RMAF Future; need opinions

[Dzirhan]

Well, the RMAF chief at Friday's pc said they'll get the final six end of this year though from what I know, those six a/c have been ready for delivery for the past two months, couldn't bring that up though as was not sure if JDW would publish the story and did not want to tip my hand in a room full of reporters

 

[sunshin3]

Well, the RMAF chief at Friday's pc said they'll get the final six end of this year though from what I know, those six a/c have been ready for delivery for the past two months, couldn't bring that up though as was not sure if JDW would publish the story and did not want to tip my hand in a room full of reporters

I think RMAF is adopting the right negotiation tactic in this contractual dispute. If the RMAF accept delivery of the last 6 a/c, the final payment will become due. Once the last payment occurs, leverage with the supplier will be lost and RMAF wants the first 12 fixed according to their understanding of the contract specs.

 

[Tebuan]

If the MiG-29s are to be retired (as has been hinted in this thread), then Malaysia again is down to 18x Su-30MKMs and 8x F-18 (as frontline fighters/strike aircraft), which then becomes a numbers issue.

Malaysia will need to weight the cost and benefit of acquiring another squadron of fighters first vs the need for an AEW (given the high cost of AEW platforms and the need to protect them). What about stationing a frontline squadron in East Malaysia? Do you think Malaysia will need that first or AEW aircraft first?

Just read a new Bernama report that the new Defence Minister Zahid Hamidi had confirmed that the Fulcrums will be phased out starting next month:
'BAGAN DATOH, June 1 (Bernama) -- The MIG-29N fighter jets of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) will be replaced with other interceptor jets to strengthen the force.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said the matter had been discussed with RMAF chief General Tan Sri Azizan Ariffin and the aircraft would be replaced soon.

"I have decided that from next month, the aircraft be phased out and we should find a way to sell them to certain companies or countries approved by the United Nations," he told reporters after visiting the victims of a storm in Rungkup, here, Monday."

Does anyone have more on this? Can we expect more Hornets, MKMs (or MKs) or even Hawks?

 

[Dzirhan]

Had PC with Minister today and same question popped up, but Minister said they are phasing out the MiGs and that he'll direct the RMAF to start the planning for the phase out next month.

 

[OPSSG]

Well, the RMAF chief at Friday's pc said they'll get the final six end of this year though from what I know, those six a/c have been ready for delivery for the past two months, couldn't bring that up though as was not sure if JDW would publish the story and did not want to tip my hand in a room full of reporters

Dzirhan, an online source suggested the following:

(1) RMAF HQ had decided in February 2008 against upgrading its MiG-29Ns and instead wants to acquire another six Su-30MKMs to form a 24 plane squadron (No.11 Sqn).

(2) The six Su-30MKMs (from the 18 ordered) are now being uploaded with new operational mission software related to the THALES-built Damocles LDP in Russia. Originally, this work was to be done AFTER taking delivery of the aircraft. However, RMAF HQ last year changed its mind and wanted to have this software upgrade work before delivery. By insisting on having this work done before delivery, these six aircraft will be available immediately for tactical flying training upon delivery. The 12 Su-30MKMs delivered earlier are now being grounded in a staggered manner so that their software upgrading can be done.

(3) The JDW report was speculative, as there are no fundamental software integration problems.​

Would you care to comment - as this different from my earlier understanding. :unknown

Please accept my apologies in advance for raising this query.

 

[Dzirhan]

Well, my story is as good as my sources, and Prasun's comment on my story is going to boil down to a "he said, she said" kind of argument and professionally I do not want to get into this kind of thing online though I would add that Marhalim on Malaysian Defence Blog said that he had a confirmation on software integration problems from his sources similar to what I wrote and I would add my sources are pretty solid. I also had an article a week or two ago based on a PC with Tan Sri Azizan, chief of the RMAF and I can't remember if JDW published that para or not but my notes and original draft has the Chief saying that the Sukhois had integration problems with the weapons and avionics though the chief said this was being resolved so I can't see how my story seems speculative when the RMAF Chief himself says the same thing
Unfortunately I just cannot reveal who sources are which is why everytime I write something, I get bashed in online forums (like the MiG-29 story two years ago) as being speculative or making it up as I do not name anyone as my source, unfortunately this is the trade-off I have to make to get the story out and I have to keep confidantiality. I do notice that everytime I write something which does not gel with the views of online military enthusiasts, I get comments on how totally wrong I am (not on this forum but on other forums) without the posters posting any conclusive rebuttal that has substance but instead based on what they read or speculate, not saying this is always wrong but it does get amusing and annoying at the same time that those of us working in the field are deemed to know less or nothing compared to those who just read our articles. One of the things I should point out is that things do change often so a story is often only as good and accurate at the point of time it was written (not published as there is occaisionally a lag time between submission and publication), anytime after that it can and often will be overtaken by events and developments. One of the reasons I am online in forums is just to clarify my stories and provide some updates to the story, which I can't really do with the publications I contribute to, a number of defence reporters I know do actually monitor online comments on their articles but opt not to particpate online, one person I know said his wife reads up on them and gets mad about the comments posted about her husband's stories
Part of the problem with the Sukhois were that they weren't fully ready when they were delivered last year, the RMAF wanted a year more in Russia to fix out any bugs in the aircraft but the then government wanted them back to fly in the National Day parade from what I've been told.
As for the Mig upgrade, I think the decision was made way before Feb 2008, as the Russians and ATSC proposed the upgrade way back before that as I remember picking up a brochure on the upgrade proposal in 2007 or 2006 at a Russian event where they left defence brochures for attendees to pick up, can't remember though if I still have it and when I followed up on that I was told the RMAF wasn't interested in the upgrade.

 

[OPSSG]

Dzirhan, many thanks for being a straight shooter and placing Prasun's comments in context for me. Please accept my apologies once again for placing you in a 'he said, she said' position (which I might add was a funny movie in its time).

...Although Indonesia had the money to buy the avionic parts from Russia, the parts are out of stock so two Sukhois could not be used. This means that support on parts by the Russians is poor.

Therefore, Malaysia needs to be careful about promises made by the Russians on support for the aircraft sold. One risk management technique is to provide for minimum turn around time for parts support (under the contract, if additional Su-30s are to be purchased)...

As early as Oct 2008, I was speculating on the possible existence of contract management issues (given the need to integrate western systems into Malaysia's Su-30MKMs), which no one else in this thread was concerned with at that time. From Dzirhan's clarifications in 2009, it is clear that the RMAF is properly looking after Malaysia's interest via a strict interpretation/enforcement of Su-30MKM contract provisions with the Russians, a point which Sunshin3 picked up on in a post 2 weeks ago.

I think RMAF is adopting the right negotiation tactic in this contractual dispute. If the RMAF accept delivery of the last 6 a/c, the final payment will become due. Once the last payment occurs, leverage with the supplier will be lost and RMAF wants the first 12 fixed according to their understanding of the contract specs.

 

[OPSSG]

The June - July 2009 issue of Unmanned Vehicles (Vol. 14, No. 3), Peter La Franchi delves into the detail of Malaysia’s indigenous UAV developments and look at the main companies hoping to benefit from the armed forces’ interest in unmanned systems. In particular, the competing solutions offered by Unmanned Systems Technology Sdn Bhd (Aludra Mk 1 & Mk 2) and the Sapura Group - via its Australian subsidiary Cyber Technology (Cyber Eye I, Cyber Eye II and Cyber Shark - which is a mini helicopter). This article also provides details of the deployment of the five Aludra systems via a lease arrangement, is worth a read.

[h/t to spiderweb6969]

 

[STURM]

I think the core problem is the RMAF went for a variant of the SU-30 that didn't even exist. Teething problems were bound to happen just as it did when the IAF integrated non-standard gear on its MKIs.
Politics aside, these problems could have been avoided if the RMAF was allowed the Super Hornet. From what I've been told, if given a choice the RMAF would have selected the Super Hornet as its new MRCA. With the SU-30MKM deal, Malaysia was also forced to fork out a ton of cash for integration work, all on a platform that has yet to be proven. Similiarly, most of the ordnance offered with the SU-30MKM has also yet to be tested in combat conditions. In my opinion, the Super Hornet would have been a more practical and cost efficient option in the long run.

Im not in any way disputing anything written by Dzirhan or Prasun. I have known Prasun since the early 90's, and whilst he's prone to sensationalism and has made mistakes in his reporting, some of the Malaysian defence related stuff Prasun has reported on has not been covered by other writers. I think it would be very interesting if someone could do an article on the challenging problems facing the RMAF in terms of doctrine, training, logistics, etc, in having to support a fleet of several combat types.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

I like the RMAF. It's one of those services, "in miniature". Let's be frank, and I have been more forthright quite often, the Air Force, is a "work in progress". In all fairness, we've spent 20-30 pages talking about two different types of Fighter Aircraft, either Russian or American.

