RMAF Future; need opinions

[STURM]

All air force purchases comes with off set arrangements and these have been proven to be to be lucrative recurring contracts. It could be a valid justification to propel the aviation industry but tactically it does injustice to the air force .

True but despite SME producing pylons for the Hawks and CTRM producing some minor components for the A400M, have all thse offsets actually improved our self sufficiency or benefited the local aerospace industry in any other way? Does it justify the taxpayers forking out more cash and the huge strain on the RMAFs resources?

 

[Tebuan]

I agree with you on that. They need to get a good package and stay with one source of aircrafts the griffens would be a good aircraft for them The Swedes are cool and neutral on world issues

Just remember the Swedes may be cool, but many components on the Gripen including the engine will need US approval for sale/transfer. I just for gods sake that they will really work on reducing fighter types rather than increase by selecting another platform as many of us believe. This will really affect RMAF efficiency in resource used, just imagine besides all the diverse aircraft/spares inventory they will also have to have set up another HR stream to handle everything from technical support training to pilot training for YET another type.

 

[STURM]

What do you guys feel about the A400M buy? Was it really because the RMAF needed a slightly bigger transport or for political reasons?

Despite its price tag, the C-130J is still cheaper than the A400M and is already in service. The RMAF has been an operator of the C-130 for almost 30 years, and a lot of the ground tooling already in place can be used on the C-130J. For a country like Malaysia, who does not have any global military comittments, wouldn't the C-130J still suit the country's operational requirements? At least with the Su-30s, the RMAF went for a variant of a platform already in service, the A400M was still on the drawing board, when ordered.

 

[alexz]

I just think that the A400M is a political buy as the buy was not asked for by RMAF while the more urgent needs like the Nuri replacement is still not met until now. I am in favor of cancelling the A400M order and getting compensation for it as what South Africa is doing.

 

[STURM]

Whilst I'm not privy to any inside information regarding the condition of the RMAFs C-130H fleet, a large part of the C-130H fleet is fairly new. The 5 C-130H-30s [strecth] were delivered in 1995, and though heavily tasked in the past, still have less hours on their airframes compared to NATO C-130s. Almost every airframe has at some point undergone an overhaul at AIROD. So on paper at least, the RMAF has a less pressing need to get a replacement for itsC-130Hs, compared to say the UK or France's older and more heavily tasked C-130s and Transalls.If one has to make a speculation just on media reports, the RMAF was keen on upgrading its C130Hs but had the A400M forced on to it by its political masters. It has not been reported if any interest was shown in the
C-130J. It will be very interesting to see if S. Africa goes for new C-130Js or refurbished
C-130s.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Just remember the Swedes may be cool, but many components on the Gripen including the engine will need US approval for sale/transfer. I just for gods sake that they will really work on reducing fighter types rather than increase by selecting another platform as many of us believe. This will really affect RMAF efficiency in resource used, just imagine besides all the diverse aircraft/spares inventory they will also have to have set up another HR stream to handle everything from technical support training to pilot training for YET another type.

This is an important point. The engine of the Gripen is made predominantly by General Electric...

Anyone who is under the impression that you are gaining "independence" by purchasing Gripen is sorely mistaken.

You actually are gaining 2 "ropes around your neck" as Sweden itself has a history of denying support to customers who are engaged in operations the Swedish Government doesn't necessarily approve of...

Then you have the Americans as well...

 

[STURM]

You actually are gaining 2 "ropes around your neck" as Sweden itself has a history of denying support to customers who are engaged in operations the Swedish Government doesn't necessarily approve of...

Then you have the Americans as well...

The chances of Malaysia engaging in military operations the Swedes and the US doesn't approve of are slim. The US is Malaysia's largest investor and Malaysia is the US's 16th largest trading partner, so its very unlikely the Malaysian government would risk engaging in military operations the US frowns upon. Though Thailand and the Philippines have been classified as non-NATO allies, the US and Malaysia actually have a close defence relationship, though not to the same level as Singapore. As part of its foreign policy, Malaysia makes it a point of not being too close to any country as far as defence goes.

If it reaches a point where the US government imposes an embargo on Malaysia, the country is deeply s*****d, irrespective of whether it operates US/EU/Swedish or solely Russian sourced aircraft. Even the MiGs are equipped with US sourced gear, the Rockwell /APN-118 TACAN receiver and AN/APN-147 VOR/ILS. The MKMs are fitted with a TLS-2020B VOR/ILS, NC-1E TACAN and Raytheon IFF . Apart from the GE engines, for export customers Gripen comes with a non-Swedish data link [Link 11 or16?] and weapons which also requires US sanctioning.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

It's pointless to talk about regional client states in this globalized world, a country is either a satellite of a larger, more economically powerful country, or a financial haven of some type. In Malaysia's case, it is neither here or there. It is dwarfed by it's bullish neighbours, and it is competitively limited by it's own political constraints. Whether it can compete economically with Indonesia, Korea, Singapore, Thailand or the Phillipines in the near future, that remains somewhat uncertain. So for Malaysia in particular, it does make sense to have a very small airforce, to employed primarily for public display and the occassional maritime patrol duties it needs to keep up.

In that sense, and in view of the Mig and Sukhoi litany of contractual problems, I think the RMAF will lean heavily for the F/A 18F Super Hornet, at least 16 of those platforms to be precise. This is in keeping with the previous numbers of Mig 29s and would inevitably solve commonality issues. This would retain the total number of Heavy Class MRCAs in the Malaysian order of battle to 42 Aircraft, which is more than adequate, given Malaysia's limited ambitions.

The Hawks will off course be used for ground attack/bombing when necessary, and it is likely that the squadron of 13 types (unlucky for some) will be stationed in the Island of Labuan, off the Borneo Coast, to deter and patrol those areas, Malaysia contests as its own. Theoratically, the remaining 42 aircraft will be kept in Malaya.

So in a nutshell, i estimate that the RMAF can shed some 60-70 aircraft in it's current inventory (including the Migs and F5s) without losing it's original capabilities. Provided that the 16 Super Hornets are purchased.

As for regional deterrence, again this is unlikely. Malaysia has allies, and is allied to other countries, and has little or no territorial ambitions, apart from claiming Indonesian culture.

 

[STURM]

In Malaysia's case, it is neither here or there. It is dwarfed by it's bullish neighbours, and it is competitively limited by it's own political constraints. .

What 'bullish' neighbours?? Please clarify...... If we indeed had bullish neighbours, our defence budget would probably be much higher than at present.

As for regional deterrence, again this is unlikely. Malaysia has allies, and is allied to other countries, and has little or no territorial ambitions, apart from claiming Indonesian culture.

Since when has Malaysian claimed Indonesian culture as its own?? It has ONLY been accused of it by certain elements in Indonesian society to divert their attention from internal problems they have. BTW, much of Indonesian culture is heavily influenced by Hindu culture....
The Bali dance, Javanese wedding ceremonies, Javanese names, wayang kulit, to name a few. Are you going to accuse Indonesia now of ''stealing'' or 'claiming'' Indian culture? Have the Indonesians officially acknowledged the fact that much of their 'culture' comes from India?

Malaysia has no ''official'' allies', as I pointed out earlier this is part of its foreign policy.
This why during the Cold War it was never part of SEATO and why in the past it has opposed any attempts to turn ASEAN into a military bloc. It does however have a very close defence realationship with the US, Australia and the UK. The only country with a pemanant military presence in Malaysia is Australia and there are more Malaysian officers on training attachments to the ADF than anywhere else.

As you've probably noticed, this is a thread devoted to the RMAF, so its best to leave politics totally out of the picture.

 

[OPSSG]

So for Malaysia in particular, it does make sense to have a very small airforce, to employed primarily for public display and the occasional maritime patrol duties it needs to keep up.

If you want to reduce the incidence of piracy in Malaysian waters, constant maritime patrols are absolutely essential. The problem now is, as we (the members of the eye-in-the sky programme) increase the patrols in one area, the pirates shift their focus of operations to another. Thankfully, most of the pirates in maritime Southeast Asia are robbers rather than the 'kidnap for ransom' types (like in Somalia). IMHO, without adequate coastal surveillance, any instability in the Philippines or Indonesia can easily spill over to Malaysia.

In that sense, and in view of the Mig and Sukhoi litany of contractual problems, I think the RMAF will lean heavily for the F/A 18F Super Hornet, at least 16 of those platforms to be precise. This is in keeping with the previous numbers of Mig 29s and would inevitably solve commonality issues.

Any news that I'm not aware of?

So in a nutshell, i estimate that the RMAF can shed some 60-70 aircraft in it's current inventory (including the Migs and F5s) without losing it's original capabilities. Provided that the 16 Super Hornets are purchased.

Does RMAF have so many operational combat aircraft to shed? Your numbers are a bit on the incredible side. Besides, RMAF's F-5s are used for photo reconnaissance and they can't replaced at this moment as UAVs carrying purely electro-optical loads can only play a complementary role. Malaysia will need some more time to evolve the technology in your UAVs and to determine your own concept of employment.

Currently, capable non-electro-optical loads in UAVs cost in millions. I estimate that it would cost Malaysia US$20 million to US$50 million, a year, over a period of 4 to 5 years, in developmental efforts to acquire such a capability at a basic level. You've got to factor in robust and secure comms networks and other defensive ECM tools to protect your comms and data network for each army division and to develop your own modern command posts. After the divisional networks are set up, then Malaysia will need to have spiral developmental efforts for each individual brigade, followed by each battalion. The issue is not just more sensors and information. The data shared must be appropriate and relevant at the relevant unit level. I know that Malaysia is in the process of developing your own BMS for your armour units. Please let us know if there are updates.

As for regional deterrence, again this is unlikely. Malaysia has allies, and is allied to other countries, and has little or no territorial ambitions...

Please name the countries. I am not aware of these 'allies' of Malaysia and before you mention the FPDA, the FPDA is not strictly speaking an alliance (in the sense that it does not impose treaty obligations of mutual defence).

It would be interesting to see how you would define 'allies', given that Malaysia is also a member of the non-aligned movement.

What 'bullish' neighbours??

I think he means Indonesia and/or Singapore. But I'm not going to take the bait, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[swerve]

... Apart from the GE engines, for export customers Gripen comes with a non-Swedish data link [Link 11 or16?] and weapons which also requires US sanctioning.

AFAIK, the non-Swedish data links are an additional option, as specified by customers, & the Swedes are happy to export Gripens with the Swedish CDL39 data link. The S. African Gripens have CDL39, not Link 11 or Link 16.

Non-US weapons? Well, it depends on what you want. You can have Gripen with IRIS-T tomorrow. Meteor will come, when the missile is on the market. Derby or other AAMs could be integrated. Ditto air-surface weapons. South Africa would happily sell you its own weapons, for example.

 

[STURM]

=swerve;186297]the Swedes are happy to export Gripens with the Swedish CDL39 data link. The S. African Gripens have CDL39, not Link 11 or Link 16.

Its interesting the SAAF has gone for CDL39. But most customers will not go for CDL39 for commonality reasons.. Do you know what air to ground ordnance has been selected and what targeting pod?

=swerve; Non-US weapons? Well, it depends on what you want. You can have Gripen with IRIS-T tomorrow. Meteor will come, when the missile is on the market. Derby or other AAMs could be integrated. Ditto air-surface weapons. South Africa would happily sell you its own weapons, for example.

True, the customer will just have to absorb the integration costs.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Does RMAF have so many operational combat aircraft to shed? Your numbers are a bit on the incredible side. Besides, RMAF's F-5s are used for photo reconnaissance and they can't replaced at this moment as UAVs carrying purely electro-optical loads can only play a complementary role. Malaysia will need some more time to evolve the technology in your UAVs and to determine your own concept of employment.

OPSSG

Check back what I wrote, I didn't mention operational combat aircraft. Also, the F5s are obsolete amongst many others that are as well. So, in a nutshell, 60-70 aircraft can be mothballed from the current inventory.

It would be interesting to see how you would define 'allies', given that Malaysia is also a member of the non-aligned movement.

The definition I use does not need to include specific treaties. Allies can be on an economic footing or military, usually out of common interests, or common enemies. Malaysia has no enemies, but does have economic rivals. Either way, Singapore is just an adjunct of Malaysia, and culturally populated by ex malaysians. Or would you rather call us Malaysians your enemy??nfloorl:

Admin: The above demonstrates a lack of geopolitical awareness as Singapore is a sovereign state. You need to reflect on how you want to continue to post in here as one can only assume that comments as above and indeed over recent time seem to indicate that you're trolling.

think about it carefully whllst on an enforced holiday.

Originally Posted by STURM
What 'bullish' neighbours??

To say Malaysia has no bullish neighbours is akin to burying one's head in the sand or build castles in the air. Malaysia is at an economic crossroads. I can say this because I am Malaysian. I can criticise my own country's shortcomings. I wonder why others would like to suggest otherwise. Our labour is mainly immigrant, our trade partners don't comparatively employ that many; but that is just the tip of the iceberg; because in 10 years time, Malaysia will be exporting Maids. The country has already exported its best talent to Singapore and beyond, and now because of the brain drain and an electorate that is culturally backward in a globalised world; the country is effectively UNABLE to compete with the Philipines, Indonesia, Korea or Thailand. China and India has already overtaken the UK economy, what is the Malaysian economy like in comparison??

In all honesty, sometimes I feel, why should the Malaysians want an airforce??? Clearly there is no defence strategy to speak of. It's better if the Ministry of Defence impound all the fighter aircraft in the fleet and sell these to friendly countries via third parties. In return, the RMAF should buy OV10 Broncos and Tucanos by the dozens and fly this type over recalcitrant areas of the country, like Kelantan for instance. That would make much more sense and in a way, grease the palms of some bureaucrats and air force officials.

My country is a rentier state, OPSSG. If i was the Sultan of Johor, I would rent out my palace to prostitutes. It'll be no different to what other Political Parties, Ministries, and Local authorities have done and continue to do.

Enjoy your day.

 

[Tavarisch]

Malaysian RMAF MiG-29s to Retire! GASP*

Before I proceed, I know there is an RMAF thread but it's locked. I know this topic can fit in that thread, but because it's lock I can't post there so I decided to start a new thread. Moderators, if you wish to close this thread down for any other reasons that I am not aware of at the present state, you may do so kindly. (I am not the most careful of persons) If not, then allow me to continue.

Yes, it was a bit of shocking news to me really. The RMAF wants to retire their MiG-29s. I completely believe this to be a case of imbecility and stupidity that so blatantly plagues my beloved country's government. The reason behind it was so stupid! To save on maintenance costs! The magnitude of such stupidity could only be equated to the poor excuses often made by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to cover their own asses in politics!

To save on maintenance costs my left arse cheek! (pardon my vulgarity) Malaysia is ranked number 30 by the IMF (2008 Statistic) in terms of GDP that was derived from Purchasing Power Parity. (I have no idea what those two things are in detail, but it tells me enough that Malaysia is rather rich in relative terms to other MiG operators) The other MiG operators, such as Algeria (Operating 51 of them), Bangladesh (Operates 16) and Bulgaria (Operates 20) all seem to be using them without problem or complaint. All of these nations have GDPs much lower than us! And somehow they can manage to operate the MiGs? Algeria is ranked 47th (If I'm not mistaken) and somehow they operate more than thrice as many of the MiGs as we do!

Sure some of those countries have quality assistance from Russia (Algeria comes to mind) but let's be frank here. Rather than retiring the MiGs, why no the Hornets? We can't even use the Hornets except to show the public that we have shiny American fighter jets! Our Hornets couldn't even fire a missile on ACCIDENT seeing as the source code is locked and we don't have access to those because the American's won't let us have em! (Or so I've been told. I did remember that Mahathir did make a statement on it, it's on YouTube, feel free to find it)

Not to say that they won't even unlock the systems for us, but let's say Singapore or Thailand decides to be funny and suddenly find that Johor or Kelantan is of their interests. (Highly hypothetical, please don't bash me up. Nothing in this world is certain, but almost everything is possible) Singapore and Thailand do have rather close ties with the Untied States as far as I know, and I am sure that the US won't be very helpful when we need those aircraft to fight their friends. Is it not a risk that is completely unnecessary? I am aware that the Hornets are formidable but if we can't use them except for our LIMA exhibitions , then they are better off sold.

Rather than retire the MiGs which we COULD use, why not retire the Hornets which we MAY or MAY NOT be able to use. The risk in such conduct is non-existent! We save more money, with which we may buy or upgrade our MiGs. MiGs may not be all that, but they are affordable and given the right upgrades and the proper training to the pilots they can still be formidable!

Perhaps I am overly excited over this issue without knowing the extent of the problem to a deeper level, and if I am wrong I welcome members of the forums to point that out, peacefully that is. My knowledge in the area of military aviation is far from perfect, but the issue at hand cannot be simply ignored. I strongly request that if anyone finds my statements to be seriously misguided or wrong or misunderstood in anyway or manner, please point it out in a civilized and constructive manner. I ain't the most perfect person on Earth, and I am bound to be mistaken or make mistakes.

But if not then I politely request members of the forum to discuss the issue with a modicum of civility.

 

[STURM]

To save on maintenance costs! .

What the Defence Minister didn't mention in his statement on retiring the Fulcrums was the bizzare and illogical set up with some 20 companies supplying parts to ATSC. The RMAF is not allowed to order its own parts and had to rely on these companies. Now compare that to the 2007Care Package signed with BAE Systems for the Hawk fleet, in which the RMAF is free to order spares under a certain budget and is provided with support by 3 Field Service Representatives from BAE Systems. Another problem which was not mentioned was ATSC overcharging the government for even simple services provided, like removing the canopy for mantainance [I wont' mention the figures here].

The Hornets were bought under the FMS programme, thus the RMAF gains from the FMS F/A-18 in service support programme which provides support and acts as a forum to enable customers to interact with the US Navy and Boeing on matters pertaining to the F/A-18 and provides easier access to US Navy logistics and engineering expertise.

Not to say that they won't even unlock the systems for us,.

Whats gives you the impression that the Hornets can't be employed in combat just because of the source codes and only look good at LIMA? Not having the source codes just means that the RMAF can't play around with the APG-73, integrate it with non-standard ordnance and improve its ECM. In the unlikely event that the source codes are provided, how will this benefit the RMAF, given that there is no local company with the expertise to take advantage of it? Australia, Canada, Kuwait and Spain did not receive the sources codes for their Hornets.

Unlike the Fulcrums, the Hornets are not being retired because they have a higher servicibility rate, have a more reliable logistics/supply chain, have an air to ground capability and because they are cheaper to operate [The radar, engines and other critical componants on the Hornets have a longer time between overhaul rate those on the Fulcrums]. A point to remember is that 11 Squadron is only expected to be fully combat ready in a year, so the only all weather platform capable of carrying ordnance beyond dumb bombs and unguided rockets are the Hornets.. BTW, the RMAF Fulcrums were not newly built examples. They were built for the Russian Air Force from 1989- 1990 and were later stored. Same goes for every Fulcrum that has been sold since then, with the exception of the IAF MiG-35K's.

 

[aztechx]

i was as surprised to read about this in the papers a few weeks back as well.and exactly like what Tavarisch mentioned, maintainance cost was never an issue for other MiG-29 operators throughout the world. The MiG is a decent interceptor considering the small area of our borders. and it carries almost the same weapons as the Su-30MkM - thus reducing the logistics issue. why retire it??like Tavarisch i also read in an article awhile back which claims that the high cost of maintaining the MiG was due to third parties involved in supplying the parts. it was sad to see the MiG performing its last public appearance during the last LIMA.

its disappointing how politics can disrupt our growth especially in the defense sector. it was mentioned before once that the EC-725 deal would be signed during LIMA but up till now,nothing happened.

I spoke to a SAAB official during the recent LIMA about the RMAF purchasing the erieye system. He told me that the Malaysian Government kept telling SAAB that they were interested but there was no commitment whatsoever.

 

[STURM]

i was as surprised to read about this in the papers a few weeks back as well.and exactly like what Tavarisch mentioned, maintainance cost was never an issue for other MiG-29 operators throughout the world. .

All the former Warsaw Pact Fulcrum operators and India already had the ground support infrastructure to support their Fulcrums [In India's case, it has a much bigger operational budget]. With Myanmmar and Bangladesh, no one here knows what kind of servicibility rates they are getting with their Fulcrums with both countries either financialy or politicly unable to get anything else apart from Chinese fighters. The only reason Bulgaria is still operating its Fulcrums is because it is broke. Mantainance costs is an issue but at the moment there is no alternative for certain countries. There have already been unconfirmed reports that Algeria is not too happy with the product support it is getting.

I spoke to a SAAB official during the recent LIMA about the RMAF purchasing the erieye system. He told me that the Malaysian Government kept telling SAAB that they were interested but there was no commitment whatsoever.

How can the government commit to anything when the funds are not yet in place? The head of Brahmos said the same thing about receiving positive feedback yet receiving no official confirmation. The list is long but the funds are not there. Until the neccessary budget is in place or MINDEF knows for certain when it will be allocated, what advantage is there to be gained from comitting? I think SAABs main fear is that the operational and technical requirements might be changed if suddenly more funds are allocated for the AEW programme. My only problem with Eriye is it does not provide 360 coverage and the ceiling limitations of the Embraer and SAAB.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Wow that is weird and shocking, I can't see people just standing by and letting this happen IMO. How many fighters do they have BTW?

Edit: I think they are replacing their Mig-29s with Su-30s which is what they must be doing. No info about replacing their small fleet of F/A-18D.

 

[Pragmatist]

They've got about 26 viable Fighters. Awesome

The 13 Hawks they've got are kinda like 3rd line bombers, possibly for internal use rather than external threats. The 10 F5s will be grounded soon enough.

That's about the sum strength of the Royal Malaysia Air Force. Kinda hard to believe?

 

[Feanor]

A few corrections. The MiG-35K does not exist. You're conflagrating the MiG-29K and MiG-35 both of which are new-built.

The main problem does seem to be the ridiculous maintenance contract. I wonder what they will replace it with.