”Not sure” if you’re amongst the ”people” you continue to refer to in seemingly abstract.

    kua – ”One good news is, given the current PM’s desire”

    It’s not ”news” or due to the current PM because for decades; in line with our policy of having some level of deterrence and not get left too far behind; we’ve long made it a point to participate in bilateral and multilevel exercises; exchanges [e.g. the Airman Talks’ with the USAF and ASEAN Rifle Meet] as well as things like the Shangrila Dialogue and the ASEAN Defence Minister’s Meet. Nothing new; merely that it’s ”news” to you …

    kua – ”something the NDP and DWP lists as a role of MAF ”

    Decades before both even existed the MAF played a parallel role in terms of diplomacy; nation boilding and confidence building measures…

    kua – ”it is likely there will always be money to participate in such exercises (e.g., RIMPAC and Cobra Gold comes to mind). ”

    Not only is cash an issue but the availability of assets. Every asset sent is one less asset at home; assets which we have in small numbers.

    ”A paragraph is a series of sentences that are organized and coherent, and are all related to a single topic.”

  9. Seriously thinking the gov should ditch whatever plans they have for LMS or LCS bla bla bla. IMHO adding more scorpene would be better deterrent in the SCS. Atleast 2 more Scorpene would be ideal as we have the means to train the crews & a submarine base already in active duty. Then when funds are available go for the 15-5 or CAP55 whatever they called that stuff. Imagine 3 scorpenes patrolling in packs at any given time in SCS.

  10. Dissapointing. Perhaps the F18s are still in the shop as part of their upgrades / major maintenance. Or perhaps Pitch Black is too expensive.

    Hulubalang, hopefully RMAF will have its own FA50 deployment in the 2028 edition, if the monies are available.

  11. @Qamarul
    “adding more scorpene would be better deterrent in the SCS”
    How does a sub be an effective deterrent force during peace time?

  12. @ haiqal

    If ordered now, at least 1 scorpene can be had by 2030. It will be quicker to operational status as all the supporting infrastructure for the scorpene in Malaysia is already mature, just need to add the additional sub only.

    The budget allocated for the 3x LMS Batch2 Corvette (USD525 million) is enough for 90-95% the cost of 1x Scorpene. The original scorpene deal, including building all the support and training infrastructure in Sepanggar, and the training submarine Ouessant comes out to USD1.2 Billion

  13. @Haiqal when Naval Group/Navantia built KD TAR it takes roughly around 2-3 years per boat

  14. Many seems to forget that TLDM main mission is to be able to defend our country in times of war.

    Main peacetime presence can be (and should be) done by APMM. Coast Guard optimised OPVs of the size of the Gowind frigate costs less than a LMS68 that is made in China.

  15. Many seems to forget that TLDM have other main missions that they perform on a daily basis. How often do they go to war?

    They cannot be like BOMBA just staying in the fire station waiting for the fire call to jump into action. Heck even BOMBA now does other more frequent daily things ie catching snakes, rescue cats, site inspections, provide trainings & ceramahs.

    As have explained many many times over, TLDM needs to perform their daily peacetime duties and to do that effectively they need surface ships for patrols, boarding & searching, and deterrence.

    Main peacetime presence are done by MMEA and supported by TLDM and also Polis Marin, GOF, Sarawak CG.

  16. ” How often do they go to war? ”

    How often do you die/permanently disabled from an accident? So you don’t need an insurance because you are not going to die/permanently disabled frequently?

    As i have repeated before, the military needs to be able to do its primary mission effectively, while secondarily help with peacetime security. There is no use of a Navy if it is not equipped to do its primary mission effectively.

    There is no use when you don’t have an adequately equipped military when the war comes to you, as is when you don’t have an insurance when you died/permanently disabled from an accident.

  17. Then again when was the last time there was a ship on ship battle. In the Falkland the ships were sunk by aircrafts. In Ukraine, they used shore based anti ship missiles and surface drones.

    Same with our focus on high mobility infantry. Very small percentage of enemy casualties ate incurred due to infantry battles. Most casualties are incurred by mortar shelling, artillery shelling and bombing from planes.

    Therefore our focus given our limited budget should be on a layered air defence system and counter battery systems.

  18. @ Hasnan

    ” Then again when was the last time there was a ship on ship battle? ”

    Which is why in my previous comments I prefer submarines for TLDM rather than lightly armed FFBMW LMS Batch 2 Corvettes, and letting APMM instead buy OPVs to counter Chinese Coast Guard?

