Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions

[DavidDCM]

Wasn't the reason why Malaysia chose the PT-91M some kind of personal agreement between Mahathir and the Polish PM or so and because it involved palm oil barter trade? So basically more a political and economical rather than a technological choice.
I just tried to calculate the costs of the Indian T-90S procurements against the PT procurement but I'm too dumb in mathematics. How much dollars are Indian "Rs 3,625 crore"?

Malaysia paid either 368 million US$ or 275 million US$ for their PT-91M (+14 support vehicles like ARV, AVLB etc.), the sources found at google contradict each other.

The other vehicles tested by Malaysia where the T-84 and the CV-90120:

 

[Waylander]

The matter is not about how much the add-ons cost in the open market. Its about the predeveloped add-on packages offered to the T-72 operators. As we all know, credible upgrade packages are very limited. But on the other hand, if you did follow the development on the Russian counterpart, u will notice that the Russian picked an interesting approach. Instead of only adding more armor aka protection to the vehicle, the Russian went on adding redundant active sensors in order to achieve a first hit rather than a counterstrike and expand the tank's operation profile. And what makes an T-90 superior than a T-72? Armor is certainly a very small part of it. The FC complex that incooperates all of those sensors and devices is the main factor behind. These sophisticate sensors and devices are also expensive in the 1st cost and following operation cost. While u must agree that a naked T-90 is not far from a PT-91M. Therefore for the reason i explained above, it will cost way more than the most costly upgrade package offer for the T-72.

You are wrong in your assumptions that the T-90 offers not much better protection. Even an old T-72B offers more passive protection than a T-72M1 and a T-90S is some steps away from a T-72B when it comes to passive protection. Achieved is that by using a new mix of better materials and by welding the turret instead of casting it.

Their various experiences with the different T-72 versions also influenced the design which resulted in upgrading a lot of the original parts making it less maintenance intensive.

And while one can also hang nearly the same gadgets onto a PT-91M you first have to get your hands onto it. And the russian and ukrainian development bureous are defenitely more potent than the polish ones. And are they going to sell you their new toys after you haven't bought their tank?

I don't disagree with you that the PT-91M seems to have a good combination of FCS and optics.

my point is purely that it is the peak of T-72 development while other designes offer an ongoing development for the future.

 

[qwerty223]

You are wrong in your assumptions that the T-90 offers not much better protection. Even an old T-72B offers more passive protection than a T-72M1 and a T-90S is some steps away from a T-72B when it comes to passive protection. Achieved is that by using a new mix of better materials and by welding the turret instead of casting it.

I don't remember i said that. What i meant was what makes a T-90 far more superior is upgrade and redesign on every aspect while armor is a small part of the effort.

Their various experiences with the different T-72 versions also influenced the design which resulted in upgrading a lot of the original parts making it less maintenance intensive.

Like wise, F414 may have a lower operation cost than the F404, despite offering a superior performance. But as a complex, Super hornet certainly cost more to operate as it is more sophisticated.

And while one can also hang nearly the same gadgets onto a PT-91M you first have to get your hands onto it. And the russian and ukrainian development bureous are defenitely more potent than the polish ones. And are they going to sell you their new toys after you haven't bought their tank?

Well, I did agreed that the follow on would be a T-90. After all, we can assume T-90 is the ultimate and "official" upgrade package for the T-72. Sample was shown by the Russian on this manner.

I don't disagree with you that the PT-91M seems to have a good combination of FCS and optics.

I never said that, and no intent to go in such endless arguement.

my point is purely that it is the peak of T-72 development while other designes offer an ongoing development for the future.

I do not understand what do you mean. Do u mean the T-72 itself? or The upgrade package PT-91M? or the T-90 which itself a redesign T-72 hull?

 

[eckherl]

Wasn't the reason why Malaysia chose the PT-91M some kind of personal agreement between Mahathir and the Polish PM or so and because it involved palm oil barter trade? So basically more a political and economical rather than a technological choice.
I just tried to calculate the costs of the Indian T-90S procurements against the PT procurement but I'm too dumb in mathematics. How much dollars are Indian "Rs 3,625 crore"?

Malaysia paid either 368 million US$ or 275 million US$ for their PT-91M (+14 support vehicles like ARV, AVLB etc.), the sources found at google contradict each other.

The other vehicles tested by Malaysia where the T-84 and the CV-90120:

Yes, you are correct on the package and political deal, The PT-91M will suite Malaysia just fine with the current tank threat in that part of the world. there is also the reasoning behind the decision for Twardy because of the cost of the support/logistical package that went with this deal which would be alot lower in operating/supporting costs well into the future . T-84`s would of been a sweet deal, especially in vehicle capabilities which is on par with Russian T-90M/S models, but I was informed that the one T84 tested had reliability issues.

 

[qwerty223]

Yes, you are correct on the package and political deal, The PT-91M will suite Malaysia just fine with the current tank threat in that part of the world. there is also the reasoning behind the decision for Twardy because of the cost of the support/logistical package that went with this deal which would be alot lower in operating/supporting costs well into the future . T-84`s would of been a sweet deal, especially in vehicle capabilities which is on par with Russian T-90M/S models, but I was informed that the one T84 tested had reliability issues.

The T-84 over heated.
But interesting enough, the preproduction PT-91M also suffered over heat on its transmission during the 1st final trial in Malaysia. It was then solved in the 2nd trial.

 

[Waylander]

I don't remember i said that. What i meant was what makes a T-90 far more superior is upgrade and redesign on every aspect while armor is a small part of the effort.

No it is not a small part. At least not in my opinion. You just have problems to stay competitive if you use an old T-72M1 hull as a base for your vehicle. You can barely keep it competitive against current threats in the region in terms of protection when adding modern ERA tiles.
A more modern T-90 starts with a much bigger baseline protection giving the customer the ability to stay in the protection race for much longer.

Like wise, F414 may have a lower operation cost than the F404, despite offering a superior performance. But as a complex, Super hornet certainly cost more to operate as it is more sophisticated.

But the automotive components of tanks are what makes them maintenance intensive and expensive to operate. And while these days nice new gadgets (battlefield management systems, optucs, TIs, FCS,...) arw a huge part of the initial procurement they are not such a big part of the day to day operational costs.

Well, I did agreed that the follow on would be a T-90. After all, we can assume T-90 is the ultimate and "official" upgrade package for the T-72. Sample was shown by the Russian on this manner.

But why should the T-90 only be the follow on? Does it makes any difference to train your techs and crews or to rebuild your logistics? IMO a transition to T-90 is not more difficult than a transition to PT-91M.

I don't disagree with you that the PT-91M seems to have a good combination of FCS and optics.

I never said that, and no intent to go in such endless arguement.

I think you misunderstood me. I said that I think that the FCS, optics and TI are defenitely one of the advantages of the Pt-91M and that it seems that it doesn't lack behind in this compared to the rest of the region.

I do not understand what do you mean. Do u mean the T-72 itself? or The upgrade package PT-91M? or the T-90 which itself a redesign T-72 hull?

My point is that there are other tanks out there with ogoing development programs and while there are also offers for T-72 upgrades out there one has to say that they are less comprehensive.

 

[eckherl]

The T-84 over heated.
But interesting enough, the preproduction PT-91M also suffered over heat on its transmission during the 1st final trial in Malaysia. It was then solved in the 2nd trial.

The Twardy will do them justification for short and intermediate capabilities, but if other countries in that part of the world start upgrading their armor then they could be in for a challenge to stay on par with vehicle capabilities.

If the politics did not factor in on the deal then my opinion is that they should of worked with the Ukrainians to get T-84s.

 

[qwerty223]

The Twardy will do them justification for short and intermediate capabilities, but if other countries in that part of the world start upgrading their armor then they could be in for a challenge to stay on par with vehicle capabilities.

If the politics did not factor in on the deal then my opinion is that they should of worked with the Ukrainians to get T-84s.

The Bumar claim they outperformed both T-90 and T-84. But anyways, a long term potential wise, I dont think T-84 is on par with the T-90. Ukraine invest far less than Russia. The T-84 will eventually show their distance between their counter part.

 

[DavidDCM]

Could Malaysia even win the technological rat race with Singapore? I don't think so. Even right now, if you see the PT-91M on par with the Leo 2A4, there's already the simple fact that Singapore has twice as much Leos as Malaysia has PT's. And if Malaysia would increase the capabilities of it's tank fleet in a significant way you can bet that Singapore would not hesitate to do so as well. So I somehow think that it is pointless for Malaysia to try to match them. Whatever tank Malaysia would buy, Singapore could always afford something that is on par with it or better.

The other neighbours of Malaysia against that will in any foreseeable future not buy anything far superior to the PT-91M. Even if one of them decides to procure a new MBT, it will most probably not a super high-tech thingy certified to kick the PT's ass. Therefore I think there's nothing wrong with the PT91M-procurement. That tank will be a major player in the Southeastasian theatre for the next 10 to 15 years. What will be thereafter, a new MBT for Malaysia or a big modernization programe, is another question. Maybe by that time APS will be technologically matured and affordable enough for Malaysia to purchase one and so improve the weak armor protection.

 

[eckherl]

The Bumar claim they outperformed both T-90 and T-84. But anyways, a long term potential wise, I dont think T-84 is on par with the T-90. Ukraine invest far less than Russia. The T-84 will eventually show their distance between their counter part.

What makes you think that a T-84 is less capable between the two, do you have some examples as to the reason why. I do not see the T-90 as a major investment for Russia, all it is a modified T-72.

 

[cm07]

Could Malaysia even win the technological rat race with Singapore? I don't think so. ........(snipped)

Eh personally, i never saw it as a rat race. I prefer to look at the situation as an incremental difficulty to any external force that decides to come by and "reclaim the region." This is especially so when you throw Thailand, that's even further north of the land mass, into the equation. (12 gripens, 18 MKMs, 24 F-15s)

Just for clarification, any realistic reason for the two parties to come to blows is the threat of Malaysia cutting the water supplies to Singapore. This problem is already no longer one unofficially since Singapore's water production capacity is self sufficient. The same reason will also become officially obsolete by 2011 and 2016 when the water agreements expires.

Other than this issue, there's nothing physical that Malaysia needs to grab from Singapore and vice versa. Any thing else is just politiking and/or solve by the legal judiciary.

 

[qwerty223]

What makes you think that a T-84 is less capable between the two, do you have some examples as to the reason why. I do not see the T-90 as a major investment for Russia, all it is a modified T-72.

No, u got it all wrong. Its not about the design and techical potential. Its about the support they have from their gov. Ukraine in a nation wise str is not on par with Russia. Given a period, lets say 10 years, T-90 will eventually reach a higher stage, but T-80 might need 15 years. Ultimately they can reach the same last stage. The matter here is that T-90 will grow faster as it has a better support.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Joint MY-SG infantry exercise in Pahang

Deleted

 

[merkboy]

wat units of the Royal Malay Regiment?

 

[merkboy]

wat units of the Royal Malay Regiment?

I meant specifically what battalion.

 

[aneep]

dude, it says up there 10 RMR
nothing to add about the tanks, just that Malaysia really need to have a *real* tank range soon

-aneep-

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[croc]

It would seem from rumours from Malaysia with the mid term review near; number of defence projects may in fact get cancelled.

can any one varify yhis rumor that this is the case and if so what are the possible projects that could be impacted by the Mid term review.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted