RMAF Future; need opinions

[renjer]

I read it as the Malaysian MiG-29s were upgraded to feature Westernized avionics and add other improvements during production, which like the newly ordered Su-30MKM, the RMAF usually goes for some sort of upgrade in terms of western avionics and systems, rather than the stock standard aircraft in the Russian service, whatever the case maybe, the Malaysian MiGs are a capable aircraft in the regional context regardless of new build or stored, as has been noted by serveral commentators, like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

I see the MiGs staying in the Malaysian service for some time, since these aircraft are being stored instead of sold to a third country. I wonder if the attrition MiGs would be replaced now that the Su-30MKMs are coming online, or if the MiG29's are to be further upgraded. Where does this leave the F/A 18 planes in the RMAF since plans are afoot to add JDAM capabilities, does this signal further aircraft hornets are to be purchased in the not too distant future?

My thinking on this is more in line with Awang Se and weasel1962. The availability of the Su-30MKM makes the likelihood of the F/A-18Fs entering service less likely as the former is a more capable aircraft. Although the F/A-18F is an outstanding aircraft with its leading-edge features available it would most likely enter Malaysian service severely handicapped by American restrictions. Put another way, it would be a degraded aircraft at the point of offer.

I also think that the MiG-29Ns and F/A-18Ds are outclassed by the Su-30MKM. Therefore it would be natural for the RMAF to favour storing the MiG-29Ns in light of a shortage of qualified pilots with the necessary flight hours to free them for the Sukhoi. I also think that if the RMAF selects the Su-30MKM for the 2nd order of MRCAs then there is the possibility that we will see the F/A-18Ds being stored as well.

If the RMAF is set on the Su-30MKM then it would make more sense to completely dispose of the other 2 aircraft types. Back when it switched to the Hawks 100/200 from the A-4s the RMAF also placed the latter in "storage" rather than selling them. The practical result was that these airframes became so degraded that disposal was no longer an option. Rather than diverting resources to maintaining the stored aircraft it would be better to realise whatever value these retain and help reduce the RMAF's overall operating cost.

Subangnite, you are right. Our choice of combat aircraft does not indicate our politics. In other fora (not Defencetalk), some posters comment that Malaysia should stick to F-5s rather than going for aircraft like the Su-30MKM or M-346. Why? Why should we deliberately undermatch our potential adversaries to please countries that will not play any role in our defence? Big countries do what they will, small ones what we must.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[renjer]

weasel1962, you might want to click on the quote button at the lower left hand side of a post if you want to use the quote function. It will be easier for you next time.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Zaphael]

Honestly, I really feel that the RMAF needs to look at the matter from another perspective.

They need to re-evaluate what is really cost effective. Not in just the short term, but in the long run. And I honestly feel, the Superbugs are a more maintainance friendly and economic aircraft to operate. At the same time, they come with state of the art technologies that are also being used in the US Navy.

Ultimately, the winner of an air campaign in war, is the side that is able to keep it's aircraft up n sortieing longer than the other. A maintenance demanding aircraft works against this the moment it starts flying!

Besides, the F/A-18E/F is not inferior to the SU-30 in terms of technologies and avionics onboard. It can carry a wide variety of armaments, which M'sia can justify purchasing, eg Sidewinder X, AMRAAMS, JDAMs as well. It may not be as fancy as the Su-30 in air shows, but it gets the job done in terms of providing the RMAF with cutting edge technologies, and reliable deterrence force.

 

[Ding]

Zaphael

not that the superbugs are bad, they good planes, but the cost of ownership PLUS the restriction from the US government makes it highly doubtful Malaysia will buy it. Restrictions will certainly involve armement of the planes. AMRAAMs? Maybe not.... Harpoons for ASuW? Maybe not. Transfer of technology.... Certainly not!

Besides, we did not have such a bad record maintaining the MiGs. Availability rates are acceptable and it's not like the MiGs are breaking down ever so often. Furthermore, as the RMAF has the experience in dealing with Russian planes, many weakness spots, such as logistics and maintenance can be handled and resolved quickly.

BTW, to compare cold hard statistics between the SuperBugs and the MKMs, MKMs out-performs the Superbugs in almost every aspect. Range, speed, maneuverability, maybe avionics (this is a point of contention always). And you have to remember, the Russians have approved to provide us with almost any armament that we want for the MKMs plus transfer of technology.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Subangite]

Honestly, I really feel that the RMAF needs to look at the matter from another perspective.

They need to re-evaluate what is really cost effective. Not in just the short term, but in the long run. And I honestly feel, the Superbugs are a more maintainance friendly and economic aircraft to operate. At the same time, they come with state of the art technologies that are also being used in the US Navy.

Ultimately, the winner of an air campaign in war, is the side that is able to keep it's aircraft up n sortieing longer than the other. A maintenance demanding aircraft works against this the moment it starts flying!

Besides, the F/A-18E/F is not inferior to the SU-30 in terms of technologies and avionics onboard. It can carry a wide variety of armaments, which M'sia can justify purchasing, eg Sidewinder X, AMRAAMS, JDAMs as well. It may not be as fancy as the Su-30 in air shows, but it gets the job done in terms of providing the RMAF with cutting edge technologies, and reliable deterrence force.

Malaysia has invested ithe Su-30MKM's, for better or for worse. The Boeing offer for the Super Hornets, as much as the RMAF would want them, now there's just not enough funding for the purchase. The Malaysian defence budget is quite small.

The Malaysian hornets are relatively new in the RMAF, with plenty of service life in them, that said, the Super Hornets is an amazing aircraft, but I think for Malaysia right now, considering the Malaysian hornets being relatively new, introduction of Su-30MKM's, it would be more prudent to either purchase more hornets and to upgrade the current hornets, to add more sting (sorry for the pun).

F/A-18C/D Hornets are a lot cheaper than the Super Hornets, but because the aircraft is no longer in production, perhaps the RMAF can seek further F/A-18C/D from US inventory. The Spanish Air force for example received 24 addition hornets from the US Navy. Further more, the 8 Malaysian hornets aren't peculiar-to-Malaysia hornets, they are the same kind as hornets in the USMC / Navy service, even with tailhooks and foldable wings for carrier landing and storage! Purchasing additional hornets from US inventory adds a quantitative advantage to the RMAF.

Upgrade of the Malaysian hornets is another possibility. Australia is upgrading its F-18s. This upgrade is to add the Joint Direct Attack Munition to the weapons on these Hornets. Recent reports suggests that the RMAF is also interested to upgrade the hornets to provide JDAM ability.

Anyways, the Spanish air force is upgrading as well, by adding the Taurus KEPD 350 missile, which like the JDAM uses GPS guidance, a range of 350 kilometers, 1,080-pound MEPHISTO warhead.

This enables the Spanish EF-18 hornets to fire at ships and other targets well out of the range of most surface-to-air missiles, its save the Spanish tax payers too since the missiles only cost about $675,000 each, compared to over $1 million for the shorter-range Storm Shadow/SCALP.

Upgrade of the Malaysian hornets gives the RMAF further qualitative advantage, purchasing additional hornets from US inventory provides quantitative advantages, all this with American technological reliability.
There's a thought!

 

[Zaphael]

Malaysia has invested ithe Su-30MKM's, for better or for worse. The Boeing offer for the Super Hornets, as much as the RMAF would want them, now there's just not enough funding for the purchase. The Malaysian defence budget is quite small.

The Malaysian hornets are relatively new in the RMAF, with plenty of service life in them, that said, the Super Hornets is an amazing aircraft, but I think for Malaysia right now, considering the Malaysian hornets being relatively new, introduction of Su-30MKM's, it would be more prudent to either purchase more hornets and to upgrade the current hornets, to add more sting (sorry for the pun).

F/A-18C/D Hornets are a lot cheaper than the Super Hornets, but because the aircraft is no longer in production, perhaps the RMAF can seek further F/A-18C/D from US inventory. The Spanish Air force for example received 24 addition hornets from the US Navy. Further more, the 8 Malaysian hornets aren't peculiar-to-Malaysia hornets, they are the same kind as hornets in the USMC / Navy service, even with tailhooks and foldable wings for carrier landing and storage! Purchasing additional hornets from US inventory adds a quantitative advantage to the RMAF.

Upgrade of the Malaysian hornets is another possibility. Australia is upgrading its F-18s. This upgrade is to add the Joint Direct Attack Munition to the weapons on these Hornets. Recent reports suggests that the RMAF is also interested to upgrade the hornets to provide JDAM ability.

Anyways, the Spanish air force is upgrading as well, by adding the Taurus KEPD 350 missile, which like the JDAM uses GPS guidance, a range of 350 kilometers, 1,080-pound MEPHISTO warhead.

This enables the Spanish EF-18 hornets to fire at ships and other targets well out of the range of most surface-to-air missiles, its save the Spanish tax payers too since the missiles only cost about $675,000 each, compared to over $1 million for the shorter-range Storm Shadow/SCALP.

Upgrade of the Malaysian hornets gives the RMAF further qualitative advantage, purchasing additional hornets from US inventory provides quantitative advantages, all this with American technological reliability.
There's a thought!

I can agree with you that M'sia can look into expanding their Hornet fleet. The Hornets are trusty multi-role aircraft that has a pretty good record in foreign service.

But further upgrades of the hornet may only perhaps be done to a level comparable to that of the USN's at max. Since the US themselves are beginning to phase in the Superhornets,(logically) additional developements and upgrades would be done for the super hornets instead. Beyond that, RMAF may have to look for an 3rd party who can do further upgrades... which may not be as likely in the future, as the Hornets are kinda on the way out foreign air services as well. In a way, the hornets have reached their maximum potential of development. The future belongs to the Super Hornets.

Of course, you still have the issue of tech transfer. I believe there is a need to streamline RMAF requirements for the Super Hornet in terms of technologies it wishes to acquire, (IF RMAF should decide to also acquire SHs). The issue of tech transfer i believe is due to political and security reasons. When the US sells aircraft and technologies that its still currently operating, like the Superhornet, perhaps one of the first questions they ask is, "Can our buyers be trusted with this technology? Would they sell it to a foreign and unfriendly country? Would they be able to find a way to counter our technologies in combat?" If the M'sian govt can align itself more closely with the US, their grip on tech transfers mght be loosened.

The SU-30 maybe able to pull more gs, accelerate faster and fly fancier at air shows, but the Superbugs still retain a qualitative advantage in the form of their AESA radars, signal processing capabilities, Low observable technology and ease of maintenance. The Superbugs would definitely serve well and long for the RMAF and still provide the capability to expand the aircraft's capabilities through the latest upgrades etc. The advantage of having new aircraft...

 

[Subangite]

I can agree with you that M'sia can look into expanding their Hornet fleet. The Hornets are trusty multi-role aircraft that has a pretty good record in foreign service.

But further upgrades of the hornet may only perhaps be done to a level comparable to that of the USN's at max.

Comparable to the USN? Foreign services are upgrading their aircraft to abilities not similar to USN standards. US hornets don't have Taurus KEPD 350 missile ability like the EF-18s in the Spanish Air Force. Some operators have added home grown equipment amongst other upgrades, for example the Finnish hornets have finnish built data links and the $2 million a piece ITT/Westinghouse ALQ-165 Advanced Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ) which are not featured in the hornets of the US Navy.

Since the US themselves are beginning to phase in the Superhornets,(logically) additional developements and upgrades would be done for the super hornets instead. Beyond that, RMAF may have to look for an 3rd party who can do further upgrades... which may not be as likely in the future, as the Hornets are kinda on the way out foreign air services as well. In a way, the hornets have reached their maximum potential of development. The future belongs to the Super Hornets.

I disagree, they're not on their way out, just yet. Spain wouldn't have recently upgraded them, same with Australia, if they consider them "on their way out". Kuwait, Switzerland, Finland, Malaysia have yet to upgrade theirs, to the same level as the Spanish or Australians, and I don't think the USMC Navy hornets have recieved their MLUs. Anyways, I can see the Swiss, Spanish, Kuwaiti's, Finn's, operating the hornets for atleast another decade, easily longer. There has been no signs that they would want to replace their bugs just yet, no orders for the Super Bugs as replacements.

Don't look at the Super Hornets as part of the hornet family, replacement of it or even as a enhancements to the hornets, there are enough differences from the original F/A-18 Hornet that many judge the Super Hornet to be an essentially new aircraft.

Furthermore, if the hornets are "on their way out", "reached maximum potential", "future belonging to the super hornets" as you have said, why is it that no other hornet operating air force have ordered or replaced their "on the way out" hornets with the Super Bugs? Why is it that they have yet to order??? Actually no foreign air force has ordered the Super Hornets in the first place. Boeing has yet to sell the "future belonging to the super hornets" to any country! Suprising for an aircraft which you say the future belongs to, don't you think? The current hornets is still a capable aircraft and will be for quite some time with mid-life upgrades.

Of course, you still have the issue of tech transfer. I believe there is a need to streamline RMAF requirements for the Super Hornet in terms of technologies it wishes to acquire, (IF RMAF should decide to also acquire SHs). The issue of tech transfer i believe is due to political and security reasons.

The US never releases the source codes for their fighter planes. Do you think the Australian Hornets are of the same calibre as their American counterparts? Even though Australia has a close military relationship with the US.

When the US sells aircraft and technologies that its still currently operating, like the Superhornet, perhaps one of the first questions they ask is, "Can our buyers be trusted with this technology? Would they sell it to a foreign and unfriendly country? Would they be able to find a way to counter our technologies in combat?" If the M'sian govt can align itself more closely with the US, their grip on tech transfers mght be loosened.

I think this comment is rather presumptuous of you. What makes you think Malaysia can't be trusted with US technology? What makes you think Kuwait, the UAE or puritan Wahabbi Saudi Arabia can be trusted more than Malaysia?? What makes you think it needs "further alignment"? I think you're grasping at straws, Malaysia-US bilateral relations are just fine, Malaysia might not agree with the US, but neither do the Saudi's, Germans or French, which the US has close military ties with.

In my opinion Malaysia plays an important role in SEA for the US, Malaysia is a leader within Asean, promoting regional security with the ARF, Malaysia is particularly important to the US because of trade. Malaysia is America's 10th largest trading partner in the world, it is the largest trading partner in South East Asia for the US, US-Malaysia trade is greater than its trade with India and Russia combined. The defence of such a strategic and important trade partner is in America's best interests, afterall Malaysia was and still is being offered the Super Hornets by Boeing and the US. However it is Malaysia who has chosen a path not to be reliant on American arms.

The SU-30 maybe able to pull more gs, accelerate faster and fly fancier at air shows, but the Superbugs still retain a qualitative advantage in the form of their AESA radars, signal processing capabilities, Low observable technology and ease of maintenance. The Superbugs would definitely serve well and long for the RMAF and still provide the capability to expand the aircraft's capabilities through the latest upgrades etc. The advantage of having new aircraft...

I'll repeat it again, this is a moot point. Malaysia has already invested in the SU-30MKMs, if Malaysia were to spend much more on its military as some of its neighbours do, then perhaps the luxury of buying F/A-18E/F could be an option now, along with its entailed technological restrictions, missiles being in storage in the US and also potentially also being at the whims of American politicians. Fortunately, defence spending is not high on the priority of Malaysian politicians as reflected in the budget. Hurrah!!

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Zaphael]

Comparable to the USN? Foreign services are upgrading their aircraft to abilities not similar to USN standards. US hornets don't have Taurus KEPD 350 missile ability like the EF-18s in the Spanish Air Force. Some operators have added home grown equipment amongst other upgrades, for example the Finnish hornets have finnish built data links and the $2 million a piece ITT/Westinghouse ALQ-165 Advanced Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ) which are not featured in the hornets of the US Navy.



