SHAH ALAM: A few months back I wrote about the industry preparing for a tender for the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) for the Army’s six MD530G light scout attack helicopters. Today, the Procurement Division of the Defence Ministry issued a 22-day long tender process to find the bidder to maintain the MD530G armament system.
The winning bidder will also supply the spare parts and provide the technical support for the armament system. I believed the PUTD MD530G is fitted with Moog Weapon Stores Management System (SMS).
The SMS is installed to manage and control the helicopter’s weapon systems. It consists of a Stores Management Computer (SMC), two Stores Interface Units (SIUs), two Lightweight Rocket Interface Units (RIUs), a Multi-Function Display (MFD), and a Stores Control Panel (SCP). The MFD and SCPs are installed on the cockpit panel, while the other systems are incorporated in the cargo compartment.
The helicopter is also configured with a lightweight Mace Extended Range Weapons Wing (ER2W) with four-station weapons mounting structure. It can carry more than 1,300lb of weapons and ammunition. The helicopter is also equipped with combat-proven L-3 Wescam MX-10 and MX-10D EO / IR tactical surveillance systems in a single line replaceable unit (LRU) configuration. A Scorpion Helmet-mounted cueing system, developed by Thales, is also fitted to the helicopter.
As for the weapons, the LSAH is fitted with the FN Heavy Machine Gun Pod HMP-400 which features a 12.7mm FN M3P machine gun with a rate of fire of around 1,100 rounds per minute. The helicopter is also equipped with a Rocket Machine Gun Pod (RMP), also from FN Herstal, effective against both guided and unguided rockets. The RMP combines a 12.7mm FN M3P machine gun and Nato Standard 70mm three-tube rocket launcher into a single weapon mount.
It is also fitted with the Thales 70mm seven shot rocket launcher and Dillon Aero’s 7.62mm M134D-H (Hybrid) mini-Gatling gun, with a 3,000 rounds of ammo magazine.
It must be noted that PUTD has been issuing ad-hoc tenders and quotation notices to repair and maintain the armament system and weapons on the LSAH since its introduction in 2022.
I am guessing here but it is likely that the company which wins this tender will be in the front seat for the MRO contract for the six helicopters. It may not be this year but soon.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
The WMS is a TekFusion ARES, which is a primary differentiator between the MD530G and the MD530F
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWIzC6BbAAAC__y.jpg
For commonality, this WMS could also be installed on PUTD future Blackhawks (if it is to be fully owned by PUTD, as this is a weapon system)
I believe the FA-50 will also be using the THALES Scorpion HMD (The Scorpion HMD will be a feature of the FA-50PL). There is some background history about this HMD with a malaysian defence company. Integrating the THALES Scorpion HMD (to the rest of the THALES Avionics) for MKM would also be a good replacement for the current SURA-K.
Bahrain getting 24 AH1W Supercobras under EDA and paying just USD350m for their refurbishment under FMS…good deal
Unfortunately we are allergic to used stuff. We could already have our Blackhawks for PUTD if we go for US EDA from the start.
Use them for 10-15 years then replace with Bell V-280 Valor in 2040.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMNixFhacAAcRay.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjXU47xUUAEhvKI.jpg
Because we are allergic to FMS deal.
Buying the used helicopter itself is just a small part.
cronies, i mean local contractors can still take up the sustainment/maintenance/servicing part. Or is it servicing margins are tiny compared to selling/leasing stuff?
There will be a big fight to get the maintenance contract, that is why I believed, PUTD, started the WMS first. Margins will be big as there is no longer agents selected to stock parts.
That was one of the reason they cancelled the M109 deal as the upgrade and sustainment was supposed to be done Deftech.
… – ”Unfortunately we are allergic to used stuff. ”
Depends what ”used stuff”….. You’re seeing things in a vacuum. Some ”used stuff” we should get; others we shouldn’t. Used jets for example tend to get expensive after they age; irrespective of being in good condition and low houred. This is the issue with the Hornets; not getting them which is the easy part. I’ll also point out – again – that by and large we don’t have a positive experience with used stuff.
… – ”replace with Bell V-280 Valor in 2040.”
So you’re convinced but there is no firm indication it will be available then; if we can afforded it or if it will be exported. A the moment there’s lots of hype about it but it remains to be seen how things turn out on paper.
Hope in the future we will acquired the laser guided version of 70mm rocket
” You’re seeing things in a vacuum ”
I am specifically talking about blackhawks here. Azlan as usual will go off tangent.
