SHAH ALAM: Nothing to see here. Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation (BHIC) reported a rather lackluster performance for the first six months of the year though it will depend on what report you read.
The Edge reported that:
Boustead Heavy Industries Corp Bhd (BHIC), which slipped into the red in the second quarter ended June 30, 2020 (2QFY20) from a year ago, is looking to grow its business in the aerospace, marine and land sectors to enlarge its market base beyond government-related projects.
The NST was slightly positive though:
Boustead Heavy Industries Corp Bhd (BHIC) posted a net profit of RM19.82 million in the first half (H1) ended June 30 2020 from from a net loss of RM1.36 million a year ago. Group revenue, however, eased 11.4 per cent to RM79.95 million from RM90.23 million previously.
The numbers above were announced in the BHIC announcement to Bursa Malaysia of its financial report for the first six months of 2020. It is a 17 pages long document but despite the recent announcement on the LCS, BHIC only included one line on the project.
Our Associate, Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (“BNS”) continues engaging with the relevant stakeholders to finalise the current issues on LCS programme
.
Perhaps it want to keep it under the radar as it work behind the scenes to resolve the problem. However as it is an existential programme for the company it certainly deserves further than one paragraph explaination.
From the prospects part of the announcement:
Being part of the Boustead Group, BHIC’s initiatives support Boustead Holdings Berhad’s Transformation Plan dubbed EDGE20 that was launched on 16 July 2020. This is a three-year journey to transform Boustead Group into a high performing and sustainable conglomerate. EDGE20 contains 20 initiatives covering Funding, Structural, Operational and Corporate Governance.
In line with the key objectives of the plan to strengthen the Group’s prospects and unlock value, we have put in place plans to enhance efficiency and productivity to steer ourselves back on the path of profitability.The Group remain cautious about its prospects in the current financial year amidst the adverse effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the nation’s and the global economy.
It is expected that the impending economic slowdown to affect the Defence budget but the Group is confident that the Malaysian Government will not waver from its commitment to protect the nation’s defence sector. The movement restrictions imposed in China and Malaysia to curb the Covid-19 pandemic had caused some delay to the Littoral Mission Ship (“LMS”) programme.
Although work has partially resumed, the milestones of the project will have to be reviewed given the delay caused by the lockdown.
Our Associate, Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (“BNS”) continues engaging with the relevant stakeholders to finalise the current issues on LCS programme.
The contracts awarded to the Group’s joint ventures for the In-Service Support for the RMN’s Prime Minister’s Class Submarines and extension for the Integrated Maintenance and Logistic Support Services on three units of MMEA Dauphin AS365N3 helicopters, are expected to positively contribute to the Group’s bottomline.
With regard to the winding-up petition served by MTU Services (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd on our Associate, BNS, we are assessing the operational and financial impacts of the petition on BNS and we have engaged legal counsel to advise us on the matter.
As for the last paragraph, this is probably the reason the government had decided to take the possession of the LCS – the hulls, steel and other equipment stored at BNS facility in Lumut – just in case the MTU managed to get the winding up petition against BNS. It was the lessons learnt from the training ship fiasco.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
So your last paragraph answered some of my question previously. but that sounds very serious (winding up petition) and want to know more about the reason for that.
Reply
Again without access to the winding up petition it will be impossible for me to say anything about it
If BNS does windup, how will it affect the sub refit contract just recently awarded to them? And if BNS does end up getting liquidated, do we have other options where to refit our subs (other than DCNS)?
Reply
I think the winding up petition only covers the BNS in Lumut, not its subsidiaries or associate companies. That said I am not purview to the petition itself
lets say the government decides to stop all funding for the gowind project.
a) Would the RM6 Billion already paid to BNS able to complete at least 4 ships?
b) should we go and get a cheaper alternative frigate design as soon as next year (start of RMK12) to fulfill the tasks of the gowind frigates?
Reply
Personally if I have some US$5 billion laying around, I will buy 18 98 meter Sigma corvettes from Damen for RMN. It will be equipped with a 76mm gun, a 12 box launchers for CAMM, 12 Exocet launchers and two triple torpedo launchers.
@ marhalim
Our naval development expenditure is usd2 billion for one RMK…
I am thinking, rather than pushing forward with the gowinds and getting more of that (which is really a shame, because it is a good design and does not reflect the bad situation the project is in right now), probably get a similar frigate but cheaper and probably less complicated?
The Hyundai HDF-2600 design is quite nice and with a cost of about usd165 million each we could get 6 for around usd1 billion. These is nearly as large as the gowind frigates, adequately armed and costs nearly half of the smaller less equipped kedah class opvs. Koreans are good at keeping to timelines, and also open to building them in customers country.
What we could do is to have the 1st batch of say 6 to be build in korea. Then a 2nd batch in RMK13 to be build in Malaysia, but at say 3 different shipyards (2 each at labuan, miri, pasir gudang) to encourage healthy competition.
To enable the first batch to afford a towed array sonar (captas-2), equipments such as the TRS-3D radar and FCS to be cannibalised from the kedah class ships.
So by 2030 TLDM would have
2x Lekiu F2000
4x Maharajalela Gowind
12x HHI HDF-2600 Mod MY
2x kasturi retired and sold to free up manpower and operational budget.
6x kedah downgraded to pure OPV passed on to MMEA to free up manpower and operational budget.
Can be done still within the existing level of TLDM development budget of usd2 billion per RMK.
Reply
If its a frigate size it should be done where the design is done. Patrol boats and OPVs could be done in country.
@Marhalim.
I see. But if BNS does gets foreclosed, would that affect BDNC access to their Lumut shipyard in order to refit the subs & LCS? That would be a disaster as these kinda legal fight could last in court for years.
Reply
None of the sub work is done in Lumut, the amount of money being claimed by MTU is just RM56 million plenty of things they can take from BNS without waiting for years, if they can get the petition. The case regarding the Samudera class took around two years so that’s a fair timeline to look at
@…
A) If not mistaken gov said can only complete 2 ships for rm9 billion right?
B) yes if the cheaper alternative is a Kedah class variant with NSM and mica/camm/essm. Other than that we probably have to source out new designs which meant new tot etc which we all know increase the total cost.
@ luqman
a) The target is at least 2. Which is where my question comes in, can it be actually stretched to 4 ships without needing any additional funds?
b) The kedah class as it is, is much more expensive (usd300 mil vs usd165 mil), smaller (1850 ton vs 2900 ton), and less armed than the HHI HDF-2600. To fully arm the kedah class, you will be looking at gowind prices, which is why we buy the gowinds in the 1st place.
The worse case scenario IMO for tldm surface ship fleet would be
By 2030 TLDM would have
2x Lekiu F2000 frigate
2x Kasturi corvettes
0x Maharajalela Gowind frigates
12x HHI HDF-2600 Mod MY frigates
And a lost/write-off of rm6 billion ringgit from the gowind adventure.
Reply
If we buy the South Korean frigates as you envisaged. In reality it will be 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturis and 4 LCS
@ marhalim
” My take 2 Lekiu, 2 Kasturis and 2 LCS ”
There would be a high possibility that to even get 2 LCS, we need to pump additional rm3 billion into the bottomless money pit, with the option 1 and 2 of continuing the LCS project, for a total of rm9 billion for just 2 ships.
I am all in if we can finish at least 4 LCS without needing to pump in additional 3 billion ringgit (so the cost capped to just the rm6 billion already paid for). But if we need to pump in additional 3 billion ringgit, just to get 2 LCS, it would be better if we spend 4.2 billion ringgit and we can confirm to get 6 frigates on time right?
Reply
I am all for more ships for RMN but its unlikely the government will even consider scrapping a RM6 billion project and spend another RM4.2 billion for six totally different ships.
@Marhalim
I see. Thanks for info. It doesn’t sound as bad when you put that way. However TLDM should plan ahead for servicing contingencies in case BNS & BDNC are unable to perform the scheduled servicing.
As for building frigate-sized vessels, I still stand that we can do it. Our industry have built far larger carrier vessels for MISC so we have the technical capabilities to perform the job. Our only failing were project planning & oversight, proper budgeting, and free from meddling during builds. A professional shipbuilder managing the project here can resolve most of the issues above. If these issues are not eliminated from a project with firm leadership & direction, even building simple skiffs would face the same hiccups as LCS did.
Quite a lot of the parts for the Gowinds actually have been paid for. We got to know this due to BNS need to inform shareholders of this spending.
https://bousteadholdings.listedcompany.com/newsroom/BSTEAD220413.pdf
For example the 6x Captas-2 TAS and 6x SMART-S has been paid for in April 2013 (when the RM exchange rate was about 3.1 to the USD). All of these items can be reused in other future TLDM ships.
@ marhalim
” I am all for more ships for RMN but its unlikely the government will even consider scrapping a RM6 billion project and spend another RM4.2 billion for six totally different ships ”
The option for not scrapping the LCS project is the high possibility of being left with only 2 LCS Frigates for RM9 billion.
It is much better IMO to lose RM6 billion and need to spend RM4.2 billion, but we can be sure to actually get 6 Frigates, that can be fitted with all the things like Captas-2 TAS and NSM missiles already paid for.
For NSM.
We actually has paid for USD153 million just for the missiles in 2018. That is quite a number of missiles.
From US Navy initial NSM contract, for USD14.8 million buys about 12 missiles.
9bill for only 2 lcs? Seriously 4.5 bill pership? Are we building a helicarrier here?…push bns to finish 4 ship with 6 bill already paid to them..by hook or by crook. .
As far as I’m aware all or most of the major items – MICA the exception – have already been ordered and paid for.
To funded separately; there’s of course the need for ASW configured helos without which the LCSs won’t have complete ASW capability.
Should the RMN not get the 6 ships as intended there will be long term ramifications. It will add to further delays in the RMN getting its minimum number of mainline surface combatants.
Not too mention another nail being added to 5/15s coffin. The 5/15 had to all intents and purposes already ceased being the “5/15” due to issues with the LCS.
All headache already…. Kedah class should armed with NSM or Exocet SSM n RAMsys limited SAMs for anti surfaces role, let the 4 unit of Gowind 3000 become ASW role.. Another 2 Gowind can become AAW equipped with more powerful radar with Essm for area air defense instead of Mica. As for Lekiu class, sea wolf still can replaced with Mica or Sea Captor..
Which is probably why I detest the majority of retired Generals and Admirals. They should all retire in entirety, and not harbor hopes of being made Directors or Chairmen of public listed companies or GLCs. They have all been too busy playing golf in the immediate years leading to their retirement that they aren’t capable of administering or approving anything more difficult than the menu at the officers’ mess! Just play with the grandkids or do a bit of puttying in the garden for goodness’ sake. The LCS disaster gives me heartburn! 😔
Firsaus – “ush bns to finish 4 ship with 6 bill already paid to them..by hook or by crook”
Fine in principle ….
In reality what happens if BNS can’t on its own raise the cash needed to complete the contract? Who does it benefit if BNS goes bust leading to not a single ship being delivered? How kind will it take for another party too enter the scene and take over and at what cost to the taxpayer?
I’ll be quick to label this cock up as yet another programme which has gone rat shit and reflective of how deeply flawed out entire defence policy is but I have no idea as the exact circumstances which led to where the LCS programme is now …
Fadiman
– NSM will have to be integrated with COSYS. There were plans to arm the Kedahs with Exocets and also follow ones (if any) but it will depend on various things. Priority was the LCS with the Kedahs and LMSs playing a secondary role but a huge question mark now hovers above the LCSs.
– For the AA role the LCS should have more than a16 cell VLS but there isn’t the below deck space. It isn’t just the issue of what missile is used but also the radar and networking which enables “area defence ….
/- Enabling the LCS to have a ASW role will not change the fact that they are still multi role vessels and will also be armed with other types of weapons. Also, for them to be truly effective in the ASW role will require embarked ASW configured helos..
@Taib
They either become Directors, or Chairmen, or CEO, or EDs or politicians.
What is the menu at the officer’s mess? Now I’m curious…
@…
“https://bousteadholdings.listedcompany.com/newsroom/BSTEAD220413.pdf
For example the 6x Captas-2 TAS and 6x SMART-S has been paid for in April 2013 (when the RM exchange rate was about 3.1 to the USD).”
As far as i know the link and other source did not state the total number of items paid, just the price for each of them. But if we did had paid for all the radars and sonars, we can fit it to any hulls even the Kedah.
The Kedah cost usd300 million because of tot payment and the delays. BNS did offered a lower spec kedah for usd150 million.
That being said regardless of any ship, i think we should just buy from outside rather than build ourselves. We can build LMS and PV locally but corvettes and frigates leave it to outsiders
As for NSM we bought between 90-100 of them if memory serves me right. These missiles can be integrated into Kedahs later on if we decide to completely phase out Exocets
Luqman- “That being said regardless of any ship, i think we should just buy from outside rather than build ourselves”
Maybe. For me I first want to find out what exactly went wrong and whether it could have been prevented.
If indeed we ever embark on another similar exercise again; we must first ensure that it’s a hull which can meet the requirements of the end user for the foreseeable future; that it can be enlarged/lengthened so that follow on batches can incorporate improvements.
Luqman – “, we can fit it to any hulls even the Kedah”
On paper anything’s possible but the fact remains that the Kedahs have very little or no deck space beyond the space intended for 4 SSMs and RAM (hardly any available for torp tubes); might make more sense placing the stuff intended for the LCS on another hull.
P.S.
If the intention was to ensure the end user got the desired capability and the taxpayer his/her money’s worth then the ships should have been constructed in France.
The issue is that it was intended to not only provide the RMN with an initial 6 ships but also to provide BNS with revenue and by doing so improving the ability of the local industry (so the thinking went). The idea was for follow batches to meet the RMN’s requirements and for BNS to have some level of economics of scale. Whether the actual design could have been enlarged/lengthened to meet future operational requirements; without major redesign work is unknown.
Along the way we also fell under the illusion (like we did with the M-4s) that the ships would be exportable. It was yet another programme driven heavily by political/national interests imperatives.
Chua – “What is the menu at the officer’s mess? Now I’m curious”
If you have in mind high end excessively priced food at your typical officers mess then you’re mistaken. Food at messes are usually provided by civilian caterers.
RMN ships though are well known for the quality of food: which I can can personally attest to. The cash spent on food is based on “x” amount per person per day. “Dry rations” are provided to each ship; “wet rations” being purchased and budgeted by the ship itself; based on a certain budget.
A winding up petition on the parent company would affect its subsidiaries as the parent owns the subsid company.
The best thing to do is to claim n take out everything concerned with the Gowind now. Physically takw out too.
Appoint other companies to complete the ships or just ger the French consortium to complete the project. Enough of all this localisation shit. Second time biten n we are still not shy.
Most embarassing
Reply
The petition is with BNS, the subsidiary company of Boustead Holdings and BHIC. I am not sure of a yard in Malaysia is big enough to store all of the hulls, steel and equipment of the LCS. Moreover the yard need to have security clearance first.
Support “local industry” they said.
It’ll be worthwhile they said.
I sincerely want to see us succeed, I truly do. It will be better in the long run if we’re able to do most of it on our own without getting too dependent on foreign expertise. There’s a need for a chance and opportunity for them to prove themselves. We need the knowledge, but at the same time I also believe there are needs to have some strict evaluation and performance monitoring taking place. We can’t afford to just give them project and funds for something they aren’t capable of doing. Everyone has to start somewhere, there is no shame in getting something small at first and slowly building your portfolio. But if one encounters failure after failure, they need to take a deep reflection and think, “Maybe this industry is not for me. There’s always other area.” and that’s okay too.
“Cut your coat according to your cloth.”
Reply
That was why long ago I wrote that the first LCS should be done in France so we could have a good game plan to follow on.
Looks like Pakistan will be getting all 4 of their Type 054AP Frigates before we will get our first gowind…
http://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/08/chinese-shipyard-launches-1st-type-054-a-p-frigate-for-pakistan-navy/
ps.
is my post sensitive enough to be deleted? i think it was okay as the letter does not have any secret or top secret stamp on it…
Should have build at least 2 lcs in france..if we build them at france they should be in service by now..even we dont get additional lcs after that at least we got two already..bns just incapable of building such ship from day 1 but they are too proud to say so..not to mention the pit of money they’ve been offered
“done in France so we could have a good game plan”
Exactly! Its not that we cannot do it but by building it all here, we didn’t foresee the high requirements needed to build them nor foresee the challenges & pitfalls ahead, basically we were walking blind confident that we knew the route out. This isn’t technical mistake at fault, it was a project planning & management mistake.
Firdaus – “bns just incapable of building such ship from day 1 but they are too proud to say so”
You’re making assumptions and being simplistic.,..
Yes there has been a massive cock up but do any of us here actually know the reasons behind it? Is BNS actually solely or largely to blame?
Yes it would have made more business sense to have the ships constructed in France (they fact they weren’t is because of the flawed policy we have in place) but can you say for certain that if all the proper conditions and prerequisites were in place; that BNS indeed can’t construct ships like these in time, on spec and within budget?
The problem is not just the issue with the LCSs but our whole defence policy. Until that’s sorted out we’ll continue making the same mistakes and not getting the best value for our money.
the problem is not just defence policy but the whole country…
Chua – “he problem is not just defence policy but the whole country…”
The fundamentally flawed and self defeating policy which prevents the end user from getting the desired capability on time and within budget; as well as the taxpayer his/her money’s worth is reflective of a lot of what’s flawed in the country ….
Looks like there are only 3 options available to the gov n they are:
1) to rescue BNS like what they did to MAS. pump in additional funds to settle the RM50+ million n pump in such sum as required to finish the ships in full
2) forget BNS n require BNS to resolve their own problem. Meantime instruct our Solicitor General to identify all the items already paid by the gov n owned by the gov n write in to the claimants lawyer n notifying our courts through an interpreter. Inform our Official Assignees Department of the govs claim.
3). Forget it. Treat it as lousy investment n write it off. Retender . This time no more BNS or any gov linked companies
Lee – “ This time no more BNS or any gov linked companies”
Easier said than done.
We’ve had a longstanding policy of running purchases in parallel with the intent to develop the local industry – whether government linked or not. This is why we’re in the rut we’re in and why the same mistakes keep reoccurring.
I’m all for a change in how we do things and have constantly harped on it but it will require a deep rooted/fundamental revamp in our defence policy and mindset. Not easy given how deeply ingrained the system is and the politics involved. For the politicians there’s also no incentive as the average voter remains indifferent …
@Lee Yoke Meng
We already sunken in Rm6Bil into this with 5 ships under build. We still have Rm3Bil remaining. IMHO the best way forward is to 1) Setup Parliamentary oversight committee with Auditor General as head, 2) replace the project management team with a professional one that will report monthly to the committee, 3) then remove all interference, 4) then use the remainder 3Bil and pump in whatever necessary to complete the 5 ships, 5) then seek legal recourse on what can deemed to be BNS fault and recoup the losses as much possible.
Both of your ideas does not say what would happen to the user, TLDM.
When can it get its desired capability, if at all?
Right now, there is only 4 ships that is in any way looked like one. The 5th exists only in loose components (20%), and the keel has not even officially laid down yet. There is only space for 4 ships in the shipyard.
What can be done right now is to decouple the gowind project from the TLDM capability programme. Treat the gowind as something if can be completed, will be added to the future TLDM capability. The current requirement for 6 LCS should be fulfilled by a programme of 6 new ships (that is needed to be fastracked) that we would be sure of getting.
Back to the gowinds. It is looking like we could at best complete 4 ships. If possible we need to push for the completion of 4 ships without the need to pump in RM3 billion more. If that is not possible, the hard decision of cutting lose this project need to be done. We could salvage all the components that we have paid for, sell off the partially completed hulls (UAE maybe?) and put the sonars, missiles, guns etc into new hulls. It would be bad for TLDM if at best we could only finish 4 ships for RM9 billion, and a disaster if RM9 billion only would complete just 2.
…. – “Both of your ideas does not say what would happen to the user, TLDM”
Indeed. Not only will the RMN not get the 6 ships intended to be its mainline combatants but the failure of the LCS programme will also have a detrimental consequence in other areas.
…. – “hould be fulfilled by a programme of 6 new ships (that is needed to be fastracked) that we would be sure of getting.””
And it should be design which can meet the RMN’s operational requirements for the foreseeable future; having some free deck and below deck space to enable upgrades at a later date.
You cant really cutting loose a rm9 billion program now can you? not when 6bill already paid…you said as if 6bill is a small amount of money..not to mention the time required to start a new frigate procurement program..RMN need those boats like right now..
@ azlan
What we need right now is a fastrack and fail safe plan to get 6 frigates in the water before 2025. Something bigger than the Gowinds would be expensive or too big as a main frigate for most of TLDM missions.
The least risky and affordable design is the HHI HDF-2600. It was designed for Tacticos like what TLDM wanted, and can be installed with either Smart-S or TRS-3D radar that we have and the CAPTAS-2 TAS that we ordered. We could have 6 HDF-2600 ships by 2025 if we can make the decision by next year. As most equipment bought for the Gowinds can be reused, a total budget of USD1 billion would be more than enough to get 6 of those HDF-2600 frigates.
Lets say we do get 6 HDF-2600 in RMK12. In RMK13 we could get another 6, but probably without say the Captas-2 TAS to save cost. So by 2030 we have 12 new Frigates, with probably less cost to buy the same number of Gowinds. Then in RMK13 and RMK14, we could buy 4 Type 31 Frigates, to Replace Lekiu and Kasturi, and as a larger ship that has some free deck and below deck space to enable upgrades at a later date.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/HDF-2500_Frigate_-_Front_at_ADAS_2018.jpg
http://euro-sd.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Royal-Navy-T31-General-Purpose-Frigate.jpg
@ Firdaus
Losing RM6 billion is nothing if you can restart and really confirm getting 6 new frigates instead. We lost so much more than that in 1MDB. From the RM6 billion, only half, or RM3 billion is paid to BNS. Aother RM3 billion is what the government already spent to buy government furnished equipments like the missiles and guns.
Continuing with the Gowind project does not guarantee us getting 6 Frigates for RM9 billion by 2025, and worse case scenario probably only 2 or even 0.
Is that so..so why bother starting lcs program then..what will happen to 3 billions that already been paid to bns..what will happen to those 4 hulls..
…. – “Something bigger than the Gowinds would be expensive or too big as a main frigate for most of TLDM missions”
Not necessarily. Steel is relatively cheap; it’s what goes on and under the steel that’s expensive. I’m looking at something slightly larger/longer than the present design; something which will have utility for many years come or the projected 25-30 years of it’s service life.
…. – “We could have 6 HDF-2600 ships by 2025 if we can make the decision by next year”
The keyword is “could”.. There is no sense of urgency, we don’t yet have a time line as to when the LSC issue will be resolved or how (except the fact that it’s safe to say that the 2 almost completed ships will eventually be delivered) and the bureaucracy and politics will take time (we never work fast).
… – “probably without say the Captas-2 TAS to save cost”
If it going to be a mainline combatant; a ASW sonar (whether hull mounted or otherwise) is something it can’t go without.
@Azlan, @…
I really admire your patience “melayan” Firdaus questions..he’s repeating more or less the same thing we’ve talked about in the past 2-3 articles –> 9 billion here, 6 billion there, you people OK with spending 6 billion –> loop
Anyone has any idea why the Pinoys are so belligerent now? No noise on Sabah for the past 30-40 years suddenly now they are claiming it like China does with the 9 dash line.
Reply
Some talk of autonomy from some politicians from Sabah has gained traction in the Philippines government and outside it as well. That said I don’t think the Sabah politicians also want have to do anything with the Philippines as well
@ azlan
” Not necessarily. Steel is relatively cheap ”
Okay.
Say out your ideal design that is proven and can be built without needing to do any further R&D. Something larger/longer than the the Gowind SGPV LCS but is cheaper.
Leave out the Type 31 as you say that it is too big for TLDM requirements.
” except the fact that it’s safe to say that the 2 almost completed ships will eventually be delivered ”
Right now even the completion of at least 2 units of Gowinds depends on pumping additional RM3 billion. I would prefer spending RM4.2 billion on getting TLDM 6 confirmed frigate on time, rather than putting in RM3 billion on the possibility of getting just 2 gowinds. It is of course something tough to do, and this is coming from someone who wanted so so much for the gowind programme to succeed.
@ ASM
I have said that i want to ignore him but i forgot…
@ azlan
” If it going to be a mainline combatant; a ASW sonar (whether hull mounted or otherwise) is something it can’t go without ”
I was thinking for the 1st batch of 6 HDF-2600 (in RMK12 2021-2025, costing USD1 billion not including parts already bought for the gowinds) to be fitted with all the equipment we have bought for the gowinds including the captas-2, and also equipped with a hull sonar (kingklip). A 2nd batch of 6 (in RMK13 2026-2030, also costing USD1 billion) will be equipped with a hull sonar (kingklip), but without a TAS. Of course the TAS could be pooled and put on ships that is to be on patrol.
ASM – “Anyone has any idea why the Pinoys are so belligerent now”
They are “assertive” not “belligerent”. It’s politics. Internal politics – plain as simple. The average Filipino has more pressing issues to worry about than Sabah. The issue doesn’t have the same natural emotional sentiment as say the
Malvinas/ Falklands and the average Argentine.
