SHAH ALAM: Hawk Silver Jubilee. The 25th anniversary of the RMAF Hawk is scheduled to be held on March 2, 2019. The celebration, likely to be held at the Butterworth airbase, will be the third for RMAF’s 90s fast jets after the ones for the Fulcrum and the Hornet.
It appears that the Hawk one will be the mother of celebrations – the fleet is the biggest and they will have the most personnel, current and former – compared to the others celebrated in the past. I am not purview of the events lined up for the jubilee but the organisers are trying to get as many Hawk drivers and maintainers for the gig.
For those who had served with the Hawks in the past please get in touch with the organisers as soon as possible. They can be contacted at their Facebook page.
Hawk M40-04 from 15 Skn at the Firepower Exercise in Gemas on May 22, 2017.
It is likely that there will be several Hawks painted in the jubilee colours for the celebration. Do not fret if you missed the unveiling as it is very likely that these Hawks will also be at LIMA 19 in late March, just three weeks after the jubilee.
Two Royal Malaysian Air Force BAE Hawk and an F-22 Raptor from Hawaii National Guard 199th Fighter Squadron and U.S. Air Forces 19th FS taxis during Cope Taufan 2014, P.U. Butterworth, Malaysia June 11, 2014. USAF picture
Elephant In The Room
Anyhow being it is the silver jubilee of the Hawk, inevitably we will have talk about the future of the fleet in RMAF. There has been a lot of talk about its replacement – the LCA – including its supposed candidates even though the much talk about Hawk upgrades remained unfunded. RMAF has also come with the Cap 55 plan but without a firm timeline and more importantly funding it must be seen as just another wish list.
BAE Systems Hawk 208 M40-34.
Recently, we were told that the Defence Ministry is coming up with a white paper for the strategic direction of the military. According to the ministry a sanitised version of the document will be made public in September after it is tabled in Parliament two months earlier.
Hawk Mk 108 M40-08 doing touch and goes at Labuan airport in November, 2017
Will the document be any different from the ones published in the last fourty years? And more importantly will there be money to implement the recommendations? If it says that it will take three decades to replace 30-year old stuff, it will not.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
I agree with you on the firm timeline. As i have said before, a plan without an obvious timeline is no different to a kopitiam sembang.
This is an example of a clear timeline
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/singapore-to-buy-f-35s/#comment-347590
Another thing that needs to be reminded is to plan within the available budget. No use to plan buying a ferrari when your budget obviously only can afford a secondhand myvi.
My previous article in march 2018 on tudm puts the tentative budget at USD2 billion per Rancangan Malaysia, and now i found out even that is over what the government can allocate to tudm. I have written a new one with lower budget, but is it the right time now to publish it?
Anyway happy 25th anniversary hawk, they have really done their part in securing malaysias peace. Now is the time to replace them with something more capable, in reasonable quantities.
Reply
Do your post and firm timeline could only be done if there’s firm funding
Jane\’s is reporting that a spokesperson for KAI has reported that Malaysia has issued a RFI for the FA-50 on 05JAN2019.
https://www.janes.com/article/86017/malaysia-issues-rfi-for-kai-s-fa-50-light-fighter
Reply
RFI were also issues 8n 2007 for MRCA…
The RFI FA-50 is just another bait so they come to LIMA. Looks like there are already 2 candidates to be fooled.
Just invite SG F-16 and F-15, RTAF grippen and TNI TA-50 to the LIMA.
If we want to move on to the LCA/FLIT (I hate it when they dont use the normal shortform LIFT, but that is what TUDM uses in CAP55 document), there should not be any further investment in hawks except the usual spendings to keep them in operational condition.
Those new LCA/FLIT sould be a replacement for the hawks and also the MB339s, while also taking over peacetime QRA tasks done previously by the MiG-29s. Very wide spectrum from training to interception yes, but this has to be done in order to reduce the operational costs, simplify manpower requirements and to achieve an overall increase in operational capability.
@romeo,
Imho i seriously doubt RSAF will participate this time round, due to the ongoing ILS and maritime border issue. I hope im wrong. They had cancel the plan joint meetings of trade delegates earlier with johor.
Read about the CAATSA, thoygh big countries like China and Saudi can just ignore it, not us malaysian though..haiya if that is the case close book already la. T50 aws lead in trainer, Super Hornet as MRCA
If funding is tight for the planes, then we shouldn’t hope to achieve parity with the region’s next gen planes. Instead we should try to get ground based systems that can detect and counter their threats. Air superiority won’t be achieved if they kept getting shot down.
@ alpha zulu
RSAF already confirmed the Airbus A330 MRTT tanker for LIMA 2019. So they will be there.
Reply
Apart from the MRTT, RSAF is sending only an F-15
Kudos to RSAF, that’s what we need, unity and support in asean.
Reply
No RSN though
@ joe
Fighters are not just for air superiority alone.
Ground based systems cannot intercept and escort civilian jet airliners
Ground based systems cannot escort our transporters
Ground based systems cannot give close air support to our soldiers
Ground based systems cannot provide air cover to our navy ships.
Ground based systems cannot destroy enemy ships
Ground based systems cannot strike enemy bases and infrastructure.
