Its a shame because the money used to buy the MiG-29N's could have been used to buy additional F/A-18D's instead.
Well, MiG-29N's decision came earlier and it happened because we made Uncle Sam unhappy and also to show we can survive independently. MiG-29N did served us well the past decade. And wanted to remind you some history. During the 91~94 we did had an economic boom. But we were also in the period of transforming from a kampung like country to a modern one. Money is coming as fast as it goes. Not to mention the economic crisis came the early 97. AND the Hornet deal was made after we somehow satisfied Uncle Sam.
We will not end up a embargo if we are not using it aggressively. IMO, other than PRC and the Russians, all other main supplier in the world will set an embargo against any country thats violets "their will". The is world rule by the few powers, the ones we know.
1st of all, why do you think it will be downgraded till the point that it is not competible with all other 4+gen aircraft in the world?
The US will not sell Malaysia F/A-18F block II so no AESA. Therefore they will be a relatively downgraded version. By far the best option for the RMAF IMO (and i have stated this repeatedly, would be the eventual purchase for annother squadron of SU-30 MKM's with the aim of a ~50 platform orbat. There are just too many compromises with US kit for the malaysians and theres no point in complicateing your logistical constraints by having a half US half russian kit with different weapon requirements that are not interchangable. IMHO Its a waste of time and money.
LoL, most of the military fan do think the same. But it wont be true. Anyways, doest anyone can tell why Malaysian are not eligable to have block 2 S. Hornet? thats the main point here.
Well, for a start, you can forget about AESA. The US proposal was for the Malaysian F/A-18F to be equipped with the older APG-73. Malaysia is cleared for AMRAAM but not the AIM-120C8, and JDAM but not for AIM-9X or Harpoon Block II/III. But you are still missing the point of my argument. Would it be better for Malaysia to spend money on an expensive but downgraded (no APG-79, no TERMINATOR, no AIM-9X, no Harpoon Block II/III, no AIM-120C8, no JCHMS, no ALQ-214) F/A-18F or for for a full-spec SU-30MKM? Personally, I am starting to lean towards the SU-30MKM epecially regarding the extra development which the Indians have started to pour into the SU-30MKI (Irbis-E, new Indian computers, composite airframe...etc) and regarding Ozzy Blizzard's point about logistics. It would certainly help with regard to future AWACS integration.
I am not missing anything while you are adding many myth on it. Not to mention that You made a mistake on the model. AMRAAM-C5 is a standard export model, it would change later when D model has become standard to the USAF/USMC. As a rough picture of the future procurement I have pointed out 2 solid evidence that we are not going to get too bad with American product:1st which i stated clearly, 97 we got a full spec and full weaponry Hornet Ds. 2nd, when even forumer can think about a better option available to the market, why wouldn't the proffesionist in the RMAF eye themselves an aircraft other than the S.Hornet? All i can think of is 2 reasons: A. Analyst shows a downgraded S.Hornet is on par with all other 4++ gen aircraft in the world. B. They have confidence to get what they want. C.
How do "most military fan" think the same? Logistical over-compliction, or the US not selling Block II Rhino's? Malaysia wont be able to buy BII because of sophistocation of the AESA and avionics suite, both of which are incredibly sensitive. AESA's are one of the US's most improtant cometitive advantage's and which they're not going to risk on anyone who are not tier one allies (or who they are not trying to woo into becoming a tier one ally), Malayisa is NOT a tier one alliy. In any case i thought the Malaysian government applyed for an FMS and was rebuffed?
Everyone is coming up with AESA,and APG-79 is going to outdate soon with the APG-73 already outdated. E/F model worth nothing without APG-79. If we, as a forumer can see this, I am sure those professionist in the RMAF can see more then we do.
nfloorl: are you friggin kidding me?F/A-18E/F isnt worth nothing without AESA and 5th gen combat managements system and HUI, but it is a whole let less capable. IMO a block I rhino is significantly less capable than an Su-30 MKM. Now would it still be usefull in the contmporary threat environment? Sure, the acsess to even basic J-series PGM's is allmost worth it. However IMHO that alone is not worth the compromised capability and logistical complications of operating a compromised orbat consiting of US + Russian kit which share nothing in common, even the weapons loadout. However the same could said for operateing MiG 29's and F/A-18D's aswell, so who knows what the logic is. Perhaps its more political rather than operational, keeping defence ties strong with the west and east? Because it makes no sense logistically.
1st, LOL.
AN/APG 73 (v)3 and AN/APG 79 are identical, and both are by far the best fighter sized radars operational anywhere (bar the AN/APG 77). They are 2 generations ahead of both Russian and European AESA programs. How on earth are they going to be "oudated" soon?
Wow, although you tried hard to hide it, but you actually mean an AESA-less is actually on par with all other 4++gen aircraft in the world. Now thats a good joke.
Did you read the post your quoteing? AN/APG 73 (V)3 was upgraded with all of the advanced features of the AN/APG 79 and built with the same array techniques, (as opposed to the AN/APG 73 (V)2). They are both, clearly the most capable fighter radars on the planet (with the exeption of the AN/APG 77), or do you disagree?
Again did you actually read the post you quoted? I said in the strike role the F/A-18F BI was probably superior to the SU-30MKM becasue it can employ J-series PGM's. Pretty simple huh, or do you disagree? Also you know were i said this:
Pretty clear huh? Dont know how you confused that.Ozzy Blizzard said:
Well antenna holds 50% of the radar system's parameter. And how you define "new"? In tech product, the term new is not just the traditional meaning of when it enter market, its a relative comparison to existing competitor and its proceeder. An AESA is a must for the S.Hornet to stay competitive. Therefore the USMC upgraded them even before the QC sticker worn off.
Ok, the model is considered "F". Being downgraded in all aspect, left outdated radar, targeting pod and weaponry. So, tell me, whats so superior when the European can at least offer better sensors?
You should grow up man. The world doesn't turn around you. When the time we got our S.Hornet, probably is later than 2012~13. Lightning II will enter service in mass production, consequently take over the air defence roll from S.Hornet. For that time being, not to mention AN/APG 73V3, I bet the USMC will perform another upgrade for the AN/APG 79. As of RMAF, depending on a soon outdated asset, for the next 20 years, is it a "childish manner" or an "adult, factual and logical argument"? :shudderPretty clear huh? Dont know how you confused that.
Now if you want to have a real grown up conversation why dont you actually put some adult, factual and logical argument into your posts? Deliberatly distroting my conclusion in a childish maner wont lead to the most productive of conversations if you know what i mean?