RMN New 15-to-5 Plan

The graphic of the new 15-to-5 plan. via RMN.

SHAH ALAM: The re-alignment of the RMN 15-to-5 plan means the service will have two more classes of ships, which had not been mentioned in the old one. The two classes are designated as the support group – four mine-hunters and two hydrographic ships.

It must be noted under the old plan, mine-hunting and hydrographic duties, were to be conducted by the LMS using containerized equipment. I am guessing that the idea of using containerized equipment has been dropped in favor of specialized hulls.

By designating the two classes as the support group, RMN can call the new plan 15-to-5 as well. The five classes are designated as the Surface Group – 12 LCS; 18 Corvette or PV; 18 LMS; four submarines and three MRSS. The number of ships to be procured remained the same as the old plan though.

The main graphic.

Apart from the graphic which was published as part of the RMN Chief 90th anniversary address, there is no further explanation on the issue. I am guessing the Chief will have further explanation when the realignment is launched next week during DSA 2024.

Among others, the new plan called for the PV class to be recognized as corvettes. It is unclear whether the Kedah class will be redesignated as corvettes though as it needs to be upgraded with drones, anti-submarine, anti-air and a much better electronic warfare suite. The soon to be built Ada class variant is likely to be equipped with such capability from the start.

The MRSS will also be a fully amphibious ship with a deck well to operate two landing craft. Another batch of LMS will also be procured but it is likely to be a non-China made warship.
RMN original 15-to-5 plan graphic. TLDM

Of course, the biggest mystery is whether the government is willing to fund the plan.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2191 Articles
Shah Alam

81 Comments

  1. To be honest.

    That is not a plan.

    That is just a justification of why the messy fleet is like it is right now.

    Clearly it is not 5 types of ship.
    There are 7 types, and it could even be 8 as the “corvette” designation is just like an afterthought, and not even listed in the future force list. From the list
    – 12 LCS (How to get 12 when only 5 is to be completed??)
    – 18 PV (why do you still need 18 dedicated PV when we have APMM??)
    – 18 LMS (LMS B1?? LMS B2 Corvette?? Or other types??)
    – 4 MCMV (this are 40 years old now. What next?? no plans just put the 4 in the graphic??)
    – 2 Hydro (KD Perantau is one, to build KD Perantau sistership? To build 2 new class of Survey ships??)
    – 4 Subs
    – 3 MRSS
    – 2 Training Ship not included??
    – What is the plan for all the OP’ed FACs and Laksamanas not included??

    LCS
    – Do we want to build 7 more Gowinds? What is the timeline?

    MRSS
    – Strategic sealift with a capacity of just 20 IFVs?? That is a joke. Might just ask USN for its retired JHSV.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCy5EacAA5MWz.jpg

    LMS
    – 32 knots?? Both the Chinese Keris-class and Ada-class cannot reach 32 Knots!
    – My proposed LMS-X
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLww1BDbQAAtHw0.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMpdKk2a8AAsA6q.jpg

    Sub
    – still just 4?? timeline??

    Corvette
    – Uparmed Kedah class? Can it survive being lobbed with multiple anti-ship missiles of ballistic, hypersonic and supersonic kind?
    .
    .
    .
    .

    My alternative TLDM 20 year plan to 2040

    RMK 12 2021-2025 (USD2.0 bil)
    – LCS Gowind USD1.15bil Project continue (assume balance RM5.2bil need to be budgeted in RMK12)
    – LCS Gowind USD0.125bil Assembly cost for 6th Gowind
    – 13 FIC batch 2 USD0.03bil Gading G2000 MkII FIC
    – 12 LMS-X Damen FCS5009 USD0.4bil including surface attack missile module.
    – 3 70-80m OSV 0.1 auxillary ship, MCM mothership, SF support, SUB support/tender, UAS support, pipeline security/surveillance
    – 5 AW139 MUH batch 2 0.1
    – 4 RQ-21A Blackjack UAV (used) 0 4 systems of 5 airframe each. ex USMC retired. Free US EDA
    total 1.905

    RMK 13 2026-2030 (USD2.0 bil)
    – 1 Scorpene SSK USD0.6bil assembled in Sepanggar
    – 12 LMS-X damen FCS5009 USD0.4bil including surface attack missile module.
    – 2 Fast RORO (used) USD0.04bil replacement for MPCSS. Similar concept to Spanish Navy SPS Ysabel
    – 1 Fleet tanker USD0.09 replacement of BM5, BM6. STM Turkiye fleet tanker 17,000 ton. MMHE
    – top up NSM and VL MICA NG missiles USD0.3bil
    – 8 SH-60J Seahawk USD0.2bil ex-JMSDF airframe + new avionics, radar, sonar
    – 2 MCM modular system set USD0.15bil
    – 6 ASW module for LMS-X USD0.12bil KraitSense system / Sea Serpent system
    total USD1.9bil

    RMK 14 2031-2035 (USD2.4 bil)
    – 1 Scorpene SSK USD0.6bil assembled in Sepanggar
    – 2 Arrowhead 140 Frigate USD1bil Kasturi Class replacement
    – 1 Fleet tanker USD0.09bil replacement of BM5, BM6. STM Turkiye fleet tanker 17,000 ton. MMHE
    – top up LMS-X surface attack module missiles USD0.3bil
    – 2 MCM modular system set USD0.15bil
    – UAS, USV project USD0.2bil
    total USD2.34bil

    RMK 15 2036-2040 (USD2.4 bil)
    – 2 Scorpene SSK USD1.2bil assembled in Sepanggar
    – 2 Arrowhead 140 Frigate USD1bil Lekiu class replacement
    – 30 FIC replacement USD0.1bil For PASKAL SF support, replacement CB90, G2000
    total USD2.3bil

    TLDM 2040 Fleet
    6x Scorpene SSK
    4x Arrowhead 140 Frigate
    6x Gowind Frigate
    24x LMS-X FCS5009
    30x FIC
    2x Fleet Tanker
    2x Fast RORO
    3x OSV – auxillary ship, MCM mothership, SF support, SUB support/tender, UAS support, pipeline security/surveillance
    1x Sub Rescue (leased)
    8x SH-60J ASW
    8x AW139 MUH
    RQ-21 Blackjack UAV
    MQ-27 Scaneagle UAV

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

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

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

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

  2. @Hulubalang

    “Of course, the biggest mystery is whether the government is willing to fund the plan.”

  3. The RMN is in dire need of a win. I truly pray that they have the funds and necessary arrangements to execute this new revised plan.

  4. With TLDM currebt budget of USD1b and assuming yearly growth of 5%, best case scenario in 2040 TLDM budget maybe exceed USD2b per annum. But i totally doub5 it can afford 15 plus 5 plan…Gut feel i say with that budget they can only operate 5 or 6 lcs, 68 LMS/corvette, 2 subs, 12 Heli, 8 OPV, 2 mpss, 4 minehunter and 2 hydrp

  5. @ haiqal

    How much money would 18 LMS batch 2 Corvette cost?

    If same as current request for USD175 million per ship, that is USD3.15 billion

    How much does 7 more gowinds cost? If USD400 million each, that is USD2.8 billion

    12 more PV?? Kedah class cost USD300 million each…
    .
    .
    .

    My 24x LMS-X will cost USD0.8 billion for all (USD33.33 million each)

    4x Arrowhead 140 cost USD2 billion (USD500 million each)

    4x Scorpene cost USD2.4 billion (USD600 million each)

  6. My TLDM plan would be supported by development of APMM fleet too. A reason why in my opinion TLDM does not really need NGPV in their planning

    For a development budget of USD500-800 million for each Rancangan Malaysia, we could get APMM :

    RMK 12 2021-2025 (USD0.5 bil)
    – ~ additional budget to complete 2x DAMEN OPV 1800 USD0.05bil
    – 2 Ex JCG OPV USD0.02bil sisterships of KM Pekan
    – 3 OSV AHT 70-80m used USD0.04bil As OPV/rescue/salvage/tow/firefighting
    https://media.fleetmon.com/cache/newsroom_article_images/ALMIRANTESTORNI5/984cd4056b8638619ac4fbacd007d369.jpg
    – 2 ex USCG WMEC Cutter transfer (intrim OPV, to be retire 2035) free
    – 6 DAMEN FCS 4008 Patrol NGPC2 USD0.09Bil
    – 30 12.5m RHFB Perkasa USD0.01bil
    – 10 Penggalang FIC USD0.02bil
    – 30 various RHIB USD0.01bil
    – 4 AW189 USD0.127bil
    total USD0.377billion

    RMK 13 2026-2030 (USD0.8 bil)
    – 3 Hyundai HDP-3000 Tae Pyung Yang 113m OPV USD0.2bil
    – 3 60m sail patrol vessel (based on Rainbow Warrior) USD0.12bil
    – 12 DAMEN FCS 4008 Patrol NGPC2 USD0.18bil
    – 6 ex Kedah Class transfer refit USD0.04bil
    – 4 ex Keris Class transfer free
    – 15 25m PC USD0.05bil
    – 60 12.5m RHFB Perkasa USD0.02bil
    – 10 Penggalang FIC USD0.02bil FIC recapitalisation
    – 30 8m RIB USD0.006bil RIB recapitalisation
    – 3 ex-TUDM CN-235MSA free
    – 1 CL-415EAF USD0.035bil
    – 3 AS365N3 used USD0.02bil
    – 4 AW139 USD0.08bil
    Total USD0.771 billion

    RMK 14 2031-2035 (USD0.8 bil)
    – 3 Hyundai HDP-3000 Tae Pyung Yang 113m OPV USD0.2bil
    – 3 60m sail patrol vessel (based on Rainbow Warrior) USD0.12bil
    – 12 DAMEN FCS 4008 Patrol NGPC2 USD0.18bil
    – 30 25m PC USD0.1bil
    – 60 12.5m RHFB Perkasa USD0.02bil
    – 10 Penggalang FIC USD0.02bil FIC recapitalisation
    – 30 8m RIB USD0.006bil RIB recapitalisation
    – 6 Beech B260 MSA USD0.1bil
    Total USD0.746 billion

    RMK 15 2036-2040 (USD0.8 bil)
    – 3 Hyundai Tae Pyung Yang 115m OPV USD0.2bil ex-JCG OPV replacement
    – 6 60m sail patrol vessel (based on Rainbow Warrior) USD0.24bil
    – 6 DAMEN FCS 4008 Patrol NGPC2 USD0.09bil
    – 15 25m PC USD0.05bil
    – 30 12.5m RHFB Perkasa USD0.01bil
    – 10 Penggalang FIC USD0.02bil
    – 30 8m RIB USD0.006bil
    – 6 new helicopter USD0.1bil AS365 replacement
    Total USD0.716 billion

    MMEA 2040 Fleet
    – Large OPV
    3x DAMEN 1800 OPV
    6x Kedah Class OPV
    9x Hyundai HDP-3000 Tae Pyung Yang OPV
    3x AHT OSV OPV
    1x ex JCG (training)
    – PV/PC
    4x LMS68 68m
    12x Sail Patrol Ship 60m (long endurance, very low operating cost for presence missions)
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-udZWhasAEEWSW.jpg
    6x NGPC 44m
    36x FCS4008 Patrol 41m
    45x 25m PC
    – FIC/RHIB/RIB
    50x FIC
    150x 12.5m RHFB Perkasa – 48 knots
    18x Banggi SEALEGS
    60x Misc RIB

    Picture of HDP-3000 aka Tae Pyung Yang class OPV
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GB6i1yGbkAEn_Vc.jpg

    Below picture is the FCS 4008 Patrol built by DAMEN Antalya Turkiye for Romanian Border Guard. It would be a perfect ship for next batches of NGPCs.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeE4gayXgAsGfFR.jpg
    Specs
    Length – 41.2m
    Top speed – 30 knots
    range at TOP SPEED (yes not a typo) – 2,800nm. Yes it can run around chasing others at 30 knots for 2,800nm

    This is also the same platform for UK Royal Navy’s XV Patrick Blackett, a R&D ship for future naval warfare systems.

    Compare to current bagan datuk NGPC specs
    top speed – 24 knots
    range – 2,000nm at 12 knots cruise speed.

    The FCS 4008 Patrol design would be a good choice to replace all the ex PX, ex PZ, ex bahtera, ex Bay class ships of APMM. To have proper project management and to leverage the economy of scale, building of these FCS 4008 patrol locally could be slotted into PETRONAS Project Safina, which is a project to locally build 100 OSVs of different types for PETRONAS contractors in the next 5 years.

  7. They struggle with funding for only 5 LCS and 3 LMS2 and now they want 12+18+18. The whole organisation seem delusional

  8. I thought main benefit of reducing to 5 classes was economies of scale ie less spare parts to worry about. If 1 type is actually more than 1 ship design then do we even need a plan?

  9. The whole drama & corruption with just a couple of lcs …

    Not in 100 years these plan will ever be fulfilled.

    & As total civilian with ni military knowledge, di malaysia need 4 Mine Hunters? (Assuming theyre do what they sound like)

  10. I think this plan is urealistic. how i wish im wrong.while the neighbors is beefing up, into full metal jacket. and us still stuck in a dream world.

  11. Militaries all over the world will never get the numbers they request. Therefore you always have to exaggerate your numbers to a point..

  12. Looks like someone is not happy that reality within the powers that be does not jive with his delusions.

    PV is equivalent to MMEA? Since when any nation CG ships armed for ASuW, AAW & EW, much less ours? It is clear the surface combatants are for … combat.

    @Zaft
    “They struggle with funding for only 5 LCS and 3 LMS2 and now they want 12+18+18.”
    It is the Govt that struggles with funding, not TLDM. They put out the required needs then its up to whichever Govt that supposed to make it a reality.

  13. @ joe

    You can keep on complaining. I don’t expect anything more than that from you.

    In the meantime I will keep on pointing out practical solutions that is totally within our available budget and with a clear achievable timeline.

  14. The south china sea is our battleground.

    Any ships sailing in this “pond” could be monitored in real time with AIS, ESM, Geospatial Satellite Systems. This is not like 83 years ago when the Imperial Japanese Navy needs to send out Reconnaissance Airplanes from its airbase in Vietnam to find the whereabouts of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales.

    If you know where a ship is in South China Sea, you can sink it, by sending fighter jets or bombers with anti-ship missiles. With Frigates with multiple long-range Hypersonic anti-ship missiles. Or even with ballistic anti ship missiles launched thousands of kilometres away.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMu7CbVagAAcsdG.jpg

    So how can a corvette/PV say the Kedah class fitted with RAM (which is super expensive I don’t think TLDM can afford), or LMS Batch 2 ADA-class FFBNW air defence missiles can counter such varied types of available chinese anti-ship missiles? So why spend so much (USD175 million on each LMS Batch 2, USD300 million on each Kedah class) if all of them would be at the bottom of the South China Sea within a week of hostility?

    Why don’t TLDM double down on Scorpenes instead, which is multitudes more difficult to find and to sink when compared to LMS and Corvettes?

    If somebody say, we need LMS and corvettes for maritime security, nope. We can do maritime security better with cheaper APMM OPVs.

  15. Marhalim, with the realignment of the Plan, where do you think incoming ADA will fit in? It sounds like it should be in LMS category but for its size, it more appropriate to be classified in the Corvette group but the big question will be its armament. I think that will determine whether its in LMS or PV class.

  16. from wat i can tell TLDM is merely moving the goalpost since threats change and they no longer see growth in owned IP. the 5 means 5 main roles not 5 classes. LCS could be 5 gowind with the rest another frigate class for AAW. same with “CORV” corvette or whatever the hell that is, first 6 might be armed surface war Kedah the rest could be just meko or gowind 2500 equip for AAW. LMS might be all new class, the chinese one no hope already just give to MMEA.

    funniest twist would be maharaja lela class thrown into Corvette role with Kedah and Lekiu while the LCS is entirely new midsize frigate class. i keep seeing AAW in there they might want MERAD, i not see MICA being remotely useful for that.

  17. With the increase of ships,dont forget to beef up shore installations.

  18. I think it will be part of the corvette group if they choose either the Ukrainian or Pakistani variants. If its the Turkish one, it will be LMS or PV

  19. Current TLDM hull quantity
    – 2x Scorpene SSK
    – 2x Lekiu FFG
    – 2x Kasturi FFL
    – 4x Laksamana Corvette
    – 6x Kedah OPV
    – 4x Keris LMS
    – 4x Perdana FAC
    – 4x Handalan FAC
    – 6x Jerong FAC
    – 4x Vosper PC
    – 4x Mahamiru MCMV
    – 2x Sri Indera Sakti MPCSS
    – 1x Perantau Hydro Survey
    – 2x Gagah Samudera Training vessel
    – 1x Bunga Mas 5 auxiliary
    – 1x Tun Azizan auxiliary
    – 1x Mega Bakti (leased sub rescue)
    50 ship hulls

    15 to 5 will have many more bigger ships with more manpower needs.

    My alternative plan

    TLDM 2040 Fleet
    6x Scorpene SSK
    4x Arrowhead 140 Frigate
    6x Gowind Frigate
    24x LMS-X FCS5009
    2x Fleet Tanker
    2x Fast RORO
    3x OSV – auxillary ship, MCM mothership, SF support, SUB support/tender, UAS support, pipeline security/surveillance
    1x Sub Rescue (leased)
    48 ship hulls.

    But ships like LMS-X has low manning of 24 persons (with accomodation for 30), which will mean existing manpower level could be maintained or even reduced. Shore installations will not be strained as ships like LMS-X is almost similar in size to the current FACs.

  20. @Hulu
    Your “practical” solutions is obviously not grounded in any reality which is why not a single portion jived with TLDM previous & evolved Plan.

    This unlike what I have pointed out many times before; LMS & evolved NGPV will be geared towards combat even if its FFBNW. An OPV, even though its similarly sized, will not be expandable to a combat role. It simply doesnt have the radar & sensors nor deckspace for the ASuW, ASW, AAW, EW roles.

    Also many times I have said that MRSS will come with welldeck for amphib operations capability. Nothing was said about DDay style assault role and from 3x MRSS with 2 landing crafts each, there is little chance we can do a successful hostile beach landing operations, but more for landings where docks are unavailable and HARD missions, and guess what, HADR is in the MRSS role requirement as what I have said before.

    One can keep saying that I am complaining but what I have said are all whats coming up in black & white, and unlike a certain delusion which none materialised.

  21. You know why RMN ships has more sailors, they are a very conservative organisation, they eschewed automation.

  22. @Marhalim
    if rmn is serious about AAW they need deeper vls for another AD tier. Aster 30 or SM2-IIIC both readily talk to current system in market. mica is self-defense tier they will be spent on incoming munition only while outranged by offense air platforms.

  23. @serial yapper

    Likes the new Naval Group FDI frigate. Kinda same as Gowind but bigger

  24. The decision to redesignate the Kedahs makes sense. Despite their “NGOPV” or “PV” designation which some remain dogmatically fixated on the class was always intended to have a secondary combat function and not just patrol the EEZ. One does not equip a class with a 3D radar, an obstacle avoidance system and other things including space for RAM and MM-40s if one intends for a hull to only be used to patrol the EEZ.

    MCMVs. Not surprising as many navies including the RMN’s MCM community are just not convinced that modular payloads are the answer. They are for some navies but not for others. A dedicated MCMV has always been the preference; not only for the RMN but for others too. The main difference is they will not rely on a wire sweep and ROVs but UUVs and USVs and will not have to be in a minefield.

    Great news about the LMSs. Any continued claims that they’re “neither here nor there” or are not “survivable is subjective hogwash. They are intended for specific roles and in the wrong operational conditions even a Tico cruiser would not be “survivable”. The RMN has clearly laid out why it needs the class and it can’t afford an all LCS fleet.

    Was expected that the 5/15 would be tweaked. Was always intended to be and from Day One was never holy writ despite the tendency some have to view it as so. When introduced it was politically expedient and a product of its period.

    Went for a Raya gathering last weekend and was pleased to learn that the RMN is extremely happy/satisfied with the performance of the FICs.

  25. Just to add; the concept of modular payloads is sound but in reality they’re not a panacea and just because they work for some navies doesn’t mean they automatically will for others. From Day One the RMN was never enthusiastic about it but had no choice but to include it in the 5/15.

    The so-called realignment of the 5/15 has met with political approval but whether or not the penny pinching politicians can make the needed financial commitments of course remains the primary question.

    In addition to funding out – from someone in the position to know – that the service is very happy with the FICs; he said it was comparable to the CB-90s; I also discovered that contrary to what I and many assumed the RMN was never eager to get its hands on the Nakhoda Ragams when they were offered. As I’ve pointed out there was a large degree of dis-satisfaction with BAE Systems [Marhalim has alluded to this] and there’s a reason why the Lekiu Batch 2s were offered with different systems.

  26. ” LMS & evolved NGPV will be geared towards combat even if its FFBNW ”

    Geared towards combat for the 1990s, not 2030s

    Anything on the surface without deep surface to air missile magazines will be quickly send to the bottom of the sea by these things
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMu7CbVagAAcsdG.jpg

    Another option is to have multiple cheap ships so if 2-3 sunk, others can counterattack.

    Still the best option is a submarine, which cannot be sunk by all the newfangled ballistic, hypersonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles, can hardly be seen by geospatial satellites and still must be searched slowly by sonar sweep, in a very acoustically noisy area.

    Btw i will keep delusioning, like when others tell me when i proposed the used kuwaiti Hornets, FA-50 to replace MiGs, used blackhawks etc etc etc.

  27. @Haiqal
    The RSN Formidables is about same size & displacement as LCS but has double the VLS banks and half are with Aster30, no need to go with a bigger much more expensive FDI ship when our southern neighbour has a good template to follow.

  28. @Marhalim
    That raises an interesting point, considering ADA was supposedly LMS2.
    What if the 18 LMS & 18 PV could be amalgamated to a 36unit single ship with 2 subvariants ie an ADA ‘light’ for LMS and an ADA ‘heavy’ for PV/Corv?

  29. @serial yapper

    Agreed, the Gowinds simply don’t have the
    firepower of a tier 1 ship(16 cells=16 missiles), they’ll need something like the FREMM or type 31 in the AAW role.

    Which brings me to my question, commonality. With the Gowinds exclusively using french or European missiles, would this mean TLDM can only get missiles like the MICA or ASTER? I feel like because of the gowinds, our options are limited to European missiles, unless they’re fine with having different classes operating different missiles like American essm and SM2.

  30. Interesting insights from most people here. For me, one possibility would be that ADA class be configured in 2 variants, with one lighter-armed variant being LMS/PV and the heavier-armed version being Corvette? Maybe the LMS variant would be Mistral Mk3s in SADRAL/TETRAL configurations or RAM with 2/4 NSM and VL MCA NG paired with 4/8 NSM for the Corvette variant. Maybe NSM would be common to both variants but what is meant by ‘Mid-Range Rocket Missile’ completely eludes me.

    Separately, good to know that MRSS is planned to be equipped with at least PDMS. I think Mistral Mk3s can be good candidates and it helps that the French Navy has some faith in this system.

  31. @ marhalim

    ” You know why RMN ships has more sailors, they are a very conservative organisation ”

    Yes i understand that. But even the Vospers have 22 crews, or the FAC(G) with 36 crews. So 24 crew for LMS-X is not too few.

    @ serial yapper

    I would see the Arrowhead 140 to perform more or less like a maritime MERAD battery, a layered defence protecting say Sepanggar or Bintulu from incoming cruise missiles and fighter attack aircrafts, using the 40km VL MICA NG missile. It should have at least 32 VL launchers with the VL MICA NG.

    To be a able to do limited ballistic missile defence capability, yeah we will need at least a missile of the Aster 30 type, along it the added cost of such systems.

  32. Its must be noted that we can get the European missiles as long we got the money for it. It is unclear yet whether we can get cleared for SM-2 though.

  33. Yes it can be done, but I am not sure about 36 ships. I think the best we can get with the current budget is 12 for both classes, if it was the case.

  34. @ student

    Even with the heavier armed ADA-class version being a corvette, the question is, what can this ship bring to the fight in South China Sea?

    A fully-armed ADA is around USD250 million each. Equipped with gas turbines for high top speed. No idea what a lighter armed variant would cost, but if it has major variations compared to the fully armed version (different engines for example), just might as well buy a different ship.

    as for close-in air defence, RAM is the most expensive of the bunch (USD1 mil for each missile). Guns linked to advanced hi-definition radars and EO turrets could be as good as dedicated CIWS systems. Example the MSI paladin concept could probably be done on a ship, using existing 30mm RCWS, 40mm otoberedas etc.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GI0HVZPW8AAPAQp.jpg

    Or the 35mm GOKDENIZ
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3bjStDXIAEgBz8.jpg

  35. Amidst all the talk about automation and reduced manning levels; lets also bear in mind that for certain things there is still no substitute for having a certain number of people. The 1st which comes to mind is performing damage control; still labour intensive.

  36. From Day One the ‘NGOPVs” or ”PVs’ or were always expected to have a combat role. One does not fit out a ship with a 3Dradar; obstacle avoidance sonar and other things if all the ship is expected to do is patrol the EEZ. Despite the dogmatic insistence of some the ‘NGOPV” moniker was to gin funding; they always weee intended have a combat role and the RMN never and does not have plans for a guns only armed OPVS or for OPVS for that matter.

    Great news on the Batch 2s. The RMN has openly stated what they’re for and it can’t afford an all LCS combat fleet. Like everything else the LMS is not intended to be placed in a situation where it has to punch above its weight category. Used wrongly even a Tico cruise would not be ”survivable”. Any claims that the Batch 2s are ”neither here nor there” or are not ”survivable” is hogwash; it ignores reality.

    No surprises on the MCMVs. As I’ve pointed out before; not all in the MCM community [not only in the RMN] are convinced that modular payloads are the way to go. The main difference is that future MCMVs will not have a wire sweep and ROVs but USVs and UUVs and will not have to operate inside a ”mine field”.

  37. … – ”Btw i will keep delusioning, like when others tell me when i proposed the used kuwaiti Hornets, FA-50 to replace MiGs, used blackhawks etc etc etc.”

    Selective amnesia? 1st of all the ”others” was me chum. What I did say was that you have a habit of only focusing on the plus points or the ones which fit in with your line of thought. I also did say that a LCA is no substitute for a MRCA [you were selling the LCA idea a a time where there was no immediate requirement; when the requirement was for MRCAs]; that although in good condition the Kuwaiti Hornets are aged and getting older and that in the real world as opposed to paper points there are issues with sustaining aged platforms. It wasn’t as penalty free as you made it to be. I also pointed out that it’s dependent on the government allocating the needed funding; no point getting 35 odd year old platforms of the needed sustainment funds aren’t there and if the government uses them as a pretext to further delay the MRCAs. Instead of selective amnesia include the whole narrative if you want to moan about something to put yourself in a favourable light.

  38. … – ”what can this ship bring to the fight in South China Sea?”

    This is silly. In a very non permissive situation even a 8,000 tonne combatant might face an issue. The fact that we do not plan to operate in such a high threat environment seems to escape you. Going by your line of thought; if an opponent had his subs in the area; surface and air ASW forces; underwater sensors and mines; how would any sub be able to effectively operate there? Need a reminder that a major lesson from WW1/2 id that one does not have to physically destroy a sub but to prevent it from doing its job? Also [again] with only a pair of subs the RMN will do all it can to deploy them in situations where they are not severely disadvantaged. There is also the fact [again] that should a major war break out; there will be many subs there and we might not even deploys ours to avoid ”blue on blue”; even assuming we were involved which is not god given.

  39. @ azlan

    ” The 1st which comes to mind is performing damage control; still labour intensive ”

    I am okay with frigates having 140+ crew.

    For something like the USD33.33 million, 55m LMS-X, if it is hit by a NSM, it is better just to abandon ship. So no need extra bodies for damage control.

    ” From Day One the ‘NGOPVs” or ”PVs’ or were always expected to have a combat role. One does not fit out a ship with a 3Dradar; obstacle avoidance sonar and other things if all the ship is expected to do is patrol the EEZ ”

    “from day one” is thought of in the mid 90s. They are designed to have a combat role of the 1995 scenario, when Chinese navy still use plenty of corvettes, and is barely a brown-water navy (they are not thought of as a credible threat to the malaysian EEZ). Right now, they are not fit for combat role in the 2025s where real-time tracking of ships at sea is possible, and China has plenty of long range systems to sink a surface ship.

  40. ” Also [again] with only a pair of subs the RMN will do all it can to deploy them in situations where they are not severely disadvantaged ”

    Probabaly you missed the “additional subs is a priority” ? And my preference of 6x Scorpenes instead of LMS Corvettes?

    Also we will be mainly playing in our waters, 200nm from our shores. If we are dragged in, that means Philippines and Vietnam are already at war. Vietnam has its own shore hatteries of anti-ship missiles, with 6 Kilo class submarines. Philippines with its Brahmos anti-ship missiles, and looking at getting scorpenes too.

  41. ” Selective amnesia? 1st of all the ”others” was me chum ”

    Remembering, and choosing not to single you out is 2 different things. Well as you have outed yourself, then yes it was mainly you.

    A proposal to have something better for the malaysian defence is just that. A proposal.

    If it gets chosen, or even looked at. Then it is good.

    I want our military to have the best option possible. Of course everything has its pros and cons.

    Of course when I proposed Kuwaiti Hornets, TUDM and Govt is madly in love with the Rafale.

    Of course when I first proposed to replace the Hawk, MB339 and MiG-29 with FA-50 rather than buy the MRCA, TUDM has zero requirement for that at all.

    But I am not like you, just condemning all ideas, because those ideas comes from me, a nobody, with no connections to the military, no connections with any bigwigs, not stepped my shoes in UPNM etc etc.

    I would like to read more alternative ideas, on what can our military do differently on the little resources that we have, to have a better defence capability than current.

    So my idea for TLDM and APMM is just an idea. Of course TLDM and APMM has zero requirements of things i listed. But that is what I feel the best possible capability, within the limited budget that we have, getting them in 15-16 years time (to 2040).

  42. … – ”Of course TLDM and APMM has zero requirements of things i listed. ”

    There are requirements foe certain things but in the longer term.
    For certain things; like ”oilers” there is no requirement for obvious reasons. There is also no requirement for a Ro-Ro because a Ro-Ro is a one trick pony; to move stuff and people. The MPSS will be multi-role; HADR, as a tender, moving stuff and people. etc. BTW the RMN does have Ro-Ro experience because years ago it did lease a Ro-Ro; albeit not for transport. As pointe out if we have to we can ”take up for trade” [as the Brits say] Ro-Ros operated by civilian companies but a Ro-Ro can never be a direct substitute for a MPSS.

    … – ”I want our military to have the best option possible. Of course everything has its pros and cons.”

    Yes and you have this need to keep saying so but it’s not only you. Your ”off course” notwithstanding there has been an evident lack of the ”cons” in most of what you’ve proposed; whether with getting aged and getting older platforms or with subs surfacing close to intruding ships to show they’re there or with ”oilers” which are totally superfluous to our actual needs.

    ..- ”I would like to read more alternative ideas, on what can our military do differently”

    Yes so you’ve said and have been saying for quite a number of years but do make the distinction between what you’d like to see happen and what – for various reasons – will realistically happen.

    … – ”TUDM has zero requirement for that at all.”

    Not really. When you were going on about it the requirement was for a MRCA. I pointed out that the requirement was for a MRCA and that LCA can’t be a direct substitute for a MRCA. The RMAF did have a requirement for a LCA but not doing the said period; that only came after the MRCA programme was shelved. If I recall you fall back lime was to ask me if I stood to gain financially if Typhoon was selected. No I won’t include a link because I don’t post links for the sheer sake of it.

