KUALA LUMPUR: Since I am too tired to write the next few days just read the link below. Yes, I was also taken by surprise by the contracts especially the Cougar and the 8X8. Its was on the ……No pictures also today as I had loaned out my camera to a colleague.
Further reading. The Malay Mail
–Malaysian Defence
And next is UAV?
Marhalim: No UAV Syameer, that was the reason CTRM was conspicuously absent.
Is it a typo, or is the M2RM different from the 2R2M mortar from DSA 2008?
Marhalim: Its a typo, David….
It seems that every single arm services wants their own kind of rifle. I guess we are not big on logistic efficiency then..
Marhalim: Actually, the other type of rifles are only meant for the special forces…the rest of the armed forces will eventually get their M4 when money is available….
hmm, RM8bil for 257 8×8 APCs sounds far fetched. the money should have been enough for at least 600 of those APCs. we should have taken some money from those funds to buy more Cougars or medium range SAM….
I agree with your column in malay mail that 287 units of the new 8×8 are too few for a price tag of RM8 billion. Why does it cost so much for mere 287 ?? The opposition will have a field day.
As for the design of the new 8×8 which is derived from the Turk\’s PARS, i dont really like the low undercarriage. What do you think?
But then again it is only LOI. Nothing is cast in stone just yet…..
There was a newspaper report that 105mm guns were ordered. Is this true Marhalim?
I thought the contract for the 8 120mm mortars was awarded last DSA?
Marhalim: No 105mm guns were ordered. No they just give the LOI and LOA, this time around its the real contract.
The Malaysian Defense ministry nominated the Malaysian company DRB-Hicom Defence Technologies (Deftech) a prime contractor to locally produce and supply 257 armored personnel carriers based on the Turkish 8×8 Pars wheeled armored vehicle. The Pars, developed and produced developed by the Turkish company FNSS is based on a design made by the U.S. company GPV. The value of the Malaysian ‘letter of intent’ is worth over worth about US$2.5 billion. Deliveries will span over seven years. The prototype APC is expected to be delivered for testing to the Malaysian Army by 2011. Deftech is to build 12 variants from the base vehicle, including personnel carrier, anti-tank weapon carrier, command and control and anti-aircraft weapon vehicles.
Everything is okay with the govt decision regarding the Cougar and the Turkey’s PARS but only one thing left, the 2nd Batch of the NGPV program.
Apparently the price of a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter is USD14 million…. hmmmm … RM 8 billion, let’s approximate to USD 2 billion… doing the math… that would get us roughly 142 Blackhawks… What would you dear readers of this blog rather have… 142 frickin’ Blackhawk helicopters or 257 armoured wheelies?
Thank you, Marhalim.
What happen to the 48 ACV-300 they had talked about in DSA 2008? Was that a full contract or also LoI? What happened to the deal?
Marhalim: The 2008 Adnan contract was a contract so I am guessing they are delivering them as we talked, they were a two brand new Adnans at the show, I am guessing that those were from the 2008 contract. There was a single Adnan Mortar carrier, of which eight were purchased in 2008. Its the one that was shown with 2R2M mortar…
The government better start explaining more about the 8×8 project or a lot of people, like during the Cougar deal in 08 will start making their own conclusions. Not handle carefully, the 8×8 deal has the potential to be another poltical timebomb. I for one hope that the chaps at the Armour Directorate don’t decide on a new calibre – 30mm – for the 8x8s and on a 90mm or 105mm gun……
The DAP MP for P.J. Utara, apparently is not aware that its cheaper buying something off the shelf as opposed to customising it to suit ones operational requirements.
Marhalim: Lan the Denel LCT-30 turret proposed for the AV8, the Deftech designation, is equipped with a 30mm gun.
Well said Azlan! I am agreed with you!
Dear Check_6,
As for me I would rather have 257 APC then 142 blackhawk for some very obvious reason. We do not have the fund to maintain such a large fleet of chopper.
Marhalim: We also do not have the funds to maintain that many APCs also….
Going for 30mm makes sense. The only problem is it adds another calibre to the menu. The Condors and Stormers have a 20mm Oerlikon and the Adnans a 25mm.
Marhalim: The Condors and Stormers are to be retired soon and there is word that they want to replace the turrets on the Adnans too, if it the LCT-30 got the deal for the AV8, it will be the best choice for the Adnans too….
Mr Azlan is also apparently not aware that many countries customize their AFVs too. Prices of these customized versions normally don\’t jump 5 times more than the original versions.
Marhalim: There is no operational version of the Pars. I believed thats the reason they chose the Pars as it would give the best opportunity for further development compared to the Piranha and the AMV. It also meant that we need to spend serious money to develop the ACV….
‘Mr’ Ree…,
I take it my critism of DAP MP for P.J. Utara hit a raw nerve?? Making constructive critism for the benefit of the country is indeed welcomed and is an important role meant to be played by the opposition but perhaps one should also get their facts right and not compare ”apples” to ”oranges”. The MP also described the vehicle as a ”non’combat vehicle”.
In his statement, the MP gave as an example the Portugese Pandur buy. What modifications were done for the Portugese army and how many different variants were bought? Was any cash spent on R & D? Was he assuming that just because the Pandur was ideal for Portugese terrain that the same would also apply here? During the trials held in 2006 on the Pars , Rosomak and Piranha, some contenders failed the mobility test. Are we expected to buy something off the shelf just bercause its cheaper?
Marhalim: based on what I heard during DSA the PARS came in last during 2006 trials which was of course elementary for a vehicle not in service already, both the Piranha and AMV remained the most available Western-designed 8X8 in service today which make them very unattractive as design to be nationalised….
What’s there to prevent this APC deal from becoming another steyr project? Let’s say, a few years from now they’ll start wanting another whole different APC, then what? Dump this 8 billion investment? Oh malaysiaku..
Which of the Adnan turrets do they want to replace? The “Sharpshooter”-turrets with 25 mm or the lighter turrets with machinegun / grenade launchers?
Marhalim: Its the Sharpshooter turrets David..
The public purse is being used to underwrite the DEFTECH PARS program for Syed Bukhari because of the end of the Bernas sweetheart deal from next year. Public funding of a privately owned concern with very weak structural oversight. Think the Proton saga, where the nation’s wealth is used to benefit a few select individuals.
The reason for DEFTECH dumping the market leading MOWAG/GDLS Piranha/LAV-X series of vehicles has nothing to do with any technical merit but because FNSS is willing to sub-license production to Malaysia (the original IP is American). Once these activities come in country, they are subject to far less scrutiny than if they were supplied ex-Europe and DEFTECH can charge the Malaysian government almost anything it feels like.
There is also little or no pressure to deliver on time and on cost because of the extremely close ties between the government and DEFTECH. 8 Billion is not the ceiling, it is the amount of money that will be spent.
Azlan… I put far more credence in the combat performance of the Piranha/LAV-III and AMV/Rosomak than any testing that Armor Directorate establishes. Armor Directorate and the Army is the bitch of the government since they green lighted the PT-91M when there was no main gun at time of contract signing.
Nobody has asked the question….what is the mission of the Armor Regiments? Answer that and we have a basis for discussion. Armor Directorate’s answer is something cribbed from 1990s field manuals.
MR T,
I was under the impression that the Armour Directorate had green lighted the Ukrainian T-84 and that it was only due to inteference from the highest level that the PT-91 was selected.
Personaly, I feel we would have been better off with surplus Leopards 2s. This would have been a cheaper option and would have required spending no cash for integration.
The main problem with the PT-91 is that ERAWA 2 reportedly does not offer protection against KE rounds!
Mr T,
The 8×8 will be inducted into the Cavalry Regiments.
The roles of the Cavalry Regiments: In the Advance to Contact Operations- provide early surveillance of enemy activities upfront and provide screen (protect)the flanks of the Main Advancing Force from surprise attacks.
The roles of the Cavalry Regiments in Defence: to locate the direction of the Enemy Main Attacking Force and to protect the flanks of the own Main Force when preparing the Main Defensive Position.
In the attack, to protect the flanks of the own Main Attacking Force and to cut and pursue the line of enemy withdrawal routes.
I was told Deftech will be offering its own design 8×8 to the Army rather than the PARS FNSS.
FNSS will build the prototype for trial by the Army end of 2011.
Deftech hope to capture the regional and global market with its own design 8×8.
Just wondering how Deftech going to be competitive when it has to defend on Thales, Denel and Sapura for the various subsystems?
Marhalim: Thats the RM8 billion question….