Altay & Turkish Main Battle Tank Programs
- Thread starter cabatli_53
- Start date
?
mustafa erkan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 633
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
I really bored to read some nonsense political arguments.
1. Fabric inside Turkey
2. Qatar is the country which gave military base to us for years and buying Turkish military weapons. If there is a danger it is for Qatar.No country gives base to another country if doesnt really rely on.
3. When BMC was in economic problems the First choice was not Ethem Sancak but other Turkish businessmen didnt take risks and they didnt want to worry their international partners. The same went on Turkish automobil.
1. Fabric inside Turkey
2. Qatar is the country which gave military base to us for years and buying Turkish military weapons. If there is a danger it is for Qatar.No country gives base to another country if doesnt really rely on.
3. When BMC was in economic problems the First choice was not Ethem Sancak but other Turkish businessmen didnt take risks and they didnt want to worry their international partners. The same went on Turkish automobil.
Last edited:
Malpsoy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 14, 2017
- Messages
- 569
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
After 16 months
leeel, cmon is there a possibiliy that they could already be given to the tsk in 2019 ? like q3 of 2019?
Yatağanlı
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2014
- Messages
- 443
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
You can't build a tank without a factory.
dBSPL
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2018
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
- Location
@ HARZEMŞAH wrote the production process of the Altay tank;
18 months timeline will start after Altay Serial Production contract signing (T0). The ALTAY contract with BMC has not yet been signed. The signing of a business agreement between Arifiye Factory and Bornova Motor Corporation is expected. The process will be as follows...
1. Signing a contract between BMC and ASFAT (Arifiye facilities)
2. Signing of the "Altay Serial Production Contract" between SSB and BMC (T0)
3. Delivery of the first Altay after 18 month.
Two important notes:
a. Existing BMC (British Motor Company) with the former BMC (Bornova Motor) not the same companies. Sancak Group has established a new company to avoid bid prohibition and old debts. This company is using the same abbreviation.
b. There is no privatized or sold factory. MSB temporarily leasing operating rights. When BMC facilities will ready at Karasu, Arifiye will be returned to ASFAT.
http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98836&start=50820
18 months timeline will start after Altay Serial Production contract signing (T0). The ALTAY contract with BMC has not yet been signed. The signing of a business agreement between Arifiye Factory and Bornova Motor Corporation is expected. The process will be as follows...
1. Signing a contract between BMC and ASFAT (Arifiye facilities)
2. Signing of the "Altay Serial Production Contract" between SSB and BMC (T0)
3. Delivery of the first Altay after 18 month.
Two important notes:
a. Existing BMC (British Motor Company) with the former BMC (Bornova Motor) not the same companies. Sancak Group has established a new company to avoid bid prohibition and old debts. This company is using the same abbreviation.
b. There is no privatized or sold factory. MSB temporarily leasing operating rights. When BMC facilities will ready at Karasu, Arifiye will be returned to ASFAT.
http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98836&start=50820
Adıvar
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2015
- Messages
- 1,540
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
dBSPL
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2018
- Messages
- 7,661
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
- Location
The original link is here. https://sadfor.savtera.org/index.php?topic=166.msg54463#msg54463 He is a much more reliable source than others. Everybody who has been following the defense forums for more than 10 years knows him verywell. He gave information about numerous projects before the written press.
The first msg belongs to me and its written at 14 October.
http://defencelimit.com/altay-firtina-obusun-fabrikasinda-uretilecek/
Last edited:
Inspector Spacetime
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Nice response Adivar.
So all we have to do is wait for Ulusi Akar to reply to Muzeyyen Sevkin.
But I do want to speak my mind on a few things though:
The fact that she says, "yandasa mi satacaksiniz?" suggests that she cares less about tank palet itself, but is more motivated by politics. Her opinion about this issue seems to be formed more by political motivation (or maybe even party policy), rather than that she actually cares about tank palet or privatization as a whole. ('yandas' gibi kelimeler soylemesi, burada samimiyetine golge dusuruyor)
Muzeyyen Sevkin: "Fabrikanın Fırtına obüsleri ve tank paleti üretme konusunda hiçbir tecrübesi olmayan yandaş bir firma ve onun Katarlı ortağına verileceği yönünde kuvvetli iddialar oluştuğunu belirten Şevkin"
It's disappointing that she doesn't know that the investor doesn't have to have any experience within the industry, because this is about selling the rights for the operation rights of tank palet. Meaning the investor doesn't have to have experience within the industry, because the experience needed comes with tank palet.
But this is what Hulusi Akar had to say: "Belirlenen hedeflere ulaşma konusunda alışılmış kalıpların dışına çıkılarak kamu tecrübesi ile özel sektörün bir araya getirilmesinin önemine işaret eden Bakan Akar, bunun stratejik bir tercih olduğunu, Türkiye'nin savunma sanayi alanında geride kalmaması için özel sektörün hızından faydalanması gerektiğini belirtti."
This was said a day before, so it's not a response to her. But it shows some of the other reasons behind this move and the general strategy; combining state owned and private sector. This suggests that they might envisage that tank palet will go to one of the defense industry companies.
Akar continued saying:
"19 Aralık'ta Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararı çıktı, karar çerçevesinde faaliyetler başladı. Bunun anlamı işletme hakkının devredilmesidir. Burada satmak yok. Fabrikayı sattığımız yok. Personel tasfiyesi, personelin çıkarılması kesinlikle yok. Amacımız fabrikanın verimliliğini artırmak, teknolojik seviyesini yükseltmek, fabrikayı güçlendirmek ve stratejik seviyede ürünleri üretecek hale getirmektir. Ayrıca, diğer bir amacımız yurt içi ve yurt dışında teknolojik potansiyelden azami ve süratle istifade edilmesini sağlamaktır. Fabrika arazisi, arazide bulunan her türlü taşınmaz ile üretim ve bakım onarımda kullanılan her türlü ekipmanın mülkiyeti devlette olacak. Burada yapılan şey işletme hakkının devridir. İşletmeyi devralacak firma bu süreç içinde fabrikanın yeteneklerini korumak mecburiyetindedir. Fabrikanın sahip olduğu yetenekleri koruyacak, ancak bu yetmez, yeni yetenekler de kazandırılacak. Bunların tamamı da Milli Savunma Bakanlığının kontrolünde ilgili firma tarafından yapılacaktır."
Muzeyyen Sevkin: "özelleştirmelerin Türkiye ekonomisine büyük darbe vurmaya devam ettiğini bildirdi"
That doesn't make any sense. Both privatization as well as state-ownership has its own ups & downs. The fact that she has bold claims like this is more politically motivated rather than actual fact based data. In my opinion, it's actually better for a country that it's industry is autonomous, so no matter who is governing the country or whether there is a government in place or not, the industry will continue to do it's own thing. Government should focus on governing, industry on manufacturing, etc. Private companies have to be competitive in order to survive, so they are forced to innovate and adapt to market conditions otherwise they won't have a future. This intices innovation and industry as a whole continues to evolve. Having government involved, more times than not, includes bureaucracy, making state owned companies slow and unable to keep up with trends, but state-owned companies have their benefits too obviously.
"Özelleştirilmesi düşünülen askeri fabrikanın 50 yılda oluşan savunma sanayi tecrübesiyle ülke savunması açısından en stratejik fabrikalarından biri olduğunu belirten Şevkin, “Cumhurbaşkanı Tayyip Erdoğan başta olmak üzere her fırsatta ‘yerli ve milli' vurgusu yapan kabine üyeleri, bu özelleştirme girişimi nedeniyle samimiyetten uzak bir görüntü sergilemektedir” dedi."
