RMAF Future; need opinions

[Skyman]

The other issue is of course, missiles and Technological Transfer. i doubt it if KL can put in place a localised aircraft industry on the scale of HAL in India, but considering the package includes a Sukhoi service centre in Malaysia, then it means that the service is going Sukhoi.

I don't know the situation so clearly. But IMO, it's no need to become a HAL-like capability today, but why don't tomorrow? MY will surely could if they keep on study and invest in technology that was transfered.

Does anyone know the munitions load-outs for the RMAF F-18Ds?

So far understand that the munitions include the usual dumb bombs, mavericks (type?), harpoon (type?) and possibly paveway II bombs. A2A includes AIM-7(M?), AIM-120 (type unknown) and AIM-9(L/M/P?)s.

Clarification on any that I have missed or types would be appreciated.

As far as I saw in LIMA'07: AIM-9, AIM-7M, AIM-120, AGM-84D, AGM-65D, bomb and rocket

 

[nevidimka]

RMAF has AIM120? Interesting. Finally US sold i to Malaysia huh? which version is this? i believe it would be te AIM 120A version?

Also regarding the indian malsyai cooperation, i forgot the link of the article i read, but it will include India sending around 30+ high level trainers to be based in Malaysia for the next -3 years n train RMAF pilots on the Su30 MKM.

If this is true, it will be a very good step, as the RMAF will get very good training n knowledge of the Indian air force on the Sukhois. It will drastically improve RMAF understanding n usage of the fighter aircraft type very quickly.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[aztechx]

are u sure we have AIM-120 currently in our inventory?even singapore has theirs kept by the states if im not mistaken..definitely an interesting fact to know..

 

[Mr Ignorant]

The RMAF probably have a very limited amount of American Missiles. And there was some rumours a while back alleging that using the missiles would require permissions of some type??? I am not too sure how useful this is for the RMAF.

Either way, the SU30 MKM is a sure winner, in terms of capabilites, missiles, armaments, service centres, pilot training, etc. The deal is as good as done. The RMAF will simply not invest anymore in American Air Superiority Fighters.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Mr Ignorant]

So that's it then. I wonder why the RMAF bothered to buy those 8 F/A 18s??? Did they expect to go dogfighting with the M61 Vulcan???

In any case, buying American Hardware these days entails some level of sophistication, and unfortunately Malaysia is limited in terms of that kind and type of maintenance and deployment.

With time, the Hawk 200s and F5s will be relegated to support roles or storage. The F/A 18s ????? Well something needs to be done with these aircraft. If the fleet of SU 30MKMs are built up to a respectable number of some 40-50 fighters then I suppose the Hornets will be moved to the Navy, not that the Navy would be displeased, but it makes sense in a purely organisational manner.

As for the AIM-120s - Use it for target practice.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Mr Ignorant]

1. Prior to the introduction of the Su-30, the F18s still represent the most lethal aircraft in RMAF inventory. Some might argue it still is.

2. Munitions has a use-by date. Getting lots of it will be wasted if not used.

3. At more than RM 1m each, I doubt if the AMRAAM will ever be used for target practice. There are also AIM-7s and AIM-9s which are still effective in dealing with earlier gen aircraft that still permeate in the air forces in the region. In any case, I don't think the RMAF had originally planned to stop at 8.

4. It doesn't take long to ship in more missiles when needed.

5. If US intervention is needed for MY and neighbouring countries' munitions, there's not going to be a war isn't it...

The F/A 18 contribution to the RMAF is marginal. Yes, it is a fancy bit of kit, for us Malaysians and also, it's nice for those air display shows the service puts up around the country, but if the RMAF and the Defence Ministry were ever serious about the F/A 18, then negotiations for the Sukhoi, would have never taken place.

As for the AMRAAM - Use it for target practice. What's $1 million ringgit to the Malaysians??? Next to nothing really.

