Brunei’s first two C295 enter service

TUDB C295W 502. Brunei Defence Ministry.

SHAH ALAM: Royal Brunei Air Force (RBAF) on February 14 inducted into service its first two C295W medium tactical transport aircraft. Brunei ordered four C295s in 2022 though it is unclear when the other two aircraft will be delivered. Brunei joined four other countries in Asean – Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia to operate the twin-engine transporter.

Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah inside the cockpit of one of the C295W. Brunei Defence Ministry.

Brunei Defence Ministry release:

RIMBA AIR FORCE BASE, Wednesday, 14 February 2024 – His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Haji Omar ‘Ali Saifuddien Sa’adul Khairi Waddien, Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam today graced the Introduction to Service Ceremony for two of the four newly acquired C295MW aircraft for the Royal Brunei Air Force (RBAirF) held at Rimba Air Force Base.

The Introduction to Service of the first two C295MW aircraft was from the recent proceedings following His Royal Highness Prince Haji Al-Muhtadee Billah ibni His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah, the Crown Prince and Senior Minister at the Prime Minister’s Office, after gracing the Aircraft Arrival Ceremony at the Rimba Air Force Base on 24 January 2024.

Accompanying His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam to the Introduction to Service Ceremony was His Royal Highness 920 Major (U) Prince ‘Abdul Mateen ibni His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah.

Upon arrival, His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam was greeted by Yang Berhormat Pehin Datu Lailaraja Major General (Retired) Dato Paduka Seri Haji Awang Halbi bin Haji Mohd. Yussof, Minister at the Prime Minister’s Office and Minister of Defence II, Yang Mulia Major General Dato Paduka Seri Haji Muhammad Haszaimi bin Bol Hassan, Commander of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces (RBAF) and Yang Mulia Brigadier General (U) Dato Seri Pahlawan Mohd Sharif bin Dato Paduka Haji Ibrahim, Commander of the RBAirF.

Also present at the ceremony were the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Service Commander, Acting Service Commander, Acting Joint Force Commander (JFC) RBAF, Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Senior officers of the RBAF, and delegation from Airbus Defence and Space.

The ceremony began with His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam being escorted to the Military Apron of Hangar B where His Majesty received the Royal Salute and inspected the Guard of Honour, comprising 103 RBAirF personnel and the RBAF Band, led by the Parade Commander, Major (U) Muhammad Izdihar bin Haji Imran.

His Majesty then delivered a Titah to officiate the Introduction to Service of the two C295MW aircraft. This was followed by the recitation of Selawat and Doa Selamat, led by Commander Haji Ainolnizam bin Haji Ibrahim, Royal Brunei Navy (RBN), Director of the Religious Department RBAF (JAMA’AT). The ceremonial proceedings continued with His Majesty’s signing of a plaque to mark the inauguration.

His Majesty was ushered to view the two C295MW aircraft, designated as ‘TUDB 502’ and ‘TUDB 503’, and introduced to the members of the project team involved in the aircraft procurement project including RBAirF pilots, aircrews and engineers. His Majesty was then invited for a group photo session and was presented with a pesambah before proceeding to the Air Movement Centre.

Upon arrival at the Air Movement Centre, His Majesty received a flight and safety brief from Major (U) Mohammad Adieb bin Abdul Rahman, Officer Commanding 15 Squadron before boarding and piloted the C295MW TUDB 502 aircraft.

Upon landing, His Majesty proceeded for the Royal Luncheon at the Air Movement Centre. His Majesty was then invited to sign the Royal Parchment before departing the Rimba Air Force Base.

The ceremony was held to officiate the C295MW Transport Aircraft Capability into service for the RBAirF following its arrival on 24 January 2024. Its pilots and aircrews will begin training in the Southeast Asian region in preparation for various strategic and tactical transport missions at the regional and international levels including Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations, Medical Evacuations (MEDEVAC), Aeromedical Evacuations (AE) and Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. The aircrafts are capable of fulfilling various roles including Troop and Cargo Transport, VIP Transport, Freefall, Airborne Static Jumps and Cargo Drop.

The procurement and the introduction of the C295MW aircraft into the RBAirF’s fleet is an important historical chapter for the development of RBAirF in particular, and RBAF in general, in its effort to strengthen RBAirF’s capability to carry out missions for the nation, as well as regionally and internationally.

The crew of the two aircraft upon arrival at Rimba airbase on January 24 2024.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2150 Articles
Shah Alam

28 Comments

  1. more info on brunei MINDEF page itself

    http://www.mindef.gov.bn/Lists/News/DispForm.aspx?ID=6132

    http://www.mindef.gov.bn/News_Images/2024/2%20FEB%202024/140224%20kdymm/9.jpg

    Interestingly, RBAF fixed wing transport fleet has grown from just 1x CN-235 to now additional 4x C-295MW (Modernized Winglets). The C-295MW serials are sequential to the CN-235 meaning for now the CN-235 looks to still be in RBAF fleet.

    RBAF currently has outsourced all primary flight training to a private company in Australia, so all 4x of its PC-7 MkII is currently stored. Helicopter training is done in-Brunei, with its blackhawk simulators is one of the most advanced in the region.

    The 4x Blackhawks that it planned to donate to Malaysia is still operational in RBAF, with a 2nd Blackhawk helicopter squadron (14 Squadron), so the information in wiki is totally wrong.
    http://www.mindef.gov.bn/airforce/Airforce%20Image/No_1_Wing_002a.jpg

  2. “with its blackhawk simulators is one of the most advanced in the region”.

    Why didn’t we send our PUTD pilot to Brunei rather than to Turkey?

  3. As the one in Turkey was meant for the Black Hawks – A or A + models – we are supposed to be getting. The one in Brunei, which I toured a few years ago, was meant for the latest version of the Black Hawks.

  4. @hulubalang
    “The 4x Blackhawks that it planned to donate to Malaysia”
    Are you still buying into the Hishammuddin spiel? It was long revealed that Brunei never had intentions to donate them but rather it was for sale at a friendly prices, cheap maybe but defo not free donation.

  5. >C295
    >Brunei

    Probably enough for their tactical transport need. Besides whenever they need bigger transport aircraft for evacuation of their people from other countries or to send their peacekeepers to other countries they always tumpang sekaki on our A400M anyway.

  6. dundun – “send their peacekeepers to other countries they always tumpang sekaki on our A400M anyway”

    Have Bruneian troops ever deployed on a UN mission when not part of a Malaysian contingent? Brunei had some observers under the IMT in Mindanao but it was separate from us.

  7. @ joe

    ” Are you still buying into the Hishammuddin spiel? ”

    No, but how else am i going to describe specifically those four blackhawks so it is not confused with other blackhawks?

    Whatever it is, those 4 Blackhawks are still operational with RBAF, no matter what most of the reports in the internet say.

    As for joint Brunei-Malaysian military ops, I do really hope that there will be more joint ops, especially for any major HADR events (earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis) in south-east asia. I would also love to see more Bruneian officers seconded to malaysian units. Most of the time it is malaysian officiers seconded to Brunei military (especially KAGAT officers).

  8. Option for the future of CN-235

    Currently all 7 are now operated by No.1 Skuadron, TUDM Kuching.
    3x in MSA spec (M44-01, M44-03, M44-05)
    3x in utility transport spec (M44-02, M44-04, M44-06)
    1x in VIP spec (M44-08)

    My proposal :

    1) All MSA-spec aircraft + 1 more convert to MSA spec to pass to APMM starting around 2027/28. As these are all MSA standard fitout, it is suitable for use by APMM. So in total APMM would have 2x CL-415MP and 4x CN-235 MSA in its disposal for maritime surveillance patrol.

    2) 3x CN-235 of the utility transport and VIP version to pass to PUTD starting 2027/28. As TUDM is going to divest itself from medium transport taskings, those 3x CN-235 would probably find a good new home with PUTD. It would complement the PUTD medium lift helicopters transport mission while enabling organic freefall parachuting support for 10PARA and GGK.

    3) the 1 Skuadron TUDM would then transision to operating Airborne Early Warning aircraft (AEW) and Electronic Attack (EA). My proposal is to get ERIEYE ER radar mounted on Global 6000 aircraft (essentially a GlobalEye Lite without the maritime radar and complex integration of the 2 radars).

    Used business jet Global 6000 (by 2026 should be around USD20-25 million each) would be used for the conversion. Each AEW to cost around USD100 million. Budget : 2x ERIEYE ER Global 6000 in RMK13 2026-2030 USD200 mil + USD400 mil sustainment contract. 2x ERIEYE ER Global 6000 in RMK14 2031-2035 USD200 mil.

    TUDM already used to flying the predecessor to the Global 6000, which is the Global Express.
    https://cdn.radarbox.com/photo/M48-02-1698552608-0.jpg

    For electronic attack, to get the Turkiye HavaSOJ (Stand Off Jammer) system, also installed on the Global 6000. This will enable an airborne electronic attack capability (aka non-kinetic attack capability) similar to Growlers.
    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ez7buYmXoAIp7aO.jpg
    Budget : 2x HavaSOJ Global 6000 in RMK14 2031-2035 USD240 mil.

    So in total 1 Skuadron TUDM would have a fleet of :
    4x ERIEYE ER Global 6000
    2x HavaSOJ Global 6000

  9. @hulubalang
    “how else am i going to describe specifically those four blackhawks”
    By saying the truth and not what you perceived based on a politician words. Active service choppers that Brunei are willing to let go at friendly prices but most certainly its not free, and depends on TDM/PUTD if they wan used and they could convince the beancounters that basing maint cost to the VIP Whitehawks is a blunder and it would be better to compare with the summary costing of upkeeping those Brunei choppers or get the details direct from Sikorsky. This goes the same if they want to get the retired Lima Blackhawks.

    “MSA spec to pass to APMM”
    Disagree. We will not have enough MPA to sufficiently cover all of Msia maritime interest in view of the tight budget so the MSAs will help to fill in these gaps.

  10. @ joe

    ” not what you perceived based on a politician words ”
    It is just a description FFS.

    What is the benefit of blowing up and making a big fuss of this non-issue anyway??? If you don’t have positive things to contribute to the discussion, you know the drill.

    ” We will not have enough MPA to sufficiently cover all of Msia maritime interest in view of the tight budget so the MSAs will help to fill in these gap ”
    If those CN-235 MSA is passed to APMM they will be used patrol the coast of Madagascar is it??

    As the 2x ATR-72 MPA is batch 1, a batch 2 in RMK12 2026-2030 of 2x ATR-72 MPA would be done. So by 2030

    TUDM
    4x ATR-72 MPA

    APMM
    2x CL-415MP
    4x CN-235 MSA

    ALL used to patrol Malaysian (not Madagascar) maritime interests.

  11. If not mistaken.
    the plan had always been for a MSA to be a temporary solution until they could get enough MPA and eventually passed it on to MMEA

  12. @hulubalang
    “It is just a description FFS.”
    Proper communication is about using the right words, sentences, terms & definitions to pass correct infor to the recipients. We arent mind readers, wrong word usage will send out the wrong message which you did.

    Positive things should also be backed by accurate & correct factual reasoning otherwise your just parroting a politician whose occupation is far from being truthful. Then you should be in a political blog instead.

    Again lets be clear, Brunei are willing to sell them Blackhawks and sell it to us at very friendly prices but its not free and for other reasons its why we did not go for them. However that was a decision made with wrong facts & reasoning that led to this misunderstanding, which comes back to my point above about the importance of accurate & correct factual reasoning & communication.

    “If those CN-235 MSA is passed to APMM”
    They will be use to patrol for APMM purpose, not for TUDM/TLDM. And does APMM has the airbases & resources for MSAs to patrol the length and breath of Msian waters in an effective manner?

  13. @ marhalim

    1) TUDM in CAP55 plan has always planned to divest the CN-235s, and keep just the A400M and C-130H. TUDM if use its own budget does not want to convert the CN-235 to MPA, however many suggestions done before. The offer by USA to convert those aircraft into MSA for free came after the CAP55 plan was done. Because of TUDM CAP55 plan to divest the CN-235s, I came out with the suggestion to pass it on to APMM and PUTD.

    2) They are not 30 year old airframes. The oldest was delivered in 1999. The youngest 2005. Currently South Korean Coast Guard operates the oldest IPTN-build CN-235 for maritime patrol (the first 3x IPTN build C/N N-001, N-002, N-003), and they have no plans to replace it. TUDM is still keeping its C-130H that is build in the 70s. Singapore RSAF still has C-130B that is build in the early 60s.

    3) TUDM wouldn’t have any use of them when it gets the full fleet of ATR-72 MPA. As it is already in MSA spec, just pass it on to APMM.

    @ Joe

    ” They will be use to patrol for APMM purpose ”
    Still APMM patrol for what country???????????? What is wrong if it is used to patrol for APMM purpose???????

    As for bases, even TUDM has only 1 base for its maritime patrol aircraft. Why is it wrong to have APMM operate those MSA’s?

