View Comments (27)

• Wow, that’s a lot of stuff being moved to Layang Layang.

• "Tiada perwakilan TLDM yang akan mengiringi pergerakan peralatan tersebut." Why no escort?

  • No idea

• @ tomtom

  that "lot of stuff" also applicable if the Scaneagle is to be deployed on ships.

  A reason why navies like the RSN is looking at larger Frigates (which is currently looks more and more likely to be a variant of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt aka RN Type 31e aka Indonesian Navy Merah Putih Frigate) to enable UAVs to be deployed from them.

  https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/03/28/singapore-buys-six-combat-vessels-that-can-serve-as-drone-motherships/

• Haiqal - “Why no escort”

  Against whom? Nobody interferes with the movement of our ships in the area including resupply efforts [unlike the case with the Philippines] to the reefs we claim and physically occupy.

  ... - “A reason why navies like the RSN is looking at larger Frigates”

  When operated from a ship UASs tend to require less space for their gear compared to when operating on land; in most cases operations are from the CIC and plug into the ship’s existing architecture; wouldn’t be the case on land where you’d have to worry about everything from operator consoles to power supply.

  In due time I hope that the powers that be view UASs the way they should; they are national assets which require resources to acquire but they can’t been seen or placed in the same category as manned aircraft.

  Way before the Ukraine we saw in Libya, Syria and other places how vulnerable UASs are to soft and hard kill means. The TB2 was placed on a pedestal by observers and fanboys but the Ukrainians now only deploy to them as ISR assets away from hostile fire on account of effective Russian defences and EW [something I foresaw before the war]. By July 2022 it’s estimated that the Ukrainians had lost some 80 percent of the UASs they had prior to the war.

  UASs must be bought and in numbers because they will be attrited., Sure like manned aircraft UASs will evolve; will get more survivable by having defences and being much faster but we haven’t yet reached that stage.

• I was about to ask the same question that Haiqal asked. That's the first thing that caught my attention. I'm not really worried about espionage since the Scaneagle is a 20-year old design and I'm sure hostile countries are aware of its' capabilities. I'm more concerned with theft or vandalism. How much would it cost to station 1 personnel onboard the ship for the 32-hour trip? Hmm...

• " UASs must be bought and in numbers because they will be attrited "

  I have been saying the same thing for ages. We cannot afford to buy any UAS that we cannot afford to lose. Why i prefer cheap UASes for us to learn from, like the TB2, or if in need of more advanced UAS (but still low cost), something such as the Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie.

  Our ANKA buy (for just 3 airframes) cost USD 91.6 million. Morocco bought 13 TB2 for USD 70 million, that comes with 4 remote control ground stations, a configurable simulation system for flying the drones, and a digital system for tracking and storing information.

  Exactly why i am very much against the Anka buy. It is very expensive and we cannot afford to lose it. It will make us take wrong conclusions about operating MALE UAVs. When something is expensive and cannot be lost, it will end up as a hangar queen, instead of actively flying out there. We should not be in a situation, preferring not flying uavs in fear of losing it, and risking not getting live situational awareness for our troops, sailors and fighter pilots.

  Tropical rain, winds, clouds and humidity is tough on equipments and radio signals. UAV airframes must be considered as attriable, and buying replacement airframes to be considered as a normal operational wear and tear under OPEX. So operating costs need to also take into account the need to buy a handful of airframes every year to replace those that are destroyed.

• ... - “Why i prefer cheap UASes for us to learn from, like the TB2”

  This has been discussed extensively. Anka is primarily for ISR and it’s size, range, endurance and lift capacity reflect that. The TB2 is a primary strike platform. It has less capable sensors which are configured to support the strike role, not ISR.

  In short the TB2 is not the platform for the extended ISR role - measure of efficiency measured against measure of success.

  ... - “Exactly why i am very much against the Anka buy”

  There is a profound difference between operating something in a peacetime environment and a wartime one ... We will use Anka to monitor our maritime domain in a peacetime environment. If war breaks out we will still use Anka; it as well as a lot of other things we operate will be lost or vulnerable; it is what it is.

  As for peacetime hazards; shite happens even with users who’ve been in the game for decades. Could be a weather or a technical related reason; like everything else we operate precautions will have to be taken and a learning curve will have to reached.

  ... - “will make us take wrong conclusions about operating MALE UAVs”

  The evaluation team which dew up the specs would have looked at various factors. Also, we are new in the MALE game but we have experience of operating UASs in a local environment even if they are small ones or ones in a different size/weight class. It’s not as if we’re totally new to the game or have zero experience to the challenges associated with the operational use of UASs ..:

  h - “I’m more concerned with theft or vandalism. How much would it cost to station 1 personnel onboard the ship for the 32-hour trip? Hmm”

  We are transporting something to the Spratlys not the steppes of Central Asia or the jungles of Guinea. Precautions will be taken but if anything serious happens having “1 personnel onboard the ship for the 32-hour trip”will not make a difference.

  As it stands contractors routinely move stuff; some more sensitive or expensive compared to ScanEagle but now this is issue because news that ScanEagle will be transported hits the news?

• "Why no escort?"
  Not a holiday destination, not a shopping destination. Just a small island in the middle of sea. Who would want to go? Somemore during monsoon season.

  "We cannot afford to buy any UAS that we cannot afford to lose"
  Indeed if we have to treat UAS as we do with manned planes, then we surely will be extra careful and restricted how we use them to prevent risk of loss. If were to expect an 80% attrition rate, lets say each cost RM 1mil, then we have to spend RM 100mil and expect to lose RM 80mil which is something we cannot afford. This is normal but if the beancounters & ministers cannot accept it then, no doubt we will either try preserve as hangar queens unless they are really needed or use up until no more flyable UAS left.

• " Anka is primarily for ISR and it’s size, range, endurance and lift capacity reflect that "

  TB2 can be used for ISR and has similar range and endurance to the Anka.

  Only the lift capacity is reduced (as expected from a smaller airframe). But the Anka on ISR mission will not need to use the higher payload capacity anyway as no weapons carriage are needed on ISR mission.

  So on ISR only mission, without the need to drop any kinetic weapons, both TB2 and Anka has almost the same capability.

  " As for peacetime hazards; shite happens "

  As you only have 3 Anka's, how many can you afford to crash? In all probability, zero.

  If you got 13 TB2 instead, with 4 ground stations, you could have 3 flying on operational missions, with 1 ground station on standby/training. You could probably crash 50% of the fleet (6-7 TB2's) and still have 3 flying operationally and 1 on training.

  So is what TUDM doing now (buying 3 very expensive MALE UAV) really in the spirit of "must be bought in numbers because they will be attrited" narrative of yours?

  • Unfortunately, the TB2 was never entered into the MALE UAS tender. It is likely that the Turkey government has decided that only the Anka took part in the competition.

• The prices of MALES and other high end UASs will steadily rise. Just like how manned aircraft evolved in WW2 [chaff, RWRs, etc] to cope with various threats; soon we’ll see UASs with self defence suites; as well as improved sensors and other things. It’s not beyond the realm of imagination that within a decade or so we’ll see UASs configured for the air to air role in operational service. We’re already seeing nascent steps for ASW configured UASs; the sky’s the limit as the cliche goes.

  As of 2023 almost nothing is “cheap”. We can and should get large numbers of off the shelf reactively “cheap” short range systems for issue to arty, infantry and other units but there will be no substitute for an expensive MALE or other types of UAS for specific niche roles. If one goes cheaper it will come with penalties; whether less capable sensors or electronics which are more susceptible to EW.

  As of now: UASs are slow and defenceless targets which are vulnerable in a contested environment; people talk about the Ukraine but we saw this way before in Libya and Syria. We should also not draw hasty wrong conclusions; UASs played a pivotal role in Nargano Karbakh but it took heavy armour and infantry to take ground and one side had AD systems not configured to handle UASs.

  Whilst discussions tend to be on the actual platform; what’s more vital is how it fits in the overall scheme of things; i.e. organisation, C3, decentralised decision making; jointness [will a RMAF Anka be able to share a feed with a RMN ship or with a RMAF MPA - people may assume but they really shouldn’t] etc, stuff I often harp about. Stuff which will be the main chsltbfe with operating UAS at their maximum potential.