Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update

STURM

Well-Known Member
The key question is, what's next?
The answer is nothing much comes next.

The government isn't going to start from the very beginning in identifying what wrong because doing so would mean acknowledging that the policy in place is highly flawed to begin with. BNS hadn't constructed anything in years; a more prudent plan would have seen DCNS constructing the lead pair with BNS completing the rest [some with modules shipped from France] after going through a learning curve. The question also arises as to who was in charge of ensuring that BNS was actually in a position to meet its contractual obligations.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
There is also a question on what happened on 11 July 2011, when the decision was changed from the Sigma to the Gowind overnight. Of course, whether they want to open that can of worms (and the Defence Minister then, Hamidi) is another matter.

It seems clear that a handful of people both within the government (MinDef/MoF) and outside of the government were dictating how the program was being run without oversight.

That aside, by the time the first hulls are commissioned, the electronics would be over a decade old.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
There is also a question on what happened on 11 July 2011, when the decision was changed from the Sigma to the Gowind overnight.
That is the least of the problems they faced. Sigma was preferred by the RMN not because it was seen as a better hull per see but for other reasons. Even if Sigma was selected the same issues would probably have surfaced because the key prerequisites had not been met; BNS wasn't in the position to handle a programme of this scale/magnitude. .

Granted politicians should not meddle too much but unfortunately it's they who decide on what to buy after weighing in a whole host of factors.
If the armed services had its way a pair of Kockums boats would have been ordered instead of Lekiu class frigates; Super Hornets instead of Su-30s; Hornets instead of Fulcrums; M16A2s instead of AUGs; etc.

Of course, whether they want to open that can of worms (and the Defence Minister then, Hamidi) is another matter.
The project was the then PM's and DPM's baby so to speak. DCNS had strong political backing then; had done a good job with the Scorpene's and what it was offering in terms of ToTs and other stuff for the LCS programme was seen as superior to what Damen could offer.

That aside, by the time the first hulls are commissioned, the electronics would be over a decade old.
Some components will have to be replaced; some upgraded; doesn't necessarily mean that being a decade old results in them being obsolete or inoperable. How they are stored also plays a part.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Granted politicians should not meddle too much but unfortunately it's they who decide on what to buy after weighing in a whole host of factors.
They should do it like Singapore, where defence procurement goes through an independent agency (DSTA) with the armed forces as the client and use scientific processes like analytical hierarchical process (AHP) for the evaluation scoring.

But being Malaysia being Malaysia.

Some components will have to be replaced; some upgraded; doesn't necessarily mean that being a decade old results in them being obsolete or inoperable. How they are stored also plays a part.
Sure, they could conceivebly be used, the Indonesians Bung Tomo class is one example. But it would be challenging on the ILS and cost. Most defence equipments have long lifecycles (~25 years) and would stock sufficient spares but it is a decade of collecting dust in some storeroom in Lumut.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
They should do it like Singapore, where defence procurement goes through an independent agency (DSTA) with the armed forces as the client and use scientific processes like analytical hierarchical process (AHP) for the evaluation scoring.

But being Malaysia being Malaysia.
Bravo and kudos for Singapore, I'm sure a lot of countries would have far less issues if they just emulated Singapore but completely different dynamics at play.

The issue is that Malaysia [the politicians and the public] has a completely different mindset to defence; complacent. Singapore feels vulnerable; it has a policy of always maintaining an edge over its closest neighbours and despite concern about China in recent times can still focus on dealing with the MAF and TNI [the only possible threats if a conflict occurred involving neighbouring states]. Malaysia on the other hand doesn't feel vulnerable the way Singapore does or places a level of importance towards defence the way its island neighbour does.

they could conceivebly be used
They could surely be used but might need upgrades. Age is not the issue but other factors.

it is a decade of collecting dust in some storeroom
Like I said; depends on how they're stored. In this case its not storerooms per see but purpose built storage areas, some with temperature/humidity control.
 
Last edited:

koxinga

Well-Known Member
The issue is that Malaysia [the politicians and the public] has a completely different mindset to defence; complacent. Singapore feels vulnerable; it has a policy of always maintaining an edge over its closest neighbours and despite concern about China in recent times can still focus on dealing with the MAF and TNI [the only possible threats if a conflict occurred involving neighbouring states]. Malaysia on the other hand doesn't feel vulnerable the way Singapore does or places a level of importance towards defence the way its island neighbour does.
Thanks but that is a different matter. In my opinion, you are using the word "Singapore" loosely. It is only the defence planners and PAP that recongize the strategic vulnerable acutely. But because they have absolute majority, most people have little or no interest in defence. The general populace have also been conditioned that the defence budget is a sacred cow that has life and death consequences. In other words, the political climate is permissive for careful long term planning.

What I meant was the procurment approach. For those procurement that the Malaysian government has been determined to proceed, can the procurement be done independently, with professionals and not be overwritten by the politicians?
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I don't think i was using it too loosely. Compared to the average Malaysian the average Singaporean has a far better appreciation of the need for adequate investments to be made towards defence: The average Singaporean has the shared experience of NS and has been constantly reminded of the need for a strong SAF.

Some years ago the PM spoke of the situation in the Ukraine and of how it was only a strong SAF which kept Singapore's larger neighbours friendly - such a statement would be unheard of in Malaysia where defence is not a priority and where the average Malaysian is concerned about other issues. You will also have noticed that the role the SAF occupies in Singaporean society is profoundly different compared to the MAF which is not a national institution the way the SAF is.

I know what you meant and the point I was driving at is that the flawed politically driven manner Malaysian defence procurement is handled is a reflection of the attitude Malaysia has with regards to defence. As a senior SAF officer put it to me many years ago [in public they tend to be reserved and speak of OPSEC but get them in the right environment and they tend to be more open]; Singapore's worry is not what Malaysia buys or will buy but Malaysia revamping its defence policy and actually seriously putting emphasis on enabling the MAF to get the capability it needs and desires.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
In September 2020, the first of the Indonesian-built Airtech CN235s were flown to Indonesia for “completion and testing.” The first flight of the upgraded aircraft took place just over a year later. And now the first of three upgraded CN235-220 is delivered to Malaysia. The two remaining IPTN CN235 aircraft and multiple ground stations are expected to be completed later this year.

 
Top