No rsn. So that is a clear sign.
Anyway how can you tambak in what is supposedly past the 12 nautical mile terratorial waters into what is basically international waters and claim you are the victim? IMO we are more than allowed to claim halfway of the original baseline as they have relaimed land much into what is supposedly international waters.
Reply
Yes but parking Jabatan Laut ships on what we claimed and expecting the other party to turn the other cheek was probably not thinking right
There is no internationale waters ter. There is 1979 My/Sg border draw up by My w4 consulting Sg.
On tambak menambak issues in Tuas waters, just tambak lah. They did theirs. We do ours and perhaps we’ll end up having a ‘reclaimed land border’ soon!
š
@ marhalim
We got what we wanted by parking those ships there, which is to bring the singaporeans to the discussion table.
Anyway some news from India.
Indian Air Force is going to arm its Su-30MKI with MBDA ASRAAM!
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2019/01/exclusive-iaf-arming-su-30s-with-asraams-may-standardise-missile-across-fleet.html
BTW it should not be a surprise as we are actually offered the MBDA MICA with our MKM, we declined due to budgetary limitations. MKI/MKM/MKA/SM family is the 1st russian fighter tu use the western standard MIL-STD1553 databus, a standard for systems to talk to each other (computers, sensors, weapons) in an aircraft. That is the reason it can be installed with french, south african and israeli systems.
@ tomahawk
The tuas reclaimation is way beyond the 12nm waters. It is really in international waters.
See the red area of tuas on the bottom left of the map
http://www.nlb.gov.sg/biblioasia/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/map.jpg
Look at that area originally. It is way past 12nm territorial waters of singapore!
http://www.nas.gov.sg/blogs/offtherecord/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1971-Map-of-SG-Island-1000×676.jpg
Do you know why malaysian 1979 map comes short? Because we FOLLOW to the spirit of 12nm terratorial waters UNCLOS regulation, ie hugging our baseline land area. Singapore OTOH reclamed land past its 12nm limit into the international waters! As singapore now reclaimed land, it is a just request for malaysia to claim waters up to mid point of the ORIGINAL baselines between singapore and malaysia.
This is what UNCLOS say
http://marinegyaan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Maritime-Zones.jpg
What Singapore did in Tuas is to unilaterally reclaim land past its 12 nautical mile terrratorial seas into what is supposed to be international waters.
What we failed is to clearly explain this to the rakyat, while singapore succeded in hiding this fact in all its propaganda and news.
Srry ….something wrg wit ur calculation… tat is within 12nm or about 22km from Sg coastline. Sg can for certain reclaim these land. Any1 can go google map and measure the distance.
Ter is also no international water der. Ter is no map in the world which show ter is international water.
Joe,
A ground based air defence system is intended to be used in conjunction with other assets : both complement each other. Air defence systems on their own have never prevented anyone from gaining air superiority/supremacy. Look at Vietnam, the Arab/Israeli wars, Iraq and Kosovo.
As for gaining parity, that has never been our aim. Our aim has always been to have minimum deterrent level and to ensure we are not left too far behind compared to our neighbours. The difference with us and Singapore (many make comparisons) is that the MAF does not train almost exclusively to operate against Singapore. It traditionally has worried more about Indonesia and other possible threats. Because of Singaporeās key vulnerabilities and paranoia (deeply ingrained in the national psychology over the decades), the SAFās main focus is to operate on the Malaysian mainland (and against Indonesia). Almost evertything it operates, from HIMARs to the Leos is bought with operations in a Malaysian setting in mind. A strong SAF also makes PAP look good, it never tires of reminding citizens that a strong SAF is essential.
As for the recent spate, Singapore will do what it always does claim a monopoly on truth and righteousness. Itās always the fault of others who act provocatively to deflect attention from internal issues; never Singaporeās fault. Like other countries however; the Singapore government will say and do certain things to show citizens that itās doing something and not compromising security but like other countries; will also engage in back door diplomacy to ensure that things donāt get too out of hand. Despite its clear military adavtange Singaporeās leadership is under no illusions that a conflict (although damaging for Singaporeās opponents in the short term) will have disastrous long term consequences; not only for Singapore (which is much more vulnerable) but also for the region. The dilemma facing Singapore is that a strong SAF doesnāt provide answers to all the security/ geopolitical threat/ challenges Singapore faces.
P.S.
Our biggest problem is that we believe (or maybe āhopeā is a better word ) that diplomacy (whether within the UN, ASEAN or with other means) will always prevent an actual war from breaking out; hence the willingness to underfund the MAF and not make defence a priority.
The White Paper is long overdue and one benefit is it will keep the general public as well as people in the government better informed on defence/security issues. At the end of the day however, thereās no escaping the fact that the government has to make steady investments in the MAF.
… “The tuas reclaimation is way beyond the 12nm waters. It is really in international waters … It is way past 12nm territorial waters of singapore.”
I apologise if mistaken but I have not found any point that Singapore has reclaimed that is more than 12nm (or 22.2km) distant from their coastal baseline. It would help if you can superimpose the baseline and post-reclamation maps or images and mark any such alleged points, as my measurements have not discovered such a point.
I stand corrected.
Probably mistake in setting nm and km
.