SHAH ALAM: RMN’s LMS Batch 2 bigger size and better capabilities is the result of ongoing and continuous China’s intrusion into Malaysian maritime zone, Defence Minister DS Khaled Nordin said in a reply to a written question in Parliament today.
Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai asked why LMS Batch 2 will be bigger and better armed than LMS Batch 2 the four LMS Batch 1. Although he did not asked it outright, his questions also implied that LMS Batch 2 will be more expensive than the China-made LMS Batch 1.
Khaled said RMN had categorised the LMS Batch 2 procurement as a critical and badly needed capability. It’s bigger size and armaments compared to the LMS Batch 1 were due to several factors.
“The main factor is the continuous increase in current threats, especially in the country’s strategic maritime interests in Sabah and Sarawak. Over the past 8 years, there has been a significant increase in the intrusion foreign warships following an incident during an oil exploration operations in Sarawak waters. Chinese Coast Guard vessels continue to intrude
waters of the Malaysian Maritime Zone , while the total number of RMN ships assigned is disproportionate to the amount of the intrusion. This meant RMN’s ability to defend the sovereignty country when maritime operations are affected.The next factor is the need to balance the ability of existing combatants. The RMN fleet is divided into two regions namely the Western Fleet, in Peninsular Malaysia and the Eastern Fleet for
Sabah and Sarawak.The assets of the Western Fleet consists of combat ships, patrol ships, logistics support ships and helicopters, while the Eastern Fleet consists of patrol ships, auxiliary ships, submarines and helicopters. RMN ships with combat capabilities are with the Western Fleet.
Ships in the Eastern Fleet are limited to patrol capabilities without having the ability of three-dimensional warfare that is Anti Surface, Anti-Air and Anti-Submarine.LMS Batch 1 currently deployed in the Eastern Fleet are small and are capable as a Patrol Vessel only (no full capability combatants), as well as less suitable for operating in the open sea.
Hence the procurement of a combat capable LMS Batch 2 is a critical requirement for
bridging the gap in the capabilities of RMN ships and strengthening the fleet’s deterrence capability.
It is interesting to note that despite calling the LMS Batch 2 ” critical capability” Khaled failed to say whether its procurement will be expedited. We know from past statements that the ships – LMS Batch 2 – are badly needed that the ministry had even asked from several countries whether they could sell their already completed ships to us, even at a higher price. Their answers – likely Turkiye, Ukraine and Pakistan – were in the negative.
As Malaysian Defence reported previously, the LMS Batch 2 will be the Ada class – though which version – Turkish, Ukrainian or Pakistani – is still being scrutinised by the bean counters in the Finance Ministry. As PMX has appointed a new Finance Minister 2 – Senator DS Amir Hamzah Azizan – perhaps the decision will be made soon.
That said the number of officers in the ministry – the actual bean counters – likely remained the same.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
LMS Batch 2 Corvette is clearly the wrong answer to the question.
The intrusion is mostly by China Coast Guard, by white-painted large OPVs.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG6YclmbAAALUnA.jpg
The question that is best answered by APMM with APMMs own white-painted large OPVs.
The biggest problem why this is happening is that APMM is under KDN – Kementerian Dalam Negeri. KDN has no appetite whatsoever to solve what is basically a foreign relations issue.
We need to take APMM out from under KDN to fully empower APMM to discharge its duties.
Even with current budgetary levels, we can fully equip APMM with the ships it needs as per listed in its Pelan Perancangan Strategik Maritim Malaysia 2040 (PPSMM 2040) which is to have :
– 20 large OPV
– 96 medium PV
– 228 FIC/RHIB/RHFB/RIB below 20m in length
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/mid-term-review-of-dwp-19/#comment-890540
We do really need to upgrade TLDM fleet, but not as an answer to Chinese Coast Guard intrusion.
Lightly armed corvettes will not be survivable in future high intensity wars. Other navies that will operate in waters in and around our country such as Australia, Indonesia, Singapore etc. are building bigger and bigger ships due to the need to carry more missiles to counter advanced anti-ship missile threats. I am of the opinion that corvettes is not the way, but fully completing all 6 Gowinds before 2030, and replacing Kasturis and Lekius with larger Arrowhead 140 in 2031-2040 while getting 6 instead of 4 Scorpenes by 2040 should be the way forward.
“LMS Batch 1 currently deployed in the Eastern Fleet are small and are capable as a Patrol Vessel only (no full capability combatants), as well as less suitable for operating in the open sea”
Guess that’s official confirmation then of what used to be hearsay that missile boat size ship are unsuitable for operation in the EEZ. Even if it can sail to the north pole.
… – “ Lightly armed corvettes will not be survivable in future high intensity”
This is silly generalised conflation viewed from a very narrow lens.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions : not survivable in what context? Need a reminder again that the LMS is not expected to be placed where it has to punch above its weight level; that placed in a wrong context even a cruiser would not be survivable and that the LMS is not expected to operate alone? Even the LCA which you can’t stop pouring praise on would not be survivable of employed wrongly. Instead of regurgitating simplistic assumptions based on your narrow perspective looks at things in the proper context. Have you even asked the pertinent question if the RMN sees itself in the “high intensity” fight you spoke off and whether the rest of the fleet is equipped, structured and trained for it?
Also has it ever occurred to you that selling the Chinese intrusion angle is a way of justifying the purchase? You’ve also overlooked that the RMN has categorically stated why it wants the LMS which should leave no room for obfuscation and cluelessness.
… – “ I am of the opinion that corvettes is not the way”
It’s how they are armed; how they are deployed and the operational context; not the issue of being “corvettes”. WhT is the “corvette” is better armed than a “frigate”?
References to other navies is silly. Other navies have different operational requirements. If you need a reminder navies don’t get things for the same if it. Before peddling mote spurious direct comparisons take a hard look at how the requirement of the RNN, RSN and TNI- AL differ.
You missed the highly pertinent point where the Home Ministry is not the lead agency when it comes to issues pertaining to overlapping claims with foreign countries. Thus it’s not the question of “appetite” as you boldly stated.
Another point you constantly overlook is the the needs of the RMN and MMEA are two slightly different things. Yes both have to and do to an extent coordinate their efforts but ultimately both are different entities funded by different budgets and answerable to different chains of command.
Zaft,
There is no “hearsay”. FACs and ships of similar displacement/size are not intended for extended ops in open waters. They lack the seakeeping, range and endurance. If actually interested take time to research the limitations of S-Boots and MTBs in WW2 and the role the missile armed FAC was intended to perform when it appeared in the 1960’s.
The LMS Batch 1s as imperfect as they are have far superior seakeeping to the FACs
You’ve been regurgitating the same theme over and over again so for the benefit of others who are not as well informed please provide us with a source to show that the RMN intends in getting OPVs. It behooves you since you keep insisting despite being told you’re off [I assume you’re the same person and not an imposter].
BTW the LMS Batch 1s done count as they were meant to be armed and were an aberration; the proposed Kedahs don’t count as that was years ago and they were intended to be armed to perform certain secondary wartime tasks and the LMS Batch 2s don’t count irrespective of the fact that they’ll be “corvettes” and be modestly armed.
Please do show us if the RMN has any such plans or will have such things plans in the near future. Failure to do that means you’re just regurgitating something with no basis.
@Hulubalang
“the opinion that corvettes is not the way, but fully completing all 6 Gowinds”
You mean the pathetic ‘corvette capable no SAM’ Gowind? This is almost a joke. The Gowind is just a corvette nowadays and you implying ‘corvettes is not the way’ but yet also still ‘need complete all 6 Gowinds’.
A well designed corvette should have at least 8x cell Mk41 VLS with quad pack ESSM in defensive wise more capable than the Gowinds. Instead of completing the 6th Gowind, another option is to buy extra 2x LMS2 with 8x cell Mk41 VLS. The sonars could also be moved from Gowind to LMS2 if there is a will…….
@ Luqman
The Gowind LCS will be armed with VL MICA. The budget is allocated (it is a part of the budget that has not yet been used) but we have not bought it yet. All other weapons, from the guns to the NSM missile has been fully paid for.
LMA Batch 2 Corvette would be a smaller hull than the Maharaja Lela class Gowind LCS. Smaller size + smaller budget.
The budget for 1x LMS Batch 2 is just RM833 million per ship. With current exchange rates, it is only around USD175 million.
Do you think a 90m Corvette can pack ESSM + the associated radars for just USD175 million????
To get 32x ESSM missiles would cost nearly USD60 million…
Just from guessing, the design that would be chosen is the Hisar OPV variant of the Ada family, due to it being cheaper and easier to build than original Ada (according to the Turks) hence why there is possibility to get Ada sized ship at lower than usd200 million per unit ie the hull without sensors and weapons itself might cost almost similar as Damen 1800 OPV.
@Hulubalang
One might not need to buy all 32x or any ESSM/MICA/Mistral/whatever SAM straight away. For the ‘corvette’ Gowind VL MICA, ‘money allocated but haven’t bought yet’ = ‘no VL MICA available during commissioning’ = ‘FFBNW in practice’. But it is better to have such allocations of Mk41 cells so that not just ESSM can be carried but also ASROC and SM2 hence LMS2 have potential to have more versatility than the actual LCS
Marhalim, isn’t this history repeating itself? The original desire of the TLDM was to have LCS of the Sigma class of approximately 2000 to 2500 class. That got scuttled by the government of the day for the larger Gowinds instead. Now that thats been delayed, the TLDM is pushing for ships of about the same size under the LMS B2 banner instead?
This is the official current RMN requirements for the LMS Batch 2
General specifications
Length overall 80-100m
Beam 10-14m
Speed(max) 28knots
Speed(cruise) 14knots
Propulsion System CODAD (combined diesel and diesel)
Main engine 4
Shaft line 2x CPP (constant pitch propeller)
Endurance 4000NM/21days
Weapons
– A gun 57mm
– Y gun 30mm CIWS
– 2x NSM Launcher
– surface to air missile or point defence missile system
Budget >>>> USD175 million per ship as per current exchange rate
This is the specification that is put up by RMN at DSA 2022
http://pictr.com/images/2022/03/31/BThWXZ.jpg
This is the specs of SIGMA 9113 promoted by Gading Marine
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gading2.jpg
.
.
.
.
.
What would it cost if we let APMM, which is the correct enforcement agency to tackle the issue of Chinese Coast Guard encroachment in Malaysian Maritime Zones?
In my opinion, this ship would be ideal answer to the Chinese Coast Guard ships.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GB6i1yGbkAEn_Vc.jpg
The Hyundai HDP-3000 aka Tae Pyung Yang class OPV.
A ship with 113m length, 3,000 ton displacement, with a speed of 28 knots. Local Korean cost of these ships is 60 billion won for 2 ships, or USD67 million for 2 ships.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/04/two-more-3000-tons-patrol-vessels-for-the-korea-coast-guard-fleet/
So how many of these HDP-3000 Coast Guard OPV that can be bought for the budget of 3 LMS Batch 2 Corvettes? Which one is fit for the task and mission to tackle China Coast Guard OPV intrusions into Malaysian Maritime Zone?
On using our own Coast Guard instead of the Navy to confront the Chinese Coast Guard.
“The coast guard gives the Chinese a certain narrative that they can promote — that by using the coast guard while other parties deploy their navies, China is the one that is promoting peace and stability and avoiding escalation,”
“It has become the leading agency to spearhead China’s maritime sovereignty and rights assertion. Some would argue that the use of the coast guard emboldens the Chinese to do more,”
By sending coast guard ships, Beijing showed that “the essence of the South China Sea issue for China is about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, and China’s measures are not about geopolitics or military confrontation,” it quoted one expert as saying.
https://www.newsweek.com/china-coast-guard-xi-jinping-territory-claims-east-south-china-seas-taiwan-strait-1874109
IMO ideally (yes not everything is can be done ideally), it is more logical to get the LMS2 with Mk41 VLS for the reasons of operational flexibility. Example, assuming 8x MK41 tactical cells one can choose any LMS2 to be loadout with below config
Config 1 = 16x ESSM
Config 2 = 32x ESSM
Config 3 = 16x ESSM + 4x SM2
Config 4 = 16x ESSM + 4x ASROC
With this capability even the ‘corvette’ Gowind LCS is not able to have such flexibility as it is only limited to VL MICA or smaller SAMs that can fit inside if there is any.
I really hope someone in RMN and the Defence Ministry is considering this option
“LMS Batch 1 currently deployed in the Eastern Fleet are small and are capable as a Patrol Vessel only (no full capability combatants), as well as less suitable for operating in the open sea.
Hence the procurement of a combat capable LMS Batch 2 is a critical requirement for
bridging the gap in the capabilities of RMN ships and strengthening the fleet’s deterrence capability.”
RMN already said the reason for LMSB2 procurement…why you keep insisted RMN should choose OPV
Yup
@Hulubalang
China is trying to sell a narrative that they are not a bully. Why the heck we like other maritime states should go around empowering such narrative that’s empowered them more?
If anything rightfully or wrongfully we want to cry wolf to gain international sympathy.
@ darthzaft
” Why the heck we like other maritime states should go around empowering such narrative that’s empowered them more? ‘
By buying Missile-armed corvettes operated by TLDM to counter China Coast Guard, you are exactly empowering the Chinese “they are the victim” narrative!!!
Can’t you see that???
Exactly why we need to counter Chinese Coat Guard with APMM operated OPVs, not TLDM missile-wielding LMS Batch 2 Corvettes.
or is it too complicated to comprehend that I am the only one who understands it???
Ignoring the nomenclature of LMS or Littoral Mission Ship, the grand old plan of converting the combatant fleet to 27 NGPV sized or classed ships remains. The number of ships and specs might have changed but the intent has not. RMN wants bigger and better armed combat ships as its AOR became bigger and deeper. Because of the mismanaged NGPV and LCS programs RMN is now left with 4 surface combatants, 2 of which are 40 years of age. In a small budget Navy, between choosing patrol and combat ships, its a no brainer what ships RMN needs and will buy. Big picture, only 4 combat ships, and very limited shipbuilding funds. Small picture, RMN continues to have patrol and combat ship requirements. Some just continue to not see the forest for the trees.
Ignoring the nomenclature of LMS or Littoral Mission Ship, the grand old plan of converting the combatant fleet to 27 NGPV sized or classed ships remains. The number of ships and specs might have changed but the intent has not. RMN wants bigger and better armed combat ships as its AOR became bigger and deeper. Because of the mismanaged NGPV and LCS programs RMN is now left with 4 surface combatants, 2 of which are 40 years of age. In a small budget Navy, between choosing patrol and combat ships, its a no brainer what ships RMN needs and will buy. Big picture, only 4 combat ships, and very limited shipbuilding funds. Small picture, RMN continues to have patrol and combat ship requirements. Some just continue to not see the forest for the trees.
Its quite obvious ADA doesnt have space for VLS so why are people humping on MK41s, I really dont know.
@ kel
A reminder that the forest also contains “Malaysia Coast Guard” and currently China playing victim with its own Coast Guard while trampling on our rights in South China Sea
Also for a person that supposedly see the “forest” is blind to the fact that countering Chinese Coast Guard encroachment with Missile-armed Navy Corvettes is the totally wrong response to the problem.
@ joe
For the miniscule budget of USD175 million per ship, there is no money for Mk41s anyway even if there is space for them. Fully armed ADA-class corvettes without Mk41 VLS costs USD250 million each, and some expect a much more heavily armed ADA class corvette for USD75 million less???
Hulubalang “or is it too complicated to comprehend that I am the only one who understands it???”
Probably only you then that can understand how the world largest navy are being bullied by bunch of small fries far away from home trying to establish sovereignty on rock that are rules illegal by the ICJ.
@joe
While The OG ada in the Turkish navy do not have a VLS, the subsequent batch for others navies does
@joe
Ukraine’s Ada, the Hetman Ivan Mazepa will be fitted with MICA as stated by Ukrainian gov. The Hisar OPV can have MIDLAS vls installed as stated by the Turks
@Hulubalang
“some expect a much more heavily armed ADA class corvette for USD75 million less”
Please tell us who is that person is. ‘Heavily armed’ Ada corvette for usd75 million is crazy and wont happen.
“By buying Missile-armed corvettes operated by TLDM to counter China Coast Guard, you are exactly empowering the Chinese “they are the victim” narrative!!!”
Just to be clear, nobody will see China as the victim other than China, Pakistan, Iran and probably Russia in the first place. So Zaft’s points are also valid
@ luqman
” ‘Heavily armed’ Ada corvette for usd75 million is crazy and wont happen ”
Read and understand my statement properly. ” USD75million LESS ” <<<< what does this mean??? Is the cost USD75 million??? or USD75 million LESS than supposed USD250 million cost, as TLDM LMS Batch 2 Corvette budget per ship is just USD175 million ????
.
.
.
.
Yes Hetman_Ivan_Mazepa will have VL MICA. Isn't our Gowind LCS going to have the same?
But is the Hetman_Ivan_Mazepa cost just USD175 million like TLDM LMS Batch 2 Corvette budget is???
Turkish ADA class is around USD250 million each.
Hetman_Ivan_Mazepa cost for the ship only without all armaments is approximately 8 billion hryvnia, or approximately USD210 million. Is that less than TLDM LMS Batch 2 Corvette budget?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_corvette_Hetman_Ivan_Mazepa
.
.
.
.
" Just to be clear, nobody will see China as the victim "
That will be their primary narrative, and by countering and engaging their white-painted Chinese Coast Guard patrol vessels with missile-armed LCS Batch 2 Corvettes, it is just going to strengthen that narrative further and further.
Engaging Chinese Coast Guard with our own Malaysian Coast Guard OPVs is not only the appropriate level of response, but is actually much more cost saving and cost effective, and would enable TLDM to buy other more capable platforms (additional Scorpene Evolved for example) instead of the minimally-armed (due to budget and vessel size) LMS Batch 2 Corvettes.
@Zaft @Luqman
It will be either an ADA derivative or totally new subclass that we arent interested. Hisar is a different class of ship. Anything that is not off the shelf will incur additional cost. Pls MK41 is one of the most expensive VLS system in market.
I think the hull is a basically an Ada, while the rest of the topside will be done for our liking.
Maybe RMN will opt for ADA class smaller variant,The HISAR class OPV only with that said 2+ billion budget for 3 LMSb2 ships.Heard that this LMS batch 2 will only carry 2 NSM tube each and a point defence AD to keep the pricetag within budget
Dear Firdaus,
I guess its better than nothing plus the fact they will come in service almost the same time as LCS (at least the first 2 LCS). While at it might aswell armed the Kedah with similar weapons especially the last 3 ships
@Hulubalang
You are right very sorry for my mistake of misreading. Let me do the correction as per the following:
It is not possible to get a “heavily armed” Ada for usd175 million but maybe possible for a “heavily armed capable” Ada for such price. The changes to be done is using the Hisar design which is a sub variant of Ada. Hetman Ivan Mazepa itself already at usd210 million. So a hull and superstructure that is faster and cheaper to make than the Hetman Ivan Mazepa, plus lower spec sensors (including Hetman Ivan Mazepa vls cells assuming included in the price) really can push the cost down closer down to usd175 million.
@joe
Hisar is a design based on the Ada hull but tweaked to be faster and cheaper to build. Hence one can call it a sub class or sub variant of Ada, which i think is the Ada that RMN will get
@Hulubalang
Regarding the minimally armed LMS2, bare in mind that Hisar can carry 8 anti ship missiles and 8 Midlas vls cells. Hetman Ivan Mazepa might have 8 or 16 MICA. So it is not far away being similarly armed as LCS, which I think the LCS is lightly/standardly armed relatively nowadays
@joe
sorry I missed out on the Mk41 vls. In 2023 Netherlands was quoted usd14 million for an 8 cell Mk41 Strike length vls. A shorter Mk41 tactical lenght might cost between usd10-13 million. Expensive? maybe, but will allow much more operational flexibility.
The question is >>>>>
Is a Corvette with only 2 NSM tube each and a point defence AD to keep the pricetag within the available budget a worthwhile spend??
I really don’t think so.
This is the predicament with the LMS Batch 2 Corvette requirement and budget
1) On one hand it is over-armed to do its what it was bought for, which is as the answer to China Coast Guard intrusion with patrol ships. You don’t really need anti-ship missile equipped Corvettes to counter white-painted Chinese Coast Guard ships.
2) On the other hand, just 2x NSM and point defence AD (which is a high possibility with the USD175 million per ship budget) it too lightly armed to confront enemy naval ships such as Corvettes and Frigates that will be encountered in waters around Malaysia.
So it is a little bit of everything, but not good at anything… So why even bother buying the LMS Batch 2 Corvettes?
USD175 million x 3 ships is USD525 million. That is a lot of money that can be put towards a much more lethal platform, say 1x Scorpene Evolved Submarine rather than the lightly armed LMS Batch 2 Corvettes. Then empower Malaysian Coast Guard rather than TLDM to answer the issue of Chinese Coast Guard intrusion into our waters.
While Malaysian Navy wants so badly to buy underarmed Corvettes (but still it is bigger and better armed than the chinese-built Keris Class LMS!) to be used to confront the Chinese Coast Guard (which should be a Malaysian Coast Guard mission), in the meantime Indonesian Navy
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHk6KrGaQAAKWD1.jpg
@Hulubalang
So you suggest our navy should confront Chinese Coast Guard with Submarine instead? Brilliant idea
Hulubalang, not seeing the forest for the trees is where you get caught up with the detail of using what ship to counter what ship and who counters what, that one fails to comprehend or refuse to accept RMN needs both combat and patrol ships, but they need combat ships more (there are only 4 ships with offensive weaponry), but RMN only have enough money to buy one type. So obviously they will choose combat ships (e.g. ships with missiles). If its overpowered vs CCG, so be it. At the end of the day, a combat ship can patrol but a patrol ship cannot engage in combat operations. Lastly, what does it matter the narrative coming out from China when we use combat ships? We are at the right they are at the wrong on teritorial claims. If we use combat ships against coast guard ships in our own waters so what? That is not seeing the forest for the trees.
@ Haikal
Berbuih mulut aku ulang
Mesti guna Malaysian Coast Guard untuk kekang China Coast Guard.
Mesti guna Malaysian Coast Guard untuk kekang China Coast Guard.
Mesti guna Malaysian Coast Guard untuk kekang China Coast Guard.
Mesti guna Malaysian Coast Guard untuk kekang China Coast Guard.
Ada lagi yang buat statement bingai spin ayat aku.
Tico class also basically use back Spruance class hull & propulsion system but the changes to topside and mission profile meant not only did Ticos became a class of its own, but it was also redesignated to a different class of ship. It is because of these distinction that nobody calls Tico a subvariant of Spruance.
Less one forget, the LCS are using Sylver VLS launchers so why have another type of VLS? Maintenance nightmare. And even if we could afford for such it be more logical to go with Sylver for LMS2.
@Hulubalang
“The question is”
It is worth it.
“2 NSM tube each” “just 2x NSM”
RMN never said ‘2 NSM tube’ nor ‘2x NSM’. 2x NSM launchers can mean either 2x single NSM launchers, or 2x double NSM launchers or 2x quad NSM launchers. So there is possiblity LMS2 is not under armed corvette
“which is as the answer to China Coast Guard intrusion with patrol ships.”
Oh my god. LMS wont just only be used for countering CCG…..
“bingai”
Haiqal actually asked a valid question. You go gaga on about MMEA opv instead of LMS2 to counter CCG but then also suggest that Submarine instead of LMS2 and not stating the purpose of CCG. Please help enlighten us who are bingais bext time ya
I agree with Kel. RMN is in short of combatant not for just patrols against CCG but for other task as well and RMN right now needs surface combatants more than they need subs. As simple as that…
Interesting debate
Basically what the Malaysian politicians and most commentators here want is :
A useless navy with lightly armed corvettes that is only capable of dealing with foreign coast guard ships. This is at a time when Singaporean defence minister said – Risk of conflict in next decade has become ‘non-zero’. This is also comes at a time when our neighbours navy are buying and building bigger, more heavily armed Frigates and adding more advanced Submarines.
Add to that an equally useless Coast Guard that is totally forgotten by the politicians and public alike. It is not prioritised to do its proper mission, of which one of it is to deal with maritime security issues such as the China Coast Guard encroachment.
Jika pemimpin tertinggi TLDM berjiwa besar dan meletakkan kepentingan negara sebagai tunjang utama, mereka sepatutnya memberikan nasihat yang betul kepada barisan pemimpin negara.
Bahawasanya tugas memantau pencerobohan pengawal pantai negara China ialah tugas hakiki Maritim Malaysia sebenarnya.
Mereka patut bantu menjelaskan bahawa Maritim Malaysia perlu dibekalkan dengan kapal dan peralatan yang sewajarnya untuk menjalankan tugas tersebut dengan baik, dan bukan mempergunakan alasan pencerobohan pengawal pantai negara China ini untuk membeli peralatan untuk angkatan laut sendiri yang tidak padan untuk melaksanakan tugas tersebut.
No lah, the VLS are not maintenance expensive though it is difficult to reload. That is the reason navies move to VLS instead of the rotary, reloadable missile launchers.
Chinese coast guard like the Chinese maritime militia as Uncle Sam define it a military organisation as They work as a ‘front’ and do the ‘dirty work’ for PLAN and thus they are a military combatants and would be treated as such.
We like other do not have enough assets and manpower to respond to Chinese favorite tactics of encirclement to cut off our sea access either to a reef or oil platforms.
The Chinese tactics of land grabbing relies on the assumption that the others party won’t risk a hot war against single reef or oil rig.
The PLA maybe capable of protracted conflicts but their economy & population do not. So while it sounds contradictory but willingness & capability to confront and escalate are what would hold the Chinese back.
so i need to state what is the purpose of navy and what is the purpose of coast guard???
Royal Malaysian Navy
– Primary Mission >>> Military roles >>> To undertake combat operations at sea or from sea.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHojBHMasAAdvKK.jpg
Malaysian Coast Guard
– Primary mission >>> Peacetime maritime constabulary roles >>> Enforce law and order under any federal law in the Malaysian Maritime Zone.
When right now the main reason to buy a ship for the navy is to counter a foreign coast guard, is that the correct reasoning for a navy?
Yes right now malaysia lacks ships to enforce our sovereignity at sea against intrusion by Chinese Coast Guard. But to solve that we need to beef up our own Malaysian Coast Guard, not buy weak ships for Malaysian Navy.
The navy needs to tackle much more bigger issues in the future. There are reasons why Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Australia etc is getting bigger more highly armed Frigates. There are reasons why all of them also are looking to get more Submarines. The navy also urgently needs more ships, but not to counter the chinese coast guard, and certainly not something like a minimally armed corvette that will not mean much when facing a bigger more powerful navy.
Hulubalang “There are reasons why Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Australia etc is getting bigger more highly armed Frigates”
At the same time their version of LMS2 be it LMV, HHI2000, mogami & independent are totally not a missile boat that can only be in the EEZ when the weather permits.
The Chinese investment in CCC do not come at the expanse of PLAN. Not to mention the CCC work in conjunction with PLAN. PLAN would and will run to them when they confronted other CG & Navy. Not something you can do with those Alex LMS missile boat of yours unless the sun is shining and the wind aren’t blowing.
“No lah, the VLS are not maintenance expensive”
What I meant is rather than upkeeping only 1 type of VLS system, getting MK41 meant having to upkeep 2 types. No navies do that.
@KCWong
“Singaporean defence minister said”
That’s because when Uncle Sam goes into a fight with China, SG is expected to take an active role to support US hence they need combatants that can put up a fight. You can see this in their much more heavily armed Formidables & upcoming MRCV, the expected mini carrier, the extra F35 buys. Other neutral nations ie Msia, might see things differently and could opt to stay away hence why we are still focused on littoral waters defence. Which is why TLDM sees no need for a larger frigate than LCS and their primary role is enforcement & patrols. Things might change in future, who knows, but not for the now.
The VLS is one of part of the equation, the missiles are the other.
Joe “TLDM sees no need for a larger frigate than LCS and their primary role is enforcement & patrols. Things might change in future, who knows, but not for the now.”
While the OG 15/5 are dead. The having only 5 classes of ship remains a policy and with the OG LMS & NGPV2 concept are merge then there are enough room for a ‘aaw frigates’ in the future but only after the MRSS & the subs.
” Other neutral nations ie Msia, might see things differently and could opt to stay away hence why we are still focused on littoral waters defence”
IMHO We are neither neutral nor we are uncle Sam allies like PH or SG. If anything we seems to falls into ‘strategic autonomy’ kinda classifications.
It amazes me to read comments of buying this and that .. simple fact – the government does not have the funds and the armed forces still lacking in skilled personals .. fund wise its clear we simply dont have the budget and man power wise, the educated graduates are not exactly rushing to sign up with the military majority are spm leavers and as weapons get more complex we need more Sheldons rather than Rambos ..
Budget? We have the budget.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/national-security-budget-2024/
Development Expenditure (DE):
Royal Malaysian Navy TLDM is getting RM1.9 billion for assets and RM122 million for construction DE budget in 2024
Malaysian Ciast Guard APMM is getting RM621 million DE budget in 2024
Lets say we can continuously give that amount of budget for 5 years. That is:
– RM 10.1 billion for TLDM
– RM 3.1 billion for APMM
That is the theoretical 5 year Rancangan Malaysia budget we can assume for any future planning.
I based my plans on that – and we can plan for a lot of things within that amount of budget if we just put our minds on it
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/not-shocking-or-worrying-at-all/#comment-891824
@Zaft
“there are enough room for a ‘aaw frigates’ in the future”
If TLDM sees the need for it, or perhaps going for a different class of ship altogether.
“‘strategic autonomy’”
If we have autonomy it means we have the position to take sides or stay neutral and keep out. Right now we are friends to all but Western biased, however we arent beholden to Uncle Sam and this is understandable as we struggle to even maintain security of our own borders much less trying to become ASEAN police.
@hulubalang
“RM 10.1 billion for TLDM”
RM 2Bil today may not be the same RM 2Bil in 5 years time. And with any projects a significant chunk of the budgeting will go to ancillaries expenditures.
@ joe
” RM 2Bil today may not be the same RM 2Bil in 5 years time ”
RM 5 bil today will still be RM 5 bil in 5 years time, but how much it is in USD is the one that will fluctuate. A reason why my proposed plans are in USD.
Like Singapore Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen say: Risk of conflict in next decade has become ‘non-zero’, Singapore needs a strong SAF
Whatever Singapore sees as a risk of conflict and is preparing for that conflict; Malaysia, whether we want it or not, surely will be affected by whatever that conflict Singapore is referring to, no matter if we cry “neutral” or not.
TLDM, should be geared and prepared to face the same conflict that our neighbours is preparing for, whatever our diplomatic stand is.
More and more nations (Sweden and Finland for example) sees that neutrality isn’t going to save them in the future. Malaysia for sure in the past, if not supported by Britain, Australia etc. would not have survived against communist forces. How can we say right now that we are neutral (which we are not) and all the happenings around us will not affect us at all?
As for AAW frigates, realistically we don’t have the budget to buy and operate such ships, and at best we should get a General Purpose (GP) Frigate that will have a higher air defence and surface attack capability than our Gowind Class Frigates.
Our Gowinds are more geared to ASW missions with towed CAPTAS 2 sonar.
I would see TUDM having 4x Arrowhead 140 frigates of around 6,800 tons, built from 2031-2040 equipped with :
1x 76mm Gun
2x CIWS (Aselsan GOKDENIZ)
2x 30mm RCWS (Aselsan SMASH)
16x NSM anti-ship and land attack missile
32x VL MICA NG air defence missile
UAS, USV and UUV systems
Recently US Navy released a requirement to field a 370km-480km air launch anti ship cruise missile with a 75 lbs warhead to be fielded by 2023 at cost of usd300k called MACE. This said to be achievable using mature components already available. F35 will able to carry 2 MACE instead of just 1 JSM (air launched NSM) in each of its internal bay.
Hence i think a surface launched version can be adapted (the first few test firing might even be surface launched) on to ships like LMS2
Assuming it’s more like a 7 inch diameter Spear3 more than double in length with quadruple more warhead, or an extended lenght yet slimmer MALD and lower range due to fuel swapped with warhead, taking JSM range vs NSM range, lower drag, 125-150kg mass, this may possibly to fit 4 MACE in one NSM canister. The ground lauch version will have range similar to NSM
Assuming above is correct, knowing that Ada and Hizar opv cab carry 8 anti ship missiles, theoretically the LMS will able to carry 32x MACE at max or 4x NSM + 16 MACE. 32x MACE cost not much more than 4x NSM.
Smaller warhead may not sink even a corvette but may be enough for mission kill and able to do follow on strikes by RMAF
Thus a quad packed (into an NSM canister) surface launched MACE may able to solve the problem of LMS2 being an “under armed useless corvette” at a reasonable price
Well above is just me day dreaming…..
This is what US Navy is up to
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDBCjDhW4AAna54.jpg
Distributed lethality with unmanned small ships.
Doing unmanned maybe a little too advanced and complex for us, but we can do minimally manned ships.
3-4 of low cost ships lobbing multiple of low cost missiles from many directions. Can be build in numbers so it will be a headache to anyone on the opposing side.
You don’t need USD175 million ships to lob low cost missiles.
A USD33 million ship will do, 3-4 of them sailing together with our frigates as a loyal wingman and distributed lethality node.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBKIQH6aUAAXUc0.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHZ8KAPaAAEqdvt.jpg
Without adequate self protection systems, surface ships will be sunk by the multitudes of advanced anti ship missiles of the future, like this MACE missile (and hypersonic missiles, stealthy missiles like NSM). Its just a matter of when. It doesn’t matter if it is a USD175 million LMS Batch 2 Corvette, or my proposed USD33 million LMS-X based on the FCS5009.
Submarines on the other hand, has the exact same weapon to kill them since WW2, the lightweight torpedo and depth charges, not to mention the difficulty to locate them in the first place.
Joe “If we have autonomy it means we have the position to take sides or stay neutral and keep out. Right now we are friends to all but Western biased”
Friends to all but Western biased is what ID is. Realistically speaking for us, we can only either join the west or keep out but definitely can’t choose to join the other side because something something source code something.
Hulubalang *TLDM, should be geared and prepared to face the same conflict that our neighbours is preparing for, whatever our diplomatic stand is.”
Duh. Exactly why we are buying a corvette, LPD, anka and not a missile boat, Roro & TB2.
We are not ID. We are not important enough to make other care enough to create a ‘special’ tactics just in case we with our unique platform want to join in. We either buy something interoperable & interchange with other for a seat at the table or we don’t get a seat at all.
We either buy something interoperable & interchange with other for a seat at the table or we don’t get a seat at all.
Interoperable ?
So my proposed TLDM fleet by 2040
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/not-shocking-or-worrying-at-all/#comment-891824
What we can offer in an all out conflict in South China Sea based on my proposed TLDM fleet
– 6x Scorpene Evolved Li-Ion SSK with 18x Blackshark torpedoes/SM-39 Exocet/NSM-SL
– 6x Gowind 3100 Frigate 111m 3100 ton with 8x NSM and 16x VL MICA NG
– 4x Arrowhead 140 Frigate 138m 6800 ton with 16x NSM and 32x VL MICA NG
– 24x LMS-X FCS5009 55m 800 ton with surface missile module of 12x Cakir SSM & 24x VL HELLFIRE MMR
– 2x AOR 158m 15600 ton based on the STM Fleet Tanker
What does a small (size and quantity) LMS Batch 2 Corvette with 2-4x NSM and point defence missiles can offer to Australian, UK, US, etc. combined naval forces during a conflict in South china sea?
A hollistic maritime security plan does not just revolve around a single type of platform, as you are so fixated with the LMS Batch 2 Corvette and my LMS-X FCS5009 proposal.
@hulubalang
“RM 5 bil in 5 years time, but how much it is in USD”
You quoted budget in RM, but we buy defence stuff in USD, that is the currency which matters no matter what the RM quoted or % capita given. Which is why I said RM 5Bil today may not be the same RM 5Bil years later. What we can afford in USD today may not be the same amount we can pay years later. Which is why I see with trepidation you quote not just multi year buys but thru multi RMKs as well (all in RM). Sounds nice on paper but in 3 RMKs from now you will not see the same value as your today proposal.
The right way is to fix defence expenditure to a set amount USD, ie USD 1Bil per year. So it doesnt matter if our currency is RM 3.50 (b4 C19) or 4.80 (currently) as we have committed to that much amount of money to spend. This will also bring us closer parity to SG defence expenditure in liew of their stronger currency. Of course spending RM 4.8Bil rather than RM 3.5Bil means something else got to cut deeper. Or else just fix the economy so that our currency can rise higher vs USD.
@Zaft
“Friends to all but Western biased is what ID is”
Pretty standard for a number of ASEAN nations ie Pinoy, Thai, Msia, Indonesia. Some do edge closer on & off but in general in ASEAN we are nonaligned hence not beholden. But USA does asserts political pressure when those in ASEAN are tilting towards China ie Najibs Msia, Du30 Pinoy.
“definitely can’t choose to join the other side”
It depends what the other side has to offer. If USA hasnt killed off the optimism yet, China is poised to overtake USA as the next eminent superpower.
This is what the Singapore Defence Minister said 5 days ago;
The risk of regional and even global conflict even in the next decade has become non-zero. I do not make this assessment lightly.
Over here, we stick our heads deeper in the sand.
@ joe
” Which is why I see with trepidation you quote not just multi year buys but thru multi RMKs as well (all in RM) ”
Please read and understand carefully my comments before you reply.
All my multi RMK plan is totally in USD.
Its easier for them really – apart from money – as the defence industry is state owned. So any extra money spent on defence -even if they do import stuff for example the F-35s, the MRO work will be done by these companies. Over here…
Hulubalang “What does a small (size and quantity) LMS Batch 2 Corvette with 2-4x NSM and point defence missiles can offer to Australian, UK, US, etc. combined naval forces during a conflict in South china sea?”
Not like the LMV, HHI2000, mogami or independence class could do way much more.
Maybe you should wrote an opinions piece on how those ships are terrible and they should be scraped for more missiles boat instead.
@hulubalang
“Royal Malaysian Navy TLDM is getting RM1.9 billion for assets… Lets say we can continuously give that amount of budget for 5 years. That is:
– RM 10.1 billion for TLDM
– RM 3.1 billion for APMM”
All figures clearly quoted in ringgit(RM). These are your words above is it not? Or there is another hulu?
“Over here…”
Has the same goal of ‘national interest projects’ looking to recycle money spent internally. But rather than cycling thru the govt, like SG, we instead prefer to cycle money thru cronies, contacts, cables, connections, cetera. Its not like their defence industry is a paragon of value for money (most of their local products are expensive which is why they receive little interest in the international market) but what they spend on they do it sufficiently appropriate to ensure it turns out a successful product that meets SAF requirements.
This is what the Singapore Defence Minister said 5 days ago;
The risk of regional and even global conflict even in the next decade has become non-zero. I do not make this assessment lightly.
They need to say that to justify the spending ..Sg is a tiny island. no land grab issue, so to spend that amount of money need justification ..
what they spend on they do it sufficiently appropriate to ensure it turns out a successful product that meets SAF requirements. T
That was the reason they make them in the first place. Exports if it happens, are just a bonus.
Malaysian annual budgets is always in RM (ringgit malaysia) which I would qoute in RM as the USD amount would fluctuate according to time.
If you check the busget for the past 20 years, no matter what the RM number is, the USD equivalent for each 5 year RMK has been more or less constant. With TLDM getting USD2 billion for each 5 year RMK plan.
As buys are almost always in USD, if you can scroll back all my comments, all of it I will always quote them in USD, as that is what most weapons are paid for in.
100% of my plan, if you go through and care to understand, is 100% in USD
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/mid-term-review-of-dwp-19/#comment-890540
@ darthzaft
” Maybe you should wrote an opinions piece on how those ships are terrible and they should be scraped for more missiles boat instead ”
If you cannot comprehend what my point is to just see the LMS-X but not the 6x Scorpene Evolved, 4x Arrowhead 140 etc. You are on my ignore list.
I am doing this not to show I am more clever than you, but I am doing this because I love my country. You are not my main audience. You not capable of understanding my POV is none of my concern.
Hulubalang “You are not my main audience. You not capable of understanding my POV is none of my concern.”
You are not exactly writings on the national paper aren’t you. The likelihood you going to influence public and administrative opinion to do asymmetry are pretty much near zero.
Joe” we instead prefer to cycle money thru cronies, contacts, cables, connections, cetera.”
That how the Korean did it and yet they are far more successful then the sinkie at almost everything.
Thus one can conclude.
1) crony capitalism isn’t the actual problem it’s the rapid turnover & huge numbers of crony that’s the problem.
2) crony capitalism is only a liabilities when they get free money and pays themselves big fat dividend if they instead use the free money as capital then they are a national assets.
Hyundai rotem & HHI don’t just build IFV, tank, subs and warship they also build truck, train and most of the world commercial ships. they manage to do all that in part because Korean taxpayers give them access to cheap capital by way of lucrative contract, the chaebol instead of getting themselves a yart, a new wife and supercar as our crony done, instead invested those money for their commercial operation. while their domestic market are small they manage to get the US to give their commercial products a preferential access to US markets because their military act as Uncle Sam meat shield.
As such Korean success are in part a result of them able to align their foreign affairs, defence and industry toward a common goal.
@ mofaz
” They need to say that to justify the spending ..Sg is a tiny island. no land grab issue, so to spend that amount of money need justification ”
Justifying defence is the least of their concern. Every Singaporean understands (with constant reminder throughout their upbringing and National Service) that defence is an extremely important aspect to maintaining the prosperity and survival of their country.
Singaporeans have absolutely no issues on all the billions of dollar defence buys without any open tenders, so justifying spending is not a concern to them.
But their current act and statement on defence is something that all its neighbors must seriously take into consideration. Consider them as an early warning for everyone to prepare for. If our politicians and defence leaders still feels what singapore defence minister said recently is nothing to be worried or concerned about, i don’t know what to say.
When your northern neighbour is a bit crazy and belligerent, randomly throwing a fit on relations, the best way to shut them up is to remind the neighbour that despite having just 1/20 the population, a fraction of the land area, no natural resources, the country has the ability to invade and hold the southern part of its neighbour. Deterrence by being bigger and better, just to shut the crazy neighbour up. Until the crazy neighbour stop being crazy, Singapore will continue to achieve deterrence by being bigger and better. There used to be 2 crazy neighbour. 1 has become sane and progressed. The other remains crazy because of stagnation and having delusions of grandeur.
Somehow I am sure they have gone thru all the scenarios to ensure there is a Republic of Singapore after a regional or WW3.
Our mindset, owh we are a neutral country so we should be ok. We learn history just to pass exams. We forgot how the then superpowers divided us up, put up their respective puppets as our leaders…overall making us all illiterate and poor.
@Zaft
“That how the Korean did it”
Indeed to some extent, but they kept the self profiteering bit much lower as compared to our clutch of businessmen, instead of lavishing obscene wealth while their businesses stagnate, they used the profits to grow their companies and sought to compete on the local & international fronts. You can see this as each new product there is always something much better than before thus the people respond by staying loyal to their brands even when the prices goes up.
SG were at certain times competing with SK on multiple industries but while SK pushes such focus to be global brands, SG instead decided to evolve their dependencies to remain ahead of futures emerging ones, ie SG was once a hub for low end manufacturing but gave that up for high tech electronics production when more nations offered cheaper labour and now they are giving up that to evolve into a fin tech hub. One things for sure, while SK could still offer lower prices due to economic of scale & govt-chaebol support, SG manufacturing has long lost its competitive edge and remain very expensive plus their govt chose not to prop up such falling industry which is why their indigenous defence stuff are expensive too.
@Hulubalang
“the USD amount would fluctuate according to time”
Its not the USD that is changing but our ringgit currency that is yoyo all the time which makes defence buys yoyo as well, when we buy in a good year we get more for our monies worth but like now we have to pay more for the same thing. Our budget cannot grow as fast as inflation rises so either we make do with getting less for what we can spend or else incur ever higher debt levels which is also bad for our economy. In the past we tend to allocate roughly 1% GDP defence but post Covid that sum has went under 1% (iinm last year was 0.98%) despite the socalled “increase” in defence amount in RM. When going to market in the wider world and finding that our money has shrunk so badly we are limited by how much we can get yet going home you will find many expect to get more since we have “increased” local defence budget (going from RM 36.2 to 38.7 Bil). This is the fallacy of budgeting in RM when your paying in USD unless we are forward thinking enough to do hedging. Looking at how we budget & where our economy is heading I doubt Madani is looking that far ahead.
“Every Singaporean understands”
By virtue its been drilled into their national subconcious that their a small island nation surrounded by potential enemies, it also helps that their defence buys grew as their economy grew along progressively going from patrol boats to FACS to light frigates to bigger MRCV without much scandals & failures and not dependent on a yoyo currency.
@Hasnan
“divided us up, put up their respective puppets as our leaders…overall making us all illiterate and poor.”
As if the same things isnt happening now. In terms of freedom & democracy, SG is a worse basket case even compared to BN but their politics remain untouched unlike ours been screwed by these powers. We just let it happen. Is that the Govt fault or the people?
Having a neutral stance isnt the problem as long as we know how to keep ourselves neutral but instead we allowed foreign interests to infiltrate local interests thus we no longer have full control over our national stance wr to foreign policies.
” This is the fallacy of budgeting in RM when your paying in USD unless we are forward thinking enough to do hedging ”
So what alternative do you suggest? We use RM, our income is in RM, and our governments budget is in RM.
IMO for defence we should always plan in USD, as that is the stable dominator, but we cannot change the fact that the budget we get is always in RM. There is not much we can do other than topping up each years budget in RM to maintain parity with the plans that is in USD.
Kel “When your northern neighbour is a bit crazy and belligerent, randomly throwing a fit on relations”
Funny how the crazy neighbours up north sponsored their entrance into the UN, sell them water at below cost and station military there until they manage to stand on their 2 feet.
The hissy fit is not historical but rather a 90s phenomenon when SG host the then recently dejected from PH Uncle sam and upset as LKY put it ‘the pecking order’. It also coincide with a period where MY & SG are economic competitor to one another And SG hosting US give them an unfair advantage against us.
Though 3 decade later they now have the pay the bagpiper and take some security and prosperity hit as they need to ‘confront’ the ‘problem’ of their 2 crazy neighbours for them while the 2 crazy neighbours sit on the sidelines while getting showered with gifts by the 2 opposing forces.
Joe “SG is a worse basket case even compared to BN but their politics remain untouched unlike ours been screwed by these powers”
They do what they did here there as well though they stop when PAP give them an ultimatum. BN however have no card to play.
Joe “SG manufacturing has long lost its competitive edge and remain very expensive plus their govt chose not to prop up such falling industry which is why their indigenous defence stuff are expensive too.”
Modern manufacturing are mostly automated anyways thus labor cost is not a major issue for taxes heaven like SG where companies enjoy low corporate taxes and no import tariff thus along with strategic location for transhipment port become a natural place for high value added assembly for export.
