The Joneses… SG New MRCV

A CGI of the MRCV which will serve as a mothership for drones. MINDEF SG

SHAH ALAM: ST Engineering Marine Ltd is expected to deliver the first of six Multi-Role Combat Vessels (MRCV) to the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) by 2028, it was announced on March 27. Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering) announced that its subsidiary, ST Engineering had received the contract for detailed design and manufacturing of the new vessels.

Release from ST Engineering:

Singapore, 27 March 2023 – Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering) today announced that its subsidiary, ST Engineering Marine Ltd., has been awarded a contract by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) for the detailed design and construction of six Multi-Role Combat Vessels (MRCVs) for the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN).

ST Engineering will be responsible for the procurement and integration of the platform equipment and MINDEF furnished equipment. Its scope of work will also include the undertaking of design and the provision of Integrated Logistics Support Engineering to support and maintain operational readiness during the lifespan of the MRCVs. The MRCVs will be constructed at ST Engineering Marine’s premises in Singapore. The six vessels are expected to be delivered progressively from 2028 onwards.

The MRCV is designed to function as a mothership and can operate a range of manned and unmanned systems in a flexible, intuitive and integrated manner. The MRCV will be able to support a wide spectrum of missions with maximum combat effectiveness.

“This contract affirms our capabilities to design and build large and complex naval vessels,” said Ng Sing Chan, President of Marine business at ST Engineering. “The new MRCV will harness the ‘multiplier effect’ of digital technologies, to meet the RSN’s requirements for faster, more efficient operations. It also demonstrates our commitment to support MINDEF in the area of design, construction, operations and support.”

A CGI of ST Marine Engineering Vanguard 130 Multi Role Combatant. ST

Apart from the state-owned company, Singapore also signed an agreement with Thales and a MOU with Saab. It has been widely reported previously that the MRCV will be based on the Vanguard 130 multi role combatant. However, Naval News reported that the MRCV will be based on Absalon class frigate by Denmark’s Odense Maritime Technology. The report also said the ships will be fitted with Thales’ Sea Fire radar and MBDA’s Aster and VL Mica surface-to-air missiles.

As this is happening just south of us, it is unclear whether our own naval programmes, the LCS and LMS Batch II will be delivered ahead of the MRCV. RSN Littoral Mission Vessel (LMV) started almost at the same time as the LCS but all eight ships have now been commissioned into service.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2141 Articles
Shah Alam

61 Comments

  1. Read on Naval news that it will be approximately 10000 ton of weight. It is a destroyer class already but i think as it was describe as mothership than it will be a new breed that a mix of frigate and LPD that can carry USV and UAV.

    But, the ship based on Vanguard or Iver then i think it can be extent to 10000 ton of weight, it is almost 80% heavier.

    Is there an armed race already? Or it just SG as always. It is not new how SG respons to her neighbour. ID last months already launching her variant of Arrowhead140.

  2. From naval news infographics seem the MRCV is a mothership for mines hunting drones.

    At 10,000 tons it’s as big as Germany F-126. Guess it would be deployed for a long periods of time to be use as a sea base & escorts for the lightning carrier.

  3. This should be the Victory class replacement. The program announced sometime before Covid (maybe 2018/19) with deliveries from 2025/2026 onwards. What is surprising is, the jump from a 600 ton corvette to a ship based on a 10000 ton design. There is no lull in Singapore shipbuilding, there is always something to build, enough to support a local industry.

  4. Still early days for us but this is something we eventually have to get into : a ship networked with USVs and UUVs; all working/complementing each other. Same applies for subs; we’re going to reach a point where the actual platform won’t suffice; either due to the threat level or other reasons and unmanned platforms will be a necessity. Years ago the RMN stated that UASs won’t be operating from the LCS; I hope they do with the LMSs.

  5. This was coming within the last five years, not a response to any efforts by the other country. The over riding principle is over match

  6. If they were to perform as mentioned it would make the class even bigger than the Formidables. That is really a huge difference from the original MRCV envisioned at the start and as replacements of those much smaller patrol boats. It could be as what Romeo postulated, a shift in fleet planning after more nations are going for bigger frigates.

  7. Kel “There is no lull in Singapore shipbuilding, there is always something to build, enough to support a local industry.”

    It’s not that difficult. there are only a single procurement agency which decided everything. they ordered from a single supplier and then they would build a single class of ship every 5 years then transition to another class like clockwork.

    Over here There’s are just Too many chef in the kitchen and thus kejap order from BNS,kejap order from another local yard, kejap order balik from BNS, kejap mau direct import. Or as tokmat said in parliament Kejap mau that SSM kejap mau those SSM.

  8. “they ordered from a single supplier and then they would build a single class of ship”
    On the flip side they became too big to fail and SG has to do everything to make sure they succeed come hell or high water.

  9. Theres a famous hadith for muslim “everything starts with intention” . Our politicians starts a project not with defence of the nation in mind but to fill their coffers, no? We can do it. My former employer MSE have bilt the Mustari class OPv, no issue but for the powerwbthat be decided that defnece spending is a means to wealth transfer. The Joneses shouldnt be faulted..its their money.

  10. Zaft – “Over here There’s are just Too many chef in the kitchen and thus kejap order from BNS”

    Which is why we need a holistic, realistic and apolitical policy with a clear appreciation of what can or can’t be achieved and why ideally we need a non partisan problem agency with participation from various entities to oversee procurement.

    Not to select anything per see as you suggested previously but to oversee or monitor things; ensuring the end user gets the desired capability and the taxpayers their money’s worth and to ensure contractual obligations are met. We lack corrective mechanisms and oversight; not to mention a neither here nor there policy.

    Shahrudin – “My former employer MSE have bilt the Mustari class OPv”

    Pusan and Pasir Gudang. I remember Rafidah Aziz at the launch.

    Shahrudin – “no issue but for the powerwbthat be decided that defnece spending is a means to wealth transfer”

    Defence spending became part of the patronage system; like other industries.

  11. Zaft – Its not the number of shipyards its the number of ships ordered. There is already a designated national champion, Boustead Naval Shipyard. But BNS has only built 6 large ships for RMN and still building 6 ships. ST Engineering has built 13 ships for RSN over the same period (8 Independence class, 5 Formidable class). If we go back further, ST Engineering has built an additional 17 ships between 1988 and 1998. Now ST Engineering will built 5 of the 6 MRCV. After the MRCV, it is likely the JMMS. By 2040, the Formidable class replacement will begin. While ST Engineering is building the ships, it also receives orders to upgrade existing ships such as the Formidable class which is being upgraded to allow it to serve until 2040. That’s the demand part that doesn’t exist in Malaysia.

  12. You bet the first sing’s MRCV will be ready before our mighty LCS.This LCS scandal really holding our navy to move forward.And the best part is,our govt no matter who leads them seems reluctant to solve and decide about this fiasco once and for all..I dont know about you guys but im not suprise if our LCS perunit cost will be close to sing mrcv perunit cost..

  13. Ooh-wee, that’s a chonky boy.

    On the side note, Do we have any equivalent agency to their Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) by any chance? They seemed to have a structured and organized plan for their defence.

  14. Ooh-wee, that’s a chonky boy.

    On the side note, Do we have any equivalent agency to their Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) by any chance? They seemed to have a structured and organized plan for their defence.

  15. ST also gonna build OPVs maybe base on Vanguard 105 for RSN before 2030.

    I hear it will be 2 JMMS flatop + 2 multi mission support vessel which are also lpd.

    Anyway ST also has this commercial ship and oil rig part so they always busy.

  16. “but to oversee or monitor things; ensuring the end user gets the desired capability”
    Its not full proof. The LCS has all the capabilities desired by TLDM but due to unrealistic budget & overexpectation & overpromises, the project is in such a state. Its not like TLDM asking for ASW frigate but given a guns only patrol boat.

    @Firdaus
    No one wants to really solve it as all sides (BN, PH , PN) has a role in its continuing failure saga. So neither side would throw mud in case more mud comes back with cans of worms. What I can see only Sabri’s Govt were moving in some direction towards completion of the LCS but now with PH back in charge it might have taken a backburner yet again. it could be such that LMS2 (which might get the full backing from PH) will get the priority focus & resource that it could start quickly and likely overtake LCS.

  17. We need a bigger ship than the Gowind if we want to be able to deploy and operate various future unmanned vehicles.

    The Absalon/Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead 140 design is probably the smallest displacement of Frigate design that have enough space to carry multiple of those systems.

    The requirements for future replacement of the Lekiu and Kasturi class should look into having such a capability. Unfortunately we cannot plan for that when we are still uncertain about the future of our Gowind class LCS.

  18. Shahrudin esa “Theres a famous hadith for muslim”

    Another famous hadith is today must be better then yesterday & tomorrow must be better then today which is similar to Japanese concept of Kaizen or continues improvement. SG also likely face problem & challages but they soldiers on. over here we are addicted to easy solution and from the f2000 to Kedah to gagah to LCS now LMS2 all we did are quit & reboot with a new design,yard & patner etc etc leaving us going nowhere.

    Azlan “Not to select anything per see as you suggested previously but to oversee or monitor things”

    That’s Assuming other agencies & ministry going to give MINDEF a monopoly on decision making which they won’t because they have their own KPI to achieve.

    Tomahawk “Anyway ST also has this commercial ship and oil rig part so they always busy”

    Same with HHI really. The navy contract are being use as indirect subsidies to increase the yard knowledge & capabilities which allows them to better serve their commercial customers.

    Over here BNS has almost zero paying customers while deftech parents DRB are forever vehicles contract manufacturers. To make local production worthwhile these 2 company must move up the value chain. But from what I see these 2 company get lucrative defense contract then pay either pay their debt or in DRB case pay high dividend rather than investing in their operations to move up the value chain.

    It’s also doesn’t help that local production is done on the pretext of gaining self sufficiency rather rather than to use the defense contract to get the technology & skill for the local companies to move up it value chain in parts manufacturing.

    But not are all bad. The counter trade from the AF acquisition (other than the MkM) had allowed us to continuously improve our value added as part of the global supply chain making us the 2nd biggest aerospace industry in ASEAN.

  19. “requirements for future replacement of the Lekiu and Kasturi class should look into having such a capability”
    The 15to5 Plan doesn’t have requirement for a bigger boat. If there is a need arise, TLDM will have to revamp the plan.

  20. “Its not full proof”

    Who said it was? Like I said previously; corrective mechanisms and apolitical oversight might not have prevented the LCS cockup but might have mitigated it. If we had corrective mechanisms in place alarms bells would have been rung before things when completely shite but they didn’t; an already flawed system failed further.

    “If there is a need arise, TLDM will have to revamp the plan.”

    Something with a slightly larger displacement will entail no revamps. Note that the 5/15 has already ceased being the 5/15 but with a nuance; we still getting “LMSs” as per the plan but no revamp is needed irrespective of the fact that the Batch 2s will be completely different to the Batch 1s.

    “Its not like TLDM asking for ASW frigate but given a guns only patrol boat”

    Well at one point it asked and was close to getting a pair of used training subs followed by a pair of new ones at a later date but received a pair of frigates instead.

    Zaft – “That’s Assuming other agencies & ministry going to give MINDEF a monopoly on decision making which they won’t because they have their own KPI to achieve”

    Understand that the whole point of having such an agency is to ensure that nobody has a monopoly on anything and that everything is decided upon after apolitical and holistic consensus.

  21. KC Wong “We need a bigger ship than the Gowind if we want to be able to deploy and operate various future unmanned vehicles.”

    For now it seems the MRCV going to carry mines hunting drones which kinda disapproved some commentators here earlier speculation that the LMV was too big to perform MCM to it’s actually is too small to perform MCM operations.

    The LMV was supposed to perform double duties for coastal protection though they found out eventually that’s a lightly arms grey hull is still the wrong thing to bring out when the other party dispatch their white hulls. Which is why they are also building a proper white hulls vessels.

    So it’s not all sunshines and rainbow down south. They do make mistakes. Thanks to our screwed up we never managed to get our version of LMV beyond the 4 Kris’s class. The LMS2 is more of NGPV replacement thus if we wanted bigger ship we can called those big ship as NGOV replacement and still be in compliance with 15 to 5 plans.

    But for now the MRSS & submarine is far more important program to RMN than an AAW frigates. And since our MRSS would be built at the same time as JMMS. It does open the possibilities that acquisition of JMMS as MRSS could be a cost effective solution.

  22. Zaft – ”’The LMV was supposed to perform double duties for coastal protection though they found out eventually that’s a lightly arms grey hull is still the wrong thing to bring out when the other party dispatch their white hulls. Which is why they are also building a proper white hulls vessels.”

    Zaft – ””So it’s not all sunshines and rainbow down south. They do make mistakes.”

    You’re overly hasty in coming to conclusions and assuming but are you reading things correctly? Or is at a personal opinion which you read as a fact?

    Zaft – ”It does open the possibilities that acquisition of JMMS as MRSS could be a cost effective solution.”

    ”Cost effective” does not equate with operationally effective. You can have both or you can have one but priority is on getting something which suits operational requirements and what suits the requirements of a particular navy might not suit the requirements of another.

  23. Zaft – Singapore’s LMV, which I presume you mean the Independence class was never meant for MCM missions. They are not the same class of ships as Malaysia’s LMS nor intended to perform the exact same roles. The 8 Independence class combined tonnage is 86% of the 6 Kedah class, but has a combined 96 VLS launchers, more than the entire RMN fleet. For MCM missions, RSN has the dedicated Bedok class. The MRCV will replace the Bedok class which would be 30 years old by 2025. Look at the SAF2030 force structure.

  24. Pretty soon, the Royal Malaysian Navy will be a laughing stock in the ASEAN region since it’s filled with old, dilapidated, and ill-equip vessels. How sad this country has become.

  25. The LMV is jack of all trade using this mission modules. It not meant be minesweeper. RSN minesweeper is the Bedok class. But LMV can carry anti mine module including the smaller Venus anti mine USV. The MRCV USV is the bigger MARSEC 17m which can use for sea security anti ship anti sub and anti mine. The most basic thing is MARSEC add to MRCV sensor.

  26. “but might have mitigated it.”
    A trainwreck is still a trainwreck. It doesn’t matter at what speeds it crashes into, when the brakes are already nonexistent. The problem with problem mitigation is the problem are still there. As long as the key factors of failure; underbudgeting, overexpectation, overpromises, super critical on failures that we afraid to learn from, are still there therefore failures, no matter how we mitigate, will still happen.

    “Something with a slightly larger displacement”
    If what the MRCV will crystalise to be a 5,000ton frigate/destroyer, and we likewise will move in that direction, then its not “slightly larger” and no longer fit with the 15to5.

    “Note that the 5/15 has already ceased being the 5/15”
    Nuance have changed but largely the classes of ships being procured still follows the plan. A large frigate/destroyer is way too stretching it.

    @Zaft
    “MRSS & submarine is far more important program to RMN than an AAW frigates”
    TLDM main needs now is for more surface combatants to enable show of presence. The MRSS is a noncombatant and subs are poor performers to show ones presence during peacetime.

    “JMMS as MRSS could be a cost effective solution”
    JMMS would likely be more expensive than MRSS being designed & made in SG, plus there were speculations it might be a mini carrier for their F35. Something which we dont need.

  27. joe,

    “to enable show of presence”

    That is not a war task. Can be performed at much lower cost by MMEA.

  28. “A trainwreck is still a trainwreck”

    Yes but how many were dead and injured and were corrective mechanisms placed to ensure it doesn’t happen again? Were the right lessons learnt?

    “The problem with problem mitigation is the problem are still there.”

    “Problem mitigation” means what it means- to “mitigate” not “prevent”. Again, if the corrective mechanisms were in place then the cockup might have been prevented or at least mitigated ensuring it resulted in less of a mess which needs to be rectified.
    Also, corrective mechanisms need to be out in place with other mechanisms.

    “If what the MRCV will crystalise to be a 5,000ton frigate/destroyer, and we likewise will move in that direction, then its not “slightly larger” and no longer fit with the 15to5”

    What if it crystallises into a modern day Musashi or Iron Duke? In reality the RMN has no operational need for a 5,000 tonne displacement combatant [for reasons discussed previously] and an increase in displacement won’t be substantial; thus a slightly larger ship will entail no revamps with the 5/15; just like how a completely new LMS entails no revamps because it’s still a “LMS”.

    “As long as the key factors of failure”

    Hubris, political interference; the need to prioritise the local industry over the armed services and tax payer; a lack of corrective mechanisms and oversight; BNS not going through a learning curve; etc, etc.

  29. ”TLDM main needs now is for more surface combatants to enable show of presence.”

    Actually to enable more ships to be at sea and more ships to be ready to put to sea when those at sea have to return to base; as well as having the needed extra hulls in case of an emergency.

    ”subs are poor performers to show ones presence during peacetime.”

    Some years ago someone seriously suggested our subs surface in close vicinity to Chinese ships as a shoe of force.

    Wong – ”Can be performed at much lower cost by MMEA.”

    A lot of things ”can” be done but the reality is at present the MMEA does not have the resources to fully assume its assigned roles and even if it does the RMN [like all navies] will still have peacetime roles in support of non military agencies.

    Akmal – ”Pretty soon, the Royal Malaysian Navy will be a laughing stock in the ASEAN region since it’s filled with old, dilapidated, and ill-equip vessels. How sad this country has become.”

    Yes pretty soon we’ll have to rely on morse because the radios will be inoperable and we might even have to rely on steam powered ships… BTW our ships are not ”dilapidated”; ”aged” and ”modestly equipped” yes but certainly not ”dilapidated”. I know people on the ships and they place great importance in keeping the ships in as sound condition as they can…

  30. Azlan “In reality the RMN has no operational need for a 5,000 tonne displacement combatant [for reasons discussed previously]”

    Has no operational need of today & yesterday but it doesn’t mean squad for operational need of tomorrow. Thus You would likely change your mind & be the prime supporter of its when RMN show a desired to get one as you usually do.

    Joe “JMMS would likely be more expensive than MRSS being designed & made in SG, plus there were speculations it might be a mini carrier for their F35. Something which we dont need.”

    If JMMV is far too expensive then there’s always the Juan Carlos class.

    Juan Carlos class can be both an aircraft carrier, LHD or drone carrier. Seems Spain is selling it for $500 mil for off the shelf but Turkeye is paying $1 billions for theirs one off custom version.

    At 27500 tons a off the shelf Juan Carlos varient is unlikely to be that much more expensive than the RMN current preferred MRSS requirements shown at DSEI of at least 25000 tons with specialized one off custom varient with 3 heli landing pad that no one else made.

  31. @KC Wong
    “That is not a war task. Can be performed at much lower cost by MMEA.”
    TLDM has to have peacetime patrol duties and show of presence, they cannot simply be ready force waiting for something (ie BOMBA waiting for the fire call).

    “What if it crystallises into a modern day Musashi or Iron Duke?”
    Really now? Musashi? Have you taken a look at what STME has for the MRCV https://www.stengg.com/media/i3phxvvt/vanguard-130-datasheet_r2.pdf

    “thus a slightly larger ship will entail no revamps with the 5/15”
    That is just your opinion. Since SG identified a much larger vessel to perform those next gen unmanned roles, and if we likewise wanted the same capabilities, the ship sizes would probably be almost the same. As it stands the 15to5Plan doesn’t have a role for such a ship.

  32. Actually you look at size of the JMMS with 19000 to 20000 ton for Endurance 170 it is not shock to have the MRCV at abt 10000 ton for escort and anti air.

  33. Joe,

    “TLDM has to have peacetime patrol duties”

    Of course, but by using ships fully prepared and capable for war, not ships that can only do peacetime duties, like most of its fleet now, and even its 4 newest LMS.

    Ships that is only capable to execute presence and policing duties should be operated by the coast guard, not the navy.

  34. zaft – ”Has no operational need of today & yesterday but it doesn’t mean squad for operational need of tomorrow.”

    Sorry but now we’re talking about future requirements are we? In the future will we have a Shock Army or a Fighter Wing? Or are you going to spin the story that the government might change it’s policy; i.e. send our MiGs to the Ukraine in return for limited capability Typhoon Tranche 1s when it’s been pointed out to you that since 1970 we’ve adopted a neutral non aligned stance stance and this forms the core of our policy. Also it’s ”squat” not ”squad”.

    Zaft – ”thus You would likely change your mind”

    I’ll leave the fantasising to you and others. I’ll concentrate on reality and the present.
    BTW I do see the benefits of having a 5,000 tonnes displacement and at one period ”…” was all gaga about it but the simple fact is we don’t have a requirement for it.

    ”Really now? Musashi? Have you taken a look at what STME has for the MRCV”

    Yeah ”really” chum…. Musashi and that was in reference to the RMN.

    ”That is just your opinion”

    No it’s not ”just” my opinion. I know you have an insatiable need to score points but I know for a fact that due to operational requirements the RMN does not see the need for a combatant displacing 5,000 tonnes. It doesn’t fit into our CONOPS and I happen to know this because I’ve actually asked people in the trade and those serving [have you?]. Also, if we wanted a combatant displacing 5,000 tonnes it would not only be to carry extra weapons and sensors but also due to range, endurance and seakeeping reasons. Tell any RMN officer that they’ll need a 5,000 tonnes combatant and they’ll scoff but out of politeness won’t laugh at you. There are no; let me repeat ”no” plans in the RMN’s Planning & Operation Department for a 5,000 tonne displacement combatant. What they do see is a future requirement for a design slighty larger than the present LCS but not 5,000 tonnes. You will also note that not all jetties/piers can accommodate a 5,000 tonne ship.

    Also, even if the RMN wanted a combatant displacing 5,000 tonnes the government would not agree; not only because of funding issues but because the longstanding view is that we will not be in a major state on state war that would require us to have such a large combatant. So no it’s not ”just” my opinion…. The RSN has in contrast with the RMN a need for ships which are larger but then the RSN has different CONOPS and the island has a very different strategic calculus.

    ”As it stands the 15to5Plan doesn’t have a role for such a ship.”

    One can have a larger ship and label the LCS moniker on it [it’s up to individual navies how they want to designate anything – no hard rule]; thus no revamps [to quote you] would be needed but as it stands we are not getting a 5,000 tonne ship anytime soon.

  35. Azlan ” I happen to know this because I’ve actually asked people in the trade and those serving [have you?].

    There’s would always be a mismatch between what the man & women on the ground think RMN need for them to perform their duties, what the higher up things they need & what the future RMN duties would be, what the industry think RMN need, what the voters willing to pay for & what would eventually be choosen.

    Some years ago, BNS was so sure that what RMN want is a lot of gun only ship & thus they put in display at trade show a NGPV with gun only & Kris’s class with helo pad but still gun only.

    No disrespect to our serviceman but they can be susceptible to tunnel vision of what they would eventually based on their current operational need. Doesn’t mean the public & gov want to pay for those nor they would continue being in charge of those.

    As a taxpayer I say I have no interest in paying for a lot of sailor running around in small gun only ship operating from small bases trying to catch PATI or smuggler when I can pay MMEA to do those jobs at a fraction of the price. Nor I wanted to pay so they can run around doing limited sea denial on a small ship where TDM can do the job at a fraction of the price. RMN has to either go big or go home in order to justify more finding for themselves.

    “Or are you going to spin the story that the government might change it’s policy; i.e. send our MiGs to the Ukraine in return for limited capability Typhoon Tranche 1s”

    You can always just get a 70% discount from uncle Sam if you don’t want the eurofighter.

    You can also see it as being in an alliance or just a commercial transaction. It’s not ‘helping’ if you expect something in return.

    ” when it’s been pointed out to you that since 1970 we’ve adopted a neutral non aligned stance stance and this forms the core of our policy.

    You confused us with our next door neighbour. In general we never had never been committed to neutrality nor non aligned nor bebas aktif is our guiding principles. Our foreign policy had usually be described as real politics.

    We did change & had changed, a decade ago ESSM, phantomstrike, amraam, Blackhawks won’t even make it into consideration.

  36. Azlan-“if we wanted a combatant displacing 5,000 tonnes it would not only be to carry extra weapons and sensors but also due to range, endurance and seakeeping reasons”

    There are thing to be considered. RMN should have an update tech. What is “advanced” now will become “mediocre” in just 10 years. Looking at LCS “mediocre” capability now, it will be at “poor” level. LCS is too small for future development. A ship is built for decades so if a ship is dedicated as “main combatant” then it should be considered to have more space for future upgrade.
    Secondly is being “par” with the joneses. Advanced, mediocre or poor is also determined by what others have as comparison. Being par also give boost on sailor’s spirit.

    “What they do see is a future requirement for a design slighty larger than the present LCS but not 5,000 tonnes”

    Well….FDI/belhara can be an option. That is the reason why LCS should be canceled. RMN can use the additional money to finish LCS to start FDI/belhara as RMN “main combatan”

  37. Romeo – ” RMN should have an update tech.”

    The RMN strives to upgrade/update various things progressively and has a history of doing so [I can go more into this] but funding approval is the obstacle.

    Romeo – “Looking at LCS “mediocre” capability now”

    The LCS is designed for the type of roles we expect it to perform.

    It has a “modest” layout not “mediocre”. Yes as I’ve long complained the design is such that it has little to no deck and below deck space for future growth but as it stands nothing selected; from the main gun to the electronics architecture to the ventilation system is “mediocre”‘

    Romeo – “Advanced, mediocre or poor is also determined by what others have as comparison”

    What we buy is determined by funding and threat perceptions. We, Thailand and Indonesia have long had similar threats perception. This contrasts with Singapore which has a different strategic calculus; hence the RSN being designed to operate in a different environment compared to the RMN and having ships do slightly different things under different operational circumstances.

  38. Zaft – “There’s would always be a mismatch between what the man & women on the ground think RMN need for them to perform their duties”

    Obfuscating again. Neither the government or the RMN for different reasons see the need for a 5,000 tonne combatant. This may change in the future but not anytime soon. Period/full stop.

    Zaft – “You confused us with our next door neighbour”

    I’m “confused” or you’re clueless? Since 1970/71 when Tun Razak introduced ZOPFAN to ASEAN being non aligned or neutral has been a key cornerstone of our policy. Same with Indonesia. Do your research.

