SHAH ALAM: Last August, Malaysian Defence wrote about the tender for the procurement of the Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless rifle, specifically for the M4 variant of the weapon. Today, another tender for M4 variant of the Goose was published in Eperolehan.
The August tender was for 2000 rounds of the high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) 551 version. The latest one is for 1300 HE rounds. As reported previously, the Army is getting 110 M4 launchers and unspecified number of munitions from a tender awarded to Global Combined Technology Sdn Bhd.
The public specifications of the tender:
MEMBEKAL DAN MENGHANTAR ROUNDS 84MM RECOILLESS HIGH EXPLOSIVE (HE) UNTUK TENTERA DARAT MALAYSIA
(TDM)
The 84 mm Recoilless High Explosive (HE) round is intended to
inflict casualty on the ground troops in the open area, behind the
cover or in the slit trenches and to inflict damage on soft skin
vehicle. This HE round shall be able to destroy the target using air
burst detonation or set for impact. It shall be able to use with Carl
Gustaf M4 Recoilless Anti-Tank Rifle.
The 21-day tender for the HE rounds closes on October 22. Meanwhile, the tender for the HEAT rounds only attracted a single bidder. This was likely as only Saab made rounds are specified for the M4 version of the Goose. All other makes will void the warranty.
The sole bid for the 2000 rounds is RM29 million plus change. Meanwhile, seven bidders qualified for the 113 sets of vehicle mounted VHF radios for the Army also published last August. The highest bidder is RM39.938.670 million, just slightly higher than the indicative cost of RM39.938 million. The other six bids were lower than the indicative cost with one coming in at RM35.045.820 million.
The tender for 30mm rounds for the MMEA also published last August, has also not concluded at this point. Three bidders took part in the tender with the highest at RM2.499 million, second RM2.254 million and the lowest at RM1.974 million.
— Malaysian Defence
—
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
“using other makes will void warranty”
What an anti consumer behavior. This is no better than HP trying to force its end users to use HP brand inks
“All other makes will void the warranty.”
Is it possible these new ammo are for existing Goose rather than the new ones, since it was mentioned the new buy would also include ammo too? If a tender only single bidder I doubt the beancounters will let it go thru for sake of transparency and will either cancel & open a new round of tender.
Of course if Im wrong and its for the new weapon then it makes sense to go back to OEM for the ammo but then I question why wasnt it included into the main purchase since it already comes with ammo too? Insufficient to meet a tender max price?
It will go through.
Not when one spend millions to come up with a better product.
Nice. Hope more kaboom things will be buy.
Rock
No point just having” kaboom” things if we lack the means or supporting things to effectively employ them.
On warranty issues; of course OEMs will make a stand. If a customer uses a non approved product and something goes wrong; why should the OEM assist? If something is damaged because a customer used an iferior but cheaper alternative; who’s responsible?
We should get a limited amount of the guided munitions….for testing
Why get it for ‘testing’?if we get them it will be for operational reasons. And if we do; what’s the benefit of having them over MBT LAW?
>what’s the benefit of having them over MBT LAW?
Being much cheaper as SAL missile is simpler than saclos (let alone f&f) missile. Also you already bought MZ4, why don’t you buy something that will greatly improve its hit probability for not that much money
dundun – ”Being much cheaper as SAL missile is simpler than saclos (let alone f&f) missile.”
Pros and cons but both appear to have similar ranges.
dundun – ”Also you already bought MZ4, why don’t you buy something that will greatly improve its hit probability for not that much money”
I’m not saying we shouldn’t; merely pointing out that we use carl Gustavs for a variety of things and there could be a reason – apart from cost issues – why we aren’t buying guided rounds.
I think its about time to rethink of mounting the 84 on a 4×4 vehicle with a hard top.we need to be inovative n learn from previous and current wars how each other outwitting n outsmarting one another with unconventional weapons that has never been seen and thought of by this side of the world ( asian).
They are not mounting the Goose on the 4X4 just using the vehicles to carry the team and spare ammo. It is much easier than walking with them.
This is CG not SPG9 lmao.
Besides we have the 106mm recoilless rifle that could be mounted on vehicles.
I think the 106mm RR will be retired soon.
Make sense. like the M67, US pretty much gave up on the platform when TOW/dragon came out which means they no longer spend time/resources on improving both the design and the penetration capability of both type of RR and newer CG ammo would have comparable anti tank capability as M106 whilst being much more portable
I would jerry rig CG with guided round onto drones and make them a small anti tank/anti bunker unit. Fired from the air targeting the topside of tanks/emplacements, I think will able to penetrate. Since these are RR it wouldnt affect the drone flight unlike conventional rocket launchers.
There is a reason nobody does that (CG launcher attached to drones)
CG guided rounds abt USD3k each
CG launcher USD20-30k each
OWA-FPV drone + RPG-7 HEAT shell would cost just USD1k each
Look at Shopee price for 7inch frame drones. Complete units cost around RM2k.
https://my.shp.ee/vjGZNei
A HEAT rocket for RPG-7 cost abt USD300 each or around RM1250.
>Since these are RR it wouldnt affect the drone flight unlike conventional rocket launchers.
lmao how exactly something that would’ve given its operator literal brain damage wouldn’t “affect drone flight” unless you’re talking TUAV sized UCAV like TB-2 then might as well get larger, deadlier munitions
The ones people see used often in Ukraine are the free fall version where anything from small hand grenade to anti tank mines were dropped
Even if a CG round was cheap; there is really no pay off mounting it to a drone; yet as opposed to using a 40mm grenade or a RPG round.
Lest it be overlooked d; as it often is, the CG is a multi purpose weapon. AT is one of it’s functions; not it’s only or main one. Along with the 60mm mortars, CGs are commonly used to lay smoke an illum.
The 106mms are not very useful for AT, very visible and the rounds are not tandem head. There is a reason why 106mms and other RCLs of similar designs design have been binned.
Not CG, but some companies have tested drone-mounted M72 LAW:-
https://www.nammo.com/story/drone-mounted-m72-shows-promising-results/
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2022/10/12/dual-m72-law-wielding-drone-was-shown-in-the-united-states/
The 1st to drop ordnance from IASs was IS in 2015, from lower by separatists in the Donbas. in Ukraine grenades, mortar shells and explosives are mainly for anti personnel use. A grenade is not in he hatch of a a AFVis great but if it misses it will bounce off. A RPG round on the the roof of a turret works; unless the target is a Merkava4 or a latest Leopardvariant, both have well protected turret roofs.ERA would help but it depends on what type of ERA.
Given that he latest advances in C-UAS tech however; it really remains to be seen if tactical UASs and FPV drones willbe able to operate effectively in future wars/conflicts.
A note on UAS and FPV drone footage. We only tend to see the ones which are a success. We don’t see the ones in that fail and at times strikes are conducted on AFVs already immobilised or abandoned.
Strike footage is intended to impress but quite often only tells half the he story.
A possibility is laser guided 2.75 inch rockets.
Maybe not for AT work but useful for other things.
As it stands, advances in C-UAS technology might radically alter the equation. Thank he use of UASs and FPV drones are also evolutionary, not revolutionary. They at present complement but not replace other things.
@dundun
Find out yourself how RR works, and how backblast from a launching rocket affects the carrier unit before you pound keyboard lmao.
@Hulu
The backblast of a rocket would affect the aim and would push it off course. Drone flight characteristics are actually quite balance sensitive. The jarring motion of a launch can also affect sensitive electronics in the drone. A soft launch from a RR can negate all those issues.
>drone characteristics are quite balance sensitive he said
>The jarring motion of a launch can also affect sensitive electronics in t
>RR soft launch he said
Ever wondered why western military limits the amount of launch CG operators do per day? imagine what that kind of force can do to your dinky drones
As a last ditch desperate measure the Germans mounted Panzerfausts to Storch light planes. The Panzerfaust of course being the precussor to the RPG.
@joe
the OWA-FPV that costs USD1k is sacrificial. you only use the HEAT explosive warhead and remove the actual rocket motor.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKSM01RawAAeTDX.jpg
you dont fly USD20-30k drone with a carl gustaf strapped on it expecting it to never to be shot down over enemy lines…
People do not normally use reloadable weapons on OWA drones as it meant to be one way only.
“as it meant to be one way only”
Due to current nature of usage ie dropping munitions from directly above or else suicide drones, hence like any other aircraft the chances of survivability diminishes as it gets closer to the enemy. If armed with standoff guided ammo from advantageous shooting positions, I believe it has a higher chance to return.
@Dundun
“Ever wondered why western military limits the amount of launch CG operators do per day?”
Because of overpressure surrounding the weapon at launch harming human launch crews, doesnt have affect the same effect on mechanical objects or remote launchers. Again please read up before pounding the keyboard.
dundun – ”Ever wondered why western military limits the amount of launch CG operators do per day? ”
Mainly for cost reasons; that’s why there are such things as training rounds. The recoil of a RCL is minimal.
Another issue is that with ”kamikaze” or ”one way” drones; the weapon is the drone itself; fitted with explosives. Not a piece of ordnance.
On another issue.
– As of 2024 are there any Sibmas still operated?
– Do 1 and 2 Royal Armoured Regiments operate the AV-8?
– Apart from 4th Mechanised Brigade; what other units operate the Adnan and KIFV?
Nope. Yes and I think one of the RAMD units in Sabah operate a small number of KIFV.
– As of 2024 are there any Sibmas still operated?
No
– Do 1 and 2 Royal Armoured Regiments operate the AV-8?
Yes. Now 1KAD Kuantan, 2KAD PD, 3KAD Sg Petani & 4KAD Kuching operates the AV8 Gempita, probably just 2 squadrons worth in each regiments. The only cavalry unit without AV8 now is the 5KAD Sabah.
– Apart from 4th Mechanised Brigade; what other units operate the Adnan and KIFV?
>>PARA Armour Squadron
>>10 KAD
>>PULAMOR
a company- worth of Adnan in Sabah is operated by 4th Mech Bde units on tour rotation.
“The recoil of a RCL is minimal.”
Which is why I said its more suitable to be remote mounted than normal rocket launchers as the recoil wont affect the drone flight stability too much. However while recoil is low, the overpressure is harmful to humans, but not machines.
“Not a piece of ordnance.”
Hard to say what is what these days. Is a guided suicide drone nothing more than a missile? What is the definition? Is a guided rocket a missile? If so, would previously unguided FFAR be termed as a ‘missile’ when armed with recently developed guided system? Whichever it is, drone, rocket, missile, if it hits it works.
Carl gustaf guided rounds = USD3k
OWA-FPV drones with RPG warhead = USD1k
So why bother with complicated + expensive drone with complex targeting mechanisms to shoot out recoiless guided shells (plus all the guidance systems to be installed on the drone) when you can just fly and slam your cheapo drone onto a target??
Also how many times you can afford to crash or be shot down that complex and expensive carl gustaf drone (3 times a week?) until you have 0 capability at all??
30k drone, 3 times crash is 90k. You could have killed 90 targets instead if you just spend those 90k on OWA-FPV drones.
Depends on how one has a sum quantity of drones and deployment strategy. You will likely run out of 1k drones than a drone that is far more survivable and reloadable for next mission. If you got tons of suicide drones, yeah sure. But if you dont…
… – ”when you can just fly and slam your cheapo drone onto a target??”
Given advances on C-UAS tech; whose to say with a firm guarantee that” your cheapo drone” will be able to operate effectively in a future war/conflict. We’ve already seen how large purpose built UASs are not survivable [we actually saw that earlier but hardly anyone paid attention]; at one point people were placing the TB2 on a pedestal; insisting we buy it rather than Anka. This despite us wanting a UAS for ISR and not the strike role and Anka having superior sensoirs to the TB2.
… – ” You could have killed 90 targets instead if you just spend those 90k on OWA-FPV drones.”
On paper maybe but in reality kill rates are sometimes overplayed. We hear about successful strikes; not the ones which fail. Expected given that strike footage is intended to impress. At times the footage we see of a hit on a MBT is a MBT already abandoned or immobilised.
whose to say with a firm guarantee that ”your expensive drone with carl gustaf hanging from it” will be able to operate effectively in a future war/conflict
also it has a complex operating path of
– loading the drone (which is still 1 shot)
– fly the drone
– acquire the target
– shoot the target
– return to base
while OWA-FPV operating path is
– fly the drone
– slam into target
Wasn’t me who brought up the Carl Gustav option.
Getting back; “one way” drones are great but are hardly a game changer; at least not yet. Despite all the hype neither UASs or FPV drones are revolutionary; at least not yet. They have yet to replace anithing; not arty, mortars or attack helicopters. They are a supplement; not a replacement for existing things.
There are several local companies which have come up with loitering munitions. Assuming they are technically sound, would be great if we bought some as a supplement to existing artillery and mortars. What we should not do is to centralise things: to issue them at Brigade level.
They have to be issued at battalion level; organised into platoons and parcelled out. One thing we’ve learnt from the Ukrainian experience is the need for decentralisation. The downside to adding
a loitering munition company to a battalion is that it entails more manpower; to operate, maintain and transport the hardware and that manpower needs vehicles.A penalty we’ll worth incurring.
… – ”>>PARA Armour Squadron
>>10 KAD
>>PULAMOR”
You have a list of all the units which operated the Condor?
“You have a list of all the units which operated the Condor?”
Yes
Adnan/MIFV
– 12 RAMD (Adnan)
– 7 RRD (Adnan)
– 14 RAMD (MIFV)
– Skuadron armor PARA (MIFV)
– 11 KAD (Adnan)
– PULAMOR (MIFV)
– PULAMEK (Adnan)
– ESSCOM Company detachment (Adnan)
– 4 company KPTD (MIFV retired, passed to Skn Armor PARA)
CONDOR
– 1KAD (retired)
– 2KAD (retired)
– 3KAD (retired)
– 4KAD (retired)
– 19RAMD (replaced by AV8 IFV25)
– 7RRD (replaced by ADNAN)
– PULAMOR (retired)
Thank you very much.
What is “KPTD” Also. for me the units which operate the AV-8 we should add the engineer squadron operating the NBC variant.
KPTD = military police
AV8 Gempita AENBCRV – 12 Skuadron RAJD (CBRNe)
Ok but why would the Military Police have/had MIFVs which BTW are the ambulance variants given to 10 Para.
Sibmas would also have been operated by 1, 2,3 and 4 Royal Armoured Regiments; composite units with Condors and Sibmas. No idea if in separate Troops/Squadrons or mixed ones. 4 Royal Armoured Regiment was the Panhard operator.
The Scorpions and Stormers were operated solely by 11th Royal Armoured Regiment; question is when a squadron’s worth of Scorpions and Stormers went to 10 Para and when 11th Royal Armoured Regiment converted to PT-91s; where did the remaining Scorpions and Stormers go?
” where did the remaining Scorpions and Stormers go? ”
For quite sometime, 11 KAD maintained a squadron of scorpions & stormers at kem paradise kota belud Sabah. AFAIK the deployment stopped after the PT-91 is operational. Then basically all are retired and stored.
I believe most Stormers end up as target the Gemas/Asahan ranges based on what I saw live and pictures from the various LKTs. Most likely the Condors retired will also turn up there. Most of the retired Condors are now stored at Batu Kantomen.
Oh yes, then they are used for targets…
Right now, most of the targets at Asahan are the Stormers, SIBMAS and Condors.
The famous 1 shot 4 explosion picture from LKT2022
https://btdm.my/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/MG_8707.jpg
can be seen
– condor & sibmas at no.2
– rare sibmas recovery with crane & stormers at no.4
– condor & sibmas at no.5
– condor at no.6
As for the Condors, some of KAD Condors are still in their respective camps. Even recent 2024 pictures of 3 KAD and 4 KAD still have their condors neatly parked under the sun sheds.
… – ”rare sibmas recovery with crane”
Wasn’t exactly ”rare” – the order was for 152 fire support and 24 ARV variants. A few years after arriving a few ARV variants were sent to Sabah.