View Comments (11)

• 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?