Moving On, All Hawks Now with No 6 Skuadron

72 Comments

1. That is the plan from the beginning anyway.

   Consolidating all hawks with 6 Skn Labuan, while in kuantan (if i am not mistaken) 9 Skn will be the one to take up the initial FA-50M operations.

   15 Skn will take up the FLIT taskings, basically taking over 3FTC task in Kuantan.

   FA-50M batch 2 will be used to topup 15 Skn FLIT and to replace Hawks in 6 Skn Labuan.

   AFAIK these are the surviving hawk aircrafts

   Hawk 108
   M40-01
   M40-02
   M40-04
   M40-05
   M40-09

   Hawk 208
   M40-22
   M40-23
   M40-24
   M40-25
   M40-26
   M40-27
   M40-29
   M40-30
   M40-31
   M40-32
   M40-33
   M40-34
   M40-38

   What are their future fate? sold off?

   Also what is the fate of the remaining 7 MB-339CM? No official retirement yet? To be sold off? They just need replacement RR Vipers with remaining hours to be flight capable again. They are basically the newest MB-339 airframes in the world.

2. missed one
   M40-02 crashed in kuantan 2017, so only 4 Hawk 108 remaining out of 10.

3. Since Sq 15 is training & conversion squad I think its also good for them to familiarise on FLIT (TA50) version too.

4. Once the Hawks are gradually removed from front line, I wonder if its feasible to pool them and setup an airforce reserve unit that can fly them while cannibalising planes for spares until their no longer flyable? I foresee them doing low intensity & adhoc tasks such as internal airspace patrols, or exercises, or display team for Lima or Merdeka whatnot.

5. Where is the money and more importantly the people to do this?

6. The people – Pasukan Simpanan Tentera Udara (PSTU / recently retired servicemen

   The money – ???

   Hawk is quite a maintenance intensive aircraft, with dubious engine reliability and structural integrity.

   Just a what if, im sure we don’t have any extra budget to do this kind of stuff.

7. ” Two RMAF Hawk 108s 04 and 06 of No 15 Skuadron getting ready to take off for the RMAF-RAAF anniversary flypast. This picture was taken in the morning facing the sun. Malaysian Defence picture. ”

   Looking closely at the picture, if my eyes don’t fail me they are 04 and 08, not 06.

   AFAIK M40-06 crashed at Labuan in 2000.

8. Im guessing since everything is existing, the resources will come from OE budget which is far larger than DE and easier to justify and increase. Much like the mega chopper lease deal.

9. Before someone go gun ho on quantitative, asymmetric, prolonged warfare. Maybe he should check whether the risk of prolonged war is even there in the first place.

   PRC military expansion is aim among other things to keep the SLC open to them as SCS and SOM is an important waterways not just for trade and economy but also livelihood as it’s it major O&G supplies route which without it they can wage war, keep electric on or create fertiliser to plant food.

   And what exactly the point for them to prolonged a warfare that keep a vital SLC for them close and hurt themselves in the process be?

10. The moment rmaf got their FA-50M and their extra hornet, they should send the hawks to glue factory already

11. PRC would have to factored in the loss of trade route thru SCS if they were to start a hot war here. So gonna be doubtful they push more than exerting their authority over SCS in peacetime manner (hard assertiveness at bullying but short of shooting). Like Suez Canal, once trade routes have diverted from SCS it will take a long time to restablish back to where it was before or maybe even never if the West boycotts SCS permanently.

12. Does people here even understand the very reason for the need of a strong military and defence capability in the 1st place???

    It is not to cause a war. It is to DETER a war from happening in the 1st place as STARTING A WAR COSTS MORE TO THE AGGRESSOR THAN WHAT THEY WILL GAIN FROM THE WAR.

    A weak military will make the aggressor think it is worthwhile to start a war, as the return of investment is great.

    The end goal of all of this is to PREVENT a war. To prevent a war you must back up your diplomacy with a strong military. President Theodore Roosevelt’s most famous quote is his advice to “speak softly and carry a big stick.”

13. So how exactly them losing a crucial SLC that being used to in import in daily necessity and export for prosperity in exchange for few fish and oil at SCS benefits PRC more?

    If anything PRC is unlikely to be the one starting a hot war at SCS. It would be other parties as they know that is PRC Achilles heels as they know PRC would sue for peace as soon as possible.

    Which is precisely why nation in the region are investing in qualitative advantage.

14. @ darthzaft

    So many contradictions in 1 post

    So tell me how TLDM should invest in qualitative advantage to have our sovereignty of our seas and resources intact?

    “few fish and oil at SCS” is 40% of Malaysia GDP. Is 40% a small matter to Malaysian economy? You can kiss goodbye to RM35 billion dividend Petronas gives to the government every year. Probably your income will be taxed 40% more to cover the shortfall. You are willing to have all that right?

15. “Is 40% a small matter to Malaysian economy?”
    Zaft was pointing out from perspective of PRC. Its suicidal for them to lose global trade via SCS just for ownership over it.

    But now thanks to Trump tariffs, droves of companies are moving factories out of China and to other regional countries. If China see dwindling trade coming to them, they will be lesser and lesser reliant on global trade and focus on internal consumption to prop their economy. If they stop becoming the de facto factory of the world, China would be embolden to not care anymore for SCS trade that arent coming their way thus giving them impetus to wrestle SCS by force if they wish. Ironic this will be thanks to Trump!

    Maybe we should follow his example in renaming to Gulf of America, and change SCS to Central Asean Sea (CAS) so as to delegitimise Chinas claim.

16. Anyway the 40% Figure is for the overall SCS oil extraction peninsula included, the one falling under the 9 dash line is less then 20%.

    Well china had tried and had given up on their attempts to pump up domestic consumption and had double down on export for growths instead.

    With tariff and so by the west they are more dependent on the trade with ASEAN and Africa. The time where the Chinese couldn’t care less about international trade like Russia won’t come anytime soon. Nor the tariff are designed to stop trade with china but rather design to extend the period of middle income trap for china.

    So For the foreseeable future, the Chinese won’t want a hot war on the SCS. Thus the first problem with hulu force structure proposal. He envisioned a prolonged warfare when the risk of prolonged warfare aren’t high in the first place.

    Secondly by obsessing over prolonged warfare and suggested cheap but plentiful item. mAF would lose the ability for escalation dominance. One can see it when PLAAF fly into our EEZ with cargo plane but we responded with hawk and MKM or the recent skirmishes of CCG with PCG. One can see in both time it’s the smaller opponent that escalated it while thirds party actors are quick to standby and offered support. And things quickly de-escalation through diplomatic channels.

    As we can see most countries just want to maintain the current status quo not to solve it once and for all as No one else other than hulu wanted to fight untill the last drop of blood.

17. You cannot maintain status quo when your navy will be the weakest in South East Asia

    Every other navy around us is upgrading and expanding.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWhWhvfbwAAiC7Q.jpg

18. will the filipino fa-50 crash affect our decision to get more fa-50? it seems like fa-50 isn’t made against hardened communist and if they couldn’t handle the NPA terrorists how could it go against the heavy might of CCP

19. Nolah, it look like the pilots got disoriented and crash. It is not like it was shot down.

20. Nobody in this region wants a hot war anymore than the Slavic nations wanted the war in Ukraine. It was only thru the machinations of USA that pushed Russia to be stupid.

    China wants to exert SCS dominance via peaceful pressure but not wanting total control if it has to fight everyone else for it. The 9 Lines is their method to exert this pressure however USA is again angling SEA nations to China back more aggressively which in turn ramps up more aggressive behaviour from CCG & PLAN. If this turns into an escalating spiral as what happen in Ukraine there will be a straw to break Chinas ‘peaceful resolve’ (just as Ukraine about to join NATO broke Putins back).

    If this ever happens, USA & Western allies would proxy the SEA nations & Aussie to fight for them in return for constant flow of weapons & intel, as whats happening in Ukraine but guess what its not USA lives dying in that war so what do they care. It will be the same with us, do you want to die for USA fighting China?

    If SEA havent lost yet in the opening stages, as long as China has the manpower & resources for a prolong war, the West wont arm us sufficiently to defeat Chinese forces neither will they see us lose, likely they will ramp up the armaments for us to fight into a stalemate which is the worst possibility as fighting & dying will be continuously endless. See Ukraine if theres any side which is winning. Its WW1 on a smaller scale.

21. They’re doing night bombing run against the communist, FA-50 blk 10 that the flip has isn’t equipped with IRST or FLIR and they barely knew about night operation and their one assets that have the capability to perform night bombing run (Super Tucano) is being tasked elsewhere on the archipelago

    Hell the flips could barely perform day bombing without blowing their own men to smithereens with several blue on blue incidents

22. It is probably CFIT, as it is in mountainous area.

    Flying at night, low level, in mountainous area is a very risky business. Unless you are familiar flying in the area in daylight, equipped with NVG, terrain maps on EFIS, flying fast jets low level at night into mountainous area should not be attempted.

23. China like russia is a nuclear power state. There’s no such thing as defeating china. The war only ended when there’s an agreement to end the war or the other party got bored as so often the case with US. Going around to “take the fight to them” and “end it once and for all” is extremely delusional. China had been there for the last 5,000 years they would continue being there for another 5,000 years.

    Thought prolonged warfare resulting in the closure of SLC and lost of international trade would hurt china more than Russia this they would likely sue for peace a lot faster than the russian did.

    And on general yes. I agree with Joe there’s no need for claimants state to acquire any quantitative quality simply because if a hot war happen we would relied on the continuous delivery of expandable, munitions, equipment from the west. It’s enough to bought a few to be use on the early stages of the war as well as building competency among it’s personnel on how to use it.

    Not saying numbers not needed but it’s impossible for any single nations even the mighty uncle Sam to match PRC equipment number in the region so a hot war wont happen in the first place. As long as the claimants state collectively along the 1st island chain can maintain qualitative quality with PLA and given a hint that they might work together it would make the calculation difficult for the PRC to launch any kind of a hot war with a single claimants state.

    That’s why the MRSS is a valuable asset.which is why a lot of countries in the region are investing in it. It’s not that’s valuable in terms of moving assets between east and west MY during peacetime but rather it’s value in it’s ability to be send beyond MY borders and make it complicated for the PRC to justify a hot war with any other single claimants state. It’s super easy barely an inconvenience for PRC to fight any single claimants state but it’s not when they have to fight multiple opponents. Even if some PRC neighbours don’t enter the fight, by increasing tempo of operations near the border would take PLA resources away from the front line. Similarly with countries who claim neutral but sending in asset to feed information to their opponents.

    These sort of thing complicated the PLA calculation and thus offered more deterrence value compared to a simplistic, cancel MRSS buy sub make china ship go boom idea.

    In general what we would be seeing is a a continuous prolonged period of tension and arms race between pRC and her neighbour which may leads to mistakes being made and a high intensity but short duration conflict or hot war happened. What would likely won’t happen is a prolonged warfare simply because unlike in Ukraine there’s no benefit for anyone to keep the war hot over a long period of time.

    One can see in the recent episodes with BRP Sierra Madre, it’s ended as quickly as it’s started as eventually both side stand down as some political solutions is reach.

24. Moving assets east-west can be done with RORO

    Spanish RORO that cost Spanish Navy only EUR7.5 million has been deployed to send arms to Ukraine, HADR to Turkiye and many more missions.

25. Moving assets can be done by various means. The issue is we need a “jack of all trades” not a one trick RoRo pony.

    As you are aware the MPSS is intended to serve various roles: amphib movement, HADR, as a tender and other things. RoRos are only good for one th8ng, moving people and stuff. RoRos also tend to have poor sea keeping and DC. If we require a Roro during times of emergency we can rely on civiian ones. We also have the legal means to appropriate or as the Brits call it “take up for trade” civilian ships during times of war or emergency.

    If the RMN required a Roro it would have set a requirement for it. The pertinent issue is that it seeks to replace the Saktis with a MPSS which can perform various roles in tints of peace and war.

26. Dundun – *Hell the flips could barely perform day bombing without blowing their own men to smithereens with several blue on blue incidents”

    If you’re referring to Marawi. First of all CAS is inherently hard. Secondly in Marawi the targets were close and its not as if the controllers had ample experience.

    Even with the Americans and Brits fracticide happens. Look up how many in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    … – “Flying at night, low level, in mountainous area is a very risky business. Unless you are familiar flying in the area in daylight, equipped with NVG, terrain maps on EFIS, flying fast jets low level at night into mountainous area should not be attempted”

    Even when fully equipped and trained accidents can happen. Especially in a, fast moving jet flying low at night or in adverse weather conditions.

27. Dundun – “They’re doing night bombing run against the communist, FA-50 blk 10 that the flip has isn’t equipped with IRST or FLIR and they barely knew about night operation*

    PAF helis relying on VFR have been flying at night and in adverse weather conditions over rough terrain and in areas with poor ATC for decades. Same like the Nuris did but the PAF did it on a larger scale and over a larger Area. There is tactical and non tactical flying.

    Zaft – “e. There’s no such thing as defeating China”

    Not for us or any other claimant, unless one is delusional. One an talk about deterrence till the Elvis returns but what happens when deterrence fails and does not deter?
    Same with assymetric warfare – it’s not as if the Chinese can’t practice their own version of assymetric warfare.

    I’ve pointed this out numerous times and will do so again. China has a very large economy, a large population, a large military, a large budget, the largest manufacturing sector, a huge and advanced tech/industrial base, etc. Even the like of America, Japan and Auatralia are worried. Who are we?

28. Zaft – “cancel MRSS buy sub make china ship go boom idea”

    In Alice In Wonderland maybe. In reality not quite. There are many things China can do to mitigate the effectiveness of subs which aren’t a wunderwaffe. Yes subs tend to be more survivable but against a side which has his own subs, has strong air and surface ASW assets, has mines and underwater sensors? We only have to look at experiences in WW1/2 and other wars, plus numerous exercises to realise that many things can be done to prevent subs from effectively operating.

    Shoild we get more subs? Yes but not at the total expense of other things because subs need to be operated in conjunction with other assets. They aren’t a one size fits all solution. We need various things in the right mix, operating as one. In case Vietnam is mentioned, it placed priority on subs at the expense of other things. Only time or an actual war will determine if it was the right decision.

29. Zaft – “As we can see most countries just want to maintain the current status quo not to solve it once”

    Every one would prefer a war not erupting. Everyone has a diffrent policy as to how to handle China, driven by history, threat perceptions, etc. Vietnam feels more intimidated because it’s physically close to China. It also was occupied by China, fought a war with China, lost the Paracels to China and had a brief battle at sea. So naturally how it perceives China will somewhat differ compared to us or others. Doesn’t mean the Vietnamese have got it right and others are complacent.

    Ultimately despite all its assertiveness Vietnam still has to ensure things don’t go to far, it is reliant on trade. A few years ago after an incident at sea, China shut or restricted movement along the border crossing. This impacted the Vietnamese economy and Vietnam had to smoothen things out. Any talk about war with China or any doomsday fanboy sensationalist theories should also include the economic impact caused by a war. If we got involved in a war as part of a, coalition, the main worry would not be losing a ship but the devastating impact on the economy. Reality.

    There is also the fact that a lot of backdoor dealing/diplomacy occurs. One can watch a clip on Al Jazeera on an incident off Mishief Reef but behind the scenes some horse trading or diplomacy will occur.

30. Zaft – ” It’s super easy barely an inconvenience for PRC to fight any single claimants state but it’s not when they have to fight multiple opponents”

    Who are the “multiple opponents”? Countries who share the same doctrine and have full interoperability by virtue of being allies? Or countries joined by a common cause but who have little interoperability because the exercises they did in the paxt was not focused on combat but communications and basic maneuvering [like a lot of bilatetal exercises done within ASEAN navies]. Also, does China have to fight these “multiple opponents” singly picking them off one at a time or fighting “multiple opponents” operating as one? Remember what Napoleon mentioned about allies, that famous quote?

    As for us, eve if we were part of a coalition we’d be placed on the sidelines or periphery. We just don’t have the toys to bring to the party. Let’s be realistic. We’d be more trouble than we’re worth if we were at the forefront. Our “allies” would have to devote time and, resources babysitting us. As for subs, even if we had 20, we would still probably not deploy them to the Spratlys in time of war because it would be crowded with other subs and a “blue on blue” might result.

31. Zaft – “Not saying numbers not needed but it’s impossible for any single nations even the mighty uncle Sam to match PRC equipment number in the region so a hot war wont happen in the first place”

    You need to bear in mind that the Americans have factored in and their planning fully takes into account Chinese numerical superiority. Nothing new or novel, during the Cold War the Americans and allies spendt decades waiting and preparing to defend against a Warsaw Pact which had a major advantage in numbers, in people and kit.

    The Americans long ago relied on qualitative and training superiirity as well as doctrine to offset an opponent’s numbers superiority. Look up why the Americans made Mission Command or Auftragstaktik part of official doctrine and came up with the Airland Doctrine in the 1980s. Look up why the Brits came up with the Bagnall reforms and made Directive Control [their term for Mission Command] official.

32. Well technically RMN do want a RoRo in the form of spearhead like HSV. Before anyone says we should have just ask for a excess spearhead. No one really knows yet whether the HSV is a new ship or a donations just yet. And again the Spaniard like other militaries do have a LPD on top of RoRO and not just having a RoRo only

    The whole bezza can do 90% of what a McLaren P1 can do arguments is getting too old and tiresome really

33. @ azlan

    Welcome back

    Each of the 163m MRSS PT PAL designed specifically for TLDM costs USD408 million

    TLDM wants 3 of them (2 in RMK13 2026-2030, 1 in RMK15 2036-2040)

    That would cost a total of USD1.224 billion

    That is not a wise thing to do when the latest TLDM force structure 2040 calls for only 2 submarines till 2040.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQLZrxWIAE516T.jpg

    I would prefer the USD1.224 billion to be spent on buying 2 more submarines instead.

    What I would delete from TLDM force structure 2040
    – 3x MRSS usd1.2bil
    – 2x “new” LCS usd1.0bil
    – 3x Turkiye Corvette usd0.56bil (remain just 6x)
    – 4x MCMV usd0.6bil
    – 2x HSV usd0.2bil (hydrographic survey vessel)

    Usd3.56bil saved

    What i would add to the TLDM force structure 2040
    – 2x new Scorpene usd1.2bil (for total of 4 new scorpenes)
    – 1x assembly cost of 6th GOWIND usd0.05bil
    – 4x ARROWHEAD 140 frigate usd2.0bil
    – 3x OSV usd0.1 multi role for MCM,minelaying, sub tender, underwater infra security, hydrographic survey, dive support, HADR etc.
    – 20x LMS-X FCS5509 usd0.35bil 18x multi role missile, 2x hydrographic survey
    – 4x MCMV modular set usd0.2bil
    – 2x used RORO usd0.03bil
    – 2x JHSV/EPF usd0.06bil

    Usd3.97bil

    For a total 2040 fleet of 49 ships
    – 4 scorpenes + 2 original scorpenes for training/reserve
    – 4 ARROWHEAD 140
    – 6 GOWIND
    – 6 Turkiye Corvette
    – 20 LMS-X FCS5509
    – 3 OSV
    – 2 RORO
    – 2 JHSV/EPF

34. “Moving assets east-west can be done with RORO”
    Which we can hire at a much cheaper cost than outright owning a RORO. So that point is moot.

35. A one trick RoRo is a complement not a replacement for a multi role MPSS. One can point out that various navies use RoRos till the resurrection of Donald Duck but those navies also have LPDs, LSTs, etc.

36. “TLDM wants 3 of them (2 in RMK13 2026-2030, 1 in RMK15 2036-2040)”
    They wanted 3 MRSS, and even if based upon Makassars but not exactly the same. Much like getting cheapo ADA class for LMS2, its up to the OEM where & how they want cut out in reducing prices to where we wanted.

37. Which we can hire at a much cheaper cost than outright owning a RORO.

    Sewa again?

    Buying a EUR7.5 million RORO outright is multitudes of times cheaper than buying a USD408 million brand new MRSS. The main intent is for the money to be used for buying 2 additional submarines. If we have the money for BOTH MRSS and additional submarines, fine. But we don’t. Just having 2 operational submarines till 2040 is not enough for our current defence situation.

    As for ROROS, even USA does it (US Army deployments), and those ships is owned by us DoD.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FW7pAmdUsAAWt81.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBUT7fcbYAAYEJJ.jpg

38. We can utilise a civilian one [as we have before] and in times of war we can requisition hulls or take them “up for trade” as the Brits call it and did for the Falklands.

39. … – “for BOTH MRSS and additional submarines, fine. But we don’t. Just having 2 operational submarines till 2040 is not enough for our current defence situation”

    So you keep saying but there are also various other things which we don’t have enough off – not only subs. It’s a question of making compromises and deciding on what to focus on.

    … – “As for ROROS, even USA does it (US Army deployments), and those ships is owned by us DoD”

    So you’ve said on multiple occasions but the USN also has LSTs, LPDs and other lift assets. RoRos are supplementary.

40. ” It’s a question of making compromises and deciding on what to focus on ”

    Buying 3 MRSS for USD408 million each to do a secondary task and mission of the navy isn’t a compromise in my opinion.

    I would rather compromise having used RORO for strategic sealift mission rather than having inadequate number of submarines for the navy.

41. … – “Buying 3 MRSS for USD408 million each to do a secondary task and mission of the navy isn’t a compromise in my opinion.”

    Who says it’s a, “secondary mission”? Do you have a crystal which indicates with absolute certainty that we will never be in a position where the MPSS will not be urgently needed?

    … – “I would rather compromise having used RORO for strategic sealift mission rather than having inadequate number of submarines for the navy”

    I’m sure you d rather do a lot of things but perhaps take into account that the RMN desires to replace the Saktis with a MPSS which can perform a variety of roles rather than a one trick RoRo pony.

    They way you’ve been describing the MPSSs makes it sound as if the RMN has suddenly come up with a requirement for a mini carrier

42. Somehow the cost of the Makasar is inflated with R&D cost but the scorpene evolve is at base scorpene cost without any R&D expenditure whatsoever despite the fact that the UAE Makasar is actively being developed with money being thrown into it while scorpene evolve is still a paper boat with paper AIP and paper LiOn battery.

43. … – “@ azlan

    Welcome back”

    Thank you.

    … – “That is not a wise thing to do when the latest TLDM force structure 2040 calls for only 2 submarines till 2040”

    That’s your opinion. It ignores the fact that the government decides what to get first, that the Saktis need replacing and that the RMN which already has fairly new subs [irrespective of whether it’s only a pair] has a pretty good idea as to what it needs. You are also assuming that we’ll always be in a position where subs provide the answer but not MPSSs.

    Yet again, a RoRo is supplementary to a MPSS not a substitute for a MPSS and we can always requisition one during times of emergency.

44. Alex – “will the filipino fa-50 crash affect our decision to get more fa-50?”

    Are you in possession of information that it crashed because of some major flaw or defect and not pilot error? Even if so, you seriously think we or any one else would cancel the order?

    Alex -” it seems like fa-50 isn’t made against hardened communist and if they couldn’t handle the NPA terrorists how could it go against the heavy might of CCP”

    How on earth did you come up with this statement and what is a “hardened communist”? The NPA are also considered “rebels” or “insurgents,” and not “terrorists”.

    AFP aircraft have been performing strikes since the 1950’s to the present BTW. First against the Hukss, followed by the MNLF, NPA, ASG, MILF, Maute Group and other non state actors

45. ” a one trick RoRo pony ”

    Look at overall system point of view, not just individual platforms

    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/rmn-gets-utility-4×4-vehicles-from-deftech/#comment-943549

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWv-yMCd2FE

    Something like the SPS Ysabel, even with the cheap cost of EUR7.5 million, is much more capable as a ship to do strategic sealift compared to the Saktis.

46. … – “Look at overall system point of view, not just individual platforms”

    Look at things in totality and objectively rather than coming up with ways to sell the narrative. Nobody said RoRos have no utility, just like nobody said subs aren’t needed or aren’t useful.

    The gbrass tacks is that RMN has zero requirement for a RoRo. None. Again, if the need arose we can lease or requisition. RoRos are complementary not a substitute for a MPSS, something you overlook when you point out that so and so navies have RoRos, which most are aware of.

    Nobody said that there aren’t cheaper options to a MPSS but the fact is that the RMN – the actual entity which will operate it – has reasons why it wants to replace the Saktis and why even before the loss of Inderapura, it had a requirement for a LST

47. As usual, you are fond of talking on behalf of the armed forces, like you are the menhan, as if only your version of the understanding of the requirements are correct.

    So many times you have talked about “zero requirement” of things like Kuwaiti Hornets & FA-50, when suggestions that you say is “zero requirement” is actually the best option.

    “a bit of everything but not enough of anything”

    We have subs, but not in enough numbers. So why not save on RORO, so we can have enough submarines? RORO can do probably 90% the things the Saktis can do.

    And RORO + JHSV/EPF combo can do 100%, at a cost 1/20th the cost to buy 3x MRSS

48. As for the numbers thing : we don’t have enough of a long list of things but off course you’d keep peddling the subs because you’re so enamored of them. Again for probably the 109th time, the MPSS is a multi role platform unlike a RoRo which is mostly a one trick pony, RoRos are not a substitute but supplementary to LSTs/LPDs, if the need arose we could requisition or lease them, a RoRo has poor sea keeping and DC or will you in an enlightened moment claim DC is not vital as our ships will be sunk a way? A MPSS is much more expensive than a RoRo but then its much more flexible than a RoRo.

    Yes a RoRo can do HADR but then so can a frigate or a FAC, to some extent. A MBT can also be used for peacekeeping.

    Ultimately the RMN has long decided it needs a MPSS to replace the Saktis and putting aside all your wisdom, looking at options and farsightedness, the RMN knows what it needs. Or is that me speaking on behalf of the armed forces yet again?

    If you want to go back to the MRCA saga. I pointed out that during that period we had no requirement for a LCA which you were proposing. You were proposing something for which we – then – had no requirement for and you even asked if I stood to gain financially if Typhoon was selected. So instead of perpetually bringing things up in a self serving manner and with selective amnesia, remember what took place in the discussion.

49. Rather than deal with legitimate points I raised, you go back to your usual marketing mode to push your narrative. I’m speaking on behalf of the armed forces? Play the ball, not the player.

    If we do get the Hornets the hard part comes later. We need the funds to operate them they way we want and we need to invest in ordnance and ground support gear. I’m not delusional enough to think that the Kuwaitis will throw free. Or am I speaking on “behalf of the armed forces”? On top of that there are penalties associated with buying aged platforms. You’d however will gloss over the penalties and give the impression that there are none. I’m all for the Hornets but only if certain prerequisites are met.

    Magical thinking to assume we won’t have any issues with the Kuwaiti Hornets. As it is the main issue with the 8 is that we don’t buy spares in the right quantity and it’s often delayed- severely impacted sevicibility. Yet there is a notion that all will end well if we get the Kuwaiti Hornets. Only if certain prerequisites are met.

50. Proposal is a proposal, what part of that that you still don’t understand after decades here?

    Why do you study and read so much about the military, telling about so many different books and references when all you can say about everything is “it depends”?

    If the only thing that we can talk about here is exactly what TLDM want, then no need to discuss anything

    Just 2 submarines? Yes fine that is what TLDM wants

    Have 9 corvettes without any ASW capability? Yes fine that is what TLDM wants

    Waste the components of the 6th gowind not build? Yes fine that is what TLDM wants

    Just 4 ASW helicopters? Yes fine that is what TLDM wants

    Stick with single Role MCMV vessel? Yes fine that is what TLDM wants

    No submarine tender capability? Yes fine that is what TLDM wants

    No need to talk abt anything then.

51. … -” what part of that that you still don’t understand after decades here”

    Aoly described yourself. “What part of you” is congenitaly unable to provide an objective, sobered and non fevered minded assessment rather than just focusing on the plus points.

    … – ” the only thing that we can talk about here is exactly what TLDM want, then no need to discuss anything”

    If all we can do is focus and harp on things from a very subjective fanboyish manner, ignoring realities and anything else which is contrary to facts, one must as well talk about space ships and a carrier. Or how a country of 30 odd million with a developing economy can, using assymetrical tactics teach the Chinese a thing or two and send them packing with their tails between their legs. Or our subs surfacing to warn intruding ships.

    … – “Just 2 submarines? Yes fine that is what TLDM wants”

    Childish and obnoxious. Again, 2 subs in the future is the most the RMN can absorb for reasons which have been done to death.Subs need cash to run and have to be manned by people [not dwarfs] who are time and resource extensive to train. Unless you can get Father Christmas to fund things. Also, 2 subs is what the government is willing to spend and no need for direct comparisons with Singapore and Vietnam.

52. Let’s look at case which shows how the “depends” plays a part. In the past you made blanket references to Vietnam without going into the context or how Vietnam did what it did.

    – Americans ROEs largely prevented them from hitting Haiphong where the bulk of arms came in or the airfields were Migs were based.
    – North Vietnam used Cambodia and Laos to move men and material into South Vietnam. The Americans were never able to do anything about it.
    – The Americans fought both the Viet Cong and North Vietnam which also had a border with friendly China.

    I could go on but in a nutshell the ability of the Vietnamese to outlast the U. S. strategically and politically was due to various, factors unique to the war. Thus it’s “depends” on the context rather than chest thumping fanboyish cries of “we should be like the Vietnamese”. I left out Finland, another direct example you made with context.

53. Superpower don’t really lose war they either lose interest or strike a deal. Someone mentioned Vietnam and Finland but forgot about the Palestinian whose at war for the last 75 years.

    Unless china goes back to closing it borders, the Chinese like the Israeli ain’t gonna lost interest in the SCS SLC anything soon.

54. Zaft – “Someone mentioned Vietnam and Finland but forgot about the Palestinian whose at war for the last 75 years”

    He was referring to 2 small countries which were able to hold off 2 powers. No similarity with Palestine which is on a different situation. As for Finland, what he didn’t mention is that it ultimately sued for peace, had to give up territory and the Fins had to agree to the Soviets having a say in their affairs for a few decades.

55. Zaft – “Superpower don’t really lose war they either lose interest or strike a deal”

    Don’t know about the “lose” part but they can achieve military objectives but can ultimately fail to gain political objectives which their military objectives were intended to enable. In Vietnam the U.S. won almost every engagement but on a strategic and political level it failed.

56. ” Or our subs surfacing to warn intruding ships ”
    A Royal Navy submarine did it recently
    https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-submarine-authorised-to-surface-close-to-russian-spy-ship-operating-close-to-the-uk/

    ” As for Finland, what he didn’t mention is that it ultimately sued for peace ‘
    I am pointing out Finland current defence structure, planning & doctrine, not the historical Finland that lost the winter war of 1939.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTmWCbcYwb8

57. … – “study and read so much about the military, telling about so many different books and references when all you can say about everything is “it depends”.

    Typical of you to bring this up as you have time and again, for want of anything else.

    It all “depends”. Who the opponent is. The duration of the war. Level of intensity. Surely with all your links and online researching you’d be aware that there are a long list of variables at play, not blanket general lumping of things without context. It “depends” on the operational context. We’re not talking about video games here or things magically working in a vacuum.

    … – “Royal Navy submarine”

    So? We, should too? Still think our subs should sacrifice its main advantage of not being visible, to surface and show the neferious communists that it’s there as a warning? What if the other side pays no attention but instead starts doing the same but with more subs and with greater regularity? We start singing patriotic songs? And what if the Chinese view such an action as overly provocative?

    .. . – “am pointing out Finland current defence structure, planning & doctrine, not the historical Finland that lost the winter war of 1939”.

    Really? You were “pointing out” that a small country could defend itself against a major power and I “pointed out” that ultimately things didn’t work out well for Finland. It was also not the Winter War of 1939 but the War of Continuation.

58. … – “pointing out Finland current defence structure, planning & doctrine, not the historical Finland that lost the winter war of 1939”.

    Was in reference to your example of how small countries could hold off larger powers and how we supposedly can do the same, not the issue of Finland’s current policy/posture. I “pointed out” that ultimately things didn’t work out well for Finland. It was also not the “Winter War of 1939” which Finland didn’t lose but the “War of Continuation”.

59. … – “Royal Navy”

    So? That’s the RN. You still think our subs should surface in the vicinity of intruding Chinese ships to warn them? Not only does this do away with a sub’s main advantage of being unseen [which you’ve made so much reference to] but the Chinese will see this as provocative. What if they ignore our sub and respond by doing the same with their own subs but in larger numbers and with regularity?

60. @hulu. “I am pointing out Finland current defence structure, planning & doctrine”

    1)Currently Finland is in NATO. Finland *isolationism at least according to one of their former PM is a result of geography and geopolitical that are forced upon them and not through own choices. Case In point the jumped into a multilateral security arrangement the moment opportunities present itself.

    2) geographically we aren’t like Finland as we neither share a land border with china nor even are china next door neighbour. There a thing called Philippines in between us. If anything geographically we are geographically more like the turkeye or germany then Finland or Poland.

    3) threats perception is different, the fins are convinced that the russian/ussr might wanna annex them whole meanwhile china never make such threats. They wanted the sea and only the sea and not the mainland.

    4) china is not Russia. Russia only way to extend their strategic depth is by annexation. Not so for china as they can both secure their SLC as well as extend their strategic depth without even having to annex anything as the SCS is international water. The only thing they can’t have right now is oil and it’s not like the oil there is plentiful enough to meet china domestic needs.

    Case in point a Chinese attack aren’t as imminent as you like to claims nor we aren’t short of potential security partners or allies that would force us to do everything on our lonewolf self and have to falls to assymetric tactics. Just like Germany and turkeye all you need is a sugar daddy to back you up and on the same time trade with the big bad wolf to increase the stake of all our war and maintain the uneasy peace.

61. If we cannot properly equip our armed forces deter any hostile chinese attempt to take over control of our maritime zones and resources; with the current world situation that sees might is right rather than law and order, a weak malaysian armed force will encourage those with strong military to just take anything that they want.

    A navy with just 2 submarines, 5 frigates and 9 corvettes with little air defence systems will be easily decimated

    Most of recent wars are all land-based. Any conflict erupting in South China Sea will be the first big naval warfare since the Falklands War, and we should be prepared for it.

62. Zaft – “geographically we aren’t like Finland as we neither share a land border with china nor even are china next door neighbour*.

    To be a devil’s advocate eventhough talk of us “fighting” with China is magical delusional thinking, our economy which is export driven is tied to China’s, like the rest of the region we are wll within range of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles, jets in Hainan can reach the east coast, etc, etc. Does this mean all recent procurement is driven by the need to desl with China. No. Should we base procurement on China. No.

    Our greatest vulnerability lies with the economy, tied to China’s [like Vietnam]. If trouble breaks out over the Spratlys it’s not given we’d be involved and if we were it would be as part of a coalition playing a very minor role. Let’s not delude ourselves and let’s not go over the top with the kinetic means the Chinese can employ on us. Their focus is on the likes of America and others, not us, a small speck on the map with a modest economy and military.

    China can screw us economically, without firing a shot.

63. Zaft – “Case in point a Chinese attack aren’t as imminent as you like to claims nor we aren’t short of potential security partners”

    In its current state the MAF would struggle to deal with a better resourced neighbour. Never mind a country with a much larger population, economy, military and defence budget. One with the largest industrial capacity worldwide and a high tech engineering/tech base and which worries even the U. S, Japan and Australia.

    As a level of decorum and reality is lacking, a reminder:the MAF is not structured, equipped or trained to deal with high level threats in a high intensity war, protracted or not. Neither does a country with our population, economy and other resources have the ability to sustain itself. That’s the reality, never mind talk of deterrence and assymetrical warfare or fancy terms like multi domain, long range precision fires and force multipliers.

    To cries of “what is the MAF good for”, I can only say take time to understand in a non fevered dispassionate manner how we view the threats we face, under what circumstances do we expect the MAF to fight under and how much do we allocate for defence? On top of that we don’t get the most optimum value for what we do spend. Even if well resourced, no military can punch above its weight or to deal with every single contingency.

64. … – “If we cannot properly equip our armed forces deter any hostile chinese attempt”

    So you keep saying but the harsh reality is that we can’t compete against a country with a with a much larger population, economy, military and defence budget. One with the largest industrial capacity worldwide and a high tech engineering/tech base and which worries even the U. S, Japan and Australia

    Some threats we can handle, others we can’t.

    … – ” navy with just 2 submarines, 5 frigates and 9 corvettes with little air defence systems will be easily decimated”

    Context? Decimated by whom? Reality, even a navy with 20 frigates and 20 subs would be dealt with by the USN. This is ludicrous. Even the PLAN worries even the might of the USN yet you think that there’s something the RMN can actually do. Might as well devote time here to dicussing the merits of Mary Poppins over Cinderella then.

    … – ” Any conflict erupting in South China Sea will be the first big naval warfare since the Falklands War, and we should be prepared for”

    Right. Go on a warfooting, introduce mass mobilisation, prevent any makes of military age from leaving the country, etc. Cut down the education and health budget. Then we can teach the Chinese a thing or two.

    For crying out loud, we’d struggle against our neighbours and here you are with a straight face and again going on with absolute seriousness about how we can and should focus on China which every mother’s son and his dog with a bit of sobered and objective thinking realises is impossible.

65. The funny thing with obsessing over Finland is that Finlandization as defined by wiki is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former’s foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system. Basically what Russia trying to do with Ukraine right now. Which is also the reason why Ukraine are so obsessed on entering either EU or NATO or both.

    basically it’s the Chinese wettest dream. A string of satellite state along the first island chain while the Chinese worse nightmare is a NATO be it NATO like or NATO *light. But rather than at least work together to at least get a NATO light someone think finlandization is the greatest thing for us since slice bread.

66. ” The funny thing with obsessing over Finland is that Finlandization as defined by wiki is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former’s foreign policy rules ”

    Twist and turn whatever other people is saying.

67. Zaft – “which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former’s foreign policy rules”

    In reference to the fact that after suing for peace, Finland had to agree to the Soviets having a say in their foreign relations.

68. Zaft – “someone think finlandization is the greatest thing for us since slice bread”

    I believe he was referring to Finland’s defence policy/posture/planning.

69. Defense policy posture are align with the country foreign affairs posture as one cannot be independent of one another.

    If not and one ignores the foreign affairs posture of the equation then they might end up believing that assymetric is the mother of all bomb that even the mighty USSR are afraid off and this allowed Finland to maintain their independence

    But in reality If one take into account or the subservient nature of Finland after the continuation war. Then one can say apart from the Finland military posture there not much reason for USSR to annex an already subservient state in the first place.

    If anything I can confidently say that we along with many others states along the first island chain don’t wish to be the next cold war periods Finland.

70. Zaft – “Defense policy posture are align with the country foreign affairs posture as one cannot be independent of one another”

    There is national strategy and defence strategy. National strategy comprises diplomacy, economics, defence and other things.

    Zaft – “subservient nature of Finland after the continuation war”

    It was not any “subservient nature*. Finland on the side of Germany enters the war against the Soviet Union. Placed in an untenable situation it seeked peace terms and had to accrue Soviet demands. It was closer to the West but was not aligned to it, i.e. the purchase of F-18s and also prior to that Soviet gear.

    Zaft – “If anything I can confidently say that we along with many others states along the first island chain don’t wish to be the next cold War”

    Firstly there is already a “Cold War”. Secondly we have to draw a fine line, with the U.S. which is still the dominant power and China whom we share the neighbourhood with and is a rapidly rising power. Not to mention the economic angle. Thus we have to draw a balance between economic and security considerations.

    Yes China is a major worry but unlike the predictions of certain alarmist prophets of doom, China is not on the verge of grabbing our possessions on the Spratlys. It has much bigger fish to fry.

    I will also add that its not Chnia which ramned a ship, came close to firing on a ship of ours, pointed guns at a Lynx, demanded the extradition of a RMN ship CO and engaged in other provocative actions. In short we have other concerns apart from China.

71. China is a big scary monster just like the USSR was in the past if we have to face their might alone. Which is precisely why multilateralism is such an attractive prospect for the nations on the 1st island chain.

    China won’t lose any sleep if a single small country boycott their product but a collective boycott would make them think twice. Even if china can punish a single country economically, their coercion is less punishing to the receiver if they have other options

    Even if PLAN is the world largest navies, collectively the 1st island chain navies has almost as much naval assets as them.

    If china is convinced that there might be a collective coordinated multilateral response that the Chinese attack aren’t that imminent.

    So the question is why take on the risk, cost and difficulty of going all lone wolf on it when a perfectly viable better alternative exists?

72. Zaft – “Even if PLAN is the world largest navies, collectively the 1st island chain navies has almost as much naval assets as them”

    Not all of those navies can work together, have tertiary capabilities, can work jointly, etc.

    Zaft – “if we have to face their might alone”.

    We won’t be in a position where we “have to face their might alone” and it’s not as if China is focused on us. It has much bigger fish to fry.

    Zaft – “So the question is why take on the risk, cost and difficulty of going all lone wolf”

    Even if we raised the defence budget tenfold, stop building schools and hospitals in order to fund the military, have mass mobilisation, buy 30 subs, adopt assymetrical tactics, be inspired by the Vietnamese, copy what the Ukrainians are doing [they have external help amongst other things], etc, we still won’t be able to go it alone and have zero intention.

    This will be a surprise to many but our threat perceptions are centered on the possibility of short/limited wars with neighboring states over unresolved overlapping claims for which we havd not only in the Spratlys but in other places. Unless one indulges in magical thinking we do not fund and equip the Malaysian armed forces to “fight” China and I think this topic should be put to rest. A level of decorum and reality is needed in what is the only Malaysian defence site worth visiting.