Besides, I’d like to know how Malaysia knows where and when these F-35s will be taking off and what they’d do about it if they got airbourne.

Ground based radars in southern Peninsular Malaysia provide coverage over the whole of Singapore and as far south as the Riau islands [that belong to Indonesia].

Singaporean and Malaysian radars provide coverage to the Integrated Air Defence HQ at Butterworth that is under the command of an RAAF officer and is part of the FPDA. There are Singaporean officers based at Butterworth and a Malaysia officer based at Changi.

If they want something with solid A/A capabilities their best choice would be Typhoon.

How so? The Rafale, Super Hornet, Gripen and Typhoon can all do the job. The difference will be when the RMAF gets an AEW platform and a common data link.

Finally Malaysian artillery doesn’t seem to be that strong – nearly universally towed guns with 36 MLRS. Singapore’s artillery is generally much more stronger (SPG and generally 155mm guns as opposed to 105mm for Malaysian army).

150 Model 56 105mm Pack Howitzers, 28 G-5 155mms and 54 ASTROS MLRS – these are deployed all over a country that is many times the size of Singapore and are not concentrated at any particular area.

The point to take note of is that Malaysia’s traditional external concern has always been Indonesia – not Singapore – and for almost 3 decades the army’s focus was counter insurgency not external security, hence the ”small’ number of artillery operated. The same goes for Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines in that all these countries were more concerned with internal security not external. Thailand off course has large number of MBTs and artillery but that was due to concerns over Vietnam in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Singapore on the other hand was able to focus on external security much earlier than the Malaysian’s and has very, very different threats perceptions, due to its size, past relationship’s with Malaysia and Indonesia, and lack of any strategic depth.

Same impression we gained here in Germany. Poor build quality, even poorer spare parts support. We had an -UB sitting two years in Manching waiting for the necessary spare parts from our Russian “service partner”.

Poor build quality wasn’t much of an issue and was something the RMAF was well aware off even before the Fulcrums were ordered. Spares was an issue – it was partly the fault of the Malaysian government – and was eventually resolved. The main issue was the MBTF and TBO of the RD-33s and other components because the RMAF was clocking more hours in its Fulcrums than was the case with Warsaw Pact users. Operating the Fulcrums was a completely new experience as the RMAF as it had only operated Western types since the day it was formed.

Well, the Malaysian government picked Su-30MKM over the Super Hornet with an AESA radar, so I don’t think they care about the capabilities too much; it is all about the cost because Malaysia is not Singapore.

It was about industrial offsets and transfers of technology that led to the MKM being selected not costs or performance. The preferred option of the RMAF was the Super Hornet. The RMAF was very concerned about commonality and performance.

What we need is an expert on Malaysian military and political affairs more broadly who can articulate which factors are likely to rank highest at the present time and thus which platform is likely to emerge victorious.

I’m no expert but I can tell you that France is very well placed politically. French and partly owned French companies like DCNS, Eurocopter and Thales have occupied the position that British Aerospace formerly had in Malaysia. The problem is cash and Rafale’s price tag. Apart from cash, everything is dependent on the next General Elections that will be held in a month. If a new government comes to power the MRCA programme will be put on hold and will be reviewed. The factor to bear in mind is that when it comes to big ticket items, Malaysia has always placed importance on transfers of technology and industrial offsets rather than actual performance.

Refurbished Gripens would be a nice fit, especially if they need a compliment to their existing fighters. The Super Hornet is a compliment to the others but on steroids. The MKM would need to be especially good in price. The Rafale and Typhoon more or less displace the need for their existing Flankers, unfortunately overlapping other capability they have.

The Gripens had strong political backing, was offered way before the Rafale and Typhoon but has always been considered an outsider due to its single engine. The main advantage SAAB has is that it can offer the Gripen along with the Ericsson Eriye AEW in a package – similar to what was ordered by Thailand – and can rightfully proclaim that operating costs of the Gripen will be cheaper than its competitors. Despite what numerous reports might say, the RMAF does not want anymore Russian gear [not due to issues about the actual platform but due to integration and logistical concerns] but had indicated a few years ago that the MiGs could be sold off to partly fund an extra 6 MKMs. Unless extra cash is budgeted to fund the MRCAs, at the moment all the RMAF can afford is the Gripen…..

SAAB has offered to lease 18 Gripens and a report about a year and a half ago indicated that the RMAF had been offered a number of Typhoon Trance 1s for free if it placed a small order for Tranche 3s. This deal reportedly fell though due to objections from BAE System’s European partners but last month’s AFM has a report about Tranche 1s possibly going to East European countries. Until the arrival of the Typhoon and the Rafale on the scene, it was no secret that the RMAF’s preferred choice was the Super Hornet and probably still is.

but Mahathir prefer the MiG-29 over the Hornet because of politics.

Primarily because the Russians were willing to accept palm oil as part payment and establish an MRO facility.

plus 35 super Tucano’s this would drop the number of type’s cross both fighter and trainer fleets

Malaysia has long relied on the PC-7 for basic training and has about 17 Mk2s, on top of the 35 surviving Mk1s.

potential issues between Malaysia and US supply of spares were all Mahathir’s own doing because he was so anti-Israel and part time anti-US. none of the other Malaysian leaders afterwards share the same views, thus your spare issues from the US is weakened.

Malaysia still does not officially recognise Israel because of the Palestinian issue and Malaysia still buys most of her defence stuff from Europe rather than Uncle Sam.

It is interesting to note that despite bilateral relations in the 1990’s taking a dip, trade and defence relations never suffered. Even today, Malaysia trains more intensively with the U.S than it does with any other nation and Malaysia is Uncle Sam’s 16th largest trading partner.

Coastlines such as Norway, Malaysia with hundreds of small islands of the coast, can be very protective, for attacks by small boats. Other places such as the coastline similar to the western US coastline and large areas of the eastern Russian/Chinese coastline, will offers little protection.

It will be interesting to see in the coming decades whether traditional FACs operators like Germany, Sweden, Finland, etc, will still have FACs. Malaysia for example, which was the first FAC/Exocet operator in the South East Asia region, has no plans to replace its FACs with newer ones. I like what the Bundesmarine has done with its Gepard class, installing them with RAM but then this is a route many smaller navies can’t afford.

I read somewhere that the performance of sensors of FACs are severely degraded by the heavy vibration that is encountered when FACs or similar sized ships, move at high speeds, anyone know if this is true?