SHAH ALAM: Four months and four days (125 days) after the steel cutting ceremony for the LMS Batch 2, RMN chief Admiral Zulhelmy Ithnain on April 8 officiated the keel laying for the first of three LMS Batch 2 in Istanbul, Turkiye.
The keel laying marks the first phase of the construction of a ship, RMN said in a release. It said the keel laying marks the connection of the blocks of the ships built at the Istanbul Shipyard. STM is the main contractor for the project.
The release from RMN:
𝐔𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐀 𝑲𝑬𝑬𝑳 𝑳𝑨𝒀𝑰𝑵𝑮 𝐁𝐀𝐆𝐈 𝑳𝑰𝑻𝑻𝑶𝑹𝑨𝑳 𝑴𝑰𝑺𝑺𝑰𝑶𝑵 𝑺𝑯𝑰𝑷 𝑩𝑨𝑻𝑪𝑯 𝟐
ISTANBUL, 8 Apr – Upacara Keel Laying bagi projek Littoral Mission Ship Batch 2 (LMSB2) Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia (TLDM) telah disempurnakan oleh Panglima Tentera Laut, Laksamana Datuk (Dr.) Zulhelmy bin Ithnain dan disaksikan bersama Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Pertahanan, Datuk Lokman Hakim Ali di Istanbul Shipyard, Turkiye hari ini.
Keel laying atau peletakan lunas merupakan satu fasa penting dalam pembinaan struktur utama sesebuah kapal. Upacara ini merupakan tradisi dalam industri pembinaan kapal yang menandakan bermulanya aktiviti penyambungan blok-blok utama kapal di limbungan. Upacara kali ini adalah kesinambungan kepada upacara steel cutting yang telah dilaksanakan pada 4 Disember 2024, sekaligus menandakan peralihan daripada fasa pembinaan kepada fasa penyambungan.
Semasa lawatan delegasi Malaysia ke Turkiye, turut dilaksanakan Mesyuarat Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) pada 7 Apr 25 yang dipengerusikan oleh Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Pertahanan bersama wakil Syarikat. PMC ini bagi memantau pengurusan, pentadbiran, pelaksanaan kontrak dan kemajuan kerja pembinaan LMSB2. Pihak syarikat telah membentangkan kemajuan kerja bagi ketiga-tiga buah kapal dan menunjukkan kemajuan kerja yang sangat memberangsangkan bagi projek ini.
Berdasarkan kemajuan kerja semasa, kapal LMSB2 dijangka siap dan dilancarkan pada pertengahan tahun 2026 sebelum diserahkan kepada TLDM pada penghujung tahun 2027.
Turut hadir ke majlis tersebut adalah delegasi Kementerian Pertahanan, wakil TLDM, Pasukan Projek Littoral Mission Ship Batch 2 (LMSB2) dan Mr. Bülent Soydal selaku Deputy General Manager Savunma Teknolojileri Muhendislik (STM).
According to the release, based on the report by STM the project is on schedule as per the contract.
https://youtu.be/P0wh6lfUXX0
–Malaysian Defence If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
If we look at Pakistan Navy ADA-class F280 PNS Babur build timeline:
Keel laid : 4 June 2020
launched : 15 August 2021
Commissioned : 23 September 2023
Extrapolate that to the LMS B2 01 timeline:
Keel laid : 8 April 2025
launched : ~19 June 2026
Commissioned : ~27 July 2028
But STM has put in its timeline all 3 LMS B2 to be completed by 2027. Lets see if all 3 ships will be completed as per schedule and contract agreement by 2027. Previous shipbuilds like for Pakistan was delayed somewhat due to the COVID pandemic.
Overall TLDM & APMM newbuild project up to 2030 will see the possibility of as many as 17 new large ships to be commissioned into TLDM and APMM.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gm8MgV-bEAAt1Qf?format=png&name=4096×4096
… – “will see the possibility”
Assuming the politicians don’t shift priorities as they tend to do. For the RMAF if the Kuwaiti deal proceeds I hope it’s not used as an excuse to delay the 2nd batch of F/A-50s. Such things have happened before.
First unit LMS2 might get delivered faster than LCS1. Orz
” First unit LMS2 might get delivered faster than LCS1 ”
LCS1 target commissioning date is Aug-2026.
@hulu
The babur class ain’t exactly off the shelf item isn’t it? While the LMSB2 is not only off the shelf but take advantage that the hisar class which in itself a continuation of Ukrainian Ada and are in active productions.
Obviously if one wants a fast delivery of MRSS then just ordered one from PT PAL as they currently building the UAE LPD.
Azlan “For the RMAF if the Kuwaiti deal proceeds I hope it’s not used as an excuse to delay the 2nd batch of F/A-50s”
Can’t get your cake and eat it too. If RMAF want the hornet, they Either take money away from the next batch of FA50 or take it from the MKM. Import item is not exactly something can be acquired by just printing money away.
@Hulu
“LCS1 target commissioning date is Aug-2026.”
If you believe the politicians. Im not as naive.
@Zaft
“just ordered one from PT PAL as they currently building the UAE LPD.”
The UAE LPD is just too expensive for our budget. To trim down the cost, it needs to be redesign to make it cheaper and we can afford this takes time anyhow.
“excuse to delay the 2nd batch of F/A-50s.”
Might be used as excuse to delay MRCA decision (half expect will happen anyhow) but wont affect the FA50s as their have different mission profile. TUDM can also justify LIFT requirement not fully fulfilled as reasons to get more.
” If RMAF want the hornet, they Either take money away from the next batch of FA50 or take it from the MKM ”
The very reason we could afford those FA-50 is because we took the intrim MRCA path with the KAF Hornets. If we have bought a handful of Rafales or Typhoons (8-12 units only that we could afford), we will be left with a very rojak fleet, old hawks and no LIFT aircrafts.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/typhoons-f-35-or-super-hornets-plan-b/
… – ” If we have bought a handful of Rafales or Typhoons (8-12 units only that we could afford), we will be left with a very rojak fleet, old hawks and no LIFT aircrafts”
Works both ways. If we had gotten the MRCAs years ago our fighter fleet would be in better position; numerically and capability wise and after that we would have focused on a Hawk replacement as per the original plan.
“wont affect the FA50s as their have different mission profile. TUDM can also justify LIFT requirement not fully fulfilled as reasons to get more”
Naturally. Surely you’re not suggesting that the decision makers would ever delay something to fund something else which suits a complete diffrent requirement. Or that RMAF justification to avoid capability gaps makes the ultimately difference leading to decision makers coming to their senses in line with the importance we place on defence. God forbid.
In the real world shite happens. Technically the F-5s and Fulcrums were never replaced although there was a requirement and the RMAF lost its only jet trainer capability when the 339s were retired. The decision makers will say “be patient, we’re not at war. Mane do with what you have for the time being and as for what you don’t have, improvise”. I know people who had the pleasure of making the case for requirements to be registered to await – eventual – funding. The things they are told.
Saw STM sheet..Just wanna clarify..Does our LMS will come with gokdeniz ciws? If its true then we will be the third foreign gokdeniz ciws after turkemenistan on their turkmen class/dearsan c92 and recently comissioned brp miguel malvar of philippines navy..and will all of LMS b2 will be fully fitted of FFBNW
Good news!! Given that the 2nd Hisar OPV and the 2 Ukrainian Ada was launched within 1 year of laid down, i would say that 2026 launching is possible.
The problem (bottleneck) would be at installing the other components (radar, guns, EO turrets, engines) and testing them (sea trials?).
I believe the Turks might be cannibalizing some components meant for the Hisars to meet the shorter than usual deadlines. 2028 will be a more realistic date for the 1st ship delivery based on their previous experience
@Hulubalang
“Upgrading/uparming Lekiu, Kasturi, Kedah should not be high priority as there will be 12 full armed and capable frigate/corvette before 2030”
– Of the current 18 surface combatant RMN have, on 3 can fire AShM, Kedahs dont even have launchers installed (or even purchased).
– Lekius, Kasturis and Kedahs need the firepower capability to be recapitalize as RMN wants 48 surface combatants.
– 12 new surface combatants + 10 old surface comabatants with AShM (current stock and/or upgraded) is only 22 ships, even if we include the Lksamanas and LMSB1, 30 is still far away from 48.
– We all know you dont want more than 16 frigate/corvette, but RMN needs 48 large combatants (frigates/corvettes), and we know your LMS-X but RMN for now does not indicate they need sub 500 tons class ships/FACs
It is not a bottleneck per se as the installation of equipment and testing – harbour and sea trials – are part of the logical route for shipbuilding. The contract for the equipment for LMS Batch 2 has already been given out to Aselsan and Havelsan so there is no need to canibalise anything other project. Do note the Hisar OPV is done by another Turkish state owned contractor, Asfat and another shipbuilder. Both are trying to get ahead of its other state owned companies so I do not think they will be please to such things you said.
” 30 is still far away from 48 ”
That is what most people don’t understand.
TLDM does not need 48 large ships.
The need is for Malaysia overall, not just TLDM, so the planning should rightfully include APMM OPVs and MPMS too. At most 30 large ships needed so that 10 always available 24/7/265 for patrol and enduring presence at sea. Narrow and near shore areas like around johor, or ESSCOM can be patrolled by ships like NGPC or LMS-X, and interceptions of suspected targets done by very fast FICs.
This is TLDM own calculations
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQW3FaaMAAAsTG.jpg
This is also the calculated requirements that i use for my alternative TLDM plan.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
… – ” If we have bought a handful of Rafales or Typhoons (8-12 units only that we could afford), we will be left with a very rojak fleet, old hawks and no LIFT aircrafts”
It works both ways. If we had gotten the MRCAs years ago our fighter fleet would be in better position; numerically and capability wise and after that we would have focused on a Hawk replacement as per the original plan.
We didn’t get the MRCAs and we instead focused on another requirement. In other words during the period when we focused on MRCAs there was no immediate requirement for a Hawk replacement or a LCA but the plan changed. Irrespective of subjective opinions there was/is no right or wrong.
BTW we still don’t have a “LIFT” and won’t for a while. No a F/A-50 configured for conversion is not a “LIFT” peer see; anymore than a twin seat Hawk or one of the 4 Hornets with dual controls.
All eight Hornets now have dual control.
Didn’t know that. Thank you.
Azlan you’re conflating LIFT and OCU/FTC
Joe “The UAE LPD is just too expensive for our budget. To trim down the cost, it needs to be redesign to make it cheaper and we can afford this takes time anyhow.”
The UAE LPD is build on a clean sheet design and thus the R&D cost are fixed cost no matter how much you buy. The UAE only buy a single ship. Thus all of the fixed R&D cost are charged against that one ship.
Redesign won’t save you money infact it probably gonna cost you money. Even when spread out the hunter class and river class is still 300% more expensive per ship than the OG city class. Probably why both RMN and RAN are doing no gold plating for their secondary surface combatants programme.
Hulu “The need is for Malaysia overall, not just TLDM, so the planning should rightfully include APMM OPVs and MPMS too. At most 30 large ships needed so that 10 always available 24/7/265 for patrol and enduring presence at sea.”
You are assuming that the Chinese presents in the SCS is similar to a *normal maritime territorial dispute like during ambalat or recent off tuas where an OPV is more than enough because as all you need to to show presents.
But as stated by SG defense minister in a recent interview, the Chinese has 2 contradictory goal in the SCS, 1 is the usual territorial claim but the other one is to enforce and implement their own monroe doctrines.
He then explained that “if the Chinese can do sea denial and sea control that would give them leverage against every other country in the region”, basically with sea denial and sea control they can force other countries to do exactly what they want without them having to go around actually landing and invading said country like it was 1944.
Landing and invading anyone other than Taiwan is contradictory to their main intentions. That is to uphold Chinese territorial integrity and create a slew of finlandization satellite state.
APMM ship are cheaper than RMN ship but they are cheap because they can’t defend themselves, they can’t do any aerial surveillance nor underwater detection z Jammer detection and tracking, target acquisition and detection nor *if we implement it collaboration combat engagement.
You know things that you need to avoid being the victim of sea denial and sea control and subsequently finlandization.
@Hulubalang
“That is what most people don’t understand. TLDM does not need 48 large ships.”
– Most people understand why RMN need 48 ships, just 1 person maybe not. RMN does have it’s peacetime role and for sure it will and will always be overlap with MMEA.
– One should never say that a RMN ship and a MMEA ship both cannot operate in the same area (you said they cannot). To do this, RMN needs at least 12 ships (as per what said in the document) on the sea.
– In short, your 16 RMN ships is not enough for RMN and RMN and MMEA ships should be patrolling together in the same area
“Mane do with what you have for the time being and as for what you don’t have, improvise”
This is normal daily happen even in private sector, its not exclusively the armed forces have to bear this burden when powers that be decided not to spend money. The importance is get the planes first, not missiles first.
@Firdaus
“Does our LMS will come with gokdeniz ciws?”
Doubt it. Here is the STM specs for LMS2
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/more-details-on-lms-batch-2/
No where mention CIWS.
“All eight Hornets now have dual control.”
Seven right? One was lost.
They have not lost a single Hornet yet so its eight. Whether or not all are operational is beyond me.
One was damaged after a burst tyre resulted in the cew ejecting. At Kuching. It was returned to service.
Dundun – “Azlan you’re conflating LIFT and OCU/FTC”
No. I specially said the F/A-50 is not a LIFT; anymore than the Hawk 200s or the Hornets of which only 4 initially dual controls.
” MRCAs years ago our fighter fleet would be in better position; numerically and capability wise and after that we would have focused on a Hawk replacement as per the original plan ”
How can that be when even in 2017 at most we can afford is 12 Rafales?
Say we did buy the 12 Rafales, that really need to be paid for over 2 RMKs. So no money to buy anything from 2021-2030, including MPAs and MALE UAVs. Serbia is paying EUR2.7 billion for 12 Rafales.
In 2030 our fleet would be
18x SU-30MKM
12x Rafale
8x F/A-18 Hornets
13x Hawk 208
4x Hawk 108
7x MB339CM non servicable
Then in 2031-2040 need to buy LCA to replace Hawk. Hornet retire without replacement. SU-30MKM retire if no 2nd overhaul done. No money to buy 5G MRCA. The fleet at 2040 would be
12x Rafale
36x FA-50
Is this ideal?
I would want a fleet by 2040 of at least
24x KF-21
36x FA-50
Or if 2nd overhaul done, 18x SU-30MKM still around.
” All eight Hornets now have dual control ”
all mow modified to have dual controls?
when delivered, only 2 of them has dual controls, 6 more have missionised cockpit for WSO.
” The importance is get the planes first, not missiles first”
That was the thinking with the F-5s, A-4s, Hawks, Fulcrums. Hornets and Flankers.
“This is normal daily happen even in private sector”
One can only improvise or cannibalise or Rob Peter to pay Paul for so long and only as long as something enexpected doesn’t happen.
Luqman – “– Most people understand why RMN need 48 ships, just 1 person maybe not. RMN does have it’s peacetime role and for sure it will and will always be overlap with MMEA”
The projected number of ships the RMN sees the need for us the minimum not optimum number in order to achieve some level of readiness.
Yes even if the MMEA had 2,000 ships the RMN like most navies would still have a peacetime role which includes constabulary type duties – as told to “…”
Luqman – “RMN and MMEA ships should be patrolling together in the same area”
Which as far as possible they do. At times however the MNEA lacks the ships so – as told to “…” – the RMN is the only entity which can fill the gap so to speak.
… – “How can that be when even in 2017 at most we can afford is 12 Rafales?”
“How can it be” ? Even 8 Rafales would have added to the fleet; capability and numericaly. Are you saying that 8 to add to what we already had does not improve anything? You saying that on a platform basis Rafale is not superior to the Hornets and your vaunted Flankers?
Or is it a case like the subs, not enough to take on the might of the PLAN?
… – “Say we did buy the 12 Rafales, that really need to be paid for over 2 RMKs”
So? Even when we get the MRCAs in a few years time other things will have to be put off and payment will be stretched.
There is no right or wrong even if you have voices telling you you’re right. As mentioned in the past you are taking with the benefit of hindsight. You are saying that we made the right choice going for LCS. Maybe but only if we were not in a position where the 18 Flankers and 8 Hornets were insufficient. Same with the subs; you’ll tell every mother’s son and his dog that subs are more “important”. Yes subs are great but unless you can predict with certainty that in a future war subs will be the answer and if they will; no enemy will take measures to prevent their effective employment; you’re speculating.
FA-50 will be used as LIFT
The project name is LCA-FLIT
Even thai T-50TH is actually FA-50 block 2 all but in the name.
As planned 1st batch will be for Kuantan LCA squadron (9 Skuadron) and FLIT squadron (15 Skuadron that will transfer from Butterworth to Kuantan to take up 3FTC functions)
2nd batch will be for Labuan LCA squadron (6 Skuadron) and top up the FLIT squadron (15 Skuadron)
That is the plan for 18+18 FA-50M (total of 36), so 12 aircraft for each squadron.
If possible i would like to see if this option can be done
Batch 1 – 18x FA-50M = USD920 million
Batch 2 – 8x FA-50M + 18 TA-50M (as per Indo T-50i latest standard) = USD410 million + USD720 million (indo buy of 6 for USD240 million) = USD1.13 bil
To be able to have
6 Skn Labuan – 13x FA-50M + 1x TA-50M
9 Skn Kuantan – 13x FA-50M + 1x TA-50M
15 Skn Kuantan – 16x TA-50M (LIFT)
or
6 Skn Labuan – 12x FA-50M
9 Skn Kuantan – 12x FA-50M
15 Skn Kuantan – 12x TA-50M (LIFT)
19 Skn Butterworth – 2x FA-50M + 6x TA-50M (aggressor / smokey bandits display team)
those TA-50M can be upgraded to full FA-50M specs later if needed, as what indonesia and thailand did.
Cuz we are talking about RMAF, lets take a look back on what alternative could have happen (for better or worse) since the last 20 years
2005 Super Hornets Block 2 instead of Flankers
– 60+% more expensive to purchase but a lot cheaper to operate (50% of Flanker operating costs?)
– More advance radar (due to being AESA) with comparable radar range if not slightly worse
– More expensive weapons, back then AMRAAMs costs twice more than R77 if not mistaken
– Possible to purchase ex US Navy Super Hornets and/or upgrade to Block 3
2005/2006 2 AWACS + 3 A400M instead of 4 A400M
– Buy 2 Saab Erieye AEWACS (either 340 or 2000) for usd250 million while sacrifice 1 A400M
– RMAF will have AEW capabilities 30 years earlier
2011-2015 Used F16 Block25/30 for ‘interim’ MRCA
– 12 ex-USAF F16 being overhauld to 12k hours for usd400 million (based from Indonesian price)
– Ideally get the Block 30 due to AMRAAM compatible and GE engines
– We could not afford usd1 billion deal for 30 Typhoons (new and used) and also Gripen leasing
– Still cheaper to operate than Hornets and can replace lost Fulcrum capability
– Really wondering where the big CAPEX were spent during 2010-2020 other than on Cougars (or where the money eventually goes haha, well maybe on LCS wink wink)
Present day
– Would we still getting used Hornets? Yes, even with the F16s we might still get at least the 7 Kuwaiti D Hornets plus some spare airframes
So what do you guys think? should we have done things differently? Let me know your thoughts
” As mentioned in the past you are taking with the benefit of hindsight ”
There is no hindsight when i proposed the Kuwaiti hornets or FA-50 more than a decade ago. That was the best logical option, even if you, and TUDM say it is not way back then. Now after a decade, in hindsight yes i was right then, as is i am right now.
There is none (hindsight) still for my proposed TLDM alternative Force Structure 2040. Lets get back in say 10 years time?
Luqman – ” should we have done things differently? Let me know your thoughts”
Water under the bridge but the decision to get both Fulcrums and Hornets was a disasterous one and had severe implications. We had to have 2 seperate training and support infrastructures. Not to mention also having the Hawks. Fast forward a decade or so later; even after the issues we had with the Fulcrums; Dr.M insisted we get Flankers. This led to a set of issues which still plague us. Nothing wrong with the Flanker per see but it was not suited for our requirements. Operating Russian requires a diffrent operating philosiphy; not to mention challenges in dealing with the Russians.
The following decade we shelved the MRCA programme and focused on LCAs. Not right or wrong just what we had to do. Any claims that it was the right decision is subjective and with the benefit of hindsight. If we had been placed in a situation where the Flankers and Fulcrums were found wanting; the decision to get LCAs would have been the wrong one.
As part of the original plan; after the Flankers we would have got basic trainers, radars, MPAs and something to supplement the Nuris; followed by MRCAs in the 2007-9 period or around that period. Things didn’t go exactly to plan. We did get things but not in the proper order as planned. People will blame the RMAF but the government decides what’s the priority.
Lastly I’m not interested which 5th generation platform we get as long as we can operate it on a systems centric level. It’s not about who has the radar with the longest range or the fastest or the tightest turn radius anymore but situational awareness and being able to work with other assets.
