SHAH ALAM: The Defence Ministry has proposed more funds for the Science & Technology Research Institute For Defence (STRIDE) for the next Malaysian Plan, RMK12 which starts next year. Defence Minister DS Ismail Sabri said STRIDE had received RM96.18 million in RMK11 for research and development work for the defence industry.
“The Defence Ministry has proposed an allocation of RM607.5 million for STRIDE for RMK12, for consideration by the Prime Ministers Department for the period between 2021 to 2025. “The Ministry is looking funding proposed R&D into the threat of biological weapons and collaboration with the other agencies,” he told Parliament today in his winding up speech for the 2021 budget today.
Firing the METIS-M ATGM during a demonstration at PULADA on Nov. 21, 2020. BTDM
Unfortunately that was the only part of the RMK12 which Ismail touched in his prepared speech. I had not expected much really as rumours swirl that 2021 budget may well be used by politicians hell bent on unseating the current administration. Anyhow, the extra funding proposes, according to Ismail was an initiative to develop self reliance of the local defence industry.
Army chief Gen Zamrose Mohd Zain (right) inside a Gempita CBRNE of the 12 Skn Rejimen Jurutera Di Raja during a demonstration at Gemas on Nov. 23.
For more information on the demonstration, go here.
What about the elephant in the room then? Ismail said the LCS project as off Nov. 1 was at 57.1 percent completed compared to 90.11 per cent as envisaged in the original schedule, a delay of 33.10 %.
As for the individual ships, LCS1 is at 60.60 per cent; LCS2 48.09 %; LCS3 43.75 %; LCS4 36.49%; LCS5 22.09% and LCS6 0 %. See my story LCS stories for context.
Maharaja Lela at the BNS facility in October, 2018. She is still missing her mast and other items. She is likely rusty after undergoing limited harbour trials.
Ismail also said the ministry has also decided to off-set RM80.64 million claimed by Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) as liquidated damages (LAD) for its failure to deliver the first ship on time. The Auditor General in its latest report stated that the Defence Ministry had failed to seek LAD from the shipbuilder for not delivering the ship on time.
The LCS major equipment detailed. RMN graphic
As for the direction of the project, Ismail said the matter had been referred to the Cabinet for further action and decision. Another item answered by Ismail was on the National Service programme. He said the ministry was of the opinion that it should be reinstated but they were waiting for the Cabinet to make the call.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Hopefully they continue low priority funding for Malaysia’s own light tank programme
STRIDE do nothing so far….it needs to be disbanded…what ever project they did was just reverse engineeeing work….even ATM workshop can do it..The best thing MINDEF can do is give all peoject to University for them to improve and create any desired project by ATM..
“The Ministry is looking funding proposed R&D into the threat of biological weapons and collaboration with the other agencies”
I think that R&D should be expanded to include both chemical and nuclear as well – especially those of the dirty bomb variety.
The emphasis on bio-weapons is a bit peculiar, IMO, seems that someone in the Ministry sees the current pandemic as a possible bio attack scenario – pathogen that doesn’t cause massive destruction but potent enough to cripple the country economically.
Off Topic,
Is the KAI T-50 and Yaklov Yak-130 are on the Final List for LCA Program Marhalim ?.
Reply
The ministry has yet to fund the project so AFAIK there is no list at the moment apart from the manufacturers that had responded to RMAF RFI in early 2019
I didn’t know STRIDE was actually pursuing it looking at a “light tank programme” but I do know that at present the army has no such requirement.
There is nothing wrong with working on reverse engineered stuff (everybody has to start somewhere); the trick is to produce stuff wanted by the end user; stuff that meets requirements; stuff which can achieve some level of economics of scale; be bought cheaper than from abroad (we simply don’t have the luxury of buying more expensive stuff merely to keep local companies afloat – in the long run it’s unsustainable) and for the end user to be granted the funds to buy in the numbers needed.
It’s also worth keeping in mind that STRIDE exists not merely to produce stuff for the local market but also for other purposes; related to weapons testing: ballistics and issues related to the overall suitability and operational use of things in a local context.
@ dundun
that is a waste of time. buying secondhand PT-91 is cheaper and better than developing a light tank.
@ redsot
they should study simple but meaningful stuffs. i have listed down things that we can R&D here before
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/locally-developed-weapons/
@ asm
no need for expensive bio weapon. just pour 1 barrel of diesel into our water processing facilities will wreck havoc to us.
Maybe Stride can conduct design studies of Gempita Tank Destroyer version with 105mm turet or Handalan Lorry with 105mm Oto Melara arty as SPH or a new corvette design based on NGPV MEKO 100 sounds good also.
Maintaining an existing in seevice platform but for new duties can be a good way to stretch what we do have.
My take,STRIDE are a waste of money organization.STRIDE need not design or reverse engineer anything at all, but IF they can IMPROVE the ATM equipments that will be good enough.
Inorder to do improvements these guys must be on the field with the military boys,feel their dissatisfaction on certain equipments or method of doing things then only things can be upgraded to the next level.Dont expect them sitting in rhe lab and trying to improve or redesign things.
STRIDE team dont even need a building at all they will be attached to the most lousy camp and let them crack their head on how to IMPROVE things…
Reply
By definition – improving an already fielded equipment – is reverse engineering…
More interesting, how is this:
“As for the individual ships, LCS1 is at 60.60 per cent; LCS2 48.09 %; LCS3 43.75 %; LCS4 36.49%; LCS5 22.09% and LCS6 0 %”
Equal to overall project status of 57.1%?
I’m assuming 57.1% includes tasks not related to construction (e.g. purchasing and installation of weapons and equipment).
But LCS4 = 36%, LCS5 =22% and LCS6 = 0%.
Don’t see how the project is half completed.
Reply
Even though work on LCS 6 hasn’t started, all the steel for it has been cut and likely at BNS already.
@ marhalim
improvement of already fielded equipment is not reverse engineering.
Reverse engineering (RE) is making yourself an exact copy in form and function of an existing stuff. it is usually done by dismantling and studying things that is already in the market.
most the steel for LCS6 is in lumut now. The main reason they cannot build it is because there is actually space for only 4 complete ships in the shipyard. As the LCS1 is still on land, they have no space left to start building the LCS6.
I attended STRIDE’s Open Day last year and I saw for myself what was developed. Simply put, STRIDE researchers DO know the issues on the ground and the dissatisfaction that the front-line personnel experience. This is reflected in the IPs they generated. What was missing are: 1. the marketing people who can convince the powers-that-be that the ideas are worth pursuing further (two good examples were the munitions disposal unit and the special tool systems for maintaining ship systems located in very tight spots). 2. Proactive BD managers who check up with all stakeholders on their contribution to the overall systems uptake pipeline (from IP to funders and end users) Note: When asked what were the hurdles, most had no answer. The moment the PAT left, all murmured answers, ‘navy tak nak, air force lambat, PTD taknak pakai idea ni\’…..
Hazone – “Maybe Stride can conduct design studies of Gempita Tank Destroyer version with 105mm turet or Handalan Lorry with 105mm Oto Melara arty”
Assuming the army has a need for those 2 things (it doesn’t) is STRIDE the right agency to do it? As for a “new corvette design” do you seriously think STRIDE (rather than a yard) is capable? No offence to STRIDE but it’s not in the business of designing ships or being involved in such ventures.
As for the 105mm SPH; STRIDE at one point was working on a 120mm “lightweight” mortar using a Slovakian design as a basis – much more utility than a 105mm SPH although iI’ll be the first to point out that a mortar can never totally replace a howitzer.
Before we start going into what should it shouldn’t do we must first ask why it was created in the very first place and whether us was ever given the funds it needed …
To be able to improve an existing design you need to study it first to know its strengths and weaknesses. Like what Marhalim said, that’s reverse engineering.
Almost all tech companies will buy their competitors’ products and study them.
And if i am not mistaken the current digital camouflage was developed by STRIDE.
The only notable achievement by STRIDE that I was aware is their testing ground facility which accepts not only military equipment but civvie ones too.
Other than that, just give up the idea of indigenous sniper rifle or mortar. This is era of smart rounds and that is an area they could focus on.
Azlan,
Agreed. Both self propelled 120mm mortar and 105mm arty have their pro n con. It ‘s just that the army has still no SPH and mayb following the Korean way of installing old 105mm arty on lorries is a good alternatives.
Agreed on the NGPV corvette. I merely suggest STRIDE as the authority/governance to monitor the design process on behalf govt. Just as per Project Management Book work process.
U didnt mention anything on the Gempita with 105mm turet. Was keen to know anybody opinion on this also.
We need a fully integrated logistics system…stride should be focusing on that, not more platforms
On the National Service program… As a former Head Trainer for a NS Camp in 2004, I agree with the idea of reinstating the program. But not in its previous form. That provided a BS service feeding the rats that hounded and lived off the Khidmat Negara program for contracts, and kickbacks for the officers and officials awarding them. The recommendations from all Head Trainers on NS improvements weren’t done meaning that NS program became privatised,a franchise scheme like McDs and MarryBrown setups.
It degraded the NS. So what the initial batch of NS trainers of 2004 envisaged and set-up to do was quietly dropped. NS became just a government sponsored summer camp for 18 year olds. If NS were to be revived, just ensure its only voluntary, and aimed at offering the initial information and training for kids who intend to serve the uniformed services, be it ATM, MMEA or PDRM. We can’t use the former model of the PLKN any longer. PLKN is NOT a business program.
@Hazone
TDM lack of SPH is due to their insistence to buy brand new when we clearly have no money, they even willingly killed the 2nd hand M109 buy and now left with nothing. Whose fault do you think it is?
If TDM sees the need for a shoehorned arty, they could mount the LG1s on Handalan flatbed trucks.
As for 105mm IFV, even the USA have not bought into this idea. What is the benefit of mounting a huge and heavy turret plus the shells weight on an already 30 ton vehicle?
“We need a fully integrated logistics system…stride should be focusing on that, not more platforms”
It’s up to the Armed Forces to decide to on the number of platforms to be used. STRIDE just does the R&D. And what’s a “integrated logistics system”?
Hasnan – “U didnt mention anything on the Gempita with 105mm turet”
I’m against the idea. A 105mm gun would only be useful against light/medium tanks and IFVs; as well as in the direct support role against bunkers and such. If we didn’t have MBTs, IFVs with auto cannons and infantry operated shoulder fired weapons then yes I’d see a role for 105mm guns on IFVs.
In the past we had 90mm guns but that was a time when we had no MBTs, had small numbers of APCs/IFVs with unstabilised 20mm guns and when the only shoulder fired weapon was the Carl Gustav.
A vehicle mounted 105mm gun would be great against light tanks and IFVs but against MBTs the only chance would be a shot to the rear and other thinly protected areas (assuming it was able to get into the required firing position without being engaged). It would also be able to cause damage which won’t knock out a tank but might make it inoperable by damaging the optics or tracks.
In our context I simply don’t see a place for a vehicle mounted 105mm gun. Nor do I see a place for light/mediums tanks; as has been discussed previously. Some armies have a particular need for them; some don’t.
ASM – “And what’s a “integrated logistics system””
One that not only has a complete inventory of everything but also keeps track of where things are; the quantities; usage rates: etc. All 3 services have such systems but there’s always room for improvement.
Hazone – “ ‘s just that the army has still no SPH”
I’ve been told that the preferred solution is the Caesar but when exactly is anyone’s guess – just not a priority.
The decision to get the M109s came from outside and when the army got the chance; it cancelled it. Concerns were over the fact they would troublesome and expensive to operate as they get older (despite the refurbishment – different armies have different concerns) and the fact that the army preferred something with a lighter footprint; one which can be flown.
“One that not only has a complete inventory of everything but also keeps track of where things are; the quantities; usage rates: etc. All 3 services have such systems but there’s always room for improvement.”
I see. Well I suppose STRIDE could propose improvements or better solutions, but they shouldn’t just concentrate in this area only, as what the OP suggested. They should expand their capability into other domains as well.
@ taib
thank you for your service sir.
@ marhalim
did i write something wrong that it is not approved?
@ azlan
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN59MC1XUAEJ7Nc.jpg
M109 in A400M
I believe the M109 was cancelled as that is one of the items the army sacrificed for PH targeted 10% savings (along with the MD530G but that unfortunately has a watertight contract)
The problem with ATM is; either new or nothing. And when money is tight what comes out; NOTHING. Then they wail about not having the equipment to do this or do that. Indonesia have no problems to take in used stuffs, Canada have no problems to take in used stuffs, even African & South American countries have no problems to take in used stuffs. Only Malaysia ATM have to have everything new, nice and shiny.
@Taib
Previous incarnation of NS is for pussycats having being mollycoddled for their entire life. If it were to be done, it should follow SG mould but even said if it were entirely voluntary, no parents will allow their kid to go, whatmore it would rob their time from higher education, grad slower than other peers, finding jobs later than peers, seniority, promotions, etc… the same dissatisfactions of NS by SG parents thru the years.
Your idea is good if it were done for aspirants who would like to join the Armed Forces or Polis. Let them have a feel of real hardship before properly committing to join the Forces.
@joe & Azlan
You are forgetting about the Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System(MGS). The US produce about 150 units and was deployed to Afghanistan and Middle East.
They also currently have the MPF programme where BAE and General Dynamics is competiting. The idea is for a flyable and droppable tank with 105/120mm tank that is under 20t.
With Sabah/Sarawak in mind, a Gempita or light tank with 105mm that can be mobilised there through the air and can use same munition as our 105mm arty unit have a versatility of their own.
If we are talking about firepower, even our medium range Metis-M/Eryx stand less chance to penetrate the Leopard 2 and VT4 thick armor which only long range antitank missile like Kornet and TOW stand much of a chance.
Same as with 105mm standing up against latest MBT but more than enough to damage them.
If not, there is only one solution that is available to us which is the oldest remedy. The answer to an MBT is another MBT. We would have to invest on at least 2 battalion of MBT with 125mm gun like the PT-91M; one in the North and another probably in Sabah.
… – “I believe the M109 was cancelled as that is one of the items the army sacrificed for PH targeted”
I was told it was for other reasons; related to costs (long term) and actual preference/requirements. In line with PH’s policy of reviewing things to prevent wastage; the army saw an opportunity to ditch the deal.
The selection of the M-109 (like other things) didn’t come from the army; which prefers something with a lighter footprint and something which by virtue of bring lighter and less bulky so to speak; makes it easier to airlift. No actual trials (could have been performed abroad if desired) were ever performed and no proper technical evaluation team (to evaluate everything from technical specs to local suitability to how much operating costs will rise over the years) was ever sent. Note that many years ago (around the period K-9 was trialled locally) the army was offered owned M-109s; declined.
Hopefully STRIDE really get that allocation which is 6 times bigger than RMK11. I dont mind reverse-engineer stuff but do add value sonas to suit our end user needs.
@joe
What is your view if MY NS follows ROK or ROC mould?
@ hazone
” The answer to an MBT is another MBT ”
That is such an old school thinking. If Azerbaijan did that, they wouldn’t had won the war.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/2021-budget-defence-and-internal-security-allocations/#comment-438253
@ azlan
” I was told it was for other reasons ”
If that is the case, then who initiated the EDA request? There is no middlemen that would benefit from getting those howitzers secondhand. Yes of course the M109 has its deficiencies, but something is better than nothing at all. Tiada rotan akar pun berguna.
Hazone – “You are forgetting about the Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System(MGS”
I didn’t forget …..
As I said: some armies have a need: some don’t ….
“With Sabah/Sarawak in mind, a Gempita or light tank with 105mm that can be mobilised there through the air”
You are only looking at the plus points. Assuming the needed airlift is available when needed and assuming light/medium tanks or IFVs are faced ……
… – “If that is the case, then who initiated the EDA request”
Of course MINDEF… But eh I decided to buy it? Like who made the decision to get the Little Birds? Yes there was a middleman but who approved a request for something the army had no requirement for?
… – “ but something is better than nothing at all”
I don’t always subscribe to that school of thought; cliche.
Easy to say that buy if potential end user has identified possible issues concern (whether it has to do with long term operating costs it other issues; the politicians should take note. They should force something upon the end fire; especially something that never even went through an evaluation process. Haven’t we learnt from past mistakes?
@Hazone
100+ units is nothing for an armed forces that spends USD $1Trillion a year. Those were just battlefield trial units, to test out the system and working the proof of concept. The fact that US Army had cut orders and never reordered since, does show they haven’t fully bought in the concept. OTOH, US Marines in the near future are looking towards a more flexible taskforce by getting rid of their heavy tanks, so a gun tank destroyer might be what they need or maybe not. The again what works for them may not work for us, as we’re not an invasion focus armed forces.
“use same munition as our 105mm arty unit”
Nope. Even tho both are 105mm calibre, its not interchangeable between arty gun and the tank destroyer gun. One munitions producer have separate entries for each of them.
https://www.gd-otscanada.com/product/105mm-artillery-ammunition/
https://www.gd-otscanada.com/product/105mm-tank-ammunition/
To take down tanks with heavy armour, you just need top-down attack ATGMs like Javelin.
@nimitz
Really why see so far when a well thought out example is just down south? Theirs is real deal where NS are basically reservists under training and they do the whole mile as with regular troops. And I prefer SG right out of school enrollment compared to ROK @20(?) years of age where a person would already be either studying or employed for a year and then having to give that up for NS and returning 2 years later or so. And then there are loopholes for the very privileged which gets unfair treatment (ie Son Heung Min).
@ azlan
” But eh I decided to buy it? ”
When did i say it is you? Dont think of me too negatively.
As i said i cannot think of any middlemen that can benefit with the EDA buy if it is MINDEF who wants it against the army needs, unlike the little birds.
___________________
” I don’t always subscribe to that school of thought; cliche ”
You think we have a use for the little birds, I dont, as i think AW109s can do the same, and i want to flog them on to 3rd party.
I think M109s as it is nearly free is useful as we dont have any SPH. But you think otherwise.
Same thing, different situation.
Inventing the digital camo scheme for Tentera Darat Malaysia is one of the best achievement by STRIDE
very good job, well done.
… – “When did i say it is you? Dont think of me too negatively”
When did I say you said so? Before hitting the keyboard/pad make sure I indeed say what you think I did it we’ll continue going around in circles ….
… – “You think we have a use for the little birds, I dont, as i think AW109s can do the same”
Indeed. Doesn’t mean I personally feel we should have gotten them. Just like how I think we’d have some use for M-109s but for various reasons relating to operating costs; the army didn’t. As for the A-109s I merely pointed out that the army has no requirement for anymore. You think the A-109s can do the job – indeed that can abs I did agree they can.
… – “ it is MINDEF who wants it against the army needs, unlike the little birds”
In both cases (as I clearly explained) the decision to get them can’t from outside. MINDEF merely rubber stamps things once a political decision has been made. In the case of the M-109s the Defence Attache’s office at the embassy provides a list of things that thing might interest us and the end user with MINDEF’s approval submits it for approval. Or the end user might not express and interest with interest instead coming from above.
If however you’re convinced that the army really wanted the
M-109s then your right; I was wrongly informed.
… – “. But you think otherwise”
Just to refresh your memory …
I never said so. I merely pointed out why the army was so eager to ditch the deal. But difference between me “thinking” we don’t need them and me pointing out why the army doesn’t need them.
– “. But you think otherwise”
Just to refresh your memory.
I never said so. I merely pointed out why the army was so eager to ditch the deal. Major difference between me “thinking” we don’t need them and me pointing out why the army doesn’t need them.
Hazone,
The main purpose of a tank is to deliver mobile, shock firepower. As any mobile warfare practitioner will tell you; the trick is to hit the enemy where he’s the weakest and where he least expects. A MBT will be the ideal means of killing a MBT but not the only means and not always the most ideal.
In 1973; despite popular belief the bulk of Israeli tanks were killed not by Saggers but other tanks. If however we look at recent conflicts the bulk of tanks killed were not by other tanks. In Iraq quite a few were killed my massive IEDs (2-3 130mm shells). May not have penetrated the hull but the shock wave killed crews.
Hazone – “Metis-M/Eryx stand less chance to penetrate the Leopard”
The ability of Metis to kill tanks depends not only in the type of tank but terrain …, In areas where medium shots can be taken the bulk will be frontal shots. In restricted terrain however shots will be at closer range and there will be better opportunities for flank and rear shots. It depends….
Also; why assume that tanks will be the main targets of Metis? It could be any target of opportunity.
Hazone – “The idea is for a flyable and droppable tank with 105/120mm tank”
The Americans seen the need for a 105mm IFV in areas where enemy MBTs are not likely to be encountered but units will always organic ATGWs and be operating under a strong air umbrella. The Chinese see the need for a light tank to be air delivered over Taiwan and to be deployed in the Tibetan plateau; an area in which the Indians would face issues deploying MBTs.
In our context I simply don’t see the need. Incidentally there is also no present requirement.
Hazone – “Same as with 105mm standing up against latest MBT but more than enough to damage them”
I can also point out that Metis (if used in numbers from different angles; like RPGs in Chechnya) can penetrate a uparmoured Leo 2.
Against MBTs your medium tanks would not be able to take any punishment and would have to manoeuvre to be able to take rear and flank shots which assumes they haven’t been destroyed first and circumstances are favourable . In Angola SADF Elands and Ratels took out T-54/55s but they were better trained and manoeuvred.
@ azlan
so tell me what does this mean:
” But eh I decided to buy it? ”
as i never mentioned that it is you.
______________________
” If however you’re convinced that the army really wanted ”
I dont. But i want to know who asked for it. MINDEF, politicians or middlemens have nothing to gain by asking the M109 from EDA if not the army asked for it.
__________________________
” I merely pointed out why the army was so eager to ditch the deal ”
The army we know officially wanted to ditch the MD530G but can’t. The M109 OTOH just quietly disappeared. I dont know if you can call it eager, but the M109 is the least painful item to be offered for sacrifice to Mat Sabu.
___________________________
___________________________
on the 105mm SPH howitzers. I believe for rapid deployment and close support, and conflicts that is not a full on war, something like the marawi conflict, a 105mm howitzer is still a useful asset to have. I am for all of our divisions to still have 105mm howitzer regiments attached to them. We should also look at attaching a loitering munition battery to the close support regiments. a regiment of 105mm SPH to support the mechanised/armoured division, along with a regiment of 155mm SPH. Before anyone says otherwise, I also am for our 155mm regiments to be increased to at least 3; 1 each towed in east and west malaysia, and the one supporting the mechanised/armoured division.
Koreans go with a low tech path of just attaching a M101 howitzer onto a 5 ton truck.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-skfDviafcLo/Un9B2FOazcI/AAAAAAAAbXY/tjSibnkf26c/s1600/3af9.jpg
US came out with the hawkeye 105mm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuP59CEXgAA_bOF.jpg
If we want to go o our own (not recommended), the new truck combo of the PLA army is intriguing. This carries its own ammo so each truck can operate independent from other vehicles to carry the shells. This is with 122mm howitzer, but using the same chassis to mount 105mm howitzer instead could be R&Ded.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KPqVNnWoZO8/X7gwTRAwu8I/AAAAAAAB6xY/N9tulzE88y8QTMJLBgKIC2_oxzg30GsWgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1280/EnSD82RXIAEDANR.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AifQtsHsQE0/X7gwV_1KkGI/AAAAAAAB6xc/VXVTH359UQQ0T6vcra7uf7-QvG0_7-zWwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1280/EnSD82XW8AMeqQl.jpg
__________________________
Another thing we could study is on stealthy small boats.
http://cdn.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/2006/6253802/1333x2000_q95.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzeq4cBX4AEtZ_D.jpg:large
… – “think M109s as it is nearly free is useful as we dont have any SPH”
Various things are very cheap but getting vary cheap to fulfil long-standing requirements or capability gaps can lead to issues later. As it is we have a history of buying stuff but failing to make adequate preparations later to account for operating costs and spares.. When this happens (as if it often does) what looks sound on paper doesn’t look so sound in actual reality.
The M102s were a case in point. We got them cheap and for a while we fired them more than the Model 56s (the M102s were also more durable). After a while; based on the budget available to us, we decided that spares were not worth what we were paying for; thus they were relegated from active service to a ceremonial battery.
As a disclaimer in case you again see things which are not there; I’m not suggesting M-109s had no utility or that the decision to get them was flawed; merely that the army didn’t recommend getting them because it felt it wasn’t a good investment in the long run mainly due to concerns over long term increases in operating costs (including spares which though abundant may not necessarily be cheap). Also the spares package the army wanted as part of the deal and the one which was approved differed due to finances.
Another issue is that it wanted a wheeled platform which has a lighter footprint and is also cheaper to operate and maintain (major concerns for the resource strapped army). On top of that no evaluation team was ever formed to determine its suitability in our context. All we did was a paper evaluation which doesn’t tell one much apart from paper specs.
… – “as i never mentioned that it is you”
“@ azlan
” But eh I decided to buy it? ”
When did i say it is you? Dont think of me too negatively.
…. -“want to know who asked for it. MINDEF, politicians or middlemens
We should direct the question to the former Defence Minister and see what he says. Should also ask him the circumstances behind the Little Bird buy; why was it ordered when the army didn’t even issue a requirement or evaluated it and why a small company was appointed the agent?
The fact that such things were allowed to occur is a reflection of how flawed and rotten the system is. Things being selected without a requirement and without evaluation; arbitrarily without checks/balances.
… – “ I dont know if you can call it eager”
The army was asked to review certain things and it saw a chance to ditch the deal for something it never wanted or even evaluated; the cash being allocated for things which are a higher priority; wherever they may be. We also lost money deal; much less than we would have if the Little Birds were cancelled.
… – “anyone says otherwise, I also am for our 155mm regiments to be increased to at least”
Doubt anyone will say “otherwise” as you’ve already made clear your opinion several times over.
I’ll also say something I’ve before. I would like the army to start focusing attention to the Royal Artillery Corps as I believe it hasn’t been getting the attention it should; compared to other areas. I would like army to look at new ways of doing things with regards to doctrine, organisation, etc. Things which haven changed much (unlike with other areas in the army) in decades.