SHAH ALAM: More on the 4X4/6X6 requirements. It appears that the 6X6 requirements has been transformed into a mixed 4X4/6X6 project. According to the Shephard, it is due to the lack of money (as usual).
The Malaysian Army’s plan to acquire 6×6 AFVs has now transformed into a mixed acquisition of 6×6 and 4×4 vehicles, sources have told Shephard. This change is for cost reasons.
The original plan was to acquire an entirely 6×6 fleet to outfit the remaining armour regiments currently operating the Sibmas 6×6 AFV, and mechanised battalions operating the Condor APC, that have not been re-equipped with the AV8 Gempita 8×8.
Deftech had offered a second batch of AV8s, but this was declined on the cost basis and the difficulties the army has had in operating the vehicle’s integral electronics
The mixed 4X4/6X6 project -according to the DWP it should have been all 6X6 vehicles – will replaced all the armored vehicles in the three Kor Armor Diraja (KAD) units, currently not equipped or partially equipped with Gempita. The units are likely to be the 3 KAD, 4 KAD (based in Sarawak) and 5 KAD (Sabah).
The procurement is supposed to start next year and once delivered, the units are expected to have more 4X4 than the 6X6 vehicles. This is similar to the set up when the Armour units are made up with Condors and Sibmas in the late 80s and 90s.
Personally, the cost issue regarding the 6X6 is a fig leaf. It is simply that they wanted that the local manufacturers have a fighting chance at least for the 4X4 part as no one can offer a local 6X6. I do not think Mildef can develop 6X6 in time for the tender.
The strongest candidates for the project will be FNSS/Deftech which will be offering the Pars 6X6/4X4 vehicles all of which have some commonality with the Gempita. Another contender should be the Otokar vehicles, the Arma 6X6 and Cobra 4X4. Like the Pars vehicles they have been marketing this vehicles since 10 years ago.
— Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
what do u meant by AV8\’s integral electronics problems.
To be honest, I don’t see the point of a 6×6. If there are already 8×8, any further requirements that can then be fulfilled by a 4×4 will save $, IMHO. In other words I am advocating 4×4 and 8×8 in the army. Skip the 6×6, or keep the numbers minimal.
4 vehicles per Troop and 4 Troops in a Squadron. A Regiment will have 4 Squadrons and a HQ element of ‘x’ number of vehicles. This set up is basically what we’ve been using since Merdeka. I personally – in this case – would prefer a smaller Troop of 3 vehicles; easier to command/control. Plus the decision to have a mix of 6x6s and 4x4s is surprising. A question is whether the 6x6s will have only the standard protection level of up to 12.7mm AP or whether there are also plans to fit slat armour if required [same question applies to the AV-8s]. The article also contained other intresting bits. .
There are issues with maintenance and training
Tom Tom – ”any further requirements that can then be fulfilled by a 4×4 will save $, IMHO.”
The army obviously sees an operational requirement for a 6×6 and not a 8×8 or a 4×4 to perform certain roles. The decision however to go for a 6×6 and a 4×4 was a compromise…
The decision not to go for additional AV-8s is the right move as the needs of the end user must take precedence over the local industry and again calls into question the politically driven decision to license manufacture the AV-8 and all the set up and ToT costs without achieving economics of scale; a result of our neither here nor there high flawed and self defeating policy as set by a certain politician. No surprises we have a MAF whose capabilities don’t match all we’ve spent on it.
So they wanted something equivalent to french 6×6 griffon & 4×4 serval & maybe something like the jaguar ebrc in the future to replace the simbas, condor & Scorpion?
No lah, things more simpler
The Armour people I am told is unhappy that their requirement have been watered down from 8X8 to 6X6 and now worse as the 4X4 has taken precedence
Really? but we/them armour people need to be a lil bit realistic here..The plain truth is we cant afford to replace sibmas and condors with 8×8 and 6×6 alone..There are other urgent needs for army like sph,nuri replacement,additional Lg1 etc..and its not like them armour people will get cheap/low quality 6×6 and 4×4..The contenders for 6×6 and 4×4 tenders are quite impressive to say the least..or maybe slap some 105/90mm gun turret to gempita and boom you get a direct replacement for sibmas afsv
You could be right Marhalim. I was told that a few years ago that a decision was made for a 6×6 because it was cheaper and being slightly smaller was deemed more suitable for certain roles.
I’m pretty sure that people in the army are taking a good look at the situation so far in the Ukraine which is reminding [rather than teaching] us of lessons we already knew; namely the importance of combined arms and that armour should always be deployed in conjunction with various other assets; all working together. Another lesson reinforced is the potential of top attack stuff [not new per see as Bill came out in the late 1980’s together with Merlin and Stryx] but a reminder of how vulnerable armour is to top attaack stuff.
How about otokar arma 6×6 guys? Or tigon or maybe troop carrier type as back echelon like griffon or hamza?
Azlan – politically driven decision to license manufacture to manufacturer Av8 and all the set up and ToT costs without achieving economics of scale
How much AV8 do you expect us to get when the Aussie would only be getting 211 boxer?
Like it or not MOF would always prefer local spending of taxpayers dollars to create a multiplier effect and thus increasing the GDP which then earn them more taxes which reduce the overall cost of said acquisition.
The problem with Av8 or even LCS is less to do with policy itself but the political decision that lead to choosing the wrong platforms or the wrong fit & finishes. BNS & Deftech shouldn’t be allowed to choose the platform nor the fit & finishes but what they should do is just manufacturer whatever platform ATM wanted with the speciation they wanted.
If not mistaken US currently split the design, manufacturing & maintenance contract rather than a single contractor in control of everything while In south Korea the R&D for a platform is done by a STRIDE equivalent then the manufacturing contract is then split to all the different Chaebol in batches.
I think our drivers need more training in handling 4×4 and how to extricate their vehicles when stuck in mud.
More competitions to upgrade and share their skills.
“without achieving economics of scale”
For 250 units built locally spanning the few years, there is certain level of economics of scale and income generated from the job created. What would make better sense is follow on orders in placed once the last AV8 units rolled off the production line, ideally the same PARS family whichever the mix of 8×8, 6×6 or 4×4 according to TDM needs & budgetary constraints. Meantime, Deftech will have 150 Iveco prime movers to tide them over.
The Army people won’t put a 90mm gun any vehicles anymore. They had learnt the lessons of the Sibmas and Scorpions. Of course some other people might specify them guns…
In 2018 I was told expressly there was no requirement for 6X6. It was there only because some people had asked for it and this were not the end users
“people in the army are taking a good look at the situation so far in the Ukraine which is reminding [rather than teaching] us of lessons we already knew”
We also need to be reminded that we need to take a close look at lessons learnt by Ukraine as the defender, not actually at Russia which is the invader/aggressor.
As a defender we don’t really need to match what the aggressor have in terms of armor, but we need as much as possible weapons that can easily destroy those armor. So if the aggressor has 500 IFVs, the response is not having 500 of our own IFVs, but thousands of ATGMs to destroy those IFVs.
APCs and IFVs are fine if you are against infantries mostly armed with small arms. They would be decimated like in Ukraine if almost every single foot soldier has in their hands a Javelin, NLAW, panzerfaust, RPG-7s and the like.
So right now if to pick
expensive, slow, massive IFV with STANAG 2 protection
cheap, fast, small IFV also with STANAG 2 protection.
I would go with the second one, and whatever money saved be spent on getting as much ATGM that we could.
So the army really dont want to replace the condors? Or they just want more gempitas? So money and tactical wise which is better? Replace all sibmas and condors with all gempitas or replace them with the mix of gempitas,6×6 and 4×4? So did our army’s firepower did improve after they replace sibmas afsv with gempita 30mm,12.5mm? Not to mention that scorpions already out of the equation..or did modern newer stabilised unmanned 30mm guns are equally good compared to older 90mm guns on sibmas and scorpions? Im not asking this because im crazy about guns calibre just asking here
Sure sure we can keep deftech running but are they willing to lower the perunit cost of gempitas now they already pretty much setup for next batch? Say 20 to 40 percent lower perunit pricetag?
The Shephard story says Deftech is willing to give discount for more AV8s, but the Army dont want it
If it is up to the army, they would want to have all 5 cavalry regiments to be fully equipped with Gempita AFV30 and LCT30. The 6×6 is a compromise because they cannot get more Gempitas.
But in our tight jungle conditions, cavalry units are supposed to be the agile maneuverable force to do recce and to do hit and run on enemy flanks. Using the massive Gempita to do recce in my opinion actually defeats the original purpose of recce, which is to observe while being unseen. You would be better off to use smaller more agile armored vehicles like a 4×4 equipped with the Vingtaqs mast.
So whatever it is, are the requirements made mainly for the benefit of the local suppliers? Not to give the army the best capability for the budget?
The revised requirement is said to be for 88x of 6×6 and 136x of 4×4 armored vehicles.
The army currently have
78x Gempita AFV30
54x Gempita LCT30 ATGM
24x Genpita SURV with Vingtaqs II mast.
If not mistaken, each KAD Cavalry Regiment consists of 4 combat squadrons, 1 HQ squadron and 1 attached workshop squadron.
cavalry squadrons = infantry companies
1 squadron is further divided into 3-4 troops.
Each squadron consists of about 12 armored vehicles.
Actually it is enough for all 5 regiments to have 2 squadrons each for a total of 24 Gempita AFV30 and LCT30 in each regiment. So if you add 2 more squadrons of 4×4, plus extra 4×4 for HQ, say 36 more 4×4. So that is for around 180 4×4. Then add a few more for signals, military police, etc of say 50 more, that would be a total of around 230 vehicles. So quite logical if the army wants 88x 6×6 and 136x 4×4 (a total of 224 units).
So actually all 5 RAD cavalry regiments can be made homogeneous, each with 2 squadrons of Gempita and 2 squadrons of 4×4. Just 2 different types for the ease of maintenance and operational readiness.
Let’s say the 224 units each cost at least the same as what is paid for the Unifil 4×4 Ejder Yalcin at 9.5 million ringgit each. That needs a budget of at least about 2.1 billion ringgit (or around 500 million dollars).
What did other armies got with 500 million dollars?
googleing around, i found this.
Somebody got 500x armored 4×4, each equipped with M153 Common Remote Weapon Stations (CROWS) with M2 machine guns, Boomerang Shot detection kits (for recce to find direction of fire coming from), for a bargain price of 170.8 million dollars.
Are we going to get for the army much more inferior vehicles than that at costs that are way more higher?
The more than 300 million dollars difference could buy the army a few thousand of top attack ATGM, with spare change to buy thousands of carl gustaf M4 plus thousands of additional rounds of RPG-7. That could make any attempts to invade Malaysia hell.
If army dont like av8, why would they choose pars 6×6 or 4×4? Does this mean mildef is now the “prefered” vendor?
If i am the army, I would go for some more Gempita’s, not the expensive versions, but for the cheaper IFV25 version.
Somewhere around 100 additional IFV25, command and support versions.
All MIFV (+ additional used units from Korea if possible) moved to East malaysia. Creating 1 MIFV infantry battalion in Sarawak and 1 MIFV infantry battalion in Sabah.
All Adnan + Pendekar in 1st Armored Brigade. 2 Adnan infantry battalion and 1 pendekar tank regiment.
All gempita fleet of 4th Mechanised Brigade. 2 Gempita infantry battalion and 1 Gempita + 4×4 cavalry regiment
“So did our army’s firepower did improve after they replace sibmas afsv with gempita 30mm,12.5mm”
The sibmas and Scorpion 90mm guns are mainly to be used as infantry fire support, against other infantry units, blasting away jungle and vegetations. It has a low rate of fire, and cannot be shot when on the move.
Infantry firepower has been increased by equipping them with RPG-7 and Milkor grenade launchers. So phasing out those 90mm guns is not really felt.
But the new 30mm guns have a different mission to the 90mm. The 30mm are mainly to kill other IFV, MRAP and APCs. Almost 90% of all IFV, MRAP and APCs can be penetrated by 30mm fire. MBT mobility kill can be done if 30mm shells hit the engine compartment. The gempita 30mm gun has a firing rate of 60 rounds per minute, with the rapid multiple shots any Active Protection Systems will be overwhelmed and defeated.
But our indirect fires are still the same level as our insurgency days. Yes we are recapitalising around 12 infantry battalions with new 81mm mortars with their own vehicles. But 155mm fires are still very much lacking. As is our ISR for fires directing.
5zaft, the 211 Boxers are only for the recce units. Under Land 400 Phase 3, still underway, there are going to be 400 plus tracked IFV (either Lynx or Hanwha KF21). There will now also be 30 K9 SPH.
gonggok – take a close look at lessons learnt by Ukraine as the defender, not actually at Russia which is the invader/aggressor”
Not as clear cut as that and I ha e been taking not only a “close” look.thank you but a balanced look as I’m aware of the need not to make early day assessments and take various factors into account. The Ukrainians are able to do a lot of what they’re doing because of serous mistakes made the Russians; IFVs unsupported by infantry, UASs, air power etc, lack of combined arms skills, etc. Look at things in perspective as its a two way street. Also bear mind that there have been ambushes which didn’t then out well for the Ukrainians.
gonggok – I would go with the second one, and whatever money saved be spent on getting as much ATGM”
I adopt a more cautious approach; that of what’s happening in the Ukraine won’t necessary be replicated here in a future conflict and it really depends on operational circumstances. I will also point again that very little of what we’re seeing is new per see.
gonggok – would be decimated like in Ukraine if almost every single foot soldier has”
On paper.. In reality it’s dependent on operational.circumstances; terrain, the enemy, engagement ranges, etc. If an armored column had a UAS on overwatch, recce screen on the flanks and up front, armoured vehicles well supported by infantry and arty, etc, the results might be different. If vehicles had a APS or new gen ERA this would also reduce the effectiveness of missiles. You keep referring to the Ukraine; I can point out examples in which ambushes didn’t turn out well – depends.
They haven’t choose the Pars 6×6 and 4X4 but they are the ones being marketed with others as well
Can say the DWP is effectively dead in the water. No surprises really since it was not the creation of the current administration nor was approved by them.
“The Shephard story says Deftech is willing to give discount for more AV8s, but the Army dont want it”
I don’t think that they actually don’t want it. But it’s more like they still cannot afford the AV8s in the number that they want even with the discounts.
“I adopt a more cautious approach”
It is not just in Ukraine. Most recent conflicts that has armored columns invading somewhere has ATGMs making a killing. MBT vs MBT or IFV vs IFV events will be a rare occurrence in the future. Stocking up on ATGMs are much more cheaper to buy and maintain, than trying to buy enough MBTs and IFV to fight an adversary head on.
When we look at other armies, we need to look at what are they geared up for?
Australian, US, British armies are not geared to fight on their home soil. They are geared to bring the fight to other countries.
We instead, need to look at countries that tailor their military to exclusively defend their homeland. I believe 2 countries stand out, Finland and Vietnam.
gonggok – ” That could make any attempts to invade Malaysia hell”
The problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes the enemy is going to do as one assumes [remember he also has a say and learns lessons], that the tactical operational circumstances will be as one assumes and that an enemy will make the same mistakes as the Russians.
In case you see fit to explain in length all the benefits of ambushes and ATGWs;plus what’s happening in the Ukraine [which like Nargano Karabakh isn’t teaching us many new things per see]; I fully understand the value of ambushes and ATGWs but both depend on various criterion to be successful. People are all gaga about ambushes and vulnerability of armoured vehicles but are failing to look at tbings from a balanced and nuanced perspective. Remember how in the aftermath of Nargano Karabakh people were which to assume that armed UASs had made MBTs obsolete; problem with this subjective, presumptuous and flawed narrative is that UASs need permissive airspace to operate in and ultimately it took.heavy armour and infantry to take and hold ground.
Do I see the need for amvushes and ATGWs; of course I do, just like how I see the need to breathe oxygen but I wont assume that tactical operational circumstances faced in the Ukraine will be replicated here or that certain weapons are a panacea. Similarly I won’t assume that a smaller lighter and less well protected IFV will always be more ideal than a larger heavier and better protected one; depends.
the elephant in the room is. Did Deftech already completed all 257 vehicles delivery to TDM?
I understand what you are getting at, but what i am saying is
Rather than having 220+ 6×6 and 4×4 that is surely going to cost north of 500 million dollars due to “national interest”, 200-300% margin and having no ATGMs bought.
It would be better to have no hanky panky clear cut US DSCA buy of 250+ tried and tested MRAP level of protection 4×4 at say just 100 million dollars and the rest of 400 million dollars invested in getting as much top attack ATGM, Carl Gustaf and RPG-7 rounds that we could get.
We still have our Gempita’s, our Adnan’s, but we need to stock up on ATGMs, ammos.
gonggok – Most recent conflicts that has armored columns invading somewhere has ATGMs making a killing. MBT vs MBT or IFV vs IFV events will be a rare occurrence in the future”
Be careful making early day assumptions. Various other conflicts resulted in.various assumptions; many turned out to be untrue. As for “ATGMs making a killing” not really; ATGWs have never [just like any other weapon in a vacuum] proved decisive. I can also point out cases where mech units employing combined arms tactics and adequately supported by other assets prevented ATGWs from making a “killing”.
As I pointed out there are numerous cases of Russian columns reacting rapidly and successfully against ambushes. Also [again] a nuanced and balanced perspective is needed.
gonggok – than trying to buy enough MBTs and IFV to fight an adversary head on”
Where did you get this quaint notion that that’s the main purpose?
It is due to complete deliveries by year end. Not the company’s fault the government had decided twice to delay deliveries,first in 2018 and then 2019. Then came Covid
gonggok – It would be better to have no hanky panky clear cut US DSCA buy of 250+ tried and tested MRAP level of protection 4×4 at say just 100 million dollars and the rest of 400 million dollars invested in getting as much top attack ATGM, Carl Gustaf and RPG-7″
Again; there is no “better” because it depends on the operational context. You are assuming that a conflict we face will have similar operational circumstances, that an opponent will make the same mistakes the Russians, etc. What if an opponent has APSs, new gen ERA and practices combined arms? What if his armoured column have UASs on overwatch and overhead manned platform cover? It’s depends on the operational circumstances and ATGWs not only aren’t a panacea but don’t operate in a vacuum.
There is no “better” even though it’s in line with your personal views and the views you are putting forward. You are also conflating things by assuming one is “better” than the other. It’s not as simplistic and clear cut as that because unless you have an Oracle you can consult there is no certainty a future conflict we face will be in line with what you personally think it will be like.
Just as important as learning the right lessons is the need to look things in perspective and to have an objective, balanced and nuanced look; instead of generalised views based on an incomplete look and personal assumptions. Yes we do need ATGWs [as you keep saying] but we also need other things and they aren’t necessarily a means to an end.
“Again; there is no “better” ”
The budget is infinite
In our context, of national interest and 200-300% margins, these are the 2 scenarios.
500 million spent just on 6×6 and 4×4 due to national interests and 200-300% margins
100 million spent on US DSCA 4×4, allowing the 400 million saved to buy 2000+ ATGM, 2000+ carl gustaf and 2000+ RPG-7 rounds?
and that is not exactly on the topic of malaysia and the 4×4 and 6×6 requirements?
Of course ATGMs is not a means to an end, but I am talking about what can be bought if we don’t go through the normal idiotic self defeating way of buying stuff for our armed forces.
Do you have any idea what else they are looking at apart from OTSAM? The news on the AV-8s BMS was surprising.
Nope, it will likely be something from Roketsan. The BMS issue has been around since it started really. We don’t trained our people enough and we need more highly educated soldiers. It also doesnt helped that the Army that when the leadership changes, many things are not sorted out
Things are getting more digitised and more complex to operate and maintain. Manuals are also in English and not all are translated. As one ex Nuri AQM told me when they made overnight stops all he needed was the toolbox. With the Cougar more than that is needed.
Its the same really with the other services, but its not so bad with RMAF, I am told. The navy has it easy nowadays as they have introduce any new hulls lately. I will not be surprised if there is a steep learning curve once they finally got the LCS and LMS Batch II
Often overlooked is the fact that the MAF is not huge and there are only so many people in combat units and are trained for niche highly tech roles. Replacing losses in the event of a conflict will a major issue. The Ukraine has a larger army, a large paramilitary, independent groups and a large pool of manpower which have received prior training. Even the Russians with their manpower and population are facing issues replacing combat losses.
Tom tom- Under Land 400 Phase 3, still underway, there are going to be 400 plus tracked IFV (either Lynx or Hanwha KF21). There will now also be 30 K9 SPH
Yup as a replacement for their m113a1. Meanwhile Our almost 330 ish m113a1 still had a decade more of live in it.
So that’s why I assume what the army want to acquire now are the 4×4 platform being a hawkei equivalent while the 6×6 is the equivalent of bushmaster replacement IFV.
I also assume TD 6×6 would be a smaller version of USMC marine expeditionary vehicle since such a amphibious ifv needs are mentioned in the DWP.
Gonggok – Australian, US, British armies are not geared to fight on their home soil. They are geared to bring the fight to other countries.
And that’s exactly the kind of capabilities that ATM wanted. If anything they seem rather interested in creating an amphibious strike group. They even trained for it despite not having the equipment for it.yet.
Vietnam & finland are neighbors to their aggressor. We don’t. What the point in retreating behind territorial waters when potential aggressor never want to go there in the 1st place? Why hide behind terrorial water & let war comes to our country & desimate this country? Why not just do what Aussie did and pull a forward defense strategy’s so no bomb are raining down on us in the first place?
“Why not just do what Aussie did and pull a forward defense strategy’s so no bomb are raining down on us in the first place?”
Because, unlike in the movies, we can’t.
We cannot be like US, UK, Australia or heck even Singapore.
Unlike Australia which nobody insane is going to invade, malaysia has been invaded many many times before in its history.
We are strategically located in the middle of a very busy waterway between the east and europe, and with abundance of natural resources.
We have been invaded so many times throughout our history, last one was by the Japanese more than 80 years ago.
When they invade, they really want to have control of your territory, no matter if its land, air or sea.
So if you want malaysia to do forward defence strategy, tell me how do you do it? Invade our neighbors, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and fight our wars there? How fighting on foreign soil can avoid an agressor from straight doing large scale amphibious landing right on our soil?
5Zaft – ”And that’s exactly the kind of capabilities that ATM wanted.”
Incorrect. The army is not organised or structured for expeditionary ops; to operate deep in enemy territory or to wage a protracted high intensity conflict; nor is it seeking such a capability.
5Zaft – ”If anything they seem rather interested in creating an amphibious strike group. ”
First of all look up what ‘amphibious strike group’ means … Having the ability to land small numbers of men and gear on an unopposed beach and having a riverine capability doesn’t in any way mean the army wants an ”amphibious strike group”..
5Zaft – ”Vietnam & finland are neighbors to their aggressor. ”
Vietnam has centuries of history with China; it was occupied. It fought a brief border war in 1979 and lost reefs in the Paracels and Spratlys. Finland was part of the Russian empire; it fought a brutal winter war and the later ”War of Continuation” and later had to make concessions including handing over territory.
5Zaft – ”Why not just do what Aussie did and pull a forward defense strategy’s”
Something like this really shouldn’t have to be asked and in turn explained.
Must as well ask why the RMN doesn’t just get a Carrier Group or the army a couple of combined arms Shock Army’s; each comprising several Corps. Our threat perceptions and threat calculus differs greatly compared to Australia; we lack the economic means and other resources and we don’t have the institutional security of a blue eyed alliance to fall back.
gonggok – ”The budget is infinite”
Show me who said it was and when…
gonggok – ”Of course ATGMs is not a means to an end, but I am talking about what can be bought if we don’t go through the normal idiotic self defeating way of buying stuff for our armed forces.”
You are making assumptions in line with your personal beliefs seen from your own lens rather than looking at things from a balanced and nuanced perspective; assuming certain things are ”better” and that operational circumstances as seen in the Ukraine will be replicated here. As I said before on a number of occasions; what use are your ATGWs if an armoured column has a UAS on overwatch; is trained in combined arms skills; has manned platforms providing cover; has pre registered arty ready to provide near instant support and has recce screens to its flanks and ahead? What happens if the opponent’s AFVs have APSs and new gen ERA? Again … it all depends on the operational context.
I’m saying that ATGWs are very much needed; that we should not assume things will pan out they way we hope [the enemy too has a say]; that we need a balanced mix of various things which are all intended to work in tandem and that no single weapons system can provide an easy or cheap answer as things don’t work that way.
“We don’t trained our people enough”
I don’t understand. Is it system issue or man knowledge issue? I thought the system used should be the same as those by Turk Army. If our soldiers are lacking knowledge to familiarise themselves with the BMS being too high tech, then its more about education & training.
“we need more highly educated soldiers”
Isn’t that what our armed forces colleges and maktabs supposed to provide? Or am I right to assume TDM is considered an employer of last resorts?
“Australia which nobody insane is going to invade”
To be historically correct, Australia had been invaded once, by UK White convicts.
The BMS on the Gempita was specifically developed to meet the Army requirements. We are the only user. There is no issue about the officers, its the lower ranking people that is the issue
Do the Adnan and PT-91 have a BMS? If so is it the same as that on the
AV-8’s? Also, it was developed by Thales and a local company?
In 2-3 years time, there will be no issue operating the BMS as the tiktok generation enters the service.
Sorry, i meant to type “the budget is finite”
” that we need a balanced mix of various things which are all intended to work in tandem ”
Please reread what I posted before. Never did I type that ATGM is the answer to everything, so please don’t assume that.
What I suggested is actually to have a balanced mix of things. Rather than the army spending the budget getting just only expensive 6×6 and 4×4, my suggestion enables the army with the same exact amount of money to get both the armored vehicle and the top attack ATGM that it currently does not have at all.
The current reality is – The army cancelled its ATGM tender due to lack of budget. Yet the army are proceeding with the 6×6 and 4×4 requirements. When you look at just how much we paid for a single 4×4 Nurol Makina Ejder Yalcin, the total cost of 220+ units of the 6×6 and 4×4 requirement, if still goes through national interest and 200-300% margins, will be more than 500 million dollars.
Yet for the same 500 million dollars the army can have 500 4×4 armored vehicles (which allows for attrition in war) plus thousands of ATGM missiles, Carl Gustaf M4 and RPG-7 rounds.
170 million dollars for 500x JLTV through US DSCA.
200 million dollars for 150x Raybolt ATGM twin launcher units + 200x Raybolt ATGM single launcher units + 4,200x raybolt missile reloads
100 million dollars for 350x Carl Gustaf M4 launcher units + 30,000x rounds.
30 million dollars for 50,000x rounds of RPG-7
Adnan have none AFAIK, the PT91 I am told was disappointing. The Army then decided to develop a new BMS for the Gempita to compensate for the PT91. In retrospect, I am told that it was the wrong decision
There will still be issues if they don’t put a training programme for new soldiers coming into Gempita units.
gonggok – “In 2-3 years time, there will be no issue operating the BMS as the tiktok generation enters the service”
Since as that? For starters a comprehensive training programme is needed to not only train people and keep them current but to ensure that when they leave the army or are reassigned elsewhere they can be immediately and adequately replaced. That is the problem we face and there’s also the lack of English. Not everything is it can be sufficiently translated.
Adnan has KVH TECNAV fiber optic gyro inertial navigation system.
PT-91 has SAGEM SIGMA 30 laser gyro inertial navigation system.
The Gempita has Thales VSYS based Battlefield Management System, which includes the navigation function, and other additional function such as blue team location, and communication with dismounted troops.
MIFV has none.
If the officers have no issues to learn but our rank-and-file cannot grasp the intricacies of a high tech battlefield, it puts into question if TDM wants to remain as an employer for those who failed all their studies, aren’t intellect enough, have learning difficulties or just slow to catch up.
“due to lack of budget. Yet the army are proceeding with the 6×6”
Because it is easier to convince our stingy beancounters to allocate money for the vehicles compared to buying ATGM. Why? Because of the supposed economic returns from local industries that are gonna build those vehicles. I bet you, if proponents of ATGM will say its gonna be locally build plus using some local made electronic parts, the beancounters will go for this instead. Its a matter of which gives the bigger economic return back to Malaysia really.
It’s not what t be MAF desires but what it has to work with. The armed services can obviously only recruit from the manpower which is available. Only a certain number apply for the MAF annually; only a,certain number get into the army and only a certain number are assigned certain types of roles.
gonggok – that ATGM is the answer to everything, so please don’t assume that”
Not in the business of assuming things; others are highly proficient at that.
gonggok – suggested is actually to have a balanced mix of things”
Thanks for reinforcing what I’ve been saying; that we need various things. I’ll also add again that no one weapon will be decisive; none is “better”; none operate in a vacuum and we can’t assume that operational circumstances seen in the Ukraine will be replicated here..
gonggok – ” top attack ATGM that it currently does not have at all”
Which incidentally the army has a requirement for.
gonggok – “When you look at just how much we paid for a single”
You have a penchant for quoting prices and conflating things but the examples are for different systems priced differently intended for different purposes.
gonggok – “cancelled its ATGM tender due to lack of budget”
So? The army depends on funding and at a higher level the politicians approve funding. They decide what is priority.
The ATGW requirement is still there and looks set to be realised.
As it stands tactics and coordination will play a part to how effective our ATGWs are; in addition to various operational factors. One thing’s for sure; MBTs we might face will be better protected than the Russian ones in the Ukraine and will probably have a APS. Unlike the Russian ones,might have a UAS on overwatch, infantry support and observers.The system we need and what the army ones is a non wire guided SACLOS system with a tandem warhead and a top attack capability.
It is how our Armed Forces needs to extricate themselves from being seen as an employer of last resorts. Even those whom I know that do not have bright future rather prefer PDRM or BOMBA careers than joining TDM. Except those who would go for TLDM or TUDM, those ones have real interest or sufficient level of intellect.
There are various ways to make joining the army more attractive as a first employer, similar strategy used by US Army, ie free college education, additional welfare benefits, paygrade that is on par with professional hazardous jobs outside ie O&G.
Again; the MAF can only recruit from what it has. It can’t be too selective because only so many people are inducted annually and one has to work with what one has. Also, the MAF is not seen as a last resort employer because compared to the past more people are joining out of choice not out of a lack of other forms of employment -compared to previous people have more ready choices.
Over the years the armed services have bern taking various steps to improve manpower quality. Take the RMN; in the 2013 period it decided that all officers who had diplomas [most Lts] but not degrees had to leave prematurely. We lost quite a few people who wee dedicated to the job; I met one of them.
Do we want an idiot army stuck in the 20th century or do we want an intelligent army well familiar with the high tech battlefield of 21st century where proper equipment usage can be the difference?
The Army you have is the Army you have, not the one you want
Haha sounds like someone I knew who wouldn’t pay more to hire the right people for the right jobs. It is what you do to hire the people you want, not the people you are forced to get. If you put out honey you attract bees, if you put out sh!t you attract flies.
Well put Marhalim. ThAt is the point I was clearly trying to make; without apparent effect.
IMHO, the best replacement for the Condor is another 4X4 APC, or to put it bluntly a modern version of the Condor if there is one. Sure can afford.
The army is fine with the idea of 4×4 MRAPs but not 4×4 IFVs because MRAPs and IFVs perform slightly different roles and there are inherent issues with a 4×4 IFV. No there is no modern version of the Condor which was originally designed for para military duties or military units in a low threat environment.
Enjoying reading through this thread. What can confirm is if we dont ‘build’ these 4×4/6×6, it will definitely cost twice or triple the amount just like Lipanbara and defunct AV8. I guess the AV8 will and forever will be an 8×8 that cost as much as an export M1 Abrams.
I understand what you trying to imply, what @gonggok trying to say was what could we have bought if the smart politicians spend wisely for defence. Regardless whether we are getting ‘invaded’ or ‘better’ whatever, it can be acknowledged that money could be spend more wisely per say.
We gave quite a few bona fide Army or ex Army guys here. Is Tentera Darat still considered an ’employer of the last resort’ by the youngsters that enter service the last decade or so? Is our army rank-n-file still ‘populated’ by those who garnered lower grades academically? These are interesting issues to gnaw on if true in this digital era.
so does it mean that our AV8 is a bad platform then? why did we bought it all that back in 2011? didnt we test those Pars first before the purchase. Or did some politicking happened that made us bought those AV8?
Luqman – , it can be acknowledged that money could be spend more wisely per say”
It should be driven by the core need to ensure the armed services get a level of capability based on a holistic and realistic assessment of the threat calculus and the type of threats likely to be faced and those we can realistically deal with…
On another topic based on.what Tsib said give are the days when even someone without SPM could enter. Officers need at least a degree and during the course of their career might get further education paid for by the army. The RMN as mentioned previously.some years ago.can up with a ruling that officers with diplomas bit not degrees had to leave prematurely. As for the “employer of resort” thing; this is not the 1980’s anymore. People have more opportunities; irrespective of the salary scale.
Of course it was the politicians who decided on the AV8, AFAIK it wasn’t put on trials. It was a prototype vehicle when we decided to adopt it for it. That said it its not a bad vehicle per se but cheaper alternatives could have been found which would allowed the Army to replace the Sibmas and Condor one for one. Alas its water under the bridge now. The best option now to buy another batch to maximise the numbers available and to reduce the type of vehicles which will reduce the cost of ownership and training
Annuar – ”didnt we test those Pars first before the purchase.”
It underwent mobility trials alongside the Piranha and Rosomak.
Annuar – ”Or did some politicking happened that made us bought those AV8?”
You serious? The AV-8, Adnan, PT-91 and a list of other things were selected based not on merit but a combination of factors; themselves based on national interests – read up previous posts.. As a ex Deftech guy [ex armour who was on the first visit to Turkey to visit FNSS] told me; Adnan was selected because Turkey is a Muslim state [a secular one unlike us] and they were more than willing to indulge our fantasies for offsets , ToTs and local production.
“The best option now to buy another batch”
So you would say it is better to buy PARS family of 6×6/4×4 to meet the mixed needs for TDM?
Nixed the 6X6, buy the 8X8 and the 4X4. I know there are cheaper options out there but again things had been done in the past which had predicated that option
I also agree your assessment; the 6X6 is neither here nor there and a poor compromise between 8X8 and 4X4. Going for the latter 2 configs for next PARS order would better clearly define their roles & purposes.
The most realistic option (for DEFTECH of course) is gempita batch 2 or pars’s 6×6/4×4 option as that will keep them running for another 10-20 years but if we get other designs/tot/local assembly such as arma/tigon/guarani etc2..That will give another chance to other industry players to also flourish other than deftech alone..provided they (other comps) are strong enough financially and logistically..
“The best option now to buy another batch to maximise the numbers available and to reduce the type of vehicles which will reduce the cost of ownership and training”
By extrapolating the cost of Nurol Makina Ejder Yalcin we bought for Malbatt Unifil (9.5 million ringgit) with the numbers required for 6×6 and 4×4 requirements (220+ units), that would be a budget of around 500 million dollars.
I googled around and found out that Oman bought 172 FNSS PARS III for 500 million dollars too.
If DEFTECH can offer this price to the army, i would say better get more Gempita instead.
Firdaus – “players to also flourish other than deftech alone..provided they (other comps) are strong enough financially and logistically”
“Flourish”? How? By getting an order to locally assemble a small batch of vehicles and with little or no prospects for follow on orders? What tangible benefits does the country get by having yet another vehicle locally asssembled using 99.9 percent foreign technology?
Does not matter whether we buy from overseas or assemble locally, the price will still be marked up 100% or 200%
gonggok – ”If DEFTECH can offer this price to the army, i would say better get more Gempita instead.”
Well we know from Dzirhan’s article that Deftech did offer some king of price reduction but apparently a decision has been made not to follow this route. The saving grace – if the 6×6 Pars is ordered – is that there will be some commonality and training will be somewhat simplified.
IF we buy from overseas it must be direct from the manufacturer or through a government to government deal. The markups come from buying from local agents and if locally it is partly to pay for the local assembly
I’m under the impression that gempita at almost 30 tons is probably too heavy to float and swim ashore since this current order for IFV is to fullfil the amphibious IFV requirements that ATM themselves listed in their DWP.
TLDM meanwhile at DCA had published their MRSS spefication as a 210 meter long with 28 meter beam ship which would put it at the size of San Antonio or type 071
Whether or not there’s justification for amphibious IFV & very large MRSS to storms a beach is another matter entirely. But for now they are sticking to the plans that they themselves wrote.
Hasnan – ”Does not matter whether we buy from overseas or assemble locally”
Of course it matters….. Setting up the assembly line; training; ToTs, documentation; all cost money [all paid by the Malaysian taxpayer]; even before any mark ups.
5zAFT – ”for IFV is to fullfil the amphibious IFV requirements”
5zAFT – ”amphibious IFV & very large MRSS to storms a beach”
The ”swimming” requirement is to cross rivers. The AV-8 30mm variant is a wee bit too heavy but it does have a ”swimming” ability; all the variants have a bilge pump.
”Storming a beach” is at the very bottom of the list of things a future MRSS is intended to do; it’s main function would be to deploy troops and equipment [amphib ”movement” rather than ‘assault”] and a host of other things.
Marhalim – IF we buy from overseas it must be direct from the manufacturer or through a government to government deal.
Well they can just as easily buy a prototype or a new variant by adjusting the requirements and jack up the price by 200% because of R&D or integration of different weapon configuration or different combat systems then the original equipment.
A good example is the LCA requirements is for a jet that hasn’t exist yet. The newest entry from a long proud history of buying prototype. Be it the Scorpene, gowind, Simbas, Sukhoi, gempita, Littlebird and so on.
200% mark-up is unfortunately like Thanos is inevitable
Azlan – What tangible benefits does the country get by having yet another vehicle locally asssembled using 99.9 percent foreign technology?
Well, we do have a sizeable aerospace industry here and in some parts they are here because of the purchases that AF made. Also we are stalantis base for regional operation and a big player in the E&E market. Something we never be if we bought weapon from the wrong country. ID & IN hasn’t even reach this stage yet as they priorities juche.
Great that them both are self sufficient with their own tech & build weapon, missiles,gun,jet & plane themselves but pretty pointless in economics terms. While juche filled their hearts with pride it doesn’t really filled their stomachs.
Defense, foreign affairs & economy goes hand in hand, MY just likely wanted to follow in the ‘Sadae’ footsteps of Taiwan & south Korea and move up the value chain in the global supplies & service chain & the gov think local assembly then afterwards compulsory usage of locally made internal components which would hopefully incentives US & EU to increase their FDI & licence their higher value added manufacturing patent here is a way to pull that off.
Infact there’s no benefits to have a direct purchase overseas policy as it give too much power to a single politicians who would then abused such power to buy the wrong thing from the wrong country for his own personal benefits (as had happened before, mind you) even if it’s against the national interest & f-up the country for decades in the process just like Mahathir with his Sukhoi, erdagon with his s400 & durante with his Russian mi-17.
The Gempita amphibious requirement was sought by an Army chief, whose successor cancelled it and written back by his successor
5Zaft – ”Well, we do have a sizeable aerospace industry here and in some parts they are here because of the purchases that AF made.”
If you say so but perhaps you should take another hard and objective look.
5Zaft – ”Be it the Scorpene, gowind, Simbas, Sukhoi, gempita, Littlebird and so on.”
The Scorpene, Sibmas and Littlebird were not ”prototypes” when we ordered them.
5Zaft – ”Defense, foreign affairs & economy goes hand in hand,”
They do but there has to be a limit and a realistic appreciation of what we can or can’t achieve and sustain…. This may be a revelation to you but they heavy emphasis on national interests has had a major detrimental effect on the MAF; whose capabilities don’t reflect all we’ve spent on it.
5zaft – ”Infact there’s no benefits to have a direct purchase overseas policy as it give too much power to a single politicians w”
I really have to idea what you’re on about but whatever we buy should be based on a holistic and realistic apolitical assessment of the strategic calculus and the capabilities needed by the armed services to deal with the threats we are likely or expect to face.
Yes some are amphibious capable and some are not. From off my head, The Ambulance, SURV, AVF, Mortar, AENBCRV, AFV30 and LCT30 are not amphibious capable.
I was under the impression that all variants can swim. Have to look at some pics; the props for the pump are in the far end on the left side of the vehicle.
In addition to the standard trim vane and pump vehicles have to be checked periodically to ensure all the seals are still intact. Another issue is that if the banks are too steep the vehicle will have issues getting into the water.
Some years ago a former SAF M-113 remember told be about the laborious checks which had to be made to ensure the vehicle was “waterproofed”. They had an incident in one of the resovoirs where a vehicle sank.
Easiest way to know, non amphibious variant has storage box where the water thrusters are.
amphibious variants has water thrusters mounted on the left and right at the rear of the vehicles.