Having said that; politics being as it is there (just as viscous as here and in some ways even more so); it would be political suicide for any President to officially drop the claim. His opponents would rip him a new rear hole.
The people who have an emotional attachment with Sabah are what foreigners commonly call “suluks”. Yes, some of them want Sabah as a separate entity; not as part of the Philippines or Malaysia.
With Sabah going to the polls, everything and anything will be used as trigger points to the rakyat there. The Pinoy issue have been bubbling on and off like forever, only that Lahad Datu Invasion were things got serious and I doubt such magnitude will happen again in the current and near future. Nothing to see here, just move along.
And speaking of Pinoy, a pointed reminder to see the scandal they had with a certain HDF-2600 order(their only customer apparently). Do we want another potential scandal on our hands?
Ah so 6bill down the drain still considered normal nothing new..restart program,get new ship blah blah blah..its because its a huge sum of money!!..Please read about audit report recently and you will know why i keep asking about this sh**how..
“Ah so 6bill down the drain still considered normal nothing new..”
The thing is you keep on harping on the same stale thing over and over again. There’s something certainly very wrong with your comprehension to make a blanket statement like above about the readers here at least.
NO ONE IS HAPPY WITH THE CURRENT SITUATION, but the deed is done so just move forward and figure the best way out of this mess. BTW Mindef has not decided on anything yet.
Like Azlan mentioned many times, there has to be a complete overhaul of the current defence policy and procurement to avoid/minimise these kind of problems. Until that issue is addressed then expect more of it to come.
Banyak benda yang kita boleh anggap sebagai rugi.
Masalah dah ada di depan mata, jadi apa yang kita perlu buat?
Nak rugi RM6 billion (yang sebenarnya kita boleh dapat balik modal tu, dengan menggunakan kembali segala peralatan yg telah dibeli dengan duit tu dan menjual Hull yg separuh siap) dan belanjakan RM4.2 billion untuk mendapatkan 6 Frigat yang TLDM teramat perlukan sebelum 2025?
atau.
Nak jugak selamatkan RM6 billion dan tambah lagi RM3 billion, tapi dapat hanya 2 Frigat Gowind?? Yang dikejar tak dapat, yang digendong berciciran.
Dah, tak nak layan dah Firdaus ni.
@ joe
” And speaking of Pinoy, a pointed reminder to see the scandal they had with a certain HDF-2600 order(their only customer apparently). Do we want another potential scandal on our hands? ”
Did they get their ships?
The issue is the change of equipments compared to what their navy originally wants. Same issue with our gowinds too (TLDM wants tacticos etc but got setis etc.). To me that is a very minor issue in the overall scheme of things. But they still got their ships on budget and relatively on time (some delays due to covid19), unlike us, over budget, and still nowhere completed.
So why dont we go for korean frigates from the start? Lol..The way you put it like bns was incapable of building the lcs from the start..The money is the most important right or it is not anymore?
@…
Unlike us, their ships are made in OEM Korean yard, and unlike us perhaps the end user didn’t want to get involved nor allowed to get involved with changing the technical specs. After all, they did lose a Rear Admiral for sticking to their guns that it wasn’t what they wanted. The politicians made it quite clear the Navy are not to interfere and must swallow what they are given. Something that we did to our Armed Forces for the past many decades. Again I’m not sold on the HDF, as their only buyer needed to strongarm their end user in taking it.
As for me i’ve nothing againts hdf design but if we indeed select them we should arm them to the teeth unlike the jose rizal class..use equipment intended for lcs for them like …suggesting if they are compatible but please go for hdf3000..
@ joe
Okay you are not sold on that ship. So what is your suggestion then? How can we get our frigate capability with our merge budget?
The HDF-2600 is basically the cheapest and most capable frigate that you can get to assume the Gowind capability. And it is built by a country that will build them on time and on budget.
… – “1To me that is a very minor issue in the overall scheme of things””
To me it’s actually an issue of major concern when the local industry has the final say in determining what the end user should get; based not operational but imperatives but for other reasons. The CMS was only one of various components/systems that were specified by the local industry.
I’m not suggesting of course that the end user should get a free hand in specifying everything; merely that final should only be after thorough evaluation/deliberation by various parties; not just the local industry.
@ Firdaus
Where did I say BNS is incapable of building LCS from the start??
What point of I wanted so so much for the gowind programme to succeed that you cannot comprehend??
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THIS SAD SITUATION IS FOR TLDM TO FINALLY GET THE FRIGATE CAPABILITY THAT IT DESERVES TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY !!!!! NO USE TO TALK ABOUT MONEY IF OUR FREEDOM AND MERDEKA IS COMPROMISED !!!!
We have now come to a situation that there is high risk of not getting the capability we need by continuing the Gowind project. Shit has happened, and we need to commit to hard decisions to move forward. This is not the time for indecisions. I want TLDM to have a high tech frigate like the Gowind as the backbone of its Frigate capability. But with the current predicament, we are now at a situation that we will never get the capability we set out to get if we still continue with the Gowind programme. We will lose both money and the wanted capability, a lose-lose situation.
If anyone has better ideas, go ahead and put it out here for us to discuss.
@…
We are already deep in with LCS, my take for now is to complete it as best possible (see my reply to Lee Yoke Meng). There is no guarantee that going for another ship design and restarting everything won’t encounter other problems that would lead to the same outcome. Now that we(as in the Government) have visibility on the issues at hand, they can at least resolve these issues so that LCS can continue to proceed.
After this is done & dusted, then we can review if we should continue with Gowind or other ship designs. Again, I don’t think the design was bad (otherwise Egypt, UAE, Argie, Romania) won’t have went for it unlike HDF singular buyer) nor we were incapabled to build them, but it was a planning & management failure that FUBAR the project. That too I gave my PoV how to get our way out.
… – “Where did I say BNS is incapable of building LCS from the start??”
People tend to make assumptions without even knowing the facts.
With the NGOPVs we know it was due to mismanagement; with the LCS we just don’t know yet – doesn’t stop people from speculating of course.
Never mind whether we should or not (I believe we shouldn’t; but if all the important prerequisites are put in place; i don’t see why BNS can’t deliver such ships on schedule and within budget.
… – “Shit has happened, and we need to commit to hard decisions to move forward”
One of those hard decisions should be about the role the local industry plays and our defence policy as a whole. We need a hard and honest appraisal of why we bugger things up.
With regards to the LCS I’ll go beyond the present predicament and point out that we need to honestly and objectively ask ourselves if all the so called benefits we convinced ourselves would come along with constructing the ships locally were even achievable and whether the whole exercise would actually have led at any long term tangible benefits?
When the programme was announced many expressed skepticism. Others – including myself – were convinced that we had learnt from the NGOPV cock up and that history wouldn’t repeat – we were wrong.
If not properly resolved the LCS issue will have detrimental
long term consequences on practically everything else the RMN is doing. It goes way beyond the RMN not getting 6 ships that were to be it’s main line surface component.
@ azlan
We are not some rich country that could do custom bespoke everything. We need to go with cost effective and proven equipments.
You should not expect much if your budget does not stretch to it.
Also that is just a small part of the big story. There should also not be a change in major specifications once steel is cut. If you want to upgrade the specs, do it in the next batch. No use chasing for minor perfection, but in the end causing the whole program to fail.
… – “We are not some rich country that could do custom bespoke everything”
You mentioned this on a number of occasions. Very true but then I didn’t say anything to indicate I feel otherwise …….
As custom specifying stuff; that is the price we pay when politics dictates we get which won’t suit out operational operational requirements unless major modifications are performed – the MKMs a prime example.
We should only custom specify something if we intend on buying in large numbers; numbers that justify the time, hassle and expense.
… – “ We need to go with cost effective and proven equipments”
Actually we need stuff that suits our operational requirements. Stuff which is “cost effective” and “proven”is great but it should also fit into our overall scheme of things; from an operational; as well as a support/maintenance perspective.
Equipment which is “cost effective” for others may not necessarily equate to the same for us given the varying factors involved.
… – “If you want to upgrade the specs, do it in the next batch”
Which is why ideally a common hull would be adopted; a hull which could be the basis of an initial batch; as well as subsequent improved batches.
Reply
Major modifications were done on the MKMs as to meet the MRCA requirements. I was told that the original offer from Russia was a basic long range interceptor. In a hindsight it was a good decision as it afford RMAF a capable MRCA despite the other drawbacks for operating a small number of a very specialised fleet. It was fortunate as well that IAF also operate a similar type of aircraft. Without them we would have been fared far worse. But I’m assuming that was the reason the air force actually went for it otherwise they would have blocked it in some ways
@ joe
” my take for now is to complete it as best possible ”
To complete it as best as possible is still not the full 6 frigate capability TLDM should and need to get. How many billions would it take to really complete the 6 planned Gowinds? There is still so much uncertainties. At the current outlook is that we could be only getting 2 Gowinds at best for RM9 billion. Is getting just 2 ships for RM9 billion the best outcome for TLDM and malaysia?
