SHAH ALAM: IT appears that the Turkish Navy own yard – Istanbul Naval Shipyard (Insy)- will be the builder of the three LMS Batch 2 corvettes for the Royal Malaysian Navy. When the Letter of Award (LOA) was awarded on June 10, it was not revealed where the ships will be built.
As Insy was the builder for the four Ada class corvettes for the Turkish Navy as well as the builder of the two variants for Ukraine and Pakistan, it was most likely that the Malaysian ones will be built at the same facility as well.
The LOA for the three ships was handed over to the Turkish Defence Industry Secretariat 9SSB) on June 10. The main contractor is another state-owned company – STM Defence.
Do note that I am stating that Insy was selected as the shipbuilder based on a tender to ship the belongings of the LMS Batch 2 project team, from Malaysia to Turkey. The 16 personnel and their families will be staying in the district of Pendik in Istanbul. It must be noted as Insy, is also located in the same district. This is the reason the yard is also known as the Pendik Naval Shipyard. It must be noted that RMK Marine Shipyard, which built the second Ada class corvette for Ukraine is also located near Insy, though it is in Tuzla district.
The tender to ship the items to Turkiye is called DOOR TO DOOR SERVICE’ BAGI PASUKAN PROJEK LITTORAL MISSION SHIP BATCH 2 (PPLMSB2) BAGI 16 KELUARGA. The specifications:
Syarikat yang dilantik perlulah bertanggungjawab menyediakan perkhidmatan pindah rumah ‘door to door’ bagi penghuni serta
memenuhi keperluan berikut: a. Menyediakan
perkhidmatan pembungkusan perabot dan
barangan rumah yang akan dipindahkan. b.
Menguruskan urusan pemindahan barangan
rumah penghuni. c. Memastikan setiap perabot
dan barangan penghuni yang dipindahkan
berada di dalam keadaan baik. d. Syarikat yang
dilantik juga bertanggungjawab terhadap
sebarang kerosakan barangan peribadi
penghuni semasa urusan perpindahan yang
disebabkan oleh kelalaian pihak syarikat. e.
Penghuni mempunyai perlindungan insurans
perpindahan. f. Sewaan 16 buah lori x 5 Tan
beserta pemandu yang mencukupi. *HARGA
YANG DIMAJUKAN ADALAH TERMASUK
SEMUA KOS DAN CUKAI YANG DIKENAKAN
OLEH KERAJAAN*
Syarikat yang dilantik perlulah
bertanggungjawab menyediakan perkhidmatan
pindah rumah ‘door to door’ bagi penghuni serta
memenuhi keperluan berikut: g. Bagi
penghantaran barangan ke Pendik, Istanbul,
Turkiye, satu kontena 40 kaki akan dikongsi
oleh ketiga-tiga pegawai. *HARGA YANG
DIMAJUKAN ADALAH TERMASUK SEMUA KOS DAN CUKAI YANG DIKENAKAN OLEH
KERAJAAN
The items are expected to be shipped to Turkey starting this September to November 30. It is expected that the project personnel will be in Turkey for the duration of the built and some may well become the ship’s first crew. Based on the delivery time of the items, it is expected that work for the LMS Batch 2 may well start this September.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Based on the timeline of Ukraine ships progress. We could see our first Ada ship launch at the end of next years
Istanbul naval shipyard is under ASFAT.
The Hisar-class OPV is also build here. The TLDM corvettes are really variants of the Hisar-class OPV rather than the ADA-class Corvette.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GUwPrWJbAAAcjD2.jpg
Ukrainian corvettes are build by STM rather than at Istanbul shipyard.
The Pakistan Babur class ships are also fitted with four diesel engines like our LMS Batch 2. So in essence they are more like the Babur class than the Hisar class OPV as it is fitted with a foreign made VLS.
STM is an engineering design firm, it has no shipyard.
Babur class corvettes are equipped with 2x diesels and 1x gas turbine in CODAG configuration, same as Turkish ADA and Ukranian ones.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/09/turkiye-delivers-corvette-to-pakistan-launches-2-opvs-for-turkish-navy/
The Ukrainian corvettes, they were build at RMK Marine shipyard, Tuzla. Not very far away from the Istanbul Naval Shipyards.
The latest story say they are fitted with four diesels.
“The 16 personnel and their families will be staying..”
“TERMASUK SEMUA KOS DAN CUKAI YANG DIKENAKAN OLEH KERAJAAN”
Oh wow now I see why a project cost can balloon way over its projected budget.
And will the politicians accept it done outside of country? I doubt it since one has risen up to sound out so maybe more to come.
@Hulubang
“The TLDM corvettes are really variants of the Hisar-class OPV rather than the ADA-class Corvette.”
Ada = Hisar = Babur = Hetman Ivan = LMS B2, what ever the way you look at it, all of them came from the original Ada…full stop
If you really want to derive which Ada variant is most in common with LMS B2, it would be Hetman Ivan as it is an Hetman Ivan with similar hull and superstructure shape, extra diesel engines and VLS cells at the same position. Well either way the Babur, Hetman Ivan and LMS B2 are all Ada class derive variants, no other way around it
Interesting to note that Hetman Ivan have 8x Sylver VLS cells, so there is a possibility that LMS B2 can have up to 8x K-VLS cells for up to 32x SAMs in quad pack
Hetman ivan has exact same powerplant configuration as Turkish navy ADA-class
Ada class
2x diesel, 1x gas turbine CODAG
https://shipshub.com/classes/104-2.html
Hetman Ivan
2x diesel, 1x gas turbine CODAG
https://shipshub.com/classes/214-2.html
From this picture, you can see the 1x large exhaust for the gas turbine, and 2x small exhausts for the diesels
https://en.defence-ua.com/media/contentimages/84066881476a0ad2.jpg
Babur
2x diesel, 1x gas turbine CODAG
https://shipshub.com/classes/213-2.html
Hisar
4x Diesel, 2x electric motor CODELOD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisar-class_offshore_patrol_vessel
STM is just the designer & it doesn’t have a shipyard. All their orders were built in Istanbul Shipyard. The RMN Ada class at best will be equipped with torpedo countermeasures for defense
@Hulubalang Hisar class is designed by asfat and not STM.
Luqman “Interesting to note that Hetman Ivan have 8x Sylver VLS cells, so there is a possibility that LMS B2 can have up to 8x K-VLS cells for up to 32x SAMs in quad pack”
One would likely be better off installing the Rim 116 though since the missile is already integrated with the Ada, gowind and even the kedah.
Rolling airframe missile is super duper expensive.
zaft – ”One would likely be better off installing the Rim 116 though ”
Two things.
– RAM does not provide 360 degrees coverage.
– How does the actual missile compare in performance over what will or already has been selected by the RMN?
Qamarul – ”TM is just the designer & it doesn’t have a shipyard. ”
In the interview done by Naval News; STM’s No.1 says this.
To me however; if STM is only the design authority and will be responsible for all integrating and project implementation but does not own a yard; why go with STM? What’s the payoff in going for STM as opposed to a company which can also deliver the 3 ships and owns a yard?
As in Turkiye they divide the responsibility, as they are all under one agency, the SBB. When the RFI for the LMS Batch 2 came out, Istanbul Shipyard had try to sell the Ada class on its own, it even has a local agent fronting it as did STM. But after the Anwar government come out saying that they will buy it via a government to government deal, they all revert back to SBB.
Azlan- “What’s the payoff in going for STM as opposed to a company which can also deliver the 3 ships and owns a yard?“
In a perfect world I would’ve opted for local shipyards partnership but the RMN is in urgent need of hulls so scrap that. Other than that there’s no real advantage worth talking.
Rolling Airframe is expensive & even more expensive to fire. The K-Saam was designed to replace the RIM. The requirement is for 16 missiles. Nobody fit in 32 vls in such a small hull but doesn’t mean it can be done. Imagine the logistical challenges to make all 32 operational.
Hulubalang “Rolling airframe missile is super duper expensive.”
Though the per missile cost is far cheaper than medium Sam system like mica, essm etc etc. No?
Rim 116 should be more or less already integrated with the Ada, gowind as well as the meko. So it’s more of a plug and play without any/much integration cost or retrofit. Meanwhile adding 4 more quad pack VLS cell on the Ada would likely require a whole lot of reengineering works.
… – “Rolling airframe missile is super duper expensive”
If we take into account the cost of the ship and how long it takes to train the crew; plus the expense and issues with replacing them; RAM becomes cheap. At the moment we also have no idea as to how much whatever VLS and missile which has been selected compares with RAM cost wise.
This reminds me of what the French navy head said in response to how expensive it was to use Aster 15 against Houthi UASs. He said when one takes into account the cost of the ships; plus the lives of the crew; the use of Aster 15 is cheap.
Azlan-“ He said when one takes into account the cost of the ships; plus the lives of the crew; the use of Aster 15 is cheap”
Make sense if you put it that way. RAM cost almost USD1B compared to a 300m K-Saam with more range. I would’ve picked K-Saam too. Plus the ROK navy already installed it on several of its assets. Aster 30 cost around 2B in 2023. Almost as much as the Ada class ship cost itself at 270m (based on the ukrainian ship cost) The gov is not willing to break the wallet for this unless a cheap samurai bond is offered i dont think we ever gonna get any aster period.
Qamarul – ”unless a cheap samurai bond is offered i dont think we ever gonna get any aster period.”
”Unless” or until we come to the realisation that we may be forced into a war or a situation in which the RMN’s projected force structure will be found wanting.
RAM is great but the problem is that it was intended to form the lower element of a layered defence. Granted a few navies use RAM as its only AD missile on certain ships [i.e. the Bundersmarine] but RAM was intended to the last line of defence. We know RAM destroyed a Houthi UAS in the Red Sea; like Phalanx it finally made its first kill after decades in service.
Qamarol “The gov is not willing to break the wallet for this unless a cheap samurai bond is offered i dont think we ever gonna get any aster period”
Unlike almost all our next door neighbours navy. RMN do not have a *frigates programme. Thus they just ain’t gonna have any platforms that can shoot aster 30 or it’s equivalent.
But no worries they gonna go buy 14 LMS B1 ish ship for hit and run missions like it’s 1970s.
zaft – ”Unlike almost all our next door neighbours navy. RMN do not have a *frigates programme.”
Despite it being derived from a corvette the LCS is seen and considered a ”frigate”.
zaft – ”for hit and run missions like it’s 1970s.”
Incorrect… You’ve read it wrong. We got FACs in the 1970’s in line with the concept of a ”fleet in being” [look it up] and for sea denial. During that period; apart from Rahmat and Tuah; the whole fleet comprised FACs and other combat ships of a limited displacement.
Come 2024; ”hit and run missions” as you put it is not the aim. The LMSs are intended to perform a variety of roles and ”hit and run missions” is not and never was the primary aim they are being acquired. If ”hit and run missions” was the aim we’d be getting FACs because FACs [look up the evolution of the missile armed FAC in the 1960’s and the use of MTBs and E-Boats in WW2] are intended for limited [read ”coastal” or ”littoral”] sea denial.
zaft – ”Thus they just ain’t gonna have any platforms that can shoot aster 30 or it’s equivalent.”
No… If we go for Aster 30 or something comparable it’s because the dynamics would have changed with regards to our threat perceptions and requirements and not because we don’t have a ”frigate”.
Azlan “Despite it being derived from a corvette the LCS is seen and considered a ”frigate”.”
Doesn’t seem to have the space to install aster 30 and it’s accompanying equipment or it’s equivalent on it though.
Azlan “Come 2024; ”hit and run missions” as you put it is not the aim. The LMSs are intended to perform a variety of roles and ”hit and run missions” is not and never was the primary aim they are being acquired.”
Not my words, it’s RMN owned words
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/class1.jpg.
Personally I have no idea if it’s worth the money compared to just buying regular patrol boat and the limited sea denial is done by himar or it’s equivalent.
@Zaft
“space to install aster 30”
Not just that. To effectively use Aster30 will need long range AESA based radar nearly on par with Aegis. IINM the UK are using PAAMS.
We must take note that the Houthis managed an effective blockade without a navy.
Same also for Hamas and Hezbullah putting up an effective resistance against a strong army without an air force.
“Houthis managed an effective blockade”
Its more of commerce shippers getting spooked from Red Sea and insurers telling them to go around, rather than any sort of “effective” blockade prevent them for using it.
“Hamas and Hezbullah putting up an effective resistance”
With over 40,000 civvie deaths and rising, plus IDF expanding their operation willy nilly without care, I doubt there is any effective resistance at all.
@ hasnan
” We must take note that the Houthis managed an effective blockade without a navy ”
Something we can replicate if we choose to, in Selat Melaka and Sibutu Passage with shore-based anti-ship missiles such as the NSM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPJg01XaQAIAcMN.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNh0G1waYAA45m0.jpg
“Something we can replicate if we choose to”
Only a terrorist entity would have no qualms as to disrupt shipping lines that arguably are innocent of State-on-State land based actions mainly because they dont benefit from it and they wont suffer because of their actions. A legitimate nation shouldnt even contemplate such an act unless its a matter of life & death directly responsible by shipping lines (like belligerent enemy sending an invasion force).
Politically, Hamas is winning the wer. The qorld now wants a two state solution. Zionism has been exposed as a criminal genocidal ideology.
Technically, after nine months of indiscrimate bombing, Hamas is still a potent force inflicting damage to a worn out Israeli Army.
My point is given our limited budget, our investments should be better managed, for example, into long range missile systems, layered air defence, asymmetric warfare system rather than expensive naval and air force assets thats neither here nor there.
Hulubalang “Something we can replicate if we choose to, in Selat Melaka and Sibutu Passage with shore-based anti-ship missiles such as the NSM”
And turned the entire west coast into padang jarak padang tekukur?
You really have an odd idea what ‘winning’ is don’t you
@ joe
It is a part of sea denial capability, and it is a valid form of warfare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_denial
We can block access to our chokepoints better using shore-based anti-ship missiles (which we can selectively pick what to hit and what not) compared to other methods such as mining the said waters.
@ hasnan
” My point is given our limited budget, our investments should be better managed, for example, into long range missile systems, layered air defence, asymmetric warfare system rather than expensive naval and air force assets thats neither here nor there ”
I have been advocating the same thing here.
TLDM
– prioritise submarines, leave daily maritime patrol duties to APMM.
TDM
– long range precision strike capability with
a) precision fuse for 155mm howitzer ammunition. more 155mm howitzers
b) NSM with 200km range that can hit both land and maritime targets
c) GLSDB pods with 150km range for ASTROS launchers
– short and medium range air defence under GAPU
TUDM
– long range precision munitions such as SDB, JDAM, NSM, Storm shadows
– getting AEW and airborne EW-Jamming capabilities
All that could be had, even within malaysian military current CAPEX budgets
@Hulu
“It is a part of sea denial capability, and it is a valid form of warfare.”
You can deny your sovereign portion of the sea but to indiscriminately target vessels (and for sure they werent able to tell which ship is GOOD and which is BAD), is just causing more misery than need to be. Might as well mine the entire breath of Selat Melaka and being cheaper as well (/sarcasm).
“Hamas is still a potent force”
At the expense of 40,000 and rising deaths? Was using human sacrifice part of their plan to exhaust IDF ammo or something? But USA continue to replenish them. If this is called winning, I pray for those 40,000 lives on the losing end.
“long range missile systems, layered air defence, asymmetric warfare system”
Sounds like what Saddam did in Gulf War 1 (first two) and 2 (last one). Look what happen to him and was it successful from preventing an invasion or driving them out?
@ zaft
” And turned the entire west coast into padang jarak padang tekukur?
You really have an odd idea what ‘winning’ is don’t you ”
Almost all major Russian naval vessel in black sea is sunk and destroyed, and Ukranian shores haven’t been changed into “padang jarak padang tekukur”
It is a valid deterrence for anyone who wants to wage war in SCS, that we could effectively block the flow of critical materials that transits through Selat Melaka or Sibutu Straits
Hasnan – ”Politically, Hamas is winning the wer.”
Yes we keep hearing that but brass tacks; there is still no cease fire; no Palestinian state and the IDF has not left. People are still dying. I’ve been observing the Middle East since the 1980’s; nothing is at it seems. Winning politically is great but it has to come in parallel with other victories.
Hasnan – ”Same also for Hamas and Hezbullah putting up an effective resistance against a strong army without an air force.”
Yes but so? Hamas and Hezbollah are still unable to fully counter Israeli airpower. In a war Israel – like in 2006 – might not win but the same applies to Hezbollah. Also putting an ”up an effective resistance” only gets one so far. Has to be in parallel with other things.
Hasnan – ”Hamas is still a potent force inflicting damage to a worn out Israeli Army.”
Yes but how many people have Hamas lost and how much has the fighting capability of this organisation been degraded? The Israelis aren’t the only ones ”worn out”.
… – ”Something we can replicate if we choose to, ”
Are you serious? The Houthis have not completely closed the area to shipping and they have failed to hit a single military target. Also, ISR is their main problem – detecting and fixing moving targets . You keep insisting we can ”replicate” what others have done but neglect to look at the nuances. The Ukrainians benefit from external ISR. They also focus mainly on asymmetric means because they lack the ability to do anything else; geography played a part and they faced an opponent totally unprepared.
BTW history played a part why they were successful with UASs. After the Donbass campaign; they realised they needed to change things; by the start of the Russian invasion the Ukrainians had an active UAS industry. Dozens of companies were involved in R&D and there was active and advanced tech base in the country. All this played a major factor in them being able to innovate and effectively employ unmanned air and sea systems.
… – ”It is a valid deterrence for anyone who wants to wage war in SCS”
Only against those who don’t have an effective response. You’re assuming that others will be as incapable as the Russians. You also overlook that the South China Sea is larger and not as confined as the Black Sea. BTW a ”valid deterrence” is only valid if it ”deters”. Sounds great on paper but as I asked months ago: in reality what happens if a ”deterrence” does not ”deter”… What then? We hope, sing patriotic songs and pray for deliverance/salvation/divine providence?
… – ”prioritise submarines, leave daily maritime patrol duties to APMM.”
Once again; the MMEA is unable to fully carry out all its tasks and the only entity able to share the burden is the RMN. Also, even if the MMEA had 1,000 ships the RMN like all navies would still have peacetime taskings which include patrolling the EEZ. As for submarines; as has been pointed out before they don’t work alone … Don’t make it sound like subs are a panacea or a wunderwaffe; they have to be employed with other assets.
Hasnan – ”My point is given our limited budget, our investments should be better managed, for example, into long range missile systems, layered air defence, asymmetric warfare system rather than expensive naval and air force assets thats neither here nor there.”
… – ” have been advocating the same thing here.”
Sounds great on paper but in reality I’m not as sanguine that the MAF will be able to acquire the key enablers needed. Things don’t operate in a vacuum; all the ”long range ” and ”precision” stuff is useless if not operated on a systems level. You guys also need to factor in that the enemy has a vote; he will react. BTW Hasnan does your ”point” also factor in the cliche that no war is exactly like the one prior or are you assuming that in a future war the operational context will be a carbon copy of the Black Sea and Gulf of Aden? Countries don’t necessarily get to fight the wars they plan for. Don’t assume anything as we have no idea as to what we’ll face if we’re ever in a war.
zaft – ”Personally I have no idea if it’s worth the money compared to just buying regular patrol boat and the limited sea denial is done by himar or it’s equivalent.”
”Personally”; I feel you’ve missed the part [despite it being pointed out] that there is no intention to ”just buying regular patrol boat” and that no one asset enables effective sea denial but a combination of assets …
zaft – ”Doesn’t seem to have the space to install aster 30 and it’s accompanying equipment or it’s equivalent on it though.”
You do realise that frigates come in various sizes/displacement and that the LCS is constructed based on operational requirements ….
… – ”All that could be had, even within malaysian military current CAPEX budgets”
On paper but in reality even if ”it could be had” whether we can effectively employ the stuff is another matter entirely. Measure of success versus measure of efficiency.
zaft – ”Not my words, it’s RMN owned words”
Was written by people at the Sea Power Centre. Lot of things can be written; just like how the services on paper plan to acquire the capability to do a full spectrum of things. If you do some independent thinking; are the LMSs really suited for ”hit and run” missions?
Azlan “LMSs really suited for ”hit and run” missions?”
On a personal level. No. Which is why it’s perplexing to see it on an official *plan. Not to mention while the LMS B1 is on the officials plan. There’s won’t be building any for the next 30 years according to their own *plan.
Hulubalang” It is a valid deterrence for anyone who wants to wage war in SCS, that we could effectively block the flow of critical materials that transits through Selat Melaka or Sibutu Straits”
What happened when they are not deterred and start shooting barrage of missiles to liberate themselves from the blockage?
zaft – ”What happened when they are not deterred and start shooting barrage of missiles to liberate themselves from the blockage?”
– We can’t assume that what the Houthis and Ukrainians have done; we can do. People can claim simplistically and inaccurately that we can replicate what they both did but this is poppycock. There were specific dynamics at play why both were able to do what they did with what they had. The Ukrainians benefit from external ISR and the Houthis have the advantage that they have/had large stocks of stuff and Western countries do not have the will to undertake major sustained military action.
– We can’t assume that we’ll face an opponent who is as unprepared as the Russian Black Sea Fleet is/was.
– Sea denial comprises a number of means all fused into one. No one asset assumes dominance or is more important than the other. Hitting a moving target which is trying not to be found and can defend itself is not easy; despite it seeming so on paper or on a screen. Important to draw lessons from the Houthi and Ukrainian experience but equally important to view things dispassionately with an objective lense; rather than just the stuff we want to see.
– The South China Sea is larger and not as confined as the Black Sea. Also; there are much more countries with a stake in it.
– The Houthis have not totally stopped traffic and they have failed to hit a single military target.
– If we undertook to block the Melaka Straits or the South China Sea; we’d bring a tonne of shite on our heads as it would have a major impact on the world. We’d also be unable to access the international sea lanes on which our economy and vey survival as a nation depend on.
– There is this tendency to assume that the next war will be like the next and that the enemy will react as we’d wish him to but this is fan boyish fantasy. The enemy always has a vote/say and has plans of his own.
Should we get shore base defences and adopt asymmetric tactics? Yes but not totally at the expense of other things; nothing is a wunderwaffe or panacea. We need various things in the right mix. It’s also under looked that that MAF is on a peacetime footing; it’s not able to do what countries /entities which are at war are able; i.e. it has a long list of responsibilities; unlike the Ukrainian navy or planners who deal with the Black Sea whose sole focus is keeping the Russian navy at bay and as far away from the friendly coast as possible. With the land war fairly quite; the Houthis can devote most of their attention and focus on what happens at sea.
.. – ”Almost all major Russian naval vessel in black sea is sunk and destroyed, and Ukranian shores haven’t been changed into “padang jarak padang tekukur”
The Russian navy has suffered a major defeat and one very politically embarrassing. Yet; Russian submarines are still able to launch cruise missiles and the Black Sea is still – on paper -dominated – by the Baltic Fleet; despite its losses and having to vacate its ships from Sevastopol.
Asymmetric tactics at sea are nothing new; look up the use of MAS boats and mini subs by the Italians in WW2; the British use of Chariots in Singapore and against the Tirpitz in WW2; the use of Coastal Motor Boat by the British in 1919 against the Russians; the use of Kaitens by the Japs in WW2; the use of suicide boats by the Sea Tigers; the use of submersibles during the American Civil War; way before recent events off Yemen the Houthis had already unmanned boats against the Saudis and the UAE; etc, etc. Everything however has to be placed in a context; how and why countries /organisations were able to do what they did with what they had and when they did. What the Ukrainians did was impressive and is worthy of analysis and study but they are reasons why they were able to do so against the opponent they faced.
I will also add that tech is rapidly evolving; at a rate never seen before. In a few years time [if not sooner] there will be more much more effective counter measures against USVs and UASs. Despite all the emotional claims on UASs [supposedly they are revolutionary and will totally alter the nature of warfare] ; they have yet to replace anything [not attack helicopters; not arty and not mortars] and supplement; not replace manned assets. Same with USVs; for now. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them but we shouldn’t also place too much on them – for now – and emotionally over state their value without looking at the context/nuances. Again; the idea is to have a right mix of various things; all working together. Nothing; not a sub or a precision long range munition working on its own; is really a panacea or game changer.
… – ”We can block access to our chokepoints better using shore-based anti-ship missiles (which we can selectively pick what to hit and what not) compared to other methods such as mining the said waters.”
You can’t compare it to mining because both are different [like comparing a assault rifle to a LMG or a AT rifle to a AT gun] and should complement each other. Look up how other countries [i.e. Finland]; do it; a variety of means. The issue with shore based missiles is they need to the ability to detect, identify, track, fix and hit targets which are moving [sounds easy on paper but in reality isn’t]. Also, shore based missiles are vulnerable to counter strikes and jamming. In reality an effective sea denial capability would comprise assets at sea; shore based assets; air assets; mines and ISR assets; all operating as one. There is also a world of difference whether one is targeting naval or civilian targets’ plus the need to avoid hitting the wrong target. You also need to factor in that if we block a choke point which other countries utilise; there will be repercussions; not to mention the fact that we also rely on these choke points for our exports to reach international shipping lanes and for our imports to reach our ports [we are not self sufficient in various key areas.
From my civilian POV,ofcourse if given the chance the RMN will want to abandon that Hit and run/area@shore denial roles and just simply ask for big LMS like 1000 tonnes LMS but thats not really achievable and viable financially,logistically and operationally right.I even doubt they will get LCS batch 2 anyway
From my totally unprofessional POV. RMN don’t really care about hit and run. It’s just an excuse to hold own to around 20 ish ship displacing 1000 tons or below (like the FAC & laksamana) to perform mainly law enforcement duty and patrol because without those ships around. The penny pincher would have them close down some of their bases and reduce their personal as those task get transferred to MMEA. The penny pincher wished for those task to be performed by MMEA is probably why RMN can’t get approval for new ship of those displacement and resort to rehulled exercise to keep those ship of those displacement around.
firdaus – ”ofcourse if given the chance the RMN will want to abandon that Hit and run/area@shore denial roles and just simply ask for big”
”Hit and run” will always be an option; depending on the operational circumstances but no assets are being bought specifically for ”hit and run”. As for ”shore denial roles” there is always a need for such assets are not a substitute for anything else; they are intended to bbe operated alongside other assets.
50% of Hezbullah loitering munitions are getting through Israel’s iron dome
Not sure about you guys but I’m not actually wetting my pants off the thought of us being the next Ukraine, Lebanon or Yemen. Preferably I just like us to be the next poland.
Hasnan – ”50% of Hezbullah loitering munitions are getting through Israel’s iron dome”
What’s the source? Also, nobody said Iron Dome was 100 percent effective. What about the stuff it has intercepted? The trick to dealing with it is saturation; in other words fire more rounds simultaneously than it’s able to intercept. Another issue is that whilst rockets and other stuff fired by Hamas and Hezbollah have an affect; to date they are mostly of nuisance/psychological value which has zero impact the results on the battlefield.
You will also note that with the exception of the recent UAS strike on Tel Aviv; not a single cruise or ballistic missile fired at Isreal by the Houthis was not intercepted.
zaft – ”I’m not actually wetting my pants off the thought of us being the next Ukraine, Lebanon or Yemen.”
What about an invasion from extra terrestrial beings?
@Firdaus @Zaft
“RMN will want to abandon that Hit and run”
“RMN can’t get approval for new ship of those displacement”
If you look at things historically, we gotten the FACS & PCS was when our concerns were more inshore and threats of commies landing ashore, hence why smaller boats were more useful for inshore patrols. Missiles onboard gave us some semblance of defence against bigger boats but at then the only threats to counter were passing Soviet ships. Spratlys & EEZ threat wasnt a thing then.
Come today, TLDM (& MMEA) now have a wider scope task to defend and patrol EEZs & our portion of SCS hence why we abandon the FAC & PC doctrine to move towards bigger boats; Laksas, Kedahs, LCS & LMS.
Its not that TLDM cant get approval for big boats (the LMS2 right now is proof of that) its just that it takes more money per boat so less quantity to order, and with LCS still ongoing the beancounters understandably reluctant to pour more money into TLDM until they get LCS dusted and done with.
And with MMEA, there is lesser reasons for TLDM to keep the small boat policy around. Which is why you dont see it appear in 15to5 Revamp Plan.
I see but 2500 tonnes ship (ada class LMS batch 2) cant really do hit and run isnt them? Correct me if im wrong..To do hit and run roles,the ships need to be (RUN) fast like 30+ knots fast and agile and easy to manouvre after they fired their missiles (HIT) or am im watching too many fictions?..Hmm..APMM ship cant really do that mission isnt that as their ships isnt equipped with any missiles
That is exactly my point here.The money.I too like if all our navy ships are big and well equipped but reality bites in malaysia.And reality bites hard here.Corruption are rampant and that is why our navy will be forever ill equipped.Then the kedahs,scorpene and gagah samudera scandal.Now the big bad LCS scandal.Im may sound negative and pessimistic but that our reality
“What about an invasion from extra terrestrial beings?”
Its okay. The world still has Will Smith. He stopped ET invasions like 4-5 times ady.
That is exactly my point here.The money.I too like if all our navy ships are big and well equipped but reality bites in malaysia.And reality bites hard here.Corruption are rampant and that is why our navy will be forever ill equipped.Then the kedahs,scorpene and gagah samudera scandal.Now the big bad LCS scandal.Im may sound negative and pessimistic but that our reality
Corruption starts from the top and trickles down to the bottom, who put those people at the Top ? We are a democracy, so the answer is Us , so when we point our finger , four fingers pointing back to us …
”If you look at things historically, we gotten the FACS & PCS ”
In line with the ”fleet in being” concept.
Firdaus – ”APMM ship cant really do that mission isnt that as their ships isnt equipped with any missiles”
It’s not their role ….. Never mind how they’re equipped.
Firdaus – ”To do hit and run roles,the ships need to be (RUN) fast like 30+ knots fast and agile and easy to manouvre after they fired their missiles (HIT) ”
You’ve described FACs.. look up the evolution of the miss[le armed FACs in the 1960’s; first by the Soviet Union; the sinking of the Eilat; the used of MTBS and S-Boots in WW2; why certain countries had lots of FACs; etc.
”Spratlys & EEZ threat wasnt a thing then.”
It certainly was. We declared the EEZ under Peta Baru in 1979. Ops Tugu was in 1980 and Ops Terumbu was in 1983.
”then the only threats to counter were passing Soviet ships”
The main concern was Vietnam; followed by China. Vietnam had just taken the Paracels and there were other reasons.
mofaz – ”I too like if all our navy ships are big and well equipped”
”Big and well equipped” in relation to what? Those terms are subjective.
Firdaus – ”Corruption are rampant and that is why our navy will be forever ill equipped”
Even if there was no corruption we need a sound realistic policy. One based a apolitical assessment of our needs and threats and one intended to benefit the end user and taxpayer.
Mofaz – ” who put those people at the Top ?”
Sorry, that’s a cliche as is there an alternative? Do we have politicians who are totally clean? If we don’t support the current occupants of Putrajaya and we don’t support the opposition; who do we put in power?
Even though we only declared the EEZ under Peta Baru in 1979 [the same year PERISTA was launched] and respectively launched Ops Tugu was in 1980 and Ops Terumbu was in 1983; we first started general surveys in the Spratlys as early as 1975. We also started laying markers on certain features such as Amboyna Cay in the mid to late 1970’s. The ‘Spratlys & EEZ threat” was a ”thing” as far back as the early 1970’s in fact but we were only able to take certain steps [driven by various events/factors] starting in 1979.
”threats of commies landing ashore”
Like our immediate neighbours we were worried about a possible overland threat from Vietnam via Kampuchea and Thailand [in hindsight the Viets had no such intention]. That’s why we supported certain Khmer rebel groups; why we contributed to an ammo stock pile in Thailand and partly why we launched PERISTA. In the background was the internal security threat in both West and East Malaysia.
”were passing Soviet ships”
Not ”passing Soviet ships” per see but to an extent; the Soviet presence in Da Nang and Camh Ranh Bay was a regional concern; which however was offset by the huge U.S. presence in Subic and Clark. Cold War factors; in addition to the possibility of issues again with Indonesia; is why Malaysia and Singapore were so receptive to the FPDA; amongst other things it gave/gives strategic ambiguity and a platform for cooperation/training.