Navigate
X

Tis The RWS You See

SHAH ALAM: Tis the RWS you see. The Auditor General in its latest audit report faulted the Defence Ministry for not fitting remote weapon stations (RWS) on the eight IAG Guardians put into service with the Malbatt unit deployed in Lebanon under UNIFIL.

It was for this reason, it deemed the Guardians was not up to standard. The lack of the RWS also resulted in the government not getting the full reimbursement from the UN for the purchase of the vehicles.

Malbatt Guardians armed with 7.62 machine gun during a recent firing exercise in Lebanon. MYJointForce picture

The AG also said Malaysian peacekeepers could be in jeopardy if they have to fight without the RWS. The Guardians like any other battle taxis though were designed to carry infantry to the front lines where they will have to dismount to fight.

Kongsberg Remote Weapon Station fitted with a 12.7mm machine gun and a 7.62mm machine gun. Kongsberg

Of course a RWS will enable an APC to conduct a much accurate suppressive fire to allow dismounts to exit the vehicle safely or withdraw to a much safer position.

Aselsan STAMP RWS.

Anyhow, I can now confirmed that the 20 Armoured Wheel Vehicle 4X4 being sought for UNIFIL mission will be equipped with a RWS each.

Rheinmetall remote weapon station. Rheinmetall

I was told that the RWS chosen must be able to mount up to a 12.7mm machine gun, though the type chosen will be left to the discretion of the vehicle bidder.

FN Defndr RWS fitted with a 12.7mm gun. FN

This means the RWS could be a Kongsberg, FN, Leonardo and Aselsan or whatever type put forward by the vehicle bidder. The Army – which is serving as the technical advisor for the tender – will have the final say on the one selected. This means if a vehicle A is offered with a RWS B, the Army could ask for it to be fitted with another type though I imagined most of the bidders will likely try to appeal the decision.

IAG Guardian displayed at Weststar booth at DSA 2018 equipped with an unknown RWS.

Therefore, I am assuming the tender committee will likely choose the vehicle and RWS combo as offered by the bidders themselves.

Reutech Rogue RWS with a 12.7mm machine gun on an ACV Gempita.


— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Tags ArmyAselsanFNKongsbergUnifil
Marhalim Abas: Shah Alam

View Comments (77)

  • Any plans on adding RWS to the the 8 (wasn't it 9) IAG Guardian that MALBATT is currently using?

    This might be late, but the Guardian MRAPs seems like to be the Guardian Xtreme variant?

    Hopefully they will go with adding more of the IAG-made MRAPs.

  • That's kind of stupid roundabout way of making an objective selection. Why can't TDM do the APC and RWS selection simultaneously and once both selected, they can work to integrate with each other? An APC touted with "modularity" should be able to accept any of the various RWS systems.

    The way this goes, we could end up with a superior vehicle with inferior RWS or inferior vehicle with superior RWS or worse, inferior of both if pricing becomes an issue.

  • I believed nothing wrong with AG Report..We pay more and we got reimbursed less, thats why AG pointed that out..Its not like AG dictating or making decisions on what best for Army to use..He's only talk about money per se..

    As for RWS theres plenty to select but for the sake of commonality better pick rogue already used on gempita or bushmasters or RWS on Lipan Bara.

    Reply
    We didn't pay anything for the Guardians it was paid by Weststar as part of the deal for the Starstreak which included the buy back for the Starburst

  • @Nihd
    The current Guardians in Malbatt had specifically omitted any form of RWS for operational reasons. Unless they got rotated back to MY, there is no reason to equip them with RWS while still in Lebanon.

  • @ luqman

    " So no more chinese made ships/electronics from now on? "

    For a ship that costs RM262.5 milion each, it should be having top of the line chinese electronics, but it is not so it seems.

    Anyway my take on the LMS68.

    1) Just take it in, all 4 LMS68 as is. No need to improve its supposed deficiencies.

    2) Use those information to plan the specifications to get a new platform for LMS take 2 instead. Target cost for LMS take 2 must be less than 50% of the LMS68 (around RM100 million each) and be much more capable.

    3) Pass the LMS68 to MMEA for use in areas other than South China Sea when the new LMS take 2 is operational.

  • @ marhalim

    " We didn’t pay anything for the Guardians it was paid by Weststar as part of the deal for the Starstreak which included the buy back for the Starburst "

    Which is why I am astonished why AG is focusing on this and claiming it as a "loss".

    Those expired starbursts have 0 value anyway if Weststar didnt offer to trade it for the Guardian Extremes, the APCs is supplied exactly to Army specifications and requirements, and the cost of that free APC is reimbursed by UN some more . And yet it is singled out by the AG as a "loss" to the federal coffers. Unbelievable.

  • Our AG logic

    Got value from zero value Starbursts + free APC + Being paid for the free APC = Loss

    Why in the AG report did not take into account everything and only focused on the "loss" of revenue from UN reimbursement because it is declared to the UN as an unarmed APC instead of an armed APC?

Leave a Comment
Related Post
  1. RMN New 15-to-5 Plan
  2. More Mortars for the Army, May 2024. Updated
  3. ISS Contract for BHIC’s Subsidiary