RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Really... Is India selling Brahmos already?mmmbop said:I believe the Kh series is hardwired.initial news point out that the missiles might came along as well but no hard fact.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
73th Malaysian Armed Forces DayFPDA ex ongoing. obviously not malaysian.such a foolish to made a so-called secret buy and then telecast on national day.
16/9/2006
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2403/dsc0693216hbsept2006uy5.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1564/dsc0693316hbsept2006sf6.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/496/dsc0692716hbsept2006td7.jpg
Nice pictures, HangPC2. Of the 16 Sep parade at RMAF Subang I assume.
I think the point mmmbop was making was there was no secret Malaysian purchase of these aircraft.
Great pictures HangPC2!!! Thanks! I'm assuming its RMAF Subang also, the straight give away is that I see the RMAF Bombardier BD-700-1A10 Global Express in the background photo which is based in Subang if I'm not mistaken, its behind the USAF E-3 Sentry AWACS plane. (http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2403/dsc0693216hbsept2006uy5.jpg)
Question, the helicopter in this picture (http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/496/dsc0692716hbsept2006td7.jpg) I don't recognize the markings, where is this from??
Oh and who is the guy on the Land Rover defender, a General? The King?
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8619/dsc0695716hbsept2006qi4.jpgOh and who is the guy on the Land Rover defender, a General? The
King?
hey guys, does anyone know what is the status of the 20 f-18 e/f super hornets that malaysia planned to acquire from usa,according to the airforce technology website ,the plan was put on hold due to budgetary constraints .does anyone know wether these fighters will be ordered in the near future and if so what would be their role and configuration with the rmaf.
Boeing's offer of the Super hornets to the RMAF has been upgraded last year, the RMAF is now offered the block 2 Super Hornets, they include a deal where current RMAF F/A-18D's are to be traded in, Boeings top representative in Malaysia however has been quoted as saying he doesn't expect the deal to go through anytime soon, rumours are plenty on this deal though. Don't hold your breath as I suspect there shouldn't be any funding availible for this purchase for atleast until the 10th Malaysia plan (a budgetary 5 year allocation) which should mean by 2010 the earliest and thats if there's approval by the government. Your guess is as good as mine if the Super Hornets will be flying in RMAF colours.hey guys, does anyone know what is the status of the 20 f-18 e/f super hornets that malaysia planned to acquire from usa,according to the airforce technology website ,the plan was put on hold due to budgetary constraints .does anyone know wether these fighters will be ordered in the near future and if so what would be their role and configuration with the rmaf.
I would like to ask for some opinions:
1) Has there been any news with regard to Malaysia's AWACS requirements?
2) What is the best option with regard to the TUDM's front-line mix? If I am not mistaken the planned purchases would mean 18 SU-30MKM's & 18 F/A-18E/F. The logic behind this would presumably be that these aircraft are suitable because of Malaysia's vast maritime EEZ.
Both of them have twin engines, the SU-30 has long range, the F-18E/F is designed as a maritime strike fighter. But both aircraft are also very expensive to purchase & operate. The SU-30 is around $55 million & the F-18E/F is around $82-85 million. I was wondering if it would be better to go for a LIFT instead (for e.g the T-50 Golden Eagle or Ching-Kuo). For the price of 18 SU-30MKM's ($900 million), we could buy around 43 T-50's, assuming unit price around $21-23). We could place half in Labuan and half in Peninsular Malaysia.
3) We could also cut costs by disbanding the Hawks & Hornets. Admittedly, the LIFT would have far less capability than our heavy fighters, but there would be cheaper to operate, and we could buy more of them. We could also outfit them with conformal fuel tanks to increase their range. The Su-30MKM's would therefore be our hi-fighter and the LIFT would function as as our low-fighter.
1) Has there been any news with regard to Malaysia's AWACS requirements?
2) What is the best option with regard to the TUDM's front-line mix? If I am not mistaken the planned purchases would mean 18 SU-30MKM's & 18 F/A-18E/F. The logic behind this would presumably be that these aircraft are suitable because of Malaysia's vast maritime EEZ.
Both of them have twin engines, the SU-30 has long range, the F-18E/F is designed as a maritime strike fighter. But both aircraft are also very expensive to purchase & operate. The SU-30 is around $55 million & the F-18E/F is around $82-85 million. I was wondering if it would be better to go for a LIFT instead (for e.g the T-50 Golden Eagle or Ching-Kuo). For the price of 18 SU-30MKM's ($900 million), we could buy around 43 T-50's, assuming unit price around $21-23). We could place half in Labuan and half in Peninsular Malaysia.
3) We could also cut costs by disbanding the Hawks & Hornets. Admittedly, the LIFT would have far less capability than our heavy fighters, but there would be cheaper to operate, and we could buy more of them. We could also outfit them with conformal fuel tanks to increase their range. The Su-30MKM's would therefore be our hi-fighter and the LIFT would function as as our low-fighter.
i dont think it is the number of fighters that matters ,but the quality of fighters ,the aircrafts that you mentioned (t-50 and ching kuo)d have relatively limited range and payload capacity as they are light fighters and consequently would not be as capable as the su-30mkm and the f-18e/f,the second point to be noted is availability of spares and support,i dont know about the f-18e/f but the malaysians can use indian assistance for their su30mkm's.I would like to ask for some opinions:
1) Has there been any news with regard to Malaysia's AWACS requirements?
2) What is the best option with regard to the TUDM's front-line mix? If I am not mistaken the planned purchases would mean 18 SU-30MKM's & 18 F/A-18E/F. The logic behind this would presumably be that these aircraft are suitable because of Malaysia's vast maritime EEZ.
Both of them have twin engines, the SU-30 has long range, the F-18E/F is designed as a maritime strike fighter. But both aircraft are also very expensive to purchase & operate. The SU-30 is around $55 million & the F-18E/F is around $82-85 million. I was wondering if it would be better to go for a LIFT instead (for e.g the T-50 Golden Eagle or Ching-Kuo). For the price of 18 SU-30MKM's ($900 million), we could buy around 43 T-50's, assuming unit price around $21-23). We could place half in Labuan and half in Peninsular Malaysia.
3) We could also cut costs by disbanding the Hawks & Hornets. Admittedly, the LIFT would have far less capability than our heavy fighters, but there would be cheaper to operate, and we could buy more of them. We could also outfit them with conformal fuel tanks to increase their range. The Su-30MKM's would therefore be our hi-fighter and the LIFT would function as as our low-fighter.
conformal tanks increase the drag and hence reduce manouverability this is not advisable for an air superiority fighter(maybe advisable for a strike fighter),they also increase the rcs of the aircraft slightly.I would like to ask for some opinions:
1) Has there been any news with regard to Malaysia's AWACS requirements?
2) What is the best option with regard to the TUDM's front-line mix? If I am not mistaken the planned purchases would mean 18 SU-30MKM's & 18 F/A-18E/F. The logic behind this would presumably be that these aircraft are suitable because of Malaysia's vast maritime EEZ.
Both of them have twin engines, the SU-30 has long range, the F-18E/F is designed as a maritime strike fighter. But both aircraft are also very expensive to purchase & operate. The SU-30 is around $55 million & the F-18E/F is around $82-85 million. I was wondering if it would be better to go for a LIFT instead (for e.g the T-50 Golden Eagle or Ching-Kuo). For the price of 18 SU-30MKM's ($900 million), we could buy around 43 T-50's, assuming unit price around $21-23). We could place half in Labuan and half in Peninsular Malaysia.
3) We could also cut costs by disbanding the Hawks & Hornets. Admittedly, the LIFT would have far less capability than our heavy fighters, but there would be cheaper to operate, and we could buy more of them. We could also outfit them with conformal fuel tanks to increase their range. The Su-30MKM's would therefore be our hi-fighter and the LIFT would function as as our low-fighter.
the dsbanding of the hawks is particularly not acceptable since with their disbanding malaysian airforce will lose a potent training platform,also the hawks are the best suited of all the aircrafts discussed so far for carrying out counter insurgency operations in the hilly regions of malaysia,since they are highly stable at subsonic flight and are capable of low flight,can carry a substantial payload(of upto 3 tons) have a decent combat radius etc.
<<i dont think it is the number of fighters that matters ,but the quality of fighters ,the aircrafts that you mentioned (t-50 and ching kuo)d have relatively limited range and payload capacity as they are light fighters and consequently would not be as capable as the su-30mkm and the f-18e/f,the second point to be noted is availability of spares and support,i dont know about the f-18e/f but the malaysians can use indian assistance for their su30mkm's>>
I certainly agree that the T-50 and Ching-Kuo is not as capable as the SU-30MKM or the F/A-18E/F. The SU-30MKM is about 2.5 times more expensive and the F/A-18E/F almost 4x more expensive than the LIFT. I also agree that quality is important. But surely numbers DO matter when it comes to wartime conditions. The more aircraft you have means that you can generate more sorties, and sorties are what wins wars. More aircraft also means that you can handle attrition better under combat conditions. I am certainly grateful for the Indian support especially when it comes to the Indian computers and software on the MKM. I certainly would not want to get rid of the SU-30MKM. My idea was to keep the SU-30 as the 'heavy fighter' and the T-50 as the 'light fighter'. Btw any info on the Indian computers on the Su-30 would be greatly appreciated.
<<conformal tanks increase the drag and hence reduce manouverability this is not advisable for an air superiority fighter(maybe advisable for a strike fighter),they also increase the rcs of the aircraft slightly>>
That's true. But the drag and manouverability increase is minimal, if the CFT's are properly fitted. To quote Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, USAF project pilot for CFT testing on the Israeli F-16I Sufa Falcons "the CFT's have very little adverse affect on the F-16's renowned performance. The aircraft retains its full 9G capability and flight envelope with the CFT's installed. The drag impact is very small, less than 1% in combat configuration and cruise conditions" (R. Weiss, F-16I Sufa in IAF service (Israel, 2005), p. 11).
<<the dsbanding of the hawks is particularly not acceptable since with their disbanding malaysian airforce will lose a potent training platform,also the hawks are the best suited of all the aircrafts discussed so far for carrying out counter insurgency operations in the hilly regions of malaysia,since they are highly stable at subsonic flight and are capable of low flight,can carry a substantial payload(of upto 3 tons) have a decent combat radius etc.>>
My idea was for the T-50's to replace the Hawks. The T-50 is designed to provide pilot training for current and next-generation fighters like advanced F-16s, F-22s and the Joint Strike Fighter. As for counter-insurgency, if I am not mistaken the airforce is planning to purchase the Aermacchi MB339C/D.
I certainly agree that the T-50 and Ching-Kuo is not as capable as the SU-30MKM or the F/A-18E/F. The SU-30MKM is about 2.5 times more expensive and the F/A-18E/F almost 4x more expensive than the LIFT. I also agree that quality is important. But surely numbers DO matter when it comes to wartime conditions. The more aircraft you have means that you can generate more sorties, and sorties are what wins wars. More aircraft also means that you can handle attrition better under combat conditions. I am certainly grateful for the Indian support especially when it comes to the Indian computers and software on the MKM. I certainly would not want to get rid of the SU-30MKM. My idea was to keep the SU-30 as the 'heavy fighter' and the T-50 as the 'light fighter'. Btw any info on the Indian computers on the Su-30 would be greatly appreciated.
<<conformal tanks increase the drag and hence reduce manouverability this is not advisable for an air superiority fighter(maybe advisable for a strike fighter),they also increase the rcs of the aircraft slightly>>
That's true. But the drag and manouverability increase is minimal, if the CFT's are properly fitted. To quote Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, USAF project pilot for CFT testing on the Israeli F-16I Sufa Falcons "the CFT's have very little adverse affect on the F-16's renowned performance. The aircraft retains its full 9G capability and flight envelope with the CFT's installed. The drag impact is very small, less than 1% in combat configuration and cruise conditions" (R. Weiss, F-16I Sufa in IAF service (Israel, 2005), p. 11).
<<the dsbanding of the hawks is particularly not acceptable since with their disbanding malaysian airforce will lose a potent training platform,also the hawks are the best suited of all the aircrafts discussed so far for carrying out counter insurgency operations in the hilly regions of malaysia,since they are highly stable at subsonic flight and are capable of low flight,can carry a substantial payload(of upto 3 tons) have a decent combat radius etc.>>
My idea was for the T-50's to replace the Hawks. The T-50 is designed to provide pilot training for current and next-generation fighters like advanced F-16s, F-22s and the Joint Strike Fighter. As for counter-insurgency, if I am not mistaken the airforce is planning to purchase the Aermacchi MB339C/D.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited: