Singapore Presence On Pulau Batu Puteh Is With Johor's Consent, Says Malaysia

THE HAGUE, Nov 13 (Bernama) -- Malaysia opened its oral arguments before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) here today dismissing Singapore's claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, saying that the island state was merely allowed to operate a lighthouse there.

Malaysia's agent Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad said Singapore's presence on Pulau Batu Puteh, the subject of a sovereignty dispute between the two countries, was with Johor's consent.

"Singapore is now present on the island, as was Great Britain before it, with Johor's consent.

"Therefore, it matters a great deal to Malaysia when Singapore claims sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, simply because it has been running a lighthouse on it with our consent," he told the 16-member panel at Malaysia's first round of oral arguments.

Pulau Batu Puteh and two other features -- Middle Rocks and South Ledge -- form part of the State of Johor, now part of Malaysia, he stressed, refuting Singapore's contention that it had sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh as a successor of the British government.

He said that the three features are located at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits, off Peninsular Malaysia.

Despite their extremely small size, the issue of sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and the other two maritime features, is important, said Kadir, who is Malaysia's head of delegation, Ambassador at Large and also the Prime Minister's Adviser on Foreign Affairs.

"Not only does it have implications for the territorial and maritime stability of the Straits but the long-established arrangement is important to the continued cooperative management of navigational aids, marine environmental protection and safety matters in the Straits," Kadir submitted.

In explaining to the court why sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to Malaysia, he said the Horsburgh lighthouse was built by the East India company in 1851, with the permission of Johor.

The permission was given by the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor on Nov 25 1844 for the building and operation of a lighthouse near Point Romania or any spot deemed eligible, Kadir said, backing his submissions with documentary evidence.

"It is on the basis of the consent of the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor that Great Britain built and then operated the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh," he said.

He said that in its written pleadings, Malaysia has provided evidence that Johor had given permission that Great Britain could build and operate a lighthouse on one of Johor's islands.

Kadir said that by arguing otherwise, Singapore was seeking to subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Great Britain over 150 years ago and maintained throughout the whole period of British rule.

Singapore's claim had also ignored the territorial agreements in the area reached in 1824, namely the Anglo-Dutch Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands in March 1824, and the treaty which created the colony of Singapore, the Crawfurd Treaty of Aug 2 1824, he told the court.

In the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824, Johor transferred sovereignty over Singapore Island to the East India Company together with islets and rocks within 10 geographical miles off Singapore, he said.

"Pulau Batu Puteh is 25.5 nautical miles away from Singapore," he said in submitting that Malaysia's case is clear and finds full support in the evidence.

Kadir also refuted Singapore's contention that Pulau Batu Puteh was `terra nullius' (no man's lands) in 1847 when British took possession of the island.

He said that Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius in 1847 and neither was it terra nullius in 1851 when the East India Company completed the construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island.

"Pulau Batu Puteh was part of the ancient Sultanate of Johor, and when the Sultanate divided in two after the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 it remained part of the Sultanate of Johor rather than that of Riau-Lingga," he told the ICJ.

-- BERNAMA

Islands 'part of Johor Sultanate'
By : V. Anbalagan reporting from The Hague

MALAYSIA yesterday presented to the International Court of Justice that Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Lodge were part of the Johor Sultanate.

In the fifth day of proceedings in the territorial dispute between the two countries, Malaysia sought to disprove Singapore's claim that the British acquired sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh as no man's land.

Malaysia's agent, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamed, said Singapore advanced in many ways last week its claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh and the two maritime features.

"But all these cannot hide the fact that Singapore is seeking to subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Britain over 150 years ago and maintained throughout the period of British rule," Kadir said in his opening address.

He said Malaysia had provided evidence that Johor had given permission to Britain to build and operate a lighthouse on one of Johor's islands. Pulau Batu Puteh was selected as the site.

He said Britain, and then Singapore, had operated the lighthouse ever since.

"Therefore, it matters a great deal to Malaysia when Singapore claims sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, simply because it has been running a lighthouse on it with our consent."

Kadir said Singapore's claim also ignored the territorial agreements reached in 1824, namely the Anglo-Dutch Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands of March 17 and the Crawfurd Treaty of Aug 2.

He said despite their small size, the issue of sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and the other two maritime features were important.

"Not only does it have implications for the territorial and maritime stability of the (Singapore) straits, but the long-established arrangement is important to the continued cooperative management of navigational aids, marine environmental protection and safety matters."

He said Malaysia had shown that Pulau Batu Puteh was not a no man's land (terra nullius) in 1847 and it was not so in 1851, when the British East India Company completed the construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island.

Pulau Batu Puteh was part of the ancient Johor Sultanate and when the empire was divided into two after the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty, it remained part of the Johor Sultanate, instead of Riau-Lingga.

The Anglo-Dutch Treaty established that the division between the British and Dutch spheres of influence would run to the south of the Singapore straits.

This placed Pulau Batu Puteh in the British sphere of influence and in that part of Johor which continued to be known as the Sultanate of Johor. Last week, Kadir said Singapore sought to present a new interpretation of the dividing line.

Today, Professor Nicholaas Jan Schrijver, appearing for Malaysia, would explain why the Singapore interpretation was wrong.

Kadir said permission was given by the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor on Nov 25, 1844 for the building and operation of a lighthouse "near Point Romania, or any spot deemed eligible".

Pulau Batu Puteh was near Point Romania and was an "eligible spot" because of the difficulties of navigating the waters at the eastern entrance to the straits.

"It is on the basis of the consent of the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor that Britain built and operated the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh."

He said the co-operation between Malaysia and Singapore was not limited to the building of lighthouses and navigational aids, but also in patrolling the seas in that locality.

Kadir said Singapore now wanted to radically change the basis on which it acquired the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh.

"Singapore is endeavouring to create for itself a maritime domain which is a far cry from the basis of its presence on Pulau Batu Puteh as lighthouse administrator."

Kadir said in 1969, Malaysia enacted a legislation which extended its territorial sea from three to 12 nautical miles and the island republic had not protested.

"Singapore at no time asserted any interest or raised any objection. Neither did Singapore delimit the area around Pulau Batu Puteh when it concluded the Territorial Sea Boundary Agreement with Indonesia in 1973."

He said Singapore's claim not only upset the existing arrangements but included a land reclamation proposal around Pulau Batu Puteh.

"This is not a fanciful conjecture. Singapore has an extremely active reclamation policy which was the subject of the Reclamation Case instituted by Malaysia against Singapore in September 2003," said Kadir.

"In fact, the aggressive methods (Singapore) used to assert its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh have already led to regrettable although not irreversible changes to the stable conditions in the area."

SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU BATU PUTEH - Opening Speech by Malaysia's Agent

By : NST Newsdesk

OPENING SPEECH BY THE AGENT OF MALAYSIA, TAN SRI ABDUL KADIR MOHAMAD SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU BATU PUTEH/PEDRA BRANCA, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE) 13 NOVEMBER 2007

1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is a great honour to appear before you, and to take this opportunity to explain why sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to Malaysia.

2. Mr. President, please allow me to thank the Agent of Singapore for his kind greetings to my colleagues on the Malaysian team and to me personally on the opening day of these proceedings. These greetings are fully reciprocated. Indeed, both of us have known each other for a long time, as members of the diplomatic service of our respective countries.

3. Mr. President, Malaysia and Singapore are two neighbouring countries in South-east Asia, which have mutually agreed to appear before this honourable Court to settle a dispute over the three features, located at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits, off the Malaysian Peninsula, as illustrated on the map that is now being displayed on the screen before the Court. You may also see it in tab No. 1 of your folders.

4. Pulau Batu Puteh and the two other features form part of the State of Johor, now part of Malaysia. The State of Johor has its origins in the ancient Sultanate of Johor. The current Sultan of Johor, Sultan Iskandar Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Ismail, is a direct descendant of one of the signatories to the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between Johor and Great Britain of 2 August 1824, also known as the Crawfurd Treaty, in which part of the territory of the Sultanate was ceded to create Singapore. Singapore Island is nestled in the bottom of Peninsular Malaysia. At its closest point Singapore is only 600 meters from the Johor mainland. It is now shown on the screen and can be found in Tab No.2 in the Judges's Folders.

5. Singapore and Malaysia, together with Indonesia, today share the waters and management of the Malacca and Singapore Straits which link the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea. Because of this geography, their genealogy and British colonial history, Singapore and Malaysia share much in common. The graphic now on the screen shows the Malacca and Singapore Straits. This will also be found in Tab No.3 of the Judges? Folders. This is a current navigational chart which is readily available in the public domain.

6. The details of how this dispute arose and the efforts of the parties to settle it will be described to you by the Attorney-General of Malaysia later this morning.

7. But before looking at how, the Court may wonder why: why would two responsible States be in such an acute and extended disagreement about sovereignty over such small maritime features?

8.. Last week, the Court heard many arguments advanced in many ways by Singapore to support its claim of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. But all these cannot hide the fact that Singapore is seeking to subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Great Britain over 150 years ago and maintained throughout the whole period of British rule. In its written pleadings. Malaysia has provided evidence that Johor had given permission that Great Britain could build and operate a lighthouse on one of Johor?s islands. Pulau Batu Puteh was selected as the site. Great Britain and then Singapore have operated the lighthouse ever since. Singapore is now present on the island, as was Great Britain before it, with Johor?s consent. Therefore it matters a great deal to Malaysia when Singapore claims sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, simply because it has been running a lighthouse on it with our consent.

9. Singapore?s claim also ignores the territorial agreements in the area reached in 1824, namely the Anglo-Dutch Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands of 17 March 1824, and the treaty which created the colony of Singapore, the Crawfurd Treaty of 2 August 1824.

10. Despite their extremely small size, the issue of sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and the other two maritime features is important. Not only does it have implications for the territorial and maritime stability of the Straits but the long-established arrangement is important to the continued cooperative management of navigational aids, marine environmental protection and safety matters in the Straits.

Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court,

11. Malaysia?s case is clear and finds full support in the evidence.

12. As Malaysia has shown in her written submissions, Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius in 1847. It was not terra nullius in 1851, when the East India Company completed the construction of Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island. Pulau Batu Puteh was part of the ancient Sultanate of Johor, and when the Sultanate divided in two after the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 it remained part of the Sultanate of Johor rather than that of Riau-Lingga.

13. The Anglo-Dutch Treaty established that the division between the British and Dutch spheres of influence would run to the south of the Straits of Singapore. This placed Pulau Batu Puteh in the British sphere of influence and in that part of Johor which continued to be known as the Sultanate of Johor. The division between the British and Dutch spheres is now illustrated on the screen, as well as in Tab No. 4 in the Judges? Folders. Last week, Singapore sought to present a new interpretation of the dividing line. Tomorrow, Professor Schrijver will explain why the new Singapore interpretation is wrong.

14. In the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824, Johor transferred sovereignty over Singapore Island to the East India Company together with islets and rocks within 10 geographical miles of Singapore. Pulau Batu Puteh is 25.5 nautical miles away from Singapore.

15. In 1851, with the permission of Johor, the Horsburgh Lighthouse was built on Pulau Batu Puteh by the East India Company. The permission was given by the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor on 25 November 1844, for the building and operation of a lighthouse "near Point Romania" or "any spot deemed eligible". As you can see on the graphic that is now displayed on the screen (and in Tab 5 of your folders), Pulau Batu Puteh is near Point Romania.

16. Pulau Batu Puteh was certainly an "eligible spot" because of the difficulties of navigating the waters at the eastern entrance to the Straits. In fact, Pulau Batu Puteh was the location of choice of the merchant subscribers when they began collecting funds for a lighthouse in 1836.

17 It is on the basis of the consent of the Temenggong and Sultan of Johor that Great Britain built and then operated the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh.

18. Tomorrow, Professor Kohen will analyse the letters of permission written by the Temenggong and the Sultan of Johor on 25 November 1844. Malaysia has not been able to trace the letter of request from Governor Butterworth which was referred to in the letters of permission. In 1994, Malaysia requested Singapore to furnish a copy of the Governor?s letter if Singapore had such a copy in their possession. Singapore did not respond to Malaysia?s request. If this letter exists today it is likely that it is in Singapore?s archives in the file entitled "Letters to Native Rulers". Unfortunately, Malaysia does not have access to these archives.

19. Between 1850 and 1946, the Straits Lights system was developed by Britain to aid navigation through the length of the Malacca and Singapore Straits. The graphic now on the screen and located at Tab No. 6 in the Judges? Folders, shows the lights in the Straits Lights system, including the names of the various lighthouses. This was the list which appeared in the 1912 Ordinance of the Colony of Singapore which abolished light dues.

20. The Straits Lights system, including Horsburgh Lighthouse, was administered by the Straits Settlements. Each lighthouse was operated from one of the three stations in Singapore, Penang or Malacca. From 1912, the Federated Malay States contributed to the running costs of the Straits Lights when they stopped being funded by the collection of lights dues. But the Straits Settlements kept maintaining the lights because they had the necessary expertise.

21. In 1946, when the Straits Settlements was dissolved and the Colony of Singapore and the Malayan Union created, the Straits Lights system ceased to be run as a single system. However, the lighthouses continued to be operated from their original stations in the former Straits Settlements. Pulau Pisang and Horsburgh lighthouses continued to be run from Singapore, and the others, such as Pulau Undan, Cape Rachado, Muka Head and Pulau Rimau, were run from their stations in Malacca and Penang both of which in 1946 formed part of the Malayan Union, and are now part of Malaysia.

22. Today, Horsburgh Lighthouse and Pulau Pisang Lighthouse continue to be run from Singapore, the others from Malaysia. Nothing has changed.

23. The authorities in Singapore simply picked up where the British left off, as did the authorities in Penang and Malacca. The arrangement has worked for over 150 years.

24. The cooperation between the States which later became Malaysia and Singapore was not limited to cooperation in the building of lighthouses and navigational aids.

25. Let me take the example of the Royal Malaysian Navy, previously referred to as the Malayan Naval Force. It had responsibilities for Singapore until 1975 when Singapore established its own navy. The Royal Malaysian Navy continued to operate primarily from the Woodlands base in Singapore until the early 1980s, and only handed over the Woodlands base to Singapore in 1997.

26. Before and after the creation of the Singapore Navy, British and then Malaysian naval forces patrolled the waters of the Straits, including the area of Pulau Batu Puteh.

27. Such cooperative arrangements - and there are many others, for example in the field of communications and water supply - reflect not only our close historical ties but our ongoing rights and obligations as the littoral States of the Malacca and Singapore Straits.

28. Malaysia and Singapore, together with Indonesia, have cooperated for over 30 years in the management of the Straits. On 16 November 1971, all three countries joined forces to adopt a common position on matters relating to the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, and created the Tripartite Technical Experts Group on Safety of Navigation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. This forum meets annually to discuss technical issues relating to the safety of navigation in the Straits.

29. Horsburgh Lighthouse and its facilities form part of the multilateral regime for the safety of navigation in the Straits, just as it was a key light in the Straits Lights system in the 1850s until 1946.

30. With traffic in the Straits expected to increase from 94,000 vessels in 2004 to 141,000 in 2020, the safety of navigation, maritime security and protection of the marine environment are key. Ongoing cooperation in the Straits between the three littoral States is crucial.
Mr. President, Members of the Court:

31. Singapore now seeks to disrupt the long established arrangements in the Straits.

32. Singapore wants to radically change the basis on which it acquired the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh, and the character of its presence on the island.

33. Singapore is endeavouring to create for itself a maritime domain which is a far cry from the basis of its presence on Pulau Batu Puteh as lighthouse administrator.

34. Singapore?s presence on Pulau Batu Puteh as lighthouse operator never extended to issues concerning the territorial waters or the continental shelf around Pulau Batu Puteh. In 1969 Malaysia enacted legislation which extended its territorial sea from 3 to 12 nautical miles. Singapore did not protest. Later in 1969 an Agreement was reached between Malaysia and Indonesia in relation to the Continental Shelf. The delimitation line agreed between Malaysia and Indonesia in 1969 is shown in the map now on the screen. The same graphic is provided as Tab No. 8 in the Judge?s Folders.

35. As you can see, the delimitation line approached the vicinity of Pulau Batu Puteh closely and Point 11 is just 6.4 nautical miles from Pulau Batu Puteh. Singapore at no time asserted any interest, raised any objection or reserved its position. Neither did Singapore delimit the area around Pulau Batu Puteh or reserve its position in that area of the Straits in the Territorial Sea Boundary agreement it concluded with Indonesia in 1973.

36. Singapore?s claim not only upsets the existing arrangements in this way, but raises the question of what it wants to do with the island. In its pleadings Singapore has relied on a reclamation proposal around Pulau Batu Puteh. An internal document, a 1978 Tender Evaluation Report, shows a prospective artificial island of 5,000 sq meters towards Middle Rock. This is not fanciful conjecture. Singapore has an extremely active reclamation policy, which was the subject of the Reclamation Case instituted by Malaysia against Singapore in ITLOS in September 2003. The Provisional Measures Order given by that Tribunal in October 2003 will be known to the Court, as well as the subsequent amicable settlement of that case.

37. But Singapore does not need a bigger island for a better lighthouse. What does it need a bigger island for? Quite apart from the possible effects on environment and navigation in the Straits, this could lead to potentially serious changes to the security arrangements in the eastern entrance to the Straits. In fact, the aggressive methods Singapore has used to assert its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh have already led to regrettable - although not irreversible - changes to the stable conditions in the area.

38. In 1986, well after the critical date, Singapore sent its naval vessels to Pulau Batu Puteh, and has since then maintained a permanent, 24-hour guard around Pulau Batu Puteh. This has created tension and danger. Johor fishermen have been chased away by Singapore forces from their traditional fishing waters and sheltering spots around Pulau Batu Puteh. Malaysian officials and naval vessels cannot go anywhere near Pulau Batu Puteh without being physically challenged by Singapore naval vessels. In response to Singapore?s actions, Malaysia has chosen to adopt a policy of non-confrontation and to act in a peaceful manner while this dispute is in the process of being settled. We have now learned through its pleadings that Singapore placed military communications equipment on Pulau Batu Puteh in May 1977, which we were not previously aware of and which causes us grave concern. This conduct does not fall within the consent given for the construction and operation of the lighthouse.

39. Great Britain and Singapore?s conduct in respect of Pulau Batu Puteh before the critical date, at least that which was known to Malaysia, was entirely consistent with being the operator of the lighthouses on Pulau Batu Puteh and Pulau Pisang with the consent of the sovereign, Johor.

40. Malaysia, by contrast, has always respected the long-standing arrangements for Singapore?s operation of the lighthouses on Pulau Batu Puteh and Pulau Pisang. We have not interfered with Singapore?s operation of the lighthouses.

41. But Malaysia does not wish the stability of its relationship with Indonesia altered. Yet this would inevitably follow if Singapore were to be treated as sovereign over Pulau Batu Puteh with attendant implications for established maritime delimitation in the area.

42. Malaysia respectfully requests the Court to bear in mind these important considerations and, accordingly, to reaffirm Malaysia?s title to Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

43. Mr President and distinguished members of the Court, before ending my submission, I would like to clarify one point. Our problem is with Singapore as a military presence on one of Johor?s islands in the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits. We have no problem with Singapore as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse. Malaysia wishes to maintain the peaceful and stable conditions at the entrance to the South China Sea. It is Singapore which is seeking to change the situation. The Sultan and Temenggong of Johor, in 1844, gladly consented to the establishment of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh, and Malaysia has never suggested that its continued operation by Singapore presented any problem. I repeat, Malaysia has always respected the position of Singapore as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse and I would like to place formally on record that Malaysia will continue to do so. Malaysia?s concern is quite different, as I have indicated.

44. Mr. President, I wish to conclude here. After this, my colleague the Co-Agent will describe to you the Sultanate of Johor?s geographical make-up, the political events which shaped its territory, and Pulau Batu Puteh?s social and economic place in Johor and Malaysia.

45. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I thank you and would ask you now to call on the Co-Agent of Malaysia, Her Excellency Noor Farida Ariffin.

Originally posted by equlus84:

I think they mount it on the truck so as to display to the public. Eg. you can't expect them to put it in the tank barrel or arti barrel and the MC announce the weapon yet the crowd can't see. Another example is like those HY-2 Ashm we see on NK military parade videos, by right they should be in canisters, but for parade sake, they bring it out of canister. Maybe RMA have not officially inducted it, so they are mounted on crude jeeps.
I think whether this missile is gd a not is not impt...... It is the strategic impact of this indigenious missiles have on SEA. Remember PRC sold some KS-1A to MY? It is said some MANPADS technology is transferred to MY as part of the deal, so we must be careful as they might have a slight edge in missile techs. PRC might be following the steps of USA back in the 70s, to load the "pawn" states with huge amount of weapons to check their oponents. Eg. is Iran in the 70s

yes, u're rite......... the missile mount on the jeep, doesn't mean it will use that platform to launch the missile, it's only for display for the parade only. The missile is still under STRIDE (something likes DSTA) not in MAF yet, that's why we saw they wearing jacket not army uniform.........

one more thing, MAF is still not operate KS1-A yet..........

Originally posted by coolant:
Nothing too much regarding the Malaysian “ indigenized Laser guided munitions” so far, google’s only search result of [b]"Sari XK98" laser guided is a Chinese forum listed below:

http://bbs.cjdby.net/viewthread.php?tid=401155&extra=page%3D1&page=2

Anymore details on this weapon?
[/b]

not sure about this missile, but it seems likes similar to this one

Krasnopol



http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/krasnopol.htm

Originally posted by huaichien:

What is housed inside that very long tailboom?

it is Radar warning receiver L150

http://www.chinapress.com.my/content_new.asp?dt=2007-09-01&sec=mas&art=0901m41a24.txt

weight = 10-15KG
range = 20-22km
idea start from 1998, R&D start during 2000 will complete testing year 2008

is 155mm laser guide artillery shell.......







pics credit to naga_mas from http://forum.cari.com.my/viewthread.php?tid=295873&extra=page%3D1&page=4

Jernas




G5


Astross

found this picture during NDP rehearsal for this coming 31st August









PT-91M...... 4 on the road and 2 on the transport truck

credit to Tosee from http://forum3.cari.com.my/viewthread.php?tid=211427&extra=page%3D1&page=66









Su30MKM during hand-over ceremony at Subang

Originally posted by cydus21:

even RSAF announce their options.. i think even if RMAF has options, it wun be alot. like 20 su30.. how much option can there be.. and looking at the amount of operational ready planes they have now, it is just ridiculous.

16 mig29 less than half are operational
su30 only 2 came and i bet it will take them ages to get them operational
8 f18 hornets which are not usable for war
14 F5
the rest are like bae hawk and Aermacchi MB-339

they have alot of transport planes thou

wrong info....... RMAF already received 6 of Su30MKM, 2 by Antonov and balance 4 by direct flight from Irkust.........

August 10, 2007 16:22 PM

Najib: RMAF Must Fully Exploit Sukhoi Su-30MKM Capability

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 10 (Bernama) -- The Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) needs to utilise the state-of-the-art technology of the new multi-role combat aircraft, Sukhoi Su-30MKM, in enhancing its combat effectiveness and overcoming limited resources.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the addition of this modern aircraft, a highly agile multi-role air fighter which could be effective as a strike and offensive capable aircraft, "augments the frontline combat capability of RMAF towards a balanced force development to enhance the national defence capability".

Najib, who is also Defence Minister, was speaking at the handing over of the Sukhoi Su-30MKM flight log book to him by Victor Komardin, the deputy director of Russia's Rosoboronexport, the manufacturer of Sukhoi, at the RMAF base in Subang, near here, Friday.

He said the handing over of the flight book signified another milestone in RMAF's modernisation programme to maintain combat capability.

"This is in line with the government's efforts to strike a reasonable balance between maintaining and sustaining the country's present capability and procuring new war fighting systems.

"What the RMAF lacks in size must be made up for with cutting-edge technological sophistication. Malaysia's new acquisitions are specifically a commitment to sustain and improve a well-balanced conventional force," he added.

Najib said the handing over of the Su-30MKM also marked continued good bilateral relations between Malaysia and Russia.

He said the cooperation that began with the MiG-29N deliveries in the 1990's which had now been supplemented by the Sukhoi aircraft with their greater range and powerful armament, was evidence of Russia's readiness to develop further cooperation with Malaysia, especially in the field of high technology.

In May 2003, Malaysia ordered 18 Sukhois at RM3.42 billion. Six of the aircraft had been received since June this year and are based at the RMAF base in Gong Kedak at the Kelantan-Terengganu border.

Meanwhile, RMAF chief Jen Tan Sri Azizan Ariffin said the Sukhoi squadron would be fully operational by the end of next year, and currently four pilots were undergoing training in Russia and more would be sent there after the first batch completed their course.

-- BERNAMA

Originally posted by ninefold9:

Could these be 2nd World War tanks which Poland was trying hard to dispose off with huge discount offers.

At one time M'sia was expressing interest in acquiring them but citing lack of fund. They even talked about paying through installments and supplementing the deal with vast supplies of M'sia's palm oil.

If indeed these are World World II tanks, there is a possibility that they were built with Russian technology. The weaponry technology is out-dated for use today. Furthermore, they were meant for cold climatic European countries - O Kay for cold countries like Poland but not hot tropical countries in S.E. Asia.

Bringing them over to M'sia, the military engineers may need to come out with a solution to install cool air-conditioning system, or else soldiers inside the tanks will be barbequed to death. Mitsui air-cond system from Protons can be considered.

In cutting down costs, some wise nuts might consider reconfiguring the system in such a way that cheap palm oil can be used in place of the more expensive high grade petrol to power the tanks. After all M'sia is known as one of the world's biggest exporters of palm oil.

Hopefully these tanks will not leak in water, like those in which ex-president Habibe purchased out-dated World War II tanks from Germany. On its maiden journey to Indonesia some of these tanks leaked in water and reportedly sunk into oceans.

Be sure that these tanks won't end up as museum pieces

please do your research first before posting...........

Originally posted by caksz:

The blue thingy could be a roit police variants

http://www.primeportal.net/apc/peter_van_iren/ypr-765_kmar/

I'll believe they called the KIFV version as MIFV and the Turkish version
as ADNAN

u're rite..........

Thx & nice shot........

BTW, it's IFV....... type AVC300 Adnan with 25mm Bushmaster.......

2 SU30-MKM with complete package is better than 2 SU-27 + 2 SU30-MK that doesn't have any missile ........... don't know about the radars..............

last I heard, only 4 Indon's F16 are able to fly due the embargo........... what the hecked.........

Originally posted by Black Aces:

Frankly, I don't think Russian aircraft is customised to wire-up and equip with a NATO weapon.

I mean, one don't expect a Sidewinder or Sparrow (or even AMRAAM) or Harpoon to be fitted to a MiG or SU w/o no difficulty and surely Sukhoi will not go the extra mile to enable its products to carry a non-Russian weapon.

I have seen pics of Iraqi MiG-23 & IAF MiG-21 carrying Magic, and such ability was done in-house (by the operator's own industry) not by the Russian manufacturer. Even when the RMAF SU-30 is carrying French systems on board, this Western component is perhaps more superior than its Russian equivalent or allowing superior Radar detection, but mind you, this does not necessarily equate to the ability to carry a NATO weapon on a non-NATO platform....unless AIROD can surprise us?

true but not for SU30-MKM, this customized plane either can carry russian missile it also be able to use NATO missile......

Flight International 5/6/2007

Malaysian air force goes multirole with new Su-30s
By Vladimir Karnozov

Malaysia has accepted its first two of 18 Sukhoi Su-30MKM multirole fighters at NPK Irkut's aviation plant in Irkutsk, Siberia. Six aircraft will be shipped to the country during June and July, says Irkut president Oleg Demchenko, with another six to follow in October and November and the final batch to be delivered in the second half of 2008.

Acquired under a $900 million-plus deal, the aircraft are based on the Indian air force's Su-30MKI, but use French and Russian-sourced avionics, targeting and electronic warfare equipment in place of Indian and Israeli technology. Malaysia is considering buying Thales's TopSight helmet-mounted display and MBDA's Mica medium-range air-to-air missile to equip its new aircraft, but will initially use Russian-supplied equipment.

How’s good ESSM compare to ASTER…....?

Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JUNE 20, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malaysia poised to bring ESSM aboard new frigates
Richad Scott Jane's Naval Consultant
London

Cost considerations are believed to have favoured the selection of ESSM
BAE Systems is looking to sign a contract for the frigate programme by the end of 2007

Malaysia looks set to equip its second batch of Jebat-class frigates with the Raytheon RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) after the US weapon was selected ahead of MBDA's rival Aster 15 missile system.

The move, which remains subject to contract, would mark a significant success for Raytheon given that the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) has historically turned to MBDA for the supply of naval guided weapons.

BAE Systems received a letter of intent from the Malaysian government in July 2006 confirming plans to acquire two Batch 2 Jebat-class frigates from its Clyde-based shipbuilding subsidiary BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions. The company will deliver the so-called Project 'Brave' programme - valued at about GBP700 million (USD1.4 billion) - in conjunction with Malaysian industry partner RealMild, owner of the Lebuan Shipbuilding and Engineering (LSE) yard in Sabah.

A contract award is expected later in 2007, possibly to coincide with the LIMA 2007 defence and aerospace exhibition on Langkawi Island, Malaysia, in December.

The first two Jebat-class frigates, delivered to the RMN in 1999, were equipped with the MBDA VL Seawolf point-defence missile system. However, the staff requirement for the two follow-on frigates specified a more capable and longer-range local area air-defence system.

The anti-air missile system was the last major equipment choice outstanding for the Batch 2 frigate programme, with Raytheon Missile Systems and MBDA Missile Systems locked in a fierce dual for the last year. It is understood that while ESSM formed part of the original technical and commercial baseline presented to the RMN by BAE Systems, the customer subsequently endorsed Aster 15 as its preferred technical option after conducting its own performance evaluation and scenario modelling.

However, the increased acquisition and integration costs associated with Aster 15 pushed the overall price of the frigate programme significantly above the RMN's budget ceiling. Industry sources have told Jane's that this affordability issue has now seen ESSM reinstated as part of the finalised combat system configuration, with each frigate expected to receive eight Raytheon Mk 56 dual-pack vertical launchers (for a total of 16 ESSM missiles). It is thought that the ships will each be fitted with two continuous wave illuminator-equipped Saab Ceros 200 radar/electro-optical trackers for ESSM guidance and semi-active illumination.

The decision in favour of ESSM was the last outstanding major equipment selection for the Batch 2 frigates. Other key systems previously selected are believed to include a variant of the BAE Systems Integrated System Technologies CMS-1 combat management system, the Thales Nederland SMART-S Mk 2 E/F-band multibeam radar and the Thales Underwater Systems Captas Nano low-frequency active/passive towed array sonar.

BAE Systems has refused to discuss the outcome of equipment selections for Project 'Brave'. In a statement, the company said that contract negotiations "are progressing well and are ongoing", but added that it was "inappropriate for BAE Systems to comment further".

Raytheon and MBDA also refused to comment on the missile selection outcome.

Although the technical specification for the Batch 2 Jebat ships is now mature, negotiations are continuing between BAE Systems, RealMild and the Malaysian government to finalise industrial arrangements for the programme. These talks are addressing a range of commercial issues, including the extent of LSE's role in the construction and assembly of the frigates.

hmmmm.......... can't imagine the Hornet can fired Kh-59E.........

sometimes, we must realize not all are publish to public…. that’s why we call it ‘secret weapon’.......... in other words, don’t underestimate our enemy…......

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

How on earth the TNI are going to get their assets onto mainland Malaysia, and supply them to fight a war in the first place is a question left to be answered.

by sampan lor......... MAF fighter will disable all TNI-AU and TNI-AL in the first place when war break-out........

http://alert5.com/2007/05/rmaf-su-30mkm-rollout-video.html

RMAF Takes Delivery Of Sukhoi SU-30MKM Fighter Aircraft
http://www.bernama.com.my/
From Mohd Haikal Mohd Isa

IRKUTSK (Russia), May 23 (Bernama) -- After a four-year wait, the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) will take delivery of two Sukhoi SU-30MKM multi-role fighter aircraft Thursday.

They will be the first two of 18 aircraft ordered by Malaysia in May 2003, being the most sophisticated aircraft of its kind in Southeast Asia.

Chief of Air Force Jen Datuk Seri Azizan Ariffin and Defence Ministry Secretary-General Tan Sri Ahmad Latffi Hashim will receive the aircraft on behalf of the Malaysian government at the Irkut Aircraft Corporation manufacturing plant here.

Malaysia and the Russian government agency, Rosoboronexport, signed a US$900 million (RM3.4 billion) contract for 18 Sukhoi Su-30MKM (Modernizirovannyi Kommercheskiy Malaysia or Modernised Commercial Malaysia) aircraft.

In return for the purchase, Russia agreed to train and send a Malaysian astronaut to the International Space Station (ISS).

The 16 other Su-30MKM aircraft will be delivered to Malaysia in stages up to the middle of next year.

Other than Malaysia, the Indonesian Air Force has two Su-27 and eight Su-30MK2 aircraft while Vietnam has four Su-30 and 12 Su-27 aircraft.

Defence analysts believe, however, that the Su-30MKM and a similar version, the Su-30 MKI, used by the Indian Air Force are the most modern Su-30 aircraft in the market.

Although the Su-30 aircraft of the RMAF and the Indian Air Force are the same, the electronic equipment and avionics used by the aircraft are different, for political reasons.

India's aircraft are equipped with systems produced by Israel while Malaysia, which does not have diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, uses electronic and avionics systems from France, India and South Africa for the Su-30MKM.

RMAF's two-seater Su-30MKM aircraft are equipped with the thrust vectoring control (TVC) engine system and two small wings by the side of the pilot's seat called "canard" for maximum air movement.

The TVC engine system relates to the control of the nozzle movement and vectoring for determining movement in the air.

Maximum movement in the air is a factor that determines whether the aircraft can defeat the enemy during aerial combats or dogfights.

The Su-30MKMs can fly for 4.5 hours covering 3,000 km with a normal fuel tank but with inflight refuelling, the time and distance can be extended to 10 hours and 8,000 km.

The ability to operate over long distances is important to RMAF as Malaysia is vast with undulating landscape and the peninsula is separated from Sabah and Sarawak by the South China Sea.

In addition, Malaysia also has oil platforms owned by Petronas and its production-sharing contract partners, not only close to shore but also in deep-sea areas.

The ability to safeguard oil resources is important not only to check external threats but also ensure that the nation's sovereignty is not questioned by other countries.

Defence analysts believe that the delivery to RMAF of the Su-30MKM aircraft that can cover long distances has shifted the balance of power in Southeast Asia.

The fighter aircraft can fly at Mach 2 and can carry about eight tonnes of weapons in 12 storage centres or "hardpoints" in the lower portion of the aircraft.

The Su-30MKM aircraft will be equipped with air-to-air, air-to-land and anti-radiation missiles, for destruction of electronic equipment like radar, and laser-guided bombs.

They are also equipped with high-powered radar of the "NO11M Bars" type that can detect up to 15 enemy targets and attack four of them simultaneously.

The "Bars" radar enable the aircraft to detect ships from 400 km away and smaller vessels from 120 km off.

The ability to detect targets from afar using high-powered radar enables the Su-30MKM jet-fighters to double up as early warning aircraft.

-- BERNAMA