SHAH ALAM: Its down to either Typhoon or Rafale. Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein seemed to confirm that the race for the next RMAF fighter is between either the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Dassault Rafale. I am reporting that he seemed to confirm as he did not quite exactly say “Its either Typhoon or Rafale” but as usual, he say it in a much non-definitive way.
It was non-definitive that the reporter who was present at the press conference at the Parliament yesterday had to carefully explained what the minister had said. If I was there, I would have asked Hishammuddin to say it outright. But even then, from past experience, it is likely the minister will try to avoid giving a definitive answer.
RAF Typhoons Air to Air refuelling en-route to Malaysia for Exercise Bersama Lima 16. Crown Copyright
KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 20): Minister of Defence Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein reiterated that Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF)’s order for new multi role combat aircrafts (MRCAs) will have to depend on the state of the country’s economy.
In a press conference at the Parliament lobby today, Hishammuddin explained that the choice of vendor for this procurement will depend on the affordability of the package offered, and the technical suitability. This purchase is widely seen as a move to replace RMAF’s Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 fighters, which have been in service since the 1990s.
Dassault has delivered 3 Rafales to Egypt. Dassault
“By the year 2020 we have to make a decision on the [purchase of the] MRCAs. It’s an open secret that we are looking at either the [Dassault] Rafale, or the [BAE Systems’] Typhoon from the UK, but we don’t have to make the decision now. What we need to do is look at the affordability, and that depends on [the state of] our economy,” he said
Hishammuddin also explained in the same press conference why Typhoon and Rafale were the final candidates.
“There are other reasons why we did not look at the [latest] Sukhois, [Boeing F/A-18] Hornets and the Gripen, which is a Swedish plane, but the most important [factor] is that whatever we do, we must be able to explain to the public,” Hishammuddin said.
RAF ground crew getting ready the Typhoons for flight. Crown Copyright
So will it be Typhoon or Rafale then? Most likely but as I had written before the Super Hornet was still in the mix. Why is it then? Most likely as a fall back choice in case they got log-jammed in the final hurdle. Probably that was the reason, the minister refused to say it outright yesterday, so he has room to maneuver in the future in case they could not work out the deal with either Typhoon or Rafale.
RAF Typhoon from 1(Fighter) Sqn taking part in Bersama Lima 16. Crown Copyright.
As for when the decision will be made, even Hishammuddin was unable to answer it firmly – vague by 2020 answer – so it is unlikely that it will be announced at the presentation of the 2017 Budget later today.
I was told of the criteria for the green-light of the decision but that will have to wait for another day!
Dassault Rafale has lack of nuclear capability while Eurofighter Typhoon does have nuclear capability. Which gon--- ohh wait.... we don't have a nuclear weapon at all. Silly me.
Reply
Both have nuclear capability, but only the Rafale is/will be nuclear armed.
How do you explain it to the public? By 2020 Malaysia would probably be the last buyer of the Typhoon or the Rafale. A 12 aircraft buy of either the rafale or the typhoon would cost at least usd3billion (RM12billion). Imagine 1 MRCA costs as much as half of the gowind SGPV LCS.
Another question is how is the say 12 MRCA is a better addition to malaysian defence and security rather than spending the same amount on more maritime patrol (MPA), airborne early warning (AEW&C), long endurance UAV, new low cost fighters?
How would you guys spend USD3 billion for the airforce instead of buying 12 typhoon or rafale?
Indirectly RMAF accept both fighter jet n eait MINDEF & ministry of Finance to choose...
Indirectly SU-30mkm fail to make RMAF to get 2nd batch or even we had to say bye bye in one day...
Indirectly we had alliances or partner to share n help to maintain either of the jet, India or Saudi Arabia
Aiya, so difficult. Just get some more Transformers.
I don't intend to be rude, but if only can buy 8-10 aircraft, why bother?
Reply
The stated requirement is 18, that's the reason every one got their knickers twisted
Yes the stated requirement is 18, but if you want 18 of Typhoons or Rafales, you need to set aside at least USD5 billion (RM20 billion) to get those types of numbers. Can we afford to spend USD5 billion (if we could set aside that amount of money in the first place) for just MRCA's and leave aside all the other airforce needs and requirements? Usually each service's allocation during every 5 year Rancangan Malaysia is around USD 3-4 billion.
This looks more and more like a child's want for new toys rather than a thoroughly studied and calculated requirement based on available budget and current requirement of malaysian defence expected from the airforce.
If not wrong USD 1 bil for 18 su30 mkm, if gov willing to spend USD 3 bil why dont we get 2nd batch of mkm. for the same amount you can get 54 mkm, that is more power project than 18 typhoon. some people might say the typhoon is for interceptor to replace mig29 role, but if u have 54 to would they think twice
The issue of ''nuclear capability'' is not whether the aircraft is wired to carry a tactical nuke but whether it systems are ''hardened'' for the after affects of a nuclear blast. In the case of the French their Mirage Ns are ''hardened'' to carry the ASMP as the missile is part of France's nuke deterrent. The Brits sole means of a nuke attack are their SSBNs; they have no tactical nukes anymore.
Malaysia being the ''last'' buyer of the Tyhoon or Rafale is of no issue and requires no justification. Why should it?? What's important is that both types are still widely operated, still supported by the OEMs and offer latest improvements. It's not as if we're buying a type that is not supported by the OE anymore or one that other uses are slowly retiring.
Yes on paper there are other things we need but the fact remains that new MRCAs [even 18 or 12] will make a difference given that an already small fighter fleet will get smaller when the fulcrums are gone. Also, while we have the luxury of giving opinions as to what we should place priority on; the 2 armed services don't. They still have to have plans to cater for all kinds of scenarios and must have a minimal capability [based on financial and other constraints] in several areas. A compelling case can be made to support the argument that we need medium range UAS or MPAs [to use as an example] but an equally compelling case can also be made for why we need to invest in MRCAs or SPHs; even if there is little likelihood of us being caught in a state on state conflict.
Transformers Decepticon can fly, Autobot cannot fly on its own. I vote for Starscream, its so MRCA.
Yes even additional 8 new MRCA will make a difference, but in the end by just how much?
The airforce needs to justify just how much a diffence would it make to malaysian defence if:
a) add 8 MRCA to the 18 MKM and 8 hornets?
b) add 12 MPA to replace the 4 beechcrafts plus other items that could be bought with the MRCA budget?
View Comments (46)
Dassault Rafale has lack of nuclear capability while Eurofighter Typhoon does have nuclear capability. Which gon--- ohh wait.... we don't have a nuclear weapon at all. Silly me.
Reply
Both have nuclear capability, but only the Rafale is/will be nuclear armed.
How do you explain it to the public? By 2020 Malaysia would probably be the last buyer of the Typhoon or the Rafale. A 12 aircraft buy of either the rafale or the typhoon would cost at least usd3billion (RM12billion). Imagine 1 MRCA costs as much as half of the gowind SGPV LCS.
Another question is how is the say 12 MRCA is a better addition to malaysian defence and security rather than spending the same amount on more maritime patrol (MPA), airborne early warning (AEW&C), long endurance UAV, new low cost fighters?
How would you guys spend USD3 billion for the airforce instead of buying 12 typhoon or rafale?
Indirectly RMAF accept both fighter jet n eait MINDEF & ministry of Finance to choose...
Indirectly SU-30mkm fail to make RMAF to get 2nd batch or even we had to say bye bye in one day...
Indirectly we had alliances or partner to share n help to maintain either of the jet, India or Saudi Arabia
Aiya, so difficult. Just get some more Transformers.
I don't intend to be rude, but if only can buy 8-10 aircraft, why bother?
Reply
The stated requirement is 18, that's the reason every one got their knickers twisted
Yes the stated requirement is 18, but if you want 18 of Typhoons or Rafales, you need to set aside at least USD5 billion (RM20 billion) to get those types of numbers. Can we afford to spend USD5 billion (if we could set aside that amount of money in the first place) for just MRCA's and leave aside all the other airforce needs and requirements? Usually each service's allocation during every 5 year Rancangan Malaysia is around USD 3-4 billion.
This looks more and more like a child's want for new toys rather than a thoroughly studied and calculated requirement based on available budget and current requirement of malaysian defence expected from the airforce.
If not wrong USD 1 bil for 18 su30 mkm, if gov willing to spend USD 3 bil why dont we get 2nd batch of mkm. for the same amount you can get 54 mkm, that is more power project than 18 typhoon. some people might say the typhoon is for interceptor to replace mig29 role, but if u have 54 to would they think twice
The issue of ''nuclear capability'' is not whether the aircraft is wired to carry a tactical nuke but whether it systems are ''hardened'' for the after affects of a nuclear blast. In the case of the French their Mirage Ns are ''hardened'' to carry the ASMP as the missile is part of France's nuke deterrent. The Brits sole means of a nuke attack are their SSBNs; they have no tactical nukes anymore.
Malaysia being the ''last'' buyer of the Tyhoon or Rafale is of no issue and requires no justification. Why should it?? What's important is that both types are still widely operated, still supported by the OEMs and offer latest improvements. It's not as if we're buying a type that is not supported by the OE anymore or one that other uses are slowly retiring.
Yes on paper there are other things we need but the fact remains that new MRCAs [even 18 or 12] will make a difference given that an already small fighter fleet will get smaller when the fulcrums are gone. Also, while we have the luxury of giving opinions as to what we should place priority on; the 2 armed services don't. They still have to have plans to cater for all kinds of scenarios and must have a minimal capability [based on financial and other constraints] in several areas. A compelling case can be made to support the argument that we need medium range UAS or MPAs [to use as an example] but an equally compelling case can also be made for why we need to invest in MRCAs or SPHs; even if there is little likelihood of us being caught in a state on state conflict.
Transformers Decepticon can fly, Autobot cannot fly on its own. I vote for Starscream, its so MRCA.
Yes even additional 8 new MRCA will make a difference, but in the end by just how much?
The airforce needs to justify just how much a diffence would it make to malaysian defence if:
a) add 8 MRCA to the 18 MKM and 8 hornets?
b) add 12 MPA to replace the 4 beechcrafts plus other items that could be bought with the MRCA budget?