SHAH ALAM: The RMN has taken delivery of sixteen one-tonne utility trucks from Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd or Deftech. The trucks are likely to be Toyota Hilux 2.8 litre double cab 4X4 vehicles. Deftech in a social media post announced the delivery of the vehicles.
The post:
DEFTECH Marks Another Milestone with 1-Tonne Vehicle for 2025
DEFTECH proudly achieves another milestone with the successful production and delivery of the 1-Tonne Vehicle for the Navy.
6–9 Jan 2025 – First unit rollout at DEFTECH Pekan Plant
This achievement underscores our commitment to excellence in defense mobility solutions. #DEFTECH #InnovationInMotion #1TonneVehicle.
As the LOA of RM3.180.608 million was issued on August 20, last year, the time between delivery is only 190 days or six months and six days. Not much achievement really as the trucks are commercial off the shelf (COTS) vehicles with the only difference being TLDM stickers on the front doors. The stickers named the bases where the vehicles are attached with.
The tender for trucks was was published on March 27 and closed on April 23, last year.
The requirements called for a double cab truck with a seating capacity for five passengers. The 4X4 truck should be equipped with a 2.8 litre engine and an endurance of 450km. The specifications are very similar to the ones featured on the Toyota Hilux and Nissan Navarra pickups. Or any of the copycat Chinese made trucks as well.
It is interesting to note that the RMN is already equipped with a number of Hilux for various other duties so it will be the truck to beat in the competition. The estimated cost for the tender is RM3.4 million which translated to some RM215,000 per vehicle. A check on Toyota Malaysia website showed a similarly configured Hilux starts from RM159,080
.
— Malaysian Defence If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
” Successful production and delivery of the 1-Tonne Vehicle for the Navy ”
Production at DEFTECH pekan plant???
What did they do? Paste TLDM stickers and consider it as “production”?
How many engineers does it take to paste that sticker in DEFTECH PEKAN?
And they consider this as “achievement”?
There is no value added anything in this, better buy direct from UMW Toyota.
Excuse me why would the navy needs this
RM 3.18mil for 16 Hilux or RM 198k each. Toyota sells same model for RM 149k so easily RM50k clean profit each not yet factor in importation tax waiver for Govt vehicles.
For utility tasks which do not require a bus, a three tonner, a ship or helicopters.
“…buy direct from UMW Toyota”, i believe its Govt procument procedures cannot buy direct from Foreign OEM & its OEM local office.
From Wikipedia: UMW Toyota Motor is a 51:39:10 joint venture between Malaysia-based United Motor Works (UMW), and the Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Tsusho Corporation of Japan.[1] UMWT wholly owns Assembly Services Sdn. Bhd. (ASSB), the exclusive assembler of Toyota passenger and commercial vehicles in Malaysia.
Due to its foreign shareholding means that the company cannot be registered to take part in government procurement exercise.
Excuse me why would the navy needs this. (Qamarul)
Funny that I’d like to equate this observation with the need for a dedicated MRSS for the navy.
Can they make make do with a converted commercial ship or something along those lines? The Iranian navy has their 2 drone carriers converted from container ships. No hiccups there …
“Can they make make do with a converted commercial ship”
That means you dont understand whats the purpose of MRSS. The TLDM specs will tell you whats its for.
@ taib
Good observation there.
If you look at the cost of the PT PAL MRSS 163m, the price is USD408 million.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/idex-navdex-2025/2025/02/pt-pals-construction-of-emirati-lpd-proceeds-apace/
TLDM wants to get 2 of them in RMK13 2026-2030
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkyfXblakAAnLlc.jpg
TLDM plans for RMK13 2026-2030
– 2x MRSS (USD800 million)
– 3x Turkiye Corvette (USD560 million @ RM2.5 billion)
That is USD800 million locked up in getting what is essentially a cargo ship for west to east malaysia logistics.
That mission can be had for much more lower cost by getting :
1) RORO ships (example : Spain navy SPS Ysabel, UK point class). Spanish Navy bought the SPS Ysabel for just EUR7.5 million.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-bN9xoWEAQic2l.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-bN9xoWEAImhqV.jpg
2) Retired Excess Defence Article (EDA) – Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport (EPF) / Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV). US Navy is going to retire almost all of this JHSV/EPF ships, this could probably be had for free/minumum cost like those ex USCG cutters.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkEHnxBa4AAb_1_.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
Getting 2x RORO and 2x JHSV/EPF will probably cost less than USD50 million, and would do the same mission profile as 2x USD800 million MRSS.
Money saved could be used for submarines, frigates, completing the 6th GOWIND…
“No hiccups there …” they are under embargo/sanction, if not for sure they can easily get America LHA.
did you forget the bunga mas 5 and KA Tun Azizan?
Why not get a toyota hiace 2024 utility van? It would fit more things & pax at much cheaper price below 200k. Its not like they want to mount a browning machine guns on the 4×4 right? So i guess it will be tasked with everyday light tasking, despatches & vip transportation.
Dr M job to help local so slot in middleman agent…
Does it really work and achieve the main goal? Every minister say want to pull it down but………
@ joe
” That means you dont understand whats the purpose of MRSS ”
do you?
” Keperluan MRSS ini adalah amat penting dalam melengkapkan aset Armada TLDM
bagi memenuhi keperluan operasi ATM melalui kemampuan strategik sealift antara
Semenanjung Malaysia dengan Sabah dan Sarawak. Di samping bantuan logistik dan
kemanusiaan di peringkat antarabangsa apabila diperlukan ”
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/mrss-after-30-years-probably/
keyword = strategic sealift
Nothing about amphibious this and that.
For strategic sealift, a RORO ship like the SPS Ysabel is more than enough to create a logistical bridge between east & west malaysia. Something that is EUR7.5 million can do 80% of strategic sealift and HADR missions a USD408 million PT PAL MRSS can. So why not? Those extra hundreds of millions saved can be put into buying more submarines & frigates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp14biVVvPc
@Qamarul
“Why not get a toyota hiace 2024 utility van?”
Theres a reason why you see vans & pickups on the road. Different vehicles are used for different purpose. TLDM will have another vehicle to use if they want to carry something big.
@Hulu
“Getting 2x RORO and 2x JHSV/EPF”
Getting 4 ships to do the job of 2 boats isnt wise from a manpower, finance, nor operation, nor basing perspective. You will double up of everything; crew, bunkerage, docking space, accommodation, etc.
@ joe
” Getting 4 ships to do the job of 2 boats ”
The plan is actually for 3x MRSS,
2x MRSS in RMK13 2026-2030
1x MRSS in RMK15 2036-2040
total of USD1.2 billion to biy 3x MRSS
Roro and JHSV/EPF has very low manning, much less than the 163m MRSS
PT PAL MRSS specification (originally designed for TLDM but now bought by UAE Navy)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNg2N1oacAMXNFD.jpg
MRSS Crew = 150 persons
JHSV/EPF crew = 41 persons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_expeditionary_fast_transport
SPS Ysabel crew = 18 persons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Ysabel
Ah the usual bezza is a car, GTR is also a car. Thus a bezza can do ALL that GTR can do for lot less money arguments.
That is a stupid take
I want additional Submarines instead of glorified ferries to do ewat to wast malaysia logistics for those USD1.2 billion.
3x MRSS won’t do squat to bring the fight to PLA-N.
“3x MRSS won’t do squat to bring the fight to PLA-N.”
And 2 more Scorpene can?
@ guys
Getting RO-RO and large ferries differs from MRSS ship.
These MRSS ship IF put to good use can send underwater drone for intel collection in SCS against CCG/PLN + their rouge fishingboats.
Other than that divers can also be send to probe their sonar effectiveness and other sensors because 3rd world countries that bought China made ships,planes,tanks gave negative feedbacks,items that they bought.
Apart from showing of presence in the SCS.
All this can be summed up wether the Admiral got balls to execute all these covert ops.
As of now,nobody ever question why China put so many rouge fishingboats at sea?Is it to protect their CCG/PLN ships that their sonar,radars and sensors are not that effective as hyped in the brouchures,we need to know.
“do you?”
Do you? The tasks for MRSS calls for; strategic sealift, amphibious operation, logistic support, & HADR. It looks like you only saw the 1st item and ignored everything else. Got a reading problem?
“The plan is actually for 3x MRSS”
3 ships is still lower than the 4 you proposed.
“I want additional Submarines instead of glorified ferries”
I want a navy that will do what its tasked to do in all scenarios & situations, whether be peacetime or war time. Therefore it has to be a balanced navy.
That means you dont understand whats the purpose of MRSS. The TLDM specs will tell you whats its for.(joe)
I know what MRSS is supposed to do but in essence, it’s just a glorified ferry whose main mission is not unlike Feri Malaysia some 40 years ago. It’s a transport for West Malaysia and the Borneo Territories.
Are we going to Kamchatka or the Mediterranean to service Gaza? Unlikely.
It will serve in the pond, i.e. the South China Sea.
MRSS isn’t anything to crow about. Period.
@ haiqal
“And 2 more Scorpene can?”
Clearly the answer is yes
@ joe
” Therefore it has to be a balanced navy ”
A balanced navy can fulfill peacetime, deterrence, and wartime missions. But for a navy, the very essence, the primary reason of its existence is to take the fight to the enemy when and if we are attacked.
RORO + JHSV/EPF combination could do all the things that MENHAN wanted from a MRSS while costing 1/20th of 3 brand new MRSS.
The current 15to5 plan of just 2 submarines by 2040 is totally out of touch of the essence of a balanced navy for our regional defence challenges.
@hulu
And 2 more Scorpene can?”
Clearly the answer is yes
Based on a single scenario in your mind alone. Sure.
If the PLAN decides not to utilise your script then NO.
@ darthzaft
The question is clearly comparing the effectiveness of MRSS vs Scorpene to defend our maritime resources and area from PLA-N, given the same budget consumed.
If you think otherwise, then why are you even here in the 1st place?
“RORO + JHSV/EPF combination could do all the things”
None of them can do amphib, the 2nd item in MRSS requirement.
“costing 1/20th of 3 brand new MRSS.”
Long term the running cost of running more large vessels would cost even more.
“the primary reason of its existence is to take the fight to the enemy”
Bollocks! The primary reason for TUDM is to defend our sovereignity & security of our waters. We are no where near to “take the fight” to any superpower.
“effectiveness of MRSS vs Scorpene”
MRSS has a far more valuable purpose in peacetime as compared to subs.
“None of them can do amphib”
There is no amphibious ops requirement for MRSS.
Tentera darat Army 4NextG plan calls for balanced forces on both east and west malaysia, lessening the need for amphibious ops. Amphibious ops are not required to defend our maritime resources in our EEZ.
” Long term the running cost of running more large vessels would cost even more ”
More large vessels? Those 4 ships are smaller than 3x MRSS, less manpower, while those ROROs can actually carry more than double the MBT & IFV load that the MRSS can.
Also balanced force navy. Is a fleet of 3x expensive MRSS but with only 2 submarines a “balanced” force for our maritime threats?
Just a few hours ago, Singapore confirmed its acquisition of another 2 more Type 218SG submarines, bringing the total number of those submarines in RSN fleet to 6.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlF3OHma8AEGs0h.jpg
“MRSS has a far more valuable purpose in peacetime as compared to subs”
Having both submarines in numbers AND strategic sealift vessels such as RORO and JHSV/EPF is much more valuable as a balanced force rather than just MRSS only.
@hulu
You are the only one insisting on only getting one over the other when RMN stated clearly they wanted both.
Also. EEZ is not “ours” technically. It’s international water where we get exclusive right to extract underwater resources. No one else other than you wanted to take the fight to PLAN. What ATM need to do is only to prevent PLAN from stopping us extracting those resources.
Sorry, primary reason for *TLDM*
@ darthzaft
” You are the only one insisting on only getting one over the other when RMN stated clearly they wanted both ”
I want both. But not the same as TLDM. I want a balanced force. I want more submarines
TLDM want by 2040
3x brand new MRSS (costing USD1.2 billion)
2x brand new Submarine (costing USD1.2 billion)
I want by 2040
2x used RORO + 2x excess defence article JHSV/EPF (costing less than USD50 million)
4x
4x brand new submarines (costing USD2.4 billion)
Overall, with the same amount of budget, i want by 2040 a navy with
– 4x Scorpene EVO + 2x existing Scorpenes (now 31 years old) as training/reserve and stand-in when the operational subs are undergoing refit.
– 4x ARROWHEAD 140 Frigate
– 6x GOWIND frigate (to complete 6th GOWIND whatever it takes)
– 6x STM Turkiye CORVETTE
– 20 LMS-X FCS5509 (18 multi role, 2 Hydrographic Survey)
– 3x 80-90m OSV (multi role, MCM mothership, minelayer, dive support, hydrographic survey support, submarine tender, special force support, underwater infrastructure/pipeline/data cable security & surveillance)
– 2x RORO
– 2z JHSV/EPF
Singaporean Defence Minister:
“But four submarines are not an optimum for a fleet. Submarines are subjected to more rigorous and frequent maintenance cycles, stringent checks, as you can imagine, because they need to operate under intense pressure, literally. And this is why most navies that operate submarines have more than four.”
That is what a balanced fleet looks like.
Not just with 2 submarines. A reason serious submarine users like Vietnam and Singapore has/wants a minimum of 6.
With existing level of budget, my plan calls for (by 2040) 4x new Submarines (Scorpene EVO) + existing 2x Scorpenes (that in 2040 will be 31 years old) as training/reserve and stand-in when the operational subs are undergoing refit
Wanted to save money
Suggested scorpene.
Funny how Both statements are in contradictory to each other.
If we had gone for German subs back then we already got 3 operational subs with a proven off the shelf AIP (instead of some fancy paperwork aip) with proven lower operational cost with higher availability with 10 years instead of 7 years for refitted. We may even get more sub for the same money if we choose the German derivatives from turkeye or SK. Or go with Japan and get that sweet sweet 1% plan with a continuously depreciated yen no less.
Pretty sure the reason the sub are delayed is because RMN may not want any continuity to the scorpene programme and allow them to procured sub from a clean slate in 10 years time. We both know the reason scorpene was selected back then was because of politics rather than requirements.
” Wanted to save money
Suggested scorpene ”
How low is your comprehension??????
I want to save money TO GET ADDITIONAL SCORPENES!!!!!!
NOT SPENDING USD1.2 BILLION ON 3X MRSS FREES USD1.2 BILLION TO BUY 2X ADDITIONAL SCORPENES, INCREASING THE TOTAL PLANNED TO 4X SCORPENES.
I can ask you the same question.
How low can you comprehension be?
So what so good about the scorpene that you willing to get 2 non AIP scorpene (remember that the scorpene AIP is a paper prototype at this moment) instead of you know 3 German subs with AIP with the same price.
Secondly not just you propose an expensive scorpene you even go even further and propose a paper ship in the form of scorpene evolve. For the money being spend to turn paper ship to prototype to actual product. You may even get 6 German off the shelf German subs for the same price.
And all of this to be paid for by letting go of the MRSS? What benefits does it bring. Might as well go buy the MRSS and bought 4 off the shelf subs. That’s way you get more asset then your proposal. Heck you might even get 6 subs on top of MRSS is you purchase form SK or turkey for the same price.
Seriously bro. If R&D cost is as cheap as you claim it to be.the USAF would upgrade the F22 with F35 avionics already and get the FB22 build or the Indian would build more scorpene instead of now buying German subs. The fact to the matter is in real life the Aussie hunter class is 300% more expensive then their British counterparts. Benchmarking is done with real live thing and not just some number you cook up in your head.
The simple answer to get more bang for the buck is soo simple. No need to do some serious mind gymnastics over it. just go buy thing off the shelf. So no. Neither the scorpene evolve, kfx-ex or upgrading the MKM should be done. Just go out there and bought things off the shelf like the Ada class, f35 and classic hornet.
Friend
AIP is dinosaur technology
Future is Li-Ion batteries, than fits the same space as conventional lead acid batteries but more powerful and can be recharged 2x the times of lead acid (longer battery life so less refit)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCu0TjiaQAAuZvP.jpg
Also you cannot get 3 german AIP sub for the cost of 2 scorpenes. Offer to india for 6 Type 214 AIP submarines is about USD5.5 billion
Zaft – “Pretty sure the reason the sub are delayed is because RMN may not want any continuity to the scorpene programme”
They are delayed because cash is limited and because the issue of subs is still a hot potato. Eceb if funds were available any PM has, to be in a good position politically before he’s comfortable placing a sub other.
The good news is we have the needed shore infrastructure to support another sub or two. More than that will be a stretch. Vietnam was able to handle 6 Kilos – after prolonged delays due to manpower and other issues – but then it placed emphasis on subs at the expense of other things.
Claiming a sub is more useful than a MPSS is a fools errand. Like saying oranges are better than apples or a LMG is more useful than a 175mm gun. The context is needed. There is a place for everything. Nothing is a panacea or is more needed or is a wunderwaffe.
As for the RSN. It is better resourced, as a conscript navy it has the manpower [fully mobilised the SAF has more manpower than the MAF], it has taken care of its surface and other needs [in contrast we have to spend on a neglected RMAF and RMN surface fleet] and the RSN in line with threat perceptions has a slightly different doctrine and requirements compared to the RMN. The context in totality.
To look at things dispassionately and objectively, subs are inherently expensive to run and maintain and require a comprehensive shore support infrastructure. It also takes longer and more resources to train submariners who have a high wash out rate. Subs also are less useful in peacetime [unless one suggests they surface in close vicinity to intruding Chinese ships as a warning] and like everything else there will be time where they are unable to operate effectively.
… – “There is no amphibious ops requirement for MRSS.”
There isn’t for amphibious assault but there is for amphibious movement – one operational the other administrative.
… – “3x MRSS won’t do squat to bring the fight to PLA-N.”
10 subs, will also not do “squat” against the might of the PLAN. We sink 10 ships, they bring another 10. Unless of course one is delusional enough to think that subs will sink a few PLAN ships and the Chinese will run back to Hainan. Or that they will be so deterred by our subs [but not USN, RAN and JSDMF subs] that they will stay well away. Or that assynetrics tactics on our part will worry them.
Many things the Chinese can do to prevent us from effectively operating our subs. They too have subs and fully understand the inherent limitations. They have and can deploy large numbers of air and surface assets as well as mines and underwater sensors.
Also you missed the point that the MPSS is not intended to be used against the PLAN, nor the MAF for that matter. All this talk about what the RMN can do against the PLAN is laughable. The RMN is not resourced, structured, trained or equipped to take on the PLAN which worries even the likes of the USN. There are threats we can deal with and those we can’t. Since when did our force structure be based on the need to deal with a country with the 2nd largest budget, the largest navy, a large population, a high tech industrial base, the largest manufacturing capacity and a military in a much higher state of development than us with the numbers and tertiary skills we can only dream off.
This is supposed to be a serious side/forum with a level of objectivity, decorum, realism and seriousness.
I am never not serious about Malaysian defence.
And you mentioned context. I am talking based on the malaysian context.
I don’t mind having expensive brand new MRSS if we also have the money for adequate amount of submarines and frigates. But the stark reality is that we don’t have enough money for everything. The new TLDM force structure 2040 plan of just 31 ships (and just 2 submarines) means that we will be among the smallest navies in ASEAN by 2040.
Wasting USD1.2 billion on 3 ships with its primary mission is to transport cargo is insane when we don’t have enough money for other more critical things.
Strategic sealift does not need a brand new USD408 million each ship like the MRSS to do the mission. Used RORO and used JHSV/EPF is more than adequate to do the same mission.
Planning for only 2 Submarine is not adequate as a minimum essential force. A big reason why i want to use the budget for the MRSS to have TLDM getting an increased total of 4 new Submarines, rather than just 2. USD1.2 billion freed is enough to get TLDM 2 Scorpenes.
… – ” am never not serious about Malaysian defence.”
Now you mention it.
… – “I am talking based on the malaysian context”
Sorry. Does ignoring and overlooking many things mean it’s a “Malaysian context”? Surely we’ve been discussing Malaysian things as well as other things they relate or are pertinent to us rather than say Moroccan ops in the Western Sahara.
Does going on and on about subs as if they are a panacea or a wunderwaffe and going on about how the RMN should supposedly be geared towards China show seriousness or context? What happens if we can’t deploy our subs effectively? What happens if those subs fail to deter? What happens if we are faced with a, situation where subs are not the answer? Does making simplistic direct comparisons with what Singapore and Vietnam did/does with subs show context?
… – “billion on 3 ships with its primary mission is to transport cargo is insane when we don’t have enough money for other more critical things”.
Again, since you still havent fathom this simple fact : the MPSS is intended to perform a variety roles not during peace and war. The roles have been mentioned a few times.
… – “Planning for only 2 Submarine is not adequate as a minimum essential force”
Who said it is? Who and when? What I did say on various occasions is that subs are inherently expensive to run and maintain, it’s resource and time ezpensive to train submariners, we have other areas which also need addressing, we need a right mix of various things, etc.
Again, since you still havent fathom this simple fact :
The RORO can perform a variety of roles that is covered under the aegis of strategic sealift. The roles have been mentioned a few times.
Strategic sealift, as mentioned by menhan as the mission the MRSS is supposed to fulfill, can be done by ROROs such as the SPS Ysabel with significantly lower cost.
The obsession to pull a David Vs Goliath and fight PLAN on our own lonesome self at the risk of getting Gazan is quite stupid IMHO.
We are not geographically similar to pre NATO Finland whose all alone on the front line without any potential partners in any way. We are neither in the front line nor short of any potential partners who share the same security concerns.
Hulus plan is akin to packing a football team full with Ronaldos & Neymars with just a middling goalkeeper who gets blamed if he cannot punt the ball with pinpoint accuracy to them or effectively stop balls coming in when their offensive power comes to naught because their tactic is only a one trick pony.
… – “The RORO can perform a variety of roles that is covered under the aegis of strategic sealift. The roles have been mentioned a few times”
Can’t do HADR, act as tenders, used was a command platform, etc. Actually it can but not ideally. Also has poor sea keeping and DC. You are making all these points to bolster your narrative but ultimately RoRos supplement, not replace dedicated all purpose life assets, we can lease or requisition them if needed and the RMN has a pretty good idea as to what it needs. There is a why even before the lossif Inderapura it had avrequirement for another lift asset and that requirement now is even more pressing given the age of the Saktis.
P.S. When DC is mentioned, surely you won’t mention – again – that it’s not needed because ships will be sunk anyway if they go to war in a high threat environment. If one goes on that basis there is no point for an infantryman to wear a helmet as it’s protection against splinters but not a direct hit from a bullet.
This is the current TLDM 15to5 Force Structure 2040 fleet in 2040
2x Submarine
7x LCS (5x GOWIND + 2x ??? in RMK15 36-40)
9x CORV (STM Turkiye – zero ASW capability)
4x LMS (Keris class LMS68)
3x MRSS (PT PAL 163m MRSS)
4x MCMV
2x HSV (hydrographic survey)
Is that enough? Is that credible even compared to neighbouring navies in 2040? Is that the best fleet we can plan for the amount of current OPEX that is allocated?
What is “enough” or “credible” really depends on the threat, i.e. the type of war. It’s also not the RMN in isolation but the RMN operating jointly with its sister services, primarily the RMAF. You spoke about taking things in context.
Making direct comparisons with others is misleading as others are in different stages of development, have diffrent threat perceptions, different national and military strategies, etc.
Do we need a better equipped and funded RMN which has the right mix of various things, all able to work seemlessly together? Yes. Nobody here disputes that.
@ azlan
” Can’t do HADR ”
SPS Ysabel in its short service with Spanish Navy has been involved with HADR operations to Turkiye, Lebanon, and weapons transfer runs to Poland (for Ukraine) and Turkiye (Patriot battery deployment)…
” act as tenders ”
That would be one of the mission of these multi role OSVs, which also can do HADR.
3x 80-90m OSV (multi role, MCM mothership, minelayer, dive support, hydrographic survey support, submarine tender, special force support, underwater infrastructure/pipeline/data cable security & surveillance)
” used was a command platform ”
4x ARROWHEAD 140 Frigate
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/rmn-gets-utility-4×4-vehicles-from-deftech/#comment-943103
On that basis even a frigate can do HADR to some extent. Even a MBT has utility in a peacekeeping role.
Ultimately what the RMN has set for its requirenenys, a RoRo does not fit the bill. Now you can go on about RoRos all you want and push the narrative but ultimately they are a one trick pony unlike a MPSS and despite your constant mention of others having RoRos they are supplementary not a substitute. Never were.
Oh on top of that, due to their design they have poor DC and sea keeping.
” RMN which has the right mix of various things ”
Then a simple question
Is just having 2 Submarines up to 2040 as lined out in the latest 15to5 Force Structure 2040 is the right mix?
… – “Then a simple question”
That simple question was already answered – “What is “enough” or “credible” really depends on the threat, i.e. the type of war. It’s also not the RMN in isolation but the RMN operating jointly with its sister services, primarily the RMAF. You spoke about taking things in context” and as, mentioned various times the RMN had to balance what it can wait for and what it can’t – the 2 subs are practically new, the Saktis are not. Plus the government decides what becomes a priority and what doesn’t.
If however one looks at things purely from a sub view and ignores challenges associated with them – for a small all volunteer under resourced navy – and also make direct comparisons with Singapore and Vietnam, then all these will not be apparent.
Of course we don’t have the “right mix” now and won’t for a while but is not replacing the Saktis and getting new subs now, the most prudent move, part of the “right mix”? You might think we don’t need a MPSS as they have zero utility against the might of the Plan but the RMN and defence planners see a valid need for it.
So, your “simple question” has been answered and was in various other threads in recent years.
@ Hulubalang
I Like your 2040 listing..
More sub..
MRSS Should add ton of turk module for drone mother ship… or just get MRSS from them… that in addition of “RMAF NAVY’s” Heli (lease)
I wonder what navy can get, if it get 16 bilion till 2040