If Only We Could Piggyback on This Deal…Part II

SHAH ALAM: Its an open secret that RMAF wants the Super Hornets to replace its Hornet and Fulcrum fleets. The story below is self-explainatory. If would be great if we can get the same savings from the US Navy multi-year purchase as the story indicates that it will save some RM1.2 billion or so from the purchase price.

However any deal for the Super Hornets must overcome the lack of budget on the part of the Malaysian government first and the fact the Swedish and Europeans are also in the race to sell the Gripens and the Eurofighters.

Morever, it seemed that any Super Bug deal for Malaysia will probably mean that we will be getting the new International Version of the Super Hornet that Boeing had indicated in its presentation at Farnborough last July.

And we could still piggybback on the US Navy multi-year contract as modifications to the new Intertnational Super Bug could be made on the production line anyway…

Personally, I dont think we have the money to replace the Hornets and Fulcrums before 2020 and as I mentioned before its better, for me at least, for us to purchase the F-35. For some US$2.7 billion we can get 20 F-35s, which is only slightly costlier than the proposed Super Hornet buy….

Boeing Receives Multi-Year Contract from US Navy for 124 F/A-18 and EA-18 Aircraft

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 29 (Bernama) — The Boeing Company has been awarded a new multi-year procurement (MYP) contract from the U.S. Navy for 124 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft.

The new contract is valued at US$5.297 billion. Under the terms of the agreement, Boeing will deliver 66 Super Hornets and 58 Growlers to the Navy from 2012 through 2015.

“The men and women of Boeing are honored to provide the Super Hornet’s advanced, combat-proven multirole capability and the EA-18G’s unmatched airborne electronic attack capability to the American warfighters serving their nation around the world each day,” said Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs Vice President Kory Mathews in a statement from St. Louis.

“Procurement of these 124 aircraft through a multi-year contract takes advantage of the full efficiencies of Boeing s production and supplier operations, which will generate more than $600 million in cost savings for U.S. taxpayers.”

– Malaysian Defence

The MRCA Tender Is On, Boeing Says So…. PETALING JAYA: No one at Kementah will say the MRCA ...
MRCA Programme Heats Up PETALING JAYA: In The Malay Mail on June 6, I ...
Upgrades for the Hornets PETALING JAYA: It appears that the two upgrades for RMAF ...
Typhoon vs Super Hornets and possibly Flankers and Strike… PETALING JAYA: The prospect is mouth watering, two of the ...
India to choose Rafale or Typhoon SHAH ALAM: India has short-listed the Rafale and Typhoon for ...

52 Responses to "If Only We Could Piggyback on This Deal…Part II"

kamal says:

September 30, 2010 at 6:37 am

In another mod, it stated that the cost will only cover the body , excluding weapons and other equipments. Around USD43 million bare plane with no weapon, engine or other equipment. So if malaysia piggyback it, we still could end up paying USD200 million per plane as the Aussie did.

On another note, Our neighbour pay USD50 million a piece for su27sk and su30MK2, again no weapon. Makes me wonder whether our sukhoi deal was that bad….there are even worse

Marhalim: Yes most probably it will cover the body and other equipment as engines and other stuff will be furnished under a separate deal ie government furnished equipment. Of course we will probably end up paying higher price but it will be cheaper if we were to buy outside these multi-year contract.

The US had also anticipated that it will be able to export the planes hence the contract also said but it will also mean that we can get the planes faster if our order comes together and it does effect US navy plans. Our deal will be more expensive as weapons training and other stuff such as documentation will have to be purchased separately but to get discounts we could still piggyback on US Navy weapons purchase, engines and other stuff as well so it will be cheaper in the long run, if we piggyback on the first deal due to its economic of scale.
Since the US Navy already has a training programme on the cost will not enter their procurement (development in our case) but it will be in their operational budget. Of course we will need to pay higher than the US Navy but it will be cheaper than buying other planes. We could reduce the training cost by sending our pilots and technicians to the US instead of setting a training school here although it is one way to get the local content into the deal.
I still think its better for us to opt for the F35 though I am not convinced whether or not we have the funds to have another type in the air force I am just sounding the cheaper option since plans are afoot for the procurement….
Eagle says:

September 30, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Brother any new procurement by the RMAF ie Malaysian Government need a realistic justification and public must not be taken for a ride in spending billions of the nation coffers that has better use for the rakyat.
Those taking charge of the Armed Forces need to visit the role and function of the Armed Forces and may be the need of total reform with a new outlook on the defense strategy and policy as to avoid all this smorgasbord planning.
Enough is enough. Lets do it right and if they can’t do it from the inside, we do it from the outside. Among many of the element of national power, I guess our political masters must have identified them, what is the priority and those generals with the many stars on the shoulder stop talking C@*K and stop dreaming of their empty slogan of the Air Force next generation, even the current asset management is below par or they have not learned anything apart from being Mat Jenin and Pak Pandir of the tip of the iceberg.
Alahai… elok lah makan tidor and dream of the future war in South East Asia. Where will the battle be? Easy said, tell the RMAF top airman, we don’t need it stupid!!!

