SHAH ALAM: Malacca chief minister DS Rauf Yusof announced today – April 15 – that the Federal government has approved an allocation of RM16.45bil for the setting up of a helicopter assembly factory at the Melaka International Airport in Batu Berendam here.
He made the announcement following the visit to the site by the Weststar group today. He was quoted by several newspapers that the Federal government was putting up the allocation. However, in the release published on his Facebook page, there was no mention from where the allocation came from. The pertinent part of the release:
During a briefing and visit session that lasted over an hour at LTAM, the Melaka State Government pledged full support to help The Weststar Group establish a helicopter assembly area and pilot training center on a 17.1-acre site identified within LTAM. The helicopter assembly facility, involving an investment of RM16.45 billion, is a collaboration with Leonardo, a leading global helicopter manufacturer based in Rome, Italy.
The state government assured complete backing to ensure the project’s realization within three years from now. This high-impact investment brings fresh prospects to the aerospace sector in Melaka. The ecosystem formed through this contract promises significant returns to Melaka, as not only is this a substantial national project, but it also positions Melaka as a hub for helicopter Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) in the Southeast Asian region.
The release from the CM Facebook page:
15 April 2025 – Mewakili Kerajaan Negeri Melaka, saya berbesar hati menyambut kehadiran Tan Sri Syed Azman Syed Ibrahim, Pengarah Urusan Kumpulan The Weststar Group bersama delegasi beliau ke negeri Melaka bagi lawatan tapak cadangan pembinaan kilang pemasangan helikopter di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Melaka (LTAM) oleh syarikat The Weststar Group.
Terdahulu, saya bersama kepimpinan Kerajaan Negeri Melaka turut mengadakan Jamuan Makan Tengah Hari bersama Tan Sri Syed Azman di Seri Bendahara, kediaman rasmi Ketua Menteri Melaka.
Yang hadir sama, YB Dato’ Azhar Haji Arshad, Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Melaka; YB Datuk Haji Hameed Basheer, EXCO Kerja Raya, Infrastruktur, Kemudahan Awam dan Pengangkutan Negeri Melaka; YB Datuk Dira Abu Zahar, Timbalan EXCO Pelaburan, Perindustrian, dan Pembangunan TVET; YDH DCP Dato’ Dzulkhairi Mukhtar, Ketua Polis Melaka; Ketua-Ketua Jabatan dan Pegawai Kanan Kerajaan Negeri Melaka.
Dalam sesi taklimat dan lawatan yang berlangsung lebih 1 jam di LTAM, Kerajaan Negeri Melaka akan memberikan segala sokongan untuk membantu syarikat The Weststar Group bagi membangunkan kawasan pemasangan helikopter dan pusat latihan juruterbang helikopter di kawasan seluas 17.1 ekar yang telah dikenal pasti di LTAM. Kilang pemasangan helikopter dengan pelaburan sebanyak RM16.45 bilion ini adalah hasil kerjasama dengan syarikat pengeluar utama helikopter dunia, Leonardo yang berpengkalan di Rome, Itali.
Kerajaan negeri akan memberikan semua sokongan bagi memasrtikan bahawa perlaksanaan projek ini dapat direalisasikan dalam tempoh tiga tahun mulai sekarang. Dengan pelaburan berimpak tinggi, ia memberi sinar baharu dalam sektor aeroangkasa di negeri Melaka. Kita melihat ekosistem yang dimeterai melalui kontrak ini akan memberikan pulangan yang baik kepada negeri Melaka bukan sahaja ia merupakan projek nasional yang agak besar, pada masa yang sama menjadikan Melaka sebagai hab pusat Penyelenggaraan, Pembaikan dan Baik Pulih (MRO) helikopter di rantau Asia Tenggara.
I hoped the CM is confused here – by equating the RM16 billion cost of the helicopter leasing project – and the development of the helicopter factory as two separate entities. Perhaps going forward, the helicopter leasing project will be called the helicopter assembly project which sounds politically correct.
Otherwise, the leasing and development of costs of the factory will be some RM32 billion. Which is RM10 billion more than the amount than the government spent on the defence sub-sector in RMK12 – around RM22 billion.
Malaysian Defence has already posited that the cost of the leasing project was too high and and now this.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
When the time does come when we order another sub; let’s hope no politician gets the idea to construct or manufacture it here and claim that it will make Malaysia the regional hub for sub R&D and other nonsense. Irrespective of whether it can be done or because the facilities we have in place for refits can be used.
On this heli hub; as, as a long time observer who has become more cynical as time passes; I’m going to adopt the view that it’s yet another exercise which will be paid by the taxpayer and will give politicians bragging rights but ultimately will be yet another colossal waste. Then again since when was substance and ensuing the end user and taxpayer got their money’s worth a priority?
No to leasing. No to token assembly processes that are just zero value adding.
There is no reason to lease helicopters.
Budget to buy helicopters for TUDM, PDRM, APMM, BOMBA etc are all already approved and allocated before this stupid idea surfaced.
TUDM
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/how-much-is-that-helicopter-in-the-window-part-5/
PDRM
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/new-aircraft-and-helos-for-police-air-wing/
APMM
https://www.bernama.com/bm/news.php?id=2292607
BOMBA
https://www.astroawani.com/berita-bisnes/pembelian-empat-helikopter-aw189-apmm-lancar-kelengkapan-pesawat-dimuktamad-461220
There is virtually no reason to lease.
Final assembly aka CKD factory are not exactly the reason for the Aussie hunter being 300% more expensive then the base city class or the gempita being the price of a abrams. At worst a CKD exercise would make it 10-30% more expensive, sometimes due to difference in labor cost it’s actually cheaper or cost the same as seen with our hornet MRO or you know design in California, made in china iphone.
Though that 10-30% is something one has to pay regardless if one wants a sovereign MRO capabilities. Because as Hulu like to say final assembly and MRO facilities ain’t that much difference. Wherever one want a MRO facilities or not is up in the air, Afterall we all know that the enemies would stop attacking and take a break when we need to send our equipment overseas for maintainence. And if you have a MRO facilities nothing really stopping other sending their vehicle here.
The most reason for high price is nothing more then the military obsession over gold plating. It’s the R&D of building one of a kind platform in the name of *requirements is the reasons why the hunter and river class are 300% more expensive then the city class. Something we have experience before as if using mica, Exocet and setis instead of ESSm,NSm and tacticos gonna be the end of the world.
Building a off the shelf F16 at home for example like what the SK & Turks did is different than building a variant of F16 called the F2 that the Japanese did
If we want the taxpayer got their money’s worth. Then the military could simply just stop gold plating.
” stop gold plating.”
Gold plated US408 million MRSS tak apa pulak
LOA untuk MRSS pun tak keluar lagi…macam mana tahu harga 408 juta USD?
“When the time does come when we order another sub;”
Dont worry, if were gonna spend RM 32 Bil on just this chopper crony project alone, there wont be much left to even dream of more subs.
What a joke this is. A joke.
The realm of defense industries and Procurement processes by the nature of it is just messy and it’s not only limited to us… the bigger the defense budget of one country is the higher the markups and spendings will be just look at the loads of cases of budget mishandling especially in the countries that have a huge defense budget. But on the bright side, if the 16 billion budget is for both construction of the final assembly factory and the helicopters (since i don’t think they would allocate nearly 8 bln dollars for such a project when we have a long list of other things that requires significant budget)then it means that the potential future purchases will be cheaper and it’s a chance for our local aerospace industries players to enter the aircraft assembly phase since up untill now we do produce parts for airbus and Boeing but we don’t do full assembly yet so it’s a good chance.
Macam mana tahu?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gm0GDK4aMAAXTQw.jpg
Design khas utk TLDM, utk muat PT-91M dan AV-8 Gempita
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNg2N1oacAMXNFD.jpg
Harga
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/navdex-2023/2023/03/uae-procures-lpd-from-indonesian-shipbuilder-pt-pal/
… – “Gold plated US408 million MRSS tak apa pulak”
The MPSS meets requirements; RoRos don’t. You think they do but not for the RMN the service who will operate it. The RMN has had a longstanding requirement and it’s certainly not to piss on your parade. Also, as of April 2025 there is nothing to suggest the MPSS will be “gold plated”.
Zaft – ” the military could simply just stop gold plating”
Have no idea if you even know what it means in this regard but in the past of the end user didn’t modify or tweaked certain things they would not have met requirements. You do realise that requirements determine if something enables the required capability?
“nothing to suggest the MPSS will be “gold plated”
Some thinks that TLDM having amphib operations requirement for MRSS is ‘gold plating’.
