Malaysia Airlines Battles for Survival

It has been a year since the tragic loss of MH370. Malaysia Airlines has been struggling since. While they have received countless of moral support, the airline’s health remains critical, barely surviving financial losses, amounting to USD180 million at the end of Q3 2014, according to the airline’s Q3 report last year. Malaysian government stepped in through Khazanah Nasional, exercising a group-wide restructuring of Malaysian Airline System.

Despite efforts to save the airline, the company is still slowly but surely spiraling down, deeper into its financial slope.  Measures were taken in what seen to be as their final battle to revive and survive, bringing upon us a theatrical battle of survival of the once glorified Malaysia Airline System or known better as MAS.
March 2014, when global attention directed towards the small peninsular of Malaysia with the mysterious disappearance of flight MH370, little known to many, even key industry players that in the same month, MAS appointed RAMCO Systems to supply a total solution to replace its legacy systems within its Engineering Division, in its effort to enhance MRO capabilities within the airline, focusing on its own fleet of 145 aircraft from Malaysia Airlines itself and subsidiaries including Firefly and Maswings and its cargo wing, MASkargo.

RAMCO Appointed MRO Solution Provider  
In effort to enhance its MRO capabilities, the Malaysian national carrier has appointed RAMCO to supply and install its aviation suite software as a part of initiative by MAS to automate its MRO operations.
RAMCO stated, in a press conference in Kuala Lumpur, that the aviation management software will “help MAS to boost its MRO operations while offering opportunities to scale up its engineering division’s business”. This, according MAS then CEO, Ahmad Jauhari Yahya will help MAS to facilitate fleet management, minimise operation time as well as aircraft on ground time and will enable them to offer more slots for third party customers.
The system, according to Virender Aggarwal, CEO of RAMCO is made up of bar code-enabled feature that will efficiently minimise movement and time consumption in warehouses and hangars. The system, added Aggarwal, will also include touchless feature which allows engineers or technicians to operate the system using motion detection devices, as well as a more user-friendly and simpler system interface, requiring less time for data entry tasks.

Full Turn Around for Malaysia Airlines
In a press statement in Kuala Lumpur, MAS Aerospace Engineering (MAE) CEO, Azhari Mohd Dahlan confirmed that Malaysia Airlines has initiated its full turn around this year following the disastrous year in 2014 – the lost of both MH370 and MH17.

The appointment of RAMCO as part of its Engineering Division reformation took place at the right place, at the right time. The lost of two B777-200ER aircraft has more or less crippled the airline- the B777s, apart from its A330 fleet is the backbone of MAS. While full installation has taken place in a record breaking 11 months, question remains whether the system will achieve total operability. This, according to Aggarwal, depends on how the workforce embraces and accepts the system. “The software is only a small part of the system. What more important is the people themselves,” he added.
Meanwhile, in a more recent event, MAS has announced the disposal of a large part of its fleet – all six A380s, four of its B777-200ERs, two B747-400Fs and four A330-200Fs – meaning the entire MASKargo has to go.
This, according sources, will put pressures on Boeing and Airbus, as the customers and potential customers will be given the rare opportunity to watch the market strength for used A380 or even better, having the chance to try out the A380 themselves at the expense of Malaysia Airlines. Disposal of the A330-200F will not do Airbus any better, with price and ROI issues lingering the aircraft production.
Meanwhile, should MAS really release its two B747-400F aircraft, Boeing, like Airbus will face troubles maintaining its line of the newer B747-8F, due to the availability of the relatively young B747-400F aircraft, which will definitely attract new buyer.

Torpedoes in Anti-Submarine Warfare

Submariners hold to the saying, “sink a submarine before it fires its weapons”. The great battles of the World War II and the nerve-racking years of the Cold War has seen dominant forces race towards greater supremacy in this domain. Nazi U-boats and its predatory nature were among the most feared forces during the WWII. Moving in packs, they cruised the cold, dark water of the Atlantic Ocean, infusing fears among US sailors during the years. 

Later comes the Cold War. The tense relationship between the US and the Russian has put the world on high alert. The rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union took many forms; political, cultural as well as economic ideological. However, overshadowing all was the threat of nuclear war. War was imminent. Fortunately though, the war did not take place. Both nations managed to endure years of jittery relationship sensibly. However, in this article, it is important to stress on how submarines, during the years played its role as the nations’ most crucial offensive power – so crucial that nuclear powered submarine commanders were seen as the most powerful men on earth.

ASW – Questioning Its Significance

Post-Cold War, anxiety emerged from the West, questioning the relevance of underwater warfare, specifically pointing to the nuclear submarines. Elsewhere, blue-water operations are slowly but surely moving inland, towards shallower waters. The hide and seek game against deep-and-fast nuclear powered submarines are now replaced with the race against diesel/electric submarines. These diesel/electric submarines posses a distinct feature that puts them ahead of the nuclear submarines – they are stealth. Backed by its stealthy character, these submarines are able to lie motionless near the bottom while awaiting its prey.

Going diesel/electric, these submarines are able to minimise their noise projection hence enabling them to evade sonar detection. In addition, they can also manipulate waters with poor acoustic conditions, which are normally found in shallow or littoral waters. These conditions grant them tremendous strategic advantage in battle theatre. 

The significance of Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) is furthermore highlighted with the equipment of soft-kill and hard-kill anti-torpedo defence suites onboard navy ships. ASW capabilities have today become the main focus among naval forces. Possessing a physically powerful edge in ASW equalises to the ability to project offensive and defensive power in the underwater domain.

In Asia specifically the East and Southeast Asia, the underwater arms race is rapidly taking place. Small nations with small and compact naval forces, such as the Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, China and Japan are arming themselves with submarines, ships with ASW capabilities as well as anti-submarine aircraft.

The Republic of Singapore Navy for example patrols the sea with six Formidable-class frigates. Each vessel sails along a Sikorsky S-70B helicopter equipped with anti-surface and anti-submarine combat systems. Surrounding waters are hostile hence the need of robust ASW capabilities not only for the island-nation of Singapore, but also for its neighbouring countries including Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and other ASEAN members.

Exercise Dynamic Mongoose 2014 was successfully conducted far north in February this year. Under the aegis of NATO, the exercise saw the participation of submarines from naval forces including France, Portugal and Norway. Additionally, other NATO members namely Germany, Norway, Poland and the UK dispatched a number of surface ships during the exercise while additional personnel from the US and Canada were present to provide assistance.

During the exercise, all participating members have staged various tactical ASW scenarios including submarines and aircraft detection, tracking and engagement as well as group escort against submarine threats.

Despite loud voices that are questioning the significance of the ASW in the 21^st century, procurement of submarines, equipment of ASW combat suites, added by exercises held in international waters have proven that ASW will remain significant in modern warfare. Submarines are becoming more and more lethal by continually undergoing enhancement and development thus stressing the point of having reliable ASW capabilities not only for big powers but also for small nations.

The Torpedo in ASW

Modern days torpedo is a mature weaponry technology that stretches back to 1866 when Robert Whitehead invented his infamous Whitehead torpedo. Torpedo technology has since undergone tremendous improvement – from random launch at sea to today’s modern torpedoes with self-guided tracking system.

As the ASW retains its significant existence in modern warfare, one cannot deny the importance of equipping torpedoes onto submarines and ships. As one of the most lethal offensive instrument at sea, torpedo, despite its long history has remained the choice of naval forces due to its efficiency. Naval forces today stress on the importance of having torpedoes in their inventory. The presence of submarines in regional waters has caused stirs among nations, especially in dealing with underwater threats.

Young nations such as Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei are newcomers in the ASW domain and all are currently beefing up their ASW capabilities. Other than procuring submarines and ships with ASW capabilities to deal with underwater threats, the development plans too include the purchase of torpedoes – both lightweight and heavyweight torpedoes.

This article discusses on arrays of latest lightweight torpedoes with a small proportion of heavyweight torpedoes as well. The torpedoes will consist of MK54, MU90, APR-3E as well as Blackshark and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes to name a few. We will focus on some important parameters such as speed, range, guidance systems, propulsion as well as suitable launch platforms.

APR-3E

The intelligent innovation of the APR-3E is that it gives enemy forces no time to react. Its launch scenario is that it enters the water without starting the engine. It will first search for targets using its acoustic homing guidance system and the engine will only fire-up once target is identified. This innovation, according to its designer and manufacturer, Russian Tactical Missile Corporation JSC, is to increase the torpedo’s kill probability by providing targets no time to react.

The torpedo is made of turbo water jet propulsion system and a 74kg warhead for greater damage projection. Maximum speed is rated at 56 knots and its range, according to TMC, is approximated at 3km maximum. As an air-launched ASW lightweight torpedo, and being Russian, the APR-3E can be launched from a few Russian fixed and rotary wing aircraft including Tu-142, Il-38 and Ka-27 helicopter. However, the torpedo requires a minimum launching depth of 100 metres to allow airdrop.

AS244/S

AS244/S is a lightweight torpedo with 32.7kg warhead developed by the French/Italian EuroTorp consortium. The torpedo features a fire-and-forget, active/passive acoustic homing guidance system and can be deployed from surface or airborne platforms. It has a maximum range of approximately 23km while capable of attaining to a top speed of 50 knots.  The latest version of the torpedo is the AS244/S mod 3 and the torpedo is widely used by many of the Asian navies. Among the navies that posses the AS244/S torpedo in their inventory include the Royal Malaysian Navy, Republic of Singapore Navy, Indonesian Navy, and Indian Navy.

MK54

Raytheon’s MK54 lightweight torpedo remains as one of the most successful torpedo ever in production today. The US, Australia and India are currently cruising the oceans armed with the MK54 torpedo as their main lightweight torpedo. MK54 torpedo has an engagement range of around 10km and thanks to its Otto II propellant, is capable of achieving a top speed of more than 40 knots. MK54 guidance system consists of active/passive acoustic homing devices and its warhead weighs approximately 44kg. India becomes the torpedo’s latest user in June 2011 when they made the purchase of 32 MK54 torpedoes, amounted to a total of $86million. Latest update saw the P-8A Poseidon becoming the torpedo’s latest launch platform. The aircraft has successfully launched the torpedo during a flight test and as the replacement of the P-3C Orion, the P-8A Poseidon is now regarded as the US Navy’s latest addition of submarine adversary.

MU90/Impact

As a fire and forget torpedo, the MU90 can be launched from all three domains-from underwater, surface and airborne platforms. Its history began out of the join venture effort of Thomson Sintra’s Murène and Whitehead’s A290 torpedo, a replacement of their A244 torpedo. Its introduction in 1993 after the successful formation of EuroTorp Consortium has put the MU90 as one of the leading lightweight torpedoes among European navies.

The torpedo is designed to encounter variety of threats including nuclear and the more modern diesel/electric submarines with deployment relies heavily on its active/passive acoustic homing guidance system. The torpedo has a maximum engagement range of approximately 23km at its minimum speed while capable of cruising the water at a speed of 50 knots propelled by its pump-jet/electric propulsion system. Its long range and high-speed engagement capabilities are furthermore enhanced with the delivery of a 32.7kg warhead to its target, boosting its fear factor among enemy forces.

Currently, over 1000 rounds of the MU90 torpedo have been ordered by the navy of France, Italy, Germany, Denmark and Poland. Australia in August last year has successfully conducted a series of test-fire of the MU90 torpedo, after years of delay. The commissioning of the torpedo into the Australian navy in late last year marked the near success of the $639 million project.

YU-7/MK46

The Chinese is the best reverse-engineers in the world. No one can deny this fact. They are a group of people capable of reproducing anything out of something. While the reverse engineering is nothing but uncommon among the Chinese, little knows that they too have put their skills in the defence sector. The production of the YU-7 torpedo is a great symbol of a successful reverse engineering effort in China’s booming defence industry. The history of YU-7 leaps back in to the 1970’s when a number of US-made MK46 torpedoes were recovered by a group of Chinese fishermen. The Chinese government approved the development effort and a full-scale process began in 1984. The Chinese lack of knowledge in torpedo development was covered-up when they, in 1985 sealed an $8 million deal with the US to purchase a number of MK46 Mod 2 torpedoes including its technological support. Development of the YU-7 torpedo continues until late 1990’s when it successfully went into full production.

Looking at its specification, one will identify that the torpedo, more or less resemble the MK46 torpedo. Its guidance system is made of active/passive homing acoustic system, and its propulsion system consists of the more conventional Otto II fuel. While its maximum engagement speed may reach an astounding 65 knots, it has a limited range of 7km. Among other torpedoes mentioned in this article, the YU-7 stands as the second most lethal torpedo after the Russian APR-3E, with the arming of a 45kg warhead.

Heavyweight Torpedoes Go Faster, Further and Stronger 

Though the lightweight torpedo is gradually becoming more efficient, heavyweight torpedoes remain as naval forces’ number one choice to ensure more promising striking damage over enemy threats. Today’s lightweight torpedo capabilities are nowhere near the capabilities of the heavyweights. Heavyweight torpedoes possess greater range, higher speed and most importantly superior  explosive power.

Spearfish heavyweight torpedo developed by BAE Systems is currently in service with the Royal Navy. BAE Systems was responsible for development and manufacturing process of the torpedo. The torpedo is designed to engage submarines and surface targets, and it was first declared operational onboard HMS Vanguard ballistic missile submarine in 1994.

Its guidance system consists of two systems, either the autonomous active/passive homing guidance or wire-guided. Meanwhile, its propulsion system is made of a Sunstrand gas turbine engine coupled to a pump jet. This propulsion system enables the torpedo to strike targets at a maximum speed of 80 knots and at a range of approximately 23km to 54km.

Meanwhile, Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei (WASS) Black Shark torpedo features a silent electrically powered brushless motor propulsion system, and can be deployed from both submarines and surface platforms. Black Shark torpedo has an estimated engagement range of 50km with a maximum speed of approximately 50 knots.

Royal Malaysian Navy Scorpene-class submarines are armed with the Black Shark torpedo.

Its sensing capabilities is enhanced through the introduction of the Advanced Sonar Transmitting and Receiving Architecture (ASTRA) an active/passive acoustic homing guidance system introduced by WASS. Apart from acting as a torpedo guidance system, WASS too has admitted that the ASTRA system is potentially capable to operate as submarine’s additional sensor system.

Currently, the heavyweight torpedo is in service with the French, Italian and Chilean navies. The torpedo is currently arming the Scorpene submarines of the Malaysian and Indian navy to name a few.

Cope Taufan & Teak Mint 2014

Both Cope Taufan and Teak Mint 2014 exercises are held biennially between the Royal Malaysian Air Force and the US Air Force (USAF). This year, the exercises began between June 6-20. Three bases were used throughout the event including the Butterworth Airbase, Subang Airbase as well as Kuantan Airbase.

Onboard USAF C-17 conducting CDS Tac Sortie over the state of Pahang, Malaysia. 

Both exercises were held together for the first time, aiming at optimising assets deployment from both forces. Among the objectives of both exercises were to enhance two way procedures as well as to gain better understanding of joint operation for both forces.

For 2014, America's most capable air-to-air fighters were deployed to take part, and sending the “Raptor” to Malaysia fired a strong message to potential foes and allies throughout the region. The USAF deployed its F-22 fleet to Malaysia for the first time, marking its first combat appearance in Southeast Asia. The presence of the F-22 and F-15 fleet has allowed both sides to conduct Dissimilar Air Combat Tactic (DACT) and Combined Air Operations.

Raptor-Eagle line up of the USAF. Both went against RMAF fleet of SU-30MKM, Mig-29N, Hornets and Hawks.

The exercises combined have become the largest event held so far by the RMAF, which saw the participation of 1,000 personnel from both forces. Among other elements practiced during the exercises were electronic warfare, search and rescue as well as simulated commandos operation. Although the exercises focused on the RMAF participation, the Army as well as Navy also took part in the event.

It is one thing developing and testing such tactics back in the US against aggressor squadrons that mimic the operations and aircraft of potential enemies, and a whole other thing testing those procedures against a totally unique air arm that possess the real adversary gear in question and intimately knows its advantages and disadvantages.

Lt Gen Russel J Handy USAF photographed here together with Maj Gen Dato Sri Affendi Buang RMAF.

This exercise has been a good opportunity for the USAF to test the Raptor-Eagle air dominance team, and the tactics that have been developed in relation to it, against a highly diverse and leading-edge foe. 

USAF Combat Rescue Helicopter Programme

In 2009 US then Secretary of Defence Robert Gates announced the controversial decision to put off the CSAR-X helicopter programme. The multi billion dollar programme, according to the US Air Force was to replace their old and ageing HH-60G Pave Hawk combat search and rescue (CSAR) helicopters.

As of December 2013, no decision has been made on the CSAR-X programme. However, in March this year, Secretary of the US Air Force, Deborah Lee James announced on the budget alignment for a new CSAR helicopter programme named Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH). Through a five-year reprioritisation measure, the USAF managed to gather a total of $344 million for the CRH programme, awarded to Sikorsky.

Much debate has taken place among military specialists on the significance of CSAR helicopters. While the CRH programme has saw lights at the end of the tunnel, other forces are facing similar issues – in finding sufficient fund as well as in opting for the best CSAR helicopter for their current and future objectives.

HH-60G Pave Hawk – Whacked and Battered

As one of the USAF principal helicopters, the Pave Hawk’s primary mission is to extract downed pilots through CSAR operation. Designed and developed bottom-up based on the infamous Black Hawk helicopter, the Pave Hawk underwent extensive upgrades in communication and navigation systems. The helicopter employs the Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment (PAVE) technology hence the name Pave Hawk.

After more than 20 years in service and definitely thousands of take-offs and landings, the USAF Pave Hawk fleet has started to indicate the signs of weariness. Safety crews have detected cracks on most of the Pave Hawk helicopters available, a major sign of metal fatigue – and of course a major safety concern for the flying crews themselves.

The service’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal released in 2013 showed no sign for the life-extension programme for the Pave Hawk fleet. Due to the non-existence of a life-extension programme, the USAF is overwhelmed with a rapidly increasing flying-hours.

As a critical asset of the USAF, the Pave Hawk possesses a number of significant features and gadgetries that put it as best of its class. Two General Electric T700-GE-701C turbo shaft engines power the helicopter, with the capability of cruising at 294km/h. It is also equipped with a cargo hook with approximately 3.6 tonne capacity. For rescue operation, the Pave Hawk is fitted with a hoist that is able to lift 270kg load from a hover altitude of 60.7 metre.

Thanks to its night-vision goggle and the AN/AAQ-16 forward looking infrared imaging system, the helicopter is able to perform day and night operation. Among other avionic suites retrofitted are AN/APN-235 Doppler navigation system, AN/APN-239 weather avoidance radar, AN/ALQ-202 radio jammer and AN/ALQ-213 electronic warfare management system.

More than 20 years after its introduction, the Pave Hawk has saw service in many major operations including Operation Desert Storm, Operation Allied Force, SAR operations following the Hurricane Katrina, Sri Lanka tsunami as well as the tsunami that hit Japan in 2011.

Osprey – The American Late Boomer

Seen by many as an incredible piece of aviation technology, the V-22 Osprey’s history commenced in the early years of the 1980s following the tragic failure of Operation Eagle Claw. The incident had highlighted the critical requirement of a new breed of Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft. Later in 1981, The US Department of Defense (DoD) launched what called the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft programme. Under the DoD term, Bell Helicopter joined Boeing Vertol to form a team and later won the preliminary design contract in 1983.

In a paper by Dr Loren B Thompson of the Lexington Institute, he stressed that Osprey possesses mix capabilities that principally include the CSAR as well. He said that Robert Gates made a correct decision to turn off the CSAR-X helicopter programme in 2009 as the DoD left the Osprey out of the competition. The government failed to understand the trade off of cost against capability. The paper also mentioned on the failure of the government to identify the best aircraft and obviously, having left the Osprey out of the competition portrayed their lack of knowledge on future requirements.

Thompson added, the USAF decision to procure a new generation conventional CSAR helicopter would arguably affect its position as the best CSAR provider among other services. The Marines, according to him had decided to procure the much more capable Osprey instead of a more conventional helicopter – and it is possible that in the near future the Marines will surpass the Air Force in CSAR capability due to the aircraft’s ability to fly faster and further.

As the world’s first production tiltrotor aircraft, the Osprey is equipped with proprotors as well as a pair of 90º rotating nacelles. Able to take off vertically, the aircraft cruises the sky with the nacelles facing forward 75% of the time. It is also powered by Rolls Royce AE 1107C engines that enable the aircraft to fly at a maximum speed of 565km/h - faster than any conventional helicopters.

In a report dated June 2012, 32 weapon systems were available at the Marines’ disposal. However, these weapon systems have never saw battle due to the availability of helicopter gunships and close air support aircraft that allow the Osprey to perform tactical transport role. However, it was stressed that due to its ability to outrun escort aircrafts, in a longer term it is important for the Osprey to possess its own self-defence capabilities.

Current and future users of the Osprey include the US, Japan and Israel. It is available in a few variants – CV-22B for USSOCOM, MV-22B for the USMC, HV-22 for the US Navy CSAR operation (this variant lose to the MH-60S) and also as a part of the Royal Air Force’s proposed AEW&C replacement of their ageing Sea King helicopters.

American Industry Giants to Co-develop New CRH

Following its victory in the bid of the CRH contract, Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin is optimist that there will be enough funding for the team to initiate early integration works. In an interview earlier this year, Samir Mehta, Sikorsky’s president of Defense Systems and Services classified the future CRH as a “heavily modified Black Hawk”. The Pave Hawk replacement model will feature better avionics as well as mission systems. It will also undergo extensive structural modification and this, according to Mehta will include the integration of composite blades.

Sikorsky’s president of Defense Systems and Services classified the future CRH as a “heavily modified Black Hawk”

The CRH programme will cover a total of 112 helicopters with a projected cost of around $7 billion. According to Mehta, the Sikorsky team itself was surprised by the very late decision. He added that it was only on March 4 that the team was made known on the fortunate decision. The decision to build a new helicopter on the Black Hawk platform was initially made in order to drive the cost down, which according to him has helped Sikorsky win the contract due to its relatively low cost.

Though not much have been said on the upcoming CRH programme, one may expect the helicopter to exhibit the resemblance of Sikorsky’s latest offering, the S-70i Black Hawk helicopter. The S-70i is the latest addition to the family of Black Hawk helicopters. Since its first flight in 2010, the helicopter has entered service with the Royal Brunei Air Force and the Colombian Army Air Assault Division. 

The helicopter has a maximum gross weight of approximately 10 tonnes with a large cabin capable to accommodate 13 soldiers and two crewmembers. Carrying the traits of a conventional combat helicopter, the S-70i is equipped with crashworthy airframe with single piece cockpit assembly.

In addition, the helicopter can as well be fitted with medical equipment, external rescue hoist, rappelling equipment and also the Integrated Vehicle Health Management system. The cockpit features four ten-inch colour displays, digital automatic flight control system as well as flight management system (FMS). In term of offensive capability, the S-70i can be armed with Battlehawk system, comprising of machine guns, 70mm rocket launchers, air-to-ground missile system, helmet-mounted sight and external stores weapon system.

Powered by two T700-GE701D turboshaft engines, the helicopter is able to fly at a maximum cruise speed of 277km/h at a service ceiling of 13200 feet. Fully loaded, the S-70i is able to reach a distance of 459km with no reserve.  

Others That Made the List

At the early stage of the CSAR-X programme, the USAF drafted a list of potential helicopter candidates that they believed suit the service’s current and future mission objectives. Among the listed helicopters were the Chinook, US-101, H-92 Superhawk as well as European born EC725 and the NH-90.

The legendary CH-47 Chinook by Boeing is in high demand due to its superior performance portrayed in Afghanistan. Thanks to its muscularity, the Chinook is able to perform in hot and high conditions without having to produce excessive output. Through the Chinook, Boeing offers the capability to perform more precise positioning as well as the proven challenging close-in manoeuvres.

According to earlier analysis, the Chinook has a higher compatibility with the US and foreign forces due to its presence in international stage since decades ago. Boeing also offers the more capable, highly modified MH-47G Special Ops variant, which they believe, gives them an edge in term of R&D requirement.

However, on the negative side, the Chinook is known for being a large and noise helicopter, making it an easier target by the opposition. There were also issues regarding its rotor downwash, which had caused difficulties in executing evacuation missions. To make things worse, in technicality, the Chinook has the worst fuel consumption among other US helicopters. It too requires more rigid maintenance as well as longer assembly time in case of air transport into battle theatre.

According to the study conducted, the Chinook, if chosen will have logistic issues if the US decided to conduct sea-basing operations. Its large size does not permit the helicopter to be based on Navy ships.

European Giants in the Action

Other than the Chinook, the USAF also evaluated the US101 offered by Lockheed Martin. Based on the EH101/AW101 by Italian helicopter giant AgustaWestland, the US101 was the only platform that offered a helicopter with three engines configuration. The configuration, according to Lockheed, offers tremendous advantage in terms of survivability by being able to produce spare power in case of one engine shutdown. The helicopter has no issue regarding compatibility with the US forces and in fact, it offers very high compatibility with NATO allies and is able to execute long-range missions provided it is equipped with extra tank.

However, the downside of the US101 far outweighed its advantages. First is the issue regarding its extra tank location – in its belly. For the USAF, the tank location is somewhat critical given the fact that the helicopter will be shot a lot and of course, from the ground. This feature will severely affect the safety of flying crews and knowing that your safety is being compromised definitely will not help either.

In term of maintenance, the USAF managed to learn something about the helicopter from its neighbour, the Canada. The Canadian forces have had a number of issues regarding maintenance of their EH101, which down the road did some financial harm to them. There were also mechanical problems with the Canadian and the British EH101 hence the lack of mission-ready helicopters.

Within the American soil itself, the VH-71 Presidential helicopter (based on US101) has seen a very poor initial programme rating. President Barack Obama asked US then Secretary of Defence Robert Gates to hold or cancel the programme. Later in June 2009 the US Navy decided to officially cancel the programme. Having spent a total of $4.4 billion and taken delivery of nine out of the 28 VH-71 ordered, the US government decided to sell the helicopters as spare parts to the Canada for its Cormorant fleet.

Canadian Cormorant

 

Meanwhile, EADS (now Airbus Group) through Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopter) offered two of its best CSAR capable helicopters, the EC725 Caracal and the NH-90. The Airbus Group saw the CSAR-X programme as a platform to increase sales to $10 billion by the year 2020.

EADS North America COO, Dave Oliver in his statement said that both the EC725 and the NH-90 were put in the list because of their “proven capabilities at best value and lowest cost to the taxpayer”. Although the CSAR-X programme was somewhat smaller compared to the $35 billion tanker bid, EADS entered the CSAR-X programme to boost its presence in the US military market.

RMAF EC725

French NH-90 in Canjuers

Ground Combat Vehicle Programme: Issues and Possible Alternatives

The shocking discontinuation of US Army Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) programme January this year has overwhelmed related defence contractors with cold atmosphere. Defence industry giants namely BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Tognum America were all in full throttle when the undesirable news emerged. While the army is forecasting the need for better mobility solution for a nine-member infantry squad, the US government however slashed 83% of the requested $592 million, leaving the army with only $100 million of total fund for the programme’s research and development.

According to Chief of Staff of the US Army Gen Ray Odierno, the Army is definitely in need of a new infantry-fighting vehicle (IFV) but due to the economy downturn, could not afford to develop one. Odierno added that the hope now is that the remaining fund will provide the Army with sufficient capital to develop all required technologies so that in years ahead when the programme is revived, things will get back on track to replace their ageing Bradley.

Emphasising on full nine-member squad mobility

Infantry squads of the US Army consist of nine men – a squad leader and two four-men fire-teams. These people rely on IFVs as their main transportation during battle. As a primary weapon and a means of transport for infantry squads, the Army perceives the IFV as one of its most important asset in battle theatres. The issue regarding the battle-worn Bradley is its lack of space, with the capability to transport only seven soldiers thus necessitating a squad to be divided among vehicles. This separation issue, according to strategic studies, has all this while put these squads in a state of total vulnerability because of the difficulties in communication as well as organisation.

The lack of space does not only prevent a full-sized squad to move in unity, but also disables a squad to take along the often-needed additional soldiers which may include radio-operators, medics or forward observers. The Army is striving to tackle this issue hence the introduction of the GCV platform. 

Overcoming the challenges

Findings and results of more recent war games have highlighted the need for rapid deployment in small formations. The Army is anticipating a more expeditionary type of operations in the near future. Through war games and recent international operations, they learnt that every deployment has to be fast and to be effectively mobile, having to move with minimal but optimal equipments and supports. The Army too believes that future operations will tend to take place in remote areas. Therefore, it is believed that the development of a more rugged and mobile IFV or GCV will greatly contribute in the service’s future deployments.

Though GCV programme’s revival is possible, the Congress through its Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report had earlier outlined some issues regarding the GCV itself. A contrasting fact is that while the Army is striving for all-terrain mobility, the GCV platform turns out to be way heavier than the Army’s current Bradley IFV. While the ageing Bradley weighs no more than 39 tonnes, the GCV however weighs approximately 50 to 65 tonnes. Though this excessive weight came as a result of heavier and stronger armoury, this huge excess weight somehow will affect the GCV’s logistic ability and mobility in and into battle theatres. Weighing at 65 tonnes each, rapid deployment seems impossible. The C-17 is able to transport three Bradleys at a single time but flying three GCVs in a single flight is far beyond reality. Logistic cost is more than likely to skyrocket. This has become a major drawback during its valuation stage, which later brought to the programme’s dead end.

In addition to that, the GCV programme too has faced several technical challenges which may impact its performance later down the road. One issue that comes into question is the vehicle’s ability to protect its passengers without having to overload itself with heavier armour. Materials such as ceramic and other lightweight armour are either too expensive or not suitable for the GCV; they require more time for development. Another alternative is the utilisation of active-protection systems - this kind of technology is not fully developed too. Without being able to overcome these issues, developers may need to settle down with the more conventional armour that brings to a concrete conclusion; more weight and higher fuel consumption and therefore higher operating cost.

Budgetary issue has and will always become a major concern from any government’s point of view. In an effort to contain the programme within its target cost, the Army had to allow some capability trade-offs. Unlike the Bradley, GCV had to give up anti-tank missile launcher. To make things worst, the Army too had settled down without the armour kits that was supposed to protect two-third of the vehicle, smaller and less powerful 25mm cannon instead of the 30mm earlier planned and a set of less sophisticated sensors and optical equipments.

Forking out alternatives

The CBO, post evaluation process suggested a number of alternatives. First alternative is to purchase the German Puma IFV. As one of the strongest option, Puma too lacks on certain features. Another alternative suggested by the CBO is the Israeli Namer APC. The Namer however has an issue regarding firepower. Third suggestion is to upgrade the US Army current fleets of Bradleys to lengthen its service life for years to come. The last and the least favoured option, which now has become reality is to kill the GCV programme, retaining the current Bradley while at the same time running a research for its life-extension programme.

While this article focuses on the US Army GCV programme, ADJ also brings you about a number of IFVs of similar class, which we believe share some distinct features; especially with six or more seating configuration. We will examine each IFV’s survivability (armoury), lethality (weaponry), mobility (engine capacity) as well as maximum number of passengers. The proposed alternatives include other IFVs namely the Puma, Namer, Turkish Tulpar, Bradley and its upgrade programme as well as a few others.

M2 Bradley

First we look at the Bradley IFV, which the Army initially opted to phase out due to its ageing issue as well as a part of future capabilities development process. First entered service in 1981, the Bradley IFV variant was manufactured under the Bradley family of fighting vehicles by BAE Systems Land and Armaments, back then known as United Defense. 

The Bradley weigh falls between 35 to 41 tonnes, depending on armour kits equipped on each vehicle. It is armed with a Bushmaster M242 25mm chain gun as its primary weapon, a 7.62mm machine gun as its secondary firepower as well as a missile launcher for TOW anti-tank missiles. The IFV is powered by a Cummins VTA-903T diesel engine, capable of producing 600hp. Power to weight ratio is rated at 19.7hp/tonne. Therefore, despite its relatively vintage-age, it is no surprise that the Bradley is able to reach a top speed of 66km/h.

Under the GCV programme, the upgrades of US Army current Bradley fleets are considered as one of the cheapest alternatives for the US government. However, this alternative has become an issue due to the Army’s main objective to acquire a nine-seater IFV. It is worth mentioning that under the upgrade programme, the ageing Bradley may possibly undergo quite a few modernisation initiatives including more powerful engine, better sets of suspension, additional armour, advanced optics and an additional 7.62mm machine gun.

Under the government estimation, in order to upgrade and field all Bradley, a sum of $19.5 billion of fund will be required beginning 2014 until 2030. Out of the $19.5 billion, $2.7 billion will have to be allocated over integration process while the rest goes for units purchase, amounting to 1748 in total numbers with a price tag of $9.6 million each.

Schützenpanzer Puma

Development of the Puma IFV began in the 90s as a replacement plan of the German’s ageing Marder vehicle. The development process took place between Rheinmetall Landsysteme and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW). Production started circa 2008 and the German Army received its first Puma in the same year. In term of lethality, the Puma is equipped with a dual-fed Rheinmetall Mauser 30mm cannon as its primary weapon and a 5.56mm HK MG4 machine gun as its secondary. In addition to that, unlike the proposed GCV that eliminates anti-tank missile, the Puma rolls out of factory readily equipped with a launcher for Spike anti-tank missile. It is powered by an MTU 892 turbocharged diesel engine, developing a huge 1073 horsepower with a maximum speed of 70km/h.

The Puma is proposed with a 12-tonne armour kits package, which gives the IFV a total weight of 43 tonnes when fully armoured. Meanwhile, its underbelly is protected against mines and IED threats. At 31.5 tonnes in its basic armour package, the Puma is readily fitted with floating seats for six passengers excluding its crew of three. As an alternative of the GCV, the lack of seat numbers has however become an issue since the US Army is eyeing on a nine-seater solution.

At $6.9 million each, the Puma is one of the cheapest options for the US Army IFV replacement programme. Despite of its lack of passenger seats, the Puma under the CBO evaluation turns out to be the most lethal and possesses higher survivability due to its 450mm-high ground clearance. Moreover, since the Puma is already in production, the US government estimated that integration process will only cost approximately $500 million and they also estimated that the procurement of Puma would cost a total of $14 billion less than the GCV programme’s target cost.

Namer

Born out of the Israel-Lebanon conflict, the Namer, or earlier named Nammera is an armoured-personnel carrier (APC) manufactured by Israeli Ordnance Corps. Designed and developed for the Israeli Defence Force, Namer carries the DNA of its predecessor, the legendary Merkava tank. It was built bottom-up based on Merkava tank chassis hence the large size. Post Israel-Lebanon conflict has saw Israel Defence Force insisted on a new armoured-vehicle to be fielded after the old M113 was proven vulnerable to explosive type of threats. It was in 2008 when the Namer first entered service and production numbers today has reached a total of 200 units.

Compared to Bradley and Puma, the Namer weighs a whooping 60 tonnes, making it the heaviest option among the GCV alternatives. However, it is important to stress that the excess weight comes from a package of strong armour kits, which were made of classified composite matrix of laminated ceramic-nickel-steel-alloy and underlaid reactive armour. The Namer too, thanks to its large build-up is able to fulfil the Army’s demand of a nine-seater IFV.

Despite the advantages of stronger armour and larger interior capacity, the Namer too possesses some disadvantages, which are seen as major drawbacks. In comparison with the Puma and Bradley, Namer is left behind in term of firepower capability. It is only equipped with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun and a 7.62mm machine gun as its secondary weapon. Though it is armed with mortar and smoke grenade dischargers, the Namer is in a position where its defensive capability greatly outweighs its offensive capability. Its lack of offensive power puts the Namer as the weakest alternative under the CBO evaluation. However, bear in mind that the Namer was designed as an APC not as IFV hence the lack in firepower.

Tagged at $11 million each, procurement of the Namer will cost the US government an estimated figure of $19.5 billion – $9 billion less of that the GCV programme. Development and integration process would take up only $300 million while the rest of the $19.5 billion goes to the procurement of 1748 Namer vehicles.

Tulpar

Apart from the suggested alternatives of the GCV programme, it is worth to mention a few other IFVs that have similar capabilities that put them altogether into a similar class. To name one is the Tulpar IFV by Otokar. This Turkish latest and most advanced IFV was designed for the Turkish Armed Forces, unveiled during IDEF exhibition held last year. According to Otokar, the Tulpar will comprise a number of variants including reconnaissance, command-and-control, personnel carrier, mortar, recovery, launch rocket system, air defence, ambulance and anti-tank vehicles. Though available in arrays of variants, this article however brings you about the Tulpar in its IFV variant.

Comparable to the Puma, the Tulpar too is designed with a high ground clearance of 450mm for better protection against mines and IED threats. Looking at its firepower, Tulpar IFV operates with Mizrak 30 unmanned turret, armed with a 30mm dual-fed cannon, L-Umtas anti-tank missile launcher as well as a 7.62mm Browning machine gun as its secondary weapon system. In term of survivability, the Tulpar IFV is offered with three armour packages. Depending on its armour packages, the Tulpar will weigh somewhere between 25 to 40 tonnes.

At the heart of the IFV is a Scania DSI 14/16 diesel engine. Known for its durability and reliability, Scania as one of the biggest European diesel engine manufacturer helps to generate 810hp under the hood, allowing the Tulpar to reach a top speed of 70km/h and a maximum range of 600km. Moreover, this IFV is able to carry nine fully-equipped soldiers, making it a suitable contender under the GCV programme alternatives. Though the price tag is yet to be disclosed, Tulpar, under the IFV flag is a strong contender for armed forces all over the world in search of a capable and reliable IFV.

Anders

Anders history began in 2008 when it first went into development stage following the Polish Army’s demand for a new IFV to replace its Soviet-era BMP-1 IFV. OBRUM was responsible for the development and manufacturing process of the Anders until its first prototype was made public in 2010. Named after a WWII general, Anders’ weigh ranges from 25 to 35 tonnes. Its protection package consists of a set of modular armour, providing all-around shield against 7.62mm rounds. In addition to that, optional add-on armoury may provide further protection up against 25mm projectiles.

In order to enhance its offensive power, the Anders IFV is equipped with OTO Melara’s Hitfist-30P turret, along a 30-mm cannon while its secondary weapon is a 7.62mm machine gun. Anders spacious interior is able to hold three crew and eight additional soldiers. Powering the IFV is a German-made MTU turbocharged diesel engine, which is capable of generating 720hp. Thanks to its reasonable weight, the Anders may reach a top speed of 72km/h and able to reach a destination as far as 600km. Price announcement is yet to be done, but the Polish Army has expressed an interest to purchase 1000 units of similar vehicle.

Singapore Airshow 2014

Singapore Airshow 2014 attracted close to 100,000 visitors over the public day weekend on 15 and 16 February. In addition to the 80,000 public day tickets that were completely sold out, the Airshow also welcomed guests for the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s 45^th anniversary celebrations at Singapore Airshow, exhibiting personnel, student groups and concession ticket holders over the two days.

Visitors to the Airshow were treated to an impressive line-up of public day activities, including the highly-anticipated flying display, featuring the largest number of aerobatic teams in the history of Singapore Airshow. The line-up included awe-inspiring team aerobatics performances by the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) Black Knights, the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) Black Eagles and the Indonesian Air Force (TNI-AU) The Jupiters.  There were also solo aerobatic performances by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The RSAF pavilion, part of the RSAF’s efforts to celebrate its 45^th anniversary with the public at Singapore Airshow 2014, was also a major highlight of the public days.

The new public day arrangements introduced this year by show organisers, where visitors go through security clearance at Singapore Expo before boarding the shuttle bus to Changi Exhibition Centre, were well-received. In particular, the objective of getting visitors into the show swiftly and safely during the peak period in the morning before the flying display was achieved.

Over the six-day show from 11-16 February, Singapore Airshow 2014 welcomed some 146,000 visitors in total. Visitorship over the four trade days from 11-14 February stood at almost 46,000 visitors from 129 countries/regions, with 31% coming from overseas. Singapore Airshow 2014 also played host to 279 delegations from 72 countries.

Enjoy the photos!

RSAF F-15SG

JSF were present. Only the mock-up though.

Osprey during a flying display.

Malaysian EC725 were present throughout the show.

C295 after a 40-hour journey from Portugal.

Back to the static display area after the flying display.

Globemaster right after touchdown. Being towed into the static display area.

SAS14 caters mostly for commercial aviation with a considerably large proportion for defence sector.

Happy crew after a tiring day.

Writer having a taste of Apache's cockpit.

Chinook's arse was opened to public.

Crew on standby.

ROKAF Black Eagles during an aerobatic display.