X

Adnan ACV Costs

Baktar Shikan missile leaving its launch tube at the 2017 Firepower Exercise..

SHAH ALAM: Adnan ACV costs. One of the PH MPs responsible for defence and national security sector – Johari Abdul (PKR-Sungai Petani) posed a a written question for the Defence Minister to outline the cost of procurement and maintenance of the Army’s Adnan ACV fleet. He also wanted to know how many units were initially purchased and how many are still running.

The answer (below, translated into English) was given on the Nov. 3.

The government has implemented the procurement of Armored Combat Vehicle, ACV 300 Adnan in stages involving 267 vehicles with a total cost of RM1.324 billion. All 267 of these vehicles are still in operation and the total cost for the maintenance of the vehicle since entering service to date it is worth RM122.2 million.

Adnans on the firing line at Gemas. 12th RMR

Of course we would have been given a better answer if the MP had asked for the total running cost of the Adnans since service, which includes fuel, maintenance, weapons and personnel, instead of just the procurement and maintenance ones. I admit the cost of personnel will be difficult to quantify as it may or may not include support personnel (from the brigade) though undoubtedly it will be the highest one but the rest is easy to obtain from the records. Why from the brigade then? Of course a battalion doesn’t work in isolation, it will have to work with other units for the best results.
Adnans from 12th RMR with the sole 14th RMR MIFV (right).

Anyhow I have no idea why the MP wants to know about the procurement and maintenance cost of the Adnans as it had already been in service for more than 20 years now. It would be more pertinent to know the total operating costs of the Gempitas in service (we already know the procurement costs).
Adnan with 120mm mortar preparing to fire a round. 12th RMR.

Perhaps the MP was intrigue by the Adnan upgrade project and the scandal in the supply of spare parts for the Adnan and Gempita.

–Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Marhalim Abas: Shah Alam

View Comments (27)

  • If it were altruistic, he should pose that question when they were in power.
    If it were ultraistic, well... I guess it is pretty clear politicians, from both sides, are still nurturing their cro... entities of interests.

    Anyways, the Adnans & MIFV, like the Condors, have plenty of use remaining and it would be wiser to SLEP and upgrade them, reengine with new powerpack & Diehl tracks.

    • There is no need to re engine the MIFV, its had been done in the last 10 years or so

  • Marhalim,
    Was there a huge price difference between the K200 and the Adnan as both were bought in a different scenario, one in a rush to meet the UN needs and the other which was assembled here?

  • "like the Condors, have plenty of use remaining"

    On paper a 60 odd year old Ferret has life left and could be refurbished. Whether the end user sees and need and whether it's a soubd return of investment really depends.

  • Ed,

    The KIFVs were an outright off the shelf buy. The Adnans invloved tech trabsfers, setting up local asembly facilities, etc, all resulting in extra costs. The Adnan was also fitted with various kit not available on the KIFVs.

  • @Marhalim
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/adnan-and-mifv-upgrade-in-rmk12/
    Based on this article I was thinking the MIFV would be reengined to commonise with the Adnans. Sorry if I were mistaken.

    "Whether the end user sees and need"
    Depends on whether the end user will get new replacements or not. If the end user were forced to adapt and make do with these veteran workhorses, as there are a lot of them, the end user will invariably find creative & innovative ways to keep them running, much like how TLDM is forced to relife the PCs as no new assets are forthcoming soon. There are still plenty of uses for the Condors; border patrol & security, troop transport, PDRM & Civil Defence, etc

  • Basically each adnan costs RM5 million each.

    MIFV we bought in 1993 for Bosnia mission costs RM1.5 million each. First batch of 42 was bought for RM63 million.

    Lipanbara costs RM7 million each.

    Adnan is much more advanced than the MIFV, with 25mm turrets, laser warning sensors, battlefield management systems (BMS), and some with soucy fully rubber tracks.

    Lipanbara should not have cost RM7 million when Royal Thai Marines buy similar First Win for just RM2.1 million.

    Now for the gempita. Is RM29.2 million for a gempita expensive? What does the price includes? It includes R&D, 30mm turrets, INGWE ATGM missiles, Vingtaqs II reconnaissance systems, NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) reconnaissance systems and much more. Why shouldn't we fully utilise the R&D sunk costs for the gempita and just buy more of them instead? How does the cost compare with contemporary 8x8 IFV? British army contract for 500 Boxers is for 28 billion pounds. That is about RM31.8 million each.

  • Azlan,
    Good to know.
    Were they planning to add more Adnan after the 267 units since we got the tech knowledge? Looking at the money spent on tech transfer and logistic set-up for the Kedah, Gempita and maybe Samudera as well, follow up build look slim.

  • You've overlooked the point I was making. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Condor still has life in it and can perform a variety of roles - plainly obvious to anyone.

    It boils down to what the end user decides. In this regards; after examining several factors; including the need to conserve cash for other things and looking at how sound a long term return of investment upgraded Condors would provide; the Army decided not to proceed with a Condor upgrade .... Same with the Scorpions and Stormers. it's not about ''creative & innovative ways'' as you put it but the end user deciding on a certain option after looking at things in totality and weighing various options .... As for the end user 'being forced'; the issue of ''being forced' by politicians often backfires with negative consequences for the taxpayer and end user which would be obvious to even those with a cursory interest in the MAF.

    Same reason the RMAF decided to retire the Fulcrums rather than up upgrading them; wasn't a cost effective means of utilising cash resources in the long term. You mentioned the RMNs 'PCS'. Different scenario; if you really think about it. The RMN has no other extra hulls and has a higher ops tempo than the army. After retiring the Condors the army still has AV-8s; as well as other vehicles; different scenario which does not call for a direct comparison....

  • Gonggok - ""British army contract for 500 Boxers is for 28 billion pounds."

    Those are a diffrent type of vehicle. More contemporary, intended for sustained high intenisty ops. They are far far better protected [other armies take ptotection seriously] and networked [more than just a BMS].

  • Liew,

    There was actually very little tech transfer although the term excites fan boys and bureacrats. We assembled them mostly from imported parts, nothing much more than that.

    After years and years, Deftech did almost zero modifications or actual R&D, not even bar armour or chicken wire to protect against shoulder fired weapons.

    Only reason we got Adnan is because the Turks knew we were suckers for local production and Turkey is Islamic. I knew an ex Armoured Corps guy who was in Deftech and did the evaluation.