View Comments (11)

• As an educator, I sometimes wonder how these idiots (Ministry of Finance staff) could get hold of their jobs and I do sincerely apologize to all Malaysians for failing to put enough common sense into their heads when they were in school. Our misjudgment in assessing them have thus created this so called 'group of intellectual idiots' .

  Reply
  Unless you are in the 70s or 80s, you should not take the blame

• This is the first time I have seen anyone using the word "amelioration" in the context of aircraft maintenance and overhaul.

  Reply
  Yes I know but it was the term used by the AG report so I just use it.

• “inexperienced and financially unsound contractor was chosen.”

  Haha.......sound familiar?
  Local defence industry can not be compared to the neighbours' because "nuts" can not be compare to apple.

  Is this one of the "real" reasons RMAF has no desire to buy Sukhois/Migs again?

  Reply
  Failure to complete a facility already planned on time/budget is probably not the reason

• "ADZ bay ... AGVSE/V garage,"

  Failure to understand acronyms. Can anyone help?

  Reply
  I am not sure of what ADZ means but AGVSE/V means that the ground support equipment/vehicles.

• ADZ bay, administrative zone bay?

• I remember our Defence Minister had say end the Mig-29n and their main priority is su-30mkm service rate...could it be one of the point of financial problem?

  Reply
  Its not really about money, but how well the Russian support is. Even India with a lot more Flankers and an even bigger local support infrastructure finds it difficult to work with Russia it goes without saying we also faced the same issues.

• It's not only a question of getting use to how the Russians do things but adjusting to the fact that one can't operate a Russian built platform using the same operating philosophy use for Western ones. Another point to consider is that the inclusion of various non Russian systems on the MKMs make them more maintenance intensive than Su-30s/27s operated by the likes of Vietnam. Indonesia, China, etc. When fitted with purely Russian made systems Russian platforms tend to be more robust and ''hardy'' compared to Western equivalents which need sanitised airfields and extensive ground support.

• Perkara biasalah.Don't get angry.Saban tahun the same things happened.What to do?

• "One can’t operate a Russian built platform using the same operating philosophy use for Western ones"

  That can be difficult for some operators. For example, the philosophy from Soviet times was to have a shorter engine life and a lot of engines in the pipeline, which is difficult for a country with a market economy. The same philosophy applies to parts of the airframe as well.

  Long lifespan was not intended because the aircraft were not expected to survive very long in a war. In the Fulcrum's case, the aircraft was designed to be stored in remote parts of the country in disassembled form, so that some airframes would survive a nuclear strike. Hence a lifespan not a priority. However, the wings and tail surfaces were designed to be easily attached.

  "Russian platforms tend to be more robust and ”hardy” compared to Western equivalents which need sanitised airfields and extensive ground support."

  The difference may be less significant in practice. Whether Western or Russian, if the ground support is not "extensive" the aircraft may be able to operate, but the sortie rates will not be high over time.

  Ironically not all of India's problems are the fault of the design. We all know India's defence bureaucracy is legendary. They also operate the world's most diverse fleet of fighters. Most of the attention is on the MKI's availability, we don't get much information on the types that they have been operating for a longer time.

• Romeo - ''Is this one of the “real” reasons RMAF has no desire to buy Sukhois/Migs again?''

  Of course not.

  The thing to understand when making comparisons between Russian and Western aircraft and when realising why the RMAF has had issues is that Russian aircraft are from the onset designed based on a totally different philosophy than Western equivalents. The Russians/Soviets were realists; aware that in a full scale war, aircraft and tanks would not last long. Thus, equipment was designed to be easy to maintain [by conscripts] and relatively simple to construct; having no frills but only what was needed to get the job done - this goes back to WW2 and a prime example of something being built just to get the job done and being easy to maintain and build is the T-34. We just have to look at the Mil-8/17s [unlike Western equivalents these have minimal electronics]l , BMPs. BTRs and T-54/55s [some had sand filtres that were not changed for years and engine overhauls that were years behind schedule] operated in various parts of the world that receive little or no maintenance yet are still running. This would be impossible with Western equivalents - Cougars, F-15s, F-16s, Rafales and Apaches need sanitised operating areas and a large support infrastructure.

  As for the RMAF the main problem with the Fulcrums is that we overflew them; the way we would the F-5s and F-18s. The problem here is that like other Soviet/Russian designed aircraft; the Fulcrum contained a radar, landing gear, nozzles, engines, gear box and various other components with lower TBOs and MTBFs than Western equivalents. For countries that were used to operating Soviet/Russian gear and who fly the same level of hours that Soviet/Russian aircraft normally do, this is no issue. For us it was a big issue. especially when dealing with Russian companies which operate in a different manner compared [things are slowly changing and have improved since the 1990's] to the Western companies were are used to [which also have been known not to deliver on time].