SHAH ALAM: Scorpions to be retired. The Army has recommended that it’s fleet of Scorpion light tanks be retired due to the high cost of maintenance and obsolescence issues. Deputy Defence Minister Liew Chin Tong told Parliament today (Dec. 18, 2018) that none of the Scorpions are no longer operational. The recommendation to retire the Scorpions was made after the Army conducted a study on its armoured vehicles requirements for the long term. The Scorpions it seemed are not compatible with the Army’s plans, directions and further more being costly to maintain.
He said the Scorpion fleet entered service in 1981 and were placed in service with the Armoured Squadron of the 10th Para Brigade. The fleet had undergone a Service Life Extension Programme (SLEP) and upgrades from 2007 to 2011 and the Army decided to continue the service of the vehicle until 2018.
Liew said none of the Scorpions are currently operational and the Army had decided to declare the vehicle obsolete. The ministry is expected to declare the status of the fleet next year.
Malaysian Defence had previously reported that the planned upgrades of the Scorpion and Condor were on a short leash and under review. Without the planned upgrades both vehicles would be facing obsolescence in the near future.
There was no word on the Condor upgrade however. It is likely the Army is continuing to see whether it is cheaper to upgrade them or retire them.
The plans to upgrade the Condor and Scorpions were first revealed in 2014. The Condor project appeared to be the one that will be given the green light, more of these vehicles remained in service compared to the Scorpion. It must be recalled that only 26 Scorpions were bought together with 25 Stormer APC.
The Scorpion were in service with the Armour Squadron with the 10th Para Brigade, though I am not sure of the numbers. It is likely that the Stormers are also no longer operational.
*updated with more information from the Hansard, Dec. 18, 2018.
-Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Marhalim, this post, I found it with google search but it’s not on your page when i go to the home page. Funny.
Yes, IMO that is the right thing to do.
The best replacement for the Scorpoins is IMO the ZBD-03, which is a radical choice I understand, but the best compromise for the 10 PARA rapid deployment role.
The ZBD-03 while looks like bigger IFV, it is actually quite small and weighs around the same as scorpion (7000kg) and with amphibious capability. It can be dropped from airplane without pallet (it has its unique designed airbags underneath it for cushioning the drop). It can replace both scorpion and stormer (stormer weighs like 10000kg) and would be ideal as recce and fire support (30mm gun in 1 man turret) vehicle. I am thinking for the 10 Bde Para to consolidate its vehicles to just the DAGOR and ZBD-03 for its parachute capable force, replacing the various g-wagons, land rovers, scorpions, stormers. Probably the only legacy vehicles to be kept is the vamtacs for the howitzers and supacats for logistics, others to be given to other army units.
Size compared to a russian soldier
Ground mode. 3 crew and 4 soldiers in the rear.
And it has been officially offered for export
(copy and paste my comments from here https://www.malaysiandefence.com/another-day-just-begun/ )
How about 25 alvis stormer sir?still in service or not?
Light tank is outdated. Modern IFV and AFV can do better than light tank. Although I will suggest TDM to replace it with medium tank but maybe TDM should wait for that untill AV8s are delivered.
Well it depends. The scorpion is actually designed as a recce or scout vehicle to replace the ferret.
Right now it is used in the army as a supporting armor for the rapid deployment parachute brigade.
For mechanized formations, they have the gempita and adnan, and that should not be a factor in replacing the scorpion if it is to be done. Instead the requirement should be tailored to the parachute brigades needs and limitations.
well army can donate this to VAT-69 unit, imagine paramilitary police with light armored…
No light tanks are certainly not “outdated” if they were armies wouldn’t have them. Depends entirely on operational needs. Some armies want light tanks to deployed by air it to operate in places where there is a poor road infrastructure; in scenarios where enemy MBTs will not be present.
On the Scorpions, what they are replaced with depends not just on funds but on the roles the army foresees 10 Para playing. Some armies have need for a AFV to be airdropped but some don’t. Some armies see a need for a vehicle to be deployed by air. Most done. A small agile vehicle that can be air dropped has merits but does it fit in with the user’s doctrine? One can also have a slightly larger vehicle that is better protected and has more internal space: which can’t be airdropped but can be lifted by air.
In 10 Para’s context, will an AFV be used in the armed recce role? Or is it intended as a fire support platform whilst also providing some elements of the unit with a means of transport? Depends on various factors for which only the army has the answers.
Upgrading the Scorpions made sense as they still have lots of life left but obviously the army feels that cash for an upgrade can be put to better use and than even after ab upgrade; the Scorpions still cant do what the army needs
I suggest The Army should have Concedred with MMWT or CV90105 Light Tank as a Replacement to FV101.
Just with my 20 cent.
As a commando type unit VAT69 has no need for an armoured vehicle. Yes other units of the police have a need to replace their V-150s and Saxons but with a wheeled platform that can carry people not a tracked platform that has zero space for passengers.
Also, if the army finds the Scorpions to be maintenance intensive due to age, why would the police want to be burdened with them?
Coming after the announcement that the Scorpion would be upgraded and the former army Chief speaking of “correcting past mistakes” (in reference to the Cockerill which made the vehicle slow and overweight); we can safely assume that the latest decision to retire the type is based on present financial constraints and that if funds were not so tight, the army would upgrade the type and operate it for a few more years. Most obsolescent issues as well as issues that lead to maintenance headaches on account of age, can be rectified by an upgrade. Jordan”s King Abdullah Design Bureau cane up with an innovative upgrade a few years ago.
Regarding the 10 PARA ground mobility equipment.
Is the doctrine still needs an armoured support unit like what the KAD para squadron is performing right now?
If the answer is no, should the KAD para squadron be disbanded?
If the answer is yes, then what kind of tasks will it be performing in support of parachute operations? With the obvious limitation of delivering transport aircrafts, what are the candidates? How many would be needed considering ready prepositioned stocks in Subang AFB for rapid deployment and units for training?
Amidst the talk about “doctrine” : does the army or 10 Para actually have a “doctrine” per see? Sure, it’s has its own ways, plans, SOPs, methods, etc but does it actually have a “doctrine”? We had years of jungle fighting experience but did we actually have a jungle fighting doctrine or manual? Even the British army for many years did not have a jungle fighting or counter insurgence “doctrine”.
The best choice for TDM is using AV8 ATGM to replace the scorpion, or develop a new variant of AV8 that carry 105mm canon
Yeah probably we don’t have a black n white para doctrine book per se (i dont know).
But another way to say this is what are the capability expected from the para brigade? Will a new light airborne deployable IFV to replace the scorpion/stormer help to achieve that capability?
First we have to ask whether the MAF’s procurement is threat or capability driven? Then we have to take a hard and realistic look at the threats we face and ask ourselves whether any of these threats in the comings years will actually materialise? Only then can we have a better picture of what the services need based on actual operational requirements and threat perceptions.
The question of whether 10 Para needs to retain a organic armour capability is an interesting one and debatable. One thing’s for sure : the unit is unlikely to find itself operating deep in an enemy’s operational depth (unlike say Russian or Chinese equivalent units) and it doesn’t have the means; either logistical or engineering to be self supporting for a prolonged period. If it’s a question of fire support then maybe in lieu of armour the unit’s arty and anti-tank capability should be expanded on.
If there’s a need for a recce platform the unit could go for high mobility vehicles (like what others have done – as … has pointed out several times, the Polaris is a good candidate). Sure a soft skin platform offers no or minimal protection but compared to an armoured platform its passengers have better SA and arcs of fire. It also has a smaller footprint.
We should also ask ourselves if the unit was actually deployed for real, would its arty and armoured components be able to reach it in a short time via road or sea? Or will it have to be airlifted? Based on geography and operational circumstances I believe the answer is yes, they can be sent where needed by land or sea.
It’s not as if 10 Para will be expected to drop and maintain an airhead in southern China or the Mekong Delta and also be self supporting for a certain period.
Even if all the needed air transports were available, they would be busy carrying other stuff apart from AFVs and even lifting just a squadron of vehicles plus the crews, spares and fuel would entail several sorties.
What we buy must meet our operational needs as much as possible (as well as the budget of course) and we should avoid getting something with capabilities superfluous or not needed for our requirements. It still remains to be seen if the new government takes a new approach to defence or whether things will eventually remain the same: the MAF getting stuff based on political factors and the MAF and taxpayer getting screwed eventually.
Question, have 10th Para ever air drop a Scorpion?
Do we really need a 105mm gun? Are we likely to face bunkers or other types fortifications? If it’s for use against AFVs a 20/30mm auto cannon is a more practical option.
Not sure if things have changed but up until a few years ago we had no established “doctrine”. We of course have our way off doing things (based on experienced gained from operating on home territory and info we get when we buy foreign gear) but actual “doctrine” (i.e. established rules/guidelines that lay down how we’ll do certain things : no. We should also have a White Paper.
AV8 for parachute brigade? Those are huge 30 tonne beasts! Even the adnan is just 14 tonne. The scorpion weighs around 7 tonnes.
The para brigade is not really a real para that everybody think. The para brigade is not designed as a high fire power force. The para is a quick force with light transportable gun not an airdropped tank/IFV.
TDM has only 26 units of sxorpions, it is enough only for half battalion. Retiring this tank wil have no significant effect on TDM capability.
On the other side, Retiring scorpion makes TDM will rely on PT91. That is why medium tank should on the list for next aquisition. AV8 IFV25 and adnan are enough to complement PT91 for now.
As mentioned previously, the unit was formed to be a “light” unit that could be rapidly deployed to all corners of the country; our strategic reserve. Prior to that the closest we had to a strategic reserve was Gerak Khas. Things haven’t changed with regards to it’s role.
The only difference is that whilst “most” other armies are not expanding their jump units but are tweaking them to make them more relevent and useful in meeting current challenges; we have expanded the unit by adding another battalion whilst not also expanding HQ, signals and engineering elements (basic to strategic with) to cater for this extra battalion.
Sure an extra battalion provides more operational flexibility but it also strains existing manpower and support assets. Raising and maintaining a jump unit is very resource intensive.
As it stands 10 Para unit is our strategic reserve, to be one that on paper can be deployed faster and be more self supporting compared to other units. It is not intended to operate deep in an enemy’s operational depth to seize strategic targets (why the Russians and Chinese have AFVs that can be airdropped) and is not intended to land on a defended beach, landing zone or drop zone (those days are long gone). It’s primary operational area when raised was Sabah but today there are more units in Sabah than previously was. We don’t have the rotary assets but if we did converting part of the unit into an airmobile one would make sense.
Supporting light armor isnt just for operating deep in enemy territory. The keyword here is supporting. It isnt meant to be the main vehicle for the parachute force.
My previous idea was for a ready company-sized rapid reaction force of around 110men that would be deployed on 10 DAGORs and 4 ZBD-03s. It would give the force a ground range of around 400km from DZ to the objective. It could be a precursor force to a bigger conventional paradropped force on foot.
The armoured ZBD-03 can be used for say approaching the enemy while under small arms fire, and general fire support duties.
BTW on the supacats towing howitzers
Have we tried something like this?
The defence white paper will be tabled in the parliment next year
We have had this discussion before …..
The reason they have light armour is because units are expected to operate behind enemy lines and over considerable depth and frontage. Chinese units train to operate on the Tibetan plateau and in Taiwan – that results in a need for an air droppable AFV; it’s in line with doctrine and operational requirements – at the same time the bulk of airborne units worldwide have no such need. I’m ware you’re gung ho about the ZBD but for me; I couldn’t care less whether it’s a ZBD or a BMD or anything else (all have their respective merits); as long as it meets our requirements.
I’m aware that having armour isn’t just to operate behind enemy territory and I didn’t say anything to that effect. The key difference between 10 Para and say Russian and Chinese units is that 10 Para is not intended to operate that deep in the enemy’s rear and over such depths and frontages. It is not intended to seize strategic targets deep in the enemy’s operational zone. Sure 10 Para does train for various contingencies including moving from Point A to Point B (tens of kilometres away) but the actual likelihood of such a scenario actually taking place is extremely slim and it’s success will depend on enemy reaction, the ability to keep spearheads resupplied, etc. Just like how PASKAL ties the hands of trainees and dump them in a pool – makes for good training but short of a James Bond scenario anyone is unlikely to find himself in water with his hands tied.
On the Scorpion being a direct replacement for the Ferret I believe the replacements were Saladin and Fox. Both of course were not as widely used as the Ferret.
On 10 Para having an armoured element there are many merits in having so but at the same time also penalties. At the most only about a squadron will be so equipped, the rest of the unit will still have to walk or move by soft skins. To replace the Scorpion and Sorner will the unit be better served by having a fieet of high mobility softskins that can be employed for recce, as weapons carriers and such? Indeed they don’t offer the protection a AFV does but they have a lighter footprint and have agility. The Germans went for the Weasel to serve as weapons carriers, comms relay, etc and the Soviets the BMD to be used for recce and transport – both armies had slightly different roles intended for their jump units. The Brit’s have no AFVs for their jump units; nor do French ones; whether regular army or Foreign Legion.
Ultimately having armoured vehicles also means they have to be refuelled and supported maintenance wise in the field; after having been deployed. Hard as it is for conventional units with the needed support elenent and harder for light units with a minimum support element. On paper several vehicles offer various advantages, the trick is to figure out what to do with them : as a recce platform, fire support or to equip a maneuver element. As mentioned before : depends on what the army decides, based on its requirements and threat perceptions.
Yes we talked about this before, and again I stress that the armoured infantry vehicles will the used as support elements, not russian or chinese style fully armoured parachute force. What we can emulate is what US Army is trying to do with its airborne troops, using lightweight quads or DAGORs with the support of light tanks or IFVs.
Btw this years 10 para exercise gerak pantas
And eks PARADISE
As a part of eks PARADISE 2018, squadron armor (para) had the eks IRON THUNDER. Would like to know more about this exercise within the bigger eks PARADISE. In eks PARADISE 2018 the Leading Parachute Battle Group (LPBG) for this exercise is 18 RAMD.
Let’s see if that defence white paper is of any practical use.
Laos to receive “several dozen” T-72B1 tanks from Russia, for less than $3 million. Vietnam receiving 64 T-90S tanks. And we still not investing further in antitank capability? Okay…
Oman buying PARS III aka AV8 from Turkey, abotu 145 units plus ~20 units 6×6 version in 13 variants, for $500m or about $3m apiece. How much were our AV8s again…? Something something, technology transfer, export market, blablabla…?
….. ridiculous scam.
There is no Fulda Gap …
Perhaps Laos and Vietnam tanks is needed “up north”. We had “invested further” antitank capability by spreading RPGs to PDRM. A something,knowing that RPG is not that good in killing MBT compared to an ATGM. Can a decomm TDM Scorpion being owned by a private citizen? Afaik it never happen to any of our decomm armor.
White Papers are good for the public never for the military. Like playing chess and announcing which moves you’re gonna take and with what pieces. The spectators would be thrilled to know the blow-by-blow strategy involved but so as the opponent as well.
I’m not saying its totally bad. Sure, its good it that promotes transparency and all that. Provided your neighbours are trustworthy, can act as buffer against antagonist forces, and your capabilities acquired/to be acquired are superior against those said forces.
In our context, hmm…. Are we still treating our neighbours as potential opponents?
And I stress that we must first have a clear view as to what 10 Para can realistically be expected to do based on its strengths and limitations and what the army sees it doing. My reference to Russian and Chinese units is to illustrate the vital fact that the roles they perform are slightly different (just because they have IFVs doesn’t automatically mean we should have them) and the despite whatever merits a particular design may have; doesn’t mean it might suit our requirements; might have features that are superfluous to our needs (such as being able to be air dropped) – I would prefer acehicle with more internal volume and better protection.
Again, even if we buy IFVs at most it will only equip a squadron with the rest of the unit having no such capability. Yes it would be nice to have a recce, pathfinder or manuever element with IFVs but how does this tie in with the rest of the unit and can high mobility soft skin platforms (despite not being armoured) do the job just as well? As for the U.S. army it is in a very much better position to deploy and support those IFVs/light tanks than we are.
Sorry but I fail to see what MBT procurement by those 2 countries have to do with us improving out ATGW capability.
A possible alternative solution to replacing the Scorpions and Stormers would be to designate a existing AV-8 squadron and to assign it the role of working alongside 10 Para. In other words; in addition to its present responsibilities this unit will (unlike other AV-8 equipped units) regularly work alongside 10 Para and would be trained to deploy by land or sea. There is no reason why weight should be an issue as it won’t be air airdropped, can fit on A400M (assuming there are aircraft available) and deployment could be via and or sea).
The fact that unit is not organic to 10 Para shouldn’t be an issue; qualifying its members to be jump capable will take time and resources (as it stands we have 4 jump battalions, in which every single vman has to perform several jumps annually to mantain their wings; very resource intensive). When deployed alongside 10 Para the unit’s AV-8s would be used to do what the Scorpions and Stormers do : armed recce, fire support, etc. There will still be a requirement however for soft skins to quip pathfinder and recce elements.
The hardware aside; my personal preference would be for the unit to be “tweaked” to better meet the types of threats likely to be faced (like what others are doing with their jump units to make them more relevant/flexible) and for focus to also be given towards improving the units’s signals, engineering and logistical elements.
In our context what added value would a medium tank provide? It wont be able to defeat a MBT and will have minimal protection. Also, against IFVs one doesn’t need a medium tank. It would be different if we operated in areas with a poor road network or have a requirement for medium tank capable of being air lifted to work alongside units in an expeditionary role : we don’t. For 10 Para a wheeled or tracked IFV (equipped in various configurations) would offer more flexibility than a medium tank.
Most malaysians voted BN out to see some changes.
Lets see if we can get the 2nd batch of gempitas for the same price as the omanis have.
The current government has its hands full trying to resolve the numerous issues facing the country and also resolving internal issues faced within the coalition. Even if the economy improves I really doubt that major attention will be given towards defence; unless of course something significant happens.
Personally I don’t have much faith the Defence Minister and interestingly, of late it has been the Deputy Minister that has been issuing statements. The armed services have to make a good case for themselves in justifying procurement but strong leadership at MINDEF is also essential.
I’ve asked before several times : Is our procurement threat or capability driven?
As to “potential opponents” we still have unresolved issues with Singapore and Indonesia but the aim is to equip the MAF in order to have a deterrent effect, in case the unexpected occurs. Traditionally, despite whatever issue we have with our neighbours down south, our main concern has always been Indonesia. Yes the value of a White Paper is that it keeps the ordinary citizen informed as to the direction being taken towards defence and the threats/challenges being faced.
The Police weren’t given RPGs for the tank killing role. Also, I wouldn’t say a RPG (or any shoulder fired weapon) is not as good as a ATGW as it depends totally on the circumstances. In retracted terrain where engagement ranges are short, a shoulder fired weapon will be more useful. Vietnam indeed worries about China but not Laos which has become so economically dependent on China to the extent it has become a vassal state. There are no provisions in place for a civilian to own and maintain in driving condition an ex army IFV/AFV but the owner would have to have very deep pockets to keep a Scorpion or Sibmas running.
Other than improving on the units’s signals, engineering and logistical elements, what kind of tweak do you suggest? What “others” are doing that you would like 10 PARA to emulate?
These papers has lots of ideas on what we can do with our parachute brigades.
Reading these papers gave me the idea of having best of both worlds, air droppable high mobility with DAGORs and armoured support vehicles with ZBD-03s. Its the middle road choice, light mobility with armoured support, that our current airlift assets can transport and deliver.
A rapid deployable company of 12 sections (96men) plus an IFV platoon (12men on 4 IFVs) on 10 DAGORs and 4 ZBD-03 can be dropped with 3x A400M. If that is not possible, a combination of 2x A400M and 2x C-130H can also be used. Because of our airlift constraints, that is why i suggest only to have 1 company sized ready force with the DAGOR and ZBD-03, because that is the size we can realistically drop/land at 1 go. The rest of the ready force would be conventional paratroopers on foot. As we have 4 para battalions, I expect only 1 battalion at a time would be a ready force, 1 company on DAGORs and ZBD-03s, another 3 company conventional paratroopers.
What i see in the DAGOR
– Organic personnel transport/fire support vehicle/platform for para dropped force.
– 1 DAGOR can transport 1 whole para section (8men, while actually can fit 9). Not many small air droppable vehicle can do that.
– purposely designed to be air dropped and go fast off road. Suspensions and axles from off road racing trucks. Unlike civilian based vehicles like gwagens.
What i see in the ZBD-03
– IFV that could be easily deployed with para dropped force, more so that what armoured vehicles the 10 Para now has.
– similar size and range to the DAGORs
– as a fire and maneuver support vehicle. As it is armoured, it can go out and give support fire while itself is under fire, taking attention away from the rest of the force to move position, take cover etc. While fighting other infantry forces, those few IFVs would be a very important asset. The example that weighs heavily in my choice was the falklands war, where the infantry vs infantry battle was tilted to the british’s favour with the few (8) scimitars and scorpions available to the british forces.
– as a command platform for the rest of the force on DAGORs
– as a recce platform, with telescopic optical masts mounted to the side of the rear troop door.
I would also like to see paratroopers vehicles to be standardised to just 3, the Supacats, DAGORs and ZBD-03s. Supacats can be the air droppable gun towers for the new LG1 howitzers too, other than its usual use as a mechanical mule for logistics.
Chua: “Oman buying PARS III aka AV8 from Turkey, abotu 145 units plus ~20 units 6×6 version in 13 variants, for $500m or about $3m apiece. How much were our AV8s again…?”
It is not about the unit price only. Transfer of technology is pricey. In addition MY asked 12 variants which FNSS must do R&D to fulfill it. The question is can local defence industry absorb the knowledge and improve it in the future? Sadly local industries have proven they are failed many times.
Azlan: ‘In our context what added value would a medium tank provide? It wont be able to defeat a MBT and will have minimal protection. Also, against IFVs one doesn’t need a medium tank”
IFV and medium tank is complement at each other not substitution. Both have different role. IFV is designed for infantry unit but medium tank is designed for cavalry unit. IFV strong point is rapid fire but medium tank is fire power. If there is a case IFV vs medium tank then i would rather in medium tank. Modern medium tank hull has protection stanag 4568 level 5/6 which can stand 25/30mm. But single 105mm cannon can blow an IFV.
Modern medium tank can throw ATGM, even if it is not design against mbt but can give mbt a bloody nose. Modern cannon turret have elevation +42° which give ability in non-direct fire, but still it doesnt means it can replace mortars or howitzer or sph.
As i said before, Retiring scorpion will make TDM rely on PT91 for fire power. It will be a busy day for PT91.
We have like less than a dozen servicable scorpions!
Yes we have the PT-91M now as our main MBT. The scorpions is at best just a fire support vehicle for infantry units, as is our SIBMAS. Scorpion retirement needs to be replaced with a vehicle useful for 10PARA and also be easily deployable to support 10PARA deployment.
Sorry but I am with azlan on this.
PERISTA was basically threat driven, having to refocus our defence from countering Communist in the jungle, to facing off with the neighbours.
I can’t say for all procurements, but big ticket items like Hornets/Migs, MIFVs/Adnans, Pendekars, Scorpenes, AV8s, are towards modernising and keeping up with the advancements by the neighbours. So can it be said to be capability driven?
But as you mentioned before, each country has their own doctrine to their armed forces and I’m of the opinion we shouldn’t keep up with the Jones just because they have better toys. If our light reaction forces doesn’t have a need for armour, then I’m of the opinion we shouldn’t waste money to buy them.
I’m not against any idea of airdropped vehicle for 10PARA. Actually i wish it can be true. But, Does 10 PARA have this kind of doctrine? What 10 PARA is designed for?
Airdropped vehicle is expensive and high risk. In airdropped ops, even a man can land far far away anywhere outside the drop zone and found dead. An airdropped vehicle can land upside down or on top of someone house.
10PARA is designed as QRF. The keyword is quick. They are dropped near hot spot, a light portable equipment is what they need. They can bring a portable atgm but not AV8 ATGM.
Scorpion tanks’ main asset is speed. Even behemoth Abram mbts are regularly disabled and destroyed by Yemeni Houtous guerrillas. Tactics plays a vital role in survivality of armoured vehicles. It’s up to the commanders on the ground and quality of trainings and sound maintenance. Politicians like to dictate what’s suitable for the military which is often the case.
Firstly you will always choose a DZ that is big enough for the intended drop.
Secondly calculations of wind speed etc by pathfinder team on DZ and right now advanced drop sonde that can be thrown out of the aircraft by the loadmaster can check winds aloft data etc for calculations of exact drop point.
Thirdly, right now there is plenty of GPS and INS guided parachute systems that can guide pallets to its DZ.
BTW this is a picture of french 17th Parachute Engineer Regiment, TNA airborne tractors. Designed specially for airdrop and can withstand 50G of landing force.
What you said is already in SOP. Even in training airdropping which safety is priority can not eliminate mislanding. Wind speed and direction can change drastically during dropping.
In real ops when mission is priority than safety sometimes the ops must be done even if there is barely big enough DZ, sloopy soil, etc..
Yes, there is INS and GPS guided parachute but as you read it only can reduced the risk not eliminate. There is accuracy of 50-75 metres of mislanding which means in MY and the rest of SEA earth countour, the cargo/vehicle can still landing on a swamp or sloopy soil or on top of trees.
For country whose military assets are plenty enough, lossing several during dropping is not significant. In MY context is another story.
There is a reason why 10PARA has no vehicle dropping doctrine at least fo now.
I agree with romeo on this. There is no need for vehicles so why waste the money.
Dose anyone Notice our MINDEF Signed MoU from Japan buying Ex-Fighter or P-3C Orion.
MOUs are nothing really, if nothing goes thru there is no repercussion. This unlike LOI where it is legally binding.
As for Japan, if we have to pay for their high mileage planes then better don’t take their offer. The P3s would be tempting if the planes are donated and we only have to pay for refurbishment and crew training.