Here is something about fatigue monitoring for the MiG-29Ns.
ICAF 2009 - Bridging the gap between theory and operational practice
ICAF 2009 - Bridging the gap between theory and operational practice
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
As Nevedimka pointed out, a follow on order for MKMs is a strong possibility.
Another very strong possibility is the Gripen which is being marketed aggressively to Malaysia. There are indications that the Gripen is a favourite with strong support from certain elements in the goverment and RMAF, though nothing official has been said.
I would be very, very suprised if anything other than these 2 options are selected given that the RMAF is very unlikely to want Chinese fighters, that the Rafale, Typhoon and Eagle are way over Malaysia's budget.
BTW, in today's NST it was confirmed that 4 F-5Es and 2 RF-5Es are still operated by 12 Squadron. The F-5Es are probably used by pilots to mantain hours and as aggressors, a task it first started doing in the 90's. There are also 2 F-5Fs that recently received an upgrade.
Last edited:
Considering, that the gov said that the customer nation for its MiG has already been found, I think it might be Russia coz I dont know if there is anyone operating MiG's at this time who would want an outdated version of the MiG, plus Russian gov themselves have come and said they will swap the MiG's with 6 sukhois, and since its a swap, it will have very minimal additional cost, as we are not getting another 18 MKM's, just 6 for an equivalent cost IMO.
The MRCA deal i think will be put on hold, due to the other pressing needs that needs to be funded, the APC, Nuri's replacement, LPD replacement, as well as payments for the 18 MKM's.
I'm not sure if '' outdated'' is the term to use. Despite still using the NO19M Topaz [Slot Back] radar and having no capability to use guided air to ground ordnance, I think the MiG-29Ns are still comparable Polands ex-Luftwaffe Fulcrums, Romanian Snipers, Slovak Mig-29ASs. The Peruvian MiG-29SEs have a ground attack capability but I'm unsure of the radar. The Indian Mig-29Ks and Algerian and Yemeni SMTs are certainly more capable and have a ground attack capability.
Do any of the Fulcrums in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine have an air to ground capability beyond unguided rockets and free fall bombs? The only problem with the MiG-29Ns is the engines need to be overhauled, by 2001 they had flown a total of 8,700 hours. By the time the 2 UBs went to ATSC in 2005, each had flown more than 1,000 hours.
Last edited:
8700 hours? Do you have a source on that? Isn't that really high for any fighter types?
Does this tend to point to the fact that the RMAF is using the Russian planes in a more western doctrine in training and operations as well as the small number of planes of the type at RMAF's disposal?
The source is a Bernama report that appeared several years ago, in which a MiG official presented certs to RMAF pilots who had flown cetrain hours in rhe Fulcrums. To me it does sound a bit high but appears feasible. The first Fulcrums were flying in 97 and by 2001, 2 had been lost. To give you some idea of the numbers of hours flown in the RMAF by fast jet pilots,
in 1987 the Chief of the RMAF said there were 60 Skyhawk pilots who were averaging between 15 to 20 hours in the air every month [Asian Defence Journal]. One reason given for the low servicibility rates with the Hawks in the early 90's, apart from the effects of humidty on the avionics was a higher than expected utilisation rate. Soon after entering service, flying hours on the Hornets were cut back due to the 97 Economic crisis but I've been told that flying hours were later back to about 20 hours monthly. In the link I provided earlier, you can see thatthe RMAF conducted a fatigue monitoring programme on ithe Hornets and later the Fulcrums.
Of course the RMAF is using western training and operational concepts
: :! That's one reason behind the problems with the Fulcrums. As I pointed out earlier, air arms like the RMAF have to make adjustments to doctrine and operational procedures when operating Russian fighters.
Last edited:
it just doesn't seem to make sense that Malaysia would buy another fighter type when it already has Mig-29, su-30 and f-18. They could just upgrade thier existing Mig-29s to SMT standard and order something Mig-35s. And i"m saying despite not being a big fan of Russian weapons.
Pragmatist
New Member
The Malaysians are suffering from operational non serviceability and internal security issues in their armed forces. A recent NST report detailed the theft of a RF 5 Engine that was sent for maintenance. We can only assume that personnel in the forces are illegal involved in the black market, so corruption is a problem.
Apart from the now parked Migs, Malaysia can only send 8 viable Air superiority fighter aircraft to the skies now. The SU 30 MKMs are currently being inducted and tested for integration issues, so really, a non starter.
In reality, Malaysia has no air force to speak of. The priority lies elsewhere.
