Sooner Gempita Than Later, Part 2

4 KAD new vehicles at the ceremony on Sept 11. Tentera Darat.

SHAH ALAM: The first batch of Deftech Gempita 8X8 vehicles transferred to 4 KAD has arrived at its camp in Kuching, Sarawak. The Gempita was shipped to Kuching onboard KD Mahawangsa which berthed at the Pending port on September 6.

A ceremony to mark the arrival of the Gempita at 4 KAD was held on September 11, led by the Eastern Field Command Commander Lt Gen Sopi Lepi. The release – published on September 15 – from the command:

Among the new vehicles for 4 KAD – Gempita AFV30, Gempita ambulance and Volvo recovery truck. Tentera Darat.

๐—Ÿ๐—”๐—ช๐—”๐—ง๐—”๐—ก ๐—ž๐—˜๐—ฅ๐—๐—” ๐—ฃ๐—”๐—ก๐—š๐—Ÿ๐—œ๐— ๐—” ๐— ๐—˜๐——๐—”๐—ก ๐—ง๐—œ๐— ๐—จ๐—ฅ ๐—ง๐—˜๐—ก๐—ง๐—˜๐—ฅ๐—” ๐——๐—”๐—ฅ๐—”๐—ง ๐—ž๐—˜ ๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—๐—œ๐— ๐—˜๐—ก ๐—ž๐—˜๐—˜๐— ๐—ฃ๐—”๐—ง ๐—ž๐—ข๐—ฅ ๐—”๐—ฅ๐— ๐—ข๐—ฅ ๐——๐—œ๐—ฅ๐—”๐—๐—”
KOTA SAMARAHAN, 11 Sep 23 – Panglima Medan Timur Tentera Darat (PMT TD), Lt Jen Datoโ€™ Mohd Sofi bin Md Lepi telah melakukan lawatan kerja ke Rejimen Keempat Kor Armor Diraja (4 KAD), Kem Penrissen, Kuching.
Ketibaan PMT TD disambut oleh Pegawai Memerintah 4 KAD, Lt Kol (Dr) Wong Wai Loong. Beliau seterusnya diperkenalkan dengan pegawai-pegawai 4 KAD sebelum mendengar taklimat lawatan yang disampaikan oleh Pegawai Memerintah 4 KAD. Lawatan kerja ini bertujuan untuk meninjau aset Kenderaan Perisai (KP) 8 x 8 GEMPITA yang dipindah alih dari pasukan 1 KAD, Kuantan.
Majlis diakhiri dengan acara menandatangi buku lawatan dan penyampaian cenderahati. Turut hadir adalah Panglima Divisyen Pertama Infantri Malaysia (1 Div), Mej Jen Hassan bin Embong serta Pegawai-pegawai MK PMTTD.

4 KAD with their new vehicles. From left Gempita command, AFV30, mortar and Volvo recovery truck. Tentera Darat

From the picture released we now know that among 26 Gempita transferred from 1 KAD include the command, AFV30, ambulance and mortar variants. 4 KAD also received a Volvo 8×8 recovery truck from 1 KAD.
Eastern Field Command commander Lt Gen Sopi Lepi signing the VIP book. With him are 1 Div GOC Maj Gen Hassan Embong (left) and 4 KAD CO Lt Kol (Dr) Wong Wai Loong.

With 26 Gempita, KAD is expected to field one company of Gempita with the headquarters company operating two or three Gempita including the ambulance variant. The Volvo recovery truck is also likely to be operated by the headquarters company.
Eastern Field Command CO Lt Gen Sopi Lepi being introduced to 4 KAD officers.

What about the two other companies then? It is likely that three companies in 4 KAD will rotate to use the Gempita available until they get new vehicles which is the NMLTV 4X4 vehicles. As there is not enough Gempita and NMLTV to go around the five armour regiments, it is likely that 6X6 vehicles will be procured in the next RMK.

Unless they decide to buy more Gempita 8X8s of course.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1984 Articles
Shah Alam

61 Comments

  1. “Unless they decide to buy more Gempita 8X8s of course.”
    We know the TDM prefers more Gempitas than the compromise of 6×6. And that this Govt will be more than ever dependent on Armed Forces votes if it wants to survive the next GE. The army being in such an influential position, might stand a chance to get what they wanted if they push enough buttons and put enough pressure at the right places. But countering is the limited budget we have for defence, so lets see which side the shoe will fall towards. Firstly lets see whether TDM will actually get the Caesar that they wanted or yet another system.

  2. From my observation

    1. There is no mortar variant in KAD. Mortar variant is only with 19RAMD. That is an ambulance variant.

    2. Volvo Kembalik wrecker/recovery truck is the latest version with dozer blade and armored cabin. It is also armed with GPMG on the roof hatch. 1 KAD has been transferring quite a few of Volvo Kembalik out as there was also 1 more transferred to port dickson (ZC3381 with non armored cab) to support the CBRNE Gempitas. So currently the army has 3 versions of the Volvo FMX Kembalik
    1. 6×4 version. Some sent to Lebanon are of this version
    2. 8×6 version with regular cab
    3. 8×6 version with armored cab and dozer blade

    3. In KAD regiments, usually the kembalik trucks (and also fitter vehicles) is attached to the REME/KJLJ squadron, not the HQ squadron.

  3. From my observation

    1. There is no mortar variant in KAD. Mortar variant is only with 19RAMD. That is an ambulance variant.

    2. Volvo Kembalik wrecker/recovery truck is the latest version with dozer blade and armored cabin. It is also armed with GPMG on the roof hatch. 1 KAD has been transferring quite a few of Volvo Kembalik out as there was also 1 more transferred to port dickson (ZC3381 with non armored cab) to support the CBRNE Gempitas. So currently the army has 3 versions of the Volvo FMX Kembalik
    1. 6×4 version. Some sent to Lebanon are of this version
    2. 8×6 version with regular cab
    3. 8×6 version with armored cab and dozer blade

    3. In KAD regiments, usually the kembalik trucks (and also fitter vehicles) is attached to the REME/KJLJ squadron, not the HQ squadron.

  4. Everything is political moreso these days than before, and even folks that used to have no say now realised they got a voice (and voting power) where power & influence has effectively been decentralised.

  5. So if the Government says they are ok with getting more Gempita, and ignoring the cost aspect, will the Army order more Gempita? Its either the Gempita is too insert something to be effective (e.g. too big, too heavy, too difficult to maintain), or the Gempita is better than what we initially planned for. Recall, originally, it was supposed to be a 6×6 vehicle, not 8×8.

  6. Any idea why we are using a truck as a recovery vehicle and not another Gempita. Was it cost cutting or no necessity?

  7. Imo just 54 ATGM 30mm turret would be insufficient as fire support in terms of numbers to replace the sibmas.Atleast another 54 new orders would be needed to cover sabah amd sarawak, if budget exist

  8. This again presents a prime example of the extremely flawed way we approach defence.
    We go through all the trouble to undertake local assembly [which some think i actually beneficial] and acquire IP rights and – as usual – bask in the hubris – ultimately we can’t afford to acquire follow on AV-8s and because if that we don’t need anymore.

    Yet again the end user and tax payer gets screwed and we indulge in yet another ”buy a bit of something but not enough of everything”.

    Kamal A – ”Imo just 54 ATGM 30mm turret would be insufficient as fire support in terms of numbers to replace the sibmas”

    The 30mmm auto cannon’s primary aim is to defeat enemy IFVs and whether 54 is ”insufficient” or not depends wholly on operational circumstances – low intensity conflict of limited duration or a long drawn high intensity one?

    Kamal A – ”Atleast another 54 new orders would be needed to cover sabah amd sarawak, if budget exist”

    There is a certain quality to quantity but have you heard Napoleon’s or was it Frederick the Great?] adage – ”he who defends everything defends nothing” We simply can’t ”cover” everything everywhere; even if the threat situation warrants it; it doesn’t. Also; even if we had enough AV-8s do we have enough arty, ammo, AD, MBTs, counter battery radar; UASs; spares, etc, etc, etc,?

  9. Looks like itโ€™s theoretically possible that in the future, a regiment will consist of 1 company with 8×8 vehicles (Gempita), 1 company with 6×6 vehicles and 1 company with 4×4 vehicles (NMLTV).

  10. @kel
    “it was supposed to be a 6ร—6 vehicle, not 8ร—8”
    IINM, it was supposedly more Gempitas but due to costs it was downgraded to a mix of 6×6 & 4×4 to keep to the numbers that we needed or something.

    “The Army has no further needs for more Gempita”
    I thought there was not enough Gempitas to go around, even you said so in this post.

    “We go through all the trouble to undertake local assembly [which some think i actually beneficial]”
    In a way yes, it did create hundreds of jobs, nearly 1k, for the many years they were in production at Pekan. But otherwise I agree with your other points.

    โ€buy a bit of something but not enough of everythingโ€
    I thought UBAH was supposed to ubah that but nothing has changed it seems.

    Ultimately whether such redistribution is due to overprovision of KAD1 or a strategic necessity to give more umph to underequipped regiments has to be weighted in what TDM wants for the future. If they can hold out using regular troop transporters because we arent at war and thus arent urgent need for IFV/APC, fine, but playing merry go round with their existing equipment is not really a solution.

  11. With the Air Force, we know its LCA then MRCA. Fast jets, combat jets, multi-role jets. Fly faster, fly further, carry more weapons. With the Navy, we know its LCS, LMS and then more LCS and LMS. Warships, large ships, multi-role ships, missiles. What exactly is the Army’s asset plans? It’s not about tanks – they haven’t bought any in 20 years and have not modernised the existing tanks. It’s not about rockets – they haven’t bought more MLRS or bought advanced rockets. It’s not artillery, since the SPH will replace the G5s, despite setting up a new artillery unit with no artillery. It’s not 8×8 size or type vehicles since they don’t want more Gempitas despite not having enough. They seem to want a specific type of 4x4s but one day it’s a Ferret type vehicle, another it becomes a MRAP type vehicle suggesting the 4×4 is a Condor replacement, which is still outstanding. Then there is the need for 6×6. If they don’t want more Gempitas which was the original 6×6 requirement, why get more 6×6 today? Is the 6×6 meant to behave like light tanks such as the Scorpions and Sibmas which the Army used to have – the Army plans to bring back an old doctrine or they haven’t updated their own doctrine in 30 years? Then maybe the Army plans to push 2km+ ATGW weapons further down the chain of command (e.g., at company level). Yet only 18 ATGW ordered, to replace 18 existing ATGW. While we understand what the other 2 branches are doing, it isn’t quite clear (to me at least) what is the Army doing.

  12. Requirement for new k.j.a is extremely confusing. Requirement or specification should be 1 only, 4×4, 6×6 or 8×8 from day one. At least it will assist our local industrial players to properly propose something

  13. “Unlikely it will be a mix of vehicles, really.”
    So unlike a combined maneuver force, we will likely see a more homogenous individual units, where a regiment will be all Gempitas, another all MIFV/KIFV, another all Adnans, another all 4×4 + 6×6. Something like that?

  14. Armoured formation in my view should be at least a sibmas or scorpion equivalent, such as the Turkish build kaplan, italian centauro or upgunned with 105mm gun version of gempita. This is for both anti armour and infantry fire support role.
    Anyway if my memory serves me right, the condor replacement is the adnan afv, mifv/kifv and gempita. But the 6×6 requirement is more towards the need of Malbatt Unifil previous ops area.
    Hence the 4×4 is more for recce purposes as mentioned by Marhalim. If as such that means our kja is limited to MIFV/KIFV, Gempita and the future 4×4, correct me if I’m wrong.
    Anyway in my opinion we should upgrade part of the condors inc of slep so that our wataniah will be able to used it as battle taxis

  15. @Kamal Ariffin
    If the Gempita AFV30 ATGW can perform the same role as Sibmas, why spend all that money just for another new variant solely for us?

    As for your repurpose of Condors as 2ndary battle taxis, I fully agree and said this many times. We have hundreds of them, lets not waste it.

  16. @joe.
    In my opinion, it does and doesn’t fully fullfil the role of sibmas. T does in the anti armour role by means of the ingwe atgm but it’s limitations is when the 30mm gun used for infantry fire support role, saturation bombardment against well dug enemies position. It also has zero effect on a armour Vs armour scenario. Furthermore the number of spare atgm rounds is limited as compared to the 105mm rounds.
    Just my 2 sen opinion

  17. @Kamal Ariffin
    You based your assumption that an IFV 105mm gun has the same punch as an MBT 105mm ie Centurion. The truth is far from it, these are lightweight guns meant for fire support and anti-IFV role.

    Modern autoloaded 30mm armament can rapidly put more firepower onto a target than slower loading 105mm (even with an autoloader) and its APFDS round can penetrate nearly all IFV peers & Cold War MBTs, something the 105mm gun could not do.

    Also these days the role of IFV for fire support is lessen due to infantries now carry a heavier punch with RPG7, CG, NLAW, etc, and fire support from arties section ie G5, Astros, upcoming SPH, not to forget we have the Pendekars now, plus the airforce. Rather, modern IFVs have evolved to support dismounted infantry against other infantry movements and as defence against enemy IFVs.

    An IFV with 105mm gun is akin to light tanks and its role has became singular & niche thus why such a vehicle type is rare in other forces and some ie Stryker MGS, were trialed but eventually that idea was not put into operational use.

    Sibmas were useful back when soldiers only had M16s and handgrenades but modern warriors have a much heavier arsenal at their disposal as above. Fire support type IFVs are no longer a necessary imho.

  18. ATGW AFV/IFV are primarily meant for mechanised infantry – so how you equip your mounted infantry is equally important. Light tanks are essentially direct fire artillery, it can engage othet tanks and vehicles, or provide artillery like fire support. For example you could put a 105mm round into a building to clear it but you wouldnt waste a ATGM. A 30mm could perhaps do the same job but it wouldnt compare to what a couple of 105mm rounds can accomplish. Suppose the target is a tank, sure ATGW might perform better with its top down fire, but that doesnt mean a 105mm cannon can’t do the job. The British used to have light tanks. The French still use AMX10C light “tanks” which suits their Africa operations. US built the Stryker MGS but retired it early. The US did introduce a new tracked light tank in the M10 Booker, suggesting the US do see a need for light tanks. There’s no right or wrong, just the doctrine which flows into the force structure, equipment, strategy, and tactics.

  19. kel – ”ATGW AFV/IFV are primarily meant for mechanised infantry ”

    When and where did you get this flawed notion?

    kel – ”The British used to have light tanks. ”

    In short armies get light tanks or 105/90mm equipped IFVs for reasons; the French have traditionally had a need to deploy to Africa; the PLA wants something which can be dropped over Taiwan; the South Africans see a need for a long range recce/fire support assets; etc

    Kel – ”Thereโ€™s no right or wrong, just the doctrine which flows into the force structure, equipment, strategy, and tactics.”

    You’ve actually said something I agree with In our context I highly doubt we need a light tank or a IFV armed with a 105mm gun for the reason I’ve alluded to BTW discover the use of paragraphs as it makes it easier for others.

  20. Kamal – ”Armoured formation in my view should be at least a sibmas or scorpion equivalent, such as the Turkish build kaplan, italian centauro or upgunned with 105mm gun version of gempita. ”

    You aren’t the first to say this… Do we actually need a light tank? In the past it was different as infantry units only had a Carl Gustav and 90mm armed vehicles were in
    line with our low intensity requirements. Now infantry units have ATGWs, shoulder mounted weapons and MGLS and we have IFVs with direct and indirect fire weapons. Do we really need another platform merely for fire support?

    Kamal – ”upgunned with 105mm gun version of gempita. ”

    Do do what? Take out light tanks; IFVs or bunkers? There are infantry operated direct fire weapons and IFVS with 25/30mm auto cannons.

    Kamal – ”anyway in my opinion we should upgrade part of the condors inc ”

    Water under the bridge. What plans there were to do so have long been scrapped and a ”battle taxis” the Condor has an inherent limitation on account of being a 4×4 vehicle. Also do you realise that Condors can be penetrated by 7.62mm AP?

  21. Kel “The US did introduce a new tracked light tank in the M10 Booker, suggesting the US do see a need for light tanks”

    Likely among others reasons is because US would keep the Abram going forward but the European which plan to replace the leopard with a lighter more nimble tank do not have any light tank programs currently.

    The French also had ‘let go’ of their light tank needs as the jaguar ebrc would relied on ATGM rather than a cannon. One of their reasoning is smaller gun that can shot while moving is whole lot better than a big gun that can only shoot while stationary.

  22. Modern western doctrine relies more on rock, scissors, paper approach. Using the right tool for the problem – light tanks are optional. MBTs and light tanks is the same high/low mix concept practiced in air forces and navies. MBTs are heavier and expensive. They can’t be everywhere, but infantry always needs some form of fire support nearby. Among NATO countries, only the US can afford to maintain light tanks. Another country that can afford light tanks is China. The French is simply following what everyone is doing given budget constraints, and the new European MBT is not replacing the Leopard 2 with a smaller tank. The MGCS is only lighter in the context of using for example more automation or lighter equipment. But when fully kitted, it is intended to be a MBT of the same category of the Leclerc, Leopard 2 (and Challenger 2). Besides France has at least 300 Leclerc, UK has at least 200 Challenger 2, and Germany has at least 300 Leopard 2 tanks, while the rest of NATO has at least another 500 Leopard 2 tanks – easier to justify not using light tanks. They also have much larger air forces to provide air to ground support, more attack helicopters, more artillery, more MLRS, heavier use of precision weapons, and way more ATGW systems and ammunition – basically they have the right tools to fight the way their doctrine intended. In contrast, Malaysia’s Army does not have enough modern MBTs, not enough artillery, doesn’t have guided rocket munitions or launchers, not enough ATGW systems and ammunition – basically other than 30mm type weaponry, there really isn’t enough fire support to go around. So, the question is, does how the Malaysia Army intend to fight still require a light tank? Personally, no because of budgetary reasons. Until another more MBTs are bought, light tanks maybe the only way.

  23. @kel
    “direct fire artillery, it can engage othet tanks and vehicles”
    Light tank rounds have less due to low recoil gun & lightweight rounds, as fire support it has less firepower than true 105mm arty shells, and it will not have the same punch as 105mm MBT guns so as an anti armour its effectiveness is limited to taking on IFVs. Tanks? I don’t think so if they were armoured at least against 105mm MBT rounds.

    “The US did introduce a new tracked light tank in the M10 Booker”
    Still too early and only in the stage of putting to operation trial phase. It might still go the way of MGS which likely it might for a few reasons; technically it is overweight for its class. Japan’s Type 10 weighed about the same but its an MBT which carries the ubiquitous 120mm gun vs the M10’s low recoil gun (basically it still cannot match the punch of a Patton or Centurion MBT). Time will tell but I won’t put my money on it proposition and so should we.

    @Zaft
    “US would keep the Abram going forward”
    The Abrams will remain in the foreseeable future as war with Russia are getting more likely and US will need to replenish their stocks donated to Ukraine. US programs has nothing to do with the Europeans, more likely its about trialing various types of weapons & ideas and sometimes rehashing old ones.

    “Also do you realise that Condors can be penetrated by 7.62mm AP?”
    Refreshed Condors would be used where fighting would not likely take place. I doubt many recce/forward scouts that penetrated the rear line would be armed with 7.62mm AP weapons.

  24. We should consider the purchase of australian army ASLAV once they are retired. That 256 in number should complete the requirement for IFVs for all our KADs.

  25. The ASLAV are in bad condition really. If we really to buy second hand armoured vehicles, it should be the first generation Strykers retired by the US Army.

  26. Kel “The MGCS is only lighter in the context of using for example more automation or lighter equipment. But when fully kitted, it is intended to be a MBT”

    MBT refer to the numbers rather than weight really. It just mean the most numerous tanks one had. The armata & K2 despite being lighters & nimbler are as much a ‘MBT’ as leopard & Abrams. The MGCS are envision to be lighters In weight to improve it mobility which is the main disadvantage of Abrams & leopard.

    The improvement in mobility is possibly one of the reasons why the European like the Korean aren’t exactly interested in a ‘light tanks’

    Our pendekar would need to be replaced in a decade & by then if MGCS is still on track then there’s would be 3 option for a lighter, nimbler high mobility MBT along with K2 & atlay to replace our pendekar with.

    Kel “In contrast, Malaysiaโ€™s Army does not have enough modern MBTs, not enough artillery, doesnโ€™t have guided rocket munitions or launchers, not enough ATGW systems and ammunition”

    In general we do not have the capability, interest nor desire to defend ourselves by ourselves. Like OZ, Our 50 tanks + 200 8×8 aren’t going to win any war ourselves what more an attritional war.

    Small trade dependent countries like us,OZ ,SG do not have the capability for independent foreign policy nor unilateral decision making. We survived by aligning, partnering & thus our military composition reflects that. It’s is there to hold the fort’ till foreign cavalry arrived, to be a rapid deployable force & to show the flag if we join a partner military campaigns.

  27. Since we can repower and rehull our antique patrol vessels, I am sure we have enough workshops that can refurbish and repower those ASLAVs on the cheap.

    Them 1st Gen Strykers, Thailand and Ukraine are way ahead of us.

  28. If we really want to buy second hand armoured vehicles, it should be those that is similar to what is already in service with Tentera Darat.

    That means additional Daewoo KIFV or FNSS ACV-15 or the similar M113 FOV. Upgrade them locally to have same standards as the current MIFV/Adnan.

    Maybe topup/attrition reserve (1-2 dozen?) for PT-91 (250+ build, 120 earmarked for ukraine, should be a few left)

    Other used items we could get for Tentera Darat
    – blackhawk helicopters
    – ex afghan stored MD530F in USA
    – 12 retired G5 155mm howitzers from Qatar.
    – GDF-005 AAG (if available??)
    – Mod 56 105mm howitzers (for attrition reserve)
    – USMC retired 120mm rifled mortars + ammo (same system as our 120mm mortar on Adnan & Gempita but towed. USMC also have guided munitions for the mortar)

  29. @Hasnan
    Bad condition could mean all sorts of things; from worn out mechanicals which needs extensive & expensive replacements, complete wiring replacement, replacement of worn electronics, sensors & optics, some parts could be specific to ASLAV version and thus may be hard or expensive to get unless we engage Aussie companies to do the refurb. Such a program, if it were considered, would be first on the chopping block much like our M109 buy which never came.

    Rather, these LAV derivatives (ASLAV, LAV3, Stryker) are small for a 8×8 and has limited use nor room for much growth/adaptation.

  30. Zaft – I think you’re confusing concepts. Europeans retire their light tanks because they have no budget to maintain 2 types of tanks, and modern western doctrine prioritise rock, scissors, paper approach to fighting. You need enough of the rock, scissors, and papers (e.g., enough tanks, missiles, rockets, jets, ships, artillery, precision weapons, etc.) not only because of attrition during war, but to ensure ability to fight according to doctrine. Malaysia being a trade dependent country and the convoluted reasoning makes no sense because every country in the world is trade dependent. Japan, China, India, Australia, Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam, United States, Canada, Brazil, India, even Russia are trade dependent countries – some more than others but all rely on trade to grow their economies. By your logic, I’m not sure why Malaysia should spend on defence if we have no interest or ability to defend ourselves (the oxymoron) especially given the experience of Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia. That oxymoron logic and thinking is why the majority of voters don’t understand and don’t care for spending on defence. That sort of thinking is also why many in Malaysia still think Malaysia’s military is strong relative to other countries in the region.

  31. Geologically Peninsula Malaysia only has a few hundreds km of border with Thailand and on Borneo a few thousand km but both are covered by jungle, so there is minimal risk of armed conflict in the classic European type of warfare. But we do have maritime potential clash due to territorial claims overlap..most Malaysian know our armed forces not as powerful as our neighbors but we just cannot afford an arm race..

  32. … – ”12 retired G5 155mm howitzers from Qatar.”

    On paper yes but in reality the artmy would want this like a hole in the head. As it stands it’s ready to bin the G-5s. The G-5s are big and cumbersome; take time to move in and out of position and to lay. It’s also apparent that the losses of towed arty have been significantly higher than non towed ones in the Ukraine.

    … – ”Other used items we could get for Tentera Darat
    โ€“ blackhawk helicopters
    โ€“ ex afghan stored MD530F in USA”

    The keyword is ”could”. On paper we could still get stored FH-70s from Saudi or various other things from various other avenues. Does the Army Aviation Corps actually have a requirement for MD530Fs? With most of its limited manpower already being utilised to operate/sustain the 10 A-109s and 6 Little Birds; how long would it take to be ready for addittional assets in the near future?

    kel – ”Using the right tool for the problem โ€“ light tanks are optional. ”

    Depends on whether they fit into an army’s CONOPS.

    kel – ”Another country that can afford light tanks is China”

    As was explained to you the PLA needs light tanks because they see a need to air drop armour over Taiwan and also to operate on the Tibetian plateau.

    Kel – ”Malaysiaโ€™s Army does not have enough modern MBTs, not enough artillery, doesnโ€™t have guided rocket munitions or launchers, not enough ATGW systems and ammunition ”

    Granted but ”enough” in what context? To fight a protracted high intensity war or a limited one?

    kel – ”Until another more MBTs are bought, light tanks maybe the only way.”

    Would a pencil be an adequate substitute for a pen when a pen is needed? As has been pointed out [maybe you missed it] there remains no substitute for a MBT when it comes to declaring mobile and protected firepower; whether on the offensive or active defence.

    Discover the use of paragraphs….

    kel – ”So, the question is, does how the Malaysia Army intend to fight still require a light tank? Personally, no because of budgetary reasons.”

    ”No” because unlike the past it has IFVs with direct and indirect fire weapons and has infantry armed with MGLS and various shoulder fired weapons; as well as ATGWs.

    ”efreshed Condors would be used where fighting would not likely take place. I doubt many recce/forward scouts that penetrated the rear line would be armed with 7.62mm AP weapons.”

    Having a protected platform to move troops around is great but the Condor has inherent mobility issues; has very weak armour [easily penetrated by splinters and 7.62mm AP and we have less than about 150 less and even then numbers are rapidly dwindling; some as target practice and many as scrap.

    zaft – ”why the European like the Korean arenโ€™t exactly interested in a โ€˜light tanksโ€™”

    Understand the pertinent fact that armies have light tanks for various reasons; many I’ve alluded to in this thread and various others over the years.

  33. zaft – ”In general we do not have the capability, interest nor desire to defend ourselves by ourselves.”

    Silly … Who says we ”do not have the capability, interest nor desire to defend ourselves by ourselves”? Do you till not get the fact that the MAF is equipped, trained and funded for limited non protracted wars?

    Zaft – ”Like OZ, Our 50 tanks + 200 8ร—8 arenโ€™t going to win any war ourselves what more an attritional war”

    Depends.. Against whom : 2nd SS Panzer Corps or 5th Tanks Guard Army? The ”50 tanks + 200 8ร—8” are intended to be used in limited type conflicts; the type we foresee
    ourselves [right or wrong; disagree or agree] being faced with.

  34. kel – ”I think youโ€™re confusing concepts. Europeans retire their light tanks because they have no budget to maintain 2 types of tanks, and modern western doctrine prioritise rock, scissors, paper approach to fighting. ”

    ”I think” you’re shooting the wrong calibre. First of all most European armies do not need light tanks as part of their CONOPS and don’t find them survivable enough. Secondly it might [or might not not] have occurred to you that a few European armies still see the need for IFVs armed with something heavier than a 20/30mm auto cannon.

    Zaft – ” MBT refer to the numbers rather than weight really. It just mean the most numerous tanks one had.”

    Absolute bloody nonsense…. The main factor or criteria which makes the distinction between a ”main battle tank” and a ”medium/light tank” is weight …..

    Zaft – ”Our pendekar would need to be replaced in a decade ”

    Ho pray tell did you conjure up a ”decade”? If you mean sustainment issues they can be sustained for much longer but if you mean survivability issues there could be a conflict next week which finds inherent issues with the T-72 design ”problematic” [I’m BTW understating things].

    zaft – ”why the European like the Korean arenโ€™t exactly interested in a โ€˜light tanksโ€™”

    Incorrect.

    – It doesn’t fit in their CONOPs.
    – Not survivable enough.

  35. mofaz โ€“ โ€but both are covered by jungle,โ€

    You left out the part where the country has become increasingly urbanised the past 3 decades; more cities, towns, highways, overpasses, bridges, etc. More areas conducive for the employment of heavy armour.
    Also donโ€™t make the common mistake/assumption that heavy armour canโ€™t be operated in the jungle; it can and if you look it up there are historical examples.

    mofaz โ€“ โ€ so there is minimal risk of armed conflict in the classic European type of warfare.”

    What pray tell does ”classic European type of warfare” even mean?

    ”mofaz โ€“ โ€But we do have maritime potential clash due to territorial claims overlap..โ€

    Which oblivious to most people; have at times become โ€heatedโ€ and had the potential of escalating and I donโ€™t mean China.

  36. ”Tanks? I donโ€™t think so if they were armoured at least against 105mm MBT rounds.”

    Indeed but that is dependent on them not meeting anything beyond a light tank. Take the Indians; years ago they issued a RFI for a light tank which could operate in the far north of the country; an area with a poor road infrastructure. The idea was that the light tanks wouls only meet other light tanks and not anything heavier.

    ”It might still go the way of MGS which likely it might for a few reasons; technically it is overweight for its class.”

    Or the Sheridan which was meant to be airdropped but was eventually found wanting and binned.

  37. “What pray tell does โ€classic European type of warfareโ€ even mean?” – Tank vs tank on open fields / plains ..Ours are more like hide and seek, not sure how effective are Kamikaze drones like Lancets against targets hiding under thick jungle canopy ? Again dont think MBTs can Blitz across paddy fields, they will simple get stuck there ..

  38. @ Azlan

    “Itโ€™s also apparent that the losses of towed arty have been significantly higher than non towed ones in the Ukraine”
    Yes because most are totally not mobile. G5 has its own built-in engine that enables it to reposition itself.

    Additional 12 howitzers would increase our numbers to 40 guns, enabling 2 full regiments to be formed (18 guns with 21 RAD, and 18 guns with 23 RAD) plus 4 guns for training under Pusat Latihan Rejimen Artileri Diraja (PUSARTI). This would enable the army plan in ARMY 4 NEXT G to have similar capabilities in both East and West Malaysia. This would be the cheapest way to have 155mm howitzers in both East and West Malaysia.

    I wish we could add at least a battery worth of ASTROS II in East Malaysia, but so far Qatar and Saudi Arabia are not retiring theirs yet.

    Also a good idea is for us to get the low cost GLSDB (ground launched small diameter bomb) as our army long range precision attack system. 150km range with 1m accuracy. It is lobbed to high altitude by rocket and then glide down to its target. it is said that each GLSDB would cost around 150-200k USD, not millions like proper guided missiles. maybe think of a way for the GLSDB to be fired from the ASTROS II launcher.
    https://root-nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/glsdb-12.jpg

  39. … – ” G5 has its own built-in engine that enables it to reposition itself.”

    I knew you’d mention it. It [like the FH-70 and others] has a APU which is designed to make it easier to lay the gun and move it in and out of firing positions; not to ”reposition” or move away rapidly out of the area per see …. Even with the APU which enables slow speed; the G-5 [like other towed arty] is large and cumbersome.

    There is a reason why many armies have binned towed arty; why the Royal Artillery Corps doesn’t want anymore towed arty and why in the Ukraine towed arty has been far les survivable. Also note that the G-5 was designed with South African requirements in mind; the open bush of Angola and South West Africa.

    … – ”I wish we could add at least a battery worth of ASTROS II in East Malaysia”

    Before we do that I’d wish we acquired the enablers that enable effective arty and MLRSs to be delivered accurately and effectively; i.e. counter battery radars; changes in organisation and UASs.

    … – ”Also a good idea is for us to get the low cost GLSDB (ground launched small diameter bomb) as our army long range precision attack system. ”

    Probably but my main concern is detecting and fixing targets. Easy on paper; harder in actual practice.

    Mofaz – ”Again dont think MBTs can Blitz across paddy fields, they will simple get stuck there ..”

    – As I said; look up historical examples; i.e. the Aussies and Yanks deployed Centurions and M-48s extremely effectively in the jungles and paddies of South Vietnam; the NVA deployed MBTs very effectively in the jungles of Cambodia and Laos to hit Vietnam in the 1972 Spring Offensive and the one in 1975; the 1979 border clash with Vietnam and China in an area with poor roads saw MBTs deployed very effectively .
    – It’s not only weight but ground pressure.
    – MBTs an IFVs must always be accompanied by engineering support. Very little places a MBT with a 1/1.5000 HP engine can’t go.
    – Why would a MBT have to go ”bliz” or go across a paddy field? We aren’t South Vietnam in 1972 or Tarawa in 1943; there are roads; roads which can take a MBT and chances are the main fighting will be in urban areas because that’s where the strategic targets are; not some paddy field 5km south of Padang Besar. In some areas there are also logging tracks; if a logging track can take a lorry which hauls timber it can take a MBT [i.e. the TNI-AD has plans to deploy its Leo 2s along the border in the Tawau area].

  40. … – ”Also a good idea is for us to get the low cost GLSDB (ground launched small diameter bomb) as our army long range precision attack system. ”

    A strike/recce complex would be needed. One reason the Ukrainians have achieved such success with their long range strikes or to use a new term ”fires” is because they benefit from external intel to detect, fix and hit targets in a time sensitive and highly accurate manner. People go gaga about HIMARs but forget it wasn’t HIMARS by itself but HIMARS with a strike/recce complex that enabled the results that were obtained. Range is useless if you can’t fully exploit it; just like how one can’t fully exploit the capabilities of any jet unless it’s operated at a systems level.

    Sure we need many things whether long range rockets or more regiments but fundamentally we need to start from the basics and look at organisation [hasn’t changed much since Merdeka], doctrine, etc, – as it stands the army is conservative in its thinking and risk adverse. As mentioned before; of all of the army’s combat arms it’s the Royal Artillery Corps which has received the least attention.

    It neither has the numbers [as a former Deputy Minister once said; some brigades have just 12 guns – ok for the Emergency or against Tausug militants but nothing else]; nor the tertiary skills needed; it has to be able to mass fire without having massed guns; be able to rapidly shift fire and a way or means has to be found to detect, fix and hit targets in a time sensitive and highly accurate manner in coordination with other combat arms. A really good book on the subject is ”Steel Wind: Colonel Georg Bruchmuller and the Birth of Modern Artillery” [Zabecki]. It’s about WW1 artillery but all the principals are still valid.

  41. Latest counter battery radars are now very cheap, with AESA tech, fractions of the cost of the aging ARTHUR radar. For example the GM200 MM/C (a multi role version of GAPU GM200 received with starstreak) cost about USD 79.6 million for 5 radars.
    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/norway-to-procure-new-artillery-location-radars-from-thales

    RAD needs a UAV battery embedded in each of the division artillery HQ. Something small with the same performance of the Scaneagle. Need to have plenty of extra airframes for attrition replacement.

    Still the main eyes and ears of the artillery would be the forward observers and recce units (including cavalry armored recce vehicles). We need to have the app that Ukrainian is using, that could call on artillery fire like ordering food though grab or foodpanda. With AI any fire request would be sent to the nearest artillery piece, and a few different artillery pieces (even of different calibers, types) could answer the same request. This enables each artillery piece to move independently but still able to collectively fire at the same target. So each artillery piece could shoot and scoot to whatever place it can find. This will make counter artillery fire very difficult. With precision artillery fuse (like the M1156 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK)), even a specific building or bridge could be targeted. While something like the M1156 PGK is said to have a CEP of 30m, latest versions with improved electronics have been routinely shot with a CEP of less than 10m at 40km range. Turkiye has developed similar smart artillery fuse like the M1156 PGK.
    https://www.edrmagazine.eu/us-army-new-rounds-for-155-mm-artillery

    As of Mbt employment.
    In our tropical terrain, most of the time, mbt will be used mainly as fire support to mechanised infantry formation, rather than multiple brigade worth of mbts preparing to fight head-on with other mbts.

  42. @hulubalang
    blackhawk helicopters
    โ€“ ex afghan stored MD530F in USA
    โ€“ 12 retired G5 155mm howitzers from Qatar.
    โ€“ GDF-005 AAG (if available??)
    โ€“ Mod 56 105mm howitzers (for attrition reserve)
    โ€“ USMC retired 120mm rifled mortars
    Except the blackhawks (that also 50/50 due to high mileage), TDM would have little interest in the rest. As I understand the Little Birds were originally unwanted thus why would they want more. They wanted a more mobile force thus the 155mm SPH so why would they want more towed arty. Ditto with the towed 120mm mortar unless they can mount on vehicle or something. They also moved on to LG1 for light arty for PARA so why would they want more Mod56.

    “G5 has its own built-in engine that enables it to reposition itself”
    If you read the Ukraine War news, most of the counter fire onto each other occurred within minutes of initial firing. The concept of fixed arty is useful when not expecting counterattack and these days the lag time is only minutes. Even G5 will take 10-20 minutes to dismount and move to a safe area (which needs to be ready prior), more than too long to get away from danger.

    “This would be the cheapest way to have 155mm howitzers”
    It would seem the TDM isn’t looking for value for money, rather what works with their plan & their preferences (*looks at Caesar*).

    @kel
    “Malaysia still think Malaysiaโ€™s military is strong”
    Is that accurate? The general populace thinking is that we DON’T need to have strong military cause we aren’t at war with anyone so its a waste of money.

    @mofaz
    “so there is minimal risk of armed conflict in the type of warfare”
    If you mean mechanised thrust supported by mobile infantry, do remember the IJA came as such from Thai border and not from the sea. Geography never change so the possibility is still exist even today thus we also need to have a certain level of conventional land forces.
    “Again dont think MBTs can Blitz across paddy fields, they will simple get stuck there”
    The IJA tanks and infantry didnt get stuck on their swift march down towards SG.

    “Condor has inherent mobility issues; has very weak armour”
    As compared to our highriding, softskin Handalans? Hmm…. I think Condor is a wee bit better no?

    โ€main battle tankโ€ and a โ€medium/light tankโ€ is weight
    And also the gun calibre. Easily MBTs of recent era is 120mm above.

    “The idea was that the light tanks wouls only meet other light tanks”
    Tanks, whether light or MBT, typically designed to withstand rounds of its own calibre, thou not multiple shots or lucky ones just to be clear. So a low recoil lightweight 105mm round from an IFV would likely not direct penetrate even Cold War MBTs ie Patton or Centurion or T62s. Hence the lack of usability as an antiarmour as some puts it.

    “but was eventually found wanting and binned.”
    Old concepts never really go away permanently and often gets rehash by the next generation but the US Forces have vast resources & money to play around with ideas and able to absorb high failures and costly mistakes. We can’t.

    As it is I dont understand why TDM arent pushing actively for more Gempitas when clearly there is not enough.

  43. On the blackhawks…

    we need to look at where we are right now in time…

    Right now we are now nearing the 4th quarter of 2023. The Blackhawk first flight was in 17 October 1974. That was more than 49 years ago. Buying new blackhawks now is not like when we bought the Nuri, which was state of the art helicopter in the 1960s when we bought them. I don’t think we will use the Blackhawk for 50+ years into the future, like we use our Nuri for 50+ years, so there is really no incentive to buy new Blackhawks now. So it is fine in my opinion for PUTD to get used Blackhawks, freeing budget to get other important assets.

    US Army has even chosen the Blackhawk replacement, the Bell V-280 Valor. The Valor can fly 2x faster and 2x further than the Blackhawk.

    Helicopters, unlike fixed wing aircraft, the main fatigue item can be easily replaced (rotor blades). Which is why helicopters in US Army and others (like UK) are reset/rebuild many times to as new (zero hour) condition.

    A reset/rebuild Blackhawk can easily be operational 20 years into the future, that is if we bought them 1-2 years from now, at least to 2045.

    By 2038 we should be looking at replacing the Blackhawk with V-280 Valor or any future vertical lift systems there is at the time.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DciPrdMWsAEfw1H.jpg

  44. … – ”In our tropical terrain,”

    As has been explained; the rapid urbanisation which has taken place for the past few decades means there are more areas which are conducive for the employment of heavy armour. It’s not written in stone that MBTs will even be employed in jungle areas and as historical examples clearly show : MBTs can be effectively employed in jungle conditions.

    … – ”As it is I dont understand why TDM arent pushing actively for more Gempitas when clearly there is not enough.”

    What is there not to understand? The army has other priorities it deems are more pressing and the budget it has is clearly insufficient for follow on AV-8s at the moment.

    … – ” mbt will be used mainly as fire support to mechanised infantry formation, rather than multiple brigade worth of mbts preparing to fight head-on with other mbts.”

    Whether on the defensive or active defence MBTs; whether in Squadron or Troop strength; will be used as part of combined arms formations to deliver mobile; protected firepower – period-full stop.

    … – ”Latest counter battery radars are now very cheap, ”

    The problem is not how ”cheap” it is but effectively integrating it with other things in order to create the desired affect.

    … – ”Still the main eyes and ears of the artillery would be the forward observers and recce units (including cavalry armored recce vehicles)”

    Those are only good for direct/observed not indirect/unobserved fire …

    ”As compared to our highriding, softskin Handalans? Hmmโ€ฆ. I think Condor is a wee bit better no?”

    The Handalans actually have far mobility than the Condor… Which is better when a platform has to move cross country? Also the Handalans are not expected to provide any protection; the Condors as ”APCs” are… Yes?

    ”The IJA tanks and infantry didnt get stuck on their swift march down towards SG.”

    It’s a fallacy or myth that Japanese units and light tanks operated much in the jungle – they didn’t. They operated mostly in cleared jungle; main roads; country roads, etc. In the British Empire it was Malaya of all the former colonies that had one of the best road networks [to move tin and rubber]; light tanks moved mainly along main roads. One of the few exceptions was the Jitra Line when Jap light tanks actually move along paddy fields.

    ”Tanks, whether light or MBT, typically designed to withstand rounds of its own calibre, thou not multiple shots or lucky ones just to be clear.”

    Irrespective and I’m pretty ”clear” but ta anyway… As I mentioned light tanks are intended to be operated in areas where they won’t encounter heavier tanks.

  45. … – ”his will make counter artillery fire very difficult. ”

    On paper. In actual reality there is a host of things the Royal Artillery Corps needs to get right or implement first. As it stands; of all the army’s combat arms it has received the less attention or investment. Having a paper capability is one thing; having it institutionalised is another very different thing …

    … – ”we need to look at where we are right now in timeโ€ฆ”

    I’m not as sanguine or forward looking as you. ‘Right now in time” the Army’s Aviation Corps is a small, under resourced unit. Manpower is an issue and so is infrastructure. What it has is tied down operating the 10 A-109s and 6 Little Birds.
    For it to take things to the next level would need an adequate and sustained level of funding.

  46. @ Azlan

    “not indirect/unobserved fire”
    unobserved fire? there is no place in the future for unobserved fire. Indirect fire is still an observed fire, just not observed by the firing unit itself.

    “In actual reality there is a host of things the Royal Artillery Corps needs to get right or implement first”
    The change needs to begin now. it can start with RAD having its own UAV ISR&T capability. This can cost single digit millions to start with. UAV observation batteries in each of Division Artillery HQ
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6DJ6M1a0AAPqDE.jpg
    Then adopting app-based system as its central BMS backbone for calling fires.
    https://themoloch.com/conflict/uber-for-artillery-what-is-ukraines-gis-arta-system/

    ” โ€˜Right now in timeโ€ the Armyโ€™s Aviation Corps is a small, under resourced unit ”
    Exactly why we cannot afford to buy brand new Blackhawks in the numbers that we need right now.
    Infrastructure? I have posted this before. We already have infrastructure in place to operate at least a squadron of Blackhawks.
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/pmx-again-on-revamping-military-procurement/#comment-876425
    It should be within our means to get and operate a squadron of used Blackhawks. It would be of similar cost to operating a squadron of Nuri, of which we already spend money to build all the needed infrastructure and manpower. The next level would be 15-20 years from now.

  47. US just has money to replenish their inventory with new equipment because their operating tempo is very high – need to deal with attrition. US and Western countries also think in terms of generational programs – equipment gets purchased and upgraded over the expected life. Malaysia does not have the money to replenish inventory – has no money to deal with attrition and therefore don’t use the equipment as often. Malaysia also does not structure military contracts on a generational basis – everything is a one-off exercise with no multi-year purchases or long-term upgrade pathways. Its not reset or anything. Its just wear and tear and when that model is no longer fit for purpose, a new generation is commissioned. It doesn’t have to have a complex reasoning. The Blackhawk’s design simply outlived its future utility and usefulness for the US. It doesn’t mean its not suitable for Malaysia. Malaysian Army is not expected to mount large scale air assaults over long-distance – which the tilt-rotor design excels in (based on the V22 experience). Lastly, Malaysia will not use the 4 Blackhawks for 30 years, because those helicopters are leased. The next 4 will likely be leased as well…

  48. … – ”unobserved fire? there is no place in the future for unobserved fire. Indirect fire is still an observed fire, just not observed by the firing unit”

    ”Unobserved fire” means what it implies …. directing fire on a target which is not ”observed”…

    … – ”Indirect fire is still an observed fire, just not observed by the firing unit itself.”

    No idea what calibre you’re shooting but there is such a thing as ”unobserved fire”. You’re a diligent online researcher – look it up.

    … – ” AV observation batteries in each of Division Artillery HQ”

    It should be mini UAS organic to a Regiment. You’re fond of talking about the future and what looks great on paper; well we’ve reached a stage where things have to be decentralised; changs in organisation have to be made.

    … – ”The change needs to begin now. it can start with RAD having its own UAV ISR&T capability.”

    So you say but if there are any indications that we really intended on making the needed moves please do let me know because the way I see it we’re merely staying the course; buying assets in small numbers and not being in a rush to do anything else…

    … – ”It should be within our means to get and operate a squadron of used Blackhawks.”

    ”Should” and actually able to are profoundly different things. Just like how a few years a you insisted that Gerak Khas ”should” be able to expand without much issues and without compromising in quality until Marhalim and me pointed out tat only a small fraction of people who attempt selection actually make it and Marhalim also pointed out that the unit only inducts a very small number of recruits anually.

    Back to the Army Aviation Corps; it is a small under resourced entity which at present is tied down with what it has.

    kel – ”everything is a one-off exercise with no multi-year purchases or long-term upgrade pathways. ”

    Incorrect. There are key exceptions.

    kel – ”Malaysian Army is not expected to mount large scale air assaults over long-distance ”

    No but it might be required to mount ”large scale air movement”.

    ”A paragraph is a group of at least five sentences, a paragraph is half a page long, etc. In reality, though, the unity and coherence of ideas among sentences is what constitutes a paragraph.”

  49. @hulubalang
    “Helicopters, unlike fixed wing aircraft, the main fatigue item can be easily replaced (rotor blades)”
    Choppers also have airframe lifespan and avionic lifespan. Of course the rotor gears are critical and yet moreso choppers frequently crash rather than fixed wing planes. Even if we willing to pay for zero houred Blackhawks (unlikely), there are still many other factors. Many Aussie Blackhawks faced structural integrity issues prior to retirement.

    “budget it has is clearly insufficient for follow on AV-8s”
    Budget priorities depends on how one pushes their agenda forward. The Navy got LCS, the Airforce got LCA, so by right its TDM’s turn for big buy and budget if they cannot push what they needed then “it is clearly insufficient for follow on AV-8s”. So they shouldnt grumble when they are forced to downgrade to 6×6 & 4×4 then.

    “Also the Handalans are not expected to provide any protection”
    Neither would the Condors as rear transport away from the fighting but might chance upon enemy scout/recce elements. As for cross country mobility, these days more areas ar urbanised and lot more roads so both are equally mobile but Condors, based on off road Unimog, are designed for rougher terrains too.

    “What it has is tied down operating the 10 A-109s and 6 Little Birds.”
    Which is a curious thing as it was setup to handle chopper haulage for the whole TDM, meaning it would require dozens of medium lifters to replace the capabilities of 40 or so Nuris then in service. So for the many years since that plan was put in motion did PUTD stagnate and did not expect/planned they would go back to their original role setup?

  50. ”So they shouldnt grumble when they are forced to downgrade to 6ร—6 & 4ร—4 then.”

    The army is not ”grumbling” and who said it was and when? Since you’re so into the issue of politics in a sardonic way; you should ”grumble” because it was your tax money that went into setting up the assembly facility; IP rights and other things but now we are the silly position of not being able to afford follow on ones. And yes the army did ”downgrade” to 6x6s but there isn’t any money for that too. Should it further ”downgrade”? Don’t make it sound like it’s the army fault or that the army has a ”AV-8” or nothing else approach because it doesn’t…BTW the idea to go for 6x6s and MRAPs was the army’s idea ….

    ”Neither would the Condors as rear transport away from the fighting but might chance upon enemy scout/recce elements.”

    The point is that the Condor is intended to provide some level of protection; unlike the Handalan. Also if you want to keep on about the Condors must as well talk about resurrecting Zeppelins because the Condors are retired; most are earmarked for junk yards and Asahan.

    ”As for cross country mobility, these days more areas ar urbanised and lot more roads so both are equally mobile but Condors, based on off road Unimog, are designed for rougher terrains too.”

    ”these days more areas ar urbanised” – sounds familiar that …

    BTW the Condor [yes it has a Unimog chassis] has less mobility than a Unimog because unlike the Unimog it’s carrying more weight and the Condor is known for it’s inherent mobility issues.

    … – ”Which is a curious thing as it was setup to handle chopper haulage for the whole TDM,”

    What’s so ”curious”? The idea is that it would have nascent capabilities with the ex RMAF helis at over time it would be gradually improved on. So went the plan; like may other plans.

    ”did PUTD stagnate and did not expect/planned they would go back to their original role setup?”

    A lack of resources meant they couldn’t do much more than they were already doing. They took much longer than expected to get the Nuris operational [a RMAF friend helped with the training] and the same occurred with the Little Birds. Minimal resources; whether manpower; ground support infrastructure or funding] and an unfulfilled plan as long as maybe your grocery list.

  51. Also note that when it was raised in 1995 the Army Aviation Corps was tasked with recce, light transport and MEDEVAC. The troop carrying thing only came years later and the government approved – in principle – a squadron’s worth of helis but of course this plan came to nothing instead ex RMAF Nuris were handed over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*