dragonfire
New Member
My post was supplementing Dzirhan's post pl refer to it
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
I know.
Sorry, I understand Dzirhan's post but not yours. It's not a challenge, rather, it a request for a clarification on your supplemental point.
I'd say that those who have a professional involvement are less inclined to make throw away comments - in fact I rarely see any of the professionals in here make any comment that is not supported by either involvement or by considered logic.
if you're saying that procurement is dictated by the body politic - then there is a significant difference between Malaysias messaging of capability and intent compared to Indias - hence why the Indian ExChequer goes ballistic every now and then. there are significant scale issues - and that effects efficiencies, redundancies, capabilities, employment opportunities etc... the ILS alone is a nightmare.
dragonfire
New Member
What am trying to say is simpleI know.
Sorry, I understand Dzirhan's post but not yours. It's not a challenge, rather, it a request for a clarification on your supplemental point.
As far as a need is concerned any Air Force the size of RMAF (or any AF for tht matter) would prefer the same platform for a particular role and not employ different platforms. However we dont live in a simple world we live in a very complex world.
In case of RMAF like Dzirhan stated, they saw wht happened to the Indonesians when they got embargoed, they wanted to prevent tht as a possible reality, even in India which does not have any US origin fighters there are a lot of people, politicians, authors, journalists, ex-defense pros, analysts who argue tht any purchase of fighters from the US is a major risk for future as it could get embargoed, sanctioned etc etc which could possibly render such a US origin fleet rendered useless or of lesser utility.
Again I would go back to India's case - when the MMRCA competition was announced the Super Hornet was not one of the contendors only when the civil nuclear deal got through did the US field this fighter - tht's bilateral relationship and its effect on millitary sale. While talking about options India outright has ordered (althoug in multiple contracts) the SU-30MKI in much larger numbers than the MMRCA order, there were no competitions, no global tender, RFIs etc, It had a need - to counter the PAF F-16 threat and it had the resources and a willing supplier of a competent craft which the liked - result outright order.
Now you yourself said Malaysia cannot buy Israeli systems while in your previous posts you stated how india has succesfully be able to integrate different-origin platforms for overall utility by getting Israeli know how. Why cant Malaysia get Israeli's to do the same for them too- sounds like a political reason than a millitary one - right ? why cant India buya J-10 from China - it looks like a capable craft and the pricing also looks good enough - no chance - political reason - if a millitary decision was to be made then they would look only at need vs capability and price they wouldnt see political logic - but tht's not how things work - not simple - very complex - right
it's a religious issue - which is far more complex than a political issue
dragonfire
New Member
I understand the issue Malaysia being a predominantly muslim country, point here being the decision is not a purely milltary one right
it's not a military decision. matahir and all those since have stayed with no israeli trade (a hollow threat anyway) as they link it to the issue of palestine.
it's a religious decision
dragonfire
New Member
I think we are on the same page here, with any purchase decision having more than just technical & economical reasons there are also political and as stated by you even religious reason to be considered before an order is placed.
Religious and political actually, Israel is the only country Malaysia does not recognize in any event so no ties or cooperation is possible. Back in the 80's it was actually proposed by the RMAF that the A-4 Skyhawk refurbishment be done through a third party which would actually get it done by Israel but it was deemed a no go.
which is tied to the issue of the palestinians - it would not be political if it was not based on a religious issue though... in malaysias case its a chicken and egg situation.
as opposed to turkey which is secular and has no problem with trading with israel as it recognises its right to exist
(showing the dichotomy here)
then again, I've dealt with countries of the faith that have purchased israeli gear as long as it was "badged" in another country. - but thats another issue altogether.
I tend to see the issue of Israel as also being political here in Malaysia given that it's isn't just Muslim Malaysians who hate Israel but also Chinese and Indian Malaysians who also put out as much venom on the issue here, anyway that's just a sidetrack. I think we need to get back to the original point namely on the RMAF, as I pointed out much of the mixed purchase was driven by Mahathir than any other consideration and not necessarily for any best military related reason such as fear of an embargo, I should have probably said that what drove the purchase of the Sukhois was more the fact that the Russians promised a space slot, a Boeing guy I know said if he could have offered that, Malaysia would have bought the Superhornets instead
As I said before, an air force should take the shortest route to acquire a capability, if possible.
(i) Are you telling me that in view of geo-politics, the political considerations should trump all logical considerations?
(ii) And that political considerations will drive all military procurement decisions?
(ii) And that political considerations will drive all military procurement decisions?
These are rhetorical questions - there is no need to reply.
Yes, but what were the alternatives available to Indonesia?
I don't think you are familiar with the choices available to Indonesia for me to be willing to engage in a further discussion on this point. Further, it would be a purely political discussion, which is not appropriate for DT.
Keeping it simple:
India = Malaysia? No, right?
There is no need to discuss further, as it is off topic.
well, I am going to defer to local knowledge,gf0012-aust and Dzirhan, thanks for both your posts, I really enjoyed reading them.
it's been a few years since I was in malaysia and my recent contacts have all been political and in the prism of matahirs behaviour...
@gf0012-aust, Dzirhan & dragonfire,
I was searching around for some data to explain the importance and growing challenge of logistics in the modern battlefield. Please see an article by MAJ Sean Tan, which has a table on the changing area occupied by 100,000 strong force over time. I set out select aspects of the table on the expanding battlefield below:
(i) in WWII, this sized force occupied 2,750 sq. km, with a front of 48 km & a depth of 57 km;
(ii) in 1973 (the October War), this sized force occupied 4,000 sq. km, with a front of 57 km & a depth of 70 km; and
(iii) in the GW, this sized force occupied 213,200 sq. km, with a front of 400 km & a depth of 533 km,
which shows that not only do modern armies have tougher logistic challenges, it is increasing in difficulty.(ii) in 1973 (the October War), this sized force occupied 4,000 sq. km, with a front of 57 km & a depth of 70 km; and
(iii) in the GW, this sized force occupied 213,200 sq. km, with a front of 400 km & a depth of 533 km,
MAJ Sean Tan also notes that:
"...During the 1991 Gulf War, the USAR applied Just-in-Case (JIC) CSS to build up large inventories in sustaining troops. In OIF, the USAR moved on to Just-in-Time (JIT) CSS which leverages on technology to track assets real-time, using forecasted demand to push supplies to frontline troops "at the right moment".
In that way, inventories would be kept lean. However, the USAR's experiences in both Gulf Wars demonstrated that JIC and JIT were no longer sufficient to meet their operational demands. Thus, from 2002 to 2004 alone the USAR invested at least US$70 million in Sense-and-Respond CSS - relying on sensors and networks to create a responsive supply chain that can adapt real-time. Much of the development efforts had been focused on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and Agent-based Modelling (ABM).
In RFID implementation, every single item as well as the transport medium (e.g. cargo pallets and containers) was tagged to provide in-transit visibility. By applying ABM, analysis and decision-support making tools were built into the CSS system to help Commanders make better decisions. Current operating structures, such as the Forward Operating and Support Locations for the US Air Force have also been put on trial to further develop operating concepts. Initial results yield a faster turn-around time and higher sustainability of aircrafts..."
In that way, inventories would be kept lean. However, the USAR's experiences in both Gulf Wars demonstrated that JIC and JIT were no longer sufficient to meet their operational demands. Thus, from 2002 to 2004 alone the USAR invested at least US$70 million in Sense-and-Respond CSS - relying on sensors and networks to create a responsive supply chain that can adapt real-time. Much of the development efforts had been focused on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and Agent-based Modelling (ABM).
In RFID implementation, every single item as well as the transport medium (e.g. cargo pallets and containers) was tagged to provide in-transit visibility. By applying ABM, analysis and decision-support making tools were built into the CSS system to help Commanders make better decisions. Current operating structures, such as the Forward Operating and Support Locations for the US Air Force have also been put on trial to further develop operating concepts. Initial results yield a faster turn-around time and higher sustainability of aircrafts..."
I believe the above data supports my argument that the coherence of a logistics system is an important handmaiden to the modern war fighter.
Last edited:
hence why my comments about mixed logistics vis a vis malaysia is not a yardstick for india.
logistics for india as an absolute in warfighting would be a complete embuggerance - they are off the scale and that would and will effect the prosecution of war. malaysias scale is considerably less - and that does effect overall issues.
logistics is always the key. you cannot prosecute, project, promote, persist and maintain presence without it.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
The Air Chief recently spoke of his aim of seeing at least 6 squadrons of SU 30s in the RMAF by 2020. That as far as I am concerned, someone building castles in the air scenario. Closer to the facts are 56 F5s currently mothballed, awaiting quite possibly further upgrades. I doubt if the RMAF are going to redeploy the F5, but considering that these are still in use, and probably on it's last legs, then it won't be such a bad idea to re-equip two squadrons with F5s.
The Helicopter deal went pear shaped owing more to politics rather than the economic downturn, and I personally blame Lim Kit Siang's DAP for this, rather than the RMAF Chiefs and the boys from the Defence Ministry. Curiously, the findings by the public accounts committee proved to be more embarrasing, as the Eurocopter was picked on the basis of brochures alonenfloorl:. I can't substantiate that but there is a news report somewhere about this.
The main thing is we do need replacement choppers. A revision should be put in place and priorities set, before a tender is put out again. The current Sikorskys are fine, but more often than not, a few keep falling out of the sky, killing crew and lowering expectations further. I might as well just say that the RMAF is better off with Chinooks than any other heavy lift chopper on the market.
Apart from that, maybe just maybe, the RMAF is given the budget for another set of SU30s; that should be fine but any thoughts on US air superiority fighters is going to muck things up further. Someone said the RMAF was effectively a lopsided, topsy turvy, organisation that when it worked, it did things just about ok, but more times than not a lot of things did go wrong, the result of Mahathir's legacy purchases. I am not too sure how accurate is that but I do know one thing; before Mahathir, the RMAF received good fighters like the A4 and F5 in large numbers; and post Mahathir - they just can't seem to make up their minds operating four very different technologies in the F18, the BAe Hawk 200; Mig 29 and SU 30. It beggars belief.
And it's not that easy to remedy. The F18s can't be sold owing to working agreements with the US; the Mig 29s and SU30s are different beasts altogether and all require careful maintenance to keep it air worthy. THe Hawks come out tops because they make very good secondary fighters, where nothing much is expected of them, so their role in future COIN operations may be justified (it can happen)
I just don't know what to say really. The RMAF is messed up. It'll take a good 5-6 years of discussions before they decide on one type and one type alone for the air superiority role.
As for AWACS; well the Indonesians C295s look good and the RMAF should look into these - but the central question is, can that technology be integrated with all the other assets?? I must be quite ignorant to ask this, but if anybody would care to fill in the details for me, that would help
The Helicopter deal went pear shaped owing more to politics rather than the economic downturn, and I personally blame Lim Kit Siang's DAP for this, rather than the RMAF Chiefs and the boys from the Defence Ministry. Curiously, the findings by the public accounts committee proved to be more embarrasing, as the Eurocopter was picked on the basis of brochures alone
nfloorl:. I can't substantiate that but there is a news report somewhere about this.The main thing is we do need replacement choppers. A revision should be put in place and priorities set, before a tender is put out again. The current Sikorskys are fine, but more often than not, a few keep falling out of the sky, killing crew and lowering expectations further. I might as well just say that the RMAF is better off with Chinooks than any other heavy lift chopper on the market.
Apart from that, maybe just maybe, the RMAF is given the budget for another set of SU30s; that should be fine but any thoughts on US air superiority fighters is going to muck things up further. Someone said the RMAF was effectively a lopsided, topsy turvy, organisation that when it worked, it did things just about ok, but more times than not a lot of things did go wrong, the result of Mahathir's legacy purchases. I am not too sure how accurate is that but I do know one thing; before Mahathir, the RMAF received good fighters like the A4 and F5 in large numbers; and post Mahathir - they just can't seem to make up their minds operating four very different technologies in the F18, the BAe Hawk 200; Mig 29 and SU 30. It beggars belief.
And it's not that easy to remedy. The F18s can't be sold owing to working agreements with the US; the Mig 29s and SU30s are different beasts altogether and all require careful maintenance to keep it air worthy. THe Hawks come out tops because they make very good secondary fighters, where nothing much is expected of them, so their role in future COIN operations may be justified (it can happen)
I just don't know what to say really. The RMAF is messed up. It'll take a good 5-6 years of discussions before they decide on one type and one type alone for the air superiority role.
As for AWACS; well the Indonesians C295s look good and the RMAF should look into these - but the central question is, can that technology be integrated with all the other assets?? I must be quite ignorant to ask this, but if anybody would care to fill in the details for me, that would help
Not sure where to begin, as a number of things you mention are off the mark, first off the RMAF Chief spoke of having 6 squadrons of Multi role combat aircraft overall, currently the RMAF has 3 front line Squadrons: 1 MiG, 1 Sukhoi and 1 Hornet, so basically we're talking acquisition of up to 4 Sqns (counting replacing the MiG) and this is just the optimum number taking into account coverage for East Malaysia, also Squadron is a loose term as the Hornet squadron is really a half squadron of 8 so some of the six could be just 8 fighters (particularly those to be deployed to East Malaysia). Likely the RMAF will compromise for purchases of 2 more squadrons worth of fighters and in any event, the six squadrons are just the opening hand for the inevitable bargaining the RMAF will have to do with the Govt and Ministry of Finance so quoting the max is necessary giving there will be paring down, if they quoted the min number, the powers that be will prbably say they don't need it anyway.
The Eurocopter was not picked on the basis of brochures as you claim, what was the issue was that there was no fly off/flight test done in the tender which was not done so given that there been technical and flight evaluations of the helos in concern done prior to the tender and thus there was no need to do a fly-off since this would be just repeating things already done not to mention adding to the cost. There's more to the Nuri accidents than what you claim, the RMAF prefers not to use pilot error in accidents where death of the pilot occurs because they do not wish to add to the burden of the grieving families, keep in mind the Nuris operate as the workhorse and thus tend to be more prone to having accidents due to frequency of use, just like the US Blackhawks.
I'm not sure where you got the 56 F-5s as the total of F-5s Malaysia ever purchase was only less than 30. As for them making up their minds post Mahathir, I'm not sure how you come to that, as except for the SU-30 everything was already in operation as such during Mahathir's time and the SU-30 purchase was by Mahathir, and the reason why everything is still in operation is because there's no guarantee that if the RMAF phases out anything there will be replacements and no it will not take 5-6 years of discussion to decide.
As for the Indonesian CN-235s, there isn't an AWAC version and it does cost money to convert an airframe to an AWAC platform, more so when it's never been used as such.
The Eurocopter was not picked on the basis of brochures as you claim, what was the issue was that there was no fly off/flight test done in the tender which was not done so given that there been technical and flight evaluations of the helos in concern done prior to the tender and thus there was no need to do a fly-off since this would be just repeating things already done not to mention adding to the cost. There's more to the Nuri accidents than what you claim, the RMAF prefers not to use pilot error in accidents where death of the pilot occurs because they do not wish to add to the burden of the grieving families, keep in mind the Nuris operate as the workhorse and thus tend to be more prone to having accidents due to frequency of use, just like the US Blackhawks.
I'm not sure where you got the 56 F-5s as the total of F-5s Malaysia ever purchase was only less than 30. As for them making up their minds post Mahathir, I'm not sure how you come to that, as except for the SU-30 everything was already in operation as such during Mahathir's time and the SU-30 purchase was by Mahathir, and the reason why everything is still in operation is because there's no guarantee that if the RMAF phases out anything there will be replacements and no it will not take 5-6 years of discussion to decide.
As for the Indonesian CN-235s, there isn't an AWAC version and it does cost money to convert an airframe to an AWAC platform, more so when it's never been used as such.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
Not entirely certain with what you've just repeated, Dzirhan, as there is nothing there that we can't find out by googling RMAF. Yes, Tan Sri Azizan Ariffin did say that there were plans for up to 6 MRCA squadrons, but he added that this was still all pie in the sky, and still dependent on 'big budget allocation', meaning that it was wishful thinking and some flight of fancy for quite a few people.
As for defence procurement, well you make up your own mind. I said earlier 4 squadrons of four different types of aircraft, was just plain messed up. Indeed, I would still say that the boys at RMAF and the defence Ministry could have never made their minds up between the periods 1994 and 2003. That is 9 years, and in 9 years they recommended and bought 3 different Air Superiority aircraft. Surely, that is evidence of confused thinking, and undecided strategy???
In that time they could have settled for one type, but given the politics, they royally messed things up. Everybody and his mother knows this. And laughingly. we're told that this is an example of forward thinking that should be praised. Talk about the Emperor and his new clothes.
As for the Nuris, we both agreed that it was a question of wear and tear. Maybe we should carry on servicing them until the last one falls out of the sky, and adds more names to the grieving list. Either way, now it is an opportunity for Azizan and the Defence Minister (AAB) to get things right, and what more, than to announce a fully comprehensive competition for the Nuri replacement??
However, AAB has poured cold water on this idea because he just can't be pushed to give more criticism to Lim Kit Siang and co. So there you have it, the criticism and the economic downturn, can affect our defence expenditure.
Yes, it will take 5-6 years of discussions on all levels and across the board with all stakeholders to decide on a range of aircraft for the RMAF of the future. Given the history of procurement, I would say this is a conservative timeframe under the RMK9, 10 and 11 economic programmes. If you know better, than please state so with facts.
Oh btw, I am not too sure about the figure of 30 for the F5. Some say its 56 others say its 30. I'll settle for any figure that makes up the numbers for 2 squadrons.
As for Borneo, all it really needs is big massive Helicopters like CHinooks for instance. Somehow I feel it doesn't need the presence of Air FIghters as this would send out the wrong message to Jakarta, Manila, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu. Maybe I am wrong, who knows??
As for defence procurement, well you make up your own mind. I said earlier 4 squadrons of four different types of aircraft, was just plain messed up. Indeed, I would still say that the boys at RMAF and the defence Ministry could have never made their minds up between the periods 1994 and 2003. That is 9 years, and in 9 years they recommended and bought 3 different Air Superiority aircraft. Surely, that is evidence of confused thinking, and undecided strategy???
In that time they could have settled for one type, but given the politics, they royally messed things up. Everybody and his mother knows this. And laughingly. we're told that this is an example of forward thinking that should be praised. Talk about the Emperor and his new clothes.
As for the Nuris, we both agreed that it was a question of wear and tear. Maybe we should carry on servicing them until the last one falls out of the sky, and adds more names to the grieving list. Either way, now it is an opportunity for Azizan and the Defence Minister (AAB) to get things right, and what more, than to announce a fully comprehensive competition for the Nuri replacement??
However, AAB has poured cold water on this idea because he just can't be pushed to give more criticism to Lim Kit Siang and co. So there you have it, the criticism and the economic downturn, can affect our defence expenditure.
Yes, it will take 5-6 years of discussions on all levels and across the board with all stakeholders to decide on a range of aircraft for the RMAF of the future. Given the history of procurement, I would say this is a conservative timeframe under the RMK9, 10 and 11 economic programmes. If you know better, than please state so with facts.
Oh btw, I am not too sure about the figure of 30 for the F5. Some say its 56 others say its 30. I'll settle for any figure that makes up the numbers for 2 squadrons.
As for Borneo, all it really needs is big massive Helicopters like CHinooks for instance. Somehow I feel it doesn't need the presence of Air FIghters as this would send out the wrong message to Jakarta, Manila, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu. Maybe I am wrong, who knows??
Last edited:
I don't need to google as I was at the PC where Tan Sri Azizan talked about the MRCA sqn requirement, come to think of it, I wrote a story on it , keep in mind just reading off the net doesn't tell you the whole story or is definative. Reality off net can sometimes be quite differant, particularly when you have a window into what's going on behind what comes out in print.
BTW the RMAF did not recommend as you claim, the decision was finally made at the government level as to what they should purchase despite their assessment and recommendation, perhaps if you talk to the RMAF officers rather than reading off the net, you might get a differant picture. The RMAF has already put its plans for the future and it's not going to take 5-6 years of discussion, your earlier statement seem to say that it was going to take 5-6 years of discussions at the RMAF level. Your problem seems to be you think the RMAF alone has messed everything up wherelse much of the problem lies with the PM who made the final say. Bear in mind that the RMAF recommended a single type when the MiGs and Hornets were purchased and it looked like the MiG was decided by the government, however the US send a lobbying delgation and the PM decided to buy both to keep the US and Russia happy.
The problem is currently whether the government has the finances for the long term implementation of the RMAF's plan.
Your statement on the comprehensive competition again is a fallacy, everything was largely done properly save for the absence of a fly-off which would have cost money and would have been superflous given flight evaluations on all the helicopters had been done in the past not to mention only 12 helos were to be purchases.
BTW on the Nuris, Tan Sri Azizan has said that if the Nuris were not airworthy, he and the RMAF would not order them used and honestly any RMAF pilot who felt otherwise would not fly it either. From your statements I gather you have very little contact with the Malaysian military and belong to the school of thought that the military are stupid, which is not the case though for the politicians, that's another thing, we have a large number of good people in the service and it's not their fault if the politicans decide in a differant manner which in my opinion while not good, is part of the democratic process and civil government which means the government has the right to make bad decisions.
24 is the number of all types purchased by Malaysia recorded in Janes, and no that does not excuse you since you claimed that 56 F-5s were mothballed awaiting upgrades and now you've switched positions on it. As for the wrong message, I don't see what's the issue, Malaysia can deploy it's fighters anyway in the country as it pleases and the Indonesians deploy fighters in their part of Borneo and it's not an issue with Malaysia as we recognise they can deploy their aircraft anywhere they please in their country so same goes for us
, keep in mind just reading off the net doesn't tell you the whole story or is definative. Reality off net can sometimes be quite differant, particularly when you have a window into what's going on behind what comes out in print.BTW the RMAF did not recommend as you claim, the decision was finally made at the government level as to what they should purchase despite their assessment and recommendation, perhaps if you talk to the RMAF officers rather than reading off the net, you might get a differant picture. The RMAF has already put its plans for the future and it's not going to take 5-6 years of discussion, your earlier statement seem to say that it was going to take 5-6 years of discussions at the RMAF level. Your problem seems to be you think the RMAF alone has messed everything up wherelse much of the problem lies with the PM who made the final say. Bear in mind that the RMAF recommended a single type when the MiGs and Hornets were purchased and it looked like the MiG was decided by the government, however the US send a lobbying delgation and the PM decided to buy both to keep the US and Russia happy.
The problem is currently whether the government has the finances for the long term implementation of the RMAF's plan.
Your statement on the comprehensive competition again is a fallacy, everything was largely done properly save for the absence of a fly-off which would have cost money and would have been superflous given flight evaluations on all the helicopters had been done in the past not to mention only 12 helos were to be purchases.
BTW on the Nuris, Tan Sri Azizan has said that if the Nuris were not airworthy, he and the RMAF would not order them used and honestly any RMAF pilot who felt otherwise would not fly it either. From your statements I gather you have very little contact with the Malaysian military and belong to the school of thought that the military are stupid, which is not the case though for the politicians, that's another thing
, we have a large number of good people in the service and it's not their fault if the politicans decide in a differant manner which in my opinion while not good, is part of the democratic process and civil government which means the government has the right to make bad decisions.24 is the number of all types purchased by Malaysia recorded in Janes, and no that does not excuse you since you claimed that 56 F-5s were mothballed awaiting upgrades and now you've switched positions on it. As for the wrong message, I don't see what's the issue, Malaysia can deploy it's fighters anyway in the country as it pleases and the Indonesians deploy fighters in their part of Borneo and it's not an issue with Malaysia as we recognise they can deploy their aircraft anywhere they please in their country so same goes for us