RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia

lcafanboy

Senior member
Dec 22, 2017
2,480
2,647
Bangalore
RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia

FMT Reporters
-
June 1, 2021 7:10 PM
3kShares
facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
email sharing button
One of the Chinese planes that was forced to turn back.
PETALING JAYA: Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) fighter jets were scrambled to intercept 16 People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) planes over Malaysian airspace yesterday, the RMAF has revealed.

In a statement, RMAF said the “suspicious” flight of the 16 air force planes were detected by the Air Defence Centre in Sarawak at 11.53am.

“The air force planes were flying in tactical formation.”

The Chinese planes were detected flying between 23,000 feet and 27,000 feet above sea level at a speed of 290 knots entering the Malaysian Maritime Zone (ZMM).




There was no response from the planes after being told to turn back by the Malaysian Air Traffic Control, and they instead headed towards Sarawak waters. The RMAF then scrambled Hawk 208 fighter jets from the 6th Squadron of the Labuan Air Base to intercept the foreign planes.

The Chinese planes eventually turned around and left in the same direction they entered the ZMM.

RMAF said the PLAAF planes were identified as Ilyushin Il-76 and Xian Y-20 strategic transport planes which can carry out various missions.

An RMAF map showing the flight path of the Chinese planes and how they turned back.
“This incident is a serious threat to our sovereignty and the safety of flights in our airspace.”


RMAF added that its conduct was based on the country’s laws and international rules of engagement of the International Civil Aviation Organization and National Air Defence Strategy.

“The foreign ministry has been informed of this incident.”

Last year, it was reported that the Chinese coast guard and navy ships intruded into Malaysian waters 89 times between 2016 and 2019.

The intrusions happened in the hotly disputed South China Sea.

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑾𝒐𝒍𝒇𝑷𝒂𝒄𝒌🔎 (@TheWolfpackIN) Tweeted:
*PLAAF aircraft were a mix of Y-20 transports escorted by J-11s.
 

Pundrick

Well-Known member
Dec 2, 2017
355
368
They need number of good interceptors to stand against increasing intrusions. LCA now looks very relevant, it is cheap, it is advanced, it has low rcs and comes from India one of the adversaries of PLAAF.
* 20 LCA MK1A + 6 LCA trainers should be sufficient.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
They need number of good interceptors to stand against increasing intrusions. LCA now looks very relevant, it is cheap, it is advanced, it has low rcs and comes from India one of the adversaries of PLAAF.
* 20 LCA MK1A + 6 LCA trainers should be sufficient.

Numbers have varied depending on the news report, from an initial 12 to 30 and options of 24+.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
17,337
13,260
Mumbai
Naval group seems to rewriting How to win friends & influence people 2.0 !

Except for the Chileans , practically everyone associated with Naval Group has had extremely nice things to say about them beginning with the Norwegians - "good negotiators , bad partners ," the Australians who voted with their feet , followed by the Indians who by the looks of it want nothing to do with NG anymore & now the Malaysians .I'd leave the Brazilians out as it's still work in progress .


Frankly I turned into a huge NG fan last year when the budgeted program costs of the Aussie submarine project ballooned from 50 billion AD to 90 billion AD with not a rivet being struck & estimated project costs were expected to be 120-150 billion AD by the end of the project somewhere in the late 2040s .

But you know what they say - if it's too good to be true , it's too good to be true .

I mean it was too much to expect the Anglo US alliance to sit by idly while you guys ripped the Aussies in broad daylight . They did what they do best . Get rid of le Francais as they've been doing ever since you lost Waterloo & rip the dim witted Aussies off themselves.

At the end of the day the Aussies are Anglo US bunnies. Pls explain the situation to le Francais here . @BMD , @Optimist





@Bon Plan ; @Picdelamirand-oil ; @A Person
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,404
1,092
France
Naval group seems to rewriting How to win friends & influence people 2.0 !

