C-295 or CN-235?
The CN-235 is built in both Indonesia & Spain, but AFAIK the C-295 is only built in Spain.
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
The CN-235 is built in both Indonesia & Spain, but AFAIK the C-295 is only built in Spain.
Sorry, my mistake. It's the CN-235 and not the CN-295. Going for additional CN-235s makes sense as there are already 6 CN-235 transports and 2 VIP configured CN-235 operated. Plus there is already a simulator for the CN-235. But as OPSSG has pointed out, nothing is really for certain until a firm contract is signed, with the government quite capable of changing its mind.
The RMAF had previously been offered surplus Nimrods and Orions. IMO, despite the higher purchasing and operating cost, the RMAF would be better off with an aircraft that provides more endurance and internal volume. But they as they say, one can't be too choosy. MPA configured CN-235s would not place additional burden on the already strained and overworked logistics/ground support infrastructure.
I give you the MPA options, but Erieye is definitly integrated on Saab 2000. They are being delivered to the Pakistan Airforce. But you're right about the aircraft in other aspects like production availability and age.
Now I have been pondering on something that would be really cool in my opinion. And that is an AEW version of either the C-235 or C295. I really like the airframe, and I think its good for many different missions, so why not bolt an actively scanned array on the sucker? That way we can replace Saab 2000 for C-295 in my proposal.
And that was what it was, a proposed optimal roster for the RMAF they could strive for in 10 or 15 years.
Another very important reason the RMAF should just proceed to sell their existing fighter stocks and replace them with one type whichever type that may be. Otherwise they would be integrating all kind of stuff on 3 or 4 different airframes. That just cant be cheap.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You know, the fact that the Saab 2000 was the platform being used for the PAF AEW aircraft completely escaped me...
I do have to wonder where Saab got their hands on the airframes. If they did re-open the production line (and if the line is still open) then a Saab 2000 Erieye AEW could be a viable AEW candidate. Otherwise I would recommend going with the R-99A/EMB-145SA Erieye. While it might be nice to have the Erieye radar mounted on CN-235 or CN-295 aircraft, I am not certain that Malaysia could afford the potential development costs and project risk. In some respects I would rather Malaysia get the G550 CAEW like the RSAF has. While the aircraft is IMO ugly (no offence, but it is...) it can provide 360-degree coverage and is already in service with an ally, which can potentially make maintenance and support somewhat easier, but I somehow doubt that would be either palatable or available. For MPA aircraft, I would rather that the RMAF purchase more CN-235 rather than switching to the CN-295. My reasoning in this is that the CN-235 is already in RMAF service as a transport, which can allow some fleet commonality in terms of training, support, etc. Given the limitations on the RMAF budget, better to keep support as simple as can be managed. The fighter situation is a good example of what can happen if that is not done. Incidentally, CN-235 MPA variants can have a mission endurance of ~9 hours, which should do quite well. What I would prefer if possible is that RMAF CN-235 MPA be re-configurable for different missions, in a manner not unlike the USCG can do with their HC-144 Ocean Sentry versions of the HC-235 MPA. While I do not think the system fitout used by the USCG (ISR, no ASW/ASuW capability) would be appropriate, the ability to remove a MSP (Mission System Pallet) to allow conversion between MPA and cargo/troop transport seems to be worthwhile
I do agree that attempting to integrate comms and datalinks across small numbers of 4 different types of fighter airframes is going to be expensive. And difficult to accomplish. And maintain and support. And did I mention expensive? Seriously though, while it would be nice if the RMAF could just decide to focus on just a single fighter type, given the numbers and types currently in service, I do not see that as being something which can be accomplished immediately. Rather, it might be possible if done in stages instead. I feel the first stage should coincide with the RMAF F-5 replacement programme and be a decision about future fighter aircraft sourcing.
While it would be nice if whatever is chosen to replace the RMAF F-5s could ultimately become the new RMAF fighter, that might not be possible due to costs and differing mission requirements. I do feel that Malaysia should be able to make a decision on which power bloc future fighters and avionics will be purchased from. At present the RMAF operates a mix of Eastern (Russian) and Western (US) fighters. By having aircraft of such different origins, the parts and equipment available for the different fighters do not work with each other (without modification) and the systems which allow aircraft to work together is all completely different. By chosing a single basic source (Western or Easter) the RMAF should be able to start reaching higher levels of capability and interoperability than is currently possible. Once a basic source is chosen, then more specific decisions can be made on which specific aircraft and systems to be to use.
-Cheers
Used, refurbished. I think SAAB had them returned at the end of leases. I believe it has access to quite a few more, relatively low hours (ca 25% of life used, according to SAAB), & stored in good conditions, & would love to find customers for them. It's offering an MPA version.You know, the fact that the Saab 2000 was the platform being used for the PAF AEW aircraft completely escaped me...
Ex-Scandinavian Airlines.You know, the fact that the Saab 2000 was the platform being used for the PAF AEW aircraft completely escaped me...
The only fighter types the RMAF will integrate with data links are the MKMs and Hornets, plus whatever is eventually ordered, which I hope is the Super Hornet or even additional MKMs. There are no plans to spend any cash on the F-5s and Fulcrums except what is needed to keep them operational until the arrival of a replacement
As for the 16 Hawk 200s, which are used for the point interceptor and anti-maritime role, I'm not sure if the feasibilty study done on an upgrade which includes the Selex Vixen radar, includes the provision of data links.
Last edited:
found a superb pic taken of the MiG during yesterdays F! practice session..she still looks elegant in the air despite the obvious 'shower' she needs..
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4484876227_96095eed2b_o.jpg
(credits to the photographer)
we currently have only 6 operational MiGs right?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4484876227_96095eed2b_o.jpg
(credits to the photographer)
we currently have only 6 operational MiGs right?
Yes because the government isn't keen on forking out cash to overhaul the rest. As RMAF pilots really flew a lot in their MiGs the low TBO of the RD-33s was a reall problem.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
The Malaysians are better off buying 6 more SU 30s than purchasing 40 more airframes. In that manner, they will have 24 Sukhois, 10 Mig 29s, 8 F/A 18s to play around with and that should be sufficient until 2020.
Any more money spent on 4th generation aircraft would be wasteful, what with the arrival of the JSF, PAK FA, etc.
Any more money spent on 4th generation aircraft would be wasteful, what with the arrival of the JSF, PAK FA, etc.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There is the question of whether any 5th Gen fighters would be viable options for the RMAF. For one thing, the RMAF seems to be operating under a rather tight budget, which has made it difficult to replace some of the existing kit even when needed due to age of platform or as a part of a platform rationalization effort. Purchasing 5th Gen fighters as replacements would likely cost more than purchasing some of the less advanced 4th Gen aircraft available now.
Then there is the question of whether or not the RMAF would be in a position to properly maintain all the 5th Gen fighter's systems. Given that the underlying industrial/tech base of Malayasia has not been sufficient to make signigicant developments with defence systems (to my knowledge), that could be an issue in the future.
Right now the RMAF seems to be in what is sometimes called a Catch-22 situation. It needs to replace some of the fighters to reduce operating costs and allow continuation of services, but at the same time it cannot afford to replace some of those very same systems due to cost reasons.
-Cheers
Some new developments with the RMAF. The Defence Minister has announced that the
S-61A 'Nuri' fleet will be upgraded to S-61T Triton standard, by a local company AIROD, and Sikorsky. The C-130H fleet is also to be upgraded. Both projects, according to the Defence Minister are to commence in 2014. There were plans a few years ago to upgrade the C-130Hs with a glass cockpit and an L-3 traffic management system but the government instead ordered 4 A400Ms. Though not stated, the late delivery of the RMAF's A400Ms by 3 years is probably the main reason behing the C-130H upgrade.
For the first time, the RMAF has publicly displayed the R-77 'Adder' missile. Whether this is just a dummy/training round given by Vympel as part of its sales drive or whether the RMAF actually has R-77s remains to seen.
S-61A 'Nuri' fleet will be upgraded to S-61T Triton standard, by a local company AIROD, and Sikorsky. The C-130H fleet is also to be upgraded. Both projects, according to the Defence Minister are to commence in 2014. There were plans a few years ago to upgrade the C-130Hs with a glass cockpit and an L-3 traffic management system but the government instead ordered 4 A400Ms. Though not stated, the late delivery of the RMAF's A400Ms by 3 years is probably the main reason behing the C-130H upgrade.
For the first time, the RMAF has publicly displayed the R-77 'Adder' missile. Whether this is just a dummy/training round given by Vympel as part of its sales drive or whether the RMAF actually has R-77s remains to seen.
ab56452001
New Member
Hi ,just stumbled on this Mig 29 Rmaf retirement thread , please excuse my nievete' , but why on earth did the malay's pick the Mig 29 in the first place, could not be on through life cost , aircraft availability , nor combat record v western aircraft , plus being first russian aircraft in their inventory etc , just doesnt m\ake sense !.
Mod edit: Text deleted. If you're trolling for mod responses, congratulations, you've got one. Consider this your first warning, and if you wish to participate meaningfully in these forums I'd advise you not to selectively respond to posts you've dredged up from last year in an attempt to get under someone's skin.
Sorry., was just catching up on this thread after a period of absence.No intention to get under anyone's skin or interupt flow of exchange, just want to be spared the repetitions the same comments.
Sorry., was just catching up on this thread after a period of absence.No intention to get under anyone's skin or interupt flow of exchange, just want to be spared the repetitions the same comments.
Last edited:
Evidently, there is also a commercial dispute that went to court relating to the upgrading of RMAF F-5s. What is the role of Lardac and it's value add to this sort of contractual arrangement? Does Lardac have the necessary expertise to perform the contract or is it relying on CAS Ltd, as sub-contractor, to do the job (which relates to the middle-man issue in some Malaysian maintenance contracts)?
Any comments from the Malaysian forum members? More news details below:
BTW, in happier news, I understand that 'Foxy' (Malaysia's only female MiG-29N driver) has gotten married to 'Kunte' (a F/A-18D driver). Congrats to the happy couple.
[h/t to xtemujin for the happy news]
Last edited:
During LIMA 2001, LARDAC in partnership with Caledonian Systems [based in Scotland] was awarded a contract to overhaul the 'F-5s'. Whilst no details on the upgrade were released at that time, it was common knowledge that the upgrade or refurbishment was for a single F-5F. I was there and visited the stand but the chaps there weren't too forthcoming on the upgrade details. Shortly after, the deal went sour and there was a court case with Caledonian Systems bringing either LARDAC or the government to court.
Interestingly, several years ago in an interview, the Chief of RMAF said that the F-5Fs had been upgraded without providing any details. In the 'Airliners' site there is a photo of an F-5F that has received a new paintjob and looks immaculate.
Hopefully Dzirhan will be able to provide more info. Off-topic but does anyone know if
F-5Es delivered in the 70's came fitted with HUDs?
Last edited:
Dzirhan, are there any new developments with regards to the search for a new fighter that you might be able to share with us? Purely speculation on my part but would I be right in assuming that the Hornet is still the RMAF's first choice, as it was some years ago? No doubt BAE Systems will be pushing hard for the Gripen as a cheaper alternative. Do you feel that the RTAF's choice of the Gripen may play a part in Malaysia deciding?
Very great job with the Part 1 and 2 articles you did in reponse to 'malaysiakini's article. Hope the folks at 'malaysiakini' read it carefully. I know one of the editors there and I can't wait to find out what he has to say the next time I bump into him: .....
Fariz.
Very great job with the Part 1 and 2 articles you did in reponse to 'malaysiakini's article. Hope the folks at 'malaysiakini' read it carefully. I know one of the editors there and I can't wait to find out what he has to say the next time I bump into him
: .....Fariz.