SHAH ALAM: Last month, Chief of Defence Forces TS Muhammad Ab Rahman said that the RMAF will operate at least twelve Leonardo AW149 utility helicopters under a leasing programme mooted by the Prime Minister’s Department and the National Security Council.
“The government has ordered the RMAF to follow a leasing programme for helicopters for ministries and government agencies co-ordinated by the Public-Private Sector Unit of the Prime Minister’s Department (JKAS) and National Security Council,” he told reporters after the Armed Forces Day demonstration held at Port Dickson, Negri Sembilan on October 5.
Now it appears that the Army will also have four AW149 helicopters under the same leasing programme. It is unclear when the delivery will take place though. It may take a year based on what happened with RMAF leased AW139 helicopters. This may result in the Army taking delivery of the helicopters earlier than RMAF. This is not surprising as the PUTD has been waiting for its Nuri replacement since almost four years now.
It must be noted that the leasing contract for the helicopters have yet to be finalised though I was told it is very soon. Do note that the AW149 deal for the Army depends on the Defence Ministry canceling the leasing contract for the four Black hawk helicopters. The latest deadline for their delivery is supposed to be by the end of the month.
Apart from the Army and RMAF, RMN will also take delivery of helicopters under the same leasing programme though as it already operating two AW139s, theirs will be the same machines as well.
Apart from the leased AW149s, I was told that the deal for 136 High Mobility Armoured Vehicles (HMAV) and 18 SPH are also being finalised. The HMAV will be Tarantula and the SPH, Eva M2. These will be procured directly of course.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Good seeing HMAV getting buyer. hopefully the fun generated will be used for R&D for their planned 6*6 armored vehicle programme
Im gonna sound stupid due to my lack of knowledge.
So the gov will be leasing potentially 16x AW149. Just want to clarify that it will be the militarised AW149 right? Since if its the commercial one it will be announced as leasing AW189.
I dont see how we gonna lease a proper military helicopter through a local company unless its a direct leasing deal with the oem which is Leonardo.
Because leasing a commercial or civil heli, its easier to use it for other role like EMS, LE, SAR or offshore. Dont see how another company can take the risk of buying a military heli just for leasing. Unless the military been told to lease it for its entire service life.
Any clarification will be helpful. Tq.
Ohh look Multiple agencies are sharing a common platform.
The original lease plan
PUTD – 12x AW149
TLDM – 2x AW139
BOMBA – 4x AW139
APMM – 2x AW189
PDRM – 7x Bell 429 (replacement of the AS355 ecureuil 2?)
JPM – 1x AW189 (how many VIP helicopters does our government need? Why do we have 2 Skn TUDM not being used for VIP movments?)
Total helicopter to be leased – 28 units
Cost – RM16.8 billion for 15 years (RM1.12 billion annually taken from OPEX for 15 years)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZIqh2RbkAAkPik.jpg
So the plans have been changed, with 12x AW149 to TUDM and 4x AW149 to PUTD??
This is just a sample of say 12 more H225M bought for TUDM + maintenance for 15 years.
Eurocopter offer utk 12 EC725 in 2008 – EUR233,345,390. Round this up to say EUR250 million.
https://t.co/lQqvlJu87e
Assume that cost is just for helicopters, no maintenance included. Recent Boustead BHICAS maintenance contract for 5 years is RM378 million
https://t.co/Yjq8oD9q3Q
Maintenance contract RM378 x3 = RM1.134 billion.
Add it all up – EUR250 million (RM1.175 billion) + RM1.134 billion = RM2.309 billion
RM2.309 billion for 12 helicopters + 15 years of maintenance (at high Boustead markup rates). Evan if the cost is extrapolated for 28 helicopters, it will be just RM5.388 billion, massively less than the RM16.8 billion lease cost.
For PUTD, lets say if we are going to buy outright 24 used blackhawk helicopters.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/portuguese-af-fire-fighting-black-hawks/
The contract for 6 is for USD47 million or around RM205 million with todays exchange rate. The contract price (unlike said in the article) includes training for six pilots and 21 mechanics, plus five years of onsite maintenance and logistical support.
Lets say we buy 24 used blackhawks outright. + 10 years maintenance cost as per Boustead EC725. That would be
(RM205x4) + (RM378x4) = 820 + 2952 = RM3.772 billion
So for outright buy of 12 H225M + 24 used Blackhawks + 15 years maintenance = RM6.081 billion. Still far cheaper than lease 28 helicopters for RM16.8 billion.
So where is the savings from all this? Why Billions wasted on lease when that extra billions can be used to buy more lethal weapons that we could use to defend our country?
Not much details is available yet.
As for the 136 tarantula HMAV
So that is the vehicle to replace the Condors in Kor Armor DiRaja cavalry regiments?
How much would it cost?
Could it be the same as what Thai Army buys its First Win MRAP (RM2.2 million per vehicle, rather than RM7 million paid by TDM for Lipanbara) ?
I am for TDM to get more capabilities that we still do not have first, rather than replacing something we already have, but it seems that “national interest” prevails.
IMO I would prefer MILDEF to create something like the FNSS PARS 4×4 or Nurol Makin NMS, rather than someting large like the tarantula.
I’m actually happy it’s Eva [assuming it goes through] because it does away with the need for operators to be out in the open exposed to the elements and nasty bits of metal flying around. Try operating arty out in the open during a storm or when counter battery fire is in progress.
Cynics will ask if Eva is “proven” [a cliche]; prior to Ukraine was Caesar ‘proven”? Mali doesn’t count as the rebels did not have artillery, UASs or loitering munitions. Also, what artillery system which was not “proven” was a let down when first used in combat?
Can anyone explain what is the advantages of Eva SPH compared to Caesar SPH? Some said Eva is better due to fully auto and has better protection.
… – “So where is the savings from all this?”
Engaging in rhetorics or genuinely asking? Who said there were any savings …
“lethal weapons that we could use to defend our country”
You make it sound like we’re on the verge of going to war or face immediste neighbours bent on our annihilation. Also the word “lethal” is a wow thing; just like “credible” but are we spending lots of money getting non “lethal” weapons?
Also from this site:
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/bomba-takes-delivery-of-aw189s/
BOMBA cost for each AW189 is RM105 million.
28 AW189 would be RM2.94 billion.
So 28 AW189 + 15 years of maintenance based on Boustead EC725 contract would be a total of RM5.586 billion. Still massively cheaper than leasing…
Actually for a total cost of RM16.8 billion, rather than leasing, it is actually cheaper just to buy and throw away 28 AW189 every 3 years !!!!
28 AW189 is just RM2.94 billion. buying it 5 times (using for 3 years at a time, a total of 15 years) would just be RM14.7 billion.
A saving of RM1.1 billion compared to leasing 28 !!!!
While in the end the government would own a total of 140 AW189 !!!!
If RM7 million is the price we paid for each Lipan Bara, it is likely it will also be the benchmark price for the HMAV. It will not be lower than that.
I am all for the EVA M2.
But I am not okay with the total cost of the EVA M2.
From what I have seen, the total cost will be even more expensive than the scrapped contract for the Yavuz, which is absurd. You could basically buy 2x the number of CAESAR Mk2 with that cost.
@ marhalim
Yes the Lipanbara is bought for RM7 million each , which is crazy when normal prices for such armoured vehicle is around USD500k range.
Rock,
Assuming the gun has to lay down sustained fire and there is no risk of counter battery fire. Auto loaders don’t get tired and rarely break down. With Caesar the crew can only maintain a certain level of sustained fire until they get tired and only with ammo in the sweet spot. The main advantage is crews are not out in the open; as you alluded to.
