Small to large caliber round? yes, SME ordnance is an example


Missile and rocket with propellant? Still in research phase by STRIDE colab with USM

Yes...Anoa is more like a cold-war APC platform, comparable to M113 and BTR-60. While AV8, is from a new generation of APC, placed in the same category with Stryker and Terrex.

But these new vehicles still carry the same APC genetics; simply different species from the "APC genus". Expensive APCs are ideal only for countries with huge military budget.

The job remains the same, transport troops safely and protect them from small arms fire and mortar shrapnel; also providing basic fire support. These functions can be achieved by older platforms that cost less than $1 million. Larger proportion of APCs are usually destroyed in conflicts, they should be "disposable" and cheap.



Indonesia will convert an infantry brigade (3 battalions) into mechanized units in East Java alone with Anoa. This can be achieved relatively quickly, because Anoa is cheap and simple. But still provides basic capabilities for mechanized units.


http://www.antarajatim.com/lihat/berita/13...ekanik-di-jatim

This post has been edited by Frozen_Sun: May 31 2014, 10:40 AM

The question is does Boustead really need an upgrade?

Remember PT.PAL also is in a Tot Scheme with Damen for building the Sigma PKR 10514 with a 2 ships programme. PT.PAL didn't need any upgrades to it's shipyard. The only thing that PT.PAL need is to build the submarine facility & machines for the korean sub.

This post has been edited by azriel: May 31 2014, 10:47 AM

Four modules are built by PT PAL....2 have been confirmed. Rumors say that up to 6 units will be built.

The FNSS Pars 8x8 platform being used by Oakland County Sheriff, Michigan

-deleted-

This post has been edited by Piros: May 31 2014, 10:57 AM

well depend on doctrine for apc.
Some treat it as low cost disposable battle taxi but it only apply on those whose have large quantities of infantry.
some prefer high qualities of apc and ifv to provide valuable fire support, intel, scouts, anti tank, anti air and protection for its infantry.
lots of country going toward quality values

Iinm, dcns require boustead to upgrade the shipyard.
1 thing for sure boustead need to upgrade their ship lift to support 3000+ tonnage ship.

err no!

+ the Germany kantoi to feed money to one group to sabo the french

Lel german ship too expensive to my liking.
usd 700mil per ship iirc.

This post has been edited by yinchet: May 31 2014, 11:13 AM

Deleted

This post has been edited by LTZ: May 31 2014, 11:57 AM

Of course PRC is better equipped.....

Are u sure hostage exchanged?? Where did u get this info??

like when Thailand siding with Jepang during WWII? look how much other nations respects them now for that

Perhaps, it is the matter where we should prioritize quality...on APC, artillery or tank?

One AV8 is equal in cost to two units of Leopard 2RI. The tank is one of the ground assets with high technological quality.





Again, I know we shouldn't compare MBT with APC. But, the money should be spent accordingly to get the biggest bang for the buck.
103 Leopard 2 and 50 marder IFV for less than $300 million. Also, to mechanize one infantry battalion, TNI only needs to spend $45 million with simpler APCs.

Instead of buying AV8, perhaps Malaysia could settle with building simpler APCs and use the spare cash to buy other quality stuff instead, like more artillery, ATGM and tank

Hmm, I'm going through puma ifv.
Wow they are adding quite lots of AMAP modules into it.

Y not tank, apc and arty all together.

I would prefer malaysia going for quality apc instead of cheap apc.
But it does not means I support the av8 project in fact I hate the way they are doing the the project.
they should have go for 2-3 main varaints first and build in numbers. The remaining varaints can develop in futures.
with these it can be cost effective.
perhaps we can even add in AMAP modules as well if we doing it right.

I dun really into above 50tons mbt. Type 10 mbt would be my pick.

Production cost is not the same as the whole development cost, pindad also had to make some domestics loans to startup the manufacturing of the anoas, and that would be considered development cost

The deal with AV8 is to build the local industry complete with infras and tech transfered from FNSS

The same as Pindad building the anoa's, they also needs funds to develop the infras and research facility rite?
Not like they know how to build APC from the scratch, as you said the anoa is from french VAB design

Development cost will always be expensive anyway.
We already spend more than usd1bil in development cost on av8.

AV8 is supposed to be backbone for the 'future' malaysian army.the condor is old as shit but still workable

why would the MA buy something that would be obsolete once its on the ground?the AV-8 is going to be the main vehicle for the next 30-40 years

the Anoa was developed out of desperation.they needed an APC that could be made quick and cheap,doesnt care if its shit

can something like the anoa provide a cheap solution to the condor?yes for the immediate future.is it any better than the condor?no

TNI wants to establish more motorized units,thus it can be understandable for them to use the Anoa.the MA is trying to move forward to a new phase of fighting capability,the cheap Anoa is not what they need

btw,as a vehicle commander the notion that IFVs are disposable is

This post has been edited by heavyduty: May 31 2014, 12:31 PM

We should have 2 versions: AV8 & AV6

And this one....iveco LMV which I like it better compare to humvee/vamtac....



Can be given to all infantry units...plus navy & airforce for base defence.



This post has been edited by LTZ: May 31 2014, 12:44 PM

Condor will be gg if foe have rpg or 50.
Anoa would not be differ either.
sending those vehicle to heavy fire battlefield would be sending them to die.
Yes av8 will be the back bone and build for future battlefield.
Yes ifv as disposable is facepalm