Rant(ver. 2): talking without thinking

Every now and then the author encountered few questions regarding Malaysian military, especially the acquisition programme. These questions ranged from some very bright one (such as why did Malaysia bought A-4 Skyhawk) to something like “bila mau beli F-22?”

One thing for sure, and that is WE DIDN’T BUY MILITARY EQUIPMENTS FOR THE SAKE OF IT, meaning that we didn’t buy something just because we can.  There are many circumstances that should be considered. Though there are many reasons that dictate the “to buy or not to buy”, the author has selected few main reasons which should answer many questions regarding our military spending.


1-Fund
Indeed the main reason of military spending. In Malaysia’s case, the fund generally comes from Five Years’ Plan, where the equipment has been evaluated, tested and confirmed as essential to either replace obsolete equipment, to complement the current equipment, and/or to boost the current capability of the Armed Forces.

More often than not, whenever the economy slows down, the first place to cut the spending is the Armed Forces’ checkbook. These is one of the reason why some of the obsolete equipment has not being replaced (such as the S61A4 Nuri helicopter), or being replaced in a slower pace than expected (them APCs).

2-Cost
Another obvious reason which affecting our acquisition programme. Usually western-bloc weapon system is more expensive than eastern-bloc weapon, due to labor cost, the overall sophistication and the quality, although in recent years system that originates from eastern-bloc (such as Russia and former USSR countries, and China) has significantly improved in term of quality.

It should be noted that non-traditional weapon suppliers (Such as Pakistan, South Korea and South Africa) would sell their weapon system at cheaper price, as well as some attractive offers(extensive Tot, offset deal, barter deal, etc) to attract more customer (which usually tend to buy from traditional weapon supplier).

3-Priority
We buy what we need, and we first buy what we needed the most. Usually weapon system which has significant strategic value (such as MBTs, naval vessels, and combat aircrafts), will be on top of the priority, as well as weapon system that would severely affect our military deployment/logistics/buildup (in case of MPSS programme).

Often in many armed forces throughout the world, the infantry is being put on the bottom of the list. Thankfully MAF doesn’t neglecting the infantry’s need and we saw significant infantry modernization programme since mid 90’s, which not only focused on new equipment, but also the entire infantry structure (the BIS structure, by cutting the manpower while boosting the firepower).

4-Logistic
Many people only see the cost of particular equipment on the price tag (even that wouldn’t be written in stone, since the price depends on the number bought, level of sophistication, and if we are in good terms with the supplier). When the acquisition is made, Mindef need to make sure the current infrastructure/personnel support are capable to maintain that particular equipment. These maintenance ranges from the spare parts, armaments, real time cost to operate the system(such as cost per flying hour in combat aircraft and helicopters) and not to mention the personnel capable to man the equipment. Malaysia’s logistic problem is quite unique, since we are one of the first countries to operate state-of-the-art equipments from both blocs (Eastern and Western), in particular, the fighter aircraft procurement. And more amazingly, we are capable to make them work seamlessly within our doctrine.

Another important thing is that to train a particular personnel (pilots, MBT drivers and commanders, COs, etc) are not cheap, and often they were sent overseas to train. One particular example of  acquisition blunder is Myanmar, where the pilots and ground personnel has no experience in maintaining MiG-29, and only a handful (of the already small batch of MiG-29 acquired) are in flying condition.

5-Doctrine
The weapon acquired should be fit nicely on our military doctrine (deterrence, non-territorial, defensive oriented). Why on earth should we buy a long range bomber in the first place? The same can be said to low level attack aircraft (A-10, Su-25), aircraft carrier or LCAC?

Acquiring these kind of weapon would not just be costly, but also going to change the geopolitics stability in the region (in which will be discussed later)

6-Overall impact on MAF
In what particular way the acquisition will have impact on MAF structures/deployment/strategy? For example, what would a more expensive T-90 give us compared to PT-91M (which is cheaper and has Leopard 2A6 upgrade kit on it)? Again we could buy a cheaper system but also has similar impact on our capability.

Now ask oneself: What would a more expensive Eurofighter Typhoon give us compared to Su-30MKM?

7-Sanctions/Limits
Some military supplier has stated the “guideline” on the application of the weapon system. Britain, for example, has stated that the weapon of its origin SHOULD NOT be used in a civil war (Indonesia breaks the agreement, twice, during East Timor conflict and recently, Acheh. Now almost all of their British-made weapon are being stored or retired due to lack of spare parts). While the US already put so many strings in the deal (no offset deal, source code to be provided in the foreseeable future, armament should only be shipped if the country really needs them, the copyright rule to prevent reverse-engineering, ‘monkey model’ equipment for non-allies, the system should not be placed in a location in which will harm it’s close allies, etc).
This is pretty much made the F/A-18F deal between Malaysia and the US to be put on hold until some of the string being withdrawn.


8-Politics/Geopolitics
Sun Tzu, one of the best military strategists once said, “Military action is always driven by political motivation”, and the same can be said to military procurement.  The acquisition are always being used as political leverage to either flexing military might, gaining support from supplying countries, or even to gain some kind of legitimacy on disputed issues(such as EEZ areas or island).

Not to mention that buying a weapon system from the wrong country would spark a political outcry within and outside the country (some terrorist group would go for our head if we go for Israel, some country would go for our head if we go for Iran).In the old days of 60s all the way to late 80s, buying a Soviet-bloc weapon is a no-no since we are a very pro-western those days (the author recalled the proposed Mi-8 as Nuri’s replacement which sparked controversy which led to the plan being scrapped).Nowadays the same pressure is felt should we buy military system from Iran or North Korea.

Any major military acquisition worth billions of Euros will raise some issues from neighboring countries, and these would change the regional geopolitics around. One wrong move (such as hasty acquisition, or the quantity of system being acquired) would send the wrong message to other countries and would disrupt the harmony in region, and even trigger the arms race (something that should be avoided).


 .......
Now before asking the question about what MAF SHOULD buy, do give a thought about all the points above.

JF-17 Thunder:Malaysian Prospect

After being asked by numerous people (especially pakistani military enthusiasts) about the the possibility of JF-17 being inducted in Royal Malaysian Air Force (the “why JF-17 not being bought by Malaysia”, “Malaysia and Pakistan are brothers and should help each other”, “JF-17 is the Islamic fighter jet”,etc), the author decided to give a lengthy explanation about it. Yes there are several rumors in the news about the possibility of inducting JF-17 in Malaysian service (then again Bale is rumored to join Manchester United too. And so did Fernando Torres), however few circumstances need to be considered.

JF-17 Thunder

Type: Lightweight multirole aircraft
Length: 14m
Wingspan: 9.5m
Height: 4.8m
Weight: 6411kg (empty) 12700kg (max payload)
Powerplant: 1xKlimov RD-93(the same engine that powered newer version of MiG-29, and MiG-35)
Max speed: Mach 1.8

Overview

Pakistan involved in the development of JF-17 after the F-16 deal with US is being suspended (due to their nuclear ambition) and are desperate for new fighter to replace bulk of their ageing Chinese-made F-6,F-7, and French Mirage III in service. Coincidently, the Chinese already had its new aircraft project running and decided to join in to develop a lightweight fighter that would replace the entire 2nd generation fighter in both countries’ service.
The joint work began in 1995 and reaching final stage in mid 2000s. Pakistan is expected to acquire 150~250 units in the future. Several studies has already being made to incorporate a mix chinese-western avionics and weapon system into the JF-17 to make it a more capable aircraft and more attractive for export (such as French-made radar, British-made communication system and Chinese-made targeting pod).
JF-17, together with their F-16(and newer F-16 C/D acquired recently, after the sanction being lifted off) and FC-20(Export variant of J-10),is expected to be the backbone of Pakistan Air Force. This would give them a fighting chance against their numerically (and technologically) superior foe, the Indian Air Force (which has Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, MiG-29SMT and the future MMRCA programme)


JF-17 in Malaysian service?

It’s unlikely that JF-17 being chosen to meet RMAF requirement for new generation fighter aircraft (with reasons pretty much being explained in previous post about JAS-39 Gripen). However, there are several qualities which would attract the top brass/Mindef interest towards the aircraft and its potential.


-Low cost. For around USD 15 mil a pop (depending on which variant, the level of sophistication, and the number bought), a country of our financial capability can easily acquire it by the dozens (24~36 units).While the maneuverability is somewhat a mystery question, the requirement of the aircraft(as a low cost F-16 complement in PAF) and the general design(big delta wing and LERX, somewhat similar in F/A-18,and fly by wire capability), the aircraft has nothing that suggest that it has inherent weakness that will compromise the maneuverability.
 - JF-17 is more than capable to be an ADF (air defence fighter) aircraft. Currently the tasks of air defence are taken by F-5E and MiG-29N in our inventory. Being a 4 generation aircraft, JF-17 is much more advanced than F-5E and MiG-29N (both aircraft only saw SLEP upgrade instead of full modernization programme) and as multirole combat aircraft, it can do much more mission than air defence(such as anti ship, area bombing, air-to-ground mission, SEAD, etc)
-JF-17 can also be used in a ‘less than important’ mission such as point and/or area defence, air patrol, interception, CAS, etc. This can release some pressure from our front line fighter aircraft, in a way that they can focus on more important mission given (such as key target bombing, gaining air supremacy, deep penetration strike, etc)
-JF-17 can be equipped with both Chinese/Russian and western-bloc weapon (if the source code is provided) through 7 of its hard points.
-It is being integrated with Erieye AEW aircraft in Pakistani service, and that would be a huge bonus to RMAF (which has planned to acquire several AEW system, with Erieye is the most possible option)
-Being a non-traditional weapon supplier, Pakistan would offer much more to see the deal (if being done) to go through. Barter-trade, extensive ToT, credit payment, offset deal, even unlimited armament deal without any sanction whatsoever, all of these would be used us to gain leverage from them and demand the best deal for our buck.

Thus JF-17 would be a good replacement for existing Hawk Mk 208, F-5E (even MiG-29N, which was almost being retired in early 2010). A Hi-Lo mix of Su-30MKM, F/A-18D (and possibly F/A-18F) and JF-17 would give a significant boost towards RMAF capability.

ATGMs in Malaysian Army

ATGM (Anti-Tank Guided Missile) is a type of anti armor weapon that has sensor/guidance-system to guide its flight towards target. Despite being primarily used as heavy anti-tank weapon (hence the name), ATGM is also versatile enough to be used in variety of missions (as bunker buster, anti-personnel weapon, illumination, it can even being used to fight small/medium water craft e.g. patrol boat, pirate boat, even small corvette)
ATGM generally has better range (of up to 2 miles instead of just 500 yards, usually less) and better penetrating power compared to other anti-armor weapon. And being a guided missile, ATGM has higher success at hitting target and possibly destroying them.
Currently Malaysian Army has 2 type of ATGM, the Baktar Shikan(Pakistan) and Metis-M(Russia). Both are wire-guided, SACLOS (Semi-Automatic Close Lock-On System) missile, bought as part of Malaysian Army modernization programme in early 2000

Baktar Shikan

Baktar Shikan is a Pakistani-made ATGM, which is derived from Chinese HJ-8 ATGM missile (which in turn, is derived largely from American-made TOW system). It is an optically-tracked, wire-guided, direct firing, 2nd generation anti-tank missile with the range of more than 3km and has the penetration capability of up to 850mm RHA.
The Chinese version of this system has been successfully used by the Bosnian during Bosnian-Serb conflict, and some reported that the system has also saw action in 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. The system has seen upgrade in term of guidance system as well as penetration power. Currently Baktar Shikan is in service to Pakistan Army, Bangladesh Army, Sri Lanka Army,while several other countries operated the original Chinese HJ-8 version)
The system is very versatile, and can be launched from tactical vehicles (from Toyota technical truck to AIFV) to helicopters (from Chinese-made Z-9 to Amercian-made AH-1). Baktar Shikan in Malaysian Army usually being installed in a Land-Rover, G-wagon as well as the ACV-300

Metis-M

9K115-2 Metis-M (NATO codename: AT-13 Saxtorn-2) is a lightweight ATGM system (which is also a wire guided missile) used as a man-portable platoon anti-tank missile (weighing at half of the Pakistani Baktar Shikan). Deemed the most advanced system in its class, the missile has high resistance to soft-kill countermeasures and it also has high penetration power, as well as good range. The system has saw success in destroying several Israeli-made Merkava MBTs, one of the most heavily protected MBT in the world, during Israel occupation in Lebanon in 2006

Other system?

Malaysian Army has wide range of anti-armor system, from the basic (yet battle proven) RPG-7V, C-80 LAW, Carl Gustav M2 RCL, M106 RCL (RCL=recoilless rifle) to the AT4/AT4CS and obviously, the ATGMs mentioned earlier.
However there is one class of anti-tank weapon that is absent in Malaysian Army arsenal; the 3rd generation, Fire-and Forget ATGM

This 3rd generation system has several advantages over SACLOS weapon:


-These are shoulder launched weapon. and Metis-M(and Baktar Shikan,up to a certain degree) is a portable weapons but it requires the operator to lie down on their belly. Thus it takes precious time to aim fire and run out of enemy retaliation (while these shoulder-launched ATGMs can be fired from standing position).
-Fire and Forget capability means that the operator doesn’t have to guide the missile and can move to other location at the time the missile leave the tube, which also to prevents countermeasures from the enemy.
-IR-seeking missile is a passive way of targeting the enemy(that is by detecting the IR signature of the tank, usually the engine and the exhaust), instead of flashing IR laser that would trigger the MBT counter ATGM capability(thus the thick diesel smoke) and will leave the operator exposed to enemy retaliation.
-the nature of SACLOS ATGM (which is either wire-guided, or laser-guided) means it can only be fired at the line of sight, thus requires no obstacle between the system and the target .SACLOS ATGM also has relatively flat trajectory; hence it would give away the operator’s location. 3rd generation ATGM (especially Javelin) can be fired even when the target is behind obstacles(trees, houses, hill, etc.) since the IR-seeking sensors will guide the missile on its own towards the target. Such capability is called NLOS (Non line of sight) capability.
-NLOS capability have also give birth to one very effective way of destroying the target (usually MBTs); the top-attack capability. Contemporary tanks have their armor at the thickest in the front and sides, while top of turret has the least. Top-attack capability ensures that the tank could be destroyed (total kill) with just one missile.
-These system can also engage low flying aircraft (helos, CAS aircraft, transport aircraft, etc). And the heavy warhead (used to target heavy armor) can easily blows them aircrafts to pieces.

Currently there are 4 countries that have successfully developed their version of 3rd generation ATGM, the Javelin(USA) the J-Javelin(Japan), spike(Israel) and K-ATGM( South Korea).European countries are also developing their own version; Pars-3(Germany) and Turkey, both are still in development.
 Considering few other factors though (the Javelin is fucking expensive, the Japs would never sell their  weapon to anyone, and Malaysia doesn’t have any diplomatic relationship whatsoever with Israel, thus rules out the possibility of spike),the author have choose K-ATGM(which the author will explain in the future) as the most plausible option for Malaysian Army, since South Korea has previous military sale success in Malaysia(the K200A1 KIFV, and recently, the MPSS projects has been given to South Korean firm).K-ATGM has 2 version, the platoon anti tank weapon and heavier system to be installed in their new AIFV(which is still under development).
Given the Malaysian Army acquiring such system, it would definitely boost our anti-armor capability to another level (given our wide array of anti armor weapon system to begin with) and thus would give significant edge to Malaysian Armed Force’s dissimilar warfare capability.

South Korea's K-ATGM

PAK FA

Sukhoi PAK-FA on first public flight

(This article is about the aircraft that has just being introduced by public and thus many of the details are still unknown/classified and much of the article is written based provided information/speculation by defense analysts and are only relevant to a limited time frame)



Sukhoi PAK-FA (Perspektivny aviatsionny kompleks frontovoy aviatsii, literally "Future Frontline Aircraft System) is a new multirole fighter aircraft developed by Sukhoi Corporation for Russian Air Force, with first public flight was held on January 29,2010. A fifth generation aircraft, it is designed as a direct response to the US fifth-generation fighter,the F-22 Raptor. PAK-FA is expected to replace bulk of older variant of MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker in the future. The aircraft is expected to have supercruise capabilities, extreme maneuverability, and above all, stealth technology.

PAK-FA program originated in the late 1980 when the then Soviet Union is searching for new aircraft design to replace their older fighter aircraft, although it is only started in 2002 when Sukhoi Corporation is chosen to design and developed a new fifth-generation multirole fighter for Russian Air Force. Work began to develop the design,avionic suit and sensors for the aircraft. Currently the program reached final development stage and is expected to enter serial production stage in near future.

Being dubbed as Russian Raptor-ski (since the aircraft is designed to counter F-22 dominance), some military analysts deemed such assumption is quite inaccurate, since PAK-FA is designed with different doctrine and requirement in mind. For them (and the author himself), PAK-FA, in general, has closer role to the Flanker family than the Raptor, that is a multirole fighter, but with stealth technology as an added advantage (rather than an all-aspect stealth air supremacy fighter).Though it has some superficial resemblances to Northrop YF-23(another American fifth generation fighter prototype, before being beaten by YF-22), it is in fact quite a nonsense, since Sukhoi doesn’t have any access to the prototype. The design is quite conventional, at least for a fifth-generation fighter, reflecting the mindset of Russian designer when designing an aircraft, which is by doing it safe(by using something that works and refine it, rather than creating a totally new concept).The project cost, quoted at USD 10 billion, is significantly lower than the F-22 project, mainly because some features(TVC-capable engine, AESA radar, new weapon) is already being developed in parallel, and some of the technology being used by its front line fighter(such as MiG-35,Su-35 and chiefly the money-making Su-30), and the technology basis (Su-47 and MiG-1.44) is already exist before the project is even being started. Early PAK-FA version will use existing equipment, and more advanced equipment can be retrofitted later. It has more hard points than the Raptor(which is located both internally and externally) and can carry both existing and future Russian weapon system, including the future “AWACS killer" R-37 AA missile.

The most conventional figure of price per aircraft is around USD 50 million each (though maintenance/support/weapon/spare-part will add more in the price tag), around the same price tag of most front-line 4.5 generation fighter, making it the cheapest fifth generation fighter around (with F-22 costing more than USD 200 million each and F-35, with many setback skyrocketed the cost), would attract customers. And more importantly, it doesn’t have export ban, unlike F-22. Other than India (which will produce their own variant of PAK-FA,the FGFA or “Future Generation Fighter Aircraft”),prospect customer includes all countries that have operated Su-30 including Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, and some Middle-Eastern countries, provided Israel doesn’t protest such acquisition.


Malaysian Prospect

It is unlikely for Malaysia to acquire PAK-FA in the near future. A fifth generation aircraft is a significant leap to any countries operating them, thus requires extensive upgrade in term of infrastructure, training and even the doctrine employed.

However, speaking about further time frame,(around 2020 and beyond), it is become more possible to see PAK-FA in RMAF inventory. F/A-18D will eventually be replaced and it is unlikely that Malaysia will go for another 4.5 generation fighter, which is deemed as obsolete then,especially when Singapore will induct it’s own fifth generation multirole fighter, F-35 JSF (Singapore is among partners in the program).Our doctrine, the so called “silver bullet” requires us to have the most advanced weapon system to compensate the relatively small(around 18-24 units) acquisition made. But it is also noted that other countries will also going to produce their fifth-generation fighter, especially China and their J-XX program. Russia may also produce their own version of F-35, a lightweight fifth-generation attack aircraft, which will be made by Mikoyan Corporation.



edit:the article is dedicated to a friend who is not in his best shape after some incident.The author wishes him speedy recovery.

Malaysian Indigenous MBT?

PT-91M Pendekar

Malaysia has inducted its first Main Battle Tank (MBT), the Polish-made PT-91M Pendekar into service few years ago as part of significant expansion and modernization program. Though equipped with the most sophisticated equipment available (such as French optronic, communication system and FCS, new generation ERA blocks,German tank tracks, better engine, not to mention steering wheel instead of throttle stick), many people (including some MAF personnel and military pundits) criticize the procurement to be unwise, to say the least. Their opinion is based on misjudged performance of PT-91 predecessor, the Soviet-made T-72, in both Gulf War and Chechnya conflict, where it performed terribly to both users; Iraq and Russia. Singapore, in response, has acquired second-hand German-made Leopard 2A4 and people began to make direct comparison between PT-91M and Leopard 2A4.

However, as misinformed as the Malaysian are, ironically, they are right.PT-91M,like other T-72 variant, did inherited its weaknesses; cramped interior, the location of the ammo dump(thus the “cook-off” problem), the autoloader(the author, for one, doesn’t quite fond to autoloader actually, although it is safe to assume that modern autoloader has incorporated some upgrade to solve the problem of its predecessor) and relatively weak base armour (thus the reason why ERA blocks being slapped heavily on the hull and turret).The author is sure that Mindef and the top brass know about it, and PT-91M is used as medium of familiarization to develop Malaysia’s own set of tank doctrine before buying a more advanced tanks.

But as the title said, can we build our MBT specially designed for our own doctrine and need?


Making a Tank

A MBT, in essence, is just a tractor with big gun and steel armour. No big deal whatsoever, right?

^That’s kinda an oversimplification (a sarcastic one), but although building Malaysian own MBT is a tall order (considering our level of defense industry and expertise), it is not an impossible task. Building a tank doesn’t necessarily making it from scratch and several heavy-industries companies (like Deftech, Proton, etc) can establish a joint cooperation, under initiative from the Government, in building our own MBT.

For starter, we need to have a set of tank doctrine we would employed before designing our future MBT, which is based on our geography, demography, geo-politic, neighboring countries’ military doctrine, etc. Israel for example, put heavy priority on its soldier survivability and the doctrine is mirrored in the design of their front line MBT, the Merkava. It has heavy armour, extremely steep armour angle, and even the engine is placed in front of the tank (contemporary tanks usually has engine in the rear), thus increasing the chances of tank crew survivability, at a price of its speed and mobility. IDF is mainly a defensive force so mobility is not quite a priority. American Abrams had emphasis on cross-country capabilities (which is useful in European front during Cold War era), thus having a speed in excess of 40 miles/hour (around 65 km/h).In a more recent development, Japan has develop a new generation of MBT weighing less than 40 tonnes, in order to comply with their public road regulation. Failing to acknowledge the doctrine and the project may become a failure. Indian Arjun, for example, face many setbacks that makes the Indian Army not to acquire more of them and instead opting for another newly designed MBT based on T-72.

After the doctrine has been developed now we can continue to the actual part of building a MBT. In author’s opinion, it is better to acquire old MBT tech (either from reverse-engineering or ToT from other countries) and develop, modify and upgrade it according to our need.
Think this is a bad idea?

-Israel upgraded M4 Sherman, the M50 Super Sherman, participate in numerous conflict with neighboring Arabs countries and their Soviet-made MBTs and was in active duty from early 50s to 1980s.
-South African Olifant (Afrikaans for “elephant”), which is one of the most advanced MBT in African region, is actually derived from late World War II to Cold War-era Centurion Tank. It has more armour, bigger gun, new engine, suspension system, FCS, etc.
-Turkish M60T “Sabra” (derived from US-made M60A3 Patton) is considered to be at par with Israeli Merkava Mk 4
-Every tank in China’s PLA inventory can trace their genetics from Type-59, which is derived from Soviet T-54/55 (they have modified the chassis over time, which includes elongated hull, added another pair of wheel, redesigned hull and turret, newer engine, etc)
-Iranian “Zulfiqar” MBT incorporated features from earlier US-made M48, M60 and Soviet T-72, adding a few modern twists in the process, such as M1-style turret and hull design.
-UK Challenger 2 MBT is based on Chieftain MBT design, which in turn, is based in earlier Centurion tank design.

IDF Super Sherman

SADF Olifant

Perhaps the most difficult part is to develop the armour. The cheapest way is to use steel alloy and put ERA blocks on top of it. But if the ERA is breached the base armour will provide insufficient protection to the crew, especially against modern anti-tank weapon. One answer is to develop our own ceramic composite armour but doing that will take years of R&D and tons of resource and no country will share their own secret of making composite armour to us. So we are left alone in this part

Like the author mentioned earlier, making a MBT doesn’t necessarily means building one from scratch, since there are some equipment that is beyond our current expertise, such as the main gun or FCS system. We can either just buy the equipment from foreign supplier or by acquiring manufacturing rights and produce it locally.

One thing that needs to be considered is the overall program cost (from R&D to manufacturing part) and the logistic. Using existing equipment can save money since the R&D part is skipped and one can have a proven system. A cheap, competent MBT might even attract exports. The equipment should also be standardized to reduce logistic problem, such as using the same gun that fire the same round,(the 2A46 125mm gun is used by PT-91M),interchangeable spare-parts, up to the padded track and bolt and nut. It might not seem much but in the battlefield we need everything we can get and that can also includes cannibalization of captured or different system. Thus standardization is crucial in time of need.

If the cost proves too much we can also opt for cheaper (but no less potent) alternatives, and that is by developing a light tanks (such as Argentinean TAM tanks, French AMX-10 or CV90120).

Considering our military level right now developing a new MBT may seem unlikely, but there’s no need to rush for that, as we still new in MBT deployment tactics. Good things don’t come overnight and the author prefers the development to take gradual advance till it is mature enough to be produced.

marine corps:overview

(got no other ideas to write so here goes ...)


In military,marine corps is a military branch similar to ground force,usually connected to the navy.Historically it is assigned in a warship to fight piracy,mutiny and to fight in littoral area,as part of military campaign.Marine corps uses many of army tactics,but they have amphibious capability as an added advantage.Currently many country assigned their marine force as Rapid Deployment Force(RDF),which means they will be sent first to combat to secure the location/objective before other larger element of the military(usually the army) arrives.

Spain is the first country to have their own marine corps.Today,many major countries have their own marine corps,with size comes anywhere from a battalion(600 to 900 personnel) to several corps large.United States Marine Corps,USMC,is the biggest marine corps exists today,with over two hundred thousand personnel,complete with it's own mechanized/armor support,artillery support,amphibious ships and even fighter wing(which is composed of F/A-18C/D)Though smaller than it triservice counterpart(US army,US navy,US air force) and nominally under US navy(USN),it is practically a separate branch and it significantly eclipsing many of other countries' armed force in term of size and firepower.

Though marine corps has similar attributes to the ground force,it also has it's own uniqueness itself.It has amphibious capabilities,provided by LVTs and amphibious armoured vehicle,it's own set of doctrine(depending on the country itself).They also sometimes used different personal equipment set from their army counterparts.due to increased corrosion in salt water,the lightweight nature of rapid deployment itself,etc)

Marine corps usually paved way for a larger force to gain strategic advantage and ultimately accomplished their goal,like securing beaches from the enemy,gain control of key installation,etc.Such action can be seen in Pasific theatre in World War II(marine win battles,army wins the war).It regularly co-ordinates with other elements of the military to accomplish their objective.such as relying on the navy to provide amphibious capability and to soften the enemy's defensive line,air force to provide transport and cover from enemy aerial attack,and the army to give significant boost in ground firepower.

Royal Malaysian Marine Corps:possibilities?

With future acquisition of new MPSS(either LPD or the more fancy LHD),questions arise if Malaysia should,and would have its own marine corps.Some Asean countries also has marine corps in their armed forces and some people suggesting that Malaysia should also walk the same path.

Will we ever heard the word "SEMPER SETIA" being cried out loud? In author's opinion,perhaps not.The reason is simple;the necessities is just isn't there.

To further explain the statement:
-The nature of marine corps as an expeditionary force(or as intervention force) contradict with our defence policy,which is deterrence(which means our armed force is built to be defencive,rather than offencive)
-MAF size is quite modest.with just over one hundred thousand regular personnel in all branch of the armed force.New infrastructures for training and deployment need to be build to accommodate this newly formed marines.Marines don't grow on trees,and for starter the army would have to transfer it's meagre resource and personnel to establish the foundation of the marine corps.
-New system,which we have little to no experience to, need to be bought;amphibious artillery ,LVTs,amphibious armoured vehicles,perhaps even a hovercraft.
-The geographic of Malaysia renders the establishment of marine corps as a unnecessary.Malaysia is composed of 2 large chunk of land (the Peninsular States in the west,and Sabah/Sarawak in the east).Thus it is easier to build a base and move the fighting force on land,rather by the sea.
-Indonesia and the Philippines are archipelago countries,with many of its isles scattered in their realm.The only way to quickly(and efficiently) maneuver the fighting force in large number,complete with logistics is by amphibious method,thus justified the establishment of their marine corps.
-Malaysia also has Rapid Deployment Force of it's own:10th Brigade(para)
-Malaysia is a relatively peaceful country with no major armed conflict for over 2 decades(after them commie terrorist bastard surrendered in 1989).In contrast,Indonesia,Thailand and the Philippines are still dealing with insurgency to this day(Philippines with it's NPA and MNLF movement,Thailand with it's southern separatist and possible conflict with it's neighbours up north,and Indonesia is plagued with separatist movement up until recently,when peace agreement had been accomplished).

Though that does not means there is no rooms for marine corps in MAF;should they walk this path.The author only states his opinion and should be taken with a pinch of salt,whatever that supposed to mean.Who knows maybe we'll be hearing people shouting "SEMPER SETIA" in the future,should the necessities arise.