View Comments (101)

• 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=4096x4096

• "I would prefer the budget to be used for additional Scorpenes instead."

  Not this again

• ... - "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?

• 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.

• 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.

  • SK Daesun, its not Hyundai.

• 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.

• " 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.