View Comments (1)

• AM says:
  August 24, 2013 at 8:22 am

  The fittings provided by FareedLHS will equip 239 vehicles. Does this mean production vehicles will not come with the 25mm Sharpshooter turret? Also is an AGL among the options?

  Reply
  I don’t know, will find out.
  Loreng says:
  August 24, 2013 at 8:49 am

  It is sad to see that people like Fareed and Marhalim have to dig out for information on the A8 from international sources.Such information should be made available locally.People will become suspicious when information of public interest are hidden from the public view.To protect national security interest?People no longer buy this explanation when come to arms procurement as it has nothing to do with military operational plans.The manner how the AV8 project was planned and implemented have opened up a lot of questions.Citizens, NGOs, defence analysts and politicians from both sides should asks questions to decision-maker(s) rather than keeping quiet like a flock of sheep.I am looking forward to see young breed of politicians who are not afraid to speak their minds on defence issue.We support them when they speak the truth.
  FareedLHS says:
  August 24, 2013 at 6:08 pm

  You are most welcome.
  nimitz says:
  August 24, 2013 at 6:27 pm

  Engines from Germany and 120mm from France, and the GPMG + .50cal as usual from Belgium’s FN. Wow, Deftech sure up to manage OEM’s from different nations. Hey, maybe that 20mm Super Rogue can become AAA?

  Reply
  I am not even sure whether its Super Rogue RWS was chosen or not. Will try to find out
  nimitz says:
  August 24, 2013 at 8:13 pm

  The mystery of this report is the addition of Rogue RWS from another SA manufacturer.

  Reply
  Didn’t I say before that we aim to please everyone?. If its really a 20mm gun RWS I probably understand why – its a recce vehicle – but if its armed with a 12.7mm gun or even an AGL, I also failed to comprehend the reason as did FareedLHS
  SgWay says:
  August 24, 2013 at 9:45 pm

  So most of the PARS will be made in Turkey and only 89 in Malaysia?

  Reply
  Based on the SIPRI data, Yes
  AM says:
  August 24, 2013 at 11:35 pm

  20mm would seem to me like a step backwards.

  SgWay, 89+46 assembled in Malaysia.

  One thing I’m curious about is the 30mm turret config- whether front (as illustrated in promo materials) or middle of the vehicle (as observed with the Sharpshooter). Location at the front seems very unlikely. I also don’t get the general layout of the AV8. The commander should be sitting in the turret. What need is there to put a commanders seat next to the driver and reduce the troop compartment space by moving the engine back? I think the Pars was never designed for a large 2 man turret.
  nimitz says:
  August 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm

  It’s fishy eh, when “we aim to please everyone” yet reutech is a stub in wikipedia. Compare Boustead with Deftech, at least Boustead themselves release to public about Gowind’s sub-contracts. Deftech is silent but information comes from foreign sources.
  Azlan says:
  August 26, 2013 at 2:20 am

  The question of whether a recce platform should be armed with a 20mm or a GPMG really depends on one’s doctrine: Is the vehicle intend to perform its recce duties and stay away from trouble at all costs or is the vehicle intended to perform recce but is also expected to come in contact with enemy units and thus must have the ability to fight its way out of trouble? Different armies have different approaches when it comes to battlefied recce; some will argue [with justification] that a recce platform need not be armed with anything ”heavy” as it is not intended to be in a position where it has to defend itself.

  Ideally, the variant that is armed with Vingtaqs – http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/archive_2011/details_1090.php – should be armed with nothing heavier than a 7.62mm or an AGL as it is not expected to come into contact with th enemy as part of its long range surveillance [artillery sporting] and observation role.
  Loreng says:
  August 26, 2013 at 8:55 am

  Azlan,
  Surely whatever hardware we procure is for the purpose of defending our land/maritime/airspace.So we understand the need to have submarine for our EEZ and jet-fighters for our airspace.What about the super expensive AV8?Well it has been touted to undertake battlefield surveillance( to detect the movement of the enemy) coming into our territory and to provide flank protection when the Army is moving forward, left, right and rearward facing the enemy.Looking at our road systems, vegetation and jungle terrain do we think the AV8 is the best hardware for the Cavalry should have to provide battlefield surveillance and flank protection to the Army?Another point, we are dumb if we fail to take into consideration our terrain and jungle-type vegetation can have a big impact/outcome on our doctrine.The Japanese Army understood our terrain well when they introduced unique doctrines, tactics and hardware that caused the defeat of the British Army here in our terrain in WW2.
  FareedLHS says:
  August 26, 2013 at 6:25 pm

  Any numbers on the Vingtaqs? For “around €36 million” how many units plus “training, system integration and documentation” are being procured?

