SHAH ALAML After the two posts on the Ada class the Malaysian variant was published recently, the most questions were about whether the ship will be a full capable surface combatant or it will be just another Kedah class.
As I had answered in the comments section, the Malaysian variant of the Ada class will be a fully kitted out corvette complete with guns and missiles. RMN big-wigs when asked about it at DSA 2024 were adamant that the service did not want a repeat of what happened with the Kedah class. Simply said they are not willing to have another class of ships with fitted for but not paid equipment.
That said the decision for the missiles – surface to surface (SSM) and surface to air (SAM) – is still up in the air and will only be known once the final contract with STM of Turkiye is signed. The cheapest option is to arm the LMS Batch 2 with the missiles already selected for the LCS – NSM and the VL MICA. NSM has been paid for and is already available while the MICA is on the verge of contract signing.
But as I had reported previously, the MBDA Sea Ceptor and the South Korean K-SAAM are still in the mix while the Roketsan Atmaca is an option for the SSM as well.
The other question was whether the budget will be enough. Yes, I had written previously that the budget for the three ships will be some RM2.5 billion. Even the industry believed it was not enough as they proposed smaller designs. For context of the budget read the posts.
Again, I was told that the money was enough for the three ships. Again, it must be noted that the government furnished equipment – like the SSM and SAM – is not included in the ship-building cost. As the PMX government has decided to pick the biggest hull for the project, it is likely that it will ensure the funds – even extra ones – be made available.
It is likely no one in Putrajaya will want a repeat of the LCS debacle especially in a government to government deal like this one.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Hope So but the easiest and simplest thing is to arm the LMS batch 2 with the missiles that are already integrated and compatible with CMS right? doesnt require any additional integration fee..About CMS does our future LMS B2 will also use havelsan genesis CMS or what? Main radar is smart mk2? navigation radar?.With this LMS B2 purchase and RMN 15 to 5 realignment does RMN still need to uparm the Kedahs or spend the fund elsewhere like new ASW helos for LCS
This buy is done in context that we need ships urgently due to the delay with the Gowind LCS.
But right now, looks likely that the ADA class ships will only be ready after the first few Gowinds will be in the water.
So buying the ADA class ships does not solve the problem of us needing ships right now.
Its like an intrim requirement being solved by buying permanent assets.
Now with the HMAS ANZAC is to be retired, should we look at that instead?
Still prefer new ships compared to prevoled one though..if rmn willing to wait then why not..Lcs delay is not really RMN’s fault,not really..If LCS going smoothly they still need this LMS but maybe not this urgent..But now the situation change
“So buying the ADA class ships does not solve the problem of us needing ships right now.”
Doesn’t matter our navy still need more ship
Based on Ukrainian Ada which have minimum of 12x VL MICA, there is a possibility that, theoretically, can fit upto 8x K-VLS cells so that can carry up to 32x K-SAAM/ KM-SAM/Sea Ceptor(CAMM & CAMM-ER)
If a towed array sonar and torpedo tubes and torpedoes is procurered in future, then the Ada has same capability (both sensors and weaponry) as LCS but reduced range. Hence a cheaper alternative to LCS.
@Hulubalang
RMN wanted ship fast, they willing to pay for higher price for already built Ada mainly due to it’s from the same country/manufacturer, though with different engine and sensors (smart-s mk2 will still be in service though on LCS).
When it’s a different hull and from different country/manufacturer compared to Ada, then RMN will be more cautious.
Yes alternative options like Anzac or Type 23 are available but risks and caveats still exist in real world as other people also reminded you before.
No lah, the most we can have is 16 missiles.
If we choose Sea Ceptor we will have 16 missiles right? But MICA we will have only 4 or 8 missiles?
16 for LMS B2? that generous..the same sam missile count as LCS..kinda overkill for me..8-12 is good enough but if RMN 16 silos then why not..the more the merrier.Even Tni al’s martadinata ‘frigates’ only have 12 silos orboard
Sea Ceptor is cold launch so can pack more missiles together ..any plan to replace the outdated sea wolf with Sea Ceptors ??
Read some where we can accommodate almost double numbers of missiles in the existing sea wolf VLS ..
We won’t get those ADA-class corvettes fast.
It is another custom variant, not a current type that is fully tested out.
