Malaysian Defence

14 Comments

1. We are definitely getting left behind. There are no detailed plans on when we are getting our additional 2 Scorpenes while SG and Indonesia is ramping up their submarine fleets with Indonesia intending to buy 4 Scorpenes. By the time we got our next 2 submarines delivered, the current ones might already almost reaching 30 years old and need replacements in 10 years time. Plus if we intend to get LCS batch 2, Scorpene and MRCA during 2030’s, that is a a lot of spending, a lot more than what we are spending right now.

   What RMN can do in 2030s are
   RMK14(2031-2035, usd1.32 billion)
   – 1x LCS without CAPTAS2 (usd0.34 billion)
   – 1x LCS with CAPTAS2 (usd0.4 billion)
   – 1x Scorpene with AIP (usd0.5 billion)
   – 1x ASW helo (usd0.08 billion)
   – retire 2x Kasturis

   RMK15(2036-2040, usd1.24 billion)
   – 1x LCS without CAPTAS2 (usd0.34 billion)
   – 1x LCS with CAPTAS2 (usd0.4 billion)
   – 1x Scorpene with AIP (usd0.5 billion)
   – retire 2x Lekius

   Alternatively, 1 LCS can be substituted with either 2 Kedahs or 3-4 LMS

2. To me it’s only matter of time when Singapore acquires ASW configured MPAs to replace the Fokkers.

   Like everything else subs don’t in a vacuum, the availability of ASW airborne assets, USVs, surface ships and other assets, all fully networked, provides the key capability.

3. Most commentators believed that it will be the P8 Poseidon

4. what they did is common sense really. To keep one submarine (as with any other naval vessels and even aircraft like MPA or AEW) operational at any and all time, 3 subs are required; one on duty, one on maintenance and one on standby. We could have the same(ish) capability but the navy decided not to upgrade the Agosta 90 even though as Pakistan had shown, the agosta could be upgraded to become, in some respect, an even more potent than scorpene in indian service

   looking forward, we need at least another scorpene for short to mid term before getting a new submarine, either and upgraded scorpene or an entirely new submarine class.

5. “see five submarines was enough”
   It really depends if Indonesia & Vietnam will continue to augment their sub fleet, also Thailand and Malaysia to some extent but the ones looking into sub operations seriously are the former 2 nations. Not surprising as SG will want to maintain its numerical & technological edge against regional nations.

   @Luqman
   Based on operational requirements, we’d only needed 1 more to ensure continuous operation. The 4th sub was just to bodek a certain exPM who was fanatical at keeping his name & legacy intact in the annals of history. Rather than keeping up with the Joneses, I ‘d prefer we look towards filling up capability gaps which we lack; offshore bases at EEZ, MPAs, more choppers(utility & ASW), maritime MALEs, more LMS to recapitalise corvette & FAC fleets, then only later more LCS(or rather Formidable class instead) to recapitalise frigate fleet. The 3rd sub can be bought when good times are back.

6. From a finance guy perspective, we can only afford to operate snd maintain 4 missile guided durface combatants, 3 submarines and a dozen long range patrol boats in the future

7. The fifth submarine order has anything to do with fire in April on their first Invincible class submarine? Like most of their assets and a shortage of manpower, perhaps, the Invincible is also semi-autonomous.

8. No idea, really

9. False alarm.

   Just an approval to release the first invincible.

10. dundun – ”3 subs are required; one on duty, one on maintenance and one on standby. ”

    Incorrect. Conventional wisdom calls for 4. Even then there’s no certainty 1 be will always be ready to put to sea …

    dunndun – ” navy decided not to upgrade the Agosta 90 ”

    First of all she was a Agosta 70 not a Agosta 90…. Secondly, the circumstances which led to the PN upgrading it Agosta was different ….Thirdly, We simply dis not have the crews, shore support infrastructure or money to run 3 boats at that period -0 we still don’t. Also; the decision from Day One was that the former Ouessant would serve as a training boat for a limited time – nothing more ….

    You needd to also bar in mind that the Scorpenes were intended to provide us with an initial capability which could be expanded on later.

    dundun – ”the agosta could be upgraded to become, in some respect, an even more potent than scorpene in indian service”

    Do you actually know this for a fact? The former Ouessant was launched in 1978 and is generations behind Scorpene. Even a full upgrade would not have done away with its inherent shortcomings. It’s like saying a upgraded Mirage 111 can ber as potent as Rafale;

11. It’s simple. indian Scorpene didn’t have AIM whilst pakistan’s upgraded Agosta 90 (which is upgraded by Turkey btw) has. Hence why I said I specifically said “indian” after Scorpene as well as “in some respect”.

    A lot is being reworked and I dare say the scope of modernization of Pakistan’s Agosta 90B submarine is more extensive than say, what indonesia did with its older 209s.

    A much more modernized Agosta 90B with AIP would give Pakistan an edge compared to india’s AIP-less Scorpene unless we’re talking about pure sub vs sub action and even then Agosta could simply outlast Scorpene in the depth with their AIP

12. Dundun – “It’s simple”

    It’s not that “simple”. A Agosta 70 is a 1970’s boat which you’re comparing to a late 1990’s boat – both generations apart. Agosta 70’s hull ensures it can’t go as deep as Scorpene and it does not have the same noise reduction features, amongst various many things. Again,a full upgrade does not do away with key inherent issues.

    Ultimately fully upgrading the Agosta 70 would have been silly given its age, its condition, the scope of the upgrade needed and the fact we were not in a position to operate and maintain 3 boats – that is why the RMN did not even consider upgrading the Ouessant.

13. Off topic but we still had 42 units of AV8 not delivered as of the middle of this year and expected delivery has slipped to the end of next year. It was last expected for the end of this year, which was itself a later date than original as the government wanted to postpone funding.

    https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/cgscimb-downgrades-drbhicom-hold-reduces-tp-rm195

    https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2021/02/covid-adds-to-malaysian-defence-funding-problems/

14. For the sake of accuracy, the OEM has developed MESMA based AIP for the Agosta 90. At one time the OEM could also fit MESMA to a Scorpene if the customer wanted it, but has since phased it out in favour of fuel cell based AIP for the Scorpene.