  19. We buy the insurance that we can afford, and I dont mean when theres a need to use it, more like we must be able to pay for it on a daily basis so as not to burden us instead. The same goes for defence, we have to have an economic reality defense that can be afforded on a daily basis and that means ships that can perform peacetime duties other than their war time role. I cant even recall when was the last time our ship was involved in a shooting role against another. 99% of our warships are mainly spent on mundane duties as peacetime patrols, boarding & searching, and deterrence. That is the economic reality of our defence matters. We arent Uncle Sam constantly looking for a war to make use of our weapons.

  20. Right now the analogy is that we are buying insurance that will not be of any use when we face death/permanent disability.

    Our current main security concern is the absurd Chinese claim of our EEZ off sabah and sarawak as their traditional historical territorial area and the possibility of war because of that claim.

    95% of current TLDM assets are not fit for use if a major war comes to the South China Sea.

    KD Lekiu has zero air defence missile capability

    KD Jebat is handicapped by its local CMS system

    KD Lekir also has zero air defence missile capability

    KD Kasturi is still in refit

    All other naval surface vessels are only fit for peacetime patrols armed only with guns.

    Most can be sunk without much difficulty by long range anti-ship missiles of the cruise, ballistic, supersonic and hypersonic variety when the hostility starts.

    What we use our naval ships for in peacetime does not really matter. What they are capable of (defend themselves from attack and capable of attacking back) when the war comes to our shores is the most important thing for our naval vessels.

    Yes of course we aren’t uncle sam, but we must be able to show that bullying or hitting on us will not be a walk in the park, and we will and can fight back.

  21. “possibility of war because of that claim.”
    The possibility of us getting involved in such a war is much slimmer than you think. Even if we have a fully equipped fleet in tip top condition, we arent in a position to pick a fight with an 800 pound beserking gorilla.

  22. The correct statement would be

    We arent in a position to say no when a 800 pound beserking gorilla choose to attack you.

    We are not going to attack anyone, but if someone attacks us, we have no choice but to fight back, and if we cannot, then it will be the last day of our existance. That is what we need our military to prepare for.

  23. ” Even if we have a fully equipped fleet in tip top condition ”

    I want TLDM to have a fully equipped fleet in tip top condition, rather than buying ships that is too weak to fight another navy like the PLAN, but too much armament to deal with Chinese Coast Guard (which is what the LMS Batch 2 Corvette specification is)

    I want by 2030, a TLDM that has at least

    – 1x additional Scorpene sub (for a total of 3)
    – all 6 Gowinds completed and fully armed. buy more missiles to add to the ammunition reserve.
    – forget about those neither here nor there corvettes. Government to give proper budgets to APMM to buy OPVs, and get a handful of ready-made or used OPVs for urgent intrim needs.

  24. Hasnan “Then again when was the last time there was a ship on ship battle. In the Falkland the ships were sunk by aircrafts”

    If the RN have no ships then there’s won’t be any Falkland war in the first place.

  25. “That is what we need our military to prepare for.”
    Im hoping our military is prepared but more to lay their lives in order for Msians to escape rather than to save a country, nope, if China PLA comes knocking, whatever we have is finished from existence. But the people will survive and thats all that matters. You dont pick a fight with an 800 pound gorilla hoping to win.

    I will say this, there arent enough subs or long range missiles in your plans to stop the PLA juggernaut if they intend to wipe us out. That Im certain.

  26. ” Im hoping our military is prepared but more to lay their lives in order for Msians to escape ”

    Of course, some (you?) will run, as they don’t have any tangible stuff that ties them down with the country. But not for many others. Because for many, this land, as per the second sentence in our national anthem,

    ” tanah tumpahnya darahku ”

    BTW, if we are to be colonized by Communist China, surely this would be a scenario that would be greeted with joy by some?
    .
    .
    .

    ” I will say this, there arent enough subs or long range missiles in your plans to stop the PLA juggernaut if they intend to wipe us out. That Im certain ”

    I believe, a small country can defend itself from a larger country. Vietnam for example did it against France, USA and China. But we need to arm ourselves with suitable equipment (among other things) to do so.

  27. Joe “You dont pick a fight with an 800 pound gorilla hoping to win.

    I will say this, there arent enough subs or long range missiles in your plans to stop the PLA juggernaut if they intend to wipe us out. That Im certain.”

    Meanwhile 2 years on. Ukraine still exist.

  28. @Hulu
    “Of course, some (you?) will run, as they don’t have any tangible stuff”
    Really? So is those Gazans fault who chose to be refugees with their family instead of staying and dying for Gaza? What about Afghans that ran when Taliban rule returned? Syrians? Libyans? Sudanese? Rohingyas? There are differences between civvies & military. The military institution is there to protect civvies, not the other way round. When the position of the military becomes untenable it is their responsibility to ensure civvies are safe in any which way possible.

    “Vietnam for example did it against”
    Vietnam did it with support from larger powers that decided these lands was suitable for their proxy wars. Ukraine is the same but their hanging by a thread depending on continued US support, and that bottom might fall sooner than later.

  29. There are ppl that run away (some ran away from their native lands to settle in malaysia) and will again run away with no hesitation if war comes around. There are ppl, even after being colonized by the portuguese, dutch, british, thais, japanese will not. The government as enshrined in the constitution, is fully responsible to do all it can to defend the federation.

  30. Joe “Vietnam did it with support from larger powers that decided these lands was suitable for their proxy wars. Ukraine is the same but their hanging by a thread depending on continued US support, and that bottom might fall sooner than later”

    Two tiger can’t stay on the same hills afterall. So to fight a 800 pound gorilla you need the support of another 1000 pound gorilla. And the 1000 pound gorilla would be more then happy to help themselves to continue being the king of the hills.

  31. … – “ Many seems to forget that TLDM main mission is to be able to defend our country in times of war”

    Nobody “forgets” that despite your insatiable need to keep mentioning it.

    As it stands even if the MMEA had 100 OPVs the RMN like all navies would still conduct various peacetime roles and until the MMEA is fully able to assume all its responsibilities the RMN is the only entity able to fill in the gap so to speak. This is something you shouldn’t “forget”.

    As for the corvettes they are not “neither here nor there” as you wrongly keep proclaiming. They serve a purpose like everything else. The RMN has openly stated why it needs them. They are part of the high/ low end mix. Not every scenario will call for a frigate just like not all scenarios will call for a MRCA. The fact that they are lightly armed does not mean they are not “survivable” or any nonsense like that abd they’re not intended to punch above their weight category. Employed wrongly even a Ticonderoga might not be survivable. No doubt even after they enter service and undergo their 1st refit you’ll still be claiming the same thing but do try to make the distinction between opinion and fact. There is also the fact that being a corvette doesn’t by default make a ship lightly armed; some corvettes are better armed than frigates.

    … – “ Coast Guard optimised OPVs of the size of the Gowind frigate costs less than a LMS68 that is made in China”

    So? A F-18 costs more than a PC-7 but both are for different purposes. You are conflating things as you tend to do.

    … – “ but we must be able to show that bullying or hitting on us will not be a walk in the park, and we will and can fight back.l

    Sounds great and you have a flair for the dramatic. Problem is what happens if we “hit back” and it makes no difference? What if our “deterrence” does not deter? What happens if a much better resourced enemy is willing to incur casualties? What happens if the enemy who also has a say; also practices asymmetric warfare? We sink 2 enemy ships he might send 5 more but if we lose 2 ships that might be “Das Ende”.

    Nice to come up with dramatic chest thumping statements without an objective sobered look in totality. There are some threats we can handle and some we can’t – period/full stop.

    BTW if you want to make an apples to oranges comparison to Finland and Vietnam again; I’ll again point out why it ultimately didn’t end well for Finland and the unique dynamics at play which enabled Vietnam to do what it did.

    Kua – “ Dissapointing”

    As explained the fact that we have limited assets means we can’t always allocate them for exercises and yes finances are a pertinent factor or inhibitor when it comes to exercises; the reason why we’ve declined to participate in several.

    Hasnan – “ Same with our focus on high mobility infantry”

    You expect our infantry to walk and be devoid of any protection? If you were in an infantry unit would you like to walk and be exposed to shell fire?

    Hasnan – “Therefore our focus given our limited budget should be on a layered air defence system and counter battery systems”

    Heard of the cliche that “just like an orifice everyone has an opinion”?

    Unless you can predict things with certainty as some seem to be able; we have no way of knowing what we’ll actually need. As I asked before of you and ‘…’, nice to make assumptions but prior to 2013 did you two predict that we’d have to resort to thousands of troops backed by air power, artillery and armour?

