SHAH ALAM: AS I am too busy to go to Butterworth, posted below are some images of the aircraft taking off from Subang airport in support of Cope Taufan 16. The pictures are taken from the outside of the airport along the road to Kampung Subang.
Also posted, are images taken at Butterworth taken by the USAF PR team. I expect more pictures to be posted by the USAF this week once the exercise is fully geared up for the scenarios designed by the planners. As this year’s exercise is deemed low-key by RMAF, I do not think there is any point of me going to Butterworth even if I got some free time on my hand.
Its so low-key, that RMAF has not even released the list of its aircraft taking part in the exercise. From the USAF pictures, however, we could see that Butterworth’s resident fighter squadron, the 18th, is involved in the exercise.
Taking pictures of the aircraft is the reason to go to Butterworth. However as the two USAF fighter squadrons involved, the 13th and 44th, are regular visitors to Malaysia through-out the years, there is no incentive to take more pictures of them.
The most interesting aircraft from USAF is the E-3C AWACS. However it is not such a draw for me to spend a few days in Butterworth to take pictures of it.
As mentioned two more separate exercises are being held simultaneously in Malaysia this week weeks. Keris Strike 2016 should be officially launched today at Sirajuddin Camp in Gemas, Johor. The exercise between the 7th Brigade and the US Army, Pacific Command will end on Aug 6.
Meanwhile, the Malaysian/Indonesia joint exercise, Malindo Latgabma 2016 will be launched at Tanjung Gelang, Kuantan, tomorrow. The planning stage of the exercise started last week. It will end on Aug 3.
— Malaysian Defence.
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
So, you’ll be heading to other both ex, only one of them or… none at all?
Reply
If I go probably Malindo, or none at all.
The Globemaster flew low and made a few circles over my area just now. Surprisingly, given its size — the sound effect was very low.
Reply
Yes the C17s are very quiet.
I’m more interested in the locally developed C-3 [or was it a C-2?] system that the RMAF employed during the previous Cope Taufan and whether it’s also present at this year’s Cope Taufan.
Reply
I will ask RMAF about if I got the chance
Can i know what’s a c3 or c2 is….i have no idea at all to even google it?
Reply
Its Command and Control system abbreviated to C2, if its C3, the third C usually is Communications. Such system usually run on Computers so some might called it C4 but since everything nowdays are computerised, I personally believed its redundant to use a fourth C for that. Its part of the military’s jargon.
Trafalgar, search this military jargon too…”FUBAR”…hehe
nimitz
Huhuhu……cld use tht in my conversations and people would be clueless
Trafalgar,i just joking. Sometimes when discussion goes technical, i also had a hard time finding out meaning of the military jargon used.
trafalgar,
1. ”SNAFU”
2.”BUFF” [used to describe the B-52].
3. ”Million dollar wound” [a wound bad enough to send you home to the ”world”].
4. ”The World” [the U.S.].
5. ”Klicks” [kilometres]. 1-5 are from the Vietnam war.
6. ”Gung ho” – supposedly this term came from USMC troops who were in Shanghai before WW2.
7. ”Gooks” – came from the Korean war.
Reply
There’s always for unlawful carnal knowledge…
Nimitz,
Personally I think the current use of military abbreviations and acronyms has reached ridiculous levels. ”FIBUA” has become ”MOUT”. In addition to the long used ”POW” we now have ”EPW”s; to ensure people understand the distinction. Older stuff like ”FEBA” seems to have disappeared and of course RPVs became UAVs. To ensure we don’t get confused ”MANPADs” was largely replaced with ”Very Short Range Air Defence system] [V-SHORADs]. Which begs the question : if Igla or Stinger are ”’Very Short Range Air Defence systems” what is an Oerlikon GDF or an S-60? An ”Extremely Short Range Air Defence system” [E-SHORADs]?
It seems that new abbreviations and acronyms are coming out yearly – led by the U.S. military. Soon, even the term ”rifle” probably won’t be used anymore; replaced with something silly like ”personal, weapon, individual” [PWI]!
not to forget FISH and CHIPS…lol
I don’t see a problem with these examples, in these cases the “new” acronyms are more accurate.
MANPADS missiles are often employed with mounts and detection devices, which makes them no longer man portable. The context is even less appropriate when the missile is deployed on a ship.
EPW simply removes the need to say “enemy POW”.
Still no picture of the e3?
Though i do wonder what is the airforce priority.. deterance and offensive as in MRCA or detection and communication in AEWC.
It like i have the planes but i cant detext the enemy at longet ranges so i am a sitting ducks. But if i have detection but no fighter to deploy.. i am also a sitting ducks.. aewc are key plane to be taken out first in ariel combat.
Reply
I did not go to Butterworth. As for the AEW it has been a requirement since the 1990s. It would have been the follow up purchase after the three buys – Hawks, Fulcrums and Hornets but then came the 1997 financial crisis. Unfortunately when we got funds in the early 2000s the first Gulf War got in the way and any plans to buy AEW came to a halt as only the American Hawkeyes were available.
AM – ”The context is even less appropriate when the missile is deployed on a ship.”
It depends. Some mounts are manually operated, some are not.
Indeed there is no problem but it raises the question of how many abbreviations and acronyms do we actually need. It boils down to the military bureaucracy wanting everything neatly package. Some abbreviations and acronyms are also introduced by the industry. The whole idea of having this long [ever expanding] list of abbreviations and acronyms was to supposedly make things easier to describe and reduce the possibility of misunderstanding by having a common list of NATO abbreviations and acronyms but does it really makes things clearer or actually add to the fog of war [to use a pun]? The truth is, even serving military people often have a hard time keeping up with what’s what :]
Some are superfluous and not necessary [in my opinion], e.g. ”Fighting In Built Up Areas” which seemed pretty straightforward”; yet ”MOUT” has entered the picture. As for ”POW” and ”EPW”; we have been using ”POW” for decades and understand the distinction between one’s own POWs and that of the enemy’s, in the context of a conversation/report/order : was there really a need to add another [”EPW”] acronym to enable people to make the distinction? ”Anti-Tank Guided Weapon” has largely been replaced by ”Anti-Tank Guided Missile” but does ”ATGM” really make it more accurate in terms of designation?
twc2490 – ”It like i have the planes but i cant detext the enemy at longet ranges so i am a sitting ducks.”
We have ground based long range radars. Granted, one can see further with an AEW but the value in having an AEW is not just to see further but also battlespace management, hence the ”AEW & C” designation. An AEW enables one to place one’s fighters at an optimum position to maximise whatever advantage they have and to minimise their detection time. The idea off course being that a fighter vectored by an AEW will be passive as its on board radar will be switched off. The RMAF first registered a requirement for 4 AEWs as far back as the 1980’s.
twc2490 – ”aewc are key plane to be taken out first in ariel combat”.
Which is why they are always placed far to the rear, away from any danger. The Russians in the 1990’s started work on a long range AEW killer which was supposed to have been a ramjet powered RV-77 with an IR warhead – like many other things, development was never completed. For that matter, development of the R-77 was delayed for many years as Vympel was short of cash.
Azlan,
“The Russians in the 1990’s started work on a long range AEW killer which was supposed to have been a ramjet powered RV-77 with an IR warhead”
Oh i thought the rumour in 1992 is that the Russian is developing an AEW killer based on the Kryptons with active/passive seekers. I’ve heard about the ramjet version of the R-77 but I was under the impression that the aim was to improve kinematic performance ala’ Meteor. I’ve also heard about another proposed version of R-77 with dual seekers, doubt it saw production. Maybe we would see a ramjet version of novator instead? co-developed by NPO and DRDO based on their experience designing the Brahmos.
Azlan,
That is why i wonder where the priorities lies within RMAF on choosing funding for MRCA or AWEC. Definitely given the ecomical and political situation we are in now, both big purchases together is not possible and there also backlashes on spending that amount of money even on eitheir one.
But one thing i noticed that manufaturer like saab are also being innovate in combining AEW and MPA capability together like the Globaleye. Killing two bird with one stone. If malaysia getting it, maybe the funding can be both from RMN and RMAF to operate the planes. That just my wishfull thinking like wise
twc2490,
At the moment the priority is MRCAs. There are simply not enough air frames for the RMAF to carry out all its peacetime operational and training commitments; things will get more pressing when the Fulcrums go, thus it has no choice but to place priority on MRCAs in the knowledge that there’s no cash for both MRCAs and AEWs at present. Just to ensure 2 Fulcrums on QRA 24/7 is very resource intensive and there are only about 8/10 Fulcrums still flying – it’s a question of which is needed most at present : AEWs or MRCAs?
After the MRCAs are inducted the plan is to then push for an AEW; note that the RMAF already has plans to link the Hornets and MKMs with a data link even before it gets an AEW platform [yes, contrary to what some might believe, Link 16 is available to us].
Gaining funding from the RMAF budget for MPAs will be tricky as the RMAF can point out that funding should come from the RMN. The problem is that the RMN has neither the crews or the support infrastructure; thus the ideal arrangement would be for RMAF owned MPAs but operated by mix RMAF/RMN crews. Operational control should lie with the RMN. The main problem here is that the RMAF will question why the cash should come from its budget when it’s the RMN that gains the most of the MPAs.
Development of the R-77 was delayed for many years and it was only because of large orders from China and India that Vympel was able to complete development of the R-77. The irony is that China and India received large quantities of the R-77 before Russia and that RMAF Fulcrums were wired for the R-77 [in 1997] even before it was available for export and even before it was wired for use by Russian planes! Talk of a ramjet R-77 surfaced in the 1990s even before the standard R-77 was available for export but it was merely a plan that never took off. The R-77 was intended as the Russian equivalent of AMRAAM; back then Meteor was a distant dream. Highly doubtful if we’ll see any further cooperation between the Russians and Indians along the lines of Brahmos given the problems the partnership faced. The Indians were slightly annoyed that the Russians have ruled out buying Brahmos.
What advantage is there having the AEW and MPA in a single airframe? It can only be in one place at a time, including in maintenance, and only lost or shot down one time.
The MPA package will likely be roll on roll off and we have a fleet of plain airframes ready for the mission. I see no advantage combining the roles.
“…military abbreviations and acronyms has reached ridiculous level.” It developed accordingly with time. Sooner or later we forgone acronyms, replaced by graphics ala emoticon…pictures speaks better than words hehehe. Luckily most of us posted replies in full text.