RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Iirc the Sri Lanka deal was signed much earlier, and probably involved VVS stock Fulcrums. It would be interesting to see though. Do you have a source that it's just 20?
EDIT: Take MoD statements with a grain of salt. Actually more like with a dump truck full of salt. They've lied before. Nevermind simply obfuscating the already blurry facts (which is all it is, in this case).
EDIT: Take MoD statements with a grain of salt. Actually more like with a dump truck full of salt. They've lied before. Nevermind simply obfuscating the already blurry facts (which is all it is, in this case).
Hi OPSSG and All
This is my first posting. I was looking around for some confirmation or clarification on Mahathir's claim that Malaysia's F/A-18 cannot drop bombs. So I googled and read your comments. However, your simplistic explanation in your earlier posting on another thread, do not convinced me that Mahathir lied or spread disinformation .
OPSSG said :
"........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?.........."
Let me explain:
I am a software engineer by training and profession, and therefore I am confident to say that in any software system, you could program certain functionality to be off-limits to certain user based on his account profile or licence. So it is very probable that US could have configured the Fire Control System(FCS) to limit RMAF's access to certain type of mission(s) like launching bombs.
Besides your layman's analogy of Microsoft Windows is very weak. Microsoft sells different version of Windows Vista. We know that Windows Vista Basic have less functionality than a Windows Vista Home and even lesser functionality compared to a Windows Vista Professional, even though all of them share the same code base.
To recap, Mahathir said something to the effect that F/A-18 cannot launch bombs. I think he intended to say that the RMAF do not have access (or no access rights) to such fire control missions like launching bombs.
Maybe all RMAF F/A-18 can do now is just Air-to-Air fire control missions. No A-to-G because access is blocked by US. If this hypothesis is correct, then for RMAF to have access to bombing mission, RMAF needs US to reconfigure the acesss rights of the FCS. So, ultimately it is Uncle Sam who decides whether RMAF's F/A-18 can bomb or not.
Of course there is another way: RMAF can override the access control to the bombing functionality by hacking/modifying the access control module of the Fire Control System. And to hack the FCS, RMAF must have the source codes of the FCS, which clearly RMAF do NOT have.
I do not support nor do I reject Mahathir's view to retain the MIG-29s because to retain a money guzzler (MIG-29) is not a feasible solution. Neither is it wise to buy a white elephant F/A-18 (assuming Dr M is telling the truth).
Thank you for listening to my 2-cents worth.
Regards,
Mahathir is talking nonsense, period and he basically said that the Hornet is only good for flying and cannot use any weapons at all. The fact that the RMAF has run combat exercises involving the Hornet domestically and overseas involving foreign aircraft is enough to prove that the Hornet can perform in combat and while not stated publicly, there's been one or two firing test involving the hornet on target drones, from what I've heard. There has also yet to be any statement from anyone in the RMAF, even anonymously, that the aircraft can only fly and do nothing else and you can be assured that if this was the case, somebody would certainly talk on that.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Being somewhat familiar with both software and systems integration, you seem to be overthinking OPSSG's analogy a bit.
There are a couple of different perspectives which the analogy can be viewed from. If viewed from an F/A-18 Hornet/Vista platform perspective, then the ability conduct A-to-G missions is analogous to creating a speadsheet, document or database file. The platform can do the task, it just needs the appropriate software (computer) or software/integrated hardware (F/A-18 Hornet) in order to perform the task.
Here is where things get a bit different:
In the case of a computer user, the user could just go out and purchase the relevant program(s) which someone else wrote, after having licensed or otherwise obtained the Windows Vista source codes.
In the case of the F/A-18 Hornet, if a country wanted to add a capability like A-to-G, there are a limited number of vendors which offer such munitions/capabilities integrated with that particular aircraft. Additionally, due to FMS and licensing agreements as well as US control of the Hornet source code and other military intellectual property (IP) the US is normally able to block a sale.
If the US chose to block such a sale, the country wishing to integrate a capability onto their Hornets would then need the appropriate 'source codes' so that the hardware/software package for the A-to-G munitions chosen can be made to 'talk' with the aircraft's sensors and avionics. This situation is akin to a computer owner/user deciding that there is no OTS software written which does what they (the user) wants/needs and therefore they will develop such an application themselves. In order to do so and have it work correctly they need access to the Vista source code.
Now, if the US was unwilling to sell a nation A-to-G munitions for their Hornets, and/or blocked other countries from selling such munitions, then it is highly unlikely that the US would be willing to provide the 'source codes' needed to get the different pieces of hardware and software to communicate with each other. This is where someone would need to 'hack the source code' as it were, to determine what/how data is passed between systems. As I understand it, the process is not all that different from the process one would go through to reverse engineer a product.
Given that it is involving military hardware, I would expect that the process would be a bit more difficult and time consuming than it would if one were 'hacking' or reverse engineering a piece of normal civilian kit, but it is certainly doable. IIRC Australia had occasion to do something like this after the US sold Indonesia F-16 fighter aircraft. The US did not want to provide Australia information on how the F-16 radar/avionics system functioned, which Australia wanted so they could develop countermeasures. As I understand it, using various intelligence-gathering methods, Australia was able to collect the information they felt necessary to develop and deploy appropriate countermeasures.
In the case of military systems, functionality largely revolves are what munitions/mission systems are available and integrated with the chosen platform. In other words, it is not about what features were turned off by the vendor, but what features were added on.
-Cheers
Last edited:
Doesanyone know what RMAF plans to replace its MIGs with
Mod Edit: This is your last warning. I have personally warned you 3 times already about posting behaviour and forum member obligations, and your need to read the forum rules before continuing on.
Any more infractions and you will be banned for a period of time.
Mod Edit: This is your last warning. I have personally warned you 3 times already about posting behaviour and forum member obligations, and your need to read the forum rules before continuing on.
Any more infractions and you will be banned for a period of time.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the there wont be any replacement for the time being. The Whole MRCA thingy was just a smokescreen. I just read a news paper article the other day which said there wont be any fghter purchases until 2015, which effectively shoots any replacement for the MiG's dead. That means even the minimum scenario of replacing the MiG's with 6 MKM's at almost no cost is not going to happen.
So its gonna be back to 18 + 8 fighters to the MAF. Great way the politicians are doing things in Malaysia. Unbelievable!.
So its gonna be back to 18 + 8 fighters to the MAF. Great way the politicians are doing things in Malaysia. Unbelievable!.
@Dzirhan and Todjaeger thanks for the replies (and I think these replies are just brilliant). BTW, below is the newspaper article that talked about 'No new jets till 2015':
I believe the Malaysian forum members have the situation well in hand.MARHALIM ABAS said:
Last edited:
This article seems to imply that the option of modernizing the MiGs and leaving them in service is still on the table. Is that the case?
EDIT: What I'm saying is that bringing them up to SMT level, reducing maintenance costs, and renegotiating the contracts shouldn't be impossible, or terribly expensive. Is that a viable option? Or is part of the issue the costs for training, and operating not just the MiGs specifically, but an additional 16 fighter jets in principle.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that bringing them up to SMT level, reducing maintenance costs, and renegotiating the contracts shouldn't be impossible, or terribly expensive. Is that a viable option? Or is part of the issue the costs for training, and operating not just the MiGs specifically, but an additional 16 fighter jets in principle.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I still don’t see why they dont ditch the Hornets and Fulcrums and just buy enough platforms to operate 48x SU-30MKM's. That platform makes sense on a whole bunch of levels, why dick around with three or four platform types when they are all arguably inferior to the MKM?
Last edited:
One of the main issues to do with the MiGs is the fact that the govt is contractually bound to have the MiGs maintained by a local company as long as they are in service which is somewhat expensive. Renegotiating the contract on maintainance may not be possible given that the contract could have been drawn up in a manner which prevents it.
On 48 Su-30MKMs, the RMAF has experienced enough problems with the MKM programme to really make that a non-starter, both the Defence Minister and RMAF Chief have stated they want a western aircraft which gives you an idea of the situation. The problems in integrating the Western avionics with Russian systems have somewhat put a strain on both parties and one Russian defence magazine had a quote by a Sukhoi rep saying that Sukhoi lost money selling the Su-30MKMs to Malaysia as they had to compensate all the people whose parts were taken out in place of the Western avionics. Phasing the Hornets is largely a non-starter at the moment, they are the only aircraft in the RMAF with an anti-ship strike capability via the Harpoons.
On 48 Su-30MKMs, the RMAF has experienced enough problems with the MKM programme to really make that a non-starter, both the Defence Minister and RMAF Chief have stated they want a western aircraft which gives you an idea of the situation. The problems in integrating the Western avionics with Russian systems have somewhat put a strain on both parties and one Russian defence magazine had a quote by a Sukhoi rep saying that Sukhoi lost money selling the Su-30MKMs to Malaysia as they had to compensate all the people whose parts were taken out in place of the Western avionics. Phasing the Hornets is largely a non-starter at the moment, they are the only aircraft in the RMAF with an anti-ship strike capability via the Harpoons.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The whole thing sounds like a dogs breakfast from a procurement and sustainment perspective. I just don't understand why a regional power such as Malaysia, with relatively little volume of purchase and limited funds, has to go with an east west platform mix. It just doesn't seem like the right way to run an air force. This was a perfect time to rationalize the force structure, one platform type would be perfect for a ~ two squadron air force. Flanker or Super Hornet, doesn't really matter which one.
As far as the MKM's isn't the major issue more to do with Malaysia's insistence that no subsystems are to be sourced from Israel? Its my understanding that virtually all of the recent SU-30MK exports have included a significant proportion of western systems, including sensors. They cant all be running at a loss.
Also AFAIK the SU-30MK is a capable maritime strike platform, you just need to buy the appropriate weapons package. With the range of its sensors, its internal fuel and payload capacity i would assume that the Flanker would be a significantly superior maritime strike platform than the legacy hornet.
On the east-west mix, just one word: Mahathir , the israel issue is a bit of chimera really, the RMAF's experience with the MiGs namely the fact that they couldn't integrate fully with the various Western made systems in the RMAF inventory led the RMAF to ensure that if they had to take the Sukhois, there would be Western systems on board it so to allow it to be compatible.
The Malaysia order in contrast to the Indian MKIs was a small order so hence the amount of work, costs etc didn't make it profitable for Sukhoi according to the company itself.
It possible the MKMs in Malaysia may already have ASM capabilities actually but in any event I think you have to bear in mind the situation in Malaysia, it's easy to talk about rationalizing the fighter fleet but it is a policy of Malaysia not to put it's eggs in one basket and the costs involved are high. The RMAF may be partial to the Hornets too since the FMS support for them is way better.
, the israel issue is a bit of chimera really, the RMAF's experience with the MiGs namely the fact that they couldn't integrate fully with the various Western made systems in the RMAF inventory led the RMAF to ensure that if they had to take the Sukhois, there would be Western systems on board it so to allow it to be compatible.The Malaysia order in contrast to the Indian MKIs was a small order so hence the amount of work, costs etc didn't make it profitable for Sukhoi according to the company itself.
It possible the MKMs in Malaysia may already have ASM capabilities actually but in any event I think you have to bear in mind the situation in Malaysia, it's easy to talk about rationalizing the fighter fleet but it is a policy of Malaysia not to put it's eggs in one basket and the costs involved are high. The RMAF may be partial to the Hornets too since the FMS support for them is way better.
why stick with wetern air craft the Su-30 will give the RMAF a platform better than any other in asia, why not buy large no. of it the Indian SU-30MKIs also have Israeli parts.On the east-west mix, just one word: Mahathir
The Malaysia order in contrast to the Indian MKIs was a small order so hence the amount of work, costs etc didn't make it profitable for Sukhoi according to the company itself.
It possible the MKMs in Malaysia may already have ASM capabilities actually but in any event I think you have to bear in mind the situation in Malaysia, it's easy to talk about rationalizing the fighter fleet but it is a policy of Malaysia not to put it's eggs in one basket and the costs involved are high. The RMAF may be partial to the Hornets too since the FMS support for them is way better.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
To be fair the RSAF is receiving its order of F-15SG's and the RAAF is also receiving its F/A-18F BII's as we type. Both are easily a match for the SU-30. In my opinion they shouldn’t just buy more MKM's because they are better than western aircraft, it would just make sense from a logistical and through life support perspective.
The MKM is virtually an MKI without the Israeli parts AFAIK.
1. Asia's a big place. Beyond Australia, South Asia, the other ASEAN countries, Asia would also include China, Japan, South Korea. Further, please tell us why the PLAAF recently decided to decommission their early SU-27s after 20 years of service (especially since you are suggesting that it is the best thing since apple pie)? Please explain your idea of 'better' - or have you been reading articles written by idiots like Azmi Hassan (click to read article).
2. I can think a few problems with calling it 'better', just at the top of my head - and if you continue to insist, I would not disagree. In fact, I would be happy for Su-30 operators to under estimate the tertiary capabilities of the air forces of:
(i) Australia (20+ Pigs, 55 Hornets, Super Hornets {24 o/o}, Wedgetails {6 o/o} and so on);
(ii) Japan (46 F-2As {17 more o/o}, 31 F-2Bs, 154 F-15Js, 45 F-15DJs, and they are the world's 2nd largest operator of Special Missions aircraft like the 1 C-1 for EW, 5 EP-3 for EW, 7 YS-11s, 13 E-2Cs, 4 767 AEWs and so on);
(iii) S. Korea (25 T-50s {10 more o/o}, 118 F-16Cs, 51 F-16Ds, 39 Slam Eagles {21 more o/o}, Wedgetails {4 o/o} and so on); and
(iv) Singapore (70+ DASH 4 equipped Vipers, currently the world's most advanced Strike Eagles {24 o/o}, 4 E-2Cs, 1 G550 CAEW {3 o/o} and so on),
(ii) Japan (46 F-2As {17 more o/o}, 31 F-2Bs, 154 F-15Js, 45 F-15DJs, and they are the world's 2nd largest operator of Special Missions aircraft like the 1 C-1 for EW, 5 EP-3 for EW, 7 YS-11s, 13 E-2Cs, 4 767 AEWs and so on);
(iii) S. Korea (25 T-50s {10 more o/o}, 118 F-16Cs, 51 F-16Ds, 39 Slam Eagles {21 more o/o}, Wedgetails {4 o/o} and so on); and
(iv) Singapore (70+ DASH 4 equipped Vipers, currently the world's most advanced Strike Eagles {24 o/o}, 4 E-2Cs, 1 G550 CAEW {3 o/o} and so on),
and these tertiary air forces either have AWACS, are in the process of acquiring AWACS or can expect to enjoy AWAC support on missions). I've given some numbers but numbers don't tell the whole story - you'll also need to look at specialist tools and other force multipliers. For example, it has been estimated that North Korea operates 655 combat aircraft but they are not a match for S. Korea's 451 combat aircraft.