Private companies are also 'milli ve yerli' and it has nothing to do with a company being private or state owned. And yes, tank palet is a strategic company for us, but so are BMC, Otokar, FNSS, TEI, Durmazlar, etc. Even Siemens Turkiye has strategic value, even though it's considered to be a German company.
"Milletvekili Şevkin, sözde verimsiz diye özelleştirilmeye çalışılan fabrikanın son 10 yılda 3 defa Milli Prodüktivite Merkezi'nin en verimli işyeri seçildiğini, dünyadaki ilk beş fabrika arasına girdiğini, özelleştirmenin çok büyük bir hata olacağını belirtti."
She makes a really good point here though, if those efficiency awards are true, because I did try find out when tank palet won those efficiency awards, but couldn't find any data. I wonder how Hulusi Akar is going to respond to this. But I imagine he will say that it's a part of a grander strategy, including state and private industry working closer together, expansion and modernization of the factory (and this being financed by the private sector) as well as making Sakarya one of the defence industry hubs in Turkey, like he suggested in his interview.
Hulusi Akar:
"Fabrikada üretilen ürünlerin özel sektörün dinamizmi ve bağlantılarından faydalanılarak dost ve müttefik ülkelere satılacağını vurgulayan Akar, Ar-Ge konusunda da asla geri gidilmeyeceğini, daha fazla yatırımla daha ileri gidileceğini söyledi. Bakan Akar, fabrikanın modernizasyonu için ilk etapta yaklaşık 40-50 milyon dolarlık yatırımın yapılacağını vurguladı."
"Bu konudaki çalışmaların kararlılıkla devam ettiğini anlatan Akar, Sakarya bölgesinin savunma sanayi merkezlerinden biri olacağını, bununla ilgili kararların alındığını, bunun ilk somut göstergesinin ise Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan tarafından gelecek günlerde Karasu'da temeli atılacak fabrika olduğunu bildirdi."
Source: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/politika/bakan-akardan-tank-palet-fabrikasinda-inceleme/1356163
In other words, all these moves are connected with the mission of making Sakarya one of the defense industry hubs in Turkey.
We keep hearing and reading that Tank palet is going to get sold to BMC, but I am not so sure on that. BMC already has a lot on it's plate and has to deal with the fabrication of the Karasu plant, so they might not have the finances to also buy the rights to tank palet. Sure they could get a loan, but the risk is considerable and the interest rates are high. Besides that, having that plant as well as the rights to tank palet seems overkill to me. These plants are close to each other, I fail to see the point of having two of the same types of plants within proximity of each other. But you never know I guess.
era_shield
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 951
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
No point in trying to reason with the irrational.
Inspector Spacetime
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
I didn't notice you had added an edit. So I'll respond to it now.
So basically you are saying that SSB is corrupt and played favoritism for BMC. You got any proof of that? And is SSB known to be corrupt in any way?
The 'delay' of the serial production for the tank was because SSB decided to go with a tender. SSB in this case is in the best position to make the decisions. So if they decide something, then they must know something that the rest of us don't. In my opinion, it is taking too long as well and is frustrating to me too, but I do acknowledge that I am not aware of all the facts regarding this issue. So if SSB decides something, then it's for a reason. SSB takes its decision by looking at the big picture and plans accordingly. We barely see the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, but do form opinions anyway.
And on BMC being able or not able to develop the tank. There is no point in arguing that either, I said in my very first reply to you that we will see in time how BMC will do. And if you turn out to be right, you get to say 'I told you so'.
Ooh it was a trap? Okey. I wasn't aware that our discussion was hostile like that.
And are you sure I fell for it, because this was my response to you about MKE in post #4266:
"There were talks about privatization of MKE. There is a video posted in the Turkish firearms thread by DefenceTurk youtube channel. In this youtube channel they have another video where they interview the director of MKE, and he at one point couldn't help himself and criticized other (private) companies because they worked for money, while MKE worked for the country. This could suggest that the director of MKE feels the pressure of a potential privatization of the company."
Your response to this was that you didn't watch youtube. But as you can see, I didn't give my opinion about MKE being privatized. All I said was that the privatization of MKE could be on the horizon.
And I followed it up with this paragraph (concerning TSGGV and Aselsan as a potential example for MKE):
"This is a governmental policy and we saw that this could happen a couple of years ago. At that time they were still contemplating on either privatizing or restructuring, and MKE's name specifically came up. Aselsan was quoted as a good example of how MKE should be. Aselsan is owned by a governmental fund (TSK guclendirme vakfi) and is open to the public. So Aselsan is private, but indirectly state owned."
Privatization or state owned is a choice, they both have it's strengths and weaknesses. The plus side of private companies is that, in order for them to survive and secure their future, they must be competitive and must keep innovating. Competition is what makes industry and economy as a whole evolve and grow. Generally, or that's the general way of thinking anyway, is that state-owned companies aren't as competitive or innovative as private companies. But it's not black and white like that, there is a huge gray area. Privatization isn't the end all be all, but neither is state-ownership.
Sugar factories were recent, so we can't tell yet if this move was good or bad. but I'm sure there will be good as well as some not so good examples.
Tekel is always used as a bad example, but Tekel is actually an example of how it turned out to be good. The whole point of privatization is so that the company in question's market capitalization will grow. And Tekel's market cap grew by more than 20x. The argument goes that Tekel was sold for cheap, but it was sold for the best price at the time in a tender and the best offer got it. The new investor sold it afterwards for 5x it's original value a few years later. But people tend to ignore how much the new investor must have invested into the factory/company. Then it got resold again for 20x a few year later. This doesn't happen magically, it takes investment into the company to raise it's value like that (like modernizing, expanding, adding new equipment, building on the brand name, even selling its debts or any other types of investment methods).
And even if Tekel was sold for less than its value. A state is willing to take the hit (loss), in order for that company to grow in the future. Because for the state, every company is an asset (private or state-owned) because of taxes, employment, etc.
30% of Turk Telekom is Turkish treasury, 15% is public and 55% is Oger telekom. Turk Telekom isn't a bad example either, I mean it's not ideal but not awful in such a way that privatization should never ever be considered again. Every company can have financial trouble. And in the case of TT, it's parent Oger was the one that had some trouble.
Whether it's private or state-owned, every company can have it's ups and downs. None of them are immune to going bankrupt or otherwise thriving and being hugely successful.
In my opinion, the economy should be autonomous, which is what the government is trying to achieve I think by privatizing TT, Tekel and the sugar factories. The state should be hands-off or use models like they have with THY and Aselsan (private but indirectly state owned via government funds), while the state puts more focus on subsidizing and financing start-ups or something. But that is just my humble opinion.
Nice to talk to you to.
Last edited:
Islamic faith&Secularism
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 4,224
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
It is actually the main problem ''to wait and see'' what is going to happen,for it always hits the country and nation in the end, not the ones who caused this.
I am sure you know what i am reffering to, as those references point out they do know nothing but their own interests, they have always cocky and mocking stance in the begining, but the accuser and apologist in the end, but unnfortunately the consequences paid by the country and nation.
The current siutation of BMC, owners of it and how they run business do not serve the intersts of the country, nation and industry; will risk the army in operations around or oversea as a result for the future of the country; will do harm the land defence industry, if the current situation around the country considered.
If you read who is in favour of the BMC, you will see they tell stories and excuses but cannot say anything about those concerns; for the past 15 years' experiences will slap their stories/excuses as factual realities.(Also some clue whom favour they speak.. for the future of the country/nation or some people's interests)
If the Defence does not primarily/mainly serve and secure the interests of the country and nation for next decades/centuries, what is the point to have defence for the country and nation?
Last edited:
Similar threads
