Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update

[STURM]

they still need to get past the "national interests" businessmen

Unfortunately it is a large problem but the issue of the local industry having a large say in influencing things is not limited to Malaysia.

it has to be fully built outside of Malaysias

It can be built in Malaysia but there must be proper oversight and politicians must not meddle or push for ambitious goals - there must a realistic appraisal of what can or can't be achieved. Various RMN ships have been constructed locally on schedule, on spec and within budget; so have ships constructed for foreign navies and civilian customers.

Every program that they tried to do in local shipyards have ended up as a clusterf*ck of epic proportions

Incorrect. Not ''every'' programme 'ended up as a clusterf*ck of epic proportions' ...

On current problems; it's due to political reasons, including placing priority on the local industry and highly ambitious programmes initiated with the RMN not having a final say.

Amin Shah's PSCI trying and failing to build the Kedah class, NGV Tech's building and failing on the two Korean training boats, to the current problems with Boustead and the LCS program. Even the MMEA was not spared; Destini/THHE shipyard's delay in the OPV program

The Naval Dockyard did built a number of ships but following a management cockup; another entity [BNS] was selected to complete the programme. Delays in delivering the pair of Gagah Samudera training ships was not due to actual issues with completion of the hulls or other areas but financial issues faced by the company originally awarded the contract; same issue with the MMEA's OPV which are mostly completed.
.

 

[koxinga]

You are being charitable.

It can be built in Malaysia but there must be proper oversight and politicians must not meddle or push for ambitious goals - there must a realistic appraisal of what can or can't be achieved. Various RMN ships have been constructed locally on schedule, on spec and within budget; so have ships constructed for foreign navies and civilian customers.

It is not a question of capability. And yes, they know exactly what they need to do.
But the track record strongly suggest that major programs, especially those with a local component are susceptible to interference by the local businessmen, in collaboration with politicians. Vested interests are very much part of Malaysian business and political landscape and that is not likely to change.

If the last two boats of the LMS program was build in Malaysia instead of Wuchang, China, I won't be surprised they come in a few years late and overbudget.

Incorrect. Not ''every'' programme 'ended up as a clusterf*ck of epic proportions' ...

I can concede this point because they have successful programs like the FICs. But that is cherry picking the one or two success, while ignoring the net effect of those failed programs.

RMN's transformation should have begun back in the 2000s where the NGPV program would have replaced most of the classes of FACs/patrol vessels and the LCS which would have transformed RMN qualitatively. Here we are, 30 years later and RMN is re-hulling those old patrol vessels, and talking about 15-to-5.

On current problems; it's due to political reasons, including placing priority on the local industry and highly ambitious programmes initiated with the RMN not having a final say.

I do not blame the RMN; their requirements and choices have always been fairly realistic and the decision for local shipbuilding, choices of weapon systems are made politically. RMN's preferred choice for the LCS was reportedly the Sigma class (ignored, decision made for the Gowind) along with the choices in combat systems (Senit replacing Tacticos, which meant that they had a collection of CMS in the fleet, from COSYS, to Tacticos, to IPN, and Nautis-F).

The Naval Dockyard did built a number of ships but following a management cockup; another entity [BNS] was selected to complete the programme. Delays in delivering the pair of Gagah Samudera training ships was not due to actual issues with completion of the hulls or other areas but financial issues faced by the company originally awarded the contract; same issue with the MMEA's OPV which are mostly completed.

Yes, but you have to question the choice to award to those shipyards. If I am not mistaken, the audit reports from the NGPV program are still available from their Finance Ministry, and none of those risks are new.

 

[STURM]

You are being charitable.

I'm merely laying out the facts as they are.

But the track record strongly suggest that major programs, especially those with a local component are susceptible to interference by the local businessmen, in collaboration with politicians.

Major programmes are heavily driven by political factors. the idea being not only to provide the RMN with the desired capability but also to ensure that it benefits the local industry as a whole. Another issue but one not really pertinent to the issue of programmes going ratshit is the fact that local companies which have tied up with certain foreign suppliers are able to exert strong influence on what gets selected.

But that is cherry picking the one or two success, while ignoring the net effect of those failed programs.

I'm not ''cherry picking'' ... You made a general statement ''every program that they tried to do in local shipyards have ended up as a clusterf*ck of epic proportions''. I simply pointed out that this is untrue....

I'm also not 'ignoring'' anything. I may not be familiar with the finer details but I'm very aware of the number of programmes which failed to deliver as intended; plus the detrimental long term consequences on the RMN.

Yes, but you have to question the choice to award to those shipyards.

BNS [the former Naval Dockyard] was selected on the basis that is it the largest naval yard in the country and it is partly government owned. The Naval Dockyard started out as a refit facility and it was something it did reasonably well but over time progressed to ship construction. I will not claim to know the full reason behind the LCS cockup but I do know that the government shares a large part of the blame. For one; the lead ship [or the lead pair] should have been constructed in France to enable BNS to go through a learning curve.

I won't be surprised they come in a few years late and overbudget.

Maybe but that is speculation. I can also speculate by saying that they might have been delivered on spec, on time and within budget; the hulls are not large and not overly complex.

Vested interests are very much part of Malaysian business and political landscape and that is not likely to change.

Indeed. It's deeply ingrained in the way things are done; similar to the way it's ingrained or is part of the way of doing things in various other countries; where the local industry with political backing; exerts strong influence and when decisions are made by the government not on factors relating to what the end user needs per see but various other factors; many of which are non military.

RMN's transformation should have begun back in the 2000s where the NGPV program would have replaced most of the classes of FACs/patrol vessels and the LCS which would have transformed RMN qualitatively

The plan in the late 1990's to the mid 2000's was for a fleet of 6 Lekiu class frigates and 2 Kasturi corvettes /light frigates to comprise Team A. The NGOPVs [Kedah class] would be Team B. The NGOPVs were to replace the fleet of 20 odd Vosper Patrol Craft but not necessarily the fleet of 14 FACs. The plan was actually for 27 hulls over a 16 year period; this plan was the political favourite but was not seen as feasible or even needed by the RMN.

On the Lekius and the projected 6 hulls; certain unhappiness with BAE Systems led to the RMN looking elsewhere. The fact that the pair of Lekius were even ordered was also a political decision; at that period the RMN was focused on obtaining a pair of SSKs from Kockums. Delays with the Lekius led to the 4 Fincantieri corvetted being ordered; against the advice and strong objections by the RMN.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

I'm merely laying out the facts as they are.



Major programmes are heavily driven by political factors. the idea being not only to provide the RMN with the desired capability but also to ensure that it benefits the local industry as a whole. Another issue but one not really pertinent to the issue of programmes going ratshit is the fact that local companies which have tied up with certain foreign suppliers are able to exert strong influence on what gets selected.



I'm not ''cherry picking'' ... You made a general statement ''every program that they tried to do in local shipyards have ended up as a clusterf*ck of epic proportions''. I simply pointed out that this is untrue....

I'm also not 'ignoring'' anything. I may not be familiar with the finer details but I'm very aware of the number of programmes which failed to deliver as intended; plus the detrimental long term consequences on the RMN.



BNS [the former Naval Dockyard] was selected on the basis that is it the largest naval yard in the country and it is partly government owned. The Naval Dockyard started out as a refit facility and it was something it did reasonably well but over time progressed to ship construction. I will not claim to know the full reason behind the LCS cockup but I do know that the government shares a large part of the blame. For one; the lead ship [or the lead pair] should have been constructed in France to enable BNS to go through a learning curve.



Maybe but that is speculation. I can also speculate by saying that they might have been delivered on spec, on time and within budget; the hulls are not large and not overly complex.



Indeed. It's deeply ingrained in the way things are done; similar to the way it's ingrained or is part of the way of doing things in various other countries; where the local industry with political backing; exerts strong influence and when decisions are made by the government not on factors relating to what the end user needs per see but various other factors; many of which are non military.



The plan in the late 1990's to the mid 2000's was for a fleet of 6 Lekiu class frigates and 2 Kasturi corvettes /light frigates to comprise Team A. The NGOPVs [Kedah class] would be Team B. The NGOPVS were to replace the fleet of 20 odd Vosper Patrol Craft but not necessarily the fleet of 14 FACs. The plan was actually for 27 hulls over a 16 year period; this plan was the political favourite but was not seen as feasible or even needed by the RMN.

On the Lekius and the projected 6 hulls; certain unhappiness with BAE Systems led to the RMN looking elsewhere. The fact that the pair of Lekius were even ordered was also a political decision; at that period the RMN was focused on obtaining a pair of SSKs from Kockums. Delays with the Lekius led to the 4 Fincantieri corvetted being ordered; against the advice and strong objections by the RMN.

1. Its just funny to see how similar the Kasturi class looks with the Fatahillah Class, a class of the same generation.
2. After delivery and some years of operation, is the TLDM still not satisfied with the Italian Laksamana class?
3. Its quite regrettable that the MEKO 100 Kedah class had so many programme delays and overruns, and that only six were eventually ordered and constructed. They are modern corvettes / OPVs with a range exceeding 6000 nm. Malaysia should order more of them.

 

[STURM]

1. Colombia operates a similar design.
2. The rationale in getting them was due to delays with Lekiu deliveries. These corvettes were designed for ops in the Persian Gulf [for Iraq] The RMN uses the class for extended ops in the EEZ; something the design wasn't intended for. Seakeeping and habitability issues; as well as the fact that when delivered they contained 1980's vintage stuff which had almost no commonality. The RMN was against getting them from the very start. Prior to ordering them the RMN was offered a pair of Lupos; originally build for Iraq.
3. They are equipped to a high spec despite their 'OPV' designation; i.e. obstacle avoidance sonar, 3D radar, helicopter handling system, etc. The 5/15 includes follow ones fully fitted out but an argument can be made that the RMN can do without follow on ones and instead focus on LMSs.

 

[STURM]

Yes the Fatahillah class has a forward hull design which looks similar to the HDW FS1500 design.

 

[koxinga]

Maybe but that is speculation. I can also speculate by saying that they might have been delivered on spec, on time and within budget; the hulls are not large and not overly complex.

I was hoping that the MMEA's OPV and PV programs could be the "hulls are not large and not overly complex" program that could succeed on time and on budget. It was a design from an established shipbuilder that has worked extensively in South East Asia (Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam). No complex combat systems, and "small budget" relative to the Navy's program. That they are not "on-time" and are not yet commissioned is telling. Beats me if they are within budget but at least the first boat is ready to launch.

It is a speculation, but there is a track record underpining it, and the odds do not look good for local programs. I still stand by the speculation that LMS Batch 2 and/or their LPD program (if that ever starts) is better off with a foreign shipyard, even if it means greasing some hands along the way. Something like TLDM's sub program.

 

[STURM]

I was hoping that the MMEA's OPV and PV programs could be the "hulls are not large and not overly complex" program that could succeed on time and on budget.

The fact remains that unlike the case with the LCS; delays faced with the MMEA's OPVS were not caused by design or engineering issues but financial issues faced by the yards; as well las COVID related issues......

I still stand by the speculation that LMS Batch 2 and/or their LPD program

By all means stick to your speculation. On my part I'll adopt the wait and see approach in the knowledge that if realistic goals were set; if there was no political interference and if the yard was in a sound position; a local yard is able to deliver on spec; on schedule and within budget; just like how local yard have done so in the past; both for the RMN and foreign navies.

Something like TLDM's sub program.

Malaysia had zero experience in constructing subs; thus the subs had to be constructed in France and Spain. With surface ships it's another matter.

 

[koxinga]

By all means stick to your speculation. On my part I'll adopt the wait and see approach in the knowledge that if realistic goals were set; if there was no political interference and if the yard was in a sound position; a local yard is able to deliver on spec; on schedule and within budget; just like how local yard have done so in the past; both for the RMN and foreign navies.

Three ifs, those are long odds.

I agree that if all of your conditions exist, they will deliver a successful program. While both opinions are hypothetical, one is a benefit of past data/observations, while the other has lesser I guess I am puzzled on your reluctance to discuss or comment on odds.

Your views are reasonable and fact based, which I enjoy.

 

[STURM]

Three ifs, those are long odds.

Life itself is based on odds.

If the various prerequisites are met and certain issues ironed out; things can and have been delivered on schedule; on spec and within budget.

On the Multi Role Supply Ship requirement; the intention was to always have them constructed in a foreign yard. On the LMS Batch 2s; little chance of BNS getting the contract even if it has the capacity or ability to do so at the moment. There are various other yards in the country which are capable; they may have never constructed ships for the RMN before but they've long been conducting refits and have constructed various types of ships ships for customers in the country and abroad. The UAE operates a pair of LSTs constructed in a East Malaysian yard; which is also constructing a 3rd one.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Life itself is based on odds.

If the various prerequisites are met and certain issues ironed out; things can and have been delivered on schedule; on spec and within budget.

On the Multi Role Supply Ship requirement; the intention was to always have them constructed in a foreign yard. On the LMS Batch 2s; little chance of BNS getting the contract even if it has the capacity or ability to do so at the moment. There are various other yards in the country which are capable; they may have never constructed ships for the RMN before but they've long been conducting refits and have constructed various types of ships ships for customers in the country and abroad. The UAE operates a pair of LSTs constructed in a East Malaysian yard; which is also constructing a 3rd one.

View attachment 48841

The The Al-Quwaisat class looks like a decent and capable class of LSTs.

Shin Yang delivers two 80M LCT vessels to UAE Navy

MIRI: Shin Yang Shipping Corporation Bhd (Shin Yang) yesterday displayed the capability that a local company can be in par with the established global shipping and ship building industry. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) Navy gave it recognition and acknowledged its local expertise and skills in sh

www.theborneopost.com

Its just remarkable that the TLDM doesn't operate these vessels.

 

[koxinga]

There are shipyards like Shin Yang, such as Mega (participated in Philippines LPD contract), smaller ones like Gading that are doing good work.

But the nature of Malaysian politics / business is some of these big contracts are for those who are well connected. Re BHIC is stacked with ex-RMN people, from ex-Chief of Navy to the ex-MinDef people running the same contracts (i.e. LCS). These are just the more obvious ones.

 

[STURM]

Its just remarkable that the TLDM doesn't operate this vessels.

These ships are great but in terms of size and lift capacity don't offer much more over the pair of Indera Sakti class MPSSs. It remains to be seen but a slightly lengthened variant of the Makassar class design with certain changes was the favourite some time back.

Re BHIC is stacked with ex-RMN people, from ex-Chief of Navy to the ex-MinDef people running the same contracts (i.e. LCS). These are just the more obvious ones.

The situation is similar to many other countries where ex senior service members are hired by companies which hope to benefit from the knowledge and contacts these people have.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

These ships are great but in terms of size and lift capacity don't offer much more over the pair of Indera Sakti class MPSSs. It remains to be seen but a slightly lengthened variant of the Makassar class design with certain changes was the favourite some time back.

Yes, but the TLDM needs much more than the two Indera Sakti class of MPSS. Not only for operations between the west and east part of Malaysia, but also for logistic tasks to Pulau Layang-Layang and other remote areas.

 

[Ananda]

remains to be seen but a slightly lengthened variant of the Makassar class design with certain changes was the favourite some time back.

That's part of agreement that PAL and Boustead sign MOU in 2016 during Indodefence that year. From what I gather (info in the market) PAL will build some modules and giving tech transfer to Boustead to build other modules with finalisation assembly in Boustead

Forum Sejarah & Militer

PT PAL dan BNS (Boustead Naval Shipyard) Malaysia telah sepakat untuk berkolaborasi dalam tender pengadaan kapal LPD untuk TLDM (Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia). Kesepakatan ini membuka peluang untuk...

es-la.facebook.com

Put FB link on this from one of Indonesian local defense bloger. The Jane's link is not working anymore.

I never have business dealings with Bousted executives, but have some with PAL ones some years ago (not current ones). From what I see that you and Koxinga talk about. I can say PAL executives (at least that I have encounter) coming from same cloth with Boustead ones. Not surprisingly considering mentalities of Indonesian SOE companies are not much differ with Politically connected executives in Malaysia.

Perhaps PAL just got bit luckier then Boustead. Well I can't say on present management, but my experiences with Indonesian SOE executives still shown any changes to the better still not substantial enough.

The point I make here, event with 'political' mentality of companies executives, can still provide workable project, as long as top Political power can provide consistent support (for better or worse). Perhaps they will not provide the most efficient results, but still can workable.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

That's part of agreement that PAL and Boustead sign MOU in 2016 during Indodefence that year. From what I gather (info in the market) PAL will build some modules and giving tech transfer to Boustead to build other modules with finalisation assembly in Boustead

Forum Sejarah & Militer

PT PAL dan BNS (Boustead Naval Shipyard) Malaysia telah sepakat untuk berkolaborasi dalam tender pengadaan kapal LPD untuk TLDM (Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia). Kesepakatan ini membuka peluang untuk...

es-la.facebook.com

Put FB link on this from one of Indonesian local defense bloger. The Jane's link is not working anymore.

That project of 150-163 meter version of the Makassar class LPD was planned in 2016. After more than 5 years we still hear nothing about it, so its just cancelled.

If LPDs are too expensive for Malaysia, than the Bintuni-class of LST can be a more attractive design. Even just ordering two of them can decrease the workload on the Indera Sakti class MPSS.

 

[koxinga]

PAL may want to find partners else where, unless they signed an exclusive with BHIC. With the unresolved issues with the LCS being a political hot potato, the chances of more work awarded to BHIC is very low.

 

[STURM]

Yes, but the TLDM needs much more than the two Indera Sakti class of MPSS.

Which is why it has long had a requirement for a much larger design. Which is also why I mentioned that for the RMN; acquiring something like the UAE LSTS does not provide much more pay off compared to what it currently operates.

Not only for operations between the west and east part of Malaysia, but also for logistic tasks to Pulau Layang-Layang and other remote areas.

Those are being met by a variety of assets including the pair of FTVs. Heavy stuff into Layang-Layang is flown in. Neither Layang-Layang or any of the other reefs claimed and physically occupied by Malaysia have a pier/jetty large enough for anything larger than a FAC.

For moving stuff to East Malaysia; there is less of need now compared to the past as Malaysia has progressively increased its presence there. In the past East Malaysia had a much lighter military presence; thus the need to move things rapidly there [in the past this was a major role for the ex USN LSTS] and to have the ability to lift by air stuff like IFVs and arty was a major requirement.

There is also the fact that it's cheaper and more practical to utilise commercial assets to lift heavy gear there; plus avoiding unnecessary wear and tear on naval assets.

LPDs are too expensive for Malaysia

Malaysia may not buy in numbers but it has a history of gold plating or equipping to a high spec what little it gets. We know for a fact that the Malaysians specified a need for a lengthened Makassar variant and for certain other changes to be made; including a point defence missile system.

The RMN desires something with no more than 3-4 helo landing spots and something large enough to carry a certain tonnage but something with a certain draught to enable the class to operate in various shallow water areas and to dock in certain bases which don't have a deep water jetty.

 

[STURM]

FB link on this from one of Indonesian local defense bloger. The Jane's link is not working anymore.

Thank you very much for that. I've been looking for the Janes link for a while now.

 

[koxinga]

If LPDs are too expensive for Malaysia, than the Bintuni-class of LST can be a more attractive design. Even just ordering two of them can decrease the workload on the Indera Sakti class MPSS.

We know for a fact that the Malaysians specified a need for a lengthened Makassar variant and for certain other changes to be made; including a point defence missile system.

The RMN desires something with no more than 3-4 helo landing spots and something large enough to carry a certain tonnage but something with a certain draught to enable the class to operate in various shallow water areas and to dock in certain bases which don't have a deep water jetty.

LPDs gives TLDM greater operational flexibility. While a LST type vessel would certainly be helpful, the missions would be limited.

As STURM points out, Peninsular Malaysia to East Malaysia transport can be handled cheaper with commercial shipping. If there is a need to surge troops to support ESSCOM in Sabah, they can use their A400M.

LPDs allow them to fulill a wider range of missions, which has been demonstrated by Singapore (anti-piracy in the Gulf/Somalia), the Philippines (HADR, repatriation of OFWs) and Indonesia (HADR, long range expeditionary missions i.e. to Somalia). Given that their neighbours (SG, Thai, Indonesia, Philippines), even Myanmar operates LPDs, I am not surprised if this was the primary choice.