3. IMHO, beyond enjoying the 'wonderful' Russian service support (sic) that the Malaysians rave about in this thread, the Su-30MKM:
(i) has far better non-mission capable and non-serviceability rates than western fighters which means that Su-30MKMs will stay on the ground for maintenance/out of commission far longer;
(ii) has Russian engines that are designed to be changed more frequently than the engines of any US made teen series fighter (with regards to the MTBF of these wonderfully complex TVC engines);
(iii) has no aesa radar which means it reveals its location far better than the AESA equipped Singaporean F-15SGs, Australian Super Hornets and Japanese F-2s;
(iv) has a French targeting pod that has a shorter range than the US made sniper pods that equip or are to equip the RSAF's F-15SGs and Vipers, which means it needs to go nearer the target before munitions release (in fact, even the Korean Slam Eagles and Australian Super Hornets have better targeting pods too); and
(v) has Russian munitions that are more unreliable (please read about India's problems with their munitions). In contrast, the teen series (F-18s/F-15s/F-16s/F-2s) can unfortunately only rely on AMRAAMs, (dual mode) AIM-9X and a wider range of precision munitions like the GBU-54s (Laser JDAMs), JSOWs, JDAMs, Paveways many of which are deployed in war.
(ii) has Russian engines that are designed to be changed more frequently than the engines of any US made teen series fighter (with regards to the MTBF of these wonderfully complex TVC engines);
(iii) has no aesa radar which means it reveals its location far better than the AESA equipped Singaporean F-15SGs, Australian Super Hornets and Japanese F-2s;
(iv) has a French targeting pod that has a shorter range than the US made sniper pods that equip or are to equip the RSAF's F-15SGs and Vipers, which means it needs to go nearer the target before munitions release (in fact, even the Korean Slam Eagles and Australian Super Hornets have better targeting pods too); and
(v) has Russian munitions that are more unreliable (please read about India's problems with their munitions). In contrast, the teen series (F-18s/F-15s/F-16s/F-2s) can unfortunately only rely on AMRAAMs, (dual mode) AIM-9X and a wider range of precision munitions like the GBU-54s (Laser JDAMs), JSOWs, JDAMs, Paveways many of which are deployed in war.
4. BTW, don't get me wrong, I'm very fond of the Su-30MKM, given it's range and capabilities. Further, I think it brings a lot to the table at a fantastic price point but I would just hesitate to call it 'better than any other aircraft in Asia'.
Last edited:
well OPSSG i can agree with you on the F-15SG and the Slam Eagle thing but seriously the MKM is better than the super hornet or the F-2 or anyother aircraft in Asia. The best air craft hte Chinese have in service is their SU-30MKK. Well I dont know about the SU-30 needing more service time than U.s air craft but one can fairly say The SU-30MKM is one of the top 3 aircraft in Asia if not the best
Mod edit: You have been warned before about posting, now take three days time off and read the forum rules before posting again. Pay particular attention to the rules concerning one-liners, vs. threads, and irrelevant replies. When posting in the future, relevant questions and comments are welcome, but this often requires some research on the part of the poster.
-Preceptor
Mod edit: You have been warned before about posting, now take three days time off and read the forum rules before posting again. Pay particular attention to the rules concerning one-liners, vs. threads, and irrelevant replies. When posting in the future, relevant questions and comments are welcome, but this often requires some research on the part of the poster.
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator:
Malaysia will not buy any israeli components period due to tying it into local policy relating to the Palestinian Issue.
In fact you would be hard pressed to find anyone except the Turks who have been prepared to do so due to religious issues.
What is a "better aircraft"?? The issue is not the toy, its the sustainment and the availability of it - in absolute terms its effective utility. The Malays have certainly not experienced that with their Russian kit to date - and have not been shy informing various FPDA partners about their sustainment and availability issues.