SHAH ALAM: Defence Minister DS Khaled Nordin and delegation arrived in Kuwait early on Sunday (Malaysian time) for an official visit. Among his delegation is RMAF chief TS Asghar Goriman and ministry officials.
Saya selamat tiba di Kuwait, dalam rangka lawatan kerja rasmi.
Ketibaan di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuwait petang tadi (Ahad, 6 Oktober 2024 waktu tempatan) disambut oleh Tuan Yang Terutama 'Alauddin Mohd Nor, Duta Besar Malaysia ke Kuwait dan juga Leftenan Jeneral Bandar… pic.twitter.com/d7vqTHEqHq
— Khaled Nordin 🇲🇾 (@KhaledNordin) October 6, 2024
The release from the minister FB page:
Saya selamat tiba di Kuwait, dalam rangka lawatan kerja rasmi.
Ketibaan di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuwait petang tadi (Ahad, 6 Oktober 2024 waktu tempatan) disambut oleh Tuan Yang Terutama ‘Alauddin Mohd Nor, Duta Besar Malaysia ke Kuwait dan juga Leftenan Jeneral Bandar Salem Abdullah Al-Muzayan, Ketua Staf Angkatan Tentera Kuwait.
Semasa berada di sini, saya akan bertemu dengan Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, Perdana Menteri Kuwait; selain akan bertemu dengan rakan sejawat saya Sheikh Fahad Yousef Saud Al-Sabah yang juga merupakan Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Dalam Negeri Kuwait.
Di samping itu, saya juga akan mengadakan lawatan ke Pangkalan Udara Ahmad Al-Jaber milik Tentera Udara Kuwait.
Delegasi Malaysia turut disertai Jeneral Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Mohd Asghar Khan Goriman Khan, Panglima Tentera Udara, Encik Mohd Yani Daud, Timbalan Ketua Setiausaha (Dasar), Kementerian Pertahanan Malaysia bersama pegawai-pegawai kanan Kementerian Pertahanan dan Markas Tentera Udara Malaysia.
As mentioned in the release, Khaled stated that he and his delegation will be visiting the Ahmad Al-Jaber of the Kuwaiti Air Force. This means that the visit is in connection with the Malaysian proposal to buy Kuwaiti Air Force legacy Hornet fleet.
One wonders whether the Kuwaiti Hornets was more important than buying the 12 CSAR helicopters which was funded by the 2024 budget that RMAF opted to get leased AW149s instead. My guess is as good as yours.
In a release late yesterday, Khalid announced that Malaysia and Kuwait has agree to set up a joint committee to start the process of procuring the Hornets.
Malaysia dan Kuwait bersetuju untuk menubuhkan sebuah jawatankuasa bersama bagi memulakan perbincangan serta rundingan bagi tujuan perolehan pesawat tempur jenis Legacy Hornet berkenaan.
Saya telah diberikan taklimat mengenai status, keupayaan dan pengoperasian pesawat tempur F/A-18C/D KAF, termasuk oleh pasukan juruterbang KAF sendiri, selain turut diberi peluang untuk melihat sendiri kondisi serta keadaan sebahagian aset strategik berkenaan.
3/4 pic.twitter.com/SgLXeSXZHg
— Khaled Nordin 🇲🇾 (@KhaledNordin) October 9, 2024
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Not sure if the hornets are more important then the helo operationally. But I do knows lots of people’s going to get their pants wet at the hornets more then the helo.
I take as a sign that things are really going forward..
what did they say it in malay?
“semoga ada sinar”?
>why f/a-18
because we already have plenty of helo across all the agencies?
I am guessing in the totem pole of wants, the flyboys will naturally prioritise getting more fighters seeing as our Hornets are going down for SLEP while preserving the MKMs until their own SLEP, over choppers that are more than likely often used to haul other services instead of their own.
The TUDM chief have put out his want for them, but I wonder, again, if its something the service decided or a Govt decision? Or both?
“One wonders whether the Kuwaiti Hornets was more important than buying the 12 CSAR helicopters”
CSAR helicopters are not going to be able to intercept multiple Chinese military planes. If China flies military planes along with escort fighters like J-15 into our airspace the next time, at least we have additional 33x F/A-18C/D fighters as a form of deterrence, assuming we brought the lock, stock and barrel.
I really hope it goes through. At the same time I hope they are replaced on time and the RMAF is not left with another capability gap. It’s easy to say on paper that they’ll be an interim solution; the reality can be different.
Just as importantly; will we get the needed ground support gear and ordnance or will we again do things on the cheap? Or do we expect the Kuwaitis to be Father Christmas and provide everything at no cost? There is also the question of sustainment funds; we have a long history of stealing from ”A to pay X”. There is also the pertinent point that certain things will need replacing; equates to cash needed. I’m not sanguine adequate funds will be allocated. Will resources be pulled away from other areas [with the resulting impacts] or will adequate funds be allocated? These platforms are 30 odd years old and are aging; as they further age they will cost more to sustain.
Getting them [which most focus on] is only part of the challenge; what comes after that is the question. As it stands; we can’t even adequately sustain what little we have [delayed overhauls and upgrades; small numbers of ordnance; etc; for the Fulcrums, Hawks, Flankers and Hornets]; never mind another 12 odd airframes.
Which is more important depends on which we’ll need first. Alas we can’t predict things. If we face a situation where Hornets are needed; we made the right choice.
We have a pathetically small number of fighters. We also have a pathetically small number of rotary platforms in comparison to the size of the country and operational requirements.
It was something the RMAF came up with due to sheer desperation. Something the government agreed to later The RMAF has no choice, numbers are stretched and the MKMs are not in good shape. With the numbers we have, maintaining a QRA, participating in exercises , training and other things is a huge challenge.
If we go back a decade, as a last resort the RMAF proposed a leasing solution and was offered one by Saab. The politicians however were not receptive. Wasn’t because the RMAF was keen on leasing but because it hadno other so solution.
SYAM,
Fighters are not able to haul people and not, nor do HADR, SAR and other things. We need various things,
Which is more important is subjective.
Terms like “deterrence “ and “lock stock and barrel are great but what happens if one’s deterrence does not deter?
my opinion
1) outright buy CSAR helicopters should be a higher priority than leased helicopters that TUDM does not ask for in the 1st place. 1 off buy for RM2.8 billion is way better than a lease for a total of 16.8 billion across 28 helicopters for just 15 years. Also the budget for the CSAR heli is supposed to be within RMK12. That frees RMK13 budget for other priority acquisitions, such as LCA batch 2 and MPA batch 2
2) The Kuwaiti hornets is important, but it does not consume a lot of TUDM CAPEX budget. The intrim MRCA project (Kuwaiti Hornets) should be concurrent with other existing priority acquisitions till 2030, such as the ground radars, LCA batch 2, MPA batch 2. Other things can be pushed down the priority list. Things such as the MERAD can be substituted with getting intrim MERAD systems (getting used HAWK XXI batteries from Turkiye, with additional HAWK missiles from South Korea for example, an upgraded system with many commonality with NASAMS & PATRIOT to be used for say 10 years)
3) priority should be for systems that could enhance our capability to defend our maritime zones. that is our most critical security challenge right now
Don’t complain. The RMAF is getting the Hornets and the helicopters even though they’re 24 leased ones…. 12 and 12 is what the news are reporting.
Nolah, only 12 leased helicopters, the other 12 is supposed to be purchased outright but really it will not be bought anytime soon. I already checked. As the Kuwaiti Hornets, my guess it will be at the earliest 2026 as there is no word on when the Kuwaitis get the full delivery of their Super Bugs, which are currently stored in the US.
Tom
Tom Tom,
Looking at things from a very narrow lense are we?Cash to sustain the Hornets won’t come from Santa Claus. You aware of our history of doing things? No point getting the Hornets if we can barely afford to run them and if we end up barely buying anything to go along with them. Sure, the politicians will pat themselves on the back when or if the Hornets arrive and fanboys will talk about the Hornets enabling us to take on the PLAAF but the harsh reality will be different. As it stands even with 8 Hornets and 18 Flankers is a major issue for us; yet another 12 or more platforms won’t be an issue? If one lives in fantasy cloud cuckoo land; no doubt.
The Hornets cost cash to fly and maintain. They require checks, spares and other things. The RMAF is a small and very underresourced air arm which is barely getting by with what it has. Even an additional12 air frames is a lot given the city circumstances. Yea ntil or unless adequate funding is made available: we’ll again be running things on a shoe string. Not like we don’t have a history of it. Like I said, the hard part is what comes after we get the Hornets.. This is often overlooked; most focusing on getting them as if they operate in a vacuum or are a perfect means to and end.
On the maritime domain; I would say that priority is to safeguard and monitor it and the answer lies in various other things in the right mix, all operating as one – networked and jointly. I would also say that we face threats within a peacetime setting.I would not use the term “defend” because we are not in a state of tensions with anyone, nor is
there a major possibility of that occurring in the short term. Also, amidst all the frenzy about the Spratlys; we also face other threats/challenges.
Whilst the sky’s there limit when it comes to paper possibilities; next to zero chance is getting used Hawks in actual reality..
@dundun
“plenty of helo across all the agencies?”
Except TDM/PUTD which needs them the most?
@Hulu
“outright buy CSAR helicopters”
Except that we dont actually need 12 CSAR + 12 ‘nearly CSAR’ Caracals. Nor do TUDM actually need so many utility choppers if priority is given instead to PUTD. Imho just use OPEX to upgrade Caracals to CSAR spec, lease 3-4 AW149 for utility haulage that dont need the Caracal CSAR, and boost the budget to get and sustain the Kuwaiti Hornets.
As for ordnance, expect to get the usual Sidewinders & AMRAAMS when we get the FA50 so these can be shared across all platforms. Will we have enough to spam during wartime? No. But we will have enough to mount on planes that we send up for peacetime patrols & deterrence.
I’m all for the army being the sole utility rotary operator but as Marhalim use to say “show me the money”.
The RMAF has the manpower, resources and a longer institutionalised history. The army does not.As things stand the army could absorb another squadron but nothing beyond that. That is until it gets the needed funding to expand its manpower and infrastructure. Doesn’t happen over night.
@ joe
I am okay for max of 24 EC725/H225M for TUDM so that the requirement is done & dusted, and RMK13 can prioritise LCA B2 & MPA B2. 12 additional EC225M should be realistically around usd350-400 million range. Recently BHICAS is given a five-year helicopter services contract for the TUDM 12x EC725 worth RM378 million (USD86-90 million), the company announced on 15 August. So if we buy 12 more H225M now, maintenance from 2030-2040 is around USD350 mil for 24 EC725/H225M.
As for PUTD, i am for blackhawks, but not brand new. Getting used will be cheaper, and usable for around 15 more years so we can have an option to get future vertical lift designs in 2040.
24 used blackhawks + upgrades + 5yr maintenance would cost around USD200 million. Not something we need to siphon the OPEX budget for.
So if we assume
12x new H225M USD400mil
24x used Blackhawks USD200mil
Maintenance of 24x EC725/H225M + 24x blackhawks 2030-2040 is USD350mil x2
That is a total of USD1.3 billion to fly 48x medium lift helicopters to 2040, more numbers than we ever had with the nuri.
No need to squander USD4 billion of OPEX budget to lease helicopters, allowing us to have the budget fly those Hornets regularly.
Back to missiles, i am for TUDM to have a deep magazine of short range AAMs. Even not very latest ones are adequate if we are doing air defence against bombers, transporters, barrages of cruise missiles and shahed type drones.
Philippines bought 312x refurbished AIM-9L (ex german AF stocks) from Diehl Germany for its 12x FA-50PH. The contract costs USD54.6 million only. We need that kind of quantity to have a credible air defence capability with our FA-50 and Hornets.
While doing that, rather than “leasing” MERAD, we could buy outright used intrim MERAD systems instead.
Turkiye is retiring their upgraded HAWK XXI MERAD system, being replaced by HISAR-O. They have around 14-16 batteries of the HAWK XXI system. HAWK XXI is the last and the most advanced HAWK SAM system, using the same battery FDC (Fire Distribution Center) as the NASAMS system. Additional HAWK missiles could be had from retired south korean, japan units. As seen in Ukraine they are still lethal against cruise missiles and shahed type drones.
Romania bought 8x battery of HAWK XXI system (6x missile launcher for each battery) from Netherlands for USD28.4 million in 2005. That is enough for 2 regiments, 1 each to cover the west & east malaysia. Even if we used them for just 10 years, it is still worthwhile for the measley USD28.4 million cost.
All that savings will enable us to spend more on prioritising things to defend our maritime realms.
Azlan “As it stands even with 8 Hornets and 18 Flankers is a major issue for us; yet another 12 or more platforms won’t be an issue? If one lives in fantasy cloud cuckoo land; no doubt.”
No one said anything about adding 16 more hornet on top of existing 18 Flankers. The cap 55 while not a bible do indicate a *plan for just 2 squadrons of MRCA and not 3.
Azlan
“Terms like “deterrence “ and “lock stock and barrel are great but what happens if one’s deterrence does not deter?”
China is a formidable adversary and frankly, we should exhaust all diplomatic options before force is even considered, but if push comes to shove, we have to stand our ground and defend our homeland the best we can. This is why I personally believe that TUDM should prioritize fighter jet acquisitions above all else. 33 additional F/A-18s are not going to defeat China, but we sure will give them hell before they take what is ours.
Azlan,
The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.
We do not know how many units of Kuwaiti Hornets the RMAF is acquiring. It may not be all 39 or 40 but only a portion. Maybe it’s only the 8 twin seaters to add to the current 8. In a previous post, I was also sceptical about the RMAF adding all the Kuwaiti Hornets to its fleet because of the costs and maintenance involved.
We just have to wait. My understanding is that other parties are also interested in these planes…. who knows.
As I mentioned in the previous Hornet post, the planned is to get 12 C and four Ds, so we can gets two squadrons of them. The two seaters will be the No 18 Skn and the single seaters in one squadron likely to be based in Labuan.
AFAIK this is the current plan
18Skn – F/A-18 – Butterworth
17Skn – F/A-18 – Butterworth
6Skn – FA-50 – Labuan
9Skn?? – FA-50 – Kuantan
FLIT (probably 15Skn?) at kuantan with FA-50 would only be had with LCA batch 2 (plus topups for the 2 operational FA-50 squadrons)
Didn’t they renovate labuan airfield to accommodate Hawks full time?
“army could absorb another squadron but nothing beyond that”
Jives well with the tightfisting that PUTD is being treated no? With limited budget they cant be buying a dozen choppers like TUDM so why not go in batches of 3-4 civvie spec S70i per year (or biannually). Slowly building up its force and support infra. Meanwhile they can still leverage on the lease BH (if it comes lol!).
Tom Tom – ”The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.
We do not know how many units of Kuwaiti Hornets the RMAF is acquiring. It may not be all 39 or 40 but only a portion. ”
She may have not sung yet but we have a clear idea on how we do things. We know how many platforms we intend on pressing into service; even if it’s 12; it’s to a fleet which only comprises 8 Hornets and 18 Flankers; in a small very under resourced air arm which is struggling to make ends meet.
zaft – ”No one said anything about adding 16 more hornet on top of existing 18 Flankers. The cap 55 while not a bible do indicate a *plan for just 2 squadrons of MRCA and not 3.”
Perhaps take the time to understand the context of the discussion before hastily hitting the key board/key pad.
syam – ”China is a formidable adversary and frankly, we should exhaust all diplomatic options before force is even considered, but if push comes to shove, we have to stand our ground and defend our homeland the best we can. ”
Yes I’ve heard all this before. Let’s stick to reality; China has a much larger population and economy; it has the largest industrial capacity in the world and an advanced and huge industrial/tech base. Who are we? A country which repowers/rehulls 60 odd year old ships and blows trumpets about it. A country which can barely afford to equip the military it has.
China worries the likes of th U.S; Australia and Japan; who are we again? From your post; I get the impression that its Germany embarking on its Soviet Union invasion in June 1941. Is China on the verge of taking our territory? Does it claim any of our territories on land? Has it physically interfered with oil/gas works undertaken by Petronas? Note; that the areas we claim are along the periphery; the Chinese are far more interested in the areas claimed by Vietnam and the Philippines; far more strategic.
In the past I was accused of not being patriotic; willing to sit back whilst China gobbles our claimed areas. Not patriotic because i didn’t indulge in nationalist chest thumping far detached from reality. You mentioned diplomatic efforts; what do you think we’ve been doing? A lot of diplomatic efforts happen behind the scenes; ever wondered why our ships have not been rammed or dazzled? Wondered why the Chinse press does not vilify us the way it does with Vietnam and the Philippines? BTW; China does not have to fire a single shot at us if it wishes to cause trouble; merely use the economic pressure.
… – ”Turkiye is retiring their upgraded HAWK XXI MERAD system, being replaced by HISAR-O. ”
A lot of things are happening – the sky’s the limit when it comes to paper possibilities. Whether paper possibilities will actually translate into reality is the key question.
Nolah, just for the one squadron stationed there. There is no space really to have more fighter jets there unless they move out the Hercules squadron somewhere else.
dundun – ”Didn’t they renovate labuan airfield to accommodate Hawks full time?”
The ”renovation” entailed a few shelters and some minor things.
… – ”AFAIK this is the current plan”
”Jives well with the tightfisting that PUTD is being treated no? ”
No idea how it ”jives” but the army Aviation Corps is short of manpower and infrastructure. Most of what it has is being used on the A-109s and Little Birds.
”Slowly building up its force and support infra. ”
Which it would love to do if it could. As it stands there is little cash for anything beyond what’s alrady approved and even then it’s highly stretched.
Is is indeed the ”current plan”. Problem is we have a history of making plans but later shifting priorites; the result is what we have now.
Ayam “China is a formidable adversary and frankly, we should exhaust all diplomatic options before force is even considered,”
Diplomacy only works when you have a card to trade.
If we talking about China specifically then their soft underbelly is escalation. And to be able to used in case of emergencies escalation we need both a diversified economy and a capable military.
When is say capable military I don’t mean military thats capable of defending against a Chinese landing in a protracted warfare. A situation that extremely unlikely to happened. It just mean a military thats capable of escalation. An escalation that creates a lose lose to both side so both side would sue for peace diplomatically.
“army Aviation Corps is short of manpower and infrastructure. Most of what it has is being used on the A-109s and Little Birds”
For years, PUTD had manpower of 882 Rgt doing nothing due to the grounding of Nuri since 2020. manpower of 882 has not been parceled out to 881 or 883 rgts.
It also has a massive new hangar complex in Kuantan currently empty
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/ready-for-black-hawks/
https://pictr.com/images/2023/08/04/EfhehU.jpg
All AW109 and MD530G are in Kluang, which in the Emergency Era housed multiple squadrons of British Army Air Corps.
Currently TUDM infrastructure for 7 Skuadron in Kuching (formerly using Nuri) is also unused, if PUTD wants to create a base in East Malaysia.
There was a plan to move all of the PUTD assets to Kuantan (which the reason they built the new base there) but the proposed built and transfer plan for the Kluang base got muddled up when BN lost in the 2018 election. I have no idea what they going to do next.
I’m highly aware that Kluang was an Army Air Corps base but actual infrastructure as compared to landspace is limited. It isn’t exactly Middle Wallop or Fort Rucker.
To significantly expand the army’s Aviation Corps will take years: assuming funding is made available.
Thanks for the info but the army’s Aviation Corps is a small regiment; short of manpower and infrastructure. Most of what it has is used for the A-109s and Little Birds. It can in the short term absorb a squadron’s worth of Nuri replacements but nothing more.
As for creating a base in East Nalaysia; sounds easy on paper but even if the funding and msnpower were avvaible, lots of nitty gritty time consuming and labourious bureaucratic things to be done.
” To significantly expand the army’s Aviation Corps will take years ”
As it is right now it has the facilities to operate (my opinion)
881 Rgt – 10x AW109
882 Rgt – 12x Blackhawks
883 Rgt – 6x MD530G
In the future i would prefer PUTD to restructure to be
PUTD Regiment with
– 1 HQ squadron
– 3 flying squadrons each with around 6 aircrafts
– 1 maintenance squadron
with base squadrons detached from flying regiments
This will need an increase in manpower, but not significantly compared to current level.
So
881 Rgt Kuantan
– HQ Sqn
– A Sqn 5x AW109LOH + 1x used AW109 medevac
– B Sqn 6x Blackhawk
– C Sqn 6x Blackhawk
– maintenance sqn
882 Rgt Kuching
– HQ Sqn
– A Sqn 5x AW109LOH + 1x used AW109 medevac
– B Sqn 6x Blackhawk
– C Sqn 6x Blackhawk
– maintenance sqn
883 Sqn Kluang (commando)
– HQ Sqn
– A Sqn – 6x MD530G attack
– B Sqn – 6x MD530F transport (used US EDA)
– C Sqn – black ops flight
– maintenance sqn
Unless it’s forced to the army has zero plans to get more Little Birds; anymore than it has plans to raise a Corps level artillery group. It actually never planned to get any Little Birds; it was something shoved onto it from above.
Let’s all agree to stop speculating about the Kuwaiti Hornets until the contract is signed. For all we know, the governments may not even agree on a price and the deal falls through. What we know for sure, almost, is that the LCA will come in 2026 and will supplement our small force of MRCAs, whatever that might be..
How do you define “significantly” in this regard? My definition is anything beyond the Nuri replacement . You are looking at paper specs but in reality how many men are needed in each squadron; from the pilots to the ground crew to the admin staff to the logisticians?
How many pilots are there surplus to actual needs which can at short notice be used for new helicopters? How many pilots and ground crew are inducted and trained annually? How many leave the unit or service annually As it stands can the existing operational budget cater to another squadron?
Lots of issues at play; not as simple or clear cut as it seems, on paper. As it stands the RMAF has the manpower, infrastructure and institutionalised experience. The army as short notice can absorb a squadron’s worth of platforms but nothing beyond that and there are no present plans for anything beyond that.
You would “prefer” a certain ORBAt; I would first prefer greater sustained funding and increased manpower levels.
Tom Tom,
Who’s “speculating”?
We have an idea as to how many the RMAF intends to press into service; we have no idea if they’ll really be an interim solution; we know the RMAF is stretched thin; we know the government likes to do things on the cheap; we know that the resources we have barely sustains what little weknow the Hornets require spares, ground tooling and ordnance and we know that aged aircraft tend to get maintainable intensive as they age further and the government has a long and clear history of adding stuff but not the required funding for sustainment.
What “speculation” we’re you referring to?
Tom,
Last but not least we know that U.S. approval can and does take time. Requires the go ahead by the Pentagon, State Deoartment and other entities. Even if fast tracked; it will take time.
>Let’s all agree to stop speculating about the Kuwaiti Hornets until the contract is signed.
Nope I don’t. In fact let’s keep speculating because who are you to tell other people otherwise lmao
” As it stands the RMAF has the manpower, infrastructure and institutionalised experience ”
Yes TUDM can absorb another 12 CSAR helicopters that it already approved to buy (for a total of 24 helicopters with TUDM)
PUTD also can absorb additional helicopters into its existing regiments (which is actually as big as TUDM squadrons). It too has the leadership, institutionalised experience & infrastructure in place. Even with existing 3 PUTD Regiments, just need to add somewhere around 100 more persons to operate additional 24 helicopters above what the current level of manpower can operate.
But that is not the case for MERAD for TUDM.
TUDM does not have existing leadership, institutionalised experience, manpower & infrastructure in place to operate a regiment of MERADs.
GAPU on the other hand, has a large brand new base in Bera, a ready regiment (34 RAD GAPU that really needs a new system to replace the no longer supported JERNAS) with all the leadership, institutionalised experience & manpower already in place to operate any new MERAD system.
I won’t really called it an interim solution, with the amount of airframes we wanted to acquired to fill a 2 squadrons of 12 jet each. There’s basically enough airframe to last us 20 years. Never mind “filling in” before getting a 5th gen that’s even enough amount of time for a trench 2 of GCAP.
Can turkey f16 factory refub kuwait fa 18? Slap in some turkey made AA in..? Or SOM / Atmaca…
It is likely Boeing will get the job – as they are doing the maintenance for Kuwaiti AF – as the US can ensure it will do so as part of the approval process.
Why would we want Turkish involvement in it? They have zero experience on the Hornet.
Still need US approval right if to get ex Kuwait Hornet?
The biq question is how much the cost will it be per plane if we do get 20+ aircraft. Indonesia and Qatar Mirage deal cost 700 million usd for 12 plane.
No idea, really. I will speak to my friend MBS so they can pay for it.
I have been told previously, the US has no issues about giving approval. There were costernation before when Mat Sabu was the Defence Minister.
Pros and cons. The RMAFcant be expected to rely solely on GAPU which also has other things to do. I’m all for jointness and avoiding role duplication but at times it’s unavoidable. You also overlook that the RMAF has a chain of primary and secondary radars. Pros and cons.You spoke of institutionalised knowledge: pray tell what such knowledge does GAPU have in operating medium range systems,the RMAF has been operating V-SHORADs just as long as as GAPU. Anyhow talk of the RMAF getting a medium range system is premature.
On the army you are understating things and with paper numbers. Raising a squadron is much harder than you’d make it out to be and manpower is an issue. Like I said; how many people are there inducted annually and how many leave the regiment or service annually? Any idea as to how many people are in a squadron, on top of the pilots and ground crew. When I mention infrastructure; it’s not just the hangars and other things you keep referring to but also a training pipeline and and other things.
At the most the army can absorb another squadron, anything else is a stretch and requires long term sustained funding and an adequate flow of manpower.
The U.S. has no issues with approval; after all why would it? It’s been trying to engage closely with us and us operating more Hornets brings ties closer. The question is how long will approval take? The Pentagon, State Department and other s have to approve it. They will but lots of bureaucratic time consuming layers.
The mist pertinent question for meis will we allocate adequate funding for sustainment and to get ordnance and other things ir will the government again do things on the cheap resulting in the RMAF doing again the proverbial robbing Peter to pay Paul.
@ haiqal
That qatar deal is expensive because it is through 3rd party czech company not G2G deal (said to become the hush hush budget for prabowo’s election campaign). A reason why it was canceled.
Kuwait sold to Brazil in the late 90s its Skyhawks for USD70 million.
USA bought all of UKs Harrier fleet (72 units) for just USD180 million in 2011
Australia sold canada 25 Hornets for USD68 million in 2019
https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2019/01/10/australia-confirms-deal-to-offload-legacy-hornets-to-canada-for-68-million/
So i believe the cost would be something similar to those.
USA will approve the deal (we are an existing hornet operator anyway) if it is strictly between the government of Kuwait transferring the aircrafts to the government of malaysia. Any attempts to do hanky panky things will get have the approval refused.
Ok…..so let’s hope the RMAF does not get the Kuwaiti Hornets. The stretched resources won’t be stretched even further.
We don’t have to stress about approval from the US..
We don’t have to worry about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
We don’t have to suck up to Marhalim good friend MBS.
We don’t have to worry about more logistics.
We don’t have have more munitions.
We don’t have to maintain them.
Why get them and get our knickers in a knot if it’s going to be much more stress. Let hope the deal fails? Is that what we really want?? Too much hassle.
” the RMAF has been operating V-SHORADs just as long as as GAPU. Anyhow talk of the RMAF getting a medium range system is premature ”
TUDM only operates at most a squadron-sized VSHORADs unit with MANPADs (401 Skuadron TUDM).
GAPU is a Brigade-sized unit with brigade-level leadership hierarchies, a large brand-new dedicated base and HQ in Bera along with existing bases in Kajang, Terendak and Kluang while operating multiple systems from MANPADs to JERNAS. Adding new MERAD to GAPU will not need any additional new manpower or infrastructure, as 34 RAD GAPU is currently in need of replacing its no longer supported JERNAS system, and it recently moved into its brand-new home in Bera.
As of “premature”, from my sources there has been serious discussions on TUDM MERADs for RMK13, of which i am very hopeful it will not proceed.
As of new manpower for my proposed PUTD structure :
881 Rgt Kuantan
– HQ Sqn (existing manpower)
– A Sqn 4x AW109LOH + 1x used AW109 power + 1x used AW109 medevac (existing manpower)
– B Sqn 6x used Blackhawk (existing manpower)
– C Sqn 6x used Blackhawk (new manpower)
– maintenance sqn (existing manpower)
882 Rgt Kuching
– HQ Sqn (existing manpower)
– A Sqn 5x AW109LOH + 1x used AW109 medevac (existing manpower)
– B Sqn 6x used Blackhawk (existing manpower)
– C Sqn 6x used Blackhawk (new manpower)
– maintenance sqn (existing manpower)
883 Sqn Kluang (commando)
– HQ Sqn (existing manpower)
– A Sqn – 6x MD530G attack (existing manpower)
– B Sqn – 6x used MD530F transport (US EDA) (new manpower)
– C Sqn – black ops covert flight (???)
– maintenance sqn (existing manpower)
So only about 3-4 squadron (more like a flight size in TUDM flying squadrons) worth of manpower to be added, while all leadership posts are from existing PUTD structure.
as for budgets.
we cannot expect the budget to be significantly increased, both OPEX and CAPEX
A reason why I am very against the absurd RM16.8 billion for 15years helicopter lease, as it will deplete the OPEX budget that is currently not enough even without that lease.
Also a reason why i propose things that is the best value for our meager budget level. getting hornets operationally can be cheaper than new aircrafts, as we are getting extra airplanes that we can use as spareparts, rather than needing to spend money on parts.
savings will also enable us to buy brand new things and also properly operate our assets that is critical for protecting the security of our maritime zones.
… – ”USA will approve the deal (we are an existing hornet operator anyway) i”
More pertinently it’s because they desire better and closer relations. Us getting more U.S. kit ties us closer to them. As it stands the Hornet will probably be the last U.S. aircraft we operate for quite a while.
Haiqal – ”The biq question is how much the cost will it be per plane if we do get 20+ aircraft.”
If you’ve been following the conversation; the question is not what they’ll cost to acquire but what they’ll cost to operate and sustain [as they get older] and whether we allocate cash for the needed ordnance and other things.
zaft – ”I won’t really called it an interim solution,”
Call it what you want but the intention is for them to fill in a gap until the MRCAs arrive so yes it’s an ”interim solution” by the vey definition of the word.
If the AF only plans on getting 16 airframes from Kuwait we should go all in with the upgrades which includes the AESA for both the Kuwaiti ones and ours.
With these upgrades our hornets could stand toe to toe with Mirage F3 and perhaps even F4 as apparently french AESA radars are of the non-GaN variety
Far – ”Still need US approval right if to get ex Kuwait Hornet?”
What do you think? Even if we had bought 30 year old former Luftwaffe Alpha Jets we still would have needed German permission to re-sell them. Under the terms agreed upon by buyers of U.S. [or anyone else for that matter] gear; they have to first seek approval id they ntended on re-selling; donating or trnsferring them to a 3rd parry.
If the gov truly like to do things on the cheap then it would likely acquire the 50% of Kuwaiti existing ground support equipment that’s incompatible with the super hornet and would do the refub in oz maybe even by cannibalizing parts on existing aussie birds and totally won’t pay for any other weapons integrations.
I have no insider information but the deal seem to serve US interests as we would be back to almost 100% dependency on US for air power. I won’t be surprise if someone claim that the US had been pulling the string behind the scene to make the deal happen all along.
… – ”Even with existing 3 PUTD Regiments, just need to add somewhere around 100 more persons to operate additional 24 helicopters above what the current level of manpower can operate.”
An arbitrary number you came up with or a number based on actually how many are needed to fill the various slots which comprise each squadron; pilots, support crew, logisticians, HQ staff, etc, etc. You’ll also no doubt be aware that in every squadron the actual crews and support staff are a minority; a larger number are there supporting them; keeping things running. How large do you think the Aviation Wing actually is? BTW; just like other regiments/combat arms/ support arms and services; a major problem for the Aviation Wing is retaining trained and experienced people to do various technical things.
MBS says hi
So can we say that Anwar is buddies with MBS as well?
” An arbitrary number you came up ”
Yes i understand the numbers might be made up, but what i am trying to say here is that we now can add a few more additional helicopters to existing PUTD regiments & infrastructures, not needing to create new ones.
Even if we need to create new regiments (which i feel that we do not), it should not be an insurmountable problem to be solved. In the past 5 years, PUTD successfully stood up 2 new regiments, build a large brand new hangar complex in Kuantan & inducted a new type of helicopter, the MD530G.
So adding manpower to existing 3 regiments to fly 24 blackhawks rather than the currently planned 12 (that already have the manpower from the nuris previously) within the next 3-5 years, should be something of a none issue to be done.
This is for our military to have
– 24 medium lift helicopters in TUDM (preferably all EC725/EC225M)
– 24 medium lift helicopters in PUTD (preferably all blackhawks, used)
– 6 Maritime Operations Helicopter in TLDM (preferably additional 3 bought AW139 to existing 3 units)
That is a much more capable helicopter fleet than the Nuris when it was at its peak. It can be achieved without “leasing”, and without cannibalising RM16.8 billion of our OPEX budget.
A homogeneous medium lift fleet of TUDM and PUTD will ensure cost effective operations, while still have redundancy of 2 different types so that any unforeseen groundings would not effect overall missions so much.
zaft – ”If the gov truly like to do things on the cheap then it would likely acquire the 50% of Kuwaiti existing ground support equipment that’s incompatible with the super hornet”
That’s assuming it’s available. We can’t assume everything we need will be thrown in with the platforms.
zaft – ”I have no insider information but the deal seem to serve US interests as we would be back to almost 100% dependency on US for air power.”
So? Since 1945 we’ve been relying on the U.S. to maintain the strategic balance; since the 1970’s the U.S. has been the largest FDI and we train and we have exchanges with the U.S. more than we do with any country except Australia. And so what if ”we would be back to almost 100% dependency on US for air power”? Will we be in a position where they slap an embargo on us?
Operating the Hornets serves the interests of bot countries. Ultimately we benefit more from the whole exercise.
zaft – ”I won’t be surprise if someone claim that the US had been pulling the string behind the scene to make the deal happen all along.”
Maybe. Well, some believe Elvis is still alive; that Hitler didn’t die in the Fuhrerbunker in 1945 and the aliens constructed the pyramids.
dundun – ”we should go all in with the upgrades which includes the AESA for both the Kuwaiti ones and ours.”
– Really think we’ll do that; given we haven’t even done it to the 8 we have and that 8 is a platform we have far more confidence in compared to the Su-30? Just we happy we the RMAF is allocated cash to fly the Hornets for X number of hours per month and if we actually sign for more than 10/15 AMRAAMS.
dundun – ”With these upgrades our hornets could stand toe to toe with Mirage F3 and perhaps even F4 as apparently french AESA radars are of the non-GaN variety”
That’s on a platform basis. If the other side has a AEW platform; it has superior SA which equates to superior overall capability.
If we cannot afford a full Air Force, go the New Zealand way and have absolutely no fighter jets. Just transport and patrol. They rely on Oz and US under ANZUS for air support if shit hits the fan.
We can just have LCAs for QRA and air patrols. Get rid of the expensive MRCAs because we really cannot afford them and they are only paper tigers for hiasan and pamiran. If shit hits the fan, a real Air Force like the RAAF will help. Just call Canberra…
That may be the cruel reality going by what’s been said..
PMX is agreeable to MBS, not buddies, PM9 and his defence minister (Najib) thought they were buddies though.
@ tom tom
It it called geopolitics for a reason. Geographic-politics
NZ is out of the way of everybody in the world. No countries are claiming its land or sea. Nobody wants to claim their resources (just sheeps). Nobody needs to go through NZ waters and airspace unless they actually want to go to NZ.
That is why they can do what they do.
Malaysia, is a strategically placed country right smack in the middle of asia pacific, straddling one of the busiest and most important sea routes in the world, with rich resources within its waters. If we have minimal military like NZ, aggressors will feel that it is a worthwhile risk to invade malaysia to conquer the resources and control our strategic shipping location. When we are attacked, we don’t have the choice of not getting involved. Whether we are ready or not, we have to fight our aggressor or we will lose some of our territories or economic zones if not the entirety of our country. If we want someone to help us if we are attacked, then we need to be a close ally of that someone. That is what Philippines is doing, getting closer to USA.
… ” what i am trying to say here is that we now can add a few more additional helicopters to existing PUTD regiments & infrastructures, not needing to create new ones”
What I’ve been trying to say and quite clearly is that in the short term at the most the army can add another squadron;nothing beyond that. I Will also say again you are understating things; the issues at play when it comes to raising a unit and the number of people in a unit. Some time back you did the same with regards to how supposedly easy it would be for Gerak Khas to expand the unit without a drop in quality. If I recall correctly the owner of this pointed out to you that only about 40 make it a year, into the unit.
Let me ask again; how many people are inducted into the Aviaion Wing annually and leave annually; from the regiment or service. When you’re done answering that; tell me how people are in the Aviation Wing.
… “. In the past 5 years, PUTD successfully stood up 2 new regiments, build a large brand new hangar complex in Kuantan & inducted a new type of helicopter, the MD530G.”
You are assuming as you tend to do. It took them longer than expected to raise the Nuri squadron and later the Little Bird squadron. Manpower is limited,funds are tight. Takes time to induct people and to train them. Takes time and lots of mundane bureaucratic work just to raise a small squadron.
BTW you keep referring to hangars at Kluang and Kuantan but both are not exactly Fort Rucker or Middle Wallop and when I refer to infrastructure I’m also referring to a support/training pipeline and I’m referring to actual realities not stuff on paper.
… “That is a much more capable helicopter fleet than the Nuris when it was at its peak”
No shite, really? Comparing a design from the 1960″s to the ones in your list …Also we got more value out of the But I when it was at “it’s peak” we had a threat, a better leadership and better quality manpower.
Tom “If we cannot afford a full Air Force, go the New Zealand way and have absolutely no fighter jets. Just transport and patrol”
If you can say that with a straight face and mean it; must as well talk about Rimpelstitskin or Cinderella here.
Tom “Get rid of the expensive MRCAs because we really cannot afford them and they are only paper tigers for hiasan and pamiran”
That’s an insult to those who put in so much effort and pride in operating and maintaining the jets. An insult.
The fact that we are barely making ends meet does not mean the present fleet are ” paper tigers for hiasan and pamiran”. Unless of course you have anything from or serious to back up your claim; of course you don’t.
Tom “That may be the cruel reality going by what’s been said.”
Previously you spoke of “speculation” now you”re on about “reality”. It’s not “reality” you spoke of but a very skewed and misread interpretation of things as you see them.
Tom “Why get them and get our knickers in a knot if it’s going to be much more stress”
I know it will surprise you but everything concerned with running a military is hard and involves stress. If in doubt ask any of your mates or acquaintances in the ADF, a “real” military as you put it. Amidst all this mention of Australia I’m guessing you”re as much Australian as I’m Kenyan or Peruvian.
The Philippines has a long history with the Americans . It’s a history shared in blood and not quite like the history of other states colonised by other powers. The history of both countries is in their collective psyche.
Chances of us losing “the entirety of our country” is far fetched; a dramatic exaggeration. We also have to look at the circumstances of the fight; what we stand to lose and gain.BTW I believe he was being facetious and not looking for a lesson in geo-politics or patriotism/nationalism.
Hulubalang
“Malaysia, is a strategically placed country right smack in the middle of asia pacific, straddling one of the busiest and most important sea routes in the world,”
Maybe Malaysia should focus of being bigger & better arm Yaman.. just my dua posen…
Then trade will go around to NZ hehe
Looks like there is 1 less plane to consider with the fatal accident yesterday.
wasnt a hornet crashed quite recently? kinda doubt they’re in good shape as they were purported to be
No one is saying that they are in the most pristine condition.
