SHAH ALAM: The Procurement Division of the Defence Ministry has issued an open tender for the supply of spare parts and Arrius A1 engine maintenance for a period of four years specifically for the RMN’s AS555 SN Fennec helicopters.
The tender for the contract was published on April 3 and closes on May 27, a period of 48 days. The indicative cost for the four-year contract is RM23 million which means that the spare parts and engines for the four Fennecs is around RM1.5 per year each.
Skuadron 502 – the unit operating the Fennecs – had six helicopters but two crashed – M502-03 and M502-06. It must be noted that the RMN Fennecs are equipped with two Arrius A1 engines each.
Unfortunately, the public specifications for the tender did not revealed whether the spare parts sought are for the engines only or for the whole helicopter. It did say that the tender could add a lump sump figure for the tender.
TAWARAN NILAI HARGA PETENDER
SECARA GRAND SUM BAGI
LAMPIRAN 2 (TAWARAN HARGA
TERHADAP UNJURAN SKOP
SELENGGARAAN TERMASUK PAKEJ
ALAT GANTI)
TAWARAN NILAI HARGA PETENDER
SECARA ITEM BAGI LAMPIRAN 3
(TAWARAN HARGA ALAT GANTI).
TAWARAN NILAI HARGA PETENDER
SECARA GRAND SUM BAGI
LAMPIRAN 4 (JADUAL HARGA BAGI
PERKHIDMATAN PAKAR)
It must be noted that Galaxy Aerospace (M) Sdn Bhd is the provider of the In-Service Support maintenance provider for the Fennec and the Super Lynx helicopters. The ISS contract for the Fennec is in the third year based on a release by Galaxy in January this year. Galaxy is an Aircraft Maintenance Organisation recognised by the Directorate General Technical Airworthiness (DGTA). The company is also recognized by DGTA as Authorised Engineering Organisation for the Super Lynx and the EC120B helicopters. The latter is used by RMAF for basic and advanced flight training.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
When PDRM AS355N helicopters are retired, i would prefer them to be donated to TUDM to join the remaining 4x AS555 SN Fennecs
of the 7, probably 4 to be used while the remaining 3 kept as spares.
So Skuadron 502 will have 4x AS555 SN and 4x AS355N operational
the AS355N could be used as training, utility, liaison missions.
As for performance upgrades, maybe can look at this fastfin modification
https://www.helis.com/database/news/fastfin-as355-nz/
… “When PDRM AS355N helicopters are retired, i would prefer them to be donated to TUDM to join the remaining 4x AS555 SN Fennecs”
Given the age and wear and tear on them, plus the fact that the RMN might not need anymore a platform with such limited space and range [one reason in getting the AWs]; I veer much doubt the RMN would want this option. Tggr is also the fact that the RMN, who h has already placed a pair of Lynxs in storage, wants to focus its attention on a future ASW plstfitm buy, sustaining its present assets and gettng more AWs.
Off topic.
Marhalim, in the 2023 Tarantula thread you mentioned that “Both 2 and 4 KAD are now light infantry regiment”. Sorry, you mind clarifying?
As both had no armoured vehicles during that time period. Even now it is likely only half of the units are actually are able to utilise the Gempita as their numbers are not according to the KAD TOE.
One can buy an old BMW for the prize of bezza. Doesn’t mean the BMW is as safe (drive shaft won’t come break during driving), as reliable (would totally start every morning) or as cheap to run as 1 workshop can easily equal several months of monthly repayments.
If one don’t have the money then just go to the bank and get a loan lah.
Something I’ve been unable to discover is whether we operate our vehicles in Troops of 3 or 4.
Yes a problem is that on paper TOEs don’t reflect actual strengths. Units will be under strengthed and actual equipment will not be as authorised. Thus can be a problem in conscript armies, never mind a small all volunteer one which has a small recruiting pool.
I was told it is four. Whether or not it is across the whole mechanised units, is beyond me.
Zaft – “If one don’t have the money then just go to the bank and get a loan lah”
Yes but as you will be aware; unlike our neighbours we don’t secure loans for military purchaces.
” One can buy an old BMW for the prize of bezza ”
In the case of the fennecs, we are not buying anything. I am proposing a free transfer of all 7 PDRM ecureuils to TLDM, with 3 of the 7 be used as spare parts source.
TLDM is clearly going to use the fennecs at least 4 more years into the future. Able to have 8 of them to choose from to fly (rather than just 4) plus additional 3 airframe for spareparts will actually lessen the individual airframe flying hours (same flight hours requirements but divided with more airframes) thus extending the maintenance intervals.
Doing proficiency, recurrency, and other training for the pilots is much more cheaper done with the AS355/AS555 rather than burning the flying hours of the AW139.
… – “Doing proficiency, recurrency, and other training for the pilots is much more cheaper done with the AS355/AS555 rather than burning the flying hours of the AW139”
They will use the remaining Fennecs for training and other purposes but from what I’ve been told have zero intention of getting anymore. Even with one having been lost it still has a pair of AWs and that has taken the strain off the remaining Fennecs which can focus on training and other things more suited for it.
Focus is on getting more AWs and the Lynx replacement. Why would the RMN add to something it doesn’t need? And why utilise scare resources when it can’t even afford to fly all 6 of its Lynxs.
Azlan “Yes but as you will be aware; unlike our neighbours we don’t secure loans for military purchaces.”
Lease with an option to buy at the end of the period for a token sum is a loan in practice just not in name and balance sheet treatment.
A lot of companies get a lease contract instead of a proper loan despite the obvious difference in overall cost just to make their book nicer. Which in turn increase investor confidence and their stock prices. Which make the extra cost of classifying something as a lease rather than a loan worth it.
Personally if our close neighbours can get a lease offers in local currency rather than a foreign currency dominated loan. They too would take it. But given their financial situation, it’s probably hard for them to get one. And the fact they are admitting to taking foreign dominated loan for what essentially an expanse would put their financial situation even worse. Which would put them in a vicious cycle that hard to break away from.
… – “Lease with an option to buy at the end of the period for a token sum is a loan in practice just not in name and balance sheet treatment”
Slightly diffrent. One can do various things with kit bought via loans rather than obtained via a leasing agreement. Also, obtaining kit paid for by a long term loan will probably be cheaper than a leasing equivalent.
Zaft – “But given their financial situation, it’s probably hard for them to get one”
You do realise that Thailand has been offered long term low interest loans and that South Korea has offered the Philippines the same thing. Both can and have gone down the lease route which is there if they so desire.
Zaft – ” Which would put them in a vicious cycle that hard to break away from”
A apt description of us given our chronic inability to learn from previous mistakes.
On the Kuwaiti Hornets. If indeed we get them and if by some miracle the government puts its money where its mouth is; how do we get AMRAAM? A sizeable number have gone to the Ukraine, the Americans are replacing their stocks, Japan has ordered about 1,000, etc. Production capacity is at its maximum. Any orders for AMRAAM might entail waiting 2-3 years minimum. And no even if we ask the Kuwaitis “nicely” they won’t give us any of theirs. It’s also not as if we have an existing decent stockpile of ordnance we can use. The question is ordnance is merely one of several prerequisites which have to be adressed if the Kuwaiti Hornets are to provide an actual effective capability; as opposed to one which just looks good on paper.
On how many vehicles there are in a Troop; in mechanised units it has to be 4 because anything less than 4 means a platoon can’t be carried. For the PT-91s if I had to guess:3 vehicles per Troop.
Take note that AS355N is about to be classified as legacy aircraft by its own manufacturer. Perhaps it already has been classified as one.
The aircraft type is still flying because of common parts they share with its elder brother AS350; Which happens to be the all time best seller in its class
The police’s Ecureuils are also are aged and is a main reason they are being retired. I was at the inaugural LIMA in 1991 when a newly delivered Ecureuil was on strict display.
If anything they will be sought for spares but that’s it. The RMN for reasons discussed has no plans for adittional flying examples. Any more than the sent has for any A109s. Both services are moving in a diffrent direction.
” I was at the inaugural LIMA in 1991 ”
Do realise that there are 2 distinct batches of PDRM Ecureuils?
Those you see at LIMA 1991 is the AS355F2 version, with allison engine (reg number 9M-PHA & 9M-PHB)
The current 7 units of AS355N version, with the same french engine as TLDM AS555 SN version, is delivered to PDRM starting 2000.
We used Nuris for 60 years. TLDM AS555 SN are of 2004 vintage. So something that is 21 years old (TLDM AS555 SN) and 25 years old (PDRM AS355N) could be used 10-20 more years into the future no problems.
TLDM has no plans to BUY additional fennecs.
But free AS355N Ecureuils? Surely TLDM can use additional units to replace those crashed.
… – “But free AS355N Ecureuils”
As was explained. The service wants to focus on a Lynx replacement and on more AWs. It does not need more Ecureuils which are not only aged but will soak up resources; irrespective of whether free or not. The 4 surviving examples are sufficient for training needs. As it is, the AWs were bought because of weight limitations with the Lynxs and Fennecs.
You are giving reasons why the RMN would want the ex Police platforms. I’m giving you valid reasons why it doesn’t.
… – “Do realise that there are 2 distinct batches of PDRM Ecureuils”.
Yes I do. Me mentioning LIMA 1991 and the newly delivered example wasn’t me claiming the whole fleet was that old.
… “We used Nuris for 60 years”
Was expecting you to use that as an example. Slightly different kettle of fish. The RMAF had no other medium lift platform, no replacement was forthcoming and it had Nuris on numbers. Nuris which also fitted in with actual requirements. Stuff which the Fennecs did and was ill suited – light supply, liaison, etc – are now performed by the AWs.
… – “could be used 10-20 more years into the future no problems”
Like with the case of the aged and worn out Kasturis and Lekius; you are focusing on all the on paper points of why something can be done and in your mind should be done. Perhaps take a minute to ask yourself the reasons why the RMN would and does not want ex Police platforms. Those ex police platforms require resources, resources which are stretched. Not to mention the fact that they are superfluous to actual needs.
Azlan “Slightly diffrent. One can do various things with kit bought via loans rather than obtained via a leasing agreement.”
Considering Saab had offered leasing for fighter jet for donkeys years already. It’s most likely an insurance premium thinggy preventing the lease AW to be arms.
If one live in a low risk of flood area would they still willing to pay extra premium on insurance against flood?
Azlan “You do realise that Thailand has been offered long term low interest loans and that South Korea has offered the Philippines the same thing.”
Again as explained earlier loan and lease are two different things in the balance sheet and investors expectations. The same goes with paying and taking in loan in foreign currency compared to one you print it yourself.
Thus why countries like us nor Thailand who had excellent sovereign rating and thus aren’t having problems attracting capital and have low interest rate hasn’t show much interest in foreign low interest loan unlike that of PH & ID. Do note we finance the FA50 half through counter trade aka paying our own farmers with our own currencies rather than asking for low interest loans.
Hulu “We used Nuris for 60 years. TLDM AS555 SN are of 2004 vintage. So something that is 21 years old (TLDM AS555 SN) and 25 years old (PDRM AS355N) could be used 10-20 more years into the future no problems”
The problem is in opportunities cost. If you car is 10 years old do you spend huge sum of money for a major refit for it to be able to probably work 3-5 more years or just use the same amounts of money for a deposit for new car that guaranteed To work for the next 10 years.
So why exactly do you need to push further the timeline of new car acquisition. You still need to buy it sooner or later. So why? Do you need money for other things today? Do you foresee a raise soon and can afford to class up if you wait a bit? Or you like RMAF with the Kuwaiti hornet see a red hot spanking new model that would enter the market really soon and thus get an interim solution in the meanwhile?
There is another important function that hasn’t been said here that the fennecs do. A capability that we will need more of when we have those 6 Turkiye Corvettes by 2030.