Even if we sign the contract today, the lead time to buy all the steel, start fabrication, all the way to final trials will be at least 4 years before we get the ship. That is around 2028. Our 1st Gowind will be in the water in a weeks time.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJKeibcbEAAQ9yK.jpg
This is our gowind timeline
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/PAC4.jpeg
Our first Gowind will be commissioned in August 2026. By August 2028, we will have 4 of the Gowinds commissioned.
As for the ANZAC, what big risks compared to the ADA class when it is a practically a free ship, can be available immediately, has been recently upgraded with advanced Phased Array Radars, and has the missile that TLDM wants in the first place, the ESSM?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_yJs8DVIAYG-ab.jpg
Nope
PNS Babur (Pakistan Navy Ada-class corvette) timeline
Contract signing
July 2018
Keel laying
June 2020
Launch
August 2021
Commissioning
September 2023
Hulu “We won’t get those ADA-class corvettes fast.
It is another custom variant, not a current type that is fully tested out.
Even if we sign the contract today, the lead time to buy all the steel, start fabrication, all the way to final trials will be at least 4 years before we get the ship. That is around 2028. Our 1st Gowind will be in the water in a weeks time.”
Obviously. One do not spend billions acquiring LUNAS then NOT line up jobs for them.
A gokdeniz ciws would be great on top of the hangar. It will have more protection & capability than rcws. It will complement the Sam & make it a potent anti air corvette. Its not that expensive as the millenium gun.
@hulubalang
timeline not matching still not invalidate the need for more vessels. rmn need anything floats they can get their hands on, corvettes and frigates. corvettes to provide bulk firepower, frigates for more high end missions. they can have both Ada and anzac. im not into turk products but turk and korean provide what others dont: can sacrifice profit margin and less bureaucracy.
Looking at the missiles and photos supplied in part 2 of this particular story, both Sea Ceptor and Mica can be quad packed. They are both almost the same diameter (only 6mm). Therefore the LMS can carry up to 16 SAM. That is a lot, and during peace time, it does need to be fully laden.
Does not need to be fully laden
I still feel that the ADA-class is too little and too late to be used as a stopgap measure to the delays with the Gowind project.
When completed, the Ada-class corvette capability would be not much different compared to if we just arm the Kedah-class in the first place.
We have been offered the Type 23s, but unless we are handed the ships that has been recently refitted, they are quite worn out ships.
RAN on Saturday has decommissioned the Frigate HMAS ANZAC. Compared to the Type 23s, it is a bit younger (by not much) but has been highly upgraded and modernised throughout it service life. Recently it has been upgraded with CEAFAR flat-panel AESA radars that is optimised for air-defence duties. It currently has a single 8-cell MK41 VLS that can deploy up to 32x ESSM missiles, but beside it there is space to fit another 8-cell Mk41 VLS to be able to field up to 64x ESSM missiles.
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Australian-Navy/Frigate/FFH-150_DAT/Anzac-class-002.jpg
Lets say we have to buy them from Australia. Recently Australia sold two of its Adelaide-class frigate to Chile for AUD45 million each plus AUD20 million for misc items to support the frigates(total of AUD110 million). Lets say we buy each ANZAC class for AUD60 million, that is about USD40 million each. We could get 4x ANZAC-class frigates for the budget of 1x ADA-class corvette (LMS Batch 2 budget allocation of about USD 175 million for each ship)
I would prefer to have 4x ANZAC-class frigate, each with AESA radars and 32-64x ESSMs; rather than 8x ADA-class corvettes. The first ship could be had right now, the second by 2026.
Those 32-64x ESSMs could become a part of a layered medium-range air defence of any coastal areas, such as Sepanggar, Labuan, Bintulu, Pengerang, or Klang valley.
Money saved not buying 8x Corvettes could be used to complete the 6th Gowind + buy additional submarines.
By 2030 TLDM could have a fleet of
3x Scorpenes
4x ANZAC-class frigates
6x Gowind-class frigates
2x Lekiu-class frigates
With kasturi-class, Kedah-class and Keris-class (12-ships in total) passed to APMM to become OPVs and PVs.
The contract for lcs sam, is it vl mica or the newer vl mica ng?
Curious since its looks like the NG version can use the same vls.
… – ”So buying the ADA class ships does not solve the problem of us needing ships right now.”
You missed it the past few times but I’ll mention it again : even if the LCSs were delivered on time the RMN would still have a requirement for the LMSs [as laid out in the 5/15]; the LMSs are not and were never intended to arrive before the LCSs and are not the result of a requirement which arose due to delays with the LCSs.
An example of something being bought – ostensibly – as an interim measure were the Laksamanas due to prolonged delays with the Lekius.
… – ”As for the ANZAC, what big risks compared to the ADA class”
Also something that’s been touched on; not a risk free as you’d like to believe. They are much larger ships with higher manning levels and are aged high mileage hulls. So yes; despite being almost ”free” they do come with penalties. A thorough assessment would include an objective look at both the pros and the cons; not just the pros.
But the rounds are still expensive
MBDA I am told is still manufacturing the current MICA version but very soon the production line will moved to the NG.
Although in the past the LMS Batch 2 was seen as a stop gap measure, it is no longer now. It is part of the RMN 15 to 5 plan pipeline.
It is part of the 5/15 plan but for some inexplicable reason there is a tendency to view them as an interim solution due to the LCS cockup. The LMS programme assumed greater urgency when things at BNS went ratship; at one point the RMN had no idea how long it would take to get the LCSs moving again but from Day One as you alluded the LMS requirement was there. It was/is separate programme/requirement from the LCSs.
I’m glad it’s finally gained traction but for me the real worry is will we actually get a follow batch on schedule [same goes with the F/A-50s] or will it like other things be delayed indefinitely to fulfill other requirements [people have lots to say about the services but overlook that it’s the government which often shifts priorities]. As I mentioned a couple of years ago based on what I was told the RMN; was adamant that it would not be placed in another ”FFBNW” situation – it got its way and unlike the case with the Batch 1s the RMN was given more leeway with the Batch 2s. The fact that they’ll be modestly armed and will probably not have a ASW capability is a bummer but within the large picture they fulfill various roles; as intended by the RMN.
… – ”Those 32-64x ESSMs could become a part of a layered medium-range air defence of any coastal areas, such as Sepanggar, Labuan, Bintulu, Pengerang, or Klang valley.”
Not a simple as that. As pointed out the SAF has a real ”layered” defence because everything it has is integrated; part of a fully networked environment. It’s not the hardware but the ”systems”. We can get a platform with a 96 cell VLS but will it be networked to the extent the Formidables are to Singapore’s IADS? The Formidables are also tied in to the RSAF’s AEW platforms.
”would be not much different compared to if we just arm the Kedah-class in the first place.”
Yes but that would not result in extra hull and by virtue of coming decades after the Kedahs the Batch 2s would be fitted with stuff generations ahead than those on the Kedahs [1990’s tech].
… – ”I would prefer to have 4x ANZAC-class frigate, each with AESA radars and 32-64x ESSMs; rather than 8x ADA-class corvettes. ”
No doubt you would but you missed the part where the RMN [we know because it’s said so] wants a platform able to perform some of the roles of the LCS at fraction of the cost. You also missed the part where the LMSs will be more suitable in certain areas due to having a shallower draught. Als0; the aged; high mileage and expensive to run ANZACs are capital combatants as opposed to the Batch 2s which are secondary combatants.
There will be no more new LMS, if this realignment to just 28x surface ships is the real deal.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNJPZOLasAE9Z1O.jpg
15 to 5 realignment plan 2040 fleet
2x Submarines
7x LCS
8x CORV
4x LMS
3x MRSS
4x MCMV
2x HSV
By 2030 the fleet would be
2x Scorpene
2x Lekiu
2x Kasturi
5x Gowind
6x LMS Corvette ADA-Class
6x Kedah
4x LMS68
2x new MRSS
What alternative we can have by 2030
3x Scorpene Submarine (1x new)
6x Gowind Frigate (1x additional just pay for assembling costs)
4x ANZAC Frigate (used)
2x Lekiu Frigate
With Kedah, Kasturi, Keris class ships (12 in all) passed to APMM to serve as pure PV/OPVs
The ANZACs are similar in age to the Lekius. If we are planning to use the Lekius up to 2040, those ANZACs should be able to serve till 2040 too.
Just get all the ship under the sun.. Frigate HMAS ANZAC… Type 23s… Ada… What not… before gov change plan again… they never stick to the plan.
… – ”if this realignment to just 28x surface ships is the real deal.”
”If” being the keyword’
… – ”The ANZACs are similar in age to the Lekius.”
That – as usual – was only part of the narrative. ANZACs have more mileage on them; higher manning levels and by virtue of being larger and fitted with more systems will be maintenance intensive. The RMN is not the RAN in terms of resources.
