Cendana Auto FFR In the Wild

A Cendana Auto FFR loomed large as the 4 Div commander inspects the guard of honour for his visit to the Banding tactical camp on May 2, 2022. BTDM

SHAH ALAM: Cendana Auto FFR in the wild. It appears that the Cendana Auto FFR vehicles has been distributed to units of Tentera Darat though it is unclear to which units it is already in service with. The first vehicles were officially delivered in March this year. One unit likely employing the vehicle is the Fourth Division (4 Div) which is based at the Wadieburn camp in Kuala Lumpur. A Cendana Auto FFR was pictured in the wild when the commander of 4 Div visited the Banding tactical camp on May 2, 2022. The camp is located in Gerik, Perak, next to the border with Thailand. The camp was built in 1970s when the parts of the area was developed into the Temenggor dam.

4 DIV commander Mej Jen Ya’cob Samiran inspecting the guard of honour on arrival at the Banding tactical camp. BTDM

PERAK: Panglima Divisyen Keempat Infantri Malaysia (4 Div), Mej Jen Dato’ Hj Ya’cob Hj Samiran menyambut Hari Raya Aidilfitri bersama-sama pegawai dan anggota Lain-Lain Pangkat (LLP) yang sedang beroperasi di MK Taktikal 749, Banding pada 2 Mei 2022.
Panglima 4 Div menunaikan Solat Subuh, Solat Sunat Hari Raya Aidilfitri dan bertakbir secara berjemaah serta menyampaikan sumbangan beg raya kepada pegawai dan anggota LLP yang sedang bertugas.
Selain itu, Panglima 4 Div turut melawat Pos 802 bagi menyampaikan sumbangan hari raya kepada anggota dalam kawasan tersebut.
Di sebelah malam, Panglima 4 Div terlibat sesi sidang video conference bersama Panglima Tentera Darat (PTD) serta Panglima-panglima formasi dan pasukan Operasi TD yang berada di kawasan operasi.
Sidang video tersebut turut melibatkan Panglima Medan Barat Tentera Darat (PMB TD) dan Panglima Medan Timur Tentera Darat (PMT TD) yang melaporkan keadaan semasa operasi serta sambutan suasana Hari Raya Aidilfitri di kawasan terlibat.
Turut hadir, Panglima Briged Kedua Infantri Malaysia (2 Bgd), Brig Jen Mohd Azmurin Mat Khalib, Panglima 11 Bgd, Brig Jen Hj Fazal Hj Abdul Rahman dan Panglima 12 Bgd Brig Jen Sani S.Omar.

Cendana Auto FFR. BTDM

Apart from being a mobile communications vehicle, the FFR is also used by Tentera Darat commanders during operations as the communications gear onboard allowed him to be contact with all the subordinate units and the higher chain of command. Of course another FFR or MRCS vehicles will also be around just in case the first one need to be replaced. It is unclear whether the FFR is in fact a 4th Div vehicle. It may well be issued to a subordinate unit and was assigned to transport the 4 Div CO for the visit. Of course being the latest vehicles to enter Tentera Darat service, it is likely that the Cendana Auto FFR are the preferred option for commanders during field visits.

— Malaysian Defence

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

About Marhalim Abas 2226 Articles
Shah Alam


  1. Seems bigger and tough..maybe in same class with HUMVEE and VAMTAC. Glad to see our country can manufactured this kind of vehicle and uses by our Armed Forces. Hope for more government agencies to uses this kind vehicle of also.

  2. Rock – ”maybe in same class with HUMVEE and VAMTAC.”

    Both types you mentioned probably have better mobility.

    Rock – ”can manufactured this kind of vehicle and uses by our Armed Forces.”

    Is that an indication of success or the fact that the industry is moving forward; after years of trying; years of patronage and years of investments by the taxpayer?
    The engine and many many other components and parts are foreign sourced/designed.

  3. Azlan “Both types you mentioned probably have better mobility”

    Is it as reliable as a Toyota?

    Azlan “The engine and many many other components and parts are foreign sourced/designed”

    Malaysia is not Indonesia, India nor china the future 4th,2nd & 1st biggest economy in the world where’s self reliance is important in order for them to flex their future economic muscle.

  4. On another topic; I was curious about whether we’d see the R-77 in action in the Ukraine but it appears that it has yet to be actually used in combat. Hardly surprising I suppose given that air to air engagements are a rare occurrence. A weapon we have that has been used in the Ukraine is the Kh-31P. Results have not been very impressive given that Russian pilots tend to fired them from extreme ranges to avoid Ukrainian AD; this in turn results in very few actual kills. In a major conflict we would face the same issue; the KH-31/pod combo gives us some SEAD/DEAD capability but a limited one and we lack the other key enablers.

    Another issue which we were long aware about but received a major reminder due to the conflict is the issue of APSs and new generation ERA. To defeat new generation ATGWs, including top attack ones [which are not new per see] there is no current alternative to a APS and either a high baseline protection level augmented by ceramic applique armour or new generation ERA. Unless or until we start taking steps fit armour with APSs and other things; we must as well mount a tombstone with the names of the crews inscribed on the turret because no turret armour in the world is thick enough to stop a top attack missile. Contrary to what some prophets of doom will have us believe; Russian MBT losses have not mean the MBT is obsolete or that the UAS is supreme; merely the reminder that no single weapon should be operated independently and that none is a total gamechanger per see]; in the case of MBTs they must always be part of combined arms formations [a lesson learnt decades ago]. In the case of UASs they too must be properly employed; as part of strike/recce complex and only in areas where the opponent does not have an effective counter UAS capability.

    Following the Falklands prices of the MM-38 skyrocketed. I wonder if prices of Javelin, NLAW, Starstreak and other things will go up because of their widely reported success in the Ukraine?

  5. Not much we can do with the Pendekar I believed as they are too small in numbers to be really effective. As for the UAS we should already invest in them, including the small ones meant for attack like the Polish Warmate and Turkish ones, just to name a few examples. It is more really for experiments so our very light units have added firepower and ISR capability. As for the Sukhois weapons, yes our fleet seemed to resembled both Russia and Ukrainian air force, lacking ISR and EW asset to make full use of the ordnance promised capability.

  6. Adding a APS is problematic because not only does it involve hard cash but several things need to be done [1] finding space for the controls inside an already very tight turret [2] realigning existing stuff on the turret to make room for the APS [3] increasing the vehicle’s power supply. At the vey least we should invest in a NG ERA; something which can deal with both dual head ATGMs and new gen KE penetrators. As it stands spending more than the absolute minimum of the PT-91s does not provide a good ROI given the zero growth potential of the design and its inherent flaws [well known so I won’t go into detail] but we should do certain things. Even adding bar or cage armour around the engine compartment and flanks to defeat shape charges would be useful.

    We issued a tender for some 85 mini commercial UASs for Ops Benteng and for about 28 for the intel outfit. Good start but we should be buying commercial off the shelf ones in the hundreds and issuing them to various units; right down to company level. At the same time we really need to invest in a counter UAS capability that goes beyond a few hand held jammers. If we were really serious we’d convert a IFV into a AD variant; fitted with a radar to detect and one with jamming capabilities; a IR sensor; a 30mm auto cannon [that calibre has the range and bang needed] and pod mounted Starstreaks to deal with line of sight targets at greater ranges. As it stands the only effective means GAPU has of dealing with UASs/drones which have a low IR signature and RCS is Starstreak and the 35mm GDFs and that’s assuming targets are detected in time. I doubt very much if the seekers on Anza and FN-6 can detect the low IR signatures of certain types of UASs [I know you’re aware of the issues with Iglas and the flares many years ago].

  7. 5zAFT – ”Malaysia is not Indonesia, India nor china the future 4th,2nd & 1st biggest economy in the world where’s self reliance is important in order for them to flex their future economic muscle.”

    The point you were trying to make?

    The one I was making is that manufacturing/assembling a foreign design is nothing to shout about; especially all the attempts and cash poured into the local industry…
    Also; very few countries are really ”self reliant”; certainly not India and not even the U.K. which amongst other things imports almost all the raw components needed to manufacture ammo.. Another thing; it’s not only about ”in order for them to flex their future economic muscle” but also prestige ……

  8. Hasnan – ”I think we need a lot of these vehicles rather than expensive APCs.”

    We need a balanced mix of everything because everything has a role to play in the overall scheme of things. Like it or not ”expensive APCs” [or rather ”IFVs”] are needed…. The Cendanas have zero protection [even against a .22 bullet] and their mobility in rough terrain would be an issue……

  9. @azlan

    India, Indonesia Like Brazil & turkey are emerging economy & potential great power who would replace most of the current G7 & may want to exercise her power in the future very similar to china of today who are capable of making unilateral foreign affairs & military action due to their self reliance.

    UK meanwhile like EU,JP & SK are comfortable in the world current status quo. They are designing weapons for their own industrial prowess to move up the value chain & to make weapons acquisition more bearable.

    Creating a “top hat” on top of a Toyota like building perdana on top of accord or bezza & Myvi on top of Axia & Vios is no easy task. We can see that cendana auto design is less awkward then Israeli amir 4×4 & Nurol original 4×4 which are built on top of a Ford.

    So it demand more design & engineering prowess rather than just another assembly of foreign design.

  10. The Israeli and Turkish designs may look awkward as they are uparmoured which the Ford chassis allowed them to do it. Dzirhan wrote in Shephard that a Cendana official that they need another chassis if the requirement is for an uparmoured variant

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.