PASIR PUTEH: The Sukhoi technical center at the Gong Kedak air base here was officially inaugurated by
RMAF Chief Jen. Roslan Saad today.
The ceremony was held barely three weeks after an audit report on the project stated that it was delayed as an inexperienced and financially unsound contractor was awarded the contract to build the facility. Read it Here
Work on the RM72 million facility started on March 24, 2014 and was certified completed yesterday (Dec 6, 2016) by the Public Works Department. According to the audit report, the original contractor, Syarikat Pembinaan Setia Jaya was replaced 10 months into the project and the work was taken over by a subcontractor, Solar Alert Sdn Bhd.
According to Roslan, the new facility – located very close to the aircraft shelters – would provide second line servicing for the Sukhoi fleet of the 11 Skuadron. The work was previously conducted at a hangar next to the flight line which were shared by the squadron and ATSC Sdn Bhd.
ATSC is a joint venture among National Aerospace & Defence Industries Sdn Bhd (the holding company for Airod Sdn Bhd), Russian Aircraft Corporation, Rosboronexport (Russia state owned arms export company) and the Malaysian Finance Ministry.
Asked to describe the size of the hangar, Roslan said it was much bigger than the old facility, “we can place up to 10 Sukhois at one time though in practice the number of aircraft requiring maintenance will be much lower than that”.
During the ceremony two Flankers were parked inside the carvernous hangar, easily the size of a regular football pitch.
Roslan also said the facility would be used to upgrade the Flankers with new capabilities though he did not mentioned any of it. This was probably the reason the facility is called the Sukhoi technical center. It is not only an MRO shop but also the hub for upgrading the Flankers.
Roslan also announced the upgrading of the Butterworth airbase air traffic control (ATC) radar to overcome obsolescence issues. The one year project will start next month. The project was conducted following the successful upgrade of the Gong Kedak ATC radar by Zetro Aerospace Corporation Sdn Bhd.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (38)
So we're upgrading our Sukhois?
Reply
Yes, no details yet...
Interesting, I didn't know that the Russians still have a stake in ATSC. I was under the impression that the Russians [before Rosvooruzhenie became Rosoboronexport] sold their stake.
Reply
I checked with NADI people, they said yes.
Not that I'm complaining but spending 72 million dollars for a glorified workshop that can only cater 1 type of aircraft is pretty senseless imo. We only have 18 aircraft and no follow up order is made
Choon,
Then what about the Scorpenes? We spent millions and millions creating the shore support infrastructure to maintain them and to perform refits. Expensive to do but the right way to go about things.
If we want to ensure the MKMs have a decent operational rate then there's no way around it : creating a decent depot level maintenance facility.
SU engines, will STC able to repair it or have to send back to Russia?
In the future, another TC will be built, either ETC or DTC. (E-eurofighter, D-dassault)
Reply
Deep maintenance for the engines is only done by the OEM. Even India I believed have to sent them to Russia for such work.
We have to upgrade the MKMs ourselves and build up the infrastructure as it is peculiar to RMAF. If we go to Typhoon or Rafale it will be done by the manufacturer and paid for the original countries, we only need to pay them. It's like the Hornets, and the Hawks upgrades when we decided to do it.
will the MRCA decided at LIMA next year?
Reply
Unlikely
Get additional MKM if we already have the technical center. for the same amount we yet to spend on 18 thphoon/rafale, we can get 60-70 MKM. with this technical center we can get high operational combat rate. with quite number of MKM we can assign custom role to certain aircraft (eg interceptor) customise probably with more powerful engine
Azrul,
Even assuming we have the cash; the crews and ground support personnel to operate and maintain 60-70MKMs, as well as the personnel to run the squadrons, will not fall from the skies or be gifted from Santa Claus. In short we don't have the manpower. Other points to consider is we don't need 60-70 heavyweight twin seaters [a massive overkill] and until the issues regarding the downed MAS plane are settled, we won't be buying any big ticket Russian gear.
Nimitz,
In the past the IAF had to fly it's Mil-26s all the way from India to Odessa [where the original OEM was] for engine overhauls. Given the limited number of airframes we have, there is no point in establishing an engine overhaul facility. AIROD and ATSC perform depot level work, e.g. replacing any defective or time expired parts; preventive or routine maintenance on the engine and other vital systems; inspecting the airframe after 'x' hours flown, upgrades [if any], etc.
Abit of a side track from the service center. Azlan, how come its a bit over kill to have 50 to 60+ heavy weight (yes , our wet dream ) i know a country, that have 40 and still aquirring Strike Eagle, as i read in airforce monthly, spoke person from the airforce,said prior the initial purchase, a figure of 40 to 50 to be the target.
Im just a common man who is interested in military aviation. Just wanting to know. Sorry for the side track again
zulu,
1. Do we have the cash to buy and operate 60-70 new fighters?
2. Do we need 60-70 fighters given our threat environment? We are not in a state of war or tensions with any of our neighbours.
3. Do we have the needed manpower to operate and maintain 60-70 fighters, plus the hundreds needed to keep squadrons running?
4. Can enough trainee fighter pilots be graduated from FTC 3 every year to ensure we have a steady pool of pilots to replace those who have left the service, been reassigned to other duties or who for whatever reason can't fly anymore? For that matter, how many LIFTs do we have?
5. Could the cash intended for 60-70 fighters be used instead for other areas that also require funding?
6. Different countries have different threat perceptions, different levels of urgency and different levels of insecurity. One can't make a direct comparison with what other countries do as the circumstances are different. A particular country - in the 1990's - looked at banning officers from using handphones because a potential opponent could track people using the handphones and also listen in on the conversations. Surely nobody would suggest that we also do the same?