… – ”What alternative we can have by 203”
That’s a ”paper” plan as preferred by you.
… – ”With Kedah, Kasturi, Keris class ships (12 in all) passed to APMM to serve as pure PV/OPVs”
Yes and you can keep saying until the coming of days but the fact that the MMEA might not want them for well known reasons of course did not cross your mind. Also, by the time the RMN is ready to hand them over they will be very aged. We have to look at actual realities rather than just paper plans and personal preferences which ignore realities. As it stands the RMN wants to replace the Kasturis in the coming years because as they age more issues are propping up; yet here you are suggesting they be handed over the MMEA.
HMAS Anzac will be scrapped by year end or early 2025. Her parts will be harvested to support the remainder of the fleet.
ANZACs has around 170 crew
Lekiu has 146 crew. Hang Tuah has 210 crew
Kasturis issues are obsolescence of its fighting systems in 5-10 years time. Its DA-08 radar, WM-22 FCR, etc. will be obsolete. But the ship itself, still can be sailed as a pure OPV without complicated electronics. Both kasturi and lekir are much more younger than the USCG WMEC (of the 1960s) that APMM wants to get.
Not found any news on its scrapping, but It would be a pity to scrap what is essentially a still seaworthy ship.
TLDM ships such as the kasturi-class, are a decade older than the HMAS ANZAC, which has only 28 years of service when decommissioned
faris – ”just get all the ship under the sun..”
That’s right. No need to worry about commonality issues and costs; unimportant.
… – ”ANZACs has around 170 crew
Lekiu has 146 crew.”
A larger crew. A larger ship. A hull which is aged and high mileage. BTW those numbers which you plucked out from somewhere are subjective; at times extra personnel will be embarked. BTW even if he ANZACS had a crew of 5 and cost 5 dollars for every hour at sea it’s a matter of profound irrelevance as at present they have not offered any; have no plans to do so and the RMN also has no plans to do so. What has been offered are Dukes and despite all the assumptions made it’s not a penalty free exercise and as you know [or not] the RMN is and has been very wary about used high mileage hulls; especially ones which cost a bomb to sustain and were made with the requirements of other navies in mind and has rejected a number of offers in the past.
… – ”Both kasturi and lekir are much more younger than the USCG WMEC (of the 1960s) that APMM wants to get.”
”That APMM wants to get” because at present it has no choice but this does not do away with the fact that you are assuming; over looking that there are legitimate reasons why the MMEA will not want those ships. Again you are making direct comparisons to suit your narrative; different situation faced at present with the USCG ship and the possibility of the Kasturi and Kedahs in quite a few years time going to the MMEA. We’ve had this discussion quite a few time before and no doubt given your tendency to regurgitate; conflate things and focus only on the paper plus points; we will again.
… – ” But the ship itself, still can be sailed as a pure OPV without complicated electronics. ”
Look beyond your narrow periscope. The hull, engines, shaft, generators and many other things … I know it’s hard to understand but the MMEA has even more resource issues than the RMN and it already operated a hodgepodge of gear. Yes no doubt you’ll remind me -yet again – that the Chinese Coast Guard gets PLA hand me downs but the Chinese Coast Guard is a much larger entity; one which far more resources and mission sets compared to the MMEA.
The MMEA’s focus is on reducing it large footprint. In the longer term it needs more of the same; not more of different types of age and high mileage hulls fitted with various parts/components which will need replacing. Your conflation aside the ex USCG ship is a short term measure driven by sheer necessity and not the MMEA being willing to operate every hand me down which may be offered.
As someone who never misses a chance to remind others as to what the MMEA needs you – surprisingly- are seemingly unware or intentionally overlook certain dynamics at play despite them being pretty obvious and hardly a secret.
… – ”Hang Tuah has 210 crew”
For the last few years in service she was a training ship. Training ships tend to carry a wee bit more extra crews … I’ve been on her; spacious heads and wardroom.
Unlike RMN ships, the Anzac class has been ridden hard despite her younger age.
They have much more mileage on them; needing to travel a considerable distance before reaching South East Asia and have taken part in a number of out of area deployment. The RAN also maintains a much higher temp.
… – ”It would be a pity to scrap what is essentially a still seaworthy ship.”
By that reasoning the PN should not retire some of is ships which were laid down in the 1940s/50s because they are ”still seaworthy ships” … ”Pity” is one thing; cost effectiveness and a drain on scare resources is another thing.
not one to post links forth the sheer sake of it so i have an excerpt instead from ASPI: ”A damming 2019 performance audit of the frigates by the Australia National Audit Office found that: ‘The Anzac class has experienced degradation of the ships’ hulls and sub-systems, with successive reviews and performance information highlighting the link between lack of conformance to operating intent/requirement, reduced platform life and reduced sustainment efficiency. The frigates are intended to be upgraded through the transition capability assurance program, but they’ve had hard lives and there’s a question mark over whether all eight can be extended for an additional nine years.”
” The hull, engines, shaft, generators and many other things ”
There is a reason why even USCG still sails 60 year old ships. If you take a good care of hulls and engines, it will last forever. Basic Coast Guard patrol duties does not need for a state of the art CMS, 3D air defence radars or what not. Those things are expensive to upgrade and change in a warship.
” cost effectiveness and a drain on scare resources is another thing ”
TLDM is allocating RM2.5 billion for just 3 Corvettes. Getting ANZACs are much more cost effective, much more capable (air defence capable with CEAFAR AESA Radars) than the ADA class ever could be. It can be had quickly, and can be used, if we look at how we still use the Kasturis, at least a decade into the future.
I think its not about high mileage but when was the last refit/slep/mlu done. Like I said before, we must consider good used assets as our puny budget will never fulfill the white paper.
Latest news
US Navy successfully tested Patriot PAC-3 missile launch from a Mk41-based VLS system.
https://www.twz.com/sea/successful-patriot-interceptor-test-from-naval-vertical-launcher-is-a-big-deal
The Mk41 VLS is the same launcher fitted to the ANZAC-class ships
If we really want ships from Oz which they do not want, probably we can ask them for the two brand new Arafura OPV class which they do not want. Not for RMN of course but APMM.
Former HMAS Anzac III last refit was around 2014/2015, so she is due for another major refit last year or this year. As Oz want to save money for new builts, it was appropriate for her to be decommissioned otherwise she has to undergo another major refit.
@ marhalim
” Former HMAS Anzac III last refit was around 2014/2015 ”
Actually Marhalim, its last refit/capability enhancement was completed in May 2020 (done at BAE Systems Australia facility in Henderson from Sept 2018 to May 2020). There it gained the AMCAP upgrade, one of the things it had was replacing the Raytheon SPS-49(V)8 ANZ long-range air search radar with the CEAFAR2-L active phased-array air search radar.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/mid-life-upgrade-completed-for-second-ran-anzac-class-frigate
And still they decided to decommission her?
Kasturi class SLEP
KD Kasturi SLEP completed early 2014
KD Lekiu SLEP completed end 2014
KD Kasturi now in for refit.
HMAS ANZAC SLEP/AMCAP (Anzac Midlife Capability Assurance Program) completed in May 2020. If it needs 10 years time between refit similar to KD Kasturi, then the HMAS ANZAC will be due for refit in 2030
major work as part of AMCAP upgrade:
– Replacement of Raytheon SPS-49(V)8 ANZ long-range air search radar with CEAFAR2-L active phased-array air search radar
– Upgraded ventilation systems
– New sewage systems
– Improvements to the Control and Monitoring System
– Engine modifications to improve power and efficiency
– New communications suite
– Upgraded LESCUT (torpedo decoy)
– Upgraded AN/SLQ-25C torpedo self-defence systems
– Technical insert for the Saab 9LV 453 combat management system moves its operating system from Windows to Linux.
For the remaining active ANZAC-class ships, RAN will replace the Harpoons with NSM
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/10/australian-sme-wins-nsm-launcher-contract-award/
@ marhalim
” And still they decided to decommission her? ”
Yes
This is not due to the condition of the ship itself (it is just 28 years old), but due to the need to restructure the current RAN
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/hmas-anzac-retired-as-ran-fleet-enters-long-term-restructure-process/
I just watched naval news youtube about our LMS today. The guy that he interviewed said that first ship will be build in Turkey and the remaining ships will be build by our local shipyard. I really hope its wrong
We dont know yet as the contract has not been signed yet. It is probably one of the things that held up the signing. I spoke to the STM CEO at DSA 2024, he did not even want to touch anything about the contract.
STM should be wary of the subcontracting the work to a Malaysian yard as what had happened to the LCS.
… – ”There is a reason why even USCG still sails 60 year old ships. If you take a good care of hulls and engines, it will last forever. ”
Instead of accepting the fact that there are major issues with inducting an aged high mileage ship into service and that it’s not as risk free as you’d like to believe; you’re just cherry picking and going around in circles. The ”last forever” part is nonsense because various factors are at play. We’re not talking about a Excel spreadsheet here or a PowerPoint slide. The RMN did ”take care” of the FACs and Laksamanas but in reality as opposed to on paper on can ”take care” of something till the end of days or till Elvis reappears but things do wear out….
Like I said when you came up with your ”would be a pity to scrap what is essentially a still seaworthy ship” – ”By that reasoning the PN should not retire some of is ships which were laid down in the 1940s/50s because they are ”still seaworthy ships” … ”Pity” is one thing; cost effectiveness and a drain on scare resources is another thing.”
As for your ”if you take a good care of hulls and engines, it will last forever” this is a broad general statement to make; the type you come up with. In reality it depends on the availability of spares; the actual condition of the said equipment [ever wondered why the Laksamanas faced hull issues way before the older FACs?]; level of usage and other things.
… – ”Getting ANZACs are much more cost effective, much more capable (air defence c
apable with CEAFAR AESA Radars) than the ADA class ever could be. It can be had quickly, and”
You seem to be incapable of objective assessment. If you bothered to look at things objectively rather than just your narrow lense you’d realise that the costs of sustaining a ANZAC will be higher than a LMS and as has been reminded to you on a number of times the cost conscious RMN has already stated that the LMS can perform a number of roles at fraction of the cost of the LCS. Also, with ANZAC with its deeper draught will faces issues operating in shallow waters; as you may know the ”Littoral Mission Ship” will be intended to operate in areas waters are shallow; hence its moniker and its shallow draught. you will also need no reminder [or might] that the ANZACs are capital ships whilst the smaller LMSs with a reduced RCS and IR signature are secondary combatants.
As it stands there is zero interest in ANZACS [as much interest as there is in acquiring stored T-343/85s from Bulgaria]; neither has it been offered. As such you can continue with your pitch and list all the on paper advantages whilst overlooking the parts which are less positive [as you’re known to do] but ultimately it’s for self gratification.
Hasnan – ”I think its not about high mileage but when was the last refit/slep/mlu done.
You ‘think” wrong. It does play a part and refits don’t always adress all issues.
Hasnan – ”I said before, we must consider good used assets as our puny budget will never fulfill the white paper’
I also ”sad before” that because of our small budget and the fact that the RMN is a small cost conscious navy; we can’t be placed in a position where we struggle to sustain a hull, I case you are unware the RMN has rejected such offer before for these reasons. It’s nice to talk about getting used ships like they’re used cars and to portray it also penalty/risk free but we’re discussing reality here not fantasy …
The problem Marhalim is that STM might not have choice. As part of the contract the government might stipulate that STM works with a local yard. If that does happen however; if there is no outside interference and if STM can do its job without external meddling; northing to say that the local yard will bugger things up.
… – ”This is not due to the condition of the ship itself”
Spin it all you want but there are still issues. Unsurprising given their age and the fact they’ve been heavily used. As it stands however there is no [I repeat ”no”] intent to get them; neither do they intend to offer them.
”A damming 2019 performance audit of the frigates by the Australia National Audit Office found that: ‘The Anzac class has experienced degradation of the ships’ hulls and sub-systems, with successive reviews and performance information highlighting the link between lack of conformance to operating intent/requirement, reduced platform life and reduced sustainment efficiency.
Yes, I know STM might have to work with Lunas. Let us not kid ourselves. It will be Lunas.
“You seem to be incapable of objective assessment”
So what kind of objective assessment have you done here, other than the constant critique of anything that i say?
Anyway i do engineering day in and day out, i understand what can or cannot be done technically on ships.
If you care to read the facts in the links:
” Under original planning, the upgraded Anzac class was expected to begin decommissioning after 2030, and potentially into the 2040s ”
That is the original predicted life of the ANZAC-class shios. Those ships still have plenty of life left in them, even the HMAS ANZAC was recently refit+SLEP in 2020.
Does Lunas actually have the capacity at present? The manpower and space.
At present, no, as they have the LCS. But it’s unlikely that any work for the LMS Batch 2 locally will start before the first ship is completed and commissioned into RMN, likely around 2028. If everything goes well with the LCS, Lunas needs work after 2028.
