Indonesia Indonesian Navy, Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Laut (TNI-AL)

norman88 said:

Reiss-class is not an additional contract, but a new submarine program that was followed by many tenders such as Navantia and Naval Group, and won by TKMS, so there is no connection between type 209 and reiss-class contract.
It's an entirely new procurement, just like the contract between Indonesia and DSME.

Click to expand...

1st. Navantia has joined with Naval Group design, license building.
2nd. Tender was merely procedural, as the requirements even changed after signing contract with HDW and the project's name changed from Cerbe to Reis.
3rd. Holding a tender does not reset decades long commitment of TR in submarine construction and MRO with Germans. Whereas it was Indonesia's first ever time to build a submarine locally and Koreans were the most generous one in terms of the ToT and even the price.

norman88 said:

First of all, you must be able to differentiate between additional contracts and new procurement. They are completely different and unrelated. Even if you've bought dozens of submarines from the same company before, it does not necessarily enter the negotiating table for a transfer of technology agreement.

Click to expand...

Good on you for being so determined. There is no point of 'differentiating' in this case. You are still buying more from the same company and the cumulative sum of ToT from the same company would increase both over time & for each procurement program. Of course, it still depends on negotiation skills of your representatives over ToT and how competent your industry is to absorb ToT, but that's not what you meant to say with your incredibly dumb 'minimal' comment, is it?

Sigh.

Gary said:

I'd imagine our planned LHD to have at the very least 4-6x H225, each with 2x AM39 Exocet. Once the target is detected, all will sortie and release a salvo of 8-12 Exocet before returning to re-arm, refuel, and fly again to do a repeat salvo against targets hundreds of kilometers from the main fleet.

STOL UAVs like the TB-3 or Mojave numbering around 6-10 should be carried as well, preferably with folding wings. To be used as the eyes and ears of the fleet, spread in a searching pattern to warn against incoming hostiles. There's an innovation in Ukraine where select drones are used as 'queen' with repeaters to extend the range beyond the line of sight. That would be useful for a country with no 24/7/365 coverage of military satellites.

There's of course the need for an early warning helicopter + a general-purpose cargo helicopter

This kind of air wing, IMO. Could justify the procurement of an LHD like PAL talked earlier. What do u guys think ?

Click to expand...

Boom!! Huge bang for bucks.

Windchime said:

Sea Venom is more like a newer generation Sea Skua or Penguin. It is not a replacement for Exocet.

Click to expand...

I am always in favor of Imaging-seeker guided munitions for helicopter operations. Mission planning may not be as comfortable as it is sitting in the CC room.

Btw one of the biggest problem here in Indonesia is we want the best with minimal or no money.

So when the result doesn't go as expected the blame game start

Dosirak said:

That's the very definition of additional procurement of submarine from the same company and I am not sure why you keep digging your own grave. Maybe, you feel compelled to say something, no matter how dumb it is, since you were objectively proven wrong when you absurdly claimed that ToT that Indonesia received from from Korea was 'minimal' and again you were exposed as a completely clueless clown who attempted to compare ToT that Turkey has received from TKMS and ToT that Indonesia has received from Hanwha Ocean (DSME) even though Turkey bought many, many more ships from TKMS than Indonesia did with DSME.

I guess you won't stop since you are determined to prove yourself a buffoon who thinks he could justify his incredibly dumb comment no matter objectively wrong you are. Sigh. Have a great day, mate.

Click to expand...

Dunno why you are still going with it. Some members in the Indonesian forum are bad-faithed when it comes to matters concerning Nagapasa class.

I've had similar convos here and all I was able to get is that "there are problems concerning the battery". Else, all they could show was just routine maintenance. Never was there any concrete outline of problems, or where the liability fell. They parrot that its "not open to public", since they seem to be completely unaware that in countries like the US, Korea, Australia, UK, Germany, etc. there would've been parliamentary or auditory reports concerning the program fully open to the public, had there been as much problem with the program.

None were actually able to tell me why Indonesia comissioned the KRI Nagapasa, operate her for 2 years and then sign the contract for the second batch, had there been as much problem, which DSME and Korea would've been responsible for.