  Azlan,

  Good to see you back.

  Reply
  I will ask around otherwise we will have to wait for SIPRI again
  lee yoke meng says:
  August 26, 2013 at 7:51 pm

  I would even go as far as to say we should have turrets fitted with low recoil 105mm cannons for battlefield support duties. Our auto cannons should be of 30mm configurations as experience in Iraq n afghan has shown that a minimum 30mm gun is required for effective anti armour

  Reply
  If they make more AV8 hulls perhaps an FSV with the MGS turret from the Stryker could be an option
  nimitz says:
  August 26, 2013 at 8:09 pm

  I gave a thought on our current road system and topographical layout. “Tank country” now exist at West & South Peninsular Malaysia, Southwest Sarawak, Northwest Sabah, Labuan. Our govt have decided on AV8 as the best for the Calvary so we have to live with it. Maybe for AV8 Mk II, serious air defence capability is acquired. For example, ROK have AA KIFV, none in MIFV. In these 257 units, not a single is AA-capable AV8. IMO, in a truly conventional warfare, the side who own the sky and own the night will prevail. BTW, I believe in 2015, AV8 will deploy for UN peacekeeping missions (maybe the first batch will immediately go to UNIFIL), train to fight non-state enemy (ESSCOM), combined arms manouvers in ladang sawit and FIBUA.

  Reply
  Its useless to have tanks in Labuan, and invader will simply bypassed it and its crew will have to surrender once the mainland is captured. Indeed there are many tank capable areas in Malaysia. The trick is how best to employ them to gain the most advantage not only in terms of terrain but also the disposition of the opposing force
  FareedLHS says:
  August 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm

  Sorry to change topic but US Def Sec Hagel just disclosed the sale of Apache helicopters to Indonesia.

  Interesting that not much came from his visit to KL…

  I’m sure this story will only add more ‘urgency’ to those who favour seeing attack helicopters in RMAF service.

  Reply
  Indonesia had applied to get the Apache last year so its no surprise Hagel that announced it.
  The real surprise is whether we can get the same number of attack helicopters for the same price (US$500 million or RM1.652). As the Tiger is more expensive per copy I guess we won’t! And it will be the Army that operates the attack helicopters not RMAF. Hagel did offer things to Malaysia – Super Hornets and Apaches – will be at the top of the list but since we have applied to procure them via DSCA it is unlikely any announcement will be made. Other things offered will need to be digested through the system before an application can be made
  AM says:
  August 27, 2013 at 12:12 am

  Actually, what is the reason we have such a liking for Turkish, Korean, South African, almost any products over American ones, French exports in particular? Is there any clear answer to this question?

  Reply
  Some will say the 2 per cent cap on commission on FMS/commercial sales but I believed its more rooted in the policy of not relying on one supplier but yes as you mentioned there is no clear answer on this even if you speak to the most high ranking civil servant in the ministry
  Azlan says:
  August 27, 2013 at 2:51 am

  Loreng,

  We have a paved road network connecting all major urban and industrial areas; any flare up with a state actor will most likely take place in an urban enviroment where the avaibility of a modern road network will make it very conduicive for the employment of track and wheeled AFVs. The high silhouette of the V-8 [like most current gen wheeled AFVs] does appear to be a problem but the A-8 when operating in secondary jungle and estates or plantations; will always [or should] have infantry support and will always try its best to use the terrain and vegetation for concealment. Personaly, I would prefer a smaller platform for recce, e.g. the Fennec but I must as well ask for SSNs for the RMN as we’re stuck with the AV-8. Let me assure you, the chaps at the Armour Directorate have considered all the points we’ve raised.

  What played a part in the rapid advance of the Japs was not only British incompetance but the fact that western Malaya had the best road system in the whole British empire, apart from Blighty of course. We tend to overlook thefact that the Japs advance took place on roads and in secondary jungles areas like plantations and estates; where there were roads …

  Nimitz,

  With regards to East Malaysia, anywhere a lori balak can go, so can a MBT. Even if the MBTs faces terrain constaints, the availibility of engineering support will do the trick. Granted, there are still areas were MBTs can’t be deployed but then the question that arises is : If they can’t be deployed there, why would anyone want to deploy them there? Also, a factor more important than weight is actually when deployed off-road is actually ground pressure and in this area the Scorpion comes out top – even with the Cockerill.

  To answer the question you posed in the other thread about help from our former colonial overlords for MALBATT, we got Land Rovers, Leylands [some fitted with DROPS, PLCE bergens [still in use and DPM Artic smocks. They also sent a traning team to Sungei Petani, comparsing a General and several SAS men.

  Lee Yoke Meng,

  A lot of AV-8s will be fitted with a 30mm autocannon - a lot also depends on the ammo.. Whether we intend to have a 105mm platform for fire support goes back to my original question: Do we forsee a possibility in which we are faced with an opponent who hs constructed bunkers and oher field fortifications? For sure, fitting a low recoild 105mm on the AV-8 will make it too heavy. Anyhow, unlike in the past when infantry units only had the Carl Gustav, there is more firepower operated at company and battalion level for bunker busting work.

  The latest issue of AFM has a very interesting article on the A400M.
  I had no idea that - [1] The cabin noise is comparable to a civillian jetliner [2] On uneven ground, the fuselage can be tilted downwards for easier loading/unloading [3] All aircraft will come with the refueling probe [4] The props are contra-rotating and are coated in kevlar.
  Azlan says:
  August 27, 2013 at 3:00 am

  Fareed,

  The Yanks know fully well that we have a self-imposed aversion to buying big ticket kit with a ”Made in The U.S.” tag, as long as we countinue to train with them regularly and continue cooperation in intel sharing, over-flights and other areas, they are more than happy. Off course it also makes us happy and provides us with insurance, as it has for the past 4 decades.

  I still maintain that it will be idiotic to get uber sexy gunships [some were under the fantasy that gunships would have solved at lot of issues at Lahad Dato] when there are other key areas that need funding. Anyway, Spain is selling off some its yet to be delivered A400Ms and Tigers.
  FareedLHS says:
  August 27, 2013 at 4:35 am

  nimitz,

  “AV8 Mk II”? Let’s at least wait until deliveries of “AV8 Mk I” are underway!

  Marhalim,

  You are right that Indonesia has eyed Apaches for quite some time. I just find it interesting that Hagel made no similar ‘big’ announcements in KL. IMO, it would be a mistake for the Army to purchase attack helicopters (an even bigger mistake if they opt for Tigers). The priority should be on utility and support helicopters. Of course those aren’t as sexy. And if the neighbors have shiny new attack helicopters than I guess there will be those in the Army who must have them also.

  Lastly, IMO all helicopters should be under the RMAF; much in the way that the Dutch operate.

  http://www.ag67.nl/page11.php

  Unless one is operating large numbers of helicopters (US Army, for example), it makes little sense to disperse one’s assets across several commands.
  nimitz says:
  August 27, 2013 at 1:41 pm

  IMO, as an invader, I will not bypass Labuan but capture it first hand instead. The goal is to secure TUDM and TLDM bases on the island. This will effectively cut off Sabah’s air-sea-land route from the rest of Malaysia, rattle Brunei and threaten Sarawak. If I know armour units is active on the island, the invading force becomes larger due to addition of more armour and anti-armour formation. The price I pay is much higher than. My 2-cent opinion.

  Reply
  Always avoid strong points and go for least defended positions
  Azlan says:
  August 27, 2013 at 5:09 pm

  I think we have to make a clear distinction between the tonnes of cash allocated for the AV-8 programme and the actual performance of the vehicle when it enters service – both are profoundly different things. We can argue that it would have led to savings if we had just bought something off the shelf but we can’t state [yet] that whatever other vehicle we bought would have performed better than the AV-8 as it [the AV-8] hasn’t yet entered service; until then it’s just speculation. I was told that one of the contenders [which unlike the Pars is in service with several countries] actually performed badly during local trials. Marhalim would probably know more on this.

  AM,

  All major deals – not just ours – are political in nature. All our deals are intended : [1] To build on or improve existing bilateral relationships [2] Industrial offsets that can also effect non-military areas [3] So called transfers of technology and how it can benefit the local industry. [4] As Marhalim said, not to place ”all of ones eggs in a single basket”.

  Interesting how the Indons are now very close to South Korea, back in the 1990′s the South Koreans first approached us but didn’t get very far.
  FareedLHS says:
  August 27, 2013 at 6:28 pm

  Where or where did my “AV8 Mk II” post go? Marhalim check your junk folder…
  FareedLHS says:
  August 27, 2013 at 6:55 pm

  Sorry, just saw it… I’m losing my mind. Anyway…

  Azlan,

  You are correct, the A400M is able to “squat”. This is of great use in rough field operations and in locations where ground equipment is unavailable. Here’s a good video of the contrarotating props:

  http://www.defensenews.com/VideoNetwork/207438957001/A400M-Prop-Rotation-Farnborough-2010

  Regarding major deals, IMO the main motivation is always $$$. The bilateral, local industry and technology transfer stuff all relates to $$$. And if one can get a little $ for one’s allies and self, that’s a bonus. Everyone always wants to come out on top.

  I agree that a 105mm turret would make the AV8 too top heavy.

  Marhalim,

  “Always avoid strong points and go for least defended positions.” Does Labuan have an integrated air defence system? Are there sea defences (anti-ship missile batteries, for example)? Perhaps Labuan is not a strong point. At least not from the perspective of the only country that would ever conceivably stage an attack on it.

  Reply
  I am not saying it is a heavily defended position but its a small island compared to Borneo which is the main prize. Why get bogged down on a relatively unimportant target when the heavens await? It will soon come enough when Sabah is secured
  nimitz says:
  August 27, 2013 at 7:39 pm

  Malaysian Army lacked dedicated self-propelled AA (either AAA or SAM) while relying on MANPADS mounted on 4WD. That’s why they could look into AV8 Mk II Air Defence variant.
  AM says:
  August 27, 2013 at 7:46 pm

  Fareed, maybe we should also follow Singapore’s example and put all air defence responsibilities under the air force, including those maneuver units attached to the army. That system is designed to work on our territory, so why shouldn’t it work for us.

  Azlan, where does our aversion to US items come from? All I know is the old Hornet story from Mahathir’s time. But we’ve got AMRAAM now, we saw them dropping LGB in Lahad Datu, and they’ve always had Harpoons. Now they are offering more items than we can afford. As for putting all eggs in one basket, apparently we are doing that with the French.

  Reply
  It was Mahathir, who also got us buying from every Tom,Dick and Harry. As for the French love affair, blame Pak Lah
  loreng says:
  August 27, 2013 at 8:16 pm

  The Indonesian Army recently has also bought the Raytheon-made fire-and-forget Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Weapon (ATGW) from USA at a cost of USD60 mil.The only ATGW in its class is the Israeli-made Spike already in service with Singapore Army for many years now.

  Reply
  We had also expressed interest on the Javelin a few years back but it had cooled down recently
  lee yoke meng says:
  August 27, 2013 at 8:47 pm

  Using the 105 mm for anti bunker use?. Hahaha. Irs like using an axe to slay a chicken. The current standard infantry battalion have sufficient fire power to do so. From a single grenade to the use of delivery means like the single rifle launcher to the six shot grenade launcher. Our rpg is also pretty good at it. Even our 50 calibre can punch through concrete if shot at at a single spot. The 105 is used for three purposes. They are direct fire in support of infantry where 105 mm shell is more effective compared to a 30mm. Also used as an anti ifv weapon. It can also be used for indirect fire support. So a 105mm equipped ifv is flexibility n adds a huge volume of fire. A fire n forget ATGW missile is great. But must buy three versions namely the double warhead anti tank. Heavy explosives for anti infantry or bunker bursting n if available the thermobaric explosive round
  Loreng says:
  August 27, 2013 at 9:54 pm

  I tend to agree with Azlan that our military does not like to buy US-made hardware although they have access to US Military through the Bilateral Military Cooperation Agreement.One of the main reason is the hassle of getting approval from Congress and the nature of the sale which is G-to-G under FMS or DCS (Foreign Military Sale/Direct Commercial Sale) and a minute commission to the local agent with very little to spare for ‘miscellaneous expenditure’.Obviously this business modality is difficult to compete with OEMs from France and UK where they have much more flexibility to fix sale price to Malaysia without their government interference.The US modality should be the obvious choice if we were serious in eliminating corruption but some people will ask who cares?

  Reply
  There is no problem getting approval from Congress as we will only be asking to buy weapons already cleared for exports ie for example if we asked for the Predator, we will get the sanitised version of the Predator one that cannot be armed like those being procured by the UAE. There had been in the past certain Congressman called for the ban of selling some weapons following certain statements by the then PM. By at large however most of our request will be approved as it had been cleared by the Pentagon via the US embassy DA here otherwise a request to purchase will not be made. On the commission issue yes the amount is fixed unlike most of the world. However this could circumvented via off-set programmes. I believed another reason we don’t buy US arms is that we tend to try to forgo the support beyond the warranty period ie spares and maintenance contracts at the initial stage, which the US regard as a deal breaker. . This is mostly due to lack of funds and the policy of having local companies as the prime for support and service provider even though they do not have the capacity to do so.
  Bear in mind the Europeans are also trying to put the support contracts at the outset of the procurement, nowdays not just for profit sake but to ensure the systems procured are up and running as expected. I had posted before on the lack of support and spares contracts which continue to reduce availability of systems purchased in the past. Most of these are not US products
  loreng says:
  August 27, 2013 at 11:09 pm

  I suspect also one of the main reasons for lack of interest in buying military hardware from the US has to do with the sufferings of the Muslims in the Middle East especially the Palestinians.The Malaysian Army officer corps which is largely Muslims do sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians.Whether rightly or wrongly they blame the Americans for supporting Israel.Because of this Malaysian officers who are religious-minded take extreme view/position when dealing with US-made defence hardwares.Therefore one is not surprised to see that the Army has not bought any significant US weapons systems after it procured the 105mm M102 artillery guns from the US under FMS in the early 70s.The moral of the story is that the US has to solve the Palestinian issue before it could win over the religious-minded Malaysian Army officer corps.

  Reply
  We were buying tonnes of things from the US in the 70s from M16s to Commando APCs and F5s. We also bought the Skyhawks and Hercules in the 80s and 90s (Hercules) and Hornets in 1995. The politicians used the Palestinian trump card for internal politics not really to thumb the nose of the US. How can we really boycott the US as it is one of our biggest trading partners
  Simon Tan says:
  August 28, 2013 at 12:44 pm

  Good grief. I dont know if some people have been paying attention but even 125mm HE is marginal on concrete buildings. If you are not up to speed on urban ops in Syria, you are a dreamer. Yes. You.
  Simon Tan says:
  August 28, 2013 at 4:39 pm

  Anyone notice the utter absence of BTRs in the SAA combined arms units? You dont even see them in the rural battlefields, where both sides make use of portee AA guns.
  Keep in mind that there were thousands of BTRs in their ORBATS.
  This is a clue. We could learn much from those Alawite heretics.
  FareedLHS says:
  August 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm

  A recent Aviation Week article noted that the US Navy is aggressively working on passive search and track. Their goal, in their words, is to “curb enemy jamming”. The EA-18G is being used to track moving ships with enough accuracy to guide a missile without radar. In addition, the Growlers will be linked to Super Hornets with IRST systems. The US Navy is also working on a “highly modified, longer-range” AIM-9X. So what does this have to do with Malaysian Defence? Apparently seeing Knirti SAP-518 jamming pods on RMAF Su-30MKMs in October 2012 made an impression on the US Navy. Here’s a larger extract from the article:

  “The passive targeting program reflects rising concern about the use of advanced jamming technologies by potential adversaries. These use digital radio-frequency memory (DRFM) chips that can intercept, record and mimic incoming radar signals rapidly and accurately, providing very effective jamming.

  “DRFM technology has been in existence since the 1980s and is used in European fighter self-protection suites. However, with the development of low-cost solid-state RF technology for commercial communications, it is becoming much more accessible and being exported by Russia and other nations. In October 2012, for example, U.S. Navy F/A-18Es visiting Malaysia flew in formation with Malaysian air force Sukhoi Su-30MKMs that carried Knirti SAP-518 jamming pods, previously seen only on Russian Su-34s. The SAP-518 is a new, high-power system that is believed to use DRFMs.”
  Loreng says:
  August 28, 2013 at 8:05 pm

  Marhalim,
  If before we were buying lots of stuff from the US, and not any more these days, then we can narrow it down, the US offers are not so juicy as compared to those coming from European countries!
  FareedLHS says:
  August 28, 2013 at 8:23 pm

  Simon,

  IMO, BTRs, like most Soviet armor, are junk. And the units that the SAA has are old. The last BTRs they received were OT-64Cs from Czechoslovakia in the late 70s. Prior to that they received BTR-60s from the Soviet Union. Most have fallen into disrepair and disuse. The armor (5-10mm) can barely withstand 7.62mm rounds. The engine in the BTR-60s is petrol and laden with overheating and power problems.

  Although I’m not an AV8 fan, Soviet junk it is not.
  ... says:
  August 28, 2013 at 10:37 pm

  When I posted here about the MKM’s using the SAP-518 to record electronic emissions of the George Washington Carrier Battle Group I was ridiculed…

  hmmm…

  https://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=2826
  ... says:
  August 28, 2013 at 10:55 pm

  What the US navy is trying to do is to have a group of Growlers (say 3 aircrafts) listening to the electronic emissions (radar, radio,datalinks etc) of enemy ships and destroy them while actually flying outside of the ships radar range and without having to actively target the ship by radar or laser designator..

  by using algorithms similar to the VERA E system to link and share data of all 3 aircrafts through datalink, gps/ins data and triangulations; the flight of growlers could get the location of the enemy ship and target it with a missile or even a GPS glide bomb without even switching on their radars or lase the ship with laser designator.

  basically the US Navy are trying to create a flying VERA E system.

  If US Navy can do it, why not us (we can link up with the VERA E designers maybe?)
  FareedLHS says:
  August 29, 2013 at 12:48 am

  …,

  I don’t think you were ridiculed. All that I was pointing out is that the US Navy and the RMAF likely were not operating their systems at full capacity. To do so would have provided unnecessary exposure. Even in passive mode, why would the RMAF pilots take the chance? And why would they want to intercept the US Navy? In addition, I am sure that the US Navy’s electronic warfare capabilities are far better than the RMAF’s.
  AM says:
  August 30, 2013 at 5:31 am

  So, the American government is willing to lose sales in order to prevent corruption in foreign governments?

  Reply
  No lah, they dont want to be there when SHTF.
  Azlan says:
  August 30, 2013 at 11:31 am

  lee yoke meng,

  Using a Model 56 for the direct fire anti-bunker role sounds nice on paper but there will be a slight problem if the chaps in the bunker start shooting back ……
  nimitz says:
  August 30, 2013 at 7:21 pm

  Any local producer of NBC military-grade suits? Send some over to our men in UNIFIL. Who knows LACM suddenly raining over Syria and hit the chemical weapons storage sites and the poisonous gas blown over to South Lebanon. AFAIK, the contingent is based southeast thus closer to Syria border.

  Reply
  Its faster and cheaper to get them from Germany which is where our CBRN suits are sourced from.
  Azlan says:
  August 31, 2013 at 3:57 pm

  ……,

  I could be wrong but I doubt that the MKMs which overflew the carrier were picking up stuff. Even if we wanted to, we would be a wee bit discreet about it. We train annually with the USN in CARAT and SEACAT and we have also participated in multi-national exercises involving the USN such as RIMPAC and KAKADU; any RMN ship with ESM can do the job; Also, as USN ships regularly transit the Melaka Straits we can also easily park VERA on the coast.

  We could if we wanted to and there’s nothing they can do about it as it’s practically impossible to jam ESM, but why would we and what could we possibly gain?

  In 2007, the MKMs participated in the 1st Merdeka flypast and for the 50th anniversary celebrations, a few foreign ships docked at Port Klang. In his editorial, the Tempur editor claimed that on Merdeka Day, a foreign ISR platform was snooping near our airspace and that the foreign naval ships at Port Klang had their ESM on to pick up the radio and radar frequencies of the MKMs. As For me, the problem with this story is that RMAF aircraft at Merdeka day flypasts, LIMA and F1 operate under DCA ATC control – not RMAF – and their radars are not even switched on.
  ... says:
  August 31, 2013 at 8:17 pm

  @azlan

  Maybe it is to test the systems ability to acquire US electronic emissions (wont trip any US navy warning systems as it is passive), and to update the SAP-513′s electronic emissions database (we dont have any specific ELINT aircrafts to do this unlike some other airforces). As with others we are speculating, and US Navy won’t take what has happened seriously (to me its tripped by just the sight of the pods hanging on the MKM’s, it would be crazy and nonsense if it was active) to start a whole new research on this if the capability of this system is bad as a lot of people is saying.
  Azlan says:
  September 1, 2013 at 12:05 pm

  …….,

  Maybe, and as you indicated, we have no way of knowing for sure.
  We don’t have dedicated ELINT aircraft but any of the ESMs operated by the RMN [the Mentor on the Lekiu class and the DRS-300 on the Kasturi class and FACs] can collect ”data”. The 2 Beechcraft fitted with AMASCOS also have the DRS-300 and off course there is VERA which we supposedly bought to track UAVs [by their data-links].

  I was just pointing out that we have other more discreet means on collecting ”info” and that we have nothing to gain by doing it so openly; but as you suggested, maybe we were indeed testing the pod. We do know for sure that Soviet/Russian EW gear isn’t all that bad as people make it out to be. In certain areas, the Soviets were way ahead of anyone and during the Iran/Iraq war, Iraqi pilots were adamant that the RWRs on the MiG-25s were superior to the ones fitted on their F-1s.

  Marhalim,

  You know the name of the German company that supplied the NB suits. Have we also replaced the Avon Mk10 masks and the NBC detector?

  http://www.defencemanagement.com/article.asp?id=180&content_name=NBC/CBRN&article=4494

  Reply
  I believed our CBRN suits are made by Karcher. Avon has been trying to sell many of this things for the last decade, not sure we bought any but small numbers for the GGK.
  AM says:
  September 2, 2013 at 8:05 am

  “It was Mahathir, who also got us buying from every Tom,Dick and Harry. As for the French love affair, blame Pak Lah”

  If it started during Pak Lah’s time, I might look at Najib instead of Pak Lah. He was more involved in the deals and was defence minister before Pak Lah’s time. PLKN was also his scheme.

  Reply
  PLKN started during Mahathir time. Yes Najib was initially the Defence Minister during Pak Lah stint as PM. But Pak Lah was also the Finance Minister at the same time. It was during Pak Lah that the French came in big, to the point that the 8X8 was supposed to be the VBCI. However in the end only Thales, Sagem and Eurocopter got the contracts. DCNS despite bagging the Scorpene deal came later as they were here initially with Navantia. Only once they broke off DCNS get the benefit of the French connection
  Azlan says:
  September 2, 2013 at 11:01 am

  The S10 gas masks used by us are from Avon and the NBC detector is from Graseby Dynamics. At the 2011 exhibition, there was a new mask on display.
  dafuqqq says:
  September 11, 2013 at 12:02 pm

  no anti aircraft? hmm