    Zaft – “Some years ago, BNS was so sure that what RMN want is a lot of gun only ship & thus they put in display at trade show a NGPV with gun only & Kris’s class with helo pad but still gun only”

    Two things. BNS displayed a guns armed only ship for a reason and it’s not what you think. Were you at the BNS stand and did you actually ask? It was not about BNS being “sure”‘ Research instead of false assumptions. Secondly; the RMN has no intention of getting any gun only armed ships.

    Zaft – “We did change & had changed, a decade ago ESSM, phantomstrike, amraam, Blackhawks won’t even make it into consideration”

    Nonsense. We bought AMRAAM, Hornets, Blackhawks and other things more than a decade ago and many non U.S. things we buy are fitted with U.S. components; what change in policy are you on about? We have a policy of buying from various countries and this is driven by prevailing politics. At times the requirement to buy certain things American via FMS drove us away; at times it didn’t. At times we ignored the end user and bought non American because of national interests; i.e. British Aerospace/BAE Systems when Mahathir was PM. Also, more than a decade ago if it wasn’t because of prices we would have bought ESSM for the Lekiu Batch 2s.

    You have penchant for misreading things and assuming they’re true but basic and objective reasearch would tell you otherwise.

    Zaft – “You can also see it as being in an alliance or just a commercial transaction. It’s not ‘helping’ if you expect something in return.”

    Insist and spin all you want but supplying anything which can be used by either active combatant is contrary to our policy regarding the Ukraine and our relations with Russia. Same goes with ASEAN as a whole. Research.

  39. “but I know for a fact that due to operational requirements the RMN”
    Again you keep citing that you know for a ‘fact’, but where is the source of this fact where we can corroborate with open sources or just another one of those ‘mysterious facts’ of yours? Come on!

    Are you also going to claim that you said MRCV will be a Mushashi sized ship based on your fact? I showed my source of my claim that its gonna be a 5000tonner, how about you try to show yours?

    “One can have a larger ship and label the LCS moniker”
    Nope. For one you can’t hoodwink the beancounters like that, maybe the politicians in Government but not the accountants.

    “RMN does not see the need for a combatant displacing 5,000 tonnes”
    If TLDM desires the same functions, features and performances as MRCV they will need to get a 5000tonner.

  40. “Again you keep citing that you know for a ‘fact”.

    In simple English; again : ” It doesn’t fit into our CONOPS and I happen to know this because I’ve actually asked people in the trade and those serving [have you?]”.

    “where we can corroborate with open sources or just another one of those ‘mysterious facts’ of yours? Come on!”

    Rich coming from you. Can you “corroborate with open sources” that we have a requirement for a 5,000 tonne combatant in line with the national strategic calculus and the RMN’s requirements? Since you’re doubting what I’m saying the onus is on you to prove that I’m wrong… ”Come on”…

    – You realise that not all our jetties can accommodate a 5,000 tonne ship and that for much of our operating environment we need something with a shallow draught?
    – Aware that operating costs is a major factor and that making a leap from 3 to 5,000 tonnes entails higher operating costs?
    -If at present we can’t even afford to fully equip a 3,000 tonne hull the way the RMN intended; we can with a 5,000 tonne hull? Need a reminder that steel I’d cheap but not what goes inside and on top the steel?
    – Amidst all this talk about the RSN has it occurred to you that our operational requirements and CONOPS differs greatly? Need proof? Prove to me what I’m saying is incorrect.

    “Are you also going to claim that you said MRCV will be a Mushashi sized ship based on your fact”

    Typical of you to jump the gun and get all frenzied – beating your chest like Donkey Kong? As I clearly said my statement was in reference to the RMN. Bankrupt of things to say?

    “Nope. For one you can’t hoodwink the beancounters like that, maybe the politicians in Government but not the accountants”

    I know for a fact a slightly larger LCS and one which is not significantly more expensive will not necessitate the need for a 5/15 revamp because it’s all about bureaucracy. Ever wondered why the Kasturis were called “light frigates” then “corvettes”; why eventhough the LMS Batch 2s despite being larger than what was originally specified still have to be called “LMSs” and why in another attempt to get AEWs approved the RMAF in the 2009 period sold Eriye as having utility to deal with non military threats?

    I know because I’ve asked and I know someone who was part of the team which has to “sell” things to MINDEF’s procurement board [they decide what gets registered for funding]. Or will you repeat your “self opinion” thing again when you need something to fall back on? Have you any verified sources which indicates a larger LCS will never a revamp in the 5/15? Yes? No?

    “If TLDM desires the same functions, features and performances as MRCV they will need to get a 5000tonner”

    The keyword is “if” but under present realities neither the government or the RMN for different reasons sees the need for a combatant displacing 5,000 tonnes. “If” at some point in the future we decide we need to maintain patrols in the north Pacific in a high intensity environment we will need a 7,000 tonne destroyer with a much deeper draught and a much higher freeboard than anything we’ve ever had and a 96 cell VLS. “If

  41. Azlan-“” It doesn’t fit into our CONOPS”

    Maybe…but conops can be revised. I think the person to whom you are talking to want to say it doesnt fit into the budget.
    Conops should follow not only internal but also external threat. The big issue is the external threat by state actor. As we can say that our neighbour is our friend but si can our neighbour is our close threat and according to 9 dash line china is “our neighbour” now.
    I’m not suggest that we should head to head with china which is we can not.

    Even the best conops can do nothing if money is scarce.

  42. Romeo – ”I think the person to whom you are talking to want to say it doesnt fit into the budget.”

    No, the few I spoke to [serving people who are aware of the issues we face] said it doesn’t fit in the CONOPS and also such a purchase would not be approved because the government itself sees no need for a ship of that displacement and price range. It’s for this reason no local or foreign yard has ever seriously offered us something with a displacement of over 4,000 tonnes and why we’ve turned down various offers for new [Type 26s come to mind] and pre owned ships over ‘X’ thousand tonnes; they were either too large and superfluous to our needs or were to resource intensive to sustain. As it stands even operating what we have is a stretch due to funding; never mind larger ships with a higher level of weapons and sensors.

    Romeo – ”Conops should follow not only internal but also external threat.”

    I was talking about CONOPS in in reference to external threats. CONOPS can be revised but as it stands CONOPS are based on threat perceptions and operational requirements; both in turn based on policy as set by the government and the longstanding policy is that we need a minimal self defence capability to meet low intensity threats. Right or wrong that has been the policy for decades; in contrast to Singapore which sees the RSN operating in a high intensity environment. Same goes with Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia; all traditionally do not see the need for large surface combatants for the reason that all don’t foresee themselves facing a serious external threat that would lead to an all out high intensity conflict.

    For us to go for a 5,000 tonne combatant would mean we see the need for a heavier armed ship and one with more range and endurance. Heavily armed we can rule out as the RMN would never get approval [not anytime soon anyway] for say a 32 cell VLS and we don’t really need more range and endurance as wherever a RMN ship is in our waters it’s never more than 2 days sailing time to the nearest base/port; nor do our ships spend more than 2-3 weeks at sea. As such; if we went for a 5,000 tonne combatant it would have to be for a variety of reasons in line with a change in the strategic calculus as we perceive it .

    Romeo – ”si can our neighbour is our close threat and according to 9 dash line china is “our neighbour” now”

    There’s an article out there which does a fine job explaining how we make the distinction between various forms of threats ; i.e. responses and crisis management in line with official policy. It also explains why we have a policy of not having anyone officially branded a threat. I have to reference this article as clueless individuals with an axe to grind might say it’s a personal opinion or something I’ve invented.

  43. No one has all the information & thus assumption are made based on the information one could get. It is potentially a bit closer to the reality but not guaranteed. Particularly if you sources is primarily one sided.

    There’s a mismatch of supplies Vs demand for most navies nowadays. The supplies constraints like the inability for lot of RMN base to accommodate big vessels due to small jetty & shallow drafts, Obviously RMN offices should know better about the constraints of it current facilities & asset. But it also mean they likely have a tunnel vision of what in need currently to do their current duties & not what would be needed & what is their duties in the future.

    What RMN can supplies now is not what the taxpayer nor the government want to pay for. The public paid for the ship with their taxes money & rightfully so the ship to be acquired is one that satisfy they perception of risk & needed capabilities. They do not want to pay for a navy thats play CG because paying for actual CG is cheaper. But what would the navy do with their access personal, gunboat & small bases? Obviously RMN offices going to try their best to hoard on to it.

    But just because you can supplies something doesn’t mean people need to paid for it. MAF are afterall under civilian control not the other way around. Thus why despite some claiming insider information about RMN desire for not too big of a ship & emphasis on quantity the LMS2 had instead become bigger & bigger with lesser & lesser numbers. Obviously big ship required upgrade to bases and thus they can’t hold on to their small bases, plenty of manpower & gunboat for much longer.

    Thus some officers might paint a picture of them being the damsel in distress & see the burocrat as some big bad wolf because it easier to see mole in other people faces then on their own faces.

  44. RMN has a need for 5000 tons surface combatants. Just not now. If NGPV proceeded along as planned, i.e. 27 ships build at the 2000-2500 tonne displacement instead of just 6 Kedah class, RMN would have started planning for a proper 3000+ displacement ship (not the 3100 LCS that is equipped like a 2500). The issue right now is attrition – ships are being retired faster than they are being replaced. RMN today, needs numbers. 1×5000 ton ship probably can buy up to 6xLMS2. 6xLMS can be in 6 different locations while 1x5k ship can only be in 1 location.

  45. Kel – “RMN has a need for 5000 tons surface combatants. Just not now”

    I have long thought so too but alas there are dynamics at play as to why it won’t happen anytime soon. Also for many of the things the RMN does; expects to do in wartime; as well as its operating environment a 5,000 ship will not be practical [for much of the areas the RMN operates in a shallow draught is needed and a 5,000 tonne ship will cost more to run.

    Kel – ” (not the 3100 LCS that is equipped like a 2500). ”

    At full displacement it’s about 3,200.

    Kel – ” 1×5000 ton ship probably can buy up to 6xLMS2. 6xLMS can be in 6 different locations while 1x5k ship can only be in 1 location”

    To be a devil’s advocate a 5,000 tonne ship will have superior weapons, sensors, seakeeping, range and endurance and 6 LMSs won’t be at sea simultaneously.

    Getting back; the wars one expects to fight and the operational circumstances dictates what one operates. People have hard ons for large ships but overlooked is the RMN’s CONOPs and operational requirements which is driven not just by funding but also the national strategic calculus.

    Breaking posts in paragraphs makes it easier to digest.

  46. We don’t plan something “for now”

    everything “for now” should be a previous plan that we must execute. Any previous plans should be executed in for only the next 10 years of the plan, as we cannot possibly know what we really need in 20-40 years into the future.

    What we need is planning something not for now, but for the future. This is what most ppl other than Azlan is talking about. Something for the next 10 years, not the current 10. Something that would be a replacement for the current flagship Lekiu class, and also the Kasturi class corvettes. For the current 10 years time, yes the navy should be focusing on completing the Gowind Frigates, but what is the plan after that? What should we get to replace Lekiu and Kasturi in 2030-2040? What kind of ship do we need? What kind of missions do we need to do that the Gowinds cannot do? I am sure more Gowinds to replace the Lekiu and Kasturi is not on the cards.

  47. Hulubalang … – “What we need is planning something not for now, but for the future”

    You are stating the obvious [akin to saying we must breathe fresh air] but this ignores the fact that the armed services do plan for the future and always have done. Don’t give the impression; like you have previously: that they don’t.

    Hulubalang – “This is what most ppl other than Azlan is talking about”

    Hulubalang -“We don’t plan something “for now”

    There are different levels of planning. If you want to go into various plans; immediate and long term; the armed services do we can; as we’ve done before. As it stands its hard to plan anything when even commitment from the government in the short term is lacking.

    You also overlook the fact that there has to be a distinction between discussing what’s happening now and what might happen in the future. Can’t be conflated. Requirements evolve as do other things but this is dependent on factors which might be beyond the control of the armed services.

    Hulubalang … – “What kind of missions do we need to do that the Gowinds cannot do?”

    This intimately depends not only on the prevailing level of funding but also the prevailing geo strategic environment as we perceive it. What we buy is dependent not only on funding but the types of wars we expect and overall policy as set by the decision makers.

  48. “Bankrupt of things to say?”
    Nope. Your the only here making that claim, not me. Read back your own comments.

    “I know for a fact”
    Okay I’ll bite. And where can we find this “fact” available in public space to corroborate? Is this legislated, in a White Paper, in Parliamen Hansard, Cabinet minutes, news report of minister words, news report of Admiral or Navy Chief words, heck even leaked audio records of high level discussion? Or are you beating around the bush like Donkey Kong?

    “The keyword is “if””
    Yes, and right now a larger ship isn’t catered in their 15to5Plan. The largest surface combatant is LCS. Period. Finito. Titik.

    If and when the situation changes and they have a different needs, then they will need to replan to justify that new needs.

    @Romeo
    “Conops should follow not only internal but also external threat.”
    Indeed. Conops of the 70s would have been different to the 2000s and which itself will be different than 2030s. Now the Govt is mandating that any and all subs traversing underwater near Malaysia must declare their presence, so even supposedly allies we don’t give face.

    @Zaft
    “Particularly if you sources is primarily one sided.”
    Verbal sources cannot be taken as gospel unless its reported in the MSM news. Otherwise anybody can claim it is “fact”.

    What TLDM can do now is what they have committed in their 15to5Plan, and that plan is obviously inadequate if wanting to take on any superpower inc China. That isn’t their plan. Neither is TLDM is going for the next gen or cutting edge in warfare as what SG is pursuing hence why at the moment, when following their 15to5Plan, there is no need for ships larger or deadlier than LCS. If they want to, they need a new plan.

    @kel
    “RMN has a need for 5000 tons surface combatants. Just not now.”
    In the future, who knows but as for now according to their officially committed 15to5Plan, there is no need for anything larger than LCS. If and when the time comes when they see a need for a MRCV class vessel, then they need to replan.

  49. @ Azlan

    “Don’t give the impression; like you have previously: that they don’t.”

    I did not. I am just saying that future plans should be at best, just 10 years into the future, taking into account other services plan so it does not clash. Plans that are executed now, like 15 to 5, CAP 55 etc are too generalistic, planned too far into the future, and does not take other services plan into account.

    “You also overlook the fact that there has to be a distinction between discussing what’s happening now and what might happen in the future”

    Me overlook? Nobody here is mentioning about having large frigates now. All of them are talking about what might happen in the future.

    You have a history of saying that malaysian military is not interested in something when in the end actually they are
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/kuwaiti-hornets/#comment-271552

  50. Joe “Verbal sources cannot be taken as gospel unless its reported in the MSM news. Otherwise anybody can claim it is “fact”.”

    I have no problems taking in verbal sources even if it’s given in confidence and not publicly available. But people have to realise that decision making is a political process IE decision are made with consensus in huge & varied groups. Thus an individual or single group opinion & argument is a great insight but should never be treated as a gospel of the actual decision going to be made.

  51. … – ”Plans that are executed now, like 15 to 5, CAP 55 etc are too generalistic, planned too far into the future, and does not take other services plan into account.”

    First of all ”generalistic” is the wrong word. The 5/15 and CAP 55 were realistic and were driven by political realties prevailing then. Secondly; there are varying levels of planning. You keep harping about how the armed services should do this and that but the simple reality is that they do plan.

    … – ”You have a history of saying that malaysian military is not interested in something when in the end actually they are”

    They weren’t during the period I wrote about it for reasons which I alluded to but your your sake it relates to upkeep and worries that getting pre owned airframes would lead to delays with other things as well as insufficient sustainment funding for the pre owned airframes. All legitimate concerns which the end user has; you see one has to weight the pros and cons and not just the pros…

    Also; you have a ”history” of conflating things. Major difference between getting jets which the RMAF already operates and the RMN getting 5,000 tonne combatants which it has never operated before and which are not in line with its CONOPS and operational requirements; as well as the country’s strategic calculus. Also, if you want to talk about ”history” we can go into various things you said which were not ”on” so to speak.

    … – ”All of them are talking about what might happen in the future.”

    Group spokesman now are we? In the future King Kong can have an altercation with Godzilla on KLCC. In the future anything can happen including us raising a combined arms Corps
    but as it stands for the foreseeable future the reality is neither the government or RMN has plans for 5,000 tonne combatant.

  52. @ azlan,

    “neither the government or RMN has plans for 5,000 tonne combatant”

    See?

    You are still repeating about now, when we are talking about the future.

    That is the problem about quoting to plans 40-50 years into the future. How would you know in 2015 that you are very sure you don’t need that something in 2035?

  53. Zaft – ”I have no problems taking in verbal sources even if it’s given in confidence and not publicly available.”

    If sources are needed for everything than there would not be much to say about anything. It comes to asking the right people and knowing what to ask. Those you demand sources for things they’re oblivious about should look at their mugs in a mirror and in turn provide sources for things they claim.

    Zaft – ”should never be treated as a gospel of the actual decision going to be made.”

    By and large the people who do for a living what’s discussed here have a pretty good idea as to what they need; what they don’t and the real world realities they face.

    Zaft – “But what would the navy do with their access personal, gunboat & small bases?”

    There is hardly any “access personnel”. You even realise how small the RMN is? Also, if you’re referring to the Royal Malaysian Navy it has no “gunboats”. What it has are OPV/frigate/corvette sized ships which are armed only with guns.

    Zaft – “But it also mean they likely have a tunnel vision of what in need currently to do their current duties & not what would be needed & what is their duties in the future”

    It’s not as if they only serve on ships; at different period in their careers they serve in different places and get exposure; from ships to staff assingments to postings at the Defence College, thus your “tunnel vision” claim doesn’t arise.

    Zaft – “Thus why despite some claiming insider information about RMN desire for not too big of a ship & emphasis on quantity the LMS2 had instead become bigger & bigger with lesser & lesser numbers”

    We are talking about 5,000 tonne ships; not LMSs which are getting larger. Also nobody’s claiming anything and what is known is not limited to “inside information” because it’s common knowledge that our threat perceptions have always been centred on limited scale troubles as opposed to a full scale war; the wars we expect to fight and the circumstances influences what we get . Not only that but due to operational requirements which have been alluded to the RMN has long had need for ships in a certain displacement category.

    Next time you’re at on Open Day or at LIMA ask those in the trade and those serving why the RMN has never operated large combatants and why there is no requirement. In fact tell them some of the things you claim here and see their reaction.

  54. … – ”That is the problem about quoting to plans 40-50 years into the future.”

    Ohhh. Now it’s ”40-50 years in the future”…?? By then we might not even have manned platforms and guns might be replaced by lasers. Hell, the GDP might even equal Switzerland’s.

    … – ”when we are talking about the future.”

    You the self appointed group spokesman now and you determine what discussions are centered on the present and future? Yes I focus on the present and the near future because I lack your extra terresterial powers to see as far as ”40-50 years into the future” [to quote your good self]. Also, if you’ve noticed things hardly change with regards to various things unless there is a major jolt in the system which would necessitate fundamental changes in our strategic calculus and at a lower level the CONOPS and operational requirements of the respective services. Like I told you many moons ago :nothing happens in a vacuum.

    … – ”How would you know in 2015 that you are very sure you don’t need that something in 2035?”

    You don’t know but you cater for it by making feasibility studies based on operational requirements and national policy. That’s what planners do; they plans things based on reasonable estimates based on various dynamics. One also looks at things such as measure of performance versus measure of effectiveness based on whether ones structured on a threat or capability based approach in relation to what might or might not be faced . That’s how…. And if you need another reminder it’s great to plan for things and the armed services do but as it stands the government can’t even commit to anything over a short period and this tend to throw all planning out the proverbial window.

  55. Azlan “By and large the people who do for a living what’s discussed here have a pretty good idea as to what they need; what they don’t and the real world realities they face.”

    True but they are still individuals & organizations that have personal/group interest & those interest may not inline with what the taxpayer & gov want.

    As I said before no one should get a monopoly on decision making & decision making need to come from a committee.

    “because it’s common knowledge that our threat perceptions have always been centred on limited scale troubles as opposed to a full scale war;”

    I won’t take that as a gospel because if it’s is true then there’s no point in stopping the LCS construction then thinking about changing the SAM on the LCS nor there’s won’t be any need for phantomstrike.

    NSM, ESSM & amraam is only great if one expects to be in a war or want to appear very threatening because one can relied on uncle Sam stockpiling. If we don’t expect a war then the whole LCS & LCA is extremely overpriced, overcomplicated project that worsen our relationship with PRC to achieve absolutely nothing.

  56. No idea where the idea that NSM, ESSM and AMRAAM is only great if expect to go to war. Does it mean if the country does not intend to go to war, it should have no weapons? So advocates of getting those weaponry are also advocating Malaysia start a war? Whatever happened to the concept of deterrence?

  57. Zaft – ”No idea where the idea that NSM, ESSM and AMRAAM is only great if expect to go to war.”

    No idea where Zaft gets some of the things he does. He doesn’t listen and he obviously doesn’t research or ask around. We do factor in the possibility that we might be in a war but not a state on state prortracted industrial scale high intensity one.

    kel – ”Whatever happened to the concept of deterrence?”

    ”Whatever happened to” common sense; some thinking before hitting the keypad and some objective and thorough research before shooting one’s gap off.

    zaft – ”they are still individuals & organizations that have personal/group interest & those interest may not inline with what the taxpayer & gov want.”

    You might have a stomach ache and your bowel may not be in line with what your mind wants. So? Since you can’t get it; the armed services do what policy lays out; policy as set by the government. As for the taxpayer; the vast majority are clueless. If a RMN Commander has a pretty good idea what his job entails and the challenges we face at sea; how on earth or rather hell does it involve ”personal/group interest”? Sorry but utter nonsense.

    zaft – ”As I said before no one should get a monopoly on decision making & decision making need to come from a committee.”

    ”As I said before” I have no idea how on earth you come up with some of the things you do – all major decisions should be made by concensus….

    zaft – ”I won’t take that as a gospel because if it’s is true then”

    You don’t have to take it as ”gospel” only do some research and ask around. BTW you seriously believe our threat perceptions cater for high intensity state on state protracted conflicts? If you do you must be living beneath a stone; totally oblivious. Or you must as well be discussing the Wizard of Oz. The MAF is not designed or equipped for a high intensity state on state protracted conflict; the only regional military which is is the SAF.

    As Michael Kofman says : ”show me an army’s force structure and I’ll tell you who it intends to fight”. Even a most cursory glance by a neophyte would make it clear that the MAF’s force structure is not designed for a high intensity fight.

  58. Replying to 3000 tonne vs 5000 tonne discussion

    I am not sure what kind of CONOPS that entails RMN need or not need a 5000 class of ships, but what i can say is if budget to buy was really a concern, then why would choose Gowind when Absalon/Iver Huitfledt/ Type31 (lets simplify it to Type31) is available for lower cost for same capability or same cost with more capability at that time? We can put larger radars, more weapons, more UUVs/boats, well more everything if needed. Will it be more expensive to operate? Yes it will

    Regarding not many shore facilities for 5000 tonne ships, can all RMN bases, jetties, ports facilities able to handle Gowind LCS? Ho many dozens bases RMN need for LCS? Can we not use commercial ports readily available in east and west Malaysia if there’s an urgent need for it like other navies did when they visit us?
    Does 50000 tonne ship need to dock on a small jetty on a remote rock island?

    We still can get a 5000 tonne ship if RMN has a need for it. The time frame would be after 2035 where the Kedahs almost reach 30 years and we could get rid of them by selling them or donate them.

    Instead of the original 12x LCS, 18x NGPV and 12x LMS, lets opt for 12x LCS, 6x Type31 for AAW/ASW, and 24x LMS with some LMS configured for ASW with VDS TSA. This will give RMN the same number of hulls plus extra capabilities

  59. Luqman – “I am not sure what kind of CONOPS that entails RMN need or not need a 5000 class of ships”

    CONOPS are driven by operational requirements, doctrine and what one has in line with policy set by the government. Whether on land or sea; if introducing a new capability or an existing capability but with significant added capabilities; requires a change in how one does things in relation to what one already has.

    Luqman – if budget to buy was really a concern, then why would choose Gowind”

    Because it was politically expedient that’s why. If we bought stuff based on suitability and long term cost effectiveness we’d never have bought Flankers, Fulcrums, Laksamanas, etc.

    Luqman – “Regarding not many shore facilities for 5000 tonne ships, can all RMN bases, jetties, ports facilities able to handle Gowind LCS”

    A 5000 tonne ship will have a certain a draught and Gowind; in line with our requirements and CONOPS; has a shallow draught. Not only that but a portion of our operating areas are shallow; even for a Kedah class.

    Luqman – “Can we not use commercial ports readily available”

    Yes but commercial ports don’t have ammo reloading and other facilities.

    Luqman – ” many dozens bases RMN need for LCS”

    I won’t go too into specifics but at bases there are deep water and shallow water jetties and berthing space is limited. Layang Layang for example [not a base per see] can only handle FACs and FTVs, same with Sandakan and none of our forward areas can handle anything beyond that. It has less to do with displacement but draught and size.

    Luqman – “We still can get a 5000 tonne ship if RMN has a need for it”

    Nobody said we can’t but it will require changes. The government will have to revise its strategic calculus which calls for spending the bare minimum to meet the type of low intensity non protected threats we’ve traditionally focus on. As it stands even a modestly equipped ship takes up a major portion of the budget and operational costs for what we have is a concern.

    The RMN would have to make changes in its CONOPs; note that at full displacement the LCS is around 3,000 tonnes – a 5,000 tonnes platform at full displacement or otherwise is a leap and changes the way one does things. Also, if we did get a 5,000 tonne ship it would have to be for a variety of reasons but as it stands due to our operational requirement platforms displacing 1,500-3,200 tonnes meets our range and endurance needs. That means we’d be getting a 5,000 tonnes platform for the weapons loadout but as it stands the RMN has identified a possible future need for a platform slightly larger than the LCS.

    Luqman – ” we could get rid of them by selling them or donate ”

    Seriously? Like how “…” once suggested we can sell the Laksamanas. Other navies will pay us to keep outraged; high mileage and maintenance intensive hulls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*