SHAH ALAM: Light anti-structure weapons (LASW) for commandos. The Army is looking to buy 1,500 LASW for the Special Services Group or Grup Gerak Khas (GGK) according to a request for bids (RFB) issued by the Eperolehan website on September 2. The 21 day RFB will close September 23.
The available specifications:
There is requirement to equip the Special Service Group units with a Light Anti-Structure Weapon Disposable System to be used by Special Forces personnel during operations and trainings.
The numbers being sought is 1,500 units. The GGK had been pictured with the Instalaza C90 disposable light anti-tank/anti structure weapons, in the past so it is likely that the Spanish made weapon will start as the favourite, simply by being the incumbent. Since we did not have the detailed specifications, I am not sure whether the anti-structure version of the M72 LAW could also be offered for this RFB. It is certainly lighter and cheaper than the C90 but it has a smaller warhead. Less bang for buck then.
Apart from the LASW RFB, the Army is looking to purchase 20,000 environmentaly friendly training hand grenades. The available specifications:
There is a requirement to equip the Malaysian Army with Eco Friendly Training Hand Grenade (EFTHG) for training purpose. The EFTHG is intended for use to simulate realistic explosive effect during combat
training. The sound effect, smoke and body blasting provide realistic training environment so that soldiers can get great confidence of handling live hand grenade. The EFTHG is made of naturally degradable materials for environmental protection that prevent pollution by fragments of the
training hand grenade, even though the fragments are not recovered. It also has great safety characteristics because its fragmentation and flames would not cause any injury or harm even if it explodes close to the thrower.
Like the LASW RFB, the eco-friendly training grenade RFB was also published on September 2 and closes on September 23.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
We already have/had the “anti structure weapon ” (AS) version of the M72 – used in Lahad Dato. Will be surprising (to me at least) is if we go back to Instalanza. Then again after a long gap we went back to Expal for mortars.
I like how descriptive is the specs for that Eco Green Grenade. It sounded like they plucked it out from a supplier’s brochure or something.
https://cm.asiae.co.kr/article/2021090308172960579
Apparently Korea’s Hyundai Rotem will compete in condors 6×6 replacement program and not the tigon (or maybe with tigon too)..Though no official tender is issued yet..Also they mentioned the army also will buy an initial batch of 36 4×4 vehicle too..for unifil maybe..
I like what the South Koreans are doing with K2 and Redback; it’s exactly what’s needed for the future battlefield and a major leap over current legacy designs whose lineage goes back to the 1970’s or more.
Stuff like the PT-91 and Adnan were good for their day but have to eventually be replaced by something more survivable and adaptable.
We’ve also reached a stage where APS are a must have and not a luxury. The next decade or so will be interesting as armies will probably go for MBTs with unmanned turrets; with much more emphasis placed on survivability and situational awareness.
Definately but let be real here we cant afford something like k2 and redback..something like leopard 2a6 with k21 is more likely..fnss also got next gen ifv kaplan 20 and kaplan 30..or otokar tulpar or even hunter and bionix from singapore
Firdaus – “Definately but let be real here we cant afford something like k2 and redback”
If we want to take the position that the lives of crew members are important and that armoured vehicles are valuable national assets which need to survive to go their job then we have to spend more.
Given that there’s a certain level of “quality” to “quantity”
and that we don’t have “quantity”; we must achieve a certain level of “quality” ..
Stuff like PT-91 and Adnan simply doesn’t have what it takes anymore; that’s being “real”. Even AV-8 needs certain improvements in protection levels. Warfare is undergoing a significant change – things are also becoming more and more networked and SA plays a huge part.
i do believed kaplan middle weight tank by fnss bought by indonesian is best suitable for malaysian environment..
Its light and modular tested for several years in indonesia terrain which is not much diff from malaysia.
Indonesia bought over 100 tanks fron fnss turkey
Why should the Army buy the Kaplan when there is no requirement for a light tank replacement for the Scorpion?
@Firdaus
There is also the pertinent question if we should continue having a mix of track/wheeled armoured carriers, or perhaps we can commit to buying more AV8 for replacement as we run down the Adnan/KIFV/MIFV fleet. Eventually we will end up with wheeled carriers.
the most important thing to be “real” is to tailor our requirements with our budgets.
yes PT-91 and adnan does not have what it takes to be on the battlefield in the future. but we don’t have the budget to have a replacement now, especially if we continue wanting to buy expensive MRAPs and 6×6 IFVs. I don’t see any advantage of the Tarantula when its armor is similar to the condor in capability yet it is as heavy as the adnan.
we don’t need expensive light tanks that can be easily penetrated by gempita’s 30mm shells.
a mix of wheeled/tracked is inevitable. but we should try to have a homogeneous brigade, one fully tracked, while the other fully wheeled.
Gonghok,
Nobody is talking about replacing PT-91 or Adnan now but when the time comes. We need a certain level of quality to compensate for our lack of quantity.
Yes. Why do people still bring up the issue of light tanks when we don’t have a requirement for them and when – in our context – they provide no added value? Some armies have a requirement for light tanks, others don’t.
‘Homogeneous’ brigades should consist not only of wheel and track ekements but also an organic arty, engineering and other support elements – combat and support arms in one unit and fully trained to operate together.
@Gonggok
>”we should try to have a homogeneous brigade, one fully tracked, while the other fully wheeled”
Depends how they are used. An independent combined-arms task force, whichever the size, should have both tracked and wheeled assets so as to use both types of asset according to their capabilities. The reason why some countries (increasingly few) have all-wheeled brigades is that they are intended to back up all-tracked brigades to form a division-sized combined-arms task force.
@joe
“if we should continue having a mix of track/wheeled armoured carriers, or perhaps we can commit to buying more AV8 for replacement”
To reduce cost we should buy AV8; to be able to access ALL our very variable terrain some may argue we need other vehicles such as 4×4, 6×6, tracked variants or even MRAPs for insurgency work.
@Azlan
SK is sure delivering bang for buck, if we were serious we really should consider them as a major supplier. Although some would argue they are not part of the “Brotherhood” like Turkey is, and that their equipment is de facto subject to US approval.
P. S.
I misread what you wrote. No…
No reason at all why a unit can’t have both track and wheel elements – both supplementing each other. Both may not have the same mobility levels but in our operational context it may not matter.
AFAIK none of the recent South Korean defence offerings – apart fromn T-50s – required approvals from the US.
True or not Malaysian army is now going to open tender for 6×6? I think wasting money with so many variants and better stick to gempita alone.
Off topic
https://idrw.org/mmtc-to-buy-palm-oil-for-lca-tejas-barter-deal-with-malaysia-hal/
Palm oil barter is hard to refused.
@Chua
4×4, 6×6, 8×8. Same sausage, different lengths. I assume ATM would have a pretty good reason why they needed 6×6 rather than add more AV8.
@still rumours..as official tender for them is not issued yet..we can expect that tender and sph tender soon..Hopefully smooth sailing
I see so right now para armour sqdn only left with alvis stormer which is already quite old too..what left of them anyway..or maybe they will be absorbed by armour corps in future?..Is it enough for them/para armour to operate just stormers when i believed they are kinda fundamental in army’s pasukan aturgerak cepat?
Firdaus,
In what way are the Stormers “fudamental” to the unit?? What’s really “fundamental” is the unit’s ability to be transported on time to where it needs to, for it to be self supporting for a period, for it to have a balanced mix of combat arms and supporting assets and for it not to be misused…
The question you really should be asking is how IFVs fit in the unit’s CONOPs and if the unit actually has a need for a Stormer replacement… .
Kamal,
Quite obviously the army – agree or not – has legitimate operational reasons for a 6×6.
Chua,
When we expressed an interest in the K1 in the 1990’s Uncle Sam approval was needed for the FCS,
@joe
Length and therefore number of wheels affects turning radius and vehicle weight, and therefore terrain access.
Yes Chua we do need a variety of vehicles, both due to terrain but also due to operational requirements. What we should also do is to increase the survivalbility and networking of what we have and plan to get. Thefe is a reason why armies are getting better protected stuff and we’re not exempt from this key requirement.
What we shouldn’t do is to buy adittional AV-8s merely to keep costs down or to support the local industry.
We should only do so if there is an actual operational need.
The traditional reasons why some armies have/had either all wheel or track units is due to prevailing doctrine and requirements. Even then from WW2 till the present, some armies have continued with the mixed approach.