SHAH ALAM: On Sunday, the Chief of Defence Force General Nizam Jaffar announced that the site for the RMN Regional Command Headquarters Four or Markas Wilayah Laut Empat (MAWILLA 4) will be at Muara Tebas in Kuching near the estuary of the Sarawak river.
Nizam and RMN chief Admiral Zulhelmy Itnain visited the chosen site today at Muara Tebas, which is located next to Kampung Goebilt and the Sijangkat power station. Media reports quoted the Admiral as saying that the Goebilt settlement will remain as it is. The land chosen for the development belongs to the Sarawak Economic Development Corporation.
Based on a Google Map view, the site chosen is space constrained and look smaller than the MMEA Sarawak headquarters located nearby (see below). I stand to be corrected, of course.
Due to the size of the land, I am guessing that it is likely the site could only accommodate the headquarters, other administrative buildings, and jetty for the ships while other facilities including quarters and other facilities will need to be built at another location nearby.
Mawilla 4 di Sarawak berpotensi sebagai transit kapal selam – Panglima TLDM https://t.co/2LKxVmS39S #BernamaNews pic.twitter.com/4luQ6QtH3h
— BERNAMA (@bernamadotcom) March 24, 2025
Zulhelmy was quoted as saying that the new base can accommodate ships to 120 meters though. From Borneo Online:
KUCHING (March 24): The natural depth of the Muara Tebas coastline makes it an ideal site for the construction of the new Royal Malaysian Navy’s (RMN) Naval Region 4 (Mawilla 4) headquarters, said RMN chief Admiral Datuk Dr Zulhelmy Ithnain.
Highlighting security concerns in the South China Sea, he emphasised that establishing the naval base is strategically important for the region.
“We are still evaluating the site, but it appears to be an ideal location for the construction of Mawilla 4.
“We see that many other coastal areas (in Sarawak) require significant dredging. However, Muara Tebas offers a natural depth of 14 metres, sufficient to accommodate ships of up to 120 metres in length without extensive seabed modifications,” he said at a press conference after his working visit at the site here this morning.
Also present during the visit was Defence Force chief Gen Datuk Mohd Nizam Jaffar
It is interesting to note that if the base could accommodate ships up to 120 meters, RMN future MRSS may well not be the UAE version of the Makassar class as the ship is 163 meters long. The rest of the current and future RMN surface combatants will be able to berth there though.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
>makassar lpd for rmn
pls stop this meme
“Boustead Naval Shipyard had offered a bigger variant of this LPD”
Makassar class are actually spot on the size being merely 2mtr overshoot (122m length) so it maybe that TLDM is really looking for the Makassar class after all and not a derivative.
Makassar class was based on a commercial ferry design and for auxiliary or hospital ship its ok. But for multi purpose use i think there are better options & price structures. Negotiate a 20-30 years contract & buy in bulk will be cheaper. Lets say now we buy 2 but another 2 in 2030 & another 2 units in 2035. So total would be 6 units. I am sure we will get a cheaper price if we do this. The design from Damen or HHI. Def minister buat kerja sikit lah. Use purchasing strategy for better price.
Thought RMN had change the MRSS specification recently. Their infographic on their booths at various recent exhibitions show they no longer wanted a MRSS with 3 helo deck but the more traditional 2. Probably because they recently included HSV in their force mix. No?
Though it can still be the UAE variant of the Makassar, with that the HSV become an option rather than a necessity. Personally I rather just buy from Japan finance through they extremely long periods with extremely low 1% interest rate. With our current inflation rate and yen continued downslip a 1% loan rate mean the ship would be in financial terms even cheaper than an outright purchase.
@ darthzaft
HSV = Hydrographic Survey Vessel
They still want 3 MRSS as per latest info
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQLZrxWIAE516T.jpg
This is my alternative take. 3 MRSS replaced by 2 RORO + 2 JHSV/EPF. Dedicated HSV mission will be a variant of the LMS-X, while also supported by OSV.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
JHSV/EPF could carry around 20 IFVs
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkIuXhYaMAAbHr7.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCmTlaYAAQm6F.jpg
US navy is prematurely retiring quite a few JHSV/EPF. Something we can request through US EDA to get them cheaply/free.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkEHnxBa4AAb_1_.jpg
Zaft,
There are opinions and counter arguments but the reality is that the RMN has decided that a multi role MPSS is what is needed to perform various peace and wartime roles. Also, as I pointed out years ago the mention of modular payloads on the 15/5 was out of sheer necessity, not choice. Pros and cons at play in deciding whether to go for a purpose built platform or modular payloads.
What works for others might not work for some. Nice to get on about cost effectiveness vjy it has to enable the capability and fulfill requirements.
Australian armed forces recently used one of its OSVs to transport armoured vehicles and heavy trucks to Papua New Guinea. So armoured logistics movement can be done by RORO, JHSV/EPF, OSV as alternative to bespoke MRSS. Less money spent on secondary tasks = more money to get platforms for TLDM primary tasks.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYZb_xDWUAAw9gq.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYZb-k4XAAETERU.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYZb_AyXoAAZrV8.jpg
Qanarul – “Negotiate a 20-30 years contract & buy in bulk will be cheaper. Lets say now we buy 2 but another 2 in 2030 & another 2 units in 2035”
The problem here is we don’t need 6 hulls and getting the government to make and carry out such a long term commitment is unrealistic.
… – “. So total would be 6 units. I am sure we will get a cheaper price”
Not necessarily. There is inflation to factor in a other variables. Why would the yard commit to something stretched over such a period when prices will rise.
Reality can change. And we could offer better alternative plans that could be implemented by our military.
For modular systems, something that was in its infancy 5-10 years ago are now matured systems being bought by many navies.
You have repeated the same thing about how TUDM have zero requirements of Legacy Hornets, or FA-50 when i proposed for both of them. But look at what they are choosing now, and how it is a much better alternative cost-wise and technological-wise rather than getting expensive Rafales or Typhoons. With the intrim MRCA the Legacy Hornets, and FA-50 replacing TUDM workhorses for FLIT and QRA, TUDM is now better set up to get wider options for its 5G MRCA in around 2030 and beyond.
… – “You have repeated the same thing about how TUDM have zero requirements of Legacy”
Selective amnesia again? We’ve gone through this before yet you bring it up again. To refresh your memory during that period the RMAF had a requirement for MRCAs not LCSs which you were proposing. The requirement for LCAs only came later after the MRCA programme was cancelled. As for the pre owned Hornets yes during that period there was no requirement. Note the nuance rather than cherry picking.
… – “Reality can change. And we could offer better”
The reality is that of 2025 the service prefers purpose built MCMVs rather than modular payloads. As for the “better” that’s you patting your own back and assuming. This may surprise you but the services have a pretty good idea as to what they need which goes beyond looking at links and being fixated on paper points.
… – “For modular systems, something that was in its infancy 5-10 years ago are now matured systems being bought by many navies”
Save the marketing. Since you missed it the first few dozen times I did not imply that the tech was an issue. Why I did imply was that there are pros and cons with going for the modular approach. Nothing about tech not maturing it any poppycock you may come up with.
” The reality is that of 2025 the service prefers purpose built MCMVs rather than modular payloads ”
The reality is a multi role OSV is a better fit for our future security challenges because
1) It can be built locally by many of the PETRONAS approved shipyards.
2) It can do MCM mission with MCM mission sets
3) It can do Submarine Tender mission, supporting our subs away from Sepanggar, a good capability to have in case sepanggar is destroyed in a pre-emptive attack.
4) Underwater Infrastructure Surveillance. Aggressors now undertaking sabotage of underwater cables, underwater pipelines, wellheads and such. We need to be able to monitor these underwater infrastructures to protect them from being sabotaged.
5) HADR. Australia even have a dedicated OSV to support HADR for the Pacific nations. OSVs are a much better platform to do HADR rather than bespoke warships.
6) Other tasks it can do is Salvage operations, Minelaying, hydrographic survey support, as a floating base for unmanned systems, tender for small ships and many more.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ge4kCUAawAAj0Yq.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GgxR_saWgAAaiXV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzQxOl7XsAAzG8G.jpg
Hulu “This is my alternative take. 3 MRSS replaced by 2 RORO + 2 JHSV/EPF. Dedicated HSV mission will be a variant of the LMS-X, while also supported by OSV.”
NO one in going to do it no matter how many spam you did all over the internet. Simply being you really missed the threat perceptions by a gizilion miles.
People are worried about a lot of things, chief among those are Chinese doing sea denial to our oil rig. Why the heck they wanted to adopted your highly specialized force structure to stop a Chinese invasion of mainland Borneo all by ourselves and only ourselves for?
” Chinese doing sea denial to our oil rig ”
tell me how the expensive MRSS can be useful for that scenario?
How can a smaller force of 2x subs, 7x LCS, 9x Corvettes be a better than a bigger force of 4x subs, 4x ARROWHEAD 140, 6x LCS, 6x Corvettes, 18x LMS-X? On those 18x LMS-X alone there will be a total of 216x 150km AShM.