Acoustic Hailing Devices For CB90s

The then RMAF chief Gen. Ackbal Samad checks out the LRAD installed on an EC725 during an official visit to Kuantan airbase on Nov. 19, 2020. The LRAD was procured for Op Benteng. RMAF

SHAH ALAM: Markas Wilayah Laut 2 (Mawilla 2) based in Sandakan, Sabah has issued three separate quotation notices for the purchase of six acoustic hailing devices for six CB90s fast combat boats, under its command. The three seven-day notices for two acoustic hailing devices each, published on April 1, were issued for six CB90s – pennant numbers 212; 213; 214; 215; 216 and 217.

Although in three separate notices, the specifications for the hailing devices are the same.

SPESIFIKASI ACOUSTIC HAILING DEVICE: 1. POWER REQUIREMENT: 10-34VDC (BATERI) 2. JARAK: SEHINGGA 2KM 3. MAX PEAK OUTPUT: 151dB 4. POWER CONSUMPTION: 425 watt(AVERAGE), 750watt (PEAK) 5. BERAT: 16.8KG

CB90 214 being towed into water after completing her routine refit in early March 2023. Note her camouflage scheme. RMN

CB90s -212 and 214 – had undergone separate refit recently and got a new coat of paint during the maintenance period. It is likely that the acoustic hailing devices are new equipment to the navy’s fleet of CB90s. I stand to be corrected though.
CB90 212 being prepared for tests prior to delivery to RMN after undergoing the refit and repowering programme. RMN

As you are aware the acoustic hailing devices are specialised loudspeaker that produces sound at high power for communicating at a distance. Other users of the acoustic device include the RMAF, which bought four Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) for OP Benteng operations. The devices are fitted on the cabin of RMAF EC725 helicopters as seen from photographs in 2020 (main picture). According to the specifications of the tender

the RMAF requirement for the new procurement of the Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) to carryout Public Address Missions during disaster relief and maritime interdiction mission.

CETC International Long Range Acoustic Speaker, a China made LRAD. The system was displayed at DSA 2016. Malaysian Defence

The tender for the LRAD was awarded to Malkraine Sdn Bhd for a Letter of Award of RM1.5 million. MMEA were also gifted with two LRAD from Japan, on January 6 for use on its Japan-donated patrol vessel, KM Pekan and KM Arau.

–Malaysian Defence

.

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2097 Articles
Shah Alam

17 Comments

  1. I don’t understand why 6 separate tenders for essentially the same thing.

    Is it they want to experiment on a few different brands thus one brand cannot win it all unlike if follow the traditional way of tendering?

    Or another creative way of getting the same thing but coming from different suppliers ie the more the merrier?

  2. What if, instead of getting a LRAD, they get a 12.7mm RWS with IR and Thermal EOS?

  3. It started its harbour acceptance trial last January. If everything goes well it should be back in service soon, if other things do not hold it back, of course.

  4. It is non lethal as it cannot kill but it annoys the target and makes them run away.

    It can also be a powerful propaganda tool, blasting statements, songs etc at the intended target.

    It can be used against Chinese Coast Guard ships. For example we could play in a loop statements that will question the presence of Chinese coast guard ships in our EEZ with something like – why are you now many days away far from your country? This waters is just hours away from our homes. This is clearly our waters. You come here and can see that we have been here, our oil platforms has been here for decades. Our fisherman has been fishing for centuries. We are friendly countries, please go back to your home. Or we could create catchy chinese songs of the sea being malaysia and blast it to them so it would stick in their subconscious minds.

  5. Pointless to get it anyway since PMX unilaterally announced publicly that MY is open for negotiation despite ID official position that there’s nothing to discuss because Whatever the Chinese are claiming is illegal under UNCLOS while SG position is everyone must respect the rules based orders.

  6. “It’s three separate quotation notice”
    Ah yeah sorry I was doing a quick glance thru and mixed the 6 and threes. Haha. Still its weird to have 3 tenders at the same time for the same equipment unless they intend to get different ones or some other reason.

    “It is supposed to be non lethal”
    Just as rubber bullets were supposed to be non lethal but still kills people when used in a certain way, LRAD is not totally harmless.

    @hulubalang
    “It can be used against Chinese Coast Guard ships. For example we could play in a loop statements”
    Bro, the Chinese CCP are masters at political propaganda, we’d be lucky if they don’t retaliate in kind and turn our servicemen into Comrades.

  7. Hulubalang – “. Our fisherman has been fishing for centuries.”

    No. Traditionally our fishermen don’t venture that far. Which is why you hear reports of Vietnamese and Filipino fishermen being harassed but much less of Malaysian ones. Malaysian fishermen have been known to travel far but mainly in areas adjacent to Lucenia Shoals: not to areas where the reefs we claim and physically occupy are located.

    Zaft – “Pointless to get it anyway since PMX unilaterally announced publicly that MY is open for negotiation”

    Do you know what those “negotiations” entail; enlighten us if you do but don’t assume “negotiations” equate to appeasement and do away with the need to buy various things. There has to be “negotiations” [everybody engages in diplomacy] because China is a major power and because bilateral trade and Chinese investment keeps the economy healthy so to speak but there are “red lines” [a cliche I dislike] which we won’t tolerate.

    Zaft – “despite ID official position that there’s nothing to discuss because Whatever the Chinese are claiming is illegal under UNCLOS while SG position is everyone must respect the rules based orders”

    Different countries have different ways of doing things; they all also deal with others publicly and via back door channels. At times we also have been very openly vocal and have undertaken diplomatic actions which annoyed the Chinese. If you need sources ask. Research … We have also made clear and have been consistent of the fact that we don’t recognise China’s claims and were one of the first claimants to undertake gas exploration in the disputed area; still do.

  8. @Azlan

    Assuming that Padang tembak & wisma Putra brief PMX on the redlines and also assuming that PMX (a politician If people forget) adhered to the redlines guidelines.

    I personally have low confidence in politicians and like them to be like a cow in the Paddy field which you need to constantly control so its do whatever it is you wanted them to do rather than do what they’re wanted to do.

  9. Zaft,

    I’ve alluded to many times what I personally think of politicians of all types/colours.

    I suggest you research how we’ve handled the Spratlys issue over the years and what the policy is when it comes to dealing with China as a whole and not just over the Spratlys. I also suggest taking a deep and objective look at how we view the strategic calculus and what our actual defence policy is in relation to the foreign policy [throughout the Cold War to the post Cold War period to the present] and dealing with various players.

    Lets see how the issue over the large gas field [estimated 3.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas] off Sarawak is handled. We have long been carrying out exploration and we intend on large scale extraction soon.

  10. The Dutch recent defense white paper said something very interesting that is to achieve escalation dominance to respond to a grey area conflicts.

    I don’t have a problem with how ‘we’ as a whole handled things. As I said before I supported RMAF action during the PLAN ‘flybys’. Which in my opinion is a version of escalation dominance in action.

    A bully usually want to intimidated & thus win without fighting, if we stand up for ourselves then the whole cost- benefits equation for them quickly change.

    I also believe we would continue opening new well & extracting dinosaur juice revenue unilaterally as always. I also believe we would continue our current diplomatic solution of giving CCP face and not shame them publicly which would compelled them to act aggressively particularly as they had stated to us they are doing it mostly for domestic consumption.

    But I however have a problem with PMX giving validation to PRC non UNCLOS compliance claims publicly. That’s just going to far.

  11. zaft – ”I don’t have a problem with how ‘we’ as a whole handled things. ”

    I have no idea if you have a ”problem” but I think you really should research it in greater depth in order to get better acquainted/informed. Need sources; ask.

    zaft – ”Which in my opinion is a version of escalation dominance in action.”

    I have no idea what that means and I don’t want to know but you might be making connections which aren’t there. With regards to the interception that was not the first time we launched fighters; it was the first time we announced it. Also, when I said research ” how we’ve handled the Spratlys issue over the years and what the policy is when it comes to dealing with China as a whole and not just over the Spratlys”; it means what it means.

    zaft – ”But I however have a problem with PMX giving validation to PRC non UNCLOS compliance claims publicly. That’s just going to far.”

    You have zero idea [like all of us here] as to what the negotiations entail and like I said; negotiations does not equate with appeasement – you seemingly have a ”problem” which something you know nothing about.

    Also, nothing at all indicates that Anwar is ”giving validation to PRC non UNCLOS compliance claims publicly” [to quote your goodself]. Anwar would not be able to do what you’re suggesting and survive politically and if you know anything at all about how we’ve long conducted things; you’ll know that we’ve long believed in diplomacy and negotiations as a means to an end; whilst simultaneously not budging from our position. You also need to note that the only way we can extract gas from the giant gas field off Sarawak is to ensure it does not affect the overall relationship with China and that China does not retaliate in ways [I don’t mean militarily] we can’t respond to; the only way to do that is diplomacy/negotiation. Some of which will be made public and some of which will be via ”quiet” diplomacy.

  12. Negotiate is bad. Don’t negotiate is bad. Start war is bad. Don’t start war is bad. Say something is bad. Don’t say anything is bad. Seems like its hate just for the sake of hating.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*