Malaysia poised to bring ESSM aboard new frigates
-
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JUNE 20, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malaysia poised to bring ESSM aboard new frigates
Richad Scott Jane's Naval Consultant
London
Cost considerations are believed to have favoured the selection of ESSM
BAE Systems is looking to sign a contract for the frigate programme by the end of 2007
Malaysia looks set to equip its second batch of Jebat-class frigates with the Raytheon RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) after the US weapon was selected ahead of MBDA's rival Aster 15 missile system.
The move, which remains subject to contract, would mark a significant success for Raytheon given that the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) has historically turned to MBDA for the supply of naval guided weapons.
BAE Systems received a letter of intent from the Malaysian government in July 2006 confirming plans to acquire two Batch 2 Jebat-class frigates from its Clyde-based shipbuilding subsidiary BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions. The company will deliver the so-called Project 'Brave' programme - valued at about GBP700 million (USD1.4 billion) - in conjunction with Malaysian industry partner RealMild, owner of the Lebuan Shipbuilding and Engineering (LSE) yard in Sabah.
A contract award is expected later in 2007, possibly to coincide with the LIMA 2007 defence and aerospace exhibition on Langkawi Island, Malaysia, in December.
The first two Jebat-class frigates, delivered to the RMN in 1999, were equipped with the MBDA VL Seawolf point-defence missile system. However, the staff requirement for the two follow-on frigates specified a more capable and longer-range local area air-defence system.
The anti-air missile system was the last major equipment choice outstanding for the Batch 2 frigate programme, with Raytheon Missile Systems and MBDA Missile Systems locked in a fierce dual for the last year. It is understood that while ESSM formed part of the original technical and commercial baseline presented to the RMN by BAE Systems, the customer subsequently endorsed Aster 15 as its preferred technical option after conducting its own performance evaluation and scenario modelling.
However, the increased acquisition and integration costs associated with Aster 15 pushed the overall price of the frigate programme significantly above the RMN's budget ceiling. Industry sources have told Jane's that this affordability issue has now seen ESSM reinstated as part of the finalised combat system configuration, with each frigate expected to receive eight Raytheon Mk 56 dual-pack vertical launchers (for a total of 16 ESSM missiles). It is thought that the ships will each be fitted with two continuous wave illuminator-equipped Saab Ceros 200 radar/electro-optical trackers for ESSM guidance and semi-active illumination.
The decision in favour of ESSM was the last outstanding major equipment selection for the Batch 2 frigates. Other key systems previously selected are believed to include a variant of the BAE Systems Integrated System Technologies CMS-1 combat management system, the Thales Nederland SMART-S Mk 2 E/F-band multibeam radar and the Thales Underwater Systems Captas Nano low-frequency active/passive towed array sonar.
BAE Systems has refused to discuss the outcome of equipment selections for Project 'Brave'. In a statement, the company said that contract negotiations "are progressing well and are ongoing", but added that it was "inappropriate for BAE Systems to comment further".
Raytheon and MBDA also refused to comment on the missile selection outcome.
Although the technical specification for the Batch 2 Jebat ships is now mature, negotiations are continuing between BAE Systems, RealMild and the Malaysian government to finalise industrial arrangements for the programme. These talks are addressing a range of commercial issues, including the extent of LSE's role in the construction and assembly of the frigates. -
How's good ESSM compare to ASTER.......?
-
That's where you go wrong as in...that's where you ask the wrong question. I mean it doesnt really matter if it's better than the Aster-15. It's newer i suppose so it would be(i dont know!)Originally posted by MyVi:How's good ESSM compare to ASTER.......?
A more appropriate question would be how would the ESSM affect the performance of weapons deployed against the RMN boat.
ESSM or Rim-162 is a modified tailcontrol (vs wing control) missile. It is versatile enough to be launched from a variety of launchers - conventional & VLS. It has a radome protected semi-active radar homing antenna with flight correction in midcourse uplinks/radar updates.
Current plans for ESSM: It is being used by the USN Aegis DDG ships (the stocks are being shipped). It will be eventually distributed to also include USN AEGIS cruisers/CVs/CVNs.
Uses of ESSM - basically it is an AMM in function. It is able to handle effectively low altitude / sea skimming / anti-ship and/or cruise missiles. Example of its use would be to take out ASHMs like the Harpoon, Otoman. Sunburn and Exocet.
I believe with this function, it will also be able to double up as an AAM. Enemy aircraft will have to fly higher, launch their AShMs further and also in more numbers in order to be successful in disabling this RMN boat with ESSM on-board.
It is a great SR defense weapon. -
If I remember correctly, both Aster & ESSM have their roots in AAM, ESSM as its name suggested is evolved from AIM-7 Sparrow while AsterÂ’s active seeker is based on that of the MICA radar version.
Theoretically, the Active radar guided Aster 15 will be more advanced than the semi-active radar guided ESSM as Aster 15 will be more a “fire N forget” choice. The benefit of Active radar guided SAM is obvious, it will let the radar engage more targets simultaneously and some times, it doesn’t require a dedicated fire control radar for target illumination.
But wait a minute, why Yankees who developed active radar guided AMRAAM 1st in the world are not for this option as their inner layer of ship defense? I guess both Aster and ESSM are not long range and have to deal with low RCS, sea skimming, fast moving AshM. The sea surface is like a mirror, it will reflect all kinds of radar signals and targetÂ’s own reflected signal will be hide among them. The tremendous background noise will make the small active radar seeker of interception missile very difficult to discriminate which reflected signal is from the AshM and which is from the sea wave. I mean using more capable fire control radar onboard the ship is no doubt more reliable to discriminate the incoming sea skimming AshM and therefore intercept it. So for anit-seaskimming AshM, I vote the ESSM.
Anyway, IÂ’m impressive how quickly RMN responded when it sensed the Aster . -
I would be more interested in the effectiveness of the ESSM against the PLAN's Sunburn launchers.
-
I guess thats why powerful shipborne fire control radars are able to make those missile work effectively.Originally posted by coolant:If I remember correctly, both Aster & ESSM have their roots in AAM, ESSM as its name suggested is evolved from AIM-7 Sparrow while AsterÂ’s active seeker is based on that of the MICA radar version.
Theoretically, the Active radar guided Aster 15 will be more advanced than the semi-active radar guided ESSM as Aster 15 will be more a “fire N forget” choice. The benefit of Active radar guided SAM is obvious, it will let the radar engage more targets simultaneously and some times, it doesn’t require a dedicated fire control radar for target illumination.
But wait a minute, why Yankees who developed active radar guided AMRAAM 1st in the world are not for this option as their inner layer of ship defense? I guess both Aster and ESSM are not long range and have to deal with low RCS, sea skimming, fast moving AshM. The sea surface is like a mirror, it will reflect all kinds of radar signals and targetÂ’s own reflected signal will be hide among them. The tremendous background noise will make the small active radar seeker of interception missile very difficult to discriminate which reflected signal is from the AshM and which is from the sea wave. I mean using more capable fire control radar onboard the ship is no doubt more reliable to discriminate the incoming sea skimming AshM and therefore intercept it. So for anit-seaskimming AshM, I vote the ESSM.
Anyway, IÂ’m impressive how quickly RMN responded when it sensed the Aster . -
Keep your Eye on USN-IN naval exercises then. The Indians have the brahmos ?? If it aint the same thing it's a close enough alternative. I forget.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I would be more interested in the effectiveness of the ESSM against the PLAN's Sunburn launchers. -
Where there any test fires of these terrifying ASMs? Preferably from a great distance where its active seeker is yet activated and is relying on midcourse updates? Did they actually find their targets?Originally posted by CM06:Keep your Eye on USN-IN naval exercises then. The Indians have the brahmos ?? If it aint the same thing it's a close enough alternative. I forget. -
Actually regarding the Brahmos, there hasnt been any -yet- I just mentioned keep an eye out for those exchange exercises...you never know when the USN will pull a the Brahmos>USN like what the USAF did with their F-15s to buy more F-22s....Originally posted by Shotgun:Where there any test fires of these terrifying ASMs? Preferably from a great distance where its active seeker is yet activated and is relying on midcourse updates? Did they actually find their targets?
Here's some "facts" i pull out from the web regarding the Indian's Love for Brahmos.
It's a supersonic Cruise missle jointly developed with the Russians. It's speed is 2.8mach.
from Zeenews.com the IN Army is inducting Brahmos (land version) on June 21 it has a range of "290km" tested 14 times with "100% success"
from indian-defense.com it's 14th test was fired from a mobile launcher and "met all mission parameters"
from indian -defense.com on 18th march India is going to "triple brahmos production"
from dnaindia.com it reported on 14 / 12/ 06 Indian exporters trying to sell the brahmos were "discrediting the Russian Sunburn and Club missiles" much to Russian's displeasure. They were trying to impress the Indonesians
India is trying to Brahmos their Subs and have a minaturised version for their SU-30MKI.
That's what i mean by keep and eye out regarding the USN-IDN exercises. Maybe they want to play play.
Outside of public information drawn from the web, i have no knowledge of how good brahmos is actually compared to Sunburn or the Club missiles.
No i not indian. I have this website which looks for -all military news of the blogger's interest and he posted so i searched there-
All in all, i'm waiting for the first CIWS to be introduced in the region. -
All in all, i'm waiting for the first CIWS to be introduced in the region.
the RMN have one onboard indrapura. the phalanx. -
Icic.Originally posted by CM06:Actually regarding the Brahmos, there hasnt been any -yet- I just mentioned keep an eye out for those exchange exercises...you never know when the USN will pull a the Brahmos>USN like what the USAF did with their F-15s to buy more F-22s....
Here's some "facts" i pull out from the web regarding the Indian's Love for Brahmos.
It's a supersonic Cruise missle jointly developed with the Russians. It's speed is 2.8mach.
from Zeenews.com the IN Army is inducting Brahmos (land version) on June 21 it has a range of "290km" tested 14 times with "100% success"
from indian-defense.com it's 14th test was fired from a mobile launcher and "met all mission parameters"
from indian -defense.com on 18th march India is going to "triple brahmos production"
from dnaindia.com it reported on 14 / 12/ 06 Indian exporters trying to sell the brahmos were "discrediting the Russian Sunburn and Club missiles" much to Russian's displeasure. They were trying to impress the Indonesians
India is trying to Brahmos their Subs and have a minaturised version for their SU-30MKI.
That's what i mean by keep and eye out regarding the USN-IDN exercises. Maybe they want to play play.
Outside of public information drawn from the web, i have no knowledge of how good brahmos is actually compared to Sunburn or the Club missiles.
No i not indian. I have this website which looks for -all military news of the blogger's interest and he posted so i searched there-
All in all, i'm waiting for the first CIWS to be introduced in the region.
The thing is, I've always wondered what their hit probability was like given their long range and supersonic nature. If an Exocet can miss its target, what more for these longer ranged weapons that travel greater distances. Thats why I'm keen to see whether these missiles are what they claim to be. Fleet killers.
So far, my impression of them is... Area SPammers.
"I think the US Battle group is here."
"Okay, lets fire 100 Brahmos at them!"
Last I checked, that was how the PLA intended to keep the US Navy out. Area Denial. -
There were tests of the Brahmos I think. Not sure what the results were.Originally posted by Shotgun:Icic.
The thing is, I've always wondered what their hit probability was like given their long range and supersonic nature. If an Exocet can miss its target, what more for these longer ranged weapons that travel greater distances. Thats why I'm keen to see whether these missiles are what they claim to be. Fleet killers.
So far, my impression of them is... Area SPammers.
"I think the US Battle group is here."
"Okay, lets fire 100 Brahmos at them!"
Last I checked, that was how the PLA intended to keep the US Navy out. Area Denial. -
aaaa isnt the brahmos fly in group of this bunch of missile where let say 10 hug the seas and only one fly in an attack profile while at the same time share its target info with each other. if the one above were downed automatically one of the missile that hugging the sea will came up and resume the destroyed one role.
-
Well...GUess singapore gonna be spending more $$$.Came to realised the Indonesian and malaysian are on arm procurement frenzy.
IMO, RSAF can no longer be going on a 20 20 10 10 procurement process, tis current trend is kinda worrisome -
RMN never intended on using ESSM against PLAN. In fact, Malaysia procured many weapons from suppliers common to PLAN.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I would be more interested in the effectiveness of the ESSM against the PLAN's Sunburn launchers.
Hope our planners in the SAF are not sleeping. -
How's good ESSM compare to ASTER.......?[
The article has already answered your question.It is understood that while ESSM formed part of the original technical and commercial baseline presented to the RMN by BAE Systems, the customer subsequently endorsed Aster 15 as its preferred technical option after conducting its own performance evaluation and scenario modelling.
However, due to costs, it was dropped;However, the increased acquisition and integration costs associated with Aster 15 pushed the overall price of the frigate programme significantly above the RMN's budget ceiling.
Since both the RSN and RMN wanted the Asters after the respective peformance evaluations, it just goes to show which missile is the preferred one.
The maximum range of the ESSMs is never officially stated but construed at between 15 to 50km since the designers said the maximum range has been increased by more than twice. The original Sea-sparrow had several versions as well with different ranges with the longest ranged one being carried by Aegis ships and most probably due to the Aegis radar/illumunators.
And the purported maximum range of 50 km refers to RIM-162A which are equipped on Aegis-based ships after taking the maximum range possible given to a Sea-sparrow missile by defence enthusiasts. Most would agree that the effective range is much shorter. In addition, the RIM-162B/Cs are the ones which the article mentions and found on non-Aegis based ships.
The effective
range of the Aster 15 is 30 km. That does not mean it cannnot fly further than that at maximum range.
At any rate, you just can`t compare missiles per se. Ship on-board systems which support the weapons matter as much. But it says as much when the RMN wanted to get the Asters but could not due to costs.
My guess is that the Asters and ESSMs are more or less similar at actual effective range but the Asters are probably better at agility and its ability at responding to saturation attacks. The Asters are also less constrained by radar types and illuminators which the latter does not require as compared to the ESSM. Hence, more Asters can be launched at targets repeatedly and minimally controlled simualtaneously in the air. The formidable can launch and control as many 10-16 Asters at one time. (And the Formidables carry 32 of them with the capacity to carry more with future block upgardes which the RSN does frequently with all her ships. Check out the Victory class corvettes and compare the specification when she was first commisioned in the early 1990s.)
The number of ESSMs in flight, however, is dependant on the number of illuminators(and locations on ship in some cases) to provide end-game guidance and a good radar to guide them like the Aegis system.
The Asters are also newer. Conversely, the ESSMs are actually upgrades over the older Sea-sparrows.
I see this report as being similar to the report about Malaysia being poised to buy the Super Hornets, Rooikvalks, etc. Recently, there was a another report stating that the RMAF is poised to buy the Super Hornets among a whole slew of similar reports over the years. Needless to say, there is more news than the actual stuffs coming out from up north.
We really ought to wait till they build the ships and really commission them. ESSM is an American weapon. Let the negotiations and approval processes (all the way to the American Congress) begin..
Dont be surprised the two frigates materialise next decade and dont be surprised they come with Asters in the end since they found the Americans rather uncooperative or that they come with too much strings attached. It may even come with the old Sea-wolfs or Micas(more likely since costs matter a lot to them).
And they have done it again. They are thinking of buying another system. Sea-wolfs are British. ESSMs are American. They have another system on board the Laksamana corvettes as well. It`s like going shopping. Must taste a bit of everything. How on earth will they tie all those equipment together where command and control and over-all system integration is concerned ? Maybe by simple radio. They have a long way to go where network-centric warfare is concerned and these purchases would not help at all. -
Arthas79: I don't think that the RMN has any choice regarding this matter. The requirement was "for the two follow-on frigates specified a more capable and longer-range local area air-defence system". The only follow-up to the Seawolf would have been the Seawolf Block II which by the standards of the 21st century is no longer relevant. The obvious choice, the MBDA Aster 15 was rejected on the basis of cost, so again the RMN cannot be blamed for this. If I am not mistaken, the RSN purchase of Aster 15 came to around $330 million !!! Almost the price of a frigate ! The only navy in SE Asia with that kind of budget is Singapore. The RMN probably got that the best deal it could.
-
Agreed. But my point is that the time it will take before the ESSMs and other related systems are approved may take so long and cumbersome that the RMN reverts back to Sea-wolfs or perhaps Micas. Let alone sealing the deal and constructing and commisioning the ships.
-
Do you know if the ESSM is a restricted item? I understand that all US weapons require Congressional approval before it can be sold, but the impression I had was that the ESSM is just an improved Sea Sparrow missile and not a sensitive item like a stealth fighter or a nuclear missile. In other words it is not a new technology introduced in the region which would drastically affect the balance of power. I would have thought that Congressional approval would proceed at the normal speed, just as it would be if the Malaysian army bought an M-16 rifle or a Colt .45 pistol. In other words, that approval would be very forthcoming as this would represent a major coup for Raytheon in breaking into the Malaysian naval market, which up to this point has been dominated by MBDA. I know for a fact that Boeing in the past was aggressively promoting the FA-18F Superhornet on the basis of a very generous off-set program, and I did not get the impression that Congressional approval would have been difficult or slow in this case, and the ESSM would seem to be just a small matter.
-
ESSM is the primary anti-missile missile of the US navy. Obviously, it is a highly controlled item. You`d think the US would just sell it without putting some thoughts about compromises to its viability (to the US and her allies and close friends). You can`t compare the sale of the latter to that of an M-16 rifle.
Why is it not something new to the region apart from it being an upgraded Sea-sparrow? Would the US sell an upgraded F-15SG with its accompanying AESA radar to Malaysia? Is any other country in the region operating the ESSM? Singapore has the European equivalent - Asters. But the US is not exactly interested in ensuring parity between Malaysia and Singapore either.
I think you took the words directly from the report. I hardly think it is a `major' coup for Raytheon for a miniscule amount of missiles and the smallish Malaysian market.
There are two types of sales for buyers of US miltary goods. One is 'foriegn military sales' and the other is 'direct military sales'. For the former, it is a government to government deal with the sale being negotiated by the Pentagon prior to it reaching Congress. The latter are sales between a foriegn government and US defence companies cleared by the state department. Interestingly, countries closer to the US(or with more clout) opt for DCS more often than FMS. This is hardly surprising as the US has probably put more trust in these former countries. Singapore`s F-16s were purchased via DCS.
Hence, Malaysia`s potential purchase of the ESSM would be done via FMS. It would be subjected to scrutiny by the Pentagon and then by the Democrat controlled Congress. While I think it is possible that it would pass(given the small numbers involved), I do not think it would be cleared as quickly as you would an M-16 rifle. Secondly, a Democrat controlled Congress would most likely subject the requested purchase to issues in relation to freedom, coziness of relations, etc. Thirdly, the Pentagon would seriously have to weigh the pros and cons of allowing the sale of a controlled item (albiet in small numbers) to a country they are not that close with and the effects it would have on her greater allies in the region; Singapore and Thailand.
How do you know that Boeing has made a generous offer? Were you privy to the actual negotiations? The negotiations took a long time due to a variety of issues. Costs is one thing. The Malaysians had a tough time trying to get systems cleared as well. This is what i have read.
And the truth is that the acquisition of the Super Hornet has in fact taken a very long time. The negotiations were just as long; stalling in between once or twice?
I would be very delighted if the sales were to go through. Tying down a potential foe to US weaponry is certainly good. -
potential foe?
it'd be politically correct to say MY's purchase of a significant US weaponry after more than a decade would pave the way to better and streamline defence of the region from external threats.
if potential foe is how SG view MY, the rest is academic. remember, in international relations, there are no friends. and there are no enemies either. -
With regards to sgdiehard, I would still not rule out the possibility of the ESSMs being used against the Sunburns/Brahmos in the future.
I would look 10-15 years into the future, and also look at the other types of procurement done by Indonesia and Australia as well. Something is keeping these guys awake at night as well, and no surprise that every littoral state in this region is currently going for something that can perform at least a limited air defence surveillance role and counter ASM role.
What are they wary off? What is the only possible threat or hotspot? Piracy in these waters? Not really. Could be something more..
Let's not work on the assumed traditional SG vs MY rivalry these days, because that is not exactly the threat posture that ASEAN should occupy itself with these days.. -
potential foe?
You can worry about political correctness when the Malaysian government makes such announcements officially.
it'd be politically correct to say MY's purchase of a significant US weaponry after more than a decade would pave the way to better and streamline defence of the region from external threats.
if potential foe is how SG view MY, the rest is academic. remember, in international relations, there are no friends. and there are no enemies either.
They have not bought the system. It might not even go through or be the system. It is a report featured in Janes.
As much as we would like to think that the region is moving towards greater synergy, there is no denying the fact that regional militaries in East Asia would prioritise internal, sub-regional and local threats first than regional.
You can do two things. One, talk about regional integration and unity and build up your defences in the face of your potential threats which are more local than global. Or you just talk about the actual threats you face. The fact of the matter is that the external defences of the Malaysian, Thai, Indonesian and Singaporean militaries are geared towards defence against thier respective neighbours. In Singapore`s case, it takes an offensive form but defence nontheless.
I do not know what do you mean when you wrote 'better streamlining of defence of the region'. There is no such facility for joint defence in this region apart from the FPDA. And the FPDA is consultative in origin. If you are talking about buttresing naval power in SEA to balance out China and India, it helps but only a little given the disparity in terms of equipment. These are relatively small surface combatants and there will only be two and lightly armed which are meant more for brown water actions. In Malaysia`s case, they are(for the lack of better term) timely(if finally built rather than just pure talk as usual) replacements(role or chassis)for old ships that ought to be written off years ago in a fast ageing navy. -
LzLordz, check this out, in the future time slot youÂ’ve given in your post, RMN is more likely to purchase from China than confront herOriginally posted by LazerLordz:With regards to sgdiehard, I would still not rule out the possibility of the ESSMs being used against the Sunburns/Brahmos in the future.
I would look 10-15 years into the future, and also look at the other types of procurement done by Indonesia and Australia as well. Something is keeping these guys awake at night as well, and no surprise that every littoral state in this region is currently going for something that can perform at least a limited air defence surveillance role and counter ASM role.
What are they wary off? What is the only possible threat or hotspot? Piracy in these waters? Not really. Could be something more..
Let's not work on the assumed traditional SG vs MY rivalry these days, because that is not exactly the threat posture that ASEAN should occupy itself with these days..A senior Singapore official told the IASC that while ChinaÂ’s economic and political engagement of the region far outweighed its military engagement, this was now changing. He even allowed that should there be eventual multilateral naval patrols of the Malacca Strait, that China could be a participant. He did not think that arms sales would develop quickly. He also noted ChinaÂ’s strong effort to have Singapore end its military relationship with Taiwan, to which he affirmed that SingaporeÂ’s commitment. In recent years China has offered to replace SingaporeÂ’s longstanding use of Taiwan for training Singapore Army troops with access to training areas on Hainan Island.
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.163/pub_detail.asp
According to Asian sources China is now making a major push to increase its sale of all manner of arms in Southeast Asia, as a complement to its efforts to increase military engagement. The largest Chinese effort to date is its entry into the competition to provide three LPDs to Malaysia. ChinaÂ’s entry is a slightly smaller version of its Type 071 LPD. European sources discounted ChinaÂ’s ability to win this one, and an official from China Shipbuilding noted that Malaysia was more likely to buy a smaller training ship from them. This same official all but admitted that they were discussing a Type 039 submarine sale to Thailand, but also noted that Thailand did not have the infrastructure or personnel for submarines. China is also promoting a new dedicated attack twin seat version of the J-10 to Malaysia,
as well as missile technology to Indonesia and Thailand. It is also promoting its new SH1 155mm truck artillery system to Malaysia, which is not likely to buy it according to sources interviewed at IMDEX. -
b]ESSM is the primary anti-missile missile of the US navy. Obviously, it is a highly controlled item. You`d think the US would just sell it without putting some thoughts about compromises to its viability (to the US and her allies and close friends). You can`t compare the sale of the latter to that of an M-16 rifle.
Why is it not something new to the region apart from it being an upgraded Sea-sparrow? Would the US sell an upgraded F-15SG with its accompanying AESA radar to Malaysia? Is any other country in the region operating the ESSM? Singapore has the European equivalent - Asters. But the US is not exactly interested in ensuring parity between Malaysia and Singapore either.
I think you took the words directly from the report. I hardly think it is a `major' coup for Raytheon for a miniscule amount of missiles and the smallish Malaysian market. [/b]
I don't claim to be an expert on the ESSM but if I am not mistaken its effectiveness with regard to the US is because of the highly sophisticated Aegis combat system and not because of the missile itself. In fact judging from the details of the Jane report, it isn't even clear that the ESSM offered to the RMN is supported by the Smart-S/Ceros for S/X band mid course guidance. If not, then the system will have to rely on Homing All the Way mode/ Inertial HAW mode at best, which would of course, make it far less capable against a missile attack. The Aegis system is clearly off-limits to Malaysia both on political and economic grounds. What I'm trying to say is that I am well aware of the bureaucratic hurdles faced by Malaysia in purchasing this weapon but I don't think that it would be unsurpassable. If the sale was to take place, perhaps the RMN will have to make some technical compromises but ultimately it would still go through. I do agree that it would not a major coup for Raytheon on the basis of the quantity purchased. But surely the important thing for them is simply to get a foot in the door, in a country which traditionally had looked towards BAE systems and now MBDA for their naval defence needs, the idea being that one purchase would lead to the next...First the Hornet and then the Superhornet being the most obvious example.
How do you know that Boeing has made a generous offer? Were you privy to the actual negotiations? The negotiations took a long time due to a variety of issues. Costs is one thing. The Malaysians had a tough time trying to get systems cleared as well. This is what i have read.
And the truth is that the acquisition of the Super Hornet has in fact taken a very long time. The negotiations were just as long; stalling in between once or twice?
I would be very delighted if the sales were to go through. Tying down a potential foe to US weaponry is certainly good.
I have got friends in the PM's office, Treasury, MINDEF, and the RMAF, that's how I know it was a generous offer. Although I was not privy to all the actual negotiations, I have a fair grasp of the salient points involved. While it is true that the negotiations stalled on several points, some of it because of the US reluctance to provide the RMAF with some of the items they wanted, such as the AESA APG-79 radar, alot of the problems were actually caused by the Malaysian side, especially on the basis of cost because of the after effects of the economic crash in 1998. Later it was complicated by Anwar, the War on Terror...etc. But on almost all the points the US were wiilling to compromise and judging from some recent news the FA-18F is back on track. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that is the US is not as intransigent as some people believe, they are actually very open to negotiation, and even if the RMAF does not receive the full package which they wanted, a downgraded FA-18F is still more than sufficient for their defence needs. After all, who gets a full-spec US weapon? Even the UK and Australia are sometimes unhappy with the package they are offered especially with regard to sensitive items such as software for the F-35.