RMAF Future; need opinions

[Ding]

I agree with tebuan. Yes, having more types of fighter will lead to inventory, supply, maintenance issues. That's undeniable. currently RMAF is flying, what, 3 or 4 different types of combat aircraft. But then again, by flying/operating one aircraft only can be analogous to putting all your eggs in one basket. So solution is to fly a minimum variety of a/c. ie the Hi/lo combination that AD or someone (dont remember who) suggested. SU30MKM as your primary air defence and another type of RMAF choosing.

Mr Ignorant, I dont understand your phrase "It's a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain" refering to the F/A18Ds. Current sentiments in the RMAF is that the Hornets have better availability rates than the MiGs. It's also said to be easier to maintain. Please do note i have not touched about the cost since i have no idea how expensive/cheap it is to maintain the Hornets. But in general yes, hornets are easier to maintain and have better availability rates, certainly if compared to the MiGs. Now since the Su30 is still new, we wont know about maintenance etc etc as of yet. The hornet in the RMAF inventory was purchased as a maritime/night strike fighter, something that the Mig29 was not capable of doing at that particular time. Since that Malaysia is primarily a maritime nation, it'll be prudent to have that capability, no? Since the Hornets are of the same standards as what USMC are using, that makes it a highly capable maritime/night strike a/c. So personaly i think the hornets was justified, only the numbers are to small.

My personal opinion is for RMAF to minimise the type of frontline a/c to 2 types. 2 sqns Su30MKM for primary air defence role with secondary strike role and 2 sqns of F/A18F for primary strike role with secondary air defence role. This means (again personal view here... not expert) that an opposing force has to contend with 2 different radar signatures, 2 different missile and aquisition envelope/guidance, 2 different fighter/strike tactics etc etc. I would think that makes life difficult for them... am I correct in thinking this??? Any body? defence pros?? heloooooo???

 

[Ding]

Rock 45,

I would presume that the Hawk 208 is configured as a point defence fighter, so yes to a certain extent it does cover for the migs interms of air defence. The 108s is used mainly for training with a light strike (CAS and similar) capability.

Most of your other question i cant answer as i have no idea of cost and parts line/stocks numbers.

for your question about which will cost more to get up to full strength? Hornets vs Fulcrums: The hornets are a more expensive a/c to begin with.. so I would think the hornets are more expensive to bring to a full squadron.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree with tebuan. Yes, having more types of fighter will lead to inventory, supply, maintenance issues. That's undeniable. currently RMAF is flying, what, 3 or 4 different types of combat aircraft. But then again, by flying/operating one aircraft only can be analogous to putting all your eggs in one basket. So solution is to fly a minimum variety of a/c. ie the Hi/lo combination that AD or someone (dont remember who) suggested. SU30MKM as your primary air defence and another type of RMAF choosing.

Mr Ignorant, I dont understand your phrase "It's a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain" refering to the F/A18Ds. Current sentiments in the RMAF is that the Hornets have better availability rates than the MiGs. It's also said to be easier to maintain. Please do note i have not touched about the cost since i have no idea how expensive/cheap it is to maintain the Hornets. But in general yes, hornets are easier to maintain and have better availability rates, certainly if compared to the MiGs. Now since the Su30 is still new, we wont know about maintenance etc etc as of yet. The hornet in the RMAF inventory was purchased as a maritime/night strike fighter, something that the Mig29 was not capable of doing at that particular time. Since that Malaysia is primarily a maritime nation, it'll be prudent to have that capability, no? Since the Hornets are of the same standards as what USMC are using, that makes it a highly capable maritime/night strike a/c. So personaly i think the hornets was justified, only the numbers are to small.

My personal opinion is for RMAF to minimise the type of frontline a/c to 2 types. 2 sqns Su30MKM for primary air defence role with secondary strike role and 2 sqns of F/A18F for primary strike role with secondary air defence role. This means (again personal view here... not expert) that an opposing force has to contend with 2 different radar signatures, 2 different missile and aquisition envelope/guidance, 2 different fighter/strike tactics etc etc. I would think that makes life difficult for them... am I correct in thinking this??? Any body? defence pros?? heloooooo???

I agree.

Everything I've read about the SU-30 makes it seem a rather difficult aircraft to maintain and I have no doubts the F/A-18's, properly supported, are an easier aircraft to maintain.

A number of upgrades have been performed on them, IIRC since they've been introduced to service (including electronic warfare upgrades) and they've subsequently been equipped with AMRAAM, making them a credible air defence fighter, in addition to their strike fighter role.

Perhaps a further upgrade with a new targetting pod and JDAM/JSOW weapons is appropriate, depending on how long RMAF is intending to keep them in-service.

I'd like to see Mr Ignorant back up his claim somehow of the F/A-18D being a difficult aircraft to support. I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest it's more difficult to support than the SU-30.

In terms of the RMAF's opinion on the Super Hornet, here is what the Chief of the RMAF thought about it in June 2007:

RMAF wants more deadly Hornets


file picture of an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which Malaysia plans to acquire under the 10th Malaysia Plan. (Inset) RMAF chief Gen Datuk Seri Azizan Ariffin

KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal Malaysian Air Force aims to remain a deterrent force by having fifth generation fighters like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.
This will strengthen its capability in protecting the country’s maritime assets within the exclusive economic zone, including the vital oil and gas assets in the Spratly Islands and the Ambalat oil block off Borneo.

RMAF chief Gen Datuk Seri Azizan Ariffin said, budget willing, the procurement of such multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) could be done under the 10th Malaysia Plan (2010-2015).

"Failing which, we may increase the acquistion of MRCA like the Sukhoi Su-30MKM, 18 of which have already been procured," he said.

"The first two of the 18 Su-30MKM were handed over to the RMAF last week, while the remaining 16 will be delivered by the year’s end, in time for the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace exhibition."
Azizan said the Sukhois, ordered in 2003 at a cost of RM3.42 billion, would be based with the 11th squadron in Gong Kedak, Kelantan.

"To date, four pilots, two weapons sensor specialists, four engineers and 53 technical crew have completed training for three months in Russia.

"A second batch of crew will be sent to either Russia or India soon," he said at Wisma Pertahanan in Jalan Padang Tembak, in conjunction with the RMAF’s 49th anniversary today.

Azizan said the RMAF was also looking at stealth technology in the near future, to enhance its electronic and non-conventional warfare capability, especially in combating terrorism.

The acquisition of more Sukhois or Hornets will, however, not affect the operations of the existing 18 MiG-29N fighters, he added.

"Although a decade old, the MiG-29Ns are still very useful and can serve up to 30 years with proper maintenance and refurbishment.

"Our ultimate aim is to refurbish and upgrade our combat aircraft every 10 years to remain as a deterrent force, and enhance our surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities."

He said the decision to acquire a mixture of western and eastern bloc fighters was not only to satisfy political aspirations, but took into consideration factors like versatility, transfer of technology, cost, operational effectiveness, availability of spares, logistics support, crew training, the environment and weather.

As part of the RMAF’s modernisation programme, it would procure four Airbus A400M, 18 Pilatus PC-7 Mk II, ten Aermacchi MB-339CM and five unmanned aerial vehicles.

"We are refurbishing five F-5E and two RF-5 for air tactical reconnaissance, while there is a need for airborne early-warning-and-control aeroplanes and combat search-and-rescue helicopters

"We are also looking at replacing nine of the BAE Systems Hawks that crashed so that we can continue operating with 28 jets," Azizan said.

Two of the A400M transport aeroplanes will be delivered in 2013 and another two a year later, while the MB-339s will be delivered from February 2009, and the UAVs from next year.

"The A400M will also double up as an air tanker, taking over the air-to-air refuelling of the long-range fighter jets from the KC-130 Hercules," he said.

On another note, Azizan said the RMAF spent nearly RM6 million last year to carry out humanitarian and relief missions in Solo and Yogyakarta in Indonesia, and Timor Leste.

"A large part of the defence budget is also spent annually on bilateral and multilateral exercises. This is in addition to the ‘Eyes in the Sky’ combined maritime air patrols over the Straits of Malacca."

Among the exercises involving the RMAF are the Cope Taufan and CARAT with the United States, Air Thamal with Thailand, Latgabma Elang Malindo with Indonesia, and the Bersama Shield, Bersama Lima, Bersama Padu and Suman Protector with Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore under the Five-Power Defence Arrangement.

Courtesy of: http://www.nst.com.my/NST/index_html

 

[qwerty223]

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.

We are close to Pakistan but not close enough to betray another friend for them. Anyhow, if we were to do so, with the actual example in our inventory, its too late for the Indians to stop us.

 

[ROCK45]

Maintenance

I've look around and only found positive things about the Hornets maintenance issues. Basically the low maintenance of the Hornet help forced the retirement of the F-14. I wonder if some ex-C/D Hornets could be bought to bring up the numbers maybe some US Marine or US Navy models could be bought. Old Vipers are sold so why not old Hornet right? I know Canada had there Hornets upgraded maybe the same could be done for the RMAF Hornets? New E/F Hornet are in the $100 million range with goodies maybe used C/D models are the way to go?


Ding - I like your thinking about two different missile type etc.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

My personal opinion is for RMAF to minimise the type of frontline a/c to 2 types. 2 sqns Su30MKM for primary air defence role with secondary strike role and 2 sqns of F/A18F for primary strike role with secondary air defence role.

There is an immediate need for integrity with regards to the above. Operating two different types, one Russian and one American, for a predetermined period of time, suggests, at the very least that there is no method you've used to arrive at that conclusion. I am going to be brief and abbreviate where necessary, but I must say 2 squadrons of SU30s and 2 squadrons of F/A 18s is madness. It would indeed be far more cheaper to operate one type of Air Superiority fighter meant for an Air Force, than 2 that would split opinion even further. In this case 4 squadrons of SU 30 MKMs is far more preferable than your suggested maddening approach.

I am going to stick to the facts here, as far as I can surmise from independent reports and what's been said on defencetalk:

1. An MRCA was conducted by the Malaysian Defence Ministry. The initial batch selected for this, within Malaysian specifications, was the SU 30MKM air superiority fighter.

2. The F/A 18E/F was not selected. Furthermore, no Hornets will be purchased owing to "5th generation commitments" and that this type by 2015, would be considered obsolete.

Also, you said "The hornet in the RMAF inventory was purchased as a maritime/night strike fighter, something that the Mig29 was not capable of doing at that particular time. Since that Malaysia is primarily a maritime nation, it'll be prudent to have that capability, no? "

You overlooked the Hornet's role. It is a maritime strike fighter. But what people generally mean when they say maritime, is aircraft carrier capability. The Hornet's maritime role was narrowly filled in to the Carrier capability of the US Navy.

That is why, on versions bought by other airforces, the use of external tanks is fairly common. Otherwise the Hornet is known for having a very limited range compared to Mig 29s or SU 30s.

As you can see, the SU 30 MKM was purchased with the view to strengthen Malaysian maritime capability. It is a long range Fighter-Interdictor suited for this role however it is not a carrier based design unlike the Hornet, and in the case of the Malaysian Hornet, this must have caused some consternation to Officials when they made the same mistake and actually wasted money buying 8 F/A 18s meant for Carrier based operations. How does a service perform this function without an aircraft carrier?

To save the embarrassment, some spin had to be done publicly, thereby acknowledging a perceived need for maritime strike aircraft. That is all very fine and well, but what is the service going to strike at with Carrier based fighters??? Surely is this not for the Navy to deal with???

Hence the conundrum, and that is why I say the Hornet is a very difficult aircraft to maintain in service; and continue to justify to the wider public. Sentiments amongst those in the Air Force may express a certain like for the Hornet, but the mood prevalent in the Service, the Ministry and the Nation is for a single type Fighter/Interdictor that is the SU 30MKM, and no longer the burden of operating different types.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

I'd like to see Mr Ignorant back up his claim somehow of the F/A-18D being a difficult aircraft to support. I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest it's more difficult to support than the SU-30.

Aussie Digger,

I didn't read that article quite as you did. I have to say, to those not used to the Malaysian press, messages can sometimes be mixed up, and not entirely straightforward. Let me clarify this:

The Royal Malaysian Air Force aims to remain a deterrent force by having fifth generation fighters like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

This will strengthen its capability in protecting the country’s maritime assets within the exclusive economic zone, including the vital oil and gas assets in the Spratly Islands and the Ambalat oil block off Borneo.

RMAF chief Gen Datuk Seri Azizan Ariffin said, budget willing, the procurement of such multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) could be done under the 10th Malaysia Plan (2010-2015).

"Failing which, we may increase the acquistion of MRCA like the Sukhoi Su-30MKM, 18 of which have already been procured," he said.

The RMAF does intend to remain committed to maintain a deterrent force by having 5th generation fighters. That's what the sentence means. It is not the F/A 18 Hornet that is suggested here, but alluded too, which is two different things altogether. As you know, the F/A 18E/F is not a 5th generation Fighter. In this regard, the journalist must have come to his own mistaken conclusion. Have you?

Furthermore, the RMAF Air Chief Datuk Ariffin limited his brief, by saying that the procurement of further multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) would depend on future budgetary constraints. He goes on to say, that failing which, in reference to a situation of budgetary surplus, Malaysia will purchase more SU-30 MKMs. That, in a nutshell, is what he said and what he meant.

I am sure, as is the RMAF and our Defence Minister, that more SU 30 MKMs will be purchased, to add to the number we have in our inventory, and standardise commonality requirements across the service.

But, you did include an article about the RMAF. I suggest you read what I've inserted below about what some in the RAAF and indeed in the the Australian administration think of the F/A 18 E/F;

There is nothing super about this Hornet


Peter Criss
March 15, 2007
Other related coverage

* $6 billion on stopgap fighter plane deal
* Swift $6b fighter purchase stuns analysts

AdvertisementAdvertisement

The recent announcement by the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, that Australia will spend $6 billion to buy 24 Block II Super Hornets to fill a perceived, or self-generated, capability gap raises more questions than it answers.

