Tejas In Langkawi

One of the two Tejas landing at the Langkawi airport on Friday. Alert 5 photo.

SHAH ALAM: Tejas in Langkawi. Two Indian Air Force HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) arrived in Langkawi today to take part in LIMA 19, starting next week. Both are the single seater LCA version. Previously it was reported that a twin seater LCA will be among the two Tejas taking part in the air show.

This means that the Yakovlev Yak-130 will be the only twin seater LCA taking part in LIMA 19. The Yak-130 arrived in Langkawi likely on Wednesday. The arrival of the Tejas means that there will be only two LCA taking part in the airshow, from the six aircraft that had received the LCA RFI from RMAF in January.

One of the two Tejas landing at the Langkawi airport on Friday. Alert 5 photo.

The others are the Sino-Pakistani JF-17, the Leonardo M346FA, the Korean Aerospace KAI FA-50 and even possibly the Avic L-15 combat trainer.

The Yak-130 under cover next to the LIMA airshow site. Alert 5

The two Tejas is accompanied by an IAF C-130J Hercules transporter, likely carrying other personnel and ground equipment for the airshow.

IAF C-130J Hercules transporter. Alert 5.

Meanwhile, RMAF is putting out all the stops at this year’s LIMA. At least 10 Su-30MKM, six Hawk fighters and even possibly six F/A-18D Hornets will conduct a formation fly past at the airshow.

A Hornet dropping flares during a mirror flypast.

Meanwhile, one RSAF aircraft, F-15SG, is taking part in the static display at LIMA, down from the four, at the last two LIMAs. The show organiser’s had listed a RSAF Airbus A330 MRTT on static display list but I have been told that it will not take part.

RSAF F-15SG arriving at Langkawi this morning. Alert 5.

— Malaysian Defence

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

About Marhalim Abas 2200 Articles
Shah Alam


  1. … Meanwhile, RMAF is putting *out* all the stops at this year’s LIMA…

    So no golden eagles from thai or indo?


  2. The Tejas fit for RMAF. It’s 4++ features and latest technology make it special among it’s class.

  3. The relationship between Singapore is back to old age… they willing send a F-15SG is still a sign consider a good friend…

    If the RMAF chief statement is valid and clear about mixture of east and west for a balance… we should go for the West on LCA if LCA will be a workhorse like Nuri, while MRCA will be to the east..another Su-30mkm or we go for Su-57 on 5th generation fighter.

    The west I will prefer the following in sequence
    Gripen -C or D(can it still can consider a light figther?)

  4. No. The relationship between my and sg is not well. As far as many Sg people r concern My is unreliable partner alway looking for problem. Lucky sg govt got sane brains to still maintaining a relationship. But the damage to ties by the old doctor is deep and will taking generations to heal. If u ask many sg people if we shld help my, the ans is no.

  5. “If u ask many sg people if we shld help my, the ans is no.”

    I agree that that is the sentiment among Singaporeans due to the current Straits of Johor border dispute and the price of water. And in my opinion, international court is the best place to establish the definition of “after 25 years” and territorial entitlements arising from baseline.

    This is my opinion of the dispute and Singapore’s statements in particular.

    1. In the first instance, no statement or map from Singapore to date has introduced a formal territorial claim to the area. Maps provided by Singapore show previous and current port limits, but do not show sovereign territorial limits within which one can promulgate port limits. Without such a claim by Singapore, it is not possible determine even the extent to which Singapore rejects Malaysia’s territorial claims or its right to operate therein.

    2. Singapore’s transport minister Khaw Boon Wan issued an official statement: “Quite apart from the fact that Singapore has never accepted their 1979 territorial claims, the recent purported extension of the Johor Bahru Port Limits goes beyond what even Malaysia itself claimed as its territorial waters.” Reference: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/khaw-boon-wan-full-statement-malaysia-intrusion-singapore-waters-11006758

    This has to be interpreted carefully with respect to “goes beyond.” Singapore and Malaysia have formally agreed on our maritime border except for an area off Tuas, now at the heart of the dispute. Our countries have never agreed on a line in this area, so Malaysia has not agreed on a line and then violated it. Malaysia’s extended port limits are fully contained by this disputed area and do not violate the agreed maritime border. It is true that we are now claiming beyond what we claimed unilaterally in our 1979 map. As strange as it makes us look, it is far from necessarily wrong.

    3. Singapore’s ministry of foreign affairs says we should “forthwith cease these provocative violations of Singapore sovereignty and return to the status quo ante before Oct 25, 2018, without prejudice to our respective positions on maritime boundary claims in the area … attempts to create facts on the ground add nothing to Malaysia’s legal case.” Reference: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-stands-firm-in-dispute-over-its-territorial-waters-rejects-kls-call-to-stop

    This appears hypocritical because Singapore’s Khaw Boon Wan issued a statement that bases Singpapore’s position on the facts on the ground they have effected: “Since at least 1999, Singapore has been exercising its jurisdiction in the waters now covered by the recent extension of the Johor Bahru Port Limits. We have been patrolling the area regularly, and protested any intrusions or unauthorised activities.”

    4. Careful consideration is again warranted with respect to the Khaw Boon Wan’s claim of Singapore having “exercising its jurisdiction.”

    The transport minister provided a map that does not show any formal claims over the disputed area prior to 6 December, 2018. The map shows the port limits that Singapore delimited prior to 6 December, 2018 and by definition and by Singapore’s claim that it has patrolled the area “since at least 1999” shows that Singapore has done so outside its port limits.

    In the same statement, the transport minister went on to announce the extension of Singapore’s port limits over the disputed area. This appears to lend belated support to their “exercising jurisdiction” outside of their port limits and in the absence of a formal territorial claim.

    The minister’s statement claimed that Singapore has “been patrolling the area regularly” and “protested” activities therein. It stopped short of claiming that Singapore has pursued legal action or performed enforcement functions against the “illegal activities” it claims to have taken place, or citing any examples thereof. Despite Singapore having deemed these activities “illegal,” it is likely that Singapore was unable to pursue such actions and functions due to the absence of a formal territorial claim.

    The minister’s claim of “patrolling” is vague. Notably absent is any claim that the acts of “patrolling” amounted to the enforcement of any powers under the ambit of Singapore law, or that they were performed within the sovereign territory of Singapore. The transit of state vessels through an area, even if for security purposes, does not amount to the exercise of powers under the ambit of its laws.

  6. Relationship between My and Sg is certainly not well. It is a very big surprise that RSAF still send the mud Hen. The Doc had change the dynamics of relationship, within less than 24 months, multiple ” problems” suddenly crop up from nothing.

    My goodness seriously? Tejas is 4++? No wonder IAF buying by the hundreds!

  7. Our PM @ Pakistan cooking up a multi million dollar deal involving industrial trade exchange with Pakistan PM Imran Khan, Proton & other Malaysian products for military stuff, possibly JF17?

    No idea

  8. “As far as many Sg people r concern My is unreliable partner alway looking for problem. Lucky sg govt got sane brains to still maintaining a relationship. But the damage to ties by the old doctor is deep and will taking generations to heal.”

    Singaporeans seem to feel that since his return, Dr M has been out to spoil our relationship with Singapore and that Najib was a better friend.

    But who is to say that Dr M is a troublemaker rather than that Najib was soft on defending our dues. One could say that at best, he had his priorities elsewhere and at worst, was compromised by whatever Singapore knew about MO1.

    As said, I would love to see our disagreements taken to international court and settled for good. If we are proven right then Singapore should assume some of the blame. And vice versa, of course.

  9. Steelshot, judging by news reports it seems Tun M’s comments in Pakistan lend weight to speculations that Malaysia may lean towards ‘China’ for fighter planes. It showed a picture of Tun leaning into a jet fighter cockpit. Could it be the old man’s contemplating buying the JF17?

  10. No JF-17 please no need for low quality Chinese crap . It does not even have a decent flight control system and crashed 2 times already .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.