And not the if RMAF has anything to say about it. It remains to be seen if the current government will continue to bad practice of forcing the RMAF to accept stuff it doesn't really want.Not in the next 15 years it's not.
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Well if no F-35s are available, and the RMAF needs a 5th gen platform they may be left without a choice. But the timeframe will determine everything.
EDIT: Malaysia declared a new tender to replace the F-5s.
http://lenta.ru/news/2010/03/25/tender/
So far participants include Boeing with F-18E/F, LM with F-16s, Saab with JAS-39, and Rosoboroneksport with Su-30s.
EDIT: Malaysia declared a new tender to replace the F-5s.
http://lenta.ru/news/2010/03/25/tender/
So far participants include Boeing with F-18E/F, LM with F-16s, Saab with JAS-39, and Rosoboroneksport with Su-30s.
Last edited:
i would go for F-16, preferably the F-16E/F with conformal fuel tank and AN/APG-80 radar. Just sell our Hornets and use the money to get F-16. To hell with twin engine reliability. once you lose a single engine, the chance for a pilot to return the aircraft with one engine is slim at best. Beside, F-16s have been in service with various airforces with distinguish record. One thing about US is that, they might be stingy a bit, but once you meet their condition, they really deliver.
Here's another news report indicating possible Malaysian interest in replacing their F-5s:
After the MiG-29N retirement U-turn by the Malaysian government, I'm not even going to venture a guess on how the Malaysians will choose this time.Leithen Francis said:
Budgetry considerations aside, the key question is whether the present government will continue to mantain a policy of selecting what gets ordered based on political interests, transfers of technology, offsets, etc. I find it strange that many Malaysians on various forums and blogs continue to insist that the PAK is a natural candidate when the RMAF clearly has a preference for a western aircraft and that the PAK is still under development.
It also remains to be seen if the PAK will have an engine and radar with a higher TBO than previous ones and how it's operating costs will compare with the Su-30.
As Feoner pointed out, additional MKMs and Super Hornets would be the most practical/logical move and cost effective move. On the other hand the Gripen has strong backing in certain quarters and if offered in combination with Eriye , as it was to the RTAF, could be selected.
Perhaps Dzirhan could provide some clue as to what the RMAF really wants and whether it's recommendations will carry more weight this time.
@STURM,
Pardon my frankness below:
Logically, I would like to see Malaysia acquire a squadron in the 10th Malaysian Plan (2011-2015) to replace the F-5s and another squadron in the 11th Malaysia Plan (2016-2020) to replace the 10 MiG-29Ns. IMO, numbers do matter and the country will need 3 squadrons - 2 for West Malaysia and 1 more for East Malaysia (to protect the new submarine base there and deal with any contingency in East Malaysia). These two squadrons of new planes will have to operate side by side with the 18 Su-30MKMs.
I don't care what Malaysia chooses as long as these two acquisitions are of the same type (to simplify your logistics and reduce capital investments in another simulator) and thanks to Dr M political interference (in forcing the MiG-29N purchase down the throats of your air force) Malaysia has to plan to retire the MiG-29Ns by the 11th Malaysia Plan. I'm not keen to see further poor planning resulting in another service extension of this type beyond 2016. Malaysian needs better acquisition planning here onwards (to recover from past mistakes).
And Malaysian can forget about AWACS until you guys get a 3rd squadron (which means a total of 54 fighters, assuming 3 squadrons of 18 fighters each). If Malaysia wants to buy AWACs please buy 4 and not just 1 (which is tokenism). The buying focus should be on gaining a capability - which means the ability to provide 24/7 coverage during times of tension.
If Malaysia intends to operate 3 squadrons (with at least two of the same type), then it would obviously rule out the PAK FA (which I bet will not be ready for orders by 2016). And if Malaysia intends to buy a teen series (like the Super Hornet), they must place the order before the production line shuts down. I think the Americans are still willing to take a trade in for Malaysia's 8 existing Hornets, which will make the Super Hornets reasonable contenders (from a simplicity point of view). And if Malaysia was not so unhappy over the contractual disputes, it would have been better logistically to stick to only Su-30MKMs (for all 3 squadrons).
The economies of Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines are recovering and given their larger population base, have a strong potential from faster growth. If Malaysia does not get the planning correct, by 2020, they have the potential to not only catch up - there is a risk that they may surpass Malaysia's defence budget by then, at which time numbers will matter. The Malaysian government needs to stop appealing to fan boys (with the idea of having a better plane, when it is the system that matters) and start making the hard choices so that Malaysia can claim to have an air force with tertiary capabilities in 2021 time frame and stop trying to take short cuts to build national pride - a bit of patience is required. For deterrence to work, the country will need real capabilities at a systems level. Given your country's current investments in defence (details covered in the SIPRI thread), a 3 squadron air force + AWACS will be a formidable challenge to regional rivals in the 2021 time frame (12th Malaysian Plan).
Pardon my frankness below:
Logically, I would like to see Malaysia acquire a squadron in the 10th Malaysian Plan (2011-2015) to replace the F-5s and another squadron in the 11th Malaysia Plan (2016-2020) to replace the 10 MiG-29Ns. IMO, numbers do matter and the country will need 3 squadrons - 2 for West Malaysia and 1 more for East Malaysia (to protect the new submarine base there and deal with any contingency in East Malaysia). These two squadrons of new planes will have to operate side by side with the 18 Su-30MKMs.
I don't care what Malaysia chooses as long as these two acquisitions are of the same type (to simplify your logistics and reduce capital investments in another simulator) and thanks to Dr M political interference (in forcing the MiG-29N purchase down the throats of your air force) Malaysia has to plan to retire the MiG-29Ns by the 11th Malaysia Plan. I'm not keen to see further poor planning resulting in another service extension of this type beyond 2016. Malaysian needs better acquisition planning here onwards (to recover from past mistakes).
And Malaysian can forget about AWACS until you guys get a 3rd squadron (which means a total of 54 fighters, assuming 3 squadrons of 18 fighters each). If Malaysia wants to buy AWACs please buy 4 and not just 1 (which is tokenism). The buying focus should be on gaining a capability - which means the ability to provide 24/7 coverage during times of tension.
If Malaysia intends to operate 3 squadrons (with at least two of the same type), then it would obviously rule out the PAK FA (which I bet will not be ready for orders by 2016). And if Malaysia intends to buy a teen series (like the Super Hornet), they must place the order before the production line shuts down. I think the Americans are still willing to take a trade in for Malaysia's 8 existing Hornets, which will make the Super Hornets reasonable contenders (from a simplicity point of view). And if Malaysia was not so unhappy over the contractual disputes, it would have been better logistically to stick to only Su-30MKMs (for all 3 squadrons).
The economies of Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines are recovering and given their larger population base, have a strong potential from faster growth. If Malaysia does not get the planning correct, by 2020, they have the potential to not only catch up - there is a risk that they may surpass Malaysia's defence budget by then, at which time numbers will matter. The Malaysian government needs to stop appealing to fan boys (with the idea of having a better plane, when it is the system that matters) and start making the hard choices so that Malaysia can claim to have an air force with tertiary capabilities in 2021 time frame and stop trying to take short cuts to build national pride - a bit of patience is required. For deterrence to work, the country will need real capabilities at a systems level. Given your country's current investments in defence (details covered in the SIPRI thread), a 3 squadron air force + AWACS will be a formidable challenge to regional rivals in the 2021 time frame (12th Malaysian Plan).
Last edited:
The former Defence Minister had previousy announced that the government had agreed in principle to buy 4 AEW plattorms. If the government decides only sufficient cash was available for only a single platform under the next Malaysia Plan, I'd rather the AEW programme be further postponed and have the cash diverted elsewhere.
Fully agreed, numbers do count. In the RMAF's case the shortage of qualified fast jet crews is a major problem and has to be factored in. To cope with an increase in fighter strength the government has to start investing now in additional LIFT platforms and ensure that the Flight Academy and Flight Training Centre's 1 [basic] and 3's [fast jet] are able to keep pace.
Last edited:
Cutting the number of fighter types would help with pilot numbers. Cheaper to train pilots on one type than many, & can get by with a lower ratio of pilots to aircraft than when you have penny packets of multiple different types.
This whole multiple fighter types thing is crazy. The people responsible should all be shot.
Feanor - I'm not sure that the commonality between current F-18E & F-18D is more than between F-18D & Gripen. There was some commonality, mostly in avionics but also a small part of the airframe, when F-18E was first built, but that's changed. Different radar now, & that necessitated changes to the forward fuselage, which IIRC was the main area of airframe commonality. At least Gripen (up to C/D) & F-18C/D have basically (though not quite) the same engine.
They should be lynched.
The original intent back in 91 was to get only Fulcrums. Apart from the price the deciding factor was the willingness of the Russians to accept palm oil as part payment. Had Thailand proceeded with its Su-30 deal some years back, part of the payment would have been in frozen chicken....
The decision to get the 8 Hornets only came later after intense lobbying by Uncle Sam. With both the Pentagon and the State Deparment pushing the Hornet the F-16 was never a serious contender. A plus factor was that delivery schedule as the the 8 Hornets were diverted from stocks intended for the USN.
My maths for the 54 (assuming a Super Hornet purchase):
(i) 18 Su-30MKM (unchanged)
(ii) acquire 18 Super Hornets to replace the F-5s & F/A-18Ds (via a trade in of the 8 F/A-18Ds) - reducing the types in the 10th Malaysian Plan (2011-2015)
(iii) acquire another 18 Super Hornets to replace the 10 MiG-29Ns (retire them) - further reducing the types in the 11th Malaysian Plan (2016-2020)
As shown in the example above, in just two moves, the Malaysians can erase a lot of past planning sins - this is logically the shortest route to reduced fighter types (ignoring other considerations at the moment). The key is to trade-in for $ the F/A-18Ds (for Super Hornets) to reduce acquisition costs and to save manpower costs by greater admin efficiency (stop operating 1/2 sized squadrons that are so small).
If I'm not wrong the Malaysians have a master plan to eventually acquire up to 6 squadrons but that's way, way in the future (the Malaysians in this forum can correct me if I've got this wrong). So that is why I have framed the proposed acquisition plan, the way I have (reaching 54 fighters) in post #135 - it would be just part of their part of their aircraft master plan.
The main disadvantage for Super Hornets is the FMS process - there is no scope for middlemen to play a significant role, hence IMO, it has little or no chance approval at the political level. In this case, I have absolute trust for the political establishment to over-rule the wishes and recommendations of the military.
Last edited:
Sorry I was talking about real and currently existing replacement plans, not the ideal ones. Obviously I can sense you have a strong bias in favor of giving the RMAF what it wants, but on some level it's not that simple. A purchase of fighter jets is not just a decision in the military-technical field, it's also a decision in the political and economic fields. And the politicians have to balance the three.
The SH process you offer would currently be very problematic for the reasons you already specified. Currently the only thing up for replacement are the F-5s. So the MiG-29N replacement is up in the air. The current tender is also for 35-40 fighters. Not for 18 (to replace F-5s and Hornets). I'm not sure how many F-5s they operate, but from the looks the current tender may eventually either phase out the Fulcrums or see the RMAF go well beyond 3 squadrons. You may be riht about the commonality issue, which would leave more MKMs as the only sane alternative (provided they're not wiling to go with the H/SH trade-in). However granted that they've already operated 4 types in under-sized squadrons of each type for quite some years, it wouldn't be surprising to see them operate 4 types once again, with something like the F-16 or F-18E/F replaced the F-5s, but leaving the basic F-18s in service.
The SH process you offer would currently be very problematic for the reasons you already specified. Currently the only thing up for replacement are the F-5s. So the MiG-29N replacement is up in the air. The current tender is also for 35-40 fighters. Not for 18 (to replace F-5s and Hornets). I'm not sure how many F-5s they operate, but from the looks the current tender may eventually either phase out the Fulcrums or see the RMAF go well beyond 3 squadrons. You may be riht about the commonality issue, which would leave more MKMs as the only sane alternative (provided they're not wiling to go with the H/SH trade-in). However granted that they've already operated 4 types in under-sized squadrons of each type for quite some years, it wouldn't be surprising to see them operate 4 types once again, with something like the F-16 or F-18E/F replaced the F-5s, but leaving the basic F-18s in service.
Yes, agreed.
Yes. You should ask the Malaysians if they are happy with the level and amount of political interference in the making of decisions. It's ultimately a Malaysian choice on whether they want to accept or question their government's choices. Their press, especially those who focus on the defence sector will play an active role in that process of informing the debate.
My prior posts deals with their next two acquisitions and in them, I explain my preference for the same type. It does not preclude acquisitions beyond the 3 squadrons talked about after the 12th Malaysia Plan (2021-2025) or such later date (so no disagreement there).
However, I must add a caveat. Is the Malaysian Government capable of 180 degree U-turns? I know that you can never be sure with their announcements, until the fat lady sings. They are a parliamentary democracy and if there are enough protests/noise the Malaysian Government will either explain/defend their decision or back down or defer the decision. I think the Malaysian members of our forum can explain how their process works better than I.
As a Singaporean, I can't make such comments in a Malaysian thread. I prefer to be more diplomatic in my use of language. And the Malaysian Air Force also have legitimate concerns on the management of contract terms on the two deals thus far, which is why the middleman issue is now a political issue - the latest press leaks have been very specific on the problems. The Malaysian forum members can provide more details on how they are attempting reform in this area and how they plan to move forward (including promises made).So what is your opinion on those words in bold (in terms of capability and sustainability)?