Apart from the now parked Migs, Malaysia can only send 8 viable Air superiority fighter aircraft to the skies now. The SU 30 MKMs are currently being inducted and tested for integration issues, so really, a non starter.
In reality, Malaysia has no air force to speak of. The priority lies elsewhere.
Would you kindly elaborate?
Pragmatist
New Member
It is obvious. The RMAF is the most persecuted branch of the MAF, given the resources it has had to cope with. As we speak, the RMAF cannot be considered to be a "military" air force. It's fighter assets are limited in number, the pilot aviator and navigator training pool extremely small, and it's air defence, militarily non existent.
This is the RMAF of today, 2009. Otherwise, the service has a decent amount of transport aircraft and a higher than average amount of VIP transport. In fact, percentage and ratio wise, it appears to be that VIP transport is the only service that it provides in above average numbers.
When the 18 Sukhois are operationally ready, flight times will be dictated by expenditure and budgetary costs/overheads, amongst many other factors, as in other world air forces. However, so as you can see, perhaps 10-20 hours flight time a month, if viable. Given the country's economy, any asset protection, would require a higher number of attack aircraft, to deter rather than to display, even if there are no firm regional rivals present.
Furthermore, the South China Sea is a disputed area. It is called the China sea for a reason, and not a Malaysian or Indonesia Sea. As prosperity grows and trade routes generate more profits, Chinese influence will be felt, in more ways than one. Malaysia needs to consider any claims it has, so asset protection should be it's priority rather than service degradation and asset stripping.
Perhaps the Malaysians cannot afford to buy 3-4 dozen F/A 18s and raise the appropriate number of fighter pilots?
I think that is the case now :type
Sturm. I fear your country is not serious about it's air superiority. Failing that, then we must assume that your country cannot afford to maintain and raise such prized air assets, and the necessary personnel.
This is the RMAF of today, 2009. Otherwise, the service has a decent amount of transport aircraft and a higher than average amount of VIP transport. In fact, percentage and ratio wise, it appears to be that VIP transport is the only service that it provides in above average numbers.
When the 18 Sukhois are operationally ready, flight times will be dictated by expenditure and budgetary costs/overheads, amongst many other factors, as in other world air forces. However, so as you can see, perhaps 10-20 hours flight time a month, if viable. Given the country's economy, any asset protection, would require a higher number of attack aircraft, to deter rather than to display, even if there are no firm regional rivals present.
Furthermore, the South China Sea is a disputed area. It is called the China sea for a reason, and not a Malaysian or Indonesia Sea. As prosperity grows and trade routes generate more profits, Chinese influence will be felt, in more ways than one. Malaysia needs to consider any claims it has, so asset protection should be it's priority rather than service degradation and asset stripping.
Perhaps the Malaysians cannot afford to buy 3-4 dozen F/A 18s and raise the appropriate number of fighter pilots?
I think that is the case now :type
Sturm. I fear your country is not serious about it's air superiority. Failing that, then we must assume that your country cannot afford to maintain and raise such prized air assets, and the necessary personnel.
The VVS flies 24 SMTs as of 2009. Otherwise yes, among the Fulcrum users in the world the N is quite capable. It's outdated when compared to things like like a Block 52 F-16. Or a Su-30MKM. There's a reason the Algerians wanted to return their SMTs and get more MKAs. And it's not that older parts were used. I wouldn't be surprised if the replacement for the Migs turned out to be more MKMs after all.
I wouldn't go as far as saying its the most 'persecuted'. The need of the 3 services have to be balanced by financial realities. It is certainly overworked in terms of the reponsibilities it has.
The RMAF has a weak but not a 'non-existant' air defence, there's a profound difference between ''non existant'' and weak...... Fighter numbers are limited but then again the same can be applied to every country in ASEAN with the exception of Singapore and to a lesser extent Thailand. Does the lack of fighters in numbers and a small pilot pool make the RMAF a ''non-military'' air arm? By your line of reasoning, even the SAAF which only has 17 single seat Gripens is a non ''non-military'' air arm''.
In response to a question posed by a member of the opposition, the Defence Minister revealed in March 2009 that the RMAF had 74 personnel trained to operate the Hawk fleet, 32 for the Hornets and 40 for the Fulcrums.
Part of the reason, apart from threat perceptions and financial resources is that like most of it's neighbours, the main task of the RMAF traditionally was internal, in supporting the army with its counter insurgency campaign and assisting in the task of nation building.
The RMAF received its first air defence fighters in 1971 and has never operated a large fighter fleet. This is due to a number of reasons and not at all due to Malaysia not being ''serious about air superiority''.
Percentage and ratio wise, fixed wing and rotary transports are the aircraft operated
in above average numbers not VIP aircraft. Though flown by the RMAF, the VIP fleet is owned and funded by the Prime Ministers Department. The largetst number of aircrfat operated are actually training aircraft.
Malaysia certainly does need to develop the capability to protect its claims in the Spratleys dispute but like everything else, this is dependant on financial allocations and the need to balance its existing recources with other responsibilities. Of the 6 claimants in the Spratleys dispute currently only China has the capability to project power or mantain substantial asset protection on a sustained basis in the area.
With regards to you refering to ''service degradation and asset stripping'', I assume you mean the retirement of the 16 Fulcrums? The government has made it very clear that a replacement is being looked at.
You're absolutely right, like most other countries worldwide with the exception of a selected few, the Malaysians certainly can't afford to buy ''3-4 dozen F/A 18s''. As you're no doubt aware, developing the manpower and ground support infrastructure needed to operate ''3-4 dozen F/A 18s'' in addition to the 18 MKMs, 8 Hornets and Hawk fleet is beyond the capability of an air arm the size of the RMAF.
Last edited:
I'd also add that prior to 71 (ie circa Konfrontassi) the RMAF didn't need to worry so much about fighters because the RAAF had 1-2 squadrons of F-86's and them Mirages based at Butterworth. The RAF and RNZAF also had air assets based in Malaysia as part of the FPDA.
Yes, until the arrival of the ex-RAAF Sabres, Malaysia's air defence was solely in the hands of RAAF F-86s in Butterworth and RAF Lightnings based in Singapore. The RMAF Sabres were seen as an interim solution and there were plans to later sell Mirage 111s made under licence in Australia to the RMAF. Apart from contributing to Malaysia's air defence, the later RAAF Mirage 111 presence in Butterworth enabled Malaysia to channel it's financial resources to other areas.
Pragmatist
New Member
Yes, the RMAF is most certainly a very very weak Air Force. It begs more questions than answers. I believe there was a time, during the 60s and 70s, that RMAF pilots were trained by RAF and RAAF personnel. This was in the course of time phased out, but quite apart from the quality of the pilots emerging now, can we say that the Hawk aircraft suffered above average losses??
I understand that 18 Hawk 200 aircraft were purchased in the 90s, but after various unfortunate incidents, 13 of the original number remain. What happened? Is it the aircraft or is it the quality of RMAF Hawk pilots? Has there been independent enquiries carried out after each incident?? It most certainly is a very high rate of attrition, approximately 28% (30% if this is rounded up) for the BAE Hawk 200, so I do wonder if this is an inherent problem of the BAE aircraft type? And if it isn't, can we comment on the quality of RMAF pilot training??
In comparison, Malaysia's neighbours, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Burma appear to maintain very large numbers of fighter aircraft in their air fleets. Why has Malaysia pursued a radically different air defence strategy compared to its neighbours? That would be an interesting discussion requiring higher scrutiny of facts, I think.
Is it a strategically ideal for a country the size of Malaysia, to have 8 Fighter Aircraft now? And can we regard the Hawk 200 as the ideal Multirole Fighter Aircraft or is it something more appropriate to COIN operations?
Grateful for any advise/suggestions/comments. Thanks
I understand that 18 Hawk 200 aircraft were purchased in the 90s, but after various unfortunate incidents, 13 of the original number remain. What happened? Is it the aircraft or is it the quality of RMAF Hawk pilots? Has there been independent enquiries carried out after each incident?? It most certainly is a very high rate of attrition, approximately 28% (30% if this is rounded up) for the BAE Hawk 200, so I do wonder if this is an inherent problem of the BAE aircraft type? And if it isn't, can we comment on the quality of RMAF pilot training??
In comparison, Malaysia's neighbours, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Burma appear to maintain very large numbers of fighter aircraft in their air fleets. Why has Malaysia pursued a radically different air defence strategy compared to its neighbours? That would be an interesting discussion requiring higher scrutiny of facts, I think.
Is it a strategically ideal for a country the size of Malaysia, to have 8 Fighter Aircraft now? And can we regard the Hawk 200 as the ideal Multirole Fighter Aircraft or is it something more appropriate to COIN operations?
Grateful for any advise/suggestions/comments. Thanks
There were many RAF personnel seconded to the RMAF, with last leaving in 1971. The Sabre squadron was jointly commanded by RMAF and RAAF officers.
Certainly, the 10 Hawk 100s have suffered very high attrition rates. Less than half of the 10 Hawk 100s are still available. I think that a small part of the problem was that the RMAF was the launch customer for the 100 and 200 series and this led to some teething problems. Another problem was that in terms of technology, the 18 Hawk 200s and 10 Hawk 100s were a major leap compared to the RMAFs Tigers and Skyhawks, and led to a steep learning curve. Shortly after entering service, it was found that high humidity levels was playing havoc with the avionics. Following talks between BAE Systems and the Defence Export Services Organisation a number of modifications were carried out by BAE Systems in the 90’s. In 1996, an outgoing Head of the RMAF said that apart from the humidity, it was a higher than expected utilisation rate and a lack of spares and ground support personnel that was grounding the Hawks. I'm not aware of any independent board of inquiries being formed to examine the Hawk losses. With the Skyhawks however, an independent board of inquiry comprising 2 USN officers and 1each from the RAAF and RNZAF was formed. In addition to awarding Rolls Royce a contract to overhaul the Adour Mk871 engines, the government also recently awarded BAE Systems a contract to provide spares.
As I mentioned earlier, it is only Singapore and to a lesser extent Thailand which has larger fighter fleets. All of the RTNs Harriers and Corsairs have been grounded for some time now.
Despite having a much larger area to cover, the TNI-AL is not much better off in terms of fighter numbers. There are only a handful of newly delivered Flankers[which were delivered without any ordnance], backed up by Hawks and F-5s. Unless the situation has changed, most of the
F-16As were grounded. Though the RMAF has small numbers of fighters, all of its fighter are relatively new and capable, compared to the bulk of fighters operated by Vietnam and Myanmmar.
I'm no expert but if I had to guess, an additional 2 squadrons would be the minimal amount. Anymore than that would strain manpower resources and the support infrastructure.
In 1994, the assistant Defence Attache at the Russian embassy told me that based on a study conducted by the Russians, the RMAF needed 60 Fulcrums to fully meet its air defence needs [no doubt there were financial motives on the part of the russians here].
As replacements for the Skyhawks the Hawks were intended to perform the light attack and anti-maritime roles. There was a report in another forum of the RMAF conducting a feasibility study on upgrading its Hawk 200s by replacing the APG-66H radar with a Vixen AESA. A problem here is that Selex has yet to integrate the Vixen on the Hawk 200. IMO, unless the Hawks receive a new radar, stand off air to ground ordnance and BVR missiles, they are only able to operate in a low threat enviroment.
The RMAF appears to be taking the training issue very seriously, having ordered MBB-339CMs, PC-7Mk11’s, a ATFS-400 centrifuge simulator and leased 22 ACMI pods with Air Combat Training Integrated Visualization Environment (ACTiVE) debriefing systems. There are simulators for every fighter in service.
During the 90's, I met a few RAAF pilots who had flown against RMAF pilots in exercises and the 2 USMC pilots based with the Hornet squadron from 97 to 98. They all said the problem was not a lack of skills or flying time but a lack of all wheather/night training.
The RMAF only received an all wheather attack capabilty when the Hornets entered service.
P.S. Out of curiosity Pragmatist, where are you from?
Last edited:
Pragmatist
New Member
Thanks, very informative and quite a substantive reply. It sheds some light to the current issues about the RMAF.
Well, I will have to assume that some effort is being raised now, in terms of training, maintenance and other areas that required pressing attention. In all fairness, going by the numbers that will be operational in the near future, 18 SU 30 MKMs and 8 F/A 18D Fighter Aircraft will be the likely outcome for the very small RMAF fighter fleet.
I suppose this is preferable given that this Air Force was always a small one, and never traditionally a large one, and ironically, never more than a 2 dozen in number since 1997.
Well, I will have to assume that some effort is being raised now, in terms of training, maintenance and other areas that required pressing attention. In all fairness, going by the numbers that will be operational in the near future, 18 SU 30 MKMs and 8 F/A 18D Fighter Aircraft will be the likely outcome for the very small RMAF fighter fleet.
I suppose this is preferable given that this Air Force was always a small one, and never traditionally a large one, and ironically, never more than a 2 dozen in number since 1997.
Please post an intro of yourself here, so that others may decide if you are just young like Tavarisch or taking a piss at the RMAF (with some of your rather harsh statements on RMAF's capability).
