View Comments (1)

• jabb says:
  October 25, 2013 at 11:06 pm

  Looks like MRCA is not in the budget.

  Reply
  There is still a wiggle room and others as you do not need to pay for anything when signing the contract
  Zorro says:
  October 26, 2013 at 1:36 am

  Nothing extra-ordinary will happen in our Arm Forces. The 6 OPV’s and 4 cargo aircraft is not new stuff and it were planned. The attack helo and AWACS system still in KIV basket.
  nanonano says:
  October 26, 2013 at 7:53 am

  A total of RM22 billion for RMP & ATM combined to reduce crime & enhance military preparedness…hmmm.. Hopefully some of it is for the required assets for Esscom n spratlys.
  Phillip says:
  October 26, 2013 at 8:08 am

  Are the SGPV and /or the AV8 programmes ” national projects ” where special funding is given outside the defence budget or is it part of the defence budget ? If memory serves me correctly the Kedah Class NGPV was a national project.

  Reply
  Yes they keep calling the funding for the SGPV/AV8 as special allocation as both are national projects. But if you look at the budget, there is no mention of special funding at all. The development expenditure allocation is actually the money allocated under the Malaysian Plan. The budget for defence under the current plan is around RM15 billion, so technically they can allocate around RM3 billion or so to fund procurements.
  Phillip says:
  October 26, 2013 at 9:52 am

  Thanks Halim….presumably the special allocations would not be reflected in the defense budget at all …it would not be a surprise as this is akin to what all governments do to pad their budgets by having allocations to different Ministries being covertly channeled to the Defense Ministry.Here we seem to be doing this overtly with some other mechanisms where payment are made from …hmmm maybe from the fat PM’s department budget ! That would mean that the entire 10th Malaysia plan allocation has yet to be utilized as the only outstanding payments presumably are for the A400M …and if memory serves me correctly the bulk of the RM 4 billion deals during LIMA were not by the Defense Ministry with the SGPV and AV8 being off budget purchases.

  Reply
  There was no RM4 billion deal during Lima. If there was dont you think I would have covered it? The actual deals were mostly for spare parts around RM300 million and contracts for the transport of PLKN trainees on MAS/Air Asia for around RM90 million. Boustead announced a few contracts for the SGPV but this had been made known a few months earlier.
  Your suggestion that the special fund came from other parts of the budget is fanciful but IMO wrong.
  The money to buy the SGPV/AV8 will come from the annual budget allocation. The Special Fund excuse is to hide the fact that the development/procurement expenditure is ridiculous! RM15 billion for five years is absolute nonsense if you consider that the combine cost of the SGPV/AV8 is RM16 billion!
  Phillip says:
  October 26, 2013 at 10:55 am

  Yes you are right I was using the RM4 billion figure for the total contracts signed …..RM15 billion for five years is absolute nonsense……ditto…..combine cost of the SGPV/AV8 is RM16 billion!….and the figure is still maneuverable upwards through outright incompetence, feigned incompetence and creative licence !
  kubai says:
  October 26, 2013 at 4:51 pm

  Can somebody help clarify if the “RM13.4 billion for ATM for preparedness” is part of or on top of the RM16billion?

  RM2.745 billion for development (USD830Mil @USD3.3) is small…

  with such defence budget getting smaller, participation in LIMA and DSA will continue to be lesser. We can’t go around saying we want to buy things and end up not buying anything. vendors will just get bored with us…

  Can’t be crying wolf for too long…

  Reply
  The RM13.4 billion is the management expenditure. Preparedness is done when you pay people’s salary on time so they dont have to worry about the next paycheck. Its the same for the people who supply fuel, parts and other stuff.
  lee yoke meng says:
  October 26, 2013 at 7:45 pm

  Well , there is no doubt that the current budget only covers what we had committed to purchase. Nothing new except for the announced new armamants for the police. Just wondering what these weapons are. However, not everything is lost. Notice how the indonesian armed forces buys their arms?. The cheaper deals likw the leopards are purchased outrigjt. Wheteas the Su fightets took several years n were bought in pairs or dingly as n when cash is qvailable. Thus in the same light we can also purchase one awac this year, another one in two years time , one pair of attack heli next year , so on n so forth. If we want to engage in the usual method of buying a full squadton at a time that may no longer be possible especially when we want to reduce our foreign account deficit
  Zorro says:
  October 26, 2013 at 7:59 pm

  If look the budget allocated to Arm Forces it is far far away to achieve the development nation arm forces standard. Our navy may need another 10 years to achieve the blue water navy standard. Our air force still at need to wait for own the AWACS system and land forces may need to wait another few years for additional numbers of MBT and SAM system still at level short range level standard and hard to get medium range SAM. The additional sub marine its look hard to get and second MRCA will KIV.
  AM says:
  October 26, 2013 at 10:11 pm

  I’m very unexcited. The increase in operating expenditure works out to an additional RM144 per soldier per month. We all know the naik gaji which took place in *March 2013* was much more than that. This in addition to 2012’s increase of about RM300 per enlisted man per month.

  Expect preparedness to decrease.
  Phillip says:
  October 26, 2013 at 11:51 pm

  Hi lee yoke meng …”The cheaper deals like the leopards are purchased outrigjt. Wheteas the Su fightets took several years n were bought in pairs or dingly as n when cash is qvailable. Thus in the same light we can also purchase one awac this year, another one in two years time , one pair of attack heli next year “.
  ….it could be done …it should be done… its the most practical thing to do …but can never be done ….as our much respected cronies will cry Bloody Murder and or much maligned neighbors (according to them) would jump in glee in disdain ….definitely a no go….and i am second and third guessing that the Malaysian military brass will not want to go with this after the experiences of continuing saga of the missing FA-18 hornet full squadron nor the fitted for but not with NGPV Kedah class patrol vessels…or even the SGPV side drama as to the Senit /Tactitos ( now resolved )… ESSM / Aster/ Mica ….Exocet / NSM which still unresolved in the public domain

  Reply
  The MICA/Exocet saga is resolved. Just waiting for the funds…
  lee yoke meng says:
  October 27, 2013 at 12:03 am

  All is not lost. Just think out of the box in desperate times like now. If there is a will there will be a way. Look at how the indonesians does it. We can learn something from them
  stanman says:
  October 27, 2013 at 8:02 am

  Ramainya staff di Kementah. The government is hugely bloated in terms of kerani and admin. Obama missed out on a real treat by cancelling his trip. Obamastan would look a lot like Putrajaya. Endless legions of civil servants doing…..nothing.
  Phillip says:
  October 27, 2013 at 10:49 am

  NSM range 180 kms base price US$ 1m (2010 )
  MM.40 Block 3 range 180 kms price US$ $3.5-4 million (2009)

  ESSM range 50kms price US$ 800,000
  Aster 15 range 1.7–30 km price US$ 1.25m (2009)
  Aster 30 range 3–120 km price US$2.5m (2009)
  Mica range 20km price US$ 1.2 -1.7 Euros(2009)

  Rough Estimates looking at various source but I stand to be corrected.
  Phillip says:
  October 27, 2013 at 10:56 am

  Mica range 20km price 1.2 -1.7 Euros(2009) – price in Euros…and I also acknowledge the integration cost of NSM and ESSM to the Gowind CMS might be more than the cost of the missiles let alone the complexities involved.

  Reply
  I have been by several sources that integration works are much cheaper than we expected.
  AM says:
  October 27, 2013 at 3:03 pm

  Integration into which combat system? Remember Setis was not the one which the navy wanted. Introducing Setis on its own has its costs too.
  nimitz says:
  October 27, 2013 at 11:01 pm

  well we wait DSA2014 see what gadget mindef buys.
  princeofthi3ves says:
  October 28, 2013 at 12:40 am

  Its look like Government of Malaysia do not really care of the safety and defence of this country. With this small budget and out of date military standards and equipment better we don’t have military at all as if we were to be attack by any nation they could just make walk in the park through out entire country towards Putrajaya. When la our so called Government could realise defence spending and national security is one of main priority even more priority than the development of nation itself.. Its no point of developing so many infrastructure but nothing to defend it.
  Zorro says:
  October 28, 2013 at 11:34 am

