SHAH ALAM: Trucks, FFR, LMG and Sniper Rifles for the Army. Back in early 2021, Malaysian Defence wrote on Cendana Auto getting the contract for the supply of 148 4X4 vehicles in four configurations for the Army. The four configurations are Fitted For Radio (FFR); Special Operations; Weapons Carrier and Mortar carriers.
Shortly after the story went public, I decided to unlist it for reasons. However, the post went public again late last year after pictures of the vehicles undergoing testing were published on social media.
And on March 7 the Army finally confirmed it is getting the Cendana Auto 4X4 vehicles – the FFR ones – when it took delivery of them in a ceremony at the 92 Depot in Kuala Lumpur. Among the FFR vehicles are meant for the Unifil mission as well as one for the Army signals units.
Army chief Gen Zamrose Mohd Zin was on hand to receive the FFR vehicles together with trucks, one tonners and firearms. The Army’s posting on Facebook did not revealed the number of vehicles delivered though it did revealed it was getting 40 Barret M1107A1 anti materiel rifles and 240 FN Minimi LMGs.
PEROLEHAN ASET BAHARU PERKUATKAN KETUMBUKAN TDM
KUALA LUMPUR, 7 Mac 2022 – Tentera Darat Malaysia (TDM) telah menerima beberapa perolehan baharu bagi Kenderaan Jenis B (KJB) dan persenjataan menerusi Majlis Penyerahan Aset Tentera Darat di Perkarangan Garaj A 92 Depot Kenderaan Pusat (DKP) pada hari ini.
Majlis tersebut telah disempurnakan oleh Panglima Tentera Darat, Jeneral Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zamrose bin Mohd Zain.
Perolehan aset baharu bagi Kenderaan Jenis B (KJB) melibatkan Trak 1 Tan GS Cargo, Trak 1 Tan Fitted For Radio (FFR), Trak 3 Tan dan 1 Tan FFR untuk MALBATT 850 serta bas 44 penumpang.
Manakala 280 laras senjata telah berjaya diterima pada penghujung Februari melibatkan 40 unit Sniper Rifle 12.7 mm dan 240 unit Light Machine Gun (LMG) 5.56 mm.
Untuk rekod, kesemua kenderaan dan persenjataan ini telah menjalani Final Acceptance Test (FAT) yang telah dilaksanakan oleh TD pada hujung tahun 2021 dan awal tahun 2022.
Perolehan aset sebegini juga sejajar dengan Tonggak Pertama Perintah Ulung Panglima Tentera Darat Ke-28, iaitu; “Kelangsungan Misi dan Kesiagaan” dengan memberi penumpuan kepada peningkatan tahap kesiagaan, kompentensi dan aset TDM.
Malaysian Defence has written extensively on the procurement of these vehicles and weapons. Please go here and here for the LMG post. Apart from Cendana Auto, the other vehicles delivered were an undisclosed number of one-tonne GS trucks and three 44 seater buses procured from Deftech.
— Malaysian Defence
It is actually 4x 44seater buses delivered for a total of 10 units plus the earlier delivered 6 buses.
BTW speaking of UN, was the UN-sponsored MRAP buy announced yet?
Look like the hilux for me..for that 1 tonne gs cargo..I myself assemble the dmax in pekan haha..Yeah wondered about that Unifil condor replacement too..Heard Ejder Yalcin is close to winning that contract
At this point, MINDEF is giving more attention and commitment to UN missions than the South China Sea…
Are these based on the Rover, ie Land Rover?
Those cendana auto FFR is unarmored, just like the GK-M1 FFR previously.
It’s an exercise of pure waste when a fortuner or everest could do the same job.
Those 1tonne GS cargo trucks in the picture are clearly Toyota Hilux Revo, not Isuzu. Usually Toyota based GS cargo are built by GO Auto.
The trucks for UNIFIL are 3 tonne trucks, like the write up by the army. Those are probably MAN TGM 18.320. You can see the tires are small, compared to 5 tonne versions.
Nope, Hilux
Looks clean and nice! Knew and am pretty sure that it was designed, manufactured, and assembled in Malaysia. The spill economy is surely great! Proud!
Firdaus – MINDEF is giving more attention and commitment to UN missions than the South China Sea…
Nonsense. Two separate issues. A handful of vehicles for MALBATT doesn’t mean ‘MINDEF is giving more attention and commitment to UN missions”…
Ajim – Knew and am pretty sure that it was designed, manufactured, and assembled in Malaysia
We’ve been designing, manufacturing and assembling things for decades but unfortunately haven’t made the transition to something more tangible or value added. Ultimately the vehicles are foreign designed, as are their engines and other components.
Ajin – Proud!
Well, I’m a sceptic and a jaded observer. For me we are still a long way before the local industry can do something which makes me truly ”proud”. Local assembling foreign stuff and performing minor modifications isn’t a big deal.
Yeah but something is better than nothing right? Its a start..Mildef with Tarantula and possibly their very own 6×6 Apc..Cendana Auto with FFR,SOV, Weapon and Mortar carrier..
Firdaus, “Yeah but something is better than nothing right?”
Nothing is better than waste of money. The Tarantula armor is the same level as the Condor, while costing so much more.
Korea able to build armored KLTV at the price of Proton X70.
@Firdaus
IINM, there are certain priorities given to fulfilling UN missions as these reflects on our reputation, commitment to the global cause, and our national stature in the UN Council. Plus UN mandated missions are fully paid by the UN so certain terms & conditions must be met. There is chatter that UN might not pay or pay in full for the Lebanon mission APCs/MRAPs we bought because the vehicles did not fully meet their requirements. And if we’re that adamant, there is possibility they might not renew our charter to stay there. So yes, meeting UN needs is no joke.
yes, its 3 tonne trucks actually. My eyes not so good anymore
Trawling thru records, the tender for those sniper rifles & MGs came out in 2019, so if these were really newly received, it meant a 3 year gap from tender to receiving. Is this delay normal or is it due to our successive change in Governments?
Can’t imagine if we got ourselves into a hot war like Ukraine and finding out we’re 3 years too late to get ready!
Yes, it can take a year to get from the tender to sign a contract. Only once the contract is signed only then the company can order/start making the stuff/guns. Yes, the normal process will take around 36 months or so. It must be noted that the things could have been delivered earlier only for the formal delivery to take place later.
They have been doing that with one tonne GS trucks, the three tonners and the buses as well. There is no requirement for an armoured truck at the moment so apart from the odd buys for the Unifil mission. The Lipanbara was the only buy for an armoured truck
Hey what happend to the ATGM tender and where do one find the requirements for the LCA/FLIT program
I was told the ATGM tender has been KIVed for reasons. There is no official release on the FLIT LCA requirements but you can get some of them by reading news reports on the issue
Assalamuaikum guys. Is there any update on KJA procurement for the army ?
And as for mildef tarantula. From the sides the design is so similar to a Turkish designed MRAP, can’t recall it’s manufacturer.
Marhalim – ”I was told the ATGM tender has been KIVed for reasons.”
I was under the impression that Metis reloads were bought instead. Also, after the MBT LAW buy does the army still have an immediate requirement for ATGWs?
Nope, it was the Metis reloads that was KIVed. It was supposed to be a tender for new ATGM but since they cannot buy new METIS-M, it was changed to buying the missiles only. Yes there is still a requirement for reloads though now with sanctions on Russia it is unclear whether they are going to get new ones or not. These are for weapons carriers.
South Korea said to have excess stocks of Metis-M reloads.
From the russian Brown Bear project, South Korean army was supplied with 226 Metis-M launchers and 12,750 missile reloads (some missiles supposedly locally manufactured by LiG-Nex1). Korean Metis-M lauchers have been locally upgraded with lithium-ion batteries among others. These are currently being replaced by AT-1K Raybolt ATGMs.
Maybe we could ask them for those.
There are also some Eastern European countries which may have excess stocks not shelf expired.
In this day and age we should be moving away from legacy wire guided SACLOS systems [like we have with MBT LAW and Ingwe] but we still have Metis and makes sense to continue using it.
If we are going to get a totally new ATGM, then we should get a fire and forget missile.
But yes we already have the metis-m and are familiar with the system. It is a no brainer for us to expand our stocks of the missile. From korean sources, each metis-m reload costs less than 1/10th of the Raybolt, which is 1/2 the cost of a javelin reload. Which means for the price of 1 javelin reload, you could get at least 20 metis-m missiles instead.
gonggok – ”then we should get a fire and forget missile.
Should be – non wire guided SACLOS; have a top and direct attack mode and a tandem warhead.
gonggok – ” Which means for the price of 1 javelin reload, you could get at least 20 metis-m missiles instead.”
But which in turn means you have a missile with no top attack capability and one that is wire guided [with all the inherent limitations/weaknesses].
For the same money I would gladly have 2,000 metis-m missiles instead of just 100 javelins.
Quantity is a quality of its own, especially against IFVs and logistics tail ends.
gonggok – “I would gladly have 2,000 metis-m missiles instead of just 100 javelins”
There is a certain quality to quantify no doubt but that quantity has to deliver the desired capability.
What if Metis can’t penetrate targets frontally and flank shots are not possible? What if attacks on “logistic tail.ends” are problematic because the enemy has forward screens and flank protection? Depends.
Ultimately the ability of armour to survive depends on them being part of a combined arms formations which encompasses well drilled dismounted infantry to keep ATGWs at bay; indirect fire for suppressive fire; IFVs to operate in tandem with MBTs and UASs on overwatch. All those elements have to.come into play.
If you just have 100 javelins. What is your priority?
In the context of malaysia, how many MBTs are around, and how many IFVs are deployed by our neighbors?
If you have 2,000 metis-m instead, even if it would not penetrate MBT front armor, a mobility kill is sure enough. Or you could afford to fire multiple metis-m at a MBT. IFVs would surely be a toast by a metis-m, as are softskin trucks.
2,000 vs a paltry 100 is a very big deal.
gonggok – If you just have 100 javelins. What is your priority
As I explained, it depends. What is the threat calculus.
gonggok – In the context of malaysia, how many MBTs are around, and how many IFVs are deployed by our neighbors
I don’t look at it in such simplistic terms put it is such easy to.frames narratives. As part of combined arms formations IFVs will always or mostly operate with MBTs. Taking out the IFVs but not the accompanying MBTs also leads to issues.
gonggok – 2,000 vs a paltry 100 is a very big deal
As I said there is a certain quality to quantity but that quantity has to create or result in the desired capability… It’s all dependent.
Note I’m not dismissing outright the utility of wired guided older gen SACLOS types; merely pointing out the pros and cons… I would like to see a combination of beam riding top attack types [like MBT LAW] supplemented by older less capable wire guided SACLOS types.
gonggok – as are softskin trucks
I could go one step further and say that soft skins can also can also be dealt with MGLs and disposable shoulder we fired weapons. I can also question whether operational circumstances will enable logistic/support ements to be targeted.
Azlan, “I would like to see a combination of beam riding top attack types”
NLAW, Javelin, Raybolt; all of them are not beam riding missiles. Beam riders can alert the enemy if they have Laser Warning Sensors. Why do you want a beam rider with the disadvantages?
NLAW uses PLOS (predicted line of sight).
Javelin and Raybolt uses optical lock on before launch, that the missile then uses to compare with its built-in imaging infrared seeker when going downrange.
If we do go for Raybolt, probably we could ask korea to match 1 to 1 of every raybolt we buy with free metis-m reloads from their extensive war stocks, which they are phasing out anyway.
Just to chip in, with the maturity of APS systems, ie Trophy, soon direct attack rockets & missiles would be rendered obsolete regardless of what its guidance system, leaving only top-down type missiles still effective. Case in point, 2014 Operation Protective Edge showed the efficacy of Trophy where no IDF tanks were damaged with dozens of successful interceptions, vs the high hit rate against Merkavas during 2006 Lebanon War. It will only get better with the proposed merger of systems with Iron Fist APS. You can bet SG, being so close with Israel, would rapidly employ such an effective APS once it has matured sufficiently.
gonggok – ”NLAW, Javelin, Raybolt; all of them are not beam riding missiles”
Indeed they clearly aren’t; my mistake. This is what I should have said [as in a previous post] – ”– non wire guided SACLOS; have a top and direct attack mode and a tandem warhead.”. We have taken the right steps with MBT LAW and Ingwee [a beam rider].
gonggok – ” Beam riders can alert the enemy if they have Laser Warning Sensors.”
They can [so can laser range finders on MBTs and various things] but realistically what can the enemy do? A MBT’s LWR alerts it and it has seconds to maneuver behind natural or mad made cover. Popping standard smoke won’t help if the ATGW operator has thermals.
The disadvantages of a wire guided SACLOS system is the operator has to guide it until impact; the wire can snag and it can sever.
Note this is not as debate on my part about the respective merits of top attack non wired guided types versus legacy wire guided types.
gonggok – ”Or you could afford to fire multiple metis-m at a MBT.”
Ideally in an ambush the aim would be to target as many vehicles simultaneously as possible; for obvious reasons. If however one had to target each vehicles with several shots [as Hezbollah did in 2006 because of poor marksmanship] or as Tajik rebels did [to detonate ERAs] this would entail a large number of launchers in the ambush team.
APS will poliferate anf get cheaper but the means to counter them will.be found. To counter the tank in WW1 the anti-tank rifle and arty in open sights were used. Then came anti tank guns, anti-tank mines and shoulder fired weapons in WW2as well.As aircraft with the needed cannon. In the 1960’s came the ATGW. As tanks got better protected in the 1980’s top attack mortar rounds [Merlin and Stryx] came into being. Then came better ATGWs and armed UASs. At various times prophets of spoke of the bed of the tank; has t happened yet.
Tank design evolution seem have reached a nadir post Cold War; the USA still with 80s Abrams, Brits with Challenger 1&2, the Germans & EU with Leo2, French with Leclerc. Only Russia came out with a totally new design with Armata but that program itself likely will produce only a small number to replace frontline tanks, the vast remainder will still be developed versions of Cold War designed tanks; T72s, T80s, T90s. Japan(Type10) & Israel(Merkava4) are of recent developments but still evolutions of past designs(Type90 & Merkava3).
Whether tanks sunset in the horizon is yet to be seen but tank evolution seem to have hit a deadend. Next gen tanks would need to have a certain level of automation and lesser crews like Armata or totally unmanned and remotely operated. We haven’t seen such as yet.
The next gen of MBTs will have unmanned turrets. The crews will not have to be exposed out of hatches but will have 360 degree coverage from inside via
cameras [pros and cons]. The Israelis have already done this on a converted M-113.
Indeed too early to write off the tank. Post 1973 we heard prophets of doom say the Dagger had made tanks obsolete. In the 1980’s and 1990’s we heard similar claims. Post Naragano Karabakh claims were made that armed UASs had made tanks vulnerable. Yet the tank still forms a vital part of combined arms formations invarious armies. When it comes to delivering mobile and protected firepower there is no alternative to the tank; at least not yet.