SU 30 MKI engine woes Malaysia might pull out order of Su 30 mkm

Paxter

New Member
http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/001357.php

According to sources quoted by the Indian news website, the SU-30MKIs began to experience a high rate of engine failure after induction. Each engine has a life that is measured in hours, around 300 hours spent flying, taking off and landing between overhauls. To maintain them, the engines are subjected to periodic overhauling, calculated as Time Between Overhauls (TBO). A majority of the SU-30MKI's engines were withdrawn even before their TBO.

Newindpress added that though a batch of the Sukhois has been dispatched to the Lohegan Air Force Station in Pune, the IAF has decided not to accept them until the Russian manufacturers Rosvoorouzhenie accept its demands to rectify the several glitches in the aircraft.

The IAF has also suggested to the Ministry of Defence that further payments to the Russians be stopped until the demands are met.

In May, Malaysia had agreed to buy 18 Sukhoi Su-30 MKM jets under a RM3.4
billion deal signed during a visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Kuala Lumpur.

In April 2002, The Times of India reported that Russia wanted India to participate in the development of Sukhoi aircraft for the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) as the fighter jet sought by Kuala Lumpur would be a derivative of SU-30 MKI, which are being operated by the Indian Air Force.

Meanwhile, Najib Razak said the Defence Ministry will look into the news report of IAF's rejection, and the Royal Military Air Force (RMAF) will determine whether this will affect Malaysia's deal with Russia to buy the Sukhoi Su-30 MKM.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Not really new. After having trouble with Migs. RMAF will eye the aircraft development like a hawk.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Awang se, there were reports coming in that the MAF was about to announce a Super Hornet purchase. I've had this from 2 different sources, but non confirmed. Are you aware of anything?
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Of course, but the problem is around the budget. as i stated before, they already cancelled the new airbase just to make enough money to purchase the MKM. There is currently a requirement to fill the Medium range AD slot which is still bare open. If indeed they want to make a purchase of SH, that means they have to cut the purchase on MKM or MRAD or add the figure of credits, and risk the frown of budget office.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
I think they still hold the ball and not sure wether to throw it or let it go. they still see how the MKM stands out.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Reported in the Straits Times on 7th April:

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/story/0,4386,244404,00.html?

The link has a 5 day life, so the actual text is:

----
Malaysia File

NAJIB MULLS OVER DEAL WITH BOEING

MALAYSIA will decide soon whether to buy Boeing F/A-18F fighter jets from the United States as it continues a military modernisation programme, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak said yesterday.

He added: 'Our shopping list is quite extensive but we have to be realistic in terms of affordability.' -- AFP

I guess the media is doing the usual revival story?
 

adsH

New Member
gf0012 said:
Reported in the Straits Times on 7th April:

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/story/0,4386,244404,00.html?

The link has a 5 day life, so the actual text is:

----
Malaysia File

NAJIB MULLS OVER DEAL WITH BOEING

MALAYSIA will decide soon whether to buy Boeing F/A-18F fighter jets from the United States as it continues a military modernisation programme, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak said yesterday.

He added: 'Our shopping list is quite extensive but we have to be realistic in terms of affordability.' -- AFP

I guess the media is doing the usual revival story?
Hi !! How many do you think they can afford to Buy (F/A-18F) assuming they are worried about the spiraling Costs of there acquisitions. And do they have to purchase something of the same class or could they buy something from other manufacturers. ican't think of another Aircraft that could possibly even come close to the quality of An SH F/A-18F
 

wzhtg

New Member
"Hi !! How many do you think they can afford to Buy (F/A-18F) assuming they are worried about the spiraling Costs of there acquisitions. And do they have to purchase something of the same class or could they buy something from other manufacturers. ican't think of another Aircraft that could possibly even come close to the quality of An SH F/A-18F "

Re: Well yes they are looking for something of the same class. Unfortunatly we know that the US would be reluctant to let us have the full package and would most likey sell us a downgraded version. Also, i hope MY can stick to one type of ac and i would prefer the russians as they are more then willing to provide tech transfer. Hope they sort of the engine problems fast so that maybe we can dump the super hornets and get another 18-22 Su 30s
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
adSh, not sure. The original advice from two days ago came from another consultant I deal with who lives in Kuala Lumpar.

He's indicated that the MAF has had persistent problems with their Russian platforms and that is causing them to "re-assess" the merit of staying with Russian aircraft.

The quality and support for the Hornets is apparently a "golden league" ahead of their other combat aircraft, and they appear to be getting very short on patience at some of the russian support issues.

His feeling is that they would like to go with more US aircraft, but this is being stalled by idealogical and political disconnects. The Air Force is getting frustrated, and does appear to be arguing that pragmatism should take priority.

Awang se probably has a better idea of what monies are available, but the economy is still in a process of recovering from the regional meltdown - so there is not a lot of "disposable" funds.
 

adsH

New Member
Thanx guys for the response i have another question, i picked up the term T0T in wzhtg's answer so if Malyasia gets the tech transer could they sell there Su 30 to other countries like the Saudi (who have been unwilling to buy Directly from russians) and would they be able to sell those to Pakistan which has been literally running after those aircrafts. I think russians are alot clever than that they sold China the Su 27 tech with the clause in the licence so that the chinese could only produce the su 27 for home use ie no exports but India does not have such resrictions it's abit confuseing. :( I am sure Malaysia can develop a market for those su-27.
Oh and can some one tell me how much does a Su-30 and a SH F/A-18 cost per unit is.
i think SH would be cheaper to runn but the spare are realy restricted and only supplied if the US senate does not have a reason to withhold Spares. i think buying such equipment is unwise for any nation becasue if the country goes to war you need spares. and almost every country in the world blocks those much needed spares.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
adsH said:
Thanx guys for the response i have another question, i picked up the term T0T in wzhtg's answer so if Malyasia gets the tech transer could they sell there Su 30 to other countries like the Saudi (who have been unwilling to buy Directly from russians) and would they be able to sell those to Pakistan which has been literally running after those aircrafts. I think russians are alot clever than that they sold China the Su 27 tech with the clause in the licence so that the chinese could only produce the su 27 for home use ie no exports but India does not have such resrictions it's abit confuseing. :( I am sure Malaysia can develop a market for those su-27.
Transfers of Technology do not automatically grant the right of the vendor to produce platforms for "on-sale". Most transfers relate to the issue of local production. A license to produce platforms for export is a different process altogether (eg, part of the contract to build the Tiger combat helicopter in Australia also covered the issue of building small commercial helicopters for sale in the Sth East Asian market.

ToT's are normally very separate to a negotiated contract to build supplementary product as a value add "reseller or builder".

As it is the ToT may give access to some intelectual property, but some nations are very wary of this as it depends on the trust between the partners. China has difficulty in gaining western confidence on some items as they do not respect international IP rulings, even though they are a signatory to the IPO.

The nature of the IPO is that if a modification is made to an item, then it can be deemed an improvement, thus the question of ongoing royalty fees becomes questionable. A lot of nations are wary of providing source code and IP data as it makes them vulnerable - hence they will offer a ToT on redundant technology or they will limit the technologies absolute technical superiority by keeping core components within the selling nation. Eg, China can build 200 SU-27's, but are only given FCS modules for 200 units. This if China builds 250 Su-27's, then it means that 50 will not have complete critical systems components and in a full operational sense, are deemed to be "mules".
 

adsH

New Member
So ToT has its faces apperently confusieng one i wonder why India rejected the American bid to provide Tot on F-16s i am sure this was the reason why they never chose F-16. lIke turkey has a serial Production for F-16 but i bet the Flight Control systems AS you put it FCS have to be bought for each unit that is produced. and an other clue Turkey can only provide Training on US authorization for F-16s but cannot sell like the IAF had to buy there new Batches of F-16 from Lockheed.

the second example of TOT would be the Agusta 90 B being produced at Pakistans dock yards they can apperently build and sell those Agustas they have renamed those Subs to Khalid Class i think named after the first Sub. i think French are more willing to share what they develop but at a price Pakistan paid almost a billlion dollars for those three subs one built in France and the rest of the two bult at a dock yard back in pakistan it was a complete TOT without restriction.(i think) i can't think of any other examples. !!
apperently the chinese are interested in aquireing some of those Subs and the sauids and other arab nations. China has already modified some of its diesel subs with the augusta designs.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Many should remember way back when malaysia decide to buy a Tornados from the brits. the deal was bog down because of the overwhelming cost. I still puzzle by the inability of Malaysia to produce some of the critical spare parts for their Migs locally. thay already have the tools and the expertise in the aeronautics sector.
 

adsH

New Member
Awang se said:
Many should remember way back when malaysia decide to buy a Tornados from the brits. the deal was bog down because of the overwhelming cost. I still puzzle by the inability of Malaysia to produce some of the critical spare parts for their Migs locally. thay already have the tools and the expertise in the aeronautics sector.
I do agree whith that Malaysia has highly skilled labour foce focussed at industrial engineering
 

amit21mech

New Member
I think it is more due internal pressure from Malaysian public than the engine problem of SU 30 MKM ( not SU 30 MKI) becoz of which Malaysian govt may drop these birds from her shopping list. Too much cost (US $900 million) for 18 fighters has raised many voices against this deal.

Here is some link for this.

http://www.malaysia.net/dap/bul2302.htm
 

wzhtg

New Member
"I think it is more due internal pressure from Malaysian public than the engine problem of SU 30 MKM ( not SU 30 MKI) becoz of which Malaysian govt may drop these birds from her shopping list. Too much cost (US $900 million) for 18 fighters has raised many voices against this deal. "

High cost? Maybe but $900 million will only get you abt 12 super hornets and we don;t just need capable ac, we need them in bigger numbers.
 

adsH

New Member
wzhtg said:
"I think it is more due internal pressure from Malaysian public than the engine problem of SU 30 MKM ( not SU 30 MKI) becoz of which Malaysian govt may drop these birds from her shopping list. Too much cost (US $900 million) for 18 fighters has raised many voices against this deal. "

High cost? Maybe but $900 million will only get you abt 12 super hornets and we don;t just need capable ac, we need them in bigger numbers.
900 mil is expensive i have an idea since malaysia is such a capable country. It proved its worth when it made a an economic recovery. it apparently can focus its resources to certain key sectors very effectively, i am saying this becasue i think malaysia should purchase French mirages like mirage 2005 with total tech transfer. then work on that with there own R&D (own R&D would not be needed for atleast two decades as those mirages are really high tech) i think the mirages are more better in terms of quality and french can always be held to there word. (lol)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
wzhtg said:
High cost? Maybe but $900 million will only get you abt 12 super hornets and we don;t just need capable ac, we need them in bigger numbers.
No, not really. That is a common mistake that is made and relates to cold war doctrine issues of containment, and the venerable 3:1 ratio rule.

It's NOT numbers of platforms that count, it is unit capability and force integration that counts.

In 21st century integrated warfare, more unco-ordinated assets = more targets - NOT a greater threat level.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I think Malaysia should pull out of this deal. I think the Super Hornet would provide greater capability for Malaysia and would better fit into their logistical chain. I also think the Malaysian's should also replace their Mig 29's with additional Super Hornets. I'm not saying this simply because I feel the Super Hornet is a better aircraft, I think Malaysia would get greater combat capability by doing so. I don't think Malaysia would have too many difficulties with the US with regards to supply of critical parts, spares, wepaons, etc, as they have happily operated a squadron F/A -18 C/D's for years now with no dramas. I think the dual logistics chain ie: a completely different inventory (spare parts, weapons, technical publications etc) for the Russian and US aircraft would probably cost Malaysia more than any possible benefit it could provide. The Super Hornet would provide excellent air defence capability and outstanding and operationally proven strike capabilities. I'm sure the SU-30 MKM would also provide excellent air defence capabilities, but I doubt the strike capabilities of this aircraft would match the Super Hornet's. The Mig 29 also possesses good air defence capability but possesses almost no strike capability whatsoever, as I understand things. The original deal for the Super Hornets included "trading in" the F/A-18 C/D's as part of the payment for these new aircraft. I would also put the money for the SU-30's and the money from the sale of the Mig 29's into the deal and acquire additional Super Hornets. They could probably acquire as many as 48 Super Hornets that way, along with the full range of supporting capabilities for this aircraft which would provide much greater capability in my view than a mixed fleet of SU-30, Mig 29 and small numbers of Super Hornets. Such a fleet would also go a long way to redressing the strategic imbalance given Singapore's likely acquistion of an advanced new strike fighter (F-15K/T, Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale) and additional new F-16's. Cheers.
 
Top