Malaysia narrows hunt for replacement missiles after Norway axes contract

Malaysia has narrowed its search for a replacement anti-ship missile system to four potential suppliers after Norway revoked an export licence for a deal that Kuala Lumpur said was already more than 90 per cent paid for. The cancellation came after Oslo tightened arms-export rules in a shift that analysts say reveals how access to advanced arms can depend as much on supplier-country politics as on signed contracts. Turkey, South Korea and two unspecified European nations were being assessed as candidates to supply a replacement for the Naval Strike Missile, Malaysian Defence Minister Mohamed Khaled Nordin said on Sunday. The advanced anti-ship weapon manufactured by Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace was intended to give Malaysia’s Maharaja Lela-class littoral combat ships (LCS) mid-to-long-range strike capability. Khaled said the selection criteria for any replacement would be stringent, with two priorities clear: speed of delivery and compatibility with the LCS’ French-built combat management system. “We want to know who can supply the missiles earliest,” he said on Sunday. “If the delivery timelines take up to eight years, that is not a viable option for us.” The LCS is a multi-role combat vessel based on France’s Gowind-class frigate, equipped for air defence, surface combat and anti-submarine warfare. Work first began on the shipbuilding programme in 2011, but delays and cost overruns have repeatedly pushed back vessel delivery. Norway revoked the export licence for Malaysia’s Naval Strike Missile system in March, almost eight years after the procurement process began in April 2018. Oslo said its revised regulations restricted the export of its most sensitive weapons technology to Nato members and its closest allies. Malaysia’s Ministry of Defence is now seeking more than 1 billion ringgit (US$245 million) in compensation for the aborted deal. Ankara over Oslo? The Norway episode had strengthened the case for Malaysia to widen its pool of arms suppliers, analysts told This Week in Asia. “We just cannot put our trust in the traditional, more advanced country as our supplier, because the geopolitical objective is more important than fulfilling the agreement,” said Azmi Hassan, a political analyst and senior fellow at the Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research in Selangor. “We need to diversify and put our trust in non-traditional suppliers,” he added, pointing to Turkey and South Korea as more reliable alternatives – even as European firms reportedly remained in the running for the current replacement. Others urged against an overcorrection. Foreign policy analyst Shahriman Lockman of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies Malaysia said the Norway case should not become an argument for abandoning Western suppliers, especially in high-end capability areas where American and European systems were difficult to match. The episode is a reminder that defence procurement is never purely commercial Shahriman Lockman, foreign policy analyst “A broader break with Western suppliers is unlikely,” he said, predicting instead that “diversification rather than substitution” would result. Though Shahriman acknowledged Malaysia’s non-aligned posture and ties with both Russia and China could have played a part in Norway’s decision, he said Oslo’s changed priorities were the more persuasive explanation. “Since the invasion of Ukraine, European states have had to place greater weight on their own defence requirements and those of their allies,” he said. “The episode is a reminder that defence procurement is never purely commercial. Access to advanced military technology remains subject to political decisions made in supplier capitals.” Andrea Passeri, a senior lecturer of international relations at Taylor’s University in Selangor, said the Norway case captured the dilemma faced by non-aligned nations that relied on international partners for military hardware as they tried to manage defence procurement in a more uncertain geopolitical environment. Malaysia was not being “simply punished” for engaging Russia or for its non-aligned posture, he said, but the case did show how export approvals could be reassessed when supplier countries grew more anxious about their own strategic circumstances. “For Malaysia, the real lesson here is that procurement risk does not end when a contract is signed,” Passeri said. Though Western systems remained attractive for their quality, interoperability and prestige, he said “what is changing is the risk calculation”. “Southeast Asian states may increasingly look for a broader supplier base so that one export-control decision, diplomatic dispute or political reassessment does not derail an entire capability plan.”

Malaysia narrows hunt for replacement missiles after Norway axes contract

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Turkey, South Korea and two unspecified European nations are in the frame to replace a cancelled Norwegian anti-ship missile

Turkey, South Korea and two unspecified European nations are in the frame to replace a cancelled Norwegian anti-ship missile