RMAF Future; need opinions

[weasel1962]

Re:

Just the other day, someone asked me whether I thought Malaysia will still be getting the super hornet (and if that will still include the trade in). So I decided to put down my thoughts on the subject.

- Its been 8 years since the congress approval.
- Actual sales price of the super hornet has gone up. The original approval contract price in FY02 was $1.483b for 18 (presumably including trade in). Its now US$3.5b for 18 based on the Brazilian contract ($7b for 36 in 2009), and US$4.5b for 18 based on the Australian contract ($6b for 24).
- Trade in value of the existing RMAF F-18Ds will have dropped significantly. It was 5 years old in FY2002. Its now 13 years old with little resale potential.
- No business provides a no-time limit offer on a contract which means the offer would have expired a few years back.

Q: Does that mean that it will never happen?

A: No, it still could (including the trade-in). But to do so will need a new congress approval esp as the contract price numbers have changed. There will need a new round of negotiations and possibly some proof of commitment from the RMAF.

If a competitive tender was launched, the F/A-18E/F was not price competitive against Russian suks in 2002, and that has not changed in 2010. So that will explain the requirement from commitment from the RMAF.

Q: How about Malaysia buying next generation stealth aircraft instead?

A: That is a possibility. Malaysia is not restricted from the F-35 procurement. In fact, as the F-18Ds will reach 30 years by 2027 which is the traditional expectation of end of service, the delivery timings for non-partners in the post 2020 period may suit its timing. However F-35 price may end up as a cost constraint.

India and China have both launched the FGFA. Both are likely to be available for export as well. However, in both cases, the likely contractual timings will be ~year 2020.

If Malaysia intends to procure another 1 or 2 squadrons of fighters in the interim, these fighters will not be in contention.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

- Actual sales price of the super hornet has gone up. The original approval contract price in FY02 was $1.483b for 18 (presumably including trade in). Its now US$3.5b for 18 based on the Brazilian contract ($7b for 36 in 2009), and US$4.5b for 18 based on the Australian contract ($6b for 24).

The RAAF Super Hornets did not cost $6 billion for 24. They costed about half that. It was just the way the Government accounted for the acquisition including full operating costs for 10 years and heaps of other stuff. Price of Super Hornets has actually gone down.

Heaps of other stuff wrong in your analysis but only so much I can take at one sitting.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

The RAAF Super Hornets did not cost $6 billion for 24. They costed about half that. It was just the way the Government accounted for the acquisition including full operating costs for 10 years and heaps of other stuff. Price of Super Hornets has actually gone down.

Heaps of other stuff wrong in your analysis but only so much I can take at one sitting.

lol. It was A$6b rather than US$6b so that's an errata. US$3.1b was for the a/c and that was in 2007. US$1.5b for the support cost and another $617m for weapons. But unless you're expecting the RMAF to own only the a/c without any support or weapons, I'd think its a fair assumption to take that its still going to be far more than $1.483b in FY2002.

Even at US$3.1b for 24, its still end up with US2.325b for 18. Your maths must be a different kind of math for that to be cheaper than $1.483b. Hmmm...

As for the rest, if you like to only generalise and state that its wrong, I can't address it. We all know how credible those kinds of statements are.

Reminds me of the similar claim about how Japan can export weapons to Australia. And yet we all know that can't and hasn't happen yet...lol. State something wrong enough times, would it become believeable? I doubt so.

 

[gf0012-aust]

lol. It was A$6b rather than US$6b so that's an errata. US$3.1b was for the a/c and that was in 2007. US$1.5b for the support cost and another $617m for weapons. But unless you're expecting the RMAF to own only the a/c without any support or weapons, I'd think its a fair assumption to take that its still going to be far more than $1.483b in FY2002.

Australian through life support costs are not the same as US - in fact the US is indicating that they could adopt our models as it reflects actual on costs and all up costs for the life of the asset.

eg, we factor in establishment, facilities enhancements, personnel, training, weapons support, weapons cycling, weapons support, weapons integration issues and immediate platform sustainment costs It also includes some small changes to the esensor/warfare suite where some local capability is being added.

malaysia does not use the same cost modelling at all.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Reminds me of the similar claim about how Japan can export weapons to Australia. And yet we all know that can't and hasn't happen yet...lol. State something wrong enough times, would it become believeable? I doubt so.

They haven't exchanged weapons, but they've certainly shared some of their hypersonic developments and AI developments with us.

there are many ways to skin the cat - and japan and australia have been much closer than most people realise over the last 3 years.

they have considerable interest in what we do in materials science developments, titanium compounds, IR management, hypersonics and UDT (esp the CBASS/Mk48 ADCAP) as its a littorals hunter and ideal for use against small subs when you have a large sub which might have draught considerations). There is some clear interest in CEAFAR and UAV AI developments.

those exchanges are already in play, the policy changes and their intent to change is just formalising what in some areas is already occurring.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Malaysia does not use the same cost modelling at all.

That's possibly one factor why they ended up with migs and suks. If they actually did cost modelling on a life cycle basis, the Migs wouldn't have been procured and the super hornets selected ahead of the suks in 2002/03.

I don't think the RMAF were looking to operate the Mig-29s for just 15 years esp when the IAF is looking to operate theirs for 40.

Agreed, can't compare Australia's more rigorous procurement practices with Malaysia. But the numbers are still indicative on how much the a/c is going to cost and support. If Malaysia intends to maintain it up to Australia's standard with the same load-out/munitions, that's how much it will cost.

They haven't exchanged weapons, but they've certainly shared some of their hypersonic developments and AI developments with us.

there are many ways to skin the cat - and japan and australia have been much closer than most people realise over the last 3 years.

they have considerable interest in what we do in materials science developments, titanium compounds, IR management, hypersonics and UDT (esp the CBASS/Mk48 ADCAP) as its a littorals hunter and ideal for use against small subs when you have a large sub which might have draught considerations). There is some clear interest in CEAFAR and UAV AI developments.

those exchanges are already in play, the policy changes and their intent to change is just formalising what in some areas is already occurring.

I heard you the first time. There's a lot of "ifs" we're talking about. The subject was dealing specifically with sub export as an off the shelf procurement option.

I don't think one can classify the existing cooperation as "weapons" exports.

If and when it happens, I'd readily admit I'm wrong. But just like how some people expect the US to export the F-22 to Australia, sure that could happen too if the Australian officials could convince the US officials to amend the law (and they even tried) esp with the even more massive cooperation US has with Australia. LM would have been more than happy to make more sales. I didn't think it would happen either. Its still legally a no go just like the current Japanese policy governing weapons export.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Agreed, can't compare Australia's more rigorous procurement practices with Malaysia. But the numbers are still indicative on how much the a/c is going to cost and support. If Malaysia intends to maintain it up to Australia's standard with the same load-out/munitions, that's how much it will cost.

yep, the problem being that not everyone in their respective countries procurement process can even agree on "what is an apple?", let alone do an "apples to apples" analysis.

 

[STURM]

yep, the problem being that not everyone in their respective countries procurement process can even agree on "what is an apple?", let alone do an "apples to apples" analysis.

A major problem was that under the Mahathir government, the main consideration in awarding major defence deals was how these deals could benefit Malaysia, in terms of off sets, transfers of technology and the willlingness of certain countries to accept part payment in barter trade. Issues like commonality and cost effectiveness were unfortunatly given a backburner. As weasel 1962 put it, ''if they actually did cost modelling on a life cycle basis'', the Fulcrum and Flanker, would not have been ordered as both were not the RMAF's first choice. It remains to be seen if this policy will be mantained under the Najib government as to date no major deal has been awarded since he took office .

When the deal for the Fulcrums was awarded, the intention was to only order Fulcrums but last minute lobbying [thankfully!] from Uncle Sam led to the 8 Hornets being ordered. Though the Falcon was offered it was never a serous contender, given that both the Pentagon and the State Department was pushing for the Hornet and that the RMAF was seeking a twin engine fighter. To persuade the RMAF to select the F-16, a sales team from General Dynamics Corp. visited Malaysia in early 1993. Under the original deal made by Boeing, Malaysia was offered 18 F/A-18Ds, 6 spare GE F404-GE402 engines, 110 Sidewinders, 51 Sparrows, 50 Mavericks, 50 Harpoons plus a training and support package for $1.6 billion. To meet the RMAF’s delivery schedule the US Navy offered to divert 18 newly built F/A-18Ds destined for the US Navy. According to a Pentagon statement ‘’sale of these aircraft would initiate a multi year programme to modernise, strengthen and enhance the operational capability and readiness of the Malaysian air force as well as provide an increase in equipment commonality with US forces’’.

After the 8 Hornets were delivered, Malaysia did issue a RFP for 12 F/A-18Cs but no deal was awarded, largely due to the 97 Economic Crisis. Pure speculation on my part but I would hazard a guess that if a Super Hornet deal is awarded in the near future, Boeing might still be willing to accept a trade in for the RMAF's Hornets. A report a few years ago in Military Technology indicated that the Swiss Air Force and not the USN would have received the 8 Hornets, after an overhaul by RUAG.Included in the proposed Super Hornet deal were 18 F/A-18F Block 1s, 3 spare F414-GE-400 engines, AN/ALR-67[V] 3 dispensers, 12 ALQ—214 [V] 2 ECM pods, 72 LAU-127B/A launchers, support and test equipment and a logistics and support package.

With regards to a new fighter, I would be very surprised if anything other than the Super Hornet or Gripen is ordered despite the Europeans reportedly working on offering Malaysia a very attractive deal for the Typhoon. Dzirhan Mahadzir mentioned in his Facebook page that 2 pilots and groundcrew from the RMAF are currently undergoing training in the U.S. on the Super Hornet, so perhaps this might offer some clues...
I'm not sure if an evaluation team has visited Sweden for a close look at the Gripen.
Then again with defence procurement in Malaysia, anything is possible!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Dzirhan Mahadzir mentioned in his Facebook page that 2 pilots and groundcrew from the RMAF are currently undergoing training in the U.S. on the Super Hornet, so perhaps this might offer some clues...

Well, it will certainly make FPDA cross training and exercise logistics easier...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Just the other day, someone asked me whether I thought Malaysia will still be getting the super hornet (and if that will still include the trade in). So I decided to put down my thoughts on the subject.

- Its been 8 years since the congress approval.
- Actual sales price of the super hornet has gone up. The original approval contract price in FY02 was $1.483b for 18 (presumably including trade in). Its now US$3.5b for 18 based on the Brazilian contract ($7b for 36 in 2009), and US$4.5b for 18 based on the Australian contract ($6b for 24).
- Trade in value of the existing RMAF F-18Ds will have dropped significantly. It was 5 years old in FY2002. Its now 13 years old with little resale potential.
- No business provides a no-time limit offer on a contract which means the offer would have expired a few years back.

Q: Does that mean that it will never happen?

A: No, it still could (including the trade-in). But to do so will need a new congress approval esp as the contract price numbers have changed. There will need a new round of negotiations and possibly some proof of commitment from the RMAF.

If a competitive tender was launched, the F/A-18E/F was not price competitive against Russian suks in 2002, and that has not changed in 2010. So that will explain the requirement from commitment from the RMAF.

Q: How about Malaysia buying next generation stealth aircraft instead?

A: That is a possibility. Malaysia is not restricted from the F-35 procurement. In fact, as the F-18Ds will reach 30 years by 2027 which is the traditional expectation of end of service, the delivery timings for non-partners in the post 2020 period may suit its timing. However F-35 price may end up as a cost constraint.

India and China have both launched the FGFA. Both are likely to be available for export as well. However, in both cases, the likely contractual timings will be ~year 2020.

If Malaysia intends to procure another 1 or 2 squadrons of fighters in the interim, these fighters will not be in contention.

Looks like Boeing has re-submitted a F-18 super hornet proposal to MY.

Super Hornet back on agenda

The trade-in of earlier F-18Ds appear to be off the negotiating table.

 

[STURM]

Any purchase will likely take place only in 2 or 3 years minimum, assuming of course the current government wins the next General Elections that will probably be held next year.
What I find strange is that according to the NST article, the 2 seater 'F' version has
been proposed. The RMAF is currently short of fast jet crews and it already operates 8 Hornets and 18 Flankers, both of which require a WSO.

The Super Hornet remains the RMAF's main choice but the Gripen has been marketed aggressively over the years as a cheaper but just as capable alternative. Though it is arguable that Thailand's selection of the Gripen will effect Malaysia's decision, the Swedes have a big advantage over Boeing in that they can offer the RMAF the Eriye as part of a Gripen package. Then again, the better trade and defence relations the U.S. has with Malaysia may turn out to be the determining factor. plus the fact that Boeing will most probably be able offer more in offsets and technology transfers than Saab.
We'll just have to wait and see if Saab bothers to bring the Gripen for the next LIMA .

 

[riksavage]

Any purchase will likely take place only in 2 or 3 years minimum, assuming of course the current government wins the next General Elections that will probably be held next year.
What I find strange is that according to the NST article, the 2 seater 'F' version has
been proposed. The RMAF is currently short of fast jet crews and it already operates 8 Hornets and 18 Flankers, both of which require a WSO.

The Super Hornet remains the RMAF's main choice but the Gripen has been marketed aggressively over the years as a cheaper but just as capable alternative. Though it is arguable that Thailand's selection of the Gripen will effect Malaysia's decision, the Swedes have a big advantage over Boeing in that they can offer the RMAF the Eriye as part of a Gripen package. Then again, the better trade and defence relations the U.S. has with Malaysia may turn out to be the determining factor. plus the fact that Boeing will most probably be able offer more in offsets and technology transfers than Saab.
We'll just have to wait and see if Saab bothers to bring the Gripen for the next LIMA .

From a servicing perspective Gripen is the better option if you believe the marketing splurge, plus it's designed to operate from austere airfields with minimal support. Malaysia has a number of small airports dotted across the mainland and in Borneo, Gripen could become operational pretty quickly from these in a time of crisis with minimal infrastructre upgrades. With Meteor integration planned plus AESA it sounds like an ideal platform for Malaysia.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

From a servicing perspective Gripen is the better option if you believe the marketing splurge, plus it's designed to operate from austere airfields with minimal support. Malaysia has a number of small airports dotted across the mainland and in Borneo, Gripen could become operational pretty quickly from these in a time of crisis with minimal infrastructre upgrades. With Meteor integration planned plus AESA it sounds like an ideal platform for Malaysia.

...adding yet another platform with its own servicing and maintenance requirements that need to be set up with capitalisation costs yet again and because it will be purchased in small numbers end up with higher maintenance cost.

No aircraft can operate with minimal support for very long.

It is interesting to note that Thai pilots are initially trained in Sweden. Thereafter, are they on their own?

I see the current Boeing proposal as a boeing push rather than a RMAF requirement pull despite all the media talk about how RMAF is interested. Actions speak louder than words.

I think RMAF could wait until the Indian MRCA is decided before making a choice. If the gripen or super hornet is selected with in-country (india) servicing and manufacture, it might reduce the cost and provide more training opportunities either way.

 

[STURM]

It is interesting to note that Thai pilots are initially trained in Sweden. Thereafter, are they on their own? .

A cadre of former RTAF F-16 pilots were trained in Sweden and in turn will become instructors in Thailand. A Swede pilot will also be based in Thailand as an instructor.
For the RMAF F/A-18Ds back in the late 90's, a number of RMAF pilots were trained in the U.S. and as part of the agreement, 2 USMC pilots and 2 Boeing pilots were based in Butterworth.

I see the current Boeing proposal as a boeing push rather than a RMAF requirement pull despite all the media talk about how RMAF is interested. Actions speak louder than words.

Boeing is simply capatilising on the fact that the RMAF has a requirement for a squadron of MRCA's and that the Super Hornet remains a favourite. Actions indeed speak louder than words and the million dollar question here is when the Malaysian government will have the political will to sign a firm order.....

 

[STURM]

3 C-130Hs have flown to Jeddah, as part of Ops Pyramid, and will be flying several sorties a day to evacuate Malaysian nationals from Cairo and Alexandria to Jeddah. The C-130H's had originally flown to Abu Dhabi and couldn't proceed with the evacuation flights until authorisation was granted to land in Saudi Arabia. There are total of 11,700 Malaysians in Egypt, some 3000 of which had been flown to Jeddah by Saturday, the 5th, by the C-130's, 2Malaysian Airlines Systems 747s and 2 Air Asia Airbus 320's.

[Mod Edit: I've merged this thread (Malaysian RMAF MiG-29s to Retire! GASP*) with the old, closed 'RMAF Future; need opinions' thread, as members have been essentially discussing the same topic. The old thread was closed for a time because of trolling by some members. Cheers and have fun with the merged threads. ]

 

[STURM]

[Mod Edit: The old thread was closed for a time because of trolling by some members. Cheers and have fun with the merged threads. ]

Thanks. Unfortunatly there hasn't been much RMAF news to discuss these past few months with regards to procurements. Hopefully this will change soon. Cheers.

 

[OPSSG]

3 C-130Hs have flown to Jeddah, as part of Ops Pyramid, and will be flying several sorties a day to evacuate Malaysian nationals from Cairo and Alexandria to Jeddah. The C-130H's had originally flown to Abu Dhabi and couldn't proceed with the evacuation flights until authorisation was granted to land in Saudi Arabia. There are total of 11,700 Malaysians in Egypt, some 3000 of which had been flown to Jeddah by Saturday, the 5th, by the C-130's, 2Malaysian Airlines Systems 747s and 2 Air Asia Airbus 320's.

My best wishes to all Ops Pyramid personnel. Here's a Singaporean blog post praising MAF. As CJ notes in the blog: "The professionalism and operational readiness demonstrated by ATM personnel in this unprecedented recall and deployment of Malaysia's civil resources is a great advertisement for KEMENTAH/ATM recruiters."

 

[STURM]

My best wishes to all Ops Pyramid personnel.

There have been accusations, mostly politicaly motivated in my opinion, that the government responded late and in a haphazard manner in launching the evacuation flights. Nonetheless the RMAF and agencies involved have done a great job.

Apart from re-supply flights to Somalia, Namibia and Bosnia in the 90's I can't think of any other occasions when RMAF C-130's have operated this far west. The only other evacuation flights by C-130's as far as I know of, was in Cambodia during the coup there but there were much less evacuees involved and it was closer to home.

If i'm not mistaken David Boey has done some RSAF articles and photo spreads for AFM in the past.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

There have been accusations, mostly politicaly motivated in my opinion, that the government responded late and in a haphazard manner in launching the evacuation flights. Nonetheless the RMAF and agencies involved have done a great job.

Apart from re-supply flights to Croatia and Bosnia in the 90's I can't think of any other occasions when RMAF C-130's have operated this far west. The only other evacuation flights by C-130's as far as I know of, was in Cambodia during the coup there but there were much less evacuees involved and it was closer to home.

If i'm not mistaken David Boey has done some RSAF articles and photo spreads for AFM in the past.

Those that claimed the response was late are ignorant. Landing rights need to be negotiated. One can't just fly a/c into another country just like that. RMAF needed to go through jeddah.

Its a massive evacuation (11+ thousand MY students studying there). I would guess its beyond MAS/Air asia capability to cope. Otherwise RMAF shouldn't have needed to intervene.

If I'm not wrong, the last evacuation by rmaf c-130 was for the merapi eruption.

 

[STURM]

Those that claimed the response was late are ignorant. Landing rights need to be negotiated.

Unfortunatly many Malaysians are quick at making claims and accusations without knowing the difficulties involved. Many think it's just a simple matter of taking off, picking up the evacuees and returning them home, never mind the overfights, basing and landing rights that need to be secured from other countries, never mind the logistics involved. In a Malaysian defence blog recently, a joker claims that the Malaysian government made a huge mistake in using military registered aircraft as landing rights for military registered aircraft take longer to secure. According him only commercial aircraft should have been used.... Anyway, Operation Pyramid is to end shortly with about 6500 already evacuated. Should a need arise to evacuate the remaining Malaysians who have chose the remain in Egypt, the naval auxilliary ship, the Bunga Emas, is currently near Port Said and can be used if needed.

Similiarly, the recent incident with pirates has also been critised by various knowledgeable parties with some claiming that the troops involved treated the Somalis with kids gloves and question why so many rounds were fired which led to only a few Somalis being wounded and none killed. Ignored is the fact that the main objectives of securing the vessel and rescuing the crew was achieved. Comparison is also made with the S.Korean operation which led to pirates being killed, ignoring the fact that the circumstances of both operations were different.

RMAF C-130s have also performed non-military or non-traditional roles in the past such as ferrying hippopotamus's back from Bostwana, and flying a satellite to Kwajalein atoll, etc.

A video on a Fulcrum female pilot.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U5lPPOyRao"]YouTube - ‪Don't mess with Patricia - the lady flies a fighter jet‬‏[/nomedia]