SHAH ALAM: Adnan SLEP. The Army is conducting a study on extending the lives of the Adnan APC as the vehicles entered its 15th year of service (more or less). Not much is known about the programme so far as it is in the early stages of the planning cycle. It is likely however it will be similar to the MIFV upgrade which involved mostly overhauling or replacing the engines and running gears.
It is likely that the Army wants the Adnan SLEP to start in the next funding cycle, RMK12, starting from 2021. Of course they could wait until RMK13 but that’s a bridge too far.
For the MIFV upgrade, work was done by the Army’s 91 Workshop at the Batu Kantomen camp with the Daewoo Heavy Industries & Machinery Ltd, the OEM together with two local companies in 2001. Although Malaysia originally bought 111 MIFV for the Bosnian UN mission it is unknown how many were actually upgraded and new things added to the vehicles.
As for the Adnan SLEP it is yet to be known whether the Army will do it themselves with the cooperation of the OEM (Deftech and FNSS of Turkey) or with other companies. The extend of the upgrades is also up in the air but it is likely see the Adnans served (if it is funded, of course) until 2030.
It is also interesting to note that the Pendekar MBT is also due for a life extension programme soon, probably during the same time line as the Adnan which will squeeze the Army’s budget especially with the Gempita programme being extended until RMK12 (early part).
Like her sister services, the Army’s upgrade proposals have had a bad track record due to their normal funding difficulties. The two upgrade programmes proposed in the recent past – the Scorpion and Condor – appears to be at a stand-still and looked increasingly shaky.
The Adnans are in service namely in the 4th Mechanised Brigade, 12th Royal Malay Regiment and the 7th Royal Ranger Regiment, the current Army’s ready batallion.
A total of 211 Adnans were bought between 2002 and 2004 with another 56 purchased in 2010 including eight equipped with 120mm TDA mortar.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
I would prefer to use the US army term “reset” for something like this.
Things to be done (IMO):
– engine overhaul to new tolerances
– gearbox overhaul to new tolerances
– new wirings
– new suspension absorbers
– rubber track pad replacements
Nice things to have for reset
– same BMS system with Gempita
– gunshot detection system like the metravib pillar V
– Multi-spectral camouflage netting like on the Pendekar
This is the FNSS suggestion for upgrades
https://www.fnss.com.tr/content/images/fnss-zma15-modernizasyon-content-en.jpg
BTW 11 armor is also allocated with its own Adnans.
Can’t the Adnans and MIFV share the same modernization programs? Same engine, same transmission, same wiring, same armor. After all, they are from the same base vehicle.
IMHO using 25mm guns mounted on RWS for Adnans and MIFVs instead of Sharpshooter turrets would further reduce the weight of the vehicles, allowing more armour to be mounted.
The one thing that should be looked at is if extra protection against shoulder fired weapons [like chicken wire or other stuff like applique] can be added without added strain on the engine/gear box. Another matter is a wee bit trickier; that of the Sharpshooter. Can it be replaced with a smaller, more compact and lighter turret? One that is less likely to result in the vehicle toppling over when on uneven ground. The Sharpshooter was selected by Deftech not the army; as was several other components that went on the Adnan. It would also be useful to have an OWS for some variants. The driver’s thermal is Turkish. Wonder how it’s performing after years in service.
October’s AFM had an interesting article on a USMC legacy Hornet squadron. Lots of interesting details including how maintaining the older air frames are getting harder, as well as sourcing spares. Servicibility is running at 50 percent. Interesting to speculate how high servicibility was a decade or so ago when the air frames were younger and spares were easier to get; as well as servicibility rates the air arms of Australia, Spain and Finland are getting with their ‘Cs’ and ‘Ds’.
@ azlan
You just read the Oct AFM recently?? I just read the Dec mag last week 🙂
That article is about a reserve USMC squadron flying F/A-18A++ hand me downs. All of its aircraft have more than 6,000 hours each, and one aircraft has
already passed 9,000 flying hours. Because they are a reserve squadron they have a lower priority than the operational squadrons within the USMC, so serviceability is understandably low. From the article the F/A-18A++ is already replaced by F/A-18C+ by now.
“The great advantage of the C+ models is
they are newer airframes and so besides
not having to X-ray them, the amount of
maintenance hours needed to keep them
in the air is expected to reduce. Another
benefit is that these aircraft come directly
from the overhaul depot and are very
well maintained. Also, plenty of parts are
interchangeable between the A++ and the
C+ models – it’s expected that about 75%
of the A++ parts can be cannibalised for use
on the C+. Because the differences between
these two models are minor, maintainers
and pilots don’t need extensive conversion
training to become operational on the C+.”
From the article, cannibalising is an important feature to keep serviceability high (BT no mention of 50% operational readiness anywhere in the article). Why I advocate TUDM to buy RAAF F/A-18s for spare parts.
@ azlan
Chicken wire is problematic in our vegetation. Applique like RUAG SIDEPRO would be nice to have.
https://www.ruag.com/sites/default/files/media_document/2017-02/RZ_FS_SidePRO-RPG_EN_low_Original_3787.pdf
Sharpshooter? Better leave it as is.
Major mods like additional applique and new RWS will add substantial costs.
“One one thing that should be looked at is if extra protection against shoulder fired weapons [like chicken wire or other stuff like applique] can be added without added strain on the engine/gear box.”
Since the Adnan is a growth of the M113, it might already be near the limits of the platform.
“Another matter is a wee bit trickier; that of the Sharpshooter. Can it be replaced with a smaller, more compact and lighter turret? It would also be useful to have an OWS for some variants.”
I’m not aware of any manned turret smaller than the Sharpshooter with comparable armament, a smaller replacement might have to be unmanned whether we like it or not. Any replacement will be limited only by overall size of the turret but also of the turret ring.
How exactly do we employ the Adnan and will an upgrade package benefit us given the role we assign it and its limitations (armour levels, size, mobility)?
…….. – ”Chicken wire is problematic in our vegetation.”
Yes but at times Adnans won’t be operating in secondary jungle or palm oil states but in areas such as highways or urban areas.
….. – ”Major mods like additional applique and new RWS will add substantial costs.”
But if applique prevents a vehicle from being destroyed or suffering serious damage, which leads to the loss of crew, then the costs will be justified. As it stands, there is a need to improve protection levels of the Adnan. No point having IR reducing paint, a BMS, thermal, new pads, new engine, new electricals and a auto cannon if the vehicle has zero protection [whether in the form of chicken wire or applique] against certain types of threats. As such increasing protections level should be seen as a ‘must” rather than a ”major mod”.
An RWS [although akin to looking through straw] prevents unnecessarily injuries or death to crew members who have to stick the heads out to manually operated something; a risky undertaking especially in restricted terrain where engagement ranges will be shorter. One can argue that crew members have to stick their heads out of turrets to have the needed SA, yes no doubt but at times they won’t or can’t.
…. – ”From the article, cannibalising is an important feature to keep serviceability high (BT no mention of 50% operational readiness anywhere in the article)”
I wasn’t under the influence of any substances when I read the article :]
That the ‘C’ and ‘A’ and ‘D’ share commonality is no surprise. To me, after reading the article, the question to ask is if a U.S. unit has issues with spares and issues related to age [which will be present irrespective of the aircraft having flown more hours compared to foreign ones] how will others [who have less resources] fare?
….. – ”Because they are a reserve squadron they have a lower priority than the operational squadrons within the USMC, so serviceability is understandably low.”
Not necessarily so. In this instance maybe but in general, not necessarily so.
…. – ”Why I advocate TUDM to buy RAAF F/A-18s for spare parts.
I’d advocate buying from Elmer Fudd or Dick Dastardly if we have to as long as we have the needed quantity and types of spares when we need them.
AM – ” it might already be near the limits of the platform.”
Certain measures can be taken to increase protection levels.
The Bionix is also based on the M-113 but Bionix 2 has significant improvements in protection levels.
AM – ” will an upgrade package benefit us given the role we assign it and its limitations (armour levels, size, mobility)?”
The million ringgit question. For starters it would be useful if the army has a rough estimate as to how long will the Adnans have to be operated. This of course won’t happen. Even if funds were available how much we’re willing to spend on an upgrade has to be determined by various factors : it is worth spending ‘x’ amount or just the absolute minimum[like with the Laksamanas] and will an upgrade provide a good return in investment in terms of capabilities and utility? Based on technical factors and costs upgrades look simple on paper but in reality they’re not [aw you’re aware], being dependent on various factors.
AM – ”Any replacement will be limited only by overall size of the turret but also of the turret ring.”
True and we agree that ‘X’ number [at minimum] have to have ether a 25 or 30mm auto cannon in the event they come up against similar types of vehicles. Based on that however one can point out that certain IFVs have been uparmoured to the extent that a 30mm is needed. In fact almost 10 years ago there were plans to get a stretched Adnan with a 30mm.
The Adnan is a decent vehicle. At the end of the day however the programme was a refection of procurement policy as a whole. We bought it because Turkey is a Muslim country and a lot of what went on the Adnan was selected by Deftech, not the army.
The Adnans & MIFV, also the Condors & Scorpions, should be SLEPed as the many units that we bought, can easily justify their upgrading for continued usage. Most of them have sound chassis and a upgrade limited to the powertrain & drivetrain is at least doable for Phase 1. When money is available, Phase 2 can focus on improving surviveability and updating the weapons system.
I personally would prefer the US Army/Israeli styled slat armour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slat_armor) as this had been proven against RPGs and HEAT rounds.
@…
“Why I advocate TUDM to buy RAAF F/A-18s for spare parts.”
RAAF jual kepada Canada dah. Remainder likely to be used by RAAF until falling apart pending F-35 deliveries.
Re: Adnan
We also have to ask ourselves what threat we are protecting the Adnans/KIFVs against.
Chicken-wire is a protection against infantry, ie more towards counter-insurgency work.
Lethality upgrades, multispectral camo and armour upgrades against high-caliber autocannon are protection against IFVs ie “peer threats”.
Question is, which is a priority for the Adnans…
However advanced we modify the Adnan, its protection capability pales when compared to the Gempita. IMO reset it and use it as is, and replace it post 2030 with a new tracked IFV, probably for 2 battalions to constitute the proposed armoured brigade. BTW i don’t know why we should have protection against RPG when most of our neighbours does not even use the RPG?
The current mechanized brigade IMO should be equipped fully with gempita’s if possible.
As for the PT-91M, is it a big ask to install something like the Norinco GL5 Active Protection System?
https://www.armyrecognition.com/airshow_china_2018_zhuhai_news_show_daily_coverage/airshow_china_2018_gl5_hard-kill_aps_active_protection_system_for_tanks.html
Chua – ”Chicken-wire is a protection against infantry, ie more towards counter-insurgency work”
Where did you get that impression? Also, there is a very fine line between ”counter-insurgency work” and non counter insurgency. The Chechens were insurgents/rebels/separatists but the conflict was a high tempo, intense one in which the insurgents/rebels/separatists at man times were just as well armed as government troops. Syria can be defined as a ””counter-insurgency” conflict but the non state actors have Javelins, Milan, RPGs, Armbrust, Panzaerfaust, etc.
Chua – ”are protection against IFVs ie “peer threats”.
A ”peer threat” could also include a man on foot armed with a shoulder fired weapon.
…- ” its protection capability pales when compared to the Gempita. ”
Adnan provides all round protection up to 14.5mm. Same as the AV-8.
…. – ”BTW i don’t know why we should have protection against RPG when most of our neighbours does not even use the RPG?”
Let me rephrase it then : not RPGs per say but shoulder fired weapons; most of which like RPGs can penetrate the front and sides of most IFVs which have not be uparmoued.
…. – ”is it a big ask to install something like the Norinco GL5 Active Protection System?”
No, assuming we can afford fitting an APS to the whole fleet, assuming the PT-91 as it is has sufficient power supply and assuming the army feels it’s worth spending the cash and effort to do so as opposed to putting the cash to better use. Installing a APS will also entail realigning the ERA modules and other stuff to enable the APS to be mounted and having the needed turret space to install the APS’s controls.
Janes’s has a pic of the new Pakistani IFV, the Viper. It’s covered with a new applique. Granted it doesn’t look very aesthetically appealing but if it contributes to the vehicles survivability. It’s often assumed that armour protection is to protect the crew but it’s also intended at protecting he vehicle so it can go on doing what it’s supposed to do.
joe – ”Phase 2 can focus on improving surviveability and updating the weapons system.”
Chua – ”Question is, which is a priority for the Adnans…”
An IFV’s ability to do it’s job depends on how well it’s protected. If it’s not well protected having a new engine, gearbox or anything else for that matter will account for nothing. There is also a 8 man section that needs to be protected so they can leave the vehicle and do their job.
@ chua
Australia bought 75 hornets. 4 has crashed, 25 sold to canada. Thats left 46 available hornets. All of them to be retired before reaching 6,000 hours. For comparison USMC has flown some of their legacy hornets past 9,000 hours. Aussie hornets are upgraded to even higher standards than malaysian hornets (it has SAAB BOL additional chaff and flare dispensers for example). Parts can be canibalised to sustain or upgrade malaysian or if it is approved the kuwaiti hornets which have an older radar version compared (APG-65) to the aussie and malaysian hornets (APG-73).
@ azlan
The adnan does not have the mine blast capability as the gempita. The 14.5mm protection is the maximum in can withstand, the gempita is upgradeable to withstand 30mm shells.
Slats and chicken wire is only a solution for RPG type of warheads. It does nothing to ATGMs or other types of shoulder fired weapons. I dont think anything other than APS and reactive armor can mitigate ATGMs.
The GL5 is designed to be integrated to existing MBTs with minimum requirements.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/asia/china/exhibition/airshow_china_2018/pictures/GL5_APS_Chinese-made_hard-kill_active_protection_system_NORINCO_AirShow_China_2018_Zhuhai_925_002.jpg
https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/asia/china/exhibition/airshow_china_2018/pictures/GL5_APS_Chinese-made_hard-kill_active_protection_system_NORINCO_AirShow_China_2018_Zhuhai_925_001.jpg
To triple dot (…) Australia bought 75 hornets. 4 has crashed, 25 sold to canada. Thats left 46 available hornets. All of them to be retired before reaching 6,000 hours. For comparison USMC has flown some of their legacy hornets past 9,000 hours. Aussie hornets are upgraded to even higher standards than malaysian hornets (it has SAAB BOL additional chaff and flare dispensers for example). Parts can be canibalised to sustain or upgrade malaysian or if it is approved the kuwaiti hornets which have an older radar version compared (APG-65) to the aussie and malaysian hornets (APG-73). ************************************************************************ You know, I\’ve always wondered since Butterworth was the RAAF home base in then Malaya, and the RMAF Hornets based there why didn\’t our Gomen have like a partnership? Meaning have like 20 RAAF Hornet C/D based in B\’worth to complement our 8 Hornet D. Either for lease or have the RAAF pilots based here. Could have been a great partnership and have our pilots learn to fly the C. Your thoughts, triple dot?
Reply
The RAAF only have the A/Bs. On why we were not closer to them? My guess it’s due to the 4th PM.
@ melayu ketinggalan
In the 80’s, RAAF did regularly deploy the hornets (Mirage berfore that) and F-111s to Butterworth. Orion MPAs is still deployed to Butterworth, as is the Butterworth Rifle Company.
Why we are not closer? Yes probably due to the 4th PM in the 80s and 90s. Now? He said that he is now a changed man. I’m not a fan of “asking” RAAF to be stationed to Butterworth, but nothing wrong to be humble and ask for the hornets to be transferred to RMAF, mainly for spare parts, and the 2 seaters for flying currency and training.
@Azlan.
“An IFV’s ability to do it’s job depends on how well it’s protected.”
Yes, I agree. But what use is those uparmouring if the engine is exhausted and drivetrain condemned? Moreso with the added weight of said uparmouring?
Start with the basics. By uprating the engine with something more powerful, a tougher suspension and hardier gearbox & axles (Phase 1), it would able to take all that extra armour and weapons/troops payload (Phase 2).
Realistically, they can be armoured to withstand up to RPG & 1st gen AT missiles via simple slat armour. Protection against top down or tandem warehead ATGM would be an expensive dream.
@…
“to be retired before reaching 6,000 hours. For comparison USMC has flown some of their legacy hornets past 9,000 hours”
A reset will be required if we are to fly any of these airframes.
“I dont think anything other than APS and reactive armor can mitigate ATGMs.”
Chicken/slat will have some mitigation against shaped-charge warheads because the blast is stood off away from the armour, disrupting the formation of the penetrating jet
@Ketinggalan
” why didn\’t our Gomen have like a partnership? Meaning have like 20 RAAF Hornet C/D based in B\’worth to complement our 8 Hornet D”
Aussies pulled out precisely because they felt no point paying money to take care of our airspace for us.
Don’t get any hopes up regarding partnerships with the Aussies anytime soon, not after our current PM’s remarks and stance on Israel. The Aussies pride themselves on being a staunch US ally, and we’ve just slapped them in the face.
….. – ”the gempita is upgradeable to withstand 30mm shells.”
As I said : both have all round protection up to 14.5 mm.
Even then, like all vehicles they’re are certain parts that are more vulnerable than others, despite the ”on paper” 14.55mm claim. As mentioned before, when reading marketing literature the trick often is to read between the lines and also look for what is not mentioned. No where is it stated that there is all round protection against 14.5mm ”AP”. People would like to assume there is but is this indeed the case? Back to the V-8, is it really ”upgradeable to withstand 30mm shells”? this will bring it on part to something like Boxer.
Also, if we want to talk about the AV-8 being ”upgradeable” then the Adnan is also ”upgradeable”. The one big advantage the AV-8 has is better SA; virtue of the various panels up front and the CCTVs. Compared to the Adnan however it has a much higher profile and the tyres [despite being run flat] are more vulnerable than tracks. As for protection against 30mm; this would lead to a major weight increase.
…. – ” It does nothing to ATGMs or other types of shoulder fired weapons. ”
You’re mentioning the obvious. Bar or chicken wire is indeed intended against shoulder fired chemical energy rounds and to a lesser extent from auto cannon fire; why people have them on IFVs and even MBTs. The same reason why logs, mattresses and even concrete blocks were placed on vehicles during WW2 and even after [in Vietnam and Marawi]; to mitigate the effects of shape charge chemical energy rounds. To deal with shoulder fired rounds on certain parts of the tank like the turret overhang, the Israelis came up with the ”balls and chains”.
…. – ”I dont think anything other than APS and reactive armor can mitigate ATGMs.”
Which is precisely the reason why armies are investing in APSs. It also depends on the type of reactive armour, i.e, its ability to deal with tandem warheads. Ideally a MBT would rely on a combination of a strong baseline protection level [in the case of Russian designed tanks, ERA], with whatever add ons like applique and a APS. The Russians believe that K-5 and newer ERAs can deal with top attack missiles, in combination with an MBT’s existing self protection system which can include stuff like Shtora or Arena; as well as the smoke dischargers [assuming there are IR masking rounds]. For added protection they are going for a APS.
Western tanks are different in that they mostly have no ERA on top and before the advent of APSs had to rely solely on roof armour. The problem is that no roof armour, no matter how hardened, can withstand a top attack missile missile or even a direct hit from a mortar round for that matter. Some have gone to the extent of doing away with a loader’s hatch and to harden turrets hatches [to the extent that they have to be power operated due to weight] as defence against top attack munitions.
…. – ”The GL5 is designed to be integrated to existing MBTs with minimum requirements.”
Irrespective of how it’s ”designed” [on paper] the reality is that there still has to be enough power supply to power the APS [this is a big issue in many MBTs], enough space in the turret to mount the controls [always an issue, especially with MBTs that have already been modified to taken extra stuff like CRT monitors and extra sights] and stuff externally [ERA, MG, etc] would have to b realigned to mount the APS and its components.
Melayu Ketinggalan – ”always wondered since Butterworth was the RAAF home base in then Malaya”
Butterworth was an RAF based before the war and was later handed over to the RAAF by the RAF to house the Commonwealth’s air component. It was one of the best equipped bases in the country; especially after Australia paid for a new runway and other facilities. It was also designated to be the site for HQ IADS.
Chua – ”A reset will be required if we are to fly any of these airframes.”
There is also always the question of how expensive it will be to operate such aged air frames, how significant costs will rise as they get older and how maintenance intensive [which will determine servicibility rates] they will be.
Chua – ”Aussies pulled out precisely because they felt no point paying money to take care of our airspace for us.”
No …………… Because the geopolitics had changed [Vietnam and Indonesia was less of a threat], because Malaysia and Singapore were in a better shape to defend themselves [compared to the 1960’s/70’s] and because it was felt that having fighters based in Australia [which could rapidly deploy to SEA] was much cheaper and less of a drain on resources for Australia.
Chua – ”The Aussies pride themselves on being a staunch US ally, and we’ve just slapped them in the face”
Not as clear cut as that. They need partners in SEA and Butterworth plays host to the only permanent ADF presence abroad; they’re not going to let a minor issue [on a peripheral non regional issue] affect relations. Even when relations were very bad in the 1990’s [i.e. Keating’s remarks on Dr. M] defence ties were not affected. Even with Indonesia, things get pretty bad with Australia but bilaterally joint defence exchanges are/were still maintained [except for a period after East Timor]
joe – ”But what use is those uparmouring if the engine is exhausted and drivetrain condemned?”
Very true but what use is a new engine when a man on foot with a shoulder launched weapon can punch a hole through the IFV; causing major damage to the vehicle and also causing death/injury to the crew and passengers. Not only is there one less IFV but there are dead/injured people.
joe – ”Realistically, they can be armoured to withstand up to RPG & 1st gen AT missiles via simple slat armour. Protection against top down or tandem warehead ATGM would be an expensive dream.”
Upamouring it to the extent that it can defeat a ATGW [1st gen or otherwise] will significantly lead to a major increase in weight. Same goes with top attack munitions. Unless we want a super heavy IFV which anyhow will still need a APS.
I would like to add a reminder since there’s been much talk of shoulder fired weapons. In open terrain [in our case, along highways or places like that] there will be less danger from shoulder fired weapons as the their operators have to get in close to get into range and their targets will have infantry support. In restrictive terrain such as estates or urban areas shoulder fired weapons will be particularly dangerous as they will be hard to spot and attacks can occur from any angle [even from the top] at short range, unlike in open terrain where most attacks will come from the front and from a distance.
..
@ azlan
Also, if we want to talk about the AV-8 being ”upgradeable” then the Adnan is also ”upgradeable”
Adnan is really at its max weight limit. AFAIK the max gross weight of the platform is 15 tons (its average gross weight now is 14 tons) , to have heavier weight (of added armor, equipments etc. ) the platform need to be lengthened to add 2 more road wheels (increase to up to 20 tons). Its engine power is also at its limit of around 350hp (compared to gempita 550hp). I tried to find the gempita details but I cant find it, but I remember reading somewhere that it is upgradable to STANAG level 6 for 30mm shells.
@Azlan
“Malaysia and Singapore were in a better shape to defend themselves”
All adding up to no more reason for Australia to continue defending us for us.
“Not as clear cut as that”
Indeed. But still, personally I’m not having that much high hopes.
“the tyres [despite being run flat] are more vulnerable than tracks”
Not necessarily. One of the attractions of a modern 8×8 AFV is that it can still move fairly well despite missing a wheel or two. The same damage applied to a tracked AFV would most likely result in detracking and therefore immobilisation.
@Azlan
I’m not disputing what you said. Uparmouring is a necessity as weapons improve.
But if you uparmour and the drivetrain can’t take it then it makes the IFV a slow moving target or even a sitting duck. Sounds like its a chicken or egg, right? Not really.
As I mentioned start with the basics, an endgoal to what level the IFV needs to be uparmoured and the added strain (lets say 10% weight penalty). Then start the uprating of engines & drivetrain that would be able to handle +20% or more the current max load. By the time the uparmouring takes place, the improved IFV is ready to take the strain and not breakdown so easily.
I would love it if both upgradings can be done at same time but realistically we don’t have the money, that’s why I propose doing in 2 phases, starting with uprating the engines and drivetrain.
Off topic
I have seen recent pictures of AV8 crews using PT-91M soviet-style helmets. Why is the appearent change? Is the soviet-style helmet actually more comfortable?
Reply
I have no idea, they are given helmets and other items. Likely its a personal decision, like not wearing goggles even it is supplied.
Thanks for the link Marhalim.
It would be an interesting read tonight.
A glance through the book and it is clear that it is a very2 thought of plan with a very clear understanding of the tasks the navy needs to perform to defend the country. A phase out plan for ships (but nothing on jebat or lekiu).
The main issue for me is this plan does not correlate with the APMM Pelan Perancangan Strategik Maritim Malaysia 2040 (PPSMM 2040). This is one of the things the new laksamana should look into.
Btw anyone has downloaded the Ops Fajar book? The link is broken.
Sorry to post it here because i cannot post in the correct post no matter how many times i tried.
“I have seen recent pictures of AV8 crews using PT-91M soviet-style helmets. ”
I guess the AV8’s headset fits in the Soviet style helmet, since the PT-91’s headset likely does not connect to the AV-8’s intercom.
Off topic
Have 10 para ever tried to emulate this setup with the oto melara pack howitzers?
https://assets.shephardmedia.com/live/default/media/cache/images/images/article/ATMP-modernised/dcc771219c0ada6a4d077091fa4f4126.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dnj4cPqWwAAGE06.jpg
Seems to be a more logical airdrop setup for the howitzers using supacats, compared to the current tow setup using the vamtacs. BTW how many supacats did we bought actually?
Would be great if we can get some surplus T-72 to be converted into heavy IFV for use by 11 armor instead of the adnans.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LHgpsz3KaCw/WEQ44SdL-NI/AAAAAAAAPqI/clQ2eHGUzuM2ibSc_RyBLdHCoFwk16vvQCLcB/s1600/g16151_5605754.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JrU7V9UaQf8/WEQ43qIxEnI/AAAAAAAAPps/1G6OGGce-pIb3-pEArIUXDZOTOH5Yt2SACLcB/s1600/g16151_3004332.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YQitehTdcNk/WEQ44AcvoAI/AAAAAAAAPp8/7vzcwzpwXW4T7tJLnBwtFNfC7J6kKLznwCLcB/s1600/g16151_4939471.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3CeaRfSkA88/WEQ44kXl13I/AAAAAAAAPqQ/ol9RYtCzVt0NxNtzoz4wFzf9nPfsMc5_ACLcB/s1600/g16151_5650166.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Rl_NzJxMqs0/WEQ44egmzUI/AAAAAAAAPqE/QSgmNf0EJmcir0wlppWVLVoB104dZfmcgCLcB/s1600/g16151_5131961.jpg