weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
60 must be wrong
US Air Force is around 200 hours a year and this will increase if a squadron is going deployed or might see action. It's normal to work up a squadron just before deployment like double or tripling the flight hours. I would agree with Tebuan that 60 hours isn't enough to maintain proficiency.
US Air Force is around 200 hours a year and this will increase if a squadron is going deployed or might see action. It's normal to work up a squadron just before deployment like double or tripling the flight hours. I would agree with Tebuan that 60 hours isn't enough to maintain proficiency.
weasel1962
New Member
Re: Airtime
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Mr Ignorant
New Member
More of worrying read really. The RMAF really needs to beef up on flight hours and training. I would have imagined that is the cheapest option compared to buying new airplanes.
But then again, Malaysian military procurement beggars belief sometimes. They could have done well by placing multiple orders for Sukhois, increasing the number up to 60 or 70 over a 10 year period or done the same with F/A 18s over a 10 year period.
Either way the inventory is very small now. A handful of F/A 18s, 16 Mig 29s and a further 18 Su 30s. These are the number aircraft in the inventory tasked to defend the nation. Some 40 aircraft altogether.
I don't really regard the Hawk 200s as an Air Superiority fighter and I don't know why we bought them in the first place.
Who says small is beautiful? I reckon the RMAF will need to have at least a full inventory of 90 - 100 fighter aircraft to be viable as an airforce. We're short by at least 60. In reality, we only have 30 Air Superiority Fighters fully operational now, discounting the Hawks and the ancient F5s, and we're not discussing how many of those 30 are fitted with radars.
30, really, it's a cause for some concern. The figure is a little over one squadron and when we get the final batch of Sukhois, the number would be the usual complement for 2 squadrons.
I just don't know sometimes. Compared to Singapore, we fare badly. The RSAF now has some 60 plus F16s and a good number of F5s, totalling 100 airworthy fighters. And the Eagles haven't arrived yet.
This is a reality check. Anyone who tells me that the RMAF is well equipped now, has a good sense of humour.
But then again, Malaysian military procurement beggars belief sometimes. They could have done well by placing multiple orders for Sukhois, increasing the number up to 60 or 70 over a 10 year period or done the same with F/A 18s over a 10 year period.
Either way the inventory is very small now. A handful of F/A 18s, 16 Mig 29s and a further 18 Su 30s. These are the number aircraft in the inventory tasked to defend the nation. Some 40 aircraft altogether.
I don't really regard the Hawk 200s as an Air Superiority fighter and I don't know why we bought them in the first place.
Who says small is beautiful? I reckon the RMAF will need to have at least a full inventory of 90 - 100 fighter aircraft to be viable as an airforce. We're short by at least 60. In reality, we only have 30 Air Superiority Fighters fully operational now, discounting the Hawks and the ancient F5s, and we're not discussing how many of those 30 are fitted with radars.
30, really, it's a cause for some concern. The figure is a little over one squadron and when we get the final batch of Sukhois, the number would be the usual complement for 2 squadrons.
I just don't know sometimes. Compared to Singapore, we fare badly. The RSAF now has some 60 plus F16s and a good number of F5s, totalling 100 airworthy fighters. And the Eagles haven't arrived yet.
This is a reality check. Anyone who tells me that the RMAF is well equipped now, has a good sense of humour.
Last edited:
Malaysian military procurement
Mr Ignorant I'm interested in your countries air force but don't know much about the government and on how it buys military aircraft. I'll start with a few basic questions if you can answer thanks in advance.
1. Can your government/air force afford to buy more aircraft currently?
2. Has the Air Force released any set long term plans on which path there headed down? Like deployment, new aircraft, advance trainers, weapons purchases, etc
3. Do you feel your Air Force is run correctly? What I mean is stuff like are pilots and maintenance crews being trained before new aircraft arrive? Have poor choices been made?
4. Is your pilot pool increasing?
5. Can I assume since since your country has oil that it can afford to purchase military equipment? I don't mean to be rude I don't know much about your government.
6. Which nearby country or countries is Malaysia most friendly with?
7. Would Malaysia ever buy Chinese aircraft?
Your country interests me because of the three main fighter types it operates it's rare for one country to have Fulcrums and Hornets to begin with and then order high end Flankers on top of it.
Mr Ignorant I'm interested in your countries air force but don't know much about the government and on how it buys military aircraft. I'll start with a few basic questions if you can answer thanks in advance.
1. Can your government/air force afford to buy more aircraft currently?
2. Has the Air Force released any set long term plans on which path there headed down? Like deployment, new aircraft, advance trainers, weapons purchases, etc
3. Do you feel your Air Force is run correctly? What I mean is stuff like are pilots and maintenance crews being trained before new aircraft arrive? Have poor choices been made?
4. Is your pilot pool increasing?
5. Can I assume since since your country has oil that it can afford to purchase military equipment? I don't mean to be rude I don't know much about your government.
6. Which nearby country or countries is Malaysia most friendly with?
7. Would Malaysia ever buy Chinese aircraft?
Your country interests me because of the three main fighter types it operates it's rare for one country to have Fulcrums and Hornets to begin with and then order high end Flankers on top of it.
No disrespect, but I feel you have aptly named yourself !
: The Hawks were bought for some very obvious reasons.
#1. NO Pilot, no matter how good he is can move from newly qualified on a turboprop plane, straight into fast jets!
The Hawk is one of the worlds best known jet trainers, & is in service with at least 16 air forces. In addition.... well take a look at this link below..
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/
(Extracted from the link above...)
"HAWK 200
The Hawk 200 is a single-seat, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft for air defence and ground attack missions. On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refueling."
#2. By using the Hawks & the F5's to do the majority of the annual flying hours, it actually cuts down on costs of maintenance & allows greater serviceability of the bigger jets.
#3. By using the Hawks (as described in the role above) gives the RMAF a 2nd tier, meaning greater coverage of assets to handle all occasions (no where in the extract does it call the Hawk an air superiority fighter, but states that it's capable of many other roles).
It also gives the RMAF equipment identical or in some cases slightly better than some of their close allies in the Asia/Pacific Rim. Doing this helps to put them on a par with these nations, helping to maintain a "balance of power" in the region.
It should be noted that in the scale of things across the globe, that the Royal Malaysian Armed Forces, while "juvenile" in comparison to many of the "old world" Military forces, has adopted a programmed / well balanced approach at how it expands / operates / procures new equipment.
To many individuals who work within the defence Industry (myself included), we see it is an example for others, that shows how to maintain your forces on a limited budget, while trying to grow & expand.
Systems Adict
totally agreed with this one!
Mr Ignorant
New Member
I see it as an example of how to minimise air superiority, while employing stopgap excuses. I disagree only because history contradicts you.
With that kind of thinking, why don't we just have 10 air superiority fighters with the view of decommissioning these like New Zealand?
Your views are questionable and somewhat suspect.
With that kind of thinking, why don't we just have 10 air superiority fighters with the view of decommissioning these like New Zealand?
Your views are questionable and somewhat suspect.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
Nothing what you've just wrote asserts any point I made earlier.No disrespect, but I feel you have aptly named yourself !
The Hawks were bought for some very obvious reasons.
#1. NO Pilot, no matter how good he is can move from newly qualified on a turboprop plane, straight into fast jets!
The Hawk is one of the worlds best known jet trainers, & is in service with at least 16 air forces. In addition.... well take a look at this link below..
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/
(Extracted from the link above...)
"HAWK 200
The Hawk 200 is a single-seat, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft for air defence and ground attack missions. On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refueling."
#2. By using the Hawks & the F5's to do the majority of the annual flying hours, it actually cuts down on costs of maintenance & allows greater serviceability of the bigger jets.
#3. By using the Hawks (as described in the role above) gives the RMAF a 2nd tier, meaning greater coverage of assets to handle all occasions (no where in the extract does it call the Hawk an air superiority fighter, but states that it's capable of many other roles).
It also gives the RMAF equipment identical or in some cases slightly better than some of their close allies in the Asia/Pacific Rim. Doing this helps to put them on a par with these nations, helping to maintain a "balance of power" in the region.
It should be noted that in the scale of things across the globe, that the Royal Malaysian Armed Forces, while "juvenile" in comparison to many of the "old world" Military forces, has adopted a programmed / well balanced approach at how it expands / operates / procures new equipment.
To many individuals who work within the defence Industry (myself included), we see it is an example for others, that shows how to maintain your forces on a limited budget, while trying to grow & expand.
Systems Adict
Where is the parity? Against whom? Where in the grand scheme of things is the balance struck?
In comparison to Thailand and Singapore, the peninsula is sandwiched between two comparatively Superior Airforces. In fact, hypothetically, in a conflict scenario with these two, the RMAF can be decimated in 6 hours.
Are you thinking that we should minimise these to 2 hours?
That sounds well balanced.
"
Thanks for your reply to my comments (Post #669). I feel that discussions like this help to make topics worthwhile & allow others to see how differences of opinion, rather than being a direct attack at individuals is actually the process of explaining how we think about a subject & actually allows further discussions to grow from the topic.
However, reading Post #670 directly following Post #669, I get the impression that you're looking for a fight (metaphorically speaking, of course).
Your opinion on the state of the RMAF is very negative one. While personally not being Malay, or derived from any of the populous of the country, it does give me the ability to make the comments of an outsider looking in, hopefully giving a balanced view or comparison with other states within the Asia/Pacific rim.
Your thoughts on the size of the RMAF & how you see things progressing are totally inaccurate. Your govt's planning processes & methodology of growing & improving the countries armed forces is, & has been for the last 8 or 9 growth plans, well thought out & has pulled your nations forces from a dumping ground for 2nd hand equipment, to a country who can afford to buy new & is now a sought after partner to sell new material to.
If anything, I made the earlier statements about Malaysia being an example, as all decisions on the procurement of equipment has been done so without detriment to either the population of the country, or the armed forces.
Budgets are well thought out & the procurement of material is done so that new equipment is purchased in such a way that it is an improvement on what the armed forces has, while being complimentary (giving added value by being able to adapt to different roles, that the armed forces has not yet the ability to do).
This balance allows Malaysia to continue to improve it's ability to defend itself (& it's neighbors!), while not being overbearing & helping maintain a "neutral balance" with it's allies in the area.
These abilities mean that while it continues to improve it's ability to defend itself from "enemies", it is not seen as overbearing, or a bully.
I can understand your comparison with NZ, but to be honest, that's like comparing Malaysia to the US ! Both parties are not equal, the ability of the armed forces is not equal, the size of the population & the %-age of the GDP is not equal. I could go on, but the main difference between Malaysia & NZ is how the govt sees the military.
NZ's old govt seen it's armed forces as "a drain on a very limited budget", trying to protect 10's of 1,000's of miles of coast line, defend it's EEZ & the nation from threats. It therefore HAD TO compromise what it could do. The only way this was perceived as being do-able, was to sacrifice certain aspects of the Military. The bean counters took over, examined expenditure within the armed forces, saw that the maintenance & upkeep of the fighter force was the biggest drain & slashed the budget, thus destroying a large portion of the NZ nations ability to defend itself.
This decision was made with some thought, as NZ also knew that it would have to beef up it's ability to defend it's coastline & EEZ.
The "fruits" of this has been Project Protector (being discussed in great depth within the Naval Forums).
As an outsider looking in, I don't see the Malaysian govt taking this stance. To end up in a similar situation to NZ would probably mean cutting the budget for the RMAF for the next 5 years & selling all their aircraft.
Quite literally it would be madness for them to do so & is not something that is going to happen, thus blowing your thoughts of comparing NZ AF with the RMAF completely outta the water !!
In addition, while the RMAF is the main point of discussion, you must see that it isn't the be all & end all. The AF is just a spoke in the wheel of your nations defence programme. Yes, you decimate the airforce, it takes a big chunk of your nations ability to defend itself away, but that doesn't mean it is defence-less !
A nations defence ability is intertwined across all it's services, from long range air detection, naval force projection (using subs & the radar abilities of it's Frigates & corvettes to relay information to look at the larger tactical picture, while also having the ability to launch missiles at incoming A/C & surface vessels), to the ability of the Army to repel those who think they can just land on your beaches & walk into the capital!
Please take the time to read thru this reply more than once & see that your nation is currently improving its ability to become the nation you can be proud of.
Your perceptions that your country should blow the budget on new A/C , so that you can take out a big stick & beat those around you, should take a back seat.
At present, yes there are threats & perceived threats in the region which require your nation to continue to be strong, so that it is ready to defend itself & its "sovereign lands & resources" on all fronts (land, sea & air), but the balanced approach, with the open hand of friendship & smile upon the face, should always be used first, rather than trying to out think & out gun a neighbour.
Your thoughts, please....
Systems Adict
Last edited:
Mr Ignorant
New Member
I am going to refrain from attacking you personally, as I have done with most. It's the kind of message you put out that annoys me.
In addition, while the RMAF is the main point of discussion, you must see that it isn't the be all & end all. The AF is just a spoke in the wheel of your nations defence programme. Yes, you decimate the airforce, it takes a big chunk of your nations ability to defend itself away, but that doesn't mean it is defence-less !
The RSAF in comparison has 100 plus airworthy fighters, at this moment. Can you explain, why for a small country, Singapore has a much, much larger need for a bigger airforce compared to it's neighbours?
As an outsider looking in, I don't see the Malaysian govt taking this stance. To end up in a similar situation to NZ would probably mean cutting the budget for the RMAF for the next 5 years & selling all their aircraft.
Quite literally it would be madness for them to do so & is not something that is going to happen, thus blowing your thoughts of comparing NZ AF with the RMAF completely outta the water !!
In addition, while the RMAF is the main point of discussion, you must see that it isn't the be all & end all. The AF is just a spoke in the wheel of your nations defence programme. Yes, you decimate the airforce, it takes a big chunk of your nations ability to defend itself away, but that doesn't mean it is defence-less !
Well as an insider looking out, this stance is very well a possibility now, given that at this moment we have, operationally speaking, 30 combat aircraft on the ground. It is already madness to have this figure in the RMAF, and your arguments on this fails to convince me. And yes, comparing the NZ with the MAF, may seem bizarre to the most pedantic, but the pedantic are far too short sighted to see the "bigger picture", in terms of geography and Air Superiority. We Malaysians simply need a couple score of more fighter aircraft to assure some parity, and I mean parity, not some self serving rhetoric like "well balanced approach".
And as for defence-less, in a conflict scenario, assuming that you are more or less read in modern warfare, a traditional "blitzkrieg" approach would bring Malaysia to it's knees. The Air Force would be decimated in a day or so, and the bombing could be taken against very valuable economic structures, like airports, highways, dams, factories, cities, and naval ports. In terms of politics, the chips are down, and no matter how big the ground and naval forces, their impact and effectiveness (logistics and supplies bombed out) has been minimised. This simply means the government of the day, assuming it's UMNO and it's alliance must negotiate concessions. And we're not talking about a loss of face.
And for Budgets, you for one don't have a clue how this works in a rentier state like Malaysia, as would most outsiders. It maybe the case that some Budgets are disproportionate for certain economic projects, but Malaysia has always had oodles of money to spend on projects resembling the elephantine. The Budget for our Air Force could always be increased, trebled or quadrupled in any given year, and we could certainly afford to buy F/A 18s and F-35s if we ever were pressed for the need. It's just that we know ways on how to create demand for a particular budget.
So please, spare your lectures on limited budgets for countries like Zimbabwe.
In addition, while the RMAF is the main point of discussion, you must see that it isn't the be all & end all. The AF is just a spoke in the wheel of your nations defence programme. Yes, you decimate the airforce, it takes a big chunk of your nations ability to defend itself away, but that doesn't mean it is defence-less !
The RSAF in comparison has 100 plus airworthy fighters, at this moment. Can you explain, why for a small country, Singapore has a much, much larger need for a bigger airforce compared to it's neighbours?
As an outsider looking in, I don't see the Malaysian govt taking this stance. To end up in a similar situation to NZ would probably mean cutting the budget for the RMAF for the next 5 years & selling all their aircraft.
Quite literally it would be madness for them to do so & is not something that is going to happen, thus blowing your thoughts of comparing NZ AF with the RMAF completely outta the water !!
In addition, while the RMAF is the main point of discussion, you must see that it isn't the be all & end all. The AF is just a spoke in the wheel of your nations defence programme. Yes, you decimate the airforce, it takes a big chunk of your nations ability to defend itself away, but that doesn't mean it is defence-less !
Well as an insider looking out, this stance is very well a possibility now, given that at this moment we have, operationally speaking, 30 combat aircraft on the ground. It is already madness to have this figure in the RMAF, and your arguments on this fails to convince me. And yes, comparing the NZ with the MAF, may seem bizarre to the most pedantic, but the pedantic are far too short sighted to see the "bigger picture", in terms of geography and Air Superiority. We Malaysians simply need a couple score of more fighter aircraft to assure some parity, and I mean parity, not some self serving rhetoric like "well balanced approach".
And as for defence-less, in a conflict scenario, assuming that you are more or less read in modern warfare, a traditional "blitzkrieg" approach would bring Malaysia to it's knees. The Air Force would be decimated in a day or so, and the bombing could be taken against very valuable economic structures, like airports, highways, dams, factories, cities, and naval ports. In terms of politics, the chips are down, and no matter how big the ground and naval forces, their impact and effectiveness (logistics and supplies bombed out) has been minimised. This simply means the government of the day, assuming it's UMNO and it's alliance must negotiate concessions. And we're not talking about a loss of face.
And for Budgets, you for one don't have a clue how this works in a rentier state like Malaysia, as would most outsiders. It maybe the case that some Budgets are disproportionate for certain economic projects, but Malaysia has always had oodles of money to spend on projects resembling the elephantine. The Budget for our Air Force could always be increased, trebled or quadrupled in any given year, and we could certainly afford to buy F/A 18s and F-35s if we ever were pressed for the need. It's just that we know ways on how to create demand for a particular budget.
So please, spare your lectures on limited budgets for countries like Zimbabwe.
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick reply !
You are correct in stating the obvious, I am but an outsider, looking in & thus am not 100% aware of the status in-country. I am aware of the Blitzkrieg technique, as are your Defence officials.
I am only too aware, as are many others, that the procurement machine within your country is a behemoth, with many years passing between a requirement being voiced, to the actual product (even if in reduced numbers) actually making it into the armed forces inventory...
As you've made comment in other threads about how you perceive the threats against Malaysia, I intend to read them again before making further response, however they make interesting reading & provide further insight into how an insider sees things that we Westerners don't always see.
I await further replies from you across the forums.
Systems Adict
You are correct in stating the obvious, I am but an outsider, looking in & thus am not 100% aware of the status in-country. I am aware of the Blitzkrieg technique, as are your Defence officials.
I am only too aware, as are many others, that the procurement machine within your country is a behemoth, with many years passing between a requirement being voiced, to the actual product (even if in reduced numbers) actually making it into the armed forces inventory...
As you've made comment in other threads about how you perceive the threats against Malaysia, I intend to read them again before making further response, however they make interesting reading & provide further insight into how an insider sees things that we Westerners don't always see.
I await further replies from you across the forums.
Systems Adict
Last edited:
Mr Ignorant
New Member
Threats? Possibilities? A behemoth? For ayone keen on reading how Malaysian procurement works, is a PHD in itself.
The FPDA should neutralise any eventual threat, but the obligation to remain committed to having an effective Air Force remains.
My thoughts? Lots and lots of reading can sometimes be a pain, also I am going to tone down my previous post. Discussion is probably more helpful at times and no name calling on my part is even more helpful.
The FPDA should neutralise any eventual threat, but the obligation to remain committed to having an effective Air Force remains.
My thoughts? Lots and lots of reading can sometimes be a pain, also I am going to tone down my previous post. Discussion is probably more helpful at times and no name calling on my part is even more helpful.
What kind of serious threats are you suggesting here? I just couldn't think of any:
Singapore? They are a financial state, its all about a peace and steady platform, once they go into a war, victory may be a variable, but economy ruin is a constant. They need world peace as much as we do.
Thailand? For a time period of 5 years ago, we may suffered out numbered as the F-16A/B/ADFs are on par with the MiG-29Ns with a 3:1 advantage ratio, but we turned over the numeric disadvantage when after we have our MKMs. You may argue the Gripens, but you also realize (which was another topic you messed up earlier) chief of RMAF is also pushing a second phrase of MRCA to be included in the RMK10 that will actually starts by the end of 2009. For an optimism prediction we can anticipate our new toys by 2012~13, a time which the RTAF slightly downside having aging Falcons against our new toys.
Indonesia? Their Falcons are pending to be updated (repair?) and the Flankers are pending to be armed.
Philippines? With no disrespect but their air force has no air defence aircraft. Same goes to Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia.
Vietnam? A decent air force but pressure are also distributed to PRC, ROC, Thai and Malaysia.
for a world standard we are just a "middle-class" country. Not that we cannot effort to have a plasma tv set, but if we were to fill all the rooms with one of these, its not impossible though, but much more to scarify.
To help any further "discussions", here's a set of figures of various countries aircraft.
These have been extracted from various tables / pages within the infamous Wikipedia, so I hold no credence on the accuracy of the totals.
In addition, I've left out the comments / remarks about serviceability, as I'm not able to verify the info.
SINGAPORE:
Boeing F-15SG Strike Eagle 24 (O/O)
Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 52 Fighting Falcon 22
Lockheed Martin F-16D Block 52 Fighting Falcon 40
Northrop F-5S Tiger II 36
Northrop F-5T Tiger II 9
THAILAND:
JAS 39 Gripen 12
F-16A Fighting Falcon 29
F-16B Fighting Falcon 15
F-16ADF Fighting Falcon 15
F-5T Tigris ~15
F-5E Tiger II ~15
F-5B Freedom Fighter ~3
F-5F Tiger II ~5
L-39ZA/ART Albatros 36
Alpha Jet 19
INDONESIA:
BAe Hawk 109/209 32
Lockheed Martin F-16A Fighting Falcon 12
Northrop F-5E Tiger 2 16
Su-27 SK 2
Su-30 MK2 2
... & Finally, MALAYSIA:
BAe Hawk Mk 208 18
BAe Hawk Mk 108 10
F/A-18D Hornet 8
MiG-29 N 14
MiG-29 NUB 2
F-5E Tiger II 5
F-5F Tiger II 3
RF-5E Tiger (Reconnaissance) 2
Su-30 MKM 6
Notes :
O/O = On Order;
"~" = Approx.
On a personal note, I feel that even reviewing these numbers, I still stand by my previous remarks & that overall Malaysia is probably better suited / more able to defend itself due to better training, overall organisation & operational support.
Your comments...
Systems Adict
These have been extracted from various tables / pages within the infamous Wikipedia, so I hold no credence on the accuracy of the totals.
In addition, I've left out the comments / remarks about serviceability, as I'm not able to verify the info.
SINGAPORE:
Boeing F-15SG Strike Eagle 24 (O/O)
Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 52 Fighting Falcon 22
Lockheed Martin F-16D Block 52 Fighting Falcon 40
Northrop F-5S Tiger II 36
Northrop F-5T Tiger II 9
THAILAND:
JAS 39 Gripen 12
F-16A Fighting Falcon 29
F-16B Fighting Falcon 15
F-16ADF Fighting Falcon 15
F-5T Tigris ~15
F-5E Tiger II ~15
F-5B Freedom Fighter ~3
F-5F Tiger II ~5
L-39ZA/ART Albatros 36
Alpha Jet 19
INDONESIA:
BAe Hawk 109/209 32
Lockheed Martin F-16A Fighting Falcon 12
Northrop F-5E Tiger 2 16
Su-27 SK 2
Su-30 MK2 2
... & Finally, MALAYSIA:
BAe Hawk Mk 208 18
BAe Hawk Mk 108 10
F/A-18D Hornet 8
MiG-29 N 14
MiG-29 NUB 2
F-5E Tiger II 5
F-5F Tiger II 3
RF-5E Tiger (Reconnaissance) 2
Su-30 MKM 6
Notes :
O/O = On Order;
"~" = Approx.
On a personal note, I feel that even reviewing these numbers, I still stand by my previous remarks & that overall Malaysia is probably better suited / more able to defend itself due to better training, overall organisation & operational support.
Your comments...
Systems Adict
Ughh, sorry for butting in. But this thread is interesting. We are not going to war with anyone. So, you do not have to worry about us. We are more concerned about making money
And in the event that we do, we are not going to crash our economy. All this has been planned long ago. But we do plan as much to crash the economy of our would be aggressors among other boring stuffs. CheersSome of the super skyhawks are in reserve storage(<40-60?). Around 20 Super Skyhawks are used for training with a secondary role to revert back to attack. There are also 30 Marchetti S211 in a similar role.
There is currently an ongoing project to purchase around 30-40 new LIFTs. Most probably the T-50s. I have a feeling it will be announced during the Singapore Air-show.
First few F-15Sgs should be ready this year as well. Im hopeful a 3rd batch order for F-15SGs is made during the event as well.I do not think the thais have officially purchased the gripens though nor received it.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
Singapore? They are a financial state, its all about a peace and steady platform, once they go into a war, victory may be a variable, but economy ruin is a constant. They need world peace as much as we do.
Thailand? For a time period of 5 years ago, we may suffered out numbered as the F-16A/B/ADFs are on par with the MiG-29Ns with a 3:1 advantage ratio, but we turned over the numeric disadvantage when after we have our MKMs. You may argue the Gripens, but you also realize (which was another topic you messed up earlier) chief of RMAF is also pushing a second phrase of MRCA to be included in the RMK10 that will actually starts by the end of 2009. For an optimism prediction we can anticipate our new toys by 2012~13, a time which the RTAF slightly downside having aging Falcons against our new toys.
Indonesia? Their Falcons are pending to be updated (repair?) and the Flankers are pending to be armed.
Philippines? With no disrespect but their air force has no air defence aircraft. Same goes to Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia.
Vietnam? A decent air force but pressure are also distributed to PRC, ROC, Thai and Malaysia.
for a world standard we are just a "middle-class" country. Not that we cannot effort to have a plasma tv set, but if we were to fill all the rooms with one of these, its not impossible though, but much more to scarify.[/QUOTE]
Qwerty,
State your position, and don't deflect the issue. Where is your thinking trying to take me to??? Exactly what are you saying??? Are you adding to the idiotic list of browbeating Malaysians and their puny airforce; or are you praising Singaporeans to the high heavens?? or are you just a compulsive scatter brain??? Or are you an ingrate???
FYI, for a world standard, we're not a "somewhere middle of the table". Try somewhere bottom of the league in ASEAN and furtively developing a dependence culture on our allies, like Singapore, for air superiority.
Tell me, what is wrong if the RMAF had 60-70 SU 30s MKM/Superhornets in the Air Force?
And while you're busy typing up another line of drivel, compare and contrast the one we have now; against the RSAF.
Tell me, why is a small nation state, no bigger than some of our smallest outer Islands, arming itself to the teeth with scores of F16s and 2 dozen F15s??
Can you think through that? BTW, how old are you? I hope I am not talking to a Budak berhingus-hingus.
Thailand? For a time period of 5 years ago, we may suffered out numbered as the F-16A/B/ADFs are on par with the MiG-29Ns with a 3:1 advantage ratio, but we turned over the numeric disadvantage when after we have our MKMs. You may argue the Gripens, but you also realize (which was another topic you messed up earlier) chief of RMAF is also pushing a second phrase of MRCA to be included in the RMK10 that will actually starts by the end of 2009. For an optimism prediction we can anticipate our new toys by 2012~13, a time which the RTAF slightly downside having aging Falcons against our new toys.
Indonesia? Their Falcons are pending to be updated (repair?) and the Flankers are pending to be armed.
Philippines? With no disrespect but their air force has no air defence aircraft. Same goes to Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia.
Vietnam? A decent air force but pressure are also distributed to PRC, ROC, Thai and Malaysia.
for a world standard we are just a "middle-class" country. Not that we cannot effort to have a plasma tv set, but if we were to fill all the rooms with one of these, its not impossible though, but much more to scarify.[/QUOTE]
Qwerty,
State your position, and don't deflect the issue. Where is your thinking trying to take me to??? Exactly what are you saying??? Are you adding to the idiotic list of browbeating Malaysians and their puny airforce; or are you praising Singaporeans to the high heavens?? or are you just a compulsive scatter brain??? Or are you an ingrate???
FYI, for a world standard, we're not a "somewhere middle of the table". Try somewhere bottom of the league in ASEAN and furtively developing a dependence culture on our allies, like Singapore, for air superiority.
Tell me, what is wrong if the RMAF had 60-70 SU 30s MKM/Superhornets in the Air Force?
And while you're busy typing up another line of drivel, compare and contrast the one we have now; against the RSAF.
Tell me, why is a small nation state, no bigger than some of our smallest outer Islands, arming itself to the teeth with scores of F16s and 2 dozen F15s??
Can you think through that? BTW, how old are you? I hope I am not talking to a Budak berhingus-hingus.
Last edited:
Mr Ignorant
New Member
[
... & Finally, MALAYSIA:
BAe Hawk Mk 208 18
BAe Hawk Mk 108 10
F/A-18D Hornet 8
MiG-29 N 14
MiG-29 NUB 2
F-5E Tiger II 5
F-5F Tiger II 3
RF-5E Tiger (Reconnaissance) 2
Su-30 MKM 6
Notes :
O/O = On Order;
"~" = Approx.
On a personal note, I feel that even reviewing these numbers, I still stand by my previous remarks & that overall Malaysia is probably better suited / more able to defend itself due to better training, overall organisation & operational support.
Well you would be. And if Malaysia had less, you'd be more pleased. And if the RMAF goes the New Zealand way, you'd celebrate.
So answer the question, why do you think 30 Air Superiority fighters in the RMAF right now is sufficient?
Do you think that our training is better than Singapore or Thailand? Is that what you're saying? So if our training is so good, why do we have an agreement with India for training our pilots? Is there a disparity or discrepancy there?
I'd like to know.
... & Finally, MALAYSIA:
BAe Hawk Mk 208 18
BAe Hawk Mk 108 10
F/A-18D Hornet 8
MiG-29 N 14
MiG-29 NUB 2
F-5E Tiger II 5
F-5F Tiger II 3
RF-5E Tiger (Reconnaissance) 2
Su-30 MKM 6
Notes :
O/O = On Order;
"~" = Approx.
On a personal note, I feel that even reviewing these numbers, I still stand by my previous remarks & that overall Malaysia is probably better suited / more able to defend itself due to better training, overall organisation & operational support.
Well you would be. And if Malaysia had less, you'd be more pleased. And if the RMAF goes the New Zealand way, you'd celebrate.
So answer the question, why do you think 30 Air Superiority fighters in the RMAF right now is sufficient?
Do you think that our training is better than Singapore or Thailand? Is that what you're saying? So if our training is so good, why do we have an agreement with India for training our pilots? Is there a disparity or discrepancy there?
I'd like to know.
Thanks Red, I hadn't included them, as they're officially listed as trainers / stored A/C (=40 A4's Stored, =18 Trainers; Marchetti Trainers =30), but your figures tie up reasonably well with the Wiki page.
Mr Ignorant; nice to see you've joined the party again....
To reply to your comments for SA AF, Wiki lists the following A/C....
Atlas Cheetah C\D (read as Mirage III / Israeli Kifirs) 26
BAe Hawk (MK120) 17 A/C , (with 7 to deliver)
JAS 39 Gripen 28 A/C (On Order)
Still not 100% comparable with the RMAF, whom yet again I'd say where better equipped......
Systems Adict