SHAH ALAM: IT appears that the leasing of helicopters for the military and other government agencies is likely to go ahead despite the RM16.5 billion plus change cost for 18 years. I am correcting this to 18 years as this was the first figure published on the Hansard (the official transcript). Further down in the Hansard the leasing period is stated as 15 years. Of course, 15 years is the correct leasing period.
Defence Minister DS Khaled Nordin told Parliament about the costs and leasing period during his initial budget round-up on Thursday. He did not say the deal will go through but the fact he confirmed the cost meant that it is likely to be green lighted.
Khaled also told Parliament further details of the leasing deal may need to be expounded in the privileged committee of the Dewan Rakyat and not in the normal, public session or via a written answer (though this will be made public). Even if the minister did not want to give yearly cost breakdown, a check on the calculator showed the annual payment will be around RM919 million, for 18 years or RM1.1 billion if its 15 years or some RM76 million (18 years, RM91 million if its 15 years plus change a month).
This means that we could make the full payment for the 12 CSAR helicopters originally to be procured for some RM2.8 billion within three years. The normal payment schedule – a 10 per cent payment (RM280 million – when the LOA is awarded, another 20 to 30 per cent (RM500 million plus change, this depends on the LOA, the quantum and if needed) within 12 months as progress payment. The final payment is usually paid when delivery is completed ( within 24 to 36 months after the LOA was signed)
Parliament published the Hansard – the official transcript – of the November 7 session on Friday (November 8) afternoon. Even though I managed to download the transcript and read it shortly after, I was unable to publish it until today. I apologise for the delay. It is interesting to note that I had mentioned that the leasing proposal was for utility helicopters, but it had now included RMAF requirements for CSAR helicopters (the Nuri replacement programme). These CSAR helicopters were supposed to be procured outright. He did not name the helicopters though.
Khaled also did not state that the Army will also lease helicopters but since the plan was always to lease them, there was no need for him to say anything about it. Anyhow the leasing proposal was for the Army to lease twelve helicopters, but apparently it was swapped to RMAF. As I had mentioned in another post, it is likely that Army will also have twelve leased helicopters – also AW149s – with the four originally sought in 2022 as its’ requirement is for twelve aircraft. It would be hilarious if they decided to buy the other eight helicopters, of course.
Maka, bagi menjawab persoalan Yang Berhormat Tanah Merah tentang perolehan sewaan helikopter bagi kegunaan pasukan udara Tentera Darat dan penganugerahan kontrak sewaan helikopter Black Hawk kepada syarikat Aerotree Defence and Services Sdn. Bhd., saya ingin kongsikan bahawa proses perolehan ini sebenarnya telah bermula pada tahun 2022. Ia diiklankan pada 15 Julai 2022 hingga 11 Ogos 2022 dan dibentangkan dalam Lembaga Perolehan pada Oktober 2022. Pada masa itu, Yang Berhormat Tanah Merah sendiri merupakan Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan. Jadi, soalan itu boleh dijawab oleh Yang Berhormat sendiri kerana pada ketika itu Yang Berhormat adalah Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan.
Yang Berhormat Pendang pula telah menyentuh mengenai perolehan helikopter melalui kaedah Government Operate, Company Own and Maintain. Ini tadi yang disoalkan oleh Yang Berhormat. Sebagai makluman Yang Berhormat, perolehan secara pajakan aset ini merupakan kali pertama umpamanya dibuat dan dilaksanakan oleh Unit Kerjasama Awam Swasta, Jabatan Perdana Menteri. Perolehan ini melibatkan kontrak bernilai RM16.546 bilion untuk tempoh sewaan selama 18 tahun. Ia melibatkan 28 unit helikopter dan akan memberi manfaat bukan sahaja kepada ATM, tetapi juga agensi-agensi keselamatan negara yang lain. Pecahan pengguna adalah seperti berikut, dua untuk TLDM, 12 untuk TUDM, tujuh untuk Polis Diraja Malaysia, empat untuk Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia, dua untuk Jabatan Bomba dan Penyelamat Malaysia dan satu untuk kegunaan Jabatan Perdana Menteri.
Tujuan utama adalah untuk memenuhi keperluan agensi pengguna menjalankan operasi udara harian dan misi-misi tertentu selain daripada peperangan. Kerajaan berpandangan bahawa kos tersebut adalah wajar kerana ia merangkumi pembekalan helikopter, perlindungan insurans, perkhidmatan maintenance, repair dan overhaul termasuk dengan alat-alat gantian dan simpanan, kursus dan latihan serta penyelenggaraan luar pangkalan. Melalui kaedah ini, isu utama yang akan diatasi adalah masalah ketersediaan dan kesiagaan pesawat-pesawat helikopter sedia ada. Melalui kontrak pajakan ini, pihak syarikat perlu memastikan tahap ketersediaan dan kesiapsiagaan helikopter yang dibekalkan adalah pada tahap minimum 85 peratus dan agensi-agensi mendapat jaminan jam penerbangan mengikut keperluan masing-masing. Apabila ia melalui konsep pajakan ini, maka ia bermakna pihak end user seperti ATM dan perkhidmatan di dalamnya tak perlu untuk memberi kontrak MRO ataupun membeli spare DR. 7.11.2024 118 part dan sebagainya.
Semua dikendalikan oleh syarikat yang melakukan pajakan ini. Pajakan ini adalah pajakan to own. Maknanya selepas 15 tahun, kerajaan diberi pilihan untuk membeli kesemua 28 unit aset tersebut pada harga nominal RM1 sahaja yang mana selepas 15 tahun, penggunaan setiap aset tersebut dianggarkan bernilai antara RM30 juta hingga RM50 juta seunit. Tetapi, kerajaan ditawarkan hanya membeli RM1 walaupun satu unit itu antara RM30 juta hingga RM50 juta. Datuk Wan Saifulruddin bin Wan Jan [Tasek Gelugor]: Yang Berhormat, sedikit. Adakah pihak kerajaan dibolehkan mendedahkan kos sebenar per month pajakan tersebut dan kos keseluruhan yang akan ditanggung oleh kerajaan sepanjang tempoh pajakan? Adakah boleh didedahkan di dalam Dewan? Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Semua rundingan itu dibuat oleh UKAS, sama ada ia boleh didedah, kita mungkin sama ada bangkitkan masa jawatankuasa ataupun kita beri jawapan secara bertulis. Puan Yang di-Pertua,
Khaled was given 45 minutes for his budget round up speech though he basically did not touched the funding for the ministry. This is because most of the questions posed by parliamentarians were on the leasing of helicopters, Kuwaiti Hornets procurement and issues with the RMN. When it was about the RMN, that Khaled commented on the LMS Batch 2.
Atas sebab itulah, dan begitu juga LCS walaupun design daripada Perancis, tetapi LCS dibuat di Malaysia. Begitu juga apabila kita buat dan tempat tiga literal mission ship daripada Turkiye, kita sepatutnya dalam perancangan kita mempunyai 18. Mungkin 15 itu kita akan buat di Malaysia.
*Updated the leasing period to 18 years and 15 years as reflected in the Hansard. This could be a mistake by transcript officer or the minister misspoke.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
RM16.5 billion for a little more than 2 dozen helicopters is just crazy when BOMBA bought each for just RM105 million
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/aw189-contract-details-finalised
And maintenance of 12 EC725 for 5 years costs RM378million
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/bhicas-to-continue-maintenance-of-ec725s/
Extrapolating those numbers for 28 helicopters and 15 years of maintenance does not even reach 1/3 of the supposed lease cost.
Then there is also the Poland outright buy of 32 AW149 with all things included till end of their service lives for just RM8.03billion
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/new-aircraft-and-helos-for-police-air-wing/#comment-930463
As for helicopters for PUTD, the used blackhawks are the ideal option. Just that leasing path of acquisition is not. Now the blackhawk lease has failed, how can we be sure this time with billions of ringgit on the line it will not fail like the blackhawk leasing?
Rather than leasing, we could get them direct from US EDA, buy from other users (like south korean UH-60P which is being replaced by surion even if it had more than 50% of its life remaining) or direct commercial sale like what portugal did, at a cost around RM10 million less per helicopter compared to PUTD lease while also including training and 5 year service and support
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/portuguese-af-fire-fighting-black-hawks
Enough. No more made in Malaysia warships n boats unless the builder has a proven track record
“Semua dikendalikan oleh syarikat yang melakukan pajakan ini. Pajakan ini adalah pajakan to own.”
What i don’t understand is, which company will provide the leasing?. Leonardo itself or local companies?
… – “Rather than leasing”
So what can be done about it; apart from hoping the decision makers read your posts and reach an epiphany [as likely as Trumo visiting Tehran next month]; resulting in a major policy shift? You reach out to the aide of a MP so the issue can be raised in parliament? Write to the Defence and Finance Ministers? A national referendum perhaps?
Lee – “boats unless the builder has a proven track record”
Things can still go ratshit even if the yard has a “proven track record”. The LCS programme when turd like not only because BNS was not put through a learning curve but also because of political interference: no effective political oversight and a lack of corrective mechanisms.
It is a local company, it’s an open secret. However, as I am a lowly paid freelance journalist, I am not going to publish it here or even in the comments section. Let people driving Panameras or Urus or anonymous make it public. Unless of course, an official statement is made naming the company.
Of course, it is not Leonardo, it is not a local company. Even its local subsidiary cannot bid on tenders and notices.
I don’t drive around in Lamborghini Urus either but something fishy is still fishy. And we need to voice out our disagreement on this matter.
I don’t mind local something, but it needs to add value to the deal, with logical level of difference compared to doing 100% outright buy from overseas.
Example even the Polish AW149 includes massive amounts of value added processes in Poland, including local production, local R&D to fit weapons systems to the helicopter, local training infrastructures, local sustainment efforts that spans way more than 15 years. But how come it comes in at leas than 50% the 15 year lease cost for malaysia??
