Malaysian media sources have confirmed that the RMAF has no intention to acquire additional SU-30MKM (link to a Chinese language report). Not surprising.
Last edited:
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
I agree. There is still the option of leasing a civilian transport ship for immediate requirements. Also, we still have 2 other transports available.
I agree again. There is nothing like knowing that you can hit him back to deter your opponent.
Yes, Malaysia does. Money is the least of our worries when it comes to defence matters. The greater challenge has always been to get our decision-makers to concur that an imminent threat exist.
But I doubt we will see a jump to the S-300 from our present capabilities. I think we will see a progression to an ESHORAD system and then on to an MR-SAM first.
No private media source has ever been able to confirm what the government will decide. The officials will tell you that the information was accurate at that time. That circumstances has since changed, blah, blah, blah. Absolutely everyone is playing up the hype leading to LIMA 2009. BTW, the general concerned retires early next year. He's already had his term extended pass mandatory retirement.
Wait for announcements during or after LIMA 2009.
Sorry, I was referring to Azizan. Another year? That will be disappointing.
It's not a given , but since Azizan took over only in Sept, it'll be a bit odd for him to hold the post for less than a year and have the armed forces go through the whole thing of having another chief in such a short period so I expect a year's extension at the minimum.
We should totaly do away with ideas for SV-300s and medium range SAM's. At present GAPU doesn't even have enough MANPADS and early alerting devices to provide low level protection for the infantry battalions and vital installations. Yet, there has been a long standing requirement for medium range SAMS. Lets stick to the basics first. It's like in the 90's, when some in the army toyed with the idea of going for SMERCH, when the army didn't even have enough towed pieces and didn't get the chance to fire live rounds on a regular basis. The priority when hard cash is available should be on a replacement for the Starburst, in sufficient numbers for all 3 services.
As for the MKMs let wait a year or so from now to see what the servicibility rates are like. Even taking into account the shorter lifespans of Russian engines, the higher operating costs and different operating philosophy, its still too early to draw conclusions about the MKMs. Having learnt a bitter lesson on Russian product support from operating the Fulcrums and for commonality the government should not have forced the MKM onto the RMAF. Buts its all water under the bridge now, and the MKM is here to stay.
As for the MKMs let wait a year or so from now to see what the servicibility rates are like. Even taking into account the shorter lifespans of Russian engines, the higher operating costs and different operating philosophy, its still too early to draw conclusions about the MKMs. Having learnt a bitter lesson on Russian product support from operating the Fulcrums and for commonality the government should not have forced the MKM onto the RMAF. Buts its all water under the bridge now, and the MKM is here to stay.
Last edited:
genduthijau
New Member
the allocation for defence for the year 2010 is not that impressive, i don't think we can afford the MR-SAM. The allocation in my opinion, is more for the maintenance of the current system that MAF have. don't put to much hope on any procurement during LIMA09.
You're right about the budget not being impressive.
Actually, the part about the MR-SAM was a reference to progressive capability build-up rather than an expectation of a purchase during LIMA09.
Talk about MR-SAMs first surfaced in the late 90's with a lot of speculation that BUK-1M was a leading contender. If i'm not mistaken, Janes in the late 90's reported that the Improved Hawk had also been offered. What I think would really improve the army's AD capabilities would be AHEAD ammo for the 2 Oerlikon 35mm regiments. I still think that guns have a vital role to play and that for the forseeable future, GAPU should never be an all missile force. Though they have been overhauled by Contraves, GAPU's Skyguards have yet to be upgraded [But then again, I'm not sure if Contraves even offers an upgrade]. Like last LIMA, this year's LIMA will probably include a lot of MOU's and non-military deals signed.
Replacement of Malaysia MiG-29s Faces Future Budget Challenges
Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com
defpro.com | The Malaysian Government has indicated that it intends to retire its entire fleet of MiG-29N interceptors by the end of 2010. The government is expected to save RM260 million ($75.68 million, €51.30 million) annually by phasing out the aircraft. Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said the money saved would be utilised to pay for the maintenance of other aircraft and systems which were still being used in the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF).
He said the MiG-29N fighter jets would be phased out as it was difficult and costly to maintain some old components and systems for the fighter jets.
