SHAH ALAM: The Defence Ministry has published a request for bids for the supply and delivery of the light anti-tank weapon (LAW) C90 for the Army. The RFB for the Spanish made Instalanza C90 LAW is for 780 units.
This will be the biggest anti-tank weapon purchase in recent memory. The tender was published today – January 30 – and closes on February 20, which meant that companies has 21 days to put in their bids.
According to the public specifications page:
General. There is a requirement to equip the Infantry Battalion with a Light Anti-tank Weapon Disposable System to be used by infantry personnel during operations and training. The main usages of the weapon shall be as follows: 1.1. To destroy light armoured vehicles, gun
emplacements, pillboxes, concrete bunkers and equivalent hard targets.
1.2. Easily carried by personnel without degrading their mobility during
deployment by sea, air and land. 1.3. The nature of military operations to
conduct offensive and defensive operation requires the characteristics of
weapon which shall be lightweight, self-contained with effective fire power
and disposable
Instalanza produces for four variants of the C90 – anti armour; anti-armour plus fragmentation, an anti-bunker and smoke. It is likely the Army wants to buy the first three variants only.
It is interesting to note that the only units which had displayed the disposable launch tubes of the C90 are the GGK and the 19th Royal Malay Regiment (RMR). And the only units seen with the M72 LAW -procured from Nammo – is the Pathfinder company (Pandura) of the 10th Para Brigade and the GGK. That said I was never too keen with getting the detail TOE of the armed forces units so I stand to be corrected here.
The C90 – I believed were originally procured in the late 90s or early 2000s. The mass adoption of RPG by infantry units, within the last decade or so, led me to believe – mistakenly – that the C90s would no longer be procured. Due to the number of C90 LAW being procured I believed other units like those in 10th Para Brigade will also be equipped with them once delivered.
Anyhow, the RFB for the C90s again revealed the need to modify the procurement rules as I had posted on the Goose deal. Since we are buying something specific from a single manufacturer, there is no need for a RFB in the first place.
It will be cheaper for a government company to buy them direct from the manufacturer after a request for information (to find their delivery times etc) and a request for proposal (cost). By doing this way, we will get the equipment cheaper and anyhow, the government will also be paying for their shipping here.
It is not like we are buying a generic LAW which needed an RFB. It must be noted the LAW and NLAW purchased in the past – likely without an open tender – were also bought from local companies instead of direct from the manufacturer. It was the same with the Starstreak MANPADs.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Good…slow and steady improved our infantry units.
Hi.i believe that since 2020 mindef have been making purchases of various law n atgm which is
1. The NLAW atgm
2. M72 LAW
3. Serbian made RPG
4. Carl Gustav M4
5.The recently signed Turkish atgm
6. And now latest version of d C90
Kind a lot of source ya.
Anyway out of the 6 list above only the M72 is launch and throw while the others is reloadedable or reuse (sight’s n trigger)
As mentioned in this article, the M72 is used only by 10 Brigade PANDURA units n I believe some is allocated to GGK too. The same for NLAW, I believe. Do correct me if I’m wrong.
Anyway my actual curiosity is does the C90, RPG, M4 Carl Gustav is at rifle section level or at the fire support section of the support company and knows as seksyen AKK.
By right AKK within non mechanised battalion should or by right equipped with ATGM while the RPG, d Goose n C90 should be allocated to rifle section. Same goes for the milkor hand held grenade launcher at rifle section level while d Saco M40 at fire support company
Just my 2 sen opinion
The RPG is allocated down to platoon level, likewise I believed the LAW and the C90. The Goose is with the Kompeni Bantuan or even platoon bantuan.
Platun AKK is actually a one of the platoons in Kompeni Bantuan of BIS (Battalion Infantri Standard)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCz-uk6aMAAFobj.jpg
Yes most platun AKK in BIS is equipped with CG. Only the infantry battalions of 7th Brigade in Johor have Metis-M in their platun AKK, which will be replaced by Karaok.
platun AKK in 12 RAMD mekanize and 7 RRD mekanize are equipped with Baktar Shikan ATGM mounted on Adnans.
14 RAMD mekanize with MIFV have platun AKK equipped with dismounted Baktar Shikan ATGM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFGTsgDaYAAcCIB.jpg
19 RAMD mekanize with Gempita seems to have platun AKK equipped with Gempita LCT30 Ingwe.
” Anyway out of the 6 list above only the M72 is launch and throw while the others is reloadedable or reuse ”
No
M72 LAW, C90 and NLAW are all single use fire and throwaway disposable weapons.
CG, RPG-7, Karaok, Metis-M and Baktar Shikan are reloadable.
Currently RPG-7, M72 LAW, NLAW and C90 are all allocated at BIS infantry section level (not platun AKK). But seems it depends on what unit will get which. Most units getting RPG-7, M72 with PARA Pathfinder company, NLAW with other PARA infantry sections, C90 with GGK and 19RAMD.
Great that we are beefing up our anti armour capability. Hope focus would be given also to restock our SAM Manpads as with the exception of Star Streak system, I believe our last major purchase was in early 2000’s. I also believe that the Anza maybe almost time expired?
yup
And about time we REALLY go for that Medium Range AD..Not talk only.Even Philippines have Spyder and about to receive Brahmos..And here we still stuck with star streak and AA GUN.One system for starter are good enough compared to none
What happen with AT4 lauchers?
what AT4 launchers?
12 RAMD mekanize and 7 RRD mekanize equipped with Baktar Shikan ATGM mounted on Adnans.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_5066.jpg
I wonder why the Baktar Shikan vehicle mount is not adopted for the MIFV. 14 RAMD Mekanize do have their own Baktar Shikan launchers, with dismounted tripod system. This pic of the Baktar Shikan ATGM is taken during 14 RAMD Mekanize training exercise in October 2023
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFGTsgDaYAAcCIB.jpg
Pakistan has also adopted baktar shikan ATGM for its AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters. Could it be adopted to PUTD MD530G too?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ew8XW3PW8AYEAVS.jpg
While our Northern Neighbor just approved 2 trillion pesos or 35 Billion US dollars for AFP Modernization for 10 yrs or 3.5 Billion US dollars yearly spending on military asset only not included the salary of the soldiers.
Lets just chill and think positive hehehe
@hulubalang
“Could it be adopted to PUTD MD530G too?”
IINM the MD is certified to fire TOW only for now.
@Jun
Are you fearing a Pinoy army come marching down East MY and taking over?
Hulubalang
No, only M72 is fire and throw away. C90 n NLAW the weapon sights is recyclable by attaching the round tube
AT-4. If my memory serves me right we did procure a number of AT4
AT-4 Law were used by GGK.
By right by virtue of the platoon name, Platun Anti Kereta Kebal, the platoon should b equipped with ATGM. But again everything boils down back to cash.
Mindef also procured a number of Chinese made Manpads right. Is the Manpads still in service or decom. Some one was telling me it was procured not for GAPU but TUDM ? Can anyone elaborate it
>RPG allocatted to platoon level
Nope. Squad/section level.
Interestingly, Mexico army also did roughly the same where they also supplied RPGs down to squad level.
afaik vietnam went one level beyond where they issue an RPG down to a fireteam level
if im not mistaken mindef once launch a rfb for 1000+ law but there is no further action from it.
” C90 n NLAW the weapon sights is recyclable by attaching the round tube ”
The sights can be detached, but is designed to be thrown away with the tubes.
NLAW comes with custom ACOG sight, some sights has found its way to civilians, but its quality is poor (just for general aiming as the NLAW missile have advanced sensors to find the tank).
its 1500 units of light anti-structure weapon. Teguh Hiasan Sdn Bhd was awarded the LOA of RM41.2 million. the MTO tender had also went through so I am assuming it is already delivered.
@ marhalim
Teguh Hiasan Sdn Bhd was also awarded contract for light anti-structure weapon in 2012 for RM5.2 million. so that 2012 award and the 1500 tender award should be the C90?
BTW looks like Weststar won the tender for PDRM APC for RM10.72 million
No idea if it was the C90
just putting this here
Baktar Shikan ATGM brochure
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFOrR0UaYAAAgre.jpg
Dundun,
The RPG-29 used by mexican army are wee bit different to the RPG-7 used by malaysian army, don’t you think?
Also from what I read about vietnam army Orbat I don’t think RPG-7 is issued to a fireteam as it’s too cumbersome for a 3-man team in vietnam army. I think they also issue RPG-7 on squad level. Whilst some units (especially the grenadiers) are issued one extra launcher I don’t think it’s standard across all the infantry unit
– Carl Gustavs are traditionally operated by the AT platoons of Support Companies which are organic to infantry battalions. All infantry battalions and not just BIS ones have Support Companies which also have a mortar and a MG platoon. Although a shoulder fired weapon Carl Gustav is in a different category compared to a C-90 or a RPG-7. It’s more accurate; having better sights and is commonly used to fire smoke and illium [we don’t fire such rounds from the RPGs].
– Prior to this recent order of Romanian RPGs we had previously ordered a batch years ago. Cheaper than the POF ones.
– The 1st batch of C-90s were bought in the late 1990’s. Despite never having been announced a few ex army people have told me that we had a small batch of Armbrusts in the early 1990’s.
– The RPG-29 is a different category of weapon compared to a RPG-7. Never intended to be a section weapon; too large/ cumbersome; like Apilas, LAW-80 and Folgore.
On another note/subject it’s interesting to compare the effectiveness of Ukrainian UASs and Houthi ones against naval targets. It’s become apparent that whilst Houthi UASs are effective against non naval targets they are [to date] totally ineffective against naval targets; Standards, ESSMs and Sea Vipers having no issues targeting slow moving UASs which are not fitted with counter measures and are not conducting evasive manoeuvring.
The main problem is the costs of using missiles costing millions each against targets costing tens of thousands. For the first time also [as far as I’m aware] Phalanx killed an actual “live” target. Also interesting to note that Houthi UAS attacks have not been conducted in actual swarms but in relays. If the Houthis actually targeted a naval target with large swarms [UASs operating together and simultaneous attacking the target from multiple directions] the result might be different.
A major problem for the Houthis – unlike the Ukrainians which have external help and more sensors – is the absence of a recce/complex. As I never tire of mentioning, no point having “range” and “firepower” if one lacks the means to detect, track and hit targets with precision and in a timely manner [same with arty and MLRSs].
– In other places the fanboys/ trolls have gone all gaga about the Hamas use of RPGs. The reality when analysed with a non fevered mind is that a major problem is that non guided shoulder fired weapons have to get close to the target; a problem if the target is alerted and is protected by infantry. Another issue is that shoulder fired weapons can cause damage to MBTs but despite the large bang they make; rarely will destroy a well protected MBT. Lastly the utility of shoulder fired weapons in an urban setting is nothing new; we saw this with the Panzerfaust in WW2 and with the RPG in Grozny and Beirut.
– Garl Gustav. At least 2 Kampuchean army [as it was known then] T-54/55s were destroyed by the KPNLF using Carl Gustavs supplied by Singapore. No idea how many targets were destroyed by it in other wars but it was used by the Royal Marines to make a nice hold in an Argentine ship in 1982 and off course the RMN has it on various reefs in the Spratlys. As far as I’m aware every single infantry battalion – even those with ATGWs – have Carl Gustavs; the exception being the Border Regiment and TA units.
Firdaus – “Even Philippines have Spyder and about to receive Brahmos”
So? You are aware are you not that they feel more threatened/ intimidated by the Chinese because unlike us they’ve been exposed to lasing, ramming and water cannons? They are also closer to Taiwan and the AFP has been through a much longer period of under funding compared to the MAF.
Jun – “ While our Northern Neighbor just approved 2 trillion pesos or 35 Billion US dollars”
Good for them but nothing to do with us. As I’ve said many times : the challenge will be to a commit to a certain level of funding for a protracted period. Also, the PA is much larger than the Malaysian army and the PN has a much larger EEZ and territorial waters to safeguard/monitor compared to the RMN.
Kamal – “ Great that we are beefing up our anti armour capability”
The shoulder fired weapons are more for anti structure/ anti light armour work as opposed to “anti tank”. We have a relatively small number of ATGWs compared to the number of combat units we have.
Hafiz – “ as it’s too cumbersome for a 3-man team in vietnam army. I think they also issue RPG-7 on squad level”
Depends. Is the fire team primarily operating on foot? Is it motorised? Is it a dedicated AT fire team ? Are spare rounds carried by all 3 people ? Note that WW2 German sections were centered on the MG34/42; almost everyone in the section carried spare ammo for it.
It would be surprising if they didn’t issue it at section level as it was intended to be. Is there an RPG user which doesn’t issue it at section level?
Another mystery in addition to the Armbrusts are the Ruag RPG rounds we bought years ago. Never been seen publicly.
Something else which was rarely photographed were the M-20s; our 1st AT/shoulder fired weapon. We bought quite a number and deployed it to the Congo.
Azlan I was referring to @dundun’s comments about vietnam military deploying their RPG on fireteam level which is one level under the section/squad level. It’s one thing to deploy AT on squad level but fireteam level is just not feasible especially for vietnam army which organize their “fireteam” as 3 man team (instead of 4 in more contemporary western style military).
On mexican army RPG-29, believe it or not they do deploy them on squad level. Mexican military on a whole wasn’t that impressed with russian made equipment with russian non-existent aftersales support but RPG-29 is an exception. In fact they are so impressed with RPG-29 that they produced them under license and produced them in large number
Understood. My comments were in reply to comments which were raised and as I said : depends on various factors.Is the “fire team” motorised? Is it primarily for AT work? Some armies have GPMGs at section level. Some armies issue HMGs to infantry units. If you look at the authorised load out for a BIS section it’s impressive but it’s a lot to carry and in a high intensity environment spare rounds for the rifles, grenade launchers and RPGs would be needed fast and in the right quantities.
Not much after sales is needed for a RPG -29 compared to say a plane or a vehicle.
kamal – ”Mindef also procured a number of Chinese made Manpads right. ”
The only reported ones were the FN-6s.