Do you think having 2 Gowinds is better than 6 HDF-2600?
Marhalim,
Yes we were lucky. The IAF was able to help us with a maintenance syllabus; a lot of the needed manuals had already been translated by them.
One thing we didn’t cater for however were the MKMs becoming more labour and resource intensive compared to the Hothers.
Plans by HAL to have certain parts ready for export within 24 hours of payment haven’t materialised though.
@ASM
>”the deed is done so just move forward”
That’s what we say every year to every new scandal.
Same this year. Some menteri abused his position. Takpe2 move forward.
Malaysia’s typical Situation Normal All Fd Up.
For the past 60 years.
@…
IMHO having 4-5 proven ships is better than 6 unproven vessels. No we won’t get all 6 of the units that was planned but we will get those that have started building at the very least. After that, we can review if BNS is still suitable or perhaps have NAVAL build the 6th unit at France (if we have the money). At this juncture of the project, additional cost to complete is the least of my concerns. Again there is no guarantee there won’t be FUBAR if we were to start from scratch again. Looking historically, we likely will FUBAR it anyhow.
Recall that TLDM originally wanted SIGMA 105 w/ TACTICOS & ESSM. Pushing yet another platform not of their choosing could end up in the same situation as today. If we were to start from scratch, I would give in to TLDM’s wishlist for SIGMA 105 w/ TACTICOS & ESSM. Saves us the interference and on the fly spec changes headaches.
@ azlan
” Others – including myself – were convinced that we had learnt from the NGOPV cock up and that history wouldn’t repeat – we were wrong ”
Yes, I am convinced that we have learned from the Kedah class fiasco too. I was also convinced that the Gowind is the best design out of all the design offered to us for the SGPV LCS programme.
But history repeats itself and now the Gowind program is in shambles. Up till just a few weeks ago I am still hopeful and believe that the programme can be completed even with all the delays and additional budget needed. I really want to see TLDM equipped with one of the most advanced frigate design in numbers (i really hoped we would have more than 6 gowinds in the end).
But now with the latest situation, it is not even sure that we could get even 2 Gowinds in the end, and no chance whatsoever to see a second batch of the gowinds being built here. Second time a waste of money buying the design rights of a ship.
Why a hard decision needs to be taken urgently, and go for a different design (that is cheaper to offset the losses we had with the gowinds) and builder to get the 6 frigates TLDM needs before the end of RMK12. No need to buy the rights to the ship. Just pay the licence fee to build only what we need (if we want to build batch 2 of the same ship design).
@ joe
” Again there is no guarantee there won’t be FUBAR if we were to start from scratch again ”
Starting from scratch is better as there is no surprises (all will be laid out and start from zero, all the budgets needed are clearly known). I dont want to face with the possibility further surprises in store for us if we continue with the Gowinds (like we still are unsure if we can even complete 2 Gowinds for RM9 billion).
@Chua
“That’s what we say every year to every new scandal.
Same this year. Some menteri abused his position. Takpe2 move forward.”
I’ve never said anything about “takpe2x”. I am all for legal action taken against Boustead, hang the fools that cause this to happen etc but the pressing concern now is delivering the ships to RMN without hobbling it even further.
I have mentioned in the same comment that I, like most readers here, am not happy with situation and neither do I accept what happened willingly. But the situation is what it is, if you can go back in time and change it, please do so.
Compare the SIGMA 10514 with HDF-2600
SIGMA 10514
Cost: USD220 million hull only without armament
Displacement: 2,365 tons
Length: 105.11 m (344 ft 10 in)
Beam: 14.02 m (46 ft 0 in)
Draft: 3.75 m (12 ft 4 in)
Speed:
Maximum: 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph)
Cruising: 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
Economy: 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph)
Speed on E-propulsion: 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)
Range:
Cruising: 3,600 nmi (6,700 km; 4,100 mi)
Economy: 5,000 nmi (9,300 km; 5,800 mi)
Endurance: > 20 days at sea
Complement: 122 persons
HDF-2600
Cost: USD168.5 million complete excluding missiles and ammo
Displacement: 2,600 t (2,900 tons)
Length: 107.5 m (352 ft 8 in)
Beam: 13.8 m (45 ft 3 in)
Draft: ??
Speed: 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph)
Range: 4,500 nmi (8,300 km; 5,200 mi)
Endurance: 30 days
Complement:
Accommodation for 110 persons:
Crew: 65
Non-organic: 25
Additional personnel: 20
@ ASM
” I am all for legal action taken against Boustead, hang the fools that cause this to happen etc but the pressing concern now is delivering the ships to RMN without hobbling it even further.
I have mentioned in the same comment that I, like most readers here, am not happy with situation and neither do I accept what happened willingly. But the situation is what it is, if you can go back in time and change it, please do so. ”
Ditto. And very well said…
@…
“Starting from scratch is better as there is no surprises”
That’s what many thought when BNS started the LCS project too….
SIGMA, TLDM wanted
HDF, TLDM didn’t asked for. The same as Gowind.
“Malaysia’s typical Situation Normal All Fd Up.
For the past 60 years.”
Actually if you think about it carefully; not true.
During the years of the 2nd Emergency we had a clear purpose and a clear threat. We bought what we needed and in quantities we could sustain. Everything was utilitarian. The focus was counter insurgence and we also maintained some level of external defence.
Come PERISTA we also bought what we needed in line with our financial abilities – there was minimal political interference. The trouble started when Dr.M decided arms purchases should be based not just on whether it suited the end user’s requirements but also how it would benefit the country as a whole.
That’s gave rise to various local companies (quite a number appeared to handle certain deals and eventually disappeared – the MAF ended up paying the price) and the trade offs/offsets (with the illusion of “self sufficiency” and improving the local industry) and politics determining what we should get.
Which in turns brings us to the deep rut we’re in and the deeply flawed and self defeating defence policy we have; a policy which has left the MAF in a “neither here nor there” position and which hasn’t reflected how much we’ve actually spent over the years.
ASM – “But the situation is what it is, if you can go back in time and change it, please do so. ”
Alas we can’t.
Alas also there seems to be no desire to learn from our mistakes and make sure they don’t reoccur again. Fundamentally changing things is also not on top of the list as it requires changes with political implications and offers no incentives to the politicians who are aware the average voter is indifferent.
If we don’t change we’ll continue to not get the best value of what we spend, the MAF will continue to be under resourced, local companies will continue to make money and we’ll only have ourselves to blame ….
@ joe
” SIGMA, TLDM wanted
HDF, TLDM didn’t asked for. The same as Gowind ”
This happens everywhere. For example, aussie navy wanted burkes for AAW destroyer, but it got Spanish frigates instead.
HDF-2600 did not exist when we wanted those SIGMA 10514. Of course TLDM did not ask for it, as this is my idea to mitigate the risk of TLDM not getting the 6 frigates it started out to build.
I loved the Gowind design. It is way better than SIGMAs or HDF-2600. Full stealth design, integrated masts, etc. But right now the programme is in deep shit. There is no guarantee right now that we can even complete 2 ships by spending RM9 billion. How many billion more and how many more years do we need if we want to complete the 6 gowinds??
If you are in management level, you will know about risk management. The risk level to continue with the gowinds is way higher than if we decide to cut our losses now and decide to buy another ship design build by a competent shipbuilder. There is a higher possibly of getting our 6 frigates on budget and on time if we start the whole thing from scratch, rather than persevere and continue pumping money into the gowind programme.
…- “This happens everywhere”
Sorry to butt in on your conversation with Joe.
There will always be a political
angle as far as major defence buys are cornered but it’s should always be after thorough and objective deliberation amongst various parties; in which various long term factors are examined and the pros and cons carefully weighed.
Over here things have long reached ridiculous and self defeating proportions. The end user is overruled by politicians and the local industry dictates what should be selected. The end user has little or no say and the various ministry’s/departments reduced to the role of rubber stamping.
At times things are approved for purchase with just minimal paper evaluation (rather than a detailed evaluation on various offers); in the name of national interests; the politicians having the ultimate say with little or no check and balance.
… – “I loved the Gowind design. It is way better than SIGMAs or HDF-2600. Full stealth design, integrated masts, et”
I would say “better” (I
don’t have a favourite design as for its a combination of various factors which gives the edge) is relative – all have respective strengths and weakness in comparison to others.
As for LO; this has become the standard fare for most contemporary designs; ensuring as far as possible a reduced RCS and IR signature which merely makes a ship harder to detect.
The biggest giveaway ultimately is a ship emitting a radar and other non passive sensors (this is impossible to conceal and reduce); akin to a torch in a darkened room.
On the options on what to do with the partially completed Gowind hulls if we want to go for another hull design.
http://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/06/10/uae-naval-group-quietly-cut-850-million-deal-for-gowind-ships/
UAE just signed the deal for 2 Gowinds last year with an option for 2 more. They have not started any steel cutting for those ships. If we can decide quickly to go for a new design, these hulls can be proposed to be sold to UAE to recoup our costs.
@ azlan
” As for LO; this has become the standard fare for most contemporary designs; ensuring as far as possible a reduced RCS and IR signature which merely makes a ship harder to detect ”
TLDM Gowinds has very high LO optimisation. This includes having the main gun that can be fully retracted under cover. This will enable the ship to blend in (radar image wise) with the many small ships like fishing boats that litters ours operational areas like south china sea and melacca straits. Current advances in satellite imaging and ESM sensors partially mitigates this advantage, but it will still be useful against missile sensors in terminal targeting phase.
If we decide to get rid of the Gowinds, it will be a ship design that we will rue the loss. But by getting a new design (and new builders) altogether, we can have a bigger chance of getting 6 Frigates that we wanted by 2025, even if that frigate will not be as advanced as the Gowinds.
Reply
It must be noted that the steel cut for our project was done in Holland and therefore it is unlikely that it will be suitable for the UAE project.
… – “TLDM Gowinds has very high LO optimisation”
So do most contemporary high end designs; one way or the other.
LO or “stealth” has become an in thing (like cliches such as “force multiplier” and “game changer”) but LO fractures (whether a lack of straight lines or a gun barrel which can be retracted) merely makes for a smaller RCS and makes identification harder and longer.
Yes it’s useful and a must have in this day and age but we mustn’t be bedazzled or overestimate it’s effects.
… – “ it will still be useful against missile sensors in terminal targeting phase”
By the time a ASM has gone terminal it will have a very good idea where the target is and it’s not that target’s LO features but other things which will come into play.
@ azlan
” By the time a ASM has gone terminal it will have a very good idea where the target is and it’s not that target’s LO features but other things which will come into play ”
With very LO ship design like the TLDM Gowind (IMO there is only a few other ships that goes all out for VLO, like the visby, Falaj 2 and Zumwalt), what can be done is to install rapidly ejectable radar reflectors to increase the RCS size. When the ship is attacked, those RCS enhancers can be jettisoned, and chaffs and decoy buoys launched. As the RCS of the ship suddenly changed (from big to small), the radar sensor of the missile will go towards the bigger RCS return of chaff and decoys, as the RCS of the ship changed to be much more smaller. So in the eyes of the missile, the ship is not the same one it locked on during launch.
The latest is that the gov has come up with 3 choices for the cabimet to decide n they are:
1) assign project to naval group n use whatever money is left over to complete two units of LCS
2) contract BNS n use whatever money left over to complete two units
3). Do a MAS to BNS n rescue the shipyard
All 3 options means 9 billion for two ships which is ridiculous. The third option means gov must pump n pump more money.
The auditor general is now pressing the gov to claim for liquidated damages from BNS. When ot rains it pours
BTW how fast can Hyundai build a HDF-2600?
The 2nd Philippines frigate timeline
Keel laying : May 23, 2019
Launch : Nov. 8, 2019
Sea trials : Mid Sept 2020 (delay due to covid19)
Delivery to customer : Jan 2021 (original date oct 2020)
In all just about 17 months from keel laying to delivery to customer (according to original plan).
…. – “With very LO ship design like the TLDM Gowind (IMO there is only a few other ships that goes all out for VLO””
And there is a reason for this : all navies recognise the need to reduce RCS but not all navies will go to the extent of totally designing ships around the need to reduce RCS. Having LO features on a ship is great but it’s not a panacea and although steps can be taken to reduce RCS and IR; ultimately the main means of detecting a ship – way beyond the range of radar – will be ESM. Radars and other non passive sensors/systems are a dead giveaway and unlike RCS can’t be reduced.
…. – “. As the RCS of the ship suddenly changed (from big to small), the radar sensor of the missile will go towards the bigger RCS return of chaff and decoys, as the RCS of the ship changed to be much more smaller”
All depends on the pedigree of the missile. Just like how sharp manoeuvres and chaff were sufficient to deal with 1st/2nd generation missiles (the clashes fought off Latakia in 1973 are an example); this is no longer the case with current generation missiles; measures in place to deal with current generation missiles might not be applicable against newer missiles.
As for chaff; it must be released at the right time (too soon or too late will not suffice) and the chaff must be given time to form (wind conditions play a part). Also not all missiles will have seekers that home in to the nearest or largest RCS; some will employ “home on jam” technology and others might at the last moment of the terminal phase rely on IR or other means.
” Come PERISTA we also bought what we needed in line with our financial abilities – there was minimal political interference. The trouble started when Dr.M decided arms purchases should be based not just on whether it suited the end user’s requirements but also how it would benefit the country as a whole.”
The Grand Old Man really has the Midas touch…essentially a lot of issues ATM are facing right now originated from him, by the looks of it.
Man..I used to think he was a forward looking thinker, maverick, yes, but for a good cause.
I suppose it’s haram, being a Muslim, to wish that he be returned to his sender?
ASM “I suppose it’s haram, being a Muslim, to wish that he be returned to his sender?”
While his legacy will plague us for long to come, it is very unlikely that he will hold office again. As such I don’t see any use in hoping that he returns to his sender. I would rather see him subject to some measure of justice, but that is very unlikely to happen.
@ azlan
” Radars and other non passive sensors/systems are a dead giveaway and unlike RCS can’t be reduced ”
Wrong.
Thats where AESA comes in. It can actually be software controlled to only illuminate areas of interest. Its radio beams can also be selectively formed to create LPI situation.
Then there is also dedicated LPI radars like the Thales Scout Mk3.
@ Lee
” All 3 options means 9 billion for two ships which is ridiculous. The third option means gov must pump n pump more money ”
Exactly.
Why IMO we need to just forget about the Gowind (however painful it is) and quickly start all over again.
Who is to blamed etc. is a no brainer and you dont need to plan about those. Now what we really need to do is plan on how to give TLDM the 6 frigates it desperately needed before 2025 within our available budget.
@ ASM
” Man..I used to think he was a forward looking thinker, maverick, yes, but for a good cause ”
He was.
Without him we wont be an industrialised nation we are right now. There wouldnt be the Petronas we know as a world petroleum powerhouse it is right now. Major companies in malaysia would still be owned by british interests. There would be no Highway from north to south of semenanjung. There wont be Putrajaya. There wont be garrisons in all of our outer islands (spratlys, sipadan, pulau perak in melacca straits).
Without him we would probably be just another Philippines.
But he also did lots of bad things. His time has passed. He was given a second chance to redeem himself as a PM, but he screwed it up.
… “Without him we wont be an industrialised nation we are right now. … Without him we would probably be just another Philippines.”
I agree that he was a transformative leader, one who did more for the nation’s prosperity than any others in our history. But I cannot conclude that any other leader in his place would not have undertaken some of the positive changes that he did. In many ways, Mahathir’s development of Malaysia as an export economy was merely typical of the path of many Asian countries of the era, most of which started from a state of poverty or devastation and which have bested us today. We also see that when Mahathir’s government took a direct hand in the export industries it tried to develop, the results were often miserable.
We see that he has left us a legacy of corruption, incompetence, unsustainable subsidies, oligarchs and various national interests. But I would argue that our biggest problem lies ironically in what made possible the growth of the Mahathir years- our continued dependence on the export of commodities and products manufactured by the low skilled. The goods that Malaysians used to produce for export are today made by millions of low skilled foreign workers. This will continue for the foreseeable future, because our educational establishment has not produced a workforce capable of reducing our dependence on such industries, and because the owners of said companies hold power and influence that is almost impossible to underestimate.
@…
Actually without him, Petronas would have been a O&G powerhouse much sooner, as it is with him, Petronas money were used to bail out the many many failed companies and projects of his including a certain shipping company by a certain of his offspring and a certain national carmaker and a certain national airline. Without these burden after he left, Petronas only started to become the world player they are today. That was also due to the non-inteference by a certain ex-PM.
.., – “Without him we wont be an industrialised nation we are right now”
That’s a very bold statement to make; one very subjective and debatable ….
Without him we’d never have progressed as a nation? There was absolutely nobody else able or with the vision to the country to the next step? All the plans and visions he had and implemented were solely his; none being thought of or planned by his predecessors? What about the price we paid and still pay for his plans and policies that went rat shit?
Am I going to be called short sighted, unpatriotic, ungrateful or ill informed because I don’t put him on a pedestal and sing praises about him?
ASM.- “I suppose it’s haram, being a Muslim, to wish that he be returned to his sender?”
All religion preaches us not to wish on others.
Having said that; unless you had benefited financially from certain policies, were incapable of thinking objectively for yourself and idolised politicians; it would be natural to feel anger, frustration and disgust at what our politicians do …
It’s easy for some to act like trained circus seals and heap excessive and unwarranted praise and excuses for the politicians but when things go wrong; it’s the ordinary people who suffer and pay the price ..
@…
>”For example, aussie navy wanted burkes for AAW destroyer, but it got Spanish frigates instead”
To be fair, thanks to their CEA tech their Hobarts are the second-most powerful Aegis DDGs in the world, behind the Burkes themselves
@…
>”what can be done is to install rapidly ejectable radar reflectors”
Such systems date to 1980s at least. Missiles grow smarter too.
BTW
Last monday (24 august) was the 3rd anniversary of the launch of Maharajalela.
3 years after the ceremonial launch, it has yet to even float on its own, and is barely complete.
Can we really get all 4 ships already built to be completed within the rm6 billion that we have spent? i dont think so. There is still a big question mark to complete the 4 even if we spent all RM9 billion originally planned to give TLDM 6 gowind frigates.
@Lee
>”All 3 options means 9 billion for two ships which is ridiculous.”
Are you sure? The article I read doesn’t specify. It merely states that DCNS can help complete the first 2 ships, nothing said about the other 4.
In this day and age even a brand new contract should not cost Rm9 billion for 2 corvettes. Hell we can buy 3 brand new Belharra for that.
@ chua
” The article I read doesn’t specify. ”
Most written articles on this just mentioned that option 1 and 2 is to spend the maximum of RM9 billion to get at least 2 ships. We can hope for more but hope is not a clear plan, and by stating the number at 2, even the government is not sure if more can be completed within the RM9 billion budget. So Lees statement is correct.
” In this day and age even a brand new contract should not cost Rm9 billion for 2 corvettes ”
Exactly. That is what i have been saying at the start of this string of comments. Why we need to cut our losses now and start all over again with a new project.
on mahathir
i dont put him up on a pedestal.
but his plans and visions are like 4-5 steps ahead of other people. he was thinking about multimedia in the 90s (with MSC) when people don’t even understand what multimedia is for example. He pushed hard for malaysia to be involved in aerospace industries. Among other things.
But many of his plans are ruined not by him, but by people who he trusted (including his own sons).
That is not to say that he is perfect and dont do anything wrong. far from it. He did a lot of cruel things to many people.
a lot of things like corruption is there when he was around, but was magnified during the last few years, and a reason why he re-entered politics. If not for that, we wont get back our losses for 1MDB for example.
even in Tunku and Tun Razak times, projects given directly to people thst they know, like robert kuok for example, just it is not labeled as cronyism or corruption.
but that is not the point. we need to think about the future, we cannot leave a broken country to be passed to our children and grandchildren. and with 2020 merdeka approaching it is something we need to think hard and act as soon as possible.
Chia – “thanks to their CEA tech their Hobarts are the second-most powerful Aegis DDGs in the world”
The RAN didn’t get Burkes due to costs but it got the capability desired and the local industry didn’t get to specify what systems/components went on the ships.
Chua – “Such systems date to 1980s at least. Missiles grow smarter too”
The use of reflectors to decoy missiles is indeed nothing new and worked primarily against the seekers of older types of missiles.
On the reflectors; when Silkworms were bring lobbed at Kuwait, an attempt was made to have reflectors close to the shore line to decoy them.
There are “home on jam” missiles for which LO features and chaff wouldn’t work. There is work being looked at missiles at the last moments of the terminal phase being able to switch him in oh the nearest/largest IR source and also those able to be fitted with recognition ability; i.e. to home in on outlines already programmed into the seeker.
Chua – “In this day and age even a brand new contract should not cost Rm9 billion for 2 corvettes”
They’d be more accurately described as “frigates”. In this day and age; especially after going through the Kedah cock up; it would have been thought that all the needed precautions/planning would have been placed in preventing a reoccurrence.
AM – “But I cannot conclude that any other leader in his place would not have undertaken some of the positive changes that he did”
Plans to industrialise the country and other things were actually drawn up by Mahsthir’s predecessors. He came at the right time and has some pretty good ideas but ultimately they weren’t all his ideas and vision.
Similarly he gets credit for having the courage and the vision to physically occupy our claims in the Spratlys. The “Peta Baru 1979” which laid out our EEZ, including the Spratlys, was before Mahathiir came to power and some of the assets used when occupying the reefs; were not available during the time of his predecessors and were planned
for during Perista, before his time.
An objective summing up of someone’s achievements must be made on both achievements and failures/flaws. Yes a lot of what we have now is due to him but a lot of the shit we face now is also due to him. Also in certain areas we actually regressed during his time in office.
@…
They got something that met their needs. That is the most important to them. Our Armed Forces still insist on getting exactly what they wanted, not something equivalent or nearly there.
With additional money we can complete 4-5 units of LCS. We done this before with the Kedahs. It can be completed if without the further spec changes thou with delayed deliveries and cost overruns. There is however no guarantees we won’t face the same problem again if we start from scratch once more. Look at our history; Samudera class, Kedah class, Maharajalela class.
… – “Wrong”.
Don’t be so quick to apply the “wrong” label.
I was referring to traditional non AESA radars; also stuff like data links, SATCOM, navigation radars, radio, etc; non passive stuff which enables a ship to be detected way before it comes into radar range and way before its LO features come into play.
@…
About M. M saved our economy from British yoke just to put it under his yoke. N saved our economy from M’s yoke just to put it under his yoke. M returned to save our economy just to put it back under his yoke again. Rinse and repeat. If only the M was Musa Hitam instead….
Of course yesteryears cronies are todays saviour & shining knights. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
… – “but that is not the point. we need to think about the future”
“Thinking about the future”; just like “moving forward” sound great. Motivating cliches everybody likes to hear. Provides hope and assurance.
The thing is; whether it comes to defence, levels of education, accountability. race relations, the system of patronage, etc, we are going backwards. There is no genuine desire to look at how things have buggered up in the past and no genuine desire or political will to improve things and to have a hard and honest look at ourselves; as a nation and the deep rooted flaws we have in our system.
Here’s another cliche : “those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it” ….
I’d like to stick to the topic of defence with minimal reference to politics but as it stands defence and politics go hand in hand (more so in this country); and the main reason the MAF and whole system we have in place is
flawed/rotten/self defeating is
because of the national interests politics which puts the interests of the MAF secondary …
@ azlan
” There are “home on jam” missiles for which LO features and chaff wouldn’t work ”
LO is to mitigate the use of jammers. if no jammers, how to “home on jam” ? Do you even understand the concept of detachable RCS reflectors (instead of something like inflatable RCS decoys) that i am talking about?
” I’d like to stick to the topic of defence with minimal reference to politics ”
I would like to do so too. All these fundamental changes in how we do about things is of course needed but it is in the end about everyones sense of integrity and commitment to the country. If everyone has a high sense of integrity, all these problems will go away. In the meantime, I rather talk about countermeasures and plans to improve the capability of our armed forces.
@ joe
” With additional money we can complete 4-5 units of LCS ”
So how much additional money? RM4 billion more, RM6 billion more? When can we get them? Starting from scratch you will know exactly how much money is needed and when can be get them.
” Look at our history; Samudera class, Kedah class, Maharajalela class ”
All of them made locally. So what part of my idea for the ships to be made by Hyundai in Korea (or any other shipyards rather than in Malaysia) don’t you understand??
…. – “LO is to mitigate the use of jammers”
LO is to reduce the RCS of a ship in order for it to have a smaller RCS; either through the use of certain designs and materials.
Jammers are primarily intended to jam the seeker heads of incoming ASMs.
Just because a ship may have LO features doesn’t automatically do away with the need for active jammers. You will notice that active jammers remain part and parcel of many ships and will continue to do so even with future ships that have a higher level of LO capability than current ones …
You will also have noticed that for the purpose of utility not all navies (who no doubt appreciate the vskye( have truly jumped on the LO bandwagon by adopting designs which are truly “LO” …
…. – “Do you even understand the concept of detachable RCS reflectors (instead of something like inflatable RCS decoys) that i am talking about”
Do you even understand the context of the discussion and that my reference to reflectors to protect Kuwait against Silkworms had little to do with your reference to jammers? It was tied to something Chua said ….
… – “it is in the end about everyones sense of integrity and commitment to the country”
You are being overly simplistic.
You can have all the integrity and national commitment you want but ultimately there must be a proper system in place; one with accountability, justification, check and balance (rather than Parliament and Ministries reduced to the role of rubber stamping) and the primary need to deliver what the end user needs; based on what the country can afford and based on what comes closest to getting operational requirements.
That is what we need; not a system geared towards “national interests” which sees local companies (as part of our system of patronage) being granted the license to make money (offering no added value but costing the taxpayer more) and politicians (without checks/balances) deciding what to buy (some things even without trials).
The result is what we have now : an MAF we can’t adequately sustain; one with a large logistical/support footprint; one which has a bit of everything but hardly enough of anything and one in has capabilities which doesn’t reflect all that’s been invested over the years ….
…. – “I rather talk about countermeasures and plans to improve the capability of our armed forces”
Nobody has and will stop you …
Truly improving the MAF is almost impossible unless or until fundamental changes are made.
We can raise the budget all we want but it will be a temporary measure and chances are we won’t be getting the best value for our money because big ticket purchases will be based on national interests (read providing revenue to local companies on the pretext it actually leads to long term tangible benefits for the country); rather than ensuring the MAF has the desired capability and the taxpayer gets his/her money’s worth …. Not only that but defence will remain something we only spend on when times are good …
… – “LO is to mitigate the use of jammers”
Really? I was under the distinct impression (no means am I an expert) that LO – whether on a ship or plane – was to reduce the RCS; making it harder and longer to identify and track …
By the time a ASM has gone into the terminal phase (as opposed to the track/search phase) it will already have a pretty good idea as to where the target is. The target’s LO features might be some help but by itself will not be the determining factor in stopping or preventing a ASM strike.
Lets get back to how to fulfill the TLDM requirement for 6 Frigates.
Lets say we decide to go for option 3 by December 2020. The government to cancel the contract with BNS altogether and the government salvaging the project.
Basically the government will take back all the hardwares lock stock and barrel.
What I suggest to do next is to open a RFQ (by Febuary 2021) for 6 new Frigate to be built at the suppliers own shipyard for the max budget of USD1 billion . It will be equipped with all the GFE that has been bought for the Gowinds (Captas-2 TAS, 57mm gun, SMART-S radars, NSM missiles etc etc). Target to complete and commission all 6 Frigates will be in 2025.
Target to pick a winner by August 2021.
The first keel laying would be done by June 2022, with the launch in Dec 2022. A new ship would be launched every 6 months, so 2 more in 2023, 2 in 2024 and the last in June 2025. The 1st ship would be comissioned by November 2023, and a new one every 6 months after that, with the last one commissioned on March 2026.
The above timelines is based on the Hyundai HDF-2600 build.
What can we do is to sign a big G to G deal with South Korea. Something similar to what we did with UK previously.
We could sign for both HDF-2600 Frigate and TA/FA-50 Golden Eagles, which would be a big boost to South Korea. A contract for 6 Frigates and 40 LCA/LIFT would be around USD2.3 billion. With such a big investment to korea, of course we would expect a big offset to go our way.
We could ask for
– transferring korean electronic manufacturing (handphones and consumer items) from china to malaysia.
– buying more malaysian palm oil and natural gas.
– Investment in malaysian infrastructure projects
– investment in malaysian aerospace, manufacturing of aerospace components in malaysia (for FA-50 for example)
– Free transfer of used military equipment, for example 3x Pohang class corvettes for MMEA, 2x Go Jun Bong class LST for TLDM and 250 KIFV for TD.
@ Azlan
” By the time a ASM has gone into the terminal phase (as opposed to the track/search phase) it will already have a pretty good idea as to where the target is. The target’s LO features might be some help but by itself will not be the determining factor in stopping or preventing a ASM strike ”
So you did not understand where i am coming from.
My premise is to equip a VLO frigate with RCS enhancers (just like F-35 carrying around luneburg lens during peacetime). So at all times the RCS of a VLO frigate will be larger (but not as large as a normal frigate).
So when a missile locks onto the Frigate, it is actually locking onto the RCS enhancers. So when a missile attack is detected, the RCS enhancers would be jettisoned and sink into the sea, while inflatable RCS decoys with the same RCS as the Frigate with RCS enhancers plus chaffs would be launched.
So the RCS of the frigate suddenly changed from big to small, and a new RCS return of the decoy will take its place. So the missile will consider the RCS decoy as its target, as the Frigate RCS has changed.
@ azlan
” You will notice that active jammers remain part and parcel of many ships and will continue to do so even with future ships that have a higher level of LO capability than current ones ”
Using jammers to jam missiles will give out more emissions that home on jam seekers can use. Using VLO and decoys will mitigate the need for jammers.
BTW of all our ships, only 2 of them has Jammers installed, the Kasturi and Lekir.
France has deep trust in jammers and equip most of their ships with one, probably because they know exactly how to jam the Exocet…
off topic
Royal Bahrain Navy is getting a used Hamilton class cutter from US coast guard. The 52 year old USCGC Mellon is chosen for the transfer.
http://www.newsofbahrain.com/bahrain/65539.html
Bahrain seems to be on a used ship buying spree lately, just a few weeks ago getting the ex royal navy modified river class Opv ex-HMS Clyde.
… – “. Using VLO and decoys will mitigate the need for jammers.”
There is no perfect solution; different navies have different views. My mention of jammers was to emphasise that LO is not a panacea and that by the time a missile has gone terminal: all the LO features in the world wont make a difference.
The best means of defence is to have a layered combination of options. Having a jammer also doesn’t mean it actually can deal with the incoming ASM – depends on the frequency and whether the missile has ECM. Same with chaff; dependent on that it has to be deployed at the right moment and a cloud has to form (wind conditions play a part(.
Also all the LO features will not change the fact that non passive sensors makes a ship very visible; way before radars and LO even come into the equation. Thus in a perfect world a ship will have LO features as well as a hard and soft kill option, will be operating as part of a networked environment and will be under an air umbrella.
For the foreseeable future jammers and chaff will remain the principal soft kill option. The vast majority of missiles don’t employ “him on jam” tech however and trends indicate that future missiles will rely less on active homing seekers.
There is work underway to install a IR element which will go active in the final phase of the terminal phase; as well as a recognition ability enabling a missile to target specific ship outlines.
We spent a lot of cash on new jammers for 2 of the Laksamanas but it was ultimately cash down the drain. The Kasturis had Scimitar; non NATO export version of Ramses.
The problem we face is the same faced by many cash constrained peacetime navies : the lack of funds to progressively upgrade EW assets. For us and many others; EW is something we understand the importance of but can’t dedicate the attention/resources it needs.
… – “So you did not understand where i am coming from.”
If you insist ….
…. – “probably because they know exactly how to jam the Exocet…”
Most certainly because of the importance they place in jammers (as part of a ship’s integrated and layered defence) and because they are confident that their jammers will be able to adequately handle (along with other means) the types of missives likely to be encountered.
@…
Sigh, we are going around in circles. You can continue to espouse the benefits of HDF but what does “TLDM doesn’t want it” that don’t you get?
@ joe
When i talked about FA-50 5-6 years ago, there is also the same comments. TUDM doesnt want LCAs they want MRCAs of the rafale and typhoon kind!!
So you rather let TLDM fleet short-changed by getting just 2 Gowinds? Or spend insane amounts of money (that we dont have) to complete 6 gowinds?
@…
I never did say TLDM wanted the Gowinds, did I? Marhalim too, made it quite clear on that premise. Give them what they wanted and you cut out the mid-build tinkering which was one of the factors the LCS is today. As for me that’s the end of this topic, as I don’t see the point going around in circles.
@ joe
” what does “TLDM doesn’t want it” that don’t you get? ”
and i repeat myself
what part of HDF-2600 was not even designed when TLDM preferred the SIGMA corvette that dont you get? so how can you say ” TLDM doesnt want it “?
Ada baiknya lantik JKR jadi PMC utk projek2 kapal TLDM.. Terlalu banyak masalah berulang.. JKR tentera ada. JKR mekanikal ada utk jadi PMC pantau projek & pantau kontraktor..