SHAH ALAM: Last year there were three tenders for light anti-tank weapons (LAWs). The first one, in January was for 780 units of the Spanish Instalanza C90 LAWs. From the original post:
The Defence Ministry has published a request for bids for the supply and delivery of the light anti-tank weapon (LAW) C90 for the Army. The RFB for the Spanish made Instalanza C90 LAW is for 780 units.
This will be the biggest anti-tank weapon purchase in recent memory. The tender was published today – January 30 – and closes on February 20, which meant that companies have 21 days to put in their bids.
Checks on the Finance Ministry website showed that the contract was awarded to Tecticco Industries Sdn Bhd, which according to its listing is based in Kuala Selangor. The LOA is RM34,999,380.00.
Tecticco Industries, now with an address listing in Petaling Jaya was also awarded the contract for the supply of 178 units of reloadable LAW with an LOA of RM49,641,600.00. The tender for these was published in August. It is likely that the contract includes stocks of reloadable warheads, hence the higher price compared to the quantity of units sought.
As for the reloadable LAW, it is likely that it will be the reloadable Instalanza C90 LAW as Malaysian Defence had posted following DSA 2024. As for the tender to buy 780 disposable C90 which came out early this year, the ministry has yet to confirm which company they are buying it from. The number of reloadable light-weight LAW, complete set, being sought is 178.
As for the disposable LAW M72 EC anti-tank, the contract was awarded to Hasil Integra Sdn Bhd with an address at Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur. The tender was published in July. The LOA is RM21,600,080.00. Checks with industry sources revealed that Hasil Integra solution is the MKE HAR 66mm LAW. From the specifications page of the tender:
There is a requirement to equip the 10th Brigade (Para) Infantry Battalion with a Light Anti-tank Weapon Enhance Capability (LAW-EC) Disposable System to be used by infantry personnel during operations and trainings. The main usages of the weapon are as follows: 1.1. It shall be
used to penetrate light armoured vehicles, gun emplacements, pillboxes, concrete bunkers, or equivalent hard targets.
It shall be easily carried by personnel without degrading their mobility during infiltration and
exfiltration by sea, air, or land.
The nature of airborne operations to conduct offensive and defensive operation requires the characteristics of weapon which shall be lightweight, self-contained with effective fire power
and disposable
From the specifications, one would have thought that the Army was looking for the Nammo M72 EC LAW.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
If I’m not mistaken MKE HAR 66 mm LAW is the M72 version manufactured by Turkey. We got 800 units of this LAW based on previous tender.
780 +178 + 800 = 1758, thats a good start of army’s anti tank weapons replenishment.
The previous procurement was from Nammo.
🤣🤣🤣 LAW can hardly called anti tank weapon.Even if you have 5000 rounds of disposable LAW,it hardly scratch the Leopard tank..let alone bionex..
RM 35mil and 50mil, thats a lot of money for a weapon tender.
Still low enough though. Anything below RM50 million is approved at the ministry level.
@Redsot
Depends on how one looks at it. A mobility kill can still be achievable with the right tactics. You can then setup kill zones & hunt the rescue team or force the opponent to destroy/abandon it.
Joe ,i wanted to believe you,but alas,with iron sight how far can it be accurate lets say at a distance of 800mtrs?
Even 84mm atw with a telescopic sight can miss its target with 2 weapons firing at the same time..🤣🤣 n u talking a disposable atw can do a mobility kill…get real bro.
If ever you get a chance try firing 84mm mark4 with all the gadgets fix on it shoot at a distance of 1 click where the round lands..😋😋
Kinda off topic but related to TDM, Im glad that we have an intelligent Opposition team making the right noises and asking the right questions w/r to our defences.
The latest meeting, a member asked about the suitability of AW149 when the requirement stated for undersling feature.
He also raised the point on why not direct lease with Leo which we have discussed before.
I guess maybe they might be readers here too and hopefully we have a voice heard. Hopefully.
Red Sot – “LAW can hardly called anti tank weapon.Even if you have 5000 rounds of disposable Law”
Well it is an acronym for “light anti tank weapon” and when it appeared in the 1960’s it could take out tanks from that era. Quite a few T-54/55s were taken out by M-72s in Vietnam. On fact a M72 LAW could probably penetrate the rear turret [thin armour and no ERA] and engine compartment of a T-72 and T-90. The Brits also had the LAW 80 which wasn’t “light” by any means.
All unguided shoulder launched weapons tend only to be useful at close range, not a problem in confined terrain such as a town where one can sneak up close to a target and even from a building. A problem in unrestricted terrain where a tank and its accompanying infantry can spot threats from far, especially if there’s no vegetation.