RMAF Future; need opinions

[TanaTana]

I would rather have the RMAF to keep the 18 Su-30MKM and get a squadron or two of the Chinese built J-10 fighters. This would solve some of the logistics problems that the air force is having, since both aircraft can use the AL-31F TV engines n the weapons are interchagable between both types of aircraft. J-10 is claimed to be at par with F-16C Block 50+.

Furthermore, ground engineers do not have to be trained to service many types of engines, thus save on training costs. This will also enable the RMAF to get the SD-10 MRAAM, which is cheaper than the R-77.

Just my 2 cents....

 

[renjer]

weasel1962, I don't see the T-50 as a serious contender either. A more serious effort would see the Koreans offering more industrial offsets or transfer of technology.

aaaditya, here in Malaysia the NADI group has been working very hard to be in the GOM's good books. If they are successful, we might see additional purchases of the Hawk.

johngage, if the 8 MB339CMs are already a confirmed buy then the M-346 remains a possibility down the road. A buy pattern might be spread out in batches over several 5-year plans. The proposal from Aermacchi include upgrading work for the remaining MB339AMs to keep these flying for another 5 years. AFAIK, this coincides with the service entry date for M-346. So, a possibility is for a batch to replace the AMs 5 years out, a batch to replace half the Hawks 10 years out, another batch yet again to replace the remaining Hawks 15 years out and a final batch to replace the CMs 20 years out.

IMO, a twin-engined LIFT/CAS is better given Malaysia's geography than either the single-engined Hawk or MB339. As I also think that the RMAF will consolidate it's MRCA fleet around the Su-30, the Yak-130's bid would most likely suffer from the GOM's desire to diversify it's source of supply.

TanaTana, nice thoughts. I think the problem with buying the J-10 is that it still introduces an additional platform to maintain despite engine commonality. Also, going forward the F2 and F3 variants of the Saturn might enter RMAF service (I hope). It might impose an engineering challenge as to whether the J-10 can accommodate the new engines(?). I don't know how involved the Chinese aerospace industry will be in these variants. Would it be very difficult to hard-wire the Su-30 to fire the SD-10?

 

[Ding]

Weasel, are you saying that the fulcrums are going to be stored? I heard rumours but not really any confirmation. Sad, I think the force mix of the flankers for strike/interception/air superiority and the fulcrums for point defence and short range day attack will be nice. Add the hawks for CAS and light fighter/bomber role and it will be a small but capable airforce. Pilots will still be an issue though. I think the root of the matter is that we dont have enough of them.....

 

[Transient]

I would rather have the RMAF to keep the 18 Su-30MKM and get a squadron or two of the Chinese built J-10 fighters. This would solve some of the logistics problems that the air force is having, since both aircraft can use the AL-31F TV engines n the weapons are interchagable between both types of aircraft. J-10 is claimed to be at par with F-16C Block 50+.

Claiming is cheap. Besides, there is no indication the J-10 is available for export yet. Better to stick to more SU-30MKMs. They provide far better capability in just about every area.

 

[aaaditya]

i believe malaysia should upgrade their fulcrums ,they can always enter into a maintainence and training arrangement with india (just like they have for the su30mkm).

i dont think that the j10 would be suitable for the malaysian airforce since it would require a new infrastructure set up,but the j10 would offer some commonality with the su30mkm with respect to the engines and the fire control systems.

 

[Ding]

I think we do have some sort of a maintenance arrangement with India with regards to the fulcrums

 

[johngage]

<<Pilots will still be an issue though. I think the root of the matter is that we dont have enough of them.....>>

If the main problem that the RMAF faces is the lack of pilots, should the government consider hiring foreign pilots (mercenaries) to make up the numbers? This is not an ideal solution and might pose security risks, but in an airforce that is lacking in numbers, the disbandment of the MiG-29's is a serious blow to Malaysia's defences. New pilots also take a long time to train especially if the present fleet of training aircraft is not enough, and pay for RMAF pilots is low.

 

[caksz]

<<Pilots will still be an issue though. I think the root of the matter is that we dont have enough of them.....>>

If the main problem that the RMAF faces is the lack of pilots, should the government consider hiring foreign pilots (mercenaries) to make up the numbers? This is not an ideal solution and might pose security risks, but in an airforce that is lacking in numbers, the disbandment of the MiG-29's is a serious blow to Malaysia's defences. New pilots also take a long time to train especially if the present fleet of training aircraft is not enough, and pay for RMAF pilots is low.

we have a lot of pilot , but lacking a flying hours for mig-29 & f-18 due to the lack of lift aircraft , the MB339CMs deal will decline that , but still need some times to deliver for training. BTW the MiG-29's squadron is still flying and kicking , especially in recent FPDA air excercise

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Subangite]

I would rather have the RMAF to keep the 18 Su-30MKM and get a squadron or two of the Chinese built J-10 fighters. This would solve some of the logistics problems that the air force is having, since both aircraft can use the AL-31F TV engines n the weapons are interchagable between both types of aircraft. J-10 is claimed to be at par with F-16C Block 50+.

Furthermore, ground engineers do not have to be trained to service many types of engines, thus save on training costs. This will also enable the RMAF to get the SD-10 MRAAM, which is cheaper than the R-77.

Just my 2 cents....

The J10 is a nice idea, though if its a single engine aircraft then the RMAF I think should also consider the SAAB Gripen, following your point it also shares the same engines as an aircraft the RMAF is familiar with. The RMAF is already quite familiar with the F/A 18 engines which the gripen also shares (engine maintainence is said to be cheaper, whilst maintaining high fuel economy), albeit Gripen engines are built by Volvo, in terms of the hornet arms they are also compatible with the Gripen aircraft, not including other weapons availible that might interest the RMAF, such as those that can be sourced from South Africa. The Gripen after all is the cheapest western built aircraft, especially in comparison to other aircraft such as the Super hornets. In terms of thrust/weight, combat range, it is superior to that of the J10.

There could be offset packages too that could be of interests, for example the contract with the SAAF for 28 Gripens worth more than $1.6bn, but it will also be backed up by an industrial participation package worth around five times the purchase price and will generate some 23,000 jobs in South Africa.

The chances of the Gripen entering RMAF service I think is slim, budgetary constraints is one reason why. Though like Gripen offers before to the Czech Republic for example, the RMAF could sign a lease agreement for the aircraft. Though all this however doesn't solve the services low pay of pilots and their lack of flight hours, perhaps more orders of the MB339CM should come along with salary increases, this might be seen as more of a priority. Did the RMAF look at the K-8 Karakorum as a possibility instead of the MB339CM??

 

[johngage]

<<Malaysia doesn't really face any significant threats today>>

This is certainly true for the moment but it does not mean that Malaysia can afford to be complacent. In fact it would make sense to build up ur military capabilities in peacetime rather than wait for war to start first. A good analogy would be repairing the roof of your house when the sun is still shining.

<<Militarily, there is no realistic threat that the FPDA + neighboring SEA countries faces or can't handle>>

Again, very true. But Malaysia also has various outstanding territorial claims with its neighbours (Ambalat with Indonesia, the Limbang Valley with Brunei, Pedra Branca with Singapore, Spratly islands with China...etc). All these problems can be solved diplomatically but the danger of confrontation should also be considered, namely that the military threat may come from one of the neighbouring SEA countries. Highly unlikely at present but not impossible.

<<RMAF doesn't need to consider mercenary pilots. 18 Mig 29s defended Malaysian airspace for a decade. 18 Su 30 can do better. In any case, its just a matter of time>>

<<Though all this however doesn't solve the services low pay of pilots and their lack of flight hours, perhaps more orders of the MB339CM should come along with salary increases, this might be seen as more of a priority. Did the RMAF look at the K-8 Karakorum as a possibility instead of the MB339CM??>>

It strikes me that unless a pay increase is considered the RMAF might struggle to keep even 18 frontline combat aircraft flying. After all living standards in Malaysia is going to go up in the future.

 

[Subangite]

It strikes me that unless a pay increase is considered the RMAF might struggle to keep even 18 frontline combat aircraft flying. After all living standards in Malaysia is going to go up in the future.

I agree. This is definately true when you consider that living and pay conditions for pilots are better elsewhere. I know an ex RMAF pilot working and living here in Brisbane. RMAF pilots need to be retained in the service, thus they should recieve higher pay as an incentive to stay, if not they can easily go to greener pastures.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[johngage]

<<So what the RMAF can do is to institute even longer term contracts (with far heavier contract breaking penalties)>>

But that still does not solve the fundamental problem. All it does is to delay it. The problem is the number of people leaving the RMAF in search of a bigger pay-check. I am not suggesting that the RMAF tries to match the civilian sector. But some incentives must be given to try to keep the number of experienced personnel leaving at an acceptable level. This could be tax-breaks, free housing, or university scholarships etc...The other problem is that if the pay remains low and the contracts become much more severe, what you will find is a reduction in the number of people who will volunteer to become pilots.

<<In such a scenario, the RMAF will not retain sufficient experienced pilots (which is equally a problem)>>

Its essentially a vicious circle. The RMAF will spend millions to train pilots and then find their investment is wasted as these pilots will leave at the earliest possible opportunity. This will be a massive drain on the RMAF's resources. The only way to keep the pilots is to make a career in the RMAF an attractive option. And one of the ways to do this is to increase the salary.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[renjer]

... some incentives must be given to try to keep the number of experienced personnel leaving at an acceptable level. This could be tax-breaks, free housing, or university scholarships etc...The other problem is that if the pay remains low and the contracts become much more severe, what you will find is a reduction in the number of people who will volunteer to become pilots.

I think the key word here is "acceptable". Many people don't plan to make the air force their career.

For some, they want to do their part to serve their country for part of their lives. For others it provides them with the opportunity to train as pilots and eventually move on into the private sector. For those that fall into this group incentives are unlikely to retain them.

 

[johngage]

I think the key word here is "acceptable". Many people don't plan to make the air force their career.

For some, they want to do their part to serve their country for part of their lives. For others it provides them with the opportunity to train as pilots and eventually move on into the private sector. For those that fall into this group incentives are unlikely to retain them.

I think that this is a common problem for many countries with rising living standards. Military life is demanding and there is no doubt that there are ALWAYS going to be people who do not wish to make the military their career. You are right that there is going to be a group for which no incentives will be enough. But the RMAF can certainly take efforts to try to minimize the numbers who do leave. Incentives along with higher pay will not eliminate the problem completely. But it does help a great deal. I have spoken to many pilots who have left, and a common complaint is low-pay, so obviously this is a significant factor. Furthermore, fighter pilots tend to be a young man's profession so it is not surprising that as they get older they would wish to leave. What the RMAF needs to do is to target an age bracket (18-45?) and try to reduce the numbers leaving from this group, before their replacements can be trained. In this context, I think that incentives DO help.

 

[renjer]

In this context, I think that incentives DO help.

Yes, in this context I agree with you.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted