Computer Generated Image of the future Type 26 Global Combat Ship.
SHAH ALAM: Walk Like the Type 26. As the government ponders over the fate of the LCS project, another shipbuilding project goes along and might just beat us to the punch. The project is of course the Royal Navy Type 26 frigate, with work on the first of class, HMS Glasgow, preceding to the final build of the ship. The ship is expected to be launched in 2021 and if everything goes well, Glasgow, might just pip PCU Maharaja Lela for its commissioning.
BNS workers posed for pictures with Maharaja Lela at her launch in August, 2017 The workers are under strict order not to share the pictures of the ship during the construction.
From the Royal Navy
Work starts on final piece of HMS Glasgow’s gigantic ‘jigsaw’
23 July 2020
A blinding flash of light from a hi-tech steel cutter at BAE’s Govan works signalled the start of work on the final giant section of Britain’s newest frigate.
Construction has begun on the 57th segment of the 8,000-tonne jigsaw which is HMS Glasgow, the first of eight Type 26 warships.
Fabrication Store Steelcutter Alex Clark operating the laser cutter on the last section of Glasgow. BAE Systems
It’s almost two years to the day that work on Glasgow began in the yard on the Clyde, with many of the completed sections pieced together in one of BAE’s assembly halls.
Work began on this last section of ship as another £100m of contracts were placed with the vast supply chain needed to build the world’s most advanced submarine hunter.
The superstructure with bridge. Royal Navy
Firms in Glasgow, Hartlepool, Nottingham and Dorset will provide a range of services and assistance with the construction of the class, including painting, cabling and insulation – work all essential to the outfitting of the ships – and the eventual float off when a barge lowers the frigates in the Clyde.
“It’s fantastic to see HMS Glasgow taking shape at our facilities here on the Clyde. She is a source of great pride for our workforce who have worked with real energy, commitment and innovation in recent months.” Steve Timms, BAE Systems Naval Ships Managing Director
To date more than £1bn has been spent in the Type 26 supply chain, spread around in excess of 100 firms worldwide. The latest £100m investment will support around 250 jobs in the UK, raising the total workforce involved in the future frigate programme over the 4,000 mark.
Computer Generated Image of the future Type 26 Global Combat Ship.
The eight ships, each named after some of the UK’s greatest cities, will replace the eight ‘souped up’ dedicated anti-submarine Type 23 frigates which will reach the end of their active lives by the mid 2030s.
Armed with the Sea Ceptor missile defence system, a new 5in main gun, a flexible mission bay, Artisan 997 Medium Range Radar, powerful bow and towed array sonars and with a Merlin or Wildcat helicopter embarked, the 26s will shield the Navy’s carrier strike groups from hostile submarines.
In addition five Type 31 general purpose frigates are intended to replace the general-duty Type 23s currently in service and also coming towards the end of their long and useful careers.
A CGI view of the stern of the Type 26. RN
As I had previously posted, I was told that the previous Defence Minister had approved in principle, the funds needed to finish the LCS project but the issue had gone quiet following the change of administration and the subsequent pandemic. Lets hope that we will not be beaten to the punch by the Type 26.
SHAH ALAM: Moving on RMN. In 2014, South Korean shipyard Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co Ltd (DSME) announced it had signed a contract with a Malaysian shipyard for the supply of six missile corvettes to the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN). The announcement was originally published in a South Korean […]
SHAH ALAM: National Security Sector 2023 budget or no funds for the needy. The government has allocated some RM35.6 billion to the national security sector – national security and defence – from the 2023 budget which amounted to RM372 billion. The defence budget is RM17.4 billion; 0.47 per cent of […]
SHAH ALAM: Work on the LCS project is expected to start this September, RMN Chief Admiral TS Rahman Ayob said today. Speaking to the media in Kota Kinabalu today, he said the resumption of work was starting after the signing of the sixth supplementary contract on May 26. As reported […]
93 Comments
What on earth happens to our shipbuilding industries…
“Lets hope that we will not beaten to the punch by the Type 26…..”
Had been beaten by egypt, thailand & philippines’s new frigates before, “losing again” seemed “unshameful”.
Mr Marhalim, do you have idea what is the current status of LCS?
Reply
No
Hey, look on the bright side lah. If the LCS comes into service in 2030, then the RMN will not need a replacement till 2070. That’s a 50 year plan!!
Anyway, by the sound of today’s news, I suppose a Scorpene KD Najib Razak will never happen….
” Lets hope that we will not be beaten to the punch by the Type 26.”
Incomparable. The UK Government has more accountability in project lead times (tho not always the case with new projects), with more professional management that will be responsible for any penalties, and their Government are more willing to stomach the kind of cost overruns that has delayed LCS builds (see QE-class projected vs actual build costs), all to ensure they are no delays and there is work for their shipbuilders (of the voting kind).
Why no news on maharajalela and her sisters?
Is the the extra money asked already given?
Looks like there is no any work has been done to maharajalela since she sit on the dry dock.
@TomTom
“Scorpene KD Najib Razak will never happen”
For that to happen, the Government must first stomach a Scorpene KD Mahathir… 😉
@ joe
IMO naming those subs after PMs is a big mistake. Well we could always recycle the name of laksamana class corvettes and FAC(M) and FAC(G) for future subs
According to my source another cause of the delays were
– due to the navy requested to change some specs/subsystems on the ship after Maharajalela were launched.
– This of course cause BNS to do draw again, send it to the French and redo again if the French wont approve it.
– There is also need to order and wait for new parts to arrive.
The Navy, after agreeing to start building the ships, should not make any major changes to the design and the results are what we have right now. This should clear up speculations that BNS were the main fault of these delays and thoughts that saye BNS could not deliver/do their jobs properly.
The first Royal Navy Type 31 Frigate will be in the water by 2023 and the in-service date will be in 2027.
Hopefully all 6 of our gowinds will be in the water by then.
@…
Hahaha. When they mooted that, things haven’t gone tits up yet. Well, the USN wouldn’t have named their biggest ships after US presidents if they’d found to be a turncoat. Highly unlikely you will see a USS Donald Trump fleet carrier in your lifetime, that’s for sure.
Personally I don’t mind them naming after the first 3 PMs, after all they are deceased so it keeps to the Naval tradition of naming from dead illustrious figures. But IMHO that is as far as I would go with personal names. I would like to see us honouring heroic battles/battlesites like USN does with their cruisers & destroyers.
@Luqman
Can share what are the major changes that requires such redesign? Weapons fit out?
@Luqman,
If what you said is true (can’t really verify it), then it would be very unfair lay the blame on Boustead alone. Then again, perhaps there was political pressure on the RMN to change some of the sub-systems.
If I recall correctly post GE14 the government made some changes to certain things on the Gowinds.
“This should clear up speculations that BNS were the main fault of these delays and thoughts that saye BNS could not deliver/do their jobs properly.”
Oh yes, a likely story. What else do you expect BNS to say?
“due to the navy requested to change some specs/subsystems on the ship after Maharajalela were launched.– This of course cause BNS to do draw again”
Another likely story. None of us have forgetten that the combat system and air defence missile armament were selected over the RMN’s wishes, and here you are telling us that BNS is granting all the RMN’s requests at their own expense. Great.
Sad really we still dwelling on this lcs while neighbouring countries already started to procure bigger, badder heavily armed ships..
@ Luqman
It is easy to check if the story is true or not. Why the ship has not been put on water all this time? There are harbour acceptance test and sea acceptance test. All this test need only navigation system only and a working engine. None of these test is done.
Hahahaha! KD Mahathir! I can imagine the looks on the faces of the ship’s skipper and crew.
By the time the RMN gets Scorpenes 3 and 4, Malaysia would be at its 99 th perdana menteri as it would be well into the 2100s. Assuming we don’t have to name the by order, the will lots and lots of names to choose from😀.
Marhalim,
Seriously, if Luqman is correct and some systems have been changed, the only one I can think of is the VL Mica, perhaps to ESSM as originally planned by the RMN. Or perhaps to the British CAMM? What do the rest think?
Reply
No lah nothing to do with the missiles, its VL Mica though they have not signed the contract for the missiles, itself. I checked just last month with the horses mouth.
@ tom tom
I am hoping that we could do a last minute change to CAMM.
I have checked that CAMM can be launched from the the Sylver that has already been ordered for the gowinds. This is the compatible launcher for CAMM
▪ ExLS
▪ Sylver A50
▪ Mk41
▪ SVL
CAMM missile is actually sensor agnostic. It can be paired with any radar, EO tracker or CMS.
Getting CAMM could enable us to commonise the TLDM and GAPU missile system. It could also be upgraded to MR SAM when the budgetary allows, by using CAMM-ER missile (not for the gowinds, but probably future bigger frigates like Type 31 and ground based system to replace our Jernas.
@joe
My source would not provide that info unfortunately. Im sorry.
@AM
“and here you are telling us that BNS is granting all the RMN’s requests at their own expense. Great.”
You might be right here. Though if RMN really wanted that subsystem from the get go then they should re draw again before starting any construction. With this being done mid way, RMN would probably change their mind a little too late. Then again anyone guess is as good as mine.
@romeo
Probably true but anyway we could only guess right now. Hope marhalim or government can give an update on this issue soon.
My suggest Is We should not order from Gowind by Built in Malaysia or From france. We should have gone for Type 26 !.
@…
Provided if Maharajalelas were equip with A-50 variant of Sylver. Otherwise if it were A-35 or A-43 variant, it won’t fit.
From what I have heard, major platform equipment that has been changed is the IPMS. This might possibly contribute towards the delay, although I am not sure when this change was initiated and by whom.
Also, I was told that the prime cause of delay was with the design, specifically the inability to freeze the design. Again, what caused this is uncertain. However, on hindsight, the strategy of detailed design being done by BNS for Naval Group approval might not have been the best approach. This had (or has, as the problem is still not resolved) significantly impacted the construction works.
In addition to construction issues arising from design, my source(s) tell me that issues resulting from improper production strategies also contributed to the delay. Major welding rejections (allegedly a few hundred % more than industry standard) on the hull required significant time to repair and increased build cost. This might be due to BNS deciding to build the hull using labour supply contracts without possessing the requisite supervisory and management capability in-house to execute this approach well. Industry in Malaysia normally employs proven and competent subcontractors to do this work. While the initial cost might be higher, the construction risk is passed on to the subcontractor, and the shipyard would be free to simply monitor the performance of the subcontractor and freely take any action needed should the subcontractor fail to perform. BNS learnt this lesson in an expensive way and finally decided to subcontract the construction of the hull blocks to subcontractors on a lumpsum approach.
What is for certain is that there are still a lot of work to be done on the first LCS. My take on this is that her launching a few years back (with a mock mast!) was simply a PR exercise (politically motivated? who knows!) and a way for BNS to get payment from the Launching milestone. My opinion, anyway…..
Not really…lcs is quite okay for us for the time being..what is not okay is the decision to build all of them here, with almost zero experience in building stealth and cutting edge ship..if we decide to build lets say 1 or 2 unit of lcs at naval group france they will be in service by now..
@ api69
” This might be due to BNS deciding to build the hull using labour supply contracts without possessing the requisite supervisory and management capability in-house to execute this approach well ”
Malaysia has build tons of oil and gas steel structures, and still BNS has this fundamental problem? We have lots of skilled professionals that knows this stuff like the back of their hands.
Reply
They hired a large number of welders for NGPV project many of whom left the company after the initial stoppage of work due to PSC shenanigans. Some came back to finish the job once Boustead took over. They were among the first to be VSS once the job was completed. For the LCS many of those involved in NGPV who stayed on after Boustead took over also went away as the new management did not want them to be involved. Many are now working at THHE Destini and other shipyards.
I dont think it is the sylver A50 which cannot fit into the Gowinds. Likely A43 sylver launchers.
More imptly, we are going for Mica Vl because we do not need separate launchers so it is cost saving. Mica vl comes with its own launchers.
Even if it is CAMM, it wont make much difference as both are short range missiles.
@Nazri
If it were A-43 variant, I would like to cut half the VL Mica and replace with Aster 15. Aster 15 has 30km range vs Mica’s 20km. If we had A-50 variant, the change would be to 8x Aster 30 instead (range 120km).
@Safran
Type26 is too expensive for us.
@…
If RMN and Gapu acquire the CAMMs, would there be any chance of RMAF also get the ASRAAM as a standard WVR missile for all or some fighters? They both share the same body, warhead and booster.
@Nazri
“Mica Vl because we do not need separate launchers so it is cost saving. Mica vl comes with its own launchers.”
Mica vl still need launchers at least the Sylver A-35 launchers.
“Even if it is CAMM, it wont make much difference as both are short range missiles.”
Actually CAMM is rated to have a bit more range than VL MICA plus CAMM can also be quad-packed into Sylver and Mk41 VLS. This meant LCS can carry 4 times the number of CAMM than VL MICA. As an individual missile they might be similar but in terms of overall platform capability CAMM offers more imo as being able to sustain volley fire much more etc.
@ Api69
Beside the mock mast the Maharaja Lela launching also without any propellers.
Type 26 is heavier than our gowind 3000 class but if compared with modularity of gowind 3000 it can be expand in area of more sensor and weaponary. Instead of installed with mica/ aster I still prefer essm + ramsys for air defense…
Did you know even with its 20 km range, a battery of VL Mica can cover the whole of Penang island, plus both bridges, all of Butterworth and even the airbase. It’s actually short range verging on medium. My worry is if it’s effective against supersonic anti-ship missiles, based on my calculations, with its M 3 speed, it is. However, it will not be effective against hypersonic missiles.
The type 26 costs more than usd1 billion each. It is basically a destroyer, with max displacement of 8,000 tonnes
@ tomtom
the avent of hypersonic missiles is one of the reason why we should go for subsurface deterrence.
@Api69
Looks like there is a whole slew of problems encountered in LCS project. Thank you for the info. Lets see if future LCS will have this problems or not.
@Fadiman
“Instead of installed with mica/ aster I still prefer essm + ramsys for air defense…”
I would trade the RAM with something like Millennium gun or Bofors 40mm or quad-packed CAMM. RAM have too little range for a missile.
“Did you know even with its 20 km range, a battery of VL Mica can cover the whole of Penang island”
All SAMs lose energy as they go further out on range, after the motor burns out they glide the rest of the way. As such its terminal performance is lower than performance at closer range, and the maximum performance of the targets it can intercept is lower.
An Aster missile is essentially a MICA missile with an additional booster stage. But it not only more able to protect a greater area but also offer greater effectiveness within the area.
@Luqman
Don’t forget Thales also produces 40mm gun.
The only option to counter supersonic ssm is Essm or Aster….
@ fadiman
The problem is not supersonic, its the raise of hypersonic missiles. Right now there is no countermeasure for that.
While the danger for surface ships is increasing, sub killing tech hasnt changed much.
Eid Mubarak to all, may peace be to you all, thank you for sharing, asking for forgiveness as any provoking wasn’t intentional, with profound respecr, i found that Malaysian, even not all, care for their arm forces, hopefully, sooner than later, the politicians put defnce matter first.
Vl Mica will be replaced by the new VL Mica ard 2025-30. The manufacturers claim double the range to abt 40km being a point defence system with some area defence.
At the end of the day, camms or mica, can we select something that wont delay the LCA.
I have even heard that it will be cut down to just 2 due to our current financial state being the most positive news ive heard in a awhile. Come on!
The French bought one battery of Aster 30 for about USD 400 million (land). Not sure how much the sea version of Aster 15 and 30 will cost.
@ joe
on the sylver for CAMM. my previous info is probably wrong.
The Sylver A35 that fits the VL MICA is also the one compatible with CAMM.
@…
“sub killing tech hasnt changed much.”
But with only 2 subs, our killing potential isn’t something to shout about. With sufficient sub-surface net around CC carriers, they won’t likely be able to get within torp range attacks, so it needs to fight at standoff ranges with torp-launched Brahmos NG and together with MKM air-launched Brahmos NG, these will be our main deterrence against aggressive CC carriers operations.
@ joe
” But with only 2 subs, our killing potential isn’t something to shout about ”
Why i planned for 4 more scorpenes and 6 DG350, with 1 of the additional scorpenes before 2030.
” With sufficient sub-surface net around CC carriers ”
Subhunting with sonar is not an exact science (unlike radar for example). Plenty of times in exercises subs are able to take a kill of major surface combattants. In busy waterways like SCS with plenty of noises in the water, it is very2 hard to look for subs.
Selamat hari raya all
@Fadiman
“The only option to counter supersonic ssm is Essm or Aster….”
I would argue that all SAM ie MICA, CAMM, SM2/3/6, Sea Wolf, RAM, Russian 9M series as well as CIWS guns could shoot down supersonic ssm.
@joe
I think @… meant anti-sub techs. That being said having Brahmos NG or even Brahmos would definitely increase the chance of hitting a ship as it is sea skimming 3 meters above sea at Mach 3. Whats more interesting is the Brahmos 2 with Mach 7 speed. MKM with SAP518 and Brahmos/Brahmos NG is my dream setup, but now its just a dream. We can swap our Migs for more MKMs (just like what @… proposed) and including a few Brahmos .
AM – “All SAMs lose energy as they go further out on range, after the motor burns out they glide”
Whether they are launched vertically or from inclined launchers also plays a part in their manoeuvrability.
…. – “The problem is not supersonic””
Actually it is still a problem and subject to uncertainties. Whilst simulated and actual trials have been performed; we have no way of knowing how defences will cope with such threats (unlike the case with subsonic missiles).
Early warning plays a big role; as how fast the ship’s crew reacts; as does integration/coordination (the USN’s CEC comes into mind) but I’m not confident that stuff like MICA, Seawolf (the OEM famously claims it stopped a 4.5inch shell during tests), RAM and various gun based CIWS cab stop an incoming ASM moving at Mach 4.
We know that ammo like 3P curtain of steel in the path of an incoming ASM but whether it’s hit by gun or missiles, the possibility of parts of the missile hitting the ship (with great speed and energy) is real.
Missiles aside: for me mines are a bigger worry. They are relatively cheap; are hard to detect, have a long shelf life and can be deployed in numbers with anything with rails and a GPS.
Mines enclosed in ceramic casings are a worry; as are RAP ones that move st high speeds leaving the target little time to react and mines programmed to detonate upon picking up a specific acoustic contact.
Whilst most navies realise the threat; how much training they can actually devote is an issue; given the whole lift of other things they also have to do.
…, – “sub killing tech hasnt changed much.”
Despite all the advances; one thing remains : ASW is very time (unless conditions are perfect, detecting, tracking and acquiring a good enough solution to engage is time consuming) and resource intensive and (like MCM) is a skill that’s hard to acquire and to maintain.
One area in which ASW will undergo a fundamental change is when the USN’s P-3s eventfully get the ability to detect, track and engage contacts from high altitudes; leaving subs with little or no warning; compared to previously when MPAs and helos has to fly low to do their business.
Another area that will make it harder for airborne sub hunters is if in the coming years sub launched MANPADs (either tube or fin launch) proliferate. They’ve been around for decades but weren’t technically reliable (some Soviet boats had Strela and the Israelis Blowpipe) but things have changed.
Fadiman – “The only option to counter supersonic ssm is Essm or Aster…””
Not really.
You’d need a ship that has both a hard and soft kill option; which also has early warning and was linked to other assets; not only for increased SA but to enable those other assets to also contribute to dealing with the incoming ASM.
Luqman- “That being said having Brahmos NG or even Brahmos would definitely increase the chance of hitting a ship as it is sea skimming 3 meters above sea at Mach 3””
Maybe but for me; the problem we face is not with the ordnance with have but in our ability to actually coordinate and synchronise such a strike in the face of certain measures employed by the opponent.
Another problem is actually finding the target (which is constantly on the move) and having the ability to effectively engage it (it might be protected by fighters and may be employing jamming).
The ability to launch the missile might also not be dependent on its “effective range” or “maximum range” as laid down in its promotional brochure but operational circumstances.
@ azlan
” Despite all the advances; one thing remains : ASW is very time (unless conditions are perfect, detecting, tracking and acquiring a good enough solution to engage is time consuming) and resource intensive and (like MCM) is a skill that’s hard to acquire and to maintain ”
exactly!
why it is more better return of investment to get submarines as our maritime deterrence effort. it is very2 hard to look for submarines, while with surface ships it is nowhere you can hide with all the high resolution satellites, radars, EO, AIS etc.
The more resources the agressor need to spend on ASW is also less resource for them to accomplish their goals.
Not only it is extremely hard to find a submarine, the technology to kill a sub is also basically the same for ages, by torpedo, mines or depth charges, unlike multiple new techs like hypersonic missiles for surface ship killing.
@ azlan
” USN’s P-3s eventfully get the ability to detect, track and engage contacts from high altitudes; leaving subs with little or no warning ”
I believe it is the P-8. Tracking subs from high altitude depends entirely on sonobouys. Performance of sonobuoys in littoral areas is still a hit and miss, as these expandable sensors does not have the fidelity of say a TAS. Using active sonobuoys will immediately alert submarines on MPA presence.
BTW got a few tidbits on the gowinds.
Lets just say that the main problem is not with the builders. Somebody has requested a major change and this is where the big portion of the delays and the need for extra money is coming from. Hopefully that change will be worthwhile and will make the ship much more lethal.
I am just guessing here but it seems to have something to do with upgrading the PSIM (as i heard it was a very major change but it is not the IPMS, or those i talked with trying to smokescreen the matter)
….
Yes it is the P-8. I believe the method used is something other than sonobuoys. Something probably involving MAD.
I won’t use the term “game changer” but this ability marks a complete way of doing ASW; e.g. engaging targets from high altitude.
…. – “why it is more better return of investment to get submarines as our maritime deterrence effort””
I see it beyond that. That subs no doubt are hard to detect (by virtue of not being visible) but their successful use also requires them to be used with other assets.
As such it’s not the sub by itself that creates the deterrent effect but the sub benefiting from the cooperation gained by operating in conjunction with other assets.
….. – “The more resources the agressor need to spend on ASW is also less resource for them to accomplish their goals.””
It’s a 2 way street and absolute.
Firstly an opponent might enough resources to allocate for more than one task. The amount of resources he will have to allocate are also dependent on operational circumstances; e.g. whether he has no idea where it is or has a pretty good idea as to where it is but hasn’t nailed down the exact location.
Secondly (we’ve discussed this previously in depth); it’s fine to say a sub creates an effect far out of proportion and draws away enemy units (matters not in dispute) but a sub which is too focus on avoiding detection (and the detection that comes with it) is also a sub that is unable to do its job….
We saw this in WW1 and WW2; where strong escorts and airpower ultimately prevented subs from accomplishing what was intended. Even in the Falklands (in the absence of any external support the subs main issue was locating the convoy and getting close to it) and the India/Pakistan war; despite the success and near success of individual subs; they spent much of their time evading detection.
Repl
Not the USN P8s they not equipped with MAD
@Luqman
“We can swap our Migs for more MKMs (just like what @… proposed) and including a few Brahmos ”
Honestly look at the value of our migs I think we can consider ourselves lucky if all 10 can be exchanged for 4 Brahmos missiles, forget about MKI.
What is the value of a second hand Mig-29 9.12? Close to nothing I’d say. This is the lowest grade ‘for Soviet allies only’ Mig-29 (aka East Germany’s version), not even the 9.13 with fat spine.
P.S.
We also can’t take for granted that a sub will always be hard to detect. A sub might be detected whilst it’s snorkelling or because of acoustic conditions; at a considerable distance away from its intended target: whilst trying to get into position.
We also have to factor in the very vital point that a SSKs Achilles heel is it power supply – the enemy will take advantage of this. The sub can conserve power supply by switching off the AC and certain screens but ultimately it has to recharge its batteries (yes I’m aware of advances taking place with batteries but I’m referring to the present and foreseeable future.
Yes A SSKs worst nightmare would be having to surface because it has totally run out of power and was unable to recharge its batteries.
@ marhalim / azlan
Yes, the USN P-8 is the first ASW MPA that does away with MAD, and depends solely on sonobuoys to detect submarines. This is what what enables it to operate at higher altitudes.
Indian P-8 does have MAD, and this forces the aircraft to fly its mission at low altitude, mitigating the original advantage of the P-8 platform.
… – “he technology to kill a sub is also basically the same for ages””
Yes but the same can be said of many other things. Take aerial warfare; whether it was over the Flanders in 1918 or over Punjab in 2019; the principles remain the same : the side which detects the other first and which fires shot has a distinct advantage.
If we want to talk about the actual means; this hasn’t changed much too. In the 1960’s the primary means of detecting and engaging was not much different rush it is now : the only difference is the speed we can do it and the ease; made possible by advantages in technology.
… – “,unlike multiple new techs like hypersonic missiles for surface ship killing.”
Irrespective of the hype the technology is still in it infancy/early days and when it actually becomes available; will be monopolised by a select few.
Never mind hypersonics; even dealing with supersonic missiles (been around decades although the West was slow to catch up) still presents various issues/problems. For that matter even subsonic missiles (which can be programmed for evasive manoeuvres and different but simultaneous flight paths – like NSM) are still a major threat.
Post Yom Kippur many predicted that the ATGW had made the tank obsolete (never mind that most tanks were knocked out by other tanks rather than Saggers) and the advent of the guided ASM led many to predict the days of the surface ship was numbered. In the 1990’s I remember reading an article that future technology would make the world’s oceans very visible and would lead to the impotence of subs. That day hasn’t come yet.
Granted hypersonic missiles will in a major way impact the nature of warfare but like many other things; mankind will develop and acquire the needed responses.
Seems like Indonesia is looking to get used Bremen Class frigates for a new requirement called the Interim Readiness Frigate (IRF)
Funny that our neighbours never seemed to have problem with used military articles while in Malaysia we worried so much it. Indonesia must be the best ‘dumping ground’ for Germany’s old hardware. They never seemed to have issue taking even East Germany’s patrol boats, Leopard 2, and now Bremen class?
There’re many reasons why we’re not getting second hand stuffs. One of the MAIN reason got to be people in the “business” losing out BIG by lining up poor crappy used hardware. And of course they will always tell you how badly the Skyhawk turned out to be.
Mostly buying second frigate is platform only, maybe a cannon which is still attached. Buyers need to buy sensors and weapon system.
IMO, in indonesia case ther are in need to replace the van spiejk class that already 60 years old.
A ship platform can last to over 60 years, so this bremen class still have 25-30 years. As a stop gap this is a better choice than they still continue use van spiejk class. They can strip all the sensors and weapon system in van spiejk and put in bremen class with no problem because the bremen class is much bigger than the spiejk class
Hornet Lover,
The armed services have no issues getting owned as long as certain conditions are met : it must suit our actual operational requirements and mustn’t cost and arm and leg to operate and maintain for the remainder of their service lives.
No point achieving short term costs savings by getting something cheap if in the long run it becomes prohibitively expensive and costly to support .
Some things we should buy pre owned and some things we shouldn’t.
What we shouldn’t do is to assume that just because something pre owned is in good shape and has lots of life left; that it won’t lead long term issues.
Hornet Lover – “ They never seemed to have issue taking even East Germany’s patrol boats””
Actually they did. One of the boats capsized on the way to Indonesia and the bulk were in various stages of completion. It was a logistical nightmare for them as nothing on the former DDR ships were compatible with what they currently had. It was Habibie’s idea.
Hornet Lover – “ And of course they will always tell you how badly the Skyhawk turned out to be”
Not just the Skyhawks but other things too. The problem with the Skyhawks was we didn’t want to spend the cash needed and that time the Hawks were already being considered. It’s fine for the politicians to decide what to get and what to spend but when things go wrong the services get the blame.
Long term costs and commonality is the issue : which is why we’ve rejected several offers in the past.
We have limited resources and operating budgets are tight. Which is why the 5/15 and CAP 55 is aimed at reducing our large logistical support footprint.
Romeo – “. Buyers need to buy sensors and weapon system””
That is the least of the problem.
Unless one wants to spend a lot (depending on whether they see it a sound long term investment); certain things of a ship might need replacing in the coming years. (e.g. generators, shafts, circuitry, etc); either because of age or because of support issues.
Romeo – “A ship platform can last to over 60 years””
Not necessarily. Depends on a host of various issues including the hull. As they get older they also require mote maintenance which adds to overall costs and results in them spending less time at sea.
@ azlan
I am talking about tech to kill subs (torpedoes and what not) and you are talking about aerial warfare principles.
The principles are of course the same but tech to kill aircrafts has advanced, with AESA radars, DRFM jammers, IRST, and now looking at laser hardkill systems.
More so now with techs to kill surface ships. It has never been easier to find ships at sea than we currently can with AIS, high resolution geospatial satellites, HD radar tech, automated EO search systems like ViDAR and such. New emerging technologies like stealth missiles, hypersonic (mach 5 and above) missiles, advanced intertial systems, hyperspectral missile seekers etc.
With subs, yes the fidelity of sonars are increasing, but the ways to kill a sub has never changed much. It is still very much more like an art rather than a science.
There are always pros and cons even if buying a brand new one. The cost and benefit analysis seems working for indonesia whether buying a brand new or second hand.
At least they can have a younger and bigger ship than their current van spiejk class which is should be retired soon. They have a more capable shipyard industry which is owned by the state. Dealing with old ship and make them worked will not be their new experience.
Reply
If you read the story the decision to go with came from the MOD. I have been told by industry sources that the Indonesian Navy prefers new hulls
@ Azlan
“The armed services have no issues getting owned as long as certain conditions are met : it must suit our actual operational requirements and mustn’t cost and arm and leg to operate and maintain for the remainder of their service lives.”
I think anyone who studied a wee bit of modern management will know for any asset procurement project it’s always about the TCO. I suppose all our mindef, MoF staffs and all generals and admirals in our armed forces are well versed in this as well. In Malaysia it’s always about the execution and the willingness to carry out the hard to swallow decisions. No matter how we talk about how a project will benefit this and that sector, prop up economy, or whatever, it’s almost certain that
1. Gross project cost overrun
2. Massive delay
3. Final article is at much discounted state than initial planned, including not meeting spec and short lifespan
4. Someone lining up the pocket handsomely…
Looks like quite a lot those hardware we got in the 80s are the sound one, eg, the Handalans, Perdanas, Kasturis, Tiger II, or even the Condors. Maybe the art of ‘isi dompet’ wasn’t as matured then…
Reply
Handalan and Perdana were bought in early/mid 1970s. Nuri should be part of the list, bought in mid 1960s. The original Handalan class and also KD Rahmat were notable failures of that time.
Notwithstanding the nonsensical video captions (made by Indons after all) the MRSSes are part of RMN’s 15 to 5 plans, but nothing has been decided yet, correct?
Reply
Yes the original plan was to get the MRSS from PT PAL with BNS as their partner. Probably all build here or partially built here. The LCS debacle is big issue for them going forward now even if money is allocated for RMK12
@ marhalim
original handalans? you mean the original vosper perkasa class?
those are probably the most advanced missile boats in the world of the era (1960s)
Reply
Yes, most advanced but not really suited for our needs
Hornet Lover
5. Buying something pre owned which is cheap but at a later period finding out that the costs to keep it operational is steadily rising (for a variety of reasons) and that when all factors were taken into account; added long term value would have been achieved if we had bought new; notwithstanding the higher initial investment needed. Certain stuff we should get pre owned; certain stuff we shouldn’t.
Something which we got pre owned and our money’s worth was Inderapura. She was hot transferred and in good overall condition.
Hornet Lover – “ Maybe the art of ‘isi dompet’ wasn’t as matured then“”
Actually; the policy of basing procurement on how it would benefit the country overall (not just militarily); including the need or desire to benefit the local industry; was fully in place yet.
Marhalim,
Other things that weren’t a success from our operational perspective would also include the Albatross, Panhards and Perkasa (with the wire guided SS-11 and thirsty engines).
The art of ‘isi dompet’ wasn’t prevalent back then probably because the Grand Old Man was just starting his PM-ship.
Mahathir took office in 1981.
@marhalim
What was wrong with KD Rahmat?
Reply
She was never fully operational due to teething technical faults
@Hornet Lover
“lowest grade ‘for Soviet allies only’ Mig-29”
What I am aware, the Fulcrums we got were supposedly destine for Russian AF but due to urgency & importance of our 1st order, we got bumped up ahead. The dorsal-spined Fulcrums were a much later development.
“Funny that our neighbours never seemed to have problem”
Not only that but they had ran with both Western & Russian aircraft way before we did and they still can run them fine. The fact is, it isn’t where they are originated from but how they are maintained and kept uptime high which makes the difference. Their Government being ran by ex-armed forces, knew what was necessary for running Western & Russian stuffs and used stuffs, so they sufficiently budgeted the maint & upgrade.
“quite a lot those hardware we got in the 80s are the sound one”
Sound they may be but remember our Skyhawks? This was a massive failure but really was our doing as we didn’t budget to maint & upgrade them. Look at SG Skyhawks that they got about same time. They were using them up until 2012 with the constant SLEPs and upgrades.
If we evaluated they still have live left, there is no problems getting used stuffs but we must put in the budget for refurb, then regular maint, and SLEPs. Otherwise, even new equipment will suffer the same fate as well.
Romeo – “and benefit analysis seems working for indonesia whether buying a brand new or second hand.”
Just because we don’t read about issues they have doesn’t mean they don’t face problems operating the various ships and planes they have; some of which are long past their retirement date and share little or no commonality; each requiring the stockpiles of different parts and requiring separate training infrastructures.
There’s a reason why Tier 1 militaries which have much more resources have long made it a priority to achieve greater commonality. Having a large support/logistical footprint is a problem for them; never mind a developing country with much less resources.
On the countries which operate mix fleets; they do so for political (they are willing to incur the penalties) reasons and some of them have far greater resources than we have. As such the fact that they can and we can’t shouldn’t arise as the circumstances differ.
– The Hornets were taken from stocks intended for the USN and were diverted to us.
– The Fulcrums were originally intended for the Soviet Air Force and became surplus to requirements. They were stored (incomplete) at an airfield and ended up in RMAF colours.
I think it is quite apparent that Indonesia is suffering from the economic fall out of Covid 19, hence, the interim frigate solution as a stop gap. This is a cheaper option
The problem is that Probowo (jokowis competitor and potential presidential aspirant) cannot be seen as weak hence the “requested” 2021 budget of USD 10 billion. Whether or not the Indonesian finance ministry will approve it is another matter. Note: Indonesias 2020 military budget was cut due to Covid 19. So it could also be a way to compensate the shortfall in 2019.
Some Indonesian projects which stalled includes the KFX(they haven paid their share for some time), iver huitfeld frigates and, new chong bodo type 209 submarines (3 bought).
Whilst indonesian plans seem fantastic by asean (- singapur) standards, it is no where near the level of sophistication and capability enhancement such as Korea, Japan, Australia and Singapore.
“This was a massive failure but really was our doing as we didn’t budget to maint & upgrade them. Look at SG Skyhawks that they got about same time. They were using them up until 2012 with the constant SLEPs and upgrades.”
Singapore retired the A-4SU from frontline service in 2005. From 2005 to 2012 only the TA-4SU trainers were in service in France.
It’s also true that Singapore saw a good number of crashes (DB even called it a “crisis”) before they gave the A-4S the upgrade (which included a new engine) to A-4SU.
ASM – “ all) the MRSSes are part of RMN’s 15 to 5 plans, but nothing has been decided yet, correct?””
Just like the government decided – again – to make MPAs a priority after MH17; MRSS’s became a priority after the loss of Inderapura. In both cases (and in many others) the government later decided to shift priorities.
Rahmat has various issues that were never fully resolved (including heavy vibration of her gearboxes). She spent much of her time at base or in dry dock. From Day One SeaCat and the tracker also never performed as advertised. The amount of cash we spent on her was way out of proportion to her actual usefulness (a bad return of investment); a situation we would later face with other things.
Reply
I was told the decision to buy the Rahmat and the Perkasa FACs were made following advice from the British, who were of course desperate to help their shipyards. Fortunately after the debacle the RMN got it right by purchasing the FACs from the French. Unfortunately it was then decided to buy a German design for the next batch of FACs and then from Sweden.
Nazri- “t is no where near the level of sophistication and capability enhancement such as Korea, Japan, Australia and Singapore.””
Of course. All those countries take their defence far more seriously and have militaries which have a higher level of staying power and force protection than the TNI. Unlike the TNI they have made it a point to achieve and maintain some level of commonality and there is less political interference.
I’ll be impressed not with what Indonesia buys but when the TNI acquires the ability to employ its assets in a coordinated and sustained manner like what Korea, Japan, Australia and Singapore.””
Of course. All those countries take their defence far more seriously and have militaries which have a higher level of staying power and force protection than the TNI. Unlike the TNI they have made it a point to achieve and maintain some level of commonality and there is less political interference.
I’ll be impressed not with what Indonesia buys but when the TNI acquires the ability to employ its assets in a coordinated and sustained manner
Korea, Japan, Australia and Singapore.””
Of course. All those countries take their defence far more seriously and have militaries which have a higher level of staying power and force protection compared to the TNI. Unlike the TNI they have made it a point to achieve and maintain some level of commonality and there is less political interference.
I’ll be impressed not with what Indonesia buys but when the TNI acquires the ability to employ its assets in a coordinated and sustained manner like what the countries you mentioned have done.
The policy of buying a bit of everything from almost everyone, with the logistical/support penalties, are to a extent due to the arms embargo following East Timor. It coloured their mindset.
Off topic
“Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering) today announced that it’s land systems arm has signed an agreement with Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (IAI) to set up a joint venture company (JV) in Singapore. ST Engineering and IAI shall each hold a 50% share of the JV.
The JV, named Proteus Advanced Systems Pte Ltd, will leverage the strengths and track record of its parent companies to market and sell advanced naval missile systems, including a new 5 GEN anti-ship missile system called ‘Blue Spear’. According to sources associated with the new JV, Blue Spear (5G SSM) introduces an advanced and novel approach that addresses the challenges of the modern naval arena for years to come. The Blue Spear anti-ship missile is co-developed by ST Engineering and IAI under a development agreement signed between the two countries a few years ago. Based on this work-sharing agreement ST Engineering’s role includes design, development, and production of major subsystems like the booster motor and warhead.”
“What I am aware, the Fulcrums we got were supposedly destine for Russian AF but due to urgency & importance of our 1st order, we got bumped up ahead. The dorsal-spined Fulcrums were a much later development”
“– The Fulcrums were originally intended for the Soviet Air Force and became surplus to requirements. They were stored (incomplete) at an airfield and ended up in RMAF colours.”
@joe and Azlan
The Mig29N were what was called the white tail Migs. Those are incomplete Migs, 100+, mothballed in Mig factories destined for Soviet satellite states’ air force before the breakup of Soviet Union, and are of the lowest spec. I’ve a copy of late nineties (can’t remember what) air force magazine with a title ‘Told you so’ mentioning about our ‘N’, which suppose to be ‘newer’ than the ‘M’ operated by the Russian air force were nothing more than white tail migs completed and sold to us. Honestly I think the only difference between ours and the East Germany copies is the in-flight refueling probe. I remember also there’s an article in Berita Harian bragging about ours being the N, and supposed to be better than the M of the Russian just because it’s on a subsequent alphabet. In fact the then defence minister jokingly said it’s N because of his name… Interestingly around that time, there’s also another BH article comparing the Mig-29N and the F/A-18D. The writer mentioned about the lack of FBW in the Mig, which to me was a shocker! Back then information was hard to obtain unless we know someone who’s in the know…
In fact, there’s a time around 2010 where Mig was worry about running out of the white tail stock as they managed to sell of the cheap fighters to quite a lot of 3rd world air forces.
Marhalim,
The decision to get FACs reflected our needs during that period and that fact that we couldn’t or wouldn’t afford extra frigates. Like the Vosper PCs we used our FACs for roles they weren’t intended; e.g. patrolling the EEZ and as escorts during reclamation work in the Spratlys.
Their seakeeping and other limitations made them totally unsuitable for the roles we assigned them. When they were based at Tanjung Gelang (and also at Labuan) ere were times during the monsoon season when they couldn’t put to sea at all.
AM,
A Board of Inquiry formed following the crashes recommended certain upgrades including a new engine. Unlike Singapore we just didn’t feel that worth it to spend significant funds on it. Plus, around the 1987 period we knew we were getting something else : the Tornado, later cancelled and replaced by Hawks.
@ marhalim
why do you consider the jerong class “unfortunate”?
Both perdana fac(m) and jerong class fac(g) ships are designed by Lurssen.
The difference is that the perdana was made in france, while the jerong was made in malaysia
Also why do you consider handalans as “unfortunate” ?
” Yes the original plan was to get the MRSS from PT PAL with BNS as their partner. Probably all build here or partially built here. The LCS debacle is big issue for them going forward now even if money is allocated for RMK12 ”
I dont see that the MRSS project should be given to BNS, whatever the reason is. I would want BNS to really concentrate on the LCS, and when that is completed, to continue building 3 more to 2030.
I have heard recently that the MRSS project is really moving forward. But i don’t see that traditional LPD designs that TLDM is looking at and was offered for the MRSS for are actually the best fit for our national requirements. Unlike Indonesia and the Philippines, we dont have marines. For us what we really need is a quick transport to move army equipments (mainly heavy vehicles such as IFVs) from west to east malaysia and vice versa. http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A-closer-look-at-the-Littoral-Strike-Ship-1014×487.jpg
A ship like this would be used for port to port transfer of equipments (a full mechanized infantry battalion worth), SF support of enduring operations, a floating helicopter base, HADR support, casualty/hospital facilities. This ship is based on European fast roro vessels. This idea may not be suitable for others, but considering our strategic predicament with our landmass straddling both sides of the south china sea, this concept is imo the best fit for our MRSS requirements.
@Marhalim
“If you read the story the decision to go with came from the MOD. I have been told by industry sources that the Indonesian Navy prefers new hulls”
True..
Their initial plan was building locally PKR sigma. They have agreement with the Damen to build up to 20 units. Later, due to china action was getting worse in SCS, they postponed to build another PKR and saw opportunity in building Iver Huitfeldt.
@Azlan
“Just because we don’t read about issues they have doesn’t mean they don’t face problems operating the various ships and planes”
There you go…
I see their strong point on that. They can deal with the problems.
@Nazri
“The problem is that Probowo (jokowis competitor and potential presidential aspirant) cannot be seen as weak hence the “requested” 2021 budget of USD 10 billion”
It is jokowi himself is the problem. He actually failed to achieve TNI MEF as planed. He preffers building infrastucture including their new capital city which maybe delayed due to covid19
Romeo – “There you go…
I see their strong point on that. They can deal with the problems.””
Everybody can “deal” with the such a problem. Even if the RMN suddenly got Russian ships; it can “deal” with the problem. The question is why should it? Why should it operate something totally different with the resulting issues it brings?
Contrary to that impression you have; the TNI has issues operating the various different gear it has. Anybody would. It’s got nothing to do with a “string point” but having to make do despite the penalties:drawbacks incurred. It’s not for nothing that others are aiming at greater commonality/standardisation.
Hornet Lover – “mothballed in Mig factories destined for Soviet satellite states’ Air Force”
Ours were stored at an airfield and were originally intended for the Russian airforce.
Hornet Lover – “ are of the lowest spec””
Ours certainly weren’t.
We got just the fuselages and fitted then our to our liking – this how could the be of “lowest spec”? When they entered service and later after their upgrade at ATSC (new radar, engines with a longer life, enlarged fuel tanks and other things) they were the most capable Fulcrums anywhere.
Also, the government this time around really has to focus on the economy and stop mucking about like what the Grand Old Man did. It’s time to implement GST, it’s more efficient and fair (everyone pays) and probably less room for people to do creative accounting.
Education and healthcare received the biggest chunk of last year’s budget; we have to re-look whether this much money is really needed for education. Adding subjects like C-programming is useless if the teachers themselves don’t understand it; better to focus on strengthening basics like languages, sciences and maths instead. And we really need to get ourselves healthier (present company included) so that we can reduce healthcare spending. A lot of our health problems are preventable ones.
…. … – “Unlike Indonesia and the Philippines, we dont have marines. For us what we really need is a quick transport to move army equipments”
Actually; for the PN the ability to move heavy equipment and HADR were the driving factors behind acquiring the capability. Transporting the PMC (whilst one of the roles) is secondary as PMCs have long had a presence in where they are needed (Mindanao and Sulu). The main consideration in getting the capability was actually to move stuff and HADR.
Azlan “A Board of Inquiry formed following the crashes recommended certain upgrades including a new engine. Unlike Singapore we just didn’t feel that worth it to spend significant funds on it. Plus, around the 1987 period we knew we were getting something else : the Tornado, later cancelled and replaced by Hawks.”
How certain were we, before the fact, that an order would be placed in time and in the quantity needed?
As it was, by that point we had dropped our plans to get more F-5s and the F-20s that we considered after that. When the Tornado order materialised in 1988 it was for 12 aircraft, and the 1990 Hawk order was for 10 single seaters, against the 40 Skyhawks we had. The orders for the MiGs and Hornets would come even later.
… – “I am talking about tech to kill subs (torpedoes and what not) and you are talking about aerial warfare principles.”
I’m well aware of the point you were driving at and the distinction between naval and air warfare. My mention of air warfare in relation to naval was merely to point out that despite advances in tech; the core principles remain the same as do the overall means.
…. “The principles are of course the same but tech to kill aircrafts has advanced, with AESA radars, DRFM jammers, IRST, and now looking at laser hardkill systems”
IRSTs have been around for decades. AESA and DRFM jammers are relatively new and change the way air arms go about their business but ultimately they are essentially major advances/improvements of existing things.
The ways subs are detected and engaged may not have fundamentally changed but rapid and key advances in tech (whether in sonar or torpedo) has nonetheless also had a major impact. Not as visible or to the extent of AESA and newer jammers
AM – “How certain were we, before the fact, that an order would be placed in time and in the quantity needed?”
By 1986 we had already made a decision not to subject the Skyhawks to a full upgrade. It was decided that the cash would be put to better use buying something newer. We were under no illusions that the Skyhawks would be replaced on a 1 to 1 basis.
AM – “When the Tornado order materialised in 1988 it was for 12 aircraft”
It was included in the MOU but never ordered. Some sources listed 12 IDRs, others listed 8. In his article on the RMAF in 1997 the AFM editor mentioned stored ADVs.
What is certain is that the Tornado was dropped because it would have been prohibitively expensive for us to support and would have stretched us to the limit; resource wise.
AM – “As it was, by that point we had dropped our plans to get more F-5s and the F-20s that we considered after that””
The F-20s were to have been ordered at around the same period as the Skyhawks. The dropping of the F-20 and the need for attritional replacements resulted in the RMAF still having a requirement for them as late as 1988/88. The last Skyhawks were only retired in 1994/95; employed as “buddy” tankers for the Hawks.
Somehow when people talk about MAD I always assume it means Mutually Assured Destruction…
I suppose in sub hunting it means Magnetic Anomaly Detection? Or Massive Airburst Detonation? or rather…
Massively Acquired Debt?
Reply
Its the Magnetic one
…..
My view is the nature of air warfare was transformed long before the advent of the AESA, new gen jammers and other things; by the proliferation of data links (enabling an aircraft to passively engage a target) and 2nd/3rd gen AAMs; for which no amount of evasive flying (unlike the past) will enable a targeted aircraft to shake off a AAM once it’s within its “no escape zone”; in the terminal phase.
@ azlan
” 2nd/3rd gen AAMs; for which no amount of evasive flying (unlike the past) will enable a targeted aircraft to shake off a AAM once it’s within its “no escape zone”; in the terminal phase ”
those AAMs now has plenty of countermeasure options that can be chosen from. for radar guided ones could be countered by DRFM jammers with high processing power and memory, also with active towed decoys. IR guided ones can be countered with something like the Leonardo DAIRCM (which is the latest tech that puts laser jammers at each MAWS sensor) or the russian 101KS-O.
My view is that in most other fields, like air warfare and surface warfare, there has been plenty of new techs introduced that has transformed the way we fight. But in anti-submarine warfare, techs to increase the fidelity of sensors and weapons is there, but the fundamental way to seek and destroy a sub is still the same.
…. – “those AAMs now has plenty of countermeasure options that can be chosen from””
Counter measures are the only way; unlike in the past when evasive manoeuvres by its own could work (depending on the circumstances). The whole process will take seconds and an aircraft which simultaneously has to deal with say a IR and radar seeker will have it’s work cut.
Of course the side which fires also has a major advantage.
Off topic.
Beautiful photos of PLA-N new sail training ship, Polang.
@Azlan
“Everybody can “deal” with the such a problem. Even if the RMN suddenly got Russian ships; it can “deal” with the problem”
When was I talking about RMN?
Romeo – “When was I talking about RMN?””
If you read again my post; it’s plainly obvious what I meant and why I mentioned the RMN. At no point was it suggested that you made reference to the RMN.
You spoke about the ability of the TNI-AL to operate and maintain a fleet consisting of ships with little or no commonality/standardisation. I merely pointed out why other navies are standardising and why the RMN can (and has) operates such a diverse fleet before but is now standardising to reduce its logistical/support footprint.
@Azlan
“You spoke about the ability of the TNI-AL to operate and maintain…”
No, i didnt.
I said Indonesia not TNI AL.
RMN or TNI just user.
Buying used or brand new is government final decision. The different is what ever the Indonesia choose they can deal with the problem. They can make it worked.
See what happened to LCS?
Romeo – “They can make it worked”
Well using your line of reasoning; we’ve also “made it work” (for decades of operating equipment with little or no communality/standardisation) but at what cost?
Romeo – “See what happened to LCS”
Apples and comparison. The discussion was about the various types of equipment operated by the TNI; not drifts in the LCS programme which is totally unrelated.
You seem to be under the impression that just because it hasn’t been reported that they have been facing issues (anybody) means they are “making it work” or are not facing any issues ….
What on earth happens to our shipbuilding industries…
“Lets hope that we will not beaten to the punch by the Type 26…..”
Had been beaten by egypt, thailand & philippines’s new frigates before, “losing again” seemed “unshameful”.
Mr Marhalim, do you have idea what is the current status of LCS?
Reply
No
Hey, look on the bright side lah. If the LCS comes into service in 2030, then the RMN will not need a replacement till 2070. That’s a 50 year plan!!
Anyway, by the sound of today’s news, I suppose a Scorpene KD Najib Razak will never happen….
” Lets hope that we will not be beaten to the punch by the Type 26.”
Incomparable. The UK Government has more accountability in project lead times (tho not always the case with new projects), with more professional management that will be responsible for any penalties, and their Government are more willing to stomach the kind of cost overruns that has delayed LCS builds (see QE-class projected vs actual build costs), all to ensure they are no delays and there is work for their shipbuilders (of the voting kind).
Why no news on maharajalela and her sisters?
Is the the extra money asked already given?
Looks like there is no any work has been done to maharajalela since she sit on the dry dock.
@TomTom
“Scorpene KD Najib Razak will never happen”
For that to happen, the Government must first stomach a Scorpene KD Mahathir… 😉
@ joe
IMO naming those subs after PMs is a big mistake. Well we could always recycle the name of laksamana class corvettes and FAC(M) and FAC(G) for future subs
According to my source another cause of the delays were
– due to the navy requested to change some specs/subsystems on the ship after Maharajalela were launched.
– This of course cause BNS to do draw again, send it to the French and redo again if the French wont approve it.
– There is also need to order and wait for new parts to arrive.
The Navy, after agreeing to start building the ships, should not make any major changes to the design and the results are what we have right now. This should clear up speculations that BNS were the main fault of these delays and thoughts that saye BNS could not deliver/do their jobs properly.
The first Royal Navy Type 31 Frigate will be in the water by 2023 and the in-service date will be in 2027.
Hopefully all 6 of our gowinds will be in the water by then.
@…
Hahaha. When they mooted that, things haven’t gone tits up yet. Well, the USN wouldn’t have named their biggest ships after US presidents if they’d found to be a turncoat. Highly unlikely you will see a USS Donald Trump fleet carrier in your lifetime, that’s for sure.
Personally I don’t mind them naming after the first 3 PMs, after all they are deceased so it keeps to the Naval tradition of naming from dead illustrious figures. But IMHO that is as far as I would go with personal names. I would like to see us honouring heroic battles/battlesites like USN does with their cruisers & destroyers.
@Luqman
Can share what are the major changes that requires such redesign? Weapons fit out?
@Luqman,
If what you said is true (can’t really verify it), then it would be very unfair lay the blame on Boustead alone. Then again, perhaps there was political pressure on the RMN to change some of the sub-systems.
If I recall correctly post GE14 the government made some changes to certain things on the Gowinds.
“This should clear up speculations that BNS were the main fault of these delays and thoughts that saye BNS could not deliver/do their jobs properly.”
Oh yes, a likely story. What else do you expect BNS to say?
“due to the navy requested to change some specs/subsystems on the ship after Maharajalela were launched.– This of course cause BNS to do draw again”
Another likely story. None of us have forgetten that the combat system and air defence missile armament were selected over the RMN’s wishes, and here you are telling us that BNS is granting all the RMN’s requests at their own expense. Great.
Sad really we still dwelling on this lcs while neighbouring countries already started to procure bigger, badder heavily armed ships..
@ Luqman
It is easy to check if the story is true or not. Why the ship has not been put on water all this time? There are harbour acceptance test and sea acceptance test. All this test need only navigation system only and a working engine. None of these test is done.
Hahahaha! KD Mahathir! I can imagine the looks on the faces of the ship’s skipper and crew.
By the time the RMN gets Scorpenes 3 and 4, Malaysia would be at its 99 th perdana menteri as it would be well into the 2100s. Assuming we don’t have to name the by order, the will lots and lots of names to choose from😀.
Marhalim,
Seriously, if Luqman is correct and some systems have been changed, the only one I can think of is the VL Mica, perhaps to ESSM as originally planned by the RMN. Or perhaps to the British CAMM? What do the rest think?
Reply
No lah nothing to do with the missiles, its VL Mica though they have not signed the contract for the missiles, itself. I checked just last month with the horses mouth.
@ tom tom
I am hoping that we could do a last minute change to CAMM.
I have checked that CAMM can be launched from the the Sylver that has already been ordered for the gowinds. This is the compatible launcher for CAMM
▪ ExLS
▪ Sylver A50
▪ Mk41
▪ SVL
CAMM missile is actually sensor agnostic. It can be paired with any radar, EO tracker or CMS.
Getting CAMM could enable us to commonise the TLDM and GAPU missile system. It could also be upgraded to MR SAM when the budgetary allows, by using CAMM-ER missile (not for the gowinds, but probably future bigger frigates like Type 31 and ground based system to replace our Jernas.
@joe
My source would not provide that info unfortunately. Im sorry.
@AM
“and here you are telling us that BNS is granting all the RMN’s requests at their own expense. Great.”
You might be right here. Though if RMN really wanted that subsystem from the get go then they should re draw again before starting any construction. With this being done mid way, RMN would probably change their mind a little too late. Then again anyone guess is as good as mine.
@romeo
Probably true but anyway we could only guess right now. Hope marhalim or government can give an update on this issue soon.
My suggest Is We should not order from Gowind by Built in Malaysia or From france. We should have gone for Type 26 !.
@…
Provided if Maharajalelas were equip with A-50 variant of Sylver. Otherwise if it were A-35 or A-43 variant, it won’t fit.
From what I have heard, major platform equipment that has been changed is the IPMS. This might possibly contribute towards the delay, although I am not sure when this change was initiated and by whom.
Also, I was told that the prime cause of delay was with the design, specifically the inability to freeze the design. Again, what caused this is uncertain. However, on hindsight, the strategy of detailed design being done by BNS for Naval Group approval might not have been the best approach. This had (or has, as the problem is still not resolved) significantly impacted the construction works.
In addition to construction issues arising from design, my source(s) tell me that issues resulting from improper production strategies also contributed to the delay. Major welding rejections (allegedly a few hundred % more than industry standard) on the hull required significant time to repair and increased build cost. This might be due to BNS deciding to build the hull using labour supply contracts without possessing the requisite supervisory and management capability in-house to execute this approach well. Industry in Malaysia normally employs proven and competent subcontractors to do this work. While the initial cost might be higher, the construction risk is passed on to the subcontractor, and the shipyard would be free to simply monitor the performance of the subcontractor and freely take any action needed should the subcontractor fail to perform. BNS learnt this lesson in an expensive way and finally decided to subcontract the construction of the hull blocks to subcontractors on a lumpsum approach.
What is for certain is that there are still a lot of work to be done on the first LCS. My take on this is that her launching a few years back (with a mock mast!) was simply a PR exercise (politically motivated? who knows!) and a way for BNS to get payment from the Launching milestone. My opinion, anyway…..
Not really…lcs is quite okay for us for the time being..what is not okay is the decision to build all of them here, with almost zero experience in building stealth and cutting edge ship..if we decide to build lets say 1 or 2 unit of lcs at naval group france they will be in service by now..
@ api69
” This might be due to BNS deciding to build the hull using labour supply contracts without possessing the requisite supervisory and management capability in-house to execute this approach well ”
Malaysia has build tons of oil and gas steel structures, and still BNS has this fundamental problem? We have lots of skilled professionals that knows this stuff like the back of their hands.
Reply
They hired a large number of welders for NGPV project many of whom left the company after the initial stoppage of work due to PSC shenanigans. Some came back to finish the job once Boustead took over. They were among the first to be VSS once the job was completed. For the LCS many of those involved in NGPV who stayed on after Boustead took over also went away as the new management did not want them to be involved. Many are now working at THHE Destini and other shipyards.
I dont think it is the sylver A50 which cannot fit into the Gowinds. Likely A43 sylver launchers.
More imptly, we are going for Mica Vl because we do not need separate launchers so it is cost saving. Mica vl comes with its own launchers.
Even if it is CAMM, it wont make much difference as both are short range missiles.
@Nazri
If it were A-43 variant, I would like to cut half the VL Mica and replace with Aster 15. Aster 15 has 30km range vs Mica’s 20km. If we had A-50 variant, the change would be to 8x Aster 30 instead (range 120km).
@Safran
Type26 is too expensive for us.
@…
If RMN and Gapu acquire the CAMMs, would there be any chance of RMAF also get the ASRAAM as a standard WVR missile for all or some fighters? They both share the same body, warhead and booster.
@Nazri
“Mica Vl because we do not need separate launchers so it is cost saving. Mica vl comes with its own launchers.”
Mica vl still need launchers at least the Sylver A-35 launchers.
“Even if it is CAMM, it wont make much difference as both are short range missiles.”
Actually CAMM is rated to have a bit more range than VL MICA plus CAMM can also be quad-packed into Sylver and Mk41 VLS. This meant LCS can carry 4 times the number of CAMM than VL MICA. As an individual missile they might be similar but in terms of overall platform capability CAMM offers more imo as being able to sustain volley fire much more etc.
@ Api69
Beside the mock mast the Maharaja Lela launching also without any propellers.
Type 26 is heavier than our gowind 3000 class but if compared with modularity of gowind 3000 it can be expand in area of more sensor and weaponary. Instead of installed with mica/ aster I still prefer essm + ramsys for air defense…
Did you know even with its 20 km range, a battery of VL Mica can cover the whole of Penang island, plus both bridges, all of Butterworth and even the airbase. It’s actually short range verging on medium. My worry is if it’s effective against supersonic anti-ship missiles, based on my calculations, with its M 3 speed, it is. However, it will not be effective against hypersonic missiles.
The type 26 costs more than usd1 billion each. It is basically a destroyer, with max displacement of 8,000 tonnes
@ tomtom
the avent of hypersonic missiles is one of the reason why we should go for subsurface deterrence.
@Api69
Looks like there is a whole slew of problems encountered in LCS project. Thank you for the info. Lets see if future LCS will have this problems or not.
@Fadiman
“Instead of installed with mica/ aster I still prefer essm + ramsys for air defense…”
I would trade the RAM with something like Millennium gun or Bofors 40mm or quad-packed CAMM. RAM have too little range for a missile.
“Did you know even with its 20 km range, a battery of VL Mica can cover the whole of Penang island”
All SAMs lose energy as they go further out on range, after the motor burns out they glide the rest of the way. As such its terminal performance is lower than performance at closer range, and the maximum performance of the targets it can intercept is lower.
An Aster missile is essentially a MICA missile with an additional booster stage. But it not only more able to protect a greater area but also offer greater effectiveness within the area.
@Luqman
Don’t forget Thales also produces 40mm gun.
The only option to counter supersonic ssm is Essm or Aster….
@ fadiman
The problem is not supersonic, its the raise of hypersonic missiles. Right now there is no countermeasure for that.
While the danger for surface ships is increasing, sub killing tech hasnt changed much.
Eid Mubarak to all, may peace be to you all, thank you for sharing, asking for forgiveness as any provoking wasn’t intentional, with profound respecr, i found that Malaysian, even not all, care for their arm forces, hopefully, sooner than later, the politicians put defnce matter first.
Vl Mica will be replaced by the new VL Mica ard 2025-30. The manufacturers claim double the range to abt 40km being a point defence system with some area defence.
At the end of the day, camms or mica, can we select something that wont delay the LCA.
I have even heard that it will be cut down to just 2 due to our current financial state being the most positive news ive heard in a awhile. Come on!
The French bought one battery of Aster 30 for about USD 400 million (land). Not sure how much the sea version of Aster 15 and 30 will cost.
@ joe
on the sylver for CAMM. my previous info is probably wrong.
http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SYLVER-VLS-1.jpg
The Sylver A35 that fits the VL MICA is also the one compatible with CAMM.
@…
“sub killing tech hasnt changed much.”
But with only 2 subs, our killing potential isn’t something to shout about. With sufficient sub-surface net around CC carriers, they won’t likely be able to get within torp range attacks, so it needs to fight at standoff ranges with torp-launched Brahmos NG and together with MKM air-launched Brahmos NG, these will be our main deterrence against aggressive CC carriers operations.
@ joe
” But with only 2 subs, our killing potential isn’t something to shout about ”
Why i planned for 4 more scorpenes and 6 DG350, with 1 of the additional scorpenes before 2030.
” With sufficient sub-surface net around CC carriers ”
Subhunting with sonar is not an exact science (unlike radar for example). Plenty of times in exercises subs are able to take a kill of major surface combattants. In busy waterways like SCS with plenty of noises in the water, it is very2 hard to look for subs.
Selamat hari raya all
@Fadiman
“The only option to counter supersonic ssm is Essm or Aster….”
I would argue that all SAM ie MICA, CAMM, SM2/3/6, Sea Wolf, RAM, Russian 9M series as well as CIWS guns could shoot down supersonic ssm.
@joe
I think @… meant anti-sub techs. That being said having Brahmos NG or even Brahmos would definitely increase the chance of hitting a ship as it is sea skimming 3 meters above sea at Mach 3. Whats more interesting is the Brahmos 2 with Mach 7 speed. MKM with SAP518 and Brahmos/Brahmos NG is my dream setup, but now its just a dream. We can swap our Migs for more MKMs (just like what @… proposed) and including a few Brahmos .
AM – “All SAMs lose energy as they go further out on range, after the motor burns out they glide”
Whether they are launched vertically or from inclined launchers also plays a part in their manoeuvrability.
…. – “The problem is not supersonic””
Actually it is still a problem and subject to uncertainties. Whilst simulated and actual trials have been performed; we have no way of knowing how defences will cope with such threats (unlike the case with subsonic missiles).
Early warning plays a big role; as how fast the ship’s crew reacts; as does integration/coordination (the USN’s CEC comes into mind) but I’m not confident that stuff like MICA, Seawolf (the OEM famously claims it stopped a 4.5inch shell during tests), RAM and various gun based CIWS cab stop an incoming ASM moving at Mach 4.
We know that ammo like 3P curtain of steel in the path of an incoming ASM but whether it’s hit by gun or missiles, the possibility of parts of the missile hitting the ship (with great speed and energy) is real.
Missiles aside: for me mines are a bigger worry. They are relatively cheap; are hard to detect, have a long shelf life and can be deployed in numbers with anything with rails and a GPS.
Mines enclosed in ceramic casings are a worry; as are RAP ones that move st high speeds leaving the target little time to react and mines programmed to detonate upon picking up a specific acoustic contact.
Whilst most navies realise the threat; how much training they can actually devote is an issue; given the whole lift of other things they also have to do.
…, – “sub killing tech hasnt changed much.”
Despite all the advances; one thing remains : ASW is very time (unless conditions are perfect, detecting, tracking and acquiring a good enough solution to engage is time consuming) and resource intensive and (like MCM) is a skill that’s hard to acquire and to maintain.
One area in which ASW will undergo a fundamental change is when the USN’s P-3s eventfully get the ability to detect, track and engage contacts from high altitudes; leaving subs with little or no warning; compared to previously when MPAs and helos has to fly low to do their business.
Another area that will make it harder for airborne sub hunters is if in the coming years sub launched MANPADs (either tube or fin launch) proliferate. They’ve been around for decades but weren’t technically reliable (some Soviet boats had Strela and the Israelis Blowpipe) but things have changed.
Fadiman – “The only option to counter supersonic ssm is Essm or Aster…””
Not really.
You’d need a ship that has both a hard and soft kill option; which also has early warning and was linked to other assets; not only for increased SA but to enable those other assets to also contribute to dealing with the incoming ASM.
Luqman- “That being said having Brahmos NG or even Brahmos would definitely increase the chance of hitting a ship as it is sea skimming 3 meters above sea at Mach 3””
Maybe but for me; the problem we face is not with the ordnance with have but in our ability to actually coordinate and synchronise such a strike in the face of certain measures employed by the opponent.
Another problem is actually finding the target (which is constantly on the move) and having the ability to effectively engage it (it might be protected by fighters and may be employing jamming).
The ability to launch the missile might also not be dependent on its “effective range” or “maximum range” as laid down in its promotional brochure but operational circumstances.
@ azlan
” Despite all the advances; one thing remains : ASW is very time (unless conditions are perfect, detecting, tracking and acquiring a good enough solution to engage is time consuming) and resource intensive and (like MCM) is a skill that’s hard to acquire and to maintain ”
exactly!
why it is more better return of investment to get submarines as our maritime deterrence effort. it is very2 hard to look for submarines, while with surface ships it is nowhere you can hide with all the high resolution satellites, radars, EO, AIS etc.
The more resources the agressor need to spend on ASW is also less resource for them to accomplish their goals.
Not only it is extremely hard to find a submarine, the technology to kill a sub is also basically the same for ages, by torpedo, mines or depth charges, unlike multiple new techs like hypersonic missiles for surface ship killing.
@ azlan
” USN’s P-3s eventfully get the ability to detect, track and engage contacts from high altitudes; leaving subs with little or no warning ”
I believe it is the P-8. Tracking subs from high altitude depends entirely on sonobouys. Performance of sonobuoys in littoral areas is still a hit and miss, as these expandable sensors does not have the fidelity of say a TAS. Using active sonobuoys will immediately alert submarines on MPA presence.
BTW got a few tidbits on the gowinds.
Lets just say that the main problem is not with the builders. Somebody has requested a major change and this is where the big portion of the delays and the need for extra money is coming from. Hopefully that change will be worthwhile and will make the ship much more lethal.
I am just guessing here but it seems to have something to do with upgrading the PSIM (as i heard it was a very major change but it is not the IPMS, or those i talked with trying to smokescreen the matter)
….
Yes it is the P-8. I believe the method used is something other than sonobuoys. Something probably involving MAD.
I won’t use the term “game changer” but this ability marks a complete way of doing ASW; e.g. engaging targets from high altitude.
…. – “why it is more better return of investment to get submarines as our maritime deterrence effort””
I see it beyond that. That subs no doubt are hard to detect (by virtue of not being visible) but their successful use also requires them to be used with other assets.
As such it’s not the sub by itself that creates the deterrent effect but the sub benefiting from the cooperation gained by operating in conjunction with other assets.
….. – “The more resources the agressor need to spend on ASW is also less resource for them to accomplish their goals.””
It’s a 2 way street and absolute.
Firstly an opponent might enough resources to allocate for more than one task. The amount of resources he will have to allocate are also dependent on operational circumstances; e.g. whether he has no idea where it is or has a pretty good idea as to where it is but hasn’t nailed down the exact location.
Secondly (we’ve discussed this previously in depth); it’s fine to say a sub creates an effect far out of proportion and draws away enemy units (matters not in dispute) but a sub which is too focus on avoiding detection (and the detection that comes with it) is also a sub that is unable to do its job….
We saw this in WW1 and WW2; where strong escorts and airpower ultimately prevented subs from accomplishing what was intended. Even in the Falklands (in the absence of any external support the subs main issue was locating the convoy and getting close to it) and the India/Pakistan war; despite the success and near success of individual subs; they spent much of their time evading detection.
Repl
Not the USN P8s they not equipped with MAD
@Luqman
“We can swap our Migs for more MKMs (just like what @… proposed) and including a few Brahmos ”
Honestly look at the value of our migs I think we can consider ourselves lucky if all 10 can be exchanged for 4 Brahmos missiles, forget about MKI.
What is the value of a second hand Mig-29 9.12? Close to nothing I’d say. This is the lowest grade ‘for Soviet allies only’ Mig-29 (aka East Germany’s version), not even the 9.13 with fat spine.
P.S.
We also can’t take for granted that a sub will always be hard to detect. A sub might be detected whilst it’s snorkelling or because of acoustic conditions; at a considerable distance away from its intended target: whilst trying to get into position.
We also have to factor in the very vital point that a SSKs Achilles heel is it power supply – the enemy will take advantage of this. The sub can conserve power supply by switching off the AC and certain screens but ultimately it has to recharge its batteries (yes I’m aware of advances taking place with batteries but I’m referring to the present and foreseeable future.
Yes A SSKs worst nightmare would be having to surface because it has totally run out of power and was unable to recharge its batteries.
@ marhalim / azlan
Yes, the USN P-8 is the first ASW MPA that does away with MAD, and depends solely on sonobuoys to detect submarines. This is what what enables it to operate at higher altitudes.
Indian P-8 does have MAD, and this forces the aircraft to fly its mission at low altitude, mitigating the original advantage of the P-8 platform.
… – “he technology to kill a sub is also basically the same for ages””
Yes but the same can be said of many other things. Take aerial warfare; whether it was over the Flanders in 1918 or over Punjab in 2019; the principles remain the same : the side which detects the other first and which fires shot has a distinct advantage.
If we want to talk about the actual means; this hasn’t changed much too. In the 1960’s the primary means of detecting and engaging was not much different rush it is now : the only difference is the speed we can do it and the ease; made possible by advantages in technology.
… – “,unlike multiple new techs like hypersonic missiles for surface ship killing.”
Irrespective of the hype the technology is still in it infancy/early days and when it actually becomes available; will be monopolised by a select few.
Never mind hypersonics; even dealing with supersonic missiles (been around decades although the West was slow to catch up) still presents various issues/problems. For that matter even subsonic missiles (which can be programmed for evasive manoeuvres and different but simultaneous flight paths – like NSM) are still a major threat.
Post Yom Kippur many predicted that the ATGW had made the tank obsolete (never mind that most tanks were knocked out by other tanks rather than Saggers) and the advent of the guided ASM led many to predict the days of the surface ship was numbered. In the 1990’s I remember reading an article that future technology would make the world’s oceans very visible and would lead to the impotence of subs. That day hasn’t come yet.
Granted hypersonic missiles will in a major way impact the nature of warfare but like many other things; mankind will develop and acquire the needed responses.
Seems like Indonesia is looking to get used Bremen Class frigates for a new requirement called the Interim Readiness Frigate (IRF)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/German_frigate_Niedersachsen_%28F208%29_underway_with_other_ships_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean_on_12_July_2004_%28040712-N-7748K-008%29.jpg
Funny that our neighbours never seemed to have problem with used military articles while in Malaysia we worried so much it. Indonesia must be the best ‘dumping ground’ for Germany’s old hardware. They never seemed to have issue taking even East Germany’s patrol boats, Leopard 2, and now Bremen class?
There’re many reasons why we’re not getting second hand stuffs. One of the MAIN reason got to be people in the “business” losing out BIG by lining up poor crappy used hardware. And of course they will always tell you how badly the Skyhawk turned out to be.
Mostly buying second frigate is platform only, maybe a cannon which is still attached. Buyers need to buy sensors and weapon system.
IMO, in indonesia case ther are in need to replace the van spiejk class that already 60 years old.
A ship platform can last to over 60 years, so this bremen class still have 25-30 years. As a stop gap this is a better choice than they still continue use van spiejk class. They can strip all the sensors and weapon system in van spiejk and put in bremen class with no problem because the bremen class is much bigger than the spiejk class
Hornet Lover,
The armed services have no issues getting owned as long as certain conditions are met : it must suit our actual operational requirements and mustn’t cost and arm and leg to operate and maintain for the remainder of their service lives.
No point achieving short term costs savings by getting something cheap if in the long run it becomes prohibitively expensive and costly to support .
Some things we should buy pre owned and some things we shouldn’t.
What we shouldn’t do is to assume that just because something pre owned is in good shape and has lots of life left; that it won’t lead long term issues.
Hornet Lover – “ They never seemed to have issue taking even East Germany’s patrol boats””
Actually they did. One of the boats capsized on the way to Indonesia and the bulk were in various stages of completion. It was a logistical nightmare for them as nothing on the former DDR ships were compatible with what they currently had. It was Habibie’s idea.
Hornet Lover – “ And of course they will always tell you how badly the Skyhawk turned out to be”
Not just the Skyhawks but other things too. The problem with the Skyhawks was we didn’t want to spend the cash needed and that time the Hawks were already being considered. It’s fine for the politicians to decide what to get and what to spend but when things go wrong the services get the blame.
Long term costs and commonality is the issue : which is why we’ve rejected several offers in the past.
We have limited resources and operating budgets are tight. Which is why the 5/15 and CAP 55 is aimed at reducing our large logistical support footprint.
Romeo – “. Buyers need to buy sensors and weapon system””
That is the least of the problem.
Unless one wants to spend a lot (depending on whether they see it a sound long term investment); certain things of a ship might need replacing in the coming years. (e.g. generators, shafts, circuitry, etc); either because of age or because of support issues.
Romeo – “A ship platform can last to over 60 years””
Not necessarily. Depends on a host of various issues including the hull. As they get older they also require mote maintenance which adds to overall costs and results in them spending less time at sea.
@ azlan
I am talking about tech to kill subs (torpedoes and what not) and you are talking about aerial warfare principles.
The principles are of course the same but tech to kill aircrafts has advanced, with AESA radars, DRFM jammers, IRST, and now looking at laser hardkill systems.
More so now with techs to kill surface ships. It has never been easier to find ships at sea than we currently can with AIS, high resolution geospatial satellites, HD radar tech, automated EO search systems like ViDAR and such. New emerging technologies like stealth missiles, hypersonic (mach 5 and above) missiles, advanced intertial systems, hyperspectral missile seekers etc.
With subs, yes the fidelity of sonars are increasing, but the ways to kill a sub has never changed much. It is still very much more like an art rather than a science.
There are always pros and cons even if buying a brand new one. The cost and benefit analysis seems working for indonesia whether buying a brand new or second hand.
At least they can have a younger and bigger ship than their current van spiejk class which is should be retired soon. They have a more capable shipyard industry which is owned by the state. Dealing with old ship and make them worked will not be their new experience.
Reply
If you read the story the decision to go with came from the MOD. I have been told by industry sources that the Indonesian Navy prefers new hulls
@ Azlan
“The armed services have no issues getting owned as long as certain conditions are met : it must suit our actual operational requirements and mustn’t cost and arm and leg to operate and maintain for the remainder of their service lives.”
I think anyone who studied a wee bit of modern management will know for any asset procurement project it’s always about the TCO. I suppose all our mindef, MoF staffs and all generals and admirals in our armed forces are well versed in this as well. In Malaysia it’s always about the execution and the willingness to carry out the hard to swallow decisions. No matter how we talk about how a project will benefit this and that sector, prop up economy, or whatever, it’s almost certain that
1. Gross project cost overrun
2. Massive delay
3. Final article is at much discounted state than initial planned, including not meeting spec and short lifespan
4. Someone lining up the pocket handsomely…
Looks like quite a lot those hardware we got in the 80s are the sound one, eg, the Handalans, Perdanas, Kasturis, Tiger II, or even the Condors. Maybe the art of ‘isi dompet’ wasn’t as matured then…
Reply
Handalan and Perdana were bought in early/mid 1970s. Nuri should be part of the list, bought in mid 1960s. The original Handalan class and also KD Rahmat were notable failures of that time.
I saw a Youtube video about RMN (supposedly) getting Makassar LSDs. Here’s the link if anyone interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7XZkK0CJD4
Notwithstanding the nonsensical video captions (made by Indons after all) the MRSSes are part of RMN’s 15 to 5 plans, but nothing has been decided yet, correct?
Reply
Yes the original plan was to get the MRSS from PT PAL with BNS as their partner. Probably all build here or partially built here. The LCS debacle is big issue for them going forward now even if money is allocated for RMK12
@ marhalim
original handalans? you mean the original vosper perkasa class?
those are probably the most advanced missile boats in the world of the era (1960s)
Reply
Yes, most advanced but not really suited for our needs
Hornet Lover
5. Buying something pre owned which is cheap but at a later period finding out that the costs to keep it operational is steadily rising (for a variety of reasons) and that when all factors were taken into account; added long term value would have been achieved if we had bought new; notwithstanding the higher initial investment needed. Certain stuff we should get pre owned; certain stuff we shouldn’t.
Something which we got pre owned and our money’s worth was Inderapura. She was hot transferred and in good overall condition.
Hornet Lover – “ Maybe the art of ‘isi dompet’ wasn’t as matured then“”
Actually; the policy of basing procurement on how it would benefit the country overall (not just militarily); including the need or desire to benefit the local industry; was fully in place yet.
Marhalim,
Other things that weren’t a success from our operational perspective would also include the Albatross, Panhards and Perkasa (with the wire guided SS-11 and thirsty engines).
The art of ‘isi dompet’ wasn’t prevalent back then probably because the Grand Old Man was just starting his PM-ship.
Mahathir took office in 1981.
@marhalim
What was wrong with KD Rahmat?
Reply
She was never fully operational due to teething technical faults
@Hornet Lover
“lowest grade ‘for Soviet allies only’ Mig-29”
What I am aware, the Fulcrums we got were supposedly destine for Russian AF but due to urgency & importance of our 1st order, we got bumped up ahead. The dorsal-spined Fulcrums were a much later development.
“Funny that our neighbours never seemed to have problem”
Not only that but they had ran with both Western & Russian aircraft way before we did and they still can run them fine. The fact is, it isn’t where they are originated from but how they are maintained and kept uptime high which makes the difference. Their Government being ran by ex-armed forces, knew what was necessary for running Western & Russian stuffs and used stuffs, so they sufficiently budgeted the maint & upgrade.
“quite a lot those hardware we got in the 80s are the sound one”
Sound they may be but remember our Skyhawks? This was a massive failure but really was our doing as we didn’t budget to maint & upgrade them. Look at SG Skyhawks that they got about same time. They were using them up until 2012 with the constant SLEPs and upgrades.
If we evaluated they still have live left, there is no problems getting used stuffs but we must put in the budget for refurb, then regular maint, and SLEPs. Otherwise, even new equipment will suffer the same fate as well.
Romeo – “and benefit analysis seems working for indonesia whether buying a brand new or second hand.”
Just because we don’t read about issues they have doesn’t mean they don’t face problems operating the various ships and planes they have; some of which are long past their retirement date and share little or no commonality; each requiring the stockpiles of different parts and requiring separate training infrastructures.
There’s a reason why Tier 1 militaries which have much more resources have long made it a priority to achieve greater commonality. Having a large support/logistical footprint is a problem for them; never mind a developing country with much less resources.
On the countries which operate mix fleets; they do so for political (they are willing to incur the penalties) reasons and some of them have far greater resources than we have. As such the fact that they can and we can’t shouldn’t arise as the circumstances differ.
– The Hornets were taken from stocks intended for the USN and were diverted to us.
– The Fulcrums were originally intended for the Soviet Air Force and became surplus to requirements. They were stored (incomplete) at an airfield and ended up in RMAF colours.
I think it is quite apparent that Indonesia is suffering from the economic fall out of Covid 19, hence, the interim frigate solution as a stop gap. This is a cheaper option
The problem is that Probowo (jokowis competitor and potential presidential aspirant) cannot be seen as weak hence the “requested” 2021 budget of USD 10 billion. Whether or not the Indonesian finance ministry will approve it is another matter. Note: Indonesias 2020 military budget was cut due to Covid 19. So it could also be a way to compensate the shortfall in 2019.
Some Indonesian projects which stalled includes the KFX(they haven paid their share for some time), iver huitfeld frigates and, new chong bodo type 209 submarines (3 bought).
Whilst indonesian plans seem fantastic by asean (- singapur) standards, it is no where near the level of sophistication and capability enhancement such as Korea, Japan, Australia and Singapore.
“This was a massive failure but really was our doing as we didn’t budget to maint & upgrade them. Look at SG Skyhawks that they got about same time. They were using them up until 2012 with the constant SLEPs and upgrades.”
Singapore retired the A-4SU from frontline service in 2005. From 2005 to 2012 only the TA-4SU trainers were in service in France.
It’s also true that Singapore saw a good number of crashes (DB even called it a “crisis”) before they gave the A-4S the upgrade (which included a new engine) to A-4SU.
ASM – “ all) the MRSSes are part of RMN’s 15 to 5 plans, but nothing has been decided yet, correct?””
Just like the government decided – again – to make MPAs a priority after MH17; MRSS’s became a priority after the loss of Inderapura. In both cases (and in many others) the government later decided to shift priorities.
Rahmat has various issues that were never fully resolved (including heavy vibration of her gearboxes). She spent much of her time at base or in dry dock. From Day One SeaCat and the tracker also never performed as advertised. The amount of cash we spent on her was way out of proportion to her actual usefulness (a bad return of investment); a situation we would later face with other things.
Reply
I was told the decision to buy the Rahmat and the Perkasa FACs were made following advice from the British, who were of course desperate to help their shipyards. Fortunately after the debacle the RMN got it right by purchasing the FACs from the French. Unfortunately it was then decided to buy a German design for the next batch of FACs and then from Sweden.
Nazri- “t is no where near the level of sophistication and capability enhancement such as Korea, Japan, Australia and Singapore.””
Of course. All those countries take their defence far more seriously and have militaries which have a higher level of staying power and force protection than the TNI. Unlike the TNI they have made it a point to achieve and maintain some level of commonality and there is less political interference.
I’ll be impressed not with what Indonesia buys but when the TNI acquires the ability to employ its assets in a coordinated and sustained manner like what Korea, Japan, Australia and Singapore.””
Of course. All those countries take their defence far more seriously and have militaries which have a higher level of staying power and force protection than the TNI. Unlike the TNI they have made it a point to achieve and maintain some level of commonality and there is less political interference.
I’ll be impressed not with what Indonesia buys but when the TNI acquires the ability to employ its assets in a coordinated and sustained manner
Korea, Japan, Australia and Singapore.””
Of course. All those countries take their defence far more seriously and have militaries which have a higher level of staying power and force protection compared to the TNI. Unlike the TNI they have made it a point to achieve and maintain some level of commonality and there is less political interference.
I’ll be impressed not with what Indonesia buys but when the TNI acquires the ability to employ its assets in a coordinated and sustained manner like what the countries you mentioned have done.
The policy of buying a bit of everything from almost everyone, with the logistical/support penalties, are to a extent due to the arms embargo following East Timor. It coloured their mindset.
Off topic
“Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering) today announced that it’s land systems arm has signed an agreement with Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (IAI) to set up a joint venture company (JV) in Singapore. ST Engineering and IAI shall each hold a 50% share of the JV.
The JV, named Proteus Advanced Systems Pte Ltd, will leverage the strengths and track record of its parent companies to market and sell advanced naval missile systems, including a new 5 GEN anti-ship missile system called ‘Blue Spear’. According to sources associated with the new JV, Blue Spear (5G SSM) introduces an advanced and novel approach that addresses the challenges of the modern naval arena for years to come. The Blue Spear anti-ship missile is co-developed by ST Engineering and IAI under a development agreement signed between the two countries a few years ago. Based on this work-sharing agreement ST Engineering’s role includes design, development, and production of major subsystems like the booster motor and warhead.”
“What I am aware, the Fulcrums we got were supposedly destine for Russian AF but due to urgency & importance of our 1st order, we got bumped up ahead. The dorsal-spined Fulcrums were a much later development”
“– The Fulcrums were originally intended for the Soviet Air Force and became surplus to requirements. They were stored (incomplete) at an airfield and ended up in RMAF colours.”
@joe and Azlan
The Mig29N were what was called the white tail Migs. Those are incomplete Migs, 100+, mothballed in Mig factories destined for Soviet satellite states’ air force before the breakup of Soviet Union, and are of the lowest spec. I’ve a copy of late nineties (can’t remember what) air force magazine with a title ‘Told you so’ mentioning about our ‘N’, which suppose to be ‘newer’ than the ‘M’ operated by the Russian air force were nothing more than white tail migs completed and sold to us. Honestly I think the only difference between ours and the East Germany copies is the in-flight refueling probe. I remember also there’s an article in Berita Harian bragging about ours being the N, and supposed to be better than the M of the Russian just because it’s on a subsequent alphabet. In fact the then defence minister jokingly said it’s N because of his name… Interestingly around that time, there’s also another BH article comparing the Mig-29N and the F/A-18D. The writer mentioned about the lack of FBW in the Mig, which to me was a shocker! Back then information was hard to obtain unless we know someone who’s in the know…
In fact, there’s a time around 2010 where Mig was worry about running out of the white tail stock as they managed to sell of the cheap fighters to quite a lot of 3rd world air forces.
Marhalim,
The decision to get FACs reflected our needs during that period and that fact that we couldn’t or wouldn’t afford extra frigates. Like the Vosper PCs we used our FACs for roles they weren’t intended; e.g. patrolling the EEZ and as escorts during reclamation work in the Spratlys.
Their seakeeping and other limitations made them totally unsuitable for the roles we assigned them. When they were based at Tanjung Gelang (and also at Labuan) ere were times during the monsoon season when they couldn’t put to sea at all.
AM,
A Board of Inquiry formed following the crashes recommended certain upgrades including a new engine. Unlike Singapore we just didn’t feel that worth it to spend significant funds on it. Plus, around the 1987 period we knew we were getting something else : the Tornado, later cancelled and replaced by Hawks.
@ marhalim
why do you consider the jerong class “unfortunate”?
Both perdana fac(m) and jerong class fac(g) ships are designed by Lurssen.
The difference is that the perdana was made in france, while the jerong was made in malaysia
Also why do you consider handalans as “unfortunate” ?
” Yes the original plan was to get the MRSS from PT PAL with BNS as their partner. Probably all build here or partially built here. The LCS debacle is big issue for them going forward now even if money is allocated for RMK12 ”
I dont see that the MRSS project should be given to BNS, whatever the reason is. I would want BNS to really concentrate on the LCS, and when that is completed, to continue building 3 more to 2030.
I have heard recently that the MRSS project is really moving forward. But i don’t see that traditional LPD designs that TLDM is looking at and was offered for the MRSS for are actually the best fit for our national requirements. Unlike Indonesia and the Philippines, we dont have marines. For us what we really need is a quick transport to move army equipments (mainly heavy vehicles such as IFVs) from west to east malaysia and vice versa.
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A-closer-look-at-the-Littoral-Strike-Ship-1014×487.jpg
A ship like this would be used for port to port transfer of equipments (a full mechanized infantry battalion worth), SF support of enduring operations, a floating helicopter base, HADR support, casualty/hospital facilities. This ship is based on European fast roro vessels. This idea may not be suitable for others, but considering our strategic predicament with our landmass straddling both sides of the south china sea, this concept is imo the best fit for our MRSS requirements.
@Marhalim
“If you read the story the decision to go with came from the MOD. I have been told by industry sources that the Indonesian Navy prefers new hulls”
True..
Their initial plan was building locally PKR sigma. They have agreement with the Damen to build up to 20 units. Later, due to china action was getting worse in SCS, they postponed to build another PKR and saw opportunity in building Iver Huitfeldt.
@Azlan
“Just because we don’t read about issues they have doesn’t mean they don’t face problems operating the various ships and planes”
There you go…
I see their strong point on that. They can deal with the problems.
@Nazri
“The problem is that Probowo (jokowis competitor and potential presidential aspirant) cannot be seen as weak hence the “requested” 2021 budget of USD 10 billion”
It is jokowi himself is the problem. He actually failed to achieve TNI MEF as planed. He preffers building infrastucture including their new capital city which maybe delayed due to covid19
Romeo – “There you go…
I see their strong point on that. They can deal with the problems.””
Everybody can “deal” with the such a problem. Even if the RMN suddenly got Russian ships; it can “deal” with the problem. The question is why should it? Why should it operate something totally different with the resulting issues it brings?
Contrary to that impression you have; the TNI has issues operating the various different gear it has. Anybody would. It’s got nothing to do with a “string point” but having to make do despite the penalties:drawbacks incurred. It’s not for nothing that others are aiming at greater commonality/standardisation.
Hornet Lover – “mothballed in Mig factories destined for Soviet satellite states’ Air Force”
Ours were stored at an airfield and were originally intended for the Russian airforce.
Hornet Lover – “ are of the lowest spec””
Ours certainly weren’t.
We got just the fuselages and fitted then our to our liking – this how could the be of “lowest spec”? When they entered service and later after their upgrade at ATSC (new radar, engines with a longer life, enlarged fuel tanks and other things) they were the most capable Fulcrums anywhere.
Also, the government this time around really has to focus on the economy and stop mucking about like what the Grand Old Man did. It’s time to implement GST, it’s more efficient and fair (everyone pays) and probably less room for people to do creative accounting.
Education and healthcare received the biggest chunk of last year’s budget; we have to re-look whether this much money is really needed for education. Adding subjects like C-programming is useless if the teachers themselves don’t understand it; better to focus on strengthening basics like languages, sciences and maths instead. And we really need to get ourselves healthier (present company included) so that we can reduce healthcare spending. A lot of our health problems are preventable ones.
…. … – “Unlike Indonesia and the Philippines, we dont have marines. For us what we really need is a quick transport to move army equipments”
Actually; for the PN the ability to move heavy equipment and HADR were the driving factors behind acquiring the capability. Transporting the PMC (whilst one of the roles) is secondary as PMCs have long had a presence in where they are needed (Mindanao and Sulu). The main consideration in getting the capability was actually to move stuff and HADR.
Azlan “A Board of Inquiry formed following the crashes recommended certain upgrades including a new engine. Unlike Singapore we just didn’t feel that worth it to spend significant funds on it. Plus, around the 1987 period we knew we were getting something else : the Tornado, later cancelled and replaced by Hawks.”
How certain were we, before the fact, that an order would be placed in time and in the quantity needed?
As it was, by that point we had dropped our plans to get more F-5s and the F-20s that we considered after that. When the Tornado order materialised in 1988 it was for 12 aircraft, and the 1990 Hawk order was for 10 single seaters, against the 40 Skyhawks we had. The orders for the MiGs and Hornets would come even later.
… – “I am talking about tech to kill subs (torpedoes and what not) and you are talking about aerial warfare principles.”
I’m well aware of the point you were driving at and the distinction between naval and air warfare. My mention of air warfare in relation to naval was merely to point out that despite advances in tech; the core principles remain the same as do the overall means.
…. “The principles are of course the same but tech to kill aircrafts has advanced, with AESA radars, DRFM jammers, IRST, and now looking at laser hardkill systems”
IRSTs have been around for decades. AESA and DRFM jammers are relatively new and change the way air arms go about their business but ultimately they are essentially major advances/improvements of existing things.
The ways subs are detected and engaged may not have fundamentally changed but rapid and key advances in tech (whether in sonar or torpedo) has nonetheless also had a major impact. Not as visible or to the extent of AESA and newer jammers
AM – “How certain were we, before the fact, that an order would be placed in time and in the quantity needed?”
By 1986 we had already made a decision not to subject the Skyhawks to a full upgrade. It was decided that the cash would be put to better use buying something newer. We were under no illusions that the Skyhawks would be replaced on a 1 to 1 basis.
AM – “When the Tornado order materialised in 1988 it was for 12 aircraft”
It was included in the MOU but never ordered. Some sources listed 12 IDRs, others listed 8. In his article on the RMAF in 1997 the AFM editor mentioned stored ADVs.
What is certain is that the Tornado was dropped because it would have been prohibitively expensive for us to support and would have stretched us to the limit; resource wise.
AM – “As it was, by that point we had dropped our plans to get more F-5s and the F-20s that we considered after that””
The F-20s were to have been ordered at around the same period as the Skyhawks. The dropping of the F-20 and the need for attritional replacements resulted in the RMAF still having a requirement for them as late as 1988/88. The last Skyhawks were only retired in 1994/95; employed as “buddy” tankers for the Hawks.
Somehow when people talk about MAD I always assume it means Mutually Assured Destruction…
I suppose in sub hunting it means Magnetic Anomaly Detection? Or Massive Airburst Detonation? or rather…
Massively Acquired Debt?
Reply
Its the Magnetic one
…..
My view is the nature of air warfare was transformed long before the advent of the AESA, new gen jammers and other things; by the proliferation of data links (enabling an aircraft to passively engage a target) and 2nd/3rd gen AAMs; for which no amount of evasive flying (unlike the past) will enable a targeted aircraft to shake off a AAM once it’s within its “no escape zone”; in the terminal phase.
@ azlan
” 2nd/3rd gen AAMs; for which no amount of evasive flying (unlike the past) will enable a targeted aircraft to shake off a AAM once it’s within its “no escape zone”; in the terminal phase ”
those AAMs now has plenty of countermeasure options that can be chosen from. for radar guided ones could be countered by DRFM jammers with high processing power and memory, also with active towed decoys. IR guided ones can be countered with something like the Leonardo DAIRCM (which is the latest tech that puts laser jammers at each MAWS sensor) or the russian 101KS-O.
My view is that in most other fields, like air warfare and surface warfare, there has been plenty of new techs introduced that has transformed the way we fight. But in anti-submarine warfare, techs to increase the fidelity of sensors and weapons is there, but the fundamental way to seek and destroy a sub is still the same.
…. – “those AAMs now has plenty of countermeasure options that can be chosen from””
Counter measures are the only way; unlike in the past when evasive manoeuvres by its own could work (depending on the circumstances). The whole process will take seconds and an aircraft which simultaneously has to deal with say a IR and radar seeker will have it’s work cut.
Of course the side which fires also has a major advantage.
Off topic.
Beautiful photos of PLA-N new sail training ship, Polang.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_QqSCDUwAEIHpg?format=jpg&name=large
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_MHpeVUEAIomy1?format=jpg&name=large
@Azlan
“Everybody can “deal” with the such a problem. Even if the RMN suddenly got Russian ships; it can “deal” with the problem”
When was I talking about RMN?
Romeo – “When was I talking about RMN?””
If you read again my post; it’s plainly obvious what I meant and why I mentioned the RMN. At no point was it suggested that you made reference to the RMN.
You spoke about the ability of the TNI-AL to operate and maintain a fleet consisting of ships with little or no commonality/standardisation. I merely pointed out why other navies are standardising and why the RMN can (and has) operates such a diverse fleet before but is now standardising to reduce its logistical/support footprint.
@Azlan
“You spoke about the ability of the TNI-AL to operate and maintain…”
No, i didnt.
I said Indonesia not TNI AL.
RMN or TNI just user.
Buying used or brand new is government final decision. The different is what ever the Indonesia choose they can deal with the problem. They can make it worked.
See what happened to LCS?
Romeo – “They can make it worked”
Well using your line of reasoning; we’ve also “made it work” (for decades of operating equipment with little or no communality/standardisation) but at what cost?
Romeo – “See what happened to LCS”
Apples and comparison. The discussion was about the various types of equipment operated by the TNI; not drifts in the LCS programme which is totally unrelated.
You seem to be under the impression that just because it hasn’t been reported that they have been facing issues (anybody) means they are “making it work” or are not facing any issues ….