[singlepic id=27 w=320 h=240 float=left]KUALA LUMPUR: Since we are already talking about APCs, let me share something which I found out recently. Its a rather unique Malaysian phenomenon that things that failed to make the grade years ago somehow managed to return to our procurement pipeline.
Twenty-years ago, the M16A2 was beaten to the punch by the Steyr AUGA1 but fast forward to 2009, the Black Rifle is back in the hands of the Malaysian Army.
About 30 years or so, the French VAB (Véhicule de l’Avant Blindé “Armoured Vanguard Vehicle” in French) was passed over in favour of the German’s Condor when the Army chose a new APC to replace the Commandos. Fast forward to 2009, its the VAB that is replacing the Condors!
Well, not all of the Condors. The Army is expected to get a dozen or so VABs, in the 6X6 version, within the next few months to replace the Condors assigned to the Malaysian battalion in Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL contingent. I am told the Condors deployed to Lebanon are almost at their breaking point and need to be replaced ASAP.
As part of the Urgent Operation Requirement, the VABs is expected to be deployed to Lebanon directly from France. These VABs are not new, they are re-manufactured stocks most probably from the French army. But with our luck they will cost as expensive as brand new ones especially when kitted out with government-furnished equipment such as radios and guns!
Selamat Hari Raya, Maaf Zahir Batin
–Malaysian Defence
View Comments (26)
As the VAB is as lightly amoured as the Condor, it would be nice if some bar armour was added, plus an OWS. I think the TNi-AD also bought VABs for their UNIFIL contingent. As for the phenomenon, in 1988 Rapiers were part of the UK arms MOU, years later Malaysia became the launch customer for Jernas.
Marhalim: The Jernas does not count as we did not purchase another system and later return to purchase the system that was rejected earlier...
What is the difference between getting a dozen refurbished VAB's and sending another dozen freshly overhauled or refurbished Condors from our current stocks and bringing back our worn out one's?
No military equipment can last forever on duty without a major overhaul. Even the Abrams serving in Iraq is brought back to the US to be totally rebuilt periodically.
Marhalim: I am told that the refurbished VABs are ready for immediate delivery while it may take us a few months to overhaul/refurbished the Condors locally. Apparently its not worth the money to ship back the worn out Condors home.
sounds familiar like the KIFV for Bosnia Peace Keeping mission. In the end, the army ends up buying the so called "Malaysianized MIFV" APC without the thorough evaluation of the APC.
Interim solution,yes, VAB's would do the job. For the long run, please choose a better candidatelah. Another logistics nigtmare for the army, but another 'lubuk emas' for the so called entrepreneur.
What happened to the intensive evaluation for the Malaysian Army future APC replacement, 1 or 2 years back. No suitable candidate? VAB's was not on the list if i'm not mistaken.
Marhalim: Yes the VAB is not on the list for the 8x8 APC replacement programme but if they had continued with the procurement our boys in Lebanon will be using them already but they digress so they had to embark on this emergency. Mind you they are many other contingents using them in Lebanon, so they will not have much problem in keeping them in good condition although the claim cannot be made for our government furnished equipment like radios and other things....
So from what I know, the army is considering 8x8 APC to replace the aging condor fleets and from what i know also VAB is the army favorites contender to replace the condor. So I just eager to know what the armed forces planned on the mid-range SAMs and how the 2nd batch of the lekiu-class frigate future whether is it will be continue or discontinue. The 2nd batch of the NGPV is surely to be included in the 10th MP as they need ASW capability to support the scorpene operation.
Marhalim: The favourite candidate for the APC replacement programme (Sibmas, Condor, Ferrets and Commandos) remained the Piranha 8X8. Personally I would prefer the RG33L or the new RG35 as troop carriers, for fire support, the Stryker MGS.
Indonesian contingent uses their locally manufactured VAB called PINDAD Panser. There are news in indonesia that malaysia and nepal has looked at the Panser. So the UOB VAB's is from Indonesia or France?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Pindad_Panser_flyer.jpg
Marhalim: My sources said the VAB meant for our the Malaysian contingent will come directly from France. The Panser may or may not come later but its still too early too say whether it will happen based on current developments...Indonesian VABs used in Lebanon were also purchased directly from France. Its cheaper to ship them out from France then all the way from Java. Oh, before I forget, the VAB deal is not cast in stone yet, one German candidate is still on the table, the Fox.
Part of the reason Daweoo was awarded the KIFV contract was because it responded faster than its competitors. It shipped the KIFVs, which were meant for the S.Korean army, from Pusan to Split. Other companies including GKN with its Warrior, were approached but didn't respond in time.
Why not buy some refurbished Ratel from SA? They are the same as Sibman they used to had.
Marhalim: The rationale behind the VAB procurement is the fact many UN contingents in Lebanon including the host country are using the same vehicle. It will reduce our logistics trail for service and training. Moreover once we bug out from Lebanon we could simply donate the VABs to the Lebanese army who will accept them with open arms....
Malaysia is a wealthy nation. We buy armored vehicles (and fighters) for only short term use.
Can't we just pull out of Lebanon? Then we don't have to spend money on the VAB.... The region is more stable now.
Marhalim: I have been advocating that position for sometime now but the UNIFIL deployment is quite prestigious. I believe we can charge the UN for buying anything for such operations although we may end up paying it first.
From what I remember, Malaysia had to wait quite a while to get reimbursed by the UN for the Bosnian deployment. The UNIFIL deployment was for political and prestige reasons- it makes Malaysia look good in the eyes of the Arab world.For other countries like Bangladesh and Nepal, UN deployments are made mostly for finacial benefits. Even if we weren't in UNFIL, the fact still remains that many Condors are falling apart due to heavy usage, both at home and over the years at Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia, East Timor, Namibia and now Lebanon.
Anyway, with Marhalims persmission I've posted excerpts of June 2009 PDF article by Journal of Politics and Law on ' The Impact of Singapore’s Military Development on Malaysia’s Security', that was posted in another forum. It makes very intersting reading.
Malaysia’s Security Impact Analysis
4.1 Security threat
Singapore’s military development and defense system in its early stage was initially defensive in nature, since 1971 Singapore has practiced the poison shrimp doctrine. This doctrine perceived as defense doctrine extracted from the Israel'sdoctrine of defense which affirms that Singapore warns any aggressor not to attack them. This doctrine takes into account the regional geo-political condition similar to Israel’s position which is surrounded by Arab countries. This doctrine is only a warning towards aggressors, however if attacks or threats are thrown at Singapore then the aggressor are forced to face Singapore reaction. The emergence of offensive doctrines known as preemptive strike doctrine is Singapore's preparation to attack the enemy if the enemy is believed (base on accurate intelligence information) to try and threaten its security. Singapore will not attack any country Malaysia in particular, as long as Malaysia does not threaten the security of Singapore. This doctrine is categorized as a need to warn the enemy not to invade or attack Singapore. Hence, to complement the doctrine of preemptive strike, Singapore has implemented another defense doctrine called forward defense whereby the military development and defense must always be advance. This doctrine affects planning and war strategy, hence, Singapore would always need to stay ahead in the development of military in terms of physical and non physical features...
...
In fact Singapore's readiness in sharing intelligence information since 2001 is an
act of willingness to foster good relationship both military powers. Basically Singapore’s military development does not give any threat to Malaysia’s safety. This is because, since Singapore separation from Malaysia in 1965, there has been no security threat on Malaysia. From Malaysia’s military perspective, Singapore is a country that is not classified as a major threat. On the other hand, Indonesia and Thailand are believed to be major threats on Malaysia’s security compared to Singapore. This is because according to Ahmad Ghazali Abu Hassan (2007):-
“If we assess which country has the ability to threaten Malaysia, it is not Singapore but Indonesia. This is because historically Malaysia has faced armed confrontations with Indonesia during the era of Sukarno. We should be reminded about the vision of a Greater Indonesia that was introduced by Sukarno, symbolizing that Indonesia has had the objective and agenda to conquer Malaysia” .
The perception of this country regarding a threat is based on the history of Malaysia’s confrontations with Indonesia that took place in 1963 (Patmanathan, 1980:23). The military was sent to confront Indonesian military attack that landed in Johor and was facilitated by Singapore to stop intelligence information to Indonesia in Malaysia (Aelina Surya, 1992:18). In fact, according to Ahmad Ghazali Abu Hassan (2007) this confrontation between Malaysia-Indonesia claimed a number of Malaysian troops in Borneo during the effort to protect national security. It is believed to be the sign and measurement of Malaysian military of Indonesia’s ability to use its military force upon Malaysia (Tempur, April 2003:24). Ariffin Omar (2007) explained that:-
“Although Singapore is strong in term of economy, political and military power, it is not a country that can easily set out a war because Singapore realizes that it is still lacking in terms of nationalism or patriotic spirit. The countries that can afford to threaten the security of Malaysia are Indonesia and Thailand.”
Ahmad Ghazali Abu Hassan (2007) perceives Indonesia and Thailand as nations that are able to threaten Malaysia’s security. This is because Indonesia and Thailand are regarded as unstable states base on the instability of internal politics. Internal problems such as poverty, internal rebellion, ethnic conflict, weak government and terrorist issues make Malaysia prone to security threat through the spread of these internal problems to Malaysia (Jasbir Singh, 2003:66-68). Indonesia’s and Thailand’s weakness and failure to prevent internal problems would provide a direct impact on Malaysia such as the excessive immigration into Malaysia, making Malaysia a hide-out and the spread of terrorist activity are all other factors that formulate the threats from Indonesia and Thailand (Allan Gyngell,1983:116). The close ties between Malaysia and Singapore either from bilateral aspect or through international organizations, has been the pioneering of confidence and belief between both countries...
Marhalim: Academics like to make assumptions based on other people conclusions especially popular ones. Personally, I believed that if its profitable and advantageous to them, they will go down the route especially when they already have the means.