With A2A loadout, Gripen NG out-ranges EF, and is on pair with Rafale,
it is on pair with F-18 SH on payload.
If i understand this correctly, they are looking for a replacement of MiG-29 which is used exclusively for A2A, and a replacement for F-5.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219946[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]219947[/ATTACH]

Any replacement aircraft will be required to be multi role.

But looking at the gripen ng – SHornet comparo, it is clear that the gripen is a much smaller aircraft. Even if the theoritical max payload is similar, surely it cant be loaded with max fuel with those kind of payload. And with only half of max engine thrust of the SHornet, with max payload in a2g role, im not sure if it has the engine power to engage a hostile fighter without having to first jettison its payload…

JSR

LoL!

Clearly shows that he has no clue whatsoever to RMAF Hornet status/capability and yet talk like he knows it all…

Thanks for the pics. I hadn’t seen some of them before.

The 2 F-5Fs – after their minor upgrade – were given a single grey scheme. M29-12 sports an ‘aggressor’ scheme that was adopted either in the late 1980’s or the early 1990’s; and was applied to only 2-3 aircraft.

The RMAF had 2 ‘Bs’ which were transfered to Thailand in 1982. Someone in this forum mentioned that one of the Ex-RMAF ‘Bs’ was the RTAF fighter that got shot down by a Laotion MANPADs in 1988.

Also, in the mid-1980’s the RMAF came close to ordering the F-20 Tigershark but the deal felll through after a cut in the defence budget.

Only 1 F-5B were donated to the RTAF, as the other example cashed in the 70’s. And yes that aircraft were later shot down in RTAF service.

Edit: got this info from the 1990’s book on RMAF. It stated one of them crashed, which leads to the buy of the 4 f-5f and the donation of the survivor to RTAF. Seems most of the online info says otherwise…

Thanks for pointing that out.

Not to get off-topic but do you know what the Ram air props are for? Thanks.

the props operate the fuel pumps to transfer fuel to the receiving aircraft. It can be fully feathered when not in use

Are they still getting the 4 A400M’s in 2015 as these can refuel from wing pods and also have the cargo bay tanks that just plug and play which would give them 8 tankers when needed which will also enlarge the operating window of SH, Typhoon Rafale

Yup the A400M buy is still on track, but it is not known if the tanking system will be bought too. Do note that the MKM is also cleared to use, and supplied with Cobham buddy refueling pods, and has been seen refueling hornets before during exercises.

In a worst case scenario, the country could go down the Libyan/Syrian route. Currently the military is controlling the temporary government. In the event of a civil war, which side would be supported by the world community, as a prolonged war will surely close the Suez canal with disastrous consequence to the world economy.

Su-30MK was operational with PLAAF. so?
USN operational aircraft has no bearing wont RMAF. does F-18E in 2002 has 7 LCDs? IRST? wide angle HUD like Rafale? Electronic scanning radar?MAWS? wing tip poded ECM. but its beside the point. Operating F-18E with external fuel tanks is hugely expensive operationally with lower g levels and top speed. This is plane that is 50% heavier than simplistic F-18C. I showed you there was no money as some of the payment was done with Palm Oil.

Is the Su-30MK even remotely similar to the MKM? Do you expect the operating procedures of even the legacy hornet and the Superhornet to be similar?

As for the budget, do realise in 2002 for the Superhornet buy, it was expected for the f/a-18d to be traded in as part of the payment for the Superhornet. Even with 30% of the MKM payment in Palm oil, it is not like Malaysia needs some kind of Russian state credit like some countries.

Btw you will be on my ignore list from now on…

what was fully integrated in service in 2002? that is comparable. non-AESA F-18?. how do you know you can afford F-18E in 2002?

The Superhornet was fully operational and in service with the USN at that time. So all the operating/maintenance procedures is complete from USN and be used as is by RMAF. the MKM on the other hand is custom built for RMAF, and it showed with the long time needed for it to achieve full operational capability, and one of the reasons is because there is no ready made operating procedures for the MKM.

The money was there in 2002, rather than getting the Superhornet as wanted by RMAF, the political leaders bought the MKM instead. Another political buy is the A400M, which was bought without any requirement from the RMAF.