    … – ”“from day one” is thought of in the mid 90s. ”

    Hardly. Contrary to your flawed claim the Kedahs – then as now – were always intended to have a combat role. One dos not fit a 3D radar, obstacle avoidance sonar and other things to something intended to only or mainly patrol the EEZ.

    … – ”And my preference of 6x Scorpenes instead of LMS Corvettes?”

    Yes but there is no such thing as something is better than the other; again; we need a mix of various things.

    … – ”If we are dragged in, that means Philippines and Vietnam are already at war. ”

    I disagree. Different dynamics at play; e.g. the Philippines could get dragged in because it’s a U.S. treaty linked ally and Vietnam because it faces a more acute threat.

    … – ” Right now, they are not fit for combat role in the 2025s where real-time tracking of ships at sea is possible, and China has plenty of long range systems to sink a surface ship.”

    – ”Real time tracking” was possible in the 1990’s only not as widely available.
    – China has various systems available to detect, tract and engage subs.
    – Have no idea what your definition of ”not fit” is but the Kedahs are intended to be armed to enable mainly a self defence capability and like all our ships are not intended to be operated in a very high threat or non permissive environment. The only regional navy which does is the RSN.

    … – ”But I am not like you, just condemning all ideas,”

    I don’t ”condemn” anything’ merely give my thoughts. It would be nice if everyone agreed with all you said like it was holy gospel would it not? Do look up the definition of ”condemned’ …. BTW I only question or refute ”some” ideas not ”all’ and I do explain why,

    … – ”no connections with any bigwigs, not stepped my shoes in UPNM etc etc.”

    Subconsciously trying to say something? Or just frustration playing out? Next will you claim I said or implied things which I never did?

    … – ”Probabaly you missed the “additional subs is a priority” ?”

    ”Missed the part” where even if we had 8 subs we’d still be very selective as to how we depluy them? Subs aren’t a silver bullet or a one size fits all solution.

  43. .. – ”I would see the Arrowhead 140 to perform more or less like a maritime MERAD battery, a layered defence protecting say Sepanggar or Bintulu from incoming cruise missiles and fighter attack aircrafts, using the 40km VL MICA NG missile”

    Well the RSN’s Formidables are an extension of the island’s AD network but then they have a longer range missile than MICA and operate as part of a fully networked environment comprising various things including a AEW platform. In short the SAF has the prerequisites; we don’t …

    … – “Shore installations will not be strained as ships like LMS-X is almost similar in size to the current FACs”

    You might think but it’s not only the size or draught of a ship but available berthing space as well as shore accommodation. As it stands we have enough space but in the longer term if we do get the hulls we hope to get then berthing space could be an issue.

    Jason – “Agreed, the Gowinds simply don’t have the
firepower of a tier 1 ship”

    I’d love to see a ship with a 96 cell VLS with an area defence capability; a long range radar; 16 ASMs and a CIWS as well as very high DC standards and a standoff decoy in addition to an active hammer but it is what it is. In line with our threat perceptions and how we view the strategic calculus we don’t see the need for assets to operate in a high intensity environment. A 16 cell would empty very fast if we go on the basis that each incoming ASM or aircraft should be engaged with at least 2 missiles to increase the PK but as it stands even getting funding for a 16 cell VLS is a stretch.

  44. @hulubalang
    rmn no need to bother with BMD with KV head, they only need to shoot planes before those things drop anything. hence aster or sm2. china isn’t going to lob DF21s on frigates, they so expensive like another J-10 and the nature of BMs means they are incredibly very not accurate vs moving object, maybe exclusively reserved against nimitz carrier strike group.

    notice i said group not a ship, the only way theyll reliably hurt it is by loading a nuke

  45. @ serial yapper

    ” china isn’t going to lob DF21s on frigates ”

    Maybe not, but they have multitudes of other anti-ship missile systems that they can use, even in salvo shots to saturate defence for those missiles.

    We can look into distributed lethality, having multiple cheap ships as missile carriers, so that there is no 1 big target for them to take out, but rather multiple small and cheap targets.

    What I am worried about is if China did the same thing like Iran doing to Israel. We probably can manage to intercept cruise missiles and OWA drones like the Shahed (if we get all our Frigates and GAPU act together), but if conventional ballistic missiles is lobbed at Sepanggar or Labuan AB (as preeptive measure to destroy malaysian military assets at the beginning of an escalation, basically a malaysian pearl harbor) for example, we won’t be able to intercept that. Maybe we need to regularly practice rapid dispersion then.
    https://missilethreat.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Chinaregionalmap.jpg

    The lowest cost solution to have some form of capability against ballistic missile IMO is, to request/buy 2 used Patriot batteries from USA. 1 battery in Sepanggar, 1 battery covering klang valley. But that is nearly impossible now due to the Ukrainian war.

  46. … – ”You are conflating “claim” (which i had never) with my preference, which is to transfer all of the kedah-class OPV to APMM. ”

    Full of ourselves aren’t we? You ”preference” aside for you you have many; the thought that the MMEA might not want the Kedahs never entered your mind. To you it’s all what looks great on paper but in reality even if striped of various things the Kedahs would be superfluous to the MMEA’s needs and expensive to run. Also, you really think the RMN would be willing to handover the class anytime soon?

  47. … – ”What I am worried about is if China did the same thing like Iran doing to Israel. ”

    There are threats we can handle and those we can’t : period/full stop.
    China does not need to lob missiles at us. They have more important targets for their missiles. What they can do is cyber attacks on our power grid, internet network, etc. Also lest it be forgotten our economy is very tied to China’s.

    Anywhere we’re getting ahead of ourselves. ABM defence? Really? We buy NVGS in batches of 18; have unfulfilled capability gaps; have howitzers older than their crews; can’t even afford to fully upgrade the Hornets they we we’d like [a platform in which we have much confidence and faith in]; still run things on a platform level despite it being 2024 and not 1947, etc.

    – ”Why don’t TLDM double down on Scorpenes instead, which is multitudes more difficult to find and to sink when compared to LMS and Corvettes?”

    As has been explained to you on previous occasions there is s need for a mix of various things; nothing is a panacea or silver bullet. Subs are not a one size fits all solution and there will be occasions when [as has been explained previously] will not be able to operate effectively. Tell me: if an opponent has his own suns there; has strong air and surface ASW units; not to mention a qualitative and numerical edge; what happens? It may also have escaped ypu but there are certain things which subs aren’t good for … Also it’s up to the government to decide if subs will be the immediate priority; not the RMN.

    … – ”such varied types of available chinese anti-ship missiles? ”

    China again? Need a reminder that China has a major edge over us in all areas and that the enemy has a say/vote? You seriously think that we actually can deter China or make it think twice? Again: what happens if China is not ”deterred” by our ”deterrence”? Need a reminder that China messes with the likes of the U.S, Japan and Australia. Who are we? We sink 5 ships they’ll bring another 10 but we lose 2 ships and we won’t be able to replace them. Another reminder: a war in the Spratlys does not mean we’re automatically involved.

    Some threats we can realistically handle; others we can’t.

    … – ”2x Fleet Tanker”

    We don’t need ”oilers” for the simple reason that we don’t venture far and that things like Ops Fajar were a one off thing. If we needed ”oilers” [a ship which replenishes at sea in contrast to a ”tanker” which transports fuel] the RMN would have a requirement for them….

  48. … -”The lowest cost solution to have some form of capability against ballistic missile IMO is, to request/buy 2 used Patriot batteries from USA.”

    There is no ”low cost solution” here. Parts are expensive and so are reloads and your Patriot is only as good as the other stuff you networked it with as opposed to operating it stand alone. The good thing about it is that the launcher can be placed some 20-30km away; adds to the range and survivability. This so called ”roving Sam” tactic has enabled the Ukrainians to hit targets deep inside Russia.

  49. … – ”For something like the USD33.33 million, 55m LMS-X, if it is hit by a NSM, it is better just to abandon ship. So no need extra bodies for damage control.”

    With well thought out, non fevered and sobered analysis of this nature I might as well call you von Tirpitz or 1st Earl Jellicoe.

    A ship and a crew is a national asset which takes resources to acquire [yes yes ”of course” you now]. It takes time and huge expense to train the crew and for them to get the needed experience. As history has shown us time and again it’s sound DC [with well trained crews and an element of luck] which determines if a ship sinks or gets bac to base.

  50. The problem with ”dispersion” is that in the long run serviceability issues arise for the simple reason that the dispersed location does not have the level of support gear needed. Not all support equipment is easily mobile and not all civilian gear in a port can be used for things like missile loading [assuming reloads are available].

    Gripen is considered an ideal solution for Ukraine. Was designed for Swedish requirements; to be operated in austere locations by conscripts with weeks of training and all the gear needed to support a squadron can be fitted on a pair of 40 foot containers. Also, various panels and areas of Gripen can be accessed without a ladder.

    China. As far back as the 1980’s it already had the whole region well within range of ballistic missiles. By the 1990’s it already had bombers with long range ASMS; Sovremennys with Sunburn; a large sub fleet and many things. The quality evolved but it’s not as if China only became a threat in recent years.

    Amidst all this talk about what we can supposedly do let’s not overlook that China has a much larger economy and population; the largest industrial capacity in the world; spends way much more on its military and has a vey advanced tech industry. We on the other hand are a small country with a small economy and a small under resourced military we can’t afford to equip and sustain the way we’d like. We can’t even produce small arms ammo without importing all the raw materials for crying out loud. Also, we aren’t Ukraine which has a U.S. an EU to pour billions in to shore up our economy. Neither is the MAF the American, Australian and Japan military which worries about China and whom China trains to deal with. Even with all the overplayed mention of ”asymmetric” tactics [which China can also employ]; who are we? As a caveat in case anyone again makes silly claims, No I’m not suggesting we do nothing to defend ourselves; merely there’s a major limit to what we can do and in case Finland and North Vietnam are mentioned again; I’ll point out why they were able to do what they di and how things turned out badly for Finland.

    On top of that the region’s economy is tied to China’s an China can ‘weaponise” the economy. If the economic affects of COVID was bad the economic affects of a major war with China [even if we’re not involved and it’s not holy write we will] would be catastrophic.

  51. Support group..four minehunters and two survey ships..does that mean new minehunters and survey ships or does RMN really thought that mahamirus and perantau will still relevant going forward? Or does RMN need to go/buy hybrid minehunters + survey ship that can operate and launch mini drone/uuv like bmt venari or from other shipyards

  52. With this reallignment does that mean that modular/containerize minehunting,survey and what not for LMS are officially dead? If LMS and This CORV designation is about the same size why dont they just merge the two into one class

  53. With this reallignment does that mean that modular/containerize minehunting,survey and what not for LMS are officially dead? If LMS and This CORV designation is about the same size why dont they just merge the two into one class

  54. So in future theres still possibility that rmn will let go/pass that chinese LMS batch 1 to MMEA right..after they got 3 to 4 that turkish LMS..

  55. So all in all PV/corvette will be the kedahs (ada class too?) and LMS class are presumably smaller and less potent than the pv and lcs obviously.Hit and run mission huh? I thought rmn abandon that tactics or maybe the budget forced them to stick with that hit and run..So LMS will be FAC type ship then like indonesias KCR 60 with 2 SSM and a main gun

  56. @ azlan

    ” The problem with ”dispersion” ”

    That is where the 2x Fleet tankers and the 3x OSV in my plans are for. They could support dispersion of the navy fleet in case our bases are attacked.

    The OSV in my plan is a multi role platform that enables the navy to do
    – MCM mothership,
    – SF support
    – SUB support/tender
    – UAS support
    – pipeline security/surveillance

    When operating as a sub tender, it would bring on reload cradles, torpedo and missile reloads, containerized battery energy storage to quickly recharge sub batteries, fuel, crew exchanges etc. Currently US Navy is practicing sub support with OSV, and recently has done exercise with Iceland Coast Guard OSV for submarine replenishment at sea.
    https://www.government.is/diplomatic-missions/embassy-article/2023/04/26/First-service-stop-by-a-US-Navy-submarine-in-Icelandic-territorial-waters/

    These are French navy exercises
    With OSV
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkFupO1UEAITHNq.jpg

    With Replenishment Vessel
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLH1w2wbYAIsTLL.jpg

  57. Minehunting capability

    This is what the Royal Navy is having. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) doing the main MCM work with a commercial oil and gas second hand Offshore Service Vessels (OSV) as their mothership.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0LsOeOXwAAhomH.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5W3tniXwAExIMw.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0OluxsacAAuv62.jpg

    For OSV, we can buy used ones like UK, or we can engage our large oil and gas industry to build a new one. Currently PETRONAS is undertaking Project SAFINA to build new OSVs to replace old ones with its various contractors. TLDM can piggyback this project (staying true to the HANRUH concept), leveraging PETRONAS project management prowess to get ships on time, on schedule and on budget
    https://theedgemalaysia.com/content/advertise/bringing-waves-of-opportunity-for-malaysia-marine-industries

  58. They cannot do that as the LMS designation is part of the Defence White Paper 2019. Perhaps they can do so when the Parliament passes the mid term review by the third quarter.

  59. … – ”That is where the 2x Fleet tankers ”

    You mean the ”oilers”. ”Tankers” are ships which transport fuel and ”oilers” are ships which replenish at sea. This is as designation adopted by the bulk of the world’s navies and the oil and gas industry; i.e. Petronas has no ”oilers” only ”tankers”. I’m a wee bit confused because in the past your justification for ”oilers” was in case we had to mount another Os Fajar type op [a one off aberration] and in case we had to support partners [as if they needed our help].

    … – ”This is what the Royal Navy is having.”

    Yes you’ve pointed out before. As I said the difference is a new MCMV won’t rely on a wire sweep [with its kites, otters and paravanes] and ROVs.

    … – ”When operating as a sub tender”

    Great but given our operating requirements I doubt we need a sub tender; anymore than we do a ‘tanker”, ”oiler” or a helo carrier.

  60. Firdaus – ”or does RMN really thought that mahamirus and perantau will still relevant going”

    RMN people in the MCM and survey community [like those in certain other navies] are just not convinced that modular payloads or having a non purpose designed hull are the answer.

    Firdaus – ”So all in all PV/corvette will be the kedahs (ada class too?) and LMS class are presumably smaller and less potent than the pv and lcs obviously.Hit and run mission huh? I”

    In short as possible the RMN’s secondary combatants are intended to perform roles not needed by a LCS and at fraction of the cost. Yes the LMSs will not b as well armed as the LCSs [which are modestly armed anyway] but then they are not expected to be placed in operational conditions where they’re outgunned or forced to punch above their weight level . This has been done to death.

    As for ‘hit and run” that was the rationale in getting the FACs [for sea denial and as part of our ”fleet in being” philosophy] but that was in a different period when requirements and threat perceptions were different.

  61. … – ”This is also being done by China, transferring majority of the Type 056 corvettes and quite a few Type 054A frigates to the Chinese Coast Guard”

    The MMEA is not the Chinese Coast Guard in terms of resources and even mission sets. If we want to make direct comparisons the USCG has ships with ASMs, Phalanx and data links. Should the same apply to the MMEA? The North Korean army has Corps level artillery groups. Should we?

  62. As for dispersion tactics for TUDM,

    1) TUDM can practice deploying, recovering to airports and airfields other than its main bases, Ipoh, Kuala Terengganu, Melaka in Semenanjung; Kota Kinabalu, Mulu, Sibu for example.

    2) To create Rapid deployment ground support team, with deployable ground support equipment, tankers, weapons reloading systems

    3) Practicing on-ground refueling with our KC-130H. This is an option if there is no fuel facilities at a dispersal airfield
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Hot_pit_refueling_during_Cope_North_2022.jpg

    4) developing emergency airstrips on sections of Pan-borneo Highway and also the new Central Spine Road

    5) probably getting something like this?
    https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-releases/2021/bulgaria-orders-saabs-deployable-maintenance-facility

  63. @ Azlan

    I am sure you know more about Pelan Perancangan Strategik Maritim Malaysia 2040 (PPSMM 2040) more than i do.

    From this plan, APMM intends to have by 2040
    – 20 large OPV
    – 96 Medium PV
    – 95 FIC (less than 20m)
    – 133 RHIB/RIB (less than 20m)
    – 15 Helicopter
    – 12 fixed-wing airplane

    20 Large OPV is enough, even without TLDM having 18 PV and 18 LMS. In my plan 20 APMM Large OPV + 10 TLDM Frigates will enable us to have ships always out at sea 24/7/265 days of the year
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_nBAO1bEAA8GbP.jpg

  64. Most probably disperse like the Iraqi Air Force and never be seen again.

  65. … – ”As for dispersion tactics for TUDM,”

    On paper we can do lots of things but in reality we might not; i.e. Sweden planned on being attacked by the Russians and Singapore is small and all its airfields are in range of artillery. We simply can’t cater with each and every paper threat – no military can – from ballistic/cruise missile attacks; NBC strike; airstrike; etc. What we do is government by the threat environment and finances.

    As it stands we can only focus on so many things. Getting too much into this dispersal things would divert resources and attention from other areas. What we should do is to have [assuming we don’t] airfield reconstruction teams with the needed gear including fast drying concrete. We should also look at having more HASs [a question of money]. HASs are not invulnerable but they do provide some level of protection. A devil’s advocate would however say that it’s great if the aircraft is protected but useless if the taxiways are cratered littered with time fused ordnance.

    As it stands shutting down an airfield permanently is hard [look up historical examples]; the trick or idea is to shut it down – even temporarily -when most needed by the enemy.
    BTW we have/had a pair of mobile U.S. sourced ATC radars.

  66. No I don’t know more about the plan. Such things don’t get much attention or ficus from me because they’re are long term plans with various variables or dynamics at play.

    The sexy hardware aside my main long term concern is the MMEA getting a level of sustained funding over a certain period and being able to expand its shore support infrastructure. The prerequisites.

  67. Realignment 15 to 5 TLDM fleet 2040
    2x Submarines
    7x LCS
    8x CORV
    4x LMS
    3x MRSS
    4x MCMV
    2x HSV

    Total of – 28x surface ships, 2x submarines
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Compare to

    Hulubalang alternative TLDM 2040 Fleet
    6x Scorpene SSK
    4x Arrowhead 140 Frigate
    6x Gowind Frigate
    24x LMS-X FCS5009
    2x Fleet Tanker
    2x Fast RORO (similar concept to SPS Ysabel)
    3x OSV – auxillary ship, MCM mothership, SF support, SUB support/tender, UAS support, pipeline security/surveillance
    1x Sub Rescue (leased)

    Total of – 42x surface ships, 6x submarines

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLww1BDbQAAtHw0.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMpdKk2a8AAsA6q.jpg

  68. So LMS will be a FAC type ship then except that chinese made LMS?..Like Sigma Fast Attack, Yoon Youngha Korea or KCR 60 TNI AL and PV/CORV will be filled by Kedahs (and ADA) 100m+ ships and LMS will be filles by smaller ship but not FAC type like sigma 9113 (diponegoro) etc?..But then we all know that we cant afford and maintain such big and broad fleet anyway

  69. Totally not expected to start the day reading about this much reduced realignment.

    So what the navy tried to do was to hype up all the points of the original 15-to-5, to hide the fact that the realignment will create a significantly reduced fleet compared to the original plan. This probably explains the contradicting details on the graphic that marhalim posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*