Its Rafale for India (update-2)

PETALING JAYA: IT appears Tuesday that India has selected Dassault Rafale for its MMRCA programme.
Based on the news report it also appear that the Rafale was cheaper than Typhoon in this instance. It also appear that India were looking at the life cycle cost in choosing the French plane.

So in the end having sold the Mirage 2000H (with the weapons) had placed Dassault on the front line. That said at least one commentator (Steve Trimble) had said it may not be the final say on the matter.


How is this going to effect our own MRCA programme? I have no idea, at the moment. It will changed the dynamics of course. However, if negotiations between Dassault and India did not reached the conclusion by April next year, it will not much impact here. The state of the Malaysian economy will be the final arbiter of course and the Government of the Day (with the GE in mind).

Statement from BAE Systems


BAE Systems notes that Eurofighter Typhoon has not been assessed as the lowest-priced compliant bidder (L1) by the Indian Ministry of Defence at this stage of the tendering process for the supply of its new Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

Our partner Cassidian submitted an attractive and competitive proposal to supply Eurofighter Typhoon, the world’s most modern Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircrat available today.

We believe Eurofighter Typhoon offered the best military, industrial and economic solution for India.

We will continue to support the Indian customer and its evaluation process and work with our European partner companies and their respective governments to seek to understand the basis of today’s announcement.

Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

About Marhalim Abas 2203 Articles
Shah Alam


  1. So India has selected the Rafale over the Typhoon. So what will Malaysia’s decision be?. Both the Rafale and the Typhoon are grossly expensive for us. With our national debt at the borderline of 54%(rounded up) it will breach the legal level set by laws of 55% very soon if not already exceeded/
    increase our national debt, they need to pass amendments to the law so that we can continue to borrow more to buy the planes now.

    The Gripen and the Super hornets are not so bad but bad all the same as it still requires the country to borrow money to buy them .Better defence or better management of the economy?

    This is the question to answer. We cannot have both.

    Having a better managed economy is also an important aspect of national defence too and not just physical tanks and planes.
    My 2 cents

  2. How about just do nothing… for the time being. If government acts like most sensible people, it will try to minimize/eliminate debt first before getting some more, with something that has to be sacrificed. Isn’t that what we ordinary people do? (or not, considering the number of bankrupt youngsters these days 🙁 )

    Choose two, sell others. Either russki + swedes or gringo + swedes, or current+swedes and be done with it. Other than training aircraft, sell them off. Or sell everything & start over.. heheh

  3. I’ll believe it when I actually see a Rafale flying in IAF colors. Although unlikely at this stage (the IAF desperately needs the aircraft) a lot could happen over the next year before the contracts are finalized.

    Now that the Typhoon is out, I wonder how aggressive Eurofighter will get in its efforts to win other fighter contests. Perhaps they will start spraying some of the ‘perfume’ that Dave Malaysia has been talking about. Considering the history of the decision-makers in the government, one must consider that once they succumb to the effects of the ‘perfume’, it is possible that the RMAF will get Typhoons. Although it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever, no sense seems to be the norm, rather than the exception when it comes to defence procurements.


    I’ve advocated similar ideas before: retire, sell, or trade off some of the inventory. IMO, this is what I would do in the interim:

    MiG-29s – Sell or trade. If we can get even 6 more Su-30MKMs from the Russians, we’d be doing good.

    Su-30MKMs – Upgrade as much as funds allow. Despite my dislike for the aircraft, they are the ‘backbone’ of the fighter force at the moment.

    Hornets – Upgrade as much as funds allow. Keep them flying!

    F-5s – Retire, sell or trade. Not of much use as a fighter anymore, only for adversary and pilot training.

    Hawks – Reserve. Put them all into a reserve/training squadron. Let attrition dwindle their numbers until they are no longer of use.

    MB-339s – Augment with a purchase of former RNZAF MB-339Cs.

    PC-7s – Retain for primary flight training.

    A400Ms – If it is possible, I would cancel the order. Huge waste of money!

    C-130s – Overhaul/upgrade and if possible augment with the purchase and overhaul/upgrade of used C-130s.