Why is this explicitly wasteful deal is acceptable for a government that says it is pushing for transparent policies?
Very funny the government. Enriching local companies while wasting rakyat moneys. Oops sorry if I am wrong. We have a problem of not enough money to maintain current assets, and yet we pay even more than needed to get new lease assets (which include maintainance) instead of buying new (which is cheaper in the long run), what stupidity…..
As for local company that won this contract…….previously Weststar Aviation Services Sdn Bhd won the 4x AW139 lease for RMAF in…well go figure then guys…
… – “something fishy is still fishy”
Adds to the already very long list of things which are “fishy”, intended not to benefit the taxpayer it end user but national interests. Nothing new. This goes goes in hand with the local production; self sufficiency myth/delusion which results in a MAF whose capabilities don’t reflect what’s been spent on it
… – “And we need to voice out our disagreement on this matter”
Ok. Apart from hoping the decision makers make a policy change from reading the posts here [as likely as Putin being welcomed in Washington] what is the next course of action?
You reach out to the aide of a MP so the issue can be raised in parliament? Write to the Defence and Finance Ministers? A national referendum perhaps?
Luqman – “Enriching local companies while wasting rakyat moneys”
I’m surprised that you’re surprised. Placing priority in the local defence industry has been the norm since the 1990’s. Defence and the patronage system are intertwined.
Off topic
Our F-5s going somewhere?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcAUehubYAAUOJG.jpg
And after the leasing term ended there will be an option to purchase with RM1 per unit. This is find funny, after paying double the cost. Maintenance cost for sure got marked up as it will be conducted by a local contractor or contractor appointed by Leonardo
No idea, really.
@ qamarul
“Maintenance cost for sure got marked up”
Even with the Boustead “sure got marked up” maintenance contract cost, and assuming buy new helicopter have zero maintenance included, it will still come out at around RM5 billion if you extrapolate the numbers (which are real world already executed malaysian government contracts) that is as per marhalim previous reports here in malaysian defence to cater for 28 helicopters.
So RM16.5-16.8 billion is more than 3x markup of the numbers already “sure got marked up” !!!
I don’t know what kind of bean counters that accept the RM16 billion numbers as a fair value for the service.
The people responsible for this program is the UKAS, unit kerjasama awam-swasta Jabatan Perdana Menteri. Who are these people government servants? Looks shady & many grey area for these lease contracts. The benefit mentioned by the minister that the government dont have to pay for maintenance & insurance premiums. But to me with that exorbitant amount we did pay for it lol.
What is with this country and our fascination with building things locally? I can still support the idea if the RMN was not in such a terrible state now, we need ships ASAP and all they can think about is building local…may the divine hand that has watched over Malaysia continue to do so these coming decades, with a certain POTUS back in the White House, it’s unlikely anyone will stop Big Brother from unleashing havoc in the Pacific.
I have no problem people discussing the cost of the lease. It is just identifying the company without an official statement.
“So what can be done about it”
Break it to political influencers to investigate like RPK… oh wait. I mean Rafiz… oh wait. Err who still purported fight for justice but not on PH payroll?
@Qamarul
“Who are these people government servants?”
Those picked by PMX? So whatever they do obviously he knows/decides.
“there will be an option to purchase with RM1 per unit”
I doubt it will be that cheap, defo will be at book value prices. So the enduser will lose anyways.
@Luqman
“what stupidity…..”
It isnt if the intention wasnt to boost our defence but ultimately is to enrich newly aligned cronies.
@Jason
“What is with this country and our fascination with building things locally?”
Building things locally but more expensive can still have a sliver of justification, but to spend double on just leasing with no real building capacity other than building crony empires is something that PR/PH used to condemn and was their key to becoming the Govt of today. But now with the oversights in their pockets, who will condemn them then?
Its no surprise that this and recent 5G debacle, and many more are so blatantly decided after when PMX has now secured his position. If this was during BN era…
“I don’t know what kind of bean counters that accept the RM16 billion numbers as a fair value for the service.”
They are under no illusions that it is “fair value” like how they are/were under no illusions that a lift of other things we did we “fair value”. It’s politically expedient. Something that can be approve.
Jason – “What is with this country and our fascination with building things locally”
The theory of that it improves the local industry; ensures cash is spent kindly; generates jobs and improves on self sufficiency. In top of that it makes the politicians look good and gives us bragging rights. So goes the theory which like many things looks and sounds good on paper.
Joe-Those picked by PMX? So whatever they do obviously he knows/decides.
Im not sure if the pm knows about this but i do know whoever is behind this got that oldtimer mindset calculation. Double or nothing! Only this is worst dirtbag edition.
Jason – ” it’s unlikely anyone will stop Big Brother from unleashing havoc in the Pacific”
“Big Brother” as the hegemonic power since 1945 has maintained stability in the region and its actions are also a result of China’s actions; some of which are worrying.
@Qamarul
“Im not sure if the pm knows about this”
If Najib is guilty for his downline indiscretions in 1MDB surely PMX should shoulder the same responsibility for his staff actions even if he can claim he knows nothing, rite?
@Azlan
I’m afraid my comment was too ambiguous as to who the Big Brother I’m actually referring to and I apologise for that, it’s not Uncle Sam, it’s the other one actually…and since a certain returning POTUS is well known in his past administration for promoting an isolationist America instead of a global policeman, who is going to keep that other one in check if it starts to run amok? Which according to some top US generals, could happen within this decade.
Qamarul – “Im not sure if the pm knows about this”
You seriously, honestly think that various entities including the PMO would come up with such an arrangement and have the Defence Minister announce it without the PM knowing about it?
Qamarul – “i do know whoever is behind this got that oldtimer mindset calculation”
Understand that it never was about saving money or about a long term cost effective solution to benefit the end users and taxpayer.
Jason – ” it’s the other one actually…and since a certain returning POTUS is well known in his past administration for promoting an isolationist America instead of a global policeman”
Ultimately despite all the rhetoric and nonsense said by the man; Trump is a businessman; he wants trade not war and America will still be the dominant player for quite a long time to come.
The USD; not any other currency will continue to be the dominant currency and the West; not BRICSs will continue to dominate the global economy. Major corporations will continue to have their HQs in London and other Western cities: not in Beijing or Sao Palo. China and others will offer sharp competition but the West will still monopolise major technologies.
Jason – ” Which according to some top US generals, could happen within this decade”
They would say that wouldn’t they; need to justify spending. As for China it wants trade and not war. It too has a whole lot to lose in the event of war. Imagine the political repercussions if an invasion of Taiwan fails and the PLA [an instrument of the party not the people or the country] suffers heavy losses – the survival of the Chinese Communist Party would be at stake.
I’m not saying however that war isn’t a possibility and that China would not go to war of faced with no choice but then again; long before most people heard about the Spratlys; I remember articles in the 1990’s about how the Spratlys was a “flashpoint” …
Err for me this is just a scheme to keep enriching the cronies (maybe sponsors)..15+ billion for 18 year lease seems acceptable but no..if you buy outright will not exceed 7 billion.isnt it better if atm brances service their own equipment?..so let me get this straight this whole lease huha is political decision and not what atm want? So they are forced to accept them
@Firdaus
“not what atm want?”
Nope. They wanted utility (PUTD) and CSAR (TUDM) choppers which if they specced in from the start, they will get what they wanted. Its just they wont be owning that asset but also they wont need to have headache on maintenance. The vendor will do that.
Well i forgot another real world malaysian example and costing…
Leasing of 4x AW139 for TUDM from WESTSTAR Aviation Services
Cost of lease – RM265 million for 4/5 years (just assume it is for 4 years)
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/how-much-is-that-helicopter-in-the-window/
So 1 helicopter per year is RM16.6 million. 28 helicopters times 15 years would be
16.6x28x15 = RM6.972 billion
still less than 50% of the proposed AW149 lease of RM16.5 billion
You must deduct the six helicopters for none Armed Forces helicopters.
the lease is for all 28 helicopters for RM16.5 billion without detailing each units cost what (PDRM, APMM etc.)
so generally we just compare costs of other leasing/buy/maintenance of all units under the government
like RM105 mil each for BOMBA AW189
or RM378 million for the maintenance of 12 EC725 for TUDM for 5 years
and also RM265 million lease for 4 AW139 for TUDM for 4 years
I can probably add another – RM228 million to buy 3 AW139 MUH/HOM helicopter for TLDM. So that is RM76 million per AW139 MUH
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/how-much-is-that-helicopter-in-the-window-part-2/
Seem a lot of people are forgetting that we would likely would have paid 200% more than everyone else if it were a direct purchase as well.
Obviously when we have an urgent requirement to filled but lacking in money, the usual method many countries employed is to make debt for the military, but none of our other previous gov had decided to go down such a route either preferring to prioritise financial best practices that one shouldn’t get into debt to pay for expenses.
Even for private companies leasing are always more expensive than outright purchase through debt. But the benefits of leasing is that it make your book look nice. And a nicely cooked book is everything for most publicly traded companies.
Firdaus – “not what atm want”
The army wants a Nuri replacement. On paper the army’s selected design can also perform CSAR but ultimately CSAR entails not just the actual platform but various enablers; all working in tandem. Unless of course one’s performing CSAR in a pretty benign environment.
The RMAF wants to add to its Cougars. One of the roles the RMAF would like it’s rotary assets to perform is CSAR but it’s not the main reason for the requirement. Pushing the CSAR narrative makes it an easier sell politically as it’s a new capability. Just like how the RMN pushed the Chinese intrudion angle to make the LMS Batch 2 a more palatable sell. If one looks at things clearly however: there is very little to make the distinction between a CSAR and a non CSAR platform; in terms of the actual hardware.
Zaft – “Seem a lot of people are forgetting”
Not you; quite obviously however.
Zaft – “But the benefits of leasing is that it make your book look nice*
Long term cost effective considerations is not the issue. For them the issue is to fulfill the requirement without forking out the needed outlay in the short term.
@ darthzaft
” Seem a lot of people are forgetting that we would likely would have paid 200% more than everyone else if it were a direct purchase as well ”
All my example above are already markedup malaysian contract, except for the Poland deal.
So even those contracts, with obvious malaysian markups if extrapolated to 28 helicopters for 15 years would not even touch 50% total of the lease.
Even the biggest military contract to date, the 6x gowinds is just around RM9 billion ringgit.
Even the controversy-laden contract for 2x Scorpenes are just RM3.7 billion.
https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/11663
So why should we accept this insane helicopter leasing cost?
No doubt at some future point a politician will proudly point out that under a government initiative the armed services are getting the rotary assets they need and it will be made to look like an achievement. Whether anyone asks a parliamentary question on the justification remains to be seen: won’t hold my breath. If ask; his the the Defence Minister justify it? It’s also BTW not only about asking but asking the right questions.
Ultimately the question is what’s to be done apart from hoping the decisions makers will see the light or reach their moment of epiphany after reading the comments here [as likely as heavy snowfall in the Ovamboland this year]? Anyone going to do something about it? Reach out to a politician so the issue can be raised? Online pertition? When nobody scrutinises and questions authority; there are no checks and balances.
@Hulu
“still less than 50% of the proposed AW149 lease of RM16.5 billion”
You forget that the AW139 are existing civvie spec choppers that are available in the market now and it seems very little mods were made to make it TUDM use. Meanwhile AW149 is mil spec (the available civvie version is AW189 but the requirement specifically stated for 149), and afaik there are few current users (for 149) so it will cost extra to get these from somewhere, likely newly purchase by the leasing company. So all these will be added cost onto the lease vs the TUDM AW139.
Both are horrible deals anyhow, not that one is stinkier than the other.
“Pushing the CSAR narrative makes it an easier sell politically”
Whether the intention is ulterior or there is a hidden one, what is stated publicly is what we should believe, that TUDM wanted CSAR, and anything else is just someones heresay unless they have proof to the contrary. Whether there is little or lot of distinction between, the key is there IS A DISTINCTION, hence why TUDM wants a specific type of chopper.
“Whether the intention is ulterior”
The intention is not “ulterior” per see, merely a way things are done.
” anything else is just someones heresay unless they have proof to the contrary”
To you maybe it’s “hearsay” but the RMAF always wanted a CSAR platform [nobody – not in this thread or others stated the RMAF in reality does not want a CSAR platfotm] and prior to Cougar nearly got the NH99 but then came the Genting crash – not “hearsay” but fact. Fast forward a decade later, it desires more platforms, thus makes the case for a CSAR configured platform, in other words a utility platform but one better configured for CSAR, as opposed to one dedicated to CSAR or one bought specifically for it.
Not having a capability makes it easier to justify as opposed to something already opereted. You spoke about beancounters, well there’s a way with dealing with them. Note that years ago when a pitch for AEWs was made the RMAF emphasised it’s peacetime non military role and why do you think the Kasturis went from “light frigate” to “corvettes”…
“IS A DISTINCTION, hence why TUDM wants a specific type of chopper”
Keypad/keyboard stuck? No idea about your “distinction” but compared to years ago, hardware wise, very little making the “distinction” between a standard utility one and a CSAR configured one… Stuff like NVG compatible cockpits, winches and FLIRs are pretty much the norm now ….
“hence why TUDM wants a specific type of chopper”
And it’s preference was more Cougars but with a self defence suite … Apart from that, very little would have differentiated new Cougars with existing ones …
“not “hearsay” but fact”
The fact is they wanted a CSAR chopper platform, that is the official story and that is what I will trust. Anything else (ie ‘it’s not the main reason for the requirement’) is the hearsay which I take with jars of salt. Whether they will use them for other roles, sure but the main reason is for CSAR as they publicly have said so.
“very little making the “distinction”
Which means there is a distinction, doesnt mean NO DISTINCTION, otherwise lobbyists & beancounters can push an utility chopper to TUDM and call it “CSAR”. End of story. That is why they specifically stated they want CSAR and not ‘very little distinction “CSAR” chopper’.
@Hulu
“So why should we accept this insane helicopter leasing cost?”
Because PMX need to feed his cronies too. And ultimately as if PUTD/TUDM/PDRM would care who owns it as long as they get the spec they wanted and can use them freely.
”The fact is they wanted a CSAR chopper platform, that is the official story and that is what I will trust.”
In the first place who said they didn’t? In this thread and others; when and where was it said or implied?
” which I take with jars of salt. ”
Indulge/enjoy.
”End of story. That is why they specifically stated they want CSAR and not ‘very little distinction “CSAR” chopper’.”
”End of your story” or the actual story – a difference. Again; they wanted more rotary platforms and they also wanted a CSAR so they pushed the CSAR angle. Pushing for the CSAR angle made it easier ad the decision makers are more likely to approve a new capability; rather than add to an existing one.
”doesnt mean NO DISTINCTION,”
Keypad/board got stuck again or another issue at play? In this thread and in others on the subject who did say there was not a ”distinction”?
”That is why they specifically stated they want CSAR ”
And what pray tell is a CSAR platform? Unless it’s something like Pave Low… Ultimately – again – they wanted more rotary platforms but also for it to be fitted with certain things the Cougars aren’t fitted with to make it more suitable for CSAR. As of 2024 there is very little to differentiate between a CSAR configured and non CSAR configured rotary platform; even rotary platforms operated by oil/gas companies have a NVG compatible cockpit [although they might not use NVG which is mainly for tactical flying] and a winch.
”Whether they will use them for other roles, sure but the main reason is for CSAR as they publicly have said so.”
Just like how the RMN said the LMS Batch 2s are needed to confront Chinese intrusions? You believe that too? No idea idea you were the type of individual to take anything said publicly at face value. Again; you are apparently unaware but the services have long been known to. say certain things publicly to justify funding. Ever wondered why the Kasturis went from ”light frigates” to ”corvettes”? No jars of salt needed BTW. Need more examples?
”sure but the main reason is for CSAR”
Right so whilst the existing helicopters will do HADR, mercy flights, tri service lift needs and a list of other things which helicopters have been doing since entering service in the early 1960’s; these CSAR configured platforms will mainly do CSAR because they were bought specifically or mainly for CSAR. Not only is this unrealistic and not why they are being sought but we have never bought a rotary platform or various other things mainly or largely for one specific task/role … Even the RAF and a long list of other air arms with more resources than the RMAF does/has not sought a rotary platform mainly for CSAR.
“when and where was it said or implied?”
Read “it’s not the main reason for the requirement…”
“And what pray tell is a CSAR platform?”
You tell me, your the one that said there is little difference. So what is that “little difference” hmm?
“mainly do CSAR because they were bought specifically or mainly for CSAR”
Since TUDM stated thats what they were bought/rented for, sure why not. And if TUDM are to use them for other reasons its their prerogative, no? But since they have a dozen Caracals & others, why would they want to risk using precious CSAR chopper on mercy runs unless they have no choice or part of their operation?
“we have never bought a rotary platform for one specific task/role”
Because we never had bought a specific role platform before? Duh!
“You believe that too? anything said publicly at face value”
Of course! Because anything said in public can be hold to scrutiny even if they lie! Hearsay, conjectures, rumours, word of mouth, whatever you believe, are meaningless if it cannot be proven. Whether TLDM LMS2 can effectively chase away PLAN carrier battlegroups are their responsibility and accountability. Their answerable if they made that claim.
”So what is that “little difference” hmm?”’
Put aside the ”hmm”. I pointed out in easy to understand language which leaves no room for doubt or misinterpretation; in this thread and others that as of 2024 even a civilian spec rotary platform has NVG compatible cockpits, winches and other things. What they don’t have is self defence suite and AAR capabilities. Thus there is very little to differentiate – unlike in the past – between a CSAR and non CSAR platform. Also, as pointed out before; a CSAR configured platforms forms merely one element of a CSAR effort; unless it’s in a very benign environment.
”Since TUDM stated thats what they were bought/rented for, sure why not.”
You in the habit of taking at face value all you read? Totally contradictory to other statements you’ve made on various things; including policy statements by the government. Again, the RMAF wants a CSAR capability and has wanted it for years – nobody said otherwise. Putting emphasis on the CSAR requirements helps make a case for follow on platforms which will perform a variety of roles; CSAR being one of them. Again, very few air arms or armies have the luxury of getting a rotary platform specifically or largely to perform CSAR. For the RMAF pressing the case for a new capability is easier as opposed to pressing funding to add to an existing capability; note the nuance.
”Because anything said in public can be hold to scrutiny even if they lie!”
Who say they’re ‘lying”?
”Hearsay, conjectures, rumours, word of mouth, whatever you believe, are meaningless if it cannot be proven. ”
If you know; you know; if you don’t; you don’t. Common for people to resort to claims of ”hearsay, conjectures, rumours, word of mouth” when they don’t know or have nothing else to say. Again; to those who know – one doesn’t have to be an expert – there is a way to justify funding; a way to tweak the system. That’s the way its been done for a long time.
”Whether TLDM LMS2 can effectively chase away PLAN carrier battlegroups are their responsibility and accountability.”
No need to obfuscate things; even if you have a desire to have the last say. I only pointed out that the RMN made the statement about the LMS Batch 2s and Chinese intrusions as a way of getting the government to move faster during a period when progress was being made slowly.
”But since they have a dozen Caracals & others, why would they want to risk using precious CSAR chopper on mercy runs unless they have no choice or part of their operation?”
– They only have 12 Cougars at the moment; there is no ” & others” as you claim as far as the RMAF is concerned.
– It’s not as if they are getting a dedicated CSAR platform like Pave Low. Practically nobody does with the exception of the Yanks.
– As of 2024 the intention – as far as possible – is to have multi role platforms. From the early 1960’s when the RMAF first gained a rotary capability; all its rotary platforms have been multi-role. Again, the difference now is that the RMAF wants a platform fitted with various things which makes it more suited for CSAR. Doesn’t mean it wants a platform specifically or mainly for CSAR.
”Because we never had bought a specific role platform before? Duh!”
Putting aside your ”duh” and ”ahmm” it’s actually because we – like many others – do not have the luxury to have a platform which performs one specific task. Having something multi role enables more flexibility and is far more practical; especially when resources are tight. Having a single role problem is a major drain on resources. If you’ve noticed the bulk of air arms and armies worldwide are striving to have platforms which can perform as many roles as possible. It’s not because ”we never had bought a specific role platform before” as anything as silly as that.
”Duh” you said?
“What they don’t have is self defence suite and AAR capabilities”
So there you go, easy isnt it? You answered your own question. Thats what the abilities that TUDM lacks which they need for CSAR platform. Thus the justification they wanted a proper CSAR and not an utility chopper masquerading as “CSAR”. Which is why its important for them to emphasis on the CSAR abilities not just any jack of trades chopper that vendors & politicians will push onto them.
“Who say they’re ‘lying”?”
Because whether its true or not they are liable to whats said in public.
“If you know; you know”
And I know someone who knows there are aliens in Area 51. And so? Can I put into public that this is sure facts and those who dont know are stupid and those who refute it are idiots? No need to beat people up with unproven info. Like in court, whatever said can be taken at face value as there is rule of law in public, whoever said can be liable if proven wrong.
If you have proof to the contrary, please show it.
“No need to obfuscate things;”
Obfuscating? Who is? Who brought in LMS2 into a chopper discussion here hmm?
“there is no ” & others” as you claim as far as the RMAF is concerned”
Did you forget there are the 4 rental AW139s?
“have platforms which can perform as many roles as possible”
But because of that “little difference”, an utility chopper is illequipped to do CSAR work and which is why TUDM identified they needed a proper CSAR platform. See my 1st comment above. You want to move something bulky you get a truck, not trying to stuff it into your Kancil just because it is “multirole” too. This is common logic. ”Duh” you said?
”Duh” you said?”
I speak English and have no idea what ”duh” means. The ”duh”s/hmms” is not a congenital issue I hope. Also for once come up with something of your own rather than verbatim repeats.
”which is why TUDM identified they needed a proper CSAR platform. ”’
In simple to understand English which leaves no room for obfuscation or mis-interpretation; the RMAF wants a platform which has certain stuff which makes it easier or more suitable for CSAR but ultimately as of 2024 there is very little in terms of hardware which differentiates between a CSAR or non CSAR platform and the actual platform is only part of the whole ”ecosystem” so to speak; the others are the various enablers. Again; nobody said there was no ”distinction’. Also you ay have noticed [or not] but by and large to cut down on the footprint and costs; armies and air arms try as far as possible to go for platforms which are multi-role rather than able to perform a single niche role. Even the RAF and other air arms which are far better resourced by and arge don’t go for dedicated CSAR platforms.
”So there you go, easy isnt it? You answered your own question.”
I actually answered it in simple to understand English in this thread and others before and I have reminded you of that .. Your ”there you go” as with the ”easy isnt it” was misplaced.
”Who brought in LMS2 into a chopper discussion here hmm?”
Stuff your ”hmm” and in case you didn’t notice this is not a forum where topics in the posts are related solely to the thread topic. If you put aside your obfuscation you’d realise that the RMAF wants follow on helis and playing the CSAR angle makes it easier because it’s always easier to justify a new capability rather than add to an an existing one. Thus – again – the helis will be multi-role but unlike others will have certain stuff which makes it more suitable for CSAR ”but” [I won’t be crass enough to resort to upper case] this does not indicate they will be largely/mainly or solely for CSAR. BTW are you saying you’ve never brought in a topic in a post which had zero to do with the topic of the thread?
”And I know someone who knows there are aliens in Area 51.”
Shall we talk about goldilocks now? If you know, you know; if you don’t; you don’t. Again : there are ways to play the system and I’ve explained why; plus given you examples. For lack of anything else to say; don’t make it sound like I was claiming something preposterous or totally unbelievable.
”If you have proof to the contrary, please show it.”
Why don’t you ask others [including the administrator of this site;= if it’s indeed true that the armed services have a way of playing the system and that justifying a new capability can be easier sell than asking to add to a new capability. Why did the Kasturis go from ”light frigates” to ”corvettes”? Why did the RMN mention Chinese intrusions to justify the LMS Batch 2s? Only a utter twit would believe that the Batch 2s are intended solely or mainly to deal with intrusions. It’s typical to resort to claims of hearsay and demand proof [can all the statements you utter be backed up by ”proof”] when blissfully unaware of certain things but rather than move on; back track and obfuscate.
”Because whether its true or not they are liable to whats said in public.”
You said they were not lying and I replied that I never said they were lying. Now you’re talking about being liable; off tangent. What next? Again, the RMAF is not lying but at times statements made are intended for a particular audience and one also has to read between the lines because there’s a way of tweaking the system and certain things can’t be said in the open. Do you always take what’s uttered in public at face value? You have this knack at knocking the ”madani government” [which I’m not particularly enamored of]; you always take things said publicly at face value?
“Also for once come up with something of your own”
Thats rich coming from you but at least I cornered you into answering your own question, which rendered it meaningless to ask in first place. Well done.
“In simple to understand English”
In simple to understand English TUDM wanted a CSAR platform which leaves no room for doubt what they wanted but you seem to believe they have another angle, a hidden motive, to want something else other than CSAR. If you have proof otherwise, please debunk TUDM requirements by putting it to the mass media. At least the general public can hold both you & TUDM words accountable.
“Why don’t you ask others”
Why should we ask others when your making that claim?
“you’re talking about being liable; off tangent”
Never was off tangent, declaring in public meant being available for public scrutiny and thru this thread I been consistently sticking to it. Being off tangent is bringing LMS2 into a chopper discussion…
Now coming back to the lease deal. The cost is out in the open, as I said it is available for public scrutiny (unlike hearsay, conjectures, personal word from mouth), so now the challenge its up to the public/politicians how they want to raise the issue up if they feel the cost is too excessive, like they did with 1MDB.
”but at least I cornered you into answering your own question, which rendered it meaningless to ask in first place. Well done.”
In your mind you did. In reality no because if you care to look I made
clear it on several occasions before and you have been reminded of this more than once. But being selective is you being you. The only person you ”cornered” is you…
”Why should we ask others when your making that claim?”
Firstly I don’t have to ask others because I know the answer. Secondly if you doubt something someone said; the onus is on you to show why and how : not to obfuscate and backtrack further for want of anything else to do. Again; do you have ”proof” to back up everything you say?
”’ – ” Being off tangent is bringing LMS2 into a chopper discussion…”
Since you have issues understanding [again] : ”in case you didn’t notice this is not a forum where topics in the posts are related solely to the thread topic.”. Also, are you claiming that all your posts are always related to the thread topic?
”declaring in public meant being available for public scrutiny and thru this thread I been consistently sticking to it.”
Again : I’ll leave the ”liable” and ”public scrutiny ” stuff to you and go back to what I said: statements made are intended for a particular audience; the trick is to read between the lines. It’s easier to make the case for a new capability [something you’re ignorant of and too arrogant to acknowledge] rather than to seek funding to add to anew capability. The RMAF wants follow on multi role platforms but also wants a CSAR capability [as it’s wanted for years]; pressing the need for a CSAR platform rather than a CSAR platform makes it easier to justify funding. Thus the new helicopter was intended to always be a multi role platform but also to have a CSAR capability by virtue of having certain things. This is not to say that CSAR is the main reason the platform was bought or that it will largely or mainly be devoted for CSAR. The nuance is there and not really hard to grasp; not nuclear physics. Don’t make it sound like I’m claiming the RMAF is ”lying” or that there’s a great conspiracy by dark forces to mislead the government and public.
”Thats rich coming from you”
You with your history of repeating verbatim certain other things others say? Since when do I indulge in that practice? Making references to quotes in relation to the subject is not the same as repeating things verbatim due to certain deficiencies.
“This is not to say that CSAR is the main reason the platform”
Again this is your conjecture and hearsay, not what TUDM has declared in public. If a CSAR platform main task is not CSAR then any party could spanar the deal and offered lower spec chopper to fulfill that “other main reason” thus defeating TUDM desire for CSAR. That is why the intent & goal had always wanted a true CSAR, plain & simple to all but you. Cornered again?
“You with your history of repeating verbatim others say”
Yes because unlike you I don’t make up statements. And I hold people to their own. Public scrutiny.
”Again this is your conjecture and hearsay, ”
”Again” this is you backtracking for want of anything else to claim/say.
”If a CSAR platform main task is not CSAR”
t’s easier to make the case for a new capability [something you’re ignorant of and too arrogant to acknowledge] rather than to seek funding to add to anew capability. The RMAF wants follow on multi role platforms but also wants a CSAR capability [as it’s wanted for years]; pressing the need for a CSAR platform rather than a CSAR platform makes it easier to justify funding. Thus the new helicopter was intended to always be a multi role platform but also to have a CSAR capability by virtue of having certain things.
Since you missed it the first few dozen times : [again]
”Cornered again?”
The only person ”cornered” is you and the fact that you’ve again made reference to being ”cornered” prompts the question : are you subconsciously trying to say something about yourself …
”
”because unlike you I don’t make up statements. And I hold people to their own”
As such a self-serving and enlightened individual; naturally you do.