RMAF Future; need opinions

[Aussie Digger]

Hello to all!
This is my first post, so please correct me if I'm wrong with any of my points.

I was quite stunned to learned that the RMAF decided to phase out the MiG-29N quite early even though the USAF keep on using their F-15C for air-superiority mission. The USAf flew F-15C almost 30 years and we use our MiG-29N for just around 15 years. May I ask whether this decision is due to political pressure or because the RMAF decided not to use MiG-29 anymore?

You cannot compare aircraft in this matter. What is the designed lifespan for the MiG-29 as opposed to that for the F-15C?

What are the maintenance schedules like?

How have the aircraft been operated?

What is the cost to operate the aircraft compared to the capability they provide? Aircraft can be made to fly virtually indefinitely if you are willing to throw enough money at them, but there always comes a point where it is no longer cost effective to do so.

Another question you should ask, is about the RMAF F-5 Tigers that are still flying. Why is it cost effective to still fly these aircraft, which have been in-service FAR longer than the MiG-29's?

For RMAF future fighter requirement, has RMAF ever consider buying F-15SE Silent Eagle? I know it is expensive (around USD100 mil per aircraft) but it does gave us a stealth capability (even though not as stealthy as F-22 but according to Boeing its stealth capability is comparable to F-35). The airframe is combat proven (F-15SE is based on F-15E). It could carry a wide array of PGM & AAM. Its Day 1 combat load (where stealth is essential) is comparable to F-35 JSF. The design is undefeated in air-air combat whereas F-35 air-air performance remain to be seen.

I doubt it. The Super Hornet was passed over by Malaysia on the grounds of cost. Modern F-15 variants are more expensive still. As for the "Silent Eagle" it is only a concept so far. No-one has ordered it, or any of the options available on the aircraft to upgrade existing F-15's and a significant amount of development work would be needed before it could be considered.

Personally I think RMAF would be better off following it's earlier plan of consolidating on the SU-30MKM for air defence duties and trading in it's F/A-18 Hornets for new build Block II Super Hornets, with additional orders to raise a complete squadron level capability for air defence/air to surface duties.

To buy more Su-30MKM or even F/A-18 Super Hornet is a good option but in today's age of stealth, we should really consider buying a stealth platform. Boeing already said that the F-15SE is available for foreign customers. Although F-35 JSF is also available for purchase but bear in mind, the JSF is designed with 70% air-ground and 30% air-air.

The F-35 JSF is designed as a strike fighter aircraft. It is not designed with any "percentage" favouring a particular role. It will be every bit as good in A2A duties as it will be for A2G missions.

As to the F-15SE "matching" F-35, that is simply Boeing hype. It is not supported by observable fact. The F-15SE will provide decreased Radar Cross Section (RCS) compared to existing F-15's I am certain, particularly in the forward sector, but with nothing being done to alter the shape of the F-15 airframe, besides canted tails, there is no WAY the F-115SE can match the RCS reduction measures inherent within the F-35 airframe.

If lowering RCS were really that easy, you would not see the aerodynamic comprises in the F-35 and F-22 airframes that do exist, in order to provide for the "very low observable" qualities that both airframes possess.

A telling point here is Boeing's own X-32 design which lost the competition to provide the airframe for the Joint Strike Fighter contest. Just like the F-35 and F-22 and unlike the F-15SE, the X-32 features extensive shaping throughout the airframe designed specifically to reduce it's RCS.

If such shaping is considered necessary by Boeing to achieve radar cross section reflectivity specifications on their entrant in the Joint Strike Fighter contest, it is difficult to understand how they can achieve the same on an F-15 platform which does NOT possess such measures.

If Boeing actually can achieve such, why did they bother going to the extent of designing and building the X-32? Why not simply bid an upgraded F-15 variant?

Here is the X-32:

http://www.fighterplanephotos.com/photos/Boeing X32A Fighter Plane Photo - 01.jpg

I honestly will say that I do not know whether RMAF requires MRCA with more air-ground capability than air-air. However if RMAF requires an aircraft with more air-air capability, the F-15SE would be ideal.

This is just my suggestion. So, I would like to hear your opinion. And again if I made any mistake on my facts, please correct them for me.

I'd suggest that a combined force of SU-30MKM's and Super Hornet Block II's would provide all the A2A and A2G capability Malaysia could ever need in the next 20 or so years.

Consolidating on 2 types, would also reduce the maintenance overheads of operating so many disparate aircraft types, admittedly at the cost of greater upfront acquisition costs.

However more capability requires more cash. There is no way of getting around this, unfortunately...

 

[OPSSG]

...Mahathir ...refers to the fact that our MiGs aren't locked, unlike our F-18s. That's one of the primary reasons I'd prefer Russian Air-craft, though I am not sure whether or not this is applicable to our Su-30MKMs.

@Tavarisch,

Let me explain in layman's terms. When you buy a copy of Microsoft Windows, do you also get the right to the Windows source code? The answer must be NO, right?

Remember, Tun (Dr) Mahathir bin Mohamad (Dr M) is an outspoken critic of the United States and a political figure. It is not unexpected of Dr M to use a hyperbole to mis-characterize the capabilities of the Hornet. Dr M does this to justify his former decisions, which in hindsight are clearly mistakes (you should read more about India's problems with their Russian fighters, including poor support and other issues, such as, Russian air-to-air missiles with aging problems). In fact, many informed Malaysians agree that the Malaysian Fulcrums had significant problems with spares and also faced problems of low availability.

Or to put it differently, Dr M is lying about the promises he made to Malaysia's armed forces. He is also lying about the capabilities of US weapons systems to suit his domestic political agenda. BTW, the Russians also don't give out their source code. Therefore, Dr M is partially wrong. The Russians are more easy going but even they only allow modification of their systems with object codes (and not to their source code).

For you to understand why I would say he is lying, you would need to read up on MASINT and ELINT. MASINT or Measurement and Signature Intelligence — results in intelligence that detects and classifies targets, identifies or describes signatures (distinctive characteristics) of fixed or dynamic target sources. And very few developing countries, such as Malaysia, have such MASINT capabilities (though we know that Malaysia has pretty strong ELINT capabilities, compared to most other ASEAN countries). To complicate matters, when we talk about object code modification, which aircraft sub-system are we really talking about? Are we talking about modifying the avionics, modifying the radar, modifying the electronic-support-measures sub-system or modifying the electronic-warfare sub-system, which are all related but separate sub-systems that require different expertise. Without significant investments in MASINT by a well funded Malaysian defence science organisation, it would be impossible for RMAF by themselves to modify US (or Russian) aircraft sub-systems, even if the source code or object code was provided.

Further, if you read what Dzirhan says carefully, you'll find that the Russians allow modifications but have problems getting things to work to RMAF's requirements (which accounted for the prior year long delay in the Su-30MKM programme). Please read about the US release of object codes (and not source codes) to the UAE for their purchase of 80 Desert Falcons. This proves that the Americans will sell AESA radar and release object codes if a Muslim country is willing to pay enough (and UAE paid for the multi-billion dollar developmental costs as well).

How can it be economically viable for Malaysia to modify 8 Hornets? Dr M's decision for the Flanker and Hornet split buy ensured that RMAF did not have the money to get the capability they wanted. The problem is not with US equipment or restrictions. The problem is Dr M. Think carefully Tavarisch, Dr M's talk only makes sense as politically motivated lies for a domestic audience. Even in retirement, he is trying to shift blame on his past policy mistakes.

I don't want to be seen as bashing Malaysia or bashing your armed forces (which I respect) but I want to expose Dr M's politically motivated behaviour (which your own generals cannot respond to). The best way to do this is to quote select portions of my earlier discussion with other Malaysian forum members, which I set out below:

For details, please read the full prior discussion, in particular, what Dzirhan says.

I think the core problem is the RMAF went for a variant of the SU-30 that didn't even exist. Teething problems were bound to happen just as it did when the IAF integrated non-standard gear on its MKIs.

Politics aside, these problems could have been avoided if the RMAF was allowed the Super Hornet. From what I've been told, if given a choice the RMAF would have selected the Super Hornet as its new MRCA. With the SU-30MKM deal, Malaysia was also forced to fork out a ton of cash for integration work, all on a platform that has yet to be proven. Similarly, most of the ordnance offered with the SU-30MKM has also yet to be tested in combat conditions. In my opinion, the Super Hornet would have been a more practical and cost efficient option in the long run.

We need to look at the prior precedent set by Tun Dr. Mahathir's prior interference...

To understand some of the procurement problems associated with the MAF, you need to understand... that much of the problems stemmed from Tun Mahathir's outlook on defence, which was never really his priority...

...It goes back to the MiG-29 and Hornet purchase, the decision was to purchase the MiGs (mainly to open the Russian market to Malaysian business) but the US sent a delegation to lobby for the Hornet and it was decided to buy 8 Hornets and...

...the general understanding among the RMAF was that a follow-on buy of at least 8 more Hornets would follow, unfortunately various financial issues not to mention the 1997 economic crisis all contributed to this never being realised and later on the politics of Malaysia's attitude towards the US post-Sept 11 and during the Iraq invasion all made a purchase politically impossible and at the end of the day, any US purchase would have to paid in cash, no barter/part payment in goods.

The Sukhois decision were primarily made in mind with the final costs and the fact that an astronaut slot was offered...

...the RMAF wanted the western avionics because in the end the Sukhois was what they were going to get whether they wanted it or not and the only to offset that choice was to get the western avionics on it so to avoid the same problems that the MiGs had, which was the inability to share data with the RMAF's largely Western equipment.

...the current issues with the Sukhois has put paid somewhat to the RMAF idea that given their experiences with the MiGs, they would be able to avoid any problems in regard to the Sukhois and the Russians.

Note: Dzirhan, please accept my apologies for making formatting adjustments to your prior post.

Newsflash: According to RIA Novosti, on 19 August 2009, Russia has completed deliveries of 18 Su-30MKM fighters to Malaysia as part of an agreement signed in 2003.

To quote Mahathir, "If you feel like bombing Singapore, the Russians are not going to object..."

The Russians are happy to sell weapons to anyone (including Singapore). Did you also know that Dr M also did not even buy the most advanced Russian air-to-air missiles, at the time of Malaysia's MiG-29 purchase? So you might say that Dr M's 'talk' is a hyperbole.

And to any Singaporeans, I do not intend to offend you.

Don't worry, I'm not offended - it's just a silly video of a retired politician lying to his own people to protect his track record.

In fact, I'm immensely grateful that the Malaysian Armed Forces has been able to moderate the behaviour of the more irresponsible politicians and their misguided followers. War between our two countries would be so ugly that it should not be considered a policy option.

 

[OPSSG]

For RMAF future fighter requirement, has RMAF ever consider buying F-15SE Silent Eagle?

I doubt it. The Super Hornet was passed over by Malaysia on the grounds of cost. Modern F-15 variants are more expensive still.

....I'd suggest that a combined force of SU-30MKM's and Super Hornet Block II's would provide all the A2A and A2G capability Malaysia could ever need in the next 20 or so years.

Consolidating on 2 types, would also reduce the maintenance overheads of operating so many disparate aircraft types, admittedly at the cost of greater upfront acquisition costs.

However more capability requires more cash. There is no way of getting around this, unfortunately...

+1 AD

IMHO, RMAF should strive to reduce the number of fighter aircraft types to reduce logistics complexity and develop specific local operating and maintenance competencies.

Personally I think RMAF would be better off following it's earlier plan of consolidating on the SU-30MKM for air defence duties and trading in it's F/A-18 Hornets for new build Block II Super Hornets, with additional orders to raise a complete squadron level capability for air defence/air to surface duties.

Malaysia is an existing Hornet operator. It would make a lot of sense for Malaysia to upgrade to the Super Hornet, if the country's finances allow (and the US had indicated they were willing to accept a trade-in of Malaysia's existing Hornets, as the US Marines are still using them). Remember, the Super Hornet is still in production for the RAAF and the US Navy. It is also a strong contender for the India and Brazil fighter competitions.

Edit: Malaysia's closest FPDA partner, Australia is also operating the Super Hornet (having just taken delivery of their first Super Hornet). Continued maintenance of some fleet commonality with the Australians makes it easier to engage in the common defence of Malaysia, should there be a sudden future need. And the Australians are the glue that continue to hold together the FPDA.

Currently, the most visible element of the FPDA is the Headquarters of the Integrated Area Defence System (HQ IADS). IIRC, HQ IADS, located in at Butterworth, Penang, is commanded by a senior RAAF officer. Sensible Malaysians should treasure this existing relationship with Australia, as Australia serves as a useful counter weight to the other extra-regional powers like India and China.

 

[STURM]

There was a report a few years back, that had the RMAF Super Hornet deal been signed, the recipient of the 8 F/A-18Ds would have been the Swiss AF, after an overhaul by RUAG. Most reports however state the the recipient would have been the USMC. I think the key to understanding Malaysia's defence procurement policy [of buying a bit of everything but enough of nothing and throwing the book out of the window when it comes to commonality and logistics] is Dzirhans's statement that during the Mahathir era, the main priority was how a purchase would benefit Malaysia in transfers of technology and off-sets and not how it would increase the country's defence capability and readiness. In my view, an important consideration is also understanding that Malaysia's defence/threat perceptions are vastly different from Singapore's. Granted, Malaysia currently faces no external threats but this has led to a sense complacency.

OPSG, I was very interested in your statement that 'Malaysia has pretty strong ELINT capabilities compared to most ASEAN countries'. I was totally unaware of this. In the mid-90's however, Grintek received a USD 50 million order for a SIGINT system for the Malaysian army.

To date, neither the media or any government or opposition figure has asked the 2 key questions- how will the capability gap created by the retirement of the Fulcrums effect the country's air defence security, which will be in the hands of just 8 Hornets, 13 Hawk 200s and 5 Hawk 100s and and how long will it be before this capability gap is filled?
I suspect that even the govenment is unable to provide an answer for the last question.

 

[OPSSG]

There was a report a few years back, that had the RMAF Super Hornet deal been signed, the recipient of the 8 F/A-18Ds would have been the Swiss AF, after an overhaul by RUAG. Most reports however state the the recipient would have been the USMC. I think the key to understanding Malaysia's defence procurement policy [of buying a bit of everything but enough of nothing and throwing the book out of the window when it comes to commonality and logistics] is Dzirhans's statement that during the Mahathir era, the main priority was how a purchase would benefit Malaysia in transfers of technology and off-sets and not how it would increase the country's defence capability and readiness.

Yes. Dzirhan, you and I are in agreement on Dr M's role during his tenure as PM.

In my view, an important consideration is also understanding that Malaysia's defence/threat perceptions are vastly different from Singapore's.

I was wondering, how to say that this is not true, without being seen as a typically paranoid Singaporean.

First, when properly understood, the defence of Malaysia and Singapore is indivisible (click to read the 'Malayan Campaign: Lessons for ONE SAF'). 90% to 95% of the time, what threatens Malaysia will threaten Singapore. The problem is that we are not always able to help or side with Malaysia. Further, your top brass is aware of what security threats Singapore is worried about and there is some commonality of threat perception (especially with regards to the threats of terrorism and piracy).

Second, at the senior police level, at the senior military level and at the civil service level the people of both countries enjoy excellent personal ties (everybody knows their counterpart by name). We just have to not appear to get along, when required by the politicians. This is just not common knowledge. In fact, I have been told that heaven and earth in Singapore can be moved to address an 'unofficial' Malaysian bilateral request.

Third, your politicians and bureaucrats want the average Malaysian to be happily unaware of external threads. And we will continue to respect the wishes of the Malaysian government, as not respecting your country's wishes would result in the closing of the lines of communications so painfully built over time. A good example of us respecting Malaysian wishes occurred in the clarifications in the aftermath of the arrest of Mas Selamat Kastari. Your people informed our PM shortly after the arrest took place on 1 April 2009 but requested that the matter be kept quiet. Therefore Singapore kept it as a closely guarded secret at the request of Malaysia until the story broke in May 2009.

Fourth, Malaysia is not a military threat to Singapore and has not been since 1979 (when our differences disappeared in the face of a potentially bigger threat). And most importantly to you, Singapore is also not a military threat to Malaysia as long as our national service system is in place - this is because we don't have an all volunteer army and to go to war means to shut down our economy. This mutual lack of initiating capability is 'deliberate' (in so far as both parties have not tried to destabilize the status quo). NB. This is different from the perception of threat by certain individuals in both countries and the desire to escalate tensions for a political purpose. This is also different from prudent defence contingency planning.

Granted, Malaysia currently faces no external threats but this has led to a sense complacency.

You do have external threats, but whether you are aware of it or not is another issue. Thankfully, the nature of external threats (not all of which are state level threats) changes over time.

To give one historical example that can now be stated. Singapore's AWACs were not bought primarily to engage in the defence of Singapore within Singapore borders. They were bought to assist in the defence of Thailand against the then Vietnamese/Soviet threat (remember the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1979). The SAF did not set up bases in Thailand to encircle Malaysia. Rather, we were getting in position to fight a delay battle, to buy time for Malaysia/Australia to mobilize (in hindsight all these plans were unnecessary). All 3 countries had a unity of purpose and position. It does not matter to us that the Malaysian public was never aware or if they misunderstood our intent during the relevant period.

Let me explain a little more. If Malaysia was a true potential threat, your officers would not be allowed on our custom engineered Fokker 50 MPAs (there would also be no joint 'Eyes-in-the-Sky' anti-pirate air patrols) and your Hornets would not be training in Australia with Thai and Singaporean F-16s who are vectored by our E-2C during Ex Pitch Back.

OPSSG, I was very interested in your statement that 'Malaysia has pretty strong ELINT capabilities compared to most ASEAN countries'. I was totally unaware of this. In the mid-90's however, Grintek received a USD 50 million order for a SIGINT system for the Malaysian army.

Beyond your army, your navy also has ELINT capabilities (including but not limited to Marconi Mentor ESM systems, Dasa Telegon communications ESM systems and other classified ELINT equipment on the two Scorpene subs). Janes has some reports that touch on the tip of the Malaysian ELINT and SIGINT iceberg.

Why do you think Malaysia is regarded as a capable developing country? And why are there no bombs going off in Malaysia (when the same is happening in Indonesia)?

To date, neither the media or any government or opposition figure has asked the 2 key questions- how will the capability gap created by the retirement of the Fulcrums effect the country's air defence security, which will be in the hands of just 8 Hornets, 13 Hawk 200s and 5 Hawk 100s and and how long will it be before this capability gap is filled? I suspect that even the government is unable to provide an answer for the last question.

I can't comment on a domestic politics issue. It's your country's internal debate.

 

[STURM]

OPSG,

when I mentioned that Malaysia has a vastly different threat perception than Singapore, in no way was I implying that Singapore sees Malaysia as a military threat or vice versa. As an island state surrounded by larger neighbours, it is only natural for Singapore to have a more serious outlook when it comes to national defence. On the other hand most Malaysians tend to take security for granted.

And of course, the defence of both countries are indivisible. Which also is why in the 70s, in the event of an overland Vietnamese threat through Thailand and the Malay peninsular, the SAF would have crossed into johore and beyond, with or without the Malaysian government's blessing. Personaly, and I know the average Malaysian would disagree with me, I feel another much larger neighbouring country poses a longer term threat to Malaysia. This is a country which has had a long turbelent relationship with Malaysia. I'm just hoping that history won't repeat itself.

 

[OPSSG]

when I mentioned that Malaysia has a vastly different threat perception than Singapore, in no way was I implying that Singapore sees Malaysia as a military threat or vice versa. As an island state surrounded by larger neighbours, it is only natural for Singapore to have a more serious outlook when it comes to national defence. On the other hand most Malaysians tend to take security for granted.

Thanks for the clarification.

And of course, the defence of both countries are indivisible.

We are agreed on this point.

Which also is why in the 70s, in the event of an overland Vietnamese threat through Thailand and the Malay peninsular, the SAF would have crossed into johore and beyond, with or without the Malaysian government's blessing.

No lah!

The SAF will need Malaysian government's blessing to engage in the defence of West Malaysia, as would be silly of us to fight the external enemy and Malaysians, at the same time. If your government does not approve, we will stay out of the fight until KL is threatened and ask again.

In all honesty, some Malaysians over estimate the SAF's capabilities, while some under estimate it. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It is important to keep in mind that until 1975, we did not have an air force (prior to that it was just an air defence command). IMO, the RSAF did not have a qualitative edge, viz a viz the air forces of other ASEAN countries until after 1990. So I would rate the SAF's capabilities at a much lower level prior to 1990. In other words, we needed Malaysia's permission in the '70s simply because we were not very capable. BTW, 1990 was also the time we first established a combined arms division (which is what you guys are doing now, as your army integrates the PT-91M into Malaysia's 3rd Division).

Personally, and I know the average Malaysian would disagree with me, I feel another much larger neighbouring country poses a longer term threat to Malaysia. This is a country which has had a long turbulent relationship with Malaysia. I'm just hoping that history won't repeat itself.

I'm quietly confident that history won't repeat itself. This is because I have every confidence in your country's defence and deterrence capabilities given that Malaysia now has a modern and deadly armour punch that can operate as part of a combined arms division. Malaysia operates 48 PT-91M MBTs, the ACV 300 Adnans (with additional units in the process of being delivered), the Astros II MLRS, 28 Denel howitzers, 18 Su-30MKMs and a half squadron of Hornets. IMO, it is an exciting time for your armed forces, as your guys are developing credible systems level fighting capabilities. The two remaining gaps are:

(i) heli-lift capabilities, which is limited at the moment; and

(ii) improved recce and ISR capabilities.

 

[komandoaktiv]

Hi there all,

I'm starting this thread to get ideas and opinions on how the RMAF can be 'improved' so that it will a credible defence force of Malaysia. As you all know, Malaysia is divided into 2 areas, West Malaysia and East Malaysia.

Currently our ORBAT are as follows:-
MiG-29 N (14) Fighter
F/A-18 D (8) Maritime/Night Strike
BAe Hawk 208 (16) Light Fighter
BAe Hawk 108 (6) Lead In Fighter Trainer/Light Strike
F-5 E (10) Light Fighter
Su-30 MKM (18 on order) Multirole Strike/Fighter

My dream ORBAT would be
2 Sqn of MRCA (Su30MKM and SuperHornets)
2 Sqn of Air superiority Fighters MiG 29N preferbably upgraded to SMT standard (the Mindef is looking into this)
1 Sqn of Light Strike (Hawk 100 would do fine here)
1 Sqn of Maritime Strike (Hornets or maybe SuperHornets)

although the above will wreck havoc to logistics.Malaysians has this 'affliction' of mixing eastern bloc and western bloc equipments

What you guys think. Maybe you have better ideas?

RMAF still did'nt have AEW&C and CSAR capability.We also did'nt have attack helicopters.
My dream ORBAT is

12 EC 725 multi-role (utility,SAR & CSAR)
3 EMB-145 AEW&C + 2 EMB-145 MULTI INTEL for ISR role
12 Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopters.
18 F/A-18E/F Block 2 Super Hornet ( replace 8 Hornet in services)
8 Denel Bateleur UAV for survellance and SIGINT
4 CN 235 MPA Persuader FITS (replace B200T in services)
6 A400M medium transport.

I suggest to upgrade all RMAF's MiG-29N to SMT standards with BVR missiles for air defense role.All remaining PC-7 (older variant) trainer aircraft also upgrade to PC-7 Mk II Turbo Trainer.

 

[STURM]

komandoaktiv,
I believe the last thing the RMAF needs now are attack helicopters. There are other more essential priorities like replacing the whole Nuri fleet, additional trainers, etc. As OPSSG pointed out, recce and ISR
capabilities are almost lacking, apart from a pair of RF-5Es.
Even if by some miracle money is made available in the near future, I think the RMAF should seriously take a look at lessons learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan with an eye to developing its own attack helicopter doctrine before even considering acquiring attack helicopters.

One of the lessons learnt in Iraq is that dedicated air defence teams with lots of light flak, MANPADs and early alerting devices can make life a bit miserable for attack helicopters. Im not dismissing the value of attack helicopters on the battlefield, but a lot depends on the nature of the threat and the terrain. Anyways, I believe its the army and not the RMAF that should be the operator of any future attack helicopters. The problem is at the moment, the army has neither the infrastructure nor the funds to operate any kind of additional helicopters.

Any thoughts on this OPSSG?

 

[OPSSG]

Any thoughts on this OPSSG?

Plenty but I'm a little hesitant as I don't want to come across as an arrogant Singaporean. Nevertheless, I'll try my best to respond to your question.

Your armed forces (and not just your air force) is in the middle of a great transformation. To understand where your armed forces needs to go, you must know:

(i) where you are;
(ii) what has NOT changed; and
(ii) what has changed.​

The thing that changes most with the PT-91M is the drastic change in your army's understanding of time and space. The twin concepts of time and space become compressed. This compression creates new needs that prior infantry centric only warfare did not previously have. To some extent, the PT-91M platform is the basis of for Malaysia's army's new mobility. What your armed forces (including your air force) needs to do is to fix the other parts so as to integrate the diverse parts into a coherent whole. A good plan must be both coherent and sequential.

Your guys need to make the acquisition of a full second fighter squadron a No. 2 priority. This aircraft platform choice should be one with strong A2G capabilities to provide support for your armoured thrusts.

As OPSSG pointed out, recce and ISR

The compression of time and space greatly increases the need for recce assets and in essence your army becomes very much more ISR hungry. Part of this will be achieved by reorganization and training. The other part by selective acquisition of relevant new technology. Some of the tools that look old may not need to be replaced. What is needed is to intelligently supplement existing capabilities.

More UAVs, more night vision equipment and more ground sensors are essential if the Malaysian way of war is to change. Your guys need to make the acquisition of more UAVs a No. 1 priority. And I mean more UAVs than what seems to be in the current plans announced (like the Aludra from Unmanned Systems Technology Sdn Bhd and the Cyber Eye and Cyber Shark series from the Sapura Group).

capabilities are almost lacking, apart from a pair of RF-5Es.

I've spent many hours staring at air photos as part of terrain study. Do you know that air-photos provide stereo-scopic details on terrain features (as the RF-5Es have 2 cameras installed that take two photos of the same piece of ground)? Air photos from the RF-5Es are absolutely essential in terrain studies. This is why UAVs do not remove the need for air-photos in Malaysia.

I believe the last thing the RMAF needs now are attack helicopters. There are other more essential priorities like replacing the whole Nuri fleet

At first glance, what might seem wrong, is not. At some point, when Malaysia has more air lift assets - the need for tools (like attack helicopters) to suppress ground fire will become more acute. Further attack helicopters are useful for other roles that the Malaysian public never considers. This would include a coastal defence role or other less conventional roles (attack helicopters have used to take out swarming small boat threats, radar installations and so on).

I agree that you are right. At the moment, the RMAF need more transports and it should be your No. 3 priority. IMO, current Malaysia's total helicopter troop lift capabilities is grossly inadequate. 12 new helicopters are not adequate. It must be seen as only a first step and multiple follow on buys are required. Attack helicopters will rank lower at No. 5, after improving air defence systems at No. 4 .

Anyways, I believe its the army and not the RMAF that should be the operator of any future attack helicopters. The problem is at the moment, the army has neither the infrastructure nor the funds to operate any kind of additional helicopters.

That should be an internal Malaysian debate. I'll stay out of internal discussions.

 

[STURM]

I totally agree with you, OPSG. Recent deliveries of new gear have transformed the army and the air force, giving both capabilities they never had, on paper. It can't be called a transformation unitil enough expertise is gained to operate the new stuff with existing capabilities, in line with a new doctrine. It is my personal opinion that both services still have a long way to go in changing their mindset s as to how they plan to transform themselves. Both have to wake up to the fact that they can't expect to have a bit of everything and have to deal with current priorities. Both have to learn how to walk before running. Then again this is just my opinion. The good news today is that the press has announced that the current RMAF Chief who's retiring soon has been selected to be the next armed forces chief. Again it a personal opinion but I believe that apart from the neglect shown to toward this country's defence by our politicans, another problem is that many of the army's top brass haven't stepped away from their counter-insurgency mindset.

In line with the current threat, level priority should be on dealing with low intensity threats and other existing problems like piracy, smuggling, the potential for terrorism, etc.
I would have gladly canceled the order for the 2 ASTROS batteries and used it for something more urgently needed! Funds shoulds should also be allocated so that live firing can be done on a more regular basis. There's been talk for some years of getting medium range SAMs when other more important stuff with a peacetime utility is lacking.
I mentioned it on other forums and I'll do the same here, whats needed for the army is lots and lots of night vision gear, thousands of rifle sights for the M4s, personal comms, improved personal kit, etc. I have thought about operating attack helis in the maritime role from RMN ships or coastal bases but like you, I firmly believe that currently the main priority should be an adequate number of Cougars and lots and lots of UAVs operated by a joint command. Its a tough question but which at the the moment is more needed, additional dedicated MPAs to add to the 4 in service or fighters to replace the Fulcrums? Given the scarcity of funds at the moment, its a tough question to answer.

Oh and OPSSG, about your fears of being branded as an arrogant Singaporean, no sensible person in this forum, Malaysian or otherwise, would say that about you. Believe me, I've had my fair share of encounters with arrogant and clueless Singaporeans.
No offence intended to you.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

I don't think the RMAF needs to invest anymore on "goodies". Apart from the added "costs" this is an air force that more or less, is operating on optimum strain. Servicing 3 different platforms can be a headache, so I guess that's why they're getting rid of the Migs, all 16 of them. It is viable after all, 26 heavy class fighters should be sufficient until 2020, when the JSF should be available on the open market. The RMAF historically, never operated a large number of fighters, it's always been several dozen aircraft of one type, plus the usual propaganda that's spun around constantly, like a bomoh telling his clients how convincing his medicine is. In all fairness, Malaysia does not have any serious regional enemies to be preoccupied about, and in any case, the Malaysians can always rely on the Singaporeans for help - Just sign a package agreement with Lee Hsien Loong and you're smiling, sand, bridge and all

But if there's a real necessity, then I don't think the RMAF nor the MoD has the political gumption to make a statement of intent, and say, purchase 2 dozen F18s off the shelf, as a stopgap measure, until the emergence of a 5th generation platform. As for the Cougars, I got blasted for my earlier comments, and in the political climate the country is in now, you can kiss those prestige projects goodbye, what with the DAP going on and on about military procurement amongst other concerns raised

So OPSSG, Selangor is the priority now, Perak has fallen, and there are more serious political aims to address. Unfortunately, this spills over to our Military Budgets

 

[OPSSG]

@STURM, on a personal note, when you hit 50 posts you can get PMs. BTW, I'll be traveling later today and may have limited access to internet over the next 2 weeks.

I totally agree with you, OPSG. Recent deliveries of new gear have transformed the army and the air force, giving both capabilities they never had, on paper. It can't be called a transformation until enough expertise is gained to operate the new stuff with existing capabilities, in line with a new doctrine.

I'm quite excited for the Malaysian armed forces.

Both have to learn how to walk before running. Then again this is just my opinion.

Yes and I think they are working out the kinks.

The good news today is that the press has announced that the current RMAF Chief who's retiring soon has been selected to be the next armed forces chief.

Interesting development.

... I firmly believe that currently the main priority should be an adequate number of Cougars and lots and lots of UAVs operated by a joint command. Its a tough question but which at the the moment is more needed, additional dedicated MPAs to add to the 4 in service or fighters to replace the Fulcrums? Given the scarcity of funds at the moment, its a tough question to answer.

I'll classify additional MPAs as part of Malaysia's ISR needs (which I previously posted on in this thread). The plus side of MPAs they have a civilian benefit of being able to track pirates and illegal immigrants.

 

[OPSSG]

...this is an air force that more or less, is operating on optimum strain. Servicing 3 different platforms can be a headache, so I guess that's why they're getting rid of the Migs, all 16 of them.

Reducing logistics complexity is good. Otherwise it is easy to score own goals with availability and maintenance issues.

It is viable after all, 26 heavy class fighters should be sufficient until 2020, when the JSF should be available on the open market.

I'm a believer in the JSF.

...in any case, the Malaysians can always rely on the Singaporeans for help - Just sign a package agreement with Lee Hsien Loong and you're smiling, sand, bridge and all

With regards to disputes in South China Sea with China, IMO, Malaysia's pretty much on your own. Given Singapore's investments in China, we are effectively checkmated.

BTW, Singapore is also much more reliant on trade with Indonesia today, compared to the '80s. That being the case, we are also effectively checkmated there too.

... until the emergence of a 5th generation platform.

The JSF is just round the corner.

 

[komandoaktiv]

Is this purely about F-18/Su-30 or is the RMAF looking at other alternatives, like used Gripens or Mirage 2000 ?

Better if RMAF decided to buy new JAS 39 Gripen NG + 2 - 4 Saab 2000 AEW & C.Or Refurbished F/A -18 D Hornet ex US from AMARC storage.

 

[the road runner]

Better if RMAF decided to buy new JAS 39 Gripen NG + 2 - 4 Saab 2000 AEW & C.Or Refurbished F/A -18 D Hornet ex US from AMARC storage.

For Cost I would also agree that the Gripen with a package of AEWC of Saab would be a very attractive proposition.

For capability you cannot go pass the F18 E/F/G Rhinos,(i honestley think they will win alot of contracts over the next 10 years,Indian order,Brazil and also the new aircraft for the UK navys Aircraft carriers)

As to Ex US F/A 18D hornets, i would stay away from those fatigued airframes.Remember they are Navy planes ,that have had such forces placed on there Airframes by the rigors of landing and takeoffs from Carriers.

Also i would assume that a number of ex US F18 A/B/C/D would have corrosive issues on the airframes,being a Navy plane.

Malaysia should consolidate its fleet.I am a believer in the F18 Rhinos,but thats me.

As the Malays have purchased SU30.........maybee this is the aircraft they should just continue to purchase,sell the F18,and consolidate the Fleet of SU 30s

Comments always welcomed
Regards.......

 

[komandoaktiv]

Malaysia should consolidate its fleet.I am a believer in the F18 Rhinos,but thats me.

As the Malays have purchased SU30.........maybee this is the aircraft they should just continue to purchase,sell the F18,and consolidate the Fleet of SU 30s

In my opinion, RMAF should get rid of their MiGs first, then followed by Hawks.RMAF with Su-30MKM and F/A-18D (or replaced with Super Hornet/Gripen NG) are quite a potent force in South East Asia.

 

[STURM]

Mr. Ignorant raised a good point. Instead of asking the right questions, DAP instead made some ill-informed and ignorant questions about the Cougar deal. A senior DAP official implied that the RMAF should have chosen the Mil-17 solely due to its cheaper price tag without taking into consideration other very important factors like operating costs, logistics, availability of spares and product support, etc.On the government's part, it should have made a better effort in explaining the whole issue to the country. Having members of the opposition who are who are well versed in defence matters would be benificial to the country, but unfortunatly this is not the case.

I feel the only deal that will be signed in the near future is the Cougar deal. Announcing a major deal for fighters or AEW aircraft under the present political/enocomic enviroment wouldn't bring much thanks for the government, especially with a public who remains largely ignorant concerning defence issues and complacent about the country's security. Anyway, enough of local politics. For a start, I would be very happy if funds are provided for a data link, HUMs and Adders for 11 Squadron. Mr.Ignorant pointed out that the RMAF has never operated a large fighter fleet. Apart from funding, I feel this is also due to the fact that until the early 90's, the main role of the RMAF was supporting the country's counter insurgency efforts and contributing to the task of nation building. Keeping Malaysian skies safe from foreign intruders was secondary.

 

[STURM]

Bernama reported a few days ago thata contract for10-12 cougars will be signed at LIMA2009.
Though the RMAF has a long term requirement for 74, funding has only been approved for 27- 12 under the current Malaysia Plan and 15 under the next Malaysia Plan which starts in 2011.

 

[sunshin3]

Bernama reported a few days ago thata contract for10-12 cougars will be signed at LIMA2009.
Though the RMAF has a long term requirement for 74, funding has only been approved for 27- 12 under the current Malaysia Plan and 15 under the next Malaysia Plan which starts in 2011.

Good news. I believe the Cougars will be able to stay in RMAF service longer than the Mil-17 (if it had been chosen), as their engines are rated for a longer service life, IIRC.

For clarity, the current Malaysia Plan is the 9th lasting from 2006 to 2010. Malaysia plans are in five year cycles as follows:

10th Plan - 2011-2015
11th Plan - 2016-2020
12th Plan -2021-2025

and so on... in 5 year increments.