>




If 6x6 is needed to fill holes left by sibmas in our cavalry regiments, what holes did the gempita fill?

What are the missions that the 6x6 need to fulfill. What missions has thr gempita fulfilled?

actually gempita number in Cavalry is much more than sibmas.

Gempita is in 3 cavalry regiment, with only 1 in mechanised infantry battalion.

Gempita in cavalry regiment 1KAD, 2KAD and 3 KAD with gempita + condor. Gempita variants in KAD : 78 AFV30, 54 LCT30 and 24 SURV VINGTAQS.

so what was condor's original mission in cavalry regiments? what is the ideal replacement for those missions? Do we need to replace 4x4 condors with 6x6 IFVs?




you need to have better reading materials as your understanding of malaysian armored vehicles is bad.

there are zero adnans in cavalry regiments.

most adnans and KIFVs is in mechanised infantry battalions, with some in 11KAD with our tanks and some with para armor squadron replacing the scorpions.

Again we are not Nato or usa. We dont need expeditionary or even marine corps capabilities. We are just defending our own territory.

This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 5 2021, 06:26 PM

I am also of the opinion that we dont need expensive and heavy MRAP like the MILDEF Tarantula.

Why is it so heavy (14 ton, same as Adnan) when it has exactly the same armor performance as the Condor (resistant for 7.62 AP)? Other MRAP has better armor capabilities.

How many millions of dollars will these Tarantula cost?



This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 5 2021, 06:24 PM

How rude of you to talk obscene words to me.

you may have not talked about marine corps, but all your insistence for "expeditionary" capability does not bring anything good. Do you even understand what expeditionary military even means?

number 1

I have never ever downplayed chinese threats.

what i meant was if we continue buying expensive irrelevant things that isnt going to be useful to push back china while not having enough of anything. getting cheap salvage tugs for example, and MMEA OPVs instead of expensive LMS and more Kedah class OPV will free us money to buy say more submarines, which is more useful for striking back if the situation turns to full out war. But in reality those MMEA ships will be much more useful 99% of the time. What i want is malaysia having full control of our EEZ during peacetime and able to strike back harder than what it can right now when there is a full all out war. What is your idea then to do the same?

number 2

nowhere i have said to want more Sukhois. I want those existing sukhois to be fitted with more long range standoff missiles. do you even comprehend most of the things you read?

This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 6 2021, 11:05 AM

I concur with you that we do need Gempita batch 2. Need additional gempitas to equip 4KAD and the new 5KAD if you want all the cavalry regiments to be homogeneous. Not to mention if we want additional mechanised infantry battalions to be on gempita rather than just one right now. Still we need something cheaper to replace the remaining condors.

As for the condors,
Bulk of the condors has already been replaced by the KIFV/Adnan in the mechanised infantry battalions. The only remaining condors are in the KAD cavalry regiments. What is cheap and ideal to replace what the condors did in KAD cavalry regiments? We cannot spend too much on something that will have little role to do in what is our most needed defence right now - our EEZ.

To be honest, stanag 4569 level 2 is very weak for a so called MRAP. Our old condors are also stanag level 2. Our Adnan is stanag level 4. So why do we want to buy them?

lipan bara is also IMO a very big waste of money. RM7 million each for those. The american J-LTV is less than RM1.5 million each.

Just buy the FA-50 and TA-50 and be done with it.

Something out of the box for deterrence and second strike capability

https://therestlesstechnophile.com/2021/02/...sistent-strike/

The premise of unmanned submarine strike capability is to have underwater strike capability by missiles such as NSM that can strike naval and land targets at a cost lower than a conventional manned submarine like our scorpenes.

it would be good for a large UUV with similar range to the scorpenes while carrying 2x the missiles. something at a cost like 1/3 of rhe scorpenes. So rather than 3 additional scorpene, we could get 9 large attack UUVs.

unmanned tech is really pushing down costs. for example the latest Kratos UCAV just cost around 2-3 million dollars each.

A400M, starstreak, md530g and lipanbara we can just buy them without any complicated procedures, so why can't we do the same with FA-50?

I have answered you (which i was talking about unmanned submarines) and i have given the numbers if you understand what i am writing about (about the submarine UUV)

On what i assume you are talking about UAVs. EW jammer has limited range. you cannot jam the whole sky. frequency hopping also complicates jamming. For second strike, UCAVs are basically operated like a recoverable missile delivery craft anyway, all the flying path, missile launch point all preset before launch. This will give normal missiles with 300km range able to be given say 2000km range. Enabling nations like malaysia without ballistic missiles a serious long range strike capability

>


Even then there was really no budget. it is just the airforce along with politicians that are drooling the millions of kickbacks offered wanted those typhoons or rafales so much in 2015.

Thank god we did not get them. We would be worse off with those MMRCA rather than nothing at all like right now.

LCA/FLIT tender closing date 22nd September

3 million dollars is the price of a single Kratos XQ-28 valkrie UCAV. I am putting that price to show that going unmanned can reduce cost compared to manned version.

If you really read carefully, the 1/3rd is not the size, but the price that i expect of the UUV. the price should be around 1/3rd of the scorpene price. you know the price of a scorpenes right?

What is the use of 9 UUVs?
https://therestlesstechnophile.com/2021/02/...sistent-strike/

As stealthy missile carriers for second strike capability. something that can lurk underwater and launch a salvo of NSM missiles to the enemy naval base for example. As our asymmetric deterrance. To enable us to save some money to buy large OPVs for peacetime missions.





UCAV range 1700km + missile range say KEPD 350 that is carried by the UCAV 300km. Isn't that 2000km total range? Its not physics, its just comprehension that you need.

you did not know of the FA-50 Block 20 and its BVR capability??

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/def...50-golden-eagle

M346 capable of BVR out of the box? that is the most hilarious statement i have ever heard. It has maximum detection range of less than 100km due to its tiny size. So it can never be BVR capable unless you redesign the whole front cockpit section to have bigger nose radome and put in a new bigger radar.

https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.a...arte019.en.html

whose naval base? anyone that attacks us first and steal our EEZ. If china, then it would be Sanya on Hainan

https://thediplomat.com/2017/03/chinas-most...-military-base/

to accomplish a deterrence capability. An essential element in successful deterrence is a degree of uncertainty on the part of a would-be aggressor as to whether the target power, although attacked and badly damaged, will nonetheless retaliate—even at the risk of suffering further, crippling damage in a second attack.


NSM is for the unmanned underwater vehicle UUV.

Taurus is on the unmanned combat aerial vehicle UCAV.

because you say it is impossible for 2000km when i was talking about UCAV.

reading and comprehension problems?

or i need to spoonfed all the data to you?

When you compare M346FA to the FA-50

The M346FA has inferior speed, inferior range, inferior weapons load weight, inferior radar when compared to the FA-50. The only similarity is probably the price. M346FA performance is just about equal in performance to our current Hawk 208. FA-50 can do most of what our former MiG-29 can do except the Mach 2.2 top speed, which the FA-50 can only manage Mach 1.5. So why do you want to get the M346FA for the LCA?

Yes the unseen kickbacks is what the politicians are excited about, even if we don't really have the 2.5 billion dollars to waste on just 12 Typhoons.


I would not call the MQ-9 Predator a "UCAV" but for a similar capability, as a learning step for malaysian UAV operations I would prefer malaysia to go with the Bayraktar TB2. Please get some of those TB2 before Indonesia does...

Getting to learn recent operational experience of TB2 operators in Syria, Libya and Nagorno Karabakh would be priceless for malaysia to develop its own UAV and UCAV capabilities.

Even 1/3 of the price of the MQ-9 Predator system sold to Taiwan, we could get like 3 squadrons of the bayraktar TB2 (36 units)

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2020/1...hase-by-taiwan/

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/04/20/m...yraktar-drones/

This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 7 2021, 12:39 PM

Right now Iraq and Latvia (a NATO country) and even Serbia is interested in the Bayraktar TB2

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/09/01/i...h-weapons-deal/

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/06/busin...-expresses.html

https://balkaninsight.com/2020/10/06/serbia...h-armed-drones/

TB2 has now in service or has been ordered by Turkey, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Libya, Qatar and Poland (2nd NATO country after Turkey to get the TB2)