Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

India Planning to procure Malaysian Mig-29N?

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by layman, Mar 27, 2017.

  1. Sathya

    Sathya Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    792
    Country Flag:
    India

    I read Malaysia would get spares for su30 in exchange for the deal.
     
    layman likes this.
  2. Sathya

    Sathya Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    792
    Country Flag:
    India
    Yeah he mentioned svatlana arrestor gear range for aircrafts.
    Only if the deck fighter is in the range we can fly otherwise we ll have to change the system itself. Or ask Russia to modify it.
     
    layman likes this.
  3. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Yep sweat deal and India will have to pay only for 10 of them as they are in flying condition and rest can be taken for nothing.
     
  4. Sathya

    Sathya Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    792
    Country Flag:
    India
    Why two seater trainers ? :hmm:
    Any specific advantage? Malaysia is having only 2 of them..
     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,667
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    There is nothing Russian specific, that would limit the use to Russian fighter. The arrested landing system would just need to be adjusted to a higher landing weight of the F18SH for example, Rafale M is afaik even lighter than the Mig. However, that doesn't require big upgrades.
    Taking off from the carrier is also limited only by engine power, not anything wrt the carrier itself.
     
  6. Sathya

    Sathya Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    792
    Country Flag:
    India
    India sold the Su30 mk older models for like 18 million dollars per craft.

    We should be getting migs at < 10 million $ / craft I guess.


    If we are able to retire a squad of mig21 in such a deal as stop gap measure.
    I would take the deal.
     
  7. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    India’s Puzzling MiG Deal With Malaysia
    Published April 15, 2017
    SOURCE: RealClearDefense.com

    [​IMG]

    Some defense agreements make strategic sense from a long-term view, and some make sense from an immediate stop-gap perspective.Then there are others that are head-scratchers.

    On April 5 reports emerged in Malaysian media indicating that India seeks to acquire Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) 1990s-vintage MiG-29 fighters as part of a larger military cooperation agreement between the two countries.

    As per Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, the proposal would involve a quid pro quo whereby Malaysia would then accept spare parts from India for its Sukhoi Su-30 fighters. Whether these spare parts would be sourced from cannibalized Indian Air Force (IAF) Su-30MKI fighters or, more likely, from a Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) storage hub remains unclear.

    The comments made by the Malaysian Prime Minister regarding such a proposal are notable for the questions they raise.

    Why would India want to add fighters of a type it plans to retire from operational service in the coming ten years?

    More to the point, why would it wish to add fighters that must first undergo upgrades before entering IAF service – thus requiring capitalization funding that could otherwise be allocated elsewhere – and do little to upgrade existing IAF capabilities?

    While the IAF is certainly short of operational capacity adding the dozen used MiG-29s will do little to alleviate a looming fighter crunch as the 2032 target culmination point for the IAF’s modernization plan draws ever closer.

    Currently, the IAF officially operates some 34 fighter squadrons, though that figure is in reality smaller. Perhaps of greater cause for concern in the larger picture is that 14 of these squadrons are to be retired by 2024, while several core future capability projects remain in various states of negotiation, development and have been reduced in size due to financial pressures.

    Under its long-term plans, by 2032 the IAF is required to field 810 fighters in 45 squadrons with which to conduct simultaneous operations on two fronts against China and Pakistan under a worst-case conflict scenario.

    Further, adding more MiG-29s will do nothing to rectify obsolescence issues across a fighter inventory that features three Russian MiG types (MiG-21 and MiG-27s, as well as the aforementioned MiG-29s), aging French Dassault Mirage 2000s, and Anglo-French Sepecat Jaguars strategic bombers brought into service between 1981 and 1985.

    At best any Indian acquisition of the used RMAF MiG-29s would serve as capacity backfill, as a replacement for existing IAF airframes lost to attrition, or to strip down and use for spare parts on existing platforms.

    Then there are the questions emanating from the other side of the proposal – the Malaysian side.

    Why would the Malaysian government be looking to sell off its remaining ten operational MiG-29N and 2 MiG-29NU trainers merely for spare parts and possibly some cash (the latter providing a better reason) in return?

    The RMAF has been waiting for the government to move forward on its premier project, the Multirole Combat Aircraft (MRCA), since an initial Request for Proposals (RFP) was released in March 2011. This proposal calls for the acquisition of 18 swing fighters (plus the option for an additional 18) that would serve as a replacement for the MiG-29 fleet.

    However, the MRCA project remains stalled due to Malaysia’s economic and financial pressures, meaning that if Malaysia transfers its MiG-29 fleet over to India, it will leave the RMAF without an immediate incoming fighter replacement and lesser combat aircraft capacity.

    Though there has been a spate of recent reports regarding whether or not Malaysia has winnowed its favored MRCA bidder down to the French Dassault Rafale (over the Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Saab Gripen), there appears to be zero government appetite for undertaking an expensive fighter purchase.

    The political timing and budgetary situations are simply not favorable for Malaysia to move forward with the MRCA procurement at this moment. The 2017 defense earmark alone represents a nearly 13 percent year-on-year nominal reduction – hardly indicative of readiness to move forward on an estimated $2 billion acquisition project.

    Yet there is a cost to maintaining the MiG-29 fleet that would be offset by such an exchange. The risk of having lesser fighter capacity over a 5-10 year period may be one that the Malaysian government is willing to accept in return for some financial relief on the operational maintenance portion of the defense budget.

    Ultimately, whatever small financial savings gleaned for Malaysia by no longer having to service and maintain the MiG-29 fleet would hardly be enough to strengthen the fiscal case for moving forward on the MRCA project before the start of the next five-year defense plan in 2021.

    While the RMAF would still have significant high-end fighter capability relative to its Southeast Asian neighborhood in its existing Sukhoi Su-30MKM and Boeing F/A-18 Hornet fleets, it would also lack capacity heft with just 26 of these combat aircraft. That might be a risk Malaysian defense planners, and government officials are willing to take with no immediate external conflict seen on the horizon.

    Should the proposed arrangement go forward – and that appears in question until more details come forth from the Indian side – then this deal represents a push in neither direction. As it does little to allay longer-term concerns for the Indian side, nor shorter-term concerns for the Malaysian side, it is beneficially neutral – and thus strategically head-scratching.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  8. nicolas10

    nicolas10 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    153
    Well since they are upgrading their own 29s, so I don't see why they couldn't upgrade those too. Besides the couldn't upgrade all their planes at the same time, so they could use their whole 29 fleet while the RMAF samples are upgraded, and then use those 18 by the time they start sending more of their own, hereby accelerating the upgrade of the whole fleet. Besides I'm pretty sure the upgrade wouldn't cost as much if it wasn't spread on such a long time.

    People were complaining that the Mirage 2000 upgrade lasted for years, because they failed to realize that the IAF wanted to send only two at at time so as to keep using the fleet. Say they could have gotten 12 more used 2000s to send for upgrade, they could have accelerated the process considerably.

    Nic
     
  9. MilSpec

    MilSpec Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    976
    Likes Received:
    1,760
    Country Flag:
    India

    Why would India want to add fighters of a type it plans to retire from operational service in the coming ten years?

    BS. IAF has no plans to retire Mig29 fleet in 10 years. The UPG upgrade would last another two decades.

    More to the point, why would it wish to add fighters that must first undergo upgrades before entering IAF service – thus requiring capitalization funding that could otherwise be allocated elsewhere – and do little to upgrade existing IAF capabilities?

    Because of economics. Total cost of getting UPG program upgrades on Mig29 from Malaysia is lower as there is barely any initial costs.

    Further, adding more MiG-29s will do nothing to rectify obsolescence issues across a fighter inventory that features three Russian MiG types (MiG-21 and MiG-27s, as well as the aforementioned MiG-29s), aging French Dassault Mirage 2000s, and Anglo-French Sepecat Jaguars strategic bombers brought into service between 1981 and 1985.

    More BS, Getting UPG program upgrades on 18 off the shelf procurement will not only help the Mig29 Sqdn strength but also increase the volume of aircrafts that can be pulled off active duty and go through the upgrade programs. Mig29 is one of the most modular Russian platforms which can feature everything from 3d thrust vectoring, to AESA radars. It depend on IAF what features it wants in them.

    Why would the Malaysian government be looking to sell off its remaining ten operational MiG-29N and 2 MiG-29NU trainers merely for spare parts and possibly some cash (the latter providing a better reason) in return?
    Because of low utilization, lack of proven and effective Supply chain management, lack of engine service. All this results in high cost of operation. With number of aircrafts in operation the cost of operations goes down. This fits in IAF's CE analysis, hence the author is no one to dispute Malaysia's or IAF's intent.

    Ultimately, whatever small financial savings gleaned for Malaysia by no longer having to service and maintain the MiG-29 fleet would hardly be enough to strengthen the fiscal case for moving forward on the MRCA project before the start of the next five-year defense plan in 2021.

    More BS conclusions without even presenting an actual business case before dismissing it's merits.
     
    Sancho, layman and Sathya like this.

Share This Page