Malaysian Defence

12 Comments

1. Is this separate from the CN235 repurpose programme?

   Reply
   Of course, why you need a RFP for the CN235

2. My humble opinion is,

   Forget about the MPA RFP and concentrate to make the best MPA possible out of our 6 CN-235. A full ASW capability with sub attack function might not be possible with CN-235 MPA, but we dont have to waste resources to get 2 different types of MPA.

   Friendly countries like Australia and UK have the P-8, and australia will be permanently deploying at least 1 to malaysia anyway. Something that we need to take into consideration too. UK will be deploying its aircraft carrier to south china sea next year, and surely its P-8 will also be deployed to cover the ship.

   Anyway, bfore we even think of ASW MPA, where is the plan for ASW helicopter?

   For TUDM RMK12 rather than having 2 types of MPA, try to maximise the budget to get the best LCA/LIFT as possible.

3. Maybe they are also keen on the CN 295. There must be a lot of commonality in the aircraft hardware. As for the surveillance software, I am sure they can get smart enough RMAF techs who can adapt to and operate both American and European systems and radars.

   Reply
   C295 will not cut it as an ASW MPA, armed with torpedoes it will not have the range or endurance. None of the turboprops will cut it

4. … – “Something that we need to take into consideration too””

   We have long factored in their presence. They are in in charge of their own taskings and when it comes to places which have overlapping claims; they won’t touch it with a barge pole.

   In short; RAAF P-3s will be very useful/helpful for certain situations like SAR and piracy: as well as areas of mutual concern but not more than that.

   Reply
   Its P8s now as RAAF is retiring the Orions.

5. P.S. There is also the fact that under “Gatekeeper” certain tastings undertaken by P-3s – in the Andaman and South China Sea – are related to matters of no direct or immediate interest/concern (being part of the Australian/U.S. intel arrangement) to us and intel obtained is only shared at their discretion.

   We had actually looked at converting the CNs in the 2008/9 period with roll on/off surveillance kits but for some reason the idea never caught traction with the powers that be.

6. “None of the turboprops will cut it”. Settle for jet platform which have the range & endurance. Pricier than a turboprop. Unfortunately nobody manufactures a 4-engine turboprop ASW MP like P-3.

7. Nimitz,

   Catch 22. Will the RMAF be provided width the funds needed to operate and support a jet platform?

   Same argument can be made with a AEW platform. A jet can get to where it has to go faster than a turboprop and will be able to operate at a higher altitude but operating/support costs will be higher.

   Personally I think a ASW platform – like various other things – is something we have to go without for the the foreseeable future and to instead concentrate first on acquiring a ASW configured helo to operate from the LCS. Sure, a ASW helo is no substitute for a AAW conducted MPA but at least it provides some level of capability; provided we get the right platform able to carry a pair of torps, sonobuoys and a dipping sonar

8. Agreed on the Catch-22. Hopefully Mindef will tell us,which manufacturer submitted its proposal. Not surprised if they will fall for a twin engine turboprop though.

   For ASW helis, the ‘right’ one is Wildcat…just a gut feeling.

9. Nimitz,

   It is from a price perspective; assuming that’s the minimum we can afford. From an operational perspective it’s a different however; as far as ASW goes. It can’t carry a pair of torps and dipping sonar (never mind sonobuoys) and still have decent endurance.

   An ASW platform has to reach point A to search and persecute the contact and has to get back to the ship. Even assuming it might not have to fly too far to get to the vicinity of the contact; searching and getting a firing solution which can enable the launch of a torp will take time and likelihood is that only a single torp will be carried. Given that ASW is at the best of times; time intensive we can’t assume that the helo wont have to spend time searching and flying around dipping and retracting the sonar. The objective will also have to also keep the contact as far away from the ship as possible; this will require endurance; which in turn requires fuel.

   Reply
   It’s the same really for a fixed wing MPA. I am of the opinion that only the P-8 will meet the technical requirements but not on cost

10. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2020/02/570008/army-finally-take-delivery-light-attack-helicopters

    Seems that the Army will be accepting the Little Birds after all.
    Maybe because Mat Sabu is no longer MINDEF?
    Most importantly though, did the Army really want these helicopters or (I read somewhere here) were they forced into it?

11. Marhalim,

    No doubt range, endurance and lift capacity for ASW configured MPAs applies but given that there is close to zero likelihood our MPAs will have such a capability; hopefully in 2-3 years we’ll go for ASW configured helos first. Enabling a ASW capability will add significant cost to the MPA programme and funds will also have to be allocated to operate and maintain the equipment. There is also the question of how much time just 2 MPAs will be able to spend on ASW training given that their priority will be surveillance.

    I have to agree, on paper the P-8 is the only contender that adequately fulfils all the requirements we should/expect from a MPA; assuming of course whether one can afford it.

    ASM,

    I think we can safely assume that the decision to proceed with the Little Birds was made way before the Defence Minister’s post became vacant; only days ago.

    Now the army will have to find ways to put to operational use the Little Birds; either as a quick reaction armed platform to deal with just detected threats or to deploy special forces (notwithstanding the type’s limited lift capacity, range, endurance and and cabin space

12. Marhalim,

    To the best of your knowledge, did the contact for the Little Birds include a weapons package?

    Reply
    Mini guns and unguided rocket launchers only as this was a DCS deal. Guided weapons need to be purchased via FMS