Is it still viable to have a small inventory of American made missiles, if not to stilt the somewhat distorted image of what a Hornet can do to another Air Force? I doubt it - Either the package comes with 2 or 3 score number of missiles - or the capability is offset by the lack of it.

As for the shipment of additional missiles - yes this doesn't take long and it can be done with a dozen planeloads, but the dependence also means American State Department has the final say if and when armaments can be shipped. And what then?

Not to put a fine point to it, but the Americans are smart with the export of their arms. One only needs to look back at World War 2 and see the effects of the lend lease agreement, and other instances in the 60s when the US refused to support Israel.

Yes, it doesn't take much to buy American Equipment, but also, it puts the country at the mercy of external American policy and supply.

 

[aztechx]

spot on!ive always wondered why the RMAF agreed with the purchase of the hornets..good planes no doubt but i cant help feeling that something more then the plane capabilities were taken into considerations if u know what i mean..

about not purchasing anymore US military hardwares,ive heard from a trusted sources that a number of our hornet pilots were sent to the states to train on operating the superhornets..so there might be a possibility of us getting the superbugs but then again,training doesnt neccesarily lead to purchase i guess...

5. If US intervention is needed for MY and neighbouring countries' munitions, there's not going to be a war isn't it...

true but i think,our 'friend' down south is a closer ally to the states and with the kind of things happening arund the world at the moment..it would be better for us to be prepared for any possibilities by going russian..hope the 'possibility' doesnt turn into 'reality' thou.. :shudder

 

[Mr Ignorant]

5. If US intervention is needed for MY and neighbouring countries' munitions, there's not going to be a war isn't it...

That doesn't detract from the original obligation of the RMAF. The service is still expected to operate some type of Fighter capability in Malaysia. Fortunately, Malaysians are unlike the RNZAF with all due respect. And the RNZAF had a "historic" squadron transferred from the RAF.

Glad we're going Russian. At today's inflated prices, better to be linked with India in Air superiority than to the rest in ASEAN.

 

[qwerty223]

The F/A 18 contribution to the RMAF is marginal. Yes, it is a fancy bit of kit, for us Malaysians and also, it's nice for those air display shows the service puts up around the country, but if the RMAF and the Defence Ministry were ever serious about the F/A 18, then negotiations for the Sukhoi, would have never taken place.

Hornet has a unique strike capability. They aren't alternative to MKM, nor vice versa. And the decision was made a decade before MKI exist. Time line is also a factor.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sorry for butting in boys but i just have a small question. From a logistical, training, commonality standpoint, why do you malaysians split your airforce between Western and russian kit, which means 2 sets of missiles, two supply chains, 2 sets of parts, 2 sets of avionics (no comonality) and 2 ways of doing things? Its like you deliberatly want to make things harder for yourselves! Just buy annother squadron of MKM's, thats my two cents. Standedise across RMAF and start useing russian fighter kit/weapons. Scrap the Sook/rhino orbat, its just too messy and costly (anyway i doubt the yanks will sell you a Block II so no AESA). Still get Erieye for your AEW&C but just buy the Sooks as your fronline fighter, they're plenty capable.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Yes, this was raised sometime ago on this thread, so if you scroll back, it was actually three different platforms the RMAF maintained in the recent past. That's why the push for the SU30 MKM. The aircraft will replace the F5s, the F18s and the Mig 29s in the ir Superiority role, plus the RMAF do not need too many of this type to maintain some interdiction role, about 3 full squadrons of 54 SU30s would do.

The rest would be either stayed, upgraded or mothballed. The Hawk 200 would remain for sometime and so would the Mig 29. I guess the RMAF in 2020 would be some 80 - 100 strong in number operating a mixture of SU30/Mig 29 and Hawks.

The only problem now is the F18. This is the result of pleasing to many little napoleons, whereas in fact - a review should have been carefully planned and studied for some 8-10 years before the decision was made on the SU30.

