SHAH ALAM: Boustead Heavy Industries Corp Bhd (BHIC) announced today that its 51 per cent-owned joint venture was awarded the RM378 million in-service support and performance-based contract for RMAF’s EC725 helicopters. BHIC is the subsidiary of Boustead Holdings Bhd.
The heavy engineering firm said the JV company, BHIC AeroService Sdn Bhd (BHICAS) accepted a letter of award dated August 2 for the contract, issued by the Defence ministry. BHICAS has been the service provider for the EC725s since they were put into service in 2012.
The contract is for a period of five years from the date of acceptance and signing of the letter of award by BHICAS.
The announcement by BHIC:
RECEIPT OF LETTER OF AWARD FOR THE IN-SERVICE SUPPORT AND PERFORMANCE
BASED CONTRACT FOR THE ROYAL MALAYSIAN AIR FORCE EC725 HELICOPTERS BY BHIC
AEROSERVICES SDN BHD
The Company wishes to announce that BHIC AeroServices Sdn. Bhd. (“BHICAS”) (199401003897),
being the Company’s joint venture between BHIC Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd (51%) Prestige
Pillar Sdn Bhd (30%) and Airbus Helicopters Malaysia Sdn Bhd (19%) has today accepted the Letter
of Award (LOA) dated 2 August 2024 from the Ministry of Defence representing the Government of
Malaysia, awarding BHICAS the In-Service Support and Performance Based Contract for the Royal
Malaysian Air Force EC725 Helicopters (“Contract”) at a contract value of Ringgit Malaysia Three
Hundred and Seventy Eight Million (RM378,000,000.00) for a period of five (5) years from the date of acceptance and signing of the LOA by BHICAS.
A formal contract between the Government of Malaysia and BHICAS will be finalized and executed at
a later date.
The Contract will contribute positively to the earnings of the BHIC Group for the financial years from 2024 to 2029.
None of the directors or substantial shareholders of the Company, or persons connected with them
have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract.
This announcement is dated 15 August 2024.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (23)
Perhaps in preparation for more ec725 coming?
No lah, the 12 already in service need maintenance and in-service support. That said it should help Airbus when they finally put up the tender for 12 new medium helicopters.
Logically it should be a follow on from the EC725 batch and I believe TUDM are happy with it looking at the record breaking usage award from Airbus. However since when did we ever do the logical thing?
There is also the school of thought, that we should be beholden to one type of aircraft. Incase some thing affects the EC725 like what had happened before. When that happened we had to rely on the Nuri.
Indeed it would not have been my 1st preference (hint: blackhawk) but consider that it may be on other platforms, might as well go back to EC725, after all the high usage award does bode well for its reliability.
Since the EC725s works well with the RMAF, its logical that we stick to the same aircraft for batch 2 first. As for 2nd type, maybe we can lease other helicopters or have the other branches to support the RMAF in case the whole EC725 / H225M fleet has to be grounded.
@ marhalim
IMO it is okay for 1 service to commonise on just 1 type of helicopter
TUDM - EC725/EC225LP/H225M
TLDM - AW139 HOM
PUTD - Blackhawk
If anything happens, other services could for a short period cover the other services mission needs.
As it is, Boustead subsidiary, MHS still owns 5 idle/unused EC225LP that would be better used in TUDM fleet
reg. type c/n history
9M-SPE Eurocopter 225LP Super Puma Mk.II+ 2782 F-WWOP, 9M-SPE
9M-SPF Eurocopter 225LP Super Puma Mk.II+ 2803 F-WJXL, 9M-SPF
9M-SPG Eurocopter 225LP Super Puma Mk.II+ 2852 F-WWOY, F-WTAO, 9M-SPG
9M-SPH Eurocopter 225LP Super Puma Mk.II+ 2870 F-WWON, 9M-SPH
9M-SPI Eurocopter 225LP Super Puma Mk.II+ 2868 F-WWOT, F-WTAO, 9M-SPI
Does any other military fly civilian-spec EC225LP super pumas? Yes, even the french military (below flown by French air force)
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49948143792_aad1e79e2e_h.jpg
As for the RMN, it should be Seahawks for ASW, while the HOM is used for other duties.
The Super Pumas, I was told, has already been transferred to Airbus. With MHS getting two smaller helicopters as part payment. They were offered for the Army leasing programme, but was not selected.
@ marhalim
" The Super Pumas, I was told, has already been transferred to Airbus "
That is just a sad news. They are still m'sian registered, as of 1 Aug 2024.
I was told about the ownership transfer. Not anything else.
''However since when did we ever do the logical thing?''
On quite a few occasions actually. Unfortunately these are often over shadowed by things done which are ''illogical''; i.e. buying the Laksamanas, SU-30s, MiG-29s, etc.
... - ''IMO it is okay for 1 service to commonise on just 1 type of helicopter''
It's ''ok'' if nothing goes drastically wrong or if the unexpected doesn't happen. I'm all for commonality but there is an element of risk with the proverbial placing of all one's ages in a common basket. That being said I hope we get more Cougars; rather than another type.
>mig-29
>su-30
>illogical
they were logical back then. Uncle sam wanna shove subpar planes to us. Also Pakistan and Indonesia getting fked in the ass with military embargoes during the mid 90s- early 2000s. While we didn't really do anything that would revoke such drastic actions, the old man wasn't cool with the US either and MY/US ties were pretty frosty back then
It was illogical really.
Our ties with the US was not frosty lah - the US was the biggest trade investor just like now - its just the old man trying to be the old man. It was not subpar fighter planes they were offering to us it was basically the same deal like the F16s that SG bought. It is just that we wanted twin engine fighter hence the Hornet.
For a small underfunded force that we have, we cant really afford to have variety of spices. Yes, risks are always there when commonise which is why the key to a long term successful deployment would be to do it on matured and well proven platforms, and that is why I push for the services commonisation to Blackhawks (used Limas for TDM/PUTD, Seahawk utility & ASW for TLDM, Pavehawk for TUDM CSAR, Jayhawk for MMEA, Firehawk for BOMBA). If its reliable enough workhorse for US ever high tempo operations, it would be more than capable for our use.
Some might say about the high cost of maint, bringing up VIPHawk, but the point is that USA stuff always had higher cost, that is the price for dependability, and we always had a higher leeway for OPEX budgeting than CAPEX (its easier to rebuild a ship to near new condition than to buy new, so a higher maint budget is less scrutinised), and a key factor for commonising is maint cost will be lowered for overall to all users (as long as we centralised the servicing & spares).
For this to happen we need a mindset change from all, including the beancounters & politicians, to see the bigger picture where commonising works for everyone if everyone puts their egos and selfishness aside for the greater good of their arm.
High maintenance cost of the VIP Hawk was due to its being a VIP helicopter, and the fact they are only two Hawks in MY. If they had more Hawks of course it will be lower.