SHAH ALAM: Long range radars for Malaysia and Indonesia. The US announced on June 8 a notice of proposed contract action to Lockheed Martin for the supply of three long range radars to Malaysia and Indonesia. The $77 million contract is expected to be completed within 48 months once it is awarded. The notice published by the US General Services Administration did not identify the type of radar to be contracted nor the exact numbers for Malaysia and Indonesia. So its likely the two countries will get two radars or one.
Description: AFLCMC/HBNK intends to award a contract utilizing FAR Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation. This will be under NAICS code 334511 (1,250 employees). This effort is to acquire up to three transportable solid-state long-range surveillance radars. These radars must be capable of simultaneously performing air surveillance and maritime surveillance missions in the South East Asia
Theatre. The objective is to provide secure interoperable C3I and Sensor systems supporting Joint Air Operations to US Government FMS customers. These solutions provide partner nations with secure mission capability, able to interoperate both within sovereign space, and provide connectivity and interoperability with U.S. military support forces. This period of performance will be 48 months (4 years).
(14) Place of Contract Performance. Malaysia and Indonesia
A check on the Lockheed Martin website showed that the TPS-77 Multi Role Radar fits the above missions in the notice which is to perform air surveillance and maritime surveillance missions. So it is likely that the TPS-77 MRR is the radar for the proposed contract.
Lockheed Martin recently completed production on the first TPS-77 Multi-Role Radar (TPS-77 MRR) for the Ministry of Defence for the Republic of Latvia. This milestone is the most recent event in a 15-year partnership of radar development and training between Latvia and Lockheed Martin. The TPS-77 MRR is the latest version in Lockheed Martin’s successful product line of surveillance radars and was developed in response to the evolving needs of armed forces on the battlefield.
The TPS-77 MRR is equipped with the latest technology that is quickly adaptable to a variety of surveillance missions. The radar’s multi-role single scan technology allows operators in specific sectors to select roles for the radar such as long range or medium range low-level flight surveillance, including helicopter detection.
As the radar rotates through each 360-degree scan, the system automatically adjusts to the operator selected mission. Changes can be made easily if the system is moved or if the mission is changed. The design also incorporates Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology. GaN provides for ultra-low power consumption and high reliability that ensures radar operation over extended time periods.
The TPS-77 MRR is adaptable to a variety of surveillance missions.The MRR combines the best performance and reliability in the surveillance industry into a mobile and cost effective package. The radar can be truck mounted for rapid deployment at unprepared sites and can also be dismounted for use at fixed sites. This gives the user more options and mobility on the ever-changing battlefield.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Currently the only country that is using the latest TPS-77 MMR is Latvia. This latest version is a full AESA radar using Gallium Nitride (GaN). Older TPS-77 version does not have this.
Interestingly it also has a maritime surveillance mode. So this is probably going to be located somewhere near to the sea?
In all a good radar for malaysian needs.
So UAVs, MPA conversions, Radars from uncle sam… That is quite a lot of stuff IMO. Looks like the money usually spent on the Phillipines now would up for malaysia and indonesia?
Off topic
http://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/amid-row-with-china-iaf-pushes-proposal-for-acquiring-33-new-russian-fighter-aircraft/608474?
Should still not be too late to offer our MiG-29Ns in exchange for some of IAF Su030MKI?
Around 4-6 would be good to enable us to have planned airframes in maintenance while having the numbers operational.
What we can do is to offer some of our MiG-29N plus to offer the service of overhauling IAF fleet of C-130J in AIrod, in exchange for 4-6 of IAF Su-30MKI. A win-win situation without any money changing hands (no issue with CAATSA).
IAF can replace those MKI passed to malaysia with their top-up order for new MKIs.
Not that I am unhappy with it, but surely there’s some of a trade off of giving these radars for free? Is it because of recent China’s posturing in the SCS?
@…IMO I think we should just sell those MiGs and use the cash to get more Hornets. Canada’s upgrading their fleet, so there’s still plenty of fight left in the Hornets.
Talking on the Flankers, if we decide to add more (despite MH17), then we should get new MKMs instead. No need for it to be full spec like the ones we have now, maybe just basic radar (with options for upgrade of course) to handle routine tasks like patrol, QRA etc
@…
Airod has no skill and permit on C-130J only C-130H.
Trade off between mig29 and MKI is difficult as MKI is using Israel parts. I don’t know of HAL has expertise or license to replace Israel part with French product.
Like it or not US Will be Asean only hope in SCS. US is gladly to help because China ambition in SCS is challenging US policy and interest too.
Recently a lot of equippments we got from USA. MPAs conversion, UAVs and now radars. Thank you uncle Sam.
Great, finally we may get a radar with GaN tech which is the best any current radar could offer. I think we would get the 2 units as we have more area of waters that is contested by China. If this happen, does our tender for new ground radar still going on Marhalim?
@…
A great idea to boost our Flankers numbers and availability rate that is if RMAF want to add more jets that are more expensive to operate than our Hornets. If RMAF can accept the higher operating cost then we should go for it. I would trade our Migs with BrahMos supersonic cruise missile (400km, Mach 3) and large quantity of spare parts for Flankers (especially for the engines). Getting the Zhuk-AE AESA radar upgrade is also a good option.
Out of topic.
Just want to find out any progress on the little birds please
Reply
None, with the travel ban still enforced nothing is moving on the MD530Gs
@…
As India are just the assembler for MKIs, unlikely they will build more than what IAF had ordered. Even if IAF willing to forego a few airframes for us, will Sukhoi as the principal allow it? It will eat into their business so I don’t think they will allow it.
Furthermore, MKIs are built with Indian and Israeli subsystems together with Russian & French ones. So build to MKIs into MKM spec will need heavy Russian involvement to replace the Indian & Israel systems and the French to recertify their own equipment for use on MKI convert to MKM.
In that case, I would rather just buy MKMs straight up from Sukhoi directly.
If there’s anything I want Indian, would be Brahmos and convert MKMs to launch them.
Luqman – “expensive to operate than our Hornets. If RMAF can accept the higher operating cost then we should go for””
Well it’s a fact that the Su-30 is maintenance intensive (larger aircraft, parts and components that don’t last as long as Western equivalents and the TVC that also needs maintenance) but irrespective of whatever we get; the government still has to increase the operating budget.
Failure to do that will constitute a major problem: a problem unfortunately the armed services are well acquainted with.
I posted a comment earlier on but somehow it got lost…..
Good for us getting these radars but what’s the trade-off with the US? I don’t think the Yanks give these things away for free.
@…
IMO we should just sell the MiGs and get extra Hornets. Canada is upgrading theirs; seems that legacy Hornets still have plenty of fight left.
I am all for increasing the Flankers, but new MKMs instead of MKIs. To reduce the cost we could perhaps get MKM half spec (with options for upgrade later on) so these maybe use for routine tasks like patrol and QRA.
This is free right? This radar is separate from the AF plan to acquire 3 additional radar right?
Which means might as well as get another of TP-77 with the budget approved for acquisition of one out of 3 proposed radar
Does it mean we will likely get our first AESA radar?
Pardon my ignorance but what difference is 1 (or 2) radar system going to make?
Reply
Not much but less money to spend on them, which is actually really needed, some of our radars were purchased in early 80s and in need of replacement, yesterday. As usual, the military always put in it in their annual and RMK plans but again the questions always arise what are 2 or 3 radars going to make. After 15 years, the need to replace list goes longer and longer. Unfortunately the world does not stop spinning….
“If there’s anything I want Indian, would be Brahmos and convert MKMs to launch them.”
We have the Harpoon, the Kh-59 and the Kh-31A- the last of which is a Mach 2 sea skimmer. We also have the Kh-31P ARM version.
Consider that the extra range and speed of Brahmos are only useful for action against a high end state adversary with the ability to defeat our current missiles. You want to prepare for such a conflict- how do you expect we will fare in it?
Even if that is your aim, why would you want to get one more anti-ship missile when we have pressing priorities in many other areas?
“If there’s anything I want Indian, would be Brahmos and convert MKMs to launch them.”
We have the Harpoon, the Kh-59 and the Kh-31A- the last of which is a Mach 2 sea skimmer. We also have the Kh-31P ARM version.
Consider that the extra range and speed of Brahmos are only useful for action against a high end state adversary with the ability to defeat our current missiles. You want to prepare for such a conflict- how do you expect we will fare in it?
Even if that is your aim, why would you want to get one more anti-ship missile when we have pressing priorities in many other areas?
Uncle Sam allocates a detain amount of cash per fiscal year for various countries; to be used for equipment or in the form of training grants. By virtue of being a treaty ally the Philippines (like Thailand) has a much bigger allocation compared to say Malaysia and Indonesia.
The radar will be fully paid for but we’ll have to fork out the cash to integrate it to our existing radar network. Useful in that it’s mobile and can be deployed where needed. Of course the main issue in deploying radars around is finding locations with good road access and adequate power supply – thus radar has a “ultra low power consumption”.
I hope gov@mindef to get more legacy hornet from ex-kuwaiti air force, Station them at kuching or bintulu soon established air base in future… just 1 thing beside the bintulu, mukah and tanjung manis also suitable for naval based..
@ joe
The difference between MKM and MKI is just a few subsystems that can be easily replaced. The main problem to buy direct from russia is CAATSA and money.
Why i suggest the swap with our retired MiGs and our services to overhaul IAF C-130J at airod. The additional MKM is basically enabling a dedicated number of airframes to be in maintenance, so that the number of operational airframes can be increased.
@ ASM
we dont have the budget for new MKM plus problems with CAATSA.
upgrading 36 canadian hornets with aesa and others stuff costs usd863.2 million. if we go for 18 hornets, that should be around usd430 million. that can actually get us 12 FA-50 that we could use up to 40 years, while hornets is usable up to 15 years at most.
routine task should be borne by LCA, not hornets, MKM or MRCA.
@…
“upgrading 36 canadian hornets with aesa and others stuff costs usd863.2 million.”
I was waiting for this since last year. Among the other parts for the upgrades were
-50 Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II
-20 JSOW
-46 F/A-18A Wide Band RADOMEs
-30 ITALD
-104 Data Transfer Device/Data Transfer Units (DTD/DTU)
-112 AN/ARC-210 RT-2036 (Gen 6) radios
And this have confirmed my worst nightmare that upgrading the Hornets radar is very expensive. Even if we go for radar only and remove the other equipment out (missiles, ITALD, radios etc), it would still be likely cost more than $600 million. So bye bye to AESA radars for Hornets?
https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/canada-hornet-extension-program-related-fms-acquisitions
Though i dont see why it would cost that much as APG-79(v)4 radar supposedly cost $3.3 million each and take only 1 hour to replace the radar on the tarmac.
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/03/29/the-usmc-begun-upgrading-legacy-hornets-radar-to-latest-an-apg-79v4-aesa-radar/
@joe
“Does it mean we will likely get our first AESA radar?”
Hopefully yes
Reply
It must be noted that the DSCA notice is just the indicative cost. In most instances the final prices are much lower in practice though it is difficult to find out the final prices for individual contracts
Alex – “is free right”
Of course. Stated clearly in the release.
We will however have to fork out funds to integrate it to the existing radar network.
AM – “”Consider that the extra range and speed of Brahmos”
More importantly; to fully take advantage of its range, we will need a recce/strike ability which is fully integrated in the form of MPAs,
UAS, radars and other things.
This is a factor often overlooked when long range missiles are discussed.
Khairul,
Fighters can be temporarily deployed anywhere with a runway and but they should be permanently based at a location that has the needed ground support facilities – in East Malaysia this would be Labuan.
Without the needed ground support facilities operational/serviceability rates will suffer; as was the case when there was a permanent Hawk presence at Labuan in the 1990’s.
To permanently base fighters anywhere else (whether Kuching or Bintulu would necessitate the need for extra shelters (assuming space was available) and other stuff.
This is a post not connected to the topic.
India due to the current tension n confrontation in the China-India is seeking an urgent purchase of 21 mig29 n another squadron of SU27MKI. This is to strengten their reserves. Maybe we can offer the retired migs to India. Much quicker for India to put them back into service. The purchase from Russia for the migs would come from planes partially produced and stored due to the order being cancelled by another customer
As expected sooner or later china will cause conflict with their claim issue.
The recent china-india border bloody conflict is a sign to a bigger conflict in the future.
Like it or not US is the only Asean hope to balance china muscle. The US has big interest in SCS too. After scaneagle UAV, now US give a long range strong radar to watch china movement up in the air and on the sea.
The TNI is move closer to get the iver huitfeldt. It is also a sign how TNI respon on the future conflict in SCS.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-det…variant-frigate
The RSN still on process to evaluate her bigger ship, the MCV (multirole combat vessel). A 130m long frigate with 5000 ton in weight.
In RMN context, a 6000 ton combat ship is beyond imagination at the moment, RMN is still stuck with LCS project. It is possible that when the all LCS ship delivered, the ship is not enough power to deal with future conflict.
@ lee
see my comments on the indian mig-29 in this post above a few days ago
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/long-range-radars-for-malaysia-and-indonesia/#comment-429143
@ romeo
” Airod has no skill and permit on C-130J only C-130H ”
Dont underestimate malaysian technical capabilities.
Airod has been servicing american (usaf, usmc and usn) Hercules for years.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/167670/malaysian-firm-to-maintain-marine-corps-kc_130js.html
http://my.usembassy.gov/pr_airod_marinecorp-080416/
we are more than capable to do so for IAF C-130J too. As exchange for their flankers and flanker spare parts.
@AM
China is actively sending their carrier battlegroups more often into SCS. This is the kind of threat we need to deter. So yes, Brahmos is something we should consider. The KH-31s are what – 100+km range?- and Harpoon is 300km, while Brahmos is 500km. So if we want our planes to come back after launching…..
Romeo – “In RMN context, a 6000 ton combat ship is beyond imagination at the moment””
This is because our operational requirements simply don’t call for a combatant with such a displacement. It boils down to operational requirements and threat perceptions.
We don’t need the range and endurance it offers and our threat perceptions don’t see us being involved a high intensity conflict.
Our ships only operate well within our waters or along the periphery (ships are always only 2 days away from the nearest port/base and out of area ops is something we’d rarely do) and if we need a better armed combatant; we could still do it on a combatant well below 5,000 tonnes displacement.
Romeo – “It is also a sign how TNI respon on the future conflict in SCS””
Actually it’s ‘a sign’ that Indonesia is putting more emphasis on protecting its maritime domain (against anyone and not specifically China) and as part of the process is investing more in the TNI -AL compared to the past when the TNI-AD was the priority.
Lee – “would come from planes partially produced and stored due to the order being cancelled by another customer”
Like our Fulcrums which were originally intended for the Russian Air Force.
No point holding on to our Fulcrums; the longer we do, the less value they will have. Whether or not India is still keen in them is unknown – for various factors it might be more practical for them to source directly from Russia.
Irrespective of whether we buy new Russians jets the Russians have indicated a willingness to help us dispose of our Fulcrums.
“China is actively sending their carrier battlegroups more often into SCS. This is the kind of threat we need to deter.”
What we need to win against China is not a state of war but one of hostile peace. Having Brahmos isn’t going to change their behaviour, they know we’ll never launch one at them. Anyway, as has been pointed out to you, just getting Brahmos does little good.
It would help more if we beef up the MMEA and RMN, and pursue diplomatic efforts with ASEAN and the other SCS claimants. Going it alone is not the way.
“The KH-31s are what – 100+km range?- and Harpoon is 300km, while Brahmos is 500km”
Our Harpoons aren’t the 300km range variant.
@…
“Dont underestimate malaysian technical capabilities”
No, i dont underestimate airod capability. AFAIK, the agreement between airod and LM is just for H-series. Renegotiation is needed to extend airod permit to MRO J-series.
Aftet all, MRO will need spare parts, if no agreement where airod could get the spare parts?
Further training is also needed for airod technicians to guarantee level of quality in MRO the J-series.
@Azlan
“This is because our operational requirements simply don’t call for a combatant with such a displacement. It boils down to operational requirements and threat perceptions”
True, and I am thinking if RMN should revise operational requirement and threat perceptions for future need
“Actually it’s ‘a sign’ that Indonesia is putting more emphasis on protecting its maritime domain (against anyone and not specifically China) and as part of the process is investing more in the TNI -AL compared to the past when the TNI-AD was the priority”
In easier word, the TNI is changing their perception about future threat. Not only TNI AL, even TNI AU has bigger muscle compare to the past.
No one single weapon – irrespective of its range or overall capability – will “deter”
China – if only it were simple as that. If China is not “deterred” by US CVBGs and other military means; how can it possibly be “deterred” by snails numbers of aircraft armed with small numbers of long range ASMs?
What will make them sit up and notice is if we adopt a holistic defence policy; having an armed forces we can afford to sustain; one equipped with stuff it needs rather than stuff dictated by politics and sustained financial investments in the right amounts made towards defence.
@AM
Hostile peace is not by carrying a stick made of PlayDough, to do that we need to have intent to hurt and Brahmos will give us that edge on their carrier fleet. ASEAN is too screwed up to deal with China as every member is on a level, suspicious of each other and has their own self-interest with regards to that 800pound Gorilla.
SG has realised this long before and they trusted only themselves and Uncle Sam. So far they haven’t yet been proven wrong.
@ azlan
” We don’t need the range and endurance it offers and our threat perceptions don’t see us being involved a high intensity conflict ”
Getting big frigates does not always equal to the need to involve in high intensity conflict. Bigger hull means more space for people and boats for things like Ops Benteng that we do right now, longer time on station, and much more “presence” on a standoff.
@ AM
Yes we need to be friends with like-minded states. We must always show that we want to have a good diplomatic relations with China, but south china sea is our backyard, now and had always been so for ages. Priority for the next 10 years is to beef up MMEA, and to have closer relationship with other SCS claimants, especially Vietnam.
@romeo
“It is possible that when the all LCS ship delivered, the ship is not enough power to deal with future conflict.”
For the displacement of 3100 tones, the LCS is more than enough for anti-submarine and anti-ship/anti-surface engagement due to having NSMs and Thales towed array sonar. LCS only lacks in air defence capabilites where it only have VL MICAs. AAW variant can be built if we
-Remove towed array sonar (save around $60 million)
-Replace Sylver vls containers and VL MICA with Mk41/Mk57 vls with quadpack ESSM
-Better radar if remaining budget allows it
@Azlan
“We don’t need the range and endurance it offers and our threat perceptions don’t see us being involved a high intensity conflict.”
It would be best to assume we somehow could be involved with high intensity conflict or else there is no need to operate 2 squadron of MRCA or a fleet of expensive stealth frigates. Iver Huitfeldt doesn’t only offer range and endurance but also the platform to carry better radar and more potent AAW missiles (in terms of quantity and range) which RMN is lacking compared to RSN.
Off topic
http://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/south-koreas-add-to-study-possible-upgrades-for-fa-50-light-attack-aircraft
” As its ageing F-5E/F and F-4E combat aircraft are gradually decommissioned, the RoKAF would like the twin-seat, single-engined FA-50, which was originally developed to provide close air support, to play a bigger role in the force, a military official told Janes on 18 June.
As a result the ADD will conduct a study from July to December to examine how to expand the aircraft’s capabilities in several areas, including the possibility of it carrying conformal fuel tanks for extended range, as well as targeting pods and new weapons systems, including beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAMs) ”
Interesting…
@Luqman
The Maharajalela could be a potent AAW if configured as so. Remove all AntiSub sensors & onboard torps, replace the current sensors with S1850M PESA & SAMPSON AESA radars, and enhance the Sylver launcher to A-50 variant equipped with Aster 30 (8 bank) & VL Mica (8 bank) missiles. We don’t need many, maybe only 3 ships will do just fine.
…. – “Getting big frigates does not always equal to the need to involve in high intensity conflict”
No but the prime reason navies go for bigger hulls is because of the range and endurance offered and bigger hull enable more weapons, larger weapons and larger sensors to be mounted
The downside for cash constrained navies is that bigger hulls cost more to construct (steel is cheap but not what goes on and inside the steel) and more to operate.
PS if we want to go with Thales AAW system, we could replace the radars with Thales APAR and SMART-L instead.
SG Formidables have shown how much potent firepower could still be packed into a hull a wee slightly larger than Maharajalela. IH is overkill and easier to kill.
Luqman – “It would be best to assume we somehow could be involved with high intensity conflict or else there is no need to operate 2 squadron of MRCA or a fleet of expensive stealth frigates””
No ……
The MKMs and LCSs are part of our longstanding policy of having a minimal defence/deterrent capability and part of ongoing plans to progressively upgrade the MAF.
Our defence planning does not foresee us getting involve in a high intensity/protracted conflict. Not only is the MAF not equipped with the needed hardware; we also do not have the stockpiles of fuel and other consumables to sustain such a conflict, but to mention the funds. At the moment the MAF is ill equipped and under resourced to even meet its peacetime commitments; never mind a high intensity/protected conflict.
Luqman – “Iver Huitfeldt doesn’t only offer range and endurance but also the platform to carry better radar and more potent AAW missiles (in terms of quantity and range) which RMN is lacking compared to RSN””
Larger vessels have their merits and are fully dependent on one’s operational requirements and threat perceptions.
The RSN may indeed by looking a vessels with larger displacements but the the SAF’s threat perceptions and operational requirements differ somewhat to the MAF.
… – “ like Ops Benteng that we do right now, longer time on station, and much more “presence” on a standoff””
Our ships tend to be at sea for 2 weeks on average and there are always fuel and food reserves which can enable a ship to stay longer at sea should the situation warrant it.
We’ve had this discussion before on several occasions.
I’m all for larger hulls as larger hulls (in addition to having more “presence) offers more operational flexibility (more range and endurance; larger hangar, more deck and below deck space, etc, etc; assuming a particular user has such a requirement for it and can handle the penalties associated with having a much larger combatant.
Luqman – “the LCS is more than enough for anti-submarine and anti-ship/anti-surface engagement due to having NSMs and Thales towed array sonar”
I don’t know what your personal definition of “more than enough” is but it’s effectiveness in any conflict is dependent on various factors; namely the type of conflict and its use in close cooperation with other assets (whether MPAs, other ships, etc) as part of a networked environment.
It has a pretty decent ASW fit but it’s main means of engaging sub surface contacts will be dependent on it having a ASW configured helo with the needed range and endurance.
The LCS is a product not only of our financial means and politics but also the RMN’s particular operational requirements.
Like most here I would have preferred a SAM with longer legs rather than a point defence system; a gun based CIWS in the B position and a slightly longer hull to accommodate more than just a 16 cell VLS but alas it’s water under the bridge now.
“ASEAN is too screwed up to deal with China as every member is on a level, suspicious of each other and has their own self-interest with regards to that 800pound Gorilla.”
I said “ASEAN and SCS claimants.” China intends to split ASEAN by investing in the most impoverished members, which is something other members must counter. That is not something that prevents our working with SCS claimaints. Your statement ignores that most relations between ASEAN members are at their best in history and continue to improve. For example, Vietnam and the Philippines have signed an agreement on how they go about their conflicting claims in the SCS. Borders have been mutually agreed by Indonesia with Singapore and the Philippines. We still have work to do in agreeing our borders with Indonesia and Singapore. At the very least, we shouldn’t do anything to split ASEAN because it only plays into China’s hands.
What good does your attitude do? You once suggested we buy high end SAM systems with the stated goal of provoking our neighbours and said the MiG-29s made Singapore “sweat”. Really?
joe “SG has realised this long before and they trusted only themselves and Uncle Sam. So far they haven’t yet been proven wrong.”
Think. Is Singapore a SCS claimant in conflict with China? They haven’t “been proven wrong” in maintaining a qualitative overmatch because the intended targets of deterrence have historically been immediate neighbours. If one takes the view that the SAF sees a role in deterring China from entering hostilities, conditional upon US involvement, who can conclude that it has succeeded?
“Actually it’s ‘a sign’ that Indonesia is putting more emphasis on protecting its maritime domain (against anyone and not specifically China) and as part of the process is investing more in the TNI -AL compared to the past when the TNI-AD was the priority.”
It used to be so, as much due to internal and external reasons. In short, Suharto’s dominance of society through the TNI and the improvement in relations with neighbours in those years, naturally led to a focus on internal security and accordingly the prioritisation of the army above the other branches.
Even as to external defence, smaller budgets made reliance on the army a matter of necessity rather than choice. Today, Indonesia’s economic position puts the TNI in the better place to keep up with the times and adapt to modern modes of war. And that said, the TNI’s investments in strategic mobility remain as important to internal as they are to external security. Sealift and airlift can bring troops to the front, or bring police or disaster relief to where they are needed to preserve the state’s authority.
Notwithstanding, external security does have a bearing on internal security in that compromises of sovereignty at the hands of other states can affect the position of leaders and the state, especially a state as large and diverse as Indonesia.
None of this answers the question of what external threats Indonesia faces. Noting that the TNI has to keep up with regional militaries, Indonesia’s relationships with every regional country except China have improved. China has emerged as the chief threat, in that Indonesia’s EEZ overlaps with China’s EEZ claims. There have been standoffs in undisputed Indonesian waters, around Natuna this year but going back at least to 2013 when CCG3210 entered Natuna to jam the comms of an Indonesian ship, forcing them to release a Chinese fishing vessel they had detained. A credible TNI is necessary to back up Indonesia’s position to the extent that it is challenged by China. So far, China has not seen reason to put as much pressure on Indonesia as they have unto other SCS claimants, but Indonesia knows that China can change this when it pleases. Between Indonesia’s political will and the TNI’s capabilities, the PLAN’s capabilities and the importance China places on the disputed and (technically) undisputed areas, and the wider international positions of both countries, strengthening the TNI is one factor affecting whether China chooses to lean into the matter with more of its weight.
@ Romeo
” No, i dont underestimate airod capability. AFAIK, the agreement between airod and LM is just for H-series. Renegotiation is needed to extend airod permit to MRO J-series ”
*facepalm*
Do you even read my posts before replying ???
I paste the whole article for you to read.
Malaysian Aerospace Firm AIROD Delivers First KC-130J Aircraft to U.S. Marine Corps Under Maintenance Contract
Malaysian aerospace firm Aircraft Inspection, Repair & Overhaul Depot Sdn Bhd (AIROD) has completed repairs on the first U.S. KC-130J aircraft under contract in support of the U.S. Marine Corps Transport Refueler Squadron based in Japan. AIROD delivered the aircraft to the Marine Corps at a ceremony located at Subang Airport on Thursday, August 4, 2016.
The U.S. Navy’s Fleet Logistics Center Yokosuka signed a five-year, $25-million contract with Malaysian aerospace firm AIROD on June 29, 2015. The contract employs approximately 25 engineers and technicians to service thirteen KC-130J aircraft.
U.S. Brigadier General Russell A. Sanborn, Commanding General 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, attended the event. Also in attendance was AIROD CEO Major General Ir Dato Ibrahim bin Bahari RMAF (Rtd), and U.S. Embassy Public Affairs Counselor Frank Whitaker.
U.S. Embassy Public Affairs Counselor Frank Whitaker said, “This partnership allows the U.S. military to maintain its effectiveness and to ensure peace and stability in the region.”
The agreement represents a significant U.S. government direct investment in the Malaysian aerospace defense industry.
Located in Subang, Malaysia, AIROD provides aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul services to support Royal Malaysian Air Force aircraft. AIROD has provided services to the U.S. Air Force under a previous U.S. government contract and is an authorized Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules service center.
XXX
FYI Airod has serviced all kinds of Hercules, from early model C-130B of Indonesian and bangladesh air forces all the way to the latest KC-130J of USMC.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bangla.jpg
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BDF.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SCVq4nY-9Kg/W4cllIsXJkI/AAAAAAAA8VM/9J-brTwSKvMizQ3Q7IZnz6xcbUwhPimqgCLcBGAs/s1600/Airod_2.png
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/airod.jpg
http://www.c-130hercules.net/uploads/monthly_2016_04/large.go-AIROD.jpg.0315ead0185e655d452cf7fbe054ebfe.jpg
@ azlan
Why do you seem to look at a larger frigate in isolation? “Penalties” that you talked about is a non-issue as you could always use LCS Gowinds in places that a big frigate like the Type 31e presumably cannot. Why I talked about not getting 12 Gowinds at scattered point in time, but to build sequentially 9 gowinds, and after completing the gowind production, later in 2030s to replace the 4 Lekiu and Kasturis with 4 Type 31e.
AM – ““None of this answers the question of what external threats Indonesia faces”
In paper this is easy to answer.
Their biggest concern is China. They also have unresolved overlapping claims with Malaysia over Ambalat and in the Melaka Straits and South China Sea.
On top of having an improved economy; it’s also easier to manage defence issues given the role the TNI occupies in Indonesian society and the fact that various politicians are ex military. No doubt prestige and the desire to be seen as strong (the largest in the region) also plays a part.
AM – “China intends to split ASEAN by investing in the most impoverished members”
This is has long been done. I would argue that the main factor in a divided ASEAN is economics; all of ASEAN relies heavily on trade/business with China.
A case in point is Vietnam; despite its rhetoric and hardline position (it has a history of strife with China going back hundreds of years and fought a border war and naval clashes); it too had to scale back the rhetoric some years back when a spate had the potential of trade with China. The Chinese government knows only too well the economic stick it wields.
Apart from continuing to benefit from claimants who don’t share a common stance; China has also made it a point to force the claimants not to be too “influenced” by the likes of the U.S. and Japan. Ironically it’s very actions have driven various countries closer to outside powers.
AM – “Our Harpoons aren’t the 300km range variant”
Plus the fact that there can be a profound difference between stated maximum effective range and actual ranges which are dependent on various factors.
People tend to go gaga over maximum effective ranges as stated in OEM brochures but first the target has to be detected and identified. By the time a “shooter” has arrived the target’s location may have changed; not too mention the fact the target may be employing jamming or may be amongst civilian shipping.
By and large aircraft armed with ASM do not operate by the their own; going around with their radar in looking for targets. They would normally or ideally only do so after a target’s presence has been detected by other means.
A good example is Sheffield. The Eterdard only went in after a Neptune had detected its presence. Even today decades later; a primary role for MPAs is target detection. The Americans, Chinese and Russians; in addition to MPAs, radars and other means; have satellites.
Brahmos is nice to have and gives bragging rights but in our scheme of things we have a far greater need for MPAs, UASs and other stuff. To fully utilise the capabilities of any long range missile would requite a strike/recce capability that goes beyond having a basic OTHT capability.
@Azlan
“I don’t know what your personal definition of “more than enough”
What i meant is that LCS have the enhanced capability of having a towed array sonar instead of just hull mounted ones on previous ships. The only thing missing is the ASW heli which hopefully we will get some in this RMK
As for your network thing, it is better to have platforms that is very well suited/armed/equipped to work together with other platforms in the network. Hence why i said LCS is more than enough to get the job done as it has the sonars, torpedoes & comms needed for it to work with other platforms (our soon to be converted MPA, future ASW heli, current helis & ships) in the said “network”.
@AM
You put too much faith into an economic organisation to do security work for you, and when I say economic organisation I meant more akin to EU rather than NATO. The EU countries depends on NATO for their overarching security & to counter Russian influence, not EU per se. What’s my attitude? I am a realist. And I don’t hold back on that.
As I said, high end SAMs and Brahmos are the real stick, not just made of PlayDough. It makes the bigger kids think twice before bullying you. And it is fallacy to think with PlayDough you can be friends with the bullies. This isn’t fantasy anime. Of course that doesn’t mean we should ignore efficient diplomacy but we have to be able to ‘speak softly and carry a real stick’.
“Is Singapore a SCS claimant in conflict with China?”
Did I mention SG as an SCS claimant? I was referring to their practical viewpoint on the limitations of ASEAN as a policing force that you are trying to sell here. They realised they couldn’t rely on it to secure their country & their future hence their self-reliability and smart partnerships creating this OP edge to handle anything regional and the backing of Uncle Sam for anything bigger.
SG as an entreport is heavily reliant on international trade, so its interest goes far beyond SCS squabbles. A heightened scenario or conflict in SCS will affect them so their are playing the diplomacy card between USA & China, which is why they were so eager to held that Trump-Jong Un summit. It is simply good business for them to keep the tension down even on outright it doesn’t affect them. SG’s defence OP edge extends to their OP diplomacy strategy and integrates with their overall security stratagem. The have the “big stick” and they know “how to speak softly to all”.
@…
“As a result the ADD will conduct a study from July to December to examine how to expand the aircraft’s capabilities in several areas, including the possibility of it carrying conformal fuel tanks for extended range, as well as targeting pods and new weapons systems, including beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAMs)
great news!! I’m all in for a new FA50 that will close the gap with current F16 but not at much considerably more cost than current version of FA50. KAI already is working on integrating AMRAAM and more targeting pods, current pod is the Litening 2 pods if not mistaken and they are almost done integrating Sinper ATP. KFX will get Meteor & Iris-T so will FA50 get them also? With the Korean gov now interested hopefully some other positive outcome would appear sooner than expected.
…. – “Why do you seem to look at a larger frigate in isolation?””
I’m not ….
What I’m doing is looking at both the merits and penalties of operating a combatant of that displacement; in our context. That doesn’t qualify as looking at it “in isolation” – how can it be when it’s me who often repeats the mantra of looking at things in totality ….
Sure a 5,000 tonne frigate has its merits and enables one to do things not possible with a 2,800 tonne frigate but it’s a matter of finding the right mix and making the right trade offs – all based on actual requirements.
At present and for its future plans the RMN has no such plans but I’m not saying we’ll never need such a frigate or should never get one.
…. – “Why I talked about not getting 12 Gowinds at scattered point in time”
Actually I’m more concerned about the ability of BNS and the availability of funding to enable improvements to be made to follow on LCS.
I’ve also pointed out given that operational requirements change; as do threat perceptions; if the RMN has no need for follow on LCSs and needs a different design to do slight different things; do be it. The last thing we should do is to force the RMN to get something it doesn’t need merely to benefit the local industry.
joe: “You put too much faith into an economic organisation to do security work for you, and when I say economic organisation I meant more akin to EU rather than NATO. … I was referring to their practical viewpoint on the limitations of ASEAN as a policing force that you are trying to sell here. ”
1. I never said ASEAN is a policing force, nor suggested that it can take any joint military action. It is a political organisation as much as an economic one, one that despite its shortcomings has successfully implemented trade agreements and seen improvements in political relations between its members. China will pressure ASEAN members, whether they are rich or poor, SCS claimants or not. But there have also been successful instances of ASEAN members’ pressure on the poorer members not to do China’s bidding. This path has not been been fully explored by like-minded SCS claimants within ASEAN.
2. I said we should work with “ASEAN and SCS claimants.” Emphasis on “and.”
The Philippines and Vietnam have large overlapping claims. They met bilaterally -ie outside ASEAN- and agreed on a common stance and code of conduct, and more importantly have honoured the agreement in practice. This allows them to focus their attention and resources on China. Alternatively, they could have taken up your attitude and bought things to provoke each other, but it would have done them no good.
3. Singapore has greater resources than its neighbours and is able to focus those resources on preparations for state vs state tensions or war. As such, it can achieve deterrence by maintaining a qualitative edge. The situation is not comparable to us vs China, in that we don’t have greater resources than China and a few anti-ship missiles, however good, aren’t going to make a difference.
3. Lets not forget how the conversation started: you said we should get Brahmos to deter China and cited Singapore as a successful example of deterrence pursued before diplomacy. If this is what you really believe, that doing this can achieve deterrence, then it is you who is “putting too much faith” into something to make a difference.
Azlan: “To fully utilise the capabilities of any long range missile would requite a strike/recce capability that goes beyond having a basic OTHT capability.”
What is also seldom realised is this isn’t a new development. Missiles have had OTH range for decades and therefore required OTH targeting provided by other assets if their range was to be most effectively utilised. At the elevations relevant to sea skimming missiles and shipboard sensors, the curvature of the earth limits the line of sight to a few tens of miles.
AM – “What is also seldom realised is this isn’t a new development””
Indeed. We’ve had the capability since the early 2000’s (there were tech issues which led to a minor delay in certification) and others have had it for decades. Many know about the long range cruise missiles carried by Soviet SSGNs during the Cold War but overlook that targeting and OTHT was via satellites, Bears and other means.
A book worth reading and containing stuff that applies to us is “Network Centric Warfare” (Friedman)
AM – “a few anti-ship missiles, however good, aren’t going to make a difference.””
Indeed.If only if were that simple.
We already have various types of guided munitions in service. Their range is not and never was the issue. What we have to do is to improve on what we have; gaining or improving our tertiary capabilities which include better jointness and networking; as well as creating a strike/recce capability.
@ AM
” At the elevations relevant to sea skimming missiles and shipboard sensors, the curvature of the earth limits the line of sight to a few tens of miles ”
Which is why tldm has kept all of its helicopters (lynx and fennec) up to date with its OTHT capability.
@…
“*facepalm*
Do you even read my posts before replying ???”
FYI Airod has serviced all kinds of Hercules, from early model C-130B of Indonesian and bangladesh air forces all the way to the latest KC-130J of USMC.”
This is my second post to reply you, i dont what has happemed to my first post.
Please.keep.calm….
Read my earlier post again, I’m talking about MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul). You are talking about maintenance as the article also said. You miss the R and O capability for airod in servicing the J-series.
Please find out by yourself:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/business-areas/aeronautics/sustainment/customer-support-center/c-130-service-centers.html
Airod is not an LM service centre for C-130J heavy maintenance.
@ romeo
There is a complete MRO capability for J series in Airod. It is not yet certified as a heavy maintenance center for J series because it has never done it before. Heavy maintenance certification for J series means that those places (which currently only 2) have done the Center Wing Box (CWB) replacement for C-130J.
All Hercules aircraft is limited by 45,000 equivalent baseline hour time to replace the CWB. It is one of the most extensive and difficult task for Hercules maintenance. Airod actually has done this before for the C-130H. Of course most C-130J is quite new (especially IAF ones) and it will be 20-30 more years before they even come to the situation where a CWB replacement is even needed. We can do all kinds of maintenance repair and overhaul ( A, B, C-1 or C-2 checks) for C-130J for IAF other than the CWB replacement.
Off topic
Nice picture of US ANG C-130H with 8 blade propeller upgrade
http://cdn.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/2005/6202306/2000x1333_q95.jpg
http://cdn.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/2005/6202307/2000x1333_q95.jpg
I don’t think it’s wise to rely too much on the US as I can recall several volte face in their past military alliances whenever it suits them, with the exception of Israel.
Anyway, the FPDA is still intact and can be called upon.
For additional hardware to pose a credible deterrent in the SCS, I think another diesel sub or two will help (even if it’s second hand).
@ shah
Even India is going more and more into the american orbit from the previously non-aligned stand due to the china issue. We have no choice really, its either the chinese orbit with us becoming a vassal state and losing many of our seas and resources, or getting closer to the west (australia, UK, NZ, usa, and its asian allies like japan and south korea)
LoL moment…
http://www.airforce.mil.my/images/BERITAPANGKALAN/SUBANG/2020/Jun20/12Jun_Covid/1.jpg
Did they blur out the overhead panel to hide the fact that our C-130H has antiquated systems and avionics? Surely nothing secret about those buttons. It is not like there is a EFIS MFD multipurpose display with secret capabilities shown on the screen mounted there…
http://www.avsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SPS-C130-3.jpg
http://www.avsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SPS-C130-2.jpg
http://www.avsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SPS-C130-1.jpg