SHAH ALAM: The King – Sultan Ibrahim Iskandar – has asked for explanation on the delay in the completion of the combat dive complex at the Iskandar Camp, Mersing. The King – who is also GGK Colonel Commandant – in a Facebook post today stated that the complex should be completed by December 2022.
“Infact, I was told yesterday that those involved had asked for six extensions. And today I found that the project signboard has been taken down. I want the sign board to be reerected and I want the Johor Public Works Department and the Mersing district engineer to explain”, the King said in the post.
The King himself had conducted the ground-breaking ceremony for the combat dive complex in 2018. The combat dive complex was to be used by GGK operators for training in maritime operations.
The full release below:
YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG MAHU PIHAK BERTANGGUNGJAWAB JELASKAN KELEWATAN PEMBINAAN KOLAM SELAM TEMPUR KEM ISKANDAR
KDYMM SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ibrahim menitahkan pihak yang bertanggungjawab membina kolam selam tempur di Kem Iskandar, Mersing memperjelaskan punca kelewatan pembinaan.
Sultan Ibrahim yang juga Kolonel Komandan Gerup Gerak Khas (GGK) bertitah, kolam itu sepatutnya siap sepenuhnya pada Disember 2022, namun sehingga kini masih dalam pembinaan.
“Malah, semalam saya dimaklumkan lanjutan masa sebanyak enam kali telah dimohon oleh pihak berkenaan.
“Dan pada hari ini, saya mendapati papan tanda projek di tapak pembinaan pula dirobohkan. Mengapa ia dirobohkan, saya mahu perkara ini diperjelaskan oleh Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Johor dan Jurutera Daerah Mersing,” titah Seri Paduka Baginda kepada Royal Press Office (RPO) hari ini (15 April).
Justeru, Seri Paduka Baginda menitahkan papan tanda berkenaan dipasang semula di tapak projek pembinaan.
Majlis pecah tanah kolam berkenaan disempurnakan oleh Sultan Ibrahim
pada Mei 2018.
Kolam selam tempur merupakan fasilitas yang amat diperlukan oleh anggota 21 GGK bagi meningkatkan kompitensi individu dan tim khususnya dalam menangani ancaman dari domain maritim.
Fasilitas ini juga dilengkapi dengan pelbagai kemudahan seperti mock up kapal, entry point bagi kemasukan melalui udara serta banyak lagi kemudahan-kemudahan asas sokongan operasi.
.
From the collapsed signboard we know the contractor is Lambang Cipta Sdn Bhd, which is based in Johor Bahru. The company took control of the site in July 2020 as the country was overcome by the pandemic.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
I suspect the typical contractor with weak capability and finance that had used “cable” to secure the project. Even a minor hiccup will disrupt their project cashflow.
Who was the original contractor? What is the main reason for the delay? Payment? contractor capability? sub-contractor issues? lack of proper project management by JKR?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb0IJsxUYAYGCXZ.jpg
https://www.jkr.gov.my/my/page/majlis-penyerahan-sst-3-dalam-1-bagi-projek-pembinaan-kolam-menyelam-tempur-kem-21-ggk-di
From the link you posted it is clear which was the original contractor.
According to Google the company is temporarily closed. Looks like this one has bite the dust too and nobody seemed aware of it. It took the King and not the politicians or ministers to highlight this issue out, so I wonder how many more troubled Govt linked projects have yet to surface. Once again its another of those that went up against tide of political upheaval of 2018-2022 plus Covid too, and did not make it out unscathed. Much like LCS & OPV, i suspect there will be a whole lot of monetary & legal wrangling before this project can continue. It looks to be about 70-80% done bar any interior fitments & finishing.
@ marhalim,
I was under the impression (might be wrong) that there was another contractor during the groundbreaking ceremony in May 2018, no? The 2020 contract is to replace the original 2018 one?
https://www.hmetro.com.my/mutakhir/2018/05/337656/bina-kolam-selam-tempur-untuk-ggk
There was no mention of the contractor in the article.
It can be done quickly if they wanted it to be. The King intervention will do it.
so basically you can pecah tanah in May 2018 (by the Sultan none the less) without a contractor, then in June 2020 (2 years after the pecah tanah) only appoint the contractor to build the thing?
There was no contractor in 2018?
or what am i missing here?
Perhaps there was but without anything to go on I cannot say much.
It’s accepted practice. All in the name of nation building. Approve delays and cost overruns to help the contractors “develop capability” and “grow” – the “tidak apa” attitude. The BNS project team’s response to the PAC on the LCS design issues exemplifies the mindset. No amount of oversight will help if the appointed contractors have no expertise and no financial strength, and the default policy is to continue supporting subpar contractors in the name of nation building. Imagine if 100 delayed projects require additional RM100,000 per project. That is RM100 million in money pulled from other projects such as Army bases in Sabah. Just as RM4b+ additional funding for the LCS basically drowned LMS2 to just 3 ships from 8 and pushed the MRSS to after 2030. Until people are willing to change existing policies, just have to accept. The sad thing is, in the past, cost overruns are tolerated as long a the project is completed. Today, cost overruns are tolerated but there is no definite expectation for the project to be finished – abandon is accepted as a norm.
What’s surprising? Isn’t the 1st time a contractor or vendor received a contract and for various reasons faced “difficulties” and left the client in the lurch. Can we expect differently the way we hand out contracts to local outfits merely because they’re bumi and connected? There have been cases of companies granted small contracts which deliver part of what they were supposed to [either in services or equipment] but then go bust. Takes years to sort out the mess.
“The King intervention will do it.”
As a rakyat I sure hope so, and I also hope he can wield that power to jumpstart again LCS & OPV pronto cutting thru all the legal redtapes.
But from a legal perspective, Im doubtful. Lets say if that company has foreclosed or dormant, there is a lot more legal wrangling to untangle before a new contractor can even start work.
“Today, cost overruns are tolerated but there is no definite expectation”
So basically UBAH for the worse then.
We won’t know until it’s actually signed off course but it does look like the RMAF’s immediate requirement will be met. Pure speculation but it looks like the AW149 is the leading contender. What I don’t get about the design is why does it have so many windows. I do like the stowage space it has to the rear and that it has cameras facing downwards fie use when under slinging stuff. Without the camera the AQM would have to rely on what he can see from the side abd from anyone on the ground.
On the army I would be pleasantly surprised if it gets its helis within the coming years. Off course even if the army’s leadership makes aviation a priority the decision makers might think otherwise.
Personally I feel AD should be the immediate army priority given that this is one in which we’ve been traditionally weak in but for every justification one can make for AD; one can also make for helis and other things.
If it is really the AW149, why does it need to cost USD50 million each?
The USD600 million allocation could easily buy us a MERAD regiment with money to spare.
SNAFU
“AW149 is the leading contender”
Problem is, AW149 doesnt seem to have been configured as CSAR option by existing users so if we go for this chopper we will be paying for gold plating option that only we are using. This unlike EC725 which does have CSAR been integrated and maint & training will be the same as our existing Caracals.
“the decision makers might think otherwise”
It would be disingenuous for the same decisionmakers to approve TUDM chopper buy but withhold PUTD chopper buy. TDM chiefs could easily raise hell on such double standard.
@hulubalang
“If it is really the AW149, why does it need to cost USD50 million each?”
More than likely due to CSAR system integration & certification as it appears we will be the first customer to use such config for this particular chopper (Im unsure if the Thai or Egypt units have such).
Interesting on the AW149. I met a guy who should be in the know in January who said the AW149 was too expensive to have any chance of winning the tender.
even italian air force uses AW139 version for its SAR mission, not AW149
https://live.staticflickr.com/1922/45038241851_faf60c97bc_b.jpg
@ marhalim
“the AW149 was too expensive to have any chance of winning the tender”
Does the increase of budget to USD600 million (RM2.8 billion) is to allow the AW149 to win? BTW the AW149 is basically a military version of the AW189 (although it actually came out 1st before the AW189) If APMM order for 4 AW189 SAR helicopters costs RM600 million (the allocated budget, not actual contract), the TUDM budget of RM2.8 billion could get at least 18 similar helicopters if following APMM budget. Bomba for example bought 2 AW189 for RM210 million. There are not many medium lift helicopters that has exorbitant USD50 million each pricetag.
BTW Egyptian Air Force also bought the AW189 version instead of the military specific AW149.
”would be disingenuous for the same decisionmakers to approve TUDM chopper buy but withhold PUTD chopper buy.”
Normal. It’s horse trading. Each service gets something; each having to wait.
”TDM chiefs could easily raise hell on such double standard.”
They might end up getting something else and be told to wait as is often the case. They can ”raise hell” but what difference does it make and since when has things been fair? The RMAF has been waiting for a AEW platform since the 1980’s; the RMN waited almost 2 decades for its SSKs and the army has had a requirement for a medium range system since the turn of the century.
”his unlike EC725 which does have CSAR been integrated ”
The Cougar had a FLIR, winch, NVG compatible cockpit or self defence suite integrated. Nothing else needed.
…. “Is it really”
Well I did say that it only looked that way. Leornado has had some success here in recent times and we don’t know how the RMAF feels about the Cougar. We can rule of a South Korean option as we can with Chinese or Russian or used Blackhawks and I’d be surprised if we got new Blackhawks.
For the sake of commonality logic dictates we get more Cougars but do the French still have the needed influence and what does the RNAF think? Will be a bummer if the RMAF has to maintain 2 separate training and support crabbers fur 2 different types of designs operated in shall numbers.
…, – USD50 million”
That’s a policy decision.
As to the cost and it being able to buy a medium range system regiment; yes but it’s relative. The same cost could also buy X number of MRAPs and those in turn could get X number of UAS which in turn could get X number of NVGs. Also, it’s not only the cost of the said regiment but networking it to the existing architecture; as well as buying a decent number of reloads and other things which might be needed
Lee – ”SNAFU”
Or FUBAR but then its SNAFU when nothing is ordered and SNAFU when something is. Whatever’s ordered there will be elements who are not happy. No pleasing everyone.
I have no idea whether there was an increase in the budget for the reason you mentioned
The previous RMAF leaders were unhappy with the Cougar when the issue of main gear box failure crop up following a crash of a civil 225 in 2016.
Apparently they were less then pleased that Eurocopter was late in informing them. The former editor of AFM wrote this.
….
