SHAH ALAM: UK company SEA has secured a contract extension with Lumut Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (Lunas) to supply its fixed triple configuration Torpedo Launcher System (TLS) for the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN). The agreement, the company announced on March 13, will see five Maharaja Lela-class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) equipped with the advanced lightweight torpedo launcher capability, significantly enhancing the littoral water defence of the RMN.
The contract for the TLS was originally awarded J+S Ltd in 2014, which was later acquired by SEA in the same year. The contract was for six TLS and its associated equipment.
According to a SEA press release published in 2017, the first TLS had passed factory acceptance tests. The company said it worked with Kuala Lumpur-based project engineering managers Budi Axis Sdn Bhd to achieve acceptance of the first weapons handling system in country. Budi Axis is the company that was awarded the contract to supply acoustic hailing devices for six CB90s fast combat boats attached to the Markas Wilayah Laut 2 based in Sandakan. Malaysian Defence story on the torpedoes for the LCS.
In the same release SEA stated that the delivery of the first system was scheduled for 2017 with the final system due for delivery in 2021. The torpedo launchers will comprise a pair of triple configuration, composite tubes mounted just aft of midships on the 111m ships. They are compatible with all lightweight NATO standard-sized torpedoes.
The company also said all six sets of handling systems will be manufactured in Malaysia, while production of the system electronics will also be progressively manufactured in Malaysia over the six ship sets (this was before the LCS numbers were cut to five). It is unclear though whether the local production of the TLS and its accessories were done in Malaysia.
The release on SEA website accessed on March 14.
SEA has secured a contract extension with Lumut Naval Shipyard (LUNAS) to supply its fixed triple configuration Torpedo Launcher System (TLS) to the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN).
The fixed triple configuration TLS will enhance the Maharaja Lela-class LCS anti-submarine warfare capability, providing a powerful, adaptable, and reliable system that ensures the RMN remains mission-ready. The TLS system is weapon-agnostic, allowing compatibility with a range of lightweight torpedoes, while its compact design simplifies maintenance and extends its operational lifetime.Chris Bennett, Head of TLS at SEA, said: “We are thrilled to partner with Lumut Naval Shipyard to deliver our advanced triple configuration Torpedo Launcher System for the Royal Malaysian Navy. This contract highlights our commitment to providing advanced, reliable, and adaptable solutions tailored to meet both immediate and longer-term needs for navies around the world. By enhancing Malaysia’s maritime defence capabilities and supporting the development of its domestic defence industry, we continue to strengthen our presence in the Asia-Pacific region and build strategic partnerships to meet the demands of modern navies.”
The TLS forms a critical part of a wider programme of upgrades to the Royal Malaysian Navy, as it continues to modernise its fleet in response to evolving maritime threats.
Captain Rosnizam Che Puteh, Director of LCS Project at Lumut Naval Shipyard, said:
“The integration of SEA’s Torpedo Launcher System will significantly enhance the defensive and operational capabilities of the Maharaja Lela-class LCS. We look forward to working closely with SEA’s experienced team to ensure the successful delivery of this advanced system. This partnership not only enhances the RMN’s capabilities but also supports LUNAS in delivering world-class solutions to Malaysia’s defence sector.”
— Malaysian Defence If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
IMO this is probably just a formality to change many of the original deadlines in the original contract (for example warranty dates, etc.) as the project has delayed significantly from the original plans.
But this is also a good reminder that most of the hardware for this project has been paid for in batches of 6.
So actually most of the hardwares for the 6th GOWIND is already paid for.
All we need is to cough up the money for the assembly cost of the 6th GOWIND.
IMO for the same/less amount of money to be spent to SLEP/Upgrade the LEKIUs, i would much prefer the money to be spent on assembling the 6th GOWIND instead.
A 6th GOWIND is much more advanced, with ASW and air defence capability, than any upgrade done to the LEKIUs.
If in RMK13 2026-2030 we do spend some money on assembling the 6th GOWIND, by 2030 TLDM Surface fleet would consist of
– 6x LCS GOWIND Frigate
– 6x STM Turkiye Corvette.
That surface fleet above are many times more capable than the current fleet of
– 2x Lekiu Frigate
– 2x Kasturi Corvette
– 6x Kedah OPV
So i believe that TLDM can pass all those ships to APMM to undertake EEZ policing patrols, without any effects to the overall TLDM warfighting capability.
… – “IMO for the same/less amount of money to be spent to SLEP/Upgrade the LEKIUs, i would much prefer the money to be spent on assembling the 6th GOWIND instead”
Does your opinion take into account that to avoid a capability the RMN is doing the bare minimum to keep these ships operational and to have some level of combat capability.
I realy positive the 6th LCS will be completed.
… – “That surface fleet above are many times more capable than the current fleet of”
From a totality perspective, how capable these ships actually are is dependent on the support the RMN gets from the RMAF and the ability of these ships to also have a certain level of networking. The combat effectiveness also “depends” on who they are engaging and under what operational circumstances.
… “So i believe that TLDM can pass all those ships to APMM to undertake EEZ policing patrols”
The issue as has, been done to death with, is that the MMEA will say “no thank you” . For one it already has a fleet which is a nightmare to support and even if stripped the aged RMN ships which will be even more aged when retired, will be maintenance extensive. As it is, as of 2025 the RMN is having issues which are age related [not confined to sensors/combat systems], yet the MMEA will supposedly have no issues?
