RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Oh... I was mistaken then.
: But, whether RMAF have/had R-77 is still a myth until today, never give an official admit, so where does the "not been satisfactory" come from?
Anyways, AIM-120 does not has any replacement if according to western propaganda.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Although it is ridicules to "fitted but not fitted with", yet I still don't have confidence to confirm whether the Adder exist. I read in somewhere that Migs lost terribly in BVR scenario against radar upgraded Harriers in one of the join exercise, state here for a reference, may had been a rumor tho.
BTW, SIPRI record is not 100% correct, at least, in the case for Malaysia. I am sure it were Igla instead of Igla-1. I even had a picture of a dude holding a Igla luncher on his shoulder in an exhibition. For your knowledge, both missiles don't share luncher.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Limited budget "forcing ones hand" often explains apparent "incoherence". RAAF often train with RMAF operators and know how capable they are. They speak very highly of them in fact...
It may be a language thing but I don't quite understand what you're saying here.
My point was: people in this debate point to Malaysia's Su-30 acquisition and use this as a basis for justifying GREATER capability being urgently required within RAAF.
They base this on how superior they think these aircraft are compared to Super Hornet's on a platform v platform basis. They don't often put caveats on this argument and rarely include an assessment of strike strike capabilityor dismiss it entirely as lacking importance.
I was merely pointing out the incongruenity of an SU-30 operator wanting the Super Hornet IF the SU was actually as superior as they like to claim it is.
Apparently Malaysia is sufficiently satisfied with US and "European" support arrangements to operate the F/A-18D's and Hawk 200 series fighters, but this support will magically disappear if the RMAF were to acquire it's acknowledged preferred strike fighter: the Super Hornet.
It's illogical and done deliberately in a vain attempt to support flawed theory.
That's why I said "supposedly" !Oh... I was mistaken then.
But, whether RMAF have/had R-77 is still a myth until today, never give an official admit, so where does the "not been satisfactory" come from?
I'm afraid I can't go into where I got this piece of info from... Ok. Most probably I mistaken what you meant earlier.
BTW, can you explain this sentence?
"Apparently Malaysia is sufficiently satisfied with US and "European" support arrangements to operate the F/A-18D's and Hawk 200 series fighters, but this support will magically disappear if the RMAF were to acquire it's acknowledged preferred strike fighter: the Super Hornet. "
Thanks
The RSAF`s F16s are indeed equipped with the Python 4/5s because you can easily find pictures of the RSAF F16s Blk 50/52s with the accompanying system. According to reports you can find online, the RSAF purchased several hundreds(>450 i think) of the missile. Janes reported that the Derby was sold to an Asian country close to Israel. The chief speculation has always been Singapore. You can`t find many countries in Asia with exceptional ties to Israel. If the Indians had got them, the world would have already knew about it. They`ve got nothing to hide as far as sensitivities are concerned.
The USAF`s decision to bring the Amraams over had nothing to do the RMAFs choice of weaponry. I do not mean to condescend. I know that the RSAF was not as much worried about the RMAF or the Indonesians air force then(or now)as compared to something else cropping up in the eastern end of the South China Sea.
The Amraams were released to both Thailand and Singapore from Guam to maintain the balance(or help the US in so doing)in SEA against a rising giant; China.
Singapore has purchased more Amraams since then including a recent order of 200 more missiles to accompany the 12 F-15SGs. I expect more to be purchased as the RSAF exercises the option for 8 more F15SGs plus future batches of F-15SGs.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
People have suggested the Americans would not adequately support the Malaysians and allow them to fully operate the Super Hornet, if the RMAF chose to acquire it.
I was pointing out the irony of the current situation with Malaysia's advanced "D" model Hornets and Hawk fighters and wondering why this situation would "magically change" if Malaysia chose a more advanced and more reliable American fighter...
You may not mean to, but you seem to be saying the Hawks are American.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I referred earlier to European support. I simply forgot to add it again.
Hawks of course are almost entirely English...
OK. Thanks!
And yet despite all the armchair warriors who insist the SU-30 is SO much more capable than the Super Hornet, the worlds newest SU-30 operator, still wants to acquire the Super Hornet.
Seems a bit incongrous doesn't it? Is RMAF entirely corrupt and incompetent too? Oh wait, it's BOUGHT the SU-30 so it can't be. Can it?
Yes, the US sets VERY high requests on it's customers, don't build nuclear weapons and don't invade your neighbours. Damn me. How could any reasonable country comply with that???
Ah yes, same old pattern AD, you don't like it so therefore you attack. Pretty weak.
Well, if they decided to keep 3 different role sqd, then will most probably replace by new MiGs. If they to cut down complex, either one of them Hornet or Fulcrum will win the next bid.
I think it makes a lot of sense for a small airforce to standardise on as few types as possible so an all Flanker force for the RMAF has much to commend it. Perhaps Malaysia could look at Australia as an example to follow. The RAAF has a requirement for about 100 fighter aircraft and its preferred option is a single type (F-35A). Its second preference is for a two aircraft mix (FA-18F/F-35A). The RAAF is a very experienced force and, IMO, the fact that it is not considering more than two types of fighter in its air combat mix provides a clear example to less experienced airforces of similar or smaller size.
Cheers
Completely agree ! 3 types for a small airforce is a logistical nightmare. The only reservation I would have about an all SU-30MKM force would be on the basis of cost. I thought that an SU-27SM or a SU-30KN could be the low end of a SU-30MKM mix, similar to the Australian FA-18F/F-35A hi-lo mix. Tasman, do you know the differences between the various versions of the SU-27 and SU-30? I find it extremely difficult to follow the various versions or was wondering if anyone could explain it in a concise manner.