RMAF Future; need opinions

[OPSSG]

Well I dont know about the SU-30 needing more service time than U.s aircraft

1. If you don't believe me after my rather long prior explanation, please note gf0012-aust's comments above.

...seriously the MKM is better..

2. As I previously mentioned to another new forum member, you have to think in terms of a systems fight (i.e. everything that the Royal Malaysian Air Force can bring to the table) and not just focus on a platform. BTW, it is not cool to take this approach 'platform vs platform' approach. More people in this forum focus on the coherence of the platform's capabilities within an air force. All modern air forces fight as a system. If you have good doctrine (click to see USAF doctrine) & tactics and have a good systems approach, you can overcome some of the limitations of your platform. Other factors to consider include:

(i) training (and the Russians are of limited help to Malaysia in doctrine development);

(ii) number of first line combat aircraft (there's only 18 Su-30MKMs and 8 F-18Ds after the MiG-29s are retired);

(iii) technology (AESA radar, SAR, ESM, ground sensors & UAVs for ISR and so on);

(iv) platforms (radar, targeting pods & other tools like ground control radar, SIGINT, EW & AWAC support, if any); and

(v) the level of C4I systems integration,​

also matter (see what Col John A. Warden III wrote in "The Air Campaign") in relation to a systems level fight. IMHO, all attempts at individual 'best of' platform rankings are a waste of time.

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 any other aircraft in Asia.

3. All fights occur at systems level and I can tell you that at a systems level, the Singapore air force is not and will never be at the level of the Japanese (and I don't care what you think about Japanese platforms like the F-2 or the F-15J). At a systems level, the Japanese are so far ahead of Singapore, even though the RSAF is often considered a tiny but tertiary capable air force too (and I've said before Singapore is NOT a true regional power in Asia*). Further, keep in mind that Japan, S Korea and Australia are true regional powers with very capable air forces - it's not about numbers alone it's also about capability (and I don't just mean quality at the platform level, it is about coherence at a systems level).

4. Beyond that fact that the Australians are FPDA partners to both Malaysia and Singapore, they also have Wedgetails on order, OTH radar and double of Singapore's defence budget. Further, the Australians have more varied technology development efforts than us and better access to US technology. Again let me say that platform centric discussions on their own are irrelevant.

* Note: As a small country, we can only try our best to keep up with Japan (see: Singapore & Japan Sign Memo on Defence Exchanges), S. Korea (see: Singapore & the Republic of Korea Sign MOU on Defence Cooperation) and the US. For Singapore, we are running hard just to stand still (relative to bigger countries), so that we can inter-operate with our partners (see SG training in the US & Australia - DT pix thread).

The best aircraft the Chinese have in service is their SU-30MKK... but one can fairly say The SU-30MKM is one of the top 3 aircraft in Asia if not the best

5. The PLAAF is no longer exclusively focused on platforms too - they will fight with all their capabilities. They have a credible development effort (J-10, ASAT and their other anti-access tools) because they think at a systems level too. India is also starting to move along that trajectory. And the RMAF is also in the process of transformation and they are starting to use and develop their own doctrine on the use of UAVs so as to keep ahead of others in SE Asia. No country mentioned above is standing still at a systems level.

 

[STURM]

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,.

The RMAF has yet to officially reveal what air to ground ordnance was ordered for the MKMs but at the Subang open day event.11 Squadron displayed a KH-31 and a KBR laser guided bomb. I suspect that the Alamos and Archers from the Fulcrums will be transfered to 11 squadron [assuming of course they they haven't exceeded their shelf life]. My problem with the whole array of Russian air to ground ordance is most havent been used in combat.

 

[Haavarla]

The RMAF has yet to officially reveal what air to ground ordnance was ordered for the MKMs but at the Subang open day event.11 Squadron displayed a KH-31 and a KBR laser guided bomb. I suspect that the Alamos and Archers from the Fulcrums will be transfered to 11 squadron [assuming of course they they haven't exceeded their shelf life].

My problem with the whole array of Russian air to ground ordance is most havent been used in combat.

The fact that we seen very little performance from Russian made missile doesn't mean its crap..
Russian has the much of the same test procedures as many western countries when it comes to test new missiles.



Thanks

 

[OPSSG]

The fact that we seen very little performance from Russian made missile doesn't mean its crap..
Russian has the much of the same test procedures as many western countries when it comes to test new missiles.

I think there will be plenty of opportunity for testing as the RMAF pilots will need to practice... So I think STURM needn't worry too much.

 

[dtwn]

The fact that we seen very little performance from Russian made missile doesn't mean its crap..
Russian has the much of the same test procedures as many western countries when it comes to test new missiles.



Thanks

That is true, but in Sturm's defense, he did not mention that they were crap, he merely mentioned that they had not been tested in combat.

 

[STURM]

That is true, but in Sturm's defense, he did not mention that they were crap, he merely mentioned that they had not been tested in combat.

Thanks dtwn, thats exactly what I meant . Unlike the Alamo, the Archer and Adder have yet to be used in combat. I'm not sure however if the KH-31 and KAB-500 was used against Georgia. Anyway, with regards to the IAF having problems with its Russian ordnance, an Indian blog reported that part of the problem experienced with its AAMs was due to a lack of a missile storage facility as specified by the missile's OEM. I'm going off topic again but some years ago a Cuban Fulcrum destroyed a Cessna killing everyone onboard, does anyone know if the missile used was an Aphid?

Dzirhan, here's one for you.... The MAF ensures that live surface and sea missiles launches are given wide press coverage. But why has there been no coverage given for any RMAF AAM launches? [I've always been very curious about this] The only live launch of an AAM in Malaysian airspace that has been reported was one conducted by a Butterworth based RAAF Mirage 111 back in 81.

 

[Dzirhan]

The RMAF has different opsec policy in regard to missile firings. I suspect it also has to do with the fact that the RMN is less visible to the public than the other two services so they have to show some visibility on their capabilities. Interestingly enough, prior to the Sea Skua fiasco, the RMN used to invite media to such firings, these days, they take pics and video inhouse and then release it to the press.

 

[STURM]

Dzirhan, thanks for the input. According to a rumour I've heard, Uncle Sam has apparently put some limitations to any live launches involving AMRAAM [ I understand if you're unable to comment on this ]. I've also been told though I can't confirm it, the RMAF has made it a priority to acquire a small batch of medium range MPAs. Given the current threat enviroment and scarce funds, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on what in your opinion should receive funding first - MPAs, the Cougars or fighters - given that MPAs and Cougars have a peactime utility. I know many here will disagree with me but at the moment I believe that MPAs and the Cougars should be the priority, not fighters.

 

[Dzirhan]

Well, there's a school of thought that we only have the training missiles since this was the one on the Hornet at LIMA and may not have the warshots in country. Anyhow, one of the thing is that as a whole, all three services don't conduct live firing of missiles often given their costs and the missiles are only fired when they are near the end of their service life, which is why the RMN tends to fire more missiles. The RMAF has been looking at a replacement for the beechcraft but I was under the impression that the AEWs were more of a priority, still it could be that the MPA is coming up since SAAB is offering a package of Gripens plus AEW and MPA. Discussions of further fighters is probably moot really until the RMAF can produce enough pilots, the Sukhoi Squadron is taking a large amount of pilotsWSOs not to mention that until the CMs were fully delivered, for part of 08 and 09, we had limited lead in fighter training and at same time the 8CMs will be unlikely be enough to produce enough pilots for an additional squadron. The cougars basically are there, the issue is really not money, if we had the money back in 08 to purchase before the furore broke out, there shouldn't be any problem having the money now, main problem is political will and I suspect given the engine business, the government is not going to announce any RMAF purchase until the whole thing dies down.

 

[STURM]

Discussions of further fighters is probably moot really until the RMAF can produce enough pilots, the Sukhoi Squadron is taking a large amount of pilotsWSOs not to mention that until the CMs were fully delivered, for part of 08 and 09, we had limited lead in fighter training and at same time the 8CMs will be unlikely be enough to produce enough pilots for an additional squadron.

The contract for the CMs took me by surprise as the logical step instead of MBB-339CMs would have been additional Hawk 100s as attrition replacements [then again the Hawks price tag probably played a big part]. I find it interesting that even after the arrival of the Hawk 100s the MBB-339As continued to be flown for a number of years. When the MKMs were ordered in 2002 the plan was for them to operate with the Fulcrums, so where the pilots expected to come from?

 

[Dzirhan]

The contract for the CMs took me by surprise as the logical step instead of MBB-339CMs would have been additional Hawk 100s as attrition replacements [then again the Hawks price tag probably played a big part]. I find it interesting that even after the arrival of the Hawk 100s the MBB-339As continued to be flown for a number of years. When the MKMs were ordered in 2002 the plan was for them to operate with the Fulcrums, so where the pilots expected to come from?

Quite simple really, back in 02, it was planned that we have the CMs operatings with the As for a total of 18-20 lead in fighter trainers, then came the budget issues which indicated the RMAF would not get the CMs until they finally came up with the solution of taking the engines from the As and putting in CM airframes., also back in 06 or 07 there were plans to deactivate the MiGs and transfer all pilots to the Fulcrum, I broke the story and had a few Malaysian forumers upset judging from what I saw (accusations of making it up if I remeber correctly), I was told that because that story got out, they had to replan on the MiGs and it became somewhat moot due to the Sukhois arriving later than scheduled

 

[OPSSG]

In other RMAF news, beyond losing two F-5 engines that was reported earlier, Malaysia also lost two NPO Saturn AL-31FP engines that suffered from FOD damage in June 2007 and were sent for repairs. I'm sad to report that the Malay Mail has more details of this unfurling saga of engine inventory losses.

 

[STURM]

The only good news to come out of this is the fact that such incidents are now being reported and being given coverage instead of being swept under the carpet. Though reports such as this give a negative perception of the RMAF they also play a part in raising public awareness in a country where the majority of the public remains uninterested and ingnorant in defence matters, plus fostering a culture of accountability.

''Although the Sukhoi planes were equipped with titanium mesh doors that swing down over the air intake to protect the engines from FOD, the feature only worked during take-off and slow taxiing, not during landing.'' - Malay Mail

Last month's AFM has an insightful article written by a USAF pilot about the usefulness of the vents on the Fulcrums that prevents FOD from entering the engine as opposed to US fighters that have to operate from ''sanitised'' aprons and runways. According to the Malay Mail however, the system on the Flanker doesn't work during landings. The author of the AFM article also talks about the rough finishing on the Fulcrum as opposed to the clean and smooth exterior look on US fighters - something I noticed when I got a close look at a Fulcrum and Flanker in 91.

 

[Pragmatist]

RMAF is a unusual Air Force. Engines go missing, is that all that is reported ?? Or is there more missing??

Really bad reputation now. No amount of PR is going to help.

 

[Feanor]

To comment, the KAB-500 was indeed used against Georgia, iirc the laser-guided variant. They were used against the Senaki airbase and iirc the radar in Tbilisi airport.

 

[nevidimka]

I think there is a misintepretation. Those Al 31 Engines were not lost to teft, but were lost due to FOD. The engines were sent to Russia for fixing.

 

[OPSSG]

Last month's AFM has an insightful article written by a USAF pilot about the usefulness of the vents on the Fulcrums that prevents FOD from entering the engine as opposed to US fighters that have to operate from ''sanitised'' aprons and runways. According to the Malay Mail however, the system on the Flanker doesn't work during landings. The author of the AFM article also talks about the rough finishing on the Fulcrum as opposed to the clean and smooth exterior look on US fighters - something I noticed when I got a close look at a Fulcrum and Flanker in 91.

While FOD sweeps is standard SOP and cracked concrete can be found on any flight line, is the problem more serious at certain Malaysian air bases? The special vents of the MiGs is evidently needed at least at Kuantan where the MiG-29s are based. US Marines found that training at Malaysian airbases is more austere than Iraq, for instance, in terms of services available and conditions. Is the author wrong in stating that "a close inspection of the Kuantan flightline reveals chunks of broken concrete every few feet"? This must be an issue with construction (see this article, which has a discussion on the Hornet and the MiG).

There's an interesting tidbit that I quote from the article below:

...“The Americans have better radar, better weapons, so we try to get in close,” says Major Patricia Yapp Syau Yin of the Malaysian air force, recounting a one-on-one engagement she had against a Hornet. “Try to defeat their radar capabilities by doing aggressive moves—zooming in. We have to try to roll in behind them, not roll in front of them. Weapon-wise, software-wise, they are one up. But power-wise, we are one up.” The MiG-29N that the Malaysians fly has a top speed of Mach 2.3 and a climb rate of 65,000 feet per minute; the F/A-18D’s maximum speed is Mach 1.8 with a climb rate of 50,000 feet per minute. The Hornet, however, is a more maneuverable aircraft, with a fly-by-wire control system and more advanced avionics and cockpit displays...​

The MiG's got power .

 

[STURM]

The MiG's got power .

The MiGs certainly have power. The problem is the RD-33s are extremely thirsty animals : .
Thats why the RMAF Fulcrums were one of the first to be fitted with a refueling probe.

I suspect that Gong Kedah will be better off as the runways and dispersal areas are newer. The fact that Kuantan is more austere than Al Assad is hardly surprising given the amount of cash poured in to construct new hangars and aprons. Judging from the article its appears that Kuantan is badly in need of a face-over, especially for its runways and dispersals. Whether its due to the quality of the construction or age is the question I'm interested in finding out.

Thanks for posting the link, this will probably be the last exercise for the Fulcrums before they retire. If I'm not mistaken, the Ralph Peters quoted in the article was the author of Red Army.

 

[gonggok]

Hmm..the impression the Marine pilots gave about Kuantan airbase (dirty with chunks of concrete lying around) is pretty strange. After all the place is also a civillian airport with regular traffic of MAS 737s - the low slung CFM-56 don't seem to have any trouble at all with any so called FOD.

 

[OPSSG]

Hmm..the impression the Marine pilots gave about Kuantan airbase (dirty with chunks of concrete lying around) is pretty strange. After all the place is also a civilian airport with regular traffic of MAS 737s - the low slung CFM-56 don't seem to have any trouble at all with any so called FOD.

It's the writer's impression based on his direct observations as he says:

"A close inspection of the Kuantan flightline reveals chunks of broken concrete every few feet. Most of the pieces are pebble size, but even a paper clip, if sucked into an intake, can destroy the turbine blades of a Hornet’s engines, grounding the craft. Each day of Air Warrior, the Marines spent time doing “FOD sweeps,” shoulder-to-shoulder walks to scan the pavement for debris."

AFAIK, Ed Darack, the author does not work for the US Marines. IIRC the Marines only said that the base's facilities was austere.