SHAH ALAM: Condor replacement programme part..It appears that the Defence Ministry is preparing for an open competition to find the replacement for the APC for the Malbatt mission in Lebanon. Berita Harian reported the statements by Defence Minister DS Ismail Sabri on the issue.
Kementerian Pertahanan kini dalam proses memanggil tender untuk pembekalan kenderaan pengangkut berperisai (APC) bagi menggantikan kenderaan itu dengan yang baharu.
Menteri Pertahanan, Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob, berkata pihaknya juga tidak akan membawa pulang kenderaan ketenteraan itu yang kini digunakan pasukan pengaman Batalion Malaysia 850-7 (MALBATT 850-7) di Lubnan.“Kita tak panggil balik. Memang ia digunakan sebelum ini dan kita akan gantikan dengan yang baharu. Ia kini dalam proses memanggil tender.
“Kita akan hantar yang baharu bukan kerana yang dulu tidak ikut spesifikasi tetapi memang dalam perancangan kita dan sudah sampai tempoh kita akan ganti yang baharu,” katanya pada sidang media selepas Majlis Graduasi Kursus Maktab Pertahanan Angkatan Tentera
Apart from an open tender, which he did not say when, not much details can be gleaned from the above as I was not at the press conference. I am assuming that he was asked whether the ministry will replaced the IAG Guardians APC after the Auditor General Report found that it does not meet the UN specifications as posted earlier. If he meant the Guardians of course, it will not be shipped back but its likely the Condors which have been in Lebanon from the start of the mission since 2006. Infact as soon as the Condors were sent there, plans were afoot to replace them but to no avail.
Pindad Anoa.
Any how as I reported before the Army plans to replace the Condors in Lebanon had taken a new urgency in the last few years as the UN had told them that the condition of the vehicles were no longer up to standard and the Malbatt unit may be in danger of non compliance. Hence the decision to buy the Guardians some three years back.
The Guardian from the side.
Fast forward to 2020, I was told some 12 companies have shown presentations to the Army regarding their offers to replace the Condors. I was told that for the Malbatt, the plan was to buy some 24 vehicles with another 20 to 30 vehicles for the Army Ready Battalion which is kept ready for emergency UN peace keeping mission.
The Condor APCs are the main transporters of Malbatt QRF units.
Some of these vehicles have been tested in country following their participation DSA 2018 and some are brand new offerings. The new vehicles would have been tested locally before or after DSA 2020 but as you are all aware, the event was cancelled due to the coronavirus.
Hanwa Tigon 6X6 APC
The vehicle for Malbatt will be equipped with a RWS as it is one of the specifications listed by the Army. As for the type I am told it will be for a 12.7 HMG at least (which will allow the installation of a 7.62mm machine gun or an automatic grenade launcher).
A close up of the Reutech Rogue RWS.
I am told the tender will be published once the Army finalised the specifications, the word on the street is that for the Lebanon requirement it will be a 4X4 while for the ready batallion it will be a 6×6. Malaysian Defence has reported previously about the conundrum in a previous post.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
I just hope the Deftech AV6 was Choosen rather than Hanwa 6×6 APC.
Pelik betul kita boleh tangguhkan sesuatu pembelian aset yg UN akan bayar kembali
These are the Fijian forces Thales Australia Bushmaster PMV in Golan heights, Israel.
They are also not fitted with any RCWS
http://fijisun.com.fj/2017/03/31/bushmasters-head-to-golan/
@ marhalim
” The vehicle for Malbatt will be equipped with a RWS as it is one of the specifications listed by the Army ”
Any links on this?
Reply
Of course no link, it was told by my sources. You can infer the specs by the AG report on the Guardians ie armour proof to 7.62mm rounds, up to 10 personnel and RWS
Quite confusing..this program solely for malbatt apc or including condors here? It will take quite a lot of money to if the army are to choose to type of new vehicles namely apc and mrap
Good news again I think after UAV and MPA request for bid. Hope this program will take place as soon as possible.
It has to take the UN to say our Condor is not up to mark. Will this buy replace other Condors not on UN services?
Reply
That’s the one million dollar question, that’s why the thinking is for a split buy, the ones for Lebanon 4X4 while the ready battalion 6X6. So when the funds is available to replace the whole Condor fleet they can just buy the same 6X6.
Why can’t stick to gempita 8×8.ensure commonality and less logistical headache
Reply
Because the Army has enough 8X8 for its requirements. Unless of course they changed it
@ marhalim
if you read the auditor report page 12 and 13. The guardians are exactly as per the specifications laid out by the malaysian army. So there is no issue of breech of contract on the acquisition of the Guardians.
the UN requirement is for “armed” APC, there is no mention of “RWS”.
There is no official document from UN in the audtor report that UN needs an “armed” APC from MALBATT. It might just be UN has plenty of reimbursement rates, and the rate for an “armed” APC happens to be higher than “unarmed” APC.
Wait a minute. Wasn’t Condor replacement was the Guardian? And what did Menhan meant by “Kita tak panggil balik”? We are not going to bring the Condors back Malaysia once replaced?
Reply
Not enough Guardians were bought. They need an extra 24 vehicles. I think they have bring back the Condors once they replaced them
@ marhalim
That is exactly what the menhan meant. They are not going to bring back the condors currently in lebanon when it is replaced by new vehicles. They will be scrapped in country or made into monuments there.
Reply
I don’t think the UN will want to leave any type armoured steel to be left in Lebanon.
Why not just buy more Lipanbaras (AV4)?
Reply
Because the Army don’t think its the right vehicle for the job
“I think they have bring back the Condors”
It doesn’t sound like that, the way he said it. I got the feeling it will be donated away perhaps to Lebanese Army or some others. Once the replacement started, we’d have a lot of Condors to get rid off so any chance to lessen the numbers now is welcomed, which IMHO would be a waste as they could be relifed for 2ndary troop transport in liew of softskin trucks.
…. – “They will be scrapped in country or made into monuments there”
It’s safe to presume that if indeed left behind; they’ll be stripped of anything useful and sold as scrapped. They are so worn out that it’s not worth the effort and expense to ship them home.
If indeed any are turned into “monuments” it’ll probably be one or at the most a couple; at a Lebanese village or an outpost. Even then they will require some upkeep lest they rust away.
Kzkzkzkz.
Good question. By right it should be the Lipanbara. After all buying “local” (not really “local” though) and supporting the local industry is the in thing.
Which begs the question as to how Deftech even managed to sell a few in the first place; was it pure politics again? Did the army even have a say or were the trials and modifications purely cosmetic as a decision had already been made.
Transport prices can be more expensive than scrapping.
The NATO armies scrapped a lot of material in the Middle East rather than transport it back.
One of the peculiarities of life. For similar reasons you can find abandoned cars here and there around Malaysia.
vote for AV6 deftech
@Kzkzkzkz
Its likely TDM got AV4 for ESSCOM purposes but didn’t see fit as Condor replacement. The First Win had to be uparmoured into AV4 to meet TDM requirements so future development potential is rather limited.
It also seems they wanted 6X6 rather than 4X4 APC/IFV as the replacement, hence they are still looking around.
Chua,
Prince Khalid in “Desert Warrior” complained about certain countries just leaving/abandoning large stiocks of stuff (following the end of hostilities with Iraq) in the Saudi desert rather than bringing them back.
In the case of the Condors: they are pretty worn out so it makes no sense going thought the effort and expense to ship them back just to be stored until scrapped.
If we can cut a couple of men from the dismount section, the Pars 6×6 can fit 3 + 8. Call it AV-6 I guess.
Reply
Five dismounts will be enough actually
Military_Observer “vote for AV6 deftech”
Easy for you to say. You’re not the one paying for it.
Military_Observer says:
February 19, 2019 at 10:27 pm
Malaysia army should only opted AV Deftech family for the next additional 8×8, 6×6 or 4×4 armour vehicle as the product’s quality seems very convincing. Besides to support our local industry (to achieve economy scale after huge amount of investment), it can also reduce the spare part and maintenance issue in the long term. No more trying to bring in 6×6 black fox or others !
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/av8-developments/#comment-354297
Military_Observer says:
April 17, 2018 at 9:48 pm
It would be better for the army to opt Pars 6×6 as it comes from the same design chasis of AV8. Optimizing the cost of service and logistic. Less rojak….
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/revival-of-6×6-dsa-2018-shorts/#comment-307680
welcome back deftech guy aka military_observer
btw i heard that there are like 40 interested companies for this tender…
@Chua
For the sake of commonality with the AV8 in terms of system usage & familiarity, production-wise via local CKD, maintenance & spareparts, support from a single OEM, upgrade path, forseeable technical issues to overcome, & known actual costing (from AV8 experience), the PARS 6X6 is the most reasonable option for Condor replacement. Pricing-wise, the Government could make serious leverage on a 3rd buy order to FNSS (after Adnan & AV8).
“as the product’s quality seems very convincing”
If it quality was the only determining factor then great but a host of other issues also comes into play; including meeting the army’s requirements.
“support our local industry (to achieve economy scale after huge amount of investment), it can also reduce the spare part and maintenance issue in the long term”
Very true indeed but supporting the local industry should only into play if the actual product meets the army’s operational requirements and there still should be thorough and objective trials conducted to see how the “local” product fares against others.
The needs of the local industry should never take precedence over the needs of the end user and the need to ensure the taxpayer gets the best value for his/her money.
I is it true that the Malaysian government was begging from the UN to be included in the mission??
and thats why Brunei is part of our contigent??
Reply
Not beg, we had to make an appeal as the Israel government had objected to Muslim countries for being involved in the Unifil mission especially after the 2005/2006 war in Lebanon. We made the offer following the end of the conflict. A compromise was found by putting some of the Muslim contingents away from the Israeli-Lebanon border. That said due to rotations of the units the Indonesian contingent are now based on the Israeli Lebanon border. Brunei also wanted to participate in the mission but as they cannot send a much larger unit it was decided that they will be working with the Malaysian contingent.
@joe
Yes that’s what I thought.
@Marhalim
>”Five dismounts will be enough actually”
Why? Guardian and Condor are both 2 + 10
Reply
Different roles different needs
Before suggesting this and that first we must ask. What is the purpose for these APCs to be procured in this tender?
What we know is it is mainly to replace the rest of the remaining condors in Lebanon and to add to the 9 Guardians already in Lebanon.
http://youtu.be/6OLj1rvychQ
In this video we can see that the Guardian turret is armed.
So the needed qty 24 is presumably in lebanon and up to 30 for the army ready battalion.
What is the current ready battalion? Still/is it permanently be the 7 RRD? Or will it be rotated among the mechanized battalions? If that is the case, those APCs will be rotated around and be given to the ready battalion of the day.
So what is the best option for this? If we consider the current requirement in Lebanon, IMO the best would be more Guardian Extreme APCs for both the requirement in lebanon and ready battalion. We must also decouple this peacekeeping requirement from the remaining condor replacement requirement for the Kor Armor Diraja Cavalry Regiments.
Anyway lets see the korean force vehicles in Lebanon
The korean unit in UNIFIL is called 동명부대 (Dongmyeong Unit)
http://youtu.be/kVweaMRbZo8
http://i.imgur.com/hpoFC46.jpg
http://post-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxODExMTVfMTU2/MDAxNTQyMjY2NTcwMDA3.iccOLriQkrsRz1nZ8LaOwB0QqrVulVXNQlNq7nMNc0Yg.Tw_ilyEodHq5SeUhE-EGvL8QxFlZebwwc40UQwmmrFsg.JPEG/2018111301010003745_20181113053_레바논_동명부대_21진_소형전술차.jpeg
https://post-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxODExMTVfNTUg/MDAxNTQyMjY2Mjg5MTAy.Ph2kY3YeYuVfBqZFI3MXc9fC57n8QdgK2PBxNGDh38Mg.9K6Mjs1QYIxVoEFH7XvCyUl0M00OKs_1HWQAV2obGA8g.JPEG/2018111301010003742_20181113050_레바논_동명부대_21진_소형전술차.jpeg
Oh no! need to put head out to shoot!
http://www.gunjong.com/adm/data/bbs/news/M1609040456508_1.JPG
http://img6.yna.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2017/07/20/AEN20170720002800315_02_i_P4.jpg
Heads out too!
http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10002/upfile/201710/20171012091852.jpg
they are equipped with just 2 types of APC. The Baraccuda which is used by PDRM in Timor Leste and Lahad Dato (and Indonesian police carrying malaysian football team) and the latest KIA KLTV. Nowhere is a RWS is seen on those APCs. So does that mean South Korea also did not meet UN requirements also?
… – “. What is the purpose for these APCs to be procured in this tender”
That’s the easy part : to replace the Condors with a vehicle which comes with a certain level of mobility and protection (up to 7.62mm AP is sufficient for the task at hand) needed for the role of peacekeeping.
There’s the easy part; the not so easy part of to get the slow moving wheels of bureaucracy moving fast so that MALBATT can finally replace its Condors which are not only worn out but also has mobility issues.
As far back as the 1990’s; following experience in Bosnia and Somalia we had already identified mobility as a major limitation for the Condor when deployed under the UN. The army identified a need for a 6×6 but nothing came out of it.
Logically the same IFV acquired for MALBATT in UNIFIL will also be type eventually selected to fulfil the army’s 6×6 requirement.
@…
“does that mean South Korea also did not meet UN requirements also?”
Yes.
But whether it is acceptable or not is up to the Govt to decide.
I repeat, the A-G doesn’t make investigations without guidance. Therefore the guidance must have come from someone somewhere, probably Mindef.
Auditors are a powerful fact and number crunching machine. But if you feed thr machine erroneous data to start with, you will get cocked-up conclusions. I’m sure you gentlemen are not too old to know of the term “GIGO”…
Chua – “But whether it is acceptable or not is up to the Govt to decide”
Indeed. The government has the final say over everything and like any other contingent MALBATT is answerable to the national government and if the CO at anytime feels that he should; he can and will bypass the head of UNIFIL and seek guidance/clarification from back home.
Ultimately however if a country agrees to place its troops under UN command it has to agree or adhere to certain conditions/guidelines (whatever they may be) imposed by the UN.
The UN of course is also a giant bureaucracy and is dependent on donor nations; as well as the veto power of the Permanent Five which can hamper things.
The head of UNIFIL is in a very tricky situation (to put it mildly) he has to deal with his boss; the various contingents; the various Lebanese factions; including the government and the Israelis. It’s a political minefield requiring trust, diplomacy, patience, politics, etc. He can never please everyone and if things go rat shit will be blamed for things beyond his control.
Actually the Condors have the advantage that its components are all commercial off the shelf. That means its replacements can be obtained easily in the commercial market.
I have a suggestion. Why not modernise the Condor by changing the engine n transmission. Renovate the chassis by way of strip n rebuilt. Give these to all batallions without armoured transport n use them as battlefield taxi or even give then them to the Wataniah
Reply
Then people will complain the soldiers need to fight outside the vehicles…
@ chua
” Yes ”
I am sure there is no requirement from UN explicitly wanting MALBATT needs to have RWS equipped APC (as even other peacekeeping forces are using similarly equipped APCs). If there is, show it to me.
This is IMO not an issue of GIGO. The A-G report is what i think an extreme extrapolation of the datas that have been given to them and latching to an issue that is not even there in the first place (UN reimbursed those APC accordingly so why you are complaining it is not paid for something it is not?)
Or worse we told the un that our guardians have rws and claim from un for rws equipped apc but in fact its not..you know considering how ‘smooth’ our procurement program..its not about un requirement here, if un told you to do something just do as they said..Its not really hard to understand though
Reply
No lah
@ marhalim
” Then people will complain the soldiers need to fight outside the vehicles… ”
Why do we even need to answer stupid questions from people that know nothing about military tasks. Like the A-G comment on ” heads out to shoot “, he is with that point overstepped his duties as A-G. Soldiers need to fight wherever it is needed, not just cooped up in an APC.
moving forward on this.
this should not be considered as a overall replacement programme for the condor, just as a tender to get new APCs for peacekeeping duties to add to the current 9 IAG Guardian Extreme APCs.
I would prefer if we just add on more of the Guardians. It is priced at around RM5 million each compared to the Lipanbara at RM7 million each for example. Get 60 more Guardians, with 24 sent to Lebanon and the rest to the ready battalion. That would cost around RM300 million. Both operational and ready battalion APCs should be the same, as it would simplify training and preparation for peacekeeping duties.
For the reconnaissance and fire support vehicle requirement for KAD cavalry regiments to be paired with the AV8 Gempita. For this requirement, i would prefer the oshkosh JLTV for this. It is cheap, costing about RM1.5 million each (no that is not a typo and at that price fully equipped with RCWS, gunshot locator systems etc.) and is extremely capable IFV and thoroughly tested. What about the AV6 you ask? If locally sold Lipanbara costs RM7 million, how much would an AV6 cost? Say it is double, then an AV6 cost can get us 6 JLTVs! Rather than getting AV6s, i would prefer TD to give Deftech a contract for batch 2 of AV8 instead. This is to raise a dedicated AV8 wheeled mechanised brigade, rather than a mixed wheeled-tracked mechanised brigade we have now.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/lithuania-joint-light-tactical-vehicles
on the need to balance ” national interest ” and the need to improve our defence capability.
We cannot practically do away with things of ” national interest “. But that should not be everything and to the detriment of our defence capability.
We need to juggle all, to get in the end a better capability for our armed forces.
My suggestion above considers that.
Acommon APC fleet for UN peacekeeping and UN ready battalion, still with ” national interest ” taken into account.
Still giving DEFTECH projects, albeit one that will really increase or mechanised infantry formation mobility by getting a batch 2 of AV8 to equip another 2 mechanised infantry battalion.
Then getting a really very capable reconnaissance and fire support vehicle for our cavalry regiments to be paired with the AV8 in a very value for money package while continuing our engagement with USA in the form of those Oshkosh JLTVs.
Selamat hari merdeka 2020 everyone.
Reply
One way to ensure national interest if they buy an imported APC is to ensure that Deftech maintenance arm get a long-term maintenance and support contract instead of giving it out to in penny packets to any workshop all over the country which is the current practice. The ISS for the Gempita has not been signed yet as the ministry is happy that any serious work apart from regular maintenance which is done by the unit itself, is covered by the manufacturer’s guarantee period.
… – “Soldiers need to fight wherever it is needed, not just cooped up in an APC”
Yes.
The vehicle is their means of transportation and to provide them with some level of protection.
Whether it’s for peacekeeping or as part of a combined arms unit in a state on state conflict; they have to be out of the vehicle to do their job.
… – ““. But that should not be everything and to the detriment of our defence capability”
Unfortunately that has long been the case. Contracts awarded not based on what comes closest to fulfilling actual requirements but on other factors with the end user just expected to go along.
Prior to deciding whether or not to licensed build anything (whether a ship or IFV) it first had to meet actual requirements and it has to be determined how many the end user actually needs and over how long a period can the purchase be completed.
What never must happen is the end user getting something not because it actually needs it or requires the numbers but because it benefits the local industry.
… – “ extremely capable IFV and thoroughly tested”
Is the JLTV really a “IFV”?
Yes we all know its utility/virtues; offers great flexibility (it can be armed in a variety of ways, can be configured for different roles, has decent levels of protection,etc) at a great price (you mentioned this numerous times) and that is can be used in lieu (depending on certain factors) of an IFV but can it really be described as an “IFV” in the truest sense of the word?
Costs is one thing; actual requirements is another thing. The requirement is for a 6×6 IFV not a multi role wheeled tactical vehicle (which is whet the JLTV is). Whilst I see the value of the JLTV (for UN missions, to equip weapons companies, for the Pathfinders of 10 Para, etc) I personally wouldn’t be so quick to suggest we get in it instead of 6x6s.
By the same token; like I have before; until I know whether the army actually has a requirement for follow on AV-8s I have no idea as to whether we should even get more (requirements evolve).
The fact that the army actually has a requirement for 6x6s is telling. Is it because it sees the need for something slightly cheaper (in procurement and fir out costs) and does not see the need for “x” number of 8x8s? Does it feel that for certain roles in certain conditions: a 6×6 can better do the job? I have no idea
The AV-8 numbers Deftech was hoping to sell and the numbers the army actually foresaw needing can differ greatly. If we we do get follow on AV-8s it should be because there is actually a requirement for it; as part of the army’s force structure and the need for additional manoeuvre units (the 2 mech battalions you keep mentioning); not merely because Deftech has already has the facilities in place.
@ azlan
” Unfortunately that has long been the case ”
Sacrificing our armed forces capability for “national interest” needs to stop right now. We need to start with this APC and all other latest contracts like for the MPA, UAV and the solution to our Gowind predicament.
Lee – “Give these to all batallions without armoured transport n use them as battlefield taxi or even give then them to the Wataniah”
On paper yes.
In reality the question really is how much one intends spending on an aged worn out vehicle with modest mobility and protection levels? Would the cash be put to good use upgrading the Condors or buying new? Which offers a better long term return of investment?
There will be a limit as to how much the government is willing spend upgrading the Condor and nothing will change the fact that it’s a 4×4 with limited mobility and that it offers all round protection up to only 7.62mm. Yes we can uparmour it to provide slightly better protection but any increase in weight has to be seen on how it impacts the engine and gearbox.
As Marhalim pointed out before; an issue is also the side doors. Troops are exposed to fire when they exit from the sides of the vehicle.
We initially planned to upgrade the V-100/50s in the 1990’s (Najib announced air at DSA) but ditched it; just wasn’t worth the time and effort. The vehicle was aged and worn out; upgrading it wasn’t seen as a good return of investment.
“penny packets to any workshop all over the country”
“regular maintenance which is done by the unit itself”
So I’m a bit confused, is the maint done by outside 3rd party or TDM Maint Division?
…. – “Sacrificing our armed forces capability for “national interest” needs to stop right now”
Must as well hope for mermaids to be seen in the Sulu Sea or Pegasus to be seen over Gunung Tahan.
Such changes will take time (can’t and won’t happen “right now”) and must occur as part of a total/major revamp of the defence policy. Everything; from how we go about selecting things to the role the local industry plays; must change.
The problem is there will be political consequences on the part of the government and there will be resistance; the flawed way we do things is deeply ingrained in the system and is part of the system of patronage.
…. – “Sacrificing our armed forces capability for “national interest” needs to stop right now”
Must as well hope for mermaids to be seen in the Sulu Sea or Pegasus to be seen over Gunung Tahan.
Such changes will take time (can’t and won’t happen “right now”) and must occur as part of a total/major revamp of the defence policy. Everything; from how we go about selecting things to the role the local industry plays; must change.
The problem is there will be political consequences on the part of the government and there will be resistance; the flawed way we do things is deeply ingrained in the system and is part of the system of patronage.
… – “We need to start with this APC and all other latest contracts”
We need to start with the very basics and ask ourselves some very hard questions. In parallel there must be a holistic, apolitical and objective assessment of our threat perceptions and the roles we see the MAF performing.
With regards to local production it also has to start with the basics; including this stuff with “self sufficiency”. Take our ammo; almost all the stuff used in the production is imported and paid for in foreign currency. Half the time it’s cheaper to actually buy direct from abroad.
With regards to IFVs and ships; we have to look at how many the end user actually needs. What must never happen is the end user being forced to buy something just to benefit the local industry. We also need to do away with the illusion that we can actually export the stuff we license produce.
Tactically, no tanks n armoured vehicles for long without the infantry n vice versa. Its been proven over n over again. The armoured vehicles , be they the MRAPS, JLTV’s, OFV etc etc must take these infantry soldiers safely to the front, disgorhe then n move forward to the edge of the battle supporting each other. There is no option. Infantry are meant to fight in the field. If dont want humans to fight, then, buy a whole swarm of rcv mounted with machine guns n controlled by real human soldiers at the back. But machines cant replace humans in all terrains
Of course, buying new armoured vehicles is the best. Nothing can beat new assets. But we need to look at our capabilities financially. We should use the limited financial resources as best we can. If we dont have enough to buy everything new then we must look to other options.
Buying an asset which fits the requirements of the armed forces is a national interest. National intetest is not just dollar n cents. Having the most appropriaye assets so that the capabilities of our armed forces can perform at their optimum best is also a national interest.
@Lee Yoke Meng
With near 400 units Condors, there is financial sense to relife them. By using UNIMOG off-the-shelf spareparts, the cost are certainly more reasonable, the more costly and possibly more challenging is to rewire the vehicles but keeping it simple is the key, no need for any form of electronics or turret complexities just a pintle mount shielded gunpost. I’d seen 30-40 year old commercial trucks had done rewiring, overhaul and still running daily so relifeing a Condor is doable economically. Neither is side doors an issue as these vehicles are for use at 2ndary roles, transporting troops from rear to FOB, border patrols, etc replacing our softskin trucks. Anything armoured up to 7.62mm is sufficient for this role.
Admittedly they are no longer fit for frontline duties, not even for peacekeeping, but as 2ndary roles away from the shooting action they could be of much use, moreso since we have plenty of them.
@…
>”The A-G report is what i think an extreme extrapolation of the datas that have been given to them and latching to an issue that is not even there in the first place (UN reimbursed those APC accordingly so why you are complaining it is not paid for something it is not?)”
Well, I tried to explain the general working principles of an audit to show why it is not an “extreme extrapolation”… once again, you say UN reimbursed those APC “accordingly” but that is not true, there was a shortfall from expected receipts. The A-G’s job was to find out the reason for the shortfall.
You keep saying that 1) the shortfall is of no consequence, and 2) the removed RWS was for operational purposes, and 3) the A-G doesn’t understand operational matters. I am saying, if the A-G does his job right (and I believe that he did), then 1) the shortfall is of consequence to the tune of Rm2M, it is not his decision whether such a sum can be “tidak-apa’d” by the nation, his duty is to present the info to the Cabinet; and 2) likewise it is not his duty to decide if the operational reason given by Mindef to omit the RWS is acceptable or not, and 3) the A-G is working from the information given to him by Mindef and the other ministries. He doesn’t care what the Korean contingent or US or whoever did, they are outside of scope, his duty is to work according to the brief he was given.
Put this in another way – imagine it is not an omission but an ADDITION of equipment. Mindef says it is operationally necessary. A-G can’t decide. He has to present the results to the Cabinet.
@…
>”heads out to shoot”
Isn’t it a fact?
Whether or not the additional operational risk is worth the operational advantage of greater rapprochement with locals etc, is not his job to decide isn’t it?
You will note that Mindef failed to give a proper explanation to the A-G in the report. No mention of the purpose for removing the RWS.
GIGO.
@ azlan
“Is the JLTV really a “IFV”?”
Well even if we know that what the army wants is a 6×6 IFV, the issue is that those 6×6 IFV will be issued to our Kor Armor Diraja Cavalry Regiments that is currently equipped with AV8 and condors.
So we need to go back to the raison d’être for having those Cavalry regiments. Those cavalry regiments can trace their linage to the Federation Reconnaissance Corps (Kor Peninjau Persekutuan). While in the 70s and early 80s the Cavalry regiments also took some tasks of a mechanised infantry, the creation of dedicated mechanised infantry battalions eliminated that need. As a cavalry regiment, one of their main tasks is scouting and reconnaissance under armor. Tasks formerly undertaken by ferrets and scorpions. Currently the task is undertaken by AV8 with the advanced Vingtaqs mast. What the cavalry regiment needs to be paired with the AV8s is a vehicle that is small and highly maneuverable, with high armoured protection that can undertake the reconnaissance mission.
So what it needs IMO is an ideal reconnaissance vehicle, not an IFV. The JLTV is already choosen by the US Army the be their intrim light recce vehicle. The variant is to be called JLTV-RV. While it does not look like it, the JLTV is armoured to the same level of MRAP, which is remarkable as it weighs so much lesser than those heavy MRAPs. Then of course there is the price, which we cannot get anything like it at that price point.
While there might be commonality of AV6 with the AV8, i feel that a 6×6 would still be too big to hide in our local terrain to be undertaking reconnaissance missions. I dont think an AV6 will be significantly cheaper than the AV8, so i would rather build extra AV8 instead of AV6s. I would prefer the army to stand up a fully wheeled mechanised brigade consisting of AV8s to maximise the speed potential of a fully wheeled formation, and moving all the Adnans, MIFVs and PT-91M into a fully tracked armoured brigade. That is a significantly higher overall potential capability rather than spending big on just replacing the condors in cavalry regiments with 6×6 IFVs.
So rather than spend big on 6×6 IFVs, and no big changes in capability (still just 1 rojak mechanised brigade), spend the same amount on 2 more AV8 mechanised infantry brigade (around 150 AV8) plus JLTVs for Cavalry regiments (around 200-300 units) , and you will get 1 wheeled mechanised brigade, 1 armoured brigade and a more effective reconnaissance capability of all the cavalry regiments.
” With regards to IFVs and ships; we have to look at how many the end user actually needs. What must never happen is the end user being forced to buy something just to benefit the local industry. We also need to do away with the illusion that we can actually export the stuff we license produce ”
Exactly what i have always taken into account about when i talk about future orbats here. Why i always ask why we plan for an overall fleet of 50 large surface ships MMEA and TLDM combined.
@ chua
” is not his job to decide isn’t it? ”
it is not his job to even comment about ” heads out to shoot ” as it is not related to the shortfall of the RM2.2 million.
As i said, UN reimbused the use of the APCs EXACTLY as per its specification. It was acquired as an APC with manual manned cupola (no hanky panky there) and it was EXACTLY as what was wanted by MALBATT in Lebanon. The APC it is reimbursed exactly as it is, not less. So the A-G complaining it is not reimbursed to a rate that it is not is simply bull.
So you are saying the A-G is right, and army people should be punished for this lack of RM2.2 million?
“>”heads out to shoot”
Isn’t it a fact”
Well it’s certainly a fact that troops and crews are very exposed to casualties when they are exposed. For certain armies the potential for injury is a price worth for tank commanders who are exposed in order to get better SA.
I will not touch on the MALBATT/OWS issue as I’m just not bothered. The value of having a RWS/OWS however is not only the ability to deliver stabilised/accurate fire without the need for the gunner to be exposed but also the better SA it enables with the optics; i.e. the ability to track and zoom in on things of interest.
We had looked at a RWS (Kornsberg) for the MIFVs but nothing came of it. The cavalry type cupola that was proposed for the Condors was also intended to minimise the potential for injury in the part of the gunner/commander.
Lee,
There are actually only about 300 Condors left and the bulk of them are not in good condition. Their inability to withstand anything above 7.62.mm was a major concern for the army; irrespective whether they are to be used in low threat situations. Even in low threat situations there is the potential for the unexpected. Even in low threat situations; 7.62mm weapons are not a rarity.
Similarly the side doors is an issue as the front of the vehicle (traditionally is most vehicles the most well protected part) is normally pointed at the enemy. There is also a reason why most contemporary APCs/IFVs have no side doors.
dont you guys know that the condor has a rear door too?
http://careta.my/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/condor254_n.jpg
@ joe
we probably have like around 200 condors left, lots have been made into targets at asahan.
The issue is the cost of upgrades. unimog parts are not cheap. If the cost is more than even usd150k then it is not economical. Deftech previously quoted the upgrade cost to be half of the Lipanbara price, which is about RM3.5 million per condor.
Rather than upgrading those condors, it would be cheaper to get a Kia KLTV instead for general APC tasks. That thing costs just USD145K (rm610k) each.
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/54a0b34b-0e45-4706-8fe2-a0274bb2b007/dbrutsw-b3757cdf-dc9d-4f99-a3b9-b7f73cb33068.jpg/v1/fill/w_1600,h_1200,q_75,strp/kia_kltv182_recon_vehicle_by_rodd929_dbrutsw-fullview.jpg
http://mblogthumb-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxNzEwMjNfMTA3/MDAxNTA4NzIwNTM3MDcw._Sjv8PIBGEWiSosr-Thbsfp8jwwOuQmG8P6oMdDwnjEg.bvGw_mWxM7jyc-TT-908RDGyLf3wY-COArbK5sJkkoYg.JPEG.gosugosu74/우리나라의_최신형_소형전술차량을_알아보자26.jpg?type=w420
Reply
Yes the Condor has a rear door, try going out using it with full gear
O/T
The National Day parade was a sombre affair, what’s even more dull was RTM’s attempts of having a virtual garage showing Armed Forces vehicles full of technical jargon that an average Joe would probably find difficult to understand. It would have been more exciting if they did a virtual tour of the vehicles instead.
The four representatives (PDRM, Army,RMN,RMAF) didn’t have much to talk about, just adding bits and pieces here and there. But there were some interesting points, would be a great help if anyone could clarify :
– the RMN guy said that a second batch of LMSes would be ordered in 2021-2022 time frame.
– the RMAF guy mentioned that they would be proceeding with the CAP55 plan, more assets would be procured starting next year (?). Not sure the recent the tender for MPAs and UAVs are related to that.
@ marhalim
“Yes the Condor has a rear door, try going out using it with full gear”
all 3 doors is of the same size. only difference is the rear door is a calmshell type with bottom folding out to become a step.
@ ASM
“the RMN guy said that a second batch of LMSes would be ordered in 2021-2022 time frame”
That is still the plan up till now, 8 LMS for RMK12 (2021-2025)
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/back-into-the-future/
” Not sure the recent the tender for MPAs and UAVs are related to that ”
It will be related to that. Those tenders will be impossible to be signed off this year.
… – “ you guys know that the condor has a rear door too?”
So does the Sibmas which is the the only door for those in the small troop complement. The one on the Condor is smaller and they is no ramp; there originally was steps. Awkward/difficult to use….
… – “ Currently the task is undertaken by AV8 with the advanced Vingtaqs mast”
Is that really it’s “task” or is it merely one of its “tasks”?
… – “What the cavalry regiment needs to be paired with the AV8s is a vehicle that is small and highly maneuverable”
“Small and manoeuvrable” is highly subjective …. Depends on who you ask. Some will say that a 6×6 is “small and manoeuvrable”. Some will point out the advantages of a 6×6 over a MRAP/wheeled tactical vehicle and vice versa – depends on preference and requirement.
The size of the vehicle is determined also by doctrine; how recce is carried out (do units fight for info or only observe), how far away do they operate away from the main unit, are they purely troops or do they also perform screening and flank protection, etc, etc?
… – “Why i always ask why we plan for an overall fleet of 50 large surface ships MMEA and TLDM combined”
For the precise reason that the numbers are judged to be the optimum number both services need to be able to meet their operational commitments. Whether those numbers are ever gained is questionable (the 5/15 is dead as a dodo or will re-emerge as something else) but this numbers weren’t conjure up from a hat.
… – “The issue is the cost of upgrades. unimog parts are not cheap
In response to a feasibility study done by the army on the possibility of upgrading part of the fleet; Deftech cane out with its proposal. The army with the powers there be decided to pursue it. Ultimately it was decided that it wasn’t worth even effort and that spending the cash wasn’t a good return of investment.
ASM,
They just said what was expected of them. What else would they have said 🙂
back to the condor refurbishment.
if the condor upgrade/refurbishment by DEFTECH costs RM3.5milion each, we are better off just buying new JLTVs at RM1.5 million each (which will be suitable for the reconnaissance missions for cavalry regiments)
If we need APCs to motorize our infantry battalions, those KLTV APC costs just about RM610k each. You could get nearly 6 KLTV APC for the cost of 1 Condor upgrade/refurbishment by DEFTECH. So rather than paying to upgrade 200 condors, for the same cost we can buy nearly 1200 KLTV APCs instead and able to equip all of our infantry battalions with APC!!!
http://youtu.be/jfn6AzmkpOA
start at the 12th minute for the APC version.
http://www.motorgraph.com/news/photo/201609/10317_48145_509.jpg
http://www.motorgraph.com/news/photo/201609/10317_48157_5232.jpg
http://www.motorgraph.com/news/photo/201609/10317_48158_5232.jpg
http://milidom.net/files/attach/images/2062/806/891/2f70cbca1f936d54a7cd54a13ec0bab9.PNG
Azlan,
They could’ve explained more really, life in the services, more explanation on the vehicles capabilities’, the jargon they were using etc…I mean they were there to talk, really.
The Terence guy was chucking terms like maritime strike, air interdiction, fly by wire etc. Those are good topics for discussion…..I guess that’s too much to be expected of RTM
… – “ i feel that a 6×6 would still be too big to hide in our local terrain to be undertaking reconnaissance missions”
Depends ……
In secondary jungle or palm oil estates (restricted terrain) vehicles would make use of natural cover for concealment. In urban areas it wouldn’t really matter. Depends also on how units go about conducting recce; from a distance with the aid of sensors, up close or both?
Ask the Germans and they will say that anything larger and higher than a Fennek and Weasel are not ideal for recce. Ask the Americans and they will say a IFV (armed to fight its way out of trouble is the right platform). Depends.
If you want to make argument that a 6×6 is not is ideal due to size; one can also make a similar argument the the AV-8 (large with a profile higher than a PT-91) is also not ideal; irrespective of the fact that if one desires a detain level of mobility, protection and internal volume; one needs a vehicle of certain size and height.
… – “While in the 70s and early 80s the Cavalry regiments also took some tasks of a mechanised infantry, the creation of dedicated mechanised infantry battalions eliminated that need”
Don’t assume so merely because you’d like to believe so …
Depends on doctrine and requirement … The army obviously has reasons why it desires 6x6s; which gives the ability – if needed – to carry a small number of troops. If the army’s recce doctrine foresees that troops at times might have to fight or entangle with the enemy whilst recce then obviously troops will be needed. As mentioned previously it also depends if units are meant to perform recce or screening and flank protection.
I have no personal preference as I have no idea how we go about conducting recce. At times a smaller vehicle will do, at times a larger vehicle will be needed. The question of whether our recce units are only intended to perform recce or also screening and flank protection also arises. There will be times when recce/screening forces will ideally be equipped with other means apart from a IFV or a MRAP like multi role wheeled tactical vehicle
Back to the condor refurbishment.
i have wrongly quoted the cost is half of lipanbara… it is actually half of RM10 million!!!
http://youth.bernama.com/v2/news.php?id=891360&c=2
If the condor upgrade/refurbishment by DEFTECH costs RM5 milion each, we are better off just buying new JLTVs at RM1.5 million each (which will be suitable for the reconnaissance missions for cavalry regiments)
If we need APCs to motorize our infantry battalions, those KLTV APC costs just about RM610k each. You could get 8 KLTV APC for the cost of 1 Condor upgrade/refurbishment by DEFTECH. So rather than paying to upgrade say 200 condors, for the same cost we can buy nearly 1600 KLTV APCs instead and able to equip all of our infantry battalions with APC!!!
http://youtu.be/jfn6AzmkpOA
start at the 12th minute for the APC version.
http://www.motorgraph.com/news/photo/201609/10317_48145_509.jpg
http://www.motorgraph.com/news/photo/201609/10317_48157_5232.jpg
http://www.motorgraph.com/news/photo/201609/10317_48158_5232.jpg
http://milidom.net/files/attach/images/2062/806/891/2f70cbca1f936d54a7cd54a13ec0bab9.PNG
@ azlan
” The size of the vehicle is determined also by doctrine; how recce is carried out (do units fight for info or only observe), how far away do they operate away from the main unit, are they purely troops or do they also perform screening and flank protection, etc, etc? ”
You also must remember the requiment is a vehicle to complement the AV8s. Cavalry regiments (except 4 KAD and the new 5 KAD) right now is equipped with
– AFV30 version with 30mm camgun
– LCT30 version with 30mm camgun + Ingwe missiles
– SURV version with Vingtaqs mast
– Condor 20mm
– Condor GPMG
We knew about the SURV version in action during ops benteng when those from 1 KAD was deployed in desaru area.
http://www.airspace-review.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gempita-Angkasa-Review-2.png
So the condor replacement for cavalry regiments does not need to take up all the tasks of the unit, as many can be fulfilled with the AV8s. So we need something that can excel at thing the AV8 cannot or will be poorly suited, like reconnaissance.
… – “only difference is the rear door is a calmshell type with bottom folding out to become a step.”
Which makes it extremely awkward, difficult and unpopular to use. People have even been injured because of the steps.
… – “LTVs at RM1.5 million each (which will be suitable for the reconnaissance missions for cavalry regiments)”
Very suitable for the Border Regiment, 10 Para’s Pathfinders and the weapons companies of various battalions. Whether or not it can – from the army’s perspective – do away with the 6z6 requirement is really a matter of doctrine, preference and requirement. Personally I see a need for more than one type of vehicle fir the recce role (the JLTV or a similar vehicle included) for certain units and certain operational conditions.
Amongst the roles 10 Para’s Pathfinders perform is recce and JLTV weapons companies can if required perform the recce, screening and flank protection role.
@ azlan
” Ask the Americans and they will say a IFV (armed to fight its way out of trouble is the right platform) ”
The US Army is going to use the JLTV-RV as their intrim reconnaissance vehicle. The Stryker was also previously an intrim vehicle, but it became a permanent feature of the US Army now.
http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=827154
See page 6 of the document.
“I have no personal preference as I have no idea how we go about conducting recce”
It is not about personal preference. it is about juggling the needs and budget, and to increase the overall capability of the army. If a cheap RM1.5 million each JLTV can do the job, the budget for the 200+ 6×6 IFV could be used to buy more IFV25 version of AV8 Gempita instead, and create a fully wheeled mechanised brigade.
P.S.
Another issue with using the rear door of the Condor is if someone is manning the roof mounted MG. Access to the rear door will be blocked if troops have to dismount; the side doors remain the most practical.
With the Sibmas it’s different as the troop compartment (like the BMP) is separated from the rest of the vehicle. The rear door is the only door for troops and there’s no awkward to use folding/clamshell stairs.
@…
>”it was EXACTLY as what was wanted by MALBATT in Lebanon”
According to whom?
Someone here said that it was due to not wanting to annoy locals. Well then. IF this is true, why did Mindef not tell the A-G this? The reply recorded by them is a non-answer… interestingly.
>”The APC it is reimbursed exactly as it is, not less. So the A-G complaining it is not reimbursed to a rate that it is not is simply bull.”
Currently there is no explanation why for the variation which caused a shortfall. I remind you that the original specs defining what UN would pay for is also obtained from Mindef.
We have not come to the question of whose fault it is yet, but it is strange that Mindef fails to give an answer as to why.
Re: JLTV
JLTV is not an IFV. It’s an APC. It carries a third of the troops of the Condor so it would have to be replaced 3 for 1. Which brings up the issue of maintenance; replacing 200 Condors with 600 KLTVs means replacing 200 engines with 600 engines, 200 transmissions with 600 transmissions, 800 tyres with 2400 tyres, and then there’s the military equipment; 200 vehicle radios with 600 radios, 200 turret guns with 600 turret guns, etc
Reply
I spoke to someone on the reply from the ministry, *********************** don’t quote me please
@ Chua
” replacing 200 Condors with 600 KLTVs means replacing 200 engines with 600 engines, 200 transmissions with 600 transmissions, 800 tyres with 2400 tyres, and then there’s the military equipment; 200 vehicle radios with 600 radios, 200 turret guns with 600 turret guns, etc ”
I am talking about the similar cost. If you want just 200 KLTV then it will cost just 16% of the cost to upgrade 200 Condors (see my 2nd comment on this, the correct one with RM5 mil each cost of upgrade). But if you spend the same cost to upgrade 200 Condor, you can get 1200 KLTV, which can equip all infantry battalions in the army with APCs!
BTW
KLTV APC can carry 7 dismounts plus driver and cupola gunner.
Condors was never an IFV anyway.
For our front line IFVs, we have the AV8 IFV25, and Adnans/MIFVs
… – “The US Army is going to use the JLTV-RV as their intrim reconnaissance vehicle”
For several decades their main recce platform in heavy manoeuvre unit’s was the recce/scout variant of the Bradley.
Naturally depending on the circumstances other vehicles may be used.
The JLTV was originally born out of a requirement for a high mobility mine protected vehicle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should a full scale war erupt say in the Ukraine; the terrain (largely flat) and the threat level will probably
see other vehicles performing armed recce/screening.
My reference to the Germans and Americans was to point out to you that the choice of anything boils down mainly to preference, doctrine and requirements. Just like hie I pointed out that a whether or not a 6×6 is too large for recce really boils down to operational circumstances …
… – “It is not about personal preference”
To some extent it is and it’s reflected in our writing/posts even though we may not realise it.
I don’t have a personal preference as I don’t even know how we go about conducting recce but I do know that recce units also perform screening and flank protection and that recce units in certain scenarios will need mounted troops. I also know that having mechanised units does not do away with the need for recce units to have the ability to carry mounted troops as at certain times dismounted troops have a role to play when it comes to recce.
.., – it is about juggling the needs and budget, and to increase the overall capability of the army”
It’s about first determining what suits one’s operational requirements; then determining how it fits in one’s overall force structure; then determining what comes closest to meeting the requirement based on what can be afforded and what trade offs one is willing to make ……..
… – “If a cheap RM1.5 million each JLTV can do the job, the budget for the 200+ 6×6 IFV could be used to buy more IFV25 version of AV8 Gempita instead, and create a fully wheeled mechanised brigade”
That is your opinion.
Irrespective of how you feel it or what you think is the preferred/logical arrangement; it
boils down to the army first deciding it wants a 4×4 multi role tactical vehicle rather than a 6×6 IFV and also determining if at this juncture it actually needs follow on AV-8s.
You’ve expended immense effort explaining the virtues of the JLTV.
Personally I see a need for it but I have also pointed out that like it or not, agree or not; it is what it is – the requirement as it stands is for a 6×6 IFV – no I’m not suggesting we can’t and shouldn’t discuss alternatives.
Both the IFV and the multi role tactical vehicle have their respective merits. I personally
see a role for both; not just purely for recce but for other things as well.
@ azlan
What i am thinking right now for the armoured vehicle capability…
1x Mechanised Gempita Brigade (wheeled)
– 1x Gempita Cavalry Regiment
– 3x Gempita Infantry Battalion (around 150 batch 2 Gempita AV8)
1x Armoured Brigade (tracked)
– 1x PT-91M + MIFV armoured regiment
– 3x Adnan/MIFV infantry battalion
Would be hoping if can raise another 1x Armoured Brigade, with additional used PT-91 (50) and MIFVs (150-200), so a total of 2x Armoured Brigade. To transform 3rd Division into a fully mechanised/armoured formation.
plus 2 battalion each of motorized infantry battalions in 1,2, 4 and 5 Divisions with KIA KLTV (total of 8 battalions with KIA KLTV, with 4 on sabah and sarawak)
additional KLTVs for use on operational tasks like border patrol.
4 Cavalry Regiments on a mix of AV8 and JLTV (2 regiments in sabah and sarawak)
PARA armor (to be upgraded to a full regiment) with Adnan and JLTV, so they can choose which one that is suitable for its mission taskings. Para infantry battalions having access to a pool of Polaris DAGORs.
This will be rolled out over 2021-2030. The highest cost would be for the AV8 batch 2 of about USD500 million. Money saved would allow TD to recapitalize and expand its artillery, air defence and ATGM capability.
Chua – “LTV is not an IFV. It’s an APC. It carries a third of the troops of the Condor so it would have to be replaced 3 for”
Indeed. The number of troops it was designed to carry was the number seen as ideal in the context of Afghanistan and Iraq.
If employed as a scout/recce vehicle the number of troops able to be carried by the JLTV isn’t an issue as a full section might not be needed unlike say an IFV which has to carry a full section in order to perform certain roles as part of a combined arms manoeuvre unit.
Ultimately although some users may use the JLTV as a IFV/APC it was originally intended to fulfil a requirement for a “mine resistant multi role tactical vehicle”.
… – “You also must remember the requiment is a vehicle to complement the AV8s”
I never “forgot” this ….
It’s not only a vehicle intended to complement the AV-8 but also to perform certain roles as part of certain units which do not require a AV-8. The 6×6 is also intended to have a modest fit out compared to the AV/8 in line with its role of recce, screening and flank protection.
… – “can excel at thing the AV8 cannot or will be poorly suited, like reconnaissance.”
Depending on which army you ask the AV-8 is “poorly suited” for various things. It’s large and has a high profile but it doesn’t necessarily have to be poor at recce. Other armies will say a 6×6 is a poor choice for recce as well.
Boils down to end user preference, doctrine and operational requirements. Just because it’s intended to equip Cavalry units doesn’t necessarily mean the 6×6 is only going to perform recce. We utilised Sibmas as a recce vehicle but it also played other roles.
The traditional roles of recce in the British army (performed in the past by the Scorpion, Scimitar. Saladin and Ferret) also included screening and flank protection; roles performed by cavalry units from the days when they were horse mounted.
Just like how I can see a place for the JLTV in the army’s force structure; I understand there are reasons why it desires a 6×6 and not more AV-8s and also the fact that vehicles in Calvary Regiments might perform roles then go beyond their traditional recce role.
… – “What i am thinking right now for the armoured vehicle capability…”
You’ve long explained what you have in mind.
On my part I can see why the army would have a need for 6x6s and not follow on AV-8s. I can also see the utility in having the JLTV or a similar vehicle to perform certain roles.
Unlike you I don’t however see the need for 10 Para to have an organic IFV capability for reasons I have given in depth during previous discussions we’ve had in the matter – I’ve given reasons why certain jump qualified units have a need for a IFV, why some don’t; as well as why 10 Para has no such requirement.
@ azlan
” For several decades their main recce platform in heavy manoeuvre unit’s was the recce/scout variant of the Bradley ”
The keyword is heavy manoeuvre units. I am thinking of adding a squadron of MIFV with soucy rubber tracks + vingtaqs as a recce unit in the PT-91M regiment. But JLTV will be for the cavalry regiments equipped with AV8s.
Of course there will be merits of having 6×6 IFV. But there is something we don’t have. Lots of budget to get 200++ of those 6×6 IFVs.
@ azlan
” Calvary Regiments might perform roles then go beyond their traditional recce role ”
of course, they already have the AV8 with 30mm gun and Ingwes for that! remember the condor replacement is as a hi-lo mix to be fielded alongside the AV8 in the same cavalry regiment!
P.S.
Rather than a IFV (adds to the unit’s already limited logistics ability) I’d rather expand/improve the units engineering and signals (limited currently to single squadrons) capabilities. Despite being our premier strategic unit; essentials such as body armour, sights and NVGs are still lacking.
@ azlan
” Despite being our premier strategic unit ”
sorry, what unit you are referring to?
… – “The keyword is heavy manoeuvre units”
Actually the message is that the type of vehicle utilised for the recce/scout role is wholly dependent on what a particular user’s preference, doctrine and operational requirements are.
I mentioned this to highlight that even a 6×6 – never mind a 8×8 – might considered too large for some and why for some a 4×4 terrain tactical vehicle won’t do.
… – “of course, they already have the AV8 with 30mm gun and Ingwes for that! remember“
The Ingwe is to enable anti tank defence when the vehicle is operating as part of an all arms formation and the 30mm is intended to engage targets at ranges where Ingwe would be fired and targets which might have appliqué armour.
If certain types of weapons are mounted on dedicated recce/scout assets it could be because of a doctrine that calls for units to fight for info (the Germans and the Americans) rather than units to avoid at all costs contact with the enemy (the Brits) and in the expectation that vehicles may have to fight their way out of trouble; i.e. the gun on the Saladin and cannon on Weasel.
My mention of the fact that recce units will perform beyond their traditional role was in response your –
“the creation of dedicated mechanised infantry battalions eliminated that need”
One of the reasons the army sees the need for a 6×6 is probably due to my “Calvary Regiments might perform roles then go beyond their traditional recce role” ….
In all your mention of recce it’s in reference to recce in its traditional sense. Beyond roles such as screening and flank protection I also see recce units augmenting other units in specific conditions.
… – “But JLTV will be for the cavalry regiments equipped with AV8s”
Border Regiment, Pathfinders, weapons companies, etc.
…
Rather than adding a IFV capability to 10 Para (which it has no requirement for) I’d rather resources be placed in expending it’s signal and engineering elements.
It also says a kit that despite it being our elite unit; one with a strategic tasking; essentials such as body armour, NVGs and optics are still lacking.
@ azlan
” Border Regiment, Pathfinders, weapons companies, etc. ”
border regiment is basically a peacetime mission. JLTV is overkill for that. at most will be the KLTV.
Pathfinders will ride the DAGOR. JLTV will be used by the PARA Armor Sqn. in support of the PARA formation (including pathfinders). It can be dropped together with the Leading Para Battlegroup as the fire support vehicle of the formation.
Weapons companies of infantry battalions will be much more economical to be equipped with KLTVs.
Units that i see using the JLTV in malaysian army.
– Cavalry Regiment (hi-lo mix with AV8)
– AV8 infantry battalion support units (ambulance, fire support, etc)
– PARA armor Sqn
– Starstreak Rapidranger or SP HVM carrier
– support units for mechanised and armoured brigades
– peacekeeping missions (depends on threat level, if low can use KLTV instead of JLTV)
variants
– General Purpose
– Reconnaissance (with vingtaqs mast)
– Heavy Weapons Carrier
– ATGM carrier
– Ambulance
– EW shelters
– Starstreak carrier
@…
>”I am talking about the similar cost. If you want just 200 KLTV then it will cost just 16% of the cost to upgrade 200 Condors (see my 2nd comment on this, the correct one with RM5 mil each cost of upgrade). But if you spend the same cost to upgrade 200 Condor, you can get 1200 KLTV, which can equip all infantry battalions in the army with APCs!”
No, you can’t. As I said, to ferry the same number of personnel, you need 3 KLTV for 1 Condor. Condor fits in 2 + 10 personnel. KLTV fits 1 + 3.
So, to carry x number of people carried by 200 Condor, you need 600 KLTV.
Hence, you cannot “equip all infantry battalions with APCs”. If it takes e.g. 80 Condors to transport 1 battalion, and 400 Condors to transport 5 battalions, in order to transport 1 battalion you need 240 KLTVs; in order to transport 5 battalions you need 1200 KLTVs.
And as I pointed out to you, this is only looking at procurement cost. Your operating costs will increase – spare parts and FUEL – not to mention vehicle radio sets and vehicle turret weapons. 1 Condor carrying 12 pax requires 1 machine gun and 1 vehicle radio. 3 KLTVs carrying 12 pax requires 3 machine guns and 3 radios.
Of course you can issue 1 MG per 3 KLTVs and scrimp a little that way. However you must have 3 radios because you really cannot have 2 out of 3 vehicles out of contact save by shouting and signal flags or some such 19th century methods.
I had to spend quite some effort trying to follow the discussion here. It is going all over the place
@…
>”See page 6 of the document.”
This document relates to the Infantry BCT which is the US Army’s light infantry e.g. Paras. The bulk of their forces will be in Stryker or Armoured BCTs for which the recon vehicles are the Stryker M1127 APC and Bradley M3 IFV. Probably because the JLTV is easier to transport by air than these vehicles.
You must understand that this is not an endorsement of the JLTV’s capability as a recon vehicle. It’s replacing the Humvee because organic recon in the US Army light infantry traditionally means “driving around till you get shot”… of course, they have vast amounts of other division and theatre level assets and these are their light troops so they are not really that concerned in this area.
So JLTV-RV will not actually provide
>”more effective reconnaissance capability of all the cavalry regiments.”
As for the KLTV, there are armoured and unarmoured, short and long wheelbase variants, you had better check which one it is which has the price you quoted.
@…
>”Condors was never an IFV anyway”
I’m aware of that. I was correcting you that the JLTV is not an IFV.
Overall, I’m not sure why you’re so married to the idea of getting the JLTV. Personally I think it is a good small utility vehicle but too low even for a high-low mix APC.
With regards to the Cavalry Regiments, I think their designation seems a bit confusing. They appear to be light mechanised infantry, not “armoured recce” as we know it in the NATO sense.
What their requirements are is unknown, other than that the baseline minimum is probably Condor-like. If so, then they may have to make do with a 10-pax 7.62-proof MRAP, something like the Guardians. (Which we could have bought secondhand US Army MRAPs by the way, like Saudi did. Sigh…)
A general section APC for the mechanised infantry ought, in my opinion, to accommodate the full section in 1 vehicle and be armoured against RPGs. One with a 25mm cannon and Ingwe would be even better. But then again, I do realise we don’t have the budget for that.
@ chua
” No, you can’t. As I said, to ferry the same number of personnel, you need 3 KLTV for 1 Condor. Condor fits in 2 + 10 personnel. KLTV fits 1 + 3 ”
facepalm. its KLTV APC. I repeat KLTV APC. do you even look at the videos and pictures i posted?
http://youtu.be/jfn6AzmkpOA
start at the 12th minute for the APC version and count the seats inside!
http://www.armyrecognition.com/dx_korea_2018_news_official_show_daily/dx_korea_2018_new_k152_4x4_apc_armored_personnel_carrier_of_south_korean_army.amp.html
KLTV APC (which is the version i am talking about) can carry 8.
http://scontent-lga3-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/sh0.08/e35/c0.176.1409.1409a/s640x640/67981747_2952416421452079_3379902220378297235_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=103&_nc_ohc=1i_5IVmSWwgAX8xIEDl&oh=230ebe0bbee8f2358795aab35c181f5c&oe=5F6CB122
all condors in mechanised battalions already retired and replaced with Adnan/MIFV and Gempita AVS IFV25 variant. All the replacement in mechanised battalions cannot carry 12 person anyway.
the only condors remaining is with cavalry regiments.
we are talking about handing down upgraded condors to BIS infantry battalions. These battalions are using Land rovers and weststar GS Cargo.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p3WA0lpH6Ig/T5F7h01Xb1I/AAAAAAAAB5k/eg4z1XDrtCQ/s1600/Weststar_GSC_3-4_ton_4x4_light_tactical_vehicle_Malaysia_Malaysian_army_defence_industry_military_technology_640.jpg
basically 1 KLTV APC can carry 1 BIS infantry section. Each company need 12, a battalion needs 36 plus extra for HQ etc.
So say each infantry battalion is equipped with 50 KLTV APC, that is for RM75 million.
Say it would be 40 upgraded condors instead. That would cost RM200 million.
… – “border regiment is basically a peacetime mission”
If you want to look at it that way, the whole army is “a peacetime mission” until bullets start to actually fly ….
…. – “Pathfinders will ride the DAGOR. JLTV will be used by the PARA Armor Sqn. in support of the PARA formation (including pathfinders”
What specific elements are actually equipped with is a matter of opinion. Ideally Pathfinders and the Armoured Squadron should be equipped with the same vehicle. The Pathfinders with a vehicle for recce and screening and the Armoured Squadron with a fire support platform or also as providing a manoeuvre element.
… – “ It can be dropped together with the Leading Para Battlegroup as the fire support vehicle of the formation”
A lot of things can be air dropped; depending on having the needed air lift when you need it, priority placed in what should be initially dropped and if the unit is actually deployed by means of parachute.
There are various scenarios which see the unit deployed; some of them include the unit deploying by air to a forward location before processing by road, by sea and then by land, Depends. If there was a period of tensions before actual hostilities (the unit probably wouldn’t have to be air dropped).
The whole rational of having 10 Para was a unit which could be deployed by air, sea and land to anywhere it was needed. The prime concern st that time was East Malaysia; at a time when we had a minimal military presence there. Things have changed following ESSCOM; there is much higher military presence there even before 4th Division stood up.
I know you’re gung ho about 10 Para deploying by parachute and about equipment being air dropped but it depends on the operational circumstances : air dropping people and equipment brings with it a whole host of operational/logistical challenges.
All these have been discussed in previous discussions on the topic.
…. “– Starstreak Rapidranger or SP HVM carrier”
What is the rationale behind having a MANSPADs mounted on a JLTV? For one an AA vehicle doesn’t necessarily need that level of mobility (in our operational context) and it can still provide coverage to units without physically being deployed up front with them.
I see it as a candidate for the Pathfinders (along with motorcycles and other vehicles) who are the unit’s recce element and who also would conduct forward and flank screening.
I see it (or an equivalent) as means of transport and to provide a certain level of protection for the Border Regiment which often operates in areas with a poor road network (the Kalimantan border in Sarawak comes to mind) and for which (despite your peacetime assertion which applies to the whole army really) could be the first to come into contact with enemy and would need the means to rapidly disengage in the face of “heavier” enemy units.
I see it (or an equivalent) as being platforms for the weapons companies who are currently dependent on softskin 4x4s to transport their weapons and ammo and also to rapidly deploy to where they’re needed to support those who need it.
Chua – “A general section APC for the mechanised infantry ought, in my opinion, to accommodate the full section in 1 vehicle and be armoured against RPGs”
Even if not fitted for; it should have provision for bar cage/chicken wire to be added. This is something we can’t afford to do without. Vital consideration has to given towards protecting the vehicle and its occupants.
To date we have yet to see any indication of us moving in this vital direction.
Any increase in weight will be minimal and is a penalty worth incurring. Similarly the claim that bar cage/chicken wire will snag on vegetation is flimsy/spurious as it would only occur in non urban areas and given a choice; crews would happily have things snagging in their vehicle if it increases their survival chances.
Chua – “One with a 25mm cannon and Ingwe would be even better”
It’s not only a question of funding but actual utility.
Only certain vehicles should be armed with a ATGW but it should never be utilised as an independent tank killing asset but always as part of a combined arms formation.
The 25mm serves 2 purposes : as a fire support weapon in support of dismounted infantry or in the event enemy IFVs are encountered. The problem is that some IFVs might be up armoured and will require a 30mm round to achieve penetration.
Chua – “ Personally I think it is a good small utility vehicle but too low even for a high-low mix APC”
It’s a multi role tactical mine resistant vehicle. For certain users however; in certain conditions it can be utilised as a APC for want of anything else. Having said that it’s is not a IFV.
Chua – “With regards to the Cavalry Regiments, I think their designation seems a bit confusing. They appear to be light mechanised infantry, not “armoured recce” as we know it in the NATO sense”
A bit of both actually.
There is also no “armoured recce in the NATO sense” as different countries adopt different approaches.
British doctrine calls for recce/cavalry units to gather info without necessarily tangling with the enemy. They also provide a forward screen and the type of vehicles used and how they were armed reflects doctrine – Ferret, Scimitar and Saladin.
The Germans and Americans have a different approach and see recce units having to fight for info. Depends also on the circumstances – JLTVs may be great for Afghanistan but in say the Ukraine; Bradleys would be used.
Others have a different approach – the Italians use Centauro as a recce/scout/fire support platform; similar to the South Africans with Rooikat. Ask the Israelis and they’ll say that in urban areas recce/probing missions are ideally done by MBTs and stuff like Azerit/Puma.
As for us I see our cavalry units essentially bring used as “light units” (as you mentioned); performing roles such as recce, flank protection, screening, protecting unit boundaries, etc. Ideally more than one vehicle (not just a 6×6) would be operated for roles mentioned above.
All boils down to user preference and the role the user sees a particular vehicle playing in the larger scheme of things. Whilst I see a JLTV or similar type of vehicle being used for recce/screening; it doesn’t do away with the need for a IFV.
@ chua
“As for the KLTV, there are armoured and unarmoured, short and long wheelbase variants, you had better check which one it is which has the price you quoted.”
It is for the Armoured APC version, which is what we are talking about (never did i talk about the unarmoured version) Why I say please see my pictures. I attach it again with the price
http://mblogthumb-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxNzEwMjNfMTA3/MDAxNTA4NzIwNTM3MDcw._Sjv8PIBGEWiSosr-Thbsfp8jwwOuQmG8P6oMdDwnjEg.bvGw_mWxM7jyc-TT-908RDGyLf3wY-COArbK5sJkkoYg.JPEG.gosugosu74/우리나라의_최신형_소형전술차량을_알아보자26.jpg?type=w420
@ azlan
” If you want to look at it that way, the whole army is “a peacetime mission” until bullets start to actually fly ”
So what is wrong with the armoured KLTV APC for that task?
” Pathfinders and the Armoured Squadron should be equipped with the same vehicle ”
Pathfinders are foot soldiers. If they want a ride, then they should be riding along with the Armoured PARA Sqn, not equipping them with their own JLTV.
” I know you’re gung ho about 10 Para deploying by parachute ”
I did not even touch that topic here so why do you bring it up? But it is a PARA unit, so the ability to deploy by parachute is a given, but of course depends on operational circumstances. If the force can be safely landed on a dirtstrip, or airport, then landed it is.
” What is the rationale behind having a MANSPADs mounted on a JLTV? ”
Rapidranger is not the MANPADS version. This is the rapidranger
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nA6D5pZjMzU/XXRo2vKTKBI/AAAAAAABHJk/noTILar-A0kRf_kasVC913G3uezvK2CIQCLcBGAs/s1600/69302276_2635200049824160_7010610258959663104_n.jpg
A JLTV has higher mobility and armor compared to the softskin VAMTAC. So the Rapidranger can give air defence coverage to rapidly moving mechanized forces, while embedded with them. Another if we can get SP HVM launchers from retired UK stocks, we could install those launchers on the JLTV too.
https://preview.redd.it/6wwujbvjh7k41.jpg?auto=webp&s=cdfbdf12db0d3d749ea08a9a2a4fc992441d1c7c
” I see it (or an equivalent) as being platforms for the weapons companies who are currently dependent on softskin 4x4s to transport their weapons and ammo and also to rapidly deploy to where they’re needed to support those who need it ”
The even armoured KLTV will be a big improvement for weapon companies of infantry battalions. This is the armoured weapons carrier version
http://www.mintfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/kltv.jpg
” Whilst I see a JLTV or similar type of vehicle being used for recce/screening; it doesn’t do away with the need for a IFV ”
We did not do away with the need for an IFV for Cavalry regiment. Why do we really need another IFV in the Cavalry regiments when it has already been equipped with AV8 of AFV30 and LCT30 and SURV variants? Cant those AV8 be used when the JLTV cannot?
To recap, units currently using the AV8. Only 1 unit is using it for mechanised infantry (19 RAMD). The majority of our AV8 is equipping 3 Cavalry Regiments (1KAD Pahang, 2KAD Negeri Sembilan, 3KAD Kedah)
TDM have their reasons why they preferred 6X6 APC as Condor replacement, they don’t have to justify to anyone except to the Government that will buy them.
My ideal armoured vehicle fleet to 2030
400+ AV8 (additional 160)
600+ Adnan/MIFV (additional 240)
100+ PT-91M (additional 60)
300+ JLTV
1200+ armoured KLTV
60+ Guardian Extreme APC
To equip
2x Armoured Brigade (tracked)
1x Mechanised Brigade (wheeled)
8x motorized battalions with armoured KLTV
1x Armoured PARA Regiment (upgraded from just a Sqn)
2 sets of peacekeeping battalion equipments.
Cost:
160 AV8 of mostly IFV25 version USD500 million
240 KIFV – used free, offset to buy Korean FA-50, Frigates, KLTV, Raybolt and Chiron.
60 PT-91M – used Polish stock, USD200 million including upgrades to current fleet + additional engineering and recovery variants.
300 JLTV – USD105 million
1200 armoured KLTV – USD180 million
60 Guardian APC – USD71 million
Spread around 2 Rancangan Malaysia’s, that would cost about USD550 million per rancangan malaysia.
… – “So what is wrong with the armoured KLTV APC for that task?”
Nothing. I was just challenging your assertion that the JLTV is not needed for the Border Regiment on the grounds that it performs “peacetime duties” …
… – “I did not even touch that topic here so why do you bring it up”
It’s obvious but I’ll tell you why …
Because you mentioned the ability of a vehicle to be air dropped; that’s why …
Whilst such a capability is useful it shouldn’t be a major consideration in selecting a vehicle.
… – “We did not do away with the need for an IFV for Cavalry regiment”
No we didn’t and nobody implied we did.
… – “he need for an IFV for Cavalry regiment. Why do we really need another IFV in the Cavalry regiments when it has already been equipped with AV8 of AFV30 and LCT30 and SURV variants”
To perform certain roles which don’t a require a AV-8. You should perhaps wonder why the army does not seek follow on AV-8. If it did then obviously there would be no need for a 6×6 but as it stands there are reasons – whether one agrees or not – why there is a requirement for a 6×6 to perform certain roles and not a multi role tactical vehicle …
… – “ Cant those AV8 be used when the JLTV cannot?”
I have no idea but I know it all boils down to user preference. In other armies one would also question why we need such a huge and high vehicle as the AV-8 in a Cavalry formation …
Relative.
@…
>”That thing costs just USD145K (rm610k) each.”
Do you have a source for this?
@Azlan
>” the claim that bar cage/chicken wire will snag on vegetation is flimsy/spurious as it would only occur in non urban areas”
I will go one step further, and say that it can’t be too difficult for STRIDE to develop indigenous spaced applique armour plate for attaching on our armoured vehicles, no matter Condor or JLTV or KLTV. Why plate and not cage? Armour plate blocks can be manufactured smooth such that it has zero chance of snagging even in belukar.
We have tons of RPGs. We have steel plate. It doesn’t take an entire damn National Research Centre to shoot rounds at two steel plates spaced x or y or z inches apart until we find the optimum solution to protect the underlying plate.
>”Only certain vehicles should be armed with a ATGW but it should never be utilised as an independent tank killing asset but always as part of a combined arms formation. The 25mm serves 2 purposes : as a fire support weapon in support of dismounted infantry or in the event enemy IFVs are encountered.”
Oh yes I understand. I meant that the design should be capable of mounting GPMG, ATGM and AC so that one single chassis can be used for the whole battalion.
>”There is also no “armoured recce in the NATO sense””
By this I meant highly-mobile vehicle-borne recce units screening armour columns with fast tactical movement over Fulda plains. We don’t really have the terrain or land space for this, and I do not observe the majority of our “cavalry” units working closely with our armour in the same way.
What I observe of our “cavalry” units is that they are being used as what the British call “light protected infantry” – merely an infantry battalion, but unlike a lorry/jeep-borne unit, one that can travel and patrol in an operations area where hostiles are present, without fear of being hosed down by a GPMG.
RPGs are another story.
@…
I can’t read Korean.
… – “Rapidranger is not the MANPADS version”
Thank you for the info but I didn’t imply that at all.
I was merely stating – if you care to look back at my original post – that there’s no need for a MANPADs to be mounted on a JLTV
…. -So the Rapidranger can give air defence coverage to rapidly moving mechanized forces, while embedded with them“
The issue is not the utility of Starstreak but your suggestion of what we mount it on … For our purposes; given our terrain Starstreak can still be mounted on a Weststar and still provide coverage to units who need it.
When you mention “rapidly moving forces” in what context?
What kinds of speed do you see out units moving at on our terrain? If we were operating on flat uniform terrain in which units could rapidly cover large distances then yes but for us this doesn’t apply; thus we don’t necessarily need a support platform with the same speed and mobility levels.
Its for the same reason I mentioned us not needing a tracked SPH to keep pace with our tracked manoeuvre units.
… – “Another if we can get SP HVM launchers from retired UK stocks, we could install those launchers on the“
Assuming they’re still available and assuming we want them.
We’d still have to buy an alerting device. The Brit Stormer ones come with ADAD which in our humidity levels don’t work well.
We had initially looked at a AA
AV-8 variant but dropped it and decided to focus on other variants.
… – “force can be safely landed on a dirtstrip, or airport, then landed it is.”
If it can be landed and also adequately supplied in the event it goes into action and has tenuous lines of communications which are vulnerable to interdiction; as well as the possibility it faces “heavier” enemy unitd; then landed it is”.
Unfortunately the enemy has a say and will do all he can to prevent a landing and to prevent additional men and supplies moving in. In the event of troubles
I foresee the unit being rapidly moved to a airport or port and then making its way to where it’s needed by mainly road.
10 Para is a rapidly deployable jump qualified unit and to be expected has gained an elite status in line with being jump qualified (along with the RMR it has a very strong lobby in the army) but it can be argued that we have more of a need for a rapidly deployable unit per see rather than one that is jump qualified.
@ chua
” Do you have a source for this? ”
http://mblogthumb-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxNzEwMjNfMTA3/MDAxNTA4NzIwNTM3MDcw._Sjv8PIBGEWiSosr-Thbsfp8jwwOuQmG8P6oMdDwnjEg.bvGw_mWxM7jyc-TT-908RDGyLf3wY-COArbK5sJkkoYg.JPEG.gosugosu74/%EC%9A%B0%EB%A6%AC%EB%82%98%EB%9D%BC%EC%9D%98_%EC%B5%9C%EC%8B%A0%ED%98%95_%EC%86%8C%ED%98%95%EC%A0%84%EC%88%A0%EC%B0%A8%EB%9F%89%EC%9D%84_%EC%95%8C%EC%95%84%EB%B3%B4%EC%9E%9026.jpg?type=w420
that picture is the source. there is the price there – 1700 만원. that means 1700 thousand won. That is about USD143k.
If the weapons carrier version (4 seater), the price is about USD120k.
@ azlan
” Its for the same reason I mentioned us not needing a tracked SPH to keep pace with our tracked manoeuvre units ”
SPH will normally be running behind our main forces. Air defence umbrella needs to be running embedded with the main force (as the starstreak has a small range), which means that it also needs to be armoured , and can keep up with the AV8s.
LML NGs on GK-M1 are at best to be deployed to protect static locations.
” The Brit Stormer ones come with ADAD which in our humidity levels don’t work well ”
Interesting. Care to elaborate more on the ADAD IRST problems? Isnt the Jernas also comes with ADAD IRST? The brits has retired quite a lot of the SP HVM. Was thinking that it would be a cheap way to get more launchers (as we have just 6 rapidrangers, retrofitting them on the JLTV) to give air defence on the move for our mechanised and armoured formations.
“making its way to where it’s needed by mainly road”
which is why i want the PARA to have their own wheeled transport in the shape of the DAGORs. something light but can carry a whole section (8 person). now they dont have any transport except on foot when the land.
@ chua
“What I observe of our “cavalry” units is that they are being used as what the British call “light protected infantry” ”
I dont think so. since the 70s our cavalry units (1,2,3 and 4 rejimen KOR ARMOR DIRAJA)has been used in the traditional sense, with 90mm MECAR gun and the SIBMAS with 90mm cockerill. Yes they have their own infantry riding in the panhard M3 in the 70s and early 80s but when the army raised their own dedicated mechanised infantry battalions with the condors, the cavalry regiments did away with those requirements.
… with the V150 commando with 90mm MECAR gun…
… – “I will go one step further, and say that it can’t be too difficult for STRIDE”
Doesn’t have to be STRIDE. Can be any other company working with the army. For that matter even army ’workshops” should be able to fabricate such things.
Chua – “ I do not observe the majority of our “cavalry” units working closely with our armour in the same way“
Ex Perkasa. Held in a palm oil estate.
Chua – “one single chassis can be used for the whole battalion”
Ideally yes from a logistical/support perspective. From an operational perspective depends; many armies need tracked arty and AA platforms in order to be able to negotiate the same terrain as manoeuvre forces and in order to provide support; e.g. the Germans had Gepard, the Brits Stormer, the Soviets/Russians with various things, etc.
For our needs it’s possible for mech/tracked manoeuvre units to be supported by non tracked AA and arty. Note that with the cancellation of Sgt. York the Yanks don’t have a AA weapon mounted on a tracked chassis. They had Stinger mounted on Hummers’ and other things that still intended to provide mech units with AA coverage.
Chua – “We don’t really have the terrain or land space for this”
One doesn’t necessarily need open fast or non restricted terrain for this. The principles of recce, screening and flank protection still apply regardless of the terrain; it’s just that the tempo will be different.
Also, in areas such as along major highways and such; one can maintain a fast tempo; e.g. the “Thunder Runs” into the outskirts of Baghdad and the various probing/recce raids the Israelis have conducted over the years with mech units in Gaza and the West Bsnk.
Chua – “RPGs are another story”
3 main countermeasures against shoulder fired weapons : some level of protection, suppressive fire and manoeuvre. Ideally mech and motorised units will also have infantry support.
In non restricted terrain attacks will mostly be to the front but in non restricted terrain they can come from any quarter, including above. The reason armies go about fitting chicken wire/bar cage to the engine compartments is due to the possibility of attacks from that quarter when in restricted terrain.
We’re not strangers to the threat. Long before Bakara Market we lost a V-100/50 and its crew to a
RPG-2.
Reply
The vehicle is preserved at the Army Museum in PD
Chua,
How we go about conducting recce should also change with the times. At times a IFV will be ideal, at times it will be a 4×4 soft skin or a multi tole tactical vehicle. At times vehicle mounted optronics will do but at times it will require Mk1 eyeballs or even both. Then we have the issue of mini UASs which have a vital role to play but unfortunately are still absent.
I have no idea how we’ll operate Vintaqs; as battlefield observation platform per see or for other stuff like artillery spotting? It’s mounted on AV-8s but who actually operates it? We had Askarads which were purely ground radars but were owned and operated by the Intel Corps.
In addition to their traditional roles of recce, screening flank protection; Cavalry units when organic to a larger formation can also constitute an operational reserve and be used for roles such as protecting unit boundaries.
In addition to Cavalry units; which one can argue is essentially a “light motorised unit”; recce or intel gathering is also performed by Gerak Khas and the sole intel battalion (at one time there were 2).
@ azlan
sorry i did not comment on STRIDE. it was also chua.
@ chua
btw what units of malaysian army are you describing as “cavalry”?
imo
11 KAD – mbt regiment
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 KAD – cavalry regiment
12 RAMD, 14 RAMD, 19 RAMD, 7 RRD – mechanised infantry battalion.
“The vehicle is preserved at the Army Museum in PD”
Depends on your definition of “preserved”. I went there a year or 2 ago, and the vehicles were really in a bad condition. As if they were wrecks in a junkyard. Quite disappointed to see our history in such a state.
Reply
I think they got it right when it comes to the RPG hit vehicle. They should not re do it. As for the other vehicles there you are right of course
@ azlan
“It’s mounted on AV-8s but who actually operates it?”
Those SURV Vingtaqs is operated by the cavalry unit that houses those SURV. For example the latest deployment in desaru for Ops Benteng was from the 1 KAD. There was also a deployment of SURV from 3 KAD to Langkawi recently.
Also from BTDM news report we know that there has been a few rounds of training on the SURV held for the men of 1KAD, 2KAD and 3KAD.
@Azlan / Marhalim
>”Long before Bakara Market we lost a V-100/50 and its crew to a
RPG-2.
Reply
The vehicle is preserved at the Army Museum in PD”
I thought that vehicle was from Bakara? I used to visit the Armoured Corps Museum whenever I was on the way to PD for a little sun and surf. Popular with the little kids. And this was when it was in a smallish yard and small building, long before the grandiose museum there today.
Reply
The vehicles that were damaged and left in the Bakara market were destroyed by the UN forces ie US after the battle to prevent it from being cannibalised and were never recovered. If I recalled correctly there were a few Condors painted in UN colours at the museum. Most likely these are mostly unserviceable vehicles painted with the UN colours to represent the peacekeeping mission.
@Azlan
>Eks Perkasa
Which involved the units designated as Mechanised infantry, not the Cavalry.
@…
>”what units of malaysian army are you describing as “cavalry”?”
The 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Kor Armor Diraja. The majority of whom you will notice, are more forward-deployed in geographic operations zones attached to infantry divisions rather than co-located with the tanks and the Mechanised Brigade.
In such a deployment their role seems to be more as a mobile infantry force than as armoured recce screen. After all, whose tank are 3 KAD screening for way up north?
Typo – 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 KAD
Sorry 4 KAD
@…
“that picture is the source. there is the price there – 1700 만원. that means 1700 thousand won. That is about USD143k.”
That is 17 million won, or 1700 man (ten thousand) won, which converts to USD 14,314.40, which is not enough to buy a Kia Sonata.
You might want to get the price from another source.
Chua – “Which involved the units designated as Mechanised infantry, not the Cavalry”
The exercise involved mechanised and motorised units from both armoured and cavalry elements.
Chua – “. The majority of whom you will notice, are more forward-deployed in geographic operations zones attached to infantry divisions rather than co-located with the tanks and the Mechanised Brigade”
Chua – “In such a deployment their role seems to be more as a mobile infantry force than as armoured recce screen”
They are parcelled out; organic to various brigades, to provide those brigades with an armoured element; whether for fire support, a manoeuvre element, etc.
… – “SPH will normally be running behind our main forces”
They will normally be anywhere they have to be in order to provide fire support to units they are organic to.
Depending on the operational circumstances – availability of roads: type of terrain, enemy action, suitable firing locations, etc – they can be to the rear (where they normally are) but also lateral, oblique, etc to the unit they are supporting.
…, – “ Air defence umbrella needs to be running embedded with the main force (as the starstreak has a small range•
AD units don’t necessarily have to be physically up front with the units they’re supporting but close by; irrespective of limited range. It’s how they are placed and the early warning.
Similarly they will only be mounted on certain platforms if there’s an actually need. Thus it doesn’t necessarily have to be mounted on a JLTV or a similar platform. Doesn’t mean our Starstreaks can’t effectively support mech units merely because they’re mounted on Weststars and not JLTVs or a tracked platform.
As for the protection value; AA units (unless AA guns used in the direct fire mode) are not supposed to be in direct contact with enemy ground forces or in positions where they can be exposed to direct enemy fire.
Having a AA system mounted in a protected platform does have advantages as it enables protection against splinters and such but in such a scenario the crew would be protected if inside the vehicle but the launcher, alerting device, IFF m, etc would suffer damage.
The Yanks use Stinger equipped Hummers’/Humvees and LAVs to defend both manoeuvre units and also semi static positions. After SGT. York was cancelled what tracked or wheeled highly platforms did they have mounted with AA systems.
Having a AA system mounted on a protected vehicle and one that is high mobility is great but like everything it depends on operational requirements and preference.
@ chua
” After all, whose tank are 3 KAD screening for way up north? ”
Since when screening or even other cavalry missions are exclusively for supporting armoured units?
Cavalry units can be and like what malaysian army does, do used to support infantry units. Which is why most of it (except 1KAD which is attached to 4 briged mekanize) are considered divisional assets. That also does not make it a “light protected infantry”.
Our cavalry regiments undertake direct fire support, neutralising enemy apcs and ifvs, and other cavalry tasks in support of infantry formations in respective divisions.
BTW there is actually 5 KAD, just stood up for sabah and currently operating the lipanbaras.
@ hornet lover
okay another link
http://www.top-rider.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=27499
“방탄 1억5천만원 수준이다”
Marhalim,
I remember reading that they were destroyed by U.S. Cobras.
Photos taken later however show the hulls still relatively intact: albeit burnt out.
Reply
Yes basically useless for anything apart from being hasty covers only
@ azlan
” The Yanks use Stinger equipped Hummers’/Humvees and LAVs to defend both manoeuvre units and also semi static positions ”
the Stryker im-shorad is an intrim air defence system as the humvee mounted manual stinger system is inadequate.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JmHYY55bGrE/Xyq_1fkdeRI/AAAAAAABOPs/XqRtd3JtpSgyLCxX4dQqQSuiwmim2ET5wCLcBGAsYHQ/s815/IM%2BSHORAD.png
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/new_mobile_shorad_air_defense_system_a_priority_for_us_army.amp.html
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/generic-rws-plan-b/
” like everything it depends on operational requirements and preference ”
Of course. Why do you need to say this every single time?
… – “ “do you need to say this every single time”
You say what you want to say; I say what I want to say ….
Your “of course” notwithstanding; the reason I keep saying this is because of the need to highlight that because certain armies do certain things; there’s a reason for it and it doesn’t necessarily apply to others; i.e. the army deciding on 6x6s rather than follow on AV-8s; Starstreak being mounted on 4×4 softskins rather than a IFV or a multi role tactical vehicle; preference for a wheeled SPH rather than a tracked one, etc.
It was also to point out that having Starstreak on a Weststar rather than a IFV or a multi role tactical vehicle like the JLTV doesn’t necessarily mean that GAPU units when forward deployed with combat/manoeuvre elements can’t effectively keep pace with them or provide adequate coverage.
@ azlan
They were destroyed by USAF AC-130 Spectre gunships
http://image3.slideserve.com/6958601/slide8-l.jpg
http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/africa/black-hawk-down-site04.html
http://untamedborders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/somalia-photo-grid2.jpg
http://i.pinimg.com/originals/30/ce/ef/30ceef195868dd121175f7980d573fc4.jpg
http://onestep4ward.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IMG_3448-1024×768.jpg
http://pro2-bar-s3-cdn-cf3.myportfolio.com/c3553864fe70cbf1097feb80fe8ac749/e6ce731e9d60d7a38cb5d01e_rw_1200.jpg
@ azlan
its boils down about your personal priorities on this, not how the army does things.
Your opinion is :
– border guards need JLTV for their patrols as they could be ambushed any time.
– weapons companies of infantry battalions need JLTV to carry their 0.50 HMG and 40mm AGL, as softskin vehicles dont cut it.
but SHORAD vehicles covering and following armoured mechanised units is okay to ride in softskin Weststars and not JLTV??
I really dont understand where you are coming from on all this…
…. – “I really dont understand where you are coming from on all this”
You’re making wrong assumptions. I made it extremely clear as to what I meant.
…. – “– border guards need JLTV for their patrols as they could be ambushed any time”
I didn’t sat that. I said that the JLTV would be ideal/useful for this unit and that if we wanted to follow your line of reasoning that the unit didn’t need JLTVs because it performs a “peacetime mission” then the same could apply to the whole army until bullets actually fly ….
…. – “ weapons companies of infantry battalions need JLTV to carry their 0.50 HMG and 40mm AGL, as softskin vehicles dont cut”
Like the case with the Border Regiments I said that JLTVs in my opinion should be used equip weapons companies; in that they have a vehicle with better mobility and some level of protection (compared to Vamtacs and G-Wagons – unlike AA mounted vehicles; the platforms used for direct fire support are exposed to direct enemy fire). I didn’t say that they absolutely had to be equipped with JLTVs; merely that it would be useful for this role.
… – “but SHORAD vehicles covering and following armoured mechanised units is okay to ride in softskin Weststars and not JLTV??
You’re saying this. I didn’t.
I plainly said that whether or not a AA system should be mounted on a IFV or a multi role tactical vehicle is up to preference and actual requirements. I also said that just because Starsreak is mounted on a 4×4 soft skin doesn’t mean it can’t provide effective coverage to combat elements.
What I wrote were indeed my opinions; not the assumptions you made …
I have no issues with starstreak LML equipped softskin vehicles.
What i am at was the 6 VAMTACS equipped with starstreak Rapidranger launchers.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nA6D5pZjMzU/XXRo2vKTKBI/AAAAAAABHJk/noTILar-A0kRf_kasVC913G3uezvK2CIQCLcBGAs/s1600/69302276_2635200049824160_7010610258959663104_n.jpg
I am for the mechanised units having their own air defence umbrella, like PARA brigade having their own embedded 361 bti KAD PARA with anza and fn-6 MANPADS.
Rapidranger launchers are the ideal weapons to be used for such a task. But those softskin VAMTAC Rapidrangers will be exposed to the same danger as the AV8 and Adnan IFVs that it will be protecting. Starstreaks has a max range of just 7km, those VAMTACs will need to run together with those AV8 and Adnans. While you want our IFVs to be equipped with RPG nets, and wants highly armoured JLTVs (which has armoured level same as MRAPs) for even border regiments, i was surprised that for the SHORAD vehicle to support armoured formations you are okay with softskin vehicles. I dont understand that reasoning.
….. – “its boils down about your personal priorities on this, not how the army does things”
Incorrect. Different armies do things different ways depending on what they actually have, preference, doctrine and operational realities.
Which is why I mentioned – “ like everything it depends on operational requirements and preference ”
Which you saw fit to ask – “Why do you need to say this every single time?” I have also given examples of how armies do things differently and why; which I wouldn’t have if indeed “its boils down about your personal priorities on this, not how the army does things” – as you claimed.
… – “ons you are okay with softskin vehicles. I dont understand that reasoning.”
I have already explained various times in a simple/plain. If you’re unable or willing to understand: that’s fine but don’t give the impression that i didn’t explain things, that what I mentioned I’d my personal opinion or that what I mention is factually wrong.
I will explain yet again –
– Unlike direct fire support weapons. AA vehicles have no reason to be exposed to direct enemy fire and are not deployed right up at the edge of the front line. They are usually placed a bit further back where they can still provide coverage; irrespective of their limited range.
– AA mounted vehicles cab still do the job even if they are not mounted on tracked platforms or multi role tactical vehicles. Depends on the terrain, doctrine on many things. You will have noticed that not all armies see the need for AA systems to be mounted in the same platforms of those belonging to tracked or wheeled platforms operated by manoeuvre elements.
– I did not say (I have to repeat this because if your tendency to overlook or misinterpret things that were clearly explained) that there is absolutely no need I mount AA systems n the JLTV. I did indeed say that even if mounted in a Weststar it can still provide coverage and keep
pace with manuever elements.
… – “I am for the mechanised units having their own air defence umbrella”
I happen to agree with you on the obvious and logical need for certain units to have a organic (“embedded” gives out a slightly different context) AA capability.
.. – “LML NGs on GK-M1 are at best to be deployed to protect static locations.”
When you mention “static locations” what type? If locations are “static” ones which relocate time to time; such as operational level HQs or commd sites then ideally AA systems would be mobile.
If however the “static” locations were ones that hardly move; such as fuel dumps, etc; then one could get away with not having mobile AA systems.
@…
>”I dont understand that reasoning.”
Why did the Americans use Humvees equipped with Stinger? Could it be that SHORAD usually would not be expected to face direct fire most of the time?
Considering that we have many many needs, don’t you think this is one area where we can go with minimum requirement first and come back later if we have cash?
I for one am of the opinion that I would rather have 18 softskinned trucks with ATGMs supporting my brigade than 6 Stanag 3 APCs with ATGMs.
Or more on point, I would rather have more Stanag 3 section APCs than Stanag 3 APCs with LML posts.
… “those VAMTACs will need to run together with those AV8 and Adman”
Mobile MANPADs are never placed directly upfront with lead units; always slightly further back, i.e. 1-3km away; still enables them to provide coverage and also be away from the risk of direct enemy fire.
As for “running together” – again; whether or not a AA vehicle needs the same mobility level to keep pace with manoeuvre unit’s is dependent on various factors. There are (as has been pointed out various times) armies which don’t have this capability ….
Depending on the terrain, tempo and other things, a AA can still be mounted on a 4×4 sofskin and still do it’s job – there is no hard written rule/nothing holy writ or written in stone.
By the sane token (even though it’s been explained in a concise manner; I never suggested that there was zero need or utility for a AA vehicle to be mounted in a IFV or the JLTV which you’ve spent great time and effort reminding us if its virtues.
.. – “s, i was surprised that for the SHORAD vehicle to support armoured formations you are okay with softskin vehicles. I dont understand that reasonin”
Firstly it’s a fact; not my reasoning or personal preference.
I will explain again – unlike IFVs, MRAP, MBTs, etc, etc, AA mounted vehicles are not placed in a position where they are likely to come under direct fire ….
If AA mounted systems are mounted on tracked platforms; the priority is for the mobility level …. The protection that comes with the platform being protection against splinters and such: unlike the protection on other types of vehicles which are intended against direct fire …….
Chus – “ Could it be that SHORAD usually would not be expected to face direct fire most of the time?”
They had Sgt. York which was a tracked mounted gun system which eventually got cancelled.
They however never saw the need for a IFV tracked mounted AA missile system.
In order to their job MANPADs are not required to be placed right up front. Nobody does that – for the reason that MANOADs are usually placed 1-3kn to the rear where they can still their job. The claim that they have to be placed right up front because of their short range is incorrect.
As for mobility levels; ideally they would be mounted on a IFV or a high mobility platform but different armies have different ideas on this and terrain plays a role. The Sings have Iglas mounted ion
M-113s and see a need for tracked SPHs because they feel it suits their requirements – others think differently.
Chua – “I for one am of the opinion that I would rather have 18 softskinned trucks with ATGMs supporting my brigade than 6 Stanag 3 APCs with ATGMs“
Both are good for different things in different operational circumstances. At times ATGWs in a vehicle are more ideal: at times a team of 4 men lugging a tripod mounted system and it’s ammo is more ideal.
Then of course a ATGW vehicle ideally would be armoured because – unlike a AA system – it will come under direct fire.
@Azlan
“They however never saw the need for a IFV tracked mounted AA missile system.”
Incorrect. US Army had, for a while, a Bradley derived AA IFV called M6 Linebacker with Stingers in place of TOW.
Chua – “an go with minimum requirement first and come back later if we have cash”
I personally would have liked a AV-8 AD variant but for what ever reason the army decided not to. Not all doom and gloom however: there are still the Starstreak Weststars.
If one wants to look at things in absolutes and not take into account the variables; one can insist there is a need for a wheeled IFV or multi role tactical AD variant to “follow” or “run together” with motorised units and also for a tracked AD variant for mech units.
I have no idea what the army’s long term preference is. The Sings have Iglas on M-113s and unlike us their preference is for a tracked SPH. The Yanks had Chapparal for deployment further rearwards but for a long time a tracked AA platform was just not on top the list of priorities. The RTA has/had M-113 mounted Vulcans.
Chua – “ 18 softskinned trucks with ATGMs supporting my brigade than 6 Stanag 3 APCs with ATGMs.”
Whether one’s on the offensive or defensive plays a huge part.
As does terrain; in a palm oil estate or an urban area AT teams moving around in 4x4s would be more ideal. In open/unrestricted terrain however it would make sense for mech/motorised units to have AT teams mounted in certain types of vehicles.
There would be exceptions naturally; in open terrain flat Chadian Milan teams – on the defensive – were very effective against ill trained Libyan mech units with poor infantry/arty support. Against a more competent opponent in similar terrain the Chadians might not have enjoyed the same level of success.
Chua – “Or more on point, I would rather have more Stanag 3 section APCs than Stanag 3 APCs with LML posts”
Any you wouldn’t be wrong; depending on who you asked and what the end user’s preference and priority was.
One can argue that instead of 54 Ingwe equipped vehicles; there should have been 44 and the rest AA configured. Others can say that yes NBC is vital in that we need a basic capability but NBC AV/8 variants could have waited with priority placed on a AA variants. Someone else can convincingly explain why for our operational requirements a wheeled NBC vehicle would have sufficed.
@Azlan
Re: US AA vehicles, they had the Chaparral as mentioned and the M163 VADS which is basically a gatling on an M113. Were going to put the Mauler on an M113 but that didn’t work out. ADATS was another explored option but dismissed as too expensive. In the end they just got Stinger Humvees.
@joe
Yes the Bradley “Linebacker” had Stingers, but they ended up being reconverted to regular Bradleys. No aircraft to fight in Iraq.
But then again in the NATO concept of operations, air superiority is mainly the domain of fighter aircraft.
@Azlan
You mentioned “never saw the need” which I was correcting. Yes, eventually they were reconverted back to regular Bradleys but now there is an ongoing study/evaluation(?) for another AA IFV system.
NATO operations doesn’t necessarily reflect the entirety of US way of operations as NATO doesn’t have to concern themselves on fighting at the deserts of ME or jungles in Asia.
Chua – “But then again in the NATO concept of operations, air superiority is mainly the domain of fighter aircraft.”
Air superiority is to be gradually gained by offensive and defensive airpower; in conjunction with ground based AD to deny the ability of enemy airpower to operate effectively.
The Soviets operated under the assumption that NATO would have an edge in the air and this is reflected in the range of AD systems which they had (the Russians still do); ranging from tracked and wheeled based systems; protecting everything from troops on the very front line to deeper in the operational sector to army level HQs and other vital things further rearwards.
In have a 1986 article which details every AD system NATO aircraft would have encountered attacking an airfield in Poland. The aircraft would have been engaged as far back as 1-150km up until they were over the airfield from a variety of systems.
One only needs to look at the Tornado losses suffered during first days of the Gulf War when when they went in very low to deploy JP233s; to imagine losses which would have been incurred had WW3 broke out.
Chua – “ M163 VADS”
Which the Israelis found very useful in Beirut; for direct suppressive fire against buildings, due to its high elevation.
Chua – “ In the end they just got Stinger Humvees.”
What’s interesting is the different approaches adopted by different countries based on what they feel is a priority and suits their requirements.
The Yanks saw a need for a wheeled Stinger platform but never saw the need to make a tracked one a priority and also never saw the need to bridge the gap between Stinger and Patriot -after Hawk was retired.
Chaparral which was a short (Sidewinder) ranger mobile system was retired with no successor.
Same with the Brits; after binning “Tracked Rapier” the only mobile system they had was Stormer. Towed Rapier was always intended for the defence of locations or locations which were not required to move often; thus being towed wasn’t seen as an issue.
Sorry I was attributing my reply to Chua. Much apologies.
Chua – “ In the end they just got Stinger Humvees.”
What’s interesting is the different approaches adopted by different countries based on what they feel is a priority and suits their requirements.
The Yanks saw a need for a wheeled Stinger platform but never saw the need to make a tracked one a priority and also never saw the need to bridge the gap between Stinger and Patriot -after Hawk was retired.
Chaparral which was a short (Sidewinder) ranger mobile system was retired with no successor.
Same with the Brits; after binning “Tracked Rapier” the only mobile system they had was Stormer. Towed Rapier was always intended for the defence of locations or locations which were not required to move often; thus being towed wasn’t seen as an issue.
Chua – “But then again in the NATO concept of operations, air superiority is mainly the domain of fighter aircraft
NATO planning is based on the premise that whenever they deploy; even if they don’t have immediate control of the skies; this is something which will be gradually achieved.
The Russians (Soviets before them) are practical/realistic in that they foresee NATO will enjoy advantage with regards to immediate air superiority.
This is reflected in their extensive layered and integrated missile (from the likes of S-300s to deal with long range high altitude threats, to Buk for medium threats and Igla for point defence) and gun systems mounted on various platforms; as well as IRBMs to hit airfields.
We now know that Soviet planning called for early use of chemicals (misslle deployed) to neutralise airfields.
Chua,
Don’t you think it’s interesting and telling that although the Israelis are like the Russians in that they are firm believers and proponents of combined arms high tempo manoeuvre warfare and operate mostly on summer flat uniform terrain; both have taken a different approach with regards to providing ground units with AD.
One can say with certainty that it boils down to individual doctrine and preference but can also speculate that with the Israelis it’s because they are very confident of achieving air superiority; if not supremacy; from Day One.
@Azlan
Tracked Rapier was a godsend apparently, development paid for by someone who ended up not using it.
NASAMS is an intriguing proposition. Surprised it isn’t more widespread.
I believe NATO felt the Russian SAM network too vulnerable to attack and indeed we saw a good example of that in the Bekaa.
IIRC only 2 Tornado were lost on JP233 missions. As we know now, one was a pilot error and the other was lost while on exfil over the desert.
@joe
Each country has their own doctrine based on their own judgement and requirements and resources. But NATO has some general similarities in some areas such as this.
Chua – “I believe NATO felt the Russian SAM network too vulnerable to attack and indeed we saw a good example of that in the Bekaa.”
No it doesn’t. Bekaa wasn’t indicative of the actual performance of Soviet systems.
If anything the resounds put into SEAD/SEAD indicates that NATO took the threat very seriously.
Crew training and experience plays a large part in determining how effective any AD network will be. Quite a few of the Pantsirs were lost in Syria and Libya were due to poor levels of training.
If we look at the performance of Russian systems in the Middle East; at times they were effectively operated by the Arabs (opening phase in 1973 and the later “War of Attrition”) and at times they weren’t. In Kosovo the Serbs were quite innovative in their use of AD systems; i.e. launching ‘blind”, use of decoys, constantly relocating, etc.
Granted they didn’t deny NATO air power from doing their job but until the end of the conflict remained mostly intact.
Of course ultimately no AD network can survive indefinitely by itself as all AD networks – no matter how capable or extensive – are intended to operate with friendly airpower. Given time and lack of opposition in the air; a competent and well equipped side will be able to degrade any AD network.
In Angola the Soviet supplied AD network played a huge part in keeping the SAAF at bay but of course the SAAF didn’t have the needed SEAD/DEAD and EW resources.
In the late 1980’s a single seater civilian plane managed to evade Soviet defences and land on Soviet soil. Given the vastness of area and the many gaps in the network; I supposed it wasn’t entirely surprising.
Chua – “IIRC only 2 Tornado were lost on JP233 missions. As we know now, one was a pilot error and the other was lost while on exfil over the desert.”
RAF tactics then required aircraft to go very low (the theory is going low reduces detection time and makes it harder for defences to react)- the JP233 had to be deployed low. About 3-4 Tornados were lost before they changed tactics -against the Soviets losses would have been horrendous.
At least one was lost to a Roland and others to guns and MANPADs. The RAF still places great importance in going in very low. In 2003 a Tornado returning from a mission was hit by Parriot.
@Azlan
Bekaa was one of the most sophisticated Soviet SAM ADNs then in existence. Both NATO and the Russians took the results as highly indicative.
Quite a few of the Pantsirs lost in Syria were also lost while in transit rather than active.
The Tornado is a low-level bomber by both doctrine and design, and so is most of the RAF in general. Most of the Gulf War Tornado losses were due to delivering iron bombs, only one was using JP233. Yes the RAF had always anticipated high losses when fighting the Soviets, but it was regarded as the price to be paid.
Chua – “Bekaa was one of the most sophisticated Soviet SAM ADNs then in existence”
The quality of manpower that operates a system determines its effectiveness. The fact that the Israelis were able to do what they did was not a true indication of the effectiveness of the system.
Chua – “ Both NATO and the Russians took the results as highly indicative”
No they didn’t.
NATO was well aware that Soviet systems manned by higher quality manpower would have performed better.
Having an integrated layered AD network is one thing; having well trained and experienced personnel is a different matter. The Syrians simply did not have the needed manpower who were adequately trained. A lot of the Syrians who were selected for highly technical jobs were far below Soviet standards.
Chua – “The Tornado is a low-level bomber by both doctrine and design, and so is most of the RAF in general”
The RAF was well known for flying very low; something it still does and practices in the mountains of Wales. The idea is that flying low enables an aircraft to use terrain and the element of surprise to gives defenders as little warning as possible.
Chua – “l. Most of the Gulf War Tornado losses were due to delivering iron bombs, only one was using JP233@
Iron bombs don’t always require a plane to fly very low and tactics such as “toss bombing” are employed.
To deploy JP233 an an aircraft has to come in low and fly in a straight line; making it easier for defenders to predict where to aim at.
breaking news
Belgium is replacing their Iveco Lynx LMV with the JLTV.
They are getting 322 JLTVs for EUR135 million. That is about USD159 million.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2020_global_security_army_industry/oshkosh_defense_to_supply_328_jltv_clvs_to_belgian_army.html