SHAH ALAM: The more the merrier part. In an earlier post with a similar title, Malaysian Defence reported that the Nurol Makina Ejder Yalcin will only be delivered there only in three or four years time.
This was based on reports quoting the-then Joint Force Command commander Lieutenant General Yazid Arshad on December 5. As I was not able to make it to the ceremony at Port Dickson, I had to rely on the MSM for the report. I also sent out feelers to industry sources regarding the statement, below.
“In the future, we plan to procure 20 armoured vehicles to replace the Condor vehicles we have now in phases between 2026 and 2028,” he told reporters after the medal presentation and dissolution of Malbatt 850-9 ceremony here today.
The sources told me that the delivery schedule for the Ejder Yalcin is next year (in the third or fourth quarter) as I had reported earlier. So, what about those vehicles to be sent to Malbatt in Unifil in 2025-time frame then? I was told that it was other vehicles though the sources declined to identify their types. I am assuming that this might include ten one-tonner Fitted For Radio vehicles equipped with counter, remote-controlled-IED jammers.
A contract for the ten vehicle-mounted jammers was awarded to Harapan Erat Sdn Bhd with the LOA of RM5.4 million. The tender for these jammers were issued in January, this year. It is likely the jammers will be mounted in the Cendana Auto FFR vehicles (the current FFR vehicles of the Army) based on the specifications of the tender. Even though the Eperolehan website did not posted the date of the contract award, it is likely the jammers will be ready around 2024, hence delivery will take place in 2025.
Anyhow, I was told that the twenty Ejder Yalcin (now renamed as Panthera 4X4 following the visit of Army Chief Gen Zamrose Mohd Zain to the Nurol Makina factory in Turkey on December 14) will be the last ones ordered for the time being as the UN had deemed it unsuitable for its peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. It preferred smaller, less warlike vehicles like the IAG Guardians (which goes to the argument by the Defence Ministry by simply buying more of them in the first place as mentioned in the earlier article).
In fact, the Army is already gearing up to tender for 59 High Mobility Light Tactical Vehicles (HMLTV) for future peacekeeping missions. The vehicles were mentioned by General Yazid at his December 5 press conference.
Yazid said the Armed Forces also planned to procure 59 High Mobility Light Tactical Vehicles which would be used by the army to enhance its operational capabilities.
Despite this, I was told that the tender for HMLTV might not survive the first contact with the new management at Jalan Padang Tembak.
— Malaysian Defence
Didn’t the UN want vehicles with a RWS in the first place? That certainly makes a vehicle very ‘war-like’ irrespective what vehicle it might be. Sounds like the UN is as incompetent as the Malaysian government.
They still want the RWS, its safer for the peacekeepers who has no need to poke out their heads out of the vehicles. The current situation in Lebanon is relatively benign but there are many actors around there who could change the situation quickly
No other peacekeeping nation in UNIFIL uses RWS armed armored vehicles for patrol.
“It preferred smaller, less warlike vehicles like the IAG Guardians”
So the Ejder Yalcin with its tender purposely requests for weapon RCS is not suitable for UN! Oh the irony!
Clearly there, gone the argument that UN wants RCS in the 1st place. It is just a personal opinion of AGM so we can get more money from UN. Why it cannot be clearly answered by the Malaysian Army is the mystery.
yes, everyone there uses a manual mount but they are not buying new vehicles.
The RWS requirements remain for NEW vehicles
“UN had deemed it unsuitable for its peacekeeping mission”
What?! Again?! Does it mean the UN won’t be fully reimbursing us for the buys or something again? Hadn’t we learn our lesson? The tender would have cleared such issues unless the tenderer didn’t know what the requester(this case the UN) really wants. Now it really comes back to my previous point that we should at least get the selection vetted by UN before signing the deal. It only shows our incompetence if we can get this wrong again and again which can lead to us losing our standings during selection for future peacekeeping missions.
IMHO since the deal is still fresh, better if we can try nego the Turks to forget it and to perhaps get more UAS or something to compensate or else we can absorb the EJ for our local Condor replacement program, then to retender the APC requirement – this time with UN advice/suggestion.
“HMLTV might not survive the first contact”
Very few items survived the PH chopping block upon first contact last time. I wouldn’t be surprised its the same this time around.
@kakadu
It is possible their designated sector were not high enough risk to require RWS unlike us.
“Less warlike”
The question is why,
Is it because Israel want it so?
I got a brilliant idea if our purchase keep deemed unsuitable for UN mission..How about we dont buy anything..Save money,save time and just buy general purpose vehicles like ffr,lorry, forklift and backhoe..Leave the patrolling duty to other guys.Pretty sure the indonesians used Anoa for their peacekeeping mission..a full fledge 6×6 APC..
No, the Israel don’t have a vote here. Its mostly the local population
No, our mandate there is for our units to patrol our sector
Panthera 4×4
A very good ‘peculiar to Malaysia’ formality.
Later down the road they will call it Harimau Kumbang…
The HMTV is what MILDEF called their rentaka right?
Personally I really hope that it won’t survive the first contact as we have gone around buying prototype for so long now.
Zaft – we have gone around buying prototype for so long now”
What “prototypes” have we bought? A “prototype” is something which has yet to fully complete development; not something yet to be widely sold.
Gempita, MKM and LCS comes to mind
Marhalim,
They were all variants based on stuff already produced and operated. A prototype is something which hasn’t fully completed development or trials.
Not the Gempita, no one had operated it before or produced. The LCS when the contract was signed was still a paper ship. MKM with its hybrid of Russian and European stuff, was a prototype though I must admit it was the decision of RMAF.
When the LCS was signed for there was already a Gowind design which had been produced; albeit in the form of a single OPV operated by the French and was available for sale in various variants. The Pars had already completed development and was waiting orders when we ordered it. A example of a user going for a prototype was the RAAF which ordered the F-111 before it had completed development; let alone flew.
“Less warlike”
A Hailak 4×4, Machine gun mounted at the back is the answer. if no use of machine gun. cover with blanket. haha
The QE class carriers would probably rank as the biggest prototype that any Govt has bought…
That’s a real procurement contract which calls for a development of a capability which calls for a prototype to be developed. Ours were supposed to be direct purchase of MOTS equipment which turned into development project
Can’t really blame the AV8 when you see how many varieties of configuration for AV8 that wasn’t available on PARS including a special NBC version which had to be built by FNSS.
“The QE class carriers would probably rank as the biggest prototype that any Govt”
When they were handed over to the RN and commissioned they had been completely developed/tested thus they do not fully under the “prototype” category irrespective of the fact that they were specifically designed for the RN or had yet to be sold to anyone else. A “prototype” would be something which had yet to complete development/testing and was still undergoing trials to determine various things.
An example of a “prototype” would be the first production Ratels [owned by the OEM and not the SA] which were deployed to Angola for field/suitability tests before they had even been ordered or entered production or of upgraded Olifants which underwent field trials with the SA which had yet to be officially handed over [the South African who designed the AV4 for Deftech was involved in this].
” a special NBC version which had to be built by FNSS”
FNSS constructed the hull and major components but the actual fitting our of the whole set up to enable NBC detection was done by a Brit company. Same with the AT variant: Denel integrated the turret, launchers and other things to the FNSS produced
AV-8.
“less warlike”
Maybe an armored Toyota Coaster Bus is the answer?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGC01q0XkAA64W8.jpg
Or a Toyota Hiace?
http://www.gtiarmoredcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TOYOTA-HIACE-SUPERGRANDIA2021-01.png