SHAH ALAM: PMX in his 2025 budget speech announced that Defence Ministry is getting RM21.1 billion allocation. This is the last budget for defence under the five-year Rancangan Malaysia Ke 12 (RM12) spanning from 2021 to 2025.
Operational Expenditure for Defence in 2025 is RM13.363 billion while Development Expenditure is RM7.492 billion. This means for RMK12, the Defence DE allocation is only RM29.02 as I wrote last year.
The requested DE allocation for RMK12 for Defence was RM55 billion and the allocation so far is RM14.7 billion. It is likely that the figure will not reach RM30 billion when RMK13 starts within two year’s time.
It is interesting to note that the requested Defence RMK12 DE allocation is RM55 billion, which means that the ministry and the Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) was asking for some RM11 billion for each of the five years. RM11 billion annually at least to me seems reasonable as the government had been holding back funding for the last thirty years leaving the MAF in an enhanced state of obsolescence.
RM11 billion annually also sounds reasonable if we look at the current US dollar exchange rate – US$2.5 billion – and the challenges ahead. But again, MAF has been let down by the government which has not say why it has not approve the budget requests. To me at least give us the reason why it has not try to meet the challenges faced by MAF. MAF acknowledges the conundrum which resulted in it coming out with the CAP 55 and 15 to 5 transformation plans. Despite this, the government has yet to stick to the plan and instead goes out of the way not to stick to it.
Yes, in the three terms he has been in power, PMX has given the highest DE budget for the last three decades. In 2023 he allocated RM6.041 billion, RM7.053 bilion and the latest RM7.492 billion. But it is still not enough to recover from the Covid years and the under-investment for the last three decades. Not when the MAF is still operating some 171 assets which are three decades old. Could he have given more to meet the defence budget? I have no idea, really as I am not purview to the government finances.
Unfortunately, recent events does not augur well for MAF. Can MAF recover in the next RMK? Only time will tell and if the world does not goes berserk first.
— Malaysian Defence
Marhalim,
61 RAD under Briged Roket will be operating Flyeye UAVs soon as its organic UAS. They have published in their social media. It will be supplied by WB Technologies with Deftech as its local partner i think.
The Development Expenditure is only half of what the Defence Ministry and MAF requested. In the 2025 budget, PMX should have reduced spending on the education sector. They got a whopping 64.1 billion when 50 billion should have been enough. I will not touch the health ministry because they are essential. I’m not saying education is not essential. It’s just that the expenditure on the education sector should not be THAT high when the country’s armed forces expenditure is hanging on by a string.
@ marhalim
From my own calculations
RMK12 total DE (CAPEX) allocation is RM29.502 billion
If we look at the USD exchange rate from 2021-2024, that would probably be around USD6.3-6.85 billion give or take.
But the CAPEX is not 100% for buying new stuffs only. It is usually divided into
1) aset
2) perkhidmatan & bekalan
Usually aset will be around 3/4 of the CAPEX, and 1/4 would go to perkhidmatan & bekalan.
So that means the actual CAPEX for RMK12 is around USD5 billion. Basically the same level in USD as previous 2-3 RMK before.
Also a reason why I always use USD5 billion for any RMK plans as my yardstick. That is what i planned with, when i did all my proposals, the reason for used Hornets and FA-50s etc.
With the breakdown of :
USD 2 billion for TLDM
USD 1.6 billion for TUDM
USD 1.3 billion for TDM
USD 0.1 billion for angkatan bersama
and
USD 0.5 billion for APMM from KDN budget
ATM in my opinion should steadfastly stick to USD5 billion for their planning, as that is the amount that the government can afford to pay. Planning your military with an imaginary budget of USD12.6 billion is simply out of touch with the fiscal realities of the country.
Which brings me back to RMK 13 plan. I don’t see any plan that is in touch with the current crucial security concern, which is preparing for a near term conflict in South China Sea.
As usual i have done all the possible options that ATM could take, but those in charge have better plans right?
Finally! No point having “long range” if one can’t detect, fix and track targets in real time. 61 is the unit which operates ARTHUR. Would rather have the UAS operated by the actual unit which needs it but it is what it is. Decentralisation is the key; as demonstrated in Ukraine.
On plans people use to say the NAF should have alternative plans and think out of the box. The MAF does [of course] but the issue is when the government can’t commit to anything and when it does; it shifts priorities.
Over the years on various occasions the army has announced getting ammo for the GDFs but there’s yet to be a single mention of AHEAD. Granted, modifications may have been done but doesn’t mean we actually got AHEAD. The Fulcrums and Skyhawks were wired for Adder and Maverick but never received them.
If things go south the best we can do is going for the special withdrawal with the world bank. If it ever comes to that probably the straits will be swarming with warships of the east & west.
>PMX should have reduced spending on the education sector
This has got to be the stupidest and most callous suggestions
“US$2.5 billion”
Looking at macro things in perspective its only recent month that RM is strengthening. For the past few years were looking at USD $2bil or below for the DE budget which is not enough to cover 3 main branches and the civvie security. Should PMX be commended for giving more to defence now? Not really.
As I said before, money has to come from somewhere and during his tenure, inflation has gone up like crazy while RM was shrinking, the HR Ministry reported the last few years we lost 300,000 jobs. Thats a lot, and with upcoming subsidy removals & tax hikes it is the rakyat that is paying for all these increases, including defence. So why should the congrats go to PMX? It is the rakyat that deserves it!
Coming back to the budget its still an illusion of course. We shouldnt look at how much it is per year in RM value but in USD which we are using to buy these equipment. So if we dont want to be Robbing Peter(rakyat) to pay Paul(Defence), what PMX should be doing is to truly strengthen RM vis a vis 1st World currencies esp USD, that way our RM 11Bill will be a bit closer to USD $3-4Bil. With each service getting USD $1Bil, there is a lot that we can give to them (even after factoring the cost of localisation).
Qamarul – “If things go south”
The country is not short of cash; the MAF is.
Qamarul – “. If it ever comes to that probably the straits will be swarming with warships of the east & west”
As a majorvdes lane the Straits of Melaka is already “swarming with warships of the east & west”.
There is nothing we can do about defence budget in RMK12.
Lesson should already be larned. Unless gov increase defence budget in RMK13 at least 2% of gdp and fixing policy in asset procurement we will see MAF is using more obsolete assers.
Marhalim, what happened to the final 2 MMEA Tun Fatimah ships?
Nothing as APMM is still waiting for the Home Ministry to finalise the budget to finish them and find the right shipyard to the job. Hopefully I will get more details within a fortnight.
For RAD to have a viable long range precision targeting capability, it needs
1) ISRT UAV that have at least 150km comms range, 20+ hours endurance with MTOW of around 25kg. One battery of systems for each division (5), Briged Artileri Roket (1), and 10 PARA (1).
2) new weapon locating radar/counter battery radar to replace the ARTHUR and be available in both east and west malaysia. Go for Ground Master 200 Multi Mission Compact (GM200 MM/C).
3) precision fire capability for 155mm howitzers. To go for M1156 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) or equivalent.
4) long range precision missile capability. To be able to do precision strikes to 150-200 km away of both land and maritime targets (to do coastal defence). To go for NSM Coastal Defence System (CDS)
5) Flyeye as ISRT systems integrated with 155mm Howitzer regiments (21 RAD, 22RAD, 23RAD)
To get these items, we probably need to cut the buys of new armored vehicles. What we can do is to add more of existing types, buying used KIFVs for example.
With the little USD5 billion budget for RMK13 2026-2030, we really need to prioritise.
What I would prioritise for RMK13 2026-2030
TLDM
– assembly budget for the 6th Gowind (USD 100 mil)
– 3 more Corvettes (Corvette Batch 2 – USD650 mil). Thats it, for a total of 6. So by 2030 to have 6x Gowind + 6x Turkiye Corvette.
– 6x ASW helicopter. Request US EDA of excess (almost brand new) US Navy SH-60R Romeo ASW helicopters (usd400 mil)
https://www.twz.com/26395/the-navy-has-dozens-more-mh-60r-helicopters-than-it-needs-due-to-lcs-debacle
– outright buy of 4 more new AW139 for HOM (usd100 mil)
– NO MRSS PLEASE, by used RORO (2 unit – usd40 mil) for that. Buy 80-90m OSV (3 unit locally built – USD150 mil) as multi role ships rather than dedicated MCMVs.
– Buy 4 more scorpenes 2031-2040 (USD500 mil each)
TUDM
– return to 12 H225M using RMK12 budget. no to leasing. (USD300 mil)
– FA-50 Batch 2 (USD900 mil)
– MPA Batch 2 (4 units) (USD300 mil)
– 2 ERIEYE for AEW if possible (USD250 mil) (2 more RMK14 2031-2035)
TDM
– platoon-level quadcopter UAVs. For ISR. Non-china made (SKYDIO X10D) for 10 PARA, MECH, GGK. Chinese made (DJI MAVIC 3T) for the rest. (USD30 mil)
– ISRT UAV for RAD with 150+km comms range + 20+ hours endurance, 25kg MTOW (48 systems each with 3 airframes – USD25 mil)
– GM200 MMC WLR radar for RAD (8 units – USD130 mil)
– SPH batch 2 (USD160 mil)
– NSM Coastal battery (USD250 mil) (2 battery, 2 battery more RMK14 2030-2035)
– used KIFVs (IFV, Vulcan SPAAG versions) (200 unit – USD50 mil)
– used MERAD (USD50 mil) (8 batteries – HAWK XXI Turkiye + additional missiles frm South Korea)
– aselsan GDF upgrade + 2 batteries of Korkut SPAAG (on adnan chassis) (USD100 mil)
– more KARAOK, CG M4
– outright buy/donation of used Blackhawks (South Korea or USA)
It appears that for this RMK13 defense budget, we still do not know what military assets Malaysia would be acquiring. I hope that the first phase of the MRSS procurement would happen this year along with a squadron of utility helicopters to replace the decommissioned Nuris.
… – “current crucial security concern, which is preparing for a near term conflict in South China Sea.”
There are other things we focus on apart from a “current crucial security concern, which is preparing for a near term conflict in South China Sea”. You make it sound like China is on the verge of grabbing waters/reefs we claim.
Also, even if there was a conflict; not written in stone we’d be involved. Another issue is that China is a major trading partner and a major FDI; we can’t afford trouble with it. Can you name 2 countries with that level of economic ties which have gone to war?
There are threats we can handle and those we can’t; in the real world that is. You might think that the MAF should focus largely on China but thankfully the MAF has a more realistic view of what it needs to focus on and its capabilities. China has a much larger population and defence budget; the world’s largest industrial capacity; an advanced tech base and makes even the U S. and others worried? Who are again?
Yes I’m fully aware of the importance of the Spratlys and the sea lanes and that we’re a maritime nation but don’t make it sound like trouble with China is imminent or inevitable or that we should do nothing if China gets more assertive or aggressive.
… – “but those in charge have better plans right?”
They have to factor in a whole host political factors related to ecomics, foreign relations, etc, stuff which many don’t factor in their assessments. A lot also happens behind the scenes; the so called quiet or back door diplomacy.
… – “– NO MRSS PLEASE, by used RORO (2 unit – usd40 mil) for that”..
RoRos are one trick ponies unlike the MPSS intended for a variety of roles. Due to design issues they also have limited DC and sea keeping
… – “For RAD to have a viable long range precision targeting capability,”
“Viable” in what context? I have to ask because terns like “potent” and “credible” are often loosely applied.
… – “– Buy 4 more scorpenes 2031-2040″
Simply not realistic which is why even the RMN has no such ambitions. Needs signifcant imorovenents in manpower, infrstructure and other things. Subs are expensive to buy and resource intensive. Also, submariners are resourxe intensive to train and drop out rates as high? How many people a year get selected for subs and hkw long is the process needed to train a submariner?
… – One battery of systems for each division”
A reginental rather than divisional asset. Centralising things by placing them at divisional level is a recipe for them not being where they’re needed; when they’re needed.
… – “precision fire capability for 155mm howitzers”
In order of importance I’d rather the Royal Artillery Corps make some doctrinal and organisational changes first. The ability to nass fire without having mass; better synchronisation with supported arms; smaller and more manageable but more effective batteries; etc. Of all army’s arms the Royal Artillery Corps had received the least attention/focus and has made the least changes.
…- ” ) precision fire capability for 155mm howitzers”
Getting them is easy; the not so easy part is service culture and institutional. As seen elsewhere the main inhibitor can be cultural [military wise] and other things. We have to go through a learning process, short of an actual painful experience. Look at the journey we undertook with UASs
Can we expect SPH and Tarantula deal to be sign next year during LIMA?
Syam – “It appears that for this RMK13 defense budget, we still do not know what military assets Malaysia would be acquiring”
We know what’s been planned for. What we don’t know is exactly what will actually be signed for.
I am told earlier but the public signing may well be done at LIMA, to boost the business done numbers, of course.
“Simply not realistic which is why even the RMN has no such ambitions. Needs signifcant imorovenents in manpower, infrstructure and other things. Subs are expensive to buy and resource intensive. Also, submariners are resourxe intensive to train and drop out rates as high? How many people a year get selected for subs and hkw long is the process needed to train a submariner?”
4 subs unrealistic? Even Singapore, Vietnam has the manpower to operate more than that. Money is there if we cut our MRSS, MCMV, Corvette buy. The plan is to build them 2030-2040. Manpower training can start NOW.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GULsw7-aAAAAePg.jpg
Everything is unrealistic to you. Everything cannot be done.
So then what is? tell us.
Flyeye has a 50km comms range and 3 hour endurance would be more suitable for 155mm howitzer regimental embedded ISRT.
Using flyeye for the rocket brigade with rockets of more than 100km range means the ISRT personnel need to be located between the rocket launchers and the target. Not an ideal situation.
Having UAV with a comms range of at least 150km and endurance of 20+ hours will be much more suitable for briged artillery roket, and also for divisional artillery HQ. The shorter range flyeye would be more suitable for regiment/battalion own ISRT.
So uavs for army IMO
1) divisional/brigade level artillery
25kg MTOW with 150+ km comms range, 20+ hours endurance
2) regimental/battalion level artillery
12kg MTOW with 50+ km comms range, 3+ hours endurance
3) platoon/squad level infantry battalion
Quadcopters with 25+ km comms range, 40+ minutes endurance.
for my 4 sub plan to work, that is just to get 2 additional subs compared to what TLDM wants in the revised 15to5 Force Structure 2040.
To get additional 2 subs (USD 1 billion), that could be paid for by not buying:
– Batch 3 of 3 more Turkiye Corvettes (USD650 mil). Cap the quantity to just 6 units.
– 3 MRSS (around USD800-900 mil)
– 4 dedicated MCMV (around USD400 mil)
” RoRos are one trick ponies ”
What kind of tricks does expensive bespoke MRSS can do to counter PLAN fleet? I would prefer that money to be spent on subs, rather than MRSS.
China maybe Malaysia largest trading partner but it’s a deficit relationship with China exporting lot of cheap item into MY while hardly buying anything and whatever they bought are at risk of embargoes based on CCP whimp & fancies.
MY is in a middle income trap and so does China. Wgile FDI is great and all but not the kind of FDI that can help solve our middle incomes traps problems. We need high quality and value FDI which mostly flow from the west
China may has a much larger population and defence budget; the world’s largest industrial capacity and so on. But small, poor, corrupt state like Ukraine can goes toe to toe with a superpowers for as long as they borrowed the industrial and financial capability of another superpowers.
trouble with China is while maybe not imminent is probably inevitable, simply because it’s not China right to choose, uncle Sam too have a say and boy does he really want to make it inevitable.
… – “need to be located between the rocket launchers and the target. Not an ideal situation.*
MLRSs operate in the operational/tactical depth; having UAS operators “located between the rocket launchers and the target” is not unheard off and doesn’t expose then to unecessary danger.
… – ”
A regimental rather than divisional asset. Centralising things by placing them at divisional level is a recipe for them not being where they’re needed; when they’re needed. A key reminder from the Ukraine war is decentralisation. As per a dicussion we had months ago and when you reverted to default mode, the Ukrainians don’t have divisions or brigades ho exclusively hog anything. UASs and loitering munitions are issued right dirn to platoon level.
You made the spurios comparison before and I’ll answer you again. The RSN is a conscript navy… Vietnam has a larger navy and decided to focus on SSKs at the expense of other things. Note the nuances. Note also that due to creeing issues the Viets faced delays getting their boats operational.
@Zaft
“while hardly buying anything”
China, the last I checked, was still a big importer of our palm oil when USA & EU have imposed strict nearly permaban usage of palm oil and India which used to be a big importer too have begun to wean themselves. We do need China as much.
… – “Everything is unrealistic to you. Everything cannot be done.”
Not “everything'” but mostly stuff you conjure up based on paper facts and the illusion that it can easily be translated into reality. Make the distinction between what can be done on paper, what you’d like done and what will realistically be done. Note also that things don’t operate in a vacuum and there is a measure of success versus a measure of efficiency. Abd don’t adopt the self serving position that I disagree for the sakee of doing so and don’t explain why I disagree.
… – “So then what is? tell us”
Back to default mode: showing frustration. Also, is it ‘us’ or ‘you”?
As pointed out, the most the RMN can handle without significant manpower and resource inprovenents is another boat. If you insist that it can handle more then I’ll be crass and the a mine from your book : “the RMN disagrees with you and didn’t get your memo”.
You might as well also tell me the world is flat and post a customary link
Zaft – “China maybe Malaysia largest trading partner but it’s a deficit relationship”
Thanjs for the insightful analysis but the fact remains that economics plays a vital role and drives everything.
Zaft – “China may has a much larger population and defence budget; the world’s largest industrial capacity and so on. But small, poor, corrupt state like Ukraine can goes toe to toe with a superpowers”
The talk was in Malaysia and how we can’t afford to go up against China; not are we able to.
Zaft – “boy does he really want to make it inevitable.”
That’s your opinion but a lot of what China does is worrying.
” Ukrainians don’t have divisions or brigades ho exclusively hog anything ”
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-zelenskiy-orders-creation-separate-military-force-drones-2024-02-06/
Decentralisation does not mean soldiers in the trenches need to operate long endurance drones while being shot at by the enemy. it does not work that way.
Decentralization means all the information is accessible & actionable by everyone. A request for fire support, a request for forward observation could be done with “foodpanda-like” apps and tasks automatically given to any relevant units closest to the request. Any intelligence information by everybody uploaded to central cloud for anyone needing that information to use. That is what decentralization should be. That is what is happening in Ukraine.
a long range uav could find info for an ATGM platoon to shoot at enemy tanks.
an infantry soldier could pinpoint a recently located enemy HQ bunker for long range artillery to take a precision hit.
” As pointed out, the most the RMN can handle without significant manpower and resource inprovenents is another boat ”
In a 3-4 years, TLDM will have to induct 8 brand new large ships with a total displacement of 28,000 tons and a crew of 1023 personnels. No bruhaha from you about “manpower and resource inprovenents” for that much of ships in a very short time.
But adding only 2 more operational subs, for a total of 4 instead of the current 2, at a glacial pace of 2030-2040 “we cannot handle it” “the world is flat etc etc” ???
Please make it make sense.
.. – “. No bruhaha from you about “manpower and resource inprovenents” for that much of ships in a very short time”
Because the RMN has made plans for that and some crews will come from existing ships. Before you go on about “bruhaha” look at this in the context of the topic rather than cherry picking. In case you need a reminder the RMN is a small all volunteer force. Also, surface ships are far less resource intensive than subs. Overlooked that?
No need to obfuscate : how many of the X people who enter the RMN annually go to sub training and how many qualify? How many leave the service and sub force annually? You are aware that it’s much longer and resource intensive to train a submariner compared to surface ship crews and that the wash out rate is higher. It’s also not only manpower but other issues, namely funding. As it stands the Scorpenes are taking a significant chunk of the service’s budget.
… – “Please make it make sense”
Coming from you that’s rich but to be expected.
“Because the RMN has made plans for that and some crews will come from existing ships”
Tell me how many ships that TLDM plan to retire from now till 2030? Would that cover the 1023 person needed?
What other manpower resource does a sub need? Maintenance? does that manpower comes from the navy? 1 scorpene has 32 crews. How can inducting 8 large ships with thousands of crew within 3-4 years is a no issue, but inducting additional 2 subs by 2040 is a big one?
This is australia, to operate 6x large collins class submarines (each needing 58 sailors to operate)
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2008-2009_23_1.pdf
For 6 submarines, it needs 667 officers and sailors.
TLDM, to operate 4 subs, at most it probably need 444 officers and sailors, with at least half is already there. I did not even take into account that Scorpenes have less crew than the Collins in the 1st place. There is almost 15 years from now till 2040, that much time cannot create 222 officers and sailors for additional 2 subs?
While just 3-4 years is enough to create 1023 officers and sailors for 8 large ships?
… – “What kind of tricks does expensive bespoke MRSS can do to counter PLAN fleet? I would prefer that money to be spent on”
Silly. It’s like saying we should not get SAMs because they can’t “counter PLAN” or we should not get anything for that matter if it can’t “counter PLAn”. Once you do away with your illusion that we should focus what we’re doing mainly to “counter PLAN” then you’ll realise there’s a reason why the RMN wants mix of things. Not a hard concept to fathom, a mix of things operating in tandem, each doing slightly different things but all working as one. No silver bullets or wunderwaffen
Again, a MPSS is a jack of all trades unlike a RoRo and you are cobflating a MPSS with the need to “counter China”.
… – ” I would prefer that money to be spent on subs, rather than MRSS”
Yes but subs aren’t a panacea or invincible. Lots of things China can do to prevent our subs from effectively operating and it’s not written in stone we’d deploy our subs to the Spratlys in the event of troubles. In case you were unaware navies tend to deploy subs in conditions where their advantages can be maximised, certainly not against a navy with a numerical and qualitative edge in an area in which subs from various navies are present. Also the notion that we can counter China is a joke and no I’m not suggesting we do nothing in case you want to sing that song again. If you want to talk about deterrence : what happens when it does not deter? And you expect China not to have a response to any assymetric tactics we employ? Even the USN and JSDMF is worried about the PLAN yet you’d seriously expect RMN subs to “counter China”. I thought you were serious in your posts.
… – “Tell me how many ships that TLDM plan to retire from now till 2030? Would that cover the 1023 person needed?”
Backtracking instead of adressing the issue. The RMN at a stretch can handle the manpower needed for the ships it’s getting and for another sub; beyond that is a major challenge.
…- “but inducting additional 2 subs by 2040 is a big one?*
You’ve been told a few times actually but I guess it escapes you. I takes far longer to train a submariner; also more resource intensive compared to a submariner. If you really thought about it instead of cheery picking; you’d be aware of it. Also, a midshipmen can get on the job training on any ship, his sub equivalent has to wait a spot on the only 2 boats we have. Another point of thsr the wash out rate for submariners is higher, takes a different type of temperement to be a submariner. Not uncommon for submariners to request a transfer.
Instead of dodging questions and posing rhetorical ones, “tell me” – “how many of the X people who enter the RMN annually go to sub training and how many qualify? How many leave the service and sub force annually?”
… – “This is australia, to operate 6x large collins class submarines (each needing 58 sailors to operate”.
Another mermaid to gargoyle comparison. The RAN has a larger pool of submariners to select from and has far more resources thsn the RAN. On top of that it’s a more established operator of subs, a 100 years now. Going to make a direct compsrodon with Vietnam and Singapore now?
… – “TLDM, to operate 4 subs, at most it probably need 444 officers and sailors, with at least half is already there”
Like the fugure you conjured up with the army’s helis, this is an abitery figure you’ve came up with. Also, you left out the support, logistics, admins and others needed. Orvare you suggestimg that adding a sub will not entail adding the people needed to support it, just like how you adamently insisted that adding a battalion to 10 Pare might not lead to an increase in the Brigade HQ and in signals and logistical elements
– ” Ukrainians don’t have divisions or brigades ho exclusively hog anything’
You do understand that that’s a higher level grouping do you not? Before sending links like they’re going out of fashion, stick to the script. Months ago you brought this up bit I replied thst having a UAS Commandvdo to speak has zero to do with the fact the fact that at a tactical/operational level UASs and loitering munitions will be allocated in a decentralised manner. I also pointed out that as we mature as a UAS operator and get more MALEs, rather than have a single service hog it, we should have a UAS Command which is joint and will enable all servicesvto have it. So don’t bring up the Ukraine exwmpl as if it’s something new or I was unaware of it.
.. – “Decentralisation does not mean soldiers in the trenches need to operate long endurance drones while being shot at by the enemy. it does not work that way.”
Who and when did anyone say it “works there way”? This is not the 1st time we’re having tid discusdion but you’re going off tangent. I’m telking about assets being placed optimally where they can be used by those who need them when they need them. Again, ib simple as possible language which can’t be misunderstokd, they have UASs deployed from brigade all the way down to section level.
.. – “a long range uav could find info for an ATGM platoon to shoot at enemy tanks
Gee thanks for the update but I’m taking about organisation, not utility per see. The need for things to be decentrslised rather than bring hogged by a high level HQ.
… – ” Any intelligence information by everybody uploaded to central cloud for anyone needing that information to use.”
To cut a long story short, the Ukrainians have adopted a very decentralised structure to cut to a minimum any buueacrstoc layers which can inibit combat efficacy, whether in the actual usage, employment or C3.
.. – “While just 3-4 years is enough to create 1023 officers and sailors for 8 large ships”
Obviously because there is a larger pool of ship crews compared to subs crews, because some ships will be retired and crews reassigned, because it’s easier and faster to train ship crews and for a variety of other reasons. Also, before applying for subs one has to have spent some time on ships
” just like how you adamently insisted that adding a battalion to 10 Pare might not lead to an increase in the Brigade HQ and in signals and logistical elements ”
After that discussion, they actually did add another battalion to 10 PARA, the 18 RAMD, in Terengganu, without adding anything else to signals or logistical elements.
You still did not address the elephant in the room, why the near term addition of 8 large Frigates and Corvettes will not cause any of the doomsday scenario that you insist will happen if we add 2 additional submarines…
… – “After that discussion, they actually did add another battalion to 10 PARA, the 18 RAMD, in Terengganu, without adding anything else to signals or logistical elements”
Sure they didn’t ot yet another assumption? Really think an existing Brigade HQ along with support elements tailored for a 3 battalion force structure can handle another battalion without an increase in manpower! We*re talking about 10 Para here not 5th Soviet Tanks Guards Army and para units to begin with have smaller/leaner HQs than infantry units.
That’s right. I addressed this in simple to understand language yet here’s a claim “I haven’t addrssed it”? I did and it would be obvious why manpower issues with ship crews are far less challenging compared to with sub crews. Or will there be another kangaroo to dolphin direct compsrison with the RAN, RSN and Vietnamese navy?
What about you not adressing the “elephant in the room”? How many enter the RMN annually and how many apply for subs? Of that how many make it through? Then, how many leave prematurely along with those who are posted out and those who leave the service? Reminder, submariner wash out rates are high, takes longer and more resources to train submariners and the RMN does not have a large pool of manpower.
Azlan “The talk was in Malaysia and how we can’t afford to go up against China; not are we able to.”
If that were the case, then we have a failure for a government. But luckily for us that doesn’t seem to be the case as all the various gov we had has try to diversified trade away from China as its come with an inherent risk.
So IMHO it’s more that we preferred not to rather than can’t afford too.
@joe
All trade relationships are important but some are more important than others. When the Chinese sells more than the buy that’s make our relationship uncle Sam far more important as they buy and invest more then they sells.
As for the subs, regardless of what individual opinion is, atm RMN plan to add on 2 more sub by the 2030s and replace the existing 2 by 2040s.
Zaft – “So IMHO it’s more that we preferred not to rather than can’t afford too”
This is gone beyond silly and ludicrous. For economic reasons : we can’t.
Zaft – “trade away from China as its come with an inherent risk”
Everything comes with risk.
Zaft – “all the various gov we had has try to diversified trade away from China as its come”
I’m sorry but this is a load of bloody nonsense. I have to ask if you’re serious with your posts. All the governments have been trying to increase the level of trade and FDI with China; whilst also doing the same with others. Our economy, like others, is tied to China’s in a major way and there is no substitute. We can diversity all we want but there is no substitute for China. This is not to say however that we don’t value economic ties with the EU, U S. and others.
Zaft – “As for the subs, regardless of what individual opinion is, atm RMN plan”
Firstly, I make a distinction between personal opinion and what I know for a fact – I don’t conflate both. Can’t speak for others of course. If you really did some research or asking around; you\’d be able to differentiate between personal opinion and fact. Secondly, what the RMN plans to get is driven not only by what the government might be able or is willing to afford but also what the RMN can handle, i e. if hell suddenly froze over and the government declared it was going to fund 5 subs next year; the RMN would not be able to handle it.
” Firstly, I make a distinction between personal opinion and what I know for a fact – I don’t conflate both ”
Like TUDM don’t do CAS is a fact?
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/its-likely-electric-bicycles/#comment-898972
@Azlan
Diversified and derisking doesn’t Mean stopping trade all together. PRC is still OZ biggest export destination. Increasing in nominal value is also not the same as increasing in term of percentages. MY is afterall along with Vietnam and Mexico are the biggest benefactor of Uncle Sam leads trade war.
Also asking around active personnel for their personal opinion can still be both a fact and also a personal opinion. As stated before Officially RMN already stated they want to increase the subs count starting by 2030s.
More sub is way to go.. not enough money to be normal force.. not enough money for conventional way.. be a better arm Yaman better arm Lubnan & better arm VietCon..
Not enough money for sub.. Go Midget.. or NarcoSub UUV
Not Enough UAV…
Invest more in Micro Sat
Faris – “More sub is way to go”
That’s right. They operate in a vacuum. Easy to run/support, are inexpensive and crews can be trained overnight.
Faris – “.. be a better arm Yaman better arm Lubnan & better arm VietCon”
That’s right. We can even lay siege to Beijing.
Faris – “Not enough money for sub.. Go Midget.. or NarcoSub UUV”.
Yes. Why buy Scorpenes when mini subs can do the job. A direct substitute for SSKs. We can have the largest sub fleet west of Tahiti.
We’ve actually gone through this before but then you have a tendency to revisit old topics for the sake of it Like many air arms the RMAF has traditionally not done CAS; it has done interdiction and ground support/strike but not CAS. This does not mean it absolutely does not train or does not intend to have a CAS capability. We don’t even have people qualified to call in CAS attached to various units and the limited number of planes we have means there is little opportunity for CAS training. Apart from the RSAF which regional air arm does CAS? Even the Russians and a number of European air arms don’t.
In the absence of people trained for the role; who do we rely on; the Seven Dwarfs? Next time you meet an army officer or NCO attached to a combat unit; ask them if they’re qualified to call air strikes. When you bump into a serving figher pilot; ask him whether he’s ever done CAS or even trains for it.
You know the difference between CAS, ground support/strike and interdiction I would assume. You also realise that gaining a CAS capability and retaining it is very skill and resource intensive compared to interdiction and ground attack. As a forward thinking erudite no doubt you”ll be aware.
Zaft – “Officially RMN already stated they want to increase the subs count starting by 2030s”
Anyone say they didn’t?
Zaft – “Also asking around active personnel for their personal opinion can still be both a fact and also a personal opinion”
Personal opinions and facts are 2 seperate things.
Zaft -“Diversified and derisking doesn’t Mean stopping trade all together”.
Did anyone say so? We can diversify all we want or until you graduate with a degree in military science but there is no substitute for China. Nobody else can replace China in terms of the sheer volume of trade and investment.