Second Attempt to Build MRSS in Bagan Datuk?

85 Comments

1. The plan is actually for 2 in RMK13 2026-2030, and another one in RMK15 2036-2040
   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQLZrxWIAE516T.jpg

   With such a ship to cost somewhere around USD408 million each (UAE Navy contract to PT PAL), I would prefer the budget to be used for additional Scorpenes instead.

   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096

2. “I would prefer the budget to be used for additional Scorpenes instead.”

   Not this again

3. … – “I would prefer the budget to be used for additional Scorpenes instead”

   No doubt you would and every mother’s son and his dog is keenly aware but one can make the case that we already have a pair of subs and that the Saktis are in need of replacement. Your preference also assumes that we’ll be in a position where we’ll need the subs more than the MPSSs.
   Or will I hear the “you think a pair of subs is enough” tune yet again? Or are you speaking on “behalf” of the RMN again or perhaps I don’t understand the value of subs?

4. NO!NO!NO! Please don’t let it happen. Big tonnage shipbuilding in Malaysia is cursed. When it involved politicians it will be a disaster. We should learn from past mistakes.

5. If Hyundai its possible the mini Dokdo will be revived but I do question how viable it is to shrink it down. Going downsizing from 199mtr to 120mtr (dock size of Mawilla 4) is no joke and not like they can lop off the front & rear portions easily to fit.

   Then again, Makassar design actually originates from SK (DaeSun Shipbuilding) so its possible a Makassar derivative will be selected but from original SK shipyard.

6. With such a ship to cost somewhere around USD408 million each (UAE Navy contract to PT PAL), I would prefer the budget to be used for additional Scorpenes instead.(Hulubalang)

   Am in agreement of extra submarines but not necessarily Scorpenes.

7. SK Daesun, its not Hyundai.

8. ” Or will I hear the “you think a pair of subs is enough” tune yet again? Or are you speaking on “behalf” of the RMN again or perhaps I don’t understand the value of subs? ”
   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQLZrxWIAE516T.jpg
   TLDM original requirement is for 4x subs

   3x MRSS requirement could be covered with less budget with 2x RORO + 2x JHSV/EPF so that the MRSS budget could be used to get the 4x Submarines that we need.

   So our option

   A) 3x MRSS + 2x SUB

   B) 2x RORO + 2x JHSV/EPF + 4x SUB

   I prefer option B

   ” Am in agreement of extra submarines but not necessarily Scorpenes ”

   Getting something cheaper like the STM500 is tempting, but i prefer the fleet to be monotonous with an all Scorpene fleet for easier operational and sustainment needs. India is going for additional contract of 3x Scorpenes in the near future, and we could probably piggyback that deal.

9. Taib – “Am in agreement of extra submarines but not necessarily Scorpenes”

   Having 2 separate training and support infrastructures to maintain 2 different subs in small numbers is a bad idea.

10. Abuyane – “When it involved politicians it will be a disaster”

    Politicians who prioritise the industry and not the end user, who place hubris above substance and who allocate insufficient funds in line with a system with no checks and balances and corrective mechanisms.

11. Someone conveniently forget that the scorpene can only dive for 4 days as it is without any AIP nor LiOn battery while being at least 50% more expensive then the Germans or German derived subs that can dive for at least 30 days.

    Then conveniently includes the 200% markup on R&D on the Makasar (something subsequently customer won’t have to pay if they choose the off the shelf kind) then conveniently excluded the 200% markup (which the first customer who commissions either the Evo,AIP or LiOn battery ) on the scorpene to make his idea seems financial sounds.

    Then go around the internet calling the RMN planners as financially incompetent. I mean it’s easy to do so when you cook the number beyond what is legal by comparing apple with oranges.

12. The option for 3x MRSS (USD1.224 billion) and 4x SUB (USD2.4 billion) is not possible

    So our option

    A) 3x MRSS (USD1.224 billion) + 2x SUB (USD1.2 billion)

    B) 2x RORO (USD0.02 billion) + 2x JHSV/EPF (USD0.05 billion or free US EDA) + 4x SUB (USD2.4 billion)

    I prefer option B

    More info on RORO and the Spearhead-class JHSV/EPF
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/rmn-gets-utility-4×4-vehicles-from-deftech/#comment-942151

13. ” Going downsizing from 199mtr to 120mtr (dock size of Mawilla 4) is no joke ”

    The Spearhead-class JHSV/EPF is just 103m but very wide as it is a catamaran design. It has the ability to carry up to 600 tons of vehicles, so at least 20 Gempitas (more than double the capacity of the Mahawangsa or Inderasakti). It has been retired prematurely by US Navy citing lack of crews and could be an ideal logistics vessel for TLDM. It can be had via US EDA, so probably can be had for very cheap or even free.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIg-gOwaUAAxAHl.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCmTlaYAAQm6F.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIhCqRba8AAFWU1.jpg

14. Hyundai appears to have a right sized LST landing craft carrier with HDL-7000 (Cheon Wang Bong-class) (length 125mtr) , although they could shrink a more conventional LPD version HDL-10000 (length 140mtr possibly cut down to 120mtr).

15. Understandably Hyundai offered HDL-13000 for MRSS but at 160mtr its way too long for Mawilla 4 docks.

16. … – “I prefer option B”..

    I order option A and that’s because of factors which have been weighted in objective totality and based on the fact that the RMN has a reasonably good idea as to what it needs and doesn’t.

17. ” Someone conveniently forget that the scorpene can only dive for 4 days as it is without any AIP nor LiOn battery while being at least 50% more expensive then the Germans or German derived subs that can dive for at least 30 days ”

    Can only dive for 4 days LoL

18. … – “TLDM original requirement is for 4x subs”

    Thanks for the update but who said otherwise? Why do you have a knack of falling back on things which have no bearing or things which others didn’t dispute?

    What I did say is that the reason procurement is stretched out is not only due to funds but also because subs don’t operate in a vacuum. Please don’t bring up Singapore and Vietnam because I’ve explained why this comparison is silly. Submariners are resource and time extensive to train and wash out rates are high. Subs are inherently expensive to run. The RMN also has other priorities which need addressing and can’t adopt your assumption that it will be placed in a situation where subs are the answer or can be employed effectively. Lastly any PM who approves a sub buy has to be in a very comfortable and confident politic position given the controversy associated with the Scorpenes.

19. “More info on RORO and the Spearhead-class JHSV/EPF”
    The big problem is none of these have amphib landing capability, one of the key requirement for MRSS.

20. … – “3x MRSS requirement could be covered with less budget with 2x RORO + 2x JHSV/EPF so that the MRSS budget could be used to get the 4x Submarines that we need”

    So you keep peddling but the multi role MPSSs which have better DC and sea keeping are for a purpose. In case you again bring it up yet again; the fact that others have RoRos; they also have LSTs and LPDs. RoRos tend to be supplementary and not a replacement for other things and if we have to we can requisition them…

    As for subs being more useful. Do you have a crystal ball which with absolute accuracy says we’ll need subs more than MPSSs? What happens if we are unable to deploy the subs because of measures undertaken by others? Or do we overlook these uncovinieht facts?

    Not only that but you are overlooking the fact that the Saktis urgently need replacing. As for 2 not being “enough” yes but we hardky have enough of anything and the RMN has to factor in other things other than subs…

21. ” The big problem is none of these have amphib landing capability, one of the key requirement for MRSS ”

    There is no amphib landing capability in the MRSS requirement. But there is a requirement of 4x Submarines in the original TLDM 15to5 plan. So which is more important?

    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/rmn-gets-utility-4×4-vehicles-from-deftech/#comment-942178

    ” 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/

22. “Can only dive for 4 days LoL”
    IIRC we drove our subs home from France and majority was done underwater as claimed by their captains.

23. The point might be made that RoRos can also land stuff on beaches. Or that we have no requirement for for “amphibious assault”, yes. We might however have a requirement for “amphibious movement”, landing stuff on beaches, something the Langkawi and the former USN LSTs did.

24. “majority was done underwater as claimed by their captains”

    It was save for areas which were too shallow and when there was a need to recharge the generators and ventilate the boats; they snorkeled.

25. We have had an extensive discussion and nauseam on the ‘usefulness’ of a bona fide MRSS instead of a ro-ro transport (support) ship.
    I still see why we need to blow billions to procure MRSS ships if it’s just to be used transport between Semenanjung dan Sabah/ Sarawak for the most part. It’s a bus with sea legs.
    I am also not advocating multiple type of submarines. But I must add that we do need a bigger submarine fleet be it with just Scorpenes or a mixed bag
    with 212s 214s or 218s clones or a smaller STM500!

26. “given the controversy associated with the Scorpenes.”
    A controversy manufactured by the, then Opposition now Govt. The rooster coming back to roost.

    @Hulu
    “There is no amphib landing capability in the MRSS requirement”
    Eh not this shit again. I pointed out before so please read the MRSS OFFICIAL REQUIREMENTS in the 15to5 Evolved Plan. Its not that difficult to find “Amphibious Operation” stated there
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/class1-1.jpg

    And just because YOU dont think that is necessary doesnt mean TLDM chiefs must agree with you.

27. For usd408 million, one could get the ROKS Marado (a Dokdo class) for usd365 million (well that’s back in 2014)

    I believe if the 160m Makassar usd408 million price is for the 1st ship, as multiple 120m Makassar is just usd70 million each. I would suspect if RMN ordered the 160m variant, it would be close to usd150 million each. Or just get the 120m Makassar class and be done with it

    @Hulubalang
    “Can only dive for 4 days LoL ”
    Isn’t this true? Typical non-AIP diesel subs can dive around 4 days before needing to recharge their batteries (either snorkel or on the surface) am i right? IMO having to recharge via snorkel just increase the chances of detection too.

28. ” We might however have a requirement for “amphibious movement”, landing stuff on beaches, something the Langkawi and the former USN LSTs did ”

    This is not the 1960s or 1970s, we are now in 2025.

    We have plenty of deepwater ports all over malaysia that we can use to load and offload military equipment, with many more in construction such as Tanjung Embang (Kuching) and Kuala Baram (Miri) in Sarawak.
    http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2024/04/22/approval-for-sarawaks-two-new-deep-sea-ports
    Overland movements are also easier now with many highways criss-crossing east and west malaysia.

    Also MRSS based on LPDs cannot land materials directly on beaches. It will need LCUs to transfer materials to beach. For now only our Adnan/MIFV and Gempita IFV25 can swim. PT-91M can cross rivers but cannot float. So basically most of our armored vehicles and soft skinned trucks need to be offloaded at a port anyway. So why the need to spend USD408 million on such a ship?

29. Zaft – ” being at least 50% more expensive then the Germans or German derived subs that can dive for at least 30 days”

    Why do you think it’s more expensive? Because the fuel cells can only be refilled at ports/bases which have the facilities or due to other reasons?

30. I’d rather give the budget of the three MRSS to TD to raise another mechanised brigade for Medan Timur, equip properly our KAD and RAD regiments. Thus no need for amphibious movements. Strategic lifts already provided for by the Atlases.

    @Marhalim

    The short 30s ads at times Chrome will try to delete and we have to try a few times. Quite a nuisance.

31. As per 15to5 Startegy Document – there is a read only still floating around, the official doc has been taken down by RMN. MRSS is to land 2 medium heli, be able to launch 2 ship to shore connectors (i.e. Landing crafts). Each landing craft is able to carry load up to a PT91M MBT (i.e., in dimensions and weight). Meaning not a LHD or LHA. But a well deck equipped LPD. There is no requirement for a LST because the MRSS is meant to be part of and resupply RMN ships when operating in a Task Group – RMN’s equivalent of Army’s Mech Brigade fighting force. With a MRSS, the Task Group can operate further from base and stay out at sea longer. Hence why the Makassar class seems like the prime candidate. Based on Navy specification in that document it is not a LHD or LHA or LST but a LPD type ship. The well deck is required for maritime ship to shore operations but will add to the cost of the ship (discussed 1 or 2 years ago). Whether amphibious assault or any maritime ship to shore operations is required depends on the Army, which as discussed before, Navy doesn’t need amphibious capabilities to execute Navy’s own missions (e.g. Indera Saktis) . But as far as Navy is concerned, amphibious operations is part of the requirement. Read the 15to5 Strategy Document. While the strategy might be politically driven, the details is not. The Navy knows what it wants. The alphabet soup nomenclature in wide use is not how the Navy classifies it’s ships. Combat, Patrol, Support, Submarine. Also, not sure why keep insisting on buying submarines when the RMN as the user has consistently stated the priority is to replace ageing surface fleet. Or is the user wrong? Or an attempt to blame the government? The 15to5 provides clarity on why replacing ageing surface fleet is a priority. It’s becoming operationally expensive and inefficient to run the Navy if this keeps going. Years of under investment or lack of, has hollowed out the fleet in terms of number of ships and capabilities. There are only 4 missile capable ships (on paper). 2 of those ships are 30+ years old. Of the 4, only 2 ships have air defense capabilities. Only 4 old combat ships to defend Malaysia’s maritime claims while the Navy wants 12. FFG type ships are classified as Combat – LCS and LMS2. Kedah class is classified as Patrol. It’s in the 15to5 Startegy Document, and in my opinion, the way those details are written suggests it comes from the Navy. The consultants and politicians will write the big picture and fluff.

32. Bear with it lah. I need the funding from the ads…

33. Paragraphs which we learnt at school and is easy to do makes it easier for others to read. It also shows some consideration to those who intend of reading what’s written. Paragraph as opposed to a blob like image similar to a piece of turd.

    Hasnan,

    – Marhalim needs the revenue.
    – Get a browser which blocks ads if you don’t have the patience.

34. ” I’d rather give the budget of the three MRSS to TD to raise another mechanised brigade for Medan Timur, equip properly our KAD and RAD regiments. Thus no need for amphibious movements ”

    It can be done, if the will is there
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Glvjsi3a4AA1fo_?format=jpg&name=4096×4096

    We can have

    Sarawak :
    1x Cavalry regiment (gempita + HMLTV)
    1x Mech inf battalion (KIFV) – new
    1x Mech inf battalion (gempita) – new

    Sabah :
    1x Cavalry regiment (gempita + HMLTV) – new
    1x Mech inf battalion (KIFV) -new
    1x Mech inf battalion (gempita)

35. please stop talking about PT PAL and Makassar.

36. There appears to be a lot of confusion, obfuscation and other things. Not to mention opinions which are heavily driven by subjective narrow perspectives and only focus on the plus points.

    The RMN like its sister services are in now way infallible but they know what they need, what they don’t need and when they need it.

    The RMN has a need to urgently replace its current surface fleet because those are aged and worn out. Same with the Saktis. The service also sees the need for more subs but the need is not as pressing as with the surface combatant fleet and the Saktis.

    Naturally some will sing the tune that subs should be a priority given that they are more survivable. This off course overlooks the pertinent facts that subs aren’t a panacea, they tend to work best when paired with other assets, there will be instances where subs can’t be deployed effectively due to enemy actions, that there’s nothing to say that a future war will be one in which subs play a major role and that the RMN desires a certain mix which would be unbalanced if it had say 4 subs but a pair of aged and worn out Saktis. Not too mention that subs have a mainly peacetime utility and are very resource extensive. As it is a bulk of the RMN’s budget is going towards the pair of subs. Lest it be overlooked the RMN is a small all volunteer navy which is very under resourced by its political masters.

37. “MRSS based on LPDs cannot land materials directly on beaches. It will need LCUs to transfer materials to beach.”
    Did you actually think the MRSS LPD will come without LCU landing crafts? Even so its not that expensive to buy ones off the shelf or have local companies make them.

    “So why the need to spend USD408 million on such a ship?”
    Because TLDM chiefs have deemed such a requirement is needed for MRSS even if you dont think so. Their the decisionmaker you are not.

    @Hasnan
    “I’d rather give the budget of the three MRSS to TD”
    MRSS also has other functions than just being a ferry, at these times such as Myanmar/Bangkok earthquake, MRSS can perform HADR rescue missions particularly when port facilities are destroyed the amphib landing capability is needed to bring vehicles ashore.

38. 15 to 5 plan, even with the Force Structure 2040 realignment, the planning is still not taking APMM fleet into overall planning. All of the document is out of touch with the few last pages, with most of the documents still talking about 18 Patrol Vessels and 18 LMS, when the final approval is as per below:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQLZrxWIAE516T?format=jpg&name=large

    Still i feel that is not the most ideal plan, which is why i came out with this alternative, that takes into account APMM fleet planning too.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096

    The new document:
    https://issuu.com/rmnspc/docs/royal_malaysian_navy_15to5_transformation_program

39. Of course they did not take APMM planning into their own, it has always been that way. Should it be fixed, of course, but its a job above my pay grade. Even the SWASLA radar which is command and control from the APMM unit in Lumut barely one KM from the RMN Western Command headquarters, is not connected to it. I found out about this anomaly when a RMN officer asked about it during a conference in Singapore about a decade or so and mentioned this on various posts in the past. The answer from the APMM guy was no but it could be done (the guy was talking about the capabilities of SWASLA in monitoring the Malacca Strait).

    Has that been fixed? I have no idea as it is one of the things that people will not share openly. The last time I checked I was told that no one wanted to pay for it, and both had asked that the other party pay for it, and both balked at the cost. This is based on a conversation with an industry sources whose company could do the link-up. I was told that then they were trying to get Petronas to pay for it. The industry guy has since retired. I have no idea whether this has been done, again another operational issue which I do not want to get into.

40. … – “Still i feel that is not the most ideal plan”

    It was never an “ideal” plan but was driven by the political realities of that period and it was always intended to be tweaked later…

41. Marhalim,

    As of a few years ago, no. Insufficient funds.

42. … – “It can be done, if the will is there”

    Are we at some motivational talk where like minded “believers” cheer themselves on whilst gasping in awe of Excel sheets on a projector?

    Reality check. We have a lot of things whivh need urgent addressing. Not only a question of “will” but deciding what needs prioritising and the trade offs we are willing to make.

    Hasnan – ” Thus no need for amphibious movements. Strategic lifts already provided for by the Atlases”

    – “Strategic air lift” is provided by the A400Ms.Also a greater volume of things can be moved by sea.
    – The movement of men and material is merely one of several roles the MPSSs will do. Naturally parti pris individuals will overlook this. Roles performed by the Langkawi, the former USN LSTs, the Inderapura and the Saktis.

43. … – “There is no amphib landing capability in the MRSS requirement.”

    The White Paper does not specify a need for a future ship which doesn’t explode after 20 days at sea. So? Does every single role a MPSS or anything else for that matter is expected to perform have to be listed?

    … -” But there is a requirement of 4x Submarines in the original TLDM 15to5 plan. So which is more important”

    Based on this your highly subjective mind comes to the conclusion that your preferred subs are more “important”?

    This doesn’t do away with the fact that we need a multi role MPSS to perform various peace and wartime roles. Subs have mostly a wartime role. As for RoRos they are supplementary to a dedicated lift asset and we can requisition them if needed. It’s not to piss on your parade that the RMN has a longstanding requirement for MPSSs.

44. … – “This is not the 1960s or 1970s, we are now in 2025.”

    … – “We have plenty of deepwater ports all over malaysia that we can use to load and offload military equipment”

    What bullocks. Must as well say there’s no need for alternate runways or the ability for a transport to land on a rough strip because its 2025 now and there are much more airports and bases. The things you come up with to bolster your narrative.

    … – “So why the need to spend USD408 million on such a ship”

    A silly self serving question requires a simple answer for the 200th time. Like the case with the LMS Batch 2s you’ll be singing the same tune even after the MPSSs undergo their 1st refit.

    Abswer: a RoRo is supplementary not a substitute for other assets, a RoRo can be requisitioned, a MPSS is more suited for a variety of roles, it also has better DC and sea keeping. Lastly if the RMN didn’t need a MPSS it would not have had a long requirement for it.

45. Taib – “I still see why we need to blow billions to procure MRSS ships if it’s just to be used transport between Semenanjung dan Sabah/ Sarawak for the most part”

    Been done to death. It’s multi role : HADR, amphib movement, tenders, UN stuff, etc, etc.

    Taib – “we do need a bigger submarine fleet be it with just Scorpenes or a mixed bag#+”

    We need various things but at this point of time the Saktis need urgent replacing. Also we must not blissfully assume like ‘…’ does that any future war will be one in which subs are the answer or even that we will be able to deploy them effectively

46. … – “The need is for Malaysia overall, not just TLDM, so the planning should rightfully include APMM OPVs and MPMS too\” Yes you keep saying but that planning should be done at a government level. The RMN and MMEA both have their hands full as it is and although both coordinate things at some level; both ultimately are under differeht chains of command whose funding come from different budgets. A good place to start would be for all radars to linked to enable a common operating picture. Ways also have to be found to enable the RMAF and MMEA to have better operability; if a RMAF MPA detected a contact of interest and the nearest friendly ship was a MMEA one how would the info be passed on.

47. “We arent to dissimilar with Pinoy”

    Very “dissimilar” as to how its handling China and the “treatment” it’s getting. The Philippines feels more threatened and has a greater sense of urgency.

    “because we havent tried to yet?”

    Irrespective of whether we’ve “tried” this is not a route we’ve taken. It has to be at the right time in coordination with others.

    “I like to look at reality, not ideal world according to my wants.”.

    Good for you. As for me what I’ve say is not “my wants” but the minimum to have some level of capability. No, I’m not suggesting we do what the Shah did; get spares to last for years

    “Reality is do you want to have missiles without planes, or planes without missiles?”

    “Reality” is that if one wants to have an actual capability rather than something which looks good on the glossy pages of a mag or at LIMA then certain prerequisites have to be met. Not as if I’m suggesting we get 1,000 AAMs. Nice to have the planes but the planes need things to fire

48. “The Philippines feels more threatened and has a greater sense of urgency.”
    To the US, Pinoy urgency is the same as our urgency, basically were both not that important as Ukraine. However since their getting new planes and the missiles comes together as part of the deal, Pinoy AMRAAM order will be prioritised ahead.

    “No, I’m not suggesting we do what the Shah did; get spares to last for years”
    Then what is it exactly are you saying? That we need plentiful spareparts, plentiful missiles, plentiful aircrafts? Reality is we dont have the money for all that so we need to prioritise and whats important comes first? Planes, missiles, or spareparts?

    “rather than something which looks good on the glossy pages of a mag or at LIMA”
    I want something that we can put up in air at anytime whether its planned or unplanned, but not to go looking to pick a fight bristling with missiles. As long as their intention is peacetime patrols & deterrence is more than enough.

49. @dundun
    “please stop talking about PT PAL and Makassar.”

    I think RMN will end up choosing the 120m Makassar because it fits into the latest MPSS specs for the 15 to 5 realignment which were deck for 2 helos. so usd70million each for 120m Makassar it is.

50. The 120m Makassar has less space for vehicles than even the Spearhead-class JHSV/EPF

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gm0A8mkbQAASbQX.jpg

    This is what US Marines is doing in the Philippines Balikatan 2025 exercise just a few days ago.

    Combined Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (CJLOTS) operation

    US Military Sealift ROROs is anchored off the beach.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoLMklaWUAA7jU4.jpg

    vehicles is offloaded from the RORO onto a barge.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoLMkldWIAAM9aR.jpg
    a LCT then docked to the barge, and vehicles transferred from the barge into the LCT

    The LCT will then bring the vehicles to the beach
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoLMklZWEAEW5m8.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoLMklYWIAAk1a-.jpg

    No LPD or MRSS involved.

51. “To the US, Pinoy urgency is the same as our urgency, basically were both not that important as Ukraine.”

    How did you come up with that? The U.S. wants to focus on Asia and that’s why its pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine. So how can “to the US, Pinoy urgency is the same as our urgency”?
    Also all I said is that the Philippines is “dissimilar” with how it handles China.

    “Then what is it exactly are you saying? That we need plentiful spareparts, plentiful missiles”

    The Shah bought enough spares and ordnance to last years and that’s why it was able to sustain its American fleet during the war with Saddam. All I said was we need a decent quantity and spares and ordnance if we want the Hornets to have some level of capability as opposed to just looking good and making us feel good. You know very well what I meant.

    “not to go looking to pick a fight bristling with missiles”

    Right so we go on the basis that the I Hornets and the 20 odd ex Kuwaiti onescan share a handful of missiles because we’re “not to go looking to pick a fight bristling with missiles”?
    What happens if the unexpected happens and we need the Hornets to do what they were made to do? All fine if we want newly a paper capability but has no substance or if one can see in the future and know that the Hornets will never be used for real.

    We have a long history of getting things but worrying later. The result is low readiness rates which equates with low capabilites but it’s fine for the bureaucrats who gamble with out defence by adopting the atitude that we can get the hardware now but worry about things later and it’s not as if we’re “to go looking to pick a fight bristling with missiles”.

52. ” LMS Batch 2s you’ll be singing the same tune even after the MPSSs undergo their 1st refit ”

    the usual azlan. putting fake words into other peoples mouths and peddling it as the fact.

    What tune am i singing? wallowing about what if the turkiye corvette is not bought? That is just not me.

    If something is officially contracted, i will put it in whatever future alternative plans that i do. I even put batch 2 for those Turkiye Corvettes as per TLDM plan, as 6 is i think the number needed for those corvettes to do its mission properly in TLDM, even if i personally dislike the need for those corvettes.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GmZDvvhaUAAjR7M?format=jpg&name=4096×4096

    You can clearly see i have taken the LMS B2 turkiye corvette into consideration in my alternative Force Structure 2040 plan.

53. … – “the usual azlan. putting fake words into other peoples mouths and peddling it as the fact.”

    That again. Nothing else to say? The self serving “…” kettle should look in the mirror instead of calling the Azlan pot black.

    …-“What tune am i singing? wallowing about what if the turkiye corvette is not bought? That is just not me”

    Was referring to the fact that you in a very subjective and silly manner insisted that the Batch 2s are not “suvivable” without putting into context in what type of war and overlooking that even a Kongo in the right circumstances might not be “survivable”? Does that refresh your memory? You also mentioned hypersonic threats when the plain fact is everyone at present would struggle against them; never mind the RMN.

54. With regards to the MPSSs even after they undergo their 3rd refit you’ll still be insisting that RoRos are the answer. Never mind that they can be requisitioned, are supplementary not a replacement and have poor DC [or will you again say its OK because if a ship is hit it will probably sink] and poor sea keeping. On top of that the MPSSs will perform various roles and the RMN has a better idea than you as to what it needs and doesn’t.

    So how in heaven’s white roses put “words on your mouth” as you so erroneous claim? Or is it OK for our subs surface near Chinese ships because the RN does the same and a case of the MMEA being able to operate decades old ships because the USCG can? I could go on. What was that about supposedly putting “words in your mouth” again?

    … – “i have taken the LMS B2 turkiye corvette into consideration”

    Gratified I’m sure everyone is…

55. Hasnan “I’d rather give the budget of the three MRSS to TD to raise another mechanised brigade for Medan Timur, equip properly our KAD and RAD regiments”Thus no need for amphibious movements.

    If one wants to have equal amount of *strength in both east and west Malaysia.

    One can either buy MRSS for what seem to be a budget of MYR 1 billions each that can be useful for a period of 30 years.

    Or double the size of the army. But with 80,000 extra personnel. Even if you pays each of them MYR2000 a month (which you won’t). The salary bill alone is MYR 1.92 bil ANNUALLY. That’s doesn’t include the cost on camp, vehicles, bills, weapons and so on.

    At MYR1.92 bil annually for salaries bill mean you forgo getting 6 F35A or 1 scorpene or possibly a single TF2000 on an annual basis.

56. Zaft – “If one wants to have equal amount of *strength in both east and west Malaysia”

    The question is do we need “equal amount of *strength in both east and west Malaysia” never mind the stated intent. Another issue is to have “equal amount of *strength in both east and west Malaysia” entails expanding the infrastructure which currently exists in East Malaysia; housing, a range which can handle 155mm and MLRS fire, training grounds large enough for at least a battalion sized formation to manoeuvre, etc.

    Zaft – “. Even if you pays each of them MYR2000 a month (which you won’t”

    Even a Private with various things added makes much more than that now.

57. “The U.S. wants to focus on Asia and that’s why its pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine.”
    Nope. Trump wanted and actively pushing for a ceasefire & peace deal. The US establishment were happy to keep the war going but stagnating as they can continue to sell more weapons, the reason why Biden did nothing while in power except feeding the Ukrainians with more weaponry. Mind you the establishment (with defence lobby) are still pushing to sell more weapons to Ukraine and threatening EU to buy more. They havent yet pivoted to Asia militarily as much as Obama did. Trump focus on Asia (particularly China) is tariff war for now but not yet ramping things up militarily (like sending extra CBG to Asia). Of course US are still actively friending Asian partners and selling military hardware (Pinoy moving back towards West after DU30 courting China), (possible Vietnam might buy US fighter planes and such). But nothing to say out of the ordinary in so far as to expect more such as free radar, or free plane upgrades.

    “All I said was we need a decent quantity and spares and ordnance if we want the Hornets to have some level of capability”
    Yes you want all 3 which is nice in an ideal world.. but we live in reality. To justify getting more spares & ordnance we need to have the planes firstly to make that justification.

    “What happens if the unexpected happens”
    What happens when Gojira comes out of Port Klang waters? We will do the best and seek for help when we cannot manage. As I said, we have friendly regional neighbours (tho not in any alliance pact) which we frequently do exercises with, and US has stockpile in Diego Garcia & Okinawa which they would give if the cause is justified (the bill would come later tho, just like Ukraine). But again what are the odds where the unexpected happens? For nearly 30 years owning Hornets we never had to fire in anger (except aerial bombing to heck a bunch of Sulus).

58. “They havent yet pivoted to Asia militarily as much as Obama did”

    -Reopening bases in the Marianas.
    – Basing Marines in Australia.
    – AUKUS
    – Doing their best to have a strategic relationship with India to counter China.
    – Signing basing deals with the Philippines and increasing the level of cooperation.
    – Having SSN deployments to Australia.

    Lots more on the list. BTW they have openly said they want less focus on Europe and more on Asia. What do you think drives the Europeans to suddenly decide on spending so much more. Answer : worries the Americans might scale back.

    “Yes you want all 3 which is nice in an ideal world.. but we live in reality”

    That is your subjective take and nothing I’ve said is detached from realty.

    “To justify getting more spares & ordnance we need to have the planes firstly to make that justification”

    So you’ve said but as I’ve said : that has been tried for decades and has failed. BTW another way of looking at it is there’s no point having the places if they’re only a paper capability. Looks good on the pages of a mag and at LIMA though

59. “Nope. Trump wanted and actively pushing for a ceasefire & peace deal”

    “Nope”. The Americans wants to focus more on Asia whilst hoping the Europeans take a stronger role. We know this from their own statements.
    Why do you think Trump is pushing so hard for a cease fire. For him the main challenge is China and the war in Ukraine is sucking up American resources with no end on sight. Note, for the 1st time in years a high level American official will not be present at a key meeting and the Americans have already announced their cutbacks in various areas All this is on record.

    “What happens when Gojira comes out of Port Klang”

    I’ll leave the sea creatures, aliens and other things to you if you wish and will focus on actual issues.

    “As I said, we have friendly regional neighbours (tho not in any alliance pact) which we frequently do exercises with, and US has stockpile in Diego Garcia”

    And “as I said” that’s great on paper but in reality [which you spoke off] this assumes that we can gee by without out own stocks until they arrive, that others will be in a position to supply us, etc, etc.

    You really make it sound like I’m asking for thousands of missiles and years worth of spares when I clearly haven’t.

    “But again what are the odds where the unexpected happens?”

    On that basis then why even get the Hornets? Why not wait?

    BTW in response to others here who asal the same rhetorical and theoretical question; I’ve pointed out : prior to 2013 who would have thought we’d have to deploy thousands of troops backed by armour, arty and air power to deal with a non state theat? You?

60. Azlan “The question is do we need “equal amount of *strength in both east and west Malaysia” never mind the stated intent”

    That what the army supposedly wanted under the army4nexG programme.

    Azlan “Another issue is to have “equal amount of *strength in both east and west Malaysia” entails expanding the infrastructure which currently exists in East Malaysia; housing, a range which can handle 155mm and MLRS fire, training grounds large enough for at least a battalion sized formation to manoeuvre, etc.”

    That’s what make amphibious movements attractive to almost everyone be it the beancounters, voters and politicians. It’s dirt cheap compared to the army proposal.

    Almost everyone because people who can’t get a good night’s sleep believing Chinese D-day is incoming any days now won’t like it.

61. “Lots more on the list”
    Those were done before Trump 2.0 and many had ongoing before Biden.

    “That is your subjective take and nothing I’ve said is detached from realty.”
    No thats whats based in your ideal world to make you happy. No compromises just meet everything nice and dandy. Real world is all about compromises, you will never get everything the way you want perfectly. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the smaller things (spares & ammo) for the major wins (more planes).

    “Looks good on the pages of a mag and at LIMA though”
    I rather it looks good on mags & LIMA and still can put in air planned deterrence air patrol & QRA instead of plentiful missiles which we can later display in TUDM museum because they will never get used.

    “assumes that we can gee by without out own stocks”
    You ASSume the unexpected happen and the worst case scenario, I assume the unexpected happen and a likely scenario. We can ASSume all day long if thats what you want. Just dream up any scenario, even Gojira coming out of Msian waters.

    “On that basis then why even get the Hornets? Why not wait?”
    Simple and as I have said many time before if you cared to read. By 2030-2035 if we arent prolonging the MKM (likely), the frontline fighter fleet will just dwindle donw to relying on 8 Hornets which likely only 2-3 will be ready to fly any given time. Its way too little for operational peacetime deterrent air patrols, not even talking about unexpected if we going to war. To ensure sufficient air coverage for PEACETIME use(yes emphasis peacetime here, meaning regular usage), we need the Kuwaiti Hornets. Nothing Im requesting is out of the ordinary and thats what TUDM chiefs also wants.

    “deploy thousands of troops to deal with a non state theat?”
    That was multiple time overkill that wasnt necessary and we deployed so many times over their numbers was to contain them so they dont breakout & disappear when the bombing starts. And to kill small arms insurgents with precision guided bombs from tens thousand miles in air is Gaza level of combat gap between IDF & Hamas fighters, basically theres no fight here. We didnt need to deploy so many, but we did.

62. “Those were done before Trump 2.0 and many had ongoing before Biden”

    Knew you were going to say that but. it does show the pivot. BTW Trump has not given and won’t, any indication that Asia is not the priority.

    “No thats whats based in your ideal world to make you happy”

    So you keep saying but as I’ve explained we need to have some level of capability unless of course one is contend with a paper or air show capability.

    “Real world is all about compromises, you will never get everything the way you want perfectly”

    Thank you but for years now I’ve been pointing out the need for trade offs. A fleet of 20 aircraft with a dixwb or so missiles however is a gambke not a compromise.

    “I rather it looks good on mags & LIMA”

    If you say so.

    “Simple and as I have said many time before if you cared to read”

    “As I have said many time before if you cared to read” that is your view abd I’ve given my opinion on why we need to meet various prerequisites and why “getting it now and worrying later” has had such a detrimental affect.

63. “That was multiple time overkill that wasnt necessary and we deployed so many times over”

    That’s not the point and you well know it. Again: prior to 2013 who could have imagined that we’d have to deploy thousand ls of troops backed by airpower and armour to deal with a theat. That was in reference to me saying that the unexpected can happen.

    BTW to those of the ground what we deployed wasn’t an “overkill”.

    “We didnt need to deploy so many, but we did”

    We did given the size of the Sahabat Alam estate and the terrain. Look up troops ratios during various ops conducted in various places and periods.

    “We can ASSume all day long if thats what you want. Just dream up any scenario, even Gojira coming out of Msian waters”

    I’ll leave the sea monsters to you as well as the upper cases. You assume all you want but ultimately the armed services take into consideration various scenarios which have a chance of occuring. If you want to assume [note I managed to spell it without upper cases] that it’s fine to have a dozen missiles for 20 odd planes on the assumption that the missiles will never be needed, your assumption.

64. Thought the best practice policy for NATO countries is to have own stockpile of at least 5 AAM for every fighter jet. No?

    36 LCA and 24 MRCA mean we finally get the require 60 minimum numbers of fighter (based again on NATO non first tier average) thus if we follow the NATO beat practice we would require a stockpile of around 300 AAM missiles. Which means around MYR 2 billions worth.

    Not that bad considering that we would be sharing it with the MERAD (assuming the NASAM are chosen) and we don’t exactly need to acquire it all in one go. And not all of it going to be amraam because the LCA integration with the meteor is ongoing. So at least we are looking for a stockpile of around 120 amraam just for the hornet.

    Thought if we do get NASAM then if we require a NSM based coastal battery then the AF would have to run it rather than the navy or the army because NSM utilise the same kill chain as NASAM.

65. Additional picture of US RORO to barge Combined Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (CJLOTS) operation during BALIKATAN 25

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoTUSiKWsAAyOiU.jpg

    The RORO involved is USNS Sisler, one of many RORO ships in US Military Sealift Command fleet.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson-class_vehicle_cargo_ship

    300 AAM missiles to equip TUDM fleet can be had at low cost if we want to. Philippines air force bought 312x refurbished AIM-9L from Diehl Germany for USD54.6 million only. That is one option we can take if we want to quickly increase our missile holdings with minimum outlay.

66. … – “312x refurbished AIM-9L from Diehl Germany for USD54.6 million only”.

    That’s a lot of missiles for a squadron’s worth of fighters.

    Zaft – “Thought if we do get NASAM then if we require a NSM based coastal battery then the AF”.

    Why? The RMN has the sensors at sea; thus it’s the service which should operate a future land based missile whose primary target is ships; even if it has a land attack capability. Should a requirement arise however its taken for granted that the army would want to be the one to operate it.

67. Zaft – “Thought the best practice policy for NATO countries is to have own stockpile of at least 5 AAM for every fighter jet. No”

    There is no “best practice policy”., NATO sets its standards and it varies from country to country, not all will be doing things per NATO standards. Obviously a country like Britain or France will have more stocks than say Portugal or Slovakia.

    Zaft – “And not all of it going to be amraam because the LCA integration with the meteor is ongoing”

    “Integration may be ongoing” but as of now no indication we will take the Meteor route.

68. Zaft – ” So at least we are looking for a stockpile of around 120 amraam just for the hornet”

    No we are not “looking” at that. From the time we 1st operated fighters in the 1970’s the only thing we have lots of are unguided rockets and free fall bombs. Even going on the basis that we do not foresee being in any major confrontation the numbers of AAMs we’ve bought has been pathetically and ridiculously small. The outlay is just way too high for the beancounters. AAMs also have to be stored right and have regular inspections by trained people.

69. Azlan “Why? The RMN has the sensors at sea; thus it’s the service which should operate a future land based missile whose primary target is ships”

    The AF too has anti shipping roles not just the navy. Meanwhile Other countries army too have anti shipping capabilities.

    The reason is Because it’s utilised the same canister launcher, fire control solutions and vehicles with NASAM2 bar a few software tweaks. It’s a capabilities that can be acquired for cheap.

    Unless we wanted to give the NASAM to the army and navy as well that is. Probably something that the AF would prefer as the more people buying amraam the better.

    Azlan “From the time we 1st operated fighters in the 1970’s the only thing we have lots of are unguided rockets and free fall bombs.”

    One probably don’t need a lot of AAM when their primary security concern is non state actors. I guess.

    Hulu “Additional picture of US RORO to barge Combined Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (CJLOTS) operation during BALIKATAN 25”

    Standard and best practice are there for a reason. Reason being if you are the only one doing it and not everyone’s else. Then 99% probability you are doing something wrong.

    One shouldn’t skip to star wars episode 3 without first watching episode 1&2. Episode 1 titles is bombard the beach, episode 2 title is the marine landing.

    The Brits does pull an episode 3 during the Falklands war mostly done with commercial vessels.

70. Zaft – “The AF too has anti shipping roles not just the navy”

    Again : the RMN has the sensors at sea and has a better feel of the maritime domain.

    Zaft – “One probably don’t need a lot of AAM when their primary security concern is non state actors”

    As explained our traditional concerns apart from non state threats are the possibility of small and short ways or skirmishes with neighbours over longstanding unresolved overlapping claims.

    Zaft – “The Brits does pull an episode 3 during the Falklands war mostly done with commercial vessels”

    “Episode 3?” Sorry but poppycock.

    Anyway they have such a thing called the RFA and for centuries there has always been provision to requisition civilian ships via what the Brits call “taken up for trade”. The company my late dad worked for had ships sent to the South Atlantic. During the Gulf War a lot of American stuff went on chartered civilian ships and in WW2 the bulk of supplies which went to Britain were not on military ships. Interestingly after Britain; Norway had the 2nd largest merchant fleet. The practice of using non military ships is nothing new.

    We can also requisition RoRos or anything civilian should we need to.

    Zaft – “Episode 1 titles is bombard the beach, episode 2 title is the marine landing”

    “Episode 1” is actually to create the conditions where a landing can be made without inference from the enemy’s air, land and sea forces. After an initial landing has been made the beachhead is expanded and troopscmove inland.

71. Azlan “Episode 1” is actually to create the conditions where a landing can be made without inference from the enemy’s air, land and sea forces”

    If the Brits has waited for NO interference then they would still waited off the coast of the Falklands till today. Sometimes one just have to accept some levels of interference particularly from fast jet.

    Azlan “We can also requisition RoRos or anything civilian should we need to.”

    Point being, plenty of military have LPD, some have LPD and RoRo. But NO ONE have only RoRo. For obvious reasons. Not like there’s a civilian LPD one can requisition floating around somewhere. But there’s plenty of commercials RoRo, cruise ships and ferry around.

    Azlan “Again : the RMN has the sensors at sea and has a better feel of the maritime domain”

    Again as I said, the NSM coastal battery utilities the same kill chain as the NASAM. If the AF already have NASAM then all they need is to update the software and put NSM on one of the canisters. Basically the cost to acquire that capability is only as much as how much the NSM cost.

    The navy are free to acquire NASAM too with their budget if they wanted. But to go around arguing that the AF shouldn’t have the capability because it’s the navy job is just bunch of poppycock.

    No voters, beancounters nor politicians care who the one who gets to shoots, what important for them is that it can shoot and it is cheap.

72. “BTW Trump”
    Much like his first term, his priority aint Asia or even the world, his priority is America First and telling them they need to pull their weight in defence.

73. “one is contend with a paper or air show capability.”
    So you keep saying but without the horse its pointless to buy the cart. You can still ride a horse without the cart tho and later get it. Thats why I said; buy the horse first. But you can keep repeating your cart trick whatever keeps you happy. I have said what I said.

    “however is a gambke not a compromise.”
    Real life has always been a gamble. You go with one career path not knowing whether you might be more successful if you went another. All compromise is a gamble, theres no risk free compromises when major decisions are needed to make whether to go A or B. Thats life.

    “prior to 2013 who could have imagined that we’d have to deploy thousand ls of troops”
    Prior to 2013, handling such situation was less political than strategic, yes the decision to send thousands, launching heavy arty, using precision bombs was a political statement as much. Otherwise if it was SOP, we would have deployed thousands to cordon Al Maunah, bomb them with heavy arty & LGB bombs, and run them over with tanks. What we did in LD was absolutely overkill.

    “You assume all you want but ultimately”
    Your the only one here making assumptions by harping on the unexpected. Im not. Im saying its more than guaranteed, today we fly air patrols not expecting to shoot anything and likely the same tomorrow, and day after. The risk of going to war and needing to fire those missiles your harping is very slim. However the need to run daily air patrols for peacetime deterrence is guaranteed and thus we need planes to do that. So wheres the priority here; plane or missiles?

74. @Zaft
    “best practice policy for NATO countries is to have own stockpile”
    NATO has USA to supply missiles ontop of their EU equivalents (if the respective countries buys them). We dont have such formal agreement but USA does have prepositioned stockpiles for their use but see no issues to give out if needed.

    “36 LCA and 24 MRCA”
    LCA figures might be doable but I doubt we can get that many 5th gen MRCA. More likely its around 8-12 units.

    “not all of it going to be amraam because the LCA integration with the meteor”
    TUDM would prefer USA sourced as supplies are more reliable (EU now struggling to replenish EU sourced war materiel given to Ukraine), USA platforms are also much longer lived (see how old is Sidewinder in use), and we can leverage on prepositioned USA stockpiles if needed. Also EU missiles will be useful for FA50 but USA missiles are more used by legacy Hornet, FA50 and likely incoming MRCA, thus more flexibility to share around our limited munitions.

    “One probably don’t need a lot of AAM when their primary security concern is non state actors.”
    Exactly! However someone here assumes the unexpected as if were going to war tomorrow with peer or China or something.

    “The Brits during the Falklands war mostly done with commercial vessels.”
    They paid particular attention not to destroy port facilities which enabled them to dock vessels for unloading without the need for amphib landings. Not always we have that luxury particularly if nature (tsunami, earthquake) destroys the port if we had to do HADR.

    @Hulu
    “Additional picture of US RORO to barge”
    See thats the problem, you need to bring a 3rd ship (barge) to do the job of a LPD MRSS.

    “one of many RORO ships in US Military Sealift Command fleet”
    Its to SUPPLIMENT NOT SURPLANT their vast fleet of amphib capable LPD, & LHA.

75. … – “They paid particular attention not to destroy port facilities which enabled them to dock vessels for”

    What “port facilities” were there at San Carlos and Fitzroy?

    “Exactly! However someone here assumes the unexpected as if were going to war tomorrow with peer or China or something”

    That “someonr here” has made it perfectly clear what he meant and it has nothing to do with China. Don’t mage it sound like that “someone” is advocating 2,000 AAMs it stocks to last years. If you think that a docen or so AMRAAMs is enough for 20 odd Hornets plus the existing 8 on the gamble that the Hornets will never be used that’s your opinion.

76. Zaft – “If the Brits has waited for NO interference then they would still waited off the coast of the Falklands till today”

    You really need to read up on what happened instead of coming up with outlandish statements.

    Zaft – “So you keep saying but without the horse its pointless to buy the cart”.

    Also pointless to have the cart without the horse.

    “Real life has always been a gamble”.

    We make the gambles or trade offs whivh we hope we get right. Ultimately despite whatever trade off there are certain prerequisite whivh have to be met.

    “Your the only one here making assumptions by harping on the unexpected. Im not”

    Naturally you think you’re not. I’m merely pointing out that the unexpected can happen, apart from the sea monsters whivh is your department

    “Otherwise if it was SOP, we would have deployed thousands to cordon Al Maunah, bomb them with heavy arty & LGB bombs, and run them over with tanks. What we did in LD was absolutely overkill”

    It wasn’t seen as an “overkill” to those who were there and those who were killed. The army guy killed in a firefight and the policemen whose bodies were mutilated. Also, the situation with Maunah was whole diffirent to Lahad Dato.

77. ” Its to SUPPLIMENT NOT SURPLANT their vast fleet of amphib capable LPD, & LHA ”

    The main mission of our defence is to defend our own shores, not to assault other peoples shores. We are not USA.

    We can strengthen our tentera darat organic capability in both Sabah and Sarawak so that we do not need to assault our own shores.

78. Zaft – ” But NO ONE have only RoRo. For obvious reasons”

    You telling me or making a statement because I pointed that out a long time ago.

    Zaft – “Again as I said, the NSM coastal battery utilities the same kill chain as the NASAM”

    In the 1st place do you fathom what a “kill chain” is?

    “Exactly!”

    As explained our traditional concerns apart from non state threats are the possibility of small and short ways or skirmishes with neighbours over longstanding unresolved overlapping claims.

    ”

    Now youre telling me aboutijr given that time and again one stressed that fact that unless one has a crystal ball there is no right or wrong; merely making the needed trade offs and hoping they turn out right.

    ” Prior to 2013, handling such situation was less political than strategic”

    Never mind that. All I said was priot to 2013 who here [you perhaps?] predicted that we’d need to deploy thousands backed by airpower and other things. In refrence to the fact that the unexpected can occur.

79. ” What “port facilities” were there at San Carlos and Fitzroy? ”

    How can you compare 1982 Falklands with 2025 East Malaysia. Totally different

    – We have 2 divisions worth of ground troops in East Malaysia
    – At least a dozen port facilities, with many more to be built by 2030

80. … “The main mission of our defence is to defend our own shores, not to assault other peoples shores. We are not USA”

    And on land that does not mean a positionalist approach but a strategy of active defence including a manoeuvrist approach.

81. “However the need to run daily air patrols for peacetime deterrence is guaranteed and thus we need planes to do that.”

    We also need the AAMs in case the unexpected happens and in reality [whivh you’ve made mention off and claim I ignore] a dozen or so AAMs is insufficient for 20 odd Hornets plus the existing 8.

    ” So wheres the priority here; plane or missiles”

    That’s your take and exactly the position taken by the decision makers. And why at Carlos times the readiness and operational rates of the HAWKS, Hornets and Flankers have fallen to such low levels. The “get it now and worry later” syndrome.

    Zaft – “But to go around arguing that the AF shouldn’t have the capability because it’s the navy job is just bunch of poppycock”

    You shouldn’t mention “poppycock” given the long list of things you’ve mentioned here with a straight face.

    Again [try to pay attention] : the navy has the sensors at sea and is the service with a better feel on the maritime domain.

    Zaft – “The navy are free to acquire NASAM too with their budget if they wanted”.

    “Poppycock”. You didn’t pay attention not the RMN has divested itself of the surface to sit land based missile business. Look it up…

82. “What we did in LD was absolutely overkill”

    The same was said by “enlightened” and parti pris souls [many of whom were cyber troopers with a political slant] in the cyber world back then; people who weren’t there. The thousands of troops were needed due to the size of the area and how porous it was. The firepower was not seen as an “overkill” to those on the ground and from the times on antiquity people into a fight with all they have rather than playing fair. Yes there was a poltical spin at Lahad Dato and I knew you’d eventually bring it up but it wasn’t arenas so by those on the ground.

83. “Much like his first term, his priority aint Asia”

    So you say buy it’s apparent that he wants to scale back from Europe too focus on China. To make America “great again” entails dealing with China. All this is apparent hence your insistence that he doesn’t want to focus on China is puzzling. BTW the Europeans are scrambling to take thingd to a new level on their part precisely for the resin that Trump wants to focus on Asia.

84. … – “How can you compare 1982 Falklands with 2025 East Malaysia. Totally different”

    Two things.
    – I was referring to a comment someone else made.
    – “There was no comparison. Sorry but given the comparisons you’ve made, us with Singapore and Vietnam, the USCG being able to operate decades old ships thus the MMEA should have no issues, etc, ironic you should tell me not to make a comparison when I wasn’t to begin with.

    … – “– At least a dozen port facilities, with many more to be built by 2030”

    Thanks for the info and you do have a knack for looking at things in absolutes. What if it’s more practical for whatever reason to land stuff on a beach? What happens if a port is inaccessible, etc, etc.

85. By your logic we don’t have to plan to operate from alienate landing strips at because there are X number of airports all across the country or one does not need to wear a helmet because it can’t stop a bullet. But then you did say and no I’m not potting words in your mouth in case you falsely claim again, that DC is not important given a ship will probably sink. That of course was you strenghtening your RoRo narrative.