RMAF Future; need opinions

[Tasman]

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.

Hi renjer,

I agree with your comments on consolidating the RMAF's assets. I find this interesting when compared to Australia's similar efforts to avoid having too many different types of aircraft. I think any small airforce has much to gain by looking for efficiencies. It can go too far and I have argued that the RAAF, for example, ought to operate at least two combat types in case of failure (unforseen structural problems, etc) of one, but as far as other assets such as trainers, transports and helicopters it makes considerable sense, IMO, to consolidate as much as it is practical to do so.

The RMAF seems to have come an enormous distance compared with where it was a decade or two previously and it seems to me that emphasis now ought to be given to long term planning, with a clear idea established about what the ideal force structure should be in 10, 15 and 20 years time.

Cheers

 

[qwerty223]

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.

RM4bil is quite a number!

Yes. Idea to unify equipment has become prevalent recently. As for unifying AF assets, at present, it is still mainly practice by European countries. Base on my knowledge, this idea is favored as a lesson of resources shortage during the WWI/II. But on other side, the two cold war brothers lead the modern concept of Hi-Low combination.

From my observation, high officers in RMAF seem to have a strong plot in the Hi-Low concept. While Su-Mig combination was what they origin meant to be, before new hornets to take over the job, Migs should have celebrated their 20~25th birthday. In the future, even now, things get "old" faster compare to the good old days.

Su is too expensive to equip in large numbers, MB-339 is not up to standard to assign any serious missions, a low cost light REAL fighter is what RMAF looking for, their second liner. I notice that other than assets, RMAF is concern about quantity of pilots, thats why they are likely to go for high capable planes than those to be large equip.

Anyway, as I said earlier, is also wise to stay aware of any opportunity to peel some cash from old assets. But because of many restrictions, it is unlikely to happen.

BTW, our first batch of 6 MkMs will be back to Malaysia by May, confirmed again by RMAF yesterday.

Tonight will be Chinese New Year eve, best wishes to everyone!

 

[alexz]

it seems that the RMAF F-5's are still flying in 2007, complete with new paintjobs. see airliners.net

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[qwerty223]

"RM4bil is quite a number!"

That's only US$1.2b which can probably afford ~30 Su30s or 12 F15s.

The problem is that Russian equipment tend not to last. In most cases, engines would need to be overhauled frequently so I'd expect the Migs to be due for a major overhaul, if not done so already. Otherwise, the Migs going to be flying less.

Any overhaul's going to cost $$$. That's always been the problem for Russian jets. Low upfront cost but high maintenance $$$.

The Malaysian armed forces have made some significant purchases in the past few years. In addition to the items mentioned, the Jernas systems wasn't cheap. A109s/Mi17s. Frigates, RPGs, ATGMs, IFVs, flight training simulators, etc etc all add up to $$$. The NS program also needs funing. & yet there's a lot more to overhaul. I think the military spending is going to go up a lot more...

If the Aim-9 F5s are still flying, I'd ground them. Waste of money to keep cannon fodder flying.

I'd consider the J10s though. Single engines will reduce maintenance cost. Engine commonality with Suks. Equip it with R77s. Train in Hainan. Low cost (can maybe buy 60 with RM4b). Makes a reasonably good purchase.

Agreed that our budget is getting tension.
For the J10 part, I suppose, if we started of with this single engines topic, for sure someone here will bring in Gripen, then the war starts...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Zzims]

What kind of armaments are purchase with the MkM's? are BVR missles part of the package?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[renjer]

The RMAF seems to have come an enormous distance compared with where it was a decade or two previously and it seems to me that emphasis now ought to be given to long term planning, with a clear idea established about what the ideal force structure should be in 10, 15 and 20 years time.

Hi Tasman,

I agree with you on this. I would assume that some sort of planning does take place. Public awareness of military matters in Malaysia is probably not at the same level as it is in Australia. It's changing of course but right now there isn't too much public demand for transparency in the country's longer-term plans. I suppose some of the people in the MOD would prefer to keep it that way.

 

[renjer]

it seems that the RMAF F-5's are still flying in 2007, complete with new paintjobs. see airliners.net

It looks nice. There was some transfer of technology with regards to aircraft refurbishment I think. And it also allows our pilots to build up their flight hours. But I agree with weasel, that thing is cannon fodder.

 

[renjer]

NH-90 = RMAF's CSAR helo?

I picked up the Feb issue of Tempur (a local defence publication) yesterday. There was some mention that the NH-90 has been picked as the RMAF's CSAR helo. Was that just speculation? Anyone have more information on this?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[qwerty223]

I picked up the Feb issue of Tempur (a local defence publication) yesterday. There was some mention that the NH-90 has been picked as the RMAF's CSAR helo. Was that just speculation? Anyone have more information on this?

Yes. AD&D too have the same topic for Feb issue

 

[kaybee]

RMAF is furious about this piece of news. Going by the reaction, it could be true. Who like someone stealing the thunder or spoiling the negotiation?

 

[renjer]

RMAF is furious about this piece of news. Going by the reaction, it could be true. Who like someone stealing the thunder or spoiling the negotiation?

After Peri Mekar and IMT Defence, our air force friends will need to be careful how the public will interpret that kind of reaction.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Turk]

I don't know actually threatens against Malaysia but I think that if malaysia improves their air force it maybe better.Because Singapore bought 20 F-15 and thay have got 42 F-16 block 50 this weapons are seriously can threat.

 

[tphuang]

The article mentions R27s and R73s with Kh29s and 31Ps. Didn't look too closely at the sub-types for the R27s. Too lazy to review past literature...

They didn't even get R-77 with the MKM? What a waste of money. You spend 50 million per MKM + extra maintenance cost and avionic upgrade cost, but can't spend some extra for R-77 (absolutely baffeling).

 

[Tebuan]

Awang se, referring to your comment abt RMAFs being delivered without EW packages. I think it is true but not true as well. I read an article some time ago that the EW/ECM system were decoupled from the aircraft after integration test at China Lake facility and delivered separarely to Malaysia. I believe these were then re-integrated in country with US assistance. This was apparently due some export restrictions or something of that sort. The list I saw in the FOAS database was:
18 F/A-18F aircraft with 36 F414-GE-400 aircraft engines, 18 AN/APG-73 Radar Systems, 3 spare F414-GE-400 aircraft engines, 18 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Countermeasure Receiving Sets, 18 AN/ALE-47(B)2 Countermeasure Dispensing Sets, 12 AN/ALQ-214(V)2 Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures, 72 LAU-127B/A Guided Missile Launchers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, supply support, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics personnel services, publications/technical data, personnel training and training equipment, system software development and other related elements of logistics to ensure complete program support