MRSS 163m – USD408 million
GOWIND Frigate – USD400 million
Scorpene – USD600 million
STM Corvette LMS B2 – USD215 million
ARROWHEAD140 aka TYPE 31 Frigate – USD420 million as per Royal Navy version
RORO SPS Ysabel Spanish Navy – EUR7.5 million used
Spearhead-class JHSV/EPF 103m – brand new USD180 million each, retired US EDA ???
Is the ablity to land vehicles on the beach (which needs the said vehicles to be able to swim to the beach as MRSS cannot go to the beach) is a higher priority than to defend against adversary ships and submarines?
2x used RORO + 2x used JHSV/EPF will cost less than 1/4th the cost of a single MRSS.
… – “a higher priority than to defend against adversary ships and submarines?”
Master Yoda, assuming a war we face does call for subs [as you dogmatically insist] what happens if we cant delpoy subs because the enemy has deployed mines, air and surface ASW units and his own subs?
Our sub crews sing patriotic songs to pysche themselves up? You need a reminder that one does not have to destroy a sub but prevent it from doing its job? Need a reminder that the enemy has a vote and that measure of success can differ with measure of efficiency? Are you only able to think in absolutes?
… – “Is the ablity to land vehicles on the beach (which needs the said vehicles to be able to swim to the beach as MRSS cannot go to the beach) is a higher priority than to defend against adversary ships and submarines?”
Thinking in absolutes and in line with your narrow line of reasoning. What happens if we have to land stuff on a beach? You assume we will face a situation where we need subs and not MPSSs? Who are you to declare with certainty as to which will be more important? Is the inxbllty to factor in anything apart from your subjective view self inflicted or congenital?
Yes you’ve given your list for the 101th time. My question is who are you selling to and are you subconsciously seeking approval, acknowledgement or applause? You can post your lists and prices till the MPSSs undergo their 5th refit but the plain is that it does not meet RMN requirements. Just like how years ago there was no requirement for a LCA or ore owned Hornets. No doubt you’ll bring it up again but with a skewered slant.
So the current administration is continuing the previous regime’s practices. Offsets & cashback. A classic example of penny wise pound foolish
Our politicians will mostly followed what our civil servants say.
” Just like how years ago there was no requirement for a LCA or ore owned Hornets. No doubt you’ll bring it up again but with a skewered slant ”
Now the requirement is there right? It can be the same story with TLDM. I am proposing a better alternative to TLDM original plans, making do with the same budget level of the original plans.
RMK16 is just in the corner, TLDM requirements can still be tweaked.
I am selling it to TLDM themselves, not to you.
For example why multi-role 90-95m OSV is IMO better choice than dedicated MCMVs?
1) design, build of OSVs can be done 100% locally by approved PETRONAS shipyards, that has build hundreds of OSVs before for local and export. Project management could be passed to PETRONAS by slotting it under PETRONAS own Project SAFINA.
2) Modular unmanned MCM systems are totally self contained. No need for expensive integration with any ships. Can be deployed quickly by ship, from shore or even transported by air. No problems with obsolescence, as it is not connected to any ship, and can be replaced with totally different systems while still keeping the same OSV in service.
3) MCM operators are attached solely to the MCM system itself, not to the ship. It is operated similar to a helicopter detachment on board ships. So the OSV ship itself can be tasked for many different missions, from MCM, to submarine tender (large spaces for battery packs, torpedo reloads, internal tanks for refuelling), underwater infrastructure surveillance, diving support, hydrographic support, minelaying, HADR and many more. Something a dedicated MCMV vessel would struggle to do.
” Just like how years ago there was no requirement for a LCA or ore owned Hornets. No doubt you’ll bring it up again but with a skewered slant ”
Now the requirement is there right? It can be the same story with TLDM. I am proposing a better alternative to TLDM original plans, making do with the same budget level of the original plans.
RMK13 2026-2030 is just in the corner, TLDM requirements can still be tweaked.
I am selling it to TLDM themselves, not to you.
For example why multi-role 90-95m OSV is IMO better choice than dedicated MCMVs?
1) design, build of OSVs can be done 100% locally by approved PETRONAS shipyards, that has build hundreds of OSVs before for local and export. Project management could be passed to PETRONAS by slotting it under PETRONAS own Project SAFINA.
2) Modular unmanned MCM systems are totally self contained. No need for expensive integration with any ships. Can be deployed quickly by ship, from shore or even transported by air. No problems with obsolescence, as it is not connected to any ship, and can be replaced with totally different systems while still keeping the same OSV in service.
3) MCM operators are attached solely to the MCM system itself, not to the ship. It is operated similar to a helicopter detachment on board ships. So the OSV ship itself can be tasked for many different missions, from MCM, to submarine tender (large spaces for battery packs, torpedo reloads, internal tanks for refuelling), underwater infrastructure surveillance, diving support, hydrographic support, minelaying, HADR and many more. Something a dedicated MCMV vessel would struggle to do.
… – “Now the requirement is there right”
Who said it wasn’t? I was clearly referring to you bringing up things in a false manner. Years ago there was no requirement. None. That came later yet you’d self servingly claim I was mistaken and from years ago you’ve jumped to the present.
… – “I am selling it to TLDM themselves, not to you”
Then write to the RMN or your MP or do an online pertition. You really still under the illusion that the decision makers make decisions based on what they read here? Then again you’re concinved you have it figured out.
The way you posts your lists like they’re going out of fashion or to remind others; gives the impression you’re subconsciously selling approval, applause it acknowledgement.
… – ” I am proposing a better alternative to TLDM original plans”
You’re already made it clear multiple times and every mother’s son and his dog know that.
… – “Modular unmanned MCM systems are totally self contained”
Thanks for the update yet again. Anything modular has its payoffs and also its penalties. I was not and never saying there aren’t payoffs.
… – “IMO better choice than dedicated MCMVs”
Your “opinion”. The issue is that the MCM people who actually do for a living what we discuss in the cyber world have long determined that a purpose built MCMV with USCs, UUVs and other things is what they need.
No right or wrong just what particular navies see as meeting or serving their requirements. 5his discussion has been done to death over the years but if you want to go on I’ll humour you.
*** RMK13 2026-2030 is just sround the corner ***
We all no doubt await it with anticipation.
Hulu “MCM operators are attached solely to the MCM system itself, not to the ship. It is operated similar to a helicopter detachment on board ships”
For a helo to be able to land on board a ship the ship too need have the flight control hardware and software required to make it possible and safe for the helo to land.
What make you think that MCM module doesn’t need to be link to the ship CMS?
Also what happened if the enemy is competent and try to deny the MCM operations. After all you trying to dispose mines they themselves laid. At that point your OSV still need a surface combatants escort.
Hulu “design, build of OSVs can be done 100% locally by approved PETRONAS shipyards,”
What the purpose of wasting money gold plating and design a one off limited number expensive to modernize in a decade OSV when the Turks,Italian and french already have an off the shelf solutions with economic of scale?
What’s more the Turks and french mothership solutions seem to be derived from the Ada and gowind, something we would operate and built locally.
“Our politicians will mostly followed what our civil servants say.”
Oddly that was the premise of ‘Yes Minister’ but thats satire on TV…. or was it?
I thought it was the other way around tho..
Our politicians this and that.
Instead of barking in the socmed, why not u guys lodge a report to the SPRM? or is it just a mere assumptions?
Zaft – “For a helo to be able to land on board a ship the ship too need have the flight control hardware and software required to make it possible and safe for the helo to land”
No. Ideally a ship would have a heli landing system like the one on the Kedahs but a ship can not have one and it will still be “safe for the helo to land”. The Marikhs, Kasturis, Saktis, Inderapura, ex USN LSTs did/do not have them. Same with navy other naval ships operated worldwide as well as non naval ships which have a heli deck.
“helo to be able to land on board a ship the ship too need have the flight control”
Ship borne sensors & indicators are to ensure safer landings during night or turbulent seas. Otherwise, landing onboard is no different than on land. A landing director is still needed.
“MCM module doesn’t need to be link to the ship CMS?”
Some MCM modules can be contained within its system ie land based, containerised CIWS Phalanx doesnt need other support to engage targets. But by and large, any launch capable MCM would be dependent on ship radar to target.
Do you guys even understand what MCM means?
MCM = mine counter-measure = process of finding and neutralising naval mines.
Enemies: drop mines to deny a SLOC
RMN: tried to remove mines
RSN & JMSDF : enemies would tried to deny the operation and thus why the LMV & mogami are arms.
Meanwhile
Hulu expect enemies NOT to do anything to deny RMN operation and proposed RMN buy the cheapest bottom barrels things possible to afford gold plating a civilian spec patrol boat and civilian spec OSV rather then just buying an off the shelf existing platforms.