RMAF Future; need opinions

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Seems sales agent public opinion battle also happen in Malaysia. Building opinion through online defense enthusiasts sources, eventough will not directly influence decision maker, but in some condition perhaps help direct public opinion.

Reading this seems someone taking cues from Indian Bharat sites, perhaps someone else will counter with something from Pak-Def sites. After all this the South Korean FA-50 which come out as winner ;)

Sometimes it's entertaining watching 'sales campaign' like this. For sure there're some of this on Indonesian and Pinoy defense sites. Guess become defense buzzer also paid eventough perhaps not as much as socialite buzzer.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The “engine serviceability” issues the article mentions were actually because of the TBO of the RD-33s compared to other engines the RMAF was used to - in short the RMAF was flying its Fulcrums with more regularity than most other Fulcrum users or at roughly the same number of hours it was flying its Western fighters.

To get the fleet operational again all the RD-33s would have had to be sent back to Russia for overhauls. Although ATSC was certified to perform depot level maintenance after so many hours flown; it was not certified to perform RD-33 overhauls. After taking various factors into account it was felt that returning the fleet to service and upgrading it would not provide a good long term return of investment.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
P.S.

The article states that “most of the MKM avionics and electronic counter measures were either of Western European origin or Made in India”

The wing tip jamming pods and wing carried EW pods are Russian and the MAWS is Swedish/South Africa.

Sometimes it's entertaining watching 'sales campaign' like this.
HAL is desperate for its first export sale. The RMAF is that it desires a common airframe for both the LIFT and LCA requirement; to achieve commonality. The conundrum is that Platform A might be ideal as a LIFT but less so as a LCA and vice versa; trade offs/compromises will have to be made.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
issues the article mentions were actually because of the TBO of the RD-33s compared to other engines the RMAF was used to
Yes I understand about the problem with RD-33, and good probability that RMAF wants to avoid using that engine again. However Tejas is not the only contenders in RMAF LIFT/LCA that using GE 404. This article in my opinion clearly wrote by someone that have 'interest' with Tejas. Shown the strength of Tejas, highlight the problem of its rival, but at same time hide similar strength from other contenders.

Like I said it's smell more on sales agent article, just like some I saw in several defense enthusiasts sources, on Indonesian sites, Pinoy ones, or even Korean and Turkish ones. I'm not going to talk on Indian, Pakistan or Chinese ones, as it's clearly very toxic on nationalistic bravadoes on their own defense products strength.

Anyway I do hope RMAF choices going to narrow on either Tejas or FA-50. The Indian Airframes perhaps more optimal on LCA sides while the Korean ones have tendency toward LIFT side. However all of them try to work on the combined LIFT/LCA market, cause seems many AF demand one Airframe for both function. Efficiency for both function been done with one Airframe also happen on Turboprop Trainer/COIN function. After all most AF now aim on affordability.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
good probability that RMAF wants to avoid using that engine again.
The RMAF would actually want to avoid buying anything Russian; not because of the actual performance or efficacy of Russian stuff but because of certain inherent issues with buying and using Russian.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Yes I understand about the problem with RD-33, and good probability that RMAF wants to avoid using that engine again. However Tejas is not the only contenders in RMAF LIFT/LCA that using GE 404. This article in my opinion clearly wrote by someone that have 'interest' with Tejas. Shown the strength of Tejas, highlight the problem of its rival, but at same time hide similar strength from other contenders.

Like I said it's smell more on sales agent article, just like some I saw in several defense enthusiasts sources, on Indonesian sites, Pinoy ones, or even Korean and Turkish ones. I'm not going to talk on Indian, Pakistan or Chinese ones, as it's clearly very toxic on nationalistic bravadoes on their own defense products strength.

Anyway I do hope RMAF choices going to narrow on either Tejas or FA-50. The Indian Airframes perhaps more optimal on LCA sides while the Korean ones have tendency toward LIFT side. However all of them try to work on the combined LIFT/LCA market, cause seems many AF demand one Airframe for both function. Efficiency for both function been done with one Airframe also happen on Turboprop Trainer/COIN function. After all most AF now aim on affordability.
The funny thing of this article is that they completely ignore the fact that the HAL Tejas LCA has the most Israeli content of all the candidates.
As far as i know all Tejas LCA's have or the Elta EL/M-2032 or EL/M-2052 radars, while if Malaysia choose the KAI T-50 / TA-50, they still can have the AN/APG-67(V)4 radar as alternative. Besides that the Tejas Mark 1A will also be equipped with the Elta EL/L 8222WB wide band advanced SPJ pod already equipped on Su-30MKI fleet of IAF.

Looking to the air-to-air missiles, if i am not wrong, the Tejas is only tested with the R-73, Python-5 and Derby air-to-air missiles.

And as you said, KAI's candidate has also the GE F404 engine on board.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
The Hornets received an upgrade [new radios, IFF, cockpit layout, software, Sidewinder X, etc] a few years ago and will receive a full overhaul in Australia. Other improvements include a JDAM capability which was obtained a few years prior. A new simulator was also bought. Plans to upgrade the Hawks were ditched. LCAs will be bought instead.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

It's already few days old, and I don't know how reliable it is. However if this is true on whose bidding on RMAF LCA/LIFT program, then quite surprising RMAF still wants to entertaining MIG 35 option.

No matter how they're going to build MRO capabilities in Malaysia, still choosing MIG 35 will potentially provide another logistical problem that RMAF experience with MIG 29 or even with MKM.

I do still see the best option for Malaysia is FA-50 or even Indian Tejas. Commonality on engine with existing Hornet is one thing, also the potential trade deals with ROK and India will be more probable with Malaysia demand half of the value being trade with Palm Oil products.

Malaysia also can ask more deals with India considering they really want to find export market for Tejas. India being one of the biggest market for Palm Oil products will also have tendency on agreeing with Malaysian term.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I'm very suprised the Russians even bothered to offer the MiG-35 as the requirement calls for 18 aircraft, some configured as "LCAs" and some as "LIFTs" - the MiG-35 falls in neither category. Come to think of it, Gripen was previously offered although like the MiG-35 it's neither a"LCA" or a "LIFT". Some years ago when a tender was placed for a medium lift helicopter [the Cougar was eventually selected] for some reason the Chinook was offered.

Anyone is free to participate in the tender but the fact remains there is hardly any interest or appetite for a Russian platform, on the part of the poltical leadership or the RMAF. Just because a particular design has been offered doesn't mean there is actual interest in it.
 
Last edited:

koxinga

Active Member
Probably because MiG is desperate for a sale. They haven't made any sales since Egypt if I am not mistaken. If reports are to be believed, they even made an offer to the cash strapped Argentinians.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Maybe but I'm not sure about the accuracy of the article with regards to the companies which responded to the tender. I've seen the list, as it was issued months ago and the MiG-35 was not there.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I'm very suprised the Russians even bothered to offer the MiG-35 as the requirement calls for 18 aircraft, some configured as "LCAs" and some as "LIFTs" - the MiG-35 falls in neither category. Come to think of it, Gripen was previously offered although like the MiG-35 it's neither a"LCA" or a "LIFT".
Gripen could be called an LCA by modern standards, especially Gripen C, which was stil available the last I heard. That has essentially the same engine as the T/TA/FA-50 or Tejas.
 
Top