SHAH ALAM: Tarantula HMAV 4X4. Mildef Technologies Sdn Bhd High Mobility Armoured Vehicle (HMAV) 4X4 has been officially named as the Tarantula. Defence Minister DS Ismail Sabri performed the naming ceremony today.
From the Malaysian Armed Forces headquarters.
Ismail Sabri putting the name of Tarantula on the HMAV. MAF picture
𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗨𝗟𝗔’ 𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗔 𝗞𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗔𝗡 𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗔𝗜 𝗠𝗢𝗕𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜 𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗚𝗜 (𝗛𝗠𝗔𝗩) 𝗕𝗨𝗔𝗧𝗔𝗡 𝗧𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗔𝗧𝗔𝗡 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗧𝗔𝗠𝗔
SUNGAI BESI, 2 APR 21 – Panglima Angkatan Tentera, Jeneral Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Hj. Affendi bin Buang TUDM pada hari ini telah menghadiri Majlis Penamaan Kereta Berperisai Mobiliti Tinggi (HMAV) 4×4 buatan tempatan pertama ‘TARANTULA’ yang telah disempurnakan oleh Menteri Kanan Pertahanan, Dato’ Sri Ismail Sabri bin Yaakob bertempat di Wisma Perwira Tentera Darat, Kem Sungai Besi, Kuala Lumpur.
TARANTULA adalah Kenderaan Berperisai Mobiliti Tinggi/High Mobility Armoured Vehicle (HMAV) buatan Syarikat MILDEF International Technologies merupakan kereta berperisai pertama yang direka dan dibuat sepenuh di Malaysia. Nama TARANTULA tersebut turut diambil daripada kumpulan labah-labah bertaring yang besar dan berbulu serta mampu untuk membunuh haiwan lain yang lebih besar daripadanya bagi menggambarkan keupayaan dan kelebihan kenderaan berkenaan.
Kenderaan ini turut berjaya melepasi sesi Ujian Penilaian Pertama yang dilaksanakan oleh Tim Uji Nilai Tentera Darat Malaysia (TDM) dan Institut Penyelidikan Sains dan Teknologi Pertahanan (STRIDE), Kementerian Pertahanan merangkumi pelbagai penilaian seperti ketahanan di lebuh raya, penggunaan minyak, ujian muatan, kecekapan penggunaan takal, pemasangan dan pembukaan, ujian mendaki serta cerun, penggunaan brek termasuk ujian fording.
Ujian-ujian berkenaan telah berlangsung selama 9 hari merangkumi perjalanan sejauh 700 km di atas jalan raya dan 300 km secara off-road dalam pelbagai keadaan serta bentuk muka bumi diikuti ujian berhalangan yang lain mengikut piawaian TDM setanding di peringkat antarabangsa.
Dengan keupayaan lasak untuk bergerak pantas di atas pelbagai bentuk muka bumi dengan mencapai kelajuan sehingga 110 km/j ianya juga terbukti mampu melaksanakan pelbagai misi penting ketenteraan serta memberi perlindungan kepada pengendali serta kru kenderaan tersebut.
Menteri Kanan Pertahanan dalam ucapannya berharap agar kejayaan penghasilan kereta perisai ini dijadikan inspirasi kepada syarikat tempatan lain untuk terus berinovasi dan menghasilkan lebih banyak produk berteknologi tinggi seterusnya mampu menyumbang kepada perkembangan ekonomi negara selaras dengan Dasar Industri Pertahanan dan Keselamatan Negara yang dilancarkan oleh Kementerian Pertahanan dalam usaha menjadikan Malaysia sebagai salah satu negara pengeluar aset ketenteraan.
For more on the HMAV go here and here. It remained unclear however whether the Tarantula will be selected for the Army or other users despite the naming ceremony. The Defence Ministry has previously indicated that the next armoured vehicle – the replacement for the Condors – will be a 6X6 vehicle.
Personally I think it should be called the Acromantula instead.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
If it is not to replace the Condors, lets hope that it will be selected as a supplement to the Condors replacement, or replacement to the GWagons and the likes.
The posibility there will either be a stretch version or 6×6 version….
@RedSot
Stretched version might be doable but there will be issues with the long rear overhang plus the bodyshell integrity might be affected. 6×6 version will depend if the vehicle OEM has that option.
hopefully we wo’t take another 10 years to decide and to prepare budget for the Condor replacement.
In my opinion, once Tarantula is is proven and MINDEF is happy with it’s performance.
the Gov should just some up with a budget and place an order in small quantity ( may be 40 vehicles), like how we did for Lipanbara.
This is to kick start the production cycle. It will also be a good motivation with other local companies who are aspiring to produce local military products.
Reply
No lah, if only 40 only there is no need to build them locally
The replacement for the Condor is going to be 6×6 IFV and APC, so this is not enough. Anyhow, this HMAV appears massive (or the people is the photo are vert short) compared to the AV4.
Tom Tom,
One simply can’t have a IFV or MRAP with a low profile and small of certain mobility, fire power and protection levels are desired.
justo,
We need a sound policy; not one in which the needs of the local defence industry take precedence over the end user and the tax payer. In other words we should only buy something if it actually suits requirements; not because it’s “local” and not to merely to support a local company.
There are so many local companies offering so called ‘local’ products; each wanting a piece of the pie. We simply can continue buying a bit of everything from everyone. There must be continuity/economics of scale.
P.S.
We simply “can’t” continue buying a bit of everything from everyone
Any reason why the Minister of Defence and Mindef is promoting a vehicle they didn’t request, didn’t order, and not targeted for any existing tenders or requirements (since Condor replacement is a 6×6 not 4×4)?
What’s the point of developing local industry if the govt buys foreign? Or promote a product only to buy from a competitor?
Seems to be nothing but vaporware.
Or is this a way for money to be spent on useless gear that the army doesn’t need (like the MD530G)?
To what extent is the Tarantula locally manufactured? Are the armour plates produced locally? What about the armour windscreen?
Reply
Most likely the armoured components are imported as no one make them locally
@justo
These are prototype testing units, not even preproduction ready and far from any definition of being “proven”.
And for a handful of units, better don’t or per unit price will shoot up with the cost of setting up new assembly plant and whatnot. If we got that much money to spend, we could just get more AV4s.
Kel – “What’s the point of developing local industry if the govt buys foreign”
What’s the point of buying local if it’s cheaper to buy from abroad?
What’s the point of buying something supposedly ‘local’ if the technology and components are sourced from abroad?
What’s the point of appointing a local company and paying it to be the agent to merely coordinate the deal and assemble the product? What tangible benefits are gained?
Marhalim, “…if only 40 only there is no need to build them locally”. Build in Thailand?
Reply
If its cheaper in Thailand why not. Again if we are buying only 40, it will be cheaper to buy them off the shelf from an active manufacturing plant. Like anything military armoured vehicles need to be build in large numbers so all the kinks and problems can be sorted out
Ed – “only 40 only there is no need to build them locally”
The company hopes that after selling an initial batch; it will sell
some more. Same reasoning behind DEFTECH assembling Supacat and being the agent for
“Lipanbara’ a Thai (not local) vehicle. Same reason why a local outfit was appointed to assemble and deliver the Light Guns to the army and why cash was squandered appointing a local company to handle the Little Birds.
All done under the deep rooted and politically expedient illusion that it actually improves the local industry and in turn benefits the country ….. In reality it’s a waste of resources and indicative of our deeply flawed and self defeating policy.
What with all the negative vibe here..sure this mrap probably not 100 percent malaysian but at the very least give some support to them lah..Indonesian already slating this HMAV as hizir rebadge..like i said at the very least select them as condor replacement for malbatt unifil..as un will pay for them..
Reply
The tender documents for the UN 4X4 clearly stated that only in service vehicles would be considered
Firdaus – “the very least give some support to them”
If you’ve been following the discussions here and previously about the local industry and our defence policy; you’d realise the magnitude of the problem we’re facing.
It’s not about ‘supporting” anyone but ensuring our resources are used optimally; ensuring the services and tax payer get their money’s worth.
If indeed this MRAP meets the army’s requirements then we should get it but in numbers and we should not buy another design in a few years time just because it’s offered by another local company.
I see but still they are one of the contenders right? i remembered one of your previous posting titled unifil contender or something like that
Reply
They are one of the contenders by virtue of entering the tender although from the word go it could be disqualified from the start as did not meet the requirements
Firdaus – “What with all the negative vibe here”
It would call it pertinent facts and concerns rather than ‘negative vibes’ ….
Firdaus – “..sure this mrap probably not 100 percent”
Even if it’s just 25 percent Malaysian that’s fine as long as the army has an actual requirement for it. What we should not be doing is engaging in yet another exercise of buying a bit of everything (look at how we handled the ‘weapons carriers requirement – from G-Wagons to VAMTACs to Westsars); in this case mainly to support a local company under the pretext it actually benefits the country.
Given that we already operate the Lipanbara; shouldn’t we buy more? Or is this ‘local’ vehicle vastly superior to Lipanbara? If so, fine.