RMAF Future; need opinions

Mr Ignorant

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


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.
If that's the case, then why didn't we buy an aircraft carrier? Or Harriers for that matter? And why has our F/A 18s got arrestor hooks? Is it the case that we do have a small land based aircraft carrier?? Do we operate harpoons, Jdams and all other wonderful missiles from the US? Do we have a pact with the US like ANZUS and NATO? Do we have aircraft carriers like the US? Or are we just a small satellite nation in ASEAN in need of some modern weapons and equipment? Does the politics in weaponry sales apply the same to allies as to clients? And why did we buy the SU 30MKM over the Superhornet? Is it because we wanted to send a medical doctor to Space? Or did we just prefer a better aircraft? Which is it?

Let me know when you have the answers to these strange questions. Thanks
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
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.
No you haven't, you 've simply repeated an unjustified opinion several times. You have not provided one shred of evidence to show that the Hornet is difficult to maintain. Let alone "a pig".

Justification would include such things as: the cost to operate the Hornets in RMAF service compared to the cost of operating the Sukhois. The availability rates for the Hornets in RMAF service compared to availability rates for the Sukhois. The mean time between failure rates for the F-404 engines. Then compare these issues to the Sukhoi and their ALF-31 engines. Compare flying hours of the Hornets compared to other platforms in RMAF service. These details at least should be available through RMAF annual reports. They certainly are in RAAF annual reports, the cost and flight hours at least...

You haven't done any of these things. This means either you cannot, don't want to or don't understand these things. In any case, you still have not justified your statement.

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.[/quote]

Actually no it wasn't. I'm sure you're an expert on Hornet operations and the reason it was developed, but if so could you please get these things correct?

The F/A-18 evolved from the Northrop Grumman YF-17 which was a developvment of the earlier Northrop "Cobra" design and built specifically in response to the USAF's competition for a new lightweight fighter aircraft. How many carriers does the US Air Force operate again?

The USAF of course selected the General Dynamics YF-16 and the rest was history with the US Navy selecting a navalised variant of the YF-17 AFTER this. Sounds a lot like your Sukhois actually...

FYI, the USN did not "exclusively" operate the aircraft at that point, the USMC Air component which you've stated "opted" for the AV-8B Harrier II, actually ordered the F/A-18 too...

Now the USN may have placed the biggest order and may operate the biggest fleet, but so what? Canada ordered 120 odd and maintains 80, with the remainder in storage. Australia ordered 75 and continues to operate 71, Spain ordered 87 and operates, 87, RMAF operates it's 8. Finland orderd 59 and continues to operate this many. Switzerland ordered 34 and continues to operate this many. Kuwait ordered 32 and still operates this many... A fleet of 371 aircraft, NOT operated by the USN/USMC is a significant number...

This history stuff is not very difficult to discover...

http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/fa18.htm

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.
No they are not. Most "land based" F/A-18's have retained their carrier compatability and were not modified in too many ways from those operated by the USN/USMC. However as I have pointed out your opinion is based on a falsehood. Who cares who ordered the platform first? Does this make it any less capable in it's current role for the RMAF and if so, please explain how. I'm sure the chief of RMAF would love to hear your insight into these matters...

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??
I say the RMAF does need an aircraft of the capability of the Hornet and in future of the Super Hornet.

RMAF may not operate the JDAM, but I believe it does operate the Harpoon anti-ship missile, it does operate LGB's and it now operates the AMRAAM air to air missile.

Pretty sophisticated munitions just there. If the US is considering selling SH to Malaysia, which it has, check through the FMS sales announcements here: http://www.dsca.mil/ (in previous years) then I'd argue that Malaysia would get the modern munitions to round out the capability...
 

qwerty223

New Member
If that's the case, then why didn't we buy an aircraft carrier? Or Harriers for that matter? And why has our F/A 18s got arrestor hooks? Is it the case that we do have a small land based aircraft carrier?? Do we operate harpoons, Jdams and all other wonderful missiles from the US? Do we have a pact with the US like ANZUS and NATO? Do we have aircraft carriers like the US? Or are we just a small satellite nation in ASEAN in need of some modern weapons and equipment? Does the politics in weaponry sales apply the same to allies as to clients? And why did we buy the SU 30MKM over the Superhornet? Is it because we wanted to send a medical doctor to Space? Or did we just prefer a better aircraft? Which is it?

Let me know when you have the answers to these strange questions. Thanks
From you latest word, i was not, but now i have to agreed with AD, you have no idea about the diff between carrier based aircraft and land based aircraft.
  1. The hornets came with hooks, so the hooks took a significant weight load capacity of the aircraft?
  2. And whats wrong if we have hornets but no carrier?
  3. Is harrier same class with Hornets?
  4. We did operate the Harpoons and Mavericks(I seen only practice ammunition), no JDAMs for now. But mind that the S Hornet proposal was in a open discussion, anything can happen.
  5. Weaponry, we all know even the Adders are with not the latest seekers.
  6. Political and do diplomatic relationship, we always try to balance relationship, weaponry source in this case, from all the powers in the world. Many ppl from many country did criticize our way of doing things, but I am glad we chose to have no enemy, and happy to pay the price for it.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
If that's the case, then why didn't we buy an aircraft carrier? Or Harriers for that matter? And why has our F/A 18s got arrestor hooks? Is it the case that we do have a small land based aircraft carrier?? Do we operate harpoons, Jdams and all other wonderful missiles from the US? Do we have a pact with the US like ANZUS and NATO? Do we have aircraft carriers like the US? Or are we just a small satellite nation in ASEAN in need of some modern weapons and equipment? Does the politics in weaponry sales apply the same to allies as to clients? And why did we buy the SU 30MKM over the Superhornet? Is it because we wanted to send a medical doctor to Space? Or did we just prefer a better aircraft? Which is it?

Let me know when you have the answers to these strange questions. Thanks
I shall put it into point form for you shall I?

1. Malaysia has no need of and cannot afford an aircraft carrier. Unless you wish to purchase one like Thailand's which is tied up at the dock all the time...

2. Arrestor hooks are useful on normal airfields just as they are on carrier systems... The F-111 has one. How many times have they operated from aircraft carriers? How many F-111's did the US Navy buy?

3. Yes, Malaysia does operate Harpoon I believe. Malaysia does not yet operate JDAM to the best of my knowledge, but does operate Paveway II laser guided bombs, Sidewinder missiles and AMRAAM missiles.

4. No, you Malaysia is not in NATO or ANZUS. It is in the Five Power Defence Agreement. No you do not have a carrier. Neither does Canada, Australia, Finland, Switzerland, Spain or Kuwait...

5. Does the politics apply equally to clients? Of course not. Point to somewhere, where it does? However RMAF have Hornets of the same specification as the RAAF and equally as capable as any other Hornet operator outside of the USN. It also operates modern weaponry for it including AMRAAM, Sidewinder, LGB's and Harpoon. It is probably due for an update, including JDAM and a more advanced short ranged missile, such as AIM-9X or even ASRAAM, now that RAAF has performed the integration work...

6. Many reasons. The fact that the Sukhoi is significantly cheaper than the Super Hornet wouldn't have anything to do with it would it? Mercedes are considerably more expensive than Toyotas too. Wonder why?
 

Ding

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #627
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.
WRONG!! Please do your research Mr I. F/A 18 is also used by the USMC and not only the USN. The version is not exclusive to the USN.

from fas.org

The Marine Corps maintains four air wings -- three active and one reserve. In addition to the single-seat F/A-18 (which is identical to Navy models), the Marine Corps employs the two-seat F/A-18D as a multirole fighter, and also as a reconnaissance, forward air control, and tactical air control system for operations at night and in adverse weather. The AV-8B, while capable of multiple missions, is used primarily in the close air support role.

Composition of Marine Air Wings
FY 1998 - FY 2000
(Fixed-Wing Combat Aircraft -- PMAI and Squadrons)
Aircraft Type Mission ActivePMAI(Sqn) ReservePMAI(Sqn) TotalPMAI(Sqn)
F/A-18 A/C Multirole 96 (8) 48 (4) 144 (12)
F/A-18D Multirole 72 (6) 0 72 (6)

Total 356 (25)
PMAI = primary mission aircraft inventory. Denotes aircraft authorized to combat units for performance of their basic missions; excludes aircraft maintained for other purposes, such as training, testing, attrition replacements, and reconstitution reserves.

And to counter your argument being the Hornet was primarily developed as a carrier based aircraft is also not entirely true.

After the F-15 was developed, the AIRFORCE (USAF) wanted a lighter aircraft. The Lightweight Fighter (LWF) Program was a U.S. Air Force technology evaluation program initiated in the 1960s by a cabal of officers and defense analysts known as the "fighter mafia". It was spurred by then Maj. John Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory of maneuverability, which indicated that excessive weight would have severely debilitating consequences on the maneuverability of an aircraft. The new aircraft was to be a light weight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a gross weight of less than 20,000 pounds (half that of its counterpart, the F-15 Eagle), and high maneuverability.[1] It resulted in the development of the YF-16 and YF-17. The YF-16 went on to be selected to be the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

In May 1974, the House Armed Services Committee redirected $34 million from the VFAX to a new program, the Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF),[4] intended to make maximum use of the technology developed for the LWF program. Though the YF-16 won the LWF competition, the Navy was skeptical that an aircraft with one engine and narrow landing gear could be easily or economically adapted to carrier service, and refused to adopt an F-16 derivative. The Navy fought for and won permission to develop an aircraft based on the YF-17.

sources. Main: Wikipedia cross referenced with fas.org data

As you can see above, the Hornet was actually derived from a land based fighter.

As for your strange questions... I really dont wanna waste my time answering irrelevent questions. The fact of the matter is you state that the Hornets was a pig to maintain, it has no useful capability in the force structure of the RMAF. All i have been typing is to counter your points by pointing out the hornets capability and role in the RMAF.

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.
NO! What I stated is, cost wise it is preferable to operate 1 type of fighter. Not far more preferable. Many other things also need to be considered in RMAF operations, not just cost. Leave aside the political dimensions that qwerty 223 mentions and look at the supply and maintenance and logistic lines. Having 2 types of aircraft (be it a western or eastern or mix) is logical as not to disrupt your whole operations if one type is grounded for one of many a reasons. logistics, part, maintenance etc etc. You do remember that the Hawks was grounded for a period of time, also the S61 Nuri. Again the english saying comes to mind, do not put all your eggs in one basket.

qwerty223 said:
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.
Exactly, the Su30 is derived from the su27 which is an air superiority fighter. the shornets was developed from the hornet, which is a strike fighter, which has that strike capability developed with it from the beginning, hence the designation F/A 18. Fighter/Attack. Capability wise, these to aircraft complement each other, bothe are multirole fighters developed from different backgrounds
 

Tebuan

New Member
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.
Mr. Ignorant, many have already countered your arguments but I just want to reply to your specific comments to me.
1. I dont know if AD is "a unabashed F/A 18 enthusiast" as you reckon but his logic seems right. I definitely am no F/A 18 enthisiast, would care less if RMAF had bought F-16s to start with. (If you remember that far back circa early 80's, Malaysia and S'pore were intially interested in F-16s but were offered F-16-79s intead of full spec F-16 with -100 engines). However just interested to see our defence dollar well spent and have functioning equipment with high reliability and reasonable cost of ownership instead of highly political decsions or "brokered" deals eg. Scorpene submarines.
2. There are many reliable literature that sheds light on some issues with low MTBO on Su-30 TVC engine modules. Also Russian engines generally have low MTBO as compared to equivalent western units. Thats why I said the realiabilty aspect has yet to be established.
3. I just voiced my opinion regarding "possible" perception about Indian's concern on sharing tactics and countermeasure techniques with Malaysia due to its closeness to Pakistan.May or may not be true, as you mention Malaysian and Indian armed forces do have long standing relationship. Nothing to do with religious affinity, lets not go there.
 

Mr Ignorant

New Member
How interesting,

Aussie Digger and Ding,

The two of you clearly share the same preference for the F/A 18s. I don't and I don't have to produce research here to state that the F/A 18 is thoroughly incompatible for the RMAF. What I can't seem to understand is why the both of you continue to remain fairly intransigent on the issue, what with denying that the SU 30MKM was selected as the MRCA over the Super Hornet, and refusing to acknowledge what in Australia is a serious shitstorm over the $6 billion contract for the 24 Super Hornets.

And why did the former Air Vice Chief of the RAAF, Peter Criss criticise the purchase of additional Hornets when clearly it is now being reviewed by Rudd's Labor government??

I don't care for the technical specs because this isn't a forum on Mechanical or Aeronautical Engineering.

Please say why the F/A 18 E/F is so much better for the RMAF. But if the both you want to pile on meaningless specs and stats, then the discussion is going nowhere.

As I have said, the F/A 18 is a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain for the RMAF. The plane is a confusing conundrum in the inventory, and it would be madness to waste hardearned taxpayers ringgits on a design that would be obsolete in 2015. That is my opinion, and no one has to accept it, and neither the two of you. And I don't have to retract it either.

We all know what Peter Criss wrote on the F/A 18 E/F purchase, and I have to agree with him. It is a waste of good Aussie dollars for an "Interim" aircraft.

Superhornet = Superbug it is.
 

