SHAH ALAM: According to a press release, Turkish company Aselsan claimed it had secured a contract to supply its SMASH 30mm RWS for integration with 44 metre boats being built for the Malaysian Armed Forces.
The release dated Sept 9, is published in Turkish (without any English translation) but the Google Translation goes as follows:
“ASELSAN with a company resident in Malaysia under an agreement signed between ASELSAN GUARD 30mm Remote Controlled Stabilized Top System will be integrated into the 44-meter boat belonging to the Malaysian Armed Forces.
Currently, the Turkish Naval Forces Command, Coast Guard Command, Land Forces and Police Headquarters is located ASELSAN Remote Controlled inventory Weapon System was preferred by Turkey as well as on the country’s Armed Forces .
These agreements , its importance in terms of being the first weapon system exports to Southeast Asia , ASELSAN carries.”
Anyhow, the translated release did not mentioned MMEA or the NGPC but the Malaysian Armed Forces instead so I am yet to decipher what it really meant.
However AFAIK only the MMEA is looking for a RWS for its NGPC and also to arm four of its unarmed patrol boats.
Furthermore the release stated that it signed a contract with a “company resident in Malaysia” which could mean that it had signed a marketing deal with a local agent. Unless of course the company its talking about is Destini Bhd.
As you are aware NGPC is now being built by Destini after the winning bidder, Destination Marine Sdn Bhd, decided to cash out after getting the tender from other more notable shipyards.
As for the tender to up-gun the unarmed boats, which also called for a 30mm RWS, if indeed the SMASH had secured the NGPC deal, it appears it will also be the gun chosen. I will be surprised if they choose another RWS from another manufacturer.
Please check later after I get confirmation either from MMEA or Destini.
In other news, Korea Aerospace Industries seemed to lock down the fast jet attack/trainer in South East Asia when it was announced on Sept 17 that it had reached a U$110 million deal to export four T-50TH supersonic trainer jets to Thailand.
Indonesia operates 16 T-50s while the Phillipines has 12 acquired FA-50PHs, a light combat version of the T-50, in 2014.
Personnally I like the T-50/FA-50s but RMAF already operates two fast jet trainers, the MB339s and the Hawk 108s. It will be unthinkable for the air force to retire the two jets including the single seater Hawks in favour of the Korean trainer/light attack despite their advantageous as already pointed out by regular Malaysian Defence reader ….
— Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Its for the 44m boats? Most probably be for the Mmea new patrol boats. So now there would be 2 types of 30mm rcws in malaysia, the dsi ds30 and now the aselsan smash.
The thai buy of the 4 t-50 would be followed on later with more t-50’s to replace its l-39 and alphajets.
Malaysia? Kalau 2 jenis kapalterbang ganti dengan satu nanti ada syarikat yang tak dapat cari makan…
If the will is there, those current planes could always be sold off (south korea managed to sell of all of its Bae hawk trainers to private buyers in the USA, as is new Zealand selling all its Mb-339 to a private contractor in the USA)
Sometimes it puzzles me why the South Koreans did not make a proper @ dedicated single seat (aka. smaller canopy) version of the T/FA-50. That’ll be a proper F-5E replacement.
By the way, what 30mm gun is used in these RWS?
No idea on why KAI have not so, perhaps funding issues. As for the SMASH it uses the Bushmaster II cannon. Its the same I believed as the one fitted on the Gempita with the 30mm gun. MSI also uses the same cannon.
I don’t think MMEA will procure SMASH systems for the tender to install 30mm gun onboard their existing patrol crafts due to space and weight constraint.
A lighter 30mm or 20mm RWS would be more suitable such as Bofors Lemur 30mm or Nexter 20mm Narwhal RWS.
The tender clearly states 30mm gun though. That said stranger things had happened before. Personally I think a 12.7 mm gun in a RWS is good enough for those boats.
Personally, I think the SMASH 30mm is a decent choice. It got better range than an 12.7mm RWS and we can always mount a normal HMG by ourselves.
As for the FA-50, better wait until it mature more(capable of AShM and ARM, better avionics etc.), and our Hawks/MB339s still had a bit more in them.
It is the Nuris that need urgent replacement, it’s 60+/- years old already!.
The Ma Deuce out range most of the small arms used by the gooks MMEA are supposed to encounter. The bullets are cheaper so they will get more trigger time.
If not mistaken, the gempita 30mm turret uses denel emak 30 cannon.
Single seater fa-50? There should not be much difference in performance, and the rear seat could always be flown empty. This is how the raaf employs its 24 f/a-18f superhornets (yes all aussie superhornets are twin seaters). Another advantage is that 1 aircraft could be flown for the flying hours currency of two pilots in peacetime, saving valuable aircraft flight hours and maximising flying hours of all the assigned pilots. Btw the fa-50 in rokaf service is assigned as a replacement for its f-5e fleet.
Tender written to product, not requirement. BIASA.
The Nuri’s still have lot of hours left on them and are not in need of urgent replacement. What they need is the long overdue upgrade which amongst other things will enable IFR flight in bad weather.
Just out of curiosity, why don’t we buy other nation’s ex S-61’s, lets say 60 units and use them, since we have deep experience operating the Nuri’s. Even with ‘some improvement’, I guess it will still be cheaper than buying new helo’s, for example the Cougar.
There are not many low houred Sea King AFAIK
As for the fast jet trainer since we already operated MB-339CM and the Hawk Mk100 , why don’t we buy the kiwi’s MB-339 and the Omanian And UAE Hawk 100 ,so we will have 16 MB-339 and 24 Hawk 100 in our inventory
The Kiwi Macchis have been sold to a private company in the US. However the UAE do have Macchis and Hawk 102s in their inventory which will be retired once the M-246s are delivered. It must be FOC of course as we need to upgrade them or our birds to the same standard for ease of maintenance and training. Perhaps this is in the works already.
S-61s are – despite their age – highly sought after. Not many S-61s available for sale. If we had bought the S-92, Sikorsky offered to buy back some of our S-61s. Sikorsky knew it could find buyers.
What the RMAF wants and needs is a new generation LIFT that can replicate closely an actual MRCA; one which also has an advanced navigation and other systems, e g. the Hawk AJT and the M-346. In other words something that can better help make a new pilot make his transition, compared to the Hawk 100 and
MBB-339 which some can argue is not a dedicated LIFT. If the MBB-339 was a dedicated LIFT the spaghetti eaters would have no need for
M-346s would they 🙂
The uae buy of the m-246 is still not sealed after all this years. So it could be considered that the m-246 was not bought by uae, as was the rafale.
Uae uses 3 types of hawks
Mk61/63 is the old short nose hawks, but fitted with hawk100 wings
The mk61/63 has all been retired (abt 20 aircraft) and replaced with pilatus pc-21. Uae’s pc-7 was not replaced by the pc-21 as many predicted and is still retained for basic training.
Mk102 is not used for advanced training but instead used for a ground attack squadron. No info if this squadron will have new aircrafts (new f-16’s ordered, and more new iomax coin attack aircraft has been bought) to replace the hawks.
All of the Mb-339 are still used for the al fursan aerobatic display team. Some are bought new, some used airframes from Argentina and Italy. Uae is one of a few Arab air force that does not mind buying second hand aircrafts.
Oman is another country with hawk 100/200’s and is buying f-16’s, typhoons and newer hawk ajt’s. So probably they would retire their hawk 100/200 once they got all their new aircrafts. Oman has 11 hawk 200s, and about 4 hawk 100, with 6 newer hawk ajt on order.
this is my suggestion for fast jet training
1st Sqn: 8 MB-339CM + 8 Remaining MB-339CD
2nd Sqn: 6 hawk 108 + 4 hawk 103 + 16 hawk 102
40 aircraft should be sufficient for RMAF
MMEA selection of Aselsan SMASH does not make any economic sense. They should have selected MSI Seahawk A1. MSI already has an establised ILS system in Malaysia. SMASH got no ILS system in Malaysia. Who is going to pay for the setup of SMASH ILS system? Obviously the Malaysian taxpayers.
I have not determined that the SMASH has been selected for the NGPC but I was told that the MSI agency here was not confident that it’s product will be selected though it was thought that Oto Melara had a better chance of bagging the deal. Technically the decision for the gun of the NGPC lies with the builder as specified by the tender documents. This is the same reason Boustead was the one choosing the systems to be installed on the LCS.
8 remaining Mb-339cd? Remaining from where?
And why do you need 2 squadrons with 2 different aircrafts for fast jet training? About 12-16 LIFT aircraft in a single squadron/ftc is sufficient, and if possible in similar variant to the aircraft in the light fighter squadrons.
Imo LIFT and light fighters should be of similar variant, as it would be easier for rookie pilots to master, ie must be all hawks, or all golden eagles, or all m-246 or all yak-130 (just putting out possible aircrafts out there).
a surprise contract… why only KD Pahang? is it suffer heavy problem? Meko were ours “youngest” vessel, so fast need to refit?
Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) announced on 17 September that it had received a contract to carry out scheduled refit and maintenance work on the Royal Malaysian Navy’s (RMN’s) second Kedah (Meko 100 RMN)-class corvette, KD Pahang (172).
The contract, with a ceiling value of MYR92.4 million (USD21.8 million), was awarded by the Malaysian Ministry of Defence on 2 September, said the company, which is a subsidiary of Malaysian conglomerate Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation.
A BNS spokesperson on 18 September declined to give further details on the works, citing confidentiality issues.
Pahang was constructed by the then Penang Shipbuilding Corporation (PSC) and a German naval consortium led by Blohm+Voss.
Sea Kings are called “Sea” Kings because it’s a sea level bird. Puma was a copy but Cougars are courgars, they are not even in the same class.
Recapitalise the remaining Nuris for cheapo Mi-171 makes more sense than to collect yet another piece of vintage bird.
IFR does not make it an all weather. It never was and never will be at this age.
Michael – ”is it suffer heavy problem? Meko were ours “youngest” vessel, so fast need to refit?”
Do you know when was KD Pahang’s last refit or time in dry dock and how did you come around to deciding this is ”fast”, i.e. based on what?
The fact that she has to spend time in dry dock does not necessarily mean she has ”heavy problem”. All ships – irrespective – of ”young” or ”old” have to undergo refits or time in dry dock : to be expected and nothing new. The Scorpenes are ”young” but are already slated to receive their first refit.
Did you attend the Navy Day yesterday and captured the contents of the Press Conference from CN?
Fitting avionics to enable IFR does not indeed make the Nuri an ‘all weather’ bird but would better enable the Nuri to perform the kinds of roles it performs and is something the RMAF has been requesting for ages.
Does not matter how you would like to describe it, Nuri’s have long past their time to receive such an investment. The best it can do is being used as a cheap bush fly truck, on a good day.
If they are really that serious about round the clock transportation then the Pumas even the “high fly hours” ones will not have merely 500 hours in 3 years.
A previous article commented on the civilian input to the tender process as a means of ensuring transparency and consistency and better value for money.
The role of MIGHT was to facilitate the development of the local defence industry in line with the wishes of the current DPM to develop an ASEAN defence industry reducing the dependence on the World players.
Instead as with this APMM tender the document is designed to fit a product that is unsuitable based on size and weight for the craft selected. And who leads the charade ?
The question should be why is the defence of such a sensitive area as ESSCOM in the hands of people with limited experience in terms of military experience and aimed at selecting products which will not benefit local industry or have an ILS operation.
In the meantime a “smash and grab” may occur further weakening the defences of a sensitive area. Higher cost lower benefit and potentially unsuitable product – an interesting combination however perhaps the new DG of APMM will ride to the rescue of his organisation.
Dare we watch this space