I disagree, they're not on their way out, just yet. Spain wouldn't have recently upgraded them, same with Australia, if they consider them "on their way out". Kuwait, Switzerland, Finland, Malaysia have yet to upgrade theirs, to the same level as the Spanish or Australians, and I don't think the USMC Navy hornets have recieved their MLUs. Anyways, I can see the Swiss, Spanish, Kuwaiti's, Finn's, operating the hornets for atleast another decade, easily longer. There has been no signs that they would want to replace their bugs just yet, no orders for the Super Bugs as replacements.

Don't look at the Super Hornets as part of the hornet family, replacement of it or even as a enhancements to the hornets, there are enough differences from the original F/A-18 Hornet that many judge the Super Hornet to be an essentially new aircraft.

Furthermore, if the hornets are "on their way out", "reached maximum potential", "future belonging to the super hornets" as you have said, why is it that no other hornet operating air force have ordered or replaced their "on the way out" hornets with the Super Bugs? Why is it that they have yet to order??? Actually no foreign air force has ordered the Super Hornets in the first place. Boeing has yet to sell the "future belonging to the super hornets" to any country! Suprising for an aircraft which you say the future belongs to, don't you think? The current hornets is still a capable aircraft and will be for quite some time with mid-life upgrades.



The US never releases the source codes for their fighter planes. Do you think the Australian Hornets are of the same calibre as their American counterparts? Even though Australia has a close military relationship with the US.



I think this comment is rather presumptuous of you. What makes you think Malaysia can't be trusted with US technology? What makes you think Kuwait, the UAE or puritan Wahabbi Saudi Arabia can be trusted more than Malaysia?? What makes you think it needs "further alignment"? I think you're grasping at straws, Malaysia-US bilateral relations are just fine, Malaysia might not agree with the US, but neither do the Saudi's, Germans or French, which the US has close military ties with.

In my opinion Malaysia plays an important role in SEA for the US, Malaysia is a leader within Asean, promoting regional security with the ARF, Malaysia is particularly important to the US because of trade. Malaysia is America's 10th largest trading partner in the world, it is the largest trading partner in South East Asia for the US, US-Malaysia trade is greater than its trade with India and Russia combined. The defence of such a strategic and important trade partner is in America's best interests, afterall Malaysia was and still is being offered the Super Hornets by Boeing and the US. However it is Malaysia who has chosen a path not to be reliant on American arms.




I'll repeat it again, this is a moot point. Malaysia has already invested in the SU-30MKMs, if Malaysia were to spend much more on its military as some of its neighbours do, then perhaps the luxury of buying F/A-18E/F could be an option now, along with its entailed technological restrictions, missiles being in storage in the US and also potentially also being at the whims of American politicians. Fortunately, defence spending is not high on the priority of Malaysian politicians as reflected in the budget. Hurrah!!

I apologise. I did not mean to imply that Malaysia was not trustworthy to recieve technologies from the US. What I meant was, it is consideration applied to whoever they are gonna sell their weapons and technologies to.

Well, development for an aircraft such as the F/A-18 will definitely be on the decrease, despite the current upgrades you have seen. Such "upgrades" are in a sense, interim. To keep the aircraft viable until a new aircraft can be purchased. As for the Spanish hornets, I think its wonderful that it can recieve a new stand of capability. I just doubt that GPS/INS weapons are very effective against mobile naval targets.

2ndly, if M'sia was to expand its Hornet fleet... where would these hornets come from? USN surplus? Composing of perhaps refurbished but retired aircraft? The US is going full throttle on production of new Superhornets, I'm not sure it is likely to produce any Hornets. So these surplus hornets that somehow finds itself in M'sian inventories are ALL gonna need these upgrades and makeovers! At the end of the day? Can the cost of buying Cheaper and older fighters, but require more upgrade work be justified?

Wouldn't acquiring slightly smaller numbers, but new airframes with more developments ahead provide more advantages to an expanding force? Perhaps lets not limit these new aircraft to superbugs... maybe some of the euro-canards can be considered too.

However, I do concede that despite what I've said... the damn super hornets are over-priced. I somehow suspect the US is not really too enthusiastic about selling the Superhornets. If the superhornet sales are too spectacular now, they are won't be able to sell more JSFs in future to lower the cost of that aircraft.

 

[Ding]

Ding. The F18Ds are already equipped with Harpoons. Only AMRAAM is not included.

"Besides, we did not have such a bad record maintaining the MiGs. Availability rates are acceptable and it's not like the MiGs are breaking down ever so often."

Actually, the record was pretty abysmal with the -29. Serviceability was ~50% and at times dipped below that until the Indian link-up. That's what prompted the shift to the Su-30. Licensed production means that the IAF is in a better position to service the Sukhois unlike the Migs. Russians still retain engine production though.

However agreed, the sukhoi makes a good choice for the RMAF. In general, the flankers have a better serviceability record than the Migs.

Woops my bad.... didnt know the harpoon was offered. Must have missed that report

Woops my bad... didnt know the availability rates was that low. been talking to the pilots only, never to the maintenance people. but i did heard it got better with India's help now.

That said, again the comparative benefits of getting the MKMs outweighs the benefits of getting the SuperBugs. As always, Malaysia always try to go "best bang for you Bucks (or Malaysian Ringgit in this case). I hope so...

 

[Zaphael]

True, smaller airforces like ours needs to go for "bang for the buck." But we need to carefully calculate exactly how much bucks is it we are paying for the bang. Not just the short term, but long term costs.

Most Russian aircraft are already acknowledged to be more demanding on maintenance and repairs, and maintenance contracts don't come cheap either. Would one end up paying more for maintenance instead? Spending too much time in servicing doesn't just affect the costs, but defense readiness as well.

If we exist in a region where open war happens frequently and combat attrition is high, Russian aircraft are worth the money. Chances are, when you need to send up jets, u send the Russian ones up, so that if they get shot down, u don't lose too much money. Hopefully the pilot ejects, and you can use him again. One less aircraft to service too.

But in a rather peaceable region like ours, defence readiness is key. The ability to scramble at a moments notice means your aircraft needs to be at tip top shape most of the time. (It happens for smaller air forces ) If the aircraft is maintenance exhaustive, chances are, its not in a perfect condition to contribute when it's needed to right?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Ding]

Ding, Don't have the original notification for the F18Ds but these links should help to confirm that Harpoons were purchased for the F/A-18Ds.

http://www.aviationnow.com/shownews/00sing1/topsto05.htm

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060804-013634-1071r

This was the suggested load-out for the E/F proposed sale. See notification number 02-56. It showed that the AN/APG-73 was offered but not the AN/APG-79 AESA which in any case was not in service at that time. No AMRAAM too but likely the US is now ie in 2006 inclined to allow AMRAAM sales.

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/no...=%&descin=&date1in=1992&date2in=2005&typein=%

For more info on AN/APG-73 radar:
http://www.raytheon.com/products/apg73/

Malaysia upgraded the F18Ds with the ASPJ. See 01-23. Later it found out it couldn't jam CW beams (that the I-Hawks SAMs uses) and wanted it adjusted to do just that. Can't remember which publication (I think it was Conways) that carried this story but it wasn't reported on the web.

The FAS site is just a rehash of the DSCA site. If you would like to see original source, see here:
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/36b_index.htm

thanks dude. going thru it right now.

 

[Ding]

Today Merdeka Day celebration, how come i didnt see any flybys?? no tanks? only Adnans, some Condors and Sibmas. Why oh why? I sacrificed sleep just to see some 'usual' land vehicles. That said, at least got to see the G5 arty pure dissapointment dude

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[renjer]

Maybe everything else is already in storage.

Here's some news on the CSAR requirement;

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/08/29/208726/Malaysia+to+delay+CSAR+replacement+.html

and some news on the UAV development:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Article...equirements+hold+up+Malaysia's+mini+UAV+.html