PETALING JAYA: Appended below is the full article authored by M.Ghazemy Mahmud, the editor of the ADJ in the recent edition of the Sunday Star. Ghazemy is one of the most senior local defence writer so he has the locus standi to speak on the issue at hand. Read Here
It is interesting to note however that not a single Army leadership was quoted in the article supporting the AV8 project. In contrast, the Navy chief came out with guns blazing several days after critics panned the announcement of the SGPV/LCS project.
For the record, again, I have to state that I fully support the Army’s and the Armed Forces modernisation programmes. My only caveat is that with our current budget we cannot afford costly “National Interest” programmes. Instead of these programmes, I advocate cost effective solutions for recapitalisation the MAF like buying second hand weapons from reputable sources. It may not be pretty and we may be seen as a dumping ground but we simply must face the facts that we dont have enough dough to buy or develop state of the art military systems especially those with National Interest add-ons.
Malaysian Defence on various occasions has also stated that simply rising the budget is not a quick solution to the problem as long as the current procurement set-up is maintained.
It is for this reason, in my opinion, legitimate defence procurement programmes have been the lightning rod of critics. But are we listening? Apparently not and with the Army being described as a “‘cheap multi-purpose security guards’” one fear for the future.
Re-equipping the Army
By M. GHAZEMY MAHMUD
The intensity of combat on the modern battlefield requires infantry vehicles that are mobile, survivable and lethal.
EVEN before the Government agreed to the deployment of troops for the United Nations’ peacekeeping mission in Lebanon a few years ago, military officials were concerned about the protection of our troops during their tour of duty.
But orders are orders, and the troops were deployed, backed up by a squadron of Condor armoured personnel carriers (APC) made in Germany nearly 30 years ago.
Luckily, as a further back-up, the peacekeepers were supplied with 12 newer Nyala mine-resistant vehicles by the UN.
Since the deployment, no major combat incidents have occurred with the Condors, although one vehicle toppled into a gully in the dry hilly terrain of the MALCON East operational area of Kawkaba, killing a soldier.
“The Condor is a good armoured vehicle that has seen better days, along with the heavier Belgian-made Sibmas which were ordered in the early 1980s and delivered in 1983,” said a local defence analyst.
The vehicles had seen action in the Malaysia-Thai border region, the Balkans, Somalia, Timor Leste and now, Lebanon.
Indeed, the 1993 Bakara Market battle in Mogadishu, highlighted in the Hollywood flick Black Hawk Down where scores of American soldiers were killed and wounded, displayed the vulnerabilities of armoured vehicles in modern-day battle.
Several Malaysian soldiers were also injured and one was killed in the fight when the Condors were hit with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine gun fire.
“What we are facing now is block obsolescence of our wheeled armoured vehicle fleet because the two types were procured at almost the same time to face the communist insurgency,” an army general told this writer recently.
“The threat environment has changed. New vehicles to meet present and future threats need to be acquired,” he said, adding that “our boys have to have that protection against enemy fire in a modern battle environment”.
“The requirement for new armoured vehicles has been on the table for quite some time now,” he further pointed out.
Analysts have said that despite the various upgrades through the years, the Army’s present fleet of wheeled armoured vehicles are somewhat dated.
They say the intensity of combat on the modern battlefield requires infantry vehicles that are mobile, survivable, and lethal.
Due to budgetary constraints, many armies continue to use armoured vehicles which might be considered obsolete.
But the chances of troop survival in a much older machine in modern-day battle with a well-equipped enemy is low, one analyst said.
Aware of the need to protect our troops, the Government recently decided to equip the Army with a new generation of multi-purpose armoured vehicles.
Defence contractor DRB-Hicom Defence Technologies (Deftech), a wholly-owned subsidiary of DRB-Hicom Bhd, early this month announced that it had been awarded a contract worth RM7.55bil from the Government to develop armoured vehicles based on a foreign design for the Army.
Deftech had accepted the Letter of Award dated Feb 23, 2011 from the Government to design, develop, manufacture, commission, supply and deliver 257 units of 12 variants of the 8×8 armoured wheeled vehicles.
The contract is for a period of seven years, starting 2011.
And like many local manufacturers anywhere in the world, the vehicle will be developed in collaboration with a main foreign partner, in this case Turkey.
Deftech will utilise the transfer of advanced defence technologies from its technology partners and original equipment manufacturers (OEM), research and development and local vendor development, it said.
The company also said it expected the contract to create new local OEMs through direct and indirect foreign investments and generate higher employment for the local defence industry.
Deftech had earlier said that the cost of the contract included manufacturing and other costs associated with the production of a new combat vehicle.
DRB-Hicom is one of Malaysia’s leading corporations and plays an integral role in the automotive manufacturing, assembly and distribution industry through its involvement in the passenger car and four-wheel-drive vehicle market segment, the national truck project and the national motorcycle project.
It is an open secret that the Malaysian-developed armoured personnel carrier is being built from the PARS APC produced by the FMC-Nurol Defence System (FNSS) of Turkey.
FNSS is currently one of Turkey’s Top 10 defence firms in terms of total revenue.
Turkey’s Nurol Holding, Inc. maintains a 51% controlling interest in the company.
The PARS is a new generation wheeled amphibious armoured combat vehicle designed and manufactured by FNSS for the Turkish Armed Forces, which reportedly plan to order some 1,000 units.
The vehicles can be easily transported by the Airbus A400M and the Boeing C-17 tactical transport aircraft. The Royal Malaysian Air Force is awaiting delivery of four Airbus A400M tactical airlifters.
Many types of 8×8 armoured vehicles of mostly European and Russian designs are in service in the armed forces of many countries. Even the American Stryker is based on the Swiss Piranha.
Neighbouring Singapore has also developed its Terrex armoured vehicle with foreign technology.
It was reported that the vehicle was developed by Singapore Technologies Kinetics and Irish firm Timoney.
It should be noted that this is not the first time that Deftech has designed and produced an armoured vehicle.
The company has produced an armoured vehicle known as the AV4 in a private venture costing millions of dollars.
The vehicle was intended for the Army and Police but, for some reason, it was not bought by any of these services.
FNSS’ cooperation with Malaysia is not new and the latest one can be seen as a natural progression.
Previously, the company supplied tracked armoured combat vehicles which were assembled by Deftech locally.
The ACV 300 was dubbed by the Malaysian Army as “Adnan” after the Malaysian soldier who fought the invading Japanese to his death along with his men during the Battle of Singapore in World War II.
The PARS armoured vehicle is named after a big cat, as Pars is the Turkish name for the Anatolian Leopard.
Models of the Deftech designs displayed at defence shows were dubbed AV8 but whether it will be later renamed after a big Malaysian cat remains to be seen.
Cynics may regard the Army’s programme for its next-generation wheeled armoured carrier as a wasteful exercise.
Some would say that since we are not at war with anyone and there are no more communist guerillas lurking in the jungles now, why then do we need an armed forces.
But then again, why do we need the fire extinguisher in the house when there is no fire. The current ever-changing strategic and security environment requires that vital element of insurance to ensure that stability, development and economic prosperity can continue unabated.
M. Ghazemy Mahmud is editor of “The Asian Defence Journal”.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Now that u mention not a single Army leadership was quoted in the article supporting the AV8 project is really an eye opener. So far, the only talk comes from DS Zahid himself as a conduit representative for both the army and Deftech, what’s the army top echelon opinion in this matter? When Tony Pua questioned the Navy with their ‘overpriced’ SGPV, the CoN hastily came out with a PC to clarify the project but the same didn’t happen to the AV8 project. So far we only heard politicians with their talks, be it DS Zahid or Tony Pua but not from the army? Why is the silence?
Reply
The no comment is related to the article itself. Whether or not the COA or deputy had voiced their support in other medium, I have not found it.
well said marhalim, for the 7.5 billion to be spent on the AV8 pars, they could get same number of Piranha AFV and 24 Cougar heli. or many other permutations that the mind can think of
Reply
I am more fearful of an economic downturn rather than what could be bought with the sum of money
Yes this article is well written indeed.We as Malaysian citizens are not questioning whether we should actually make the Malaysian armed forces better but rather we are questioning whether has the money been well spent. There are many permutations in acquisition of hardware for the armed forces. We still need to pay for these hardware of course.
We should look at buying second hand hardware and the opportunity now is even better than any time before due to Many western countries are cutting down their own assets by early retirement due to the current economic situation.
For example, the British. The maritime patrol and intelligence planes are being retired. We can actually acquire 4 refurbished planes to make our intelligence gathering and electronic warfare expertise better. The US had recently offered Indonesia 22 F-16 block 30 but Indonesia must pay for the refurbishment to the block 50+ standard. With such refurbishment these second hand planes can easily last another 15 to 20 years- I would say it would be a bargain. The US army retired its entire stock of Cobra armed helicopters. Its being kept in storage but recently even the last 4 had been refurbished and sold off to Thailand. Netherlands has also been selling off most of its F-16’s and they are well maintained planes too. Now they want to dispose off their maritime planes, tanks and armoured vehicles.
By buying such old equipment is not all lost for national interests.
These equipment can be refurbished at home. MMC and DRB has the capability to do it. Our Scorpions has been refurbished some years ago by local boys entirely and the project was won by some ex-navy chaps- perhaps the Navy are more technically inclined as compared to the army.
Imagine ex navy modernising army vehicles!
So it can be done. But its just a matter of do we want to pursue this road. Some may use the Skyhawks as an example to show that its not great to buy second hand. But then looking at it, the US is still using the Skyhawks for training of their pilots for dis-similar combat and even F-5s are still being used.
Its just a matter of repair and maintenance. Perhaps we must develop our capabilities more?.
Singapore is still using its F-5’s until today as front line fighters.
Its a good plan to develop our own home grown repair and maintenance skills to world standard.
Whither AIROD,MMC, BRB and Boustead?
For the navy why limit the repairs to Boustead only? There are many capable local shipyards who can do a wonderful job at repairs and maintenance too. Just give them a chance
My two cents
Reply
In my opinion there are too many shipyards already. Yes PSC last time got the deal to refurbish the Sibmas
Or maybe 257 BTR-90s, 100 T-90M, 18 Caesars SPH….
I like to quote this statement from Dzirhan Mahadzir taken from his FB page
“US FY2012 purchase of 100 Stryker AFVs=USD834 million (no maint) or RM25.3mil each, ours is RM30 mil each with 7 yr support, guess not as overpriced as some thought 😀 ”
Is the numbers correct?
Reply
Here is the breakdown from another website
Stryker Armored Vehicle (in US Dollars)
$834.0 million requested for 100 vehicles
$3.8 million — per unit cost
$15,196.0 million — total program cost
“Per Unit Costs” are derived by dividing total program costs by the number of systems purchased, and include both procurement and research & development funding.
I think the per unit cost must taken together with the whole programme not just the annual allocation as they use multi-year production to reduce cost. Anyways one must see the thing in a proper prospective, the Pentagon budget for Fy2012 is US533 billion! while the US Army is getting US$149 billion (for one year!). TD will be lucky if they got RM6 billion next year.
”We as Malaysian citizens are not questioning whether we should actually make the Malaysian armed forces better but rather we are questioning whether has the money been well spent.”
YM Lee, this unfortunately is more the exception rather than the norm. Due to a combination of factors – a list of mishandled, over budgeted projects by the government, opposition figures who raise issues but fail to do it in a proper manner and who largely remain ill-informed and clueless, our history [the only external threat we ever faced was almost 50 years ago from our cousins ‘seberang’. Probably 8 in 10 Malaysians have not even heard of the confrontation], ”know it all” but well intentioned NGO’s – we have a large number of Malaysians who feel that defence spending is a total waste of time and a waste of publics funds.
Whist there are tonnes of surplus gear, for all the 3 services, that can be bought we also have to bear in mind the logistical and support implications of introducing certain new gear to our inventory.
Reply
The problem with the public perception on the lack of external threat is the failure of the powers to make the proper dissemination of the issues. And coupled with “alleged scandals” that seemed to hog arms procurement and total black-out on information not even on financial and economic justification of arms procurement are making the issues more harder to explain even by the most ardent supporters. The refrain “just Trust Us We know Best” is no longer valid during this time when everyone has access for all methods of expressions.
What I have been saying all this time “We want to trust but allow us to verify first”
The Thais are buying T-84 Oplot MBTs from the Ukraine for $231.33mil USD. I still think we should have shed some money from the AV8 programme to buy more MBTs. AV8 is just to expensive to be manufactured locally. We should have just focused on it being locally assembled just like the ACV300 Adnans and allocated the funds for more PT-91M MBTs and Caesar SPHs…
Hazwan, then where will it end, given the size of the budget and the needs of the other 2 services – what about the SPH’s, the additional M-4s, the sights for the M-4’s, night vision, combat engineering gear, replacement for the Starburst, body armour, etc, the list is very long indeed. Procurement should be done based on what we actually need, given the threats we are most likely to face. Anyway, why do we need more MBT’s when more essential items like UAV’s, which have peacetime applications, remain unfunded?
True, but we are totally being out-gunned by our neighbours to the north and to the south these days, and with the Indons are eyeing to replace their “buluh runcing” for Korean K1 MBTs and KFX fighters, the situation is not good for us in the coming decade. Being out-gunned militarily in three corners will not be good for our relationships as the neighbours can easily gained the upper hand in unresolved issues with the use of “gunboat diplomacy”.
Pressing for more UAVs now maybe a bit difficult as the govt are still waiting for a more capable design(and cheaper) from the Sapura and CTRM joint ventures. There doesn’t seem to be much of a drive to get cheap UAVs from abroad as supporting the local industry seem to be the fad nowadays.
Speaking of sights for M4 and body armour, i do know that body armour are produced locally by a company in Malacca but mostly to be imported. ATM haven’t been ordering much from them. We totally need these two equipment for the infantry. But as long as the ancient “middlemen mafia” procurement system are in placed, the govt already tight resources will continue to go down the drain and as does PR’s wish for a transparency system. One can say the same for the armed forces wishlist. All for the economic benefits of the “local” people.
We have always been ‘out-gun’ by our neighbours in the north. Even though the RTA is and was still largely counter orientated, they always had heavier firepower – MBT’s heavy artillery – than us, this was directed at Vietnam in the past and certainly not us. And the Sings down south, well the Sings wil be Sings. If you look closely at the size of Indonesia and the current state of the TNI-AD, you’ll see that the TNI-AD is currently more over-extended than us and more in need of new gear. The current mordenisation of the TNI is actually over-due and quite modest, given their greater needs and is aimed at replacing current stuff that is obsolete, it does not in any way change the balance of power or give them any power projection capabilities…
But so what if our neighbours o’ut-gun’ us? This doesn’t change the fact that we have immediate requirements to deal with rather than keeping up with other countries.
There is a company in Melaka, British owned, that makes helmets and ballistic vests. They have exported to Mongolia, Iraq, Indonesia [the Indons asked if the ‘Made in Malaysia’ markings could be substituted with ‘Made In Australia’ markings!], etc. I know the local partner and met their main British designer. In the past, rather than buying helmets from this company, we bought a small ‘Made In China’ batch and they turned out to be defective.
Reply
That’s our perennial problem, its who you know and not, what you know…
I think the Thai are more hard pressed for new tanks mainly due to half of their 700+ mbt are older than my dad and cant get parts for maintenance, their border issue with combodia and myanmar as both army seems to be beefing up.
The oplot seem to be very cheap, at around USD1 mil each but dont know whether it will be equipped with sophisticated FCS, complete protection suites and enhanced armour as normally the eastern block tanks that came with the complete package will cost at least USD2-USD4 million each.
maybe they go for quantity now and upgrades later.
Reply
At least they got an advanced simulator system for MBTs which allow a company-size training to be done although the hardware is for the M60 type
This will allow however for tactics to be developed and honed further.
Our MBT simulator project remained on the wish-list
When it comes to commonality the Thais are much worst than us. They have M-47’s, M-48’s, M-60’s, Stingray’s and Type-69 MBT’s, plus a few Scorpions. And no, all this was not intended to ensure we start sending them Bunga Emas’s again but due to fears the Vietnamese would come westwards.
The T-84 which was offered to us years ago did not have a panoramic 360 degrees sight. Very unlikely the Thais will go for an APS as this will cost a bomb and the Ukrainians don’t make one.
If I’m not mistaken RUAG was selected to develop the PT-91 gunnery/driving trainer. As usual, we robbed Peter to pay Paul, and the simulator has joined a long list of other items on the wants list.
Reply
I think the RTA would have more M-60s but the US decision to delay the delivery of airships bought for ISR missions for the southern province must soured them enough to go elsewhere. Given their political upheaval I guess the military will not be so choosy as long as the money keeps flowing to the procurement kitty. I believe the M-60s were given FOC, the Thais only paying for refurb and installation of FCS most probably of Israeli origin.
It appears that some RTA Type-69’s have been retired. Bought at ‘friendship’ prices the Type-69’s previously had cracks in their armour due to poor quality steel and finishing.
http://aquanautsdive.com/old-tanks-go-into-service-as-artificial-reef-in-thailand/
http://www.asiaviews.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4402:colcomalias366&catid=3:column-a-commentaries&Itemid=10
The RTA has M-47’s, M-48’s, M-60’s, Type-59’s, Stingray’s, even some Scorpions. These were bought due to fears the Vietnamese would come westwards and not to ensure we start Bunga Emas deliveries to them again…
The thai’s are paying 7 billion bhat for the 200 Oplots. That’s about 10% of what we are paying for the super duper AV8.
We may not know what the Thai’s will fit into the Oplots but even with the very basic fit, the Oplots will rip the AV8 apart notwithstanding whatever BMS etc we put in
U cannot simply compared the Oplot with AV8, they’re not in the same league after all. I for one support the decision to replace the aging Condor and Sibmas but the price should be reasonable and justifiable since we’re not manufacturing but just mere assembling all the components into 1 machine.
Looking at the situation strategically. Our main enmy is not the T.and the S… but rather I….specially in the overlapping claims in the East. Then there is China who is engaging in trying to warn off all states from the Spratleys and remember we have several outpost at the terumbu. My navy contacts told me that even the Vietnamese are not afraid of our patrol boats.Only when the frigates appear are they cowed a bit. Then there is the issue of the Philippines pirates. So what are our needs?
Maritime assets are the most needed now together with long endurance surveillance UAVs, maritime surveillance aircraft to protect our oil platforms and a light strike capability for anti piracy work too. These are urgent. The Navy undoubtedly must be beefed up as they have staying power. We need a strong maritime attack from the air force-now best carried out by the hornets which we can get some more from the bone yard in the US. As for the Army? they would benefit from some long range artillery to control the Straits of Melaka and also to shell any pirates in the Philippines seas
Reply
I believe all of us here share the same concern but where to find the money, not just for procurement but more importantly maintenance and training. As I mentioned in the post, I am scared for the future…As for the second hand weapons, it wll be better to buy stored Canadian Hornets rather than US Navy versions which had been used to the extreme. If we buy UAVs for maritime surveillance dont you think manned aircraft for these role is redundant apart from the ones capable of being armed of course….
YM Lee, there is no requirement to close the Straits of Melaka. It’s a vital water-way, if we did close it or disrupt shipping there, the whole world would rally against us. The problem with using artillery is the fact that the targets are moving. Even with radar and FO’s it will be extremely hard to hit anything unless it’s really close inshore.
Anon, the T-84 and Av8 both have very different roles and can’t be directly compared. It’s like saying after spending millions to train a lightweight boxer, he is still unable to compete with a heavyweight boxer.
The UAV’s are cheaper, has a longer endurance and takes less people to handle. They can survey large tracts of oceans automatically(providing which UAV is being bought). The ships budget has been planned. Now the funds for the rest -must rob Peter to pay Paul.
So the AV 8 must suffer?.Trim down? Do away with to go for the strategic purchases? The budget is limited.
Thats why the most effective and efficient use of the limited resources must be made for the national defence.
Reply
Hard choices need to be made by the right people. And National Interest projects must be the first one that got the chop. Make sure that current assets are up-to-date first and their maintenance and support contracts are fully funded before opening slowly the procurement tap with obsolete things being replaced first
To develop anything more capable than the Aludra, local companies will need a very large infusion of funds and a foreign technology partner for things like the the data link. Marhalim, do you know how many Aludra’s are operated here and by whom? Didn’t Thailand also buy a few?
Reply
As far as I know only four Aludras are in limited service at Tawau or Sandakan to support Ops Pasir. Do they really sold them to Thailand?
I know they are not of the same class, it was a sarcastic comment. Using your analogy, don’t you think that it is weird that the heavyweight boxer cost only 10% of the cost of the lightweight boxer?
Official procurement program of 8×8 Wheel Armoured Vehicle(WAV) started way back in year 2004. The main players during that time were:
a. Piranha IIIC – Deftech
b. Patria – Altimal
c. VBCI ( France) – Scomi
d. PARS – ???
Almost all the above mentioned companies has invested alot of effort, time & money to win the project. Piranha IIIC, Patria & PARS sent their vehicle for test trial by Malaysian Army. Reported that PARS has failed the test
Among the companies submitted extremely good offer was French VBCI:
a. Set-up JVCo – local hold majority
b. All new variants would be developed in Malaysia by JVCo & the IPRs are for JVCo
c. Production of all WAV ordered by Malaysian Army in Malaysia
d. French Army might buy-back around 100 VBCI new variants from JVCo & production of 100 would be in Malaysia
e. JVCo granted the right to promotes, sell and produces the VBCI in Malaysia to many selected countries. Promotion & selling could be done under French company name until the JVCo name accepted by buyer/end user
Deftech at one time decided to team-up with what ever product or brand of WAV select by the government. AND now PARS SELECTED
We deeply hope that all important government policies including BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY & RETURN OF INVESTMENT has been throughly considered before DEFTECH + PARS + the others selected
We hope the execution would be as per plan or contact otherwise GLOBAL slogan would remain as slogan. DEFTECH, we proud to have company like U
Reply
The VBCi bid if I recalled correctly came later around 2006 when Pak Lah became PM. The role of the 4th Floor boys in promoting a National AFV is worthy of an investigation.
Very true but bear in mind that the AV8 is not a simple off the shelf purchase. Rather than simply buying an existing design we are custom making our own APC like we did with the PT-91M and Su-30MKM – prices tend to rise rapidly when you go down that road. The purists here would insist we are only creating a variant of the Pars, which is also very true.
I’m NOT agreeing with what we’re doing or saying it’s the right/smart move but we are stuck with the AV8 and there are reasons why the AV8 is going to cost what it will. At present all we know is that the AV8 will look 100% like the Pars because the hull will be a Pars. We also know there wil be 12 variants, including a 25mm or a 30mm variant, an anti-tank, command, ambulance, ARV, etc. Everything else is pure speculation as we dont know what engine will be used. We don’t know if there is any truth to a report that indicated changes to the suspension will be made. Will there be a BMS in certain variants, or any changes made to the internal layout? How many different turrets will there be for all the different variants – will they be imported or locally assembled – from different suppliers or all from Denel? I have no idea, do you? Rather than engage in further meaningless rhetoric based on speculation about the merits of the AV8 programme and it’s cost, I’d rather reserve my judgment to until the first units of the AV8 have been sent to the armour school for trials.
P.S. I’m no boxing fan but i know there have been cases of more cash being spent to train and promote certain lightweight boxers over heavyweights ones.
anon “The thai’s are paying 7 billion bhat for the 200 Oplots. That’s about 10% of what we are paying for the super duper AV8.”
The Thais have allocated 500 billion Baht for the tank purchase. I don’t know what the 7 billion mean, it’s too much for the single unit price, but definitely not enough for all 200 tanks with necessary additional contracts.
Defence is an integral part of any sovereign nation. It is not for the purpose to wage war but to ensure peace, survival of the nation and promotion of growth from the stability that defence spending promotes.
However, defence spending, just like any other, should be capped to what is affordable for us to pay in the future.
The AV8, SGPV and Cougar, were made in the vision that the economy will grow between 5 to 6% in the next 5 years and the budget deficit will reduce to around 3% around the same time.
However if the vision fail to materialise, the only way to pay for all those is via tax hike or cuts in other spending.
In a worst case scenario, we may be in the same boat as some european nation currently in financial crisis
Reply
With the Japan and euro-debt crisis in our midst together with the oil price shock who knows what will happen..
The Thais are buying T-84 Oplot MBTs from the Ukraine for $231.33mil USD. The price is cheap but i don’t think the tanks will be in operational condition.
The Thais bought the 96 BTR-3E1s from the same supplier in Ukraine for $117.6 million USD without engines. The original engine for the BTRs are from German but it fell foul with the arm import ban imposed by Germany on the Thais due to the 2006 coup. A US engine has been selected and further cost are expected for installation and modifications needed to fit the engine into the BTRs. If i am not mistaken the T-84 Oplots also used German engines and radios, FCS and BMS from the EU nations.
Reply
Most probably they will used the SAGEM FCS as on our Pendekar as we had shown that it can work; well I am guessing what the Sagem salesman will say….
History and details of the PARS vehicle.
Originally designed by the General Purpose Vehicle(GPV) company, New Haven, Michigan.This vehicle comprises a family of vehicles from 4x4x4 to 10x10x10 and has a max road speed of 101km/h on metal road.In 2004 the US army tank automotive &armaments command(TACOM)acquired 1 unit for testing but was not adopted for use. FNSS Savunma Sistemleri company then co-developed the PARS vehicle with GPV.
This vehicle has 360 degree protection made up of aluminum and titanium armour with various weapon packages for 1 man, 2 men and remote weapons stations.It has a V hull to deflect blast, doors on both sides and a large rear door and hatches for the driver and the commander.
The driver and commander’s seats and binnacle are height adjustable and slide adjustable so that the steering can be used to either the right or left so that the driver can be alternated while the vehicle is on the move.The cockpit has 7 panoramic periscopes for forward vision and fitted with wipers and also air blast cleaners.The vehicle is fitted with 4 external thermal and optical cameras and also large display screens in the cockpit. A GPS, fleet tracking system and on-board computer system which can track and display the operations and maintenance requirements of the vehicles is also fitted.The rear cabin of the vehicle can accommodate up to at least 10 personnel and also with areas for stowage of equipment .The rear cabin and cockpit is equipped with air conditioning with separate controls.NBC filtration with overpressure is provided.Gun ports for narrow or wide size guns can be opened to fit the type of gun used.
Suspension:
Uses independent suspension giving 20 inches of wheel travel and is movable side to side or fore and aft.The pneumatic suspension can be raised or lowered electronically.
Engine:
350hp Caterpillar C7 6 cylinder diesel engine with 5 speed auto shifting transmission.3 onboard fuel tank of 150 gals to give 1,449km or 900 miles range. The air condition system is powered by a 21 hp 3 cylinder diesel auxiliary power unit(APU).
Electrical System
Distributed computing system connected by CAN bus technology for high speed & high resolution data transfer and is overcircuit protected solid state without fuse .It is fully amphibious without preparation with a speed of 5.6km/h
PARS
Main difference
Steel armour
Rapidly reconfigurable-the roof can be removed as to be quickly converted to a wide range of specialist role
Tested by the UAE and another middle eastern country but not purchased.
6 Forward and 1 reverse gear
Turrets for 7.62mm up to 90 mm can be fixed.Design of hull and applique systems can protect the vehicle from mine blast,IED, ballistic & overhead protection.
Engine Deutz engine of 523 hp and all wheel steering.Can ford up to 1.5 m of water.
Reply
I hope no one will accuse us of revealing national secrets…
The RTA will probably replace some of it’s older MBT’s once the T-84 is operational. No reason why SAGEM can integrate it’s panoramic sight on the T-84. The RTA will be stuck with the Kontakt-5 ERA as the Russians will refuse to supply any components as the Ukrainians, and the Poles have violated the licensing agreement awarded by the USSR by exporting their MBT’s. The Peruvians faced the same problem when they got their Fulcrums from Belarus. Very unlikely that the RTA will go for an APS.
Corrction – the Oplot has a new ERA which has replaced the K-5.
but just in case they do want us to pay the bunga emas again, ordering a few hundred additional ATGM should be considered
I think the whole region is upgrading old equipment. According to the latest Sipri records, Singapore has bought more than 180+ Leo 2 tanks so far.
Reply
That’s what we are saying but others are saying and writing that’s its an Arms Race
I disagree lah tomahawk the 180+ that singapore have is AMX-13 + M113,and so far singapore just bought 48 machine of leo2
Singapore didnt buy 48 Leo 2. Malaysia bought 48 PT-91 tanks.