farizThanks 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 also had 2 ‘Bs’ which were transferred 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 fell through after a cut in the defence budget.
farizYou didnot explain anything because you dont have iota of idea about comparable platform nor the payment arrangement.
That’s an arrogant assumption to make. The reason I did not bring up the subject of the payment arrangements and other details of the deal is because is has no bearing to what we’re currently discussing.
technical evaluation does not say anything about long term costs and the things that you mentioning were not present in F-18E in 2001.
The whole point about a technical evaluation is not only to evaluate the technical performance/characteristics of a given platform but to ALSO determine how much it will cost to operate and maintain the platform over a given period of time; compared to other platforms in contention, and this is precisely what the RMAF did….
They didnot came close. its your speculation.
Really? If you know better or have better sources to indicate that I’m wrong or am indeed ‘speculating’, them kindly correct me, PLEASE enlightened me.
Those F-18D in used market has no bearing on new built composite material F-18E. in defence shows there in Rafale also.
What on earth are you on about? The price quoted by Boeing to the RMAF for 18 SH Block 1s would have been off-set by a trade in for the 8 ‘Ds’ operated by the RMAF.
Boeing announced this, so did the RMAF, the local defence press and the international defence press. And where exactly does the Rafale enter the picture?
you made riduclouse claims regarding RMAF.
Are you describing me or yourself?
No body forced RMAF to buy heavier canard/TVC equiped Flanker. They could easily chosen ligher Su-27SKM/Su-30MK and put the same wide angle HUD/MAWS/wing tip EW pods/strike pod. you are presenting these thing as some kind of new variant development of Flanker. RMAF took the decision for heaviest version of Flanker at that time and now complaining about costs. very little understanding of costs. Do you seriously think RMAF have better understanding of Flankers than PLAAF who buy single seat majority.
I will attempt – again – to explain the situation as it was in the 2001/02 period.
1. The RMAF DIDN’T want the Su-30. It actually wanted the Super Hornet and yes, it was fully aware that buying the Super Hornet would be a more expensive affair.
2. Forced – by the political leadership -to get the Su-30, the RMAF then specified certain modifictions that would have to be made to the Su-30 to suit its specific requirements; by that time the RMAF was already aware of developments the IAF was making or had made with the MKI – as you’re no doubt aware, the MKM was influenced by the MKI. Right or wrong, the non-Russian items that are fitted to the MKM was those chosen by the RMAF to meet its requirements.
3. I DID not mention anything about the PLAAF or its Flanker variants, you did, for some unknown reason to me. As far as I’m concerned, not only are you making an ”apples to orange’ comparison but you’re also bringiung up stuff that has ZERO bearing to this discussion. Since you’ve brought up China, why not bring up Vietnam and Venezuela next?
4. The RMAF DID not complain about costs associated with buying the MKM …..
In case it escaped you, what I did mention [on at least 2 occasions] is that due to a number of factors, buying the MKM has NOT turned out to be a cost effective solution DESPITE the fact that the price paid for 18 aircraft was cheaper than what it would have been if the RMAF had ordered 18 Super Hornets.
farizFedaykin,
A report in ‘Miltary Technology’ stated that Switzerland was interested and that the aircaft would have been upgraded by Ruag; not sure how acurate this was though.
Came across this –
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5108
20 Sidewinder Xs have been ordered.
farizThanks for pointing that out.
Not to get off-topic but do you know what the Ram air props are for? Thanks.
farizOther than the engine overhaul and spares support package, if not mistaken a contract to upgrade the rwr has also been signed with selex for the seer rwr system.
It hasn’t been signed yet but the Hawks have received new engine monitoring panels.
http://www.investorpoint.com/stock/LUX:CA-Luxell%20Technologies%20Inc./news/149547/
Btw anyone know about the latest status of RMAF F-5’s?
If not mistaken 4x F-5E, 2x RF-5E and 3x F-5F still operational, some has been overhauled and given the current overall grey RMAF camouflage scheme.
The 2 RF-5Es have been fitted with a digital camera. 2 F-5Fs have received minor upgrades. The ‘E’s are still flying and are used as escorts for the RF-5Es and for pilots to maintain currency; all are operated by 12 Squadron and all will be retired when a new MRCA enters serivice.
BTW, the ‘Es’ made a very brief appearance in ‘BAT-21’. Also in the movie is a S-61A-4 Nuri.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDB7Y19QSdc
That avionics dont make differnce in combat. combat is learning flying with weopon operations. All these things are certified at factory.
You didnot explain anything because you dont have iota of idea about comparable platform nor the payment arrangement. Personally know people wont make difference as they havent operated anything comparable.
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?
That difference of equipment is very minor to combat.
They may not have operated anything comparable but did conduct a detailed evaluation of the SH in the 2001/02 period and received a full technical briefing; and in 2011, 3 pilots spent a month in the U.S. being trained on the SH; a technical evaluation team was also there, thus. despite not having operated anything comparable the RMAF was able to make an informed comparison between the MKM and the SH.
For your information, the Malaysian government came very close to ordering 18 SH Block 1s in 2002, but made a last minute decision to go for the MKM after the Russians revised their off-set and transfer of technology offer; but you probably already knew that, since you seem very well informed on the RMAF.
If the RMAF had gone for the SH in 2002 [BTW the cost would have been reduced by trading in the ‘Ds’], apart from different radios, the RMAF would not have had to integrate anything that had not already been integrated to the SH. I was told this by a Boeing official and by a number of industry and RMAF people; I’m a regular visitor to all the defence shows in Malaysia and Singapore.
Anyhow, since you insist that you and only you know best, there is no point in me responding to anything else you have to say ….
The political angle being what, exactly?
The RMAF actually wanted to launch an upgrade programme for 5 of its C-130Hs and planned to eventually go for the ‘J’. The decision to go for the A400M was political; was intended to benefit a Malaysian company which had been offered a minor offset deal in the A400M programme. The deal was also intended to improve ties with Europe. Sounds ridiculous I know but that’s how it works, unfortunately.
Fariz, thank you for your very interesting and insightful posts here. If i may ask something that i’ve always been eager to find out, how did your Su-30MKMs and MiG-29Ns fared against the F/A-18D, american Super Hornets and other types RMAF exercised with like F-16, F-15 etc.? How did they do when pitted against the opposition especially in A-A combat, but also A-G as well (probably only the MKMs on that part)? Thank you.
Apart from the fact that in the late 1990’s the Fulcrums didn’t do well against RN Sea Harriers; and more recently didn’t do well against USAF F-15Cs, not much info has come out about how well RMAF aircraft have performed in joint exercises.
Here are some articles –
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/06/usaf-f-15c-train-with-su-30mkm/
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Hornet-v-Mig.html
A major problem has been an ACMI system which the RMAF has been asking since the early 1990’s. It currently has an ACMI system on lease.
RMAF has converted 4 Hercules with Cobham refuelling equipments.
The Chobhams are used by the MKMs. 2 C-130Hs – that were configured as MPAs [no radar though] – were fitted with roll on/off refueling kits [if I recall correctly these were American, although I could be mistaken].
farizbut what about the Hawks? Im surprised RMAF is keeping them for so long.
Their engines have been overhauled and a spares package has been signed, both had been delayed due to funding issues. The Hawks were a major problem in the 1990’s; high humidity levels effected the avionics, there was a shortage of ground support personnel and the RMAF flew them a lot.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rmaf-suffers-hawk-headaches-23044/
http://www.rolls-royce.com/news/press_releases/2009/130509_malaysian_adour.jsp
farizIf im not mistaken the MKM uses totally russian mission computers while the MKI uses indian main and russian backup mission computer.
No, it uses the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. RC-1 [HAL] and RC-2 mission computer. Some minor stuff from India was also sourced for the Fulcrums.
so no more Russian stuff for the RMAF eh? I’m sad.. that means no Pak-fa for you guys.
During the last LIMA exhibition a Rosoboronexport official said that Malaysia had expressd an interest in it. I’m sure that Rosoboronexport has mentioned about the PAK to the RMAF and the RMAF probabaly said that they will consider it in the future, but thats it :]. A problem is that Russian officials and press reports often mention stuff that isn’t true, over the years there have been reports that Malaysia had ordered more Fulcrums, more MKMs and Mil-17s.
About 9 years ago a contract actually came close to being signed for Ulan Ude Mil-17s. The deal was cancelled after a local company which would have worked with Ulan Ude and other companies to integrate a glass cockpit and Western stuff, made a very huge mark up.
farizCame across these bonedome pics.
The one on the left is a Gallet LA100 worn by a Fulcrum pilot.
farizOk gents lets remove the types for a moment and what is the RMAF’s threat reduction exercise saying i.e. what are there jets doing now and what do they see their old and new jets doing in say 5-10-15 years from now and then we can start to fit type’s to a seen threat
Unlike the IAFs MKIs, the main role of the MKMs are actually long range strike, not air superiority. Given the RMAFs operating enviroment and the country’s threat perceptions, the MKMs will be doing a lot flying over the water.
The Fulcrums perform only one role, as interceptors, although in the mid-1990’s they did drop dumb bombs in an exercise.
The Hawks perform CAS and anti-maritime strike. The RMAF Hawk 100s have recently been armed with Paveways and a feasibility study has been done to equip the 200 with an EASA radar.
The 2 RF-5Es have recently been fitted with digital cameras but will be retired when a recce pod has been ordered for whatever new fighter the RMAF get. The handful of F-Es act as escorts for the RF-5Es and are used for pilots to maintain currency.
Came across these SU-30MKM cockpit videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDM-_WSvdiY
farizWhat are the reasons?
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.
The differences (targeting pods, HUD..) are most likely coming from absence of Israeli-made gear for TUDM, right?
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.
slightly different role does not make difference in combat syllabus. your using exactly the same weopon systems with same primary radar.
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 ….
how do you know some thing is cheaper or expensive on long run? my point is RMAF can never afford 18 F-18 superhornet with current budgets.
you keep mentioning cheaper. any data to back it up than hearsay. India can afford to fly 200 MKI with $30b budget. Algeria can afford 44 MKA with $10b budget. China can afford to fly 600 Flankers with $166b budget.
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 – I did not here here about the stuff I mentioned from 3rd parties or from the internet but from the people who were actually involved in the deal and from people who fly the MKM, 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….
its very minor and does not lead to any thing different.
I didn’t say otherwise. As I mentioned previously, I was merely pointing out the differences in equipment.
farizRMAF needs additional pc-7mkII’s??
It needs additional Mk2s to fully replace all the 35 surviving Mk1s.
South Africa actually offers Malaysia as well as Thailand a few opportunities – not only the PC-7s but JAS-39s and maybe even A-109 LUHs.
The Malaysian army is not very happy with its A-109s and has no requirement for additional A-19s. It does however have a requirement for gunships; a number of pilots have been trained on the Tiger in France.
There is no fundamental difference between MKI and MKM in flight characteristics, weopons. you can put Japanese LCD there and it will show same information.
same engine, radar, weopons. your not going to use airplane different than MKI.
Of course there’s no fundamental difference [that’s precisely why the Indians were able to provide assistance in setting up a maintenance syllabus] but who’s talking about flight characteristics and weapons? The MKM and MKI indeed do share the same engine, radar, thrust vector control and other gear, but due to the fact that the MKM was had a slightly different avionics fit and also because the RMAF had a slightly different role for its MKMs, a syllabus specific to the MKM and the RMAFs operational requirements was needed ….
Your still not realizing that this the cheapest new fighter for RMAF even including all the extra costs.
And you’re still not realising what I tried to point out: That even though the MKMs were ‘cheaper’ to buy compared to others, that there were a lot of hidden costs or costs that were not included in the actual contract for airframes [there was the same situation with the Fulcrums in the early 1990’s] and because of this the MKMs in the long run were certainly not the cheaper option. The RMAF has also found [it actually knew this before the deal was signed] that the MKMs are more expensive to operate for every hour flown, requires more hours of ground maintenance and have engines and flight components with a lower MTBF and TBO, compared to the Super Hornet.
I personally know people involved in the deal, people in the local defence industry and people who operate the MKMs in 11 Squadron [some formerly flew Hornets in 18 Squadron and evaluated the Super Hornet both in Malaysia and the U.S]; I can tell with certainty that despite the MKM and MKI sharing the same flight characteristics, that there was a need for a combat syllabus specific to the RMAF, and that despite being cheaper to buy compared to the Super Hornet [its only competitor in the 2001/02 period] that the MKM in the long run has not turned out to be cost effective solution. The RMAF – unless it is forced to by the political leadership – does not desire additional MKMs and did not even want MKMs in 2002.
These external pods are certified at factory airframe long time before it is exported.
Indeed. I was merely pointing out the differences between both variants.
farizAre you certain about that? MKM pilots are sometimes seen to wear French head gear (mask + helmet) and some images appear to show TopSight-E helmets.
MiG and MKM pilots use Gallet bone domes but the HMS is the Shura. The RMAF was offered a Thales HMS but never ordered it because of its price tag and integration costs.
@Fariz, thanks for your insight. Political leadership in SEA (with exeception perhaps Singapore) more than often make a deal that not really suited for their users (armed forces) need.
Very true; and one major reason is because unlike Singapore which was able to divert attention and resources towards external security; countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines were bogged down with internal security for a few decades. Also, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines – on account of being much larger countries – have much larger day to day peacetime operational commitments than Singapore, yet have a smaller defence budget. Another reason off course is that due to being surrounded by larger neighbours and having no strategic depth, Singapore has to take its defence needs very seriously, and it does.
Although the said MRCA requirement has been around for some time, until now there is no release of any official documents/technical requirements/RFQ for them by the Malaysian government. And the supposed retirement date for the MiG-29 is in 2015.
The main problem here is cash …. The RMAF also has a pressing requirement for additional PC-7MK2s [to replace its MK1s], Cougars, AEW platforms and additional LIFTs. Cash also has to be allocated for an upgrade programme for the C-130Hs [about 15 in service] and S-61A-4s [about 26 in service]. In the near future the RMAF will also have to replace it 20 odd Alouette 3s which are used for basic rotary training and MEDEVAC.
Also, I suspect that the RMAF and the Finance Ministry will get a jolt when they discover the hourly operating costs of the Typhoon and Rafale.
It is worth noting that the Gripen came into the picture much, much earlier than the Typhoon and Rafale; and SAAB has constantly emphasised the fact that the Gripen will not only be able to do the job as well as its competitors but that it will also be cheaper to buy, operate and support.
What is so special about combat syllabus? Su-30MKI programe is very old. RMAF only received planes in 2007-2008. by that time thousands of hrs were flown by factory test pilots.
There is nothing ‘special’ about the combat syllabus, it’s just that it didn’t exist as the MKM is not operated by anyone else and the RMAF was forced to developed its own syllabus which was specific to the MKM. Factory pilots tested the MKMs to ensure everything worked but they did not develop any syllabus or maintenance procedures specific to the MKM. As there are differences between the MKM and MKI, a syllabus specific to the MKM was needed.
As alex pointed out –
The MKM looks superficially similar to the MKI but it has different targetting pods, MAWS, ECM jammers. So to bomb a target in an MKI would require the pilots to use different settings,steps,etc compared to the MKM. Those SOPs RMAF had to do from scratch. Not to mention the EW database for the MAWS/jammers, intergration into the western way of fighting RMAF is familiar with etc etc
With the Hornets it was easier as 2 USMC and 2 Boeing pilots was based in Malaysia for a certain period and apart from downgraded EW, the RMAFs Hornets were identical to that of the USMCs, in fact they were diverted from stocks meant for the USMC.
When the RMAF got its Hawks, 2 RAF pilots were provided on loan but as the RMAF was only the 2nd customer – after Oman – for the 100 and 200 series, it also had to develop a syllabus for the Hawks; with input of course from British Aerospace. With the MKMs, test pilots like Victor Pugachev provided conversion training at Zhukovsky [on Su-30MKs] and a team of Russians were based in Malaysia to provide technical support but the RMAF had to work the rest out on its own. A major advantage in getting help from India was that a lot of documentation related to components that were common on the MKM and MKI had already been translated into English. I know for a fact that the RMAF did ask the Indians for help with a combat syllabus but the Indians could only provide help in other areas because they were short handed and because of the different gear on the MKM.
There is no evidence that Su-30MKM is expensive than Su-30MK. infact $900m for 18 planes very cheap even if you add that $100m to Thales.
If the RMAF had only specified TACAN, a Western IFF and Western radios – like what was done with the Mig-29Ns – the MKMs would have been cheaper.
You also have to take into account that the deal did not include weapons, Damocles pod, Chobham pods, data links, simulator and a long term support package; all of which were separate contracts.
The MKM looks superficially similar to the MKI but it has different targetting pods, MAWS, ECM jammers.
The MKM – unlike the MKIs – have wingtip EW pods and an MAWS but they don’t have a HUMS.
farizSome very interesting detail there. So why did the SH deal never work out and what was then the reason to opt for a customized Su-30? Why has the RMAF now decided against Russian purchases and what other sources are they considering?
The SH deal never worked out because the Russians offered the RMAF a much better [from a Malaysian government perspective] off-set package [and also sent a Malaysian to space!]; it was a decision made by the country’s political leadership. Forced to accept the Su-30, the RMAF then decided on a customised version of the Su-30 because what was offered by the Russians did not fit the RMAFs operational requirements. The Russians were also unable to provide a simulator, a targeting pod and an MAWS. Within industry circles here, it is known that the Russians were not very happy as all the chosen Western stuff resulted in a much lower profit margin for them.
It can be argued that the RMAF should have gone down the cheaper route of not integrating major non-Russians items to its Su-30 – like what Indonesia and Vietnam did.
From Day One, the RMAF has been use to dealing with Western suppliers; they got a huge shock in the mid-1990’s when they discovered that the Russians operated in a slightly diffferent manner. Another problem the RMAF found was that the engines and other components on the Fulcrums did not have the same MTBF and TBO as Western types operated.
The contenders to replace the Fulcrums are the Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet and the Gripen. Cost is a very important factor here. SAAB has an advantage as it is able to offer Gripens on lease, together with the Ericsson Eriye, to fulfill on longstanding RMAF requirement for an AEW platform. It was reported some time ago that BAE Systems offered to provide some former RAF Typhoon Tranche 1s for next to nothing if the RMAF ordered about 8 newly built Trache 3s [this deal was neither confirmed by BAE Systems or the RMAF]. This deal was reportedy veteod by other Typhoon partner nations.
farizThe Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) is one of the wierdest airforces in the world IMO for two reasons:
Two factors need to be considered –
1. The traditional role of the RMAF for many decades was assisting the army’s counter insurgency efforts [transport, MEDEVAC, fire support, etc], thus the low number of fighters it operated, in comparison to the number of fix and rotary transports it has.
2. In recent times, major defence purchaces were based on improving existing bilateral ties, transfers of technology and industrial offsets; these were the main factors in awarding contracts; that’s why the RMAF has several fighter types…
10 x MiG-29 (6 more unserviceable)
Their engines need to be overhauled and thus were placed in storage. The RMAF decided against sending the engines back to Russia as the Fulcrums are to be retired.
I am not sure that the MAF was really happy with their Su30 ( payback for debt).
The decision to order 18 Su-30MKMS in 2002 was never due to an outstanding debt.
But at the time it is a unique fighter that even Russia does not use, so all operational tactics and procedures has to be written from scratch (with the help of IAF). Coupled with erratic support from Russia, it is not as beloved by RMAF as the F/A-18 Hornet (regular updates, excellent support; all tactics, procedures and manuals from USN…)
The RMAF had to develop its own combat syllabus for the MKMs as the Russians were not able to provide assistance. Help that was provided by India was in developing a training and maintenance syllabus.
A major plus point in ordering the Hornets is product support provided via FMS. Shortly after receiving its 8 ‘Ds’ the RMAF issued an RFP for 18 ‘C’s but then came the 1997 Economic Crisis.
If can be summarize from various Malaysian sources (media and forum), RMAF will keep their Flankers MKM, seems they quite happy with MKM. It’s the Mig they have problem with.
First of all, back in 2002 the RMAF never wanted Su-30s, what it wanted was the Super Hornet. A major problem is that the RMAF customised its own variant of the Su-30, it was fitted with a number of non-Russian made stuff and integration didn’t come cheap. The MKMs have German radios, French LCD panels, a South African MAWS and a French INS; and off course Indonesian practice bombs:]. The RMAF was offered MICA and TopOwl in place of the Adder and Shura but decided against it after being notified of what it would cost to integrate these to the MKM.
Under the contract signed for the MKM, there is provision for it to be fitted with a data link.
With regards to the Fulcrums, the RMAF was never unhappy with the actual aircraft per say; what it was unhappy about was the whole process of oobtaining spares and product support. Another problem faced by the RMAF was the TBO and MTBF of the engines and other flight components on the Fulcrums.
One source that I got indicated Malaysia try to bargain the existing F-18D as ‘downpayment’ for SHornet sq.
Back in 2002, Boeing offered to accept the 8 F/A-18Ds as part payment for 18 Super Hornets. Although most reports state that these aircraft would have gone to the USMC, another report mentions Switzerland as a recipient.
I think the Su-30 is a good high end type and 25 Gripens to replace Hornet, Mig-29 and F-5 would give a good mix and when the time comes 18 to 20 Yak-130’s to replace the Hawks may be a good move to keep the East West Mix also 6 or so MPA’s would not go a miss at this time
The RMAFs new MRCA – when it is eventually ordered – will replace the Fulcrums and the F-5s, not the Hornets. Unless it is forced to, the RMAF will never get another Russian made aircraft.
The 2nd pic on the right shows a Hawk with some ‘art’. In May this year, Hornets and Hawks conducted 2 strikes on Philippine gunmen, using Paveways and CRV-7s. The pic on the far right shows MKMs flying over the USS George Washington.
farizThanks for the feedback, insn’t 8 Crossley ASR1 diesels a bit of an overkill for a vessel this size?
HMS Mermaid was indeed based on the Type 41/Type 61 [Leopard/Salisbury] hull but externally, does she actually share any similarities? Looking at the photo on the left below and comparing it with the HMS Mermaid photo above, the hulls look very different.
In the pic on the right below is a frigate that Yarrow customed designed for the Royal Malaysian Navy in the 1970’s, does she bear a resemblance to any Royal Navy frigate design from that period?
Also [apologies for the numerous] questions :] : which was the first navy to introduce a vessel with a CODAG arrangement?
Sign In