    The “limited budget should be on a layered air defence system” thing is an oxymoron because no layered IADS can be bought with a “limited budget”. The IADS should also not just be layered but also be networked and have redundency; not to mention be under the umbrella of a strong air arm. Also, what is the threat? A manned platform flying at 30k feet and releasing ordnance 130km away? A UAS flying at tree top level and with a RCS and IR signature which makes it almost impossible to detect? A ballistic missile moving at several times the speed of sound?

    Can you predict what type of war we’ll actually face? Need a reminder that no war is exactly like the last one? Since we’re at it should procurement be threat or capability driven? Bear in mind too that unlike other countries we don’t have a clearly defined threat to which we can channel our focus, energy and resources to.

    Hasnan – “Then again when was the last time there was a ship on ship battle”

    This sounds like ‘…” with his “ tank on tank battles” or the lack of it and his assumption that the same would apply in a future war. No two wars are ever the same and keep that in mind despite the temptation to make assumptions.

    As for the naval war in the Black Sea it was “UASs, USVs, mines, sound planning, luck [always a crucial element]; decentralisation and sound intel; some provided by external sources. Despite the tendency by some to simplistically assume so; a non fevered look would indicate that UASs, USVs and other high tech things have not reached a stage where they’ve replaced anything. They are complementary and have also had tactical and operational level affects; not strategic. Neither has the UAS or loitering munition made the MBT obsolete; any more than the AT gun; AT rifle; AT mine; ATGW and other things. They have added a new dimension to things but that’s it. Armies, technology and people are adaptive; they evolve to meet new threats.

  32. My aims are modest. We’ll never be able to afford a layered IADS; certainly not more than a token capability. I’d be happy if we – as long intended – get the regiment of medium range systems and a few more MANPADs units which although are GAPU owned should be organic to units. Just as vital are alerting systems because early warning is everything.

    I’d also be happy if we started getting UASs organic to selected units. Organisation is vital if these units are to have the capability when needed; decentralisation and flexibility. UASs should be at battalion level and parcelled out accordingly. One reason for the Ukrainian success is they way things are distributed. Brigades have a UAS company comprising several platoons which do strike or ISR. At a lower level companies and platoons have a UAS element; decentralisation and flexibility rather than the outdated and ineffective way of having things hogged by a higher HQ.

    Like operators of crew served weapons UAS operators provide units with direct support but are not – obviously – right on the edge of the battle area. The Ukrainian formation of the UAS Command is intended to streamline doctrine, acquisition and other things but UASs will still be operated at small unit level as they should be.

  33. @Zaft
    “1000 pound gorilla would be more then happy to help themselves”
    You forget that they make the choice where they want their bulwark and it may not be us. In Laos & Cambodia, they allowed Communism to happen but chose to fight it at Vietnam. Right now the focus of Western powers is on SG, Pinoy, Vietnam & Thailand not us. Think about it.

  34. ” You are conflating things as you tend to do ”
    The Keris-class LMS68 is not doing the same exact mission as the DAMEN OPV1800? Which is to counter the Chinese Coast Guard and to do peacetime patrols of the EEZ?

    ” Not every scenario will call for a frigate ”
    Of course, those that don’t call for a frigate, especially non-war scenario, can be answered by OPVs, like shadowing and countering Chinese Coast Guard ships.

    ““ tank on tank battles” or the lack of it ”
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLbYkd1a0AAOf2t.jpg

    ” because no layered IADS can be bought with a “limited budget””
    It can be, with the mixture of new assets, used equipment like the KIFV K263A3 20mm Vulcan SPAAG and also EDA from USA such as MIM-23 Hawk XXI systems (something rather than nothing)

    ” Bear in mind too that unlike other countries we don’t have a clearly defined threat to which we can channel our focus, energy and resources to ”
    We can always develop our military capability-based, with a clear minimum required capability listed down.

    ” My aims are modest ”
    Our main security concern is maritime-based. Our mimimum capability should prioritize our maritime area.

    APMM
    – 24/7/365 physical presence (ships on the water) at critical points of malaysian EEZ
    – able to always shadow any CCG ships in malaysian EEZ full time
    – real-time situational awareness of malaysian maritime surface areas

    TLDM
    – strong deterrence capability with a Submarine fleet of at least 6 boats overall, at least 3 boats by 2030.
    – Frigates with ASW and air defence capability.
    – situational awareness on foreign military assets both above, on and below the malaysian maritime areas

    TUDM
    – point air defence / QRA / counter drone & cruise missile capability with LCAs in enough numbers to cover both east and west malaysia
    – long range precision attack capability of naval and ground targets
    – airborne standoff sea mining capability
    – CAS support of TDM
    – air dominance above TLDM and TDM assets
    – real time situational awareness of airborne movements in malaysian airspace and beyond.

