How can you claim that Su-30 is less advanced than F-15SG when Su-30 can fire its 175 km air to air missle before F-15SG knows what hits them? In a modern day air combat, any aircraft that can fire its first shot is guaranteed a winReading some of the posts just makes me laugh at how poorly thought out they are, especially the ones about the Su-30 v F-15 argument. After reading the entries, I wanted to contribute my own thoughts and feelings so that new posts in this thread will not be just some patriotic banter from some other neighboring country. All the information provided can be found on the web if you bother to look it up.
FACT
1) Singapore is rich, richer than any other country in the region. The government is well-run and led by very smart forward looking people, corruption is also generally very low. Thus it is safe to say that the Ministry of Defense is also very competent and they always think things through from every possible angle before they make decisions. The F-15SG was bought simply because no aircraft which was available can fly further, faster, higher, carry more bombs and provide more value for money with a proven combat record. The Su-30 is cheaper and less advanced, the Rafale and F-18 just couldn't match the F-15 in performance. Thrust vectoring really isn't as effective at BVR then you would like to think it is, it is only nice for airshows and dogfights provided you can even get that close.
2) Singaporeans are generally already well educated and tech savvy, they may lack hardiness and so called "combat-fitness" but i assure you, they learn fast and will adapt to new skills and equipment to a proficiency just as well as or better than anyone in the world. In the area of military aviation, brain power is a hell lot more important than physical ability because technology is such an important factor here.
3) By pure numbers alone, the RSAF has more combat aircraft than any other air force in SEA even with some assets overseas. Every airmen is trained to a very high degree of proficiency both at home and overseas, we don't get invited to Red Flag exercises every year for no reason.
4) The RSAF has an in-flight refueling capability for all the combat a/c it operates and has operated AEW platforms since the 80s. Thailand has only just become the 2nd operator of such platforms in the region. Do not underestimate this capability because it allows the airforce to coordinate all its aircraft and handle threats more efficiently.
5)The RSAF has an exemplary safety record which means more aircraft are available to fly at anyone time with minimal turn around time. Because we operate equipment with ample spares and parts commonality, we don't have much trouble maintaining our platforms. Can Malaysia or Indonesia say the same of their operational readiness? When the Indons bought the Su-30, they couldn't track the aircraft because the russian systems had no compatibility with the western systems they used.
6) Some of the weapons systems do not exist in any of the other inventories of the region eg. AESA, GPS guided munitions, Sniper Pods, Longbow.
Summary: There really is no contest here, every defense journal, publication, report states that the RSAF is the most capable and therefore most powerful Airforce in SEA. All the points listed support that notion and as you can see, it is more than just a platform vs platform argument.
When you bring in the equipment and capabilities of the navy and army, you will also see that as a whole, the Singapore Armed Forces is leap and bounds ahead of any military in the immediate region.
Maybe it was but I suspect that it was also driven by the need to deal with the possibility that neighbouring countries might get ballistic missiles in the near future.Pardon my ignorance but when I first heard about an ABM system for SG, I thought one of the reasons was to counter MAF's Astros MLRS.
Please do not turn this into a ''this VS that'' discussion....How can you claim that Su-30 is less advanced than F-15SG when Su-30 can fire its 175 km air to air missle before F-15SG knows what hits them? In a modern day air combat, any aircraft that can fire its first shot is guaranteed a win
There is a marked difference between maximum range and maximum effective range. The ability of a pilot to take a long range BVR shot depends on a number of factors - not just what the missile manufacturer states on marketing brochures. Also bear in mind that none of the Su-30 variants and the R-77 are combat proven and that unlike the F-15SG, no Su-30 with an AESA has yet to enter service.
Last edited:
Do you really think "modern day air combat", composed of thousands of different systems and capabilities all interacting with one another in a three dimensional space, is as simple as "missile x has range y, therefore plane a will beat plane b"?How can you claim that Su-30 is less advanced than F-15SG when Su-30 can fire its 175 km air to air missle before F-15SG knows what hits them? In a modern day air combat, any aircraft that can fire its first shot is guaranteed a win
You seem to equate the range metric on a missile with "firing the first shot". What about sensor and information-sharing capabilities? AWACS support? Electronic warfare? Terrain features? Signal management? These are just examples but I hope they serve to illustrate how the question of "who shoots first" can't be answered adequately with as simple a metric as publicly disclosed missile range. Even if the range is a given, for it to be anything more than a ballpark figure you need the launch altitude, launch speed, target bearing, target size, target maneuverability, etc etc... all of these factors will have an impact on the weapon's effective range. I'm not saying the missile can't go 175 kilometres (though I have my doubts that any current generation air-to-air missile would have sufficient energy remaining to engage a maneuvering target after travelling such a distance), but I'm saying one must be aware that even apparently straightforward things can be full of variables, and to not consider these variables means you've reached an assumption, not a conclusion.
There's an expression: systems, not platforms. Air combat isn't decided by comparing performance figures on fighters or missiles, it's decided by combining the right elements of a system to achieve the desired effects. Fighter aircraft and the weapons they carry are just one of these elements, and to achieve the most productive result they must be used in concert with other complementary elements. It is premature, pointless, and flawed in the extreme to pronounce one aircraft "the winner" solely on the basis of some publicly available data pertaining to a military weapon system. Not even during WWI was air combat as simple as that, and it's only ever gotten more complicated.
Yes, due to Singapore having the biggest economy in SEA and it's policy of deterence, the SAF is the best funded and most capable service in the region, no arguements there from anyone here, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make? And what was that you mentioned in the start of your post about not intending for it to be ''patriotic banter''?
This COULD be an example of "patriotic banter":
This was why I wanted to post in the first place, not to start a tit for tat argument but for future messages on this board to be more well thought out. Aerial warfare is complex with many factors involved. The quoted post is from a perspective of someone with "Ace Combat" computer game knowledge. I will apologise if you are malaysian and I have insulted your air force, that is not my intention. However, please read and consider all the points in my original post before giving a reply.How can you claim that Su-30 is less advanced than F-15SG when Su-30 can fire its 175 km air to air missle before F-15SG knows what hits them? In a modern day air combat, any aircraft that can fire its first shot is guaranteed a win
No I do not have first hand access to info. This is an educated guess from reading news reports over the years. Search google for the number of fatal accidents over the years. I'm sure you are well aware of the complex mix of aircraft that the RMAF operates, but also take note of the relatively small numbers of each type. It doesn't take long to realize that it is a logistical nightmare to keep these aircraft flying and compatible with each other for mission effectiveness. They have openly admitted that they wish to upgrade their platforms but lack the funds to do so. Is it safe to operate old airframes that have long surpassed their use-by date?Do you have access to info on the RMAF's and TNI-AU's operational ready rates and the number of hours their fighter pilots fly? Whilst both air arms, on account of having a much smaller operational budget and smaller fighter fleets cannot participate in international exercises with the same regularity and intensity as the RSAF, it would be a mistake to assume they have low operational readiness. Also bear in mind that with regards to the RMAF, which is the most camera/publicity shy of all the 3 MAF services, a lot of the training it conducts, as well as other activities, does not get reported.
Not too long ago they were ready to decommission the Mig-29 after only a decade or so of service. This just reeks of poor planning and management. There was also the stolen F-5 engines scandal in 2008, how can you trust your own ground crew to maintain these aircraft if they can steal and ship TWO engines to South America long before anyone has discovered the crime.
Why do you think the general concensus is that the F-22 can win in an air-to-air combat against any known fighter out there? It's all comes down to the F-22 has the ability to fire its first shot. Let me switch role and ask you if you're in an air combat situation, would you like to be the first one to fire your first shot at your enemy or would you choose to be the receiving end of the first shot from your enemy? Would you prefer to be armed with a missile that is 100 km longer than your enemy's missiles or would you prefer to be armed with a missile that is 100 km shorter than your enemy's missiles? I think you know the answersDo you really think "modern day air combat", composed of thousands of different systems and capabilities all interacting with one another in a three dimensional space, is as simple as "missile x has range y, therefore plane a will beat plane b"?
You seem to equate the range metric on a missile with "firing the first shot". What about sensor and information-sharing capabilities? AWACS support? Electronic warfare? Terrain features? Signal management? These are just examples but I hope they serve to illustrate how the question of "who shoots first" can't be answered adequately with as simple a metric as publicly disclosed missile range. Even if the range is a given, for it to be anything more than a ballpark figure you need the launch altitude, launch speed, target bearing, target size, target maneuverability, etc etc... all of these factors will have an impact on the weapon's effective range. I'm not saying the missile can't go 175 kilometres (though I have my doubts that any current generation air-to-air missile would have sufficient energy remaining to engage a maneuvering target after travelling such a distance), but I'm saying one must be aware that even apparently straightforward things can be full of variables, and to not consider these variables means you've reached an assumption, not a conclusion.
There's an expression: systems, not platforms. Air combat isn't decided by comparing performance figures on fighters or missiles, it's decided by combining the right elements of a system to achieve the desired effects. Fighter aircraft and the weapons they carry are just one of these elements, and to achieve the most productive result they must be used in concert with other complementary elements. It is premature, pointless, and flawed in the extreme to pronounce one aircraft "the winner" solely on the basis of some publicly available data pertaining to a military weapon system. Not even during WWI was air combat as simple as that, and it's only ever gotten more complicated.
mate, if you think F-22s are the only ones who carry AMRAAMS you really need to do some research...Why do you think the general concensus is that the F-22 can win in an air-to-air combat against any known fighter out there? It's all comes down to the F-22 has the ability to fire its first shot. Let me switch role and ask you if you're in an air combat situation, would you like to be the first one to fire your first shot at your enemy or would you choose to be the receiving end of the first shot from your enemy? Would you prefer to be armed with a missile that is 100 km longer than your enemy's missiles or would you prefer to be armed with a missile that is 100 km shorter than your enemy's missiles? I think you know the answers
SAF F-15 and F-16 both carry AMRAAMS aswel, does that mean they're as good as an F-22?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #408
Here's a tip.How can you claim that Su-30 is less advanced than F-15SG when Su-30 can fire its 175 km air to air missle before F-15SG knows what hits them? In a modern day air combat, any aircraft that can fire its first shot is guaranteed a win
Try and find out what "ballistic arc" means. It is quite relevant to your idea that SU-30's will be shooting down other fighters at 175kms...
The USN had a missile years ago called the AIM-54 Phoenix. It was a Mach 5 missile that had a range beyond 200k's. The reason for this long range was because it was intended for use against a nuclear armed Soviet bomber threat, so the USN wanted to engage these aircraft at as a long a range as possible.
A bomber as you can imagine isn't very maneuverable so the tactic of lobbing extremely fast, extremely long ranged missiles onto them from above (Phoenix flew to altitudes above 80,000 feet reportedly) seemed like a good idea. Against this threat.
However a tactical fighter aircraft (even the F-35...) is not a slow lumbering target. It is a very fast, agile target. There is no way to hide the launch of such a powerful missile system (the extremely powerful rocket motor creates a thermal bloom that can be detected from very long range) and so such a lobbed "ballistic arc" is very unlikely to hit an agile tactical fighter.
Imagine (if you could) throwing a tennis ball 100 metres. Do you think you could land it on a tennis court or a football field that wasn't moving? Perhaps.
Do you think you could hit another person at that range or is it possible that might they have the opportunity to dodge out of the way of the incoming ball, if they were aware it had been thrown?
So it is with such extended range missile shots. No matter how fast these Russian "super missiles" (which don't actually exist by the way, but never mind) are, a fighter is going to know they are coming. A fighter is going to have time (because even a Mach 5 missile takes a considerable period of time to fly 175k's) to change vectors and avoid this incoming missile.
Ok let me make this easier for you to understand. Lets just say the Russian BVR missile has a longer range than an AIM-120. Lets also assume that both use the same guidance technology ie It requires a radar lock-on from the launch aircraft to guide itself to the target until the terminal phase where the missile's own radar takes over allowing the launch aircraft to scoot away aka fire and forget.Why do you think the general concensus is that the F-22 can win in an air-to-air combat against any known fighter out there? It's all comes down to the F-22 has the ability to fire its first shot. Let me switch role and ask you if you're in an air combat situation, would you like to be the first one to fire your first shot at your enemy or would you choose to be the receiving end of the first shot from your enemy? Would you prefer to be armed with a missile that is 100 km longer than your enemy's missiles or would you prefer to be armed with a missile that is 100 km shorter than your enemy's missiles? I think you know the answers
Now realistically speaking, no one really knows how the radar systems of a Su-30MKM and a F-15SG compare to each other. But lets just say for argument's sake they are of equal capability(even though they are not because the F-15s have AESA technology). There is no way a tactical fighter radar can track 360 degrees at the same time hence there will always be "blind spots".
The RSAF operates AEW (airborne early warning) platforms eg. E-2C or the new G550. These aircraft are made to carry radars much larger and many times more powerful than what a tactical aircraft can be equipped with. Also, they have a 360 degree view of the airspace that extends both down and upwards. So this is how a BVR scenario may play out. F-15s are in the sky with AEW support with an equal number of Su-30s miles away. The AEW will definitely see the Su-30s way before they Suks can pick up the F-15s on the radar. AEW aircraft simple transmits information to the F-15s to maneuver around the Su-30s radar range, the F-15 will wait until they are on the suks six o'clock then fire at their behinds which may also be their "blind spot".
Even if you want to bring ground based radars into the picture, these radars are large and static, which means they are a primary target for strikes. An airborne platform is mobile which allows it to run away or maneuver around enemy aircraft. The US always bring their AWACS and E-2s when conducting air operations because the advantage is just too great to ignore.
So back to your original statement, yes I want to be able to fire the first shot and I know I will because I see further and I can maneuver around you.
There are no aircraft in service whether fighters, transports or trainers, which are not fit to fly safely due to having ''surpassed their use-by date''. The oldest fighters in service are the F-5E's, F-5F's and RF-5E's, which have been overhauled and still have a decent number of hours left.Is it safe to operate old airframes that have long surpassed their use-by date?
This had absolutely nothing to do with ''poor planning'' or ''management'' on the part of the RMAF but solely due to political interference. Unlike in Singapore, Malaysian defence procurement of big ticket items in the past has unfortunately, thanks to the political leadership, been based on other factors - namely industrial off-sets, transfers of technology and the state of bi-lateral ties - rather than achieving commonality, hence the decision to buy MiG-29's in 1993 and MKM's in 2002.Not too long ago they were ready to decommission the Mig-29 after only a decade or so of service. This just reeks of poor planning and management.
Last edited:
I have never heard of someone firing a missile from 175km away from the target (and getting a kill), even if in practice. There's so much time for the target to go evasive or launch counter-measures.
I will admit, I do not understand ballistic arc but from the explanations provided, it adds another level of complexity that makes sense.
Further, Woofy's point about the level of networking within the RSAF (and other modern air forces) provides yet another counter to a long range missile being undetected for long. Perhaps you might get the first missile off, but its kind of useless if the enemy can see it (and you) coming and counter it.
I will admit, I do not understand ballistic arc but from the explanations provided, it adds another level of complexity that makes sense.
Further, Woofy's point about the level of networking within the RSAF (and other modern air forces) provides yet another counter to a long range missile being undetected for long. Perhaps you might get the first missile off, but its kind of useless if the enemy can see it (and you) coming and counter it.
This incident has been fully investigated and those reponsible were brought to court. No ground crew were involved as the theft occured at a facility where they were sent for overhaul.There was also the stolen F-5 engines scandal in 2008, how can you trust your own ground crew to maintain these aircraft if they can steal and ship TWO engines to South America long before anyone has discovered the crime.
In recent years, the MAF has come under increased public and media scrutiny in a way it never has before. Barring a number of issues that are deemed OPSEC, the media has a free hand in reporting widely, sometimes in a mis-informed manner, about the MAF without interference. Whilst this has lead to a positve development in that there is an increase in public awareness towards defence, unfortunalty certain issues involving the MAF are blown out of proportion by various political parties and NGO's.
Last edited:
So now the argument is F-15SG+ AEW vs Su30MKM with no AEW instead of F-15SG vs Su30MKM?Ok let me make this easier for you to understand. Lets just say the Russian BVR missile has a longer range than an AIM-120. Lets also assume that both use the same guidance technology ie It requires a radar lock-on from the launch aircraft to guide itself to the target until the terminal phase where the missile's own radar takes over allowing the launch aircraft to scoot away aka fire and forget.
Now realistically speaking, no one really knows how the radar systems of a Su-30MKM and a F-15SG compare to each other. But lets just say for argument's sake they are of equal capability(even though they are not because the F-15s have AESA technology). There is no way a tactical fighter radar can track 360 degrees at the same time hence there will always be "blind spots".
The RSAF operates AEW (airborne early warning) platforms eg. E-2C or the new G550. These aircraft are made to carry radars much larger and many times more powerful than what a tactical aircraft can be equipped with. Also, they have a 360 degree view of the airspace that extends both down and upwards. So this is how a BVR scenario may play out. F-15s are in the sky with AEW support with an equal number of Su-30s miles away. The AEW will definitely see the Su-30s way before they Suks can pick up the F-15s on the radar. AEW aircraft simple transmits information to the F-15s to maneuver around the Su-30s radar range, the F-15 will wait until they are on the suks six o'clock then fire at their behinds which may also be their "blind spot".
Even if you want to bring ground based radars into the picture, these radars are large and static, which means they are a primary target for strikes. An airborne platform is mobile which allows it to run away or maneuver around enemy aircraft. The US always bring their AWACS and E-2s when conducting air operations because the advantage is just too great to ignore.
So back to your original statement, yes I want to be able to fire the first shot and I know I will because I see further and I can maneuver around you.
Even if that is true, AEW is a big platform that would shine up the sky and got pickered up by the Su30MKM miles away. The AEW is going to be a target for Su30 to attack and F-15SG will have to defend it by facing Su30 heads on or maneuver behind the Su30MKM (without picked up by ground based radar and SAM sites?). In this scenario, the Su30 with its longer missiles still got the upper hand by firing its first shots heads on and let the F-15SG does the turning and soaking up the fuel or the F-15SG will have to turn and dodge the SAM before it have the chance to fire behind the Su30MKM.
Like someone said that the R-77 is a big missile that can only hit "bomber", even if its true (more likely not), when I can fire the first shot and let my enemy does the turning and soaking up their fuels, I will still have the advantage before I even consider using my medium range missiles.
You know there are counter measures against missiles, so if your su-30 can fire a missile from that long a range, chances are it can fire only 1 or two of these and they can be neutrilized.So now the argument is F-15SG+ AEW vs Su30MKM with no AEW instead of F-15SG vs Su30MKM?
Even if that is true, AEW is a big platform that would shine up the sky and got pickered up by the Su30MKM miles away. The AEW is going to be a target for Su30 to attack and F-15SG will have to defend it by facing Su30 heads on or maneuver behind the Su30MKM (without picked up by ground based radar and SAM sites?). In this scenario, the Su30 with its longer missiles still got the upper hand by firing its first shots heads on and let the F-15SG does the turning and soaking up the fuel or the F-15SG will have to turn and dodge the SAM before it have the chance to fire behind the Su30MKM.
Like someone said that the R-77 is a big missile that can only hit "bomber", even if its true (more likely not), when I can fire the first shot and let my enemy does the turning and soaking up their fuels, I will still have the advantage before I even consider using my medium range missiles.
Secondly in my view, an air craft with an AESA radar is better than an air craft with a non-AESA radar, if you are comparing only platform vs platform that is.
Would you take my words seriously if I tell you that I would be the receiving end of your first missile shots that I would have to do all kind of turning and running or throwing out all kind of counter measures before I can even think about firing back at you? And when I was busy with dodging the first two missiles of yours, you would probably close in and give me two more of your medium range missiles.You know there are counter measures against missiles, so if your su-30 can fire a missile from that long a range, chances are it can fire only 1 or two of these and they can be neutrilized.
Secondly in my view, an air craft with an AESA radar is better than an air craft with a non-AESA radar, if you are comparing only platform vs platform that is.
An AESA radar is touted as a radar that is immune to jamming (at what distant?) but would an AESA-equiped fighter render this fighter undectable from enemy's fighter radar?
Just for argument's sake, I made the 2 aircraft's radar equal in performance. If you really think that russian radar systems are ahead in development then you are sorely mistaken. Of course the AEW platform is bigger but you have not read the post thoroughly nor understood the content. It is bigger because it has to carry more sensor and radar equipment and a whole crew to monitor the battlespace. Therefore,So now the argument is F-15SG+ AEW vs Su30MKM with no AEW instead of F-15SG vs Su30MKM?
Even if that is true, AEW is a big platform that would shine up the sky and got pickered up by the Su30MKM miles away. The AEW is going to be a target for Su30 to attack and F-15SG will have to defend it by facing Su30 heads on or maneuver behind the Su30MKM (without picked up by ground based radar and SAM sites?). In this scenario, the Su30 with its longer missiles still got the upper hand by firing its first shots heads on and let the F-15SG does the turning and soaking up the fuel or the F-15SG will have to turn and dodge the SAM before it have the chance to fire behind the Su30MKM.
Like someone said that the R-77 is a big missile that can only hit "bomber", even if its true (more likely not), when I can fire the first shot and let my enemy does the turning and soaking up their fuels, I will still have the advantage before I even consider using my medium range missiles.
its detection range is miles longer then whatever ANY fighter in a world can produce, you do know where a fighter's radar is right? In the nose? So please can you explain how a Su-30 is going to pick up an AEW on its radar when the AEW aircraft can simply stay further away and maneuver out from the Su-30s radar range.
If you still cannot understand the concept then you really are just lying to yourself.
To be fair to woofy1985, he was just explaining why having an AEW would provide one side with a number of vital advantages over another side who has no AEW. There are reasons why air arms operate AEW aircraft and why they are called force-multipliers.So now the argument is F-15SG+ AEW vs Su30MKM with no AEW instead of F-15SG vs Su30MKM?
You are assuming that just because the R-77 on paper may have a longer range than the AMRAAAM, the Su-30 will be able to detect a target and take a long range shot. As has been explained by others, there are so many factors at play here.In this scenario, the Su30 with its longer missiles still got the upper hand by firing its first shots heads on and let the F-15SG does the turning and soaking up the fuel or the F-15SG will have to turn and dodge the SAM before it have the chance to fire behind the Su30MKM.
S-61A4A Nuri <--- So this is still safe to fly?There are no aircraft in service whether fighters, transports or trainers, which are not fit to fly safely due to having ''surpassed their use-by date''. The oldest fighters in service are the F-5E's, F-5F's and RF-5E's, which have been overhauled and still have a decent number of hours left.
This had absolutely nothing to do with ''poor planning'' or ''management'' on the part of the RMAF but solely due to political interference. Unlike in Singapore, Malaysian defence procurement of big ticket items in the past has unfortunately, thanks to the political leadership, been based on other factors - namely industrial off-sets, transfers of technology and the state of bi-lateral ties - rather than achieving commonality, hence the decision to buy MiG-29's in 1993 and MKM's in 2002.
"Industry sources say Malaysia has encountered problems in obtaining spares for its 14 MiG-29s, and that maintenance has been an issue for a long while." from flight global.com
Keep looking around the web and you might find more articles.
So the government has a lack of funds and problems with spare parts, does that not impact safety of the equipment and operational readiness?
You have pointed out that the purchase of equipment has been influenced by political factors and interests. Isn't this the same as poor planning and management because the government isn't making sound decisions? Hasn't it resulted in the poor serviceability of the RMAF's combat aircraft? For example if you were not aware, they were having trouble procuring spare parts for the sukhois from russia and have or are planning to buy them from China who is illegally reproducing the Su-30 for their own armed forces.
The Malaysian government has long had a history of short sightedness, complacency and are sorely lacking in talented individuals to run the country. If the goverment is run like this, then the armed forces will be run the same way.
There is a big difference between aircraft mishaps due to having ''surpassed their use-by date'' [as you mentioned earlier] and aircraft crashing due to pilot error, bad wheather or other reasons. As I have made clear, there are no aircraft presently operated that have ''surpassed their use-by date'' ...S-61A4A Nuri <--- So this is still safe to fly?
And yes, the Nuri squadrons are still flying and have a heavy tasking being responsible for a number of military and non-military roles. If they were not safe to fly, the Nuri squadrons would be grounded.
The spares problem occured several years ago, was fully resolved and was due to one company being given a monopoly to supply spares. The decision to retire and replace the Fulcrums with an MRCA, for which a RFP has recently been issued, was made not because of problems in obtaining spares."Industry sources say Malaysia has encountered problems in obtaining spares for its 14 MiG-29s, and that maintenance has been an issue for a long while." from flight global.com.
You appear to be somewhat mis-informed. There are no plans to obtain parts from China, there never was and the RMAF has clarified this. The talks held with China concerning the MKM's was regarding possible help with developing a training and mantainance syllabus/manual, similiar to what the Indian Air Force has done for the RMAF. What trouble were they having sourcing parts from Russia? BTW the contract for the MKM's included a 2 year supply of spares.For example if you were not aware, they were having trouble procuring spare parts for the sukhois from russia and have or are planning to buy them from China who is illegally reproducing the Su-30 for their own armed forces.
It doesn't concern me the least if you critcise the RMAF due to some flawed policies forced upon it or even if you have an axe to grind but the least you can do is get your fact rights. Or if unsure, you could have asked rather than adopt a ''know it all', condescending attitude.
Almost certainly, and I did make it very clear it was it was the fault of the government. You're under or trying to give the false and mis-leading impression that the RMAF is responsible, when I have already made clear that this is not the case.Isn't this the same as poor planning and management because the government isn't making sound decisions? Hasn't it resulted in the poor serviceability of the RMAF's combat aircraft?
An arrogant and ignorant statement which was totally uncalled for and unnecessary.The Malaysian government has long had a history of short sightedness, complacency and are sorely lacking in talented individuals to run the country.
Are you making a direct comparison with Singapore? You're obviously convinced that you and only you, know's best, and is in full possession of all the facts. This may be news to you, but running Malaysia, due to differences in size, a bigger population, as well as very different social and political factors, may be a wee bit different and harder than running Singapore. What works in Singapore might not work in Malaysia and vice versa.....
P.S. If you intend to have further personal attacks or perhaps a balanced disscussion on Malaysia and the RMAF, may I suggest you do it in the RMAF thread or via PM, as we have gone way off topic.
Last edited:
Mate - If the guy wasn't taking you seriously, it would be obvious. I don't see why you're getting so defensive unless its because several people have been pointing out multiple reasons why a Su-30 may not best a F15SG. You keep falling back to the same point - that getting the first shot means you win. As so many others have said, not really.Would you take my words seriously if I tell you that I would be the receiving end of your first missile shots that I would have to do all kind of turning and running or throwing out all kind of counter measures before I can even think about firing back at you? And when I was busy with dodging the first two missiles of yours, you would probably close in and give me two more of your medium range missiles.
An AESA radar is touted as a radar that is immune to jamming (at what distant?) but would an AESA-equiped fighter render this fighter undectable from enemy's fighter radar?
Unless you're a follower of Mahatir, Singapore and Malaysia are not at war. Should such a terrible thing happen, Singapore's strategy is mainly defensive. Maybe there's plans for a rapid strike on nearby bases to prevent their use as staging areas but I don't know. My dad, who served in the 80s, always wondered if there were plans for his unit to move into Johor in the event of war. He and his unit thought it made more sense to fight in JB than in SG.
What I do know is - RSAF assets (ground or air radar) WILL see any RMAF asset approaching Singapore. The range of a Hawkeye or a ground radar station exceeds that of any fighter craft's. They're simply more powerful.
Here's a realistic scenario. Your flight of Su-30s is detected approaching Singapore airspace. You might get radar lock and first shot at a flight of F15SGs, but soon you'll have SAMs coming at you. You and your target are both juking and attempting to lose the missiles. In the meantime, other RSAF fighter units are being directed or launched to the combat area.
Even if you were to throw every single RMAF combat fighter into this combat, the RSAF would win through (a) numerical superiority, even if half the air force were deployed overseas at the time of combat and (b) the presence of SAM batteries. The question of Su-30 vs F-15SG is a theoretical one that cannot happen because of the geography and strategy.
In regards to AESA radar, its resistance to jamming does not seem to be affected by distance. I might be wrong but the waves travel at the speed of light so any distance between long range combatants is negligible at the speed which those radar waves travel. Even if they were slower than speed of light, the waves are still fast enough to make distance irrelevant.
AESA radar makes detection by enemy radar more difficult so I would say, there's a good chance you might not be able to detect an enemy figher.