The End Is Near

Reutech Rogue RWS with a 12.7mm machine gun on an ACV Gempita.

SHAH ALAM: The End is Near. It appears that the Gempita 8X8 production is reaching the end. Denel, one of the biggest suppliers for the programme announced last week that it had supplied the 100th turret from the 122 ordered by Deftech.

The programme would have been completed last year but with a financially mandated slow down of the deliveries, it is likely the last Gempita would roll off the production line by 2021. It must be noted that Denel is only supplying the turrets for 177 vehicles only out of the 259 Gempita contracted to Deftech. Two of these are R&D vehicles with only 257 to be put into service

Gempita AFV30 ATGW

From the 257, 46 is the IFV25 variant, the one fitted with the FNSS Sharpshooter turret with a 25 mm ATK M242 cannon and FN MAG 7.62 mm machinegun. The other 34 is likely to be armed with the FN MAG machine gun only.

Gempita AFV30 variant of 1 Kor Armor Di Raja seen at the Kuantan airbase at the PAT first order on Jan 24, 2017.

From Denel.

Denel is delivering the 100th modular turret for armoured vehicles used by the Malaysian armed forces in terms of a multi-million rand export contract.

“This is an historic and significant achievement which again demonstrates our leadership role in landward defence and Denel’s capacity to produce advanced technology systems for both the local and international markets,” says Mxolisi Makhatini, the CEO of Denel Landward.

The Euro 342-million contract is the largest export contract in Denel’s history. South Africa’s small and medium defence manufacturers have been amongst the largest beneficiaries of the contract, as Denel has had to procure millions of rands worth of equipment and services from domestic suppliers in order to meet its contractual obligations. At a time when the local economy has been contracting, the direct benefit to the local defence industry underlies Denel’s importance to the South African manufacturing industry and its position as a productive national asset, which contributes to generating export revenue and jobs in the manufacturing sector.

“We are extremely proud of what we have achieved in Malaysia. Despite Denel’s constrained liquidity position and significant changes that the organisation is undergoing, we have managed to stay focused and deliver the 100th turret out 122 to our client as per specification and schedule and to execute almost 98% of our Offset obligation to date. Not only this, but we have built an excellent working relationship with our Malaysian partners and we intend to build on this as we explore further export opportunities in emerging markets,” he says.

In terms of the contract, Denel Land Systems supplies 177 modular turrets in four variants that are fitted onto the Malaysian AV8 vehicles as well as 216 laser-guided Ingwe anti-tank missiles.

The contract deliverables consist of:

-69 armoured fighting vehicle turrets fitted with GI30 30mm cannons
-54 missile turrets with combined GI30 cannons and Ingwe missiles
-54 remotely-operated weapon systems

Makhatini says the Malaysian contract has been a breakthrough for Denel as it established turret manufacturing outside of the country based on South African design and intellectual property. The variants were developed to meet the specific requirements of the client, which needs the product to be utilised in tropical and jungle conditions.

The contract requires the integration of products from some 13 different original equipment manufacturers to ensure seamless functionality. This is achieved through solid project management and sound governance in line with international best practice.

“Denel has contributed to technology transfer, capability and vendor development as well as skills transfer to ensure that it is able to meet its contractual obligations.

“Throughout the delivery process we have been able to uphold the high standards, product quality and professionalism that Denel is renowned for,” he says.

\

On The Way…Ingwe missile leaving its box launcher from the AFV30 ATGW.

Based on the above it is likely Denel supplied 122 turrets directly to Deftech with another 55 were assembled by the company or its associate company.

Spent cartridges flies out from the Sharshooter turret on the IFV 25 Gempita variant.

Anyhow I have been told that the Army has no plans for new Gempita in the near future. And a 6X6 or 4X4 variant (HMPV) of the Gempita must be part of a procurement project under the RMK plan. If the Army decides to get new vehicles for both projects, it is likely sayonara for the production of military vehicles in Pekan. That said the plant went into doldrums in the early 2000 after the end of the Adnan and other military vehicles production, only to be upgraded in 2011 to prepare for the Gempita programme.

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1151 Articles
Shah Alam

43 Comments

  1. Personally I’m not surprised. Even before the news on the 6x6s my guess was that the army would be contend with the AV-8 numbers it has for now and would next focus elsewhere.

  2. The army has no plans for further gempitas? Why do we even get the gempita in the 1st place if it is to equip just 1 mechanized infantry battalion?

    I really want to know what is the army plan for RMK12 and RMK13 from 2021-2030. What kind of hodgepodge plan do they have actually?

