SHAH ALAM: Defence Minister DSU Muhamad Hasan said today that the first LCS – PCU Maharaja Lela – will be completed in the third quarter of 2024. This was the second time that the Defence Minister – who one month ago said he did not enough about the project to comment on it – had stated that the ship will be ready in 2024. He had said this in an unscripted remark at the new year message ceremony at Wisma Pertahanan last week. His predecessor stated before that the first ship will be ready in 2025.
Today, he reiterated that the ship will be ready following a visit to the Lumut naval base. From Sinar Daily:
LUMUT – The Defence Ministry is satisfied with the recent status of the littoral combat ship (LCS) project with one of six ships expected to be ready next year, says its minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan.
Mohamad said his visit to the Malaysian Navy Base on Monday found the ships’ development was within the stipulated timeframe and in stages, following the appropriate capabilities.
“The first ship is at 70 per cent (completion). There was only one block that was missing for it to be complete, so it would not take much time. The engine parts, propellers, and gearboxes were installed; only the electrical equipment and the weapons remained.
“I am confident the first ship will be done by 2024 before its seaworthiness is tested and then commissioned,” he said in a press conference after his visit on Monday.
Muhamad visited Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) as part of his two-day visit to the Lumut naval base. He was briefed on the LCS project by BNS CEO Azhar Jumaat. Note that the 70 per cent completion of Maharaja Lela as stated by the Defence Minister is much higher than it was reported previously. It is unclear whether this means that BNS had managed to do some work on the ship when it was announced that the mobilisation phase had started.
— Malaysian Defence
He is confident doesn’t mean he is sure. Again politicians talk from the hip, whether they can be trusted is another thing. After all, Anwar had firmly said he will scrap LCS and go for another if he became PM so what is this now.
I only have this to say… Tuk Mat is a hard driver when he wants things to happen. Being a long-time NS resident I have seen this happen before. But only on ‘projects’ that catches his eye.
@Taib
Then he shouldn’t have forced KJ to pass him his seat candidacy…
Taib – “I only have this to say… Tuk Mat is a hard driver when he wants things to happen”
“I only have this to say…” What the Defence Minister can’t or can do is ultimately dependent on overall policy. Even if “he wants things to happen” it will only be possible if the his boss or the cabinet agree to it.
The defence Minister doesn’t drive or make policy. Handling state affairs and handling national affairs which cost billions and have huge political impact are two very profoundly different things. Anwar could not afford to scrap the programme because of the political implications.
I don’t know what to say. Although I support the project moving forward, the individuals responsible for this delay should not get a slap on the wrist.
2024…..could be 31st December 2024. Still 2 years away..
But this is neither happy nor good news since in an earlier statement he claims that only 4 out of the original 6 and now 5 frigates can be completed. Which leaves the question of what now? Are four(6 if we include the 2 lekius)frigates enough for us to defend our waters in the future? And even if and once the LMS batch II’s set sail will RMN once more be on par with our neighbors? I’m slightly doubtful of our capabilities in the coming decades despite the possibility of a naval conflict happening in our waters unlikely at the moment.
“After all, Anwar had firmly said he will scrap LCS and go for another if he became PM so what is this now.”
–> I guess the Navy convinced him otherwise, and probably a new tender would take more time and more funds(?). The Navy is desperately short of boats/ships already, I suppose they will take whatever they can.
“Tuk Mat is a hard driver when he wants things to happen”
–> Here’s hoping that he will drive hard to improve the Navy’s situation. The Army is more or less doing OK for now IMO, it’s the Navy and the AF that needs attention now
It will be very embarrassing if the LCSs are displayed at LIMA in the future. It’s a symbol of incompetence and an overblown and much delayed project. Got 4 or 5 out of 6 for a much higher price. I won’t be showing off the LCS!
Anwar right now cannot do much, as he is now the PMX because of the support of the very same people that did all the LCS Gowind shenanigans.
Money and time lost cannot be possibly recouped. The least possible outcome from this should be that RMN got all the ships that was ordered for them in the first place.
Yes i know… banana tree fruiting twice. Nothing much PMX can do about this, but hopefully he will start the fundamental changes that will prevent the same thing from occuring trice…
To the new PTL, hoping to see a new plan rather than the unworkable 15 to 5. Have a future plan that does not think the MMEA is in a separate multiverse than RMN.
..6 if we include the 2 lekius..Yeah i wondered too about how many service life that the lekiu duos got in them..and is it viable for them to get the armament upgrade up to the current bare standard?..That and how many more fund they/bns/govt need to complete all 6 ships (hopefully)..Or how many ships they will build eventually
Nope on the Lekius
They can do a new plan to replace the 15 to 5 plan but it cannot become official until 2030 due to DWP 2019 which is valid until then. Unless someone passed a new DWP in Parliament
Akmal – “the individuals responsible for this delay should not get a slap on the wrist”..
What about the individuals who put in place the current policy we have; a policy which enables the shite to hit the fan in multiple directions and ensures we keep repeating the same mistakes.
Azmie – “Anwar right now cannot do much”
Even if he could “do much” would he? The rot is so entrenched. Does he actually intend totally change things? Remember; he was part of the system; a system in which defence deals are an integral part of the patronage policy.
Azmie – “but hopefully he will start the fundamental changes that will prevent the same thing from occuring trice…”
“Hopefully” we have world peace; zero carbon emissions and other great things. You are assuming that he wants to really change various things.
Azmie – “5. Have a future plan that does not think the MMEA is in a separate multiverse than RMN”
Reality check. The MMEA isn’t part of the MAF and is funded separately as you know. Even within the MAF there is stiff competition for resources and rivalry.
Actually, what do all really wants? All I hear is that complain after complain after complain. If you all were in their position, would you do differently? I bet not.
– Azlan – “Reality check. The MMEA isn’t part of the MAF and is funded separately as you know”
Reality check
Both Mindef and KDN has worked together in various tasks, from the currently ongoing ESSCOM up to the The National Task Force (NTF) aka Ops Benteng.
There is even a mention of MMEA in DWP19. It can be done because it has been done before.
Is creating an official RASIC Chart of maritime security responsibilities between RMN and MMEA something very hard to do?
Then he shouldn’t have forced KJ to pass him his seat candidacy…(joe)
He is, after all, a politician.
“he will drive hard to improve the Navy’s situation”
He will drive hard to improve his political position and if it meant siding with the branch having largest voting bank and spread out enough to be influential in key areas, then that’s that he will do. He is a politician, expect nothing more.
Azmie … – ”Both Mindef and KDN has worked together in various tasks, from the currently ongoing ESSCOM up to the The National Task Force (NTF) aka Ops Benteng.”
Great but so? Yes there will be some level of joint planning [like there is with the MAF and various entities] but ultimately the MMEA is a non military entity funded and answerable to someone else. As it stands; even within the MAF there is fierce rivalry and competition for resources and lots of improvements to be made towards joint capability or interoperability.
Azmie – ”the currently ongoing ESSCOM up to the The National Task Force (NTF) aka Ops Benteng.”
Are you aware of some of the internal problems faced as opposed to what hit the headlines? Even within ESSCOM more than a decade later there are sill bureaucratic parochial issues which hamper/hinder things.
Azmie – ”It can be done because it has been done before.”
A lot of things ”can be done” but the issue is having continuity and doing it beyond the cosmetic level for political mileage. I can name various things that ”’can be done” and were done but went nowhere due to various reasons.
”Reality check”…
Akmal – ”Actually, what do all really wants? ‘
I can’s speak for ”all; only myself. What would like to see is a more genuine/serious position on defence issues; a focus on ensuring the end user and taxpayer respectively get the desired capability and money’s worth and a clear and holistic assessment on our defence needs based on the threats/challenges as we perceive them. What we have at present is a neither here nor there policy which is self defeating and a drain on already scare resources.
Akmal – ” If you all were in their position, would you do differently? I bet not.”
You actually have a point to make/share? Based on your logic then we shouldn’t be discussing/debating anything here then… Also; we are not in their position so asking rhetorically if we would do the same is ludicrous.
Azmie – ”Is creating an official RASIC Chart of maritime security responsibilities between RMN and MMEA something very hard to do?”
You tell me : is it? You also tell me : given the various issues at play [some I’ve alluded to] is it really possible [never mind the on paper stuff] for the level of cooperation/ integration/jointness needed between the MAF and various non military entities which answer and are funded to different ministries? Again; as it stands even within the MAF there are issues when it comes to joint planning. Never mind the rivalry for resources; inter service parochialism still; remains and issue unfortunately. On the MMEA before going into what we should do; ask whether all MMEA ships can ”talk” to RMAF and police aircraft; are there absolutely no comms issues/obstacles between MMEA and RMN assets; at what level is jointness actually practised and how serious is the desire on all the entities?
I’m all for jointness and for the MMEa to be better integrated within overall MAF/RMN planning and ops but I’m merely pointing out there are major obstacles still prevalent and what appears great on paper unfortunately might be different in reality.
There are turf wars because there are two organisations (MMEA and RMN) fighting for the same pool of funds. Its less about “jointness” at this point. Roles are delineated – MMEA is law enforcement (hence under Home Ministry), Navy is warfighting (hence under Ministry of Defence). The problem is neither has enough money to build the ships they need. Even when they have, they can’t seem to get the ships constructed. Navy doesn’t want to be tasked with law enforcement (e.g. chasing after illegal fishing boats or illegal immigrants). If they agree to “jointness” they have to do it because the MMEA lacks ships to cover every sector. Similarly, MMEA doesn’t want to do warfighting (e.g. shadowing foreign warships, patrolling deep into SCS close to contested territories) because they have their own responsibilities (e.g. chasing illegal fishing boats and immigrants). Its really less about capabilities at this stage and more on the basics of how many ships are available to execute the assigned roles. Doesn’t matter if the ships can talk to one another or with air assets from a different service when there are no ships to do the talking and no air assets that are flying. If you’re the leader of MMEA and RMN, you will unlikely agree to more integration for fear of losing funding – if someone else can cover for you, then you don’t need the money.
Kel,
Now the budget is separate.
But just look at the RMN 15 to 5 plan
What are those 18 PV are for? What are those many FIC are for? Can RMN use those FIC to fight other navies? No. At best those FIC is used to intercept smugglers and foreign fishing vessels, which is the task of MMEA.
As for MMEA, the current development budget is enough to even fund all the ships it need by 2030. To quickly get ships, buy used OSVs like many other coast guard around the world has done. Order ships from foreign shipyards like korea too. Get free transfers from friendly countries such as japan, usa, korea.
Doubling down on MMEA capability development while RMN + Mindef settles the LCS Gowind issue is IMO something that should be actively persued. Let RMN + Mindef really focus to get the LCS Gowind settled rather than adding even more projects (LMS batch 2) into the picture.
I don’t understand why so many of the so called defence experts while knowing everything unther the sky, cannot propose something significant and good for the future. Seems that condemning other ideas is much more easier.
Kel – “There are turf wars because there are two organisations (MMEA and RMN) fighting for the same pool of funds. Its less about “jointness” at this point”
It’s both….
Jointness or the ability to operate together beyond the superficial or bare basics is minimal. Yes there is delinition and there has to be but better jointness is the key. The issue is rivalry, bureaucracy, parochialism and various other things.
Kel “Navy doesn’t want to be tasked with law enforcement” “Similarly, MMEA doesn’t want to do warfighting”
Agreed with KC Wong that the reverse is actually true. The Navy ‘wants’ to do law enforcement on top of warfighting & MMEA ‘wants to do warfighting’ because they both wanted more fund for themselves.
At the end the result of the competition would likely yields a navy & CG that basically doing the same thing just like PGA & ATM except that the navy ‘specialized’ on the high end while CG specialized on the low end of the spectrums.
KC Wong “As for MMEA, the current development budget is enough to even fund all the ships it need by 2030. To quickly get ships, buy used OSVs like many other coast guard around the world has done”
Been there, done that. Now they are saddles with plenty of old steel with next to none commonality which impacted the operating cost. Which is why they only want new vessel going forward.
“Mindef really focus to get the LCS Gowind settled rather than adding even more projects (LMS batch 2) into the picture.”
Not a smart move, it took 10 years from announcing the winners of LCS program to plans delivery. If the LMS2 contract is launch after the LCS delivery in 2030 then we only get the LMS2 by 2040. It also mean 10 years without any job at the shipyard, navy planning department etc etc which would effect their competency. What you want is continuous build which mean the LMS2 should be built as soon as the LCS 1&2 is completed & commission a year after the final LCS is commissions.
KC… go back to the origins of MMEA. And then go further back to the Armed Forces modernisation in the 1990s. The Navy doesnt want to do law enforcement (i.e. littoral missions, littoral based on british navy definition). The FIC that they have are in support of the broader Armed Forces needs, not meant for law enforcement. FIC also better suited along the Malaysia – Philippines border. Every Navy has FIC, used for combat not law enforcement.
Irrespective of whether the MMEA has 178 ships and 263 aircraft; the RMN like any other navy would still perform various peacetime roles. The issue however is that there is no other entity that can help fill the void until the MMEA is adequately funded and that despite whatever illusions or hopes some have there is still a long way to go before both entities can operate more effectively in tandem.
As it stands the MMEA needs sustained adequate funding; an expanded shore support infrastructure and various assets [not just the OSVs which some are fixated on].
kel – ”go back to the origins of MMEA. And then go further back to the Armed Forces modernisation in the 1990s. The Navy doesnt want to do law enforcement (i.e. littoral missions, littoral based on british navy definition).”
Lets ”go back”.
The MMEA was supposed to be raised in the 1990’s but the RMN then opposed the move because – rightly so – it feared that resources would be diverted to the MMEA. Fast forward years later the MMEA was raised with promises by the politicians [as usual] that the needed resources would be allocated. When first raised the MMEA had a distinct RMN character/outlook because its initial cadre were overwhelmingly RMN but as years passed it began doing things its way as opposed to the RMN way. There was also friction between former RMN people who were now MMEA and people who started their careers in the MMEA.
The RMN welcomed the raising of the MMEA as it felt that it could start diverting attention to other areas but it soon became apparent that the needed resources for the MMEA was not available; thus the RMN had no choice but to also continue conducting certain roles which it had originally wanted to divest itself of. This however does not mean that the utter nonsense which some assume and insist on about the RMN supposedly specifically wanting OPVs or ”gunboats [itself a misnomer] for the peacetime constabulary role in a role duplication move is true…
KC – ”Can RMN use those FIC to fight other navies? No. At best those FIC is used to intercept smugglers and foreign fishing vessels, which is the task of MMEA.”
Bollocks. FICs in case you were unaware are used for a variety of roles specific to the RMN ‘s needs; whether to transport PASKAL; as a integral surveillance/transport element [as in the Spratlys] or for a variety of mundane tasks. Just because the RMN [like other navies] have FICs doesn’t mean their man role is to ”used to intercept smugglers and foreign fishing vessels, which is the task of MMEA.”..
Ya la. The MMEA and RMN fights for the same pool of funds (i.e., building ships). RMN was open to divesting law enforcement duties only if their share of funds isn’t affected. The government would give the RMN money to buy bigger ships to perform their new roles, and allow RMN to divest the older and smaller ships to the MMEA. Instead of investing in new ships for MMEA, the government kept the hand me downs from RMN and donated old boats from other countries longer than required. So now MMEA has an assets gap that only the Navy can fill. But the Navy themselves is struggling to get new ships because the government screwed up the NGPV program (from 27 multi-role ships to 6 gun only ships). The Navy is short of assets to perform their primary roles, for them to agree to improve “jointness” in order to cover for the MMEA. This is why neither will agree to improve “jointness” until the number of ships increase because “jointness” at this stage is another word for “cost cutting”.
kel – ”Ya la. The MMEA and RMN fights for the same pool of funds (i.e., building ships). ”
”No la” …
They don’t because funding comes from different areas but both [like within the MAF] are keen to ensure that they get priority in funding even if at the expense of others. Both are eager to justify their raison d’etre. We see the same rivalry with the MAF and RMP [remember the issues faced when the PFF was raised and ever wondered why the PFF had mortars but no ammo and 20mm armed APCs but also no ammo]; the only way for bureaucratic issues to be resolved if is the push comes from above.
kel – ”RMN was open to divesting law enforcement duties only if their share of funds isn’t affected. ”
”RMN was open to divesting law enforcement duties” in the hope that it funds would not be impacted and in the hope that funds could be conserved by cutting down on various roles.
kel – ”So now MMEA has an assets gap that only the Navy can fill.”
A capability gap…
kel – ”The Navy is short of assets to perform their primary roles, for them to agree to improve “jointness” in order to cover for the MMEA. ”
No… Greater jointness equates to greater efficiency and less role duplication and is desired but can’t be achieved for reasons which I’ve alluded to here and previously on multiple occasions. If any doubts persist ask – if you get the chance – anyone who has worked in a Joint HQ or in a position where liaison is required with a non military entity?
kel – ”This is why neither will agree to improve “jointness” until the number of ships increase because “jointness” at this stage is another word for “cost cutting”.”
You missed the part where neither can take jointness to a new level also because the institutionlised means are lacking… At present both have their own AORs which seldom overlap for the reason that there is still a long way to go with jointness or interoperability. I wont even get into ESSCOM issues here. Even in the U.S. which got into the jointness business much earlier; parochialism and inter service issues is still an issue.
Jointness between MMEA & TLDM? We haven’t even talk about jointness between MMEA & Polis Marin, both which have more similarities than the former. Face it, each of them has their own turf and each wants to be the top dog.
There cannot be jointness between MMEA and Polis Marin as the former is supposed to replace the latter.
”Face it, each of them has their own turf and each wants to be the top dog.”
If we are unable to overcome bureaucratic and parochial issues then we are buggered because jointness is the key; to maximise efficiency; avoid duplication and ensure we get the most optimum use of what we have. It is not only about ”own turf and each wants to be the top dog” but slightly more than that.
Within the MAF a lot has been done since Ops Pasir and ESSCOM but a lot still has to be done; the institutional means have to be in place and it has to come from top down.
There is a difference between budget and funding. Yes, MMEA and Navy has different budgets, but they share the same pool for shipbuilding (similar concept to the 3 military branches sharing a single pool for buying assets). The government does not in my opinion clearly distinguish between MMEA and Navy ships. The US is a good example of the challenges with achieving greater jointness. The jointness between USN and USCG was born out of budgetary constraints (after the end of the Cold War). Until then USCG and USN had clearly defines roles and areas of responsibilities, which in turn determined the design of their ships. When the Cold War ended, efficiency was a way to justify reduced spending. The difference between the USN\USCG and RMN\MMEA situation is, the Americans have a reasonable baseline of assets in each branch to make it workable. Today all new USCG cutters are designed for combat operations alongside USN ships. In the US, the Navy can spare assets (e.g. FIC type vessels, helicopters, surveillance planes, and USMC or Naval Special Warfare personnel) to assist with drug interdiction duties. In return the USCG sends its larger ships like the Legend class and future Heritage class cutters to Asia and the Middle East to support USN operations (releasing DDG-51s to do heavier duties). The USCG also supports USN artic operations with USCG icebreakers. The same cannot be said about RMN and MMEA. While RMN should be able to support the MMEA (e.g. allocating FICs, LMS and helicopters to a joint HQ or TF), the MMEA is unlikely to be able to reciprocate (at least not until the Tun Fatimah class is commissioned). If I’m the RMN, why would I run down my limited number of ships and helicopters to support another branch that cannot reciprocate? Jointness has elements of quid pro quo. If one side feels there is no benefit, they won’t commit. If both sides feel there is no benefit, then it won’t happen at all. That’s IMO a key reason institutional resistance exists. The only way to make it work if it comes strongly from the top.
