Rant(ver. 2): talking without thinking

Every now and then the author encountered 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?”

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.

JF-17 Thunder:Malaysian Prospect

After being asked by numerous people (especially pakistani military enthusiasts) about the the possibility of JF-17 being inducted in Royal Malaysian Air Force (the “why JF-17 not being bought by Malaysia”, “Malaysia and Pakistan are brothers and should help each other”, “JF-17 is the Islamic fighter jet”,etc), the author decided to give a lengthy explanation about it. Yes there are several rumors in the news about the possibility of inducting JF-17 in Malaysian service (then again Bale is rumored to join Manchester United too. And so did Fernando Torres), however few circumstances need to be considered.

JF-17 Thunder

Type: Lightweight multirole aircraft
Length: 14m
Wingspan: 9.5m
Height: 4.8m
Weight: 6411kg (empty) 12700kg (max payload)
Powerplant: 1xKlimov RD-93(the same engine that powered newer version of MiG-29, and MiG-35)
Max speed: Mach 1.8

Overview

Pakistan involved in the development of JF-17 after the F-16 deal with US is being suspended (due to their nuclear ambition) and are desperate for new fighter to replace bulk of their ageing Chinese-made F-6,F-7, and French Mirage III in service. Coincidently, the Chinese already had its new aircraft project running and decided to join in to develop a lightweight fighter that would replace the entire 2nd generation fighter in both countries’ service.
The joint work began in 1995 and reaching final stage in mid 2000s. Pakistan is expected to acquire 150~250 units in the future. Several studies has already being made to incorporate a mix chinese-western avionics and weapon system into the JF-17 to make it a more capable aircraft and more attractive for export (such as French-made radar, British-made communication system and Chinese-made targeting pod).
JF-17, together with their F-16(and newer F-16 C/D acquired recently, after the sanction being lifted off) and FC-20(Export variant of J-10),is expected to be the backbone of Pakistan Air Force. This would give them a fighting chance against their numerically (and technologically) superior foe, the Indian Air Force (which has Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, MiG-29SMT and the future MMRCA programme)


JF-17 in Malaysian service?

It’s unlikely that JF-17 being chosen to meet RMAF requirement for new generation fighter aircraft (with reasons pretty much being explained in previous post about JAS-39 Gripen). However, there are several qualities which would attract the top brass/Mindef interest towards the aircraft and its potential.


-Low cost. For around USD 15 mil a pop (depending on which variant, the level of sophistication, and the number bought), a country of our financial capability can easily acquire it by the dozens (24~36 units).While the maneuverability is somewhat a mystery question, the requirement of the aircraft(as a low cost F-16 complement in PAF) and the general design(big delta wing and LERX, somewhat similar in F/A-18,and fly by wire capability), the aircraft has nothing that suggest that it has inherent weakness that will compromise the maneuverability.
 - JF-17 is more than capable to be an ADF (air defence fighter) aircraft. Currently the tasks of air defence are taken by F-5E and MiG-29N in our inventory. Being a 4 generation aircraft, JF-17 is much more advanced than F-5E and MiG-29N (both aircraft only saw SLEP upgrade instead of full modernization programme) and as multirole combat aircraft, it can do much more mission than air defence(such as anti ship, area bombing, air-to-ground mission, SEAD, etc)
-JF-17 can also be used in a ‘less than important’ mission such as point and/or area defence, air patrol, interception, CAS, etc. This can release some pressure from our front line fighter aircraft, in a way that they can focus on more important mission given (such as key target bombing, gaining air supremacy, deep penetration strike, etc)
-JF-17 can be equipped with both Chinese/Russian and western-bloc weapon (if the source code is provided) through 7 of its hard points.
-It is being integrated with Erieye AEW aircraft in Pakistani service, and that would be a huge bonus to RMAF (which has planned to acquire several AEW system, with Erieye is the most possible option)
-Being a non-traditional weapon supplier, Pakistan would offer much more to see the deal (if being done) to go through. Barter-trade, extensive ToT, credit payment, offset deal, even unlimited armament deal without any sanction whatsoever, all of these would be used us to gain leverage from them and demand the best deal for our buck.

Thus JF-17 would be a good replacement for existing Hawk Mk 208, F-5E (even MiG-29N, which was almost being retired in early 2010). A Hi-Lo mix of Su-30MKM, F/A-18D (and possibly F/A-18F) and JF-17 would give a significant boost towards RMAF capability.

ATGMs in Malaysian Army

ATGM (Anti-Tank Guided Missile) is a type of anti armor weapon that has sensor/guidance-system to guide its flight towards target. Despite being primarily used as heavy anti-tank weapon (hence the name), ATGM is also versatile enough to be used in variety of missions (as bunker buster, anti-personnel weapon, illumination, it can even being used to fight small/medium water craft e.g. patrol boat, pirate boat, even small corvette)
ATGM generally has better range (of up to 2 miles instead of just 500 yards, usually less) and better penetrating power compared to other anti-armor weapon. And being a guided missile, ATGM has higher success at hitting target and possibly destroying them.
Currently Malaysian Army has 2 type of ATGM, the Baktar Shikan(Pakistan) and Metis-M(Russia). Both are wire-guided, SACLOS (Semi-Automatic Close Lock-On System) missile, bought as part of Malaysian Army modernization programme in early 2000

Baktar Shikan

Baktar Shikan is a Pakistani-made ATGM, which is derived from Chinese HJ-8 ATGM missile (which in turn, is derived largely from American-made TOW system). It is an optically-tracked, wire-guided, direct firing, 2nd generation anti-tank missile with the range of more than 3km and has the penetration capability of up to 850mm RHA.
The Chinese version of this system has been successfully used by the Bosnian during Bosnian-Serb conflict, and some reported that the system has also saw action in 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. The system has seen upgrade in term of guidance system as well as penetration power. Currently Baktar Shikan is in service to Pakistan Army, Bangladesh Army, Sri Lanka Army,while several other countries operated the original Chinese HJ-8 version)
The system is very versatile, and can be launched from tactical vehicles (from Toyota technical truck to AIFV) to helicopters (from Chinese-made Z-9 to Amercian-made AH-1). Baktar Shikan in Malaysian Army usually being installed in a Land-Rover, G-wagon as well as the ACV-300

Metis-M

9K115-2 Metis-M (NATO codename: AT-13 Saxtorn-2) is a lightweight ATGM system (which is also a wire guided missile) used as a man-portable platoon anti-tank missile (weighing at half of the Pakistani Baktar Shikan). Deemed the most advanced system in its class, the missile has high resistance to soft-kill countermeasures and it also has high penetration power, as well as good range. The system has saw success in destroying several Israeli-made Merkava MBTs, one of the most heavily protected MBT in the world, during Israel occupation in Lebanon in 2006

Other system?

Malaysian Army has wide range of anti-armor system, from the basic (yet battle proven) RPG-7V, C-80 LAW, Carl Gustav M2 RCL, M106 RCL (RCL=recoilless rifle) to the AT4/AT4CS and obviously, the ATGMs mentioned earlier.
However there is one class of anti-tank weapon that is absent in Malaysian Army arsenal; the 3rd generation, Fire-and Forget ATGM

This 3rd generation system has several advantages over SACLOS weapon:


-These are shoulder launched weapon. and Metis-M(and Baktar Shikan,up to a certain degree) is a portable weapons but it requires the operator to lie down on their belly. Thus it takes precious time to aim fire and run out of enemy retaliation (while these shoulder-launched ATGMs can be fired from standing position).
-Fire and Forget capability means that the operator doesn’t have to guide the missile and can move to other location at the time the missile leave the tube, which also to prevents countermeasures from the enemy.
-IR-seeking missile is a passive way of targeting the enemy(that is by detecting the IR signature of the tank, usually the engine and the exhaust), instead of flashing IR laser that would trigger the MBT counter ATGM capability(thus the thick diesel smoke) and will leave the operator exposed to enemy retaliation.
-the nature of SACLOS ATGM (which is either wire-guided, or laser-guided) means it can only be fired at the line of sight, thus requires no obstacle between the system and the target .SACLOS ATGM also has relatively flat trajectory; hence it would give away the operator’s location. 3rd generation ATGM (especially Javelin) can be fired even when the target is behind obstacles(trees, houses, hill, etc.) since the IR-seeking sensors will guide the missile on its own towards the target. Such capability is called NLOS (Non line of sight) capability.
-NLOS capability have also give birth to one very effective way of destroying the target (usually MBTs); the top-attack capability. Contemporary tanks have their armor at the thickest in the front and sides, while top of turret has the least. Top-attack capability ensures that the tank could be destroyed (total kill) with just one missile.
-These system can also engage low flying aircraft (helos, CAS aircraft, transport aircraft, etc). And the heavy warhead (used to target heavy armor) can easily blows them aircrafts to pieces.

Currently there are 4 countries that have successfully developed their version of 3rd generation ATGM, the Javelin(USA) the J-Javelin(Japan), spike(Israel) and K-ATGM( South Korea).European countries are also developing their own version; Pars-3(Germany) and Turkey, both are still in development.
 Considering few other factors though (the Javelin is fucking expensive, the Japs would never sell their  weapon to anyone, and Malaysia doesn’t have any diplomatic relationship whatsoever with Israel, thus rules out the possibility of spike),the author have choose K-ATGM(which the author will explain in the future) as the most plausible option for Malaysian Army, since South Korea has previous military sale success in Malaysia(the K200A1 KIFV, and recently, the MPSS projects has been given to South Korean firm).K-ATGM has 2 version, the platoon anti tank weapon and heavier system to be installed in their new AIFV(which is still under development).
Given the Malaysian Army acquiring such system, it would definitely boost our anti-armor capability to another level (given our wide array of anti armor weapon system to begin with) and thus would give significant edge to Malaysian Armed Force’s dissimilar warfare capability.

South Korea's K-ATGM