Yes china will still send coast guard ships regularly, but they won't go all the way to steal our oil platforms or arrest malaysian fishermen's fishing just a few miles outside bintulu.

Something out of the box for deterrence and second strike capability

https://therestlesstechnophile.com/2021/02/...sistent-strike/

The premise of unmanned submarine strike capability is to have underwater strike capability by missiles such as NSM that can strike naval and land targets at a cost lower than a conventional manned submarine like our scorpenes.

it would be good for a large UUV with similar range to the scorpenes while carrying 2x the missiles. something at a cost like 1/3 of rhe scorpenes. So rather than 3 additional scorpene, we could get 9 large attack UUVs.

unmanned tech is really pushing down costs. for example the latest Kratos UCAV just cost around 2-3 million dollars each.

Since it's capable of BVR out of the box with 7 or something jet being free.

I have answered you (which i was talking about unmanned submarines) and i have given the numbers if you understand what i am writing about (about the submarine UUV)

This will give normal missiles with 300km range able to be given say 2000km range. Enabling nations like malaysia without ballistic missiles a serious long range strike capability

As stealthy missile carriers for second strike capability. something that can lurk underwater and launch a salvo of NSM missiles to the enemy naval base for example.

whose naval base? anyone that attacks us first and steal our EEZ. If china, then it would be Sanya on Hainan

https://thediplomat.com/2017/03/chinas-most...-military-base/

to accomplish a deterrence capability. An essential element in successful deterrence is a degree of uncertainty on the part of a would-be aggressor as to whether the target power, although attacked and badly damaged, will nonetheless retaliate—even at the risk of suffering further, crippling damage in a second attack.
NSM is for the unmanned underwater vehicle UUV.

Taurus is on the unmanned combat aerial vehicle UCAV.

because you say it is impossible for 2000km when i was talking about UCAV.

Don't know.
Leonardo the one that claim theirs are BVR capable
Use the same radar as Gripen C, can use Rafale targeting pod.
And unlike KAI, already have a finish product that's already being sold to Turkmenistan.

Tell me what major wars does american drones managed to kill numerous tanks, artillery, missile launchers worth 1 billion dollars?

Like i said. It's was the Korean news that's claim FA50 is not the Frontline contender since it doesn't have BVR capabilities.

As far as I know most news still report that the FA50 is still incapable of shooting amraam.

So you feel UAVs are useless?

What is your gameplan if malaysia is to go for your jammer plans?

The most important role for UAVs is not killing, but situational awareness and information gathering.

Knowing the pattern of life of your area of operations.

knowing all the electronic emissions of the area.

gathering AIS informations of ships.

It would be useful above james shoal as is on the sulu seas.

Well that's the only source that's free to read and freely available.

Like i said, am not really a military junkie.

Comparing M346 AJT to FA-50 is not apple to apple
It should be conparing M346FA to FA-50

Btw, 90% is about air policing not combat capability.
Do you want to say FA-50 only 10% less capability than F-35 too?
Read carefully lah....

Until when we are going to sacrifice malaysian military strength for other irrelevant needs? until we lost our independence again?

just buy a new build of hawk...

Is it worth to buy it?
Why not buy the real MRCA?

...

Why Korea need to develop KFX if their plan to upgrade FA-50 is so great?

Do you even know what MRCA definition is?
The word combat should get you into something

Like you said, then the existing FA-50 wont fit the need with all the upgrade plan they have

That's why i said typical prices.

Poland purchase additional m346 at 38 mil each but RAAF bought the full package for 35 mil each

If it's possible there's no need for Philippines to purchase either the F16V or Gripen C and just upgrade their FA50 software considering the limited budget they have.

the possibility that US is the one blocking amraam integration with FA50 to safeguard their jet sales is quite high. It is in US interest afterall everyone is using their avionics and thus they have a say in what each country would, could & should do. Doubt the US going to sit idle and let the Korean backdoors them and get rich by delivering freedom of choice to others country.

TUDM can do the same, FA-50 as the LCA to replace our hawks and MB-339, and take up MiG-29 tasks, while the KFX as the MMRCA to replace our Hornets.

...

Actually currently the Phillipine government for now wants to buy the Gripen C because it is cheaper than the F-16V, which is unfortunate as there is very little difference in performance between FA-50 and Gripen C, especially compared to the upgraded FA-50 Block 20.

Which is why I have asked, for the same amount of money, can we afford not to get the FA-50 block 20?
12 TA-50 at 30 million dollars each = 360 million dollars

24 FA-50 at 35 million dollars each = 840 million dollars

total of 1.2 billion dollars.

Currently we have 5 Hawk 2 seater + 7 unoperational MB-339CM 2 seater.

12 TA-50 is enough.

Our LCA/LIFT requirement is for 36 aircraft in total, so 35 million per aircraft is possible.