SHAH ALAM: KD Kasturi – pennant number 25 – was officially delivered to the RMN by Lumut Naval Shipyard (Lunas) on January 14, some three years after she went into a routine refit. It was so long that she went into refit with Boustead Naval Shipyard and came out from another yard, Lunas.
And during that time, RMN had three chiefs – TS Reza Sani and TS Rahman Ayob and the current one Admiral Zulhelmy Ithnain.
RMN’s Markas Logistik Barat on social media:
14 Jan 25 – Majlis Penerimaan KD KASTURI selesai Rutin Pasang Pulih di Lumut Naval Shipyard telah disempurnakan oleh YBhg Laksma Ts. Shaiful Bahri bin Baharuddin, Panglima Logistik Barat.#ServiceSupplySustain@tldm_rasmi @MPA_Barat pic.twitter.com/t55qATShHW
— Markas Logistik Barat (@RMN_HQWNL) January 14, 2025
So what was done on Kasturi that it took so long to conduct a routine refit. I have no idea really as RMN has never disclose the scope of its ships refit or even SLEP. But from the tenders published in Eperolehan one could surmise that delays were likely due to the work on the ship’s main engines, generators and gearboxes.
It is interesting to note that when Kasturi and her sister ship – KD Lekir – pennant number 26 – underwent their SLEP in mid-2000s, they only overhauled the main engines (four MTU diesels), generators and gear boxes (Renk). Some things were replaced during the SLEP but these items were not. As the ships are around 42 years-old it is expected that the main engines, gearboxes and generators will cause the most issues.
As it is the two ships are expected to serve until 2015 at least.
— Malaysian Defence If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
3 years ago was when LCS fiasco was at full tilt, I suspect the financial problems of BNS had a major part of the delays like not able able to procure replacement parts for the refit and with the War in Ukraine, buying military hardware from Europe will incur a longer wait now as they prioritise production orders going to the Ukraine cause. So it was a matter of bad luck & bad timing it went in for refit & then the delays happen.
On that note. “to serve until 2015 at least.”
Err really?
” As it is the two ships are expected to serve until 2015 at least ”
Back to the future??
Anyway, IMO the Kasturis (and the lekius) would be ideally passed on to APMM as OPVs when TLDM receives all its Gowinds and Turkiye Corvettes by 2030.
Converting the kasturis to OPV just mean ripping out all the complex CMS electronics, radars, missiles, and sail the ship as is. With new engines, it could operate as an OPV for at least 20 more years.
That was the original plan anyways. Will it change in the next few years? I have no idea. Anyhow, the ship spent three years in a routine refit, think it is good for another 10 years. If they do not sent in KD Lekir for routine refit next, RMN may well retire them both by 2030, five years away…
Just keep them around until all the LCS, LMSB2 and LMSB3 are operational. keep in mind that we only had 4 missile capable ships rn and china is getting bolder with their incessant intrusion in our EEZ
Adding 8 large new ships (5 gowind + 3 turkiye corvettes) by 2028 will need a substantial increase in manpower. Unless existing ships is retired and manpower transferred to those new ships.
Incidentally we have 8 old frigates and corvettes (2 lekiu, 2 kasturi, 4 laksamana) right now…
@Hulu
“ideally passed on to APMM as OPVs”
Ideally? They spent the last 3 years in refit. Ideally MMEA would turn them into coral reef, if they are going to be saddled with such costly & lengthy refits. Even if this new one is good for another 10 years and TLDM were to use for 5, MMEA would only have a mere 5 more for use at most. You would still smell the MMEA white paint by the time these needs to be fully retired. They would rather spend their efforts to get both OPV #2&3 back on track than running down these old boats.
@dundun
“Just keep them around until all the LCS, LMSB2 and LMSB3 are operational.”
Thats the plan simply because TLDM has no other choice. Lekiu class arent doing too well either.
Didn’t we severely lacked ship?
Why retire our most capable ones first?
Why we still using this ancient ships,our neighbors already keel laying Merah Putih Frigate (based on U.K type 31)and our red dot neighbor also with new MRCV not to mention their new subs . We just keep life-extension or SLEP or whatever programs just to keep voters happy (cos’ they don’t cost a lot of money) despite having largest annual budget ever approve
in history (suspect large chunks of it goes to subsidies especially fuel so to keep their simple minded voters happy) that’s why we can’t have a good thing here in Malaysia just envy or neighbors from afar
@ joe
I don’t expect you not to understand about refits when you know much about truck rebuilds…
That thing has completed an extensive refit, not in a condition to need an extensive refit. So it is in a condition to be able to be used for many years to come. The only concern it will have in the future is that those complex electronics onboard (tacticos CMS etc) will become obsolete, but that is not an important criteria in being a simple OPV.
” From this angle, the Thales MIRADOR electro-optical sensor on top of the bridge is missing ”
In its place it looks like a huge searchlight has been installed… Need to have more pictures of the bridge from other angles.
#KitaNakPerangDenganSiapa
@Hulu
“to be able to be used for many years to come”
Marhalim POV that this refit is only good for another 10 more years. Seeing as were lacking in boats so further usage will be high, I do agree with his assessment. After 10 years what then, another costly refit for 3 years out of action? Why would MMEA want such a deal?
Its the same with commercial vehicles, well known for reliability & able to take multiple rebuilds but it will come a time there is no longer ROI. The same goes for these old boats. By right their ROI has long gone passed but here we are today.
@Dundun
“Why retire our most capable ones first?”
Their the oldest in our most capable ones hence its natural their the first to go.
@Rushdi
“suspect large chunks of it goes to subsidies”
A large chunk will go to this https://www.malaysiandefence.com/helicopter-leasing-deal-signed/
The Thales Mirador was recently bought & installed already problem? Without EO how can it operate.
I think its under repair, the ship still has its main radar. If its remained in the workshop and the Lekir goes into Lunas for refit, they can used that EO on Kasturi until its one is repaired.
” After 10 years what then, another costly refit for 3 years out of action? Why would MMEA want such a deal? ‘
The new engines + gearbox will be good for 30 more years. MMEA will not run the ship at max speed all the time anyway so in MMEA service for around 20 years it should just have routine dockings for antifouling etc. only.
If you look at US Coast Guard for example…
Their WHEC medium endurance cutters built between 1962–1968 are still currently used (12 ships, 4 retired). Now 2 of them will be handed over to MMEA. That is around 60 years and counting.
USCG even uses a ex-nazi ship operationally right now. The 89-years old 1,800ton 90m ship USCGC Eagle still sails the world’s ocean as USCG main training ship, and is not planned to be replaced in any way.
https://i.imgur.com/uk7IkTo.jpeg
Hulu pls verify how many and name which USCGS will join MMEA and where did you get the news fr ( as you mention “now 2” ).
Yr info is much appreciated.
@Hulu
“US Coast Guard for example”
Cant be compared like that, USCG has even more money that our entire armed forces of course they would have the resource & scale of economy to able to maintain their old vessels but such luxuries are not available to us. As I said its all in the ROI, should we put more money into maintain old boats for 10 years of use or put that money into OPV #2&3 that can serve for another 30-40 years? If we have no alternatives or ones even costlier than keeping them I would agree with you, but we do have alternatives…
“MMEA will not run the ship at max speed all the time anyway”
But by nature they need to run them much more frequently, it doesnt matter so much how fast you run your car its in the mileage you put in that determines when you next service. The older your car is, the shorter the intervals to prevent sudden breakdowns and the higher chance that a costly service will happen. Ship diesel engines are durable but they arent indestructible you see.
No way the MMEA would want the Kasturis and Lekius. Aged and costly to run and even if stripped of various things, are superfluous to actual requirements. Also, as it is the MMEA has a large support footprint which it’s trying to reduce as far as it can. Also the bureaucratic angle, the MMEA getting used assets might lead to the pencil pushers delaying the procuring of newer more suitable and cost effective to support assets.
Can’t compare the MMEA to the USCG. Like comparing a FT5 to a Churchill.
” Aged and costly to run ”
The cost for OPV is is mainly just fuel and manpower
the main cost driver of warships is the maintenance of complex weapon systems and their sensors. Large guns, missiles, air search radars, sonars, combat management systems etc etc.
Strip all of that off, then its operating cost is not much different than a ship like the KM Tun Fatimah.
to drive the point
KD Kasturi and KD Lekir is much younger than MMEA latest ship, ex USCGC Steadfast.
USCGC Steadfast – commissioned 1968 (56 years old)
KD Kasturi – commissioned 1984 (41 years old)
If we can accept a 56 years old ship into APMM, why not a 41 years young ship?
KD Lekiu is commissioned in 1999. Just 26 years old this year. Stripping it of the obsolete CMS, seawolfs, radars etc etc and convert it into APMM OPV will spare TLDM from having to spend millions on SLEP.
How much is the ballpark to do SLEP upgrade? Based on THALES upgrade of Bung Tomo class of Indonesia, it would be around USD60 million per ship.
I believe USD60 million is more than enough to pay LUNAS to assemble all the already available parts for the 6th GOWIND, IMO that is a more better way to spend the money, as a GOWIND frigate is way more capable (with TAS etc) than an upgraded Lekiu can ever be. Those Lekius will still be around, just as a dedicated OPV under APMM.
Even by 2030 APMM could have its targeted strength of around 20 large OPV with
3x Tun Fatimah class
3x KM Pekan class (additional 2 more used from JCG)
1x KM Arau class
3x DASAN Shipyard MPMS
6x ex KD Kedah class
2x ex KD Kasturi class
2x ex KD Lekiu class
2x KM Langkawi class
2x ex USCG WMEC
If you look at the list above, the only thing we need to pay for APMM is the assembly cost of the 2x remaining KM Tun Fatimah OPV, and the 3x MPMS. Probably less than USD250 million all in to complete the APMM large OPV fleet.
Leaving all OPV operations to APMM by 2030 will free TLDM to focus more on its primary mission in the long run, also freeing manpower for the GOWIND class ships in the short run.
From 2026-2030
If we are to complete 6x GOWIND and 6x STM Turkiye Corvette
TLDM would need a total of
(Gowind 138 x6) + (Corvette 111 x6) = 828 + 666 = 1494 persons.
That is a lot of new manpower.
Time and again you’ve come up with all the reasons why the MMEA should receive ex RMN assets which are aged and costly to run [the MMEA has a smaller budget than the RMN and can hardly be compared to the USCG] yet you’ve overlooked why this might not be desired by the MMEA and the possibility that even if stripped down, these assets might not be suitable for the MMEA. I have asked RMN and MMEA people, both are adament it’s not a good idea and that the MMEA would say “no thank you”.
… – “3x Tun Fatimah class
3x KM Pekan class (additional 2 more used from JCG)
1x KM Arau class
3x DASAN Shipyard MPMS
6x ex KD Kedah class
2x ex KD Kasturi class
2x ex KD Lekiu class
2x KM Langkawi class
2x ex USCG WMEC”
Requiring a very large footprint, i.e, a support nightmare. Various ships, mostly aged, mode of which have zero to no commonality.
Looks great on paper though but then most things do. Just like in the 1990’s the RMAF had 8 Hornets, 18 Fulcrum, 28 Hawks, 12 or so F-5s. Made the fanboys droll bit was a logistical nightmare.
” Requiring a very large footprint, i.e, a support nightmare ”
OPVs fitted with just normal marine diesel engines and commercial navigational electronics, nothing that cannot be repaired, maintained & sustained by multitudes of shipyards in malaysia
Post 2030, some of them can be retired, such as the WMEC.
From the list excluding the WMEC, the oldest is Langkawi class and Kasturi class, both comissioned in the mid 1980s. All others are of the 90s or younger.
Those 4 oldest ships KM Langkawi, KM Banggi, ex Kasturi, ex Lekir, could be replaced by new APMM OPVs in RMK14 2031-2035 and RMK15 2036-2040 while still maintaining the 20 large OPVs in APMM – PPSMM 2040 plans.
age of the lead ship as per 2025
3x Tun Fatimah class (1 year old)
3x KM Pekan class (additional 2 more used from JCG) (34 years old)
1x KM Arau class (36 years old)
3x DASAN Shipyard MPMS (unbuilt yet)
6x ex KD Kedah class (19 years old)
2x ex KD Kasturi class (41 years old)
2x ex KD Lekiu class (26 years old)
2x KM Langkawi class (40 years old)
2x ex USCG WMEC (57 years old)
Lets say we use each ship up to 50 years old, these are the replacement years.
3x Tun Fatimah class (replacement 2074)
3x KM Pekan class (additional 2 more used from JCG) (replacement 2041)
1x KM Arau class (replacement 2039)
3x DASAN Shipyard MPMS (unbuilt yet – replacement probably 2077)
6x ex KD Kedah class (replacement 2056)
2x ex KD Kasturi class (replacement 2034)
2x ex KD Lekiu class (replacement 2049)
2x KM Langkawi class (replacement 2035)
2x ex USCG WMEC (it is already 57 years old during commissioning)
That does not change the fact that the ships are old and worn out and will be maintenance extensive. You are focusing on all the plus points while overlooking the penalties.
The MMEA is not the USCG and already has a large support footprint.
… – “The cost for OPV is is mainly just fuel and manpower’
So you insist but the RMN is already having issues with both ships, due to age and wear and tear, yet you’d claim that for the MMEA it’s fuel and manpower that are the main costs?
… -” If we can accept a 56 years old ship into APMM, why not a 41 years?”
Apples to orange comparison which ignores the context. I guessed you’d bring this up. The MMEA had no choice, but to accept the USCG because of delays in other areas. In a few years time it will however have a choice in not accepting the Lekius and Kasturis.
That is the key difference between the MMEA accepting a decades old ship [we don’t even know if it wanted the shp or whether it was pressure from the top] and the pitfalls with getting the Kasturis and Lekius which will be even more aged and worn out by the time they are finally retired.
… _”Strip all of that off, then its operating cost is not much different than a ship like the KM Tun Fatimah”
A fallacy. You are comparing a new ship to a pair of classes which are getting increasingly expensive to maintain, irrespective of the SLEP on the Kasturis and periodic upgrades on the Lekius. If both could be economically operated for quite a whole more and were not experiencing various issue due to age, the RMN would not plan to retire them as soon within the decade. Things like shafts, props, engines, generators and a lift of other things do break down and csyfe issues. Precisely why the MMME which BTW is not the USCG would say “, no thank you”. Same reason why years ago when handing over the Laksamanas was considered, the under resourced MMEA which was grappling with issues inherent with operating many ships with little or no commonality and which was under resourced, it said “no”.
You have little grasp of technical aspect of ship maintenance
Maintenance can turn out to be expensive when you don’t regularly maintain the ship, not undertaking per-emptive maintenance but let the ship to break down first before attempting any repairs (fire fighting maintenance)
Most of the “increasingly expensive to maintain” aspect is related to the complex warship search radars, fire control radars, missile systems, combat management systems etc etc. that you need to take obsolescence issues into account.
Pure patrol ships without all those complex systems is proven to be economically operated to 50-60 years.
For example, all of USCG Hamilton class WHECs are operated by USCG for more than 50 years, and even after retired by USCG, all of them still operated by various navies and coast guard all over the world. Reliance-class WMECs are also more than 50 years old and most are still operational. The oldest, USCGC Reliance is 61 years old this year, and is still an active ship with the USCG.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/USCGC_Reliance_WMEC-615.jpg
I never claimed to be knowledgeable about the “technical aspect of ship maintenance” but I do know that both the Kasturis and Lekius are facing aged related issues and as a result are becoming more resource extensive to maintain, that’s why the RMN plans to retire them in a decade if not sooner. I also do know that the MMEA would say “no thank you” because of issues I’ve dealt with here or will you say again that even the USCG operates decades old ships and if I’m now speaking on behalf of the MMEA?
What’s looks good on paper can differ in reality. In the midst of pointing out all the pros, has it ever occured to you that the MMEA would not want aged and worned out hand me downs to to sustainment issues and the fact that even stripped down the se ships which will be even more aged and worn out might be superfluous and ill suited to its needs.
This is not just a plan for a snapshot of a fixed time
It is a rolling plan
Using those ships now, will be gradually replaced with new ships in RMK14, RMK15, RMK16
Example
RMK14 retire all the WMECS, 4 new OPV to replace kasturi, lekir, langkawi, banggi
Rmk15 4 new OPV replace all japanese OPVs
Onwards and onwards
What important right now is to bring the quantity of large OPVs for APMM to the quantity it wanted as quickly as possible.
Passing the Kedah class, Keris, Lekiu & Kasturi will also free needed manpower for TLDM to crew all the GOWIND and STM Corvettes which all be completed before 2030
You are going on and on as you usually do whilst ignoring certain points. When they do retire in about a decade or maybe earlier, they will be even more older and worn out. Even if stripped of certain stuff, they will still have engines, generators, shafts, props, electrical systems and a myriad of other things that need maintenance and are aged. Thus costs money that will not be provided to the MMEA by Father Christmas.
About manpower. Let’s make this clear, the RMN although a small all volunteer navy with limited manpower; has long factored in the need for manpower to crew assets that are slated for service in the coming years and has planned accordingly. It does not have to prematurely retire anything to free up manpower for the LCS and LMSs.
If however there was sudden increase in the number of subs as opposed to getting one in a few years and another a few years later, manpower will be an issue. As stated before this because submariners are more resource and time extensive to train and not only will crews be needed but support personnel too. Also the attrition rate is high and it’s not uncommon for newly minted submariners to later discover that they’re suitable for working and living in a what’s essentially a long cramped metal tube with no natural light.
Considering RMN is trying to get approval to put NSM on the jebat while rehulling both the laksamana and FAC. Doubt they wanna retired any of their ship be it Kedah, keris, kasturi nor lekiu unless being forced by the higher up to do so.
Why would they? More ship mean more job can justify more crew and more crew mean bigger political pull to get more ship, more job and more crew and more budgets
” If however there was sudden increase in the number of subs as opposed to getting one in a few years and another a few years later ”
New TLDM Surface ships
RMK13 2026-2030
5x GOWIND
3x TURKIYE CORVETTE BATCH 1 (paid for in RMK12)
3x TURKIYE CORVETTE BATCH 2 (paid for in RMK13)
TLDM Force structure 2040 submarine acquisition plan
2x submarines RMK14 2031-2035 all within 1 RMK, not staggered.
My alternative Force structure 2040 submarine acquisition plan
2x submarines RMK14 2031-2035
2x submarines RMK15 2036-2040
That is more than a decade lead time to produce additional 2 submarine crews more than original plans. Not something that cannot be done.
Zaft,
We’ve been through this before. The RMN is in no position to retire anything prematurely. Stuff will only be retired if and when there are replacements. As soon as the LCSs and LMSs enter service we can expect to see ships retired, ships which are getting increasingly expensive and troublesome to maintain. As such any suggestions that the Kedahs e handed over to the MMEA in the near future is magical thinking, even if the MMEA wanted them and they were not ill suifed to requirements.
… – “That is more than a decade lead time to produce additional 2 submarine crews more than original plans. Not something that cannot be done”
Who said it can’t? Where and when?
Thanks for the usual list but this is what was said – “If however there was sudden increase in the number of subs as opposed to getting one in a few years and another a few years later”. I worded it carefully and ambiguously knowing there would a prompt but slightly off reaction
As pointed out before – on several occasions if memory serves – the RMN can at short notice handle an additional sub or at a stretch maybe 2. More than that is not possible not only due to funding constraints but also manpower. The planned timeline of the acqusition of subs is driven not only by funding realities but also driven by the ability of the RMN to absorb them into service.
In contrast the RSN can and did because it’s a conscript navy with a larger sub force and has a larger pool of submariners. Vietnam’s navy is much larger manpower wise and decided to focus on subs at the expense of other things. Even then it struggled and faced delays getting the 6 Kilos operational. Thus any comparisons between both navies and the RMN has to be taken in context.
” RMN can at short notice handle ”
1 whole decade to prepare crews for extra 2 submarines (in 2036-2040) is not a short notice.
In contrast TLDM just have 3-4 years to prepare crews for 11 Frigates & Corvettes (around 1500 crew). That is not short notice?
… – “My alternative Force structure 2040 submarine acquisition plan”
I don’t have an alternative force, structure as it’s subjective and dependent on things I may not be aware off. As we can’t predict – unless we have a crystal ball or an oracle – what any future war will entail, we need a balanced force structure to deal with the challenges we realistically can based on our limitations, rather than put too much emphasis on any single asset. Also has to be taken into account that even if the MMEA had 1,000 ships the RMN like most navies worlsdwide would have certain peacetime roles.
I would like the RMN to improve its ability to operate jointly with its sister services because in any war it’s not the RMN alone but the RMN alongside the RMAF. I would also hope that by some miracle the government can commit to what it has approved, even if the time lines are lengthy and numbers modest. Ultimately the nature of things is that requirements do change due to threat perceptions, internal politics, etc. Sometimes this is good, sometimes not.
… – “In contrast TLDM just have 3-4 years to prepare crews for 11 Frigates & Corvettes (around 1500 crew). That is not short notice”..
As explained earlier, major difference between training surface and sub crews. Context.
… – “1 whole decade to prepare crews for extra 2 submarines (in 2036-2040) is not a short notice”
You do understand that I was citing an example, again – absorbing a couple of boats in a few years is possible. Not easy but possible. On the other hand absorbing 4-6 boats isn’t. That was the pertinent fact I was making and something I’ve pointed out in the past. Since you missed it – training submariners is inherent time and resource extensive, more so than with surface crews. Also other challenges at play.
The Kedah is old but it’s not irrelevant as Germany had built a batch 2 of it recently. A *corvette would cost around a billion or so to acquire new while the OPV cost around 250 mil.
So the idea of throwing out all the equipment that make it a *corvette to turn it into an OPV mean the equivalents of throwing out MYR 750 mil worth of equipment per ship. Quite a penny wise pound foolish idea particularly when we aren’t short on foreign donors for old OPV.
Might as well rehulled the kedah when the time comes and get some missile for it and let it run another 20-30 years
” On the other hand absorbing 4-6 boats isn’t ”
It is just absorbing additional 2 boats extra from planned, more than a decade from now.
even with 2 crews per boat it is less than 125 person with more than 10 years lead time.
For current surface ships, 1500 person in about 2-4 years.
@ zaft
you are throwing numbers out of thin air
Each kedah cost USD300 million. It is now 19 years old. Most of the combat equipment is obsolete anyway. The kedah class can operate 30 more years with the same hull no issues.
Upgrading the Kedahs with new combat equipment will cost around USD60-100 mil, but why when we are getting the TM Turkiye Corvettes? can a kedah with “some missile” survive naval warfare against another nation’s military?
… – ” can a kedah with “some missile” survive naval warfare against another nation’s military”
Hold on. Didn’t you mention about how you see the context? What type of “naval warfare”. Under what operational circumstance? Also the Kedah is not meant to be a primary combatant and even an Arleigh Burke in certain scenarios might be sunk. An please don’t go on about hypersonic missiles because at the moment even the USN might struggle against them, never mind the RMN.
… – “It is just absorbing additional 2 boats extra from planned, more than a decade from now.
even with 2 crews per boat it is less than 125 person with more than 10 years lead time”
You make it sound so easy. More than a decade from now will the RMN’s budget be significantly increased? Will it have more manpower? Or will you continue to insist that it can be done like how you insisted Gerak Khas can be expanded without a drop in quality? Ignoring that only X number of people who join the army annually, only X apply for selection and only a bare fraction qualify? You also make it sound that the RMN has only subs to focus on and not other areas.
Again, the reason we plan to buy a, sub in X MP and another one is driven not only by funding considerations but on other factors too.
Zaft – “The Kedah is old but it’s not irrelevant”
It’s certainly not irrelevant and despite it not being understood by some, the RMN is not in a position to hand it over to anyone anytime soon.
Zaft – “Might as well rehulled the kedah when the time comes and get some missile for it and let it run another 20-30 years”
They will not be in need of rehulling anytime soon but as the years go by various things will be unsupportable or inoperable due to age. Same situation faced now with the Lekius and in the past with the Laksamanas.
… – “The kedah class can operate 30 more years with the same hull no issues”
You know this with absolute certainty or are assuming? I’m not into direct comparisons without taking into account the context but the Laksamanas needed a new Hull after slightly less than 20 years in service. The fact that they were constructed decades ago doesn’t count as they were mothballed. The FACs on the other hand needed a major rework after decades of service.
… – “Most of the combat equipment is obsolete anyway”
I prefer to look beyond the “combat equipment” as other areas also need attention and maintenance. The TRS-3D is still supportable and not obsolete, the CMS for the time being is; as is the comms suite and the helo landing system. No doubt in the comings years more things will be unsupportable or inoperable but the main concern is also centered on the engines, shafts and other things which for the time being don’t pose a major problem. Heavy usage in the coming years – irrespective of refits which don’t always address every area, will determine things.
… – ” cost around USD60-100 mil, but why when we are getting the TM Turkiye Corvettes”
Might as well ask why the RMAF plans to get MRCAs when it has F/A-50s on order and why the army bought more
C-90S when it already has NLAW. The Kedahs and the LMSs will do slightly diffrent things.
Hulu says it’s obsolete despite Germany is still actively building the k130 batch 2 for themselves.
He also claims I pick the number out of thin air. Then goes on saying that the Kedah cost USD300 mil. Is usd300 mil is not MYR 1 billions? Let say if we take the usd300 mil figure or the usd400mil figure of the k130 batch 2 and hulu idea is to throw away the equivalent of MYR 1- 1.4 bil of equipment to turn it into an OPV.
Then he goes on on how the Kedah can be used without a rehulled but he still want to throw away billions worth in equipment. Then he says the Kedah even arms with a SSM can’t fight as if his idea of a gun only OPV can.
Zaft – “Hulu says it’s obsolete despite”
I believe he meant the “combat equipment” is obsolete. What he’s made clear however is the flawed argument that the Kedahs [because they are OPVs] have little combat value because they and the LMSs would be sunk by Plan. Never mind that there is a place for everything and that even a Kongo can be sunk. On that basis he maintains that the Kedahs should be handed over to the MMEA. The notion that the MMEA might not want them and will not find them suifed for requirements is off course missing from the narrative or “proposal” as he puts it.
… – “Then he goes on on how the Kedah can be used without a rehulled”
Unless he has a crystal ball, this is sheer speculation.