View Comments (5)

• Having been a regular visitor to malaysiandefence.com for almost a year, I would like to make some comments about some MAF purchases. Starting with our SU-30MKMs. Whilst extremely capable fighters, it appears that the MKMs have been delivered without a data link. Presently unknown is whether the RMAF in the near term, will attempt to develop a networl centric capability or improved the situational awareness of its fighter pilots. Even if export approval for Link 16 was granted, it is highly unlikely approval would be given to install Link 16 on the MKMs. Simililiarly, if the RMAF decided to standardise on the Russian data link, approval to install it on the Hornets 'D's would not granted. That just leaves the newly developed Thales data link and the Saab data link. If the RMAF does get its AEW fleet in 4-5 years, it would make sense to have a common data link that can be used by the Flankers, Fulcrums, Hornets and even the Hawks.

  The PT-91Ms... Whilst not disputing that the PT-91Ms are the most capable T-72 variants in service, I feel the army should seriously consider ugrading its armour protection. Unknown is if the army actually conducted any live firing to dertimine the effectiveness of the ERAWA ERA or even compare it performance to the Russian Kontakt-5. In Iraq, Bumar Labedy PT-72s were penetrated with ease by 25mm Sabots [similiar to the army's 25mm Nammo rounds used by the Adnans] in the rear and side turret areas. Yes, the PT-91M is protected by ERAWA but certain areas of the tank are still vurnerable to ATGMs. Unlike the Merkava 4, the hatches on the PT-91M are not several inches thick. Then again I'm not suggesting that the lighter PT-91M should have the same armour protection as the heavier Merkava and Leorpard 2A6. Remenber the Challenger 2 that was hit by 40 RPG-7s in Basra? Personally, I would have gone for the Leorpard 2, the payoff for the extra weight would be its much superior armour protection. As for the M4s, the army has stated it will improve the fighting ability of its troops. Exactly how? Unless the government is willing to spends thousand of ringgit per rifle for the proper accessories [highly unlikely], the M4 will offer no advantages over the AUG. Instead of buying M4s, the money should have been spent of equipping our AUGs with accesories.

• I believe the Sukhois are fitted with a data link its could be Russian, Swedish or French. The radar on board the Sukhois is supposed to work as a mini-AEW with its datalink, I am told. Whether this is workable now with the polyglot of Russian, Swedish and French electronics I have no idea. The problem with LINK 16 it is meant for US, Nato or Non-Nato allies only (as far as I was told) and it would certainly be a problem to integrate them on our Russian jets. Its the same old Malaysian malady of course, we asked for the highest specifications possible but in the end to save money, we bought under-specs systems.

  The Leopard 2 as capable as it is was simply too heavy for our bridges. In combat this would not be a problem of course, good tank commanders always find good tank country. But in peacetime, this is a bad idea of course. On board a low loader the tank would break almost half the bridges around the country so the German tank was not a really a good candidate. So why did the Singaporeans chose the Leopards? First it was cheap and easy to be upgraded and as I said before in combat they dont have to worry about bridges buckling under their weight. There is always time to fix them after combat. In peacetime Singapore, the bridges would be able to take the tank and its low loader!

  As for the war in Iraq, its not the fault of the tank if its destroyed through hits on the side and back of the turrets! It meant that the tank crew was either retreating or in the midst of running away. I believe even if the Iraqis were using Merkavas they would still be on the losing end (the battles) as they were not prepared to fight a good war (with an inept military leader and a decade long embargo how could they?) Anyhow, the Army obvioulsy did not want the Polish tank, it was a political decision.

  On the M4, I am now suspecting (without much proof I admit) that it was the revenge of the Army for all the forced purchases that they had. Obviously if it was the case, it is certainly a poor decision making but as I said before, National Interest comes first....

• All decisions are political.

  Improving AUG is out of the question due to the spectacular implosion of the Steyr Mannlincher Malaysia JV. Curiously it's the same faces bringing the M4! Plus ca change.

  Note the recent US Army dust trials of the M4 and some of its piston operated peers. The M4 came dead last with as more than 3x the stoppages of the next worst, the Hk416. No doubt the we'll be told that 'tiada pasir gurun di Malaysia' while conveniently forgetting that our fighting men have served in dusty environements like Namibia and Somalia.

  There's no way to equip our 30 battalions of infantry with the canggih gear. Until and unless the Army rationalizes itself into a more managezable size, they're never going to achieve the sort of force modernizations envisaged.

• It was elementary that the piston rifles would outperform the M4/M16. Direct gas operations of the weapons would simply not cope with that kind of problems. We should have bought the XM9 lock stock and barrel. All the development had been done and paid for, since the Uncle Sam did not want it, we could have gotten it cheap, dirt cheap.

• As for the canggih equipment and such, my proposal is turned our army into a US marine style brigade strength formation, ie two infantry battalion,with an air group and logistic group which also house the armour,artillery and mechanised units.