More on LCS and LMS Batch 2

61 Comments

1. I wonder if Malaysia can get the RAAF Hornets, yes they are old but well maintained, and it’s an interim measure until the MRCA project happens in less than 10 years, 2030s, am I correct?

2. I have been told that RMAF is not interested in RAAF Hornets for various reasons. If it had, it would have been done already.

3. Canada already taken the good ones

4. The RMAF needs a Plan B then, is short term leasing an option?

5. Tom Tom – “are old but well maintained”

   “Well maintained” is great but it does not do away with the fact that something might be old and worn out which in turn makes it maintenance extensive and expensive to sustain.

   As for “interim measures” that’s the intention but so many so called plans are postponed indefinitely due to shifting priorities and funding issues.

6. The only leasing option was the Gripen and the ship sailed away long ago.

7. Maybe beg the RAAF to pinjam the Super Bugs. The F35s are now operational and as far as I know, all going to plan.

8. Marhalim,

   About ten years ago [or slightly more] you ran a story that we were offered some Typhoon Tranche 1s for free if we placed an order with BAE Systems for some new ones. Why did that proposal die out? Was it shot down [mind the pun] from our side? That was the period before we were offered Rafale and the then Defence Minister publicly said Typhoon was the “best” and other things night have to be postponed to fund Typhoon.

   On Gripen I heard conflicting stories but it’s interesting that the RMAF publicly mentioned the possibility of a leasing arrangement only to have the then Defence Minister publicly discount the possibility weeks later. From what I heard it was the politicians who decided against the leasing option against the recommendations of the RMAF.

9. Based on the Hansard, it seems that CAD is no longer asking for a letter of indemnity and therefore the international settlement agreement may proceed, subject to the Cabinet’s approval.

10. Given our defensive doctrine, are we not better off investing in a good air defence network? I don’t think we can ever solve the needs of RMAF and RMN with the 1% of GDP annual budget, with majority going to OPEX.

11. Yes, they did as a stop-gap measure before getting the new ones. But then the government wanted Rafale so it died a natural death. As for the Gripen, the leasing seemed plausible for a short time only.

12. I do not think OZ wants to part with its Super Hornets…

13. Hasnan – ”Given our defensive doctrine”

    We have a ”defensive” strategy/policy not a ”doctrine” per see and even if we did; ideally the ”defensive” doctrine would be an ”active defensive” doctrine.

    Hasnan – ”are we not better off investing in a good air defence network?”

    You’re not the first to ask and I’ll answer the same thing as I did before: ” a good air defence network” can never be a substitute for airpower. Never. Both are needed to complement each other. Examples of ”a good air defence network” which eventually got degraded because of a lack of friendly airpower would be Iraq [look up the KARI network] and Kosovo. ”A good air defence network” can pose a huge problem but given time; airpower which can operate at unmolested will degrade any ”good air defence network”.

    Hasnan – ”I don’t think we can ever solve the needs of RMAF and RMN ”

    Do you think we can ever afford a comprehensive/extensive; layered [with redundancy and various types of AD systems] and networked AD network? Not many countries can.

14. Just joking lah, Marhalim. I don’t think even Penny Wong can get Richard Marles to part with the Super Bugs. I get what Azlan says but at the end of the day, the RAAF classic Hornets for free might be the only option left to the RMAF as all the other bridges might have been burnt. Mind you the Kuwaiti option is not completely dead yet as I understand from your article.

15. Hasnan – ”Given our defensive doctrine”

    We have a ”defensive” strategy/policy not a ”doctrine” per see and even if we did; ideally the ”defensive” doctrine would be an ”active defensive” doctrine.

    Hasnan – ”are we not better off investing in a good air defence network?”

    You’re not the first to ask and I’ll answer the same thing as I did before: ” a good air defence network” can never be a substitute for airpower. Never. Both are needed to complement each other. Examples of ”a good air defence network” which eventually got degraded because of a lack of friendly airpower would be Iraq [look up the KARI network] and Kosovo. ”A good air defence network” can pose a huge problem but given time; airpower which can operate at unmolested will degrade any ”good air defence network”.

    Hasnan – ”I don’t think we can ever solve the needs of RMAF and RMN ”

    Do you think we can ever afford a comprehensive/extensive; layered [with redundancy and various types of AD systems] and networked AD network? Not many countries can.

16. @Azlan

    At least in a serious war between the superpowers we can at least keep their aircrafts off our airspace more effectively than a lame air force. Just saying that with the small budget it is more effectively invested in a more capable asset. See Ukraine, with their air defence network they can deter Russia from having total control of their airspace. Not much their Air Force can do except flying low and providing ground strikes.

    I am pessimistic that we can only get 4++ gen aircraft in 2040 given the high maintenance required for stealth fighters. Thats just quite useless even for short border skirmishes with neighbours.

17. It won’t be free even from Oz which might be one of the reasons for not getter them. Probably one reason the Kuwaiti have yet to respond to our request for them. Likely we wanted them for free but the Kuwaitis are still trying to get the right price. One that may not result in the government not being toppled

18. Hasnan – ”At least in a serious war between the superpowers we can at least keep their aircrafts off our airspace more effectively than a lame air force.”

    As I clearly explained one needs a strong IADS and a strong airforce; both complementing each other. Look up on historical and other examples of how a strong IADS operating by its own ultimately can be degraded by airpower.

    Hasnan – ”Just saying that with the small budget it is more effectively invested in a more capable asset. ”

    You seriously think that if a Tier One airforce decided to penetrate our airspace we’d have a layered and networked IADS in depth? Any idea how expensive modern AD systems are and the need to have them networked and layered? I’m not talking about a single regiment of say 2-3 batteries like what we have and can afford; much much more is needed. Not to mention everything from VSHORADS to SHORADS to systems capable of dealing with high flying targets or ballistic missiles.

    Hasnan – ”See Ukraine, with their air defence network they can deter Russia from having total control of their airspace.”

    Correction… Both sides have achieved local air denial; both sides can only deploy airpower under certain limitations but both are still doing so. Also, the Ukraine has a pretty extensive IADS inherited from the Soviet Union; it has short to medium to long range systems and an extensive alerting network; plus it benefits from external itel. Don’t draw the wrong lessons.

    … Both sides are still able to deploy airpower but with limitations.

19. Hasnan – ”I am pessimistic that we can only get 4++ gen aircraft in 2040 given the high maintenance required for stealth fighters. ”

    The question you should really ask is even if we get a 5th gen LO platform; can we get a AEW platform and the other enablers needed to operate the 5th gen LO platform at a systems level. Also, it’s not ‘the high maintenance required for stealth fighters” but ”’the high maintenance required” for any new gen platform; whether low observable or not.

    Hasnan – ”Thats just quite useless even for short border skirmishes with neighbours.”

    Are we going to be in ”short border skirmishes with neighbours” or something else? Will we be operating alone or with others? What are the operational circumstances? Those questions need to b answered before speculating on anything.

    Hasnan – ”they can deter Russia from having total control of their airspace.”

    Don’t overlook the fact that unlike Western air arms Russia does not have a very effective SEAD/DEAD capability and deploys airpower mainly in support of ground ops; not as part of a large coordinated strategic campaign aimed at air dominance.

20. Azlan – Curious to hear your version or views of (and I’m quoting verbatim, not truncating anything so as to avoid lost in translation issues) – “Are we going to be in ”short border skirmishes with neighbours” or something else? Will we be operating alone or with others? What are the operational circumstances? Those questions need to b answered before speculating on anything.” What type of conflict do you think Malaysia Armed Forces should be preparing for? Maybe it has been written before but could you refresh memories? As usual, to contribute, my version is, able to deter 1 global power from taking military action in the SCS – deter = make it sufficiently costly to take military action. As to the type of conflict and duration – 2 weeks of high intensity air and sea conflict in the SCS. As to why 2 weeks, anything less and there will be no time for allies and friendlies to intervene. More than 2 weeks and its too expensive to sustain in peacetime. Adjust from that baseline assumption.

21. I am more concerned about the equipments bought for the lcs may need an upgrade because of thr long delay. For example, Thales Captas towed array sonar we ordered for lcs is the Kingklip Mk 2 but the latest installed on the USN Constellation class frigates is already at Mk.4. The Mk 4 have superior abilities that if installed, the hull mounted sonar will be redundant & can be removed for better seakeeping & balance. I am not sure about the DCNS Setis but i reckon it may have already few versions update since 10 years ago to meet with evolving threats.And what’s more concerning is there are still no news about the IPMS

22. Captas Mk 2 is meant for small ships and Mark 4 is for bigger ones like a FREMM size ship of which the Constellation. Yes, there maybe some new things on the latest version of the Captas but it does not mean that ours has less capabilities. So if a user 1 has Captas Mark 2 and another Captas Mark 4 and bought at the same time, both users will have the same capabilities when it was bought.

23. Baru announce tadi oleh PTD sempena anniversary PUTD..PUTD akan dapat 4 x Blackhawk helicopter..

24. Kel,

    Whether or not the MAF is able to handle a “short border skirmishes with neighbours” is dependent on the strategic and operational circumstances. Is there a period of tensions enabling some level of preparation? Is the other side committing all it has or is there a level of restraint due to the need to avoid escalating things? Is it purely on land or on labd,air and sea? Who is the opponent?

    Kel – “my version is, able to deter 1 global power from taking military action in the SCS – deter = make it sufficiently costly to take military action”

    Against a “global power” there is little we can do and we by ourselves simply can’t achieve a level of deterrence to make any “global power” pause for a moment. That’s the reality. If a “global power” with far more resources then us; with a bigger population and a strong industrial base are not deterred by other “global” and non global powers; inconceivable that we can do anything to different deter it.

    Zaft – “What type of conflict do you think Malaysia Armed Forces should be preparing for”

    Firstly, it’s always been policy to have some level of deterrence; one that is achievable based on the resources we have and other limitations. Traditionally; apart from the threat from up north that worried us and our neighbours in the 70’s and 80’s; plus possible limited trouble in the Spratlys [before China entered the equation] a major source of concern has been unresolved overlapping claims with immediate neighbours.

    As to what should we prepare for; never mind what I think but planners I know for a fact; identify possible threats and in turn identify the ones most probable and the ones we can realistically handle.

    As a contingency measure the armed services do cater for a variety of threats but only devote more focus to certain ones for reasons I’ve alluded to.

    Paragraphs.

25. Kamarul “The Mk 4 have superior abilities that if installed, the hull mounted sonar will be redundant & can be removed for better seakeeping & balance.”

    If not mistaken according to fincantieri the American redesign the bow thus they remove the hull mounted sonar along with the upper part of the front hull not because the hull mounted sonar is not useful when one have MK4 but rather as a compromise in exchange for speed so it would be able to keep up with the carrier strike group.

26. zaft – ” not because the hull mounted sonar is not useful ”

    Fitted at the bow it provides 360 degrees coverage.

27. Azlan – You haven’t provided your view of what MAF should be prepared for or able to do. You’ve asked more questions. Again to quote verbatim “Whether or not the MAF is able to handle a “short border skirmishes with neighbours” is dependent on the strategic and operational circumstances. Is there a period of tensions enabling some level of preparation? Is the other side committing all it has or is there a level of restraint due to the need to avoid escalating things? Is it purely on land or on labd,air and sea? Who is the opponent?”. My views sort of answered your questions. Deter means any given moment, if deterrence is subject to preparation time, then its not deterrence. The size of the adversary is defined (1 global power). The location is defined (SCS so its primarily naval and air). The duration is defined (2 weeks). The basis is defined (enough time for friends and allies to respond, not too long because its too expensive during peacetime). If I’m wrong then I’m wrong, hence adjust based on the baseline assumption. Now to quote verbatim again, “Against a “global power” there is little we can do and we by ourselves simply can’t achieve a level of deterrence to make any “global power” pause for a moment. That’s the reality. If a “global power” with far more resources then us; with a bigger population and a strong industrial base are not deterred by other “global” and non global powers; inconceivable that we can do anything to different deter it.” Are you suggesting given the circumstances, the MAF should not even try to build a strong military? Or are you suggesting the military should aim for a different conflict type / intensity? If yes, what are your views (not the generals, but yours) on the type of conflict the MAF should be prepared for? To quote verbatim again “As to what should we prepare for; never mind what I think but planners I know for a fact; identify possible threats and in turn identify the ones most probable and the ones we can realistically handle.” My question isn’t what the generals think, it is what your view are or what you think. Absent a view on a topic like this, why would Zaft or Joe or anyone else’s views be wrong and subject to rebuttal with more questions? At least I know if I disagree with Zaft or Joe or anyone else, I understand the basis of their position – their assumptions.

28. kel – ”Azlan – You haven’t provided your view of what MAF should be prepared for or able to do.”

    I actually did. May not have been what you were hoping for but I did. You asked a question and you got answers; don’t make it sound like you didn’t get your answers merely because you seem to be on a different tangent or have a different view.

    kel – ”You’ve asked more questions.”

    Questions which are relevant and must be answered instead of making blanket claims bordering on generalisation. This isn’t a PowerPoint brief or a P/L sheet where everything’s laid out neat and tidy. In the real world various factors and nuances come into play; factors and nuances which determine what one can or can’t do.

    kel – ”Absent a view on a topic like this, why would Zaft or Joe or anyone else’s views be wrong and subject to rebuttal with more questions?”

    Because nothing works in a vacuum and if we want to talk about what we should do or what we can do it must be seen in relation to under what strategic/operational conditions we’re performing under.

    kel – ”what are your views (not the generals, but yours) on the type of conflict the MAF should be prepared for?”

    My view is that given the lack of resources we have we must continue to focus on the threats we foresee as most likely and make plans the best we can to handle them ; line with having the ability to maintain peacetime operational commitments. Anything else is Wolkenkuckucksheim [cloud cuckoo land] delusion given the constraints we face.
    . In case you need a reminder no military is a one size fits all solution; even Tier 1 ones.

    kel – ”I understand the basis of their position – their assumptions.”

    No skin off my back if you’re unable to understand what I’m driving at. BTW if I say someone is wrong I’m able to back it up with things other than personal opinions/views and if I’m wrong I won’t say I’m not.

    kel – ”Deter means any given moment, if deterrence is subject to preparation time, then its not deterrence.”

    ”Deterrence” means what it means. If you want to make a blanket statement; I’ll counter that a level of ”deterrence” is measured against what it’s intended to ”deter” [or are you under the illusion we can have general ”deterrence” to ”deter” anyone and everyone] and there are such things as readiness rates. In your hypothetical scenario is the said military on alert or on a high state of readiness? Yes more questions.

    kel – ”Are you suggesting given the circumstances, the MAF should not even try to build a strong military?”

    Given you’ve ask that question ‘ll merely say I have no idea how long you’ve been here but I’ve made my views clear many moons ago. Again – our policy is to have a level of deterrence in line with our resources and our threat perceptions. We do not see ourselves engaged in a protracted state on state with anyone and the fact that we don’t identify anyone as a ”threat” per see enables us to do what we’ve long been doing : spending when we can and as little as we can.

    kel – ”their assumptions.”

    I make a sharp distinction between ”assumptions” and what I know to be facts. If it’s an ”assumption” I’ll say so but I won’t insist it’s true merely to score points or because it fit my narrative or I want it to be true.

    Paragraphs. Not hard to do.

29. Azlan – Again, the question isn’t about what is true or false, it is what is your view. You make plans based solely on fact. That’s is ok. Others make plans based on assumptions and facts. That is also ok. Suppose I am wrong and mistaken because I use assumptions therefore my plans are broken and invalid. That is ok. Suppose you have superior facts than I do, so to quote verbatim again. “Deterrence” means what it means. If you want to make a blanket statement; I’ll counter that a level of ”deterrence” is measured against what it’s intended to ”deter” [or are you under the illusion we can have general ”deterrence” to ”deter” anyone and everyone] and there are such things as readiness rates. In your hypothetical scenario is the said military on alert or on a high state of readiness? Yes more questions.” Firstly, if I rephrase the question to, based on your facts, in the case of deterrence, what is your view on 1) Who should Malaysia plan to deter, 2) What should the readiness rates for effective deterrence be, and 3) Under military on alert and on high state of readiness scenarios, what should the level of readiness under different scenarios based on who should Malaysia plan to deter? Secondly, to quote verbatim again “We do not see ourselves engaged in a protracted state on state with anyone and the fact that we don’t identify anyone as a ”threat” per see enables us to do what we’ve long been doing : spending when we can and as little as we can.” Based on your facts, what is your view or definition of “protracted state on state”, and given the limited resources, what should MAF be prioritising in terms of new asset purchases and readiness to achieve the level of deterrence based on you your “protracted state on state” definition? Again, not what the generals think, but your views based on your facts. Thirdly, I am ignorant, so what is the difference between facts and assumptions, and what should a national defence policy for the next 10 years be based on?

30. If hull mounted sonar gives better coverage then why the USN remove it from its latest fleet of constellations class ffgx? Thales captas marketed the kingklip as such – mk.2 for small vessels & mk.4 for larger ones but from what I understand u don’t need expensive hull mounted sonar if you already have a variable depth sonar unless itnis a specific anti-submarines vessels.

31. Thales captas marketed the kingklip as such – mk.2 for small vessels & mk.4 for larger ones but from what I understand u don’t need expensive hull mounted sonar if you already have a variable depth sonar unless you’re a specific anti-submarines vessels.

32. Azlan ” our policy is to have a level of deterrence in line with our resources and our threat perceptions. We do not see ourselves engaged in a protracted state on state with anyone and the fact that we don’t identify anyone as a ”threat” per see enables us to do what we’ve long been doing : spending when we can and as little as we can.”

    Actually According to DWP, MAF aims is to achieve air & sea dominance in our territory as well as EEZ. DWP also identify great power competition as it’s most consequential challenges.

33. Kel – “Based on your facts, what is your view or definition of “protracted state on state”

    Not based on my “facts” but based on “facts” as they stand. A conflict which – obviously- would fit the definition is the one ongoing in the Ukraine. A protracted non state on state on state but not high intensity one per see would be Yemen.

    Kel – ” Firstly, if I rephrase the question to, based on your facts, in the case of deterrence, what is your view on 1) Who should Malaysia plan to deter”

    We should plan to have some level of ability to defend our interest against state threats in the maritime domain against any threats we face; in coinjunction with partners as by ourselves we don’t have the resources to pose a “deterrent” to anyone much better resourced than us. The level “deterrence” we have and the level of readiness is determined by policy, funding and the threat level.

    Kel – “Again, not what the generals think, but your views based on your facts”

    I made it pretty clear what I meant and was not giving the “general’s or policy marker’s view solely – self explanatory. Your mention of “deterrence” overlooks the fact that there are different levels of “deterrence” and that who we intend to “deter” determines how much of a “deterrent” we have.

    We can allocate 10 billion RM annually but it obviously won’t “deter” a “global power” or enable us to meet our goals in the type of hypothetical scenario you presented.

    It’s fine to talk about “deterrence” but who are we intending to “deter”? Again, longstanding policy has always been to have some level of “deterrence” based on actual resources and threat perceptions. We also BTW have a policy of not identifying a threat for political reasons [I can go more into this if you want] and that policy enables us to spend minimally on defence.

    Personally I think we have to devote more seriousness to defence; acknowledge the fact that our policy is in need of deep fundamental revamps and to not only spend more but to also ensure we get more value for what we spend. We also IMO need to be buying more on a threat driven and not a capability basis. Is that sufficient of an answer for what my opinion is.

34. Qamarul – ”If hull mounted sonar gives better coverage then why the USN remove it from its latest fleet of constellations class ffgx?”

    You tell me. Traditionally sonars are mounted at the bow because it creates less drag; not impacted by the baffles or wake of the ship if were mounted rearwards and by protruding from the hull it provided all round coverage….

    Qamarul – ”what I understand u don’t need expensive hull mounted sonar if you already have a variable depth sonar unless itnis a specific anti-submarines vessels.”

    Then why so some ships have a hull/bow sonar and a towed array? Why so some ships have a VDS and also a hull/bow sonar? They are meant to complement each other: a towed array and VDS can go below the thermal layer. A hull/bow sonar tends to be both active and passive.

    Qamarul – ”if you already have a variable depth sonar unless you’re a specific anti-submarines vessels.”

    If you want to be able to go below the thermocline a VDS is useful. The RSN’s Victory class had a VDS but the class wasn’t ”a specific anti-submarines vessel” …

35. Azlan – You’ve provided 2 version of “protracted state-on-state”, Yemen and Ukraine. Since both conflicts are of different intensity and tempo, can I assume you don’t have a baseline in which you believe or think the MAF and the government should use when doing their long-term force structure and funding plans? Or I assume, it is in appropriate for anyone other that the military and civilian leadership to be setting the baseline? The two conflicts used as examples are primarily land and air based conflict. Myself and many others including the DWP has stated maritime domain as the main one for the coming decade. I personally would have used Falklands War as an example (ignoring the circumstances leading to the conflict and only focusing on the combat itself), by asking what Argentina’s military needed to deter the UK from taking action, and if UK did take action, what would be required to prevent the UK from landing ground forces on the islands. If the wargaming or simulation has no permutation for preventing ground forces from landing and a UK victory, then what is the best that could have been done. Obviously there is a scaling issue, so adjustments would be required.

36. kel – ”You’ve provided 2 version of “protracted state-on-state”, Yemen and Ukraine”

    Because you asked for an example of a protracted state on state conflict and you got it.

    kel – ”Or I assume, it is in appropriate for anyone other that the military and civilian leadership to be setting the baseline?”

    Some of the brightest military theorist/thinkers are civilians.

    kel – ”Myself and many others including the DWP has stated maritime domain as the main one for the coming decade.”

    Sorry wasn’t only ”yourself and many others” – I’ve been harping on the fact that the main challenges we face are in our maritime domain; way before the White Paper was even conceived and way before I even noticed the nom de plume ”kel” here. If it was up to me the main beneficiary of funding would be the RMN and RMAF. Note that we’ve faced threats from our maritime domain before : the Confrontation in which RMN ships had dozens of contacts with ALRI and non military contacts.

    kel – ” I personally would have used Falklands War as an example”

    Because it’s the only ”recent” maritime conflict we can think of but if a conflict were to occur between China and a regional country; the gap in numerical and qualitative superiority as seen between Britain and Argentina would be much much wider… Unlike Argentina; China would have the resources needed for the task. It would have the means to strike the enemy’s homeland so to speak; would be operating at a systems not platform centric level.. Compared to Britain; China would have an early warning capability; no shortage of airpower and would not be operating thousands of KM away from the nearest friendly base.

    If China is the ‘global power” in your scenario; note the important point that our economy is hugely tied to that of China’s; that is a dynamic which we can never ignore when discussing security issues with regards to China. It’s fine and dandy to use the Falklands as an example but also note the nuances and specific factors at play and how they’ll differ in the event of a conflict in the South China Sea.

    Thanks awfully for using paragraphs rather than lump everything together like something something on the ground I often avoid stepping on.

    zaft – ”According to DWP, MAF aims is to achieve air & sea dominance in our territory as well as EEZ. DWP also identify great power competition as it’s most consequential challenges.”

    It holds true to longstanding policy : not to have or identify an actual threat. As Mahathir once said ” if we identify someone as a threat; that country in turns identifies us as a ”threat”. This adds a new dimension to bilateral relations which we wanted to avoid.

    Having a ”threat” or adversary means the MAF can devote its attention and resources to that but not having a ”threat” or adversary means that we can continue with our flip flop policy of only spending beyond the minimum when we have extra cash [this is not an opinion per see and if you need a source ask].

37. ” what would be required to prevent the UK from landing ground forces on the islands.”

    You tell me. If you need some great sources on the war; I’ll be happy to share. In our context [as stated a few times previously]; nobody has to land anything on our reefs or shores. They merely have to control access to them; deny us access.

    It’s fine and dandy to use the Falklands as an example but also note the nuances and specific factors at play and how they’ll differ in the event of a conflict in the South China Sea. It’s become – for want of anything else – a cliche to use the Falklands as a yardstick but also look at naval ops/incidents conducted off Yemen in recent times [the use of a USV and the interception of ASMS]; the 1971 India/Pakistan war [the first since 1945 that saw a ship sunk by a sub]; Israeli/Syria naval clashes in 1973 [ECM foiled ASM attacks] and the much more recent happenings in the Black Sea.

38. Qamarul – ”If hull mounted sonar gives better coverage then why the USN remove it from its latest fleet of constellations class ffgx?”

    sonars are usually mounted at in the ‘budge’ at the bow. Even normal cargo ship also have that budge as the design is to maximize efficiency for ship operating in the littoral where the sea is a lot calmer & the priority is towards fuel efficiency rather than speed.

    American prioritise speed and sea keeping abilities in the open ocean which push them to change the bow design and thus there’s no space for the sonar. If you noticed American style bow are also use by other navies with blue water ambitions.

    Since American operate in the open ocean the constellation doesn’t have the beautiful triangular angle & enclosed mast of the original fREMM as stealth is less of a concern. The water there are also deep thus unlike the original fREMM which design to operate mostly in the confined of the Mediterranean and thus hull mounted sonar maybe less useful for them.

39. zaft – ”sonars are usually mounted at in the ‘budge’ at the bow.”

    For reasons I’ve alluded to in a previous post. Space also places a part.

    zaft – ” If you noticed American style bow are also use by other navies with blue water ambitions.”

    I have no idea if it’s indeed ”American style” but the design is ubiquitous and used by many others; not all of who have ”blue water ambitions”…

    zaft – ”Since American operate in the open ocean the constellation doesn’t have the beautiful triangular angle & enclosed mast of the original fREMM as stealth is less of a concern.”

    I’m sorry? ”Stealth” or more accurately ”low observable” features are a priority and ae becoming an increasingly permanent fixture in new designs. It’s very much a ”concern” whether in the ” open ocean” or the littorals…

    zaft – ”The water there are also deep thus unlike the original fREMM which design to operate mostly in the confined of the Mediterranean”

    Sea conditions in the Pacific can get much more challenging than the Med and FREMM users also BTW operate in the Atlantic [France has an Atlantic coastline] where weather conditions can get very rough…

40. Azlan “I’m sorry? ”Stealth” or more accurately ”low observable” features are a priority and ae becoming an increasingly permanent fixture in new designs. It’s very much a ”concern” whether in the ” open ocean” or the littorals”

    Unfortunately Constellation aren’t build on top of a new design and There’s only so much space on the FREMM as a platform. fREMM afterall is designed for a littoral setting performing regional defense duty thus it doesn’t carry the most powerful of a radar, SATCOM, limited endurance nor plenty of VLS. Thus LO design features as well as the hull mounted sonar are likely being sacrificed to meet other requirements like more endurance, better radar, more VLS, more powerful engine for more speed & more power generation that can be installed with directed energy weapons.

    Azlan “I have no idea if it’s indeed ”American style” but the design is ubiquitous and used by many others; not all of who have ”blue water ambitions”

    Depend, if not mistaken For the Hobart, she together with f100 are build on a miniaturised Arleigh Burke design.

    they keep it probably because Redesigning a bow is expensive or they do want to go to the open ocean.

    Azlan “Sea conditions in the Pacific can get much more challenging than the Med and FREMM users also BTW operate in the Atlantic [France has an Atlantic coastline] where weather conditions can get very rough…”

    Guess that’s the reason why they go for a dreadnought like bow design for the FDI. If not mistaken the dreadnought Bow is most efficient design for small & ‘medium’ size ship to operate in the open ocean.

    Notice that Greece do bought the FDI even if they are most likely only going to use it in the littoral.

    Azlan “In our context [as stated a few times previously]; nobody has to land anything on our reefs or shores. They merely have to control access to them; deny us access.”

    They are some parallel to what happening today in SCS to the early part of Anglo German naval arms race. They do start with ship, but then they start recruiting allies & then boil over the plane & submarine & eventually fought each other on land.

    Eventually some may find that ship on ship violence In SCS to be very expensive affairs as
    1)they can’t compete with ship building capabilities of China
    2) SCS is narrow enough and one can establish sea control & denial from the air, land & underwater Without relying so much on surface fleet.
    3) China had a wide technological gap with their air & subsurface assets compared to western equipment compared to their surface fleet.

41. zaft – ”Thus LO design features as well as the hull mounted sonar are likely being sacrificed to meet other requirements like more endurance, better radar, more VLS, more powerful engine”

    I would be very interested to find out how in heaven’s roses you came up with such a statement. On 2nd thoughts never mind; don’t wantto know. There is something fundamentally wrong with the statement…

    zaft – ”They are some parallel to what happening today in SCS to the early part of Anglo German naval arms race. ”

    I highly recommend you read ”Castles Of Steel” [Massie]. It’s easily available.

    zaft – ”They do start with ship, but then they start recruiting allies & then boil over the plane & submarine & eventually fought each other on land.”

    With the exception of Taiwan; any future conflict over the South China Sea will probably not see much amphib landings for the simple reason that it’s not needed; one merely has to control the waterways and access to them. No need for any Inchons, Zeebrugges, Tarawas or Pelelius. Our biggest nightmare is being denied access to the reefs we claim and physically occupy.

    zaft – ”they can’t compete with ship building capabilities of China”

    Yes China has more yards and the smallest yard in China is several times bigger than the largest American one.

    zaft – ”SCS is narrow enough and one can establish sea control & denial from the air, land & underwater Without relying so much on surface fleet.”

    I disagree and am very cautious in making such hasty conclusions…. Surface units will always have a role to play and for certain things can’t be substituted for anything else.

    zaft – ”China had a wide technological gap with their air & subsurface assets compared to western equipment compared to their surface fleet.”

    I would be cautious in making the type of hasty conclusions you seem to have a knack for. Yes there is a gap but it’s rapidly narrowing; we don’t know all of what the Chinese have and the American edge in tech and experience may not count decisive in a future type of conflict…

    zaft – ”Notice that Greece do bought the FDI even if they are most likely only going to use it in the littoral.”

    I don’t have to ”notice” anything because I’m well aware that much of the operating area of the Hellenic Navy is in the littorals. Have been to Greece; have sailed in the Aegean. Waters only get deeper once one gets south of Crete close to the edge of Greece’s territorial waters.

    zaft – ”ship on ship violence In SCS to be very expensive affairs”

    Whether its WW1, WW2, Arab/Israelis wars; Carthaginian/Punic wars; Napoleonic wars; Indian/French war; etc, has there been any wars with naval combat which was not an ”expensive affair”?

42. Still I consider getting both vds & hms should not be a priority. Choose either one & the money saved can be used for other things like an aster instead of mica. Or a gokdeniz/millenium gun. Later if we have more funds we can always upgrade the sonar. Even the famous Formidable class of the RSN only use an EDO TAS. Just my 2 cents

43. Both are needed as with the other stuff as well. It is not like we have a choice, but it is the fact of the matter.

44. Qamarul – ”Still I consider getting both vds & hms should not be a priority. ”

    Do you understand that both complement each other; both good for slightly different things in order to produce a common result? Do you actually understand how ASW works; what a bow sonar does better than a VDS or a towed array and vice versa?

    Qamarul – ”Even the famous Formidable class of the RSN only use an EDO TAS.”

    Well other ships have both bow mounted sonars and towed arrays and there’s a reason. Isn’t for fun.

    Qamarul – ”aster instead of mica.”

    Mica is a point defence weapon. If something gets past Aster one still needs a point defence weapon apart from the main gun.

45. Azlan “Our biggest nightmare is being denied access to the reefs we claim and physically occupy”

    Depends on how one see things. If people think sovereignty is harga mati then sure it’s about the reef. But if one see thinks through dollar & cent then our biggest nightmare is being denied access to the oil platforms that make the Ching Ching.

    Azlan “Whether its WW1, WW2, Arab/Israelis wars; Carthaginian/Punic wars; Napoleonic wars; Indian/French war; etc, has there been any wars with naval combat which was not an ”expensive affair”?”

    For maritime states, naval combat is ‘cheap’ if one compared it to maintaining a huge army.

    Azlan “I disagree and am very cautious in making such hasty conclusions…. Surface units will always have a role to play and for certain things can’t be substituted for anything else.”

    We should buy enough surface combatants that we need but we shouldn’t try to keep up with the joneses in numbers & displacements like some had suggested.

    We don’t have to or rather we can’t afford to match the Chinese ship on 1 on 1 nor on it displacement size basis. Because doing so would mean getting less of other assets.

    Azlan “I would be cautious in making the type of hasty conclusions you seem to have a knack for. Yes there is a gap but it’s rapidly narrowing; we don’t know all of what the Chinese have and the American edge in tech and experience may not count decisive in a future type of conflict…”

    American biggest advantage is the innovativeness of her people. Just like every phone & pc manufacturers keep on chasing apple. The moment other close to narrowing the gap they would invent something new and reset back the gap.

46. @Zaft
    “our biggest nightmare is being denied access”
    To China’s market. If they someday decided to embargo MY from all China exports & shipping lines, we are screwed in so many ways than there are digits to count. Even USA that is trying to limit China’s influence could not stop weaning themselves from China market & factories. Our oil fields are much closer inland than the EEZ seas which they intrudes, if they seek to blockade that it is basically an act of war.

    “we shouldn’t try to keep up with the joneses”
    We only need to keep up with our regional Asean peers but even they are spending a lot more now than we do…

    “American biggest advantage is the innovativeness”
    And also patent creations, but the past year China has start overtaken USA on that front and many predicts it will soon build on that lead. The next innovation powerhouse will be China in the next few years. Trump saw it coming, Biden saw it coming, but its already too late.

47. Zaft – “Depends on how one see things”

    No need to obfuscate things. Take some time to understand what was said instead of hitting the keyboard and going off tangent as you do. I’ll say this again : our biggest headache is being denied access to the reefs we occupy because then we wouldn’t be able to supply them.

    Zaft – “For maritime states, naval combat is ‘cheap’ if one compared it to maintaining a huge army”

    Sorry but another nonsensical statement. Naval forces or combat isnt “cheap”. They require immense time and resources to acquire and sustain. As such; direct comparisons to armies is silly and incorrect.

    You really need to read up on history and naval warfare goes beyond a simple and fast Google search. Would be happy to suggest sources.

    Zaft – ” We should buy enough surface combatants that we need”

    No… We should buy enough of various things which will operate at a systems level rather than a platform one in numbers we need operationally and in which we can afford to sustain in order to meet the threats we foresee and in line with threat perceptions. Full stop/period.

    Zaft – “American biggest advantage is the innovativeness of her people”

    Since we’re on particular topic; America’s biggest advantage is that it still maintains a qualitative edge in various areas and has a military with the institutionalised knowledge and experience of waging joint multi domain ops. The PLAN is constrast last saw a war in 1979 and has no experience conducting joint multi domain ops.

48. Azlan “No need to obfuscate things. Take some time to understand what was said instead of hitting the keyboard and going off tangent as you do. I’ll say this again : our biggest headache is being denied access to the reefs we occupy because then we wouldn’t be able to supply them.”

    Micro point of view of a headache face by single RMN supplies run mission should not be described as ‘ours’. For everyone of us not on that ship it’s all about the kaching making oil rig.

    It’s not even MAF as a whole biggest headache. MAF biggest headache is how to gain air & sea dominance. The thing they promised the public in their DWP paper against a much larger forces on a limited budget.

    Logically to meet their mission they would have to work with the American & Aussie. There’s just no other way to achieve their goals.

    Azlan “Sorry but another nonsensical statement. Naval forces or combat isnt “cheap”. They require immense time and resources to acquire and sustain. As such; direct comparisons to armies is silly and incorrect.”

    Money don’t grow on tree. Emphasizing one service would result in deemphasizing of another. Britain for a long time didn’t have an army as large as those in continental Europe, but they are safe thanks to RN. And since RN keep them safe why would parliament wanna throw good money feeding & sustaining a large army?

    Azlan “No… We should buy enough of various things which will operate at a systems level rather than a platform one in numbers we need operationally and in which we can afford to sustain in order to meet the threats we foresee and in line with threat perceptions. Full stop/period”

    Thanks for the rephrased.

    Azlan “Since we’re on particular topic; America’s biggest advantage is that it still maintains a qualitative edge in various areas and has a military with the institutionalised knowledge and experience of waging joint multi domain ops. The PLAN is constrast last saw a war in 1979 and has no experience conducting joint multi domain ops”

    The American also have a quantitative edge. They are a giant but even then they would not operate alone as they have a network of allies, patner & friends.

49. zaft – ”Micro point of view of a headache face by single RMN supplies run mission should not be described as ‘ours’.”

    What nonsense are you spewing? If we can’t resupply people on our reefs it’s a major concern and ”our” problem. Not a ”Micro point of view of a headache” as you would claim. FYI the scenario I described is a major source of worry for our planners; which you’re apparently blissfully unaware of.

    Zaft – ”It’s not even MAF as a whole biggest headache”

    The discussion was on the Spratlys and the fact that amphib ops might not be needed. In this case; nobody has to physically land or seize our reefs. They just have to deny us access to them. If you still can’t get what I’m driving at I can try to explain it in simpler terms.

    zaft – ”MAF biggest headache is how to gain air & sea dominance”

    Silly… The MAF is under no illusions it can ”gain air & sea dominance” against far better resourced powers… That’s not its aim.

    zaft – ”Logically to meet their mission they would have to work with the American & Aussie. ”

    In case of a major conflict we will but in terms of peacetime routine operational commitments we don’t. See the distinction?

    Zaft – ”Money don’t grow on tree.”

    You’re going off tangent as you normally do. I merely pointed out that you were wrong in saying ”ship on ship violence In SCS to be very expensive affairs” and ”for maritime states, naval combat is ‘cheap’ if one compared it to maintaining a huge army”.. Now you’re going off tangent again by talking about something else and giving the ‘money don’t grow on tree” cliche. Do you actually know what you’re on about and the point you’re trying to make?

    zaFT – ”And since RN keep them safe why would parliament wanna throw good money feeding & sustaining a large army?”

    I’m pretty well versed with my history thank you. Was the discussion centered on the premise that Britain was a continental land and not a maritime power and that like other continental powers land powers it needed a large army? No I don’ think so. The discussion was on something else; your false statement that ”’for maritime states, naval combat is ‘cheap’ if one compared it to maintaining a huge army”… Shoot the right calibre/stay on the same page if meaningful discussion is your purpose…

    zaft – ”The American also have a quantitative edge.”

    In some areas but as has been clearly explained to you; that edge is narrowing…

50. @Azlan i am not a naval expert but i think roughly understand the purpose of sonar in ASW. Okay, i agree with you we should use both sonar.

    @Marhalim
    Any news about our Lekius? After the CMS replacement can they still use the seawolf or expired already?

51. Unlikely

52. Azlan “What nonsense are you spewing? If we can’t resupply people on our reefs it’s a major concern and ”our” problem. Not a ”Micro point of view of a headache” as you would claim. FYI the scenario I described is a major source of worry for our planners; which you’re apparently blissfully unaware of”.

    Seem to me the ‘planner’ missed the forest for the tree. Securing the supplies to the oil rig & keep the sea open to commercial & foreign navies ensuring our security & prosperity should be their priority rather than gung ho about doing supplies run to a remote outpost.

    Azlan “Silly… The MAF is under no illusions it can ”gain air & sea dominance” against far better resourced powers… That’s not its aim”

    Your personal beliefs carries no weight against the authority of an official gov policy paper.

    Air & sea control is the goal of MAF as written in the DWP. It’s what MAF intend to do and that the reason the taxpayer pays them to do.

    Logically, If they don’t want to secure a vital national interest why on earth would taxpayer pays them for?

    Azlan “You’re going off tangent as you normally do. I merely pointed out that you were wrong in saying ”ship on ship violence In SCS to be very expensive affairs” and ”for maritime states, naval combat is ‘cheap’ if one compared it to maintaining a huge army”.. Now you’re going off tangent again by talking about something else and giving the ‘money don’t grow on tree” cliche. Do you actually know what you’re on about and the point you’re trying to make?”

    Those who proposed the most value for money for a specific need is the one that would get the money.

    RN win against the army because they are more value for money to provide deterance for Britain.

    If the army proposed a dual use maritime & land strike himar & the navy proposed FAC then the army would win.

    If the navy proposed a huge fleet of ffbnw ship to provide ISR but the AF proposed MPA,MALE & LCA then the AF would win.

    If the navy proposed a glorified OPV & FAC with FFBNW to meet & greet the Chinese & non state actors while CG proposed a off the shelf mostly consumer grade equipment to do the same then CG would win.

    It’s the results that matter to a gov & her taxpayers not who get to do what. Building ship just to chase the Chinese ship around are IMHO pointless. It’s doesn’t contribute to the mission which I said again, according to official policy paper to achieve air & sea control.

    Azlan “In some areas but as has been clearly explained to you; that edge is narrowing…”

    As I said before that’s why inventiveness matter. The moment you invent something new. You re-reset the gaps. The Chinese can copy & improve their copycat harpoons, Blackhawks & F-16 but the moment US invent the JSM, Valor & F35. The gap are re-reset.

53. zaft – ”Seem to me the ‘planner’ missed the forest for the tree. ”

    Naturally. Unlike you who doesn’t miss anything and seems to know better.

    zaft – ”Your personal beliefs carries no weight against the authority of an official gov policy paper.”

    You can read right? Then read the White Paper again and tell me does it actually mention ”securing air and sea dominance”? Tell me instead of claiming what I said were ‘personal beliefs”. Or are you talking about fantasy? Shall we discuss Alice In Wonderland next or The Wizard of Oz?

    zaft – ”It’s what MAF intend to do and that the reason the taxpayer pays them to do.”

    More nonsense. The White Paper is ambiguous and is politically driven and says what we ”should” do but what we should do is profoundly different to what we ”can” and ”will” do. Until there is sufficient cash and the will; plus consistency; it’s nothing more than a PR exercise which gives fan boys and those who don’t know better hard ons.

    If we’re talking about reality and not fantasy [hard to tell with you]; the reality is that even if we increased the budget by a tenfold we can’t secure ”air and sea dominance” against a far better resourced power… Or will Buck Rogers help us secure ”air and sea dominance” against the far better resourced PLAN which incidentally comes from a far richer country; one with a larger population and one with a much larger and advanced tech/industrial base?

    zaft – ”Those who proposed the most value for money for a specific need is the one that would get the money.”

    Off tangent again? Not on hallucinogens or are you trolling? I simply said that your claims that ”ship on ship violence In SCS to be very expensive affairs” and ”for maritime states, naval combat is ‘cheap’ if one compared it to maintaining a huge army” are nonsense.

    zaft – ”RN win against the army”

    I have no idea of what you mean by ”win” but because Britain was a island and had vast territories globally she had a need for a large navy compared to say France or Prussia who had the need for large armies. Get it? Again [if you’re really interested] read ”Castles Of Steel” [Massie].

    zaft – ”If the navy proposed a glorified OPV & FAC with FFBNW ”

    As I told other posters : the RMN has no requirement or plans tp get a ” glorified OPV & FAC with FFBNW”.

    zaft – ”As I said before that’s”

    You said many things before that leaves a lot of questions and quite a bit of amusement. Also, when you hit a wall you have a tendency to backtrack or go off tangent [look at you responses here to statements you previously made]. Shall we talk about inflation during the Weimar Republic next or Kuomintang ops in Manchuria in 1948 next; since you have a penchant for going off the reservation.

    Qamarul- ”Azlan i am not a naval expert but i think roughly understand the purpose of sonar in ASW.”

    Are there any” experts” here?

    Qamarul- ”Okay, i agree with you we should use both sonar.”

    You don’t have to agree with me. Merely do your research on the roles different types of sonars perform.

54. zaft – ”ensuring our security & prosperity should be their priority rather than gung ho about doing supplies run to a remote outpost.”

    Right so if the RMN garrisons on the reefs are cut off and can’t be supplied; is it a trivial issue? What if you were one of them who was cut off and couldn’t be supplied? Are the men expected to grow crops on the reefs? Will it be a micro ”point of view” or ”gung ho” [to quote you]? Noticed how hard it is to keep the PMC men on the BRP Sierra Madre supplied in a peacetime setting? It could happen to us.

    BTW most of our rigs are in waters which are not contested well within our internationally recognised waters; unlike the reefs which are in contested waters and which the Chinese will go for if trouble break out. Yet you’d talk about the ”planner’ missed the forest for the tree” which is a laugh given some of the things you come up with especially in this instance when all I said was we don’t have to really worry about amphib assaults in the Spratlys as an aggressor merely has to control the waters and deny us access rather than resorting to unneeded assaults on reefs which are mostly the size of a couple of basketball coursts.

55. The DWP was merely an exercise of shiok sendiri by the then PH Govt, just to lay claim that they are “different & better”, of which none of the stakeholders today view it seriously other than paying lip service. It is not even worth its cost of paper printed on.

56. We have great difficulties even meeting our peacetime operational commitments; yet someone actually thinks we are intending to gain the means to secure the land and sea domain.

57. Azlan “BTW most of our rigs are in waters which are not contested well within our internationally recognised waters”

    The Chinese do not want just the reef, they wanted the whole sea. They know it’s not internationally recognised but they wanted it anyway. While they did nothing current they showcase their ability times & times again that’s they can deny the sea access to the rig.

    And here we have people who claim that the planner biggest headache is to supplies a remote garrisons. What value is the garrison if the Chinese blockage the oil rig? What value is the garrison if the Chinese successful drive away the American from the SCS?

    That’s should be the planner biggest headache. If they think it’s impossible then by all mean please resign and enjoy the golden parachute at LTAT and let others who has a plan to solve the taxpayer headache in charge.

    Azlan “More nonsense. The White Paper is ambiguous and is politically driven and says what we ”should” do but what we should do is profoundly different to what we ”can” and ”will” do.”

    Again it’s not my personal beliefs it’s an actual policy goal written by MAF themselves.

    MAF are no tatmadaw. MAF get funding to solve taxpayer headache. If they don’t want to solve it then what use the public paying for it?

    If you want to believe that MAF is duping the taxpayer to justified getting themselves some sweet sweet 17 billions annually and wanting more & more money in exchange for absolutely nothings of value to the taxpayer. It’s up to you really.

58. zaft – ”While they did nothing current they showcase their ability times & times again that’s they can deny the sea access to the rig”

    If there as such a thing as a medal in gold or platinum for obfuscation and going off tangent I’d gladly award you 10. If they want they can deny us access to the whole area but short of a war scenario and in a move which escalates things but is short of actual war; they can deny us access to our reef. Get it? If you want to go on; that can plaster our bases with cruise missiles or launch a cyber attack on our comms/internet grid but so? How is this germane to the discussion?

    zaft – ”That’s should be the planner biggest headache. ”

    Again : planners ”plan”/cater for a wide range of threats but only actually devote focus and attention to the threats most likely to be faced and the threats that can realistically be handled. This is not too hard to understand. As it stands the MAF and planners are under no illusions that we can take on or hurt the PLAN and our biggest worry is that in a non war scenario which gets heated the Chinese might deny us access to the reefs we occupy. If that happens the people on the reefs won’t be able to be supplied [naturally you won’t be there] and we’ll face a similar situation to that of the Philippines and the Sierra Madre where replenishing the PMC men onboard is a constant effort/challenge. This is not a case of ”planner missed the forest for the tree” [to quote you] or a ”micro point of view of a headache” [quoting you again].

    zaft – ”Again it’s not my personal beliefs it’s an actual policy goal written by MAF themselves.”

    It was written not by the MAF per see but by the MAF with policy makers; experts and others. It’s a political exercise and spells out what is intended to be achieved in an ideal world but this is profoundly different from what can actually be achieved. If you still insist that the MAF seeks the means to secure air and sea dominance; you must as well start discussing the differences between Snow White and Cinderella. As I said; stuff in the White Paper is ambiguous and depends on actual funding. It does however give fan boys and those who don’t know any better hard ons. Do you fall in either category because all you’re doing is repeating almost verbatim what’s in the White Paper as if it’s holy writ or written in stone.

    zaft – ”MAF are no tatmadaw. MAF get funding to solve taxpayer headache. ”

    Save the preaching for someone else who’s interested. If you have an insatiable need to preach and go off tangent I’m sure there are others who are interested. If however you’re interested in meaningful discussion then stick to the topic/script [I assume you’re capable] instead of constantly going off tangent.

    zaft – ”If they don’t want to solve it then what use the public paying for it?”

    More nonsense; you again going off tangent and backtracking. Again I have to ask you; if you’re not trolling; are you on hallucinogens?

    zaft – ”It’s up to you really.”

    Where did this come from? Backtracking and going off script again? Kindly point me to a single instance where I’ve indicated or believe ”that MAF is duping the taxpayer to justified getting themselves some sweet sweet 17 billions annually and wanting more & more money in exchange for absolutely nothings of value to the taxpayer” [to quote you]. Do you even know what you really intend to discuss; do you bother asking around or doing any research or do you hear voices telling you what to write?

59. Does Malaysia have the capability to buy type 052D Destroyers from China? Seems like China is open to selling it to other countries.

60. We may have the means but its whether we want to. Since we did not want a corvette from them, it is unlikely we want to buy bigger ships than that

61. Dz – “Does Malaysia have the capability to buy type 052D Destroyers from China?”

    An overkill for our needs and do we have the frigates, subs, helos and other things to work alongside the 052Ds? Various countries can construct surface combatants in the 5-6,000 tonne displacement range for us but do they fit in our CONOPs?