Having operated the A-109 for some years, the RMAF has found – as did theSouth Africans – that it is not as ‘rugged’ as the Alouette 3.
No, it has nothing to do with the absence of any Israeli sourced avionics or components.
Stuff that was fitted on the MKMs, that were not on the MKI, included –
A CTH-3032 non-holographic HUD, 7 LCD displays, a TLS-2020B VOR/ILS, a Raytheon IFF TSB-2515 transponder, a Rohde & Schwartz VHF/UHF transceiver , a SIGMA 95 ring gyro based Inertial Navigation System, a Thales NC-1E TACAN, an Avitronics Missile Approach Warning System, wing tip mounted [SAP51M active jammers and the Damocles targeting/navigation pod.
Stuff common to both variants included –
The N-011 Bars radar, Saturn AL-31FP engines, thrust vector, the OMZ 36Sh-01 IRST, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. RC-1 and RC-2 mission computer, a Tester-U3 flight data recorder, a UPOV flash memory recorder, an L-150-30 multi octave radar warning receiver and a UV30MK chaff/flare dispenser.
The fact remains that because of various differences in the avionics fit in the MKM, nobody was able to assist in developing a syllabus that was specific to the MKM and the RMAFs operational use for it; and the RMAF had to do it the hard way. This is not fantasy or something I conjured up whilst hitting the keyboard. The same happened years before when the IAF bought its MKIs, the Russians were unable to help because it wasn’t operated by them. I actually met the IAF team that was here in Malaysia and spoke to them in lenght about this issue ….
I have explained in detail why operating the MKM has not turned out to be a cost effective solution for the RMAF; despite the platform being cheaper to buy, and I have also mentioned why the RMAF is less than happy with its MKMs. Again, I also personally know people who were involved in the deal and I personally know people who are currently flying the MKM, and who use to fly the Hornet – you can call it ‘hearsay’, I call it ‘facts’.
You can keep disagreeing all you want and you can doubt my claims, it makes absolutely no difference to me …. If you have better sources to indicate that what I have said is factually wrong, please corrrect me.
My take is that the RMAF would have been better off buying something that was already fully integrated and in service; rather than buying a small number of a customised variant that had equipment specific only to the RMAF. Another advantage is that the RMAF exercises with the USN and RAAF much more regularly and intensively than it does with others, thus in 2002 despite not being ‘cheaper’ than the MKM, the Super Hornet was the more ideal buy. At the moment, unless cash is allocated, the current budget can barely fund a Gripen buy but in 2002, there was cash allocated for 18 Super Hornets….
I didn’t say otherwise. As I mentioned previously, I was merely pointing out the differences in equipment.
Sign In
