SHAH ALAM: In the post on the 2024 national security budget, Malaysian Defence wrote that the Defence Ministry’s Development Expenditure (DE) or budget for RMK12 was RM55 billion though the actual allocation is RM22.2 billion.
Defence Minister DS Khaled Nordin in Dewan Negara on March 24 stated that the ministry will propose that the budget be increase up to 1.5 per cent of the GDP by 2030. This means that the budget should go up next year to 1.2 percent as the 2025 allocation – according to him – was only 1.1 per cent (RM21.1 billion). He said 1.5 per cent budget allocation was necessary to achieve the aspiration of the 2019 Defence White Paper.
According to my calculations the defence budget needs to be increased by RM7.67 billion or RM28.77 billion -compared to the 2025 budget – to achieve the 1.5 per cent target. It is interesting to note that in 2019, the people who were involved in drafting the DWP told me that they tried to put the 1.5 per cent figure in the document but were not allowed to do so by the Finance Ministry people.
That is the reason the 1.5 per cent is an aspiration and not a target. I was told that without the GST it was difficult for the bean counters to make projections for future budgets. As as a side, the Indonesian government has also promised to increase its defence budget to 1.5 per cent by 2029. In contrast Singapore defence budget is fixed for 3.3 per cent for 2025 and will likely remained or higher in the near future.
Based on Khaled’s assertion, I assuming to achieve the 1.5 per cent allocation to the GDP, that the DE allocation for RMK13 will be RM55 billion the same as in RMK12. Will this be achievable? My guess is as good as yours.
Why do we need to spend so much on DE? Apart from recapitalisation of assets, most of the Armed Forces infrastructure is also in need of upgrade and redevelopment. Most of the infrastructure – apart from those developed under the built and transfer method – was built in the 1970s and 1980s.
The built and transfer method was introduced in the 1980s so the government will not have to spend money building camps and their facilities. The deal involved private companies building a new camp in a separate location and once completed it will be given the rights to the old camp’s land. While this method sounds good on paper, the government and taxpayer lose out as the cost to build the new camp is usually much cheaper than the market price of the old camp land.
And in most cases, such deals were mostly done via direct award and without open tenders. In some cases, the old camp land is transferred to these companies without them completing the new camps. In the case of the Sg Besi airbase, 1MDB was supposed to pay for the whole deal but in the end, it was the taxpayers that paid for whole deal and 1MDB debts, of course.
Apart from the lack of money to redevelop them, even if the camps and facilities needed redevelopment, it is hard to move even a single battalion around as there are no spare facilities to send them to. Hence the current state of conducting ad-hoc upgrades – fixing roofs etc – of the facilities even if the structure of the buildings remained the same. It must be said that this is the same with many civilian facilities and police camps around the country. Of course, MAF also need to recapitalise its assets and equipment as well.
From the Dewan Negara Hansard:
Tuan Yang di Pertua, terima kasih kepada Yang Berhormat Senator Tuan Amir bin Md Ghazali yang
bertanyakan sama ada kerajaan mempertimbangkan untuk meningkatkan bajet pertahanan
atau mempercepatkan pemodenan ketenteraan dalam menghadapi ancaman yang tidak
dijangka.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kerajaan sentiasa prihatin terhadap keselamatan dan
kedaulatan negara terutamanya dalam menghadapi ancaman yang semakin kompleks dan
dinamik. Dalam hal ini, sememangnya kerajaan sentiasa menimbangkan untuk meningkatkan
perbelanjaan pertahanan negara. Bagi pelaksanaan penggal kedua Kertas Putih Pertahanan
khususnya dalam konteks bajet dan perbelanjaan pertahanan, Kementerian Pertahanan akan
mencadangkan agar peruntukan perbelanjaan pertahanan negara diunjurkan sebanyak 1.5
peratus daripada Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar menjelang tahun 2030 bagi memastikan
kejayaan pelaksanaan Kertas Putih Pertahanan.
Untuk makluman, kita kini memperuntukkan kira-kira 1.1 peratus daripada KDNK
negara untuk tujuan pertahanan. Cadangan meningkatkan perbelanjaan pertahanan ini
adalah seiring dengan pendekatan negara-negara jiran yang memberi keutamaan tinggi
kepada sektor pertahanan bagi melindungi kepentingan negara yang berdepan cabaran yang
semakin kompleks pada masa kini dan masa hadapan.
