SEA - Air force acquisition

SEA countries' air force acquisition:comparison

South East Asian(SEA) countries recently are on shopping spree,buying a wide range of military equipments,either to replace obsolete existing equipment,or to bolster their capabilites(mostly the latter).Among those who had the attention the most are the air force,with countries are fielding new equipments to match their neighbors' capabilities.Some see this as an arm race,while others view it as a healthy development towards a collectively more secure region(the author prefers the latter).To give some insight,let's have an overall view of the air force capability,currently and in the near future.

Malaysia

IAF Su-30MKI is quite similar with RMAF Su-30MKM


Design overview for Su-30MK_ in asia

Malaysia already acquired 18 Russian state-of-the-art Su-30MKM multirole fighter with all aircraft already being delivered.This aircraft,which is derived from Indian Su-30MKI(without Israeli equipment,such as Litening targeting pod) is considered as one of the best fighter in the world(with exception to Boeing F-22A and Eurofighter Typhoon).Mikoyan MiG-29N is scheduled to be retired in 2010,due to high maintainance cost,thus RMAF is planning on acquiring its replacement.Rosoboronexport,a Russian military firm,supposedly is negotiating for a trade-in deal between all those Fulcrum for another batch of 6 Su-30MKM,although no further decision has been made.Other than that ,Malaysia has also long searching for another 18 multirole aircraft,to be a stablemate to the Flanker(similar to Fulcrum-Hornet acquisition more than a decade ago).Boeing F/A-18F is said to be a strong contender,although Mindef is also reviewing other aircrafts,such as Dassault Rafale,Eurofigher Typhoon and Saab JAS -39 Gripen.

AEW system,which Malaysia has long for,might be acquired in the near future.Saab Erieye is thought to be the most possible candidate,with question right now is the suitable platform to install such system.New replacement of transport helicopters are also being said to be acquired in the near future(with old helos has served for about four decades).Eurocopter EC-725 is almost being acquired,although some political bullshyt problems forced such acquisition to be temporarily on hold,.Malaysia also has bought a number of Airbus A400M,which will bolster RMAF tactical transport capability.Attack helicopter is also on the list,although pressing budget and plenty of other acquisition make them to be on low priority list.

Malaysian Su-30MKM

Singapore

RSAF F-15SG Strike Eagle


F15 layout

Considered as the most advanced air force in the region,RSAF(as in "Republic of Singapore Air Force") are still looking for hardware to improve their capability.Currently they are in the process of receiving their advanced F-15SG (which is derived from F-15E,the most potent aircraft in the world with legendary record).A total of 24 is acquired with more as an option.These Eagles,alongside bulk of their F-16C/D Fighting Falcon,poses a strategic might and awe to any neighboring countries.Singapore are also involved in F-35 JSF projects,which means they will field JSF in the future and thus become the first nation in SEA to field a 5th generation aircraft.

RSAF will also acquire Phalcon AEW system(which is installed on Gulfstream aircraft) and thus greatly enhancing their AEW&C capability(even before the acquisition they already have E-2C Hawkeye AEW system).RSAF has acquired S-70 helicopters for anti ship/submarine task and become the newest member to their helicopter fleet(which includes CH-47 Chinook,AH-64D Apache and Super Puma,among others).F-5 fighter,although isn't as fancy as the one mentioned earlier,should also be included,since they already upgrade and modernize it into a BVR-capable fighter.

Thailand

RTAF JAS-39

RTAF JAS-39 Gripen and Saab 340 AEW aircraft

Thailand also doesn't want to lag behind in modernizing its air force.Recently they already acquired six Swedish state-of-the-art JAS-39 multirole fighter aircraft.Saab 340 AEW aircraft are also being bought along with the Gripen. Another batch of 6 Gripen and one more Saab 340(with Erieye AEW system) is planned in the next decade and RTAF planned to have at least eight JAS-39C,4 JAS-39D(two-seater) and 2 Saab 340 AEW aircraft in near future).

Structural upgrade is already being commenced to bulk of RTAF F-16 fleet(which consisted of Block 15 OCU/ADF version),although full MLU upgrade,which effectively brings old F-16 to Block 50 capability,is still not being done,due to budget restraint(RTAF is focusing on buying new figher currently) and since they are studying on several MLU options.Other stuff that has being bought are ATR-72 transport aircraft and S-92 helos,although both are being used for VIP transport.

Indonesia

TNI-AU Su-30MK2 Flanker

TNI-AU Su-30MK2 Flanker

With arms embargo being imposed by the US about a decade ago,plus 1997 financial crisis,really blew Indonesian Air Force(TNI-AU) hard,with many of their fighter were unable to fly(due to lack of spare parts).Even with the economy being gradually recovered,natural disaster(2004 tsunami) in Acheh forced the government to allocate more fund on recovering and reconstructing the region(and thus military budget is being slashed).

Currently TNI-AU have a mix aircraft of eastern and western origin.Among recent procurement are Su-30MK2 Flanker from Russia.TNI-AU has bought Flanker of different configuration(Su-27SK,Su-30MK2) and planned to acquire more to have at least one full squadron(12 to 18 aircraft).They are also planning on acquiring new F-16C/D,as well as modernizing their existing F-16A/B.They have also ordered a number of Embraer Super Tucano to replace their grounded OV-10F Bronco.TNI are also looking forward to upgrade their existing tactical transport fleet,which currently in poor condition.Previous embargo has made TNI-AU to go the same route as Malaysia,that is by diversifying equipment sources.

Vietnam

VPAF Su-30MK2V Flanker

After the reunification of Vietnam,Vietnam People Air Force(VPAF) has inherited a large war booty(I mean military equipment) from both side.However,these equipment already showed their age as time goes by and currently are considered as obsolete.While they still operate some of these old equipment,Vietnam also began to modernize its air force.With political stability,comes economic prosperity(Vietnam is one of the fastest growing economy in Asia) and thus began to spend money to bolster its military as well,especially the air force.

Vietnam already bought bulk of Russian Flanker,with the first one being operational since 1998.It is estimated that VPAF has at least 36 Flankers(Su-27SK and Su-30MK2V variants) with more being bought.They have also refurbished their UH-1H fleet(from ARVN, Armed Forces South Vietnam) with at least 17 in flyable condition.VPAF also seeking to acquire more C-130H/J as their old Hercules are already in bad shape.Few can be said about VPAF since it is hard to find information about them.

The rest of SEA countries

Other ASEAN countries are also looking forward to improve their air force capability,although lack of funds,or necessity hampered the plan.Cambodia,being completely out-classed and out-equipped by its Siamese neighbor,allegedly has allocated some money to buy Chinese JF-17 multirole fighter to match Thailand F-16(and future Gripen) fighter fleet,though no further decision has been made.Myanmar already had a relatively modern MiG-29,possibly to deal with neighboring Bangladesh,which in turn,also bought the same aircraft.Brunei,a small,rich,prosperous countries,is also looking forward to acquire a squadron of fighter aircraft to complement their mostly helicopter fleet.Among possible choice are British BAE Hawk,South Korean KAI T-50,American Lockheed F-16 and Swedish Saab JAS-39 Gripen.Though no orders have been placed,military pundits said that Brunei needs at least 6 to 8 aircraft to protect its interest.The Philippines,as mentioned previously,has long needs replacement for their retired F-5.However budget restraint and their current threat has put the plan on hold for uncertain future.

PAK-FA

Sukhoi PAK-FA on first public flight

(This article is about the aircraft that has just being introduced by public and thus many of the details are still unknown/classified and much of the article is written based provided information/speculation by defense analysts and are only relevant to a limited time frame)



Sukhoi PAK-FA (Perspektivny aviatsionny kompleks frontovoy aviatsii, literally "Future Frontline Aircraft System) is a new multirole fighter aircraft developed by Sukhoi Corporation for Russian Air Force, with first public flight was held on January 29,2010. A fifth generation aircraft, it is designed as a direct response to the US fifth-generation fighter,the F-22 Raptor. PAK-FA is expected to replace bulk of older variant of MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker in the future. The aircraft is expected to have supercruise capabilities, extreme maneuverability, and above all, stealth technology.

PAK-FA program originated in the late 1980 when the then Soviet Union is searching for new aircraft design to replace their older fighter aircraft, although it is only started in 2002 when Sukhoi Corporation is chosen to design and developed a new fifth-generation multirole fighter for Russian Air Force. Work began to develop the design,avionic suit and sensors for the aircraft. Currently the program reached final development stage and is expected to enter serial production stage in near future.

Being dubbed as Russian Raptor-ski (since the aircraft is designed to counter F-22 dominance), some military analysts deemed such assumption is quite inaccurate, since PAK-FA is designed with different doctrine and requirement in mind. For them (and the author himself), PAK-FA, in general, has closer role to the Flanker family than the Raptor, that is a multirole fighter, but with stealth technology as an added advantage (rather than an all-aspect stealth air supremacy fighter).Though it has some superficial resemblances to Northrop YF-23(another American fifth generation fighter prototype, before being beaten by YF-22), it is in fact quite a nonsense, since Sukhoi doesn’t have any access to the prototype. The design is quite conventional, at least for a fifth-generation fighter, reflecting the mindset of Russian designer when designing an aircraft, which is by doing it safe(by using something that works and refine it, rather than creating a totally new concept).The project cost, quoted at USD 10 billion, is significantly lower than the F-22 project, mainly because some features(TVC-capable engine, AESA radar, new weapon) is already being developed in parallel, and some of the technology being used by its front line fighter(such as MiG-35,Su-35 and chiefly the money-making Su-30), and the technology basis (Su-47 and MiG-1.44) is already exist before the project is even being started. Early PAK-FA version will use existing equipment, and more advanced equipment can be retrofitted later. It has more hard points than the Raptor(which is located both internally and externally) and can carry both existing and future Russian weapon system, including the future “AWACS killer" R-37 AA missile.

Comparison PAK-FA & F22

The most conventional figure of price per aircraft is around USD 50 million each (though maintenance/support/weapon/spare-part will add more in the price tag), around the same price tag of most front-line 4.5 generation fighter, making it the cheapest fifth generation fighter around (with F-22 costing more than USD 200 million each and F-35, with many setback skyrocketed the cost), would attract customers. And more importantly, it doesn’t have export ban, unlike F-22. Other than India (which will produce their own variant of PAK-FA,the FGFA or “Future Generation Fighter Aircraft”),prospect customer includes all countries that have operated Su-30 including Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, and some Middle-Eastern countries, provided Israel doesn’t protest such acquisition.


Malaysian Prospect

It is unlikely for Malaysia to acquire PAK-FA in the near future. A fifth generation aircraft is a significant leap to any countries operating them, thus requires extensive upgrade in term of infrastructure, training and even the doctrine employed.

However, speaking about further time frame,(around 2020 and beyond), it is become more possible to see PAK-FA in RMAF inventory. F/A-18D will eventually be replaced and it is unlikely that Malaysia will go for another 4.5 generation fighter, which is deemed as obsolete then,especially when Singapore will induct it’s own fifth generation multirole fighter, F-35 JSF (Singapore is among partners in the program).Our doctrine, the so called “silver bullet” requires us to have the most advanced weapon system to compensate the relatively small(around 18-24 units) acquisition made. But it is also noted that other countries will also going to produce their fifth-generation fighter, especially China and their J-XX program. Russia may also produce their own version of F-35, a lightweight fifth-generation attack aircraft, which will be made by Mikoyan Corporation.

Malaysia MBT

Malaysian Indigenous MBT?

PT-91M Pendekar

- T-90 Tanks -

Malaysia has inducted its first Main Battle Tank (MBT), the Polish-made PT-91M Pendekar into service few years ago as part of significant expansion and modernization program. Though equipped with the most sophisticated equipment available (such as French optronic, communication system and FCS, new generation ERA blocks,German tank tracks, better engine, not to mention steering wheel instead of throttle stick), many people (including some MAF personnel and military pundits) criticize the procurement to be unwise, to say the least. Their opinion is based on misjudged performance of PT-91 predecessor, the Soviet-made T-72, in both Gulf War and Chechnya conflict, where it performed terribly to both users; Iraq and Russia. Singapore, in response, has acquired second-hand German-made Leopard 2A4 and people began to make direct comparison between PT-91M and Leopard 2A4.

However, as misinformed as the Malaysian are, ironically, they are right.PT-91M,like other T-72 variant, did inherited its weaknesses; cramped interior, the location of the ammo dump(thus the “cook-off” problem), the autoloader(the author, for one, doesn’t quite fond to autoloader actually, although it is safe to assume that modern autoloader has incorporated some upgrade to solve the problem of its predecessor) and relatively weak base armour (thus the reason why ERA blocks being slapped heavily on the hull and turret).The author is sure that Mindef and the top brass know about it, and PT-91M is used as medium of familiarization to develop Malaysia’s own set of tank doctrine before buying a more advanced tanks.

But as the title said, can we build our MBT specially designed for our own doctrine and need?


Making a Tank

A MBT, in essence, is just a tractor with big gun and steel armour. No big deal whatsoever, right?

^That’s kinda an oversimplification (a sarcastic one), but although building Malaysian own MBT is a tall order (considering our level of defense industry and expertise), it is not an impossible task. Building a tank doesn’t necessarily making it from scratch and several heavy-industries companies (like Deftech, Proton, etc) can establish a joint cooperation, under initiative from the Government, in building our own MBT.

For starter, we need to have a set of tank doctrine we would employed before designing our future MBT, which is based on our geography, demography, geo-politic, neighboring countries’ military doctrine, etc. Israel for example, put heavy priority on its soldier survivability and the doctrine is mirrored in the design of their front line MBT, the Merkava. It has heavy armour, extremely steep armour angle, and even the engine is placed in front of the tank (contemporary tanks usually has engine in the rear), thus increasing the chances of tank crew survivability, at a price of its speed and mobility. IDF is mainly a defensive force so mobility is not quite a priority. American Abrams had emphasis on cross-country capabilities (which is useful in European front during Cold War era), thus having a speed in excess of 40 miles/hour (around 65 km/h).In a more recent development, Japan has develop a new generation of MBT weighing less than 40 tonnes, in order to comply with their public road regulation. Failing to acknowledge the doctrine and the project may become a failure. Indian Arjun, for example, face many setbacks that makes the Indian Army not to acquire more of them and instead opting for another newly designed MBT based on T-72.

After the doctrine has been developed now we can continue to the actual part of building a MBT. In author’s opinion, it is better to acquire old MBT tech (either from reverse-engineering or ToT from other countries) and develop, modify and upgrade it according to our need.
Think this is a bad idea?

-Israel upgraded M4 Sherman, the M50 Super Sherman, participate in numerous conflict with neighboring Arabs countries and their Soviet-made MBTs and was in active duty from early 50s to 1980s.
-South African Olifant (Afrikaans for “elephant”), which is one of the most advanced MBT in African region, is actually derived from late World War II to Cold War-era Centurion Tank. It has more armour, bigger gun, new engine, suspension system, FCS, etc.
-Turkish M60T “Sabra” (derived from US-made M60A3 Patton) is considered to be at par with Israeli Merkava Mk 4
-Every tank in China’s PLA inventory can trace their genetics from Type-59, which is derived from Soviet T-54/55 (they have modified the chassis over time, which includes elongated hull, added another pair of wheel, redesigned hull and turret, newer engine, etc)
-Iranian “Zulfiqar” MBT incorporated features from earlier US-made M48, M60 and Soviet T-72, adding a few modern twists in the process, such as M1-style turret and hull design.
-UK Challenger 2 MBT is based on Chieftain MBT design, which in turn, is based in earlier Centurion tank design.

IDF Super Sherman

SADF Olifant

Perhaps the most difficult part is to develop the armour. The cheapest way is to use steel alloy and put ERA blocks on top of it. But if the ERA is breached the base armour will provide insufficient protection to the crew, especially against modern anti-tank weapon. One answer is to develop our own ceramic composite armour but doing that will take years of R&D and tons of resource and no country will share their own secret of making composite armour to us. So we are left alone in this part

Like the author mentioned earlier, making a MBT doesn’t necessarily means building one from scratch, since there are some equipment that is beyond our current expertise, such as the main gun or FCS system. We can either just buy the equipment from foreign supplier or by acquiring manufacturing rights and produce it locally.

One thing that needs to be considered is the overall program cost (from R&D to manufacturing part) and the logistic. Using existing equipment can save money since the R&D part is skipped and one can have a proven system. A cheap, competent MBT might even attract exports. The equipment should also be standardized to reduce logistic problem, such as using the same gun that fire the same round,(the 2A46 125mm gun is used by PT-91M),interchangeable spare-parts, up to the padded track and bolt and nut. It might not seem much but in the battlefield we need everything we can get and that can also includes cannibalization of captured or different system. Thus standardization is crucial in time of need.

If the cost proves too much we can also opt for cheaper (but no less potent) alternatives, and that is by developing a light tanks (such as Argentinean TAM tanks, French AMX-10 or CV90120).

Considering our military level right now developing a new MBT may seem unlikely, but there’s no need to rush for that, as we still new in MBT deployment tactics. Good things don’t come overnight and the author prefers the development to take gradual advance till it is mature enough to be produced.

MY country Military Expenditure.. ??

"Rant: talking without thinking"

"Every now and then there is few questions regarding Malaysian military, especially the acquisition programme. These questions ranged from some very bright one (such as why did Malaysia bought A-4 Skyhawk) to something like “bila mau beli F-22?”

A4 Skyhawk [ret]

One thing for sure, and that is WE DIDN’T BUY MILITARY EQUIPMENTS FOR THE SAKE OF IT, meaning that we didn’t buy something just because we can. There are many circumstances that should be considered. Though there are many reasons that dictate the “to buy or not to buy”, the author has selected few main reasons which should answer many questions regarding our military spending.


1-Fund
Indeed the main reason of military spending. In Malaysia’s case, the fund generally comes from Five Years’ Plan, where the equipment has been evaluated, tested and confirmed as essential to either replace obsolete equipment, to complement the current equipment, and/or to boost the current capability of the Armed Forces.

More often than not, whenever the economy slows down, the first place to cut the spending is the Armed Forces’ checkbook. These is one of the reason why some of the obsolete equipment has not being replaced (such as the S61A4 Nuri helicopter), or being replaced in a slower pace than expected (them APCs).

2-Cost
Another obvious reason which affecting our acquisition programme. Usually western-bloc weapon system is more expensive than eastern-bloc weapon, due to labor cost, the overall sophistication and the quality, although in recent years system that originates from eastern-bloc (such as Russia and former USSR countries, and China) has significantly improved in term of quality.

It should be noted that non-traditional weapon suppliers (Such as Pakistan, South Korea and South Africa) would sell their weapon system at cheaper price, as well as some attractive offers(extensive Tot, offset deal, barter deal, etc) to attract more customer (which usually tend to buy from traditional weapon supplier).

3-Priority
We buy what we need, and we first buy what we needed the most. Usually weapon system which has significant strategic value (such as MBTs, naval vessels, and combat aircrafts), will be on top of the priority, as well as weapon system that would severely affect our military deployment/logistics/buildup (in case of MPSS programme).

Often in many armed forces throughout the world, the infantry is being put on the bottom of the list. Thankfully MAF doesn’t neglecting the infantry’s need and we saw significant infantry modernization programme since mid 90’s, which not only focused on new equipment, but also the entire infantry structure (the BIS structure, by cutting the manpower while boosting the firepower).

4-Logistic
Many people only see the cost of particular equipment on the price tag (even that wouldn’t be written in stone, since the price depends on the number bought, level of sophistication, and if we are in good terms with the supplier). When the acquisition is made, Mindef need to make sure the current infrastructure/personnel support are capable to maintain that particular equipment. These maintenance ranges from the spare parts, armaments, real time cost to operate the system(such as cost per flying hour in combat aircraft and helicopters) and not to mention the personnel capable to man the equipment. Malaysia’s logistic problem is quite unique, since we are one of the first countries to operate state-of-the-art equipments from both blocs (Eastern and Western), in particular, the fighter aircraft procurement. And more amazingly, we are capable to make them work seamlessly within our doctrine.

Another important thing is that to train a particular personnel (pilots, MBT drivers and commanders, COs, etc) are not cheap, and often they were sent overseas to train. One particular example of acquisition blunder is Myanmar, where the pilots and ground personnel has no experience in maintaining MiG-29, and only a handful (of the already small batch of MiG-29 acquired) are in flying condition.

5-Doctrine
The weapon acquired should be fit nicely on our military doctrine (deterrence, non-territorial, defensive oriented). Why on earth should we buy a long range bomber in the first place? The same can be said to low level attack aircraft (A-10, Su-25), aircraft carrier or LCAC?

Acquiring these kind of weapon would not just be costly, but also going to change the geopolitics stability in the region (in which will be discussed later)

6-Overall impact on MAF
In what particular way the acquisition will have impact on MAF structures/deployment/strategy? For example, what would a more expensive T-90 give us compared to PT-91M (which is cheaper and has Leopard 2A6 upgrade kit on it)? Again we could buy a cheaper system but also has similar impact on our capability.

Now ask oneself: What would a more expensive Eurofighter Typhoon give us compared to Su-30MKM?

7-Sanctions/Limits
Some military supplier has stated the “guideline” on the application of the weapon system. Britain, for example, has stated that the weapon of its origin SHOULD NOT be used in a civil war (Indonesia breaks the agreement, twice, during East Timor conflict and recently, Acheh. Now almost all of their British-made weapon are being stored or retired due to lack of spare parts). While the US already put so many strings in the deal (no offset deal, source code to be provided in the foreseeable future, armament should only be shipped if the country really needs them, the copyright rule to prevent reverse-engineering, ‘monkey model’ equipment for non-allies, the system should not be placed in a location in which will harm it’s close allies, etc).
This is pretty much made the F/A-18F deal between Malaysia and the US to be put on hold until some of the string being withdrawn.


8-Politics/Geopolitics
Sun Tzu, one of the best military strategists once said, “Military action is always driven by political motivation”, and the same can be said to military procurement. The acquisition are always being used as political leverage to either flexing military might, gaining support from supplying countries, or even to gain some kind of legitimacy on disputed issues(such as EEZ areas or island).

Not to mention that buying a weapon system from the wrong country would spark a political outcry within and outside the country (some terrorist group would go for our head if we go for Israel, some country would go for our head if we go for Iran).In the old days of 60s all the way to late 80s, buying a Soviet-bloc weapon is a no-no since we are a very pro-western those days (the author recalled the proposed Mi-8 as Nuri’s replacement which sparked controversy which led to the plan being scrapped).Nowadays the same pressure is felt should we buy military system from Iran or North Korea.

Any major military acquisition worth billions of Euros will raise some issues from neighboring countries, and these would change the regional geopolitics around. One wrong move (such as hasty acquisition, or the quantity of system being acquired) would send the wrong message to other countries and would disrupt the harmony in region, and even trigger the arms race (something that should be avoided).


.......
Now before asking the question about what MAF SHOULD buy, do give a thought about all the points above."