I don't exactly know why the F18D was purchased. It's a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain - and its role now is purely Hollywood, which is why I suppose the RMAF would relegate this machine to do.

And what's worse on paper the FA E/F siblings, only look bigger and fatter and probably much, much , much worse than those SU30s now on Malaysian soil.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

That's the problem isn't it. If its not American, it will be some other country if Malaysia doesn't go indigeneous.

What makes anyone think the Russians or Indians are going to be more reliable in delivery extra munitions than the Americans? If you read the Arab-Israeli wars, its quite abysmal on the Russian side. There's already so much problems with supplies of spares and worse, munitions are not manufactured outside of Russia.

Worse, talking about policy consideration. If a war is sparked in the South China Sea between China and MY, who does anyone think has a bigger influence on Russia? China or Malaysia? Best part of all, Mahathir wanted to pull out of FPDA. Intelligent...

The only other option is to hold large inventories of weapons which increases cost and even then maintenance is an issue.

And what I do know about American Foreign policy is no less pleasing. In fact, much less pleasing then the Russians and Indians. In any case, the MOU between Malaysia and India was signed in 1992, and both the hardware and cooperation is a small celebration for both sides. Malaysia was looking for an effective partner and India was looking for a wonderful acolyte. Both countries share a deep history for trade and religion, and farnkly, it's come full circle.

And how is a fairly well equipped amount of missiles going to detriment the RMAF?? The cooperation doesn't give the impression that a large inventory is needed, but neither does it retract from the overall aim of supplying amd maintaining a deterrent in the archipelago. A few hundred missiles and a few score Brahmos would do, and anyway it'll give the excuse for our boys to fire at stationery targets parked off the Natuna Islands for fun or near Labuan for that matter.

Meanwhile the rest of the region could go Uncle Sam for all the Malaysians care. But what Uncle Sam gives with one hand, he takes with the other - so don't think for a minute those fancy F35s would in any way match the ones deployed in the USN or USAF. So, when it comes to the crunch, we don't have to at least go cap in hand selling the family silver to buy a few AIM and Sparrow missiles that still need to be armed by a US contractor on the ground.

Also, China is effectively skirted by major US Naval bases in the Pacific and in South East Asia. The only bully it's going to want to quarrel with militarily is the US, other than Taiwan.

 

[Tebuan]

Ozzy B you are right. Ultimately having less types in the orbat will definitely help in training, logistics and supply chain. More so for a smaller country like Malaysia with a limited defence budget and large geographical footprint. Many options have been suggested before in this forum but if RMAF arrives at the conclusion that SU-30 family is cost effective and reliable, then as you suggest getting more squadrons of the same will be the right way to go. Perhaps they can have a 50/50 mix of MKMs and baseline Su-30/27 derivatives to reduce cost of acqusition while having high degree of commonality.
Having said so we will also face some risks. If you look at what happend to the USAF F-15 fleet which was almost wholly grounded for a period of time due to structural problems, we will be left with no more fighters to perform air defence except may be send up trainers with missiles strapped on. Some pros and cons need to weighed in. Having two types may not be a bad idea after all.

 

[Tebuan]

The only problem now is the F18. This is the result of pleasing to many little napoleons, whereas in fact - a review should have been carefully planned and studied for some 8-10 years before the decision was made on the SU30.

I don't exactly know why the F18D was purchased. It's a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain - and its role now is purely Hollywood, which is why I suppose the RMAF would relegate this machine to do.

.

Not sure what you mean when you say "It's a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain" of the F-18Ds. I think these planes have been proven in combat where it matters. In RMAF hands the only questions I believe are on the in-country maintenance and support from Uncle Sam on weapons systems, ECM and training.
The Su-30 MKMs are still very newly minted. Their reliability in regular operations have yet to be really proven. Also training support from India on the operations of these new toys may not be really forth-coming. Given that Malaysia is also close to Pakistan, the Indians may not want to fully open up to Malaysia. Even during their reason deployment to the UK, they did not even agree to use their radar for fear of letting the west the true capabilities!
As for spares even the Indians had a tough time securing the supply chain not sure if it is fully resolved now.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

The Su-30 MKMs are still very newly minted. Their reliability in regular operations have yet to be really proven.

