KAI T-50 Golden Eagle for RMAF

johngage

The chief of the RMAF recently spoke of his desire to purchase the FA-18F or the SU-30MKM. There is absoutely no doubt that these are very capable and sophisticated aircraft. But there are also extremely expensive to purchase and operate. Assuming that the $900 million that we paid for the SU-30MKM is the maximum that the govt is willing to pay, then the numbers which we will be able to purchase is likely to be limited to 18 SU-30MKM ($55 million each) or 9-10 FA-18F ($95 million each).

I was wondering if there was another alternative to consider which would be cheaper and I actually thought of the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle:



http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wm ... amp;ti=0&sc=400



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle



http://www.vectorsite.net/avf16_4.html



I believe that the T-50 Golden Eagle would offer many advantages for the RMAF:



1) Price- The basic fly-away price is around $20-25 million. This means that the RMAF can purchase around 36 T-50's for the price of 18 SU-30MKM or 9-10 FA-18F's, enough for 2 squadrons of 18.

2) Maintenance- The T-50 uses the same engine (GE 404) as the FA-18D Hornet, so maintenance should not be a problem as our mechanics will not have to learn how to service a new engine, which they would if we purchased the Chinese/Pakistani J-10 series. We can also use the spare-parts which we have for our FA-18D's. Furthermore because it has one engine it also cheaper to operate than the FA-18 or the SU-30MKM.

3) Potential for upgrade- I believe it would be possible to replace its APG-67 radar with the more capable Grifo-7 radar (http://www.finmec.com/GRIFORadar.asp?pdb=GRIFORadar). Furthermore, because it is built in conjunction with Lockheed-Martin, we can also use their conformal fuel tanks, which they have fitted to the UAE F-16 Block 60 ()

to increase its range. Again, because it is an 80% scale version of the F-16, this should not be difficult for Lockheed-Martin to do.

Now, I'm aware of the limited range of the T-50 when it comes to Malaysia's large EEZ. But my idea was for the T-50 to complement NOT replace the SU-30MKM. In other words the SU-30MKM would be responsible for Malaysia's EEZ, the T-50 wpuld be responsible for defending Malaysia's airspace. So no more MiG-29's or Hawk 208's, or FA-18's, the new ORBAT would be 18 SU-30MKM in Gong Kedak, 18 SU-30MKM Labuan, and 36 T-50's to guard Kuantan and Butterworth. 4 Squadrons which with proper planning should be affordable for the RMAF.

We being good buddies with China... I dunno if can buy Taiwan...

We still need several years to recover from the spending on the Su30MKM, the A400M, the PT91M, the Astros, the Scorpene etc etc... after each spending binge you need some time to recover and absorb the impact of operating such eqpt before making plans of further purchase... but I'm no economist...

The T50 KAI is actualy an advanced trainer... so looking at how we're mostly operating soviet designed a/c wouldnt it be feasible to get the Yak130??

mentosonline

Well, if I might add...

Singapore is also considering the T-50 KAI as the new advanced trainer to help for training with the upcoming F-15s and inevitably the F-35. Well, considering that the nation that built the T-50 also like Singapore has a virtually all-American fleet of jets, one can guess it is made for them. But I read on a brochure at an old Asian Aerospace that the T-50 can also be used to train Russian-bloc jets like the Mig-35, Su-30 and later jets. I suppose configuration of the instrument panel is probably enough.

But then again, doesn't Malaysia already have the Mig-29 trainers? Why don't you get Russia to add a radar and refurbish the thing to be used as AJT?

mentosonline

And yes, it is feasible for now to get the Yak 130.

But I heard from somewhere that the RMAF leadership seems to be looking at the Superbugs for future expansion, but it appears that the politicians want something cheaper. Unless the RMAF generals get their way, or there is a sudden economic boom, we're most likely looking at the Yak 130 for AJT.

johngage

Originally posted by mat_toro at 2-7-2007 05:43 PM
We being good buddies with China... I dunno if can buy Taiwan...

We still need several years to recover from the spending on the Su30MKM, the A400M, the PT91M, the Astros, the Scorpene etc etc ...

If I am not mistaken, the Golden Eagle T-50 is actually made by Korean Aerospace Industries and Lockheed-Martin, so US and Korea, not Taiwan. I am actually talking of buying the T-50 with the funds for the next Malaysia Plan or the next one, in other words with the money meant for the Super Hornets. The idea being the SU-30MKM would be the 'Hi' and the T-50 would be the 'Low' end of the RMAF mix. If we go for the SU-30MKM & the Super Hornet, both are more capable than the T-50, but I seriously doubt that we will be able to buy them in any large quantity (the maximum would be 18). If we disband the Hawk 208's, MiG-29's, F-5E's and FA-18D's, I am sure that enough pilots can be found for 36 T-50's (2 squadrons), and perhaps one more squadron of 18 SU-30MKM's. I think that we have to face reality, that with the limited funds at our disposal, we would be hard pressed to purchase the SU-30MKM/FA-18F's in any large quantity. So the SU-30MKM will provide the 'muscle' for the RMAF and the T-50's will provide the 'quantity' that we need. The SU-30MKM using its large range for our extensive EEZ, Sabah/Sarawak, the T-50's protecting our airbases on Peninsular Malaysia, their limited range being perfect for fighters whose only role would be to protect our airspace/airbases.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/5616.jpg

[ Last edited by  johngage at 3-7-2007 05:29 AM ]

alien7749

T-50 is a unkown identity a/c for me. It is too advanced and powerful to be a trainer. Operating cost as a trainer is far superior than other LIFTs such as Hawk srs100, Yak-130, etc. And yet, it's too light to be a good fighter. For sure it can't pit against other real fighter such as F-16.

johngage

Originally posted by alien7749 at 3-7-2007 10:59 AM
T-50 is a unkown identity a/c for me. It is too advanced and powerful to be a trainer. Operating cost as a trainer is far superior than other LIFTs such as Hawk srs100, Yak-130, etc. And yet, it' ...

You are probably right. But it is frustrating for me. The RMAF desperately needs more numbers and less types of A/C. The F-16 Block 60/70 are just too expensive, same goes for F/A-18F and SU-30MKM. The Hawk's and Yak's, AMX, Aermacchi M346 will not be able to perform interception duties because they are subsonic aircraft, in other words too slow. We need something in the F-5E class. The F-5E is no longer in production. The only other new fighter of this type is the Chinese/Pakistan JF-17/FC-1 but I heard that the program has been delayed, and has had a lot of problems. Same goes for the Indian LCA program. If there are having problems in their own country, I seriously doubt that they can be relied own to provide adequate logistics and support in Malaysia. MiG's are just too expensive to operate.  Both the Taiwanese Ching-Kuo and the Japanese Mitsubishi F2 have had a lot of problems too. The T-50 is the only one I have seen with any real potential.

alien7749

F-5 was intended for poorer US allied that can't bought the F-4. Same as F-16 to the F-14/F-15. If u want an F-5E equivalent for today term. The answer is F-16C/D block 40.

Aiyah... sorry... my bad... korean... not Taiwanese...

Next RMK??  Errr... dunno... I kinda think more Su-30MKM would be better... for commonality purposes of course... the MiG29UB are for conversion... not trainer... an advanced trainer is supposed to be a lower tier jet fighter... Dont think the T50 is without its own problems... if it shares a common part with any American aircraft currently in service with the US there will always be problems as soon as the support contract expires... why?  Because the way FMS is done... any spares required by the US then the US will get first priority... whatever scraps is left on the table is then given by priority to the US best buddy list... and since they're currently busying themselves with the so-called war on terror their parts consumption is high... bad news for everyone else who uses their parts... we all get less table scraps to fight over...

mentosonline

The problem with using jet trainers as real fighter jets is that they simply are too light. 1 Su-30 MKM or F-18E/F can do the work of 2-3 modern jet trainers, unless you modify the jets extensively.

My idea is to have more Su-30MKM, rather than pay 1.8billion US$ for 18 superbug!  For the same price, 36 additional Su-30 MKM can be purchased.  However, I think most probably RMAF will only get 8 (again another h-a-l-f squadron ) superbug, due to serious budget shortage (or in another words, heavy taxation by Tiger Shark Inc.)  I read somewhere about the TCO of operating western block fighter jets is about 3 X the price of purchase, meaning if we're to really buy 18 superbug, prepare to pay up to 5.4 billion US$ in the next 25 -30 years!!!!!!!!  That's enough money for maybe a few RMK???

hijazzains

I dun think RMAF will buy more Su-30 after they ironed out logisitical aspects of Su-30, even the manual for MKM has not been written yet .And how many years before these problems will be solved. That's why RMAF IMO still want Super Bug.

tangopapa

"That's why RMAF IMO still want Super Bug"

I dunno where u get the statement, but its too optimist for us right now to get a new version of jet trainers...we should stay focus on sukhoi....MB339c is more suitable and more relevant compare to the force budget and the training doctrin that we has developed...

remember....we have an option of more sukhoi, lets get that...

windof

yeah, let's get more sukhois, use the option, and add up more options...double to triple the number wont still make me jump around due excitement...

johngage

Originally posted by mentosonline at 3-7-2007 06:47 PM
The problem with using jet trainers as real fighter jets is that they simply are too light. 1 Su-30 MKM or F-18E/F can do the work of 2-3 modern jet trainers, unless you modify the jets extensively.

That's actually my idea. Don't forget that the original F-16A/B

(http://www.aviation-top-pics.com/images/F-16-e.jpg)

and the F-16E Block 60

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/F-16e_block60.jpg)

are two very different animals. I happen to think that the T-50 has a lot of potential for modification. Fit it with CFT to increase its range. Replace its APG-67 radar with the more capable Grifo-7 radar, and you have a platform with BVR capability. I completely agree that the SU-30MKM and the FA-18E/F are greatly more capable aircraft.  But essentially what Malaysia lacks is  a modern F-5E replacement, and numbers. Even assuming that all our F/A-18D's are operating, and none are in maintenance, you are still going to get more coverage with 36 T-50's rather than 8 F/A-18D's, even assuming that one F/A-18D is equivalent to 3 T-50's (in other words: 8 FA-18D's x 3= 24 aircraft vs 36 T-50's=36 aircraft).

Check out a discussion of this on anothe link:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=29510

[ Last edited by  johngage at 4-7-2007 10:31 AM ]

Malaysia never need a modern F-5E replacement.  Malaysia needs replacement for Hawk.  Why bother to add just another type of aircraft into the service?  And it's not going to be cheap.  If that's the case, I'll want a hi-lo mix of SU-30MKM and Gripen!!!!!  Use MB-339 as trainer.  Dump the rest, including F-18D.

alien7749

Gripen? Another type? Get more second hand F/A-18D Nite Hawk from USMC.

johngage

Originally posted by jebat987 at 4-7-2007 11:16 AM
Malaysia never need a modern F-5E replacement.  Malaysia needs replacement for Hawk.  Why bother to add just another type of aircraft into the service?  And it's not going to be cheap.  If that's ...

But Jebat987 you have completely missed the point. We don't need to replace the Hawk 208, which I think should not have been bought in the first place. And in the present economic climate that we live in, where the British pound is so expensive, buying more Hawks is just not a viable option. And I disagree with your opinion that the T-50 is "not going to be cheap". Its price is $25-30 million. Compare that with what S. Africa paid for the Gripen: $65.3 million. The Gripen is very expensive for a LIFT, about the same price or more compared with the SU-30MKM. I do agree that the MB-339C/D should be used as only trainer, and I also think that the Hawk 128's, MiG-29's and F-5E's should be disbanded. But I just don't think that we can afford to purchase SU-30MKM's or even FA-18F's in sufficient quantities because of their high price. Not even the USAF operates just F-15's because of the cost in operating such advanced aircraft. All airforces which operate heavy aircraft in that category also have another type of aircraft for the low end: USAF F-15 (hi), F-16 (lo), Israel F-15I (hi), F-16I (lo), Russia SU 30/27 (Hi) MiG-29 (lo)...etc

Errr... actually thats almost correct... operating cost is one thing, mission capability is another... The MiG29 is not a trainer... its a point defense interceptor... it's not meant for long range strike... thats why I said earlier in other threads that when choosing a new aircraft we should also see what we actually want it for and what the aircraft's original doctrine or specific design was for...

tin

each type of aircraft acquired have their own specific tasks. F/A-18Ds for example are for maritime strike and deep penetration precision strike. Hawk 208s are for light attack, light maritime strike and light fighter. MiG-29s are for air superiority.

the F-5Es are for reconaissance (well, the RF-5E are for recon but the rest of F-5s are suppose to act as escorts for the Tigereye).

IMHO, Gripen are too light to replace the Hornets. It can carry limited ordnance and missiles compared to Hornets.

If you retire Hornets in favour of Gripens, the RMAF is without any heavy fastmovers versatile enough to do what Hornets can do.

MB 339s are basic jet trainer. if you use it as the only trainer, there will be a gap between the performance of MB 339 and the MKM. if you cannot train the pilot well enough so that they can handle MKM, you will see a lot of MKM crash and burn.

another thing is if you have to diversify your purchases as much as possible. G2G relaionship can always go sour and that will effect the serviceability and availability of your aircraft.