Mr Ignorant

New Member
Mr. Ignorant, many have already countered your arguments but I just want to reply to your specific comments to me.
1. I dont know if AD is "a unabashed F/A 18 enthusiast" as you reckon but his logic seems right. I definitely am no F/A 18 enthisiast, would care less if RMAF had bought F-16s to start with. (If you remember that far back circa early 80's, Malaysia and S'pore were intially interested in F-16s but were offered F-16-79s intead of full spec F-16 with -100 engines). However just interested to see our defence dollar well spent and have functioning equipment with high reliability and reasonable cost of ownership instead of highly political decsions or "brokered" deals eg. Scorpene submarines.
2. There are many reliable literature that sheds light on some issues with low MTBO on Su-30 TVC engine modules. Also Russian engines generally have low MTBO as compared to equivalent western units. Thats why I said the realiabilty aspect has yet to be established.
3. I just voiced my opinion regarding "possible" perception about Indian's concern on sharing tactics and countermeasure techniques with Malaysia due to its closeness to Pakistan.May or may not be true, as you mention Malaysian and Indian armed forces do have long standing relationship. Nothing to do with religious affinity, lets not go there.
Thanks. It's always the issue with defence procurement. Personally I don't see corruption ever leaving any sort of procurement anytime soon. Others here have offered their views in response to mine, but bipartisan discussions always raises good interest.
 

Mr Ignorant

New Member
NO! What I stated is, cost wise it is preferable to operate 1 type of fighter. Not far more preferable. Many other things also need to be considered in RMAF operations, not just cost. Leave aside the political dimensions that qwerty 223 mentions and look at the supply and maintenance and logistic lines. Having 2 types of aircraft (be it a western or eastern or mix) is logical as not to disrupt your whole operations if one type is grounded for one of many a reasons. logistics, part, maintenance etc etc. You do remember that the Hawks was grounded for a period of time, also the S61 Nuri. Again the english saying comes to mind, do not put all your eggs in one basket.

Really???? How very intelligent. We currently operate 4 different types of fighter aircraft. That's the product of intelligent "all your eggs in one basket" approach. How very fortunate for the RMAF.

I prefer one type, if not 2 at the most. And splitting the Service capability between Russian and American aircraft in the future, is a recipe for disaster. But off course, we're so rich we can afford to train pilots, mechanics, engineers and technicians on 2 or 3 different technologies.

Thanks to "all your eggs in one basket" Idiom.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
How interesting,

Aussie Digger and Ding,

The two of you clearly share the same preference for the F/A 18s. I don't and I don't have to produce research here to state that the F/A 18 is thoroughly incompatible for the RMAF. What I can't seem to understand is why the both of you continue to remain fairly intransigent on the issue, what with denying that the SU 30MKM was selected as the MRCA over the Super Hornet, and refusing to acknowledge what in Australia is a serious shitstorm over the $6 billion contract for the 24 Super Hornets.
Your opinion is worthless then. If you wish to discuss the Australian Super Hornet acquisition, then I'll see you on the RAAF boards.

And why did the former Air Vice Chief of the RAAF, Peter Criss criticise the purchase of additional Hornets when clearly it is now being reviewed by Rudd's Labor government??

I don't care for the technical specs because this isn't a forum on Mechanical or Aeronautical Engineering.
No, this is a defence forum where we expect "reasoned" debate. By coming out with unjustifiable and downright wrong statements and then refusing to justify them with ANY form of evidence you are not participating in the spirit of the forum and specifically you are not complying with rule number 3...

Please say why the F/A 18 E/F is so much better for the RMAF. But if the both you want to pile on meaningless specs and stats, then the discussion is going nowhere.

As I have said, the F/A 18 is a pretty piss poor pig of a machine to maintain for the RMAF. The plane is a confusing conundrum in the inventory, and it would be madness to waste hardearned taxpayers ringgits on a design that would be obsolete in 2015. That is my opinion, and no one has to accept it, and neither the two of you. And I don't have to retract it either.

We all know what Peter Criss wrote on the F/A 18 E/F purchase, and I have to agree with him. It is a waste of good Aussie dollars for an "Interim" aircraft.

Superhornet = Superbug it is.
What's the point of an opinion that you can't or won't support?

We are here to discuss defence related topics, if you don't wish to discuss these issues, see above...

What exactly has Peter Criss got to do with the Royal Malaysian Air Force and what is best or otherwise for it?

Personally I believe that even if RAAF had chosen the F-22 and were allowed to acquire it, he'd still be publicly criticising RAAF, because his criticism stems from his disenchantment over being sacked by RAAF.

However if you wish to discuss this further, head on over to the RAAF board. However be prepared to face up to such things as "facts" and "technical specs"...
 

paskal

New Member
This is all just a piss fight.
by the way the RMAF have already equipped the su-30 with the Damacoles pod:)

I personally think the RMAF will not go for the f/a 18 super hornet but go for the su030 mkm instead.The only way the RMAF will go for the super hornets are if the US allow the selling of JDAM and JSOW.

For the su-30 mkm, the russians have been giving malaysia quite a good deal:D
Kh-59me , r-77, kh-27T thats all very good bombs. the RMAF still havent fullfill its requirement of having another batch of MRCA in the time line of 2005-2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force

So i think the RMAF will be getting the su-30 earlier then expected.The only way the RMAF will be going for the super hornets is at the RMK 10 plan.

please remember that the RMAF still havent fullfill the other batch of MRCA and 4 AWACS.
 

Mr Ignorant

New Member
Aussie Digger

I'll accept your kind invitation to the RAAF thread. I'll test the veracity of your claim there.

MEANWHILE

Shall I itemise those concerns you've raised point by point???? Why don't we???

No you haven't, you 've simply repeated an unjustified opinion several times. You have not provided one shred of evidence to show that the Hornet is difficult to maintain. Let alone "a pig".


Yes I have. Where is the logic in employing an F/A 18 E/F squadron and another SU 30 MKM squadron??? Where are the cost benefits of that sorry little exercise in that aptly organised outcome for the RMAF??? None as far as I can gather. And in fact, in the face of a predictable outcome, the RMAF should not depend on two mutually hostile countries for their Fighter Inventory, let alone Carrier Strike Aircraft beset by issues only the US Navy can complement and deploy anywhere in World.

Justification would include such things as: the cost to operate the Hornets in RMAF service compared to the cost of operating the Sukhois. The availability rates for the Hornets in RMAF service compared to availability rates for the Sukhois. The mean time between failure rates for the F-404 engines. Then compare these issues to the Sukhoi and their ALF-31 engines. Compare flying hours of the Hornets compared to other platforms in RMAF service. These details at least should be available through RMAF annual reports. They certainly are in RAAF annual reports, the cost and flight hours at least...

Where are you taking me???? You know as well as I do that we're not here to discuss any force advantage for Australia and her ANZUS pact in that policy outcome. If we did buy a squadron of F/A 18 E/Fs and produced those reports (internal and external), the only beneficiary would be the rest of the World and her Mother, and NOT the RMAF. We'd indeed find out which is the better one in the order of battle, to the cost of employing one squadron of DUDS. Now wouldn't that just be sweet for those having the winner in their Services.

You haven't done any of these things. This means either you cannot, don't want to or don't understand these things. In any case, you still have not justified your statement.

I've read the literature from the US Senate Committees, I've read the brochures, I've read news reports and I am still not happy. Must the rest of us here read reams of paper praising the "technological" advances of the F/A 18 E/F whilst we all know that it's radar signature, is the silent elephant in the room????? So be it. I'll bring this on to the RAAF boards, and I am going to find out whether this Super Hornet is the real deal or jut another polished tin god sitting on a burning pile of taxpayers money.
 
Last edited:

Mr Ignorant

New Member
This is all just a piss fight.
by the way the RMAF have already equipped the su-30 with the Damacoles pod:)

I personally think the RMAF will not go for the f/a 18 super hornet but go for the su030 mkm instead.The only way the RMAF will go for the super hornets are if the US allow the selling of JDAM and JSOW.

For the su-30 mkm, the russians have been giving malaysia quite a good deal:D
Kh-59me , r-77, kh-27T thats all very good bombs. the RMAF still havent fullfill its requirement of having another batch of MRCA in the time line of 2005-2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force

So i think the RMAF will be getting the su-30 earlier then expected.The only way the RMAF will be going for the super hornets is at the RMK 10 plan.

please remember that the RMAF still havent fullfill the other batch of MRCA and 4 AWACS.
Apa hal itu orang malaysia kat perbincangan ni mahu sokong pesawat F/A 18???

Translation: Are we Malaysians that spineless that we can't think beyond the Super Hornet???
 
Last edited:

Mr Ignorant

New Member
1. Malaysia has no need of and cannot afford an aircraft carrier. Unless you wish to purchase one like Thailand's which is tied up at the dock all the time...

Thanks. I share the same view as well.

2. Arrestor hooks are useful on normal airfields just as they are on carrier systems... The F-111 has one. How many times have they operated from aircraft carriers? How many F-111's did the US Navy buy?

I suppose it's a feature that should be UNIVERSAL to all aircraft. Apparently I am supposed to understand that. Pardon my Ignorance.

3. Yes, Malaysia does operate Harpoon I believe. Malaysia does not yet operate JDAM to the best of my knowledge, but does operate Paveway II laser guided bombs, Sidewinder missiles and AMRAAM missiles.

If I am not mistaken, it's the Navy that has Harpoons. But if I am wrong, then this is irrelevant. The rest of the Sidewinders and AMRAAMs is for our wonderful Hornet display team; likely to end up as the Red Arrows of the RMAF.

4. No, you Malaysia is not in NATO or ANZUS. It is in the Five Power Defence Agreement. No you do not have a carrier. Neither does Canada, Australia, Finland, Switzerland, Spain or Kuwait...

And this should be news to me too. The Spanish operate the Principe de Asturias with their wonderful Harriers, and I suppose for a landlocked country the mighty Swiss Navy likes the idea F/A 18s in the Air Force, whilst the Finnish and Kuwaitis have decided to go for other Fighter Aircraft. The Spanish are now looking forward to their Eurofighters mainly, except the all conquering Swiss NAVY who are looking at RAFALE's.

5. Does the politics apply equally to clients? Of course not. Point to somewhere, where it does? However RMAF have Hornets of the same specification as the RAAF and equally as capable as any other Hornet operator outside of the USN. It also operates modern weaponry for it including AMRAAM, Sidewinder, LGB's and Harpoon. It is probably due for an update, including JDAM and a more advanced short ranged missile, such as AIM-9X or even ASRAAM, now that RAAF has performed the integration work...

And we're a small insignificant South East Asian Client in need of quality and quantity Fighters and Support. But at the same time, we're not going to ransom our economy nor our obligations to Uncle Sam. And we're bloody well sick of Uncle Sam's prices, demands, permissions, etc nor are we going to turn our Air Force into some bloody Circus, just because someone says "ooooohhh don't put all your eggs in one basket, you know..."

6. Many reasons. The fact that the Sukhoi is significantly cheaper than the Super Hornet wouldn't have anything to do with it would it? Mercedes are considerably more expensive than Toyotas too. Wonder why?

Thanks. I like my brand new Lexus too. Wanna give it a try???
 
Last edited:

qwerty223

New Member
1. Malaysia has no need of and cannot afford an aircraft carrier. Unless you wish to purchase one like Thailand's which is tied up at the dock all the time...

Thanks. I share the same view as well.

2. Arrestor hooks are useful on normal airfields just as they are on carrier systems... The F-111 has one. How many times have they operated from aircraft carriers? How many F-111's did the US Navy buy?

I suppose it's a feature that should be UNIVERSAL to all aircraft. Apparently I am supposed to understand that. Pardon my Ignorance.

3. Yes, Malaysia does operate Harpoon I believe. Malaysia does not yet operate JDAM to the best of my knowledge, but does operate Paveway II laser guided bombs, Sidewinder missiles and AMRAAM missiles.

If I am not mistaken, it's the Navy that has Harpoons. But if I am wrong, then this is irrelevant. The rest of the Sidewinders and AMRAAMs is for our wonderful Hornet display team; likely to end up as the Red Arrows of the RMAF.

4. No, you Malaysia is not in NATO or ANZUS. It is in the Five Power Defence Agreement. No you do not have a carrier. Neither does Canada, Australia, Finland, Switzerland, Spain or Kuwait...

And this should be news to me too. The Spanish operate the Principe de Asturias with their wonderful Harriers, and I suppose for a landlocked country the mighty Swiss Navy likes the idea F/A 18s in the Air Force, whilst the Finnish and Kuwaitis have decided to go for other Fighter Aircraft. The Spanish are now looking forward to their Eurofighters mainly, except the all conquering Swiss NAVY who are looking at RAFALE's.

5. Does the politics apply equally to clients? Of course not. Point to somewhere, where it does? However RMAF have Hornets of the same specification as the RAAF and equally as capable as any other Hornet operator outside of the USN. It also operates modern weaponry for it including AMRAAM, Sidewinder, LGB's and Harpoon. It is probably due for an update, including JDAM and a more advanced short ranged missile, such as AIM-9X or even ASRAAM, now that RAAF has performed the integration work...

And we're a small insignificant South East Asian Client in need of quality and quantity Fighters and Support. But at the same time, we're not going to ransom our economy nor our obligations to Uncle Sam. And we're bloody well sick of Uncle Sam's prices, demands, permissions, etc nor are we going to turn our Air Force into some bloody Circus, just because someone says "ooooohhh don't put all your eggs in one basket, you know..."

6. Many reasons. The fact that the Sukhoi is significantly cheaper than the Super Hornet wouldn't have anything to do with it would it? Mercedes are considerably more expensive than Toyotas too. Wonder why?

Thanks. I like my brand new Lexus too. Wanna give it a try???
LoL, now you draw your picture clearly. :eek:nfloorl:
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
1. Malaysia has no need of and cannot afford an aircraft carrier. Unless you wish to purchase one like Thailand's which is tied up at the dock all the time...

Thanks. I share the same view as well.

2. Arrestor hooks are useful on normal airfields just as they are on carrier systems... The F-111 has one. How many times have they operated from aircraft carriers? How many F-111's did the US Navy buy?

I suppose it's a feature that should be UNIVERSAL to all aircraft. Apparently I am supposed to understand that. Pardon my Ignorance.
No, it's not universal. Neither are canard wings, thrust vectoring engines, delta wings or any number of aircraft features. A number of land based aircraft DO operate arrestor hooks though and will never operate from a carrier.

3. Yes, Malaysia does operate Harpoon I believe. Malaysia does not yet operate JDAM to the best of my knowledge, but does operate Paveway II laser guided bombs, Sidewinder missiles and AMRAAM missiles.

If I am not mistaken, it's the Navy that has Harpoons. But if I am wrong, then this is irrelevant. The rest of the Sidewinders and AMRAAMs is for our wonderful Hornet display team; likely to end up as the Red Arrows of the RMAF.
Your display team flies with live ordnance? :shudder

Remind me never to go to an RMAF "open day" then...

4. No, you Malaysia is not in NATO or ANZUS. It is in the Five Power Defence Agreement. No you do not have a carrier. Neither does Canada, Australia, Finland, Switzerland, Spain or Kuwait...

And this should be news to me too. The Spanish operate the Principe de Asturias with their wonderful Harriers, and I suppose for a landlocked country the mighty Swiss Navy likes the idea F/A 18s in the Air Force, whilst the Finnish and Kuwaitis have decided to go for other Fighter Aircraft. The Spanish are now looking forward to their Eurofighters mainly, except the all conquering Swiss NAVY who are looking at RAFALE's.

5. Does the politics apply equally to clients? Of course not. Point to somewhere, where it does? However RMAF have Hornets of the same specification as the RAAF and equally as capable as any other Hornet operator outside of the USN. It also operates modern weaponry for it including AMRAAM, Sidewinder, LGB's and Harpoon. It is probably due for an update, including JDAM and a more advanced short ranged missile, such as AIM-9X or even ASRAAM, now that RAAF has performed the integration work...
I'm not sure what illicit substances you are ingesting there, but I think it's time you stopped. You are starting to be an embarrasment.

The Spanish intend to operate their F/A-18's for many years to come yet, as evidenced by their on-going MLU. They will be operated alongside the Eurofighter Typhoons, which are in fact replacing their F-1 Mirage fighters...

The Spanish operate a STOVL aircraft carrier. The F/A-18 is not capable of STOVL operations... They have purchased the F/A-18, like everyone else bar the USN, soley for land based operations...

The Swiss are indeed impressed with their Hornets. So much so that they've included the Super Hornet as one of 4 aircraft they intend to trial to replace their F-5E Tiger fleet later this year. The other aircraft are Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon. I'm not sure Switzerland even has a navy. However they certainly have NOT ordered Rafale. No-one has except France in fact.

As to Kuwait and Finland. All I can say is WTF? The ONLY front line combat aircraft these countries have is the F/A-18. Neither has "decided to go for other Fighter Aircraft".

And we're a small insignificant South East Asian Client in need of quality and quantity Fighters and Support. But at the same time, we're not going to ransom our economy nor our obligations to Uncle Sam. And we're bloody well sick of Uncle Sam's prices, demands, permissions, etc nor are we going to turn our Air Force into some bloody Circus, just because someone says "ooooohhh don't put all your eggs in one basket, you know..."
I agree you need quality. Which is why I'm advocating the Super Hornet for Malaysia's second MMRCA Squadron, as opposed to the Su-30... Once again, apparently your Chief is not so sick of Uncle Sam's requirements. Says a lot to me when the operators are quite happy with the aircraft...

I'm sure you made a reasoned decision when you chose to acquire a Lexus. Perhaps some of this attention could be put towards thinking about what you are saying here...
 

