Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update

[Ananda]

Far from being an expert I think teething problems in any newly delivered sub or ship is expected. Whether it's really a defect or a minor teething problem remains to be seen. If I recall correctly, the RMN isn't the only navy to have had teething/technical problems with a newly delivered European made sub.

STURM, do you have any info on the performance of the Submarines during Builder Trials ? Was this submarines already having complete trials before being send to Malaysia ? I just have some difficulty to comprehend some of the info saying the problem could be come from Tropicalised version of the Scorpene in which the two Malaysian subs belong to.

Tropicalising submarines having done so many times, just thinking that's should not be the problem here

 

[STURM]

STURM, do you have any info on the performance of the Submarines during Builder Trials ? Was this submarines already having complete trials before being send to Malaysia ? I just have some difficulty to comprehend some of the info saying the problem could be come from Tropicalised version of the Scorpene in which the two Malaysian subs belong to.

Tropicalising submarines having done so many times, just thinking that's should not be the problem here

From what I've read from open sources, trials were completed before the 1st boat arrived in Malaysia, I can't think of any reason otherwise. Prior the departing France, KD TAR also participated in an exercise with a French sub. I'm not aware however of major modifications done to enable the boats to operate in tropical waters. I'm assuming that being newly built boats the RMN Scopones already had gear fitted out to operate in warm waters. According to an article I read somewhere years ago, one of the initial problems the Iranians had with operating their Kilos in the warm waters of the Gulf was barnacles. It seems help was provided by the Indians.

Apart from having a watertight cofferdam, the RMN Scorpenes I believe hardly differ in a any way from the Chiliean Scorpenes, with both having chosen to do away with a towed array and MESMA for the moment.

 

[nevidimka]

Far from being an expert I think teething problems in any newly delivered sub or ship is expected. Whether it's really a defect or a minor teething problem remains to be seen. If I recall correctly, the RMN isn't the only navy to have had teething/technical problems with a newly delivered European made sub.

I don't think that should be the way. Its a sub, and its a very dangerous platform to many others out there. What if due to some other defect the sub goes in n never comes out, resulting in loss of lives? The construction should be flawless.

 

[STURM]

What if due to some other defect the sub goes in n never comes out, resulting in loss of lives? The construction should be flawless.

I doubt if anything is built to zero defects . The construction might be flawess as you mentioned but teething problems with one of the many systems on board can and do happen.
I'm not dismissing the urgency or importance of fixing the problem but many teething problems occur in newly delivered vessels/subs worlwide, some go unreported some don't. According to various reports, the problem seems to be a technical defect and not due to any defect in the design or construction/built quality.

P.S., you mentioned construction. Part of HDWs sales pitch for the Type 214 is that that it can dive deeper than the Scorpene due to the better grade of steel used for the hull. On the other hand, DCNS mantains that the fuel cell system used by HDW is dangerous and requires special facilities at naval bases and ports to support.

 

[OPSSG]

STURM, do you have any info on the performance of the Submarines during Builder Trials ? Was this submarines already having complete trials before being send to Malaysia ? I just have some difficulty to comprehend some of the info saying the problem could be come from Tropicalised version of the Scorpene in which the two Malaysian subs belong to.

@Ananda, it is normal for the crew of a new navy vessel to identify and ask the builders to rectify any defects found - these teething commissioning issues may range from fixing a light switch to something more serious - no build would be flawless (that's not a realistic expectation, given the complex systems involved). That is why launching and commissioning are two important and separate milestones that is tied to a payment schedule. The RSN for example has launched the RSS Archer but has not commissioned it - as it is in the period of defect identification for the builder to rectify before our navy accepts the vessel (please forgive the use of a Singapore example). Kindly note that there may be post - commissioning sub-systems tests that is provided in the contract - so commissioning is not the end of tests.

The problem is that KD Tunku Abdul Rahman (KD TAR) was commissioned into service and got it's KD prefix back in France - there's even some online sources that suggest that the KD TAR performed very well in in exercises with the French SSN Rubis. It is possible to speculate that the Malaysian Navy accepted delivery of the submarine but this defect that prevented the KD TAR from diving was either not identified back in France or that they allowed the symbolic 'commissioning ceremony' to go on despite the defect on the understanding that the defect would be rectified. It was reported that RMN chief Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Jaafar said:

"The contractual completion for all tropical trials was before Jan 25 but submarine builder, DCNS had agreed to extend it to May 2010 as they had to rectify all warranty defects."​

The Malay Mail has more details here - the problem is that the reporters fail to put the matter in context.

That is why I am a little uncomfortable with defending the Malaysian Navy in this case as I am not in possession of the necessary facts to comment - but the pressure is definitely on the builders DCNS (as it affects their reputation). It is entirely possible that this is a non-issue but I cannot say for certain without more facts. Further, I'm not sure that it is in the interest of Malaysia to have this issue further reported as I understand that the defect has been identified and rectified - what was a technical issue has now become politicized - given the court martial of the former CO of the decommissioned Sri Inderapura and other unsubstantiated rumours on the post-commissioning problems faced on the Lekiu Class a few years ago (which was also resolved). BTW, the second RMN submarine, KD Tun Abdul Razak's arrival in Malaysia may also be delayed.

Tropicalising submarines having done so many times, just thinking that's should not be the problem here

Hmm... it depends on what 'tropicalising' means as all the navies in the region are being intentionally obtuse on the modifications done on each submarine. If it is extensive, it may not be so simple.

 

[OPSSG]

Latest news update on KD TAR below provides more context than earlier Malaysian media reports:

Malaysian Scorpene Back on Track After Short Setback

Technical problems with KD Tun Razak attack submarines fixed by DCNS

08:53 GMT, February 16, 2010 defpro.com | Last week, the Malaysian submarine programme, which received much attention during the past months, suffered a temporary setback as Malaysian Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had to announce that the country’s first Scorpene-class submarine, delivered in September 2009, was unfit for diving. Originally scheduled for tropical water trials, KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, a diesel-electric attack submarine named after the country's first Prime Minister, was forced to remain on the wharf longer than expected.

According to the Minister, “the defects are still covered by warranty, so the supplier and contractor are repairing them.” Since then, the technical problem has been repaired and the submarine is again able to dive, as DCNS told depfro.com. Royal Malaysian Navy chief, Admiral Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Jaafar, confirmed that tropical water trials would resume on 18 February.

Different press reports, emerging last week, questioned the general performance of the submarines, reporting that this was the third case in a row of technical problems since the submarine was launched from the shipyard of French naval manufacturer DCNS.

However, the Royal Malaysian Navy described the problem as “minor,” which indeed seems to be the case, as DCNS required only a short time to repair the identified flaw. As Royal Malaysian Navy chief Admiral Tan Sri Abdul Aziz outlined to reporters, “The damage involves a part that channels water pressure movement which caused the submarine's failure to launch underwater."

Malaysia ordered two Scorpene-class submarines in 2002 for some 3.4 billion ringgits ($961 million) from European naval industry partners DCNS and Navantia, who have jointly designed the Scorpene concept based upon the proven Améthyste class. Technical problems after the launch of the submarine have prevented the sailing of the submarine from France to Malaysia and resulted in a three-month delay. Nevertheless, these problems can be classified as “teething”, which many new products and systems experience. It only is unfortunate if these problems prevent the submarine from doing what it should: dive.

According to a Malaysian daily newspaper, DCNS extended the warranty for the submarine, which was supposed to expire on 25 January, until May. This will provide the required time for the KD Tunku Abdul Rahman to complete its trials and accomplishing the Initial Operational Capability (IOC). During these trials, the submarine is also expected to conduct the live firing of its SM39 Exocet anti-ship missiles. The newspaper suggests that the delivery of the second submarine, the KD Tun Abdul Razak, has been delayed until June or July due to the problems experienced with the first submarine. KD Tun Abdul Razak is reportedly carrying out a second phase of trials by Navantia and will conduct its first live torpedo firing later this year.

A defect in the KD TAR's high-pressure air-blowing system was detected on 17 January. It followed the discovery of a fault in the forward seawater cooling system in December. However, both faults have been rectified. Below is a Malaysian News report on the Malaysian submarines:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdAdPgvVIyc"]YouTube- RMN KD Tunku Abdul Rahman was found to have a defective system 2010 - NTV7 Edisi7(English News)[/ame]

IMO, the important thing is that the Royal Malaysian Navy must learn from past mistakes and learn to use the contractual mechanisms put in place against builder defects.

 

[STURM]

unsubstantiated rumours on the post-commissioning problems faced on the Lekiu Class a few years ago (which was also resolved).

The main reason for the delay, as reported by a number of defence mags, were integration problems with NAUTIS CMS. From what I was told by an analyst based in K.L., another problem occured when seawater entered the Bofors Mk2 through an opened hatch during trials in the North Sea conducted by Yarrow/GEC Marconi.

Further, I'm not sure that it is in the interest of Malaysia to have this issue further reported as I understand that the defect has been identified and rectified - what was a technical issue has now become politicized

Given the current political enviroment, it is inevitable that such reports will be politicised. Though the Malaysian press has nowhere near the same level of freedom as those in Indonesia or Thailand, it has a much easier time now reporting on issues that used to be considered hush-hush. The good news is that in creates public awareness with regards to the ATM and creates a culture of accountability. The bad news is it creates negative perceptions amongst the general public coming so soon after the KD Inderapura fiasco.

 

[Awang se]

Given the current political enviroment, it is inevitable that such reports will be politicised. Though the Malaysian press has nowhere near the same level of freedom as those in Indonesia or Thailand, it has a much easier time now reporting on issues that used to be considered hush-hush. The good news is that in creates public awareness with regards to the ATM and creates a culture of accountability. The bad news is it creates negative perceptions amongst the general public coming so soon after the KD Inderapura fiasco.

For one thing, i'm glad the KD Indrapura burned up. We need a new Amphibious Warfare Ship and as long as KD Inderapura still there, the politicians will argue against buying a better ship.

STURM, do you have any info on the performance of the Submarines during Builder Trials ? Was this submarines already having complete trials before being send to Malaysia ? I just have some difficulty to comprehend some of the info saying the problem could be come from Tropicalised version of the Scorpene in which the two Malaysian subs belong to.

It's usual for a new sub to face a problem. the same thing happen to Upholder (Power and launch tube problem) and collins (welding defect, being one of them) and this subs was build by a highly experience sub builders. I believe all the problems will be discovered and solved overtime, without any unwanted incident i hope.

 

[STURM]

It's usual for a new sub to face a problem. the same thing happen to Upholder (Power and launch tube problem) and collins (welding defect, being one of them) and this subs was build by a highly experience sub builders.

It's usual for subs and surface vessels to encounter teething problems and technical diffficulties, hence the warranty period offered by the shipyard. Unfortunatly, for the average Malaysian who hardly keeps abreast of whats happening in the defence sector, reports of the Scorpene beng unable to dive would indicate that despite the 1 billion Euro price tag, the RMN comissioned an inferior product or that it was because of a pemanent flaw or defect in the Scorpene. And it didn't help that the Editor of the Malay Mail choose ''The Billion Ringgit Dive'' for the heading of an article by Marhalim Abbas.

I'm not sure if the Upholders were ever offered to the RMN, probably not because of the price tag. Other subs that were offered include licensed built Turkish and S. Korean Type 209s, the Kilo, the T-96 together with 2 Draken boats for training and the 2 ex-RN Oberons. In 1988, a Daphne spent a whole month in Malaysia as part of DCNs marketing campaign.

If I recall, the Upholders in RN service had, as you indicated, problems. There were also several reports that mentioned the Canadians having their share of technical problems with the Upholders. I remember one of the senior staff, an ex-RN submariner, at the Submarine Museum at Gosport in 95 having nothing nice to say about the Upholders. I remember him telling me about diving problems with the Upholders. Back then, there were industry rumours that the Upholders were destined for Saudi.
Yet again, I've gone off topic....

 

[andyddse]

Far from being an expert I think teething problems in any newly delivered sub or ship is expected. Whether it's really a defect or a minor teething problem remains to be seen. If I recall correctly, the RMN isn't the only navy to have had teething/technical problems with a newly delivered European made sub.

the truth is due to miss managed by new MINDEF management security info leeks out to the press and the whole world.

The leeks info are under "OSA" where by all Malaysian Gov Staff are sworn to uphold. Yet all this info have been leeks out.

In the old day's this would be a rumors only now the new minister leeks out so many info out.

 

[STURM]

In the old day's this would be a rumors only now the new minister leeks out so many info out.

I think the the best person to comment on this would be Dirzhan.

IMO, as long as the 'leaks'' dont jeorpadise national or operational security, these reports should be made public as the taxpayers have a right to know what's happening. We have to draw the line between what is ''rahsia'' [secret/classified] and what is not. It's utterly ludicrous if something that is easily available from open sources is given OSA classification.

The plain fact is that like many other subs or surface vessels, KD TAR had a technical problem whilst still under a period of warranty. Unfortunatly, many drew the wrong conclusions.

 

[Dzirhan]

First off, you have to be sure that the info on the submarine's problems actually came from within Mindef and MAF, given the involvement of local and foreign industry, the info could just as easily come from there. Please be aware the OSA covers documents and materials classified as secrets, which means possession of a document on the submarine's problem is illegal if the document has been classified as such but it's not a crime under the OSA for someone to tell you about it.
Frankly the reason why more stories on the MAF are coming out is due to the fact that there are more journalists specializing in defence and knowing the issues to come out with the story rather than Mindef slacking in security and in any event Mindef's principle has always been that they won't inform us but won't stop journalists from finding out or writing anything as long as it does not involve getting hold of documents under the OSA and publishing such.
And in any event, as Sturm has pointed out, the public/taxpayers do have a right to know what is happening, if you keep things under wraps, it becomes much worse later on when it comes out.

 

[STURM]

Dzirhan, according to Marhalim Abbas in his blog, the government has agreed in principle on a scaled down version of the Dokdo. Have you heard anything?

 

[Awang se]

The story is, RMN maybe acquiring Go Jun Bong class LST on the loan from SK. how many? not sure. I take it as an Indicative that Mindef may choose Dokdo. The ship may seems exceedingly pricy at 1 billion, over other competitors like the Rotterdam at 800 millions and Type 071 at 500 millions, but RMN also require a flagship, which the latter two are ill equipped for. As long as we don't operate fix wing VTOL from the deck, the operating cost maybe less then Chakri Naruabet/Principe De Asturias.

 

[Dzirhan]

Haven't heard anything lately but I've been somewhat out of the loop for the last week or so as working on a few articles but Dokdo has always been the main rumor and that it will be built by NGV tech hence the company's purchase of a shipyard in Korea.

 

[Awang se]

Read several malaysian publications this morning concerning our Navy. Mostly from oppositions. Lim Guan Eng for example, told the Assembly that if our Scorpene have defect, it should be return to the manufacturer and be replace with a new one. As if we bought our Subs out of showroom floor. Sometimes i laugh when reading their outlooks on defence matters. Some claimed that our sub are second hand. They never bothered to find out that we are among the early customer for this design. we're not talking about Kilos or Daphnes or Agostas or Gotland which have been in service for many years.

 

[Dzirhan]

Pretty much standard for the opposition though the government also has it's fair share, problem is some of them probably read about the Agosta that was purchased fro training and got it mixed up.

 

[Awang se]

Why don't they have a military officer attended the General Assembly and answer question regarding defence matter. we leave it to a misinformed who want to look good on camera to answer a question from another misinformed who also want to look good on camera. Why don't we have a board of inquiry where the expert from the navy will explain to this people's representatives about what's really going on. Is this our way of maintaining secrecy?

 

[Dzirhan]

We don't have a military officer to speak at Parliament as it's against the rules of Parliament as only MPs are allowed to speak there. In any event, most of the answers given by the Defence Minister or Deputy Defence Ministers are actually prepared by the MOD and MAF. The problem occurs when the Minister isn't too good at answering, as was the case with Abdullah Badawi . The military officers can be summoned to answer questions by Parliamentary inquiry boards like the bipartisan Public Account Committee but it's something the military officers aren't fond of as most of the time, the MPs are clueless, you can read the PAC report on the Eurocopter purchase inquiry at the Parliament website (laman web rasmi Parlimen Malaysia) which has the transcripts of the discussions as an example of this, either the 29th or 30th is the one where RMAF Chief and Chief Secretary were questioned.
In any event most of the time, the issues being raised in Parliament is less to do with national defence and more with scoring political points, but then again it seems to be the case with almost every issue in Parliament, it's only the first week of it's sitting and the whole thing is already like a circus

 

[STURM]

In any event most of the time, the issues being raised in Parliament is less to do with national defence and more with scoring political points, but then again it seems to be the case with almost every issue in Parliament, it's only the first week of it's sitting and the whole thing is already like a circus

And it will continue to be the case as long as the majority of the population remains uninterested and ignorant regarding defence issues and as long as this country has an opposition alliance who's leaders appear more interested in raising issues for ''political points'' rather than assuming the role of responsible opposition leaders..
Another problem is there is no incentive at the moment for the government to a take serious and more practical approach to defence.

Dzirhan, with procurement plans like the Nuri replacement/upgrade and a new LST/LPD still unrealised, does the army leadership seriously expect the government in the near future to allocate funds for their ''unit helikopter tempur''?? Surely the army's top brass would want to spend scarce funds on needed stuff like a Condor replacement, night vision, body armour and rifle scopes? The mind boggles......
Unfortunatly, it looks like the longstanding practice/policy/habit of not buying what is really needed and buying a bit but never enough of anything is going to be mantained.