… – “A capability that we will need more of when we have those 6 Turkiye Corvettes by 2030”
The intent is to devote resources and focus towards a Lynx replacement and more AWs. Fennecs are superfluous to actual needs and would soak up existing resources and we are certsinky not going to get anymore just to operate from the LMSs.
Zaft – “Again as explained earlier loan and lease are two different things in the balance sheet and investors expectations”
Thanks for the insightful analysis but I never said they were similar and thtr is zero to indicate that either Thailand or the Philippines are unable to secure a leasing arrangement should they choose to do so.
” Fennecs are superfluous to actual needs ”
There are no plans to decommission the 502 squadron anytime soon, as seen with this new RFB, so your claim of the fennecs are superfluous to actual needs is totally false.
The fennecs also have an important role in OTHT, that will be needed for all the many new ships to be commissioned before 2030.
… – “so your claim of the fennecs are superfluous to actual needs is totally false”
I won’t be crass as to say “which part don’t you understand” but nobody said the squadron was standing down. What I did say in easy to fathom language is that the RMN has no plans to get anymore. The remaining 4 are sufficient to meet training and other needs, the AWs are performing roles the Fennecs previously did, focus is on a Lynx replacement and a ASW configured platform and that getting more Fennecs will absorb scarce resources [unless they run on water and are flown and maintained by golliwogs who don’t require training and salaries].
Perhaps ponder on these factors before claiming something is “false”. If anything the tune you’re singing is “false” because the end user has no need for it. One gets something because there is a requirement; not for the sake of it merely because it’s there.
.
… – “The fennecs also have an important role in OTHT, that will be needed for all the many new ships to be commissioned before 2030”
FYI OTHT is a role rarely performed by the type and instead of perienilly coming up with reasons as to why they would be needed; perhaps consider why the RMN has zero need… Oh and on top of that the police are retiring the type largerly due to age issues…
BTW one can still operate something whilst having no need for extra examples because it’s “superfluous” or is not part of CONOPs anymore. Just because something is “superfluous” doesn’t mean it has to be retired immediately…
“how do we get AMRAAM?”
For peacetime air patrol missions and even QRA, we dont need to arm all of them, just the planes that are going up. The missiles can go on rotation sharing between planes on missions. The missiles are not the priority. Get the Kuwaiti Hornets first, then figure out how to make use the expanded fleet.
“arm all of them, just the planes that are going up. The missiles can go on rotation sharing between planes on missions”
The few we have to be shared amongst the existing 8 and the ex Kuwaiti Hornets? It’s not as if we even
even have 30-40 AMRAAMs.
“Get the Kuwaiti Hornets first, then figure out how to make use the expanded fleet”
Getting the Hornets and not sorting out the other needed components will mean we have the Hornets but aren’t able to effectively use them. Beats the whole purpose of getting them. The “get them first but worry about other things later” is precisely how we go about doing things. The result : decades after operating the 8 Hornet [never mind another 12 or so] we still only have a bare handful of missiles for them, spares were ordered belatedly and often in small numbers leading to servicecability issues, etc.
“The missiles are not the priority”
Missiles are an important component of the eco system needed to effectively operate the planes. The others being a training/support infrastructure, a pool of air crews and support personnel, adequate funding to fly them X hours per annum, etc – all are a “priority” as all determine the outcome What’s the point of getting the planes and having them if we face various issues which prevent us from doing what we’d like to do with them. We have a long history of doing things on the cheap.
I believed the Amraams we bought back in 2005 are already time-expired as with 9X sidewinders. I believed we want more Amraams so that was the reasoning to get the NASAMs.
AMRAAM designed shelf life is 10 years, but can be relifed by changing the seeker batteries etc.
TUDM has previously relifed its AIM-9M, the whole lot of 57 units completed in 2009
If the AMRAAMs have time expired and we did not send them back to be reworked on then we only have Sidewinders.
… – “AMRAAM designed shelf life is 10 years”
How it’s stored and how often it’s flown also plays a part.
AMRAAM designed life :
10 years on the shelf + 1500 hours on wing life within the 10 years.
Russian AAM missiles usually have only 200-300 hours on wing life, which is why they are rarely hung on the aircrafts.
Its been some 20 years when we bought and got delivery of the Amraams. Even if we had relifed them nine or ten years ago, they will be expiring or already time expired already.
… – “which is why they are rarely hung on the aircrafts”
When flown they are subjected to vibration and when connected to the plane’s FCS it eats up the hours. That’s why the Hawks have their dummy missiles which are painted blue and the Flankers their dummy ones with a pair of black rings. How the missile is stored also plays a part.
When we bought the Flankers we did not get any AAMs. There was a statement made to the press [by whom I’ve forgotten] that the Flankers would use the AAMs already bought for the Fulcrums. Wish I’d kept the cutting but another example of is doing things on the cheap.
We later bought Adders but I have no idea if we bought more Archers and Alamos or if the only ones we have are those bought along with the Fulcrums and later re-lifed a few times. The figures given by SIPRI are way off.
I believe AMRAAMs can be relifed many times, as long as it has little on-wing hours.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gn61wk5asAEL_Hw.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gn6yCg4bYAAF5jD.jpg
We have ordered russian missiles/bombs in quite a few batches,
some before 2010
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/russian-missile-exports-to-malaysia/
another around 2017
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/new-bombs-and-capabilities-on-flankers/
“amongst the existing 8 and the ex Kuwaiti Hornets?”
Not all will be flying at the same time, right? We just only need to arm those that are any particular time period.
“will mean we have the Hornets but aren’t able to effectively use them”
TUDM bosses will have largely figured out how to use them since they are pushing for them, just the fine details prolly will need fine tuning. It also helps that having more jets would give them more traction in pushing the Govt for more missiles. Its a chicken & egg, without the chicken(more jets) you have no eggs(more missiles).
“we still only have a bare handful of missiles for them”
It didnt affected the jets operation anyways as we havent used them in anger so far. Their numbers havent diminished unless expended in exercises/training. The planes can still fly whether with or without them so whats the issue here. Also while not ideal, we can still fly them up with Sidewinders which we have more in stock. Neither is an issue if they arent looking for a fight.
“all are a “priority” as all determine the outcome What’s the point of getting the planes”
Planes can fly & carry out peacetime patrols without the missiles. The missiles cannot fly without the plane. See wheres the priority here? Get the Kuwaiti jets first then everything else can come later. Even if we have to store them in sheds wanting for support equipment, at least we have them in reserves and even if we unable to fly them, theres at least a ready stock of spareparts. Theres no loss in getting them.
However if we drag our feet with MRCA buy (which we tend to do), and deprecating MKM towards retirement in 2035, we only have our remaining Hornets to carry the load. Such heavy task on ageing planes will lead to higher risk of fatigue & mech failures which will then be a loss to us if we dont go in for the Kuwaitis. See the contrast?
Day to day peacetime tasks such as air patrol and QRA would be shouldered by the FA-50, as they are more economical to operate.
The hornets will be our backstop if we do need to go to war, as is our MKM. They will still do flying tasks, but not as much or frequently as the FA-50s.
The MKM can be used past 2035, if we put them through the 2nd overhaul phase + getting new engines, either from India or direct from Russia. India is in the process of manufacturing lots of new engines as a replacement for their current MKI engines.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/government-inks-rs-26k-cr-contract-with-hal-for-procuring-240-sukhoi-jets-engines/articleshow/113204727.cms
RSAF for example is planning to fly their F-15SG together with F-35s past 2040. The MKM could be useful as a long range heavy missile truck past 2035.
The Hornets as is, with extra spares and airframes could probably last up till 2040, but we need to sign up for their replacement latest by 2035.
“Not all will be flying at the same time, right”
Of course it can be done butvwe don’t have a large stock to begin with.
“TUDM bosses will have largely figured out how to use them since they are pushing for them”
Off course the they have and they will have made it clear, as they did with the Flankers, Fulcrums and Hawks. The problem is late funding. The result: delayed overhauls, delayed orders for sores, etc. Time and again the services are placed in this predicament.
“Theres no loss in getting them”
That’s your view. Mine is there’s no point in getting them and blowing our pen trumpets of the reality is that we can’t fly them as much as we’dblije due to limited funds, we can’t arm them due to lack of missiles, etc, etc. We have a long and clear history of this.
“See the contrast”
Thanks but yes. I also “see” other factors and I’d like I’d to have a certain level of capability rather than just a paper one.
“The planes can still fly whether with or without them so whats the issue here.*+”
“Neither is an issue if they arent looking for a fight”
These are exactly the same points used by the bureaucrats at the MOF and PM Office’s EPU to justify not allocating the needed funds which in turn leads to lower readiness levels and atrophied skill sets.
… – “I believe AMRAAMs can be relifed many times”
Most or all missiles can be re-worked on a few times. Our MM-38s were worked on at the Naval Dockyard and Pakistan.
” It also helps that having more jets would give them more traction in pushing the Govt for more missiles”
We plan to operate them for a decade. There is a long lead time for AMRAAM and the government is unlikely [I’ll be happy if I’m wrong] and the government is unlikely to rush with any orders for missiles”; whether AMRAAM, Sidewinder or air to ground ones.
@Hulu
“Day to day peacetime tasks such as air patrol and QRA”
The Hornets will still be used for such duties even if we have plentiful FA50s simply because the pilots need to keep their wings running that type. Even so age is a factor hence why we still need the Kuwaiti Hornets as relief on the entire fleet.
“if we put them through the 2nd overhaul phase + getting new engines”
I think its been clear we are reluctant to do that, if we did we could have done the same with Fulcrums earlier. Plus getting anything Russian now is risking sanctions. If it didnt happen back when Russia was more open then it will never happen particularly now. Neither can MKM situation compare with RSAF F15SG as USA are still supporting their own Eagles so of course it make sense to continue supporting F15 globally and USA is not sanctioned so parts & service are easily available.
“The Hornets as is, with extra spares and airframes could probably last up till 2040”
While technically they could last (as I alluded before) age is catching up and running a fleet of 7 units to perform the tasks of 25 planes will burden even more stress on airframe & engines. Thats why its crucial to get the Kuwaitis as our politicians continue dilly dally with MRCA. And no, FA50 is not an adequate substitution even if they can perform 75% of MRCA roles.
“we don’t have a large stock to begin with.”
We never did see the need to have large stock and this hasnt change for now.
“and again the services are placed in this predicament.”
Which is why TUDM needs a cut rate fast solution which is getting Kuwaiti Hornets. We know the politicians will delay funding, particularly getting MRCA on time, so why pretend not getting them will make things better or change the polticians minds? Did you think that once the others are retired and Hornets start falling from skies, will actually make them wake up? Hahaha. Im not so sanguine.
“These are exactly the same points”
No its not, Im using historical anecdotes to gauge what are the chances of us using them in anger and I betcha its slim. Plus Western missiles are easier to obtain from region users and US stockpiles in Diego Garcia if really needed. The planes otoh arent so easily to get, hence why we need to buy the car before thinking to replace its tyres.
“There is a long lead time for AMRAAM”
We know from DSCA not only Japan but Morocco, Pinoy (via F16 buy), & Holland are also buying AMRAAMS, so tagging along their production will get us the missiles much faster than if a singular customer with huge orders.
… – “Day to day peacetime tasks such as air patrol and QRA would be shouldered by the FA-50”.
Depending on where they’re based. For West Malaysia now that the Fulcrums are gone; QRA taskings will be from Butterworth – the Hornets.
… – “They will still do flying tasks, but not as much or frequently as the FA-50s”
Gke did you cone up with that? As far as we’re able to we will use the F/A-50s but this does not mean the Hornets will fly less. They still have Day to day training commitments and other things.
– “The MKM could be useful as a long range heavy missile truck past 2035”
It could be useful for various things. The “long range” thing only comes into play if we launch sorties from West Malaysia into the eastern part of the South China Sea.
… – “either from India”.
Aasumimg HAL which isn’t exactly a model of efficiency has the capacity to export engines when we need them.
… – “The MKM can be used past 2035, if we put them through the 2nd overhaul phase”.
They will be “serviceable” and operational but as to actual efficacy; remains to be seen. It’s 2025 and as the years go by various things [mostly 1990’s tech] will be inoperable/unsupportable. Whether we actually replace them is a big question given the intent is to only spend what’s absolutely needed to keep the fleet flying till it can be replaced. Same thing we did with the Fulcrums and same thing we’re doing with the Hawks.
Trade offs have to be made and to save cash it might and probably will be decided to forgo some things on the basis that spending cash on something which we plan to retire in a decade or so is not a good return of investment. Of course if something happens which drastically alters our threat perception then we’ll see the need to spend but if it doesn’t.
“Aasumimg HAL which isn’t exactly a model of efficiency has the capacity to export engines”
Assuming Russia/Sukhoi, allows their domestic license partners to export in liew of their OEM makers which so far I doubt will happen. HAL production are solely for Indian usage not for exporting. Of course now with sanctions, things might change, and there could be clandestine agreements with licensed producers ie China & India, to export Sukhoi spares & engines on their behalf while paying them IP fees. Avionics & BARS radar spares otoh are a bit more tricky unless those above ordered extras as spares but actually meant for export.
” Depending on where they’re based. For West Malaysia now that the Fulcrums are gone; QRA taskings will be from Butterworth – the Hornets ”
TUDM current plan (yes from TUDM themselves not my wishful thinking) with the FA-50 batch 1 is to station them in Kuantan to reactivate QRA mission there for West Malaysia. Batch 2 is to replace Hawks in Labuan and take over Labuan QRA mission for East Malaysia.
” They still have Day to day training commitments and other things ”
That is the very definition of flying less than the FA-50. They will still fly for currency, training and such, but most peacetime operational tasks will be done by the FA-50.
” Asumimg HAL which isn’t exactly a model of efficiency has the capacity to export engines when we need them ”
Whatever it is, we have only 2 options to get MKM replacement engines. HAL with AL-31FP engines, or Russia themselves with the upgraded AL-41F-1S. Both types are plug and play with the MKM.
” They will be “serviceable” and operational but as to actual efficacy; remains to be seen ”
It all depends on TUDM leadership priorities. The MKM squadron do know what part of the MKM is currently facing obsoletion, what do they want to replace etc. Multiple options to upgrade the MKM now is available from western, indian, and russian sources, which is a better situation to be in unlike say 5-10 years ago. One of the latest that i hear about is the cockpit upgrade, with the indian (SAMTEL) option.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlXoYCbbcAAbYbJ.jpg
If this is to be a priority, it can be done, like the F/A-18 upgrades.
What happened to the MiG-29Ns, is totally justified IMO. The available upgrade for the MiG-29N is very limited, and the upgrades in the end wouldn’t get the MiG-29 to similar level of capability as the F/A-18 Hornet. So it is not worth it to upgrade the MiG-29N.
“Assuming Russia/Sukhoi, allows their domestic license partners to export in liew of their OEM makers which so far I doubt will happen”.
Back in 2007/8 HAL planned to stockpile key parts which could be exported within 24/48 hours after payment. The issue is having the capacity and not only Russian approval but the fact that the Russians will void all warranty and will not cooperate if something goes wrong as a result of parts sourced from elsewhere. We have sourced certain parts from China and India before.
HAL and Rosoboronexport has agreements to export HAL built AL-31 and spares to “friendly” countries.
avionics and radar could be upgraded to indian built ones, or french, Swedish, or turkiye (targeting Pods, EW, etc.)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWXOb9bUcAEBaAW.jpg
… – “avionics and radar could be upgraded to indian built ones, or french, Swedish, or turkiye (targeting Pods, EW, etc.”
Long list of things we can do if there’s intent.
… – “They will still fly for currency, training and such, but most peacetime operational tasks will be done by the FA-50”
This my statement that they won’t be flying less.
… – “most peacetime operational tasks will be done by the FA-50″
To put it in a diffrent way : as far as possible the F/A-50s will be utilised for roles which don’t rewire a Hornet.
… – It all depends on TUDM leadership priorities”.
And what the government decides. As has been made clear the intent is to operate the type until it can be replaced. And to only spend what’s needed to keep it operational and to have some level of capability.
… – “Multiple options to upgrade the MKM now is available from western, indian, and russian sources”
Yes you have pointed this out before on several occasions. The reality is at present there are no plans for a comprehensive upgrade, irrespective of the fact that the option is available or whether you think we should do so.
… – “What happened to the MiG-29Ns, is totally justified IMO. The available upgrade for the MiG-29N is very limited*
We did not upgrade them not because of the upgrades offered but we felt it wasn’t worth it and we had other plans. Not too mention that we needed costs savings.As for upgrades being “limited”, glass cockoit, engine with FADEC, air to ground capability, etc. Hardly “limited”.
… -” with the FA-50 batch 1 is to station them in Kuantan to reactivate QRA mission there for West Malaysia”
Does this mean the Hornets will not have a QRA tasking?
@Hulu
“The available upgrade for the MiG-29N is very limited,”
I disagree. At some time Russia offered either to upgrade our Fulcrums to MIG35 spec or offered to trade in with very good prices for new MIG35. The Fulcrums back then were still potent dogfighters and only needed an engine replace which we opted not to do. Ironically there are more wider Western upgrade options for Fulcrums compared to Flankers coz many former Bloc nations were Westernised; East Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria. Poland & Slovakia having passed on their upgraded MIGS to Ukraine.
“HAL and Rosoboronexport has agreements to export HAL built AL-31”
If it were economically feasible to do it, we would have done it or at least by now have intention to. So far there isnt any word on that.
“Russians will void all warranty and will not cooperate”
That is the main issue with Russian exports, you dont play around with warranty & support for something so high tech and we are just a user. This unlike Hornets which we can sourced parts not only from Boeing USA but stockists worldwide as long their made by Boeing approved OEM and we can even do SLEP locally without void Boeing warranty.
Azlan “That’s your view. Mine is there’s no point in getting them and blowing our pen trumpets of the reality is that we can’t fly them as much as we’dblije due to limited funds, we can’t arm them due to lack of missiles, etc, etc. We have a long and clear history of this.”
Why would they spend money to do any of those?
It’s not like even if we have the money we be stockpiling lots of missile to last us even a week in a high intensity situation anyways.
Pretty clear the idea seems to be to get the platform to shoot the missiles, train the personnel to use said platform but the missiles would be delivered courtesy of uncle Sam and other *like minded countries stockpile.
Well it’s not just the missiles,they need to deliver platform as well to replace losses or increase the numbers, provide us with intel, financial liquidity and send us food etc etc.
That’s the only possible way for us to afford waging war. And that is the deterrence in place for would be aggressor. They not be waging war against us and only us. They in fact would put themselves in a proxy war situations. A situation even the almighty PLA would try hard to avoid.
If the like minded countries ain’t giving support then we probably won’t keep any capabilities to wage any war in the first place and just choose finlandization and kawtau to the aggressor. Finlandization as degrading as that maybe is still miles better than being the next Gaza.
” At some time Russia offered either to upgrade our Fulcrums to MIG35 spec or offered to trade in with very good prices for new MIG35 ”
MiG-29 cannot be upgraded to MiG-35. Totally different airframe even though externally it looks the same. The highest spec MiG-29 upgrade available is the UPG, as done by indian air force.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ7YbJSXYAAufdR.jpg
” Ironically there are more wider Western upgrade options for Fulcrums compared to Flankers coz many former Bloc nations ”
Wrong.
Most got only light upgrades. No changes to radar, or weapons capability at all. At most, standalone new GPS, radios and IFF. There is no western system that can be integrated with original MiG-29 russian avionics and radars, unlike for the Sukhoi SU-30MKM.
” If it were economically feasible to do it, we would have done it ”
Do you even understand why we have not done it? Replacement is only needed at 2000 hours. On average our SU-30MKM has less than 900 hours each right now. There is no need for any replacement right now, which is why we have not bought any new AL-31FP from india.
” This unlike Hornets ”
LoL!
We are given more free hand by Russia to service and modify our MKM to our likings than we will ever allowed to do with the Hornets. We modified our MKM from day 1 with german digital radios, swedish/south african missile warning system, french IFF, targeting pod, holographic HUD, multifunction displays, helmets, british refuelling pods, etc etc.
” As for upgrades being “limited”, glass cockoit, engine with FADEC, air to ground capability, etc. Hardly “limited” ”
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/mrca-fulcrum-and-retirement/
Going from air to air only to an air to ground capability with a new radar having a ground-target acquisition mode for dropping dumb bombs is the very definition of limited capabilities when the hornet can drop laser guided, gps guided bombs, and equipped with targeting pods.
The upgrade is similar to what is done to IAF MiG-29UPG upgrade, so we know that its capability is limited when compared to something like the Hornets.
… -“MKM to our likings”
Not that we had a choice. Dr. M in his wisdom decided we should get it and the consolation was the RMAF being able to tweak it to its needs. With the Hornets we had no need to add or replace anything non standard.
“That is the main issue with Russian exports”
A issue in common with any OEM which will only allow parts certified.
“we can even do SLEP locally without void Boeing warranty”
We are overhauling the Flanker locally with Russian help, input and certification.
“At some time Russia offered either”
First it was SMT standard in 1997; followed UPG and other standards. Initially the RMAF was keen but at a later stage it felt that it just wasn’t worth it; especially given that some of the type’s inherent flaws or limitations would remain.
… – “If this is to be a priority, it can be done”
As much a priority as us spending millions to ascertain the whereabouts of the abominable snowman/Yeti by sending an expedition with a 200 foot Jalur Gemilang to the Himalayas. As it stands the intent is to get another batch of F/A-50s and a 5th type; whilst doing what we need to keep existing assets operational.
… – “the very definition of limited capabilities when the hornet can drop laser guided, gps guided bombs, and equipped with targeting Pods”
Well gee thanks for the revelation but a glass cockpit, engine with FADEC and other things doesn’t fall in the “limited” category and were intended to rectify issues with the type. Ultimately we decided not to upgrade the fleet because we felt that the cash cold be put to better use and not because the capabilities were “limited” or incomparable as you cskim.
Last but not least the upgrade would have enabled precision guided munitions to be carried and we could have integrated a Western pod; even if it was not a full fledged nav/attack pod like Damocles
Came across this today. No doubt there will be “experts” who know better and will find holes to poke but an objective appraisal which looks at both the pros and cons is needed. The bulk of the commentary has been on the pros whilst overlooking the cons; as if the Hornets are an end to a means and operate in a vacuum.×As if the whole exercise is devoid of penalties. As one made clear several times; I’m all for the deal as long as various prerequisites are met and it has no impact on the planed acquisition of follow on F/-50s
“The key question here is whether the acquisition of the ageing Kuwaiti jets is prudent. Expanding its fleet of Hornets on the cheap may be tempting, but it comes with the additional maintenance and servicing burden associated with a larger fleet of ageing aircraft. The Hornet represents ageing technology, which is increasingly difficult to keep relevant. Moreover, the Kuwaiti Hornets are of an earlier block, whereas the Malaysian fighters are among the last Hornets manufactured. This may cause incompatibility issues when it pertains to spare parts. In addition, the aircraft have received differing upgrades to their systems. This will compound maintenance complexity”
Okay not to MIG35 standard but a substantial upgrade nonetheless from Russia and even more from Western suppliers. We didnt take up for a reason and its the same reason we arent going to spend money on significant upgrades to MKM. As for engine replacement, it remains to be seen as the intent is for retirement by 2035. If the planes can soldier on without replacing, then TUDM wont do it unless they change their minds and prolong MKM usage.
“modify our MKM to our likings”
Changes from the factory are ok as it needs OEM integration & certification, but changes and mods by 3rd parties not certified by OEM are usually frowned upon and risk voiding warranty. Have you tried modding your car extensively and then tried claiming warranty? Same logic goes.
We had no choice but to extensively mod MKM as TUDM wanted Western jet but instead got pushed a Russian, so what they did is try Westernised it by filling as much Western gear possible as was allowed then. Still not the same as buying a fully Russian jet and gutting it then replace with Western stuff and expecting full warranty from Mikoyan/Sukhoi? haha.
“overhauling locally”
I was under the impression that Sukhoi technicians need to be here. Boeing doesnt need to have their own staff to be here to do the same.
Boeing technicians could be here, too, if we wanted it.
Was this the article about the Felon?
No it wasn’t Marhalim.
“so what they did is try Westernised it by filling as much Western gear”
In contrast to Vietnam and others who are used to operating Russian stuff. For an air arm which operates Western going Russian entails a totally diffrent operting philosophy. The TNI-AU did minimal upgrades to its Su-27/Su-30s and according to local reports faced numerous issues.
“Boeing doesnt need to have their own staff”
Because people certified by Boeing were/are here.
“If the planes can soldier on without replacing, then TUDM wont do it unless they change their minds and prolong MKM usage”
Yes. As mentioned :”It’s 2025 and as the years go by various things [mostly 1990’s tech] will be inoperable/unsupportable. Whether we actually replace them is a big question given the intent is to only spend what’s absolutely needed to keep the fleet flying till it can be replaced. Same thing we did with the Fulcrums and same thing we’re doing with the Hawks.
Trade offs have to be made and to save cash it might and probably will be decided to forgo some things on the basis that spending cash on something which we plan to retire in a decade or so is not a good return of investment. Of course if something happens which drastically alters our threat perception then we’ll see the need to spend but if it doesn’t.”
“Which is why TUDM needs a cut rate fast solution which is getting Kuwaiti Hornets”
No point getting them if we can’t use them as we’d like and if we’re again placed in the same predicament.
“so tagging along their production will get us the missiles much faster”
In theory but the actual likelihood?
“We never did see the need to have large stock and this hasnt change for now”
For 8 Hornets. If we get the Kuwaiti Hornets the fleet will more than triple. If you’re alright with a paper capability than it’s fine
” Expanding its fleet of Hornets on the cheap may be tempting, but it comes with the additional maintenance and servicing burden associated with a larger fleet of ageing aircraft ”
We are going to have more aircraft than we actually need for almost free. That means less stress to individual airframes, with servicing intervals spread out over more airframes, and more spare parts.
” The Hornet represents ageing technology, which is increasingly difficult to keep relevant ”
it has been actively upgraded, has advanced AESA radar and targeting pods available to be relevant. then intended 10 years use is also not much in the bigger perspective.
” Moreover, the Kuwaiti Hornets are of an earlier block, whereas the Malaysian fighters are among the last Hornets manufactured. This may cause incompatibility issues when it pertains to spare parts ”
RAAF hornets are of much older block still, KAF is of earlier block than TUDM, with APG-65 radar and non EPE engines. TUDM has APG-73 radars (also retofitted to RAAF hornets) and EPE engines. But we can use RAAF spares no problems, and they have passed to TUDM a big amount of spares. The KAF hornets will come with spares and additional airframes that TUDM can cannibalise for spareparts, so 10 year use is no issue. As the hornet is retired from many airforces, their spareparts are of no use, and can be bought for scrap or asked for free transfer. This is how Pakistan air force manage to fly their Mirage 3/5 for many years, buy buying/hoarding all available Mirage 3/5 spareparts from all over the world.
” In addition, the aircraft have received differing upgrades to their systems. This will compound maintenance complexity ”
KAF Hornets has been upgraded to higher standards than TUDM, including already having the SNIPER targeting pod capability. TUDM Hornets will be upgraded soon to carry the SNIPER targeting pod. What can be done to KAF Hornets is get surplus APG-73 radars from RAAF, and replace the APG-65 still used in the KAF Hornets. Installation is plug and play.
… – “We are going to have more aircraft than we actually need for almost free”
That’s you looking at only the plus points again. As for me I have to ask: even with a mere 8 platforms sustainment is an issue yet there is this magical fantasy land thinking that we can more than double the fleet and because spares are abundant; we won’t have issues.
… – *But we can use RAAF spares no problems, and they have passed to TUDM a big amount of spares”
Unless I’m mistaken nobody claimed that there was no commonality.
… – “be bought for scrap or asked for free transfer”
… – “The KAF hornets will come with spares and additional airframes that TUDM can cannibalise for spareparts, so 10 year use is no issue”
You make it sound so clear cut. Tell me are all those spares we are getting sufficient or will we need to get more spares? Do the Kuwaiti spares cover evrything we need? No assumptions, yes or no?
… – “What can be done to KAF Hornets is get surplus APG-73 radars from RAAF, and replace the APG-65 still used in the KAF Hornets. Installation is plug and play”
Yes you keep saying; like how spares on paper will be available from the USMC. Question is will we do it?
This whole exercise is not as risk free and you seem to think it is. We have a long history of doing things on the cheap; get in now and worry about it later. . The bulk of the commentary has been on the pros whilst overlooking the cons; as if the Hornets are an end to a means and operate in a vacuum or run on water.
“If you’re alright with a paper capability than it’s fine”
Paper capability is fine in peacetime as we dont have to die die fly with live AMRAAMs every air patrol mission. We can fly with just Sidewinders only or with training blue rounds or just go up guns only. Once we have the Kuwaiti Hornets, TUDM will have more weight to push for more missiles from the politicians, since with more planes available they will need more missiles stock.
“In theory but the actual likelihood?”
Will be exactly how Morocco, Pinoy & Holland orders will ride in between the large Japanese 1000 units order. Its likelihood is even higher if we arent ordering a lot similar to the previous 10 units bought.
” even with a mere 8 platforms sustainment is an issue ”
sustainment of 8 from 1997-2020 with spares that need to be bought with cold hard cash and sustainment of 30+ from 2026-2036 with tons of available spares that we dont need to buy is 2 different scenarios.
” Yes you keep saying; like how spares on paper will be available from the USMC ”
I am talking about APG-73 Radar from RAAF that we can have right now, not AESA APG-79 that USMC is still using to 2030. 2 different things.
know your Legacy Hornet radar:
KAF radar = AN/APG-65
TUDM radar = AN/APG-73
RAAF radar = retrofitted with AN/APG-73
USMC radar = AN/APG-79 AESA
” This whole exercise is not as risk free and you seem to think it is ”
Never ever did i say this is risk free, like you as usual wrongly attributed me saying. There is nothing in this world that is risk free. But as i have said many times before this is IMO the lowest risk option, lowest cost option for TUDM that would not jeopardize our future multi role fighter capability post 2035. Getting the KAF Hornets as the intrim MRCA is also the very reason why we afford to buy the FA-50 right now to replace the hawk, mb-339 and MiG-29 in the 1st place (by not spending billions on Rafales or Typhoons).
“Will be exactly how Morocco, Pinoy & Holland orders will ride in between the large Japanese 1000 units order”
They aren’t us. The Philippines is rattled by China, Morocco is at odds with Algeria and Holland is worried about Russia. We lack the urgency and have yet to piggy back any order with anyone. What you described entails long term planning and urgency.
“Once we have the Kuwaiti Hornets, TUDM will have more weight to push for more missiles from the politicians”
That’s what they tried to do with the Hawks, Hornets, Fulcrums, Flankers, etc. The result : long delays on spares and overhauls which had an impact on capability.
“We can fly with just Sidewinders only or with training blue rounds or just go up guns only”
Of that’s the case and you think it’s fine to have a fleet of 25 odd Hornets with less than a handful of AMRAAMs on the basis that it’s fine then no need to bother get them as they won’t add much capability. Like ordering a regiment’s worth of arty and only having enough rounds for each gun to fire 2 rounds. Looks great during Merdeka Day though.
… – “We are going to have more aircraft than we actually need for almost free”
In typical fashion that’s you only focusing on the plus points. All’s good that ends well isn’t it?
… – “I am talking about APG-73 Radar from RAAF”
Well aware of what you were “talking” but I was referring to the fact that just because something can be done on payee does not mean we will do it. Hard I know but try to note the nuance.
… – “know your Legacy Hornet radar”
Thank you Master Yoda. Will you give me tips on how to put on my socks next?
… – “Never ever did i say this is risk free, like you as usual wrongly attributed me saying”
1st of all that’s rich given you have a penchant for only listing the cons on all you propose. I note the pluses in getting the Hornets boy have you done the same with the cons? Or will you continue tovpeddle the magical thinking that it’s penalty free?
As for ” usual wrongly attributed me saying” ; that’s rich given your tendency to bring up the past but with selective amnesia, to obfuscate and to claims things which were never there with your usual “as usuals”…
… – “why we afford to buy the FA-50 right now to replace the hawk, mb-339 and MiG-29 in the 1st place (by not spending billions on Rafales or Typhoons”
So says you but reality check. A
F/A-50 can do some roles the Fulcrums did but it can never be a direct replacement. Anymore than a nuke can for a FAE warhead. Reminds me of the period when you insisted the F/A-50 be a better choice than a MRCA; overlooking the pertinent fact that the requirement then was for a MRCA not a LCS. Yet you’d have selective amnesia by claiming time and again that I was wrong by stating the RMAF had no LCA requirement.
BTW the Fulcrum was never replaced and neither was the F-5. The F/A-50 is to replace the Hawk. It will also not replace the NBB-339 because we are not getting the training variant;irrespective of the fact that like the Hawk 200 it will be used for conversion and intermediate training.
You also claimed that I was wrong in saying the RMAF has no requirement for pre owned Hornets; it didn’t during the time you were harping on the issue. That requirement is recent. Note the nuance and get the period correct before erroneously claiming
others are wrong.
“They aren’t us. The Philippines is rattled by China,”
We arent to dissimilar with Pinoy, China isnt halfway around the world from us. However, Pinoy order has more impetus coz their riding on new F16 buys thus it has priority to come with the planes. Even if we have to wait 10 years (unlikely) its fine as long as we have a firm commitment to get them eventually.
“We lack the urgency and have yet to piggy back any order with anyone.”
Because we havent tried to yet? If we put in the order within the few years it will have to ride on others.
“you think it’s fine to have a fleet of 25 odd Hornets with less than a handful”
I like to look at reality, not ideal world according to my wants. Reality is do you want to have missiles without planes, or planes without missiles?
“reality check”
The project name is LCA/FLIT. That is self explanatory.
During one of the ucapan ulung panglima TUDM for TUDM anniversary, he also did explicitly say the LCA/FLIT is to replace 3 aircraft – HAWK, MB-339 and MiG-29N
… – “The project name is LCA/FLIT. That is self explanatory”
Thanks Master Yoda. Never mind what others said. Are you saying with certainty that some will actually be configured for LIFT?
“I like to look at reality, not ideal world according to my wants. Reality is do you want to have missiles without planes, or planes without missiles”
Good for you. I look at it from a position of “reality” not a according to “wants”. Making the case for a decent number of missiles to be available to arm fighters is hardly a “want”. Unless of course one is fine with having a paper capability and one which looks good at shows rather than an actual capability. It’s not as if the 8 Hornets have a dozens of AAMs which can be shared.
“Making the case for a decent number of missiles”
Neither is making the case to get the planes first is hardly my want. Its what TUDM chiefs is asking for. Having more planes is far from your insinuation its just good for “paper capability” or “looks good at shows”.
But I will bite your “actual capability” with I rather have ANY kind of capability whether it be for air shows or paper or whatnot you can dream up such an excuse, rather than sitting around with NO planes to put the air for peacetime deterrence and having absolutely NO capability.