DSA 2022 Mildef Rentaka

Mildef Rentaka 4X4 HMAV. DM

SHAH ALAM: DSA 2022 Mildef Rentaka. Meet the Mildef Techonologies Sdn Bhd (Mildef) Rentaka 4X4 High Mobility Vehicle (HMAV). The Rentaka is the next variant to the Tarantula HMAV which was introduced last year by Mildef.

The vehicle will be officially announced at the show today likely by the King himself. The Rentaka is basically an product improved version of the Tarantula. From pictures it looked very much like the Tarantula though I am told the Rentaka (a small cannon) was more inline with the Army’s requirements for an armoured 4X4.

Mildef 4X4 HMAV. Air Times

I was told that the Army will be having a competition for an armoured 4X4 next year though of course it will depend on the availability of funding.

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1730 Articles
Shah Alam

13 Comments

  1. MILDEF Rentaka is a much smaller vehicle than the Tarantula. You can compare the scale by looking at the side mirrors, which are the same on both vehicles. Probably a lot of things is different with the Rentaka and not interchangeable with the Tarantula.

    So the army has gone in a short timespan from wanting a 6×6 IFV into going to have a competition for a small manoeuvrable 4×4 MRAP-like vehicle? I wonder why.
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/tell-me-why/

    If we go for the Rentaka, does MILDEF have the manufacturing resources? How about the sustainment of the Rentaka 20-30 years into the future? Can we manufacture unique spare parts for the Rentaka if MILDEF is no longer around? Should the tender specifically ask for the vehicle IP to be transferred to MINDEF or STRIDE?

  2. gonggok – ”So the army has gone in a short timespan from wanting a 6×6 IFV into going to have a competition for a small manoeuvrable 4×4 MRAP-like vehicle? I wonder why.”

    Has it really gone in this direction? If so is it out of its own volition?
    I have no issues with getting a local MRAP but it should be the army’s decision; not something forced onto it. We also shouldn’t be in the position of buying something in small numbers and then buying something else, merely because it’s politically expedient; which pops out of nowhere in 1-2 years.

  3. Looking closer at the Rentaka, it is much smaller than the Tarantula. The front bonnet much more lower, just around shoulder height of a normal malaysian. It is almost similar in size to the Otokar Cobra II that is also in the building.

    So this is the kind of 4×4 that the army really wants? I don’t see the need and the rationale of having both 4×4 HMAV (in this smaller more agile shape instead of the huge Tarantula and Lipanbara) and a 6×6 IFV. Will this really be for KAD cavalry regiments to supplement the Gempita and replace the Condors? What will be it’s main function?

    What would it cost? How many millions? Consider that the US J-LTV is only about 1.5 million ringgit each.

  4. As usual, I doubt this is totally MILDFEF’s own creation. More likely it is a rebadged from somewhere but I yet to find out which to date, MILDEF prolly had put in extra effort to change out the body panels so it is unrecognisable from the donor vehicle. I also never heard MILDEF of having an automotive plant to makes these vehicles so I am doubly doubtful they have the needed mass manufacturing capabilities. More likely it will be subconded to one of our established automotive carmaker or DEFTECH as the assembler.

    As such, spareparts would ultimately have to come from the OEM originator where MILDEF got their donor car, plus the locally made body panels & fitments. No worries on supplies unless that OEM phased it out or went bust.

    Well, credit should be given to MILDEF as they did not give up even after spending all that money & effort on Tarantula but wasn’t taken up by TDM.

    As for how much it would cost? About as much as a unicorn if we want to support the local defence industry vs buying off the shelf. Either we have to accept such inefficient use of our defence budget or not do it at all.

  5. Most probably Hizir APC from turkey’s katmeciler company.I could be wrong ofcourse..But im pretty certain Mildef assembled the first Tarantula from the get go.Even not designed or developed by MILDEF but most probably they already tweak the design plenty

  6. Irrespective of whatever ever units get them; MRAPs have various roles but like everything else should be deployed in the right conditions. We need MRAPs but we need to stick to a single design and not buy a new design simply because a local outfit comes up with a new one.

    I actually see a need for a smaller vehicle to be used largely for recce or screening elements. Contrary to popular assumption the war in the Ukraine is not teaching us many new lessons per see but reinforcing or reminding them. One lesson reminded is that in addition to adequate infantry support; armoured elements should always have a light screen up front.

  7. “I actually see a need for a smaller vehicle to be used largely for recce or screening elements”

    But isn’t the army wanting the 6×6 IFV for the Cavalry regiments to do recce and screening along with the Ingwe Gempitas? What kind of smaller vehicles do you think ideal for recce and screening? Why is a smaller vehicle better when compared to a 6×6?

  8. It is debatable whether there is a need for MRAP or perhaps other vehicles could do the same job. During USA pull out of Afghanistan & Iraq, they took everything back with them except the MRAPs which they ‘gifted’ out.

  9. gonggok – ”But isn’t the army wanting the 6×6 IFV for the Cavalry regiments to do recce and screening”

    Yes but not all units will have an integral Cavalry element and individual units [whether infantry or others] assign organic elements for the recce role.

    gonggok – ”along with the Ingwe Gempitas?”

    Apart from the that they are intended to provide AT defence whilst operating as part of a combined arms formation; I have no idea as to other ways the army plans to deploy them.

    gonggok – ”Why is a smaller vehicle better when compared to a 6×6”

    Quite obvious…  Also not ”better” per see but more ”suitable” for certain operational conditions and terrain [especially unrestricted terrain] – for the reason that they are less visible and obtrusive compared to a larger 6×6. Note that it also depends on what type of ”recce” [at a tactical or operational level?] and whether doctrine [assuming we have a recce one per see] calls for units to always avoid the enemy or whether units are expected to fight if necessary. Note I’m not saying a 6×6 is totally unsuitable [I avoid making general assumptions] but that for certain operational conditions and terrain a less visible and obtrusive vehicle to complement the 6x6s might be more suitable.

    We can take a look at what others are doing or did as it provides interesting comparisons : the Brits went from Ferret to Saladin to the Scorpion family and now Ajax; the Yanks went from configured M-1113s and others to the M3; the Soviets/Russians had the BRDM and BMP and also got MRAPS for the role; the Germans have Weasel and Fennek [one of my personal favourites] and the SAF in addition to various assets assigns LSVs to recce/scout units. 

    ”During USA pull out of Afghanistan & Iraq, they took everything back with them”

    The JLTV was designed from the onset for Iraq and Afghanistan where terrain was an issue and where the main threat wasn’t ATGWS but mines and IEDs. A lot of the JLTVs left behind were intended for the ANA. There will obviously be some conflicts which are more conducive for the employment of MRAPs compared to others. 

  10. “A lot of the JLTVs left behind were intended for the ANA”

    I think you are confusing something.

    JLTVs have never been deployed to Afghanistan. This is the latest armoured vehicle that is going to partially replace armored humvees.

    Most of those MRAPs that are left behind in Afghanistan are Oshkosh MATVs. A lot of people cannot distinguish a JLTV and MATV from pictures, as it is from the same company. But MATV are larger and heavier (MATV 15ton, JLTV 10ton). Because of advancements in armor technology, the JLTV has the same MRAP level of protection to the MATV even though it is 5 tons lighter. Also with its advanced suspension technology, the JLTV can travel at high speeds off road like a rally car, which cannot be done by most other wheeled armored vehicles.

    Yes there will be conflicts that will be conducive for large and heavy MRAPs like tarantula or lipanbara. But in the case of defending Malaysia, i don’t think so. A smaller, lighter and more manoeuvrable armored vehicle (JLTV sized and smaller) would be preferable to do recce and do hit and run tactics (mounting top attack ATGMs on them) on those attacking and invading Malaysia. I would probably skip any 6×6 armored vehicles altogether.

  11. gonggok – ”I think you are confusing something.”

    No I didn’t confuse anything; just got it wrong. As it stands; the JLTV was based largely on requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan where terrain was an issue and where the main threat was IEDs.

    gonggok – ”A smaller, lighter and more manoeuvrable armored vehicle (JLTV sized and smaller) would be preferable to do recce”

    Liker I said; depends on the operational circumstances and terrain. In some cases a smaller less visible and obtrusive vehicle will be more ideal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*