SHAH ALAM: MTO tenders from Goose rounds to Boat Trailers. In the last week before Hari Raya, the Eperolehan website issued separate tenders for Goose and RPG rounds, 155mm round electronic time fuses, shipping for Unifil trucks and boat trailers.
The 84mm recoilless rifle rounds (HE) will be shipped from Belgium. It does not mentioned the quantities being bought nor its actual usage but its likely for the Carl Gustaff 84 recoiless weapon already in service with the Army. Perhaps it is for the new batch of Carl Gustaff to be purchased from Saab.
As for the RPG rounds, it will be some 2600 units likely from the new RPG-7 launchers purchased from Romania as we bought some earlier. The rounds are also to be shipped from Romania likely from the same manufacturer.
I am not sure whether the 155mm round electronic time fuses also included the round as both the MTO and supply tenders are confusing (one says rounds and the other only mentioned the fuzes) but I think it will be for 1000 units of the thing. If it was for the fuzes only, the company which got the tender is HF Nurani Sdn Bhd for a contract price of RM3 million.
Shipping for the Unifil trucks are of course for the Man 3 tonnes and Cendana Auto FFR trucks which were received by the Army in March. The MTO tender specified that the shipper will need to ship 15 3-tonne trucks and 20 FFR vehicles to the Malbatt 850-9 contingent in Lebanon.
This will be the first publicly announced new vehicles after the Guardians IFV in 2018. The new Nurol Makina Elder Yacin are only expected to be shipped to Lebanon in 2023 (or 2024 if the vehicles are shipped here for testing and commissioning) with the 10 or 11 contingents of Malbatt.
As for the boat trailers, the Army wants 100 of them to make it easier to get boats for operations. The tender document states:
There is a requirement for the MA to be equipped with Boat Trailer Single Deck to improve transportation of boat from one location to another during military operations. The
Boat Trailer shall be towed by the in-service military truck for loading and unloading of in-service assault boat aluminium (‘V’bottom) or boat aluminium catamaran (Flat Bottom).
Although the tender document says it is for military operations it is likely they would also be used for flood relief operations. Using trailers will make it easier for these boats to be transported around. Currently the boats are manhandled into the trucks allocated for such operations. By the way, Selamat Hari Raya. Maaf Zahir Batin.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Saab and Raytheon is also developing guided munition for Carl Gustaf so the army should look into that as well
Selamat Hari Raya and best wishes to everybody!
dundun – ”Saab and Raytheon is also developing guided munition for Carl Gustaf”
Which can only be fired if we indeed get the latest CG version.
“MTO and supply tenders are confusing”
A little under USD $1mil for 1000 units or about USD $1,000 per unit. Plus plus the standard markups, I believe its just the fuzes only.
“Elder Yacin to Lebanon in 2023”
So following the huuhaa on the last Unfil vehicles not fully reimbursed, I am guessing these ones will be fully armed with RWS+50cal/40mmGL?
“easier to get boats for operations”
Only logical. Anyone who owns a boat can testify it is easier to launch/recover boats via trailer from the shoreline. But such trailers are usually coupled to light trucks or cars so I’m curious if they are going to mount to those high Handalan ones.
BTW, with DSA come & gone any news on the Caesar SPH? It seems inevitable the buy the will happen so I wonder what’s the hold up.
If using Handalan or similar trucks, the boats will be carried off the trailer by the soldiers which was done previously
It’s not like it’s in the first role already
Joe “BTW, with DSA come & gone any news on the Caesar SPH? It seems inevitable the buy the will happen so I wonder what’s the hold up”
BAE and their archer?
The national interest
5Zaft – ”BAE and their archer?”
I’ve heard there is another contender; how strong it is remains to be seen.
A longstanding issue with Archer is that it could not fit into a C-130; no idea if it can fit into a A400M. We’ve traditionally emphasised the need for things to be able to be airlifted to East Malaysia but the reality is that it takes quite a number of sorties just to lift a single battery, crew, ammo and other things – assuming the needed airlift is available when needed.
@5zaft
Us and Caesar are like long distance relationship – on & off for many years ady. Archer stands no chance as it is the outlier at best and was not as extensively tested here as Caesar.
”was not as extensively tested here as Caesar.”
It was never ”tested” or trialed here; ”extensively” or not; although it has been been demonstrated at various LIMAs and DSA; in the form of a model and briefings/presentations were conducted for the Artillery Directorate.
To date only the K-9 and Caesar [more than once] have undergone local mobility and firing trials.
@azlan
I believe it can be transported by A400. So at least on paper the air transportability capabilities is there.
@joe
The on & off relationship pretty much remind me of the super hornet. A very capable & cost effective platform that RMAF love but gov have a hard time saying yes to and they never did.
Rather than outlier, BAE actually has a long standing relationship with deftech with it 49% subsidiaries FNSS and Deftech is currently running out of things to assemble.
Marhalim,
“It’s not like it’s in the first role already”
“The national interest”
Azlan,
“I’ve heard there is another contender”
Weststar?
There is no requirement for a remote gun and the air lift requirement is for the Hercules not the A400M so the Archer is out actually. Furthermore BAE Systems is handicapped by the fact that they are marketing it directly by themselves without local agents. No they won’t be working with Deftech but rather BHIC Bofors Sdn Bhd, the Boustead subsidiary which will be the designated local maintenance facility. Though the Archer won’t be in the mix though, not enough National Interest quotient
It’s shame because having a crew operate from inside a protected cabin leads to less risk from having them out in the open exposed to splinters and such. Not to mention far less crew fatigue; smaller number of crew compared to a manual system and the ability to lay, fire and scoot faster than Archer.
5Zaft – ”The on & off relationship pretty much remind me of the super hornet. ”
To various other things too. Rapier was included in the 1988 MOU with Britain but we only ordered Jernas in 2002.
5Zaft – ”A very capable & cost effective platform that RMAF love but gov have a hard time saying yes to and they never did.”
A platform which was also fully integrated with everything the RMAF would have needed and under the FMS the USN could have helped us with a training and combat syllabus because they operate the type and already had a syllabus in place; unlike the case with the Russians and the Su-30MKM.
@5zaft
We did not seriously consider SH even at the height of 1st round MRCA decisionmaking, back when the main contenders were either Typhoon or Rafale. TUDM obviously loved them as it is a progression from their legacy Hornet. As a platform, it, and those 2 above, would have made sense up to 5 years ago but today if MRCA program were to move forward I’d go for F35 or other 5th gens in 2030-35. We need to keep ahead of the curve as we don’t buy such big ticket items as often as others.
I consider Archer as outlier as it was not ‘enthusiastically’ promoted to our Govt, not even sent a unit here for trials unlike Caesar and as Marhalim pointed out, it did not fulfill our “other” criterias. TDM pretty much are adamant what they want, even to the point of spurning a widely used SPH and rather go SPH-less for the many years til now and furthermore until 1st units of Caesar arrives.
Marhalim,
“It’s not like it’s in the first role already”
“The national interest”
Azlan,
“I’ve heard there is another contender”
Ed liew
“Weststar?”
Norinco?
No lah
They are avoiding the tender to wait out the current regime less they got a thing that they didn’t want and no one else is using as well
Marhalim,
“They are avoiding the tender to wait out the current regime less they got a thing that they didn’t want and no one else is using as well”
Guessing Turkey again?
On the issue of the M-109s; although it has been widely discussed before [like many other things]; it was a political decision; the army wanted a wheeled platform [for reasons widely known and discussed here previously]; was not allocated funds to upgrade it to a standard it wanted and was worried about wear and tear as well as maintenance issues as the platform got older. Yes other armies had no issues with pre owned 30 odd year old widely operated M-109s but each army has different concerns and varying level of resources. To suggest that something i sound for us on the basis it is for others is poppycock.
The army was spot on to lobby against the M-109s because it things when ratshit in the future it is the army which has to deal with it and no service should be straddled with something acquire because its political expedient but does not suit CONOPS or operational requirements. As it stands not only the army but its sister services are straddled with stuff ill or not suited to requirements; that is a reality despite whatever paper advantages.
Marhalim “air lift requirement is for the Hercules not the A400M”
Which kinda get me thinking, is the army looking for a lighter 6×6 and not more gempita to seek a more air transportable on top of more swimmable platform?
I was talking about the SPH really. As for the Gempita I don’t think the Army fully understands whether it needs river wading or mild amphibious capability for its armoured vehicles. Why, because the requirements for the Gempita changed between three Army chiefs just before the Gempita went into serial production
5zaft – ” on top of more swimmable platform?”
One needs bridging gear; other types engineering support and constant checks on vehicles to make sure their bilge pumps and trim vanes are still working and their seals are still watertight’ not just vehicles which can ”swim” in order to have such a capability.
Also, as has been made clear the army originally wanted more AV-8s but funds became an issue and cheaper 6x6s were the alternative. Another example of our flawed defence policy; locally assemble [facilities and ToTs paid by the taxpayer] a small batch of foreign IFVs with little possibility of follow on orders to the army [Deftech offered a discount] and little export potential too – defeats the whole purpose of having them assembled locally. The decision to go for 6x6s is not because it sought ” a more air transportable on top of more swimmable platform” …
It wont be cheaper 6X6 really if we factor in local assembly and TOT…..just slightly cheaper