Even if the MRSS is paid for in RMK13, and if they choose PT PAL, likely the first ship will also be done in Surabaya first before the second and third ships are built, also at Lunas. I believed this will be in 2030.
… – ”So what kind of objective assessment have you done here, other than the constant critique of anything that i say?”
Silly, silly. The ‘…’ kettle shouldn’t be self serving and calling the Azlan pot black.
I’ve brought up the not so pleasant facts. As mentioned [again] an ”objective” analysis of anything would include both the pros and the cons. Something you’re incapable off; whether with the ANZACs or used fighters; giving the impression it’s penalty/risk free and that there’s zero to worry about. All you do is cherry pick and present ”facts” to back your sales pitch; instead of accepting there are major issues with inducting an aged high mileage ship into service and that it’s not as risk free as you’d like to believe. Like I said: we have no intention to get ANZACs and they have no intention of offering them to us; and the RMN has reasons to be wary of getting old high mileage ships. If you want to insist we should get ANZACs and it’s a risk free venture; by all means carry in in self gratification. If you don’t like ”critiques” or feel you’re above criticism; get a fanboy audience. Also; I do explain in detail why I might disagree with you … I also make a distinction between ”personal opinions” and ”facts” which have historical precedence. So don’t make it sound like I ‘critique” for the sake of doing so; unless you have an inflated opinion of yourself.
”Anyway i do engineering day in and day out,”
All praise; I would pat you on the head if I could but you have this perennial incapability to fathom the simple fact that the RMN is a small under resourced navy and that despite you focusing on all the plus points and filtering out the stuff which to you have no importance; the RMN is very wary and has legitimate reasons to be wary.
”i understand what can or cannot be done technically on ships.”
Onn paper maybe you do but given the things you’ve come up with; the question of whether you’re really in touch with reality as far as the limitations the RMN is faces and issues associated with aged high mileage ships is the key question. Ponder on that before claiming your engineering pedigree makee you ”understand” things…
”those ships still have plenty of life left in them”
Where and when did I say otherwise? What I did say in easy to understand language which leaves no room for misunderstanding or obfuscation [in another threat you claimed I was doing; rich coming from you]; that the ANZACs are age and high mileage ships and that they will be resource intensive to run. I also said that they will not be suitable in a littoral setting because unlike the LMSs they were designed with different mission sets in mind.
You’re right Marhalim. If anything it will be the 2nd or 3rd ship constructed in Lumut and that will be in 3 years at least. It could also involve modules towed to Lumut as was the case with the Kedahs.
My predictions? If its TOT (to Lunas) & if we have to do new missile integration, then its likely LMS2 will run into budget money crunch the same that had doomed LCS.
There was an article in Janes years ago with a PT PAL guy saying the RMN had requested some mods to the design including a point defence weapon capability and a slightly lengthened hull. The deck space was for 3 landing spots.
”If its TOT (to Lunas)”
The risks will be mitigated to an extent if it’s only the 2nd or 3rd hull being constructed in Lumut; as should have been done with the LCSs and was done with the NGOPVs.
Basically we end up with the situation we have today. We only want new hulls to fit our strategic white papers. What we end up having are very old hulls that don’t have much capability to protect the nation, eating up good opex. We then refit, repower and rehull these non capable boats to make do. Politicians and bean counters very happy.
Some of the services make do with nothing as they wait for funding, for example the KADs. If the threat calculus continue to be a maritime one, TLDM gets priority and TD just make do with ancient assets too. So its a vicious cycle this dream of having new assets to fulfill strategic capabilities at lower maintainability, cost, etc.
We don’t want to go into the situation at TUDM. Very expensive paper weights.
Hasnan – ”We only want new hulls to fit our strategic white papers. What we end up having are very old hulls that don’t have much capability to protect the nation, eating up good opex.”
The ”new hulls” are intended to replace the ”old hulls”. Belatedly but the 1st steps have been undertaken.
Hasnan – ”If the threat calculus continue to be a maritime one, TLDM gets priority and TD just make do with ancient assets too.”
The main ”challenges” are in the maritime domain and not just from China as some are fixated/obsessed with but we still can’t overlook the needs of the army or to assume that we’ll never face land threat. As I reminded ‘…’ and others : one does not get to fight the wars one wants or plans for and prior to 2013 who would have predicted we’d be faced with a situation where thousands of troops backed by airpower, arty and IFVs would have to be deployed.
Hasnan – ” Very expensive paper weights.”
Those so called ”paper weight” are operational and fly. It’s not as if they spend most of their time unserviceable in hangars.
Hasnan – ”don’t have much capability to protect the nation, ”
“Protect the nation” against what exactly? Do you actually know or are just making generalised statements [we’ve had enough of that]? ”Threats” by state or non state actors? ”Threats” of limited scope or duration or a state on state high intensity protracted ones? The ”old hulls” you mentioned were mainly to fill in the gap so to speak to perform peacetime roles [as mentioned to ”…” on dozens of times all navies have peacetime roles and even if the MMEA had 80 OPVs the RMN would still have peacetime commitments]. If it’s China your worried about; not written in stone we’d by default be involved in the event of troubles and if we were we’d be part of a coalition and we’d play a minor role on the periphery due to our limited capabilities.
If you’ve notice; unlike some countries who have clearly defined threats which enable them to channel their focus and resources to; we don’t. If your one of those who think we can ”fight” China and are basing what we do with China in mind then all I can say it you must as well believe in Humpty Dumpty being related to Pippy Longstocking and if you get a chance; tell the ”fight” China part to an RMN chap and see how long and loud he laughs.
“The risks will be mitigated to an extent”
The technical risk yes, but that wasnt so much that had stopped LCS progress, its the insufficient money to carry on which was the main bugbear then and based on the industrial experts that is the same case with LMS2, if we still insist it to be TOT, to be armed with weapons it wasnt originally integrated with, and it must be fully armed no FFBNW.
I will put this upfront, each ship with the config TLDM wants is easily about RM 1.5-2.5Bil and here we want to pay less.
Hulubalang “Anyway i do engineering day in and day out, i understand what can or cannot be done technically on ships.”
What technically could be done doesn’t mean it make financial sense to do so. Case in point upgrading the MKM compared to just buying new/used MRCA.
@Zaft
“doesn’t mean it make financial sense to do so”
Depends on the ROI as my boss always say. Like say if it takes 1mil to upgrade MKM compared to 1bil to buy new MRCA, then an ROI study might indicate its more cost efficient to upgrade until budget available to buy a new plane.
With the MKMs there is a political liability associated with them. On top of that the RMAF was never fully satisfied with them because certain things never worked as advertised and compared to the Hornets they are not cost effective; resource intensive; as well as having lower serviceability rates compared to the Hornets. Now anything can happen in the future but as it stands the intention is to keep them flying until they can be replaced; spending only what’s absolutely needed to keep them flyable/combat ready.
”then an ROI study might indicate its more cost efficient to upgrade until budget available to buy a new plane.”
Indeed but there’s another angle too. Spending only what’s absolutely needed to keep them operational/combat ready and nothing else. The idea being that anything more than that would be better off being spent so something new and that spending more than absolutely need on a platform already ‘X’ years old and with certain issues is not a good ROI.
This was the situation faced with the Laksamanas, FACs and other things. We also know that the RMN has decided against fully upgrading the Lynxs because the costs associated with that are nearly as high as buying new. With the Lekius subjecting them to a full upgrade was simply seen as not a practical way to spend scarce resources. We also know that id we intend to perform certain upgrades to the Scorpenes there are technical issues at play; never minds the costs. Same situation faced with the PT-91s too.
On paper the skies the limit when discussing on paper MKM upgrades but from the RMAF’s and government’s perspective this is an option they’ve discounted.
A complete ROI should encompass all factors of consideration; economical, technical, doability, & feasibility. And a set goal is defined whether its for short-, medium- or long-term.
Again some might think upgrading MKM is not worth it but just like the Kuwaiti Hornets, TUDM might think otherwise and this might be from their ROI study which had considered other factors that some might not realise/know.
They do like the MKM and think it is worth the upgrades but the current situation is making it untenable as long it is not resolved. IF it continues for another five years, I think RMAF will have to make other plans and I think they are doing that though at the moment it remained feasible.
Question, is it not possible to source parts and future upgrades solely from HAL of India?
AFAIK no
If we go to war against the regional superpower, I am sure we will be part of a coalition of nations. However, with what we have now we would be just a nuisance. Same now with major military exercise, we just attend as observers.
Imho I believe the extra Kuwaiti airframes that TUDM wants to grab are for Plan B unless we managed to get MRCA start inducting into flying operations as we draw down the MKM fleet. What are the chances we can have such good timing? On the scale of “Erm I dont think so”.