RMAF Future; need opinions

sunshin3

New Member
Yes, I've been asked to behave OPSSG :nutkick It appears that our friendly moderators do not like points touching on local rivalries and politics. ANyway, it is a moot point, it was that Malayan Tunku who invited Singapore to leave the federation.

On to the main point, Malaysia is a resource, and export orientated Economy. The downturn will eventually affect the markets (companies) in the Far East, their economies will contract and you will continue to see this tomorrow at the local Hang Seng, KLSE amongst other bourses. This means we must be conservative in expenditure, but in all honesty, the real ethos of Malaysian politics has disappeared, leaving a leviathan in it's place, ossified in sturcture and behaviour. That just means we can't get rid of the local gravy trains that easily.

The Cougars were meant for the RMAF. It doesn't appear that this deal will follow through now, as Badawi is having second thoughts. ANyway, our Nuris still work, and if it ain't broke, don't replace it. I suppose we'll keep on flying this until common sense prevails and we concentrate on different cost effective products. The Mi 17 looks good as well as the CH47, but both were ruled out in the initial RFI stage. KL or shall we say Putrajaya may well have to revisit their decision.

The Thales deal is still going through as well as the AWACS. I would say that these two acquisitions are pivotal for our Armed Forces. It will change our outlook. I think Malaysia should buy less now. We just cannot afford to engage in a complete rearmament. We have Tanks, Frigates, Fighters, Submarines, Radars and soon, AWACs. Do we need more?

And anyway, China rearming is no news at all. It has ben ongoing in the last 20 years. I doubt if they need that much manpower, but if you're part of a country of 1 billion, i think the figures may appear entirely reasonable. The US is definitely going to stage a comeback in the SEA anytime now. The Phillipines is almost ripe for reinvestment and well, Singapore is friendly, but in all honesty, basing, temporary or permanent will be an issue. A rather short term issue.

For a developing country and at this day and age, the usage of sophisticated military equipment is a necessity. I don't think it's fair judgment to say that Malaysia has enough military equipment and she should spend less. If defence wasn't important, why would any country want to allocate as much as a few percentages of their respective GDPs to defence?

It's like computers. Conceptually, you have the cpu, the monitor and the mouse. It works but then you realise, maybe by upgrading your graphic cards, your processing speed etc., you may actually enhance the whole computing experience altogether.

Speaking of which, it's so hard to keep up to date with the current military changes man. But it'll be good if the AWAC deal goes through.
 

qwerty223

New Member
Admin. Text deleted. You've been on here long enough to know whats expected of members. Make your point through the approp method - don't take this line of response and set an example by proxy.

for instant Mi-17 entered the last stage of evalution in 2 variant entry.


Follow on text deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There have been repeated requests for changes in posting behaviour for this thread.

It is being repeatedly ignored - and the commentary has started to become cavalier as well.

This post will be closed pending a decision by the Mod Group
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
RMAF discussion thread re-opened.

Keep any discussion in this thread related to the RMAF and its current and future roles. Resumption of the off topic discussion which resulted in the thread being temporarily locked will not be tolerated and will result in warnings and/or banning of the offender(s).
-Preceptor
 

nevidimka

New Member
Admin: Deleted

I have no idea why you you would post that when it's obviously going to generate flack between Malaysians and Singaporeans.

Put your thinking hat on it future please!
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If this thread derails again, it will be locked.

Politically insensitive comments are not helpful even if they refer vaguely to a weapons purchase.

Last chance for this thread
 

Mr Ignorant

New Member
In all fairness, 30 years of operating without a specialised AWACS Aircraft in the RMAF is really bothering my conscience. I surmise much of the RMAF's AWACS needs are sourced either from Australia or from Singapore.

Not going into the specifics, but instead of buying eurocopters and what not, the RMAF should really plump up for a more proactive Maritime role. It's probably better to purchase the CASA CN235 models currently in use in Indonesia and Brunei. That would partly alleviate the very strange role of the RMAF.

Suggestions anyone?? AWACS or Air Superiority Fighters??
 

Mr Ignorant

New Member
If this thread derails again, it will be locked.

Politically insensitive comments are not helpful even if they refer vaguely to a weapons purchase.

Last chance for this thread
I know you mean well, but could you just evict the troll rather than punish the thread? Just a suggestion.
 

Mr Ignorant

New Member
For a developing country and at this day and age, the usage of sophisticated military equipment is a necessity. I don't think it's fair judgment to say that Malaysia has enough military equipment and she should spend less. If defence wasn't important, why would any country want to allocate as much as a few percentages of their respective GDPs to defence?

It's like computers. Conceptually, you have the cpu, the monitor and the mouse. It works but then you realise, maybe by upgrading your graphic cards, your processing speed etc., you may actually enhance the whole computing experience altogether.

Speaking of which, it's so hard to keep up to date with the current military changes man. But it'll be good if the AWAC deal goes through.
I disagree. I think Malaysia has a lot of hi tech Military hardware in use. Trouble is our accountants in MINDEF and the Defence Ministry have to constantly think of voodoo economics when buying military equipment. Defence is important, but a third world country like Malaysia does not need a first world Porsche or Ferrari, to phrase it in that analogy. The services needs something that works and works well for at least a generation of use. The RMAF did very well in the 70s and 80s with the A4 Skyhawks and F5s; but it now needs to think through what the real world of Military Strategy is all about. To deploy one squadron of SU 30MKM's is enough, frankly we don't need more than 2 squadrons of this long range Heavy Class, Fighter. And with a squadron of Mig 29s, the service is doing very well. What we do need is strength in depth - third world terms - ANd that would be AWACS first and foremost. The Air defence network by Thales should be applauded, but we really need something approaching the likes of Indonesia in terms of a Maritime role.

Oh yes, what do the rest think of the Embraer Super Tucano's???? Is this good for the RMAF, i mean in terms of possible COIN??
 

alexz

New Member
For the price of 1 Su-30MKM we paid, we can get 5 secondhand modernised BVR-capable F-5EM's like Brazil is getting. Why not we add to our existing F-5E's to boost the air defence? Maybe getting rid of the MiG's and add maybe 6 more sukhoi's, but get about 20 more F-5EM's to complete maybe 3 squadrons for air defence? I think its a better buy than a slow moving tucano. For COIN we can convert some of the old PC-7s for that, maybe for 1 squadron strength, and get more MKII's as training replacement.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Let's discuss this in good spirit and don't get a flame war going...

Mr Ignorant said:
OPSSG said:
Simplified RSAF Development of Capabilities Time Line
B4 1982.......... Better training/More Planes
1982 to 1986... Better planes/doctrine/learn from the best
1987 to 1999... RSAF total system capabilities fight/combined arms
2000 onwards.. 3G SAF
3G SAF means tighter sensor shooter integration to enable precision deep strike with an economy of effort from a range of strike package choices.
Singapore's Strategy is simple. Pre-emptive Strike with minimal effort from a range of choices. That is what you said in summary....
Hey Bro, don't worry lah! Singapore is too small to try to attack anyone else. 3/4 of the SAF are NSF or NSmen. Any invasion cannot work - we will be too busy shopping in JB, once we get there. :D

But seriously, if PAP try to anyhow pick a fight with other countries that lead to war - they will be punished during the next elections.
According to Tim Huxley, "the key to understanding Singapore's strategy, is that the SAF's clear capability to inflict severe damage on Malaysia (by implication creating serious political and economic repercussions for Singapore) is not intended to be used. The capability is a deterrent - a sort of regional 'doomsday machine' intended to manipulate Singapore's regional threat environment by forcing neigbouring states to treat the city state with a degree of respect and caution which might otherwise be absent."
Furthermore, Singapore can easily afford to have a standing regular brigade. However, we still insist on using NSFs and NSmen. This is to assure Malaysians we have no capability to go to war without mobilization. So please don't think that we don't care how Malaysians feel about Singapore's armed forces modernization efforts.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. In general, Malaysians always think that whenever Malaysia buy something, Singapore is sure to follow. This point of view is based a fundamental misunderstanding.
nevidimka said:
I dont know why you were giving some info on AESA and say its the doctrine of RSAF... it [is] more than a coincidence when Sing decides to make a big or upgrades to fit doctrines as u say purchases.

Is it operational doctrine then that:
(i) Mysia gets the R 77, Sing gets the AMRAAM
(ii) Mysia buys T 91's, Sing gets Apaches and german Leapord A4's
(iii) Mysia gets Astros, Sing gets US MLRS
(iv) Mysia gets Flankers, Sing gets F 15's...

Why is the timing for each types seem to correlate to each other?
...why is it that suddenly it was necessary to get F 15's? for AESA? you can do that by upgrading the f 16's with AESA easily...
2. In fact, Singapore, in consideration of the feelings of other countries, has been holding back purchases, so as not to be seen as too aggressive.

(i) Both Singapore and Malaysia were offered the AMRAAM at the same time. The US condition (at that time) was that they were to be stored in Guam. Singapore agreed to the US conditions - Malaysia went to purchase the Su-30MKM (along with the R-77 missiles). Which then resulted in the US giving Thailand and Singapore access to AMRAAM. Malaysia's F-18Ds are also armed with AMRAAMs too.

(ii) For example, Malaysia's purchase of MBTs gave Singapore the excuse not to hide our upgraded MBT capability. According to Tim Huxley, our 1st gen MBTs are over 30 years old, isn't it reasonable for us to upgrade to the Leopard 2A4?

(iii) Singapore's solution to Malaysia's acquisition of the Astros II (MLRS) is not HIMARS (because it would be too late once the MLRS is fired:rolleyes:)... See the F-15SG thread for the complete reply.

(iv) See the F-15SG thread for the more technical reply on RSAF's technological superiority.

3. From my post above, would you agree that you need to gather your facts first?

4. Obviously you do not understand the meaning of military doctrine (AESA ≠ doctrine). A change in technology is not a change in doctrine. But that's OK, you don't have a prior military background. We'll leave that to another discussion.

As I said previously, thank you for educating me on the Su-30. I hope you managed to learn something from my post.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Mr Ignorant said:
I surmise much of the RMAF's AWACS needs are sourced either from Australia or from Singapore...

Defence is important, but a third world country like Malaysia does not need a first world Porsche or Ferrari, to phrase it in that analogy. The services needs something that works and works well for at least a generation of use..
I think what Malaysia needs the most is more capable radar technology in your maritime patrol craft - that should be your priority. Not AWACs at this moment.

Malaysia will need at least 1 more squadron of air superiority fighters before getting AWACs. This is because you need fighters to defend your expensive AWACs. If you don't have enough fighters - AWACs will become expensive targets. IMHO, the RMAF will not be allowed to get more fighters because of the economic recession.

If you get AWACs, how is Malaysia going to integrate the datalink for between the AWACs and your fighters (MIG 29, F-18D & Su-30MKM)? There is only 1 country with the experience of mixing and matching eastern and western systems. It is India (with the help of Israeli technology). Since Malaysia will not use Israeli technology - how is India going to help you (even if you paid them)?

If Malaysia is going to buy AWACs - at least follow Thailand's example - buy 1 second-hand one first. Make sure it can be integrated well into Malaysia's C3 systems before spending more money in a recession.

Buying AWACS needs to be more than a symbol of RMAF's maturity in capabilities. The purchase needs to be backed up by clear military specifications (a tri-service white paper is necessary) and further investments in C3 technology to link to the other services (i.e. navy and army) - otherwise the AWAC will just be an air force white elephant.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
mantanfwi said:
OPSSG said:
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 ... MAF top brass must have the balls to admit that they are lacking of knowledge and expertise in this area (integration)... one of my main concern... Lack of knowledge leads to poor options and decision making.
I had an interesting discussion with mantanfwi on the importance integration of AWACs with Malaysia's command and control systems. Did you know that Singapore is using software agents to help us choose which weapon to use. So Mr Ignorant, you are right (about "Strike with minimal effort"), even part of our air strike planning is assisted by software agents.

This type of technology is called machine augmented sense making. In fact, in another project, DSTA worked with DARPA on "machine augmented sense making" as a software based research tool.
DSO website said:
In a battlefield situation, we may have many resources... The concept of dynamic resource management is the provision of a means of mediating between all these resources so as to match them more efficiently to one another...

Using the dynamic resource management concept... the targets and the resources are modelled in the system as software agents... The software agent... [helps decide] with an algorithm... all the possible combinations of resource to target allocations, for the optimum allocation in accordance with the given conditions.
The above information has been declassified by DSO, so I can share with you the more modern stuff. This way you can see the level of integration necessary in developing a systems approach to military planning in acquiring an AWAC.

That way, you can be critical of the RMAF choices.

As informed military enthusiasts, you need to be aware of the extent of changes in military technology.
 
Last edited:

sunshin3

New Member
I think what Malaysia needs the most is more capable radar technology in your maritime patrol craft - that should be your priority. Not AWACs at this moment.
Hi, thanks for sharing. Is there any particular reason why Malaysia should invest in more capable radar technology for the maritime patrol craft? I'm not Malaysian but i'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind the suggestion.

With the defence landscape rapidly changing with technological advancements, i would have thought it made more sense to invest in air superiority (including the purchases of AWACs).

Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sunshin3 said:
Is there any particular reason why Malaysia should invest in more capable radar technology for the maritime patrol craft? I'm not Malaysian but i'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind the suggestion.

With the defence landscape rapidly changing with technological advancements, i would have thought it made more sense to invest in air superiority (including the purchases of AWACs).
As I understand it, the 16th Squadron of Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia (TUDM) operates 4 Beechcraft B200T (operational since 1994) Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA). The B200T's operates at the surveillance speed of 180 knots. The aircraft was is equipped with advance autopilot system, Electronic Flight Instrumentation System, Laser Gyro INS and Multi-Function Displays. I also understand that there are plans to convert some CN 235-220 to a MPA role(Can anyone confirm how many CN 235-220 were converted?).

Just because there is a recession does not mean piracy and criminal activities will stop. With Malaysia's large coastline, the B200Ts (and CN 235-220?) are currently unable to provide sufficient coverage. So rather than more MPA aircraft - at least give them improved the sensors and radar - so that they can play patrol a larger area more effectively. If there is insufficient MPA coverage, piracy and criminal activities is likely increase over time - hurting the economy.

I also understand that under the 9th Malaysia Plan, TUBM intended to add long range MPAs (with ASW capability). The candidates include Embraer P-99, CASA CN-295, EADS A319 MPA, Falcon 900 DX and Boeing P-8A Poseidon. With the economic recession, I don't think TUDM will be given the budget to purchase new MPAs - hence my suggestion to upgrade them (its been 14 years since the B200T was operational (time for upgrade).

AWACs on the other hand are for the air force to maintain air superiority and are very much more expensive. TUBM wanted AWACs for 20 years - further delay will frustrate only TUBM.

Any increase in piracy and criminal activities will hurt the Malaysian economy. Therefore, right now, if given a choice, I would choose to boost TUBM's effectiveness in areas that assist in the orderly growth of the Malaysian economy.
 
Last edited:

nevidimka

New Member
I stumbled on this pic of a UAV being developed by CTRM. The MD should encourage CTRM to bring out mini UAV's like this with enhanced capabilities and range for it to be able self sustain in terms of UAV's and not depend on buying it. I'm unsure of its capabilities and range.

It is called the ALUDRA
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
In 2004, CTRM collaborated with Ikramatic Systems to begin the development of a Malaysian autopilot system. In 2006, CTRM, SCS and Ikramatic started their work to develop the ‘SR-02’. The ‘SR-02’ was renamed to ‘ALUDRA’ (Alliance Unmanned Developmental Research Aircraft), signifying the spirit of the consortium.

The ALUDRA can transmit real-time video imagery to the ground station and can be programmed for autonomous flight. It can be deployed from any unprepared grass or gravel runaway. Apart from battlefield surveillance and reconnaissance, ALUDRA System is also suitable for other applications such as monitoring of disaster area, forest fires, maritime surveillance, law enforcement and even traffic monitoring.

Specification
Weight : MTOW 200 kg, Max Payload 50 kg
Dimension : Length 14 ft, Wingspan 16 ft
LOS Range: 150 km, S-BAND & C-BAND Dual Link
Endurance : 6 hours
Max Speed: 120 KNOTS (220 km/h)
Payload : 4-Axis EO/IR Gyro Stabilised Turret
System : IMRAN 400 AUTOPILOT
MaxAltitude: 12,000 ft

(IMHO, the endurance and payload must be an under reported figure. Even if the endurance and payload is as specified, it's a simple matter of using a more powerful engine)
Looking at the specified endurance and payload, the ALUDRA Mk 1 may be in the size and payload class of the ScanEagle (at US$100,000 each) and used by the U.S. Marine Corps. The ALUDRA has an endurance 6 hours (IMHO an under reported figure - it must be longer), which is about half that the ScanEagle (10-15 hours). The ScanEagle is a catapult launched 4-foot aircraft with a 10 foot wingspan and does not require an operator to control it.

Like the ALUDRA, the ScanEagle is a “launch-and-forget” system, loitering in a designated area of interest until it’s time to come home. Its electro-optical or infared cameras have enough definition to identify individuals and show if they are carrying weapons, then provide specific targeting coordinates via GPS.

Singapore is developing a UAV with a smaller payload capability (50kg) to be ready in 2009, called Skyblade IV. Skyblade IV is a V tail shaped 2 meter long tactical UAV with a wing span of 3.5 meters, this vehicle weighs 50kg on takeoff and carries up to 12 kg of usable payload. It can climb up to 15,000 ft flying a mission of 12 hours. The range is limited by line-of-sight. Skyblade IV will be equipped with an EO/IR payload. Part of its appeal is its automatic catapult-assisted launch and automatic precision parachute recovery, requiring no runway for take off or landing.

Given their limited endurance and line-of-sight communications limitation, ALUDRA, ScanEagle and Skyblade IV would not be suitable for true maritime surveillance as specified in the USN's US$1.16 billion BAMS program (which is based on the Global Hawk), as they are too short ranged and their payload is too small for more sophisticated sensors - such as radar.

The RSAF's Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Command currently operates 2 types of UAVs, whose range are limited by line-of-sight:

(i) the Searcher (since 1998 replacing the Scout RPVs);
- with a length of 5.9 m, wingspan of 8.6 m and an endurance of more than 8 hours (according to Mindef)

(ii) the Hermes 450 (since 2007)
- with a length of 6.1 m, wingspan of 10.5 m and an endurance of more than 14 hours (according to Mindef)

The RSAF also operates a UAV Training Simulator.
IMHO, it looks like a good system, I congratulate Ikramatic Systems for the development of a Malaysian autopilot system programmed for autonomous flight. At first glance, from its specifications, it looks capable of its primary role battlefield surveillance and reconnaissance. The ALUDRA's electro-optical performance in terms of field of view will determine its surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

Unless CTRM releases more information on its electro-optical system, we cannot determine ALUDRA's electro-optical system's utility to the battlefield commander. For comparison purposes, you can take a look at a market leading electro-optical system for UAVs, by Kollsman, Inc. who sells the "Compass 4" system.

It was reported during the LIMA 07, MAF had showed strong interest toward this UAV. Rumored new developments include a laser designating capability or other unreleased capability under the project code name "Taming Sari XK98". No further details of new capabilities are available. If the ALUDRA Mk2 has a a laser designating capability, then it can guide precision bombs onto targets.

From the photos, it looks like a Searcher class UAV - if it is, then its endurance and other payload specifications must be under reported (ie. more capable than what CTRM tells us).

Please find 2 more pixs of ALUDRA below.
 
Last edited:

nevidimka

New Member
Yes, thats correct info on the ALUDRA. But this is not the only UAV project in Mysia, there are a few more, but i'm only mentioning the CTRM 1 as they are a professional entity. ANother UAV from another research organization had a more interesting name, called the MOSQUITO :D

Anyways, the ALUDRA looks impressive, but the endurance would have to be drastically improved to a minimum of 12 hours.

Personally I prefer UAV's that can take of on their own using runaways to those using catapults.

As far as optical sensors and IR, if there are very good quality sensors in the commercial market, then there are no restrictions in terms of achieving a world class surveillance.

but I think you are mistaken on the taming sari project that you mentioned. I dont think the taming Sari has anything to do with UCAV's. Plus the UAV is to small to be carrying PGM's. I'll try to find more info when I got time, kinda busy now.

The Skyblade 4 looks pretty and has an impressive endurance, But in terms of aesthetics, I think the US predator looks the best.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
nevidimka said:
This is the reason why the SH lost to the SU 30 MKM. ANd it probably puts stop to any future US fighter purchases. Although I must warn, certain statements are a joke and should be taken as 1. Its funny , LOL.

YouTube - Mahathir - Bombing Singapore
Why do Malaysians listen to the rubbish said by Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad? This type of statement is not funny to a Singaporean.

Fundamentally, Singapore's demographics ensure that the SAF will be much smaller in future - our "total fertility rate" is less than 1.3... This demographic trend means a long term decline in the number of Singapore men available to serve in the SAF (at least - 35% force reduction).

So the idea that Singapore is a threat - is something promoted by Malaysian newspapers/politicians /bloggers for their own purpose.

Singapore has become more confident - so we are happy now to let the world/ Malaysians /Singaporeans see what we are capable of. Because obviously - our past habits (of being secretive) is not working.

In the joint air patrols - we let TUDM officers onto our MPA (so they know what our MPA are capable of).

In FPDA air exercises - we bring our AWACs - so that TUDM F-18Ds can be vectored in to meet a common exercise Red force.

So I ask you, what is Malaysia doing to meet us 1/2 way?
 
Last edited:
Top