[iwan]

no cobras or bells but i still managed to enjoy video..i wud cut a limb to be in one of those birds...

As for that fella Phil Aysho he is probably harboring secret desire of seeing a fleet of MKMs in his country as well.

haha..well said..exactly what i had in mind..

The dorsal brakes is a standard feature on all the Flanker family. As for as how they will be delivered, I don't know why the Russians love using those Ruslans (the same for our Migs). On the other hand our Hornets were 'catapulted' into Malaysia via an aircraft carrier!

yeap..speaking bout grand entrance..but im dissapointed by the fact that those f18s cant be use in the case of a war due to the 'source code' issue..how true that is im not sure..i have a fren whose neighbour is a tudm f18 pilot..he was bragging about those f18s capabilities saying the su30s were nowhere near the f18s and about how the government made a mistake of purchasing them..he sed the only advantage the su has is its ability to fly like "this" (imagine him showing his palm)..i was shocked to the extend of being speechless to be honest..he as a pilot shud know better IMO..i wouldnt dare say i know more then him but the way he said it was like we were purchasing an unknown,unproven plane from an unknown country..and when i try to give a point he wud say "im a pilot i know laa"..sighh...

This post has been edited by iwan: 29 May 2007 - 02:04 AM

[Christopher Teoh]

no cobras or bells but i still managed to enjoy video..i wud cut a limb to be in one of those birds...
haha..well said..exactly what i had in mind..
yeap..speaking bout grand entrance..but im dissapointed by the fact that those f18s cant be use in the case of a war due to the 'source code' issue..how true that is im not sure..i have a fren whose neighbour is a tudm f18 pilot..he was bragging about those f18s capabilities saying the su30s were nowhere near the f18s and about how the government made a mistake of purchasing them..he sed the only advantage the su has is its ability to fly like "this" (imagine him showing his palm)..i was shocked to the extend of being speechless to be honest..he as a pilot shud know better IMO..i wouldnt dare say i know more then him but the way he said it was like we were purchasing an unknown,unproven plane from an unknown country..and when i try to give a point he wud say "im a pilot i know laa"..sighh...

I am no expert on this subject matter but I think the Hornet pilot is correct on his point. We have to remember that the F-18 is a proven platform while the Su-30, expecially the MKM, is something not but with plenty of potential. I think over the next couple of years will be crucial as RMAF develops and matures the MKM operational doctrine. We will then know the fate of the MKM - will it be so great a venture that it warrants a second or third squadron, or will it blunder and fail?

As for the Hornet, what RMAF is complaining about is being denied the right to reprogram the threat data. The cry that the Hornet can't be used for war is oversold. Sure the F-18 can be used for war, it will drop its bombs, fire its missile accurately. Not having the right to change the threat code only limits its flexibility.

What I would love to see in the RMAF is the built-up and concentration of the fleet to just two types: Su-30MKM (if it succeeds) and F/A-18F Super Hornet. Sell off those F-5s, Hawks and Mig-29. Use the MKM with its N011 BARS and R77 for long endurance air defence (a mirror to the F-14s AWG-9, AMRAAM combo) and use the Super Hornets for strike, interdiction mission. Here's a pair of aircraft that will shift the balance of power in the region to the favor of Malaysia and hold it till atleast 2015-17 when F-35 start making its appearance in the region (Singapore comes to mind).

[Hans]

can recall reading an article bout the SU-30MKI (the Indian one). They apparently had exercises with the F-16's of the RSAF and the USAF and rumour goes that the SU-30 kicked ass... Seems to win every single dogfight. So think it is a very potent fighter. It's so much larger than an F-16, but with its canards and vectored thrust, it's a really exciting jet.

[Christopher Teoh]

can recall reading an article bout the SU-30MKI (the Indian one). They apparently had exercises with the F-16's of the RSAF and the USAF and rumour goes that the SU-30 kicked ass... Seems to win every single dogfight. So think it is a very potent fighter. It's so much larger than an F-16, but with its canards and vectored thrust, it's a really exciting jet.

And the Su-30 sure did! But that is just mock combat, operationally is another matter. Spares, aircraft down-time, logistical matters, poor availability of force multiplier (AWACS, tankers etc.) might just hinder the effective deployment of the aircraft. The Hornets, although numbering just eight, were able to keep atleast 6 if not all available for operational use 24/7. The MiGs, on the other hand, almost became a joke at one time when only 8 of the 18 were available for use. Malaysia was well aware of the problems associated with Russian aircraft even before they bought the MiGs. MiGs and Sukhois represents a different design and operating philosophy from what RMAF is molded (western philosophy). The remedy? India.....so they thought. They signed-up with India as a 'safety-net' for the Mig-29 (now Su-30 too) should the Russian fail to deliver. Yet they ran into problems with the MiGs. The MKMs could very well suffer the same.

I really hope all will turn-up well with the MKMs as the aircraft, in theory, is extremely suited for RMAF requirements - long range over water capability, allowing the aircraft to sortie back and forth into the South China Sea on 5-8 hours marathon patrol.

[Rozhan]

The MiGs, on the other hand, almost became a joke at one time when only 8 of the 18 were available for use.

I heard the same from a former schoolmate who is with TUDM as helicopter pilot. He joked that the Nuris are 'Flying Coffins'. Further, Russian technicians often disallow TUDM personnel from coming close to the MiGs during service time.

[Christopher Teoh]

I heard the same from a former schoolmate who is with TUDM as helicopter pilot. He joked that the Nuris are 'Flying Coffins'. Further, Russian technicians often disallow TUDM personnel from coming close to the MiGs during service time.

That's new info to me about the Migs. Do you know if order for two MiG-29 attrition replacement is true?
Oh yeah those Nuris are waaaay long in tooth. I think the MOD is on the verge of ordering the NH-90 as replacement.

[iwan]

d

I am no expert on this subject matter but I think the Hornet pilot is correct on his point. We have to remember that the F-18 is a proven platform while the Su-30, expecially the MKM, is something not but with plenty of potential. I think over the next couple of years will be crucial as RMAF develops and matures the MKM operational doctrine. We will then know the fate of the MKM - will it be so great a venture that it warrants a second or third squadron, or will it blunder and fail?

As for the Hornet, what RMAF is complaining about is being denied the right to reprogram the threat data. The cry that the Hornet can't be used for war is oversold. Sure the F-18 can be used for war, it will drop its bombs, fire its missile accurately. Not having the right to change the threat code only limits its flexibility.

What I would love to see in the RMAF is the built-up and concentration of the fleet to just two types: Su-30MKM (if it succeeds) and F/A-18F Super Hornet. Sell off those F-5s, Hawks and Mig-29. Use the MKM with its N011 BARS and R77 for long endurance air defence (a mirror to the F-14s AWG-9, AMRAAM combo) and use the Super Hornets for strike, interdiction mission. Here's a pair of aircraft that will shift the balance of power in the region to the favor of Malaysia and hold it till atleast 2015-17 when F-35 start making its appearance in the region (Singapore comes to mind).

but based on the MKI...im sure its proven enough what it is capable of doing..

ive read in a website a few weeks back about TUDMs intention to upgrade the current mig29 to mig 29 OVTs..that wud certainly be a boost to our airforce..having the mig will complement the sukhois well..but the hawks and F5 has to go...

[Andrew Lim]

Whilst I agree with Phil Aysho's opinion, I do find the last paragraph derogatory.

Nevertheless, I do not think that TUDM needs such advanced and expensive fighters to fight its war. Just one type of multi roled aircraft would have sufficed. Only the big Air Forces can justify owning specialised airplanes.

I don't think our ministers have thought about the purchase properly. The way the defense budget is being spent at the moment gives me the impression that they are just buying whatever that's popular, and not to suit the defense doctrine (if there is even one!). This is clearly evident when you look at the fact that we have three different types of frontline fighter planes which does more or less the same job! It must be one logistical nightmare maintaning the fleet.

Remember how the Argentines' relatively small and old air force managed to kick the Brit's arse during the Falklands War through superior tactics? They even used a C-130 to bomb a warship.

Anyway, the Su-30s do look nice and fearsome. I notice they have similar paint scheme as our Hornets.

This post has been edited by Andrew Lim: 29 May 2007 - 11:42 PM

[Rozhan]

That's new info to me about the Migs. Do you know if order for two MiG-29 attrition replacement is true?

He's not privy to that information when I last met him early this year . He's based in Kepala Batas at the moment, but will ask when I meet him again during our next annual reunioun among schoolmates.

[Christopher Teoh]

iwan,

The MKM is an excellent aircraft in combat, no doubt. The ability of Malaysia to sustain a credible MKM fleet in long-run, factoring-in logistical implication and attrition, remains to be seen. Comparing to the Hornets the MKM is a high risk-high reward asset. I am cautiously-optimistic about the MKMs.

As for the Mig-29, boy I do hope that they don't waste our tight budget in going after the OVTs. Sell the Migs! Trade those hornets off and get a new fleet of Super instead. Uncle Sam will be more than happy to do so especially when the USMC probably need attrition Hornets to replace worned-out airframe from the Iraq war. Once we reduce the logistical nightmare can we only be able to milk the best out of the MKMs and realise that it is worth persuing a second or third squadron.


Andrew Lim,

I don't think it's a matter of it being an overly advance and expensive aircraft. I think what matter most is operational capability. RMAF continues to preech long-range overwater capability coupled with twin engine safety. Few aircraft matches that. If we look at the market:

Typhoon - too costly
Rafale - too costly as well
F-15E - forget it, cost is one thing, the severe maturity of the product is another
F-18E/F - why not!!! we have Ds already, the Super bug have long product cycle ahead and will continue to grow
Mig-29N or OVT - RMAF is asking the poor Migs to do too much, in sports car anology is like getting your Kancil turbocharged and expect it to hang in with the Ferrari in a race night-in night-out.
Su-30 - Affordable, capable and the Russians are willing to dance to any tune Malaysia plays. Again, high-risk high-reward. Cautious needed.

RMAF needs to trim back to two types and built on it if we want to have a credible force.

Oh yeah, I love those gunship gray scheme on the Hornets and Flankers.


Cheers

[Geoff R.]

Remember how the Argentines' relatively small and old air force managed to kick the Brit's arse during the Falklands War through superior tactics? They even used a C-130 to bomb a warship.

Anyway, the Su-30s do look nice and fearsome. I notice they have similar paint scheme as our Hornets.

A bit off topic, but your memory of the Falklands Conflict is a bit different from mine. The Argentinian forces exploited the lack of Airborne Early Warning (Gannets retired and before the Sea King AEW Mk.2 came in) to strike British shipping and for sure some of the Argentinian pilots demonstrated extreme bravery and skill - call it tactics if you wish. However, if you compare attack/fighter losses, Argentinia lost 11 Dagger As, 2 Mirage IIIEAs and 22 Skyhawks not to mention 25 Pucaras during the conflict compared to the UK losing 10 Harriers (2 lost in mid air collision, 5 lost to ground fire, 1 slid off deck in extreme weather, 2 lost due to technical problems) ie not a single loss in air-to-air combat. The Brits were numerically at a massive aircraft dissadvantage as well. Hardly an ass kicking. Oh and by the way the Brits won.

Geoff

[Mohd Idham]

What I would love to see in the RMAF is the built-up and concentration of the fleet to just two types: Su-30MKM (if it succeeds) and F/A-18F Super Hornet. Sell off those F-5s, Hawks and Mig-29. Use the MKM with its N011 BARS and R77 for long endurance air defence (a mirror to the F-14s AWG-9, AMRAAM combo) and use the Super Hornets for strike, interdiction mission. Here's a pair of aircraft that will shift the balance of power in the region to the favor of Malaysia and hold it till atleast 2015-17 when F-35 start making its appearance in the region (Singapore comes to mind).

I agree with that.........sell off those junks...those junks burns off taxpayers money rather than protecting...

[KK Lee]

Remember how the Argentines' relatively small and old air force managed to kick the Brit's arse during the Falklands War through superior tactics? They even used a C-130 to bomb a warship.

During the Falkland war, the Argentinean AF was good at sinking British ships with their exocet Anti-Ship missiles. However, their air to air sorties performed poorly against RN Sea Harrier/Sidwinder 9L.

[KK Lee]

lol...imp raying hard that they take good care of it..forget the 'frontliners' hawk..

an interesting article..
[b]January 17, 2004

On 16th December, the Thales Group, a large European defense electronics manufacturer, signed a 150 million Euro (approximately $193 million) deal to provide avionics for the 18 Su-30MKM that Malaysia recently ordered.

The deal involves the installation of avionics, navigation, identification and optronics systems on the aircraft in Russia, and which will be carried out in partnership with Sukhoi, with integration under the oversight of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF).

Su-30 is like a Ferrari; exotic, good for showing off, expensive to maintain, keep in garage most of the time and impractical for every day use.

Not sure how well Thales avionics, navigation, identification and optronics systems will integrated with the airframe, engine and weapon system. Normally, these system are developed together, so they can perform seamlessly and takes years to perfect.

I bet my 2 cents, it will take years before these Su-30 can operate effectively.

[iwan]

iwan,

The MKM is an excellent aircraft in combat, no doubt. The ability of Malaysia to sustain a credible MKM fleet in long-run, factoring-in logistical implication and attrition, remains to be seen. Comparing to the Hornets the MKM is a high risk-high reward asset. I am cautiously-optimistic about the MKMs.

As for the Mig-29, boy I do hope that they don't waste our tight budget in going after the OVTs. Sell the Migs! Trade those hornets off and get a new fleet of Super instead. Uncle Sam will be more than happy to do so especially when the USMC probably need attrition Hornets to replace worned-out airframe from the Iraq war. Once we reduce the logistical nightmare can we only be able to milk the best out of the MKMs and realise that it is worth persuing a second or third squadron.
Andrew Lim,

I don't think it's a matter of it being an overly advance and expensive aircraft. I think what matter most is operational capability. RMAF continues to preech long-range overwater capability coupled with twin engine safety. Few aircraft matches that. If we look at the market:

Mig-29N or OVT - RMAF is asking the poor Migs to do too much, in sports car anology is like getting your Kancil turbocharged and expect it to hang in with the Ferrari in a race night-in night-out.

RMAF needs to trim back to two types and built on it if we want to have a credible force.

Oh yeah, I love those gunship gray scheme on the Hornets and Flankers.
Cheers

lol...what a way to put it..i didnt know the migs were that erm..weak...it is a decent aircraft still right?
about the colors..i wud prefer the skyblue camouflage scheme similiar to the russian planes..looks nice..ours can camouflage only when its going to rain..but who needs camouflage on a plane anyway..

to be honest...after reading the posts and comments from u guys..im starting to look at planes from an all new perspective..before this my only source of info was from the internet..no friends sharing the same interest at all and all i knew was the planes capabilities and specs etc. never once did i think about maintaining ,how having 3 types of strike planes could backfire,tactics and strategies etc...lots of new things learned..

[Andrew Lim]

During the Falkland war, the Argentinean AF was good at sinking British ships with their exocet Anti-Ship missiles. However, their air to air sorties performed poorly against RN Sea Harrier/Sidwinder 9L.

The Argentines only had a handful of Exocets (about 10 i think). A lot of the anti shipping missions were conducted with bombs and rockets. They didn't perform as well in the air to air sorties because they only had the rear aspect Sidewinders and not the more advanced all aspect ones.

There were even claims that the British aircraft carrier was hit even though this was disputed.

This post has been edited by Andrew Lim: 30 May 2007 - 04:08 PM

[KK Lee]

They didn't perform as well in the air to air sorties because they only had the rear aspect Sidewinders and not the more advanced all aspect ones.

Agreed with you.

In modern air warfare, aircraft is a platform for weapons delivery. With fire and forget, out of sight missiles, dog fight capability is no longer essential like in WW I and WW II.

[BC Tam]

In modern air warfare, aircraft is a platform for weapons delivery. With fire and forget, out of sight missiles, dog fight capability is no longer essential like in WW I and WW II.

In that case, the RMAF just blew a substantial budget away for thrust vectoring capability on the Sukhoi's !!

Anyway, the real way forward is apparently unmanned platforms. Comparative manouverability will become less critical as compared to having the extra bird to send out in case the first one get blasted out of the sky. Ironic, but quantity will take precedence over quality then ?!

[Andrew Lim]

Agreed with you.

In modern air warfare, aircraft is a platform for weapons delivery. With fire and forget, out of sight missiles, dog fight capability is no longer essential like in WW I and WW II.

Yep.

In the future air wars, especially with our immediate neighbours, we will be exchanging volleys of AMRAAM and R-77 at BVR ranges and be hoping that ours are more accurate than theirs.

Unless the SU-30 has stealth capabilities, it probably wont be able to get in close enough to show off its thrust vectoring ability.

Also, you cannot use thrust vectoring to fight crimes or terrorism, which is a more immediate threat that our country is facing today.

The chances of having our neighbours attack Msia in the near foreseeable future is akin to eliminating corruption in the police force, which is obviously nil.

This post has been edited by Andrew Lim: 30 May 2007 - 07:09 PM

[iwan]

Yep.

In the future air wars, especially with our immediate neighbours, we will be exchanging volleys of AMRAAM and R-77 at BVR ranges and be hoping that ours are more accurate than theirs.

Unless the SU-30 has stealth capabilities, it probably wont be able to get in close enough to show off its thrust vectoring ability.

correct me if im wrong but i thought those su30 maneuvers are not entirely for acrobatic reasons but it allows the plane to 'disappear' from the enemies radar for up to 5-7 seconds..thats the closest we can get to being stealth i guess..im confused by that statement actually..if we disappear..does it mean that the enemy cant lock on to us?so what happens if the enemies managed to release their missiles..will 'disappearing' from the radar do us any good against the heat seeking missiles?