weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
hrm.. maybe I had the wrong version, mine dint show any AIM-120c for malaysia, only shown 39 for singapore...
Can you share us a copy of that document?
Looks like someone too is finding the same path to track down global inventory changes!
I guess it would be another trial?
And, I heard long time ago, believed in it before i heard the news. There is rumor said that our hornet are being limited ability or downgraded, including radar modes and BVR. How true is that?
Last edited:
Ramjetmissile
New Member
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2005/Singapore_05-39.pdf
Singapore is xpecting another 200 Amraam on top of its 100 Amraam procured earlier from the united States
Singapore is xpecting another 200 Amraam on top of its 100 Amraam procured earlier from the united States
Hi folks,
New here. Anyway, as much as I like the Mig-29Ns I think it makes better sense to sell them off once the Su-30MKMs becomes operational. The MiG-29Ns are great point defence aircraft but I never felt it being suitable for Malaysia's requirement for long distance over-water operations. If the sale of the MiGs is true then I hope a second batch of MKMs or the introduction of the Super Hornet becomes a reality.
New here. Anyway, as much as I like the Mig-29Ns I think it makes better sense to sell them off once the Su-30MKMs becomes operational. The MiG-29Ns are great point defence aircraft but I never felt it being suitable for Malaysia's requirement for long distance over-water operations. If the sale of the MiGs is true then I hope a second batch of MKMs or the introduction of the Super Hornet becomes a reality.
We are not as rich as those countries that gave off their old toys without even bother about the outcome. And even before we find ourselves a buyer, Russian's SMT will float the market.
Actually our economy is doing well. The reserves are quite substantial. Anyway, just because we can't find a buyer doesn't mean we should continue operating the MiGs. I agree with Super Bug. If we had to make a choice then I would pick the Sukhois over the MiGs. Far more suitable for our needs. And we have to remember that it's better to have a lot of one thing than a little bit of everything.
Hrm... Sukhois are actually far more capable but also far more expensive to acquire and to maintain.
IMO, to maximize the Migs profit is the best way for our case. Since we cant sell it, we should can use it to limit... But the price behind Sukhois and Mig are unknown to public... I cant put a hard comment on it... just my 2 cents
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
A bit confuse here. You mean it should actually give the precise number than relying on public figures?
And what does the "may not happen" refer to?
I checked a few of the countries. For example, US state they exported missiles to UK, but under UK, there is no such import.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Yes, but sound airframes suitable for upgrade could find a buyer, e.g. India, which has a problem with keeping numbers of operational fighters up pending new orders, & is seeking secondhand aircraft of types they already operate as gap-fillers.
Well, my story for this question have to go back to the 1990s.
Before the gulf war, we had a good relationship, at least not a bad one with The US. But after the gulf war, for many reasons, both relationship turn down. The Mig-29s buy show to "who may concern" that we can actually live without "someone".
Further more, Mig-29 actually did well in RMAF. I noticed that quite some ppl put their speculation base on facts from countries suffered sanction. And if you do some research, result shows that Mig-29 did just as well as of other brand a/c. 75% availability is actually 14 out of 17. If you bring in statistic calculation, 3 of 50 down vs 3 of 14 down may suggest a same mean value as the planes are actually individual to each others. While the "money eating monster" nickname comes from western media. I believed maintenances cost for all planes are not far from each other. Anyways, military toys are all money burner.
On other hand, Hawk did not do well in Malaysia, they are very expensive, and somehow RMAF is not in favor of them. RMAF is now going on a major shift from Hawks to MB339s (type of trainer which we operate before the hawks). Any how, for the tech we continuously gain, and aviation shifting towards plug and play concept, low-end jet like hawk/MB339 is not too much trouble for us to at least maintain it. BTW, there are big business behind MB339 which may be more than enough to even dumb the hawks. (just my fantasy
)The above are my point of view, nothing critical.
cheers.
Russians will not allowed us to spoil their business.
: And the Indians are now in fervent of putting budget for powerful new planes. Old models will not get their attention.
The Russians could make money out of the upgrade, as they are with existing Indian MiG-29s, & the Indians need aircraft urgently. MiG have woken up to how badly they screwed up their own chances of making money in the past, by being difficult.Russians will not allowed us to spoil their business.
And the Indians are now in fervent of putting budget for powerful new planes. Old models will not get their attention.
Indias new orders won't be delivered (or need to be paid for) for years, & numbers are dropping. The head of the IAF has stated publicly that India is seeking both secondhand Mirage 2000s (including trying - again - to buy the Qatari ones) and MiG-29s, to keep the air force going until new aircraft can be bought.
Well, as you can see, SEA countries have all came out of the 97 crisis. All postponed projects start to heat up. As for present, even all 18 MkMs arrived, RMAF is still out number by surrounding AFs. Our budget in RMK-9 remain the same as past 4 years. Unfortunately, we stretch it to limit for the 3 major project, Scorpions, PT-91Ms and MkMs.And sub project of these will float the coming RMK. Should note that MkMs rather a isolated project compare to the other two. Which means that RMAF had completed a major project and unlikely to have more budget soon or later in the future. Like wise, MkMs need only additional, or a renovated present airfield. But as for Scorpions, new base needed, new equipments yet to buy, everything to be start from sketch. Same case for PT-91M, more supporting vehicles, APCs, APVs, LAVs, LPDs, A-400Ms etc still waiting in the list.
Further more, Mig-29N as our backbone for many years, the largest and most capable fighters in RMAF, it is not wise to dump them in any near future. Meanwhile MKMs still need time to gain their strength, Hornets praying for budget, Migs will keep their job for another 5-10 years. Time interval is too large, anything will happen, however we should bare in mind that the Migs will achieved aged of 20 yrs. As a SD standard airframe, I don't see any potential to upgrade nor to operate it.
My point of view, I find not much possible in selling our Migs.
Last edited:
I agree with you on the incoherent nature of aircraft purchases. Given what we have ordered up to now I think Malaysia should consolidate around the Su-30 for its frontline requirements (i.e. MRCA) and the MB-339 for its secondary requirements (i.e LIFT). I am for disposing of everything else.
If there is interest by the Burmese, Indians or any other party then I say Malaysia should explore it. The MiG-29 did well for Malaysia but there is a better option available now. No point hanging on to it if we don't have to.
Last edited:
The sales or purchase of military aircraft rarely happens overnight. Timelines tend to be fairly decent. Sufficient time I would think for the RMAF to achieve operational status on our Su-30s.
As for funding, I understand that RM4 billion has been budgeted for the MRCA requirement during the 10th Malaysia Plan. That runs from 2011-2015. It's not too far off.