 |
| The Oshkosh ATV, an example of a mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle used by the US military. Photo taken from armystrongstories.com website. |
Recent ambush attacks are as follows:
Last February 26, 2015, 5 soldiers from the Army's 81st Infantry Battalion were killed in the town of Quirino, Ilocos Sur after military trucks were ambushed by NPA terrorists at night time. 6 other soldiers were also wounded.
In a separate incident, troops from the 50th Infantry Battalion were ambushed by the NPA last February 28, 2015 in the town of Pinukpuk, Kalinga. A trooper was killed while 3 other soldiers were injured.
Just yesterday, March 4, 2015, another report of an ambush and IED attack against a Philippine Army convoy resulted to 3 troopers killed, 2 of which were officers, and several others wounded. MaxDefense sources said that an IED struck a Kia KM-450 light truck, and the convoy was pinned down by small arms fire from hidden terrorists.
Precious lives wasted by being killed not in encounters, but defenseless in a vehicle without armor protection. In comparison, the current offensive against the BIFF has even less fatalities on the government forces as compared to a single IED ambush attack on a convoy.
In a separate incident, troops from the 50th Infantry Battalion were ambushed by the NPA last February 28, 2015 in the town of Pinukpuk, Kalinga. A trooper was killed while 3 other soldiers were injured.
 |
| This Land Rover Defender used by the PNP's Special Action Force (SAF) was destroyed by a landmine planted by the NPA in along a road in Antipolo, Rizal in 2010. 4 SAF policemen were killed, and 5 more were injured, all coming from the 3rd SAF Battalion. |
Just yesterday, March 4, 2015, another report of an ambush and IED attack against a Philippine Army convoy resulted to 3 troopers killed, 2 of which were officers, and several others wounded. MaxDefense sources said that an IED struck a Kia KM-450 light truck, and the convoy was pinned down by small arms fire from hidden terrorists.
Precious lives wasted by being killed not in encounters, but defenseless in a vehicle without armor protection. In comparison, the current offensive against the BIFF has even less fatalities on the government forces as compared to a single IED ambush attack on a convoy.
 |
| The Kia KM-450 light truck used by the AFP is among the favorite target vehicles of terrorist groups. The example above was ambushed by NPA in Cotabato resulting to 9 soldiers dead. Photo taken from GMA News website. |
 |
| This Toyota Hi-Lux utility vehicle of the Philippine National Police was ambushed by NPA terrorists in Sta. Rita, Samar in 2007. Land mines or IEDs were used, followed by small arms fire on the pinned down convoy. Photo taken from Samar News website. |
The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle:
To improve protection of mobile troops, the best way is to use armored vehicles with added protection against IEDs planted along the road. Specifically by having troops use mobility assets like armored personnel carriers (APC) or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.
MRAP concept was first introduced by the South African Defense Forces during their numerous encounters of landmines in the Rhodesian Bush Wars. They developed the Casspir, which is an armored vehicle with a raised body, large wheels, a V-shaped hull, and good armor protection for the passenger compartment. This became the inspiration for developing the MRAP of the Americans.
 |
| The Casspir, developed by South Africa and is considered to be the inspiration for developing the current generation of MRAP vehicles. The example above is an early variant of the model. |
The MRAP was widely introduced by the US military and its allies during military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after experiencing high casualties to its troops coming from roadside bombs, IEDs, landmines and small arms fire ambush. The favorite targets of militants were the US Humvee, which is also being used by the Philippine military and police forces. Even after armoring, the up-armored Humvees were still no match against powerful IEDs, which usually explode underneath the vehicles were armor is non-existent.
MRAPs differ from normal armored vehicles by being designed not only with armor protection on the front and sides of the vehicle, but also by designing the entire vehicle to protect its occupants from IEDs, landmines and explosives from below the vehicle. Innovations like V-shaped hull, compartmentalized armoring and using off-the-shelf parts made the vehicle not only effective, but also affordable compared to armored fighting vehicles.
 |
| MRAPs are not really indestructible, but they are protected enough to keep its occupants safe from harm. This example of a Cougar H MRAP was able to protect all its occupants despite the terrible damage the vehicle received. In this time and age, lives are more important than vehicle assets. Photo taken from Wikimedia. |
It was also designed to be a cheaper alternative to armored personnel carriers and armored fighting vehicles which were designed for optimized used on medium to high intensity conflicts. This allows the military to acquire more of the vehicle for use on low intensity and counter insurgency operations while maintaining their standard armored vehicles for other purposes.
Possible Sources of MRAP:
There are now numerous sources of MRAP vehicles in the world market, which means the Philippines will not have a problem sourcing them. There are several alternatives in which the Philippine government can go with regards to acquiring MRAPs for its security forces.
1. Used MRAPs from the US Military and other friendly countries:
With the US military reducing its footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are literally thousands of MRAPs currently in service with the US military. There are even thousands more left behind in conflict areas that they could not bring home due to economic reasons. For the Philippines, it doesn't need to acquire those left behind in Afghanistan. An option is to acquire them directly from the US military, sourced in the continental United States.
The US is downsizing its MRAP fleet, with many either being sold or granted to friendly countries, distributed to interested police forces in the US, or are being stored for future requirements. Add to that the cost cutting measures the US military is currently undertaking, and also the upcoming new fleet of vehicles called the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle project that are meant to replace the Humvee and early models of MRAP. About 7,000 MRAPs are being divested based on current US government plans.
 |
| The Cougar H MRAP. The US is divesting several of its Cougars and other MRAPs, which can possibly be made available for the Philippines. Photo taken from Wikimedia. |
The US has several types of MRAP, from the small RG-31 Nyala 4x4 to the large Cougar 6x6 (incidentally both examples were actually designed in South Africa) in which the Philippine security forces can choose from. Not only are they possibly cheap or even free, they are also readily available and can be immediately distributed to operating forces upon delivery.
2. Buying new MRAPs from foreign sources:
This is the most common practice, to acquire new-build MRAPs from friendly countries. There are many sources nowadays, from the original makers in South Africa, to the commonly seen variants from the United States, and from new MRAP players from Israel, India and even Thailand.
Costs can become an issue, as it is expected that if the Philippines acquire MRAPs, it would definitely consider acquisition and operating costs, performance in Philippine vegetation and setting, size, and probably economic advantages, local manufacturing and technology transfer. Politics can also be another reason of choosing a certain country's offering.
 |
| TATA of India released this Mine Protected Vehicle (MPV) recently and is now being offered for export. |
 |
| This is an indigenous MRAP design from Thailand, the Chaiseri First Win 4x4. It is also being offered to the Malaysian armed forces by Malaysian company DRB-Hicom (Deftech) as the Gempita. Photo taken from malaysiandefence blog site. |
Currently there are offers being made to both the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police. One example is the Tiger Mk.II 4x4 vehicle from MDT Armor. A US company, MDT Armor's product is actually based on a Ford or Dodge large pick-up trucks, and is built in Israel. MaxDefense chose to discuss this as the AFP and PNP previously conducted tests on the vehicle which was brought by MDT Armor's local distributor Spectec Trading. Based on their Facebook page, it appears that further tests were made by the Philippine Army, although it is still unclear if local tests on live fire and mine and IED resistance were made. Compared to contemporary MRAPs, the Tiger Mk.II is considered smaller and might be suitable for initial local requirements.
 |
| MDT Armor's Tiger Mk.II protected vehicle loaded in a Philippine Army truck for testing. The vehicle is also being offered to the Philippine National Police although no decision has been made by both armed services yet. Photo taken from Spectec Trading's Facebook page. |
3. Producing a Locally Made MRAP:
The most difficult approach is for local companies, or even the Armed Forces of the Philippines itself, to build an indigenous MRAP vehicle. This is because there are no entity in the Philippines with extensive experience in designing or manufacturing an armored vehicle, even more with an MRAP-like capability.
The closest effort being made is the Philippine Army's Security and Escort Armored Vehicle (SEAV), which is still undergoing tests. Made by a local company, the vehicle is practically a small armored vehicle that was designed to escort military convoys and provide machine gun fire support if necessary. But MaxDefense sources indicate that the vehicle is not really designed to take on blasts from underneath the vehicle, and has not undertaken any destructive test to validate its protective capabilities.
 |
| The Philippine Army's Security and Escort Armored Vehicle (SEAV) in 2013. Photo taken from Research & Development Center, ASCOM Philippine Army FB page. |
 |
| The SEAV in 2014. It appears that the underneath of the vehicle does not have a V-shape hull and was not really designed to consider mine protection from the beginning. Photo taken from screengrab of the video "Pagbigay Katuparan sa AFP Modernization Program" posted by PCOO Creatives in Youtube. |
Although this is a good option to develop the Philippine defense industry, it could also be the longest way for the AFP and PNP to have an effective protected vehicle. With time running out, this is not the first priority.
####
MaxDefense suggests that the Philippine government go for a multi-pronged approach in acquiring MRAPs. To immediately fill up its needs, the Department of National Defense (DND) should work together with the US Department of Defense to see if there are ways for the Philippines to tap excess defense articles or grants for MRAPs and more armored vehicles for both the PA and PMC. They could immediately be provided within the next few months should an agreement be made early on.
For a longer term solution, the Philippines must start to plan acquiring new MRAPs for both the AFP and PNP. It would be best to look at models that can be acquired at a lower cost, and with an option for a local production with technology transfer. This could benefit the local industry as well by bringing in technology and manufacturing capabilities. Local companies can tie-up with foreign manufacturers to represent them in the local assembly or manufacturing of the vehicles.
Whatever the path the government takes, in the end it would benefit the security forces of the Philippines by reducing the risks of fatal or major injuries during operations against communist and Islamic terrorists that are now actively playing the deadly IED-ambush path.
Whatever happened to those armored assets we were supposed to get? The ones modified by israel?
ReplyDeleteThey are M113 APCs that are vulnerable to landmines and IEDs. Any armored vehicle that has a flat bottom and a low ground clearance is always susceptible to them. Why? If you look at the images given below, a V-shaped hull and a high ground clearance defuses and deflects any explosion underneath to the sides of the vehicle thus limiting the damage. The only downside is there is a high chance of a roll-over with or without an explosion.
DeleteSir max what about the MX8 Barako?
DeleteThose being fitted by Israel are still being worked out. Delivery of some of the units are expected this year. There are also more than 100 M113s still being worked out for delivery within the year.
DeleteAs for the MX-8, it is a dead project, and Steelcraft may not have the guts to create an MRAP after the bad experience they had with the Philippine Army, which in part is actually Steelcraft's fault as well.
Sir Max, if you don't mind. What caused the failure of the MX-8 project?
DeleteDear Sir,
DeleteThe best principle is to make our troops safe from hostilities or ambush. We need to buy Main Battle Tanks for our soldiers and police to privide the a safe and easy way of chasing criminals. Please think safety first for our soldiers.
Whatever happened to those armoredassets we were dupposed to get from the Americans?
ReplyDeleteStill being pushed for delivery this year.
DeleteLooks like the MDT Tiger Mk II is not designed against IEDs. The AFP should seriously consider other MRAPs available in the market if they want protection from IEDs.
ReplyDeleteAccording to their techsheets, MDT Armor's Tiger Mk II is actually an MRAP, although a small one.
DeleteI think SEAV is a waste of time and money. They should have build an escort vehicle that can survive ied attack also.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I am not sure though if the price of the SEAV is really that low compared to the cheapest new MRAP out there.
DeleteI think the PNP should have got this MRAP Vehicle under there program and most urgent one for them. They are now assigned to tackle the Internal Security Operation (Counter Insurgency Operation) of the country. This is a must for them. They should have consider this long time ago when they assume the ISO responsibility. What ever happened to the Armored Vehicle Fiasco Contract is a lesson for them.
ReplyDeleteThe PNP was actually being offered with the Tiger Mk II armored vehicle recently. This was discussed before in our MaxDefense @ Facebook page.
DeleteIt was offered lately Sir Max but, how many years now since they assume the ISO responsibility? Did they think boldly after accepting the ISO responsibility to what kind of road map for there personnel and asset when it comes to ISO? They need to examine what the AFP have gone thru the years when they engage in ISO (at what expense their AFP personnel and assets e.g. Armored Personnel Vehicles, Utility Vehicle, equipment and training. The PNP should have differ the acquisition before, when a lot of police cars are turned over every year when Aquino assumed his post and inserted a number of Armored Vehicle in the procurement process in a yearly basis. What are the list of armored vehicle acquisition in the PNP from 2010-2014 or even at the pipeline? I think "none" of the current and former PNP Chief has the balls to spearhead a new armored vehicle program after the armored vehicle fiasco which use to serve as the vehicle for the SAF personnel. By the way how many PNP personnel in general have been wounded and died due to IED, ambush and counter insurgency related cases. Even before the SAF 44 incident,there so many IED cases have been committed by NPA in the hinterlands to some it up more then SAF 44 casualty in total thru the years of neglect by the higher headquarters of the PNP/DILG to equip them with appropriate vehicle for hinter land operation.
DeleteSir max is tiger mk. II really a mrap?
ReplyDeleteAccording to MDT Armor, yes it is.
DeleteIm not a Philippine so my opinion may not correct, but i think Philippine Army should not concentrate to acquiring MRAP vehicles. With Philippine limited budget is more correct to use the funds to deploy more troops into the conflict region.
ReplyDeleteAfter all even if u get a MARP it will probably not at sufficient number or/and ASAP. Plus owning them will just make patrols more safe, not the same with more troops that can be deploy in several places and hunt the enemy.
Meanwhile if u use the funds for increasing the troops number in conflict area, it can happen more quickly and cheaper. Alternatively is to use the funds to build a local militia or win locals population support. I think this is a better way to win the war.
If u really think MARP is a must then i suggest u go with option 3 to produce locally. Mr Max has point out that the lack of experience in designing or manufacturing is a problem.
But i think the solution for that problem is to buy a license for MARP or hire an expert to design it. Not only this will be more cheaper it also better for Philippine defense industry on the long run.
Just look at the Makassar class ship that Philippine buy from Indonesia. It was design by South Korea for Indonesia. So if Philippine don't have the skill to design an MRAP, buy the license or ask an expert to design it. The last option provide more flexibility as the design can be tailored to suite Philippine defense industry capability.
Again sorry if my opinion is not correct.
There are already local militias that are trained by the Philippine Army called the CAFGU, tasked to defend their communties from armed rebels or terrorists. Unforunately they are under armed and have less experience than full time terrorists, being militia and farmers at the same time.
DeleteThere are also plans to increase the total number of soldiers in thr Army, which will probably be discussed in future MaxDefense blogs.
There are actually MRAPs that are cheaper compared to what the US and western countries are using. These assets double as armored personnel carriers, which is also lacking in the Philippine military. If you noticed especially on recent media reports, troop movements are done using M35 trucks or Kia KM250 and KM450 trucks. Armored Humvees are also rare in the military and police arsenals.
As for local manufacture, MaxDefense believes that tie-up with proven foreign builders is the key to tech and design transfers, if we can secure them to build the armored vehicles locally under a joint venture with a local company.
MRAPS are great, they should consider it since US is now leaving Afghanistan, and there are thousands of it. US cannot fly it all back home so they are giving it to friendly allies(For Free from one article i saw last year).
ReplyDeletealso, interesting article, just like to share..
http://www.manilalivewire.com/2015/02/philippines-will-acquire-surveillance-and-armed-drones-from-u-s/
Is there any Update regarding the 400 acquisition of RPG 7?
ReplyDeleteFirst batch coming very soon.
DeleteThis option is very expensive and will jeopardize our external defense modernization. It also reflects the colonized mentality of buying from foreigners, even though we can easily do it ourselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Cassipir design, the original MRAP from the 1970s, can easily be derived from the ordinary jeepney, even by the most basic equipped talyer. And the Philippine Marines are adept at it.
Local manufacture without experience is a hit or miss way to develop a product. If time is of the essence, this is not the best way to go. As usual, the Philippine requirement might be time constraint.
DeleteWhy now. If the Philippines can pay for the shipping cost. They can get a dozen MRAPS.
ReplyDeleteAGREE WITH YOU SIR MAX.. Government must ASAP purchase this type of vehicle to our AFP and PNP. Mr. President Aquino PLEASE PLEASE read this request from your boss if your worrying of the safety of our soldier and policemen.
ReplyDeleteI say Go SUBIC and offeres the factory that produces SIMBAs to the foreign investors who want to come in the Philippines for joint manufacturing of proposed MRAPs and APC for new projects of DND for the AFP and PNP. I suggest go with the Israeli like ELBIT system or MDT coy that just recently offered their Tiger Mk4 MRAP.
ReplyDeletelol. like the phil armed forces are trained bomb defusers. even the "superior" americans cant stop the ieds in iraq/afghanistan. death boxes. you are your own enemy. the elite dictate the flow of policies in this country. the ordinary are too icompetent.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem of acquiring all the military hardwares and weapon systems the AFP needs is not because we don't have the budget, it is actually due to government red tape, political corruption, incompetent military planners & presidential advisers & a president who thinks that peaceful negotiations will resolve our problems with China, Malaysia, Muslim rebels and NPA communists.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we can go indigenous by using existing chassis of our Simba AFVs by stripping it down to the bare essentials. This might be cheaper than buying from abroad.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the factory and company that locally produced the Simba is gone.
DeleteThe government should have develop its infantry before going to other branch. The Army & Marines must be equipped with heavy weaponry. As proven in numerous encounter, we (the people from the ground) often get our ass kick because as far as we are concern the rebel weapons are at par with the AFP (as these are source from govt inventories). Based on experience from the field, we need main battle tanks, long-range artillery, APC, Attack Helicoper for the Army/Marines & military drones for our ground forces. Tanks such as the Leoapard (Germany) or Abrams (US), Long-Ranger Artillery like Panzer (Germany), APC Stryker with troop carrying & MedEvac capabilities (USA), Real Attack Helicopters (Tiger or Apache) & Military Drones (Israel or US). Except perhaps the attack helicopter, the rest are affordable. With these, the AFP can deal these rebels way much better than we do today. Rebels dont respect our weapons thats why they fool us around. Captain Dela Pena (PM) @ Sumisip, Basilan.
ReplyDeleteSir, You are correct. But I wonder why the DND is not acquiring this assets or they are not planning of acquiring this assets? I believe we need MBT's on cities,(Leopard, Abrams or Merkava are great). But right now I prefer APC's and IFV like the Stryker and ACV 300.
DeleteThe higher ups in the AFP and DND in my opinion are incompetent. They know that the AFP lack so much in terms of capability. But they are moving like turtles and their planning and acquisition is slow.
Pretty sure Philippine have a massive number of APC or at least according Wikipedia. Not going to use that?
ReplyDeleteWhile IED is a real threat, by seeing the picture it's more likely that the soldiers is killed by small arms. APC can handle that.
At least adding APC in convoy will improve the safety.
300+ APCs for an 80,000 Army is really few, in comparison to its neighboring peers. During the Marcos era, then Defense Secretary Enrile envisioned 1000+ APCs and armored vehicles for the Philippine Army. See the difference in numbers.
DeleteTrue to what sir Max said if you are going to look at other countries, most or more than half of their ground units are in mechanized form and armed with a lot of APCs. In a modern battlefield - be it a conventional or unconventional one - troops carried by APCs and supplemented by IFVs/AFVs has a distinct advantage over their enemies. It gives them better mobility and protection. Also I have read on one study that soldiers fight better beside an APC.
DeleteOn the question of IED:
In a modern setting where our troops are fighting guerrillas/insurgents who use asymmetric warfare, a mine or IED is more favored due to its low cost and ease of manufacture. Also you are negating the advantage of the regular army. Blow a mine/IED to destroy the first and last vehicles of a convoy and you have an ambush.
But Sir max, this wikipedia show the number is more than 300:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Philippine_Army
Plus if u add IFV then it's a lot.
Again considering if was concentrated just to conflict area, then its more than enough. Some 200-300 APC in conflict area and troops that was deploy in there will make a different.
Sure in other area (that was peaceful) they will be lack of APC, but they not needed there.
300 vs 400 units doesn't make a difference if we're comparing it to thousands that the PA's peers have. Let's put Malaysian Army as an example, they have almost the same manpower size as the Philippine Army, but they are better armed with more than 1000 armored vehicles in its arsenal, not including their main battle tanks and more numerous transport vehicles compared to what the PA has.
DeleteYou also cannot put all your assets in one place. Being peaceful doesnt mean there can't be a threat tomorrow. War comes without warning most of the time. And the PA places its assets strategically in anticipation of such occurances.
DeleteBut Sir Max think about it, 300-400 APC spread all over Philippine will not make a difference if someone decide to invade Philippine. Those who dare to attack will bring tanks, gunships and bombers. It will not stop them.
DeleteBut some 200-300 APC will make difference in area of conflict where the enemy is not well equipped. It will speed up the ending of the conflict with victory. Plus war is unlikely happen anytime soon. This is just temporary measure until the conflict end.
Think like Churchill that in WW2 send the entire British tank to Egypt and leave the British island without tank. He know that if Hitler invade those tank will not stop them. But on Egypt those tank can protect the Suez and thus save the British.
Philippine that in peace should copy this. Yes, there is a risk, but how big is the risk? It's not like Philippine is in the brink of war. Nor it's allies will not come to help if war broke out. Plus hiding guerrilla soldier in foot with RPG is probably better in stopping invading force than APC.
With all respect and sorry for my bad English.
You also have to consider that the Philippines is an archipelago, and it is not that easy to transport a lot of armored vehicles from one island to another with so few naval transport assets.
DeleteThe Philippine Marines has approximately 11 battalions & it is being supported by 30 or 40 APC's only with few artillery. We dont have MBT's, adequate APC's, long-range artillery, long-range military drones (not the RC toy planes converted to act as drones) & real attack choppers with heavy fire power. And to come to think of it, we at the Philippine Marines risk our lives daily as we are the front men in almost all military operations & we get rubbish military weaponry & equipments. Max the AFP modernization planners are all sick minded... they dont give a shit about its troops. Captain Dela Pena (PMC) @ Sumisip, Basilan
DeleteWell Sir Max i think even if it's hard, It's still doable and definitely more faster than waiting a new MRAP from purchase to come or build locally.
Delete@ Captain Dela Pena :
I wish u the best of luck in your duty.
IMHO, it would be best that AFP develop some indigenous MRAPs and not just depend on importations for this one. As Max said its difficult but for long term prospects for this would be good for the local industry. I think Filipino industry has the ingenuity to do it. If we have the technology to develop the C.R.O.C, then we could build some capabilities for MRAPs.
ReplyDeleteThe CROC according to MaxDefense sources, can't really have effective application in combat. The best way to gain technology is striking a deal with a proven manufacturer to have the vehicles built locally under a venture with a local company.
DeleteBetter off instead of real APC.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we have to get these asset for safety of our trooper from ambush and landmines. kaya naman ng budget basta wag lang EEPAL ang mga politiko at nanakawin......
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/03/14/u-s-must-demolish-thousands-of-its-vehicles-in-afghanistan/
ReplyDelete1,200 vehicles as of last year waiting to be demolished or returned to the US. As-is-where-is basis. I suggest we gather 50 bus drivers plying edsa (who always seem to have a death wish) and make them drive vehicles down to pakistani ports and shipped here. Two birds, one stone.
Its not that easy. If it is, then the Americans have already done it. Same with the other countries that were interested in these vehicles.
DeleteThe Canadian Army currently operates 75 of the RG-31 Nyala. It was primarily used in Afghanistan. They are currently being replaced by 500+ Textron Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicles so if DND has a need, the DFA may be able to swing a deal with the Canadian Commercial Corporation along the same lines as the Bell 412EP sale.
ReplyDeleteThe Textron TAPV is actually an improved version of the M1117 MRAP, which is also a modern derivative of the Philippine Army and Marine Corps' V-150 Commando armored vehicle. The TAPV suites the Canadians but it would depend on the PA and PMC's requirements on what kind of armored vehicle/MRAP they may require.
DeleteMRAP are immediate needs of the AFP and PNP against ambuscade by lawless separAtist communist and terorisr elements. I agree with you that in acquiring equilment like these it should be coupled with technology transfer with partnership to local manufacturer. There are Companies here in the phils who are making bulletproof vehicles and others making transport . If our local industries will be given a chance to acquire these technology it will give additional employment and increase govt revenue. What tbis Govt needs is a strong political will to make this happen. If tbis happened we will develop self sufficiency and lessen our dependency to foreign armaments and weaponry especialy SURPLUS equipment. In the meantime out officials from the DND Procurement and Bids Committee should suspend bidding from a certain project if they have certainty on the budget, specification of the equipment and have the finality to have the project bidded. The way things are going is loose our CREDIBILITY with the suppliers and all of these exercise is LOKOHAN only
ReplyDeleteMaybe the philippines should follow suit and do what the indonesians did. I'm not to sure about the chaiseri first win but think of it this way. The ASEAN has been recently stepping up its security cooperation as a regional bloc ADMM (ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting) and the ADIC (ASEAN Defence Industry Collaboration) according to some articles even from US defense analysts inter ASEAN defence development and procurement would definetely decrease the regions dependence on foreign military hardware sources AND effectively save the ASEAN hard currency AND at the same time develop a standardization of the ASEAN's military forces. Procuring the first win from thailand and getting the technology know how to produce these vehicles would bring us a step closer to enhancing our defence industry (the first win is produced by chaiseri who also produces the toyota fortuner hilux innova etc) Maybe its just me and it may seem farfetched but China would think twice about bullying a ECONOMICALY POLITICALY and MILITARILY UNITED ASEAN. as the saying goes a person must learn how to crawl first before he can walk and walk first before he can run. Baby steps. :)
ReplyDeleteI think it is much better if we acquire the Textron TAPV or Stryker.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe it is economical to license a MRAP. While I don't doubt the technical capability of the Philippine automotive industry, licensing a MRAP is economical only if the Philippine is acquiring a great number of them. Australia's Bushmaster MRAP license makes sense because Australia eventually bought over 1000 of them. Initial confirmed order was almost 400 as I recall. How many is the Philippines going to get? If the combined order is only about 100-200 units, forget licensing, it won't recoup the investment.
ReplyDeleteInstead, I concur with the guy suggesting the Chaiseri First Win. There is a clear benefit in standardizing equipment across ASEAN members. There's a clear benefit in furthering security cooperating with fellow ASEAN members too.
So get the Chaiseri First Win as knocked-down kits and assemble them in the Philippines. See if Chaiseri is willing to outsource some parts production to the Philippines.
I appreciate your concurrence sir. With regards to the Chaiseri First Win I did mention that they do also produce commercial vehicles like the toyota fortuner hilux etc. From what I gather they designed the First Win with the knowledge they gathered from years of assembling and producing these commercial vehicles. Don't we also have a few assembly plants of the same somewhere south of manila? Even the parts were sourced from already commercially produced vehicles. Lets just say its the MRAP version of the Textron Airland Scorpion. Going on. The First Win could just be the first step. Singapore and Indonesia also have varying degrees of defence industry. Anywhere from APC's IFV's and in the case of singapore Self Propelled Guns.
DeleteOff topic Sir max if you could kindly answer my question the SSV's procured from PT PAL does it include technology transfer? We can probably produce a few ships of the class in our own shipyards.
No need to thank me for concurring. It's just normal to concur to a sensible suggestion.
DeleteLooking at Chaiseri's website, the company claims it's a non-chassis based vehicle. I'm not quite sure what that means, but if it means it can be applied to a different chassis, then the DND should seriously look if it can be applied to a truck model that is made in the Philippines.
To expound further on security cooperation, stuff like joint procurement on common items can drive prices down. While there's a lot of variations in defense hardware in South East Asia, there are many things in common too. Indonesia and the Philippines are both looking for more M113 for example. Rather than two separate small orders, a single large joint order can get a better deal for both countries. Even further on there are things like joint production. The Philippines can produce some parts, a different ASEAN country another, and then each country assembles them in-house. This is already done in the automotive industry. The average Toyota truck will have parts made in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines (and of course, Japan). Toyota then ships the kits to each individual country to be assembled there.
And to answer your question regarding the SSV, I don't believe the deal includes any significant technology transfer. There are some PN observers in the PAL dockyard and they might pick up something, but judging from the budget, the deal can't possibly include any design transfer, and that's what the Philippines do not have.
Chaiseri does repair and upgrade military track and wheeled vehicals for the Royal Thai Armed Forces for decades that is where they get their expertise from. They also manufacture and export tracks for tanks all over the world which is better than the original tracks. http://www.janes.com/article/43322/win-win-from-thailand-aad142 and http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-first-two-upgraded-aav-undergo-tests.html and http://www.miltechmag.com/2013/11/defense-and-security-2013-chaiseri.html and https://youtu.be/btu7JBQJ76s I don't think there would be any problems to produce them in the Philippines
DeleteI think the best option that our government should do to start being self-reliant is to first establish tie-ups with the major arms manufacturers to locally assemble, then fabricate & manufacture, then do repair and maintenance, then start R & D before developing our own indigenous weapon systems. As an example, start with MOWAG of Switzerland to locally assemble & manufacture (together with transfer of technology) 1000-2000 units of Piranha V as our standard IFV/APC for the next 30-50 years.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.military-today.com/apc/mowag_piranha_v.htm
Sir max,
ReplyDeleteThe singaporeans are retiring their V-100/150/200 Commando's is there any chance the ph can do a govt-govt deal to pick some of these up?
http://www.manilatimes.net/choppers-bought-for-p1-2b-defective/168066/
ReplyDeleteThe "UH 1H(Hotel)" is the improved version of the "UH 1D". "Upgrading the UH-1D to the Lycoming T53-L-13 engine(1000kW), plus relocating the pitot tube from the nose to the roof resulted in a new model, the "UH-1H", which was to become the most produced variant of the Huey family." Germany built Licensed "UH 1H" not the UH 1D. So if they are from Germany probably they are the UH 1H standard! All of the US army UH 1D was upgraded to UH 1H.
"As part of a “cover-up” by Defense officials, four units of the questioned helicopters were presented last year during the PAF anniversary. But the aircraft would not even start because of engine problems."
Why the F*** will I accept a defective aircraft in the first place?? The PAF and DND knows what they are doing. This assets are a major procurement, and before they accept it, there is an inspection first.
This is a misleading article.
There is an ongoing discussion about this on the MaxDefense @ FB page.
DeleteIn another blog spot, the US is offering Argentina 100 units of the M113s of different configurations, we can avail of these if our need is really urgent while waiting for the others that will be upgraded by Elbit systems.
ReplyDeleteI'm amused that when there is news about US getting involved with helping and assisting the AFP in the fight against terrorism, political oppositions starts getting very noisy. But when China invaded & occupied our Spratly Island reefs and Scarborough shoal, I don't see any strong condemnation from the opposition and military or law-enforcement action from the govenment. I only read useless vebal diplomatic protests.
ReplyDeleteThat is because they are communist like China
DeleteThis is good news for us. Just want to share with all of you.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rappler.com/nation/86327-philippine-microsatellite-diwata
Light weight Mine roller.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pearson-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/3.jpg
We might want to do a similar approach done by Ukraine.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.military-today.com/apc/shrek_one.htm
Well, whwen it come to MRAP vehicle, i believe we can manufacture it localy, at least the chasi or the body and other parts, except the systems, but thats not a big essue, its available easily in the market ,it will be cheaper or i should say more afordable.
ReplyDeleteLet us all campaign against Chiz Escudero, Franklin Drilon and many other politicians who don't support the AFP Modernization Program. Let us not forget Bongbong Marcos who blames the government for escalating the tensions in the West Philippine Sea by seeking the help of the US. Bongbong Marcos still wants to maintain a friendly relationship with China despite China's aggressive behavior by building islands inside our territory. These politicians are very unpatriotic.
ReplyDeleteThis would fit within GA's program ... u know one SRDP program..as joint venture with local companies, with tech transfer...wot u think ..max
ReplyDeleteCurrently the only remaining locally made armored vehicle program is the SEAV. But it also is in limbo, with no final approval yet if the proposal was accepted or not.
DeleteMRAP vehicles with slat armor bear similar to the ones used by US forces in afghanistan and iraq. Bear in mind that rebel groups also possess armor piercing rocket propelled grenades
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteA great mrap would be the Nimr jais 6x6 it can withstand 30mm and 10kg of tnt
This should replace the v-150
then the turrents of the v-150 will be place on the nimr jais 6x6
This is a great news, thanks for letting us to know about this.
ReplyDelete.Sir max i Hope the Phil. Army TWG will include the Otokar Kaya-2 in thier LTCV aquisition. Kaya 2 is one of the best 4x4 MRAP in market. Offering a good IED, TNT , and Small Caliber protection from the enemy. Carrying 10 troops makes the Army more lethal. I hope the Phil. Army and Phil. Marines Technical Working Group will evaluate the Otokar Kaya-2.
ReplyDeletewhat happened to the remote controlled turret? mukhang mga machine gun yata armas ng MK II. Please advise
ReplyDelete