Quite an odd events of awkwardness this year. A delegation was at Leonardo when TLDM AW139 had crashed, and now when a delegation was at Kuwaiti AB one of their Hornets crashed.
” No shite, really? ”
What i am tying to do is to cobble up an alternative to the proposed RM16.8 billion helicopter lease so that our OPEX will not be depleted by that atrocious proposal, while giving at least comparable helicopter lift capability as what our Nuri previously give. That billions sucked annually for that helicopter lease will kill the readiness of the whole military, and we won’t have enough OPEX to fly those additional Kuwaiti Hornets if we don’t have a better less costly alternative compared to that lease.
that crash
the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Mohammed Mahmoud Abdul-Rasoul unfortunately perished in the crash of the Kuwait Air Force F/A-18C during training near Iraqi border.
already posted about it here yesterday, but seems not approved.
choon – ”wasnt a hornet crashed quite recently? kinda doubt they’re in good shape as they were purported to be”
Things crash. Just because a Hornet crashed does not mean the fleet is in overall bad condition. If a USMC F-35 crashes does that mean the F-35 fleet isn’t in good condition?
… – ”What i am tying to do is to cobble up an alternative to the proposed RM16.8 billion helicopter lease”
I know what you’re ”trying” to do and by all means please go ahead. I’m just pointing out that with regards to the Army’s Aviation Wing it’s not as clear cut as you make it to be.
As for the leasing arrangement; like I said; it is what it is. You can write volumes about it but nobody here [at least not that I’m aware of] is claiming it’s a long term cost effective solution.
Did not see it, there were 100 spam comments yesterday.
Azlan,
Why waste more money on an Air Force that is so useless and an incompetent government as you claim? Can you answer that? It’s your own assessment and that’s what you keep talking about. I am just merely presenting what you have said but alas this is just becoming a useless circular argument.
An airforce that behooves to the political will of its sitting Govt, as with Perista Skyhawks, as with Fulcrums, as with MKM, as with nearly-bought-Rafale, and now this mock CSAR procuring which morph into leased utility choppers.
Tom
If meaningful discussion is your intent, stick to the the topic. One minute you spoke of “speculation@ next it was about “reality” and hen it was some nonsense about “paper tigers”. On top of that you asked whether I the RMAF should divest itself of its combat role. BTW if anything I said was fundamentally wrong, by all means please do point it out.
The Air Force we have is not a waste of money as you incorrectly claim, merely one which is limited to what it cand do due to limited resources but claiming that it has no utility or that it’s fighters are “paper tigers” is a complete misreading of the he situation: poppycock.
If we can’t afford the Air Force we want then perhaps downsize it; despite the operational implications of so something else but suggesting we do away with the combat fleet is a realistic as suggesting we should plan on acquiring corps level combined arms formations. Also, where is the part where you quantify your statement that the fighters are “paper tigers”, an insult to those who take great professional effort and pride in operating and making maintained them:
No it’s not a circular argument but you making snide and outrageous comments for want of anything else to say.
The RMAF never made a case for Rafale, it was a certain politician who at another moment was fixated on Typhoon. Since 1997 when we issues a RFI for 18 Cs; the RMAF has been consistent that its preferred choice was Hornets. Behind me the scenes the RMAF fought hard but in thesystem we have the final decision lies with the politicians. The RMAF isn’t also the only service with a record of being the forced to get stuff due to a political decision.
A case in point is the Laksamanas; the RMN was asked for its opinion and for a project feasibility study. Twice it recommended against the purchase; twice it was overruled.
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/trouble-looming-for-polish-fa-50pl-procurement/
It seems there is integration issue on FA-50PL.
The FA-50PL block 20 will not be able to carry AIM-120. The Polish want to cancel the deal.
I think the US will not allow the feature installed.
Getting ex-Kuwaiti hornet maybe can be justified as a gap filler for 10-15 years to make a full sq. Waiting for F35 available maybe a bit too late, many hornets will be retired gradually.
@romeo
That’s not what the news said.
Romeo – ”The FA-50PL block 20 will not be able to carry AIM-120. ”
Nothing certain as still early days but apparently the RMAF is not looking at placing AMRAAMs on its F-/A-50s but something else. The only possibility I’m aware of is Meteor which is known to be superior to AMRAAM in various aspects but the question mark of course is integration and certfication.
Romeo – ”Getting ex-Kuwaiti hornet maybe can be justified as a gap filler for 10-15 years to make a full sq.”
That was the intention from Day One. That was the ”justification’; to fill in the gap so to speak until the day when MRCAs arrive.
Romeo – ”Waiting for F35 available maybe a bit too late,”
The RMAF is not ”waiting” for F-35s.
Tom Tom – ”Why waste more money on an Air Force that is so useless a”
”Useless”’ is a term used by you and you only…. If you actually devoted some time to think about it; the RMAF is only able to deal with certain types of threats and in wars/conflicts which are not protracted. Just because it can operate in a highly non permissive environment and can’t generate X number of sorties due to small numbers; does not mean it’s ”useless” as you so dramatically but inaccurately claimed.
I’m also various critical of the police in various aspects; now based on your logic; we shouldn’t ”waste” cash on it? The RAAF [the ”real” air arm as you put it] is not able to go alone against the likes of China without operating alongside the U.S; by your logic does this mean the RAAF is ”useless” and has ”only paper tigers for hiasan and pamiran”?
“The RMAF never made a case for Rafale”
As I said, all those decisions (Perista, Fulcrum, MKM, Rafale) werent made by TUDM but by the then Govts.
”as with Perista Skyhawks,”
The Skyhawks was a RMAF decision; not something forced onto it. Not that the RMAF had a choice given the lack of alternatives; i.e. the A-7s were looked at but were problematic [the RTN had major issues]. Prior to the 1990’s there wasn’t much political inference when it came to procurement.
Any idea what is the oval shape glass near to the nose? I do not see this before in RMAF, USN or Swiss AF.
covered pitot tube inlet?
“The Skyhawks was a RMAF decision”
If that is true then they made a bad decision, even wasteful as we didnt get all the planes we paid for. So their just as bad as the politicians themselves. This in contrast to SG Skyhawks which only recently retired. See the difference between a capable force and an incompetent one?
A further news to the topic. Menhan has said these Hornets are to replace the Hawks which will be retired in 2027 (not sure if this date was in the plan tho), so its likely we are looking at a 2+ year timeline to get the approvals and wait for Kuwait to fully induct their SH. Funny thing is, the intended replacement, FA50 is supposed to start delivery in 2026 likely to complete by end 2027/early 2028. So is Menhan muddling things again with what is supposed to replace which?
I think he has to clear that, the KAF Hornets are suppose to prolong our Hornet fleet in service as we havent come to a decision with the MRCA yet.
If one praise that the sinki Skyhawk are flying until recently then there can’t be anything wrong with our decision to acquire the Skyhawk as well. If anything rather then making the wrong acquisition it’s likely making the wrong sustainment or operations strategy post acquisition.
Didn’t we just signed contract worth RM116 million with BAE for the upkeep of our hawk fleet during LIMA 2023? seems a bit wasteful if they’ll all be retired by 2027
Its for routine maintenance to ensure the fleet continue flying until they are retired. It is not wasteful.
@Hulubalang We also have hundreds of AIM-9 sidewinders of all version (AIM-9P, AIM-9S, AIM-9M and even AIM-9X). With hawks nearing its retirement I reckon we still have enough Sidewinders for both FA-50M and F/A-18C/D
What we need is to upgrade both 9P and 9S to 9M version (Diehl offered Sidewinder upgrade as well)as well as getting more 9X as well as getting more AMRAAM.
Hundreds of Sidewinders?
” oval shaped glass ”
Its a spotlight (round, not oval), for night-time QRA missions. It is for the fighter to identify unidentified aircraft (aircraft serials, type, tail colours etc), probably with radio not functional etc.
It shows that the primary mission of the aircraft is for air defence.
Hornets of Canada, Finland & Switzerland all have this feature.
This is swiss hornet
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/J-5011_F-18_Tiger_Meet.jpg/2000px-J-5011_F-18_Tiger_Meet.jpg
Finland
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/McDonnell-Douglas_F_A-18C_Hornet_HN-411_5D4_0857_%2853075861224%29.jpg/2000px-McDonnell-Douglas_F_A-18C_Hornet_HN-411_5D4_0857_%2853075861224%29.jpg
Canada
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Canadian_CF-188_%2843706511431%29.jpg/2000px-Canadian_CF-188_%2843706511431%29.jpg
@Michael
That is a spotlight. Can also be found on Canadian CF-18s. Very useful for nighttime interception missions
zaft – ”If anything rather then making the wrong acquisition it’s likely making the wrong sustainment or operations strategy post acquisition.”
Funding …… We did not change the engine or perform other changes as recommended by a Board of Inquiry. We decided to retire the fleet as a decision had been made to get Hawks; in liue of the Tornados included in the 1988 MOU.
dundun – ” seems a bit wasteful if they’ll all be retired by 2027”
Would it ”seems a bit wasteful” if you had to fly them? Until they day they are retired; they have to be supported. Note that prior to that a spares/support package had already been long delayed; not the 1st time.
”If that is true then they made a bad decision,”
With the benefit of hindsight and yes it was/is ”true”. There was nothing else apart from A-7s.
”even wasteful as we didnt get all the planes we paid for.”
We did get ”get all the planes we paid for”; what we didn’t want we left in the U.S. What we needed to equip 2 squadrons we sent to Grumman for upgrades.
”This in contrast to SG Skyhawks which only recently retired. See the difference between a capable force and an incompetent one?”
No I don’t ”see” the ‘difference between a capable force and an incompetent one” because we decided to retire the A-4s with the Hawks rather than switching to new engine. The RSAF in contrast decided to retain its A-4s in service and subjected the fleet to a comprehensive upgrade.
Was hardly an example of ”a capable force and an incompetent one” but different decisions driven by political decisions – perhaps come up with a better example if you wish to drive home a point or drive discussion. An ”incompetent ” is one which did not operate the A4s in a sound manner; hardly the case. A attrition rate of 6 loss after X number of years and thousands of hours [at one period pilots were clocking 35 hours monthly] is hardly a case of an ”incompetent” air arm. Note that we could have continued A-4s ops but decided not to but replace the fleet with Hawks; the RSAF went down a different route.
”So their just as bad as the politicians themselves. ”
Hardly; the military is bound by law to follow decisions made by political leaders. The military can object but ultimately has to follow decisions. As such; in this case hardly a case of ”just as bad as the politicians themselves” especially given that you seem unaware [given by your comments] of the whole story behind the A-4s.
Hafiz – ”With hawks nearing its retirement I reckon we still have enough Sidewinders for both FA-50M and F/A-18C/D”
Unless or until you have an accurate number of missiles in stock [don’t rely on SIPRi] and the number which are close to time expiring and can’t be re-lifed; plus an idea as to how many will be carried and in how many sorties [depending on the type of war/conflict]; you ”can’t ”reckon” with any near certainty.
Note that after the A-4 fleet was retired; a few were kept flying to serve as tankers for the Hawks.
@Zaft
We bought the Skyhawks with the wrong plan and the wrong usage for them, which is why it was a failure for us, while SG were realistic with such a plane which went on to give stalwart long service. As said, the planners chose and made the wrong decision.
We did not get them based on a “wrong plan”, the 1st time I’ve heard such a claim, certainly never read about it or hear about it from any RMAF or industry people. Neither did Grumman made such a claim. The A4s were intended as a Tebuan replacement and to beef up the RMAF in line with PERISTA. Of about 88 ordered we pressed into service about half, the remainder for spares.
We operated them until we decided to replace then with the Hawks. The main issue was with the engine but there was never anything fundamentally wrong
with the way we operated them. A Board of Inquiry [with RNZAF participation] did not find anything wring with the way we operated it, not as if we were using it for the wring roles or had an inadequate support infrastructure. Note, that we flew high hours with the type and during that period we had higher quality manpower, compared to now. The then RMAF chief was also outspoken. Nor did we get them based on a wrong plan. Any comparison made with the RSAF is spurious and misleading as it decided to continue operating the type, after a comprehensive upgrade. Had we not ordered the Hawk we could have continued operating the A4 but unlike the RSAF, decided not to. We operated the Alo 3 long after the RSAF, does that mean the RSAF made the wrong decision or was incompetent in getting the Alo3?
The planners did not make any so called “wrong decision” as it was either the A4 or A7 [more expensive to buy and operate] and we know the issues the RTN later had. There was no alternative to the A4 during the said period, not that it was a flawed decision to get it in the very first place.
As an aircraft that is matched to the main security and defence concern of the day, A-$ Skyhawk was the most suitable aircraft for TUDM
In the 80s, our most pressing concern is to defeat the communist insurgency. The A-4 Skyhawk was the best value for budget aircraft for ground attack and close support that we could get.
We were given 88 A-4C and A-4L model skyhawks for free through US EDA and spent our own money to refurbish and modernise 40 to A-4PTM and TA-4PTM standards by Grumman Bethpage New York (the same factory that build F-14 Tomcats).
We fly those Skyhawks at the time where GPS is still not yet used, most of the aircraft are parked under the skies without any cover from the sun and rain. It was also the time where electronic/avionic TBF (time between failures) are low, and from my talks with former skyhawk flyers/maintainers, they were still flown with some systems in INOP status.
Also ours and singaporean skyhawks have older and ancient Wright J65 engine, while those like Indonesia, New Zealand, Kuwait uses the much more newer Pratt & Whitney J52. Singapore decided to replace their J65 with non-afterburning F404 (similar engine to the Hornet, FA-50 and Gripen).
There are many things that we did not know then when we operated the skyhawks, and were only realised when we started operating the Hawks (humidity issues, fatigue etc etc due to our tropical climates).
It was flown for just about a decade, and was retired before those of RSAF were (btw their skyhawk airframes are actually older than our own skyhawks). It is what it is, we decided that it was better replaced by brand new Hawks in 1994 rather than spending money upgrading and sustaining them.
The BAe Hawks have their own technical quirks, but we persevered with them, now on its 30th year of operational use. But IMO we have done the right thing, getting the replacements for the Hawk 1st (with LCA/FLIT) rather than the MRCA.
Ahaaa, speaking of the A-4 ‘scooter’, what could have been is that at that time we should have bought the A-4M variant which is newer and so, maybe more reliable, if in RMAF service could have been just recently retired. Assumptions of course.
… – ”There are many things that we did not know then when we operated the skyhawks”
Not much; we got a lot of help from the RNZAF. Technically or technologically the A-4s were not a big jump over the F-5s we had.
… – ”were only realised when we started operating the Hawks (humidity issues, fatigue etc etc due to our tropical climates).”
There were issues with humidity and so on but at a later stage; delays in overhauls and ordering spares became an issue.
… – ”It is what it is”
Roger .. As explained in previous posts. The RSAF decided to continue operating its Skyhawks after a major upgrade; we didn’t. We had replacements in the form of Hawks which were originally Tornados. Had we decided to continue operating the type; we could have. The RSAF had different requirements. We flew thousands of hours; the RMAF is on record as saying up to 30 hours a month were logged.
… – ” most of the aircraft are parked under the skies without any cover from the sun and rain.”
There were existing hangars [some previously used by the Tebuans].
… – ”But IMO we have done the right thing, getting the replacements for the Hawk 1st (with LCA/FLIT) rather than the MRCA.”
It will only be the ”right thing” as long as we’re not faced with a situation where MRCAs are needed; in larger numbers than 8 Hornets and 18Flankers. Then it’ll truly be the ”right thing”…
… – ”In the 80s, our most pressing concern is to defeat the communist insurgency. The A-4 Skyhawk was the best value for budget aircraft for ground attack and close support that we could get.”
Not really. By then we knew the communist insurgency – both in West and East Malaysia – was all but worn. Our worry was safeguarding the EEZ which we declared in 1979 under the Peta Baru and worries about the Vietnamese in Cambodia. There was nothing else we could have bought apart from A-7s.
… – ”Singapore decided to replace their J65 with non-afterburning F404 (similar engine to the Hornet, FA-50 and Gripen).”
After the crashes a Board of Inquiry ruled that there was nothing fundamentally flawed or wrong in the way we were operating the fleet. It also recommended a number of changes; including a new engine. The government decided it was not a sound long term return of investment to spend more than was necessary but rathe replace the fleet in a few years. Had the 12 Tornadoes IDRs included in the 1988 MOU been delivered; they would have partly replaced the A-4s. The Tornados of course were never ordered but that’s a story for a different time.
… – ”but we persevered with them”
What choice did we have in ”persevering” with them? There were also few alternatives; the Alpha Jet which was less combat capable and the AMX which was seen as an outsider.
… – ”(with LCA/FLIT)”
Not a ”FLIT” per see but as a conversion platform for pilots streamed to Hawks.
Anyhow, we hear so much about the A-4 crashes [6 lost] by we had a much higher attrition rate with the Hawks and quite a few were due to human error.
There are maintenance hangars, but not to park each aircraft. even the tebuans are also parked in the open
we did not buid any sheds for the 40 skyhawks. Heds in kuantan were only build in late 90s to park the Hawks due to the knowledge of the havoc done by our tropical humidity weather.
There were hangars left over from the Brit days, as well as a few we.did in the 1970’s, used to partially house the Tebuans and later the Skyhawks. May not have been sufficient but there were hangars. The Tebuans and Skyhawks did not spend all their service lives parked in the open 24/7, 365. The Hawks in Butterworth have sun shelters, Australian designed.
“We did not get them based on a “wrong plan”
I was told that we intended to use them for CAS and nap of earth bombing runs which the Skyhawks werent designed for. Their radar did not have the ground mapping capability that would have prevented the lot of accidents due to high tempo operations. This coupled with the poorer maintenance we gave it meant their airframe & electronics couldnt sustain the high stresses we put onto that plane.
This unlike SAF that were using them as intended, maintained & upgraded them as needed, and then gradually semi retired them to a training role in Spain (or was it France?). That was the key difference in fates between our Skyhawks.
Anyhow back on topic, the Hornet pursuit is official, its quoted and reported directly from the ministry, its widely reported in foreign defence news, so now its willing seller willing buyer and they hold the cards when they would like to let go.
“Anyhow back on topic, the Hornet pursuit is official, its quoted and reported directly from the ministry, its widely reported in foreign defence news”
When was it not “official”?
The RMAF first “officially”‘announced it in 2019 and in 2021 the Deputy Defence Minister spoke of plans to acquire the fleet.
“so now its willing seller willing buyer and they hold the cards when they would like to let go”
From the time the RMAF team went to Kuwait in June and when the Kuwaiti ambassador went to MINDEF the same month, we knew it was a “willing seller” thing, in principle.
“I was told that we intended to use them for CAS and nap of earth bombin”
The A4 was originally intended to deliver free fall nuke payloads which would have entailed “nap of the earth” profiles. Also, in Vietnam A4s were used for CAS and low level strikes. The type was designed for low level missions from the very inset. In 1973 IAF A4s had a high attrition rate to Gainfuls and Strelas because they were flying low for CAS. In the Falklands; over San Carlos A4s were flying low; at ship mast level.RNZAF A4s when flying here over the Titiwangsa range flew very low.
As for us we intended it be used for low level strike and interdiction; not for CAS per see which we’ve hardly done or did.
“Their radar did not have the ground mapping capability that would have prevented the lot of accidents due to high tempo operations”
The Saab weapons sight and Hughes Angle Rate Bombing System was more than sufficient for what we did. There was no radar per see. A “ground mapping” function is great but is not connected to “high tempo operations”. Also, did USN A7s have a “ground mapping” function? Did RSAF A4s have it?
“This coupled with the poorer maintenance we gave”
Issues we had with the type had hardly to do with “poorer maintenance”. As mentioned, the fleet flew high hours with it and during that period the service as a whole had better quality manpower.
“That was the key difference in fates between our Skyhawks”
The RSAF were using then the same way we and others were, as intended; a A4 crashed near Clark during a low level training sortie. Can’t remember the year but it happened. If the type was not suited for CAS and low level flights then what on earth was it good for? It certainly was not intended as a high altitude platform. The “key difference” is the RSAF decided to keep theirs in service, we didn’t because we had a replacement in the form of the Hawk. Nothing to do with an “incompetent RMAF”; with using the type “wrongly”; with “wrong decisions” or “poorer maintenance”.
“their airframe & electronics couldnt sustain the high stresses we put onto that plane”
The “A” prefix in “A4” is for “attack”; not only was the type for low level missions [as explained above] but no USN or USMC plane with a “A” prefix would have been incapable of low level flights. That would be akin to B52s incapable of high altitude bombing. The A4 was also intended as a A1 replacement.
@ joe
In vietnam, A-4 regularly uses “retarded” high drag mk-82 bombs to prevent the bombs from exploding below the aircraft during low level bombings. If that is not a proof of low level bombing is a normal thing for a Skyhawk, i am not sure you understand what low is.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fl4ymZiWAAI_pIt.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EinFJFQWAAYsqzY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZi4OBdXYAA_KDh.jpg
Our A4s were wired for Maverick but we never got them. I know we had 250 and 500 pound free fall bombs; as well as Rockeye. No idea if rockets were fired. No idea as to reason but in.The late 1980’s or early 1990’s a A4 was parked at Central Market for a few days. There’s also an example at Subang, mounted on a plinth.
There is also an example at the Army Museum at PD. The pilot whose name is stencil on it is now working with BAE Systems. The aircraft has a hump on it previously but RMAF technicians removed it later. There is also a twin seater parked at KTU parade ground with some other RMAF planes.
Many of the other A-4s stored were sold for scraps.
>agm65
that thing was cutting edge back then of course the yanks gatekept them from some lowly third world backwater country…wait
Majority of civilian-owned Skyhawks flying in USA right now are those from the 42-48 skyhawks allocated for TUDM but not modified. around a dozen bought back to malaysia for spares, but the rest that is left in USA was eventually sold to private buyers in mid 90s.
This is one of them, for sale in airworthy condition painted in argentinian markings.
https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/205538431/1960-douglas-a-4c-skyhawk-turbine-military-aircraft
Our twin seaters were also not originally twin seaters; converted. I have a link but I’ll leave that to “…” if he wishes to post it.
As is well known we received a few offers for the retired fleet and the ones left in the desert but approval came very late.
The RTN took a very different route, A7s. A few years after entering service the fleet was grounded due to spares issues. Have no idea if surplus A6s were ever offered to anyone but a few years ago either Japan or South Korea expressed an interest in surplus/retired Vikings for ASW.
“When was it not “official”?”
It was pretty touch n go subject, that our ministers had denied there was talks before it was officially announced there was one.
“The A4 was originally intended to deliver free fall nuke payloads”
Main role was low altitude level bombing, didnt have the ground mapping radar for tree skimming (that came with F111), and to deliver nukes it had to do loft bombing which it has to take altitude. When used in high intensity low level runs it had high loss and high accidents.
“The RSAF were using then the same way we and others were”
SG did not have the forested mountainous & valley terrain that we expect ours to perform. And they did not have the same loss rates that we had. It makes a difference in their decision to keep or to ditch.
I understand the suffix ‘A’ is for Attack role but there are many variations of the meaning of attack. Its carrier mate, A5 Vigilante, also has A suffix but it has a totally different role and was totally not for conventional bombing runs.
Both malaysian TA-4PTM and singaporean TA-4S are converted by stretching single seater fuselages. So 2 single seater skyhawks are used to build 1 twin seater.
All other twin seater skyhawks are original from the production line.
Dundun “that thing was cutting edge back then of course the yanks gatekept them from some lowly third world backwater country”
Just like your claim that ANRAAMs were kept abroad until recently, this claim is off. We could not afford it. Maverick was sold to numerous non NATO countries, including Yugoslavia. Also by virtue of our location and prevailing Cold War dynamics we were a vital element for Uncle Sam.
We received an offer from Argentina;
a barter exchange for Pucaras and/or Pampas. Indonesia also expressed interest in getting a few examples.
The hump Marhalim mentioned houses a nav suite. No idea why the RMAF removed it from the PD example.
SG A4s were planned to be use in forested mountainous and valley terrains in the neighbourhood.
Indeed. Just like how the army’s Leo 2s were intended to use highways in a neighbouring country.
“It was pretty touch n go subject, that our ministers had denied there was talks before it was officially announced there was one”
Various official statements were made, examples given. What denials?
“Main role was low altitude level bombing, didnt have the ground mapping radar for tree skimming”
Yes it was designed for low level work [as was explained in depth in a previous post] and the lack of a mapping system was not an issue and has no connection to the discussion.
Again, were RSAF A4s fitted with ground mapping? Where USN A4s and A7s?
“I understand the suffix ‘A’ is for Attack role but there are many variations of the meaning of attack”
Then you’ll no doubt understand that contrary to your claim; the A4 was designed for low level work. Also, every single USN and USMC platform with the A prefix was designed from Day One for low level work. Have no idea of the “variations” you spoke of but in this context every single USN and USMC platform with the A prefix was designed from Day One for low level work.
“And they did not have the same loss rates that we had. It makes a difference in their decision to keep or to ditch”
We only lost 6 and as pointed out, there were different reasons why one air arm retired it fleet and the other doubt. Has zero to do with “an incompetent RMAF”, “wrong decisions” or “wrong useage”. BTW the RSAF lost more than we did, not that it’s an indication of anything as they operated longer than us and before but since you brought it up.
“SG did not have the forested mountainous & valley terrain that we expect ours to perform”
Where exactly do you think its A4s were intended to operate? Also, during FPDA exercises A4s did low level sorties over land and sea.
The A4 was designed from Day One for low-level work, examples were provided in a previous post.
“to deliver nukes it had to do loft bombing which it has to take altitude. When used in high intensity low level runs it had high loss and high accidents.”
It had to go higher when tossing but it was still at low altitude.
No RMAF A4 was lost because it was flown low. All the A4s we lost were at medium altitudes. I really don’t see the point of this as it’s a well known fact that A4s were designed to go low. All this stuff you’re mentioning does not change that.
If we brough Kuwait hornet. How long it can serve? 2035?
I believe when Uncle SAM approve, it will be 1st or 2nd quarter of 2025, and we still need do some changes and upgrade. The first jet we receive might be 2026. It life span just around 10 years’ time. is it worth? + there is a hornet crash after our MINDEF visit
Yes it will be around 2035. Delivery dates? It will depend on when Kuwait take delivery of their Super Hornets.
