A CGI of P-4 MPA by De Havilland and PAL Aerospace. PAL Aerospace
SHAH ALAM: Par the course. It appears that the Ismail Sabri administration will continue with the plans formulated by the Armed Forces for the last decade which was codified into the 2019 Defence White Paper. This was expected as the administration have only some 14 months to go before the next general election so it was par the course.
RMN AW139 MUH CGI. Gading Aerospace
In fact, I believe the next administration will also followed the same plan though like the DWP no one will dare to put a monetary value on it so the rolling plan for RMK12, which it self is basically the same ones from RMK11 and RMK10 apart from items already procured or dropped. This will go on and on – basically forever – until someone starts doing something else of course.
Tejas LCA MK 1. Wikipedia Commons
The decision to follow the current defence plans was confirmed in a written reply by the Defence Minister in parliament on September 14. The question posed by Bukit Bendera MP Wong Hon Wai was:
A CGI of P-4 MPA by De Havilland and PAL Aerospace. PAL Aerospace
Minta MENTERI PERTAHANAN menyatakan apakah usaha terbaru untuk meningkatkan keupayaan tentera laut dan tentera udara sejajar dengan Kertas Putih Pertahanan untuk menjaga keselamatan dan kedaulatan ruang udara dan ruang laut negara.
RMAF F/A-18D Hornet fires a Maverick missile at Eks Ababil 2021. RMAF
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Kertas Putih Pertahanan (KPP) telah menetapkan bahawa strategi pertahanan negara perlu dilaksanakan mengikut tiga tonggak utama iaitu Cegah Rintang Berpadu, Pertahanan Komprehensif dan Perkongsian
Berwibawa. Lanjutan itu, KPP juga telah menggariskan pelan jangka panjang bagi pembangunan Angkatan Masa Hadapan untuk Angkatan Tentera Malaysia ( ATM).
Bagi segmen keupayaan tentera laut, selari dengan aspirasi KPP ini, Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia (TLDM), kini sedang melaksanakan beberapa inisiatif seperti:
1. Pelan pembangunan keupayaannya melalui Program Transformasi Armada TLDM 15ke5. Pelan ini dijangka akan dapat mengatasi cabaran yang dihadapi TLDM dalam menguruskan aset-aset yang mengalami keusangan dengan mentransformasikan 15 kelas kapalyang lama kepada hanya 5 kelas kapal yang baharu. 5 kelas kapal tersebut terdiri daripada Littoral Combatant Ship (LCS), Littoral Mission Ship (LMS), Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS), New Generation Patrol Vessel (NGPV) dan Kapal Selam.
RMN planned procurement under the 15 to 5 plan.
Pada masa ini, TLDM telah melaksanakan perolehan 4 buah kapal LMS kumpulan pertama dari China melalui kerjasama Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd dan China Shipbuilding & Offshore
International Co. Ltd. LMS 1 (KD KERIS) dan LMS 2 (KD SUNDANG) telah memasuki inventori TLDM, masing-masing pada 31 Disember 2019 dan 14 Januari 2021, manakala LMS 3 (BADIK) pada 14 September 2021 dan LMS 4 (RENCONG) dijangka tiba di Malaysia pada Disember 2021.
2. Dalam tempoh Rancangan Malaysia ke-12 (2021-2025), TLDM merancang untuk melaksanakan perolehan seperti berikut:
a. Perolehan sebanyak 8 buah kapal LMS kumpulan kedua mulai tahun 2022;
b. Perolehan sebanyak 2 buah Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS) yang dijangka bermula pada tahun 2024, bagi
memenuhi keperluan operasi ATM melalui kemampuan Strategic Sealift antara Semenanjung Malaysia dengan
Sabah dan Sarawak; dan
c. Perolehan 3 buah Helikopter Operasi Maritim (HOM) dan 13 buah Fast Interceptor Craft (FIC). HOM dijangka akan memasuki inventori TLDM pada Mac dan Mei 2022, manakala FIC pula akan diterima secara berfasa mulai Mac 2023 hingga Mac 2024.
3. Dalam tempoh Rancangan Malaysia Ke-13 (2026 – 2030), TLDM merancang perolehan 6 buah Kapal Peronda Generasi Baharu (NGPV).
Bagi segmen keupayaan tentera udara pula, sejajar dengan KPP TUDM akan memperkasakan kuasa udara dengan mengoptimumkan keupayaan bagi menghindari sebarang ancaman terhadap kedaulatan dan kepentingan negara. Perlaksanaan konsep pertahanan negara di setiap kawasan berkepentingan diintegrasikan melalui operasi domain udara yang mampan (effect based).
Antara inisiatif TUDM dalam meningkatkan keupayaan kuasa udara ialah:
1. Pembangunan Pelan Strategik TUDM yang berasaskan kepentingan negara yang mendokong warfighting concept dengan mengabungkan pelbagai domain pertahanan – Darat, Laut, Udara dan Siber. Pelan ini seperti yang digariskan di dalam Kertas Putih Pertahanan adalah merentasi ruang lingkup kerangka kedaulatan di kawasan teras, lanjutan dan hadapan.
2. Mekanisme tindak balas TUDM merangkumi komponen pasif (diplomasi ketenteraan dan pengesanan ancaman) dan komponen aktif (penghindaran dan penyingkiran ancaman) melalui atur gerak
aset-aset mengikut keperluan semasa.
3. Merangka beberapa perolehan aset baharu TUDM bagi memenuhi keperluan operasi seperti Fighter Lead In Trainer (FLIT) – Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA), Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA), Long Range Air Defence Radar, Medium Range Air Defence Missile System (MERAD), Medium Altitude Long Endurance Unmanned Aerial System (MALE-UAS) dan Helikopter Utiliti.
Perolehan aset tersebut adalah bagi meningkat kuasa operasi TUDM di samping menaiktaraf sistem pengawasan ruang udara, sistem perisikan udara dan mengoptimumkan operasi TUDM.
Selain itu, ATM amnya dan khususnya TLDM dan TUDM sentiasa mendokong aspirasi pertahanan di dalam menjalin hubungan kerjasama serantau dan antarabangsa melalui pelbagai inisiatif perkongsian
berwibawa (hubungan dua hala dan pelbagai hala).
