RMAF Future; need opinions

robsta83

The Wanderer
Multi Buying

kilo said:
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

The Wanderer
Hedging ones bets

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

New Member
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

Banned Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
kilo said:
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

New Member
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

New Member
mmmbop said:
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.
 
Last edited:

dreamwarrior73

New Member
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

New Member
dreamwarrior73 said:
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

New Member
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

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #52
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

New Member
Ding said:
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

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

Subangite

New Member
Awang se said:
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

New Member
Subangite said:
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

New Member
RMAF Hawk 108 crashed again

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:
 
Last edited:

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 
Top