SHAH ALAM: NOT much information have been revealed following a report by Defense News, Wednesday, that a Malaysian company, Etika Strategi, signed a joint venture with Turkish’s BMC and German’s Rheinmetall AG “to expand into internal and external markets” of armor vehicles manufacturing and marketing.
The report says that BMC is bidding to build the Turkish indigenous MBT, the Altay. And it is likely that the JV company will concentrate on exporting the MBTs after BMC secured the rights to build them.
The report stated that the companies in the JV are “armor industry manufacturers” which is spot on for BMC and Rheinmetall but not an accurate description of Etika Strategi.
According to its profile listed by Bloomberg, ” Etika Strategi Sdn. Bhd. is a holding company, which through its subsidiaries, operates automotive, banking and postal services, property, and asset and construction businesses in Malaysia. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in Malaysia.
In a more simpler terms, Etika Strategi controls DRB-Hicom Bhd, which in turn has a subsidiary, DRB-Hicom Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd, or Deftech which manufacture and also maintained armoured vehicles, trucks and other items for the military and other government agencies. It also supplies specialized vehicles and commercial buses.
So technically, Etika Strategi is not an armor industry manufacturer though it controls one.
Etika Strategy is controlled/owned by Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, who is listed as the eight richest Malaysian by Forbes magazine.
So far there is no official word on what will the Turkish-JV entail for Malaysia. But I am told that currently DRB-Hicom or Deftech will not be directly involved in the deal. Perhaps Syed Mokhtar will set up another company to promote or manufacture the products.
Whether or not it will involved selling MBTs to Malaysia and the setting up of an armor manufacturing plant in Malaysia is beyond me at the moment.
However it is likely that the signing ceremony for the JV was the reason Defense Minister DS Hishammuddin Hussein was supposed to go to Turkey in the third week of July. It was cancelled following the failed military coup on July 15.
The Defense News story. HT to LoongJohn.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (59)
Well, truth is the BMC are fighting againts Otokar for Altay Tank within help of foreign. However, joint-venture with Rheinmetall AG and Etika Strategi was intend for international export. Not the local(for Turkey). Turkish Goverment want local indigenious tank without international help or their component. Full locally MBT which Otokar, Aselsan, Mkek(License german Cannon but local component), and Tumosan has been example because they build tank by their own component. It was last year Erdogan announced that he want greatly reduce foreign import component and material reliance by 2025 or 2030(chance to be reduce is 90%). Anyway, about the tank. For Malaysian Armed Force, they need put autoloader on it.
Will the Altay suit Malaysia, considering its weight of 65t? I thought Malaysia conditions suited only a sub 50t vehicle.
Reply
I don't know the basic requirements for the next MBT. Perhaps the people at Etika knows so that's why they went with Altay
Well we still didn't know what kind of mbt BMC is bidding for the competition. It might be different from the altay of otokar. Maybe with smaller dimensions and weight. Although it will take some time until a prototype is available maybe. Just my sekupang.
Reply
Its the Altay they are bidding to build, whether or not they are trying to sell for export is unknown
Assuming this news is legit, that means we would be operating the PT-91 in parallel with the Altays? I fail to see the logic of operating 2 vehicle platforms with overlapping roles. It will just cause maintenance to be expensive. Because I don't think we would be retiring the PT-91 soon since we have just received them in the early 2010s.
Things will get worse when the polish stops developing the platform because they themselves are currently looking to replace their PT-91s. So in other words, the PT-91 has reached its growth limit. What was the MOD's long term vision on the tank?
Regarding the Altay, does anyone know if it shares the same platform with other vehicles like the IFV, Tulpar? Maybe it's worth looking into this aspect (commonality) as well since we would eventually need to replace the Adnans. And it will be a lot cheaper to maintain our tracked vehicles if they share a common platform.
Reply
It's legit alright but whether or not it will lead to Malaysia buying Altays is another issue altogether. I doubt they will have an export version before 2020. So even if we buy these MBTs it is likely to arrive here by 2025 which by that time the Pendekar would need replacement anyway.
Talon,
Why does an auto-loader have to included to meet a Malaysian army requirement? Is this just a hunch on your part or do you know for sure that the Armour Directorate has specified a need for an auto loader for future tanks?
Tom Tom,
Actually, it's the ground pressure and not the total weight which is the main concern. Also, with proper engineering support, there are very few places a 60/65 tonne tank powered by a 1,500HP engine can't go.
Q,
No things will not get worse as various parts of the PT-91 are common to various T-72 variants; parts of which are easily available from a variety of sources. As for the non Polish parts [gearbox, AC, etc] these are still available from their respective OEMs. As such when the day comes that Bumar Laberdy stops supporting the PT-91, it won't be disastrous for us.
I don't think we should put to much in the news regarding the Rheinmetall AG, BMC and Etika Strategi partnership as it's just a private venture. We have had lots of ventures between local companies and foreign ones which eventually lead to nothing.
Azlan,
Because having an 4 crew in tank(Commander, Gunner, Driver, and Loader) are expensive to operate. Who's gonna cover their insurance? You? That's why they need Auto-loader for low operating cost. Which has 3 crew in future tank. Best recommend they using Turret Bustle Auto-loader rather than Carousel type for safety. You already know why the US Military Budget always cut. That's why they need Revolver type Auto-loader for Abram new variant: M1A3. They gonna start trial it by 2021. Think: Efficient.
Autoloaders may or may not offer a significantly higher rate of fire than a well trained human loader. But this extra rate will rarely be decisive in combat. Tactics, training and maintenance come first.
Equipment wise, pay attention first to areas like protection, sensor quality and hunter killer capability.
When you talk about manpower cost savings, maybe an autoloader would make sense in a western army that pays a lot more than we do.
We currently have a fleet of just 48 tanks. If you are looking for manpower savings, I suggest you start with plenty of other areas in the army.
Furthermore a fourth crewman can help with many tasks that actually help the crew in combat, such as various manual tasks and rotating watch while others rest. The more rested the crew is, the more effective and survivable.
The other occasion when autoloaders become a necessity is when you introduce unmanned turrets similar to the Armata. While we still have men in the turrets, it makes little difference whether a fourth man is present or not. As I mentioned before, the extra rate of fire is modest, and is almost never a decisive factor in combat.
It would be wrong to make it a dominant factor in selecting our next tank.
Thank you for the enlightment. Haha thought that they gonna design a new one. Anyway just curious, do the army has any plan for like a direct fire support vehicle? Like a gempita with a 105/120 mm cannon?
Talon - ''Who’s gonna cover their insurance? You?''
Cut the sarcasm.
There are pros and cons in going for an auto-loader. The pro in having a loader is having an extra man to assist with maintenance/recovery work. An auto-loader also takes up space. A bustle one is better - in terms of protection - but it has its drawbacks. BTW, the traditional reasons the Soviets went for an carousel auto-loader had nothing to do with cost or ''insurance''.
Talon - ''Think: Efficient.''
You should do the ''thinking''. If indeed an auto-loader goes into a future U.S. tank; fine, but this doesn't mean we should automatically follow suit. It depends on requirements and what the Armour Directorate specifies for our future tank requirements. There are also compelling reasons why other armies have not chosen auto-loaders for their current designs and are not contemplating them for future ones.