SHAH ALAM: The statement below is self-explainatory. It is the confirmation of the contract for the AV8. As mentioned in the previous postings, the LOA for the AV8 signified the three mandatory Armed Forces projects for the RMK 10. As a reminder the other two projects are the SGPV/LCS and the Nuri Replacement Programme (Cougar procurement).
The Cougar project has just started while the SGPV/LCS project will be signed, most probably, at Lima 2011 at the end of the year. Again as I had mentioned I am wary of having the government announcing the ceiling budget for any project under negotiations as the final price had always tracked the approved budget. In this case, the LOI was worth RM8 billion and the LOA (contract) is RM7.5 billion, a discount of RM500 million.
Like the SGPV/LCS project I am still of the opinion that this is another Bridge Too Far for MAF. Of course the Army needs to recapitalise its forces but spending RM7.5 billion for just 257 armoured fighting vehicles (AFV) is over the top for our defence budget. Yes, the money spent will be spread out most probably within 10 years or even longer but how the government can guarantee it will be spending a billion ringgit a year for these vehicles especially in an economic downturn?
The rest of the Army remained in need of recapitalisation and more money is needed for operational and maintenance concerns. Yes, there is even the chance of huge capital outlay in case a shooting war does take place , no matter how remote the chance of it happening.
Yes, I know the AV8 is an AFV and it was never designed to fight an Abrams. But for that price it should not only fight an Abrams it should tore it to pieces! I will not bore you with numbers but the rest of the 8×8 AFV cost around RM10 million each or cheaper (Western ones) while Russians and Chinese ones goes much, much cheaper.
I understand the argument on transfer technology and such but then again for RM30 million a piece everything on the AV8 should be designed in country and made locally. Instead it will have a Turkish body, a South African turret with gun and ATGW launcher, a German engine and French radios and electronics and assembled here. It was designed in the USA however, the country that bought an AFV from the Swiss, mind you.
By the way, I have no idea how much is the cost of the Singaporean 8X8 the Terrex. It may even cost as much as our AV8. But with an annual budget of nearly US10 billion, of course it can afford to pay for it.
Revised RMK10 tally (figures in bracket is actual contract price0
Cougar RM1 billion (RM1.6 billion); SGPV/LCS RM3 billion (RM6 billion), AV8 RM2.5 billion (RM7.5 billion) A400M RM1 bilion (RM2.5 billion)
DRB-HICOM BERHAD (“DRB-HICOM” OR “COMPANY”)
ACCEPTANCE OF LETTER OF AWARD (“LOA”) FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA TO DRB-HICOM DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD (“DEFTECH”) IN RELATION TO THE MANUFACTURE, SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF ARMOURED WHEELED VEHICLES
Announcement Details/Table Section :
Further to the announcement dated 20 April 2010, DRB-HICOM is pleased to announce that its wholly-owned subsidiary, DEFTECH had accepted the Letter of Award dated 23 February 2011 from the Government of Malaysia to design, develop, manufacture, commission, supply and delivery of two hundred and fifty seven (257) units of twelve (12) variants of the 8 x 8 Armoured Wheeled Vehicles (AWV) (“Contract”). The Contract valued at RM7.55 billion is for a period of 7 years commencing from 2011.
DEFTECH, via this Contract, will spur and enhance the growth of the Malaysian economy through an economic enhancement program which consists of transfer of advanced defence technologies from its technology partners and original equipment manufacturers (“OEM”), research & development and local vendors development.
DEFTECH will also own its first intellectual property rights on armoured wheeled vehicle systems and sub-systems. Many new local OEMs will be created through direct and indirect foreign investments during the duration of the Contract and this will generate increased employment for the local defence industry.
Close collaboration with its technology partners and principal OEMs will also enhance the capabilities and knowledge of not only DEFTECH’s employees but create a knowledgeable workforce for the local defence industry including acquiring competencies in project management, supply chain management particularly defence business processes as well as systems engineering, amongst others.
The Contract will not have any material effect on the earnings, gearing and net assets of DRB-HICOM Group for the financial year ending 31 March 2011. However, the Contract will contribute positively to the future earnings of the Group.
None of the Directors and/or substantial shareholders of DRB-HICOM and persons connected with them have any interest, direct or indirect, in the said Contract.
This announcement is dated 7 March 2011.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
RM 7.5 billion spread over 10 years? How much of that is going to be siphoned off into pockets not intended to? Or in the event of more incompetencies, find ourselves with cost-ovverruns due to ‘forgot to order spare parts’?
Technology transfers and first-time intellectual property rights my foot! The rakyat is footing the bill for a private enterprise which don’t have the brains to even manufacture spare parts (trackpads mind you!) needed by the ACV-300s?!
First of all, the justification is not convincing.How much is actually going back into the economy and how much would be actually “leaked”out overseas?. The argument of Intellectual property is even more unconvincing.Do we get the IP for the whole vehicle-i.e the manufacture of the basic vehicle and not just for the variant that is produced or assembled here?
It is also argued that Malaysia will now be the asia hub for this vehicle. Really?.If its that expensive, how many Asian countries can afford to buy apart from Malaysia? They can get cheaper ones from Pindad or better ones from Singapore.
The government is not spending our money wisely.If they had bought PARs outright and maybe supplemet with anti tank armoured vehicles like the Centauro, it will be much much cheaper.
The whole project is a waste of money.We can get more bangs for the bucks like acquiring second hand tanks from Europe or new MRCP from the US or Europe too. We still have no funds for our AWACS. If only the budget for the armoured vehicles can be trrimed we can get two more AWACS already
Reply
Buying second hand MBTs are out of question due to logistics reason (we bought the PT91M from Poland) and the fact that there is no second hand light tanks capable of fighting a MBTs. The Army does not believe any thing above 50 tonnes is capable of operating effectively here due bridge weight issues and the soil condition. The only real light MBT is the CV120T but if we had bought we would be the only country to use it although the chassis does have other variants.
the hope is that The RM7.5 billion also cover scheduled maintenance and parts for the next 10 years. But even say it is 30% of the contract, the av8 is way too expensive. The estimated cost for project badger south africa 246 8X8 is about EUR2.1 million a piece at 2007 price or 520 million euro. say 20% inflation, would be around EUR600 million. still almost 3 times cheaper at current exchange .
Reply
It doesnt say so in the release. But as a rule we always skip the maintenance deal….
I’m never fond with the Pars design actually. Why in the hell does Deftech choose Pars as the base model for AV-8? It’s a ‘rejected’ design been sold from Swiss –> US –> Turkey –> Malaysia.
In my honest opinion, buying a proven battle taxis off the shelf such as Patria AMV which has been proven in Astan is better deal and did I mention cheaper? Just because Indonesia started their Anoa programme and SG came out with Terrex, our G felt that we need to come out with something cool as well but we should consider the constraints in our budget.
The allocated budget should be spend wisely, do wisely even existed in ‘their’ books? Or fat paycheck is what those contractors are dreaming about.
Reply
The Patria AMV or Wolverine was offered for local manufacture for around RM15 million..
Ym Lee,
At the moment we don’t really know the full specs and configuration of the AV8 so in all fairness we can’t say we can get better ones from Sing. In 2002, the Centauro and CV90 underwent trials here and were offered as a cheaper alternative to the t-90, t-84 and PT-91. Problem is both can’t take the same amount of punishment as an MBT due to their armour protection levels. Personally, I would have liked surplus Leopard 2s as they have thicker armour and don’t require the same amount of modifications and integration required for the PT-91 to meet our requirements. like it or not we are stuck with the PT-91M, it’s not the best MBT but it’s not the worst either.
All due fairness to Deftech, and I’m no fan of Deftech or any other local companies who apply the ‘Made In Malaysia’ logo on licensed assembled foreign products, the track pads issue was 5 years ago… From what I could gather, the army is getting good servicibility rates with the Adnans.
Something I noticed over the weekend, apart from small arms, the army applies it’s logo on everything, including the G-5 and Jernas!
Reply
Its good to hear about high availability rate of the Adnans. I remember back in early 2006 the fleet was left idle due to lack of parts. Wonder whether Deftech already got an extension to their parts contracts…
is the AV8 more costly compared to the ACV300 Adnan ?
If it is, wouldn’t it be better to buy more Adnan instead ?
I don’y see the need to own the IP, its not like anyone will buy it from Malaysia and we can earn royalty.
There are so many 8×8 APC manufacturers. Why would anyone want to buy from Malaysia? What is our competitive advantage over the others?
Reply
Based on records the Adnan costs around RM4 million each. The Adnan is for the. Armoured Brigade while the 8X8 is for the calvary units.
Azlan….you have not heard about the rollovers? Or the turret problems.
They are also underpowered and very hard to drive.
Logoing everything is in response to people selling stuff off, like jet engines.
The reason the Turks are chosen is because they understand the way things are done. You pay to play. This is a rerun of the Adnan deal where it was originally 88 for the same price as the 270+ they eventually got. That was early in the tenure of No.1.
For that amount of money we should get all kind of variants, basic model should have cloaking technology from the klingon, and 40watt plasma machine gun as co-ax. There should also be a variant with AMOS turret, air defence variant with CV-90 turret (40mm with that dust bin radar). For close support, it should mount 8in howitzer (no less), with 106mm RR as backup!
Reply
LOL
257 to replace 400+ condors and 180 sibmas…might as well just go for the Indon Anoa and use the xcess funds for better equipment for the foot soldiers
Reply
There are also the 250++ Adnans and another 200 plus MIFV also
kamal, the Anoa is no doubt cheaper but like the VAB, Condor and Sibmas, only provides protection to up to 7.62mm. FNC-Nurol claims the Adnan provides all round protection to up to 14.5mm.
yep, with the USD10 million price tag for the AV8, almost as expensive as the puma ifv, i hope it can even withstand a 105mm shell lol.
Joke a side, the av8 is kind of examples of how inefficient our government can be when it comes to money. Noble intentions but too costly.
If they stick to COTS model outside, one time purchase cost will be max RM3 billion for 257 basic chassis, say another RM1 billion for weapons turrets/ammo and another RM2 billion for 10 years maintenance and part supports for 10 years. It is still 22% cheaper compared to the AV8 deal that we dont even know the break down of the contracts.
the balance Rm1.55 billion could be used for other better purpose for the armed forces
Reply
For military vehicles the correct term is Military Of The Shelf or MOTS. And in our case it should have Modified MOTS. I was told that if the MOTs option was chosen at least for the AMV it would have RM15 million for local assembly.
Like you I was concerned that it will be too simplistic just to divide the figure of vehicles to be purchased withe contract price. But I had checked the old stories from DSA 2010 and even back then no one including Deftech had disputed the unit cost price.
As for the title of the post I am not saying it is as expensive as the Abrams. I was making the point for that amount of money we should be getting a MBT like capability instead of a normal APC which will not survive attacks from anti-tank weapons.
The Israelis pay less, much less for the mother-of-all APCs, the Merkava based Namer.
Lets call a spade a spade, the cost of this project has entirely to do with ‘national interest’, which used to be the grease that kept the wheels turning but now is the elephant in the room. Scary.
Reply
Yes its a national interest project down to the core. I was hoping for the sake for the MAF that it would be me that its proven wrong but it seemed the road to Jalan Padang Tembak is paved in gold…
you can’t compare us with the Israelis. They are reputed to be the most kedekut people on planet earth! Their crooked nose is the proof!
Plus we need to pay for the services of the local bomoh to say the necessary prayers and provide the tangkli to make our AV8 APC invinsible.
For that type of money we can even get the brand new Boxer armoured vehicles which are modular by design from Germany.This vehicle is brand new and offers the very best in armoured protection. A bit big but what the heck its German designed and ordered by both Geramany and the Netherlands.I dont think mindef has even tested Boxer.
Reply
The Pars was selected, if I remember correctly, circa 2003 and 2005, the Boxer was still a prototype. Three 8×8 were trialled, if I remember correctly, the Piranha (deftech), pars (MMC Defence) and AMV (no idea who was the local agent, but it has snce morphed into Naza Defence). At the point it was already decided that 8X8 chosen will be a national project so I assume that made Pars as the obvious choice. So when Syed Bukhari took over DRB Hicom, MMC Defence was absorbed into Deftech, and its plant in Pekan which was supposed to built the Piranha and built for the Pinzgauers and Adnan will be turned into building the AV8.
The project was supposed to start in RMK9 but the project was deferred due to the economic downturn. When it was revived for RMK10 there was talk of Boxer and VBCI coming into the picture and the AMV morphed into the Polish Bumar version by Naza Defence.
As it is it was all wayang kulit as the Pars had already been chosen by the powers that be.
anon,
Let’s not intoroduce any racial undertones here shall we?
The Namer is probably the most heavily protected APC ever produced but is around 60 tonnes!!
Reply
The Russian at the recent IDEX launched an APC called BPMT which appeared to be a modified T-90 chassis, a concept similar to the Namer. It is armed with various Russian remote turrets although unlike the Namer it appear it cannot carry extra troops. The BPMT is supposed to accompany tanks into the battle but without foot soldiers its actual utility in battles is suspect…
Only the Turks will ….. . the amounts necessary.
Reply
Sorry need to do some censorship I cant afford litigation….But I remember that the FNSS people told Kosmo on the eve of the LOI signing at DSA 2010 that they expect MINDEF to sign for 600 APCs from them. I guess they were just as surprise with the 257 units.
Sometimes I wonder who makes the decision to purchase military equipment.The professional soldiers/airmen/sailors or some civilian politicians?.Its the lives of our military boys at the end of the day whom would be spill.Not the civilian powers that be that may still be sitting in a cushy aircon office when the blood is being spill.
We should let the professionals decide on what is in their opinion the best. They have to face the bullet/grenade/shells after all.Let them choose the best the country can afford.I know how the boys will gribe when handling equipment they dont feel satisfied with.After all,I have been a cannon fodder too during the second emergency
Reply
At the end of the day it will be the politicians who will decide as they control the purse strings, the generals can recommend but its the Cabinet who decide…..
Its important to understand that the generals specify the requirements (termed General Staff Requirements) as they see best fit the overall fighting capabilities of the army. They made their study and subsequently recommend a particular type of equipment/’brand’ base on their technical and performance specification among short listed supplier. Its purely technical and they dont get it mixed up with cost issue. In fact up to this stage, the total cost is rarely set just yet.
But after the study at army hq is complete, its the ministry that control the money along with input from certain departments (that has got nothing to do with the army) that make the final proposal to the power that be for decision. This is also the stage when national interest begun to surfaced.
So thats how sometime when the army ask for a tiger they ends up with a racoon, reason – well they both got teeth and they are hairy, so they are one and the same.
Off-topic but in his recent book, Mahathir has confirmed that Malaysia provided the Bosnian Muslims with ‘light weapons’ [page 39,today’s Star]. During the 90’s there were a number of press reports that Malaysia and Turkey, with U.S. knowledge, had provided arms. Some of the funding supposedly came from Brunei.
Getting back to the AV8. Below are some posts about the AV8 by Dzirhan Mahadzir in the militarynuts.com
10/3/11- ”Well it’s not straightforward also even if combining parts as some has to be redesigned to fit, we had to redesign radios on PT-91 as the ones we wanted to put in would not fit in their original form in the space where the radio would be in the PT-91M. The interior design has to be worked on too. There’s 12 variants of the AV8 8×8 including a specialist NBC vehicle, I’ll have to look up some details as I wrote about it last year. They are supposed to work on the vehicle suspension etc to make it more suited for Malaysia’s terrain and army’s performance requirements. Plan is for most of the components to be built or eventually built locally, my guess is that costs includes the establishment of facilities where Deftech can build vehicle totally but the purchase of the hulls from Turkey was made due to time factors and beyond this contract, future vehicles will have everything manufactured in country, there was talk at DSA last year that the turret part for the initial batch will be made incountry even though it overseas design, the IP are related to allowing Deftech to sell the vehicle on the overseas market with no restrictions and before anyone starts on the 30 mil a vehicle, who will buy , I’m sure the price will be way lower after the 257 vehicles. I really wish there was info on the entire Terrex program so I can make comparisons. Program is pricy but there are strategic reasons to have manufacturing capabilities in country.”
10/3/11 – ”The parallels lies in Terrex being a domestic program based on what was an originally foreign design which was then further refined/developed for SAF requirements, which is the same as what Malaysia is doing for the AV-8, it’s not a direct one to one point comparison but it would be useful to have some idea of the costs involved in such. Yes the IP and infrastructure will be owned by Deftech but in regard to the latter, the government would rather have that as then Deftech will have to maintain and support it/pay for staff etc; and am sure that govt has already laws saying such infra can be requisitioned or put under its control when required. Should also mentioned that Deftech still has got to sell the vehicle overseas though so they not getting money for no risk on their part, in they get no orders, then keeping the plant and facilities for next seven years to just handle/support the initial Malaysian order could cost them.
Personally I’ll be concerned if a follow on batch order then costs as much or close to the initial deal but we’ll see”
11/3/11 – ”Let me give some info on some of the programs,
The steyr rifles cannot be produced in Malaysia because of the falling out between Steyr and SMEO, steyr took back the dies etc but I do not think the SMEO facililities have been abandoned, SMEO last I heard is working towards doing the Colt M4 at the same place
MRCA – has to be open tender, if we had straight shootout, then ppl such as opposition complain vested interests, you do know that we have a vocal and more potent opposition here capable of making inroads in Parliament so Msia govt has to be open tender, can’t win either way it seems if we do open or limited tender
PT-91M – Think I’ve said before, the Army is of the view 1 tank regiment is sufficient, we’ve had 3-4 COA since the PT-91M deal was signed and the last two have indicated a different outlook on the army tank requirement
NGPV/SGPV, got to bear in mind that had the program gone on time, we would probably be midway through second batch, since the time of the original NGPV, things have changed significantly as to the requirements of the batch 2 NGPV and the Navy wants to look at other options in design and specs but they will still be built at the same shipyard with foreign assistance and actually may even be with same foreign company involved as heard that Germans are favorites for it.
BTW it’s easy to say increase defence spending, you know how much grief the government of Malaysia gets on defence spending and this is not just to do with procurement alone, even the operating expenditures which constitutes 70 percent or so of the defence budget gets criticised, frankly if we had a referendum in Malaysia, I would bet the people would overwhelmingly vote to cut defence spending by 90% or so. I think Singaporeans need to understand that Malaysia is a different kettle of fish altogether than Singapore which is much easier to govern and monitor due to it’s small size and in terms of some of the other ASEAN neighbours, Malaysia is likely less questionable in defence spending but we get more attention since more comes out in the open. At the same time, Malaysia has to muddle along with what the terrain is like locally in terms of defence programs and in relation to the political realities, we’re not as boring as you guys in SG, plenty of people here can make trouble on various issues every day so what comes out is always compromises which don’t seem to be the perfect solution to Singaporeans but this is what can only be done in Malaysia.”
The govt must have a really good reasons for buying this.
Reply
Yes plenty of reasons but not too many are military reasons…
anyone have any idea who will get the commission on av8 deal? maybe we can try to persuade him to take a bit lower comm …… zzzzz
Reply
The commission is one issue only as most of the components are supposed to be manufactured locally by Local OEM as mentioned in the DRB-HIcom statement to Bursa Saham.
12 variants is a lot for just 257 vehicles, I wonder what variants there will be apart from the 25mm/30mm variant, ARV, command, mortar, anti-tank, 12.7mm/AGL, ambulance. I hope they just stick to 25mm for commonality reasons [as some 30 odd Adnan’s already have the Bushmaster and SME license produces the Namoo 25mm sabot round] or go totally for 30mm but not both!. For the anti-tank variant the Ingwee was reportedly the front-runner.
Heard over last weekend that all the 25 Scorpions and 25 Stormers are now operated by 10 Para’s armoured squadron. Previously some of the Scorpions and Stormers were still with 11th Armoured.
Reply
The gun on the turret displayed at DSA was for the 30mm and it also sported, launchers for Ingwe (if I remember correctly), yes so I guess the missile will be chosen for the AV8. Perhaps they will also get a version with a 90mm cannon to replace the Sibmas…
The Thais bought 96 BTR-3E1 ifv for only 129.74 million USD.For the same amount of money spent on AV8 we could get 1793 BTR.Why spend RM8 billion on AV8 unless it is indigenous ones made in Malaysia like what Singaporean had done with their Terrex and not only ‘pasang di Malaysia’.RMAF acts like they have a big pocket to spend such amount on one thing and neglect the others that more urgently required such as the MPSS and the EC725.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2011/03/btr-3e1-thailand-mulai-operasional.html
Despite all the negative talk, I fully support government effort to modernize our armed forces.
It may not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. If we look around us today, its clear that ATM in desperate need of modernization.
satria…any idiot can waste money.Especially when it is not their own. I can do it for a lot less and still be able to afford a brand new Cayenne Turbo. Indeed I would argue if we didn’t have national interest as the overriding factor that our armed forces would be MUCH better equipped, trained and prepared than it is for the same money spent.
Probably the same unreasonableness that dislikes the generals and politicos using military choppers as their runabouts to the detriment of operational availability and training.
syaz, unlike the Adnan which was just ‘pasang’ at Pekan, the Av88 will reportedly contain some ‘modifcations’ to suit our operational requirements. Whether this is just talk or will become reality remains to be seen. A direct comparison cannot be made with the Terrex as we have absolutely no idea how much was spent on R&D. Do you have any idea? BTW, the BTR is certainly cheaper, no dispute there, but it is also more lightly armoured.
Reply
With Deftech buying “frames” or chassis of the AV8 from FNSS, I doubt other local OEM will take the risk of actually manufacturing from scratch their items. Moreover only SapuraThales has its own manufacturing facility already so the rest will probably need to start from scratch (although it is the idea by giving the AV8 the National AFV status). I will be very delighted of course if DaimlerBenz will allow a Malaysian company to start producing a 300hp Mercedes diesel engine from scratch with the foundries and all (thats the idea of course) and then allow the company to license produce similar engines for other users as well. The same goes for Denel (turrets including the 30mm gun, missile launcher, Ingwe and all the associated electronics) and other component manufacturers. The only people I am sure will be building their share of the deal will be Sime Tyres. I am sure they are very happy that the Army has finally chosen an 8X8 vehicle!
i heard rumors says the TNI is getting the K-21, BlackFox n K-2 MBT…..any comment?
Reply
In what context? How strong is the rumours, suitability of the Korean machines, the price? I have no idea, at the moment…
LOL, u got me there Marhalim, Sime Tyres, imagine 1 unit got 8 tyres, 8 x 257 = 2056 tyres. Spares not included, only god knows how much they’ll charge for each tyre. Big fat cash cheque in there.
Bout the Indo rumours. Forget it, anything unofficial is best left alone. The same can be said to our MAF.
Now all of you are talking of the Ingwe for the anti-tank requirements.Graet missile that no issues.But I have issues in that we are now having a plethoria of anti-tank missiles and it would be a logistical nightmare and training issues for the mat sabuns. We have Eryx from France as the result of urgent orders being placed for the Bosnian operations, then the Metis M from Rusia and now we have the Ingwe and no plans to standardise. So complicated. The Mindef can do better by standardisation on one missile and so all mat sabuns can now be trained on one missile only
Reply
The LCT30 turret for the AV8 was developed for the Ingwe missiles so of course it is easier to integrate them on the vehicles. None of the missiles already in service are already integrated into vehicles so it will not be so troublesome when it comes to training. Parts and maintenance issues are of course another area that need careful monitoring. As for now there is no word of the Army buying new ATGW apart from the on-going talk about the Javelin.
The TNI-AD has indeed recently officialy announced that it is looking into buying a batch of MBTs but did not specify from where. No local trials of any MBT’s have yet to take place and no RFI’s has been released so it’s still very early days. Because of the recent inroads made by S. Korean companies into the Indonesian market, it is taken for granted that the K-2 will be offered.
YM Lee, don’t forget the 18 Bahkthar Shikan launchers mounted on the Adnan. A policy of standardisation in many areas has eluded us due top political factors…
What PT-91M n K-2 capable of? the turkish ANTAY also follow the korean k-2….
Reply
Ah a head to head comparison, courtesy of an armchair critic! Based on design and manufacturing date alone the K-2 trumps the Pendekar. But as every one knows, just being better does not necessarily mean one will win in a shooting war.
If Deftech got license to built AV8 locally, maybe there will be batch II with a lot of improvements. 257 are not enough to replace Condors and Sibmas.
Reply
With the Adnans and MIFVs, there was no plan (previously) for the Army to buy a second batch. Replacements for accidents and other issues are of course possible. But I dont foresee, at the current Army force structure, for an 8X8 fleet exceeding 300 vehicles.
Dear Fadiman,
from what i read, the indonesian ordered 22 Black Fox 8X8 to be armed with 90mm cannon. 11 is to be sent by 2012. estimated cost for the 22 is rumoured around USD200 million
also in the latest sipri report, in 2010 malaysia ordered 32 pindad anoa 6X6. if sipri reported it there should be some grain of truth in it.
Reply
Yes Sipri data are usually accurate but on this account I am not too sure
Azlan,granted i don’t have the Terrex development cost.But,doesn’t it meant that if the R&D have been done by the Turks, the overall cost should be much2 cheaper.Btw, small of modification to suit MAF specs should not exceed the USD650 mil for the main frame, otherwise it is seems not logical.
The Korean k-2 tank is awarded by the Guinness as the most expensive MBT for appox.US 8.5 mil..Maybe we should claim a certificate from Guinness that Malaysian AV8 is the most expensive ifv ever.
Reply
The right category is wheeled armoured fighting vehicles. Yes it will win hands down…
My thinking on the anoa that as it is for UN purpose, it was not put in our defence budget as i was made to believe the cost will be covered by UN. I read somewhere it only cost the Indonesian USD100k for the chasis and the engine w/o weapon so the purchase of the 32 anoa would be in the range of USD4 million to USD10 million max. maybe its under Foreign Ministry budget or KDN?
BTR 3E is a new version based on the russian BTR 80. BTR 80 is said able to withstand frontal 12.7 mm HMG and 7.62 mm on the side without added armour. However just like the T80 tank issue, the ukrainian may not be able to obtain certain material that made the armour for the chasis as such the actual hit withstand capability may not even more than 7.62 mm assault rifle. As the thai will used it mainly in the south where mainly the rebel are armed with molotov cocktail, 5.56mm assault rifle and maybe grenades, it may be adequate, but they dont put it at the combodian border though, as maybe i am just speculating here, it may not be able to with stand the heavier arms used there in terms of 14.5 mm HMG and above
Syaz, maybe we should.
Bear in mine that the R%D done on the Pars by the Turks, as it relates to us, only applies to the hull. The AV8 in it’s final form could turn out to be an entirely different animal from the Pars, with a different suspension, engine, internal layout, different turrets, variants, etc. We are basically creating a new variant out of something already in service, like we did with the PT-91M and the Su-30MKM, as always costly affair. Personally, I would have preferred something off the shelf, s***w DEFTECH and the so called need to develop a local industry. Amidst all this talk of exporting the AV8, no one in the local mainstream media or any local defence analysts asked the most obvious questions – ”who’s going to buy the AV8 apart from the army and are we going to buy enough AV8’s to recoup the cash we spent? Economics of scale?”
Marhalim, as part of the contract awarded to FNSS, does the figure include the setting up of any facilities at the DEFTECH plant in Pekan?
Reply
It doesnt say so in any of the press release. As the frames purchase are to me complete chassis Deftech does not have to make a huge investment to it plant unless it intends to make new batches of the AV8 at Pekan. That will involved foundries and other steel cutting equipment of the AV8. The funds to develop the plant in Pekan ie tooling and such is part of the contract between Deftech and the Government which is the reason for the high investment cost. Whether or not it will translate into the plant being transformed into a real AFV factory remained to be seen.
As a comparison (again not apples to apples) Denel contract to manufacture 264 Patria AMV is around RM3.7 billion (around RM14 million each) which was very similar to the numbers quoted for the CKD assembly of the Bumar AMV of RM15 million . Denel reported that 70 per cent of the 8X8 vehicles will be made in South Africa.
Yeap it true, the TNI will get 22 blackfox n will intend to get k-21 to….err Why PARS or aka AV8 cost it so high, what is advantages….???????, i just know the AV8 only stable running on the desert only, i watch over youtube, they do trial on desert but in our country no desert, rough terrain, jungle, hill, swarm in sarawak n sabah more event worse only light vehicle or helis is more suitable for army deployment, I m categories AV8 is heavy weght APC/IFV i thinks. Worth buying it??????? any other option, the gov n mindef should asked opinion from people n ex-military cos the money they spend is belong to people like me n u all, we paid taxs, we should has right to knows all this thing…
Around 1995 0r 1996 the army announced that it was looking into 6×6 APC’s to supplement the condor fleet after discovering that the Condor 4×4 was experiencing problems in the rough terrain encountered in Bosnia. Shortly after, Denel offered it’s Ratel 6×6 to the army. Some 15 years later a contract to replace the Condor is finally signed!
Some stuff on the RTA’s BTR’s. Seems the BTR deal also has it’s share of problems, minor though compared to what may be encountered with the modifications needed for the AV8.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/195845/
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2010/04/latest-move-to-provide-army-btr-3e1.html
http://thaimilitary.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/rta-plan-for-btr-3e1-suffers-delay/
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/195846/an-expert-opinion-of-the-ukrainian-btr-3e1-apc
An interview on the BTR-3E1. Seems it has less internal volume, range and armor protection that the AV8. But then it’s also a hell of a lot cheaper!!
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/195846/an-expert-opinion-of-the-ukrainian-btr-3e1-apc
RM 8 bil is a lot of money. With 8 bil, we should buy AEW&C aircraft, MPSS/LPD,MPA ,new FACS and acquire strategic tanker-tranport like A310 MRTT.
reply
How sure are you that the money for 8X8 if cancelled, will be chanelled to other programmes?
i am a pessimist, i believe that the RM7.5 billion contract will be among one of our greatest defense inefficiency. Trumping all that had been said about the SU 30 mkm purchase and the Scorpene purchase.My only pray is this that at least 40% of the contract value will be used to set up a proper support and maintenance chain so that all the repairs maintenance and parts will be in -country and not outsource foreign as at least in economic development terms some benefits will accrue to local vendors.
Saying that however, it would be a damn expensive economic development project and may not produce a competitive industry player. You may end up creating a vendor that totally rely on government handout to survive, which at our current economic structure it could not last for long.
However, if they are able to produce/procure at least 1,000 frames, the economics of it will be different.
Reply
You said you are pessimist but by the third para you remained hopeful. Yes if we build 1,000 AV8s we may achieved an economy of scale but at what cost?
Due to the rapid urbanisation of the country, especially these past 3 decades, there are more areas now where AFV’s can operate. Anyhow, in our context AFV’s are not meant to be used in a jungle enviroment, swamps or hilly areas but in urban areas, plantations, etc, and great use will be made of the national road network.
SM will be very happy to deliver 1,000 AV8s at the cost negotiated. It more than compensates for the loss of certain B….. monopolies.
But wait….ask first WTF are the Armor Regiments supposed to do? I have yet to be able to get ONE coherent and well thought out answer that is not regurgitated from the buku written circa 1947.
Does everyone know how they are actually organized and what they are tasked with? I was very dissatisfied with the responses I have got from practitioners.
Simon
Meester T,
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts/views on what the Armoured Regiments are supposed to do…
Reply
I am still of the opinion that we should forgo the Regimental style organisation, they are only good for creating flag positions….as I said before it is better for the Army to re-organise into a US Marine MEF style organisation. Infantry, artillery or armour comes under one brigade and answerable to the commander…instead with a one star as the brigade commander and then a one or two star as a regimental commanders and such…..