RMAF Future; need opinions

[Ding]

Hi there all,

I'm starting this thread to get ideas and opinions on how the RMAF can be 'improved' so that it will a credible defence force of Malaysia. As you all know, Malaysia is divided into 2 areas, West Malaysia and East Malaysia.

Currently our ORBAT are as follows:-
MiG-29 N (14) Fighter
F/A-18 D (8) Maritime/Night Strike
BAe Hawk 208 (16) Light Fighter
BAe Hawk 108 (6) Lead In Fighter Trainer/Light Strike
F-5 E (10) Light Fighter
Su-30 MKM (18 on order) Multirole Strike/Fighter

My dream ORBAT would be
2 Sqn of MRCA (Su30MKM and SuperHornets)
2 Sqn of Air superiority Fighters MiG 29N preferbably upgraded to SMT standard (the Mindef is looking into this)
1 Sqn of Light Strike (Hawk 100 would do fine here)
1 Sqn of Maritime Strike (Hornets or maybe SuperHornets)

although the above will wreck havoc to logistics.Malaysians has this 'affliction' of mixing eastern bloc and western bloc equipments:D

What you guys think. Maybe you have better ideas?:)

[Supe]

What about an AWACs type platform to bring it all together through datalinking?

[Aussie Digger]

I reckon a "pocket AWAC's" such as Wedgetail 737 based AWAC's, the Erieye system or possibly E-2C Hawkeye (2000) would be a good purchase for Malaysia. Also I'd advocate having your upcoming A400M's fitted WITH the air to air refuelling kit. I know you've only ordered 4 and they are likely to be heavily tasked with Tactrans roles, but at least you've got a capability there if you need it.

A2A refuelling is a VITAL capability for modern air warfare and greatly extends the time you're aircraft can "remain" on station. The beauty of the A400M refuellers is they can fly slow enough to refuel helo's (if the helo's are appropriately equipped). This capability can be usefully employed supporting special forces missions, much as the USAF/USMC does. (RAAF will probably also go this way shortly, with a number C-130's modified to support upgraded Blackhawk's/Chinooks on specwarops missions).

As to future options, I'd suggest Malaysia pursue a 2 tier fleet as much as possible. Operating 4 or 5 air combat aircraft types, with relatively similar levels of capability seems wasteful to me. I acknowledge Malaysia (and everyone elses) funding constraints, however a larger force of Super Hornets and SU-30MKM's would be far more capable than smaller fleets of the same aircraft, mixed with Hawk 200's, MiG 29's, etc. Over time, it may be possible to acquire larger numbers of these aircraft in batches.

The SU-30MKM AND Super Hornet are far more capable air combat aircraft than the MiG 29. I'd use the Su-30 as my primary air combat aircraft and SH as your primary strike aircraft (it has extensive strike, maritime strike, SEAD AND A2A capability, as well as "buddy refuelling" capability). Both could be used in the other's role as necessary and would reduce your significant logistics train.

You would still operate your "Eastern/Western" force structure, and thus be less influenced by "political decisions" ie: blocking supply of weapons, spare parts etc, but would gain greater operational capability.


A force structure of 36x SH and 36x SU-30MKM could then be developed into the future, with upgraded Hawk 100's to provide lead-in fighter training and "Tier 2" point defence and light strike/CAS missions as required.

With the addition of A2A refuelling capability provided by A400M and SH's "buddy" capability, plus an AWACS capability, the RMAF would become quite a force to be reckoned with in regional terms.

[type 209]

it's all very well that they have those aircraft but can they arm those planes over a prolonged period of time as is needed in a war.

[Aussie Digger]

it's all very well that they have those aircraft but can they arm those planes over a prolonged period of time as is needed in a war.

Presumably such matters, would be taken into account at project time. Obviously it's almost useless possessing combat aircraft, without any armament. Other than training, and possibly surveillance/recon roles (though I doubt many air forces would be willing to risk an un-armed combat aircraft of such cost in recce tasks) they are a waste of money, IMHO.

Indonesia would have gained greater capability, by acquiring (or attempting to acquire) weapons and spare parts for their existing F-16 and Hawk 200 combat aircraft, than purchase the un-armed 2x SU-27 and 2x SU-30 fleet they have.

Malaysia no doubt, with it's greater access to US/Russian weapons, thanks to it's greater budget and political relationship, should not have difficulties arming/equiping it's aircraft appropriately, even if it's capability doesn't match that of ALL nations. Basic weapons such as WVR/BVR missiles, A2G rockets, bombs (guided and un-guided) standoff/maritime strike weapons and anti-radiation weapons, should be well within their budget and capability levels.

[wzhtg]

I hope we can get AWACS soon like the Erieye system. Although a mixture of 36 superhonets and 36 Su 30MKM would be good, i have some reservations about the superhornets. Although they are great strike forces especially in the marinestrike capablility, i feel they are overpriced and with the US not supplying us with many sensitive equipments, it may not be worth that much. If possible i would like the RMAF to have this :

36 SU-30 MKM
18 Superhornets
Either 24 Mig 29 SMT or maybe 24 Gripens
4 Erieye
12 A400M
24 Hawks


I feel in general Malaysia should try to defence and research agreements and joint projects with Sweden and Germany, we can learn a lot from them. India and China too since they are upcoming powers

[wzhtg]

Malaysia's Unmanned aircraft set for July takeoff

April 14 2006 at 3:15 AMwzhtg (Login wzhtg (http://www.network54.com/Profile/wzhtg))
MalaysiaUnmanned aircraft set for July takeoff

RAWANG: The country抯 first prototype unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is set to take off in July, less than a year after the Government announced the decision to develop the mini aircraft.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the full-scale prototype would undergo rigorous testing by the army.

揥e would like to see how it performs, and how powerful it is,?he told a press conference after chairing the Malaysian Defence Industry Council meeting here yesterday.

揑f the specifications meet our requirements we will proceed with the booking.?

The meeting was held at Motor Teknologi & Industri Sdn Bhd (MTI) plant to coincide with his visit to the engine-refurbishing centre.

The mini aircraft can fly on its own via the auto-pilot system and can be equipped with cameras of various sensitivity, depending on the purpose.

The aircraft can fly at a speed of more than 100km an hour and at an altitude of 1,000m.

[Ding]

in reply to Aussie Digger

We do have A2A refueling capability with our 4 KC130H tankers. That's why all aircraft in our current orbat have air refueling probes. We are looking into awacs type aircraft, most probably the erieye. Also, rumours has it that the russians are offering to take back the MiGs and replace it with Fulcrum SMT standard (another MRCA).

In terms of weaponry, the offer by Boeing for the superhornets are infact irresistable... if we could find the budget for it. Aesa radar and Amraam would be included in the package. At the moment, in regards to the MiGs, we do have access to all A2A weapons. As for the Su30MKMs, it will be fitted to carry both the R77 and the MICA medium range missiles. Not too sure about maritime strike/strike weapons that will be offered in the package though.

After reading this thread, I think Aussie Digger's orbat is a well rounded package.

Okay updated dream orbat:-

36 (that's 2 sqns right?) Su30MKM Air defence fighters with secondary strike capability
36 SuperHornet D Strike aircraft with secondary air defence capability
36 Hawk 100 for LIFT and CAS/lightstrike

How about recce planes? is it needed in a defensive force like the RMAF? I know it's important if it's in an offensive force.

[Supe]

Indonesia would have gained greater capability, by acquiring (or attempting to acquire) weapons and spare parts for their existing F-16 and Hawk 200 combat aircraft, than purchase the un-armed 2x SU-27 and 2x SU-30 fleet they have.


Indonesians really didn't have much of a choice with the U.S arms embargo - which only recently has been lifted. Much of the F16 fleet was alleged to be inoperable due to lack of spare parts. It made sense for Indonesia to look at Sukhois as alternative for a couple reasons: how long would the embargo last? Indonesians couldn't plan defence policy on the hopes that relations would get better. Even with the embargo lifted, Indonesia is still left with uncertainty as to how reliable the supply train will be from U.S. On the face of it, the Indonesians could be better off selling their F16's and buy Russian.

[Aussie Digger]

in reply to Aussie Digger
How about recce planes? is it needed in a defensive force like the RMAF? I know it's important if it's in an offensive force.

The SH can be fitted with the SHARP pod, which is a dedicated recce pod. Alternatively the RAAF is now convinced that a dedicated recce pod is not required, given the capability of it's chosen Litening AT targetting pods. Our current R/F-111's are not going to be directly replaced therefore. Rather any F/A-18 fitted with a Litening AT pod could be tasked to perform ISR/BDA missions.

These pods also feature a digital datalink that allow recce footage to be downloaded to a ground station, providing "near" real time intell footage. SH's could then perhaps use the ATFLIR targetting pod for these tasks. I understand a program is underway to fit it with a datalink, much like the Litening pod.

Also F/A-18's have an internally mounted "camera" bay, that is designed to allow F/A-18's to perform a recce role. These bays are mounted almost directly beneath the cockpit, on the underside of the fuselage. It was designed into the F-18 right at the beginning of it's development, when it was expected to be required to perform ISR missions. It wasn't and a camera package was never fitted, but the bay exists...

As to difficulties gaining a "full" sensor package from the USA, I wouldn't be too concerned. No-one gets a full "USA spec" aircraft, from the US. Not Australia, not Britain, not Pakistan and not Malaysia.

All the export models are still extremely capable combat aircraft though, and hardly any different to US models. With regards to sales of AMRAAM etc, with Malaysia already operating BVR weapons and Singapore having been sold AMRAAM etc, I don't hold many fears that a purchase of Super Hornets would come with the modern weaponry, needed to make it an effective aircraft.

The US has a history of selling advanced weapon systems to BOTH Country's that might one day face each other in war (Greece/Turkey, Israel/Egypt etc). They also sold Malaysia "high-spec" F/A-18C/D's (higher than those sold to Australia and Canada at that time day) so I wouldn't be too concerned...

[Aussie Digger]

Indonesians really didn't have much of a choice with the U.S arms embargo - which only recently has been lifted. Much of the F16 fleet was alleged to be inoperable due to lack of spare parts. It made sense for Indonesia to look at Sukhois as alternative for a couple reasons: how long would the embargo last? Indonesians couldn't plan defence policy on the hopes that relations would get better. Even with the embargo lifted, Indonesia is still left with uncertainty as to how reliable the supply train will be from U.S. On the face of it, the Indonesians could be better off selling their F16's and buy Russian.

Indonesia made a rod for it's own back. It's own human rights abuses were responsible for the Arms embargo. The problem with the Sukhoi's is that they cost far more to operate than Western aircraft, and offer little capability enhancement, despite what paper statistics might say.

Indonesia's embargo has now been lifted and they STILL haven't acquired further Sukhoi's OR spare parts for their F-16 fleet. Indonesia is in fact hoping for a "gift" of spare parts to even bring it's Hercules fleet back to an operational state.

To me it makes little sense to purchase aircraft that you can't arm, support OR even fly often. Indonesia has stated it has a preferrence for Western aircraft. IMHO, it should be focused on re-capitalising it's F-16 fleet, and look to acquire a light strike/point defence aircraft from other sources (South Korea's T-50 perhaps) that it CAN support and afford.

Trying to "keep up with the Joneses" when you're broke AND unable to actually acquire capability (due to embargo's) is the height of futility. Trying to maintain an effective air combat force, equipped with modern high capability fighters with their obvious shoe-string budget, is obviously impossible.

Perhaps it's time they recognised that and looked at acquiring a better, though less impressive looking capability (an A2A missile armed T-50 or equivalent is going to shoot down an unarmed SU-30 every day of the week, for instance).

[Supe]

The T50 sounds like a good idea on the surface but parts of that aircraft are American (http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/korea/kai/t-50/T-50.htm#specs) ala the engines and IIRC also subject to U.S approval for sale and sanctions. If it came down to another arms embargo (escalation of violence towards West Papuans as an example) then Indonesia would be back to square one.

If American (or third party manus using U.S parts/IP) and Russian aircraft are out of the question - could Chinese aircraft fill the void?

At any rate, TNI-AU is easily overmatched by Airforces of her neighbours - I'd like to know how that plays within TNI-AU and the Indonesian govt.

[Aussie Digger]

The T50 sounds like a good idea on the surface but parts of that aircraft are American (http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/korea/kai/t-50/T-50.htm#specs) ala the engines and IIRC also subject to U.S approval for sale and sanctions. If it came down to another arms embargo (escalation of violence towards West Papuans as an example) then Indonesia would be back to square one.

If American (or third party manus using U.S parts/IP) and Russian aircraft are out of the question - could Chinese aircraft fill the void?

At any rate, TNI-AU is easily overmatched by Airforces of her neighbours - I'd like to know how that plays within TNI-AU and the Indonesian govt.

T-50 was only an example. There's very few Western capabilities available that DON'T use American parts, equipment etc, and thus are subject to USA export policies. China may be a way to go, but Indonesia needs to start at the bottom to build it's capability, IMHO. Neither of it's frontline combat aircraft are operational. One type doesn't even HAVE armament. It's transport fleet is completely un-serviceable and all aircraft require at least a major overhaul to be made operational again.

An Indonesian air force commander was quoted last year as saying they "hoped to" (successfully) petition the Government for funding this year to acquire armament for their SUKHOI's.

On top of this, it's Hawks have been under embargo for many years and it's doubtful how many of them would be operational. Same with the F-5's. I know Indonesia has some MPA aircraft operational (based on C-235's I think, which they manufacture), because Australia exercised with them last year.

Other than that, TNI-AU is in a pretty sorry state. I don't doubt that annoys the hell out of them, because Indonesia seems to have a VERY high opinion of itself and it's perceived place in the world.

[Pursuit Curve]

If I were the MOD for Maylasia, I would concentrate on one airframe, the true essence of a MRCA is that you can do a swing role and economise of spares, pilot training and weapons, as well as airfield infrastucture.

That being said, the F18 is mature technology, is being used and has proven capability. The SU30's, I still am skeptical about. If you look at Maratime Strike, it's the Hornet, If you look at Air Superiority, I still pick the Hornet.

Also don't forget that the Naval lineage of the Hornet means that it is one tough Aircraft, and as Aussie has pointed out, it can tank itself and also do self escort on strike missions.

Recce no longer requires a specialised aircraft, there are many strap on systems that provide recce solutions and the plus is that your recce aircraft is also armed!

Did I mention I love the Hornet :)

[410Cougar]

Did I mention I love the Hornet :)

You aren't alone in that...:D

I have to agree with Pursuit Curve here, and not because we're both Canucks. The Hornet airframe is such a great airframe that we were the envy of many countries when we bought ours 20 years ago. With the upgrades we've given them I believe we still have a great platform that can do both SEAD and Attack roles as it was designed to do. The nex logical step for us, I'm hoping will be the Super Bug, but thats another thread.

Malaysia would do well to streamline their forces by the acquisition of one specific type of all purpose airframe - those airframes which would be most practical would be the Hornet and Super Hornet. It would also be easier logistically and financially for you and your tech workers as they would only have to become familiar with one system instead of the many they have to work with now.

Attila

[Big-E]

Like Aussie Digger was saying. . . I don't really think it matters what aircraft they buy, they need better sensors and AA missles. They need to a get a few AWACs more than anything else.

[Ramjetmissile]

Precisely, the malaysian Airforce requires AWACS more than anything else.Qns: Will there be any possible Standoff missile procurements?;)

[renjer]

This would be my proposal:

48 Su-30MKMs in 6 squadrons in the AAW/Strike/Recce/Mini-AEW roles;
16 M-346s in 2 squadrons in the training/light attack roles;
16 A400Ms in 2 squadrons in the transport/tanker/MP roles; and
32 EH101s in 4 squadrons in the utility/CSAR roles.

The eight aircrafts per squadron is a reflection of the current peacetime force structure. Admittedly, this would be an awfully small air force but then we have an awfully small defence budget.

The number of squadrons in the various roles are a rough approximate of the existing squadrons and their duties. 6, 9, 11, 12, 18 and 19 squadrons fly or flew the various fighter types in the RMAF. 15 and 17 squadrons either have training or had operational conversion duties. 14 and 20 squadrons fly the existing C-130 fleet while 3, 5, 7 and 10 squadrons fly the existing S-61 fleet.

As Ding mentioned Malaysia is divided by the South China Sea into two halves. Therefore, there is an even number of squadrons in the various roles that ideally can be stationed in equal numbers on both sides of the sea. For increased safety in over water operations aircraft types with long operating ranges and two engines or more would be preferable.

Pursuit Curve said it best, “the true essence of a MRCA is that you can do a swing role and economise of spares, pilot training and weapons, as well as airfield infrastucture (sic).” If we have made any mistakes in our choice of aircraft the best course forward is to learn from it and ensure we do not repeat it in fulfilling future requirements. However, since we have already purchased the Su-30 but not the Super Hornet it would make more sense to build the entire fighter force around the Su-30.

On the AAW role vs. Strike role optimisation; since the MKM is based on the MKI which is optimised for AAW roles the RMAF might want to RFP Sukhoi for an “MKM2” based on the MKK2 which, I understand, is optimised for strike roles.

Recce roles can be fulfilled by attaching a reconnaissance pod to an existing Su-30 rather than purchasing a purpose-built aircraft. The same can probably be done for the mini-AEW role with an M400 pod equipped with side-looking radars to complement the existing forward- and aft-looking radars on the Su-30. “Blind spots” could be covered by adopting an appropriately devised flight pattern. I understand that Erieye also has such a drawback and the platform aircraft compensates for this by flying in an S-pattern. However, I am not entirely sure about this and would welcome any corrections.

Last thoughts, the choice of the M-346 might open the possibility of sourcing spare parts from three separate countries [i.e. Italy, Russia (via the Yak-130) and China (via the L-15)] thereby mitigating the possibility of a spare parts embargo by any one source. Having the MKM and “MKM2” versions might also open up this possibility for the Su-30 fleet in RMAF service.

[Mercenary]

I believe the RMAF needs to rationalize what specific types of Fighters they
really need in the future and then scrap the rest. They currently operate no less than NINE different Fighters, Strike Fighters, and Advanced Jet Trainers (single & tandem seat Mig-29s, F-18D's, Hawk 200s, Hawk 100s, F-5Es, F-5Fs, a single RF-5E Tigereye, and MB-339s.) Talk about a logistical nightmare!

The last four types (F-5E/Fs, RF-5E, and MB-339s) are totally redundant to their needs and could easily be sold to other nations who already operate these respective types.

Since the F-18D Hornet is no longer in production and the F-18F Super Hornet lacks sufficient range sans AAR, I'd recommend the SU-30 MKI for the long-range overwater anti-ship and overland interdiction roles. Team up with Brazil and some European defence contracters and upgrade the SU-30's with latest advanced electronics, HUD, Attack/Nav. systems, etc so they can interface with French, British, German and Russian made precision ground attack/anti-ship weaponary. This way, the RMAF doesn't have to rely on a single source/nation for hardwear in a crisis. Two squadron of 18 each deployed from two different bases for survival and overall coverage particulary in the South.

Upgrade the Mig-29s to SMD standard (if this has not been accomplished already) to be utilized in the medium range all-weather Interception roles and arm 'em with the latest Russian BVR missiles.

Seriously take a look into procuring the JAS-39C/D GRIPEN and it's outstanding integrated data-downlink info system. This is the most advanced of it's kind in operation in the world today. The Swedish were the first Air Force to field one and now the rest of the Western nations are playing catch up. Interface this with a modern AWAC's system such as a cheaper EMB-145 AEW Jet or if funding is secure the much more capable (and expensive) 737-700 WEDGETAIL AEW Jet would give the RMAF and outstanding defensive and offensive warfare capability. A minimum of 4-AEW Jets are needed.

Finally I'd procure 5 to 8 A-310 MRTT air-to-air refueling tanker jets and upgrade the existing KC-130Hs for not only fixed wing AAR but also for a future
Combat SAR Helicopter acquistion.

Their ORBAT could look something like this:

SU-30 MKI - Two Sqds total = 36

JAS-39C/D GRIPEN - Two Sqds total = 28/8

Mig-29SMD/UBM - One Sqn total = 14/4

Hawk Mk 100 - Three Sqns total = 54

EMB-145 SA AEW - One Sqn total = 4

A-310 MRTT AAR - One Sqn total = 6

KC-130H AAR - One Sqn total = 4

Strategic Airlift would be either turboprop A-400Ms or IL-76 Candid Jets totalling a dozen. The turboprop AAR could possibly be replaced with the
KC-130J-II STOL version to eventually operate from an air base in the Sprately's (future Oil prospects) providing coverage for a small detachment of either SU-30's or Mig-29s.

Tactical Airlift/Regional if the KC-130J-II STOL were procured the logical choice for spares/logistical reasons is the C-27J SPARTAN sharing the same engine, propeller and transmission as the C-130J series aircraft. About 24 would be ideal with half based permanetly in the South.

One Squadron of HAWK Mk 100's fitted with nose mounted laser designators could provide close-air-support in anti-rebel operations for much lower cost than a supersonic MRF can.

Some sort of long range Maritime Patrol Aircraft needs to be procured wide choice here. The RM Air Force could opt for 'surplus' P-3C Orions ($12,000 per flight hour) or the new MPA version of EMB-145 Jet or IPTN 235MPA's or whatever. About 10 are needed given the immense size of EEZ to patrol that would provide two squadrons of five MPA's each in two different locations.

A new Search & Rescue Helicopter is also urgently required. I'd look into procuring a High-Low mix capability of say 8-EH-101 MERLIN's for long-range/high casuality capacity at two different air bases. And for the short-to-medium range either 16 AB-139's or Bell 412SP's in detachments of 4 each at all the major air bases for maximum SAR coverage. One air base would have more of each type for conversion training so the total number of each would be slightly more.

Lets don't forget here that some type of Sig/Elint aircraft platform is needed as well. I'd go for a twin turboprop in the class of Beech 1900D, King Air 350, EMB-120ST or similar. This type could also be utilized for Multi-Engine Training, Photo Survey & Mapping, medium-range VIP, etc. Turboprops are more economical to operate than Jets especially at these inflated Oil prices!

[Paxter]

The last four types (F-5E/Fs, RF-5E, and MB-339s) are totally redundant to their needs and could easily be sold to other nations who already operate these respective types.

I believe the F-5 are going to be decom soon,and the hawks are having so much problems they better get rid of em. I do agree there is too many planes in our inventory but the real prob is always been money and timing. Malaysian gov. does not put too much cash in defence they rather spend it on civil projects and development which i have no prob with. Bare in mind bfr the asian finincial crisis the actual number of F-18s that msia wanted to buy was 24+ but end up with 8 (i guess that was the initial ordered batch) and by the time msia recovered the planes were no longer in production...

I believe the Migs are in constant upgrade and they can fly in all weather, and they are armed with the R77-adder since 1996 i think (that was the reason US agreed to sell bvr missiles to thailand and singapore.... finally)

I love the JAS grippen but msia has this thing against single jet engines i have no idea why but they dont ever notice every jet we own is 2engines except the trainers?

[aaaditya]

seems that malaysian air force fighter pilots would be getting new helmets.
cant believe that helmets can be as heavy as 5 kgs.

here check out this link:

http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=50228


Malaysian pilots flying SU30 MKM to use IAF model of helmets

Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian pilots flying the Sukhoi 30 MKM aircraft will use the Indian Air Force model of flight helmets.

"We understand the weight issue for the Malaysian flyers and the Indian Air Force SU30 MKI helmet suits their requirements," Russian Federal Service Military cooperation director Mikhail Dimitriev was quoted by a daily here.

The Royal Malaysian Air Force also took note of the French MSA Gallet LA100 flight helmet and Ulmer ECT-76VD oxygen mask as standard equipment for the 18 SU-30MKMs to replace the Russian Zsh-7AP/KM34DII sets used by the RMAF's Mig-29N fleet, the New Straits Times said.

In 2004 the RMAF complained that the Russian equipment was too heavy, the daily said.

In a high-G environment, the Zsh-7, which wieghs 2.3 kg, exerted tremendous load on the neck and spine. Added to this a helmet-mounted sight (HMS) and the helmet weighed a neck-snapping 4.8 kg, the paper said.

[Ding]

To everybody, thanks for your opinions...keep em coming...;)

I prefer the two-tier concept forwarded by aussie digger (i think) Since logistics and cost is the main issues, it's wise to keep what RMAF can use, and discard what cannot be used.

My view on the MKMs is that since it evolved from a fighter, i think the tendency of the platform is more towards air superiority with a secondary role of strike. Trade in the MiGs, which although it performed well for RMAF, it takes to much AA tanking assets on deployments due to short legs. So MKMs 2 Squadrons please. 1 squadron based in east malaysia in labuan AB and 1 in west malaysia at gong kedak AB.

On the other hand, the Super Hornets was based on a carrier based strike aircraft which will suit our need for a maritime strike force. furthermore, the SH has a secondary role of A2A. I'll say trade in the Hornets and get 1 Squadron of SH please based in kuantan AB.

In regards to training, keep our existing prop trainers (pilatus pc7s) and hawk 100 LIFT. Also the hawk 100 can be used in CAS missions in support of the Army. Trade in the hawk 200 for more hawk 100. base all this training assets at the usual AB in butterworth.

In other words, we'll be operating only 3 types of frontline combat aircraft. The MKMs, SH and Hawk for CAS.

With the extra moolah, get 1 squadron of AEW&C aircraft and 1 squadron of mpa. Sell the C-130s and get more A400Ms for transport/AAR roles.

[johngage]

With Malaysia's limited defence budget, I am sceptical that the RMAF can afford such high end AWACS system such as the Erieye, Wedgetail, or the E-2C Hawkeye. Isn't it more feasible for Malaysia to purchase a platform such as the CN-235 and then modify it to carry a system similar to a Thales Searchwater 2000AEW radar? I think this would be a more affordable system for the RMAF.

[Awang se]

I don't really know what the decision factor here. the rumors of SH procurement have been going for years but it's just that. once they say they've cancelled the Gong Kedak Airbase project for cost saving, then they restarted it because they found out that every other airbases in Peninsular Malaysia already reach its expansion limits. I believe malaysia are still experimenting with several different type of aircraft. After a disaster with MIG-29, Malaysian government are giving Russia a second chance with SU-30MKM, warning included. Most Malaysian pilots said they enjoy flying FA-18D, and of all the combat aircrafts in RMAF, the Hornets retain the highest operational readiness. it's true that Malaysia opted for twin engines for redundancy and reliability since the fighters were expected to patrol the offshore EEZ and oil platforms, plus the long stretch of water separating east and west Malaysia. if we don't consider that, we've bought an F-16s already. Actually RMAF have around 2-4 RF-5E, not just one. there's suppose to be a spares problem but i thought they solve that already. The RF-5E was recently being upgraded with new camera and avionics. i don't think RMAF are willing to part with this valueble tac recon assets. but, again, who knows...

[nanotaku]

I too prefer to see Malaysia use up to only 3 type of a/c for the air defence purpose, and this must be followed with numbers as well. Although the SH or Hornet family is a good a/c, lessons learned from the embargo and policing attitude of the US govn. towards the so called 3rd world countries is good enough for us to think twice about buying US military products. So SH step aside.
The best choice the Malaysian made so far regarding air power assets is the MKM. With the right size, weapon load, range and multi funtionalities of this a/c that is featured with Western avionics system has made this a/c somethin to be reckoned with. Of course 18 are not enough. Most appropriate nos. for this a/c must be around 48 the least, that can be split into 4 sqdn of 12 each, where one will be a dedicated OCU sqdn.
Another a/c of choice that should be considered is the Mig 29 SMT. With extra range and better avionics suites and weapons, this a/c can provide RMAF with the required multi role second tier sqdns. At least 36 of this MRCA will boost RMAF capabilities into a respected force.
Last one of course will be the LIFT cum light fighter/CAS a/crafts. Since RMAF has been accustomed to the Hawk and MB339A, it will be a matter of time b4 the govn decides which one between this two more recent version to be added to the inventory. With the other 2 types above nos. tally to at least 84, definitely the training requirement needs nos. as well, so 36 of the LIFT is a nice figure. My 2 cents, thank you for supporting the expansion of RMAF.

[marxist_command]

Indonesians really didn't have much of a choice with the U.S arms embargo - which only recently has been lifted. Much of the F16 fleet was alleged to be inoperable due to lack of spare parts. It made sense for Indonesia to look at Sukhois as alternative for a couple reasons: how long would the embargo last? Indonesians couldn't plan defence policy on the hopes that relations would get better. Even with the embargo lifted, Indonesia is still left with uncertainty as to how reliable the supply train will be from U.S. On the face of it, the Indonesians could be better off selling their F16's and buy Russian.

sure. Right now we lack at fighter units. Since U.S seems un willing to sell us some equipment for our F-16, we have to choose other partner such as russia and china. right now we're trying to replace our F-16 and Hawks with Russian made fighter. And also we planning to build carrier for our striking abillity

[Big-E]

And also we planning to build carrier for our striking abillity

A carrier? :confused: First I've heard of it. All the reports I've seen indicate that Indonesia intends to keep her maritime operations geared towards combating piracy. She announced her intentions to upgrade her existing fleet of patrol vessles but never mentioned anything about a carrier. Considering security experts say "Indonesia's Navy lacked manpower and equipment and good maritime intelligence to deter maritime crime."... I think a carrier would be a bit of a jump from operating mostly 1,000t corvettes. Considering she would have no surface combatents to protect a carrier the idea is absurd if true.

Please show me anything saying Indonesia wants a carrier.

[gf0012-aust]

And also we planning to build carrier for our striking abillity

News to me. You do realise that the Indon Navy is currently in planning stages with the RAN and have asked for assistance in rebuilding the navy from the ground up?

There is not one indication that Indonesia is remotely interested in a carrier - in fact the discussions about force creation show a green water focus. one of the members on this board has been part of the planning team.

we know what they want for future combattants as they are asking specific questions about vessel types and have asked to be considered for some ex RAN vessels.

In addition the force structure that is being scoped is incapable of supporting a carrier.

If someone is saying that indonesia is looking at a Carrier then they obviously have nothing to do with the Govt, and they certainly have nothing to do with the Indon Navy.

[nanotaku]

Cant blame him for wanting to see his country's navy growing into a modern blue water one. Let's get back to the topic shall we.....
There's a newspaper report last week in Malaysia saying it's gonna purchase 30 PC 7 MK II. If this buy is to top up the current 7 left after 2 crashes involving this type, and also on top of the 10 signed during DSA06 recently, there would be so much for us RMAF enthusiasts to cheer with. That will bring the no. to 47 MK II. Good no. to train lots of pilots. Hopefully this will corespond with future buy of lots of fighters for RMAF. Cant wait for the announcement of the second MRCA sqdn. When will it happen?:confused:

[Ding]

soon i hope. i'm just hoping it wont be a half-hearted purchase say about 4 aircraft maybe?? according to rumour the next MRCA would be the SH. Highly probable, keep your fingers crossed or something

[renjer]

It appears that there will be some delay in the delivery of the Su-30MKM. The report is dated 2 May 2006.

Air force prepares for arrival of Su-30MKM

Sukhoi is preparing to deliver the first batch of Su-30MKM ground support equipment and spare parts to the Malaysian air force, ahead of delivering the service’s first six of 18 multi-role fighters early next year.

“We start to deliver ground support equipment, technical papers and training equipment by the end of this year,” deputy general director Alexander Klementiev said during the DSA 2006 exhibition last week in Kuala Lumpur. Sukhoi plans to hand over Malaysia’s first batch of six Su-30MKMs next March and Klementiev says all 18 aircraft will be delivered “within one year”.

Sukhoi and Russia’s Rosoboronexport sales agency are now also working with the air force to establish a service centre in Malaysia, which is required to open before delivery of the last fighter. Several Malaysian companies including RSK MiG-29 maintenance provider Aerospace Technology System have expressed interest in operating the new facility, but Klementiev says it will be air force-operated during a one-year warranty period, which could also be extended. “For the foreseeable future it will be operated by the Royal Malaysian Air Force.”

Klementiev says Sukhoi is now discussing with the air force a training schedule for its initial batch of Su-30MKM pilots and is also developing a simulator with assistance from Malaysian firm HeiTech Padu. Malaysia also last week signed a letter of intent with India’s Hindustan Aeronautics covering training of Su-30 mechanics.

Malaysia is launch customer for Sukhoi’s new Su-30MKM configuration, which features head-up and multifunction displays from Thales. Sukhoi blames Malaysia’s late selection of Thales for earlier forcing first deliveries to slip from 2006 until next year, but does not anticipate any problems with integrating the French avionics. The design bureau says it has already received parts from Thales for configuration development and tests are to take place later this year. Thales is now training Malaysian company Zetro to handle maintenance of Su-30MKM avionics, the company says. Klementiev says Sukhoi is in discussion with several customers potentially interested in acquiring a similar configuration to the Su-30MKM, including Indonesia, which is negotiating the purchase of up to 14 aircraft.

■ Rosoboronexport declines to confirm that Malaysia is discussing an attrition purchase of two MiG-29s.

There are also some other interesting news items linked to this article. The other site is not a forum so I hope it is alright to mention this. Here is the link for this article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/05/02/Navigation/177/206287/Air+force+prepares+for+arrival+of+Su-30MKM+.html

[kilo]

if i was malaysia i would go with the Su-30MKM for its longer range that would be helpful in a possible spratly islands conflict. also pick up some mig-29s.some may say that american aircraft are better. that may be true maybe not but 1 thing for sure is that russia will not stop selling spare parts and weapons to malaysia when they need them most (a war) especially if that buyer might soon have a lot of oil. but i wouldn't just get rid of the hornets. buy lots of spare parts for them now and get some reccon equipment for them, base them near the straits of mallaca and you'll have better intel on pirates, better intel on pirates equals better preemption of pirates, better preemption of pirates equals no more pirates also if malaysia gets a airfield in the spratlys they should get some jumpjets

[renjer]

Yes, a potential confllict in the Spratlys was certainly on the RMAF's mind when it chose the F/A-18D and the MiG-29N. They looked at the Falklands and noted the similarities they had with the Argentinian air force (i.e. flying from mainland bases against a naval force hundreds of kilometres offshore). From that the RMAF came away with requirements emphasizing longer range, engine redundancy and increased loiter time over the mission area. I do not recall anything mentioned about weapon load.

It's been reported that the RMAF's first choice to fulfil this requirement was for 20+ F/A-18Ds. However, the US imposed too many conditions on the purchase and the RMAF ended up splitting the choice of aircraft. The MiG-29N is not an optimal strike platform so they retained the F/A-18D as part of the force to fulfill the requirements. Had the Su-30MKM been available at that time I think we would have gone for an all-Sukhoi fleet from Day 1.

I do not think the RMAF should replace the F/A-18Ds and MiG-29Ns until 2011-2015. During that period these aircrafts would be approaching their 20th year of service, there would be further improvements to the Su-30 lineage and funding would become available. I understand that during 2006-2010 there is only sufficient funding for roughly 4 attrition aircraft to the MRCA fleet.

IMHV the RMAF should not bother at this time with replacing the lost MRCAs. Rather it should utilize the funds available to replace the remaining 9 (?) Aermacchi MB-339AM with the Hawk Mk. 128. This should set them on course to a 2-tier fighter force of 4 squadrons of MRCAs built around the Su-30 lineage and 4 squadrons of LIF built around the Hawk lineage. (This is an evolving view in case you have read any of my previous posts). Hopefully, around the time the Su-30 and Hawk lineages reach the end of their development potential UCAV technology would become available to Malaysia and we should probably be moving in that direction.

There is already a Malaysian airfield in the Spratlys. It is on Layang-Layang Atoll and is officially a civilian facility. The RMAF regularly fly C-130 flights out there so I am not sure if it is necessary to go down the route of purchasing any AV-8Bs. Also, the current fleet of MRCAs is quite capable of providing air coverage over the Spratlys flying from mainland bases.

[alexz]

Hi all,

to me the urgent thing that RMAF need is advanced jet trainer aircrafts. Right now RMAF is totally depending on just 6 hawk 208 for all the jet training needs. Maybe an additional newbuild hawks? Or maybe buy some secondhand ones from switzerland, or maybe the 16 hawk mk67 of the ROKAF would be available for sale once their golden eagle reaches full production?

as for the various types of fighters RMAF has, surely it would be easier if the fighter types be rationalized to just 2 or 3? to me the f/a-18, although loved by the pilots, has to go, the 8 examples are just too few, maybe replaced by additional Su-30Mkm's? the sale of the advanced hornets to allied or current users of the type could surely fee up some funds for 2nd hand trainers, and aditional Su-30's/Mig-29's.

[410Cougar]

Perhaps the training could be liaised with a program that NATO has here in Canada called the NFTC - Nato Forces Training Centre - http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp. It seems to be the direction that most countries are going since actual ownership of trainers is something that countries aren't ready to spend the money on - hence why even Canada is leasing its Hawks from BAE.

As for going with the Sukhois, is that really an option given that there will always be spare parts for Hornets around the globe and then there is the opportunity to upgrade to the Super Hornet program once the classic Hornet air frames live out their life. The sale of advanced Hornets, as you mentioned, I think would actually make the country take a step back instead of forward, and that never does a country well.

Attila

[Awang se]

AFAIK the malaysian FA-18 came without it's EW packages. somehow the congress refuse to let boeing sell this vital equipments to Malaysia. So what we have here is a highly capable but highly vulnerable airframes. this might be why Malaysia stop the purchase short of 8 aircraft and it might also put SH procurement program in an unfavorable position. to many strings attached.

after the last fiasco with Migs and Hawks, i understand why the RMAF want to put the sukhoi service centre under it's own wing :)

[wzhtg]

Malaysia eyes training pact with India
By M. VEERA PANDIYAN

NEW DELHI: Malaysia is keen to cooperate with India on joint defence tactical training – in the air with the Russian-made Sukhoi-30MK fighter aircraft, and below the sea with the French Scorpene-class submarines.
Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who is also Defence Minister, said Malaysia would hold discussions with India on the possibility of training for its Sukhoi pilots and cooperating on maintenance of aircraft as well as spare parts.
http://thestar.com.my/archives/2006/6/9/nation/n_p1najib.jpg ROCKET SCIENCE: Najib (right) listening to Brahmos Aerospace chief executive officer Dr A. Sivathanu Pillai explain about the Indian-Russian venture in missile technology during his visit to the defence technology company Thursday. - BERNAMApic
“The aircraft used by both countries is the same, although the avionics onthe Indian version are slightly different,” he told Malaysian journalists covering his week-long visit to India.
Najib said Malaysia was also looking at working with India on the training of crew and maintenance of its Scorpene submarines scheduled to be delivered in 2009.
Malaysia bought two of the state-of-the-art stealth submarines at a cost of US$580mil (RM2bil) each and they are being built by European naval shipbuilders DCN International in Cherbourg, France, and by Izar at Cartagena, Spain.
“We can look at the possibility of joint training on tactics. India has acquired six such submarines,” he said.

[wzhtg]

Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Visits Brahmos

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Malaysia Dato Sri Mohammad Najib Tun Haji Abdul Razak -- on a weeklong visit to India -- today visited the BrahMos Weapons Design Complex here.

BrahMos CEO and MD AS Pillai, who received the high-level delegation accompanying the Malaysian Deputy PM, highlighted the technological advancement made by the country with this high-tech project.

The delegation was shown the actual missile hardware and the sub-systems besides a presentation explaining the technical features of the BrahMos system jointly developed by India and Russia.

After seeing the presentation, Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Razak said his country looked forward to stronger defence cooperation with India which had made remarkable technical progress in high-technology projects.

Dato Razak -- here along with a high-powered delegation at the invitation of Defence Minister Mukherjee -- will also tour Mumbai, Nasik and Bangalore visiting important defence establishments -- like Bharat Electronics Limited, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Indian Space Research Organisation -- showcasing India's techonological leap in building weapons systems.

Indo-Malaysian cooperation in the field of defence was formalised by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding on Defence Cooperation between the two countries in 1993. The primary areas of cooperation so far have been in the field training exchanges, visits between officers of their respective Armed Forces and visits of naval ships to each other's ports.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20060608/357725.html

[mmmbop]

Hi there.I'm thinking of orbat something like this:

48 Su-30MKM
24 F18F
24 Mig29 SMT/M

36 Hawk LIFT
20 EC725
4 Erieye
8 CN235 MPA

Considering Su-30 is the best in our arsenal,i believe it should bulk in number.escpecially as air superiority aircraft.secondary role on naval and ground attack.and since we already have Mig29,it's a waste if we sold them,upgrade to SMT and buy additional aircraft M version to make the number of 2 squadrons.since it's going to be MRCA after upgrades,we are going to make full use of Russian armament for there will be 72 aircraft capable of firing R-77, KH31 etc.in short this strong 72 aircraft is more than enough for all missions with Su30 as the primary aircraft.

Moving on, F18F for its great reliability, none crash for F18D in service (although in small number).and with AMRAAM is in the package i think if the deals is through,Malaysian planners must have insist that all essential items has been included.AESA for example.

LIFT. Hawk oh Hawk..I have a mixed feeling on this one.though fed-up with it's crash frequency,it stood as a great deal as the main option cos we have local company that manufacture some of the parts.and they exist in big numbers in our service hence the prospect of getting another LIFT is not relevant.I admire Yak-130 though.

Helos.EH-101 probably the best medium helos right now but comes with burdening price tag.so i opt for EC725 for it's long story of reliability on Super Puma that it takes design of.12 for utility and 8 for CSAR.

On AEW&C and MPA i hope for a common platform.though i'm not sure but if feasible, Erieye on top of CN-235 will make a juicy investment for money.several CN235 already in service and the higher number of planes will reduce the logistics cost.

[kilo]

sounds like a good OrBat but i think it might be a little on the pricey side. is all this with spare parts, weapons, training, etc?

[robsta83]

sounds like a good OrBat but i think it might be a little on the pricey side. is all this with spare parts, weapons, training, etc?

It sounds like alot of these Multi Aircraft airforces, just buy in which ever way the wind blows, indonesia has a whole bunch which it doesn't operate properly why not just one or two types, say 100 Super Hornets and pawn the Su's off to others or 100 Su, and ditto for the rest, plus its always nice to get weapons for a new fighter.

[robsta83]

I just thought maybe having Aircraft from each side of the Fighter world does allow side choosing in future conflicts, I guess its smart if you could pull it off, however Malaysia though well spoken was considered rather friendly in the pacific area :confused:

[dreamwarrior73]

it would be ideal for Malaysia to operate one type of MRCA instead of 2 or 3 types.

but considering the fact that SH is better in terms of strike and Sukhoi in terms of air superiority.

also politics wise, it is better to have aircraft from different sources.

thus, i derived it would be ideal for Malaysia just to only have SH and Sukhoi in the inventory and retire the MiGs.

[Big-E]

I like the uniform purchase of one multi-mission bird. The question of which depends on where Malaysian politics lies. If she finds that her goals are compatible with Western foreign policy then she would do well to buy them. If not then she would want to go Russian for the simple fact that she will never stop exports as long as the moneys there. The one aircraft concept makes training, maintanence and operation so much more cost efficient. When it comes time for upgrades you will only need one program as opposed to 3-4.

[mmmbop]

Well we admit that US equipment always of top notch quality but the political influence is the most critical factor.other than $$ of course.but Malaysia has been consistent to iterate that we are neutral and not siding with any party.what more we are the current NAM president.and we speak what we think it's true even deem harsh to westerners.so it back to square one..use both

[mmmbop]

sounds like a good OrBat but i think it might be a little on the pricey side. is all this with spare parts, weapons, training, etc?

Oh i hope yes.true it cost a lot.but the proposed orbat includes several existing planes:

14 Mig29
?? Hawk 108/208
4(?) CN-235

F18F could be bought with trade in with the current 8 F18D,hence lowering the cost.And 18 Su30MKM already bought so 30 planes more needed to equipped the 4 squadron.

[kilo]

i would go with 36 su-30MKM and 36 F-18/F to split maritime strike/air superiority role and also 18 mig-29s for homeland defense

[Subangite]

Well we admit that US equipment always of top notch quality but the political influence is the most critical factor.other than $$ of course.but Malaysia has been consistent to iterate that we are neutral and not siding with any party.what more we are the current NAM president.and we speak what we think it's true even deem harsh to westerners.so it back to square one..use both

Being neutral does not mean that Malaysia has to mix its equipment from Russia and the west (US). Switzerland is a proudly neutral country, yet the backbone of its airforce consists of currently 33 F/A 18 Hornets. Unlike neutral Switzerland, Malaysia has such a comprehensive 5 power defence agreement with its commonwealth neighbours and the UK. Thailand and Singapore for example are in Non Aligned Nations (NAM) but are very US friendly, Thailand has been given Major Non Nato Ally (MNNA) designation by the United States government.

I think policy makers in Malaysia just do not want to be overly reliant on US equipment and technology, especially considering it's reliablity is at the whims of American politicians if bilateral relations sour, (the recent Indonesian example). Malaysia however is historically US friendly and its foreign relations, seem to be focused on the down trodden. Its participation in Bosnia with MALBATT amongst others, its vocal involvement in the anti-apartheid movement, the rescue of American forces in the battle of Mogadishu, these seem to point to military and international relations policies that are in tune with the west and the US. Malaysia by choosing mix equipment is a sign not to be overly dependent one supplier, not so much to do with our neutrality.



That said this is my proposed orbat:

18 Su-30MKM (Ultimately 32 by the time MiG-29's retire)

18 F/A-18Fs Super Hornets (a trade in with the remaining 8 F/A-18Ds)

24 F5-E Tiger II (Maintaining the current F-5E Tiger II But upgraded by Embraer similar to BR standard, adding additional aircraft)

N.B. There are many F-5s in good condition are spoiling in the inventory of other nations, available for low prices, prehaps more can be purchased and upgraded.

14 MiG-29N / 2 MiG-29NUB (The current fleet of MiG-29's are to be retired ASAP, phased out by 2016)

N.B. For the MiG-29's, funds should not to be used on replacement of attrition aircraft, but rather replacing them with more Su-30MKM's.


Lead in Fighter Trainer

24 BAe Hawk 208 (thus an 8 additional BAe Hawk 200)
10 BAe Hawk 108 (this advanced jet trainer prehaps could be leased agreement from BAE systems, like Canada?)

AEW&C and MPA

4 Embraer R-99A AEW&C
2 Embraer P-99 (if required)

Helicopters

5 CH-47 Chinook
10 Sikorsky H-92
10 Mi-17

The Sikorsky S61A-4 Nuri, are upgraded but aging old ladies, its sad when they retire.

[dreamwarrior73]

i don't think it would be wise to maintain an obsolete airframe like F-5s. it would be costly for a country with small defence budget like Malaysia.

might as well use the limited fund on adding numbers to aircraft in the inventory like Sukhoi or SH.

no obsolete aircraft = less types = less ILS nightmare = less headache :rolleyes:

[Subangite]

i don't think it would be wise to maintain an obsolete airframe like F-5s. it would be costly for a country with small defence budget like Malaysia.

might as well use the limited fund on adding numbers to aircraft in the inventory like Sukhoi or SH.

no obsolete aircraft = less types = less ILS nightmare = less headache :rolleyes:

true. Scratch the F5's off the list.


Updated:

18 Su-30MKM (Ultimately 36 by the time MiG-29's retire)

18 F/A-18Fs Super Hornets (a trade in with the remaining 8 F/A-18Ds)

14 MiG-29N / 2 MiG-29NUB (The current fleet of MiG-29's are to be retired ASAP, phased out by 2016)

N.B. For the MiG-29's, funds should not to be used on replacement of attrition aircraft, but rather replacing them with more Su-30MKM's.


Lead in Fighter Trainer

24 BAe Hawk 208 (thus an 8 additional type BAe Hawk 200)
10 BAe Hawk 108 (these advanced jet trainer prehaps could be leased agreement from BAE systems, like Canada?)

AEW&C and MPA

4 Embraer R-99A AEW&C
2 Embraer P-99 (if required for MPA)

Helicopters

5 CH-47 Chinook
10 Sikorsky H-92
10 Mi-17

[mmmbop]

It's clear i'm saying political influence is the main factor.Hence resulting not depending too much on the US.Switzerland is not outspoken like us.while Singapore and Thailand as the whole world knows,are major ally in SEA.so while we retaining neutrality,our foreign policy has always been closely monitored by the US.

I think the number of LIFT should be more than 40 for now we have Mb339C and Hawk.So if we are to decommission Aermacchi more Hawk is needed for their intended role is not purely as trainer but also as light aircraft.

As for MPA i rather prefer turbo prop as it's cheaper and not fuel gazzling as jet engine which i why see Cn235 as the best candidate.the requirement is the need for a long endurance loitering plane.

Chinook is good for heavy-lift role but together with H-92,i think both are quite pricey.and i think the airforce has rejected Mi-17 which is why the earlier order of 10 Mi-17 is cancelled.

A quick correction: only 14 Mig left currently,12Mig29N and 2UB for two had crashed.

[Ding]

I think it's likely that we would only have 2 or maybe 3 squadrons of frontlineres ie say 14 aircraft per squadron plus 12 for attrition/maintainence for a total of 54 aircraft. now i would favour a mix of 2 sqn of su30mkms and 1 squadron of SH.

in regards to homeland defence i think a mix role for LIFT and point defence fighter and light attack can be fullfilled by a single aircraft ie the hawk 100. say 2 sqns for about 36 aircraft.

sell the migs (good aircraft BTW), the f5, the the mb339

that takes us for a total of 3 logistics lines only, again as was discussed earlier, as a 2 tier force. that said, it seems the hawk is crashing in a rather alarming rate esp the hawk 200. hmmmmmm....

[Subangite]

I think it's likely that we would only have 2 or maybe 3 squadrons of frontlineres ie say 14 aircraft per squadron plus 12 for attrition/maintainence for a total of 54 aircraft. now i would favour a mix of 2 sqn of su30mkms and 1 squadron of SH.

in regards to homeland defence i think a mix role for LIFT and point defence fighter and light attack can be fullfilled by a single aircraft ie the hawk 100. say 2 sqns for about 36 aircraft.

sell the migs (good aircraft BTW), the f5, the the mb339

that takes us for a total of 3 logistics lines only, again as was discussed earlier, as a 2 tier force. that said, it seems the hawk is crashing in a rather alarming rate esp the hawk 200. hmmmmmm....

I definately agree with the notion of operating 2 Sqns of Su-30MKM's and 1 Sqn of SH.

The RMAF MiG-29N's are supposed to be quite a capable aircraft, sad if they go. Definately sell the Mb339 and to reduce logistics, the F5's too.

The Malaysian Hawk 208's has the most extensive modification to the aircraft Hawk 200 family with illumination "slime" lights, wingtip AAMs and inflight refuelling, so why are they crashing so often?

[Awang se]

It's the contractor that screw up. they say more then what they can do. the same problem with the migs.

[Subangite]

It's the contractor that screw up. they say more then what they can do. the same problem with the migs.

Will we have to same problem with the Su-30MKM's?

Why do the current RMAF F/A 18D's not have this same problem? Or do they?

[dreamwarrior73]

Why do the current RMAF F/A 18D's not have this same problem? Or do they?

well, those F/A-18Ds does not have any kind of "peculiar-to-Malaysia" kind of modifications. they are the same standard as USMC birds. and they have the best availability ratio in the service.

[yorunotsuki]

It is Hawk 108......typed wrongly in my title. dunno how to change it

RMAF Hawk crash lands

By FARIDAH BEGUM and NIK NAIZI HUSIN

KUANTAN: All flying exercises involving Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) Hawk fighter jets have been suspended following another incident involving the aircraft.

RMAF commander-in-chief Tan Sri Jen Nik Ismail Nik Mohamad said a two-seater Hawk 108 fighter jet was forced to make an emergency landing after training at the RMAF base here when its front wheel failed to function.

Its co-pilot Kapt Mahadhir Mohamad Saad ejected to safety but pilot Lt Kol Tan Hui Hock was trapped in his seat, which failed to eject during the mishap at 10.45am yesterday.

Lt Kol Tan was rushed to the Tengku Ampuan Afzan Hospital here and treated for third degree burns.

Kapt Mahadhir was also warded for observation.


PRELIMINARY CHECK: Investigators taking a look at the two-seater Hawk 108 fighter jet that made an emergency landing in Kuantan yesterday.
In Jempol, Negri Sembilan, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the RMAF was investigating the cause of the accident.

He said there were no plans to cease operation of the aircraft for the time being.

Jen Nik Ismail, who visited both pilots, said the mishap was due to a technical problem, as the pilot failed to activate the landing gear of the aircraft after a routine exercise.

“We will carry out checks on the hydraulic and undercarriage systems of the aircraft within the next few days before deciding on the next course of action.”


WARDED: One of the pilots of the jet being wheeled into the Tengku Ampuan Afzan Hospital in Kuantan yesterday.
This was the second incident in three weeks involving a Hawk fighter jet.

On May 31, a single-seater Hawk fighter jet lost radio contact with the RMAF base here.

The aircraft was believed to have crashed into the sea two nautical miles off the coast of Kuala Rompin.

Search and rescue efforts to locate the pilot Maj Mohd Rohaizan Abdul Rahman, 31, are still ongoing.

So far, the rescue team has found the rudder of the aircraft and oil spots but no other parts of the jet or the pilot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 crashes in 1 week. No wonder the Hawks are known as the flying coffins in Malaysia. My god.....I sure do not want to be in their Hawks man. Luckily this time round, both pilots are safe. Something I dun understand thou. The Star reported that the co-pilot Cpt Mahadhir Mohamad Saad ejected safely and the pilot LTC Tan Hui Hock was trapped in his seat while BERNAMA reported that Tan ejected successfully while Mahadhir did not eject and suffered minor injuries. So who ejected and who didn't. Major newspapers in Malaysia can't seem to make up their mind :rolleyes:

[Awang se]

Because RMAF FA-18s maintainance were handled by the RMAF themselves. if i'm hear correctly, so be the SU-30MKM. it seems the RMAF have lose faith with the local defence contractors. i hope this just temporary though.
we need those local defence companies so we can stand on our own feet.

off track: the same thing happen with the NGPVs. the commision of the first 6 vessels have been delayed by the problems with the contractor.

[Awang se]

GREENHAWK DOWN! GREENHAWK DOWN! the second RMAF hawk down. Very FUBAR! Totally FUBAR.

[Big-E]

GREENHAWK DOWN! GREENHAWK DOWN! the second RMAF hawk down. Very FUBAR! Totally FUBAR.

I thought those Hawks were well maintained... total FUBAR.:mad:

[dreamwarrior73]

Because RMAF FA-18s maintainance were handled by the RMAF themselves. if i'm hear correctly, so be the SU-30MKM. it seems the RMAF have lose faith with the local defence contractors. i hope this just temporary though.
we need those local defence companies so we can stand on our own feet.

off track: the same thing happen with the NGPVs. the commision of the first 6 vessels have been delayed by the problems with the contractor.

to me it doesn't matter who does the maintenance. as long as they get the job done. in this case they didn't do a good job. that's what happened when you put personal interest above national interest.:smash

[renjer]

Welcome to Defencetalk, yorunotsuki. There is already some discussion on this topic on Ding's thread on the RMAF. Perhaps you would consider joining us there.

[renjer]

So much bad news on the RMAF lately! Hawk crashes and now the following announcement that the Sukhois will only debut in Dec 2007. I hope that does not mean actual delivery will only happen then.

Does anyone know which squadrons will operate the Sukhois? And what will be their weapons and avionics package?

At least we will get to see the new UAV at LIMA 07.

LIMA 07 On Dec 4-8
KUALA LUMPUR, June 26 (Bernama) -- The Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition 2007 (Lima 07) will be held on Dec 4-8, 2007.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak who announced the date Monday said he had no doubt that Lima 07 would be just as good, if not better, than all the previous exhibitions.

"The Lima show in Langkawi has been fixed for Dec 4 till Dec 8 2007 and already efforts are underway to ensure that every improvement that needs to be made will be made, and every possible measure will be taken to ensure that the event runs smoothly from all aspects," he said when launching the Aerospace Segment of Lima 07, here.

Najib also witnessed the signing of a memorandum of intention between World Aerospace Sdn Bhd and several core sponsors of the event, which is one of the premier aerospace and maritime exhibitions in the region.

"We look forward to another spectacular Lima under the new organiser, World Aerospace Sdn Bhd, for the Lima aerospace exhibition, while HW LIMA will continue to be the organiser for the Lima maritime exhibition," said Najib who is also Defence Minister.

He was certain that the commitment of all parties would result in a successful staging of the event.

Speaking to reporters later, he said Lima 07 was planned to draw a bigger response, especially with next year being "Visit Malaysia Year" and the country celebrating its 50 years of independence.

"So, we will strive to make this Lima one of the major events next year," he added.

Najib also hoped that the Royal Malaysian Air Force could display the first Malaysian-made unmanned aerial vehicle at the exhibition.

"Besides that, we also plan to take delivery of the first batch of Sukhoi aircraft from Russia and exhibit them at Lima 07 as an added attraction," he said.

-- BERNAMA

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=205208

[Subangite]

Regarding the future induction of the Sukhoi Su-30MKM's in the RMAF, how do they compare with other platforms in the region? For example Indonesian and Vietnamese Su-30's and Su-27's, new RSAF F-15SG and the F16's operated by Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand.

[f2000]

well,our su-30mkm is comparable to f-15t.
su-30mkm is superior against indonesian f-16,su-30,vietnamese su-27/30 n also thailand f-16.

[renjer]

It's also significant to note that in 2 recent cases where the top possible adversary was a Su-30 both South Korea and Singapore chose the F-15 over the F-18.

[swerve]

To me it makes little sense to purchase aircraft that you can't arm, support OR even fly often. Indonesia has stated it has a preferrence for Western aircraft. IMHO, it should be focused on re-capitalising it's F-16 fleet, and look to acquire a light strike/point defence aircraft from other sources (South Korea's T-50 perhaps) that it CAN support and afford.


Gaining the capability to keep the Hawks flying even when embargoed would probably be a better idea.

BTW, the Hawks continued flying, even when the F-16s were grounded, & they're capable of carrying IR guided AAMs. The T-50 is more complicated than their old Hawks, & it's already been pointed out that it contains a lot of US stuff - e.g. the engine. Not much point in replacing the Hawk with something more vulnerable to US embargos.

Otherwise, agreed.

[Aussie Digger]

Since I posted those earlier comments, it seems more important to get a quality LIFT such as Hawk Mk 127/8 in-service. Australia has operated 33 Hawk Mk 127's since around 2001 and hasn't lost 1 yet. It has also operated F/A-18 since 1982 and has only lost 4 in that entire time, with no loss of life, only aircraft.

It also seems to me RMAF operates an excessively large number of LIFT's? RAAF as I mentioned only has 33 for a combat force of 107 (F/A-18 and F-111).

Malaysia seems to have significantly more to support a smaller combat fleet???

Hence as a priority I would advocate an upgrade/re-manufacture of existing Hawks to the Mk 128 standard, rationalise the LIFT force on this platform and retire any other LIFT platform to offer training (standardised training throughout the force) and cost benefits of only operating 1 type and hopefully losing fewer through a more reliable platform...

The next step would be to improve the Air defence network with an AWACS (Erieye based on Embraer 145 would be my choice for RMAF) system an upgraded maritime patrol capability and enhanced tactical transport capability.

THEN I would advocate pursuing a fighter upgrade with the dual aims of improving capability and rationalising fleet types. I still like the dual SUm-30MKM/F/A-18E/F SH fleet with the retirement of ALL other fighter types.

Alternatively I would recommend a dual SU-30MKM/MiG-29 fleet, with upgraded MiG-29 variants (possibly SMT variant). I simply think it's wasteful to operate numerous types of combat aircraft and 2x Tactical fighters is MORE than enough.

[Subangite]

Since I posted those earlier comments, it seems more important to get a quality LIFT such as Hawk Mk 127/8 in-service. Australia has operated 33 Hawk Mk 127's since around 2001 and hasn't lost 1 yet. It has also operated F/A-18 since 1982 and has only lost 4 in that entire time, with no loss of life, only aircraft.

It also seems to me RMAF operates an excessively large number of LIFT's? RAAF as I mentioned only has 33 for a combat force of 107 (F/A-18 and F-111).

Malaysia seems to have significantly more to support a smaller combat fleet???


From my understanding the Hawk 127 LIF is an advanced fighter trainer, similar to the Hawk 108 that Malaysia operates. What seperates the RAAF and the RMAF in terms of Bae Hawk usage is that the latter also operates the Hawk 208.

The RMAF operates the Hawk 208, which from what I gather is more of a lightweight multirole combat fighter with emphasis on air defence, air superiority, anti-shipping, air-denial, long range interdiction, short range close air support, strike with smart weapons. The RMAF BAe Hawk 208's has the most extensive modification to the aircraft with illumination "slime" lights, wingtip AAMs and inflight refuelling. The aircraft have been involved in major long-range deployments to areas such as Sabah and the Spratly Islands.

The RAAF Hawk 127 advance jet trainer from my understanding is a dedicated trainer, which features cockpit details compatible with the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet to provide training for Australian Hornet pilots.

That said whilst the RAAF operates a vastly larger number of fighters than the RMAF, I'm assuming their deployment and operation of the Hawks is not as demanding.

[Subangite]

It's also significant to note that in 2 recent cases where the top possible adversary was a Su-30 both South Korea and Singapore chose the F-15 over the F-18.

Interesting and a very true observation. I wonder how do these 2 fighters compare, the SU-30MKM and the F-15SG?

I've read that the SU-30MK out performed the USAF F-15C in simulations.

[kotay]

The RMAF operates the Hawk 208, which from what I gather is more of a lightweight multirole combat fighter with emphasis on air defence, air superiority, anti-shipping, air-denial, long range interdiction, short range close air support, strike with smart weapons. The RMAF BAe Hawk 208's has the most extensive modification to the aircraft with illumination "slime" lights, wingtip AAMs and inflight refuelling. The aircraft have been involved in major long-range deployments to areas such as Sabah and the Spratly Islands.

Sounds very wikid ;)

Anyway, what are "slime" lights?

[Subangite]

Sounds very wikid ;)

Anyway, what are "slime" lights?

Slime Lights are a form of night lighting used by combat aircraft if I'm not mistaken.

Whats interesting to note about the RMAF Hawks is the inflight refuelling ability, it gives the RMAF Hawks an extended range and deployment capability.

[Zaphael]

okay.. sounds interesting. So whats the RMAF current tanker?

[f2000]

okay.. sounds interesting. So whats the RMAF current tanker?

rmaf had modified c-130 to c-130t(tanker).:)

[Subangite]

rmaf had modified c-130 to c-130t(tanker).:)

yup, thats right.

I believe the RMAF operates 4 x Hercules KC-130H Aerial tankers.

[renjer]

It also seems to me RMAF operates an excessively large number of LIFT's? RAAF as I mentioned only has 33 for a combat force of 107 (F/A-18 and F-111).

Malaysia seems to have significantly more to support a smaller combat fleet???

From my understanding the Hawk 127 LIF is an advanced fighter trainer, similar to the Hawk 108 that Malaysia operates. What seperates the RAAF and the RMAF in terms of Bae Hawk usage is that the latter also operates the Hawk 208.

The RMAF operates the Hawk 208, which from what I gather is more of a lightweight multirole combat fighter with emphasis on air defence, air superiority, anti-shipping, air-denial, long range interdiction, short range close air support, strike with smart weapons.

The crucial factor here is the emphasis on being a LIF as opposed to being a LIFT. In fact, I believe it is the RAAF that was first to make this distinction. Malaysia's Hawk fleet is split into 3 squadrons with 1 in the training role while the other 2 are operational squadrons. Malaysian fighter pilots typically spend 3-4 years of their careers in the 2 operational Hawk squadrons building up their flight hours before being streamed into a MiG or Hornet squadron.

That said, the RAAF's safety record is definitely something to strive for. It would also be interesting to compare the pilot syllabus of the 2 services. There might be some clues here as to how the RMAF can achieve the 3:1 ratio of combat planes to trainers that the RAAF has.

[f2000]

with limited number,rmaf has overuse hawk in order to support their training modul.they need to support migs n hornet n soon su-30. rmaf have burden hawk 4 this role.

[alexz]

It also seems to me RMAF operates an excessively large number of LIFT's? RAAF as I mentioned only has 33 for a combat force of 107 (F/A-18 and F-111).

Malaysia seems to have significantly more to support a smaller combat fleet???



Large number of LIFT's?

Malaysia has only about 8 Hawk Mk108 LIFT's out of 10 delivered to support a combat force of 60plus combat aircrafts (Hawk Mk208 single seater, MiG-29N, F/A-18D, F-5E and the future Su-30MKM's).

To acheive a similar LIFT to fighter ratio of Australia, Malaysia needs about 20 LIFT aircrafts. So Malaysia needs at least 12 more LIFT's, most preferably additional Hawk's. South Korea has about 16 surviving Hawk Mk68's (hawk Mk60 with Hawk 100 wings and nose) thats probably will be replaced by the ingenious Golden Eagle soon. Maybe Malaysia could purchase the seconhand hawks from south korea and upgrade it to near Mk108 standards for a cost effective solution?

[Aussie Digger]

From my understanding the Hawk 127 LIF is an advanced fighter trainer, similar to the Hawk 108 that Malaysia operates. What seperates the RAAF and the RMAF in terms of Bae Hawk usage is that the latter also operates the Hawk 208.

The RMAF operates the Hawk 208, which from what I gather is more of a lightweight multirole combat fighter with emphasis on air defence, air superiority, anti-shipping, air-denial, long range interdiction, short range close air support, strike with smart weapons. The RMAF BAe Hawk 208's has the most extensive modification to the aircraft with illumination "slime" lights, wingtip AAMs and inflight refuelling. The aircraft have been involved in major long-range deployments to areas such as Sabah and the Spratly Islands.

The RAAF Hawk 127 advance jet trainer from my understanding is a dedicated trainer, which features cockpit details compatible with the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet to provide training for Australian Hornet pilots.

That said whilst the RAAF operates a vastly larger number of fighters than the RMAF, I'm assuming their deployment and operation of the Hawks is not as demanding.

It is a trainer for RAAF, but could be used for "point defence" and light strike missions if necessary. Our Hawk Mk 127's are fitted with an in-flight refuelling probe (when required) and wingtip rails for air to air missiles. They are also wired to carry a 30mm cannon and Mk 82 500lbs bombs when required.

Other weapons can no doubt be wired if necessary with the AIM-132 ASRAAM a dead set certainty to be included when the RAAF Hawk undergoes it's MLU in a few years time. I wouldn't be surprised if JDAM and some sort of data-link and EWSP (specifically a radar warning receiver) were integrated as well.

It was a version designed to match the F/A-18 as closely as possible, but that was at the specific request of RAAF. Hawk Mk 128 is the current spec trainer available and is little different from Mk 127 (more powerful engine, updated avionics etc).

As such I think it would be the best aircraft to provide an advanced trainer/light strike fighter for the RMAF.

[f2000]

Large number of LIFT's?

Malaysia has only about 8 Hawk Mk108 LIFT's out of 10 delivered to support a combat force of 60plus combat aircrafts (Hawk Mk208 single seater, MiG-29N, F/A-18D, F-5E and the future Su-30MKM's).

To acheive a similar LIFT to fighter ratio of Australia, Malaysia needs about 20 LIFT aircrafts. So Malaysia needs at least 12 more LIFT's, most preferably additional Hawk's. South Korea has about 16 surviving Hawk Mk68's (hawk Mk60 with Hawk 100 wings and nose) thats probably will be replaced by the ingenious Golden Eagle soon. Maybe Malaysia could purchase the seconhand hawks from south korea and upgrade it to near Mk108 standards for a cost effective solution?

i don't think that rmaf should buy korean's hawk.
second-hand hawk will bring problems 4rmaf to maintain n maitenance cost is also high.it easier for 2nd-hand ac to involve in accident due to its old life.
better buy the new one from bae.:rolleyes:

[renjer]

with limited number,rmaf has overuse hawk in order to support their training modul.they need to support migs n hornet n soon su-30. rmaf have burden hawk 4 this role.

To acheive a similar LIFT to fighter ratio of Australia, Malaysia needs about 20 LIFT aircrafts. So Malaysia needs at least 12 more LIFT's, most preferably additional Hawk's. South Korea has about 16 surviving Hawk Mk68's (hawk Mk60 with Hawk 100 wings and nose) thats probably will be replaced by the ingenious Golden Eagle soon. Maybe Malaysia could purchase the seconhand hawks from south korea and upgrade it to near Mk108 standards for a cost effective solution?

You are both right. There are too few trainers available to RMAF. 20 or about 2 squadrons worth is the number of trainers that the RMAF needs. This figure doesn't even include the operational Hawk squadrons.

With regards to the ROKAF's Hawks, I can't see the RMAF opting for such a purchase. There is a precedent in the RNZAF's offer of its 17 Aermacchis when these were being phased out. It was accepted at first but subsequently cancelled. The principal reason cited was the high operating cost of the 2nd hand aircraft. BTW, the RMAF still operates about 7-8 of these aircraft type.

It is a trainer for RAAF, but could be used for "point defence" and light strike missions if necessary. Our Hawk Mk 127's are fitted with an in-flight refuelling probe (when required) and wingtip rails for air to air missiles. They are also wired to carry a 30mm cannon and Mk 82 500lbs bombs when required.

It was a version designed to match the F/A-18 as closely as possible, but that was at the specific request of RAAF. Hawk Mk 128 is the current spec trainer available and is little different from Mk 127 (more powerful engine, updated avionics etc).

As such I think it would be the best aircraft to provide an advanced trainer/light strike fighter for the RMAF.

Agree with you 100% on this. A Hawk Mk 128 purchase would streamline the RMAF's trainer and 2nd tier aircraft fleet while still allowing for a measured increase in technology levels. Plus, we would have some commonality with the RAAF. We would additionally have the opportunity to learn from the IAF since they are also combining the Hawk and Sukhoi into their force structure.

The other aircraft types being considered by the RMAF are FD (?) version of the MB-339 and the Yak-130. If the RMAF chose either of these than it would either have to fund additional purchases to streamline the fleet or continue with a mish mash of aircraft types. This would be like fighting with your fingers. Rationalise the fleet and you raise the efficiency and proficiency levels across the board. Only then will your fingers clench into a fist.

[f2000]

well for mb-339 n yak-130,it's hard to say that rmaf will buy those ac.
yeah there will be logistic nightmare but if rmaf buy mb-339 or yak-130,there must be something that rmaf unsatisfy with hawk.
but i think the winner will be hawk.;)

[alexz]

With regards to the ROKAF's Hawks, I can't see the RMAF opting for such a purchase. There is a precedent in the RNZAF's offer of its 17 Aermacchis when these were being phased out. It was accepted at first but subsequently cancelled. The principal reason cited was the high operating cost of the 2nd hand aircraft. BTW, the RMAF still operates about 7-8 of these aircraft type.




Yes the RNZAF's offer was accepted, but it was not cancelled. The delays in approving the budget for the secondhand aircraft, as well as some political ideas of privatising the jet training for RMAF (they are planning to buy nad then subcontract the RNZAF jet to private contractors, what are they thinking??) meant that the jet was sold to other parties before RMAF was able to get some funding for them...

As for the surviving RMAF MB-339AM's it was recently lightly overhauled for free by Aermacci, as a sweetener for RMAF to consider buying newbuild trainers for them.

to me there is not many setbacks of buying 2nd hand, especially from those who maintains them excellently like ROKAF or RNZAF. the only setbacks of buying 2ndhand from other goverments is that there would be no kickbacks for the politicians (hence the creative planned privatisation of the RNZAF trainers that was to be bought) unlike buying new planes from the companies themselves...



corrections, the ROKAF Bae Hawk is designated Mk67, not 68 as i posted earlier, and it was ordered by ROKAF in 1990, so the aircraft is quite a recent ones.

[renjer]

alexz, thank you for clarifying the Aermacchi deal. I am aware that the politician's cut is a fact of life in Malaysia. It is present in every business deal that involves the state.

You are right that this is a contributing factor in the mix of aircraft types that we have. In addition to the vendor and the RMAF there is usually a third party or 'agent' to an aircraft type purchase. An agreement usually assigned exclusive rights to the agent for subsequent purchases as well. This is the disincentive for politicians to support repeat purchases of similar aircraft types.

A solution would be to remove this exclusive rights clause and have each purchase renegotiated on fresh terms (i.e. new agent). However, as much as I would like to see a rationalisation of aircraft types operated by the RMAF I stop short of openly advocating this as I cannot bring myself to condon the presence of the agent at all. I have seen too many brave men have their careers broken because they stood in the way of a politician and his cream.

That said, I still believe that a purchase of new Hawks would be preferable to 2nd hand models. On average a brand new aircraft would have a longer operating life than a used one. For the record, I am certain that the RNZAF and the RoKAF maintain their aircrafts to peak perfection.

As an additional note, I understand that funding is actually available for the purchase of advanced jet trainers. The Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister of Finance has simply reassigned the funds to the Prime Minister's Department rather than releasing these to the Minister of Defence who at present is also the Deputy Prime Minister. Whether this is meant simply to control his deputy or to prevent mismanagement and abuse is beyond me.

However, I do hope that those who still keep the faith in the RMAF manage to steer the service through all of this towards a more rational fleet holding. I am bewildered by the opinions expressed that seem to equate the RMAF to nothing more than an expensive car showroom offering models galore.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[alexz]

As for the procurements Malaysia bought 12 MB-339AM's; with 1 more attriction replacement free of charge (crash resulted by manufacturer technical faults) for a total of 13.

AFAIK 1 of the F-5B crashed near Kerteh, and the sole survivor was given, not sold to Thailand.

[Subangite]

As for the procurements Malaysia bought 12 MB-339AM's; with 1 more attriction replacement free of charge (crash resulted by manufacturer technical faults) for a total of 13.

AFAIK 1 of the F-5B crashed near Kerteh, and the sole survivor was given, not sold to Thailand.

Why doesn't the RMAF consolidate the MB-339 fleet for more BAe Hawks? Funding the issue, BAe HAwks more expensive? Or the RMAF just loves to diversify its trainers for some reason?

[alexz]

Subangite, my comments on the MB-339AM was not for a new purchase, it was what the RMAF got in the early 1980's. The MB-339A series has long been discontinued.

[Awang se]

Interesting and a very true observation. I wonder how do these 2 fighters compare, the SU-30MKM and the F-15SG?

I've read that the SU-30MK out performed the USAF F-15C in simulations.

From what i gather, F-15SG will be a far more advance version then F-15E used by USAF. just look at their F-16 block C/D

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[f2000]

both f-15sg n su-30mkm are the best in their class.we have no idea of accurate capabilities of those ac.we can generalize their capabilities based on their avionics ,radars n others.both ac have good bvr n radar capabilities.:D

[Subangite]

I guess it was a moot question comparing the Su-30MKMs to the F-15SG. The chances that these would be pitted against each other are extremely slim. Its an academic exercise to compare the 2 aircrafts, since its interesting to note that supposedly the IAF Su-30MKI out performed USAF F-15C.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[410Cougar]

Comparisons are natural to enthusiasts. The difference may boil down to the pilots. Put a good driver in a crappy car and that may sometimes be better than a bad one in a sports car. In this case, both are top of the line sports cars.

I like this line. Why are countries like the USA, Israel, the UK, etc, have so much more success in air to air encounters than the nations they fly against? GW1 and GW2 show that even though you had 15's against 29's - which are essentially equal adversaries - that the US one hands down.

Quick question about avionics and weapons system integration into a Hawk - can they support the SU software??

[mmmbop]

What's the need for Hawk capable of supporting Su software?:confused:

[alexz]

FYi the Hawk is armed only with armerments from the west. So there is no weapons intergration whatsoever between russian and western equipments in TUDM.

[410Cougar]

Well what would the country use to train people on the avionics and weapons system in the new SU's?

[alexz]

The avoinics are mostly french-sourced and as for the weapon system is mostly similar to TUDM's current Mig-29. Anyway those technical stuff you train on the actual aircraft/avionics itself. As for the Mig's, TUDM got 2 airframes for ground training as part of the initial purchase. Still have no news if it is the same for the Su-30's.

Similarly you dont train f/a-18 technicians on the hawk aircraft either.

[renjer]

Well what would the country use to train people on the avionics and weapons system in the new SU's?

If we get the Hawk Mk 128s then these can be glassed for the Sukhois. IAF is doing this I believe. I am not sure if the current Mk 108s have open achitecture.

Back when we first got the MiG-29Ns we got a lot of assistance on simulator technology from CAE of Canada.