Singapore Airshow 2024

Avic Changhe Z-10ME attack helicopter with its suite of weapons.

SHAH ALAM: The 2024 edition of the Singapore Airshow starts today at the Changi Exhibition Centre near the Changi International Airport today. The show will feature the largest number of flying teams performing their aerobatic manoeuvres, as well checking out firsts such as the Indian Air Force’s Sarang aerobatic team; the C919, a narrow-body airliner and the ARJ21 regional jet developed by Chinese aircraft manufacturer COMAC, which is making their maiden participation at this edition of Singapore Airshow.


Due to reasons, I am unable to make the trip across the causeway this time around, same like two years ago. RMAF is however taking part in the show, with a single Sukhoi Su-30MKM tail number 04 albeit in the static display.

RMAF Sukhpi Su-30MKM 04 on display at Singapore Airshow 2024. DM

Comac C919 narrow body airliner


Embraer is debuting its C390 Millenium tanker/transport aircraft at the show. South Korea, two months ago, announced it was buying three of the Brazilian aircraft to meets its air force airlift requirements. South Korea is the first Asian country to choose the aircraft after six other countries.

Embraer C390 Millenium tanker/transport aircraft at the show.

Also making its debut at the show is the Avic Changhe Z-10ME attack helicopter. This is the foreign show for the helicopter which made its debut in 2018 at a China airshow.
Avic Changhe Z-10ME attack helicopter with its suite of weapons.

Even though its an airshow, Singapore state owned ST Engineering – as usual – is displaying the various defence products at the show – small arms to armoured vehicles. Making its debut is the latest variant Terrex 8X8 vehicle the S5.
ST Engineering Terrex S5.


As usual among the biggest air force taking part in the airshow is the US Air Force.

USAF KC-135 tanker.

The airshow is being held from February 20th to 25th. Here’s the schedule for the event:

Trade Days:
20th Feb, Tuesday: 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm
21st Feb, Wednesday: 11:30 am – 12:25 pm
22nd Feb, Thursday: 11:30 am – 12:25 pm
23rd Feb, Friday: No scheduled flying display
Public Days:
24th Feb, Saturday:
Display 1: 11:30 am – 12:15 pm
Display 2: 2:30 pm – 3:15 pm
25th Feb, Sunday:
Display 1: 11:30 am – 12:15 pm
Display 2: 2:30 pm – 3:15 pm

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2150 Articles
Shah Alam

97 Comments

  1. Would have been worth a visit if it wasnt so close to CNY and if it had a B52 for access visitation.

  2. This quote from a Su-30MKM pilot in Singapore is revealing – “At some point in the future, there may be next to none at all left flying, according to the plane’s pilot, who asked to remain unnamed for security reasons”. To start with the RMAF was never really enamoured with it despite the long range; large carrying capacity; TVCs and other things which on paper is impressive and mesmerises many.

    It never performed as fully expected; is maintenance intensive; was more expensive to fly and has low serviceability compared to the Hornet and has a RCS as large as a barn door. As such any suggestions as to how we can upgrade the Su-30s is delusional; not in line with reality as the RMAF will only spend what is needed to keep it operational and to replace parts/components which need replacing. Nothing more. The question is how long more can we fly it? 2 years ago ATSC said it had 2 years worth of spares. We can’t buy from the Russians [assuming they can fulfil the order in the first place] and HAL can’t supply everything we need. China? It too can’t supply all we need. The days of the type in RMAF service really seems numbered.

    As a whole not only the Su-30 but the reputation of other Russian kit has taken a huge dent as a result of the Ukrainian war. If we had remembered our history however the fact that the VVS underperformed is hardly surprising given that the traditional role of the Russian/Soviet Air Force is to support the ground campaign; not wage a strategic air campaign the way Western air arms do. It became apparent that the Russians were unaccustomed to flying in large packages; lacked realistic training and even experienced crews. Despite all the assumptions about Russian Air Force EW capabilities and the long range KH-31 [which mesmerises some] it could not perform SEAD/ DEAD the way the West does. Deficiencies in SEAD/DEAD led to the use of ballistic missiles and other things to compensate. If the VKS underperformed against the Ukrainians; Western air forces would wipe the floor with the VKS.

  3. Yup, the old man really screwed up MAF and the nation….thats why a few years back, I wrote that we should retire the Sukhois as soon as possible.

  4. And to think that he only agreed to a token buy of 8 Hornets at the last minute. The main reason we got the Fulcrums was because it was cheap [no support package], barter trade and to show the West how non aligned or independent he was. On top of that the Fulcrum desk was hoped to be the start of more good things with the Russian Federation.

    The irony is that the Hornets outlasted the Fulcrums and as things stand might even outlast the Flankers. To me; buying something from a country whose air force can’t help with a combat syllabus because it doesn’t operate the variant is ludicrous. If only NASA had been able to send a Malaysian to space; perhaps we’d be talking about Super Hornet upgrades now.

  5. The decision on the Sukhois was made as the US was about to embark in the invasion of Iraq, so that was another feather in his cap, or so what he believed. While it is agreeable to oppose the US invasion of Iraq, doing it that way was a disaster to MAF really.

  6. Looks like I will have to personally ask the MKM pilot myself then.

    Anyway, issues with the SU-30SM in Ukraine is
    – not much issues with SEAD/DEAD, most air defence missiles is around major towns, not in the frontline. The issue is how to do SEAD/DEAD on things like MANPADs?
    – The Su-30SM does not have potent precision or stand-off weapons. RuAF does not have in large quantities something like PAVEWAY, JDAM, JDAM-ER, SDB. The SU-30SM does not even go to war with a targeting pod (which SU-30MKM has with the damocles). They are mostly dropping dumb bombs or randomly lobbing unguided rockets, usually flying above ukrainian MANPAD crews.
    – The SU-30SM does not have something like the storm shadow that ukranians have. No stand-off weapons = more likely to be shot down.

    As for SU-30MKM
    We employ western tactics. The most glaring deficiency of the MKM is its weapons. Kh-31 is a good supersonic anti-ship and anti-radar missile. But that is basically it. The MKM has the targeting part sorted (although it can be upgraded/replaced by better pod), but we need good precision bombs and stand-off weapons to drop from the MKM.

    That would be the main reason why TUDM embarked on designing pylons that could carry PAVEWAYS. To be clear from any issues with USA, we should buy ITAR-free precision bombs from Turkiye for example, that could be dropped from all TUDM fighter jets.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnY2UT8XgAAcxpi.jpg

    Next would be stand-off precision missiles of hundreds of km range. Things such as the Storm Shadow or Turkiye SOM-J. I would tend to go for the Storm Shadow if we have the budget say in 2030, getting some from UK stocks as they at that time would have created the Storm Shadow replacement already. It is already tested in SU-24, that means it should not be a problem hanging them from the MKM too.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxVQ973XwAAUkRx.jpg

    SU-30MKM 10 year overhaul should have been completed by now, so the next overhaul window would be in 2034. The main bottleneck in the next overhaul is the need to totally replace the AL-31FP engines as they would have run out of hours (2000 hours life limit). If we cannot get/unwilling to pay for new engines, then it is the end of the story for the MKM, just like what happened to the MiG-29N. But if we are willing to pay for new engines, then the new Al-41F1S engine with greater thrust, lower fuel consumption and a longer 1500 hour overhaul interval (which means the next overhaul is at 15 years time). This would probably be the last overhaul the MKM will get, and that will be good to go up to 2050.

    As for the effectiveness of the Flanker in Ukraine. When a standoff weapon is finally available for the flanker (250 UMPK), then the Flanker made an impact on the battlefield
    https://www.airspace-review.com/2024/02/23/kunci-kemenangan-rusia-di-avdiivka-jet-su-34-su-35-jatuhkan-250-bom-berpemandu-umpk-dalam-72-jam/

    On the Hornets, USA would not have approved Hornet offer if not for the Russian Fulcrum offer
    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/26/opinion/IHT-us-f18-gains-on-mig-for-malay-deal.html

  7. “we should retire the Sukhois as soon as possible.”
    With the current context I wonder if that is even possible for the now. Perhaps we can really consider the possibility if we managed to get those Kuwaiti Hornets to bolster our legacy Hornet fleet as 7 units to cover both East & West Msia is really not enough.

    Like it or not, for the now until we start getting MRCAs in 2030-2035 we will have to keep the MKM flying at the frontline.

    Good thing is Russia might also be doing so as they arent likely to afford enough PAKFA to replace their various Sukhoi fleets, so spares & continuing upgrades remains open to us. Baring which my vehemence towards using Russki stuff is more political(MH17) than technical.

  8. As long as we fear at being sanctioned by the US, we might as well sell off the flankers ASAP. We have no idea how long the Ukraine War will last or when another war with China will erupt.

    Strategically impaired already.

  9. No, inherent issues with the Su-30 and inadequacies with Russian SEAD/DEAD are 2 different things and nobody conflated it. The VKS simply does not perform SEAD/DEAD in an integrated manner manner the way the West does and despite fanboys/ trolls salivating over the long range of the Kh-31 it did not perform as advertised.

    As for precision munitions you missed the key part where Russia simply does not have the recce/ strike complex to detect, fix and hit targets deep in the operational depth and in time sensitive situations. A shortage of precision guided munitions is only part of the problem. As has been pointed out to you long range is not a panacea if you don’t have the key enablers.
    Even if Russia had something like Storm Shadow it would not be able to achieve the same results as the Ukrainians due to a lack of a strike/recce capability. The Ukrainians – whether with MLRSs or other things – have superior C3 and ISR and benefit from American satellites and intel.

    As for what we can do on paper the list is endless and you can go over it until blue in the face but pointless because as it stands the reality is that there is no such intention for any comprehensive upgrade. As it stands we attach far more value and confidence in the Hornet which we intend to fly until it’s no longer possible but we even then can’t allocate cash for a AESA and other things.

    Damocles. Have no idea what your definition of “sorted out” is but as pointed out to you years ago Damocles is not a full fledged navigation/ targeting pod and falls short when compared to other pods; which is why in French service it was seen as an interim solution.

    An advantage the Su-30/35 has is superior radar and a semi active AAM with longer legs but in the overall scheme of things does not make a difference. The VKS despite its numerical and qualitative advantage has failed to achieve air superiority and is largely due to the fact that it suffer from various inherent issues as well as the lack of institutionalised knowledge of conducting a strategic air campaign which neither Russia or the Soviet Union ever did.

    Also, we “employ Western tactics” but so what? Do we have the institutionalised tertiary skills Western air arms do? Do we fly the same number of hours and have the key enablers? If we had Storm Shadow which you’re enamoured off could we use it to its full potential?

    Yes do personally talk to the pilot. Let’s see if he opens up to you and if he can provides narrative in line with your preference. BTW even before the article it was open knowledge that we do not intend on spending more than we need to to keep the MKM flying until it can be replaced and that despite public perceptions about how sophisticated it is and how long the range is, how agile it is due to the TVC, etc, how many missiles it can carry, etc, we were never really happy with it. Maintenance intensive; low serviceability rate; systems which never performed as intended; after sales which left a lot to be desired; etc. Will also mention again what I did before : ask any pilot which he’d rather fly and the answer would be the Hornet. Not necessarily because the Hornet is a superior plane but for a combination of reasons.

    I like the Su-30 but I’m not going to place it on a pedestal.

  10. ” I like the Su-30 but I’m not going to place it on a pedestal ”

    Nobody is placing the MKM on a pedestal.

    It is what we currently have. There is no way we are going to get an alternative to what the MKM can do, having the range to hit any ships in malaysian EEZ in South China Sea from its base in Gong Kedak (yeah anyone can dream of F-15EX, but is it realistic??). So we need to look at what options that we have with that aircraft. And I am just listing out what are the deficiencies of the platform and what options we can possibly do with the MKM to improve it with the minimum cost possible.

    Yes currently pilots will prefer the hornets, but why exactly? What can be improved? This is where I am coming from.

    Also talking specifically about the MKM does not mean other things like AEW, MRCA etc is not needed.

  11. … – ”Nobody is placing the MKM on a pedestal.”

    Over the years I got the distinct impression you were; given your constant praise of it whilst omitting its limitations. The constant referrals to its range, effective EW, long range weapons, ect.

    … – ” but why exactly?”

    After thousands of words you have to asK? The Hornet is more reliable; performs as advertised; is less resource intensive; has far better and more reliable product support; has a better cockpit layout, has systems/components with a longer TBO and MTBF, etc,

    … – ”It is what we currently have. ”

    Yes and the intention is to bin it as soon as we can and to only spend what’s absolutely needed to keep it flying until it can be binned. So no comprehensive upgrade; no Storm Shadow, etc.

    … – ”What can be improved? This is where I am coming from.”

    Does where ”you’re coming from” acknowledge that certain things can’t be improved? That certain things are inherent and are in line with Russian/Soviet practice?

    … – ”Also talking specifically about the MKM does not mean other things like AEW, MRCA etc is not needed.”

    So? Anyone say otherwise? Need a reminder that I’ve long harped that we’re in the ”systems” not ”platform” centric age and without a AEW and data link one can’t exploit what it has to its full potential?

    … – ”here is no way we are going to get an alternative to what the MKM can do, having the range to hit any ships in malaysian EEZ in South China Sea from its base in Gong Kedak ”

    Is it a major limitation if we don’t have an asset which does not have the ”the range to hit any ships in malaysian EEZ in South China Sea from its base in Gong Kedak”? Need a reminder that the large fuel tanks come with a penalty and that depending on the sortie the fuel tanks might not even be full?

  12. …. – “On the Hornets, USA would not have approved Hornet offer if not for the Russian Fulcrum offer”

    We didn’t even make a request for it in the very first place …

    The expectation is that we’d go for F-16s and that’s what we were offered and cleared to get.

  13. … – ”When a standoff weapon is finally available for the flanker (250 UMPK), then the Flanker made an impact on the battlefield”

    Look up the videos of Michael Kofman and Justin Bronk and stuff written in RUSI and other places. The Russians still have a major issue when it comes to ISR and C3. They still rely on ballistic and cruise missiles to hit targets deep in the operational depth and of late are relying a lot on unguided glide bombs.

    Against certain types of threats the self defence suite on the SU-30 has also been found wanting and the main reason it has come on top in a number of air to air engagements is because of superior radar and semi active radar missiles. The R-77 has dome pretty well but the types of targets it has engaged has to also be factored in and in some areas it has been found to be inferior to AMRAAM.

    Also note that the Su-27/Su-30 excels at high to medium altitude; after all it was born out of a requirement for a long range interceptor. At low altitudes – as mentioned some time ago – it does less well and with its PESA it can’t simultaneously track aerial targets whilst also having a terrain following mode. As was also mentioned some time ago this is why years ago the IAF started looking for a suitable strike platform to replace its MiG-27s.

  14. “The expectation is that we’d go for F-16s”
    Is that true, in view of TUDM preference for fighters to be dual engined (which is why the Hornet, Fulcrum, MKM was chosen)?

    Its ironic if we went with F16 instead tho, since legacy Hornet have been retired from USN and will end support in 2030, the F16 are still being produced (Viper) and hanging around in USAF service so its likely to have a longer operational lifespan.

  15. ”Is that true”

    Yes. The expectation amongst most industry watchers was that we’d eventually join Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia in getting the F-16A/B. Even within the RMAF the F-16 was seen as the option we’d eventually decide on. What else was there? The Hornet was not seen as a possibility and prior to 1990/91 it was inconceivable that we’d go Russian; eventhough we had considered the Mil-26 in the 1980’s to address a trade imbalance.

  16. Did any of you people forgot the main reason why we bought russian? We were literally treated like stepchild by america. When Singapore were cleared to buy Block 52 F-16 with AMRAAM we were freaking offered F-20 and then ADF F-16 with no AMRAAM. Hell when we finally bought that token amount of hornets it took us years to finally be cleared to biy AMRAAM.

    So yeah we definitely got our money’s worth of both the Migs and Sukhois and the hornets only become more useful when daddy america decided to not play favorites with the munition selection.

    I’d even wager we were better off with russian aircraft than other offerings (Mirage 2000, Tornado)

  17. Hulubalang “There is no way we are going to get an alternative to what the MKM can do, having the range to hit any ships in malaysian EEZ in South China Sea from its base in Gong Kedak (yeah anyone can dream of F-15EX, but is it realistic??).”

    Can always just buy some jet with a shorter leg and place it on borneo.

  18. ” The constant referrals to its range, effective EW, long range weapons, ect ”

    I have never praised MKM for its “long range weapons”, instead i did have a lot of suggestions on how to improve on the lack of such weapons on the MKM.

    And yes, i did have a very long chat with a MKM crew (Thank you very much BxxxK for spending more than an hour answering my multitudes of questions about the MKM).

    About the SAP513, interestingly he rates this system highly even when compared to western systems. Asking if this system should be replaced (by something like the new SAAB AREXIS), not to my expectations he said no.

    As for upgrades, yes they have plans to upgrade the MKM, and has a few already requested.

    Lots of things i have talked (weapons, engines, targeting pods etc.) but that is for another day.

  19. Statement:

    ” At low altitudes – as mentioned some time ago – it does less well and with its PESA it can’t simultaneously track aerial targets whilst also having a terrain following mode ”

    So what is the root cause of the problem?
    – inherent aircraft problem?
    – radar performance limitations?
    – pilot problem?
    – mission parameters problem?

    The main issue is radar performance limitations. How to mitigate this?
    – New radar
    – upgrade the current radar
    – change to higher performance radar processors
    – have AEW in the mission to monitor aerial targets.
    – dedicate 1-2 aircraft in the strike package as fighter escorts to take on aerial targets while the rest of the aircraft in the strike package with strike priority.

  20. Also with the regards of terrain-following mode.

    What type of terrain we are going to fly over in most of our missions? Do we need to go over thousands of km of mountainous terrain to get to the target? Or would it be mostly flat sea surface? In most probability our targets would be close to shore, or if it is in the spratlys, a tiny speck of land surrounded by thousands of kms of sea

    Also do we need to go in all the way? Or the last 200-300km could be done by stand-off precision guided missiles?

  21. Hulubalang “I have never praised MKM for its “long range weapons”, instead i did have a lot of suggestions on how to improve on the lack of such weapons on the MKM.”

    If money grow on tree sure. But it doesn’t.

    System integration and inventing own unique tactics due to using unique platform are stupidly expensive and one would be better of financially by binning it and getting something new.

    If integration are as cheap and easy as you like to tell then everyone would be doing so already. RAF refuse to update the typhoon trench 1 or The hunter class 300% markups is already a telling sign on how expensive it can be, something you conveniently ignore because it’s inconvenient to your narrative.

  22. …. – “ What type of terrain we are going to fly over in most of our missions? Do we need to go over thousands of km of mountainous terrain to get to the target”

    You’re missing the point. I pointed out that a PESA radar can’t simultaneously be in the air to air mode whilst also being in the terrain following mode: yet you go off tangent. Yes we still do rely on terrain following due to the nature of our terrain. Need a link, ask.
    There you are again dismissing anything and everything not in with your reasoning.

    As to the “root of the problem” this has been mentioned; jus widely on known and lots of it is inherent with buying Russian. The nature of the beast. Again , all this talk about what we can do is moot because there is no intention for any significant upgrades.

    dundun,

    Do you need a reminder as to the long list of issues we’ve had with our Russian stuff and the fact that the RMAF didn’t want Russian and doesn’t want any more Russian?

  23. @ darthzaft

    Integration?

    Hint – TUDM did not make those unique pylons for MKM just for the fun of it.

    Hint 2.

    Some stuff does not have to be integrated with the aircraft. Storm Shadow is an example.

    ” The missile is fire and forget, programmed before launch. Once launched, it cannot be controlled or commanded to self-destroy and its target information cannot be changed. Mission planners program the weapon with details of the target and its air defences. The missile follows a path semi-autonomously, on a low flight path guided by GPS and terrain mapping to the target area. Close to the target, the missile climbs to increase its field of view and improve penetration, matches the target stored image with its IR camera and then dives into the target.

    Climbing to altitude is intended to achieve the best probability of target identification and penetration. During the final maneuver, the nose cone is jettisoned to allow a high resolution thermographic camera (infrared homing) to observe the target area. The missile then tries to locate its target based upon its targeting information (DSMAC). If it cannot, and there is a high risk of collateral damage, the missile is capable of flying to a crash point instead of risking inaccuracy. ”

    The storm shadow is not “integrated” with Ukrainian Su-24, yet it can be launched from the Su-24 and reach its intended targets with no problems.

    https://www.armedconflicts.com/attachments/121/Su-24Md.jpg

  24. First we are not even sure how many SU-30 are actually flying. Second there is still the issue of sanctions. They were saying they had parts to keep the SU-30 flying for 2 years, 2 years ago. Third, the SU-30 is harder and more expensive to maintain than the F18. As mentioned in other discussions, with the F18 its easy to get parts and know how given the number of F18s flying around the world. Contrast it to the MKM which is unique to RMAF such that Russia and India can’t provide us with all the parts and know how to operate and maintain the MKM. In fact it is more likely the F18s will outline the SU-30MKM. So why bother and hard sell the idea?

  25. dundun – ”Did any of you people forgot the main reason why we bought russian?”

    Do you need a reminder as to the long list of issues we’ve had with our Russian stuff and the fact that the RMAF didn’t want Russian and doesn’t want any more Russian? Need a reminder that the Hornets have displayed far more reliability than the much vaunted Flankers? You will also note that we were placed in the ludicrous position of buying something from the Russians but the Russians being unable to help us with a combat syllabus specific to our needs given they did/do not operate the variant.

    dundun – ”when Singapore were cleared to buy Block 52 F-16 with AMRAAM we were freaking offered F-20”

    Get the chronology right. We looked at the F-20 in the 1980’s during PERISTA and during that period AMRAAM didn’t even exist.

    No we didn’t get our money’s worth with the Fulcrums and Flankers and with some asking around and objective research you’d know that.

    dundun – ”hornets only become more useful when daddy america decided to not play favorites with the munition selection.”

    Way before we even got AMRAAM we far far more satisfied with our Hornets; more reliable; worked as intended and the product support we got via FMS [when we paid for it on time] was way superior to what the Russians could offer us. It was also more cost effective in the long run given that various parts and components have a much longer TB and MTBF compared to Russian equivalents.

    … – Also do we need to go in all the way? Or the last 200-300km could be done by stand-off precision guided missiles?”

    Obviously it depends on the ordnance and as pointed out to you a while ago even if one had the ordnance with the legs and precision; the type of target, terrain and weather also plays a major part. Also, even if we had ”stand-off precision guided missiles” [to quote you] how do we hit the target if we lack the means? I’m talking about the present; not what we can do in the future based on what looks sound on paper.

  26. ” So why bother and hard sell the idea? ”

    1) It is an option of what can be done. I prefer to think about what can realistically be done, rather than trying to think about everything that cannot be done. Whether it is done in the end, not for us but for the user to decide.

    2) The user themselves do want to upgrade the MKM, unlike some peddling “no plans to upgrade and just spend the minimum” and “none will be flyable in near future” narrative.

    3) If i can push this forward to be heard more, then it is something i am glad to do.

    4) This, if planned properly can be done concurrently with TUDM getting LCA Batch 2, AEW&C, EA standoff-jammers, MRCA (realistically this would be the KF-21MY) and Combat UAVs (CUAVs), enabling TUDM to be a much more capable force in the near future with the budget that the government can realistically afford to allocate and spend.
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/mid-term-review-of-dwp-19/#comment-890540

    5) no more russian stuff = agree 💯
    not like the SU-30 = disagree

    SU-30MKM as of right now (not 10 years ago) is not a deadend product like the MiG-29N. I totally agree with the decision to retire the MiG-29N, as there is no way it can be upgraded to be a multi-role fighter. Too much disadvantages, and not much options to upgrade it.

    The SU-30MKM on the other hand, even as it is right now is not considered outdated by the user, and still is considered as one of the best platform in the neighborhood. It is what we have right now, with 10 year overhaul nearly completed, it will be operationally capable for 10 more years into the future. Technically there are now multiple options to upgrade it, and now has the advantage of the manufacturing country itself is using it (with it upgrades such as the SM2 standard, which was specifically mentioned), unlike the time when we bought it. It is also able to be integrated with western (non usa like french, turkish, swedish etc.) systems of our own choice, which is a plus, compared to the hornet. Russia has no issues with this (also a comment from the user).

  27. >long list of issues

    That was beside the point. The main point is that Clinton, and later, Bush Jr administration era was one the lowest point of MY-US relation with America trying to shove second rate equipment to us. If you were in Tun M shoes what exactly would you do? Just bend over and get effed? Don’t forget that the only reason we got hornet was because we bought Mig-29 in the first place and while we were pressured to buy American birds as well, we have a bargaining chip in the Migs and they’d have to offer better planes lest they’ll risk us getting another batch of Mig-29

    Also even if you decided not to get russian aircraft there’s no guarantee that european bloc planes were any better. We have never operated french fighter planes before and by the look of it even countries with bigger defence budget (that isnt france) struggles with operating Mirage 2000. If Mirage 2000 was hard enough imagine operating a variable wing strike plane (Tornado).

  28. Kel,

    There’s really not much to say irrespective of how anyone wants to spin it [they have and they will] and make something out of nothing. As it stands the intention is to operate it until it can be retired and to spend as minimal as possible on it. For me the pertinent issue is the question of spares. In 2022 ATSC said it had 2 years worth of spares but it’s 2024 now. HAL was not in a position to meet all our needs and I have no idea if this has changed. Yes we can but from Russia – assuming they can meet the order – but even if we’re not sanctioned [which I doubt] the decision makers just don’t want the political baggage which comes with buying Russian under the present political climate.

    The Su-30 is a great plane but never fell in line with what we needed from a operational perspective. Resource intensive; expensive to fly compared to the Hornet ; not cost effective in the long run due to inherent issues which have been done to death with and after sales which left a lot to be desired. It’s for all these reasons that the RMAF – after learning the hard way with the Fulcrums the pitfalls in operating Russian and dealing with the Russians – did not want it but had no choice due to Mahathir’s insistence.

    It’s custom however for people to fawn over the Su-30 extolling all it so called virtues [large fuel tanks; ability to carry lots of ordnance; etc]; whilst glossing over its limitations of which there are more than a few. Also overlooked is that it was originally designed as a high altitude long range interceptor and does not fare well at low to medium altitudes.

    Never mind the inability of the Russian Air Force to conduct a coordinated strategic air campaign the way the West does but at a platform level Russian Flankers haven’t exactly covered themselves with glory in the Ukraine. The air engagements which were won were mainly due to a superior radar and a semi active AAM which the Ukrainians lack. All the fancy manoeuvres which dazzled many at air shows [including me] hardly made a difference in WVR engagements. The performance of various missiles; once viewed as “game changers”; whilst satisfactory were less than impressive.

  29. We were never pressured by the US to buy Hornets. It was the MAF via RMAF that wanted the Hornets as they knew that the Fulcrums were never going to cut it. The old man was angry over the first Gulf War and he tried to get back to them. Even though at that point the US was the biggest foreign investor in MY.

  30. ” It’s custom however for people to fawn over the Su-30 extolling all it so called virtues [large fuel tanks; ability to carry lots of ordnance; etc]; whilst glossing over its limitations of which there are more than a few. Also overlooked is that it was originally designed as a high altitude long range interceptor and does not fare well at low to medium altitudes ”

    1) i for sure, is not the one “glossing over its limittions”. I i did, i would only harp about the greatness of the MKM over and over, not the one that highlights so often about upgrades option and additional weapons to be had for the MKM

    2) originally designed as a high altitude interceptor? Yes. Even the F-15 Eagle is. Do I hear people saying the F-15SG is not good at low or medium altitudes because “F-15 is originally designed as an interceptor?

  31. I also got the latest information on TUDM FA-50 project

    1) what squadron would be getting it first
    2) where will it be based
    3) status of batch 2
    4) flit with fa-50?

  32. More on what happened in 1992-1993

    https://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/18/IHT-cutrate-mig-offer-to-malaysia-worries-wests-arms-makers.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/IHT-defense-chief-hints-he-could-turn-to-us-for-jets-malaysia-hesitates-on.html

    A Western military official said that if Russia fulfilled its promise, Malaysia would have “the most advanced MiG-29 the Russians have ever put together.”

    On a visit to Singapore, Mr. Najib said that as a result of the competition, first Russia and then the United States ad improved their offers to include “top of the line” weapons systems, engines and avionics.

    “The Americans were not willing initially, for example, to give us some of the weaponry used during the Gulf War,” including precision guided bombs and missiles.

    “But now, what Malaysia wants, Malaysia is getting,” he said.

  33. This is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Big picture. The SU30 is a bad jet because it has low readiness as it is difficult to maintain. Small picture, yes it is a good plane with the longest range and heaviest fighter in RMAF service, and can fire some of the best Russain weaponry available. Basically, so what if it is a good plane when it doesn’t fly and have lower readiness compared to the F18s. It’s no different than saying we had the best Mig-29, more than a match to the F18Ds. Might be true on paper but look at where the Mig-29s are and where the F18s are – the big picture.

  34. Hulubalang “originally designed as a high altitude interceptor? Yes. Even the F-15 Eagle is. Do I hear people saying the F-15SG is not good at low or medium altitudes because “F-15 is originally designed as an interceptor?”

    F15 can do it. But not as good as a jet that specially designed to perform such a task. Thus most of the country that have a F15 also owned a F16.

    A sampan and missile boat too can operate on open oceans. It doesn’t mean it going to do it as well as a destroyers

  35. Another angle that was not discussed is the cost of purchase, as I understood only the MKM came within the tightfisted budget we could allocate for the numbers that TUDM wanted. The Super Hornets really came into the picture during 2016 MRCA fight along with Typhoon & Rafale, as then we managed to wrangle more budget and the then Govt was favourable to a buy but from Europe. Russki tried to push SU35 but by then we weren’t interested in Russki stuff anymore. Then the change in Govt and everything is now water under the bridge.

    Here is my take, the legacy Hornets certainly are more dependable but their limited in numbers to be called upon any time to protect the length & breath of our airspace. We need more and the only ones that could be made available are the Kuwaiti ones pending MRCA arrival. Some will point out the upcoming LCA, and while yes both could go from Point A to Point B and fly around where the slower LCA speed wont matter too much during peacetime routine patrols, in a shootout the faster jet(plus better radar) has a bigger advantage.

    MKM, since we are performing SLEP locally, bringing in more spareparts isnt a big deal. Looking at PAKFA cost, its likely Russia will continue to produce and fly Su27/30s for the foreseeable future hence spares & upgrades will not be EOL anytime soon. Its a matter of whether we want to or not. As for upgrades, certain enhancements should be performed as these are our current heavy hitters after all pending the MRCA. They should at least be able to match up against 4.5gen counterparts rather than just trying to keep them flying while letting their capabilities degrade with time. I believe TUDM are still improving MKM as evidence by its ‘new’ ability to deploy Western smart bombs now from the locally developed pylons.

    So then how are going to move forward with the legacy Hornets & MKMs? Its back to the money question again; if we see fit to get used Hornets to take up the slack or LCA will have to do a hatchet job at it. And then how much money will eventually be available for the MRCA which must come in between the time frame of 2030(Hornet support EOL) to 2035(EOL of the MKM – yes we intend to keep them this long as reported). Can we keep them flying postdates, yes of course, at least for few more years longer, but it again comes back down to money. And then the MRCA itself, will it still make sense by 2030 to once again pursue 4.5gen planes (Rafale again?) or will 5th gen be the go to but the costlier platform will be a big bone of contention.

    The worst option, which is more than likely to happen particularly for us, is continue to run the existing fleet postdates and deprecate the Hornets & MKMs until they can no longer fly without any replacements coming, thereafter solely relying on the LCA fleet to take up frontline fighter responsibility while we continue to vacillate on the MRCA buy. Or else we buy 7-8 MRCAs and expect them to replace the roles of 7 Hornets + 18 MKMs. A shuddering thought indeed.

  36. As I told you many moon ago and objective assessment entails looking at both sides of the coin so to speak. The pros and the cons; not just the stuff which falls in line with your narrative.

    As for the F-15 this you cherry picking and going off tangent. It was not designed as a long range interceptor and even though it was modified for the attack role does much better at low to medium altitudes compared to the Su-27/30. You have a penchant for links, look it up.

    As for things that can be done fine but it also behooves you to make a distinction between what can be done, what’s likely to be done and what might not be done. As it stands you can peddle paper possibilities till blue in the face but the likelihood of the MKMs getting a comprehensive upgrade is slim for reasons which have been done to death.

  37. As I told you many moon ago an objective assessment entails looking at both sides of the coin so to speak. The pros and the cons; not just the stuff which falls in line with your narrative.

    As for the F-15 this you cherry picking; going round in circles and going off tangent. It was not designed as a long range interceptor and even though it was modified for the attack role does much better at low to medium altitudes compared to the Su-27/30. You have a penchant for links, look it up.

    As for things that can be done fine but it also behooves you to make a distinction between what can be done, what’s likely to be done and what might not be done. As it stands you can peddle paper possibilities till blue in the face but the likelihood of the MKMs getting a comprehensive upgrade is slim for reasons which have been done to death.

  38. Dealing with the Russians came as a major shock for us; especially during the Cold War period where things were so chaotic. Those who were at LIMA 1991 will remember the black/white brochures the Russians had [I still have them in my possession] and how they opened up the cargo bay of a Ruslan to sell things [they did it again in 1993]. On a platform basis it was a new thing as we discovered that operating Russian entails a different operating philosophy which was totally different to what we were used to.

    The airframes we got were originally built for the Russians and they had the life of the RD -33 slightly extended for us. Initially the Russians pushed us the Su-27 and as part of the Fulcrum deal they included 8/12 MiL-35s. As it stands it was a blessing that Mahithir later consented to the Hornet buy and we issued a RFI for 12 Cs but then came the Asian Economic Crisis.

    A lot has been written in AMRAAM. The Clinton Administration had a policy of not being the 1st to introduce a new capability in the region and years later when we were offered it the condition was that it be stored in a U.S. base and delivered when we needed it. Eventually the rules were relaxed.

  39. @ kel

    classic case of what? I have listed deep detailed plans for SU-30MKM does not mean I don’t think about the “forest” (see my plan on FA-50MY, KF-21, AEW&C, Airborne stand-off jammers etc.). It is a list of “options” that we can do anyway. Up to the user to want to do it or not.

    @ joe

    Yes, for USD900 million, getting 18 highly modified SU-30MKM is something we cannot get other equivalent planes for that amount of money. Even our 18 KAI FA-50 buy is for USD920 million. That old price can never be repeated.

    TUDM original plan was always to get additional F/A-18Ds. 1997 Economic Crisis scuppered that. Next when TUDM asked around early millenium, Super Hornet was offered instead. US DSCA offer was for 18x F/A-18F two-seat Super Hornets (like RAAF buy actually) for USD1.5 billion, including trade-in of the original 8 F/A-18D. The traded-in F/A-18D was then supposed to go to Switzerland Air Force.
    https://www.flightglobal.com/malaysian-super-hornet-buy-is-no-closer-despite-us-fms-notification/44902.article

    In the end, due to political consideration, 18x SU-30MKM was bought, for USD0.9 billion.

    Legacy Hornets, as our current MRCA, will only be supported by US Navy NAVIAR until around 2029/2030 only. After that no more updates for the legacy hornet will be supported. Around that time too, all of the current legacy hornet users have retired, or retiring its last remaining legacy hornets. It will basically be an orphan platform, with only TUDM as the remaining operator of the type post-2030.

    The SU-30MKM on the other hand, will be used by its main users (RuAF and IAF) for a very foreseeable future. The TUDM MKM fleet as is, after all of the fleet has gone through the 1st 10-year overhaul milestone, will be fully capable of flying up to 2035. As it is right now, that is as far ahead as TUDM is planning for the MKM. At the 2035 milestone, if it is decided that the MKM would go for a 2nd 10-year overhaul, with a much more newer engines and other hardwares, the MKM will then could fly up to 2050 with no further overhauls needed. If the decision is not to spend on the 2nd 10-year overhaul in 2035, then the MKM fleet will be retired, retiring them one by one once their engines reached their 2000 hours limit in around 2038-2040.

    Moving forward, due to its small fleet size, and the inability to acquire additional legacy hornets in time from Kuwait, the Legacy Hornets in my opinion would be the aircraft to be replaced with brand new MRCA in 2030-2040. As the plan is to have 2x Squadrons of MRCA, what we can do is :

    1) 2031-2035 >>> 1st Squadron of new MRCA (say 12x KF-21MY)
    2) 2036-2040 >>> 2nd Squadron of new MRCA (say 12x KF-21MY). This would be the 18 Skuadron now with the F/A-18D Hornets. It would probably be without flyable aircraft for 2-3 years before getting its KF-21MY MRCA.

    As for the cost, KAI offered to Royal Thailand Air Force (RTAF) the KF-21 at USD65 million each flyaway price. A planned budget of USD1 billion for each batch of 12x KF-21MY should be okay.

    So 2x batches of KF-21MY, 1 each in RMK14 2031-2035 and RMK15 2036-2040 would cost a total of USD2 billion. Something within our budget affordability.

    If the 2nd MKM overhaul is paid-for, and the KF-21MY bought for MRCA, the TUDM 2040 fighter fleet would be

    – 18x SU-30MKM (1 squadron)
    – 24x KF-21MY (2 squadrons)
    – 36x(or more) FA-50MY (2 fighter squadrons & 1 FLIT squadron)
    – ??x Combat drones (CUAVs)?

    We should look into deploying our own CUAV around 2036. Something like the Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie would cost around USD4 million if bought more than 50 units.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie

  40. Kel,

    Indeed. A classic case of us doing something without any holistic long term strategic considerations. For Mahathir national interests came first and in his view it wasn’t as if the RMAF would ever use anything in anger. It is what it is but if viewed in a non fevered objective manner was a flawed decision and as usual the end user and taxpayer paid the price.

  41. … – “Yes, for USD900 million, getting 18 highly modified SU-30MKM is something we cannot get other equivalent planes for that amount of money”

    Your analysis/assessment – per normal – didn’t touch the downside. We got something suited for our needs; something which was a huge resource drain; something which was not cheap in the long run, etc.

    One can also point out we got the Fulcrums cheap but then the contract didn’t include a spares package and in the long run it wasn’t cost effective. BTW there was a two over decade gap between the Flanker and F/A-50 contract so no elevation as to the price difference.

    Zaft,

    He’s just cherry picking. The reference to the F-15 was a discussion held years ago when I mentioned that the IAF was looking for a MRCA which could perform what the retired Floggers did : low level strike. The IAF discovered that the Flanker did not do well at medium to low altitudes and that fitted with a PESA could not track for aerial targets whilst simultaneously have a terrain following mode. It was really simple and did away with the need for obfuscating.

    Yes like the Flanker the Eagle was originally a high altitude interceptor but wasn’t intended to be a long range escort and does much better at low altitudes.

  42. … – “We should look into deploying our own CUAV around 2036”

    We should first focus on getting adequate numbers of UASs for the ISR role to equip all 3 services. We should not get anything for the sane of it. Do we face an imminent threat in which we won’t or can’t deploy manned assets? Do we need something which offers us low risk and deniability? Armed UASs are nice to have [like many things] but we have to prioritise.

    I will also add that ultimately UASs are slow and defenceless; not survivable in anything but permissive airspace. At one time many were peddling the TB2 like it was the best invention since the advent of slice bread but where is it now? The one’s the Ukrainians had have mostly been lost and the few survivors are used for ISR to preserve them. As a side note way before the Ukraine war we saw how vulnerable UASs can be; in the Libyan war.

    I actually see more of a need for a loitering munition rather than an armed UAS; smaller than an armed UAS; smaller RCS and lower IR signature. To complement; not replace arty and mortars. Not only that but compared to an armed UAS I see far greater utility in a ASW configured UAS [carrying torps and sonobuoys or either one] to complement and not replace other assets.

    Assuming we get more MALES I’d like to see us raise a joint UAS Command. This will facilitate jointness by enabling more efficiency; less bureaucracy and less in service centric haggling and parochialism.

    On the Flankers amidst all this talk about what can be done on paper. Brass tacks; will the Russian industry actually able to fulfil orders in a few years and will the geo-political climate be such that we’d be willing to take on the political baggage that comes with buying Russian? Unlikely. As it stands the one entity which might actually be able to help is HAL but even that is questionable.

  43. All these yapping and all it takes to solve the problem is recognize honestly that the Su-30 is living on borrowed time and you need money to solve a past mistake. Either start a F35/KF21 MRCA procurement now or get a used solution while Su-30s being gradually taken out of service. Craziest option would be contracting GE and Raytheon to do a Super Phantom/Fulcrum Sniper/Peace Pearl style mod.

    By the time a Sino-West+Malaysia conflict happens the Russians wouldn\’t be supplying anything to us.

  44. @kel: “Big picture. The SU30 is a bad jet because it has low readiness as it is difficult to maintain.”

    It is not.
    Although Russian made jet has lower lifespan but the main problem is the Russia has its own way in doing business that effect users to MRO and get spare part needed. MKM is “a custom” SU-30, that makes us to take extra headache.

    @hulubalang: At the 2035 milestone, if it is decided that the MKM would go for a 2nd 10-year overhaul”

    There is a big issue why Marhalim says the MKM should retired soon”. MKM is a custom one how to overhaul and upgrade? Did we have the capability to do it ourselves? Upgrade to what?
    If it just to make them fly without any system upgrade, what this MKM can do until 2050? A patrol jet?

    “the Legacy Hornets in my opinion would be the aircraft to be replaced with brand new MRCA in 2030-2040”

    Show the money first.
    There is no replacement even for the migs.
    Do you think we buy the latest variant FA-50 block 20 because we have more money than our neighbours? What if i says because we buy that jet because it has unseen mark “Jack of all trade” on its wing
    Let’s see how good our economy first before set a timeline. Did you see how weak ringgit is now?

  45. @ Romeo

    ” MKM is a custom one how to overhaul and upgrade? ”
    We have done 10-year overhaul by ourselves. the only thing we cannot overhaul ourselves is the engine. For the next (2nd) 10-year overhaul, the engine needs to be totally replaced. So that is a matter of buying a new engine and installing it in.

    As for the upgrade, all of the THALES and SAAB Avitronics systems are basically “upgrades’ done to the MKM when new. TUDM has their list of upgrade requirements, and technically all of the things in the list can be done.

    “Did we have the capability to do it ourselves? Upgrade to what?”
    Yes. Upgrade to what, lets see. But the important thing is, they want and know what to upgrade for the MKM, and they have sent requests to the higher ups for the upgrades. So lets see if they are approved.

    “If it just to make them fly without any system upgrade, what this MKM can do until 2050? A patrol jet?”
    Upgrades is not just to the system, but also what kind of ordnance that it can use. The long range and big weapons load will make it a suitable stand-off missile carrier/mothership. It just needs much more potent weapons/missiles than it currently has.

  46. To add about the upgrades. Some of the upgrades will not involve Russia at all. Some of it does need to involve Russia. For the MKM, as long as they are not USA ITAR items, everything can be done or added to TUDM wish, no issues by Russia. Which is why it got French avionics and targeting pods, German radios, Swedish/south african missile warning sensors (another item that is rated highly by the user)

  47. @serial yapper
    “you need money to solve a past mistake”
    Indeed but you also need sufficient money to make sure future dont repeat past mistakes by paying for a sound platform. Basically if we have sufficient money we can avoid mistakes otherwise we need more money to solve past mistakes but heres the catch we constantly have not enough money. So the crux is back to $$$$.

  48. A key factor to note on MRCA discussion is that SH are also due to end production soon so it may not remain on the consideration list much longer

  49. Joe “yes both could go from Point A to Point B and fly around where the slower LCA speed wont matter too much during peacetime routine patrols, in a shootout the faster jet(plus better radar) has a bigger advantage”

    That’s the biggest problems really. Not only it’s better for peacetime patrol as sustainment cost is lower. In a shootout the LCA has better radar, better missiles, better situational awareness and in a BVR engagement it likely going to do better then the MKM.

    Hulubalang “So 2x batches of KF-21MY, 1 each in RMK14 2031-2035 and RMK15 2036-2040 would cost a total of USD2 billion. Something within our budget affordability.”

    1)someone’s forgot ROKAF have F35 and the KF21 are never designed as the tips of the spears

    2)thats not how money for gov works. They don’t have access to money changer. The reasons we preferred turkeye then Korean are many things and one of those things are trade surpluses. Not just lira for the finish product but also euro for the equipment inside the finished product.

    3)the reason we pick the MKM rather then more hornets are more due to politics of the day and not price tag. If anything the hornets are ‘cheaper’ not just due to lower sustainment cost but also due to profit made through industrial collaboration.

  50. @ romeo

    ” Show the money first ”

    If we plan properly, we can have KF-21 within what the government can afford to fund for the air force .

    This is my proposed plan, from RMK12 2021-2025 to RMK15 2036-2040. Those in RMK12 is basically what the government has paid for and approved for TUDM.

    Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia

    RMK 12 2021-2025 (USD1.6 bil)
    – 18x FA-50MY USD0.92 bil
    – 2x ATR-72 MPA USD0.171 bil
    – 3x ANKA MALE UAV USD0.091 bil
    – 1x GM400 Alpha – ground radar USD0.038 bil
    – 12x H225M USD0.35 bil
    Total USD 1.57 Billion

    RMK 13 2026-2030 (USD1.8 bil)
    – 28x TA/FA-50MY USD1 bil – 8x FA-50MY, 20x TA-50MY
    – 2x ERIEYE ER Global 6000 USD0.24 bil
    – 4x ATR-72 MPA USD0.3 bil
    – 12x TB3 MALE UAV USD0.18 bil
    – 3x GM400 Alpha – ground radar USD0.11 bil
    Total USD 1.83 billion

    RMK 14 2031-2035 (USD2.0 bil)
    – 12x KF-21MY USD1 bil
    – 2x ERIEYE ER Global 6000 USD0.2 bil
    – 2x HAVA-SOJ Global 6000 USD0.24 bil
    – 2x Global 6000 VIP USD0.03 bil used – trade-in global express + falcon 900
    – 6x PC-24 USD0.07 bil MECU, liaison, MEDEVAC, special ops
    – 2x A-400M USD0.2 bil used spa/ger allocation
    – 100x Storm Shadow stand-off missiles USD0.16 bil used UK stocks
    – Turkiye JDAM & JDAM-ER equivalent bombs USD0.1 bil
    Total USD 2 Billion

    RMK 15 2036-2040 (USD2.0 bil)
    – 12x KF-21MY USD1 bil
    – 50x combat drone UCAV USD0.3 bil
    – SU-30MKM upgrade / 10yr OH USD0.3 bil – to enable use till 2050
    – TA-50 upgrade to FA-50 standard USD0.2 bil
    Total USD 1.8 Billion

    With that a TUDM fleet in 2040 of :
    – 18x SU-30MKM (to be retired 2050)
    – 24x KF-21MY
    – 46x FA-50MY
    – 12x TB3 MALE UAV
    – 50x Combat drone CUAV
    – 6x ATR-72 MPA
    – 4x ERIEYE ER Global 6000 AEW&C
    – 2x Hava-SOJ Global 6000 Airborne Stand-Off Jammer
    – 24x EC725/H225M
    – 6x A400M
    – 14x C130H (to be retired 2045)
    – 2x Global 6000 VIP
    – 6x PC-24 MECU
    – 21x PC-7 MkII

  51. @ darthzaft

    ” someone’s forgot ROKAF have F35 ”

    Someone forgot that we have to make do with what resources/money that we have. And with a limited budget, the KF-21 would be the best thing that we could afford.

    Also someone forgot that F-35 wouldn’t be allowed to be sold to Malaysia for a considerable time into the future, even if we have the money for it.

    Even if allowed, 24 F-35A would cost at least USD5.62 billion.
    https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/czech-republic-f-35-aircraft-and-munitions
    That is the entirety of nearly 15 years of TUDM development expenditures. We cannot afford to buy F-35s.

  52. KF21 is still a paper plane, we need to make a decision within 3-5 years from now if we intent to start receiving in 2030/31 and TUDM have a preference for planes that are in service and fully matured and it has to be Western. Right now only F35 meets all those criteria but the cost.

    If we are unlikely to be granted F35 within those years we need to make a decision now to proceed with SH to keep the last batch line running for us, or else F16V, or F15EX (too expensive!), or back to the Euro duo Rafale & Typhoon.

  53. zaft – ”In a shootout the LCA has better radar, better missiles, better situational awareness and in a BVR engagement it likely going to do better then the MKM.”

    We really shouldn’t be doing direct comparisons of platforms because of the many variables at play. You also need to note [1] All fighters are intended to operate with a AEW platform [2] The F/A-50 contains avionics/components a generation ahead of the MKM which has avionics/component from the 1990’s. [3] Just because a fighter has a radar and weapons with superior range doesn’t mean it will actually equate to an advantage.

  54. … – ”It just needs much more potent weapons/missiles than it currently has.”

    You make it sound so simplistic. It’s actually a combination of things; not just the ”potent” ordnance it has. If you’d like examples of how platforms with ”potent” ordnance underperformed; examples are there if you desire a look.

    … – ”But the important thing is, they want a”

    Who’s ”they”? The squadron right? ”Wanting” and planning” are things we have no shortage of. You need a reminder that a feasibility study on an upgrade was done as fa back as the mid -2000’s? Remember the time when you insisted the Laksamanas were going to be upgraded even though it was pointed out to you that that was not the case? You want the MKMs to be upgraded seem to be only seeing the things you want to see.

    If you actually took a deep breath and looked at things in totality in an objective and non fevered manner the fact remans that for reasons done to death; unlikely they will be comprehensively upgraded. There is the political aspect and the financial one. Is it worth the cash for a comprehensive upgrade or should the cash be save for something else? In your worldview it’s worth the cash but then you’re looking at things from a vary narrow and subjective lens.

  55. KF21 is not a paper airplane lah, as there is a number of prototypes flying and mass production coming soon and first service entry soon. A paper airplane are the Tempest and German/French FCAS.

    Even the Kaan is no longer a paper airplane as the first prototype has already conducted the first flight. That said the Kaan will be ready for service within the next five to 10 years.

  56. romeo – ”but the main problem is the Russia has its own way in doing business that effect users to MRO and get spare part needed.”

    In the good old days of the Soviet Union there was a vast number of factories which would churn out various parts; thus the lower TBO and MTBF of various stuff was not an issue. Also note that Russian/Soviet pilots and those of client states or those which operate large numbers of Russian aircraft generally fly much less hours compared to Western operators; thus the lower TBO and MTBF of various stuff was not an issue.

    serial – ”All these yapping and all it takes to solve the problem is recognize honestly that the Su-30 is living on borrowed time and you need money to solve a past mistake.”

    It’s living on borrowed time; never suited the RMAF’s requirements and the RMAF would like to bin it as soon as possible. Period/full stop.

    … – ”Also someone forgot that F-35 wouldn’t be allowed to be sold to Malaysia for a considerable time into the future, even if we have the money for it.”

    Granted but we won’t know until we’ve actually made a request and we can’t assume that because Thailand didn’t get approval that the same will apply to us.”

    … – ”Which is why it got French avionics and targeting pods, German radios, Swedish/south african missile warning sensors (another item that is rated highly by the user)”

    You left out the highly pertinent part that for each of those items Russian assistance was needed to integrate to the planes architecture/FCS/avionics. An example was Damocles; no way it could have been integrated to the plane’s architecture had the Russians not provided the source/object codes. Look it up…

    … – ”Some of the upgrades will not involve Russia at all. Some of it does need to involve Russia. ”

    By right you would still need the Russian to certify certain things and provide the source/object codes. You also forgot the part where anything done without the OEM certifying it voids any warranty [if any] and mean s that in the event of things going ratshit; the EM won’t help. If we’re fine with that then no issue but ultimately if we want to go on an on about a comprehensive upgrade; must as well talk about how we can acquire laser blasters and how Donkey Kong might seduce Mulan.

    kel – ”The SU30 is a bad jet because it has low readiness as it is difficult to maintain.”

    It was based on Russian requirements; operating Russian requires one to adopt a different operating philosophy. It’s not a ”bad jet” per see but a product of how it was meant to be operated. If one operates it the way it was intended to be operated and is willing to incur various penalties then it’s not a ”bad jet” and I’m surprised that you’d come up with such a statement at this stage of the conversation.

    kel – ”yes it is a good plane with the longest range and heaviest fighter in RMAF service, and can fire some of the best Russain weaponry available.”

    In the Ukraine the long range, long endurance and long range of various weapons made little difference to the eventual outcome; to date. Looked objectively the Su-30 did not cover itself with glory and the main reason it came on top in a number of engagements was due to a superior radar and a semi active AAM which the Ukrainians lack. The arrival of the F-16s will not mean the Ukrainians will gain air supremacy [none of the ”silver bullet” or game changer” tripe fanboys love] but it will complicate things for the VKS; to put it mildly.

    … – ”50x Combat drone CUAV”

    We don’t buy things for the sake of it; because others have it; because it looks good when viewed on paper or for other shallow reasons.

    What role will an armed UAS play in our CONOPS? How do we use it to complement manned assets? Will we be in a situation where we can’t or won’t deploy manned platforms? Do we need the low risk or deniability an armed UAS enables? Do we intend to operate in the grey zone? If the airspace is non permissive how will the armed UAS operate [look up what happened to the TB@ in the Ukraine]?

    Until we have all these issues sorted out best we don’t get into the armed UAS business.
    Until there’s a really compelling operational reason best we acquire adequate numbers of UASSs for the ISR role first and gradually acquire tertiary capabilities and eventually raise a ”joint” ”UAS Command” [to operate all MALEs] like the SAF has long done and like the South Koreans recently did.

  57. The CUAVs are jet powered high speed stealthy platforms. Meant to operate as loyal wingmans to manned fighters, or do autonomous strike at predetermined targets. Look up at what the Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie is all about. Also KAI is planning for CUAVs to fly with KF-21s, so that would also be an option
    https://milmag.pl/2021/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/45.png

    My plan is for these to be acquired in RMK15 2036-2040. Still long way to go.

    These are not slow things like the TB2.

  58. “it will actually equate to an advantage.”
    Typically the one that can ‘see’ first and shoot first usually has all the advantage… (the Su-30.. came on top in a number of engagements was due to a superior radar and a semi active AAM)

    “number of prototypes flying”
    If its not in production i consider it as paper plane. History is littered with many high potential prototypes. Whatmore Batch1 is supposedly only up to 4.5gen and dunno when the 5th gen evolution will come. Imho KF21 is too late for our MRCA if we need to make a decision before 2030.

  59. Actually, apart from the F-35, only the KF-21 will be the only fighter jet that should be good enough for us beyond 2030. The rest are still paper airplanes. Even if the decision is taken before 2030, KF-21 will be there as well.

  60. On the KF-21

    KAI will start mass production of the aircraft this year (2024)
    https://www.kedglobal.com/aerospace-defense/newsView/ked202401100017

    The KF-21 is expected to be inducted into RoKAF by 2026, which is the same year that we are getting our FA-50.

    By 2030 KF-21 would have been in operational use for 4 years already, more than enough for any interested users to decide if that plane is the one to be bought or not.

    By 2029, the development of Block III, with internal weapons bay would have started
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHZhPgLa0AAVdBi.jpg
    Also note the timeline for KAI own UCAV developments, which is taken into consideration when i put Combat UAV in RMK15 2036-2040 timeline inside my proposed plan.

  61. @Hulubalang:
    ”Some of the upgrades will not involve Russia at all. Some of it does need to involve Russia. ”

    Taking this statement of yours, I think that many of your statement is more on emotion rather than logic. No, we can not upgrade as you upgrade your PC from intel to AMD. Even if you invite third party the result Will far than your expectation.

    “KF-21 would be the best thing that we could afford.”

    How do you know?
    Except from the propaganda Korean media we don’t know how capable this jet is. Like other brand new platform, too many “bugs” will be carried for now. Even there is no official price tag. RMAF bought FA50 after some neighbours bought if first that is wise move. The first export customer is TNI and they already lost 2 units. TNI also unsatisfied with Korean changbogo class sub. Although Indonesia is the only partner in KF-21 but they seem flip flop about KF-21, but no doubt on buying Rafale up to 42 units.

    @joe:
    “Batch1 is supposedly only up to 4.5gen and dunno when the 5th gen evolution will come”

    The sad thing is, 4,5th gen is the best platform for RMAF. We need to upgrade the network system first.

    Azlan:
    ” because Thailand didn’t get approval that the same will apply to us.”

    Not just thailand but also indonesia and some other arabs nations too.

  62. Various Russian OEMs will still have to provide the source/object codes to enable integration to the plane’s architecture/ avionics
    and also have to certify it. We can bypass the Russians but it will take longer and assuming we care: the penalty is that the my won’t assist if anything goes ratshit.

    Ultimately all this talk is academic because there is a very slim chance we’ll actually embark on a major upgrade.

  63. @ romeo

    ” I think that many of your statement is more on emotion rather than logic ”
    I am from technical background, and my comment here is after a lengthy chat with MKM crew at the Singapore Airshow, explicitly asking about specific parts of the aircraft, what can or cannot be done; and if it needs russian involvement or not.

    ” TNI also unsatisfied with Korean changbogo class sub. Although Indonesia is the only partner in KF-21 but they seem flip flop about KF-21″
    As for the sub, the koreans delivered what they are paid for. There is a reason why those 3 subs cost just USD1 billion. If you don’t pay for the torpedoes for your sub, why cry foul that the sub cannot fire some?

    As for the KF-21, they agreed to join the R&D stage to be able to have a free hand building the KF-21 locally. Seems what they paid for did not allow technical access to many things, due to veto from USA. They thought they will have technical access to 100% of the jet. This is a reason why they are reluctant to pay what they agreed. That is the big difference of technical accessibility of things that have USA tech (like KF-21, FA-50, F/A-18) and something like the SU-30MKM, a point that was explicitly highlighted to me when I talked about the MKM at Singapore Airshow.

  64. @ azlan

    The thing is that it is not like you are bypassing the Russians. It is more like the Russians has given the user full access to the aircraft that you can do whatever you want with all the information. Of course even with all the info, some things you will have no choice but to involve the russians, like anything regarding the engines for example. But for other things, there are stuff that we can add/modify/upgrade without the need to involve the Russians in the process.

    Then of course there is a diplomatic point to be addressed too. Both Russia and USA will not be happy if something of US origin to be installed/hung from the MKM. But from others countries, it is as per what TUDM wants.

  65. @hulubalang
    “what can or cannot be done; and if it needs russian involvement or not”

    Ok..What if the Russian says i will do it all upgrade or not at all. Do you think other SU-30 user can not upgrade some part of the jet?

    “As for the sub, the koreans delivered what they are paid for”

    Nope, they need to change the battery. The initial battery installed is not big enough to power the sub.

  66. … – ”my comment here is after a lengthy chat with MKM crew at the Singapore Airshow, explicitly asking about specific parts of the aircraft, what can or cannot be done; and if it needs russian involvement or not.”

    I’d be extremely surprised if various things can be done without Russian involvement given that things need to be integrated to the plane’s architecture/ avionics and that entails the need for source/object codes which only the Russians possess. Even HAL which is more advanced than us is still dependent on Russian cooperation to integrate various Indian components.

    … – ” That is the big difference of technical accessibility of things that have USA tech (like KF-21, FA-50, F/A-18) and something like the SU-30MKM”

    This is hardly surprising and well known. It goes back to Mahathir’s rant many years ago about us not being given the ”codes” for the Hornets. What he did not say was that nobody [including the Russians or the Europeans] readily hands out source/object codes to anyone; especially a non ally who’s just bought a mere 8 jets. Even the UAE has faced this issue in the past. How it works is that if we have the intent of integrating something to the Hornet a request has to be made in order for the source/object codes to be made available.

    Take Damocles; Thales had to work with Rosoboronexport to enable integration and certification. Which BTW reminds me of something; users can’t deal direct with the various OEMS who supplied various parts. They have to go through Rosoboronexport.

  67. Just sell off the flankers. I am sure there are buyers. Get the retired Japanese F-15 and piggy back on their upgrade package. Thats the interim solution until 2030 rather than having a squadron of grounded MKMs for the la k of parts.

  68. … -“ t is as per what TUDM wants”

    And as for what the government and RMAF [not at squadron level perhaps] want id to retire the Flanker as soon as possible for a gift of reasons dealt with in detail here and in previous threads. Any other outcome is unlikely.

  69. Russia is never happy because non Russian parts means less money. As Dzirhan wrote many years ago the Russians were less than pleased that we selected various non Western parts because that meant less revenue. America on the other hand is worried note about the security aspect given that source/object codes have to be shared and the danger that certain things might be compromised.

  70. @ romeo

    ” Nope, they need to change the battery. The initial battery installed is not big enough to power the sub ”

    That is the story that they sell. The battery “too weak” and the sub cannot submerge as long as “german” built subs

    https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20200909145829-4-185565/prabowo-disebut-kecewa-soal-kapal-selam-buatan-ri-kok-bisa

    “Yang batch pertama ketika diuji coba saya dapat informasi adalah produk gagal. Karena selama ini kapal selam ini bench marking-nya kalau kita menggunakan kapal selam dari Jerman itu dalam airnya 90 hari ini kapal selam yang Chang Bogo ini itu naik 30 hari naik dulu baru turun lagi,” ujarnya.



    So he say that the changbogo can only be submerged for 30 days before it needs to surface and recharge the batteries.

    Is it a reasonable expectation for a submarine based on 60 year old type-209 submarine design to be able to have enough battery power (conventional lead acid batteries mind you) to be submerged for 90 days @ 3 months underwater ?

    For a submarine that costs only USD333 million (compared to a scorpene that costs more than USD600 million).

    Lets look at the latest Scorpene Evolved presentation
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCu0TjiaQAAuZvP.jpg

    Even the advanced Scorpene Evolved with full lithium-ion battery technology can go for 80 days max.

    is it reasonable for a Changbogo based on the Type-209 submarine design is expected to be underwater much more longer than the advanced Scorpene Evolved submarine?

  71. @hulubalang
    ““Yang batch pertama ketika diuji coba saya dapat informasi adalah produk gagal.”

    You misunderstood this statement. Their MoD will not say that statement unless the Korean already promise it to them. TNI already a user of tyoe 209. Even TKMS 209 can not dive for 90 days.

    OR

    It is just a plain reason to justify acquiring more advance sub.

  72. @ romeo

    ” It is just a plain reason to justify acquiring more advance sub ”

    Yes probably.

    Only they know the real issue. But you can deduct that the “batteries” are an excuse and not the real issue.

  73. BTW before Li-Ion batteries were available, the only way to have multiple months of submerged time for a conventional diesel electric submarine is by going for AIP.

    There is no way a sub without AIP and with lead acid batteries is expected to be submerged for 90 days straight.

  74. @Romeo
    “4,5th gen is the best platform for RMAF.”
    4.5gen plane in 2030 is a poor buy as others are transitioning to 5th gen and since were likely to keep them for at least 20-30 years. It will obsolete sooner than others. Plus if were going to get 4.5gen might as well decide to get SH now as it has fully matured than KF21, and in view TUDM preference to get matured platforms instead.

  75. @Hasnan
    “Japanese F-15”
    Nope. There are used quite frequently too and being their premier fighter arent likely to part soon. But they have a clutch of retired F4 Phantoms they would be happy to sell you…

  76. @joe
    There are roughly 100 JP F-15Js and 100×2 set of PW F100 available to be offloaded, these are not yet MSIP-upgraded. They are keeping the rest 90 MSIPed ones for JSI upgrade. It’s not that they are old, these non-MSIP ones need to be stripped down and rewired like our own Hornet upgrade. 100 would take a million years and more billion Yens to finish, they are better off buying new F-35s or fund the F-X.

    As for our case it would not take much to refurb and slightly modernize 24 F-15Js, the only issue I see would be that the Madani gomen has to spend a bit deposit a new FMS credit account under USAF, so far our F-18 account is under Navy.

  77. @ serial yapper

    Those 100 F-15J that is not going to be upgraded is mostly those built in 1981-1989. With those built in 1990-1997 would be the one that will be upgraded.

    That means those aircraft are even older than TUDM Hawks that is going to be replaced by the FA-50.

    Why dump our 10 year old MKM to burn money to upgrade 40 year old fighters?? Just use that intended money to upgrade the MKM instead.

  78. @serial yapper
    So far no indications that Japan is willing to let go those retired 100 F15J nor would it be viable reasons for anyone to buy them, as these arent updated to carriage the latest missiles and munitions. So even for us the point is moot. With Chinese aggression ramping up its likely they will be keeping in case they ran out of fighters or as spares for the remainder flying fleet.

  79. @joe:
    “4.5gen plane in 2030 is a poor buy as others are transitioning to 5th gen”

    Not really.
    There are many roles including patrol, air policing, deterent and presence, and air superiority.
    There always a place for 4.5 gen in 30 years. 4.5th gen jet is 5th gen weapons and sensors inside 4th gen platform. The lack of network system is also one reason we should not get 5th gen fighter.

    @Yapper:
    “There are roughly 100 JP F-15Js and 100×2 set of PW F100.”

    No. IMO, Nothing is better than used F16 if used MRCA is the one we are looking for.

  80. Question is how and with what are you going to upgrade the MKMs?

    We keep going round and round that point.

    Those Japanese F-15s, there are upgrading their single seaters only to become “super interceptors” of ballistic missiles. We can ask nicely for their two seaters…some have been upgraded.

    Even if we get the Kuwaiti Classic Hornets, say in 2026, they are good only for 4 years. No more support after 2030. At least with the F-15s they can last till 2040.

  81. @Hulubalang
    The age is really not the problem, it’s just the rewiring work needed. Same with our Hornet also, after LPM12 there’s SLEP then MLU. You also don’t need to replace the MKM, just reduce workload so that you dont have to baby it.

    @joe
    The intention from JP gomen is there but their constitution needs modifying. Also that’s why I said it needs a slight upgrade and rewiring, you don’t have to go all the way to JSI or latest USAF 15C APG-82 config, just to a USAF config that talks to AMRAAM and our L16-enabled systems, hell you probably can EDA the older parts when USAF done upgrading their Cs for a millionth time.

    @Romeo
    ideally either get F16 or F18 but these are very sought after and in the current world affairs, countries aren’t giving these up. The ones available would be German Tranche 1 Eurofighters and Japanese F-15s. T1 Euros already have a Hornet-based software upgrade done by Spain allowing for true multirole, but still it’s a relatively exotic system.

  82. @serial yapper
    Age can be indicative of usage and Japan frequently drive their F15J often rotating their squadrons thru extreme seasons from tropical & humid Okinawa to frigid and bitter cold Hokkaido. All these have effect on airframe & systems durability. Theres a reason why Japan chose to retire them rather than upgrading and its clear why no one is clamouring for them.

  83. ” Question is how and with what are you going to upgrade the MKMs? We keep going round and round that point ”

    seems my answer is sensitive enough to be deleted.

    too bad.

  84. @Romeo
    “including patrol, air policing, deterent and presence, and air superiority.”
    You dont need a 4.5gen plane to do the 1st 3 roles, even LCA can do that much cheaper. As for air superiority, a 5th gen with superior sensors & networking plus the advantage of stealth meant it could dispense those 4.5gen planes even before engagement via wingman UCAV drones.

    4.5gen can still put up a fight in 10 years time but its parity against 5th gen is diminishing by the day.

  85. @joe
    i hate to repeat it but it’s really just the wiring and teardown process for those non-MSIP, I’ve talked to SDF people. Some are just 1 batch difference to MSIP. there are even non-MSIPs that made it into JSI because some time in the past they had a major accident then repaired to MSIP config. They are no more worn out than American ones.

    i know that taking the Eagle will be a bit of a headache for TUDM (then again what is not?) but age is literally not the issue.

  86. Romeo “There always a place for 4.5 gen in 30 years. 4.5th gen jet is 5th gen weapons and sensors inside 4th gen platform. The lack of network system is also one reason we should not get 5th gen fighter.”

    5th gen are build because the 60 year old 4th gen platform is at it tail end of evolution and can’t be upgraded anymore.

    Thus F35s are not simply a 4.5 gen jet in a sexy stealthy body. The body itself are ‘built differently’ it’s is ‘bigger’ in size and have more powerful engine and thus can both produce a whole lot of electricity and carry a whole lot of computer and sensors on board.

  87. @serial yapper
    “They are no more worn out than American ones.”
    And neither did I advocate getting Murican ones, no matter how many times you upgrade fact is these are 30-40 year old airframes and we are likely going to keep using MRCA for the next 30 years at least. And we want them to have growth capabilities for future weapons not just the here & now.

    If F15J preMSIP have been obsoleted and no longer capable to mount the newest weapons, it defeats the purpose of getting used F15J as MRCA, might as well we go back to brand new Rafale which would make sense 5 years ago but not so much in 5 years later. It is telling that even SG eschew getting more F15SG instead opting for more F35s.

  88. Joe “As for air superiority, a 5th gen with superior sensors & networking plus the advantage of stealth meant it could dispense those 4.5gen planes even before engagement via wingman UCAV drones.”

    Thus the problem with F35. While it multi role capable It’s a ground strike fighter first and while f35s are the most advanced jet today. They are designed as the low in the high-low mix with GCAP & NGAD.

  89. @joe
    and neither did I advocated for the F15Js, am merely point out that the age and obsolete reasoning is flawed. 3 times already told you they can be made to mount new weapons, its not hourly old (no more older that Kuwaiti Hornets) and the parts stock are literally there. We only wanted the Kuwaiti because they are also handled by Zenetex like us, and Japan also use their service.

    The only real setback would be rework time and training.

    Yes, SG doesnt need to care about procuring 15SG anymore because theres no holes to be plugged. They can just think about moving forward.

    which then comes back to my original first comment: the only real solution is gomen must spend a lot to fix past mistake. Buy the F35 or Kf21 or something, i dont care where they have to scrounge money from, covid rizab or whatever, it has to be done to stop long term inefficient spending.

  90. @serial yapper
    “they can be made to mount new weapons”
    Its a simple logic, if it were easy or cheap to do so then why didnt JASDF done it already? And if Japan feels it not worth doing so then why should we?

    Age may be contemporary to the Kuwaiti Hornets but these were driven hard and had to operate in all kinds of climate. The Kuwaiti Hornets otoh are basically in the desert, a perfect condition to preserve planes (see USAF Boneyard). We wanted these Hornets because we already operating them so we know what to expect and the logistic to support is there. Getting F15/ F16 meant opening a new stream of support, spares & training. Logistical nightmare.

    “gomen must spend a lot”
    For them to spend a lot they must make a lot. Not such an optimistic outlook right now when the economy is falling and RM becoming dirt.

  91. @joe
    it is not worth for them because stripping down and rewiring 100 planes is exponentially longer and costlier, both in terms of logistics and infrastructure space than TUDM stripping down and rewire a 8+18 planes hangars…..

    fourth time i already i tell the same thing. this is getting real funny, god forbid commenters on this website has reading comprehension..

    no, the Kuwaiti ones are also suffering in corrosion, the proximity to sea and humid mix with blown desert particles and soil elements within means you get funny alkaline humid air besides the normal salt. its not like AMARG at all. tudm only want them because Zenetex so its manageable. any other F18 they dont care.

  92. @serial yapper
    “TUDM stripping down and rewire a 8+18 planes”
    Then you don’t understand basics of Economy of Scale. Funny how you complain about others comprehension.

    “tudm only want them because Zenetex”
    It is well known in the market that Kuwaiti Hornets are the best preserved examples amongst the current users which is why they were quite hotly interest if they come into market now. Others legacy Hornets have issues, exAussies were well used and the best ones got harvested by RCAF which in turn will fully utilise them until they got enough F35, the Swiss & Finnish ones are also expected to use up their airframe lifespan pending switchover, US AMARG ones had a hard life onboard carriers. Not many options if we want pristine examples to use for next 10 years.

  93. @joe
    Economies of scale cannot fix the fact no one in manpower-dire japan, not even Boeing will build new hangars and dedicated tools to strip down 100 F15s in Japan lar.. they dont even bother reopen 15C line in US for 15CX they end up buy 15EX and fly with no wso.

    Also this is boeing MIC you think they sell you cheaper if you buy 200 JSI pack opposed to 90? This same company sell you 10k dollar F15SG light assembly then get mad at you if you rip open just change 10 dollar led bulb.

    you dont waste on those facilities when you actively want to buy F35 or FX. Also econ of scale just dont exist for japanese, they built F-2 at costs higher than F22, now build FX with god knows how many trillion yen toshiba will dump on avionics you think they even care at econ of scale? if they care they refurb all the frame regardless MSIP or not. funny lah

    TUDM hornet readiness center oso not actually build new hangar, when you handle 8+maybe 18 kuwait you dont need new hangars plus got hand me downs from Navair.

    hah then you havent actually seen a Kuwaiti one up close. corrosion blisters everywhere makciks will love very much to pop them off. i give you benefit of doubt maybe they not neglect it since the new upgrade so all you care is they have low hours also legit reason.

    i doubt on Swiss hornet going bad they fabricate own local titanium bulkheads and non folding thats why they are the only ones going 9G vs 7.5 all alu carrier setup.

  94. @serial yapper
    Yeah sure. If your logic tells you we can do it better and cheaper than what the Japs can consider economic worthwhile doing so, yeah sure.

    Its the same thinking that got LCS in this mess when things looks nice on paper but we overpromised & underdeliver.

  95. @joe
    LCS not the same thinking at all if anything it’s the biggest procurement brainrot besides Zumwalt and aus submarine. if Navy procurement and mindef got functioning braincell at the time they would have just continued evolving the MEKO license design each batch after Kedah regardless someone stole money or not

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*