KUALA LUMPUR: Again I would like to apologise that I cannot post more pictures as I did not take many pictures probably because I was bored with the same old exhibits and the fact that my Maxis broadband sucks when it comes to downloading. BTW, I would rather use full size pictures as it would take the same time to oownload them although it could make it easier for those with slow speeds to upload them.
Sapura’s Adnan driver simulator.
A smallish model of the 120mm TDA/bighorn mortar at the Thales stand.
An ACV300 at the FNSS stand. The S-version only appears in the model form.
Deftech’s very own HUMVEE. They lost to their former boss!
The interior of the Deftech AV4. Not much changes from the vehicle displayed at DSA2006, which became one of MalaysianDefence first posts. Apart from new LCD displays, there is nothing new inside, the cheap seats remained. What ever one feels about the Vamtac, the AV4 is certainly…..!
The Vamtac fitted with a Thales MMS turret from Thales. The turret could be fitted with the dual use Starstreak and even the Hellfire or Ingwe, as claimed by Thales. The 50+plus Vamtacc order announced at DSA 2008 also included 25 vehicles to be equipped with the Igla launcher. The Thales rep stationed with the Vamtac did not want to comment whether or not their turret could be fitted with the Igla. Of course it could be fitted but whether or not it will work is another issue.. The Vamtac with the Thales turret will be off for firing trials soon. Maybe we will hear something about it later on.
HK long arms, from the top the MSG90, Hk417 and Hk416. Like everyone else I was drooling all over the guns, sub-machineguns and pistols. All of the HK long guns are completely idiot-and-left-handed proof including the MG4! For a license to bring them home, I could go the RB way any day any time…….
–MalaysianDefence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Hmm, somehow I write a lot about mortars since DSA began…
Whatever, the small model is not the Bighorn, but it’s competitor, the 2R2M. Which, by the way, I’ve read was now chosen as the one Malaysia will purchase.
This to my shame of course totally bombs my former comments, where I argued that the Bighorn would be the only profitable solution. Hehe.
But to my defence I have to say that the 2R2M has already been fitted into the ACV-300 before Malaysia showed interest into buying such a thing. Which I didn’t know. So Malaysia had the choice between two fully integrated systems (Bighorn and 2R2M) of which they now chose the 2R2M.
By the way, it’s interesting to notice that the small model shows the normal ACV (5 roadwheels) and not the ACV-S with it’s 6 roadwheels.
Yes, the Thales version or TDA Armament 2r2M that was chosen for the LOI, sorry if I did not emphasised that in my earlier post. No problems about any comments as long as it is not too controversial or libelous.
As you would have noticed, my comments are also not sacred cows! I am not saying that I will allow anyone to bash me in my own website but as long it is reasonable and with reason its OK and this goes for comments from readers as well. So comment away…
I crease myself every time you use the term ‘fully integrated’. It’s never fully integrated until you sign on the dotted line, at which point you call the c4I spec and get down to work. TDA already has the mortar-laying etc. sorted but it depends entirely on how the Army is transmitting fire control data. In the case of a battalion mortar, a fair slice of that is going to be voice since we’re not yet issuing integrated LRF/GPS spotting binos wired into radios in the infantry Bns.
The 2R2M is the automated and powered mortar shooting the TBA 120mm rifled ammo. The USMC has bought the simpler towed version for their EFSS. They are more accurate than smoothbore 120mms and can fire smoothbore rounds using adapters. The RAP round will go 19km….so these puppies will outshoot almost everything bar the G5s in terms of reach and also throw weight. I’m curious as to how they will operate the 8 tracks…. 4 per Bn or 6 per Bn +2 for sekolah? 6 tubes gives much more flexibility as you can chop them into 2 or 3 firing sections to support detached operations.
Incidentally I was travelling up from Johor and saw a GK convoy heading home from Gemas. Guess what they are using as their Assault Vehicle? New Hiluxes painted matte black….
Marhalim….you talkin’ to me???? *LOL*
Simon
The new Adnans will be part of the Armoured Brigade with the PT91M leading the show. All of these will be based at Kem Sirajuddin. The PT91M battalion will be fully operational by next year but no dates on the delivery of the new Adnans so the armoured brigade will probably be in IOC by 2015! It will also be augmented by the new MLRS battalion and perhaps also the Vamtacs.
Not Hiluxes, Simon, Rangers, or the US military lingo Technicals….
Hilux lah….the current model. My ‘truck fu’ is pretty good. It’s a scoop dude, like the digipat the Army is trying out. Pattern in too small, does not break up the shape of the vehicle adequately.
You mean the MLRS Bn that the gunners didn’t want but had rammed down their throats in lieu of something more useful like SP 155s, more G5s or a new light gun to replace their worn out ones? The MLRS that they don’t have a strike-recce complex (read UAVs) to support and which lacks the accuracy to be used for supporting fires? Yeah baby, they’re digging them, not. But too polite to tell the Minister and better than getting nothing……
Hey MeesterT,
sorry for the belated answer, hope you’ll read it at all.
With that two words that now have been used often enough, I did not mean the integration into the Malaysian battlefield management stuff, but rather the technical integration of the particular mortar system into the tank. The Bighorn in a ACV-S already exists. The 2R2M also. AMOS against that has never been built into the ACV. So if Malaysia would order it, than the two companies FNSS and Patria would have to plan, design and build a prototype first before Malaysia could even test it. That would tag the final price-per-unit far higher. Malaysia would not only have to pay for the better performance of AMOS (which is unquestionable), but also for the Research & Development of the whole system.
And whether that better performance and far higher price-per-unit would pay off by buying only 8 vehicles was what I doubted and why I favored for buying something that already exists.
I hope you understand what I meant.
Sincerely,
David “Fully Integrated” DCM 🙂
David…dont you think that RUAG is not going to pass such costs along to the first buyer? How can you determine what the unit cost will be without a tender exercise?
I do understand what you mean. In any case, we’re NOT buying ACV-S but ACV-300 so your point is moot. (Marhalim: We are buying 8 of the ACV-300S during the latest round of contracts during the DSA. While the Stretched Adnan purchase is confirmed, the mortar purchase remained tentative as they only signed a Letter of Intent.
*sigh*
MeesterT,
as Marhalim added in the “( )” in your post, Malaysia will buy 8 ACV-S vehicles, and according to the Bernama report these 8 vehicles will mount the 120mm mortar.
You’re right, it is impossible to tell the exact price-per-unit. And you’re right that of course even with the existing systems a part of the development costs will be passed to Malaysia. But a custom-made solution always pulls a higher chunk of consequential costs after it than an off-the-shelf purchase, even if the end-product is comparable, because it means additional and redundant extra-work and -investment for the manufacturer that in the end has to be rolled off to the buyer. And isn’t it one of yours and Marhalim’s main points of criticism that Malaysia wastes so much money due to a thousand unneccessary extra-wishes with any procurement?
And given the low number of vehicles to be bought by Malaysia in this case wouldn’t it be a pretty big waste of money to go for something overly expensive and not-yet-existing for the hard to calculate advantage that it would offer in battle?
Greetings,
David…but how can you determine what the price is without a tender? Now you’re sounding like the MINDEF lot with their direct nego stuff? Yes my friend, you’re using the same words they use to justify the absence of open tenders. When you do not have competition and transparency, there is no way to ascertain if the best deal has been had.
You seem to think that because some work has been done that it will be discounted from the project cost? That is not the case. Everything is amortized somewhere.
Projects tendered on a fixed price basis vis cost plus means that the vendor is obliged to deliver the complete product, certified etc. at a determine price. Contracting on cost plus is a great way to allow things to spiral out of control.
David…get over the the fact that the Bighorn is already mounted in a ACV-S. All it does mean is that the delivery period SHOULD be quicker……SHOULD.
Marhalim…what are we buying the ACV-S for? The mortars? If so why are they beign procured separately?
Simon
Marhalim…you should have a discussion thread on the Wheeled APC vs. MRAP poll, outlining your views on the matter…..:).
Simon
I do not want to have my views to affect the poll.
But you can guest write for us 🙂
what happen to AV4? Any interested buyers?
Marhalim: No so far from what I hear…
hye to malaysia defence blogger…
now i’m working to write the paperwork for GBAD… but the problem is to findout the price for weapon that i want to present… this part is very difficult to findout on internet… hope u can give me a guide… thanks…
Marhalim: What GBAD system you want to know. Apart from Manpads and short range system, Malaysia cannot afford them nor does the National Defence Policy states that the country needs them…