View Comments (97)

• Would have been worth a visit if it wasnt so close to CNY and if it had a B52 for access visitation.

• This quote from a Su-30MKM pilot in Singapore is revealing - “At some point in the future, there may be next to none at all left flying, according to the plane’s pilot, who asked to remain unnamed for security reasons”. To start with the RMAF was never really enamoured with it despite the long range; large carrying capacity; TVCs and other things which on paper is impressive and mesmerises many.

  It never performed as fully expected; is maintenance intensive; was more expensive to fly and has low serviceability compared to the Hornet and has a RCS as large as a barn door. As such any suggestions as to how we can upgrade the Su-30s is delusional; not in line with reality as the RMAF will only spend what is needed to keep it operational and to replace parts/components which need replacing. Nothing more. The question is how long more can we fly it? 2 years ago ATSC said it had 2 years worth of spares. We can’t buy from the Russians [assuming they can fulfil the order in the first place] and HAL can’t supply everything we need. China? It too can’t supply all we need. The days of the type in RMAF service really seems numbered.

  As a whole not only the Su-30 but the reputation of other Russian kit has taken a huge dent as a result of the Ukrainian war. If we had remembered our history however the fact that the VVS underperformed is hardly surprising given that the traditional role of the Russian/Soviet Air Force is to support the ground campaign; not wage a strategic air campaign the way Western air arms do. It became apparent that the Russians were unaccustomed to flying in large packages; lacked realistic training and even experienced crews. Despite all the assumptions about Russian Air Force EW capabilities and the long range KH-31 [which mesmerises some] it could not perform SEAD/ DEAD the way the West does. Deficiencies in SEAD/DEAD led to the use of ballistic missiles and other things to compensate. If the VKS underperformed against the Ukrainians; Western air forces would wipe the floor with the VKS.

  • Yup, the old man really screwed up MAF and the nation....thats why a few years back, I wrote that we should retire the Sukhois as soon as possible.

• And to think that he only agreed to a token buy of 8 Hornets at the last minute. The main reason we got the Fulcrums was because it was cheap [no support package], barter trade and to show the West how non aligned or independent he was. On top of that the Fulcrum desk was hoped to be the start of more good things with the Russian Federation.

  The irony is that the Hornets outlasted the Fulcrums and as things stand might even outlast the Flankers. To me; buying something from a country whose air force can’t help with a combat syllabus because it doesn’t operate the variant is ludicrous. If only NASA had been able to send a Malaysian to space; perhaps we’d be talking about Super Hornet upgrades now.

  • The decision on the Sukhois was made as the US was about to embark in the invasion of Iraq, so that was another feather in his cap, or so what he believed. While it is agreeable to oppose the US invasion of Iraq, doing it that way was a disaster to MAF really.

• Looks like I will have to personally ask the MKM pilot myself then.

  Anyway, issues with the SU-30SM in Ukraine is
  - not much issues with SEAD/DEAD, most air defence missiles is around major towns, not in the frontline. The issue is how to do SEAD/DEAD on things like MANPADs?
  - The Su-30SM does not have potent precision or stand-off weapons. RuAF does not have in large quantities something like PAVEWAY, JDAM, JDAM-ER, SDB. The SU-30SM does not even go to war with a targeting pod (which SU-30MKM has with the damocles). They are mostly dropping dumb bombs or randomly lobbing unguided rockets, usually flying above ukrainian MANPAD crews.
  - The SU-30SM does not have something like the storm shadow that ukranians have. No stand-off weapons = more likely to be shot down.

  As for SU-30MKM
  We employ western tactics. The most glaring deficiency of the MKM is its weapons. Kh-31 is a good supersonic anti-ship and anti-radar missile. But that is basically it. The MKM has the targeting part sorted (although it can be upgraded/replaced by better pod), but we need good precision bombs and stand-off weapons to drop from the MKM.

  That would be the main reason why TUDM embarked on designing pylons that could carry PAVEWAYS. To be clear from any issues with USA, we should buy ITAR-free precision bombs from Turkiye for example, that could be dropped from all TUDM fighter jets.
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnY2UT8XgAAcxpi.jpg

  Next would be stand-off precision missiles of hundreds of km range. Things such as the Storm Shadow or Turkiye SOM-J. I would tend to go for the Storm Shadow if we have the budget say in 2030, getting some from UK stocks as they at that time would have created the Storm Shadow replacement already. It is already tested in SU-24, that means it should not be a problem hanging them from the MKM too.
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxVQ973XwAAUkRx.jpg

  SU-30MKM 10 year overhaul should have been completed by now, so the next overhaul window would be in 2034. The main bottleneck in the next overhaul is the need to totally replace the AL-31FP engines as they would have run out of hours (2000 hours life limit). If we cannot get/unwilling to pay for new engines, then it is the end of the story for the MKM, just like what happened to the MiG-29N. But if we are willing to pay for new engines, then the new Al-41F1S engine with greater thrust, lower fuel consumption and a longer 1500 hour overhaul interval (which means the next overhaul is at 15 years time). This would probably be the last overhaul the MKM will get, and that will be good to go up to 2050.

  As for the effectiveness of the Flanker in Ukraine. When a standoff weapon is finally available for the flanker (250 UMPK), then the Flanker made an impact on the battlefield
  https://www.airspace-review.com/2024/02/23/kunci-kemenangan-rusia-di-avdiivka-jet-su-34-su-35-jatuhkan-250-bom-berpemandu-umpk-dalam-72-jam/

  On the Hornets, USA would not have approved Hornet offer if not for the Russian Fulcrum offer
  https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/26/opinion/IHT-us-f18-gains-on-mig-for-malay-deal.html

• "we should retire the Sukhois as soon as possible."
  With the current context I wonder if that is even possible for the now. Perhaps we can really consider the possibility if we managed to get those Kuwaiti Hornets to bolster our legacy Hornet fleet as 7 units to cover both East & West Msia is really not enough.

  Like it or not, for the now until we start getting MRCAs in 2030-2035 we will have to keep the MKM flying at the frontline.

  Good thing is Russia might also be doing so as they arent likely to afford enough PAKFA to replace their various Sukhoi fleets, so spares & continuing upgrades remains open to us. Baring which my vehemence towards using Russki stuff is more political(MH17) than technical.

• As long as we fear at being sanctioned by the US, we might as well sell off the flankers ASAP. We have no idea how long the Ukraine War will last or when another war with China will erupt.

  Strategically impaired already.

• No, inherent issues with the Su-30 and inadequacies with Russian SEAD/DEAD are 2 different things and nobody conflated it. The VKS simply does not perform SEAD/DEAD in an integrated manner manner the way the West does and despite fanboys/ trolls salivating over the long range of the Kh-31 it did not perform as advertised.

  As for precision munitions you missed the key part where Russia simply does not have the recce/ strike complex to detect, fix and hit targets deep in the operational depth and in time sensitive situations. A shortage of precision guided munitions is only part of the problem. As has been pointed out to you long range is not a panacea if you don’t have the key enablers.
  Even if Russia had something like Storm Shadow it would not be able to achieve the same results as the Ukrainians due to a lack of a strike/recce capability. The Ukrainians - whether with MLRSs or other things - have superior C3 and ISR and benefit from American satellites and intel.

  As for what we can do on paper the list is endless and you can go over it until blue in the face but pointless because as it stands the reality is that there is no such intention for any comprehensive upgrade. As it stands we attach far more value and confidence in the Hornet which we intend to fly until it’s no longer possible but we even then can’t allocate cash for a AESA and other things.

  Damocles. Have no idea what your definition of “sorted out” is but as pointed out to you years ago Damocles is not a full fledged navigation/ targeting pod and falls short when compared to other pods; which is why in French service it was seen as an interim solution.

  An advantage the Su-30/35 has is superior radar and a semi active AAM with longer legs but in the overall scheme of things does not make a difference. The VKS despite its numerical and qualitative advantage has failed to achieve air superiority and is largely due to the fact that it suffer from various inherent issues as well as the lack of institutionalised knowledge of conducting a strategic air campaign which neither Russia or the Soviet Union ever did.

  Also, we “employ Western tactics” but so what? Do we have the institutionalised tertiary skills Western air arms do? Do we fly the same number of hours and have the key enablers? If we had Storm Shadow which you’re enamoured off could we use it to its full potential?

  Yes do personally talk to the pilot. Let’s see if he opens up to you and if he can provides narrative in line with your preference. BTW even before the article it was open knowledge that we do not intend on spending more than we need to to keep the MKM flying until it can be replaced and that despite public perceptions about how sophisticated it is and how long the range is, how agile it is due to the TVC, etc, how many missiles it can carry, etc, we were never really happy with it. Maintenance intensive; low serviceability rate; systems which never performed as intended; after sales which left a lot to be desired; etc. Will also mention again what I did before : ask any pilot which he’d rather fly and the answer would be the Hornet. Not necessarily because the Hornet is a superior plane but for a combination of reasons.

  I like the Su-30 but I’m not going to place it on a pedestal.

• " I like the Su-30 but I’m not going to place it on a pedestal "

  Nobody is placing the MKM on a pedestal.

  It is what we currently have. There is no way we are going to get an alternative to what the MKM can do, having the range to hit any ships in malaysian EEZ in South China Sea from its base in Gong Kedak (yeah anyone can dream of F-15EX, but is it realistic??). So we need to look at what options that we have with that aircraft. And I am just listing out what are the deficiencies of the platform and what options we can possibly do with the MKM to improve it with the minimum cost possible.

  Yes currently pilots will prefer the hornets, but why exactly? What can be improved? This is where I am coming from.

  Also talking specifically about the MKM does not mean other things like AEW, MRCA etc is not needed.

• ... - ''Nobody is placing the MKM on a pedestal.''

  Over the years I got the distinct impression you were; given your constant praise of it whilst omitting its limitations. The constant referrals to its range, effective EW, long range weapons, ect.

  ... - '' but why exactly?''

  After thousands of words you have to asK? The Hornet is more reliable; performs as advertised; is less resource intensive; has far better and more reliable product support; has a better cockpit layout, has systems/components with a longer TBO and MTBF, etc,

  ... - ''It is what we currently have. ''

  Yes and the intention is to bin it as soon as we can and to only spend what's absolutely needed to keep it flying until it can be binned. So no comprehensive upgrade; no Storm Shadow, etc.

  ... - ''What can be improved? This is where I am coming from.''

  Does where ''you're coming from'' acknowledge that certain things can't be improved? That certain things are inherent and are in line with Russian/Soviet practice?

  ... - ''Also talking specifically about the MKM does not mean other things like AEW, MRCA etc is not needed.''

  So? Anyone say otherwise? Need a reminder that I've long harped that we're in the ''systems'' not ''platform'' centric age and without a AEW and data link one can't exploit what it has to its full potential?

  ... - ''here is no way we are going to get an alternative to what the MKM can do, having the range to hit any ships in malaysian EEZ in South China Sea from its base in Gong Kedak ''

  Is it a major limitation if we don't have an asset which does not have the ''the range to hit any ships in malaysian EEZ in South China Sea from its base in Gong Kedak''? Need a reminder that the large fuel tanks come with a penalty and that depending on the sortie the fuel tanks might not even be full?

• …. - “On the Hornets, USA would not have approved Hornet offer if not for the Russian Fulcrum offer”

  We didn’t even make a request for it in the very first place …

  The expectation is that we’d go for F-16s and that’s what we were offered and cleared to get.