RMAF Future; need opinions

[renjer]

with limited number,rmaf has overuse hawk in order to support their training modul.they need to support migs n hornet n soon su-30. rmaf have burden hawk 4 this role.

To acheive a similar LIFT to fighter ratio of Australia, Malaysia needs about 20 LIFT aircrafts. So Malaysia needs at least 12 more LIFT's, most preferably additional Hawk's. South Korea has about 16 surviving Hawk Mk68's (hawk Mk60 with Hawk 100 wings and nose) thats probably will be replaced by the ingenious Golden Eagle soon. Maybe Malaysia could purchase the seconhand hawks from south korea and upgrade it to near Mk108 standards for a cost effective solution?

You are both right. There are too few trainers available to RMAF. 20 or about 2 squadrons worth is the number of trainers that the RMAF needs. This figure doesn't even include the operational Hawk squadrons.

With regards to the ROKAF's Hawks, I can't see the RMAF opting for such a purchase. There is a precedent in the RNZAF's offer of its 17 Aermacchis when these were being phased out. It was accepted at first but subsequently cancelled. The principal reason cited was the high operating cost of the 2nd hand aircraft. BTW, the RMAF still operates about 7-8 of these aircraft type.

It is a trainer for RAAF, but could be used for "point defence" and light strike missions if necessary. Our Hawk Mk 127's are fitted with an in-flight refuelling probe (when required) and wingtip rails for air to air missiles. They are also wired to carry a 30mm cannon and Mk 82 500lbs bombs when required.

It was a version designed to match the F/A-18 as closely as possible, but that was at the specific request of RAAF. Hawk Mk 128 is the current spec trainer available and is little different from Mk 127 (more powerful engine, updated avionics etc).

As such I think it would be the best aircraft to provide an advanced trainer/light strike fighter for the RMAF.

Agree with you 100% on this. A Hawk Mk 128 purchase would streamline the RMAF's trainer and 2nd tier aircraft fleet while still allowing for a measured increase in technology levels. Plus, we would have some commonality with the RAAF. We would additionally have the opportunity to learn from the IAF since they are also combining the Hawk and Sukhoi into their force structure.

The other aircraft types being considered by the RMAF are FD (?) version of the MB-339 and the Yak-130. If the RMAF chose either of these than it would either have to fund additional purchases to streamline the fleet or continue with a mish mash of aircraft types. This would be like fighting with your fingers. Rationalise the fleet and you raise the efficiency and proficiency levels across the board. Only then will your fingers clench into a fist.

 

[f2000]

well for mb-339 n yak-130,it's hard to say that rmaf will buy those ac.
yeah there will be logistic nightmare but if rmaf buy mb-339 or yak-130,there must be something that rmaf unsatisfy with hawk.
but i think the winner will be hawk.

 

[alexz]

With regards to the ROKAF's Hawks, I can't see the RMAF opting for such a purchase. There is a precedent in the RNZAF's offer of its 17 Aermacchis when these were being phased out. It was accepted at first but subsequently cancelled. The principal reason cited was the high operating cost of the 2nd hand aircraft. BTW, the RMAF still operates about 7-8 of these aircraft type.

Yes the RNZAF's offer was accepted, but it was not cancelled. The delays in approving the budget for the secondhand aircraft, as well as some political ideas of privatising the jet training for RMAF (they are planning to buy nad then subcontract the RNZAF jet to private contractors, what are they thinking??) meant that the jet was sold to other parties before RMAF was able to get some funding for them...

As for the surviving RMAF MB-339AM's it was recently lightly overhauled for free by Aermacci, as a sweetener for RMAF to consider buying newbuild trainers for them.

to me there is not many setbacks of buying 2nd hand, especially from those who maintains them excellently like ROKAF or RNZAF. the only setbacks of buying 2ndhand from other goverments is that there would be no kickbacks for the politicians (hence the creative planned privatisation of the RNZAF trainers that was to be bought) unlike buying new planes from the companies themselves...



corrections, the ROKAF Bae Hawk is designated Mk67, not 68 as i posted earlier, and it was ordered by ROKAF in 1990, so the aircraft is quite a recent ones.

 

[renjer]

alexz, thank you for clarifying the Aermacchi deal. I am aware that the politician's cut is a fact of life in Malaysia. It is present in every business deal that involves the state.

You are right that this is a contributing factor in the mix of aircraft types that we have. In addition to the vendor and the RMAF there is usually a third party or 'agent' to an aircraft type purchase. An agreement usually assigned exclusive rights to the agent for subsequent purchases as well. This is the disincentive for politicians to support repeat purchases of similar aircraft types.

A solution would be to remove this exclusive rights clause and have each purchase renegotiated on fresh terms (i.e. new agent). However, as much as I would like to see a rationalisation of aircraft types operated by the RMAF I stop short of openly advocating this as I cannot bring myself to condon the presence of the agent at all. I have seen too many brave men have their careers broken because they stood in the way of a politician and his cream.

That said, I still believe that a purchase of new Hawks would be preferable to 2nd hand models. On average a brand new aircraft would have a longer operating life than a used one. For the record, I am certain that the RNZAF and the RoKAF maintain their aircrafts to peak perfection.

As an additional note, I understand that funding is actually available for the purchase of advanced jet trainers. The Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister of Finance has simply reassigned the funds to the Prime Minister's Department rather than releasing these to the Minister of Defence who at present is also the Deputy Prime Minister. Whether this is meant simply to control his deputy or to prevent mismanagement and abuse is beyond me.

However, I do hope that those who still keep the faith in the RMAF manage to steer the service through all of this towards a more rational fleet holding. I am bewildered by the opinions expressed that seem to equate the RMAF to nothing more than an expensive car showroom offering models galore.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[alexz]

As for the procurements Malaysia bought 12 MB-339AM's; with 1 more attriction replacement free of charge (crash resulted by manufacturer technical faults) for a total of 13.

AFAIK 1 of the F-5B crashed near Kerteh, and the sole survivor was given, not sold to Thailand.

 

[Subangite]

As for the procurements Malaysia bought 12 MB-339AM's; with 1 more attriction replacement free of charge (crash resulted by manufacturer technical faults) for a total of 13.

AFAIK 1 of the F-5B crashed near Kerteh, and the sole survivor was given, not sold to Thailand.

Why doesn't the RMAF consolidate the MB-339 fleet for more BAe Hawks? Funding the issue, BAe HAwks more expensive? Or the RMAF just loves to diversify its trainers for some reason?

 

[alexz]

Subangite, my comments on the MB-339AM was not for a new purchase, it was what the RMAF got in the early 1980's. The MB-339A series has long been discontinued.

 

[Awang se]

Interesting and a very true observation. I wonder how do these 2 fighters compare, the SU-30MKM and the F-15SG?

I've read that the SU-30MK out performed the USAF F-15C in simulations.

From what i gather, F-15SG will be a far more advance version then F-15E used by USAF. just look at their F-16 block C/D

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[f2000]

both f-15sg n su-30mkm are the best in their class.we have no idea of accurate capabilities of those ac.we can generalize their capabilities based on their avionics ,radars n others.both ac have good bvr n radar capabilities.

 

[Subangite]

I guess it was a moot question comparing the Su-30MKMs to the F-15SG. The chances that these would be pitted against each other are extremely slim. Its an academic exercise to compare the 2 aircrafts, since its interesting to note that supposedly the IAF Su-30MKI out performed USAF F-15C.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[410Cougar]

Comparisons are natural to enthusiasts. The difference may boil down to the pilots. Put a good driver in a crappy car and that may sometimes be better than a bad one in a sports car. In this case, both are top of the line sports cars.

I like this line. Why are countries like the USA, Israel, the UK, etc, have so much more success in air to air encounters than the nations they fly against? GW1 and GW2 show that even though you had 15's against 29's - which are essentially equal adversaries - that the US one hands down.

Quick question about avionics and weapons system integration into a Hawk - can they support the SU software??

 

[mmmbop]

What's the need for Hawk capable of supporting Su software?

 

[alexz]

FYi the Hawk is armed only with armerments from the west. So there is no weapons intergration whatsoever between russian and western equipments in TUDM.

 

[410Cougar]

Well what would the country use to train people on the avionics and weapons system in the new SU's?

 

[alexz]

The avoinics are mostly french-sourced and as for the weapon system is mostly similar to TUDM's current Mig-29. Anyway those technical stuff you train on the actual aircraft/avionics itself. As for the Mig's, TUDM got 2 airframes for ground training as part of the initial purchase. Still have no news if it is the same for the Su-30's.

Similarly you dont train f/a-18 technicians on the hawk aircraft either.

 

[renjer]

Well what would the country use to train people on the avionics and weapons system in the new SU's?

If we get the Hawk Mk 128s then these can be glassed for the Sukhois. IAF is doing this I believe. I am not sure if the current Mk 108s have open achitecture.

Back when we first got the MiG-29Ns we got a lot of assistance on simulator technology from CAE of Canada.