Except for the Chileans , practically everyone associated with Naval Group has had extremely nice things to say about them beginning with the Norwegians - "good negotiators , bad partners ," the Australians who voted with their feet , followed by the Indians who by the looks of it want nothing to do with NG anymore & now the Malaysians .I'd leave the Brazilians out as it's still work in progress .


Frankly I turned into a huge NG fan last year when the budgeted program costs of the Aussie submarine project ballooned from 50 billion AD to 90 billion AD with not a rivet being struck & estimated project costs were expected to be 120-150 billion AD by the end of the project somewhere in the late 2040s .

But you know what they say - if it's too good to be true , it's too good to be true .

I mean it was too much to expect the Anglo US alliance to sit by idly while you guys ripped the Aussies in broad daylight . They did what they do best . Get rid of le Francais as they've been doing ever since you lost Waterloo & rip the dim witted Aussies off themselves.

At the end of the day the Aussies are Anglo US bunnies. Pls explain the situation to le Francais here . @BMD , @Optimist





@Bon Plan ; @Picdelamirand-oil ; @A Person
The same news may have been written about Lockeed Martin...

The price from 50 billions to 90 hide the fact that the goal grow from 8 to 12 subs.... But you decided not to see that.

We will be very aware of the final bill for the australian SSN, as the lead time, and the australian content. It will be funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,404
1,092
France
It is not true that this is the reason. Would you like to keep guessing?
No need. We are perfectly aware that it was a treason, mainly driven by Boris Johnson (Biden is too senile to do so).

The final cost for Australia will be huge : far far costly. Late, so late. Just some bolts and nuts made in Australia in it. You now have just to ask uncle Sam to be the next US state.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Amarante

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
512
239
Australia
No need. We are perfectly aware that it was a treason, mainly driven by Boris Johnson (Biden is too senile to do so).

The final cost for Australia will be huge : far far costly. Late, so late. Just some bolts and nuts made in Australia in it. You now have just to ask uncle Sam to be the next US state.
So you made it up and didn't check your facts. How typical of you.
The proof is on the table and is said by others about having France Naval as a partner. Though Thales international have a good reputation.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,460
4,222
Bangalore
No need. We are perfectly aware that it was a treason, mainly driven by Boris Johnson (Biden is too senile to do so).

The final cost for Australia will be huge : far far costly. Late, so late. Just some bolts and nuts made in Australia in it. You now have just to ask uncle Sam to be the next US state.
The France - Australia deal was a fine one, not the best but a fine one.

But with changing time SSNs were required, no denying that too.

The only problem is what how this change was executed. Let's see how things go on. But I will say that there's a reason why we are not hearing any substantial fine prints of the AUKUS deal, because there isn't one.

The Aussies were so excited that they took the Americans on their words. Who will supply the design, who will supply the reactors, who will supply the fuel, will it be assembled in Australia, how many submarines, the acquisition cost, the operating costs...... Nothing is concrete.

I wish and hope the best for Aussies. And Naval Group is a very fine entity. You don't design and build SSNs/SSBNs being a 2nd grade entity.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,404
1,092
France
So you made it up and didn't check your facts. How typical of you.
The proof is on the table and is said by others about having France Naval as a partner. Though Thales international have a good reputation.
You are blind to argument. It's a losed time to search in the archive.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Amarante

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,404
1,092
France

Does Australia actually need nuclear submarines?​

"According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the final procurement cost of the SSN fleet may each at the end 171 $ billion" :LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL:

 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Amarante

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
512
239
Australia
I guess that's the trouble when you are just a troll. Posting headlines, about a story behind a firewall.
It seems they let you pick your own price, starting at $70b

A new study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has estimated the cost will be $70 billion at the “absolute minimum” but said it is “highly likely it will cost substantially more once cost drivers are more clearly understood”.

ASPI said it could be as high as $171 billion and it could be 20 years until a submarine would be seaworthy.
 

Herciv

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
293
262
FRANCE

AUGUST 6 – 12, 2022 | No. 411

Does Australia actually need nuclear submarines?​

"According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the final procurement cost of the SSN fleet may each at the end 171 $ billion" :LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL:

NEWS

As experts question the diplomatic, strategic and economic rationale behind Australia’s purchase of nuclear-powered submarines, the gaps in the country’s defensive fleet could be filled by conventional subs. By Brian Toohey.

Does Australia actually need nuclear submarines?

A Japanese Taigei-class submarine.

CREDIT: KEN H / FLICKR

In 1992, an Australian Oberon-class submarine entered the crowded waters of Shanghai’s port and became entangled in fishing nets. It had to surface for crew members to cut it free with axes. Chinese Navy sailors witnessed this, but nevertheless the submarine escaped. Had it not, the crew would’ve been imprisoned and Australia widely condemned and potentially convicted for an outrageous breach of international law.

Almost a decade earlier, the Australian Navy had seriously considered scrapping submarines, according to former senior Australian Defence official Mike Gilligan. A study in 1985 had concluded they offered “little marginal benefit to Australia’s defences yet inflict a large marginal cost”. The cost could’ve been much higher given the tremendous risks the government allowed the navy to take, snooping in Chinese and Russian waters on behalf of the Americans, who wouldn’t put their nuclear submarines in danger.

Australia now faces some tough and highly consequential decisions with respect to its fleet. Some experts in the defence field question not only the utility of nuclear-powered vessels but the diplomatic, strategic and economic commitment they entail.

In Washington last month, Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia, the United States and Britain were moving from “interoperability to interchangeability in defence hardware”. This would effectively mean Australia could not buy high-quality defence equipment from other countries if there was a higher-cost American or British version available. Professor Clinton Fernandes at the UNSW Canberra campus says, “It’s obvious the real policy is to subsidise the US Navy’s submarine budget. Some will be located in Australia, with Australian flags and personnel, but they’re essentially US boats operated in the US’s great power interests. We’re paying for them to set up part of their current and future fleet in Australia.”



Australia has a short and patchy record on submarine purchases. The government acquired many major weapons during World War II. None were submarines. That capability had to wait until the first of a total of six Oberon-class submarines was commissioned in 1967 from a Scottish shipyard. They operated satisfactorily but weren’t considered the nation’s most important military assets.

After Kim Beazley became Defence minister in the Hawke government, he gambled on the value of submarines by ordering six large, battery-powered versions to be built in Adelaide. No other country has bought this type. The first was commissioned in 1966 and the last in 2003. Called the Collins class, it was based on a good Swedish design. But Beazley greatly increased its size and complexity, partly by adding American equipment that proved completely useless. Maintenance problems drove annual sustainment costs to $670 million. Often only two or three were available at a time, although availability later improved. And none attended the 2010 Rim of the Pacific event – known as Rimpac, the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise, held biennially near Hawaii.

“It’s obvious the real policy is to subsidise the US Navy’s submarine budget …We’re paying for them to set up part of their current and future fleet in Australia.”

Former prime minister Scott Morrison and his successor, Anthony Albanese, have taken a much bigger gamble than Beazley did, with their commitment to buy at least eight nuclear attack submarines – almost certainly the American Virginia class. One of the US’s most highly regarded defence analysts, Winslow Wheeler, recently pointed out the Virginia-class subs have been available only 15 times in 33 years for their six-monthly deployments. This suggests fewer than two of Australia’s eight nuclear submarines would be operationally available, on average, each year. And the cost of the purchases is likely to be stunning, possibly as high as $171 billion when accounting for inflation, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and more recent estimates are above $200 billion. The costliest previous military acquisition, for the Australian Air Force, is the inflation-adjusted $16.6 billion program cost for 72 F-35 fighter jets.

Former submariner, naval consultant and South Australian senator Rex Patrick says, “Australia could buy 20 high-quality, off-the-shelf, modern submarines for $30 billion.”

Patrick also makes the point that nuclear submarines are often “defeated” in exercises by ultra-quiet conventional submarines.

Major new developments are making conventional submarines even more formidable than the nuclear versions. More powerful sensors mean submarines can be detected by the noise they make and by their passage through the Earth’s magnetic field. In addition, nuclear submarines can be detected by the wake they leave at high speeds, as well as the hot water they release from cooling their nuclear reactors, operating loud steam engines and other equipment. In future, submarines may also be detected by blue-green lasers that make the ocean more transparent.

A prize-winning essay published in the US Naval Institute’s magazine Proceedings in June 2018 said the US Navy would do well to consider acquiring “some quiet, inexpensive and highly capable diesel-electric submarines”. Until recently, conventionally powered submarines frequently had to rise close the surface to expose a mast and snorkel to obtain fresh air for their diesel engines to recharge the batteries. This process can be detected by radar.

Most conventionally powered submarines – except Australia’s – use what is called air independent propulsion (AIP), which allows them to remain silent for four to six weeks before snorkelling. That often entails using a hydrogen fuel cell to propel the submarine, but it takes up significant space on the vessel.

In a major change, Japan’s new Taigei-class submarines don’t need AIP because they’re equipped with particularly efficient lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminium oxide batteries, rather than the lead-acid batteries that the Australian Navy prefers, due in part to the risks of lithium-ion batteries catching fire. Other navies are increasingly confident the new types of battery will prove safe. Hans Ohff, a submarine specialist and visiting fellow at Adelaide University, told The Saturday Paper, “Generally speaking, lithium-ion batteries have a 1.5-times range advantage over lead-acid at lower speeds and an incredible four-times range advantage at high speeds.”



Since the Collins class is due to start retiring in 2026, a replacement is urgently required to help fill the gap until the first nuclear submarine might arrive, near 2045, and the last in 2065. Senator Patrick says the time it takes to do this can be reduced by choosing one of the three available “off-the-shelf” submarines: Japan’s Taigei, which has passed numerous tests demonstrating the safety of its new batteries; Singapore’s Type 218SG, made by Germany’s thyssenkrupp Marine Systems; and the Spanish S-81. The latter two still use conventional lead-acid batteries, but Ohff says a French and German joint venture is under way to develop their own lithium-ion batteries.

These options have advantages and drawbacks. The new Taigei class – of which Japan is acquiring 22 – requires a costly crew of 70 per vessel. The Type 218SG’s German manufacturer is the biggest submarine exporter in the world, with an enviable reputation for low maintenance costs across its range. Extensive automation means it needs only 28 crew members, and the vessel has a longer range than the Taigei’s 12,500 kilometres. Spain’s S-81 has a crew of 32 but a less experienced manufacturer.

With China being the principal concern of Australian diplomatic and defence policymakers, Ohff says the navy will never accept off-the-shelf submarines unless it can “Australianise” them – meaning they must have the range to operate for long periods, many thousands of kilometres away, probably in Chinese waters or nearby. Ohff says the navy’s preferences would take a minimum of 10 years to deliver the first boat and additional two-year intervals for the following boats. He says delivery of a Swedish “Son of Collins” could take nine years.

Patrick says influential Australian intelligence and defence officials are ignoring the point that there is no need for Australian submarines to spend much time in China’s waters: Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam have high-quality submarines closer to China. The main attraction of nuclear submarines for these officials is they could fire subsonic cruise missiles at land targets in China from more than 1000 kilometres off its coast. However, cruise missiles can be shot down by fighter planes overhead. Once a nuclear submarine fired its missiles, it would be detected and swiftly targeted. Even if it survived, reloading would require the help of a tender – a large depot ship that supplies and supports submarines – probably from the distant base at Fremantle, which recently hosted a reloading for a US nuclear submarine. In any event, an attack on Chinese territory could provoke a heavy counterattack on Australia’s forces or its mainland.

Gilligan says most of the capability offered by submarines is better provided by Australia’s maritime and land-based aircraft. He says submarines, including nuclear ones, are slow compared to aircraft. Technically, a plane could sink a ship off Australia’s west coast in the morning, refuel, then sink another off the east coast in the afternoon. Gilligan also warns that the shallow and warm waters around Australia’s north are unsuited to large nuclear submarines.

Deploying nuclear submarines far from Australia marks a return to the previously discredited doctrine of “forward defence” in South-East Asia that concentrated on a big British naval base in Singapore, which was swiftly overrun by the Japanese in 1942. When this doctrine failed during the Vietnam War, the Coalition government in the late 1960s adopted a “defence of Australia” doctrine, which survived until its recent abandonment. Patrick and other proponents of this latter doctrine expect a revised doctrine would put more emphasis on having medium-sized conventional submarines to help deny hostile forces access to the approaches to Australia, unless they could detect and destroy all the submarines, drones, planes and land-based missiles blocking their way.

Finally, from a defence perspective, much of the planning around nuclear submarines assumes – implausibly – that Chinese and US policies will proceed in a predictable way until past 2060. A purely geopolitical analysis, however, could easily underplay the disruptive role of climate change.

In purely geopolitical terms, the region may become more peaceful or more dangerous. The only urgency for Australia is to forget about nuclear submarines and get some conventionally powered submarines to enhance deterrence.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on August 6, 2022 as "Sub-optimal".

A free press is one you pay for. Now is the time to subscribe.

Brian Toohey has been a journalist for 50 years. He is the author of Secret: The Making of Australia’s Security State.

August 6, 2022

SHARE
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante

Amarante

Well-Known member
Jun 22, 2021
422
372
La Défense, France
(…) Frankly I turned into a huge NG fan last year when the budgeted program costs of the Aussie submarine project ballooned from 50 billion AD to 90 billion AD with not a rivet being struck (…)
SydneyMorningHerald, oct.13 2020:
Defence knew submarines would cost almost $80b five years ago

[excerpt:]

Defence officials knew Australia's new fleet of attack submarines would cost almost $80 billion as early as 2015, despite publicly stating at the time the estimated price tag was $50 billion.

The admission by the Department of Finance was made to a parliamentary inquiry last week, with a Defence spokeswoman telling this masthead it did not disclose the figure for commercial reasons as the tender process had not been completed.

It was revealed in Senate estimates last year that the "out-turn cost" – the actual cost of the build calculated at the end of the project – was estimated to be at least $80 billion. The cost of the 12 new French-designed submarines then blew out this year to $90 billion.

But it has now been revealed the government budgeted for the project to cost $78.9 billion as far back as October 2015. This was the same month Defence officials told a Senate estimates hearing the out-turn cost was $50 billion.

The disclosure was made by the Department of Finance in response to a question on notice from a parliamentary inquiry into Australia's shipbuilding program.

Opposition defence spokesman Richard Marles said the revelation showed the government had "refused to be upfront about the true cost of the program".

"There is now evidence which proves the government knew for years there was a $30 billion cost difference between what they knew and what they were telling the Australian public," he said. "The question here is, why is the government hiding what they knew? Why has the government continued to lie about this for years?"

Marcus Hellyer, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said the revelations suggested the estimates were "deliberately sanitised to take the sting out of it".

Mr Hellyer said Defence should have provided a band instead of giving an exact estimate that was incorrect.

"One would suspect if they did give a band, the submarines would be $50 billion to $100 billion, and it would be such a huge number it would terrify the Australian public into not wanting to go down that path," he said.

"In front of Senate estimates in sworn testimony, Defence said it was $50 billion. How is the Senate meant to exercise its role of contestability and scrutinising budgets when it is not actually being given anything resembling what Defence thinks the actual number is?"

"I think it's a poor state of affairs with accountability and disclosure when the Senate itself has been given a completely inaccurate figure."

The Finance Department also told the parliamentary inquiry last week the estimated cost of Australia's nine new naval frigates was $9.3 billion higher than had been publicly disclosed by the government in 2018. Defence officials said at the time the frigates would cost $35 billion, but the cost has now been upgraded to $45.6 billion.
(…)
Defence knew submarines would cost almost $80b five years ago

But from $80b to $90b, sure, this is an increase. Can you tell me which military program does not exceed its initial costs? (except Dassault Rafale, of course)
 
  • Love
Reactions: Bon Plan