How was such a decision reached when the Department of Defence is adamant that it did not ask for, or recommend, the aircraft? If the department did not provide the critical operational and engineering evaluations to underpin and justify such a significant impulsive buy, who did? Moreover, will the Super Hornet be capable of filling the role of the aircraft it replaces? And the final question is: at what cost, in human resources and national engineering capability terms, does this "interim, gap-filling" aircraft come?

While some of those questions can be answered fully only by the minister and his closest civilian advisers, others can be answered using unclassified information. One need go no further than a statement made by Philip Coyle, the former director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon, when giving evidence before a subcommittee of the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 22, 2000.

The report is damning of the Super Hornet in areas critical to Australia's operational requirements, while praising it for its improved aircraft carrier capabilities when compared to the original Hornet - something not high on our list of essential criteria.

Three sentences on page eight of the report say it all: "The consequences of low specific excess power in comparison to the threat are poor climb rates, poor sustained turn capability, and a low maximum speed. Of greatest tactical significance is the lower maximum speed of the F/A-18E/F since this precludes the ability to avoid or disengage from aerial combat. In this regard, the F/A-18E/F is only marginally inferior to the F/A-18C/D, whose specific excess power is also considerably inferior to that of the primary threat, the MiG-29."

Forget about the new Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker family of Russian fighters proliferating across the region: all Hornet variants are acknowledged in the report as being no match for even the older MiG-29s. Space precludes quoting the report's comments on the multitude of other areas where the Super Hornet is inferior to the 1970s-designed and 1980s-built original F/A-18 aircraft. Admittedly the Block II Super Hornet has a new radar and some electronic components not in the version Coyle gave evidence on, but the fundamental airframe and performance remain unaltered: it is heavier, slower, larger and uglier (its radar signature did not measure up to expectations) than the normal Hornet.

There is nothing super about this Hornet; perhaps "Super Bug" is a better descriptor. Evidently the underwing aero-acoustic environment and resulting vibrations are so violent that some weapons are being damaged in transit to the target on a single flight - dumb bombs are fine in that environment but not long-range missiles containing sophisticated and relatively delicate components.

As for its gap-filling ability, the first question is whether there is a gap at all. The high-speed, low-level catastrophic failure that Nelson predicts the F-111 is going to suffer in the near future is laudable only if true.

Perhaps the minister or one of his minders can explain why the F-111 wing being tested at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation has passed 30,000 hours of fatigue testing without failure. The F-111 fleet averages about 6500 hours after some 33 years in service. Is this "justification spin" more about being "worried about what it is that we do not know", as a parliamentary committee was told recently by a senior air force officer, rather than sound reasoning based on professional engineering advice from experienced structural specialists?

My fear is the former. Certainly, with the Super Hornet carrying half of some of the weapons, half the distance, at half the speed of the aircraft it is replacing, one has to hope and pray that the minister has not been misled. Worse still, we must wonder whether he has gone off prematurely without ensuring the rigorous engineering and operational evaluation process that is so essential to justifying spending $6 billion has been scrupulously followed and all options carefully and fairly evaluated.

The old saying that a person who shoots from the hip is bound to blow off some toes rings in my ears. Presumably ministerial staff have procured a wheelchair as a part of their contingency planning - purely for "gap-filling" reasons, of course.

 

[ROCK45]

Rmaf

Hello Mr Ignorant
I don't agree with the maintenance issue from everything I've heard about Hornets there good on the maintenance scale compared to a lot of fighters.

Mr Ignorant Quote
Otherwise the Hornet is known for having a very limited range compared to Mig 29s or SU 30s.

Grouping a Fulcrums with a Fulcrum as far as range isn't correct. Like the Hornet the Fulcrum shares the rep for short range as well. The D-33 are fuel eaters big time the N model Fulcrum is basically a SE model. Hornets and Fulcrums are mid size fighters and Flankers are larger then F-14s. So you see where I'm going with this they carry tons of fuel I think around 7 or so tons. The tail fin of a Flanker is almost the size of a Fulcrum wing.

I do agree with your assessment I would drop both the Fulcrum good in close in fighter but in this form still a short range point defenses fighter and the (8) Hornets. Buying a second Flanker squadrons would be the most efficient way of setting up the RMAF I think. Bring operational cost down in both training and maintenance. Raise the level of pilot and maintenance personnel skill by focusing on one type. With the amount of long range flying the RMAF does Flankers make the most sense. Fulcrums and Hornets are mid size fighter thus have shorter ranges in general and would need some sort of buddy or tanker support. I think India producers some Flanker parts and provides training & support so that gives the RMAF two options right off the bat. To me eight Hornets just aren't enough to waste assets on and should be sold off. The Fulcrums should be placed in storage until more funds become available

 

[Ding]

Mr Ignorant,

I'm going to answer one point at a time.

There is an immediate need for integrity with regards to the above. Operating two different types, one Russian and one American, for a predetermined period of time, suggests, at the very least that there is no method you've used to arrive at that conclusion. I am going to be brief and abbreviate where necessary, but I must say 2 squadrons of SU30s and 2 squadrons of F/A 18s is madness. It would indeed be far more cheaper to operate one type of Air Superiority fighter meant for an Air Force, than 2 that would split opinion even further. In this case 4 squadrons of SU 30 MKMs is far more preferable than your suggested maddening approach.

Yes I know it's going to be cheaper to run 1 type of a/c. As I said, it is in my personal opinion that i would like to see 2 squadrons of SU30s and 2 squadrons of F/A 18s. That opinion is formed on a personal basis, not taking running cost into consideration, only flexibility and all round operation capability.Most probably the RMAF wont be mad enough to do it, but hey, when they bought the Mig 29s, they bought the hornets at roughly the same time.... so who knows?

You overlooked the Hornet's role. It is a maritime strike fighter. But what people generally mean when they say maritime, is aircraft carrier capability. The Hornet's maritime role was narrowly filled in to the Carrier capability of the US Navy.

That is why, on versions bought by other airforces, the use of external tanks is fairly common. Otherwise the Hornet is known for having a very limited range compared to Mig 29s or SU 30s.

As you can see, the SU 30 MKM was purchased with the view to strengthen Malaysian maritime capability. It is a long range Fighter-Interdictor suited for this role however it is not a carrier based design unlike the Hornet, and in the case of the Malaysian Hornet, this must have caused some consternation to Officials when they made the same mistake and actually wasted money buying

No i did not overlooked the hornets role. The hornet is a maritime strike aircraft, not necessarily only a carrier based aircraft. When RMAF got the Migs, it had no maritime strike capability. This role was filled by the 8 hornets. You seem to forget that the hornets was bought around the time of the migs, before the MRCA requirement. Yes the MKM were purchased partly to strengthen the maritime capability, mostly to increase interdiction and strike range and capability.

Do some digging at check the current loadout inventory for the hornet. Then do the same for the Migs.

8 F/A 18s meant for Carrier based operations. How does a service perform this function without an aircraft carrier?

To save the embarrassment, some spin had to be done publicly, thereby acknowledging a perceived need for maritime strike aircraft. That is all very fine and well, but what is the service going to strike at with Carrier based fighters??? Surely is this not for the Navy to deal with???

The hornets are fine doing their job without a carrier, if that's what you trying to point out. Aussie's hornets does not have a carrier to base on, and so far i'm not hearing complaints that their hornets can't do strike missions. So are the canadian hornets, no carrier. Yes the hornets was for carrier based operation.... it means it can operate from a carrier. It does not make it any less useful a/c without a carrier.

Otherwise the Hornet is known for having a very limited range compared to Mig 29s or SU 30s.

This data is taken from fas.org:-
F/A 18 D
Combat radius, interdiction, hi-lo-lo-hi 290 nm
Combat endurance, CAP 150 nm from home base 1 h 45 min
Ferry range, unrefueled More than 1,800 nm

MiG 29
taken from fas.org: cruise range 905 nm, no other info available.
taken from airforce-technology.com :Flight Range Near Ground 700km
Flight Range at Altitude 1,500km

If you do some digging, Mr I, you would not made the above statement about range.

To summerise, I gather from your line of argument that you somehow had the idea that the hornet is a waste of money and time. This is more so since you compared it to the SU30MKM saying that (basically) what the Hornet can do, the Sooks will do it to. You seem to forget that the hornets (1997) was bought back around the time when we bought the MiGs (1995). The hornets have been serving us for over 10 years in their role as a maritime/night strike a/c. In a role that the MiGs are unable to perform or perform well. The Migs are an A2A platform with minimal A2G and almost no night strike capability. IRST is not FLIR, you cant use it for night ground imaging. Where as the Hornets was built to be a night/maritime strike fighter. So, for the past ten years, without the hornets, RMAF would have a limited A2G and ASuW capability.

Oh yes, in case you forgot also, the 2 aircraft running for the MRCA role was the Su30 and the Hornet F. Sooks got the nod because of a more favourable deal, tech transfer, favourable paying terms (ie offset with palm oil) and a favourable choice of weaponry. Who's to say if Boeing (by approval of congress) is to offer AESA, full loadout of weaponry, favourable package at an attractive price, we may very well have the Hornets F as our MRCA. Here's hoping for the next MRCA. That said, whether RMAF does choose the sooks or the rhino, I'm happy both ways,

Now that we have the Sooks, It's time to move forward. question is that how we want the force structure to look like. If we taking cost into consideration and want an all russkie force for ease of logistics, then my Hi-Lo combination would be the Su 30s for multirole capabiltity and the Su 27s (preferbably some newer modernised version, single seater) for air superiority role.
tired typing

 

[qwerty223]

Now that we have the Sooks, It's time to move forward. question is that how we want the force structure to look like. If we taking cost into consideration and want an all russkie force for ease of logistics, then my Hi-Lo combination would be the Su 30s for multirole capabiltity and the Su 27s (preferbably some newer modernised version, single seater) for air superiority role.
tired typing

Agreed. As a key member of NAM, we will balance our relationships with all the powers in the world by any means, including weaponry source. Therefore, mix of Sooks and a NATO source platform will be the case, while the S.Hornet is the closest candidate.

 

[Ding]

Agreed. As a key member of NAM, we will balance our relationships with all the powers in the world by any means, including weaponry source. Therefore, mix of Sooks and a NATO source platform will be the case, while the S.Hornet is the closest candidate.

Agreed. Valid point which i have not thought about. Having a political view to it also dovetails into the view of having the Sooks and SHornets together in RMAF. Thanks for the POV, Qwerty223

 

[Aussie Digger]

My personal opinion is for RMAF to minimise the type of frontline a/c to 2 types. 2 sqns Su30MKM for primary air defence role with secondary strike role and 2 sqns of F/A18F for primary strike role with secondary air defence role.

There is an immediate need for integrity with regards to the above. Operating two different types, one Russian and one American, for a predetermined period of time, suggests, at the very least that there is no method you've used to arrive at that conclusion. I am going to be brief and abbreviate where necessary, but I must say 2 squadrons of SU30s and 2 squadrons of F/A 18s is madness. It would indeed be far more cheaper to operate one type of Air Superiority fighter meant for an Air Force, than 2 that would split opinion even further. In this case 4 squadrons of SU 30 MKMs is far more preferable than your suggested maddening approach.

It is not preferrable to the chief of RMAF who is quoted as saying quite clearly with no "artistic" licence on behalf of the Journalist, "the decision to acquire a mixture of western and eastern bloc fighters was not only to satisfy political aspirations, but took into consideration factors like versatility, transfer of technology, cost, operational effectiveness, availability of spares, logistics support, crew training, the environment and weather".

Clearly your chief DOES want a mix of Western and Eastern fighters and doesn't quite consider it "madness"...

I am going to stick to the facts here, as far as I can surmise from independent reports and what's been said on defencetalk:

1. An MRCA was conducted by the Malaysian Defence Ministry. The initial batch selected for this, within Malaysian specifications, was the SU 30MKM air superiority fighter.

2. The F/A 18E/F was not selected. Furthermore, no Hornets will be purchased owing to "5th generation commitments" and that this type by 2015, would be considered obsolete.

You are not sticking to facts but rather substituting your personal opinion for the actual words of others.

5th generation etc is a marketing term. Some persons consider the SH a 5th generation fighter due to it's incorporation of LO measures, AESA radar systems, advanced weapons and networking capability.

Most don't I admit, however it's interesting that you've decided to interpret the rest of that article as being in accordance with your own personal wishes, however not all of it...

Also, you said "The hornet in the RMAF inventory was purchased as a maritime/night strike fighter, something that the Mig29 was not capable of doing at that particular time. Since that Malaysia is primarily a maritime nation, it'll be prudent to have that capability, no? "

You overlooked the Hornet's role. It is a maritime strike fighter. But what people generally mean when they say maritime, is aircraft carrier capability. The Hornet's maritime role was narrowly filled in to the Carrier capability of the US Navy.

That is why, on versions bought by other airforces, the use of external tanks is fairly common. Otherwise the Hornet is known for having a very limited range compared to Mig 29s or SU 30s.

Nonsense. For starters only the US has ever used the F/A-18 from a carrier. Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Finland, Switzerland, Kuwait and Spain have never done so yet all have extensive maritime strike requirements...

If someone can't tell the difference between maritime operations and aircraft carrier operations, why would their opinion make any difference, seeing as though they are fairly clueless about such issues?

As you can see, the SU 30 MKM was purchased with the view to strengthen Malaysian maritime capability. It is a long range Fighter-Interdictor suited for this role however it is not a carrier based design unlike the Hornet, and in the case of the Malaysian Hornet, this must have caused some consternation to Officials when they made the same mistake and actually wasted money buying 8 F/A 18s meant for Carrier based operations. How does a service perform this function without an aircraft carrier?

To save the embarrassment, some spin had to be done publicly, thereby acknowledging a perceived need for maritime strike aircraft. That is all very fine and well, but what is the service going to strike at with Carrier based fighters??? Surely is this not for the Navy to deal with???

Hence the conundrum, and that is why I say the Hornet is a very difficult aircraft to maintain in service; and continue to justify to the wider public. Sentiments amongst those in the Air Force may express a certain like for the Hornet, but the mood prevalent in the Service, the Ministry and the Nation is for a single type Fighter/Interdictor that is the SU 30MKM, and no longer the burden of operating different types.

For starters that is absolute rubbish. It was designed first and foremost as a combat aircraft. One that happened to be capable of operating from carriers. Just like it's F-4 Phantom predecessor it is every bit as capable in strike and air defence roles from land bases as it is in operating from a carrier.

For your information, carrier variants of the MiG-29 and SU-27/30 exist and are or will be operated by both China and India and possibly Russia, if they get back into the Carrier business. Doesn't this invalidate your entire "argument"? The fact that they share a common heritage with carrier capable aircraft?

What would the RMAF strike at with carrier based aircraft? Do you mean to state honestly that the RMAF F/A-18D's cannot even take off from land bases? Can they not carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and laser guided bombs when they take off from land bases? Do they not in fact possess greater payloads and range then their carrier based breathren because carrier aircraft are weight and payload restricted WHEN they take off from a carrier?

You've stated the aircraft is a "it's a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain". Please justify this as you've been asked to on a number of times now.

You can start no doubt with the cost to operate the fleet which should be available in RMAF annual reports, I suspect?

 

[Ding]

"The hornet in the RMAF inventory was purchased as a maritime/night strike fighter, something that the Mig29 was not capable of doing at that particular time. Since that Malaysia is primarily a maritime nation, it'll be prudent to have that capability, no? "

AD,
I posted this statement previously to counter Mr I's arguments. I think Mr I was replying to my above quote. Still, his argument was wrong and his facts are wrong esp in regards to the above matter.

 

[Aussie Digger]

"The hornet in the RMAF inventory was purchased as a maritime/night strike fighter, something that the Mig29 was not capable of doing at that particular time. Since that Malaysia is primarily a maritime nation, it'll be prudent to have that capability, no? "

AD,
I posted this statement previously to counter Mr I's arguments. I think Mr I was replying to my above quote. Still, his argument was wrong and his facts are wrong esp in regards to the above matter.

Agreed. I am still waiting for him to attempt to justify his earlier statements. I suspect he won't even try...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[aztechx]

the RMAFs F/A-18Ds are equipped with arrestor hook although we dont have any carriers..i got a few pics around in my pc..will post it here as soon as im free..

here is one of the pic i mentioned earlier..
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/aztechX/edited.jpg

about the role of the F/A-18Ds,i agree with the fact that at that time, it was purchase to cover the weaknesses of the MiG-29Ns,which,was to perform maritime strikes and night combat capabilities..but 8 planes aint going to bring us anywhere now..the RMAF might have planned to purchase more hornets from uncle sam at that time but i dont see the rationality of getting more hornets or even superhornets now..we have a better choice of planes in the MkMs which can perform the same role but at a much cheaper price..and again,the russians are willing to sell us any missiles/bombs that money can buy..and the deal can only get better as who knows IF the russians might offer to equip our next batch of MkMs with the irbis or the AL-41F engines?

just my 2 cents..

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Yes I know it's going to be cheaper to run 1 type of a/c. As I said, it is in my personal opinion that i would like to see 2 squadrons of SU30s and 2 squadrons of F/A 18s. That opinion is formed on a personal basis, not taking running cost into consideration, only flexibility and all round operation capability.Most probably the RMAF wont be mad enough to do it, but hey, when they bought the Mig 29s, they bought the hornets at roughly the same time.... so who knows?

I posted this statement previously to counter Mr I's arguments. I think Mr I was replying to my above quote. Still, his argument was wrong and his facts are wrong esp in regards to the above matter.
Ding

You've not raised any further points. Also, you agreed with me that operating 4 squadrons of one type is far more preferable than 4 of 2 different types. You say that the F/A 18D was purchased in 1997 to fill in a supposed role that the Mig 29 was unable to. I wasn’t discussing the Mig at length nor why the F/A 18Ds and Migs were purchased in the period 1995-1997. I am grateful that you have followed the main issue of the F/A 18E/F and the SU 30 MKM, and taken into account what I wrote in my previous post.

Even though I disagree with you on the F/A 18s (the whole family) role in the RMAF- past, present and future included, I respect your right to express it. However, it is not for you or me to decide who or what is right or wrong in this forum; aside from the fact that I know not to assume everyone shares the same view, opinion or points about particular problems, issues or topics.

As far as I am concerned, and I am tired of repeating this, I would prefer the RMAF to deploy and maintain 3-4 squadrons of SU 30 MKMs, with the view of receiving upgraded versions to each batch in the coming years. Also, the 2 wings of F/A-18Ds in service should move to the RMN Fleet Air Arm. I suggest the F/A 18Ds in this role would be great for interdiction in the Celebes Sea, after all a new naval base is planned for Semporna.