Orion E UAS. Rosoboronexport JSC
Despite the minister stating that the LMS Batch 2 will be funded in 2022 and MRSS 2024, I think we will have to wait for the 2022 budget for that to be sorted out first. The Armed Forces is however already bracing for cuts in the procurement budget for the next few years as the government grapples with the fall-out caused by the pandemic. If they don’t fund the MPA and UAV projects – tendered out and waiting for decisions – it is doubtful that the government will fund the FLIT/LCA, LMS Batch 2 and the MRSS as well.
Three MRSS designs on display at the RMN booth at DSA 2018
It is also interesting to note the minister failed to even mention the elephant in the room….Anyway, Happy Malaysia and Armed Forces Day.
SHAH ALAM: The RMAF project team for the MPA project will be based in Turin, Italy, a quotation notice (QN) published on Eperolehan on July 12 has revealed. The seven-day QN is the for the door to door, packaging, transportation, and delivery service for MPA project team to Turin, Italy. […]
SHAH ALAM: The launch of the first New Generation Patrol Craft (NGPC) has been delayed. In the previous post, I reported that the ceremony will be held this month. Read Here. However, I have been informed that it will be delayed indefinitely. There is nothing wrong with the ship, its […]
SHAH ALAM: RIMPAC and Refit. RMN’s flagship, KD Lekiu is to participate in RIMPAC 2018, the world’s largest maritime exercise. The biennial exercise is held between June and July of even numbered years out of Honolulu, Hawaii. Lekiu’s involvement in RIMPAC 2018 was revealed by the U.S Navy in a […]
40 Comments
Our economy need to be strenghtened,
just like before PRU14.
Only then each and every long-term plans could be put back on track.
Not surprised that the new Menteri Pertahan continuing the previous works. A few things I would like to point out;
– Why saying TLDM is following the original 15 to 5 plan when a new requirement is out for 2nd Batch LMS? I agree with other commenters that its not 15 to 5 plan anymore. We all know why there is new requirement from 2nd batch LMS.
– I am surprised that TLDM still wanted new NGPVs (Kedahs) that have old radars (yes I am talking about you TRS-3D) with the current NGPV don’t even have missiles and no built in ASW capabilities (which IMO it should have to a limited degree).
– I rather have a slightly larger LMS (1000 tones above) that have anti ship missiles and some sort of SHORAD missiles but still way cheaper than NGPV.
– Rather than building 6 new NGPV (which should be around usd250 million each), TLDM should opt for 2 more LCS (usd500 each) and 4 more LMS (~usd100 million each)
– For MRSS, the Indonesian MRSS should fill the bill
adequately IMO
– Adding more Scorpenes are fine unless TLDM needs AIP or Lithium ion batteries. From my understanding DCNS keeps upgrading the systems from time to time.
– It seems the minister did not mentioned the ASW helos……
NGPV is meko n MRCA is Kuwaiti hornet right
Marhalim,
Foresee incoming hiccup again?
Yeah!!! We (Aus) are going for nuclear subs.
Luqman,
– The 5/15 is dead as a dodo.
– The TRS-3D can have its software upgraded. Just because it came out a whole ago doesn’t mean it has no use or is obsolete – look at the DA-08s.
– The intention for follow on Kedahs to be fully fitted out and to have some level of modifications.
– I personally don’t see why we need more Kedahs but they have better endurance, range and seakeeping compared to the “cheaper” LMSs.
– Various designs on paper ‘fit the bill”. Depends on what the RMN specifies.
@Azlan
– Software could improved TRS3D to some degree, but there are other newer AESA options like TRS4D and NS100 sure it will be a bit more expensive. I think its time for the navy to go for from PESA to AESA. Then again, TRS3D is capable enough for a 2nd rate ship role.
– Really hope the 2nd batch of Kedah will be fully fitted (and the 1st Batch as well)
– I believe the newer Kedah should have torpedo launchers. Even the old Kasturi had it. If somehow BNS could fit it in the Kedah. The hangar could be replaced with a retractable one so there would be space for torpedos.
– For comparison, the Russian Steregushchiy corvette is of the same displacement but have towed sonar array and torpedos.
– As for sea keeping, from what marhalim reported, the new LMS might be closer in size to the Kedah and Damen 1800 OPV, so sea keeping would not be a huge problem.
Imho, the 2nd batch ngpv should utilise the gowind design albeit scale down size, minus the missiles and torpedo, to have some economies of scale
So how about LCS are they not talking about it
@Luqman https://www.malaysiandefence.com/back-into-the-future/
The plan had always been to augment the LMS & NGPV fleets in order to fully replace the old patrol boats. A difference is now they had to rebuild/ rehull/ refurb some of these PCs to keep them running in parallel while waiting for new ships to come onboard. Whether its sensible to still keep on plugging for new outdated Kedahs hulls is beyond me, but while the 15-to-5 Plan have changed it still very much alive, the essence of it are being followed by subsequent admirals. TLDM have a very clear idea what MRSS they need and I’m sure they can justify it, if its a Dokdo then so be it. The problem is cash.
Sorry to be “that guy” but as I have said, we do not in reality have much resources – e.g. in terms of money, manpower and machinery – to cash the cheque our big mouths write.
Covid-19 is a war, albeit a different kind of war than usually discussed here. Yet it is a good test case to show what could happenin a conflict and thus far it has exposed the rocky financial status of the country and economy, compared to our neighbours and peers. We can see that in times of crisis we have lack of leadership, political opportunism, systems ahd processes that look fancy but break down (i.e. contact tracing), leading eventually to failure to fight the “war” without heavy preventable losses. And I’m sure we all are cognisant that the expenditure we have seen so far is nothing compared to a real shooting war.
So my suggestion, as always, is to speak softer and carry a stick that is right-sized for our means, cutting our cloth to suit our coat, and focusing on building up the foundation of real security against crises arising from both war and “operations other than war”.
In practical terms, that means focusing on building up the economy, so we have money to pay for the manpower and machinery that we need in times of crisis. It means having realistic objectives of anti-piracy, anti-trafficking, border control and internal security against non-state actors, instead of regional dominance. So that we can efficiently and effectively manage problems which are within our capability, instead of acting like a military power which we are not.
And hence it means directing our organisation, doctrine, training and procurement towards these objectives, instead of spending much-needed resources training and equipping for a conventional we can not and will not realistically be involved in.
We did not need top-tier combat aircraft and main battle tanks to fight insurgents, we do not need frigates to fight pirates. And we do not need a leadership drunk on delusions of power to lead us down a path that is unsuitable for our survival.
Or else we will face the lessons of Covid-19 again and again, in different guise.
” So my suggestion, as always, is to speak softer and carry a stick that is right-sized for our means, cutting our cloth to suit our coat, and focusing on building up the foundation of real security against crises arising from both war and “operations other than war”. ”
True. But tasks must be done by the correct parties. For example, having a strong peacetime security of our maritime domains is unfortunately not a task that should not be lead by RMN, but MMEA, and that is the fact everyone should realise.
” And hence it means directing our organisation, doctrine, training and procurement towards these objectives, instead of spending much-needed resources training and equipping for a conventional we can not and will not realistically be involved in ”
MMEA should be equipped with enough PVs and OPVs that could monitor 100% of our EEZ. RMN should be a lean force fully equipped with potent weapons to respond asymetrically to any attack to our maritime domain. RMAF should be able to provide the best situational awareness to ATM, with MPA, MALE UAV, AWACs, plus able to fully control the safety of malaysian airspace in peacetime, with adequate LCAs. TD should be able to make our land borders as impenetrable as possible.
Amen to all Chua has commented on
Chua,
A lot of the stuff already approved for purchase are suited for low intensity non state threats. The problem is we can’t allow our ability to deal with external threats to atrophy too much because we can’t say with any certainty what the future holds and letting things atrophy for too long means it will be harder and more expensive to regain later.
Gonggok,
That\’s a fact most realise. A fact many don\’t realise is that the MMEA simply isn\’t in a position to fully assume all its responsibilities and won\’t be for sine time yet. The RMAF for now should be the UAS MALE operator but as we progress we must have a “UAS Command’ to fully have “jointness’. Also, whether it’s a MPA or AEW it must have the ability to work “jointly’ that is the key to everything.
Forget the “potent” part. The RMN has to start progressing to a network centric force which also has a unmanned capability in the form of USVs and UUVs all networked along with other assets.
@Chua
You aren’t the only one to highlight the conundrum we are facing. It is logical that money allocated for defence procurement would be better spent for the fight against Covid, to support the rakyat, and prop up the economy. But some here still thinks its okay to have a credible military while our rakyat goes on empty stomach & jobless. While our servicemen are pretty much on permanent basis, our doctors & nurses are facing yearly contract renewal uncertainties and yet we put a lot of reliance & pressure onto them since pandemic started until now and beyond. Covid is as much a health, economic, & social war at once compared to a belligerent actor. Where should priorities go? You know, I know.
Chua,
China is arming up to invade Taiwan. In order to do that they may intended to do a “Haiwaian blitzkrieg” up to third island chain to disable or delay reinforcement. Singapore are just below us, so they probably try to invade us first for a beach head. The least we can do when such scenario happen is to counter and delay their effort with enough practical deterrence until help comes if it comes. Please dont patronize our defense effort just because of covid or we will forever remain a sitting duck.
Here’s a thought exercise.
During the Interwar Period, the British Armed Forces initiated a “10-year plan” in which they constantly forecast whether there would be a major war within the next 10 years, in order to guide their procurement strategy. This worked in some ways and not in other ways, but that is besides the point – the point is the system.
Similarly, the question is, what are the chances we are going to go to war against a peer state within the next 10 years?
Let us say the answer is “Yes”. If yes, how much of a fight can we put up if we spend, say, 3% of our GDP annually rearming within this period? That is around Usd 10 billion a year, presumably of which Capex can be say 25%.
That is about Usd 25 billion in Capex for 10 years. Maybe we can buy, I dunno, 10 Scorpenes, 100 missile boats; 80 F-35s; 8,000 tanks, IFVs, and SPGs… would that be enough to fight off a forecast enemy? (Remembering that our enemies also build up during that time.) Would it make a real difference to the outcome?
Let us say the answer is “No”. If no, then say we turn our focus towards border and internal security; anti-trafficking and anti-poaching. Say we devote 1% of our GDP to this cause, as well as the majority of our security forces’ manpower; or Usd 3 billion a year and say 50,000 men. (Perhaps more if the PGA are included.) Could we make a real difference?
Note that it is believed as much as Rm 6 billion is lost annually to illegal fishing alone. That is about Usd 1.4 billion. If we can recover that amount, theoretically it would help defray the costs of this switch. There is also the impact on human trafficking and wildlife poaching to consider.
Just a thought.
@Khairul
Different circumstances will dictate different policies, how can we compare to Taiwan?
China is a very real threat to them, and if China can invade and takeover with minimal global impact, they would do so.
Who is our very real enemies; Singapore? Indonesia? Thailand? Pinoy? Vietnam? Brunei??? Come on! Don’t fight a perceived enemy of tomorrow, fight the very real enemy of today that is COVID.
The reason we are paupers with defence equipment is because for the same GDP 1% compared to Sg, they can pay 3.09 times more than we do. The economy has to improve firstly or else we are going to bankrupt ourselves trying to keep up with the Jones.
Joe,
I did not compare us with Taiwan. Read again.
We ARE fighting COVID at the moment but we shouldn’t ignore other things. Some of us just want our defense capabilities to rot. China spies will be out of job if our own people try to weaken us from inside. And guess the only state that has been persistently harassing us in our EEZ since last year?
Our GDP($) is actually slightly larger than Singapore. Whats you smokin bro.
In the event if troubles over Taiwan, the Chinese will attempt to prevent the Americans from effectively deploying and operating in the area, as well as help from Japan arriving. The main area for reinforcements to arrive from, whether American (from Guam or Hawaii) or from Japan will be from the East. There will be no need for China to devote attention and resources to us or Singapore as part of a “Hawaiian blitzkrieg” – a term which incidentally was never officially used by the Germans but was coined by a journalist.
Azlan,
IMO, in the scenario that they are commited to go as far as Hawaii, might as well neutralize Singapore to get optimal reign in South China Sea. But I guess if they want to maintain ASEAN neutrality though shaky probably will just focus on US assets in western Pasific.
@Kharul
Pre-Covid SG GDP was a few billion USD ahead of us. I don’t know which year you are comparing.
Note that this means their GDP per capita is nearly 6 times of ours.
They’d be much better off using resources in far more strategic places like Okinawa, Yokosuka, Hawaii and Guam.Those are actual American bases, crucial not only to project but sustain power in the region – unlike Singapore which incidentally is not a American treaty ally per see. We can also add in Australia as a potential target.
One cannot assume that in the event of a war, that Singapore will allow the Americans to use Changi or other bases. Singapore is a close American partner and it plays host to an American logistics/suppot presence but it is not a treaty partner.
Also, China really has no need to occupy any regional country. What it has to do is to secure the sea lanes around the SCS and the approaches to Taiwan, as well as the periphery to deny the Americans and their allies the ability to deploy and operate. China’s newly created reefs have to be seen in this light, being part of its contrsted zone.
@Khairul
Then why bring China & Taiwan into this discussion? What’s that got to do with us?
And what’s that got to do with SG invading from the south? FYI, no, there is no chance for them invading us, they have no reason to do so unprovoked.
Better to concentrate fighting the real enemy that is already on our land: COVID.
Chua,
I use the source from IMF. The crux is Joe said it’s 3x our expenditure with 1% of their GDP. This is not the case even they are couple of billion more than us. Singapore simply put more in their defense than us, correct me if Im wrong, its 15% of their GDP. How much do we spend in % to compare?
Joe,
The scenario is if China went gung ho and attack all potential US allies and bases before invading Taiwan to prevent reinforcement. I presume that Singapore will be one of its target and since Singapore is very near to us, China will invade the tip of south Johor as a beachhead. It’s not Singapore invading us, in fact they will need our help.
It seems this probably wont be the case as Azlan explained.
Azlan,
Understood. In your opinion what is China threat level to us?
Anyway I hope the mod will not block this reply. I probably went overboard on a reply comparing an entity to the NAZI lol.
The current china threat level is practically just this –
They want the whole of south china sea to be a Chinese wholly-owned lake and territory. Everyone that wants to swim there, pass through there, fish there, drill for petroleum there must ask the permission of china. Something that has no merit in law of UNCLOS which china signed.
I don’t think china wants to invade us, or even singapore for that matter. Just to steal our economic livelihood that we are entitled to with the 200 nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ) clause in UNCLOS. Something we cannot afford to cede to China as we depend so much economically to oil and gas. Pushing back China does not mean a war is needed, but still we need a strong navy and coast guard to push back chinese navy and coast guard in our EEZ. In taiwan invasion scenario, singapore might get hit by chinese ballistic missiles, as is some of our own bases to prevent them from being used by any countries trying to help Taiwan, but chinese invasion to malaysia and singapore? Probably not.
Khairul,
Some key facts to bear in mind
– China is the largest FDI here and we are it’s largest trading partner within ASEAN. A conflict with China would ruin the economy.
– Our means of dealing with China revolves around having a strong dialogue with it whilst also having strong military and diplomatic contacts with various other players.
– We can increase the defence budget by a factor of 5 but it will make no difference.
– China is a source of great concern but we also have other pressing security related issues to focus on.
gonggok,
The SCS forns an integral part of China’s ability to transport oil and gas from the Middle East. Control of it also enables China to improve its ability to mount ops against Taiwan and to mitigate the effects of the First Island Chain, as well as forming a vital element of its contested zone.
Ballistic and cruise missiles might only be used if certain bases are used to support American and Austtalian ops. Even then places like the Philippines and Guam are better located to support ops in Taiwan rather than Malaysia or Singapore.
I”m more concerned about non kinetic means – cyber/ekectronic attacks on our radars, radios, GPSs, SATCOM, BMSs, CMSs, INSs, cell phones, etc. What China devotes to cyber and EW is several times larger than our defence budget.
Also, us ”pushing back” incursions in the SCS is cloud cuckoo gagaland wishful thinking. We can detect, monitor and intercept any intrusions but nothing more.
@Khairul
>”I use the source from IMF”
IMF gives Malaysia’s 2019 GDP as USD 364 bn and SIngapore’s 2019 GDP as USD 375 bn.
>”Singapore simply put more in their defense than us, correct me if Im wrong, its 15% of their GDP”
>”How much do we spend in % to compare?”
It’s true that Joe is incorrect; Singapore outspends us in defence. However the figure is ~3.1% of GDP compared to our ~0.9% (2019 figures).
@Azlan
>”we can’t allow our ability to deal with external threats to atrophy too much because we can’t say with any certainty what the future holds and letting things atrophy for too long means it will be harder and more expensive to regain later”
As I showed, the very hypothetical fantasy 10-year forecast shows that we are already too far behind to make much of a difference, it is time to let that dream go for the time being. Take some time off to achieve equally important, more achievable security goals, then revisit the question in future.
Just correct me if I’m wrong on this statement: any foreseeable peer conflict will ultimately have to be resolved diplomatically as we are currently far behind and don’t have the spending power to catch up in the arms race. No?
@Kharul
>” they probably try to invade us first for a beach head”
This isn’t WW2 any more and they don’t have to invade us because firstly, we have nothing that can stop them from doing whatever they want to Taiwan, and secondly they would have to devote all amphibious assets to the main effort.
>”Please dont patronize our defense effort just because of covid or we will forever remain a sitting duck”
Please don’t keep trying to fly when we can’t even walk, or we will forever be remain unable to achieve both security and meaningful deterrence. We must take one step at a time. Our perennial problem has always been mata besar daripada perut, mulut besar daripada kemampuan. It is NOT “patronising” to be practical, and it is NOT “patriotic” to live in a fantasy.
Chua,.
This is all I have to say –
We simply cannot afford or take the gamble of letting our conventional warfare ability to atrophy based on the assumption we don’t or are not likely to face a conventional threat. Our policy is always to have some level of deference to face the types of state actor threats which were more likely and those those type of threats do not include a prolonged attrional based conflict with a state actor, irrespective of whether we can or can’t keep up, which isn’t the point.
Azlan
“pushing back” what do I mean by that?
We need to push back the narrative that China has de-facto control over Malaysian EEZ. We need to show to China that we have control over our EEZ and territorial waters. That we can freely exercise our economic rights in our EEZ without being blocked or harassed by China. Pushing back china in our EEZ does not mean that we see China as the enemy, but just exercising and upholding our rights to our EEZ as stated in UNCLOS.
