Indonesia Indonesian Army,Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Darat (TNI-AD)

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,502
Solutions
2
Reactions
118 24,885
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
It's just that the AShM armed X-18s can fire their missiles while moving and, thus, position themselves to intecept enemy warships from any direction.
And the armed boats won't be detected while they are going around?
If you can localize and track a surface threat to go around it and engage from different angles, then you can as well hit it by land based mobile systems or air-launched cruise missiles.

And since this catamaran is more designed to have shallow draft to enable its operation in very shallow areas, it won't be effective in open-seas, even at sea state 2 it may be a challenging operation.

It may be used for hunting other FACs, SDVs, LCM/LCUs etc and set to protect a coastal region. and used as a highly mobile coastal anti-ship defense system. The radar on top indicates that too, it seems to lack an FCR thus probably meant for indirect engagement.
 

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,126
Reactions
4 1,702
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
And the armed boats won't be detected while they are going around?
If you can localize and track a surface threat to go around it and engage from different angles, then you can as well hit it by land based mobile systems or air-launched cruise missiles.

And since this catamaran is more designed to have shallow draft to enable its operation in very shallow areas, it won't be effective in open-seas, even at sea state 2 it may be a challenging operation.

It may be used for hunting other FACs, SDVs, LCM/LCUs etc and set to protect a coastal region. and used as a highly mobile coastal anti-ship defense system. The radar on top indicates that too, it seems to lack an FCR thus probably meant for indirect engagement.
If we look at the locations where Indonesia is said to place shore based anti ship missiles at, it should be clear that those locations are the chokepoints of the country's designated international sea lanes. As such, even mobile ground based coastal missile launchers won't have many options about where they can be deployed and redeployed after firing.

While the missile boats aren't invisible to radars and other detection methods, their small size and mobility is a big plus. Utilizing their shallow draft, they can sail close to the coast in attempt to make detection more difficult (i.e. using ground clutter as disguise). During attack, they won't have to sail too far from the shore since most of the straits / chokepoints are below 200-250 km wide.

Of course, this means that they should be assigned to both sides of the straits. Furthermore, there must be a dependable detection and targeting system as well as integrated combat management system for this tactic to be really effective.

In short, I'm picturing similar tactics with what Iran is planning to do to close the Hormuz strait by using many speedboats and fast attack crafts armed with missiles against US Navy fleet. Only better.
 

JATOSINT 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
2,254
Reactions
4 3,224
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
If we look at the locations where Indonesia is said to place shore based anti ship missiles at, it should be clear that those locations are the chokepoints of the country's designated international sea lanes. As such, even mobile ground based coastal missile launchers won't have many options about where they can be deployed and redeployed after firing.

While the missile boats aren't invisible to radars and other detection methods, their small size and mobility is a big plus. Utilizing their shallow draft, they can sail close to the coast in attempt to make detection more difficult (i.e. using ground clutter as disguise). During attack, they won't have to sail too far from the shore since most of the straits / chokepoints are below 200-250 km wide.

Of course, this means that they should be assigned to both sides of the straits. Furthermore, there must be a dependable detection and targeting system as well as integrated combat management system for this tactic to be really effective.

In short, I'm picturing similar tactics with what Iran is planning to do to close the Hormuz strait by using many speedboats and fast attack crafts armed with missiles against US Navy fleet. Only better.
Won't have many options? Malacca, Sunda, and Makassar strait literally located next to our major islands: Java, Sulawesi, Kalimantan,

"utilizing their shallow draft, they can sail close to the coast in attempt to make detection more difficult (i.e. using ground clutter as disguise)."

And why you think a mobile shore-based AShM cant do that? hiding in hills/forest, etc?
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,502
Solutions
2
Reactions
118 24,885
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
If we look at the locations where Indonesia is said to place shore based anti ship missiles at, it should be clear that those locations are the chokepoints of the country's designated international sea lanes. As such, even mobile ground based coastal missile launchers won't have many options about where they can be deployed and redeployed after firing.

While the missile boats aren't invisible to radars and other detection methods, their small size and mobility is a big plus. Utilizing their shallow draft, they can sail close to the coast in attempt to make detection more difficult (i.e. using ground clutter as disguise). During attack, they won't have to sail too far from the shore since most of the straits / chokepoints are below 200-250 km wide.

Of course, this means that they should be assigned to both sides of the straits. Furthermore, there must be a dependable detection and targeting system as well as integrated combat management system for this tactic to be really effective.

In short, I'm picturing similar tactics with what Iran is planning to do to close the Hormuz strait by using many speedboats and fast attack crafts armed with missiles against US Navy fleet. Only better.
I have wrote a long reply but instead preffering to keep it short:
Iran adopts an anti-symmetrical doctrine, unsustainable, low on logistics and costs, replacable units.
While Indonesia adopts a conventional one, because the threat requires so.
Iran prepares their everything for short term offensive-defensive at the sea to inflict maximum damage on US assets who are fighting thousand miles away with a logistic matter, and long term defensive after a possible invasion.

While Indonesia faces China which fights within its own region, thus with ease on logistics.

While Iranian FACs run on domestic, cloned commercial systems avaliable in mass amounts, the hull made of commercially avaliable cheapest composites or polyurethane almost can be made at backyard of an house, costing 1/30th of the X18, while missiles again built domestically in Iran, costs 1/5 or maybe 10th of exocet-harpoon-NSM. Indonesia prefers top-notch systems which makes anti-symmetrical approach not feasible.

So Iran-Hormuz example is quite baseless.

And most of the modern naval radar systems are designed to operate well in cluttered areas, such as Smart-S and why it is chosen by Turkey, Greece or other countries, as well as, later by Indonesia. And China isn't a country lacking in tech, they have UAVs, MPAs.

While my point was, it is not feasible to move wheeled anti-ship coastal defenses around apart from the mainland, main islands, while this boat can reside on a small island for a day, then move to another. Literally acting as a mobile coastal defense skipping between beaches or islands, sneaking behind island,linked up to a MPA or UAV patrolling the region.

While the boat itself is not suitable to go out in hunting, would you drive a ferrari to a hunting in the wild, or would you prefer a jeep? You need a bigger FAC for that, like Chinese Houbei class.

However if X18 used as coastal defense, then in this case it will need a better endurance,more fuel for generators, galley-baths -berths etc. I know they can handle it, also officers can benefit from islands to supply their needs.
 
Last edited:

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
3,183
Reactions
4 2,806
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Its okay for Iran to go with that doctrine and spent their money on lots of small surface combatant because they only need to focus their naval power on a small body of water.

But for Indonesia its different because Indonesia need to cover an area spanning thousands of Km, that nice Ashm would be better to be put on a bigger ship.
 

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,126
Reactions
4 1,702
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Won't have many options? Malacca, Sunda, and Makassar strait literally located next to our major islands: Java, Sulawesi, Kalimantan,

"utilizing their shallow draft, they can sail close to the coast in attempt to make detection more difficult (i.e. using ground clutter as disguise)."

And why you think a mobile shore-based AShM cant do that? hiding in hills/forest, etc?
I wrote:
...those locations are the chokepoints of the country's designated international sea lanes
What is the best place to deploy a ground based anti ship missile? Near or by the sea, isn't it? Taking the Ukraine's Neptune system as a measurement point, with its 250-280 km range, you can't place it too deep in the interior except if they're being placed to guard narrow straits. Even then, if we consider the time to reach the target with its subsonic missiles, it still better to place them near the shore.

As such, the exact and possible locations of those launchers are arguably easier to identify even without using satellites or aerial recon / drones.

While there's also a tactic called shoot and scoot in which the launchers promptly relocate after firing their missiles, they still need time to pack up. It could be anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes. Probably long enough for a modern navy complete with aircraft carriers and / or high-speed cruise missile to detect the launching position and to destroy them.

Now keep in mind that I'm picturing them to be placed on the coast of the straits where our international sea lanes are which are mostly between 30 to 260 km wide, then you probably can understand why the X-18 missile boats like in the concept art can be used effectively.

In short, I never meant to imply that we don't need those ground based launchers. We do need them. But we also need something like the X-18 missile boats to be stationed around the chokepoints so that both systems can complement each other. If the ground based launchers can be stationed anywhere on the ground along the coastline and move to the interior after launch when needed, the missile boats can be stationed or patrolling the coast, adding more punch by launching their missiles at enemy ships and then move elsewhere.
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
3,183
Reactions
4 2,806
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I wrote:

What is the best place to deploy a ground based anti ship missile? Near or by the sea, isn't it? Taking the Ukraine's Neptune system as a measurement point, with its 250-280 km range, you can't place it too deep in the interior except if they're being placed to guard narrow straits. Even then, if we consider the time to reach the target with its subsonic missiles, it still better to place them near the shore.

As such, the exact and possible locations of those launchers are arguably easier to identify even without using satellites or aerial recon / drones.

While there's also a tactic called shoot and scoot in which the launchers promptly relocate after firing their missiles, they still need time to pack up. It could be anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes. Probably long enough for a modern navy complete with aircraft carriers and / or high-speed cruise missile to detect the launching position and to destroy them.

Now keep in mind that I'm picturing them to be placed on the coast of the straits where our international sea lanes are which are mostly between 30 to 260 km wide, then you probably can understand why the X-18 missile boats like in the concept art can be used effectively.

In short, I never meant to imply that we don't need those ground based launchers. We do need them. But we also need something like the X-18 missile boats to be stationed around the chokepoints so that both systems can complement each other. If the ground based launchers can be stationed anywhere on the ground along the coastline and move to the interior after launch when needed, the missile boats can be stationed or patrolling the coast, adding more punch by launching their missiles at enemy ships and then move elsewhere.
Why not just use KCR, the stealth trimaran is a better option than this missile boat.
 

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,126
Reactions
4 1,702
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I have wrote a long reply but instead preffering to keep it short:
Iran adopts an anti-symmetrical doctrine, unsustainable, low on logistics and costs, replacable units.
While Indonesia adopts a conventional one, because the threat requires so.
Iran prepares their everything for short term offensive-defensive at the sea to inflict maximum damage on US assets who are fighting thousand miles away with a logistic matter, and long term defensive after a possible invasion.

While Indonesia faces China which fights within its own region, thus with ease on logistics.

While Iranian FACs run on domestic, cloned commercial systems avaliable in mass amounts, the hull made of commercially avaliable cheapest composites or polyurethane almost can be made at backyard of an house, costing 1/30th of the X18, while missiles again built domestically in Iran, costs 1/5 or maybe 10th of exocet-harpoon-NSM. Indonesia prefers top-notch systems which makes anti-symmetrical approach not feasible.

So Iran-Hormuz example is quite baseless.

And most of the modern naval radar systems are designed to operate well in cluttered areas, such as Smart-S and why it is chosen by Turkey, Greece or other countries, as well as, later by Indonesia. And China isn't a country lacking in tech, they have UAVs, MPAs.

While my point was, it is not feasible to move wheeled anti-ship coastal defenses around apart from the mainland, main islands, while this boat can reside on a small island for a day, then move to another. Literally acting as a mobile coastal defense skipping between beaches or islands, sneaking behind island,linked up to a MPA or UAV patrolling the region.

While the boat itself is not suitable to go out in hunting, would you drive a ferrari to a hunting in the wild, or would you prefer a jeep? You need a bigger FAC for that, like Chinese Houbei class.

However if X18 used as coastal defense, then in this case it will need a better endurance,more fuel for generators, galley-baths -berths etc. I know they can handle it, also officers can benefit from islands to supply their needs.
The keyword here is: asymmetrical warfare. That's exactly what I was thinking when I wrote previous replies.

While Indonesia has a modern navy which is far better equipped than Iran, but I don't think we can stand toe-to-toe against China (and, for what it's worth, against US / Western powers as well). Therefore, the asymmetrical approach here can be our best chance to inflict heavy losses if we go against such opponents.

Of course, Iran have their own challenges as well as their own geographical location which can't be compared to Indonesia, but the basic idea of using many smaller crafts against enemy fleet especially when they don't have to move too far away off shore is really appealing to me.

Bold: I'm not sure if it's something missing in my reply before, but yours is what I actually meant. Those X-18 missile boat concept, can be (or probably should be) deployed as mobile coastal defense system, taking surveillance and target data from other platforms whether ground or air based, launch their missiles and get the hell out as soon as they can.

If this being done in concert with ground based mobile launchers, both systems can be very effective at least to harass much larger enemy fleet and to prevent them move closer to the coast.
 

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,126
Reactions
4 1,702
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Why not just use KCR, the stealth trimaran is a better option than this missile boat.
KCR, Stealth Trimaran, X-18, whatever available.

Although the smaller size and shallower draft of the X-18 can provide it with advantages not posessed by other platforms, but they're all can be deployed for this scenario.
 

JATOSINT 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
2,254
Reactions
4 3,224
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I wrote:

What is the best place to deploy a ground based anti ship missile? Near or by the sea, isn't it? Taking the Ukraine's Neptune system as a measurement point, with its 250-280 km range, you can't place it too deep in the interior except if they're being placed to guard narrow straits. Even then, if we consider the time to reach the target with its subsonic missiles, it still better to place them near the shore.

As such, the exact and possible locations of those launchers are arguably easier to identify even without using satellites or aerial recon / drones.

While there's also a tactic called shoot and scoot in which the launchers promptly relocate after firing their missiles, they still need time to pack up. It could be anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes. Probably long enough for a modern navy complete with aircraft carriers and / or high-speed cruise missile to detect the launching position and to destroy them.

Now keep in mind that I'm picturing them to be placed on the coast of the straits where our international sea lanes are which are mostly between 30 to 260 km wide, then you probably can understand why the X-18 missile boats like in the concept art can be used effectively.

In short, I never meant to imply that we don't need those ground based launchers. We do need them. But we also need something like the X-18 missile boats to be stationed around the chokepoints so that both systems can complement each other. If the ground based launchers can be stationed anywhere on the ground along the coastline and move to the interior after launch when needed, the missile boats can be stationed or patrolling the coast, adding more punch by launching their missiles at enemy ships and then move elsewhere.

Agree that we need both systems (mobile land-based and sea-based)

I'm just confused with your previous post. It seems like you're saying that TBoat is easier to hide than mobile land-based AShM. They're at least the same when it comes to avoiding enemy detection. IMO, land-based AShM can avoid it better

"you can't place it too deep in the interior"

Yes, you can, just draw a circle in google earth and it will show you that with at least 200km range, land-based AShM can be placed well inside our land area, at least its launcher (the sensor might need to be placed closer to the shore, depending on their max range with the launcher. Or not at all if targeting data is collected and shared by other platforms: MPA, Subs, Surface Combatant, or even drones/satelites)
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,502
Solutions
2
Reactions
118 24,885
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
While Indonesia has a modern navy which is far better equipped than Iran, but I don't think we can stand toe-to-toe against China (and, for what it's worth, against US / Western powers as well). Therefore, the asymmetrical approach here can be our best chance to inflict heavy losses if we go against such opponents.
And you can not establish a better equipped modern anti-symmetrical navy with a rational budget. Also granting the idea of a larger area to deploy these anti-symmetrical assets against China, that will be impossible to fund and keep up.

Also further to note, Iran has to fight against a well settled USN with other hostile countries around, while Indonesia will need to fight a fresh offensive with other friendly countries around.
 

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,126
Reactions
4 1,702
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Agree that we need both systems (mobile land-based and sea-based)

I'm just confused with your previous post. It seems like you're saying that TBoat is easier to hide than mobile land-based AShM. They're at least the same when it comes to avoiding enemy detection. IMO, land-based AShM can avoid it better
My bad then. I should've written it better.

But my point still stands, I think. The TB need no time to pack and leave after firing its missile while the ground based ones do even if it's only 10 minutes.

"you can't place it too deep in the interior"

Yes, you can, just draw a circle in google earth and it will show you that with at least 200km range, land-based AShM can be placed well inside our land area, at least its launcher (the sensor might need to be placed closer to the shore, depending on their max range with the launcher. Or not at all if targeting data is collected and shared by other platforms: MPA, Subs, Surface Combatant, or even drones/satelites)
I'm not sure if the Neptune missile (once again, it's what I've been using as measurement point) has NoE capability. But if it does then it should be fine to place the launchers even some tens of kilometers from the coast.

Another alternative is if the missile only doing it's sea skimming during the final phase then it also can be placed within the interior since it flies at higher altitude right after launch then dropped to sea skimming some distance before its target.
 

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,126
Reactions
4 1,702
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
And you can not establish a better equipped modern anti-symmetrical navy with a rational budget. Also granting the idea of a larger area to deploy these anti-symmetrical assets against China, that will be impossible to fund and keep up.

Also further to note, Iran has to fight against a well settled USN with other hostile countries around, while Indonesia will need to fight a fresh offensive with other friendly countries around.
Bold 1: No, no, no. This scenario doesn't mean that all the straits must be guarded with these boats. As you said, it will be impossible to fund considering the vast area of Indonesia waters and coastlines. Those boats are mostly intended to be deployed in and around the vital chokepoints and possibly around some other strategic locations.

In worst case where our major warships are no longer capable of fighting - whether they're being sunk or heavily damaged - these smaller assets are what we got left so they must be deployed to the locations and fight with tactics where they can sting the most.

Bold 2: I might be already influenced too much in the "free and active" doctrine / psyche, but there's a reason why I wrote this earlier:

I don't think we can stand toe-to-toe against China (and, for what it's worth, against US / Western powers as well)
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
3,183
Reactions
4 2,806
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Jet fighter is the most nimble, their movement is hard to track they can just suddenly move from one base to another hundreds km away, they can just suddenly scramble and launch their missile, supported with well integrated assets (submarine, warship, MPA etc) jet fighter can be very effective, protected deep inside land area but can fly to engage enemy on the high seas.
 

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,126
Reactions
4 1,702
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Jet fighter is the most nimble, their movement is hard to track they can just suddenly move from one base to another hundreds km away, they can just suddenly scramble and launch their missile, supported with well integrated assets (submarine, warship, MPA etc) jet fighter can be very effective, protected deep inside land area but can fly to engage enemy on the high seas.
True. Although it must be said that since each and every different platform have their own specific strengths and weaknesses, it's imperative to utilize each of them according to where they can be most effective and to avoid using them where they're not.

Strike or fighter planes, in this case, have a glaring weakness that they can't be used if their base is destroyed or the runway is disabled. Their fixed bases also mean that they're already in the list of first priority targets that must be neutralized at the opening of any major conflicts between nations. Therefore, unless we can achieve at least a limited or localized air superiority, sending fighters to attack enemy warships will likely results in them being shot down.
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
3,183
Reactions
4 2,806
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Strike or fighter planes, in this case, have a glaring weakness that they can't be used if their base is destroyed or the runway is disabled. Their fixed bases also mean that they're already in the list of first priority targets that must be neutralized at the opening of any major conflicts between nations.
Well, just like how Egyptian air force getting destroyed while still on the ground during six day war.
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
3,183
Reactions
4 2,806
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Maybe big ticket item that we should get next time is SAM(merad / lorad), we will need lots of it so It is better to build it locally, I don't think we have the capability to develop it ourselves thus we better allocate big budget and getting ToT then build it locally.

Looking at JP with their Chu-SAM and SK with their KM-SAM, really make envy desu.

Although NASAMS 2 that we currently have is nice but the population is very very lacking.
 

JATOSINT 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
2,254
Reactions
4 3,224
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Jet fighter is the most nimble, their movement is hard to track they can just suddenly move from one base to another hundreds km away, they can just suddenly scramble and launch their missile, supported with well integrated assets (submarine, warship, MPA etc) jet fighter can be very effective, protected deep inside land area but can fly to engage enemy on the high seas.
Wonder if our AF will significantly increase its air-to-surface capabilities or not by buying dedicated AShM missile
 

Madokafc

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
5,913
Reactions
4 10,053
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Wonder if our AF will significantly increase its air-to-surface capabilities or not by buying dedicated AShM missile

Even we don't have enough Smart Bomb, bunker Buster and such ...
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom