SHAH ALAM: First CN in Bandung for conversion into the MSA. After being delayed due to the global pandemic, RMAF has sent its first CN-235-220M transporter to the PTDI facility in Bandung, Indonesia to undergo the conversion process into a maritime surveillance aircraft.
The aircraft tail number, M44-05 was flown to Bandung on 3 September and the official handing over took place the day after, says a RMAF posting on its official FB page on 7 September.
RMAF and PTDI personnel posed for a picture after the handing over of 05 for the conversion process. RMAF
PENGHANTARAN PESAWAT PERTAMA CN235-220M (M44-05) BAGI NAIK TARAF MARITIME SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (MSA) DI BAWAH PROGRAM MARITME SECURITY INITIATIVE (MSI)
BANDUNG, 4 Sep 2020 – Program naik taraf pesawat ‘Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA)’ di bawah ‘Maritime Security Initiative (MSI)’ bagi pesawat CN235-220M milik Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia (TUDM) telah dimulakan apabila Majlis Serah Menyerah Pesawat CN235-220M secara rasminya ditandatangani di antara TUDM yang diwakili oleh Mej Jaffar bin Mohamed Taib TUDM dan PT Dirgantara Indonesia (PTDI) yang merupakan Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) bagi pesawat CN235-220M.
Terdahulu pada 2 Sep 2020, pesawat ini telah diterbangkan dari Pangkalan Udara Subang dan diketuai oleh Juruterbang, Mej Emy Hazrie bin Norazmy TUDM; pembantu juruterbang, Kapt Muhammad Azri bin Mohamed Khir TUDM serta krew kabin F/Sjn Nurul Hazmil bin Ghazali. Pesawat telah selamat tiba di Lapangan Terbang Hussein Sastranegara, Bandung pada hari yang sama.
Proses induksi pesawat ini diketuai oleh Bahagian Kejuruteraan No 1 Skuadron yang diketuai oleh Lt Muhammad Syahmin bin Sufendi TUDM bersama F/Sjn Wahab bin Abdul Majid bertujuan bagi memeriksa kebaikan dan prestasi pesawat sebelum pesawat ini dinaik taraf kepada Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA).
Pelaksanaan program naik taraf pesawat ini yang berkeupayaan melaksanakan tugasan Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconaissance ISR yang akan memberi satu impak yang besar kepada kedaulatan dan keselamatan ruang perairan negara dengan keupayaan pesawat selaras dengan teknologi yang terkini yang akan digunapakai kelak serta pelan strategik yang dirangka oleh TUDM pada masa hadapan. Syabas dan sekalung penghargaan kepada semua yang terlibat.
The conversion programme, involving three CN-235s, is paid for by the US Maritime Security Initiative.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Is this related to the tender given by RMAF for the drones and patrol aircraft recently?
Rep
It has nothing to do with those ones
@ marhalim
So the previous 2 units plus 2 options has now been finalised as 3 units paid for by US MSI program? Any specifications yet for the aircraft? It would be a shame to malaysian defence enthusiasts if we get to know the details from Indonesian source rather than from our own government…
Thank you uncle sam for paying for equipments to bolster our maritime security.
Anyway what we could do is to scrap the 2 aircraft MPA tender and instead convert 3 more CN-235 plus upgrade all 6 CN-235 with further equipments to make them a potent MPA platform.
So its 3 CN-235s will be convert to MPA. I thought only 2 will be convert. Thanks Uncle Sam.
And there also 2 new MPAs will be buy under new tender recently.
Nah i will keep the 3 remaining cn235 as training platform or back up transporter/vip..should at least buy 2 brand new bigger,better mpa from the get go..
Woops I mixed up the two.
The MSI is the same one that provided the Scaneagles to RMN, correct? Do the proposed radars also fall under the same initiative?
One of the key questions, well in IMHO at least, is whether the MSI is going to be continued in the future, as the US presidential elections are scheduled to take place this Nov. Trump, for all his faults, has the resolve to actually push hard against China and its ambitions. It remains to be seen if Biden (if he wins) will be willing to commit to the same thing, I don’t really recall the US going this hard against China during Obama’s time.
Reply
Yes its the same programme as the Scaneaglea and the radar but different annual budgets. Its the Congress that makes the MSI allocation, so it is likely that funds will continue though the amount of money could be reduced in future years. Its a good deal actually for the US as it helps in getting help to countries in the region while at the same time gives work to US and sometime non US companies as well
O/T
Seems like Austria is really enthusiastic of getting rid of Typhoons to….Indonesia
If the deal does go through, we can expect Indonesia youtube videos to the tune of “Indonesia peroleh Typhoon gempar Malaysia!”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36242/austria-wants-to-offload-its-unwanted-eurofighter-typhoons-on-indonesia
No free lunch, the converted platforms should be able to linked to parents’s system in another side of the globe… ATM has not have its own C4I2 system, suppose during war time, all the rojak systems wouldn’t be interoperational and will just make situation kelam kabut…
Reply
They could just fit a datalink on the CNs and the data could be down loaded to all of MY data centres via the NCO system
I dont know much but we can consider buying from leonardo for our mpa (atr 72), lca (m346fa) n male uav (falco xplorer) if no israeli parts or systems involved of course..maybe can get a discount, trade off deal..and iam by no means a leonardo agent or promoter lol
Bruno – “ during war time, all the rojak systems wouldn’t be interoperational”
The existing comms set up between the various services and MAF HQ is not rojak. What is rojak is the various platforms/planes we operate thanks to the politicians.
What we really need to do is to improve on “jointness”. The MPA has to able to “share” info not only with RMN assets but also with the MMEA. As the UASs service we’ll be able to coordinate their use with the MPAs to ensure their is no overlap.
ASM – “One of the key questions, well in IMHO at least, is whether the MSI is going to be continued in the future, as the US presidential elections
Irrespective of whoever wins and how the China policy is maintained; the U.S. will continue to place great importance in the region and will continue to provide various forms of assistance in various forms to various regional players.
Firdaus – “at least buy 2 brand new bigger,better mpa from the get go.”
If a CN has sufficient range, endurance and internal space for our needs why would we want a “bigger” platform? Also, if the conversion entails a radar, FLIR, mission planning suite, ESM and other stuff; what is your definition of “better”?
It’s not as if we want a MPA to patrol as far as the Western Pacific or to take part in a multi domain high intensity conflict. Wherever we buy must suit our requirements; must be something we can afford to operate/maintain and something not superfluous to our needs.
ASM – “Seems like Austria is really enthusiastic of getting rid of Typhoons to….Indonesia”
Yes and the TNI-AU will be the operator of F-16s, Su-30/27s, Typhoons and other things.
It would seem that standardisation and reducing the support/logistical footprint (what almost everyone else is trying to achieve) is not a priority.
Marhalim, talking about the radars, do you know if Malaysia got 2…or was it Indonesia?
Reply
We are getting one only
@ marhalim
“We are getting one only”
That should be about right, Indonesia getting 2 and malaysia 1 of the TPS-77 MRR radars.
That means the current buy of 2 more ground based air defence radars for TUDM in RMK12 should continue.
The CAP55 plan aspires to have 9 ground based air defence radars in all. Currently TUDM has 6. Additional 2 bought plus 1 donated from USA would bring the numbers up to 9 by 2025. Then in 2025-2030 we still need to recapitalise our air defence radars as the 2 remaining Martello S743D will be very old by then.
So overall a fleet of
1x TPS-77 MRR
1x Ground Master 403
1x RAT-31DL
2x RAT-31SL
2x Martello S-743D
2x new radar (should be additional GM403 or TPS-77)
by 2025 shoud give us a better radar coverage and situational awareness of our airspace.
Relax
Those Austrian Typhoons are early-tranche limited-capability Typhoons. Good for slinging AMRAAMs only.
Austria is eager to dump them as they have been quite hated for a while. They were the subject of official complaints to Eurofighter, who replied “well you asked for a budget model didn’t you?”
Oh wait it’s worse than I thought. They can’t even launch AMRAAMs, only IRIS-T
Well maybe the Indonesians can upgrade them a bit. Though the Austrians had already considered them too difficult to upgrade cost-effectively…
http://www.flightglobal.com/flying-in-neutral-austrias-eurofighter-typhoons/82180.article
Great news for the msa. Hopefully another 3 cn-235 can also be upgraded to msa in the future.
Apart from that, from open sources, currently we have 6 long range surveillance radar station excluding the one in johor which i believe uses mid range radar as gap filler.
If the air force wants 9 radars stations, the most possible new sites will be eastern sabah & eastern sarawak regions.
Interestingly, im unable to decide where the 9th radar will be stationed.
My educated guess will be either at johor (replacing the mid range radar) or the air force is planning to station the radar at pulau layang2.
Btw, maybe the air force can plan on buying more tps-77 mrr radars. Seems like they can do simultaneous air & maritime surveillance. Maybe we can have a complete air & maritime picture with these radars.
Just my sekupang.
Of the 7 TUDM CN235s, 3 confirmed for MSA conversion with 1 more on option. We should lobby hard to get that option fulfilled for a total of 4 MSAs and instead of 2 new MPAs, we could opt to covert the remaining 3 into MPA. That way we have force of 4 MSA & 3 MPA at minimal cost.
@ chua
While the cost are unknown, but it can be upgraded.
Spain has started upgrading their Tranche1 typhoons
https://euro-sd.com/2019/06/articles/13666/a-long-life-for-the-spanish-eurofighter/
Anyway at least they are actively getting the fighters that they need. Those Typhoons will add to the capability of the indonesian air force for many decades to come.
Since we upgrades 3x CN-235 for MSA, I think gov should consider C-295MPA/ ASW version, since their are similarity in logistics and maintenances.
@…
Eurofighter claims yes, Austrians claim no; I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between.
The Austrian Tranche 1 is also lacking the IRST sensor and defensive sensor systems.
While we know we still have the 4th MSA and TPS77 radar under consideration by MSI, are there more goodies on the plate for us? Could we ask for MALE UAV under this goodwill or we kinda just receive what USA thinks we should get?
Reply
A MALE UAV will be too costly to be considered under MSI. We can try to ask for retired Predators under EDA though I seriously doubt we will take this route
Nihd – “ the air force is planning to station the radar at pulau layang2”
Very much doubt it. A radar can be based on the mainland and still provide adequate coverage.
There is also the question of finding the space for the radar and its crew; as well as adequate power supply.
The only radars we have on the reefs are commercial off the shelf ones to detect surface contacts.
In addition to the inventory of primary search radars; there are also a number of secondary ATC radars (including 2 mobile ones) which also have a surveillance function. In fact our radars linked to HQIADS are secondary ATC ones.
Nihd- “If the air force wants 9 radars stations, the most possible new sites”
It could be at any number of places where the RMAF feels should be a priority; including a present “blind zone” or “gap”.
Nihd – “Maybe we can have a complete air & maritime picture with these radars.”
For a start; radars belonging to the MMEA and Maritime Institute should be “linked” together; as well as with the RMN’s Fleet Operations Command.
Yeah i too second that cn295 mpa if we cannot afford big mpa plane like atr 72 or surveyor plane..as for conversion 4 is enough plus 2 new mpa..
@ chua
” The Austrian Tranche 1 is also lacking the IRST sensor and defensive sensor systems ”
Those items are removed to save cost. So adding it will be straightforward, unlike adding something that is not available in the first place for the aircraft. Just a matter of spending money for it.
@ joe
What is the difference between MPA or MSA anyway? Do you need to ave 2 different specs, rather than just 1 across the fleet?
Also why do you need to convert the single remaining -110 VIP (the other 6 are -220 with improved structural modifications) aircraft? If not mistaken those -110 VIP aircrafts are not newbuilds.
Breaking news
Looks like the philippines is going to buy 5 new C-130J-30 for about USD760.6 million.
@…
As I understood from Marhalim, the MSA as converted under MSI program is purely surveillance only and cannot be armed. The MPA we are looking for should be able to drop air launched torps at underwater targets. Hence why we need both platforms. AFAIK, they are nearly the same, sharing the same sensors suite but MPA ones can launch weapons.
If TUDM really are looking to move away from light transportation using CN235, they could reuse their redundant light transporters for this purpose, whatmore Uncle Sam is so kind to convert up to 4 of 7 units for free. The remainder 3 is too little of use so better spend the little money we have and turn them into 3 MPAs rather than getting only 2 new ones (which might not even materialise). When existing airframe expires, we could always transplant the system into newer crafts.
Those of Austrian Typhoon T. 1 previously is 2nd aircraft bought by Austrian gov with higher prices and controversy last time…
@ joe
” The MPA we are looking for should be able to drop air launched torps at underwater targets ”
South China Sea and Melaka Straits are very important international sea lanes. The priority is for Malaysia to have excellent situational awareness of the maritime domain. The priority is to have MPAs in the numbers required to give excellent situational awareness of the maritime domain.
Do we really need to have torp launching capability now? Not really.
What we can do is to have all 6 CN-235-220M to a common MPA standards, and later if the funds is available, add the armed capability.
As I said the single remaining CN-235-110 VIP aircraft is quite different structurally to the other 6. That aircraft should be left as is, as the TUDM/ATM top brass aircraft (you need to make them happy too).
Reply
The VIP CN is not used by the military, its part of the PM Department VIP fleet
More info on the conversion
http://sesius.com/success-stories-AV.html#tabs_99
” In our continuing support to the US Navy and it’s Building Partner Capacity for the Royal Malaysian Air Force, and in partnership with Integrated Surveillance and Defense (ISD) and PT Dirgantara (PTDI), SES inducted the first Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA) aircraft CN-235 at PTDI’s facilities in Bandung Indonesia. The SES team will perform engineering for modifications associated with the unique RMAF aircraft configuration, manufacture, install, test, provide a Technical Data Package (TDP) to facilitate flight clearance approval from the Malaysia Director General Technical Airworthiness (DGTA), provide the sustainment recommendation, and provide a training package (Pilot, Operator and Mission System maintenance) for the RMAF ISR Aircraft System onboard three (3) Customer Furnished Equipment (CFE) CN-235 aircraft. “
@…
I don’t understand you. If an MPA cannot launch weapons, don’t that make it an MSA, the same one that Indon is converting for us? And if we have 4 MSAs with 3 MPAs + 3 AMASCOS B200s, isn’t that enough for our maritime SA?
Indonesians interest in typhoon has many considerations, but tech level is not their priority. Their old F16 A/B are under upgraded program, able to upgrade their old F16 A/B locally is more important to them. The same reason for their locally assembly 3rd changbogo class and their future subs.
But, it doesnt mean can be said they have lower tech than malaysia has. You will surprised that their changbogo can do what RMN scorpene can do (sub launched missile) and using a non panetrating hull technic which is RMN scorpene doesnt. Since the scorpene is a 10 years old sub, maybe their changbogo using a newer equipments.
Their policy of buying from many different sources is more important than logistics issue, etc. They have more than enough bases and man power to minimize the problem. And buying in enough number will also reduced the logistics nightmare.
I am interested in how much they will pay for the typhoon. How cheap the austrians will sell the typhoon to indonesian? In this case indonesian have a much better position.
Specification based on Indonesian AIr Force CN–235-220 MPA version
– ISD Merlin Mission Suite
– FLIR Star Safire 380HD
– Raytheon AN/APS-143C OceanEye surveillance radar
– Leonardo SAGE 600 ESM
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i7–iWa4Vjo/WKchOM1UW2I/AAAAAAAAxWQ/aGV0IGcDJEInXnFC4vOSTLI3XEPkH7p3wCLcB/s1600/Hindawan%2BH.jpg
Do note that originally our Beechcraft B200T came equipped with an older version of the AN/APS143, which we replaced with Thales Ocean Master radar. As the MSI is paid for by USA, and equipments will be sourced from USA, I do hope that we could at least get the latest AN/APS-143G version, or (the best option) a Leonardo USA Seaspray 5000 AESA radar (Bangladesh Navy MPA is using this radar)
http://www.telephonics.com/product/aps-143g-an-aps-508
http://www.leonardo.us/radar
@ joe
Previously the MSI plan was for 2 conversions plus 2 option. Now already firmed as 3 conversions with 0 option.
For our maritime surveillance, we need to have eyes in the air basically at 4 locations
1) melacca straits and andaman sea approaches
2) off east coast of peninsular
3) off sarawak and kota kinabalu
4) esscom areas
To cover the areas, IMO we need a minimum of
6x CN-235MPA (TUDM) to cover 2 long range areas (1+3)
6x beechcraft B200 MPA (MMEA) to cover 3 near shore areas (1+2+4).
12x Scaneagle UAV (TLDM) to cover near shore areas (3+4), plus operations from TLDM Frigates and auxillary ships.
Fulmar UAV (MMEA) extending the coverage of mmea patrol vessels
12x MALE UAV Bayraktar TB2 (TUDM) to cover long range areas (3+4)
” If an MPA cannot launch weapons, don’t that make it an MSA, the same one that Indon is converting for us? ”
Which is why i ask, what is the difference between MPA or MSA anyway? Do you need to have 2 different specs, rather than just 1 across the fleet? Indonesia called all their CN-235 MPA, even though they are also not fitted with weapons/torpedoes. Also it is not just the weapons, you need sonobuoys and MAD to track submarines.
As i said, it is better to have all 6 CN-235 MPA/MSA/Whatever you call it to a single standard, and upgrade them all later to be able to do ASW and carry torpedoes when we have the budget.
… – “Do we really need to have torp launching capability now? Not really”
Indeed. It’s just one of various things we have to continue to do without.
Adding such a capability significantly drives up costs. Buying the torps, sonobuoys and associated equipment is half of the story; the other half is maintaining the capability; i.e. crews have to trained and bees regular practice, the torps, sonobuoys and gear has to be maintained.
A “maritime patrol aircraft” is still a “maritime patrol aircraft” irrespective of whether it has a ASW/ASuW capability or not. One can decide to designated it a “MSA” and still enable it to be armed.
The Beechcrafts are aged and lack the needed range, endurance and internal capacity (very cramped and uncomfortable inside; plus there is no toilet); it’s overdue but it’s good we’re finally going to have another aircraft for the role.
… – “As I said the single remaining CN-235-110 VIP aircraft is quite different structurally to the other”
Granted but in the event that we decided to hand it over to the RMAF; would the structural differences pose any issues/obstacles in converting it for the MPA role?
Also, do you know what structural differences were made and why?
… – “Which is why i ask, what is the difference between MPA or MSA anyway”
Zero difference.”MSA” is just another one of the already numerous designations countries/the industry comes up with. Tomorrow if we or anyone else decided to come up with a designation such as “airborne surveillance platform” or “maritime observation/patrol aircraft” we wouldn’t be wrong in our choice of designation but it would be a meaningless exercise and wouldn’t signify any unique capabilities or roles.
… – “Indonesia called all their CN-235 MPA, even though they are also not fitted with weapons/torpedoes”
Yes. The vast majority of “MPAs” in service worldwide are not configured for ASW yet are still designated “MPAs”.
@ azlan
” would the structural differences pose any issues/obstacles in converting it for the MPA role? Also, do you know what structural differences were made and why? ”
These are the improvements to the -220 version compared to the -110. Structural reinforcements to cater for higher operating weights, aerodynamic improvements to wing leading-edges and rudder, reduced field length requirements and increased range with maximum payload.
Technically there would not be any issues/obstacles in converting it for the MPA role.
Operationally there will be issues, as performance-wise, the -110 will be very different to the -220. It will have less maximum load, less range, and different performance. So you need to always remember and take note of the differences when switching between the types (as you will be flying the same maritime patrol missions). So for example you need to remember the -110 will have less range than -220, so you dont run out of fuel while flying the -110.
@ romeo
” using a non panetrating hull technic ”
???
@ azlan
” Zero difference ”
That is the point i want to get across to Joe.
Romeo – “Their policy of buying from many different sources is more important than logistics issue, etc”
A policy of not being too dependent on any one supplier drives their policy. Post East Timor their ability to obtain stuff from certain suppliers was denied them; albeit temporarily.
For them having a large logistical/support footprint and having to maintain the various training/support infrastructures needed for the many different things they operate is seen as a penalty worth incurring.
Like us a lot of the stuff they get is politically driven; doesn’t necessarily reflect the true intentions of the TNI which is only too aware of the pitfalls in not standardising.
Romeo – “And buying in enough number will also reduced the logistics nightmare”
They are buying in larger numbers than us (not hard really) but they are still buying a bit of many things in relatively small numbers.
How long will the conversion takes if all goes well? 6months?
Reply
Its 18 months actually if everything goes to plan
@…
I see. It does blurs the difference between MSA & MPA. AFAIK, the CN-235 MPA config comes with weapons hardpoints but as you said, Indon MPAs doesn’t come with weapons fitted.
Hopefully we could push for more donations to convert more into MSA. We don’t have much money, even something like MSA is better than nothing whatmore we are getting them free. I hope instead of buying 2 new MPAs we could stretch that budget by converting the remaining 3 CN-235s into MPAs with similar config as the MSA. That would solve your concerns on standards.
@ Joe
” Hopefully we could push for more donations to convert more into MSA ”
No.
We have the budget. Just misplaced (IMO) priorities. As you said the budget to get 2 new MPAs that the tenders was released recently more than able to convert 3 more CN-235s into maritime patrol aircraft + buying additional equipments to upgrade all 6. So no need to beg for donations to get our maritime patrol aircrafts.
OTOH we could do with free transfer of helicopters for nuri replacements…
Romeo – “ou will surprised that their changbogo can do what RMN scorpene can do”
Why would anybody be surprised?
It’s an improved/modernised variant of the highly successful Type 209: a true littoral/shallow water design designed for the specific requirements of the Bundersmarine.
Both designs incorporate design and operational philosophies of their respective home navies (eventhough the French have long transitioned into an all SSN fleet). HDW maintains its designs are quieter and DCNS points out that using technology developed for SSNs; Scorpene can dive deeper.
@ marhalim
After more readings, it seems that TPS-77 and TPS-77 MRR are 2 different radars. The TPS-77 MRR is a low level short range version of around 150km+ that can also do maritime surveillance. Probably it is analogous to the Ground Master 200. TPS-77 is the long range air surveillance version with a range of 450km+
So are we actually getting the TPS-77 MRR or the TPS-77?
@ azlan
The Type 209 is a purpose built export submarine designed by HDW. It is not used by the Bundersmarine.
Off topic
“Singapore seeks adversarial training for local and US-based fighter pilots
The industry source said Singapore requested that the program manager overseeing its Peace Carvin V training detachment in the United States approve the training support from Draken International.
…
The Air Force has inaugurated an “aggressor” component that will reside within 140 Squadron. The unit is one of three locally based F-16 units and will use F-16s and F-15SGs in the training.”
https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2020/09/03/singapore-seeks-adversarial-training-for-local-and-us-based-fighter-pilots/
… – “The Type 209 is a purpose built export submarine designed by HDW. It is not used by the Bundersmarine.”
Thank you but I didn’t say it was.
I said it was an upgraded/modernised variant of the Type 209 which was built to the specific requirements of the Bundersmarine.
P.S.
….
You’re right. My mistake.
The Germans had the Type 206. There was an offer made to the RTN a few years ago for a few which had been stored.
The problem is that priorities shift due to threat perceptions and politics (arbitrary decisions by politicians and lobbying by the local industry); issues made worse by the fact that funds are tight and the shopping list is a long one.
I have no idea why we are not pursuing the option to convert the whole CN fleet. There are reasons but they remain unknown to us.
I do know that the possibility of converting the CNs were looked at and considered as far back as 2008/9 and that this option should have been considered by the government when plans for MPAs following MH370 were made but like many things never kicked off.
Given that the main threats/challenges we face are along our maritime domain; logic dictates that it’s the RMN and RMAF that receive priority in funding for the coming years. Naturally the army – in the true spirit of inter service rivalry – will object. As the “senior” service it has the largest clout.
Reply
And it didn’t helped our most recent conflict was mostly tackled by the Army with some help from the air force and navy of course
@AM
>”Singapore seeks adversarial training”
Sounds like the US is cutting its training support, didn’t they provide such training previously?
@ Azlan
Indonesia in 1997 bought all 5 units Type 206. In fact they already named all of the submarines.
Here is a pic of the naming ceremony of the first 2 units Indonesian Navy Type 206 KRI Nagarangsang-403 and KRi Nagabanda-404.
https://m.facebook.com/satselhiukencana/photos/a.327826370603199.98600.327785550607281/1149148458470982?locale=ar_AR
But all 5 units were cancelled due to the 1997 Financial Crisis.
@…
“buying additional equipments to upgrade all 6”
I’m not sure what’s the cost of conversion vs a wholly new MPA plane. I assume at least 2 new MPAs could cover the cost of MPA conversion for 3 existing airframes, but I don’t know if it sufficient extras to buy the same equipment for 3 more. IMHO even if we could afford to buy for all 6, I’m would still push for the 4 units to be converted to MSA, no matter what we still need more eyes in the sky.
If from what you said about no differences between MPA & MSA planes, why not spec our MPA requirements following those MSA under conversion? We could have 4 MSA (US paid converted) + 3 MSA (we paid converted) + 3 existing AMASCOS B200, and in reserve 3 more MSA gears which we could fit onto 3 new build CN235s later on. that would give us a total of 13 MSAs.
Is there any news on d Kuwaiti hornet Mr marhalim?.if d money r tight I don’t think they will refuse if we ask them to donate 4 to 6 airframe considering we have a good relationship with them.
D.W.
I guess the Type 206s were destined never to have a new owner. In the early 2000’s they were offered to Thailand.
We also have bit of sub history prior to the Scorpenes. A pair of ex RN Oberons were included in the 1988 MOU but were dropped (luckily), Amin Shah convinced RDM to bring a pair of ex Dutch Zwaardis boats to Lumut and we came close to acquiring a pair of Kockums boats which were dropped in favour of the Lekius.
Ujang,
We had very good ties to the UAE and Saudi. Our ties with Kuwait are cordial but not particularly good or close. If however there is a genuine desire to get them and a genuine desire on their part to sell them; the bilateral relationship doesn’t have to be good.
The Kuwaiti’s would also have to seek U.S. approval which will take time but for which there’s no reason it would be denied.
@ marhalim
” And it didn’t helped our most recent conflict was mostly tackled by the Army with some help from the air force and navy of course ”
That is already in the past. In the future our potential conflict that we can foresee will be in the SCS.
@ joe
To fully equip an aircraft with a mission suite, maritime search radar, EO turret, AIS transponder etc would cost around USD4 million. That was the cost we paid to install all the Thales AMASCOS, Thales Ocean Master, EO turrets, AIS etc to the B200T.
Systems such as the ISD merlin should in theory costs less than Thales offering, so i am confident that we can convert a CN-235 to the same specifications of what was paid for by US MSI for less or equal to USD4 million. So the budget for 2 brand new MPA will be more than enough to pay for the conversion of 3 more CN-235-220 to the same US MSI standards, and buy additional equipments such as ViDAR and SAGE 600 ESM to be fitted on all 6 CN-235-220. We could also trade-in the 3x B200T to PTDI to pay for the conversion of the additional 3 CN-235-220.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XXAM1TmMEfUJ:aviation.bernama.com/news.php%3Fid%3D191237%26lang%3Den+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg
http://www.sentientvision.com/
Also we do not have unlimited money just to spend wholly on just MSA/MPAs. We need to look at our overall requirements. For MALE UAVs, the current ask for just 3 is not enough. So why we want to spend on 13 MSA when we cannot get more than 3 MALE UAVs? Better to have 6 MSA/MPA CN-235 then getting 3 systems of 12 MALE UAVs. Not to mention the need for LCA/LIFT, AWACS, etc.
Additional MSAs, using low cost COTS systems should be had within the budget of MMEA. So a fleet of 6x CN-235MPA + 6x MMEA MSA, along with the MALE UAVs would be adequate for our maritime situational awareness.
As for MMEA, currently the 2 bombardier CL-415 is also equipped for maritime patrol, MSA mission with MSS6000 mission system.
http://aerialfirefighter.vikingair.com/sites/aerialfirefighter.vikingair.com/files/images/Missions/mss6000-img.png
http://aerialfirefighter.vikingair.com/sites/aerialfirefighter.vikingair.com/files/images/Missions/img-maritime-malaysia.jpeg
@ azlan
” I guess the Type 206s were destined never to have a new owner ”
They did.
2 of them found a new home in Colombia
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-szw8pHIIq1w/V45ORcBgqSI/AAAAAAAASHM/ckeBxo7v63Yxu5_bhOXCTmTEXQ1Geyx7ACKgB/s1600/-000%2B%252828%2529.jpg
Altogether 4 Type 206a was transferred to Colombia, 2 operational and 2 as spares hulk.
@Ujang
https://www.pionline.com/economy/oil-rich-kuwait-running-out-cash
Do you think they still can afford to donate rather than sell? We missed that boat for donation ady.
… – “That is already in the past”
That may be so but for the armed services the whole business of inter service rivalry; to seek and justify funding (with is so limited) is very much the present. Very hard to change things given we lack a coherent and holistic policy and the army has the most political pull.
We have issues in the South China Sea over the Spratlys; the unresolved issue over Ambalat and overlapping boundaries in the Melaka Straits and the South China Sea with Indonesia (things have gotten much more tense with them in the past compared to with China – attempted ramming, pointing of guns, stone throwing, etc); non state actors via the Sulu Sea; the need to ensure uninterrupted access to global shipping lanes, the need to maintain SLOC to East Malaysia, etc.
The list is a long one and is mainly along our maritime domain. It’s obvious that focus/attention in the coming years be placed on the RMN and RMAF in parallel with a deep and total revamp of how we go about handling defence.
Those Type 206a was bought by Colombia for USD118 million, including modernisation and spare hulks.
http://www.elsnorkel.com/2016/07/los-flamantes-206a-de-la-armada.html
Norwegian Type 210 for example costs USD85 million each brand new (in the early 90s)
Would a revisit to the idea of a Type 210 Mod (with latest technologies such as Li-Ion batteries, electronic masts, low cost but high tech sonars etc.) a good idea for navies with a need for a cheap submarine?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QbDwtUSY0E8/VMrvxGKS-1I/AAAAAAAAAow/KeZdLWfUgPs/s1600/U210mod%2Btechnology-1.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/RwMYaQQYinI/AAAAAAAAAwA/wipi2lX8zWM/s1600/u210mod.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6RdFE0IA75Q/VM2IHNroKzI/AAAAAAAAiD4/ZtSgw26KhtM/s1600/Type%2B210.jpg
I not talking about the entire fleet here since they want to sell them(if the news r true) and our money r tight . But a donation or a friendly price of maybe 4 or 6 fighter as a stop gap measure. I think dis is more doable .i doubt they will be so stingy. Better than nothing right
@…
Your 12 MPA/MSA isn’t that far from my idea of 13 MSAs and best of all Uncle Sam will be paying for 3-4 units. We don’t have to get all the MSAs at once, we started with 3 existing B200Ts, then add the 3-4 paid under MSI + 3 converted more from our own (in liew of 2 new MPA). That would give us total of 9-10 MSA/MPA to work with (we only pay for 3 conversion).
IMHO MMEA is still too small for expanding the air patrol role, they need the money more urgently for more ships first.
Also IMHO MPA/MSA role should solely be TLDM responsibility but it is what it is right now.
Off topic
http://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/french-navy-retires-lynx-from-service
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/French-Navy/AVIATION/Lynx_DAT/Lynx-Mk-2FN-05.jpg
Could ask nicely to Aeronavale if they could offload their Lynx spares to us.
Anyway below is a cutaway of the Lynx 300, which is the one used by TLDM
http://i.pinimg.com/originals/e0/89/77/e0897773e3241a0b81f35eec60f36807.jpg
@ joe
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/three-md530gs-helicopters-ready/
Those B200T is to be retired by 2024. Better if we could sell them off, or trade them in for further CN-235 conversions.
“Also IMHO MPA/MSA role should solely be TLDM responsibility but it is what it is right now”
i respectfully disagree. so i will leave it at that.
@…
Aeronavale operated Lynxes?
Mais c’est pas vrai!
Never thought les frog legs would buy rosbif helicopters.
One of the rare ones; the Dauhpins are more common
… – “As for MMEA, currently the 2 bombardier CL-415 is also equipped for maritime patrol”
The MMEA should have its own MPAs beyond what it currently has. The big problem is that this will entail an increase in its i budget and it will take some time for it to gain the needed manpower and support facilities/infrastructure.
The last I personally heard of the Bombardiers was wren they took part in the search for MH370. If memory serves me; Marhalim mentioned there issues with them recently; either due to crews not maintaining proficiency or something along those lines.
On the MPA/MSA designations; merely another designation which came being but having no real distinctions between actual capability. In a few years time I won’t be surprised if someone comes up with yet another designation.
I recall the period when “mechanised infantry combat vehicle” was used; only to disappear and be totally replaced by “infantry fighting vehicle” which has been around longer. There was also “armoured infantry fighting vehicle” and “armoured combat vehicle” used at one point
Reply
Mostly it’s about the maintenance of the CLs, they failed to ensure that it is renewed before it lapsed. Its been two or three times already. This caused both aircraft to be grounded between six to 12 months. This never happened with their helicopter fleet .
Chua “Sounds like the US is cutting its training support, didn’t they provide such training previously?”
Not really. Singapore makes its new pilots in the US and despite the unit being a USAF squadron in name, they do a lot of it themselves, as they do in Australia and France in earlier stages. Commercial “adversaries” teach the textbook basics of ACM to new pilots. Like the US, SG realises a commercial provider in a stripped down, last generation, just good enough aircraft can teach these more cost effectively than a fully qualified, in-house pilot in a combat capable, front line jet.
In parallel, they are setting up an in-house outfit at home. This is for the operational squadron drivers and is more of a Top Gun than a schoolhouse. It will provide advanced stages of training, which can only be done with the same front line fighters as are in service.
@Ujang
If there is a demand for them, why would Kuwait sell it at a bargain price to us? We mean nothing much to them and vice versa.
They have far better relationship with Saudi and what we can do is by leveraging our relationship with Saudi to make that deal happen and likely for Saudi to partially pay too, but as the previous Government have made their apprehension with Saudi rather clear (by pulling our non-combatants back from their war) and by their vilification of a Saud family member, I don’t see why they would want help us anymore.
The way I see it, that boat has long gone.
ASM,
Yes if it was up to them they would never buy anything not French made. To their dismay they’ve often had to.
They’ve are also known to be uncooperative when buyers of French gear decide to integrate non French stuff to what they’ve bought.
@ASM
In exchange for British operating the Aerospatiale Puma and Gazelle.
Incidentally, just retired from MM service last week.
@ ASM
It was the british-french deal in the late 70s which both countries bought each others equipment. Some of the equipments involved
– Aerospatiale Gazelle
– Aerospatiale Puma
– Westland Lynx
– SEPECAT Jaguar
– Aerospatiale Exocet
Okay lets go back to one of the reasons why we need to have maritime situational awareness from the air.
http://warontherocks.com/2020/09/what-is-chinas-strategy-in-the-senkaku-islands/
We need to deny China from effectively exercising control over our EEZ. Right now they are already on advanced track to do just that. We need to have constant enduring presence on the water, and in the air, especially in our EEZ in SCS off Sabah and Sarawak. The keyword here is presence. It does not really matter if our CN-235 is equipped with what kind of equipment, we need them to be in the air, monitoring and disrupting Chinese Coast guard activities in Malaysian EEZ.
@Azlan,
Yeah on that note I recall Aeronavale used to operate US made Corsairs, and initially wanted Hornets to replace both Corsairs and the Etendards (including the SEM). I think either the gov or Dassault objected to that, and preferred the service to choose a local design (which didn’t exist at that time).
There was an outcry when Macron decided to get H&K rifles instead of from GIAT. Well…some said the FAMAS is unreliable and was nicknamed “arme de stand de tir” or gun used only at the firing range.
Some stuff you just can’t get from home, though. The AWACS currently in used with Aeronavale remains to be the Hawkeye.
ASM – “Some stuff you just can’t get from home, though”
Various stuff.
… – “The keyword here is presence”
The keyword is not only “presence” but also having some level of numbers in order for that “presence” to be maintained.
At minimum we’d need at least 6 platforms to have an ability to monitor various other areas; in addition to the Spratlys.
The only reason we’ve been able to maintain some level of ability is because the C-130s despite their lack of sensors and high operating costs are still from time to time used to supplement the Beechcrafts.
… – “does not really matter if our CN-235 is equipped with what kind of equipment, we need them to be in the air, monitoring and disrupting Chinese Coast guard activities in Malaysian EEZ.”
It does matter if we want to effectively detect and monitor the presence of foreign ships. At minimum a radar, ESM and other things are needed which anyhow will be fitted to the MPAs.
@ASM
That’s why French stuff can be expensive
They get hit by the “domestic industry” premium as well
However unlike ours, their domestic industry at least delivers quality equipment even if at a higher price. E.g. their APCs, fighters, ships.
Reply
Its their domestic industry also the reason they got higher defence budget
Chua – “However unlike ours, their domestic industry at least delivers quality equipment even if at a higher price”
They are at a very much higher state of technical/industrial advancement than us, have a large export base, devote much more to R&D and have a larger domestic market.
@ ASM
Aeronavale corsairs? Those piston engined fighters was last used in the 60s AFAIK. Or did you mean the Crusaders?
http://www.katsudo.nl/aviation/wp-content/uploads/img_1832.jpg
MPAs deployed in the Spratlys area contribute in various ways.
Unlike ships which constantly have to shadow intruders or to maintain a continuous presence, MPAs aren’t required (even if we had the numbers to sustain) to always be physically present.
At times they will be operating along the periphery of our EEZ or even in international airspace to detect potential intruders who will be beyond the range of our surface radars. At times if it’s in the area and not doing anything else; they will operate in conjunction with one of our ships which is in the midst of shadowing an intruder. At times a MPA will be the only means of physically observing/monitoring and intruder until one of our ships can reach the area.
In an ideal world they’ll always be a MPA in the vicinity with another on standby to immediately replace it. Unfortunately not only do we not live in an ideal world but in addition to the Spratlys the MPAs will also be required in other places.
The entry into service of the MALE UASs will be a very useful addition in that they complement the MPAs, ships and surface radars. A mechanism will have to be put in place for UASs to share intel/data with the MPAs and vice versa; when required. Equally important if for the need to ensure there’s no overlap.
Reply
Sometimes an overlap is needed depending on the situation, it could be MPA, MALE UAVs and even ships
The prop gull wing Corsairs (“Baa Baa Black Sheep” fame) were deployed on carriers off Indochina during the late 1940’s until the French pull out. Most were later sent back to the U.S. after becoming surplus to requirements.
@…
Ah my bad… yes crusaders actually, not corsairs. Vought F-8 if i remember correctly
@Azlan
“They are at a very much higher state of technical/industrial advancement than us, have a large export base, devote much more to R&D and have a larger domestic market”
That is true, and plus they place a lot of emphasis on defence matters as well, from defence doctrine to technology application. There’s even a dedicated academy for NCOs, with its own uniform. The most prestigious university in France, Ecole Polytechnique, is military oriented with the graduates becoming reserve officers. They even have a dedicated uni for weapons research.
off topic
Hungary signed for 218 Lynx KF41 tracked IFV
http://www.reuters.com/article/rheinmetall-hungary-contract-idUKL8N2G654N
The cost would be at least usd11 million each. that is the cost to build them locally in Hungary rather than importing them from Germany.
@Azlan
Well I’m not asking for us to perform miracles like developing a battlecruiser or winning a Nobel prize….
ASM – “That is true, and plus they place a lot of emphasis on defence matters as well”
They’ve been in the defence business for a long time. Never mind about world beating stuff like Exocet and Milan. Decades before there they were responsible for designing a tank with crew seating arrangements that became the norm; the FT.
Chua – “Well I’m not asking for us to perform miracles like developing a battlecruiser or winning a Nobel prize”
Neither did I say it imply you did.
I was merely pointing out the various factors that enables the French to do what they do ….
We spend next to nothing on R&D, we have no export base, no large domestic market, little technology we can call our own, etc.
You mentioned “quality” products; well in terms of actual build quality there is nothing wrong with various things we’ve licensed produced. That’s not problem but a whole host of other factors plaguing our defence policy.
@…
“Those B200T is to be retired by 2024.”
I see. But those AMASCOS mods are relatively new. Would be a pity if we can’t strip off the equipment and mount onto new airframes, perhaps on CN-235s if possible. If currently only 3 US-sponsored MSA is certain, the money for 2 new MPAs could be used to buy 1 new MPA and pay to port over these 3 existing AMASCOS into our existing CN-235s. That way we have 7 MPA/MSAs for starters with minimal costing. Trading in the stripped B200Ts we might still have sufficient budget to turn the sole remaining CN-235 into MPA/MSA, making 8 units total. To fill your plan, we just need to topup another 4 more MPA/MSA in the future.
“i respectfully disagree. so i will leave it at that.”
Okay no problem, agree to disagree.
Reply
The B200T that crashed in 2016 was one of those equipped with the Amascos
@ ASM
“That is true, and plus they place a lot of emphasis on defence matters as well”
unless we put a lot of emphasis on defense matters, we can never have a defence industry like france, or even south korea.
what we can do is to maintain an ingenious capability of things that we need a lot, like building small, medium sized patrol boats, OPVs and maintaining them. Things like RHIBs need regular replacements, and we have a fleet of around 200+ RHIBs
@Chua
The French pride themselves in defence matters, the reality of being invaded and conquered in WW2 scarred their psyche to the core.
Ever since Cold War, they took great effort & great resources in trying to develop a significant military presence amongst EU and to that end developing their military equipment on par with the superpowers but at a relatively cheaper price. Their export strategy was those countries non-aligned with either powers would seek out French weapons as deterrence against countries equipped by either sides, or countries that are refused buys from semi-allies (ie Taiwan & South Africa). It works for them as Mirages are well sought for being on par with first rate US & Soviet planes.
@ joe
” superpowers but at a relatively cheaper price ”
their products has never been cheap. lots of countries got them because US will not sell them the best items.
in the 60s to the 80s, a lot of countries got mirages because US denies them the phantoms and falcons, and only allow some countries to get just F-5s.
“The B200T that crashed in 2016 was one of those equipped with the Amascos”
Yup. IINM we got 4 B200T AMASCOS and one crashed leaving 3 remaining. We could port their gear into 3 existing CN-235s. Plus 3 MSA to be converted and 1 new MPA/MSA to be ordered, it would give us total of 7 MSAs in the foreseeable future.
Reply
Only two actually
“Only two actually”
Err… isn’t this what you report before “16th Squadron operates 4 Beechcraft 200T fitted with the Thales Amascos…”
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/beechcraft-200t-king-air-crash/
Other sources I saw also mentioned 4 AMASCOS with 1 crashed. Please correct me if I wrong.
Reply
I have been told otherwise recently
… – “their products has never been cheap”
Indeed Their gear – especially from the 1980’s onwards – was never cheap.
When we started looking around for fighters in the early 1990’s
the Mirage 2000 was dropped early due to its price tag and the cost of spares.
… – “n the 60s to the 80s, a lot of countries got mirages because US denies them the phantoms”
In the 1960’s the U.S. really didn’t have something comparable to the Mirage 111. The F-4 was a 2 seater, heavy maintenance platform unsuited for the requirements of many countries even if they could afford it and were granted approval.
@Azlan
Mirage 111?
I think you meant Mirage 3?
@…
“their products has never been cheap”
The fact that poorer 3rd world East Asian, African, & South American countries could afford to buy Mirages in big quantities disproves your statement somewhat, Mirage 3/5 were the cheaper and politic-free option compared to US or Soviet equivalents. Only later did French weapons became more expensive as nearly everything have to be developed/ redeveloped within the country. The upheaval of their defence industry from their transition into private entities also meant R&D cost can no longer sunken in on taxpayers money. Hence it has to amortised onto the export selling price, a reason why Mirage 2000 take up were far less and why Mirage 4000 had no buyer.s
*everything have to be developed/ redeveloped within the country* This Im referring to ever increasing number and complexities of electronics and avionics systems and smarter weapons which raises the R&D cost which raise the selling price.
@ marhalim
” I have been told otherwise recently ”
From my sources and press releases, all 4 of our B200T has been converted to AMASCOS.
TUDM B200T timeline.
– inducted into TUDM 18/5/1994
– first 2 B200T upgrade to AMASCOS 2006. RM30.4 million overall cost or about USD4 million per aircraft.
– 2 more B200T upgraded to AMASCOS 2015.
– B200T M41-03 Crash Butterworth AB 21/12/2016.
The first pair conversion detail. From Bernama release in 2006.
RMAF Beechcraft Gets RM30.4 Million French Touch
SUBANG, April 12 (Bernama) — AIROD Sdn Bhd Wednesday signed an agreement with Thales of France to jointly upgrade and retrofit the two Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) Beechcraft B200T aircraft for RM30.4 million.
The two Maritime Surveillance Aircraft are expected to be used by the RMAF to perform surveillance in the Strait of Melaka under the “Eyes in the Sky” tri-nations programme between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia and expected to be ready between one year to 18 months.
AIROD’s Head of International Programme Gooi Boon San said Thales will be supplying the Airborne Maritime Situation Control System (AMASCOS) and AIROD will modify the aircraft and install the system.
“The complete system consists of a tactical command system, one Master Search Radar and one Forward-Looking Infra-Red system. Each aircraft will cost around US$4 million,” he told reporters after signing the agreement with Thales Director of Mission Airborne Solutions in the Aerospace Division, Jean Francois Henrio at AIROD’s headquarters here.
Gooi said Thales was chosen as AIROD’s partner due to its prestige as a leading international electronics and systems group serving defence, aerospace and security worldwide, and is well-known for its support in comprehensive services offering.
He said Thales is also a global leader in airborne surveillance and maritime patrol systems.
Meanwhile, Henrio said the agreement was the first between both companies but hoped further projects would be on the cards in Malaysia.
“This is a start of many other adventures here. We believe with the strength and experience Thales has, we certainly can provide the best for the Malaysian defence market,” he said.
Meanwhile, Gooi said AIROD was holding some discussions on its international market ventures and several offers were underway from countries from West Asia and Africa.
” I can’t name them ( the countries). But the timing is very near, at least by the end of the year where we will provide competitive solutions for aviation technical expertise,” he said.
Established in 1985 as a result of the government’s earliest privatisation initiatives, AIROD is today Malaysia’s leading aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul centre.
AIROD has become a recognised brand in the international aviation industry with a complete range of aviation services for training, fighter, transport and VVIP aircraft.
— BERNAMA
second pair conversion 2015
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12485/Thales_Delivers_Airborne_Maritime_Situation_and_Control_System_To_RMAF#.X1yZmx7miNw
keyword – Thales announced at LIMA 2015 that it has delivered the first of two further Airborne Maritime Situation and Control System (AMASCOS) mission systems to the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF).
– first of two further AMASCOS – that means this is additional 2 units other than the first 2.
@ joe
The fact that poorer 3rd world East Asian, African, & South American countries could afford to buy Mirages in big quantities disproves your statement somewhat.
Can you list down which “poor” country got brand new mirage 3/5 in big quantites??
ASM,
No I indeed meant “Mirage III” (in Roman numerals) as it was originally designated and marketed.
“Mirage 5” however was in Arabic rather than Roman numerals; as was “Mirage 2000”.
Off topic
Some additional info on Indonesian Typhoon deal.
Looks like if they can seal the deal for those Typhoons quickly, they will be transferred to TNI-AU by 2022.
@Azlan
Yeah I thought you mean III instead of 111. Small matter anyways
No East Asian Mirages I believe. Primarily African and South American countries use the Mirages
ASM – “No East Asian Mirages I believe”
The only Mirage operator this part of the world; apart from Australia, is Taiwan.
The Australians did look at the possibility of selling us a number of Mirage IIIs to replace the Sabres but nothing came out of it.
As part of a Asian tour which included Australia; a Mirage 2000 was in Subang for a couple of days but we eventually selected Hornets and Fulcrums.
@ azlan
“The Australians did look at the possibility of selling us a number of Mirage IIIs to replace the Sabres but nothing came out of it”
Australia later sold their entire fleet of mirages to Pakistan. One of the mirages is preserved inside Butterworth AFB.
@Marhalim
Searching thru internet corroborate multiple reports that 4 units B200T were converted to AMASCOS but since you have insider info, I will defer to your better judgement. Regardless its only 1 unit more or less, the fact that we still the remainder units and should consider porting over their systems to the existing CN-235s we have is a nobrainer.
@…
Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, Israel, South Africa, Colombia, Egypt, Peru, DR Congo, Chile.
…. – “Australia later sold their entire fleet of mirages to Pakistan”
Yes I’m aware.
You’ve heard of the “synchronicity” theory? The “right thing happening at the right time”.
In 2003 I was on a SIA plane over Pakistan. Just gazing at the local
landscape. Out of the corner of my eye I spotted a pair of Mirage 111s slightly below us, passing by.
@ joe
pakistan.
only got about 30 new. others secondhand to a total of 250+ airframes.
argentina
only about 20 units
brazil
16
israel
israel a poor country??
south africa
south africa is also not a poor country in the apartheid days.
colombia
less than 20
Egypt
egypt spends billions on weapons annually.
Peru
40, 10 transferred to Argentina
Congo
no mirage 3/5 used.
chile
less than 20
…
In the 1960’s Israel was not a rich country and did not yet have a strategic relationship with the U.S. It was however able to afford the Mirage 111; which unlike later French aircraft in the 1980’s onwards; wasn’t overly or prohibitively expensive.
@ azlan
israel got a lot of help from wealthy jews worldwide to backroll its defence.
@…
We’re talking about during the Cold War, mate. And while SA don’t look poor to you during Apartheid that was simply because they concentrated wealth to the whites and didn’t care to spread the wealth to their poorer blacks, also during Apartheid their economy was embargoed, taking a huge nosedive. Congo was known as Zaire back then, Google it. The Mirages were bought when they were known as Zaire back then.
@Azlan
“Mirage 111, wasn’t overly or prohibitively expensive.”
As well Mirage 5. That’s the point Im trying to make to …
Off topic
A recent picture of Indonesian AS565MBe ASW helicopter deploying its dipping sonar.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhynswuUYAA7URM.jpg
The AS565MBe ASW suite of sensors include the L3 Ocean Systems DS-100 HELRAS dipping sonar, a lightweight torpedo launching system, and a lightweight operator console.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tZi0RyR1LqM/VS05kDyHL5I/AAAAAAAAjcg/Y_yryjV3XYI/s1600/Panther%2BAL.jpg
Out of 11 AS565MBe Helicopters bought by TNI-AL, 2 of them are equipped with ASW equipment while the other 9 are used for utility missions.
For now looks like Malaysia is one of a few ASEAN countries without an ASW helicopter capability.
@ joe
Zaire bought just 11.
My point is that those are still not big quantities as you say.
…. – “israel got a lot of help from wealthy jews worldwide to backroll its defence”
In the 1960’s; not to the level they have now. Also not all the cash aids back then were from “wealthy Jews” but from various segments of the diaspora.
Israel in the 1960’s; having just been formed in 1948 was not a ‘rich’ country. It was able to afford Mirage 111s and other French planes like Magister because they were still affordable then.
…. – “For now looks like Malaysia is one of a few ASEAN countries without an ASW helicopter capability”
It has.a helo ASW capability. Just a basic one given the range and endurance limitations of the Super Lynx and the fact that the helo is totally dependent on the frigate when it comes to target detection and torp release.
@Azlan
Not so much to do with the Super Lynx platform itself, more to do with our model, which is not really equipped for ASW and more for antiship role, as IINM it lacks dipping sonar and sonobuoys.
@…
Anything a dozen or more is significant quantity especially for countries of their economic standing during CW. Bear in mind, they are sold as frontline first rate planes designed to go against the best of Western & Soviet fighters.
@ azlan
i stand corrected. Yes just a torpedo dropping capability, no sub hunting by dipping sonar, MAD or sonobuoys.
anyway a unique picture i found on the net
LYNX by marhalim
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Lyxns.jpg
PLA-N dauphin (Harbin Z-9) with the same torpedo
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5eyQkBbJdz4/UJp406R4N9I/AAAAAAAACrE/Y9PAirZwJeM/s1600/A244S.jpg
Does china manufacture its own version of A244 torpedo? If so is it available for export?
Chua,
This has been discussed previously. The Lynx has range and endurance limitations; made worse if carrying torps and a dipping sonar – which is why very few are fully configured for ASW.
ASW is extremely time consuming and requires the helo to fly distance. The helo will also have to fly around deploying its sonar.
Weather also plays a part. A Lynx can either carry a single torp and a dipping sonar but not a pair of torps with dipping sonar – endurance becomes a big issue.
Ideally a helo will engage a contact as far away as possible from the mother ship – range and endurance needed. Bear in mind that an embarked ASW helo is a ship’s main means of ASW.
What can be done is to have a Lynx armed with torps and another with a dipping sonar – not the optimum way to do things. The worst thing which can happen is for a helo to have to head back because it’s released its only torp or for one to be in the midst of achieving a solid contact/solution with sonar but having to head back because of fuel. By the time returns the contact would be a few NM away and the helo would have to start the search from the beginning if it’s unable to achieve immediate contact.
Chua – “more for antiship role”
Range and endurance is still an issue. Another issue is that the traditional Sea Skua has too short a range. For a Lynx to be in range to use its missile; it would be in range of being fired upon if the target was so equipped.
Not all engagements will be as one sided for the attacker as the “Battle of the Bubiyan Channel” or “Praying Mantis”.
… – “Does china manufacture its own version of A244 torpedo? If so is it available for export?”
There was mention somewhere in how it recovered a Mk46 and reversed engineered it. I would be surprised if it didn’t with the A243 given it’s history of reverse engineering many things and offering them for export.
Back on the CN-235 conversion.
additional info from PTDI
1st aircraft already sent to PTDI 7 september 2020
2nd aircraft to be sent within september 2020
3rd aircraft to be sent january 2021
The standard of equipment will be the same as the latest TNI-AL CN-235-220 MPA with MSI systems integration. Waiting to see if the winglet modification will also go into TUDMs CN-235-220.
@Azlan
“Ideally a helo will engage a contact as far away as possible from the mother ship – range and endurance needed. Bear in mind that an embarked ASW helo is a ship’s main means of ASW”
That principle is conditional to said helicopter being properly equipped to conduct ASW, for which a dipping sonar is critical. Otherwise it is only a torpedo delivery platform
Chua – “Otherwise it is only a torpedo delivery platform”
Irrespective of whether a helo has only a torp or also has a dipping sonar; it is the ship’s main means of engaging a sub surface contact and an attempt will be made up engage the contact as far away as possible to kept the ship out of range of the sub.
This is where endurance and range comes in; especially given that ASW is time intensive.
P.S.
The lack of a dipping sonar and sonobuoys compromises the ability of the helo to detect, track and engage contacts but it doesn’t in anyway change the fact that it’s still the ship’s main means of dealing with subs.
The triple tubes on the ship are serve a purpose but by the time the ship’s in range to employ them; it’s also well within range of being engaged by a sub’s torp’s; if it hasn’t already.
@ azlan
” The triple tubes on the ship are serve a purpose but by the time the ship’s in range to employ them; it’s also well within range of being engaged by a sub’s torp’s; if it hasn’t already ”
A submarine heavyweight torpedo has significantly longer range than the lightweight torpedoes (like our A244S) that can be fired by our corvette and frigste triple tubes.
…. “A submarine heavyweight torpedo has significantly longer range than the lightweight torpedoes (like our A244S) that can be fired by our corvette and frigste triple tubes”
I’m aware thank you. What exactly is the point you’re trying to make?
I pointed out that that a helo will always attempt to engage a contact as far away as the mother ship as possible and that if a ship is in range to use its onboard torps; it’s well within range of being fired upon by the sub; if it already hasn’t been.
I mentioned nothing about range in comparison to lightweight torps and heavyweight torps carried subs. Also just because a heavyweight torp might have “x” range doesn’t mean it will be fired from long distance. Firing from long distance also gives the target more time to react.
@ azlan
” What exactly is the point you’re trying to make? ”
Without helicopter torpedo attack capability, a frigate is very vulnerable to be attacked by the submarine first. Unless we can look into VL ASROC capability.
A dipping sonar capability, even by upgrading our Super Lynx, is better than nothing at all. Indonesia and Philippines consider having 2 panther and wildcat dipping sonar capability each is good enough for them. Our situation right now is that we cannot afford anything such as the Romeo, Merlin or NH90 ASW capability.
…. – “Without helicopter torpedo attack capability, a frigate is very vulnerable to be attacked by the submarine first”
Nobody indicated otherwise….
It’s a combination of a torp capability as well as having the needed sensors:’/sonobuoys – and as I mentioned; the need to engage the contact as far away as possible from the mother ship; range and endurance needed.
…. – “A dipping sonar capability, even by upgrading our Super Lynx, is better than nothing at all”
So you keep mentioning and insisting but ASW is very time intensive. Rarely will a helo arrive on station and be able to engage the target in minutes. Chances are it will have to fly a distance and keep lowering its sonar to get a contact.
If a contact has to break off its search prematurely because it’s out of fuel or has released the only torp it has and has to head back for another; then it’s “not a better than nothing” situation … It actuality qualifies as “nothing” ..
… – “. Indonesia and Philippines consider having 2 panther and wildcat dipping sonar capability each is good enough for them”
Because they have done it and “it’s good enough for them”; we should follow suit in this basis?
…. – “Our situation right now is that we cannot afford anything such as the Romeo, Merlin or NH90 ASW capability.”
So you see fit to keep mentioning.
The thing is a purchase is ‘not right now” is it? It’s years away… Also, if we want to apply what suits our operational needs on the basis of what we can afford “right now; the list would be a somewhat short one ….
@ azlan
” The thing is a purchase is ‘not right now” is it? It’s years away… ”
Its not years away. its requirement (for 2) is in the next few years.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/back-into-the-future/
to have a commonality with the majority of the fleet, i would prefer to rebuild a used lynx airframe refitted with LHTEC engine as per our superlynx and fitted with ASW suite similar to the wildcat. So it is basically a wildcat in a lynx airframe (our current superlynx actually has all the engine and transmission systems of the wildcat anyway)
Anything more capable than that will mean less money to settle our frigate predicament before 2025.
… – “not years away. its requirement (for 2) is in the next few years”
“The next few years” according to your personal definition doesn’t include “years away”? At what point – according to your personal definition – is there a sharp distinction between “the next few years” and “years away”?
… – “Anything more capable than that will mean less money to settle our frigate“
A ASW platform with insufficient range and endurance; as well as one without the space for the needed sonobuoys and one which can only either carry a single torp with a dipping or a dipping sonar with no torps to have some level of endurance is clearly not up to the task of anything beyond an extremely basic and limited ASW capability.
Which is why incidentally; the RMN sees a requirement for something other than a Lynx and why the vast majority of Lynx users didn’t convert theirs for ASW.
@ azlan
RMK12 will start in 3 more months. That is not years away.
“why the vast majority of Lynx users didn’t convert theirs for ASW”
except for UK, most other users do use theirs for ASW, from france, portugal, brazil, south korea and more.
@Azlan
“is clearly not up to the task of anything beyond an extremely basic and limited ASW capability.”
Yes, and I’m saying that this would still be more than a torpedo platform and NO dipping sonar.
1 torpedo + 1 sonar > 2 torpedo + 0 sonar
Not that I’m advocating instant conversion of the Lynx, just that let’s be honest and know where we stand.
Chua – “Yes, and I’m saying that this would still be more than a torpedo platform and NO dipping sonar”
Yes and also a platform with the needed range, endurance and lift capacity. At NO point in any of my previous posts in this thread or others; did I indicate something different .
Chua – “, just that let’s be honest and know where we stand”
I’m pretty aware of where we currently stand with regards to the capability we currently have.
A great article (in portugese) of Brazilian navy Lynx converted into the WildLynx standard.
http://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/artigos/ah-11b-super-lynx-conheca-o-programa-de-modernizacao-na-leonardo-helicopters
There is one easy mod that should be quickly implemented on our super lynx. The tailboom strakes (small strips on the side of the tailboom). This easy mod will reduce the power need for the tail rotor, and gives extra tail rotor control effect for the pilot.
http://cdn-defesaaereanaval.nuneshost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Leonardo-AH-11B-25.jpg
I would think the biggest headache in the coming years with regards to the Lynxs would be to replace some of the 1990’s avionics/systems (some might not be supportable in the coming years due to age or obsolescent issues): as well as the Whiteheads and Sea Skuas which based on the period they were bought should be time expiring soon.
@ azlan
” would think the biggest headache in the coming years with regards to the Lynxs would be to replace some of the 1990’s avionics/systems (some might not be supportable in the coming years due to age or obsolescent issues) ”
the good news is that most of the latest advanced avionics nowadays is actually cheaper than the complicated analog systems it will be replacing. Take a look at the brazilian upgrade. Those Lynx are of early 80s and mid 90s vintage, and now upgraded internally to wildcat standards and now called by brazil the WildLynx.