Your “proposal” takes into account all the plus points but overlooks the cons. Ask any MMEA man what he thinks of this “proposal” and hear what he says. In case you again bring up the ex USCG ship which is decades older, the MMEA got it out of sheer necessity.
… – “A 6th GOWIND is much more advanced, with ASW and air defence capability, than any upgrade done to the Lekius”
From an objective perspective the LCSs will also have only a point defence missile system. Yes it has a great ASW sensor [you pointed this out on a multitude of occasions] but unless a ASW helo with the needed range, endurance, lift capacity and internal space is acquired, the LCS will have a somewhat limited ASW capability.
Rock – “I realy positive the 6th LCS will be completed”.
Your optimism notwithstanding; for starters I really hope we get the initial 5 on time without further delays.
P.S.
Recent works undertaken on the Lekius are intended to ensure they have some level of combat capability; essential given that the LCSs aren’t in service yet. I point this out in reference to your “than any upgrade done to the Lekius”.
We can’t decide to stop spending cash on the Lekius in order to spend on the 6th LCS as the Lekius constitute our main surface combatant at present. In another post someone asked why we are going through the expense and effort to fit NSM on a hull we only intend on operating for another decade. This is because that hull: together with her sister; makes up 50 percent of the total number of ASM armed surface ships we have at the moment.
As sure as day will turn to night or earth will continue to spin; retiring the Lekius and Kasturis will have zero affect on the service’s “warfighting capabilities”. This is clearly because when they are retired it will be at a time when replacements at are already in service. Not a case of anything being retired prematurely.
Retiring them prematurely will however affect the service’s “warfighting capabilities” [ currently modest they may be] but also its peacetime capabilities. All navies, even those with a well equipped and funded coast guard, have certain peacetime capabilities.
The question really is how moving aged and worn out assets which the RMN already finds expensive and maintainance extensive to support [not solely due to combat systems] assets; to the MMEA which already had a plethora of asets; many aged and with little to no commonality; affect it. Another question is how would the MMEA react? We know the answer to that and it’s based on practicality rather than “shame” in getting aged and worn out assets.
” We can’t decide to stop spending cash on the Lekius in order to spend on the 6th LCS as the Lekius constitute our main surface combatant at present. In another post someone asked why we are going through the expense and effort to fit NSM on a hull we only intend on operating for another decade. This is because that hull: together with her sister; makes up 50 percent of the total number of ASM armed surface ships we have at the moment ”
Wow
As a defence analyst, you sure have a limited understanding of the timelines of all the current running programmes for TLDM.
For KD Jebat, the RM99 million (USD22.3 million) refit is mostly for general repairs only, & from LUNAS updates, looks like the main engines are taken out for overhaul. The refit is scheduled to be completed in Sept 2025.
We are now already in mid of 2025. The current AShM capability of the 2x LEKIU class frigates will be replaced by 3 new Frigates / Corvettes in less than 20 months time. LCS1 is planned to be commissioned in August 2026, with LCS2 in April 2027. CORV1, CORV2 & CORV3 is all planned to be commissioned by end of 2027. The three STM Turkiye Corvettes are larger, heavier displacement, more heavily armed than the 2x LEKIUs.
So in less than 20 months time, TLDM will have 5x ships that will be more than capable to replace the 2x LEKIUs capabilities.
Upgrades on both Jebat & Lekiu will probably take longer time than that.
So why do we want to spend more on the LEKIUs when less money can get TLDM 1 more GOWIND Frigate, for a total of 6 GOWINDs before the end of 2030?
Not upgrading the LEKIUs doe not mean the end of those ships. Stripping off all the obsolete weapon systems from the ship, painting it white and passing it off to APMM will mean that they will still be performing defence operations for the country. KD Jebat for example, with all the out of hull engine overhauls done, it would probably not need any major overhauls/refits (just general refits) for the next 10-15 years. So even if we don’t upgrade/SLEP its weapon systems, it still can do patrols as OPV for many years to come.
China has done the same. Quite a number of Vhina Navy frigates and corvettes has been converted to OPV and passed to China Coast Guard.
https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/how-china-is-expanding-its-coast-guard/
… – “As a defence analyst”
Never said I was.
… – “China has done the same. Quite a number of Vhina Navy frigates”
Thanks for the obligatory link. Direct comparisons again? Like the MMEA and the USCG? Like how the RMN can perform magic, subs wise because Vietnam and the RSN can? Like how RMN ships should surface to warn off the neferious Chinese because the RN does too?
… – “you sure have a limited understanding of the timelines of all the current running programmes for TLDM”
You “sure” have a tendency to obfuscate and go off tangent. Yes the RMN is only spending what’s needed to keep them in servive and to have a certain level of combat capability, yes the RMN can’t retire them prematurely, yes the Lekius make up 50 percent of the number of missile armed ships the RMN has and yes both are getting increasingly expensive to run.
The way you go on about “upgrades” one would think we’re embarking on major works on the class as opposed to replacing what needs replacing and doing other things to ensure both can remain in service.
So before you get into your off tangent pontificating and claiming others don’t understand things, perhaps get on the right page of the discussion.
… – “Not upgrading the LEKIUs doe not mean the end of those ships”
Since you missed it. The RMN has taken certain steps to ensure it has a level of capability. Not replacing certain things would mean it does not have a certain level of capability and will be dicey to keep operational. Can’t explain in easier to understand language.
… – “Stripping off all the obsolete weapon systems from the ship”
Doing that does not mean they won’t be troublesome to maintain as they still have other components which need maintenance. As it is the RMN wants to get rid of them as soon as it comfortably can yet you’re pushing the magical narrative that the MMEA will have no issues as long as the combat systems are taken off.
… “So even if we don’t upgrade/SLEP its weapon systems, it still can do patrols as OPV for many years to come”
On paper and on links all looks good. The MMEA would disagree. Have you asked anyone or would you know better? As expected again the notion that the MMEA won’t want the ships or might not find them suitable is totally beyond you.
A objective sobered and dispassionate analysis involves looking at both the pros and cons. Not just the part one takes a fancy for…
… “So in less than 20 months time, TLDM”
Assuming all goes to plan… “Depends”.
Have no idea why hulu think of an either or ultimatum situations particularly as SLEP are done under OE while procurement are done under DE account. The money in neither account can’t be used for other purposes
The jebat like the Kedah aren’t gonna be obsolete nor facing end of support problems anytime soon. While the Kedah can take advantage of k130 batch 2 the jebat can take advantage of the work ID on upgrading their bung tomo class.
the cost of repowered and rehulled would cost the same either the boat are in RMN or MMEA services but in MMEA services you are gonna lose the equivalent of 1 bil per ship loses on opportunities cost as you get rid of all the equipment to turn it into a gun only boat.
Anyway a lot of navies in the region are planning to have a surface combatants fleet of around 20. If we wanted quantities parity then continued using old ships particularly one that ain’t gonna be obsolete soon like the jebat and Kedah are an easy cheap way to achieve those.
OE and DE money can be used for both, when there are reasons for it though most of the time it will be DE funding that is used for OE. It is just they need to account for it in the accounts but at the start the funding is divided between OE and DE needs. The recent example was the supplementary funding for aircraft maintenance. Money for DE was used for it though maintenance funding should come under OE.
Zaft – “The jebat like the Kedah aren’t gonna be obsolete nor facing end of support problems anytime soon”
Zaft – “particularly one that ain’t gonna be obsolete soon like the jebat and Kedah”
Both are aged. Both also need work on certain things and certain things needed replacement. In short what the RMN is doing is to ensure that the Lekius have some level of combat capability, especially given the Lekius make up of just 4 of the missile armed ships available and that the LCSs may face delays.
Now one can insist the hulls of the Kedahs are good to go for another 30 years and [off course] is yet another reason why they shoos go to the MMEA. That is magical assumption and, totally ignores the reality that by the time the class is ready to be retired, it will be even more aged and worn out. Or a silly simplistic comparison can be made and has been made that because others can operate aged and worn out former naval ships, that the MMEA can and should too, without taking into account the context.
P.S. Lekius make up 2 of the 4 missile armed ships available.
Even if the gowind is on time, the 6th ship are built and all the 6 Ada is procured. RMN would only have 12 surface combatants and out of those only 4 would be in the sea at any given time. Which means on average 1 ship each on the SOM, off east coast, off Borneo north coast and the sulu sea.
Keeping the Kedah and jebat around would give them additional 3 on the sea at any one times as well as justification for a future replacements.
As for the Chinese, From what I understand the type 056 no longer meets PLAN requirements as their current focus is on procuring bigger bluewater warships for high sea missions. Which is why they getting rid of it. Not to mention it’s relatively new”ISH” ship and not one nearing retirement. Thought I’m not sure if the Chinese had gutted all the equipment that make it a *corvette or simply keeping the equipment around and just remove the missiles in a ffbnw manners.
Zaft – “is on procuring bigger bluewater warships for high sea missions”
To be able to operate and stay on station in areas which are far from bases and in scenarios where replenishment ships may not be present.
Zaft – “Even if the gowind is on time, the 6th ship are built and all the 6 Ada is procured. RMN would only have 12 surface combatants”
Ib short even if the LMSs and LCSs are delivered on time the RMN would still be shirt of the minimum number of hulls needed, as outlined in the 5/15.
What is also certain is that the service would like to retire the Lekius and Kasturis as soon as its able but not prematurely as that would lead to more issues.
Just to be clear I’m not against submarine or AAW destroyer per say. But realistically speaking we currently have No MERAD and our fighter jet count is 8+5. Heck we don’t even have JLTV equivalent nor a 155mm gun.
So before one embarked on a long range aspect of multi layer defense like submarine,Typhon, AAW destroyer,oiler, subs replenishment ships, aster 30 etc etc. One might wanna buy some short to mid to range end of the stick first. Nor one should sacrifice the efficiency of those mid to short range system by “cheapen” it out to safe some money to buy few fancy long range one. Particularly if the enemies manage to naturalized those few fancy long range system then they have an easy pecking as your mid to short range defense system suck.
Zaft – “Just to be clear I’m not against submarine or AAW destroyer per say”
Nobody is. Certainly not me. We need a mix of various things and the services have to make trade offs : what they need, what is most likely to be used, what they can afford to sustain and what the government is likely to approve.
Zaft – “So before one embarked on a long range aspect of multi layer defense like submarine,Typhon, AAW destroyer,oiler, subs replenishment ships, aster 30 etc etc”
In this day and age everything has to be able to work in an integrated manner and jointly. Nothing works in a vacuum or is a panacea or a one size fits all wunderwaffe solution.
Zaft – ” naturalized those few fancy long range system then they have an easy pecking as your mid to short range defense system suck”
You mean “neutralised”. What’s needed is an integrated layered AD system with redundancy; able to deal with various types of targets. Easy on paper but in reality hard to achieve as its not cheap. Especially for countries which are not at war or face an imminent existential threat.
Before going into what we should or should not do however, bear in mind what drives our threat perceptions and strategic calculus as we see it. Also, under what conditions do we foresee the MAF being involved in a war or conflict. All this has to be taken into account before one makes blanket statements without any context and driven by very narrow/subjective narratives and preferences.
Zaft – “Even if the gowind is on time, the 6th ship are built and all the 6 Ada is procured. RMN would only have 12 surface combatants”
Those 12 surface combattants, all fully armed, all will be operational before 2030, is a capability far exceeds the current 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturi and 6 Kedah ships that TLDM have right now
Even in 2030, the current 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturi and 6 Kedah ships that TLDM have right now will still be operational, so that is at least 22 ships available to patrol our maritime zone and resources.
What I am proposing, is for the 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturi and 6 Kedah ships that TLDM have right now to be operated strictly as OPVs, by APMM. This will reduce the overall operational costs, while not reducing any of the current surface warship capabilites that TLDM have right now. So there is no need to upgrade any weapon system for the 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturi and 6 Kedah, and the money saved is (partially) used instead to complete the 6th GOWIND.
TLDM does not need a total of 12 GOWIND, 18 Kedah class & 18 LMS. Using the rule of thirds (3 ships needed to ensure 1 always out on patrol, 1 preparing for next patrol & 1 rest/maintenance after back from patrol), Malaysia overall as a country needs is at least a combination of 30 large OPV/Frigate/Corvettes (from both TLDM and APMM) to ensure that at least 10 would be always out at sea patrolling our maritime zone and resources during peacetime.
By 2030, Malaysia would have
– 6 GOWIND
– 6 Turkiye Corvette
– 2 Lekiu
– 2 Kasturi
– 6 Kedah
– 4 LMS 68
– 3 Tun Fatimah
– 3 MPMS
– 1 KM Pekan (ex JCG)
– 1 KM Arau (ex JCG)
– 2 Langkawi
– 2 ex USCG WMEC
That is actually more than 30 ships that can patrol our maritime zone. If we are to add more of KM Pekan sisterships as they retire from JCG, then there would be even more. So even without counting those very elderly USCG WMEC, we actually have enough large ships to patrol and as a sign of presence in our maritime zone by 2030.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmNtPs8aAAAMCt0?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
… – “So even without counting those very elderly USCG WMEC, we actually have enough large ships to patrol”
On paper. In reality things break down, especially with aged and worn out ships. There will be times when a higher presence or tempo will have to be maintained. Times when a ship is undergoing maintenance or refits. Times when maintenance or refits are delayed; for any number of reasons. A host of variables at play.
” On paper ”
That is nearly 40 large OPV/Frigates/Corvettes on paper by 2030 (compared to about 21 large OPV/Frigates/Corvettes available rihht now in 2025)
Including 12 brand new fully armed frigates/corvettes, 3 MPMS, 2 more Tun Fatimah OPV and 2 ex USCG WMEC
A reason for “the rule of thirds” is exactly to cater for all the variables.
But having just 2 submarines cannot cater for that. As you always say “a bit of everything but not enough of anything”. A reason why i want 4 submarines instead of just 2.
… – “That is nearly 40”
Let me explain in a way it won’t be misunderstood. On paper there will be that many hulls. In reality the number of hulls actually available for ops could be different, for reasons explained in my previous post.
… – “But having just 2 submarines cannot cater for that”
Yes every mother’s son and his dog knows you’ve mentioned that on a multitude of reasons. The things is we need various things and the fact that you’ve prioritise subs is because you have a penchant for them. What happens if a war we fight is one in which subs are not the answer? What happens if an opponent puts the means in acecto prevent us from effectively operating our subs? I can go obmb; yet again.
Lastly, the number of subs the RMN can absorb is determined by various, factors. The RMN is not the RSN or Vietnamese navy and submariners are inherently time and resource extensive to train and fall out rates are high.
… – “exceeds the current 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturi and 6 Kedah ships that TLDM have right now”
Quite obviously but the LCSs and LMSs aren’t here yet and no guarantees they won’t be delayed. As such the RMN has to not only keep the Lekius and Kasturis in service but ensure they have a level of combat capability.
… -“So there is no need to upgrade any weapon system for the 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturi and 6 Kedah, and the money saved is (partially) used instead to complete the 6th GOWIND”
Refer to the post above.
Hulu ”What I am proposing, is for the 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturi and 6 Kedah ships that TLDM have right now to be operated strictly as OPVs, by APMM. This will reduce the overall operational costs, while not reducing any of the current surface warship capabilites that TLDM have right now. So there is no need to upgrade any weapon system for the 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturi and 6 Kedah, and the money saved is (partially) used instead to complete the 6th GOWIND.”
as I said b4 with 12 surface combatants only. You would only have 1 surface combatants each active at any time on each MAWiLLA
As said before The cost of rehulling or repowering is the same whether it’s in RMN or MMEA. The difference is throwing away the equivalent of 1 bil per ship on equipment to turn it into a gun only OPV. Meanwhile the alternative is one can just buy missile and have it operate as a tier 3 and now you can have at least 2 active on each MAWILLA. Do note that Aus,SG,ID even PH is planning for a surface combatants fleet of at least 20. Doing your proposal mean RMN would be 50% the size of other neighbouring navies.
Also another problem with your proposal is you seems to ignore the compounding interest just like with the helo lease. If MY economy grow by 5% per annum even without an increase per GDP in defence spending the amount of money would be 63% more in 10 years time and 100% more in 15 years time. In time we are going to have money for actual 5G jet and subs.
” Let me explain in a way it won’t be misunderstood ”
Let me repeat myself
Those 40 ships by 2030 with “the rule of thirds” can deliver at least 12 ships for operations at all times – what part of that theory that you don’t understand?
This is what TLDM themselves put out, in the latest Force Structure 2040, on the quantity of ships they need at 1 time for complete coverage of malaysian maritime zone
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQW3FaaMAAAsTG.jpg
12 ships, but for the southern waters of semenanjung and ESSCOM, it would be something of NGPC, or our current FAC size (ships of around 40m in length). Those areas in my alternative plan would be covered with LMS-X, NGPC+NGPC B2 and also FICs doing QRA interception from their bases.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWZYxA-aoAA2On9.jpg
Even if assume that all 12 ships are large OPV/Frigate/Corvette, rule of thirds will mean a need of 36 ships. With 40 ships it would be more than needed to deploy 12, and more than enough to cover any ships in refit, or any temporary surge even up to double the needed 12 ships.
We regularly temporary surge up to 100% of our available lekius or kedahs before, so that is not something rare.
@ darthzaft
Our maritime zones are covered by both TLDM and APMM. You cannot just consider abt TLDM without taking APMM into account.
This is my alternative plan. Look closely there is more than 12 ships for TLDM in there, all for the same $$$ as TLDM original plan
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GULsw7-aAAAAePg.jpg
In total by 2030 (in just 5 years time) there can be 40 ships available from both TLDM and APMM, not just 12.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmNtPs8aAAAMCt0?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
… – “Let me repeat myself”
No need to trouble yourself because I understood very well what you were driving at the 1st time around.
Ta for the analysis but all I said was that we nmmst have 40 ships on paper but in reality “. There will be times when a higher presence or tempo will have to be maintained. Times when a ship is undergoing maintenance or refits. Times when maintenance or refits are delayed; for any number of reasons. A host of variables at play”.
To use an army analogy at one period when you were going on about ORBATs/TOEs I pointed out that in reality many units will not be at authorised strength and just because an art regiment might on paper been authorised to have X number of guns; in reality the actual number could vary.
… – “With 40 ships it would be more than needed to deploy 12”
Not as sanguine as you and I will not assume.
… – “We regularly temporary surge up to 100% of our available lekius or kedahs before, so that is not something rare”
Context… We don’t “surge” or maintain a high tempo for extended periods and a “surge” results in the ship later spending more time at pier or in the dock.
… – “what part of that theory that you don’t understand”
Rich coming from someone devoid of any context [e.g.the MMEA and the USCG, the RMN and the RSN and Vietnamese navy; etc] and in the habit of assuming that what looks great and can be done on paper will be similar in reality. Not to mention the perennial habit of only focusing on the pros and not the cons.
The “…” should not be calling the “Azlan” kettle black.
… – “This is what TLDM themselves put out, in the latest Force Structure 2040”
Assuming all goes to plan and the unexpected doesn’t happen. Assuming the protected number of ships that will be ready to put to sea will not significantly vary, that projected maintenance schedules don’t significant varyband that nothing major happens unexpectedly from an operational perspective. BTW the numbers the RMN seeks or will get in the future is not an optimum number but really the bare mininum. No need to pontificate about the “the rule of thirds” rule [not “theory as you put it].
A similar analogy can be placed on the 3 to 1 ratio that is what an attacking force should need – even neophytes know this rule. What is less known is that the 3 to 1 ratio is the minimum. If attacking well prepared defensive positions; a 5 to 1 ratio is needed. You’re a diligent and earnest online researcher; look up the ratios on Ukraine. So yes; it “depends” on the operational context.
@ hulu
If anything your proposal is the same modus operandi that deftech does with gempita. There are so many proven off the shelf IFV around and yet for profit they decided to turn a APC to IFV and end up with per unit cost at the same price of Abrams. If anything TDM would be better off waiting a decade and get the boxer a much better platform for a lot less money with plenty more support simply because it have the economic of scale.
So what exactly is the 700 tons ish Alex LMS missile boat good for when it doesn’t even have the seakeeping ability to stay in position in the EEZ. You know where PLAN is and where the CCP stake it claim. Why bother with boat that can’t stay on point in the conflict zone? Unless you want to prevent a Chinese landing that mind you the Chinese themselves never make any claim off. Why go around ignoring actual threats that is the chinese claim of the 9 dash line to defend against a low risk of happening Chinese landing? Or is it the reason you want OPV because you wanted some ship on ship violence? Mind you ship on ship violence mean higher insurance premium on export as well as possible closure of oil drilling. Why choose a defence strategy that negatively impacts your own economy? If anything due to the important of SCS SLC the Chinese are extremely warry of escalation because it’s negatively impacts their economy. An Escalation dominance that can’t be done with your gun boat OPV and missile boat.
It’s also quite possible that those ASW Alex LMS missile boat would missed subs that operate in the 9 dash zone. Because again it can’t stay on point there when the weather becomes impermissible.
Also unlike ID,PH Norway nor sweeden. The Borneo north coast don’t exactly have hundreds of thousands of island for some sweet sweet assymetric hiding hit and run attacks isn’t it? If you want so hit and run maybe check you geography first whether that is possible or not. If anything there a perfectly buffer state between us and China and that is the Philippines. Rather than going there to stop Chinese invasion and turn Philippines only into rubble your grand plan is to wait for the Chinese to beat the Philippines then fight them as they come here and turn both countries into rubble. Seriously do you think any bean counter or politicians would want to approve such suicidal defense posture just so assymetric can happened?
Again Why throw away a billion ringgit equivalent of equipment per ship on a corvette that mind you won’t face any end of support anytime soon to turn it into a gun only boat then spend a billion more to buy a Alex LMS missile boat? Why not just continue using it. It’s obviously a much better ship, with better seakeeping and more space for better equipment then your proposed missile boat.
How much R&D going to be spend on integrating the MCM item on the Alex LMS? If it’s goes the same rate as the usual 100-200% why the heck one want to do that when a perfectly usable off the shelf item with economic of scale from France or Italy which comes with plenty other user one can share and exchange information with compared to cheapo limited numbers MCM vessels?
Anyway why even bother getting rid of billions of ringgit of equipment on the Kedah turn it into a gun. Boat then spend billions more to buy your missile boat then pay R&D to integrating MCM and ASW on Alex LMS when you can spend less amount of money to put the MCM or ASW module on the Kedah or Ada?
Also a 700 tons ish, single hull alex LMS HSV? Again how much R&D money need to be spent building it when you can just buy off the shelf stuff from austal or just ask for the recently retired spearhead?
Zaft – “thousands of island for some sweet sweet assymetric hiding hit and run attacks isn’t it”
Again, if there is troubke in the Soratlys it’s not written in stone we would be involved. Secondly it’s not as if the neferious Chinese who are all out to grab our territory and for whom we are uch major threat which causes them so much grief; can’t respond to our asymmetric tactics. The enemy too has a say/vote.
… – “Why go around ignoring actual threats that is the Chinese”.
Why “go around” making it sound as if conflict which China is imminent; that with assymetrical tactics and we certain bit of kit we actually have a chance against China or can “deter” it. China not bothered about us as we are small fry but even America and others would struggle against it; never mind us. Not to mention we have other challenges which we have to focus on too.
Not Chnia which ramned a ship, came close to firing on a ship of ours, pointed guns at a Lynx, demanded the extradition of a RMN ship CO and engaged in other provocative actions. In short we have other concerns apart from China.
Zaft – “to approve such suicidal defense posture just so assymetric can happened”.
Left out of the narrative is that China too can play the assymetrical game and the reality is the MAF is not structured, equipped or trained for the task of dealing with the military of the world’s second largest economy, largest military and a huge industrial capacity and high tech engineering base.
Zaft-“operandi that deftech does with gempita”
Deftech does what the government enabled it to do as part of the highly flawed/self defeating policy we have. The joke is after spending so much on R&D and setting up an assembly facility; the army can’t afford follow on AV-8s.
@ darthzaft
as usual. lengthy comments about something you have ZERO understanding about.
where is the proof that the DAMEN AXE-BOW hull doesn’t even have the seakeeping ability to stay in position in the EEZ? That hull design is practically designed to survive harsh north sea conditions, and has operationally deployed hundreds of miles offshore for months on end chasing japanese whaler ships and chinese IUU vessels.
It can be used far offshore like around antarctica for 93 days, but read what i put above, where it is intended to patrol.
Even Royal Navy is using one of the same design to test future naval technologies
https://cd.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/rnweb/news/where-we-are/naval-bases/portsmouth/20241125-xv-patrick-blackett-trials-apac/frpue-20241121-zh037004.jpg
I am not going all out to list all the wrong things you write because of your laziness.
@ azlan
” What is less known is that the 3 to 1 ratio is the minimum. If attacking well prepared defensive positions; a 5 to 1 ratio is needed ”
So what is your rationale that the TLDM plan for just 2 submarines doesnt bother you but we will have 40 large OPV/Frigate/Corvette by 2040 is utterly not enough ships for you?
By the way this is going more and more illogical so i am not going to bother to reply to you. This is alternative plan is for malaysia, not to please you azlan.
… – “So what is your rationale that the TLDM plan for just 2 submarines doesnt bother you”
Since you missed it the 1st 98 times: the RMN had to make trade off in what its needs first, what it can afford, what the government can afford and other things. Also again for the 105th time subs tend to have less utility peacetime utility than surface warships, are inherently more expensive to support, requite crews which are very resource and time extensive to train and are not a panacea. To sound as crass as you, surely as an earnest online researcher and purveyor of links, you be aware of this. Or not…
… – “By the way this is going more and more illogical so i am not going to bother to reply to you”
Throwing a tantrum again when things don’t go your way? BTW we’ve all heard that “won’t bother to reply” thing before. At one point you announced you were going in self exile so to speak; from here.
… – “By the way this is going more and more illogical”
From the day you kept making direct comparisons without any context, equating the MMEA to the USCG, the RMN to the RSN and Vietnamese navy, insisting RoRos are a substitute for a MPSS, suggesting subs should surfac to warn intruding ships, that Gerak Khas could expand significantly without a, drop in quality, only focusing on the pros but not the cons as part of your subjective and fevered reasoning, it became ludicrous…
Zaft – “Norway nor sweeden”
Both are NATO members and would not be alone.
