SHAH ALAM: Tebuan II. It appears that Leonardo has named its M-345 jet trainer – as the Tutor II specifically for Canada. The naming is an homage for the Canadair CT-114/CL-41 Tutor which served with as the primary jet trainer of the the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) from the 1960s to 2000.
Around two dozen Tutors remained in service with the RCAF air demonstration team, the Snowbirds, though only around 11 airframes are used for flight operations. A member of the team was killed in a crash involving one of the Tutors in May, this year.
Apart from its primary role as a trainer, Leonardo says the M-345 is also suited for operational roles, with the capability to employ weapons like IR air-to-air missiles, gun pod, rockets and 500 lb class bombs. This is basically the same type of weapons employed by the BAE Systems Hawks in service with RMAF.
As most of you are aware, RMAF operated around 20 ground attack variant of the Tutors – locally known as the Tebuan – from 1967 to 1986. The aircraft was used operationally during the communist insurgency and as a basic jet trainer until they were withdrawn from service.
The Tebuan was RMAF first fast jet until they were supplemented by the Avon Sabres in early 1970s, which were gifted from the Australia. Both aircraft had performed admirably well.
It must be noted that Leonardo has offered the M-346 FA for RMAF’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) requirement. The M-346 Master was originally conceived as a jet trainer but the FA version is the light attack variant of the type.
Apart from the LCA, RMAF is also looking to recapitalise its primary jet trainer to replace the MB-339CM, which was manufactured by Aermacchi which folded into Leonardo during the last stage of Italian defence industry consolidation in mid-2000.
I have no idea whether Leonardo is looking to get the M-345 for the primary jet trainer for RMAF as well. But I think the M-346 is too highly specced – for the RMAF at least – as a primary jet trainer while the FA version is under-developed to meet the LCA requirement.
Having the same type to fill both requirements will helped in training and maintenance though I still prefer a single engine aircraft for both.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (25)
If Goverment Choose JAS-39 for New LCA would Sweden Offer Globaleye AWACS to RMAF ?. If we Choose F/A-50 and M-346. The don't offer some of their MPA too.
no.
pc-7 mkII is fine enough for that. we dont need a basic jet trainer before LIFT.
ideally
basic trainer to intermediate turboprop trainer to LIFT.
We now have PC-7 MkII for basic and intermediate flight training, with LIFT needing an urgent replacement.
Remember Singapore replaced its S.211 (predecessor to M-345) with pilatus PC-21.
The M346 is European version of Yak-130 right?
Is it possible to use Russian weapons with it?
Reply
But why?
For time being RMAF stick with the PC-7 mk2 and Hawk100, in future may consider PC-21 for Advanced Training and T/A-50 for LIFT/LCA..
@Safran
If we can afford Gripen for LCA, we are more richer than USAF.
Agreed. M345 is a step back. Our Pilatus PC7s are good enough till intermediate training. We do need better LIFT planes. I like the M346 FA. A lot. But it may not be the better solution seeing KAI TA50s/FA50s are available. It may not completely answer the need for LIFT but it certainly covers our LCA requirements.
Just asking, is it feasible to base an air force exclusively around light fighter types like M-346 and BAe Hawk 208?
Reply
Yes and no
" But why? "
More flexibility, I suppose. Like us who use both Russian and NATO weapons; could just switch to whatever available without modifying anything.
Reply
Yes but logistics need to be coordinated. Although the software could be easily modified, hardware are almost impossible. One cannot use the same pylons for both aircraft as the lugs and connecting pins are different as does the test rigs. This means one cannot fly in one mission with Western ordnance and changed to Russian ones in the next one. One could do it in alternate days of course. Again doable but with our limited number of personnel and equipment its better to stick one type. As for Western standard dumb bombs and rockets we could always get them from Yugoimport.
@ marhalim
" As for Western standard dumb bombs and rockets we could always get them from Yugoimport "
or from POF.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/pof-151213184951/95/pof-14-638.jpg
Marhalim - “Western standard dumb bombs and rockets we could always get them from Yugoimport””
No idea if the aircraft we get will be integrated for the FFZ ones but it makes sense to standardise and stick to the same rocket.
MilitaryMadness - “is it feasible to base an air force exclusively around light fighter types like M-346 and BAe Hawk 208”
One can base an air arm on
PC-7s if one desires; depends on requirements .....
ASM - “More flexibility, I suppose”
On paper but in reality maybe not. On our own we can make the necessary adjustments to fit something not standard but by right everything not already certified for use on an aircraft - whether a screw or a rocket - should first be certified . Failure to do that means the aircraft’s OEM won’t assist us in case of any issues. Then there’s the other issues which Marhalim touched on.