Buying US equipment goes through FMS. No markups, no local agents, no protect protect opportunities. The Super Hornet and F16 was never a serious option for the govt as it would be a G2G deal and the US govt doesn’t do offsets and ICP, which is another way for local agents to charge markups. Which is why the F35 is a long shot for the MRCA unless govt exempts the requirement like F18Ds. So should defence procurement be exempted from protect protect local industry requirement? Or must keep protect protect requirement to jaga local businessman even if it means paying more.
@Azlan
“as told to “…””
But he wont agree, well at least that’s the impression I get.
@Hulubalang
“T-50TH is actually FA-50 block 2”
You really meant to say ‘block 2’ or ‘or block 20’ or other ‘block’? It is actually block 10 which is the 1st version of the FA-50
“those TA-50M can be upgraded to full FA-50M specs later if needed”
Given how much capability RMAF had lost in the last 15 years, it seems they want to get as many ‘fully capable fighters’ as they can first rather than purely just air frames quantity. When opurtunity arise, in this case maybe 36 FA-50Ms, you know lah Malaysian how gov works
Given the will also induct ~16 used Hornets in itself plus 18 LCS B1 is already a lot of air frames for RMAF in very short amount of time. But in future (2041-2045), maybe yes to extra LCA
Kel – “Buying US equipment goes through FMS. No markups, no local agents, no protect protect opportunities”.
Plus a support network that beats anything offered by anyone else.
Kel – *The Super Hornet and F16 was never a serious option for the govt”
As Dzirhan Mahadzir once said if Boeing could have arranged NASA to send a local astronaut to space the Super Hornet would have stood a better chance. Domestic politics also played a part. Iraq had been invaded.
Kel – “r must keep protect protect requirement to jaga local businessman even if it means paying more”
As has been long done to the detriment of the services and taxpayer
… – “There is no hindsight when i proposed the Kuwaiti hornets or FA-50 more than a decade ago. That was the best logical option, even if you, and”
You missed the part where we were not discussing this but the decision to get LCSs rather than MRCAs. Get it right. Also when you were proposing the LCA the requirement was for a MRCA and during that period there was no interest in pew owned Hornets. If you insist on dredging up the past at least get the narrative right.
… – ” Now after a decade, in hindsight yes i was right then, as is i am right now”
Naturally you are. Who would think otherwise? It would be shocking. You’re always right and I tip my hat to you, pat you on the head and sing songs of praise for you.
BTW, heard the “self praise is no praise” cliche?
… – “Lets get back in say 10 years time”
In ten years time whatever happens you’ll insist you’re right. Even if you know you aren’t; you’ll say you are because it’s you being you. °
Again, when if we had gotten 8 Rafales it would have improved things somewhat; numerically and capability wise. Also, to refresh your memory yet again during that period we had no requirement for a LCA or pre owned Hornets. Thus the later decision to go down that route does not indicate you were right.
… – “Even thai T-50TH is actually FA-50 block 2 all but in the name”
Well, if I’m wrong and part of the fleet will be configured as a LIFT then good; I as wrong. The MBB-339 which certainly wasn’t a LIFT platform per see will be replaced by one that is.
I’m certainly not going to have selected amnesia, obfuscate, bring up things whivh have no bearing or make space ships to Zeppelin comparisons.
My bad, T-50TH is to block 10, and designated locally as B.KhF.2
The plan is always for batch 2 for the FA-50, the ATR-72 ASW MPA and the ANKA.
This will be in RMK13 2026-2030
FA-50 aka LCA/FLIT is to fully replace all the current operational mission done by hawk, mb-339 & mig-29 by 1 type (FA-50)
Because of the interim MRCA plan (KAF Hornets), acquisition of new 5G MRCA now is planned for 2031-2040 timeframe, with the hornets to start retiring and replaced by the new 5G MRCA around 2035.
My bad its looks like our LMS b2 will not come with gokdeniz after all..as of now 4 other countries already using them apart from turkiye namely turkemenistan,philippines,ukraine and pakistan on their babur class..
” But he wont agree, well at least that’s the impression I get ”
It is not about agreeing or not. You cannot plan the maritime defence of malaysia without taking everyone into context, like what TLDM is clearly doing. APMM own PPSMM2040 lists out the plan for 20 large OPVs. From now to 2030 APMM is planning for 3x DAMEN 1800 OPV + 3x DESAN MPMS. There is zero reason why TLDM keeps planning for 18 OPVs in 15to5 plan.
Lukman, there is also zero benefit of thinking about “kalau this or kalau that”. It won’t change anything. We should think about what we can do, plan, execute better in the future.
http://www.muftiwp.gov.my/ms/artikel/irsyad-al-hadith/5434-irsyad-al-hadith-siri-ke-570-nabi-saw-melarang-umatnya-memikirkan-perkara-yang-sudah-berlaku
But i will say one thing. You buy with $$$, not wishful thinking.
Each Rancangan Malaysia budget for TUDM is only around USD1.6 billion.
From 2006-2010 TUDM got
USD0.9 18x SU-30MKM
USD0.71 4x A400M
USD0.07 10x PC-7 Mk2
USD0.11 8x MB-339CM
If you buy those super hornets, there is really no money to buy A400M, AWACS or what not.
@Azlan
“both Fulcrums and Hornets was a disasterous one”
Indeed, even if we bought new F16 block 50s (or even used yet fairly still new Block 30s) instead of Fulcrums, it would be ‘less disasterous’ and the F16 would still be flying today. To be exact, the operational philosphy (which was baked into the design) of Fulcrum was not for high tempo and/or long term use, at least when compared to western designs
@kel
“Or must keep protect protect requirement to jaga local businessman even if it means paying more.”
Well back then it was this
” At times however the MNEA lacks the ships so – as told to “…” – the RMN is the only entity which can fill the gap so to speak ”
What has been done for the last 10 years or so by the politicians and the government is trying to solve the problem of the lack of ships in APMM to counter foreign incursions by the Chinese Coast Guard by buying expensive new ships for TLDM to cover that deficiency. Is that logical?
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/lms-batch-2-is-the-result-of-chinas-intrusion-into-malaysias-eez/
For less cost, we could empower APMM to properly do its missions, and to properly deal with Chinese Coast Guard incursions, that is by using our own Coast Guard to counter the Chinese Coast Guard.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gm30ifhbYAAjlr4.jpg
The alternative APMM PPSMM2040 (Pelan Perancangan Strategik maritim Malaysia 2040) plan above is designed to be integrated with my alternative TLDM Force Structure 2040 plan
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
There is enough budget in RMK13 2026-2030 to execute both of the above plans, even if the next 5 years annual budget is identical to this years (2025), and not to the proposed 1.5% of GDP.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/rm55-billion-de-for-the-rmk13/#comment-946858
Luqman – “Indeed, even if we bought new F16 block 50s (or even used yet fairly still new Block 30s) instead of Fulcrums”
The funny thing is that there are still some [not all lurking here] who think the decision to go Russian was fine. Fine also for a small air arm to set up two separate training and support infrastructures. I won’t go into specifics but at times servicibility rates really dropped.
Luqman – “Well back then it was this”
Still is. Defence is part of the system of patronage.
… – “The plan is always for batch 2 for the FA-50, the ATR-72 ASW MPA and the Anka”
Yes you keep saying but who said otherwise? What I did say is we have a long history of shifting priorities. Nuance…
… – “But i will say one thing. You buy with $$$, not wishful thinking”
“I will say this” – an accurate assessment of things require an sobered non fevered take with both the pros and cons, one has to differenciate between what can be done on paper and what will be done in reality and make a distinction between what looks good in one’s head but why it might not suit the particular requirements of an armed service
” You missed the part where we were not discussing this but the decision to get LCSs rather than MRCAs ”
So tell me what kind of hindsight did i have then when discussing about that a decade ago?
This is getting more and more illogical.
The problem
SG menhen : the Chinese aim to create a monroe doctrines of their own and use their sea control and sea denial at SCS to arms twist neighbour into submission
JP defence white paper: Japan opposed PLAN attempts at coercion and changing the status quo at SCS
Hulu solutions: lets go buy OPV.
The reason why RMN want and why the gov bought surface combatants is because what we Need is constant surveillance and NOT just constant presence. It’s a problem when some people think that the Chinese and other only have 2 mode, either they go all out and pull a D day and invade Borneo or don’t do anything at all.
For reference :
US FMS offer for 18x two seater F/A-18F Super Hornets in 2002 was USD1.5 billion. We would have been the 1st Export customer for the Super Hornet. The F/A-18F Super Hornet spec then was almost similar to our own F/A-18D, with the same AN/APG-73 radar and most other things like the targeting pods. If not mistaken the price is taking into consideration that TUDM existing F/A-18D hornet is to be traded in as partial payment.
” Hulu solutions: lets go buy OPV ”
That is a fucking stupid take on what i am trying to achieve.
What the fuck part of getting fucking more submarines and the fucking ARROWHEAD140 frigate for TLDM instead of fucking expensive MRSS don’t your fucking brain understand?
” You missed the part where we were not discussing this but the decision to get LCSs rather than MRCAs ”
So tell me what kind of hindsight did i have then when discussing about that a decade ago?
This is getting more and more illogical.
.
@ darthzaft
” Hulu solutions: lets go buy OPV ”
That is a f-ing stupid take on what i am trying to achieve.
What the f- part of getting f-ing more submarines and the f-ing ARROWHEAD140 frigate for TLDM all for the same existing busfet instead of f-ing expensive MRSS don’t your f-ing brain understand?
I AM FOR MORE HEAVILY ARMED TLDM. What f-king part of that your brain that cannot comprehend that?
Ah forget it. This discussion is getting so retarded.
Because our navy want a new MPSS. PERIOD.
Decorum. I know you’re frustrated but mind the language.
… – “This is getting more and more illogical”
It became “illogical” from years ago when you have selective amnesia, adopt a very self serving attitude, cherry pick, make nukes to FAE comparisons, obfuscate and give the impression what looks great on paper can be done in reality.
… – So tell me what kind of hindsight did i have then when discussing about that a decade ago?”
I’ve told you a few times but since going over the same ground many times over is your thing as the master of regurgitation : the decision to get LCAs was the right one but if faced with a situation where we needed more than our 8 Hornets and 18 Flankers then the decision to get LCAs was not the right one. Then again you said you’re right so as I said : I’ll tip my hat to you, pat you on the head abd sing a song of praise.
BTW when you were all gaga about LCAs and pre owned Hornet there was no requirement. None. That only came much later yet you had the audacity to claim I was wrong in saying there was no requirement; for which there wasn’t during the said period.
… – The F/A-18F Super Hornet spec then was almost similar to our own F/A-18D, with the same AN/APG-73 radar and most other things like the targeting pods”
That’s only part of the story. The other part is we would have got something with commonality with the Ds and something much more cost effective in the long run, something with far better servicibility rates and something with better product support.
The Flanker came with long range, heavy payload, long range weapons and other things [which you’ve mentioned time and again] but it also came with a huge cost.
… – “that TUDM existing F/A-18D hornet is to be traded in as partial payment”
No the price as released by the Americans did not include a potential buyback. At a later stage according to a Military Technology article I have the Swiss would have been the recipient.
@Zaft
“Hulu solutions: lets go buy OPV”
Correct!! it’s like PLAN doesn’t exists (hyperbole). Both RMN and MMEA need their own respective number minimum number of ships to do their own job SEPERATELY!
@Hulubalang
“Ah forget it. This discussion is getting so retarded.”
Hahahahaha, I never see it getting retarded though
“18x two seater F/A-18F Super Hornets in 2002 was USD1.5 billion”
Wrong, it was usd1.3 billion with APG-73 radar
“own F/A-18D, with the same AN/APG-73 radar”
in 2005 they offered the APG-79 AESA radar at higher price (likely to be the usd1.5 million)
Hulu “What the fuck part of getting fucking more submarines and the fucking ARROWHEAD140 frigate for TLDM instead of fucking expensive MRSS don’t your fucking brain understand?”
The MRSS programme is only expensive in your head, by mental gymnastics you way by totally ignore the R&D cost on a clean slate design. A fixed cost that subsequent ship won’t incurred. An R&D cost you also ignore as somehow a paper subs that is scorpene Evo with paper AIP and paper LiOn battery can be had with current off the shelf scorpene price.
A better way to gauge the cost is to look at RMN original plan for this RMK and the current one, originally they wanted 5 more Ada but currently they wanted 3 Ada and 2 MRSS. Which means they only have around MYR 1 billions to spend per MRSS.
Basically the idea that one can magically get a scorpene Evo or an arrowhead at the cost of MRSS only exists no where else except in your head thus You don’t get to snapped at people when you yourself come up with trump level math.
also a sub and frigates unlike the MRSS won’t allow for deployable capabilities which allows the gov to maintain the army to the same size or even being downsize. Ship are expensive but compared to your proposal of doubling the army. It’s a bargain.
Here’s a non trump level math for you. To double the army, you need to hire 80k more soldier even if you pay them RM2000 a month,you looking at salaries bill of RM1.92 bil per year. Thats is before you include accomodation,camp, benefit, diesel,electricity and water bill, buying armour, vehicles, bullet, and so on.
That salaries cost alone is enough to buy 6 F35 per year. When defense planner assess that they are at high risk of sea denial NOT at risk of a D-day event. why the heck they wanted to pay 1.92 bil a year in salary for instead of buying 6 f35?
Luqman – “Both RMN and MMEA need their own respective number minimum number of ships to do their own job SEPERATELY”
And at times in tandem. Ultimately both have different chains of command and are funded via diffrent budgets but ‘…’ would say the budgets are from the same government. So what? Must as well say the earth’s flat.
… – “If you buy those super hornets, there is really no money to buy A400M, AWACS or what not*
This is you looking at things in absolutes and from your parti pris perspective. If we had gotten the Super Hornets the service would be in a much better position now. It would have greater commonality and something more cost effective and reliable than the vaunted Flankers.
As for the A400Ms and AEW”; irrespective of the fact that they have proved their worth; there was no requirement for them and because of them the Charlie upgrades were postponed. Whether we had bought the Super Hornets or not there was and is no cash for the AEWs given the dice of the budget and the fact that there was a long list of unfulfilled requirements.
Zaft – “The MRSS programme is only expensive in your head”
He’s right in saying RoRos are cheaper but there’s no point in going cheaper if one does not get the desired or required capability. We keep hearing about the lift role the MPSS will perform but that’s only one of several roles. There are RoRos available in country and during a time of need we can easily requisition them to supplement the MPSSs.
Whatever MPSS we get will be based on an existing design and any modifications to suit our requirements will be minimal. The Saktis have served us well but they are worn out and have space limitations.
@azlan
Basically in simple english. there are no real world example of military using RoRo as replacement for LPD for very simple reason as it limit the place where they could do amphibious movements to a few spot. A spot that the aggressor too would know and do their best to deny it. (Unless the enemies is incompetent as in a movie)
While his claim that the US army do train with using only RORO to land on a beach is true. but that’s just half the story. Because based on the US military themselves, they would need to first establish air supremacy’s over the area, the USMC would land and secure the area, setup the A2/AD complex and only then the US army would land.
If one don’t have the LPD, they can’t really do amphibious movements and at that point what even the point of buying the RoRo in the first place. Particularly when RoRo can be *rented but a LPD can’t.
Not to mention according to RMN statement the MRSS when not transfering cargo would be used as sea base as well as an ASW helo mothership.
Is that about right?
Zaft – “no real world example of military using RoRo as replacement”
There are exceptions. We know that the PLAN has plans in place to requisition large numbers of civilian RoRos and ferries to move men and material across the Taiwan Straits. Ultimately, yes the PLAN also has large numbers of deducatrd lift assets.
Zaft – “While his claim that the US army do train with using only RORO to land on a beach is true”
The Americans have RoRos to perform specific tasks under specific conditions.
Zaft _”Not to mention according to RMN statement”.
As pointed out various times the MPSSs will perform various peace and wartime roles; roles the Langkawi, former USN LSTs, the Inderapura and Saktis did/do.
Zaft – “USMC would land and secure the area, setup the A2/AD complex and only then the US army would land”
Before they would land they would ensure that enemy defences have been neutralised. “A2/AD is a fancy term China watchers/analysts came up with in the early 2000’s. It’s just another fancy term for something which has long been in existence; like” fires”.
BTW a beachhead would be created and expanded to secure a lodgement but troops would not actually assault a defended beach as if it was Inchon, Tarawa or Sword beach all over again.
@ luqman
It is USD1.5 billion, not 1.3
https://www.flightglobal.com/malaysian-super-hornet-buy-is-no-closer-despite-us-fms-notification/44902.article
My alternative proposal has fucking more frigates, submarines, more capability than the measly 31 ship fleet TLDM is planning for Force Structure 2040 with the same budget. And you tell me my plans are only to get fucking OPVs??
TLDM + APMM alternative plan. All with timeline + budget
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gm30ifhbYAAjlr4.jpg
” A better way to gauge the cost is to look at RMN original plan for this RMK and the current one, originally they wanted 5 more Ada but currently they wanted 3 Ada and 2 MRSS. Which means they only have around MYR 1 billions to spend per MRSS ”
Kira lah betul2
1 RMK bajet TLDM USD2 Billion
TLDM PLAN RMK13 2026-2030
2x MRSS USD0.8
3x CORV B2 USD0.65
4x ASW Helicopter USD0.45
6x UAV USD0.1
TOTAL USD2 billion
MY ALTERNATIVE PLAN RMK13 2026-2030
1x LCS GOWIND No6 Assembly cost USD0.05
3x CORV B2 USD0.65
6x LMS-X FCS5009 USD0.2
2x LMS-X HSV FCS5009 USD0.06
3x 90-95m OSV multi-role USD0.15
2x Fast RORO (used) USD0.04
2x Spearhead-class JHSV/EPF (used) USD0.07
1x ex Young Endeavour (used) USD0.0
8x SH-60J Seahawk (used) USD0.3 incl upgrades
4x AW139 HOM batch 2 USD0.07
4x AS355 (used pdrm) USD0.0
2x MCM modular set USD0.15
6x ASW module for LMS-X USD0.06
18x RQ-21A Blackjack (used US EDA) USD0.0
TOTAL USD1.8 billion
Alternative RMK14, RMK15 plan see graphic.
OSV multi-role as MCM mothership, submarine tender, underwater infrastructure surveillance/defence, minelayer, unmanned system mothership, floating base, salvage, logistics, HADR.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV-eXQ1WcAAw7ls.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoU-26HWcAIb2Su.jpg
For my alternative plan, many of my cost assumptions is on the high side
2x Fast RORO for USD40 million, when Spanish Navy got the SPS Ysabel for EUR7.5 million.
2x Spearhead-class JHSV/EPF for USD70 million, when UK is selling 2x of the much larger Albion-class LPD to Brazil for just GBP20 million.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/royal-navy-hms-albion-bulwark-sold-deal-4962669
There are currently 4x Spearhead-class JHSV/EPF available, with the rest of the fleet also going to be retired in near future.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkEHnxBa4AAb_1_.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCmTlaYAAQm6F.jpg
Still, we could cover many future mission requirements within RMK13 2026-2030, leaving RMK14 2031-2035 and RMK 15 2036-2040 to concentrate on getting submarines and ARROWHEAD 140s.
… – “has fucking more frigates, submarines, more capability than the measly 31 ship fleet TLDM is planning for Force Structure 2040 with the same budget”.
Let’s have some decorum and leave out the foul language shall we? The RMN’s plan is based on what the government can afford and will approve…
… – “For my alternative plan, many of my cost assumptions is on the high side”.
Yes but brass tacks. If the RMN saw the need for a RoRo it would have specified a need for it. RoRos are supplementary not a substitute and we can always requesition them if needed.
I’d like us to get various things but I fully realise that we won’t; either because we can’t afford it or we don’t see it as meeting our needs. What I don’t Don is to go on and on and on every chance I get to push my narrative.
” The RMN’s plan is based on what the government can afford and will approve ”
My alternative plan is based on what the government can afford based on existing level of CAPEX Budget, and is substantially less than 1.5% GDP requested in 2026-2030.
For RMK13 2026-2030, my alternative plan is actually cheaper than TLDM RMK13 plan in Force Structure 2040.
All the costs i have laid out clearly. My alternative plan will have TLDM get almost all brand new ships by 2040.. It will give TLDM much more diverse capability compared to the 31 ships approved for the TLDM Force Structure 2040.
… – “My alternative plan is based on what the government can afford based on existing level”
That may be but some of the things in your plan are not what the RMN has decided it needs. No it’s not infallible but it has a good idea as to what it needs and what it needs to prioritise on. It certainly has no requirements for RoRos; nor for modular MCM payloads. You are assuming as you’ve long done that just because your plan is agreeble to you; that it’ll be agreeble to the RMN which BTW has a pretty good idea what it needs and doesn’t.
… – “All the costs i have laid out clearly. My alternative plan”
Yes you have and you’ve mentioned it on multiple occasions. Telling us another 5 dozen times will make no difference. Perhaps present your alternative plan to the service itself. The address and departments are easily found.