To be done by never letting any PLA Navy ships sail in malaysian EEZ without any TLDM ships, TUDM MPA and MALE UAVs shadowing them. By having good ASW capability to track and shadow every PLA Navy submarines in malaysian EEZ, making it known to them that we know that they are there.
To have MMEA OPVs to always be on station 24/7 at critical points such as Beting Serupai. MMEA OPVs to always escort Malaysian petroleum exploration activities in our EEZ. MMEA always on the scene to block any attempt of Chinese Coast Guard to harass Malaysian fishing activities. MMEA having the means to block all attempts of foreign fishing vessels to fish illegally in malaysian EEZ.
@Azlan
There are many nations and micro-nations who realistically are unable to defend themselves in a peer war, and have basically given up this objective. One regional example being NZ. Do we have sufficient resources to claim we are not on that level? If no, then why persist in deluding ourselves? We are now in a position of trying to do two things at once and therefore failing to do both, like Pak Lebai Malang.
Gonggok,
What you mentioned are things we have long been doing..
Every single Chinese intrusion is detected, monitored and intercepted. Hard to do given the number of hulls we have but we manage, just barely. The fact that we need more assets is as plain as day.
We issue diplomatic notes regularly and we make known we do not recognise China’s claims. At times we engage in a lot of back door diplomacy. Its not as if we’re doing nothing.
Also, it cliche to say the MMEA should be the lead agency but the harsh fact is it isn’t ready.
Chua,
You are making an apple to orange comparison. NZ has the advantage of being next to Australia. It’s also still a part of the white eyed alliance.
We simply can’t neglect our conventional warfare capabilities which anyhow are undefeated. Unless one has an oracle or a crystal ball, we cannot gamble with our security in an already challenging and rapidly changing environment. Making a comparison with countries which are in a very different geo-strategic environment doesn’t provide a full picture. Letting our conventional capabilities atrophy means it will take more time and money to regain..
NZ doesn’t have China to contend with, nor is Oz interested taking any part of NZ territories. That isn’t the case in our situation; our neighbours are not hostile, but they are not exactly friendly either. Philippines’ claim on Sabah, for example. It has been mostly political but it isn’t unrealistic to think that they will go for the military option if the situation presents itself.
chua,
New zealand isn’t abandoning its defensive objective. It is still upgrading and getting equipment that can contribute to allied military operations, like the massive brand new replenishment tanker.
New Zealand has a luxury something that very few other countries have. Vast distances from any enemy and a large friendly country (Australia) between it and any danger. They can afford not to have fighter jets or submarines.
Malaysia on the other hand, has its EEZ waters just a few kilometres off its shores being wholly claimed as Chinese sovereign territory.
Yes we cannot defeat China on our own, but that does not mean we cannot strive to defend our territory and EEZ, while being prepared to fight back if attacked. Sweden, Norway, Finland does not just give up defending their own country just because Russia is much more powerful then them. We should have similar aspirations too.
Right now we are not even trying to do the two things (whatever you meant by that) properly, they are just like token efforts with not much substances. Or what malays say as melepaskan patok di tangga.
Requirements is one thing, resources is another. We can hypothetically have a requirement based on geo-strategic necessity for 100 submarines and 1,000 MRCA but if our resources cannot reach to even 5% of that then it is a fact that we cannot attain it and must set our sights lower.
Fact is that right now we already DON’T have a credible conventional deterrence against most any regional reference opponent. So we are not losing anything we haven’t, de facto, already lost.
All this mention of China. We face various other challenges which at times have nearly gone “hot” yet China is always mentioned.
We have unresolved overlapping claims with China but we are not in a state of tensions with it and war with China is exremely unlikely. In the event it did occur the 1st thing to go would be the economy and even a single missile is fired a Chinese EW and cyber attack would probably neutralise our radars, GPSs, SATCOM, radios, INSs, cell phones, BMSs and CMSs..
Norway and France enjoy the collective security offered by NATO and if Sweden were attacked it would get external help.
Our economy need to be strenghtened,
just like before PRU14.
Only then each and every long-term plans could be put back on track.
Not surprised that the new Menteri Pertahan continuing the previous works. A few things I would like to point out;
– Why saying TLDM is following the original 15 to 5 plan when a new requirement is out for 2nd Batch LMS? I agree with other commenters that its not 15 to 5 plan anymore. We all know why there is new requirement from 2nd batch LMS.
– I am surprised that TLDM still wanted new NGPVs (Kedahs) that have old radars (yes I am talking about you TRS-3D) with the current NGPV don’t even have missiles and no built in ASW capabilities (which IMO it should have to a limited degree).
– I rather have a slightly larger LMS (1000 tones above) that have anti ship missiles and some sort of SHORAD missiles but still way cheaper than NGPV.
– Rather than building 6 new NGPV (which should be around usd250 million each), TLDM should opt for 2 more LCS (usd500 each) and 4 more LMS (~usd100 million each)
– For MRSS, the Indonesian MRSS should fill the bill
adequately IMO
– Adding more Scorpenes are fine unless TLDM needs AIP or Lithium ion batteries. From my understanding DCNS keeps upgrading the systems from time to time.
– It seems the minister did not mentioned the ASW helos……
NGPV is meko n MRCA is Kuwaiti hornet right
Marhalim,
Foresee incoming hiccup again?
Yeah!!! We (Aus) are going for nuclear subs.
Luqman,
– The 5/15 is dead as a dodo.
– The TRS-3D can have its software upgraded. Just because it came out a whole ago doesn’t mean it has no use or is obsolete – look at the DA-08s.
– The intention for follow on Kedahs to be fully fitted out and to have some level of modifications.
– I personally don’t see why we need more Kedahs but they have better endurance, range and seakeeping compared to the “cheaper” LMSs.
– Various designs on paper ‘fit the bill”. Depends on what the RMN specifies.
@Azlan
– Software could improved TRS3D to some degree, but there are other newer AESA options like TRS4D and NS100 sure it will be a bit more expensive. I think its time for the navy to go for from PESA to AESA. Then again, TRS3D is capable enough for a 2nd rate ship role.
– Really hope the 2nd batch of Kedah will be fully fitted (and the 1st Batch as well)
– I believe the newer Kedah should have torpedo launchers. Even the old Kasturi had it. If somehow BNS could fit it in the Kedah. The hangar could be replaced with a retractable one so there would be space for torpedos.
