SHAH ALAM: In the comments section there were some discussions on the missiles held by RMAF for its aircraft. The discussions were mostly on the Amraam and Sidewinders though. And what do you know there is a tender to find a multi-modal operator to send the AGM-84 Harpoon missiles and other classified equipment to the US for recertification or to prolong their service lives.
The tender was published April 15 and closes on May 5. There is no indicative cost for the tender. By the way, I have no idea how many Harpoon missiles we have in stock.
The public specifications of the tender:
Tender ini bertujuan untuk
melantik syarikat Multimodal
Transport Operator (MTO) yang
berkelayakan bagi kes FMS
MF-P-GCW untuk menguruskan
penghantaran misil AGM-84D
Harpoon (UN0307 – Class 1.2G
Explosives) dari Pangkalan Udara
Butterworth, Malaysia ke Camp
Shelby Joint Forces Training Centre,
2500 Jackson Ave, Hattiesburg MS
39401 untuk tujuan recertification di
bawah program Foreign Military
Sales (FMS).
It is interesting to note that the tender is for sending out the missiles and other equipment and not vice-versa. It is likely that once the work was completed, the missiles and other equipment will be sent to back to Malaysia on board a US aircraft or ships as part of the FMS case. Of course, we will paying the cost of recertification and cost of sending it back.
Based on the tender, I believed RMAF wants to recertify its stock of Russian missiles of the Sukhoi Su-30MKM fleet as well. It is unclear though to which country these missiles like the KH-29 and KH-31 could be sent to as Russian is still under sanctions. It was due to the sanctions against Russia that a batch of R-27 air to air missiles were sent to Ukraine prior to the pandemic. The missiles were returned to Malaysia prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
— Malaysian Defence If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
From my database, we bought 25 Harpoons together with the F/A-18D Hornets in 1997, with additional 4 units bought in 2006. We have expanded quite a few during exercises.
Our R-27 missile manufacturer is based in Ukraine (artem), so it is natural that it was sent back to Ukraine to be recertified.
I am looking forward to see what kind of weapons we will buy for the FA-50. There are quite a few interesting missiles that is being developed for the FA-50, including the Cheonryong.
TUDM needs more longer ranged precision strike missiles for all of its fighters, to be able to strike a target beyond the enemy air defence envelope. Options :
– Cheonryong
– air launched NSM?
– Tubitak SAGE SOM / SOM-J
– Storm shadow
– brahmos mini / brahmos-NG
I didnt realise(or perhaps forgotten) we had Harpoons. Makes me wonder why we didnt get them for LCS in liew of previous preference for Exocet instead of NSM. Of course the NSM is newer and better performing but in circumstances where the extra performance doesnt really matter when the costing & commonality between services should take a higher priority (if both TUDM & TLDM actually considers each other).
As for KH-29 and KH-31, India operates both and its likely they do their own SLEPS as well.
Additional AGM-84 harpoons
How can we get some additioanl harpoons for our Hornets and in the near future extended fleet with the Kuwaiti Hornets?
Australia (RAAF) has recently retired its AGM-84 Harpoon stock, replacing it with the advanced AGM-158C LRASM
https://psnews.com.au/royal-australian-air-force-successfully-tests-new-anti-ship-missile/156608/
We could request the approval of both Australia and USA for the transfer of some of these stocks of the retired AGM-84 Harpoon to be used by TUDM Hornets.
is there a chance where they’ll install a kill switch to our harpoon during recertification process?
In the late 1990’s I bumped into the 2 USMC pilots who brought the Hornets back with their crews. One of them, a Major, told me that he would have to brush up on the Harpoon as he had to teach our crews how to use it but hadn’t done it for quite a while.
The ex USN pilot who was here and has the YouTube channel said the same thing. Because we only have 8 Hornets we use then to them for everything. This is contrast with the Americans whose Hornet squadrons; although multi tasked on paper; focus on specific things.
Belarus use to be able to re-work some missiles.
Something else on missiles. On the ex USN pilot’s channel he mentioned training us to do HARM attack profiles. I later asked him if we had it and he gave a vague answer.
In the early 2000’s I was indirectly involved with the now defunct Asian Defence & Diplomacy. In their year book they listed us a HARM operator. I asked the owner [long deceased] who was the former MINDEF MAF spokesman but he had no idea. As we all know the
RMAF is not listed as a HARM operator.
Neither is the RAAF whose F-18Ds have a, SEAD/DEAD tasking.
Anyways I’d be surprised if we did get it. Very useful although it provides us with a basic DEAD\DEAD capability and not a Wild Weasel one whivh only the Americans have. There is also the pertinent fact that due to various factors the RMAF can only devote very little time to SEAD\DEAD due to the fact that the few platforms have a lot to do and we lack the whole ecosystem which SEAD\DEAD requires.
Same with the Kh-31. Provides us with a minimal or basic capability. It’s long range and speed have memorised many but like many Russian missile it has been shown to have poor PK rate in Ukraine and is inferior to HARM in various aspects.
Certified for fit to use? If not, we cannot use it.
no lah
No lah they need to recertify that it can work as advertised.
As I had mentioned previously, the loadout for the LCS was done by Boustead, of course, it was a French design ship, the designers wanted to put a French missile on it. The navy wanted the NSM by that time and in the end they got it though they lost the SAM to MICA. RMN wanted ESSM.
Looking at happenings in Ukraine, even old supposedly “expired” HARM missiles has been extremely useful in eliminating russian GBAD radars.
I do hope that we can get some HARM missiles for our Hornets, even if it is the old versions like given to Ukraine.
Kuwait is one of a few countries that do have AGM-88 HARM missiles in their inventory. Hopefully some of it it will be passed to TUDM together with the legacy hornets.
“Belarus use to be able to re-work some missiles.”
Belarus is also in the ‘risk of getting sanction if dealing with them’, as their steadfast Russia ally in the Ukraine war.
@Hulu
“retired AGM-84 Harpoon to be used by TUDM Hornets.”
Its likely their retired Harpoons are also time expired and we will have to pay extras if need to relife them as were doing above. Not really a good idea if going to pay to buy and pay to refurb.
“designers wanted to put a French missile on it. The navy wanted the NSM”
Yes fully aware that, the OEM does have prerogative to prefer what works with their product. But then TUDM did select NSM and won out, so what I mean is why NSM and not Harpoon since we could have commonise with TUDM ones. Of course that is the greater common good perspective and TLDM might have their own preference instead.
P.S.
Neither is the “RSAF# whose” F-16Ds# have a SEAD/DEAD tasking
… – “How can we get some additioanl harpoons for our Hornets”
I know you like to deal with paper options but the question I have to ask is whether we have a need for more Harpoons?
… – “Looking at happenings in Ukraine, even old supposedly “expired” HARM missiles has been extremely useful in eliminating russian GBAD
radars”
Yes and you also asked if we could do a “Moskva” and spoke about Ukraine long range precision strikes with Storm Shadow. It was American intel which played a key role, not the hardware itself. Look up a recent NYT report about the planning cell in Germany.
In the past people also went gaga about HIMARs but it Was HIMARs with very accurate American intel which enabled some of the resuts; as was the case in the Black Sea with the sinking of the Moskva and USV attacks.
… – “Hopefully some of it it will be passed to TUDM together with the legacy Hornets”
Assuming we want them and they are willing to give it; requires a separate approval process. Not to mention is probably having to re-work the missiles.
” whether we have a need for more Harpoons? ”
What kind of question is that? We are going to get additional Hornets + FA-50s. Our MKM has 150 Kh-31 (in both anti ship and anti radar versions) available. We should have around the same quantity of harpoons for our Hornets and FA-50.
We have our own national EW threat library maintained by TUDM Electronic Warfare Support Centre (EWSC). We have the abiity to track EW emissions, what we need is another effector other than the KH-31 Anti-Radiation version, that can be carried by our Hornets to do anti radar missions.
… – “TUDM needs more longer ranged precision strike missiles for all of its fighters”
Also needs a strike/recce complex in order to be able to detect the targets in order for them to be hit.
… – “Hopefully some of it it will be passed to TUDM together with the legacy Hornets”
Needs a separate approval process and that’s assuming we want it and the Kuwaitis play Father Christmas.
“question I have to ask is whether we have a need for more Harpoons?”
Aik! Werent you the one pushing to get more missiles over getting more planes first?
@Hulu
“harpoons for our Hornets and FA-50.”
Can FA50 carry Harpoon? Seems like its not yet certified for it. Korea preference is for KEPD & JSM for anti surface tho.
“Hopefully some of it it will be passed to TUDM”
Unlikely as it can also be used for their incoming SH, unless their upgrading to a newer missile and want to deprecate it.
” Also needs a strike/recce complex in order to be able to detect the targets in order for them to be hit ”
ISR to look for maritime surface targets
ATM could easily have a real time tracking of all surface warships sailing around malaysian waters, or even ships in their respective ports. This is not something that is out of technical or financial grasp of our military. This could be data derived from :
– geospatial satellite data
– AIS
– Coastal radars
– ESM
– MPA surveillance
– MALE UAV surveillance
– shadowing foreign warships
– passive & active sonars
This is for example geospatial picture of TLDM and CCG ship near Gugusan Beting Patinggi Ali a decade ago. Many current commercial geospatial satellites can give a better resolution, geolocation details than this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHlPWY9bAAAB0AB.jpg
its different, the AAMs just need the plane radar and EW to get their targets while ASM like the Harpoons need more targeting inputs.
… – “This is not something that is out of technical or financial grasp of our military”
You are talking about what can be done on paper. I’m talking about what we’ll realistically do. On paper we can do a lot of things.
.. – “What kind of question is that?”
You assume we intend to get more Harpoons just because we might get the Kuwaiti Hornets. Based on this logic the 8 existing Hornets would have more than the small numbers they actually have of ordnance.
… – “We should have around the same quantity of harpoons for our Hornets and FA-50”
What we should do and what we will do can differ. Surely you’d have realised that by now.
… – “We have our own national EW threat library maintained by TUDM Electronic Warfare Support Centre (EWSC). We have the abiity to track EW emissions”
Thanks Master Yoda. Your wisdom astounds us all. BTW having a EW and SEAD/DEAD capability entails a whole eco system. Even European air arms do so much yet; the small and underesourced RMAF with its few fighters which have various things to train on is expected to have more than a minimal SEAD/DEAD capability? As pointed out to you multiple times EW and SEAD/DEAD is a very niche and resource extensive business which few air arms can truly focus on.
“Aik! Werent you the one pushing to get more missiles over getting more planes first?”
“Aik!” I was referring to the fact that we might not have a requirement for more Harpoons; given that we might not see the need or might not want to spend on re-lifing the missiles? What BTW does that have to do with the fact that we need AAMs for the Hornets by the way we are unlikely to get any in numbers? The nuance…
” ASM like the Harpoons need more targeting inputs ”
I am not going into details but all the below methods could give more than enough targeting inputs to sink ships. Ships are large, slow moving targets, that at most moves at 30 knots (55.56 kilometers per hour)
– geospatial satellite data
– AIS
– Coastal radars
– ESM
– MPA surveillance
– MALE UAV surveillance
– shadowing foreign warships
– passive & active sonars
Harpoon for example uses initial target coordinates, then uses its radar seeker to guide it to the target. So it flies to an imputed coordinate then activates its radar seeker to kill the target. General RCS of various ships are a known information and will be imputed based on the known target details (ship class etc). A ship sailing at 30knots, will only be 55.56km away from its last known position an hour ago. From its last point of sailing (say it is sailing northwards), its location an hour later can be guessed.
” What we should do and what we will do can differ. Surely you’d have realised that by now ”
I want to talk about what we should do, within our available resources, to improve the overall capability of our defence. To ensure the survivability of our country for future gereration of malaysians. That is my aim, and up to you to mock it as usual.
If you want to talk about what we will do, yes go cheer the people behind the helicopter lease here
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/so-its-actually-a-rm32-billion-project-or-comfortably-numb-part-infinity
” Even European air arms do so much yet; the small and underesourced RMAF with its few fighters which have various things to train on is expected to have more than a minimal SEAD/DEAD capability? As pointed out to you multiple times EW and SEAD/DEAD is a very niche and resource extensive business which few air arms can truly focus on ”
Tell about CSAR to TUDM. Most european air forces do not have dedicated CSAR squadrons, even if they have more fighter jets than us.
… – “I want to talk about what we should do”
Which is long what you’ve been doing and often out of context although you’ll no doubt claim otherwise. What we can or should do duffers from what we’ll realistically do, as pointed out to you.
… – “Tell about CSAR to TUDM”
As has been explained several the CSAR angle was aimed at securing funding as it was a new capability. Ask Marhalim if in doubt; asking funding for a new capability is easier than asking to add to an existing capability.
… – “do not have dedicated CSAR squadrons”.
Neither do the have a SEAD\DEAD capability like the Americans. Extremely resource extensive.
… – “I am not going into details but all the below methods could give more than enough targeting inputs to sink ships”
More to it than that. There also had to be the institunalised means and doctrine in place as well as jointness. Hard to do.
… – “If you want to talk about what we will”
Well if one wants to talk only about what can be done on paper and what’s apparently more important based on a subjective view…
Why don’t Hulubalang set up Hulubalang Sdn Bhd and propose RoRos when the MRSS tender comes up? Due to the protect protect aka affirmative action policy, Hulubalang Sdn Bhd is the only way an asset that differs from what user want will be taken up.
” Why don’t Hulubalang set up Hulubalang Sdn Bhd ”
this is not about my gain
i have even declined any reimbursement of all my previous writings here.
If we can get those retired but almost new JHSV/EPF for free through US Excess Defence Article program, the better.
” Hard to do ”
So how does TUDM uses its current Harpoons then?
I am just proposing to get extra of them harpoons, to arm the extra Hornets & FA-50 we are going to get. Not like we have zero existing AShM capability.
Real live is not akin to a movie,
geospatial satellite on an artic orbit can only do 1 pass per day while on a equatorial orbit can do 1 pass every hour.
A ship moving at 50km/h would be anywhere within a 314 km² area of uncertainty in an hour from one satellite pass to the next.
So unless the captain is incompetent and sail on a straight line despite knowing people are trying to hunt him down then sure one can get a locked on easily. But if he is competent and zig zag his way then the harpoon need to find a single ship in an area half the size of Singapore.
Coastal radar like ship radar can only get a range of 50km for surface object due to the curvature of the earth. Basically a single surface combatants can detected another surface object in a 314 km², our EEZ alone meanwhile is 334,671 km². Even if RMN acquire their desires 12 ship active at sea at any given time then the only area under surveillance is only 3768 km², which is only 0.1% of the EEZ area. Obviously 12 ship active at sea at any given time mean a total of at least 24 to 36 surface combatants needed.
MPA & MALE are great though it’s slow and can easily be shoot down as high flying object can be detected much much further away then an object on the sea surface. Something a competent captain probably want to do as those asset are likely being used to hunt him down.
Anyway at max a surface combatants radar can pick something flying 250km away which means it can provide Arial surveillance of 1500 km² or around area the size of Malacca. Basically 0.5% of the 330,000 km² of the EEZ.
… – *So how does TUDM uses its current Harpoons then?”
Engaging in rhetorics now? All I said is that having the hardware is one thing. Having the institutionalised means and the doctrine; plus the jointness is another. That’s all I said.
… -” I am just proposing to get extra of them harpoons, to arm the extra Hornets & FA-50 we are going to get”
You do make it tedious don’t you…
Yes we all know what you’ve proposed but I questioned if we intend on getting more Harpoons. Now that you’ve brought in the F/A-50s I have to ask if we intend on getting Harpoons for them. For that matter have we even decided what AAM we intend to get for the F/A-50s.
” geospatial satellite on an artic orbit can only do 1 pass per day while on a equatorial orbit can do 1 pass every hour ”
LoL
look up geostationary orbit
… – “If we can get those retired but almost new JHSV/EPF for free through US Excess Defence Article program, the better”
You keep saying. Do we have a requirement? Or do we get them because you think we should or because they are available? What are the pitfalls in getting the used JHSV/EPF? You will say none but is that an assumption or something you know for a fact? You previously assured us all that the MMEA would have no issues getting aged and worn out ships as long as they’re stripped of combat systems.
Yet the RMN is having issues with them and not all of the issues are related to the combat systems; yet the MMEA which has even less resources than the RNzM will supposedly have no issues? I have to ask again : has the possibility that the MMEA would have legitimate reasons not to want the ships ever occured to you?
” Basically a single surface combatants can detected another surface object in a 314 km² ”
radar sweeps in a circular area with 50km radius. Area = π x R² the radar surface area covered by 1 ship is 7853.98 km² at one point of time, will cover more area when it moves around.
Warships can also detect other ships with many other systems. AIS, ESM, sonar, also satellites, MPAs, MALE UAVs…
This is TLDM own calculation
1 ship sailing at 15knots will cover the surveillance of 18,000 nm² within 28 hours
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQW3FaaMAAAsTG.jpg
334,671 km²(square kilometre) = 97,574.45 nm²(square nautical mile)
kalau 97,574.45 nm² bahagi 18,000 nm² baru 5.5 kali ganda, bermakna kalau ada 11 kapal di laut, 2 kapal cover setiap blok seluas 18,000 nm²
” What are the pitfalls in getting the used JHSV/EPF? ”
1) no welldock for amphibious ops. IFVs can launch direct from the rear articulating ramp into the water to shore, but there is no way for an IFV to return from beach to the ship.
