SHAH ALAM: Boustead sues former big-wigs. Boustead Holdings Bhd had file a suit against its former chairman, former managing director and four other directors “for purported breach of fiduciary duty and is seeking jointly from them a sum of £6.4 million (RM35.37 million current value), according to the Edge newspaper.
The report stated the suit filed in June was filed against its former chairman chairman Tan Sri Mohd Ghazali Che Mat and its managing director Tan Sri Che Lodin Wok Kamaruddin.
Besides the duo, the remaining four named — are former directors Datuk Azzat Kamaluddin, Datuk Francis Tan Leh Kiah, Datuk Seri Ghazali Mohd Ali and Datuk Wira Dr Megat Abdul Rahman Megat Ahmad, where they are named as defendants.
Lodin resigned from Boustead and its related subsidiaries on Nov 30, 2018, while the others left the company last year.
The suit, according to the Edge wanted the courts to find the six were negligent in their duties. It appears that the suit is not related to the LCS or other defence projects.
It must be noted that Mohd Ghazali was a former Chief of Defence, having served from 1 November, 1985 to 5 October, 1987. Mohd Ghazali is the recipient of second highest military honour,the Panglima Gagah Berani (PGB) medal for his actions fighting the communists on 13 November 1957.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Logical action but not more than a diversion and a smokescreen to shift the heat on them elsewhere
Perhaps Boustead’s current management found they were in this current predicament due to previous management’s overpromises but underdeliveries optimism in the LCS project? After all, it was they who went into that project.
I don’t know about you guys but there is something about, ex-top level-servicemen suddenly becoming a corporate executives, etc, that rubs me the wrong way. Especially if they’re still within the arms industry. I don’t know why. Couldn’t these retirees just stay at home play with their grandchildren or something? Still out and about making money for God knows who. I don’t mind it if they’re proven proficient for the job, good on them. But most of these guys are just jumping from board members to another board members from different corporation making me sick.
Reply
Its normal actually
i doubt this will prove any result or improvement in long term for boustead or industry but i will be optimistic for my sake.
mr marhalim, any new info about LMS at teluk sepanggar?
@imba
“ex-top level-servicemen suddenly becoming a corporate executives”
The USA defence industry have took this to a whole new level. They even have powerful bloc of influencers called lobbyist. Ours are just schoolchildren in playground compared to how integrated is their lobbyist hold on both sides of the Government.
joe “The USA defence industry have took this to a whole new level. They even have powerful bloc of influencers called lobbyist. Ours are just schoolchildren in playground compared to how integrated is their lobbyist hold on both sides of the Government.”
Who do you think lobbies our government to buy at inflated prices, from dubious local agents with no track records? Who do you think selects things that the services don’t want?
At least over there, the vendors are OEMS and successful exporters in their own right. There have to be competitions for every new type and participants can have anything reviewed and investigated. Remember how the KC-X competition was restarted and how a DOD officer was jailed? Despite all the scandals that have happened here, I’ve never, ever heard of the same happening here and I don’t think we can look forward to it happening any time soon.
Here you are talking like none of us know what lobbyists are, while you can find no better word to describe them than “influencers.” Please, spare us.
Lobby here, lobby there, got the catch no matter small or big and at the end everything going down….our children will suffer…
Fadiman – “at the end everything going down….our children will suffer”
The end user doesn’t get the end product in time, with budget and on spec; the result is we fitter away our money, the end user doesn’t get the desired capability; nor the taxpayer their money’s worth and local companies (under the pretence of improving the local industry but in reality mostly contributing little; make money).
The best part is we repeat the sane mistakes over and over again with little ability or desire to improve things ….
imba- ““I don’t know about you guys but there is something about, ex-top level-servicemen suddenly becoming a corporate executives, etc,”
Same thing happens almost everywhere : private entities hiring ex servicemen for the hope that their knowledge of how things work and their contacts will prove beneficial .Happens everywhere.
Nothing wrong with that as long as these ex officers don’t act inappropriately by taking advantage of the fact that those in uniform they are dealing with are their ex subordinates and by trying to influence things that will benefit their company but will be detrimental to the end user.
AM,
Well said …..
@AM
When people asks such questions without knowing how things works, rather than slamming them down as if its common knowledge, I try to explain things that are relatable. Influencer is something today’s people understand more than lobbyist (some people might think that is the bellboy waiting at hotel lobbies).
And while of course very little of our defence purchases goes thru w/o some 3rd parties, USA ones takes it up to another level by legalising such acts. They walk in sync out in the open brazenly with people in power from both divides. So even if their Govt changes hands every year, they still win outright unlike here where their fortunes are tied to one of either side only. Our amateur lobbyists has a long way to go in refining their influence techniques.
Unlike ours, they are successful exporters, yes, because their stuff are proven, and the reason why its because they are trigger happy elsewhere around the world. You want our defence industry to follow in their bloodied footsteps?
Some got caught because either they were too stupid and slipped up somewhere or they got too greedy and tried to eat a bigger pie thereby angering those in power that was on the cut. otherwise, everything is smooth sailing because win-win-win, except for their taxpayers who only knows USA good guys goes to war in other countries so that their enemies don’t knock on their doors.
@fadiman
It shouldn’t even be allowed in the first place, regardless whether there is a criminal intention or not, its purely conflict of interest. Those that did commit a crime must be served justice. That is unquestionable.
@Azlan
“Nothing wrong with that as long as these ex officers don’t act inappropriately by taking advantage”
It is everything wrong because that is exactly why they were brought into the private sector in the first place! Why do you think these companies hires top brasses generals and admirals rather than grunts who know the equipment more intimately? Certainly its not for their technical knowledge.
joe “When people asks such questions without knowing how things works, rather than slamming them down as if its common knowledge, I try to explain things that are relatable.”
Nobody asked or talked about USA. Imba was talking about Malaysia and you brought up USA on your own initiative.
joe “Influencer is something today’s people understand more than lobbyist (some people might think that is the bellboy waiting at hotel lobbies). ”
A world of difference. Influencers are mere advertisers. They don’t promise to bring jobs to your district if you vote for their programs. The benefits to procurement officers careers and lawmakers’ districts are very tangible of dollars, and not mere psychology as you allude.
You’re very good at making simplistic statements and reframing things, as in the next point. First it was you saying various wonder weapons will make our neighbours and adversaries afraid. In this case it’s trivialising billions of dollars of business, and calling it an attempt to be easily understood. Anyone would be more mistaken after your explanation, not less.
joe “So even if their Govt changes hands every year, they still win outright unlike here where their fortunes are tied to one of either side”
What on earth are you talking about? If a type is already in service, there’s no sense in holding a fresh competition to deliberately introduce a rojak logistical train. The fact is when selection competitions are held, one type is chosen and the losers can file for judicial review for the reasons for losing. The YF-23 lost to the YF-22. The X-32 lost to the X-35. The YF-17 lost to the YF-16. All these American contenders lost to other American contenders. We’ve also seen non-American designs in the BAe Hawk, Leonardo AW139 and FREMM selected over American designs. Over forty years, they will stick to procuring the same type. Not a single F-23, F-32 or F-17 has been produced.
Do you see that happening here? If we were in their position, we would probably have bought 18 of each.
joe “Unlike ours, they are successful exporters, yes, because their stuff are proven, and the reason why its because they are trigger happy elsewhere around the world. You want our defence industry to follow in their bloodied footsteps?”
That’s a very stupid and silly way to reframe a topic. Nobody suggested we go to war to market our products.
Are you sure we can’t export because we haven’t gone to war,
or is it sheer incompetence in the production of mere assault rifles?
I am asking for competence in the spending of taxpayers money. Is it so much to ask?
@AM
“Nobody asked or talked about USA”
Because the lobbyism in USA is more prominent and more advanced on a whoole new level, makes easier to relate to imba.
“Influencers are mere advertisers.”
The same as lobbyist, except they give in return for something. Influencers are more than “mere advertisers” if you do social studies on internet marketing. Their pull could override good judgement, something that our defence procurers are suffering from similarly.
“You’re very good at making simplistic statements and reframing things”
Because its easy for folks like you to talk to folks like you but you haven’t a clue how to translate your point to the common folks.
“one type is chosen and the losers can file for judicial review”
Doesn’t happen that way. Typically the losers would seek cooperation and then get involved with the winning parties bid (see F-22, F-35), both still win-win even if the loser has to makan at side they still gain. In USA defence contracts there are no zero-sum winners and losers despite what you think.
“Nobody suggested we go to war to market our products.”
Nobody sane would buy uproven / untested products, would you? Sapura radios are trusted because its proven to work in the worst conditions, do you think you should be given a contract merely because yours is cheaper and technically better?
“I am asking for competence in the spending of taxpayers”
You deviated from that. No matter which industry, taxpayers money should be dealt with at arms length, ie it should be used to spur innovation and developments as grants or as payment for R&D on behalf of the Government. It isn’t right to sponsor companies or individuals or their products be given preferences just because they got bigshots and got cable to biggershots. They must prove their products are better even if they were to sell locally. No point for us to help them but in return given inferior products.
joe “Typically the losers would seek cooperation and then get involved with the winning parties bid (see F-22, F-35), both still win-win even if the loser has to makan at side they still gain.”
You’re saying a former competitor is now supplying the winner as a subcontractor. It is a completely separate matter from whether the competition and selection were fair. Please tell us what is improper about this.
It costs a lot to develop products for competitions, you know. If you just want to lose and be a subcontractor, you might as well not compete and lobby for, not against, your competitor from the beginning.
joe “Doesn’t happen that way.”
Either you are referring to “one type is chosen…Over forty years, they will stick to procuring the same type” or
“the losers can file for judicial review”. I will address both.
You noted that the executive and legislative branches of government change hands very often (which happens in many countries). Despite that, if the air force wants more fighters then congress will fund more F-15s. If the navy wants more destroyers, more Burkes will be funded.These have been standardized for 40 year or so, regardless of who is in power (happens in not so many countries). It’s a rather compelling argument against your point that lobbyists rule the day. If you were right, we’d more likely see the air force or navy forced to buy 5 different fighters or destroyer classes over those 40 years. So yes, “one type is chosen” and the settled, final results of the competitions are honored.
We all know it- competition results, trials and contracts are challenged by losers all the time. Everything from the US Army’s rifle evaluations to the USAF’s rerial refueling tanker competition has been challenged. So if I say that that competitions are routinely challenged, don’t simply say “doesn’t happen that way” and leave it at that. Flesh out your point.
joe “Because its easy for folks like you to talk to folks like you but you haven’t a clue how to translate your point to the common folks.”
And I put it to you that with your choice of words, anyone would be more misinformed after your explanation, not less.
Most of the points you’ve raised in your defence have been shown with examples to be factually wrong. You’ve long stopped trying to properly inform anyone now that you’re trying to show that what you said isn’t silly.
This is a case in point, so retrace your steps. I said that US OEMs are successful exporters in their own right. You responded by asking if I want us to go to war to promote our products (joe “You want our defence industry to follow in their bloodied footsteps?”) I said it was a silly line for you to take and that no one ever suggested doing so. Now your response is “Nobody sane would buy uproven / untested products, would you?”
A friend shared his opinion in FB about this fiasco. I totally agree with him. Apart from corruption n bad management which is obvious the cause of the problem..we think it is too easy just put the blame on those 2 factor. Corruption happened on AV8 n other programs..executives/CEO reprimanded by SPRM etc etc..but the program completed with decent numbers of vehicle..yes there issue, hiccup here n there but there are X number of vehicles in operation as we speak. Compare it with OPV…27 planned..only 6 completed..now is the LCS. Probably there is an external factor that compounded the problem(sabotage???)..corruption is just the vehicle. I am not suggesting a “conspiracy theory”. I can’t digest corruption n bad management are the sole contributor to this problem.
bukuh2 – “. I can’t digest corruption n bad management are the sole contributor to this problem”
I don’t know what the real issues are but my guess is that it’s a variety of issues …. (doesn’t necessarily have to be corruption).
For me the problem is not only failure to deliver the 5 ships in time and within budget but the whole project itself; from how the design was selected (local
companies should never dictate what the end user gets), to the number of ships the RMN was supposed to get in the long run ;(requirements change and the last thing we need is for the RMN in the future to be stuck with design merely for national interests); to us falling under the illusion that the ships might be exportable.
In short the whole project is a reflection of our defence policy as a whole and how we handle procurement; self defeating, unsustainable and giving us the right value for our money.
bukuh2 – “but the program completed with decent numbers of vehicle”
For me (never mind how selection was actually performed – based not on merit but national interests) the key question is whether the whole exercise will actually lead to any long term tangible benefits ….
How many vehicles does the army actually need; will it eventually get those numbers and what if those numbers aren’t enough to justify all the expense (taxpayer paid) and resources placed in setting up the production faculties and buying the rights for the design?
Do we eventually buy more AV-8s merely so Deftech can achieve economics of scale? What happens is for whatever reason the army needs more AV-8s but not in the numbers needed by Deftech? In the coming years will Defech be able to offer follow on AV-8s with improved or upgraded features? What happens if in the coming years – threat perceptions and operational requirements evoke – the army decides it needs to build up mechanised formations rather than its motorised ones?
bukuh2 – “ Compare it with OPV…27 planned..only 6 completed”
The 27 ships over a 16 year period thing was not a RMN target; it was a target set by others to benefit the Naval Dockyard and based on the number of Voper PCs that would be replaced.
The RMN was not keen on that number because of various reasons. It needed a number of Kedahs to perform both a peacetime and wartime role (which is why the Kedahs are fitted out they way they are) in support of the Lekius and Kasturis but the number wasn’t sustainable or even needed.
Even if there hadn’t been a management cock up at Naval Dockyard follow on Kedahs would never have reached 27 as the RMN wasn’t keen (it preferred about 12 Kedahs with remaining resources being placed on frigates and subs) and it was known that the MMEA was years away from formation (it didn’t need a 27 Kedahs to perform both peacetime and wartime roles)
@AM
“competition and selection were fair. Please tell us what is improper about this.”
Competitions are never truly fair as there’s always an element of bias whether intentional or not. If competition were truly based on outright capabilities, the YF-23 would won over YF-22. Other factors came into play in selecting the inferior option, and perhaps lobbyist influence was one of them.
“trials and contracts are challenged by losers all the time”
Can you tell me which results got overturned and the US Armed Forces went with the initial loser options?
“anyone would be more misinformed after your explanation, not less.”
You misunderstand because you choose not to understand, not my fault.
There are a lot of ways to prove your tech. Kongsberg made one of the best attack missile today but does Norway goes to war to proven it? No. The reason why I said we shouldn’t follow US defence industry was from your example “the vendors are OEMS and successful exporters in their own right.” They went the direct route of proving their weapons tech on others.
@bukuh2
FYI the Gempita program completed all deliveries inc the Turk built special variants. Whether there were cost overruns, I’m not sure. There likely could be but not in the same tune as LCS.
One big difference, the end user(TDM) didn’t make big changes to Gempita base design, hence on the overall the builds could run smoother compared to LCS. Also DEFTECH didn’t get too greedy in building more vehicles than they could cater or trying to build those special NBC and other variants that were fully made in Turkey. This reduces the ToT costs and prevented technical hiccups that plagued LCS.
@AM
To add, the US defence industry is far from the idealised picture you made. Theirs are just as fraught with selective biases, corruption, lobbyism, and wastages, and one of the reasons why US continues to seek war with others.
Not many others are truly better, but if I were to put example, the Swiss defence industry would be my gold standard. Certain of their tech are developed above par vs the competition, compete in selection based on that merits, ‘successful exporters in their own right’, and yet the Swiss have been neutral for hundreds of years.
The 27 PVs to replace the Vosper FACs is a contractual obligation by the Government in the privatisation agreement with BNS (then Naval Dockyard). Should the Government cancel, it would be required to compensate BNS for all costs, including opportunity costs and loss of profit. Another condition of the privatisation was the RIghts Granted, where the RMN was obligated to send all ships undergoing planned maintenance to BNS for refits for a period of 20 years (if I am not mistaken).
The 6 NGPVs was part of the 27. The 6 LCS (initially called the SGPV (now u know why!)) was also awarded to BNS on direct nego in compliance with the privatisation agreement, which incidentally did not specify any value to the 27 PVs. So, unless BNS cocks up really bad, it would have assured business until 27 ships had been awarded/built. I believe the present fiasco might be grounds for the Government to relook at these obligations….
Reply
As the Kedah class have been sent for refits at other shipyards may indicate that most of the obligations contracted to Naval Dockyard is likely have been changed or made non obligatory. Yes one of the obligations when BNS took obligations of salvaging the NGPV project was the rights to any new projects in the future hence the SGPV/LCS contract. Thats why the smart people say it is unlikely they will find a new owner for the shipyard as it will involved more future contracts or even cancel the current contract.
joe “If competition were truly based on outright capabilities, the YF-23 would won over YF-22. Other factors came into play in selecting the inferior option, and perhaps lobbyist influence was one of them.”
You are ignorant of the reasons. The F-22 was selected because it was technologically less risky and, as you’ve chosen to ignore, less costly than the F-23.
The two companies took different approaches in the ATF competition, Northrop’s design was higher performance but also more radical. After the end of the Cold War, it was decided to pursue the F-22 because it was cheaper than the F-23 while still far more lethal than anything that another country could field. Even the production F-22 was downgraded versus its original design. You have merely and desperately hinted at lobbyist influence as a factor but going with the cheaper version of the cheaper option would suggest the opposite is true.
joe “Kongsberg made one of the best attack missile today but does Norway goes to war to proven it? No.”
Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said “they are successful exporters, yes, because their stuff are proven, and the reason why its because they are trigger happy elsewhere around the world” and asked me if we should go to war to promote our products.
Now you are saying one doesn’t have to go to war to prove one’s products, and they will still sell.
You are even more contradictory when one realises that a poor performance in war would be bad for sales, and therefore the product must be thoroughly proven before it is used in war. Which again shows that you don’t have go to war to prove something you make.
joe “Can you tell me which results got overturned and the US Armed Forces went with the initial loser options?”
Can you tell me which losing options were in fact better suited to the requirements and should have won?
joe “Theirs are just as fraught with selective biases, corruption, lobbyism, and wastages, and one of the reasons why US continues to seek war with others.”
Nobody said they are perfect. But some countries are clearly and demonstrably more corrupt than others. Why are some countries able to spend less money and yet get a more credible end result than us for example?
The US is not the only country fielding new systems and products in combat. The Russian use of naval cruise missiles, ESM and UAVs in Ukraine and Syria, and China supplying anti ship missiles and ATGMs to the Houthis in Yemen, come to mind.
Marhalim,
The sending of the KEDAH class (and other RMN ships as well) to other yards is due to the expiry of the Rights Granted period. It was extended once but I believe the extension has also expired. As such, the RMN is free to award refits of all its ships to any Malaysian yard based on tender. In any case, I have not been informed of any relaxation, change, waiver or amendment made to the privatisation agreement.
Also, I do not think there was any need for any new commitments by the Government to Boustead to salvage the NGPV. The obligations by the Government for the 27 ships had already been laid down in the privatisation agreement that was inherited by Boustead when it took over the yard from PSC.
In any case, any sale of the yard by Boustead would have to leverage on the balance 21 ships that the Government is obligated to award the yard, and additional funds to complete the balance 4 LCS. Without that in place, as you rightfully pointed out, no one would want the yard.
Reply
Finish the 6 ships and be done with the already discredited idea of building warships in MY unless some yard managed to corner the civil market from the current leaders. Let local shipyards survive on patrol and OPV orders for new builds and refit jobs only.
Ultimately the 27 number (as pointed out by Api) was a decision based on national interests and not the actual needs of the end user.
I’m convinced that even had the been no management issues at Naval Dockyard; the 27 number would never have been achieved; being superfluous to the RMN’s across needs and diverting resources from other areas in which the RMN would have liked to focus on.
With all this lcs mess…rmn are in no position to transfer their asset to another agency instead they have to make do with whatever they have left no matter how scarce and underequipped they are..i wonder how long this cycle of unfinished contract keep happening here..our yearly defence budget are already small, then theres this messed up procurement program
Even with all the doom and gloom, looks like some of LCS equipment is being handed over.
http://twitter.com/lordofkendal/status/1294792589795713025
@…,
Yeah. I know Esham. Ex RMN Lt Cdr. Good guy with foresight. He is cultivating premium coffee beans as well..haha! House of Kendal, he calls it.
@Azlan,
The need for the 27 in no. ships actually came from the RMN. This was during the time of Tan Sri Ahmad Ramli Nor was the CN, if I am not mistaken (or was it TS Abu Bakar Jamal….). In any case, no timeline was set or specified in the agreement.
Reply
27 NGPV but not Kedah class
Firdaus – “With all this lcs mess…rmn are in no position to transfer their asset to another agency instead they have to make do with whatever they have”
It’s not only the LCS delay. Delays with ordering the 2nd batch of LMSs means that the FACs and Laksamanas will have to soldier on indefinitely.
If left unresolved the LCS delays will not only have consequences in several areas; way beyond the RMN not getting the 6 ships on schedule and in budget.
@Api69
The Kedah class has passed its time, no point to harp on building more. The next to look forward is new LMS builds either the same LMS68 or other ships but it should have been built in Malaysia. The Government could have leverage on promise of more LMS orders if the 2 units LMS68 were built in Boustead, instead now we’re likely to start from scratch again and waste even more taxpayer monies. On the flip side, Boustead came out with their own tweaked LMS designs so perhaps TLDM can open LMS2.0 competition to local ship designs on a low priced fixed cost program with the same parameters as LMS68. With future TLDM bulk going to be LMS fleet, it can be a money maker for years to come if properly managed and controlled.