The Issue is, on paper, in terms of promise and capability, 3-4 Squadrons of Jet Fighter Aircraft is sound. Reality is far different to what is often discussed. In real terms, if the Mig 29s are phased out in 2011, that would leave the RMAF with 26 Jet Fighters, if we assume the full complement should be 18 Aircraft per squadron. The initial figure would mean that Malaysia, would have a shortfall of 28 Fighter Aircraft, again, if we assume the RMAF, on paper, can deliver 3 Full fighter squadrons.

So in all fairness, the pilot pool, the training setup, the availability of Fighter Aircraft, is small and limited in Malaysia. In comparison to our neighbours, in Thailand and Singapore, the "arms race" issue in the peninsula and the archipelago is a dead duck.

So over to the experts. Do you think the RMAF will get enough Fighter Aircraft, to meet their shortfall in numbers? Do you think the training can produce more capable pilots?

 

[OPSSG]

I think the core problem is the RMAF went for a variant of the SU-30 that didn't even exist. Teething problems were bound to happen just as it did when the IAF integrated non-standard gear on its MKIs.

I like the RMAF too and I think they are doing their best to mitigate the problems caused by decisions of the politicians.

My apologies for being frank. I think the core problem the RMAF faces today was caused Tun Dr. Mahathir, when he imposed his will against the wishes of the defence establishment and forced the air force to make a split buy of the MiG-29 (purchased at the cost of US$380 m) and F-18s.

The fact that the F-18s will remain in service and that the MiG-29 is being retired indicates that the air force was correct and that there are 1.6 billion reasons why Tun Dr. Mahathir was wrong (the MiG-29s cost US$1.6 b if training and spares are included).

Politics aside, these problems could have been avoided if the RMAF was allowed the Super Hornet. From what I've been told, if given a choice the RMAF would have selected the Super Hornet as its new MRCA. With the SU-30MKM deal, Malaysia was also forced to fork out a ton of cash for integration work, all on a platform that has yet to be proven. Similarly, most of the ordnance offered with the SU-30MKM has also yet to be tested in combat conditions. In my opinion, the Super Hornet would have been a more practical and cost efficient option in the long run.

We need to look at the prior precedent set by Tun Dr. Mahathir's prior interference...

Im not in any way disputing anything written by Dzirhan or Prasun. I have known Prasun since the early 90's, and whilst he's prone to sensationalism and has made mistakes in his reporting, some of the Malaysian defence related stuff Prasun has reported on has not been covered by other writers. I think it would be very interesting if someone could do an article on the challenging problems facing the RMAF in terms of doctrine, training, logistics, etc, in having to support a fleet of several combat types.

If you read Prasun's blog, he is for buying additional Su-30MKM purchases (he advocates buying 6 more to form a squadron of 24) - in so doing he is engaging in advocacy of a certain position. IMO, his advocacy affects his ability to pick-up to hints by RMAF officers.

If I want to understand where RMAF may be headed (in terms of what the air force leadership wants), I would read what Dzirhan writes carefully.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

OPSSG, grateful if you could send the link of Prasun's Blog. Cheers

 

[OPSSG]

OPSSG, grateful if you could send the link of Prasun's Blog. Cheers

As requested - check out the comments section of Prasun's Blog posts for his replies pertaining to RMAF questions on his blog.

 

[Dzirhan]

To understand some of the procurement problems associated with the MAF, you need to understand as OPSSG has stated that much of the problems stemmed from Tun Mahathir's outlook on defence, which was never really his priority, any defence purchase was really based on how it could benefit Malaysia on a political, economic or technological development aspect rather than the military operational aspect and there was always no problem in postponing continuous MAF development and funding in the interest of the country's financial situation. It goes back to the MiG-29 and Hornet purchase, the decision was to purchase the MiGs (mainly to open the Russian market to Malaysian business) but the US sent a delegation to lobby for the Hornet and it was decided to buy 8 Hornets and the general understanding among the RMAF was that a follow-on buy of at least 8 more Hornets would follow, unfortunately various financial issues not to mention the 1997 economic crisis all contributed to this never being realised and later on the politics of Malaysia's attitude towards the US post-Sept 11 and during the Iraq invasion all made a purchase politically impossible and at the end of the day, any US purchase would have to paid in cash, no barter/part payment in goods. The Sukhois decision were primarily made in mind with the final costs and the fact that an astronaut slot was offered, the RMAF wanted the western avionics because in the end the Sukhois was what they were going to get whether they wanted it or not and the only to offset that choice was to get the western avionics on it so to avoid the same problems that the MiGs had, which was the inability to share data with the RMAF's largely Western equipment. I'm not certain the RMAF would want to add additional Sukhois given that they are two seaters and thus manpower intensive and the current issues with the Sukhois has put paid somewhat to the RMAF idea that given their experiences with the MiGs, they would be able to avoid any problems in regard to the Sukhois and the Russians. Just as a teaser for everyone here, I was once told in the past by a senior RMAF officer that given the delays on getting the Super Hornet, by the time the RMAF actually gets the funding, they would be better off looking at the JSF .

 

[nevidimka]

To understand some of the procurement problems associated with the MAF, you need to understand as OPSSG has stated that much of the problems stemmed from Tun Mahathir's outlook on defence, which was never really his priority, any defence purchase was really based on how it could benefit Malaysia on a political, economic or technological development aspect rather than the military operational aspect and there was always no problem in postponing continuous MAF development and funding in the interest of the country's financial situation. It goes back to the MiG-29 and Hornet purchase, the decision was to purchase the MiGs (mainly to open the Russian market to Malaysian business) but the US sent a delegation to lobby for the Hornet and it was decided to buy 8 Hornets and the general understanding among the RMAF was that a follow-on buy of at least 8 more Hornets would follow, unfortunately various financial issues not to mention the 1997 economic crisis all contributed to this never being realised and later on the politics of Malaysia's attitude towards the US post-Sept 11 and during the Iraq invasion all made a purchase politically impossible and at the end of the day, any US purchase would have to paid in cash, no barter/part payment in goods. The Sukhois decision were primarily made in mind with the final costs and the fact that an astronaut slot was offered, the RMAF wanted the western avionics because in the end the Sukhois was what they were going to get whether they wanted it or not and the only to offset that choice was to get the western avionics on it so to avoid the same problems that the MiGs had, which was the inability to share data with the RMAF's largely Western equipment. I'm not certain the RMAF would want to add additional Sukhois given that they are two seaters and thus manpower intensive and the current issues with the Sukhois has put paid somewhat to the RMAF idea that given their experiences with the MiGs, they would be able to avoid any problems in regard to the Sukhois and the Russians. Just as a teaser for everyone here, I was once told in the past by a senior RMAF officer that given the delays on getting the Super Hornet, by the time the RMAF actually gets the funding, they would be better off looking at the JSF .

I doubt it. They cant find $$$ to buy 8 more hornets, but they are gonna find it for JSF?? They will just end up "looking".

 

[Dzirhan]

You misunderstand the context, the point of the statement was that it''s taking so long that by the time the RMAF gets funding, the Super Hornet will be obsolete or old tech and the JSF would be at a stage where it's available at a lower than current price.

 

[OPSSG]

...I would add that Marhalim on Malaysian Defence Blog said that he had a confirmation on software integration problems from his sources similar to what I wrote...

I also had an article a week or two ago based on a PC with Tan Sri Azizan, chief of the RMAF... [said] that the Sukhois had integration problems with the weapons and avionics though the chief said this was being resolved...

...Part of the problem with the Sukhois were that they weren't fully ready when they were delivered last year, the RMAF wanted a year more in Russia to fix out any bugs in the aircraft but the then government wanted them back to fly in the National Day parade from what I've been told.

According to Irkut Corporation, they have delivered 2 more Su-30MKM to Malaysia, making it 14 planes delivered from the 18 Su-30MKM order. So more progress to resolving any remaining bugs has been made.

Su-30MKM is a Malaysian variant of the Indian Su-30MKI. IIRC, the MKM version differs from the MKI by the onboard avionics suite composition tailored to accommodate Malaysia's needs. The Su-30MKM avionics suite includes an electronic warfare (EW) system and an optic-location system with the laser rangefinder supplied by Russia’s leading manufacturers. It also has certain western made avionics that were integrated onboard including: a Head-up display (HUD), a navigational forward-looking IR system NAVFLIR and a Laser Designation pod (LDP Damocles), just to name a few of the changes. Integration of all the avionics systems was carried out with active participation of Su-30MKM Project Team consisting of RMAF officers and based in Moscow.

There's also a couple of spectacular pictures of the Su-30MKM performing an acrobatic display at the recent BRIDEX 2009, including one with the plane shooting through the clouds.

 

[MarcH]

Is this purely about F-18/Su-30 or is the RMAF looking at other alternatives, like used Gripens or Mirage 2000 ?

 

[ichihara_yuuko]

F-15SE Silent Eagle for RMAF. What do you think?

Hello to all!
This is my first post, so please correct me if I'm wrong with any of my points.

I was quite stunned to learned that the RMAF decided to phase out the MiG-29N quite early even though the USAF keep on using their F-15C for air-superiority mission. The USAf flew F-15C almost 30 years and we use our MiG-29N for just around 15 years. May I ask whether this decision is due to political pressure or because the RMAF decided not to use MiG-29 anymore?

For RMAF future fighter requirement, has RMAF ever consider buying F-15SE Silent Eagle? I know it is expensive (around USD100 mil per aircraft) but it does gave us a stealth capability (even though not as stealthy as F-22 but according to Boeing its stealth capability is comparable to F-35). The airframe is combat proven (F-15SE is based on F-15E). It could carry a wide array of PGM & AAM. Its Day 1 combat load (where stealth is essential) is comparable to F-35 JSF. The design is undefeated in air-air combat whereas F-35 air-air performance remain to be seen.

To buy more Su-30MKM or even F/A-18 Super Hornet is a good option but in today's age of stealth, we should really consider buying a stealth platform. Boeing already said that the F-15SE is available for foreign customers. Although F-35 JSF is also available for purchase but bear in mind, the JSF is designed with 70% air-ground and 30% air-air.

I honestly will say that I do not know whether RMAF requires MRCA with more air-ground capability than air-air. However if RMAF requires an aircraft with more air-air capability, the F-15SE would be ideal.

This is just my suggestion. So, I would like to hear your opinion. And again if I made any mistake on my facts, please correct them for me.

 

[Tavarisch]

Hello to all!
This is my first post, so please correct me if I'm wrong with any of my points.

I was quite stunned to learned that the RMAF decided to phase out the MiG-29N quite early even though the USAF keep on using their F-15C for air-superiority mission. The USAf flew F-15C almost 30 years and we use our MiG-29N for just around 15 years. May I ask whether this decision is due to political pressure or because the RMAF decided not to use MiG-29 anymore?

For RMAF future fighter requirement, has RMAF ever consider buying F-15SE Silent Eagle? I know it is expensive (around USD100 mil per aircraft) but it does gave us a stealth capability (even though not as stealthy as F-22 but according to Boeing its stealth capability is comparable to F-35). The airframe is combat proven (F-15SE is based on F-15E). It could carry a wide array of PGM & AAM. Its Day 1 combat load (where stealth is essential) is comparable to F-35 JSF. The design is undefeated in air-air combat whereas F-35 air-air performance remain to be seen.

To buy more Su-30MKM or even F/A-18 Super Hornet is a good option but in today's age of stealth, we should really consider buying a stealth platform. Boeing already said that the F-15SE is available for foreign customers. Although F-35 JSF is also available for purchase but bear in mind, the JSF is designed with 70% air-ground and 30% air-air.

I honestly will say that I do not know whether RMAF requires MRCA with more air-ground capability than air-air. However if RMAF requires an aircraft with more air-air capability, the F-15SE would be ideal.

This is just my suggestion. So, I would like to hear your opinion. And again if I made any mistake on my facts, please correct them for me.

As to your MiG-29 question, god only knows. The politics of our nation is complete bullshit ; whoever had the idea of switching back to BM for Math and Science is a complete retard who probably had to resort to coin-flipping. International scientists and engineers don't speak BM, which is a sad fact indeed that our Government chooses not to realize.

Please do not be offended by this, but sometimes I truly believe the Malaysian Government has it's head completely up it's own ass. What possible motive or force could've pushed these people to make such a decision is entirely beyond me.

Your suggestion to buy F-15SE is a good one, though I still prefer Russian air-craft more. I think that the Air-force has too little manpower to operate them, and nor do they have the budgeting to procure something so shiny. Moreover, past experiences with dealing the Americans are unfavorable... Our F-18s are essentially useless except in times of war (even then I'm doubtful) because the American's won't give us the source code to unlock it's weapons systems. All our F-18s might as well be put on parade or something since we can't use them for their real purpose in the first place.

As to why we have not sold these air-craft, that I truly do not have an answer to. The F-18 is a good fighter, don't get me wrong. But in Malaysia, they're not that much of use, in fact no use at all, if we can't even use them when we need them.

To quote Mahathir, "If you feel like bombing Singapore, the Russians are not going to object..." ( [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSjgOcFdI9Y]YouTube - Mahathir - Bombing Singapore[/ame] ) He refers to the fact that our MiGs aren't locked, unlike our F-18s. That's one of the primary reasons I'd prefer Russian Air-craft, though I am not sure whether or not this is applicable to our Su-30MKMs. Hopefully not.


And to any Singaporeans, I do not intend to offend you. That video is there purely for the purpose to illustrate the fact that Malaysian F-18s can't be used.