” there is no firm indication it will be available then; if we can afforded it or if it will be exported ”
No firm indication? Below is the V-280 current plans.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/08/02/armys-long-range-tiltrotor-aircraft-moves-to-next-development-phase/
User test 2027-28
Low rate production 2028
First army unit equipped with V-280 2031
It will be available for FMS sales.
So in less than 10yeara it will be in full operational readiness. A reason why buying brand new 40year old helicopter design now would not be a great proposition.
“This is the issue with the Hornets”
TUDM chiefs arent convinced…
There’s really little guarantees that the valor won’t go the way of the osprey.
Which is probably why OZ had bought while UK is in the process of buying a traditional helo and would utilise it for the next 30 years.
@ Zaft
UK tender is facing problems
https://euro-sd.com/2024/08/major-news/39963/game-could-be-up-for-nmh/
… – ”I am specifically talking about blackhawks here. Azlan as usual will go off tangent.”
Actually it’s the ‘…’ pot which shouldn’t be calling the Azlan kettle black. Also, note I wrote ”depends what ”used stuff”…..
… – ”No firm indication? Below is the V-280 current plans.”
You’re quoting paper specs as you tend to do; as if they’re written in stone or holy writ. Just because it might be ”available” at that time frame doesn’t mean it might be ‘available’ to us or that we could afford it. Also note that it’s unlikely the RMNAF will be one of the first foreign customers to acquire something so revolutionary or cutting edge. Again, make the distinction between what you’d like or think or hope will happen and what actually might happen.
”TUDM chiefs arent convinced…”
Who said anything about ”convinced”? A major issue is whether we’ll have the needed funds to sustain them; that is a concern. As it is we have issues with the little we have; never mind an extra 10-15 or more airframes. The ”RMAF Chiefs” have experienced having the hardware but not the needed funding to sustain the hardware. It’s nothing to do with ”convincing” as you put it. Getting them is the ‘easy part” [notwithstanding the long and cumbersome process to obtain approval. What comes after is the hard part.
is azlan here to add value to the discussion,
or is azlan here just to tell off other people is wrong?
whatever it is, getting used helicopters (blackhawks) now for PUTD would give us the option of getting a new vertical lift system (whatever that could be) in 15-20 years time. Also in 2040, the V-280 would have been nearly a decade in service, and we wont be the 1st export buyer to order some in 2040.
Getting brand new medium lift helicopters now for PUTD, would mean that it would need to be used at least 30 years from receiving it (or like Nuri, 50 years) before even contemplating of replacing them.
Right now we have the choice to take this option, which is why i am putting this idea out.
Military Blackhawks (UH60M) estimate to cost about USD 60-75mil per chopper while civvie S70i (same config as UH60M sans milspec radios) only cost USD 15mil per chopper. If TDM/PUTD cannot afford even this, then the chopper program has to go with used, or else widen the leasing project numbers to more than just 4 units.
… – ”is azlan here to add value to the discussion,”
Speaking in the 3rd person now? Full of yourself aren’t you. If I agreed with everything you said’ all would be fine wouldn’t it? Play the ball; not the person. You were making assumptions on the Valor; pure and simple. I pointed out the reality can be different. As usual you’re only looking at things which fit your line of thought.
Again : ”ust because it might be ”available” at that time frame doesn’t mean it might be ‘available’ to us or that we could afford it. Also note that it’s unlikely the RMNAF will be one of the first foreign customers to acquire something so revolutionary or cutting edge. Again, make the distinction between what you’d like or think or hope will happen and what actually might happen.”. BTW who determines who ”add value to the discussion”? You?
… – ”Right now we have the choice to take this option, which is why i am putting this idea out.”
There are other options. Whether they’re the right ones or ones you agree with is another story. Don’t make it look like others are disagreeing with you for the sake of it or that you and only you are looking at options and have the foresight needed.
You really believe we’ll be amongst the 1st foreign customers to get it? Actually believe that just because it’s supposed to come out on a certain year at an actual price; that it really will?
The RMAF and army will eventually get their rotary platforms in the coming years and for at leas the next decade or so – like the majority of other users – will continue to operate ”traditional” rotary platforms as opposed to tiltrotors. That’s for now is the reality as opposed to fiction or the alternative that you’d like and have convinced yourself id the only way to go.
If you want to look at options and convince others; by all means go ahead [have said this many times] but don’t give the impression that it’s holy writ and that you and only you ”think ahead” and by doing so is ”adding value” to the discussion.
“There are other options”
Lets hear it then. The more options put out the better in my opinion.
“You really believe we’ll be amongst the 1st foreign customers to get it?”
Usual azlan, putting words into other peoples mouth. Never said we will be among the 1st to get it. All of that is from himself, not me.
“but don’t give the impression that it’s holy writ”
That is what azlan puts it, never said it is the only choice. Just in my personal opinion the most cost effective for the moment, with option to get the V-280 when it is available. If 2040 still wants to get traditional rotary wing, then be it. At least in 2040 we can have a choice, rather than no choice if we get brand new helicopter now.
Azlan – Is the PUTD seriously looking at the Apaches once upon a time or was that just hearsay?
Hulubalang “Right now we have the choice to take this option, which is why i am putting this idea out.”
An option that neither OZ nor the brits take.
Basically you are taking the headache of preloved equipment ie, low availability, low reliability, high sustainment cost to gamble away that the valor (which is currently a prototype) capabilities and sustainment cost wise would end up as good on real live as it is in paper and that it would be available for us through FMS at that point in time.
That’s kind of behaviour would likely get flagged off as irresponsible on the AG reports. And no agencies wants to be on the AF report.
Also nothing stopping a military from using helo for just 20 years. The Korean did it, RMN did it. Heck OZ retired theirs and bury it just after 10 years.
“that is a concern”
That is YOUR concern. If it were a stopper, TUDM chiefs wouldnt be pushing for them, and just so happens so as our politicians, both are aligned to get them Kuwaiti Hornets.
“have experienced”
Doesnt mean squat when the chiefs are different today, the Govt is different today, the push & pull factors are different today, the economy is different today, TUDM have seen how other services gotten creative with getting funding today. And perhaps its why they are willing to take a bet on getting used again. Is it possible they might get burnt at a later stage? Sure theres always a chance but you cant make an omelette without breaking a egg.
“The RMAF and army will eventually get their rotary platforms”
TUDM yes as its budgeted and announced. TDM? Hmmm… the current Blackhawk leasing fiasco has soured beancounters interest so it may take even more years for TDM to get their own unless they actively push for it in a visible (ie via media) way. That too if TDM chiefs dont treat PUTD like an unloved stepchild and start to give it more than a pittance of a budget for new choppers.
@Hulu
“V-280 would have been nearly a decade in service”
Ospreys are also in service for more than a decade and Im still not convinced on tiltrotors. At the least, getting used Lima Blackhawks would give them back the air mobility lost with the Nuris, and would help buy time to save up money for brand new choppers whether it be helis (preferably) or tiltrotors.
Marhalim, is there interest in getting the ATAK since the attack helicopter requirement is back on the cards?
The Army is interested in the Apache
Lol at the army wanting JLTV, blackhawk and apache.
How exactly they going to get that when the gov(no matter which party run it) are allergic to FMS deals.
Melayu – ”Azlan – Is the PUTD seriously looking at the Apaches once upon a time or was that just hearsay?”
At that time it was the RMAF which would have operated gunships. Syed Albar as Defence Minister went for a ride in a Apache and Chinook during a visit to the U.S [we ended up buying the VIP Blackhawks]; the RMAF requested a briefing and U.S. export approval was obtained. The closest we ever got to gunships was the Rooivalk deal and that had a lot to do with the relationship between Mandela and Dr. M. Blessing in disguise we didn’t get it. BTW as part of the original deal for the Fulcrums; the Russian packaged in 6-8
Mil-35s.
“that is a concern”
No it isn’t. Appreciate the upper case BTW. Telling when individuals have to resort to upper case to emphasis their point. Just because the chiefs are pushing for it does not mean they aren’t worried about sustainment issues. Just because the politicians are pushing for it doesn’t mean they will provide adequate funding later.
A reminder: we have a long history of getting stuff but end up struggling with sustainment.
”Doesnt mean squat when the chiefs are different today, the Govt is different today”
Some things remain the same. We are still struggling with sustainment issues for what little you have. The fact that the chiefs are different does not mean things have changed. Are you suggesting that things have changed? Are you suggesting that at present just because things have changes the MAF overnight has the needed funds to adequately sustain what it has? As it stands we have issues with the current fleet; yet an extra 12-18 airframes will not cause issues? Are you aware we have a long history of adding new stuff but not the sustainment funds? The result is that funds get diverted to fund newer things. Before claiming what’s ”squat” or isn’t [an Americanism I hardly use] consider the position we’re currently in and the position we’ve long been in …
I stand by what I Say and I’ve explained why; in this post and others. If you want to adopt the position that we won’t face any issues with the Kuwaiti Hornets [which are old and getting older and will need ordnance; support gear and perhaps the replacing of certain things] by all means go ahead.
”TUDM yes as its budgeted and announced.”
I have no idea about that and about the ”step child” thing which you make reference to but as it stands both services will – eventually – get their rotary assets and I really doubt we’ll convert to tiltrotors by 2040.
”And perhaps its why they are willing to take a bet on getting used again. ”
No …. They are doing it because they have no option. None in the short term. Just like why the RMN had to resort to certain means to keep 50/40 year old assets in service. The Flankers have poor serviceability rates; the Hornets are overworked and the Hawks are long overdue for areqork and will be replaced. On top of that the MRCA requirement is years way; that’s why the RMAF expressed am interest in 30 off year old Hornets which aren’t getting younger and will get more expensive as they age further.
It is just to show that the Army knows those things work and more importantly supportable. No use of buying something that do not work and not supportable. Of course they – in the end has to follow the politicians lead.
zaft – ”How exactly they going to get that when the gov(no matter which party run it) are allergic to FMS deals.”
You do realise that certain things can be bought via a direct commercial sale.
. – ”Right now we have the choice to take this option, which is why i am putting this idea out.”
Like other ideas you’ve put out; including the part about subs surfacing to show intruding Chinese ships they’re there; have you thought it through? You really think we will plan that far ahead? Even buying a mere 12 helicopters takes that long. Even replacing 50 year old ships couldn’t be done. Even ensuring we have adequate spares for certain critical items is an issue. Yet you seriously would think we’d get used, aged rotary assets as a stop gap for something we can only get in more than a decade’s time? Something for which we have no idea as to the cost and something revolutionary? Something which has even completed development? Yet you’d talk about ”adding value” to the discussion; about ”others going of tangent” and others ”putting words into other peoples mouth”.
Again, make the distinction [if able] between what you’d like or hope to happen and what will realistically happen. Also, as said many times : The ”….” kettle should not be calling the Azlan pot black. I’ve learnt from you how to write in the third person BTW.
As for the ”the most cost effective for the moment” part. You have no idea what it will cost when it’s actually available; whether we can afford it or if it will be available to us even if we could afford it. You are quoting paper specs as if it was holy writ [as you normally do]. Do you actually know how much it will cost to fly per hour? The ”most cost effective for the moment” you claim? Really …
The sub was an obvious joke
the most cost effective for the moment is the used UH-60 Blackhawk for PUTD that i proposed
“does not mean they aren’t worried about sustainment issues”
Their need for them overrule any such worry which is why despite YOUR perceived concern, their willing to bite the bullet to get them. The politicians too have made hay in the news media so unless Kuwait were to back out, their committed publicly and would suffer a political backlash otherwise.
“Are you suggesting that at present”
Im saying that while the previous honchos have been burnt and hence have stronger adverse to used stuff, based on their willingness to get the Hornets and despite YOUR concern, does indicate a shift in policy by the current chiefs. And yes, policies and directions do change when there is a change in management.
“both services will – eventually – get their rotary assets”
PUTD lifting asset capability have been in limbo since Nuri last operation (not counting later years when its “officially” retired), and the 4 leased choppers, when it comes, can only do so little. Im not so sanguine about getting their rotary assets unless your eventually means in 50 years or so, then yeah.
“yet an extra 12-18 airframes will not cause issues?”
We WILL have even more issues when we dont have these 12-18 airframes and existing planes are down for maintenance or deprecated.
“Do you actually know how much it will cost to fly per hour?”
Other than cost, theres also tiltrotors reliability as Japan has highlighted Ospreys frequent failures & crashes in pushing back to buy them.
@Zaft
“the gov(no matter which party run it) are allergic to FMS deals.”
Allergic is one thing, even if we arent, we just dont have enough money to buy all those in sufficient numbers to matter and with the support & sustainment package to keep them running. Remember these are dealt in USD, & no trade no barters.
Even Singapore get used equipment in numbers just to keep up with technology and manage their upgrade efficiently
We have an annual USD4b budget and only USD1b for capex….something got to give in order to have the minimum essential force. Getting the used Kuwaiti classic hornets or getting the EDA supercobras, we have enough numbers for operations and spares. Otherwise we still end up like where we are today running high tempo operations on high mileage asset…and talk only getting new assets and networking them. Any good budget goes to the usual suspects with the
high markup.
Joe “Remember these are dealt in USD, & no trade no barter”
We have a trade deficit with SK thus don’t have much won. But we are awash with USD thanks to the trade surplus as well as high FDI from the US.
”Their need for them overrule any such worry which is why despite YOUR perceived concern, their willing to bite the bullet to get them. ”
Upper case again. Decide on the point you’re trying to make. They are indeed trying to get the Hornets but that doesn’t men they are not worried about what comes after next.
”Im saying that while the previous honchos have been burnt and hence have stronger adverse to used stuff, based on their willingness to get the Hornets and despite YOUR concern”
Upper case again. It dos not indicate there is a ”shift in policy” because the RMAF – as a last resort – has Always been willing to look at a leasing or a pre owned option – if the conditions were sound.
You spoke about opinion. Well let me ask you; is what you’re saying based on opinion? What I’m saying is not based on opinion but what I know and have heard. It’s hardly a secret that sustainment has long been an issue fr us and continues to be an issue; a major one.
”We WILL have even more issues when we dont have these 12-18 airframes and existing planes are down for maintenance or deprecated.”
Telling when someone has to resort to upper case to emphasise a point. Why not do the whole sentence in upper case while you’re at it. What you’re saying is another matter entirely; I’m saying that as it stands we have issues issues sustaining what little we have; that we have a long history of not having enough funds for sustainment and that getting the Hornets but not having the funds to operate them as we’d like is a major issue. What you’re saying is another entirely different issue.
”Im not so sanguine about getting their rotary assets unless your eventually means in 50 years or so, then yeah.”
50 years? Of course not; was thinking more about a millennium perhaps.
”Other than cost, theres also tiltrotors reliability”
Well that’s another issue but in due time tiltrotor technology will mature. For now; we have no idea what it will cost to fly and compared to a traditional rotary platform; hence my questioning ‘…’ ‘s claim that it will be the most cost effective solution.
”And yes, policies and directions do change when there is a change in management.”
You are speaking in general terms. Overall policy and the way we go about things has not changed and it’s a fallacy to assume so. Many things remain the same. We have a history of getting new stuff but not allocating the needed funds. The result is that the services have to resort to a ”rob Paul to pay Peter” situation. With the Hornets; never mind the ordnance and other things; just the flying hours will bee a major concern financial wise.
Hasnan – ”Even Singapore get used equipment in number”
What do you mean by the ”even”? Singapore is the only regional country [out of the 6 original ASEAN members] which takes external defence seriously; has a policy of having an edge over its closest neighbours and trains, equips and structures its military for high intensity ops. Of course it would get ”used” kit but selectively. In case you are uninformed; used kit comes with a penalty. The ability of a end user to incur certain penalties depends on the resources they have and the trade offs they’re willing to make.
Take the Hornets; almost everyone’s so mesmorised with the possibility of getting them but fail to ask what happens next. this is a pertinent point given the limited resources we have and the government traditionally to do things on the cheap.
Azlan “Take the Hornets; almost everyone’s so mesmorised with the possibility of getting them but fail to ask what happens next. this is a pertinent point given the limited resources we have and the government traditionally to do things on the cheap.”
If you hope they the gov going to increase the budget to sustain the additional hornets then dream on. The most likely thing to happen is the money for the hornets would come from existing AF budget as in the AF would likely have to put the MKM in active reserves status to support the hornets.
If you take the time to read what I’ve said; you’d realised that I don’t dream about anything. The danger we face is exactly that : adding stuff but not adding sustainment funds . We have a long history of this and we still do; despite a change in government and other things. BTW we don’t place aircraft in “active reserve status”. Never have. They are either operable or not” It’s not like the army which has stuff as a “war reserve”. Unlike a howitzers which is a “war reserve”; an inoperable aircraft will take time to be made operable again.
@Zaft
“trade deficit with SK thus don’t have much won”
Even when trading with other countries its not always we use either currencies, more often we are using USD as the go between. While we have high FDI, we also have high outflow of USD due to private commerce trade as, again I mention above, we tend to use USD for trade. There is push to use Renminbi as next trade currency, but it remains to see how much success.