    TDM
    – In-depth local defence of each assigned areas, in both east and west malaysia
    – quick reaction and maneuver capability with 10 PARA and mech units
    – long range precision fires capability with 155mm howitzers, missiles. capable of hitting both ground and maritime targets with precision at ranges from 20 to 200km.
    – GBAD coverage of critical areas. Prioritizing SHORAD and MERAD, including CUAS, and counter OWA Drone and Cruise missile.
    – ISTAR capability with the latest equipment such as quadcopters, fixed-wing UAS, EO turret on telescopic masts. counter battery radars, satellites, ESM, etc.

  35. Joe “You forget that they make the choice where they want their bulwark and it may not be us”

    Someone’s forgot that Vietnam like pinoy is the 800 pound gorilla next door neighbour. Not us. Thus the 800 pound gorilla can’t get to us not until they gaza the heck out of the Philippines islands. And it is in our interest to make sure their bulwark didn’t failed.

  36. Zaft,

    You overlook that China is not interested in territory; not ours; not that of the Philippines or of Vietnam’s. It’s interested in sea lanes; the approaches to choke points.
    This enables it to better project power and to break out of the 1st Island Chain.

    Zaft – ”If the RN have no ships then there’s won’t be any Falkland war in the first place.”

    This is supposed to be a serious site.

    Qamarul – “ IMHO adding more scorpene would be better deterrent in the SCS”

    It’s nice to assume that certain things are a silver bullet or panacea but they’re not. We could face a situation where we can’t effectively deploy our subs; this ever occur to you? It’s not like we’re the only ones with subs. Others also have them and can deploy various means to deny us the ability to effectively deploy our subs; other subs, mines, UUVs; air and surface ASW assets, underwater sensors; etc.

    A look back in history will indicate that one doesn’t have to destroy a sub; merely prevent it from doing its job. Ultimately despite the temptation to overstate things and make assumptions we need various things in the right mix. A sobered and objective analysis would entail looking not just at the plus points but also the inherent limitations or weaknesses of things. You will also note that like various other things subs tend to be more effective when paired with other assets.

    BTW I’m all for getting more subs but I have to question whether we can allocate the needed resources for a larger sub fleet and I’m under no illusions that subs provide a quick fix, are a one size fit all solution or are the answer to everything. I will also add that what looks great on paper can differ in reality. Subs are very resource intensive and it takes time and great expense to train submariners who have a high wash out rate. The RMN is a small all volunteer resource strapped navy. Silly comparisons were made with Vietnam and Singapore. Vietnam has a larger navy which decided to prioritise its sub fleet at the expense of its surface fleet. It also took longer than expected to get the needed manpower for its 6 boats. The RSN is not a volunteer navy; it has more resources and virtue of that plus the fact it got into the game much earlier has a larger pool of submariners and the needed shore support/training infrastructure.

    Last but not least we must never assume that we’ll deploy subs in the Spratlys in the event of a war because it will be crowded with subs from various navies and the potential for a “blue on blue” will be great. Something else to bear in mind is that we’ll only deploy our subs in situations which are advantageous to them as far as possible; certainly not in a scenario where an enemy is expecting them and has his assets in the area; assets with a numerical and qualitative edge
    Zaft,

    In the 1990’s McNamara and various former U.S. decision makers held a series of meetings with their Vietnamese counterparts. What they found was that they both totally misread and misunderstood each other. The Vietnamese thought the Americans had neo-colonists designs on Vietnam and the Americans thought the North Vietnamese were the willing pawns of the Soviets [hardly the case] and were planning to spread the socialist revolution to the rest of the region. In reality the North Vietnamese only aimed at unifying their country and to be free of foreign control whilst the Americans feared the so called “domino effect” in which the fall of South Vietnam would lead to the rest of the region falling. Now there was some basis in this concern given that Indonesia was pro China and every country [bar Brunei] which later joined ASEAN had an insurgency problem.

    Why and how the North Vietnamese achieved what they did; to make things short.

    South Vietnam had a long and porous border with Laos and Cambodia. The bulk of communist infiltration came from these 2 countries; not from across the DMZ.
    The Americans operated under very strict ROEs; for much of the war they could not target North Vietnam’s airfields or the port of Haiphong in which flowed Soviet aid.
    Massive amount of material aid was provided by the Soviets, China and other socialist countries.
    The war is often seen as a guerrilla one but after Tet 1968 the Viet Cong was wiped out and it was the NVA which took South Vietnam. The NVA was to all intents a regular army with Corps, divisions and brigades; MBTs, APCs and heavy arty

  37. .. – “The Keris-class LMS68 is not doing the same exact mission as the DAMEN OPV1800”

    As has been clearly explained the LMS Batch 2 will have both peacetime and wartime roles. You seem to be fixated with certain things but it’s roles are clear. Just like how the RMAF’s supposedly “CSAR” helis are not being acquired specifically for CSAR; the RMN’s LMSs will perform a variety of roles.

    …. “It can be”

    No it can’t be. Note that when I refer to “layered defence” I’m referring to the ability to deal with a wide variety of threats; as mentioned in the previous post. The example you gave was a layered defence against low to medium level threats.

    ”Layered defence” would entail say a Mica battery being protected by A MANPADs element or in the case of the VVS-PVO a S-300 regiment protected by Buk which in turn is protected by Tunguska and Igla/Verba. The reality – as opposed to links – is that we will never be in a position to really have a large layered and fully networked IADS; few countries do.

    … “maritime based”

    I’m fully cognisant of the fact that the main threats we face are in our maritime domain thank you but as I explained in language which leaves no room for obfuscation; we also have other threats; ones which can also materialise and ones we can’t totally ignore; unless one has an oracle one can consult or a soothsayer. As I keep pointing out : one does not get the fight the wars one plans or hopes to.

    On “tank on tank battles” thanks for the customary link but the lack of tank in tank battles in Ukraine does not suggest it will the norm in other wars. Just like the dominant role unmanned systems are playing in the war does not suggest it will be the same in other wars given the high priority being placed on counter UAS tech. Also, as the cliche goes no two wars are ever the same”.

    ”Air dominance” another term which sounds great [along with “multi-domain”, “long range fires” and other things] and looks great on a PowerPoint slide but in reality against a better resourced opponent the best we can really hope to achieve is limited air denial. Also, mention of “deterrence” sounds great but if one’s “deterrence” does not “deter” or if an opponent is willing to incur casualties as the price for achieving his political and military aims what then?

    … – ”and if we cannot, then it will be the last day of our existance.”

    Dear me you really do have a flair for the dramatics don’t you. You make it sound like it’s Germany in WW2 moving east as part of ”Vernichtungskrieg” [War Of Annihilation] to secure living space; to exploit and relocate the populace and to exploit resources.
    Countries are not interested in us per see; nor is what they’re doing driven by ideology.

  38. “Vietnam like pinoy is the 800 pound gorilla next door neighbour.”
    Someone forgot that Vietnam is still puny compared to the whole PLA and it is still a very land based armed forces while the real 800 pound gorilla is becoming a potent seapower. Vietnam has no objective quarrel if China intends to take Taiwan and they arent geographically in a position to assist either. And if China PLAN decides to bypass Vietnam to hit Pinoy the fabled killing grounds of Vietnam arent much good either. And once the US forces in Pinoy are neutralised, they arent much interested in Pinoy lands either too.

  39. Azlan *You overlook that China is not interested in territory; not ours; not that of the Philippines or of Vietnam’s. It’s interested in sea lanes; the approaches to choke points.
    This enables it to better project power and to break out of the 1st Island Chain.”

    You confuse me with @Hulubalang who keep insisting the Chinese are coming onshore. But yes, once PLAN get sea control the neighbouring maritime state would naturally be a satellites clients state. Which outside of Joe doesn’t seem to be anyone favorite brand of tea.

  40. zaft – ”You confuse me with @Hulubalang who keep insisting the Chinese are coming onshore. ”

    No that comment was directed at you and was in reference o this ”Thus the 800 pound gorilla can’t get to us not until they gaza the heck out of the Philippines islands.”

  41. @Zaft
    “neighbouring maritime state would naturally be a satellites clients state.”
    Again where did you get this. If China can neutralise opposing armed forces be it Pinoy, US, SG, etc they have no necessary need to land troops and physically conquer a country if they only wanted to bypass it to their main objectives. By the by they might take over certain strategic lands to stranglehold their choke points but their intentions in SEA isnt the same as Imperial Japan in WW2. Other than 9 Dash Line and SCS control, they dont appear to have imperialistic ambitions onto other SEA nations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*