RMAF Future; need opinions

[qwerty223]

I would like Malaysian DT forum members to take note of problems the Indonesians are having in keeping their Su-30 flying.

The most interesting position taken is by Subangite, where he suggests that Malaysia should consider 2nd hand Hornets rather than Super Hornets. I know that must people in military forums will not support such a position but I think its the most novel solution proposed in terms of the trade off between cost savings, capability and ease of maintenance.

1. Why the hell should we compare to indo's flankers? Is there any comparison?

2. Hornets are going to phase out, world wide, in 10-15yrs, and the best airframe u can find is not less than 10 years old and went thru extensive operation. Driving oldies if for ppl who has money and time.

 

[OPSSG]

Dear qwerty223,

As I said before, I do not have sufficient knowledge to make an informed comment on which air craft is a superior choice for Malaysia. As an outsider, I don't have a vested interest in whatever choice Malaysia makes.

My main concern for sufficient logistics support with so many aircraft types.

Although Indonesia had the money to buy the avionic parts from Russia, the parts are out of stock so two Sukhois could not be used. This means that support on parts by the Russians is poor.

Therefore, Malaysia needs to be careful about promises made by the Russians on support for the aircraft sold. One risk management technique is to provide for minimum turn around time for parts support (under the contract, if additional Su-30s are to be purchased).

I don't look down on older air frames if they are sufficient to do the job and I'm not saying that what is good for the RSAF is good for the RMAF.

IIRC the RSAF is still flying 2 squadrons of the F5 and we are proud that we bought a number of them second hand and have since upgraded them to enable them to fire BVR missiles. Granted it's not sexy. It's a oldie but a goodie. So I don't think it is enough just to say driving oldies if for ppl who have money and time.

Best Wishes from your neighbour in the South.

 

[qwerty223]

Dear qwerty223,

As I said before, I do not have sufficient knowledge to make an informed comment on which air craft is a superior choice for Malaysia. As an outsider, I don't have a vested interest in whatever choice Malaysia makes.

My main concern for sufficient logistics support with so many aircraft types.

Although Indonesia had the money to buy the avionic parts from Russia, the parts are out of stock so two Sukhois could not be used. This means that support on parts by the Russians is poor.

Therefore, Malaysia needs to be careful about promises made by the Russians on support for the aircraft sold. One risk management technique is to provide for minimum turn around time for parts support (under the contract, if additional Su-30s are to be purchased).

I don't look down on older air frames if they are sufficient to do the job and I'm not saying that what is good for the RSAF is good for the RMAF.

IIRC the RSAF is still flying 2 squadrons of the F5 and we are proud that we bought a number of them second hand and have since upgraded them to enable them to fire BVR missiles. Granted it's not sexy. It's a oldie but a goodie. So I don't think it is enough just to say driving oldies if for ppl who have money and time.

Best Wishes from your neighbour in the South.

1. You are misinformed. Indo does not has the money to pay for, other than the airframe. Even the upcoming 6 units were not funded despite their air force chief catching the public's attention once for a while.

2. RSAF is up keeping a force that could withstand attrition in a war. While the Malaysian are preparing themselves a deterrent force that could repel a skirmish and buy time for an international interference . Therefore RMAF only keep a sufficient force at the high quality as possible.

 

[mantanfwi]

Thank you for the insight from OPSSG, most welcome and refreshing.

I am more concerned that Malaysia needs to acquire the ability to integrate the AWACs with Malaysia's command and control systems.

I fully agree with OPSSG here, this is the lynchpin of all capabilities, integration process and the associated myriad of challenges it poses. Having said that, MAF top brass must have the balls to admit that they are lacking of knowledge and expertise in this area (integration). As is a lot of defence industries are claiming said capability and yet failed at proof of concept and yet MAF is not doing enough to educate their management level about this concept in days of NCW and IW. That is one of my main concern... Lack of knowledge leads to poor options and decision making.

I think that Malaysia really needs to choose between the F18 and the Su-30MKM platforms. It would make logistics planning much easier on the air force.

Agreed with OPSSG that single type makes it easier to maintain logistic coherent, BUT, also opens a pandora box of dependency on the said pipeline. Having said that, MAF should look into possesing own repair capability for certain critical equipments or at least having alternative means so as not to end up in a quagmire like the Indons and their Sukhois. Personally, due to this reason alone I stand by my choice of a two type frontline fleet.

There is no need to panic about the delays with the A400M:

(i) as it would mean the manufacturer would have to compensate the buyer (hopefully cheaper planes for Malaysia);

Maybe....then again in malaysia's defence spending experience, more often than not it will not happen the way you envisage it as hopefully cheaper planes.

(ii) I would like to note that in terms of pure speed all mid air refueling tankers cannot keep up with fighters. The tankers would give the RMAF aircraft more time on station (for both offensive and defensive counter air sorties). As the RMAF matures and uses AWACs, time on station for fighters become more important; and

(iii) the A400M specifications are excellent and more capable than C130s so it upgrades Malaysia's military lift and mid air refueling capacity.

Agreed that all AAR tankers are incapable of sustaining the fighter jets combat airspeed, but as props are limited by the design speed of the blade it cannot also sustain credible speed at combat altitude. For example, if a 4 ship intends to transit with tanker support it will then have to fly lower and slower if accompanied by a prop tanker like C130 and A400M whereas if accompanied by the likes of VC10, KC135 and/or IL82 jet tanker, the jet tanker can maintain at least 300KIAS at cruise altitude with the 4 ship.

Capacity and capability wise I agree that A400M is superior than that of C130 but my contention is that I believe its time that RMAF opts for a jet tanker to support fighter deployments (longer and faster legs, more payload, increased flexibility in functions; refuel, carry support equipments and technical support all in one go rather than ferrying bits by bits).

Other than news reports on the corruption issues (and the posts by other forum members here), the Eurocopter Cougar is very reliable.

No doubt bout that one, the Cougar is a powerful tool. My contention is that RMAF needs to tailor their heli operations to suit the tool, Cougar is limited in payload to act as a full up replacement for the S-61 troop support role as it is designed with CSAR and Spec Ops role in mind. My wish is for RMAF not to make the same mistake of thinking that the Mig-29 is an MRCA.... Its happened before so it can happen again, buying the correct tools but employing it for the wrong role and then bitching bout its performance....

That is my two cents...not worth much but its mine....:vamp

 

[mantanfwi]

Hornets are going to phase out, world wide, in 10-15yrs, and the best airframe u can find is not less than 10 years old and went thru extensive operation. Driving oldies if for ppl who has money and time.

I would have to disagree with qwerty here, hornets are not going to phase out world wide in 10-15 yrs. USN has a knack of making things last for a long while for them. Look at the A4, A6 and F14, it served the USN for the better part of 35 to 40 years. In any case, there are other countries that will lobby to keep the spare lines open until at least another 20-30 yrs down the line for the hornets (at least the E/F version).

Having said that, I am also in favour of RMAF acquiring 2nd hand FA18C/D as it reduces the pains in logistics maintenance and training. Although most will say that an E/F is similar to a C/D truth be told it is nothing similar; handling is different (although flying qualities of the C/D can be increased to that of E/F via a software change), airframe is different (bigger, longer, and more equipments) not to mention the subtle differences in the way that a C/D operate compared to the E/F. So as an interim measure maybe its better to add the 2nd hand C/D and use it until end of service life while preparing to replace or increase ageing fighter assets with full fledged 5th Gen ac by 2035. Or have they not even begun to think about it?

 

[OPSSG]

Dear qwerty223 and mantanfwi,

Thank you for your comments.

As I have said in other posts in DT forum, the future threat to both Singapore and Malaysia may come from outside the region. At this stage of our economic development, we have much in common.

Before proceeding further, I would like to say that my analysis on the suitability of weapons system in the spirit of mutual exchange of ideas.

1. You are misinformed. Indo does not has the money to pay for, other than the airframe. Even the upcoming 6 units were not funded despite their air force chief catching the public's attention once for a while.

2. RSAF is up keeping a force that could withstand attrition in a war. While the Malaysian are preparing themselves a deterrent force that could repel a skirmish and buy time for an international interference . Therefore RMAF only keep a sufficient force at the high quality as possible.

1. With regards to the Indo information, I took it from the Antara website and have previously provided a link. I'll let the issue rest and take your point.

2. Now, I understand what you are saying. Thank you for the clarification.

I would have to disagree with qwerty here, hornets are not going to phase out... In any case, there are other countries that will lobby to keep the spare lines open until at least another 20-30 yrs down the line for the hornets (at least the E/F version)...

I agree with mantanfwi said above and would have to say that the US is very good at introducing upgrades throughout the service life of its aircraft types. So once an investment is made in a platform it does not become outdated so fast (compared to say the Mig 29 purchase). I also agree that the magnitude of changes on the Super Hornet (compared to the Hornet) makes it almost a new aircraft.

I would like to add one more point. The RMAF recently took part in Pitch Black in Australia and part of buying a US system is the opportunity for RMAF pilots to interact and learn from other FPDA powers who use similar doctrines.

Cheers

 

[mantanfwi]

As always, it is good to look inside from OUTSIDE the box not from INSIDE the box.

 

[OPSSG]

Having said that, MAF top brass must have the balls to admit that they are lacking of knowledge and expertise in this area (integration)... Lack of knowledge leads to poor options and decision making.

Agreed with OPSSG that single type makes it easier to maintain logistic coherent, BUT, also opens a pandora box of dependency on the said pipeline. Having said that, MAF should look into possessing own repair capability for certain critical equipments or at least having alternative means so as not to end up in a quagmire like the Indons and their Sukhois. Personally, due to this reason alone I stand by my choice of a two type frontline fleet.

Let me just say that I hold the Malaysian officers I met in high regard. I think the problem is not only the fault of the MAF top brass. We need to look at:
(i) human factors design;
(ii) the purchasing system; and
(iii) the planning process.

It seems to me that the purchasing, upgrade and maintenance decisions have been influenced by the politicians rather than what the MAF wants. There is too much focus on buying new equipment and not enough focus on upgrades and the maintenance of existing systems.

All military training, if realistic carries with it risk and we cannot remove that risk totally. In fact, all air forces suffer from crashes, but what is important is the the MAF must have a process in place to prevent its recurrence (i.e. we must learn from our mistakes). If the air frame has not been retired, it must not be dropping out of the sky.

It is hard for the MAF to operate both the F18 and the Su-30, as the doctrine and maintenance procedures are totally different. The level maintenance and amounts of parts to be stocked for each type is not comparable. So the MAF would have a hard time learning from best practices in different squadrons. Further, it will need lots of investments to keep them both flying, taking money away from new purchases.

I speak strongly about this as I have seen friends die or become permanently disabled in accidents during military training in the late 80s. I can remember all my fellow commanders crying as they carried the coffin. I know the guilt they still feel not being able to save him. He was crushed in a training accident and everyone who tried to save him cried at the beautifully conducted military funeral. Every military person who dies is someone's child, friend or neighbour. They must not have died in vain in service to their country. For the SAF, I am proud to say that we no longer use that type of equipment.

However, I don't get the feeling there is a program in place, after each accident to prevent a recurrence.

 

[qwerty223]

I would have to disagree with qwerty here, hornets are not going to phase out world wide in 10-15 yrs. USN has a knack of making things last for a long while for them. Look at the A4, A6 and F14, it served the USN for the better part of 35 to 40 years. In any case, there are other countries that will lobby to keep the spare lines open until at least another 20-30 yrs down the line for the hornets (at least the E/F version).

Having said that, I am also in favour of RMAF acquiring 2nd hand FA18C/D as it reduces the pains in logistics maintenance and training. Although most will say that an E/F is similar to a C/D truth be told it is nothing similar; handling is different (although flying qualities of the C/D can be increased to that of E/F via a software change), airframe is different (bigger, longer, and more equipments) not to mention the subtle differences in the way that a C/D operate compared to the E/F. So as an interim measure maybe its better to add the 2nd hand C/D and use it until end of service life while preparing to replace or increase ageing fighter assets with full fledged 5th Gen ac by 2035. Or have they not even begun to think about it?

1. Hornet ABCD product line was closed almost a decade ago. All of the current users are shopping for replacement, including RMAF. It is common sense to look forward.

2. Junk yard spare part is not that simple in this sense. American goods are all protected by US security agencies. To collect, get approval, cut it of, refurbish, and send it back, may be unexpected costly.

3. As you said, E/F /= A/B/C/D, how would it be a factor to acquire the Hornets?

4. How many years can the 2nd airframe withstand? 10? 15? What is the expected price? Do you think your ideal offer will occur from an operator that is in its best form with the machine?

 

[OPSSG]

Dear qwerty223,

Thank you for your comments.

I agree that it makes sense to look forward. However, any purchase in an airframe is a 20 to 35 year commitment to keeping it in service. You cannot use junk yard spare parts for aircraft. You need to strip, inspect and refurbish parts (and so on) in old aircraft to keep them in service (Please explain, I don't understand your point).

If you say Malaysia cannot do this, then there is a big problem at the systems level for the MAF. A fighter plane a capital investment by the country. The MAF, as a steward of these fighter planes have a responsibility to keep them flying for at least over 20 years.

MAF's F-18 and Su-30 squadrons are smaller than the Nato norm of 20 to 24 planes (i.e. more expensive to maintain at a per plane basis). It becomes very uneconomical to maintain if the focus is always on change only.

Yes, the purchase of certain American military products is subject to notification/approval by congress. All air forces who buy American is subject to the same process. Why should Malaysia be any different?

Your response is so short on each point that I don't understand. You need to make an argument for the pros and cons, in a way that a reader can understand.

 

[nevidimka]

Interesting debate, bt I'd like to state a few corrections on the discussions above.

First, the Hornet has better flight characteristics/quality compared to the Superhornet, not vice versa.

Secondly, the Mig 29 purchase is not a bad purchase that has gone outdated because there is no upgrades by Russians. In fact the upgrades have been pouring out from Mikoyan for many years. Its just the MAF saw a better and more beautiful fish ( Su 30 MKM ) and decided to neglect the upgrades for the Mig 29 to make it a 4.5 gen MRCA. That does not make the Mig 29 a bad purchase, rather the Gov's lack of sight. India has just contracted Mikoyan to upgrade thier fleet of Mig 29's to become up to date as the plane is a very good plane.

If the Gov decide to neglect the Hornet's upgrades like the Mig, we will also have an outdated Hornet, but does that mean there are no upgrades available for it in the market? In some ways the hornet is a bad purchase as soon after buying it, US reverted to Superhornets, and closed the Hornet line. We are deprived of the capabilites and the upgrade potential that the Superhornet provides.

The Indonesian Flankers avionics are Russian, the MAF Flanker's are French.


I think you are looking at it from a western perspective that all russian products are bad will fall from the sky when they get old, because RSAF uses all western products. Thats not entirely true, we have already lost what, 4 hawk's? due to crashes. India just lost their latest Hawk soon after receiving it.


And regarding operating 2 types of planes, after like 9 years operating 2 types of planes together I think the MAF have enough experience and develop adequate abilities to maintain 2 types of different planes better.

 

[OPSSG]

nevidimka thank you for educating us on the upgrade options for the Mig 29 and the different avionics available in the Su-30.

The aircraft we were referring to that were falling out of the sky was the S61-A4 Sikorsky Nuri used by the MAF (over 17 crashes). Please see comments by others on one of the 17 crashes.

I must bear responsibility for my lack of clarity in my earlier post. My comments were directed at MAF's lack of investment in keeping their existing fleet updated and flying (spending $ in maintenance). I am NOT making the argument -- US aircraft good and Russian aircraft bad.

Could you share with us which aircraft you think Malaysia should buy more of next (Su-30 or F18)?

If Malaysia invests in more Su-30s, then they should look to go around and have joint exercises with another country that operates the Su-30. That way they can benefit from the learning more about their maintenance processes and their parts stocking levels. Malaysia is part of the FPDA and has joint exercises with other FPDA powers. Unfortunately none of the other FPDA powers use the Su-30, so their exercise partners do not have the expertise to help the Malaysians.

My concern continues to be stating the importance of a safety culture and that the MAF needs better process management skills. Specifically, in my earlier post, I suggested that MAF use operational analysis (OA) to generate detailed plans that is tied to the purchase of new systems. OA is a commonly used quantitative management technique.

 

[qwerty223]

Dear qwerty223,

Thank you for your comments.

I agree that it makes sense to look forward. However, any purchase in an airframe is a 20 to 35 year commitment to keeping it in service. You cannot use junk yard spare parts for aircraft. You need to strip, inspect and refurbish parts (and so on) in old aircraft to keep them in service (Please explain, I don't understand your point).

If you say Malaysia cannot do this, then there is a big problem at the systems level for the MAF. A fighter plane a capital investment by the country. The MAF, as a steward of these fighter planes have a responsibility to keep them flying for at least over 20 years.

MAF's F-18 and Su-30 squadrons are smaller than the Nato norm of 20 to 24 planes (i.e. more expensive to maintain at a per plane basis). It becomes very uneconomical to maintain if the focus is always on change only.

Yes, the purchase of certain American military products is subject to notification/approval by congress. All air forces who buy American is subject to the same process. Why should Malaysia be any different?

Your response is so short on each point that I don't understand. You need to make an argument for the pros and cons, in a way that a reader can understand.

If you familiar with news from MAF, they emphasize "multiplier". obviously in their mind, quantity is not the matter.

Hornet spare part line will soon close. Due to all of its main users transit to replacement model. Junk yard part is not a solution as there are redundant work to get approval to retrieve the parts and have it licensed export. Will cost more than brand new parts even the product line manage to survive after 2020.

Hornet for RMAF was an idea 15yrs ago that forecast the needs until 2015-2020. But the idea lost its strategic strength after being struck by national economic crisis, subsequence delay and shrunk. It has no value to step in a fatal routine repeating outdated plan.

And finally, even we want Hornet for our future fleet, whos gona sell us 2nd airframe that we are willing to accept?
1.Aus, Canada having their current bet on the hornets, will not give them up until F-35 arrive, in other words, after 2015.

2.Spain like all other Typhoon users are having problem in funding the typhoon. Typhoon is progressing so slow that they need to refurbish their Hornet.

3.Finland has all its bet on the Hornet and has no plan in the near future.

4.Switzerland enjoying their hornets while 58 tigers are due to replace.

5.USMC seems to be deeply in love with the hornets.

In conclusion, we do not have a source before 2010, except the Boneyard.

I do not see any possibility in this fantasy.

 

[OPSSG]

Dear qwerty223, thank you for your detailed rely. I now understand what you are trying to get at.


Dear All, on a different subject, I have just done some book reviews including Tim Huxley's Defending the Lion City and have them posted in DT Forum here. I would appreciate all your thoughts (be it positive or negative). Many, many thanks.

 

[nevidimka]

nevidimka thank you for educating us on the upgrade options for the Mig 29 and the different avionics available in the Su-30.

The aircraft we were referring to that were falling out of the sky was the S61-A4 Sikorsky Nuri used by the MAF (over 17 crashes). Please see comments by others on one of the 17 crashes.

I must bear responsibility for my lack of clarity in my earlier post. My comments were directed at MAF's lack of investment in keeping their existing fleet updated and flying (spending $ in maintenance). I am NOT making the argument -- US aircraft good and Russian aircraft bad.

Could you share with us which aircraft you think Malaysia should buy more of next (Su-30 or F18)?

If Malaysia invests in more Su-30s, then they should look to go around and have joint exercises with another country that operates the Su-30. That way they can benefit from the learning more about their maintenance processes and their parts stocking levels. Malaysia is part of the FPDA and has joint exercises with other FPDA powers. Unfortunately none of the other FPDA powers use the Su-30, so their exercise partners do not have the expertise to help the Malaysians.

My concern continues to be stating the importance of a safety culture and that the MAF needs better process management skills. Specifically, in my earlier post, I suggested that MAF use operational analysis (OA) to generate detailed plans that is tied to the purchase of new systems. OA is a commonly used quantitative management technique.

Hi, I believe from your posts, that you are from the RSAF. And being so, your lack of knowledge on the SU 30 MKM baffles me. Certainly the RSAF would have researched every single detail about the SU30 MKM?
Coz lets face it both the countries have been doing a tit for tat purchase for some time now. The F 15's are just 1 of those... LOL.

Anyways regarding Nuri's yeah I agree with you. Those are way past their bed time and should have been put to sleep long ago. I would have prefered the chinook's but those would be too expensive.

I think MAF should go for more SU 30's. These planes are Multirole and very capable and will be offered the brahmos in the future. Plus the upgrade potential is huge with the development of the Su 35 superflanker by Russia. As for spare parts, I believe even India is producing many critical parts as they have a very big inventory of those planes. If possible I'd like it if MAF operates both Su 30 and SH, but if budget is tight, then SU 30 is the way to go.

Also I dont think having a different type plane would hamper training together for FPDA. We used Mig's in the trainings successfully, so why not teh flankers. Plus we get to train against western planes and see their operating doctrine, coz face it who around Malaysia is operating Russian planes other than Indonesia's useless flankers, We are surrounded by F 16's Hornets and in future Gripens. Just like why does RSAF has to go to India to train? Does India operate Western/NATO planes to teach RSAF how to use their planes? Also I believe having different types of planes can be advantageous as you can use the strength of each others planes in a joint operation.


And btw, I think you are being too formal in here. Loosen up abit.

 

[OPSSG]

Without a background in the air force, I do not feel I can make an informed comment on which air craft is a superior choice for Malaysia. I have a background in the army. In another thread, I have given reasons why I supported Malaysia's choice of PT-91M as a MBT.

Damn i'm good at faking it. Bro, I have a background in the army (i'm too blind to be a pilot). I'll try to loosen up a bit more.

IMHO, the F-15SG purchase was more driven an insurance policy against potential F-35 program time and cost over runs. In Oct 2007, it was announced that Singapore increased the number of F15SGs bought to 24. Singapore, like many Nato countries, having due our sums realize that having less than 24 planes per squadron will mean that the cost of maintenance per plane will go up (i.e. Singapore is very cost conscious).

The F-15SG purchase does enhance the RSAF's capabilities but not in the way that many Malaysians think (i.e. to face off the Su-35). The F-15SG gives the RSAF improved capabilities in terms of time on station (for offensive and defensive counter air), loiter, an increase in combat radius and improved informational awareness of the electronic order of battle (via the AESA radar). If the criteria was for air superiority alone then the RSAF would have chosen the Euro-Typhoon. Instead, the Typhoon was the first one kicked out.

 

[sunshin3]

Hi, I believe from your posts, that you are from the RSAF. And being so, your lack of knowledge on the SU 30 MKM baffles me. Certainly the RSAF would have researched every single detail about the SU30 MKM?
Coz lets face it both the countries have been doing a tit for tat purchase for some time now. The F 15's are just 1 of those... LOL.

After an insightful review of the discussions above, i agree with Nevidimka on two things:

(i) As long as Malaysia and Singapore are beside each other, we will forever be doing a tit for tat weapons purchase; and

(ii) Bro OPSSG, YOU really need to loosen up. I read your book review on Tim Huxley's Defending the Lion City and frankly, it's quite condensed. If i were you, i'll just ask them to read the book without going into details WHY they should read. Probably that's why i was never a book reviewer. nfloorl:

Anyway, i stick to my point of view - That Malaysia should invest in more Su-30s.

 

[OPSSG]

Alamak - looks like i'm not successful loosening up at all. :jump

Since the arrival of the E2C AWACS more than 20 years ago, Singapore no longer thinks in terms of plane vs plane contest. So I don't think the F-15SG purchase was a tit-for tat purchase against Malaysia's purchase of the Su-30MKM.

Planes, ships, vehicles and UAVs are part of the SAF's sensor-shooter cycle. That is why the SAF announced the "3G" SAF idea. To explain what 3G SAF in relation to the F-15SG, we need to take a technical detour into how the AESA radar in the F-15SG works. The heart of the modern F-15SG is its AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar system. It is so much more than a radar that some would prefer to call it a "multifunction RF system" instead.

With future developments of the AESA radar, the F-15SG can become an extension of the RSAF's AWACS radar coverage. Coupled with its ability to operate in both air-to-air and air-to-ground mode at the same time, the AN/APG-63(V)3 enhances the SAF's situational awareness. In modern air combat at BVR, the range of radar and features of the BVR missiles that are more important.

So a F-16 (I'll explain more about an AESA upgrade option for the F-16 later) equipped with the latest AESA radar can be equally capable in conducting counter air missions. In BVR air combat, the principle is to see first, shoot first (with the AIM-120 BVR missile). So the RSAF with its AWACS will always have a see first, shoot first advantage. This advantage does not come from the air plane alone.

 

[sunshin3]

Wow.... I am impressed. We have so many talents in military analysis that we should be setting up a think tank or something for the Malaysian Armed Forces here...

Anyway, coming back to the discussion, mantanfwi has brought up a couple of interesting points in his very long and probably very unattainable wishlist. What i think may probably be more realistic would be:

(i) Cougars - to replace the deathtrap Nuris.

(ii) More Su-30s (i know i've repeated them) - Air superiority.

(iii) An integrated multimission groundbased 3D surveillance radar system - I have to agree with mantanfwi for this.

(iv) 6 batteries of the medium range SAMs (S-300V class) and 12 to 18 batteries of SA8 class short range SAMs - Yes, this i agree would be a beneficial purchase.

(v) Set up a UAV squadron in the RMAF.

 

[OPSSG]

Hmmm... let me add something to my earlier post... A little off topic I know...

The AESA radar enhancement is available for the F-16 (likewise the MAF's F18s can be upgraded). The SABRE (Scalable Agile Beam Radar), is a modular radar unveiled by Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman is offering SABRE as a retrofit for F-16 Block 50/52 models.

I'm sure RSAF is considering an radar upgrade for its F-16s to enable the F-16s to continue to operate a a front line air-superiority fighter (beyond 2025) vis a vis any other aircraft.

In fact once upgraded with an AESA radar and given the right conditions, an upgraded F-16 can take on a F-15SG (and it also includes Su-30MKM/F-18D). As a single engine plane with a smaller RCS, it is harder to spot via radar and also harder to spot visually. The Su-30MKM/ F-18D are very capable aircraft and have superior characteristics viz a viz the F16, but it does not determine the outcome in a BVR shooting war. The idea is not to get into a fair fight but to make available to the pilot all the advantages that the RSAF has against an opponent.

In the past decade, the SAF is very 'inward' looking. The focus is on testing and developing its own capabilities - the goal is interoperability with other military organisations (i.e. US, Australia, NZ, Sweden, France, India and South Africa) so that we can train with them and learn from them. This focus on training ensures that the RSAF pilots have exposure to Dissimilar Air Combat Training (see post marked with a sticky on DACT posted by gf0012-aust). In particular, flying against India's Su-30s and Australia's super hornets. Likewise MAF should train more with other FPDA powers and so on.

In many ways, Singapore is keen to support Malaysia's ideas. For example, Singapore's support of Malaysia's joint eye in the sky (air patrols). This Malaysian idea made commerce in the Malacca Straits safer and it helped reduced insurance costs on a global basis. All of Singapore's ideas in ASEAN will not work without the support of Malaysia and Indonesia.