KUALA LUMPUR: It appears that the Eurofighter Typhoon is simply out of our reach, based on the story below. One could also surmised the same for the Dassault Rafale also.
Both are heavily involved in the UN-mandated Libya No Fly Zone. Read Here
I know I had probably said a hundred of times already that we cant afford a new MRCA squadron or more at the moment, not unless our defence budget goes north (with the necessary reforms of course) but the latest official numbers simply confirmed it.
As I had said before for the price of the Typhoon (now listed by the UK PAC at RM548 million per plane) we will do much better, if we really went the the MRCA route to purchase the F-35 (which cost around RM400 million anyway).
Yes, the Super Bug is officially listed at USD57 million at the US Navy website but thats for the bare chassis alone, not with Government Furnished Equipment, such as engines, pylons and black boxes. It will probably cost at least RM300 million per per plane with all the stuff, minus the ordnance.
The Gripen NG, reportedly is the cheapest but then again with the low numbers flying we probably end up paying a ton in the long run.
Excerpts from the UK Parliament PAC report. The report is wonderful example how a national security issue can be made public without any fuss for breaching state secrets!
“It would seem that the third phase of this contract, for the last 16 aircraft, was driven by contractual obligations or by operational need. Overall, it is costing the Department £20.2 billion, £3.5 billion more than it first expected, to buy a third fewer aircraft. This is equivalent to the purchase cost of each aircraft rising by 75%, from £72 million to £126 million.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
The SH la the choice, plus i doubt they will buy more than 18. USd2 billion for 18 SH (flyaway with arm with no spare) and another USd1 billion for 3-4 E2C.
or worse additional 18 SU30 MKM at around USd1 billion
Every thing is expensive if we dont buy now,we will regret later,these items are not meant to be purchase as n when,and delivered when it is needed,jadi mahal pun kta kena sedia payong sebelum hujan…Singaland is waiting for any lapse in security aja in MelayuLand…
Reply
Yes I know we cannot simply buy defence equipment when we needed it but that also does not give the excuse simply to rush out and buy things just like a kid in the candy store..
Or nothing. 5% equipment.
We could get some utility choppers instead and get some UAVs. I propose the Heron II with Made in Jordan stickers.
kesilapan besar org kta ni,they want to do things all in one go they call it wholistic.try to learn from singaland even kta punya defence expenditure is besar,they plan n buy war aset in stages,in the 80,s singapore tak de credible navy or airforce,they rely on US navy n airforce…
I don’t get it why everyone in malaysia is so excited about the mrca…. agreed with Kamal, buy additional MKMs is the best solution if they are really desperate to do so…. anyway I don’t support buying additional mrca at the moment. It’s no use. Better buy UAV/Maritime Patrol Aircraft or more choppers for our air force. Those are more important then the mrca.
Reply
They make good displays at air shows….That’s why you have Top Gun and the Last Starfighter. Even the Millennium Falcon need to mix it up with Tie fighter to make an impact.
Red Dot,
Well this is malaysia. We only build pedestrian bridges after someone being ran over, we only put more cops on the street after someone fell victims to snatch thieves.
Notice the word “after”? This is the mentality of our government and her citizens. You dont have to look far, even some generals in this forum would scorn at the idea that we should add some steels in the armoury. And that is why we found ourselves in the mess that we are today. Penny wise but pound foolish.
Syameer, out of curiosity why do you suggest additional MKM’s, it is solely because it is cheaper than a Super Hornet or for commonality? The RMAF’s main choice then, in 2002 as it is now, is the Super Hornet. And there are valid reasons for this.
The mess we are in today has everything to do with ‘national interest’ and the process of bestowing favour in a distributed manner. So we end up with a little of this, a little of that and a lot of headaches to try and sustain and maintain it all. The ‘one bite’ reality means that there are rarely any repeat buys and that everyone wants to make a fortune on each deal.
Mark ups are never 10 or even 20%.
The more we spend on toys, the happier the Sings are since it concentrates that much more resource into a laughably small force. Given our inability (maybe in Melayuland they are good at it) to sustain even simple systems like a rifle, throwing money away on this stuff just makes the chaps in Bukit Merah smile.
