RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Sukhoi and MiG are actually merging their servicing center in India and Malaysia, to reduce cost , now that they are both under the Russian UAC corporation. Just restructuring process.
Hello Dzirhan,
Thank you for your feedback at the land forces section. Another issue that has been puzzling me is a common data link for the RMAF fighter fleet. Even if Link 16 is approved, which it most certainly will if Malaysia getd the Super Hornet, I cant see the US government giving it's approval to install Link 16 or Link 11 on the MKM and Fulcrum fleet. I'm assuming here that only a Russian data link can provide mid course guidance to the R-77 Adder. Similiary, only a US data link can be used for mid course guidance for the Amraam Cs operated by the 8 Hornets.
Perhaps the only solution would be for the newly developed Thales data link which is compatible with Link 16. Another solution, however impractical and illogical would be for the RMAF to have a Russian and US data link. But then thats mean that when an AEW aircraft eventually enters service, only part of the fighter fleet will have a compatible data link. The Swedish data link used by the Swedish air force is not compatible with Link 16 or 11, thats why Pakistan and Thailand have gone for Link 11 for their Eriyes.
Thank you for your feedback at the land forces section. Another issue that has been puzzling me is a common data link for the RMAF fighter fleet. Even if Link 16 is approved, which it most certainly will if Malaysia getd the Super Hornet, I cant see the US government giving it's approval to install Link 16 or Link 11 on the MKM and Fulcrum fleet. I'm assuming here that only a Russian data link can provide mid course guidance to the R-77 Adder. Similiary, only a US data link can be used for mid course guidance for the Amraam Cs operated by the 8 Hornets.
Perhaps the only solution would be for the newly developed Thales data link which is compatible with Link 16. Another solution, however impractical and illogical would be for the RMAF to have a Russian and US data link. But then thats mean that when an AEW aircraft eventually enters service, only part of the fighter fleet will have a compatible data link. The Swedish data link used by the Swedish air force is not compatible with Link 16 or 11, thats why Pakistan and Thailand have gone for Link 11 for their Eriyes.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Hellenic Air Force uses SAAB Erieye AEW&C aircraft and they are equiped with Link 11 and Link 16.
Thales can most definitely provide tactical data-links that use the Link 16 standard.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/markets/...D0539-1747-515B-074F-5E5351012E55&type=Market
Definately we will not get any permission for datalinks to be installed on MKM or Su-30s which is why RMAF took a Western avionics fit for MKM. Got to bear in mind though that by and large, RMAF fighter ops have not gone really into simultaneous multi-squadron committment which would entail the sharing of data-links, most exercises I've seen or heard about normally involves a flight of four for a particular task, and the hornets tend to be reserved for strike missions rather than fighter interceptions and these often involve just two hornets. My personal thoughts is that we can forget the Superhornets for Malaysia, not going to happen IMO because of costs as it is rumor has it RMAF are looking at Gripens again.
Last edited:
I've got the same gut feeling about the Gripen. Personaly, I would prefer the Super Hornet. The good news about buying Gripen and the Super Hornet is that almost all of the ground ordnance that goes with both types are combat proven in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo. The same cant be said of the ordnance bought for the MKMs.
I just got news from a good source that the RMAF is looking at buying 6 more Flankers to up the sqdn level to 24 planes next. RMAF is also looking into trading its MiG 29 with the MiG 35. There are no plans to acquire the Superhornet.
If this happens, then RMAF will still be stuck with 3 types of fighter, far from my wish of acquiring another sqdn of 18 Flankers and selling off the MiG's, which brings down the no of fighters to 2 types.
If this happens, then RMAF will still be stuck with 3 types of fighter, far from my wish of acquiring another sqdn of 18 Flankers and selling off the MiG's, which brings down the no of fighters to 2 types.
Not sure how accurate your source is as RMAF is still waiting for the last 6 Sukhois and the relationship between the Russians and Malaysians over the Sukhois has not been a good one so doubtful we want another six, furthermore the two seat fighters are stretching the pilot resources of the RMAF. MiG-35 was offered some time back but we are not taking up the offer nor trading in the MiG-29
The RMAF pilots who've exercised with the RAAF have also indicated frustration with them. The loggie side is a bit of a nightmare apparently. they have a quarter-third of the availability of their Hornets.
I doubt MAF would be given funding to buy aircrafts for at least the next 3-5 years. It is just 'talk' like the desired purchase of 8 AEW & C planes. Also, I doubt anyone would be interested in the Mig-35. No one has bought it. Think about the spares.
Are the Mig-29s upgraded(systems, new weapons, etc) or are they still the same ones Malaysia bought years ago? Will the Migs really be retired in 2010? That would be a waste as that would leave Malaysia with just 18 Su-30s and 8 ageing Hornets as front-line jets with no proper datalinks between the two. Also, I feel that the Su-30s are a luxury to maintain in small numbers with limited availability due to high maintainence.
Hi Dzirhan. What is the relationship not a good one? Pressure from Russia to buy thier goods only? It is Malaysia`s right to buy from the Indians or Chinese afterall.
Are the Mig-29s upgraded(systems, new weapons, etc) or are they still the same ones Malaysia bought years ago? Will the Migs really be retired in 2010? That would be a waste as that would leave Malaysia with just 18 Su-30s and 8 ageing Hornets as front-line jets with no proper datalinks between the two. Also, I feel that the Su-30s are a luxury to maintain in small numbers with limited availability due to high maintainence.
Well, by buying another 6 planes, they get to up the sqdn level to 24 planes, which is slightly better than 18 they have now. The MiG29 are being looked at for trading with MiG 35, as the MiG 35 introduces better maintainability, and better life for the whole plane. But it would be better if they could trade in the 18 MiG's for more Sukhoi's instead. It would bring down the cost of maintaining the planes and provide better support for the planes.
Also what do you mean bad relations between Malaysia and Russia over the Sukhoi?
Gf0012 has summed up part of the situation with the Sukhois, support, training and logistics has been a massive wrangle between the Malaysians and Russians which is why there's an IAF detachment now training the Malaysians. I would also add that it's really doubtful that the government will buy additional Sukhois for the immediate future as there's been a lot of questions asked about them and the submarines in Parliament, last thing the incoming PM would want to do is give political ammunition for the opposition,
As for the Mig-29s, you'll probably hear some news about them by the middle of this year and it will not involve MiG-35s.
As for the Mig-29s, you'll probably hear some news about them by the middle of this year and it will not involve MiG-35s.
A major problem for the RMAF is manpower. Both pilots and ground personnel.
As for unhappiness with the MKMs, I would have thought lessons would have been learnt from operating the Fulcrums. But I suppose thst politicans rarely learnt from their mistakes. Then again, even the Indians, after operating Russian stuff for decades, still have problems with after sales support. I suspect that some Fulcrums might be retired so their pilots can be sent to 11 Squadron.
The only problems I have with the MKM is the fact that the SU-30 is still an unproven airframe. The baseline Flanker performed well in Ehthopia/Eiretia but that was against Fulcrums, in a conflict devoid of modern western aircraft, elctronic jamming, etc. Large amounts of cash was spend to integrate the MKM, as well as certification. And as I mentioned earlier, most the Russian air to ground ordnance is unproven. We'll just have to accept what the manufacturers tell us about their products. Sure the BARS radar on the MKMs are very capable and have impressive specs, but what about its tolerance against current generation western made jammers? Politics aside, we know from Iraq and Kosovo, that AMRAAM, JDAM, HARM, PAVEWAY actually work. A few years down the road, it will be very interesting to see which aircraft has a higher operational rate, the Hornet D or the MKN. For the time being, I think we have to be realistic and forget about AEW aircraft, more MKMs, etc.... and just hope that enough money is made available for flying hours, realistic training and a NURI replacement.
As for unhappiness with the MKMs, I would have thought lessons would have been learnt from operating the Fulcrums. But I suppose thst politicans rarely learnt from their mistakes. Then again, even the Indians, after operating Russian stuff for decades, still have problems with after sales support. I suspect that some Fulcrums might be retired so their pilots can be sent to 11 Squadron.
The only problems I have with the MKM is the fact that the SU-30 is still an unproven airframe. The baseline Flanker performed well in Ehthopia/Eiretia but that was against Fulcrums, in a conflict devoid of modern western aircraft, elctronic jamming, etc. Large amounts of cash was spend to integrate the MKM, as well as certification. And as I mentioned earlier, most the Russian air to ground ordnance is unproven. We'll just have to accept what the manufacturers tell us about their products. Sure the BARS radar on the MKMs are very capable and have impressive specs, but what about its tolerance against current generation western made jammers? Politics aside, we know from Iraq and Kosovo, that AMRAAM, JDAM, HARM, PAVEWAY actually work. A few years down the road, it will be very interesting to see which aircraft has a higher operational rate, the Hornet D or the MKN. For the time being, I think we have to be realistic and forget about AEW aircraft, more MKMs, etc.... and just hope that enough money is made available for flying hours, realistic training and a NURI replacement.
Last edited:
What do you think should have been the proper fighters to equip the RMAF and what numbers of them should have been bought?
From discussions with people from the RMAF, mostly pilots and admin personnel, I believe that if given the final say, the Super Hornet would have been chosen. Its price tag aside, the advantages are that for the RMAFs requirements, all integration has already been done by the Americans and of course its track record. I dont believe that pilots and the ground insfrastructre is there to support more than 18 or so. Then again, this just my opinion. Who knows...In the future, the Gripen may turn out be better suited for local needs.
So you are suggesting that the whole RMAF be replaced with 18 Superhornet and this is what RMAF pilots and admin wants?
Do you have contacts with RMAF personnel?
tosho daimos
New Member
does it includes the AMRAAM?
Yes. IIRC RMAF currently has at least 20x AIM-120 C5 (AMRAAM) from the last report - look back in the thread, there is a link. From a maintenance cost and parts stocking standpoint, I hope that the RMAF considers getting a full squadron of the Super Hornets. Your ground crew becomes too free and it is harder to budget for spare engines and other essentials to keep the squadron flying.