I doubt that. Replacing 8 Hornets with 8 SuperHornets because Malaysia can only afford that much for such an expensive plane, is not a leap in capability. Plus there is no guarantee that Mysia would be offered the SH with all its bells ans whistles that they readily advertise on its brochures.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
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Number was 18 Superhornets offered as stated here at http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/malaysia_02-56.pdf
and not necessarily the 8 hornets in service would have been released, from what I heard from the US and RMAF end was that the RMAF was pretty much assured that they would get what they asked for.
and not necessarily the 8 hornets in service would have been released, from what I heard from the US and RMAF end was that the RMAF was pretty much assured that they would get what they asked for.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
Dzirhan,
It does not matter what I think, it is the perception that is put forward by the RMAF. You say the RMAF is blameless with respect to the Migs and F/A 18s, I am sorry, I don't believe that. It's easy for me to think that the goverment of the day, The Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the Ministry of Defence should and must carry the can for messing the procurement up, and in fact I have said it many times that it was them who messed it up, but some blame must be apportioned to the entire leadership of the RMAF, for taking on, and going along with the procurement decisions then. The Air Chief then could have expressed his concern, could have broke publicly, could have lobbied more, but it's not a one way street. The Minister should take a large slice of the blame, but so must some of it be apportioned to the Air Chief then. I mean, at the end of the day, the Malaysian Taxpayer is entitled to know what took place and why it did.
As for the 5 or 6 years being a fallacy, well you're entitled to qualify this and say what types have the RMAF decided on. Because off course, what the RMAF wants does not translate to what they will get. Given the history, refer to the para above. I am saying 5 or 6 years, because a solution to this will not be easy. Consensus must be reached, and if the Defence boys can't see eye to eye with the RMAF boys (something you admitted as well earlier), then it is fair to say this situation would carry on indefinitely because no one wants to admit the fuck up that took place with the procurement of the Migs and the F/A 18s.
That is why we are stuck on the issue of the Air Superiority Fighter. Stupidity is what got us there in first place, and to begin admitting this, is part of remedying the problem, and part of finding the solution. I mean, what do you think??? One Squadron of each, BAE Hawks, F/A 18s, Mig 29s and SU 30s???? If we had the foresight then, everyone would have plumped up for four squadrons of F/A 18s or 4 squadrons of Migs, but now this is a very serious issue, and sorry, I am not trivializing this impasse and only a Moron would think operating 4 different types is some sort of virtue.
Whatever solution is taken, whatever the outcome is, it would cost the taxpayer many more oodles of money to fix, what should have never happened in the first place. So there, 5 or 6 years. You're free to disagree, we all live in a democracy, and contrary to what you said, I wished I could be that much more optimistic. Sorry it's just me, it's not you.
But thanks to the powers that be, the same problem is not being faced with the Helicopters issue. As for the eventual raising of the Army Air Corp, we could without heavy lift Helos, if we passed on that competency to them, let them worry about procuring Eurocopters, etc, etc.
And yes, the Eurocopter issue was another right mess. The handling of it was the issue, and so what if we spent that much more money on trials, that would have been far better than picking up a brochure and choosing which model you wanted. Think about it, would you buy a new car by leafing through a brochure, or take it for a test drive first?? A bit of common sense, betul atau tidak??
It's the handling and the approach which is the Issue. On a corporate level, it appears our civil servants, our RMAF leadership, our Ministers, cannot agree on one single approach, and one plan to military procurement. It is all a Mess. Where do you start really??
I am sorry for the Men and Women of the RMAF. They bear the brunt of past mistakes. They suffer for bad decisions made. And I am sorry for the Taxpayer, we're burdened with an air force that has a half baked, mish mash inventory and I feel sorry for those grieving the loss of their close ones, owing to a large roll of mistakes, incompetence, etc, etc. That is what the RMAF leadership, the Defence Ministry and the Prime Minister should be communicating to their force personnel and to the wider public, they should have more empathy, and more consideration for what would take place in the future, if poor thinking is allowed to fluorish.
It does not matter what I think, it is the perception that is put forward by the RMAF. You say the RMAF is blameless with respect to the Migs and F/A 18s, I am sorry, I don't believe that. It's easy for me to think that the goverment of the day, The Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the Ministry of Defence should and must carry the can for messing the procurement up, and in fact I have said it many times that it was them who messed it up, but some blame must be apportioned to the entire leadership of the RMAF, for taking on, and going along with the procurement decisions then. The Air Chief then could have expressed his concern, could have broke publicly, could have lobbied more, but it's not a one way street. The Minister should take a large slice of the blame, but so must some of it be apportioned to the Air Chief then. I mean, at the end of the day, the Malaysian Taxpayer is entitled to know what took place and why it did.
As for the 5 or 6 years being a fallacy, well you're entitled to qualify this and say what types have the RMAF decided on. Because off course, what the RMAF wants does not translate to what they will get. Given the history, refer to the para above. I am saying 5 or 6 years, because a solution to this will not be easy. Consensus must be reached, and if the Defence boys can't see eye to eye with the RMAF boys (something you admitted as well earlier), then it is fair to say this situation would carry on indefinitely because no one wants to admit the fuck up that took place with the procurement of the Migs and the F/A 18s.
That is why we are stuck on the issue of the Air Superiority Fighter. Stupidity is what got us there in first place, and to begin admitting this, is part of remedying the problem, and part of finding the solution. I mean, what do you think??? One Squadron of each, BAE Hawks, F/A 18s, Mig 29s and SU 30s???? If we had the foresight then, everyone would have plumped up for four squadrons of F/A 18s or 4 squadrons of Migs, but now this is a very serious issue, and sorry, I am not trivializing this impasse and only a Moron would think operating 4 different types is some sort of virtue.
Whatever solution is taken, whatever the outcome is, it would cost the taxpayer many more oodles of money to fix, what should have never happened in the first place. So there, 5 or 6 years. You're free to disagree, we all live in a democracy, and contrary to what you said, I wished I could be that much more optimistic. Sorry it's just me, it's not you.
But thanks to the powers that be, the same problem is not being faced with the Helicopters issue. As for the eventual raising of the Army Air Corp, we could without heavy lift Helos, if we passed on that competency to them, let them worry about procuring Eurocopters, etc, etc.
And yes, the Eurocopter issue was another right mess. The handling of it was the issue, and so what if we spent that much more money on trials, that would have been far better than picking up a brochure and choosing which model you wanted. Think about it, would you buy a new car by leafing through a brochure, or take it for a test drive first?? A bit of common sense, betul atau tidak??
It's the handling and the approach which is the Issue. On a corporate level, it appears our civil servants, our RMAF leadership, our Ministers, cannot agree on one single approach, and one plan to military procurement. It is all a Mess. Where do you start really??
I am sorry for the Men and Women of the RMAF. They bear the brunt of past mistakes. They suffer for bad decisions made. And I am sorry for the Taxpayer, we're burdened with an air force that has a half baked, mish mash inventory and I feel sorry for those grieving the loss of their close ones, owing to a large roll of mistakes, incompetence, etc, etc. That is what the RMAF leadership, the Defence Ministry and the Prime Minister should be communicating to their force personnel and to the wider public, they should have more empathy, and more consideration for what would take place in the future, if poor thinking is allowed to fluorish.
Last edited:
Mr Ignorant
New Member
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[/QUOTE]
Where you deploy your fighters is an issue, anywhere on the Malaysian geography. Like a well trained dog, the RMAF does what their political masters say, and if the political conditions doesn't warrant the deployment of air assets, then so be it, we live in a democracy, and not in a dictatorship. I am sure you understand the wider meaning of that.
And yes, my thanks to you for giving a final figure of 24 F5s. Is that definitive??
Where you deploy your fighters is an issue, anywhere on the Malaysian geography. Like a well trained dog, the RMAF does what their political masters say, and if the political conditions doesn't warrant the deployment of air assets, then so be it, we live in a democracy, and not in a dictatorship. I am sure you understand the wider meaning of that.
And yes, my thanks to you for giving a final figure of 24 F5s. Is that definitive??
Sigh, at times like this I really wish I'm being paid for giving a professional opinion , answering all this seems like consultancy work, ha-ha and at times like these I realized why many of colleagues in the defence media don't particpate online .
Let's go this one by one, if a chief (not just RMAF) were to resign on basis of what the government chose over their opinion, you can be sure that there'll be a lot of chiefs resigning every other month globally, when you are in a top position, there's always the issue whether anything will be served by resigning or starting a public confrontation (because nothing will change anyway) or staying and winning some other issues, it's a lot easier for people like you who are not in such a position to advocate such matters, but there is a reason why also some people make it all the way to the top such as RMAF chief is that they are able to think in the long term and select the fights they can and want to win and learn to drop the ones they cannot, the military also has a "can-do" attitude which is positive but sometimes can be a hinderance also, namely that you make the best out of a bad decision and see how best you can work it. I don't know why you want to rant to profanity and work yourself in a frenzy on the matter and I did not say the defence ministry and RMAF don't see eye to eye, as I said government level namely PM and Cabinet, who made a differant decision.
How many times do I have to repeat myself on the Eurocopter, you seem keen on repeating over and over again about the selection by brochure, and I seem to be telling you over and over again that various asssessments amounting to the same thing has been done in the past before the tender competition hence it was skipped, are you aware that for the past five years or more the RMAF had been putting up feelers for the requirement? that evaluation teams had been doing the flight tests etc before the tender came up? that several of the helos in question had come into the country over the past five years so the RMAF could take a look and test fly it? That the companies had made technical presentations and briefings in the past? That some of the people on the RMAF tender evaluation team had been on the teams which went overseas to fly the helicopters before the tender came out? And that none of the bidders complained at the start when they were told no flight tests would be done? And that countries have bought planes and helicopters without a flyoff (some of them such as A400M are not even in existance beyond the drawing board when the order came in)?
As always it is easy to say incompetence etc and blame the RMAF high command, keep in mind many of the top brass there worked their way up and were pilots and are quite aware of the issues. ANd I 'm not sure what you do for a living which would make you a great judge of what is incompetence. As for not agreeing to one approach, you do show what you screename says, have you seen the debates going on in Britain, France, Australia and the US among others as to what the best approach to defence is? We could do better but given the government we have that probably is difficult and even if we voted them out, I doubt the opposition could do better. I think that's enough from me for now and I'm going to leave it while and see what some of the senior guys here think on the issues.
, answering all this seems like consultancy work, ha-ha and at times like these I realized why many of colleagues in the defence media don't particpate online .Let's go this one by one, if a chief (not just RMAF) were to resign on basis of what the government chose over their opinion, you can be sure that there'll be a lot of chiefs resigning every other month globally, when you are in a top position, there's always the issue whether anything will be served by resigning or starting a public confrontation (because nothing will change anyway) or staying and winning some other issues, it's a lot easier for people like you who are not in such a position to advocate such matters, but there is a reason why also some people make it all the way to the top such as RMAF chief is that they are able to think in the long term and select the fights they can and want to win and learn to drop the ones they cannot, the military also has a "can-do" attitude which is positive but sometimes can be a hinderance also, namely that you make the best out of a bad decision and see how best you can work it. I don't know why you want to rant to profanity and work yourself in a frenzy on the matter and I did not say the defence ministry and RMAF don't see eye to eye, as I said government level namely PM and Cabinet, who made a differant decision.
How many times do I have to repeat myself on the Eurocopter, you seem keen on repeating over and over again about the selection by brochure, and I seem to be telling you over and over again that various asssessments amounting to the same thing has been done in the past before the tender competition hence it was skipped, are you aware that for the past five years or more the RMAF had been putting up feelers for the requirement? that evaluation teams had been doing the flight tests etc before the tender came up? that several of the helos in question had come into the country over the past five years so the RMAF could take a look and test fly it? That the companies had made technical presentations and briefings in the past? That some of the people on the RMAF tender evaluation team had been on the teams which went overseas to fly the helicopters before the tender came out? And that none of the bidders complained at the start when they were told no flight tests would be done? And that countries have bought planes and helicopters without a flyoff (some of them such as A400M are not even in existance beyond the drawing board when the order came in)?
As always it is easy to say incompetence etc and blame the RMAF high command, keep in mind many of the top brass there worked their way up and were pilots and are quite aware of the issues. ANd I 'm not sure what you do for a living which would make you a great judge of what is incompetence. As for not agreeing to one approach, you do show what you screename says, have you seen the debates going on in Britain, France, Australia and the US among others as to what the best approach to defence is? We could do better but given the government we have that probably is difficult and even if we voted them out, I doubt the opposition could do better. I think that's enough from me for now and I'm going to leave it while and see what some of the senior guys here think on the issues.
@DzirhanIt's really, really great to have you around the forum.
In terms of duration (and also number of posts), I am one of the newer forum participants in this thread, but I would say the following about your posts:
(i) I've learnt more from your posts about Malaysian defence;
(ii) I've also enjoyed reading your posts; and
(iii) you can also choose to selectively reply to the various posts.
I may not always agree with what other posters have to say. Sometimes, if their reasoning is circular, I would exit the debate (to keep my powder dry) and maintain my peace of mind.
For me, I post to help me remember obscure facts (reading alone does not seem to do it). Thank you for teaching me more.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
Dzirhan
Thanks for staying up. Apologies for the persistent posts. Anyway, I am more or less satisfied, so no more from me.
Thanks for staying up. Apologies for the persistent posts. Anyway, I am more or less satisfied, so no more from me.
It says 18 proposed by the US. I don't believe if the option was taken, we would he seeing 18 SH. From the link it says the estimated cost at US$1.48 Billion, and that is RM5.3 billion for 18 jets. The MD is not gonna spend $5.3 B on 18 jets. 8 SH is probably what Mysia would have got if they choose the SH. And that would make 8 SH, 8Hornets and 18 MiG 29's. Which still doesn't look like a big leap in capability compared to 18 flankers.
I think for the future, it would be wise for Mysia to sell the MiG's quickly by 2010 as long as they have a good deal of airworthiness, and replace it with another sqdn of Flankers.
Btw regarding the doc, it shows options for Guided missile launchers. What about the other weapon system? For such an advanced platform, they only mentioned guided missile launchers. Id like to see what other weapon's proposed with the deal.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
Selling the Migs to third countries? Doesn't seem reasonable. We might as well just fly these machines till its obsolete. The Government could take a executive decision and announce the withdrawal of these Migs for future sales, but like I said earlier, it's a quagmire, an exercise of self defeat. Seriously the Migs and the Pilots are good, and the same applies to the other types being flown. That's the issue. Which to keep and which to buy? It sounds like a simple question, but as you can see 70 odd pages on this thread alone.
The US proposals are based on the number they get from the country, as you can see, it clearly states a request from government of Malaysia and that number also probably includes a phased buy, possibly 12 + 6 or some other combo and staggered payments, the weapons package may have come later and could have still been in the negotiation process and possibly seperate but we did get AMRAAMs for the existing hornets (which were offered with the Superhornets) and if I remember correctly basically everything the Superhornet could carry was offered.
There have been problems between Russia and Malaysia on the Su-30s over the contract scope of responsibilities and execution, which is why the Indians have been bought in to assist so future purchases of Russian aircraft may be problematic.
OK, if that is what you feel. But I really really doubt that, and that is just me.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
DSCA notifications are based on requests made by particular customers. The announcements actually state this. The start of paragraph 2 states, "The Government of Malaysia has requested a possible sale of 18..."
The "guided missile launchers" are the LAU-127A/B rail launchers. They are used for AMRAAM (though they can also launchS Sidewinder) from F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F aircraft only...
Hmm, this goes to some tricky legal issues
, suffice to say that there's been a fair bit written in the past about it particularly in the Australian media over the former company now known as Tenix (forgot the name) on their bid for the Malaysian OPV programme which would give an indication of the situation, I would say an above average chance as there are also the nation to nation aspects of it and defence sales are sometimes linked to various other non-military deals between Malaysia and the country it's purchasing from, more so now with the countertrade rules for defence purchases. Also the current political climate in Malaysia might restrict the effect of lobbies etc as the opposition will clearly make an issue out of it.Mr Ignorant
New Member
RMAF THE SANTA CLAUS CHRISTMAS LIST
4 Squadrons of F/A 18s SH
4 P8 Poseidon AWACS
80 CH 47G/H/CSAR-X Chinooks
Possible? Viable? Wishful thinking? :unknown
4 Squadrons of F/A 18s SH
4 P8 Poseidon AWACS
80 CH 47G/H/CSAR-X Chinooks
Possible? Viable? Wishful thinking? :unknown
I think those are overambitious requests that they are not capable of meeting.
I'd like to know what PGM's, were proposed for the sale if these SH's.
the road runner
Active Member
The P8 is a Naval patrol aircraft and not an AWACS,i think your getting confused with the 737 Boeing AWACS.
As to 80 CH 47 i think that would be very expensive to purchase/operate
4 squadrons of F18 super bugs would be great
Your initial response to Dzirhan gave us the impression that you did not read the document provided (or at least did not understand it).
When AD responded, you say it is not what you mean. Sorry bro, your posts are unclear on what you mean, leading all of us to go
Most of the so-called 'smart bombs' or precision-guided munitions (PGMs) are just snap on kits to dumb bombs (and I don't see a problem with Malaysia getting this class of PGMs).
For more information on other types please see also the Lockheed Martin LOCAAS range of smart bombs. Is this what you are asking? Are you asking if the US will sell Malaysia the LOCAAS type of bombs? Or do you have something else in mind (like GPS guided bolt-on wing adapter kits and such)?
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It was a request from Malaysia, that is required by US law, before any acquisition can be made.
There was no acquisition, so it is all a moot point really...
Truly. Just out of curiosity.