View Comments (11)

• It has a 10,000 foot runway. Any idea if this is the longest we have?

• On another matter it seems the FlyEyes have gone to the Rocket Brigade. I believe this is the first time a combat arm of the army has received an organic UAS capability. Ideally the Fly Eyes will be operated by a regiment rather than being hogged by Brigade HQ. Operations in Ukraine have only reinforced the need for decentralisation.

• Kuantan, alor setar and Labuan runway are longer

  Gong Kedak is shorter than Butterworth

  All details can be seen on CAAM AIP website

  The Flyeye is actually operated by a troop within a regiment, not RAD BAR HQ.
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gl-zsDFbYAMQUUE.jpg

• - We know Mavics were bought during the MCO but we don't know which units got them and whether they are still operated.
  - The ex Petronas Camcopters we know went to intel people.
  - No idea which unit operates the 3 CW-25s. Probably the intel chaps.
  - The FlyEyes are a good start but it has to be followed by a decent quantity of Marvics or similar off the shelf commercial designs we can afford to lose. These have to be distributed as as far down as possible, to platoon level as in some cases even lower.

  As seen in other armies the main inhibitors is cultural followed by doctrinal. UASs will be lost, either due to human error, bad weather or enemy action, no way around this. The U.S army is revamping the paperwork which comes when a UAS is lost as there's lots of paperwork involved and fear of repercussions on the part of operators in the event of losing a UAS affects operations. Another issue is distribution and C3. A cumbersome C3 set up and having UASs not distributed optimally can be a major inhibitor.

  On the RMAF it's logical it should operate the Ankas but in due course MALEs should be operated by a joint UAS Command to ensure all services get the capability when needed with as little bureaucratic inter service hiccups as possible. Naturally the RMAF will resist this as having the capability comes with funding and its paying for the Ankas.

  • It must be noted that the FlyEyes were not procured per se but was part of the counter-trade for the procurement of WB intercom system in the Gempita. That was the reason Deftech people were involved in the training

• Really. Had no idea. Thanks for mentioning this. I was hoping that the deal was due to us belatedly giving more focus to UASs but I was wrong.

• We buy the Gempita intercoms from Poland, and because of that we need to counter trade buying UAV from Poland? How does that make sense?
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gd4FhUjaQAAld3i.jpg

  Operating MALE UAVs

  I am for TUDM being the sole service that operates MALE UAVs and CUAVs. It should be operated just like how Fighter jets and MPAs are operated, as an ISTAR, CAS, etc etc service provided to all the other services.

  As for UAVs for the army. Small quadcopters like MAVICs should be distributed down to individual units, but larger UAVs like the Flyeye or even Scanegle equivalents should be flown by RAD units, as observation tasks are traditionally an artillery unit mission. Data sharing could be done by web apps to friendly units to use. IMO the army need a UAV with size, performance and endurance similar or better than the scaneagle, for long range ISTAR for artillery, and for battlefield surveillance.
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6DJ6M1a0AAPqDE.jpg

  We should also start experimenting with OWA-FPV drones, starting as a battery sized unit within close support artillery regiments. Maybe in the long term we could look at either making all our close support artillery regiments into a mixed 105mm & OWA-FPV unit, or probably even convert a whole regiment into a dedicated OWA-FPC unit. OWA-FPV uses 100% off the shelf commercial components and usually costs less than USD500 each to assemble it could be easily tested out. Another advantage of something like the OWA-FPV is that we could use expired munitions, for example expired mortar rounds that is no longer safe to be put down a mortar tube, but is perfectly usable cable-tied to the bottom of a OWA-FPV drone.

• Any idea what kind of UAV the navy wanted this RMK. Would it be organics to the ship or land base?

  as some of the render at the navy displays on defence show kinda show a silhouette of a TB3.

  • Render at the defence shows are usually ones that they have laid eyes on.

• Thank you, Aussie Sam! Now if they still have Hornet spares & spareparts they willing to give for free, I dont mind sending both Saktis down to collect.

• Would probably be cheaper to lease a plane to collect the parts.