weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
I have repeatedly said, "in hindsight" it was a costly procurement for the current batch which has been noted so not only by our fellow forumers but also international defense analysts, comparisons have also been made before not by Janes for example that the SAN frigates which are of similar design cost less to build. The costs for these current Kedah class ships as a result of mismanagement and requests for large increases in additional funds makes the current ships produced not value for money in comparison "pound for pound" to quote weasel, less should be mentioned about the conditional acceptance by the RMN, issues with quality and extremely late delivery.
Its something like: diff between to eat fish and to eat fish in the same time learning to fish.
About Tax, thats really depends on individuals. Every one have a diff political stand. That why tthe exist of policy makers. View in micro, you may think thats too much. But in macro, will it be the same? In my point of view, no doubt, our ringgit worth less while the "toys" are always costly in terms of US dollar. We need it and need more on this stage. And i m statisfied with the our pace of imporving.
I think when I mentioned tax dollars of hard earned ringgits, it was in reference to these cost overruns and mismanagement. It is the government who is spending the Malaysian worker's ringgits but the way tax resources have been used without accountability, responsibility or transparency for this whole scandal raises problems. (I see you like using analogies, here is one to present my example; If I spend my own money I would spend it wisely and try to find value for my hard earned money, If I spend another persons money, well its not my money so what do I care?, I would however reasonably cae if I was being held responsible for my choices). It sends the wrong signals that ineptitude and mismanangement won't be prosecuted and dealt harshly by the government.
I'm sorry I don't quite follow your point here? I don't see how the analogy of cars correlates, its an oversimplification. But anyways I'll use your own analogy to say what would be the best logical action, I would buy a car that is most capable, that suits my purposes for the car for the least amount of money. Sticking with your car analogy I'll try to illustrate my point. The current transactions would be like buying a very cheap Proton (Malaysian made car) but paying the prices for a much more bigger and capable car, like a Benz (German made car) since the dealer has overcharged you. On paper you had expected the car to cost far less. Sure you can upgrade the little Proton to specifications close to of that of the Benz but those are additional costs and lets not forget because of that crook of a car dealer, you've already over paid. Perhaps the next batch of cars you purchase would be cheaper but you've already let the last dealer overcharge you and worst still you let him get away with it, the only thing you're doing different for this next batch of cars is you've changed the dealer, lets hope the dealer doesn't overcharge, since from your previous actions he knows the last dealer got away with over charging you.
And thats why it's very strange when you keep expressing that a real "Meko A-100/200" worth more then our minisized toy. Then again, whats the logic behind to have 5~10 vessel in 30yrs which mayb the last 10yrs: 1/3retired, 1/3pre-retire, 1/3"Half-life"hulls; compare to have 30 vessels in 30yrs which hav at least 10new hulls and have a maximun chance to upgrade/re-decision of 10times in every 10yr interval, and the it is more effiency? Not even want to count in upkeep facilities cost from what we already had for small toys.
I'm all for the Kedah class NPGV programme, I'm all for an indigenous capacity to build ships, I've expressed this in this forum when the Malaysian Minister of Defence announced at the Farnborough Air Show that Malaysia signed an LOI for 2 frigates from the United Kingdom which are to be built by Sabah Shipyards. It echo's Singapore's experience when ST built spearheaded their shipbuilding capability, it creates the opportunity of an indigenous capabilty which perhaps could lead to future export potential through indigenous design.
What must be highlighted that in hindsight is that the current batch is way too expensive (we have to take into account mismanagement), if we let the Germans build for us, it would have been cheaper. Malaysia is not in the position to throw money around, we have a small defence budget. Building warships might highten national pride but it should be done in a pragmatic way, in any chance of mismanagement, there must be responsibility and accountability. I support an indigenous program because of economics of industrial capability, not warfare capability. As Weasel succinctly put it, "Once a war starts, there wouldn't be enough time to build another ship." The overriding concern is that at a time of conflict, the RMN has to have the best ships money can buy, the military is afterall primarily concerned with the protection of national soverignty and interests not in indigenous capability which should be seen as a supplementary economic pursuit rather than military objective.
Last edited:
Here, I m putting conclusion base on my knowledge of you words. Will be please to being correct if any mistake made.
1. Worth less than cost mainly because of mis-management.
2. A symbol of pride is unnecessary for our country.
Base on my conclusion, i had these point of view:
1. The price we paid for is not only for the 27 vessels, but including tech transfer which brings potential extend for the future. Analysts are humans and so call logic depends on individuals. Analysis bring arguements thats another fact(just like: I do like to ply with analogies, but anyway, you had mistaken what i gona to analog.). But then, dispite those tanglement of worth/not worth theme, if an origin "not bad" idea end up in failure because of bad implementation. Who we should point our finger to?
2. From a second position to view, it may said to be a "show-off act". But in my view, we need what we need and we trying to get what we need (how does the tech gained benefits us is a long story, not going to meantion here). Talking about "hindsight" or "analys", to give a statement:Once a war starts, there wouldn't be enough time to build another ship is really like hitting your hand with a hammer. If that is true, why not fellow Euros and US shutdown their shipyard and let third world country manufacture for them? As for German, I doubt the necessity of high capacity industrial power.
Since the topic is about defence&milatay. It is common sense to treat is as a "daily war". Preparation for a warfare it just like any thing else:To gain ablily takes time and money. While individuals have diff desire of pace and amount of gain.
Nope, you had got it wrong. What i meant was individual efficiency does not put an equal sign to a mass efficiency. The "dont care others" thing does not exist in my mind.
I mean, ones that had berely effort for a necessity will always have that "to buy or not to buy" vexation. (here am I again) For example: You need a handset, you should try your best to pick one which you determine to be the best. After you bought it, you had to try your best to make it suits you, if you fail so, either you or your handset must be changed. And you should never wait of the ideal. New ones come every season, it will end up with: far from the galaxy, there is an ultimate handset...:unknown
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Just FYI, The Royal Malaysian Navy is having a competition to name the 2 new submarines that will be received in 08 and 09. The competition rules and forms are available on navy.mod.gov.my.
I think the competition is opened for Malaysians only, but just for the fun of it, may I have your suggestions, plus a bit of background on why you choose that name. you can also state where you are from as to have a bit of context
I think the competition is opened for Malaysians only, but just for the fun of it, may I have your suggestions, plus a bit of background on why you choose that name. you can also state where you are from as to have a bit of context
Just FYI, The Royal Malaysian Navy is having a competition to name the 2 new submarines that will be received in 08 and 09. The competition rules and forms are available on navy.mod.gov.my.
I think the competition is opened for Malaysians only, but just for the fun of it, may I have your suggestions, plus a bit of background on why you choose that name. you can also state where you are from as to have a bit of context
I think the competition is opened for Malaysians only, but just for the fun of it, may I have your suggestions, plus a bit of background on why you choose that name. you can also state where you are from as to have a bit of context
Sure not a problem, it is afterall a public forum, a sharing of idea's.
Yes this exactly it. You have to remember those additional requirements of funds that was needed was to complete just the initial batch, The final costs of 27 vessels is unknown and has the possibility to be very large.
Pride has costs, mismanagements has costs, these costs could be spent on education, on schools or other government expenditure. Malaysia is not a rich country.
Malaysia has not paid lump sum for 27 ships, but the orginal contract was expected for 27 or so vessels, the price paid include's the right to local assembly and this costed more than the SAN frigates in terms of what has costed Malaysia. Who should we point to?, Whoever was responsible! Heads should roll! Mismanagement is at a cost to the nation, other defence requirements could have been met, not only other forms government expenditures that could be funded. The cost of mismanagement is not only at cost to the RMN, the funds could have been used to build schools and roads for example.
I see your love for analogies strikes again,
.Its not about hitting your hand with a hammer. Argueably the reason why Europe and the US builds war ships more than third world countries, why South Africa and Brazil buys their warships from these countries has to do with the fact that if they started local production it would've been too costly. Its about comparative advantage, the reason why you are having Europe and the US shipyards building more warships is because they are efficient at them relative to other countries in the world. Lets admit it, not all nations can build everything they need, currently some aspects of industrial production in Malaysia, is not best done by Malaysia for example. Proton makes profits because of economic rent seeking, the market is distorted so that it can survive, it has economic costs. No country would buy these Kedah class ships if wasn't for the government supporting PSC. Look what you're talking now with your analogy is a different issue, I'm not talking about the lifespan of technology. I'm talking about the wastefulness of public funds and highlighting the costlyness of such projects. To use your own analogy, If I use your money to buy a "handset" I wouldn't be so careful about value for my money since it's not my money. If I use my own money, I will try and seek the best I can buy with the resources I have. There has been a lot of economic literature done on this concept. The point being is since the government is spending your money and my money in terms of our tax contributions so wastefully as a result of mismanagement, there must be accountability and responsibility for these large cost overruns.
Actually, questions mess up together here. As for my logic, it goes like this: Since origin idea is not a bad idea, issue occurs due to bad implementation, so our fingers are pointing at implementation instead of the idea. And which is the ideal choice to bring max profit with limited resourses will be exactly the handset analog: wait for an ideal handset will take you forever, forever which you will never had a handset.
For this one, instead of micro, I would suggest we treat it as a macro question. I dont agree to gain ability to build something equivalent or higher class then our MEKOs within next 30yrs. That's too much pace for us to rush.(The pace thing is where it bother us, it has a desire value for individuals) But to gain experience of designing/building a vessel help us to know more about those navy toys and therefore we have the ability to maintain them better and even potential to build some small one later in the future. Never the less, our navy toys need to be regulary maintain and PCS not only a shipbuilder, but also play the roll in providing service to our navy which we need it in anyway means. Here concludes that I think its a good idea, with poor implementation.
For the macro part, we have to talk about politics/world affair. How sanctions hurts, we have clearly seen examples in SEA itself. Althought we never had it before, more or less, our "not stick to anyone's butt" policy and mild islamic colour still bring potential for it to arrive one day. For appearence of our military forces, any conflict happens with our neighbour whom with "background", sanctions may not occur, but supply will be cut. War potential ability we had such as PCS will show its value then.
//
Some plus thought. I put most of the solution base on "pace" because I believe every "high-end technology" will become "low-end" one day. There is a pace where the tech "climb down" and we "climb up". At which point we intersact matters. 50yrs after independent, the Americans cant even make thier own glasses; 20yrs before WWI, they do big bussiness across Alantic in all aspect, WW2 they become the most important supplier to the Europeans. As for us(analogy again!), We can eat fish from restaurant for a reasonable price. but if we learn to cook from fresh, may supprise ourself that we found our true favor? Effort should be put to gain, but how do we distribute, is where the problem starts.
lets end this discussion, I'm tired of it. You keep talking about gaining experience and I'm talking about the cost.
I have been treating this as an economic question, from a macro perspective.
Your point so far is basically self reliance on ship building technology so that sanctions don't hurt Malaysia. Well, I'm all for indigenous ship building capacity, but at what costs???
Clearly the Meko program highlights the huge costs involved with building the Kedah class vessels, mismanagement is not even being held accountable, we still don't know how much all 27 vessels will cost the nation, if the first batch is any indication, it might be just overly expensive for the country, we might aswell buy direct from Germany. Malaysia can't afford such a program because of the large costs involved. You have to understand the Malaysian economy is still very very small. Its only a little larger than the state of Queenland in Australia. The Australian economy is about 5 times the size of Malaysia and even Australia does not build all its ships indigenously. When it does it also experiences problems, take its Australian built Collins Class submarines, the technology is from Kockums Sweden, when it was built it suffered from some defects almost at the expense and loss of HMAS Dechaineux which showed its teething problems at the time.
If Malaysia could build ships at cost, without the quality problems and delays as experienced by the RMN with the Kedah class, I'm all for it, it looks good on paper. But problems in the shipyards point otherwise, apparently there is an issue with the problems of mismanagement which have not been rectified, accountability and responsibility has still not been found and the government has said it won't take any action (strange don't you think).
Thus further additional costs of building the next batch of vessels, if the first batch is an indicator would be great for Malaysia given its small economy, regardless of issues of sanctions or self reliance. Even a vastly larger economy such as Australia has shown that it cannot be self reliant on its own military building capacity, what of economically tiny and poorer Malaysia? Yes there may be gains in expertise but not at the expense of huge costs involved. Its crucial for the government to make an example of the mismanagement but what we see is a bail out of the company and a change in management. I suspect someone sure did profit from the bail out. Gaurantees for further cost overruns aren't there, transparency is not there.
I have been treating this as an economic question, from a macro perspective.
Your point so far is basically self reliance on ship building technology so that sanctions don't hurt Malaysia. Well, I'm all for indigenous ship building capacity, but at what costs???
Clearly the Meko program highlights the huge costs involved with building the Kedah class vessels, mismanagement is not even being held accountable, we still don't know how much all 27 vessels will cost the nation, if the first batch is any indication, it might be just overly expensive for the country, we might aswell buy direct from Germany. Malaysia can't afford such a program because of the large costs involved. You have to understand the Malaysian economy is still very very small. Its only a little larger than the state of Queenland in Australia. The Australian economy is about 5 times the size of Malaysia and even Australia does not build all its ships indigenously. When it does it also experiences problems, take its Australian built Collins Class submarines, the technology is from Kockums Sweden, when it was built it suffered from some defects almost at the expense and loss of HMAS Dechaineux which showed its teething problems at the time.
If Malaysia could build ships at cost, without the quality problems and delays as experienced by the RMN with the Kedah class, I'm all for it, it looks good on paper. But problems in the shipyards point otherwise, apparently there is an issue with the problems of mismanagement which have not been rectified, accountability and responsibility has still not been found and the government has said it won't take any action (strange don't you think).
Thus further additional costs of building the next batch of vessels, if the first batch is an indicator would be great for Malaysia given its small economy, regardless of issues of sanctions or self reliance. Even a vastly larger economy such as Australia has shown that it cannot be self reliant on its own military building capacity, what of economically tiny and poorer Malaysia? Yes there may be gains in expertise but not at the expense of huge costs involved. Its crucial for the government to make an example of the mismanagement but what we see is a bail out of the company and a change in management. I suspect someone sure did profit from the bail out. Gaurantees for further cost overruns aren't there, transparency is not there.
Agreed that we better end this one here.
For very last to the topic, I wish to clear what I said. There is not much common with the Aus sub program. We more like assemble acording to well writen plan,therefore I said its potential is in future maintenance but not building, also, vessel is not as complicated compare to subs. While the next batch of uncertain amount of vessel are not even in paper.
Military toys are not cheap, any who wish to involve with it have to pay the ticket price. For a limited budget party, "to buy or not to but" issue always occurs. Talking about economic efficiency, even if the current MEKO program does exist, we still have to pay back the price in other form of it, one day. There is no free lunch is the principle I used here.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
October 27, 2006 19:01 PM
National Aerial Defence To Get A Boost
JOHOR BAHARU, Oct 28 (Bernama) -- The Malaysian Armed Forces (ATM) has submitted its evaluation of several passive surveillance radar (PSR) systems for the government to consider, according to sources.
The selected PSR system, to be installed under the Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP), will be a boost to the country's aerial defence.
"The evaluation team has completed their studies and evaluation of several PSR systems. The assessment has be submitted to the government for consideration," a source told Bernama here Friday.
While the source refused to reveal the systems that were being considered, the currently available PSR systems in the market included Kolchuga from the Ukraine, Vera-E from the Czech Republic and a similar technology from China.
The source said the PSR system, which functions as an early warning system, was a hot topic among international defence analysts as it was proven to be effective in neutralising threats to a country's aerial defence.
Bilingual magazine, Tempur, editor Muhammad Fuad Nor when contacted said the PSR system was different from the current aerial defence system used by the ATM.
He said the system could detect various threats from the air, land and sea including from the US Stealth aircraft, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, and the enemies' radio and electronic waves.
In addition, the PSR system was difficult to detect as it did not emit any microwave, he said.
Without the microwave emission, enemy aircraft could not detect the system's existence hence, making efforts to neutralise the threat easier, he said.
He said the enemy had to terminate radio communication to avoid detection by the PSR system.
Muhammad Fuad said the ATM's adoption of the PSR system could help the force to counter threats posed by enemy anti-radiation missiles that could cripple a radar system.
He said it was a strategic system and the ATM's Aerial Defence Artillery Group would be the likeliest unit to manage its operation.
The system's capability was proven during the Yugoslavian war at the end of the 1990's when the country's army succeeded in shooting down a US Stealth aircraft, F-1117.
The need for such a system in the ATM was noted by local and foreign defence observers last year during the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition.
-- BERNAMA
Can anyone explain the "F1117" part?
and can anyone tell what exactly did we planed to buy?
National Aerial Defence To Get A Boost
JOHOR BAHARU, Oct 28 (Bernama) -- The Malaysian Armed Forces (ATM) has submitted its evaluation of several passive surveillance radar (PSR) systems for the government to consider, according to sources.
The selected PSR system, to be installed under the Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP), will be a boost to the country's aerial defence.
"The evaluation team has completed their studies and evaluation of several PSR systems. The assessment has be submitted to the government for consideration," a source told Bernama here Friday.
While the source refused to reveal the systems that were being considered, the currently available PSR systems in the market included Kolchuga from the Ukraine, Vera-E from the Czech Republic and a similar technology from China.
The source said the PSR system, which functions as an early warning system, was a hot topic among international defence analysts as it was proven to be effective in neutralising threats to a country's aerial defence.
Bilingual magazine, Tempur, editor Muhammad Fuad Nor when contacted said the PSR system was different from the current aerial defence system used by the ATM.
He said the system could detect various threats from the air, land and sea including from the US Stealth aircraft, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, and the enemies' radio and electronic waves.
In addition, the PSR system was difficult to detect as it did not emit any microwave, he said.
Without the microwave emission, enemy aircraft could not detect the system's existence hence, making efforts to neutralise the threat easier, he said.
He said the enemy had to terminate radio communication to avoid detection by the PSR system.
Muhammad Fuad said the ATM's adoption of the PSR system could help the force to counter threats posed by enemy anti-radiation missiles that could cripple a radar system.
He said it was a strategic system and the ATM's Aerial Defence Artillery Group would be the likeliest unit to manage its operation.
The system's capability was proven during the Yugoslavian war at the end of the 1990's when the country's army succeeded in shooting down a US Stealth aircraft, F-1117.
The need for such a system in the ATM was noted by local and foreign defence observers last year during the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition.
-- BERNAMA
----------------------------------------
Can anyone explain the "F1117" part?
and can anyone tell what exactly did we planed to buy?
I have a copy of that Tempur Mag. Right now the MOD is leaning on the Vera-E complex from Czech Republic. Althoug in the mag, the author is leaning more towards the Kolchuga from Ukraine as it has a higher capability.
From what I remember, Vera E complex works with 3 receivers and 1 receiver/master complex to cover a front of 120degrees to a range of 450km. It uses the multilateration techique to generate a position fix of an emitter (radio/radar/EW/etc etc). The author is pointing out in regards to the limited front and also range and also dependency of the one master station. If any receivers is down or worse if the master is down, then the whole complex is down
The Kolchuga works with the multilateration technique and also AoA (angle of arrival). It has 4 stations, each with it's own processing power, so any station can be set as master and the rest is slaves. These 4 stations provide a 360degrees coverage up to 450km for multilateration and 800km (as in the mag) for AoA technique. The AoA technique is something like a Tacan system, if 2 of the station can get the emitting signal bearing down, they can cross check the bearing to get an approx location. According to the author, even if the complex is running on 1 station, it will still be able to provide bearing info of the emitter, 2 stations for approx location, 3 or more station in range can provide position fix using multilateration.
Also there's something about the receiver's sensitivity, the Vera E is more limited to a certain bandwidth but the Kolchuga has a bigger bandwidth so that more emitter can be detected. I think Vera E is limited to signals above 1GHz and the Kolchuga is from 100MHz.
I'll check the mag again
From what I remember, Vera E complex works with 3 receivers and 1 receiver/master complex to cover a front of 120degrees to a range of 450km. It uses the multilateration techique to generate a position fix of an emitter (radio/radar/EW/etc etc). The author is pointing out in regards to the limited front and also range and also dependency of the one master station. If any receivers is down or worse if the master is down, then the whole complex is down
The Kolchuga works with the multilateration technique and also AoA (angle of arrival). It has 4 stations, each with it's own processing power, so any station can be set as master and the rest is slaves. These 4 stations provide a 360degrees coverage up to 450km for multilateration and 800km (as in the mag) for AoA technique. The AoA technique is something like a Tacan system, if 2 of the station can get the emitting signal bearing down, they can cross check the bearing to get an approx location. According to the author, even if the complex is running on 1 station, it will still be able to provide bearing info of the emitter, 2 stations for approx location, 3 or more station in range can provide position fix using multilateration.
Also there's something about the receiver's sensitivity, the Vera E is more limited to a certain bandwidth but the Kolchuga has a bigger bandwidth so that more emitter can be detected. I think Vera E is limited to signals above 1GHz and the Kolchuga is from 100MHz.
I'll check the mag again
Submarine names
KD Sabah and KD Sarawak. In keeping with the tradition of reusing previous ship names. If I am not mistaken after the original Kedah-class of PVs the next class of PVs were the Sabah-class. KD Sarawak was second vessel of that Sabah-class.
Just FYI, The Royal Malaysian Navy is having a competition to name the 2 new submarines that will be received in 08 and 09. The competition rules and forms are available on navy.mod.gov.my.
I think the competition is opened for Malaysians only, but just for the fun of it, may I have your suggestions, plus a bit of background on why you choose that name. you can also state where you are from as to have a bit of context
KD Sabah and KD Sarawak. In keeping with the tradition of reusing previous ship names. If I am not mistaken after the original Kedah-class of PVs the next class of PVs were the Sabah-class. KD Sarawak was second vessel of that Sabah-class.
I've read all the messages posted regarding the RMN capabilities and shortfalls - and the navy latest aquisitions of the PV. There bigger issues that the Malaysian Gov - Armed Forces need to deal with, i.e. how do they protect and defend the integrity and sovereignty of Malaysia in the era of globalisation with terrorism post a serious challenge to countries in the region.
If all those informations that all of you posted are true, then i think the gov has serious problem at hand.What more when malaysia is separated by the contentious South China Sea. Can the military handle all those threats especially the threat of maritime terror and trans national crimes -couples with the existing security issues surrounding her? I think the gov needs to comeout with new defence strategy and perhaps work together with other regional countries as well as australia, and of course the us, japan and india to ensure that south china sea as well as the straits of Malacca are secured from terrorism, piracy and other trans national crimes.
If all those informations that all of you posted are true, then i think the gov has serious problem at hand.What more when malaysia is separated by the contentious South China Sea. Can the military handle all those threats especially the threat of maritime terror and trans national crimes -couples with the existing security issues surrounding her? I think the gov needs to comeout with new defence strategy and perhaps work together with other regional countries as well as australia, and of course the us, japan and india to ensure that south china sea as well as the straits of Malacca are secured from terrorism, piracy and other trans national crimes.
(for my own observation)
Malaysia is holding a strong sovereignty and neutral policy.In the pass, Malaysia did denied offer from US, India, Japan and even China. We are also an active member of NAM and so you can roughly have picture of what strategy we origin have. So to have a oppose change will not be posible.
We are having challenge but not as serious as you meantion. We dont have "indigenous" terrorism, while terrorism in our neighbors dont point their guns to us either. Piracy is controled in a statisfied contition. Nations conflict is also not a big issue as well have one of the best equipped arm force in SEA, unless we are facing someone whom have outnumber F-16s.
Malaysia is holding a strong sovereignty and neutral policy.In the pass, Malaysia did denied offer from US, India, Japan and even China. We are also an active member of NAM and so you can roughly have picture of what strategy we origin have. So to have a oppose change will not be posible.
We are having challenge but not as serious as you meantion. We dont have "indigenous" terrorism, while terrorism in our neighbors dont point their guns to us either. Piracy is controled in a statisfied contition. Nations conflict is also not a big issue as well have one of the best equipped arm force in SEA, unless we are facing someone whom have outnumber F-16s.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited: