𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐘𝐔𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐓 𝐌𝐀𝐉𝐋𝐈𝐒 𝐕𝐄𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐊𝐄𝐁𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐒𝐀𝐀𝐍 (𝐌𝐕𝐊) 𝐁𝐈𝐋. 𝟏𝟓/𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔
Thursday, 7 May 2026
TIADA WAKIL DARI VETERAN TENTERA LAUT - MVK TIDAK MEWAKILI VETERAN ATM SEPENUHNYA
Monday, 4 May 2026
DSA26 with NIZRA Group
Nizra Industries Unveils ARKON AI-Driven C4ISR System at DSA 2026
Kuala Lumpur, 22 April 2026 — Nizra Industries today officially unveiled ARKON, its AI-driven Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) system, at Defence Services Asia (DSA) 2026 in Kuala Lumpur.
ARKON was presented during a live demonstration at the Nizra Industries booth to Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin, Minister of Defence Malaysia, and Datuk Lokman Hakim Ali, Secretary General of the Ministry of Defence.
Developed in Malaysia, ARKON is designed to connect sensors, unmanned systems, personnel, command units and mission assets into a unified, AI-enabled, real-time operational network.
Unlike conventional approaches that focus primarily on hardware platforms, ARKON is built around Nizra Industries’ proprietary software architecture, enabling coordinated integration across multiple operational layers. The system is designed to enhance data fusion, situational awareness and decision support, allowing operators and commanders to act with greater speed, clarity and coordination.
As part of its unveiling at DSA 2026, Nizra Industries is conducting a live demonstration of ARKON, showcasing real-time integration between personnel, UAV platforms and command systems in an operational scenario.
Nik Iruwan, Chief Executive Officer of Nizra Industries, said:
“The future of defence will increasingly be shaped not only by hardware, but by intelligence, integration and the speed of decision-making.
ARKON reflects our belief that modern capability must be built around connected systems that turn data into operational clarity and coordination into decisive action.
This is part of our broader commitment to help strengthen Malaysia’s defence and security capabilities through locally developed, technology-driven solutions.”
ARKON reflects Nizra Industries’ commitment to building advanced, locally developed systems that support the future of sovereign defence capability in Malaysia.
Monday, 12 July 2021
Defense Maritime Industry In Malaysia : just how bad is the situation ?
Defence Industry
In dialogue and survey
session by KPMG involving more than 20 MIDES and VDP companies in February
2021, the most number of complaints submitted was the dire state of the
ecosystem. This is as a result of the postponement of the LCS Project and nearly
3 -year -old debts that have not yet paid by BNS. Many of the vendors are in a
danger zone due to pressure to clear outstanding payments from suppliers,
banks, and government authorities.
MASTRA calls upon the Ministry of
Defence Malaysia and the ministry of Entrepreneurs and Cooperatives Development
to look into the plight of the entrepreneurs, vendors, and SME's affected by
the alleged non-payment. While the government’s efforts in reviving the LCS
project are commendable the sustainability of the SME’s must be included in the
equation. MASTRA proposes that direct payment to the SMEs be made a
precondition of the revival plan.
STRIDE ought to be under
Markas BERSAMA , looking after the interest of all services of MAF , with
representative from APMM and Marine Police. Restructure and Reassign
STRIDE for a wider scope of responsibility and accountability. Perhaps
jointly with BIP . It must be properly organised with
separate Divisions taking care of Aeronotics, Marine and
Automotive. include a 'Proactive' Division for Defence
Industry .
Participations headed by Veteran Senior
Officer from Engineering Branch of the TD, TLDM or TUDM, with
council members representing the industry in Automotive, Marine and
Aeronautical Services.
According to internal sources, STRIDE
has no fund to do R&D, past develop project management and events led to
loss of confidence in STRIDE's capability in managing innovations , hence
sceptics to provide funding.
STRIDE should not continue as the old
Defence Research Centre (PSTP) - more for fuel oil and material test labs!
Maritime Industry
MiGHT ought to Review and Audit their
Maritime Strategy for 2020 that was published in 2011. They should identify
progress and more importantly shortcomings of the strategy up to this date and
propose viable solution through Direct Interaction with in-country marine
technology practioners , and ONLY move forward from there with more
practical and achievable steps . There were too much Way Forward ! yet if still
sluggish to 'MOVE FORWARD' , it will not take our National Marine
Technology Competencies and Sustainability to ANYWHERE ! So much were left out
or ignored, at least over the last decade!
MASTRA suggest there a must change
the KPI mentality to PDCA mentality in these agencies, besides Improve
Governance. Their role is also governance , Tighten requirements for made in
Malaysia and Malaysian products. This must Reflect in tender specification,
Encourage integration and systems production.
Maintenance contracts should be given
to 100% locally owned companies to promote and strengthen self-reliance. Clean
up licensing and registrations. Clean up GLCs. Close the non-strategic
collaboration.
At a time when our ecosystem in bad
shape we need to do the needful.
If OEM still required, they must
go through local 'technologically related and competent' companies.
We are aware of the problems exist, so how do we counter this or
manoeuvre ourselves in this ecosystem ?
For more almost 15 years since our involvement in the industry in AMIM
in 2006, we keep seeing plans after plans being launched by VVIP and yet our
industry remains almost as 40 years ago. All these seminar, conference and
workshop nicely done and presented documents are just for KPI or show only.
Perhaps the Ministry taking care of Technology. Development and
Sustenance , such as MOSTI, and Ministry responsible for survival and progress
of SMEs , perhaps MITI, are not fully aware, or indifferent, on the
plight of Malaysian Marine Industry ?
from defence industry brain storming group
Thursday, 10 December 2020
LCS - RESPONSE TO THE PATRIOT STATEMENT
US Navy Asks Shipbuilders: Can You Build Us a Warship for Just $100 Million?
Introducing a $100 million (really small) aircraft carrier
As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the Navy is considering doing as part of its Light Amphibious Warship project, first referenced earlier this year.
As reported by USNI News last month, the Navy and Marine Corps are working with "about six industry teams" to design and build a 200-foot to 400-foot long amphibious warship, displacing anywhere from 1,000 to 8,000 tons. (For comparison, Ford class aircraft carriers are more than 1,100 feet long and displace 100,000 tons, while smaller America-class "mini aircraft carriers" are more than 800 feet long and displace 45,000 tons.)
The Light Amphibious Warship, or LAW, is therefore being envisioned as a much smaller ship -- but this is commensurate to its task. As part of its new "distributed maritime operations" strategy, the Navy wants LAW to carry small units of Marines to capture small islands, launch attacks on enemy naval forces from those islands, and then quickly scoot off to different islands to launch still more attacks before the enemy can respond.
The USN budgeting to build small aircraft carriers called LAW at USD 100 million each.
Compare this to our LCS which works out to about RM 2 billion each should it eventually get built. RM 2 billion is USD 500 million each LCS. That would have been 30 LAW vessels for the RMN. We would have been a deep and blue water navy!
In comparison the 4 LMS built in China works out to USD 250 million each which is still expensive but the contract went through BHIC. I think the actual build cost would have been very much less but there again what else is new.
The idea of building naval vessels locally is to save cost and for technology transfer. We are achieving neither.
When BHIC reported lack of talent as one of the reason the failure of LCS build by them, we are wondering if can't the talents be seconded from other galaxies around us?
Talents can be sourced....but will political leadership allows it instead of siphoning money from the projects...we need servant leaders; not self-serving leaders...
And when the Patriot BG Raji trying to put the blames to the user (RMN) for changing the equipment and specification , the previous chief is not happy with the statement. Here some of the respond to the Patriot statement:
1. Usually shipbuilding starts by formulating complete documentation approved by the customer (TLDM) especially the Contract Building Specifications (CBS), Ship Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS), Inspection, Test & Trials Procedures & Protocols in addition to some other documents such as some categories design drawings . All this is customized by the ship equipment outfit designed e.g machineries, weapons and sensors and many more. If all the documentation is ready and ready to go, or has gone half-way, then there is a change in equipment outfit then many complications arise revamping the affected documents and redesign and reworks. Usually, when all the documentation is completed the construction work becomes smooth, in short in the order of Equipment manufacture by OEM, Eqpt FAT / PDI, Eqpt delivery, Eqpt setting-to-work (STW), Eqpt Installation, Eqpt Installation Test, Eqpt HAT, Eqpt Integration, Eqpt / System Integration Test (SIT), Eqpt SAT and Eqpt Final Acceptance Test & Eqpt Commissioning. In analyzing the LCS construction delay, Patriot, as an outsider not privy to these chain of shipbuilding procedures need to be careful in making sweeping statement with regards to the Project and resulting in free-for-all unfounded public comments. Only the RMN Project Team and it's counterpart BNS Project Management Team know the true problems,
2. I was called upon to respond to President Patriot's press release. I do not agree with the statement "Request for change of Weapon system and equipment by TLDM halfway into design and construction was the main contributory factor for the project delay." If true, it did not happen during my time as a PTL. I never asked for a weapon system change after the project started. But I once disputed the selection of Exocet and VL Mica as SSM (Surface to Surface Missile) and SAM (Surface to Air Missile) systems by the Ministry of Finance at the beginning of the system selection phase for this project again. Both systems chosen by the Ministry of Finance are not only considered inferior and outdated, but more expensive than those proposed by the RMN. TLDM has chosen NSM for SSM, and ESSM for SAM. The election by the Ministry of Finance has clearly turned its back on the election and the TLDM proposal. Missile Exocet has been converted to NSM missile but VL Mica is still maintained. For your information, NSM is the SSM system chosen by the US Navy for their new ship project, while the current VL Mica System is considered obsolete! For your information, all documents regarding this matter are stored in duplicate in a special file and archived. I have met 4 times with the PM at that time to raise the TLDM's disagreement in the selection of the two systems since the beginning of the project, not halfway into design and construction
From the PVTLDM brainstorming