And when Uncle Sam graves approval. Or rather how fast the giant bureaucracy that is the U.S. government moves.
Even if we start MRCA procurement in 2030, it will take at least another 10 years until the plane reach IOC let alone FOC.
F/A-18C/D, fully upgraded, could match (and even exceed in some respect) the capability of Rafale F3 and even F4 whilst being much, much cheaper.
Also you can bet that even before MRCA programme is finalized Su-30MKM will be sent to the knacker first
what we do know is they will receive all their Typhoons on Sept 2026.
So that will be at the earliest, end of 2026 if what they request is to the letter.
Dundun “it will take at least another 10 years until the plane reach IOC let alone FOC”
From the time of delivery? Won’t take 10 years.
Dundun “F/A-18C/D, fully upgraded, could match (and even exceed in some respect) the capability of Rafale F3 and even F4”
I would hazard a guess and say “probably” but on a platform level. Also doubt very much the Hornets will be fully upgraded by us.
https://fulcrum.sg/malaysias-purchase-of-kuwaiti-hornets-is-it-worth-it/
Good read..to quote a few.”Although offering a tempting opportunity to expand the RMAF’s fleet of legacy Hornets, the type is rapidly reaching technological obsolescence. A larger fleet of ageing aircraft may quickly prove burdensome to maintain, which would add to the already serious fleet sustainment problems faced by the RMAF. Refocusing the government’s limited defence modernisation budget to expand the successful LCA programme or accelerate the MRCA programme would help future-proof the RMAF against threats”.
That was the conclusion. And everyone – tom, dick and harry – has the same conclusion, so no great shakes really. If money was available, bla, bla, bla,. This has been the case when they KIVed the MRCA programme in 2017.
Firdaus,
All due respect to whoever wrote it but it doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know or haven’t already discussed here.
It all boils down to cash : Will the RMAF be provided with the funds it needs to maintain and equip the platforms or wimoll the government again do things on the cheap? Again : the real challenges comes after we acquire the fleet. Acquiring the fleet is only part of the challenge, the easier part.
Even before they KIVed the MRCA project, i still don’t agree with the buy in 2015, as at the time our hornets are just 20 years old, and our MKM less than 10. We will have a rojak fleet of 3 different MRCAs if we do that.
A reason why i floated the idea of the Kuwaiti hornets, as they signed for new fighter jets is because if we buy brand new MRCA, that would be our main fighter jet for at least 30 more years into the future. If we signed on then, it would be at least to 2045-2050. I dont want TUDM flying 4.5 gen fighters as its main MRCA in 2035 when many others are flying F-35 or other 5 gen fighters then. Getting kuwaiti hornets say in 2020 would be good for us as a stopgap to have a 5 gen fighter in 2030-2035.
But many things happened. COVID delayed Kuwaiti new fighter deliveries. Our government and kuwaiti government undergoes massive changes.
By 2016 i proposed getting a new LCA instead of upgrading our hawks, as a replacement of hawk (light attack & air defence), mb339cm (LIFT) and mig-29n (QRA) missions
Getting used Hornets is a platform that we already use and know. So it is a matter of expanding the existing fleet, not inducting a totally new aircraft type. Getting used also means able to get extra airframes for spare parts use, reducing the cost to maintain those aircrafts. Along with getting spareparts cache of RAAF Hornets, we probably could save not buying 2/3 of spareparts needed to operate those hornets, something that can easily sustain the fleet for around a decade or so.
We are getting them now nearly a decade later than i am comfortable with, so IMO we should just use them as is (those hornets has been upgraded dilligently even up to this year, with integration of SNIPER pods completed, before even our own SNIPER upgrade even started) and replace them within 10 years time (2036-2040) with 5 gen MRCA. Following the kuwaiti hornets sustainment for a decade now, it has similar upgrades to malaysian hornets (JHMCS upgrade, cockpit display upgrade, now SNIPER pod) but with older radar (AN/APG-65, only 2 export customers did not retrofit newer AN/APG-73, kuwait and spain, while malaysia has the new radar built in from start). If we want, we can have a free upgrade of the kuwaiti hornet radars to AN/APG-73 by salvaging AN/APG-73 radars from RAAF retired hornets. It is just a plug & play upgrade. Another advantage of having large pool of resources of retired airframes of friendly air force (in this case, RAAF).
Even when we retire all the hornets in 2036-2040, some of the parts would still be useful for operational TUDM aircraft, especially the engines as it is the same as on the FA-50.
@Firdaus
“Good read..to quote a few.”
Academic to say the least. As it doesnt reveal anything new, of course it would be cheaper long run to get a brand new MRCA plane rather than interim legacy Hornets while waiting for money to buy MRCAs. But its not like we are SG where USD $1 = SGD $1.3 and being close ally meant they got 1st access to buy F35. What is available currently for us? 4.5gen Rafale & Typhoon & SH which will still be inferior to SG F35 anyhow. That is what they want us to buy.
We are not there yet in able to get 5th gen but its on the cusp of being available to the masses. So here is where we can wait a bit more for it to mature and be available.
malaysian AIM-9 stocks
I am not sure if we got any AIM-9B sidewinders for our CAC Sabre, as that was the main missile for the aircraft.
For F-5Es, we got AIM-9J. These probably has expired as there is no longer any support for upgrades.
We got AIM-9M for hawks and hornets. In 2007 we paid for AIM-9M upgrades for just 57 missiles
We have also bought 20 AIM-9X for the hornet
We need to buy more, as a handful is not enough. Philippines bought 312x refurbished AIM-9L (ex german AF stocks) from Diehl Germany for its 12x FA-50PH. The contract costs USD54.6 million only. We need that kind of quantity to have a credible air defence capability with our FA-50 and Hornets.
“But many things happened. COVID delayed Kuwaiti new fighter deliveries. Our government and kuwaiti government undergoes massive changes”
You missed out one very pertinent fact. The government wasn’t enthusiastic initially and that had zero to do with COVID or “massive changes”. Took lots of convincing on the part of the RMAF. Even after the government agreed in principle; took a while for the government to take the 1st steps.
Also note that of the Arab countries; we’ve traditionally had close ties with USE; followed by Saudi [whom we always try to ingratiate ourselves with; on a social levels lots of rich Malays try to be more Arab than the Arabs]. We have amicable ties with Kuwait; as we do with Qatar but not close ties.
No AAMs for the Sabres. The RAAF had planned to get Firestreak.
Yes we neded to buy more SAM’s quite “obviously” but we also need to do a long list of other things.
There is a backstory. Getting the fleet is the easy part, what comes after that is the challenge. An objective assessment would entail looking at the pros and cons [can’t say this enough]. I’ve gone in depth here and elsewhere about the cons or rather the penalties, rather than just focusing on all the paper pros or benefits; as you tend to do.
As long said: we should get the fleet but only if certain key prerequisites are met. As it stands even with our small fleet sustainment funds are tight, never mind adding another 20 odd airframes which are 30 odd years old, and are getting older and more maintenance intensive. We have a long tradition of delaying overhauls and spares purchases. We also have a long tradition of adding stuff but not the sustainment funds. The result is the proverbial roobbing Peter to pay Paul situation/scenario
…”I still don’t agree with the buy in 2015, as at the time our hornets are just 20 years old, and our MKM less than 10″
Yes but this ignores the issue that we only had a very small MRCA fleet and maintaining operational commitments, as well training needs and exercises with just 8 Hornets and 18 MKMs would be a wee bit hard. Not to mention the fact that if trouble broke out the small fleet would be insufficient for anything other than very short and low intensity wars/conflicts. Now one can point out that we faced no wars/conflicts but this is with the benefit of hindsight. None of us, including you [as far as I can tell] has an oracle or crystal ball.
We made the “right” choice going 1st for LCAs but if faced with a situation which calls for more than just 8 Hornets and 18 MKMs, going for the LCAs won’t be the “right” choice.
” No AAMs for the Sabres. The RAAF had planned to get Firestreak ”
Nope,
RAAF CAC Sabres are equipped with AIM-9B missiles
https://x.com/i/status/1843599752665141632
Below is a picture of A94-983 with AIM-9B Sidewinders
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZm4xv-XAAgUGQs.jpg
It was later transferred to TUDM as FM-1983
https://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery3/var/albums/Sabre/Sabre-A94-983/Sabre_A94_983_as_FM1983_Photo_Bruce_Lovett.jpg
From technical point of view
TUDM operating Legacy Hornets up to 2035-2040 is drastically different compared to say USMC, USN and RAAF doing the same thing.
Why?
It’s all about the remaining flight hours of each of the Hornets.
As originally designed, the Hornet has a structural life of 6,000 flight hours (FH). This with Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) can be implemented to increase the original 6,000 flight hour design life, to a SLEP goal of 10,000 flight hours. All Hornets built in Lots 1 through 16 are being given a SLEP at the Fleet Readiness Centers where the aircraft centre barrel section, wing leading edges and other elements are inspected and replaced as needed. Later production Lot aircraft go through increased inspections and repairs.
Malaysian and Kuwaiti Hornets are all later production lots.
Anyway back to the original question. Why TUDM operating Legacy Hornets up to 2035-2040 is drastically different compared to say USMC, USN and RAAF doing the same thing?
All of the TUDM and KAF Hornets have less than 3,000 flight hours, which means they all have more than 3,000 flight hours remaining before even needing to do structural SLEP.
RAAF Hornets are all retired with about 6,000 flight hours on them. To continue using the Hornets, RAAF will need to put all of their Classic Hornets into SLEP (they have actually done around a dozen). Still, many of the components in the RAAF Classic Hornets (radars, avionics, cockpit displays etc.) are relatively recent as they have been regularly upgraded during its lifetime.
USMC Legacy Hornets currently have an average of more than 8,000 flying hours on them. This means they need to do much more inspection, maintenance & repair on their Legacy Hornets, to keep them flying to their planned retirement at the end of this decade.
How about the maintenance of TUDM and KAF Hornets? Just normal scheduled maintenance (no additional inspections like those of more than 6,000 flight hours) as per original. Even if we fly every Hornets for 200 hours (NATO standards) annually for the next 10 years (which would not be normal for TUDM), all those Hornets will still not exceed the designed 6,000 flight hours limit! With huge spares resources to be available now and i nthe near future (even Swiss Hornets would be retired by 2027-2030, so we can get spares through RUAG), I don’t see any complications on flying our Hornets up to 2037-2040.
On the RAAF Sabre Sidewinder video
Upon further research, the exact aircraft that launched the Sidewinder in the video, the A94-946, was also among the aircraft donated to TUDM in 1971!
As seen in the video
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZXH8EMWIAA5SiI.jpg
In TUDM service as FM1946
https://www.adf-gallery.com.au/_data/i/gallery3/var/albums/Sabre/Sabre-A94-946/Sabre_A94_946_as_FM1946_Photo_Kurt_Finger-me.jpg
@firdaus
The LCA hasn’t even arrived yet, the weapon integration is still up in the air nor anyone else other then us and probably Poland had plans to use a LCA platform as a sort of mini MRCA for MIG replacement. So how can one proclaimed it to be a success right now?
As for the hornets,even if the airframe are cheap,the upgrade, ground equipment, ammoniation, training, manpower are not. Highly unlikely MOF gonna pay for the *full package if RMAF only want to operate it for 10 years. Nor MOF is likely going to pay to sustain both hornet and MKM. The money just isn’t there as the gov had made no commitment nor show any interest in spending more then 1% of GDP.
… “Nope,”
Hardly. It had planned to get Firestreak.
… ” USMC, USN and RAAF”
The RMAF is not the USMC, USN and RAAF. It is a small under resourced air arm. You made a direct comparison.
… ” I don’t see any complications on flying our Hornets up to 2037-2040.”
Assuming we have the funds. Over the years we’ve had lots of “complications” over what little we have. If we lived in a perfect world the RMAF would have adequate funds; what needs replacing on the Hornets would be replaced and ample stocks of ordnance would be acquired. You might not see any “complications” on paper but in reality they are. You’re big on numbers and percentages; in terms of percentage what does 20 platforms to an existing fleet of 26 come to?
… “How about the maintenance of TUDM and KAF Hornets?”
You missed the key part [again] about hard aircraft recquiring more checks and getting more maintenance intensive due to age; that equates to increased costs. An objective and sound assessment entails both the pros and cons.
Zaft “The LCA hasn’t even arrived yet, the weapon integration is still up in the air nor anyone else other then us”
You are overplaying the issue. For us there are no integration issues.
Zaft “Highly unlikely MOF gonna pay for the *full package if RMAF only want to operate it for 10 years”
Even if we intended to operate the fleet till the next millennium the government would allocate the bare minimum. That’s how we’ve been doing things for so long; a pertinent fact still often not understood.
Zaft “. The money just isn’t there as the gov had”
We are doing too many things with too few and stretched resources. Take the RMN; a problem is has is that a significant chunk of its budget is going towards the SSKs. Which is why any talk about getting more SSKs [even a single hull] without increased funding is fantastical [I’m being charitable].
Zaft “Nor MOF is likely going to pay to sustain both hornet and MKM”
Paper plans aside; the bare minimum will be spent to keep them operational. What absolutely has to be replaced; will be but nothing beyond that. That is how things stand at present.
IMO we made the right choice right now to have :
18 Su-30MKM
8+21(+12 spares) F/A-18 Hornet
18+18 FA-50
By 2030
This will probably be the most capable fighter jet fleet we ever had in our history.
As for spares for the hornet, 12 of those Kuwaiti Hornets will be used for spareparts, and RAAF has transferred a good amount of its hornet spares recently to TUDM. We can request through US EDA for hornet spareparts for almost free (even countries such as Japan and Australia regularly request free spareparts through US EDA). A big advantage of using an aircraft that other larger users recently retired is that we will have an abundance of spareparts for us that nobody else will want (as nobody else flies legacy hornet anymore), to run a small fleet up to a decade without issues (with our minimal flying hours annually).
Having enough OPEX to run the fleet is a big reason why I am very against the proposal to raid our OPEX to fund the very expensive helicopter rental.
Those FA-50 with Phantomstrike AESA radars would be a good air defence platform defending against cruise missiles & shahed type drones.
“The government wasn’t enthusiastic initially”
That is absolutely clear even to me, as they wanted brand new Typhoon/Rafale so much even in reality the budget is not there to buy them in realistic numbers. Even TUDM does not want it. It took nearly a decade, but it shows that civilians making noise, proposing logical options (both FA-50 and Kuwaiti Hornets) can be heard by those in the military and mindef.
Literally posted pictures of sidewinders hung on CAC Sabres and videos of it in action but still…
As I had posted before, it would not be 21 Kuwait Hornets, in service, only 16, 12 single seat and 4 two seaters.
Azlan “We are doing too many things with too few and stretched resources.”
The restraints resources aren’t going to change anytime soon. Thus probably it’s better to stop wanting to do too many things then. Even Aussie which spend 1000% more then us have to cut existing capabilities and create a more focus forces.
… “Literally posted pictures of sidewinders hung on CAC Sabres and videos of it in action but still…”
“Still” what exactly? Nobody said Sidewinders were never operated; merely that there were also plans for Firestreak.
… ” but it shows that civilians making noise, proposing logical options (both FA-50 and Kuwaiti Hornets) can be heard by those in the military and mindef”
You actually think so ….
… “IMO we made the right choice right now to have”
Until it if we’re faced with a situation in which the “right choice” doesn’t become one.
… “As for spares for the hornet, 12 of those Kuwaiti Hornets will be used for spareparts, and RAAF has”
So you keep saying [for a while now] but there are also other issues at play. A sound and objective assessment involves not only the pros as they appear on paper. Also a marked difference between what can be don’t and what will be done. You also haven’t factored in that a number of things will have to be replaced whilst in RMAF service or even before in fact.
… “Having enough OPEX to run the fleet is a big reason why I am very against the proposal to raid our OPEX to fund the very expensive helicopter
Here’s news for you ; funds would be inadequate even if we had not decided on a leasing agreement.
.”’ “That is absolutely clear even to me”
Gratified to hear
… “IMO we made the right choice right now to have”
Until or unless we’re faced with a situation in which the “right choice” doesn’t become one. Your IMO is based on hindsight.
… “As for spares for the hornet, 12 of those Kuwaiti Hornets will be used for spareparts, and RAAF has”
So you keep saying but there are also other issues at play. A sound and objective assessment involves not only the pros as they appear on paper. Also a marked difference between what can be don’t and what will be done. You also haven’t factored in that a number of things will have to be replaced whilst in RMAF service or even before in fact.
… “Having enough OPEX to run the fleet is a big reason why I am very against the proposal to raid our OPEX to fund the very expensive helicopter
Here’s news for you ; funds would be inadequate even if we had not decided on a leasing agreement.
.”’ “That is absolutely clear even to me”
Gratified to hear.
… “This will probably be the most capable fighter jet fleet we ever had in our history”
This like your “That is a much more capable helicopter fleet than the Nuris when it was at its peak”; “I have never understood the TUDM obsession with CSAR when we only have a handful of fighter jets anyway” and
“There are ways to mitigate the need for CSAR. One is to get longer ranged strike missiles of 300+km range (storm shadows for example) so our fighter jets does not need to fly over enemy territory/forces. If our fighter jets fly over owr own territory (like Lahad Datu for instance), we dont really need all out CSAR capabilities”.’ All of which were addressed.
Whether it’s the “capable fighter jet fleet we ever had in our history” is sensationalist and objective. Open to debate; yes you did add the “probably” caveat. I would say in the 1970’s we had a far more capable and effective air arm. It had a clearer purpose; had a political leadership which understood the needs of the military and did not bigger things up for national interests; the RMAF was better funded for what it had to do [we had a fleet we could afford to run] and it had better quality manpower [this was before the education system went dogshite].’
… “The contract costs USD54.6 million only. We need that kind of quantity to have a credible air defence capability with our FA-50 and Hornets.”
We need quite a few things to have a “credible” [a term which is subjective and often loosely applied] air arm. Mind you; we could have just 2 squadrons of fighters which linked to each other and to various ISR assets but only enough munitions for 3 sorties but it would still be “credible”. Last but not least; the type of air arm one has and the way it’s equipped; plus it’s mission sets and ability to generate X number over a given period is driven by the type of trouble it expects to face. If we started buying large numbers of AAMs that would mean our threat perceptions and operational requirements have evolved.
BTW have you asked yourself if we have the actual faculties to store large quantities of munitions and how many of the facilities are to standards set by OEMs. It’s one thing storing large numbers of free fall bombs and rockets; another thing doing so with AAMs which need periodical checks and are more susceptible to humidity/moisture”
Info from tudm project team
Quantity to acquire = 33 units total
To use as spares = 12 units
For operational use = 15 single seat, 6 twin seat.
Why or what is the rationale of that number? I don’t know.
“Mind you; we could have just 2 squadrons of fighters which linked to each other and to various ISR assets but only enough munitions for 3 sorties but it would still be “credible””
A reminder
Philippines air force feels that it is prudent to purchase 312 units of sidewinders to arm their 12 FA-50.
Please tell me what is the logical reason TUDM should have less sidewinders than Philippines Air Force when we have even right now 2-3 time the number of fighter jets that could shoot the sidewinders?
… “Why or what is the rationale of that number? I don’t know.””
The number of platforms it intends on pressung into service is driven by the number of pilots available; number of support crews; as well as other factors such as funding. That is the “rationale”.
… “Why or what is the rationale of that number? I don’t know.””
The number of platforms it intends on pressung into service is driven by the number of pilots available; number of support crews; as well as other factors such as funding. That is the “rationale”.
Zaft “The restraints resources aren’t . Thus probably it’s better to wanting to do too many things then.”
Nor are the services under any illusions that “going to change anytime soon”. They do what they have to with what they have. If certain changed are to be made with regard to priorities and commitments then three has to be clear direction from the top.
Zaft “Even Aussie which spend 1000% more then us have to cut existing capabilities and create a more focus forces”
Apples to oranges comparison. The ADF has different requirements; different priorities; different levels of funding; etc.
Before even committing to write my proposed tudm orbats here many2 years ago, i have run though multiple “what if’s” and options with many possible combinations beforehand.
Some of that i remembered
1) buying oman hawks to add to tudm hawk fleet
2) new gripens (i did think very2 deep and with multiples of setup for this)
3) tranche 1 typhoons from uk,spain, germany
4) JF-17 (this & gripens i probably thought the longest)
5) RAAF Hornets
Even after coming out with multiple options, still the best option compared to other combinations for TUDM is the Kuwaiti hornets + FA-50, that would reduce our fighter types to 3, and with the lowest cost to set up and operate.
If you have a better idea than what tudm themselves right now think the best option for them, i would love to hear them.
Didn’t one of the planes crashed a week ago. That was probably why the number of F/A-18C became 15 instead of earlier 16
Also isn’t the supposed F/A-18D that’s operational is 4?
RMAF probably looking for 2 squadron of 14 planes each and our existing flyboys (that isnt flying the flankers) is only enough to fill these 2 squadrons.
Probably getting LCA made more sense as we’re in short of trainer (even before MN339C were retired) and we had to send them overseas
I spoke to the money guy….
Under current upgrade, all eight will become available. No they are looking to have 12 planes each in two squadrons, one all single seaters and the other twin seaters, the current eight and four for more from Kuwait.
Yes the plan is to get more LCA after the first batch. Whether or not this will happens is up to the government. FLIT is now done by No 15 Skuadron as RMAF has decided that all the single Hawks to be with No. 6 Skuadron (this make it easier maintenance wise). No 15 Skuadron will transitioned to the FA-50 once they are delivered. How many aircraft to be divided between No 15 and No 6 is beyond me as whether or not a full fledged FLIT unit will be stood up.
… ” “what if’s” and options with many possible combinations beforehand.”
All praise. Your analysis however of the ex Kuwaiti Hornets have been centered on all the plus points; all the things others have done and all we can do; on paper. An objective and sound assessment entails looking at both the plus and minuses; various pluses but also minuses or rather penalties associated with a small under resourced air arm which is operating on a shoe strong to operate a fleet of 30 odd year old platforms. Percentage wise; the number of platforms we adding comes to a lot based on what we currently operate.
… ” If you have a better idea than what tudm themselves right now think the best option for them, i would love to hear them.”
Yes you’ve mentioned about a 100 times over the years. The RMAF can be presented with various plans but it all depends on the funding and infrastructure it has. Making paper plans are easy; as are making paper conversions and assuming they’re easily transferable into reality.TUDM should have less sidewinders than Philippines Air Force
…-“Please tell me what is the logical reason TUDM should have less sidewinders than Philippines Air Force”
Off tangent. I said I’m surprised it’s getting the numbers in that type of ratio and that if we do; it would ‘ve because our perceptions have changed. Said nothing about why the “TUDM should have less sidewinders than Philippines Air Force” anymore than I supposedly said RAAF Sabres did not have Sidewinders.
dundun “That was probably why the number of F/A-18C became 15 instead of earlier 16”
They could easily take another airframe; not that there aren’t any
dundun “Probably getting LCA made more sense as we’re in short of trainer”
Will any actually be configured as such? Also, on another topic; the twin seat Hawks were never FLITs per see: rather comversion playforms for Hawk pilots and to train back seaters.
>They could easily take another airframe; not that there aren’t any
They (assuming “they” meant the KAF) aren’t in any rush to get the stored planes flying as they already have super hornet on the pipline and EF2000 after that, and if what marhalim said is true, neither will RMAF as 15 C model and 4 D model (and ours original 8) is still plenty enough to form 2 squadrons for 12 planes each
I meant the fact that one was recently loss does not indicate the RMAF will get one less plane.
Hulubalang “Even after coming out with multiple options, still the best option compared to other combinations for TUDM is the Kuwaiti hornets + FA-50, that would reduce our fighter types to 3,”
While Cap55 isn’t a bible. it’s pretty clear that the planned force mix is 5 squadron not 6 and 2 types of jet not 3.
CAP55
Helicopter – 2 squadrons, 1 type of helicopter
Now?
EC725 + AW149
An Indian outfit has been selected to replace the Thales HUDs and MFDs.
A question not touched is that if the Kuwaiti Hornets indeed arrive; what components will need replacing; either to meet RMAF requirements [radios possibly] or because of obsolescence issues. The general assumption [there are quite a few] is that because they have been upgraded; we don’t need to replace or add anything. Wishful thinking.
The Filippinos did not get 312 Sidewindersm That was the plan. The budget got slashed by more than half and currency depreciation made it worse.
No delivered numbers was provided, but you can do the maths.
No lah, they just ordered a few for testing.
The news was more than a decade ago
I saved the screenshot of the 312 units of AIM-9L1 and the price of USD54.6 million. The missiles are used ex German Air Force stocks, refurbished by DIEHL before sold to the Philippines. The official Philippines MoD announcement was taken down shortly afterwards.
The official DIEHL announcement is not specific as the Philippines MoD Release, declaring the contract as just “more than $30 million”.
” Diehl-Raytheon Missile Systeme (DRM) GmbH was awarded a contract of more than $30 million for the sale of AIM-9L/I-1 tactical Sidewinder missiles, training missiles and ground support equipment in a direct commercial sale to an international customer.
Diehl BGT Defence will refurbish German AIM-9L missiles as part of the sale. Diehl BGT Defence, which has produced more than 30,000 Sidewinder missiles for the European Sidewinder consortium and multiple air forces throughout the world, will support DRM. ”
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/diehl-raytheon-missile-systeme-gmbh-captures-30-million-international-sidewinder-missile-sale-236706561.html
… “Now?
EC725 + AW149”
Yes and it was always pointed out that the 5/15 and CAP were politically expedient and were subject to change. When the 5/15 came out many were mesmorised; as if it was a one size fits all panscea solution written in stone.
As for weapons storage
Butterworth has probably one of the biggest farm of weapons bunkers in malaysia during the 60s-70s, storing British and Australian air force weapons. It can be seen from google earth if you know where to look at. There is also considerable weapons bunkers in Kuantan & Gong Kedak too.
Old style sidewinder storage will mean exposed to tropical humidity even if it is stored inside bunkers.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaA0QKIaIAAbmwa.jpg
Latest way of storage, in airtight cases could be applied to all of our missiles (if it is not already)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZwXIATX0AkP6SN.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZq3WxsW8AkaiQD.jpg
… ” There is also considerable weapons bunkers in Kuantan & Gong Kedak too”
There are bunkers or storage facilities but I would hesitate to add the “considerable” part unless or until I actually know; I don’t.
Gong Kedak one is small compared to Kuantan (which also housed the 4th Mek ammo in different bunkers) and Butterworth. It is comparable to Labuan actually. It is the lack of free space to expand its weapons storage is one of the limiting factors of expanding Labuan airbase as a fighter base.
312 is an impressive number but not plausible or realistic. Very few air arms get missiles in those numbers; in relation to the number of platforms operated. Only air arms which see themselves being embargoed or in a protracted war do; certainly not the Hukbong Himpapawid ng Pilipinas.
For the RMAF to get large numbers of missiles would mean the country’s threat perceptions have significantly altered. Would require storage space with temperature control and the peope to maintain the missiles which require periodic checks. It’s not just a matter of claiming others have done so and the RMAF should too; in order to be a “credible” air arm; itself a subjective term.
Now?
EC725 + AW149
Technically it’s more like 5 years from now when the helo is delivered rather then now and they can always decide to retired the ec725 by it’s 20th years birthday which is 10 years away.
On a serious note what exactly the practical point on burning money to keep that 5 flyable mkm flying anymore? other then wetting some people pants that is.
Zaft “the ec725 by it’s 20th years birthday which is 10 years away”
A likely as you becomung a military theorist or Tonga getting Merkavas
Zaft “On a serious note what exactly the practical point on burning money to keep that 5 flyable mkm flying anymore”
There is no replacement; thus they have to be kept flying. That’s why ..
312 sidewinders, against a volley of cruise missiles and Shahed-like OWA-UAV would be exhausted by just a week or so.
So that is not a huge number even for a small airforce with 12 jets like the Philippines air force.
Another example – Romania recent request for 300 AIM-9X
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/romania-aim-9x-sidewinder-block-ii-missiles
So that is not a strange quantity to be bought. I know getting the latest AIM-9X in those quantities are super expensive, but we can do what the Philippines air force is doing, and get some refurbished AIM-9L1 at affordable costs to deepen our missile magazines.
… – “312 sidewinders, against a volley of cruise missiles and Shahed-like OWA-UAV would be exhausted by just a week or so : “. Only air arms which see themselves being embargoed or in a protracted war do; certainly not the Hukbong Himpapawid ng Pilipinas. For the RMAF to get large numbers of missiles would mean the country’s threat perceptions have significantly altered” [self explainatory].
Neither the Philippines or Malaysia are in the podition Ukraine is in.
Romania is a mermaid to gargoyle comparison as it sees a clear threat. from Russia and has to meet certain NATO criterias.
… – “So that is not a strange quantity to be bought”
Who said it is? It is however very rare when a user with just 12 platforms gets that number of AAMs: even the USAF doesn’t do things on those percentages and there is also no indication that PAF actually got that 312 missiles you insist it received.
The RMAF needs to do a lot of things but it’s driven by funding, priorities and threat perceptions. Not as simple as looking at what others are doing and saying the RMAF should too.
Whatever it is, 312x sidewinders even if its used, refurbished for USD54.6 million is within our means to buy them.
by 2030 we would have 28x Hornets and 36x FA-50 that would need to be equipped with AAMs. Even allocating 2x sidewinders for each fighter jet would mean a need for at least 128 sidewinders.
For a week of combat operations (assuming each aircraft only fly 1 flight per day), that is already a need for 896x sidewinders.
Azlan “A likely as you becomung a military theorist or Tonga getting Merkavas”
So how long exactly the super lynx are in operations?
“There is no replacement; thus they have to be kept flying. That’s why ..”
Right now sure. After the hornet arrived, really?
… – “Whatever it is,”
“Whatever it is” people do things for a reason; not because others are supposedly doing it or because it looks great on a PowerPoint brief or because it supposedly enables a “credible” air arm. Yes it’s within our capability price wise and yes we need AAMs in larger numbers but there are priorities which are driven by financial factors and threat perceptions. There is also no indication that the PAF actually got those 312 Sidewinders you insist it has and Romania is an Arctic to Sinai comparison.
… – “For a week of combat operations”
It’s not just a “For a week of combat operations” but what type of operations; on what scale/tempo.
… – ” Even allocating 2x sidewinders for each fighter jet would mean a need for at least 128 sidewinders.”
Right and the PAF with just 12 F-50s supposedly got 312 on top of the others we know it has. Fantastic ratio which even the likes of the USAF doesn’t enjoy.
“Right and the PAF with just 12 F-50s supposedly got 312 on top of the others we know it has”
When that AIM-9L1 was bought in 2013, PAF does not have any operational sidewinders. That would be their first live sidewinder in decades.
Zaft – “So how long exactly the super lynx are in operations?”
Germane question? The Lynxs are exposed to more wear and tear and corrosion. The Cougars aren’t. The Lynxs also have a radar and ESM which need replacing. The Cougars don’t. Didnt factor that in did you now.
Zaft – “Right now sure. After the hornet arrived, really”
Im talking about “right now” yes. If you were not refering to “right now” should have made it clear. After the Hornets arrive [if they do]; then we’ll see.
Yes, the PAF had no Sidewinders operated prior to that.
Notwithstanding all the recent purchases the PAF is still very stretched and under resourced. It has a large area to cover and troops across the breadth of the archipelago need supporting on a daily basis. Like us sustainment is a problem for them; a bigger one for them. Not too long ago there were issues with the F-50 fleet due to funding issues.
Same with the PN; very overstretched. People tend to go ga-ga about the recent purchases but with the exception of the few corvttes/frigates obtained in recent years; the bulk of the fleet is aged; to put it mildly. The ex-Hamiltons were contructed in the 1960’s and the flagship was laid down in the 1940’s; as were a number of other ships. A bright spot are the LPDs they acquired. If the PN gets its subs a lot of things will get affected to pay for the boats and to create the infrastructure. Same situation we have here where a sizeable chunk of the RMN’s budget goes towards the Scorpenes. Until or unless the funding issue is rectified; any talk of getting us even a single follow boat is unrealistic/far fetched.
“Same situation we have here where a sizeable chunk of the RMN’s budget goes towards the Scorpenes. Until or unless the funding issue is rectified; any talk of getting us even a single follow boat is unrealistic/far fetched”
It can be made realistic. We can afford to buy/operate 4 more Scorpenes before 2040 if
1) less money spent on Corvettes (9 wanted in the revised 15to5), MRSS (3), bespoke MCMV (4) in the future.
2) entrust peacetime maritime security primary mission to APMM. large OPVs that is purposely specified for coast guard missions only costs a quarter or less than the TLDM corvettes.
3) money saved could then be used to buy and operate more Scorpenes (to add additional 2 more subs to the existing planned additional 2 in revised 15to5 to become 2 existing + 4 new subs).
4) our current infrastructure in Sepanggar could be used to support more subs. Operating 6 or so subs should not be a big hurdle infrastructure-wise.
Official revised 5to5 – force structure 2040. to buy only 2 new subs in RMK14 2031-2035
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYsDWpia8AEivsp.jpg
Money saved buying less corvettes, not buying dedicated MRSS, dedicated MCMV is more than enough to buy additional 2 new submarines.
We need to realign our defence readiness to cater to the south china sea issues as fast as possible. To give higher priority to prepare APMM to fully take up the task of having CCG in check, in operations below the threshold of war, while at the same time prepare TLDM to be able to take up the fight if a conflict does erupt in the South China Sea,
… – “We can afford to buy/operate 4 more Scorpenes before 2040 if”.
It’s not just a question of utilising the cash but having enough of it and getting optimum value. Also we’ve gone through this multiple times but to have “4 more subs” is simply not realistic as they are manpower issues at play. Very resource intensive to train submariners and the drop up rate is high. I guess you need to be reminded again that the RMN is a small all volunteer navy. Other larger navies face issues with manpower with regards to finding the right manpower, retention and other things but you make it sound easy for the RMN.
In case you want to again make a Arctic to desert comparison with Vietnam; it has major issues with getting the 6 subs operstionsl. Things dint happen in a vacuum; manpower doesnt come from Father Christmas. Even the RMN feels it can’t operate note then another 2 subs but here you are convincing others after you’ve convinced your self.
… – “less money spent on Corvettes (9 wanted in the revised 15to5), MRSS (3), bespoke MCMV (4) in the future”..
We’re not Vietnam which decided to focus on subs at the expense of other things. We need a variety of things all in the right mix. Subs are great but not a panacea or a one size fits all solution. There are various ways to counter them; have little peacetime utility and we might not even operate then in the Spratlys in case of troubles to avoid a blue on blue so to speak and we’re they’ll be expected.
We need various things in the right mix but this concept seems blurry to you. Or is it confirmation biase at play here?
… – “entrust peacetime maritime security primary mission to APMM”.
We’ve gone though this multiple times. Even if the MMEA had 100 OPVs the RMN like all other navies would still have a peacetime enforcement role.
… “Operating 6 or so subs should not be a big hurdle infrastructure-wise”.
This is not true. You’ve made quite a few assumptions which turned out to be off; which I won’t go into unless I have to.
… ” We need to realign our defence readiness to cater to the south china sea issues as fast as possible”
We’ve gone through this before. You’re mesmorised with the Chinese in the Sprstlys but unlike you; the services also have other areas they need to devite attention on. The Spratlys is a major issue but there are also other concerns and unlike in certain other areas we’ve never been rammed or came close to being shot at in the Sprstlys.
… “while at the same time prepare TLDM to be able to take up the fight if a conflict does erupt in the South China Sea,”.
Right. The RMN with it’s invincible subs; using assymetric tactics will drive the evil, expansionist and nefarious Chinese away and teach them what’s what. The part where the Chinese have their own subs as well as various other things which can prevent our subs from effectively operating [like in WW1/WW2 and other examples] is missing.
In the real world the RMN seeks to have some level of capability to deal with the threats it can handle and going against the PLAN; a much larger navy with much larger resources and with tertiary capabilities which worry even the U.S, Japan and others is not seen as a threat the RMN can handle.
… “It can be made realistic”
I don’t see any “realistic” element on your part: just a misreading of the situation as you perceive it and a perpetual insistence that certain things can be done because they appear doable on paper and because you think so.
“We’ve gone though this multiple times. Even if the MMEA had 100 OPVs the RMN like all other navies would still have a peacetime enforcement role.”
Having peacetime enforcement role is one thing but buying specialized or rehulling ship and maintaining bases for the sole purpose of peacetime enforcement role is another.
Insisting that the RMN focus it’s attention on submarines at the expense of corvettes, MCMVs and other things is delusion. It assumes that we’ll be at war and that we’ll be able to effectively deploy the subs. What happens if a war we face is one in which subs are not the answer? On top of that we simply can’t afford to sustain a large sub force; norbdi we have the manpower or shore infrastructure. The most we can do is operate another hull but even that will be a challenge.
It also ignores the pertinent fact that subs have little peacetime utility unlike corvettes, MCMVs and MPSSs. There is a reason why the RMN has a pressing need for a fleet of various things including corvettes, MCMVs and MPSSs; not a sub centric fleet.
“just a misreading of the situation”
yeah okay.
i will agree to disagree.
There is reason why the RMN desires a mix of things; all operating in tandem to deal with the threats the country is able to handle as opposed to threats identified as possible but can be handled [no military can deal with every single level of threat].Also if I wanted to be crass and follow your line : the RMN disagrees with you. To also follow your line ; it didn\’t get your memo.
At the most the RMN can operate another sub but even that will be a challange. Anything beyond that is fanboyish illusion; unless the budget is significantly increased. Manpower and shore infrstructure is limited; the RMN is not the USN and Sepanggar is not Pearl.
You claimed and insisted GK could extend without a drio in quality; you were told it was incorrect. Now before insisting on things; tell us how many people join the RMN annually and how many go to subs. After that tell me how many leave prematurely after qualifying. Next tell me how long it takes to train a potential CO; the long procress and various stages of advancement he has undergo before he\’s qualified to do certain things; never mind becoming XO or CO. Also tell me how many people work on shore to support the subs; either as maintenance/technical people or in admin or logistics: etc.
I love subs and think we should add to the fleet but they are not a panacea [unless living in an Alice in Wonderland environment]; commune large levels of resources and must not be at the total expense of other things. They are also not as invincible or invulnerable as you’d believe or portray.
Zaft – “but buying specialized or rehulling ship and maintaining bases for the sole purpose of peacetime enforcement role is another.”
Whatever are you on about? Do you even know? Nothing was bought specifically for the peacetime constabulary role. As I told “…” when he insisted that the RMAF was obsessed with CSAR and that the Batch 2s were specifically yo deal with intrusions; it was for political reasons.
Just a personal opinion, if Trump wins the US election, we can literally kiss goodbye to Kuwait Hornets
US under Trump stopping MY from buying 30 year old planes is nonsensical.
@Sam
Im more worry about our goverment cancelling those Kuwait Hornet deal because some minister start questioning about it.
Sam,
By all means please explain more. Why would Trump veto the same?
Won’t be surprised if it turn out to be the last manned platform operated by those countries. We can be sure it will be even more networked and will operate in conjunction with unmanned platforms; the so called “loyal wingman” thing.
Haiqal – “Im more worry about our goverment cancelling those Kuwait Hornet deal because some minister start questioning about it*.
Unlikely. Just as unlikely as Trump vetoing it. He’s not bothered [got far bigger fish to fry] and no reason why he would object to it.
If the deal goes south it’ll be for other reasons.