SHAH ALAM: The Auditor General (AG) has observed that the RMN has not achieved its aim to put into service new ships in its fleet based on the 15-to-5 transformation programme. The observation was made in its 2024 AG report made public on July 4.
According to the AG report, the RMN plan to have six LCS, ten LMS and two MRSS in RMK11 and RMK12 – the period spanning 2016 to 2025. However, RMN only took delivery of four LMS and the report stated the reasons for this.
Kelewatan penyiapan lima kapal LCS yang mana kapal tersebut sepatutnya disiapkan dan diterima pada tahun 2019 hingga 2022. Namun sehingga bulan Disember 2022, kapal tersebut masih belum diterima. Selain itu, Kerajaan juga memutuskan untuk mengurangkan perolehan kapal LCS
sebanyak satu unit.TLDM sepatutnya membuat perolehan 10 LMS di bawah RMKe-11 dan RMKe-12, namun hanya empat kapal LMS telah selesai dibuat perolehan dan diterima setakat 31 Disember 2022.
TLDM sepatutnya menerima dua kapal MRSS di bawah RMKe-12, tetapi perolehan hanya akan dilaksanakan di bawah RMKe-13 kerana kekangan peruntukan.
Unfortunately, the AG report did not give any recommendation to the government to provide the proper funding to ensure RMN gets new ships. It did state that:
Prestasi perolehan dan penerimaan kapal TLDM sehingga 31 Disember 2022 adalah tidak memuaskan kerana tidak dilaksanakan mengikut perancangan. Perkara ini boleh menjejaskan sasaran pegangan kapal di bawah Program Transformasi TLDM #15to5.
It said that the RMN had achieved its operational goals during the audit period though.
The report also stated that spare parts for ships worth RM384.49mil were not utilised, resulting in wasteful expenditure. The audit found that spare parts which were stored in Western Fleet supply Depot (DBAB) and Eastern Fleet Supply Depot (DBAT) were obsolete.
“DBAB had 1.62 million units of spare parts worth RM381.69mil, which was not utilised and the last utilised record being between 1969 and 2017.
“DBAT had 6040 units of spare parts worth RM2.8mil that were not utilised with the last used record being between 2017 and 2021,” it added.
The Defence Ministry and the RMN in its reply to the AG, stated that the spare parts were mostly for the PC fleet which were divested to the MMEA. The other spare parts were not utilized as the equipment on ships had been upgraded to other items.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Hmmmm, not enough new ships eh? Why not build more of ‘something simple and hard to go wrong’ ships, namely the Tun Fatimah (Damen 1800)class for the RMN? Something like 12 ships would do.
To lower cost, doesn’t need to be heavily armed. A Bofors 40mm Mk4 up front and 30mm on the hangar would do. And maybe Marte Mk2/N anti ship missiles. Close in air defence maybe Mistral missile or the like.
These ships can even be first line defence if the urgency rises.
Unfortunately it’s not its purview but if it was the AG could ask the government why the RMN is in the position it’s in.
In the pic of Sri Sarawak we can see the L shaped breakwater in the background. Needed, especially during the Monsoon.
The defense procurement system needs a major overhaul. A body should be created that is responsible for all defense procurements & given its own access to funds. It has to be a professional body, no politician involved
@Zainal
“namely the Tun Fatimah (Damen 1800)class”
Oh really? So what happen to OPV #2 & #3 now? Still in their rusting modules at the foreclosed yard? If MMEA is having delivery issues with their OPV program, no way it can help in TLDM shortage conundrum.
The AG report doesnt shed any new light on things that we havent already knew. But what are we supposed to, that is whats missing from the AG which is sad. We highlight a problem but no solution, end up repeat the same thing every year.
Why talk about Damen 1800 or something like that now? It’s a non-starter and will be chucked aside or binned by the powers that be…
@Joe
Well Joe, Tun Fatimah class OPV for the RMN are supposed to be more of a better armed (large) patrol vessel. Maybe a foolproof design so we can float maybe 12 of them to show presence in SCSea.
That does not take the thunder away from both the Maharaja Lela and Ada class which are tier 1 surface combatants (in our envelope).
Meanwhile, back in real world the RMN could have enough new vessels to go round if the Kedah class were built to 27 units. MRSS and MCMV vessels are extras.
Qamarul – ”The defense procurement system needs a major overhaul. ”
Correction. Everything from how we view defence; to how we allocate funding; to the role local companies play; to how we handle procurement needs a deep rooted fundamental apolitical revamp.
Zainal – “Why not build more of ‘something simple and hard to go wrong’ ship
Actually it’s “why not have a more serious outlook on defence” and ask ourselves why we have a MAD we can’t afford to equip the way we’d like [even with our minimalist a bit of everything but not enough of anything stretched over a ridiculously long period approach] and one whose capabilities don’t reflect what we’ve spent on it .
Zainal – “To lower cost, doesn’t need to be heavily armed”
One gets what one person for. A ship not “heavily armed” would mean it’s only good for very low end threats.
Zainal – “A Bofors 40mm Mk4 up front and 30mm on the hangar would do”
You do realise that a 40 man gun will be useless for NGFS; will have no range and blast effect for anti surface work and won’t be useful for dealing with incoming ASMs …
Zainal – “And maybe Marte Mk2/N anti ship missiles. Close in air defence maybe Mistral missile or the like”
– Why Marte in particular?
-,A V-SHORADs mount is great for short range targets flying below 10.,000 odd feet but nothing else.
Zainal – MRSS and MCMV vessels are extras“
Those are classes which the RMN has more of a need for and places more importance on. The Kedahs are limited on what they can be armed with due to their design.
Zainal – “That does not take the thunder away from both the Maharaja Lela and Ada class”
– The Batch 2s are just as well armed as the LCSs but don’t forget they are still secondary type ships which are intended to perform roles which don’t require a LCS and at fraction of the cost.
– Adding another class when we already or will have LCSs and LMSs would be contrary to the 5/15 which seeks to reduce the number of different classes as far as possible.
Zainal – “ so we can float maybe 12 of them to show presence in SCSea”
RMN ships on EEZ patrols are intended to have both peace and wartime roles. If we intend a ship to mainly or solely for peacetime roles then it should be MMEA operated.
Zainal – “Meanwhile, back in real world”
In the “real world” the idea of having 27 NGOPVs was floated about 27 or so years ago and is a dead as Elvis or the Dodo. As it stands I’d be extremely surprised if a 7th NGOPV is ever constructed.
Taib – “Why talk about Damen 1800 or something like that now”
My thoughts exactly. The focus is on the LCSs and LMSs.
@Zainal
“Tun Fatimah class OPV for the RMN are supposed to be more of a better armed”
Aside which the OPV itself is now ratshit delayed for MMEA and thus couldnt have helped with padding up TLDM numbers anyways, how are they better armed vs say LMS2? Fundamentally they arent even designed for mounting SSM & VL-SAM.
Hopeless, kena cukai sikit dah melalak, minyak nak subsidi cos’ Malaysian think oil is flowing beneath our feet (according to some politician) the problem with LCS is Mat Sabu cut the funding cos’ of perceived corruption and he didn’t understand how navy procurement works navy ship building usually start concurrently not one by one, by the time project start over again years later the hull is rusty and technology already obselete and cost increase two fold , thanks to simple minded voters now it require more fund to finished it just like everything in Malaysia nowadays
We always have all sort of issue when comes to building thing and equipment locally. But yet we never learn frm past mistake. Good example Kedah class ship! Now Gowind. Someone else songlap the $$$ Navy get the Junk and Rakyat get Cheated again n again.
Check the new boat before put in service cause its tersadai for years in ship yard. Remember its wast a ketul besi buruk and now put into service.
As the RMN is looking for two hydrographic and four minesweepers, perhaps the Damen 1800 design could be modded into one – using remotely operated USVs of course. This is the new amended 15 to 5 which have not been ratified of course.
This got nothing to do with the MMEA OPV. Just using the same design as it had been shown that it could be build here. One 40mm gun in the forward position and aft. And perhaps the Mistral MANPADs launchers for self air defence.
As for the MMEA OPV it is up to the Home Ministry to get the money to get uncompleted ships to be finished.
Optimus – “We always have all sort of issue when comes to building thing and equipment locally”
Indeed we do but we hen we also have a history of major issues and delays with ships constructed abroad.
Optimus – “We always have all sort of issue when comes to building thing and equipment locally”
Even if not a single cent had been misappropriated; the programme would still have gone ratshit for reasons well known.
Rusdi – “hull is rusty and technology already obselete and cost increase two fold”
– The rust is not and never was an issue and will be sorted out.
– The bulk of the gear is not obsolete.
The MCMVs will not have an operesa or wire sweep but USVs and UUVs to deal with moored and bottom laid mines with the MCMV not required to be in the “minefield”. Ideally it will also have small UASs to aid in the detection and identification of mines. Presently each MCMV has divers to aid in the identification of mines and even to destroy them – with charges – if required. What the RMN is looking at is a purpose built MCMVs hull; given how happy we’ve been with our Lericis I’d be surprised if we don’t give some serious thought towards working with Intermarine again.
The idea was to privatise the survey role with the RMN retaining a basic capability in the form of small survey ships; i.e. BH1 and BH2.,
As it stands the RMN was never fully convinced – like some navies – that privatising the survey role and relying on modular MCM payloads would provide the needed capabilities.
@Optimus
LCS went FUBAR not solely due to coruption or songlap but due to the project was underfunded to begin with.
If you want to renovate your house to a RM 100k looking unit but you tell yourself RM 50k is enough, what do you think will happen when the contractor stops work at RM 50k and there is no more funds to continue? Are you gonna blame the subcons songlap money or they were stealing small scoops of cement for something else, that had doomed this renovation?
“Just using the same design as it had been shown”
Someone said that it was preferable that hydro & MCMV are from purposed design hulls rather than using a multipurpose one, similar that I had proposed the idea for LMS1 to be derated and repurposed via reequipping with hydro or MCMV modules. This would ‘release’ the LMS tag to be reactualise on a more appropriately sized & equipped class of ship.
Some navies caught on with the modular payload approach. Some didn’t. Pros and cons.
The RMN’s position is that a purpose built MCMV hull is more effective. There is also a penalty with using a multi purpose hull; crews doing various things and not being able to spend the needed time on MCM which is a very skill intensive business. Granted our MCMVs do routine patrols – like other RMN ships – but crews get regular MCM practice.
Joe-LCS went FUBAR not solely due to coruption or songlap but due to the project was underfunded to begin with.
I have to disagree because the findings on the PAC reports suggested otherwise. That the funds for the ship was used to upgrade the yard. The budget allocated already calculate the cost for 6 ships with equipments because before quoting a price the company needs to sourced it out from the manufacturers. So after mark ups & whatnot they came with a number which was at RM9 billions. IMHO if a supplier can come up with a number they already calculated how much they will get profit minus the cost. But plans went ratshit as the government fell & lose its seat. Then there was covid. This is the result of contractors spent the money for upgrading its own yard rather than buying things for the ship!.
Qamarul – ”I have to disagree because the findings on the PAC reports suggested otherwise.”
Based on what’s been reported; in addition to a lack of funds; unrealistic schedule; lack of oversight and other factors all came together to bugger the programme.
Qamarul – ”IMHO if a supplier can come up with a number they already calculated how much they will get profit minus the cost.”
Ultimately it was an issue – again – of the needs of the local industry overriding that of the end user and taxpayer.
“modular payload approach. Some didn’t. Pros and cons.”
Rather than focused on the modular design itself, Im referring more on multipurpose hull as highlighted by Marhalim, whether a corvette ship class can be reconfig to hydro or MCMV purpose as mentioned, if its viable then the same approach can be done on the LMS1 but rather than modular payload, the respective hydro/MCMV equipment can be permanently mounted say 2 hydros & 2 MCMVs. For political purpose this would clear up the ADA class incoming as the ‘sole’ LMS fleet.
@Qamarul
“That the funds for the ship was used to upgrade the yard.”
Indeed it was something that I also highlighted on the fund shortage, as well the various trips taken by officials. But still RM 9bil is way shorter than the RM 11+bil that is needed to (arguably) complete FIVE ships. And I have said it before, RM 1.5bil is just way too low for such a hightech warship, realistically it goes in the range of RM 2.5-3.5bil and guess what, the current RM 2.2bil is somewhere within my ballpark and I will bet that 11+bil is not the final bill as I predict it will reach somewhere in the 13bil if we stop at 5 hulls.
Want to believe the PAC report? It did not mention any huge chunk of the budget going to corruption or leakages that would indicate it would doom the project. Guess what the PAC are filled by persons of interests then and now. Which is why you dont find what is the root cause of the failure and neither did it point to any accountability. Go figure how useful is that PAC report.
“supplier can come up with a number they already calculated”
It was also the Govt that pushed this project onto BNS so how much autonomy on the macro decisions they have on the project is also doubtful such as the budget itself. Govt departments usually have a fixed amount budget what they can allocate.
LMS 1 cannot be a modular hull as we can only have China made stuff on board. No one would sell us things even guns if it’s built on China made hull. China has not need to build stuff for modular ships as they got the fund build every type of ships they need.
That is why I said the Damen 1800 hull as the basis for the MCMV and hydrographic ships. First of all, even a yard without prior experience could built one – albeit support from Damen – so we know for sure any of the experience shipyard in Malaysia could built a same hull albeit a few changes, damage control and power plants to meet RMN requirements.
Do note that Damen has built a slightly bigger ship for – the Damen 2200 – for the Pakistan navy which has similar engineering experience as with the RMN.
As for BNS and LCS, as I had mentioned before, the project was awarded to them as a reward and to recover the losses they had to incur for taking over the SGPV/Kedah class project.
The LCS fiasco came about due to hubris as those who took over it thought they had the experience, in shipbuilding to the extent that they thought they could make money out of it. As they learnt from the documents how the other people make money from the SGPV/Kedah class project.
Qamarul – ”This is the result of contractors spent the money for upgrading its own yard rather than buying things for the ship!.”
You’re claiming that if the contractor had not ”spent the money for upgrading its own yard rather than buying things for the ship” the ships would have been delivered on schedule and on budget.
”whether a corvette ship class can be reconfig to hydro or MCMV purpose as mentioned,”
n paper of course it can but in reality a user might desire certain features which might not be feasible; i.e. even if modern MCMVs are not required to enter a minefield a user might still want it to be shock proofed in the event an undetected mine exploded close by.
I believe that Western stuff can be installed on the Batch 1s without security concerns on the part of Western OEMs being an issue.
It’s just that it would not be worth the effort or the costs. Various things would have to be ripped out and replaced; in addition to the integration, certification and documentation costs. What could also be done Is to have certain things fitted; i.e. a V-SHORADs mount but standalone rather than integrated to the FCS [there is no CMS per see]. There is also nothing stopping us getting say the STN Atlas ASW suite which is in a 20 foot container [containing the operators and the consoles] and operated standalone with zero interfacing with the ship’s other systems.
As it stands all this talk is academic as the RMN would not want to spend anything on the class; preferring to save the cash for other things. I would also like to add that despite being derided for being only armed with guns [not the fault of the RMN] the class serves a useful purpose. For routine day to day peacetime roles it has far superior seakeeping and endurance over the FACs and the 4 extra hull took some strain off the RMN.
I actually spoke to several representatives of OEMs about this and all of them said no.
Well then I’m mistaken.
I was going on the basis that very things could be fitted and operated standalone and that a number of countries; Thailand included; have Chinese hulls with Western gear.
Another options is to just install the MCM Equipment on the Ada class.
I asked even on stand alone systems and they said no. I asked on a gun mount and a SHORAD system. I believed that they are not bothered as it is likely that they have to go through the hoops to get the export clearance from their government but they do not make much money out of it as we buy in small quantity.
I believed the Thailand ships only got their Western stuff after a mid life update, not when they were brand new. If it was this happened some 10-15 years before the embargo of selling military/dual usage stuff to China.
I do believe the three Ada class on order are already maxed out. Furthermore one does not use anti-surface and anti-air corvette to hunt mines.
That is why I like the idea – which was not mine – to use the Damen 1800 design – as the basis for MCM and hydrographic ships. The latest MCM ship design from the French/Belgium is too expensive and while Intermarine still offers the Lerici class for MCM, I am not sure the design has kept up with the latest MCM designs.
You could be right but from what I know the Pattani class entered service with COSYS and the Naresuan class from the onset had ESSM and Harpoon. Perhaps things have changed in recent years due to increased tensions with China over various things.
Zaft,
What? Take a look at the design and ask yourself if the design is suitable for the placing of MCM payloads. Another issue is that the RMN has made clear it sees the need for a purpose built hull. As I mentioned years ago the RMN included modular payloads in the 5/15 not out of choice but necessity.
Intermarine is still very much in the MCMV business. A few years ago it delivered a number of hulls to Finland. MCMVs are inherently expensive because of the way their hulls are constructed. They have to be quieter and have a level of shock proofing compared to other hulls. The main difference of course is that MCMVs don’t have to enter a mine field to deploy wire sweeps but can deploy USVs and UUVs from a distance. This however for some navies does not do away with the need for a purpose built hull.
“Unfortunately, the AG report did not give any recommendation to the government to provide the proper funding to ensure RMN gets new ships”
Well AG’s job is to mainly highlight the problems, not providing solutions to solve the problems, though understandable.
There had been multiple proposal (from us the civilians) of using Damen OPV hull for RMN use, example was Damen OPV hull for LMS (low cost hull with shorter range sensors, SHORAD and 4x AShM for example)
On the note of Damen OPV hull for MCM, IMO it is less suitable or not ideal as it has metal based hull (i assume the same for LMS batch 1 as well). The Finnish Katanpaa is one example of purpose built MCMV at roughly usd100 per ship.
For other combatant ships, modified LMS batch 2 class with additional 4x KVLS cells for Red Shark K-ASROC torpedo plus Yakamoz or KraitSense sonar could be candidate for LMS Batch 3 (remaining 6 LMS for total of 18 LMS) for a limited LCS compliment role. The “corvette” is still a mystery one (for me) as it’s a mix of Kedah (speed), LMS batch 2 (weapons) and LCS (crew size)
Luqman,
What’s interesting is that the RN has issued a requirement fir a long range ASW weapon. It had one in the past in the form of the Australian Ikara. The Italians and Russians still have the Milas and Silex. Has a close look at Silex when a Russian Udaloy docked at Port Klang in the early 2000’s. It’s massive.
On ASW rockets we had the Bofors 375mm. The Swedes I believe still have ASW rockets for use in littoral conditions. The Russians still have the RBU series; seen on land in the Ukraine for the direct fire role. Ultimately unless it’s a long range system; any ship ASW weapon will be a short range one for self defence. The main means of engaging a contact will be a helo. What will change the way ASW is conducted in the coming years are UASs and USVs configured for ASW; working independently or in conjunction with ships and MPAs.
@Azlan
Thank you for the info. my view is that RN might not adopt a foreign design likely due to their insistence of still using their Stingray torpedo, so some sort of local developmental effort might be done (strapping a rocket booster plus fins, actuators and inertial guidance is relatively not too difficult) or adapt the Stingray to ASROC and MILAS
Sorry for my typo on previous post, supposed to be usd100 million.
Looking back at the revised RMN 15 to 5 plan, I made mistake of didnt noticed RMN still required 18x PV. Assuming that PV is still a gun only boat (like Kedahs or LMS batch 1), it will be redundant to MMEA and less money spent on missile capable ship.
For the 12x PV, I think RMN should rather go for a cheaper hull like Damen 1800 or Damen 1400 OPV or even Gagah Samudera class hulls which already FFBNW Exocets, torpedos and RAM. Either of these hulls cost around usd50 million.
Example taking Gagah Samudera as the base hull
– remove the 2 cranes
– add a small X-band PESA/AESA
– integrate 4x NSM or Atmaca
– add 2x Mistrale in 6x Sadral mount (1 atop the bridge, 1 at aft)
– add additional 1x 30mm gun at aft
These should roughly cost additional usd20-30 million for an final price of usd70-80 million each. Yes I know some out there will prefer to have smaller ships with axed bow and 8-16x AShM. My plans is just an alternative
“I asked even on stand alone systems and they said no.”
I guess even if has nothing to do with integration to Chinese systems, many Western OEM would be afraid to even get involved with Chinese gear for fear of getting embargoed by their Govt/ USA/ Western powers. Case in point even Chinese companies that has nothing to do with Ukraine war are being sanction just for selling to Russian civvie consumers. That is how crazy the USA sanction monster has became.
“AG’s job is to mainly highlight the problems, not providing solutions”
That is the problem with our Govt. Every year we like to highlight issues to make rakyat angry but no solutions, later everyone forget. Then next year same issue highlight again & repeat.
Luqman – ”insistence of still using their Stingray torpedo”
At the 1st or 2nd LIMA I remember asking a Yarrow guy why we didn’t order Stingray for the Lekius. He said it was too expensive. Till this day the RTN remains the only regional customer for it; on the Ratanakosin frigates. It is reportedly a very good shallow water torp.
Luqman – ”insistence of still using their Stingray torpedo”
Doubt we’ll see follow on NGOPVs/Kedahs but if we do – like how it insisted with the LMS BAtch 2s – the RMN will insist it’s fitted out.