… “I am for TDM to get more capabilities that we still do not have first, rather than replacing something we already have, but it seems that “national interest” prevails”
In this case is it “national interests” indeed or the army having a say in what it wants/needs?
… “rather than someting large like the tarantula”
If the intention is to carry a fully equipped section and for certain levels of mobility and protection; it has to be of certain size. If it’s for recce and screening then yes; small is good but dependent too on whether recce units are supposed to fight to gain info or to avoid combat at all costs.
Yes it would seem it is to replace Condors operated by Royal Armoured regiments.
dundun – “for R&D for their planned 6*6 armored vehicle programme”
And after that? We get a bit to support the local industry in line with our a bit of everything but not enough of anything syndrome? Tonnes of 6×6 designs; why do we need a locally developed one which anyhow will have lots of foreign sourced components.
we shouldn’t lump mildef with deftech. just because one is a complacent crony company doesn’t means the other is the same (though they’re just as susceptible to the trappings of being a crony company).
Didn’t they willing to supply 80 HMLTVs for RM200 mil? That alone meant that each HMLTV costs no more than 2.5 mil (though additional equipment like thermal camera and armaments gonna increase the cost)
The AW’s dont sound like they are going to be operated as a military platform as the PMX stated its leasing for use by various ministries etc etc. So its for gov use n not RMAF military use?
@nihd
Seem the gowen themselves are confused. Panglima TUDM said it’s a hire purchase NOT a lease and its a military grade helo suitable and capable of doing CSAR. But afterwards adly said it’s a lease and its mainly for transportation use.
@hulubalang
What make you think the tarantula is a new platform and not just another rebadged ala proton and Perodua?
Then be ready for a HMAV around that price.
Zaft – “confused.Panglima TUDM said it’s a hire purchase NOT a lease and its a military grade helo suitable”
I’m asking myself who’s really confused here.
He said it was a long term lease agreement and that after a number of years there would be an option to buy.
Tarantula is an in-house design. Saying that they’re rebadged is really an insult to the people who designed the vehicle.
Even when people said the engine and transmission is American, plenty of turkish, korean and even some european armored vehicles sourced their engines and transmission from America as well yet nobody else is complaining.
Which version of HMAV we will get? The old version or the new version showed during DSA?
“What make you think the tarantula is a new platform and not just another rebadged ala proton and Perodua?”
Because i do follow their R&D development?
Lee – ” So its for gov use n not RMAF military use?”
The RMAF has stated very clearly that it can do SAR, CSAR and utility work.
I believe it was Dzirhan Mahadir that wrote something like…our defence industry is an expensive way of providing short term employment to a few people.
>And after that?
8*8 APC/IFV? Tracked APC/IFV? Hell? even their own light tanks? possibility is endless
Also it’s a private company what they can do whatever. Gomen looking for 6*6 armoured vehicle and they responded with such. nothing else to it
The new one.
where is that 2+ billion that supposedly for 12 new rmaf helos? ah i see..its only on paper right and just a mere talk.The allocation are not approved yet right.Its simple really if the govt cant afford to buy new equipment and only able to lease, just say s0 and dont let the people guess.Wait a second isnt this leasing deal will only enrich them cronies.I thought the current govt is better than this
dundun – “possibility is endless’.
You sound ike a politician now. The sky’s the limit right?. Malaysia can be a centre of excellence for the development and production of AFVs.
dundun – “they responded with such. nothing else to it”..
Of course they did. They’re a company looking for revenue; so like many others. I don’t blame them; I blame the government for the fact that with the exception of a few companies; the local scene id nothing to shout about. It’s all at the expense of the end over and taxpayer. Buying locally should in the long term be cheaper then buying from a brief; not here with the mark ups and the fact that a lot of stuff is imported and we have no economics of scale.
dundun – “Even when people said the engine and transmission is American”
Yes but the Koreans progress; they take things to a new level. Most of our companies merely do the same thing and the politicians blow theur own trumpets. Self sufficiency id s myth; it’s to generate revenue but the intersts if the end user and taxpayer is the least of the priorities.
dundun – “we shouldn’t lump mildef with deftech”.
Who is. The isssue is local companies do what they do because they’re allowed to. Every one wants to be part of the gravy train. Also, having observing things for long; I’ve got a very cynical view of mostocsl companies but then again were good at blowing our own trumpets. “Buatan tempatan” is the mantra among with the self sufficiency myth or delusion which some still buy.
Hasnan – “our defence industry is an expensive way of providing short term employment to a few people”
In principle the idea is sound. In actually it isn’t because of a number of factors which have been done to death. In short: with the exception of a few companies the bull of local companies don’t do much but they and the establishment make a fanfare out of it. Their so called achievements come at a grest cost. We buy a bit of evuthing and keep priorities. People like to make comparisons with Turkey and South Korea but they have clear defined goals and economics of scale. Over here local production is merely an exercise in making money. I can sat a lot more but this is a public forum.
No, the money was allocated but since they decided to lease the helicopters, the money could be earmarked for something else.
Do note that the proposal came in after the budget was announced and it was supposed to be about utility and transport helicopters. And if the leaked proposal letter is true, the proposal did not include the RMAF 12 CSAR helicopters. It did say 12 AW149s for the Army though.
@Hasnan
“where is that 2+ billion that supposedly for 12 new rmaf helos?”
Maybe divert to Kuwait Hornet or Medium SAM
Zaft “Ohh look Multiple agencies are sharing a common platform.”
Wow! Sacrilege. Who would have thought.
The AW149 is non civilian one for sure. Whether it is militarized or not depends on the operational requirements of the PUTD & RMAF. Seems like them government is going for “ALL-LEASED” assets even the train coaches for new EDTP are leased. Gov is reluctant to make a purchase as it will have to guarantee the payments & increased debts. I think with the deficits we had for years now we have come to the point where MOF had to borrow just to pay off some mature debts. The announcement of billions of billions of FDI is nowhere to be found
Basically almost All weapon industry outside of super power are just an expensive exercise to provide short term employment.
The European and Japanese industry go around building a far more expensive but less capable version of what the Americans have, the Turks industry outside or UAV are mostly rebadging exercises,which to their credit does reduce the risk of embargoes a lot, the Korean industry are all about transferred public wealth to private chaebol as a form of indirect subsidies so their cheabol are more competitive selling their mass markets products. If Korean aren’t an allies, the west would have slapped them with sanctions like they did the Chinese for unfair trade practices. Singapore industry are mostly an expensive tvet education programme to train engineers and management for the private sector.
Basically most countries do not want to spend a lot on their military but still wanted to be seen as spending huge sums of money on the military and thus why other items are included into the military spending budget. What it does mean is if all of these extraordinary expenses is removed then military would have a bigger budget.
the 18 eva m2 will be based to which RAD? RAD 2 which operate the G5 or RAD 61 on the atros?
No idea.
AW149 is a military aircraft but since it is leased it cannot be armed nor could enter a war zone. I was told that if something happens, and we need to arm them or fly them into a war zone, the government can declare force majeure and the services can used them. The government can then pay the company which leased them penalties. Since it was the government that ordered the services to use them, it is the government that must pay price.
Zaft – “Basically almost All weapon industry outside of super power are just an expensive exercise to provide short term employment”
So you’ve said before but this statement is fundamentally incorrect and some simple research would indicate as such.
Zaft – ‘The European and Japanese industry go around building a far more expensive but less capable version”
Also nonsense; i.e. SAMP-T is no less capable than Patriot and Jap radar tech is just as capable as anything produced in the U.S. Jap SSKs are just as capable as any European design.
