PETALING JAYA: VAB vs Anoa Redux. Thanks to Kamal, our regular reader, we now know that Sipri said that we bought the Panser Pindad or Anoa in 2010.
This entry is weird as I had reported before on this via The Malay Mail with the Defence Minister stating that we were still negotiating with the Indonesians at the point (when the story reported). Perhaps they missed that story and instead relied on a speculative piece that I did on the Panser earlier also in The Malay Mail.
I have re-checked and it appear that Sipri report is wrong. We did not buy the Panser, not yet anyway. Did Sipri missed my second story?
Anyways, the buzz on the 6X6 deal is that its dead for now. Talk is rife that the end user was not keen on the preferred choice of the ministry, the Panser. As usual when the two sides cannot see eye-to-eye on a procurement programme, it is shoved into the KIV bin, with the chance of being resurrected later. There are other issues as well but since I cannot afford litigation I left it at that.
Why the resistance against the Panser? Its not because its made in Indonesia but instead its mostly related to support issues with the vehicle. Renault Defence had told the Army that its suppliers and the company will sell not spare parts for the vehicle if its purchased by Malaysia. The engine of the Indonesian-made vehicle is made by Renault and it only gave the license to Pindad to sell vehicles equipped with its engines to its home country only.
With Renault trying to sell the VAB to Malaysia, did you expect anything else? So what did we learnt from this episode? If a straight forward procurement programme for an urgent requirement can be derailed by “national interests what about others?
–Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment