SHAH ALAM: In a press conference in Kuching on November 4, MMEA director-general Admiral Maritime Hamid Mohd Amin told the media that the agency is expected to receive two ships from a friendly country, next year.
He did not name the country nor the type of ships, but as MMEA had received ships from Japan (three) and Australia (two), previously, it would be safe to assume that the new addition will be from the two countries.
Intriguingly, in a Facebook post by MMEA today (November 8) it was stated that the agency had look into absorbing at least one ex-US Coast guard cutter (an American term for this kind of vessel). This was mentioned in a post on the retirement ceremony for Rear Admiral Maritime Aminuddin Abdul Rashid.
The post stated that among his achievements in the MMEA were that he was the team leader for a suitability study on absorbing the US Coast Guard cutter – USCG Decisive. It stated that this will create a wider collaboration with friendly forces either locally or abroad.
Checks on the US Coast Guard website showed that Decisive– a Reliance class cutter – was laid in 1967 and commissioned in 1968. She was decommissioned from US Coast Guard on March 2, 2023, after a 55-year service.
The ships of the class are about 65 meter long with a beam of 10 meter. They are equipped with twin diesel engines, a helipad, and a crew of seventy-five. In US Coast Guard service, the ships are equipped with a single 25 mm cannon and two machine-guns.
The MMEA post (edited for brevity):
𝗠𝗔𝗝𝗟𝗜𝗦 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗔𝗡 𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗛 𝗕𝗔𝗛𝗔𝗚𝗜𝗔𝗡 𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗧𝗞𝗨𝗔𝗦𝗔𝗔𝗡 𝗗𝗔𝗡 𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗬𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗦𝗔𝗡 𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗠
𝗣𝗨𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗝𝗔𝗬𝗔, 𝟴 𝗡𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 – Pengarah Bahagian Penguatkuasaan dan Penyelarasan Maritim, Laksamana Muda Maritim Aminuddin bin Haji Abdul Rashid bersara wajib hari ini setelah berkhidmat selama 17 tahun bersama Maritim Malaysia.
Beliau merupakan seorang Pegawai Kanan Maritim Malaysia yang amat komited dan berwawasan setiap kali diberikan tugas dan tanggungjawab sebagai pemimpin di sesuatu Bahagian sepanjang perkhidmatan bersama Maritim Malaysia. Beliau juga pernah menabur bakti selama 24 tahun sebagai pegawai Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia sebelum ditukar lantik ke perkhidmatan Maritim Malaysia.
Antara kejayaan yang signifikan yang dilaksanakan oleh beliau ialah memacu Pelan Strategik SAR Maritim Malaysia 2021-2025. Mengetuai penilaian ke atas kesesuaian USCG CUTTER DECISIVE untuk diserap dalam Maritim Malaysia serta mewujudkan ruang kerjasama yang lebih meluas dengan pasukan sahabat sama ada daripada dalam dan luar negara seperti PATKOR OPTIMA.
It must be noted that US Coast Guard had transferred two more Reliance class cutter in 2004 to Sri Lanka and Colombia in 2003. From Wikipedia:
The 210s (210-foot cutters) received upgrades and modifications (in a program named “Midlife Maintenance Availability” or MMA) during the 1986 through 1990 time period. The “A”-class cutters had their gas turbines removed, and all 210s had their stern transom exhaust systems replaced with a traditional stack. While this modification reduced the size of the flight deck, they were still more than capable of carrying out helicopter operations. Other modifications included enlarging the superstructure area, replacing the main armament, and increasing the fire-fighting capability of the cutters. The modifications cost approximately $20 million per cutter, well above their original cost of about $3.5 million each
I stand to be corrected of course and will check with the MMEA on the transfer.
— Malaysian Defence.
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Wouldnt mind having a Hamilton class or two
210 feet….good enough to ram those chinese coast guard ships when required. Go for it MMEA!!!
.. and a crew of seventy-five
Ramainya crew, for a 65m ship
Although old (as old as our vospers PCs), they are very well maintained by USCG and has no complicated electronics that is expensive to sustain or replace. Another type of ship that can be had from USCG is the Island-class patrol boat. All of them are younger (oldest built in 1985) than the current 4 remaining Vosper PC with TLDM. These have the same Vosper hull design as TLDM Vosper PC, but with a much better designed superstructure.
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/26/2002121803/-1/-1/0/180313-G-XQ144-009.JPG
Along with the USCGC Decisive (WMEC-629), another 3 WMEC Medium Endurance Cutters will be laid-up by mid next year, USCGC Confidence (WMEC-619), the USCGC Dauntless(WMEC-624) and the USCGC Dependable (WMEC-626)
Latest picture of USCGC Decisive, it is the ship on the far left
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-DG40SaoAAOX0Z.jpg
The WMECs has long endurance. In USCG service, they routinely go out for 60 days straight patrol . In the first 182 days of 2023, slated-to-retire USCGC Dependable was on deployment for 92 of them. A ship that can be out there for long periods of time is what we need right now. Same mission actually can also be done by locally built OSVs, if we want to.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjWG-PAUoAM8J0N.jpg
As for APMM fleet maintenance management. Probably it is a good idea for TLDM bahagian Kejuruteraan and Ketua Jurutera TLDM to take charge or at least be an adviser to APMM fleet maintenance management.
A design from the 1960s, little automation.
The Hamiltons are equipped with gas turbines, probably the reason MMEA do not want them at all. The Reliance class cutter had all of their gas turbines removed.
If indeed we are getting a hull first laid decades ago it’s a sign of how bad things are and an indictment on how serous the government is.
Irrespective of how well maintained it is a hull of that age will present its set of challenges and one only has to look at the issues the PN has had sustaining its aged ex USCG cutters.
All hamiltons already spoken for
last available hamilton, USCGC Mellon (WHEC_717) is slated to be transferred to Vietnam Coast Guard.
Current Hamilton cutter users
Philippines Navy – 3
Vietnam Coast guard – 2 (+1)
Bangladesh Navy – 2
Sri Lanka Navy – 2
Nigerian Navy – 2
Other used large OPVs (or frigates that can be converted to large OPVs) currently available
– Norwegian Coast Guard Nordkapp-class cutters
– South Korean Navy Ulsan-class frigates
– Japan Coast Guard Ojika-class OPV (sisterships to KM Pekan, 3 new Kunigami-class OPV in build to partially replace them)
@Hasnan
“210 feet….good enough to ram those chinese coast guard ships ”
Then CCG will bring out their 541 feet Zhaotou class cutter, more than double the size of Reliance class, then how to ram it? Its stupid to into an arms race with them.
@Joe
We just have to accept reality that one day they will ram our boats/ships like they are doing to the Pinoys nowadays. At least we show a bit of fighting spirit rather than just fold down and cry. Even a so-called terrorist organisation can stand up and carry the fight to a powerful army backed by a superpower.
Hasnan – “to ram those chinese coast guard ships when required. Go for it MMEA!!”
Indeed. Ram and literally push the bloody buggers back to Hainan. That will teach them! If they bring anything else bigger we’ll respond in kind.
Almost all of ex-Hamilton users does not have any major problems in operating them. Most are very active in their respective new homes.
Even The Philippines Navy would like to have a 4th Hamilton, but unfortunately there is no unallocated vessels left.
Most of Philippines navy problem with the Hamiltons is because of an unplanned maintenance (due to the grounding of BRP Georgio Del Pillar) derailed their upgrade plans.
Resorting to such a move is regressive. Will put a major dent in the MMEA’s efforts to “streamline” its fleet [already has a hodgepodge of stuff] and might provide an excuse to the decision makers to further delay the acquisition of new assets.
It also shows how desperate and hypocritical we are; on one hand our very esteemed PM is making it a point of showing how he’s standing up to the U.S. over Gaza; on the other we gladly accept – out of sheer need – something handed over.
I am of opine getting ships of various types, sources and made would only complicate our logistics- maintenance, training and such. Maybe it’s a strategy in keeping up with number of hulls and tonnage with the Chinese?
If we want new-build OPVs for APMM, quite a few options available, each of the options below would cost less than the price of 1 Keris-class LMS.
Option 1 is to continue with batch 2 of the DAMEN 1800 OPV.
Option 2 is to build/buy Korean Coast Guard Pacific-class OPV. This is a ship that is a bit bigger than our own GOWIND LCS.
Option 3 is to build/buy Indian Coast Guard Vikram-class OPV. This is a ship of similar size to Kedah-class OPV and DAMEN 1800 OPV; but costs just USD30 million each (old exchange rate, new exchange rate if still same in rupees is around USD25 million each).
Option 4 is to join PETRONAS-led Project Safina. Project Safina is Petronas’s new build programme which aims to build up to 100 vessels over the next four to five years to phase out the old vessels which are reaching the age limit of 15 years. The Phase 1 project involves the construction of 16 OSVs, build at 10 local malaysian shipyards. APMM could collaborate and piggyback this project with Petronas, to build 70+m OSVs (based on AHTS design) to be used as OPV and rescue, salvage, ocean towing vessel.
https://www.bernama.com/en/business/news.php?id=2239272
This is likely done before the current situation.
It’s an old ship, older even than RMN’s old ships. They are retired by USCG for a reason – too expensive to maintain properly. So now we have MMEA, with not enough money as-is, taking over a ship that is expensive to maintain and requiring a crew of 75. Seems more like the same goal as the RMN re-hull exercise, interim measure until new ships are delivered. If no new ships, they will retire these old ships and get another batch of free old ships. The fastest way is to ask Damen to build the MMEA’s Damen 1800 – assuming MMEA is happy with the ships. The design is ready which will reduce cost and time.
Chop – “Maybe it’s a strategy in keeping up with number of hulls and tonnage with the Chinese?”
There is no such strategy. It’s out of sheer necessity. Yes the small under resourced MMEA has limited resources and a very large logistical/support footprint. On paper and looking at links it all looks rosy but in reality the MMEA has a hard time; unlike the RMN which has already taken steps to reduce its
logistical /support footprint the MMEA can’t; yet
… – “Almost all of ex-Hamilton users does not have any major problems in operating them”
No idea what your definition of ‘major problems’ are but in the real world aged ships and aircraft have inherent issues which are not done away with by upgrades or refits. Also the ability of a user to sustain things would depend on the user …
… – “Most of Philippines navy problem with the Hamiltons is because of an unplanned maintenance (due to the grounding of BRP Georgio Del Pillar) derailed their upgrade plans”
It also has has to do with manpower issues; the lack of trained personnel to do certain highly specialised things; not to mention funding issues. Look at how long one of the Super Rapids was to inoperable and ask yourself how long the ships stay turd up at pier undergoing maintenance after returning from a cruise. They’re hulls which were laid down almost 6 decades ago for crying out loud ….
Also look at the context; for various decades like the rest of the AFP the PN was extremely under resourced and the bulk of its fleet comprised ships laid down in the 1940’s and 50’s. As such getting ex U.S. Coast Guard cutters dating from the 1960’s and newer assets from South Korea was a major leap for the PN; a strain and challenge. People have to be trained and an infrastructure established.
As Robert Kaplan [read his “Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific”] put it; in getting the cutters the PN transitioned from a WW2 to a 1960’s navy.
… – “Even The Philippines Navy would like to have a 4th Hamilton”
Yes but ask yourself why… Because it’s the fastest and cheapest short term solution and because the PN already has a short support infrastructure in place. Not for the reason you’re alluding to …
The MMEA has no issues getting high mileage aged hulls but because it has no choice .. Same with the Philippines Coast Guard.
Hamilton class is good enough. Give it to us.
There are people who are against MMEA expanding quickly due to manpower and money reasons. There are people who are against MMEA getting used ships due to higher maintenance, non commonality of spare parts and operating costs. There people who are against MMEA getting new ships due to getting used ships are cheaper to procure.
What we are seeing now is that MMEA is willing to just get anything used as cheap as possible, as long as the maintenance costs, operating costs and spare parts costs are still relatively acceptable, hence the feasibility study being done.
I think Pinoy have bad habit in maintenance their ships due to budget..not because the ship is old.
“It also shows how desperate and hypocritical we are”
Only if you look on the surface and fully believed what they said. PMX ascension have been from decades of Uncle Sam support. Is obvious from the above they still back their man to the hilt. What was said is just for local political consumption (he is desperate for some rope) and that newsline doesnt even worth a scant mention globally, not even in SG after the breakout.
And sometimes, to accept a ‘gift’ is also political as it would be a international snub if we refuse the exUSCG boat offer. The MD530 and M109 was also as much a political buy. So as the MSA conversions and the new radar ‘gifts’.
” They’re hulls which were laid down almost 6 decades ago for crying out loud … ”
” In the first 182 days of 2023, slated-to-retire USCGC Dependable was on deployment for 92 of them ”
PH Navy got into issues for the Hamilton’s maintenance due to one of the ships grounded on a shoal mistakenly marked on nautical map (happened to USS Guardian too in 2013 also in Philippine waters. A reason why TLDM has an good and active hydrographic mapping program). That major damage was the main reason (yes there are other reasons too) why they have issues with maintaining all the Hamilton’s. But the ships itself is not the main reason for the maintenance problems. Even though they are old, their simple design and build makes for a reliable ship that are able to be out at sea for many days in a year.
Luqman – “here are people who are against MMEA expanding quickly due to manpower and money reasons”
There is nothing about “against”. There are people” who point out 1. that the MMEA is a small under resourced entity which already faces a major challenge operating the various things it has 2. that for it to significantly increase its assets would also in parallel require efforts to improve its shore support infrastructure 3. that the introduction of any new asset which shares little commonality will add to the existing strain 4. that getting an aged hull will – irrespective of how well maintained – present problems associated or inherent with age.
Luqman – “What we are seeing now is that MMEA”
What we are seeing is a MMEA out of sheer necessity having no choice but to look at options which otherwise would have been discarded or rejected. There is no alternative and it’s a major spoke in the wheels as far as the plan to streamline assets and do things more efficiently and cost effectively go.
“ PMX ascension have been from decades of Uncle Sam support. Is obvious from the above they still back their man to the hilt”
Never mind “PMX”. For decades since Mahathir sights an agreement during a Pentagon visit the U.S. has become Malaysia’s main defence partner – besides Australia – and this has endured despite whatever hiccups along the way. Yes they understand that internal politics is at play and I’ll draw your attention to an article written by a UM academic in the Diplomat.
Akmal – “Hamilton class is good enough”
Ok but instead of giving one liners which are neither here nor there; provide some context. You are able are you not?
.. – “ That major damage was the main reason (yes there are other reasons too) why they have issues with maintaining all the Hamilton’s. But the ships itself is not the main reason for the maintenance problems”
I’ll refer you to reports which have appeared in the Manila Times; Rappler and other sources over the years; as well as defence forums. I was also told of aged/maintenance related issues during a trip to the Philippines not too long ago. It’s inconceivable that a hull of that vintage will not pose problems; irrespective of how you want to paint it.
… – “ A reason why TLDM has an good and active hydrographic mapping program). That major damage was the main reason (yes there are other reasons too”
Since the 1970’s with the Perantau. Aware of that but thank you.
BTW the “good and active hydrographic” you speak of so confidently should be in the past tense because like various other things; our survey capabilities have atrophied.
It took about 3 or so years to put the PN Hamilton, BRP Gregorio Del Pilar back in service after its grounding in 2018 because critical parts such as the Propeller Shaft and Propeller Hub from the US were already years out of production. There are also maintenance related issues and granted, the time in drydock included the upgrade program allocated for the ship, but that just goes to show how ships as old as them will have issues like that.
Also, the PN actually opted out of the 4th Hamilton, exactly because of the age and the fact that they’ll need to shell out money to keep it up to standard to the other three Hamiltons they have. They wanted 5 Cyclones instead from the US Navy for a total fleet of 6, but Egypt and Bahrain got the bulk of them, leaving them with 3 Cyclones in total, which, in fairness, does work since the PN operates on the Rule of Three.
Before this, they said that if they don’t get more Cyclones, they’ll have to decommission the sole Cyclone they have because it’ll be too expensive to operate on it’s own with the upkeep of the Paxman Valenta engines and so on of the old ship– unless it’ll have more stablemates for economies of scale.
>hamilton
Nope. Beggar can’t be chooser but we sure can choose not to have crap shoved down our throat (or the other orifice).
Just ask japan to transfer a couple more of the KM Pekan class. In the meantime we should get another batch of NGPC
9 NGPCs have been funded in the 2024 budget. Thus getting these used vessels is an interim solution.
Also, the two OPVs hopefully next year.
dundun – “Beggar can’t be chooser but we sure can choose not to have crap shoved down our throat (or the other orifice).”
Great cliche but if that “beggar” gets so something which is maintenance extensive and something which consumes a lot of resources then what? Also, what exactly is “crap”? If something is old and has inherent issues does it fall in the “crap” category? Of something is sound but has issues because of how the operator sustains and operates it; is it “crap”?
dundun – “. In the meantime we should get another batch of NGPC”
“Should” is the key word. If the government can commit to a follow on batch of OPVs then a major problem is solved. The problem is we can’t; that’s why we are looking at options which we’d otherwise discount.
Another worry is whether getting a used hull will lead to the government putting of the decision to get new assets; has happened before.
FFAR,
I believe that the decision to get the cutters then was a right one; there was really no short term alternative and they were a major major improvement over anything else operated. As it stands they have to be replaced on time before any further issues associated with wear and tear or age appear.
Hasnan – ”9 NGPCs have been funded in the 2024 budget.”
Great but since the 1980’s a long list of things were ”approved” for funding but never were. If indeed the MMEA is getting new assets to add to it’s new OPVs and other things; great/good.
Hasnan – ”Thus getting these used vessels is an interim solution.”
Is it written in stone? You figure the services are not skeptical; that they have genuine concerns that a so called ” interim solution” will really be an ” interim solution” and not an excuse to further delay things?
“Great cliche but if that “beggar” gets so something which is maintenance extensive”
This is something they must face with realistic expectations and weighing the pros & cons; if they dont foresee getting the rest of their OPVs soon and nothing else on the horizon after that, then isnt getting used -while they could still be useful- the only real option? Or are you advocating they dont get anything -and refuse to get anything used- unless its brand spanking new?
“ Or are you advocating they dont get anything -and refuse to get anything used- unless its brand spanking new”
Hardly. Nothing I’ve said would indicate as such
Getting something used might lead to sustainment issues and might lead to further delays in funding for new hulls.
The trick is to get something which won’t cost and arm and leg to sustain; as well as presenting major commonality issues; something which won’t spend most of its time tied up at pier due to maintenance issues and something which will truly be an “interim solution” rather than something which will have to be interesting indefinitely.
“Nothing I’ve said would indicate as such”
You implied as much. Your definition of a sweet spot for something used worthy to be bought is akin to one that is only a few years old with the paint still fresh. Your asking for here is a unicorn.
Does such equipment in that sweet spot exist? Perhaps so… somewhere in this world, but in reality people buy and use for decades. Its going to be old, its going to be worn thru age & use, its going to be unsupported in some ways especially if that original vendor company gone bust, certain parts will be obsolete, it may not be 100% suitable for our use purpose & use environment (its made for someone else after all).
Its up to the various branches to decide the pros & cons whether buying & repairing used equipment is worth it as compared to not having any, particularly when its given free. If I give you a Merc for free you may balk at the high maint cost but when you dont have a car for daily use, you may just accept it anyhow and think about resolving the consequences after that. This is the conundrum they are all at the crossroad.
You implied as much”
I haven’t actually. What I have done is knock the narrative that claims something old but in good condition won’t cause sustainability issues; as well as further straining an already stretched logistical footprint.
“Its up to the various branches to decide the pros & cons whether”
Great on paper or in theory but since when have the services been given a free hand to decide and the RMN has openly addressed this issue. It has already rejected various offers for pre owned ships in the past for this very reason: sustainability.
“just accept it anyhow and think about resolving the consequences after that”
That’s exactly how the policy makers view things but when shite happens it’s the services who have to pick up the pieces. We have a history of this.
“Your asking for here is a unicorn”
You thInk I am but in reality; I’m not. After years as an observer I make it a point of trying to keep things within the realm of reality.
The trick is to get something which won’t cost and arm and leg to sustain; as well as presenting major commonality issues; something which won’t spend most of its time tied up at pier due to maintenance issues and something which will truly be an “interim solution” rather than something which will have to be interesting indefinitely”
As it stands the MMEA is a small entity and is extremely overstretched; as well as having a limited shore support infrastructure and a large logistical/support footprint
“You thInk I am but in reality; I’m not.”
Great! Then which equipment available on the used market which meets your high standards that suited for any (and I mean ANY) of the branch services, that includes PDRM, Bomba, heck even Rela?
”Then which equipment available on the used market which meets your high standards ”
Really want to know or merely being facetious?
My ”high standards”? Is getting something which won’t cost and arm and leg to sustain; as well as presenting major commonality issues; something which won’t spend most of its time tied up at pier due to maintenance issues and something which will truly be an “\interim solution” rather than something which will have to be interesting indefinitely” a ”high standard”? ”Essential”; ”ideal” or a ”high standard”? Is noting the fact that getting certain things will lead to issues in the long run a ‘high standard’? ‘Great”? Ok.
“You thInk I am but in reality; I’m not.”
Great! Then I would really like to know which equipment available on the used market which meets your high standards.
Want to share something or merely going around in circles for the sake of it and to have the last say?
There is no such thing as buying a platform several decades old and not expecting it to be maintenance intensive; inherent. To suggest as such is like asking one to look for a pregnant virgin.
The trick is to avoid previous mistakes; to get the needed funding at the right levels to compensate for the higher costs that will result from operating an old and aged hull and to ensure we have the needed spares. That’s the issue as faced by the MMEA; that needs to be rectified to avoid a repeat of previous issues. On top of that it really has to be an interim solution and be replaced on time before further issues surface.
Hmmm… I wonder who is going around in circles?
If MMEA had that kind of funding to maintain aged hulls, they might as well use that money to buy new ones. Now coming back to examples of said equipment that meets your sweet spot…
The maintenance funds come from OE and buying new stuff is under DE. It is easier to get funds from OE.
It’s been mentioned before already. Government doesn’t like DE because it requires a long-term financial commitment. OE can be changed every year based on circumstances. For example, if the government orders 3 new MMEA OPVs today for RM800 million with payment terms of RM200 million a year for 4 years, even if next year the economy is bad the government still has to pay RM200 million because they are contracted and obligated to do so. With DE, the government can choose not to spend RM200 million next year. Old ships are mostly free, so DE is either very low or zero. The government considers the impact on the OE (i.e., how much it costs to run the ships). If next year economy bad, they can cut the OE allocation and ground the ship, reduce frequency of use (e.g., lower fuel costs), or delay critical maintenance. With DE, government has no choice but to pay the contracted amount unless they renegotiate the contract.
kel – ”It’s been mentioned before already.”
So be it but ultimately if we’re going to get decades old hulls we need to factor in for the pertinent fact they will be inherently maintenance intensive; will cost more to sustain. We’re not talking about funds for a full upgrade but the bare basics [to equate both is silly]: spares in the needed quantities and funds for sustainment. We’ve faced this situation before; insufficient sustainment funds and at times we get the ship [which all clap about as if it’s penalty free] but not the needed spares [not everything’s free or available].
Any notion that hulls which are decades old will not be an issue to sustain by a small and already under resourced MMEA which already has a huge footprint; is hogwash.
“It is easier to get funds from OE.”
Indeed its the reason why TLDM went for OP Plus direction and getting ships back from MMEA. However MMEA doesnt have enough hulls worthy to be relifed and their OE is also wearing thin.
@kel
“Government doesn’t like DE because”
Also because like any other organisation, the beancounters are more strict in vetting money for new stuff rather than maintain what is existing.
Weirdly as it may sound, its easier to justify & get approval to spend RM 100mil OE money to refurb a donated old boat than to spend RM 100mil DE money to buy a new boat.
As for TLDM survey capability.
The leased out hydrographic capability has long been stopped due to not being capable enough.
Under 15 to 5 all survey ships to be retired and LMS to be used for survey.
In reality the LMS is also ill equipped to do survey missions.
Right now KD Perantau which should be disposed together with KD Mutiara, has been refitted and to be continue to be used as TLDM Hydrographic survey vessel.
In the future, OSV as well as LMS-X vessels could be used to continue with TLDM hydrographic survey missions.
They have leased another ship to do the hydrographic work.
.. – ”The leased out hydrographic capability has long been stopped due to not being capable enough.”
On the contrary; despite your assertion it was ”capable”. We did not have the cash – full stop/period. It was something we made as a trade off; a costs cutting measure. Just like how we came up with the 5/15 to begin with; a politically expedient exercise – driven by necessity; not choice.
Getting back to what I said : like other things our survey capabilities which we took years to gain; has atrophied.
”Under 15 to 5 all survey ships to be retired and LMS to be used for survey.”
Great but never mind what’s on paper; in reality the 5/15 has ceased being the 5/15 and is only officially adhered to because it was politically approved.
… – ”In reality the LMS is also ill equipped to do survey missions.”
”In reality” even if fitted with survey gear the design is ill suited.
… – ”In the future, OSV as well as LMS-X vessels could be used to continue with TLDM hydrographic survey missions.”
”In the future” the list of things we can do is endless; as long as funding is there. For the foreseeable ”future”; priority/focus will mainly be on the LCS and LMS; little cash for anything else. That’s the reality. As it stands various things have time expired but not been replaced.
also, just like actual MCM people I’ve asked [on their opinions on modular payloads]; people who spent a large part of their careers doing survey work [a dead end career wise] aren’t convinced a hull not specifically constructed/intended for survey; will suffice/do the job.
… – “be continue to be used as TLDM Hydrographic survey vessel”
The only RMN survey assets are a couple of launches [and maybe a few other similarly sized craft] for coastal and riverine survey. Everything else is supposed to be privatised/leased.