Dalam aspek mempercepat pemodenan ATM bagi menghadapi ancaman tidak
dijangka pula, terdapat beberapa langkah dan strategi yang telah dan sedang diusahakan
oleh kerajaan.
Pertama, Kementerian Pertahanan melalui Kertas Putih Pertahanan telah menetapkan
hala tuju yang jelas bagi menjadikan ATM sebagai angkatan masa hadapan yang lebih
bersepadu, tangkas dan berfokus menjelang 2030 termasuklah dalam menghadapi ancaman
yang tidak dijangka. Ancaman yang tidak dijangka merujuk kepada ancaman keselamatan
yang berlaku secara tiba-tiba dan sukar diramal. Ini termasuk serangan siber, peperangan
hibrid, serangan pengganas, penggunaan dron dalam peperangan, bencana alam dan konflik
serantau.
Kedua, selain memastikan perolehan aset-aset strategik dilakukan dengan cara yang
memenuhi keperluan ATM, proses pemodenan ATM turut diberikan perhatian dengan meneliti
keperluan-keperluan baharu. Ini termasuklah meneliti keperluan mempunyai angkatan siber
yang khusus, lengkap dan berkeupayaan menghadapi ancaman siber dan misinformation
campaign dengan izin Tuan Yang di-Pertua.
Angkatan ini akan dilengkapi dengan kepakaran teknikal yang tinggi merangkumi
bidang seperti cyber threat intelligence, incident response, digital forensic serta active cyber
defense. Keupayaan ini membolehkan ATM bukan sahaja bertindak balas terhadap serangan
siber, tetapi juga mampu menghalang dan meneutralkan ancaman sebelum ia memberi kesan
terhadap operasi ketenteraan dan keselamatan negara.
Ketiga, Institut Penyelidikan Sains dan Teknologi Pertahanan Negara (STRIDE) telah
turut menyenaraikan bidang-bidang fokus yang kritikal untuk diterokai dan diberikan perhatian
agar sektor pertahanan negara berupaya berhadapan dengan perkara-perkara seperti cyber
warfare, unmanned warfare, drone warfare dan CBRN warfare, dengan izin.
Kesemua ini merupakan antara langkah pemodenan yang bukan sahaja akan
meningkatkan keupayaan ATM secara umum, tetapi memperkemas persediaan negara
menghadapi sebarang ancaman yang tidak dijangka. Terima kasih.
— Malaysian Defence If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
I will repost below my comment i made yesterday at the 2025 budget page
I understand that DE (CAPEX) is divided into 2
1) services and supply (including facilities building)
2) asset procurement
I believe we should focus the planning on the DE budget allocation for asset procurement
Even if we don’t get that 1.5% of GDP level, maintaining a DE budget at the minimum the amount that we get in 2025 for the next 5 years (2026-2030) will still be a lot more than what we received previously.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/2025-national-security-budget/#comment-946774
What can we have for our next defence budget in RMK13 2026-2030
If we use the 2025 budget as a benchmark, as the minimum annual budget we can allocate from 2026-2030, i believe that will be a considerable increase in the available CAPEX / DE budget for ATM and APMM.
RM21.2 billion overall defence budget for a year is about USD4.8 billion. Still lower than neighbouring Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore but an increase nevertheless.
CAPEX / DE for ATM asset procurement is RM5.585 billion, or around USD1.26 billion.
CAPEX / DE for APMM asset procurement is RM570 million,.or around USD130 million.
If we extrapolate the CAPEX / DE for asset procurement to 5 years :
CAPEX / DE for ATM asset procurement in RMK13 2026-2030 would be around USD6.3 billion
CAPEX / DE for APMM asset procurement in RMK13 2026-2030 would be around USD0.65 billion
So if the government can confirm to allocate that kind of budget for RMK13 2026-2030, the CAPEX / DE for individual services asset procurement could be :
TLDM : USD2.4 bil (from USD2 bil)
TUDM : USD2 bil (from USD1.6 bil)
TDM : USD1.6 bil (from USD1.3 bil)
Tri services : USD0.3 bil (from USD0.1 bil)
APMM : USD0.65 bil (from USD0.5 bil)
With that kind of budget, I don’t see any reason for us needing to lease helicopters etc. if we properly prioritise our future plans for RMK13 2026-2030. Something we still have time to tweak and change.
GST reintroduction is one thing but a better way is to plug all the subsidized goods leakage especially to “neighbor” countries as well as inflow of untaxed items to malaysia like cigarettes, liquor etc
Also GST should be capped at 3 percent for the time being. should be enough to mitigate ron95 subsidies and whatnot
As we are discussing about RMK13 2026-2030 DE, what are the priorities that is known for our military services?
TLDM
– 3x STM Turkiye Corvette batch 2
– 2x MRSS (i don’t agree on this, for USD816mil it is better used elsewhere)
– 4x ASW Helicopter (we can have more than 4 if we go for used SH-60J from JMSDF)
– 4x AW139 HOM batch 2 (we should buy outright)
TUDM
– 18x FA-50M batch 2 (maybe we can do a mix of 8x FA-50 + 18x cheaper TA-50 to get more airframes than just additional 18, as we will need extra FLIT numbers for training KAF crew in the near future)
– Kuwaiti Hornets. How much we have to pay, if any? Or it will be traded for our training services for KAF aircrews?
– 4x ATR-72 MPA batch 2
– 3x TAI ANKA batch 2 (i would prefer TB-3 but ANKA would be the one TUDM already have)
– CSAR heli??
– MERAD ?? (i prefer GAPU to take this up)
– Ground radars to replace the Marconis in semenanjung
TDM
– PT-91M SLEP / Upgrade (this is under OPEX or CAPEX?)
– MIFV/Adnan SLEP / Upgrade (this is under OPEX or CAPEX?)
– 155mm SPH
– 105mm towed howitzer (IMO not a priority but seems TDM thinks it is)
– Coastal Anti Ship Missile Batteries (this is my personal opinion)
This is what i think an alternative RMK13 and beyond DE spending for
TLDM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
TDM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Glvjsi3a4AA1fo_?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
UH-60P can also be substituted for JMSDF & JASDF UH-60J
APMM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gm30ifhbYAAjlr4.jpg
i have made mine for TUDM years ago, maybe i will revisit those later
On malaysian GDP
2024 GDP is about USD427 billion
Forecast 2030 GDP is about USD628 billion
So 1.5% of 2024 GDP is about USD6.4 billion (RM28.5 billion)
1.5% of 2030 forecast GDP is about USD9.42 billion (RM42 billion)
But what is the asset procurement DE portion of that?
If 2025 budget of RM21.2 billion (as per graphic) gets RM5.585 billion
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/GaO_ecvaUAAcWGh.jpg
That is 26.3% of defence budget allocated for asset procurement DE
Using that percentage, the asset procurement DE in 2030 budget if it is 1.5% of GDP would be USD2.47 billion (RM11 billion). That is double the asset procurement DE allocated in 2025 budget.
That is, if, a very big if, the defence budget is increased to 1.5% of GDP, and our GDP in 2030 is to be USD628 billion as projected.
– “105mm towed howitzer (IMO not a priority but seems TDM thinks it is)
For the simple reason that some of the Model 56s are falling apart.
… -” Coastal Anti Ship Missile Batteries (this is my personal opinion”
The RMN had the UASs and sensors at sea to work alongside the missiles, the army doesn’t.
… – “MERAD ?? (i prefer GAPU to take this up”
I’m all for jointness but in this case the RMAF should have the capability as GAPU which has other commitments can’t be expected to always be there when needed.
… – ” Kuwaiti Hornets. How much we have to pay, if any”
Not trying to “hinder” or speak on “behalf” in case you come up with twaddle again but to me far more pertinent questions is how much will they cost to operate and how much will costs rise as they get older and will we invest in the needed ground support gear and ordnance or will we do things on the cheap again? Lastly, as of March 2025 is there still any serious intent on pursuing this option?
” March 2025 is there still any serious intent on pursuing this option? ”
It is not just pursuing, it is almost a done deal.
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2025/02/1356223/pembelian-30-jet-pejuang-terpakai-kuwait-dimuktamad-tahun-ini
One of the request from Kuwait Air Force themselves to TUDM under this deal is for TUDM to do fighter pilot training for KAF new aircrews. A reason why i think we need extra FA/TA-50 airframes for FLIT in addition to training with the Hornets themselves.
” For the simple reason that some of the Model 56s are falling apart ”
recently as part of the LG-1 contract, the contractor went around to find all operational L5 pack howitzers and serviced them. In all they found that there are 127 units of serviceable Oto melara model 56 L5 pack howitzers in the inventory of RAD. That is more than what is listed in most open sources (100)
Just because the budget increases doesn’t mean one can get better or more things. How one go about the policy of spending those money are far more important.
Just look at the Canadian. They spend almost as much as the Italian but they got no carrier, no f35 yet, and got lot less of almost everything else even number of troops.
Another example is RSN ships. for industrial purposes they reinvented the wheel so to speak and build a custom variant of an existing ship. Custom variant of existing item as we seem with hunter Vs city class would cost 100-200% more.
Secondly because they have a need to be able to work alongside with a 1st rate military in a highly undeniable situation they need extreme qualitative advantage and that means expensive ship like Lafayette or Visby. Which usually are 100% more then the equivalent from SK or turkeye.
Basically let say a Lafayette off the shelf cost myr2 bil, a custom build one would cost between MYR 4 to 6 billions. But if one doesn’t need extreme qualitative advantage or industrial manpower training scheme then one can go for an off the shelf Istanbul or HDC 3200 for a bit over MYR 1 billions.
Basically one can get 4-6 ship for the price of 1 if they willing to sacrifice around 10-20 ISH % of qualitative advantage and some levels of industrial capabilities & self sufficiency.
And it doesn’t just end with ship, a wildcats,anka & atak for example is around 1/2 to 1/3 the price of Seahawks, reapers and Apache.
Another way to make you limited dollars goes further is leasing and loan. One for example can stay in their parents basement for 10 years to have enough money for a house or they can just move out today by getting himself a 15 years 5% interest housing loan. Similarly one can wait 10 years to get a global eye or wedge tail or they can just pay $25 to $50 million annually and get it tomorrow.
” pertinent questions is how much will they cost to operate and how much will costs rise as they get older and will we invest in the needed ground support gear and ordnance or will we do things on the cheap again? ”
It will come with lots of spares + spare airframes
from 30-33 to be had, only 21 will be made operational, balance 9-14 airframes as spare parts.
15x F/A-18C
6x F/A-18D
So our operational fleet will have
15x F/A-18C
14x F/A-18D
From my info, the 2 seaters will be released first to TUDM, so we can start to train KAF pilots.
Additional hornet spare parts has also been given by RAAF to TUDM recently.
USMC will retire all its legacy hornets by 2030, along with it also airframes that has been upgraded with APG-79 AESA radars. USMC bought 51 APG-79 AESA radars for its legacy hornets. So by 2030 we could cannibalise those retired USMC legacy hornets and get their AESA radars, which is just a plug and play installation.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmO6Ul2bwAA3IcB.jpg
Zaft – “How one go about the policy of spending those money are far more important”
In our case ensuring we get better value for what we spend which is damn near impossible given the policy we have.
Zaft – “they got no carrier, no f35 yet, and got lot less of almost everything else even number of troops”
They have no requirement for a carrier and their geographical position plus internal politics plays a part in how much they spend.
Zaft – “But if one doesn’t need extreme qualitative advantage or industrial manpower training scheme”
I don’t know what an “industrial manpower training scheme” is but one can get a “cheap” Hull but still have a qualitative edge over an opponent, depebds on who the opponent is and what other toys are available to work with that “cheap” off the shelf not tailored for specific requirements hull.
… – “It will come with lots of spares + spare airframes”
Sound overly optimistic as usual. You sure we’ll get all the spares we need or are you hoping we will based on what you’ve read? Or are we hoping that if we ask “nicely” our Kuwaiti “brothers” will throw in everything? Even if we get all the spares, will it be enough to support the fleet for the duration of its projected service life? As it is, even with 8 Hornets spares was the main issue, ordering them late and often in just enough quantities.
… – “RAAF to TUDM recently”
Aware of that but the discussion is on ex Kuwaiti Hornets.
… – “So by 2030 we could cannibalise those retired USMC legacy hornets”
We “could” but will we? You make it sound so easy. If we have done all the things we could have on paper we’d be in a better position now.
Ultimately we need to spend and we have a well documented history of doing things on the cheap, thus I’m not as sanguine as you. Those Hornets cost money to fly and maintain and need ordnance and other things. As they age they will get more extensive to fly. We’ve gone through this before, lots of things to factor in.
Lastly, in case you bring it up again as you have a few times, when I said years ago that the RMAF had no requirement for pre owned Hornets it was way way before the Kuwaiti or any pre owned Hornet option was pursued.
” Sound overly optimistic as usual ”
Optimistic? How do you think i get to know how many types we are going to use, details of KAF requests for training their pilots etc?
Azlan “Ultimately we need to spend and we have a well documented history of doing things on the cheap, thus I’m not as sanguine as you. Those Hornets cost money to fly and maintain and need ordnance and other things. As they age they will get more extensive to fly. We’ve gone through this before, lots of things to factor in.”
Using historical data from peacetime dividend periods to predict the future may not be as wise as some may assume.
It’s like saying a certain close neighbor are driving the defence planning. It maybe true then doesn’t mean its stay true now.
” As it is, even with 8 Hornets spares was the main issue, ordering them late and often in just enough quantities ”
You are comparing situation when the hornets are 5-10 years ago with current situation with lots of available spares that nobody wants anymore (as the fleets are retired) including lots of extra spares given to TUDM by RAAF, spares to come together with the kuwaiti hornets (which had no cost spared maintenance throughout their lives) and also the extra 9-12 airframes that we are buying but not going to be operationally used.
RAAF spares
” Malaysia has also reportedly taken a large stock of RAAF engines and spares to support its small fleet of F/A-18Ds ”
https://psnews.com.au/two-years-after-retirement-australias-final-f-a-18-classic-hornet-has-been-delivered/118577/
Article from marhalim
https://aviationweek.com/defense/australia-gives-hornet-parts-malaysia
… – “How do you think i get to know how many types we are going to use, details of KAF requests for training their pilots etc”
We are all envious of your extraordinary powers of deduction and analysis.
As to “optimistic” I was referring to your innate ability to mane it look like many things are easy to do just because they appear to be on paper. I’m this case to assume that just because the spares are available that they will be made available to us or that they will be enough for our needs.
We have issues sustaining what little we have for crying out loud. Yet there is this assumption that all will be well with the Kuwaiti Hornets.
Zaft – “Using historical data from peacetime dividend periods to predict the future may not be as wise as some may assume”
Have no idea what you’re on about. For that matter I doubt you do to eventhough you think you do and you have this need to share your insightful observations with others. What’s this nonsense about “peacetime divident periods”? What I said is well known and hardly a revelation.
FYI certain things don’t change. We have long had a history of blowing our own trumpets but doing things on the cheap.
… – “You are comparing situation when the hornets are 5-10 years ago with current situation”
OK. So you’re saying we are awash with spars now, you actually know or you are assuming or hoping you’re right?
-“Malaysia has also reportedly taken a large stock of RAAF engines and spares”
Thanks for the links as ever but I’m aware of the RAAF angle. Let me ask you, are to spares spoken for the existing Hornets, will they brcenifhy for the next few years and can any be used for the Kuwaiti Hornets if we get them?
Back to the Kuwaiti Hornets, as I’ve said, if we get them the hard part comes later. I wish it was as easy as “they are in good condition and low houred”, “we’ll get spares with them” and the USMC will have spares” thus we’ll have no problems. For me, one pertitent question is as the aged further, how much more maintenance extensive will they be. Mind you, our low houred Hornets are already showihg certain aged associated issues.
Should we get the Kuwaiti Hornets? Yes but only if certain prerequisites are met.
Azlan “FYI certain things don’t change. We have long had a history of blowing our own trumpets but doing things on the cheap.”
That’s just your personal opinion based on your own likely bitter personal experience.
That’s like saying the current pace of the Chinese naval buildup gonna last all the way till the 2100 or Europe not gonna rearming themselves because they historically they didn’t do so in the 2000.
Hulu “You are comparing situation when the hornets are 5-10 years ago with current situation with lots of available spares that nobody wants anymore”
Some people are just bound to get stuck in the past. Because that are the thing they know. Just like how he keeps insisting that ID is a major security concern even today or RMN have in his own words pre LMSB2 has no requirement for a 2400 tons ships.
… – “serviced them”
“Serviced” them does not necessarily entail changing barrels or other issues related to age and wear and tear.
… -“units of serviceable”
“Serviceable” means its operable. Doesn’t mean it has no issues or undercarriages which have long been damaged due to being towed over rough terrain – something the Model 56 is known for. There are reasons why after so many years the army is looking at retiring them.
We also have to note that the decision to get more 195mms may have been a political decision.
… – “That is more than what is listed in most open sources (100)”..
We’ve always had more than a 100, ordered in 2 batches – 1964 and 1982. A few were stored and never issued. As for open sources as far back as the 1980’s ADJ was already reporting 120/30.
