But the picture, to me at least, encapsulates what is wrong with our defence procurement. Putting our top-of the line MRCA as a tanker when we are short of combat planes is not too bright to say the least.
SHAH ALAM,: The picture (below) courtesy of Mindef was probably taken during the recently concluded Ex Angsa 2010. Its a spectacular picture, all right, a Sukhoi Su-30MKM preparing to off-load fuel to a Hornet with two others waiting and four Hawks in the same formation probably going to top up as well.
Its certainly nice to see the Cobham air-to-air refueling rig operational on the Flankers when the deal for them was signed during Lima 2009. It is also good that our boys in the fast jet are training to top-up fuel from a jet instead from the much slower KC-130T tanker plane.
Practising air-to-air refuelling from the much faster Flanker certainly will helped our fly-boys during the upcoming Exercise Bersama 2010 with our Five Power Defence Arrangement partners this Friday. Our partners operate jet-powered tankers from the KC-135, VC10s and soon-to-be A330 MRTT.
But the picture, to me at least, encapsulates what is wrong with our defence procurement. Putting our top-of the line MRCA as a tanker when we are already short of combat planes is not too bright to say the least.
Yes, I know the US Navy uses the Super Hornet as an aerial tanker but these planes are mostly used to top-up fuel of other planes near carriers and in emergencies only. For other missions, the US Navy rely on Hercules tankers from the Marine or USAF KC10s or allied tankers.
Yes, I know airborne tankers are mostly converted airliners which are quite expensive to procure. But since our former PM purchased an Airbus A319CJ for his exclusive usage, one can imagine that the government has the funds to procure an Airbus A319MRTT brand new or second hand.
And since the former PM had since retired, his CJ could be easily be converted into a MRTT or has it gone into service for another leader now?
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (16)
Frankly speaking i don't want to sceptic but .... waahhh... ini barulah MRCA "Multi-Role CacaMerba Aircraft"... what a waste.
What happened to the 2 "charlie" tanker they converted back in 90's?
Marhalim: I believe the 2 Hercules tankers are still around but as I said its good training to refuel at higher speeds since the Flankers are around...
It's also standard Russian practice to use fighters as tankers, with the UPAZ pod. Prior to the Hornet, the USN used the A-6 as a tanker. It's possible that there may be certain contingencies where a fighter would be more suitable as a tanker rather than a slow, lumbering dedicated tanker.
Marhalim: The Russians are moving slowly to the Midas tankers...
Maybe RMAF is trying to show of that the Cobham is functional, given all the huu haa about our can't dive Scorpene, the RMAF might learned their lesson from RMN to make it public. It'll be better if they show the R-77 been fired from the MKM's in my opinion.
Sorry, it might seem unrelated but do you know anything regarding the 2 pilots and ground crew from the RMAF are currently undergoing training in the U.S. on the Super Hornet? As posted by Dzirhan in his facebook?
Marhalim: Nope on the second question...
Its a excellent capability to have.
Possible main tanker procurement later. Once the A400M is delivered,maybe turning a C-130 into a tanker.
Still brilliant,good one.
Marhalim: We have two Hercules tankers....
I just don't understand why the govt still continue with the A400 M program although the cost of the project has rises. Is all of this because of the CTRM deal with airbus? Obviously, for 1 A400M, we can get more Super Hercules!
The Sukhoi pilots will not have the opportunity to use their skills in times of conflict.
Unless they have an effective GBAD to protect their base, the survivability of the Sukhoi MRCA will be a big question mark.
The Government need to invest on a good GBAD solution to protect the Sukhois and the Hornets too.
Wow! brother, what a revelation!
Converting ACJ 319 into tankers? What a good idea! anyway who is maintaining that ACJ and who are piloting the AC. Siapa punya peruntukan to operate the ACJ?
Are the RMAF tankers fully mission capable or it is just like chipsmore "kadang kadang ada!...hahaha" or "hanya untuk exercise sahaja"
You are getting cold brother into the tip of the iceberg!!! hahahaha probably you can go deeper!
Tanya la sama itu PAT and PTU and the new 3 stars, may be you can get more stories if they are willing to story you.
But don't get into the rabbit hole of the Alice in the wonder land. Go and trail, who is the Don Quixote in the Armed Forces!
Good luck for a better news in the name of national interest and hopefully they will not stop you because of national security interest.
Salam hormat brother.
The picture is a sampling of the Air Force Next Generation! Betul ka!
Marhalim: Last time I check the ACJ maintainance is done by Airod.
Out of topic...why are we still using the hawk 200? Though its avionics is said to be superior than MIG 29, it already crash 5, at least 1 mangsa (may be i am wrong). Mainly dropped guided bombs and dud bombs. Cant do BVR like MIG although the MIG BVR IMHO is still 70's technology standard (R27 AA10 alamo a, dont think it has ever fire the R77 despite claims outhere).
Cant we just retire it (and maybe together with the MIGS i sense) and get some more SU or better still SH?
Marhalim, the Russians have the Midas tanker but will continue to use the UPAZ pod because it's part of their doctrine to use fighters to refuel other fighters for long range patrols and interdiction flights. Whether it's suitable for use remains to be seen.
Kamal, I suspect it's because we still have some 14 or 15 Hawks 200s. The Hawk 200s have not fared as bad as the Hawk 100s with about half, about 4 or 5 written off, off 10 delivered. 2 years ago a deal was sign with BAE Systems and Rolls Royce for a long overdue overhaul of the Adour engines and spares, so we hope to see less Hawk crashes. According to Marhalim a few months ago, the RMAF had done a feasibility study on upgrading the Hawk 200s with a Selex Vixen AESA radar.
Marhalim: The doctrine of using combat jets to refuel other fighters is a hold-over from the Soviet erA when the air force (regiment size units) was to follow land formation at the battlefield for air dominance and interdiction duties. It was the doctrine as the Soviet units had some 200-300 fighters per air regiments! Now even the Russian are moving away from the doctrine as they also realised that cannot afford to have that much combat aircraft hence the introduction of the Midas tankers. For us to follow a doctrine which is being abandoned is to me is simply not smart (for a lack of a better work) moreover with our limited number of combat aircraft.
I understand we cannot afford a fleet of dedicated air tankers even multi-role tanker and transport version. Thats why I suggest we convert the ACJ to become an air tanker. Conversion will be painless as the plane just need a few modifications to carry the Cobham refueling pod and an a roll-on-roll off control workstation.
The same system is used on the German A319 MRTTs. These planes are also used for VIP transport although I am told they are less luxurious than our ACJ. The modified ACJ could then provide training for our fast jet pilot if they need to qualify for air-to-air refueling from a jet tanker, so our Flanker boys can concentrate on combat missions.
Our fast jet pilots need to train to re-fuel from jet tankers as they are simply faster than the Hercules tankers. And since we conduct regular exercise with our partners who used jet tankers (KC-135s, VC10, KC10 and A330MRTT) we will a large pool of pilots who are qualified to top-fuel from these type of planes.
Syameer,
From the beginning I don't think the A400M was in the wish list of the RMAF. I heard that the RMAF was taken by surprise when the A400M 'gift' was given to them from central budget. Not sure if the RM2.6 billion package for the 4xA400M has now become part of their 5-Year Malaysian Plan budget. The RMAF will have to find a way how to make the A400M RM 2.6 billion bill invisible to the Treasury if they want to have a chance of success with their 10th Malaysia Plan wish list!