Zaft – “Basically most countries do not want to spend a lot on their military”
What kind of statement is this? Who are those “most countries”? Quantify and make distinctions rather than general statements which are off, to put it mildly.
Alex,
Why would anyone replace a MLRS with a SPH? The SPHs will supplement the G-5s which the army would like to bin but just not yet.
Qamarul – “The AW149 is non civilian one for sure. Whether it is militarized”
The RMAF and the OEM have stated that and “militarized” just means military grade [with frequency hopping] radios and a few other things.
A lot would also depend on what’s inserted in the contract. Not saying a Lahad Dato situation will reoccur but that does not fall in the “war” category. No idea if it’s true but someone also mentioned that self defence stuff like a GPMG is fine but not anything beyond that; contractually. The RMAF chief also said that after X years there would be an option to buy.
This whole exercise is bureaucratic penny pinching at it’s worst; unwilling to fork out the needed investment in the short term; the government would rather pay much more over the long term. What’s new : the taxpayer gets screwed and we dont get the best value for what we spend.
On the 136 HMAV, will be the first big order for Mildef. Their facilities look set to take on the build, what about the number of skilled worker required to complete the order on time?
Unit to operate the SPH
It is supposed to be 22 RAD. 2x series regiment is the units using 155mm howitzers (bantuan medan). 6x series are those with with Briged Artileri Roket (BAR)
Currently
21 RAD (gemas) – 3x batteries of G5 155mm
22 RAD (???) – supposed unit to operate the SPH
23 RAD nucleus (taiping) – 1x battery of G5 155mm
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/another-ad-hoc-artillery-regiment-stood-up/
There is a batch of retired G5 155mm Howitzers in Qatar (12 units). Getting these would enable RAD to add 2 more regiments to 23 RAD, thus giving it a full complement of howitzers for a regiment.
No idea, really. There were talks of them building armoured vehicles in Pahang though.
No guns.
“2 more regiments to 23 RAD” – sorry i meant to type 2 more batteries to 23 RAD
Something similar to what is done for Kuwaiti Hornets, could also be done for these retired Qatari G5 howitzers.
… – “There is a batch of retired G5 155mm Howitzers in Qatar (12 units). Getting these would enable RAD”
Yes the only issue is there’s zero intention of doing so; irrespective of how many there are; where they are and how many there are. .
Ed,
For me the pertinent question is what next? Will a follow batch be ordered? If another company comes up with a design: will that be ordered? For me we should just get an existing design. Going through the whole exercise of having a local company produce a small batch benefits neither the end user of taxpayer. Then again some are under the impression that the sky’s the limit; after the Tarantulas will come 6x6s and light tanks.
21st Royal Artillery Regiment operated the FH-70 but was without guns for a while until the arrival of the G-5s which were first operated by 22bd Royal Artillery Regiment. 22nd Royal Artillery Regiment was redesignated 52nd Royal Artillery Regiment to operate ASTROS: joining 51st Royal Artillery Regiment. In addition to the Thales AS200 the Gunzen ballistic computer is operated by 21st Royal Artillery Regiment. Highly doubt 23rd Royal Artillery Regiment with just a battery has it.
Along with the GN-45 and FH-77 the G-5 was the gold standard in towed arty. Problem is it was designed for SADF requirements in mind; for use in Namibia and Angola. For us it’s bulky/cumbersome and a reason why the army has zero desire to get anymore. The APU is to help lay the gun and move it out of position; not to move it over long distances.
The first to operate the BOFIs were what became 31st Royal Artillery Regiment. As its acronym – Bofors Optronic Firing Instrument – implies BOFI had an optronic for fire direction; unlike the GDFs with Skyguards [4 guns to a Skyguard]. For early warning a number of Giraffes were ordered; being radars; not fire directors. Unlike artillery batteries which have 6 guns; AA batteries have 4; divided into 2 Troops with 2 guns.
As some armies have discovered a 6 gun battery is unweildy and have gone for smaller batteries. That however comes with various issues; namely manpower for the extra batteries and seniority issues
Azlan “Also nonsense; i.e. SAMP-T is no less capable than Patriot and Jap radar tech is just as capable as anything produced in the U.S. Jap SSKs are just as capable as any European design.”
Might as well said that the tiger and nh90 are super capable and cost effective that’s why people totally don’t wanna ditch them for Apache and Blackhawks or how eurofighter & Rafael are super cost effective competitive to their American counterparts.
Thus is the problem when one nitpick on a generalized statement.
“What kind of statement is this? Who are those “most countries”? Quantify and make distinctions rather than general statements which are off, to put it mildly.”
Fell free to look at NATO members balanced sheet and the associated studies and see how much actually is being spend for military capability and how much is it is spending for industry.
Zaft – ‘Might as well said that the tiger and nh90″
You’re backtracking and cherry picking. The Europeans and Japanese have a long list of kit which are not inferior to American equivalents and examples were given.
Zaft – “Fell free to look at NATO members”
“Feel” free to indulge in some objective research before hitting the keyboard/key pad. Your claim that ““Basically almost All weapon industry outside of super power are just an expensive exercise to provide short term employment” is nonsensical. Hardly describes the likes of Turkey and South Korea; amongst others.
Zaft – “Thus is the problem when one nitpick on a generalized statement”.
Aptly described yourself.
Zaft – “eurofighter & Rafael are super cost effective competitive to their American counterparts”
Just now you were claiming they were “less capable version” now you’re talking about cost effetivrness. I know you have this urge to say something but make up your mind as to the point you’re trying to convey; if you know that is.
Marhalim,
Oh, thought they would utilise their new facility in Negeri Sembilan. Another new facility, that will eat up more of the production time line if granted the contract?
Azlan,
Not think that far ahead. Layman only think how will they manage especially the first batch rollout
of the build when they’ve only been building prototype, repairing some Adnan and modifying commercial vehicles into service vehicles. Aside from pitching some local competitors engineers, will we see the Thai coming into the scene?
Rafale is capable but can be less capable if any world power with big influences decided to make it so. For example the egyptian rafales will not be supplied with Meteor BVR because US & Israel told the french so.
Marhalim-The government can then pay the company which leased them penalties
That’s understandable because no insurance company will cover any losses in a conflicted/war area. But if the gov decided to do it what would be the penalty? our armed forces can only use them for peacetime duties kind of defeat the purpose of “military assets”.Bummer.
The Thais may not be involved. I was told that PT Pindad will be supplying them the steel for the vehicles
No idea, about where they are going to build them. But the Pahang MB has been quoted that a company will be building armoured vehicles in Pahang and the plant is ready in Kuala Lipis.
Qamarul – “Rafale is capable”
Even an upgraded Fulcrum is “capable” but it depends on various things like force employment, etc. Never mind Meteor; even with Mica the Rafale is “capable” but ultimately how the Egyptians employ it makes the difference. Also, the Egyptians are not getting Rafale to fight anyone, least of all the Israelis. Prestige.
Ed – “Not think that far ahead”
That’s the issue. The government does not think ahead; well actually it does but often shifts priorities. The result is what we have now. We go through all the fanfare; a local company delivering Tarantula, a company with comparable capabilities as any foreign company, etc, etc. The politicians will brag and look good, the company gains revenue and the army gets to fully replace its Condors. All’s good that ends well.
>rafale is capable
It’s less capable than Super Hornet and even regular Hornet like ours could stant toe to toe with Rafale
Hell, for interception role Mig-29 is more capable lmao
Qamarul – “our armed forces can only use them for peacetime duties kind of defeat the purpose of “military assets”
As Marhalim has clearly stated : “I was told that if something happens, and we need to arm them or fly them into a war zone, the government can declare force majeure and the services can used them.”
