SHAH ALAM: In the previous on how much is that helicopter in the window, I wrote the leasing contract for the RMAF’s four AW139 twin engine helicopters. Go there if you have not read it before.
Well, this post is about the three Maritime Operations Helicopter (MOH/MUH) procured by the RMN. Two of the helicopters are expected this month while the third one is scheduled for delivery this September. All three will be shipped directly to the Kota Kinabalu Naval base in Teluk Sepanggar where they will be based and operated.
Well anyhow according to the VIP greeting book for DSA 2022 contracts day, the contract was listed at RM228 million which was about RM8 million more when the RMN chief said about them in September 2020. Perhaps the higher exchange rate caused the increase in the contract price.
It must be noted that the contract was listed as
“in relation to Industrial Collaboration Programme (ICP) under procurement for the supply, delivery and commissioning of three Maritime Operations Helicopters along with two sets of mission equipments for the Royal Malaysian Navy”
. The contract is with Galaxy Aerospace (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Yes, Galaxy Aerospace is the ICP partner for the procurement of the helicopters. Since the ICP terms are not published, I have no idea what it is for and its duration. It may well be related to the maintenance and other related activities on the helicopters and the two mission equipments.
And unlike the leased RMAF AW139s, the RMN ones are equipped with mission equipments, two of them. This is likely the EO turrets and mission consoles on board the helicopters. The helicopters will also be armed. Release from Leonardo:
The RMN’s AW139 maritime utility helicopters instead feature dedicated sensors and equipment, including light weapon systems, and will be stationed in Kota Kinabalu. They can carry out a range ofmissions including, among others, SAR, medevac, utility, and anti-piracy. Deliveries were performed fast and well ahead of schedule. The AW139s add to the RMN’s Super Lynx 300 naval specialised helicopters.
— Malaysian Defence
View Comments (22)
Quite a good heli. Should standardized it and focus on procuring i/o leasing
So,
RMAF leased four for 265 million ringgit.
but
RMN bought three outright for 228 million ringgit (or around 18 million dollars each). With higher military spec than those leased by RMAF.
No words to describe the utter waste of money done by the RMAF.
In 5 years time, RMN will still fly those AW139 MUH as they are owned by RMN outright. While RMAF need to fork out more money to replace the leased helicopters.
The irony is, malaysian defense procurement is full of similar examples. None of this discrepancies are highlighted by Ketua Audit Negara.
Like how RMN spent 250 million ringgit on a 700 tonne patrol boat, when the same amount of money gets MMEA a 1800 tonne offshore patrol vessel.
Or how the army pays 7 million ringgit for a MRAP that is sold to Thai Marines for just 2 million ringgit.
But instead he chases mirages like the 2 million ringgit less disbursement by UN on a vehicle that the government did not pay a single cent for it. Maybe that is the only thing he is allowed to highlight, with other bigger discrepancies just swept beneath the carpet.
Leasing is not a new option, even the RAAF has got leased AW139 based in North Queensland
RMAF is using the opex for Nuri maintenance as marhalim stated earlier. TLDM used available capex.
Its government cash accounting...weird stuff.
gonggok - No words to describe the utter waste of money done by the RMAF"
Correction. It was "a utter waste of money done by the government" not "the RMAF".
The RMAF requested funding for a new platform but the government declared that funding would only be available in the next Malaysia Plan; resulting in the RMAF having no choice but to look at a leasing option. Now one can claim that the RMAF should have tried harder or done something else but I don't have actual facts in hand thus I won't speculate - ultimately it was a political decision.
It was also a political decision to release funding for the RMN's AW139s; doesn't mean [in case someone makes the claim] the RMN did a better job of presenting or lobbying its case..
I believed the money for the RMN helicopters is actually the one meant to fund ASW helicopters but then RMN decided against buying it. Why, it is likely the funds wasn't enough to pay for the ASW helicopters that they wanted.
You don't do that kind ringgit to ringgit comparison without taking into account the Purchase power parity of each country
For example the Arafura class is around 400% more then tun Fatimah despite both mostly in the same league.
Anyway if you think the AG live under the thump of politicians ala CCP. Then think again
Darth,
You are quite out of depth here.
What do you mean about purchase power parity? This article compares AW139 program of RMN and RMAF.
Both RMN and RMAF are military services of the same country, Malaysia.
As is for example comparing RMN LMS and MMEA OPV.
And why suddenly mention about AG?
Also for your information, the costs australia usually quotes is everything from signing up to scrapping the system. Not just the initial purchasing costs. Everything including anticipated maintenance, upgrades, salaries is calculated upfront.
@Hasnan
This is quite common in private sector as well. Many would do leasing for company cars but outright buy trucks for business usage. The leasing would expense as P&L while the buy would be tax deductible.
@Marhalim
RM228mil is defo not enough. It can't even pay for measly 3 Seahawks and that is at Aukus friendship prices. For such limitations, it would be more realistic for TLDM to buy in staggered small batches ie 2 units per year as price per each could rival that of an F35.
@gonggok
Learn the difference between CAPEX & OPEX, and how they are used.
joe,
"Learn the difference between CAPEX & OPEX, and how they are used"
That is not the point here. I know the difference.
The most important point here is
RMAF 4 year rental of civilian spec AW139 cost per helicopter = RMN outright buy of military spec AW139 cost per helicopter.
And that is not right!