View Comments (10)

• Malaysia is a maritime nation

  Our overall security concern cannot be planned without considering and including MMEA in the overall plan, even if MMEA budget allocation is clearly separate from defence allocation.

• Just finish the 4 LCS that are in BNS…and import the other 2. Apparently there is no guarantee there will be 6 LCS at the end of this fiasco.

• Order 6 OPVs from overseas shipyards for MMEA to cover peacetime patrol and presence of our EEZ, while RMN+KEMENTAH settle the LCS GOWIND problems.

  What ever happens to LCS GOWIND, at least there will be 6 additional large hulls to patrol our maritime areas.

• Just repeat what i posted in another topic

  Order 3 more Tun Fatimah batch 2 to be built by DAMEN, in vietnam, romania or somewhere. Concurrently order 3 of those large OPV from korea. That in all should cost no more than USD360 million, less than even a single Gowind! We can get all those ships operational even before we could get the 1st Gowind to be completed by BNS. Let the local industry sort their mess before we can give more orders to the local industry.

• I'm dissapointed by this news, you'd think that after constant incursions by CCG ships, majority of the fleet being old and the delay of the stupid LCS program that the Navy should be given top priority amongst the three branches, they are the ones currently suffering a direct threat albeit a mild one. What more is there to consider with the LMS II's? RMN has already stated it's a critical asset so why should it still be under consideration? I'd rather the LCS gets scrapped and have the Navy operate 8 new corvettes for the time being. That being said I am not the government so perhaps budget is the issue so far but I really think there should no longer be any considerations for the LMS, we need them now ASAP.

• In parallel with the acquisition of hardware the MMEA also needs adequate funds on a sustained basis to expand it's shore base infrastructure.

  We often hear talk about the need for the MMEA to get various things but often overlooked is that it has limited manpower, sustainment funds and shore support infrastructure. Improvements are also needed with regards to MMEA/RMN jointness.

• Again the powers that be are just paying lip service to the DWP and that White Paper has turned into a White Elephant not worth the paper it was printed on.

  Focusing on the Army? Well Menhan is just prioritising his largest chunk of voters.

  Announcing procurement budget bigger than the approved DE? Well they need some carrots to give since the 6 state elections are coming soon. Whether it will materialise wholly is immaterial as long as they win the votes since nobody will question where are they going to pull that RM 8Bil out from.

  The Malbatt replacement APC is a surety as its being paid for by UN (partly, again, as it was once again being fked up with the type of vehicle ordered).

• Jason lo "the Navy should be given top priority amongst the three branches"

  Technically speaking The area of interest is nearer to us but 2000km away from PRC. and thus we have the advantage in terms of airpower. Why sink ship with a ship when one can send out their fighter just as the Argentinian AF did to RN back then?

  Unlike then There's are also a lot of army weapons nowadays like MLRS,SPH that has maritime utilities. GBAD nowadays has secondary role as maritime & land strike platform. We currently are spending billion in building coastal road all the way from Teluk Melano to Tawau. It also easier to hide asset on land rather than on sea. It also a whole lot faster too & far more cheaper as well.

  A naval ship equip with SSM has the ability to shoot something 200km away, a capabilities not needed if all we wanted to do with those ship is shadow a CCC or PLAN ship. babysitting the Chinese could be done by a gun only vessel. There's also no need to build ship as big as theirs, they need big ship to sustain long terms operations over here. We meanwhile are already here.

  Thus we do not need a navy with plenty of small ship that primary task is to provide limited sea denial to a landing party nor a navy with a lot of big ship but without much punches to babysit the Chinese. We however need a navy that capable of securing our sea lanes of communication as well as sealift capabilities.

• Jason lo “the Navy should be given top priority amongst the three branches"

  Indeed the RMAF and the RMN should get priority but the army is the senior service and there are reasons why it still gets priority.

  Zaft - "as the Argentinian AF did to RN back then"

  Examine the facts first before making fast conclusions. The RN had little early warning; had ships with only short to medium range AD systems; limited number of Sea Harriers; Argentine fighters only had a few minutes over San Carlos and the main Argentine challenge was locating targets

  Certain operational conditions in the Faklands will not be replicared so don't assume so.

  Zaft , "Unlike then There’s are also a lot of army weapons nowadays like MLRS,SPH that has maritime utilities"

  That's assuming they can locate targets and as army operated assets there is the needed inter service jointness. It's not just the hardware.
  Many go gaga over HIMARS in the Ukraine but it's not just HIMARS but
  HIMARS with the right C3 and means to detect and hit targets

• Zaft - "Thus we do not need a navy with plenty of small ship that primary task is to provide limited sea denial"

  We need a RMN structured to deal with the threats we see as likely and those we can realistically handle; one with the right balance of various assets [there is no single hardware which acts as a panacea or a single size fits all solution] and one we can afford to sustain.