RMAF Future; need opinions

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
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.

I am not an aviation expert by any means but I expect there are plenty of members who could provide a comprehensive answer to your question. I tend to see the Su-27/Su-30 as an equivalent of the F-15C/F-15E.

I don't particularly like Wikipedia as a source but, as a starting point it does give a good summary of both the Su-27 and the Su-30 variants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

Air Power Australia also has extensive articles on the Flanker variants. I know some members might suggest that there is some bias in APA's comparisons with Western fighters. Regardless of whether or not this is so the site is, IMO, a good source for info re the Su-27 and Su-30.

http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html

I would actually prefer an all Su-30MKM force for Malaysia. However a mix of Su-27SM single seaters and the two seat Su-30MKM long range multi role strike fighters might make sense. A number of countries seem to have opted for an Su-27/Su30 mix.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

qwerty223

New Member
I would actually prefer an all Su-30MKM force for Malaysia. However a mix of Su-27SM single seaters and the two seat Su-30MKM long range multi role strike fighters might make sense. A number of countries seem to have opted for an Su-27/Su30 mix.

Cheers
which country would have their AF apply a SUs mix?
 

qwerty223

New Member
Apart from Russia, China and Indonesia (in very small numbers at present) also operate variants of both the Su-27 and Su-30.

Cheers
Well, not really. Russia/China are updating with newer models, therefore it looks like a mix. Indonesia, not sure what are they up to, both models are not full operation too.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Well, not really. Russia/China are updating with newer models, therefore it looks like a mix. Indonesia, not sure what are they up to, both models are not full operation too.
Fair enough comment. I guess that what johngage was querying was whether the logistical problem of operating two totally different types (e.g. Su-30MKM/Super Hornet) could be reduced and money saved by having a mix of the two types, with the multi role Su-30MKM being supplemented by the simpler Su-27SM.

However, I come back to what I said before and that is that my personal preference for the RMAF would be an all Su-30MKM air combat force.

Cheers
 

Ding

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #346
iit's a great idea to have RMAF consolidate the combat structure to one or two types of aircraft. that said i dont enjoy the idea of having the SU-27SMs as the complement to the MKMs.

Although the MKMs are designated multirole aircraft, i still feel that it has a bias towards air to air superiority. i think it's because for all intent and purposes, it's an SU-27 at heart albeit modernised and upgraded in terms of capability. I think in terms of RMAF usage, i would prefer the Super Hornets as the complement to the MKMs as the SH is based on a strike aircraft. But the again, cost is an issue. :D
 

johngage

New Member
Fair enough comment. I guess that what johngage was querying was whether the logistical problem of operating two totally different types (e.g. Su-30MKM/Super Hornet) could be reduced and money saved by having a mix of the two types, with the multi role Su-30MKM being supplemented by the simpler Su-27SM.

However, I come back to what I said before and that is that my personal preference for the RMAF would be an all Su-30MKM air combat force.

Cheers
That's completely right, Tasman. Although, with hindsight maybe I should have said the SU-30KN, which is the Irkut corporation single seat version. It was offered to the RuAF but I think that they decided to opt for the SU-27SM instead, on the grounds of cost, although the SU-30KN is actually the more sophisticated version. Irkut being the same company that manufactured the SU-30MKM, I would think that the logistics would be greatly simplified.
 

johngage

New Member
iit's a great idea to have RMAF consolidate the combat structure to one or two types of aircraft. that said i dont enjoy the idea of having the SU-27SMs as the complement to the MKMs.

Although the MKMs are designated multirole aircraft, i still feel that it has a bias towards air to air superiority. i think it's because for all intent and purposes, it's an SU-27 at heart albeit modernised and upgraded in terms of capability. I think in terms of RMAF usage, i would prefer the Super Hornets as the complement to the MKMs as the SH is based on a strike aircraft. But the again, cost is an issue. :D
I agree with you Ding. I am actually a fan of the Super Hornet. It may not be as manuverable as the F-16, and lack the sheer power of the F-15, but what you have is an aircraft capable of flying sortie after sortie, night after night, bombing target after target, no matter what the weather. The problem as you rightly point as is cost (SU-30MKM is around $53-55 million and the FA-18F is around $95-$100 million). But the other problem is that I am not confident that the US will provide us with a model with the latest specifications (APG-79, Terminator, JDAM, AIM-9X/JHMCS, AIM-120C8 & ALQ-214). If this is the case then the Super Hornet will not be worth the price.

 

tphuang

Super Moderator
As mentionned before MKM is far more geared for A2A than multirole despite the fact it's twin-seated. For one, the airframe used by Knaapo (does mkk, su-35) is said to be stronger, more suited for A2G than IAPO (does mki/mkm...). And the other issue is that the Russians simply don't have much of a A2G portfolio to offer.
 

qwerty223

New Member
I agree with you Ding. I am actually a fan of the Super Hornet. It may not be as manuverable as the F-16, and lack the sheer power of the F-15, but what you have is an aircraft capable of flying sortie after sortie, night after night, bombing target after target, no matter what the weather. The problem as you rightly point as is cost (SU-30MKM is around $53-55 million and the FA-18F is around $95-$100 million). But the other problem is that I am not confident that the US will provide us with a model with the latest specifications (APG-79, Terminator, JDAM, AIM-9X/JHMCS, AIM-120C8 & ALQ-214). If this is the case then the Super Hornet will not be worth the price.

JDAM, etc, etc... needs a whole package of stuffs. 100 million will not include those.
Most of the new generation aircraft are multi-role and all weather. But non of them is "true multi-role". What to trade off should be considered.
There are reasons why the "Heavy" & "Light" combat aircraft exist. Simple maths here doesn't explain the situation.
 

johngage

New Member
As mentionned before MKM is far more geared for A2A than multirole despite the fact it's twin-seated. For one, the airframe used by Knaapo (does mkk, su-35) is said to be stronger, more suited for A2G than IAPO (does mki/mkm...). And the other issue is that the Russians simply don't have much of a A2G portfolio to offer.
That's a very interesting point and one that I was not aware of. With regard to A2G portfolio, would it be possible to integrate a non-Russian weapon onto the aircraft? If I am not mistaken, the avionics are 'open architecture protocol' allowing Western weapons to be used (subject to cost, of course). I recall an offer made to RMAF for the MBDA MICA to be integrated but it was turned down on the basis of cost. Would it be possible for bomb-kits such as the Denel Umbani to be integrated on the SU-30MKM?
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
That's a very interesting point and one that I was not aware of. With regard to A2G portfolio, would it be possible to integrate a non-Russian weapon onto the aircraft? If I am not mistaken, the avionics are 'open architecture protocol' allowing Western weapons to be used (subject to cost, of course). I recall an offer made to RMAF for the MBDA MICA to be integrated but it was turned down on the basis of cost. Would it be possible for bomb-kits such as the Denel Umbani to be integrated on the SU-30MKM?
I'm not sure really. I haven't heard of any non-Russian A2G weapons being integrated to any flankers. As for Denel products, I took a look, it didn't seem to be any better than what the Russians have.
 

Mike Powell

New Member
Finally, after years of waiting and some almost disruption, the Su-30 MKM has arrived. Perhaps we should expect to see those "girls" at the Merdeka Day.

So right now what Malaysian government should consider is the equipments' supply, since the MKM is consists of 3 different countries' avionic systems. And for the MiG-29's future, we'll see what happen.
 

qwerty223

New Member
iit's a great idea to have RMAF consolidate the combat structure to one or two types of aircraft. that said i dont enjoy the idea of having the SU-27SMs as the complement to the MKMs.

Although the MKMs are designated multirole aircraft, i still feel that it has a bias towards air to air superiority. i think it's because for all intent and purposes, it's an SU-27 at heart albeit modernised and upgraded in terms of capability. I think in terms of RMAF usage, i would prefer the Super Hornets as the complement to the MKMs as the SH is based on a strike aircraft. But the again, cost is an issue. :D
Well, the fact will be disappointing for your fantasy.

Non of the current aircraft name SU-27XX is on par with new comers.

Non of the JSC member has these approach. No problem if you keen to buy, but R&D funds and time should is to provide before a prototype is materialized. :D

A ONLY heavy strike fighter air force had never practice before, but I don't see Malaysia ready for such attempt.
 

AGRA

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
RMAF wants more deadly Hornets

NST Online
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Section/index_html?mysec=National
2007/06/01

RMAF wants more deadly Hornets

By : Adrian David

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/20070601075717/Article/pppull_index_html

A file picture of an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which Malaysia plans to acquire under the 10th Malaysia Plan. (Inset) RMAF chief Gen Datuk Seri Azizan Ariffin

KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal Malaysian Air Force aims to remain a deterrent force by having fifth generation fighters like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.
This will strengthen its capability in protecting the country’s maritime assets within the exclusive economic zone, including the vital oil and gas assets in the Spratly Islands and the Ambalat oil block off Borneo.

RMAF chief Gen Datuk Seri Azizan Ariffin said, budget willing, the procurement of such multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) could be done under the 10th Malaysia Plan (2010-2015).

"Failing which, we may increase the acquistion of MRCA like the Sukhoi Su-30MKM, 18 of which have already been procured," he said.

"The first two of the 18 Su-30MKM were handed over to the RMAF last week, while the remaining 16 will be delivered by the year’s end, in time for the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace exhibition."
Azizan said the Sukhois, ordered in 2003 at a cost of RM3.42 billion, would be based with the 11th squadron in Gong Kedak, Kelantan.

"To date, four pilots, two weapons sensor specialists, four engineers and 53 technical crew have completed training for three months in Russia.

"A second batch of crew will be sent to either Russia or India soon," he said at Wisma Pertahanan in Jalan Padang Tembak, in conjunction with the RMAF’s 49th anniversary today.

Azizan said the RMAF was also looking at stealth technology in the near future, to enhance its electronic and non-conventional warfare capability, especially in combating terrorism.

The acquisition of more Sukhois or Hornets will, however, not affect the operations of the existing 18 MiG-29N fighters, he added.

"Although a decade old, the MiG-29Ns are still very useful and can serve up to 30 years with proper maintenance and refurbishment.

"Our ultimate aim is to refurbish and upgrade our combat aircraft every 10 years to remain as a deterrent force, and enhance our surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities."

He said the decision to acquire a mixture of western and eastern bloc fighters was not only to satisfy political aspirations, but took into consideration factors like versatility, transfer of technology, cost, operational effectiveness, availability of spares, logistics support, crew training, the environment and weather.

As part of the RMAF’s modernisation programme, it would procure four Airbus A400M, 18 Pilatus PC-7 Mk II, ten Aermacchi MB-339CM and five unmanned aerial vehicles.

"We are refurbishing five F-5E and two RF-5 for air tactical reconnaissance, while there is a need for airborne early-warning-and-control aeroplanes and combat search-and-rescue helicopters

"We are also looking at replacing nine of the BAE Systems Hawks that crashed so that we can continue operating with 28 jets," Azizan said.

Two of the A400M transport aeroplanes will be delivered in 2013 and another two a year later, while the MB-339s will be delivered from February 2009, and the UAVs from next year.

"The A400M will also double up as an air tanker, taking over the air-to-air refuelling of the long-range fighter jets from the KC-130 Hercules," he said.

On another note, Azizan said the RMAF spent nearly RM6 million last year to carry out humanitarian and relief missions in Solo and Yogyakarta in Indonesia, and Timor Leste.

"A large part of the defence budget is also spent annually on bilateral and multilateral exercises. This is in addition to the ‘Eyes in the Sky’ combined maritime air patrols over the Straits of Malacca."

Among the exercises involving the RMAF are the Cope Taufan and CARAT with the United States, Air Thamal with Thailand, Latgabma Elang Malindo with Indonesia, and the Bersama Shield, Bersama Lima, Bersama Padu and Suman Protector with Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore under the Five-Power Defence Arrangement.

OK so now Malaysia wants E/F Block IIs and probably F-35As from this story, after having just acquired Su-30MKMs. But I thought according to Air Power Australia and its supporters that the Su-30MKM was far superior to these two US weapon systems? Can Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon explain what's going on? Or their DefenceTalk familiars "Occum" and "Ozzy Blizzard"? Surely the RMAF isn't also the victim of this vast 'conspiracy' of 'incompetence' articulated by APA to explain why the RAAF isn't following their proposed force structures? Please explain...
 

johngage

New Member
I would have thought that its because the SU-30MKM's will be used for the air superiority role and the FA-18E/F's will be used for ground/maritime strike.
 

qwerty223

New Member
I would have thought that its because the SU-30MKM's will be used for the air superiority role and the FA-18E/F's will be used for ground/maritime strike.
Probably same reason why there is destroyers and there is frigates. Even you own a bus, u will not drive it to shopping.
 

AGRA

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Actually, the answer lies in the political thinking of the Malaysian Govt rather than any aspect of Australian acquisition policy.

Just think of the impact of operating aircraft of your potential adversary on C4I and you'd get your answer.
Well firstly it’s the RMAF looking at buying the Super Hornet not the Government. C4I? Please just because you own the same make of mobile phone doesn’t mean you receive someone else’s phone calls…

Plus Malaysia’s going to war with the US and/or Australia is ridiculous enough to make it as a side story in a Tom Clancy book ;-) Malaysia’s no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3 threats are Singapore, China and Indonesia. If there is a no. 4 its Thailand over the broiling Islamic insurrection along their border with Malaysia. None of these nations operate Block II Super Hornets nor are ever likely to.

But assuming that a Block II Super Hornet armed RMAF was to end up in some conflict with the USN and/or RAAF they would only garner the advantage of the weapon system’s capability and insight into the exact performance of their opponents (neutered by vice versa) not some access to their opponents C4I system because they wouldn’t have the right IFF, TDL and other access codes.

I would have thought that its because the SU-30MKM's will be used for the air superiority role and the FA-18E/F's will be used for ground/maritime strike.
The statement by the RMAF clearly shows they are thinking of the Block II Super Hornet and F-35A as a ‘Multi-Role Combat Aircraft’ (MRCA) not just as an air-to-ground platform, similarly the Su-30MKM is not just seen as an air-to-air platform.

Probably same reason why there is destroyers and there is frigates. Even you own a bus, u will not drive it to shopping.
You’ve obviously never been to war. It’s hard to convince someone to use an inferior weapon when a better one is available.

“Don’t worry mate the Su-30 is good enough for those Thai F-16As you don’t need the Block II Super Hornet…”

Quite simply the only answer to this question is the RMAF see the Block II Super Hornet and F-35A as a superior MRCA to the Su-30MKM and are trying to convince their government to pay the cost and political premium to buy American over Russian. Another nail in the coffin of the APA’s mud-slinging against the Block II Super Hornet and F-35A.
 
Top