we keep paying for TOT/IP, but so far haven't see any result from it yet.  

PLA armored company on routine training exercise ambushed by two 'enemy' attack helicopters, resulting in 80% losses



During a recent routine training exercise with the Nanjing military district armored brigades, a few commanders decided to sneak in a surprise element to the exercise: An ambush by two attack helicopters armed with 'anti-tank weapons' on an armored company.

The armored company was reported to have reacted poorly to the surprise helicopter attacks, with conflicting and confusing orders given resulting in reported 80% loss for the armored company. Out of a typical PLA armored company of 14 tanks, this would amount to about 11 or 12 tanks lost to the attack helicopters. The outcome of the botched exercise was claimed to have caused an 'uproar' at Brigade command.

The U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office took note of the exercise in its monthly journal OE Watch. “It was … apparent that commanders were not staying abreast of recent changes in warfare,” the journal stated.

According to the journal, the 'enemy' ambush was sprung after "When they exploited the victory and staged attacks on “remnant enemies,” two “enemy” helicopter gunships suddenly appeared and fired a number of anti-tank missiles. Facing the abrupt counter-attacks from the opponent, the Fourth Company was knocked off stride and forced into a messy condition. Multiple tanks were hit, releasing red smoke. The battle damage rate of the tanks reached 80 percent."

Probably assumed the day was just like any other monthly training exercise. Show up, shoot some stuff and go back to barracks. Shows the suspect quality of the training in the PLA actually.

what you busy nowdays ?

wah can travel alot .... what industry you working  ... defense ah?

The news from Janes is quite a surprise since one of the priority in the Indonesian 2016 defense budget is to buy Improved Kilo submarines.

^^^
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/31303-031303/

Anyway looks like the Scorpene 1000 talks is a follow up from a partnership agreement between DCNS & PT PAL signed in November last year during Indo Defence 2014.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/n...fence-2014.html

Malaysia scores D on defence anti-corruption



KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 4): Malaysia scored an overall "D" in Transparency International (TI)'s latest survey of corruption in national defence industries, indicating a high risk of corruption within government defence.

Nevertheless, the score was slightly better than TI's 2013 survey where Malaysia scored a D-.

According to the watchdog's Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index, its second survey since 2013, Malaysia is grouped together with India, the Philippines, Indonesia and Bangladesh in the high risk band.

Transparency International Malaysia (TI-Malaysia) said Malaysia's performance was pulled back by its operations risk, which attained an "E".

Its political risk, financial risk and procurement risks were given a "D", while the country's personnel risk was rated a "C".

In a statement today, TI-Malaysia president Datuk Akhbar Satar said it views the newly-released results with concern, adding that what the country needs now is action to implement concrete steps guided by its recommendations to "protect its defence spending from those who would abuse it for their own personal gain".

"With formal regulations governing the actions of military personnel and independent investigative organisations like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Malaysia is in a good place to build its anti-corruption framework.

"However, significant vulnerabilities to corruption persist as a result of a weak legislative scrutiny, opaque budgets, weak whistle-blower protections, and insufficient anti-corruption training in institutions," he said.

The Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index 2015 measures the levels of corruption risk in national defence establishments, and scores in bands from A (the best) to F (the worst).

These bands are based on scores on an assessment consisting of 77 questions — for each question, the government was scored from 0 to 4.

The percentage of marks overall determined which band the government was placed in and were scored in five risk areas namely political risk, financial risk, personnel risk, operations risk, and procurement risk.

According to the 2015 survey results New Zealand was the only country placed in the "A" risk band, while Singapore, Australia, Taiwan and Japan are grouped in the "B" risk band.

Meanwhile, to address issues relating to political corruption risk, TI-Malaysia is recommending that the government establish a parliamentary committee task specifically with duties to oversight all aspects on the state defence and security sector.

"This committee should have the power to access a fully detailed defence budget and internal audit reports; be able to call expert witnesses and scrutinise defence agencies and institutions; meet regularly and publish reports on its activity," it said.

It also called on the government to publish an annual defence budget that includes detailed information on expenditure such as research and design, training and other events, and appropriately lengthens the time that budget items can be discussed by the Parliament.

TI-Malaysia also said the defence minister has to address the weaknesses of the Eastern Sabah Security Command (Esscom) roles and functions to strengthen maritime security in the eastern part of Sabah covering four perspectives namely software, hardware, human resources, and intelligence.

It also urged that the ministry of defence's standard operating procedure for equipment procurement be based on open tenders.

"It is only appropriate to procure and place several radars in various islands in Esscom areas instead of installing one big radar at one area, which is very costly and ineffective to monitor the vast areas to be combed," the watchdog added.


http://www.theedgemarkets.com/my/article/m...anti-corruption

but isnt mindef under politicians in the first place? msia dont have an agency in charge of military procurement under civil servants? like sg's DSTA? isnt there a standardize framework for procurement?

It like waiting for pig for fly with current financial situation.

Impossible to get  not to mention  sgpv batch 3 which is also said to be in plan

It cheaper it seem.

Funny that even the sgpv does not have a uav system

Actually now is the right time. Due to the O&G slowdown a lot of support vessels and container ships are sitting idle. Picking up a couple and converting it for military use would be excellent. Ideally a RollOnRollOff that can ferry Twardy and ACVs to ESSCOM but even a small support ship converted from a container ship can give RMN some flexibility.

Transporting amphibious force isn't the same as transporting container.

Flares only work against IR-guided missiles, which are usually used by MANPADS or short-range AA missiles like AIM-9 Sidewinder. S-400 is radar guided, flares would do diddly squat against it. What you do is you could try to trick its radar by active countermeasures (ECM pod) or passive countermeasures (Chaff & decoy dispenser).

Also, When suppressing enemy air defenses, attackers usually aim at the radar system. Very rarely do 'Wild Weasel'-type SEAD mission aim at the missiles or AA guns themselves. Air defense radars are more fragile and transmit powerful emissions that can be targeted from long-range by Anti-Radiation missiles like AGM-88 HARM missile. After the radar is down, then only you have the option to used bombs against the now-disabled SAM missiles, although this can be a dangerous option, as sometimes the battery still has MANPADS or optically aimed missiles & AA guns for short range work.

2nd hand or new? And for how much for all 30?

I posted Marhalim's M109 SPH article on page 98.

Can you quote any source? I'm curious which version of Paladin is on offer to Malaysia, since the Paladin was in use since the 1980s. It could be the US military are trying offloading 20-year old surplus guns on the cheap.