    I am waiting for the DWP to be published. Then my own take on the future army plan.

    BTW some of the important take from the announcement.
    1) the turrets and ATGMs cost Euro 342 million.
    2) 216 ingwe ATGM is included in the contract
    3) The Reutech Rogue RCWS is part of the denel contract.

    @ azlan

    You shift your focus elsewhere not at the halfway point.

  3. with this,hope we will buy off shelves and not producing it in country for near future with our market so small,defense industry so slow and cant compete with neighbor price or tech. hope HMPV will be a good start for the army.

  4. There is supposed to be 78 IFV30 variant. Why is there just 69 armoured fighting vehicle turrets in the contract?

    Seems that 9 IFV30 variant has been converted into other types. What is it? Any latest info on the 257 configurations? Is the ARV variant really cancelled?

  5. ….. – “You shift your focus elsewhere not at the halfway point.”

    In reality maybe but look at the past few decades. After achieving a certain “mass”
    the army always shifts its attention to others areas; same with the Adnans and other things.

    Also if indeed we’ve reached the “halfway point” (to quote you) with the AV-8s: what about the other areas in which the needed investment hasn’t been made, i.e. stuff arty, air defence, engineering, etc, all stuff which is vital and part of the equation given the AV-8s (or anything else) don’t operate in a vacuum.

    Given it has a whole lift of other priorities which also need to be addressed and that funds are tight; I hardly find it surprising or unreasonable that after getting an initial batch of AV-8s it has decided to focus on other areas which also need attention.

    …. – “Why do we even get the gempita in the 1st place if it is to equip just 1 mechanized infantry battalion”

    We decided on a new generation IFV but plans were only approved for ‘x’ number and it was a political decision to select the
    AV-8 and to have it locally assembled here. It was always the army’s plans (like with Adnan) to order an initial batch and to progressively increase numbers over the years. That was and is the plan.

    Your feelings on the AV-8 are well known but nowhere is it written in stone or holy writ that that army has absolutely no plans for anymore AV-8s; its just means that that focus for the near future is elsewhere. Note that there was a repeat order of 48 Adnans some years after deliveries of the initial batch were completed.

    …. – “What kind of hodgepodge plan do they have actually”

    “Hodgepodge” is not the right word as things can be very subjective and the army has pretty well thought plans (even though some might not agree based on personal preferences) on what it needs to focus on next. Apart from the 6x6s I’ve been told that some focus (assuming these long registered requirements are even approved) is to be placed on arty, GAPU and support elements.

  6. …. – “The Reutech Rogue RCWS is part of the denel contract”

    I always assumed it was procured as part of the overall Denel deal, even though it may have been produced by a different entity.

  7. @ azlan

    ” what about the other areas in which the needed investment hasn’t been made, i.e. stuff arty, air defence, engineering, etc, all stuff which is vital and part of the equation given the AV-8s (or anything else) don’t operate in a vacuum ”

    Yes, i am aware that the gempita is not all there is for the army. Too short to explain all my thoughts now.

  8. @…

    it says no plans for the >!”NEAR FUTURE”!<. it doesn't say no plans for more av-8 forever.

    GG comprehension.

  9. @ neb

    All the manufacturing facilities, all the human knowledge will be need to be reset if the 2nd batch is not continued in the near future.

    This is also applicable to the gowinds SGPV. Many of those involved in the Kedah class for example has moved on or outright retired.

    Reply
    I was told that anyone who were involved in the Kedah class were excluded from the LCS as the new management believed they had nothing to offer to the new programme

  10. By making this press release, Denel seem to indicate they have nothing yet in the pipeline once these existing orders are fulfilled.

  11. …. – “Yes, i am aware that the gempita is not all there is for the army”

    Right (glad you’re aware) so it’s perfectly understandable why the army might want to devote resources to other areas. Nice to have AV-8s in numbers but there are other assets that are needed to operate alongside or in support of those AV-8s.

  12. Remember that the army expected twice as many AV8s for what they paid.

    Shit happened along the way.

    You can throw more money in, or accept what has happened and reassess priorities.

    Remember the sunk cost fallacy principle.

    Reply
    Where do you get the idea the Army wanted more Gempita in the first place. Gempita was not bought to replace the Condors

  13. The cancellation of the M-109s means that the army’s long standing requirement for a SPH is still unrealised. Whether it still intends for both a tracked and wheeled solution remains to be seen and it’s still unknown whether it was forced to go for the M-109s because it had decided on a tracked option or because a decision was made for it.

    Personally I feel we should stick to either a tracked or wheeled solution and not have it both ways. If we had gone ahead with the M-109s and still gone for a wheeled SPH; we would have been in the stupid position of having 3 different 155mms in service. The whole rationale in having something like Caesar is
    that it has a much lower footprint compared to a tracked SPH and is less of a hassle to move by air.

    If however we were to base a 155mm regiment in Sabah there would be less of a need for a wheeled option. I’ve never been completely sold on the idea of something being air transportable – whether IFVs or arty. Looks great on a brochure but in reality moving just a battery of arty or a squadron of IFVs (as well as crews, ammo and other needed stuff) will take quite a number of sorties: assuming the needed aircraft were available.

    Another long-standing requirement is a medium range system for GAPU. Now logic dictates we get something that won’t cost an arm and leg to integrate to what we currently have but if a Malaysian company has its way a few years ago, GAPU would have received a Chinese system. With the new government in place it’s safe to say the Chinese option is probably dead.

    Still on air defence, it’s interesting to speculate if the Artillery Directorate still sees a future for guns in our scheme of things. Given the proliferation of UASs and the fact that guns can’t be jammed and are cheaper (but also getting increasingly more expensive) than misfile systems; on paper GAPU will probably still have a requirement for guns to replace the Oerlikons. Mounted on a vehicle or towed? Guns only or a gun/MANPADs combo in a stabilised turret with an alerting device?

  14. Azlan “The whole rationale in having something like Caesar is that it has a much lower footprint compared to a tracked SPH and is less of a hassle to move by air.”

    It can also move cross country by road without a tank transporter.

    Marhalim “Where do you get the idea the Army wanted more Gempita in the first place. Gempita was not bought to replace the Condors.”

    Yet it can’t be said with certainty that the army didn’t ask for more units than were approved.

    In any case, I think what Chua meant is the army didn’t expect the Gempita to cost so much per unit and consequently take up so much of its budget.

  15. @Marhalim
    “Where do you get the idea the Army wanted more Gempita in the first place. Gempita was not bought to replace the Condors”

    Was mentioned way back during evaluation process of ROSOMAK etc

    Something like ~550-600 vehicles were the requirements projected by the Army

    Reply
    Give me a link to that document

  16. For the total project cost of RM9 billion, if we bought off the shelf, we would have gotten atleast 400 vehicles. I don’t think we should go into defense related industries unless our defense budget is doubled

  17. @ marhalim

    So what is the benefit of the ToT actually?

    For the gowinds it is about taking people from a previous programme. For the gempita it is about the continuity of the skills, knowledge, experience of the manpower resources from batch 1 to batch 2.

    @ azlan

    On the gempita batch 2. Actually for me it does not matter what kind of 8×8 it is, as long as the same 8×8 IFV is procured in sufficient quantity to equip our cavalry units and 1 brigade of mechanized infantry. Having just 1 mechanized infantry battalion on 8×8 IFV will not fully exploit the advantages a 8×8 wheeled IFV can provide.

    On resources for other items. Of cource we need to improve on other capabilities too. But what is the priority of the army? Some other things that needs attention
    1) individual soldier equipments. Uniform, plate carriers, load allevation systems, backpacks
    2) 105mm howitzers
    3) 155mm SPH
    4) atgm recapitalisation
    5) gapu recapitalisation
    6) cyber systems
    7) EW systems
    8) anti-uav capabilities
    9) nuri recapitalisation
    10) combat engineering capabilities

    Reply
    Thats why I am not so keen on this TOT nonsense, first we dont spend enough money on defence to justify the investment.

  18. “not so keen on this TOT nonsense”
    Unfortunately, ToT is for the politicians to justify with the general public for spending billions of sums onto equipment the average joe rarely sees except during Merdeka or LIMA, and which we hope not to use for their actual purposes. when we have influential politicians making hay about the need to invest in modernising the Armed Forces when we’re not at war with anyone, it is understandable the government of the day will be under pressure to justify the expenditure.

  19. Chua – “Something like ~550-600 vehicles were the requirements projected by the Army”

    That was during a different period; under a different leadership. The figure might be accurate but it is a projected on paper requirement.

    … – “But what is the priority of the army”

    From what I’ve heard – amongst other things – it’s arty, medium range SAM, etc. Now that deliveries of the AV-8 are near completion; there’s also some level of interest in a regiment’s worth of a new gen MBT (driven by certain dissatisfaction with the PT-91 and the realisation that an upgrade won’t be cost effective in the long run, nor will it solve all major issues). Of course these are paper requirements – what actually gets approved and qualifies for funding is a different matter.

    …. – “r me it does not matter what kind of 8×8 it is, as long as the same 8×8 IFV is procured in sufficient quantity”

    That sounds like me and the MRCAs in that doesn’t matter what we buy given that it’s not the actual platform that counts but as long as it’s networked.

    AM – “Yet it can’t be said with certainty that the army didn’t ask for more units than were approved”

    Of course it did – that’s how things work. Whether it’s arty or fighters or 4x4s always ask for slightly more in the knowledge that the bean counters will scrutinise and cut back on numbers. The plan was and is to progressively get “x” number; not a large number in in one go.

    AM – “In any case, I think what Chua meant is the army didn’t expect the Gempita to cost so“

    Given the costs associated with setting up production/assembly facilities and the fact that the AV-8 is equipped with various high end systems (from the turrets to the optics to the NBC system); the army has a very good idea as to the total costs involved.

  20. … – “So what is the benefit of the ToT actually?”

    Whether it was with the AUGs, AV-8 or the Kedahs the aim is always the same : to improve the local industry by enabling it to gain some level of know how from foreign technology providers, to enable the production of parts/components (ToTs as part of an off set agreement like with the Hawks and A4000Ms) and to create jobs. Of course how effective all this is in the long run is highly questionable as we don’t have economics of scale, almost everything needed for production has to be imported and it’s the tax payer who ends up footing the bill.

    Like everything else it’s also politics. The LCS deal was easier – compared to MRCA – to sell as it benefited BNS in a big way (in terms on revenue and obtained technology that supposedly would lead to less foreign reliance in the future) and created jobs.

  21. @Marhalim

    It was discussed here.

    This is a copy of a Malay Mail article, no longer available

    http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2010/04/naza-bumar-sdn-bhd-offering-rosomak-8×8.html

    It says here 500 8x8s but I got the 600 figure from the number of Condor and Sibmas then said to be operating, which were to be replaced by AV8.

    @Azlan
    Yes, I’m sure you remember the AV8 contract announcement was quite a shock to all.

    I did not read defence news at the time but I’ve since reread some back issues. Sadly newspaper articles dating back to then are no longer available on the web.

    Reply
    It is likely the MM story copy pasted by the website was an article written by me as I was the only reporter at the Malay Mail who wrote about the defence stories. Anyhow the figures quoted was the estimate of the industry that need replacing at that point. It must be noted that although the Condor replacement programme was already in the planning, the AV8 was meant for different roles and to complement the tracked vehicles. As it is one can surmise d that the AV8 replaced the Sibmas as basically most of the vehicles has been retired though a small number remained in service with Unifil contingent as a recovery vehicle.

  22. @ kamal

    Based on marhalims previous reports here, the total cost was RM7.5 billion in 2011. At the time the exchange rate was about 3.2 to the dollar.

    But when you compare to say the omani contract, that cost includes the larger and more expensive 30mm turrets, all the missiles, VINGTAQs mast, NBC recce version and of course the factory equipments and ToT. Well not to say it is a good price paid for the equipment, but we already paid for it, and would be a waste just to let all the capability wither by not going for a 2nd batch.

    @ azlan

    ” That sounds like me and the MRCAs ”
    There is a difference, we have not bought our MRCAs yet, but we already bought the Gempitas.

    ” From what I’ve heard – amongst other things ”
    All of the things listed should be attended to in the future. But in what way? IMO getting a token force of new items is not the way to go. As the malays say ” alang-alang menyeluk pekasam, biar sampai ke pangkal lengan “. Then what is the priority of each item? Something of a low priority does not need to be the highest state of the art. The finnish military has a saying, ” something that performs 80% of the requirement but half the cost is better than something that performs 100% of the requirement but at twice the cost ”

    Btw a nice picture of the 120mm mortar variant of the gempita. Clearly it is one of the variants without any turrets or RCWS.
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6wvEogKfiG4/XXkx0Z6tv9I/AAAAAAABx94/Ci04l0qRiDc3eeh13BYERVDad0PH38XNwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/67327144_656031861583404_355993344159131057_n.jpg

    Reply
    The cost includes also the BMS.

  23. @ chua

    Rather than talking about what the gempita was supposed to replace, lets talk about what the army was planning. It was to convert the 3th Division into an armoured division.

    The condors has 2 main role. 1st is the APC role for the mechanized infantry battalions. 2nd is cavalry role (fire support, recce) in the cavalry regiments.

    The role in the mechanized infantry battalions has been filled mainly by the adnan/MIFVs. Right now there is 1 odd battalion, the 19 RAMD is the only one on wheels with the gempita.

    For the cavalry regiments, the gempita has replaced the functions of SIBMAS. But the quantity of gempitas cannot replace the condors in the cavalry regiments.

    So now lets see how many gempitas we need and can afford.

    Lets go back to the 3rd Division. To convert the division into an armoured division. It consists of
    1st brigade
    4th brigade mechanized
    7th brigade

    There is still 2 brigade worth of vehicles neee to be aquired. Can it be all gempita? We cannot afford it! So what can we do? My suggestion
    1st brigade to be fully tracked
    4th brigade to be fully wheeled IFV (gempitas)
    7th brigade with low cost HMPV (probably condors as intrim vehicle)

    So each brigade consists of
    1st brigade
    2 mbt (pt91+mifv)
    2 adnan
    4th brigade
    1 gempita mech
    1 gempita cavalry
    2 more gempita cavalry
    7th brigade
    3 more HMPV

    So to fully transform 3rd division into a fully armoured division, we need an additional
    2 battalion worth of gempita IFV25
    3 battalion worth of HMPV
    1 regiment of PT-91M

    IMO can be done, in addition to the other needs.

  24. …. – “There is a difference, we have not bought our MRCAs yet, but we already bought the”

    Obviously …… but what’s your point exactly? You asked about ToTs and I merely provided an example of how ToTs can make certain things easier to politically justify.

    Justifying stuff that can be produced/assembled locally and which includes offsets, which in turn includes ToTs; as well as providing jobs is easier to do. Compare that to buying fighters in which there is little or minimal benefits for the local industry.

    … – “ IMO getting a token force of new items is not the way to go. As the malays say ” alang-alang menyeluk pekasam, biar sampai ke pangkal lengan”

    Again plainly obviously but look at things in the proper context. What else are the armed services supposed to do when funding is so tight and when priorities are always shifting subject to politics and other uncertainties? Naturally, given the circumstance faced they will try to achieve and maintain some level of capability or deterrence; ensuring that although they can’t deal with serious state on state threats against actors who spend much more; they at least have some level of capability. In the case of the army since the 1990’s it has made quite steady progress in its modernisation efforts : MBT regiment, mechanised brigade, jump qualified brigade, GAPU, air wing, MLRSs, heavy arty, ATGWs, bridging systems, etc, etc.

    The problem is consistency and the associated problems caused by funding or rather the lack of it. This is exactly what I meant a long time ago when I mentioned the “a bit of everything but not enough of anything” conundrum we’re in. Note that it’s not uncommon for the government to a actually decide what should be a priority or not.

    As I’ve said numerous times : we need a total revamp of the way we go about things; everything, from our overall attitude towards defence to our ineffectual and disastrous procurement policy.

    The MAF is a product of our society as a whole. If we can’t learn from our mistakes and can’t afford to provide those tasked with defending us the right tools; what does it say about how far we’ve progressed as a nation since 1957?

    …. – “, but we already paid for it, and would be a waste just to let all the capability wither by not going for a 2nd batch”

    So you keep saying but the same applied to the Adnan, Kedahs and AUGs. In the case of the Adnan and AUGs there were repeat orders and we hope this will be the case with the LCS sooner rather than later. With the AV-8s there is no intention of a repeat order anytime soon but it’s not written in stone that there never will be.

    It’s just that after getting it’s initial
    AV-8s the army feels that it’s enough for its current needs and has decided for the near future to address other areas : full stop/period. The production/assembly facilities are not going anywhere and will still be there and open in a few years time for a repeat order; as was the case with Adnan. If indeed there will never be a repeat order then we can say that whole exercise was another colossal waste of cash and resources but that day hasn’t come yet and we hope it doesn’t.

  25. @ azlan

    ” So you keep saying but the same applied to the Adnan, Kedahs and AUGs. If indeed there will never be a repeat order then we can say that whole exercise was another colossal waste of cash and resources ”

    Indeed it can be applied to Adnan (well that is just assembling and we did buy enough to equip a single mechanized brigade), Kedahs and AUGs. But right now we need to make sure that the same does not happen to gowinds and gempitas. We need to push the point of having a continous production run for our defence needs. If the repeat order never comes, then history repeats itself.

    Reply
    No we didn’t buy enough Adnan actually, only two mechanised battalions and at least two companies worth for 11 Armor.

  26. … – “Indeed it can be applied to Adnan (well that is just assembling and we did buy enough to equip a single mechanized brigade”

    What do you think we did with the AV-8? Sure there were minor modifications but to all intents and purposes we mainly “assembled” them too. It would be delusional to think we did much more than that.

    Yes we did equip a brigade with Adnan but there is still a requirement (not an immediate one) for follow on ones and all the factors that apply to the AV-8 (from the assembly facilities to economics of scale) apply to the Adnan.

    …, – “We need to push the point of having a continous production run for our defence needs”

    We need to do a lot of things but as I never tire of saying : what we first need is a total relook and rethink of our defence policy; that goes beyond stuff mentioned/included for political or cosmetic reasons in the White Paper. We need substance, commitment and focus or a direct threat; unless we have that nothing will change.

    Politicians will continue to say ludicrous things and have an anti pathetic attitude towards defence; as will the bulk of the population and the MAF will continue to a product and reflection of society as a whole.

    … – “If the repeat order never comes, then history repeats itself”

    As I said – “If indeed there will never be a repeat order then we can say that whole exercise was another colossal waste of cash and resources but that day hasn’t come yet and we hope it doesn’t”

  27. @ marhalim

    ” No we didn’t buy enough Adnan actually, only two mechanised battalions and at least two companies worth for 11 Armor ”

    Our adnans and MIFV came in to around 378 units. Because of the delay in the plan to convert 1st Brigade into an armoured brigade, the 14 RAMD that is equipped with MIFV is now attached to 4th mechanized brigade. As it is right now the quantity our tracked ifv can equip 1 full brigade. The same cannot be said for our gempita IFV25.

    A mechanized brigade with mixed tracked and wheeled IFVs cannot maximise the potential of both types of IFV. Having 2 brigades, one tracked and one wheeled will maximise the potential of both different types of vehicles. A fully wheeled brigade will be the primary high mobility quick maneuver force, for flanking operations, rapid raids and strikes of enemy vunerable points and distracting enemy units to enable our other less mobile units to deploy. The tracked armoured brigade (with MBTs and tracked IFVs) would be the main force to block enemy offences head on.

    @ azlan

    ” As I said… ”
    Just waiting and hoping? We need to make noise for MINDEF to have follow on gempita and gowinds as soon as the 1st batch is completed.

  28. @ marhalim

    A bit off topic.

    Just found out that the last FH-70 155mm howitzer was delivered in around 1994.

    I thought those howitzers are way older. What is the status of those right now? It is retired right? Why we seem to prefer the G5 over the FH-70?

  29. …. – “” As I said… ”
    Just waiting and hoping? We need to make noise for MINDEF to have follow on gempita and gowinds as soon as the 1st batch is completed”

    As I said ….

    What happens if the army feels that the number of AV-8s it has are sufficient for its needs for now and feels that other areas need addressing? Are we in a position where the army has got it wrong and you’ve got it right?

    You feel we should immediately go for AV-8s but the army may have legitimate reasons to think otherwise. It may decide that its arty needs are the next thing that should be addressed or it may feel that its long-standing requirement for a medium range SAM (even if it’s just a couple of batteries worth) needs to be addressed.

    We can expand a thousand more words on the subject and you can go on and on lamenting the fact that a follow on batch of AV-8s is not imminent but it is what it is ….

    Do we need more AV-8s? Yes. Do we need more Adnans? Yes, even though you feel it’s AV-8s that should be the priority. Do we need more arty? Yes, given the order for the G-5s was in 2002 and the M-109s are cancelled.
    It’s 2019 and UASs are still a rarity in the army (there are non state actors who have a better UAS capability – irrespective of the fact these are short range off the shelf commercial systems.

    We need various things and we all have different personal opinions as to what should be gotten but I won’t personally wont go so as to insist that certain things should be a priority as I believe the army has a pretty good idea as to what it needs next.

  30. … – “tracked armoured brigade (with MBTs and tracked IFVs) would be the main force to block enemy offences head on”

    No …. It depends on the operational circumstances but it’s role would certainly not confined to the ones you stated; it’s primary role would be “high mobility quick maneuver force, for flanking operations, rapid raids and strikes of enemy vunerable points” – all stuff you said would be performed by “a fully wheeled brigade” ….

    Both the tracked and wheeled brigades – by virtue of their mobility and fire power – can and will be used as a manoeuvre element; whether to turn an enemy’s flank, interdict or threaten his supply lines, etc.

    Which type of brigade would be more ideal for a particular scenario would be wholly dependent on operational circumstances; whether the threat level (i.e. where enemy MBTs are present ideally wheeled IFVs would have friendly MBT support to complement its organic ATGW capability) or the type of terrain (i.e. along a paved road network or in a palm oil estate). Depends entirely on the operational circumstances.

    If the opposition in a particular area comprises mainly IFVs the wheeled IFV brigade would also be used as the main means of dealing with that particular threat or to quote you – “to block enemy offences head on” …

    …. – “. As it is right now the quantity our tracked ifv can equip 1 full brigade”

    On paper but in reality I wouldn’t lump them together as the MIFVs don’t provide the same level of operational flexibility as the Adnans in the type and number of configurations they’re in; they’re not as well protected armour wide, they lack a laser warning system qued to smoke dischargers and they lack the thermals for sustained night ops.

    I’m not sure if it’s changed and I have no idea as to the army’s – paper – plans on the ideal number of AV-8s it sees a need for (it’s telling that the army next wants 6x6s) but there was a long term requirement for at least 2 regiments worth of Adnans.

  31. @ azlan

    ” there was a long term requirement for at least 2 regiments worth of Adnans ”

    Does the requirement still valid, like the MBT requirement? Or that requirement was partially changed to wheeled IFVs, for which the Gempita was bought instead?

  32. @…
    Another point to ponder; AV-8 is mine resistant while Adnan/MIFV is only somewhat protected. Different battlefield situations might require both wheeled and tracked to complement each other in that case.

  33. @ joe

    That is the deficiency of the old m113 design, not a trait of a tracked vehicle per se.

    More modern tracked IFVs like the lynx or K21 has better mine resistance compared to the m113 FOV.

  34. @ azlan

    ” what we first need is a total relook and rethink of our defence policy ”

    That is what we need to speak about, not just say the army, navy or airforce knows the best. But first we need to have a known direction, and the DWP hopefully will provide that. Then ideas for a total relook and rethink of our defence policy, planned based primarily on our DWP direction.

    What i wrote previously say on MMEA and TLDM was based on what i think the best direction for both of the services as there is no national DWP so far. My idea that MMEA should focus on peacetime policing and TLDM to hone its deterrance and warfighting capability done without a visible national defence point of view. Anything discussed after this should be based mainly on what the DWP says.

  35. …. – “Does the requirement still valid, like the MBT requirement”

    It still remains a requirement although – like various other things – it is not imminent or a priority at the moment.

    … – “Or that requirement was partially changed to wheeled IFVs@

    Both were and remain different requirements.

  36. The FH-70s wee delivered as part of the 1988 MOU signed with Britain. We got about 12 (too lazy to check my files) to equip a regiment and 2 for training. We binned them because the barrels were worn out. We decided to switch to G-5s because amongst other things it’s 45 calibre was considered more contemporary/useful compared to the FH-70s 39.

    …. – That is what we need to speak about, not just say the army, navy or airforce knows the best“

    When I say they know “best “ it’s in reference to them being in a far better position than anyone else to know what they need or don’t; due to the fact that they are the end user and that there will be various issues they have to consider; issues that are not apparent to outsiders who tend to look at things from a “black/white” perspective and what may or not look good on paper.

    …. – “planned based primarily on our DWP direction”

    There’s been so much talk on the White Paper and people have formed their own expectations; hoping it will contain various things. I won’t hold my breath. My view – could be mistaken – is that it will address various issues in general terms which may or may not really indicate anything. What it contains and what’s actually carried out or implemented can differ. It’s a step in the right direction though and hopefully will improve over time.

  37. …. – “ My idea that MMEA should focus on peacetime policing and TLDM to hone its deterrance and warfighting capability done”

    It is not “your” idea per say but the” idea …. The whole rationale behind the raising of the MMEA.

    The problem is – as has been stated/discussed on various occasions – is that until the government comes around to allocating sufficient funding for the MMEA on a sustained basis; the RMN has no choice but to continue doing what it does.

    By right, given that all the ships entering our EEZ in the Spratlys are not PLAN; it should be the MMEA that is the main agency in the area. It should also be the MMEA that should be the main agency safeguarding the disputed maritime boundary with Indonesia.

  38. @ azlan

    So the original requirement for MBTs, tracked IFV and Wheeled 8×8 IFV is to create what units? How many battalions/regiments of each of them?

  39. On the FH-70. We got 12 or 15? In 1994 we did receive 3.

    From my search, the barrel life for FH-70 is 2,500 rounds, while G5 is 6,000 rounds.

    The price of G5 is around usd500k, which makes it even cheaper than the LG1.

    Anyway, as the M109 is already cancelled, what kind of SPH will the army want next? Is the caesar a favourite of the army? There is quite a difference in price of 6×6 and 8×8 caesars, seems like the 8×8 is way cheaper. Denmark bought 15 8×8 caesar for just USD45 million.

  40. …. – “So the original requirement for MBTs, tracked IFV and Wheeled 8×8 IFV is to create what units”

    Had a follow on order for MBTs (which Dr.M himself mentioned) been followed through not long after the initial order for the 48: i suspect a new unit would have been raised to operate the regiment’s worth of MBTs. With the Adnans, had a follow on offer been made to top up the 2nd order for 48; at minimum the order would have comprised a battalion’s worth; the army would have converted an existing unit.

    No info was ever provided by the army but naturally as part of feasibility studies, the planning section would have identified units for conversion.

    As it stands these – like various other things – are paper requirements. Subject not only to funding and what the government agrees to but also who happens to be in charge of the army. We do know that for the coming years it’s extremely unlikely that either will be a priority. On top of the 6x6s and a high mobility mine protected platform; the current plan is to focus on arty and GAPU; amongst other things. If those requirements are not realised within the next few years it’s not inconceivable that a change in leadership – both at a political level and in the army – will again result in a shift of priorities ….

  41. … – “On the FH-70. We got 12 or 15”

    A regiment’s worth of 12 and a training battery of 3.

    … – “Anyway, as the M109 is already cancelled, what kind of SPH will the army want next”

    Well that’s a question I’ve long been asking here as well as whether the Artillery Directorate has a wheeled or tracked preference. At one time Caesar had strong political backing unlike K-9 which was also trialled here.

    This was from a previous post within this thread –

    “Personally I feel we should stick to either a tracked or wheeled solution and not have it both ways. If we had gone ahead with the M-109s and still gone for a wheeled SPH; we would have been in the stupid position of having 3 different 155mms in service. The whole rationale in having something like Caesar is
    that it has a much lower footprint compared to a tracked SPH and is less of a hassle to move by air.

    If however we were to base a 155mm regiment in Sabah there would be less of a need for a wheeled option. I’ve never been completely sold on the idea of something being air transportable – whether IFVs or arty. Looks great on a brochure but in reality moving just a battery of arty or a squadron of IFVs (as well as crews, ammo and other needed stuff) will take quite a number of sorties: assuming the needed aircraft were available“

    Which also brings back questions I had on the M-109 : did we get it because it was available and relatively inexpensive; because it was a political decision or because the army identified a need for a tracked SPH to operate in direct support of its MBTs and IFVs?

    As has been previously discussed; whilst many armies have a need for a tracked solution to keep pace with MBTs and tracked IFVs: depends on the terrain and whether one is moving at great distances. In our context of things; given our terrain (which dictates not only how we fight but also the tempo); I don’t see why a tracked platform wouldn’t be able to keep within range of tracked assets it’s intended to support.

    As for unit prices of arty; to me that’s secondary and doesn’t given an accurate reflection. An accurate reflection would be to factor in not only ammo, fuzes and charged (including the amount likely to be stockpiled and fired for say a 25 period of service life) and also the cost of an integrated (rather than a stand alone one) FCS that is fully tied in to the army’s existing infrastructure as well as the UASs needed for target detection and how much prices of spares will increase over the years. Not to mention the cost to buy and maintain a full fledged simulator. Irrespective of how cheap or expensive some stuff is; it all has to be factored in.

  42. On either tracked vs wheeled SPH.

    It depends on what kind of mobility you are hoping to get out of the SPH.

    If it is to support your tracked force, and you are travelling mostly offroad, then a tracked SPH will be suitable. Wheeled SPH would be more at home on paved and unpaved roads. Tracked SPH would also be more protected from sharpnels from counter artillery fire.

    Then we get to the important stuff. How do you direct your fires? How do you detect adversary artillery and do counter artillery fire? Can the battery be widely dispersed but still shoot as a battery? How do you protect your artillery locating radar from being targetted by counter battery or anti-radiation missiles? Would the vingtaqs used for fire direction too?

  43. Another thing on tracked SPH. For normal deplyments, it would need to go on a low loader, while the wheeled SPH can self deploy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.