Eternally driven by insecurity in pee pee size.
Penny wise? You must be talking of Melayuland. In Malaysia, we are just penny foolish and pound foolish, that is when we are not giving money away for ‘national interest’.
Fortunately, in Malaysia, we realize that a Singaporean invasion would only mean more business and perhaps a slight improvement in the Corruption Index without the need for defenestration.
Symmetry may work for Melayuland where the defense budget is many times what Malaysia can afford and where the level of leakage is low. Malaysia is much better served by considering the innate benefits that we possess, namely manpower and space. Singapore has neither the means nor the desire to occupy even half of Johor militarily. It can achieve the same in a de facto manner by investing in it.
Thus symmetry vis a vis Singapore serves no purpose, other than perhaps a little puerile shiok sendiri. It is naturally the refuge of the lazy and/or simple minded to compare like.
As others have said, any procurement must be part of a long-term plan. Does the Ministry of Defence have a long-term plan?
Another thought to consider, if Singapore is the most likely adversary that Malaysia will face in the future (which I do not believe it is), why buy MRCA aircraft? Why not buy enough artillery, incl more Astros systems, to saturate every square inch of Singapore’s defences, and advanced Air Defence systems to protect the artillery?
Reply
Its more likely China (but of course no one dares to say it loud) thats the reasons for the MRCA and SGPV/LCS and the submarines of course….
Since we are now into comparing prices, let’s have a look at previous buys and plans. There’s no surprise that we can’t afford the Rafale and Typhoon. The RTAF’s selection of Gripen IMO killed whatever chances it had of flying in RMAF colours.
If the government hadn’t ordered the MKM [900 million USD] in 2002, the RMAF would have received 18 F/A-18F Block 1s, 3 spare F414-GE-400 engines, AN/ALR-67[V] 3 dispensers, 12 ALQ—214 [V] 2 ECM pods, 72 LAU-127B/A launchers, support and test equipment and a logistics and support package for 1.5 billion USD. The Pentagon obtained U.S. congressional approval about a year prior. No details were ever released of the weapons package and the 8 D’s would have been traded in [ordered for 600 million USD].
There were plans to buy the Tigershark and upgrade Gong Kedak under PERISTA in 83. In 82 the government came close to placing a 260 million USD order for 16 F-5E’s but the defence budget was slashed by 13%.
This would sound like a stupid idea to some but bear with me…
Currrently we aleady have the hi end fighters (the brand new MKM’s) and the F/A-18’s still have lots of life yet in them.
Why not we get some low end fighers with the numbers to replace the F-5E’s, hawks and (partly) the Mig’s. I’m thinking of the JF-17, even the current spec the aircraft is better than early block F-16s that our neighbours use. And to please the “build it in malaysia” guys, it can be assembled, and parts built in Malaysia. Something like 48aircraft to equip 4 squadrons would cost a lot less than 1billion USD. And the aircraft can be equipped with western and all the latest chinese BVR missile and GPS glide bombs. F/A-18’s can be replaced later when all the 5th gen planes mature. In the meantime maybe TUDM can add a few 2ndhand airframes to add to the measly 8 aircraft it now own…
Thats why buy lah second hand. Just look at the UK their tornado forces are being retired but still upgradeable as what the Germans and Italians are doing. Then equip all our OPV with all the armaments that were fited for but not with. No need to build new ships.Originally the navy had planned to purchase frigates but during those time to get Cabinet approval they had to downgarde and after completion get the budget to upgarde.So do upgrade the OPV now . This will already give us a credible force. China is an issue and we need attack planes to attack any attempts to attack us. So numbers play apart in the calculations.How to get the num bers-buy cheap-read as second hand.I am sure the Brits are happy to sell the tornados to us at scarp value. Then buy some cheap jey prop planes like the Pucara for anti piracy actions in the Phillipine sea and also northern region of Malaysia.No money ? then use a poor mans solution. Maybe even buy the chinese J10?