Zaft – “An Escalation dominance that can’t be done with your gun boat OPV and missile boat”
Even if we had 60 subs we could not do it. Unless of course the other side had no subs of his own; no air and surface ASW assets; no mines, unmanned assets and underwater sensors and little understanding of the limitations of subs – as, likely as us winning the Rugby World Cup. Another thing; amidst all this talk about what the RMN can or can’t do in a war [never mind the blanket statement without context on what type of war]; what the RMN can or can’t do is highly dependent on the ability of it to work with the RMAF and the ability of the RMAF to have certain toys which can do certain things “jointly”.
Zaft – “against a low risk of happening Chinese landing”
A sobered/objective analysis will show that the Chinese don’t have to land on any reef; they only have to deny one air and sea access.
Something else amidst all this fevered minded notions of a China intent on grabbing our reefs; they are southermost reefs in the Spratlys. If indeed the Chinese had to physically grab anything it would be on the more strategically located reefs held by Vietnam and others further northwards.
@Hulu “I am not going all out to list all the wrong things you write because of your laziness.”
Basically I am right ,I know I’m right, and no one else can say otherwise because I’m right all along. it’s not even surprising just like how you keep on claiming other military have a RORo then as people correctly identify that those military also have a LPD you completely ignore those fact Then go on and on and on how RORo can replace a LPD despite it’s not what those military that you claim are doing are doing.
Even if the axe bow is somehow magic invention (which it isn’t since it already been invented since dreadnought was a thing) the fact is your Alex LMS is still a surface combatants and it would cost 200-300% more then a bigger OPV like the tun fatimah. Why even bother with Alex LMS when new OPV is cheaper?
As for the navy what exactly the reason for the gov to throw away the equivalent of billions ringgit of equipment per ship to turn it into a gun only OPV for MMEA and then spend billions more to acquire a much worse off ship. Even if axe bow is magic. it’s still a smaller ship that can carry less effector, equipment, heck it would even carry less TEU module. Alex LMS still gonna cost upward of half a billion to 3 quarter of a billion. So how exactly is getting rid of those to replace it with Alex LMS is a great idea when continue using the kedah and jebat are not just cheaper but with better capabilities?
Then there the question of why exactly is MMEA who is a law enforcement agency first have lot of big ship when most of trans boundary crime happened in shallower water? While the navy whose main job is to act against a state actors, who right now are operating on deeper water have lot of smaller ship where smugglers are?
Then the ultimate question is, all LO jet like all hypercar tent to look the same because it’s the ideals design for the job they intended to do. Most of our neighbors be it SAF,ADF,AFP who more or less have the same security concerns have more or less have the same cookie cutter plan as MAF. So what are the likelihood of your plan is better than what actual professional planner do not just in 1 county but in multiple countries?
I say the chances are is either zero or none.
Zaft – “Then there the question of why exactly is MMEA who is a law enforcement agency first have lot of big ship when most of trans boundary crime happened in shallower water”
The MMEA’s jurisdiction stretches from the coast right up to the EEZ. That’s why it has a need for OPVs as well as smaller hulls. The Marine Police has jurisdiction up to several NM from the coast.
Zaft – “While the navy whose main job is to act against a state actors, who right now are operating on deeper water have lot of smaller ship where smugglers are”
The LCSs and LMSs and the Lekius and Kasturis they will replace are not seen as “small ships”. The FACs are but they were bought during a period when we had slightly diffrent requirements.
… – ” This is alternative plan is for malaysia, not to please you azlan”
Gosh. I thought it was for me to get my rocks off. The “alternative” plan is yours and driven by your subjective preferences but ignore various realities. For the 1,576 time; just because something looks great on paper and in your mind; doesn’t mean it does in reality. I know it’s hard but if you make the effort to look at the cons as well as the pros; you’d realise why what you propose is not realistic. You’d also realise that the RMN has trade offs to make in line with what the government approves and is willing to fund. The MMEA would have a good laugh of you told them with straight face that in a few years the aged and worn out Lekius and Kasturis will be economical to operate and suitable for requirments. Or will you again compare the MMEA to the USCG?
@ darthzaft
” Alex LMS is still a surface combatants and it would cost 200-300% more then a bigger OPV like the tun fatimah ”
That is the most retarded statement ever.
My LMS-X proposal, including missiles, are to be under USD33mil. Tun fatimah is USD64 mil before cost overruns. How on earth USD33 mil is more than USD64 mil ?????????
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWZYxA-aoAA2On9.jpg
APMM will have NGPC+NGPC Batch 2 as medium patrol vessels. Narrow waterways will be primarily patrolled by NGPC + FIC, with LMS-X as support.
I am for NGPC Batch 2 to be filled with this fast and long ranged FCS4008. Same size as current NGPC, but faster, longer range.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQmGGXa4AM_m3a.jpg
Look at the data. Look at the seakeeping design this ship is certified for. Classification – Bureau Veritas – Sea Area 4. Sea area 4 means unlimited sailing area, with waves ≥ 4,0 m. That is the highest rating in Bureau Veritas. So it is designed to sail in very bad weather and sea state. Both FCS5509 & FCS4008 is designed to this rating.
Cost of 12 of these is equivalent to 2 tun fatimah OPVs. Buying 12 of these in each future RMK to 2040 will get APMM a total of 36 NGPC B2, replacing all the PDRM, Customs 30-40m hand me downs by then.
Zaft – “for MMEA”
A few years from now if the MMEA still gets pre owned hulls which are decades old; then something is fundamentally wrong. No doubt if it gets such hulls the politicians will make it look like and achievement and blow thier own trumpets; some will say the MMEA should get more hulls and others might say it’s fine because the USCG also operates hulls which are decades old.
What the MMEA intends on doing but is facing issues [understating things]; is to gradually reduce its large footprint – a fleet comprising various ships of various ages with little to no commonality. The last thing it needs; unless it really has to or is, forced to; is more aged and maintenance extensive hulls which places strain on its support infrastructure.
Alternative TLDM Force Structure 2040, timelines, CAPEX Budget
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
For APMM the budget for large OPVs to 2040 is only this:
– USD45 million (RM200 million) additional budget to complete DAMEN OPV2 & OPV3 as requested to the government
– USD240 million for 3 Desan MPMS in RMK13 2026-2030
– USD240 million for 3 Desan MPMS in RMK14 2031-2035
8 additional new large OPVs for less budget than 3 Corvettes.
Others for APMM would be recapitalisation of 35-40m patrol vessels with NGPC batch 2; recapitalisation of 20-30m patrol vessels with new patrol vessels; more RHFBs to replace RIBs and FIC recapitalisation. So by 2040 all of APMM vessels under 40m will be brand new.
More on the harsh sea condition suitability of the Axe bow design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igVY3hkbgVY
@hulu
Again Axe bow is a thing from the time dreadnoughts was a thing. It reduces the waves effect on open ocean a bit though at a cost of fuel efficiency near the littoral which is why it’s fall out of fashion in the first place. Agai. It’s does help but not a replacement for tonnage. If it was then the navies of the world would have just used it already and buy a lot of smaller ships but Instead they just go on and on building bigger and bigger ships. Why should RMN be the first in the world to do it? What happened if it’s gone horribly wrong? Why bother taking the road not taken instead of low risk high rewards conventional wisdom?
Also If it was magic as you say then it won’t go out of fashion in the first place also if axe bow was magic why proposed it only to the navy? Why not just let the CG have it but somehow in your mind CG ship should be big.
Secondly, for the 75th time. One cannot just add up the *ingredients cost as a final cost. If that was true. Then gempita won’t be the price of Abrams, the hunter class won’t be 300% more then the city class and the UAE LPD won’t cost half a billion dollars instead of the usual 1/10 the price, the maharajalela won’t cost 30% more then the UAE gowind nor the FA50 block 20 cost 100% more then a block one. Add in the R&D cost and your TEU carriers would cost the same of more then a bigger off the shelf surface combatant. Just like how the gowind despite being a frigates cost as much as some off the shelf destroyers.
Third. What you are proposing is a manned version of the Aussie optionally man vessels. It’s not a replacement for an actual surface combatant but an addition to existing surface combatant as because outside of peacetime patrol it can’t operate independently without a surface combatant around. Case in point if optionally man vessels are enough then the Aussie won’t be bothered ordering a tier 2 surface combatant won’t they? Thought I’m not surprised as you keep insisting things be it TB2,RoRo,LCA which in real world works as complementary can work as a replacement despite NO OTHER ONE Military is doing so. You have no evidence of it can work as a replacement but non the less you keep on insisting that it’s doable. Maybe it could but again why should RMN even take the risk?
Forth. If all you want is a missile truck for TEU weapons Then as LockMart & BAE marketing team stated. Any vessels of opportunity can do it. Be it the coast guard or commercial vessels. Why bother with throwing money building a dedicated TEU carriers?. Just buy a patrol boat for the CG and train the CG to follow the navy around and be their missile truck or just commandier a commercial vessels.
Fifth. Nothing wrong with playing R&D and reinvent the wheel. SG does it so does China & Europe. Building their own version of ship or IFV, they know it’s expensive but But the thing is they do so mainly to sustain their high tech manufacturers and also to train k economy manpower. No one country play R&D to save on cost as you keep on insisting. Just look at how expensive the rafale or typhoon is compared to the Americans offering. If it was cheap as you claim then everyone would had build their own jet rather than buying it from someone else.
Zaft – “Nothing wrong with playing R&D and reinvent the wheel”.
If one has a well laid out plan with a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and can’t and if one has economics of scale. What we should nev8is adopt the position that it’s alright to pay more as the price of supporting the local indudtry. That’s precisely why we’re in the shite we’re in.
@ azlan supporting local industry is 1 thing taking unnecessary risk on new non proven platform is another.
For example if the valor turn up to be another osprey then they still has the Blackhawk to fall back into as most likely both manufacturing line would still be open. The have the capabilities to wait decades to fix the kinks (just like with the f35) until the asset finally capable to meet all of the requirements and only then would they maybe close down the production of their previous platforms. Until then it would act as an addition to existing platforms rather then a replacement. If the new system doesn’t work just like with their LCS flexible module,then they would close it down and choose another route.
Meanwhile If we take the risk and bought the valor on day one (assuming it’s even offered to us in the first place) if it’s turn out to be shite (which it’s likely would as any new platform would) then we be in deep shite with nothing to fall back onto.
Being an armchair engineer is easy. After all one doesn’t need to prove it can work not even with a computer simulation. And even if computer simulation works as Boeing with their t7 program find out it may not work the same in real life. As Elon musk reportedly said, “building a prototype is easy building the final product if not”. If it does then we already have the Hyperloop operational already after all it’s nothing more then an existing maglev train in an existing vacuum tunnel.
Zaft – “azlan supporting local industry is 1 thing taking unnecessary risk on new non proven platform is another”
“Unproven” is subjective. How many things can you think of which failed to perform when 1st deployed?