"The weaponry for the fighter jets has reached the end of its lifespan and extending the lifespan would be costly and would not be viable," he told Parliament. Ahmad Zahid said this when replying to Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud) who wanted to know the rationale in phasing out the Russian-made MiG-29N jet fighters.
The minister said the RMAF planned to replace the MiG-29N fighter jets with the 'Multi Role Combat Aircraft' (MRCA) for air operations. "After the MiG-29N fighter jets have been phased out, their role would be carried out by the Sukhoi SU-30MKM which is among the most sophisticated long-range fighter jets," he said.
The MiG-29N aircraft played the role of interceptor jets and 18 of the fighter jets were purchased for the RMAF in 1993. However, two of the aircraft crashed in 1998 and 2005.
The Malaysian decision marks the “end of an era”, as Malaysia was the first non-Soviet block country to acquire Russian combat aircraft. Malaysia is now expected to float a request for proposal (RFP) for 18 new-generation fighter aircraft to replace the MiG-29Ns. This may take the form of long-expected follow-on order for a second batch of F/A-18s (these would now be in the SUPER HORNET version), but thinking in Kuala Lumpur appears to be in favour of an open tender. Circulation of the RFP is expected sometimes next year after completion of a study on the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s fighter requirements. It seems likely that all major combat aircraft manufactures will be invited to submit their bids. Given the current emphasis on bolstering its indigenous defence industry, Malaysia would probably include not only the usual request for offsets, but also technology transfer and industrial partnership clauses.
In the meantime, Russia's state arms exporter Rosoboronexport has already offered to buy back the remaining 16 MiG-29Ns and in turn supply the RMAF with a follow-on batch of six Su-30MKMs at what is described as a “fair price”.
The RMAF’s plans for the purchase of a new fleet of fighter aircraft are, however, facing very serious financial obstacles. The global economic downturn appears to have been a damper for the Malaysian defence procurement. Since 2008, Kuala Lumpur has been careful not to announce any major orders but rather proceed with ongoing commitments. The defence procurement budget is under strain, as the government focuses on economic recovery.
The 10th Five-Year Malaysian Plan (2011-1015), which is to the submitted to Parliament in June 2010, is expected to propose procurement and development funding to the tune of RM7 billion (some $1.6 billion) for the entire defence and security sector, with some RM5 billion being allocated for defence proper. It is further understood that nearly half the total amount will be invested in order to replenish war stocks (missiles, bombs and ammunition), with relatively little money being left for new procurement efforts. Also, at least 30 per cent of the available money will be reserved for purchases from the national defence industry. Clearly enough there is no way the purchase of 18 new-generation aircraft could be financed under these conditions.
----
By Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, Editor-in-Chief of MILITARY TECHNOLOGY (defence.professionals | defpro.com)
Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com
defpro.com | The Malaysian Government has indicated that it intends to retire its entire fleet of MiG-29N interceptors by the end of 2010. The government is expected to save RM260 million ($75.68 million, €51.30 million) annually by phasing out the aircraft. Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said the money saved would be utilised to pay for the maintenance of other aircraft and systems which were still being used in the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF).
He said the MiG-29N fighter jets would be phased out as it was difficult and costly to maintain some old components and systems for the fighter jets.
"The weaponry for the fighter jets has reached the end of its lifespan and extending the lifespan would be costly and would not be viable," he told Parliament. Ahmad Zahid said this when replying to Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud) who wanted to know the rationale in phasing out the Russian-made MiG-29N jet fighters.
The minister said the RMAF planned to replace the MiG-29N fighter jets with the 'Multi Role Combat Aircraft' (MRCA) for air operations. "After the MiG-29N fighter jets have been phased out, their role would be carried out by the Sukhoi SU-30MKM which is among the most sophisticated long-range fighter jets," he said.
The MiG-29N aircraft played the role of interceptor jets and 18 of the fighter jets were purchased for the RMAF in 1993. However, two of the aircraft crashed in 1998 and 2005.
The Malaysian decision marks the “end of an era”, as Malaysia was the first non-Soviet block country to acquire Russian combat aircraft. Malaysia is now expected to float a request for proposal (RFP) for 18 new-generation fighter aircraft to replace the MiG-29Ns. This may take the form of long-expected follow-on order for a second batch of F/A-18s (these would now be in the SUPER HORNET version), but thinking in Kuala Lumpur appears to be in favour of an open tender. Circulation of the RFP is expected sometimes next year after completion of a study on the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s fighter requirements. It seems likely that all major combat aircraft manufactures will be invited to submit their bids. Given the current emphasis on bolstering its indigenous defence industry, Malaysia would probably include not only the usual request for offsets, but also technology transfer and industrial partnership clauses.
In the meantime, Russia's state arms exporter Rosoboronexport has already offered to buy back the remaining 16 MiG-29Ns and in turn supply the RMAF with a follow-on batch of six Su-30MKMs at what is described as a “fair price”.
The RMAF’s plans for the purchase of a new fleet of fighter aircraft are, however, facing very serious financial obstacles. The global economic downturn appears to have been a damper for the Malaysian defence procurement. Since 2008, Kuala Lumpur has been careful not to announce any major orders but rather proceed with ongoing commitments. The defence procurement budget is under strain, as the government focuses on economic recovery.
The 10th Five-Year Malaysian Plan (2011-1015), which is to the submitted to Parliament in June 2010, is expected to propose procurement and development funding to the tune of RM7 billion (some $1.6 billion) for the entire defence and security sector, with some RM5 billion being allocated for defence proper. It is further understood that nearly half the total amount will be invested in order to replenish war stocks (missiles, bombs and ammunition), with relatively little money being left for new procurement efforts. Also, at least 30 per cent of the available money will be reserved for purchases from the national defence industry. Clearly enough there is no way the purchase of 18 new-generation aircraft could be financed under these conditions.
----
By Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, Editor-in-Chief of MILITARY TECHNOLOGY (defence.professionals | defpro.com)
If this is true, I don't really understand the stated basis of the decision.
RMAF bought a low cost fighter that has higher maintenance costs. If you save money up-front at the point of initial purchase (by buying Russian), you pay more later for maintenance.
As I understand it, these jets are represented to have a service life of 4,000 hours and they also require a Programme for Preventative and Restoration Work (PPRW) at 1,000 hour intervals (early variants of the MiG-29 produced in the early 1980s were rated at 2,500 total flight hours). And according to the July 2005 issue of Tempur, some of these Malaysian Migs have hit their 1,000 hour around 2005 and by logic, they had 1,000 hour PPRW work done on them. [h/t to spiderweb6969 for posting the July 2005 issue of Tempur in another forum]
What does Ahmad Zahid mean when he says that the weaponry of the Malaysian Migs have reached the end of its lifespan? Marhalim Abas certainly has a different take on the issue, calling it 'Mig-29N and the Middlemen Mafia'. It is reported that up to 20 local companies are involved in supplying parts to the RMAF's authorized maintenance organization, ATSC Sdn Bhd, which leads to the high costs.
IMO, the Malaysian Migs can't have hit 4,000 hours. Can the RMAF sell them to India? Any thoughts or comments by our Russian or Malaysian friends in DT?
Further, why weren't the Mig 29s traded in when the Su-30MKM purchase was made (if they are indeed replacements)?
Last edited:
The Fulcrums weren't traded in then because the intention was for the Fulcrums to remain in service for a few more years. There were unofficial reports about 2 years ago that the Fulcrums would be replaced by the Flankers but in an interview the RMAF chief said that the Flankers would supplement and not replace the Fulcrums. I find the Defence Minister's statement '' that the weaponry of the Fulcrums had reached the end of their lifespan'' contradictory and puzzling. In an earlier newspaper report, someone senior [I forget who] said that for 11SQ, emphasis would be on procuring air to ground ordnance as the air to air ordnance would be shared with the Fulcrum squadron.
Anyone have any idea what the shelf life of the Alamos and Archers are? According to a former NVA Fulcrum pilot I spoke to, Vympel delivers its missiles in plastic wrapping. After testing or operational flights, the missiles are then re-sealed in plastic. I suppose the key question is does the RMAF have a proper storage facilty, as laid down by Vympel, for its Archers and Alamos. In another blog, it was mentioned that some of the IAF's missiles had time expired earlier due to a lack of a proper storage facility.
Anyone have any idea what the shelf life of the Alamos and Archers are? According to a former NVA Fulcrum pilot I spoke to, Vympel delivers its missiles in plastic wrapping. After testing or operational flights, the missiles are then re-sealed in plastic. I suppose the key question is does the RMAF have a proper storage facilty, as laid down by Vympel, for its Archers and Alamos. In another blog, it was mentioned that some of the IAF's missiles had time expired earlier due to a lack of a proper storage facility.
Last edited:
In 2008, the Indian air force sent the first Mig-29s to Russia for a major upgrade estimated to cost US$960 million (Rs3,840 crore) (which includes extending the service life of the Indian Mig-29s to 4,000 hours, new Klimov RD-33 engines, avionics and new multi-functional Zhuk-ME radars).
@STURM, could the Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid be referring to the fact that it may not be cost effective to overhaul the RD-33 engines, upgrade the radar and avionics to handle the latest generation of Russian A2A missiles?
In my case, I have a limited understanding of Russian aircraft and their upgrade options. Therefore, I would appreciate input.
@STURM, could the Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid be referring to the fact that it may not be cost effective to overhaul the RD-33 engines, upgrade the radar and avionics to handle the latest generation of Russian A2A missiles?
In my case, I have a limited understanding of Russian aircraft and their upgrade options. Therefore, I would appreciate input.
Last edited:
OPSSG, My guess is that the Defence Minister was refering to the costs of overhauling the engines, and not the costs of a future upgrade. Another problem as you know is the supply chain, the need to go through various local vendors for spares support.
I think the main lesson to be learnt from the Fucrum saga is that if a traditional operator of Western types makes a shift to Russian gear, a whole new operating philosophy is needed, both to cope with the shorter life spans of Russian engines and other components and in dealing with the Russian supply chain.
Prior to ordering the Fucrums, one of the RMAF's requirements were for the RD-33s to be have a longer MTBF. I suspect part of the problem is the amount of hours flown, by 2001the Fulcrum fleet had clocked 8,700 hours, much more than would have been flown in Russian service, even during the days of the Soviet Unon. Other modifications were a Cossor IFF, AN/APN-118 TACAN, TNL-2000 GPS, AN/APN-147 VOR/ILS and 2 VHF/UHF radios. The fleet was also reportedly fitted with a new flight control limiter, rudder enhancer and Indian made wet cell battery. The Fulcrums are fitted with BVP-30-26M chaff/flare dispensers, but unlike other export Fulcrums I'm not sure if they were delivered with the L006LM radar homing and warning system.
Though neither the mainstream media or local defence mags have mentioned it, the Fulcrums 'N's [izdeliye 9-12SD] were actually manufactured from 1988 to 1990 and were stored after the Soviet Air force was unable to pay for them. Until only recently, no new Fulcrums were manufactured. Reports of troubles with obtaining spares first surfaced publicly in mid-2001, but at LIMA 2001 in December, I counted 11 operational Fulcrums. In addition to displaying the MiG-29M2 MRCA at LIMA 2001, RAC MiG also proposed upgrading the ‘N’ fleet to ‘SMT’ [9-17] standard the same year.
I think the main lesson to be learnt from the Fucrum saga is that if a traditional operator of Western types makes a shift to Russian gear, a whole new operating philosophy is needed, both to cope with the shorter life spans of Russian engines and other components and in dealing with the Russian supply chain.
Prior to ordering the Fucrums, one of the RMAF's requirements were for the RD-33s to be have a longer MTBF. I suspect part of the problem is the amount of hours flown, by 2001the Fulcrum fleet had clocked 8,700 hours, much more than would have been flown in Russian service, even during the days of the Soviet Unon. Other modifications were a Cossor IFF, AN/APN-118 TACAN, TNL-2000 GPS, AN/APN-147 VOR/ILS and 2 VHF/UHF radios. The fleet was also reportedly fitted with a new flight control limiter, rudder enhancer and Indian made wet cell battery. The Fulcrums are fitted with BVP-30-26M chaff/flare dispensers, but unlike other export Fulcrums I'm not sure if they were delivered with the L006LM radar homing and warning system.
Though neither the mainstream media or local defence mags have mentioned it, the Fulcrums 'N's [izdeliye 9-12SD] were actually manufactured from 1988 to 1990 and were stored after the Soviet Air force was unable to pay for them. Until only recently, no new Fulcrums were manufactured. Reports of troubles with obtaining spares first surfaced publicly in mid-2001, but at LIMA 2001 in December, I counted 11 operational Fulcrums. In addition to displaying the MiG-29M2 MRCA at LIMA 2001, RAC MiG also proposed upgrading the ‘N’ fleet to ‘SMT’ [9-17] standard the same year.
Last edited:
Not sure if this has been posted.
Su-30MKM will not suffer same fate as MiG-29N
STUNG by the controversy surrounding the high maintenance bill for the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) fleet of MiG-29N Fulcrum fleet, the Russian defence industry is to roll out a thorough “life support” for RMAF’s newly acquired Sukhoi multi-role jets.
Defence industry sources told Malay Mail that the programme would ensure that RMAF’s Sukhoi Su-30MKM Flanker fleet would not suffer the same fate as the 15-year-old Fulcrums.
The Fulcrum will be retired from service by end of next year, some 10 years before its scheduled date of retirement.
And unlike the Fulcrum, the Sukhoi support contract would be on a government-to-government basis. The support contract was part of the off-set programme of the RM3.1 billion deal for the Flankers, signed in 2003.
Another off-set programme was training of Malaysian astronauts.
“The support contract was mutually insisted by the RMAF and the Russians during negotiations prior to contract signing. Both parties acknowledged the problems faced by the MiG fleet,” the sources added.
They said the new arrangement was designed to ensure that the cost of maintaining the 18 Flankers,
already delivered to RMAF, would not become prohibitively expensive, unlike the Fulcrums, that was cited as the main reason for its premature retirement.
The service centre is expected to completed by the middle of next year at the RMAF Gong Kedak air base on the border of Kelantan and Terengganu, where the Flanker squadron is located.
Defence Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi on Wednesday told Parliament that the government was expected to save RM260 million annually by phasing out the MiG-29N Fulcrum fighter jets on Dec 31, next year.
In 1993, the government paid some RM1.3 billion for 18 Fulcrums, 16 single-seater and two twin-seater. The aircraft were delivered in batches from 1995.
Ahmad Zahid said the fighter jets were being phased out as it was difficult and costly to maintain some old components and systems for the fighter jets.
“The weaponry for the jets has reached the end of its lifespan and extending the lifespan would be costly and not be viable,” he told the Dewan Rakyat.
Ahmad Zahid said this when replying to Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud) who wanted to know the rationale for phasing out the Russian-made fighters.
According to Ahmad Zahid, each MiG also needed to undergo preventive and restoration work that would cost RM10 million, and RM7 million for engine overhaul every year after completing flights between 1,000 hours and 4,000 hours.
He said the cost of maintaining the MiGs was also high as the jets needed to be sent to Russia for overhaul.
The Flankers are expected to assume the role of the Fulcrums.
On the need to send the planes to Russia, the sources said it was not economical for the overhaul or upgrading work to be done locally.
“Only India, that operates a large number of MiG-29s, has the capability to do such programmes in their own country,” the sources said, adding that the issue had actually cropped about four years ago when the Fulcrum fleet celebrated its 10th year anniversary,.
The sources also said the cost of maintenance was not included in the original Fulcrum procurement contract, unlike the contracts for Western-made aircraft. That was the main reason that the Fulcrums initial procurement cost was about three times cheaper than its Western-made counterparts.
The sources said back in 1993, Russian arms exporters had not reached the level of sophistication of Western arms manufacturers.
“They (Russians) relied mostly on Soviet-style support system that unfortunately caused a lot of problems to non-traditional clients like Malaysia”.
The problem was exacerbated by the Malaysian government procurement policy that only limited the spares and parts suppliers to local companies. Some 20 local companies were involved in supplying parts and spares to RMAF and its authorised maintenance organisation, ATSC Sdn Bhd.
“Everybody wanted to make money and in the end, it was the air force that ended up with high repair bills. The MiG-29s remain in service in many poor countries including Myanmar, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cuba and Peru.
Some of these countries are operating even older versions of the Fulcrum.”
The sources said if Malaysia could sell the planes, the Fulcrums could theoretically remain in service
for another 15 years.
The sources admitted that the Fulcrum saga had seriously damaged any future prospects of arms purchases from Russia.
Indeed, Ahmad Zahid told reporters, the ministry was looking to France, United States, Sweden and United Kingdom for its next fighter jets.
Su-30MKM will not suffer same fate as MiG-29N
STUNG by the controversy surrounding the high maintenance bill for the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) fleet of MiG-29N Fulcrum fleet, the Russian defence industry is to roll out a thorough “life support” for RMAF’s newly acquired Sukhoi multi-role jets.
Defence industry sources told Malay Mail that the programme would ensure that RMAF’s Sukhoi Su-30MKM Flanker fleet would not suffer the same fate as the 15-year-old Fulcrums.
The Fulcrum will be retired from service by end of next year, some 10 years before its scheduled date of retirement.
And unlike the Fulcrum, the Sukhoi support contract would be on a government-to-government basis. The support contract was part of the off-set programme of the RM3.1 billion deal for the Flankers, signed in 2003.
Another off-set programme was training of Malaysian astronauts.
“The support contract was mutually insisted by the RMAF and the Russians during negotiations prior to contract signing. Both parties acknowledged the problems faced by the MiG fleet,” the sources added.
They said the new arrangement was designed to ensure that the cost of maintaining the 18 Flankers,
already delivered to RMAF, would not become prohibitively expensive, unlike the Fulcrums, that was cited as the main reason for its premature retirement.
The service centre is expected to completed by the middle of next year at the RMAF Gong Kedak air base on the border of Kelantan and Terengganu, where the Flanker squadron is located.
Defence Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi on Wednesday told Parliament that the government was expected to save RM260 million annually by phasing out the MiG-29N Fulcrum fighter jets on Dec 31, next year.
In 1993, the government paid some RM1.3 billion for 18 Fulcrums, 16 single-seater and two twin-seater. The aircraft were delivered in batches from 1995.
Ahmad Zahid said the fighter jets were being phased out as it was difficult and costly to maintain some old components and systems for the fighter jets.
“The weaponry for the jets has reached the end of its lifespan and extending the lifespan would be costly and not be viable,” he told the Dewan Rakyat.
Ahmad Zahid said this when replying to Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud) who wanted to know the rationale for phasing out the Russian-made fighters.
According to Ahmad Zahid, each MiG also needed to undergo preventive and restoration work that would cost RM10 million, and RM7 million for engine overhaul every year after completing flights between 1,000 hours and 4,000 hours.
He said the cost of maintaining the MiGs was also high as the jets needed to be sent to Russia for overhaul.
The Flankers are expected to assume the role of the Fulcrums.
On the need to send the planes to Russia, the sources said it was not economical for the overhaul or upgrading work to be done locally.
“Only India, that operates a large number of MiG-29s, has the capability to do such programmes in their own country,” the sources said, adding that the issue had actually cropped about four years ago when the Fulcrum fleet celebrated its 10th year anniversary,.
The sources also said the cost of maintenance was not included in the original Fulcrum procurement contract, unlike the contracts for Western-made aircraft. That was the main reason that the Fulcrums initial procurement cost was about three times cheaper than its Western-made counterparts.
The sources said back in 1993, Russian arms exporters had not reached the level of sophistication of Western arms manufacturers.
“They (Russians) relied mostly on Soviet-style support system that unfortunately caused a lot of problems to non-traditional clients like Malaysia”.
The problem was exacerbated by the Malaysian government procurement policy that only limited the spares and parts suppliers to local companies. Some 20 local companies were involved in supplying parts and spares to RMAF and its authorised maintenance organisation, ATSC Sdn Bhd.
“Everybody wanted to make money and in the end, it was the air force that ended up with high repair bills. The MiG-29s remain in service in many poor countries including Myanmar, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cuba and Peru.
Some of these countries are operating even older versions of the Fulcrum.”
The sources said if Malaysia could sell the planes, the Fulcrums could theoretically remain in service
for another 15 years.
The sources admitted that the Fulcrum saga had seriously damaged any future prospects of arms purchases from Russia.
Indeed, Ahmad Zahid told reporters, the ministry was looking to France, United States, Sweden and United Kingdom for its next fighter jets.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
It's likely that the RMAF will obtain like for like; in the coming spending review; if ever the present Government returns to stability. Elections can change many, many budgets and other lesser known projects. However, on the plus side, the Mig 29s can finally be retired, a superior attack aircraft bedevilled by the terms and conditions of its purchase, rather than the correct application of financial and technical resources.
I think the RMAF needs a root and branch review, before the leadership endeavours to conclude another round of decision making, tests, and defence spending. The money should be spent on training better ground and maintenance crews, investing in better infrastructure, improving flight training; and possibly furthering bilateral relationships vis a vis training exercises and training arrangements. I hasten to add that perhaps the RMAF should consider sending future students to the UK for flight training. The Indian Air Force are doing so already, and this would eliminate any possiblitly of graduating poor quality pilots.
Off course, we could all ogle the Mirage Rafale, the Superhornet, the Typhoon and the obsolete Saab for sometime, but these are aircraft that are now, sadly on the way to the scrapheap. For the manufacturers it would be akin to selling a three legged donkey to a country bumpkin. Maybe a stopgap squadron of new aircraft would suffice, but if that's the case, then there is no need to retire then Mig 29s from the service. It's commendable to just spend the money on maintenance and no more. :wah
I think the RMAF needs a root and branch review, before the leadership endeavours to conclude another round of decision making, tests, and defence spending. The money should be spent on training better ground and maintenance crews, investing in better infrastructure, improving flight training; and possibly furthering bilateral relationships vis a vis training exercises and training arrangements. I hasten to add that perhaps the RMAF should consider sending future students to the UK for flight training. The Indian Air Force are doing so already, and this would eliminate any possiblitly of graduating poor quality pilots.
Off course, we could all ogle the Mirage Rafale, the Superhornet, the Typhoon and the obsolete Saab for sometime, but these are aircraft that are now, sadly on the way to the scrapheap. For the manufacturers it would be akin to selling a three legged donkey to a country bumpkin. Maybe a stopgap squadron of new aircraft would suffice, but if that's the case, then there is no need to retire then Mig 29s from the service. It's commendable to just spend the money on maintenance and no more. :wah
Well for a start, the RMAF has already leased ACMI pods. This will go some way in improving training. In the 80's F-5E pilots use to visit Korat to use the ACMI range there. CN-235 and F-5 pilots have also spent time on simulators in Paya Lebar and Bandung.
The good news is the RMAF participated in Cope Thunder in Alaska and Pitch Black in Darwin. Apart from providing pilots with operational exposure, excercises of this nature tend to be conducted in a more realistic enviroment and with a higher operational tempo than bilateral exercises like Air Thamal and Air Malindo. I'm all for sending instructors to the NFTC in Canada but whether we have the funds is the question.
I believe we also lack a range to perform live firing tests with stand-off stuff like the Maverick, Paveway and KH-31. i can't recall any press coverage ever being given to a missile launch by the RMAF. The down side of going for the MKM is that the the RMAF has to develop its own combat syllabus and doctine as the Russians only provided conversion training. Not only is there no combat operating manual but the Russians weren't able to help because they dont operate the MKM or even the MKI. Compare that to the Hornet deal when 2 USMC pilots and ex-USMC pilots employed by Boeing stayed in Butterworth for a year to train 18SQ. Or the Fleet Air Arm pilots who provided Lynx training for a year in Lumut.
The good news is the RMAF participated in Cope Thunder in Alaska and Pitch Black in Darwin. Apart from providing pilots with operational exposure, excercises of this nature tend to be conducted in a more realistic enviroment and with a higher operational tempo than bilateral exercises like Air Thamal and Air Malindo. I'm all for sending instructors to the NFTC in Canada but whether we have the funds is the question.
I believe we also lack a range to perform live firing tests with stand-off stuff like the Maverick, Paveway and KH-31. i can't recall any press coverage ever being given to a missile launch by the RMAF. The down side of going for the MKM is that the the RMAF has to develop its own combat syllabus and doctine as the Russians only provided conversion training. Not only is there no combat operating manual but the Russians weren't able to help because they dont operate the MKM or even the MKI. Compare that to the Hornet deal when 2 USMC pilots and ex-USMC pilots employed by Boeing stayed in Butterworth for a year to train 18SQ. Or the Fleet Air Arm pilots who provided Lynx training for a year in Lumut.
Last edited: