SHAH ALAM: BEFORE we start, let me say that this is not the official RMK11 Dump list. Its just the Malaysian Defence’s Eight Things We Are Not Getting in RMK11.
Why eight? Because eight is supposed to be a lucky number. Further more I am pretty sure the eight items listed here are not in the RMK11 list even though I have not gotten any official confirmation.
Whether or not the items here will remained unfunded in RMK11 depends on other issues of course – mostly monetary and political considerations. As it is the principal author of RMK11 – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has come under tremendous pressure recently.
The pressure had ratcheted up a notch over the weekend following the publication of claims that he pocketed billions of ringgit from 1MDB.
And with the country’s ringgit coming under pressure following the crisis in Europe (apart from the low prices of oil and other commodities) one have to wonder whether there will be enough funds for RMK11 for the things that got approved.
The blame for all of the troubles facing the country is of course according to the critics, lies with the PM. So much so that the word among the political circles are that big changes are scheduled to take place after Hari Raya or perhaps even sooner.
Whether or not this will happened or whether the change will boost the country’s fortunes, we will have to wait and see.
BTW, please do not get confused and state that the list below are the things we are getting in RMK11. This is the things we are NOT getting in RMK11.
It is obvious isn’t it ? Spending at least RM5 billion for a bunch of fighters is a huge political decision for any country. And the politician making decision must have some solid backing either politically or security wise.
With our Defence Minister stating that the threats we faced currently and in the near future are a bunch of guys from Mindanao and the IS, clearly there is no political will to fund the programme.
Despite the political put down, the MRCA remained a priority of the Armed Forces and the Royal Malaysian Air Force specifically. It is because of this there is persistent talk
about the possibility of a special allocation to fund the MRCA programme. I have heard about that before and I do not make much about it. If they didn’t think it is important enough for RMK10, why should they do it outside of it?
For the record, RMAF has shortlisted four aircraft for the MRCA programme, the Boeing Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale , Eurofighter Typhoon and the Saab Gripen. All the candidates are the latest variant, the F Super Hornet, Rafale F3R , Tranche 3 Typhoon and the Gripen NG.
It is unclear however whether funds will be available as a stop-gap measure either through leasing or the procurement and upgrade of second hand fighters. As I had mentioned previously, both the Typhoon and Gripen have offered the option as part of a lease and buy programme.
As for the possible procurement and upgrade plan, Kuwait is expected to sign on either the Typhoon or Super Hornet in the near future which will allow it retire around 40 legacy Hornets, single and dual seaters. These Hornets is expected to be available around 2018, however. And due to the current operations in Yemen, their flight hours are much higher than in the past.
Will funds be reinstated if there is a change of leadership. Unlikely.
2) MIG29 Upgrade
With no upgrade funded, RMAF Fulcrum will just fade away. There will not be any celebration or farewell party however. The current political situation dictates it.
When will the aircraft be retired then? As I had reported before (gone now) the RMAF will crossed the bridge once it gets there. The former RMAF chief had stated previously that the Fulcrums will retire by the end of 2015, which his successor declined to confirm nor deny whether they will abide by it.
The Fulcrum upgrade however is the obvious choice for reinstatement in RMK11 if there is a change in the country’s top leadership in the near future (if it happens of course).
It will be very costly to upgrade the Fulcrum if the decision is made to continue flying them is made at the last moment, however.
3) Missile Corvettes
Daewoo Shipbulding & Marine Engineering Ltd (DSME) created a lot of stir in late 2014 when it was reported that the company had got an order for six Missile Corvettes from the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN).
According to the report, three vessels will be built and assembled in South Korea starting from January 2018 while the rest will be block built in South Korea and assembled in Malaysia with DSME’s cooperation.
I subsequently reported that DSME actually signed the deal with the local company, NMEL Sdn Bhd, which look very much like a successor to NGV Tech Sdn Bhd, the failed builder of RMN’s two training ships.
In the same report I also stated that if the funding for the missile corvettes in RMK11 was secured, the deal was a foregone conclusion. I must state now that I was told that there is no funding for missile corvettes in RMK11.
Apparently RMN has to cope with the current situation in South China Sea with its current fleet and the LCS. The only saving grace is that the SLEP for Jebat and Lekiu as well as the Laksamanas have been funded.
Could the missile corvettes be re-instated if there is changes to the RMK11? Perhaps, I am pretty sure RMN will welcome it though.
The MRSS programme was supposed to be funded back in RMK10. Heck they even started – NGV Tech Sdn Bhd the preferred builder – building a shipyard in Bagan Datuk, Perak for the project. But the economic downturn around 2010 (yes we have many of those) put paid to that hopes. It was also the coup the grace for NGV Tech, which went belly up even before finishing up the two training ships for RMN.
The MRSS was put up again for RMK11 considerations again this year, however it failed to be funded. I guess we have to wait for the LCS project to be completed before the MRSS programme will get any funds.
Well what about the China made LPD which Malaysian Defence wrote about in April? As the project comes under a PFI scheme of course there is no need to list it in RMK11.
In fact, I believed the PFI proposal was one of the reason the MRSS programme failed to make the cut for RMK11. Anyhow, it appears that the RMN has little interest in any of the proposals involving China either ship building or systems sourcing.
With the backers of the proposal coming from one side of the political divide, any changes to the leadership will severely dent such hopes. Furthermore with China’s stand on Gugusan Semarang Peninjau, any deal with the republic’s state owned arms manufacturers – cheap or not – will faced strong headwinds.
TO be continued…
— Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
malaysia is a slow modernization of army progress rather than neignbour country.
For the Chinese equipments.
Tldm own people has voiced their acceptance of the idea of having Chinese equipment for current ship upgrades (during the recent conference in Singapore). That should mean something…
Not from what I am hearing..
If the “current threat” is the yard stick to measure the need for new military hardware then we are doomed to be the next Philippine, and be ready to be bullied by China and our neighbors especially the southern one. It is embarrassing enough that we cannot do anything to prevent their ships from getting too close for comfort, soon enough their “Bear” are going to roam our sky freely and all we can do is stare.
its about the economics, at 3.806 its already more than 20% depreciation from early 2014. With the current EU crisis, China equity Market Crisis and local political crisis, it could easily go down further to the dreaded USD1:RM4. With this all the previous planning done by the MOF/EPU/Mindef already koyak and need to be revisited again to see whether any procurement approved or planned can actually be affordable.
so technically RMN wouldn’t be getting anything besides SLEP?
Slow in modernizing is not a problem but we have to be smart in military hardware procurement with the little money that were given…there are many example just to name…..singapore when MY have been using the exocet in their FAC etc in the 70’s n 80’s singspore have none of those….same goes for TUDM they were zipping sabre..skyhawk…F-5 singapore still flying caribou in seletar airbase plus RAF fighters station in paya lebar etc…but now SG can be proud of their military hardware because they invest smartly…..my observation has got no base but most singaporean will to my comment
It’s a fallacy to think that we can prevent the Chinese from entering our EEZ even if we had sufficient funding.
Whatever we do and how ever much we spend; they will still come if they want to. Every Chinese ship that enters our EEZ is shadowed by the RMN : what else can we realistically do?? Note that the Chinese have not up the ante; ships entering our EEZ are not PLAN ships and they haven’t acted aggressively towards RMN and MMEA ships they way they have Vietnamese, Filipino or even American ships.
It’s not military might that will prevent the Chinese from doing anything more drastic but diplomacy and other factors. The Chinese have as much to lose as anyone else if things take a turn for the worst.
We first have to deal with actual threats before we think about equipping the MAF to focus entirely on external state on state threats. We can’t concentrate on both simultaneously and it’s not as if we are it a state of heightened tensions with any of our neighbours. No point having a SAM with a maximum 150km effective range of the threat is kumpit with such a low bow that it can’t be detected by radar.
Any comparison to the Philippines is very silly and is a major exaggeration as there is a world of difference between the state of the MAF and the AFP.
Singapore had hawker hunters, bac strikemasters and skyhawks long before malaysia had any fighters. And singapore never had any caribous.
If I’m not mistaken RMAF Tebuans entered service before the RSAF’s Hunters. It may not have been a “fighter” per say but was jet powered.
“soon enough their “Bear” are going to roam our sky freely and all we can do is stare” Do the Chinese have TU-95s ?? lol
It’s tough to compare our forces with Singapore due to several factors which had been mentioned before. Singapore’s military are regarded by many, though discreetly, as offensive oriented. One just have to look at it’s mission statement. To “enhance Singapore’s peace and security through deterrence and diplomacy, and should these fail, to secure a swift and decisive victory over the aggressor”. Deep meaning. Thus, we shudnt really compare ourselves with them.
Slow modernization is still better than no modernization. TUDM is still a capable force. slowly but surely we will be able to get whats needed. better late than never.
I think the main focus of MAF for foreseeable future, under the current internal political-financial stress, should be on maintaining ability to deter/counter threats posed by non-state actors on maritime borders, primarily, as well as policing shipping lanes, which would imply less focus on pricey, high offense assets (like new MRCA). Also, it is unlikely that the government will allow first strike and bypass diplomacy in dealing with other states, a passive policy which will negate most of the advantages offered by the proposed expensive systems. A path for more economical upgrades of current assets and investment of limited funds in more capable surveillance/recon/patrol will be more in line with current policies and political climates. The only nation head and shoulders more advance than MAF in ASEAN is the one least likely to instigate armed conflicts, while the rest is having financial stress like Malaysia, plus more chance of domestic strives to worry about than to have machinations on Malaysia…
’s” a fallacy to think that we can prevent the Chinese from entering our EEZ even if we had sufficient funding.
Whatever we do and how ever much we spend; they will still come if they want to.”
i totally disagree…so in this case of reasoning why must we fear indons than ?they are just requipping their old hardware n MAF goes suspicious n wary of its neighbour..?and i dont see why singspore armed forces is respected by its asean counter parts if the above argument is true?we DO NEED a certain amount of deterrent tools that will make all agressor to think before they jump…..
it seem like not much procurement in RMK 11… all is upgrade, SLEP, enhance….
MPA also plan to get 4 units only….
I’m fully agreed with Azlan, if we spend so much money to strenghten MAF it not make us can match the chinese military might. We have to use different approach on how to deal with them especially on the SCS issue. Marhalim, how about fate of attack helo?
Any idea which MPA is likely to be selected ?
Off topic a bit… Bangladesh coast guard bought 4 ex Italian navy minerva corvettes to be converted as opv
That would be a powerful opv for a coast guard. Previously rumored to be taken by Philippines, now confirmed going to Bangladesh.
Bangladesh only bought 4 so the Pinoys can still buy the other 4. We will not touch any 2nd hand ships not fitted with MTU engines
We cannot prevent Chinese coast guard from sailing in the eez, but by always consistently being there when the Chinese coast guard ship enters the eez will give a strong signal that the waters is administered by malaysia, so no chance of them claiming it was unoccupied and now under their administration. And now all reefs in sabah or sarawak, however near to the coast, should have malaysian permanent manned posts, something like a mini oil platform should do.
Good news….all that money in the 7 accounts that do not belong to PM cukup to buy rifles for the PDRM. Tanpa akkessori la.
There is always an RMN ship on permanent station in the area. Quite often the Chinese ships is intended to decoy out ships do Chinese trawlers can operate without interruption. At times there are also MMEA ships there, deploying from Labuan.
There are no reefs claimed by us that are unoccupied. When Mahathir launched “Ops Tugu” however, there was a reef we claimed but did not occupy. We placed markers there but these were removed by the Viets.
Unfortunately certain people view things from too narrow a lense and only look at the military angle.
Just to be fair. It does not pay to shoot first n talk later. It should always be diplomacy first before bullets n guns. But if the mouth talking is just like a paper tiger or a toothless tiger , then who would listen to the toothless tiger?. All diplomatic efforts must have the means to back them up. Then only can diplomacy carry strength. Of course we can’t fein in a fight but if any aggressors knows that if they are to tsngle with the MAF they will even if they win get a bloody nose in order to win n maybe even eith a few broken tibs for good effect, it will make aggressors think twice. The principle in detetence is not an outright win or loose. Its ” does it make it politically unacceptable” to win. How to achieve it?. Have a strong MAF both in well trained n hardened personnels n the weapon systems yo support it.
Ships are important in the scs scenario. But we will never have enough to shadow the huge navy n coast guard of the plan. Here having a good number of maritime surveillance aircraft which can make its presence known is an important gap filler. Ot need not be costly maritime planes. It can be cheap cessna caravan , kingairs or even the single engine pilatus cabin plane with a maritime version. There is the new cheap scorpion now. Of course manning the atolls claimed by us is of great inportance as it proved occupation. Remember how we lost the outcrop to our neighbour over occupation?
Who said anything about “fearing” them?? I said they were a cause of “concern” (due to geo political and other reasons).
We live in the real world, not gaga land. If we continue trying to do several things (which we don’t have the resources for) we end up like we are now; neither here nor there.! We have to focus on dealing with the threats we face, not the threats we may or not face in the future. At the same time, as cash becomes available we should improve on our deterrent capability. BTW, deterrence is not based solely on military might but also on diplomacy, economic cooperation, dialogue and other ways to ensure regional stability.
Having served in the Royal Australian Navy in the 1970’s our equipment at that time was not the best or the most modern. Where we outshone our allies (and hopefully our enemies!) was in the standard of our personnel and our ability to maximise the effectiveness of the equipment we had and to maintain combat readiness in all circumstances. From what I have seen of the MAF you should be proud of your forces and if you support them and keep them well trained then they will give a bloody nose to any aggressor regardless of who they are. Fancy hardware is nice but not always necessary.
If money and political considerations are the big issues, then be prudence with whatever cheap stuff needed to replace whatever assets that we cant afford to maintain anymore.
The Scorpion ISR fighter/attack aircraft is such a good example to have what we cannot achieved. If you need to retire the Migs, then be it. We could have 20 Scorpions for around USD400 million to replace the Mig sqdn in Kuantan. And for being that cheap, we might get another 20 Scorpions to overlook the ISR and maritime patrol cum fast boat interceptor/destroyer in ESSCOM and even the whole Sabah Sarawak region.
Being cheap not necessarily becoming an outright loser, that aircraft has a potential for future cheap air combat multirole missions with full integrity and dignity. No money wasted, airforce keep on flying high.
yes we have permanent posts in the spartlys but for reefs near to the malaysian shore like beting patinggi ali, beting raja jarom there is no permanent outposts there as we did not consider it part of the spartlys. But with the recent developments, we need to put a permanent manned outpost in those area too.
I am glad we are not buying MRCAs anymore. A Mig-29 used about USD 10K/hour on fuel in 1990 when a barrel of oil is USD 38/barrel. Now is even more.Buy sparingly and we will be happy.
We should not be buying toys! We should be arming the people of Sabah to protect the coastlines from ‘ATM withdrawers’ who come now and then in speed boats to bring people back to their lairs for ransoms.
Selamat Hari Raya dan maafkan kami yang jahil.
Utk waktu yg genting ni, hanya 2 aset saje diperlukan. Iaitu gripen (sbb murah dan berkesan) dan destroyer type 45 (sbb sistem canggih) . Saya cdg kerajaan ambil sedikit dari keuntungan petronas, tak banyak pun kita mahu, cuma rm10b saje sudah memadai. Petronas sudah operate beberapa telaga gergasi. Adakah Petronas mahu telaga gergasi tersebut terlepas ke tangan asing. Saya rasa rm10b tidak banyak kalau dibandingkan dgn jumlah revenue setahun petronas bernilai rm240b.
As for me hawk, sukhoi and hornet is already a credible force for time being. What we actually need is modernization a actually. Gear up the soldier with latest armor, comms and optics/weapon with kits. The people tend to overlook this issue as the matters is not famous like shiny new mrca or frigates. The need for new radio communication pack, shoes and uniforms with body armor is really needed in establishing a credible force.
Eg. is the Vamtacs and new shiney weststar gun carrier have any add on armor ? No. This actually more dangerous than didnt gaving a squadron of MRCA. This the one we should look into!
Yes the land systems are important but to fight the irregular warfare against the pirates/ kidnappers n the fronting of the scs matter the needs are different. To be practical the front line here is not the land. The real front line is the sea. The Philippines pirates come n go by the sea. Its just impossible to guard every inch of coastline but we can cut the sea lanes for ingress n egress. So what is required are plenty of super fast patrol boats, radar systems that can detect small surface crafts n a moving or stationary mother ships that shortens our reaction time to intercept these pirates either on the way in or out. These patrol boats should consist of two types. The first bring the larger longer range ones for regular patrolling n small fast not so long range ones for interception n chase. These small speedy patrol boats should have a speed of between 40 to 50 knots. The longer range can have more moderate speeds of 40 knots or 35 knots.
As for the scs this is a different kettle of fish. The patrol boats n ships must have endurance n be a force to reckon with. Missile patrol boats fit the needs. But these should be coveted preferably with long range , long endurance maritime planes supported by smaller maritime planes to track any intruders.
so the front line is different. Land warfare is not so likely. Any sparks bow would come from the sea. So attention must now be focused to the new front line
Thanks for the compliments.
The MAF has always delivered but sadly it is a victim of a penny pinching budget, a public that couldn’t care less and a procurement policy heavily driven by political factors and the need to develop the local industry; rather than ensuring the MAF gets the desired capability and the taxpayer his/her money’s worth. It is also sad that a large part of the public is always quick to lay blame but has no idea as to the difficulties the MAF faces and the fact that how well the MAF is able to perform is governed not just by adequate funding but also on other factors.
“We first have to deal with actual threats before we think about equipping the MAF to focus entirely on external state on state threats. We can’t concentrate on both simultaneously and it’s not as if we are it a state of heightened tensions with any of our neighbours”
What it means?im not that clever lah tuan….
but if you are a military man you will know that…the armed forces is a fluid aset.just to tell you my understanding…if only we have 30 modern vessel big or small right now due to our prudent n no nonsense military hardware purchase when in need like partoling sabah waters shadowing PLAN vessel we dont over stretched our navy be it the personnel or the hardware itself.
As for the armed forces they are as fluid as the navy if they are well equipped with land platform big or small…at any given time they can be tasked to do border patrolling duties..small scale amphib assault..heliborne insertion be station at strategic post etc….they are not static in their role as to what ur above comment explains.SO DO WE NEED a deterrent tools YES…and not waiting for things to happen then we prepare for it….your mindset is so yesteryears…..god help us if ever we have top brass who is academically incline but….
The public is NOT disinterested or even anti defence procurement but the public is against the way the procurement is made. Just like the scorpenes. The nego is supposed to be g to g but then out pops a middleman to take RM500 million which can actually equip these two subs an AIP propulsion system with left over for more weapons too. This is why weapons are look upon as such a sensitive matter
National Interest first.
Some pple really never learn lesson from other country using diplomatic channel n negotiate is a must but provided u carry a big stick as well like what Mr.Lee wrote…what happen to plastine PLO yes they negotiated until yasir araffat passed away any result?until now they have been negotiating but to no avail because plastine simply have got no deterent factor…..gurilla fighters yes but no big weapons that can really worry the israelis…so this is a good case to ponder upon unless some might say oh that happens only in the middle-east…what is the difference between here n there….same old story human greed unless some pple will say the israelis are different from the chinese or the indons than i rest my case
Seeing your compliment, I can’t help to say that I agreed as well. I too have confidence on our potent forces and being capable to be able to operate in various operations in the past few years. It’s just that the soldiers aren’t getting what they needed. It depends on the political and finance that supports them, and we even knew that we have a bad economy right now. The only best thing is our readiness and capabilities of our warfighters.
Russia’s Once-Mighty Fighter Jet Firm MiG Struggling as Rivals Make Gains
Once one of the world’s most famous aircraft designers, Russia’s MiG aircraft company has fallen on hard times. Though MiG aircraft continue to populate almost 30 world air forces, the firm has not won a major design competition or aircraft tender in its post-Soviet history.
Russia is the world’s second-largest arms exporter after the United States, and its aircraft companies made up a substantial $4.4 billion of the country’s overall $13 billion in arms exports in 2014, according to data collected by defense industry consultancy IHS.
Although MiG has been able to secure a chunk of these exports, its market performance since the fall of the Soviet Union has been outpaced by Russia’s other fighter aircraft producer, Sukhoi. In terms of foreign sales alone — a key lifeline for Russia’s defense industry — Sukhoi has dominated, exporting 67 more aircraft and raking in almost $7 billion more than MiG since 1991.
In the dogfight for market share with Sukhoi, MiG has been outfoxed — plagued by a failure to win the big contracts it needed, hemmed in by the limited scope of its main offerings, and hit by a number of reputational setbacks.
“There’s not much hope for MiG,” said Mark Bobbi, a fighter jet expert at IHS. “MiG does have lots of maintenance and upgrade business, but even the latter will disappear as export customers retire, store, scrap and replace their MiG-29s,” he said.
Cold War Icon
MiG aircraft were Cold War icons, becoming almost synonymous with the Russian air force in the West. Their reputation was rivaled only by that of Kalashnikov rifles, according to Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Moscow-based Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST).
“It is absolutely true that during the Soviet era, the main fighter aircraft were MiGs,” said Pukhov, pointing to the Hollywood film “Top Gun” as evidence of the hold MiGs had over the imagination of the Western aviation community.
The company is named after Soviet airplane designers Artyom Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich, who designed their first airplane, the MiG-1, in 1939. Today, its most popular aircraft is the MiG-29, which resembles a U.S. F-15. The MiG-29 is in service with almost 30 air forces, with a reported unit cost of some $30 million per plane.
But the design bureau’s fortunes changed for the worse with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The Soviet Union’s massive levels of defense spending allowed the MiG and Sukhoi, its main competitor, to coexist and thrive in the same ecosystem. Although their products differ in some important ways, such as size, combat role and armament loads, there is some overlap.
According to Bobbi, MiG and Sukhoi aircraft under this system “were designed as ‘throwaway’ aircraft,” designed to operate for 10 years with little or no maintenance before they were scrapped and replaced with all new aircraft.
But this style of design and production was unsustainable after the Soviet collapse, when Russia’s Defense Ministry was unable to continue such wasteful procurement practices. So, like most of Russia’s defense industry, MiG and Sukhoi turned to the foreign export market to stay afloat.
While both companies have been able to overcome the limitations of their supply chain and secure Russia’s position as a leading aircraft exporter, MiG has lost out to Sukhoi when it comes to getting the big contracts necessary to stay alive.
According to data provided by IHS, since 1991 Sukhoi has exported 252 fighter jets and made $15.4 billion in production sales. MiG has only exported 185 aircraft and made $8.6 billion in production sales.
Maxim Sysoyev, a spokesman for the United Aircraft Corporation — a massive state owned company that owns MiG and Sukhoi — said the discrepancies in units produced and the value of their sales are easily explained.
“My take is that ‘grand’ orders from India and China greatly helped Sukhoi in achieving these numbers, while MiG has more ‘smaller’ customers. Plus, Sukhois are more expensive, as they are larger than MiGs,” Sysoyev said.
“We wouldn’t say that MiG is struggling, I think this perception is wrong,” he added.
But while MiG might boost sales by winning a major contract, it has so far been unable to attract buyers for anything outside of its limited core offering of modernized MiG-29 aircraft, built mostly for the Russian and Indian navies.
In April 2002, MiG lost a Defense Ministry tender to Sukhoi for the creation of a fifth generation stealth aircraft for the Russian military. MiG continues to work on a fifth generation fighter, which would be lighter than Sukhoi’s, but neither the Russian Defense Ministry nor foreign customers have shown much interest in the project.
MiG gunned again for a big order in 2007 with the unveiling of a new lightweight aircraft at the AeroIndia trade show: the MiG-35, a highly souped up version of the fourth generation MiG-29.
The company hoped to win a massive $13 billion Indian fighter jet tender with the MiG-35, which would have secured 126 orders for the plane, but in 2012 India decided to go with France’s Rafale jet — leaving the MiG-35 without any customers and stuck on paper and in development.
“Losing the [stealth fighter tender] and striking out with their new lightweight fighter hurt them badly,” Bobbi said.
UAC’s Sysoyev said that development of the MiG-35 should wrap up next year, at which point deliveries to Russia’s air force can begin, but Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said in April that only 30 of the aircraft would be purchased by 2020, news agency RIA Novosti reported.
MiG has also struggled to gain ground amid some embarrassing incidents and other blows to its reputation.
As Sukhoi and MiG ventured forth into the export market in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union, they didn’t initially make a good impression.
“International customers soon found out how badly Russian aircraft companies support their aircraft [in terms of repairs],” said IHS’s Bobbi.
Nor have matters improved with time: “The Russian supply chain is quite honestly the most inefficient and corrupt industrial system on the face of the Earth,” Bobbi said.
While this may be fine for Sukhoi, whose fighter jets are well embedded within foreign markets, MiG can ill afford the scrutiny.
Other incidents have proved more openly embarrassing.
In 2008 Algeria tore up a contract and returned 15 MiG-29 aircraft delivered in 2006 and 2007 for inferior quality, demanding that Russia give them 14 to 16 Sukhoi Su-30 fighters instead, Defense News reported at the time. The cancellation, which nullified a $1.28 billion contract for a total of 34 MiGs, was the first time ever Russian hardware was returned by an export customer over quality concerns.
Regardless of the fate of the MiG-35, analysts said that MiG can continue to push forward for a time with additional sales of the MiG-29 and maintenance contracts for MiG aircraft in service across the world.
According to Pukhov, the MiG-29 is the perfect aircraft for navies, since the MiG-29K variant has been developed specifically for service on Soviet-built aircraft carriers and their successors.
Russia is considering building a new aircraft carrier by 2030, and India is building a new aircraft carrier that will undoubtedly use MiG-29Ks, since they are using them on their current Soviet-built carriers, Pukhov said.
But unless the company can successfully launch new projects such as the lightweight MiG-35, or even a new bomber intercepter to replace the old Soviet MiG-31 bomber killers, the future will be uncertain.
This year, MiG will deliver just 32 jets, compared to Sukhoi’s 116, according to IHS. Sukhoi’s backlog of orders is also much larger, with contracts valued by IHS at $7 billion compared to MiGs $2.2 billion.
Meanwhile, MiG-29s currently in service are getting older — and in some Eastern European countries now in NATO, the fighters are being replaced with Western makes.
“MiG does have lots of maintenance and upgrade business, but even the latter will disappear as export customers retire, store, scrap and replace their MiG-29s,” Bobbi said.
“In short, MiG is [living] on borrowed time,” he concluded.
source from: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russias-once-mighty-fighter-jet-firm-mig-struggling-as-rivals-make-gains/524940.html
A bit off topic…..does mbda camm missile under consideration for sgpv anti-air weaponry?
Well. We cannot compare the mig n sukhoi companoes in this way. Just like we cant compare GD n Boeing for tgeir f16 n f15. The migs are inteeceptors with its main use in stopping intruders. The fulcrum is not meant for interception/ interdiction duties. With its size n range it goes for offensive. So their roles are different. So we cant write off the mig as a aircraft or as a company as their products have a different market n fullfill a different job
We live in the real world, not gaga land. If we continue trying to do several things (which we don’t have the resources for) we end up like we are now; neither here nor there.
Agree tuan..the world i live n work is full of mix races.no body ask to do multi spending without looking at our wallet…the need to have a goof deterrent factor means we keep on expanding what asset we have now n improve on it….how many light frigate can be bought or FAC if we dont shop for hi tech frigate?how many battlelion can be fully equipped with improved hardware…?we are neither anywhere because the top brass sees that the MAF is to be equipped holistically and not looking at the wallet..we cannot assume that all the races in the world have got the same manner n ideology like the malaysian….that is a wishful thinking…we can’t go the diplomatic way all the time…yes they will nod infront of u diplomatically but they will make sure their aspiration is also fullfill behind u…lots of example in the world less u turn a blind eye….palastine….acheh….southern filipine….bosnia etc
We live in RMland where the rules of math are different.
I write – like all of of us – in a simple manner that is easily understood. If you have problems understanding what I write, then that’s too bad.
Also, drop the “tuan” bit as there’s no need to be patronising.
I stand by what I say, that we can’t realistically deal with all manner of threats and that people who think we can are delusional and live in cloud cuckoo land. We should focus on dealing with the threats we,fac and those we might day, not on those we might or not face. To do otherwise is beyond our means. Also, I never said we shouldn’t have a deterrent but based on our limitations; that this deterrent can only be “limited” and that we should focus on the threats we are most likely to face.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with my views but I would appreciate that they base their counter arguments or rebuttals on facts and realities; instead of going off tangent and including stuff that is not based on reality and has no relation to the topic.