Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions
- Thread starter weasel1962
- Start date
My eyes are blind, I cannot see ...Yeah, I already mentioned that on top of this page...
I have not brought my specs with me ...
My bad ... missed it
Since they've already acquired the non-NATO PT-91M ... why not? Unlike other more militarily west-aligned countries, Malaysia has never shown a preference/loyalty for "NATO" equipment.
The latest from General Dynamics is that the Swiss will go with the the NBC variants that you have made reference to, thanks for the link.
Also Germany just signed a deal for 198 Mowag Eagle IVs, what will they use them for.
The Eagle IV is the winner of the German class 2 tender of the "Geschützte Führungs- und Funktionsfahrzeuge" (Protected Command- and Utility-vehicles) programme. Class 2 was for vehicles of the 5,3 - 7,5 ton weight range and the only other contender was the Rheinmetall Caracal (licence-built Iveco LMV). They will be used extensively in Afghanistan and shall partially replace the lightly armored variants of the Wolf (MB G-Wagon) that are currently used in Afghanistan for out-of-base duties. But this is slightly offtopic, isn't it
Thanks for the information, and yep, a little off topic.The Eagle IV is the winner of the German class 2 tender of the "Geschützte Führungs- und Funktionsfahrzeuge" (Protected Command- and Utility-vehicles) programme. Class 2 was for vehicles of the 5,3 - 7,5 ton weight range and the only other contender was the Rheinmetall Caracal (licence-built Iveco LMV). They will be used extensively in Afghanistan and shall partially replace the lightly armored variants of the Wolf (MB G-Wagon) that are currently used in Afghanistan for out-of-base duties. But this is slightly offtopic, isn't it
You're welcome
E.g. for their MBT-programme, they tested the T-90 from Russia and the T-84 from Ukraine (and, as non-MBT alternatives, the Italian B1 Centauro and the Swedish CV-90120). Which one did they buy? The PT-91M from Poland which they AFAIK did not test before. Same goes for their new mortar carrier, they tested the Bighorn from Switzerland, but then went for French 2R2M.
So, even though 2 years ago they tested the Piranha IIIC, Rosomak and PARS, they quite possibly might wind up with something totally different in a couple of years, a few days ago a Malaysian defence journalist hinted towards the French VBCI, but that must not mean anything.
Not impossible. It's quite typical for the Malaysians to buy a different vehicle than the one they put to the test before.
E.g. for their MBT-programme, they tested the T-90 from Russia and the T-84 from Ukraine (and, as non-MBT alternatives, the Italian B1 Centauro and the Swedish CV-90120). Which one did they buy? The PT-91M from Poland which they AFAIK did not test before. Same goes for their new mortar carrier, they tested the Bighorn from Switzerland, but then went for French 2R2M.
So, even though 2 years ago they tested the Piranha IIIC, Rosomak and PARS, they quite possibly might wind up with something totally different in a couple of years, a few days ago a Malaysian defence journalist hinted towards the French VBCI, but that must not mean anything.
Twister could you explain a bit more on how the procurement system works? Many, many thanks.
Does Malaysia ever think about procuring Attack Helos? I think Mi-28s, Mi-35 and Longbows are good choices. But, the Longbow may not be a very likely choice, the anti-US feeling here is kind of at it's height.
In any case, the procurement of Attack Helos and CAPs should do it. The CAPs fly interception to protect ground forces and helicopters from enemy CAPs and CASs while helos mop up the tanks.
In any case, the procurement of Attack Helos and CAPs should do it. The CAPs fly interception to protect ground forces and helicopters from enemy CAPs and CASs while helos mop up the tanks.
An attack chopper is not part of the current plannings as far as I'm aware of. Neither on the 9th Malaysian Plan (budget allocation until 2010) nor on the 10th plan which will alocate the budget until 2015.
They did recently procure a couple of Agusta A109 LUH helicopters though, which can carry several weapon pods on their pylons. But that's not comparable to a real, "pure-bred" attack helo of course.
Here's an image of a Malaysian A-109 LUH with a 7x 2.75" unguided missile pod and a 20(?) mm machinegun pod. Note: As far as I know this image is a promotional one that was taken before the helos were delivered to Malaysia. I don't know which weapon pods Malaysia actually has nor if they have any at all.
They did recently procure a couple of Agusta A109 LUH helicopters though, which can carry several weapon pods on their pylons. But that's not comparable to a real, "pure-bred" attack helo of course.
Here's an image of a Malaysian A-109 LUH with a 7x 2.75" unguided missile pod and a 20(?) mm machinegun pod. Note: As far as I know this image is a promotional one that was taken before the helos were delivered to Malaysia. I don't know which weapon pods Malaysia actually has nor if they have any at all.
Last edited:
That could be good enough to fly CAS I guess. So long as you've got rockets and >20mm cannon pods, it should be able to handle lightly armored vehicles and most importantly, soldiers.
However, it should be noted by the Kerajaan that the use of Helicopters, ESPECIALLY in the Anti-tank role, would be advantageous. They should consider the issue seriously, as some of our possible enemies that could present a threat we cannot handle have some serious firepower. Singapore and Australia's NATO-made tanks come to mind. Not to mention Longbows in Singapore. The PT-91s and every other light tank and APC under employment will not stand a chance from a Hellfire 2 unless they decide to stick SHTORA-1 and ARENA-E on all of them.
Which also brings us to this. The employment of Anti-Aircraft systems. The 2S6M Tunguska is quite a choice for low-level targets. The 30mm cannons have a 0.8 kill probability, which is high and the missiles on-board would do the job the cannons could not. S-400s should do for intermediate and long-range threats, while the 2K12 Kub and SA8 Gecko should do for low-level flight to intermediate level. Grails and/or Grouses should be introduced to squads in case they don't have these missile systems present.
I know missiles aren't cheap, but if we can afford to pay tonnes for an education system that burdens the student, we can most likely pay for missiles too!
However, it should be noted by the Kerajaan that the use of Helicopters, ESPECIALLY in the Anti-tank role, would be advantageous. They should consider the issue seriously, as some of our possible enemies that could present a threat we cannot handle have some serious firepower. Singapore and Australia's NATO-made tanks come to mind. Not to mention Longbows in Singapore. The PT-91s and every other light tank and APC under employment will not stand a chance from a Hellfire 2 unless they decide to stick SHTORA-1 and ARENA-E on all of them.
Which also brings us to this. The employment of Anti-Aircraft systems. The 2S6M Tunguska is quite a choice for low-level targets. The 30mm cannons have a 0.8 kill probability, which is high and the missiles on-board would do the job the cannons could not. S-400s should do for intermediate and long-range threats, while the 2K12 Kub and SA8 Gecko should do for low-level flight to intermediate level. Grails and/or Grouses should be introduced to squads in case they don't have these missile systems present.
I know missiles aren't cheap, but if we can afford to pay tonnes for an education system that burdens the student, we can most likely pay for missiles too!
IMO a fixed wing plane that can do both interceptor and ground attack roles is much more cost-effective.
Yeah, but they would have to consume fuel more and they can't hover. That's a serious disadvantage. You want your air forces to stay in the air more so that the enemy won't have a chance at victory. Plus, helicopters are better at hunting down remnant forces and usually can carry huger pylon loads compared to fast attack planes. The Hind is one such example.
Helicopters can stay on the battlefield longer. They can sit still behind friendly forces and pop at targets nearly twice the distance of that of a tank. But, it is agreeable that fixed wing aircraft can do the same job, just that it may take the pilot more skill. He'll have to do passes and if he accidentally enters the AA missile coverage, he's toast.
A109s mainly for recon rather than attack, as for attack helicopters, it will be a while partly because the Army Air Corps is still building up and tactical transport helicopters are the priority with the AAC (or PUTD to give it's proper malay name) taking over the army's heli transport requirements from the RMAF
Not the most logical argument that I have seen in DT. Chino said fixed wing. A fixed wing aircraft is not necessarily a fast mover. I think Chino is concerned about survivability in his post. You are arguing a little off tangent and you have got your concepts are a little jumbled.
You need to give me some context for what you are saying. Close air support is not battlefield interdiction. You also need to be clear on your concepts.
IMHO, helicopters are much more vulnerable to AA missile coverage than fast movers. Dzirhan will correct me if I am wrong.
Got to to agree with OPSSG not to mention that it's been pretty much shown in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan that helicopters are also very vulnerable to ground fire let alone AA missiles and with stand-off and precision munitions, aircraft now have a significant advantage when it comes to CAS. Tavarisch, you're thinking of the 80's and 90's when you refer to aircraft making passes over the target are, it's not the case today with standoff munitions.
Yeah, well I have to agree. But you want the fixed wing to be fast right? If it were to be slow or just intermediately fast, it would be an easy target for section or squad level AAs to target them.
The plane must be able to get in there as fast as getting out. Otherwise, like I said, it could be toast.
And yes, I am also aware that helicopters are not safe from AA either. The Soviet War in Afghanistan comes to mind. Lost a lot of hinds and other equipment the Soviets did.
Some helicopters though have the ability to remain out of sight and still inflict casualties. (Longbow anyone?) However, a radar based AA missile would definitely get it.
The plane must be able to get in there as fast as getting out. Otherwise, like I said, it could be toast.
And yes, I am also aware that helicopters are not safe from AA either. The Soviet War in Afghanistan comes to mind. Lost a lot of hinds and other equipment the Soviets did.
Some helicopters though have the ability to remain out of sight and still inflict casualties. (Longbow anyone?) However, a radar based AA missile would definitely get it.