SHAH ALAM: Unifil contender out on show. Local company, Mildef International Technologies (Mildef) has publicly unveiled its 4X4 High Mobility Armoured Vehicle (HMAV) today. The armoured 4X4 equipped with a RWS was shown at a media event at its facility in Sepang.
The vehicle according to Mildef
MILDEF has successfully manufactured a 4X4 High Mobility Armoured Vehicle (HMAV) that meets the current United Nations standard and specifications. The rear door design includes a hydraulic system making this fully armoured vehicle highly efficient. The ramp near the door allows the crew to enter and exit the vehicle without any risk of injury falling off.
The weapon platform for this vehicle uses RCWS (Remote Control Weapon Station), ensuring maximum protection for the gun operator. MILDEF acquired exclusive rights to use the Caterpillar Engine, one of the most robust and ruggedized engines in the market for ALANG. This vehicle has been qualified with NATO’s Stanag 4569.
The composite armor is an ideal choice for ballistic protection with Stanag 4569 Level 2 Ballistic & Artillery. This vehicle uses mine-blasts attenuating seats, underbelly protection Stanag 4569 level 2B and hull protection Stanag 4569 level 2A. The power to weight ratio of ALANG is 25hp/ton with maximum speed of 110kph.
Malaysian Defence was invited to the event but due to the MCO and prevailing Covid 19 rates in Selangor, decided that it was much better to report from home. Mildef was formerly known as Kembara Suci which started in 2005 as an MRO shop but later dabbled/ moved towards vehicle manufacturing. Its record here is muddled as the Lipan Bara 4X4 was sold to the Army by Deftech with Kembara Suci initially working with Thailand’s Chaiseri to bring the vehicle locally.
From the picture of the Lipan Bara above, we can surmised that the HMAV is similar apart from the additional doors in the cabin like the Chaiseri’s First Win 4X4 which has five doors.
It is likely that Mildef had proposed the HMAV for the Unifil 4X4 tender last year. I was told by sources that the Defence Ministry tender board is meeting this month and among the agenda is the Unifil 4X4 competition.
Whether or not this means that the contract will be awarded at the meeting is beyond me however. It interesting to note that the sources said so far no firm favourite has emerged from the list of the bidders. Anyhow Happy Chinese New Year for everyone celebrating.
— Malaysian Defence
Good design by local company..yes Malaysia can do it (manufacturing weapon locally) but we also need more support from government.
So technically its a lipan bara? Hmmmm..
ALANG tu nama kenderaan ni ke?
I have no idea whether its a typo or not
A..looks like a slightly redesigned lipan bara for me..so its not not really a locally design hmav..Like many suggested here before, atm should go for additional guardian xtreme..rwcs equipped this time..if possible
Looks promosing. nice design by local company.
Its look like mildef design this hmav themselves..Can Mr M clarify it? If not based on what hmav..
I could be wrong but I think the chassis is actually the Chaiseri First Win 4X4 with cosmetic changes of the body by MILDEF themselves
Nowadays not many company design the weapon from the scratch. For lower the risk just take the existing design.
Example just look at Anoa from VAB, Komodo from Sherpa, Thai Black Widow from Terrex, even Terrex design taken from existing design from Timoney company and not to mention Stryker design taken from Canadian LAV design. And yes, try read also Brazilian made Guarani 6×6. If you make some search there a lot of more thing that I’ve mentioned above.
A – “yes Malaysia can do it (manufacturing weapon locally)”
We have been locally license producing/assembling stuff for decades (starting from when the HK-33s were assembled here in the late 1970’s); stuff which is almost exclusively foreign designed using parts/components which are foreign sourced.
The problem is that we’ve been doing the same thing for decades but have been unable to make the transition from
locally producing/assembling stuff to the point where we can do more; by doing that offering the end user and taxpayer added value in the form of tangible benefits.
A – “we also need more support from government”
That is the main problem : the government unable to commit to large orders on a sustained basis.
Unsurprising however given our long standing deeply flawed and self defeating policy in which the interests of the end user is secondary to that of national interests.
Some things we can and should locally produce/assemble but only if we have economics if scale. The last thing we should do is buy locally and pay more simply to keep the local industry afloat.
The fact that it’s cheaper and faster to buy ammo abroad rather than having it produced locally says it all.
While Cat is more well known in the Americas, in this region Cummins is the American brand to go for diesel engines. It is competitively priced here vs Conti diesels as many ranges of their engines and spareparts are made in China today.
I wonder wether they can install multi weapons turret or rcws such as 25mm, grenade launcher couple with gpmg etc, apart from the 12.7mm browning rcws since it is proposed to replace the Condors which we know have multi weapons capabilities.
It depends really on the design of the RWS itself. The light weight ones could be used
Any startups in Malaysia must content with the fact that we can never have economies of scale if we are dependant on local market. As for defence, it’s never an open market (entry to market is almost impossible) and as a young man I would avoid defence sectors. Better off going for software and electronics…less restrictions and more open competition. Well, selamat berjaya to Kembara Suci
Its not just start-ups everyone in the defence security sector knows it as well. That’s why so many rely on who they know instead of what they know
Zaidi – “Any startups in Malaysia must content with the fact that we can never have economies of scale if we are dependant on local market”
With certain things (helmets, body armour, personal equipment, etc) economics of scale is possible. The problem is when there are no firm commitments oh the part of the government and when there are too many players in what is already a small and saturated market.
With things like the M-4, LCS and AV-8; to justify local production and buying certain rights; we fell under the illusion that we might actually export those things.
The plain fact is that after decades of doing the same thing we haven’t progressed. Take SME; after decades of producing foreign designed ammo; using foreign imported components; it’s still doing the same thing without offering any added value.
The Nexter Light Guns are another example of our highly flawed policy. The only entity which benefited from having them assembled locally was the local
company; not the end user or taxpayer. The whole exercise offered no tangible benefits for the country.
lalok – “the Condors which we know have multi weapons capabilities”
The “multi weapons” capabilities (turret wise) was either a twin MG configuration or a single 20mm (Oerlikon or Rheinmetall?) in an unstabilised turret.
In addition to its turret mounted weapons and turret mounted MG; the Condor (like the Sibmas and V100/50) also had a pintle mounted MG above the troop compartment facing rearwards.
In theory useful but the gunner is very exposed.
Just name it Binturong…
Any reason for pulling out your previously-published post on Cendana Auto? Are they really supplying 148 4x4s to MAF in next few years?
It will be up by next month
Another off topic, On the MIG 29 in storage, why dont we barter with Russia for missiles procurement? After all, our last missiles purchase from Russia was quite long time ago, maybe time expired. We could barter with new missles while our MIG29 is still in demand….
Who said our Fulcrums are in demand?
just rebadge from turkish made hizir 4×4
The bulk of MiG-29s sold since the end of the Cold War were airframes originally built for the Soviet Air Force but were never delivered – ours included.
In short; there are still lots of MiG-29 airframes available which are “new”: unlike ours which have “x” hours in then and RD-33s in need of overhaul. To get a buyer; ours would have to be sold cheap which to me is the preferable option to holding on to them idefinitely.
With slew of tenders open for assets replacement recently, it is really a welcome news. But how it will be funded? Unless there is a major shift in the taxation system, tax revenue next few years expected to be lower than pre covid level. Taking more borrowings is an option but it will increase debt servicibilty portion from the comfortable 15%.plus we can’t go on long raking 5% budget deficit as this will cause us to be like Greece in 5 years time. Unless there is a major shift in MY tax system or reduce fixed overheads, it will be very difficult to fund all these assets acquisition
Yes that hizir guy already here
Kamal – “, it will be very difficult to fund all these assets acquisition”
Funding is one major issue. Making sure we get the best value for our cash is another issue : given the way we go about procurement; everything is politically driven – emphasis on the local industry and other national interests factors (local production, the self sufficiency gagaland fantasy, offsets, etc).
We lack the ability to learn from our mistakes; the result is a MAF whose capabilities don’t reflect all we’ve spend on it which in turn leads to the armed services and tax payer getting bugg***d.
All these (inc Covid support funds) will be paid for by borrowings. Ever since PH era whereby our Government no longer followed the unwritten 55% debt ceiling set by BN, our debts have climbed above that level.
Good or bad? Depends on who you ask. But since there is precedent set, any subsequent Government no longer needs to justify keeping to a set debt limit anymore.
There is no loans for funds for defence and I don’t think they will do so going into the future
Hmmm…..it looks like turkey’s Hizir.
Is it another rebadge?
If yes, let’s buy it directly from Turkey no need middleman again and again.
Romeo – “ no need middleman again and again”
It’s goes back to what I’ve been saying : our long standing flawed and self defeating policy.
The whole idea of having a ‘middle man” was based on the hope that it would actually lead to tangible long term benefits; creating jobs, creating a local industry which would benefit from offsets and ToTs, etc. In theory it’s great; in actual practice not so.
The reality is that it hasn’t accomplished anything but absorb scarce resources which could have been better utilised. The bulk of local companies don’t offer any added value. Those which manage ti stay afloat keep doing the same thing (local assembly, local production – reliant on foreign tech and components) without transiting to to the next level
To do away with the ‘middle man” and to ensure the end user and taxpayers get their money’s worth would entail an honest appraisal of where we’ve gone wrong and a total and fundamental revamp of our highly flawed and self defeating defence policy.
“There is no loans for funds for defence”
It comes from the overall yearly Bajet and 5 yearly RMKs. A significant increase in budget layout without the same gains in income would meant money must come from somewhere, so its either from us taxpayers or thru borrowings which thus resulted in higher debt levels.