Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update

This is a discussion on Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by renjer I agree with you 100% on this. Thanks Renjer Anyways back to topic of RMN capabilities, ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 2.33 average.
Old July 27th, 2006   #16
Junior Member
Private First Class
Subangite's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 73
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by renjer
I agree with you 100% on this.
Thanks Renjer

Anyways back to topic of RMN capabilities, regarding the Blohm + Voss Meko 100, Kedah class OPV assembly, does anyone know if the 27 planned vessels now have been scaled down, especially in light of PSC-Naval Dockyards mismanagement and cost over runs? Has there been any confirmation of this?
Subangite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2006   #17
Junior Member
Private First Class
Ding's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 89
Threads:
the future of the NGPV is not known at the moment. I think the navy is taking a wait-see stance at the moment, ie seeing how the 6 ships turn out. i still think it's wasted for the NGPV to be outfitted as an OPV as the ships will have no self defence capability. atleast if funding is short to outfit the NGPV to a multimission corvette, maybe give some specialization to it. say 2 AAW corvette, 2 ASuW corvette and 2 ASW corvette. so the AAW corvette will have minimal (but atleast still have some) ASW and ASuW capability and the ASuW will have...well you get the picture. I think in this way, we wont wasted a good platform by denying it a measure of self-defence.

In regards to the RBN OPV's, I still agree with subangite to get new FFG, than to have new OPV's in the long run. but if we can get gooooood discounts on the RBN OPV's and still continue to get the frigates assembled in Malaysia, so much the better!

I like the Laksamana Class Corvette as it is light but armed to the teeth. I think RMN combat vessel structure should be some 4-6 Light multimission frigates and 12 multimission corvettes like the Laksamana class.

ps, subangite, i presume you stay in subang. say met up for teh tarik session someday??

Last edited by Ding; July 27th, 2006 at 10:43 AM.
Ding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2006   #18
Junior Member
Private First Class
Subangite's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 73
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ding
the future of the NGPV is not known at the moment. I think the navy is taking a wait-see stance at the moment, ie seeing how the 6 ships turn out. i still think it's wasted for the NGPV to be outfitted as an OPV as the ships will have no self defence capability. atleast if funding is short to outfit the NGPV to a multimission corvette, maybe give some specialization to it. say 2 AAW corvette, 2 ASuW corvette and 2 ASW corvette. so the AAW corvette will have minimal (but atleast still have some) ASW and ASuW capability and the ASuW will have...well you get the picture. I think in this way, we wont wasted a good platform by denying it a measure of self-defence.

In regards to the RBN OPV's, I still agree with subangite to get new FFG, than to have new OPV's in the long run. but if we can get gooooood discounts on the RBN OPV's and still continue to get the frigates assembled in Malaysia, so much the better!

I like the Laksamana Class Corvette as it is light but armed to the teeth. I think RMN combat vessel structure should be some 4-6 Light multimission frigates and 12 multimission corvettes like the Laksamana class.

ps, subangite, i presume you stay in subang. say met up for teh tarik session someday??
Thanks Ding, I'm currently in Australia, but I do call Subang home, teh tarik when I'm back in our tanah air sounds great.

By the way why do you think the NGPV wasted to be fitted as an OPV, Malaysia has an enourmous coastline, not to mention the EEZ and the at times pirate prone malacca straits, sabah coast. Thus Turning the NGPV's to multimission corvettes, AAW corvettes, ASuW corvettes, ASW corvette, would be in my opinion not necessary.

The great thing about the Meko 100 design is that retrofit and upgrade processes can be easily carried out thanks to a modular open architecture, thus changing these vessels and adding different systems can be done when called for by the RMN.

According to the Blohm + Voss press release " With the MEKO 100's, Malaysia is making a very special valuable contribution to protecting and safeguarding international maritime traffic, especially in the extremely busy Straits of Malacca at the transition from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean, part of the main merchant shipping route from Europe to Asia."

I think ASW, AAW capabilities wouldn't be necessary to protect Malaysian waters from ruthless rag-tag pirates. But this is based on the premise that the primary purpose for these vessels is to protect international maratime traffic. Why send ASW, AAW corvettes out on coastal patrol duties when OPVs are more suited for this job?
Subangite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2006   #19
Junior Member
Private First Class
Ding's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 89
Threads:
If it's about protecting the malaysian waters from pirates, then we have a perfectly capable FAC (gun) i think there's 6 of then in the Jerong class. They maybe old but at least they are still capable of patrolling the straits with sufficient patrol endurance.

Also i think the MMEA/Malaysian Coast Guard is established so that the RMN can concentrate on being a blue-water navy. the coast guards have taken most of the navy's patrol craft (including 2 OPV's of the Musytari class for long endurance patrol) and should be perfectly capable to do the job.

I think as a new procurement/asset for the RMN, it should support the navy's quest to become a blue-water force. Leave the policing of malaysian waters to the MMEA, that's what they are there for. But at least like you say, the ships is FFBNW, so we do have the option of uograding later on
Ding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2006   #20
Junior Member
Private First Class
Subangite's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 73
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ding
If it's about protecting the malaysian waters from pirates, then we have a perfectly capable FAC (gun) i think there's 6 of then in the Jerong class. They maybe old but at least they are still capable of patrolling the straits with sufficient patrol endurance.
I think there aren't enough ships for the MMEA, on the governments force structure planning, none are capable to enforce the outer regions EEZ especially in bad weather. The total area of the Malaysian maritime estate is around 152,000 nm², the small amount of "jerong class" or other naval assets in the MMEA cannot still sufficiently cover such a huge area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ding
Also i think the MMEA/Malaysian Coast Guard is established so that the RMN can concentrate on being a blue-water navy. the coast guards have taken most of the navy's patrol craft (including 2 OPV's of the Musytari class for long endurance patrol) and should be perfectly capable to do the job.
Whilst I do believe in the formation of the MMEA/Coast Guard, having the navy's old patrol crafts are still not enough for its mandated duties, and definately no where near "perfectly capable to do the job", the MMEA has a daunting job to be done with its current assets. The MMEA will assume responsibility for enforcement and SAR throughout a vast maritime estate. In some places, geography demands that vessels be capable of sustained operations far out to sea. In others, vessels are required to be nimble and fast. Maritime threats, risks, resources and uses vary considerably throughout the territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ and continental shelf.

Its ideal force structure as planned by the government calls for 39 vessels that include 10 helicopter carrying OPV's, 10 medium patrol boats (55-60m length), 15 high-speed patrol boats, amongst the 4 existing ex RMN patrol boats.

Source: http://www.mima.gov.my/mima/htmls/pa...mtaib/mmea.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ding
I think as a new procurement/asset for the RMN, it should support the navy's quest to become a blue-water force. Leave the policing of malaysian waters to the MMEA, that's what they are there for. But at least like you say, the ships is FFBNW, so we do have the option of uograding later on
The RMN as Blue water navy will not happen prehaps even in our life time, nor do I think thats their goal. The term blue water navy concerns navies that are able to project force beyond littoral waters, no South East Asian navy is even close to that capability. In fact no Asian navy is seen as blue water currently. Though maybe sometime in the near future, China and India would definately arrive to this status. Why should the RMN concentrate in blue water capability when its green water capabilities still needs much improvement?
Subangite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2006   #21
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,467
Threads:
Re:

Deleted

Last edited by weasel1962; October 18th, 2008 at 11:53 PM.
weasel1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2006   #22
Junior Member
Private First Class
Ding's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 89
Threads:
you make a compelling argument.
Ding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2006   #23
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Overall assessment of RMN

I believe the RMN is a strong regional navy with very strong ASUW capabilities, vastly improving ASW (with the arrival of Agosta and Scorpene) and a good short-range air defence (Aspide on Laksamana and Sea Wolf on Lekiu).
What puzzles me is the lack of homogeneity since the navy has too many different classes of ships and weapons systems, which complicates maintenance and lowers operational availability.
If I look at the question of this thread by starting from Malaysia's needs, I am puzzled by the choice to start a submarine force instead of consolidating the surface fleet with a mix of light multi-purpose FFGs and corvettes/OPVs, with a much higher number of Super Lynx helos (or other types). I don't envisage a SSK threat for the moment, while dominance of the EEZ could become more difficult in the future given all the disagreements over control of offshore oil in the area.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2006   #24
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,467
Threads:
Re:

Deleted

Last edited by weasel1962; October 18th, 2008 at 11:53 PM.
weasel1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2006   #25
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962
whilst RSN taking the incremental approach with 2nd hand Swedish subs first before replacing these eventually with subs (then probably with some understanding of operational requirements).
In actual fact the RSN subs are regarded as some of the most sophisticated SEA platforms in the region.

they are using an export version of the aust localised sig management suite developed for Collins - and we know that they have also been fitted with some very tricky israeli sensors as well.

in addition, the Sings have some UDT sig management tech in place which so far are only used by the US, UK, France and Aust. The tech we've exported has prev only been put on nukes owned by our allies - so Sing is the second conventional owner to get the (export version of the) technology.

we know that they are an order of magnitude better than any of the regional Kilos - and we also regard them as being a match for the export Scorpenes. In real terms we also regard them as being a better platform than the modified Pakistani A-90's.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2006   #26
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962
The purchase of submarines in RMN and RSN was borne out of a recognition that the 2 countries lacked sufficient ASW to managed several sub-surface priorities.

These priorities include:
(i) detection & tracking of known/unknown submarines transiting through the very busy Malacca Straits;
(ii) prosecuting potential sub-surface threats eg from Indonesia, China, India, etc (for Malaysia including the vicinity of the Spratleys).

Despite some improvements in surface ASW capabilities eg wasp, super lynx etc, surface ASW will never be as capable as subs in tackling submarines.

However, the 2 countries diverge in their approach. RMN deciding to plunge into high-tech with the purchase of state of the art Scorpenes whilst RSN taking the incremental approach with 2nd hand Swedish subs first before replacing these eventually with subs (then probably with some understanding of operational requirements).
Yes and undoubtedly the 2 governments have identified a threat and brought forward a solution. My point is more in relative terms : given the much higher threat from enemy surface vessels (ranging from PLAN destroyers down to small pirate fast armed crafts), I would have first completed my surface navy, then moved on to the submarine threat.
Singapore has done it that way IMHO : the 6 modified Lafayette FFGs are the best in the ASEAN area, so why not invest in upgraded ex Swedish SSKs.
Malaysia has fully invested in SSKs (Agosta class Ouessant, then the 2 Scorpene) even before arming its Meko100 corvettes (currently equipped only as gun OPVs...) or adding a few sisterships to the Lekiu FFGs.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2006   #27
New Member
Private
Ramjetmissile's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 48
Threads:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...nes/index.php\

Singapore acquired 2 Sweden Submarine and it has been widely speculated that Air-Independent Propulsion will be integrated into the submarine. probably some israelis "toy" might be included.

The RSN is heading towards operating in wider scope of operations.IMO, 4 sub -2 + 2 = 4 submarines aint adequate.
Ramjetmissile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2006   #28
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,467
Threads:
Re:

Deleted

Last edited by weasel1962; October 18th, 2008 at 11:55 PM.
weasel1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2006   #29
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,467
Threads:
Re:

Deleted

Last edited by weasel1962; October 18th, 2008 at 11:54 PM.
weasel1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2006   #30
Junior Member
Private First Class
Subangite's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 73
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962
The RSN operates in 6 ship squadrons. The 2 Vastergotlands ties in to complete the 6 ships so I think that was a small factor in the purchase.
Press releases from Gov. of Singapore Mindef, quotes that the Vastergotlands are to replace some of current Challenger-class submarines, not be an addition to the current fleet.

Source: Singapore Ministry of Defence.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/new...4nov05_nr.html

Bear in mind though that these ships will not be operational until 2010 and that the RSS Challenger was built in 1968, which is strikingly odd, since it's a highly old vessel relative to the RSN's new fleet. That said, the Challenger class has been noted as performing well during exercises with the RAN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962
I don't think the AIPs are included. If it was, it would likely have been announced. No official announcements were made.

Quote:
"With Kockums' special competence, virtually any conventional submarine can be upgraded to Stirling AIP standard."

However the challenger were not fitted with AIP
The AIP is not for the current Challenger class which used to be known as Sjöormen class in the Swedish service, the AIP conversion is speculated for the new RSN Vastergotlands, which are yet to be inducted into service.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20051107.aspx

We will have to see if the Vastergotlands are to be upgraded to the Sodermanland which are Vastergotlands but with the Sterling AIP's and stealth features when transfered to the RSN. As of yet I think it remains speculation, but that it is a possibility the RSN would upgrade these vessels to the Sodermanland specifications, or can do so if or whenever it sees fit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962
I think that AIP is not needed because the added range is not a "must-have". Singapore isn't too big in any case.
It is entirely subjective what is a must have, are the 6 La Fayette class stealth frigates a must have?
Subangite is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 AM.