kel – ”There is a difference between budget and funding. Yes, MMEA and Navy has different budgets, but they share the same pool for shipbuilding”
On that basis you and me share something similar in that we’re both homosapiens but that’s where the major similarities end. The RMN and MMEA both depend on federal funding but both a seperate enitities which fall under different operational and administrative control both get funding from diffrent budgets …
kel – ”The government does not in my opinion clearly distinguish between MMEA and Navy ships. ”
Actually it does… There is a major distinction; especially when it comes to the fact that the Ministry of Defence and the Home Ministry are competitors for funding and poltical backing/influence.
kel – ” If I’m the RMN, why would I run down my limited number of ships and helicopters to support another branch that cannot reciprocate?”
Because helping the MMEA also helps myself in that if shite hits the fan of account of a lack of assistance the shite will start flying in my direction and eventually I’ll be covered in shite.
kel – ”The US is a good example of the challenges with achieving greater jointness.”
Something I’ve alluded to on multiple occasions and something Sean Naylor does a good job explaining in ”Not A Good Day To Die”.
kel – ” If I’m the RMN, why would I run down my limited number of ships and helicopters to support another branch that cannot reciprocate? ”
As I said before; ”Greater jointness equates to greater efficiency and less role duplication and is desired but can’t be achieved for reasons”. It’s not something not realised or desired but not really achievable under the current climate. Note that we did have jointness during the 2nd Emergency; Ops Petaling; other reclamation efforts in the Spratlys and on other occasions but taking things to thje next level is problematic.
kel – ”That’s IMO a key reason institutional resistance exists. ”
Various reasons exist; not only or mainly the reason you believe.
kel – ”In the US”
”In the US” services are well funded; assets are not lacking; there is a clear existential threat that can be focused on and there has been a major focus from top down to achieve jointness but as it stands inter service rivalry; competition and parochialism is still an issue.
kel – ”The jointness between USN and USCG was born out of budgetary constraints (after the end of the Cold War). ”
It was also born out of experience in previous wars and the realisation that greater utilisation of resources and minimal replication could only be achieved in the various services could operate much more closely together…
kel -” The same cannot be said about RMN and MMEA”
You are assuming but are you actually sure? There have been cases where the MMEA has been able to lend a helping hand so to speak; irrespective of its lack of assets.
Something I’ve asked before and will ask again : could you please type out long posts in paragraphs as it makes it somewhat more bearable to read.
“supposed to replace the latter.”
Keyword: supposedly.
But since this ain’t gonna happen at least they should acknowledge each other, reduce the animosity between, and try work together since they are also both under the same Ministry.
If we can’t even solve this hurdle how to expect jointness from a civilian-military partnership, coming from different Ministries, that has quite differing purpose from the other?
“since Ops Pasir and ESSCOM”
That’s the thing, in joint ops one of them will be the lead, the one to coordinate, and seek & get the resources needed. In that scenario, TLDM will fight to be the top dog, & MMEA will fight to be that instead.
And if it relies on top down to decide, then we are buggered as they both cannot decide their own how to work together and needed instructions from above and you should know how clueless and inept our ministers/politicians are.
I believed the APMM is amenable to it but I don’t think it’s the same on the other party. As you know it’s take two to do the ronggeng. If you do it alone people might think you are crazy. It maybe it was designed that way so the politicians always have the upper hand and its not the guys on the ground that’s fighting each other
”joint ops one of them will be the lead,”
In joint ops one will take lead but all will have a say in the decision making process and all will have representation.
Marhalim – ”so the politicians always have the upper hand and its not the guys on the ground that’s fighting each other”
Of course Marhalim. The politicians always have their own reasons for playing the games they play as you well know. Unfortunately this is an open forum thus there’re things we know of but would rather not say.
”If we can’t even solve this hurdle how to expect jointness from a civilian-military partnership,”
like I said; we need to go back into history.
Why was there a decision to raise the PFF? Why did the PFF have mortars and APC mounted auto cannons but no ammo? Closer in time; what where the dynamics at play when under Badawi the government was supposed to stand down the Marine police? Under ESSCOM what were the major issues faced in the delineation of responsibilities and the decision making process? Who gets posted to Joint HQ? People of the right calibre or people sent to cold storage and other reasons?
Joe “And if it relies on top down to decide, then we are buggered as they both cannot decide their own how to work together and needed instructions from above and you should know how clueless and inept our ministers/politicians are.”
Which is why we ain’t a develop country yet. A develop country is one where the institution, culture, management, devolution of power, non commission officer, public pressure etc etc has been developed that such country is highly effective at doing things.
Efficiency is not the same as effectiveness. If department A requires 100% of resources to perform 100% of responsibilities. It is effective. If dept A requires 80% of resources to perform 100% of responsibilities. It is both effective and efficient. If dept A requires 150% of resources to perform 100% of responsibilities, it is effective but not efficient. If dept A requires 150% of resources to perform 80% of responsibilities, it is neither effective nor efficient. Each scenario requires a different solution to fix. Now supposed dept A only has 50% of resources but it performs 80% of its responsibilities, what is the dept’s effectivess and efficiency ratings? Now suppose dept A is asked to share some of the 50% resources to support 10% of dept B’s responsibilities, what do you think dept A’s position is? Unless there is quid pro quo, dept A will resist. RMN and MMEA has been saying for years, they are running to the ground their existing assets to maintain effectiveness. Since wastage is not a factor, the meaning of efficiency when applied to current asset levels is “i have no money, please find ways to make do”. Fix the asset issues and improving jointness will come. Keep saying its prorachial, politics, the system, useless civilian leaders, wont change the minds of leaders of both branches.
Now suppose the issue of funding will never be solved. Then there is no choice but to be efficient. The question becomes can the MMEA’s assets improve RMN’s effectiveness? Similarly can the RMN’s asset improve the MMEA’s effectivness? The other way is to reduce responsibilities or reduce the acceptable effectivness ratings so less resources would be used. In other words, effeciency is only good if there is wastage. If not be mindful on its impact on effectiveness.
kel -”Efficiency is not the same as effectiveness.”
Thanks for the heads up but greater inoperability/jointness equates to greater efficiency; maximisation of assets and less duplication…
kel – ” Fix the asset issues and improving jointness will come.”
If it only was that easy or simplistic. It’s not a simple matter of having more assets in order to solve what is a complex undertaking even in the best of times. By your logic the U.S. military which has no assets issue would have no jointness issues but it does as I pointed out. Ask if you need examples.
kel – ”Keep saying its parochial, politics, the system, useless civilian leaders, wont change the minds of leaders of both branches.”
If it’s alright with you I’ll continue to say what I feel I need to in order to better explain the narrative. BTW in case your unaware service centric parochial issues has long been and is still a major problem; perhaps you should ask around…
kel – ”The question becomes can the MMEA’s assets improve RMN’s effectiveness? ”
Wrong question. It should be ”an the MMEA’s assets” effectively complement whatever the RMN is doing and vice versa to produce the intended results…
kel – ” In other words, effeciency is only good if there is wastage. If not be mindful on its impact on effectiveness.”
Sounds a PowerPoint brief; an Excel sheet or a motivational where everything looks impressive, logical, neat and tidy. Have you seen McNamara’s briefings he gave to show show how everything was logical and calculated; as it stands the situation on the ground in South Vietnam was different to what him and his Ivy League ”whiz kids’ presented.
“the situation on the ground in South Vietnam was different to what him and his Ivy League ”whiz kids’ presented.”
*Looks at Afghanistan last year during their chaotic pullout* Well at least its comforting that nothing has changed since those days of Nam.