RMAF Future; need opinions

[OPSSG]

January 23, 2008
Author: Teh Joo Lin & David Boey

SINGAPORE'S airspace was shut down temporarily last night when two air force F16 jets were scrambled to intercept a civilian plane heading here without an approved flight plan.

The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) fighter jets went into action at 6.42pm, said the Ministry of Defence (Mindef). They intercepted the single-engine turboprop Cessna 208 and escorted it to land at Changi Airport. The plane 'was heading towards Singapore airspace without an approved flight plan', said Mindef spokesman...

It is believed the civilian plane, which typically seats nine passengers, was flying in from the Thai resort island of Koh Samui when it triggered Singapore's air defences.

The resulting shutdown of commercial airspace affected 23 aircraft, disrupting flights in and out of Changi Airport. The shut down lasted for 50 minutes from 7.10pm until 8pm, a Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore spokesman told The Straits Times...

When a plane files from Thailand (through Malaysian air space - unchallenged and undetected) and intercepted by Singapore F-16s - you have got to ask what is TUDM doing to protect Malaysia? What if the plane was flown by terrorists trying to crash into Petronas Towers or Raffles City?

(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...

(ii) For example, Malaysia's purchase of MBTs gave Singapore the excuse not to hide our upgraded MBT capability...

(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)...

(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. AESA ≠ doctrine... See the F-15SG thread.

Sorry about my emo post above - no offence is intended.

It's just that there is so much mis-information about SAF's motives. The only way an external power can threaten Singapore - is through an invasion of Malaysia. If Malaysia is strong and economically doing well - we don't have to worry.

 

[OPSSG]

(i) ...the endurance would have to be drastically improved to a minimum of 12 hours.

(ii) As far as optical sensors and IR... there are no restrictions in terms of achieving a world class surveillance.

(iii) ...but I think you are mistaken on the taming sari project... I'll try to find more info when I got time, kinda busy now.

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

Agreed. No problem for Malaysia to improve points (i) and (ii) above. The Malaysian hi-tech input is in ALUDRA's ability to be "programmed for autonomous flight."

On point (iii), I am not saying that the ALUDRA can/will carry PGM (its too small). I'm saying that it can carry out the more dangerous missions - like provide laser designation for the TUDM against SAM sites. Any way, would appreciate any additional info on the "taming sari project".

On point (iv), you are right - there are pros-&-cons to catapult launch. In Malaysia's case - 1 less vehicle to carry the catapult (hence less logistics).

For tactical and operational reasons - I like catapult launch. The main ones being:

(a) you can launch the UAV from 1/2 a "basketball court" clearing;

(b) the launch is faster - the UAV launch team are most vulnerable at launch of detection from the enemy; and

(c) its not predicable -- where we will launch and recover the UAV (once you need a runway/long road - a quick look at the map - will narrow down the potential target list to kill a UAV launch team).

The UAV team being your army's eyes...

 

[nevidimka]

I applaud your nationalistic pride. But you'd have to tone down the post filled with emotions, afterall the Mod has already warned not to make this a "vs" thread which you are making.

Regarding the approach by the Cessa, I think the plane would have been registered by the Mysia civillian traffic controllers, maybe not Singapore's.

And coming to the more serious discussions, your points on catapults are logical, but I still believe the CTRM should go for medium heavy conventional take off UAV's, as they represent the technological benchmark in terms of UAV's. It gives a more integrated approach when the Army on the ground can be directed based from surveilence being carried by the Center or Air force. Which makes it easier to make a coordinated approach to a battlefield, and if air support is needed, it would be carried out to support the on ground forces much faster.

It would be easier to build a smaller catapult UAV's for the army on the ground if needed in the future if a more complex UAV has been produced.


And btw its TUDM, not TUBM.

 

[OPSSG]

you'd have to tone down the post... afterall the Mod has already warned not to make this a "vs" thread...

Agreed. No further comparisons.

BTW, do you have any additional info on the "taming sari project".

.... I still believe the CTRM should go for medium heavy conventional take off UAV's, as they represent the technological benchmark in terms of UAV's.

It gives a more integrated approach when the Army on the ground can be directed based from surveillance[typo amended] being carried by the Center or Air force. Which makes it easier to make a coordinated approach to a battlefield...

I agree with CTRM's concept and the UAV size chosen for initial development. Now the hard part - to integrate with C3 systems for battlefield management.

See sample ILLUSTRATION (by the Straits Times) of a C3 system with battlefield management at Division level.

 

[nevidimka]

Taming Sari is just a laser guide projectile code name Taming Sari XK98. No other information on this been disclosed.

included is pic of the Projectile and another view of the ALUDRA, which looks like an improved version from what has been shown in public.

 

[nevidimka]

Does anybody know if the Malaysian SU 30 MKM uses a russian RWR or the SAAB Avitronics RWR?

This article below form another forum says that it uses the SAAB avitronics MSWS, which also includes the radar warning system.

South African EW system for Malaysian Sukhois
Helmoed-Römer Heitman JDW Correspondent
Cape Town

The Malaysian government has placed an order with South African electronic warfare (EW) company Avitronics for Multi-Sensor Warning Systems ( MSWS) to be fitted to the Royal Malaysian Air Force's 18 new Sukhoi-30MK fighters.

Work on the first two phases of the order, valued at $20 million, is to commence immediately. The first phase will focus on system engineering to fully integrate the MSWS with the aircraft. The second phase of about 18 months will see a prototype developed and the production systems manufactured.

The fully integrated MSWS comprises a radar-warning system able to handle multiple simultaneous pulse Doppler and continuous wave signals, a laser-warning system, a solar blind ultra-violet missile approach warning system that can track more than eight targets simultaneously and an EW controller with an integrated defensive aids computer.

It gives audio warning of threats and shows detailed data on either a dedicated colour display or an existing colour multi-functional display. Active jamming and chaff/flare dispensers can be integrated with the system to suit the threat environment.

The MSWS is modular to facilitate tailoring to specific requirements and budget levels and can be specified to provide full spherical coverage.

The system is supplied with Pre-Flight Data Compiler and Flight Data Analyser software tools that enable the operator to tailor the system to suit the developing threat environment.

A memory-loading unit allows software to be loaded and unloaded on the flight line and various pre-flight data sets can be loaded and selected in flight as a mission proceeds. All relevant data is recorded during the mission for later downloading and analysis.

However I was under the impression that it used the Russian L150 RWR?

 

[OPSSG]

Does anybody know if the Malaysian SU 30 MKM uses a russian RWR or the SAAB Avitronics RWR?

This article below form another forum says that it uses the SAAB avitronics MSWS, which also includes the radar warning system.

Hey Bro' - "Avitronics wins Malaysian contract" was announced in 2004.

Other sources also state that: "The Malaysian Su-30MKM is fitted with a missile approach warning system and laser warner by Saab Avitronics in South Africa."

The missile approach warning system of the Su-30MKM is the Maw-300 and the RWR system is the Russian L-150-30 Pastel.

According to AINonline ...Russian manufacturers supply the DECM active jammer (SAP518M), UV-30MK CMDS, RWR (L-150-30 Pastel) and IRST (UOMZ OLS-30I), as well as the display processor...

 

[nevidimka]

Yes, it is inconclusive, which is why I'm asking if anybody knows.

 

[OPSSG]

Updates on the RMAF

Posted December 8th, 2008 in www.malaysiandefence.com
According to a Russian report Malaysia never obtained the RVV-AE (Nato reporting name AA-12/R77) the Russian version of the Amraam until two years ago, even later than Amraams. Some 150 of the RVV-AE were exported to Malaysia in 2007-2008.

It has been reported before that Malaysia had also procured the Amraamski when the air force obtained the Fulcrums back in 1995 but the report claimed that we only exported 150 R-27s (AA-10, the Russian equivalent of the Sparrow) also in 2007-2008 period... The report also stated that some 366 R-73E (AA-11) heat seeking missiles were exported to Malaysia since 1995 to 2007. The same report also listed the procurement of 12 Kh-31P anti-radiation missiles in 2007...

If the report on the Russian missile acquisition is correct, we apparently did not gained any extra favour from the Russians when it comes to advanced weaponry...

1. According to Air Force Chief, General Tan Sri Azizan Ariffin who said: “Not yet. Six more to go,” when asked if all the 18 Sukhoi Su-30MKM multi-role fighters have been delivered. The number of Su-30MKMs delivered to Malaysia thus far is 12.

2. Apparently, Malaysia's purchase of the MiG 29s in 1995 did not include the AA-12/R77, if what Marhalim Abas reports is correct. According to Dr. Mahathir, the purchase of the MiG29 (along with the assumed Russian BVR missile purchase) enabled the RMAF to gain a strategic advantage over Thailand and Singapore F-16s (which were only equipped with the Aim-9 Sparrows at that time).

3. The Malaysian air force obtained the MiG29s in 1995 and are planning to retire them in 2010, only after 15 years is service (Or is it a later date?). Certain online sources claim that Russian aircraft have shorter airframe service lives. However, the MiG29s are capable of being upgraded, the IAF having recently announced plans to upgrade its 67 existing MiG 29s. Why the need to prematurely retire them?

Can anyone explain or provide another link for an alternate source of information:

(i) When did the RMAF obtain the AA-12/R77?

(ii) Are there any plans for service life extension to the Malaysian MiGs?

 

[Twister]

I) RMAF R-73 & R-77AE included in Su-30MKM purchase.
II) RMAF seem not keen to upgarde MiG-29N. While Russian offer upgrade package to SMT standard, RMAF believe to find another replacement.

While looking in current situation, MiG-29N services likely to continue for another 5 - 10 years.

 

[nevidimka]

Not sure if this has been posted, but the the A 400M has actually rolled out!, just the delay in flight test due to delay in engines for the plane. The plane do look like a cross between then A 70 and the Globemaster. interesting feature is the overhead air refueling probe.

http://www.tempur.com.my/dcp.news.view.asp?newsID=419&categoryID=12

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbus-Industrie/Airbus-A400M/1366706/L/

 

[Twister]

It's true the Airbus A400M has been roll out and RMAF projected to received the first & 2nd unit around 2013.

A400M has better airframe, engine, avionics & cockpit system (which will be FBW). But if compare the price with nearest competitor, A-400M more expensive than An-70, Y-8 & C-130.

While RMAF expected to replace the C-130, more A400M needed since the order in place just for 4 unit.

 

[Twister]

Latest news but i'm not sure has been post or not.

RMAF will received delivery 2 unit of total 8 unit Aermacchi MB-339CM in first quater of 2009. Another 6 unit Aermacchi MB-339CM will fully deliver before end of 2009.

The Aermacchi MB-339CM will used as Lead In Trainer Fighter (LITF), joining a late model of current RMAF 13 unit Aermacchi MB-339AM.

 

[Dzirhan]

3. The Malaysian air force obtained the MiG29s in 1995 and are planning to retire them in 2010, only after 15 years is service (Or is it a later date?). Why the need to prematurely retire them?

I wrote the story back in 07 on the plan to retire them but since then it's been changed to 2010 as time to make final decision on them. Maintainance and shortage of pilots was then the issue though the pilot shortage is being addressed.

 

[OPSSG]

I wrote the story back in 07 on the plan to retire them but since then it's been changed to 2010 as time to make final decision on them. Maintainance and shortage of pilots was then the issue though the pilot shortage is being addressed.

Many thanks for that reply. It's really, really great to have you around the forum.

 

[dragonfire]

I wrote the story back in 07 on the plan to retire them but since then it's been changed to 2010 as time to make final decision on them. Maintainance and shortage of pilots was then the issue though the pilot shortage is being addressed.

Dzirhan, around this forum i have seen many ppl discussing the disadvantages of operating diff aircrafts esp eastern & western aircraft in the same inventory, many countries are doing it but by comparison Malaysia is one of the smaller countries and thereby using smaller fleets of each aircraft, as a person who has been writing def stuff wht are your opinions, insights, regarding this

- Thanks in Advance

 

[Dzirhan]

It all depends on the situation really and types of aircraft involved. For instance an inventory of Western fighters and Eastern transports (or vice versa) isn't a problem, nor a mix of Eastern or Western transports as the same issues of logistics applies in using a mix of differant Western transports (eg a mix of C-130s and A400Ms etc). But in terms of fighters and AEW, this becomes a problem because you need to coordinate them in a network and allow them to share data which is a problem because of all the sensitivity surrounding avionics and logistically/cost-effective wise it would be simpler to have your fighter fleet to be the same type or at least compatible to each other (same munitions, data sharing etc), politically and strategically however when you have a differant fleet, it makes you less vulnerable to an embargo (something the Indonesians found out after East Timor when their totally Western make airfleet got grounded) and you get to play off the differant countries in offering a much better deal than what you would normally get (though this is already in the case of Western bloc fighters as we can see in the competitions where Dassault, Boeing and Lockheed are present, it's just that you widen the field and competition when you make yourself open to either a Western or Eastern bloc design). My personal view is that for the RMAF, a single fleet in fighters would have been better rather than the mix of hornets, migs and sukhois and the RMAF is towards that view also, unfortunately the mix is a legacy of Mahathir's tenure as PM, I suspect that the RMAF is likely to transit to an all Western fleet in the future.

 

[dragonfire]

It all depends on the situation really and types of aircraft involved. For instance an inventory of Western fighters and Eastern transports (or vice versa) isn't a problem, nor a mix of Eastern or Western transports as the same issues of logistics applies in using a mix of differant Western transports (eg a mix of C-130s and A400Ms etc).

True to a certain degree, even in case of fighters, only diff would be tht a category (western, eastern, european etc) of fighters although different maybe have some similarities thereby making it easier for the same group of ppl to handle the maint work. But excellent point neverthless as i too dont have a huge issue with diff types

But in terms of fighters and AEW, this becomes a problem because you need to coordinate them in a network and allow them to share data which is a problem because of all the sensitivity surrounding avionics and logistically/cost-effective wise it would be simpler to have your fighter fleet to be the same type or at least compatible to each other (same munitions, data sharing etc),

How does RMAF address this issue, do you have AEW assets deployed, cant some components be made which can ease the probs based on the diff, am sure there is a technological bridging tht can be had

politically and strategically however when you have a differant fleet, it makes you less vulnerable to an embargo (something the Indonesians found out after East Timor when their totally Western make airfleet got grounded) and you get to play off the differant countries in offering a much better deal than what you would normally get (though this is already in the case of Western bloc fighters as we can see in the competitions where Dassault, Boeing and Lockheed are present, it's just that you widen the field and competition when you make yourself open to either a Western or Eastern bloc design). My personal view is that for the RMAF, a single fleet in fighters would have been better rather than the mix of hornets, migs and sukhois and the RMAF is towards that view also, unfortunately the mix is a legacy of Mahathir's tenure as PM, I suspect that the RMAF is likely to transit to an all Western fleet in the future.

This is wht most ppl dont get, it is easy for ppl to just say/comment on things without realising the geo-political/political situation on the ground. Am sure modern air forces operate on stated doctrines and the fighters play a huge role in this, but the need of the hour situations and the best possible options with strategic outlook play a big role in the final decions made

 

[Dzirhan]

Well, the SU-30s feature Western avionics in order to avoid the problems the RMAF had with the Hornet/Migs, the Migs have largely declined in numbers since and most of the pilots gone to the SU-30 Squadron, in any event their final fate will be decided in 2010 so it's no longer an issue, an AEW has been on the RMAF's planning list but with no money allocated, at the moment that's going nowhere.

 

[OPSSG]

True to a certain degree, even in case of fighters, only diff would be tht a category (western, eastern, european etc) of fighters although different maybe have some similarities thereby making it easier for the same group of ppl to handle the maint work. But excellent point neverthless as i too dont have a huge issue with diff types

As I mentioned before, logistics is always the basic test of military competence. A component of modern air forces / armies measurement of their ability to fight is the degree of coherence of their logistics system. Only fanboys and 3rd world military leaders will not be concerned about logistics.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you cannot have mixed fleets.

TrHow does RMAF address this issue, do you have AEW assets deployed, cant some components be made which can ease the probs based on the diff, am sure there is a technological bridging tht can be had

RMAF does not have airborne AEW aircraft yet. IIRC, it is however in their longer range plans. One of RMAF's problems is the lack of local engineering talent to develop their own custom solutions (which is not lacking in India's case) and lack of access/partners to provide some aspects of that technology.

Did you know that for political/religious reasons, the RMAF cannot directly use Israeli technology? Again a situation not faced by India. IMHO, they do not want the same solutions that Singapore has bought.

They can buy American, but again, they still need custom engineering to integrate for their own needs. And they are price sensitive without the same ability to buy in volume (compared to say India or Pakistan).

TrThis is wht most ppl dont get, it is easy for ppl to just say/comment on things without realising the geo-political/political situation on the ground. Am sure modern air forces operate on stated doctrines and the fighters play a huge role in this, but the need of the hour situations and the best possible options with strategic outlook play a big role in the final decisions made

Really? Please explain.