Kuwaiti Hornets, Next Change or Coming Soon

Two Kuwait AF F/A-18C seen here with a couple of F-16s. Internet.

SHAH ALAM: National news agency, Bernama reported yesterday that a RMAF delegation is scheduled to visit Kuwait next month to discuss the procurement of the country’s fleet of Boeing F/A-18 Hornets. It quoted RMAF chief TS Asghar Khan as saying that the Kuwaiti Air Force as having thirty-nine single seat and twin-seat Hornets and the discussions will concentrate on how many airframes could be transferred to Malaysia.

He also stated that the delay in Kuwait taking delivery of Super Hornets is also affecting the deal with Malaysia. For the full story go here. Previous stories on the Kuwaiti Hornets.

Kuwait F/A-18 C Hornet. Flickr

It is interesting to note that the statement on Hornets came out on the same day that news from Kuwait that the country’s emir had dissolved the country’s parliament. The same political imbroglio had also affected previous discussions on the Hornet’s transfer.
Kuwait AF F/A-18C Hornet. USAF

Anyhow, Malaysian Defence was told by sources at DSA 2024 that RMAF wants as many airframes and spares from Kuwait if the deal could be finalized. Once the transfer is completed, RMAF hopes to stand up a single squadron of around twelve single seaters. The location and name plate are still being finalized although the squadron will be primarily meant for air-to-air role.
RMAF Hornet M45-08 fitted with appears to be live AGM-84A Harpoon and Maverick missiles.

The twin-seat Kuwaiti Hornets will be amalgamated with the Ds with No. 18 Skuadron increasing the unit numbers from the current eight to twelve airframes. The squadron is meant for the ground attack role with training as the secondary role and will stay at Butterworth airbase.
NASAM mobile launcher. Kongsberg

Interestingly, the transfer of the Kuwaiti Hornets also has an effect on another RMAF procurement, the Medium Range Air Defence system set to be procured in 2025. I was told that the two SAM systems – the MBDA VL MICA and the Kongsberg NASAMs – are the favourites to meet the requirement.
A USAF F-16C Fighting Falcon assigned to the 85th Test Evaluation Squadron shoots an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM over testing ranges near Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., March 19, 2019. USAF picture

NASAMs is the logical choice, I am told as the same missiles – AMRAAMs – are used for both the Hornets and the SAM system (the latest variant could also fire the AIM-9X Sidewinder and AMRAAM-ER missiles). The MICA already selected for the LCS, is unfortunately not integrated on the Hornets. The last time we bought AMRAAMs was back in 2015, ten of them and 2011 we bought AIM-9X.

— Malaysian Defence.

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2191 Articles
Shah Alam

98 Comments

  1. Slowly but surely, good effort, grab what we can, may there will be the light at the end of the tunnel.

  2. With 33 airframes to pick from, a single squadron (12) would be what could be reasonably sustained, given that RMAF is one short with the MiG-29 retirement. I thought they might have wanted to make up to 18 available.

  3. Nice! But we still need Uncle Sam’s approval for the transfer right? So let’s hope the Hornet deal materializes with NASAMs guarding our skies

  4. the fact that they are going there meant that the approval is already given. Both countries cannot even talk each other on such transfer if the approval is not given already.

  5. “Interestingly, the transfer of the Kuwaiti Hornets also has an effect on another RMAF procurement”

    Meaning delay?

  6. From what i understand from multiple sources so far on this matter

    – KAF has 39 legacy hornets. TUDM wants to take 33 of them. With that, TUDM will have a total of 41 hornets. With only 24 to be operational, that means we will have 17 hornets as spares/attrition reserves. With cannibalising, probably we don’t have to spend much for spare parts to sustain the fleet.

    – If getting the KAF hornets is successful, TUDM will be using the hornets up to 2040, at the time probably will be the last user of the legacy hornets.

    – 18 Skuadron will fly 12 D models. That means additional 4 D model to be added to the squadron. Another squadron will be re-established to fly 12 C Single seat models. Originally this is supposed to be the 17 Skuadron, but latest info seems to point that 17 Skuadron now will be the first FA-50 squadron.

    – The available fighter squadron plate numbers are the 9 Skuadron (formerly flying Tebuan, Skyhawks and Hawks) and 19 Skuadron (formerly flying MiGs)

  7. So 16 airframes total plus spares, could it be that they’ve reduced the original size of 33 airframes due to Kuwaiti air force keeping some as stop gap until their super hornets and typhoons arrive? Well, atleast 12 jets per Sqn is considered complete as opposed to just 8

    Anywho, how soon can they be transferred once it’s greenlit?

  8. I personally feel we should drop the idea of a used hornet and start ordering 2nd batch of FA50 now.Though we may get them for cheap, but maintaining them for the next 15 years will be expensive even with the 17 spare frames. Additional 12 to 24 FA50 would last us even longer plus we will not be the only user.But yes there are penalties in selecting FA50 being lesser speed (Mach 1.8 vs mach 1.5), lower combat range plus lower combat weight

  9. I’m totaly agreed if we can get as many those Kuwaiti jets. RMAF love that beast. They love to uses it. They already master in using it. Plus they also can sustain / major overhaul it in house. Aussie which is ex-legacy Hornet user also have close relation with us. They (Aussie) also have permanent personnel and aircraft squadron located in Butterworth air base plus we are together FPDA members. Perhaps this close relationship will benefit us in this matter (Hornets sustainment). Hornets weapons also fit to be uses by our new F/A-50 Block 20 from South Korea.

  10. incoming new govt in kuwait then election in USA end of 2024, agreed politics can drag this on.

  11. Just my 2 cent.

    I’m using open source informations as my references. So i apologize for any mistake.

    Now, from these news, i think we can have 6 fighter squadrons. If we really get the kuwait hornets and buy 36x FA-50.

    For each squadron, i believe 14x airplanes is the minimum quantity based on these rotation.

    Squadron Airplane Rotation
    – 4x combat ready
    – 4x downtime / combat training
    – 4x maintenance at workshop / backshop
    – 2x operational conversion

    1/ 1x Su-30MKM Squadron
    – 14x airplanes
    – the other 4x planes should be keep as attrition/spare parts

    2/ 1x F/A-18D Squadron
    – 14x airplanes
    – 8x from our original inventory + 6x from kuwait

    3/ 1x F/A-18C Squadron
    – 12x airplanes + 2x F/A-18D
    – all 12x from kuwait + 1x ‘D’ hornet from kuwait
    – need to find 1 more ‘D’ hornet, maybe from the swiss
    – the 2x ‘D’ hornet is for operational conversion
    – the extra ‘C’ hornet from kuwait should be keep as attrition/spare parts for both ‘C’ & ‘D’ hornet squadrons

    4/ 1x BAE Hawk 208 Squadron
    – 12x airplanes + 2x Hawk 108
    – the 2x Hawk 108 is for operational conversion
    – the extra hawk if available should be keep as attrition/spare parts

    5/ 2x KAI FA-50 Block 20 Squadron
    – 12x airplanes each
    – total 24x airplanes

    So for the extra 12x FA-50, i believe those should replace the Hawk when they are delivered. And we need to order another 8 FA-50 for a dedicated LIFT squadron.

    As to why there is only 12x airplanes in a FA-50 fighter squadron, the reason is that the LIFT squadron will be using the same plane. So the pilots training in LIFT squadron is already doing the operational conversion for FA-50 fighter squadron.

    In the future, we can replace the ‘C’ hornet squadron with 1x FA-50 squadron. Then, we replace the Su-30 & ‘D’ hornet with 2x future MRCA squadrons.

    By 2045 or 2050 if we have the money, political willingness and everything else goes smoothly, we can have 2x future MRCA squadrons + 4x Light Fighter (KAI FA-50) squadrons.

    I know, it seems like a wishful thinking. But a man can dream they say.

  12. I actually prefer NASAMs. What MICA has going for it is commonality but if NASAMs is found to be more ideal so be it.

    Waiting for the Kuwaitis to make up their minds is one thing; waiting U.S. approval is another. It involves the State, Defence and other departments and normally takes years.

  13. With Jernas and Starstreak in operation, the CAMM will be more easier to be integrated into an integrated air defense network. Not to mention CAMM can easily replaced the Seawolf with minimal change can even quadpacked to launcher system on the Lekiu class thus quadruple the number of missiles onboard. Longer range to with CAMM ER reaching 45km and the incoming CAMM MR reaching 100km range.

  14. @ nihd

    IMO, 2045 to get new MRCA is too late. By then, Singapore has flown the F-35 for nearly 2 decades (first delivery for RSAF will be in 2026). To be frank, I don’t want TUDM to be flying Hornets past 2035.

    With the Kuwaiti Hornets, my ideal TUDM fighter fleet in 2030 is this
    1x SU-30MKM (18 aircraft) – long range strike + self OCU
    1x F/A-18D (12 aircrafts) – strike & OCU.
    1x F/A-18C (12 aircrafts) – multi-role
    2x FA-50MY (12 aircraft each) – QRA, air defence & CAS
    1x FA-50MY (12 aircraft) – FLIT

    TUDM fighter fleet 2040
    1x SU-30MKM2 (18 aircraft) – long range strike + self OCU
    2x KF-21MY (12 aircraft each) – multi role, 1 sqn will take up OCU duties.
    2x FA-50MY (12 aircraft each) – QRA, air defence & CAS
    1x FA-50MY (12 aircraft) – FLIT

  15. “meant that the approval is already given”
    Hmm, someone said the process was soooo tedious so much so the impression given was its not worth the effort but hey presto done! And I have said it as much it would have no problems going thru
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/dsa-2024-contracts-part-2/#comment-899603

    Im also surprised that TUDM wants as much planes as they could carry back home seeing that the other impression given was TUDM is not enthusiastic about pursuing this deal and that they would rather spend as little money to maintain what we have currently. Or did you talk to somebody that has different opinion than the “official channel” hmm?

    Im also also surprised they wanted the C variant for AA duties, seeing as they all these while prefer dual seaters, perhaps its to functionally replace the retired Fulcrums rather than the LCA being tasked for that. In thats the case its also something I have said before.

    As for D version, didnt they have 7 units and not just 4? I would have thought TUDM preferred to grab all the Ds than Cs (both perform nearly similar with D better SA as it got a RIO).

    Or perhaps that person was correct and all this was a hoax news, it is local media Bernama after all.

    As for MERAD, I dont see an issue if we go which way. IINM the NASAM AMRAAMS are inside sealed containers so its not like they can share parts or maintenance with air flown ones, Im also doubtful if they could be cross used easily (NASAM taken out and mounted to plane or AA version put into the box and fired). Maybe one benefit of going NASAM is the AA missile could be piggyback slewed by the radar from a Hornet/FA50 giving it greater effective range than the land based firing radar.

  16. Hazone – ”With Jernas and Starstreak in operation”

    The days of Jernas are numbered.

    Hazone -”Not to mention CAMM can easily replaced the Seawolf”

    It’s actually a wee bitmore complicated than that.

  17. … – ”IMO, 2045 to get new MRCA is too late. By then, Singapore has flown the F-35 ”

    Why is it late based on what the RSAF is doing? It’s ”late” because numbers are short and it’s hard for the RMAF to juggle its operational and training requirements with such small numbers.

  18. As mentioned the approval is for talking and discussing. Once both parties are ready, we need to talk again to the US though I am told this is not like the DSCA process for buying new unreleased stuff.

    The AMRAAMs on the NASAM can be taken out lah for use on the aircraft or vice versa though it will not be like taking out a battery out of a car and putting in another car. But yes, you share the missiles. It is not like during war time when the missiles are kept ready for use all the time on the platforms.

  19. ”Hmm, someone said the process was soooo tedious so much so the impression given was its not worth the effort but hey presto done! ”

    That’s the impression you got which was wrong. The process is actually long and tedious; look it up. You remember how long it took to get approval to sell the Skyhawk airframes and do look up issues other countries had in seeking approval; in most cases the main issue was the waiting process in which various entities have to agree and in which members of Congress can object. So no; it’s not ”done”, hasn’t even started …

    ” And I have said it as much it would have no problems going thru”

    A premature assessment. We haven’t even approached the Americans yet. That only comes after we have secured an agreement with the Kuwaitis.

  20. Yes the process is long but what I have gathered is that the Americans were actually waiting for MY to start the process of getting the approval to talk to the Kuwaitis. I am guessing in the current scenario I do not think the US will prolong the transfer process. Once both sides agreed to it it will be done. It is not like we are trying to buy F-35s, this is are just 20 year old legacy Hornets..

  21. What’s with the googoogaagaa for KF-21? we are offered a better aircraft in Kaan. We should take up Turkish offer for JV and get at least 3 Squadrons worth of Kaan

  22. Correct, what is the use of giving foc long range radar and foc upgrade for the MPAs is we lack the means to intercepts intruders ?? US will may even offer discounts for weapons to go with the extra F-18s ..

  23. The U.S. has no reason to not approve the deal. It benefits everyone; including Boeing and others which will sell us things and provide product support. The problem is us; will we buy the needed support equipment and ordnance or will be penny pinch and try as usual to things on the cheap? Also, quite often the process is delayed not by approvals per see but by the various wheels of bureaucracy which have to spin. It took us years literally to gain permission to sell A-4s which were stored at AMARG.

    mofaz – ”Correct, what is the use of giving foc long range radar and foc upgrade for the MPAs is we lack the means to intercepts intruders ”

    Bases on this logic why did we spend so much creating a shore support infrastructure for a mere 2 boats? Should we have waited until we got a follow on pair before creating the shore support infrastructure? Also, we don’t ”lack the means to intercepts intruders”. We lack the means to be able to generate a sustained number of sorties due to limited numbers.

  24. Engine commonality with the FA50Ms. So no issue getting spareparts for engine or even new engines. Even the radar can be upgraded to Phantomstrike. So its a matter of maintaining the airframe.

    Finger crossed.

  25. Even the F18 is approved and transferred over. It more of a RMAF trying to get a much working flying frame as much as possible for a fraction of cost instead of getting new frames.

    it like how the navy is doing the same with re-hull exercise

    Buying second hand car but run it until it kong. Does not more malaysian than that

  26. It just getting extra flyable air frame and I doubt RMAF is going to invest a large sum on it (if approved and transfered). The money is better spend else where like MRCA

    RMAF is well aware that upgrading it for another 30 year usage would just give the bean counter reasons to say. It still can be used, why you need a brand new BMW MRCA???

  27. @ alex

    ” get at least 3 Squadrons worth of Kaan ”

    If you are offering to pay for the acquisition and operational costs of 3 squadrons worth of KAAN, by all means get them.

    We don’t have enough money to regularly fly Hornets and MiGs which is why we are getting the cheap to operate FA-50 and you think we can fly 3 squadrons of KAAN that is equipped with 2x F-16 engines?

  28. “I am told this is not like the DSCA process”
    Would it be harder or easier than those going thru DSCA? Based on DSCA criteria it appear this buy would all be in compliance.

    More importantly, how much will it be since were talking over 30 jets not just a dozen or so. Even with the friendly price of USD $1mil each it will still cost USD $33mil or RM 156mil, still not cheap.

    “A premature assessment.”
    We shall see, so far what I been telling is coming up in aces.

  29. i think many not know there are multiple parties in US that is lobbying this deal, but malaysia has to kick start it. i say 50% for US natsec reasons 50% for business. one of those are surely Zenetex that manage both kuwait and malaysian planes. it’s probably why TUDM even bother because they no need to talk to anyone else nor amend fms account

  30. @alex
    kaan is an overweight machine. the turks need 22m size bruteforcing square cube law just to match their stated performance goal slightly below F-35. its what happens when u skip exotic packaging and additive manufacture stuff just to keep dev fast and cost low. not to mention you are basically running a fancy F15EX, the consumable cost is really not great. whereas F-35 only slightly higher than F-16 per EU users.

  31. Rock – “hey (Aussie) also have permanent personnel and aircraft squadron located in Butterworth air base”

    No RAAF aircraft squadron is permanently based there. They deploy for short periods. The original plan when the Mirages departed was for 16 week deployments.

  32. The Kuwait F18 is nothing more than a stop gap solution to get as many air frame as possible as cheap as possible for RMAF. And the most likely conclusion, RMAF will keep it flight worthy whatever the quantity until EOL without additional upgrades.

    Unlike getting ship which need a large crew and training, getting F18 is less personal intensive especially when we are already an existing operator including flight school and simulator

    Unless, we strike some gold mine (i.e USA sponsored upgrading), the F18 would arrive as it is condition even after kuwait upgrading legacy f18 exercise. We are looking maybe some 5 or 6 years down the road even.

  33. RM156 million for 30 jets is bloody cheap. That said I have no idea how much is the transfer cost, let us hope that your figure is the correct one.

  34. That is dirt cheap even for a used jet. Comparable to f4 tiger price for aggressor company. Then again it yet to see the transfer is even a success. It all depend on how fast that us could deliver the super hornet before kuwait wiling to part from it even Best timeline is after the Kuwait upgrading work and can be transfer HOT to us. Does those jet need any tropicalization works? As they are used to hot dry environments compared to us humidity

    BTW is there any news on MRSS at DSA?

  35. Bloody cheap yes which is why I thinks its unlikely to happen unless Kuwait feels super generous or USA willing to sponsor the discount. What I mean not cheap in the context of our stingy beancounters. Whichever way lets hope the Kuwaitis wait for SH is over soon and they could start to transfer these jets over to us. Maybe not one shot but in batches within 2-3 years so we could ramp up the operational budgeting.

    @Adecod
    “the F18 would arrive as it is condition”
    More than likely once these arrive, we will want to upgrade the Kuwaitis and bring them up to similarity with our SLEP Hornets. This is more to ease operational familiarity rather than adding new features. We may not touch the engines if these still have a lot of life left.

    With these jets operational until about 2035-2040 we could, to paraphrase a certain someone, “wait a bit longer” to decide on MRCA which Im hoping will be at least 5th gen and by then there will be various platforms in operation.

    Another question will be AEW/AWACS requirement, if we arent too stuck up I would like us to consider getting SG E2 Hawkeyes when they get retired. They are older and maybe a bit long in the tooth but for us it would be a start to have such capabilities without the expensive outlay on a new AEW.

  36. Yes, there seem to be an appetite for the PT PAL MRSS again, LUNAS signed an MOU with PT PAL. I ignored the MOU as it is an MOU, moreover I have not heard of any funding for MRSS even in the next RMK. Perhaps there will be, perhaps it will not. If only LCS had gone right…

  37. First thing first..does the kuwaitis really wanna letgo their legacy hornets? and to us/RMAF?
    cuz as far as i remembered,last statement from the kuwaitis indicating that they are not very keen on transfering/selling their legacy hornets to us..or did i missed the bus?.maybe spare some blushes this time

  38. serial – ” but malaysia has to kick start it. ”

    As mentioned; the 1st step is to approach and reach an agreement with the Kuwaitis. Then it’s approaching the Americans.

    The main prerequisite is the government has to commit to providing sufficient funding for the sustainment of the Hornets. No point getting them if -as usual – the RMAF has to struggle with funding. As the further age they will get more maintenance intensive and that will mean funding needed. There is also the fact that certain things will have to be replaced and certain things bought to support the Hornets; we can’t assume the Kuwaitis will give us everything.

    Another question is if we do get them will the penny pinching bean counters use it as a pretext to further delay the MRCA acquisition. On paper the Hornets are supposed to be an interim solution but that’s on paper.

  39. serial – ” but malaysia has to kick start it. ”

    As mentioned; the 1st step is to approach and reach an agreement with the Kuwaitis. Then it’s approaching the Americans.

    Getting the jets is the easy part. The not so easy part comes later on. Will the
    government has to commit to providing sufficient funding for the sustainment? As they further age they will get more maintenance intensive, There is also the fact that certain things will have to be replaced and certain things bought to support the Hornets; we can’t assume the Kuwaitis will give us everything. Another question is if we do get them will the penny pinching bean counters use it as a pretext to further delay the MRCA acquisition. On paper the Hornets are supposed to be an interim solution but that’s on paper.

  40. serial – ” but malaysia has to kick start it. ”

    As mentioned; the 1st step is to approach and reach an agreement with the Kuwaitis. Then it’s approaching the Americans.

    Getting the jets is the easy part. The not so easy part comes later on. Will the
    government has to commit to providing sufficient funding for the sustainment? As they further age they will get more maintenance intensive, There is also the fact that certain things will have to be replaced and certain things bought to support the Hornets; we can’t assume the Kuwaitis will give us everything. Another question is if we do get them will the penny pinching bean counters use it as a pretext to further delay the MRCA acquisition. On paper the Hornets are supposed to be an interim solution but that’s on paper.

  41. … – ”to paraphrase a certain someone, “wait a bit longer” to decide on MRCA ”

    Have this insatiable need to knock someone no issues but at least put things in the proper context rather than going off tangent. The issue with the M-109s is different compared to that of the Hornets. And the “wait a bit longer” part was the desire of the end user [the ones who actually operate the kit to avoid again being placed in a situation when it’s straddled with something ill suited for its needs or has sustainment issues. When this happens – it does – it’s the end user who has to pick up the pieces; not the politicians or parti pris individuals.

    With the Hornets the dynamics are different because as you’re aware [or not] as it stands they will only be supportable for a decade more.

    ”We shall see, so far what I been telling is coming up in aces.”

    Of course and you can pat yourself on the back and continue reminding yourself that. Also, what’s there to ”see”? It was a ”premature assessment” because the process of talking to the Americans has not even started. So it’s not ”done” yet as you prematurely but wrongly claimed.

    Furthermore the process can be a long and tedious one as the Defence, State and other departments have to give their say. Then members of the Senate from both sides of the political divide will also give their say. So yes; long and tedious. Not fast and uncomplicated as you’d mistaken;y like to believe.

    Furthermore gaining approval

  42. Adecod – ”getting F18 is less personal intensive especially when”

    It’s resource intensive due to age and they’re getting older; not younger. As it stands we have issues adequately sustaining what little we have. Will we buy the needed ground support equipment and ordnance? What about the flying hours – how much will the government allocate for that? As planes past their 15 year mark they generally require more post flight maintenance; from the time we get them to the point when we’ve flown them for 2-3 years how much will sustainment costs rise?

    Yes we should get them but only if certain prerequisites can be met; namely sufficient funding.

  43. The hornet was designed to be tied on board a ship and pounded by salty sea waves, so no need tropicalisation.

    As for AEW, we missed out on used Saab 340 ERIEYE AEW disposed by UAE. Poland bought them (2 units) for just USD58 million. Moving on, we could probably use business jets mounted with 3-4 arrays (for 360deg coverage) of AESA radar such as the Phantomstrike for low-cost AEW.

    As for MRSS, going for 3x brand new MRSS contributes to minimum capability to the naval deterrance capability (unlike say adding more submarines or frigates). Tentera Darat is now restructuring so that there will be equal army capability in both east and west malaysia, making amphibious transport somewhat redundant. Strategic transport on the other hand, arent going to cut it with MRSS capable of moving just 20 IFVs at one time like the PT PAL design (just a squadron/company army strength)
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNMJ7YubUAAEGoG.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9vWG0xaMAAyeZP.jpg

  44. “The issue with the M-109s”
    Nope the issue here is timing of MRCA induction and with bolstering the Hornet fleet we could take our time to decide on that. Otherwise it will be an airfleet of near obsolete Hornets, near expiring MKMs, and LCAs that could not take on better planes.

  45. “That statement was made as news from Malaysia stated that the deal has been approved.”
    Lets wait for the foreign news to confirm via their sources, of late the local media has been less than trustworthy. If various outlets concur then it must be real.

  46. @hulu
    “equal army capability in both east and west malaysia”
    The goal is that but realistically we arent likely to afford such a force and the main force will still be Peninsular focused while elements will be prepositioned in S&S, so transporters will still be needed to move men & equipment to & fro. Its like while we have a fleet of Hercs & Atlasses we still need to pay AirAsia RM 31mil for troop transportation to Beirut.

  47. ”Nope the issue here is timing of MRCA”

    Was referring to the M-109s and the Hornets; different dynamics at play. The timing of the MRCAs is supposedly about a decade from now. The Hornets are intended to be an interim solution; on paper. The M-109s were not an interim solution; merely something selected due to its low cost option by the politicians and something scrapped later on by poltiicians.

    ” If various outlets concur then it must be real.”

    Not if they’re all quoting from the same source.

    … – ” for MRSS, going for 3x brand new MRSS contributes to minimum capability to the naval deterrance capability (unlike say adding more submarines or frigates). ”

    We’ve been through this road before on multiple occasions.
    You are conflating things. Again there is a need for a mix of things to perform various things. The MPSSs are not really intended to add to the ”deterrance capability” but to perform various peace and wartime roles. If you’re going to equate MPSSs with ”submarines or frigates” then one might as well do the same with say softskin 4x4s and IFVs or loitering munitions and unarmed rotary platforms.

  48. … – ”making amphibious transport somewhat redundant. ”

    Can you say for certain that because o an increased military presence in East Malaysia we’ll never b faced with the need to rapidly move things there or even vice versa?

    … – ”Strategic transport on the other hand”

    ”’Strategic transport” could mean a variety of things in support of national interests; i.e. moving a battalion from A to B; evacuation nationals from somewhere; etc.

    … – ”there will be equal army capability in both east and west malaysia,”

    When exactly? If you know then you have gifts/abilities us mortals don’t because even the army doesn’t know when it will actually get the funds to do so. As it stands we buy NVGs in batches of 18; have howitzers older than their crews; can’t even afford to subject the whole IFV fleet to an upgrade and a long list of other things; thus when exactly will there ”will be equal army capability in both east and west malaysia”?

  49. Hulubalang “Tentera Darat is now restructuring so that there will be equal army capability in both east and west malaysia, making amphibious transport somewhat redundant.”

    They aren’t and they won’t. Even if they wanted to no politicians, administer, voters (other than you) would want to throw money for that purposes.

  50. There was mention of the Kaan. There’s an excellent article out there on it and on Turkey’s industry. How despite great advances it’s still dependent of foreign sources for various key components.
    To me South Korea and Turkey can meet a lot of our needs; both have been trying to interest us with various forms of collaboration since the 1990’s. Of the two countries South Korea is far ahead in most areas but politics dictates [for reasons explained in previous posts] that Turkey is the preferred option for us. Ultimately the problem is us. Our erratic funding; the inability to commit to anything long term and a lack of a clear/ holistic and realistic assessment of our long term security needs.

    On the Kaan. Firstly it’s still early days. Secondly who’s to say that it’s a more suitable option than the South Korean option? Thirdly given the seriousness we place on defence and how tight fisted we are; the notion that we should be a partner in the programme is detached from reality. We can’t even fork out the needed funding to equip a mere 8 Hornets; a platform we have far more faith and confidence in compared to the Flankers; with a AESA radar.

  51. No idea if anything will come out of it but the offer for the Marineon to fulfil the ASW helo requirement is interesting. It has far more range, endurance, internal space and carrying capacity compared to the Wildcat. The Wildcat is unable to carry a pair of torps, sonobuoys and dipping sonar and what the ROKN does by having one helo armed with toros and another fitted with the dipping sonar is simply not practical. Given that ASW is time intensive and that a helo might have to fly a certain distance to hunt a contact; Wildcat is clearly unsuitable for ASW.

    The argument that Wildcat sgares commonality with the Lynx is also moot as it will – if ordered – replace not augment the Lynx. The only other realistic options are Romeos [price tag aside] and ASW configured Cougars which were offered before. As it stands however unless I’m mistaken no customer has configured the Marineon or Cougar for ASW; yet.

  52. It is refreshing to see RMAF accepting reality for a change. The reality is we cannot afford the latest super duper expensive fighters. You can thank 1MDB for that. But low-houred Kuwaiti Hornets are still a good solution. If we acquire the entire fleet, we can rotate them into storage and as sources of spares once the flying examples come up for a major overhaul. This will last us a very long time. And Hornets do have a well-defined upgrade path, one notable example being the APG-84 SABR AESA radar which has passed fit checks and can be installed in the field.

  53. There is no plan to get the AESA radar for the Hornets. The cost increase for a ten per cent improvement in range, does not justify the investment, I was told.

    The lack of investment in defence was not due to 1MDB or other scandals. It is simply that defence is seen as just a side show and a legal money laundering programme.

  54. @ azlan

    ” We’ve been through this road before on multiple occasions ”

    I will be glad to go down this road again and again

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNMJ7YubUAAEGoG.jpg

    To me this is not a navy that can deal with future threats in our maritime region. 8 Corvettes will be quickly sunk without deep magazines for anti-missile defence. What capability does 3 MRSS provides when the navy fights against another navy?

    MRSS do strategic sealift? its specification is to fit just 20 IFVs, that is not even a battalion/regiment worth or IFVs.

    If just a battalion worth of personnel, we can use aircrafts. A battalion worth of vehicles, weapons, equipments, probably it will not fit on 1 MRSS.

    For something that can support TLDM main fleet warfighting needs, I would prefer to have large OSVs, like UK, Australia, New Zealand is using, that could do multiple roles, from MCM, to mothership/tender/forward repair ship, to Hydrographic survey, to underwater surveillance, to special forces support, to floating base.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNcoZI9bMAARj70.jpg

    also a fast RORO as strategic sealift, able to transport at least 100 IFV at one time (a full Mechanized battalion has around 70-80 IFVs and support vehicles).

    Budget saved to be spent on more submarines, frigates.

  55. @ marhalim

    ” The cost increase for a ten per cent improvement in range, does not justify the investment, I was told ”

    That is 10% range improvement of probably APG-79 vs APG-73. Kuwaiti hornets don’t even have APG-73 (it still have the older APG-65). Also the FA-50 Phantomstrike radar probably have the same or better capability of the APG-79 but at a lower cost.

    @ azlan

    the 1st H225M ASW version was supposed to be for Poland, but they cancelled the deal. The issue with H225M, as is some other helicopters is , it does not have a hole in the floor for dipping sonar. I believe Surion does not too, which is why the korean navy uses the MH-60R Romeo and Wildcats for ASW.

    If we want a long endurance, but affordable ASW helicopter, what we can do is to get used seahawk airframe from japan (they have retired around 80 of them, replaced by locally newbuild seahawk airframes with locally developed ASW system. Why did they do this? To support local defence industry), fit 0 hour main gearbox, rotor blades etc, and fit new Leonardo ASW suite similar to NH90/Wildcat/TUDM ATR-72M, including new dipping sonar.

    The army is in the process to have equal capabilities in both east and west malaysia. That is a requirement explicitly listed down in the Army 4 Next G plan. What has been done so far

    1) Established dedicated Eastern Field Army Command.
    2) Established 5th Division dedicated for Sabah
    3) Established 2 Brigades of Rejimen Sempadan (1 each in Sabah and Sarawak)
    4) Established 5 KAD dedicated cavalry unit for Sabah
    5) Established 8 RAD dedicated artillery unit for Sarawak
    6) Equipping AV8 Gempita for 4 KAD Cavalry Sarawak
    7) Planning to move 19 RAMD (Mek) from Kedah to Sabah

    Most of this done after the TLDM 15 to 5 plan was published. With more to be done in the near future. So do we really need 3x MRSS? Or we should get other ships rather than the MRSS?

  56. This is a wise decision. Adding hornet is the only logic solution at the moment for MRCA capabilities, after getting the FA-50 which is a basic/light/training fighter. RMAF is doing a good job, moving step by step from the basic which is cheap and needed. But, there is no need for dozens units. A number of 10 (an sq of 18) or 16 (2 sq of 12) is enough. It is unlikely there will be major modernization to the hornets. Keep it simple as the jets will not have much time left.

    @hulubalang:
    “What capability does 3 MRSS provides when the navy fights against another navy?”

    They don’t have…because MRSS is designes for sealift not combat ship.

    ” A battalion worth of vehicles, weapons, equipments, probably it will not fit on 1 MRSS.”

    That is why TLDM try to get 3 units.

    “For something that can support TLDM main fleet warfighting needs, I would prefer to have large OSVs, like UK, Australia, New Zealand is using, that could do multiple roles.

    Do you think TLDM need that big for daily use? Do you suggest we keep using A400 to send 1 ton of logistics?
    Do you see what type of MRSS design show in our booth in DSA?
    It looks like a 163m PT PAL LPD whose tonnage is 13000 tons. Do you mistral or dokdo? What for?

  57. @ romeo

    ” They don’t have…because MRSS is designes for sealift not combat ship. ”

    They have, but it is better to use something else really.

    this is the spec of the MRSS
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNg2N1oacAMXNFD.jpg

    ” That is why TLDM try to get 3 units ”

    And do you know how much 1 unit costs? UAE actually ordered 1 MRSS to the original TLDM specs.
    https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/navdex-2023/2023/03/uae-procures-lpd-from-indonesian-shipbuilder-pt-pal/
    one unit costs USD403 million. If we buy 3, then it is USD1.209 billion. That is the cost of 2 Scorpenes.

    ” Do you think TLDM need that big for daily use? Do you suggest we keep using A400 to send 1 ton of logistics?
    Do you see what type of MRSS design show in our booth in DSA?
    It looks like a 163m PT PAL LPD whose tonnage is 13000 tons. Do you mistral or dokdo? What for? ”

    I clearly know what the design is. Look at my link of the MRSS specification above.

    Strategic sealift is just that, strategic. Not small items ad hoc (that is called tactical sealift).

    Regular links from east to west malaysia can be done by RORO like this, spanish navy Ysabel
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UB5NgWSrrk

    Before saying it is too big, it is actually shorter than the PT PAL MRSS and has a drought of 0.1m less than the MRSS (5.9m vs 6.0m).

    The Ysabel has a length of 149,38 m, a beam of 21 m. She can reach a top speed of 18 knots, a cruising range of 7200 miles and she can carry a crew of 18 sailors and 110 trailers.

    What does this ship cost the Spanish navy? EUR7.5 million. Yes it is about the cost of a FAC(G) refit.

  58. “The timing of the MRCAs is supposedly about a decade”
    If basing on the original intention to get Rafales back during PM Najib, then MRCA is not a decade from now but supposedly NOW. Whether interim or not it depends on how the users justify to get something new. With the Kuwaiti Hornets buy (which you were vehemently against it against the wishes of TUDM) it was understandable as MRCA was supposed to arrive but due to Govt changes & budgetary reshuffling, and economic ups & downs, it has to be deferred without an exact timeframe. Even with them Kuwaiti Hornets in service TUDM could still make a case to push for MRCA.

    Then what about TDM and their ongoing flip flop SPH saga? Where are we NOW in the scale of actually buying, maybe you know as your adamant we must get new so something must be coming right, because 6 years since we had NOTHING. When you fight with NOTHING you are more than guaranteed to lose.

  59. Lets get back to the topic of the hornets.

    What can be done :

    1) get the Kuwaiti Hornets, 33 units. Only 16 of that + our original 8 to be operational (if 2 squadrons of 12 aircraft). The rest for rotation/attrition spare/sparepart harvest.

    2) get 16-20 RAAF Classic Hornets (there are about 46 remaining after some passed to RCAF) right away, especially to harvest spareparts and the APG-73 radars to retrofit to the operational Kuwaiti Hornets. If we want a fleet with all APG-73 radars.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNhby2ZbwAAmUZQ.jpg

    3) If change all radar to APG-79(V)4 AESA, then we need an investment of about USD75-80 million. If we are going to use to 2040, i would say why not. If we invest in AESA radar, then getting RAAF airframes is not so critical, but useful nevertheless.

    4) I would also invest USD30-50 million to buy missiles, smart bombs. AIM-9s (refurbished used ones okay, to have the numbers), JDAMs, Harpoons, quickstrike mine fuses for Mk80series bombs. Also if possible, EDA AGM-88 HARM.

    5) with lots of extra airframes, to distribute the spare airframes to many locations, so that there will be spareparts if any 1 airbase is destroyed.

  60. @Hulubalang
    Baca dan fahami
    Jangan baca dan terjah

    “They have, but it is better to use something else really”

    There are 9 military Naval operations this ship can do but none is to fight other navy. Just because it can carry 76mm gun so this ship can fight? Even a missile boat can sink this ship before they can use their 76mm gun.

    “one unit costs USD403 million. If we buy 3, then it is USD1.209 billion. That is the cost of 2 Scorpenes”

    This is the 2nd mistake. The UAE has ordered for 6 ships, the total cost is USD$403mio.

    “What does this ship cost the Spanish navy? EUR7.5 million. Yes it is about the cost of a FAC(G) refit.”

    This is the 3rd mistake. The price is for a 20 years old ship. Ysabel is just a cargo ship just like a simple inter island roro Ferry. You are comparing apple to banana.

  61. US1.2b will equip the eastern command with our second mechanised brigade and much more. No need for a strategic sea lift.

  62. … – ”The army is in the process to have equal capabilities in both east and west malaysia.”

    If you believe this is happening anytime soon you must as well talk about the tooth fairy. I’m talking about assets; adequate housing and training areas and not stripping units in the West for the East; as opposed to the paper stuff you took the time to list.

    … – ”also a fast RORO as strategic sealift,”

    As a supplement to the MPSS; not as a substitute. A Ro-Ro is only good for moving stuff but a MPSS is a jack of all trades; as has been explained on countless occasions. Also [as pointed out previously] it’s not as if we have zero Ro-Ro experience [having leased a hull years ago] and if there’s a acute need we can always requisition or ”take up for trade” a civilian example,

    … – ”So do we really need 3x MRSS? Or we should get other ships rather than the MRSS?”

    A rhetorical question for which the answer is plainly obvious [not to you naturally].]We need a right mix of things to perform a variety of roles. Unless you have an oracle you can consult or have the gift of seeing in the future which the rest of us mortal lack; there is no such thing as something is ”better” than something else. I’ll be the last to say the services are infallible but they know what they need and why …

    … – ”Strategic sealift is just that, strategic.”

    Yes and various things would fall under ”strategic sealift”. Th C-130s are a ”strategic” asset” but at times they’ll have a ”tactical” value and there’s also a things called ”measure of success versus measure of efficiency”.

    Stellshoot – ”I think what Hulubalang is saying is why spend RM on the MRSS when there are other more important priority.”

    This is what he said : ” going for 3x brand new MRSS contributes to minimum capability to the naval deterrance capability (unlike say adding more submarines or frigates). ”
    Something fundamentally wrong with this statement given the conflation at play and the overlooking of the fact that we need various things to perform various roles and that MPSSs are bought for specific reasons.

    Conrad – ”It is refreshing to see RMAF accepting reality for a change.”

    Whatever are you on about? The RMAF has long acknowledged the ”reality” and has presented various options to the government but the government was never able to commit to anything for years. It’s not as if the RAF has said it must get ‘X’ or nothing at all. The issue – as explained to ”…” is that various governments have been unable to commit to anything; making long term planning extremely dicey.

    Conrad – ”ut low-houred Kuwaiti Hornets are still a good solution. ”

    Only if the government provides adequate funding fir their upkeep and to get new support gear and ordnance. They are not risk free as commonly portrayed; they are old and getting older and will get increasingly maintenance intensive. Yes we should get them but only if certain conditions are met. The last thing we want is getting them [enabling various enthusiasts, observers and fanboys to salivate] but are in a position where we can’t adequately sustain them.

    Romeo – ”because MRSS is designes for sealift not combat ship.”

    This has been done to death. Whether it was the Banggi or Jarom or Mahawangsa; such ships have both peace and war time roles; HADR; amphib ”movement”; tactical lift” as tenders; etc, etc.

  63. ”maybe you know as your adamant we must get new”

    No. We can get used but it has to meet requirements and we must be able to sustain it. What we can’t assume is just because others can; that we can because they might have more resources and be willing to incur certain penalties.

    ” get 16-20 RAAF Classic Hornets ”

    Those are really worn out; unlike the Kuwaiti examples.

    ” I would also invest USD30-50 million ”

    You would and I know you’re all excited but in reality as opposed to paper possibilities will we spend what’s really required or will we as usual try to do everything on the cheap again?

    Hasnan – ”No need for a strategic sea lift.”

    You might think so but a ”strategic” lift asset perform a variety of roles; not just ”strategic” lift and it also has peacetime roles ….

  64. @ Romeo

    So okay. You are right. So why do we buy a custom expensive ship just to do sealift??

    ” This is the 2nd mistake. The UAE has ordered for 6 ships, the total cost is USD$403mio ”

    It is for a SINGLE ship.
    https://twitter.com/AndCav4/status/1628736680369999872

    ” The price is for a 20 years old ship. Ysabel is just a cargo ship just like a simple inter island roro Ferry. You are comparing apple to banana ”
    That is all that is needed for strategic sealift. It is not going to do combat right????

    @ azlan

    ” Those are really worn out; unlike the Kuwaiti examples ”
    Does not matter the airframe fatigue, as it is to be used as spare parts source. The most valuable item is the APG-73, as it is no longer in production, if we want to have an all APG-73 radar fleet. Kuwaiti Hornets (along with the Spanish) are the only export Hornet user that is still with APG-65 radars. All others retrofitted with APG-73 or with them from new (malaysia)

  65. Hasnan “US1.2b will equip the eastern command with our second mechanised brigade and much more. No need for a strategic sea lift.”

    Only when you count in CAPEX but not OPEX. More soldiers means more salary, annual increment and worst of all more penchant payments. It also take away human resources from the economy.

    Strategic sealift are therefore cheaper as a whole with the added benefit of can operate beyond our territorial water something we may want to perform MOOTW.

  66. … – “I will be glad to go down this road again and again”

    Knock yourself out if it serves a purpose or makes you feel better.
    “Again and again” until you turn blue or until the future MPSSs are close to retirement. While you’re at it must as well “again and again” also convince us that a IFV can replace a tank or a LMG is “better” than a rifle …

    Do however try to include a semblance of realism and objectively rather than peddling the same subjective and highly spurious claims.

    RoRos are a one truck pony but here you are insisting they can be a direct substitute for a multi purpose MPSS.

    On something actually more pertinent and interesting.
    Marhalim mentions a good point about AESA radars. It offers an improvement over PESAs but not necessarily significantly. There’s a great interview with a former USAF pilot who goes into some detail and mentions the same thing. He also dismisses the notion that slapping on a ARM on a fighter makes it into an effective SEAD/DEAD enemy platform or a “Wild Weasel” but that’s me going off tangent.

    A major benefit a AESA radar has it that it can conduct more than one scan concurrently; i.e. the Su-30s at low level can have their PESA on terrain flying mode but not on air to air mode; the AESA radars on the RSAF’s F-15s can. As such EASA radars are not really “game changers” [on often overused term by sone who don’t really understand it]; anymore than UASs and loitering munitions are. At least not yet.

  67. … – ”he most valuable item is the APG-73, as it is no longer in production,”

    But spares are still avialable.

    … – ”with them from new (malaysia)”

    The 1st export user/customer.

    … – ”why do we buy a custom expensive ship just to do sealift??”

    Whatever we buy will contain some modifications to suit requirements thus it will not be ”custom” built per see. An example of ””custom” built” was the Rahmat. It will also not ”ust to do sealift” but a whole list of requirements from HADR to acting as tenders to supporting UN missions to MAF lift requirements; roles performed by the Saktis, Jaarom, Langkawis and Banggi.

  68. @Hulubalang:
    “So why do we buy a custom expensive ship just to do sealift??”

    It is called requirement. Customization is buyer request not supplier’s.
    Based on pinoy latest deal with PT PAL to supply another 2 ships of FFBNW Makassar class 124m is USD $105mio (usd $55mio each)
    Logically, an FFBNW MRSS 163m will not reach USD $100mio. Nobody will buy an FFBNW MRSS 163m at USD $403. Even the TNI will not buy it.

    “That is all that is needed for strategic sealift. It is not going to do combat right????”

    Not really. If TLDM wants a used cheap roro ferry there are plenty, but TLDM wants a multirole ship. The different price tag between A brand new roro ferry and a brand new MRSS wont cost an arm and leg.

    “Does not matter the airframe fatigue, as it is to be used as spare parts source”

    How a fatigue airframe can be used as spare parts?

  69. @ azlan

    ” But spares are still avialable ”

    To convert 16 ex-kuwaiti hornets to APG-73, we need to cannibalise existing hornets with APG-73. That would be the main reason to get the RAAF hornets.

    ” a whole list of requirements from HADR to acting as tenders to supporting UN missions to MAF lift requirements; roles performed by the Saktis, Jaarom, Langkawis and Banggi ”

    All that can be done with a converted RORO and also OSVs. SPS Ysabel, in 2-3 years of operations with spanish navy has done, other than its normal strategic transport tasks to the Canaries, HADR support for Turkiye earthquake, weapons transfer to Ukraine (sailing to Poland). Currently they are looking to buy another RORO to complement the SPS Ysabel.

    OSVs now used by UK, Australia, New Zealand and others to do multiple roles from MCM to underwater surveillance, hydrographic survey, patrol, HADR support, motherships, tenders and many others. Norway now looking to replace most of its FAC, MCMV, minelayers etc with OSV-based design common ships.

    @ romeo

    So the 163m MRSS ship costs? It is USD403 million, even if we can have it for half price, 3 would be at least USD600 million.
    Alternatively, 2 ROROs + 3 OSVs would only cost around USD100 million.

    Other missions can be done with OSVs (Australia has now even bought an OSV dedicated for HADR and defence of Pacific island nations), which plenty of Malaysian shipyards are capable of building. Buying ROROs like what Spanish Navy is doing is the best bang per buck we can have.
    http://www.samoagovt.ws/2022/12/media-release-australias-pacific-support-vessel-adv-reliant-to-visit-samoa/

    ” How a fatigue airframe can be used as spare parts? ”

    Because we are not using the airframe. The aircraft, even high hours, has been constantly updated and is filled with many brand new components. Parts that can be used
    – APG-73 radar (newer & better than APG-65 on the Kuwaiti hornets)
    – avionics (we can direct swap any unserviceable items in operational aircraft and repair it without having any downtime)
    – hydraulic systems
    – electric systems
    – engines
    – cockpit systems, ejection seats, canopies
    – access panels
    – etc.

  70. ‘To convert 16 ex-kuwaiti hornets to APG-73, we need to cannibalise existing hornets with APG-73. That would be the main reason to get the RAAF hornets.’ – Hulubalang

    Pray tell why RMAF should get RAAF Rhinos?

  71. @ azlan

    ” major benefit a AESA radar ”

    We are taking about Hornets right? Hornets does not have PESA radar. So it is not about AESA vs PESA.

  72. @ melayu ketinggalan

    “Pray tell why RMAF should get RAAF Rhinos?”

    yes my mistake

    TUDM should get RAAF classic hornets (aussie term, us term for that is legacy hornets)

  73. Very ketinggalan you are

    Those Hornets aren’t going to Ukraine. They are currently concentrating on getting F-16s, now training its pilots and engineers to master operating the F-16.
    https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukraine-clarifies-stance-on-f-a-18-fighter-jet-acquisition-50389361.html

    Those planes has little flying value to anyone not already using the hornets. It is mostly valuable for parts, for existing hornet operators like malaysia.

    RAAF hornets, although from the early A and B versions, has been, over its liftime, upgraded to C and D standards. Replacing original APG-65 radar with APG-73, adding TERMA BOL countermeasures, upgrading internal jammers, add JHMCS capability, add upgraded MFDs, add ASRAAM capability etc etc.

  74. … – ”So it is not about AESA vs PESA.”

    If you don’t mind Grandmaster I was talking about AESA radars because if you noticed there was a discussion on AESA radars in relation to the Hornets…

    … – ”All that can be done with a converted RORO and also OSVs. ”

    Yes and you would say that wouldn’t you now? Converted Ro-Ros are still not as suitable as purpose built MPSSs in terms of seakeeping and DC and if the RMN thought that a ”converted RORO and also OSVs” could do they job just as well [measure of success versus measure o efficiency] they would not have had a requirement for a MPSS even before Inerapura was lost.

  75. ” If you don’t mind Grandmaster I was talking about AESA radars because if you noticed there was a discussion on AESA radars in relation to the Hornets ”

    Legacy Hornets does not have PESA, so your long winded comparison of AESA to PESA is moot.

    ” a requirement for a MPSS even before Inerapura was lost ”

    A requirement 25 years ago is not the same as requirements now. Plans change. The army plans are different now compared to 25 years ago. So why does navy MRSS plan does not take the army change of plans into account?

  76. … – ”That would be the main reason to get the RAAF hornets.”

    Is the highly esteemed Grandmaster absolutely sure that [1] The OEM no longer produces parts [2] The OEM does not have parts in stock [3]That nobody else can be a source for spares.

  77. ” Is the highly esteemed Grandmaster absolutely sure that [1] The OEM no longer produces parts [2] The OEM does not have parts in stock [3]That nobody else can be a source for spares. ”

    From Cambridge dictionary:
    Main – generally or mostly

    As usual azlan wants to obfuscate the issue.

  78. To Hulubalang –

    ‘Those Hornets aren’t going to Ukraine. They are currently concentrating on getting F-16s, now training its pilots and engineers to master operating the F-16.
    https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukraine-clarifies-stance-on-f-a-18-fighter-jet-acquisition-50389361.html

    Unless you’re in the Pentagon or the ADF I am going to read this with a big pinch of salt.

    ‘Those planes has little flying value to anyone not already using the hornets. It is mostly valuable for parts, for existing hornet operators like malaysia.

    RAAF hornets, although from the early A and B versions, has been, over its liftime, upgraded to C and D standards. Replacing original APG-65 radar with APG-73, adding TERMA BOL countermeasures, upgrading internal jammers, add JHMCS capability, add upgraded MFDs, add ASRAAM capability etc etc.’

    lifetime, not liftime. Maybe a little history lesson for you is in order.

    Only Australia, Canada, Spain outside of Uncle Sam bought the A/B versions while yours truly as well as Switzerland, Kuwait and Finland purchased the C/D version hence that’s why TUDM are looking at the Kuwaiti birds. TUDM gets its spares/upgrades etc from USN so you can figure out the rest and besides RAAF is more likely to re-sell it to USMC as they’re still flying it ATM and/or 3rd party private contractors.

    And what’s your obsession with putting in AESA radars for our Hornets? Marhalim already stated TUDM doesn’t find it financially viable. Even for 8 birds the moolah isn’t there for show.

    So who’s ketinggalan now?

  79. ” lifetime, not liftime ”
    I am old, and my eyes are failing me. But thanks anyway for the nit-picking and the unneeded english lessons.

    ” And what’s your obsession with putting in AESA radars for our Hornets? ”

    You are out of your depth. APG-73 that is fitted to the RAAF classic hornets is not an AESA radar.

    Kuwaiti hornets are equipped with the older APG-65, a reason why (if you did understand what i was writing before) i would want those RAAF hornets, to cannibalise the APG-73 from the RAAF Hornets to be fitted into the Kuwaiti Hornets.

    TUDM Hornets from new are fitted with APG-73, so the whole fleet will be to the same radar spec by getting those radars from the RAAF classic hornets.

  80. … – ”As usual azlan wants to obfuscate the issue.”

    The pompous and self serving ‘…’ should look at himself in the mirror and not call the ”azlan’ pot black. He should also take a deep breath and realise that the bringing up of AESA was in relation to the F-18s and that a simple question was asked regarding spares for the APG-73. Yet he mentions ”obfuscation”? Rich but expected ….

    … – ”Legacy Hornets does not have PESA, so your long winded comparison of AESA to PESA is moot.”

    Who said it did? Since you missed it; rather than claiming thing’s are ”moot” look up what was explained in easy to understand English : ”I was talking about AESA radars because if you noticed there was a discussion on AESA radars in relation to the Hornets ”

    … – ”From Cambridge dictionary:”

    English scholar now to add to your long list of academic achievements?

    … – ”A requirement 25 years ago is not the same as requirements now. ”

    Is cherry picking a pastime of yours? Firstly it wasn’t 25 years ago. Secondly whether it was before or after Inderapura was lost the RMN had a requirement for a MPSS to perform a variety of peace and war time roles …

    … – ”Plans change. ”

    They actually ”evolve” and if you need to look it up; do so… With the MPSSs they haven’t changed or evolved much’; the requirement is still there. Perhaps if you need to have the last say or something to pick points on; pick something which has really changed …

    … – ”But thanks anyway for the nit-picking and the unneeded english lessons.”

    Sounds familiar this.

  81. “Unless you’re in the Pentagon or the ADF I am going to read this with a big pinch of salt.”
    Multiple sources have quoted their Defence Minister to prefer F16 over F18, understandably because they could get them hot transferred from NATO EU nations users Belgium, Denmark, Dutch, Portugal, Slovak. These countries in return could expect to get the latest Viper variants or subsidised F35s, not a bad deal for them.

    “RAAF is more likely to re-sell it to USMC”
    USMC could get spares from the Boneyard rather than buying worn birds.

  82. @ azlan

    There is a mention about AESA.

    So if you want to talk about AESA in regards to the legacy hornets, the least you can do is to compare the APG-73 to the AESA radar. Instead why is the long-winded rant about AESA vs PESA?

    Legacy hornets does not have PESA radar. Full stop.

  83. @Joe – ‘Multiple sources have quoted their Defence Minister to prefer F16 over F18, understandably because they could get them hot transferred from NATO EU nations users Belgium, Denmark, Dutch, Portugal, Slovak. These countries in return could expect to get the latest Viper variants or subsidised F35s, not a bad deal for them.’

    Pray tell where did you read about Portugal and Slovakia wanting to donate their Falcons to Ukraine?

    And there is no such thing as subsidised F35s. Next time do your research first please before spewing false info here.

    ‘USMC could get spares from the Boneyard rather than buying worn birds.’

    But of course, Captain Obvious. That’s the whole point why USMC wants to buy used Legacy Hornets from other countries. Duh.

    @Hulubalang – Since you’d mentioned you’re already an old man I’ll entertain your APG-73 radar wishlist and ask you this question.

    Does TUDM want to upgrade the Kuwaiti Hornets from 65 to 73? You do understand it’s not gonna be cheap right?

    ‘You are out of your depth. APG-73 that is fitted to the RAAF classic hornets is not an AESA radar.’

    I never did say the 73 of RAAF was AESA radar. I merely reflect on why you want AESA for our Hornets. We’re already 2 decades late for that.

  84. @MK
    “Pray tell where did you read”
    I said; ‘they could get them hot transferred from NATO EU nations users’. See the word COULD before you jump to conclusion otherwise brush up on your English.
    First to give are Denmark & Dutch, then Norway & Belgium, all are NATO members. And if these gets run down, then more NATO nations COULD be roped into to ‘donate’ which still left Portugal & Slovakia as next candidates. Poland & Greece are too close to Russia border for them to contribute just yet but they are NATO nations too.

    “there is no such thing as subsidised F35s”
    Tier 1 allies gets preferential pricing and/or early deliveries.

    “why USMC wants to buy used Legacy Hornets from other countries”
    This doesnt make any sense whatsoever. If I have a plenty of spares back home why would I want to go shopping for spares? I cannot brain your logic.

    Next time do your research first please before spewing crazy logic & nonsense here.

  85. ” Does TUDM want to upgrade the Kuwaiti Hornets from 65 to 73? You do understand it’s not gonna be cheap right? ”

    If we get those RAAF classic hornets for FREE, the APG-73 upgrade is basically FREE.

    hornets are unique in the sense that the radar is on rails that can be pulled out and replaced with another one in within 1 hour.

    Thr changeover is plug and play,

  86. @joe ‘First to give are Denmark & Dutch, then Norway & Belgium, all are NATO members. And if these gets run down, then more NATO nations COULD be roped into to ‘donate’ which still left Portugal & Slovakia as next candidates. Poland & Greece are too close to Russia border for them to contribute just yet but they are NATO nations too.’

    I like how you spin your words lol. Slovakia can’t be THE next candidate as they are NEW OPERATORS OF THE F-16 VIPER BLOCK 70 THIS YEAR! DON’T WRITE FALSE INFO HERE.

    ‘Tier 1 allies gets preferential pricing and/or early deliveries.’
    LOL! CANADA IS TIER 1 BUT THEY WILL ONLY RECEIVE THE FIRST BIRD IN 2026 AFTER CONFIRMING THE PURCHASE IN 2023. 3 YEARS IS EARLY DELIVERY HUH?

    ‘This doesnt make any sense whatsoever. If I have a plenty of spares back home why would I want to go shopping for spares? I cannot brain your logic.’

    THAT’S WHY DON’T REFER TO YOUR BACK HOME, STICK TO THE TOPIC AND LEARN TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON INSTEAD OF GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES.

    @Hulubalang – ‘If we get those RAAF classic hornets for FREE, the APG-73 upgrade is basically FREE.’

    ‘If’ is not a certainty so no point wishing for Santa Claus to bring snow to Malaysia.

  87. ” ‘If’ is not a certainty so no point wishing for Santa Claus to bring snow to Malaysia ”

    I didn’t propose TUDM to wish for it. I propose TUDM to get them.

  88. If not mistaken RAAF once mentioned they are supporting our hornets by cannibalizing theirs. So if we can get access to it there’s no merits to store it here and incurred a higher cost.

    As for the money. Well if RMAF get 2 squadron worth of hornets then there’s really no merit to keep the MKM flying anymore.

  89. @MK
    While some here are delusional, you are just off your rockers. Im done with you since you lack simple comprehension.

    @Hulu
    “If we get those RAAF classic hornets for FREE”
    I doubt Aussie are that generous. Canada had to buy their stocks with cash.

  90. RAAF has given us dozens of Sabres for free before.

    What we want are airframes (can be flight hour expired) for spareparts resources. Canada bought 25 flyable ones for CAD90 million more than 5 years ago.

    “So if we can get access to it there’s no merits to store it here and incurred a higher cost”
    We don’t know which small parts that we need and at what time, so it is better for the spareparts airframes to be here locally.

  91. @Zaft
    Im doubtful that Aussie are being so magnanimous, maybe in the past with the Sabres as Hulu said, but for the Hornets we are paying money for servicing & spares. The least we should expect is brand new part either from OEM or OEM approved makers.

    @Hulu
    “What we want are airframes”
    Kuwaiti ones are still in flying condition. If we can grab all 30+ units (after a few taken for museums & displays) we will have plenty of spares & flyable airframes since we only need 16 to fly. Not necessary to go for worse condition RAAF leftovers. They most prolly be the worst of the worst after getting cherry picked by RCAF.

  92. ” Not necessary to go for worse condition RAAF leftovers. They most prolly be the worst of the worst after getting cherry picked by RCAF ”

    Read my prior comments

    RAAF Classic Hornets have systems upgrades that even the Kuwaiti hornets does not have.

    The APG-73 radar for example. Kuwaiti Hornets don’t have those (but TUDM hornets have from new).

  93. @Hulu
    “The APG-73 radar for example.”
    Are you sure these are still working? There is possibly RAAF/RCAF have harvested working ones from those left. Even then, lets say these all work, if its gonna cost us USD $2.6mil for the radar (with junk airframe), it might not be worth the money if say the flyable Kuwaiti ones will only cost USD $1mil each (hopefully).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*