2) It is really the ideal ship specifically for east to west malaysia ops with its high transit speed of 35-40+ knots, so it could cover say kuantan to kuching in 1 day. But it has a relatively short range of around 1200 nautical miles. But they have been deployed from guam to australia and also guam to sepanggar before, so it is a seaworthy ship.
3) 630+ tons of equipment can be carried onboard, that is around 20 Gempitas or 11 PT-91M tanks. That is 2x the capability of our MPCSS. But PT PAL 163m MRSS is designed to carry 16x PT-91M + 6x Gempita.
4) If JHSV/EPF capacity is not enough, the RORO should be able to fit 100 vehicle mix of IFVs and MBTs. Something the size of SPS Ysabel is good enough.
… – “Warships can also detect other ships with many other systems. AIS, ESM, sonar, also satellites, MPAs, MALE UAVs”.
Unless I’m mistaken ship sonars are almost never used to detect surface contacts.
The key is “jointness” all assets operating together. If a RMAF MSA detects a contact will the existing C3 mechanism allow for the flow of information in a timely manner to a RMN ship?
Subs tend to work best when paired with other assets and this has not changed despite rapidly emerging tech. Can data obtained from surface or air assets be paired with subs? I’m not referring to what can be done on paper but capabilites we have and are likely to have.
Lest we forget the enemy has a vote. A ship will be moving and will be doing its best not to be found. Whatever sensors or weapons are available to target the ship may be affected by jamming or spoofing. MPAs and UASs may not be able to operate due to enemy action. A whole lot of variables.
What the Ukrainians did in the Black Sea was impressive. They displayed a lot of adaptation and innovativeness but the Black Sea is a confined area. Also, someone did ask whether we can do what they did with the Moskva. They benefited a lot from American intelligence without with they would not have achieved the results they did.
… – *So how does TUDM uses its current Harpoons then?”
All I said is that having the hardware is one thing. Having the institutionalised means and the doctrine; plus the jointness is another. That’s all I said.
… -” I am just proposing to get extra of them harpoons, to arm the extra Hornets & FA-50 we are going to get”
You do make it tedious don’t you…
Yes we all know what you’ve proposed but I questioned if we intend on getting more Harpoons. Now that you’ve brought in the F/A-50s I have to ask if we intend on getting Harpoons for them. For that matter have we even decided what AAM we intend to get for the F/A-50s.
The unexpected does happen and you have mentioned the cons to go along with the pros. Hell will freeze over.
A quick look at a pic of a JHSV/EPF suggests to me that it would be a perfect supplementary asset to a MPSS for a variety of reasons which I’m too lazy to type out.
” A quick look at a pic ”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCmTlaYAAQm6F.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkIuTP6aAAIp5r2.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkIuVgqXMAA2ywV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkIuXhYaMAAbHr7.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkIuZitXQAA8nFy.jpg
2x used JHSV/EPF + 2x used RORO will cost less than 1/4th of 1 MRSS
@Hulubalang
“Options :”
– A good list of options but getting more AAM should be the higher priority.
– Current stock of aim9xs are in small numbers while aim9ms are getting even more outdated (yet still effective enough up to a point), well lets not mention about our AMRAAMs and Sparrows
– Long range surface strikes could be relegate to Flankers and Hornets for now as well as to RMN ships (though less flexible)
– For short range we should get IRIS-T as KAI is already working on integrating it into FA-50 and it is around half cheaper compared to AIM9x and ASRAAM while still giving modern features
– For long rang, C-8 AMRAAM are the cheapest version we could get.
– Yes somebody will propose getting older C-5, C-7 or even B stocks from US but that is more unlikely to happen.
– Meteor might even be more expensive than D-3 AMRAAM.
– Prices for both C-8 and D-3 AMRAAMs in 2025 and late 2024 are on average usd2.7 million per piece (Singapore, Japan, Australia), much cheaper than in early 2024 (Italy, Norway).
– A more extreme option will be MICA/MICA NG that needs integrations costs, India also had integrated MICA on their Flankers, same goes for Astra .
– Both MICA and Astra should be cheaper than AMRAAM with a corresponding reduce in range.
“I was referring to the fact that we might not have a requirement for more Harpoons”
Aik! And your certain we have a requirement for more AMRAAMS? Can show me where?
@Hulu
“get those retired but almost new JHSV/EPF for free”
Nice to get them as replacement for Saktis but still doesnt meet MRSS requirement that calls for amphib operations capability.
“IFVs can launch direct from the rear articulating ramp into the water”
Not all Gempita variants can do that, MIFV & Adnan while can wade not sure if its possible to launch from ramp into water.
