SHAH ALAM: Bad Moon Rising. As you are aware with the upcoming general elections, the authorities are preparing for troubles. With the police already committed to various other security operations, the Army is expected to shoulder part of the responsibilities of keeping the peace, if anything bad breaks out of course.
For this reason, Army formations across the country has been training for the possibility of such. As this things are basically routine stuff, this is usually covered by BTDM Online, the Army’s own news network.
As for the preparations it is interesting to see the Army is putting up its armoured vehicles including tanks for the security operations. For the recent the World Urban Congress (Feb. 7 to Feb. 13) summit in Kuala Lumpur, the Army’s formation were also equipped with Gempita and Condors but no Pendekars were seen.
For the GE operations, the Pendekar and the Adnan/MIFV have been added to the mix. Hopefully, the general elections will come and go peacefully.
Anyhow, Australia has announced that the Rheimental Defense Australia as the preferred tenderer for Land 400 Phase 2. This means theBoxer CRV, has beaten out BAE Systems Australia AMV-35 offering.
The project, worth up to AUS$5 billion (US&3.93 billion, RM15.3 billion), will see Rheinmetall deliver up to 225 combat reconnaissance vehicles to the Australia Army.
— Malaysian Defence.
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (28)
Land 400 phase 2 is for the ASLAV 8x8 replacement. Next would be the phase 3, which is to replace the M113s. It is expected to be a tracked platform but it could be more Boxer CRV variants instead. Do also note that australian army is only about 20% the size of malaysian army, and most of its formations are motorized (they got 1000+ bushmaster MRAPs) due to the size and terrain of their country.
@ marhalim
"The project, worth up to AUS$5 billion (US&3.93 billion, RM15.3 billion)"
As per usual australian cost calculations, that includes all the sustainment and upgrades until it is phased out. The cost of building 200 Boxer in Australia is put at AUS$1.25 Billion. As for the Gempita, we don't know how much ingwe missiles and 30mm shells cost from the overall budget.
The contract is for 211 Boxers in recon, command, fire observation, repair, recovery, and I think ambulance variant too.
They are very capable vehicles. The standard CRV is equipped with 30mm cannon, commander-operated RWS, 2 Spike ATGMs, AMAP armour modules and Rheinmetall's Active Defensive System which is 1 of if not the fastest-reacting hardkill APS in the world. Baseline protection without modules is STANAG 4.
However at 35+ tons they can only fit 1 Boxer in a C-17 of which the Aussies have only 8.
If there is no political stability the rating agencies will downgrade us which means higher interest
@ Chua
Some comments in the net:
"The internal Army logic as supplied openly in a few of the comments here is almost wholly driven by simple tactical thinking with any operational or strategic considerations deemed to be irrelevant to the issue of capability. I suspect the hyper enthusiasm for Boxer within the Armour mafia will diminish rapidly once the reality sets in that the chances of deployment for 35+ton ‘recon’ vehicles and 75+ ton M1A2 upgraded MBTs will be close to zero"
Interesting points
- simple tactical thinking with any operational or strategic considerations deemed to be irrelevant to the issue of capability. It is highly protected yes, but can you drive it on rural roads without destroying them? How many roads can sustain 35ton weight? What kind of turning radius does it have, can it be operated in narrow urban roads? How do you deploy and use such a big IFV?
@... "It is highly protected yes, but can you drive it on rural roads without destroying them? How many roads can sustain 35ton weight? What kind of turning radius does it have, can it be operated in narrow urban roads? How do you deploy and use such a big IFV?"
Australian DOD found that the benefits of heavy wheeled vehicles top out at the 35-ton mark. Advances in wheeled vehicle technology means that more terrain is accessible now to vehicles than was previously thought - Aus DOD in particular has the vast Australian Outback in mind when considering operational environs. The terrain there is quite unforgiving to most wheeled vehicles (including their old ASLAVs).
Deployment overseas will principally be by sea, via Canberra-class LHD. Hence the heavy investment in naval forces and closer integration of Aus Navy and Army assets in exercises etc.
It's very big and very tall (taller than Patria), but at minimum it wil be able to navigate anything a bus can.
@... "I suspect the hyper enthusiasm for Boxer within the Armour mafia will diminish rapidly once the reality sets in that the chances of deployment for 35+ton ‘recon’ vehicles and 75+ ton M1A2 upgraded MBTs will be close to zero”"
I wonder what said commenter means by 'deployment'. The threat environment now is different from the mid-Cold War situation which I believe these people are still firmly stuck in; even non-state actors are able to bring ATGMs, artillery and AA cannon to bear not to mention what most state militaries can achieve.
The Australians have decided that trade offs/penalties in having a better protected platform is something they can live with and are trade offs/penalties worth incurring. A conclusion that others have also reached after looking at likely operating areas, various ways the vehicle can be deployed and current and future threats their vehicles may be exposed to. As I'm fond of repeating : everything is a trade off. They could have gone for a lighter vehicle [and all the advantages it has] but after looking at what others have experienced and looking at possible threats they might face; they've decided on a heavier, better protected vehicle. Note that for every article that criticises the selection of a ''heavy'' platform; there are also those who acknowledge the need for it.
Excerpts of a comments made elsewhere.
''Don't you love our media, just about every single outlet has reported this as state vs state with zero reference to capability.
It simply shows how intellectually lazy they are, go for the sensational and stuff the reasons for the selection.''
''They have, in my opinion, made the correct decision on phase 2 and I think for the right reasons and have hopefully listened to Army on this one. That gives me hope they will make the correct call on phase 3 and go for the tracked IFV.''
Correct, in the event they have to deploy their MBTs and IFVs the main means of deploying them in strength; as well as their supporting assets [including engineering] will be by sea. As such, the inability of the wheeled IFVs to fit into a C-130 or for only one to be able to fit into a C-17 is a trade off willing to be incurred given that deploying them in number by air was never the main means of deployment. Those who argue that roads will be too narrow or bridges in certain places will be too weak; dismiss the fact that there will always be heavy engineering assets in support and that the army has had experience of working in areas with a weak infrastructure, such as East Timor and the Solomons; both places in which the army has pllans to deploy to again if there's a need.
At the end of the say, whatever was eventually selected would still have drew criticism. There is no pleasing anyone. Had a decision been made for a lighter but more deployable vehicle; many [with justification] would have argued that it would not be survivable. After all, the main intention was to replace the M1113 and ASLAV with something not only more ''wired'' but also with better mobility and protection [not only with baseline armour but also a self protection suite]. Both the M1113 and ASLAV had limits as to how much they could be upgraded and the extent to how the Australians have decided to protect their future vehicles is highly indicative that they fully realise that future threats require a much better protected vehicle.
@ azlan
"As I’m fond of repeating : everything is a trade off"
Of course. Something i can learn to repeat too.
Chua - ''It’s very big and very tall (taller than Patria), but at minimum it wil be able to navigate anything a bus can.''
Yes. Note that most wheeled IFVs currently on offer are roughly the same height and size. One would love a smaller IFV and one with a shorter profile but there's no alternative if one desires certain mobility, firepower, protection and internal space. In the British army for instance, the Scimitar is being replaced by a much larger and heavier vehicle. Like others, the Australians have reached the same conclusion.