SHAH ALAM: IT appears that the talk of changes in the military procurement by PMX within the last few months is slowly gaining traction in the Defence Ministry.
However, the changes are being held back as the government has yet to appoint a secretary-general or KSU to the ministry. The KSU is instrumental in putting in place the changes in the military procurement, amongst other things in his or her brief. The KSU heads the public service of the ministry.
The last KSU retired in June and that after one year extension, so they had plenty (around six months for the PMX administration) of time to find a new one.
I am not sure whether the delay in appointing the new KSU is due to the lack of suitable candidates for the post (there are many). Or the delay is due to the interference of invisible hands to ensure the changes delayed due to the lack of the KSU (with our political situation as it is.)
I was told that one of the changes to the military procurement is that it will be done directly – a tender process – with the OEMs. I was told about the two programmes already selected to be conducted through the new process – you can guess which ones – but will not name it here for reasons. Both have been written and commented on Malaysian Defence and others as well.
Despite the impending the changes to the military procurement, I am still not convinced that it will change the end-result. Yes, we might get away from local agents from the initial procurement, but the industrial collaboration programme ((ICP) will get in the way. The ICP could be implemented for procurement above RM50 million from original equipment manufacturer and RM100 million for major local companies.
One example is the FLIT/LCA programme. Even though we bought the FA-50 trainer/attack jets directly from Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) due to the offset requirements, we are now talking about local assembly/transfer of technology, and an MRO centre as part of the ICP.
As had been shown in the past, such things always faltered and repeating the process after changes to the procurement process, negates the changes sought by PMX in the first place. Of course, as the PMX is also the Finance Minister will have the powers to over-rule the ICP requirements. Will the change come then?
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (33)
For LCA
Hopefully there is still time to change the offset programme. I am against the local assembly of those FA-50MY. I am for malaysian companies to manufacture parts for the FA-50 and KF-21 project. Would like to see some additional offset in the shape of excess korean defence articles, such as KIFV, Blackhawk helicopters etc.
on the SPH.
i agree on open tender. But for open tender to work, i would also want to see that the army really know 100% what they want, in the shape of a very detailed (and logical) tender specification. No use of an open tender when the user itself is not sure of what it really wants.
What is the other one for open tender? LMS Batch 2? or armored 4x4?
Marhalim sir, when will you be making another keeping up with the Joneses? I'd like to hear your thoughts about Indonesia's recent announcement of procuring 24 F-15 jets. Seeing as how the Kuwaitis are keeping their hornets, effectively killing the ISF program, seems as if RMAF only has one option, buy more FA50, but is this really a good idea? Are there any other possible sources from where the air force could procure 2nd hand multirole jets until the 2030-40 MRCA timeline? I'm quite skeptical that the Flankers could fly for very long, let alone survive till then.
I am not going to comment on both the Eagle and Blackhawk deals as both are not firm contracts yet.
LMS Batch 2 and SPH for the next procurement?
The best option for now is proceed with second batch of FA50 after we receive the first batch. And for the MRCA we should get fifth gen fighter. I still don't understand why TNI AU need 3 version of fighter jets
Getting more FA-50 would definitely justify building an assembly plant in malaysia. Besides the plane is supposed to replace 4 planes in RMAF and in 2019 the plans called for up to 50 LCAs in service
Still no
Wonder if offloading our su-30mkm to Ukraine and getting some gula2 from US in terms of f-18 hornet or super hornet would be feasible
Nope
Imitating KAI,TAI & IAI are a well travel path by many countries before us thus there's nothing wrong with such a policy in my books.
Buying directly overseas is never a popular choice by any gov becomes why pay with hard earn foreign currencies when you can just pay with money printed out of thin air.
Based on what I seen so far I will leave this quote; plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Let our neighbours have their ways..Our way forward should be affordable,feasible and not pretentious be it for navy,army or airforce..And yeah no for that fa50 local assembly thing but yes for fa50 local parts..As MRCA yes just go with Fifth gens..pretty sure the airforce already have their candidates in mind,now they just waiting to get the money..Fa50s maybe a lil light to complement mkms and hornets but they will need to shoulder on until 2030s or maybe beyond..
"thus there’s nothing wrong with such a policy in my books."
There is nothing wrong if the goal is to force industrialisation and job creation & boosting the area local economy. But if they start spouting things like savings in money due to making it locally, TOT for us to create more locally, or defence self sufficiency, then that's all nonsense. All these do is create inefficiencies with money, as we'd have to pay extras for the localisation, TOT, setting up factories or in BNS case upgrade current ones, none of which goes into the value chain of the product itself. So if we cannot factor in extra budget for them, lets not kid ourselves that things will go smoothly or else whatever ventured will suffer the same fate as LCS; grossly underbudgeted compared to its real world figures that became its Achilles heel.
Buying big ticket items direct is often hard to justify to all parties as it meant money gone out and nothing in return, and in this challenging economy the Govt cannot be seen to be spending money without it generating money. Its political suicide in these unstable times.
That is why the plan for the FA-5O ICP is for local assembly and followed by MRO. Since we already pay for the hangar and other buildings for the local assembly once the work is completed it had to be converted into the MRO facility