SHAH ALAM: In the previous post, German Design Out, Malaysian Defence wrote that the stranglehold of the Fassmer design on MMEA is finally over. It started with NGPC – Bagan Datuk class – and it appears NGPC Batch 2 will not follow the same design.
This is because apart from a tender to supply the NGPC Batch 2, the shipyard – that built the Bagan Datuk class boats, according to MMEA director-general Rear Admiral (Maritime) Rosli Abdullah was no longer active. He was met at the MMEA media day on November 9. It must be noted that checks on Destini Bhd website, showed that it still list Destini Armada which according to the company,
The Destini Armada group of companies, which includes Vanguarde and Techno Fibre Group, is able to offer manufacturing and construction services together with maintenance and through-life support for a wide variety of government and commercial vessels. Destini Armada has the capability to construct specialist vessels of up to 100 meters in length as well as manufacture lifeboats and integrated davit systems for government agencies, shipping and offshore industries.
Destini Armada wholly owned Destini Shipbuilding and Engineering Sdn Bhd (DSBE) which was the builder of the Bagan Datuk patrol vessels. The boats were built at the Destination Marine Services Sdn Bhd shipyard in Port Klang. Although not featured on the Destini main website, DSBE page could still be accessed though it must be done directly using its full name on a search engine.
That said Destini is still facing a legal action with the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) which want to wind up down DSBE for the failure to pay taxes.
With DSBE not in contention of NGPC Batch 2, it is likely that a new design will be chosen for the project. Rosli, however did not want to go into detail about the project. He said as long as the builder comes up with a boat that match their requirements. He said for example, they need a patrol boat for certain range and speed and the one that matched them will likely be selected.
It must be noted that the infographic posted by MMEA (above) after the 2025 budget was announced revealed that the cost of the two boats at RM160 million meaning each ship will cost RM80 million each.
That said it is likely the new ships will be like the Bagan Datuk class ships which are 44.25 meter in length, a top speed of 24 knots and a range of 2000 nautical miles at 14 knots. It is likely that the new ship will have 41 crew members like the Bagan Datuk class. It is the 41-crew requirement that made the Bagan Datuk class look different from the original design from Fassmer which has a crew of not more than 20. Checks showed that most patrol boats in the same class of Bagan Datuk usually have a crew of below 20.
Saya kongsikan teaser video Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia, atau lebih dikenali sebagai APMM. @MYCoastGuard
Mereka ini adalah kumpulan wira yang tak didendang, “unsung heroes” yang menjaga keselamatan perairan Malaysia, melakukan kerja-kerja mencari dan menyelamat dan… pic.twitter.com/YTGTn4mjLg
— Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (@saifnasution) November 15, 2024
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Pening betul la bila nak buat kapal di Malaysia ni. Macam2 masalah, setiapnya lain daripada yg sebelum ni. Senang cerita jgn la buat kat Malaysia. Bagi Turki je yg buat dari hull kapal hingga cat kapal tu. Kita cuma hantar wakil utk keel laying dan penyiapan rasmi je.
Oddly isnt Destini just gotten the contract for airborne safety and survival equipment maintenance? Or did they just PN17 the shipyard only? Can another party takeover ie Govt/GLC entity so we could continue building more NGPC?
Sadly this was the last successfully completed shipbuilding project we had and yet this yard did not escape the curse of local build (*looks at LCS & OPV*)
Perdana class FAC has 30 crews
A similar size but longer range and endurance ship designs would be much more appropriate for the current maritime security challenges
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gap2BeXbMAAoSFT?format=jpg&name=large
Yes I know about the FACs crew. And it appears that MMEA is still following the crew size from the past. Even the FCS/PS you posted has a crew of eight with additional facilities for another 10 people. Like RMN, MMEA is still conservative about personnel requirements even though it is still facing challenges in that area. Yes I know about the reliance on automation and the current discussion about having more people on ships – due to the challenges of facing drones airborne and surface ones.
Again our approach of buying small number of assets does not bode well for many companies out there. Destini is publicly owned and not a govt/GLC.
Despite that there are endless droves of companies thinking they can make a quick buck out of this poisoned chalice. No doubts there are some successful ones.
”No doubts there are some successful ones.”
A huge understatement. A long list of companies who wanted to be part of the gravy trail and were awarded contracts but ultimately faced issues [putting it mildly]. The end user had to deal with the mess.
As my previous proposal
1. just pick the best ship design that we need
2. hand over the design and the money to build the ships to PETRONAS
3. PETRONAS to slot-in the build of the ships into its own PROJECT SAFINA shipbuilding programme.
4. Sit back and let PETRONAS expertise in project management and solid list of proven local shipyards to build the ship.
https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2024/03/04/syg-expects-rising-orders-for-osvs
Marhalim,
On another topic. The 1st local agent for the Polish T-72 was a company which is no longer around. DEFTECH at that time partnered with KDMB and offered the T-84. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the 2nd local agent for the PT-91 MMC Engineering?
”As my previous proposal”
Yes but given that it’s a route that won’t be taken …
”solid list of proven local shipyards to build the ship.”
Quite a few other local yards which can do the job. Problem is they might not have the political push or backing.
I cannot remember them anymore apart yes Deftech partnered with KDMB to offer T-84. I remembered it because I had the chance to try out the driver simulator for the T-84.
As far as I now DECTECH’s the one who handled/handled the PT-91 but MMC Engineering also had a part. At Merdeka 2007 I remember the Poles who were there were wearing ”PT-91” t-shirts and if I recall correctly it also had a MMC Engineering logo. The T-72 was brought to LIMA 1997 by Anza Warisan the then local agent. Where did you try the T-84 simulator; was it DSA 2002?
BTW did you know that Simon submitted a proposal to the armour Directorate for ex Swiss Panzer 68s? The idea was to fit them with the same sight as on the CV-90. The proposal wasn’t met with interest though; for one the tank had a 105mm gun but the idea was for the army to use it as a training platform before transiting to something more contemporary.
Water under bridge really as MMC Engineering was later taken over by DRB-Hicom. I think it was 2002 or 2004. No I did not remember about the Swiss panzers.
Ok. Thanks. That answers my question then. It was MMC Engineering and later Deftech by virtue of taking over MMC Engineering.
Currently MMC engineering has become the DSSB (DEFTECH Services Sdn Bhd)
Its factory is still in nilai, as was when it was MMC Engineering.
It was the main centre for KIFV and PT-91M services.
Previously it was also the one that did the diesel engine upgrade for the V-150 and Ferrets. It also did the KIFV 350hp upgrade to the K200A1 standards. This involved quite a lot of firewall cutting in the engine bay area.
From the looks of it, it seems we do not have a good political will to defend the nation. Well, I’m done with this nation anyway. If war break out, I’m out.
“A huge understatement”
Well you did point out before a few companies that are thriving so its not exactly a total loss business but risk of failure is extremely high that really no sane businesses would get into.
Since in the topic
Is there a reason why the PT91 was chosen instead of T84 or T90 even. All 3 are some sort of Russian origin design which see almost similar weight and crew size.
MMC Engineering was set-up primarily as a way out for the main company -MMC – to recover from the end of the mining industry. It was one of the companies under PNB that was the reason for its bail-out.
And it is interesting that it was bailed out after it ‘s subsidiary, MMC Engineering, got the PT-91 contract. This means most of the money was paid out to the original dealer with MMC Engineering used as the financial backer but in the end got nothing much for it.
Azlan, what happened to the company which got the stud technology? Is it still operating or as usual it is just a legal money laundering exercise?
Alex – ”Is there a reason why the PT91 was chosen instead of T84 or T90 even.”
Politics. The favourite was the T-84 but given events which occurred in 2022 was a blessing in disguise. KDMB was also way ahead in development; offering several things not offered by the Russians. In the early 1990’s a political decision was made to acquire a design within a particular weight category; only a Soviet designed tank was able to fulfill the criteria.
”Well you did point out before a few companies that are thriving so its not exactly a total loss business”
Overall, it has been a tremendous waste for the taxpayer.
”high that really no sane businesses would get into.”
There is a long list of companies trying to get into the business; if one is part of the patronage system and has the backing and has certain fundamentals in place; hard to fail. Lots of companies wany in; they come and go. From the top of my head I have a few examples from the 1990’s; the ones who came and then vanished.
”Previously it was also the one that did the diesel engine upgrade for the V-150 and Ferrets.”
It did overhauls for the Condors, Scorpions and Stormers.
@Alex
The main reason should be asked is why did PT91 won in the first place. If we choose K1 MBT instead, we probably operating the upgraded K1A2 now
”Its factory is still in nilai, as was when it was MMC Engineering.”
After arriving in Port Klang that’s where the PT-91s were sent to; by a freight/logistics company who had them shipped from Gdasnk.
T-84 was more complex yet didnt have much advantage compared to T-72. Also Ukraine kinda sus in their capability to deliver actual new tanks to customer
T-90 that were trialled back then wasn’t that much better than PT-91 as the only thing better was the base armor. In fact even back then PT-91 already have improvement built in like more powerful engine and better transmission that allow reverse speed of more than 4km/h. ERAWA is also much better than Kontakt 5 due to the fact that the tiles are smaller and leaves smaller gaps.
As it is right now PT-91M Pendekar is probably one of the most capable T-72 derivative tank out there. Even when compared to the much newer T-90M, Pendekar has better reverse speed and better gun (with MRS. only newer version of T-90M has MRS). With upcoming SLEP that includes new FCS and possibly CITV we could have said something that can hold its candle against other much newer tanks
Alex – ”All 3 are some sort of Russian origin design which see almost similar weight and crew size.”
All 3 are Soviet era designs; the T-90 being an improvement of the T-72. The PT-91 is an improvement of the T-72M1 for the Polish army. The T-84 is based on the T-80 which was constructed by KDMB in Kharkov, Ukraine.
Soviet requirements called for a tank of a certain weight because had WW2 broken out the Soviets would have had to cross a lot of rivers in Western Europe. They also wanted a tank which was rugged and simple to operate [by conscripts] and cheap to construct because the life expectancy of a tank was measured in days. Western designs are based on a different philosophy; that’s why they are more survivable and have better ergonomics and crew comfort.
The T-84 was preferred by the army due to the much more powerful engine compared to the T-90 and PT-91, a supposedly much more cooler interior and a wider track to lower the ground pressure. The T-90 engine actually overheated during trials.
Well in the hindsight we avoided a big lemon there.
What we missed are all those cheap Leo2 snapped up by Singapore and Indonesia.
But it is what it is, and PT-91M is the tank we currently have. Lamenting about the PT-91M prowess against leo2 and dreaming of a new better but very expensive tanks is not what we need right now when our challenge is to defend our maritime domain.
The less we spend on the PT-91M is more budget for things like long range precision strike and coastal anti-ship missile batteries.
What we can do now for the PT-91M is to get extra hulls for strategic reserve, attrition reserve and spare parts. This week another polish PT-91 battalion has converted to K2GF. If we don’t take some of them for our spares/reserves, most will probably be sent to Ukraine.
dundun – ”T-90 that were trialled back then wasn’t that much better than PT-91 as the only thing better was the base armor.”
It had K-5 which was better than ERAWA in dealing with KE rounds.
Dundun – ”ERAWA is also much better than Kontakt 5 due to the fact that the tiles are smaller and leaves smaller gaps.”
ERAWA was designed to work against chemical energy; not kinetic energy rounds.
Dundun – ”Also Ukraine kinda sus in their capability to deliver actual new tanks to customer”
That was following the Donbas war and the loss of Crimea.
Dundun – ”With upcoming SLEP that includes new FCS and possibly CITV we could have said something that can hold its candle against other much newer tanks”
The ”upgrade” will comprise replacing things which are no longer operable. Unless NG tiles are bought the PT-91 will most probably not take a frontal hit from a 120mm round. There is also the fact that without a APS the roof is very vulnerable.
Ultimately the effectiveness of any tank lies in it being operated as part of a combined arms formation with effective infantry and engineering support. Some will claim that the lack of tank to tank fighting in Ukraine is telling but this obscures the fact that killing tanks is only one role a tank performs; the others are as a breakthrough asset and for fire support. There are also claims – widely debunked – that UASs and loitering munitions have made the tank obsolete; nonsense. More than a 100 years after first seeing service there is no alternative to a tank when it comes to delivering mobile and protected firepower and a tank has huge utility whether on the defensive or offensive. A longstanding misbelief is that the tank are too heavy to be operated here. It’s actually not only weight but also ground pressure. With effective engineering support; few places a tank can’t go. Tanks have operated in areas with a much poorer road infrastructure than Malaysia in which rapid urbanisation has resulted in more highways, paved roads and overpasses and bridges.
Haiqal – ”If we choose K1 MBT instead, we probably operating the upgraded K1A2 now”
Not necessarily.
Marhalim, all I see so far is one bad news after another. Is there any good news if one can consider it as good news?
not what we need right now when our challenge is to defend our maritime domain.”
Yes but one does not get to fight the war one wants; expects or is prepared for. The unexpected happens. Who expected Lahad Dato prior to 2013?
”The less we spend on the PT-91M is more budget for things like long range precision strike and coastal anti-ship missile batteries.”
Different things for different requirements; like saying the less one spends on screw drivers the more hammers one can buy or the less MGs one buy the more anti-material rifles which can be bought. Also, I’m not sanguine we’ll get the strike/recce complex needed to make make the sexy ”long range precision strike and coastal anti-ship missile batteries” effective.
”What we can do now for the PT-91M is to get extra hulls for strategic reserve, attrition reserve and spare parts. ”
The paper possibilities are endless if there is intent. In this case there is no intent…
Akmal – ”Is there any good news if one can consider it as good news?”
– The RMAF has on order a radar, 18 F/A-50s; 3 Ankas and 2 ATR 72.
– The RMN has on order 3 LMSs and work appears to be moving – albeit slowly – on the LCSs.
– The army appears to be getting its SPHs soon; as well as other things.
– As part of Phase 1B [1] of the NCO programme and number of tri-services systems have been networked.
I could go listing progress in various areas but a simple google search would provide you the answers. It is enough; of course not. We’re still moving slowly and in bits and drabs but there is still progress in various areas. Hopefully there won’t a state on state industrial scaled high intensity war against an opponent who overmatches us; then you won’t have to leg it out of the country; as alluded to – ”Well, I’m done with this nation anyway. If war break out, I’m out.”
BTW if you’re also ”done with this nation anyway” then whatever developments there are with the MAF should only be of passing interest to you; if at all.
… – ” but very expensive tanks is not what we need right now”
No tank is ”cheap” unless of course one is satisfied with something which offers poor survivability; based on Soviet requirements and first designed in the late 1960’s. Also. if you had to ask those who actually had to work in those tanks; they might dis-agree with the ”this not what we need right now”.
Ultimately the intention for the foreseeable future is for us to maintain the regiment’s worth of PT-91s and to subject them to a limited upgrade. It’s not as if we have decided to make tanks a priority; to form 2 combined arms tank shoch armies at the expense of the RMN, RMAF, MMEA; as well as the health and education sector.
… – ”Lamenting about the PT-91M prowess against leo2 and dreaming of a new better ”
You were the only one who brought up the Leo 2 …
@Akmal
“if one can consider it as good news?”
Depends on who you ask. Were still doing business right, just not with the same cohorts. So to the Turks its good news as they bound to get new contract, to the local middleman also good news, to the locals & local yard is bad news coz lost of income, but to rakyat its the same news- money gone and less value for money.
@Alex
“Is there a reason why the PT91 was chosen instead”
Im sure there are many theories, but on a technical note I was made to understand back then the Poles were most open to the Western mods that we specified into Pendekar. Also the Erawa addon armour back then were more advanced and had better area coverage than Kontakt (for export market).
@Haiqal
“If we choose K1 MBT instead,”
IINM K1 back then were only with 105mm gun. 120mm K1A1 only started mass pro in 1999, it would be many years before its ready for export market. We would still be armed with an inferior 105mm MBT today if we went this route.
Marhalim – ”Is it still operating or as usual it is just a legal money laundering exercise?”
From what I heard years ago it was a waste of time and money. Nothing was gained from it.
”Poles were most open to the Western mods that we specified into Pendekar. Also the Erawa addon armour back then were more advanced and had better area coverage than Kontakt (for export market).”
ERAWA was not more ”advanced” because it’s intended to deal mainly with chemical energy rounds. You would have noticed that Ukrainian T-72s/PTs have had their ERAWA mostly swapped with K-5 which is useful against both chemical and kinetic energy rounds. ERAWA is also not an ”add on armour” but ERA modules. Nothing which was offered – T[91, T-90 and T-84 – had ”add on armour”.
”IINM K1 back then were only with 105mm gun. ”
K-1 was offered in the 1990’s; the 1st round of tenders. A stumbling block was export approval for the FCS. The 105mm gun was not really the issue during that period; which is why Vickers offered the Mk3 and why someone offered the Armour Directorate ex Swiss Panzer 68s. The 120mm requirement only came later; for the 2nd round of tenders.
Waste of money, not to the people who owned the company.
“ERAWA was not more ”advanced”
It was as back then iinm, for export only previous gen Kontakt (gen4?) were available, latest Kontakt was still a Russia exclusive thing. Today of course things are different and Russian reactive armour have advanced that Kontakt5 is now open to all. Kontakt4 was inferior as it has bigger space gaps as well larger panels so the coverage wasnt as thorough as Erawa. Dundun pointed that as well. The biggest threat to tank armour is shaped charged rounds so its understandable ERA emphasis on countering these rather than sabot (which will have difficulty penetrating relatively thick & highly sloped Russki armour).
“ERAWA is also not an ”add on armour”
Depends how you like your terminology. ERA means Explosive Reactive Armour, so its basically armour add on top of the turret/hull armour.
“for the 2nd round of tenders.”
Meaning if K1 had went to 2nd tender it would have been automatically disqualified, rite?
”It was as back then iinm, for export only;;
K-5 was available for export. The Russians however refused to sell it to anyone who sourced MBTs from the likes of Ukraine, Poland Slovakia and the Czech Republic because to the Russians these countries had broke the rules. They were only authorised to license built Soviet designed tanks for domestic use and if for export; only with Soviet approval. Had we got the T-90 the Russians were more than happy to fit it with K-5 which was not an export restricted item.
” The biggest threat to tank armour is shaped charged rounds so its understandable ERA emphasis on countering these rather than sabot ”
No… The biggest threat to Soviet MBTs was KE rounds fired from Western MBTs. The threat from chemical energy rounds was from ATGWs…
” ERA means Explosive Reactive Armour”
I know what the acronym of ”ERA” is for thanks very much but it’s considered a module rather than ”armour” per see.
”Meaning if K1 had went to 2nd tender it would have been automatically disqualified, rite?”
Anymore than a FT-7 or a Sheridan would have been disqualified. For the 2nd round of tenders the K-1, Mk3 and other things weren’t even offered. What was offered was the Centauro and CV-90 fitted with a 120mm as an alternative to a MBT.
”as it has bigger space gaps”
It’s not s if those gaps were wide/broad enough to enable a main gun round or an auto cannon round to get through.
”Poles were most open to the Western mods that we specified into Pendekar”
There was also a political angle. With the Russians having been given other contracts or about to; we wanted to spread the joy; as we tend to do. The Poles offered us off sets which we could not refuse and on a tighter schedule [some hulls had already been constructed]. As for modifications; KDMB had no issues; neither did Rosvooruzhenie which was fronting for Uralvagonzavod. Rosvooruzhenie had no issues with the extensive modifications dome on the Flanker; why would it have had with the T-90. The Russians later got Thales thermals for their T-90s anyway and T-90s offered to various customers in the Middle East; as well as to India contained non Russian stuff anyway. .
… – ”The T-84 was preferred by the army due to the much more powerful engine compared to the T-90 and PT-91”
Another consideration was that KDMB had a more active or progressive R&D effort ongoing. Unsurprising given a large number of tanks during the Soviet era were constructed at Kharkov; including the T-80. KDMB even had a T-84 with a 120mm gun and bustle mounted auto loader which was aimed at another market and not us. They were even willing to share tech to a larger extent than the Russians. Simon, who use to frequent this site and who was the go to person on anything and everything related to small arms and who offered the army ex Swiss Panzer 68s; had great discussions with KDMD. Sadly he is no longer with us.
“K-5 was available for export.”
Well if you say so, but throughout history, Russia/SU had double standards for export customers going to selling inferior models (T72M), to inferior specs of their same model (ie lower armour).
“The biggest threat to Soviet MBTs was KE rounds fired from Western MBTs”
That is only 1 angle, and thats its weakness as KE round are only effective fired from a tank/AT gun but shape charged rounds can be fired from tank gun, ATGM, AT mines, RPG, recoilless rifles, IED, etc.
“it’s considered a module rather than ”armour” per see”
Its what the industry terms it and such I will follow how its been used.
“Rosvooruzhenie had no issues with the extensive modifications dome on the Flanker”
Things change, people change, policies change, over time. There was barely any modifications on our Fulcrum but when we got MKM it was the most “Western” Russian plane. Why?
” You would have noticed that Ukrainian T-72s/PTs have had their ERAWA mostly swapped with K-5 ”
I have seen hundreds of pics of PT-91 in ukranian service, even those used in Kursk, most are still with their ERAWA ERA. Also ukranians only have Kontakt-1 tiles at their disposal (that is what they put on their abrams and Leo-2s)
Kontakt-1 size is 252×130×10 mm, while ERAWA is smaller at 150x150x26/46 mm (erawa-2 is the thicker one at 46mm), so it is not something that can be mixed and matched, or even use the existing mounting points.
As for why the PT-91, it was probably because Dr.M was at the time was deeply in love with equestrian activities, as is the agong at the time, Sultan Mizan, an avid equestrian enthusiast (he even represented malaysia in Commonwealth games). So the offer of polish horses for malaysian ceremonial cavalry troops was probably the make or break for the final decision.
technically, the RENK SESM ESM-350M transmission powerpack was light years more advanced than whatever it was in the T-90 or even the T-84. It enables powertrain swap in 2-3 hours, rather than a day for T-90. It also enables 360 degree turn on the spot, and faster reverse speed than soviet-era transmissions.
With the PT-91M we are introduced to polish subsystems, some are even used in the Gempita right now. Also the french Sagem SAVAN-15 FCS was one of the most advanced in the early 2000s.
As something that we mainly use as a small part of a combined arms operation with our mechanised infantry brigade (not as a major part of a heavy armoured brigade mostly consisting of MBTs), it is more than adequate in fulfilling that mission. It is used somewhat like what the US Army is using its M10 Booker for
” The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle that is intended to support our Infantry Brigade Combat Teams by suppressing and destroying fortifications, gun systems and trench routes, and then secondarily providing protection against enemy armored vehicles ”
So as it is, it can fulfill its current mission, getting a much more advanced new MBT that is 20-30% more capable than the PT-91M but 200-300% more expensive is not an urgent priority for the Army. IMO more urgent priorities for the army is to plug existing capability gaps, missions and capabilities that the army does not have at all. Things like long range precision strike, more large bore artilleries, long endurance surveillance UAVs, OWA-FPV drones, shore-based anti-ship missile batteries that can also do precision land strikes, air defence/C-UAS.
“RENK SESM ESM-350M transmission”
And the variant we using is also fully auto unlike the manual/semi-auto clunker thats in the other “Russian” tanks offered to us.
“With the PT-91M”
We also swap in a more accurate Slovakian gun barrel.
”Well if you say so”
It’s not me saying so : had we bought the T-90; K-5 and Shotra was available. No way in hell we would have even considered the T-90 if K-5 was not available and can you name any country which bought the T-90 but was not allowed K-5? In the 2002-2003 period K-5 was not some new development which the Russians were trying to keep under wraps.
”but throughout history, Russia/SU had double standards for export customers”
That was during the Cold War : export versions. Post Cold War the Russians were willing to sell anything and it’s not as if K-5 in 2002 was cutting edge technology. In 1997 the Russians at LIMA even offered us Backfire – see the report in the NST. Yet you’d claim that a few years later they might have been reluctant to allow us K-5? During a time when they were anxious for exports and we offreing us all types/kinds of things?
”That is only 1 angle, ”
No idea what ”angle” you’re on about but the main threat to Soviet tanks posed by Western tanks was the KE round; unless you were a British tank with HESH.
”Its what the industry terms it and such I will follow how its been used.”
As I said; I’m aware of what the acronym means. Also, if you ask a 100 people; perhaps 99 percent would refer to it as a module or tile rather than ”armour”.
”Things change, people change, policies change, over time. There was barely any modifications on our Fulcrum but when we got MKM it was the most “Western” Russian plane.”
We got a Western simulator; Indian HUMS based on a laptop; German drag chutes; American TACAN, IFF, GPS and computer [with an INTEL chip] and a few other things which I don’t have on top of my head. As to the ”why” : obvious if you think about it. The Fulcrum was an air to air platform; the Flanker was a multi role platform – a more demanding role. Given that the Russians did not have a holographic HUD; radios of the type we desired; a decent pod and a refueling system; is it surprising the Flanker had a higher level of modification? There is also the fact in the early to mid 1990’s period there was far less Western stuff which could be integrated and certified; compared to the early 2000’s period.
Putting aside the ”things change, people change, policies change, over time” cliche which you’ve used before; Rosvooruzhenie had no issues with the extensive modifications done on the Flanker; for on thing had it not allowed it the sale would not have proceeded.
… – ”So the offer of polish horses for malaysian ceremonial cavalry troops was probably the make or break for the final decision.”
”The offer” of horse breeding or stud know know.
.. – ”our mechanised infantry brigade (not as a major part of a heavy armoured brigade mostly consisting of MBTs), ”
Both types of units can perform the same role; to varying degrees of effectiveness; depending on operational conditions; irrespective of organisation. Force employment is key.
… – ”getting a much more advanced new MBT that is 20-30% more capable than the PT-91M ”
I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that a more contemporary MBT with superior survivability, networking and a list of other things is only ”20-30% more capable than the PT-91M” than a design dating from the late 1960’s and based on Soviet operating requirements and philosophies. Do you actually have calculations which enabled the figure or is it arbitrary?
Ultimately the army does not plan to get more PTs; doing so would be highly regressive; like the RMAF getting multi role Fulcrums for the MRCA requirement in a few years time. You might think MBTs aren’t vital in our scheme of things but MBTs form a vital element in the ability of the army to have a combined arms unit as part of a combined arms division; even if only in small numbers. Whether on the offensive or defensive MBTs have a vital role to play. Even if on the defensive one can have an active defence; as opposed to positional warfare like it was in the fields of Flanders in 1916.
… – ”The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle that is intended to support our Infantry Brigade Combat Teams ”
Hallelujah for the Booker but the PT-91 performs a variety of roles depending on operational requirements; infantry support is merely one role but not the main and not necessarily the only role it performs. For infantry support we have IFVs fitted with various weapons which enable direct and in direct fire.
… – ” It is used somewhat like what the US Army is using its M10 Booker for”
Where did you get this notion?
.. – ”I have seen hundreds of pics of PT-91 in ukranian service, even those used in Kursk, most are still with their ERAWA ERA”
Due to the lack of anything better. No idea there were ”hundreds” of pics though.
… – ”it is more than adequate in fulfilling that mission.”
Unless one has a crystal ball or can say for certain; any claim of ”more than adequate” is conjecture. The enemy has a vote; the battlefield can be fluid and no two wars are the same.
… – ”more capable than the PT-91M but 200-300% more expensive is not an urgent priority for the Army.”
One gets what one pays for – measure of efficiency versus measure of success. Also, the fact that we have little quantity is more the reason why we should have some level of quality. Easy to say the PT-91/T-72 is sufficient when one does not have to work in it.
“Also, if you ask a 100 people”
If you ask 100 people on the streets what does Explosive Reactive Armour means, 100 people will tell you its some form of armour.
“the main threat to tanks”
There are many threats to a tank, not just from another tank. The most effective these other threats to penetrate is via shape charged ammo, not kinetic.
”If you ask 100 people on the streets what does Explosive Reactive Armour means, 100 people will tell you its some form of armour.
Again, since you missed it the first couple of times; the acronym ”ERA” is for ”explosive reactive armour” and most people in the industry and service refer to it and other ERAs as ”tiles” or ”modules” and not as ”armoutr” irrespective of the acronym.
”There are many threats to a tank, not just from another tank.”
Yes and thanks awfully for pointing that out but if you noticed but as said ”but the main threat to Soviet tanks posed by Western tanks was the KE round; unless you were a British tank with HESH” and K-5 was primarily intended to deal with NG Western KE penetrators as opposed to ERAWA which is/was intended to deal with chemical energy rounds.
” Where did you get this notion? ”
That is what we are using our PT-91M for. As a supporting element in our Mechanised Infantry Brigade formation. The major element of our Mechanised Infantry Brigade is the Adnan/MIFV tracked IFVs (12 RAMD Adnan, 14 RAMD MIFV, 7 RRD Adnan, now the Gempita IFV of 19 RAMD to be transferred to Sabah). This is what we see on exercises such as Eks Stallion and eks satria perkasa.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GczUgFvbcAEEhRt.jpg
… – ”This is what we see on exercises such as Eks Stallion and eks satria perkasa.”
That’s what we used it for those exercises …. In reality it depends on the operational context; it can end up being used for exploitation too. Also a MBT in combined arms formation may be ”supporting” other elements but it too is being supported by the other elements. That’s the whole point of having combined arms formations. Not only that but depending on the terrain; infantry might the the lead.
.. – ”Things like long range precision strike, more large bore artilleries, long endurance surveillance UAVs, OWA-FPV drones, shore-based anti-ship missile batteries that can also do precision land strikes, air defence/C-UAS.”
Sounds sexy but in reality we need tertiary skills and enablers to make all those things effective; not convinced we can or will. ”Precision” and ”long range” are great but don’t operate in a vacuum. There is also the fact that the army – like its sister services – desires a mix of things; that nothing is a silver bullet or war winner and that there’s no guarantee that any conflict/war we face will be one in which ”large bore artilleries, long endurance surveillance UAVs, OWA-FPV drones, shore-based anti-ship missile batteries that can also do precision land strikes, air defence/C-UAS” provide the answers. They might or they might not.
” In reality it depends on the operational context; it can end up being used for exploitation too ”
In our operational context, that is the main mission it is assigned to do. Even if we get a new K2 replacing 1 to 1 of the PT-91M, it will still be assinged to the same mission.
To have MBTs as the main actor of an operation (rather than what we can do right now, which is the IFVs being the main actor) will need a bigger number of MBTs, and a different operating area with wide open plains.
Even singapore, which seemingly has nearly 200 MBTs in service, is used to support its fleet of around 2000 various IFVs (hunter, bionix, terrex, M113) of their mechanised divisions
In comparison to TDM, we currently have 48 PT-91M supporting a fleet of around 600+ IFVs (111 MIFV, 267 Adnan, 257 Gempita)
” provide the answers ”
We already have MBTs in our fleet, even if it is not the one we like. But we have zero long range precision strike capability. zero. i am for TDM to have a mix of things/options in their operational toolbox (especially things that a conventional army should have as a fundamental capability, but TDM does not have at all) , not just micro focusing on things that they already have (like the pendekar).
@hulubalang
“Even singapore, which seemingly has nearly 200 MBTs in service, is used to support its fleet of around 2000 various IFVs”
And dozens of F16 and F15 to protect that small airspace or adding 4 brand new subs with AIP and 8000 tons of drone mothership.
Even the mighty US dont have a luxury having them to protect for only one city size.
Why should you compare it with MY then?
… – ”In our operational context, that is the main mission it is assigned to do.”
No it’s not as clear cut as that. The MBTs train to perform various roles; not just infantry support. It isn’t WW1 or the Rif War anymore.
… – ”it will still be assinged to the same mission.”
And that ”mission” is not mainly or largely infantry support as you’ve convinced yourself but a number of roles depending on the operational context.
… – ”We already have MBTs in our fleet, even if it is not the one we like. But we have zero long range precision strike capability”
We have MBTs which are aged; have poor survivability; have zero growth potential; were designed in the 1970’s and are based Soviet operational requirements. you may think it’s ”sufficient” but you’re not the one working in it and even the army has agreed that the days of the PT is numbered. As for your ”long range” and ‘precision” stuff; as useful as freezers in the Arctic Circle unless one has a strike/recce complex which enables the detecting, tracking and hitting of targets i a dynamic manner as part of a joint operation.
… – ”To have MBTs as the main actor of an operation”
MBTs form the main component [the most mobile, most protected and most heavily armed] of combined arms formations in which all the assets and arms/services supplement each other. We have discussed this before on various occasions.
… – ”Even singapore, which seemingly has nearly 200 MBTs in service, is used to support its fleet of around 2000 various IFVs (hunter, bionix, terrex, M113) of their mechanised divisions”
Again : ”combined arms”. Before pointing out that ”even” Singapore does this and that; fathom the fact that Singapore operates ”combined arms” formations – The Leos support the Bionixs and the other way around. Also take note that depending on whether it’s in restricted terrain or not; MBTs might not take the lead.
… – ” (rather than what we can do right now, which is the IFVs being the main actor) ”
Not true. Depends on the operational context. Based on seeing a few exercises and in line with personal preferences; you have convinced yourself of something which is not true. Confirmation bias….