SHAH ALAM: Remember the rare Iveco Daily MCRS (Multi Channel Radio System) vehicle featured in Malaysian Defence back in March 2021, at the height of the Covid 19 pandemic? It appears that the MCRS fitted on them are procured from Kongsberg, the Norway based defence and security company.
I am basing this on a Facebook posting by the Army on the visit of its chief, General Zamrose Mohd Zain to the company in Asker, Norway.
LAWATAN KERJA PANGLIMA TENTERA DARAT KE KONGSBERG DEFENCE & AEROSPACE
NORWAY, 18 Jun 2022 – Panglima Tentera Darat (PTD), Jeneral Tan Sri Zamrose bin Mohd Zain telah menghadiri mesyuarat dan lawatan kerja ke syarikat Konsberg Defence & Aerospace di Asker, Norway hari ini.
Ketibaan Tan Sri PTD telah disambut oleh wakil syarikat, Pengarah Pasaran dan Jualan, Mr. Viggo Westbye, Pengurus Projek, Mr. Brynjuif Pedersen dan Pengurus Pembangunan Perniagaan, Mr. Bjorn Eversen.
Semasa sesi mesyuarat tersebut, Tan Sri PTD telah diberikan taklimat latar belakang syarikat dan produk-produk serta kepakaran syarikat berhubung sistem bagi pertahanan, aero angkasa dan maritim. Sistem pertahanan tersebut meliputi sistem komunikasi, sistem pertahanan udara dan persenjataan misil serta ‘space and satelite capability’ terutama untuk keselamatan perairan contohnya perairan Selat Melaka dan perairan Sabah.
Tan Sri PTD juga telah mengutarakan beberapa isu seperti pembekalan ‘Multi Channel Radio System’ (MCRS) yang akan datang perlu mematuhi segala terma yang termaktub di dalam kontrak, setiap peralatan yang dibekalkan hendaklah memenuhi keperluan operasi dan teknikal terkini untuk Tentera Darat, masa pembekalan (lead time) terutamanya alat ganti perlu dikurangkan dan sekiranya wujud keperluan untuk kemaskini sistem pada masa akan datang perlulah berada pada tahap yang optimum tanpa melibatkan banyak birokrasi antara agensi tempatan dengan OEM serta tiada bebanan kewangan yang melampau.
Sesungguhnya lawatan kerja sebegini adalah selaras dengan Tonggak Pertama Perintah Ulung Panglima Tentera Darat Ke-28, “Kelangsungan Misi dan Kesiagaan” dengan memberi penumpuan kepada peningkatan tahap kesiagaan, kompetensi dan aset TDM.
It must be said that the posting is ambiguous on the status of MCRS as it stated that “pembekalan MCRS – future supply of MCRS – which could mean that Kongsberg is supplying new MCRS in the near future. This could also mean that they are supplying a new batch of MCRS. Anyhow, this still could mean that the Army Signals unit will be using a Kongsberg supplied MCRS so my guess is still correct.
A check on the Kongsberg webpage revealed likely MCRS system supplied is the UM600 tactical brand radio or the MRR Tactical VHF IP Radio System, both of which belongs to the Kongsberg K-Tacs On-The-Move, the company suite of products supporting military units on the move with robust, secure and reliable radio communication, both in the VHF and in the UHF band.
What is interesting the MRR is the standard tactical radio in NASAMS Air Defence Systems. With the Army planning to buy a MRAD system during this, wouldn’t it be the de facto air defence system of choice already?
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (50)
I assume RMAF would be jumping in joy if TDM do indeed acquired the NASAMs.
Thought it would put into question to what SAM RMN would choose for the LCS & LMS2. Can't really choose any other missiles if one still want to tick the asset rationalisation objective boxes.
5zaft- "RMN would choose for the LCS & LMS2. Can’t really choose any other missiles if one still want to tick the asset rationalisation objective boxes"
The pertinent question is ask is if indeed Mica is not selected; what other missile can be fitted [integration and certification needed] to the LCS.
5zaft - "really choose any other missiles if one still want to tick the asset rationalisation objective boxes"
Commonality is essential and desired but the armed services understand and accept that it can't always be a achieved and are willing to compromise; especially with stuff that night not require a large logistical.footprint to sustain.
Here's my take on the MRSAM
-If the army is getting NASAMS or MICA VL, they could practically replace Jernas as well as both are practically a SHORADS but with far enough reach to be considered as a MRSAM. Bonus for NASAMS as it could also launch short range missile as an option.
-If the army is getting the KM-SAM or Aster 30(which are basically medium to long range SAM) they still need something to replace Jernas down the line. Something like Martlet or Mistral 3 could be considered as they're lighter yet has comparable range to Jernasand could be installed on much more mobile platform
Probably NASAMS for the GAPU unit of royal artillery ?
Probably
Dundun- "could practically replace Jernas"
That is indeed the plan.
Dundun -"If the army is getting the KM-SAM or Aster 30"
ASTER 30 is unlikely as the requirement is for a shorter range system and ASTER's high price tag. We've come full circle; from looking at Buk in the early 2000's to being offered Crotale NG and attempts by influential businessmen to sell a Chinese made system about a decade ago.
Whilst the requirement for a medium range system is vital and long standing [since the early 2000's] there is also an urgent need to create an effective counter UAS capability for which a turret mounted auto cannon, V-SHORADs and radar is essential. It will be a GAPU asset naturally but should be an organic asset of a maneuver unit; just like how Battery 361 is a GAPU asset but organically part of 10 Para. A lesson reinforced from the Ukraine is that AD systems must be localised rather than held by a holding entity such as GAPU and distributed/attached on an ad hoc basis.
Interesting but I don't think it has anything to do with Nasams. It seems TDM have wanted to divorce themselves from the long standing policy of getting Sapura Thales radios by default and from the latest tenders for secure radios they have clearly indicated they are fishing out globally
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/imported-vhf-section-radios/
Good & bad, as Kongsberg is not new to us having selected their NSM for LCS. Good also to pay Norway a visit as it comes toward end of Spring and into Summer, weather there is Cameron/Genting-like on a cloudy day. Bad for Sapura though for obvious reasons.
Honestly don't understand the logic. 1) The buying a little bit of something which collectively dont add anything strategic to the overall strategy.
2) Still focusing on V\SHORAD only defenses in an era of precision guided standoff weapons and mobile warfare. They see a V\SHORAD heavy static defense position and the enemy will flatten the facility with cruise missiles, and high altitude heavy bombers. Even if the adversary doesn't have those assets they'll just bypass those static points. Since the numbers are not a lot, in reality very few bases have such defenses.
3) V/SHORAD is like the last line of defence. Without medium and long range anti air, these static emplacements won't survive first engagement. It might have made sense in WW2 up to the Vietnam War. But things have changed since the Gulf War that such thinking is...Old and outdated.
And its redundant to say "it depends who the adversary is". Anyone that has the intention and the ability to engage the V/SHORAD batteries is one with a modern armed forces. If they intent to engage those weaponry, they intent to take land.
If insurgents, pirates, require the country to use V/SHORAD assets, then the country has bigger problems.
kel - ''Honestly don’t understand the logic. ''
Understand that right or wrong; our threat calculus is based on the premise that we won't be faced with a protracted state on state war. This drives everything we do.
kel - ''Still focusing on V\SHORAD''
Well one has to start from somewhere.. The idea is to have a medium range system to complement out V-SHORADS to form an element of a layered defence networked.
Kel - ''But things have changed since the Gulf War that such thinking is… Old and outdated.''
May surprise you buy GAPU is well aware of this and is why it has been seeking a medium range system since the early 2000's and why even before that the army included Rapier in the 1988 MOU with Britain. Also despite being a last line of defence V-SHORADS are the most effective means of dealing with certain types of threats. If you've noticed; Nargano Karabakh; Syria, Iraq and other places have clearly shown how ineffective longer range systems are; they are not designed to deal with low flying targets with a minimal RCS and IR signature. Your longer range and higher altitude Pantsir, Sypder, MICA and NASAMs are not configured to take out low flying UASs; which is why [if you've noticed] Rheinmetall have come up with Skyranger 30; the Yanks with Initial Maneuver Short-Range Air Defence, etc.
Kel - ''And its redundant to say “it depends who the adversary is”.
No it's clearly not eventhough you think so. In the real world militaries are equipped and structured to take on thje threats they they will face. Show me a military's TOE and I'll tell you what war it sees itself being engaged in. It depends on not only who the adversary is but specific opeational circumstances of the conflict.
kel - ''If they intent to engage those weaponry, they intent to take land.''
Sorry but this is pure assumptive nonsense. If things have reached a stage where an opponent faces V-SHORADS; then he has made it past the other layers. You also may have noticed that in the Ukraine; where both sides in the air have reached a stalemate and are unable to achieve air superiority; V-SHORADS have accounted for quite a number of th aircraft losses.
Lets learn the lessons of Ukraine.
1. Lots of anti tank missiles. Need not be ultra expensive top attack missiles. But require lots of them.
2. Artillery, the Queen of the battlefield. We need lots of them. And range matters.
3. Great ISR. First class intelligence n both Humin n Sigint.
We should equip accordingly