Api -“The need for the 27 in no. ships actually came from the RMN”
You could be right but I was told otherwise. I was told that the RMN actually has a need for only 12. Those 12 were to have served alongside a fleet comprising Lekius (6 was the number wanted), Kasturis, FACs and Laksamanas.
27 NGOPVs sounds a wee bit of an overkill. Operating costs would have been high and was that figure even needed from an operational perspective?
Also from what you mentioned in your previous posting – “The 27 PVs to replace the Vosper FACs is a contractual obligation by the Government in the privatisation agreement with BNS (then Naval Dockyard). Should the Government cancel, it would be required to compensate BNS for all costs, including opportunity costs and loss of profit” – it sounded like the 27 figure was a figure that was seen desirable from a national interests perspective rather than a RMN one.
Api -“ “In any case, no timeline was set or specified in the agreement.”
27 ships over a projected period of 16 years was the figure widely mentioned by Naval Dockyard and the government in a number of occasions.
P.S.
A factor often overlooked when discussing the Kedah programme is that feasibility studies were done on replacing the FACs with Kedahs. Had the RMN received the number it required (I was told 12); missile armed Kedahs would eventually have replaced the FACs; which faced/face sea keeping, range and endurance limitations.
The ironic part is that during the period when the Lekius were ordered; the RMN’s preference was subs – Kockums would have provided a pair of ex Swede navy boats for training followed by a pair of newly built Type 96s.
Until 2002 this was the closest we came to actually signing for subs but the decision was made to go for the Lekius as an add on to the 1988 MOU.
@ azlan
” I was told that the RMN actually has a need for only 12. Those 12 were to have served alongside a fleet comprising Lekius (6 was the number wanted), Kasturis, FACs and Laksamanas ”
That is a logical number of ships to operate. The current 15 to 5 + PPSMM2040 numbers ( 12 frigates + 18 OPV + 18 LMS + 20 MMEA OPV ) is illogical to me.
on the ability of us to assemble submarines in sepanggar.
This is PT PAL Sub facility + upgrades that they want (they also wanted a permanent submarine lift, not just a floating dock like now but not in the graphics)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uMuNt7EsvYc/XzoRR_8APUI/AAAAAAABOkI/5SQWlYZLkxAh48ICurLSTgF5CnBuJjBEQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1252/PAL-2.jpg
Compare to our facilities now available in Sepanggar. We already have a permanent submarine lift, unlike PT PAL
http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/asia/malaysia/exhibition/LIMA_2017/news/RMN_Scorpene_SSK_BDNC.jpg.
Brazil sub build facility is also almost a carbon copy of sepanggar facilities
http://images.marinetechnologynews.com/images/maritime/w800h600pad/naval-shipyard-with-99576.jpg
If we want, we could contact out scorpene submarine sections to either brazil or india (low exchange rate, hot production line) and assemble them in sepanggar. Other than the hull build itself, other process is similar to our refit process and experience.
Side track a little
For the first time a politician says it out loud about all the BS of ToT. Meaningless words for those who hasn’t the foundation in science and technology…
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/08/17/why-is-malaysia-lagging-so-far-behind-moans-mp/
Looking at GDP growth for q1 and q2, technically MY is entering recession. Not much can I hope for military spending and procurement. Everything could be effected, including undone projects such LCS and LMS. It is getting worse in economy and so in defence sector.
The privatisation agreement never stated the KEDAH class. Only 27 ships as replacement for the patrol crafts. Also, no timeline (or budget, for that matter) was specifically stated. Only the Rights Granted for shiprepair had a duration stated. Thus, the agreement was loose enough to be open for interpretation to meet the needs of the powers-that-be at any juncture.
Again, I say again that the numbers came from the RMN. At that juncture, it was in their interest to bind the Government to provide a commitment to replace the ships with new ones. Now that there is a problem, everyone starts blaming the politicians. Everyone should remember that admirals are ‘politicians’ as well.
Api – “The privatisation agreement never stated the KEDAH class”
No it didn’t. The German Naval Group was selected later. If I recall correctly; after going through all the bids, the 3 contenders were the German Naval Group, Transfield and Swan Hunter.
Api – “Also, no timeline (or budget, for that matter) was specifically stated”
Indeed. As far as allocation went, a budget was only approved for an initial 6.
Api – “. Everyone should remember that admirals are ‘politicians’ as well.””
Not only admirals but seniors officers in both the other services as well. At that level they have to indulge in certain politics; to justify and gain funding (in competition with sister services), take certain steps as part of their career advancement; a cynic will also point out that they are already making the needed minds for the post retirement plans;; occupying senior positions in government linked companies or those lobbying for contracts.
… – “The current 15 to 5 + PPSMM2040 numbers ( 12 frigates + 18 OPV + 18 LMS + 20 MMEA OPV ) is illogical to me”
From the very start the 5/15 was – to me – unworkable. It was stretched over too long a period; tied the RMN to a specific plan which was subject to political, funding and geo political changes beyond its control; reflected the politics of the day; etc.
It made good PR; presented in Power Point format which impressed many but I very much doubt that much of what was laid out will actually be implemented.
P.S.
…. – “The current 15 to 5 + PPSMM2040 numbers ( 12 frigates + 18 OPV + 18 LMS + 20 MMEA OPV ) is illogical to me”
I don’t place too much thought in what was laid out as it unlikely to be fully implemented.
With regards the “OPVs”; I also don’t place too much emphasis on the “OPV” designation as it really doesn’t reflect the proper roles of the Kedahs as envisioned by the RMN. As part of the 5/15 follow Kedahs are to be fitted out to enable them to perform certain wartime roles. From plans made a few years ago we have a good idea as to how the RMN would like to fit them out.
Even not fully fitted out, the initial batch’s fit out certainly doesn’t make them dedicated “OPV” (i.e. a TRS-3D and “obstacle avoidance sonar” is not needed if a peacetime constabulary role is to be their only purpose).
I can see the rationale in having a class of ships to perform roles that wouldn’t require a LCS, Lekiu or Katsuri but for me the main question is why Kedahs and LMSs? Ideally this role should be performed by a single class.
… “http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uMuNt7EsvYc/XzoRR_8APUI/AAAAAAABOkI/5SQWlYZLkxAh48ICurLSTgF5CnBuJjBEQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1252/PAL-2.jpg”
Sometimes amusing things get put into the graphics and concept art. Interesting to see an apparent Kiev class there.
Here’s an example from Singapore.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_60FEhz_4Bf0/TRGHYlDdowI/AAAAAAAAAr8/_sPiHGNDmvw/s1600/MINDEF+Xmas+2010blog.jpg
@Hornet Lover
Excerpt: “Malaysia had yet to produce a car of its own, despite having agreements with Japan about the transfer of technology.”
LOL! Which era did he came from? 1999? Does he not see the many Saga BLM, Gen2, Waja, Iriz, Exora, Persona, Satria Neo on the road? These are 100% developed by Proton unlike the rebadges of the other ‘national carmaker’. IMHO if we learnt from ToT and do ownself as Proton did, we gain the knowledge & skills. If ToT like the other national carmaker, we gained very little in real knowledge.
@romeo
Exactly! With such backdrop, our economy and livelihood should take priority and unfortunately defence expenditures will need to be culled to support the huge drop (-17% GDP). Some thinks this shouldn’t affect defence budgeting but I strongly disagree. It has everything to do with all the budgets and expenditures.
… – on the ability of us to assemble submarines”
What is the core rationale in embarking on such an exercise – what actual tangible benefits will it bring to the end user and taxpayer (as opposed to BNS) – faster lead time, costs savings, etc?
If indeed it benefits the country by utilising faculties already in place at Sepanggar and providing BNS with the experience; wouldn’t the experience gained be wasted if there are no follow orders for the next decade or so?
I’m not dismissing your idea; merely asking what tangible benefits it will actually bring for the end user and taxpayer and whether – after taking into account all the major factors at play – it will make more sense for future subs to be entirely constructed by the OEM.
Ultimately it all depends on the time frame. If we’re only going to order follow in boats in 10/15 years or more; by that time it will make more sense to go newer design, compared to the Scopene. I’ve always been a strong believer in standardisation/commonality but only if the said piece of equipment actually meets our requirements to begin with.
@ AM
nice MKM in there…
@ Azlan
” the main question is why Kedahs and LMSs? Ideally this role should be performed by a single class ”
OPV and LMS are to (or should) perform 2 very different tasks. Just because we use FAC offshore (which is not what it is designed to do) does not automatically mean LMS is also to be tasked offshore.
” What is the core rationale in embarking on such an exercise ”
1) to increase the numbers of our scorpene fleet (scorpene is a very new design, even 40 year old design like type 209 subs is still being built). Submarines would be a more credible deterrent than our still unfinished gowinds.
2) There is no scorpenes being built in france anymore, while spain cannot build any after the fallout with france in sub building.
3) Brazil and India are currently building their own scorpenes. With the drop in brazilian currency lately, we could subcontract the pressure hull build to them (or india)
4) We have successfully refitted our scorpenes. building a new one is similar, except for the new pressure hull fabrication. With the pressure hull imported from india or brazil, the build in malaysia would be similar to what we have done for our refits.
@ azlan
” As part of the 5/15 follow Kedahs are to be fitted out to enable them to perform certain wartime roles. From plans made a few years ago we have a good idea as to how the RMN would like to fit them out ”
What kind of wartime roles against what kind of enemy does the Navy need 18 PV/corvettes on top of 12 Frigates and 18 LMS? What kind of manpower increase does the navy need to sustain that large fleet? Do we need to double the current manpower? Is this structure even relevant to the current and future situation is south china sea? Isn’t investing more on MMEA would give a better return of investment for our South China Sea situation?
If you think the Gowinds are a huge failure, maybe you should read about the spanish S-80 submarine programme. The first sub was laid down in 2005, and up till now still not yet launched!
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22249/oops-the-spanish-navy-is-constructing-new-submarines-that-are-too-big-for-their-pens
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/s-80.htm
Reply
What about the Greek navy commissioning a ship built 20 years ago but only completed only this year. Yes we can have a good laugh about those stories but none of it came from our pockets
“Does he not see the many Saga BLM, Gen2, Waja, Iriz, Exora, Persona, Satria Neo on the road? These are 100% developed by Proton unlike the rebadges of the other ‘national carmaker’. IMHO if we learnt from ToT and do ownself as Proton did, we gain the knowledge & skills. If ToT like the other national carmaker, we gained very little in real knowledge.”
He probably means that Malaysia has yet to produce a national car that can compete locally without hefty tariffs on imports or being rescued by repeated government bailouts and a foreign company, let alone be competitive on the export market. Almost any problem can be solved if you burn enough money on it, not that Proton solved it, since all the technology that they bought or developed has never turned a profit and future Protons will be rebadged Geely cars.
You’re factually incorrect. Not sure where you get your info but the Waja has a Mitsubishi platform. You’ve also selectively left out the Accord based Persona and the Boyue based X70, not to mention all the rebadged Geelys to come.
Actually what do you have against P2 for not being a money pit? You take every chance to push the false point that P2 has no in-house developed models- which the current Myvi actually is. Unlike Proton, P2 is self sustaining. It has not required taxpayers’ bailouts or to be bought over by a foreign company in order to survive. It’s silly to celebrate Proton for having cost the country so dearly.
AM – “The US is not the only country fielding new systems and products in combat”
Just like how I’m careful in applying the “force multiplier” and “game changer” labels (used to quickly by many who have no real idea what these actually mean); I’m cautious in applying the “combat proven” label.
Just because something was deployed in a conflict zone doesn’t automatically make it “combat proven”. Depends wholly on the circumstances.
Rafale’s presence in Libya led to many applying the “combat proven” label to it. Yet such was the state of Libyan opposition that much older aircraft were adequate for the job – Rafale being there made no difference to the end result and its full capabilities weren’t even tested.
AM – “ The Russian use of naval cruise missiles, ESM and UAVs in Ukraine and Syria”
I would argue that the main value gained was in the lessons learnt at an operational level with regards to procedures, tactics and doctrine; i.e. the adoption of self contained battalion groupings and the integration of UAS, artillery, MLRSs and EW to form an effective recce/strike ability; in the Ukraine.
Like the Americans the Russian experience in war since 1945; has not been against peer adversaries; which is where the true test will come.
… – “OPV and LMS are to (or should) perform 2 very different tasks””
Again; you’re placing emphasis on the “OPV” designation. As has been mentioned; despite the “OPV” designation; the Kedahs were always intended to have a combat utility. If that wasn’t the case they would have been been more modestly fitted out; similar to the MMEA’s OPVs.
If the Kedahs were only intended to have a peacetime constabulary role they wouldn’t have been fitted out the way they were (a true “OPV” doesn’t need a TRS-3D amongst other things) and the RMN wouldn’t have done feasibility studies on conveying a pair for ASuW and a pair for ASW; which it wouldn’t have done had it wanted the class to perform only or mainly EEZ patrols; as you keep insisting
Given that both the Kedahs and LMSs are intended to perform roles not required of frigates: the pertinent question is whether a single class will suffice … Insisting that the RMN shouldn’t get more Kedahs on the mistaken premise that they’re only intended for peacetime EEZ patrolling is not part of my narrative.
… “What kind of wartime roles against what kind of enemy does the Navy need 18 PV/corvettes on top of 12 Frigates and 18 LMS”
I can counter by asking “against what kind of enemy” does the RMN intend in countering with the force structure you have in mind?
The answer is no particular enemy …. The RMN’s desired force structure is based on what it can be able to sustain, be able to request funding for over a projected period and is based on an assessment of the likely peacetime and wartime roles likely to be faced ….
As for the roles; plainly obvious : roles such as convoy escort, limited sea denial, coastal ASW, supporting the frigates whilst based on the periphery, etc, etc, – roles that don’t require a frigate. Those were the wartime rules the RMN envisaged the class performing and why – in line with their roles in a low threat environment; they were intended to have a modest armament fit out.
…. – Is this structure even relevant to the current and future situation is south china sea?
The RMN’s force structure is intended to be able to deal (within its abilities) for various contingencies; not just the SCS. It’s capability as opposed to threat driven ….
On local sub assembly you’re merely pointing out all the paper advantages. We don’t even know for sure if India or Brazil can deliver hulls in time and cheaper.
We don’t even know within what time period we’ll acquire more subs and even if they’ll be Scorpenes.
My question still stands; can we in reality achieve costs savings and other benefits? Will the exercise lead to a actual tangible benefits for the end user and taxpayer?
Just because we “can” do something doesn’t necessarily mean we “should” do it and just because on paper it looks risk free with all the advantages doesn’t necessarily equate to the same on reality …..
… – “ Isn’t investing more on MMEA would give a better return of investment for our South China Sea situation?”
You are conflating 2 separate issues here: like many things we’ve gone through this before on numerous occasions …
The MMEA needs OPVs to perform only peacetime constabulary type roles.
The RMN has and desires more Kedahs because until the MMEA can fully take over; the RMN is the only agency that can fill the gap and the Kedahs are the must suitable for the role. Unlike the MMEA’s OPVs however; the intention from Day One was to have the Kedahs also perform certain wartime roles – again; roles that depending on the threat level and other factors; do not require a frigate. The RMAF already has and seeks a similar high/low end mix for the future.
That is the key difference between the MMEA’s OPVs and the RMN’s Kedahs which despite their “NGOPV” designation are not merely “OPVs” ….
@ azlan
” like many things we’ve gone through this before on numerous occasions … ”
and i still disagree with you
” The RMN has and desires more Kedahs because until the MMEA can fully take over ”
what? by planning for more kedahs even to 2050? its illogical planning.
” RMN’s Kedahs which despite their “NGOPV” designation are not merely “OPVs” ”
And those not merely OPVs (FFBNW) in a big number (18) have little use in future situations. Not to mention a waste of resources when compared to getting pure OPVs.
” It’s capability as opposed to threat driven …. ”
And that exact capability is vary vague in the 15 to 5 plan. I don’t see any explanation on why they need 12 frigate + 18 OPV + 18 LMS + 3 MRSS + 4 Submarines, along with the illogical shipbuilding timeline. I also don’t see that huge surface craft numbers in addition to the MMEA numbers will be relevant in the future. I am for the 15 to 5 to be scrapped altogether and a holistic maritime defence plan together with MMEA to be done instead.
For future malaysian surface fleet, this is what i can see their functions
Large frigates
– command facilities
– for long range, long endurance missions
– UAV/USV support platform
– air defence capability
– littoral warfare support of SF teams
– limited land attack capability (nsm)
Gowind/or other small frigates
– ASW.
– Peacetime screening and tracking of submarines in malaysian EEZ
– Escort, convoy escort of civilian or other naval ships such as MRSS
– limited area denial in littoral areas
LMS
– fast, agile.
– Littoral warfare. Preventing hostile landings on malaysian shores
– fighting boat swarms
– minelaying/minehunting support
– hydrosurvey support in littoral areas
– logistics support
MRSS
– Logistics enabler to quickly transfer mechanised elements from west to east malaysia and vice versa.
– floating platform for helicopters
– enduring littoral operational support platform for COIN operations (lahad datu or marawi type of conflict)
– HADR platform
OPV
– EEZ security
– enforcement of malaysian economic activity in EEZ
– shadowing foreign coast guard activity in malaysian EEZ
the main deterrence capability (in addition to others such as maritime strike fighters and antiship missile batteries) would be by building a capable submarine force that would be bigger that what is planned for in the 15 to 5 plan.
… – “and i still disagree with you”
It’s mutual ….
By all means disagree all you like – certainly no skin off my back whether you agree or not.
Whether it’s with the Kefahs or anything else; I will continue to point our anything I disagree with and I will provide the reasons as to why …
…. – “planning for more kedahs even to 2050? its illogical planning””
Maybe, maybe not. For you it is because you’re stuck to false notion that the Kedahs have only a peacetime constabulary role and that the RMN is unwilling to give up the role – an incorrect assumption.
With a TRA-3D, obstacle avoidance sonar,, deck space for Exocets and RAM, 2 directors, etc (there because the Kedahs from Day One also has a wartime role and not only a peacetime constabulary role) very capable “OPVs” indeed …
… – “And those not merely OPVs (FFBNW) in a big number (18) have little use in future situations””
Well I don’t have a crystal ball but I know that the RMN intends to fully fit out the Kedahs. You’re assuming they won’t be …
Your assuming the RNN has no desire to fully fit them out – contradicts the plan announced some years ago to convert a pair for ASW and a pair for ASuW; as well as the main reason they’re included in the 5/15.
Also with regards to their utility in “future situations”; you’re generalising as it depends wholly in the type of “situation” … There could be “situations” in which we’d be unable to deploy our subs and fighters effectively – unfortunately the enemy has a say too and also his own assets .
…. – “I don’t see any explanation on why they need 12 frigate + 18 OPV + 18 LMS + 3 MRSS + 4 Submarines, along with the illogical shipbuilding timeline”
The timeline is based on the assumption that funding will remain elusive .for a long while. The plan is the bare minimum the RMN needs is the funding situation doesn’t change …
The force structure ;(as mentioned) is the desire level the RMN foresees it’s needs to meet the type of wartime and peacetime challenges we are likely to face ….
…. – “Not to mention a waste of resources when compared to getting pure OPVs.””
I’ll merely repeat what I said earlier ….
“You are conflating 2 separate issues here: like many things we’ve gone through this before on numerous occasions …”
“The MMEA needs OPVs to perform only peacetime constabulary type roles.
“The RMN has and desires more Kedahs because until the MMEA can fully take over; the RMN is the only agency that can fill the gap and the Kedahs are the must suitable for the role. Unlike the MMEA’s OPVs however; the intention from Day One was to have the Kedahs also perform certain wartime roles”
… – “command facilities”
Maybe but this should not be at the expense of utilising space for other more vital needs. Also we don’t have a need for large and comprehensive command/control facilities as we have an expeditionary tasking and we don’t handle large ops in a multi domain capacity
…. – “– UAV/USV support platform””
Whether with a LMS, “large frigate” or LCS; all our ships should have UAS capability or the space for it.
…. – “LMS
– Littoral warfare. Preventing hostile landings on malaysian shores”
The LCS is also configured for littoral warfare. As for “hostile landings” id indeed it occurred chances are it will be from land. With regards to the Spratlys the main danger is someone denying us access via land or air to our reefs.
… – – Peacetime screening and tracking of submarines in malaysian EEZ“
This is a role that will be performed by a variety of assets. It’s is one of the many roles that will be performed by the LCSs which are essentially multi role platforms; notwithstanding the fact they have CAPTAS. It goes without saying that the ability of any ship to persecute a sub surface contact will be its embarked helo.
… – “command facilities”
Maybe but this should not be at the expense of utilising space for other more vital needs. Also we don’t have a need for large and comprehensive command/control facilities as we have an expeditionary tasking and we don’t handle large ops in a multi domain capacity
…. – “– UAV/USV support platform””
Whether with a LMS, “large frigate” or LCS; all our ships should have UAS capability or the space for it.
…. – “LMS
– Littoral warfare. Preventing hostile landings on malaysian shores”
The LCS is also configured for littoral warfare. As for “hostile landings” id indeed it occurred chances are it will be from land. With regards to the Spratlys the main danger is someone denying us access via land or air to our reefs.
…. – “– Logistics enabler to quickly transfer mechanised elements from west to east malaysia and vice versa.
– floating platform for helicopters
– enduring littoral operational support platform for COIN operations (lahad datu or marawi type of conflict)
– HADR platform”
They will perform a variety of roles – military or otherwise.
Whilst HADR has been regularly mentioned as one of its main roles to justify spending; the fact remains that unlike some other countries; including Indonesia and the Philippines; most of the prone areas here are accessible be road and if indeed are cut off; its only for limited periods. Even then; due to geography and other reasons; the most useful asset is the helicopter.
The ability of the MPSSs to operate helis for an extended period will also depend on whether it has a hangar – even a few days of being exposed will lead to corrosion issues.
Another possible role is as a tender for other ships – a role the Saktis, ex USN LSTs and the Langjkawi performed.
…, – “the main deterrence capability””
Base on actual threat assessments; we have to have an idea as to to who we need to “deter”. We can’t have a “deterrence” for every possible threat – what “deters” “x” might not deter “y”; irrespective of what tactics we adopt. If we decide that we can “deter” “A”; we must also have a good idea as to how long the “deterrence” will work; as well as it’s limitations.
The level of deterrence we desire will also depend on not just what we can afford to buy but also what we can afford to sustain. We must also ensure that the “deterrent” we achieve does not have detrimental consequences on our need to also focus on other areas and to strike the right balance between deciding what purchases are capability and which are threat driven.
The MAF doesn’t have the luxury of being able to focus all or even most of its resources to one or even two particular threats; a right balance has to be reached.
Couldn’t we combine some of the RMN and MMEA needs into a single design? I mean, take the MEKO 100 (just an example), navy version would have more advanced weapons and sensor suite while the patrol version would have gun/cannon, basic comms suite but more storage place for fuel or interceptor craft.
I think the MRSS and LMS are good candidates for joint procurement.
@ azlan
” The LCS is also configured for littoral warfare ”
Notwithstanding its multitude of designations, it is not exactly designed to operate near shore, for example fighting plenty of small fast boats, carrying insurgents to shore. A scenario that happened during lahad dato conflict. Armed insurgents in multiple small boats landed on sabah shore without any resistance from malaysian forces. The LMS should be designed/armed to tackle such incidents.
@ azlan
” our ships should have UAS capability or the space for it ”
” should have” is very difficult if space is a premium.
@ azlan
” The MAF doesn’t have the luxury of being able to focus all or even most of its resources to one or even two particular threats; a right balance has to be reached ”
Exactly. Why we cannot afford the luxury of buying expensive not merely OPVs (FFBNW) that would be too overequipped for basic peacetime missions but not going to cut it fighting full on conflicts with hypersonic missiles and what not. Getting correctly priced coast guard OPV will free us to buy much more deterrence worthy submarines, which both OPV and subs will give better capability during peacetime and in conflict than the current plans to buy not merely OPVs can give.
…. – “” should have” is very difficult if space is a premium””
Given that the UASs in question are small and that UASs in this day and age have become part and parcel of things; ensuring that ships “should have” the space shouldn’t be an issue ….
…. – “xpensive not merely OPVs (FFBNW) that would be too overequipped for basic peacetime missions but not going to cut it fighting full on conflicts with hypersonic missiles and what not”
Yes you keep mentioning hypersonic missiles but if you take then into account; nothing we currently have or are slated to get under the 5/15 are able to defend themselves against hypersonic threats.
The defence against hypersonic missiles (still in its infancy and unlikely to proliferate anytime soon) will depend not on the actual design of the target but various other factors.
The Kedahs being “over equipped” for peacetime missions is a penalty worth incurring as they also have a wartime role in addition to a peacetime one – same goes with all RMN assets actually.
…. – “Notwithstanding its multitude of designations, it is not exactly designed to operate near shore, for example fighting plenty of small fast boats””
Each class will have certain advantages over the other and each has a role to play – nobody suggested otherwise. I’m merely pointing out that the LCS is a multi role platform configured for littoral ops. Should it be faced in a situation where it has to deal with swarm attacks; doesn’t necessarily have to be less capable for the task rush a LMS as it depends on the circumstances; i.e. early warning, type of weapons employed, number of targets which have to be engaged, etc.
ASM – “Couldn’t we combine some of the RMN and MMEA needs into a single design”
Possible. The issue is that what might work for the RMN might not for the MMEA and vice versa. Designs that can be shared would include FICs and maybe the LMS.
@…
Post COVID-19 Lockdown Q2 GDPs;
Vietnam = +0.36%
Indonesia GDP = -5.3%
Thai GDP = -12.2%
SG GDP = -13.2%
PH GDP = -16.5%
MY GDP = -17.1%
With MY forecast for 2020 GDP up to -5.5% recession, which is more priority to spend our money, to fix the economy or fix our defence? Reality is even in good times, we cannot afford for your plans much less in today’s new normal era.
… – “s but not going to cut it fighting full on conflicts with hypersonic missiles and what not”
All RMN assets have both a wartime and peacetime role. Each asset has a role to play. Whether it’s with the LCS or Kedah or FACS; there will be instances which suit them and I instances which don’t. There will
also be instances in which the circumstances prevents us from deploying our subs effectively.
Again; the LMSs and Kedahs are intended to be deployed in certain circumstances; in scenarios which don’t call for them to punch above their weight. Anything more serious will see the frigates deployed. Just like how the LCA has a role to play in the RMAF as part of the high/low end mix.
@ASM
Not just the onboard equipment but ships for MMEA can make do with civvie build standards while TLDM must have military grade ship build standard (thereby incurring higher costs). Even with basic fitout, Kedahs would be overspecced for MMEA peacetime usage.
@ azlan
” Yes you keep mentioning hypersonic missiles but if you take then into account; nothing we currently have or are slated to get under the 5/15 are able to defend themselves against hypersonic threats ”
Exactly. If expensive armed or potential to be armed not merely OPVs cannot survive those scenarios, so why bother with getting 18 of them? Just buy cheaper coast guard OPVs instead, and use the freed budget to get more submarines.
@ joe
My plan for the navy uses and requires 0% increase in budget compared to what the budget already allovated for current and previous RMK. By not buying expensive not merely OPVs and LMS will afford us to buy more potent deterrence in the shape of more submarines.
It can be tweaked further, if you are adverse to more Gowinds, then cancel that and buy other small frigates off the shelf.
@ azlan
” Yes you keep mentioning hypersonic missiles but if you take then into account; nothing we currently have or are slated to get under the 5/15 are able to defend themselves against hypersonic threats ”
Exactly. If expensive armed or potential to be armed not merely OPVs cannot survive those scenarios, so why bother with getting 18 of them? Just buy cheaper coast guard OPVs instead, and use the freed budget to get more submarines that can actually survive wartime scenarios.
@ joe
My plan for the navy uses and requires 0% increase in budget compared to what the budget already allovated for current and previous RMK. By not buying expensive not merely OPVs and LMS will afford us to buy more potent deterrence in the shape of more submarines.
It can be tweaked further, if you are adverse to more Gowinds, then cancel that and buy other small frigates off the shelf.
… – “Armed insurgents in multiple small boats landed on sabah shore without any resistance from malaysian forces.”
Before giving “resistance” one must first have detection. The armed group managed to land undetected because of a total lack of any surveillance assets in the area (the US. funded radars are further West in “Ops Pasir”).
… – “LMS should be designed/armed to tackle such incidents”
The main rationale behind the LMS is to perform a variety of wartime roles (like the Kedahs) which won’t require a frigate or roles a frigate can’t perform.
Whilst the LMSs (like all RMN assets) will have peacetime takings; preventing non state groups from landing will not be on the top of the list …. One doesn’t need a LMS for that but granted; it’s one of the peacetime roles the class will perform.
Ideally; preventing non state groups from landing should be a MMEA and Marine Police responsibility; backed naturally by the MAF. The key is not only sufficient assets at sea but also assets which are connected to land based surveillance assets and backed by air assets.
A needed step is to have ESSCOMs and the MMEA’s radars linked to enable a common picture. One of the roles the Little Birds can perform within ESSCOM is as a fast reaction asset; to locate, identify and fix contacts which have already been detected by other means. They can also be used to support or provide cover for sea assets which are in the midst of engaging or pursuing contacts.
… – “Exactly. If expensive armed or potential to be armed not merely OPVs cannot survive those scenarios, so why bother with getting 18 of them”
Not “exactly” actually …
Going by your line of reasoning; not a single surface asset currently operated or included in the 5/15 has the capability to survive a hypersonic attack ….
That’s not the point however as the LMSs and Kedahs are intended to be placed in circumstances in which they are not required to punch above their weight …
Going by your line of reasoning; there’s no point in getting LCAs because they might be faced in a situation where they will come up against dedicated MRCAs …. In reality the LCAs are intended to perform roles not requiring a MRCA and should never be placed in a situation where they are severely disadvantaged (like anything else) ….
… – “so why bother with getting 18 of them? Just buy cheaper coast guard OPVs instead, and use the freed budget to get more submarines that can actually survive wartime scenarios.””
2 separate issues which you’re conflating …. “Survive” in what context? There will also be instances where subs can’t effectively operate. As for the “cheaper OPVs” the reason the MMEA’s ones are cheaper is because – unlike the Kedahs – they are only intended (and configured as such) for the peacetime constabulary role …
@ azlan
” Before giving “resistance” one must first have detection ”
Now we have detection (radars). What we need is the resistance.
” Ideally; preventing non state groups from landing should be a MMEA and Marine Police responsibility ”
Police and MMEA deal with civil actors like illegal fishers or illegal immigrants. Insurgents with weapons need to be dealt with by our armed force.
” Going by your line of reasoning; there’s no point in getting LCAs because they might be faced in a situation where they will come up against dedicated MRCA ”
By my reasoning
LCA – OPVs
MRCA – Frigates
No need for in between, expensive not nearly OPVs.
” “Survive” in what context? ”
In majority of future naval armed scenarios. Our main challenge is China. Period. Any issues with our neighbours, we do not need a large fleet of 12 Frigates + 18 not nearly OPVs. With 12 Frigates our navy is already easily one of the largest fleet of frigates in South East Asia. In any scenario with PLA Navy, our surface ship fleet will be easily decimated. On the other hand, in any scenario with China Coast Guard, those 18 not nearly OPVs should not be involved not to worsen the situation. That could be faced with the planned 20 OPV fleet of MMEA. So why do you need those not nearly OPVs in TLDM fleet??
@…
IINM you mentioned on the need to slightly increase the current defence budget for your plans. In any case, the current and previous RMK didn’t factor in COVID19 effects on the economy. Right now we such contractions, we have an uphill climb to claw our way back to pre-COVID levels and that might take us years. Keep in mind RMK12 is to be set just next year so the effects of current downturn will heavily weighed down the RMK12 budget. The Government today launched another Rm500mil bond drive to spur the economy with more to follow. This will crowd into the budget to save the country from downturn. And typically as previous downturns, the defence expenditure will be on the chopping block first amongst other things.
Each year our country lost 6b from illegal fishing so d gov hav 2 import a large amount of fish to fulfil our domestic need. Trade deficit,.ringit going abroad bla, bla bla.Eastern Sabah is also can be further develop if there is no kfr n pati activities. It would be better imo if we invest in MMEA going forward so they can better protect our economic interests. D profit from that can than be invested back to strengthen our navy.Do that n i guarantee u even bellhara is within our reach. Ha3.If only our leader have vision.
https://www.nst.com.my/business/2020/08/617860/bhic-posts-profit-h1-revenue-nearly-rm80m
Why is MTU malaysia is in a winding up petition against BNS?
Reply
No idea, without access to the court documents but it must be noted that most of the engines in RMN ships are MTU engines it more that likely that BNS have had dealing with them.
@Shahril Ramli
That is Rm6Bil potential lost, doesn’t mean we would gain that 6Bil if we had prevented illegal fishing because we don’t have sufficient fishing vessels and manpower to make good on that potential. Every time during storms and monsoon seasons, our fishermen have to stay on land unlike deep sea operations that could stay months on water. While beefing up MMEA is necessary, we must look into how we can reap the benefits of such potentials otherwise no point to hire guards to guard our money but left there to rot. This also goes for the illegal smuggling of our precious woods and wildlife.
@ marhalim
is there something wrong with my reply to azlan? you are making me seem to agree on what azlan say to me.
Reply
Huh?
… – “.Now we have detection (radars). What we need is the resistance”
Even if we had 5 divisions in Sabah we wouldn’t be able to secure every beach thus priority is to detect them before they get a chance to land …. The “resistance” part comes later : for me the main challenge is to fix them when they land and isolate them from the coast (issues we faced in 2013). Once we actually found them “resistance” wasn’t the issue ….
The pair of radars ordered only covers a certain sector. There is a need for more radars and better coordination amongst the various agencies.
… – “. So why do you need those not nearly OPVs in TLDM fleet??”
The answer is very simple despite you persisting in asking the same question time and time again merely because the answer doesn’t fit in your narrative : because unlike the MMEA’s OPV; the Kedahs are also intended to have a wartime role and their sensors fit our reflects this.
It’s for the same reason the RMN looked upgrading a pair for ASW and another pair for ASuW. For the same reason that the RMN plans to fully fit out that follow in Kedahs includes in the 5/15.
In case you see fit to remind me again that you don’t agree; it’s a matter of profound indifference to me ….
.. – “Insurgents with weapons need to be dealt with by our armed force.”
Intruders – whether insurgents, terrorists, kidnappers, etc – are dealt with various various organisations. There is no reason why the police or MMEA can deal with lightly armed non state actors; which BTW they do. Why do you think the police and MMEA have some the weapons they do ….
… – “Our main challenge is China. Period””
For you maybe but in reality (not withstanding your “period”: the MAF has to deal with various potential peacetime and wartime challenges; including Ambalat and overlapping claims in the Melaka Straits and SCS. The Indonesians gave actually been more aggressive than the Chinese : entering our waters to tow back our trawlers; throwing stones at our ships, pointing guns, etc.
If indeed you’re convinced that trouble will be with China; not only the Kedahs but also everything else we have would face immense challenges; i’m referring to stuff the Chinese (they have a qualitative and numerical edge) actually have; not the hypersonic missiles you constantly refer too; which are still in their infancy.
Also whilst the Kedahs can’t indeed hold their own against a PLAN frigate or destroyer; such a statement or question shouldn’t arise in the very first place as the Kedahs and LMSs shouldn’t be placed in such a situation in the very first place; just like how a MMEA OPV shouldn’t be placed in a situation where it’s 30mm isn’t sufficient …