2 dozen = 24
18 + 8 = 26
Despite what you have previously said, kindly note that the RMAF is been able to slowing and consistently growing in capability via the acquisition of successively more capable platforms, though there are logistics issues due to past political interference by Tun (Dr) Mahathir bin Mohamad (Dr M). This and the source code non-issue brought up by Tavarisch was discussed in post #1162 of the RMAF thread.
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 the object codes of 8 Hornets?
In my reply to the Pragmatist, I've provided a link to my prior post which explains many things, including the source code issue, in detail to you. Please do not engage in selective reading and let your prior prejudices colour your opinions. Kindly read the post again young man and ask if you don't understand (rather than continuing to post opinions based on misinformation).
IMO, if a country pays enough and is seen as a reliable US partner, the US would release object codes. When Dr M was PM, his behaviour ensured that he was not taken seriously when discussing defence matters and that his past policy choices were seen as potentially destabilizing by responsible leaders in the region. According to a senior Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) officer, the MAF was put on alert in late 1998 as Malaysian and Singaporean politicians argued over the status of the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine checkpoint. Military officials on both sides privately acknowledged that heightened military preparedness did occur.
According to the US Department of State, the US is Malaysia's largest trading partner and Malaysia is the sixteenth-largest trading partner of the US. Annual two-way trade amounts to $44 billion. US is the largest foreign investor in Malaysia on a cumulative basis. The U.S. direct investment position in Malaysia for 2007 was $15.7 billion. Even in retirement, Dr M continues to advocate the boycotting of US goods, when the mood suits him. Are you sure you want to reformulate and regurgitate Dr M's rubbish that the Thais and Singaporeans are unfairly favoured by the US?
Thailand and Singapore have had to work to earn US's trust as responsible powers that contribute to regional stability, whereas, Malaysia under Dr M worked to ensure reduced defence cooperation between other powers and the Malaysian defence establishment in his attempt to look good before the non-aligned movement.
Simply put, I cannot understand why you do not see the Malaysian government's role in establishing and maintaining relations with other nations. It's a two way street and Malaysians have a say in maintaining any bilateral relationship.
Welcome to DT but please read past posts and think before posting. See below on the issue of thinking:
2 dozen = 24
18 + 8 = 26
Despite what you have previously said, kindly note that the RMAF is been able to slowing and consistently growing in capability via the acquisition of successively more capable platforms, though there are logistics issues due to past political interference by Tun (Dr) Mahathir bin Mohamad (Dr M). This and the source code non-issue brought up by Tavarisch was discussed in post #1162 of the RMAF thread.
@Tavarisch this bit of your post is rubbish and this has been previously explained to you. Why do you feel the need to repeat Dr M's lies and engage in a discussion based on misinformation? Particularly since informed Malaysians like Dzirhan have confirmed that:
"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..."
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 the object codes of 8 Hornets?
In my reply to the Pragmatist, I've provided a link to my prior post which explains many things, including the source code issue, in detail to you. Please do not engage in selective reading and let your prior prejudices colour your opinions. Kindly read the post again young man and ask if you don't understand (rather than continuing to post opinions based on misinformation).
IMO, if a country pays enough and is seen as a reliable US partner, the US would release object codes. When Dr M was PM, his behaviour ensured that he was not taken seriously when discussing defence matters and that his past policy choices were seen as potentially destabilizing by responsible leaders in the region. According to a senior Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) officer, the MAF was put on alert in late 1998 as Malaysian and Singaporean politicians argued over the status of the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine checkpoint. Military officials on both sides privately acknowledged that heightened military preparedness did occur.
According to the US Department of State, the US is Malaysia's largest trading partner and Malaysia is the sixteenth-largest trading partner of the US. Annual two-way trade amounts to $44 billion. US is the largest foreign investor in Malaysia on a cumulative basis. The U.S. direct investment position in Malaysia for 2007 was $15.7 billion. Even in retirement, Dr M continues to advocate the boycotting of US goods, when the mood suits him. Are you sure you want to reformulate and regurgitate Dr M's rubbish that the Thais and Singaporeans are unfairly favoured by the US?
Thailand and Singapore have had to work to earn US's trust as responsible powers that contribute to regional stability, whereas, Malaysia under Dr M worked to ensure reduced defence cooperation between other powers and the Malaysian defence establishment in his attempt to look good before the non-aligned movement.
Simply put, I cannot understand why you do not see the Malaysian government's role in establishing and maintaining relations with other nations. It's a two way street and Malaysians have a say in maintaining any bilateral relationship.
Last edited: