SHAH ALAM: Briefings for MPA and UAS tenders. The Defence Ministry’s Procurement Division together with Defence Industry Division and RMAF hold separate briefings for the procurement of the MPA and UAS last week. Though the tenders for both were published on 25 August, the one for MPA (two aircraft) will closed on 3 December while the UAS system on 26 November.
Leonardo ATR 72 MPA. Leonardo
The briefings were held via video conferencing due to the current pandemic, the MPA one on 1 October and UAS on 2 October at the Intermark Hotel, says the RMAF in two separate releases. Not much details were issued in both releases though it stated that both are international tenders. Only companies which took part in the briefings are eligible to take part in them, it must be noted.
Bayraktar
As both are classified as international tenders, OEMs can bid their products directly without going through a local company, though one can be appointed later for maintenance and support. OEMs could also appoint a local company to act on their behalf, of course, from the start.
Chilean Navy C295 MPA. Airbus
What does this means in the practical terms then? This means Leonardo, Airbus, Boeing, Kawasaki and PTDI can take part directly in the MPA contest without the need for a local partner.
RAAF P-8A flying over RMAF Butterworth. Australian Defense Department
This also mean Turkish Aerospace and Baykar Makina can go head to head with others for the UAS contest though it is likely they will be partnered with local companies from the start. I am putting the companies as examples only as I have not got any confirmation whether any of them had actually attended the briefing which was mandatory for them to take part in the tender. Of course they could also have their local representatives take part in the briefing.
CN235 MPA of TNI-AL displayed at LIMA 2015.
The MPA release also said this : Kerajaan Malaysia telah meluluskan sejumlah peruntukan di bawah Kelulusan Keperluan Kritikal (Rancangan Perbelanjaan (RP)-4) bagi perolehan dua (2) buah pesawat MPA bagi Fasa 1. Melalui perancangan awal CAP55, jumlah keseluruhan adalah enam (6) buah MPA yang diperlukan oleh TUDM.
A picture of the MPA briefing. RMAF
Pictures from both briefings showed mostly the ministry’s personnel together with grainy pictures of the companies representatives, locally and from overseas. A picture of the UAS briefing showed a couple of slides of the technical specifications of the system being sought, however.
A picture from the UAS briefing, note the screens. RMAF
From what I can see, it stated that the UAS and its associated systems must be certified for NATO standards or the equivalent. One thing that can be seen clearly on the screens were “Prototypes will not be considered”.
A PLAN KQ200 MPA as provided by the Taiwan Defence Ministry. This is the same type of MPA flying over the SCS. It is unlikely to be offered for our MPA programme though. If it was it will be front page news. Taiwan MND
Anyhow I was told for the MPA tender that only new airframes will be considered leaving us with the ATR, C-295, P-8, P-1 and CN235 as the most likely aircraft to be offered for the competition.
Kawasaki P-1. JMSDF
That said I could be wrong of course as I have no access to the tender documents.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (155)
Yay for the UAVs
Nay for the MPAs.
The current tender is for 3 units of UAV/UAS and 2 units of MPA.
What we need is at least 12 MALE UAV/UAS and 6 MPA.
If we can convert all 6 of our CN-235 into MPAs enabling enough budget to get 12 MALE UAV/UAS at 1 go.
The current setup will mean we will just have a token MALE UAV/UAS and MPA capability.
Please just cancel the new MPA tender and get on with converting all our CN-235 into MPAs. As for UAV, i hope the battle proven Bayraktar TB2 wins it.
Marhalim, any idea of allocated sum budget for the new MPA?
Reply
Without knowledge of the specifications I am guessing that it should be around RM1 billion at least
I would think that all of the UASs on offer will have been used by various players over the skies of Syria, Yemen, Libya and Iraq. Thus their OEMs can make the “battle proven” claim.
Naturally certain deficiencies/weaknesses (i.e. issues at certain altitudes, vulnerability to jamming, bandwidth issues, etc) will not be mentioned but it’s hoped thorough trials in non scripted environment will be performed.
One of the things we’ll be looking out for is the cost of spares and operating costs. It’s also hoped that political imperatives don’t become the driving factor in choosing an eventual winner.
Talk about MPA if I'm not mistaken Australia stationed their P-8 Poseidon in RMAF Butterworth Penang right? If there any benefit we get from that detachment? I mean like any inteligent especially submarine movement in the region?
Reply
It's an adhoc detachment mostly for looking for illegal immigrants. Of course they also look out for submarines and other maritime duties. It is unknown whether we are privy of the details from such deployment
@...
There is a possibility that it is RMAF is the one pushing for new MPA airframes instead of converting all existing CN235 for reasons such as longer airframe life etc. Being the government is so cash strapped/kedekut on defense i don't think it was originally the government decision. That being said i do see your point in saving money now for more UAS. We also might not know if in the future they will convert the rest CN235 for a total of 8 MPAs do we? Let's hope this time RMAF will get what they actually wanted.
@ luqman
Having the possibility of token amounts of 2 different MPA platform (3 CN-235 and 2 new MPA) and systems plus a token amount of UAS (3 units) isnt going to give us any good overall capability.
Next we still need to look at other stuff like LCA/LIFT (this is an urgent requirement IMO), AWACs, etc. How to concentrate on other stuff when we still need to look at additional UAS and MPAs?
With the want to do open tenders for everything, there is also no confirmation that the next batch of UAS and MPA will be of the same type, further compounding the rojak issue of our equipments.
A,
RAAF MPAs whilst at Butterworth undertake various tasking; as part of the PFDA; under the control of HQIADS. We benefit from the info/intel which is shared under the FPDA platform. If they happen to be there; they also assist in SAR.
“Operation Gateway” involves RAAF MPAs operating mostly over the SCS but not as part of the FPDA. As such; intel obtained from those missions are shared with us at their discretion.
Luqman - “There is a possibility that it is RMAF is the one pushing for new MPA airframes instead of converting all existing CN235 for reasons such as longer airframe life etc”
Many years ago the RMAF publicly announced that it was looking at converting the CNs if cash for MPAs were not released.
IPTN submitted a proposal but the government wasn’t keen on the idea.
My guess is that irrespective of what’s mentioned in CAP 55 (like the 5/15 both already undergoing changes) the RMAF is - for
various reasons - not ready to immediately do away with the twin engine transport capability; even if it’s limited to a mere 3 airframes.
From what has been going on during Nagorno -Karabakh clashes, Bayraktar is such a deadly name.
On the UASs whilst it’s vital to pick one which comes closest to meeting our requirements; of far more importance is us having right C3 set up/mechanism in place. I’d we don’t; and we have a cumbersome bureaucratic C3 in place with limited “jointness”;
it won’t matter which UAS we get.
The Turks are a good example of a UAS operator which over the years steadily improved its capabilities. At one point they didn’t have the right C3 in place to take advantage of intel obtained; including time sensitive situations. Today; minutes after intel is obtained and shared;
F-16s can lay ordnance in the target.
I’m not suggesting we go for armed UASs; only that we need a proper C3 set up in place to ensure intel is made available in a timely manner to those who need it and that no single service hogs the capability. A few years down the road: as we mature as an operator and (hopefully) acquire tertiary capabilities; MALEs should be operated by a “UAS Command”; like whet the Sings have done.