SHAH ALAM: The Procurement Division of the Defence Ministry has issued an open tender for the supply of spare parts and Arrius A1 engine maintenance for a period of four years specifically for the RMN’s AS555 SN Fennec helicopters.
The tender for the contract was published on April 3 and closes on May 27, a period of 48 days. The indicative cost for the four-year contract is RM23 million which means that the spare parts and engines for the four Fennecs is around RM1.5 per year each.
Skuadron 502 – the unit operating the Fennecs – had six helicopters but two crashed – M502-03 and M502-06. It must be noted that the RMN Fennecs are equipped with two Arrius A1 engines each.
Unfortunately, the public specifications for the tender did not revealed whether the spare parts sought are for the engines only or for the whole helicopter. It did say that the tender could add a lump sump figure for the tender.
TAWARAN NILAI HARGA PETENDER
SECARA GRAND SUM BAGI
LAMPIRAN 2 (TAWARAN HARGA
TERHADAP UNJURAN SKOP
SELENGGARAAN TERMASUK PAKEJ
ALAT GANTI)
TAWARAN NILAI HARGA PETENDER
SECARA ITEM BAGI LAMPIRAN 3
(TAWARAN HARGA ALAT GANTI).
TAWARAN NILAI HARGA PETENDER
SECARA GRAND SUM BAGI
LAMPIRAN 4 (JADUAL HARGA BAGI
PERKHIDMATAN PAKAR)
It must be noted that Galaxy Aerospace (M) Sdn Bhd is the provider of the In-Service Support maintenance provider for the Fennec and the Super Lynx helicopters. The ISS contract for the Fennec is in the third year based on a release by Galaxy in January this year. Galaxy is an Aircraft Maintenance Organisation recognised by the Directorate General Technical Airworthiness (DGTA). The company is also recognized by DGTA as Authorised Engineering Organisation for the Super Lynx and the EC120B helicopters. The latter is used by RMAF for basic and advanced flight training.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
When PDRM AS355N helicopters are retired, i would prefer them to be donated to TUDM to join the remaining 4x AS555 SN Fennecs
of the 7, probably 4 to be used while the remaining 3 kept as spares.
So Skuadron 502 will have 4x AS555 SN and 4x AS355N operational
the AS355N could be used as training, utility, liaison missions.
As for performance upgrades, maybe can look at this fastfin modification
https://www.helis.com/database/news/fastfin-as355-nz/
… “When PDRM AS355N helicopters are retired, i would prefer them to be donated to TUDM to join the remaining 4x AS555 SN Fennecs”
Given the age and wear and tear on them, plus the fact that the RMN might not need anymore a platform with such limited space and range [one reason in getting the AWs]; I veer much doubt the RMN would want this option. Tggr is also the fact that the RMN, who h has already placed a pair of Lynxs in storage, wants to focus its attention on a future ASW plstfitm buy, sustaining its present assets and gettng more AWs.
Off topic.
Marhalim, in the 2023 Tarantula thread you mentioned that “Both 2 and 4 KAD are now light infantry regiment”. Sorry, you mind clarifying?
As both had no armoured vehicles during that time period. Even now it is likely only half of the units are actually are able to utilise the Gempita as their numbers are not according to the KAD TOE.
One can buy an old BMW for the prize of bezza. Doesn’t mean the BMW is as safe (drive shaft won’t come break during driving), as reliable (would totally start every morning) or as cheap to run as 1 workshop can easily equal several months of monthly repayments.
If one don’t have the money then just go to the bank and get a loan lah.
Something I’ve been unable to discover is whether we operate our vehicles in Troops of 3 or 4.
Yes a problem is that on paper TOEs don’t reflect actual strengths. Units will be under strengthed and actual equipment will not be as authorised. Thus can be a problem in conscript armies, never mind a small all volunteer one which has a small recruiting pool.
I was told it is four. Whether or not it is across the whole mechanised units, is beyond me.
Zaft – “If one don’t have the money then just go to the bank and get a loan lah”
Yes but as you will be aware; unlike our neighbours we don’t secure loans for military purchaces.
” One can buy an old BMW for the prize of bezza ”
In the case of the fennecs, we are not buying anything. I am proposing a free transfer of all 7 PDRM ecureuils to TLDM, with 3 of the 7 be used as spare parts source.
TLDM is clearly going to use the fennecs at least 4 more years into the future. Able to have 8 of them to choose from to fly (rather than just 4) plus additional 3 airframe for spareparts will actually lessen the individual airframe flying hours (same flight hours requirements but divided with more airframes) thus extending the maintenance intervals.
Doing proficiency, recurrency, and other training for the pilots is much more cheaper done with the AS355/AS555 rather than burning the flying hours of the AW139.
… – “Doing proficiency, recurrency, and other training for the pilots is much more cheaper done with the AS355/AS555 rather than burning the flying hours of the AW139”
They will use the remaining Fennecs for training and other purposes but from what I’ve been told have zero intention of getting anymore. Even with one having been lost it still has a pair of AWs and that has taken the strain off the remaining Fennecs which can focus on training and other things more suited for it.
Focus is on getting more AWs and the Lynx replacement. Why would the RMN add to something it doesn’t need? And why utilise scare resources when it can’t even afford to fly all 6 of its Lynxs.
Azlan “Yes but as you will be aware; unlike our neighbours we don’t secure loans for military purchaces.”
Lease with an option to buy at the end of the period for a token sum is a loan in practice just not in name and balance sheet treatment.
A lot of companies get a lease contract instead of a proper loan despite the obvious difference in overall cost just to make their book nicer. Which in turn increase investor confidence and their stock prices. Which make the extra cost of classifying something as a lease rather than a loan worth it.
Personally if our close neighbours can get a lease offers in local currency rather than a foreign currency dominated loan. They too would take it. But given their financial situation, it’s probably hard for them to get one. And the fact they are admitting to taking foreign dominated loan for what essentially an expanse would put their financial situation even worse. Which would put them in a vicious cycle that hard to break away from.
… – “Lease with an option to buy at the end of the period for a token sum is a loan in practice just not in name and balance sheet treatment”
Slightly diffrent. One can do various things with kit bought via loans rather than obtained via a leasing agreement. Also, obtaining kit paid for by a long term loan will probably be cheaper than a leasing equivalent.
Zaft – “But given their financial situation, it’s probably hard for them to get one”
You do realise that Thailand has been offered long term low interest loans and that South Korea has offered the Philippines the same thing. Both can and have gone down the lease route which is there if they so desire.
Zaft – ” Which would put them in a vicious cycle that hard to break away from”
A apt description of us given our chronic inability to learn from previous mistakes.
On the Kuwaiti Hornets. If indeed we get them and if by some miracle the government puts its money where its mouth is; how do we get AMRAAM? A sizeable number have gone to the Ukraine, the Americans are replacing their stocks, Japan has ordered about 1,000, etc. Production capacity is at its maximum. Any orders for AMRAAM might entail waiting 2-3 years minimum. And no even if we ask the Kuwaitis “nicely” they won’t give us any of theirs. It’s also not as if we have an existing decent stockpile of ordnance we can use. The question is ordnance is merely one of several prerequisites which have to be adressed if the Kuwaiti Hornets are to provide an actual effective capability; as opposed to one which just looks good on paper.
On how many vehicles there are in a Troop; in mechanised units it has to be 4 because anything less than 4 means a platoon can’t be carried. For the PT-91s if I had to guess:3 vehicles per Troop.
Take note that AS355N is about to be classified as legacy aircraft by its own manufacturer. Perhaps it already has been classified as one.
The aircraft type is still flying because of common parts they share with its elder brother AS350; Which happens to be the all time best seller in its class
The police’s Ecureuils are also are aged and is a main reason they are being retired. I was at the inaugural LIMA in 1991 when a newly delivered Ecureuil was on strict display.
If anything they will be sought for spares but that’s it. The RMN for reasons discussed has no plans for adittional flying examples. Any more than the sent has for any A109s. Both services are moving in a diffrent direction.
” I was at the inaugural LIMA in 1991 ”
Do realise that there are 2 distinct batches of PDRM Ecureuils?
Those you see at LIMA 1991 is the AS355F2 version, with allison engine (reg number 9M-PHA & 9M-PHB)
The current 7 units of AS355N version, with the same french engine as TLDM AS555 SN version, is delivered to PDRM starting 2000.
We used Nuris for 60 years. TLDM AS555 SN are of 2004 vintage. So something that is 21 years old (TLDM AS555 SN) and 25 years old (PDRM AS355N) could be used 10-20 more years into the future no problems.
TLDM has no plans to BUY additional fennecs.
But free AS355N Ecureuils? Surely TLDM can use additional units to replace those crashed.
… – “But free AS355N Ecureuils”
As was explained. The service wants to focus on a Lynx replacement and on more AWs. It does not need more Ecureuils which are not only aged but will soak up resources; irrespective of whether free or not. The 4 surviving examples are sufficient for training needs. As it is, the AWs were bought because of weight limitations with the Lynxs and Fennecs.
You are giving reasons why the RMN would want the ex Police platforms. I’m giving you valid reasons why it doesn’t.
… – “Do realise that there are 2 distinct batches of PDRM Ecureuils”.
Yes I do. Me mentioning LIMA 1991 and the newly delivered example wasn’t me claiming the whole fleet was that old.
… “We used Nuris for 60 years”
Was expecting you to use that as an example. Slightly different kettle of fish. The RMAF had no other medium lift platform, no replacement was forthcoming and it had Nuris on numbers. Nuris which also fitted in with actual requirements. Stuff which the Fennecs did and was ill suited – light supply, liaison, etc – are now performed by the AWs.
… – “could be used 10-20 more years into the future no problems”
Like with the case of the aged and worn out Kasturis and Lekius; you are focusing on all the on paper points of why something can be done and in your mind should be done. Perhaps take a minute to ask yourself the reasons why the RMN would and does not want ex Police platforms. Those ex police platforms require resources, resources which are stretched. Not to mention the fact that they are superfluous to actual needs.
Azlan “Slightly diffrent. One can do various things with kit bought via loans rather than obtained via a leasing agreement.”
Considering Saab had offered leasing for fighter jet for donkeys years already. It’s most likely an insurance premium thinggy preventing the lease AW to be arms.
If one live in a low risk of flood area would they still willing to pay extra premium on insurance against flood?
Azlan “You do realise that Thailand has been offered long term low interest loans and that South Korea has offered the Philippines the same thing.”
Again as explained earlier loan and lease are two different things in the balance sheet and investors expectations. The same goes with paying and taking in loan in foreign currency compared to one you print it yourself.
Thus why countries like us nor Thailand who had excellent sovereign rating and thus aren’t having problems attracting capital and have low interest rate hasn’t show much interest in foreign low interest loan unlike that of PH & ID. Do note we finance the FA50 half through counter trade aka paying our own farmers with our own currencies rather than asking for low interest loans.
Hulu “We used Nuris for 60 years. TLDM AS555 SN are of 2004 vintage. So something that is 21 years old (TLDM AS555 SN) and 25 years old (PDRM AS355N) could be used 10-20 more years into the future no problems”
The problem is in opportunities cost. If you car is 10 years old do you spend huge sum of money for a major refit for it to be able to probably work 3-5 more years or just use the same amounts of money for a deposit for new car that guaranteed To work for the next 10 years.
So why exactly do you need to push further the timeline of new car acquisition. You still need to buy it sooner or later. So why? Do you need money for other things today? Do you foresee a raise soon and can afford to class up if you wait a bit? Or you like RMAF with the Kuwaiti hornet see a red hot spanking new model that would enter the market really soon and thus get an interim solution in the meanwhile?
There is another important function that hasn’t been said here that the fennecs do. A capability that we will need more of when we have those 6 Turkiye Corvettes by 2030.
… – “A capability that we will need more of when we have those 6 Turkiye Corvettes by 2030”
The intent is to devote resources and focus towards a Lynx replacement and more AWs. Fennecs are superfluous to actual needs and would soak up existing resources and we are certsinky not going to get anymore just to operate from the LMSs.
Zaft – “Again as explained earlier loan and lease are two different things in the balance sheet and investors expectations”
Thanks for the insightful analysis but I never said they were similar and thtr is zero to indicate that either Thailand or the Philippines are unable to secure a leasing arrangement should they choose to do so.
” Fennecs are superfluous to actual needs ”
There are no plans to decommission the 502 squadron anytime soon, as seen with this new RFB, so your claim of the fennecs are superfluous to actual needs is totally false.
The fennecs also have an important role in OTHT, that will be needed for all the many new ships to be commissioned before 2030.
… – “so your claim of the fennecs are superfluous to actual needs is totally false”
I won’t be crass as to say “which part don’t you understand” but nobody said the squadron was standing down. What I did say in easy to fathom language is that the RMN has no plans to get anymore. The remaining 4 are sufficient to meet training and other needs, the AWs are performing roles the Fennecs previously did, focus is on a Lynx replacement and a ASW configured platform and that getting more Fennecs will absorb scarce resources [unless they run on water and are flown and maintained by golliwogs who don’t require training and salaries].
Perhaps ponder on these factors before claiming something is “false”. If anything the tune you’re singing is “false” because the end user has no need for it. One gets something because there is a requirement; not for the sake of it merely because it’s there.
.
… – “The fennecs also have an important role in OTHT, that will be needed for all the many new ships to be commissioned before 2030”
FYI OTHT is a role rarely performed by the type and instead of perienilly coming up with reasons as to why they would be needed; perhaps consider why the RMN has zero need… Oh and on top of that the police are retiring the type largerly due to age issues…
BTW one can still operate something whilst having no need for extra examples because it’s “superfluous” or is not part of CONOPs anymore. Just because something is “superfluous” doesn’t mean it has to be retired immediately…
“how do we get AMRAAM?”
For peacetime air patrol missions and even QRA, we dont need to arm all of them, just the planes that are going up. The missiles can go on rotation sharing between planes on missions. The missiles are not the priority. Get the Kuwaiti Hornets first, then figure out how to make use the expanded fleet.
“arm all of them, just the planes that are going up. The missiles can go on rotation sharing between planes on missions”
The few we have to be shared amongst the existing 8 and the ex Kuwaiti Hornets? It’s not as if we even
even have 30-40 AMRAAMs.
“Get the Kuwaiti Hornets first, then figure out how to make use the expanded fleet”
Getting the Hornets and not sorting out the other needed components will mean we have the Hornets but aren’t able to effectively use them. Beats the whole purpose of getting them. The “get them first but worry about other things later” is precisely how we go about doing things. The result : decades after operating the 8 Hornet [never mind another 12 or so] we still only have a bare handful of missiles for them, spares were ordered belatedly and often in small numbers leading to servicecability issues, etc.
“The missiles are not the priority”
Missiles are an important component of the eco system needed to effectively operate the planes. The others being a training/support infrastructure, a pool of air crews and support personnel, adequate funding to fly them X hours per annum, etc – all are a “priority” as all determine the outcome What’s the point of getting the planes and having them if we face various issues which prevent us from doing what we’d like to do with them. We have a long history of doing things on the cheap.
I believed the Amraams we bought back in 2005 are already time-expired as with 9X sidewinders. I believed we want more Amraams so that was the reasoning to get the NASAMs.
AMRAAM designed shelf life is 10 years, but can be relifed by changing the seeker batteries etc.
TUDM has previously relifed its AIM-9M, the whole lot of 57 units completed in 2009
If the AMRAAMs have time expired and we did not send them back to be reworked on then we only have Sidewinders.
… – “AMRAAM designed shelf life is 10 years”
How it’s stored and how often it’s flown also plays a part.
AMRAAM designed life :
10 years on the shelf + 1500 hours on wing life within the 10 years.
Russian AAM missiles usually have only 200-300 hours on wing life, which is why they are rarely hung on the aircrafts.
Its been some 20 years when we bought and got delivery of the Amraams. Even if we had relifed them nine or ten years ago, they will be expiring or already time expired already.
… – “which is why they are rarely hung on the aircrafts”
When flown they are subjected to vibration and when connected to the plane’s FCS it eats up the hours. That’s why the Hawks have their dummy missiles which are painted blue and the Flankers their dummy ones with a pair of black rings. How the missile is stored also plays a part.
When we bought the Flankers we did not get any AAMs. There was a statement made to the press [by whom I’ve forgotten] that the Flankers would use the AAMs already bought for the Fulcrums. Wish I’d kept the cutting but another example of is doing things on the cheap.
We later bought Adders but I have no idea if we bought more Archers and Alamos or if the only ones we have are those bought along with the Fulcrums and later re-lifed a few times. The figures given by SIPRI are way off.
I believe AMRAAMs can be relifed many times, as long as it has little on-wing hours.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gn61wk5asAEL_Hw.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gn6yCg4bYAAF5jD.jpg
We have ordered russian missiles/bombs in quite a few batches,
some before 2010
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/russian-missile-exports-to-malaysia/
another around 2017
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/new-bombs-and-capabilities-on-flankers/
“amongst the existing 8 and the ex Kuwaiti Hornets?”
Not all will be flying at the same time, right? We just only need to arm those that are any particular time period.
“will mean we have the Hornets but aren’t able to effectively use them”
TUDM bosses will have largely figured out how to use them since they are pushing for them, just the fine details prolly will need fine tuning. It also helps that having more jets would give them more traction in pushing the Govt for more missiles. Its a chicken & egg, without the chicken(more jets) you have no eggs(more missiles).
“we still only have a bare handful of missiles for them”
It didnt affected the jets operation anyways as we havent used them in anger so far. Their numbers havent diminished unless expended in exercises/training. The planes can still fly whether with or without them so whats the issue here. Also while not ideal, we can still fly them up with Sidewinders which we have more in stock. Neither is an issue if they arent looking for a fight.
“all are a “priority” as all determine the outcome What’s the point of getting the planes”
Planes can fly & carry out peacetime patrols without the missiles. The missiles cannot fly without the plane. See wheres the priority here? Get the Kuwaiti jets first then everything else can come later. Even if we have to store them in sheds wanting for support equipment, at least we have them in reserves and even if we unable to fly them, theres at least a ready stock of spareparts. Theres no loss in getting them.
However if we drag our feet with MRCA buy (which we tend to do), and deprecating MKM towards retirement in 2035, we only have our remaining Hornets to carry the load. Such heavy task on ageing planes will lead to higher risk of fatigue & mech failures which will then be a loss to us if we dont go in for the Kuwaitis. See the contrast?
Day to day peacetime tasks such as air patrol and QRA would be shouldered by the FA-50, as they are more economical to operate.
The hornets will be our backstop if we do need to go to war, as is our MKM. They will still do flying tasks, but not as much or frequently as the FA-50s.
The MKM can be used past 2035, if we put them through the 2nd overhaul phase + getting new engines, either from India or direct from Russia. India is in the process of manufacturing lots of new engines as a replacement for their current MKI engines.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/government-inks-rs-26k-cr-contract-with-hal-for-procuring-240-sukhoi-jets-engines/articleshow/113204727.cms
RSAF for example is planning to fly their F-15SG together with F-35s past 2040. The MKM could be useful as a long range heavy missile truck past 2035.
The Hornets as is, with extra spares and airframes could probably last up till 2040, but we need to sign up for their replacement latest by 2035.
“Not all will be flying at the same time, right”
Of course it can be done butvwe don’t have a large stock to begin with.
“TUDM bosses will have largely figured out how to use them since they are pushing for them”
Off course the they have and they will have made it clear, as they did with the Flankers, Fulcrums and Hawks. The problem is late funding. The result: delayed overhauls, delayed orders for sores, etc. Time and again the services are placed in this predicament.
“Theres no loss in getting them”
That’s your view. Mine is there’s no point in getting them and blowing our pen trumpets of the reality is that we can’t fly them as much as we’dblije due to limited funds, we can’t arm them due to lack of missiles, etc, etc. We have a long and clear history of this.
“See the contrast”
Thanks but yes. I also “see” other factors and I’d like I’d to have a certain level of capability rather than just a paper one.
“The planes can still fly whether with or without them so whats the issue here.*+”
“Neither is an issue if they arent looking for a fight”
These are exactly the same points used by the bureaucrats at the MOF and PM Office’s EPU to justify not allocating the needed funds which in turn leads to lower readiness levels and atrophied skill sets.
… – “I believe AMRAAMs can be relifed many times”
Most or all missiles can be re-worked on a few times. Our MM-38s were worked on at the Naval Dockyard and Pakistan.
” It also helps that having more jets would give them more traction in pushing the Govt for more missiles”
We plan to operate them for a decade. There is a long lead time for AMRAAM and the government is unlikely [I’ll be happy if I’m wrong] and the government is unlikely to rush with any orders for missiles”; whether AMRAAM, Sidewinder or air to ground ones.