It’s not a question of getting embargoed because they have to apply for an export license first; irrespective of who the customer is. Their main fear is that if integration/certification is done; the Chinese might be able to acquire certain information which the Western companies would rather anyone not have. Or it could be Western companies not seeing it worth their time; as Marhalim alluded to.
“but no solutions”
There will be “no solutions” until we increase the budget and ensure we get the best or optimum value for what we spend.
increase the budget is one thing but more crucial things to change here is how we do things.The budget are hard enough to secure but when the govt release the fund everyone want a piece of them..So yeah rising the budget will not solve anything.I seconded the suggestion to form a defence aquisition agency, like korea’s dapa to overseer all defence equipment procurement.This agency must be directly under YDPA
On another issue; what is 391 Royal Artillery Regiment equipped with? Also, we know that 33 Royal Artillery Regiment; in addition to the GDF; operated Igla. Do we know which regiment operates the FN-6?
Rejimen 391 Artileri Diraja equip with?
Firdaus – ”So yeah rising the budget will not solve anything”
In other words ”ensure we get the best or optimum value for what we spend” which is dependent on a deep fundamental revamp towards our whole approach to defence; from how we allocate spending; to the role local companies/vendors play to the overall apathetic mindset/attitude we have.
”I seconded the suggestion to form a defence aquisition agency, like korea’s dapa to overseer all defence equipment procurement.This agency must be directly under YDPA”
Like ARMSCOR and FMV. A apolitical agency comprising the MOF, Foreign Ministry; the 3 services and others; tasked with ensuring the armed services get the most value for what the taxpayers spend and ensuring contractual obligations are met. Ultimately this agency will only work if we increase the budget and totally revamp how we do things. If we have this agency but still maintain the present course with our self defeating policy and the attitude that defence isn’t a priority and that when we spend priority should be the local industry; pointless.
@Firdaus
“more crucial things to change here is how we do things.”
Lets not put the cart before the horse. Without sufficient money whatever we do to improve is angan2 taik ayam. Like in life, we can scrounge & save the best ability possible, but if we cannot earn enough money to survive, whatever we do is meaningless as we will eventually starve to death.
Take example, SG has the same disadvantages we had when they prioritise national interests by going local in a lot of their equipment. The consequences is their SAR21, Bionix, Hunter, Terrex, Formidables, et al are far more costly than equivalent mass marketed off-the-shelf equivalents from bigger OEM suppliers, not to mention the USA. How could they success their costly programs while ours fail over & over? Its all about having realistic expectations; making sure they have clear vision what to expect, there is sufficient money from end to end (concept design until mass production), and having sufficient volume to make local production have at least some sense. They did not go into this with the dream that they could make things cheaper than the outside market like we did with LCS, and they did not do it with expectations of being hub of anything (like FA50) or export sales (like M4). It doesnt need to have a committee to make it right, SG doesnt have one. All it needs is for things to make real $en$e with the right expectations.
Otoh, a rising budget does solve a lot of pertinent problems; we could go with preferred Western equipment rather than shopping for cut rate Russki or Chinese gear, we can buy the sufficient quantities that we need, we can then invest into integration of the equipment & our forces, and really the only problem yet to resolve for LCS is just the lack of money. If you ever tried shopping in a high end grocery with just RM 100 you will know what I mean.
Firdaus,
To keep it short we need a realistic assessment of what we want to achieve and what we actually can. Yes the budget should be increased but if that does not happen in parallel with fundamental changes in how we go about things; the increased budget will account for nothing. Defence will remain something which is not a priority; we won’t get the best value for what we spend and the MAF will have capabilities which don’t reflect all we’ve spent on it.
@Azlan
“Doubt we’ll see follow on NGOPVs/Kedahs”
I really hope we don’t. It would be more sense for me that RMN have 24x LMS B2, 12x LCS and no OPV…assuming MMEA could have extra 6-9x new OPV on top of current Damen OPV by that time…but then again reality might say otherwise
@Firdaus
“So yeah rising the budget will not solve anything”
To put it simply (as other already explained), raising the budget can solve certain things but not everything
Luqman,
As was explained to previously to someone else; in the unlikely event we do get follow on Kedahs; they – despite their “OPV” designation – will have also have warfighting capabilities; i.e. fully fitted out. The intention is not to get follow on Kedahs armed only with guns and whose main role is peacetime constabulary type duties as “OPVs”.