The defence industry there while inefficient from purchasing power or export profit point of view are lucrative as a whole as the defence industry are there to train knowledge worker for those industry.
SK do not need low taxation to attract foreign firms. They wanted high taxes because those taxes are invested In innovation which then creates more taxes and more investment into innovation and so on and so on.
The bad relationship came in the 90s when the Old Man thought he could subdue SG with threats of military intervention. He must also thought that SG will also go bankrupt like Russia if they spend money on defence. Of course, it did not work that way.
LKY once asked TAR why not build more clinics? You might want to research what TAR said. Whether what LKY said is true I don’t know, but what I am seeing today suggests it is likely true. Lastly, if people think MYR is in a mess, search USD MYR and look at the 20 year chart. The MYR has been depreciating for a very long time, a reflection of long-term craziness and delusions of grandeur. Is Singapore the basket case or has it lost its manufacturing edge? Look at the USD SGD chart. If people want to use the exchange rate as a benchmark, then one is a basket case, the other an over achiever.
@hulubalang
“So what alternative do you suggest?”
Rakyats should be made aware there is to be a paradigm shift in defence budgeting as most equipment are bought in USD hence while you can put the budget in RM figures the benchmark must be in USD. Any shortfall for that year due to yoyo currency (like now) must be topup with supplementary budgets. The problem becomes when changing Govts dont play ball and freeze attempts to issue the supplementaries hence resulting in a money crunch when the Armed Forces wanted to buy something they were promised earlier. The LCS is probably a good example.
@Zaft @kel
“They do what they did here there as well”
“Is Singapore the basket case”
Indeed USA tried to spanar SG until LKY & PAP proved they were a better partner to US interest and after that USA left them alone and focused on the rest of us.
We chosen independence while they chose co-dependence. Whether who is right or wrong, there are many parameters, economy is just one facet, and when I said SG is a basket case I very specifically mention “In terms of freedom & democracy” with is true even for Sinkies so stop going off tangent with your praising. I mark each objectively and they are better in many ways but they arent perfect so no need to put them on a pedestal.
About modern manufacturing I do agree as I been in some their factories & high tech warehouses. Their logistics service are excellent. But here is the rub, these modern high tech manufacturing can also be done in their principal countries ie USA, Taiwan, EU so why even bother coming to high cost SG? Sporeans also are no longer the hard workers from past generations now demanding quality of life as their Westerner peers.
I can tell you that in the past, manufacturing came because they leveraged the margin between their stronger currency and SGD then. Now SGD grown stronger than Aussie dollar and trending on par to USD, even high tech manufacturing are moving out to cheaper countries (not necessarily Msia!). This is why PAP has reinvented SG to become a fin tech & IT hub now and booming creative studios industry. Lucas ILM (of Star Wars) have setup shop and they contributed to the latest movies, SG artist & programmers have started coming out blockbuster computer games.
They seen the writing on the wall and pivoted the country before it happens.
“are lucrative as a whole… train knowledge worker for those industry.”
Well same can be said of ours as well, no? But we dont have the money to sustain jackshit to make it worthwhile so we keep losing these workers to other industries. But as I said before, they are well aware doing alone meant it being freaking more expensive than buying off the shelf but they swallow this pill and preserved to make each a final product which they will use.
We otoh have overexpectations that we could design a bigger & better Gowind into LCS and do it cheaper than in France. Another typical Msians bad character when shit eventually happens and things start to fall apart, we start pointing fingers & laying blame FOR YEARS without seeking solution while LCS sits untouched. It is only after 5 FREAKING YEARS that it has started moving again.
“You might want to research what TAR said.”
TAR is also human being, same as LKY. But try to picture this, without TAR there is no Msia. Without Msia there is no the SG you see today. I know Sporeans dont like this bit of their history but think about it.
Joe “We chosen independence while they chose co-dependence”
If Indonesian netizen to be believe we aren’t. IMHO dependency and independence are as always not an absolute but rather a spectrum.
“after that USA left them alone and focused on the rest of us”
While multi party democracy would eventually be a good thing the transition is painful as both ID & MY ‘stagnated’ for 2 whole decades. But then again as Kelly Clarkson like to say ‘what doesn’t kill you make you stronger, stand a little taller, footstep a little lighter’.
Joe “PAP has reinvented SG to become a fin tech”
Technically the fintech capital of asean is Jakarta.
Kel “The MYR has been depreciating for a very long time, a reflection of long-term craziness and delusions of grandeur.”
Well if certain segment of societies stop being stupid 20 years ago when paklah try increasing taxes and reduce subsidies then double down in stupidity yet again when najib introduced GST & reduce subsidies then the gov budget won’t be in 2 decades long deficit and the MYR would have stop free falling decades ago won’t it?
“While multi party democracy would eventually be a good thing”
Try telling that to the US Republican & Democrat parties. Sometimes even their voters cant tell them apart as their policies can often be pretty much the same.
“Technically the fintech capital of asean is Jakarta.”
Not with frequent blackouts and huge strain on their infra. Why do you think Jokowi wanted to move capital far far away?
“MYR would have stop free falling decades ago”
The problem happen way before that, 1998 AFC was the real killer that stopped Msia progress, Paklah & Najib was only trying to remedy the problem years later. Ironically PM5 & PM6 waited until the economy was in better shape before asking us to swallow the bitter pill, both times we spit back at them. Now PMX want us to do the same at the worst possible time with inflation still raging and RM at the lowest in 20 years.
Well who knows maybe 3rd time a charm if rakyat can be stupid enough to be persuaded that past BN doctors are evil and PH one can be trusted even if he turns out to be a quack.
“Indonesian netizen to be believe we aren’t.”
If you believed them they will be the next superpower before India. Haha
Joe “Not with frequent blackouts and huge strain on their infra.”.
That’s what scary about Jakarta specifically but not ID as a whole. They can do a lot with very little.
Just look at their commuter rail. Unlike KTM it have no full grade segregation, track Intrusion is common by people and animal while running a 50 years old rolling stock but somehow their frequency is 1000% better than ours. Their BRT meanwhile carry as much as our LRT but only cost 10% the cost. Worse they even get the kaizen concept going while we left ours to rot.
“Why do you think Jokowi wanted to move capital far far away?
Same reasons why the king of France move himself and his courts to Versailles.
Effective governance of the country cannot be done from Paris because the unbalanced wealth distribution created a situation where the country interests and the capital interest is non align. For as long as they remained in the city the administration would be held hostage by the city interest by way of strike and revolution at the same times have to utilise the state monopoly on power to crush challenges from the periphery.
Probably Thailand and Ph too should consider building their own Versailles.
“Same reasons why the king of France move himself and his courts to Versailles.”
Thats not the reason that Jokowi is selling to the ID rakyats. Of course its easier to sell when they could see the chronic issues with their own eyes and feel it as they go to work daily.