  14. @hulubalang
    “What is wrong if it is used to patrol for APMM purpose???????”What is wrong if it is used to patrol for APMM purpose???????”
    If you give your brother use your car, is it for YOU for for HIM???? And if both have a need for it, will it be YOU or HIM will get priority first???? Think about it. It has nothing to do with who stays in the family house. Think about it.

    “even TUDM has only 1 base for its maritime patrol aircraft.”
    To patrol both East & West Msia? Are you sure or just another assumption? We arent getting long ranged Poseidons nor the ATR72 MPA comes equipped with AAR and we only will get 2 units. Barely enough to patrol if 1 plane is out for maint/SLEP whatmore the Selat Melaka, East Coast, Sabah & Sarawak, plus the EEZ. TUDM has far more airbases from which the MPA & MSA can strategically take off from the one closest to a patrol area and not be tied with having to come from a farther location.
    Mind you if TUDM were to pass on this job, its to TLDM and not APMM.

  15. …. – “ As TUDM is going to divest itself from medium transport taskings, those 3x CN-235 would probably find a good new home with PUTD”

    Are you sure the RMAF will do away with the medium transport role or are you suggesting all that in the cAP 55 is written in stone?

    The army can barely sustain what it has yet you led assume it can take on CN-235s? Have you actually asked yourself if the army has such an intention [does it fit into its CONOPs?] and the challenges in acquiring a fixed wing capability? As I mentioned in a previous post; before assuming anything answer these questions: how many aircrews and ground support people are inducted annually; how many leave the service annually or are transferred out and what is the Army’s Aviation Wings’s annual operational budget? As it stands the priority is to get 8-12 Nuri replacements; anything else is not sustainable due to manpower, infrastructure and funding. Never mind adding CN-235s. How long will it take to get the needed manpower for fixed wing ops and get them trained? You need any reminders that squadrons also need administrative, engineering and other elements? Or will you suggest that the manpower is transferred from the RMAF?

    Yes we can discuss on paper possibilities all we want but we also have to stick within the realms of reality and acknowledge current limitations.

    BTW the RMAF only has one base where it’s MPAs are based but it has a network of bases where they can and do operate from …
    It’s also not “wrong” [as you’re fond of rhetorically saying] for the MMEA to operate more MPAs but the question is really is it able due to available resources? Also, a mechanism has to be put in place for RMAF and MMEA planes to operate in conjunction with each other and with the RMN; rather than each doing its own thing. If a MMEA MPA detects something and the nearest friendly ship is an RMN one; how does it get the info across? If a RMAF UASs detects a strange contact can share it directly with a RMN ship or will have to go ho through bureaucratic layer first? These are pertinent issues I’ve brought up time and again and interestingly the former Defence Minister alluded to the sane thing when in London last September.

    Brunei. Hard for them to second anyone to anywhere given that it’s a very small army. Plans to raise another infantry battalion have been put on hold for decades; as were plans to get Hawks years ago.The reason there are seconded Malaysians there is precisely because the Bruneians are short of manpower. If we have manpower issues imagine the issues they have. Remember your insistence years ago that Gerak Khas could expand without much difficulty; until it was pointed out; with input also from Marhalim; that is not the case. You will also note that the country Brunei has the closest military relations with is Britain. The British Jungle School is there [after they failed to get to continue at Ulu Tiram after 1971]; there is a Ghurka battalion there; there were or are still a handful of seconded Brits and they are treaty linked. In the past Brunei was a wee bit wary of us and Indonesia.

    It’s also not “wrong” [as you’re fond of rhetorically saying] for the MMEA to operate more MPAs but the question is really is it able due to available resources? Also, a mechanism has to be put in place for RMAF and MMEA planes to operate in conjunction with each other and with the RMN; rather than each doing its own thing. If a MMEA MPA detects something and the nearest friendly ship is an RMN one; how does it get the info across? If a RMAF UASs detects a strange contact can share it directly with a RMN ship or will have to go ho through bureaucratic layer first? These are pertinent issues I’ve brought up time and again and interestingly the former Defence Minister alluded to the sane thing when in London last September.

    Zaft,

    You are mistaken. No such plan.

  16. Does the MMEA have the resources to operate more MPAs? How long will it take to acquire the manpower, infrastructure, funding and other things if a decision is made to handover the
    CN-235s to it? The military entity that by right should operate MSAs/MPAs is the RMN [alas funding in service rivalry issues at play]; just like it’s the one – for reasons laid out before – which should be the one – not the army – who operates any land based ASMs we might get.

    As of 2024; never mind what’s laid out in CAP 55 which was years ago; where is it stated that the RMAF is willing to totally divest of the tactical transport role? Mention of the RMAF ”not having use of them” when the ATR-72s arrive is pure speculation.

  17. Technically, the RMAF can ask the US to pay for the other four CN-235s as MSA as well, its bloody cheap. Lo and behold it has acheived the goal of CAP 55 for two types of transport aircraft.

  18. From your own post Marhalim

    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cap55Air.jpg

    TUDM plan is for 1x squadron of MPA, not 2, with 2 different types of airplanes and systems.

    TUDM also plans for 1x squadron of Airborne Early Warning & Control. Which is why i came out with the suggestion above.

    As for transport, TUDM plans to only retain 1x Sqn of A400M and 2x Sqn of C-130H
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cap55T.jpg

    And what i suggested based on all the things listed in CAP55 and PPSMM2040 is “pure speculation” ???

    Ps. Where is my comment on the PPSMM2040??

  19. We’ve gone through this various times. The 15/5 and CAP 55 gave indication of what the services want to achieve and were politically expedient PR driven exercises but nobody was under any illusions that both plans would actually be carried through without any changes. Under a different political leadership; under different services chiefs and under a different period; things evolve. Both plans are not sacrosanct; not holy writ or written in stone.

  20. “the RMAF can ask the US to pay for the other four CN-235s as MSA as well”
    Its what I had also proposed when the MSA project came around. It seems TUDM has no issues to let go the light transport function and this is obvious based on CAP55 and when they did not see the need to replace M44-07 nor are they seeking new CN235 to replace lost carrying capacity with the MSA conversions.

    I also proposed an even cheaper way by harvesting the Kingair Oceanmaster MPA suits and reinstall into the remaining units, perhaps leaving 1-2 as VIP/light transport if there is still a need. PTDI have experience integrating them as Senegal’s CN235MPA too uses Oceanmaster suit.

    With more MPAs & MPSAs, we can better have round the clock surveillance monitoring surface & subsurface waters.

  21. ” Yes we can discuss on paper possibilities all we want but we also have to stick within the realms of reality and acknowledge current limitations ”

    Yes, i do think within the realms of reality (what i suggest is within current levels of budget and timeline) and and acknowledge current limitations (current force size, infrastructure and budget)

    For the CN-235 and also MERAD

    – It is within the TUDM CAP555 plan to divest the CN-235, whether it will be followed through is beyond me. That intent in CAP55 is the reason I propose the passing of the CN-235 to APMM (MSA) and PUTD (transport). This will free the current 1 Skn TUDM manpower and infrastructure resources for another important capability (in my opinion), which is the Airborne Early Warning (AEW) and Electronic Attack (EA). I would prefer TUDM to get AEW and EA capability before we get our new MRCAs.

    – APMM with its Pelan Perancangan Strategik Maritim Malaysia 2040 (PPSMM 2040) intends to have a total of 15 helicopters and 12 fixed-wing aircraft. Currently APMM only has 2 (the CL-415MPs) fixed-wing aircraft. Adding 4 more CN-235 MSA only takes the number up to 6 aircraft, still only half of the planned number of fixed-wing aircraft it planned to have. Would that be a burden to APMM? Should be no as they have planned for much more planes in their fleet then that.

    – As for PUTD, adding 3x CN-235 to its fleet would need a relook on its plans in Army 4NextG, which is to have 2 Brigades of PUTD (one each in east and west field armies). Those CN-235 could take up some of medium lift helicopter transport mission, especially those in Sabah and Sarawak. Operating costs of a single CN-235 is a bit less compared to operating a blackhawk or EC725.

    – As of MERAD for TUDM, currently there is zero manpower and infrastructure resources in TUDM to induct MERADs. GAPU on the other hand, already have the manpower and infractructre in-place to take in the MERAD systems. 34 RAD GAPU, now with a new bigger base is the ideal unit to take up MERAD systems, replacing the obsolete and no longer supported JERNAS with a new MERAD system. Ideally it would be the VL MICA ER to have effector commonality with TLDM.

    BTW is it wrong to have my own opinion on our defence path? Yes things will always change i understand, so what is “wrong” with opinion that takes known needs (like the PPSMM2040) into consideration, and with a reasonable reasoning?

  22. …. – “ for PUTD, adding 3x CN-235”

    You spoke of “ reality”. Well the “reality “ is the army simply does not have the resources. As it is it’s struggling with what little it has. As I mentioned in a previous post; before assuming anything answer these questions: how many aircrews and ground support people are inducted annually; how many leave the service annually or are transferred out and what is the Army’s Aviation Wings’s annual operational budget. Where is the manpower coming from to operate and sustain the 3 CN-335s; plus the many other people who make up a squadron? As it stands the priority is a Nuri replacement.

    Yes on paper there is a need but there is also a need for a very long list of other things. You go on and on but if the fact is that the resources are lacking and the army has no requirement for a fixed wing capability. One also can’t cater for every possibility.

    The RMAF has a network of radars; GAPU doesn’t and the RMAF can’t be relying on GAPU to be there when needed. You also need to factor in that GAPU only has so much people; the people who operate Jernas will be the ones operating its replacement yet GAPU is supposed to also operate an additional unit for RMAF tasking? “Reality” you said?

    If you propose a joint AD unit; like how I suggested that in the future all MALE UASs should be operated by a joint tri service command; great but GAPU being expected to provide the RMAF with a medium range SAM capability?

    Same reason why I’ve rubbished suggestions that a future shore base ASM should be army operated. The RMN has assets at sea, it has costal radars and it has UASs which can work in tandem with the ASM the army doesn’t.

    Yea my I’m aware what’s in the CAP 55 [no need to regurgitate things]. I asked a simple question; are you sure the RMAF still intends in doing away with the tactical role? As Marhalim said “things change” and as I said neither the 5/15 or CAP 55 are sacrosanct or holy writ or written in stone.

    No it’s not “wrong” – as you keep rhetorically saying/asking – to have your opinion [remember the cliche like how everyone has a rear orifice they also have an opinion] and nobody says it is but many things you propose are simply not in line with reality, are based on what looks good on paper and is driven by your personal preference which overlooks anything which is contrary to your narrative. We had this conversation before and are having it again.
    You’ve spoke of “reasoning” well I “reasoned” why a Ro Ro is not a substitute for a MPSs, why we don’t have a need for an “oiler”, why there is no better than anything but a mix of various things working in tandem; why nobody has their subs surface close to intruding ships as a warning; why the army doesn’t desire any lye G-5s or towed guns but; why it’s tomfoolery and preposterous to get a follow batch of a 1970’s designed MBT which has inherent issues; has no future growth and is based on Soviet operational requirements and why the army simply does not have a requirement or the resources to have a fixed wing capability. I like a lot of things and see the need for them but I’m not going to embark on a perennial endeavour to sell the idea that they’re suitable or needed by the MAF. I also make the distinction between measure of efficiency versus measure of success.

    As for EW. We can get a token capability but nothing more. EW is a niche highly expensive/resource intensive game; requires constant investment and is hard to justify in a peacetime environment. It’s also not about just getting the capability but being able to fully integrate it in various levels of operations: an example of an air force which didn’t is the VKS. On land however the Russians are doing well because over the decades they never neglected EW and deploy and integrate it on a level unseen anywhere else.

  23. NSM is not just a ship killer. It can also be used as a land attack cruise missile, with its 250km range something that can be used for tentera darat offensive or defensive precision strikes. Even the US Army now is starting to deploy Tomahawk and Hypersonic missiles that can be used to attack ships and land targets. A NSM regiment slots-in nicely in RAD Briged Artileri Roket (2x Astros, 1x NSM). Targeting maritime targets can be done by geosatellites, shore radar (which is included in a NSM battery), ESM, UAVs and by the missiles own internal IIR (imaging infra red) sensor. Also ships are limited by its sailing area (such as the narrow malacca straits) and its speed, so its rough location can always be determined. For example, a ship sailing at 30knots (which is max speed of most warships) will only be 55km away from its previous location 1 hour previously.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoXc_MyaUAEX3mj.jpg
    Each NSM coastal batteries comes with its own search radar

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCrrSVWbIAAEv0w.jpg

    US Army Tomahawk missile battery
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzwRGdYacAIlJpd.jpg

  24. Ta for the update but my references to it were on its “anti ship” capabilities. For its anti ship capabilities the RMN has assets at sea; shore based sensors and UASs to work with the missile; the army has not. Also, in times of war the various means available in peacetime to track ships might be absent or unavailable. The enemy akso has a say; the ship will be trying its damnest not to be found.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*