Zaft – “That’s just your personal opinion based on your own likely bitter personal experience”
No it’s not my personal opinion. We do have a long history of doing things on the cheap and it’s a well know fact. It’s just that you’re unware. I have given examples so how can it be “my opinion”?
Zaft – “That’s like saying the current pace”
“That’s like you” again coming up with something which has no relation to the topic at hand.
Zaft – “Some people are just bound to get stuck in the past”
“Some people” have this need to say something but ultimately have no clue.
Zaft – “. Just like how he keeps insisting that ID is a major security concern even today or RMN have in his own words pre LMSB2 has no requirement for a 2400 tons ships”
Firstly take time and effort to ask around or do some research before coming up with ludicrous statements.
Secondly yes the RMN for quite a while only has a requirement for surface ships of a certain displacement due to geography, operational needs and threat perceptions. But I guess the terms with be new to you. Also I saud we have no requirement for a 4-5000 tonnes combatant not a 2400. If you have this need to knock someone to score a point or feel better, at least get the facts right.
Thirdly the issue of Indonesia has zero connection with LMSs or the displacement of our hulls.
Fourthly are you in the habit of taking and switching sides to curry favour? Because that’s what you seem to be doing. You’re not an adolescent are you?
… (i would prefer TB-3 but ANKA would be the one TUDM already have]
I’d rather we add to the ISR Males rather than get a UAS strike capability as part of a bit of everything but never enough of a thing syndrome and I believe that is the intention. In the past you made references to whether certain things can “survive” in a war. Putting aside the context as to what type of war, it’s telling that after all the hype about Anka we hardly hear about it now in the Ukraine. That’s because most have been lost in air space much more challenging than Syria, Libya and Nargano-Karabakh and the few survivors relegated to ISR as they are simply not survivable.
In the past many insisted we get TB2s not Anka but this overlooked the pertinent fact that we needed a ISR platform not a strike one. Anka is larger than the TB2 and has a larger payload and more sensors. The Turks use Ankas to locate targets for TB2s.
On the Kuwaiti training angle I’m intrigued, assuming the report is true. I have to ask however what’s to be gained for them. Yes there is a diplomatic/political aspect but what can we teach them that they don’t already know or can’t get from anyone else? Like us as part of the Hornet deal they received a trainer from Boeing. Ours has left but no idea if the one in Kuwait is still there. They train regularly with the Americans. One can point out the the Americans won’t tech them everything [debatable] but if so, what can we teach that the Americans won’t?
We can’t teach them large force employment because we don’t do it given the small numbers we have. We can’t teach them close air support because it’s something we don’t regularly do [many air forces don’t actually] and traditionally haven’t. We don’t have any EW ranges or gear apart from the EW simulator [assuming it’s still operated] and services provided by a local company.
Azlan “No it’s not my personal opinion. We do have a long history of doing things on the cheap and it’s a well know fact. It’s just that you’re unware. I have given examples so how can it be “my opinion”?”
As I said, History are a good indicator to predict the future provided that everything stay the same. If things change then it’s pretty pointless.
Also all the talk about “doing it on the cheap” or “provided the money is incoming” make it’s sound like the AF are bunch of incompetence morons.
Generally one expected them to know exactly how much money they gonna get annually for foreseeable future and the Kuwaiti hornet isn’t something the gov force upon them. They the one who ask the gov to procured it for them.
And you think their plans for sustainment of the hornet is to act like a child cry for money that’s not there then blame everyone and everything else except for them? Rather than them balancing their budget accordingly by deciding which new acquisition to postpone or which current capabilities to sacrifice like proper adults?
Azlan “That’s like you” again coming up with something which has no relation to the topic at hand.”
More like the example I give are contradictory to your hypothesis and you conveniently ignore it to stay true to you hypothesis.
Which is precisely why in science or religion fact are only a fact when it’s is the opinion of majority of scientist/scholar and not just one single individual. Because no single individual are immune to biased and prejudice.
Azlan “Also I saud we have no requirement for a 4-5000 tonnes combatant not a 2400. If you have this need to knock someone to score a point or feel better, at least get the facts right.”
Nah I remember correctly b4 LMSB2 decision you said no requirement for Kedah size or larger. The requirements is for LMSB1 size ship only And only after LMSB2 you said no requirement for a *destroyer, and only recently you stopped shouting no requirement at anyone every time someone mentioned a destroyer.
Personally based on that history. Seem going around asking retired or soon to be retired serviceman is quite a horrible way to predict future procurement ain’t it?
After all serviceman aren’t the one who wrote the shopping list nor the one who hold the purses aren’t they? They can have an opinion of what is needed but ultimately it’s not their decision to make.
Azlan “Fourthly are you in the habit of taking and switching sides to curry favour? Because that’s what you seem to be doing. You’re not an adolescent are you”
Ok. Boomer
Zaft – “Rather than them balancing their budget accordingly”
Rather than fathoming the fact that its the government which puts the services in a fix by approving stuff buy rarely providing sufficient funding [numerous well documented examples but you’ll be clueless], you go off on a tangent as you tend to do.
Zaft – *As I said, History are a good indicator to predict”
You say a lot of things which leaves others wondering. BTW as the cliche goes “history doesn’t always repeat itself but it rhymes”.
Zaft – “Also all the talk about “doing it on the cheap” or “provided the money is incoming” make it’s sound like the AF are bunch of incompetence morons”
If you actually took an effort to think and try to understand what was said you’d know the “we” was the government.
Zaft – “Nah I remember correctly b4 LMSB2 decision”
If your memory served you you’d know that initial plans called for a LMS of a smaller displacement than the Kedahs : the Batch 2s.
Zaft – “And only after LMSB2 you said no requirement for a *destroyer”
Long before there was a “Zaft” here I pointed out that due to geography and threat requirements the RMN has no requirement for a surface combatant in the 4-5,000 to tonnes range. If you can’t grasp why look at a map.
Zaft – “More like the example I give are contradictory to your hypothesis”
Yours is more often than not incoherent, based on zero research and going off tangent. Half the timevyku have no idea as to what you’re strong to say, let alone others.
Zaft – “around asking retired or soon to be retired serviceman is quite a horrible way to predict future procurement ain’t it”
If you actually made the effort to find out you’d realise the way things have long been and that many things have not changed.
Zaft – “nk their plans for sustainment of the hornet is to act like a child cry for money that’s not there then blame everyone and everything else except for them?”
What nonsense but fully expected. It’s the government which approves and at times insists on certain things but fails to provide for the “what comes after”. This is well known and has been discussed to death but you’re oblivious, again.
Zaft – ” but ultimately it’s not their decision to make”
Who said it was? They are not infallible and it is the government which should decide but ultimately it’s politically drivrn decisions which has placed us in the rut we’re on. Not that I expect you to be aware or understand.
Zaft – “Boomer”
You confirmed my suspicions.
Zaft – ” and you conveniently ignore it to stay true to you hypothesis”
Not that I’m an expert but I “ignore” or dispute lots of what you say because its lacks any foundation or understanding of the subject matter. We’re not talking about the science behind the pre war Soviet theory of deep battle or about the logistics involved in sustaining whole corps in the desert but simple easy to fathom and well known things. As “…” says :”just because one is unaware doesn’t mean it’s not true”.
Zaft – “Which is precisely why in science or religion fact are only a fact”.
Science and religion now?
Zaft – “Because no single individual are immune to biased and prejudice”
One of the rare occasions you actually saud something which is spot on. Everybody has inherent prejudices and biases but in the context of this discussion it was something you were not aware of and did not bother to try find out.
I want to talk more abt RMK13, but as this thread has gone way off tangent, i’ll bring my discussion elsewhere.
… – “I want to talk more abt RMK13, but as this thread has gone way off tangent”
It’s not the 1st time things have gone off tangent [something which you’ve partaked in too, like all of us]. Anyhow in other posts, issues related to the topic of this thread were touched on.
Issues I’ve touched on [with your approval hopefully] are the 105mm guns which are for good reason are replacing the aged but “serviceable” Model 56s, future land based ASMs which should be operated by the RMN as unlike the army it has the sensors and UASs, the need for the RMAF to operate a medium range SAM because it can’t always rely on GAPU and has better airspace coverage, the fact that we have a requirement for follow on MALE UASs for the ISR and not the strike role and questions as to how much we can really share with the Kuwaitis given the limitations the RMAF has.
“must be said that this is the same with many civilian facilities and police camps around the country”
In my wasap circle, there was a joke on how to ensure to get replacement for old facilities…burn down the former, suffer for 1 or 3 RMK then get new one.