|
|
Military deals with China are not just simply 'wahyu-wahyu' things atau suka-suka je atas 'half cooked' decisions ... there are more things attached to it. I have stated a little bit about Singapore's ties with Taiwan that draws China even closer to have ties with Malaysia in military. KS-1A and manpads technology are just for a start...
My point is that it doesn't matter if this is a "half-cooked" decision, "wahyu", or a well considered decision. In Malaysia military procurements are NOT in the hands of MINDEF and the ATM. It is between the PM and the Finance Minister. Now there may be particular reasons for choosing one weapon system over another. Political factors, economic reasons (such as barter trade or off-sets), or foreign policy considerations. But we should not AUTOMATICALLY assume that the weapon bought is what the ATM wanted.
In fact many members on the Sino-Defence forum have pointed out that the PLA have had many probs with the KS-1A and that this SAM is not in service with the PLA. In their opinion Malaysia should have gone for the Hongqi-16 SAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Buk-M1-2). Now, I don't know anything about the KS-1A. Maybe it is one of the best SAM's in the world. But if the Chinese (who are the ones who designed it) are complaining about it, isn't it possible that they know something about it that we don't? :hmm: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
h
apa yg paling penting ialah pertukaran teknologi pembangunan senjata. walaupun ks1A belum lagi teruji dimana2 peprangan tidak semestinya sistem china itu lemah.....Banyak yg negara dpt daripada pembelian tersebut. :setuju:
Hubungan lama malaysia china akan memguatkan lagi negara..insyaalah....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Laxamana. at 7-11-2006 11:05 AM
Military deals with China are not just simply 'wahyu-wahyu' things atau suka-suka je atas 'half cooked' decisions ... there are more things attached to it. I have stated a little bit about Singapore's ties with Taiwan that draws China even closer to have ties with Malaysia in military. KS-1A and manpads technology are just for a start...
Actually military technology JV dgn China ada banyak keuntungannya bagi kita. Lihat shj Pakistan, industri pertahan udara, darat & laut byk mendpt manfaat hasil kerjasama dgn China.
Ini termasuklah pembangunan kereta kebal Al-Khalid (dari projek MBT-2000 / Type 90II), Al Zarrar (versi terkini T-59), Short range ballistic missile Abdalli-I (dari projek roket China TY-3) / misil SRBM Ghaznavi (dari projek misil M-11), misil balistik Ghauri III (teknologi misil dikatan dibangun bersama China), misil kruis Babur (dipercayai hasil kerjasama China & Pakistan 'reverse engineer' Tomahawk yg tersilap landing di Pakistan), pesawat latihan K-8 Karakorum (dari projek Hongdu/Nanchang-JL8) serta pesawat MRCA JF-17 (dari projek FC-1).
Dari platform misil kruis & balistik, sehinggalah platfrom armor seperti Al-Zarrar & Al-Khalid, hingga platform udara sperti K-8 & JF-17, kerjasama antara industri pertahanan China & Pakistan amat ampuh & memperkasakan Pakistan itu sendiri. Kini Pakistan juga telah berjaya mengeksport pesawat latihan K-8 serta MBT Al-Khalid kepada negara2 Timur Tengah.
Tentang pengaruh SG & Taiwan byk dipengaruhi faktor SG merupakan sekutu terdekat US yg merupakan penaung Taiwan. SG secara umumnya walaupun mengiktiraf polisi 1 China, tp keperluan strategik nya bersama US terhadap stabiliti rantau Asia Timur & Selat Taiwan memainkan peranan penting dlm menyaksikan penempatan pangkalan tentera SG di Taiwan.
MY adalah negara ASEAN pertama yg menjalinkan hubungan diplomatik secara terbuka dgn PRC setelah pasca Mao Zedong. Selain itu, pengiktirafan kita ke atas polisi 1 China yg tak berbelah bahagi memainkan peranan utama kenapa hubungan MY & PRC agak erat.
Pakistan telah dijadikan pintu utama oleh China utk memperkenalkan produk industri pertahanannya ke Timur Tengah & rantau Afrika. Di rantau ASEAN, hanya Myanmar & Thailand shj merupakan pengguna produk pertahanan dari China, tp MY shj yg mempunyai keupayaan dlm membangunkan industri pertahanan bersama PRC serta kita blh menjadi launchpad kpd produk pertahanan China di rantau Asia Pasifik serta Australasia ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John, aku tak cakap MINDEF ada kuasa buat final decision over weapons procurement. Dema boleh evaluate dan recommend to PM and MOF dan tertakluk kepada bajet yang ada dan persetujuan PM over the purchase. Ini kerana weapons purchase ni ada sangkut paut dengan polisi dan dasar luar negara jadi persetujuan YAB PM adalah diperlukan. Namun, Menteri MINDEF adalah YAB TPM maka pastinya PM akan tanya TPM tentang justifikasi cadangan perolehan sistem2 ni dan TPM being MINDEf Minister pastinya dah consult Jeneral2 dan perancang tenteranya. So, bagi kami officers yang serve Agung, Kabinet dan Menteri - kalau dah dapat arahan suruh beli dan cari dana maka it's considered keputusan tersebut sudah ditimbang semasak2nya oleh pihak atasan....;) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by johngage at 7-11-2006 01:32 PM
Military deals with China are not just simply 'wahyu-wahyu' things atau suka-suka je atas 'half cooked' decisions ... there are more things attached to it. I have stated a little bit about Singapo ...
I have explained earlier that KS-1A that is being promoted to Malaysia is of different version.. export model (you can read more in the earlier posting), using different system. China has many options in rockets.. rejecting KS-1A doesn't necessarily meant that the rocket is not good or competitive enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by johngage at 7-11-2006 01:32 PM
Military deals with China are not just simply 'wahyu-wahyu' things atau suka-suka je atas 'half cooked' decisions ... there are more things attached to it. I have stated a little bit about Singapo ...
HQ-16 is the Buk system ? No, way.
This HQ-16 is still non existent and many say this will be the PRC production of improved Tor system.
Note, improved Tor aka Super Tor. Don't mistake it for Buk.
The chinese do have access to the navalised Buk missile, but there is no news of them getting the land version.
BTW, your reasoning that arm purchases are decided purely by the PM seems farfetched. The PM/FM decides on the monetary matters, not on the technical requirements, which must come from the users ie. Mindef.
Even in normal companies, there is such thing called approval limits when you want to purchase items.
Small amount $- user decide,
big amount $ - boss decide,
mega amount $ - board of directors decide.
but in going up for approval of purchase, the item must have already pass the technical requirements by the user.
Those approval at the higher levels will not look at the technical requirements anymore, they only look at commercial reasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So why is the Chinese going for naval Buk ?
Reason: its more compact compared to the KS-1A, a very important criteria for ships but not so critical for land system.
So far they have bought the S-300 (LRAD) and the Tor (SHORAD) from Russia. The MRAD portion missing.
This also means that for MRAD, the chinese figured that they have similar systems in the guise of the KS-1A and so did not purchase the land Buk system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John, aku tak cakap MINDEF ada kuasa buat final decision over weapons procurement. Dema boleh evaluate dan recommend to PM and MOF dan tertakluk kepada bajet yang ada dan persetujuan PM over the purchase...So, bagi kami officers yang serve Agung, Kabinet dan Menteri - kalau dah dapat arahan suruh beli dan cari dana maka it's considered keputusan tersebut sudah ditimbang semasak2nya oleh pihak atasan....
Saya tau. Yang saya tak setuju adalah statement ini:
"tapi yg pasti MINDEF dan perancang pertahanan negara setuju nakkan benda ni so kami cari aje jalan nak dapatkan duit"
Inii tidak tepat, kerana kadang-kadang MINDEF dan perancang pertahanan negara menerima arahan dari PM dan Treasury untuk membeli sistem atas sebab-sebab tertentu. TAK semestinya bermakna perancang ATM "SETUJU" atau "NAKKAN benda ini". Boleh jadi PM membuat keputusan itu atas kepentingan hubungan antara Malaysia dan negara lain. Boleh jadi Treasury suka senjata ini kerana offset dia termasuk kilang-kilang yang akan dibuka di Malaysia. Kilang buka, rakyat boleh kerja, ekonomi naik. Point sayanya tak semestinya senjata yang dibeli adalah apa yang MINDEF dan perancang evaluate and recommend terbaik untuk pertahanan Malaysia. Banyak kali keputusan dibuat atas asas politik dan ekonomi BUKAN militari.
I have explained earlier that KS-1A that is being promoted to Malaysia is of different version.. export model (you can read more in the earlier posting), using different system. China has many options in rockets.. rejecting KS-1A doesn't necessarily meant that the rocket is not good or competitive enough.
Saya mengaku bukan pakar tentang SAM China. Boleh jadi KS-1A antara SAM MEDRAD yang paling tercanggih didalam dunia. Saya cuma memberitahu apa rakan di Sino-Defence forum kata. Bagi mereka KS-1A bukan pilihan terbaik untuk Malaysia kerana ada banyak masalah teknikal. Boleh jadi sekarang masalahnya sudah semua selesai? Saya cuma menyampai pendapat mereka.
HQ-16 is the Buk system ? No, way...The chinese do have access to the navalised Buk missile, but there is no news of them getting the land version.
As I said in my previous post, I don't claim to be an expert on Chinese SAM's. But I was told by people on the Sino-Defence forum that the HQ-16 would be a better choice for Malaysia rather than the KS-1A. The USAF pilots I spoke to also said they had a ver healthy respect for the capabilities of the BUK. I have no idea what they think of the KS-1A.
BTW, your reasoning that arm purchases are decided purely by the PM seems farfetched...Those approval at the higher levels will not look at the technical requirements anymore, they only look at commercial reasons.
Why is it so "far-fetched"? In Malaysia the final power of approval DOES lie with the PM. In theory, yes it is true that the PM/FM decides on monetary factors, not on the technical requirements. But in practise, very frequently, the problem is that the technical requirements are completely ignored, and the focus is PURELY on political and economic factors. Consider for example the "zoo" that the RMAF has become. Now, they may be good political/economic reasons for buying planes from many different countries. But from a military point of view it is absolute madness because it means that in wartime conditions, the RMAF will have no hope of providing the logistics necessary to keep them flying. Of course, I am not suggesting that the PM/FM selects a weapon out of thin air. What I am saying is that the PM/FM criteria for selection is frequently very different from what the ATM would recommend on military/technical grounds. This is one of the major reasons for the frequent delays and logistical problems with Malaysia's defence projects. Very often the ATM's careful planning is disrupted by political interference into what equipment is purchased. The result is a weapon which is completely unsuited to the ATM's original requirement/doctrine and logistical problems will then develop.
[ Last edited by johngage at 8-11-2006 12:55 AM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes ada juga pembelian yg tak perlu di war-warkan ke seluruh pelusuk dunia. Apa yg selalu ditunjukkan hanyalah gimmick ajer, yg pentingnya yg kita tak tau dan tak nampak berlaku di belakang tabir sudah cukup buat aku gumbira. At least dengan berita2 macam ni bermakna kita dapat mengagak bahawa pertahanan negara kita tetap sentiasa diambil berat oleh pihak atasan, bergerak ke depan dan penuh deception, walau pun kita rakyat biasa tak nampak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kalau takde rotan, akar pun berguna!
Aiman tak kesah...janji ruang lingkup udara terjaga rapi.
Kalau KSA adalah pilihan, ok gak, kalau BUK terpilih, lagi cantik...tapi kalau le ASTER yg terpilih...ALHAMDULILLAHHHHH...
[ Last edited by Canaletto at 8-11-2006 09:34 AM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by johngage at 7-11-2006 07:41 PM
Why is it so "far-fetched"? In Malaysia the final power of approval DOES lie with the PM. In theory, yes it is true that the PM/FM decides on monetary factors, not on the technical requirements. But in practise, very frequently, the problem is that the technical requirements are completely ignored, and the focus is PURELY on political and economic factors. Consider for example the "zoo" that the RMAF has become. Now, they may be good political/economic reasons for buying planes from many different countries. But from a military point of view it is absolute madness because it means that in wartime conditions, the RMAF will have no hope of providing the logistics necessary to keep them flying. Of course, I am not suggesting that the PM/FM selects a weapon out of thin air. What I am saying is that the PM/FM criteria for selection is frequently very different from what the ATM would recommend on military/technical grounds. This is one of the major reasons for the frequent delays and logistical problems with Malaysia's defence projects. Very often the ATM's careful planning is disrupted by political interference into what equipment is purchased. The result is a weapon which is completely unsuited to the ATM's original requirement/doctrine and logistical problems will then develop.
[ Last edited by johngage at 8-11-2006 12:55 AM ]
I give you an analogy:
Your family wants to buy a vehicle for their transportation need. You have a budget...let's say $40,000.
You issue a tender for a vehicle specifying the requirement to have the ability to transport 4 people from point A to B.
3 vendors respond. 1 offer a bullock cart for $2000, 1 offer a proton wira for $40,000 and 1 offer a BMW for $80,000.
The users, ie. your family members went for a test drive and like the BMW for its comfort and its high technical requirement.
YOU, with only $40,000....what can you buy ?
Likewise, I rather that the PM/FM, who answers to the rakyat and must renew its mandate every 5 years, makes monetary decision for projects that worth millions of $ than some general who don't answer to the rakyat.
In theory, it is easier to bribe a general compared to a PM.
As for the zoo in the MAF.....that was under the previous PM, who does have a reputation for making some rather outrageous decisions just to snub eveyone else and if you recall, his favorite punching bag was the entire western world..
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
h
Iran ready to share missile systems
TEHERAN: Iran is ready to share its missile systems with friends and neighbours, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards said, after he showed off missiles including some he said had cluster warheads. Guards commander-in-chief Yahya Rahim Safavi also told Iran抯 Arabic-language Al Alam TV late on Sunday the Guards had thousands of troops trained for suicide missions in case Iran was threatened although he said any US attack was unlikely. The United States has said it wants to resolve a dispute over Iran抯 nuclear programme by diplomatic means but has not ruled out the use of force. Washington believes Teheran is seeking to make atomic bombs, despite Iranian denials.
揥e are able to give our missile systems to friendly and neighbouring countries, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I give you an analogy:
Your family wants to buy a vehicle for their transportation need. You have a budget...let's say $40,000.
You issue a tender for a vehicle specifying the requirement to have the ability to transport 4 people from point A to B.
3 vendors respond. 1 offer a bullock cart for $2000, 1 offer a proton wira for $40,000 and 1 offer a BMW for $80,000.
The users, ie. your family members went for a test drive and like the BMW for its comfort and its high technical requirement.
YOU, with only $40,000....what can you buy ?
I am not disagreeing with you. Of course, weapons procurements should be based on the money available. Unfortunately, the weapons procurements process in Malaysia is rarely as clean and transparent as the analogy which you relate. This is the REAL analogy. The company who is tendering the bullock cart knows he has a sub-standard product. So he selects a crony who is close to the Minister. The company promises the crony $10,000 for access to the minister. Once he meets the minister, he promises the minister $20,000, and he gets to sell the bullock cart at the vastly inflated price of $10,000. The result is that the best product we can get with our budget (the Proton) gets sidelined, the tax-payer gets cheated, and the MAF ends up with a sub-standard weapon which will be completely useless if Malaysia ever gets involved in a real shooting war.
Likewise, I rather that the PM/FM, who answers to the rakyat and must renew its mandate every 5 years, makes monetary decision for projects that worth millions of $ than some general who don't answer to the rakyat.
In theory, it is easier to bribe a general compared to a PM.
I completely agree. In Malaysia, military power is in the hands of the civilian government, as it should be. I also agree that the PM/FM has to make decisions based on a wide range of factors including political and economic ones. But in Malaysia's case the military consideration is given very little weight by the PM/FM. Weapons procurements are seen as tools to strengthen ties between Malaysia and other countries, or seen as ways to boost the economy of the country, instead of viewing them as a vital asset to our national security. Defence is seen by many ministers as a waste of money. As one long-standing minister likes to say: "Malaysia nak perang dgn siapa?"
To me this is a serious mistake. History has shown that countries which neglect their military pay a heavy price in time of war. It is particularly a serious mistake in Malaysia's case because we have outstanding territorial disputes with our neighbours. In my mind, defence is such an important matter that no compromise should be made. Of course, weight has to be given to political and economic factors. But mismanagement in defence projects should be punished, and punished severely. This clearly has not happened with regard to our NGPV project.
As for the zoo in the MAF.....that was under the previous PM, who does have a reputation for making some rather outrageous decisions just to snub eveyone else and if you recall, his favorite punching bag was the entire western world..
Which proves my point that Malaysia's politicians do NOT take defence seriously. If you want to snub the West, there are other ways of doing it without compromising our military. Mahathir could have give construction or petroleum deals to non-Western countries without interfering with our armed forces. In my opinion, the military has the potential to decide the life and death of our country. It is this kind of short-sightedness by our politicians that worries me the most.
[ Last edited by johngage at 9-11-2006 07:11 AM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pilots yg kena painted dgn radar Buk ni mau bertabur lari mcm dlm cerita Behind Enemy Lines tu... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I spoke with my china friends(he joint the PLA beforce ), he said,PLA was equite few KS-1A in Hokkian,Guangdong there, but the quantity is very low only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #57 steven268h's post
|
yah some on9 source also had writen PLA use KS-1A in limited units. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, when you buy weapon equipment, if you have a budget, you should go for the one that gives the most "bang for buck". Pretty logical and obvious, isn't it?
But I still don't understand why you guys are debating this issue for. Msia government has only expressed intent, not confirming any buy orders right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #59 mentosonline's post
|
no need for u to understand la.. this is merely a good medium for discussion.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 7-11-2006 01:32 PM
Author