  We should look for the Medium and long range SAM either to be stationed at onshore or loaded to the SGPV,NGPV or Frigate and give priority to own the system at nearest time. We should consider to bring AWACS system to our air force since we already with high value aircraft such as SU-30MKM and perhaps the Typhoon or Super hornet soon for the Second MRCA. The high tech and high value aircraft shall protect at maximum level to avoid the loss of high value assets. We must move to AWACS system.Thailand and Singapore one step ahead from us for the system and we can’t wait long otherwise we leave far behind. The SGPV may equal with the Sing Formidable at now but it will commissioning only by year 2018.Just worry by the year of 2018 Singapore or Thailand with more advance vessel joining the naval forces and resulted we still behind them.
  Azlan says:
  October 28, 2013 at 4:33 pm

  Zoro,

  There are a lo of things the MAF has ‘considered’ or has a requirement for’ obtaining sufficient funding is the issue.

  The RMAF has had a requirement for an AEW platform since the 1980’s but the issue as alaways is cash. The LCS will not be ‘equal’ to the Formidable class, amongst other things, the Formidable class has a 32 cell VLS and a longer range air search radar; it all boils down not only to cash but also due to the fact that the RMN has a different operating requirement for the LCS, when compared to the RSN and its Formidables. There is – at the moment – no requirement for a long range SAM [given our present requirements it is not a priority] but a few years ago there were plans for GAPU to get a medium range SAM; some will argue [I'm one of them] that cash used for a medium range SAM would be much better utilised for gear we actually have a present need for, kile helicopters, patrol boats and UAVs.
  Phillip says:
  October 28, 2013 at 6:14 pm

  If we had just bought the SGPV and the AV8 outright there would be enough money for:-
  Saab 2000 Erieye AEW: $120 million – (based on Pakistan buy)
  Saab 340 Erieye AEW: $100 million – (based on UAE purchase)
  Archer 155mm SPH: $6+ million – (based on Swedish and Norwegian unit costs)
  F/A-18E/F: $98 million – (based on Australian contract) But include complete life cycle cost
  Dokdo LPH: $330 million – (based on Malaysian estimates)
  *CN-235-300M Maritime Patrol: $45-50 million – (based on Mexican request)
  It does not include training and spares but it comes up to about US$ 3 billion.-US3.5b

  Reply
  If, kalau, lau….
  FareedLHS says:
  October 28, 2013 at 8:58 pm

  stanman,

  Well said!

  phillip,

  Some good ideas and data, but if a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his butt every time he jumped!
  D.W says:
  October 29, 2013 at 9:06 am

  The French La Tribune article wrote that MBDA had won the supply of MICA/Exocet combo for the Malaysian LCS/Gowind.

  http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20131003trib000788613/defense-trois-nouveaux-contrats-export-dans-l-escarcelle-de-mbda.html

  Any confirmation?

  Reply
  None officially but I have written on various occasions that Exocet/MICA combo have been chosen much to the consternation of the RMN which prefer the NSM/ESSM combo. I was told that the Exocet/MICA combo was chosen for offset/transfer of technology consideration. The NSM/ESSM would have been a normal procurement which will not give tangible benefits to the nation. What kind of offset/TOT we will be getting is unknown at the moment. It could be horses or new high tech sail boat for all we know.
  shahrudin says:
  October 29, 2013 at 2:07 pm

  Forget about defence, its all about redistribution of economic wealth. Forget about the MICA. With our creative and inept procurement, we might as well also buy more training vessels,(at twice the cost if not more) put in the 30mm gun. Who are we really gonna face off anyway. Mind you our MCMV and MPSS vessels are really getting old.

  The faster you guys realise the obvious tool of redistirbution of wealth, the less dissappointed you will be.
  kubai says:
  October 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm

  The desk bound overstaffed gomen personnel should stop intefering with what the end users want. The end-user (in this case RMN) knows what is best based on their analysis of threat perceptions and technical evaluations. If the RMN wants the NSM/ESSM, then they should get it. Why force Exocet/MICA down their throat? if RMN can’t deliver, RMN will end up responding to the public outcry. The gomen desk jockey who decided for RMN will either be hiding behind their desk or join in with the outcry and bad mouth ATM. Anyway, why MICA? orang lain dah move on to Aster and ESSM la…

  Let the pros do their work as the country have spent millions on their training and getting them the relevant experiences…
  What’s the point of TOT when it only increases price and is fruitless. Look at the Kedah class, we spent so much on TOT and yet we award batch 2 to a different set of supplier and design. Steyr, after some years, we change to M4… Apa kes?
  It will be the same for AV4…

  Reply
  Its not like the pencil pushers want to do it ( they may not be sitting in the frontlines but there should be a neutral party which need to arbitrate between the needs of the end users and the politicians) but unfortunately many civil servants and soldiers adhered to the oft repeated line of …Saya Yang Menurut Perintah…. I understand their reasons but do not condone it.
  Azlan says:
  October 29, 2013 at 3:47 pm

  Another headache for the RMN in the next 3-4 years will be replacing the Seawolf. By that time MBDA will no longer be producing or supporting Seawolf and will be offering Seawolf users the CAMM as a replacement. The good news is that the RMN has settled on a common secondary gun, the DS-30M. The older version [the B which uses an Oerlikon] is on the Lekiu and the current one [same as on the Darings, using a Bushmaster] will go on the LCS and training ships.

  Reply
  Again money or the lack of it will be an issue
  Phillip says:
  October 29, 2013 at 6:06 pm

  VL Mica uses the same launch tube as VL Seawolf so could be Seawolf replacement contender.
  mirsy says:
  October 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm

  Hi Azlan,
  No problem if indeed MICA has been selected for LCS, then no problem to replace the Seawolf with MICA as if not mistaken early trials of MICA uses the Seawolf lauchers.

  Then Lekiu after SLEP may ended up with Exocet , MICA and MSI. Looking smilarly like LCS in weapon fit.

  ESSM would have really built a better range air defence umbrella for RMN.
  Tomahawk says:
  October 29, 2013 at 8:14 pm

  Mica and caam same category. I think rmn should buying mica or caam and not both.
  Tomahawk says:
  October 29, 2013 at 9:09 pm

  Essm is semi active and need illuminators. It is not good for saturated missile attacks. For big USN ships, this is ok because more space for more illuminators
  FareedLHS says:
  October 29, 2013 at 10:16 pm

  shahruddin,

  Good points. Any discussion of defence inevitably draws in other issues.
  zainal abidin says:
  October 30, 2013 at 7:55 am

  Marhalim,
  Whatever happened to the Kedah class OPV ? Is it to be limited to only 6 vessels? Seems a waste to a very capable design, when armed as it should be, more so if lengthened to say 100 meters.

  If the intellectual design is already ours,why not build more of them in our local shipyards, without the cost overrun of course.

  Reply
  From what I gather there is no interest in building more Kedah class at the moment. IMO the design need to be tweaked to make it more capable. Although Boustead had originally proposed a redesigned Kedah class for the SGPV programme they went ahead and picked the Gowind corvette class. It must be noted the NGPV project was mooted to replace all the RMN missile boats with something better for patrols of the EEZ not to counter other warships.
  That the ship morphed into a billion ringgit corvette each with nothing to show was the work of the politicians
  stanman says:
  October 30, 2013 at 8:43 am

  Mana apanama dia…..Saudara Ameeeeeen Shah?
  AM says:
  October 30, 2013 at 11:14 am

  RTN is getting ESSM for their similar sized frigate, which is also cheaper than one unit of SGPV.

  Marhalim, correction. SGPV will each cost RM1.5 billion remember?
  jabb says:
  October 30, 2013 at 11:24 am

  Do you know any information regarding the Sylver VLS? Is it A-35, A-43 or A-50?
  shahrudin says:
  October 30, 2013 at 4:23 pm

  if we have 2.5 billion ringgit every year for the next 4 years, the most we can buy, is not much. I am stating the obvious. But the fact is the kedah OPV did cost Rm1.0 billiob each roughly, original contract and subsequent rescue cost to BHI. That was for an all gun ship.

  My argument is this, we plainly cant afford it. We just need more ships. ( and you guys know how old our assets are and all the arguments for it- m sure the 30 mm DSi can out gun the M16s of the sulu warriors) Just buy more of the training vessels at hopefully RM200 million each (inflated of course) yet we can buy 10 to really patrol our seas. After all, for all the sophistication we buy, the reality is were is the our assets are not matched by courage of our real politik.
  shahrudin says:
  October 30, 2013 at 4:28 pm

  i forgot to add, i would support us buying an improved Kedah class OPV. I believe MEKo did give a proposal to Poland and to us to lengthen it to 105 meters, with a conventional chimney arrangement and VLS on B deck.

  I think we could have been more efficient in the construction process if its a continuation.

  But then, our defence strategies and industrial development policies are for other reasons….sigh. So why waste our breath.
  Azlan says:
  October 30, 2013 at 4:30 pm

  mirsy,

  I have no idea if trials of MICA was used on Seawolf launchers but I do know that Seawolf is not modular; if the VLS is compatible with MICA good but if something else is decided on it will take major work.

  The MCMVs – despite their age – still can be used for at least another decade. All 4 have had minor improvements done over the years and as to be expected due to their age, have had to be sent to drydock from time to time when things break down. The question is whether the RMN has a need for additional MCMVs or whether it is looking at gear that can be fitted on existing [including commercial] vessels as was mentioned previously by an RMN Chief. The Marhamirus – like most MCMVs – depend on an Opresa and RPVs for dealing with submerged and moored mines.
  The trend now is to do way with the Opresa [or wire sweep] and depend on robotics; the RN was the first navy to totally do away with wire sweeps.

  Tomahawk,

  And USN big ships also have Phalanx or RAM to deal with leakers :].

  zainal abidin,

  From what I’ve heard, the dissatisfaction is not so much with the actual design – the MEKO100A – but with the German Naval Group. Yes Amin Shah and his merry mates buggered things up big time but the Germans also were responsible for some delays. In a perfect world we would have stuck to a common design, improved it later and gradually increased the local content. Thyssen took over as the main partner in the German Naval Group and offered us a slightly enlarged and more stealthy variant of the MEKO100A with a stack. We have to bear in mind that the Kedah class was intended to perform roles that were previously performed by the Vosper built PCs, the Kedah, Kris and Sabah class – the more serious stuff was the job of the Lekius and Kasturis. The PCs may have been old [during the Confrontation they prevented numerous infiltration attempts on Malaysia and Singapore by Indonesia Marines and leftist volunteers], short legged and unsuitable for rough sea conditions but the PCs were the backbone of the RMN when it came to day to day patrolling of the EEZ. When the 17 PCs and 2 Marikh class were handed over to the MMEA, the RMN found itself severely short of hulls.
  zainal abidin says:
  October 31, 2013 at 9:05 am

  One upon a time in our recent past,we could have bought 2+3 units of Kasturi class light frigates and named them the Laksamana class, 2+3 units of Lekiu class missile frigates and named them the Hang Tuah class. 4+6 units of Laksamana class missile corvette and named them the Perdana class. 2+8 units of Marikh class OPV and named them Marikh 1,Marikh 2 and so on. 2+3 units of Indera Sakti class multi role support ship,the other 3 lengthened to say 112 meters. Ah yes daydreaming of course…….

  Being a maritime nation,with these we could have a very strong navy and while the main guns will last a long time, we just need to replace the missiles with newer ones when expired. And of course the sensors and electronics too. Enough hulls are available and we need to just keep on improving the original vessels

  Azlan,
  Ah,yes,the Marikh class. They came with a low price hull tag didn’t they? And powerfully armed with a 100mm main gun too. A more modern one would have been armed with a 76mm main gun and a Sadral launcher on the hangar.Easily built in our shipyards and enough could be built to fulfill our needs. Yes,if only……

  Reply
  I am relying on memory only but I was under the impression the Marikh class had some quality control issues which led the RMN not to pursue any further buys which in turn led into the procurement the ex-Iraqi corvettes which they resisted fiercely but in the end they had to capitulate. I believe the govt bought the ex-Iraqi corvettes to help Saddam Hussein govt survived the crippling sanctions after Gulf War 1. I don’t know what we had gotten for the ships apart from solidarity with the Iraqi govt long gone now as the new admin came from the ashes of Saddam’s administration
  shahrudin says:
  October 31, 2013 at 12:32 pm

  Some strategic issues ,

  I think just like airlines, we should have an economic life cycle of assets. i think after 30 years, utilisation of assets will drop, ships will spend more time in docks. i believe the normal ratio of 3 to 1, ie 1 at sea, 1 in training, 1 in docks will widen. So of our navy 50 or so ships how many are out there, with so many being aged?

  Dont you think assuming equal split of funds for our three arms, the amount of money for development of capex for navy can amount to a max of 4 billion for the next 5 years – its a bout time we rationalise our assets. to smaller, younger fleet? look at nato now? See UK only will have 19 frigates and destroyers yet worldwide commitment.

  Third, should we go for a navy with everythg or a navy that specialises of a few core strength. look at the mexican navy. Just OPVs mainly. What really is our priority? Drug, human traficking,smuggling (porous sea borders) , bandits/pirates. Who are we really standing up to, are we like the Phillipines or are we planning on sitting on the fence?

  if we can answer those questions honestly, then we can really stretch our budget, yet give employment and perhaps create a maintenance industry.
  shahrudin says:
  October 31, 2013 at 12:36 pm

  In short we should align our procurement to our strategic vision.

  theres always things that is nice to have but we should buy things that we really (the rakyat) need.
  Phillip says:
  October 31, 2013 at 1:50 pm

  “a vertical launching capacity already validated by several Mica ground-to-air firings, the mass-produced VL Seawolf modular container launcher fully compatible with the Mica ”

  Source : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor…ope/mica-vl.htm

  In fact if i am not mistaken the land based Mica used the Seawolf launchers for the validation trials. Mica comes in its own canister and therefor does not need a launcher.It need not be VLS either.
  shahrudin says:
  October 31, 2013 at 3:16 pm

  No big deal what to be fence sitter. but no flip flops in policy pls.

  We ukur baju ikut badan or in this case lack of stomach for VDG – Violence , Death and Glory……
  Azlan says:
  October 31, 2013 at 3:57 pm

  One major problem with the Marikh class was the design of the hull which made it very uncomfortable for the crews in certain sea conditions. Interestingly, for OPVs the Marikh class were quite high spec, with a DA-05 radar, Cutlass ESM, a 100mm Cresuot Loire and an Emerlec mount. Lets just say that due to old age and technical issues, some of the gear on Mystrari and Marikh were not performing well when the 2 ships were handd over to the MMEA but then as has been pointed out, the MMEA does not need certain stuff to fulfill its assigned role.

  The Laksamanas. We bought them to improve relations with the Italians, not to help the Iraqis. The decision to buy the corvettes came directly from the PMs office; the RMN was against the idea.

  kubai,

  There are pros and cons in selecting MICA over ESSM and vice versa. Apart from costing issues, the requirements of various navies also differ and that explains why certain navies have gone for the shorther range MICA over the longer range ESSM and ASTER. The desk jockeys at Treasury have to be utterly convinced or persuaded before allocating funds for purchaces [ever wondered why the Kasturis were called 'light frigates' or 'corvettes'?] but major decisions untimately lie in the hands of the politicos.
  Phillip says:
  October 31, 2013 at 5:18 pm

  Halim, can the Mica VL be quad packed in a Sylver VLS launcher or are they dual packed ? Thanks.

  Reply
  I have no idea
  Mirsy says:
  November 1, 2013 at 5:42 am

  Let’s not dwell too much in the past, things that is done will be difficult to undone. Maybe let’s look forward. If indeed, the navy and government managed to keep to their plan. In 9 years time, we will be looking at a fleet of

  6 Laksmana LCS class
  6 Kedah class (hopefully will be uparmed)
  2 Lekiu class
  2 Kasturi
  4 Laksmana corvette (still good for the straits)
  2 PM class submarine
  4 Training ship/patrol (hopefull another 2 will be)

  18 naval helis

  Certainly look not bad going to beyond 2020 when compared to where the navy was in 2000. One area great to see was the order of combatant of 6 vessels rather than previous two. Meanwhile, whats not clear is the logistic fleet. Forget the Austin class if we want to get 2nd hand, would rather get the LSD 41 class and modified it to have helicopters hangar. Why because of limited experience in steam boiler operation the navy has.

  Certainly more could be done better but with the kind of baggages we as a nation carry we can never match the planning and execution of some other nation.

  Believe we should look forward, the past can only tie you down. Certainly, will receive a lot of flak for this
  Phillip says:
  November 1, 2013 at 12:26 pm

  The CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile) of which the Royal Navy version is known as the Sea Ceptor will start replacing The SeaWolf missiles by 2018 and the Sea Ceptor will be using the SeaWolf launchers.
  jabb says:
  November 1, 2013 at 4:31 pm

  Bad news for MRCA.
  Azlan says:
  November 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm

  Mirsy,

  Very true but the MAFs force structure and outlook; as well as the country’s threat perceptions are a legacy of our ‘past’ and it will continue to be this way for some time. The most cost effective – or cheap – solution would be to get a Multi-Role Support Ship that is constructed using civillian build standards, like what the TNI-AL has done with its Banjarmasin LPDs and what the RN did with
  HMS Bulwark.

  Philip,

  Yes, that’s why I mentioned that the RMN will have a headache in the next few years as MBDA won’t be supporting the Seawolf anymore. We signed a support contract for Seawolf but that will expire I think in 2-3 years. Not sure about the integrations issues involved with the tracker and CMS or even how CAAM will perform compared with MICA but on paper it would be great for commonality reasons if the Lekius also got MICA in the future. The question now is whether MICA can indeed be used in the Seawolfs VLS.
  Azlan says:
  November 1, 2013 at 4:56 pm

  shahrudin,

  All the stuff you mentioned – Drug, human traficking,smuggling (porous sea borders) , bandits/pirates – in an ideal world would be performed by the MMEA but in reality the RMN is doing a lot of stuff the MMEA should be doing because sufficient funding has not been provided to the MMEA. One of our major concerns is the Spratlys; not so much the possibility of us squaring it off and trading missiles with PLAN but in having adequate numbers of hulls in the area and also simultaneously having adequate number of hulls to meet other commitments in home waters and this the RMN – to its credit – is doing. In an ideal world the MMEA would have sufficient number of newly built hulls to maintain patrols off Sabah but unfortunately the reality is that the RMN also has to do it when it really should be doing other more vital tasks.

  The RMN has a very good idea of what its priorities are and what its concerns are [its priorities are addressed in 5 year cycles in line with the Malaysia Plans and are registered with MINDEF]; the problem is the RMN is neglected, overstretched and underfunded and has to do its job with what it has. Perhaps the Defence Minister and the opposition ”leader” should take part in a 2 week patrol in the South China Sea to see and understand what RMN ship crews go through. Historically, the RMN specialised in niche key areas; mine warfare and having the ability to perform coastal sea denial ops using a handful of frigates backed up by a larger fleet of missile equipped FACs. The Mexican navy operates mainly OPVs because its threat requirements and operational commitments don’t call for anything more serious to be operated.
  shahrudin says:
  November 6, 2013 at 2:39 pm

  Azlan,

  I agree with your comments. In our less than ideal world MMEA doesnt have enough funding and likewise RMN. So why dont we face off the reality by just keeping or capability to the basic, just like the mexican navy.

  The one part i dont agree is about the spratlys, i dont think we are able to provide enough hulls and i dont think we are willing to stand up to PLAN. Politically Hishamuddin had conceeded by saying “PLAN can patrol as much as they want in South China Sea”.

  At best i agree with Mirsy naval Force structure vision. thats more probable. Except for the Kasturi and laksamana. A force structure of 12 OPVs, 2 Frigates, 2 subs, 4 traning/patrol and 4 MCMVs which spends more time at sea is the way to go.
  AM says:
  November 6, 2013 at 10:08 pm

  Just wondering. Say TUDM got a few more Su-30MKM. Will they be numbered M52-19 or get a new Mxx number series?

  Reply
  It will be M52-xx as it is the same aircraft