KAI T-50 Golden Eagle for RMAF

alien7749

back to the topic, two seat FC-1 is cheaper than T-50, IF RMAF decided to buy a supersonic trainer.

johngage

Finland has 7 F/A-18D's, Kuwait has 8, and Switzerland also has 8. I was just wondering, has the idea ever been proposed in the RMAF to purchase 10 second hand F/A-18D's, to complete our Hornet complement to 18? In my opinion, 1 squadron of 18 SU-30MKM's backed up by one squadron of 18 F/A-18D's, and one squadron of F/A-18F's would probably be a good ORBAT for the RMAF. All those platforms have good potential for future upgrades and carry an impressive array of weapons.

Debmey

why not buy them directly from the americans? They will be phasing out the F18 in a few years time and there will be plenty to spare and they will surely sell cheap to cut operating cost.

johngage

Originally posted by alien7749 at 9-7-2007 08:09 AM
back to the topic, two seat FC-1 is cheaper than T-50, IF RMAF decided to buy a supersonic trainer.

There is no doubt that the FC-1 is cheaper. But the Russian RD-93 engine suffers from terrible quality (33% rejection rate !!!) and reliability. The Chinese WS-13 engine is still under development and will not be complete until 2009, and some has suggested that it might be delayed. I think its extremely dangerous to purchase a single engined aircraft unless the engine has proven reliability. AFAIK the Chinese are actually putting most of their R & D into the J-10.

johngage

Originally posted by Debmey at 9-7-2007 12:21 PM
why not buy them directly from the americans? They will be phasing out the F18 in a few years time and there will be plenty to spare and they will surely sell cheap to cut operating cost.

Supposedly, many of the USMC F/A-18D's have been dismantled to provide spares for the the F/A-18D's in service. The war in Iraq has also meant that many of the USMC F/A-18D's in service has been flown almost to the point of destruction. The high tempo of ops has meant that the wear and tear on the USMC F/A-18D's has been higher than expected.

Check out this link: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0407/index.php?startpage=15

tin

I would say avoid US made high tech equipments all together. we can always source from other countries to fulfill our needs. I don't want to buy a a mustang only to find out that the speed has been electronically limited to 150km/h.

another think is we have no independence in terms of using what we have according to our freewill and take the best course of action that best suits our national interest.  every time we want to use US made equipment, we have to ask permission first. I mean, what gives?

johngage

Originally posted by tin at 9-7-2007 12:28 PM
I would say avoid US made high tech equipments all together. we can always source from other countries to fulfill our needs. I don't want to buy a a mustang only to find out that the speed has be ...

I think that there are advantages & disadvantages to using US weapons, and it depends on which side you are looking at. On the one hand you can argue that its dishonest for the US to attach political strings on how we use their weapons. On the other hand the US would argue that they don't want Malaysia to suddenly turn US made AMRAAM and Harpoons against the USAF and USN one day in the future. Or for Malaysia to sell US made weapons to countries (like Iran/China) that may one day use those weapons against the US. After all, if Malaysia made fighter aircraft or missiles, would we consider selling it to Israel? Would we consider selling them to countries that might use them to attack Malaysia or its allies? I imagine the US Congress would see it in the same light, and conclude that selling US weapons to their closest allies (instead of their enemies) is just plain common sense. After all, if even the UK/Australia don't get full spec US weapons, why should Malaysia? Personally, I think even a downgraded US weapon is sufficient for our needs.

Similarly, there is no doubt that the French and the Russians are readier to provide tech transfer and full-spec weapons. But both countries also suffer from serious weaknesses as well. In the case of the French, the high EURO means that their weapons tend to be very expensive. Furthermore many of their designs are unproven in combat although they may be impressive on paper, the MICA being a very good example. In the case of the US, because they have so much experience of war, they have the ability to keep refining their weapons design, and there are many upgrades available. In the case of the Russians, the chaotic state of their country under Mr. Yeltsin meant that a lot of programs were shelved because of the lack of experienced personnel and R&D. It is only under Mr. Putin that the country has started to recover. But the lack of a domestic market for their weapons meant that the only source of income for them is the overseas market. It is for this reason that the SU-30MKI/MKM is actually more sophisticated than the SU-30's in Russian service. The Russians also lag in the areas where the US have a huge advantage, i.e. computer tech. This has meant that many countries using Russian products have tend to look towards France/Israel for their avionics. More seriously, many Russian companies are notorious for providing extremely poor support for their products. In the case of the MiG Corporation, the Indian AF was so frustrated by the poor quality control of Russian spare-parts that they actually decided to manufacture their own ! Russian aircraft, although cheaper to purchase, also tend to be more unreliable.

Personally, I would be happy if Malaysia committed itself to just one defence bloc (US/Russia/China/France), and my own favourite Sweden !

[ Last edited by  johngage at 9-7-2007 01:17 PM ]

alien7749

RD-93 is derived from RD-33. Use the already proven RD-33 version then.

tin

I don't mind if they decide to keep their advance weapon system that we have bought at their depots. the only think that I'm angry is that we bought full spec "D" and we got on overpriced "Skyhawk" instead. to me, US is an extremely unreliable defence partner which can do a 180 degrees turn in your hour of need. the most famous example is Pakistan which didn't get their F-16 even though they've paid in full. they didn't even get their money back until today.

I would rather buy something expensive, unproven but works rather than pay it in full but get nothing. or get a substandard product. I mean, any decent fighter aircraft can drop iron bombs quite accurately. so why must you buy the latest generation fighter that can only drop iron bombs?

IMHO, the way we mate MKM with french systems is the best option available. at the very least, we'll get a fully functioning aircraft with a fully functioning system.

If the US insist we buy their fighters or else... in that case, we buy theirs but limit the number purchased. appease them but not until it will damage our capability.

mentosonline

Well said.
Maybe Malaysia should develop its own defence industry though. Maybe not to the scale of France or Sweden, but rather such that in times of war, essential strategic supplies such as spare parts are available. Additionally, because countries like the US tend to put limitations to the software on the equipment sold to even allies, perhaps Malaysia should put an investment into developing EW capabilities. That way, it would encourage employment and may even be beneficial to the economy. Don't forget, whatever the government spends on local hardware, about 33% of it instantly returns to them in the form of taxes. That's why the US can actually afford so much equipment.

Robotech

Get more second hand F/A-18D Nite Hawk from USMC.

I support these statement. We've been using the same platform with stellar performance since 1990s until now.

We've the experience with the platform, so acquiring another 10 2nd hand F-18Ds seems a logical choice to complement the existing 8, with the option of another 18 for another squadron of F-18D.

An ORBAT of 36 F-18D & 18 Su-30 MKM sounds quite impressive for a developing SEA nation like us.

awangmamat

We are doing this ... but we have only started recently so you are not seeing the same level of progress as you do in countries that have started earlier.

mentosonline

Oh, my bad then.
But yes always start small scale, or there will be alot of problems.

windof

yeah, i hope they will come up with small soldiers soon.

awangmamat

Originally posted by tin at 9-7-2007 05:18 PM
If the US insist we buy their fighters or else... in that case, we buy theirs but limit the number purchased. appease them but not until it will damage our capability.

We don't have to buy their fighters to demonstrate that we not hostile to them.

We are already working closely with the Americans in other areas (security included).  If there is pressure to direct commercial benefits to them we can always look towards awarding significant national projects to American companies.  Perhaps if we commit to nuclear power then GE or Westinghouse might be given first preference for example.

awangmamat

Hmmm ... ?

mentosonline

That's true. As for nuclear power though, that's a sensitive issue.

awangmamat

Originally posted by johngage at 9-7-2007 01:14 PM
I think that there are advantages & disadvantages to using US weapons, and it depends on which side you are looking at. On the one hand you can argue that its dishonest for the US to attach political strings on how we use their weapons. On the other hand the US would argue that they don't want Malaysia to suddenly turn US made AMRAAM and Harpoons against the USAF and USN one day in the future. Or for Malaysia to sell US made weapons to countries (like Iran/China) that may one day use those weapons against the US. After all, if Malaysia made fighter aircraft or missiles, would we consider selling it to Israel? Would we consider selling them to countries that might use them to attack Malaysia or its allies? I imagine the US Congress would see it in the same light, and conclude that selling US weapons to their closest allies (instead of their enemies) is just plain common sense. After all, if even the UK/Australia don't get full spec US weapons, why should Malaysia?

Well, why should Malaysia accept having one hand tied behind our back so that the Americans can sleep better at night?  Our defence purchases should be designed so that Malaysians can sleep better at night.

The UK/Australia are more than just allies to the Americans.  They share kinship ties that cover civilization, religion, race, language, culture that go beyond strategic geo-politics.  They accept degraded weapons capability because they are "compensated" in other ways.  I recall a discussion where American officers openly stated that there would be no way that the West would abandon its moral responsibility to come to the aid of white South Africans if its black population turned on them. You should not expect Malaysia to receive any similar "compensation" from the Americans. In their analysis, we are simply not part of their inner orbit.

I agree with Tin, we should ensure that our money buys us the best defence possible.  I strongly disagree with the view that we should ever accept less capable weapons because "these would be sufficient for a SEAn country".  (Robotech, no personal offence intended.  I disagree with the view only).   There is no foreign cavalry on its way to relief us, people.  WYSIWYG.  We are Malaysia's defence.

[ Last edited by  awangmamat at 10-7-2007 09:55 PM ]

awangmamat

I meant for peaceful power generation.

There is talk in Malaysia of constructing a nuclear power plant to diversify our energy sources.

mentosonline

No actually the greater concern is about environmental issues.
There should be no problem in trusting Malaysia to keep her nuclear technology peaceful.