SHAH ALAM: Turkish delights. As the Army waits for the government to pony up the funds for the life extension programme for its Adnan and MIFV fleet, the Turkish government has announced that it was doing the same thing for its Turkish built M113 variants.
According to state owned Anadolu Agency, the Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB), a civil institution to strengthen Turkey’s national security industry and manage the system and supply of military technology, has agreed to start the first phase of the modernisation project involving 133 vehicles.
The two prototype M113 variants modernised for upgrade programme. AA.
From Daily Sabah.
The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) are modernizing their armored vehicles with new weapon systems and high-tech mission equipment, an Anadolu Agency (AA) report said Wednesday.
The prototype of the modernizing project, which is being undertaken by the Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB), a civil institution to strengthen Turkey’s national security industry and manage the system and supply of military technology, has been completed.
The TL 900 million ($113.1 million) project began at the end of 2019 with the cooperation of Turkish defense giant ASELSAN and leading armored vehicle manufacturer FNNS, according to Ismail Demir, the head of the SSB.
As many as 133 vehicles will be modernized in the first phase, he said, adding that they will be equipped with remote control Nefer weapon, laser warning, close-range surveillance, driver vision, direction and navigation systems.
It is likely that if Malaysia wanted to be part of the modernisation programme, it can do so with some savings by joining the Turkey led project. I have no idea whether this has been conveyed to the Defence Ministry or not but this is one of the developments that the Turkish Embassy here in Kuala Lumpur would be glad to inform us.
Anyhow if there is a change of government (hint, hint) , the offer would likely come direct from the Turkish president, who could offer a big discounts not only for the project but also other stuff manufactured by the country.
— Malaysian Defence
I have lost any faith in malaysian democracy. What is the use of voting if MP can become shameless frog when paid millions to hop later?
Anyway…
On the upgrades.
It would cost around USD0.85 million for each. That would include unmanned turrets, That is actually much less than what Deftech quoted to upgrade the Condor!!! Deftech quoted RM5 million for each Condor upgrade.
http://youth.bernama.com/v2/news.php?id=891360&c=2
Then there is a conundrum of to just reset the Adnan/MIFV as is, and spend the money to buy more AV8, so in 10 years time those Adnan can be replaced with bigger tracked IFVs with better protection? Or splurge on upgrading those Adnan and use them to 2040?
BTW an extract from Janes news in 2009 (Janes seems to delete all the old news)
” Malaysia has taken delivery of 42 Korean Infantry Fighting Vehicles (KIFVs, right) worth M$63 million ($25.2 million) from South Korea’s Daewoo Heavy Industries. This is the first KIFV export order. The purchase involves five variants of the KIFV, which was developed in the early 1980s for the South Korean Army and entered service in1985. The variants comprise a troop carrier operated by two crew and holding nine infantry, a command vehicle, mortar carrier, recovery vehicle and ambulance ”
So each KIFV was bought for just USD0.6 million each. But do note that KIFVs does not have turrets or cannons, just 0.50 cal machine guns.
Nonsense. No change in Government soon due to good leadership and our King’s wise knowledge on AI’s sinister plan/intention. Current government contributes better than last PH government. Any updates on LCS?
Better invest on new ifv altogather but ofcourse in the meantime we need to nurse adnan and mifv accordingly..the priority now is to replace condors, then the scorpions or/and stormers..Better to choose the platform like Puma/Lynx that got ifv and light tank variants..FNSS also got new IFV platform if im not mistaken the kaplan 20/30..
Sounds more like updating/upgrading the weapons systems and install sensors & vision systems. What about drive system? I believe our Adnan & MIFV are requiring refurb on that; new powerpack, suspension, tracks.
If you can see, the one upgraded with unmanned turret has lost the amphibious capability. The front trim vane has been removed, and additional armour just bolted onto the front glacis and engine hatch.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/65135.jpg
Anyway, for a remote turret, i would prefer this instead (if we want a remote turret thst is).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-roRZ0Vix9fY/XGmS9pV8TnI/AAAAAAABsRo/XXyBr0Mq924l9nU_J1hwabOtIgAjRQOMgCLcBGAs/s1600/0%2B%25281%2529.jpg
it would give a cannon commonality with gempita 30mm variants.
IMO if a reset/upgrade to be done to the Adnan/MIFV. Just a minimum one consisting
1) same higher powered daewoo engine from MIFV into all Adnans
2) gunshot locator system
3) all round camera system
4) A few MIFV to get soucy rubber tracks and Vingtaqs II mast for 11 KAD recce capability.
here is a picture of some of our adnans equipped with soucy rubber tracks, presumably just for test.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CF4H11Ue53U/XWaX_p27kFI/AAAAAAABGuw/iqK-92mVo9AygeBUHq142VuMCBylSTevACLcBGAs/s1600/65312590_859385621106113_1581732572742811648_n.jpg
Off topic
With airlines struggling it might be a good time for countries to get ATRs and 737s for their MPA and MSA conversions.
MAS for example has a number of 737-800s.
@ AM
Those ATRs are mostly in use as they are ideally sized for the small passenger numbers and domestic only routes we are seeing lately.
Mostly grounded in malaysia are those of 737-8 and 320/321.
For MPA, the P-8 is highly different to a normal 737 (with weapons bay for example) that it cant be done from conversions, although the AWACS Wedgetail version can.
http://live.staticflickr.com/5577/14529400709_11453d3dbd_z.jpg
The 320 MPA version is also a paper plane design only. So we need to pick the tabs to R&D it.
BTW it would be the right time for airlines to convert their passenger planes to cargo version, as passenger movement is now restricted.
some of the comments previously that can still be applicable to this topic.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/adnan-slep/
… “For MPA, the P-8 is highly different to a normal 737 (with weapons bay for example) that it cant be done from”
Yes but not every country needs the full range of the P-8’s capabilities or all the capabilities of the 737-800ER (which the P-8 is based on). Indeed most MPAs don’t have them. What most countries would be interested in would be their preferred mix of maritime radar, EO, ELINT and self protection equipment. The P-8 itself is as valuable for its sensors as for its weapons.
There was an article recently advocating that USN P-8s and USAF B-1s should be teamed for sea control tasks, to make the most of each platform’s strengths.
… “BTW it would be the right time for airlines to convert their passenger planes to cargo version, as passenger movement is now restricted.”
Yes, temporary freighter conversions are a popular theme now.
@AM
Domestic routes are still open lah! How else did COVID cases spiked in Peninsular right after Sabah election?
Its the bigger international route planes that are currently grounded; the 777s, the 787s, the A380s, etc.
If you want 737s, Boeing parking lot has a fleet of ready 737MAX if you dare to use. 😉
joe “Domestic routes are still open lah! How else did COVID cases spiked in Peninsular right after Sabah election? Its the bigger international route planes that are currently grounded; the 777s, the 787s, the A380s, etc. ”
Hey genius, do intra-EU and -ASEAN flights count as domestic and do airlines fly A380s around the EU and ASEAN?
Since you are not aware, 737s and A320s no longer limited to domestic routes and are now capable of transatlantic flights. Narrowbodies are increasingly displacing widebodies on long haul flights as their range increases and as direct flights displace the traditional hub and spoke model.
@AM
FYI, 737 are the smallest of Boeing jet series to haul passengers if you want something bigger than a turboprop. Now you know.
@joe@AM
Am also following the discussions on ‘halatuju MAS and Air Asia’. Seems both air carriers are on their own with no, minimal government aid. Under its Plan B, MAS may probably fold into Firefly. If this is the case, Firefly should get the best narrow bodied jets still with MAS to do flights to Malaysian Borneo and beyond. Air Asia? I’ve worked with AA awhile, it’s just driven by short term profits. No chance of AA employees getting the sort of help MAS staff are getting if they’re retrenched.
OTOH, I’d love to see MAS and Air Asia using Airbus A220s (Bombardier C series) in the future. Fantastic aircraft…
@Taib
MAS being Govt owned will likely survive but probably coming out worse, their business plan wasn’t great to begin with but they had the yoke ‘national service’. AA might probably get sold to other investor/s and if they survive likely come out of this pandemic ready to get going again since their business plan had been successful up til now. All they need is cashflow to keep bare minimum operations running until pandemic is over.
In the business world, everything revolves around profits and shortterm profits are the measure of success these days.
The trend.now is to upgrade the armoured infantry fighting vehicles with 50mm guns. We should consider.this latest development too
@ taib
I am a fan of the embraer e170s. Seems that nobody in SEA are using them.
https://linkybird.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/e175.jpg
joe “FYI, 737 are the smallest of Boeing jet series to haul passengers if you want something bigger than a turboprop. Now you know.”
You mean now YOU know because nobody said anything to the contrary. Is that the best you could come up with after being flat wrong as usual?
It’s not like the 737 hasn’t been developed into the P-8. Or that there are no jet MPAs in the 737’s weight class- P-1 and Nimrod. Even Indonesia operates a few MPAs based on earlier 737s. Now you know.
What’s your point?
No change in Govt, no change in Malaysia, no change in ATM… enjoy then, more loot for the cronies…
off topic
one of the first sightings of Myanmar’s first submarine, a kilo class submarine transferred from indian navy.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K9RrVgLbfaY/X4ggt390EoI/AAAAAAAAR2A/mOko61W7vYkTYdYpjttI2B5txE2qhlc7wCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Kilo%2Bclass%2BMyanmar.jpg
more info on the ACV modernisation
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OOv8-a9Uql0/X4iblHTbohI/AAAAAAAB6VA/8HoZcyMMmaYkBHq3ogfmWovb0CO6h_dZgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1024/Turkish-ACV-Modernisation.jpg
Off topic, how is the Malaysia army fairing if compare our neighbour?
@ chua
i dont like to discuss politics here, but IMO there is a high risk of ZH (close friend of AI) and NR (no digs on AI lately) corruption case to be dropped before the next GE if AI gets his way.
anyway back to the topic…
On the ACV modernisation. It seems that the soucy rubber tracks are more widely used on our Adnans than what i knew previously. Which is great IMO. This is some pictures from XXXX regiment (mech), which sees almost all of its Adnan is on soucy rubber tracks. Using soucy rubber tracks makes the Adnan much more quieter than the normal steel link tracks.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YAY-PGDkWQM/XWphsbl8szI/AAAAAAAALbI/wyF5vixYtCw0LgM67HP9X8W-6nqwGxoUACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_20190803_130615.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lW_jG8gb5ec/XWphrq_rmCI/AAAAAAAALbE/dPipNSpE1PwFC1OnOCp_bxiDUTm58LygwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_20190803_124113.jpg
http://www.combatreform.org/bandtracksbrochure1.jpg
http://www.combatreform.org/bandtracksbrochure2.jpg
Disclaimer. I dont like what combatrefrom is advocating, just posting the only available soucy brochure pics online.
If anyone thinks a change in Government meant the end of corruption, your living in dreamland. During under PH, the corruption went from millions to billions level in the short time they were in power. Corruption will never end, just goes from right pocket to left pocket.
If we intend to update the weapons on Adnan, it is possible to use Aselsan’s CLAW RCWS turret which is joint developed with FNSS (Adnan maker). We could then use the same turret when time to upgrade the 25mm Gempitas to use RCWS. When time to retire the Adnans and get more Gempitas or whatnot, we could later port over these turrets too.
billions pocketed and lost with the 1MDB scam is under who?
joe “During under PH, the corruption went from millions to billions level in the short time they were in power. ”
Who are you kidding again? Corruption was in the tens of billions long before PH even existed.
@…
I’m confining myself strictly to Armed Forces related issues.
You can look forward to continuous scandal after scandal, from Spica to Kedah to Laksamana to whatever comes next, or we can try a change in course towards accountability. We have discussed here many times, and most of us agree I think that the first step is to buy what the Forces need and not what the “local industry” (meaning Alibabas) want. To do that, you have to enact a nationwide change, unless somehow you are able to clean up the Forces supply chain while leaving the rest of the Govt the way it is… I find this rather unlikely.
Up to you gentlemen to decide.
Time is running out though. Thailand has gone up, Indonesia wants to come up too as seen by the Omnibus law. Will we be left behind?
@Chua
I don’t know what you mean by Thailand and Indonesia has gone up,… Is that referring to the current political hooha in both countries?
BTW, I do agree Malaysia must buy according to the needs of the military, but within means.
@Joe
737s aren’t Boeing’s smallest airliners. There’s their 717s, albeit no longer in production. 717s/DC-9 series are fantastic regional planes. But for our side of the pond, or world, the Leonardo ATR42/72 would be kind of cool, as MPAs.
@Chua
The current Government have begun the first steps towards better transparency by holding open tenders in the past months. I believe the tendering selection process would have started with what ATM had laid out and any bids that cannot meet all the mandatory requirements would automatically be disqualified.
” the first step is to buy what the Forces need and not what the “local industry” (meaning Alibabas) want ”
The issue is not really 100% about what the alibabas want. It is also about the leaders of the armed forces not to be a cohort of what the politicians and alibabas want.
Armed forces leaders need to think more about the global picture of the effects (short and long term) of new procurements. Sometimes wanting the ultimate best equipment will not give us the best mission capability. Quantity, operating costs, in service support, also other capability that was sacrificed to get it.
There has been good solid decisions ( our NCO plans, getting RPG-7s, gowinds which was a good decision although that did not come out according to plan ) but there is much more to be done. Things like the items without requirements from the armed forces like the A400M which is good but something we could actually do without needs to stop.
@Chua
You need to decide as well. Unless , well, you are not Malaysian then yeah we are the ones have to do the choosing.
The way I see it, so long as the current crop of leaders are still around, there’s nothing much that we could do. Either they retire or the Lord decides to retire them permanently. Until that happens, there wouldn’t be much change as their influence is still strong.
@Chua
Some people remain under the impression that there will always be others to pay their way in life.
“unless somehow you are able to clean up the Forces supply chain while leaving the rest of the Govt the way it is… I find this rather unlikely.”
That won’t do either. Stuff isn’t getting any cheaper. The only way to afford it is to grow the defence budget and the economy with it. There’s no escaping the need to have a competent government.
Then again, someone’s hero has already found a certain country willing to pay his way in return for a few mega projects. Maybe we can buy stuff from a certain country at friendship prices, and cede to them their choice of mega projects, offshore blocs, a little say in the government…
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2105440/11-projects-show-chinas-influence-over-malaysia-and-could
Chua – “we can try a change in course towards accountability”
Not only “accountability” but a genuine desire to fix things (even if they come with political consequences) and there must be an ingrained non partisan culture of questioning and scrutinising authority.
Chua – “I think that the first step is to buy what the Forces need and not what the “local industry” (meaning Alibabas) want”
The “first step” is to recognise how and why we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. The next step is to fundamentally revamp how we handle defence; from the budget to the role (often disastrous) role played by the industry to how we justify procurement. Unfortunately the many flawed practices we have in place are so deeply ingrained in the system that it will usher a huge effort to rectify things.
Failure to do this will result in us repeating the same mistakes over and over again. When that happens we’ll only have ourselves to blame.
