SHAH ALAM: The manufacture of the three Malaysian Anka UAS – by Turkish Aerospace Industries – are on track with the first flight of the first airframe, is scheduled next month. The first flights of the other two UAS are also on track, Malaysian Defence was told.
The other RMAF procurement – the KAI FA-50M FLIT/LCA – is also on schedule. However, the Leonardo ATR72 MPA production faced a slight delay due to final configuration issues. The contracts for these projects were made public at LIMA 2023.
Korea Aerospace Industries Limited. RM3.84 billion. For the supply, delivery, and commissioning of eighteen units of Fighter Lead-In Trainer – Light Combat Aircraft and associated equipment.
Turkish Aerospace Industries. RM423.8 million for the supply, delivery, and commissioning of three units of unmanned aerial system and associated support – Category medium altitude long endurance (MALE) – Phase 1.
Leonardo SPA. RM789.6 million for the supply, delivery and commissioning of two units of Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) Phase 1 and associated equipment.
No problems were expected with the Anka and FA-50M production as both are ordered from manufacturers running -separately – hot production lines. Malaysian Defence had previously reported that the RMAF project teams were in Turkiye, Italy and South Korean to monitor the projects.
Anyhow, the tender for twelve helicopters for RMAF is expected to be published any time now. RMAF wants CSAR-configured medium helicopters as it had specified previously in 2007. This time the CSAR will be paid and fitted for unlike the EC725s with the equipment fitted for but not paid or fitted with.
Meanwhile, apart from the VIP Nuri, RMAF is moving to dispose of its retired fleet of Northrop F-5E/F and Mikoyan MIG-29 Fulcrum fighters. The sale of all three aircraft is subject to end-user agreements, meaning RMAF will only sell them after getting permission from the country of manufacture.
One of the Fulcrum is expected to be made a permanent display at the Sultan Abu Bakar Muzium in Pekan, Pahang. However it is unclear when the aircraft will be displayed at the muzium. Other locations for the Fulcrum may well include the Kuantan airbase and the RMAF museum in Sendayan. The first Fulcrum made a gate guard is likely tail number 06 which has been placed inside the Joint Force Headquarters, near the Kuantan airbase. The picture of the aicraft was seen during the Defence Minister DS Khaled Nordin visit to headquarters earlier last week.
RMAF has no plans to stop flying the two VIP Blackhawk currently, although they were relegated to support duties in the recent times. 
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
This time the CSAR will be paid and fitted for unlike the EC725s with the equipment fitted for but not paid or fitted with”..Nice maybe we can expect the future 12 RMAF new helos will look and configured like RSAF H225M?..Armed too?”..Displayed at pekan pahang.Nice i can see everyday ha ha
The 1st fulcrum already been installed at markas bersama ATM in kuantan.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNc85utaEAAuwJH.jpg
Nice catch, but that’s not open to the public. The current JF commander was a former Fulcrum pilot about the same time as when the current PTU was also flying them
“RMAF project teams were in Turkiye, Italy and South Korean”
As usual nice working holidays. See if anyone wants to go to Djibouti for long assignment. Haha.
And if EC725 are chosen again, another team will line up for the France tour.
“dispose of its retired fleet of Northrop F-5E/F”
And someone wanted to reinduct the F5 back into our airfleet. LOL
“getting permission from the country of manufacture.”
If werent for sanctions, we could sell the MIGS back perhaps tradeoff for more missiles & bombs & SLEP kits for MKM. But Nuri & F5 still needs US agreement? Like how are these obsolete aircrafts going to harm US interest anyways?
If it were me I would like to park the VIP Nuri as well others used by the Agongs at the old Istana Negara as exhibits of those they ridden on. In England, the Royal Household still keeps the carriages royalties used dating couple of centuries.
“1st fulcrum already been installed”
Looks like not with its engines, so can we expect news headlines ‘Missing Jet Engines 2.0’ with them appearing in some African country?
Its too far away to be certain, anyhow, most of gate guards are without their engines.
Our Mig-29 engines are life expired, so they are only good for scrap.
Not willing to buy new engines for the MiGs is what grounded them in the 1st place. A decision, which i think it is correct, as there is not much we can do with them, upgrading-wise.
” And someone wanted to reinduct the F5 back into our airfleet. LOL ”
F-5, as of now has more proven upgrading path and capabilities than even the MiG-29. I was proposing it (extra younger F-5F airframes from ROKAF as free transfer) for interim FLIT and aggressor missions (as we will only have enough FA-50 for FLIT when we buy 2nd batch of FA-50) , not like i am proposing it to be our frontline fighter jet.
The not fitted for gear could only include the self defence suite fitted on the tail boom. The other stuff – NVG compatible cockpit; FLIR and winch are standard. Other adds on which age desirable would be ballistic panels; not just for these rotary platforms but all.
Anka will have a radar which at the time of order has not yet been integrated to it – and will supposedly have modified wings. It also goes without saying that it will have ESM payloads; we ordered some from Saab years ago. Hopefully we will get the follow on 3 in the coming years. Also makes sense at some point in the future to have all MALEs operated by a joint UAS Command. This would enable all services to get the capability via an effective C3 mechanism when they need it without any bureaucratic obstacles and service centric parochialism. Ukraine has set up a UAS command but UASs at the lower end of the spectrum will still be operated at brigade, battalion, company and platoon level ; as they should be.
There’s an interesting report about how a local outfit is offering a South Korean system as a potential replacement for ASTROS in the coming years. It looks more contemporary; expected given that ASTROS’s design dates from the 1980’s. It can also fire GPS guided rounds [the downside is they can be jammed/spoofed]. My main concern has always been not the “range” and “firepower” but having the means to detect, track and accurately hit targets at long range; i.e. a strike/recce complex without which all the “range” and “firepower” in the world are useless. A lot has been written about HIMAS in Ukraine but less well reported is that it was HIMAS with a strike/recce complex: as well as external help which enables the results to be obtained, not HIMAS by itself.
I would like the army to have the Chunmoos, but i don’t know if we have the budget for it.
To replace the ASTROS 1-to-1, we would need to spend about USD800 million, based on Poland buy of 72 units for USD1.6 billion.
I believed the Polish ones include the cost of integrating the launchers on Polish made prime movers. It also includes the 290km range missiles, claimed to be as good ATACMS and plenty of reloads. If we buy the normal rockets and a small batch of reloads, of course it will be cheaper. When I speak to the guys who were promoting them, they are only looking to sell the normal rockets not the ATACMS clone.
That said since we will likely buy them via the local agent with a big brother, it will cost the same as the Polish ones.
I have not heard of any plans to buy MLRS yet.
… – ”I would like the army to have the Chunmoos”
I would like for us to acquire a strike/recce platform to work alongside ASTROS and to get improved rounds, rather than replace ASTROS. Having said that I’m not aware of any issues which might result in the army wanting to replace ASTROS.
… – ”To replace the ASTROS 1-to-1, we would need to spend about USD800 million”
That does include the UASs and radars the regiment should have.
”Like how are these obsolete aircrafts going to harm US interest anyways?”
If selling the obsolete aircraft are not contrary to American interests then there will be no objections but by law whether obsolete or not; permission has to be sought.
…- ”F-5, as of now has more proven upgrading path and capabilities than even the MiG-29. ”
An opinion; not a fact. Firstly they are in different categories and secondly the Fulcrum has been upgraded in ways not done with the F-5; ways not even possible.
Improved rounds for ASTROS are basically the same rounds but with correction kits. You still need to point the launcher to the target precisely. You cant launch 10 rockets at 10 different targets at the same time. So actually it would be easier just to have 155mm shell with guided fuses for the same effect as the ASTROS improved rounds.
For low-cost precision munition for the ASTROS launcher, i do have a type of rocket in mind, but that is for later.
Chunmoos OTOH, has advanced missiles for its launcher. But still I don’t think we have the money for that. And if we do have the money, i would prefer us to get NSM shore missile batteries first (2 batteries cost USD260 million, so a regiment of 4 batteries would be USD520 million). NSM shore battery would be capable of ground and naval precision fires.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKDSJV7bYAEZx4T.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-fMmsPX0AAXGUX.jpg
@Hulu
“Our Mig-29 engines are life expired, so they are only good for scrap.”
I betcha not all are as we whole batch retired them. Some may be in better condition than others. But surely even expired engines are still valuable for spares, just as the “missing” F5 engines in the previous case. Lets hope this time TUDM have better inventory process to secure them.
“interim FLIT and aggressor missions”
Its obvious TUDM sees no need for interims nor see fit to bring back F5 even if newer. You forget that we have just issued tenders to keep the Hawks running, and these will be our interim not models that we have long ceased use.
“I have not heard of any plans to buy MLRS yet.”
Naturally as we havent even cross the SPH hurdle yet, much less the KJA APC programs that will come after (or even before) the SPH, so talks of any MLRS replacement is premature.
” the Fulcrum has been upgraded in ways not done with the F-5; ways not even possible ”
Example?
… – ”Example?”
The Fulcrum is a twin engine platform. The F-5 a single engine one. A direct equivalent of the F-5 would be the MiG-21. The Fulcrum has been upgraded with a full air and ground capability with a sensors fit and the ability to carry a wide variety of ordnance in a way the F-5 hasn’t. An early example would be the SMT variant offered to us a far back as LIMA 1997.
… – ”You still need to point the launcher to the target precisely.”
Actually; ”you still need to” be able to detect, track and accurately hit targets; often at long ranges and in time sensitive situations. For that you need a strike/recce complex and an effective C2 mechanism in place. On top of that you might need to coordinate or synchronise MLRS fire with that of artillery or maneuver forces. A bit more complicated than needing ”to point the launcher to the target precisely” …
… – ”i would prefer us to get NSM shore missile batteries first (2 batteries cost USD260 million, so a regiment of 4 batteries would be USD520 million).”
No doubt you would but for me the main issue with getting any land based missile system is also the need to acquire various enablers in order to fully exploit the capabilities offered. Given that the main role of NSM is anti-ship [yes I’m aware it has a land attack function – thank you] and that the RMN has land based radars and assets at sea which could be tied in to NSM; the RMN should be the service which operates it.
>F-5, as of now has more proven upgrading path and capabilities than even the MiG
lmao what?
Various air arms have upgraded their F-5s to enable a BVR capability and other things. To suggest or claim however that these ”has more proven upgrading path and capabilities” than upgraded MiG-29s is laughable. Must as well say an upgraded T-72 has comparable capabilities to a Merkava 3. Not only are they aircraft in different categories but the fact that upgraded MiG-29s will still be flying in frontline roles for quite a while more says it all.
P.S.
The F-5 is a twin [not single engine] lightweight fighter.
” An early example would be the SMT variant offered to us a far back as LIMA 1997 ”
– SMT variant in 1997? Is there any other major upgrades after that?
– what kind of radar available for MiG-29?
– what kind of missiles and ordnance available for MiG-29?
– what kind of targeting pods available for MiG-29?
– What kind of cockpit avionics available for MiG-29?
– engine availability. MiG-29 engine is life limited. F-5 engines have long lifes capable of multiple overhauls.
– what kind of HMDS available for MiG-29? F-5s now available with THALES SCORPION HMD, operationally used by US Navy and USMC.
@ dundun
F-5 upgrades
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/second-hornet-returning-to-service/#comment-897723
Thailand F-5T Super Tigris program
https://alert5.com/2017/08/02/rtaf-f-5-super-tigris-program/
F-5AT Advanced Tiger
http://www.key.aero/article/eyes-tiger
Again i would like to stress that my proposal is for intrim FLIT (as the FA-50 for FLIT will only be available in batch 2) and adversary/aggressor duties. And this is also before the news of the Kuwaiti hornet program is on again.
… – ”– SMT variant in 1997? Is there any other major upgrades after that?”
Look it up. What has been done with India’s Fulcrums…
… – ”Again i would like to stress that my proposal”.
I would think you’ve ”stressed” that and a long list of others sufficiently …
… – ‘F-5s now available with THALES SCORPION HMD, operationally used by US Navy and USMC.”
Yes than you but the claim that ”F-5, as of now has more proven upgrading path and capabilities than even the MiG” is preposterous. The F-5 is hardly in frontline service anymore and in terms of comprehensive upgrades; much more has been performed on the Fulcrums.