No To The AV8

Malaysian Defence
The AV8Buster Logo

KUALA LUMPUR: No to the AV8. The story below from Bernama is self-explainatory. If you read through you will noticed that none of the Army requirements was important enough to justify the procurement of the AV8. Our polls respondent of course disagreed with us funding DRB-Hicom financial well-being.

Malaysian Defence
The AV8Buster Logo

Purchase Of Local-made APC Benefits The Country

KUALA LUMPUR, June 15 (Bernama) — The government’s plan to purchase 257 units of eight-wheel-drive armoured personnel carriers (APCs) from a local company, DRB-Hicom Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd (Deftech), will benefit the country in terms of developing the local defence industry.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told the Dewan Rakyat today the plan was in line with the government objective of enhancing the capacity and expertise of local defence-related companies.

He said the technology and systems developed by other companies previously could also be applied in the production of the APCs.

“In negotiating the purchase price of the APCs, the Defence Ministry will ensure that the price finalised will truly benefit the government without compromising the vehicles’ specifications and systems,” he said when replying to Mohamed Azmin Ali (PKR-Gombak).

Mohamed Azmin wanted to know the detailed list on the supply of military hardware worth RM8 billion by Deftech to the government and the rationale for selecting the company in the project.

Ahmad Zahid said the selection of Deftech for the supply of the hardware had yet to be finalised because the government had just sent the Letter of Intent to the company concerned while the purchase price was still at the negotiation stage.

He said the selection of Deftech was made through direct negotiation based on the company’s expertise in developing armoured vehicles particularly the Adnan ACV 300 armoured vehicles which were now being used by the Malaysian armed forces.

“The initial price offered by the company was RM7.983 billion (almost RM8 billion). The price, among others, also takes into consideration the cost of constructing a new facility and the purchase of equipment to develop the vehicles, transfer of technology and the acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights,” he added.

— BERNAMA

–Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1187 Articles
Shah Alam

20 Comments

  1. If the taxpayer pays for the facility, the tax payer and not Syed Bukhari should own it. This is a rerun of the Steyr AUG fiasco. taxpayer underwrote the project which meant that Precision Technologies/SMEO AUGA1s were 2x the price of Steyr rifles. Now the whole line is defunct and scattered to the 4 winds and the tanah in Sungai Buloh has been kapored for kegunaan lain.
    Lagi satu projek kerajaan Barisan Nasional untuk kepentingan kroni-kroni. Direct nego, tender tarak.
    Inilah KPI in action.

  2. For the same money, the Canucks got 756 LAV IIIs!

    Marhalim: For the same money, we can buy all of the tanks, AFV, SPH and fighter jets which the Dutch declared as surplus back in 2006!!

  3. yes to FNSS PARS but no to build it here as no economies of scale. Just pasang je kat sini no need to build from scratch here. To get back your investment worth if you want to build it here, i roughly calculated you need at least 1000 chassis.

    If buy outright, roughly will be RM2 to RM3 billion depending on weaponry and other specs (my own estimation la)

    Marhalim: Kalau pasang pun we need to pay for the infrastructure for the Pekan plant, its the same deal when they bought the Pinzgauers and Adnans….

  4. I recalled a comment from somebody in the newspaper that questions how can gomen consciously submit an LOI on an item that isn’t even field tested by the army yet?

    KPI my foot…

  5. always appreciate ur information blog but never agreed to ur comment articles, but this time, well said!

  6. The situation can be described as pouring water into the bucket with leaks. People complain that the bucket is empty and it is not benefiting the country and we should start pouring the water into the bucket. But the bucket is leaking. It might seem full after the first pour but after a while, the bucket is empty again. Repeat cycle.

    If people keep hiding behind “we must pour water into our own buckets instead of foreign buckets”, instead of figuring out why the water always goes away, it will just be a waste of time.

  7. agreed! we should hav used the money to buy tanks,APCs, SPHs and medium range SAMs from overseas. Wasn’t the point of buying locally meant for cheaper things? wth does things goes the other way? i understand the need for competent military industry but this is just too much especially during economic constraints…

  8. In my personal opinion, the government policy in assets acquisition be it for military purpose or other sosio economic development purposes, seems to be wrought with inefficiency, lack of indepth study on cost and benefits plus seems to be driven for “show case ” value rather than economic practicality.

    We tend to spend like we are a first world country while in reality, maybe 50km2 of this country be in a 1st world facility while the rest even still looks like during the first time laksamana Cheng ho visits in the 15 century.

    I am not questioning the need for new apc, new frigates or additional military equipments, but we must coincides those purchase with our ability to pay, to maintain and to hire people/train people to use it at optimum level.

    What is the use of a 5th generation weaponry when most of the time you can only put it in storage or have minimal use due to expensive running cost?

    Also what is the use of a high tech combat platform but you cant afford to arm it properly? seems more like a toothless tiger.

  9. Chee,

    FYI the design of AV8 is derived from PARS 8×8 made by Turkey and it was already field tested in Malaysia together with ROSOMAK and MOWAG PIRANHA. In relation to AV8, the only difference is the LCT30 turret which will be sourced from Denel of South Africa. Everything else is PARS alright. So, to say it is not yet field tested is rather incorrect. Installing different turret does not make it a completely different machine.

    No disrespect to our bro marhalim. He is very knowledgeable in defense related matter but some other journalists in this country cannot even spell the names of certain military hardware correctly let alone know its function so if i were you, i wont take their words at face value.

  10. The ROSOMAK/AMV and Piranha were both all up. The PARS was a turretless prototype. How do you test stabilisation and accuracy without the turret mounted or stuff like ergonomics and fightability? Surely the vehicle that is not ready and integrated should be marked down.

    They could have deferred the decision until an all up PARS was submitted for testing but they did not. In fact I’m pretty sure that the testing done by KAD was of the same value as performed for the MBT program, i.e. worthless.

    Some people have no idea what competitive testing is about so I would certainly weigh their opinion accordingly.

  11. T,

    “The ROSOMAK/AMV and Piranha were both all up. The PARS was a turretless prototype”?? Are you implying that PARS was tested without its turret on?? While i was typing this reply, i have with me pictures of PARS being field tested in-country with its original 20mm Sharpshooter turret. I am not making baseless claim. Check May’s edition of TEMPUR and tell me what is that “thing” sticking out on top of one sole PARS participating in the said field test.

    If the same argument of “must test with everything on” were to be applied, then i would say we should not even build the NGPVs. Did we test fire the vessels with its RAM or Vertical Mica before we sign the contract? No. But we built it anyway.

    In essence, I am not convinced PARS would fail spectacularly just because it have different turret.

    So I guess now..any opinion have to be weighed accordingly.

  12. Mr T, they studied them on paper! Currency paper that is.. ha!. Next national defence project beside the M4 is producing Turkish MBT locally to replace the PT91.. double HA! 🙂

  13. I guess I should buy TEMPUR then. That does not take away the simple fact that the PARS tested did not meet the specifications nor the fact that the LCT30 itself was not tested. Why should the taxpayer accept increased risk and cost for the benefit of Deftech? They could have waited until Denel/FNSS/Deftech mounted a LCT30 and trials on the vehicle. They did not, they issued an LOI to the only vehicle that did not meet the specs. It’s not about PARS not failing, it surely should be about PARS doing better than its competitors. Unless of course competitive testing is really only required to rubber stamp a forgone conclusion?

    NGPV is not a good example of buying on plan. Indeed it is a excellent example of what can go wrong when doing so. For the amount of money that has actually been spent on them on and off book, they could have been pimped up like the Braunschweigs. Due to the high capital costs associated with ships, it’s not reasonable to expect a prototype vessel though this is exactly what the USN has done with their LCS as part of their risk reduction strategy.

  14. T,

    “That does not take away the simple fact that the PARS tested did not meet the specifications” I can see that somehow you knew PARS did not meet the exacting standard of the 8×8’s requirement. Perhaps you might be kind enough to provide a link or reference for the benefit of the rest of the reader in this forum as to how you came about the conclusion. I am sure they would appreciate it.

  15. Correct me if i’m wrong. I thought MAF defence hardware procurement policies are based on a combat proven hardware; for example the ASTROS II (Iran-Iraq War), the legendary G5 (Angola War) and so on. Why the sudden change?

    If really the MAF wants an APC that is combat proven and tested, why not just go for the LAV or Piranha? Combat tested in many conflicts, and some might say cheap. Why waste money just to invent another wheel?

    Marhalim: Without the AV8, the Pekan plant would be idle…..

  16. @genduthijau,
    Yes it’s like what Marhalim said, if without the project the Pekan plant will have a big problem. Therefore, with this project, Malaysian will benefit in many ways since the local would also be able to works in the plant. So this will be a balance project of both the armed forces will benefit from it as well as the people. But one must remembered that this is only LOI.

  17. u see gendutijau,a wise man always say,to eat fish everyday dont always buy it in the market,what if f it run out of supply or worse no body will sell it to u,so why not learn how to fish so you will not go hungry….bole

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


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