Repkly
Instead of the Tornados its better for us to buy the Typhoons that the Brits are retiring soon (though I still dont agree with the procurement in the first place).But the problem is that these are Tranche 1 Typhoons optimised for Air-to-Air roles only (apparently they need expensive modifications to be turned into Tranche 3) so it does not meet MRCA role as specified by the air force. It is for these reason the Brits are trying to sell them to the Indonesia….
Ym Lee,
When the rest of the world are retiring their Tornados, for the RMAF to be the sole operator of the type would be less than ideal. Not only will the operating costs be high, as despite the upgrades, the Tornados are still essentially a 1980’s aircraft and age is a factor, they are maintanance intensive. The RAF retired it’s F3s not only because they where going to be replaced by the Typhoon but because they were expensive to support. We need to but in mind that though retired or surplus stuff may be cheap to buy, this in many cases will be outweighted by their operating costs and problems in obtaining support in the long run. Even if we fully fit out the Kedah class with missiles, the RMN is still desperately short of hulls for routine patrolling of our waters. Just look at the numbers of patrol assets it has, and look at it’s operational responsibilities.
rather than buy 2nd hand or JF-17. I rather they buy the Korean F/A-50 that the Koreans are developing to replace T-37/F-5/F-4.
Instead of getting the haram Elta radar like the koreans, just stick to the APG-67 as so that the anti-zionist camp done get a heart attack.
The F/A-50 should be better that the F-20 Tigershark in all aspects and they even have the same engine as the Hornet.
Reply
The requirement is for an MRCA, and not a LIFT on steroids…
Well Azlan, although I would love to see the RMAF to operate the SH along with the MKM, but since we already operate the MKM, so better just continue with one type of aircraft only at the moment for some very obvious reason. We have to focus on more beneficial project for the AF such as the chopper program.
heerwanz
i do agree wholistically what u wrote,tapi we can change our ways by copying our neighbour success or worst still import frustrated singaland bumiputra,cos they learn but unable to apply,frustrated but unable to vent out…these are the qualities that is needed to steer n propel semangat juang n perang to out do singaland itself…
Syameer, agreed on what you said about concentrating on ”beneficial” projects like the additional Cougars. But jut a few months ago you were advocating buying S-300’s from Russia! Unless a political decision is made again and the RMAF is forced again to get something it doesn’t want, more MKM’s are very unlikely. Yes, they are cheaper to buy but they are more costly to operate per flight hour and to mantain. With the SH, no integration costs are required.
Anon, the F/50 should be better than the F-20. There’s a 20 year gap between the 2 in terms of technology! The F-20 was aimed at F-5 operators who wanted an improve capability but couldn’t afford the F-16. In light of what happened to the programme, it’a a good thing we didn’t buy any.
Every time the subject of huge defense expenditure is raised, there is always comparison made with the Sings. I mean who cares what they have in their arsenal let just concentrate on what we actually need in ours. If we bought 4 MPAs and they added 8 more then what is wrong with that? We fulfill our needs more or less and the Sings only get headaches on where to park their birds. There is no need for symmetry. It doesn’t necessarily win the war. If that alone count, americans would have laugh all the way back to capitol hill with osama’s head long time ago. But that did not happen. That doesnt mean we can just sit back, comfortable with the thought “if we dont spend, neither do they” kind of thing. Just buy what we need as there’s another neighbour we should be worry about.
To silence the critics, perhaps we should just award the next defense contracts to YTL Defence or Maxis Heavy Engineering. The price quoted wont be too high and their profit margin wont be too much. We can keep the defense budget at all time low. Maybe we can get 4 subs for the price we are paying for the 2 scorpenes. After all, the melayus are only good at being security guards so someone smarter have to figure out what tools they have to carry to work. I am sure there wont be too much noise judging by the token resistance to astro price hike not too long ago.
still can’t understand the logic of not wanting to buy an aircraft type because it has been bought by a neighbour. It is because we now want the SH becos…it’s the most unpopular aircraft and not in the arsenal of the neighbours? And we do not want to buy more of the SU-30 becos after we bought them, the Indon, China and Vietnam have also bought them? Such silliness will only box us up in limiting our choices. The Thais, Indon, Sing etc do not have such silly notion, they just buy what fits them.