The Italian Air Force is the Italian Air Force and it has other life platforms: larger ones. We’re taking about the RMAF. Can a AW139 carry the required loads over a certain distance? That’s not a rhetorical question BTW. We can safely surmise that whatever’s bought will have comparable lift and range qualities to Cougar and comparable internal volume. We can also assume that it will already be integrated with a FLIR, winch and NVG compatible cockpit.
On the “ exorbitant” price tag you know as well as I do that it’s largely to do with the fact that it will probably go via a local company. Thus whatever we buy will be more expensive compared to buys elsewhere.
” We can safely surmise that whatever’s bought will have comparable lift and range qualities to Cougar and comparable internal volume ”
Clearly the AW189 is smaller than the EC725.
AW189 is a 8.6 ton class helicopter. EC725 11 ton, blackhawk 10 ton.
If a helicopter with the same performance as EC725 is needed, just buy additional EC725 then. Why add more complexity with a new type of helicopter??
… – “BTW Egyptian Air Force also bought the AW189 version instead of the military specific AW149”
What makes a “military specific” heli ? How do we make the distinction between a “military specific” AW149 and the civilian AW189? I’m assuming the AW189 would still have a NVG compatible cockpit and if a customer decided to fit it with a winch or FLIR would the AW189 become “military specific”? As you pointed out years ago there are only slight differences with the “military specific” Cougar and ones operated by the oil/gas industry.
Kel – “It’s accepted practice”
It’s ingrained and has been for a while. You’re referring to the LCSs but that’s only one programme in a long list which went ratshit.
Kel – “nation building”
“National interests” you mean which differs somewhat from “nation building. As has been pointed out to you on various occasions ensuring the end user gets the desired capability and the taxpayer their cash’s worth is secondary.
BTW it’s “accepted practice” to use paragraphs.
Kel – “. No amount of oversight will help if the appointed contractors have no expertise and no financial strength, and the default”
Start from the beginning. If there was proper apolitical oversight or corrective mechanisms from the very onset it would have been clear that BNS was not in a sound position; that the intended goal was too ambitious and unrealistic and that as was the case with the NGOPVs BNS which had not constructed anything for quite a while should have been put through a learning curve. Then again since when were we interested in substance?
Now proper oversight and corrective mechanisms are not a panacea but they would have raised alarm bells. In this case those who voiced concern were told to keep quite and be team players. Nor did the neutered mainstream press we have ask the right questions from the onset. Questioning and scrutinising authority is not welcomed and when it involves defence issues the average voter couldn’t care less.
Kel – “the sad thing is, in the past, cost overruns are tolerated as long a the project is completed”
The “sad thing” is that we have an inability or unwillingness to learn from our mistakes and that’s largely to do with the fact that defence is seen as a cash cow to benefit the country or selected companies but not national defence per see. Like privatisation and other things it’s part and parcel of the patronage system. This rot started when a certain PM took office and we have this to thank him for but then again some voters actually believed that an aspiring PM was really going to clear the whole mess up.
Its likely going to be the EC. Of course, others will try to get to the dotted line.
What makes a “military specific” heli ?
Excellent question !
So what makes AW149 different from AW189?
If there is not much of a difference, why can’t a AW149 for the Airforce (for example) be around the same ballpark cost as the Bomba or APMM AW189?
another example, if there is not much of a difference, why doesn’t the airforce just takeover those idle EC225LP from MHS (which is owned by BHIC) and fit military-specific hardwares & softwares and call it a day (rather than blow a massive USD600 million / RM2.8 billion on 12 more medium lift helicopter) ?
Anyway, as Marhalim predicted, the Blackhawk lease is in big trouble. IMO just cancel the lease and buy those used blackhawks directly. Portuguese Air Force has shown that it actually costs less to buy outright rather than lease like PUTD.
https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/659852/berita/semasa/tdm-akan-ambil-tindakan-jika-kontraktor-masih-gagal-hantar-black-hawk
“It’s horse trading.”
Then perhaps PUTD can learn a thing or 2 from their sister arms how to horse trade their way to a dozen new utility choppers which are sorely needed.
“RMAF….AEW, RMN… SSKs, army… MERAD”
All requirements that not similar and competing with each other. But im referring to TUDM chopper buy vs PUTD chopper wish to buy. Both having more competing similarity than your examples.
“Nothing else needed.”
“just buy additional EC725 then.”
Yes which is why for CSAR requirement I prefer we go with a complete EC725 CSAR rather than spending more money to gold plate AW149 to CSAR specs. USD $50mil per bird is really spending excessive money to gold plate just for our usage.
“The previous RMAF leaders were unhappy with the Cougar”
That may be the case in past but that fleet has since racked up record number of flying hours (IINM they won that award from Airbus or something?) so that is telling how they viewed it since.
“AW189 is a 8.6 ton class helicopter. EC725 11 ton, blackhawk 10 ton.”
Yep. Even tho all 3 are classed as medium sized choppers, I would categorise AW149 & Puma/Cougar as medium class, and Caracal EC725 & Blackhawks as upper medium class. Both not directly competing with each other.
“What makes a “military specific” heli ?”
Apparently even the OEM manufacturers themselves deemed it necessary to make such distinction what with having 2 different designations, AW189/AW149, for military & civvie. Blackhawks too UH60/S-70. I guess the difference is different from one OEM to another but it seems the difference is what goes in rather than how its used (civvie bought or military).
“some voters actually believed that an aspiring PM was really going to clear”
Some voters even believed they could solve the problem by bringing the source of it back a 2nd round, and when that didnt happen they still believed they could bring his student back from the wilderness as PM to fix it, which obviously isnt happening right now. Which is why I said is it a problem of our politicians or the voters themselves. Renung renung lah wahai semua pengundi yang ingatken mereka bijaksana.
“Its likely going to be the EC”
I hope so too Marhalim, its the logical choice but since when we ever been logical with such things.
Can blame everyone else but own self if it makes one feel better about himself. Blame voters’ apathy, but as a voter, voted for politicians that will maintain status quo – “protect” over “change”. Then blame the politician for not doing a thing, the very same politician one voted into office. Then “surprised” or “frustrated” why politician is not taking action. When pointed out that is the politician the person voted into office, goes round and round about history and find someone else to blame. Anything different and reeking of change is bad. But everything status quo is also bad. Then go another round of saying too small to make a different – if 21 million voters all take the same position, no change will happen. Convenient. Just like the DWP 2019 for all its flaws was intended to put A to Z requirements in a public document to raise awareness among voters and to prevent plans from being changed arbitrarily or in secret. Anyone pulling cable on a big purchase that is not in the DWP, not in the CAP55 or the 15to5 will… should raise eyebrows. But because it came from a position of wanting to change, it is not worth its paper. Sure. It is always someone else’s fault but own self. A simple question on one’s personal opinion and preference, would one support removing “national interest” or “nation building” from defence procurement? No need to deflect and go round and round and blame everyone past, present and the future.
Army says the issue with the Blackhawks lies with the contractor. Presumably it means government had no issues with the original budget – even if the VIP Blackhawk costs were used? That the government has greenlit the lease all along? Or it’s a combination of the government and the contractor?
The leasing of the four helicopters for the Army had nothing to do with the maintenance of the RMAF VIP Blackhawks nor was it benchmarked on it.
The benchmark was the contract for four AW139 helicopters leased to the RMAF which was RM260 million.
The lease was tendered, and they selected a bidder. The bidder, however, cannot deliver – until now – the helicopters. So, it is the fault of the bidder or contractor.
They will not buy used helicopters. The Skyhawk and Grumman Albatross deals clearly left a blackmark which no one wants to inflict on their juniors.
Joe “Problem is, AW149 doesnt seem to have been configured as CSAR option by existing users so if we go for this chopper we will be paying for gold plating option that only we are using.”
The need for R&D, integration and gold plating is probably why it’s the leading contenders in the first place.
Back to back comparison, PUTD 5 year Lease vs. Portuguese Air Force outright buy
Portugal paid RM219.7 million to buy 6 Blackhawks including training & maintenance for 5 years (comes out to RM36.6 million each)
PUTD lease/rent of 4 Blackhawks for 5 years RM187 million (comes out to RM46.75 million each)
That is a difference of RM10.15 million for a helicopter. Portugal got theirs for millions cheaper while also getting to keep the helicopter outright. Is that lease a prudent use of budget?
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/portuguese-af-fire-fighting-black-hawks/
@hulu
“AW149 for the Airforce same ballpark cost as the Bomba or APMM AW189?”
Well simply because these civvie choppers arent configured for CSAR and AFAIK there isnt an existing previous order to follow so we are the pioneering one to do it.
“why doesn’t the airforce just takeover those idle EC225LP”
TUDM has money to burn for brand new CSAR choppers why would they want used platform with questionable rectifications if ever was made?
“just cancel the lease and buy those used blackhawks”
Unfortunately money then will have to come from their CAPEX not their OPEX as with the lease. But again this is symptomatic of once again going with sketchy local vendors that eventually failed as was done in the past (why not engage MHS to source the Blackhawks & do the lease?). Has UBAH really change anything?
@Kel
“That the government has greenlit the lease all along?”
The Govt chose the said vendor. A failed vendor is reflective of a failed Govt decision.
“They will not buy used helicopters. The Skyhawk”
SG Skyhawks were about the same vintage and induction as ours yet they manage to wring out every last airframe hours from them with dependable usage. Its all about the mentality and money gap between us(failed) & them(success). Just as how we squandered our national defence policy while (quite similarly) theirs are a lot more successful.
Coming back. The Star reported some updates from Menhan on the GGK facility, apparently its a wiring subcon failure to deliver so their getting a new tender out to find replacements. How did wiring a building can fail to deliver is laughable as Msia has plenty of building works project so its not like wiring a ship or a plane. Just throw a stone and you bound to hit a subcon who can wire a whole shopping mall.
@ joe
“SG Skyhawks were about the same vintage and induction as ours”
Nope.
Ours are based on A-4C and A-4L versions.
Singaporean Skyhawks are from the older A-4B version (also all bought secondhand). They have been flying those Skyhawks since the 70s. We started using Skyhawks in mid-80s.
… – ”Excellent question !”
Which as I said was not a rhetorical one … As I also said would the non military Egyptian AW189 be transformed into a military AW149 simply by adding stuff?
”Clearly the AW189 is smaller than the EC725.”
Thanks Grandmaster; hence my question.
kel – ”Can blame everyone else but own self if it makes one feel better about himself. ”
Perhaps learn the use of paragraphs first. Not hard or is it a congenital issue?
Also, you can troll and pontificate all you want but it’s the government which laid down the policies we have not the Smurfs or Snow White.
kel – ”could one support removing “national interest” or “nation building” from defence procurement? No need to deflect ”
As predicted you went on to claim that you did nor receive your answer despite it been given to you in easy to understand language. Just like your claim that nobody explained to you what ”low intensity”? Expect to be spoon fed don’t we? Why don’t again spew the nonsense of nobody taking a position or having an opinion. Why not have a look at the mirror instead of spewing self serving tosh.
kel – ”Anyone pulling cable on a big purchase that is not in the DWP, not in the CAP55 or the 15to5 will… should raise eyebrows.”
As has been explained to you the 5/15 and CAP 55 are not sacrosanct.
kua – ”When pointed out that is the politician the person voted into office, goes round and round about history and find someone else to blame.”
Do you actually have anything of substance to say or are your abilities here limited to trolling and sniping? Also, as mentioned before take some time to understand the subject matte before obfuscating. As for ”history”; two things [1] You’re apparently unware of it [2] History has lead us to where we are now … I’m going on the basis that you’re just a frustrated and clueless soul rather than a bot.
kel – ”Then go another round of saying too small to make a different ”
Are you on hallucigens? Show us when and where anyone said that…
”Apparently even the OEM manufacturers themselves deemed it necessary to make such distinction”
”Apparently” that’s correct but as I said there’s a very thin line separating the two.
”Some voters even believed they could solve the problem by bringing the source ”
Indeed. Look a the comments ‘kua” made. Ushering ”change” was supposed to have led to ”change”. Simple as that according to the delusion.
”then perhaps PUTD can learn a thing or 2 from their sister arms how to horse trade ”
The Army’s Air Wing can learn all they want but they don’t make decisions or formulate policy.
”All requirements that not similar and competing with each other. ”
Never said they were. Those examples are reference to the fact that times a long wait is needed and there’s no double standards; it’s how the system works.
zaft – ”The need for R&D, integration and gold plating is probably why it’s the leading contenders in the first place.”
Get with the times and follow the discussion. We’re in 2024 stuff like a FLIR, winch and NVG compatible cockpit hardly qualifies for ”gold plating”.
The upgrade was pretty extensive but the one major thing we looked at and was not done was an engine change. A later BOI did recommend an engine change but the government didn’t want to spend the cash and years later the Hawk decision was made.
I believe 6 were lost including one in which the pilot was never located. As it turned out we suffered a much higher attrition rate with the Hawks. All this is history; the type “Kua” and specimens like him ridicule but are clueless on.
….. -“why can’t a AW149 for the Airforce (for example) be around the same ballpark cost as the Bomba or APMM AW189”
Perhaps direct the question to the relevant channels. Only they can answer it. My question still stands; apart from radios what differentiates a civilian variant from a military one? It’s certainty not the inclusion of a winch; FLIR or NVG cockpit.
You mentioned a customer getting a AW189 which is the civilian variant. Now would be the time where a link was useful in explaining differences. As for the Italians their main tactical rotary lifter of what the Brits call Merlin; this they getting the AW139 has no bearing to the topic which was centred on the RMAF getting a rotary platform to serve as its main or only rotary asset.
“Singaporean Skyhawks are from the older A-4B since the 70s.”
Err okay so they were using older stuff way longer than we did. I gave then less credit than they deserve. Huzzah for SG! Since its not the platform problem then clearly its our problem.
“I said there’s a very thin line separating the two.”
I guess the line is still thick enough to make such a distinction as to have different model coding rather than just a subclass in the same family.
“but they don’t make decisions or formulate policy.”
It would seem TUDM & TLDM has a bigger influence on those ‘decision & formulated policy’ relating to theirs as compared to TDM if it means TDM has no say at all? Strange then being the most senior & biggest clout branch, I wonder if so… unless your meaning PUTD bosses has less say within TDM top echelon itself. That I can believe.
“stuff like a FLIR, winch and NVG compatible cockpit”
IINM also need all weather and ground mapping radars for CSAR? I recall Nuris had radome on the nose.
@Zaft
“The need for R&D, integration and gold plating”
If its not done by us (local vendors) but we have to pay for it, I doubt its anywhere near the top. FYI CSAR for EC725 ady been done so no gold plating there.
” I recall Nuris had radome on the nose.”
Some received a Marconi weather radar in 1989. These were mostly the ones in Sabah and Sarawak because they flew a lot over mountainous terrain terrain in places with poor ATC coverage.
”I guess the line is still thick enough to make such a distinction as to have different model coding rather than just a subclass in the same family.”
Eagerly awaiting to know what that is because it’s certainly not the winch, FLIR or cockpit instrumentation.
”It would seem TUDM & TLDM has a bigger influence on ”
Depending on the period. Early to mid 1990s it was the RMAF and RMN. The 2002 period apart from the MKM deal it was mostly the army [Adnan, G-5, BR-90, Jernas, PT-91M, A-109, Igla, FN-6]. PERISTA it was more evenly spread out and the 1988 British MOU it was mostly the RMN and RMAF [the army only got its FH-70s].
” I wonder if so… unless your meaning PUTD bosses has less say within TDM top echelon itself. ”
I have no idea but how high has any aviator risen in the army? In the RMN if you’re MCM or survey qualified you won’t go very high.
“We’re in 2024 stuff like a FLIR, winch and NVG compatible cockpit hardly qualifies for ”gold plating” ”
Agreed.
A reason why I repeatedly questioned the reason why the TUDM allocation is for USD50 million per helicopter. When currently such a helicopter equipped with all those things should cost at most around USD30 million only (as per what our neighbours RTAF paid for their CSAR EC725)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJppR24a8AAl4tw.jpg
” Brits call Merlin; this they getting the AW139 has no bearing to the topic which was centred on the RMAF getting a rotary platform to serve as its main or only rotary asset ”
You seems to forget that TUDM already has the EC725 as its main rotary asset. As the requirements are basically unchanged, the platform to be bought should be more EC725/H225M instead of the smaller AW149.
” guess the line is still thick enough to make such a distinction”
Eagerly waiting to find out what because it’s certainly not the FLIR, winch and cockpit. I suspect it could be the civil certification.
”It would seem TUDM & TLDM has a bigger influence on those ‘decision & formulated policy’ ”
Depending on the epoch. PERISTA it was evenly spread out; the 1988 British MOU it was mostly the RMAF and RMN [the army got the FH-70]; 1990-1993 period it was mostly the RMAF and the 2002 period it was mostly the army [Jernas, FN-6, Igla, G-5, ASTROS, Adnan, PT-91,TRS-3D, BR-90, etc].
… – ”Agreed.”
Gratified because only recently you were giving the impression that future RMAF platforms would be ”CSAR” configured” and would be mainly for ”CSAR” when in fact having a winch, FLIR and NVG compatible cockpit doesn’t make them ”special”[a term you used] and they’ll still be multi role.
In case you deem fit to say : No I’m not putting words in your mouth” …
… – ”A reason why I repeatedly questioned the reason ”
Perhaps direct the question to the relevant channels in order to get an answer which you can share with the rest of us.
… – ”You seems to forget that TUDM already has the EC725 as its main rotary asset. ”
”You seem” to overlook that this is what I said : ”As for the Italians their main tactical rotary lifter of what the Brits call Merlin; this they getting the AW139 has no bearing to the topic which was centred on the RMAF getting a rotary platform to serve as ”its main or only rotary asset.”.
… – ”Agreed.”
Gratified because only recently you were giving the impression that future RMAF platforms would be ”CSAR” configured” and would be mainly for ”CSAR” when in fact having a winch, FLIR and NVG compatible cockpit doesn’t make them ”special”[a term you used] and they’ll still be multi role.
In case you deem fit to say : No I’m not putting words in your mouth” …
… – ”A reason why I repeatedly questioned the reason ”
Perhaps direct the question to the relevant channels in order to get an answer which you can share with the rest of us.
kua -”Then “surprised” or “frustrated” why politician is not taking action.”
If you’re going to refer to someone have the testicles to be direct. Also, is it a congenital issue that results in you perennially seeing things which weren’t there and not fathoming the context things were mentioned in?
The army Chief very recently made a case for a medium lift helicopter. He gave the various roles it would perform including jump training which to me is interesting. I know the Nuri was occasionally used for free fall training but the rotor wash was an issue so BOMBA’s Mil-17s were used. They of course have a rear ramp; thus no rotor wash issue.
” RMAF platforms would be ”CSAR” configured” ”
2 distinct things
1) i agree with you, equipping helicopters with FLIR, Weather Radar, Winches, Glass Cockpits etc. is a normal fit now, not something special.
2) I am appalled with the CSAR requirement being used as the justification for those supposedly normal medium lift helicopters with FLIR, Weather Radar, Winches, Glass Cockpits etc. being slapped with USD50 million dollars price tag. I don’t see any justification for TUDM to request those helicopters for USD50 million each. I also don’t understand the reasoning for TUDM to have the need for 24 CSAR configured/missioned helicopters when we are mostly a defensive-configured air force, not an air force geared to do offensive deep penetration strikes behind enemy lines like the USAF for example.
“The army Chief very recently made a case for a medium lift”
While this public announcement for the leased birds would not meant much in the overall scheme of things, I hope he can put just as much emphasis to a more permanent buy of a fleet of medium utility choppers for PUTD.
“Depending on the epoch”
I hope in this epoch, that TDM be more sensible than focusing on armoured vehicles to also focus a bit more on their neglected rotary arm which was supposed to fully take up hauling the army and let TUDM focus on their own role instead. I dont know how many medium choppers will suffice, for sure 4 is not enough, but whether new or used has to be bought in numbers to sustain their operation.
@hulu
“TUDM to have the need for 24 CSAR configured”
IINM the existing dozen EC725 is not fully equipped for CSAR which is the reason why this new dozen is bought. Unless TUDM would upgrade these EC725s to complete the CSAR package later on.
Thats is why they are pushing for the funding to get the new 14 medium utility helicopters. The leased aircraft is just the stepping stone as their experiment with the Nuri ended abruptly.
I wish n hope the YDPA will look not just at the GGK problem but also the RMN problem which is huge
“pushing for the funding to get the new 14 medium utility”
The problem is this funding is also competing with their desire for the KJA troop carriers so realistically TDM wont have both in the numbers they wanted. Its either Peter or Paul situation then and its up to TDM to choose which they want to pursue, but since the beancounters have already greenlit TUDM dozen new choppers they could easily make a case to delay further the medium chopper for PUTD. Then its up to TDM chiefs to push back and say; No I will delay the KJA program & MERAD program in liew of buying medium choppers for my needs first. But will they do that I wonder…
” IINM the existing dozen EC725 is not fully equipped for CSAR ”
The original requirements was for CSAR, but none was actually fitted for that mission (unlike the RTAF birds which is fuly fitted for CSAR with missile approach sensors, chaff/flare dispensers, add-on armors). Also only a select few that is actually fitted with FLIR, spotlights, rescue winches.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/mindef-explains/
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/the-cougar-why/
Thailand got their fully fitted for CSAR EC725s for USD32 million each. I don’t see why we cannot have additional H225M also fitted to the same spec for that kind of money, as this will just be a batch 2 of the existing helicopters, and many support equipments are the same and does not need to be bought. So 12 more H225M for USD384 million, a saving of USD216 million compared to the allocated budget (USD600 million or RM2.8 billion)
There was not enough allocation to fit the equipment they wanted for the original 12 EC, so they had to settle with what the government wanted to pay.
@Hulubalang
Thanks to your links I looked back at the cost then for a fully fitted CSAR EC725 and the then price quoted was USD $35mil per chopper, this was back in 2008.
Then going thru an inflation calculator, that same USD $35mil is now $50mil so to say that a fully fitted CSAR bird today cost USD $50mil each isnt so far fetched after all. You can thank US inflation for that. This still havent factor in yet the RM to USD conversion which is another can of worms to swallow.
… – ”unlike the RTAF birds”
Something else optional but to me essential is crash seats.
… – ”I also don’t understand the reasoning for TUDM to have the need for 24 CSAR configured/missioned helicopters when we are mostly a defensive-configured air force,”
Here’s where you go off tangent. You keep referring to us as a ”defensive” force but with regards to the army [as I’ve pointed out] one can have an overall defensive strategy based on an active defence approach. Being on the defensive doesn’t mean one adopts a ‘positionalist approach.
Back to the RMAF I fail to see how being a ”defensive-configured air force” precludes or does the way with the need for ”CSAR” helis which BTW [As pointed out] having a certain fit doesn’t necessarily make them CSAR configured. By your reasoning the RMAF shouldn’t have various things it has because it’s a ‘defensive-configured air force” – whatever that actually means. Are you suggesting that by virtue of being a ‘defensive-configured air force” the RMAF will never be faced with the need for a rotary platform to fly in harms way behind enemy lines or that only ”offensive” orientated air arms should have the capability?
… – ” I don’t see why we cannot have additional H225M also fitted to the same spec for that kind of money,”
Like said: since when do we get the best or optimum value for what we spend and perhaps channel your query to the relevant channels in order to get an answer.
”No I will delay the KJA program & MERAD program in liew of buying medium choppers for my needs first. ”
We don’t know; perhaps; perhaps not. I do know however that whatever’s the current priority could have been made a priority by the actual decision makers. I’ll give an example; the army was adamant it wanted another regiment of G-5s; followed some years later by MLRSs but the decision makers made the decision to go for ASTROS.
RTAF first 4x EC725 CSAR was ordered in 2012, delivered in 2015. Each costs thailand USD32 mil
later they ordered another 2 in 2014, then another 2 in 2016 and lastly 4 more in 2018 for a total of 12 helicopters.
Also there is already a totally new MGB design for the EC725/H225M. So no more issues on that.
Yup but sakit hati is not easy to fix…when I mentioned this to the other side, the guy said yes…And there are other pending issues as well..
Even the current EC725 has crashworthy (energy-absorbing) seats. It is almost a normal fit to helicopter designs after the blackhawk.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TUDm5.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLcJnT6a0AABshM.jpg
@ marhalim
” Yup but sakit hati is not easy to fix… ”
So like the malay proverb ” Marahkan nyamuk, kelambu dibakar “. Is that the best thing we should do?
But now even the RSAF is flying the H225M, surely any of those problems are minor and able to be solved?
yup but in the end I think cooler heads will prevail.
@hulu
“RTAF first 4x EC725 CSAR was ordered in 2012 for USD $32mil”
Which in today still cost USD $46mil so its about that 45-50 mil ballpark these days for a complete CSAR chopper. No escape the high cost there.
“decision makers made the decision to go for ASTROS.”
It was still in line with their intention to get an MLRS just that it was brought forward, and the G5 Batch2 requirement evolved into SPH so there is no trade off in terms of the capability they wanted to get anyhow. However if TUDM are getting choppers, TLDM gotten their choppers, MMEA are getting their choppers, heck even Bomba are getting new ones, then TDM can raise a stink why they got left out. That is clearly double standard if you ask any layman on the streets.
Hulubalang ” I also don’t understand the reasoning for TUDM to have the need for 24 CSAR configured/missioned helicopters when we are mostly a defensive-configured air force, not an air force geared to do offensive deep penetration strikes behind enemy lines like the USAF for example.”
Simple answer is. You are confusing your own assumptions and preferences with that of TUDM.
@ joe
” Which in today still cost USD $46mil ”
Indonesia recent cost of 8 + 1 simulator + local assembly. Simulator can cost as much as 1 helicopter (find out the recent cost of AW139 simulator for PDRM).
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/how-much-is-that-helicopter-in-the-window-part-4/#comment-885043
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLflnYJbEAADhU9.jpg
@ darthzaft
” You are confusing your own assumptions and preferences with that of TUDM ”
Do we have to agree on TUDM preference even if it there are other arguably better and lower cost options?
… – ”Even the current EC725 has crashworthy (energy-absorbing) seats”
That’s new to me. Ok because years ago Baker/Hughes were trying to sell crash seats.
… – ”in line with their intention to get an MLRS ”
Maybe but as has been pointed out the issue could be the problem per se which has long been rectified but issues with working with the company. Now I’m not saying that is the case here but there are instances of things going sour with particular companies and that coolouring things.
”It was still in line with their intention to get an MLRS just that it was brought forward, and the G5 Batch2 requirement evolved into SPH so there ”
That may be so but if we go back I was just pointing out an example when the decision makers not the army decided what should be prioritised for funding. Getting back; the Army’ Aviation Wing and top brass can push for new helis all the want but the decision is not theirs and there’s nothing to suggest that aviation is not a priority for the army. As for MLRSs no it was not ”in line with their intention to get an MLRS” because the intention was not there; at least in the short term. It was the government which decided; thus we looked at the M-70 to help the Bosnians and when it was apparent the Bosnians were not in a position due to the recent war we went to Brazil. There was a requirement for a 2nd G-5 regiment to add to the extra 6 we ordered; on top of the 22 we bought initially. It did not ”morph” into the SPH requirement because it was a sperate thing for a different unit.
zaft – ”You are confusing your own assumptions and preferences with that of TUDM.”
Will not comment on ‘…’ ”assumptions and preferences” but the helis the RMAF will get will be multi-role. Despite the ”CASR” thing which is to justify funding; they will not be used only or mainly for ”CSAR” and the eventual fit out certainly does not signify so.
”then TDM can raise a stink why they got left out. That is clearly double standard if you ask any layman on the streets.”
But the MMEA can also say that when the RMAF got new stuff; it – the MMEA – didn’t get much. The army can raise all the ”stink” it wants but it will get some something else and it knows how the game is played; all the ”stink” in the world will make not difference.
There is no ”double standards” because things are not supposed to be ”fair”. There are periods – as pointed out in a previous post – where particular services get priority. It’s the way it is.
@Hulu
“Simulator can cost as much as 1 helicopter”
It depends on how complex the simulator can be. I wont make such assumptions and based on figures given extrapolated with how much its worth today. As for ID order I have no idea how much their cost.
@ azlan
I did not speak about MLRS.
Nuri of the 60s vintage does not have energy-absorbing seats, as are the Hueys. Most of the new helicopters like Blackhawks, AW139, EC725 have them as standard.
@ joe
Marhalim mentioned the cost of Indonesian order in the link i provided, if you care to read them.
As for sample of simulator cost, read Marhalim’s recent post below
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/competition-for-aw139-full-flight-simulator/
Logical to go with the H225M/EC725 for commonality purposes. I recall reading in another post, the original batch 1 specficiation included a rear ramp. Will batch 2 bring back the requirement?
No idea but it is likely they will not exclude helicopters without the rear ramp as then only four helos can make the cut. ie NH90, S92, AW101 and CH47. The Mi-8 cannot enter as Russia is under sanctions.
“because the intention was not there; at least in the short term.”
Thats an oxymoron statement. Either they had the intention or they did not. Dont go roundabout again.
Whether short or long, there is definitely the intention just that the Govt then brought it forward much earlier than TDM intended. It works to their advantage anyhow.
“It did not ”morph” into the SPH requirement”
In a way it did as AFAIK TDM no longer has the immediate requirement for more towed howitzers (whether more G5 or newer designs) but instead the focus is now on getting SPH.
@Hulu
“Marhalim mentioned the cost of Indonesian order”
PTDI are doing the installation, integration & customisation to their version so complete cost is arguable unless TNI are transparent with every dollar & cent spent for this program.
“As for sample of simulator cost”
Could mean anything, as cost is depending on the complexity & training realism of the simulator equipment. Again I would not jump to such conclusions.
“NH90, S92, AW101 and CH47”
If such were to happen, realistically only 2 choppers will be selected for tender consideration as NH90 is nothing but trouble and Chinook is way too large for their requirement of a medium chopper.
Do you feel there is a change in RMAF’s preferred vendor? Airbus is the incumbent with the long relationship. But Leonardo has been getting recent wins.
Perhaps but it will be foolhardy for them to move to two type of helicopters for the same job.
@kel
“Do you feel there is a change in RMAF’s preferred vendor?”
Based on the earlier buy, at the time their preferred vendor was Leonardos AW101. So its not like TUDM today had a change of heart or anything. Of course logically its better to stick with the current EC725 but it wasnt exactly a relationship of kisses & roses either.