View Comments (84)

• Bagus..sekurangnya pembangunan ATM tetap ada walaupun perlahan.

• 2 MPAs? What is the rationale for that number? Would this be explained in the next DWP? Any new stuff to be bought in RMK12 and RMK13 should be thoroughly explained in the next DWP.

• The rationale for just 2 is that the government just isn’t willing to fork out anymore cash and wants to also spend - what limited cash there is - on other things. An order for 4 would be ideal; a mere 2 will result in a “bit of everything but not enough of anything” situation.

  With just 2, ensuring 1 is operational at all times will be challenging and the 3 remaining Beechcrafts will have to continue in service; despite their clear limitations.

  The P8 is a great aircraft but we need it like we need a hole in our head. It will never happen. Too expensive to buy and superfluous for our needs. It’s not as if we’re going to be conducting long range missions over the North Pacific or Andaman Sea.

  Reply
  Yes but I spoke to various industry people for the last several years that if the requirement involved armed patrol ASW, the P-8 or also the P-1 are the best for the job. The twin engine turboprops are not capable enough for ASW especially if one wants to carry weapons.

• The P-8 will have one big advantage over other MPAs : the ability to detect and engage subs from high altitude. Whether or not the U.:S. will be quick to provide the capability to non NATO or other allied P8 users remains to be seen however.

  Of course like almost everything else; the P-8a effectiveness in U.S. service lies not only on its capabilities per see but it operating as part of a networked environment.

  Given the costs involved involved in giving a MPA an attack capability and maintaining that capability; I would be very surprised if the MPAs we buy will actually have such a capability.

• Saab Swordfish plz.

  Reply
  Saab has stop marketing the Swordfish

• "The programme is fully funded by the US government without any expenses incurred by Malaysia, it said."
  Which is why I said our pivot to US is beginning to reap rewards. Why else we got much more ScanEagles compared to other regional nations? Certainly no one gives for free without expecting some returns. We shall see what that is.

  Reply
  Its not a pivot lah. I heard about the offer in 2017 so it was on the works all this time

• Joe,

  You don’t get it. You might be convinced there is but in actual reality there is no “pivot”. We’ve had close ties for decades - started when Dr.M signed a bilateral agreement on 1983/84 at the Pentagon. Secondly, in various ways we have benefited from this arrangement - in various different ways - for a long time now and are not just “beginning” to.

  Of course the Americans benefit. It’s long been part of their policy to cultivate close ties with regional countries. They want a stable region and if countries are too weak or under equipped to adequately monitor there own waters; this can lead to regional issues, not to mention the threat of non state actors. Why do you think a few years ago they gave us a radar for eastern Sabah?

  The fact that we got more stuff than other countries can be due to various factors : don’t read too much into it. Doesn’t mean favouritism on their part.

  They are under no illusions that we’ll suddenly become pro American or. buy more American just because they given us stuff funded by the American taxpayer.
  At a time when they are in stiff competition with China for regional influence; giving countries stuff also generates goodwill. So yes they expect something in return but yes but it doesn’t necessarily has to something detrimental to our own interests or something totally new.

• @ marhalim

  On the need for ASW kill capability for MPA.

  We are not doing ASW in an open ocean. Any ASW hunt would be in conjunction of the Scorpenes, Gowinds and future ASW helicopter. Our MPA ASW capability should be focused on tracking and situational awareness of foreign submarines plying in malaysian EEZ, and embedded submarine kill capability should not be a required mission for the MPA.

• Azlan "Given the costs involved involved in giving a MPA an attack capability and maintaining that capability; I would be very surprised if the MPAs we buy will actually have such a capability."

  Even if we had that capability, we couldn't afford to exercise it (by dropping sonobouys, which aren't cheap) frequently enough to be proficient.

  Yet it is one of the P-8's key advantages, take it away and it becomes much less special, while still remaining an expensive platform. It also packs a few things we don't need, such as ISR capabilities and a very long range.

  Better to have more of some other MPA for the same money, than just two or so P-8s.

  Marhalim "it must be said the Poseidon and P1 are probably the best candidates due to the ASW requirement."

  Could you tell us a bit about this requirement please?

• 2 MPA is too less to replace the beechcraft.

  Since RMAF going to have 1 sq of MPA and I think 18 units is the best number to guard Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak with 6 for each. If RMAF just want to keep keep 2 type of airlift craft, this is the time for us to release CN-235. My idea is to convert the existing Cn-235 become CN-235MPA. This will build up 9 units. This is much faster way for RMAF get up total 18 units. if we maintain 2 units per RMK, it will too slow + end up we are in Rojak MPA.

  Convert existing CN-235 will help reduce the workload of the new MPA. If we go for the same model, I ok with it as it already well proven. If we choose a new type, my choice will be ATR-72MPA.

  For Male UAV, we can go with the plan, even Rojak also not an issue because get a Male UAV is a lot cheaper get a MPA.

  Reply
  The MPA is for four aircraft. As I said in the post it is likely two more will be paid for in RMK13