– For comparison, the Russian Steregushchiy corvette is of the same displacement but have towed sonar array and torpedos.
– As for sea keeping, from what marhalim reported, the new LMS might be closer in size to the Kedah and Damen 1800 OPV, so sea keeping would not be a huge problem.
Imho, the 2nd batch ngpv should utilise the gowind design albeit scale down size, minus the missiles and torpedo, to have some economies of scale
So how about LCS are they not talking about it
@Luqman
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/back-into-the-future/
The plan had always been to augment the LMS & NGPV fleets in order to fully replace the old patrol boats. A difference is now they had to rebuild/ rehull/ refurb some of these PCs to keep them running in parallel while waiting for new ships to come onboard. Whether its sensible to still keep on plugging for new outdated Kedahs hulls is beyond me, but while the 15-to-5 Plan have changed it still very much alive, the essence of it are being followed by subsequent admirals. TLDM have a very clear idea what MRSS they need and I’m sure they can justify it, if its a Dokdo then so be it. The problem is cash.
Sorry to be “that guy” but as I have said, we do not in reality have much resources – e.g. in terms of money, manpower and machinery – to cash the cheque our big mouths write.
Covid-19 is a war, albeit a different kind of war than usually discussed here. Yet it is a good test case to show what could happenin a conflict and thus far it has exposed the rocky financial status of the country and economy, compared to our neighbours and peers. We can see that in times of crisis we have lack of leadership, political opportunism, systems ahd processes that look fancy but break down (i.e. contact tracing), leading eventually to failure to fight the “war” without heavy preventable losses. And I’m sure we all are cognisant that the expenditure we have seen so far is nothing compared to a real shooting war.
So my suggestion, as always, is to speak softer and carry a stick that is right-sized for our means, cutting our cloth to suit our coat, and focusing on building up the foundation of real security against crises arising from both war and “operations other than war”.
In practical terms, that means focusing on building up the economy, so we have money to pay for the manpower and machinery that we need in times of crisis. It means having realistic objectives of anti-piracy, anti-trafficking, border control and internal security against non-state actors, instead of regional dominance. So that we can efficiently and effectively manage problems which are within our capability, instead of acting like a military power which we are not.
And hence it means directing our organisation, doctrine, training and procurement towards these objectives, instead of spending much-needed resources training and equipping for a conventional we can not and will not realistically be involved in.
We did not need top-tier combat aircraft and main battle tanks to fight insurgents, we do not need frigates to fight pirates. And we do not need a leadership drunk on delusions of power to lead us down a path that is unsuitable for our survival.
Or else we will face the lessons of Covid-19 again and again, in different guise.
” So my suggestion, as always, is to speak softer and carry a stick that is right-sized for our means, cutting our cloth to suit our coat, and focusing on building up the foundation of real security against crises arising from both war and “operations other than war”. ”
True. But tasks must be done by the correct parties. For example, having a strong peacetime security of our maritime domains is unfortunately not a task that should not be lead by RMN, but MMEA, and that is the fact everyone should realise.
” And hence it means directing our organisation, doctrine, training and procurement towards these objectives, instead of spending much-needed resources training and equipping for a conventional we can not and will not realistically be involved in ”
MMEA should be equipped with enough PVs and OPVs that could monitor 100% of our EEZ. RMN should be a lean force fully equipped with potent weapons to respond asymetrically to any attack to our maritime domain. RMAF should be able to provide the best situational awareness to ATM, with MPA, MALE UAV, AWACs, plus able to fully control the safety of malaysian airspace in peacetime, with adequate LCAs. TD should be able to make our land borders as impenetrable as possible.
Amen to all Chua has commented on
Chua,
A lot of the stuff already approved for purchase are suited for low intensity non state threats. The problem is we can’t allow our ability to deal with external threats to atrophy too much because we can’t say with any certainty what the future holds and letting things atrophy for too long means it will be harder and more expensive to regain later.
Gonggok,
That\’s a fact most realise. A fact many don\’t realise is that the MMEA simply isn\’t in a position to fully assume all its responsibilities and won\’t be for sine time yet. The RMAF for now should be the UAS MALE operator but as we progress we must have a “UAS Command’ to fully have “jointness’. Also, whether it’s a MPA or AEW it must have the ability to work “jointly’ that is the key to everything.
Forget the “potent” part. The RMN has to start progressing to a network centric force which also has a unmanned capability in the form of USVs and UUVs all networked along with other assets.
@Chua
You aren’t the only one to highlight the conundrum we are facing. It is logical that money allocated for defence procurement would be better spent for the fight against Covid, to support the rakyat, and prop up the economy. But some here still thinks its okay to have a credible military while our rakyat goes on empty stomach & jobless. While our servicemen are pretty much on permanent basis, our doctors & nurses are facing yearly contract renewal uncertainties and yet we put a lot of reliance & pressure onto them since pandemic started until now and beyond. Covid is as much a health, economic, & social war at once compared to a belligerent actor. Where should priorities go? You know, I know.
Chua,
China is arming up to invade Taiwan. In order to do that they may intended to do a “Haiwaian blitzkrieg” up to third island chain to disable or delay reinforcement. Singapore are just below us, so they probably try to invade us first for a beach head. The least we can do when such scenario happen is to counter and delay their effort with enough practical deterrence until help comes if it comes. Please dont patronize our defense effort just because of covid or we will forever remain a sitting duck.
Here’s a thought exercise.
During the Interwar Period, the British Armed Forces initiated a “10-year plan” in which they constantly forecast whether there would be a major war within the next 10 years, in order to guide their procurement strategy. This worked in some ways and not in other ways, but that is besides the point – the point is the system.
Similarly, the question is, what are the chances we are going to go to war against a peer state within the next 10 years?
Let us say the answer is “Yes”. If yes, how much of a fight can we put up if we spend, say, 3% of our GDP annually rearming within this period? That is around Usd 10 billion a year, presumably of which Capex can be say 25%.
That is about Usd 25 billion in Capex for 10 years. Maybe we can buy, I dunno, 10 Scorpenes, 100 missile boats; 80 F-35s; 8,000 tanks, IFVs, and SPGs… would that be enough to fight off a forecast enemy? (Remembering that our enemies also build up during that time.) Would it make a real difference to the outcome?
Let us say the answer is “No”. If no, then say we turn our focus towards border and internal security; anti-trafficking and anti-poaching. Say we devote 1% of our GDP to this cause, as well as the majority of our security forces’ manpower; or Usd 3 billion a year and say 50,000 men. (Perhaps more if the PGA are included.) Could we make a real difference?
Note that it is believed as much as Rm 6 billion is lost annually to illegal fishing alone. That is about Usd 1.4 billion. If we can recover that amount, theoretically it would help defray the costs of this switch. There is also the impact on human trafficking and wildlife poaching to consider.
Just a thought.
@Khairul
Different circumstances will dictate different policies, how can we compare to Taiwan?
China is a very real threat to them, and if China can invade and takeover with minimal global impact, they would do so.
Who is our very real enemies; Singapore? Indonesia? Thailand? Pinoy? Vietnam? Brunei??? Come on! Don’t fight a perceived enemy of tomorrow, fight the very real enemy of today that is COVID.
The reason we are paupers with defence equipment is because for the same GDP 1% compared to Sg, they can pay 3.09 times more than we do. The economy has to improve firstly or else we are going to bankrupt ourselves trying to keep up with the Jones.
Joe,
I did not compare us with Taiwan. Read again.
We ARE fighting COVID at the moment but we shouldn’t ignore other things. Some of us just want our defense capabilities to rot. China spies will be out of job if our own people try to weaken us from inside. And guess the only state that has been persistently harassing us in our EEZ since last year?
Our GDP($) is actually slightly larger than Singapore. Whats you smokin bro.
In the event if troubles over Taiwan, the Chinese will attempt to prevent the Americans from effectively deploying and operating in the area, as well as help from Japan arriving. The main area for reinforcements to arrive from, whether American (from Guam or Hawaii) or from Japan will be from the East. There will be no need for China to devote attention and resources to us or Singapore as part of a “Hawaiian blitzkrieg” – a term which incidentally was never officially used by the Germans but was coined by a journalist.
Azlan,
IMO, in the scenario that they are commited to go as far as Hawaii, might as well neutralize Singapore to get optimal reign in South China Sea. But I guess if they want to maintain ASEAN neutrality though shaky probably will just focus on US assets in western Pasific.
@Kharul
Pre-Covid SG GDP was a few billion USD ahead of us. I don’t know which year you are comparing.
Note that this means their GDP per capita is nearly 6 times of ours.
They’d be much better off using resources in far more strategic places like Okinawa, Yokosuka, Hawaii and Guam.Those are actual American bases, crucial not only to project but sustain power in the region – unlike Singapore which incidentally is not a American treaty ally per see. We can also add in Australia as a potential target.
One cannot assume that in the event of a war, that Singapore will allow the Americans to use Changi or other bases. Singapore is a close American partner and it plays host to an American logistics/suppot presence but it is not a treaty partner.
Also, China really has no need to occupy any regional country. What it has to do is to secure the sea lanes around the SCS and the approaches to Taiwan, as well as the periphery to deny the Americans and their allies the ability to deploy and operate. China’s newly created reefs have to be seen in this light, being part of its contrsted zone.
@Khairul
Then why bring China & Taiwan into this discussion? What’s that got to do with us?
And what’s that got to do with SG invading from the south? FYI, no, there is no chance for them invading us, they have no reason to do so unprovoked.
Better to concentrate fighting the real enemy that is already on our land: COVID.
Chua,
I use the source from IMF. The crux is Joe said it’s 3x our expenditure with 1% of their GDP. This is not the case even they are couple of billion more than us. Singapore simply put more in their defense than us, correct me if Im wrong, its 15% of their GDP. How much do we spend in % to compare?
Joe,
The scenario is if China went gung ho and attack all potential US allies and bases before invading Taiwan to prevent reinforcement. I presume that Singapore will be one of its target and since Singapore is very near to us, China will invade the tip of south Johor as a beachhead. It’s not Singapore invading us, in fact they will need our help.
It seems this probably wont be the case as Azlan explained.
Azlan,
Understood. In your opinion what is China threat level to us?
Anyway I hope the mod will not block this reply. I probably went overboard on a reply comparing an entity to the NAZI lol.
The current china threat level is practically just this –
They want the whole of south china sea to be a Chinese wholly-owned lake and territory. Everyone that wants to swim there, pass through there, fish there, drill for petroleum there must ask the permission of china. Something that has no merit in law of UNCLOS which china signed.
I don’t think china wants to invade us, or even singapore for that matter. Just to steal our economic livelihood that we are entitled to with the 200 nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ) clause in UNCLOS. Something we cannot afford to cede to China as we depend so much economically to oil and gas. Pushing back China does not mean a war is needed, but still we need a strong navy and coast guard to push back chinese navy and coast guard in our EEZ. In taiwan invasion scenario, singapore might get hit by chinese ballistic missiles, as is some of our own bases to prevent them from being used by any countries trying to help Taiwan, but chinese invasion to malaysia and singapore? Probably not.
Khairul,
Some key facts to bear in mind
– China is the largest FDI here and we are it’s largest trading partner within ASEAN. A conflict with China would ruin the economy.
– Our means of dealing with China revolves around having a strong dialogue with it whilst also having strong military and diplomatic contacts with various other players.
– We can increase the defence budget by a factor of 5 but it will make no difference.
– China is a source of great concern but we also have other pressing security related issues to focus on.
gonggok,
The SCS forns an integral part of China’s ability to transport oil and gas from the Middle East. Control of it also enables China to improve its ability to mount ops against Taiwan and to mitigate the effects of the First Island Chain, as well as forming a vital element of its contested zone.
Ballistic and cruise missiles might only be used if certain bases are used to support American and Austtalian ops. Even then places like the Philippines and Guam are better located to support ops in Taiwan rather than Malaysia or Singapore.
I”m more concerned about non kinetic means – cyber/ekectronic attacks on our radars, radios, GPSs, SATCOM, BMSs, CMSs, INSs, cell phones, etc. What China devotes to cyber and EW is several times larger than our defence budget.
Also, us ”pushing back” incursions in the SCS is cloud cuckoo gagaland wishful thinking. We can detect, monitor and intercept any intrusions but nothing more.
@Khairul
>”I use the source from IMF”
IMF gives Malaysia’s 2019 GDP as USD 364 bn and SIngapore’s 2019 GDP as USD 375 bn.
>”Singapore simply put more in their defense than us, correct me if Im wrong, its 15% of their GDP”
>”How much do we spend in % to compare?”
It’s true that Joe is incorrect; Singapore outspends us in defence. However the figure is ~3.1% of GDP compared to our ~0.9% (2019 figures).
@Azlan
>”we can’t allow our ability to deal with external threats to atrophy too much because we can’t say with any certainty what the future holds and letting things atrophy for too long means it will be harder and more expensive to regain later”
As I showed, the very hypothetical fantasy 10-year forecast shows that we are already too far behind to make much of a difference, it is time to let that dream go for the time being. Take some time off to achieve equally important, more achievable security goals, then revisit the question in future.
Just correct me if I’m wrong on this statement: any foreseeable peer conflict will ultimately have to be resolved diplomatically as we are currently far behind and don’t have the spending power to catch up in the arms race. No?
@Kharul
>” they probably try to invade us first for a beach head”
This isn’t WW2 any more and they don’t have to invade us because firstly, we have nothing that can stop them from doing whatever they want to Taiwan, and secondly they would have to devote all amphibious assets to the main effort.
>”Please dont patronize our defense effort just because of covid or we will forever remain a sitting duck”
Please don’t keep trying to fly when we can’t even walk, or we will forever be remain unable to achieve both security and meaningful deterrence. We must take one step at a time. Our perennial problem has always been mata besar daripada perut, mulut besar daripada kemampuan. It is NOT “patronising” to be practical, and it is NOT “patriotic” to live in a fantasy.
Chua,.
This is all I have to say –
We simply cannot afford or take the gamble of letting our conventional warfare ability to atrophy based on the assumption we don’t or are not likely to face a conventional threat. Our policy is always to have some level of deference to face the types of state actor threats which were more likely and those those type of threats do not include a prolonged attrional based conflict with a state actor, irrespective of whether we can or can’t keep up, which isn’t the point.
Azlan
“pushing back” what do I mean by that?
We need to push back the narrative that China has de-facto control over Malaysian EEZ. We need to show to China that we have control over our EEZ and territorial waters. That we can freely exercise our economic rights in our EEZ without being blocked or harassed by China. Pushing back china in our EEZ does not mean that we see China as the enemy, but just exercising and upholding our rights to our EEZ as stated in UNCLOS.
To be done by never letting any PLA Navy ships sail in malaysian EEZ without any TLDM ships, TUDM MPA and MALE UAVs shadowing them. By having good ASW capability to track and shadow every PLA Navy submarines in malaysian EEZ, making it known to them that we know that they are there.
To have MMEA OPVs to always be on station 24/7 at critical points such as Beting Serupai. MMEA OPVs to always escort Malaysian petroleum exploration activities in our EEZ. MMEA always on the scene to block any attempt of Chinese Coast Guard to harass Malaysian fishing activities. MMEA having the means to block all attempts of foreign fishing vessels to fish illegally in malaysian EEZ.
@Azlan
There are many nations and micro-nations who realistically are unable to defend themselves in a peer war, and have basically given up this objective. One regional example being NZ. Do we have sufficient resources to claim we are not on that level? If no, then why persist in deluding ourselves? We are now in a position of trying to do two things at once and therefore failing to do both, like Pak Lebai Malang.
Gonggok,
What you mentioned are things we have long been doing..
Every single Chinese intrusion is detected, monitored and intercepted. Hard to do given the number of hulls we have but we manage, just barely. The fact that we need more assets is as plain as day.
We issue diplomatic notes regularly and we make known we do not recognise China’s claims. At times we engage in a lot of back door diplomacy. Its not as if we’re doing nothing.
Also, it cliche to say the MMEA should be the lead agency but the harsh fact is it isn’t ready.
Chua,
You are making an apple to orange comparison. NZ has the advantage of being next to Australia. It’s also still a part of the white eyed alliance.
We simply can’t neglect our conventional warfare capabilities which anyhow are undefeated. Unless one has an oracle or a crystal ball, we cannot gamble with our security in an already challenging and rapidly changing environment. Making a comparison with countries which are in a very different geo-strategic environment doesn’t provide a full picture. Letting our conventional capabilities atrophy means it will take more time and money to regain..
NZ doesn’t have China to contend with, nor is Oz interested taking any part of NZ territories. That isn’t the case in our situation; our neighbours are not hostile, but they are not exactly friendly either. Philippines’ claim on Sabah, for example. It has been mostly political but it isn’t unrealistic to think that they will go for the military option if the situation presents itself.
chua,
New zealand isn’t abandoning its defensive objective. It is still upgrading and getting equipment that can contribute to allied military operations, like the massive brand new replenishment tanker.
New Zealand has a luxury something that very few other countries have. Vast distances from any enemy and a large friendly country (Australia) between it and any danger. They can afford not to have fighter jets or submarines.
Malaysia on the other hand, has its EEZ waters just a few kilometres off its shores being wholly claimed as Chinese sovereign territory.
Yes we cannot defeat China on our own, but that does not mean we cannot strive to defend our territory and EEZ, while being prepared to fight back if attacked. Sweden, Norway, Finland does not just give up defending their own country just because Russia is much more powerful then them. We should have similar aspirations too.
Right now we are not even trying to do the two things (whatever you meant by that) properly, they are just like token efforts with not much substances. Or what malays say as melepaskan patok di tangga.
Requirements is one thing, resources is another. We can hypothetically have a requirement based on geo-strategic necessity for 100 submarines and 1,000 MRCA but if our resources cannot reach to even 5% of that then it is a fact that we cannot attain it and must set our sights lower.
Fact is that right now we already DON’T have a credible conventional deterrence against most any regional reference opponent. So we are not losing anything we haven’t, de facto, already lost.
All this mention of China. We face various other challenges which at times have nearly gone “hot” yet China is always mentioned.
We have unresolved overlapping claims with China but we are not in a state of tensions with it and war with China is exremely unlikely. In the event it did occur the 1st thing to go would be the economy and even a single missile is fired a Chinese EW and cyber attack would probably neutralise our radars, GPSs, SATCOM, radios, INSs, cell phones, BMSs and CMSs..
Norway and France enjoy the collective security offered by NATO and if Sweden were attacked it would get external help.