    CN-235s – Retain in service.

    and so on and so on…

    When I get a little more time I’ll submit for closer scrutiny what I would advocate for a long-term plan for the RMAF…

  4. To improve the national debt there are few suggestions:

    1) Improve the inefficiency outflow, which some estimated around 20% per year of budget or around RM40 billion a year (inclusive of bribe)

    2) without increasing tax, improve tax and custom collection efficiency. i dont have figures for other country but quite amazing for a RM800 billion GDP our custom collection only RM30 billion, less than 5%

    3) re look at subsidy distribution

    But overall, personally i believe our recent defense purchases are just way too expensive to be justified.

  5. Getting very off-topic here.

    1. Does anyone know what is the official designation of the Eickhorn bayonet bought for our M-4s?

    2. Anyone know if the AUG bayonets in use by us were made by Steyr or another company?

    3. Have heard that the Hughes HDR radar bought for MADGE, at Butterworth, was retired some yyears ago and replaced by a Alenia radar. Heard anything Marhalim?

    4.Any confirmation about a 2nd Thales Raytheon Groundmaster radar bought?


    We can only retire our RF-5Es if and when the RMAF gets a dedicated recce pod for either it’s Hornets or whatever fighter is bought in the future. Up to the 90’s the F-5Es were used by pilots for maintaining flight hours and as ”aggressors”, now I think they are only used as escorts for the RF-5Es, but will be retired when a new fighter enters service. The PC-7 Mk1s are getting old and will be retired as soon as the RMAF only gets funds to add to the 18 Mk2s already bought [2 already written off?].

  6. I think we now have proof that the Rafale is a cheaper bird in every sence than Eurofighhter. India took into account not only the flyaway cost of the plane, but its support, maintenence cost over 6000 Flight hours, etc2, and still found it to be cheaper than EF2000. If the flyaway cost of the rafale is cheaper than the Ef2000 and its maintenence was cheap as well, it only goes to show what a nightmare Malaysia would face if we accept the offer for the used 20 EF2000 that Eurofighter is offering. Whatever we gain in the number of planes, will be recouped by maintenence cost. 🙂 Also i feel we should just sell the migs, and get more MKM2 standard and upgrade the rest of the MKM to MKM2. Get rid of the hawk\’s and replace the F5\’s with unmanned drones, which i belive should be cheaper to maintain than those F5\’s. I also wonder what is the miantenence cost of the Hawk\’s?

  7. congrats to India & IAF..

    15 Factors for the Dassault Rafale wins MMRCA

    1.IAF’s love for Mirrage 2000 which is a very potent platform.

    2.Infrastructure created for over 100 mirages in the 80’s can be used now.

    3.Upgrade of Mirrage 2000 to Mirrage 2000-5 MK2 standard which will be a similarity with Rafale

    4. The 1 billion dollar invested in MICA missile.

    5.Dassault Rafale was build from ground up tp be a omirole or multirole platform which the IAF wants

    6.SPECTRA + AESA in 2012 (Typhoons AESA 2015) + AASM (proved in Libya)

    7.Dual sit version useful for training and more useful for ground attack(twin seater of typhoon is only a trainer without any advantage)

    8.Dassault Rafale is cheaper than typhoon.

    9.French a reliable supplier not sanctioning india after 1998.

    10.All components from one country no dealing with 4 countries.

    11.Dassault Rafale has almost all french components while Typhoon has some american components susceptible to sanctions.

    12.Full transfer of technology including source code.

    13.Today in European crisis France can give us more political leverage than UK+Germany,italy and spain are in deep crisis.

    14.Marine version present which makes it attractive for Indian Navy.


    Engine and payload comparison between Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon
    Dassault Rafale

    Empty weight: 9,500 kg
    Loaded weight: 14,016 kg
    Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 kg
    Powerplant: 2 × Snecma M88-2 turbofans
    Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
    Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN (17,000 lbf) each
    Fuel capacity: 4,700 kg (10,000 lb) internal
    Payload:9,500 kg
    Thrust/weight: 1.10 (100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile)

    Eurofighter Typhoon

    Empty weight: 11,150 kg
    Loaded weight: 16,000 kg
    Max. takeoff weight: 23,500 kg
    Powerplant: 2 × Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan
    Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,000 lbf) each
    Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN (20,000 lbf) each
    Fuel capacity: 4,500 kg (9,900 lb) internal
    Thrust/weight: 1.15(clean)
    Payload:7,500 kg

    so you can see a TOW of Dassault Rafale 1.10 (100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile) is much better than 1.15 (clean ) of Eurofighter Typhoon

    Dassault Rafale is

    1.Lighter(so a 75.62 kN engine is enough) but have more Max. takeoff weight than Typhoon.
    2.Carry more fuel.
    3.Carry more payload
    4. Dassault Rafale has a 30mm gun as to 27 mm of Eurofighter Typhoon.

    next Rafale insignia

  8. zamyra,

    Many of your assertions regarding the Rafale are simply incorrect.

    – The Mirage 2000 is a completely different aircraft. Whatever infrastructure, training, etc. that the IAF has invested in the Mirage 2000 will not be of much use for the Rafale. They are completely different aircraft.

    – The Rafale is not necessarily ‘cheaper’ than the Typhoon. Pricing aircraft depends a lot on how the measuring is done and who does it. Depending on what is emphasized in the analysis, almost anyone can manipulate the numbers to argue that one aircraft is ‘cheaper’ than another. Lastly, keep in mind that Dassault’s offer to India was aggressively backed by France. What was offered to India will definitely not be repeated. Especially when one considers that India is buying 126+ aircraft, it is highly unlikely that a buyer of 18 or so aircraft would get an exceptional deal.

    – The Rafale sources parts and pieces from throughout the world. While you may argue that the French provide the complete systems for the aircraft (engines, avionics, etc.), those systems are made up of thousands of smaller parts produced throughout the world (including the US). That is why regardless of who the winner was, the Indians were insisting on building the aircraft locally and producing a lot of their own parts to guard against any disruption in parts and service.

    – You wrongly group the UK and Germany into the European crisis. Both of these countries are actually the only ones in Europe that are doing well! France is not immune to the financial woes of Greece, Italy, Spain, et al. France is a second-rate power with delusions of grandeur. They got stomped on in both World Wars and every post-colonial conflict. If I was looking for strength, I wouldn’t look to Paris.

    – Your comparison of Rafale to Typhoon is subjective. There are thousands of variables that go into analyzing an aircraft. You highlight some supposed ‘advantages’ for the Rafale, based on your own analysis and benchmarks. A Typhoon fan could just as easily do the reverse.

    – If I was a betting man, I wouldn’t put a cent on seeing the Rafale in TUDM colors.

  9. Dear Fareed,
    yes I agree.

    With our national debt almost hitting the legal limit, it would really be hard pressed to find that one cent for any new purchases.
    If only purchases can go back to the days of the Emergency, then will we be able to get something really good and useful.

  10. Well, agreed with Cheekuchai, we should do nothing at the moment…well considering we gonna speng RM8 billion for 257 APC and RM9 billion for 6 LCS, where got money. Itu belum campur RM28 billion for 20km MRT and up to 7 billion for the whole NFC project hehehhe.

    Alternatively, we could just upgrade the MIG 29 to SMT standards, even at a cost OF USD20 mil per plane, it would be only about 1/3 of new SU and less than 15% of new SH/Rafale/Typhoon but i doubt RMAF would want that

  11. FareedLHS,
    last time we heard about gowind vs sigma..
    finally the French made it..
    France will play a vital role in malaysia cms..
    auntie Thales will love this connection from
    Paris with love..
    as a forex traders i put my one year pips profit
    on Rafale.

  12. From the Economists

    Russia’s purchase of two Mistral class French amphibious assault ships in June was a curious deal. Despite the navy deriding the vessel as “a floating box”, and domestic shipbuilders fighting it tooth and nail, Moscow’s defence ministry rammed the $1.7bn sale through in an effort to chastise complacent domestic defence manufacturers. The message: the ministry would buy foreign arms if homegrown suppliers could not make them for a reasonable price.

    The department “wanted to kick local industry, to show them that they are not a natural monopoly”, says Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow defence consultancy.

    For decades, the secretive Voenno Promyshlenny Kompleks, or military-industrial complex, has enjoyed the status of a virtual state within a state. Operating from super secret high-tech plants, the defence industry’s leading companies have long seemed akin to feudal fiefdoms, accustomed to dictating terms to the government.

    But for the first time in 20 years, the Kremlin is trying to reform the sector, as part of a planned Rbs19,000bn ($628bn) remilitarisation drive to return what was once the world’s most powerful conventional army to a measure of its former self. The measures are aimed at transforming the dysfunctional military from a mass-mobilisation force reliant on conscripts to a high-tech, all-professional army similar to that of the UK and the US.

    Announced in the wake of the successful war against Georgia in 2008, the moves appear to be part of a more assertive global posture, backing up diplomatic attempts to rebuild hegemony in the former imperial – both tsarist and Soviet – hinterlands.

    Alexander Golts, an independent defence analyst, says the remilitarisation has more spiritual than practical or strategic significance for the government, given that Russia has yet to identify a clear enemy. “This army is more of a myth than reality,” he says. “A great power has to have a great army.”

    Another central goal of the reform is political. Raising the esteem of the demoralised military, which has already been cut to 1m since 2010, is an important consideration for Vladimir Putin, currently prime minister but likely to be re-elected president in March. This need is likely to be felt especially acutely in light of recent protests in Moscow and other Russian cities following rigged parliamentary elections in December. The military should be one of Mr Putin’s main constituencies, given his hardline militaristic and patriotic image; in practice, however, according to one analyst, they tend to back Communist or nationalist parties in elections.

    Mr Putin has appointed one of the country’s most popular politicians as a personal emissary to the defence sector. Dmitry Rogozin, the former Nato ambassador, was last month brought back from Brussels to take on the role of deputy prime minister in charge of military industries.

    Analysts say spending an additional Rbs19,000bn roubles by 2020 is money the government can ill-afford to lavish on the military. Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin, who left his job in September amid a disagreement with the Kremlin over defence spending, said the extra equipment will cost 3 per cent of gross domestic product in the next three years, money that could be better used for education and healthcare. “This programme is completely impossible to implement with our defence industry in the current state,” he told a conference on January 19. “We simply can’t afford this [increase]. We can’t afford to have such an army.”

    Meanwhile, simply throwing more roubles at companies operating in the notoriously corrupt defence sector is unlikely to produce the desired results if, to quote Mr Putin, “they become too familiar with the money”.

    The episode with the Mistral was the first battle in a war between the defence ministry and the VPK over pricing, part of an effort to subdue the powerful defence chieftains.

    Military reforms: The Soviet-era army updated

    The Rbs19,000bn spending spree on armaments is part of a comprehensive reform of the Russian military – the biggest, analysts say, since the draft was introduced in 1856.

    For the past 150 years, the army has been run on a mass-mobilisation model, with divisions consisting mainly of officers whose job is to command waves of new conscripts during wars. But this model, designed to fight a major European land war against a Napoleon or Hitler, looks outdated.

    While it proved effective in 1941, providing cannon fodder to throw at German Panzers, it was less successful in Chechnya in the 1990s and 2000s. Prime minister Vladimir Putin, then president, complained in 2006 that it was not possible to find enough regular soldiers to fight in the breakaway republic. Police officers and even logistics personnel ended up manning tanks.

    The 2008 war in Georgia added urgency to the need for reform. President Dmitry Medvedev announced plans to end the draft and create a professional military, similar to that of the US. “It is unusual for a government to carry out reforms after winning a war,” says Alexander Golts, an independent military analyst. “But the 2008 crisis revealed that the Russian army was ageing and incapable of handling modern weaponry.”

    Phasing out Soviet-era conscription is likely to be popular, not least because the military has promised to do away with dedovshchina, the ritual humiliation and torture that is meted out to most new recruits.

    But the main reason to introduce a professional army is the rise of the high-tech battlefield. “You can’t have conscripts operating most of the new military equipment – they just can’t learn to do it fast enough,” says one defence analyst.

    The target date for the abolition of conscription has been pushed back repeatedly. It is scheduled to be completely phased out some time this decade. Meanwhile, the overall headcount of the military has been cut to 1m, and 160,000 officers have been made redundant.

    When Mr Putin became president in 2000, the military had been starved of money following a decade-long “procurement holiday”. But under an assertive president, keen to restore the power and status lost during the chaotic years after the fall of the Soviet Union, defence budgets crept up. Experts claim, however, that this yielded little by way of frontline results.

    “This money somehow evaporated,” says Mr Pukhov. Domestic suppliers simply increased prices for hardware in line with the rising budgets. “It happens all over the world – a lot of money is stolen because budgets are secret, because they say ‘national security,’” he says. “Just like when the Pentagon buys a hammer for $500, the same thing happens here. But admittedly on a larger scale.”

    Subduing the defence industry chieftains of the VPK is one of the main aims of the reforms. By 2007, waste and inflated costs were sapping so much of the military budget that Mr Putin sacked his ally, Sergei Ivanov, as defence minister and replaced him with the relatively unknown Anatoly Serdyukov. The former head of the tax inspectorate made his name dismantling Yukos, once Russia’s largest oil company, whose head – Mikhail Khodorkovsky – had come into conflict with the Kremlin and was jailed on tax fraud charges while Yukos was, in effect, nationalised.

    Mr Serdyukov’s role in the dismantling of Yukos brought him to the attention of the Kremlin. “He demonstrated his reliability,” says Mr Pukhov. “If he could kill Yukos, he could take on the army and the defence industries.” But curbing the power of defence industry bosses is likely to prove harder by an order of magnitude.

    Labelled by Moscow daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta as “an uncompromising fighter against jacked up prices”, he has for the past four years been on a mission to clean up the defence sector, where cost overruns are rife, delays endemic and scandals common. When the director of one company, contracted to repair the navy’s flagship, Peter the Great, was arrested last June, officials found $1m stashed in his piano. He was last year charged with defrauding the government.

    . . .

    Mr Serdyukov championed the purchase of the Mistral and following his victory, tackled the holiest of holies: the strategic missile industry. This particular branch of the military establishment has long enjoyed protection – and generous funding – from Moscow to ensure that Russia kept pace with the US in nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). But between 2004 and 2010 several failed tests of the Bulava missile, the next generation ICBM, exposed the weaknesses of what was supposed to be Russia’s most advanced weaponry.

    The defence ministry has been unusually hard-nosed about negotiating for a new crop of ballistic missiles. It ruffled so many feathers that in July, Yuri Solomonov, Russia’s head of strategic missile production, gave an interview to the Kommersant newspaper. “Has our ministry of defence turned into a tax inspectorate?” he demanded imperiously. “During the days of the USSR, the state used to help [the industry], now it just gets in the way.”

    In the days of the Soviet Union, men such as Mr Solomonov, with high-level party connections, enjoyed almost unlimited power. But today the tables are turned, and the fact that Mr Solomonov went to the press is seen as a sign that industry chieftains are losing the battle against reform. He complained that squabbling by “government bean counters” over the prices of ICBMs meant the scheduled supply of weapons for 2011 would not be met. By the end of the year, according to Mr Golts, contracts had been signed but “it is unclear if they will be fulfilled”.

    . . .

    The response by the defence ministry was particularly brutal when the Ural Wagon Factory, which makes the T-90 tank, the backbone of the military, tried to raise prices from Rbs70m to Rbs118m.

    In March, Gen Alexander Postnikov, commander of Russian ground forces, took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the T-90 tank as “the 17th modification of the Soviet T-72”, produced first in 1973. He added that, for Rbs118m, “it would be better to buy three German Leopards [tanks]”.

    Then in November Nikolai Makarov, deputy defence minister, said the T-90 was “out of date” and its gun had barely half the range of a comparable Israeli tank, the Merkava. By the end of the year, the military had bought no T-90s.

    A showdown was on the cards, and it came on December 15, during Mr Putin’s annual nationally televised phone-in show. From a studio in Moscow, the prime minister had to field a barrage of question from the Ural Wagon Factory. The microphone was handed to a worker who ripped into Mr Serdyukov: “We are ready to develop new technology. But we have the impression, that the minister of defence doesn’t need it,” he said. “The military just fixes old pieces, they don’t order new ones. The purchasing is done by people who clearly are not specialists. So why don’t you throw out that Serdyukov, and Makarov for saying such things, and appoint a good minister?”

    Mr Putin responded that, while the public barbs directed by the defence ministry at the T-90 were “unacceptable … for us it is important that the Rbs20tn which we have set aside till 2020 for the rearming of the army and fleet is spent effectively”.

    But another worker said that they were ready to come to Moscow and “take care of” the throngs of protesters who had been marching for the past month against the prime minister. The message, as one analyst put it, was unmistakable: “The VPK will support you politically, Mr Putin, just buy our tanks.”

  13. copied and pasted but not sure if it got thru after clicking submit.

    basically it was an article about russia trying to reform its defence industry and policies. It reminded me a lot about our country’s pathetic syndromes of incompetence and gross financial mismanagement.

    Interesting to note that one t-90 costs as much as three german leopard tanks.

    Well at least they got a defence industry to improve, ours?

  14. At the end of the day politics has the final say.

    The French will allow a full transfer of technology to India as they are looking to procure close to 200 units of Rafales.

    Big order for Dassault.

    The Indians will make sure only a few units of Rafales will be built in France, the bulk by their HAL.

    Perhaps the price to Malaysia will be cheaper if we synchronize our purchase with the IAF.

    It will be better to synchronise with the Saudis, they might even pay for it.

    Yes its the politicians who make the decisions at the end of the day. But it takes a wise politician to do the right thing, not just for defence. We all know wise politicians are hard to come by

  15. About time like-minded citizens form a pressure group on defence. If I were an “agent provocateur” I would organise a “Malaysia Defence League”. But no Tony Pua types, please…

  16. Russian doctrine has always placed great importance on deception [maskirovka], by the use of decoys and other means. Some of these ideas were adopted by the Serbs. Apparently, locally made radar emitters, were very useful against NATO in 1999. Less successfull were the GPS jammers used by the Iraqis in 2003.

  17. I have a feeling if PR comes to power they will chop the MRCA, AFV 8×8 and LCS.I will certainly agree with them since they all are too expensive.

    As many others have pointed out before, the LCS and 8×8 are way overpriced.

    They could be purchased at a cheaper price through international tender.

    But could they do that since they will be legal implication involving the prime contractors, OEMs and vendors?The government of the day will have to pay compensation by the hundreds millions USD!

    I am no lawyer but if they cite irregularities or graft they can cancel such contracts and this include others of course not just defence deals.. Of course the aggrieved parties can bring the matter to the courts for final adjudication.

    BTW, the MRCA contract has not been signed yet

  18. My greatest fear is that if PKR comes to power they may do more than chop certain projects.
    My gut feeling tells me, of course it’s all speculation as they have not mentioned any credible yet on defence, that they will expect a smaller MAF to do the same job with a smaller budget. It goes back to the misconception many people have that we should only spend if and when a clear threat presents itself and that core capabilities and skills can be acquired overnight.

    Dzirhan Mahadzir mentioned in his FB page some time back that amongst the proposals made by PKR was to cut back on funds made available to support ex-serviceman – is that a foretaste of things to come if Anwar and his ”band of merry men” occupy Putrajaya?

    With all due respect to DM I don’t think Anwar – if he goes to Putrajaya – will cut back support to current and ex-personnel. He may cut the allocation to the defence ministry (done in many countries also) but not to ex-servicemen.

  19. I follow australias defence development history and they also have blown away billions of dollars for developing their defense industry..the lethargic $20 billion(cumulative cost) collins class project was ina sense a failure and their inidegnous products like the bushmaster is barely surviving on govt orders and not to mention the Kaman naval helicopter disaster and despite the australian reputation of making feasibility studies they still blunder into poor results in defence procurement..the australians splurge in defence but it seems they also cant seem to sell ust like their silly V8 Holdens and now their car industry is on the brink of collapsing…seems malaysia is not the only country that never learns but then australia have a asia phobia centric defence policy to protect ‘white australia’ .

    Are we afraid of someone to actually get the relatively underarmed LCS and overpriced AV8? And yes, why now?

    not build here mentality is everywhere but one must remember that the Aussie got more money to play around with…

  20. We should not be fearful of defence cuts.Other countries like the UK and USA are doing it for economic reasons.I reckon it is possible to have a smaller MAF but must have the right equipment to do the job.I guess the management of border conflicts and protection of our offshore oil/gas resources would be priority No 1.If the MAF is shaped to handle specific threats, then a lot could be saved.

  21. With the gov debt already past the 50 % mark, how does this gov justify cotinuing to buy military hardware with over inflated prices? It really makes me angry to know that alot more hardware could have been bought and the military equipped with far lesser money had the gov spent more wisely.

  22. I would not call it defense cut in the first place, more sensible spending. Like why should you pay USd5 million for an 80’s technology tank when you can get it half a price somewhere else or why pay Rm1.1 billion for a toothless battle ship when you can get it half a price as a patrol vessel hahahahha.

    There is a buzz word for such thing already; its called smart procurement …

  23. International politics today does not allow a country to invade another country unless you are a superpower backed by UN resolution.

    Theoretically only a superpower like China backed by UN resolution could impose its military will in her sphere of influence such as the Southeast Asia region to prevent war between regional states.

    Of course the USA could do likewise if her national interests are threatened. So why raised an Armed Forces geared for war when you could not use it in the first place due to constraints in international politics.

    It would be more meaningful to have an Armed Forces geared to handle real threats such as attacks against our offshore oil rigs, terrorist groups raiding coastal towns, occupation of contested territories (limited incursion) by neighbouring states etc.

    For such perceived threats it would be easier to raise the needed force structure (MAF) and what weapon systems to go along with it.

    I think it is a responsible way of looking at national defence, making use of the new global situation to our advantage.

    Boot em not splatter…of course we cannot prepare to fight those with nuclear weapons without going nuclear…

  24. at the rate it’s going, it makes me wonder if our beloved government might actually dream up some pea-brained scheme to dig into our EPF retirement savings to buy more overpriced crap.

  25. kamal – ”Like why should you pay USd5 million for an 80′s technology tank when you can get it half a price somewhere else”

    I get the point you’re trying, to make, but if we follow that yardstick, even the Merkava 4, M1A2 and Leopard 2A6 can be described as an 80’s technology tank :]. The bulk of the cash that went into the PT091M was for the FCS and other non-standard gear.

  26. Forrestcat,

    And the project to convert the 2 RAN Newports LSTs, which though turned out to be very useful, was delayed and had cost overruns. Australia also tried to interest us with licensed built Mirage 111s to replace the ex-RAAF Sabres they gave us. ”Made in Aussie” products that have been a success are Nulka [a stadnoff decoy] and bonding technology developed to keep anechoic tiles from falling off. The Australians were also very disappointed when we decided not to collaborate with them to build the NGOPVs.

  27. Dzirhan,

    My sincere apologies. It was not my intention to attribute any false statements, allegedly made by you. I do recall reading a few months ago, you mentioning that PKR had proposed cuts, that in turn would have led to the veterans/serviceman benefits being slashed. Perhaps I misread it. Apologies again.

  28. azlan,

    Yes,i am aware that they developed a new acoustic material for subs and i am also impressed with their new phase array radar on their anzac frigates(one prototype but to be instakled in all anzacs eventually)…but yes.they could afford to blow billions of dollars on these defence adventures and get away with it.

  29. Forrescat,

    They invented a bonding material for anechoic tiles. The main problems users faced were tiles falling off during deployments. And as you very well know, they ordered the F-111 when it was still on the drawing board, and spent a bomb on it. At the end of the day, as Marhalim said, they have more cash, and have more sense of urgency and priority than us.

  30. I’m sorry to veer abit off Topic here, but it would be easier if we have a forum here, to discuss issues wouldnt it?, as I see theres alot of well informed and professional postings here :).
    I am still wondering regarding our SU30 MKM, which ECM pod did we get for the plane? The Sorbtsiya which is a older generation ECM or the latest SAP 518 DRFM based ECM? I would prefer if we got the latest DRFM variant.
    ALso I’ve saw somewhere that RMAF is looking to upgrade their Su30 MKM with things like Towed decoy. IS the MAF really looking at upgrading the sukhoi’s and if so what are they planning to upgrade it with? And also are they looking at India’s Super Sukhoi30 upgrade and following those? Myself, I’d seriously love to see a few upgrades going into the sukhoi’s, since Singapore decided to buy the F15SG, to tilt the balance back into RMAF, and the F15 just wont be able to match those upgrades that Sukhoi are offering. Mods, and fellow posters, care to elaborate? Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.