Dosirak said:

Now there is no but or if. Indonesia has to pay a cancellation fee if she desires to terminate the contract unless she could prove that DSME & Korea have breached the contract first and your gov't would never find any excuse because there isn't any.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Indonesia has a history of not respecting contracts. Their Hawk procurement (which they didn't pay the UK for) was a good example, so is the nonsense in the KF-X program.

Anmdt said:

I am always in favor of Imaging-seeker guided munitions for helicopter operations. Mission planning may not be as comfortable as it is sitting in the CC room.

Click to expand...

How about adding imaging-seeker or other additional guidance for Khan during terminal stage?
Make a variant of the missile to have it and act ast AShM, it will be more accurate than the red sea attack recently, maybe.

NEKO said:

How about adding imaging-seeker or other guidance for Khan?
Make a variant of the missile to have it and act ast AShM, it will be more accurate than the red sea attack recently maybe.

Click to expand...

You go with the Iranians for that. The Tankil is one such BM with imaging seeker

Gary said:

Iranians

Click to expand...

Well.

Anmdt said:

I am always in favor of Imaging-seeker guided munitions for helicopter operations. Mission planning may not be as comfortable as it is sitting in the CC room.

Click to expand...

Concerning the different usage/missions these missiles are meant for, IIR or TV always makes more sense. Coalition forces slaughtered Iraqi FACs/missile attack crafts opearting in Kuwaiti waters with these heliborne ASuW missiles for instance.

For one, I think Sea Venom or Martlet makes much more sense than Exocet when used on maritime helos for Indonesia.

Windchime said:

Dunno why you are still going with it. Some members in the Indonesian forum are bad-faithed when it comes to matters concerning Nagapasa class.

I've had similar convos here and all I was able to get is that "there are problems concerning the battery". Else, all they could show was just routine maintenance. Never was there any concrete outline of problems, or where the liability fell. They parrot that its "not open to public", since they seem to be completely unaware that in countries like the US, Korea, Australia, UK, Germany, etc. there would've been parliamentary or auditory reports concerning the program fully open to the public, had there been as much problem with the program.

None of these idiots were actually able to tell me why Indonesia comissioned the KRI Nagapasa, operate her for 2 years and then sign the contract for the second batch, had there been as much problem, which DSME and Korea would've been responsible for.


Good luck with that. Indonesia has a history of not respecting contracts. Their Hawk procurement (which they didn't pay the UK for) was a good example, so is the nonsense in the KF-X program.

Click to expand...

to my fellow Indonesians, was it the same person halt the IFX payment? Signed by AFK MoD?

NEKO said:

Well.

Click to expand...

This phobia of weapons from countries that the West listed as 'rogue' is completely irrelevant for us. That's their enemy not ours.

I'm not saying that we should buy Iranians ASAP. But if the offer is good, why not?

Same for China. I see a lot of phobia with the YJ-12. Like , why? It's not like China has a secret button to deactivate those missiles. Even the ROC equipped their navy with Japanese produced warships back then.

Our enmity with Chin(PRC) is not yet at the level of ROC vs Imperial Japan

Gary said:

This phobia of weapons from countries that the West listed as 'rogue' is completely irrelevant for us. That's their enemy not ours.

I'm not saying that we should buy Iranians ASAP. But if the offer is good, why not?

Same for China. I see a lot of phobia with the YJ-12. Like , why? It's not like China has a secret button to deactivate those missiles. Even the ROC equipped their navy with Japanese produced warships back then.

Our enmity with Chin(PRC) is not yet at the level of ROC vs Imperial Japan

Click to expand...

there is a reason why they stationed CH4 on Natuna.

Chinese drones are leading the global market, but hidden “watchdog” technology is in place to limit their use in attacks on China.A source close to the military said all Chinese combat and reconnaissance drones had been designed and developed to recognise an “electric geofence” encircling the borders of China’s territory.
“This is the so-called watchdog tool, which is a simple technology aimed at making sure Chinese exported drones are not used by enemies as weapons to attack our country,” said the source, who asked for anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.
The function – included in the implantable components and parts of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) – was declared by Chinese developers in their instruction books, the source said.

The comments appear to confirm claims last year by the head of a leading Turkish drone developer, who told Indian-Canadian website EurAsian Times that Chinese-made UAVs “turned around as they approached the Chinese border”.
Baykar Technology CEO Haluk Bayraktar said “hidden restrictions” and “subpar performance” of drones from China had caused some clients to turn to Turkish UAVs, like his company’s TB2 military devices.

Bayraktar also said that Turkey had already surpassed China’s total drone exports, according to the report published in September.

Beijing-based military expert Li Jie said it was appropriate for Chinese UAV developers to make national security the top priority, not their business. It was also “common knowledge” that they embed “watchdog” technologies in products for sale overseas.
“All drones need to be guided by positions connecting with the US-owned GPS or China’s BeiDou navigation system, so it should be very sensitive by longitude and latitude data, allowing developers to embed data information inside its hardware,” he said.

Click to expand...

Lordimperator said:

there is a reason why they stationed CH4 on Natuna.

Chinese-made drones have built-in tech to prevent attacks on China: source

Exported UAVs are said to include a feature that recognises an ‘electric geofence’ encircling Chinese territory and turns them away.

www.scmp.com

Click to expand...

If this is true, and that means the science to do such is possible and a reality, why isn't there any legitimate question for Western sourced weapons? I mean the science is clearly there, what's stopping the French for example to secretly code the Rafale so that it couldn't fire towards our 2nd enemy, Australia ?

Dosirak said:

While I understand why Indonesia prefers Scorpene which obviously offers better capability than DSME-1400, I find it incredible that many Indonesian believe that they could just walk away from the contract without any financial ramification and somehow Hanwha Ocean & Korea are at fault.

I came here to at least listen to what Indonesian have to say about the situation and only found that their claim is basically baseless and some of them are outright hostile to the idea that they might have been wrong and Hanwha Ocean and Korea aren't actually liable for whatever problems that they claim to have with the ships. Very disappointing.

Click to expand...

Some of us just want the govt to pay fine and get lost with the contract.

If you're going to use a sample of opinions from one or two members to think of the entire Indonesian community here, it's up to you

Gary said:

Some of us just want the govt to pay fine and get lost with the contract.

If you're going to use a sample of opinions from one or two members to think of the entire Indonesian community here, it's up to you

Click to expand...

I really thought that it is a minority opinion in Indonesia that DSME-1400 is bad and Korea is at fault for delievering substandard submarine.

The recent presidential campaign in Indonesia has made the issue trending on SNS and I have noticed that it is actually a popular opinion in Indonesia. Not only that, It has come to my attention that Indonesian have been spreading malicious rumours about DSME-1400 and Korean submarine on online ASEAN forums.

I still want to believe it is just an opinion of one or two members, but I don't think I could ignore overwhelming evidence that this is a popular opinion in Indonesia.

Gary said:

This phobia of weapons from countries that the West listed as 'rogue' is completely irrelevant for us. That's their enemy not ours.

I'm not saying that we should buy Iranians ASAP. But if the offer is good, why not?

Same for China. I see a lot of phobia with the YJ-12. Like , why? It's not like China has a secret button to deactivate those missiles. Even the ROC equipped their navy with Japanese produced warships back then.

Our enmity with Chin(PRC) is not yet at the level of ROC vs Imperial Japan

Click to expand...

Sure we can have Chinese/Iran stuff, we can potentially use it against the west.

NEKO said:

Indonesia be like:
Use western weapons for potential use against China.
Use chinese weapons for potential use against the west.

Ally of no one, enemy of no one, friend of everyone*.

*Except Israel.

Click to expand...

But similar with the SU-35 deal, any deal with Iran will be problematic, sanctions looming.

Dosirak said:

Good on you for being so determined. There is no point of 'differentiating' in this case. You are still buying more from the same company and the cumulative sum of ToT from the same company would increase both over time & for each procurement program. Of course, it still depends on negotiation skills of your representatives over ToT and how competent your industry is to absorb ToT, but that's not what you meant to say with your incredibly dumb 'minimal' comment, is it?

Sigh.

Click to expand...

I'm just clarifying your previous statement, which seemed to equate the additional contract with the new procurement, while they are entirely different. And the previous procurement cannot automatically be considered as part of the agreement in ToT negotiations.

About "minimal ToT".

The President Director of PT PAL Indonesia (Persero), M. Firmansyah Arifin, stated that the submarine transfer of technology (ToT) program to South Korea tends to be detrimental to national interests. After studying the contract clauses, Firmansyah observed that the ToT program emphasizes more on learning by seeing rather than learning by doing.

"The problem is that Daewoo requires the experts we send to be under the age of 30, and the technology transfer process is done by site seeing (just coming to observe) rather than learning by doing. These requirements made the technology transfer process difficult".

Gary said:

This phobia of weapons from countries that the West listed as 'rogue' is completely irrelevant for us. That's their enemy not ours.

I'm not saying that we should buy Iranians ASAP. But if the offer is good, why not?

Same for China. I see a lot of phobia with the YJ-12. Like , why? It's not like China has a secret button to deactivate those missiles. Even the ROC equipped their navy with Japanese produced warships back then.

Our enmity with Chin(PRC) is not yet at the level of ROC vs Imperial Japan

Click to expand...

Any procurement from Iran may face CAATSA given the current climate (unless Indonesia offers a decent leverage), while China can be justified.
I don't think that red button exists physically (in form of kill switch) in most of the systems. Indonesia can ask for local assembly and board inspection to avoid any unwanted circuits (but hell they make micro scale controllers nowadays).
Remember Exocets in Falkland wars. Knowing seeker performance will give then an upper hand for the jamming. Knowing the material of seeker coating/glass/shape for imaging sensors would tell them the exact formation of dazzling beam to penetrate and kill. Just telling, not that it would happen.

Dosirak said:

I really thought that it is a minority opinion in Indonesia that DSME-1400 is bad and Korea is at fault for delievering substandard submarine.

The recent presidential campaign in Indonesia has made the issue trending on SNS and I have noticed that it is actually a popular opinion in Indonesia. Not only that, It has come to my attention that Indonesian have been spreading malicious rumours about DSME-1400 and Korean submarine on online ASEAN forums.

I still want to believe it is just an opinion of one or two members, but I don't think I could ignore overwhelming evidence that this is a popular opinion in Indonesia.

View attachment 65185

Click to expand...

This is something I couldn't quantify, because there's no rival data that shows how many people have the other opinion.

But I'm going to put my opinion forward, certainly, as I said above, the problem with Indonesia is we want the best with little money or no money at all. This has been the recurring theme for any sort of procurements.

Is the Chnagbogo bad ? maybe yes, maybe not. There are some file complaints about the Nagapasa by the Navy posted by Lembaga Keris, so that's an official complaint, but the issue regarding the program is also rife with utter hoaxes and bullshit. One such is the rumor that Nagapasa has not fired a single torpedo, which I debunked back then.


I mean if I'm going to agree with reports that the Nagapasas are bad or not working as hoped, then why complain, we bought 3 at dirt cheap price and get to assemble the third here. There's money for everything. So from our side, it's best to measure our hope with the money we invest. If we invest $220 million, then put our expectations not very far from there, if we invest $ 3 billion, then put our expectations near.

I'll admit that the Nagapasa deal is dirt cheap in the context of submarine deals and cheap comes with all sorts of problems later on. Or falling below expectations.

This is certainly something high technology, and high technology indeed need a lot of $$$ but from my observation (personal), this countyr is not a nation that is 'thirsty' to catch up. If we are serious about building something as high tech as a submarine, we should go straight up to TKMS, beg them on our knees to please let us know how to build a submarine and back it up with hugeeee sums of money. This is what Habibie done back then when he kickstarted the Indonesian aircraft industry. What we're doing in fact, is we go to South Korea, a relatively (or very) new player in the business of Submarines, pay them very little and we expect the submarine to be an Asian Scorpene (LOL).

This is also my observation with the anti-ship missile program. We want ToT as well as licensing of missiles (C-705) to be built here, in return China asks us to buy somewhere around 250 of those missiles. A country in hunger mode for catching up would've took the deal no problem, 250 missiles is not that much especially with China prices...but no, we rejected it. So we want something as big and as high tech as missile ToT, but we want no money spared, that's not stupid, that is daydreaming.

In short I want to say that almost all of our problems stem from our disconnect from our aspirations and what we have spared to achieve the goal.

High technology machine needs a lot of brains and a lot of money, Indonesia thinks that it only needs brains and not a lot of money (investing in tools, set up JV, etc) and that's why there's no wonder why Indonesia's defense project are stuck and the one that moves forward took like 2 decades to complete before even reaching mass production