“ideal ship specifically for east to west malaysia ops”
Ideal for fast ferry but thats only 1 portion of the multitude roles MRSS needs to play. Its in the name after all ‘ Multipurpose Role’.
” Not all Gempita variants can do that, MIFV & Adnan while can wade not sure if its possible to launch from ramp into water ”
Correct not all gempita variant are amphibious. So how do you move those vehicles from the MRSS to the beach? How do you move PT-91M from the MRSS to the beach?
… – “2x used JHSV/EPF + 2x used RORO will cost less than 1/4th of 1 MRSS”
Again: no point in getting something cheaper if it does not suit requirements. Measure of success versus measure of efficiency. Like most others I have preferences but we realise that due to various reasons our preferencesc will not be selected. What we don’t do is to go on and on about it every chance we get and only focus on all the points which fit in with our preference. Unless of course one is subconsciously seeking applause or/and approval.
“Aik! And your certain we have a requirement for more AMRAAMS? Can show me where”
To bring you down from your high horse I did not say we have a requirement but that we should as it behoves us to have more then a dozen AMRAAMs for a fleet of close to 30 Hornets. So note the difference…
Luqman – ” A good list of options but getting more AAM should be the higher priority”
Indeed unless of course one knows with absolute certainty that the unexpected will not happen, assumes we can get stocks from elsewhere in time, is convinced that a dozen or so AMRAAMs is sufficient for a fleet of 30 odd Hornets [assuming the Kuwaiti deal goes through], etc.
Luqman – “For long rang, C-8 AMRAAM are the cheapest version we could get”
Long range shots would require mid course guidance.
Luqman – “Long range surface strikes could be relegate to Flankers and Hornets”
Anti maritime whether long range or not has always been a Flanker and Hornet thing. Assuming naturally they are available for the tasking, can locate the target and the enemy doesn’t have fighters in the area.
We can do lots of things but ultimately unless something occurs which drastically changes how we view the threat calculus; we’ll continue doing things on the cheap, assume nothing serious will happen and maintain the “get it now in small quantities and worry later” [which some think is fine. Others might be blissfully unaware but in various occasions lack of spares and other things had a major or detrimental affect.
@luqman.
Let just say that the biggest reasons many nations adopt ESSM,amraam, sidewinder and NSM isn’t really it’s raw performance and price point. But simply because uncle Sam used it, has massive stockpile of it and can deliver it to anyone they like whenever they like.
It’s complicated the enemy cost to benefit calculation because now they now need to calculate how beneficial it is to attack a nation if the US released their massive stockpile.
The benefits of Korean and Turkish weapons platforms is supposedly it is designed on the onsets of being physically able to carry and used American missiles San some software tweeks. Something the French platform couldn’t.
Joe “Not all Gempita variants can do that, MIFV & Adnan while can wade not sure if its possible to launch from ramp into water.”
Never mind the gempita & MIFV. The JHSV rammed are NOT designed to do it in the first place. Thought one are free to waste taxpayer money and gold plated it to acquire such capability. But then it wouldn’t still be *free wouldn’t it?
Basically the math ignored the gold plated needed to make JHSV meet requirements then compare it to a LPD but somehow the gold plated cost despite already paid by someone else are still included.
Also the fact that trying to used something differently to how when it is designed would end up blowing back on our face years later. The Aussie try to turn a tiger into an Apache while we try to turn a flankers into a hornet. and both seem set on their way to retirement soon to be replaced by suprise suprise an Apache and a hornet. Wasting tons of taxpayer money in the process.
… – “So how do you move those vehicles from the MRSS to the beach? How do you move PT-91M from the MRSS to the beach?”
What makes you think that if we had to move stuff to a beach it will be armoured vehicles? Or could be stores of HADR stuff.
Please don’t say that we have no need to move stuff on a beach because there are more ports now. Would be like saying one does not need a helmet because it can’t stop a bullet or a AV-8 is useless because it can be penetrated by a shaped charge warhead. Note the context rather than claim I’m putting words in your mouth.
Zaft – “Let just say that the biggest reasons many nations adopt ESSM,amraam, sidewinder and NSM isn’t really it’s raw performance”
“Lets just say” that if you look it up you’ll know that Russian missiles in Ukraine have been known to have a poor PK and that prior to the war in Ukraine it was AMRAAM which had been used in various wars as opposed to the R-77. Also note that on a missile to missile basis HARM has been found to be ahead of the Kh-31.
“The Aussie try to turn a tiger into an Apache while we try to turn a flankers into a hornet. and both seem set on their way to retirement soon to be replaced by suprise suprise an Apache and a hornet. Wasting tons of taxpayer money in the process”
The ADF did not “try to turn a tiger into an Apache”. We did not try to ” try to turn a flankers into a Hornet”. What we did do was to perform various modifications to meet our requirements and because the Russians could not supply a number of things we needed. So no it was not “wasting tons of taxpayer money in the process”.
@ darthzaft
even if you have MRSS, how do you move 16x PT-91M from the 163m MRSS to shore?
PT-91M cannot swim
Many Gempita variants cannot swim
trucks, GS cargo cannot swim
HADR stuff cannot swim
So how do you do amphibious landings from MRSS?
If the Houthis can blockade the Red Sea and put up a fight against the Americans and be on the offensive against Israel, maybe we can do better against a regional superpower. Just the proper mindset needed. The chokepoints of the Malacca Strait and the South China Sea is still within our territory.
@ Hasnan
Whether we should do it or not is not the issue
We should have all of the options to do so as a last resort or deterrance
– Tentera Darat with Shore-based anti ship missile batteries (NSM CDS for example)for precision strikes, ASTROS for saturation strikes.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeEqufDakAAkx9I.jpg
– TLDM with Scorpenes, frigates, corvettes, minelaying capabilities
– TUDM with long range anti-ship missiles, airborne standoff minelaying capabilities
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/idef-2023/2023/07/idef-2023-mke-unveils-uca-offensive-mining-system/
@Hulu
“So how do you move those vehicles from the MRSS to the beach? How do you move PT-91M from the MRSS to the beach?”
Thats where the ‘amphib operations’ requirement of MRSS comes in. Its and LPD so it will have landing crafts for ship to shore logistics. Unlike your idea of RORO + barge + separate landing crafts (because they arent stored in either vessels).
“I did not say we have a requirement”
And this is where your assumption goes out the window. Suddenly we have too little AMRAAMS and too much Harpoons, while these are the quantities they bought. There was no forcing them to buy more Harpoons but they did.
“one knows with absolute certainty”
I know with absolute certainty we didnt fire them yesterday, we didnt fire them today, and unless our intel was f*cked we arent going to fire them tomorrow. How certain is your unexpected expected to happen? Tomorrow?
And not only me saying that US have stockpiles available to others; “uncle Sam used it, has massive stockpile of it and can deliver it to anyone they like whenever they like.”
“What makes you think that if we had to move stuff to a beach it will be armoured vehicles?”
MRSS is specced to carry & land up to main battle tanks.
@Zaft
“Something the French platform couldn’t.”
Possible to be done if pay for the interface hardware & integration costs. Depends if we want to pay or not but typically we dont have the sizeable budget for such unless its rather ‘cheapish’ like how we recently integrated MKM to drop American LGBs.
“The JHSV rammed are NOT designed to do it in the first place.”
Indeed the point is we have vehicles that not all are designed to wade in oceanic waters. I know the MIFV/Adnans certainly arent.
Half the price of NSM and logistically in line with the purchase of LMSB2 are the Atmaca missiles. There is a shore based version, maybe fully tested already.
… – “or deterrence”
There are some we can “deter” and others we can’t even if we raised the defence budget by a factor of ten. What happens when “deterrence” fails to “deter” or only does for a whole?
… – “Tentera Darat with Shore-based anti ship missile batteries (NSM CDS for example)for precision strikes”
I can see no compelling reason why the army should operate it although its top brass would be enamoured of you for thinking so. The RMN has the sensors and presence at sea not the army.
… – “ASTROS for saturation strikes”.
Unless the target is being observed and is moving very slowly it would be hard to hit it with unguided rounds even of one is relying on sheer volume. Also, the ship’s ESM would be alerted the minute the FCS goes active.
… – “long range anti-ship missiles”
“Long range” and “precision” sounds sexy as do other fancy/sexy terms people like to apply to things. What we should do is get more MPAs and UASs as part of a strike/recce complex; as well as develop the needed doctrinal changes as part of a joint effort.
Lots of things can be done in paper but whether it will be is a different issue.
Hasnan “If the Houthis can blockade the Red Sea and put up a fight against the Americans and be on the offensive against Israel, maybe we can do better against a regional superpower. Just the proper mindset needed.”.
And get bombarded by a superpower in the process? How is that a great idea?
At the end of the day SCS dispute isn’t exactly an existential crisis. Good luck convincing anyone to agree being Gazan. But lacking access to SOM is an existential crisis to the Chinese.
So What exactly the point in trying to defend 20% of GDP from O&G in the SCS and losing 80% of GDP in manufacturing & services in the process anyway?
The better idea is to get oneself a rich sugar daddy. Israel themselves don’t dare to touch the Turks in Syria don’t they? Why be the houti when you can be the Turks?
Hulu “even if you have MRSS, how do you move 16x PT-91M from the 163m MRSS to shore?”
I thought azlan was joking. But you do suffer from selective amnesia ain’t you? You conveniently ignore and forget anything contradictory to your hell bound hypothesis.
What I am saying is that we are investing a lot to get just a few frigates and corvettes that will not do much good in deterring an area denial by a superpower…which it will do one day. However if we take half of the fund and invest in a networked shore based system hidden deep underground, we might give some fight. Being bombarded by a superpower is not a choice but given if things turn bad. Their first strike probably will take out most of our ships and planes since all are sitting out in the open, not hardened shelters.
Our doctrine is too conventional and we don’t have the budget to fulfill them.
“losing 80% of GDP in manufacturing & services in the process anyway?”
Trump tariffs are making them lose that more and more without going to war or thru military action (which I been trying to tell Azlan), but such it can be a precedent for China to take drastic actions as their economy is getting more desperate.
“Israel themselves don’t dare to touch the Turks in Syria don’t they?”
Turks arent in Syria. Much like Israel, their planes comes in to bomb Kurdish & anti-Turk separatists then leave. Israel occupied parts to create buffer zone with their lands but arent intend to invade or wipe Syrians from the world.
” You conveniently ignore and forget anything contradictory to your hell bound hypothesis ”
Its a basic question to a logical hypothesis.
How do you move 16x PT-91M from the innards of the 163m MRSS, or any LPD that will be used as MRSS for that matter that is floating out at sea to the beach? Those PT-91M cannot swim. The MRSS cannot beach itself like a LST.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNg2N1oacAMXNFD.jpg
@Hulubalang
“even if you have MRSS, how do you move 16x PT-91M from the 163m MRSS to shore?”
“Its a basic question to a logical hypothesis.”
– Bro what crack were you taking all this time? It’s too basic of a question, even for a RoRo guy, too even ask.
– The answer to your question is already in the link that you shared, or simple just google search for Landing Craft Unit (LCU), which for sure you already know. Seem other people saying you conveniently ignore certain things to push your agenda is true
@Zaft
“But simply because uncle Sam used it, has massive stockpile of it and can deliver it to anyone they like whenever they like.”
Yup that may be the case. Plus back then nobody in Western block can match AMRAAMs until Meteor came. Europeans had their chance in early 2000s but didn’t took the opportunity.
Yes
At last someone mentioned the LCU
LoL !!!!!!!!
How many tons a LCU can carry?
https://www.indomiliter.com/landing-craft-utility-kepanjangan-tangan-gelar-operasi-amfibi-lpd-tni-al/
How many tons is a PT-91M?
How many tons is a Gempita even?
Even the Indonesian navy does not carry the Leo2 on their LPDs.
@Hulubalang
“How many tons a LCU can carry?””How many tons is a PT-91M?””How many tons is a Gempita even?”
– So what is your point? Just say it already.Please just enlighten us with your knowledge
– an LCU or whatever landing craft you want to call it can carry 54 tons, a PT-91M is 45 tons
Those LCU provided with the PT PAL LPDs, SSV and MRSS can carry just 20 tons.
Spesifikasi LCU 24 Meter
Length overall ……………………………………..24.35 M.
Beam overall (incl. rubber fender) ……………6.00 M.
Depth main deck midship ……………………….2.65 M.
Loaded draft ………………………………………..0.80 M.
Displacement (light)……………………………..40.00 MT
Displacement (Fully Loaded)…………………62.00 MT
Maximum speed: …………..40 knots.
Economic speed: ………….20 knots.
Crew: ………………………………………2 Seats.
Passengers: …………………………….100 Persons
Fuel Capacity ……………………………3400 Liter
Fresh Water Capacity ………………..300 Liter
Accomodation Space …………………20 Tonnes
Main Engine: ……………………………CATERPILLAR C32 ACERT
Power output: …………………………..2 x 1600 bhp @ 2300 rpm
Gear boxes: …………………………….2 x ZF 3050
Water Jet: ……………………………….2x Hamilton Jet, Type HM 571
There are several kinds of LCUS wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Utility
One such the Spanish LCM-1E is about same size as above but able to transport up to MBT size vehicle.