SHAH ALAM: The new RMN 15-to-5 plan, the Realignment, it appears, is now official. The launch of the new plan was supposed to take place at DSA 2024, but it was scrubbed. RMN did not say why the launch was scrubbed but I was told that the document was not ready for publication though graphics of the plan were put up as displays at the RMN booth at DSA 2024.
On July 30, Utusan Malaysia published an article on the new plan complete with an endorsement from Defence Minister DS Khaled Nordin.
On July 31, the book on the new plan was unveiled by outgoing RMN Chief TS Abdul Rahman Ayob at the Lumut naval base. The release by RMN:
Panglima Tentera Laut, Laksamana Tan Sri Abdul Rahman bin Ayob telah melancarkan buku mewah RMN 90 Years-Protecting Malaysian Sovereignty pada 30 Jul 24 di Auditorium M. Sidek Shahbudin, KD PELANDOK.
Buku ini mencoretkan detik-detik bersejarah pergorbanan TLDM dalam mempertahankan kedaulatan maritim negara sepanjang 9 dekad lalu. Turut dirasmikan dalam majlis ini adalah buku RMN #15to5 Transformation Realignment (Platform), buku Pelan Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan TLDM dan buku Modul Pengukuhan Kerohanian Ibnu Battuta.
The graphics on the new plan put up by Utusan Malaysia differs slightly from the one displayed at DSA 2024 (below).
For example, the RMN plan is now for sixty-one ships instead of fifty-seven as shown at DSA. The number of combat and support ships remained the same though with the extra three vessels being the training ships – sailing-ship, KLD Tunas Samudera, KD Gagah Samudera and KD Teguh Samudera (see below).
The new plan also entailed new procurement plans for the RMN from 2021 until 2040 with 31 platforms or ships procured. The ships are seven LCS, nine corvettes, four LMS, three MRSS, four mine counter measure vessels, two submarines and two hydrographic vessels. The corvettes, however, are conspicuously missing from the funding projection plan. It is likely some of the LMS Batch 3 and 4 will be corvettes though.
For the period of 2021-2025, five LCS, 4 LMS Batch 1 and three LMS Batch 2 have been procured though only the Batch 1 ships have been delivered. Other equipment described as force multipliers, three maritime operations helicopters and 19 FICs were procured with 18 UAS donated.
For the 2026-2030, two MRSS and two LMS Batch 3 will be procured while the force multipliers are four anti-submarine helicopters and six unmanned aerial vehicles. Does the change of designation to LMS Batch 3 and UAVs means different things to be procured? Your guesses are as good as mine.
In 2031-2035, two submarines, four mine-countermeasures ships and a single hydrographic vessel will be procured together with unmanned submersibles as force multipliers. The unmanned submersibles may well be for the mine hunting and hydrographic work.
Two LCS, 3 LMS Batch 4 and a single MRSS and hydro ship each will be bought from 2036 t0 2041.
As the plan has nine LCS in total, I am guessing two more will be procured within the next ten years if the five current ones are delivered as planned. That said they could always buy another design and called it LCS as well just like what they did with the LMS.
With the funding plan for the corvettes and other ships missing, one wonders whether RMN will get the number of ships it wanted in 2040.
–Malaysian Defence
If this is not a military build up, I don’t know what else is….
>7 LCS
can we get a more contemporary design that is actually a frigate design instead of an oversized corvette? There’s plenty of newer designs out there. Hell we can even ask for our iron brother turkiye to build Istanbul class for us
the MY way…
I thought ADA class is the corvette while the LMS will be a smaller ships
dundun, I totally understand your frustration. I have always wondered why Boustead chose the Gowind-class which was not fit for purpose and then attempted to supersize it when the low risk La Fayette design was available all along from the very same shipyard. I understand that there was a tilt towards all things French back then, but they should have just gone with the La Fayette even if that was the case.
@Subangwatcher
No need to copy our rich neighbour, there is still the FREMM design.
dundun –
‘Hell we can even ask for our iron brother turkiye to build Istanbul class for us’
In what way are the Turks ‘our brother’?
Sifting through all the bull$hit
The only real plan is this https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPFU2JyaAAAsAlF.jpg , as I have said all along.
the 61 ship mentioned is also bull$hit as the plan now does not have 12 LCS, 18 PV/Corvette or 18 LMS.
Also no plans at all to complete the 6th Gowind, which is what should be done to recoup all the investment in the gowind platform.
Now the navy will be a big rojak, with new turkish corvettes that cannot even defend themselves from near future advanced anti-ship missiles. This is when currently now our neighbours are getting large frigates and doubling down on more submarines. By 2040 TLDM will be among the weakest navies in South East Asia, even weaker than the Philippines Navy.
PS. KLD Tunas Samudera sistership, the STS Young Endeavour of the Royal Australian navy will be retired and replaced with a new ship by the end of this year or early next year. We can ask them nicely to pass it to TLDM, so we can have 2 sail training ships.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNvTMshXoAAdLtz.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM1b51kUAAAokIQ.jpg
Also I think it would be better if LMSB1 is relegated into PV alongside NGPV and assume our LMSB2 as the B1 that shouldve been and that we should instead get at least another 3 for the next batch
@ dundun
The best way forward is to pass all of the Kedah class and Keris class to APMM and call it a day
Those Turkish “corvettes” are actually more like a fully armed Kedah Class actually. They are not actually based on the ADA-class corvettes but on the OPV – TCG Hisar ship design.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0gsYJ6WwAESW52.jpg
I assume the LMS in the “new plan” is a laksamana/keris class size FAC. But despite in the “plan” they ain’t gonna be buying any for the next 20 years
Also the plan evolved from 15 to 5 to 15 to 5+ at least 3.
So TLDM in 2040 will consist of :
2x Sub (2x new sub to replace 2 existing scorpenes, that will be 30 years old in 2040)
7x LCS (5x Gowind, 2x new type?)
9x Corv (9x Turkish corvettes?)
4x LMS (4x LMS68 made in china)
3x MRSS (new)
4x MCMV (new)
2x HSV (new)
Is this an ideal composition for future threats in our region? What kind of adversary that we can fight with such a navy? Why do we need 3x MRSS for when the money could buy us more frigates and submarines?
Interesting question what or who are our potential adversary ? China ? Even if we have 100 ships we dont stand a chance, they just sanction us and we will run begging to them. Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore ? All highly unlikely ..We should put more emphasis on MMEA , more ships and aircraft to them because they enforce security of our EEZ 24/7 and we have real treats of illegal fishing, pirates , smugglers and illegals trafficking. Bigger and better armed MMEA ships.
@hulubalang
” the plan now does not have 12 LCS, 18 PV/Corvette or 18 LMS.”
Agreed, though the rest might come in 2050 when some of the LMSB2 are almost 25 years old, so like what you said with the subs, increase the quantity of LMS or replacing the old ones.
“Now the navy will be a big rojak”
It is currently, and always had been, big rojak, just that in future it is more advanced rojak (improved kuah recipe).
“with new turkish corvettes that cannot even defend themselves from near future advanced anti-ship missiles.”
To be honest, LMS B2 have similar SAM capabilities as LCS with MICA (non NG), compared to your proposed LMS-X which have non. Though like i said before, its a nice concept for supporting LMS and LCS https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8IncFcaEAAJytG.jpg
I really wished if RMN could fit extra 2-4x KVLS cells on LMS B2
18 LMS’s better buy all from STM until 2040 & bulk purchase for cheaper price. Enter into long term agreement with STM or else if new government elected they would just cancel it again & buy from different manufacturers. Atleast this way we have a binding agreement not so easily cancelled. But i am trying to think why only 4 scorpenes? It should be 6 even the smallest neighbor got 6 brand new subs.
Luqman-“with new turkish corvettes that cannot even defend themselves from near future advanced anti-ship missiles.”
What do you mean? There’s K-Saam, the 76mm deck gun. Even if you equipped it with phalanx or pantsir there’s no guarantee it can intercept any missiles 100%.
@hulubalang
“Why do we need 3x MRSS for when the money could buy us more frigates and submarines?”
Are you basically saying we don’t need MRSS at all? Because that would be a terrible mistake, unless of course if you have a better idea.
I was really hoping the navy would give a clearer picture of what they intend to do within these next couple of years, but I guess the graph will have to do…
According to my own understanding of the graph, the navy is trying to bring their procurement schedule back on track before it gets any worse. However, with an incredibly tight purse courtesy of our beloved, still penny-pinching overlords, they can only afford to buy a few ships per-RMK. What’s interesting to see is the increase of missile ships and of course the MRSS, seems like RMN is trying to regain its long degraded combat capability aswell as amphibious ones rapidly.
Speaking of the tight purse, I guess this explains the new “plan” which might go beyond RMK 17, which according to the original plan, the navy would’ve achieved its transformation goal with 55 new ships.
@ Luqman
I wanted those LMS-X because it will free up the budget to get 4x Arrowhead 140 frigate (that could fit like 64x VLS to do area air defence) and 4x more Scorpene submarines before 2040.
And i also feel that 24x LMS-X would be more lethal and more survivable (employing distributed lethality concept) than TLDM own plan for 9x turkish corvettes. With cheaper overall cost, faster speed, longer range, more anti-ship missiles overall and the multirole capability to support anti-submarine (multistatic sonar operations together with the Gowinds), minelaying and mine countermeasures missions.
But as it is right now, there is no turning back on the turkish corvettes, so any future alternatives need to include those ships into consideration.
@ mofaz
I am totally fine for TLDM to shrink to 30+ ships only. But it needs more submarines as our main deterrence effect.
But in the same time i want APMM to be fully equipped as per their current PPSMM 2040 (Pelan Perancangan Strategik Maritim Malaysia 2040) by the year 2040. That means at least 20 large OPVs. I am fine with a mixture of new and used ships, and i am all for the Kedah class OPVs to all be transferred to APMM ASAP.
why four submarines? money, of course.
Anything with Turkiye is all right with another government in place. The only thing they might do different is appoint a MY company as the main contractor with STM as the sub-contractor ala the LCS project.
My alternative TLDM Force Structure 2040
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GT8rHkNbMAAmwGX.jpg
HSV – get free ships. JHSV from USA
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCmTlaYAAQm6F.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIg-gOvaUAATfFw.jpg
future missile challenges
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMu7CbVagAAcsdG.jpg
@ akmal
Our army is geared to defend our own territory, which is divided into 2 main land areas
– Semenanjung Malaysia (West Malaysia)
– Sabah & Sarawak (East Malaysia)
There is no significant need to land our army on beaches not on our own territory. The current Army 4NextG plan to have equivalent capabilities in both East and West Malaysia means big amphibious landings are not a needed capability. Rather than storming our own beaches, the critical capability instead is the ability to defend our own beaches from such amphibious attacks.
Logistics movement between East and West malaysia can be adequately supported by a fleet of fast ROROs and also HSVs such as the USA JHSV USNS Spearhead class Expeditionary fast transport.
US are retiring 4 of those JHSV, and we can easily get 2 of them for free through US EDA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_expeditionary_fast_transport
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIg-gOwaUAAxAHl.jpg
For logistics movement, most other armies regularly use ROROs. We can have such ships to support logistics movement instead of a bespoke MRSS.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ysabel_(A-06)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-class_sealift_ship
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBSihKSaMAAu5lg.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBSUWtKakAATCnQ.jpg
Ysabel (A-06) – It only costs Spanish Navy Euro 7.5 million to buy this ship, and it has been one of the most hardworking ship in Spanish Navy fleet (supporting logistics to the Canaries, Turkiye earthquake, Lebanon UN mission, weapons to Ukraine) that they recently decided to buy another used RORO, the El Camino Español (A-07)
@ marhalim
“RMN did not say why the launch was scrubbed”
It is clear now why it was scrubbed originally.
The new plan is clearly inferior to the original one, with the fleet just 50% the size of the original plan. Understandable most of the time they try to obfuscate the matter by 80% telling all the old tales of the original grand 15-to-5 plan, then 10% telling about all the changes that they thought about but actually was not approved and just 10% showing what the final approved plan was to be.
And now the mastermind of the plan has retired, it is easier for the new RMN Chief to just push on with the plan without having the negative concoctions attached to him.
@ Subangwatcher
Originally LCS project was named SGPV, just a continuation of the Kedah class NGPV OPV. The original requirement is really for a corvette, which is why the Gowind corvette design was offered, and not the la fayette or FREMM.
It was because of the cancellation of the 4x ship F2000 Frigate (Lekiu) Batch 2 project that TLDM asked for and successfully gotten the approval and budget from the government to upsize the SGPV corvette project of around 2500 tons into the 3200 tons LCS ship it is right now. This happened after the Gowind corvette design was chosen.
Hulubalang “Rather than storming our own beaches, the critical capability instead is the ability to defend our own beaches from such amphibious attacks.”
That’s just your own preference and not what the military had said they wanted to do.
The military procured based on their plans not yours.
@ darthzaft
“That’s just your own preference and not what the military had said they wanted to do”
Yes the military wants do storm the beaches with PT-91M tanks and AV8 Gempitas like what was presented during 2022 army day demonstration in Port Dickson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TmRq5ICEFc
go to 38:50
“aturgerak kenderaan penggempur daripada kapal induk dan melaksanakan serangan ofensif ke atas kedudukan musuh…”
Is it realistic? Nope.
Yeah the military dreams of hollywood storming the beaches with tanks and IFV when what we are supposed to do is to defend the goddamn beach!!!!
Defending our beaches does not need MRSS. That is the fact.
To those who say that we must have MRSS
Tell me what are the main mission of the MRSS, and convince me those missions are critical for the defence of Malaysia.
I believe that what we actually need is just a logistical link between East and West Malaysia, and that can be done by RORO like the SPS Ysabel and HSV like those free to a good home USNS Spearhead class ships.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCy5EacAA5MWz.jpg
No need for hundreds of million dollar MRSS to do things an Euro 7.5 million (SPS Ysabel) and free ship (JHSV USNS Spearhead) can do.
That hundreds of million dollars can instead buy more submarines.
@Hulubalang
Whatever your opposition to MRSS is, it seems the majority is still in favor of TLDM having MRSS, including me. I’d say that we need the MRSS, only not right now, perhaps 4 to 5 years down the line.
@Hulubalang
“Defending our beaches does not need MRSS. That is the fact.”
Perhaps not now, but later. We can never guess what might happened in the near future.
Hulubalang “Is it realistic? Nope”
So said you and you alone.
In reality most asean state from ID,PH,SG,TH & MM all have them.
Hulubalang “Yeah the military dreams of hollywood storming the beaches with tanks and IFV when what we are supposed to do is to defend the goddamn beach!!!!”
What kind of idiots wait for the enemy to rain down death and destruction to own country when there’s a perfectly nice buffer state called Philippines (where US have a military installations none the less) where the death and destruction can occurred.
“force multipliers, three maritime operations helicopters”
I see the plan did not take into account that one was recently lost, or will they replace it? Seems unlikely based on precedence.
@Hulu
“what are the main mission of the MRSS”
One of the main mission as clearly stated in the old & new plan, full HADR support. Something which your vaunted ROROS unable to do. And while storming beaches sounds exciting, the reality is more towards amphib landings.
@Qamarul
“What do you mean?”
That was a quote from Hulubalang, not from me.
@Hulubalang
“LMS-X would be more lethal and more survivable (employing distributed lethality concept)”
more lethal, yes, more survivable, no. Your version of distributed lethality is flawed because your LMS-X has far less defensive capability against aerial threats. LMS-X needs SAMs to have higher chances of survivable. Combat ships that rely on other ships for SAM protection is less desirable especially when LMS-X is further away from other ships. Plus, even navies that operate similar ships said it’s not suitable for open seas
“free up the budget to get 4x Arrowhead 140 frigate
No need to free up the budget if the next LCS is an Arrowhead 140 design
HSV is Hydrographic Survey my bad.
” And while storming beaches sounds exciting, the reality is more towards amphib landings ”
Amphibious landings happen on an airport ke???
Marhalim “why four submarines? money, of course.”
I say the Dutch got a good deal on the blacksword barracuda as OZ is literally payed for it’s R&D.
@Hulu
“Amphibious landings happen on an airport ke???”
How da heck do you relate MRSS to airports???
so, all these assets and nothing, not even a fart about shore defences?
Marhalim,
This is quite confusing isn’t it?
The LMS B2 at 2400 tons are closer to Corvettes if your go on the RMN Infographics, which means they should really be classified as Corvettes Batch 1 as DunDun said. It all makes no sense to me.
A 61 ship RMN will cost too much money to maintain IMHO.
@dundun
“about shore defences?”
were you asking about land based anti ship missiles and land based SAMs?
And too much money to procure let alone maintain. That is why the actual number will be the ones already in the funding pipeline. That said what is in the funding pipeline remains part of the wish list, until the day it/they are funded.
Clearly it is not part of the RMN duty to do shore defence otherwise it will be part of the wish list. Any how if we have 50 surface warships – frigates and destroyers (and VLS armed submarines), they will be do a much better work as shore defence than anything on land (apart from shore based air armada). They will be, theory wise, more suitable to defeat most threats away from land. Wishful thinking though.
My tweaked Force Structure 2040 plan
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GULsw7-aAAAAePg?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
ASW SH-60R Romeo
https://www.twz.com/26395/the-navy-has-dozens-more-mh-60r-helicopters-than-it-needs-due-to-lcs-debacle
LMS-X concept
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNmA9D1bwAAXYmg.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMpdKk2a8AAsA6q.jpg
LMS-X – Gowind ASW multistatic sonar operations concept
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GOyk92hagAArC7f.jpg
Off topic
What is the latest status of KD Laksamana Muhammad Amin? Is it going to be completed?
Also looking at available information of the ongoing OP Programme for KD Ganyang. Basically it will be “transformed” into a sistership of the current KD Perkasa. Same hull and superstructure design, basically all new ship with the bofors 57mm and 40mm salvaged from the original KD Ganyang.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GURG1QSXoAANSlc.jpg
Planning to buy new ships is one thing. What about planning for decommissioning?
a decommissioning plan that ties-in into my tweaked Force Structure 2040 plan
>>>RMK13 2026-2030
Replaced 1to1 By Corvette batch 2
– KD Laksamana Hang Nadim
– KD Laksamana Tun Abdul jamil
– KD Laksamana Tan Pusmah
Replaced 1to1 by LMS-X batch 1 (but LMS-X continue weapons name like KD Keris)
– KD Perdana
– KD Serang
– KD Ganas
– KD Pendekar
– KD Gempita
– KD Handalan
Passed to APMM
– KD Keris class LMS68
– KD Kedah class Meko 100
>>>RMK14 2031-2035
Retired
– KD Mahamiru
– KD Jerai
– KD Ledang
– KD Kinabalu
Replaced 1to1 by LMS-X batch 2 (but LMS-X continue weapons name like KD Keris)
– KD Jerong
– KD Todak
– KD Paus
– KD Yu
– KD baung
– KD Pari
Passed to APMM
– KD Perkasa
– KD Ganyang
– KD Kasturi
– KD Lekir
– KD Jebat
– KD Lekiu
>>>RMK15 2036-2040
Retired
– KD Sri Indera Sakti
– KD Mahawangsa
Dundun “so, all these assets and nothing, not even a fart about shore defences?”
They did propose the FAC though. But to be fair it would be much more cost effective to just get MMEA some NGPV for shore patrol while giving the army something like or the equivalent of Nemesis and himar.
@dundun
“about shore defences?”
Let’s assume that shore defences like land-based anti ship missiles were operated by Army only or together with RMN, the batteries need to be
– mobile (move around as frequent as they can)
– have equal or more range than the ship based counterpart (for obvious reasons)
– be integrated with our national radar network or receive info from other assets
– defended by (at least) relatively advance SHORAD defence
Of course the above is the ideal requirements. If requirement is for gun based shore defence to defend, let say an RMN naval base, then any mobile short range gun system equipt with radar and optical sensor is sufficient
I have mentioned about this many times before here
Add 1 regiment (3-4 batteries) of shore-based NSM to Rejimen Artileri Diraja – Briged Artileri Roket (complementing the 2x Rejiment of ASTROS II launchers)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLhO2Paa8AAQin9.jpg
Each battery consists of:
» 3x MLV (Missile Launch Vehicles)
» 1x BCV (Battery Command Vehicle)
» 3x CCV (Combat Command Vehicles)
» 1x MCC (Mobile Communication Center)
» 1x MRV (Mobile Radar Vehicle) with TRS-15C radar
With its 200km range, it will add much into our maritime area denial capabilities
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLhQIBVboAAllCx.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMtbs42aoAAJGXs.jpg
Unfortunately while the penny pincher might be more than willing to pays for long range precision fire. The same couldn’t be said with the army whose wet for more armours.
… – “Amphibious landings happen on an airport ke”
If the airport is on the coast; on a isthmus…
Also, the said “amphibious” undertaking could be “amphibious” “movement” rather than “assault”.
… – “Defending our beaches does not need MRSS. That is the fact”
… – “There is no significant need to land our army on beaches not on our own territory”
The “fact” is that the MPSS is needed for a variety of roles and having a defensive posture does not mean one is purely on the defensive without any form of offence . There is such a thing as “active defence”; being entirely on the defective or adopting a positional mindset achieves nothing. You said something about “ sifting through all the bull$hit” …
We’ve been – like many things- through this before on multiple occasions. You’ll also need no reminders – or maybe you do – that the services plan for various things; it’s called “contingency planning”. Unless of course you have a crystal ball. Can you say which absolute certainty that a shore insertion to reinforce a certain area or a part of a tactical or even an administrative move in a littoral setting is absolutely inconceivable?
Tom Yom,
What’s so “confusing”? It’s been explained before. It depends on individual navies; a “corvette” can be a frigate in one navy and in. another navy a “frigate” can be a “destroyer”. Nothing “confusing”; merely what a navy chooses to designate its ships.
As pointed out to “…” on multiple occasions; one can have a “corvette” more heavily armed than a “frigate. A “corvette” doesn’t necessarily mean a hull is lightly armed or only for constabulary type duties. The IN’s Koras have 16 Urans and the way the Kedahs are fitted [3D radar; obstacle avoidance sonar; etc] signifies they are intended to perform certain wartime roles roles. Same with the Marikhs; despite their “OPV” designation that had a 10mm gun, a fairly high end radar and ESM.
Much has been said about a coastal defence system. Firstly it should be RMN not army operated; for obvious reasons. The RMN has the needed sensors and presence at sea; the army doesn’t. Secondly I’m not confident we’ll get the needed enablers to make such a system truly effective. No point having a long range shore based missile if its radar can’t see over the horizon and if intel obtained by a MPA or a UAS has to be relayed by voice over a cumbersome C3 set up. Also, lest it be overlooked deconfliction zones will have to be established
– “Tell me what are the main mission of the MRSS, and convince me those missions are critical for the defence of Malaysia”
Goodness gracious. I’ll “tell” you like I have various occasions. You can be told a million times but it counts for nothing if you ignore anything and everything which is contrary to your narrative. Or is it confirmation bias?
The MPSS is a jack of all trades performing both war and peacetime roles; from HADR to SAR to routine lift; to acting as tenders; roles performed by the Saktis and the LSTs prior to thdt. You keep asking and regurgitating but you are constantly told.
If the RMN has no need for then it would not have such a requirement. This may surprise you but the RMN has a pretty good idea as to what it needs and why. A RO Ro is a one trick pony which has inherent issues such as port sea keeping and DC. Look up a reason why the Atlantic Conyeyor sank. A RO Ro is great but as a supplement; not a substitute for a MPSS. Again: a MPSS is a multi role vessel; a Ro Ro isn’t.
As for the Kedahs it will be a long while before the RMN is able to hand them over. Instead of repeating the same thing over and over again; the questions which you’ve never bothered: does the MNEA actually want them; are they superfluous to its needs and will it want aged and d heavy to upkeep assets?
Perhaps also ask questions which are part of the narrative instead of just spinning the same tale over and over and hoping for an answer which suits you. No doubt even after the LMSs and MPSS undergo their first refit; you’ll still be making the claims you’ve been persistently making. You constantly claim something isn’t survivable but neglect to give the context. In a one off skirmish; a limited conflict or a protected high intensity war?
Context … Even a Tico cruiser would not be survivable in cereus conditions.
As for the beach demonstration; it was that; a demonstration for the press and public. Intended to be dramatic. You’re reading too much into
@ Azlan
If you don’t like my alternative idea, fine.
This is all what the TLDM will be in 2040
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GUwScD2aUAA2HuB.jpg
Only 31 ships
– 2x Sub (2x new sub to replace 2 existing scorpenes, that will be 30 years old in 2040)
– 7x LCS (5x Gowind, 2x new type?)
– 9x Corv (3x Turkish corvettes, 6x additional turkish corvettes?)
– 4x LMS (4x LMS68 made in china)
– 3x MRSS (new)
– 4x MCMV (new)
– 2x HSV (Hydrographic Survey Vessel – new)
There is no plans right now for 60++ ships for TLDM. Period.
This is my alternative plan :
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GULsw7-aAAAAePg?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
Logistics between east-west malaysia can be covered with 2x ROROs
HADR can be covered with 3x OSV and 18x LMS-X. Those OSV and LMS-X to be truly multi-role ships in the TLDM Fleet.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/australia-s-pacific-support-vessel-what-to-make-of-adv-reliant
– ”If you don’t like my alternative idea, fine”
Sorry but instead off going Sour Puss like; if you have been paying attention; this is not about me or anyone not liking your ”alternative” but pointing out that many things which you persist in regurgitating are simply untrue and it\s been pointed out why. … –
… – ”This is my alternative plan”
Yes which you\’ve presented before with the obligatory links ; as with other such plans. Ultimately one also has to make the distinction between what one wants to happen and what will likely happen; rather than stick to confirmation bias and ignore anything and everything which is at odds with your narrative.
… – ”Logistics between east-west malaysia can be covered with 2x ROROs”
They can be covered by Viking longboats or Creten caiques for all I care but again; MPSSs are multi purpose ships; unlike RoRos which are one trick ponies and have poor DC and sea keeping. If the RMN did not see the need for MPSSs it would not have a requirement for them. BTW the RMN has experience with Ro Ros having leased one for training years ago. Again; a Ro Ro is great but as a substitute; not as a replacement for a MPSS.
dundun – “can we get a more contemporary design that is actually a frigate design instead of an oversized corvette”
If an “oversized corvette” fits the requirements and there are little to no plans for a major upgrade which will entail the need for more deck and below deck space; what advantage is there going for an actual hull of a frigate?
Mofaz – “Interesting question what or who are our potential adversary ? China”
That is the issue; we don’t haver an adversary we can focus our efforts on. On China; well there is a tendency of rather an illusion on the part of some that if we have enough deterrence and adopt asymmetric tactics we can keep the Chinese at bay.
Delusion. As it stands even the U.S. and Japan would struggle against China. We lack the money, resources, manpower, tech base; engineering capacity and a long list of other things.
dundun – “so, all these assets and nothing, not even a fart about shore defences?”
Which for some countries are not a prerequisite. Depends on requirement, doctrine, geography, etc. For us I don’t see why it should be a priority when a long list of other more urgent stuff awaits funding. Shore based defences: like ground based air defences are only good if they are employed alongside other assets.
Each complementing each other. If it’s cheap and effective sea denial you require; we have mines.
… – “ This is when currently now our neighbours are getting large frigates and doubling down on more submarines. By 2040 TLDM will be among the weakest navies in South East Asia, even weaker than the Philippines Navy”
Sensationalism. This really remains to be seen; unless one has a crystal ball. Also, it’s not the “large frigates” and “mote submariners which are key but the right doctrine and having the needed territory capabilities.
12 are kinda straightforward but maybe should have gone for bigger better ship.But what did i know right.Bigger doesnt always means better but that additional space will come in handy in the future.Another but,its require more manpower and more money to operate and maintain them maybe thats why RMN sticking to the 1 type of LCS.So the kedahs and or LMS batch 2 will form PV/CORV squadron nice..Meaning RMN only need 12 more ships in this category (hard to get still but first 3 is a good start).That LMS will include chinese made? if not what are their predicted specs/requirement? bigger than chinese LMS but smaller than kedahs?
@Firdaus
TLDM needs ships of certain tonnage and certain abilities which needs to tradeoff with other abilities. While I cannot be certain, looking at the ship requirements so far, it appears to me that TLDM wants to focus on defence of littoral waters rather than deep seas, because even their biggest boats (LCS) are truly littoral, having quite shallow draught vs ships of similar displacement (ie Formidables) however this trades off with having lesser armaments & less range.
But of course they need more ships as they have to cover the waters of both East & West Msia. Whether a bigger boats additional space will come handy or not, Im a bit more skeptical on this need than Azlan, as we dont tend to do upgrade or significant addition that would make such use. Most of the upgrades & replacements are like 1:1 replacements of existing / expired stuff. A bigger ship will just make it difficult if impossible to operate close to littoral waters, which comes back to my 1st paragraph.
Azlan “As it stands even the U.S. and Japan would struggle against China. We lack the money, resources, manpower, tech base; engineering capacity and a long list of other”
Precisely why an Asian nato is more of a question of when rather than if.
Its make sense for almost everyone as they face the same *problems.