SHAH ALAM: AS you might well be aware off, there were many things on displayed and offered during DSA 2016. As even much bigger outfit did not have the resources to cover them, I barely touched the surface at the show.
Anyhow, I covered mostly my advertisers (like other trade publications) and things that I found newsworthy during the show. As for the rest, I will get back to them now that DSA had closed it doors.
Anyhow this post covered some of the things that I found interesting but not enough to warrant coverage during the show itself.
For example, the China defence stuff. This time around, three state owned China companies headed by its State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND) took part in the show. The three companies are China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC), Poly Technologies Inc and CETC International Co Ltd.
Poly Technologies products were more prosaic including a coastal defence system and military engineering. The company also offers a LC63 landing craft though I did not spot a model on display.
The third company, CETC International displayed various electronic items most of which to me are China-made copies of Western electronics offerings from loud speakers, FLIR turret and the Shooter Locating System. There were also two mini-UAVs on display at the booth.
Again, the representatives at CETC were coy about the cost of their systems. The only thing they would say was that the “price/cost is confidential”. Since I am not an official buyer, I did not get to know how much were any of the systems on display.
China Shipbuilding Trading Co Ltd (CSTC) was the notable absentee from the show. It had participated in two previous DSA and also in LIMA 15. It absence may be a death knell for the proposed China warship or LHD for RMN as previously reported. I was told however that there were plans to equip some China made stuff on board new ships planned for the RMN. As for what no one could say exactly what. Until the funding for RMN new ships is confirmed, I guess everything is still up in the air.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
For rmn the FL-3000, ssm’s and lrad’s are those items that could be of interest.
For the army, did they showcase their gatling guns?
Reply
No China made gatling guns…
Really interested with their UCAV, however with conflicting interest in south china sea, I dont think we can get them even if china offer them to us
So, we will have a China made stuff in NGPV or LCS then? Well, it was never new. If it was Air defense missile then that’s a new. All we have is short range missile in inventory.
Reply
The talk is that it will be the LMS, if it ever get funded
IMHO the LMS would only start in circa 2023 at least, once the last LCS will be received..judging by past history (whatever platform design it maybe) it would only involve 6 ships first and we would only be receiving the first LMS say 2025/2026 earliest.
Reply
There is no firm plans for the LMS yet just a proposal by the navy.
Marhalim,
Why? Because $4.7 billion defence budget wasn’t enough? World Economy gone nuts.
Reply
The LMS was not in the plan that RMN submitted for RMK11. 15 to 5 plan was proposed in response to projects approved for RMK11
Marhalim,
Right…..
If the RMN goes for Chinese made sensors then Chinese made weapons would make sense. If the RMN goes for Western made sensors and Chinese made weapons then the RMN and the Malaysian taxpayer will have to pay for integration costs. Chinese made weapons would also mean other weapons to support; to add to MM-40, NSM and other stuff we operate : each requiring separate training and shore support.
What we should be doing is to reduce, not increase the logistical footprint. It is for this reason that logic dictates the Lekius get the same SAM as the LCS. If however, national interests dictates that we not place all our eggs in a single basket [to use a cliche] then we’ll continue with the longstanding policy of spreading our purchases; won’t happen if the RMN has a say.
Radin – ” If it was Air defense missile then that’s a new. ”
You mean an area defence missile or something with long legs like ASTER 15. Getting an area defence missile would also mean that we have to network all our ships and get additional systems [not all sea based and involving other services] to get the best out of whatever capabilities this area defence missile offers. A good example is Singapore, which has ASTER 15 but also has a networked armed forces and assets like AEWs. If we look at the USN, having Aegis and Standard missiles is just part of the equation; the other, but equally important part of the equation is ”Cooperative Engagement Capability”.
Alex – ”however with conflicting interest in south china sea, I dont think we can get them even if china offer them to us”
Yes. Of concern to us is what Uncle Sam will say. We like to portray ourselves as neutral or non aligned but the truth is that we can’t really afford to annoy or offend Uncle Sam. China may be the biggest investor here and we China’s largest trading partner in ASEAN but at the end of the day we still rely on Uncle Sam for regional stability and our defence relationship with Uncle Sam is far more ”developed” [if that’s the right word] that what we have with China.
What’s also important is we stop screwing our vendors so we can have our choices and get good prices.
Azlan,
I didn’t say about the ship will have air defense. I mean when we have a long range air defense missile like Russian S-400. That’s what i mean because that’s new…. for Malaysian Armed Forces. All we have a Short-Medium range missile in Inventory. If this about not in RMK-11 list or Budget problem i already know.
Offending Uncle Sam? Iraq (which is american vassal state) used china UCAV to fight ISIS and US didn’t say nothing
Radin – ”I mean when we have a long range air defense missile like Russian S-400. ”
Same thing. Until we have connectivity and other assets; we won’t be able to get the best of any long range missile [whether ship or land based] we get. Similarly, in the past people here have talked about getting land based ASMs but if we don’t have ISR assets in the form of UAVs, AEWs and other stuff to detect, classify and track targets at long distances; pointless in getting a long range land based ASM. Before we even dream of getting the likes of a long range missile; lets get down to the basics by ensuring we have a fully integrated AD network comprising MANPADs/V-SHORADS and stuff like MICA or SL-AMRAAM; backed by sufficient numbers of gap fillers and alerting devices. Something that remains to be seen is whether GAPU still sees a future need for Triple AAA; will we replace our Oerlikons with a new gun or rely totally on missiles?
Dundun – ”Offending Uncle Sam? Iraq (which is american vassal state) used china UCAV to fight ISIS and US didn’t say nothing”
I can also say that Shiite dominated Iraq has offended Uncle Sam by cultivating ties with Iran but Uncle Sam didn’t say anything. Actually, Iraq is not a ”vassal state” of Uncle Sam : it has become more of a ”vassal state” of Iran; courtesy of Bush Junior’s 2003 invasion and the subsequent civil war in which the long marganilised Shiites came to power at the expense of the minority Sunnis. And just because Uncle Sam didn’t openly say anything about Iraq’s Chinese UCAVs how do you know that nothing went on behind the scenes?
With regards to Malaysia; the key fact remains that as a small country; we can’t afford to offend a superpower; especially one that is still a global hegemonic power [despite the rise of China] and one whose economy we are closely tied to [despite the increasing role China is playing in our economy]. Sure, we might get ”Made in China” stuff like missiles or electronics [no big deal which won’t offend or alarm anyone] but acquiring a new capability from China, a capability that is not currently available in the region, will offend or alarm others.
The key fact remains that despite targeting us for years and making various attractive offers; the Chinese have failed to get any substantial orders : I doubt this will change. A certain company has been pushing hard for us to buy LY-60Ds [offered by CPMIEC] for GAPU but so far has had no success. The same company which was the local agent for the FN-6 tried to push the KS-1 but also failed and in the 1990’s had partnered with Norinco to sell the army AFVs. BTW, we have also refused certain offers by certain countries to avoid offending the Chinese …..
Have we procured any of china made weapons? If so was it made upon the recomendation from MAF or strictly from political considerations..
Reply
FN-6 Manpads its likely both with political considerations being the tipping scale
shalelala – ” If so was it made upon the recomendation from MAF”
Good question but then again; how much of the stuff that we order is actually what the MAF wants and not what national interests dictates?
As part of our longstanding policy of being nice and friendly to China I won’t be surprised if we see some small purchases in the future, for stuff that doesn’t have a huge logistics footprint and doesn’t have a too adverse affect on commonality.