Ding

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #640
NO! What I stated is, cost wise it is preferable to operate 1 type of fighter. Not far more preferable. Many other things also need to be considered in RMAF operations, not just cost. Leave aside the political dimensions that qwerty 223 mentions and look at the supply and maintenance and logistic lines. Having 2 types of aircraft (be it a western or eastern or mix) is logical as not to disrupt your whole operations if one type is grounded for one of many a reasons. logistics, part, maintenance etc etc. You do remember that the Hawks was grounded for a period of time, also the S61 Nuri. Again the english saying comes to mind, do not put all your eggs in one basket.

Really???? How very intelligent. We currently operate 4 different types of fighter aircraft. That's the product of intelligent "all your eggs in one basket" approach. How very fortunate for the RMAF.

I prefer one type, if not 2 at the most. And splitting the Service capability between Russian and American aircraft in the future, is a recipe for disaster. But off course, we're so rich we can afford to train pilots, mechanics, engineers and technicians on 2 or 3 different technologies.

Thanks to "all your eggs in one basket" Idiom.
Mr Ignorant I am going to answer you one last time as it seems your argument does not stem in logic. as for the above statement, if you would follow my lines of reasoning since the first page of this thread, I have already stated that I feel RMAF flies to many types of aircraft. I have also stated that my preference is to have 2 types of fighters to streamline the RMAF operations. Then I continued to say I prefer to have both the Su30MKM and the SHornets two sqns each and get rid of the other fighters. Now i know that's not possible cost wise since both the Migs and the hornets still have useful life. But the again your line of reasoning seems to indicate that you prefer to do off with the hornets to. So what are you talking about???

you indeed speak malay, now i shall too. Lain kali kalau nak masuk campur, bagi salam dulu... to non malay speakers it means, next time if you wanna join a conversation, please say hello first. You should do that Mr I, since you are taking my statement out of context.

I have never said I do not like the Su30s. In fact I have stated that i loved them. (or i thought i did... no matter, i'm stating it again... i love it). My line of discussion or argument was not to push the SHornet as the second MRCA sqn. In fact a few post back i posted that whether the Sooks or the Shornets are chosen, I'll still be a happy guy. both represent a good leap of capability for the RMAF.

You seem to be confused of my argument about the hornets. Please take note Hornets and Shornets are 2 different aircraft. My line of argument with you are regarding the purchase of the 8 original hornet Ds in 1997. You say without reasoning that it's, well, useless. I'm giving you facts that it's not. please read through my previous post. If we are talking about the future, then it's different. that's open for debate.

And please MR I, before you start posting about the Malaysian defence structure, please read up on it first. Some pointers:-

1. Harpoons are owned by RMAF. The RMN has no shipborne harpoons in the inventory. You do realised that harpoons have a ship and air version do you?? And why on earth would RMN keep the airborne harpoons? That makes no sense.

2. The hornets does not fly display with live ordnance. never seen it... dont think i will ever see it. that's just stupid. come to think of it, au contraire of your statement, the red arrows do not fly with live ordnance either. I've seen hornets with full loadout of ordnance while on static display thouhg.....

And this should be news to me too. The Spanish operate the Principe de Asturias with their wonderful Harriers, and I suppose for a landlocked country the mighty Swiss Navy likes the idea F/A 18s in the Air Force, whilst the Finnish and Kuwaitis have decided to go for other Fighter Aircraft. The Spanish are now looking forward to their Eurofighters mainly, except the all conquering Swiss NAVY who are looking at RAFALE's.
3. The country above all flies the hornets as their front line fighters. If you researched, you'd know it to.

4. to AD: I'm not sure Switzerland even has a navy I'm sure you're being a smart-ass with that statement :D but just in case MR I get it wrong, i better clarify. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SWISS NAVY.

5. And for lexus???? That's just a glorified Toyota :nutkick Personally, i'd go for a BMW, preferably the second generation 5 (e34) with a big ass 3.8 straight six and a six speed manual. to Mr I, your car maybe newer, but mine's classier. Lexus are for morons who care more about badges than driving pleasure. note to my Aussie friends : Sorry mateys, am not a big fan of bloody V8s (i think i went way over topic on this last point......:D )

That's it.... before this degenerate into a all out piss fight with Mr I, i'd better stop, or else i'd be banned for breaking the forum rules... but then again Mr I never did read it.... hmmmm.

to mr I, i really wished i can say let's agree to disagree, but hell, you dont even know what you fighting/arguing for. and i cant even say i disagree with your point.. that's because you dont have one!
 
Last edited:
Top