Christopher Teoh

Oh yeah I used to fly them, IIRC NW69/70. The routing is DTW-KIX-KUL. The DTW-KIX is always full (747-451) while the onwards to KUL is near empty (DC-10-30). The route is sold as DTW-KUL with stop and equipment change in KIX, all the while maintaining the same flight number. I think NWA would have done better if they routed it via NRT instead. Sadly they pulled-out (but NWA vowed to return someday) in around 2001 or 02.

The Dornier SeaStar was also there back in 93/95. I remember being all excited when news broke that Dornier will shift SeaStar's production line to Penang. Guess nothing happened. BTW is LIMA losing its stature? In the early days ('93) they would bring the MD-11 down for the show - Swiss HB-IWE to be precise. Today we turn the clock and get IL-86!!!

I have photos from LIMA'91/93/95. You will have to wait a while before I can scan them and have it posted because my albums are tucked away in Malaysia (I'm in the US right now). I am planning on visiting home in around June, only then will I be able to post them up. Yes, the Russian Knights were here during 91/93. Sadly I watch their last aerial display in '93 before their ill-fated departure back for Russia. The Russian Swift were right there too with their Mig-29As if I recall correctly. Anyway, reflecting back on the old LIMA's it is ironic to note that all the main Russian fighters on display there (except for the Mig-31) are now part of the RMAF inventory!

Yes indeed the RMAF is a fragmented force. The only thing Malaysian government is consistent about is for NOT placing follow-on orders. I'm crossing my fingers that in the near future Malaysia will get realistic and swap the Hornets for the Super Bug and either go for more Super or Su-30MKM to meet the requirement for a second MRCA squadron. In the mean time I am prepared to jump out of my window just in case Malaysia pulls a 'Malaysian' stunt by ordering something as obscene as the Rafale or Typhoon for the second MRCA squadron. Cheers

Sweet-sweet goodies there, especially those from Sukhoi! Back in LIMA'93 the Russians were actually selling their flight gears and badges under the wing of a Mig-29. I bought a Russian flight badge from the Mig-29 Tochka Opori pilot for RM5. Some dude bought the pressure suite for RM150! cheers

Wow, interesting. From the wheel print it indicates that this is the former USAF SAC FB-111A nuclear bomber that was downgraded to a conventional 'G' before selling them to RAAF.

RMAF fleet plan may be disjointed, with a bit of everything. However, the choice of aircraft class is fundamentaly sound - long range, twin engine with overwater capability. Thailand or Singapore does not have a vast presence of water to cover unlike Malaysia. There's always debate on single-engine light weight fighter versus twin-engine heavier fighter. For Malaysia, the pros and cons of single-engine versus twin-engines: Single-Engine Pros 1) Quick turn-around during war time 2) Better geared for sustained attrition warfare 3) Cheaper purchasing cost Cons 1) Lacks capability for over water operations (war & peace) 2) Generaly lacks 'first-punch' capability during war 3) Higher operating cost during peace time - as Malaysia will require greater force multiplier (tankers etc) to keep the less capable aircraft longer legged or have its effectiveness envelope expanded Twin-Engine Pros 1) Generally cheaper peace time direct operating cost 2) Twin engine safety for overwater flight 3) Genuine first-strike capability Cons 1) Twin-engines aircraft generally becomes less combat capable in the long run during attrition war. Face it, twin-engine always raises the statistical chance of engine failure. You may have two but all it takes is to have one engine dead to scrub a mission 2) More complex and more labour intensive during war 3) More expensive to buy Yours to pick but as for me I think Malaysia is on the right step - in terms of aircraft class. However said, RMAF ought to sell off those MiGs and trade-off those 'Bugs' for 'Super Bugs'. Should concentrate on Super Bugs and Flankers, atleast two FULL squadron for each type. Cheers

Correct me if I'm wrong about this. IIRC shortly before the '97 financial crisis, AK was in advance negotiation for a fleet of 763 (10?) to begin Mid East/European routes.

Hi, don't mind that I respond to this. The Mig-29B is the downgraded export version of the Mig-29A. The Mig-29UB is the corresponding two-seater.

Horror

Not the arming code but the Threat warning Code. RMAF, if I'm not mistaken, did a Harpoon, Maverick firing exercise. The Hornets are fully capable of combat operations 24/7. Malaysia do not need uncle sams head nod everytime we want to fire something. Someone posted a link a year back or so on another forum that included a video of RMAF Hornets firing AGM-65s and CRV-7. I am going to look for that link again or try to find the wherebouts of it. iwan, Let both the MKM and Super Bug take over...rid of everything else.

Looking at the cockpit thank-god it is not painted in the typical Russian puke-green color. Notice the Thales HUDWAC, Rafale style. The MKI is equiped with food storage and waste disposal system, I wonder if the MKM is the same.

Adrianqcs, thanks for the post. It is incredible how adamant RMAF is in wanting a disparate fleet of aircraft. I agree in the Super Hornets and I will also agree in a second batch of MKM. Everything else should go. RMAF seems to want different aircrafts for every different itsy-bitsy mission. RMAF, the jack of all trade and a master of none.

Here's one Low cost carrier = No Frills Ultra low cost carrier = BYOK (Bring Your Own Kerusi)

That was how most folks thought. Technology had become so high and mighty that a fighter is merely a launch platform and void of guns and close-in turn capabilities - so they just stand-off and shoot BVR. The result? Vietnam. Guns were quickly installed (F-4Es), turn slats were quickly scabbed-in (F-4E,G,N,S) so they could close-in and turn with the Migs. What was the lessons learned in Vietnam? Stand-off will never result in 100% kill, you will end up mixing-in in an old fashion grind out dogfight. Uncle Sam swore never to repeat itself again and produced the awesome F-15/F-16/F-18 - fighters that not only will shoot BVR but also tango with you up close. Today's successors, the F-22/F-35 (count the Su-30 in as well), adheres to that same principle as well. Why F-22/Su-30 thrust vector? So it could turn when needed to. If people think that today is all about stand-off and shoot BVR we will have an F-4 incarnation all over again. For every measure there is counter-measure. Offensive technology progresses and so does defensive measures as well. Most pilot will swear to you up and down that it is easier to out-turn and counter a missile than it is to engage up-close. Once the smoke clears form a BVR volley hell you know its time grind it out. BVR and old fashion dogfight goes hand-in-hand.

Mig-29s are good aircraft for its intended role. Like every aircraft when used properly it can be effective. Close-in dog fight is still important. Uncle Sam learned it the hard way in Vietnam when they wrongly believed that fighters are just stand-off platform. Look at Falkland too. Hence we see development of a new generation of aircraft to address the problem. Look at the current Raptor too, as a good example. Anyway, look-out for rear facing R-74 on the MKM, designed specifically to ward-off F-22/35 if they do 'surprise' them from the rear.

iwan, The MKM is an excellent aircraft in combat, no doubt. The ability of Malaysia to sustain a credible MKM fleet in long-run, factoring-in logistical implication and attrition, remains to be seen. Comparing to the Hornets the MKM is a high risk-high reward asset. I am cautiously-optimistic about the MKMs. As for the Mig-29, boy I do hope that they don't waste our tight budget in going after the OVTs. Sell the Migs! Trade those hornets off and get a new fleet of Super instead. Uncle Sam will be more than happy to do so especially when the USMC probably need attrition Hornets to replace worned-out airframe from the Iraq war. Once we reduce the logistical nightmare can we only be able to milk the best out of the MKMs and realise that it is worth persuing a second or third squadron. Andrew Lim, I don't think it's a matter of it being an overly advance and expensive aircraft. I think what matter most is operational capability. RMAF continues to preech long-range overwater capability coupled with twin engine safety. Few aircraft matches that. If we look at the market: Typhoon - too costly Rafale - too costly as well F-15E - forget it, cost is one thing, the severe maturity of the product is another F-18E/F - why not!!! we have Ds already, the Super bug have long product cycle ahead and will continue to grow Mig-29N or OVT - RMAF is asking the poor Migs to do too much, in sports car anology is like getting your Kancil turbocharged and expect it to hang in with the Ferrari in a race night-in night-out. Su-30 - Affordable, capable and the Russians are willing to dance to any tune Malaysia plays. Again, high-risk high-reward. Cautious needed. RMAF needs to trim back to two types and built on it if we want to have a credible force. Oh yeah, I love those gunship gray scheme on the Hornets and Flankers. Cheers

That's new info to me about the Migs. Do you know if order for two MiG-29 attrition replacement is true? Oh yeah those Nuris are waaaay long in tooth. I think the MOD is on the verge of ordering the NH-90 as replacement.

And the Su-30 sure did! But that is just mock combat, operationally is another matter. Spares, aircraft down-time, logistical matters, poor availability of force multiplier (AWACS, tankers etc.) might just hinder the effective deployment of the aircraft. The Hornets, although numbering just eight, were able to keep atleast 6 if not all available for operational use 24/7. The MiGs, on the other hand, almost became a joke at one time when only 8 of the 18 were available for use. Malaysia was well aware of the problems associated with Russian aircraft even before they bought the MiGs. MiGs and Sukhois represents a different design and operating philosophy from what RMAF is molded (western philosophy). The remedy? India.....so they thought. They signed-up with India as a 'safety-net' for the Mig-29 (now Su-30 too) should the Russian fail to deliver. Yet they ran into problems with the MiGs. The MKMs could very well suffer the same. I really hope all will turn-up well with the MKMs as the aircraft, in theory, is extremely suited for RMAF requirements - long range over water capability, allowing the aircraft to sortie back and forth into the South China Sea on 5-8 hours marathon patrol.

I am no expert on this subject matter but I think the Hornet pilot is correct on his point. We have to remember that the F-18 is a proven platform while the Su-30, expecially the MKM, is something not but with plenty of potential. I think over the next couple of years will be crucial as RMAF develops and matures the MKM operational doctrine. We will then know the fate of the MKM - will it be so great a venture that it warrants a second or third squadron, or will it blunder and fail? As for the Hornet, what RMAF is complaining about is being denied the right to reprogram the threat data. The cry that the Hornet can't be used for war is oversold. Sure the F-18 can be used for war, it will drop its bombs, fire its missile accurately. Not having the right to change the threat code only limits its flexibility. What I would love to see in the RMAF is the built-up and concentration of the fleet to just two types: Su-30MKM (if it succeeds) and F/A-18F Super Hornet. Sell off those F-5s, Hawks and Mig-29. Use the MKM with its N011 BARS and R77 for long endurance air defence (a mirror to the F-14s AWG-9, AMRAAM combo) and use the Super Hornets for strike, interdiction mission. Here's a pair of aircraft that will shift the balance of power in the region to the favor of Malaysia and hold it till atleast 2015-17 when F-35 start making its appearance in the region (Singapore comes to mind).

The dorsal brakes is a standard feature on all the Flanker family. As for as how they will be delivered, I don't know why the Russians love using those Ruslans (the same for our Migs). On the other hand our Hornets were 'catapulted' into Malaysia via an aircraft carrier! As for that fella Phil Aysho he is probably harboring secret desire of seeing a fleet of MKMs in his country as well.

Wow and a portion of the fleet will turn 21 by then! The way MHs 737 is being worked does anybody have the average cycles and hours of the fleet?

The MKMs will probably get the usual R73/74, R27 and R77 BVRs. As for air-to-ground munitions I suspect it will carry some western/NATO munitions. Thales has integrated the Damocles multi-mission and targetting system to the MKMs (same as the Rafales) thus the chances of the MKMs wired to fire western air-to-surface munitions is high. On the air brake thingy, it is just the angle of the shot...you are looking at the dorsal brake (F-15 style). Thanks for introducing yourself, I'm new here too - Hi everyone!!!

I don't know how significant the enlarged rudder will be. Yes, the Irkutsk company is setting up a center here similar to the ones for the MiGs. It is also interesting that the MKM was displayed with just the R73s and R27s. Probably due to political sensitivity. It is extremley wasteful if the government have no intention of arming the MKMs with the R77s, the N011 BARS will need the R77s to go hand in hand in order to be effective. The RSiAF are openly flashing their AAMRAMS so why all the sensitivity?

Looking at the photos I noticed four interesting features that is distinctive to the MKM. 1) Ahead of the canopy, on the nose, off-set to the left, it appears to be a set of four blades that looks similar to the 'Bird-Slicer' IFF fitted on the F-16ADF. 2) Small blister, right below the tip of the root extension (LERX). Warning receiver? 3) Blister under nose, just ahead of the nose gear door cover. 4) Enlarged rudder. Compare it to other Su-30s.