KAI T-50 Golden Eagle for RMAF

tin

We can't as the USMC "D" Hornets are over utilised in supporting their operations in Iraq and Afghan.even they have to resort to operating As anbd Bs.

alien7749

They are disbanding the C/D and replacing them with E/F.

mentosonline

Since the US dollar is weak, I'd say get the Superbug.
It's as good as if not better than the MKM, especially since it will certainly come with AESA and AMRAAM.

But since Malaysia has went ahead with the MKM, it's more practical to go for MKM, rather than add another ingredient into the rojak.

johngage

Originally posted by mat_toro at 4-7-2007 01:30 PM
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 ran ...

I think you have mistaken what I have written for another post. I never mentioned that the MiG-29 could be used as a trainer.

johngage

Originally posted by mentosonline at 4-7-2007 05:08 PM
Since the US dollar is weak, I'd say get the Superbug.
It's as good as if not better than the MKM, especially since it will certainly come with AESA and AMRAAM.

But since Malaysia has went ah ...

I am a big fan of the F/A-18F. What the USN boys have been saying is that it is a very easy aircraft to maintain and fly, and they have been pleasantly surprised at how good the APG-79 AESA has performed. The only problem is that even with a weak dollar it is still going to be selling at around $90-95 million dollars apiece, which would take a big dent in Malaysia's limited RMAF budget. Even the MKM is going to be a strain. If it was not for political differences, I would have actually said that Malaysia should be looking at Singapore's F-5S ! But the problem of course is that is that the F-5 series is no longer in production. The RMAF needs more of that kind of aircraft, which is cheap and reliable to operate. I am not of course saying the RMAF should go for more numbers just for a sake of having more aircraft. I genuinely believe that the RMAF needs a minimum of 3 squadrons of 18, but to do the job properly you would need 4 (3 for Peninsular Malaysia and one for Sabah and Sarawak). The SU-30MKM for S. China Sea/Spratly/Paracel islands/Ambalat. The LIFT for Peninsular Malaysia.

Btw, the F/A-18 is in service with the Canada, Spain, Australia, Kuwait, and Switzerland. Now some of these countries must be planning to purchase the Typhoon/JSF. Is there absolutely no chance for the RMAF to purchase second hand F/A-18's? 2 squadrons of totalling 36 Hornets and 1 squardon of 18 SU-30MKM would be perfect for the RMAF.

gekko

Originally posted by <i>alien7749</i> at 4-7-2007 04:30 PM <a href="http://forum.cari.com.my/redirect.php?goto=findpost&amp;pid=16580127&amp;ptid=287805" target="_blank"><img src="http://forum.cari.com.my/images/common/back.gif" border="0" onload="if(this.width>screen.width*0.7) {this.resized=true; this.width=screen.width*0.7; this.alt='Click here to open new window\nCTRL+Mouse wheel to zoom in/out';}" onmouseover="if(this.width>screen.width*0.7) {this.resized=true; this.width=screen.width*0.7; this.style.cursor='hand'; this.alt='Click here to open new window\nCTRL+Mouse wheel to zoom in/out';}" onclick="if(!this.resized) {return true;} else {window.open('http://forum.cari.com.my/images/common/back.gif');}" onmousewheel="return imgzoom(this);" alt="" /></a><br />
They are disbanding the C/D and replacing them with E/F.

<br />

Nope. They are not getting the E/F. Its the USN that is getting the E/F.

The USMC are getting F-35 to replace the F/A-18D. But while waiting for the F-35, there are reducing the D squadrons because of insufficent airframes due to overusage in the last 10 years.
1 complete squadron have been disbanded so that its D's can be distributed to beef up the other squadrons. Some squadrons are exchanging the D for A/B.

gekko

Sun sets on an era: Moonlighters transition to cadre status

April 6, 2007; Submitted on: 04/05/2007 01:47:04 PM ; Story ID#: 20074513474

By Lance Cpl. Dane M. Horst, MCAS Beaufort


MARINE CORPS AIR STATION BEAUFORT, S.C. (April 6, 2007) -- A long, illustrious era for one of the most decorated fighter attack squadrons of the Marine Corps officially came to an end here April 1. The Moonlighters of Marine All-Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 332 cased their colors March 30 in a formal Transition to Cadre Status Ceremony, but not for the last time.

It was a somber day on the flightline here, but during the ceremony it was duly noted that this squadron is going out on top: the Moonlighters were not only named the 2006 Marine Corps Aviation Association Fighter/Attack Squadron of the Year but they currently hold the longest streak of mishap-free flight hours for a tactical jet squadron with a remarkable 109,000 hours.

"The Aviation Combat Element of our Marine Air Ground Task Force became a little bit smaller today. It was the right decision and one that we thought long and hard about, yet it still troubles us all to a degree," said Col. Dave Beydler, the commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 31. "We are standing down and moving into cadre status a superb squadron."

The Moonlighters officially transitioned to cadre status here Saturday, leaving MAG-31 with six Hornet squadrons remaining. The squadron organized a full schedule of farewell events, including a farewell 3.32 mile run, the Moonlighters? last Hornet flight, the formal transition ceremony, a golf tournament and a formal banquet.

?This event was kind of bittersweet for me because I hated to see the squadron stand down, but at least in a few years the Moonlighters will be brought back to life when they transition to the new Joint Strike Fighter,? said the now-retired Col. Mark Condra, the Moonlighters? commanding officer from 1993-1995.

To ?cadre? the squadron means that VMFA (AW)-332 will be disbanded and the Corps will redistribute the equipment and personnel assigned to the squadron , but the Moonlighters? colors will be maintained in order to reactivate the unit upon the arrival of the replacement aircraft for the F/A-18, the F-35B Lighting II, Joint Strike Fighter. To ?deactivate? a squadron means nearly the same, except there is not normally an intent to reactivate the unit in the near to mid-term future.

?Being the CO of the Moonlighters while we were in Iraq in 2005 was the best professional event of my career,? said the now-retired Lt. Col. David Wilbur, the former Moonlighters? CO who also commanded the squadron when they broke the 100,000 mishap-free flight hours record. ?I felt it was fitting that my last flight in the Corps was also the squadron?s last flight before they went into cadre status.?

The Moonlighters were selected to cadre last year as part of the Marine Aviation Plan, designed to address Corps-wide aircraft transitions, operational tasking, readiness, aircraft inventory shortfalls, manpower challenges, safety and fiscal requirements and to posture Marine Aviation for the next 10 years and beyond. During this challenging transition period, the Corps will go from 13 to 18 to 7 Type/Model/Series aircraft before all transitions are complete.

Two Marine Hornet squadrons have been selected to cadre in 2007 to help address the service life limits of the F/A-18, in order to maximize the current inventories of the Hornet. The other Hornet squadron is VMFA-134 at MCAS Miramar, Calif.

?The past year serving with the Marines of ?332 was the best year of my career,? said Lt. Col. Samuel Kirby, the last Moonlighters? commanding officer of the Hornet-era. ?Standing down this squadron was a sad occasion, yet it is also an honor because we are the first squadron that will be making the way for the new Joint Strike Fighter.?

gekko

This also means that if M'sia buys F/A-18F, there is ready buyers for the F/A-18D now coz its exactly the same spec as the USMC version.

If M'sia delays, and buy later.......the market for F/A-18D may no longer be there.

If you look at the serviceablilty record of the F/A-18D, its splendid. 100,000 hrs with no mishaps.

Unlike the MiG29, despite its twin engines, still lost 2 even when we have no war.

As for the Su-30MKM, time will tell if its service record can equal the F/A-18D.

gekko

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).

Can't the recce be done by other aircraft eg. Hawk with a Vicon recce pod or by one of those underutilised VIP jets with a recce pod or even by UAV ?

Hmmm... which brings to mind... who does the MiGs 2nd line servicing?? And who does the Hornet's??

tin

Originally posted by gekko at 4-7-2007 08:05 PM
Unlike the MiG29, despite its twin engines, still lost 2 even when we have no war.

if you know the real story of the MiG mishaps, you might think otherwise.

takde kena mengena dengan enjin ponnn...

tin

Well, Tigereye are suppose to do recon in hostile areas. Hawks numbers are dwindling fast and has already been tasked to perform specific duties.

gekko

Originally posted by <i>tin</i> at 5-7-2007 09:09 AM
if you know the real story of the MiG mishaps, you might think otherwise.

Are they human error or mechanical faults. If the later, then the MiG's serviceability record still sucks.

BTW, I heard of the 4 Indon Su, only 2 now is flyable.

"They are disbanding the C/D and replacing them with E/F."

Nope.  Just wrong.  US Marine DOES NOT operate superbug.  What you see are the superbug of US NAVY.  Like Tin said, US Marine salvage some of the Navy's A/B to make up the numbers.  Pitty to the Marine.

Originally posted by johngage at 4-7-2007 01:22 PM

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.  

I never thought of a replacement for Hawk.  In fact, Gripen is never meant to replace Hawk, as our Hawk is nothing but an expensive LIFT, and some more, a single seat LIFT in the case of 208...

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.

Ouch, you miss it completely.  I never say to operate Gripen as LIFT!!!  It's the lower tier fighter of RMAF if adopted, and it should be obtained in greater number.  I read from a mag (can't remember which one) that the operating cost of Gripen is 1/4 of F-18, so even though the upfront cost is higher, say your quote of 65 mil is correct, but the TCO is much cheaper.  Remmeber, it'll be used, if properly maintained, for up to 30 years!
And I don't think there's any problem for MB339 to be used as an advanced trainer, since its' manufacturer sells it as a competitor of the Hawk

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

I thought that's in my original post of having a hi-lo mix of Su30 and Gripen???

Originally posted by tin at 4-7-2007 02:52 PM
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).

Maybe that's EXACTLY the reason why RMAF is a zoo now

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

Errr, I don't think so.  I think the Hornet has an ordnance load of around 5 tonnes, where as the Gripen hauls around 4.5 tonnes.  But with the Supergripen (proposal), I think the MTOW reaches 19 tonnes, which is in the range as Mig29M (20t), and F16block 60 (23t)

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

I thought we never have heavy weight mud mover in RMAF?  And that's very much the role of Su30...

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.

Not in the case of MB339C/D, since its' cockpit instrument is fully adaptable to most, if not all of the current day fighter.  Heck, even the PC-21 bought by rsaf has the capability, since it also has 'glass cockpit'.

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.

Yes, agree.  However, the outcome will be zoo...  Again...

Originally posted by gekko at 4-7-2007 08:05 PM
This also means that if M'sia buys F/A-18F, there is ready buyers for the F/A-18D now coz its exactly the same spec as the USMC version.

If M'sia delays, and buy later.......the market for F/A ...

But I thought once said by Dr. M, we DO NOT have the source code to perform a lot of things, including to bomb ...?  I guess hardware wise it's the same, it's just some secret key to fire some exotic weapons that's unavailable to us...  

gekko

Nobody gives you the source code. Its an Intellectual property.

But what I do know is that if you want to have some new exotic weapons that was invented at the later stage, you need to upgrade your system so the the stores management computer can now recognised this new weapon.

Just like your pc, you put in some new hardware, you must install some drivers to make it work.
Do you need source code ?

Don't listen to much to Dr M, he is getting old and tries very hard to get attention.

escortburuk

Want cheap 2nd tier fighters? Why not consider the JF-17 Thunder which is said to cost around USD 15 - 20 million a piece which is very cheap compared to other fighters in its class. It is compatible with western armaments (the Pakistani version), it flies supersonic and could be customized according to our needs (just like the Sukhoi 30 MKM). I think it is an excellent replacement for Hawk and the F5E