SHAH ALAM: See my way. In an earlier article, I wrote that it is likely that we will not see any American equipment offered for both the MPA and UAS tenders. The UAS tender, closed seven days ago on Nov. 26 while the MPA ones closes today.
Unless the ministry decided to extend the deadlines of both tenders, it now has to work out which products will be the most suitable to meet the requirements. What ever happened in the background, it is likely we shall see the Turkish manufacturers battling it out with the rest of the world for the UAS tender. As for the MPA tender, I am going to say that it will be a three way battle pitting Leonardo (ATR 72 MPA); Airbus (C295 MPA) and PTDI (CN235-MPA).
CN235 MPA of TNI-AL displayed at LIMA 2015.
Again I am saying that no major American equipment (main contractor) will be involved in both tenders as no DSCA announcement have been made. And before you go all keyboard warrior on me – typing in the comments section that it could be done through the commercial way – I would like to inform everyone I am not making a guess here. I did not do so when I wrote about it the last time round either.
Leonardo ATR 72 MPA. Leonardo
As for when we will get an official list of the contenders for both tenders, I am guessing it will take awhile as the tender committee will have to see the tender documents first. They will have to sort out which tenders that meet the requirements first to find out the rightful contenders.
Chilean Navy C295 MPA. Airbus
I agree that the best way to evaluate the products offered – especially for the UAS – would be to do it locally but we are buying too small numbers to make it cost effective.
Bayraktar TB-2
So I guess for the UAS at least, we have to rely on glossy brochures and the word of their salesmen.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (31)
You can go to turkey or azerbaijan to evaluate the TB2 😁
But you cannot see the effects of our high humidity on the UAV. In any case, we should take into account attrition losses when we buy the UAV.
I would prefer the CN-235MPA, as a common operating platform with the 3 now in conversion to MSA. Systems wise, i would prefer the CMS to be common with the CN-235 MSA, radars, esm and sonobuoy processors from leonardo, MAD from CAE, sonobuoys from Ultra Electronics and optical radar from VIDAR.
But IMO spending much on new MPA instead of just converting all our existing CN-235 will mean less budget of other things that we do really need to get brand new, like LCA/LIFT.
...
Plus there will be various other things we’ll only find out when we do a proper field evaluations.
The advantage of getting TB2 isnt just because of the superiority and battle proven attributes of the UAV itself.
Another advantage to us, which is a novice user of UAV capability, is the vast experience of turkish advisors they had accumulated by using the TB2 over syria, libya and azerbaijan. Learning from those experiences will greatly shape and will affect how effectively we will integrate the UAV capability within our overall force structure.
Seems like our future UAV/UCAV will source from Turkey :D
BTW, recently I heard about the sanctions of the western countries on the Turkey. How this will affect the western made component in ANKA and Bayraktar?
Rep
AFAIK Turkey is making do with its locally made components. Whether or not they are on par with imported ones is beyond me
Let me guess,
No american Weapons right ?.
Never mind about that let's straight foward to buy TB2 and C-295. Done !
... - “TB2 isnt just because of the superiority and battle proven attributes of the UAV itself”
Well I don’t know about the “superiority” and “battle proven” “attributes” you’re on about.
To me (we’ve discussed this before) “battle proven” relative. A lot of things are “battle proven” the trick is under what operational conditions and circumstances; which go beyond saying it performed well in “x” and was “cost effective” or destroyed “Y” number of things.
In order to find out if indeed something suits our requirements; we have to conduct thorough trials in local conditions; without the OEM or agent influencing anything. In the past we have evaluated certain things which came with the “battle proven” label (so loved by OEMs) which due to various factors we didn’t find suitable for our requirements.
... - “will greatly shape and will affect how effectively we will integrate the UAV capability within our overall force structure.”
As pointed out before; the Turks have come a long way in maturing as a UAS operator. From not being able to act in a timely manner on intel obtained; to being able to lay ordnance within minutes of a UAS detecting something; they’ve made remarkable progress.
Closer to home; Singapore has also made great progress (albeit minus the combat experience). It started off with RSAF operated short range systems and transitioned to much better ones fully integrated to all levels of operations; managed by a tri service Command; in the best tradition of “jointness” and fully utilising one’s resources.
@ azlan
All is relative of course. So from the shortlisted contenders, which one has the most operational time and gives quantifiable operational outcome by multiple sources (not just the numners from the user) at various locations all over the world? So my statement still stands.
@ A
Most of the foreign components are civilian grade parts. The Rotax 912 engine is used and sold for microlights. We can easily buy all the components (so that the end user is malaysia, not turkey), and assemble them here in malaysia to the Turkish TB2 airframe.
http://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/rotax-engines-parts/new-rotax-engines/rotax-912uls-engine.html
@ marhalim
Still no official word on the AW-139 for TLDM MUH? So it is going to be bought outright or leased? There was 2 tenders right, for MUH and Ops Benteng requirements?
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJohFCgV4AALqrG.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnokpIPUUAE_-38.jpg
For 3 MALE UAVs right? Yup nobody is going to give a flying hoot if we ask to do local trials. With such low asking numbers, going for proven systems are the only assurance we got. Are the Chinese part of bidders too?
A - “Seems like our future UAV/UCAV will source from Turkey”
If they can deliver what we want at the right price and right specs; why not? The Turks are eager for sales and it’s in line with our foreign policy.
The thing is; our policy being what it is; things might change in a few years; politics might dictate we go for something else then. At one point we set our sights on deep collaboration with Korea and the Koreans approached us before they did other regional countries.
One thing’s for sure; irrespective of whether we buy 3 or a dozen; trials in local conditions have to be performed in other for us to gain a true picture of whether something actually suits our requirements.
It’s not enough relying on “proven” labels which can mean nothing in our context and there’s the fact that other systems which don’t have the “proven” label and haven’t been deployed in a war zone might be more suitable for our needs. The market is very competitive; OEMs understand that local trials will be expected by customers and plan accordingly. Unfortunately; on a few occasions we didn’t do any trials; the political decision came to buy something and we relied merely on paper specs provided by the OEM and agent.
will army buy more tank or upgrade it pt 91m pendekar and will air force buy new aircaft or upgrade