SHAH ALAM: RMAF has sent the second CN-235 light transport aircraft to Bandung for the conversion process into a maritime patroller. The handing over ceremony was conducted on October 2 at the PTDI facility adjacent to the Husein Sastranegara International Airport in Bandung, the state owned manufacturer announced.
It stated that the first CN-235 were handed over to PTDI on September 8 while the third aircraft is scheduled to be delivered in Bandung on January, next year, the company stated. Unlike the first one RMAF did not issue a statement, AFAIK.
RMAF and PTDI personnel posed with M44-03. PTDI
The release stated that
“Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia (TUDM) konversi pesawat CN235-220 Military Transport menjadi CN235-220 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA). Sebanyak 3 unit dari 6 unit pesawat CN235-220 milik TUDM dikonversi menjadi pesawat patroli maritim.
RMAF CN-235 M44-03 at PTDI facility in Bandung. PTDI
Pesawat pertama CN235-220 telah tiba di fasilitas produksi PTDI pada tanggal 08 September 2020 dan hari ini dilakukan penandatanganan Berita Acara Serah Terima pesawat kedua CN235-220 yang juga akan menjalani konversi menjadi pesawat patroli maritim.
Sedangkan pesawat ketiga CN235-220 dijadwalkan akan tiba di PTDI pada Januari 2021.
RMAF CN-235 with another CN-235 in Bandung. PTDI
It is interesting to note that PTDI stated that the aircraft will be converted into a Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) even though the RMAF called it as a Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA). Not much
difference anyways right.
RMAF crew with PTDI test flight personnel posed with M44-05. RMAF
Anyhow it appears that the second aircraft to undergo the conversion is M44-03, the first aircraft being tail number M44-05. As for the third aircraft, your guess is as good as mine.
RMAF and PTDI personnel posed for a picture after the handing over of 05 for the conversion process in September. RMAF
As in the other news, it is interesting to note that the RFB on the 4X4 APC for the UNIFIL mission was published on the same day (1 Oct ) that the first group of peacekepeers from Malbatt 850-8 left for Lebanon from Subang. The first batch of the previous group arrived on 2 October also at Subang.
A 20mm turret Condor with the other Condors undergoing inspection by the UN recently. Joint Force photo.
If the RFB for the APC goes well, the Malbatt 850-8 will be the first user of the new 4X4 to replace the Condors as I was told that the delivery of the first batch (10 vehicles out of 20) is supposed to take place within six months of the contract signing. That said with our luck, it will be Malbatt 850-9 or the next one.
— Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
So the schedule is as what I was told previously.
Interestingly we can see Senegals 2nd CN-235-220 back in Bandung for maintenance. It was delivered to Senegal in 2017. It was one of the first equipped with the winglets.
Marhalim – “h even the RMAF called it as a Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA). Not much difference anyways right”
Indeed. It’s just yet another acronym to add to the already long list of acronyms which the industry and various militaries have such a penchant for.
Just like how one navy’s idea of what constitutes a “frigate”, a “OPV” or a “corvette” can mean something else for another navy; a user’s decision to designate something a MSA” to signify a subtle difference can mean nothing for another user.
If possible we should convert or add a AESA radar to thw nose of the aircraft so that it can perform even better
@ Lee Yoke Meng
The nose is the least favourable area for a radar on a maritime patrol aircraft.
The best area is on the belly so that it can give 360 degree sweep area.
The best current AESA surveillance radar for maritime patrol IMO are the Leonardo Seaspray AESA and also the fixed array Osprey AESA
“It is interesting to note”
Likely the pressers got their acronyms mixed up. The MSI initiative was to convert them into MSA not MPA, which is why I said we could further upgrade these 3 to full MPA in the future. While there aren’t much significant differences between the 2 configs, there are differences hence accurate information is vital.
For a clearer understanding on these differences, here is PTDI’s definition
Marhalim, azlan and i perfectly know the differences. The info marhalim mentioned in his article is taken from official PTDI twitter handle, not from any other reporters.
As I said, the pressers likely got it wrong unless they know something we don’t. I didn’t blame Marhalim for reporting what was reported.
Nobody is blaming marhalim except you.
That is the official PTDI twitter, not from a reporter somewhere. If that is wrong, your info from PTDI website should be wrong too.
Oh please do point out where I blame Marhalim.
The MSA should be a significant addition to the reconnaissance asset of the RMAF. With the knowledge of the PLA Navy ships whereabout in the SCS, the activities and logistics foot trail can be established. These would really help to identify the choke points (as though the US Navy doesn’t know this already). If there are enough resources we can always play cat and mouse with their subs.
I think the PTDI definition is as confusing. As though MSA is equal to MPA. On one level at least, it’s just semantics. But am inclined to now think the CN235 conversion is just to MSA standards, not MPA standards.🤔
The link I posted made it quite clear what goes into an MSA plane and what extras needed to go fully MPA. So its clear where the definition between these two. The issue was PTDI own pressers got the terminology mixed up, since it was made clear that these US sponsored conversions was to MSA config unless they knew something we didn’t.
A good look at the Indonesian navy CN-235-220MPA cockpit. Got EFIS in lieu of steam gauges.