PETALING JAYA: The story below from Bernama is self-explainatory. In short, the Defence Minister is saying that the Weststar Group had been given the contract for new 4X4 vehicles for the Armed Forces. But the good minister however failed to mention, the most important thing of course, how much and the reason Weststar was chosen?
And is the vehicle below, the Weststar GSC 3/4 ton, is the vehicle the Defence Minister is talking about?
From Weststar website
New 4×4 Coming Into The Market
Weststar GSC 3/4 ton provides arm forces with vehicles that are designed to meet a wide range of security and defence roles. The vehicle is purpose built.The GSC is available in hard or soft top,flexible enough for transportation of personnel,cargo and general utility.
The vehicle is powered by a robust and powerful 3.0 litre TDI diesel engine. The power train is common with that fitted to most commercial vehicles in the market,giving high commonality of parts and simpler maintenance and logistic support. Excellent value for money in all aspects of operations make them the rational choice for cost effectiveness.
From Bernama
MALAYSIA TO REPLACE ALL ITS MILITARY 4WDs
BANGKOK, March 5 (Bernama) – Malaysia will replace all its ageing military four-wheeled drives beginning next June, Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said today.
He said Malaysia would procure the vehicles from Thailand, produced by a
Malaysian company, Weststar Group, based in Pattaya.
“The existing 4×4 used by the three services are obsolete and no longer
cost-effective to maintain,” he told Malaysian media after meeting with his Thai
counterpart Sukumpol Suwanatat, here.
Both leaders were attending the Defense and Security 2012, a tri-service
Asian Defense and Internal Security Event for Land, Sea and Air, at the IMPACT
Exhibition and Convention Centre, here.
Dr Ahmad Zahid said the priority of the new 4WD programme would be the usage of Malaysian components including for its spare parts.
However, he refused to provide details on the number of vehicles to be
replaced and its cost.
Dr Ahmad Zahid said Weststar had also supplied the vehicles for military use
in the United States, some NATO members, Singapore and Thailand.
Weststar Group with its headquarters in Kuala Lumpur is led by Group
Managing Director Tan Sri Syed Azman Syed Ibrahim and its core businesses
include defence, engineering, aviation services, automobile and construction.
Dr Ahmad Zahid said Weststar had also supplied specialised vehicles such as
ambulances to the Malaysian government.
More than 200 defence and internal security equipment manufacturers from 35
countries participated in the four-day event starting today.
— BERNAMA
As Simon had said before…technicals….
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
My jaw just dropped to the floor and its not because I’m impressed with this vehicle. No wonder the dear Minister of Defence issued a statement about NOT politicising defence procurement. But how can you not to? It’s so easy and ripe for the taking.
Another boondoggle certain to line the pockets of the well-connected. Malaysia had better get serious about defence or it risks becoming a laughingstock. If we can’t procure the necessary equipment, support and train, while at the same time conducting operations, then we might just as well disband the ATM!
Reply
Other people might think otherwise
When the esteemed Defence Minister says that all aging 4x4s will be replaced, I assume he means the Land Rovers delivered in the early to mid-1980’s and possibly the Pajeros? The G-Wagons, Duros and other Land Rovers are considered new. Have trials even been conducted on this new vehicle?
Reply
From the picture I believed trials were conducted. Whether or not it involved comparative testing is another issue
Agreed with cengeh…are our Defenders can’t bear the soldiering anymore?
Reply
Not the new ones, maybe those which had been in service since the 80s, which I have not seen in the Klang Valley any way.
This 4×4 are fulfill the need of MAF , 1st indeed its design suitable for our geography landscape , and also it cheaper than others..great 4×4!!
Sharul,
”Cheap and cheerful” unfortunatly doesn’t always equate with being good. And unfortunatly, when we buy gear, common sense and logic doesn’t always play a determining factor.
If the Minister is serious about developing the local defence industry, why procure vehicles manufactured in Thailand? He should ask Weststar Group to relocate their plant from Pattaya to Bagan Datoh to create more job opportunities for the people in his constituency!
Reply
I believe Weststar bought the plant from the LDV group before it went bust. Whether or not they will move the production here is in the details, which is lacking in the original story
Why is it that we can not follow standard procurement practices? I know I am being simplistic here but… Step 1 – assess the needs and requirements. Step 2 – issue an RfI to all relevant industry OEMs. Step 3 – issue an RfP to all manufacturers that, based on the RfI and the needs and requirements, we would like to bid. Step 4 – analyze the proposals and conduct field trials and so on. Step 5 – shortlist the manufacturers and start pricing, support, etc. negotiations. Step 6 – award the contract after analyzing all relevant information.
Instead what we have is another closed door deal. That is what I mean by ‘another boondoggle’. It seems that the only way to get anything done is to be well-connected and have a ‘Tan Sri’ or at least a ‘Dato’ in front of one’s name. My last question is: would the 4×4 win a free and fair competition? Unfortunately we will never know. The goal should always be to procure the best equipment at the best cost.
Lagi satu bad idea. Bila Weststar bengkrap, where are we going to get parts. I guarantee you the harga is not less than the Hilux.
read in the news today,army artillery division acquired additional astross II will be base in east malaysia.contract to be sign during dsa 2012.looks like our artillery general favor more in rockets rather than SPH.
Well this should be done long time ago. It seem that our defense is concentrated in the peninsula as if there are no strategic interest in the east. Don’t you think that east M’sia also need MBT’s, track APC, howitzers, air defense batteries, etc, etc.? If it happened that a conflict erupted with Indon, than a border cross to kuching is as easy as abc. There is just not enough defense. On the purchase of the new 4×4, why don’t we just get the newer version of the proven Pajero’s and LR’s. The already have establish logistics and facilities. Oh yes, its the Tan Sri’s and Dato’s right.
Reply
If the Weststar vehicle pictured in the post then its a new type of vehicle, not really a replacement to the Landies and Pajero as those are wagon type 4X4 no matter what the good minister says. BTW, the Landies will be around for a least another decade or so as land Rover malaysia continues to deliver new units even as we speak.
fird,
Any conflict with our ‘cousins’ will centre around the Ambalat/Tawau/Nanukan area, where fighting took place during the Confrontation. Our ‘cousins’ will have no need or desire to take Kuching :].
Marhalim,
I thought the contract for a 2nd battery/regiment of ASTROSs was signed years ago. Is this an order for a 3rd battery/regiment?
Reply
I have not read the article cited Athrun. So I am not sure…
I did some analysis of SIPRI’s military expenditures data yesterday and here are few interesting points I’d like to share:
– from 2001 to 2010, Indonesian military expenditure has increased 196.74% in constant USD (2009).
– by comparison China’s spending has increased 118.49%, Thailand 57.84%, Australia 48.85%, Philippines 31.5%, Malaysia 29.69% (although our spending has declined for the past 2 years on record) and Singapore 27.62%.
Note: If analyzed in local currencies the percentages are much higher, but this does not take into account purchasing power (as currency values fluctuate widely); that is why constant USD, pegged by SIPRI to 2009, is a better measure of military expenditure.
Lastly:
– As percentage of GDP, spending has remained relatively flat, and in some cases declined (as in Singapore from 5% in 2001 to approximately 4% today). Indonesia’s increase is due more to an overall rise in their economy. Malaysia’s spending, meanwhile, remains close to 2% of GDP.
The dispute over the Ambalat region is a major distraction, when the focus should be on the South China Sea. There is absolutely no reason, except ego and national chauvinism, why an amicable agreement can not be reached between Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines regarding their mutual borders. IMO, we should not negotiate too aggressively. What we should be doing is offering various proposals to the Indonesians and Filipinos whereby everyone can walk away feeling that they got something. For example, and this is just an idea, so don’t get hung up on the details, we could offer to redraw the border as such: 1. place the whole of the island of Sebatik within Malaysia by redrawing the boundary through the channel between Sebatik and Nunukan. Exiting the channel the boundary proceeds southeast to a mutually agreed upon intersection point, let’s say the 3 degrees, 45 seconds north parallel. The boundary then proceeds directly east along that parallel, splitting Ambalat between Malaysia and Indonesia until terminating at the 119 degrees east meridian. From there the boundary proceeds north dividing Sabah from the Philippines and so on… This is just an idea. Of course, the parallel and meridan could be shifted here or there, Sebatik could be ceded wholly to Indonesia, etc. The options are endless, as long as everyone is willing to sit down and come to an amicable agreement. We could even come up with innovative maritime leasing options, such as leasing the disputed territory to a joint stock company, let’s call it the Ambalat-Sulawesi JSC, with equal investments from Malaysia (Petronas) and Indonesia (Pertamina). Instead of arguing what do when the dead dog in front of the house starts to rot, why don’t we just take action and bury it?
Malaysia does not get the promised offsets from Brazil on the 2x Regiments of ASTROS which Mindef purchased from the South American country a few years back. Even on the 1st and 2nd line maintenance programme, the Brazilian OEM (AVIBRAS) has not transferred its know-how to our local companies.Why Mindef keeping quiet?
Reply
That’s why they hired Blenheim to settle the offset programme. But as usual tight lips!
Hmmm…
The 4×4 looks like a Izusu Dmax knockoff. Is the parts from China as Maxus LDV has been bought over if im not mistaken by SAIC China?
@azlan
From the article, this buy is apparently for the 3rd regiment of the Astros.
Currently the MLRS -the latest version that is, the rockets are equipped with GPS guidance system and has transformed these unguided rockets into precision systems. Are the Astros-the latest batch of rockets equipped with GPS systems too?
Reply
I read somewhere Avibras is looking for partners to develop new munitions for the Astros, perhaps that the reason for the deal, so we can get our hands on guided munitions.
YM Lee,
Avibras was reported to have started working on a GPS guided round years ago – current status unknown. With 3 ASTROS regiments we better have lots of reloads as these things are very hungry creatures. The first guided round was the TACMS for the MLRS, developed more than almost 2 decades ago, and used against the Iraqis.
FareedLHS,
After losing Sipadan and Ligatan and after all the ‘incidents’ over the common sea boundary – which has led to the Indons detaining Malaysian registered trawlers in our waters [I still can’t get why the Indon fisheries officer was hiding in his underpants in the engine room!!], no Indoesiann President will hand over even an inch of Indonesian territory, even if its part of a swap. It would be political suicide and the Indon public would lynch him. There was a 2010 incident when on of the Mahamirus stopped a Malaysian shipped from being seized. The Indonesian government officially asked for the CO of the ship to be handed over….
u all can read the news regarding astross II at the kosmo newspaper website.the news comeout about 2 days ago.
Reply
Yes it was written by Zaki. So I think its kosher. Lets hope they get more reloads…not just launchers!
No issue really brother. Surely you got the news on the procurement.
Gua caya lu la that you know Weststar!
In case you didn’t see this…
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/l-3-communications-to-provide-fa-18d-simulator-to-malaysia-369251/
im hoping the chief put into consideration buying the new tactical round develop by avibras.i read in the wiki,avibras develop the missile as an option to BGM tomahawk,got a naval version also call X-300 but still under development.the land missile i think already in service with brazilian army and marines.
Reply
The problem is that if even the Brazilian has the 300km range missile and if we get it (a big if) we don’t have the range to conduct a test firing. Yes I know it could be done in Brazil but we need to fire one or two locally to make sure it will work in anger especially its accuracy
east malaysia got plenty of untouched area,we still can use it think,if cannot we can use south china sea to conduct a test firing.if im not mistaken the earlier test we fired the rocket to the sea also.
Reply
For something with 300km range, we need a range of around 1,000 square km and we dont have that kind space available and also the sophisticated tracking system.
Yes Sabah and Sarawak have vast space and seas, thats why>>..
Why ask a foreign company such as Blenheim Capital to do the offset for us? Surely Mindef knows what offsets to ask and making sure they are delivered.
Mindef paid about RM2 billions for the 2xAvibras MLRS regiments but one has to wonder why not even a single offset was given to Malaysia by them.Could it be that the Avibras MLRS technology like South Africa, the technology comes from one particular country in the Middle East?
Reply’
Because apparently we dont have the set skills for such financial transactions.
As whether or not the Avibras technology is actually Israeli, I have no idea but it must be said that the IDF is more into SPH and their MLRS is the US one
Israel has been making and selling long range guided rockets and non-guided rockets which are designed to be fitted into Himars and MLRS though. An example is the >130km Extra guided rockets.
Reply
Apart Israel, I don’t think other customers with MLRS or HIMARS would want to use the 130km guided rocket as it may be illegal under the procurement deal. I believe the 130km rockets were designed for the Russian design launchers and copied by everyone else including the Turks
FPDA does not cover East Malaysia in the technical sense but I’m suppose an argument can be made that the security interests of Peninsula Malaysia is compromised if East Malaysia falls. I can assure you that it is in nobody’s interests, least of all Singapore’s, to see East Malaysia in the hands of a belligerent power.
Just look at the recent security developments in the region. Do you think China is the only issue. The most influential strategic players in the region (in particular US, Singapore and Australia)have shown their hands time and again. Myanmar is now in US/Singapore’s orbit as is Vietnam. Singapore is re assuming its role as the Gibraltar of the East – this time for US warships. US can and will be able to deploy from Darwin in large numbers, not too far from Jakarta. The Philippines routinely challenges China. Interesting times.
Reply
Despite ominous headlines most of the current issues in Spratlys are most meant for domestic consumption, though I must admit that it could turn nasty very quickly. Both Myanmar and Vietnam are interesting from strategic and tactical POV.
It is almost certain Avibras Brazil acquired the MLRS technology from another country since they have no track record in this field. If Avibras is not working with the US, Western and Eastern Europe or China in the development of missile technology, then it must be Israel that provide the technology. No surprise that the British middle man that represents Avibras in Malaysia is a Jew too.
For all intents and purposes we are also in the U.S.’s orbit, the only difference is, unlike Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, we are not so open about it [certain members of a certain political party might accuse the government of being in league with an Uncle Sam/Zionist conspiracy to control the country!]. We train with them more regularly and more intensively than with anyone else, the number of USN warships making stopovers is at an all time high and even though we don\’t say so, the presence of the U.S. military in the region gives us immense comfort. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if we already have an agreement in place that would allow Uncle Sam use of our facilities in case Chinese missiles come flying our way.
Any additional news on the S-61 upgrades?
http://www.sikorsky.com/vgn-ext-templating-SIK/ctrndr?vcmid=6b03fe419a714310VgnVCM1000004f62529fRCRD&siteName=Sikorsky
Also of interest:
http://www.carsonhelicopters.com/new_developments.htm
Reply
I will write something about this soon…
According to some source, the maintenance cost of this Weststar 4×4 is 3 times lower than the Rovers and perhaps that’s the reason why they’ve decided so. But I doubt if the Weststar 4×4 is actually a brilliant choice to replace the Rovers.
Reply
No its just because its to maintain or not. As I mentioned the Landys in service four-door wagon, but their likely replacement is a two-door pickup.
Israeli technology? Israeli missiles? Ha! Everything “Made in Israel” starts in the US. There wouldn’t be an Israeli arms industry if it was not for the US. There is little indigenous technology that the Israelis can truly claim to have developed on their own.
Loreng,
We don’t know where Avibras got their MLRS technology from, so we can’t assume it’s Israeli..:} The Israeli’s never placed much emphasis on MLRS’s. We do know however that for the Brazilian space programme, the technology was largely French. The same goes for their nuke programme. The South African Valkiris and Bateleur MLRS were based on captured Angolan Grads. And so was the ex-Yugoslav Orkan MLRS which was offered to us by a Bosnian/SME partnership years before the ASTROS was first ordered.
Azlan,
We can’t say the MAF is under the US orbit.For example the US Government and its military have not been able to persuade the Malaysian Army and RMN to buy their weapon systems. Only the RMAF is seen to be pro-US with the procurement of the 8x F18s and other programmes. Although the US is the largest economic investor in Malaysia , however it has not been successful to put Malaysia under its military orbit.
Reply
Yes we could. Apart from Singapore, we are the only one who allow US subs to use our facilities on a regular basis. RMN will in an instance grab an Arleigh Burke or two if given FOC.
Loreng,
Just because we don’t exclusively buy ‘MADE IN AMERICA’ does not mean we are not in their ‘orbit’. It is due to illogical policies set in place during Mahathir’s time and due to our policy of not putting all our eggs in one basket. And if Uncle Sam had not opposed the EAEC [which was Mahathir’s brainchild] and made noise about human rights and democracy in Malaysia in the past, perhaps the MAF would have more ‘MADE IN AMERICA’ stuff.
Even Singapore and Thailand [which is a non-NATO U.S. ally], for various reasons, buys stuff from non-U.S. companies.
Azlan,
Alas, we are doing exactly what you have feared, putting our eggs in one basket, as most of our major purchase these days are from France.Just look at what we have bought from France: the helicopter EC735, transport aircraft A400M, Thales combat systems for PT91 Tanks, Avionics for SU30MKN, DCN made Scorpene submarines, BHIC-DCN doing the LCS,SAPURA-Thales doing military telecommunication and Thales providing Fire Control Systems for DEFTECH AV8x8.
One has to wonder what merit the French such preferential treatment when they have not done anything at all to help Malaysia economically in the past and present.
As for the future unlikely France could do anything for Malaysia as she is herself trapped in the sick Euro zone.
Reply
The French always got the nod as they are the master of adhering to the maxim “that the customer is always right”. They pander our fantasies to the maximum….the rest just want to sell us stuff!
Not really Marhalim, they screwed up big time in Algeria which was a traditional French market. The Algerians found that some of their VIP helicopters had Israeli stuff inside and got pissed off and said they would not buy anything more from Eurocopter. AgustaWestland benefited as they got a big contract for Merlins and Super Lynxs. The French have also lost ground in another traditional French market, Morocco.
Loreng,
The French, for what ever reason, occupies the position that Brit companies [such as British Aerospace and Marconi]had in the 1990’s. Hopefully Boeing will get a contract for Super Hornets in the next future, rather than Dassault for the Rafale :].
Reply
I was referring to Malaysia
FareedLHS,
Not everything that is made in Israel originates from the U.S. A lot of Israeli technology, developed in Israel by Israelis, has actually been shared or sold to the Americans. What the Israelis do however, is establish companies in the U.S. to manufacture Israeli made stuff for eventual export to Israel, so that stuff ends up being paid by Uncle Sam, as these are made by Americans in America, as part of its cash aid to Israel. And there is a hell of a lot of indigenous technology that the Israelis can claim as their own.
Azlan,
I am not too sure about the F18SH versus the French Rafale having seen the fate of the ESSM Raytheon USA in the LCS project.They were beaten flat at the finishing line by a French missile OEM inspite of the technical superiority of the ESSM.The list of French-made stuff purchased by Malaysia is mind-boggling.The Vietnamese and Cambodians must be laughing behind our back for they had gone through a bitter experience with the French before.They are just too happy to see us suffering the way the did with the French.Did you see them buying French stuffs anymore these days?If only our people be a bit humble, talk to them, to learn of their experience with the French, may be we could learn something there.
Loreng,
The Cambodians and Vietnamese have gone through a very bitter colonial experience with the French – unlike us – so their experience with the French can’t in any way be directly compared with us. And in recent times they have not bought much of anything French so we can’t say that they have had a bad experience in this regard. One big reason they have not bought French in recent times is because of pricing [especially in Cambodia’s case] and both are long time operators of Soviet/Chinese stuff, which rules out a lot that France has to offer. So how can they have suffered when the haven’t bought much French military gear??
I can’t answer how the Rafale compares to the Super Hornet but from our perspective, due to already being a Hornet operator, buying Super Hornets makes a hell of a lot more sense for a whole list of reasons. Similarly I have no idea on the technical merits of MICA vs ESSM and it has no bearing on the Super Hornet or Rafale,but I do know that ESSM was designed from the very start to have a much longer range and also [unlike MICA] to be able to deal with supersonic targets and is a medium range missile. If indeed the LCS comes armed with MICA it will probably be due to politics and costs, and less to due with merit.
Why are we doing flight training with a helicopter that is so large? Surely if we have to do it, we should run a single engine Squirrel. If commonality in controls etc. is a reason, the it ought to be used Koalas. This is sekolah memandu. No need for Camry.
Reply
The talk is faster transition to the Cougar and we might add Dauphins and Tiger too!
Azlan,
As you note, the US provides the funding for Israel’s arms industry. If it was not for the US funding, Israel would not have been able to develop anything. The Israelis have also greatly benefiting from industrial espionage. They have stole from everyone. In addition, it should be noted that Israel’s friends in the US Congress have steered large contracts and a lot of research and development funding to Israel. Entire assembly lines for F-15 and F-16 parts and services have been set-up in Israel with congressional support. So as I said: “There is little indigenous technology that the Israelis can truly claim to have developed on their own.”
Israeli espionage in the past has been directed largely at getting intel that has not been shared with them, such as satellite imagery, SIGINT, ELINT, nuclear know how, etc. Sorry but your statement that – ”There is little indigenous technology that the Israelis can truly claim to have developed on their own ”- is simply not true at all. Regardless of where the cash came from, the plain fact is that the Israelis have developed stuff on their own, some even way before Israel became the largest recipient of U.S. aid, and whether or not U.S. cash was used to fund R&D does not detract from this fact. At the top of my head I can provide you with examples of stuff that was truly indigenous and was also bought by the U.S. Also, funding for Israeli R&D comes largely from arms sales as well as foreign partners, NOT U.S. aid which is mostly used to pay for stuff acquired under FMS and pay for operational costs. Look it up.
The forces and systems which supports them are tens of thousands of years old and seen and unseen. Lets not worry too much about them shall we as it will lead to no where. Do the best to improve your own lot in the time we are given. It will work out fine in the end.
Fareed, i feel you underestimate the Israelis.
As a race, they have a very large and significant number of Nobel prize winners.
The genius who discovered E=MC2 happens to Jew.
I agree with Azlan. Take for example the Python misile, the vimple missile, the not in production Lavi fighter that was later sold lock stock and barrel to China and now known as J-10 in their service.Then the superb Merkava. Of course their rifles are a copy of the ak47 initially
Reply
Lavi into J10? Now you are underestimating the PRC.
No the Galil was not a direct copy of the AK47, it was built from the Valmet, which was an improved copy of the Automat
Other stuff that comes to mind, which are indigenous is stuff like the Pearl ESM, re-writing of codes for various radars, UAVs [the USN used Israeli UAVs in the 1st Gulf war], missiles like Delilah, the Lahat beam rider, etc, – just to name a few.
And contrary to what many believe, though the U.S. has a policy of unconditional support for Israel, it’s aid does not come in the form of a blind cheque. U.S. aid to Israel is intended to ‘protect’ that country but also to benefit the U.S. An oversight committee which reports to Congress has to account on how every cent is spent by Israel – most of which is used to fund arms purchases, fund the IDF’s operational costs and pumped in the Israeli economy. And funds for R&D comes largely from arms sales and foreign partners. Reports have it that Singapore partly funded R&D for Iron Dome.
Reply
India has off late had also become a good source of funding, the AEW and Barak ER are just two examples
A few brief points, in no particular order. I am not going to get into a point-counterpoint with you. In a limited forum such as this, it is impossible to fully articulate one’s point of view:
1. Japan was granted 239,338 patents in the most recent year on record. The US – 146,871. And way down the list… Israel with 2,665, slightly ahead of Denmark and slightly behind Belgium. Wow, big innovators those Israelis. And no, I do not underestimate them. They are highly capable, but mostly due to US largesse.
2.Israeli military-industrial espionage is an established fact. They copied the Mirage, they stole nuclear technology, US missile and source code designs, and on and on. The US FBI lists Israel as one of the biggest industrial espionage offenders. Do a simple Google search on “Israeli industrial espionage”.
3. And yes the US does fund many of Israel’s development programs. Current programs such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and the Arrow missile are dependent on US funds. Foreign arms sales help, but do not generate the billions necessary to maintain an entire arms industry. The Lavi for the record was also funded in large part by the US. By the way, which engines were in the Lavi? Pratt & Whitney.
4. By your statement that “it’s aid does not come in the form of a blind cheque”, clearly shows that you do not understand the US-Israel relationship. US funding for Israel is the surest piece of legislation to pass Congress each session. Clearly you have not read “The Israel Lobby” by Mearsheimer and Walt.
I could go on and on…
I do want to stress one more very important thing though. I have seen you launch similar posts against others, most notable “zamyra” not long ago. Unfortunately, this type of behavior progressively erodes any blog’s following. Personalities that seek to dominate the “comment” sections of posts, inevitably drive everyone else away.
And lastly, I work in the US defence industry and am well placed to thoroughly understand the entire aerospace and defence industry. I just want to throw that out there, lest you think that I am an unemployed unmarried son living in his mother’s basement!
I can’t leave this post without spelling this out… I stand by my comments. Take a close look at my adjectives. I do not say that Israel has NO indigenous technology. I do not say that ALL of Israel’s funding comes from the US. What I do say is that they have “little” indigenous technology. And by that I mean mostly avionics, missiles, C4ISR sensors and systems. Take a look at the SIPRI listing of the Top 100 arms companies. The 78 companies based in the US and Western Europe generated over 90% of global arms sales. Only 3 Israeli companies made the list. What I do say is that “A LOT” of funding for Israel’s research and development and arms industry comes from the US… And so on… So look at the words that I am actually saying. That’s enough, I have actually work to do…
from the pic, that model had similarities with toyota Hilux model favored by folks living in interior swk…maybe ATM evaluation team can test it over swk see how it fared in term of survivability against the logging tracts littering all over the place.
Reply
I could be wrong but I believe the truck is a Ford Ranger.
Just for discussion sake. The number of patents granted may not be a good indication of the capability of a country.Of the number of patents granted in the US,I dare say that almost half of it comes from IBM.In fact IBM amkes most of their money not from sale of computers and software but by using its patent to catch industries that may have inevitably infringed their patent or sale of their patents. In fact many defence companies does not even want to patent their technology.Reason is a patent is actually an exchange of protection for 25 years and they need to disclose their technology so that a person skilled in the art would be able to duplicate and copy the work/invention.So better not to patent so that others does not know the principle behind the invention. Just for discussion sake
FareedLHS,
You best get on with your work then. As I mentioned before, if indeed I am trying to ‘dominate’ this forum, as you alleged, Marhalim as the blog owner should be the one to point this out. Contrary to what you may believe, the purpose of me being in this forum is to debate, learn and share opinions on what I do know.
Reply
Relax guys..
IMO the Army should lobby/choose any local company that offer 4×4 based on Toyota land cruiser/hilux on grounds of ease of availability of spare parts,accessories,numerous workshops available (even at small towns/logging camps the mechanics are familiar with that venerable Toyota). In time of conflict, civvies can help by providing parts from cannibalization of their vehicles…
Reply
They are not supposed to choose brands