MAF abandon Steyr after 15-year service
-
Becos MAF is famous for rojak!!!Originally posted by tankfanatic:if you ask me..too many different type of weapon
Always buy small qty of various different type weapon but of the same kind/role, could be due to sharing the pie of commission so that all the cronies will have their share!!!
As for Dan said abt choosing the M4 for logistical reason, MAF has never exhibit that!!! -
Italian Beretta AR70.Originally posted by tankfanatic:this is in the 80's when they were fighting thr communist..what kind of rifle is that?
-
Stop spreading your venom.Originally posted by gary1910:Becos MAF is famous for rojak!!!
Always buy small qty of various different type weapon but of the same kind/role, could be due to sharing the pie of commission so that all the cronies will have their share!!!
As for Dan said abt choosing the M4 for logistical reason, MAF has never exhibit that!!!
Well, if they pick another new rifle, wouldn't that also add more fire to your "rojak" comment?
But let's hear your recommendations as to what the MAF should use.
Edit: Someone has already posted pics of MAF testing the XM-8. Just becos you don't know what they have tested doesn't mean they didn't test other options.
And perhaps, like the Americans, they arrived independently at the same conclusion. That other systems are not so fantastic that it is worth replacing the M16. After 15 years with the Steyr, they still prefer the M16. Just becos you can't accept that the M16 is still a good enough system is maybe... just your opinion? -
Originally posted by chino65:Stop spreading your venom.
Well, if they pick another new rifle, wouldn't that also add more fire to your "rojak" comment?
But let's hear your recommendations as to what the MAF should use.
I did not say that they have to pick a number of different AR , it is just that that I felt that it is wrong choice!!!
You said that M4 is the best choice for them , why is it so?
Firstly , they replaced their M-16A1 with Steyr AUG and then 15 years later go back the newer version of the same M-16 family , what is the logic in that?
The same M-16 family is based on the gas blowback which most feel that piston gas operated weapon is much better, and having carbine with shorter barrel thus less effective range as compare to other AR, so why is it better than other options?
Is it not true you also said that the Taiwanese and the HK adaptation M-16 with a piston gas operated weapon is better than the current M-16 family in here and other forum?
So why are you contradicting yourself now?
You ask what is better, I dunno which is better as I have not tested any of the modern AR, but I hv tested piston gas operated weapon, SA-80, it is easier to clean and less jamming than gas blowback M-16, this is the same feature most new AR is operating.
Then that is a lot of new bullpup which offered shorter weapon at the same effective range.
So is it possible that one of them currently available that has above features actually better that the M4?
Especially when there is quite a number of armies replacing their M-16A1 with other weapon rather continue with the same family. -
Just based on your "feelings"...? Who are you? Jedi Master?Originally posted by gary1910:I did not say that they have to pick a number of different AR , it is just that that I felt that it is wrong choice!!!
You are outright condemning them, but at the same time, unwilling to commit to offering an optional choice to the M4. Just condemn condemn condemn...
Oh, how many times do you want me to repeat my theories about logistics, training, and the fact that their SOF actually PREFERS the M16 system? Besides...The M16 had never entirely left the MAF inventory. So they are just adding more to it by getting M4. How many times do you want me to repeat this before you get that this is the gist of what I'm saying?Originally posted by gary1910:You said that M4 is the best choice for them , why is it so?
Originally posted by gary1910:
I am not debating why they quit Steyr. I am only talking about why they go for M4 after Steyr. So stick to one point instead of straying all over the place!
Firstly , they replaced their M-16A1 with Steyr AUG and then 15 years later go back the newer version of the same M-16 family , what is the logic in that?Originally posted by gary1910:
A piston-driven M16 is indeed better than the M16. Who is debating that?
Is it not true you also said that the Taiwanese and the HK adaptation M-16 with a piston gas operated weapon is better than the current M-16 family in here and other forum?So why are you contradicting yourself now?
But where is MAF gonna get a piston M16 license from? C'mon, we are talking about the M4 being the "best for MAF" - and not which is the "best rifle in the world".
sigh...Originally posted by gary1910:
WAH....A whole bunch of meaningless words. You should be a politician.
You ask what is better, I dunno which is better as I have not tested any of the modern AR, but I hv tested piston gas operated weapon, SA-80, it is easier to clean and less jamming than gas blowback M-16, this is the same feature most new AR is operating.
Then that is a lot of new bullpup which offered shorter weapon at the same effective range.
So is it possible that one of them currently available that has above features actually better that the M4?
Especially when there is quite a number of armies replacing their M-16A1 with other weapon rather continue with the same family.
So are you saying the MAF should get a THIRD AR system or not?
If yes, say which one. If no, well then, you are just able to criticise but unable to offer a viable alternative.
Remember how you were vehemently insisting that Singapore terrain is unsuitable for MBT etc etc? Well, you were saying that until SAF announced the purchase of Leopards before you finally packed it in.
So you have to accept, Gary, that sometimes your opinion is not the universal standard.
I am merely trying to offer a few reasons or even just wild guesses why MAF chose to go back to a tried and tested system. Even if these aren't the reasons, you have to admit that these are indeed logistical advantages. For one who is so ready to criticise others for being rojak, you are contradicting yourself by saying there are no logistic reasons for going for the M4.
.... you are just there going HAHAHA backwards rojak etc etc.. but otherwise unable to offer anything constructive. -
At the end of the day, it just depends on who is willing to sell M'sia the right to manufacture the weapons.
Steyr sold them, now I believe Colt sold them, Kalashnikov were willing to sell the 101s too.
HK for sure won't sell rights to manufacture, so G-36, XM-8 etc are out of the picture. Not sure about Lee Enfield, but I'm sure the M'sian didn't even bother to try IMI.
The reason why they picked the M4 is more like... BO PIAN. -
Chino,
Since you acknowledge that piston-driven, gas operated AR is better than a M16 gas blowback design.
1st negative point for the M4.
US army standard infantry weapon is M16A2, not the shorter and lighter M4, why?
Becos M4 shorter barrel mean shorter effective range.That is a fact.
2nd negative point for M4.
With these 2 negative points, why should one not condamn the choice of M4 as a standard infantry weapon??
Logistical support consideration??
If one could choose a new AR for the army , it will be used at least 2 decades or more, yes it take time to have full support but it is matter of training and support, eventually it will not be a problem at all, it is just a transitional period.Remember how you were vehemently insisting that Singapore terrain is unsuitable for MBT etc etc? Well, you were saying that until SAF announced the purchase of Leopards before you finally packed it in.
So you have to accept, Gary, that sometimes your opinion is not the universal standard.
I am merely trying to offer a few reasons or even just wild guesses why MAF chose to go back to a tried and tested system. Even if these aren't the reasons, you have to admit that these are indeed logistical advantages. For one who is so ready to criticise others for being rojak, you are contradicting yourself by saying there are no logistic reasons for going for the M4.
.... you are just there going HAHAHA backwards rojak etc etc.. but otherwise unable to offer anything constructive.
SG has all along operate both LT and MBT( remember the Tempest?), my point then is good to have both, not just light tank, your point then was no LT becos of the weak armour.
But you can't deny the fact, that Jap effective invasion of MY using LT thru rubber plantation and forest road.
You also can't deny that LT will be better suited than a large MBT to move in those terrain.
2ndly, cheap 2nd hand Leo 2 offer by the German is just too tempting, but we still do not know what SAF is going to replace the rest of the SM1.
In fact , it is well known fact SG is searching for a new LT to replace SM1 since the late 90s, a few years back there was a request for proposal for new LT from UDLP etc.
What will happen remain to be seen. Whatever it will be , I still think that it is good to have LT in such terrain where a large MBT will have difficulties.
Now when did I say that there are no logistic reasons for going for the M4?
I was saying with MAF rojak orbat, they never consider logistic reasons for their purchases!!!
For example, 111 KIFV and 211 Adnan, both are M113 AIFV variant but one using a German powerpalnt and the other US powerplant?!?
For LAW, they have C90 and now RPG-7.
For ATGM, they have Milan, METIS -M , ERYX & BHAKTAR SHIKAN.
For Manpads, they have Pakistan Anza, Russian Igla and now latest is Chinese FN-6, all of the similar design Manpads becos all of them are the derivatives the old SA-7.And they still have the SHORT Manpads.
Enough said. -
Alright...lets just all be frank okay...Murphy's Laws of Combat states that your weapon is manufactured by the lowest bidder. Question is, will the QC be as stringent as US Made M4s?
-
haha to be honest...wadever rifle they get is not going to change their operational capability....
-
Since you acknowledge that piston-driven, gas operated AR is better than a M16 gas blowback design.
no argument in this one..you are right
1st negative point for the M4.US army standard infantry weapon is M16A2, not the shorter and lighter M4, why?
gary they are fighting in close quarter battle all this time (in the jungle) and trained their army that way....and since they already have the whole bunch of M16 .....add some more the shorter efective range M4...and some more still have the styer.... and some more their industry still maintain its capability to mantain the weapon....isnt that makes M4 the perfect weapon to fill the gap?
Becos M4 shorter barrel mean shorter effective range.That is a fact.
2nd negative point for M4.With these 2 negative points, why should one not condamn the choice of M4 as a standard infantry weapon??
i can quote 10 negative point on ak-47...and i doubt you are going to condemned russia -
Fighting communist insurgency in Malaya was in the early mid-50's {before Malaysia} to the late 60's - {until after Malaysia was formed and a truce called 1988-1989 between the Malaysian Government and the Malayan Communist Party led by Chin Peng, sponsored by the Thai Government}.Originally posted by tankfanatic:this is in the 80's when they were fighting thr communist..what kind of rifle is that?
The weapons below were normal issues for that period, while in the 80s, the standard rifle was already the M16.
The top photo has the front row, center guy holding the Stirling Sten Gun firing 9mm rounds from a side magazine.
This is a weapon of choice for the commander - {officers and sergeants}.
The MAF troopers were probably carrying the FN SLR rifle - using the 7.62mm NATO calibre {otherwise known as .308}. It is long and weigh over 4kg. - with very high penetrating power that makes it useless for any opponent taking cover behind trees.
It is of Belgium manufacture and originally known as 'FN FAL - with FN being 'Fabrique Nationale', and 'FAL' for ''Fusil Automatique Legere''.
Subsequent development saw the rifle being manufactured in Britain with its name change to FN SLR when used by the British Forces - as a 'Self-Loading Rifle'
Above: The standard FN-FAL rifle
Left to right: The 7.62mm NATO round, the 7.62 intermediate, and the 5.56mm
The FN SLR was used during the confrontation period, and was a standard issue with our 1 and 2 SIR - when they were sent into active operations in Sarawak, as well as during the hunt for the Indonesian parachutist in Labis, Johor - {when one section was wiped out with only one survivor}.
This was before the M16 was introduced with the introduction of National Service in 1968. -
I have my doubts on whether the "shortened" M4 is more "mobile" in the jungle environments. In FIBUA, yes, without a doubt. But in the weeds, it doesn't really make that much of a difference.
On the contrary, the lethality of the weapon is reduced due to the barrel length. The round doesn't tumble and fragment (if not at all, not as much) as much as one fired from the M-16. I'm not talking about engagement distance, just wounding effects. As a standard infantry issue, its adoption is questionable.
Their logistics problem is not solely caused by their equipment. M4, Sukhoi, Boeing or not, they will still have problems. Its not their machines. Its their system, their people. -
I couldn't agree with you more.Originally posted by Shotgun:Their logistics problem is not solely caused by their equipment. M4, Sukhoi, Boeing or not, they will still have problems. Its not their machines. Its their system, their people.
-
Here some articles abt the M4 :
The USA's M4 Carbine Controversy:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
Army tests of rival carbines postponed:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/army_rifletest_070920/
In the 2nd article, it said that some US SF units already replaced their M4 to H&K416.
And here flash vid that show how the H&K 416 gas piston AR works:
http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/
And here the M-16 gas tube/gas blowback AR:
http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/ -
It has to be a political change above all. Too often the weapons are being chosen because they are convenient for Malaysia's politicians either because they stand to benefit from it financially, or because it suits a foreign policy agenda, (i.e. rewarding a country). The motives driving the purchase is mainly political and economic as opposed to military common sense.Originally posted by Shotgun:I have my doubts on whether the "shortened" M4 is more "mobile" in the jungle environments. In FIBUA, yes, without a doubt. But in the weeds, it doesn't really make that much of a difference.
On the contrary, the lethality of the weapon is reduced due to the barrel length. The round doesn't tumble and fragment (if not at all, not as much) as much as one fired from the M-16. I'm not talking about engagement distance, just wounding effects. As a standard infantry issue, its adoption is questionable.
Their logistics problem is not solely caused by their equipment. M4, Sukhoi, Boeing or not, they will still have problems. Its not their machines. Its their system, their people. -
Yeap. The way they reach decisions on weapons systems don't reflect coherent policy to me. So its not their "Policies" affecting the purchase. Its their people, their politicians.
Its the same with their entire country. There's absolutely no reason why Singapore should be ahead of Malaysia, but yet we are. Why? -
{when one section was wiped out with only one survivor}.
i know this story...quite sad. The 1st SIR. Wipe out is an understatement.... the indonesian line them at the river bank and execute them from the back. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Actually it is called the Sterling SMG, not a "Stirling" and definitely not a "Sten".
The top photo has the front row, center guy holding the Stirling Sten Gun firing 9mm rounds from a side magazine.
"Sten" refers to a WW2 SMG also with a side mag but look quite different.
The Sterling SMG was widely used in Singapore by police and SAF women. The Gurkhas in Singapore Police used them a lot until MP5 appeared.
Interesting trivia: Star Wars Stormtrooper blaster was based on the Sterling.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Actually, wrong...
The MAF troopers were probably carrying the FN SLR rifle..
Someone has already given the correct name for that rifle and it is the Italian Beretta AR70, in 5.56mm. The magazine does not fit the M16 even though it looks like an M16 mag.
-
You really don't seem to comprehend what is:Originally posted by gary1910:In the 2nd article, it said that some US SF units already replaced their M4 to H&K416.
- best rifle for Malaysia
vs
- best rifle in general
So what if the HK416 is better? Is HK giving Malaysia a license to build the HK416? -
Their SOF have the freedom to choose any weapon and they chose the CAR15. This weapon has very similar dimensions to the M4 and is a specially imported Colt weapon not previously available in MAF.Originally posted by johngage:The motives driving the purchase is mainly political and economic as opposed to military common sense.
So if their SOF chose the CAR15 over other things, why is it not military common sense for the MAF to go back to the M16 family?
Their forces will fight a lot in jungles, where the M4 is suitable. And if they go to the desert tomorrow for long range work, they still have the Steyr, the M16A1, the existing Minimi SAW, sniper rifles, GPMG etc etc. -
I am not talking of this particular example. I am talking of their military procurements in general. Look especially at the RMAF, they are operating several different types of fighter aircraft from the Russian MiG-29N to the US F/A-18D to the British Hawk 200. Each have different training requirements, logistics, avionics etc...Originally posted by Daniel-Lim:Their SOF have the freedom to choose any weapon and they chose the CAR15. This weapon has very similar dimensions to the M4 and is a specially imported Colt weapon not previously available in MAF.
So if their SOF chose the CAR15 over other things, why is it not military common sense for the MAF to go back to the M16 family?
Their forces will fight a lot in jungles, where the M4 is suitable. And if they go to the desert tomorrow for long range work, they still have the Steyr, the M16A1, the existing Minimi SAW, sniper rifles, GPMG etc etc.
Why?
Because of political factors. The original RMAF requirement was for the F/A-18D's. But because of the US embargo on Indonesia, Mr. Mahathir decided to go for the MiG-29N's instead of a second batch of F/A-18D's. Again, not the choice of the RMAF but of the politicians. -
Shotgun, look at the quality of Singapore's politicians compared to Malaysia's. From qualifications to experience they are better prepared because Singapore operates on a long-term plan not on an ad hoc basis like Malaysia. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew decided when Singapore was expelled from the Federation that the only way for it to survive without natural resources was to be more efficient than any of its regional neighbours. It was also vital that transparency and the rule of law was upheld which makes Singapore extremely attractive to investors. In the case of Malaysia the planning changes everytime a politician comes into office. Is Malaysia a manufacturing hub? A tourist destination? a centre for agricultural excellence? An educational hub? IT centre? To this day I have absolutely no idea what the model is. Furthermore, especially under Mr. Mahathir corruption has taken root among Malaysia's politicians. This has a terrible effect when it comes to planning and efficiency. Personally, I think the turning point for Malaysia probably came from the early death of its second PM Mr. Razak and his successor Mr. Ismail. In the case of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew he has had time to implement a proper succession and also exposure for the generation that would take over. In the case of Malaysia the generation that took over came to power too soon.Originally posted by Shotgun:Yeap. The way they reach decisions on weapons systems don't reflect coherent policy to me. So its not their "Policies" affecting the purchase. Its their people, their politicians.
Its the same with their entire country. There's absolutely no reason why Singapore should be ahead of Malaysia, but yet we are. Why? -
2 decades?Originally posted by gary1910:If one could choose a new AR for the army , it will be used at least 2 decades or more
The 5.56mm calibre effectiveness has been in question for a long time. The US tried caseless, and now seems to be looking at something like the 6.8.
So the entire 5.56mm calibre of weapons may not last another 2 decades.
With this possible development, it is a good move for MAF not to buy into another costly new 5.56 system. The M4 is merely a low cost addition/upgrade to an existing system in their arsenal.
No matter how good another 5.56 rifle may be, its ammo itself is a problem. -
What make you think that they would not?Originally posted by Daniel-Lim:You really don't seem to comprehend what is:
- best rifle for Malaysia
vs
- best rifle in general
So what if the HK416 is better? Is HK giving Malaysia a license to build the HK416?
Let say MY pre-exquisite was to have the licensed production for the chosen AR, then H&K would have to provide it, becos it is win-win situation.
1) If H&K does not give licensed production to MY for the production of 416, then MY will not choose it, H&K will then lose the sales, i.e. no profit.
2) But if H&K privode licensed production ( but no marketing rights) to MY , then she will earn profit via loyalties, and since MY is not given the marketing rights, it will not affect other sales of 416.
There will be profit in this option.
So If you are H&K, which option will you choose?
-
The problem is , the standard is yet to be established.Originally posted by chino65:2 decades?
The 5.56mm calibre effectiveness has been in question for a long time. The US tried caseless, and now seems to be looking at something like the 6.8.
So the entire 5.56mm calibre of weapons may not last another 2 decades.
With this possible development, it is a good move for MAF not to buy into another costly new 5.56 system. The M4 is merely a low cost addition/upgrade to an existing system in their arsenal.
No matter how good another 5.56 rifle may be, its ammo itself is a problem.
2ndly, based on your argument that the new standard ammo that will be established in the near future, isn't it is more logically for MY to stay on to 5.56mm Steyr AUG for the time being instead of replacing it with another 5.56mm like the M4 in the first place??
Because in reality , what is wrong with Steyr AUG?
OZ soldiers are using Steyr AUG in Iraq and Afganistan, I dun hear many complaint abt it.
Instead if you read the first article I have posted, M4 has plenty of compliant.
In fact, M16 design already faced a lot criticism in Vietnam becos of it's gas blowback design where it need daily maintenance. When US decided to continue with M16 from A1 and A2 in the 80s, it faced even more criticisms.
Even today , the same problem remains because the M16 still need daily maintenance so to reduce jamming.
But why US continue to use the M16?
Due to powerful lobby for Colt in US, the M16 stays on.