Tender for Anti-Tank Guided Weapon – Medium Range

Firing the METIS-M ATGM from the G-Wagen during a demonstration at PULADA in November, 2020. BTDM

SHAH ALAM: The Defence Ministry has issued a tender for 18 Anti-Tank Guided Weapon – Medium Range (ATGW-MR) for the Army. The tender was published today (March 21) and closes on April 11, a period of 21 days.

Although the tender documents stated 18 ATGW-MR launchers, it did not say how many missiles to be procured though it is likely 18. The package should also include one indoor simulator; three outdoor simulators; three cut-open missile that expose its components and test equipment.

Interestingly, the ATGW system, according to the document must have a NATO stock number, which may preclude non-Nato manufactured or supplied ones.

As for the technical specifications, according to the documents (edited for brevity):

There is a requirement for the Anti-Tank Platoon of Infantry Battalion to be equipped with Anti-Tank Guided Weapon Medium Range (ATGW-MR) which is capable to engage and destroy enemy armour and heavily fortified bunker at a distance between 2000 m to 4000 m.
Penetration Capability. It shall be able to defeat ERA and subsequently main armour plate at least 900 mm RHA with BAE to inflict casualty to crew and vehicle.
Attack Capability. It shall have Top Attack Mode and Direct Attack Mode.
Effective Range. It shall be between 2000 m to 4000 m.
Guidance System. It shall be Imaging Infrared (IIR) homing guidance with cooled or uncooled system to provide better imagery.
Warhead. It shall be tandem shaped charge.
Quantity of Missile. At least one (1) missile foe each launcher.
Weight of Complete System. It shall be not more than 25 kg.
Guidance System. It shall have Automatic Command Line of Sight (ACLOS) fire and forget guidance system.
Reliability. It shall be highly reliable when used in any environment.
Observation and Launching Unit (OLU). Minimum 15 years.
Missile. Minimum 10 years.

As the previous tender also called for a medium-range, ATGW, it is likely that the latest tender is meant for the same requirements. The maximum weight of the system seems to indicate that the Army want something like the Metis-M system, which is already in service. The Metis-M ATGW-MR are mounted on G-Wagen 4X4 vehicles and was procured in 2001. We bought 24 Metis-M launchers and some 100 missiles.

Baktar Shikan missile leaving its launch tube at the 2017 Firepower Exercise.

It is likely the winning ATGW-MR will also replace the Baktar Shikan ATGW system in service with ACV 300 Adnan with the 12th Royal Malay Regiment.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2227 Articles
Shah Alam

58 Comments

  1. If the tender specifies a need for something something below a certain weight it implies [to me at least] that we intend for it to used in circumstances where it’s manpacked; at least for short distances.

    If however it’s intended to replace Bakhtar Shikan then weight is less of an issue as it’s mounted on a pedestal mount and only fired from an Adnan.

    Whilst I see the value in a vehicle mounted ATGW there’s also a need for a system to be operated from the shoulder like MBT LAW or the ground like Metis. We have tripods for Bakhtar Shikan but we never use them. Too heavy and cumbersome.

  2. dundun – ”Another one on tok mat list of Turkish shopping spree?”

    OMTAS was identified way as a possible contender about a year ago for a requirement which has been around for several years now.

    Marhalim,

    Do you know if the Bakhtar Shikans we have are the tandem head variant?
    Apart from the ASKARAD radars [1990’s]; did we buy anything from Turkey prior to us ordering Adnans?

  3. Realistically, the options I see are Javelin and MMP. Both fit the weight requirement.

    1. HJ 12 excluded because non NATO.
    2. Spike is also non NATO and Israeli.
    3. OMTAS is above the weight requirement.
    That leaves MMP and Javelin. Is there anything I did not add?

  4. Tom Tom,

    Whether it’s Raybolt [‘…’ will be happy as he’s long proposed it] or OMTAS is really immaterial [both are decent systems]; we have to get a decent number of reloads; especially given that we’re only buying a small number of launchers. If it’s indeed to replace Bakhtar Shikan [which is in roughly the size/weight category as Ingwe] that would still entail replacing Metis.

    Would be ideal if we didn’t operate more than 2-3 types of ATGWs.

  5. Tok Mat announced Malaysia will donate field hospital in Turkiye to them, any idea what its worth?

  6. No, idea as we don’t know where it was purchased in the first place. I am guessing it’s cheaper to replace it than sending two A400M airlifter there to send it back home.

  7. What a field hospital between ‘best buddies’ huh? Sorry, can’t help myself….😂

  8. That is pathetic. The most useful missile is Kornet since it has a thermobaric warhead ideal for killing bunkers. Any orders for Javelin will never be delivered as they are under inventoried at this time.
    Buying anything European is also buang masa.

  9. We cannot buy Russian stuff due to the sanctions. Otherwise we would have bought more Metis M or even the new missiles.

  10. Marhalim,
    We did bought additional missiles in 2020 for 177 rounds eventho CAATSA is already enforced. The winning company was Global Combined Technology Sdn Bhd

  11. I wonder what happened to Roketsan’s Karaok anti-tank weapon. That seems to be the Turkish equivalent to the US Javelin.

  12. Hafiz:
    Yes, looks as though the Karaok fits the bill too. Hopefully they will also participate in the tender. So the 4 possible contenders are now: Javelin, MMP, Raybolt and Karaok.

  13. Hi Mr. Marhalim, just wanted to share with you that you were wrong regarding Turkiye not having the means and capabilities to upgrade submarines as was seen in one of your replies in another post.

    STM have upgraded 2 of Pakistan’s Agosta 90B submarines using Turkish tech etc.

    1 more to finish soon.

    Just sharing.

  14. When you type “Observation and Launching Unit (OLU) ATGM” in Google, guess what shows up.

  15. Tom Tom,

    No. Given the numbers sent to the Ukraine and the fact that countries are replenishing their stocks; won’t be getting Javelin anytime soon even if we were willing to incur the high cost it goes for which we aren’t. Also, in our terrain unless one is in a high point with no obstruction or along a stretch of highway: a 3-4km shot will be a rarerity.

    Melayu Ketinggalan,

    The yard has the know how to refit and upgrade subs operated by the Turk navy but not others.

  16. Azlan,

    Turkiye do have the tech to refit/upgrade other types of subs, not just turkiye ones
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/01/turkiyes-stm-delivers-2nd-upgraded-agosta-90b-class-submarine-to-pakistan-navy/

    CH Kam,

    OLU is a specific term for Raybolt launchers

    For javelin it is called the CLU (Command Launch Unit)

    Raybolt unit is called OLU because it has uncooled thermal and can be used as observation binoculars.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjWFb4bVIAAsyp8.jpg

  17. OLU is Turkish version of Raybolt same as Atmaca is a version of Harpoon. The Turks get technology trasnfer from everywhere they JV. This is why their defense industry is so advance now. IMHO the minisuof defense & ministry of science and technology should send teams to Turkiye & learn how they administered the industry there. We need to learn first on how to build a sustainable defense industry. Then only get the TOT from anywhere like South Korea, Japan or Turkiye itself. We must admit our defense industry is nothing compared to them. This is the time to move forward. We move or we can import defence products FOREVER. We have the resources & I believe we can do this.

  18. Nope, we cannot, we don’t have the funds to do it like Turkiye and South Korea

    On the contrary, I believe we can. In the long run the investment will attract investors & clients. It is an investment will be reaped by future generations. Funds can be raised, accumulated & harnessed into defense economy. In this way we too can be a developed nation. Provided that we do it right like the Koreans & Turks.

  19. No need to look far. Just look down south and see how much they spend on defence and RnD, to develop their defence industry.

    Don’t think you can do much spending just 1% of gdp on defence. You get what we have now.

  20. Qamarul ➤ Your optimism is admirable but we can’t. We don’t have the right doctrine in both defense and State as a whole. As a nation, we are not exactly known for a country that prioritized merit. Can’t just funds dumping something and hope it come to fruition.

    Sorry to disappoint you.

  21. Wong … – ”Turkiye do have the tech to refit/upgrade other types of subs, not just turkiye ones”

    Alright they do but if anyone gets the notion no they’re not yet certified to do anything with the Scorpenes and we don’t need Turkish help in this regard.

  22. To have a viable domestic defence industry, the first requirement is a stable market for the product, which is the domestic market. Malaysia must be able to continuously buy new equipment, in sufficient quantities, to pay for R&D and maintenance of the industrial base over an extended period of time. The industry needs a visible pipeline of orders over decades to be sustainable. This requirement is not met for Malaysia. No country will buy a weapon system that its own country’s armed forces does not use.

  23. Requirements: 1) Tandem warhead, 2) Direct and Top Down attack modes, 3) Range 2000 to 4000m, 4) IIR guidance for the missile, 5) Weight <=25kg (presumably launcher and missile), 6) ACLOS fire and forget, 7) Has NATO stock number, 8) OLU lasts 15 years, missiles last 10 years. With the exception of item 8) which is not publicly available, it would seem the candidates by weight (low to high), 1) Karaok (16kg, 2500m+), 2) Raybolt (20kg, 2500m+), 3) Javelin (23kg, 2500m+). Based on Google search, no information on Karaok cost. Javelin is very expensive at $240,000 just for the missile. Raybolt comes in at $79,000 launcher + missile. It might be down to cost between Raybolt and Karaok.

  24. Rather than asking could we build our own missiles the question should be should we even build our own missiles?

    Building missiles is the easy relatively cheap part. stockpiling missiles & increasing production & access of those missiles during attritional war is the hard & expensive parts.

    Most military even NATO members don’t have enough stockpile of missiles for attritional war. which is why American missiles are so popular. Why bother spending money and sacrificed universal healthcare for instance to stockpiling your own missiles when you can relied on uncle Sam stockpiling & manufacturing might?

    IMHO, In our case, we should limit local production for the platform, we can license it or buy it directly from wherever or whomever as long as it’s can be network together & are configured to shoot American missiles.

  25. Azlan “Alright they do but if anyone gets the notion no they’re not yet certified to do anything with the Scorpenes and we don’t need Turkish help in this regard.”

    – That’s what I was saying yesterday to Marhalim and KC Wong reiterated my point. Please note as well that Naval Group has given the green light to the the Indian Navy to insert their own indigenous AIP earlier this year for the Indian Scorpenes.

    https://adj.com.my/2023/01/24/indias-scorpene-submarine-to-be-fitted-with-indigenous-aip-system/

    Have always been gutted why RMN didn’t opt for the AIP version from the get go, in lieu of the contested SCS waters. Malaysia overpaid for its 2 Scorpenes too btw.

    Azlan – What’s your recommended submarine suitable for RMN since there is a need for 2 more. Thanks. Love reading your comments.

  26. @Zaft
    “In our case, we should limit local production for the platform, we can license it”
    In our case we should not license nor produce anything, since we can’t even make producing 5.56mm rounds profitable for the local manufacturer while being cost efficient for the taxpayers.

    Simple fact is in peace during our time we enjoy, we cannot consume ammo & munitions in enough quantities to make replenishing a profitable business.

  27. Melayu Ketinggalan – ” why RMN didn’t opt for the AIP version from the get go”

    Apparently it not only had to do with funding but also because they way and where we deploy our boats. AIP is great to have but depending on how and where one deploys its boats; not having it may not necessarily be a major disadvantage.

    Melayu Ketinggalan – ”What’s your recommended submarine suitable for RMN since there is a need for 2 more.”

    Something with some level of commonality with the existing boats but by the time we get around to buying 2 more I doubt if the Naval Group will have a Scorpene derivative available. Having 2 different boats will be a support nightmare and will be contrary to what the 5/15 intends to achieve.

  28. kel – ”To have a viable domestic defence industry, the first requirement is a stable market for the product,”

    ”The first requirement” is to have the resources; economics of scale and a clear appraisal of what one intends to achieve and what one can realistically achieve. Priority must also be the armed services and the taxpayer not the local industry and other forms of national interests.

    zaft – ”Rather than asking could we build our own missiles the question should be should we even build our own missiles?”

    Even if we produced our own missile; most of the components would still have to be imported. Hardly anyone is truly ”self sufficient” these days. Nothing we produce locally from a foreign source is produced using less than 70-80 percent of imported components…..Yet people talk about self sufficiency without really thinking it through.

  29. Melayu ketinggalan,

    ”What’s your recommended submarine suitable for RMN since there is a need for 2 more.”

    Best fit – more scorpenes with Li-Ion batteries instead of AIP, ability to fire NSM. Accelerated timeline starting 2026.

    Left field option – Retired Oyashio class submarines (just 25 years young) refitted with Li-Ion batteries from Soryu class.

    Cheap / numnerical option – turkish STM500

  30. Wong … – ”ability to fire NSM.”

    As you know the French are notoriously difficult and obstructive when a customer seeks to integrate and certify nonFrench stuff to French stuff. To me it’s not the ASM that’s vital but what will provide OTHT which is needed beyond a certain range.

    Wong … – ”Retired Oyashio class submarines (just 25 years young) ”

    25 years old/young might well be 65 years when it comes to aged hulls and systems. By the time we get them or rather if we get them [as likely as Pippy Longstocking arriving in The Belum forest] there will be a whole list of things which will reuire replacing/upgrading : more resources needed.

  31. Melayu ketinggalan,

    ”What’s your recommended submarine suitable for RMN since there is a need for 2 more.”

    Supposedly we would get a submarine each RMK starting from RMK14 till RMK 17. So the new submarine is a replacement to the Scorpene rather than an addition thus commonalities with Scorpene is unnecessary.

    But if we still wanted some commonality then S90+ (a Scorpene ‘cousin’ with US system & weapons) or shortfin baraccuda (as Oz would paid for almost all the R&S cost) or we could go for a clean sheet & choice either type 212CD or other German derivatives subs from SK or Turkeye.

    Joe “In our case we should not license nor produce anything, since we can’t even make producing 5.56mm rounds profitable for the local manufacturer while being cost efficient for the taxpayers.”

    Which is why SG for the most part never bother with producing mass produced item be it ammo, missiles, fighters jet etc etc. They mostly do ship & IFV which a build to order stuff rather than a mass produced stuff

    Azlan “Hardly anyone is truly ”self sufficient” these days. Nothing we produce locally from a foreign source is produced using less than 70-80 percent of imported components”

    The advantage of knowing how to build something from A to Z is if one get sanctions by 1 country they can substituted the components to another. It’s hard to get sanctions by everyone unless one goes really really bonkers,burnt every bridge down & get themselves internationally isolated.

    Most often self sufficiency are seen as a desired by said country to have more independent foreign & military policy.

  32. Zaft – ”Supposedly we would get a submarine each RMK starting from RMK14 till RMK 17. So the new submarine is a replacement to the Scorpene rather than an addition thus commonalities with Scorpene is unnecessary.”

    No it isn’t…. Check the facts. It’s intended to supplement the existing boats. Why do you think the 5/15 graphic image shows 4 boats as part of the intended force structure and it’s been made quite clear that the RMN wants 4 boats…

  33. Zaft – “The advantage of knowing how to build something from A to Z is if one get sanctions”

    You stating a fact or telling me. No point having self sufficiency if most of the stuff needed still has to be imported but can’t be..

    Zaft – “Most often self sufficiency are seen as a desired by said country to have more independent foreign & military policy”

    I’m highly aware of that, thank you.

    Zaft – “Which is why SG for the most part never bother with producing mass produced item be it ammo, missiles, fighters jet etc etc”

    Utter bullocks. What used to be Chartered Industries Singapore makes everything from small arms around to arty rounds to Bangalore torpedoes. The first major export sale it has was to us.

  34. @Zaft
    “SG for the most part never bother with producing mass produced item”
    If not mistaken they do produce their small arms ammo, they have JV with Israelis to produce Spike missile, and I wouldn’t call fighter jets as mass produced items. In terms of defence products they are one level above us but what they produced are so far only for local defence needs as they could not compete with more established arms makers. Difference with us is they could afford such inefficiencies and expensive price of local manufacturing while we can’t so why bother to try as we won’t get the value from our puny defence budget.

  35. “Difference with us is they could afford such inefficiencies and expensive price of local manufacturing while we can’t so why bother to try as we won’t get the value from our puny defence budget”

    We do try but fail. Look at the AUG and M-4; the idea was to manufacture locally. First for domestic needs then for export. The problem is we couldn’t be price competitive and some countries we tried to sell to had no reason to buy or wanted to buy but it was politically dicey for us [look at a story Marhalim did years ago].

    The idea behind the Adnan and AV-8 was also the same; eventual exports.

  36. @joe

    SG gov main selling points to her investors & voters thus people are able to tolerated them is that they are efficient. It may not seem like it based on our individual judgement but for them it’s the most efficient way they could do it to reach their goal. Whatever that maybe because they ain’t telling anyone much.

  37. Azlan “You stating a fact or telling me. No point having self sufficiency if most of the stuff needed still has to be imported but can’t be..”

    True self sufficiency be it In weapons productions, food, item are a recipe for disaster as demonstrated by north Korea.

    That’s why most countries don’t do that.

    Azlan “No it isn’t…. Check the facts. It’s intended to supplement the existing boats. Why do you think the 5/15 graphic image shows 4 boats as part of the intended force structure and it’s been made quite clear that the RMN wants 4 boats…”

    Then they should had go for the German subs back then and get 3 sub for the price of 2 Scorpene.

    The original 15 to 5 are a horrible program, full of gun only boat with misleading Infographics. As Marhalim has stated long time ago judging by the original 15 to 5 timeline Infographic the 2 other submarine like 6 more LCS planned timeline is exactly 30 years after the Scorpene/LCS enter services. So in the original 15 to 5 the navy only wanted 2 submarine & 6 surface combatants at any one time as the 2 extra submarine & 6 extra LCS are a replacement not an addition.

    Current plan as revealed by tok mat recently sees RMN getting the 1st submarine in RmK 14 IE 10 years before the Scorpene end it 30 years carrier. While the last of the 4 is when Scorpene hit 30 years old. Again it’s sounds a whole lot like a replacement program rather than addition. A bit early but a replacement nonetheless.

    You don’t need something that going to be used for 30 years to be in commonality with things that’s would end it services in 10 years don’t you?. Thus why There’s hardly any commonalities between the cn235 MSA & atr72 MPA.

    But if one do get a atr72 MPA then by logic of commonality one would also wanted aw139,wildcat & Leonardo seaspray radar on the AnkA.

  38. “We do try but fail.”
    Indeed which is why its high time to stop trying. Unless we are fully aware of the consequence & fully committed to see to its thru, whatever we do will invariably fail. Might as well cut our losses and stop trying.

    @Zaft
    They sold it to their citizen that self sufficiency is paramount importance at whatever the cost, yes it worked but they still had to ensure whatever ventured had a useful outcome and mitigated or suppressed whatever issues so that the public had confidence in their ‘efficiency’.

    Like Chelsea or Man City, its simply a matter of throwing money at the problem until it works. And they could do that cuz they have the money but we don’t.

    If they had the same limitations that we have, I doubt they would see similar levels of success today, rather SG citizen would demand heads to roll.

  39. zaft – ”SG gov main selling points to her investors & voters thus people are able to tolerated them is that they are efficient.”

    Here’s the right narrative. First of all in Singapore as you know or should; the average citizen is far more cognisant of the need for a strong defence and local production builds into that narrative. Secondly, there is far less or none at all in fact of any political backlash because delays and cost overruns are not part of the narrative. Thirdly, people aren’t as cynical as they are here with regards to local defence production because in Singapore they actually deliver tangible results; even if the stuff is expensive or if prices are not made publicly known as they are here…

  40. Singapore defence industry works because the government commits to buy equipment continuously over long horizons. The SG government help their industry by committing to buy military equipment continuously over a long period of time. Their shipbuilding industry benefits from clear timelines on when new ships will be ordered and the type of ships that will be ordered. The industry knows in X years, Class A will be replaced by Class B which will have upgraded capabilities. The land warfare industry know in Y years, the Army will replace their tracked APCs with upgraded capability, will required capability X in Year Z. The industry shall invest accordingly. Another example is the Korea government which commits to the development of indigenous fighter jets by committing to buy at least 100 KF-21, and have purchased more than 100 T/TA/FA-50. They purchased more than 1500 K1/K2 tanks and plan to buy more indigenous built tanks in the coming decades. Malaysia does not have such long-term planning and commitment to support a local industry. KF-21 is actually 60% funded by the Korean Government. Similar with Turkey, US, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Taiwan, etc. You need a government committed to buy equipment consistently every year over decades.

  41. zaft – ”item are a recipe for disaster as demonstrated by north Korea”

    Hardly anyone is really ”self sufficient” and North Korea doesn’t care about other things because it’s focus is regime survival. Think. It doesn’t care about things like healthcare, education, etc because regime survival is the absolute priority; so not it’s not ”a recipe for disaster” as you put it.

    zaft – ”Then they should had go for the German subs back then”

    We first looked at German subs actually but that’s water under the bridge. You are mistaken in saying the 2 boats to be bought in some years are intended as a Scorpene replacement.

    Zaf – ”While the last of the 4 is when Scorpene hit 30 years old. Again it’s sounds a whole lot like a replacement program rather than addition. ”

    Yes I have touched on the age issue years ago; no idea if you were here yet but I did point out that by the time we got follow boats; our existing boats would be somewhat aged.
    Again – the Scorpenes are not intended to be replaced by the other 2 boats and I have explained why.

    Zaft – ”But if one do get a atr72 MPA then by logic of commonality one would also wanted aw139,wildcat & Leonardo seaspray radar on the AnkA.”

    This issue has been dealt with before. Commonality is desired and needed but only if it enables a certain kevel of capability and not for the sake of it; i.e. if we operated 25 Pounders it would be daft to get more 25 Pounders for the sake of commonality would it not? Yes it would be ideal to get Wildcat but as has been discussed thoroughly and to death here previously; Wildcat does not have the internal volume; lift capacity, range and endurance for ASW work. ASW is time intensive and requires a helo with a pair of torps; sonobuoys and dipping sonar to fly some distance away from its ship to persecute contacts…

  42. zaft – ”The original 15 to 5 are a horrible program, full of gun only boat with misleading Infographics.”

    It’s misleading to you because you don’t understand the dynamics/politics behind it and as you normally do are making flawed assumptions based on things you’re unsure of but think you’re sure. Since you’re unaware let me lay it out for [as I have done on multiple occasions for others]. The 5/15 was a product of it’s time when the political situation was different; it was intended to be a ”driver” so to speak and the RMN was never under any illusions it would actually be implemented [this I know for a fact and is not a ”personal belief” [to quote you]. It was never intended to be something written in stone but rather something that could be a basis for something and was intended to get a political reaction.

    Also it does not contain any gunboats as has been explained in simple English the RMN – with the exception of the pair of training boats – never had any intention of getting ships armed only with guns. Also, you may say I’m obsessed [what else would you say] but stick to the facts and indulge in research- look up the definition of a ”gunboat”. If you bother to do so you’ll notice the key distinction between a ”gunboat” and a guns only armed ship.

  43. @Kel
    “government commits to buy equipment continuously”
    Not quite accurate so. Their Govt consistently buys according to their defence procurement planning & forecast but its not an unbroken chain of purchases as there are instances, like now, when there is a lull in major naval ship or armoured vehicles production. Like us, they will also lose staff or lose money keeping them in the doldrums while waiting new projects. So the inefficiencies of local manufacturing that plagues us is the same for them, except they could mitigate the monetary losses that it doesn’t irk the citizen or could be politicised.

    We didn’t have long term planning because it didn’t benefit them politically and importantly we never have sufficient money committed to defence. We could not predict Covid or the super high inflation today, so if we had legally committed that sum of money instead of, say, vaccinations, then the Govt hands are tied from using defence fund for more important matters.

  44. kel – ”You need a government committed to buy equipment consistently every year over decades.”

    To put it briefly; like a jigsaw various pieces have to come into play and fit together – a holistic long term plan; a clear appraisal of what one intends to achieve and what one actually can; economics of scale; continuity; political commitment, etc.

    What we should never do is to pay higher prices merely because it supports the local industry – we simply can’t afford the luxury. Often overlooked is that our policy of not identifying threats as threats enables us to not serious with defence spending.

    Laying posts in paragraphs rather than in a single lump makes it easier to digest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*