It would also depend on what’s inserted in the contract. Also, does a Lahad Dato scenario fall under the “war zone” category?
Ed – “how will they manage especially the first batch rollout
of the build when they’ve only been building prototype”.
They already will have X number of workers and will – in theory – have plans in place to increase their workforce. Question is how long will the company take to fulfil the order.
Talk of the Tarantula reminds me of the AV-4. On paper it was sound; utilising off the shelf components as far as possible; a number of different variants; etc. I was there at the roll out and met the designer; wasn’t an “anak tempatan”. His passport got nicked from his bag during DSA but I guess that’s another story. Anyway, if the AV-4 [which was ahead of its time] had entered production; the Tarantula, Lipanbara and other things would never have entered the lexicon.
Yes to some. I was told that the Army was contacted by Japanese after pictures of Handalan trucks being armed with machine guns. This initially led the Army to stop buying the Handalan though this was later rescinded.
Though the Fulcrum lack of range make it worse
Dundun – “It’s less capable than Super Hornet and even regular Hornet like ours could stant toe to toe with Rafale”
On a platform basis I’m not convinced. Boils down to SA, pilot skill and luck. I have no idea how you reached the “less capable” verdict but it’s universally accepted the Rafale is capable. Anyhow I’m not into X Vs Y comparisons because they’re misleading and can be a rabbit hole.
Another point is that like all jets of that generation Rafale is intended to be operated at a systems centric level; thus assumptions of how it will perform against another fighter has to take this into account.
Dundun – “Hell, for interception role Mig-29 is more capable”
The Fulcrum was designed to be a PVO point interceptor; either over the battlefield or in the tactical depth; hence it limited range. Overall Rafale is a superior interceptor; superior radar, range and other things. It’s after all more than a generation ahead of the 1970’s designed Fulcrum; intended for Soviet requirements in which airpower is as an army supporting tool rather than for waging integrated strategic air campaigns like the West does.
>rafale
>superior interceptor
Yeah no. It could barely hit mach 2 and has lower flight ceiling compared to Mig-29. Things like more capable radar and IRST can be retrofitted to Mig-29. Mikoyan even offered redesigned airframe to accomodate larger internal tanks that would essentially double Mig-29 range at the expense of lower flight ceiling
It’s all due to the french being incapable of developing more powerful engine with Snecma M88 being barely any better than F404
Is Rafale overall better than Mig-29? Ofc but for interception role, nothing really beats pure speed and even height of else we might as well continue using Hawk 208 to intercept any PLAAF planes entering our airspace.
Seem the gowen themselves are confused. Panglima TUDM said it’s a hire purchase NOT a lease and its a military grade helo suitable and capable of doing CSAR. But afterwards adly said it’s a lease and its mainly for transportation use.(Zaft)
It’s a helicopter. Period.
Just a helicopter. This government is as confused as previous governments when it comes to defence. Hence, the politicians have different views of what constitute Defence.
Perhaps it’s Bunga Emas diplomacy in another guise designed to reward the Cabinet ministers and retainers.😁
dundun – “Yeah no. It could barely hit mach”
You are focused on the technical aspects. In reality it depends on pilot skill: luck and SA; amongst others.
dundun – “Things like more capable radar and IRST can be retrofitted to Mig-29”
Things like that are great but in the overall scheme of things might not prove decisive. History is ripe with examples of inferior platforms prevailing but it wasn’t because of higher speed, tighter turn radius and other things which generally excite enthusiasts and fanboys. In Ukraine; if we want to apply your logic the VKS with its superior platforms [longer range radar; longer range AAMs and semi-active AAMs] would have swept the floor with the Ukraine air force. Two sides of the equation.
dundun – “Is Rafale overall better than Mig-29”
You are looking at thing from a platform centric level and overlooking that the comparison your’re making is with a 1970’s design platform intended for Soviet requirements with a contemporary design intended to be used in a totally different environment. Rafale is not designed to be employed on a platform centric basis; neither is any contemporary design. Thus, any analysis has to be done with this in mind.
I’m also not into X Vs Y comparisons as they’re simplistic, misleading and don’t convey the whole narrative.
Dundun – “beats pure speed and even height of else we might as well continue using Hawk 208 to intercept any PLAAF planes entering our airspace.”
Had this discussion before. Times when speed in needed and times when it’s not, i.e. if a QRA was on a vector towards an intruder heading towards it with both coming into a merge; rather than an intruder heading in an opposite direction.
Does anyone know about Bae Archer? Less capable Hornet?, I heard US Marine upgrades theirs legacy Hornet with new Aesa radar n new super long range air to air missile….
Rafale is on paper is pretty small for a twin engine jet,with a less powerful engine which does impact It speed,range,number and size of effectors and equipment carried due to it size and limited electric generating capabilities.
It’s can be capable with proper missions planning and so on but on paper comparing one jet to another then it’s technically less capable than the equivalent American offerings.
Thought at the end of the day,the rafale like most other french weapons are designed and paid for to give french a strategic autonomy and industrial capability,even if that strategic autonomy is achieved at the cost of more military capability.
Taib – “Seem the gowen themselves are confused”
Would seem that some observers are “confused” and are making a mountain out of an ant hill. The RMAF has stated what the platforms are intended to do and if not mistaken: have said that although a lease; after X number of years there is a “buy” option.
Taib – ” Period.
Just a helicopter”
Who would have thought. Given all the fuss; one would have thought we’re leasing tactical nuke devices.
On the point that it’s “just a helicopter”; it’s a national asset obtained via taxpayers money. Whether it’s a helicopter or a MBT; whatever decision made has to be questioned and scrutinised. We all know that it’s not a cider effective solution but alludded to; the government does not want to make the short term investment but is willing to pay more over a longer period. Typical bureaucracts thinking like bureaucrats.
Taib – “This government is as confused as previous governments when it comes to defence. Hence, the politicians have different views of what constitute”
What’s the fuss? You’re not a neophyte and are aware that it’s hardly uncommon for politicians to sometimes make misleading or inaccurate comments. Hardly a new phenomenon.
Zaft – “Thought at the end of the day,the rafale like most other french weapons are designed and paid for to give french a strategic autonomy”
Bravo for the insightful analysis but like any other jets Rafale has its trade offs and not defect free. It joins a long list of French aircraft – going back to the Mirage 3 – and before which are capable in their own right.
Zaft – “It’s can be capable with proper missions planning”
What pray tell does that mean? You even know? Who operates anything without “proper mission planning”?
Zaft – ” then it’s technically less capable than the equivalent American offerings”.
It’s not 1916; Sopwith Camels battling it out with Fokker DR1s over Flanders. Things like smaller wing, faster speed, longer range, etc, are not determining factors. It’s the “systems” centric age we’re in.
Far – ” I heard US Marine upgrades theirs legacy Hornet with new Aesa radar n new super long range air to air missile….”
Whatever they’ve done; bear in mind that U.S. Hornets are fully networked; to each other and to other assets. Just because another country might equip its Hornets to a similar standard as U.S. Hornets doesn’t mean they’ll achieve the same level of efficacy.
It’s amazing but as of 2024 people are still going on about which platform can fly faster and higher; which radar has a longer range, etc, as if these are the determining factors in how one can employ air power effectively.
Are RMAF Hornet upgrades still capables compare to TNI-AU Rafale until 2030/35? Will US gov would authorised selling of limited number of F-35 probably C model to Malaysia in the future? On AW149 helicopter for is not bad at all since RMAF choosing the same platform might easy in term of maintenance, training n logistics footprint…
Azlan. “It’s amazing but as of 2024 people are still going on about which platform can fly faster and higher; which radar has a longer range, etc, as if these are the determining factors”
No one said its the determining factor, only that the rafale is technically on paper inferior but also comes at a much higher price point which goes to show that even in the best of circumstances local productions ain’t gonna give you literal bigger bang for the bucks. Nor that countries that end up buying non American jet and weapons care much about literal bang for the buck.
If we going to buy the F35 it will be the A model, which is the most numerous in service and likely the cheapest.
The issue is about leasing not same aircraft.
F35 A model maybe good choices if RMAF want it… 😅
Zaft – “only that the rafale is technically on paper inferior”
Is it really? Even if so; so what? All designs make certain trade offs in certain areas.
Zaft – “but also comes at a much higher price point which goes to show that even in the best of circumstances local productions ain’t gonna give you literal bigger bang for the bucks”
Does it really show what you believe it does or do you merely think so?
I’ll put aside the obfuscation and point that that for the French; whatever resouces were place in developing Rafale and producing it were investments well made. Irrespective of whether it’s really “techinically inferior” [subject to debate] Rafale joins a long list of very capable French produced fighters operated by a long list of customers with little complains.
Zaft – “Nor that countries that end up buying non American jet and weapons care much about literal bang for the buck”.
Again you are making generalised statements which to put it mildly are off. Don’t confuse personal opinions with reality. The notion that buyers of non American jets aren’t concern about long term cost effectiveness is ludicrous and preposterous.
If you want to make a strong statement like that and expect others to believe you; rather take you as a jester of the first order; quantify your statement. Give a source to back up your claim that “that countries that end up buying non American jet and weapons care much about literal bang for the buck”. I can make daft statements that “buyers of non European subs aren’t serious about defence” or “countries in the southern hemisphere which engage in local production are only interested in short term benefits”.
Azlan “The notion that buyers of non American jets aren’t concern about long term cost effectiveness is ludicrous and preposterous.”
Said what you want but the reality is, Its an inferior jet at a higher price point compared to the American offerings. Their saving grace is supposedly it doesn’t come with a long list of terms and conditions compared to the more superior but also cost effective Americans offering.
Obviously the decision to go for Rafale has more to do with National interest, strategic autonomy or whatever buzz words the marketing team can come up with rather than simplistic best bang for the buck argument.
@Far de Man
RMAF would likely want it. It’s the best bang for the buck of any jet out there. Whether the gov willing to buy even if they have the money is another stories.
Far – “Are RMAF Hornet upgrades still capables compare to TNI-AU Rafale until 2030/35”
More Fighter A to Fighter B direct comparisons. You do understand that after one has out aside technical specs; combat comes down to who has superior SA; the level of training and luck? Just because Fighter A has a radar with a 11km advantage or can fly slightly higher when fully loaded out and with a full fuel tank doesn’t mean it will prevail against its opponent.
Also, Hornet was designed in the late 1970’s and Rafale is a more contemporary design. In your scenario are both operating on a platform level or is one or even both networked? Pertinent questions.
>Are RMAF Hornet upgrades still capables compare to TNI-AU Rafale until 2030/35?
If the AF goes through with AESA radar upgrade, sure
Rather than Rafale, I’m more concerned about indon supposed F-15EX Eagle II deal because then we really have no answer to it and we’re at significant capability gap unless we’re also getting F-15EX or T4 EF2000 and getting either of them wouldn’t be smart considering that we should be planning on getting 5th gen aircraft in 2030s
dundun – I’m more concerned about indon supposed F-15EX Eagle II deal because then we really have no answer”
I’m not worried about the platform per see but interested in seeing when the TNI-AL will join the RSAF and RTAF in transitioning from a platform to a systems centric air arm. The potential for trouble with Indonesia has always been there: people go gaga with China but cases of ramming; gun pointing; a ship about to fire and other things did not occur with China. Having said that a war with Indonesia would be utter disaster irrespective who won. It would probably mean the end of ASEAN and a very changed region. Not to mention the economic affects.
dundun – ” we’re at significant capability gap unless we’re also getting F-15EX or T4 EF2000 and getting either of them”
I see it more in the systems centric level and us getting certain tertiary capabilities.
dundun – “If the AF goes through with AESA radar upgrade, sure”
The increase in effectiveness enabled by AESA radars have been great exaggerated. Sure, useful and great capability but hardly a silver bullet. Various things come into place to determine the victor of an air engagement; not one piece of equipment.
Whether it’s Gripen, Typhoon or anything else; they all do the job. It’s force employment which counts; not fighter X’s radar having better range; fighter Y being faster or fighter A performing better below 5,000 feet because of its design.
I am wondering where in the world are they gonna get 24 AW149s, its not like it was a hot sale chopper being overshadowed by Blackhawks and the only big order was from Poland(?). Its also not as popular in the civvie market so even to convert AW189 to AW149 I wonder where they will get stocks of lease units? Or perhaps Leo has inhouse leasing for unsold units?
Despite the Aerotree setback, I am still hopeful TDM/PUTD will stick to BH even with another player.
F-15EX by Indonesia an issue?
We still have our MKMs remember? What we need are more long range weapons that can be fired from the MKM.
Also, for air defence scenario (we defending our airspace from attacking forces), a full 5 gen spec KF-21EX would be more than a match to shot down anything like a F-15EX.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZrm1qmasAATgQ_.jpg
A push for systems centric is a reason why all those years ago i proposed we get AEW&C and airborne EA platform after we get intrim Hornets and before we get our new MRCAs in the 2030s.
IMO something like the MKM (and F-15 of RSAF or in the future TNI-AU) in the future would function more as a long range missile truck (that could carry more ordnance to longer range than most fighters in the fleet) that would lob long range missiles at standoff distances.
… – “A push for systems centric is a reason why all those years ago i proposed we get AEW&C and airborne EA platform”
Of course you did but in addition to a AEW platform we also need the fighter to be networked to various other assets; on land, sea and air.
… – ” a full 5 gen spec KF-21EX would be more than a match to shot down anything like a F-15EX.”
Under the right operational circumstsnces a Fulcrum would be able to; assuming all the pieces fall into place.
… – “We still have our MKMs remember?
I doubt anybodg forget but that’s assuming they’re operstional in a few years; not in good shape. Also, since people tend to focus more on things at a platform level; the MKM – being fitted with 1990’s tech stuff – is moye than a generation behind the F-15EX.
…. – “What we need are more long range weapons that can be fired from the MKM”
I’m not as sanguine we’ll be able to acquire the needed enablers; without which the “long range” is useless.
@Far de Man:
“Are RMAF Hornet upgrades still capables compare to TNI-AU Rafale until 2030/35?
An upgraded hornet is still capable but.comparing (based on platform only) with future TNI rafale is not apple to apple. In short, even if upgraded the hornet will equal to F16 block 52.
@ dundun:
“I’m more concerned about indon supposed F-15EX Eagle II deal because then we really have no answer”
Your concern is too late, We dont even have an answer for their 42 rafale in 2030. Dont forgwt TNI still have 33 units of F16 upgradeable to viper and SU 27/30.
@Hulu balang:
“F-15EX by Indonesia an issue?”
No, the deal is still in their air. I doubt TNI will get F15EX. The price tag is too much, even USAF reduced the number of F15EX ordered. Meanwhile, ID has been offered a full rafale ToT if TNI can add 58 units more to make a total of 100 units. An offer that give a good reason to reject F15EX
“a full 5 gen spec KF-21EX would be more than a match to shot down anything like a F-15EX.”
Full spec?
When KAI said indonesia didnt pay for KF-21 we all know it is not about money but korean failed to give ToT because of LM. I doubt LM wants KF-21 full spec exist, maybe if LM start to produce 6th gen NGAD.
… – “(that could carry more ordnance to longer range than most fighters in the fleet)”
Yes but as discussed before; just because an aircraft is rated to carry X tonnes of payload; doesn’t necessarily mean it will carry a maximum load; even if ordnance was stocked in large quantities. If we have a look at ops conducted in Iraq, Kosovo and other places; when when they can; fighters don’t always carry a maximum payload; even when tanker support is available.
… – “IMO something like the MKM (and F-15 of RSAF or in the future TNI-AU) in the future”
Depends entirely on the operational context. Also, the difference between the MKM and the “F-15 of RSAF or in the future TNI-AU) in the future” is that the F-15 will be operated for quite a while to come. In contrast the RMAF’s intention is to only operate the fleet until it can retired and until that time finds; only the most needed upgrades and replacing of time expired stuff will be performed and no; it isn’t just due to the question of spares [which are available] but due to other reasons.
“a Fulcrum would be able to”
F-15EX powerful AESA radar will detect a fulcrum way before the fulcrum can detect the F-15EX, as both are non-low observable platforms.
KF-21EX while being low observable, is also equipped with meteor long range AAM.
“to acquire the needed enablers”
Then that should be a big priority for MKM upgrades. Things that are ITAR-free but NATO spec (from Turkiye, Europe, Pakistan, South Korea etc.) with long standoff ranges to hit both maritime and land targets that can be hung under the MKM.
When even PMX are doubling down on “Russia is our friend”, to joining russia-led BRICS, is there any reason to have the MKM to be retired prematurely when its large weapons load and long range cannot be replicated by new MRCAs (which is also a reason why RSAF is keeping its F-15SG alongside the F-35 far into the future)?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaugRuyaAAAjqkt.jpg
… ““Russia is our friend”, to joining russia-led BRICS, is there any reason to have the MKM to be retired prematurely when”
You have a soft spot for the MKM but look at the reality; the RMAF is not happy with it and unless there’s a change in plans, wants to retire as soon as possible. As indicated it’s not just the question of spares.
… “, is there any reason to have the MKM to be retired prematurely”.
Loads of reasons but not apparent to you. Also, there are other things which are vital apart from range and payload; suitability, reliability, cost effectiveness, etc. Measure of success versus measure of efficiency.
… ““Russia is our friend”, to joining russia-led BRICS, is there any reason to have the MKM to be retired prematurely when”
You have a soft spot for the MKM but look at the reality; the RMAF is not happy with it and unless there’s a change in plans, wants to retire as soon as possible. As indicated it’s not just the question of spares.
… “, is there any reason to have the MKM to be retired prAlso the comparison with the RSAF is a gargoyle to mermaid comparison. What are its CONOPs? We have east Malaysia in case we need to operate in the Spratlys. The RSAF needs a capability to hit as far as Java and possibly even parts of Malaysian Borneo from bases in Singapore; it has a much greater need for range and payload.
On “Russia id our friend”; sure but the largest FDI is still the U.S., the U S. is still a major trading partner and the dominant player on the region.
>even if upgraded the hornet will equal to F16 block 52.
>it’s not an apple to apple comparison between hornet and rafale he said
>meanwhile comparing a single engined fighter with 2 engined fighter
F-16 blk 52 didnt have AESA. Also whilst multirole, it’s not designed for air to ground role whilst F/A-18 is designed from the onset as a multirole aircraft
Hell if anything Rafale is closer in size to F-16 than F/A-18 is
There’s also the fact that rafale AESA radar is not GaN (unlike APG79v4). Also F/A-18 could accommodate larger radar than Rafale
” range and payload; suitability, reliability, cost effectiveness, etc. Measure of success versus measure of efficiency ”
Something i have taken into account even back when “options for CAP55” was written many years ago.
Only thing equivalent to MKM performance is F-15EX with conformal tanks. If we lose the MKM, there will be no equivalent payload and unrefuelled range capability either with FA-50, intrim MRCA (Hornets) or future MRCA (most likely KF-21EX)
The MKM also can be equipped if we decide to do so, some of them can be tasked as a future EA platform like the Growler or the German Typhoon EW by adding/replacing the current saab avitronics + SAP518 combo with the new SAAB Arexis suite.
“reason why RSAF is keeping its F-15SG alongside the F-35”
Actually F35 is meant to replace F16/F18 class of fighters and not heavies like F15/Sukhois. That should have been F22 and now upcoming 6th gen.
@dundun
“meanwhile comparing a single engined fighter with 2 engined fighter”
Both F16 and F18 are considered fighter of the same era (late 1970). Both will be retired worldwide.
“F-16 blk 52 didnt have AESA. Also whilst multirole, it’s not designed for air to ground role whilst F/A-18 is designed from the onset as a multirole aircraft”
At the end of their lifetime both almost have the same role but the initial development is differ. F-16 is light fighter, FA-18 is maritine/ground strike.
“Hell if anything Rafale is closer in size to F-16 than F/A-18 is”
“There’s also the fact that rafale AESA radar is not GaN (unlike APG79v4). Also F/A-18 could accommodate larger radar than Rafale”
In short, the development of Super hornet technically means that the legacy hornet has no future (your opinion is against reality). Sadly, the super hornet production line will be closed soon.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/23/boeing-will-close-super-hornet-production-line-in-2025/
@Hulubalang
“Only thing equivalent to MKM performance is F-15 EX”
No….
Romeo – “An upgraded hornet is still capable but.comparing (based on platform only) with future TNI rafale is not apple to apple.”
It is if you factor in that one’s based on a design from the 1970’s [upgrades don’t change this fact] and the other is more contemporary. Anyhow, I’m not really bothered about the platform itself because all can do the job. My focus and interest is on force employment; i.e. us being able to generate and sustain the required sorties; acquiring tertiery capabilities and operating jointly. …
– “as a future EA platform like the Growler or the German Typhoon EW\” EW and SEAD/DEAD now?
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves shall we? Those are highly niche capabilities for which we lack the funding, experience and knowledge. Sure we can acquire a token capability but nothing beyond that; if one is realistic.
We only have to look at the Russian experience. Prior to Ukraine people were going gaga about the KH-31 and it’s long range and how it supposedly enabled a “potent” capability but the harsh reality was that the VKS’s efforts at SEAD/DEAD left a lot to be desired as it doesn’t train to conduct SEAD/DEAD as part of an integrated air campaign the way Western air arms do and the KH-31 wasn’t all it was made out to be.
… – “Something i have taken into account even back when “options for CAP55” was written many years ago.”
Of course you did.
… – “The MKM also can be equipped”
… – “with long standoff ranges to hit both maritime and land targets that can be hung under the MKM.”
Make the distinction between what can be done on paper; what you’d like done and what realistically will be done.
Again : as it stands the intention is to operate the fleet until such a time it can be binned and until that; only what absolutely has to be replaced will be replaced.
… – “. If we lose the MKM, there will be no equivalent payload and unrefuelled range capability either with FA-50”
You’re so mesmorised with range and payload that it never occured to you that priority when it comes to fighters is on other things.
… – “F-15EX powerful AESA radar will detect a fulcrum way before the fulcrum can detect the F-15EX, as both are non-low observable platforms.”
You are quoting paper specs as you tend to do, ignoring the many variables at play. Yes the F-15 has an edge over the Fulcrum but again: not only are there variables in the real world [as opposed to a PowerPoint brief] but things don’t work in a vacuum. The enemy has a say, there is such a thing as friction and the fog of war and various other things come into play.
By your logic the VKS with its numerical and tech superiority would have wiped the floor with the Ukrainian air force and the Saudi coalition with its fancy fighters and Western logistics and intel would have waged an effective air campaign in Yemen.
… – “Only thing equivalent to MKM performance is F-15EX with conformal tanks”
So you mentioned years ago and so I’ll mention again; this is far fetched. Not that I’m in platform to platform comparisons but the F-15 flies much better at low altitude [yes even in this day and age of guides munitions air arms still train to fly low; depends on terrain, type of target and other things], it has a AESA radar with its inherent advantages [although not necessarily a “game changer”], it has an all glass cockpit, avionics not dating from the 1990’s, is networked, has a better ergonomically designed cockpit, a HUMS, a fully fledged navy/attack pod [we discussed this years ago], etc. All these are verifible facts and not opinions.
Sure you can list all the paper possibilities but we’re talking of things as they stand. Even if both were comparable in capabilities [they’re not] one is operated as part of a fully networked environment. Last but not least; the F-15 has a far more impressive combat record.
… – “Only thing equivalent to MKM performance is F-15 EX”
You mentioned this years ago; again I’ll say it’s far fetched. The F-15 performs better at low altitude [yes even in this age of guided munitions air arms still fly low; depends on terrain, weather and type of target]; has a AESA radar with its inherent advantages [hardly a “game changer” but still ]; a HUMS, an all glass cockpit; a full fledged nav/attack pod [dicussed this years ago]; a better ergonomically designed cockpit; etc, etc, etc. All these are verifible facts; not opnions.
Sure you can discuss paper possibilities but we are discussing things as they stand; present. Last but not least the F-15 has a far more impressive combat record compared to the Su-30 and the RSAF’s F-15s are operated as part of a networked centric environment.
The only equivalence they have is both are twin engined; of a roughly similar weight/size category and derived from a fighter design dating to the 1970’s.
F-15 is also designed as a fighter, there is nothing saying F-15 flies low “better” than a Su-30.
All MKM avionics, cockpits are developed in mid 2000s
as is even right now it has a full glass cockpit from THALES. The MKM if the samtel upgrade is true, will have 2x wide area MFDs to replace the older THALES MFD
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZGVH2lbsAAwNX8.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GUv5PHibMAAiYfX.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXLPswba0AA1nxx.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXLPwvSbQAAXlBb.jpg
Talios pod, and other avionics upgrade can be done to the MKM, and is in the 12Skn upgrade request.
MKM can be operated as a part of a fully networked environment, if the environment is there in the 1st place.
Also that is what we have right now. Can we afford to retire MKM and buy F-15EX to replace it as it is way better?
sheesh. The fact that we had to resort to fucking india for MKM upgrades really speaks how low have russia fallen in term of military technology
Even their Su-35S aka “last flanker” still rocking older MFDs (instead of full glass cockpit),PESA and no operational domestic targeting pod.
In fact I’d wager that the most advanced Flanker variant right now is J-16
… – “All MKM avionics, cockpits are developed in mid 2000s”.
.Mostly designed in the late 1990’s.we ordered the Flanker in 2002; surey you not suggesting that various stuff was designed after that. …
– “replace it as it is way better”.
How does this change the fact that the RMAF would like to retire it as soon as it can; that its been problematic and that the intention is to only spend what’s absolutely needed on it to keep it flying. You are skirting the issue. BTW whenever MRCA we eventually get will have less range and payload compared to the Flanker but the RMAF has no issues with this.
Not that we bought the Flanker specifically or largely for it’s range and payload anyway but because Dr. M wanted to show his independence from the West and wanted a Malaysian sent to space. And because the Russians had nothing else to offer apart from the Fulcrum which we didn’t want. …
– ” Talios pod, and other avionics upgrade can be done to the MKM, and is in the 12Skn upgrade request.”
So you keep saying and thanks for the customry links but make the distinction between what can happen on paper, what you’d like to happen and what will realistically happen. Again : unless there’s really a need we won’t spend on it; using the cash on something else is seen as a way better long term investment.
dundun – “speaks how low have russia fallen in term of military technology”
Not case if Russia falling but various other factors. On many things the Russians are great, on others they’re not. One reason India started producing spares was because of the inherent way of doing things by the Russians.
One way the IAF really helped us was the fact that it translated all the maintenance manuals into English. The Russian way of doing things is one reason why the RMAF does not want Russian.
… – “, there is nothing saying F-15 flies low “better” than a Su-30.”
It’s a known fact the Flanker does not do well as low altitudes. Look it up and we’ve discussed this years ago, the same period you were insisting Damocles was a full fledged nav/attack pod. I know you’re a staunched defender of the Flankers but certain things have to be acknowledged. I think it’s a great aircraft but I’m not going to go all fan boyish on it.
One area in which the Russians traditionally lagged was in simulators pods and UASs. That’s the reason we sourced Flanker and Fulcrum simulators and pods from others. They have improved with UASs but unlike the Ukrainian system the Russia way of doing things is not conduicive for innovation and for things to be fast tracked.
Hulu “The MKM also can be equipped if we decide to do so, some of them can be tasked as a future EA platform like the Growler or the German Typhoon EW by adding/replacing the current saab avitronics + SAP518 combo with the new SAAB Arexis suite.”
Money don’t grow on tree you know.
And as the German has attested it’s lot cheaper to just buy a growler then their current plan of turning eurofigter into one. Just Like it’s a lot cheaper to just buy an apache then to upgrade the tiger to be maritime strike capable.
Just because something is technically possible it’s doesn’t mean it’s financially sound.
Zaft,
Talk about EW and SEAD/DEAD is unrealistic at this juncture as we have far more pressing things to focus on. At the most we might be able to gain a token capability but ultimately not more thsn thsn that as EW and SEAD/DEAD is highly niche and resource intensive. Getting a ARM and slapping it tobs jet does not create a Wild Weasal capability and does not mean we’d have a “potent” or “credible” capability we can integrate to an air campaign. Ask the Russians.
… – “All MKM avionics, cockpits are developed in mid 2000s”.
Mostly designed in the late 1990’s.we ordered the Flanker in 2002; surey you not suggesting that various stuff was designed after that.
… – “All MKM avionics, cockpits are developed in mid 2000s”.
Mostly designed in the late 1990’s.we ordered the Flanker in 2002; surey you not suggesting that various stuff was designed after that.
– “replace it as it is way better”.
How does this change the fact that the RMAF would like to retire it as soon as it can; that its been problematic and that the intention is to only spend what’s absolutely needed on it to keep it flying. You are skirting the issue. BTW whenever MRCA we eventually get will have less range and payload compared to the Flanker but the RMAF has no issues with this.
Not that we bought the Flanker specifically or largely for it’s range and payload anyway but because Dr. M wanted to show his independence from the West and wanted a Malaysian sent to space. And because the Russians had nothing else to offer apart from the Fulcrum which we didn’t want. …
– ” Talios pod, and other avionics upgrade can be done to the MKM, and is in the 12Skn upgrade request.”
So you keep saying and thanks for the customry links but make the distinction between what can happen on paper, what you’d like to happen and what will realistically happen. Again : unless there’s really a need we won’t spend on it; using the cash on something else is seen as a way better long term investment
“And as the German has attested it’s lot cheaper to just buy a growler then their current plan of turning eurofigter into one”
The Saab Arexis EA suite costs about usd27.7 mil per plane (EUR384 for 15)
https://euro-sd.com/2024/07/articles/39255/european-combat-aircraft-sitrep-2
How much again if you want to buy the Growler? usd125 million (that is if you are already an existing growler user)
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-ea-18g-growler-aircraft-and-related-defense-services
If adding Saab Arexis to MKM is not financially sound, what is a cheaper option to get an airborne EA attack capability for TUDM similar to the Growlers or Eurofighter EK?
malaysian order is in 2003
2x MKM prototypes flown in 2006 (converted from 3rd & 4th prototype of MKI), fitted with thales & saab avitronics avionics systems. Thales MFD, HUD, targeting pod based on those fitted on the Rafale.
1st delivery of production aircraft end of 2007.
” what you’d like to happen and what will realistically happen ”
So far quite a few things that what i like to happen is actually the thing that will realistically happen. Those same things that you always tell me off.
… – “The Saab Arexis EA suite costs about usd27.7 mil per plane”
Not expensive if you take into account it might make the difference between a jet being destroyed or not. For the RMAF which has to make every dollar count and which has no plans for a comprehensive upgrade for the fleet; very expensive.
… – ” what is a cheaper option to get an airborne EA attack capability for TUDM similar to the Growlers or Eurofighter EK?”
I don’t see either one as an option or substitute for Araxis which is a self defence suite.
… – “Thales MFD, HUD, targeting pod based on those fitted on the Rafale.”
Thanks for the update but most of the stuff that went ob the MKMs were designed before the MKMs were ordered.
… – “So far quite a few things that what i like to happen is actually the thing that will realistically happen”
Really now. Pat on the back. Like oilers, RoRos as a substitute for MPSSs, Gerak Khas expending without conprising in quality, the RMN being able to add 2 subs without facing manpower and other issues, how the RMN supposedly wants LMSs mainly for EEZ enforcement, the army supposedly wanting more towed guns, etc , etc. What about the stuff which doesn’t happen? BTW it’s not “telling off” but discussing and giving reasons why.
In case you want to rant about the LCA, during that period the requirement was for a MRCA not for a LCA. The requirement for the LCA only came after the MRCA programme was scrapped.
” Araxis which is a self defence suite ”
the Araxis installed on the Eurofighter is a full electronic attack escort jamming system, which is why it costs USD27.7 mil per plane.
There is 2 parts of the Araxis
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHkUM7kacAAp_Ru.jpg
1) is the internally mounted self-defence suite (more like the SAP-518)
2) with the escort jamming pods (more like the growler)
The internally mounted self protection suite only probably costs less than USD5.5 mil. That is the cost for a package of upgrade of PS-05 radar, RM12 engine and adding the Arexis EW suite. This is an assumption of only 60 of the 94 Gripen C/D in service will be upgraded (SwAF plan for a fleet of 60 C/D and 60 E)
https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/defence/saab-contracted-to-upgrade-gripen-cd
You forget to check «I’m not a spaThe The question is what’s fitted to the MKM fleet which is no longer inoperable or will be inoperable soon due to no longer being supportable or simply being unable to function due to age.
The common spares are available from HAL but that’s assuming HAL has a surplus and there’s also the fact that HAL is not licensed to export anything. The China option is there [we have sourced from them] but if one wants to be picky; Chinese spares are not authorised by the OEM; fine until or unless something goes wrong. We know the Thales HUDs and MFDs are being replaced with Indian ones.
Then there’s the question of how much life the Russian ordnance has left. Unlikely we’ll send them to Russia under the current political climate; irrespective of the fact that we’re non aligned and are a BRICs partner.
With the way how we keep crashing choppers left right & center, perhaps going lease (even if costlier later) would be more prudent. At least we wont be losing a national asset that took so hard to buy and the insurance will cover for any losses.
A question is, if we ostensibly cannot arm these leases (not even door guns?), can we retrofit other items like FLIR turret, winch & stretchers, those gears where SOF team can slide down?
I was told no guns, but things which are standard for an AW149 should be ok.
Azlan “BTW whenever MRCA we eventually get will have less range and payload compared to the Flanker but the RMAF has no issues with this.”
Not if we get a GCAP as our MRCA.
@Hulubalang “The Saab Arexis EA suite costs about usd27.7 mil per plane (EUR384 for 15)”
If that were the case then the hunter class won’t cost 300% more then the brits ships. Nor the FA50 block 20 would cost 200% more won’t it?
“If adding Saab Arexis to MKM is not financially sound, what is a cheaper option to get an airborne EA attack capability for TUDM similar to the Growlers or Eurofighter EK?”
Who said anything about we have to be able to do everything by our own lonely self? The idea that a small technologically incompetent with huge industrial, financially and manpower restraint going all alone to fight a superpowers is an excercise in stupidity. As said before, a small incompetent state can only goes toe to toe with a superpowers if they borrowed the financial, industrial, technological power of another superpowers
Zaft – “Not if we get a GCAP as our MRCA”
I don’t even know whst “GCAL” is but thing like suitability, level of maintenance, long term growth, etc, a are the considerations, not long range and payload. We also did not get the Flanker for it’s long range and payload but because it was politically expedient.
The Flanker is a good plane but it was not suited for us and we’d be better off having not bought it; given the issues we had/still have with it. Water under the bridge but it is what it is.
GCAP is the other name for the UK RAF future fighter, previously known as Tempest.
No doubt at some point it will be offered to us and we won’t be able to afford it.
They offered for MY to be the partner for the Tempest project when Tun returned as PM in 2018. He of course said no. They have no need for us now as Japan and Italy have become partner nations. If its ready for export in 2010-15 period when we are looking for new fighters perhaps they will offer them to us. That said the current version of the Tempest is said to be bigger than the F-15s and likely more expensive.
Supposedly the current plans for the tempest is more toward a fighter bomber type like the proposed FB22.
And if the hornets deal comes true, we would only be looking at MRCA in 10-20 years time and we won’t be buying more than 40 airframes for just 2 squadrons. So it’s a wee bit to early to come to the conclusions that we would never be able to afford it. It depends entirely if we managed to escape the middle income traps or not. Obviously RSAF would probably bought it to replace their F15 if the NGAD is unavailable or non existent.
Zaft – “Supposedly the current plans for the tempest is more toward a fighter bomber”
It will be much more networked, will incorporate AI, will be integrated with the use of unmanned platforms, will probably be the last manned platform for Britain and will be multi-roled.
Zaft – “And if the hornets deal comes true, we would only be looking at MRCA in 10-20 years time and we won’t be buying more”
You saw fit to point out that the RMN has a plan to get another sub in X years [obvious to anyone with even a passing interest] but seem unaware that the plan is not get MRCAs in “10-20 years time”. Certainly not “20” years as the Hornets can only reasonably be operated for another decade or so. The idea is get the Kuwaiti Hornets and then in some years get the MRCA requirement moving.
Zaft – ” So it’s a wee bit to early to come to the conclusions that we would never be able to afford”
If you’ve been observing things for a while, you’d realise that the way we do certain things can be predicted with accuracy.
Zaft – “It depends entirely if we managed to escape the middle income traps or not”
So you keep saying but it’s not as simplistic as that. Granted Malaysia is not Qatar or Belgium but it’s the MAF which is stretched resource wise, not the country per see.
Zaft:
“And if the hornets deal comes true, we would only be looking at MRCA in 10-20 years time and we won’t be buying more”
The hornet including the ex kuwaiti should be planned for only 10 years. Thus, ideally the new MRCA should be bought in 5 years ahead (2030) and all delivered in 2035 which is the time the hornet and MKM fading away.
” So it’s a wee bit to early to come to the conclusions that we would never be able to afford”
Maybe or maybe not.