View Comments (16)

• Seems like a reliable and good candidate to replace or supplement the Condors. Cant wait for the 6x6 version, which in turn will replace the Sibmas as the AFSV for the army. Even could be developed further into many variants such as ATGM carrier, Starstreaks platform, mortar carrier etc. Hope Mildef will one day even produce the medium tank for MAF and export market.

  On the other hand, what is the progress of the AV4 Lipan Bara project? Does it stuck at 20 or 34 units? Any plan to increase the numbers? And what is the difference between the AV4 and the HMAV?

• Lalok - “the 6×6 version, which in turn will replace the Sibmas as the AFSV for the army””

  I was under the impression that it was intended to replace the Condor and it’s intended to be used as a primary transport platform rather than a fire support vehicle.

  Lalok - “Hope Mildef will one day even produce the medium tank for MAF ”

  There is no army requirement for a light tank. On a personal basis I don’t see why there should be one.

• @Marhalim,
  Did you managed to find out what make is the 50 cal RWS mount?

  Reply
  Nope

• @lalok

  AV-4 Lipanbara stop at 20 units only an no further order.

  Can't wait for the Mildef 6x6 armored vehicle. If I'm not mistaken they (Mildef) currently developing 6x6 armored vehicle and Humvee-like vehicle.

• Then come the hizir guys..haha..mildef spend 4 years of rnd and 16 million myr to develop and build hmav prototype then labelled hizir rebadge by you know who

• Saya tidak mahu terlalu meletakan harapan tinggi terhadap industri pertahanan kita. Di malaysia belum ada teknologi mencipta/buat logam(raw metal) mengikut kehendak/acuan kita sendiri dengan cost yang rendah dan dengan jumlah yang banyak yang mana logam adalah bahan paling asas/banyak dalam industri pertahanan.malah kita masih di peringkat  awal dan susah(struggling) dengan isu standard/grade dalam indsutri pembinaan. Apatah lagi dalam military standard/gred yang sudah tentunya lebih compleks dan lebih canggih. saya bekerja di kilang vendor/subcon yang sudah membuat oil and gas equipment selama 30tahun.(teknologi dari us/france).dari segi kimpalan/pemasangan/testing kita tiada masalah malah boleh dikatakan ada harinya yang kita lagi hebat dari mereka(dari segi cost/time efective dan quality) tapi bila bercakap tentang raw material kita tewas(we dont have a clue)..biasanya mereka hanya  hantar komponen raw/special material/metal ini sahaja untuk kita kimpal@pasang.(mereka tidak akan kongsi blueprintnya), dan raw material/metal ini bukan mudah untuk di reverse engineered..ia memerlukan kos yang tinggi dan memakan masa yang lama untuk RND(mungkin bergenerasi seperti mana yang mereka lakukan?)..dan ia boleh jadi satu bentuk perjudian yang besar(bagi pelabur)..raw/special material ini jikalau kita hendak beli sahaja harganya tentulah sangat tidak berpatutan. Adalah lebih jauh menjimatkan dan mudah jika hanya beli product yang sudah siap.(finish product)..adapun begitu, jikalau kita berjaya membuat/mencipta logam itu sendiri..membentuk logam(forging/machining) pada ketepatan yang tinggi itu ada salah satu cerita panjang dilain hari..dan saya hanya bercerita tentang satu bahan iaitu logam..sudah tentu banyak lagi bahan lain yang digunakan contohnya getah/plastik/kaca/chemical dan lain2. Aoa apa pun ini adalah pencapaian cukup baik dari MILDEF

• A - “currently developing 6×6 armored vehicle and Humvee-like vehicle”

  Actually “developing” based on indigenous R&D or modifying/tweaking an existing foreign design?

  If we look at it from a logical and objective perspective; the market is saturated with 6x6s and high mobility vehicles? What added value do we get from yet another local player coming into the picture?

  Given that we already ordered the Lipanbara; why aren’t we ordering more?

• On paper, the Alang has a slightly more powerful engine, 330 HP compared to 300 for the AV4, but it is slightly heavier too at 14 t vs 13 for the AV 4. Maybe it’s cheaper? Deftech has the monopoly at the moment.

• We keep hearing of mobility trials : vehicle moving ‘x’ km; climbing a gradient of ‘x’ degrees: fording, etc, etc.

  That’s fine but logic and prudence would also dictate we perform live firings tests; i.e. if a vehicle is certified as offering all round protection to 7.62mm then we actually test it. Not enough to take the OEM’s/agent”s word for it. If a mine resistant high mobility hull offers protection against mines of certain sizes; we actually have to find out.

  In all the various local tests conducted on everything from the PT-91 to Adnan to the AV8; as far as I know no actual tests were done on protection levels.

  By the same token; if anybody insists that the PT-91’s protection level is “sufficient” or that ERAWA is fine; we should do a live test with a MBT LAW with them inside.

  Reply
  I was told that they did an actual test on one of the two AV8 prototypes. This one remains with FNSS, it is likely the one they exhibit at defence shows

• Q: How does one reload ammo for a RWS located on the outside of an AFV during combat?

  Reply
  Very quickly if you live to tell the tale