SHAH ALAM: The 17th Gempita Executive Review Meeting (ERM) was held in Cape Town in South Africa, on May 28th. The ERM is held twice annually under the procurement contract of the Gempita, according to a Tentera Darat post on its social media.
The ERM has been held previously in Malaysia, Turkey, France and South Africa, where most of the work on the 8X8 have been done. And yes, it is likely most of the ERM costs have been paid by the contract though I have no idea of the breakdown. And there is nothing on the winding down of the production of the Gempita, which is supposed to end this year (delayed by two years due to Covid).
From Tentera Darat post:
EXECUTIVE REVIEW MEETING (ERM) TELITI PEROLEHAN KENDERAAN PERISAI 8×8 GEMPITA PERKUKUHKAN ASET KETENTERAAN MALAYSIA
CAPETOWN , 28 Mei 2022 – Panglima Tentera Darat (PTD), Jeneral Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zamrose bin Mohd Zain telah menghadiri Executive Review Meeting (ERM) Ke-17 Kenderaan Perisai 8×8 GEMPITA yang berlangsung di Capetown, Afrika Selatan pada hari ini.
Untuk makluman, ERM ini merupakan satu mesyuarat yang diadakan dua kali setiap tahun sebagaimana termaktub dalam Klausa 25 Projek Kontrak Perolehan Kenderaan Perisai 8×8 GEMPITA. Kenderaan Perisai 8×8 GEMPITA ini mempunyai 11 varians dan telah mula memasuki perkhidmatan sejak tahun 2014 demi memperkukuhkan dan memperkasakan aset Tentera Darat Malaysia (TDM).
Delegasi Malaysia bersama-sama hadir bagi mesyuarat ini terdiri daripada Asisten Ketua Staf Perancangan dan Pembangunan, Mejar Jeneral Rashidin Hashimi bin Ab Rashid, Ketua Pengarah Bahagian Penyelidikan dan Penilaian Tentera Darat, Brigedier Jeneral Ahmad bin Abu Bakar, Ketua Tim Projek Kenderaan Perisai 8×8 Beroda Gempita, Kolonel Azizan @ Azizan Long Ji bin Harun dan Mejar Mohd Noor Amin bin Md Jani. Selain itu, ia telah dihadiri oleh wakil-wakil seperti daripada Kementerian Kewangan, Ketua Penolong Setiausaha Perolehan Kerajaan, Encik Noor Hisham Affizam bin Shamsudin dan Bahagian Perolehan Kementerian Pertahanan yang diwakili oleh Pegawai Staf (Darat) 1 Unit Perolehan 1 (Darat), Mejar Khairul Iskandar bin Kamanoorizahar. Turut hadir semasa ERM Ke-17 Kenderaan Perisai 8×8 GEMPITA ini adalah Setiausaha Bahagian Perolehan Kementerian Pertahanan, Encik Mohammad Abiddin bin Abdul Rahman.
Delegasi luar negara dan wakil pengeluar syarikat kenderaan perisai tersebut turut melibatkan wakil-wakil daripada Denel Land System, FNSS, Thales Six France, dan Thales Malaysia.
Sesungguhnya mesyuarat sebegini adalah sejajar dengan Tonggak Pertama Perintah Ulung PTD Ke-28, iaitu; “Kelangsungan Misi dan Kesiagaan” dengan memberi penumpuan kepada peningkatan tahap kesiagaan, kompetensi dan aset TDM.
Perhaps once the production ends, Tentera Darat can concentrate on the long term maintenance contract of the Gempita fleet, which is currently done on a adhoc basis (for the vehicles out of guarantee period).
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Will DEFTECH make an improved version over the base one and maybe a new variant.
Will they install any CITV for the Gempitas. Can they make a variant that uses 105mm main gun.
We have gone through this before. It will depend on the Army, if they want more Gempita and in other variants. At the moment no
Muhammad,
– Did Deftech make any improvements to the Adnan after almost 2 decades beyond new brake pads, tracks and such? Has DEFTECH made any provision to add cage armour [relatively cheap and light] as protection against shoulder fired weapons?
– Don’t you think it’s a ludicrous situation where we go through all the hassle and expend great resources to have something locally produced [production line, tech transfer, IP rights, training, etc] but reach a stage where the army can’t or won’t buy a follow batch due to the high costs involved and thus has to go for cheaper 6x6s? It’s a joke; a reflection of how we do things.
– If indeed funds are available in the future; that’s fine but the army must only get follow on AV-8s if it has a clear need and not to keep DEFTECH afloat.
– What do you see a 105mm gun doing? If it’s to take on other IFVs the 30mm, 25mm and Ingwe variants will do. If it’s to take out bunkers and such infantry operated shoulder fired weapons and ATGWs will do. In our context why do we need a 105mm variant – to do what exactly? Other armies have a need for 105mms on IFVs and light tanks but that’s because it suits their CONOPS/requirements. At one time we had 90mm guns but that was in a different era when the threat was different and when we had no MBTs, no ATGWs and less shoulder fired weapons.
We already have 11 variants which is pretty a lot but they are all needed to fill TDM usage needs so I doubt there are anymore variations missing that TDM would want more.
The one variant clearly missing is an AD variant intended to deal with low to medium level manned and unmanned threats. If there’s anything the war in Ukraine has taught us is that AD must be; widely issued to to the lowest level and that a lot of existing AD systems ae inadequate for dealing with targets with a small RCS and IR signature [we learnt this in the conflict in the Donbas years ago, in Syria, Libya and Nargano Karabakh].
Whether it’s on a AV-8 or a 6×6 0r even a wheeled platform; a AD vehicle fitted with a 30mm cannon; MANPADS, radar, ESM and FLIR is badly needed.
I am wondering whether the Koreans could sell us the BIHO turret to put on a truck or even on the Gempita
I’m sure they would sell it Marhalim if we expressed an interest. The Koreans from the 1980’s [way before they approached Indonesia and the Philippines] have been trying very hard to sell us stuff and form a strategic partnership but we were unwilling to commit.
Personally I see 2 guns as being a bit of an overkill. I would prefer a single 30mm [anything smaller will lack the range and bang] and a quad MANPAD launcher.
I think TDM prefers more the Starstreak RapidRanger/RapidRover on lighter 4×4 for mobile AD purpose?
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/more-details-on-the-starstreak-deal/
Nope, the Starstreak was not chosen by the Army
Wait, what? This deal was signed right? So they cancelled it quietly or something?
Starstreak is great. Hard or near impossible to jam and flies at around Mach 2-3 or more [hard for the target to outfly and the operator only has to keep his eyes on target for seconds]. Starstreak can also go up to 16,000 feet. Problem is it’s expensive and a line of sight weapon. Beam riders also take longer to train on.
IR systems are cheaper; don’t require the operator to keep his eyes on the target but can be decoyed. Pros and cons with both.
RapidRover is great. I’m all for a stabilised mount and for an alerting device rather than having an operator with a launcher on his shoulder and his eyes and eyes as the only sensors. Against UASs however a hard kill and soft kill solution is needed and the hard kill should include a auto cannon and a MANPADs; both complementing each other to engage targets in different operational scenarios.
Mobile AD is a bit of a niche in the world, Western first rate armies do not put too much emphasis onto them. US had dabbled with Sgt York, Vulcan M113, Linebacker Bradleys & Avenger Humvees but ultimately decided that achieving air superiority and constant overwatch negates the need for such systems during rapid advances. Of course their troops are better equip to deal with local aerial oppositions with Stingers and to an extend with Javelins.
With the Starsteak cancellation I have no idea what is TDM’s intentions, or what ‘s their peeve about it whether they are unhappy with the system or the carrier vehicle or both and what they really wanted. Marhalim, any clues?
Joe “We already have 11 variants which is pretty a lot but they are all needed to fill TDM usage needs so I doubt there are anymore variations missing that TDM would want more”.
Exactly, we have almost as many varient as Stryker while having more units then the Aussie boxer. The more money spends for a styler BCT equivalent is less money for other stuff.
@muhammad
We could, but TD also stated a need for amphibious ifv and gempita is probably a bit too heavy of a platform to do it & it’s probably cheaper to just acquire the k806 or Pandur for example which not just have a amphibious varient but also mobile gun and AD varient too rather than trying to Jerry rig the gempita to do the above example.
azlan “What do you see a 105mm gun doing”
Mobile protected firepower at the same time pull a motorization of infantry BCT?
They said its not good enough for their needs
5zaft – ”Mobile protected firepower at the same time pull a motorization of infantry BCT?”
Read again my comments in a previous post. I have given the reasons why we don’t need a 105mm armed IFV; although others might do. A 105mm armed IFV can’t do anything a
PT-91 or various AV08 variants can’t.
Joe “Mobile AD is a bit of a niche in the world, Western first rate armies do not put too much emphasis onto them”
Probably true before when all they doing is play whack a mole on non capable non state actor. Probably not going to be true in the future where they wanted to fight against a near peer competitors where their air supremacy is not guaranteed.
Joe “With the Starsteak cancellation I have no idea what is TDM’s intentions, or what ‘s their peeve about it whether they are unhappy with the system or the carrier vehicle or both and what they really wanted.”
They wanted a ‘real’ GBAD & a proper AD IFV rather than more starstreak?
@azlan
US Infantry BCT is more or less a program to equip their light infantry with relatively cheap to procured vehicle (MPF,JLTV & Humvee).
It won’t be long before US friends & foe alike would adopt a similar doctrine thus I won’t be surprised if TD would buy a MPF & JLTV equivalent next. Which is what i suspect the 6×6 & 4×4 program is about.
As you said there’s nothing a light tank can do that a proper MBT can’t. other than being cheap to procured, run & operate off course.
5zaft – ”Probably true before when all they doing is play whack a mole”
Nnsense; it’s not true. Look at what the U.S. is doing with the Stryker AD variant; what Russia is doing with a 57mm armed platform and what others are doing. There’s a reason why mobile AD systems are needed – for the flexibility they offer.
It’s not a niche or an expensive luxury but vital. Sgt. York was cancelled because of cost overruns and other reasons. Vulcan went away because the idea was to moved away from guns towards missiles; same reason the Germans did away with Gepard. As it stands there is a clear realisation that a missile and gun combo is needed to deal with a variety of low to medium level threats.
5zaft – ” is play whack a mole on non capable non state actor. ”
Not necessary. Think … What if the non state actor uses a swarm of 100 UASs; small/micro ones with a low RCS and IR signature; massed to overwhelm defences.
5Zaft – ”US Infantry BCT is more or less a program to equip their light infantry”
Fine but it has no or zero bearing we what we were discussing.
Starstreak is great. Hard or near impossible to jam and flies at around Mach 2-3 or more [hard for the target to outfly and the operator only has to keep his eyes on target for seconds]. Starstreak can also go up to 16,000 feet. Problem is it’s expensive and a line of sight weapon. Beam riders also take longer to train on.
IR systems are cheaper; don’t require the operator to keep his eyes on the target but can be decoyed. Pros and cons with both.
RapidRover is great. I’m all for a stabilised mount and for an alerting device rather than having an operator with a launcher on his shoulder and his eyes and eyes as the only sensors. Against UASs however a hard kill and soft kill solution is needed and the hard kill should include a auto cannon and a MANPADs; both complementing each other to engage targets in different operational scenarios.
5zaft – ”It won’t be long before US friends & foe alike would adopt a similar doctrine”
I won’t be quick to adopt that assumption because others might find that a different TOE is needed.
“air supremacy is not guaranteed.”
Erm I doubt that would happen. US doctrine have always been about achieving air superiority prior to any boots on ground. Perhaps the equation has changed now that US might be the defender against a Russian invasion but such solutions are years away and might even fail some way (Stryker with Moog). There is no urgency from USA atm.
“wanted a ‘real’ GBAD & a proper AD IFV”
And which is? VSHORADs ie vehicle mount Starstreak is in the sub10km range, and mobile SAM ie Landceptor are in the 20km range but not as mobile as it needs to be setup. For maneuver elements they could quickly outpace the protective umbrella of mobile SAMs so TDM will need to figure out what they want and the pros & cons of each. Gempita with Moog could be interesting.
“It’s not a niche or an expensive luxury”
But it is not something they put much emphasis on. Stryker AD is still in preproduction development stage and will take years to fully deploy. It could still suffer late cancellations as the 105mm variant did. CIS aligned groups had always maintained a viable mobile AD as part of their doctrine but we’re talking about Western armies here. USA had been lagging in surface anti air developments & deployments for a while now mainly due to their modern wars against far inferior forces and their doctrine of achieving air superiority first.
An ex US Serviceman have talked about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKX5oD2Opbo
EU nations do have more fleshed out AD systems both static & mobile due to different doctrine where Russian AF could be over them within minutes. But as part of NATO aegis they are dependent on US/EU combo achieving overall air superiority in any conflict.
Isn’t Stryker AD is basically just gempita av30 or ebrc jaguar with a AESA radar?
So it’s it more of a reconnaissance ifv that happened to be capable of AD rather than a dedicated AD platforms. So If it’s works then it is something that other military including us would after the Stryker AD finished it field trials off course.