Marhalim: I know we cannot afford the new MRCA purchase, we couldnt afford the old one! Whether or not this has been really thought out I admit remained vague but the manufacturers are seriously believing the tender will be out soon if not this year it will be within the next two years …..
Dave says:

September 30, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Salam Halim.
The criticism of RMAF,the MAF,MOD,is valid,as Eagle very politely said. I think the SU-30MK,shud be upgraded,the MIG29 sold n more SU30MK bought.Improve the existing structure with RMAF rather then go spend billions on new systems.The maturity of the F-35 systems cud come in 2020,then we can make some moves to aquire.
anonymouse says:

September 30, 2010 at 3:15 pm

if the Gripen somehow gets purchased, i won’t be able to avoid thinking we should have bought the F-20 all those years ago.
OPSSG says:

September 30, 2010 at 4:23 pm

Dave, it’s reported again and again that the RMAF will not consider more SU-30MKM because of prior contractual difficulties faced with the Russians. If you keep suggesting more purchases from this supplier, then, you must explain how the dysfunctional contractual relationship can be repaired. If not, it’s just MORE wishful thinking on your part.
Azlan says:

September 30, 2010 at 6:13 pm

The points raised by Eagle are certainly valid. There is no question that reforms are needed urgently with regards to Malaysia’s defency outlook and its procurement policy.

The average man on the street is understandbly more concerned with making ends meet in the face of rising inflation and basic food prices rather than national defence. Having said that, I still feel that there IS a justification to spend ‘billions’ on new fighters as part of an ongoing modernisation plan. Surely having a decent number of fighters to protect our airspace will be benificial to the ‘rakyat’ and not a waste of funds.
observer says:

September 30, 2010 at 9:57 pm

Marhalim is there really a problem with MAF top brass as strongly suggested by one of your regular armchair general? He kept on repeating the same thing over and over again. Its getting old lah. Why dont we nominate him as chief of the armed forces instead and solve all the problems that been plaguing the service. Let see if he can walk the talk although i suspect he wont last a day in the office. There is always the part of what has the chief of the armed forces has done and so on. He wrote as if the chiefs had it all their way. The chief take orders too. On one hand he chided the service for its below par equipment and on the other it appear he do not approve of money to be spent on procurement either. Damned if we do, damned if we dont isnt it? Please come out with valid reason to trash the service instead of sounding like a broken record.

Marhalim: He is not an armchair general, he was actually one of them….
loreng says:

October 1, 2010 at 9:34 am

I don’t think the Government will give the RMAF any major project in the coming 10th MP since they still need to pay for the A400M and EC735, carry forward from 9th MP.I believe the two projects will still take a big chunk of RMAF’s budget.As I have said before, the A400M procurement was rather controversial.

The Army which have been neglected in the past should get the attention of the policy-makers now.They need attack helicopters, modern kits for the soldiers, 155 Howitzers, 8×8 AFVs, Medium-Range ATGMs, UAVs, Night vision devices, etc…etc…etc

Rather than a new MRCA, it would be more logical for the RMAF to beef-up their GBAD capabilities in the coming 10th MP.Policy and decison-makers should be alert to the immediate and real requirements of the RMAF!
kamal says:

October 1, 2010 at 2:23 pm

IMHO the most cheapest solutions is to maintain just 1 type of aircraft. It will be cheaper in terms of logistical requirement, maintenance, training and may get discount from bulk purchasing.

As it seems right now the only candidate for that seems to be the SU30 MKM. It is not the best in every front but for bad or worst, we already bought it for almost USd1 billion (inclusive of weapon i believe) and it is here.

Till 2020-2025, this type of jet (SU) can still provide some competition to the vast number of block 52 f16, gripen and even f15, but after that w/o comitted upgrades program, it may not be much of fighter left.

Then and by then if the funding commits, should we go for the proven 5th gen fighters. But till then, i guess we could dropped the Migs and Hawks,soldier the hornet d till its demise and maybe oreder between 6-12 more SU30 mkm.
kamal says:

October 2, 2010 at 12:57 pm

dear OPSG,

Your point is valid sir but this is malaysia. problem with the russians and the appointed agents with the Migs have been know prior to the purchase of SU but the govt still went ahead.

As such i would never say never, especially when the super bug may gonna cost us upfront more than USd100 million a piece while at most the SU, no matter how problematic they are, cost between USD50-USD60 upfront.

Hope however u are right and the government does listen to the airforce, but the price quoted, the most we could buy, either the super bug, JSF or other alternatives is around 8-12 airframes. Then we will have the kandang zoo problem all over again
loreng says:

October 2, 2010 at 2:31 pm

It is understandable that the RMAF give higher priority on the procurement of more aircraft (like the MRCA) rather than building its GBAD (Ground Base Air Defence) capability. After all the image of an Air Force organization is reflected by the type and quantity of its aircraft.

But I beg to differ. Rather than going for another type of MRCA, it would be better for the RMAF to spend money on its GBAD capability. We should not forget the lessons of recent history as how a weak link in the GBAD capability could destroy an air force organization within a few hours on the declaration of hostility.

Only by having a credible GBAD capability, can we discourage an attacker from attacking our RMAF bases at will.Hopefully the Government will pay serious attention on the need to improve RMAF’s GBAD capability in the coming 10th MP.
Azlan says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:11 pm

Kamal got it spot on when he said ”it is not the best in every front” [the MKM]. Unlike what Tempur, Perajurit and the top brass will have us believe, the MKM’s are not the best or the most sophisticated multi role fighters in the region. The fact remains however that the MKM’s, flown by the right pilots, are very capable fighters.

observer, if you’re interested in reading more about complains and criticism about our leadership and the top brass by former armed forces personnel [some of whom are pro opposition], see the Mind No Evil blog.

Marhalim: Even the best fighter will be useless if the pilots are not given the opportunity to master his or her mount….
Syameer says:

October 2, 2010 at 9:32 pm

Instead we should look at the Russian variants of the S-300 missile system for defending our airspace.

Marhalim: The problem is that our GBAD was designed from the ground up for Western system….
loreng says:

October 3, 2010 at 10:21 am

Syameer,

The S-300 would solve our space and GBAD requirements once and for all.However, it will sour our relationship with our ASEAN neighbours since the S-300 because of its longer range and high altitude capability will also encroach into neighbouring states’ airspace.I don’t think our political leaders would want to jeopardize the future political and economic potential of ASEAN by acquiring such s system!
Eagle says:

October 3, 2010 at 1:19 pm

Observer,
Feel it, see it and get the right perspective.
The truth may hurt.
Yes the Chief takes orders and surely the Chief can strongly object if it is of no benefits to the nation unless he is clueless or part of the same game. Why not? Someone has to sacrifice for the sake of the nation. Wonder whether the political master is calling the shot all the time without objection from those experts in the uniform? Recently in the USA, the general was fired by the president for he stood his ground-so what! Be it!
But in us is, self interest rather than national interest. Look at the long lists of the Defense procurement,… It is too good to be true.
Hope someday Marhalim can be given the opportunity to write on the issue without someone making police report to scare him.
Anyway defense procurement should take a back seat at the moment. Will it be war in the next 10 years in this region? or war is unthinkable in South East Asia!!!
I pun donno la brother… salam.
Core Jacque says:

October 3, 2010 at 2:34 pm

protecting our own space is our responsibility..just because we dont wanna stir our relationship with neighbouring countries doesnt mean we cant boost up our defence capability..the past taught us that we cant rely on others to protect our sovereignity,we need to take responsibility on our own cause..im not suggesting an armed race but we need to have decent defence to protect the people..by the way,we need to show the people that we r capable of protecting our own citizen..besides,the citizen paid the taxes for what?..one of the reasons is for the elected government who represent the people to protect our country by any mean necessary..
kamal says:

October 3, 2010 at 4:04 pm

Vietnam got already what the s300 since 2005 i think, so it should not be an issue for us if we want one. Their version is the older S10 with approximately 150km range.
Plus our other neighbour already have the aster 30 with range of 120 km at least
By us taking it in, it may prompt the US to allow our other neighbour to have the MM104 patriot, so the way i see it it is a win2 situation.
Azlan says:

October 3, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Not only is our GBAD based on Western systems, the whole country’s air traffic control and the RMAF’s integrated radar feed is.

Encik Syamer, MANPADs or VSHORADs pun tak cukup takkan nak mimpi S300? We should start from the basics and ensure that at least every brigade has an organic air defence battery with shoulder launched missiles and alerting devices. At the moment the only unit which has organic MANPADs capability is 10th Para with the Anza Mk2 [also a GAPU unit] battery. All the rest of the GBAD systems are held by GAPU and these are distributed when needed. Anyhow, why S300 when there is VL Mica and VL Aster…

loreng, having a strong GBAD is no alternative to having a strong air arm. GBAD complements and not replaces the need for having a decent number of fighters. Iraq has a much much larger and more comprehensive integrated GBAD system, the KARI, in 91 and look what happened… In 82 the Syrians in the Bekaa Valley had an integrated GBAD and look what happened… An image of an air force is NOT reflected by the type and quantity of its aircraft but rather on how well its managed and other very vital aspects such as maintenance standards, sortie rates, serviceability rates, etc…
loreng says:

October 4, 2010 at 9:44 am

Core Jacque,

Yes, past decision-makers must take responsibility for any shortcomings in defence capability due to foolishness in utilizing past defence budgets. For example the RM2.6 billion A400M (4x units) procurement has jeopardized the RMAF defence plan because the money could have been well-spent on buying a well-proven GBAD for the RMAF which is an urgent requirement instead of buying additional transport aircrafts.

A strong GBAD is necessary to protect the billions of RM that we spent on the Sukhois and Hornets!That these two strategic assets lack an effective GBAD protection at their respective bases surely merit the immediate attention of our the PM and Defence Minister!
Ree says:

October 4, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Hi Marhalim, If only we could piggy back on this deal..

Pakistan possible order for 30 Bell 412EP.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/118418/fms%3A-30-bell-412ep-helicopters-to-pakistan.html

Thats about USD13 million per helicopter. The helicopter itself probably cost only half of that considering this is FMS, total cost includes training, spare parts etc.

Global climate change, we better be well prepared.

Marhalim: Yes its good deal alright but Bell has been dodo in Malaysia since the Jet Rangers were replaced by the Eurocopters. Yes some veteran helo pilot love the 206 but they are not in the procurment seat…
OPSSG says:

October 4, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Azlan,

Organizationally, the US Army also hold air defence battalions and systems at Division level. However, there is nothing to stop a Division commander allocation or attaching GBAD systems to a particular brigade for specific missions.

IMO, the Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) is already well equipped with MANPADs. What the MAF needs is greater sophistication (radars and other assets) and more integration to enable a Malaysian Division to sense and respond to air threats to their ground troops/force multipliers and not just more of the same. These GBAD assets are best held at Division level, during peace time and that’s also how it is done in Singapore.

GBADs like MLRS and 155mm artillery are usually divisional assets for most armies.

Cheers
Azlan says:

October 4, 2010 at 7:04 pm

OPSSG,

The army operated MANPADS and radars are not even held by the 4 divisions but by GAPU. The various MANPADs, AA guns and radars are allocated to various units when needed. Whilst it sounds fine on paper during peacetime
and solves a lot of logistical and administrative headaches, the question is whether the units who really need these assets will get it, when they need it, in the event of hostilities.

Marhalim: Thats why I have been suggesting that the current brigade formation to be transformed to a US Marine style MEF style unit ie an infantry unit together with its supporting arms, a logistic unit and an aviation wing. A permanent battle-group than train to fight as one entity instead disparate units cobbled together in time of crisis with no time to train to fight together.
abu says:

October 5, 2010 at 8:09 am

Untuk Perhatian:YAB Perdana Menteri dan YB Menteri Pertahanan,

Sekiranya apa yang dikatakan oleh Loreng itu benar, diharap kelemahan tersebut dapat diatasi dengan segara segera.

Tidak logik Kerajaan membuat perbelanjaan berbilion-bilion RM membeli Sukhoi dan Hornet tetapi tidak ada sistem GBAD yang kredible di kedua-kedua pengkalan TUDM tersebut.

Kelemahan tersebut meletakan Sukhoi dan Hornet kita ke risiko yang paling tertinggi dibadingkan dengan lain-lain sasaran dalam negara sekiranya percutusan konflik berlaku dengan negara lain.
kamal says:

October 5, 2010 at 10:34 am

Its a matter of cost, i believe the US army does not have anything more than manpads and avenger units in their investory as the US will rule the sky in any engagement. But look at their budgetla, with more than 2000 active fighters plus thousands more on reserve, the requirement for long range GBAD may not be necessary. I believe only now they are fielding the NSSAM (amram derivatives) as a medium range solutions.

For malaysia, i dunno what the best number to have jets for air supremacy but i doubt we can afford it. Anyway purchase of something like s300 or even aster 30 GBAD may only be more as a political/deterrrent/appeasing public move as chances are only a small number will be bought if any.

Marhalim: Air supremacy is a highly contentious issue…how many jets we actually need? We need to look at our biggest threat, China, as the main yardstick, so we need at least some 500 jets….
OPSSG says:

October 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm

“i believe the US army does not have anything more than manpads and avenger units in their inventory”

Kamal, that’s wrong they have much more than just MANPADS. The Air Defense Artillery Branch of the US Army operates systems such as the THAAD system (which also comes under the umbrella of the Missile Defense Agency), the PATRIOT system and the Avenger Air Defense system which fires the Stinger missile. This is because the US Army need to be able to defend high value units from SSM attacks, so this US Army Organisation is quite capable. And anti-missile systems like the THAAD and PATRIOT systems can shoot down aircraft a long ranges too.

They are also working on a system called CLAWS and another system based on HIMARS, which combines air defence into an MLRS – at the medium range. Here’s the Lockheed Martin Press Release on the test firing in 2009: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/MFC_032509_LockheedMartinsHIMARSLauncher.html
abu says:

October 5, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Marhalim,

I think our Force Development these days is not based on the assessment of threat scenario.The only time we did this was when we fell to the trap of the theory of the Domino Effect in the 1970′s.So the argument that China is our potential enemy is difficult to sustain.

If I am not wrong our Force Development is now based on the need to maintain an acceptable level of military deterrence.

To deter others, we must have adequate military resources to protect our population centers, military and economic infrastructures/assets against land, maritime and air attacks.

As for the RMAF, since it has already acquired some degree of MRCA capability,it would not be wrong however to focus on building its GBAD capability.
abu says:

October 5, 2010 at 3:58 pm

OPSGG,

I believe CLAWS are air-to-air AMRAAM missiles configured for ground launched medium range air defence role.

Any Air Force which has AMRAAM missiles in its inventory could use the same missiles for GBAD role!

Marhalim: No you cant simply put the Amraam meant for planes for SAM role, it wont work that way. Thats how companies make money….
Eagle says:

October 5, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Wow! I like your biggest threat brother. Can make good … Rm la. May be we need more than 500 jets of all kind. Some from US, Europe and Russia and also locally made.
Airod, ATSC, Zetrro and all the local aviation industry players my f@*t can come up with transfer of technology and engineering maintenance program assisted by the RMAF and the x retired general that is serving the extension of their duty in the said companies.
Hey brother! Are you not interested to write on the new Deputy RMAF chief and the new Panglima Operasi and may be be he can highlight where is the missing jet engines!!! as he was in charge when it went flying without the body…hehehehehe. Or at least see tru their eyes where the future direction or maybe the exchanges can be just like between Alice and the Cheshire cat in the Alice in the Wonderland. Salam and keep healthy.

Marhalim: I was talking out loud about 500 jets I know we cannot afford that many….
Azlan says:

October 5, 2010 at 4:47 pm

Apart from AMRAAM, Derby and MICA have been offered for use by ground troops. Though work has yet to start, the Russians are reportedly looking at a ground launched version of the R77 Adder for export. There is no reason why a missile originaly designed to be air launched can’t be reconfigured for the ground role. RAM which is basically a Sidewinder is widely operated.

Given that GAPU already operates Western radars [the TTS3D and the Giraffe] and the RMAF’s radar network is western it would be practical and prudent if any future medium range missile system also be western made. Anyhow, surface to air missiles, even in large numbers, backed by a network of alerting radars are not a means to an end and can never be a substitute for fighters. Recent conflicts have clearly proven this…

Marhalim: Of course any AAM can be configured into a SAM but you cannot simply put the thing on a ground launcher and try to fire it against an aerial threat. Theres a lot of things that need to be done and one must remember the hardware and stuff. Thats why you have not seen any ground based version of the R73, AA10 and AA12 yet and even the Russians have yet to demonstrate a working system. Yes the Amraam, Derby and Mica GL version are available but it was a lot of work mind you.

And by the way, the Iranians had modified a Hawk SAM to for AAM role for its F14 fleet, it was used during the Iran-Iraq War although I am not sure whether they managed to make a kill or not….
Dave says:

October 5, 2010 at 4:51 pm

OPSSG,Good to hear from guys like u,who understand the subject matter.The solution which ever way u look at it requires a major overhaul of MOD and procurement.Other countries have similar problems and until it is resolved u will have problem with difficult suppliers like the Russians.
As for the MIG-29,time to sell it while we can,exchange it as the Russians suggested for SU30MKM. India has participated in regular air combat exercises with western nations ,the quality of the MKI which i hope is as reported close to our MKM,has reduced the superiority of western 4th generation aircraft.This has pushed western nations to push upgrades on their existing fleets and get the new generation fighters.
India also has to go thru the difficult negotiations with Russia,but they r doing it cos the realise with new upgrades the have a superior jet with only the F-22 above.Right now the upgrades r being pushed by the Indians.
And if Marhalim is asking for piggyback or joint cooperation,since we r close with Indians lets work that angle to upgrade our existing SU30MKM and buy more.This will reduce cost and make sure we have a heavy air superiority aircraft.
Of course this also means we need to do something about our defence firms involved.I saddens me to see AIROD in the shape it is,while an equivalent singapore firm has gobbled up the market share.The firms entrusted with the mig29 n su30mkm maintainance ,I leave it to marhalim to dissect their @@!#@! performance money grabbing datuks
OPSSG says:

October 5, 2010 at 5:56 pm

Yes, agreed with the point by Marhalim.

abu, the US Defence contractors are indeed very good at making money from the US government. They are always keen to be trying out new things – thinking of new applications. New things need money to develop, so that they can validate the new concept.

LOL
check 6 says:

October 5, 2010 at 11:41 pm

Idea: our existing fighter zoo should be incorporated into a company that provides dissimilar air combat training to any and all paying customers. We spend the proceeds on getting the F-35.
kamal says:

October 6, 2010 at 5:42 am

Thanks OPSG,

I always thought THAD and MM104 were design mainly as an anti missile/cruise missile defence with secondary anti crafts capability.

may be i am mistaken but mm104 only had record of shooting friendly aircrafts during the GW but mostly shooting down scud.

