SHAH ALAM: How much is that MPA in the window? Based on the contract announcement made at LIMA 2023, RMAF own MPA costs RM395 million per aircraft. The MPA is of course the Leonardo ATR 72 which is equipped for ASW. The whole contract:
Leonardo SPA. RM789.6 million for the supply, delivery and commissioning of two units of Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) Phase 1 and associated equipment
It is interesting to note that on June 27, it was revealed that Ireland has taken delivery of the first of two Airbus C295 MPA. The contract for the two aircraft, according to the Ireland Defence Ministry:
the total cost of the contract for both Maritime Patrol Aircraft and associated training, ground equipment and spare parts is €230 million, inclusive of VAT.
Based on the current exchange rate, the Irish MPA cost RM1.168 billion or RM584 million per aircraft. Unfortunately, we cannot simply infer that the cost of RMAF MPA is cheaper than the Irish one, as we do not know the exact specifications for both aircraft. Furthermore, we do not know other variable such as the maintenance costs.
What about the cost of the Boeing P-8A Poseidon cost then? It varies with the order but according to the Drive a unit cost of P-8A for the US Navy is US$175 million or RM818 million.
New Zealand four P-8A costs US$1.6 billion (US$403 million per aircraft) or RM7.4 billion or RM1.9 billion per aircraft. Again, the price is for New Zealand though it is likely it will be the same if we were to buy the same numbers.
Perhaps, we will get an inkling on the price soon once Singapore buys the Poseidon. This is likely as on May 29, Boeing signed a Memorandum of Understanding with ST Engineering to outline potential areas of collaboration in systems integration, training, local parts distribution, support, and sustainment work for the P-8A Poseidon.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (35)
I believe RMAF wants to get cn295 or P8 but because of cost of purchase and maintenance. They got for ATR 72 will be cost lesser in term of maintenance. Training also can share experience with the private. Understand our budget willnot expand very far, choose ATR 72 is a right way with the solution they want.
Everyone in the region wants the P8 but its likely only SG can afford it.
Is it confirmed that those ATR-72 MPA ordered, with Leonardo mission suite, would be ASW capable?
Yes
Whether it is RM818 million or RM1.9 billion, the P8 is still way out of our budget and realm of possibly owning one.
Hate it or not, at RM400mil per bird it is possibly the cheapest ASW and with our puny budget for it, likely the only real option we have despite your haranguing about it being the slowest plane. Again as I sad before, we can drool over a Mercedes, wishing for Toyota, but if we only have budget for a Proton, we should just resign ourselves and make do with a Proton.
Like I have said before, the best MPA is the one we can afford to sustain, maintain and keep flying in the air. No point buying a plane that’s is going to be in the hangar only gathering dust because it costs to much to operate.
737s are cheap to operate, actually, but the high entry cost is the killer
... - “haranguing about it being the slowest plane”
Was he really “haranguing” as you put it? He raised an important point ... This is not a question about prices but about why the ATR was selected despite not ostensibly meeting the specs laid out in the tender.
... - “ we should just resign ourselves and make do with a Proton”
“Resign” ourselves and look at ways how we can operate the Proton to its full potential by doing certain things. Thank
My issue with the ATR-72 is not the aircraft or its capability per see, but the zero compatibility of aircraft and mission suite with the one that is already in TUDM fleet, the CN-235MSA
At least if the mission system is the same, you can have just 1 pool of systems operator. Right now the ATR-72 will have different everything from the CN-235
It is 1 step forward with the FA-50 (replacing 3 different platforms with 1) but 2 step backwards with the ATR-72 (replacing 1 platform with 2 different platforms undertaking the same MPA mission)
Well if mindef is willing to buy 1 P-8A per RMK instead of 2 ATR-72MP (as well as taking up Japan's P-3 offer) we might have chance to operate them as well as getting enough MPAs to cover not only SCS, but also sulu sea and malacca straits
-dundun
If one was to buy a Poseidon, the worse thing they can do is ran a couple of high-cost P-3s at the same time or in the run up to it. Anyhow if we were to buy Poseidon, four of them, the best thing is to buy two of them per one RMK.
Leonardo's press release says no ASW in the version purchased. Press release is 25 May 2023. Seems more like the Italian order which also lacks the ASW suite to save cost. The Turkish versions are MPA + ASW.
https://www.leonardo.com/en/press-release-detail/-/detail/25-05-2023-leonardo-signs-contract-with-malaysia-for-two-atr-72-mpa
See the reply to Tom Tom
I don’t think having two systems, ie CN 235 and ATR 72 is going to be a real problem for TUDM operators. Give them more credit. They are not dumb. I am pretty you can convert from system to another system in a few days if that is needed.
My question to Marhalim: do you know if the ATRs will be equipped with MAD booms like the Turkish ones?
Tom Tom
No booms but sonobuoy launcher
... - “My issue with the ATR-72 is not the aircraft or its capability per see, but the zero compatibility”
I totally agree; after all I’ve been harping about the need for greater commonality for ages; just like how I’ve been harping for quite a while now about the fact that we’re in the systems and not platform centric age.
Getting back. The issue is why the ATR was selected despite not meeting technical specifications as laid out in the tender. That is a pertinent question which I do not see as “haranguing” on the part of Marhalim ...