Furthermore: You agreed that the aircraft selected to fill in the MRCA slot was the SU 30MKM. I pointed this out in my earlier reply, and now it seems you agree with my observation. Let me add that when and if further purchases are made, the SU 30 MKM would be selected again. The precedent has been set,and the F/A 18E/F was pipped to the post last time round.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Aussie Digger

The F/A 18D in the RMAF inventory is a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain. I state this unreservedly. Please note that this is my view of the Fighter. I have justified it several times already. It is up to you accept or reject this. No one is forcing you to do either.

For your information, carrier variants of the MiG-29 and SU-27/30 exist and are or will be operated by both China and India and possibly Russia, if they get back into the Carrier business. Doesn't this invalidate your entire "argument"? The fact that they share a common heritage with carrier capable aircraft?

What would the RMAF strike at with carrier based aircraft? Do you mean to state honestly that the RMAF F/A-18D's cannot even take off from land bases? Can they not carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and laser guided bombs when they take off from land bases? Do they not in fact possess greater payloads and range then their carrier based breathren because carrier aircraft are weight and payload restricted WHEN they take off from a carrier?

This validates all what I’ve pointed out about the F/A 18. The Mig 29 and SU 30 was designed from the outset to replace outdated Russian fighters and fill in the slots in their Air Force, where necessary. The naval versions were a derivative of these land based designs.

On the other hand, the F/A 18 was exclusively designed from the very beginning in the 1970s to fill in US Navy requirements. The version finally approved went exclusively to the USN. The USAF selected the F15 and F16 designs at the time and the USMC opted for the AV 8B Harrier IIs. In fact, at present the only service in the world to retain and use F/A 18s in large numbers is the US Navy, primarily in the carrier based strike role. This follows on the retirement of the F14 Tomcats it previously employed in the long range interdiction role.

Those F/A 18s in use by other Air Forces, are essentially land based versions derived from the original Naval design. The premise that these aircraft could be modified to suit the specific needs of the customer does not detract the original intentions held by its creators – a strong single seat carrier based strike aircraft employed for use in the interdiction role; and other primary roles.

The RMAF, as I have repeated and given time and again in this Forum, does not need a 1970s Naval design of the F/A 18 in the future. It does not need to employ and keep a design for use on Navy Carriers, as borne out when it was first sold to the USN. The RMAF needs a land based air superiority fighter to operate in the roles required for the air force. The SU 30MKM fulfils these needs now and in the future.

However for those Malaysians who say the country needs more F/A 18s, I say that it's all hunky dory as long as we get an aircraft carrier for the Navy and not the Air Force. What say you? Fair dinkum??

 

[Mr Ignorant]

the RMAFs F/A-18Ds are equipped with arrestor hook although we dont have any carriers..i got a few pics around in my pc..will post it here as soon as im free..

here is one of the pic i mentioned earlier..
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/aztechX/edited.jpg

about the role of the F/A-18Ds,i agree with the fact that at that time, it was purchase to cover the weaknesses of the MiG-29Ns,which,was to perform maritime strikes and night combat capabilities..but 8 planes aint going to bring us anywhere now..the RMAF might have planned to purchase more hornets from uncle sam at that time but i dont see the rationality of getting more hornets or even superhornets now..we have a better choice of planes in the MkMs which can perform the same role but at a much cheaper price..and again,the russians are willing to sell us any missiles/bombs that money can buy..and the deal can only get better as who knows IF the russians might offer to equip our next batch of MkMs with the irbis or the AL-41F engines?

just my 2 cents..

my thoughts exactly

 

[qwerty223]

AD, you are right to say that the RMAF F-18Ds are incapable of carrier operations eg no arrestor hooks etc.

As according to the Boeing news release,
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news_release_970909q.html

The F18s were meant for strike and interdiction missions. Navflir does help in night missions.

It is no surprise that the navflir was also chosen for the Su-30mkm.

I thought we have the Damocles to handle all-weather strike missions?

The RMAF, as I have repeated and given time and again in this Forum, does not need a 1970s Naval design of the F/A 18 in the future. It does not need to employ and keep a design for use on Navy Carriers, as borne out when it was first sold to the USN. The RMAF needs a land based air superiority fighter to operate in the roles required for the air force. The SU 30MKM fulfils these needs now and in the future.

You said you were to discuss the future, but then you led us to the hornets?
Or you are not aware that S.Hornet is a completely different design? And whats wrong with that it is default for a carrier aircraft but also intend to challenge all other contemporary fighter aircrafts?

Mind that there is no true MRCA, and that all the major AF in the world had chosen at least 2 kinds of main asset that had a opposite primary configuration.

As for the weaponry, Harpoon is always our primary airborne anti-ship missile.