Just becos the gripen is now in Thai colors, we cannot buy, duh!!
Reply
Its based on historical innuendos , we do not want the Vipers as it was being inducted into other air forces in Asean. So when it comes to the MRCA the same, yes, weak, silly argument comes into play. Its not the official stand of course, its mostly about the safety of having twin engines blah2.
Should consider looking into a new generation fighter. Since we are already operating Russian, why not contact Vlad Puttin to joint manufacture the T-50 with Russia and India, get the benefit of both stealth technology and economy. After all the life span of the jet is said to be 30 to 35 years. The rest will be obsolete. Then the ‘T’ or trio is for all the good reasons.
kelakar la lu bro, F/A 50 is alift on steroid hahahhah. Anyway i am with Mr.T on this, more choppers and/or UAV. IMHO there is no need for additional MRCA, well not till 2020 anyway.
My argument is this:-
1) Our 18 Su 30 MKm and 8 Hornet as the main thrust, supported with 10 Mig 29N,14 hawk 200 and about 10 F5E. another 6 Mig 29N on reserve.
Thats 66 combat aircraft, almost similar number and technology with the Indon and Thai and far superior than Philipines and brunei. Forget Sg coz highly unlikely we gonna have armed conflict with them. 50% of our trade with them. Are we crazy enough to kill our source of income?
But chopper wise, Thai got almost 300+ albeit old huey mostly while indon got about 60 to 80. We are in the range of 30+ plus only. sabah sarawak alone would require at least 20+ chopper.
Reply
Was it the PAK 50 or the Korean A/T-50? If it was the Korean birds, its a LIFT on steroids. The Fulcrums that were retired, were retired and not on reserve.
I do wonder when crunch time hits, whether our ability to fight a logistically demanding air war is assured. Regardless of whatever MRCA is deployed, I’m far more concerned about operational readiness of the whole fleet as opposed to who damn well have what. And regardless of threat direction, whether it is far more suitable to win peace without fighting (or costly on-the-spur procurement).
Reply
Its always cheaper not to fight any wars, even the so-called brush wars. The human cost alone are immeasurable. As in any type of deterrent, mass is of great importance. Even if we have 100 fighters, one must assumed that half of them will be down either for maintenance or other reasons. Further more one must think of the enemy! No plan survives contact with the enemy!
At present I believe, and I could be totally wrong, we will be able to sustain flight ops for one week at the most, without aid. It will be the same even if we make the procurement of the new MRCA squadron. Our present defence budget is designed for minimum deterrence, hence the result if the SHTF!
Thats why I say we must make best use of what we have-optimise and utilise in full all our capabilities. Whats the use of using OPV for just patrolling to catch ikan bilis? Might as well arm them well and give them a sting. Can we buy better bombs and missiles to make the most of the fighters that we have-like the latest targeting and recce pods.Instead of depending on ground laser designation, get the latest targeting pods to do magic.
But then we need numbers in the MRCA and thus buying second hand is still best. The Germans and Italians are still using the Tornadoes and upgrading them with link 16 etc etc to enhance their performance.The Germans cannot be wrong as they are very very teutonic and efficient. Buy cheap planes-why not consider Jaguar-new ones manufactured by the Hindustani Aviation under license in India? Its a very capable interdiction plane.
maybe the MAF should focus more to the soldier itself. . we should make the national service like the singland and israeland..not like like ours..macam kem kepimpinan…
Reply
I have said the same thing, on various occasions. But we will also need a higher defence budget ….
National Service would take away even more manpower we do not have for a massed army we don’t need and cannot afford. Brilliant…
Our armed forces are already too large. They need to be a smaller, sharper and totally professional force with much better readiness and availability.
We cannot afford the units we have. Their training is quite inadequate because we cannot afford to do it properly. The operational budget is largely blown on non-mission oriented expenditure like housing etc. and the recent slashing of the Bajet Ops (ha..you tak tahu ke?) to make available money for projek baru has just made things a lot worse.
Many here can apply for position of Defense Minister as they share his penchant for not thinking things through.
Reply
When I mentioned full conscription its not meant solely for the MAF. It is meant also for police and civil defence and the whole spectrum of society. We know that the NS in Sing and Israel are not only to train soldiers but to identify and choose leaders, bureaucrats etc.
Well, after you have explained to me about the pros and cons of the system, I’ve changed my mind regarding the S-300.
herrwanz,
Well said. For some reason many Malaysians on defence blogs/forums keep harping on about Singapore despite it having a very different threat perceptions, a policy of deterence/forward defence, etc. They keep saying we should buy this, and buy that, because Singapore has bought something. Just my opinion but the sensible thing for us to do would be on concentrating on our unique operational requirements and threats as we perceive them. And if we had to worry about possible long terms security issues with a neighbour, it would be with Indonesia.
Ym Lee, as soon as the Typhoon has fully enter service, it is the intention of Germany and Italy to fully retire their Tornados. All Tornado upgrades/improvements have been done with the aim of keeping them in service until they can be fully replaced by the Typhoon. The Luftwaffe’s ECR is still operated because there is no other plane that can perform the specialised role.
If we do buy the SH it will be interesting to see what targeting pod we buy as the Litening is a no go, though there were plans for it to be made by Zeiss with a ”Made in Germany” tag rather than a ”Made in Isreal” one. The Nitehawk was the best money could buy when we bought it in 93 for the Hornets but it is now inferior to performance to the Sniper, Pantera and Litening. Not sure about the Damocles which 11SQ has but interestingly enough the MKM’s were integrated with it way before the Rafale.
Reply
I am not sure they will give us the source codes to integrate the Damocles pod on the SH
No if we do buy SH’s the pod will most probably be ATFLIR.
Reply
If we had gone ahead with the Upgrade 25 programme back in 2007, our Hornets would have been equipped with ATFLIR already….
Marhalim, no if we do buy Super Hornets the pod will most probably be ATFLIR. I’m not sure if the USN uses any other pod for it’s Super Hornets.
Does anyone here any any info on F-5 deliveries? Eagle perhaps? Can anyone confirm that in addition to 14 F-E’s delivered to Butterworth by USAF Galaxy’s in 1975, an additional F-E arrived in 81 [to replace one lost in 1979] and 2 more in 1985? There is a photo of an F-5E at Prestwick in 1985.
I disagree with the ‘scholar’/’farmer’ system used in Singapore. It is very inflexible and ultimately a lot of excellent people are left behind because they are not book smart and kiss ass. NS is a necessary evil for them due to their unique situation.
Singapore’s NS system is deeply flawed IMO and the product of an effectively autocratic environment (which is improving but MOD is last to liberalize) that shares as much with North Korea as it does with Israel.
NS should not be used as a nation building exercise. The failure in national cohesion cannot be fixed by NS. The problem lies at the core of our race-based politics.
Reply
I am not saying we should follow exactly the Singapore way and my suggestion is no way an idea on how to fix race relations. But we must find a way to get the most suitable people no matter from what race, to join the armed forces.
We cannot rely on chance that those who do volunteer have the right stuff. We cannot simply look at academic results to find them, as these people must show that they can work with people and be part of the system and also leaders.
At the moment, the only way to vet all of these potential fighter jocks and ace helo and the crack shot commando is through a NS type of programme. As you said what we need is a small highly trained force. We cannot rely on luck to get that force, we must look and unearth them.
pardon me, our armed forces is one of the smallest in south east asia, even smaller than singapore..
And we still cannot afford to train them properly. Our standing force is much larger than Singapore who rely of reservist mobilization.
M….NS doesn’t show you any of that. It will always be a crap shoot. Chinese in SE Asia are generally averse to having their kids sign on in the armed forces for cultural reasons(it’s like the last thing you can do). It is exacerbated by the very real glass ceilings and the current polarized attitudes. I am unconvinced that dragooning people into the services makes them better. There are many, many excellent people in the AF that just cannot go anywhere because they are the wrong branch etc. Tapi ada plenty of kayu yang pergi Staff College…….sebab Rejimen sesuai.
Reply
I know your concern and its mine too but we need high calibre people to man things which are getting more sophisticated each day. We cannot rely on volunteers to get the best of the best. There is no motivation for our young people to join the armed forces. I am not saying by forcing them into service will motivate them but at least we can identify them and from then on we can muddle on to find solution. Its not the perfect solution, I realised. Further more its just a suggestion and not something set in stone already…
Kamal, I am talking about the PAK 50. The new stealth fighter that is being develop by the Russian and is planned to be joint manufactured with India. We buy from Russia and we train with India, so doesn’t that make sense?
And since you mentioned Sabah and Sarawak, why not recommission the fighter base in Labuan and perhaps upgrade kuching to a fighter base. The concentration now is in the peninsular but threats can be from any direction. Never mind if we put the aging jets here, at least they could be use as deterrent factors. Do not forget that the biggest part of Indonesia (Kalimantan) is just on our door step.
Reply
If its Russian and cobbled together with Indian, European and Israeli things, it will be the last thing the AF will want, although if forced, they will swallow it, kicking and screaming all the way (in the back) and Every thing is wonderful response in public……
I agree that SG is not the enemy. The larger countries up north are the ones to watch. China will be launching an aircraft carrier soon. We and SG have ties that goes a long way. On a people to people level we do not have problems. We should look at a more professional army that is streamlined, effective and operationally ready. A 3G and network centric force will serve this purpose. I am not against arms purchase but what to buy and why must be clearly thought through and not be bought for mere disply purpose. Quality and effectiveness are key!
small, well equipped and highly trained. The force that come in mind is the Royal Australian Army. Only around 50K in strength but it is something that we could hope to emulate or even improvised.
But yes, their budget is bout 3 times ours i reckon. Plus i may be wrong but due to their geographical nature, it is unlikely they will be invaded by any land forces except maybe if the american decided to make australia their 52nd state.
Again here my impression may be wrong, i tend to believe that their are more of an expeditionary force rather than a defensive force. may be it is something we should consider?
… because the logistics footprint and crew training requirement would be a nightmare.
Because the cost of the logistics footprint and crew training requirements would be a nightmare.
The UK’s RAF is a far better funded service than the TUDM. Now all their past high living has come back to bite them on their bums. Coming soon: 2 fast jet types ONLY, 2 transport types ONLY, 2 helo types ONLY.
How many are you proposing for M’sia? How many do you think we can afford?
Reply
The actual number is zero…
Because SH is an inferior platform to the MKM.
Think of a computer purchase. You can upgrade the software, you can’t do much about the processor speed or RAM once you’ve bought the thing. “Software”-wise, the Russians aren’t sitting on their hands, their keep coming out with newer stuff.
If the SH goes up against an Echo or another Flanker, it’ll be bye-bye Heimlich.
Sport cars are lust objects. Jet fighters are not. We buy them to kill another human being with. Paying more money so that our pilots can die first. Where is the logic in that?
Great point anonymous! Thats what i’ve been thinking all along… Why the heck spend equal or more money than 1 of our MKM’s to get an aircraft that is less capable then the MKM? If we really want a workhorse that can be operated relatively cheaper then the MKM, buy lots of low end jets, like the JF-17 or equivalent…
anonymous, and why exactly is the SH an inferior platform to the MKM? They are maybe factors involved in air combat and to say that x fighter is inferior to y fighter is simply false.
Reply
Australia Air Power will disagree with you although some say Dr Kopp is exaggerating a bit. The author however maintained that both the SH and JSF are inferior to the Flanker series especially the MK versions.
My self? I am of the opinion that SH more predictable maintenance issues and costs out weight its apparent weaknesses in a dog fight.
Dr. Kopp’s work has been heavily criticised in Australia and elsewhere for sensationalism and for stretching the facts a bit. Anonymous statement is simply inaccurate as we can’t make such a conclusion based solely on paper specs.
There is also the human element involved, plus a lot of other factors, like how the MKM or MKI would perform against an opponent with greater SA and a level of networking.
True, the Su-30 series is impressive but it has yet to see combat.
My point is we already have the MKM’s!!!!!!! Why add the SH’s?
We need more of the mud mover’s and “bandit scarer’s” ie workhorses for multi role use… Aircrafts that can be deployed in meaningful numbers near both Melacca Straits and the East Malaysia, while reducing the number of types by replacing the hawk, F-5E and MiG’s… So we can scramble an aircraft to anywhere in malaysian territory, to intercept unidentifed aircrafts/ships; or as per what the coalitions are doing in Afghanistan, to fly low with full afterburner over insurgents, or in our case pesky “foreign navies” encroaching and catching our fishermen in our waters to scare them away!! Just watching them with heli’s dont work. Scare them away with our fighters! Zero casualties, maximum scare effect, they run away…
Indonesia is getting the T-50, just thinking why not the JF-17?
What has Indonesia’s selection of the T-50 have to do with us?? In TNI-AU service the T-50 is meant to perform as a LIFT with a secondary attack role.
When the RMAF doesn’t want Russian what makes you think it would want Made in China? BTW, the MKM and the Super Hornets actually fall under a different category of fighters….
Of course i know that MKM and SH is under different catagory of fighters…
The problem is we don’t have the luxury of defence as the 1st priority of the country, as India for example… MRCA is to me a fighter in the same class as the indian LCA, the F/A-50 version of the T-50, YAK-130 single seat version (before you comment, yes i know it is not build yet), JF-17… you know what i mean… We need the same volume to replace the migs, hawks and F-5’s… that is 3-4 squadron’s worth of aircraft. We already have the MKM and the legacy hornets, why add another very few but expensive aircraft to the inventory?? Yes its super advanced etc etc but when the day comes, are we prepared to use it? Or it won’t make a difference to the situation (like whats happening in selat melaka…)
All around us (see UK), too expensive defence items is causing less and less items procured, and that folley really showed when they tried the no-fly zone over Libya.
If in our current situation, we don’t have the MKM, by all means go and get the SH (as that is what they wanted in the 1st place i suppose), but we already HAVE the MKM’s. Just forget about the SH, and look for aircrafts that could replace 1 to 1 the numbers of our F-5, hawk and MiG’s…
The RMAF’s fighter fleet, after a winner of the MRCA programme is selected [which will replace the F-5’s and the Fulcrums], should consist of not more than 3 fighter types – the MKM’s, Hawk’s and Hornets. The Super Hornet has an advantage as some of the parts are common with the D’s, as is the ground support equipment. If anything other than the Super Hornet is choosen that will mean that the RMAF will have another type to support. the whole idea is to resuce the number of fighter types the RMAF has to support and mantain.
It makes no sense to withdraw the Hawks as these still have plenty of hours left, with the engines having been recently overhauled. Due to high operating costs and integration issues, the RMAF is not at all keen on more MKM’s.
as most countries in the world are streamlining their fighter fleet to maximum 2, i doubt we can afford more than 1 type.
hard decision must be made, and the military people would not like it.
At most IMHO we can afford a fleet of about 36 to 40 fighters only, and should only be one design to improve operating and maintenance efficiency.
What type it should be…depends on what we can afford actually
Well, we can always sell the hawks, to 3rd countries like philippines or bangladesh maybe… The MRCA can 1st replace the f-5 and mig’s (for a total of 2 sqn’s) and later maybe for 2nd batch for the hawks… Or ask the aussies to sell some of their legacy hornets to us?
BTW after getting more PC-7MKII’s can’t the older MKI PC-7’s used to establish a CAS sqn? Maybe the 19SQN perhaps?
Reply
The MKIs were being used as ab-initio trainers when the MD3s were retired prematurely. For CAS they need an upgrade so I guess the air force will prefer to use them as trainers instead until they are retired.
No one will touch our Hawks, not when there are second-hand F16s are available.
malaysia should buy sukhoi su35 (single or double seater is an option) or mig35 ( but under development ). so su35 is the best choice. rather than buy with us firm, we only get 50 percent of the overall true technology from the purchase aircraft. but not with russia.. we can choose technology we want to use. su 35 is the most advance fighter ever built..
Reply
Yet another brochure lover…