Super Hornets, AWACS May Feature in RMAF Modernisation Plans

[gf0012-aust]

(Source: Bernama News Agency; issued April 15, 2004)

(© Bernama; reproduced by permission)


SUBANG, Malaysia --- After the move to procure 18 Sukhoi SU-30MKM fighter jets, the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) plans to move on with its modernisation programme, right into the five-year Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP).

Among the military hardware expected to be procured were the new generation all-weather Super Hornet fighters as well as the Advance Early Warning and Control System (Awacs) aircraft.

RMAF Chief Jen Datuk Nik Ismail Nik Mohamaed said in the 9MP, which began in 2006, the air force would undergo further metamorphosis in terms of infrastructures, equipment and personnel. "We have identified several development aspects which the RMAF needs in the immediate future as well as over the long term," he told reporters at the Defence Service Asia (DSA) exhibition here.

Nik Ismail declined to reveal the aircraft which RMAF had in mind. However defence analysts believed the F-18F Super Hornets and AWACS planes would feature prominently in the air force's shopping list.

The planned procurement of Super Hornets was halted after the government decided to purchase the Sukhois last year.

Ismail did not indicate that the RMAF planned to totally ditch procurement of the Super Hornets, instead saying that the air force needed such agile fighters. "The Super Hornets are among the best fighters, based on the performance of eight Hornet F-18Ds which are in our service," he said.

Malaysia began to use the American-made Hornets in the late 90s but the RMAF did not have enough fighters to form two squadrons of 18 jets. Following this, the United States in 2002 offered RMAF the Super Hornets apart from the buy-back package for its existing Hornets.

It was learnt that RMAF needed at least 18 of the Super Hornets. Malaysia also hoped that the fighters would be equipped with the AMRAAM missile system, the Super Hornet's main armament. However the missile system was only given to US close allies like Singapore and Thailand.

It was also reported that the RMAF needed four AWACS, at a cost of some RM1 billion. The plans to purchase this airborne warning system in the 8MP, was scuttled due to high costs.


[sorry, no link to this]

 

[Awang se]

I can tell you that they still in wait and see mode. The performance of the economy until the 9MP will determine what will be purchases.

 

[adsH]

is there a specific reason why Malaysia has gone for Su or is trying to purposely go for big heavy less econmical weapons. they could of easily gone form F-16 block 60 which are more than what they would of needed anyways. and i don't understand why Malaysia would like to complicate there potentially straight forward Logistical supprot by byeing SU and SH which are in the same class. an F-16 is nothing less and infact there is nothing that F-16 cannot do and not do better its chaep robust and low maintenance high performeing lighter AC with a High thrust to weight ratio and a maneuverability that still is considered one of the best in the world. granted payload may be less and nuber of load it can carry would be less but they coould of compensated by bying more of the F-16 and its 4 generation battle trusted platform just like the more expensive SH

 

[Awang se]

I don't know about that. But i guess it has something to do with rivalries with their southern neighbour, singapore. Both armed forces always seem trying to outmatch each other in purchase competition. exampled. When Malaysia Rig their Mig to carry RVV-AE, Singapore react by acquiring AMRAAM, When Malaysia purchase more then a hundred AIFV and several tanks, they react by acquiring Apache Helicopter. When Malaysia purchase MKM, they react by joining the JSF programme. The point is, they will try not to have identical equipment with each others. Malaysia once said to rejected an improved hawk for their medium range AD programme and show interest instead on SA-6 because singapore use hawk also. I maybe wrong here, but i see it this way (to any singaporeans, no hard feelings)

 

[Awang se]

It's kind of old article but should give a clearer picture.

Far Eastern Economic Review
May 16, 2002

KUALA LUMPUR

The military's modernization programme is back on track. The new weapons will give it an offensive capacity


THE MALAYSIAN MILITARY is on the roll after years of stalled modernization. The latest evidence of this resurgence should come during Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad's mid-May visit to the United States, when Boeing is expected to announce the sale of F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter/attack jets to Malaysia's air force.

Defence Minister Najib Razak, the driving force behind the renewed race to upgrade Malaysia's military capability, said late last year the government would spend between US$3 billion and $4 billion on hi-tech arms procurement between 2002 and 2005. He is also reviving orders that were put on ice when the Asian financial crisis hit in 1997.

The new orders, which are being placed fast and furious around the developed and the developing world, will give Malaysia an offensive capability for the first time. And while officials insist the build-up is not meant to threaten anyone, some analysts reckon the Malaysian military wants to bridge the technology and firepower gap it has with Singapore. But they add that of greater strategic concern is instability in other neighbouring countries, particularly Indonesia.

Najib was the architect of the original modernization drive of the early 1990s, but his vision of transforming the military from an army-driven, counter-insurgency force to a more conventional structure with equal emphasis on all three services ran aground when he was moved to another portfolio in 1995--the plan sank after 1997.

"Our defence needs have always been driven by economics and not by threat perceptions," says defence specialist Mak Joon Nam.

With Najib back as defence minister and the economy in much healthier condition, the impetus has been restored. "It's not just the military's needs. Someone whom Mahathir listens to has got to push for it," says a Western diplomat.

Over the past two months, Najib's ministry has announced a rash of new purchases. These include main battle tanks from Poland, Russian and British surface-to-air missiles and mobile military bridges, Austrian Steyr assault rifles and Pakistani anti-tank missiles. Kuala Lumpur is also negotiating to buy the F/A-18s, three submarines from France and an unspecified number of Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighter aircraft.

The submarines are likely to be based at a naval base now under construction in East Malaysia's Sabah state.

The government is also reviving deals struck in the early 1990s, including the purchase from Britain of six Super Lynx helicopters and of six patrol vessels from Germany.

The decision to spread its orders around reflects Malaysia's use of arms purchases to further its foreign policy, even though the range of equipment from so many different sources creates maintenance and logistics problems. The expected order for an unspecified number of F/A-18s, for example, is a sign of the remarkable turnaround in relations between Malaysia and the US since the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. "It appears the political considerations behind defence procurements are great in Malaysia's case," says the diplomat. "And here it's being used to forge better relations."

However, analysts say neighbours may not be happy about the procurements, especially the battle tanks, missiles, multiple-rocket-launcher systems and submarines, which will give Malaysia an attack platform for the first time.

NARROWING THE MILITARY GAP

Military analysts believe the modernization programme is certainly aimed in part at narrowing the military gap with small but rich Singapore, which has a much bigger annual defence budget. A Malaysian arms specialist asserts that Singapore has around 10 times more main battle tanks than Malaysia. "They already have four submarines and their air force is the most sophisticated in the region. Let's not kid ourselves," he adds.

But despite the often rocky ties between the neighbours, analysts believe Malaysia does not see Singapore as a potential battlefield foe. Strategic Forecasting, a US-based global intelligence provider, said in an April 17 report that the arms build-up was aimed at more long-term threats, including piracy in the Malacca Strait and Muslim insurgencies in the southern Philippines and southern Thailand.

The report said the Malaysians were worried above all at the prospect of Indonesia's collapse, which could unleash ethnic and religious unrest and trigger an avalanche of refugees. "Malaysia must be able to act pre-emptively if Jakarta loses control," the report said. Malaysia shares a land border with Indonesia on Borneo and has consistently had problems with Indonesian illegal immigrants.

Ultimately, the arms purchases are a source of patronage. Foreign arms manufacturers, with the possible exception of the US, generally lobby for business through Malaysian agents with excellent political contacts.

It can be a lucrative business. "The commissions are anything between 10 percent and 20 percent," says the Western diplomat.

 

[joker]

Awang Se why on earth did the RMA go for the PT 91's? Even the Polish army rejected them and went for Leopards!! Was this a political decision?
Given the terrain I truly do think the Al Khalids would have been a better choice. They are much lighter and far more mobile than the PT 91. Furthermore Im sure Nescom would be more than willing to custom tailor the AK for RMA requirements. AFAIK Nescom was willing to include a ToT if a deal materialised.

I have been led to believe that the SH is not as good as it is being touted from an operational perspective what with it being a lot heavier and bigger than its predecessor.

Have no probs. with the RMN going for the Scorpene's but would have loved them to go for the Agosta 90bs with AIP seeing as how RMN personnel have trained at PN facilities. Oh well.

 

[Awang se]

I'm not agree with the purchase of PT-91 personally. I saw the spec and i think it's a big junk. That thing won't stand against modern AT weapons. I personally prefer Leopard 2. But the problem is, the tank was deem to heavy for the use in this country. no sense of paying high price for only 40% coverage countrywide. I guess in the near future, infantry and light armour will play a decisive role in any conflict in this region.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not agree with the purchase of PT-91 personally. I saw the spec and i think it's a big junk. That thing won't stand against modern AT weapons. I personally prefer Leopard 2. But the problem is, the tank was deem to heavy for the use in this country. no sense of paying high price for only 40% coverage countrywide. I guess in the near future, infantry and light armour will play a decisive role in any conflict in this region.

Awang se, the australian armoured corp used Centurions in Vietnam quite successfully. They're a little bit lighter than a Leo 2 though. Whats the specs on the PT's?

 

[Awang se]

let's put it this way, the price is less than half of M1A1. It's basically a T-72 with added ERA tiles and French FCS.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I know the basic theory about explosive reactive armour, but I have one question. How far does the explosive material "blow outwards"? Presumably there would be significant amounts of fragmentation from such an explosion. If so, is there any specified operating range away from un-protected infantry, so that they are not in danger from this?

 

[Awang se]

30m if i'm correct. Look at Grozny. I believed everyone here should aware of how this type of tanks handle against lowly RPGs.

 

[teufel_poland]

30m if i'm correct. Look at Grozny. I believed everyone here should aware of how this type of tanks handle against lowly RPGs.

At Grozny the ratio units with RPG to tanks were like 7:1, also Russian tank teams often meet each other the same day they went to Grozny.

As far as ERA on PT-91 is concerned, it's ERAWA, type of ERA which on the tests could stand Panzerfaust 3T, year 2000 (tests done by Germans as a part of marketing for P3T).

 

[teufel_poland]

Awang Se why on earth did the RMA go for the PT 91's? Even the Polish army rejected them and went for Leopards!! Was this a political decision?
Given the terrain I truly do think the Al Khalids would have been a better choice. They are much lighter and far more mobile than the PT 91. Furthermore Im sure Nescom would be more than willing to custom tailor the AK for RMA requirements. AFAIK Nescom was willing to include a ToT if a deal materialised.

I have been led to believe that the SH is not as good as it is being touted from an operational perspective what with it being a lot heavier and bigger than its predecessor.

Have no probs. with the RMN going for the Scorpene's but would have loved them to go for the Agosta 90bs with AIP seeing as how RMN personnel have trained at PN facilities. Oh well.

Actually Poland did not rejected PT-91 and went for Leopards. PT-91 were declared as non-perspective, on the other hand a concept of program for modernisation of PT-91 and T-72 has to finish on 2006. Leopard 2 tanks were bought at amount of 128 and very low price due to German good will (or maybe due reduction plans) and those tanks do their job very well. For sure Leo 2 in version A5,A6 is the best tank in the world, together with M1A2 Abrams. As far as PT-91 is concerned, it was declared non-perspective, however theire is no unity among the specialists and soldiers. The biggest problem in Poland is lack of unity in opinion -(). About Leo 2 - it's a very
good tank, however Poland cannot buy more of them, especially that Poland
has quite elevated weapons industry. Always a problem of choice: to buy or
to produce (produce something worse but $ stays in Poland).

There is no need however to argue that Leo 2 version A4 is better thant PT-91. Polish tank teams say so. Main argument is against PT-91: flaws,flaws,flaws because of lack of constant modernisation. Leo 2 is so good that soldiers morale that use Leos has increased incredible.

From history: Leo 2 is a German child of broken MTB 70 programme (Germany & USA). The idea was: let's build a tank which is technologicaly advanced and can reduce the amount of Soviet tanks which were plenty!

The idea of T-72 was similar like T-34 in II World War: let's build a tank which we can quickly produce plenty and is not so complicated like T-64.

About T-72: the worse things about the tank:
- 2-piece amunition (APFDS can achieve now about 500-650 RHA <in IRAQ - 300 RHA, amunition from SU 1973, sold around)
- automatic loader explodes at hit - death of the crew
- low quality gun stabilisation
- tower not welded

PT-91M is not simply modernized T-72. Poland has developed strong ERA armor named ERAWA (WA - initials of constructor). ERAWA can stand Panzerfaust 3-T. Also T-72 tower "boobies" were filled with ceramical materials. Stronger engine and Renk transmission arranged in powerpack, new gun from Slovakia (Moderna T-72 modernisation program), new gun stabilisation, and of course French SAGEM. It's is hard to say it's modernized t-72M1. Too many changes. However to few to say a completely new tank.

Still it has automatic loader (explosion at hit). If the flaws are overcome, it is quite good tank at the price. But anyway - not so good as Leo 2 even A4.

Also T-72M1 which was the basis of Pt-91, was not the most modernized version. After 1989 and end of Warsaw Pact Poland had to deal with problem separately. So Pt-91 is the best Poland could do with T-72. And version M, PT-91M is better than any PT-91 in Polish Army now.

Now polish tank programs are slow (beside self-developing Bumar Labedy, which developes PT-91, especially for Malaysia), however those are:
- "leopardisation" of PT-91 (Rheinmetal gun,Renk transmission, other)
- "leopardisation" of T-72 (Rheinmetal gun,Renk transmission, other)
and also PT-91-120, PT-2000. There is a new welded tower concerned.
Electronics are developed fast and were proved to be good (Drawa-T).
As far as Poland cannot produce CHOBHAM armor, has ability to produce
other good armor technologies, ceramical (CERAWA), ERA (ERAWA) and
those are claim to be considerably good (ERAWA concerned better protection than westen ERA armors).