SHAH ALAM: The Defence Ministry today officially launched the mid-term review of the 2019 Defence White Paper. The ministry has also put up a link for the public to give their views for the mid-term review.
The link for the public comments is here
One can send in as many comments as one wants. Whether or not it will be implemented is beyond me, of course.
— Malaysian Defence.
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (62)
@hulubalang
You can use this opportunity to propose your LMS-X many more of your opinion on the public comments. This also applies to the rest of us
Tujuan :
- Menilai pencapaian semasa Kertas Putih Pertahanan;
- Mengkaji persekitaran strategik semasa; dan
- Menambahbaik dasar dan pelaksanaan Kertas Putih Pertahanan.
My opinion
- TUDM
1) overall past 5 years is good. Need a much better plan until 2040, not too general like CAP55
2) LCA - good. Must continue with batch 2 of FA-50
3) Ground Radars. Would be good if it can be had much more faster.
4) MRCA. must be implemented 2031-2040
5) 12 more helicopters? Forget about this, buy AEW instead. Leave helicopters to PUTD. Buy additional topup used H225 to complement existing EC725 (total of 18 across 2 squadrons would be good)
6) MERAD? Forget about this too
7) plan for getting new long range stand-off missiles for MKM/MRCA. Used storm shadows?
- TLDM
1) Probably the worst implementation to date. Not totally its own fault.
2) Just scrap the 15to5 already. New plan for just up to 2040. Don't pretend that APMM does not exist. Concentrate on main mission, don't buy ships that can just do constabulary patrols.
3) complete all 6 Gowinds please
4) forget about getting 8 LMS batch 2 corvettes. Get more submarines and larger frigates to replace kasturi and lekiu classes by 2040.
5) leave PVs, OPVs to APMM.
6) have proper exit plans for all the ships that has gone through OP. To PSSTLDM? APMM?
7) Have USV,UUV,UAS properly included in future plans.
- TDM
1) Overall direction with Army 4NextG is good
2) Don't do rojak armored vehicles please. Add more of what we have (MIFV, Adnan, AV8), new or used.
3) Concentrate on long range fires. Both the ISTAR and effector. Precision fuse for 155mm shells. More 155mm howitzers. Precision long range missiles such as GL-SDB and NSM.
4) Give proper budget to get 12-24 used Blackhawks that PUTD needs. Cancel TUDM 12 new medium range helicopter project.
5) Get more of what we have. More RPG-7, more Carl Gustaf, etc.
6) Enhance GAPU with MERAD and anti-uav capability.
@ luqman
It will be proposed of course 👍
.. - ''Add more of what we have (MIFV, Adnan, AV8), new or used.''
Fine on paper but in reality things have changed; we need something which is better protected and is more networked than the MIFV and Adnan. Nobody's suggesting we go for a super IFV weighting 60 tonnes but the plain fact is that MIFV and Adnan are yesterday's IFVs.
... - ''plan for getting new long range stand-off missiles for MKM/MRCA.''
Realistically that's not going to happen and you know it. Also even if we do get the likes of Storm Shadow how do we acquire targets? The Ukrainian's benefit from being able to pass SIGINT and UAS feeds to American satellites to enable precise acquisition and targeting. How do we go about it; unless of course the target is fixed...
... - ''Concentrate on long range fires. Both the ISTAR and effector.''
''Fires'' is just another fancy term which appeared recently out of nowhere. Sounds grand and appealing [like ''force multipliers''; ''multi-domain''; ''potent'' and ''credible''] but in our context hard to do as we don't have much to work with to begin with - starting from scratch to use an Americanism. How many regiments can we equip with radars and can we link those radars to UASs and other things to acquire an effective strike/recce capability; as opposed to a token one? On paper or on a PowerPoint brief great but in reality? As it stands we can't even afford to replace the short legged and fragile Model 56s which are older than the crews who operate them and our idea of improving the Royal Artillery Corps is to get a mere 18 SPHs which will be parceled out in two different locations.
... - ''Don’t pretend that APMM does not exist.''
Who's ''pretending''? As it stands the RM has to shoulder much of the burden given the MMEA's inadequacies. Not as if the RMN wants to hog the MMEA's roles.
... - ''don’t buy ships that can just do constabulary patrols.''
Who on earth said there was such a plan? Has not been such a plan for years now ... Can you name such a plan; the LMS Batch 1s don't count as they were supposed to have been armed; the follow on Kedahs as laid out in the 5/15 are as dead as Elvis and they were supposed to have been armed and the LMS Batch 2s will be armed even if modestly.
So no; the RMN has as much intention of getting ''ships that can just do constabulary patrols'' [to quote you] as Ali Khamenei converting to Sunnism.
We are talking about the Royal Malaysian Navy I would assume?
... - ''overall past 5 years is good.''
I wish I was as sanguine as you. We've belatedly done thing and in dribs and drabs.
... - ''leave PVs, OPVs to APMM.''
The RMN has zero plans for 'OPVs' and has not had such plans for years now.
.. - ''have proper exit plans for all the ships that has gone through OP. To PSSTLDM APMM?''
The pertinent question of whether those ships are wanted by the MMEA and whether they fit its CONOPS seems to elude you.
... - ''Enhance GAPU with MERAD and anti-uav capability.''
That's the relatively easy part; the not easy part is getting stuff in the needed numbers; distributing them in a decentralised manner; networking them and having a layered capability.
... - ''Forget about this, buy AEW instead. ''
Two different things for two different requirements; also the costs associated with 12 rotary platforms are a bare fraction of the costs for 2 AEW platforms.
... - ''Just scrap the 15to5 already. ''
Like saying we should strive for world peace; the elimination of nukes or castration for all paedophiles but easier said than done. The 5/15 has gained political approval; ditching it and coming up with a new plan will be a cumbersome and tedious process. Pointless at present. What the RMN is doing is the most pragmatic approach: officially adhering to the 5/15 but making the needed tweaks.
... - ''Must continue with batch 2 of FA-50''
'''Must continue'' with them on schedule and they must be operated at a systems level.
... - ''MERAD? Forget about this too''
So you say but the RMAF can't always rely on GAPU [its focus is the army and it's not as if it has a surplus of hardware] and the RMAF has an existing ground based radar network which can be networked to whatever medium range SAM it may or may not get.
... - ''It will be proposed of course ''
Gratified to hear. As I mentioned before; you should be writing to those who actually make the decisions but then again their decisions will also be based on a host of factors that we as outsiders are not privy to or aware of; irrespective of how sound things will look on paper or an Excel sheet.
>AF
-Expedite acquisition of 2nd batch LCA.
-make decision on kuwaiti F/A-18. If they don't want to part with it maybe we can add additional FA-50 to at least shoulder the burden
-AEW
-Definitely get another batch of H225M
-More MPA
-More MALE UAV squadron to patrol Sulu sea and Malacca strait (and concentrate our MPA/MSA on SCS. Also as beechcraft replacement).
-Additional long range radar to monitor Sulu Sea and Kalimantan. Sorry but I don't trust indonesians and the flips
-Probably divest MRSAM requirement to GAPU
>Navy
-effing finish the LCS
-Expedite the acquisition of LMS2 and MRSS
-2 more submarine
-New ASW helicopter
-Shore ASM battery
>Army
-Need to start thinking about new tracked vehicle to complement and eventually replace MIFV and adnan. For context we got our Condor and Sibmas in the 80s and by mid 2010s they were effectively replaced by Gempita
-Either get new MBT and based them in Peninsula and transfer Pendekar to S&S keep Pendekar in peninsula and get light tank for S&S
-Medium helo for army
-Additional SPH regiment
-MRSAM for GAPU
Additionally
-Malaysia's own dedicated surveillance satellite
-Another Layang2 style FOB.
dundun - ''make decision on kuwaiti F/A-18. ''
We've already ''made a decision'' but as has been reported they haven't. Also, gaining U.S. approval is a long process; will take years.
dundun - ''get light tank for S&S''
A light tank is never a substitute for a MBT. It can be used for fire support but so can IFVs fitted with direct/indirect weapons. Also a light tank is great if it meets other light tanks but not so great if it meets MBTs.
dundun - ''Sorry but I don’t trust indon and the flips''
Since when are we really supposed to ''trust'' anyone? As for the ''flips'' as you would refer to the Filipinos; they are focused on the South China Sea. The issue of Sabah is being keep alive because it's politically expedient but apart from the Tausugs who are a minority the average Filipino doesn't care about Sabah. It doesn't resonate with them the way the Malvinas does with the average Argie.
dundun - ''More MALE UAV squadron to patrol Sulu sea and Malacca strait (and concentrate our MPA/MSA on SCS.''
The idea is to have MPAS/MSASs and UASs complementing each other ...
dundun - ''New ASW helicopter''
I will come after the LCSs and it has to be something with the needed range, endurance and lift capacity for the time intensive business that is ASW and to carry a sonar, sonobuoys and torps.
dundun - ''Probably divest MRSAM requirement to GAPU''
How large is GAPU and does it have the assets/resources to also be responsible for the defence of RMAF bases? How many early warning assets does GAPU have?
dundun - ''Shore ASM battery''
Yes RMN and not army operated but the trick is to acquire a strike/recce capability. Some go gaga with what the Ukrainians have been able to achieve in the Black Sea but they have a strike/recce capability and external help. We don't.
dundun - ''Another Layang2 style FOB.''
For what purpose? It's not as if we don't have enough real estate there and the idea is to maintain the status quo; not fuel tensions; which we would if we stared constructing a new reef. If you're referring to enlarging the other reefs; lots of effort involved and it would raise tensions with others. What do we gain?
... - ''Give proper budget to get 12-24 used Blackhawks that PUTD needs. Cancel TUDM 12 new medium range helicopter project.''
- The Army's Aviation Wing at the most can absorb 8-12 helis but even that's a stretch. Manpower, infrastructure and funding is an issue; even if constantly overlooked. Yes I know you mentioned ''proper budget'' but I like to stay within the realms of reality.
- If the RMAF's new helis are going to be cancelled and the cash is to be channeled to the army instead then why on earth get the Army's Aviation Wing aged UH-60s? Logic dictates we get something which won't have to be replaced in 10 years or so and something not as aged and with growth potential.
- The most pertinent questions before assuming anything. How many air and ground crews are there; how many are inducted annually; how many leave the service or are transferred out annually and what is the Army Aviation Wing’s operational budget? Also, air and ground crews make up only one element of a squadron; there are also HQ, administrative and other elements.
... - ''overall past 5 years is good. Need a much better plan until 2040, not too general like CAP55''
You can have all the ''better plan'' you want but counts for nothing until or unless the needed cash is allocated. As in the government puts its money where its mouth is.
The CAP 55 is not ''too general'' because it was intended for a political/public audience and explains in clear unequivocal language what the RMAF intends or hopes to achieve. Anything motte detailed won’t probably be released for public consumption.
dundun - either get new MBT”
There is a paper requirement but it’s not a priority. When the time comes - in a few years or more - we will be getting a more contemporary design with superior protection capabilities compared to the 1970’s era T-72/PT-91 which was designed for Soviet requirements; has inherent survivability issues [well known well be the war in the Ukraine] and has zero growth potential. Buying more PT-91s - as some seem to think we should - is a highly regressive move.
In case anyone sees the need to point out; no the tank is not obsolete and the UAS and loitering munition has not made it so. No tank is invincible but it behooves us to protect the crews the best we can and the efficacy of the tank is also measured by the level of infantry and engineering support it receives
Expedite acquisition of 2nd batch LCA.
-make decision on kuwaiti F/A-18. If they don’t want to part with it maybe we can add additional FA-50 to at least shoulder the burden-dundun.
He's right. We need to be seen to move fast to acquire new or second hand assets! These are critical for our armed forces. And I don't mean just these extra FA50s and ex Kuwaiti Hornets. It is the same for our ships. The army? Tell them to wait for another 10 years before the next acquisition
Taib - ''He’s right.''
On paper he is. In reality are we still interested and we need to take note that U.S. State Department and Pentagon approval is a tedious and cumbersome process.
Another point; I know most are gaga about the Hornets but will we allocate adequate funds for their upkeep? Funds for ordnance and ground support gear [can't assume that the Kuwaitis will be Father Christmas and throw in everything for free]? Also, will the Hornets really be an interim solution or will they be retired with no replacement? Will the pen pushers us them as an excuse to further delay the MRCA programme? Lots of things at play here; legitimate reason why the RMAF is wary; even though on paper the whole exercise looks sound.
Taib - ''The army? Tell them to wait for another 10 years before the next acquisition''
Everything is a gamble or trade off; making them and hoping we're right. If we face a threat in which the RMAF and RMN are the main services then fine. If not then we're buggered.
Taib - ''It is the same for our ships.''
As has been discussed in the past; we don't want high mileage ships which are expensive to sustain and which might add to the already large logistical/support footprint. Why do you think we've rejected some offers in the past? The focus is on costs savings and achieving greater commonality.