it's not direct via leonardo malaysia?

im confused. some said atr42 mpa.

yang ni apa kaitan dengan Deftech? they are middleman?

?

memang betul2 salah mata

Please look at it clearly



It is a Saab 2000 with ERIEYE radar, not ATR-72. Saab 2000 has low wings, while ATR-72 has high wings. Yes Saab also build civilian aircrafts.

Why ATR was choosen?

What we know that TUDM specifically stated the speed that they wanted in the tender documents, that speed cannot be attained by the ATR-72. That speed requirement is something the CN-235 cannot achieve also. We also know that one of the interested contenders actually changed their initial proposal of using the ATR-72, to another faster aircraft due to the requirements listed out in the MPA Tender.

So
- TUDM wanted an aircraft faster than the CN-235. TUDM ideally wanted a jet platform, but its budget does not stretch to a jet aircraft.
- Many contenders wanted to use ATR-72, due to its size, price, and available support in our region. But ATR-72 operational speed is just comparable to the CN-235, and not what TUDM wanted as written in the tender documents.
- Some contenders upon learning of the speed requirement, even changed their initial offer of ATR-72 to another faster aircraft.
- In the end MENHAN announced that the winner is the ATR-72
- The ATR-72 MPA will perform missions with the same capability of the CN-235 MSA (similar speed, similar range), but with added cost and complexity of having to fly and maintain 2 totally different aircraft and mission systems.

The reason? Pick from below

- cronyism
- corruption
- kickbacks
- add your own

ATR-72 wing is not designed to be able to have weapons pylons.

ATR-72 based MPA have only 2 fuselage pylons to carry torpedoes or other stuff. Compare that to 8 possible weapons pylons on CN-235.



So you prefer spending hundreds of millions to have 2 platforms (CN-235 MSA & ATR-72 MPA) performing exactly the same missions so that in the future we will have to spend double the money on different spare parts and maintenance schedules ?

I don't care if we go for ATR-72 if theoretically we don't have the CN-235 MSA. But reality is that we now have those, and why bother going different?

Turkish navy even with 2 different platforms, the ASW systems for both are totally the same (Thales AMASCOS), so mission operators could fly in both aircraft, sitting in exactly the same work station, flying ASW missions.

What would happen with RMAF is 2 different aircraft, 2 different maritime patrol operating systems (CN-235 MSA with Cartenav, same as MMEA CL-415 and ATR-72 with Leonardo ATOS)

unfortunately I'm not there

being in KL every Merdeka I get to see Su and Hornet
last time every August they fly practically outside my school window even
nah
more likely looking for budget option because P-8 is the gold-plated option of them all
nah
SG-US ties are strengthening even more actually
saying there's an ethnic connection is like saying US and Africa abang adik because ramai blacks in US
lmao
total retard link

appreciated, but don't do it just for me babe
I'm not that young to go chasing hot curvy babes that break the sound barrier any more
(maybe about twenty-five years ago )

RSS Impeccable, Type 218SG arrives in Sg (on Roll dock).

RSS Invincible will stay on in Germany for training of the crews of the remaining 3 Type 218Sg submarines and then be brought back to SG.

The Challenger class is expected to be retired. The Archer class will continue to be operated with the Invincible class for a bit more time until they are retired and likely replaced with 2 more Type 218SG.

So peak Sg submarine strength at anytime should be a full squadron of 6 Aip equipped SSKs.





^ See last graphic and the first two photos.

Also; Interestingly RSN tries hard to not let the upper part of the submarine be seen and stacked containers around the submarine.

In fact, eagle eye observers noticed the small convoy being escorted by  a pair of F16Vs.

One notable example is the delayed Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) project by Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS), which was recently renamed Lumut Naval Shipyard (LUNAS).

The project commenced in 2013 and has faced significant delays and cost overruns.

None of the six ships had been delivered despite an initial deadline of 2019.

The mismanagement of the LCS project has eroded public trust in defence procurement processes and raised questions about the government’s ability to secure value for money in such deals.

The Malaysian government is responsible for engaging in open and honest dialogue with its citizens, explaining the rationale behind the decision and addressing any concerns.

By fostering trust and understanding, the government can demonstrate that it is acting in the nation’s best interests, carefully weighing the complex factors that influence defence procurement decisions in an ever-changing global landscape.

Source: US Approves Sale Of RM400 Million High-Tech Eye In The Sky To Malaysia

whats up with the su30 teardown?

navy wasted rm384m spare parts.
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/...-say-observers/