BTW i always thougt CLAWS were based on the norwegian nssam.
abu says:

October 6, 2010 at 8:26 am

Marhalim,

True, but the AMRAAM could be an effective GBAD solution for the RMAF.I think the RMAF just need to spend a bit of money on sensor, launcher and command system, and behold they could have a formidable GBAD with the AMRAAM.Another big advantage to be gained, the ground launched AMRAAM system could be integrated with existing RMAF sensor networks.So it is contributing to the RMAF’s network centrics warfare (NCW)integration efforts!

Marhalim: With some 20 Amraam on stock I dont think the RMAF can modified its stock for SAM, I am told that the SLAMRAAM is one of the options for the MR-SAM requirement which is now under RMAF control. If money is allocated for the 10th MP to fill this requirement although it may face stiff competition from MBDA systems (several options available, MICA, Aster and Spada 2000) and of course not to forget the various Russian options even though their chances are remote since RMAF GBAD system are mostly Western based.
I had written before about the S300/S400 a cheaper option for SAM/BMD than the Patriots, Aster and Standard Land based System, but again considering the problems with the MKMs, I dont think RMAF will go for a Russian system. I prefer the longer range SAM although its more expensive due to the better coverage against aerial targets. For point defence of installations we can rely on radar quided MANPADS fitted on truck-based launchers coupled high-firing guns for C-RAM.
abu says:

October 6, 2010 at 9:01 am

OPSSG,

The AMRAAM in the ground launched role has been validated by the Norwegians and US Marines.Gone past the thinking, concept and validation stage lah!

The Norwegians reconfigured AMRAAM for ground launched which they call NASAMS.The NASAMS system is already in service with the Norwegian Air Force and several other countries.

The US Military has deployed NASAMS to protect their capital city.

The US Marine uses AMRAAM for ground launch Medium Range Air Defence role which they call CLAWS.

Marhalim: CLAWS, NASAM and SLAMRAAM are just different designations give for the Surface Launched Amraam, different designations due to different manufacture or launcher, command and control and radar, and vehicle or fixed sites….
kamal says:

October 6, 2010 at 3:33 pm

I am more with abu la on this, claws, slamraam or nssam seems to be a better way to go. it is already fielded in norway and us and egypt. Compared to other challenger such as SPADA (based on upgraded AIM7 of italian version) which is abit old and Aster which is not yet proven (well arguable la since AMRAAM only proven in Air to Air mode).

I believe the Indian airforce have pain in the ***e with the russian with regards to their MKI, the issue i was made to believe is always that the russian wanted to up the price from ori contract thus delay or withheld the integration with other manufacturer equipment, in this case israel, indian and french. But at the end the indian govt seems to bow down and now it seems they will get more than the 140 airframe that they originally contracted for. Some say they might go up to 300 air frames…rumoursla

So in terms of support, MKI/MKM (sister design in some case) can be there for at least another 40 years as HAL will be manufacture this monster i believe from screw to avionics.

Marhalim: But you must remember our MKM is a completely new version of the SU-30 as it is fitted with Russian, French and South African avionics. That is why they had problems since day one….

As for the SLAmraam I also prefer it than the other candidates, but whether or not we will buy the American version through FMS, or the other version is one hell of a big question, which may doom its chances of being selected, if the money is available of course….
abu says:

October 6, 2010 at 8:42 pm

Kepada Semua YB-YB Wakil Rakyat (MP),

Diharap YB-YB dapat membantu TUDM memenuhi keperluan mempertingkatkan Sistem Pertahanan Udara bagi Pengkalan-Pengkalan mereka(Ground Based Air Defence-GBAD) kerana sistem yang ada sekarang kuno (obsolete) dan memalukan.

Mohon YB memberi hujjah masing-masing semasa Belanjawan Pertahanan di bahaskan di Sessi Parlimen akan datang.

Terima-Kasih.

Marhalim: You should contact your MP and asked him or her to ask the Defence Minister next week during the new Parliamentary session. The budget will also be table next Friday (15/10/10).
OPSSG says:

October 6, 2010 at 11:42 pm

Abu,

I was speaking generally on US contractors… They seem to have a strong profit orientated business model. I’m aware of the work done for the Norwegians and US Marines.

The most interesting option thus far is the AMRAAM launched from HIMARS Launcher. I’ve provided a link for that above. That will save cost for HIMARS users, so that’s quite interesting for me.
Dave says:

October 7, 2010 at 1:36 pm

The MKI on order is 230 abouts with more on the possible orders,300 might be right Kamal.
As for SLRAAM I thot the DOD wanted to cancel it?
We cant afford to buy entirely new systems now.Get rid of systems like mig29,use the su30mkm improved as the mainstay. At the same time develop a credible air defense system.
Sounds simple,well cos most things r,just thst some people like to complicate things.I work in manufacturing,solve problems by keeping things simple so even the most complex systems can be manufactured easily always.

Marhalim, is the climate of media reporting better, so that i can see your stuff on the main pages of mail or straits time ?
Cos its not crap like the opposition shit,its actually the right stuff n most of these guys should have thier voices heard in mainstream(letters to or comments).

Marhalim: I am with The Malay Mail. At the moment not too much defence stories from me basically, well every one knows about it…..
Azlan says:

October 7, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Abu, I wouldn’t say that what is operated now is ”kuno [obsolete] and memalukan”, that would I feel, be misleading and not entirely true. Whilst stuff like the BOFI and Giraffe were bought sometime ago the rest aren’t exactly obsolete.
Syameer says:

October 7, 2010 at 8:48 pm

Dear Loreng, I don’t see any problem with the S-300 system as it is doesn’t pose any threat to our neighboring countries and they understand what is our purpose. The Singaporean can equip themself with hundred of fighter and mbt while the Thai can equip themself with an aircraft carrier why not Malaysia with just the S-300 system? It is cheap (I mean cheaper than fighter) and really effective with excellent Pk value.

Dear Azlan, I am sure you know that the S-300 is currently the world best GBAD missile system with the capability to engage multiple target ranging from fighter aircraft to SRBM and MRBM at the highest Pk value. That’s y I am proposing this idea. As compliment to the S-300 missile system, I would suggest that the Pantsir-S1 should be selected to fulfill our short/medium range SAM requirement.
Vince says:

October 9, 2010 at 3:26 pm

S-300 is the best? Define the best. There’s no such thing as the best in the military world. Like others have mentioned before, most of our GBAD system are Western made, if we want to integrate a Russian GBAD with our current system that will be a headache, it can be done but at what cost? Remember our MKM, Lekiu? We are not a rich country to begin with, so why trouble ourself with something complex, carry on with the Western made system which is compatible with our system.
Azlan says:

October 9, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Syameer…………

No system can be classed as the BEST until it has been proven in actual combat conditions.
Until the S300 has proven itself in a conflict against Western air arms, who are trained for SEAD and DEAD under a heavy jamming enviroment, the S300 CANNOT be described at the BEST missile system. To really make a difference, Malaysia would need several batteries of S300, where is the cash coming from? Who will pay for integration work, who will certify it and who will be liable?

The RTN certainly does have a ship with VSTOL capability but the ex Spanish Matadors have been grounded for a few years. In short, the Chakri Naurebet remains incapable of providing air cover to the RTN fleet or projecting air power. Having said that, we have to get what is needed for our operational and security requirements, not whats looks canggih and to keep up with our neighbours.
abu says:

October 9, 2010 at 6:39 pm

Dear Azlan,

I am afraid the truth hurts.

The RMAF’s GBAD VSHORAD system was acquired many many years ago.Was it in the 70s? Hardly the system you want to have to protect the multi billion RM Sukhois and Hornets assets.A big mismatch! Let us not pretend that it can do the job when the chips are down.

VSHORAD is not suitable for air defence of air bases and naval bases like the submarine base in Sabah.These days you need a Medium Range Air Defence Missile with longer range detection, tracking and engagement capability against modern attack aircrafts.

Moreover, the system must be capable of being integrated into RMAF’s existing AD radar network for gainful contribution towards NCW. I agree with Marhalim on a possible GBAD solution for the RMAF.Unfortunately no opportunity for 10-20%’local content’lah.

Marhalim: And if buy we buy the SLAmraam, they only give permission to fire the missiles in the US or Norway! Thats bordering on heresy, looks like it will be the French yet again…..
loreng says:

October 9, 2010 at 7:08 pm

Dear Syameer,

The problem with the S300 is that its detection, tracking and engagement capability range will permanently encroach into our neighbouring states’ airspace.It will dominate their air space sovereignty all the time.Imagine a close neighbour acquiring the systems?Our Sukhois and Hornets will be under constant threat in our own airspace 24/7, even during peace time.Surely this is not acceptable to Malaysia and be considered as an aggressive and provocative act by such neighbor which could lead to other complications. On the other hand, as you have mentioned with Singapore, acquiring the latest attack aircrafts, MBTs, long-edurance UAVs etc etc so long as they keep them out of our border, nothing much we complain about their procurement policy.
Syameer says:

October 9, 2010 at 11:22 pm

Dear Vince,
The Pk value for such a missile make it the best although it is not a combat proven missile. Even the Israeli with their state-of the art system have ordered one of the only aircraft that cannot be defeated by this missile which is the F-35s to counter the possible threat poses by the Iranian procurement of the S-300 system.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090710/155491203.html

And lastly, I have to agreed with both Azlan and Vince on your idea that it is not economical to integrate the S-300 system into our system. SO as an alternative, what do all of you think is good to boost our GBAD capability?
Azlan says:

October 10, 2010 at 12:09 am

Abu,

The truth does indeed hurt, but with regards to GAPU’s MANPADS or VSHORADS being acquired in the 70′s, this is not true… No air defence missile or AA gun, operated by GAPU, theRMAF and the RMN today, apart from the BOFI guns, were acquired in the 70′s. The Starburst was acquired in the mid 90s and the Anza and Igla in 2002. I fully agree with you that MANPADS, due to range limitations and the inability to engage target over 10,000 feet, are insufficient to provide a credible AD coverage.
Vince says:

October 11, 2010 at 1:30 am

Given the hype for NASAMS and SL-AMRAAM recently, although I\’ll love to see them on Malaysian soil, we have to be realistic, what chances are we going to have such technology withought the bureaucracy from the USA congress? Unless DSAI is the prime minister, thin chances for now given that our political instability might reflect the US judgment towards our country. Therefore, I suggest that the RBS 23 BAMSE should be a better choice, since we already have Giraffe radar in our inventory, the integration system should be easy.

Marhalim: I like the idea of RBS 23 BAMSE but like the Archer SPH, its limited user base, means we will be paying a bomb for for these things and with Swedish shrinking defence budget, it may become more costly. I dont think the US will bar the SLAMRAAM to Malaysia whichever PM lead the country. To be honest, perhaps DSAI will consider an FMS more favourably than the current government although that remained an assumption of couse…..
abu says:

October 11, 2010 at 8:52 am

Dear Syameer,

The SLAMRAAM would be a good choice.One AMRAAM missile for two different functions: AMRAAM for the Hornets and SLAMRAAM for the GBAD.Save a lot of money and would incur less logistic nightmare for the RMAF.

It is cost effective and formidable fire-forget Medium Range Missile.The good point is that it is already integrated into one the RMAF’s SOCs as they come from the same OEM, and would be easily integrated with the other two SOCs as the OEM has a proven integration technology.

Dear Azlan,

You are right the Starburst were acquired in the 90′s.It is a slip of the mind being barraged with numerous advancement in air defence technology!

It seems we share the same view about the RMAF needing to solve its GBAD nightmare.I wonder whether the PM and Defence Minister are aware of the RMAF’s GBAD weakness as I do not believe that they would allow the Sukhois and Hornets to be so vulnerable.

They must be advised the Sukhois and Hornets could be taken out taken in a blink of eye with its present GBAD capability.So for the purpose of defence planning, the Sukhois and Hornets become a negligible factor.
Ree says:

October 11, 2010 at 10:38 am

RMAF GBAD squadrons operate the Starburst missiles aquired in the early 90s. We should stick to MANPADS which are cost effective weapons, especially when combined with an all weather surveillance and cueing system like the CPMIEC SmartHunter. As for dealing with targets above 10k feet, that is why we have fighters. Details of CPMIEC SmartHunter. CPMIEC-built TH-S311 SmartHunter low-probability-of-intercept airspace surveillance system, which comprises the vehicle-mounted X-band TH-R311 SmartEye linear frequency modulation continuous wave radar, display and command unit, missile direction finder and guidance aiming computer, helmet-mounted micro-displayer for real-time viewing of targeting/engagement cues, optional Mode 5 IFF transponder, communications unit (for passing on cueing data to firing units up to 10km away using wires, or 3km away when operating in the wireless mode), and a power supply unit. When used with manportable VSHORADS like the FN-6, the air defence envelope can be extended to 60 square km. The SmartEye radar has a 20km detection range for airborne targets flying at an altitude of 2.5km, and can track up to 22 targets simultaneously, thereby providing active air defence over a 15km radius when used along with 12 VSHORADS launchers of any type that are currently in service with the MAF.
Azlan says:

October 11, 2010 at 8:32 pm

Abu, I have no doubt the PM and Defence Minister is fully aware, they after all belong to a government that constantly places more importance to other areas than national security. As I’ve mentioned before, the opposition is no better and has yet to make a single statement with regards to which direction our national defence policy should be headed.

The problem as I see it, is that the 3 services have a very long shopping list, due to all the custs and postponements made to the defence budget over the years, so where do we start? With regards to SHORADS I personally would like the Starstreak and the ADADs [as a passive alerting device] rather the Chinese FN6 and Smarteye. Whether its the SLAMRAAM or VL MICA it males no difference to me as long as its integrated to the existing feed and is bought in decent numbers. A bit out of scope but Russian GPS jammers and Serbian radar decoys would probably be useful.
Syameer says:

October 11, 2010 at 10:27 pm

Dear Azlan,
I am not defending the govt, but currently as we are recovering from the 2009 economic downturns, we should look forward to boost and build back our economy as what the central govt is doing now. When our economy is more stable, then god-will, the govt will give more allocation for the defends budget.

If Only We Could Piggyback on This Deal…Part II

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31