Last edited:
Okay the RMAF is build up by making bad discissions and it ended up as an expensive force to operate that doesnt have the capabilities to justifie those costs. Thats all very nasty and it leaves the Malaysian military in a tough spot should troubles arrise.
And you all have made very good suggestions, and there are some great arguments in this topic, and what's best is the great info about the region (the point I appreciate the most). Feanor asked if there was a current replacement plan. Now I dont know about that. Sorry buddy, i'm gonna go in a totally different direction.
Now what if (totally hypothetical) they scrapped all of the existing fighter inventory, and replace it with one type? This way they consolidate their assets, and create room for other purchases and more money to properly operate and maintain their force.
The operation of one fighter type gives you more than just money and the sort, it gives you numbers which matter. Purchasing 50 or 60 aircraft gives far more leverage to make a good deal cost and support wise.
I also read that purchases where made for internal and international political reasons, now purchasing from one supplier would give much more political leverage with that country and give a chance to foster a long lasting relationship. Which seems much more valuable to me than going with the flow and spit your aliances. There could be concern about offsets, but a bigger order gives leverage to strike a bigger and more comprehensive offset deal. Which would be very valuable for local industry, and provide the oppertunity for research and expand their activities.
I know the RMAF or rather the Malaysian government would never do this, but it is a feasible plan which could very easily be implemented. Scrap the Mig-29's first and then move on to the F-18's and finally the Sukhoi's. Offcoarse they could choose to operate one of the types they operate now. But the fact is that the Mig-29's and F-18's are not an option (in my honest opinion) and there are many fighters they can operate that will be just as effective and I think it would be good to start with a clean slate.
(Now I could have rehashed some arguments sorry for that and most of you are totally right in your posts, this is just hypothertical)
And you all have made very good suggestions, and there are some great arguments in this topic, and what's best is the great info about the region (the point I appreciate the most). Feanor asked if there was a current replacement plan. Now I dont know about that. Sorry buddy, i'm gonna go in a totally different direction.
Now what if (totally hypothetical) they scrapped all of the existing fighter inventory, and replace it with one type? This way they consolidate their assets, and create room for other purchases and more money to properly operate and maintain their force.
The operation of one fighter type gives you more than just money and the sort, it gives you numbers which matter. Purchasing 50 or 60 aircraft gives far more leverage to make a good deal cost and support wise.
I also read that purchases where made for internal and international political reasons, now purchasing from one supplier would give much more political leverage with that country and give a chance to foster a long lasting relationship. Which seems much more valuable to me than going with the flow and spit your aliances. There could be concern about offsets, but a bigger order gives leverage to strike a bigger and more comprehensive offset deal. Which would be very valuable for local industry, and provide the oppertunity for research and expand their activities.
I know the RMAF or rather the Malaysian government would never do this, but it is a feasible plan which could very easily be implemented. Scrap the Mig-29's first and then move on to the F-18's and finally the Sukhoi's. Offcoarse they could choose to operate one of the types they operate now. But the fact is that the Mig-29's and F-18's are not an option (in my honest opinion) and there are many fighters they can operate that will be just as effective and I think it would be good to start with a clean slate.
(Now I could have rehashed some arguments sorry for that and most of you are totally right in your posts, this is just hypothertical)
Well I never claimed to know that. But since you asked.
I really like the gripen. And okay the cost argument is pretty strong here, but its a really nice airframe that the RMAF can absolutely support. It has customers that have great potential to further develop the aircraft, and none of those are likely to give up on that development. I can see South Africa and the Tsjechs step into the development as partners down the line. Both those aerospace industry's are highly industrial, experienced and motivated to be players in that field. Maybe I'm a fanboy, but everyone likes the underdog, and I see a lot of potential if these players really start working together and the Malaysian aerospace industry be a real player if they get into that.
Next to the Gripen the RMAF could go for the F-16, but that would probably mean flying second hand planes, and that doesn't shake with my full replacement theory. But there would be a lot of cheap planes once the F-35 comes around.
There's the F-18. The Rmaf already fly's that one, but it truly is a legacy platform with a limited support lifespan. But the USN is going to retire theirs pretty soon and there may be some nice ones for sale then, but I highly doubt that and if you ask me I'd say the days of the F-18 with the RMAF should be numbered just as those of the Mig29 are.
They could buy more MKM's, they're big, they're bad and they're dangerous, to sum it up the MKM seems to me to be a very capable warplane and I respect it greatly. But is it the best plane for the job? And the RMAF has had a lot of problems with the maintenance infrastructure for the Mig-29's, and more country's have experienced these problems with Russian materiel. Therefore I dont like it.
They could also Buy the Rafale, it would cost them a bundle and they probably refuse to pay that, but it is a really cool aircraft that I like and therefor I list it here as an option. Offcoarse the Typhoon falls under the same category, a long shot but a very very cool option and it would make a great great news story and fuel many more excelent discussions here.
Now what more options exist? Well a lot of nice ones. They could go Chinese, and buy FC-1 or J-10. I like the J-10, its a cool plane with great aerodynamic properties, and a lot of potential. Also China is growing not only as a military power, but a military producer. They would represent an important regional ally, and could provide the entire Malaysian military with some nice and shiny gear.
But to me the Gripen is the best option for the RMAF, and could be the backbone of a plan to create an integrated airdefence system with AEW, ISR, AA refueling and maritime patrol capability's.
Here's a fictional plan for the RMAF:
- 3 sqn's of Gripens (50 - 60x) I'd like to put in another sqn tho
- 4x AEW aircraft: Saab Erieye on the Saab 2000 or EMB-145 platforms
- A maritime patrol fleet based on the Saab 2000 which would double as ISR platform (like nimrod)
- A light transport and mid-air refueling platform based on Saab 2000
Maybe the patrol fleet could be given a gunship task as a third option. The saab 2000 has nice range and the room to fit many different mission systems. They could even make it a modular system, even palletised like the USCG's Ocean sentry. But the importance of the saab 2000 is that the different tasks can be performed by the same basic airframe.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Some interesting ideas, the choices of which I am mulling over. However, I have to shoot down (pun intended) the use of the Saab 2000 as either an AEW or MPA option. The Saab 2000 only ever had 63 built, which were for corporate or airline use. More importantly, production ceased in 1998.
This means that for any Saab 2000 AEW and/or MPA variant to be created it needs to be developed off of 2nd hand aircraft that are currently between 12-18 years old, or the production line needs to be restarted. Given that other, newer and/or in-production aircraft with similar properties and capabilities exist, I do not see it as being worthwhile.
An area which RMAF needs to be mindful of, particularly with the hodgepodge of fighters currently in service, is making sure future acquisitions are able to 'talk' to each other. I do not know for certain (perhaps a Malaysian or other familiar DefPro could confirm) but I strongly suspect that the F-5, F/A-18, MiG-29N and Su-30MKM aircraft are not able share targeting information with different types of fighters in RMAF service. Until that situation starts to change, it makes little sense IMO to purchase an AEW, because some or perhaps even all the aircraft might not be able to make use of the AEW, depending on which fighter is selected and what capabilities it has.
On a related note, it would seem worthwhile to purchase future systems which are interoperable with allied equipment. At present, two FPDA members operate AEW aircraft, the UK and SIngapore. A thid, Australia, has AEW&C aircraft set to enter service shortly. This means that other sensing platforms might be operating alongside RMAF aircraft depending on what is occuring. It only seems sensible to me that RMAF aircraft should be able to make use information available to allied aircraft, and by the same token, RMAF aircraft should also be able to pass data back to allied aircraft/systems.
-Cheers
Had the RMAF selected the Saab, the aircraft would been overhauled former Scandinavian Airlines examples. The chosen platform, should the RMAF proceed with an Eriye order, is the Embraer.
The Hornets were delivered with a data link but they can't share data with the Fulcrums..The intention as soon as an AEW platform is ordered is to install a data link on the MKMs. Though it's very early days the RMAF has already done a feasibility study on an MKM upgrade in the near future [new radar, avionics and towed decoy].Todjaeger said:
On another note, a report has indicated that the government will soon order 4 CN-295s for the MPA role from Indonesia. The government has yet to make an official announcement though. There is an urgent need to improve patrol capabilities as there are currently only 4 Beechcrafts, 2 of which are being fitted with AMASCOS, and a fleet of recently delivered MMEA AW-139s/Dauphins and Bombardiers.
Some major investment will be needed in the near future as the Aloutte 111s, used for rotary training, light transport and mercy flights will need replacing in a few years [during the Emergency the Alouttes were used as a FAC and as a light gunship, being fittted with a Mauser 30mm gun]. Though a feasibilty study has been done on upgrading the 16 Hawks 200s with a Selex Vixen radar it unclear when funding will be allocated. Another problem is the Vixen has yet to be integrated with the Hawk 200. The priority IMO for now, give the lack of funding, should be decent numbers of Cougars. Though the RMAF has a projected requirement for 72, funding has only been approved for 12 under the current Malaysia Plan and I think 24 under the next Malaysia Plan.
Last edited: