SHAH ALAM: China’s Wing Loong II UAS. According to the Wikipedia entry of the Wing Loong II MALE UAS, was developed and manufactured by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group in China. The UAS is an enlarged version of Wing Loong I with longer body and wider wing span.
It has a slender fuselage, V-tail and ventral fin. The aircraft features retractable landing gear, including two main wheels under the fuselage and one single wheel under the nose. Each wing has three hardpoints under the wings with capability of carrying bombs, rockets or air-to-surface missiles. A satellite communications antenna is situated on top front surface of the fuselage, offering long range data transmission between the UAV and the ground station
The Wing Loong II and its earlier variants, are reportedly in service with the China military and nine export users namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, UAE, Uzbekistan and Bangladesh.
The UAS reportedly has been used in Yemen by the Saudis, Egypt in strikes against ISIS militants in Sinai and in the current Libyan conflict.
The Wing Loong II has a higher top speed than the Wing Loong I, higher ceiling of 9000 metres and an endurance of 32 hours. It can carry up to 200kg of ordnance.
As reported previously, China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC) and local company Paragon Avtech Sdn Bhd, had proposed the Wing Loong II for the RFI issued by RMAF in late 2018. There were nine other UAVs which had responded to the RFI.
So its likely that the Wing Loong II was the version offered for the tenderMPA and MALE UAVs Out For Tender late last year.
— Malaysian Defence
Great on paper but not so much during real combat..But who knew we might buy them then use them to patrol SCS which partly nope mostly contested by the chinese..Great..Still prefer the sea/skyguardian though but in reality the best we can get now is between tb2 or anka
Good luck to the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group. Given current geo-politics and the current internal political scene compared to a few years ago; little chance of it being ordered.
Firdaus – “Great on paper but not so much during real combat”
What is “real combat”? If it’s a scenario where an opponent has the means to fully counter UASs or fully deploys its airforce then no UAS (even a top end U.S. one) is survivable; as was/is the case in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Nargano Karabakh.
Chinese systems offer decent capabilities for the price. They don’t necessarily need to be as high tech or capable as Western equivalents; when it comes to the needs of certain countries.
I thought the UAS is more for maritime surveillance, so something like TB2 is not an option (although TB 1 is). These drone we are getting are not weaponised, is that correct?
Reply
All the ones that have been offered AFAIK are capable to be weaponised apart from a few. I have been told that its not specifically stated that the one to be selected must be weaponised from day one. I think they will choose one that is fitted for weapons but will not armed it initially
@TomTom
The term UAS is Unmanned Aerial Surveillance, didn’t mention what or where it surveils, so over water or overland or over cities shouldn’t matter. These drones have weaponised options but we should learn to build our experience, use SOP, and get the communication channels right, before we start to shoot something with it.
Tom Tom – “I thought the UAS is more for maritime surveillance”
The MALE UAS is cover anything which needs covering but we can safely assume it will be employed largely over our maritime.
The “UAS” acronym is for “unmanned aerial system”; the actual platform (or “drone/UAV”) and all the various other components needed to operate it.
In the past the term “remotely piloted piloted vehicle’ was commonly used.
At present we simply do not have an operational requirement for a armed UAS and even if we did; the main challenge is to formulate a ROE and the needed command/control mechanism needed. Remember the debate a few years ago when the RMN Chief suggested a “shoot on sight ” ROE for ESSCOM? The AG wasn’t very enthusiastic about it.
The right term for armed UAS is UCAV (Unmanned combat aerial vehicle)
Reply
There’s no right or wrong term lah.
I believe there are distinct terms separating those with and those without armed capabilities. The terms used should be guided by purpose of that unmanned drone usage.
O/T:
Chinese fishing fleet is amassing at Whitsun reef, and checking from Google Maps, it’s not very far from our EEZ.
I suppose it’s just a matter of time before they will be encroaching into our waters.
*sigh* it’s quite a miserable time to be in
ASM – “I suppose it’s just a matter of time before they will be encroaching into our waters”
It depends if their presence is a prelude for the seizing of a Philippines claimed reef. If so; they might not venture out or far from their current position.