You mentioned “scandals”; well it was the flawed system in place which enabled them to occur and the flawed system we have that enabled politicians to decide what to get based on ToTs and offsets (the bulk of which fail to lead any actual tangible benefits for the country) and other factors like improving bilateral relations and the hope that buying something will lead to the other side buying more palm oil and investing here.
“What the Forces need” is naturally important but it must be based on sound assessments; e.g. affordability; commonality (the aim is to reduce not enlarge the already large logistical/support footprint) and long term factors (no point buying something if operating costs is a prohibitive factor and no point buying something cheap pre owned if operating costs steadily rise in account of age (as they do – doing that achieve short term savings but long tern heavy expenses; which is why is why the MAF is very selective getting pre owned.
Politics will always be a factor in major arms purchases but there must be a limit – not like how it is here. If politics dictate that we make decisions we wouldn’t normally make; there must be tangible benefits (often missing when we do things). We can continue doing certain things under the delusion that we can actually export certain things competitively or pay more for certain things merely to keep a local company afloat or to maintain jobs. Locals companies must provide added rather than just. acting as “middlemen” or license producing things from components sources abroad.
To be fair a number of companies provide added value but the bulk don’t; they get contracts based on the illusion it actually benefits the country.
Priority must be in ensuring the MAF gets the desired capability and the taxpayer their money’s worth – period/full stop.
@Taib
Let’s not talk about planes that are no longer in production otherwise it would be a long list of Boeing planes that would “qualify”. At moment its the 737 series.
BTW here are MAS fleet types for those still not aware
https://www.malaysiaairlines.com/us/en/experience/fleet.html
As for ATRs, Marhalim had mentioned the high cost of ownership for MPA. The plane itself isn’t all that important as long it meets the requirements and not expensive to run & maint.
“Turkish government has announced that it was doing the same thing for its Turkish built M113 variants.”
IMHO we wait FNSS complete Phase 1 then we decide based on the results of the upgrade. Hopefully Adnan upgrade be guided by OEM to minimise cockups.
“Not only “accountability” but a genuine desire to fix things (even if they come with political consequences) and there must be an ingrained non partisan culture of questioning and scrutinising authority.”
Put a system like that requires somebody who is willing to rock the boat/put into cold storage/transfer 24hr notice to remote station…
@ nimitz
” Put a system like that requires somebody who is willing to rock the boat/put into cold storage/transfer 24hr notice to remote station ”
Which is why suggestions from parties external to the system (whom has no personal interests) is essential to give a second opinion to the plans and decisions done by people within the system.
Which is why countries like usa have external think tanks (like RAND) which gives opinions that might be different than what people in the system has planned.
For a start
1) the need for a clear future planning from the services for everyone to see and comment.
2) from that, a clear budget allocation for all of the plans from the treasury.
3) a clear requirement (mission capability) of the systems needed and shown publicly (those that is not related to OPSEC, and not every single item is OPSEC). So that the public can comment and give second opinions.
4) Timelines for those plans.
IMO one of the best benchmark is the Australian government way of doing things. Transparent, and gives everyone a chance to comment on any policies that the government wants to implement.
joe “BTW here are MAS fleet types for those still not aware”
Who are you kidding again? I said in my very first comment that “MAS for example has a number of 737-800s.”
You’re just raising a sideshow with the fleet types. The issue was never limited to MAS, hence my use of “airlines” in plural form, “countries” and “MAS for example.”
Lets not forget the whole thing started because you were flat out wrong when you blindly said, quote, “Domestic routes are still open lah! Its the bigger international route planes that are currently grounded; the 777s, the 787s, the A380s, etc”
Nimitz – “Put a system like that requires somebody who is willing to rock the boat/put into cold storage/transfer 24hr notice to remote station…”
It requires much much more than that unfortunately. We’ve been doing things in a certain manner; deeply ingrained in the overall system for so long. There is no fast or easy solution solution – like a lot of things plaguing the country.
There is so much overcapacity right now that there are brand new airbus A320 neos on the market for USD45 million only, which is less than half of the normal list price!
It is the buyers market now. a great time for anyone who wants to get a new or used aircraft and helicopters.
@AM
I agree. It’s not just about MAS aircraft types. It’s about the aircraft that can be turned into a good MPA or MSA platform. Heck, perhaps a Twin Otter can do the job if it’s found to be suitable!
@joe
I know DC9s and 717s are no longer in production. Unlike 737s. Thing is, the aircraft isn’t as important as the equipment that goes into an MPA or MSA aircraft.
I’m just hoping this time around we can get better (and more) MPAs flying in TUDM. Sans politics if possible.
It is a buyers market out there, but which airline or air service company is looking to expand right now? They’d be lucky not to go bankrupt before the pandemic ends.
Taib – “Heck, perhaps a Twin Otter can do the job if it’s found to be suitable!”
True; if range and endurance are not major factors or concerns for a particular user.
We’ve been using the Beechcrafts for patrols lasting hours and transit flights to and from West and East Malaysia . Cramped (not much room to move and no headspace for standing) and no toilet – extremely uncomfortable for crews.
Nothing wrong with the aircraft per see; it’s how particular users use what they have; i.e. our FACs were designed for sea denial/patrols in a littoral environment : we used them for extended patrols in the EEZ and others areas; which they were not designed or intended for.
Taib – “Thing is, the aircraft isn’t as important as the equipment that goes into an MPA or MSA aircraft”
It can be if one has an airframe not suited for one’s requirements or if one has a airframe which is prohibitively expensive to run and maintain in relation to the operational budget one has.
@ azlan
The issue really is on how you can maximise the potential of the Beechcraft B200T platform.
As is what TUDM is using, the aircraft has the range to reach most of malaysian EEZ areas. The Beechcraft B200T with twin 50 US gallons wing tip tanks have a range of 1,600 nautical miles (2,963 km), or 8 hours of total flying time. Twin otters for example has a normal maximum range of 1,427 km. Which is why there is only 1 country that is using twin otters for maritime patrol (which needs the twin otter STOL performance to deploy from their short airstrips in Spratlys)
As for the toilet, its hard to believe there is none like you said as the beechcraft is usually fitted for one. This is the picture of the one in Uruguayan Navy B200T maritime patrol aircraft.
http://airpressman.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dsc00079.jpg
You need to flip up the bottom cushion to use the toilet.
Also to increase the comfort and safety of the plane, there are gross weight increase modifications that can increase the standard max takeoff weight of 12,500lb to 14,00lb. That is an increase of 680kg. This would be in addition to an engine swap with a more powerful and lower maintenance version of the PT6 turboprop. So rather than limited by small useful load limit, now you can carry more with the aircraft.
The wingtip tanks have very high drag. This could be replaced with bigger (up to 190 US gallons total, instead of 100 US gallons for the wingtip tanks) saddle tank conversion, which puts additional fuel tanks behind the engine pod for less drag. The wingtip could then be fitted with winglets to give further drag reduction. Less drag means more range, and with the increased capacity of the saddle tanks, additional 1.5 hours can be added.
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonline.com/files/uploads/2014/11/webcentexfuelsaddle.jpg
A more lighter (which frees up more useful load), advanced and user friendly cockpit with Garmin G1000 systems could also be fitted.
http://static.garmin.com/en/products/NXi-G1KA0-00/g/g1000-header.jpg
Anyway it is all moot as the TUDM beechcraft is to be retired by 2024. But that does not mean the B200 is not a good platform. It would IMO be an ideal platform for MMEA needs for a MSA aircraft.
I have double checked my documents, TUDM B200T has the large observation windows behind the passenger doors.
To have the observation windows installed, it must come with the aft toilet as a part of its configuration. So there is no doubt that the TUDM B200T actually have toilets installed.
Documentations:
Bubble Window (Kit 130-4026)
Description: Two bubble windows, approximately 17” wide, 22” high and extending out from the fuselage are installed in the aft cabin compartment, one on each side. These windows facilitate low altitude visual observation and use of a hand-held camera during surveillance / search and rescue operations. The windows are independently defogged with heated air. The windows are comprised of laminated stretched acrylic. Aircraft must be fitted with forward facing aft toilet and jump seat provisions to facilitate -0001, -0003, -0005, -0069, -0071 and -0073 configurations.
… – “The issue really is on how you can maximise the potential of the Beechcraft B200T platform.”
“As is what TUDM is using, the aircraft has the range to reach most of malaysian EEZ areas”
We’ve had this discussion before. The issue wasn’t range or how one “maximises the potential”. I merely states that for extended patrols the cramped conditions (little room to move and standing headspace) makes it very uncomfortable for the crews.
That is the “issue” with regards to my comments on the type. Yes it has the range for what we’ve been using it for but the issue wasn’t the range ….
…. – “aft toilet as a part of its configuration. So there is no doubt that the TUDM B200T actually have toilets installed.”
It there’s indeed “no doubt”; all’s fine then since one doesn’t have to wee in a bottle. My mention of a lack of toilets was because it was told to be by someone who flew in them; who told me there wasn’t and also how being in them for hours on end was extremely uncomfortable and tiring.
Thus we can surmise that he either got it wrong (despite being in the squadron) or the toilets were added at a later date but they were indeed definitely delivered with the “bubble” observation windows.
The issue wasn’t about whether it’s a “good” platform or not; that is very subjective depending on the user’s operational requirements. What really constitutes a “good platform”
can mean different things to others; varied. I merely pointed out that for extended patrols it’s small size/cramped but interior is an issue for the crews.
As someone pointed out to me when I asked how comfortable the seats are when required to be in them for several hours at a go and how much leg space there was/is; the answer was “we get use to it after a while but you try being in one for several hours”.
As I pointed out : “Nothing wrong with the aircraft per see; it’s how particular users use what they have”.
Well I have heard lots of tall tales from military guys who thinks that I have zero idea of what they are talking about…
Anyhow, the potty below the seat might be left out to reduce the aircraft weight (just my assumption and wild guess). Standard king airs equipped with lots of equipment like radar, FLIR turrets and such leaves very little weight margin for additional stuffs. Which is why gross weight increase mods need to be applied to them, especially for MPA/MSA missions.
Another thing that would be interesting, if MMEA are going for a king air based MSA. For the UK HM Coastguard king airs, there is no fixed internal mission suites at all. All the systems, radars, EO turrets etc. are linked and run just with ruggedised laptops. No need for fixed screens, cabinets like for AMASOS and the like. Which is amazing as the HM Coastguard king airs are probably one of the most advanced king air maritime patrol aircraft anywhere as it is equipped with Leonardo Osprey AESA radar, Wescam FLIRs, Cobham low profile satcom antennas etc. etc. All of that is just controlled through a ruggedised laptop. So the interior can be used for normal passenger runs, or cargo if it is not on a MSA mission. Not to mention the low weight of a laptop when compared to a dedicated mission console.
King air aircons are also notoriously unreliable. Recently there are alternative air conditioning systems for the king air that can be run before the engine is started, and can be left on even during takeoff and landing.
Also recently there is an electronic ABS retrofit been made available (i did not know that king air B200s does not have ABS as standard). This will reduce the landing braking distance, and reduce tyre wear.
There is no toilet in the BT200. Even if there’s one, can you imagine how the female officers doing their business in the open with four other crew on board something smaller than the inside of a Toyota van. To gain access to the cockpit seats, one need to squeeze through a two feet wide walkway. Like Azlan said, BT200 is a good platform but it’s also something RMAF can move away from, at least to a bigger and better range platform.
… – “Well I have heard lots of tall tales from military guys”
So have I but I’m selective with who I ask and what I ask. The key is to not only ask the right person but to also ask the right person the right questions in the right way …
In this case the individual had served in the squadron (he categorically stated there was no loo – at least not when he was there) and was a batch mate of a good friend of mine; a CN pilot who unfortunately had to leave the service prematurely because of a minor but vital (with regards to flying) health issue.
Ed – “To gain access to the cockpit seats, one need to squeeze through a two feet wide walkway”
Once I was lucky enough to get a fast peek into one. One really has to look inside to understand how cramped it is and how uncomfortable it is to be inside one for hours on end.
Ed – “m but it’s also something RMAF can move away from, at least to a bigger and better range platform”
Indeed. A CN has a loo (aft of the cockpit on the starboard side); there’s decent leg space, standing headspace and space for (if required) replacement crews.
@ ed liew
The observer seat beside the door is the toilet
http://airpressman.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dsc00079.jpg
http://img.aviationpros.com/files/base/cygnus/cavc/image/2013/08/unfinished-aft-toilet-seat-kit_11081233.png?auto=format&w=1600
there is a curtain to close off the area if you are using the potty.
The specific STC for the observer windows ( supplemental type certificate STC is a type certificate TC issued when an applicant has received FAA approval to modify an aeronautical product from its original design. The STC, which incorporates by reference the related TC, approves not only the modification but also how that modification affects the original design. ) needs to have the toilet as part of its system (as a dual use observer seat and toilet).
I agree TUDM needs a bigger platform to be able to do more things than a small platform like king air can do, like ASW, and ESM for example. But range wise, the king air can go as far as the CN-235 with suitable mods.
Still those in a B200 king air can still move around, even of it is quite cramped. They cant in a smaller plane like the Diamond DA62 MPP.
But for MMEA requirement for example, the B200 king air as a platform (not saying about the specific maritime surveillance equipments) is fit for the task. For example for the MMEA MSA taskings, 2 pilots, 1 systems operator and 1 observer would be enough. MSA patrols could be planned so that there can be a break in the middle of the sortie. For example a south china sea patrol from Labuan in the morning to go for surveillance mission over beting serupai area for 4 hours, land at kuching for a lunch break, go for another 4 hour sortie and return back to Labuan.
Reply
I know Ed, he knows whats his talking about
It’s interesting that it’s mentioned here of Twin Otter’s STOL capability. STOL is a concept that really took on until the aviation industry became transfixed by VTOL and S/VTOL planes. If an MPA or MSA aircraft has STOL, that would really increase its versatility. Or maybe even operate out of Layang² from time to time according to our needs.
@ marhalim
Yes I understand that he is also someone who has access to the military like you (he usually writes for MMP right?), unlike someone like me.
I am just talking about it from the technical point of view. Why I have speculated that maybe they did not use, disable or remove the potty below the seat to save on the aircraft weight, as a normal king air available load would be diminished with the heavy MPA equipment like the radar, EO turret, operator console and such. Because from the technical documents, the observation window should come together with the potty seat.
So lets leave it at that. Thanks for the great discussions with all of you about this BTW.
Reply
No he doesn’t write for MMP.
… – “Still those in a B200 king air can still move around, even of it is quite cramped”
Of course they can – that’s not the issue is it; eventhough actually “moving around” is hard given how tight a fit it is inside.
The issue (at least in the context of my comments) is that whatever it’s virtues (nobody’s disputing has the range for what we use it for) the type is not suited for extended patrols because it’s cramped conditions make it very uncomfortable and tiring for crews.
… – “I am just talking about it from the technical point of view”
As you often do. For me; I’m just pointing out what I heard from someone who use to fly in them. Thus it’s either the loo was not fitted when he was in the squadron or it was there earlier but removed; as you suggested. There is also a possibility it was added later but what’s for certain is that they were delivered with the “bubble” windows.
Rep
Its not fitted with one as Ed has pointed out