The answer is nothing much comes next.The key question is, what's next?
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. .There is also a question on what happened on 11 July 2011, when the decision was changed from the Sigma to the Gowind overnight.
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.Of course, whether they want to open that can of worms (and the Defence Minister then, Hamidi) is another matter.
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.That aside, by the time the first hulls are commissioned, the electronics would be over a decade old.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
They could surely be used but might need upgrades. Age is not the issue but other factors.they could conceivebly be used
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.it is a decade of collecting dust in some storeroom
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.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.