Yes, I am fickle about the F/A 18 or rather the family of F/A 18 aircraft. I don't see how the Malaysians are serious about more F/A 18s. The ones they have now are a conundrum in their inventory.

As for the SU 30 MKM. It is an excellent Fighter, coupled with the Damocles pods and Thales avionics. Supposedly some claim that the MKM is experiencing problems with the technology, but how accurate are these allegations?

The SU 30 is reliable. It shares the same ancestry as the SU 27 and SU 35 and the SUKHOI design Bureau has a fine pedigree in Russian Aviation. I don't see where your claim leads to. If the RMAF were not serious about the SU 30, then why did they select this type for their initial batch? They could have picked from a range of aircraft in the market including the F/A 18 E/F, but this was not the case.

I suppose as Aussie Digger says, he is a unabashed F/A 18 enthusiast, and you may share the same interest, but for the RMAF, the future is very definitely Sukhoi. It meets the RMAF's obligations to the country and I belief the Defence Ministry would not countenance another purchase of other aircraft types.

Malaysia is close to India. Evidence of this, is their equal commitment in defence training and procurement. The Indians do not view this relationship in a negative light, and if they did, there would not be any cooperation between both nations. India as you are aware, is very definitely committed to their 'look east' policy.

How and where Pakistan falls into this frame is beyond me. Malaysia has had in the past, Officers commissioned in the Indian Army, following their stay in Dehra Dun, but if you continue to feel otherwise, then I must say your views are misplaced. How would you explain 150 million muslims in India, serving in their Armed Forces and High Institutions of State. President Abdul Kalam comes into mind.

 

[ROCK45]

Questions

I'm joining this disgusting very late but have a question or two.
I'm know the Su-30 MKM are new to RMAF and time is needed to learn how fly and support this fighter. With the Hornets, Mig-29N, BAe Hawks208s, and F-5, what is RMAF best able to support maintenance wise? I assume the F-5 will be retired so that leaves you with:
MiG-29 N (14) Fighter
F/A-18 D (8) Maritime/Night Strike
BAe Hawk 208 (16) Light Fighter

What is the operational cost per hour Hornet vs Fulcrum?
How many of the Fulcrums are flying?
How many Hornets are flying?
Depending on the numbers operational which will cost more to get up to full strength? Hornets vs Fulcrums
Which type does the RMAF have more weapons and spare parts in stock?
Which type does the RMAF have more trained pilots and maintenance personnel?
Are Fulcrum and Hornet pilots fighting for Flanker slots?

For me at least I need a few of these questions answered before I could say well cut this type and go with these? Looking at the situation quickly:
Flankers main fighter - no brainier here
Hornet - Only 8, must a be nightmare maintaining parts and trained personnel plus because it's in small numbers most likely costly?
Fulcrum - Like another poster mentions seems wasteful having a Fulcrums and Flankers besides sharing certain weapons and maybe based training on Russian types the newer Flanker kind of does more. I have never been able to find maintenance for Flanker vs Fulcrum. I would consider only if Flankers were maintenance pigs and Fulcrums were light maintenance, we kind of know there not. The only thing that makes the Fulcrums a little more interesting for me is the greater numbers over the Hornets. Eight just doesn't seem enough to keep and maintain. I don't think either are the answer in these numbers and model types (N Fulcrum).

BAe Hawk 208 (16) Light Fighter
BAe Hawk 108 (6) Lead In Fighter Trainer/Light Strike
* Are the 208 Hawks capable of taking over some of the short range duties for the Hornet & Fulcrums? Are they in good shape? Or are both Hawk types really used for training purposes.

Sorry for so many questions but this is how my brain works.http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif
Talking