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

Anmdt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, and also most detrimental.

Anmdt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep 1 billion, for 3 submarines plus ToT. The cheapest on the tender with that amount of subs, if iam not wrong.

Like I said, we got what we paid for.
Ada harga ada rupa.

norman88 said:

Yes, and also most detrimental.

Click to expand...

Well, your people have chosen them among other options, which one was TR-DE consortium and not gonna lie, your people hasn't treat us TR boys that 'good' or friendly on the table. I have a lot to speak, but i prefer not to.

The same people also have read terms of conditions, they signed the contract with every bit, more or less they also had gone through years long trial process (with participation of Navy and possibly other government personnel) and have approved them (both the operator and funder).

If there is something stinky, it is more on Indonesian side which entire project has been in hands of some government people representing Indonesia (Navy, PT PAL, acquisition office and whomever else) whereas on Korean side it is merely a private shipyard doing some business.

Anything you say further on this topic more stings to Indonesia as a state than it relates to Korea as a state.

norman88 said:

Yes, and also most detrimental.

Click to expand...

Like I've said, however "detrimental", TNI had two years after the commissioning of KRI Nagapasa until the signing of batch 2 contract. Whatever the KRI Nagapasa turned out to be, it was enough to warrant a second batch of the same ship.

Stop with this BS, al you're doing is clowning yourself.

Lordimperator said:

Yep 1 billion, for 3 submarines plus ToT. The cheapest on the tender with that amount of subs, if iam not wrong.

Click to expand...

+ Highest fraction of ToT and know-how transfer.

Lordimperator said:

Yep 1 billion, for 3 submarines plus ToT. The cheapest on the tender with that amount of subs, if iam not wrong.

Click to expand...

Reiss class price > US$340 million each
Nagapasa class price > US$373 million each
IYKWIM,,,,,

norman88 said:

Reiss class price > US$340 million each
Nagapasa class price > US$373 million each
IYKWIM,,,,,

Click to expand...

Did they include reiss class in our tender back then?

Gary said:

It's not like China has a secret button to deactivate those missiles.

Click to expand...

Most if not all high-tech weapon-exporting countries have developed countermeasures when their weapons are being used against them. The forms can vary from a total shutdown of said weapons via a "kill switch", to reduced effectiveness, or any other. Even if there aren't any "kill switches" included, those countries are the ones who designed and built the weapons so they have a complete and thorough understanding of how those weapons work, including how to develop ways to counter them.

Gary said:

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?

Click to expand...

There were, and still are. But one of the main reasons why such things aren't being questioned out loud is because their interests and ours still align for the time being.

Gary said:

what's stopping the French for example to secretly code the Rafale so that it couldn't fire towards our 2nd enemy, Australia ?

Click to expand...

Aside from the aforementioned aligned interests, well, business.

France once rejected the request from the UK to provide them with Exocet "kill switch" during the Falkland War, saying that there was no such thing on their missile. In turn, 40 years later in 2022, it was revealed that there was a method to disable Exocet if it was being used to attack the French Navy's warships. This was kept secret because Francois Mitterand, the French president at that time, saw it as handing over the "secret keys" to their rival in the global arms trade.

They still helped in other ways though, like forbidding other South American countries who already bought the missile to aid Argentina, to provide "parts of the technical details" of Exocet to the US and UK.

norman88 said:

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.

PT PAL: Kerja Sama dengan Korea Selatan Rugikan RI

Tapi nasi sudah menjadi bubur. Firmansyah tinggal berharap bisa menempatkan lebih banyak tenaga ahli dari kampus.

nasional.tempo.co

"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".

Alih Teknologi Kapal Selam, PT PAL Kirim 8 Tenaga Ahli ke Daewoo

Kapal Selam (navaltechnology.com)BISNIS.COM, SURABAYA- PT PAL Indonesia (Persero) segera mengirimkan 8 enjineer ke Korea Selatan, untuk alih teknologi pembuatan kapal selam pesanan Kementerian Pertahanan yang diproduksi di perusahaan galangan Daewoo.

m.bisnis.com

Click to expand...

if you want to claim 'ToT was minimal' then you have to bring up something more relevant than 2013 articles as PT PAL built a submarine in Indonesia with ToT that the company received from DSME & delievered the submarine in 2021. Any ToT to make this happen is not 'minimal' by any strech of imagination and even President Jokowi acknowledged this, too. I'd appreciate if you could stop being an idiot, but that's not in your interest is it?

Dosirak said:

if you want to claim 'ToT was minimal' then you have to bring up something more relevant than 2013 articles as PT PAL built a submarine in Indonesia with ToT that the company received from DSME & delievered the submarine in 2021. Any ToT to make this happen is not 'minimal' by any strech of imagination and even President Jokowi acknowledged this, too. I'd appreciate if you could stop being an idiot, but that's not in your interest is it?

Click to expand...

Ok dude, keep your denial.

FPXAllen said:

Most if not all high-tech weapon-exporting countries have developed countermeasures when their weapons are being used against them. The forms can vary from a total shutdown of said weapons via a "kill switch", to reduced effectiveness, or any other. Even if there aren't any "kill switches" included, those countries are the ones who designed and built the weapons so they have a complete and thorough understanding of how those weapons work, including how to develop ways to counter them.


There were, and still are. But one of the main reasons why such things aren't being questioned out loud is because their interests and ours still align for the time being.


Aside from the aforementioned aligned interests, well, business.

France once rejected the request from the UK to provide them with Exocet "kill switch" during the Falkland War, saying that there was no such thing on their missile. In turn, 40 years later in 2022, it was revealed that there was a method to disable Exocet if it was being used to attack the French Navy's warships. This was kept secret because Francois Mitterand, the French president at that time, saw it as handing over the "secret keys" to their rival in the global arms trade.

They still helped in other ways though, like forbidding other South American countries who already bought the missile to aid Argentina, to provide "parts of the technical details" of Exocet to the US and UK.

Click to expand...

Yeah they know the in and out, the characteristic, performance and limitations etc.

FPXAllen said:

Most if not all high-tech weapon-exporting countries have developed countermeasures when their weapons are being used against them. The forms can vary from a total shutdown of said weapons via a "kill switch", to reduced effectiveness, or any other. Even if there aren't any "kill switches" included, those countries are the ones who designed and built the weapons so they have a complete and thorough understanding of how those weapons work, including how to develop ways to counter them.


There were, and still are. But one of the main reasons why such things aren't being questioned out loud is because their interests and ours still align for the time being.


Aside from the aforementioned aligned interests, well, business.

France once rejected the request from the UK to provide them with Exocet "kill switch" during the Falkland War, saying that there was no such thing on their missile. In turn, 40 years later in 2022, it was revealed that there was a method to disable Exocet if it was being used to attack the French Navy's warships. This was kept secret because Francois Mitterand, the French president at that time, saw it as handing over the "secret keys" to their rival in the global arms trade.

They still helped in other ways though, like forbidding other South American countries who already bought the missile to aid Argentina, to provide "parts of the technical details" of Exocet to the US and UK.

Click to expand...

This is the dilemma of weapons importers, we don't get to choose what to do with our weapons. But for Indonesia, we are facing a situation where we have 2 enemies, North and South.

China is the bigger dog, but what makes you guys not think that the ones in the South are just being opportunistic, waiting for the China threat to subside so that they could play big bros in the region once again if it recede, If you guys ever read Australian think tanks like ASPI and what they actually think or just happens to visit forums where there's a lot of Australians inside and casually talk about Indonesia, you'll get the idea.

We could not, (less attacked and invaded by China) to play 100% pro-Western moves, it's stupid, it basically positions the Americans and the Australians to be the only guarantor of our safety which they could manipulate or blackmail us with.

As much as people want us to be fully Westernized (in equipment and doctrine) there's always the need to diversify equipment source because we don't know when we will be facing the West. An embargo would mean that the Indonesian military readiness plunges to an unacceptable level once again. France is 'acting' independent until Washington's weight are brought to bear.

Remember Saddam's Iraq ? Iraq used to be a prolific user of French-sourced equipment, notably, the Mirage F1 which the French tailor-made for the Iraqis( EQ-4, EQ-5 and EQ-7 model), as well as borrowing their Super Etendard with Exocet pending deliveries, France also supplied Iraq with the Roland SAM and the most impressive is the Iraq's KARI IADS which are designed by France (reportedly the 6th largest in the world in 1990).

Did this romance of business survive U.S. pressure? Nope

France will bow down to U.S pressure if we ever find ourselves against the Australians once again, because Anglo Saxons will defend other Anglo Saxons. If wefound ourselves in that position, kiss goodbye to spare parts, missiles, smart bomb kits etc for Rafale.

This is why we must diversify our weapons source until we are self sufficient

Gary said:

This is the dilemma of weapons importers, we don't get to choose what to do with our weapons. But for Indonesia, we are facing a situation where we have 2 enemies, North and South.

China is the bigger dog, but what makes you guys not think that the ones in the South are just being opportunistic, waiting for the China threat to subside so that they could play big bros in the region once again if it recede, If you guys ever read Australian think tanks like ASPI and what they actually think or just happens to visit forums where there's a lot of Australians inside and casually talk about Indonesia, you'll get the idea.

We could not, (less attacked and invaded by China) to play 100% pro-Western moves, it's stupid, it basically positions the Americans and the Australians to be the only guarantor of our safety which they could manipulate or blackmail us with.

As much as people want us to be fully Westernized (in equipment and doctrine) there's always the need to diversify equipment source because we don't know when we will be facing the West. An embargo would mean that the Indonesian military readiness plunges to an unacceptable level once again. France is 'acting' independent until Washington's weight are brought to bear.

Remember Saddam's Iraq ? Iraq used to be a prolific user of French-sourced equipment, notably, the Mirage F1 which the French tailor-made for the Iraqis( EQ-4, EQ-5 and EQ-7 model), as well as borrowing their Super Etendard with Exocet pending deliveries, France also supplied Iraq with the Roland SAM and the most impressive is the Iraq's KARI IADS which are designed by France (reportedly the 6th largest in the world in 1990).

Did this romance of business survive U.S. pressure? Nope

France will bow down to U.S pressure if we ever find ourselves against the Australians once again, because Anglo Saxons will defend other Anglo Saxons. If wefound ourselves in that position, kiss goodbye to spare parts, missiles, smart bomb kits etc for Rafale.

This is why we must diversify our weapons source until we are self sufficient

Click to expand...

Then we buy from Turkiye.

Anmdt said:

Just want to make sure that you also know how contracts are carried out and Indonesia has known the terms and conditions which were included to be covered during warranty term. For anything occuring beyond the warranty term, and anything occuring within the planned maintenance schedule the operator is responsible, unless a separate long term support agreement has been signed. This works as such for all industries, for some this contract has been signed with the first actual contract, sometimes after commissioning.
Not telling that Koreans are 100% pure and clean here but i can sense Indonesia owns majority of the nonsense that still goes on.

Click to expand...

To be honest .... It was a bad deal from the start . As my fellow Indonesian has mentioned before ...you get what you paid for ...
Add that with a cutting corner corrupt mentality ....here we are today

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...

When the height of western embargoes over east timor ...the brits are parked our supposedly delivered plane in thailand without words whatsoever ...hence we stopped the payment alltogether ...
And look's like they were too embarassed to brought it up again . And both side are simply pretend to not noticed it during the next transaction are commenced

I don't know ...maybe you ain't old enough to realize the facades of real politic after all

Lordimperator said:

Should've followed France with its independent policy. Dont forget PRC also got their submarine tech from the USA back then.

Click to expand...

Eternal interest ...remember !!

Lordimperator said:

Then we buy from Turkiye.

Click to expand...

Again ....eternal interest ..


Let me be blunt to all of you korean here ... The one who rejected the CBG are the said user . And they mean it .... and they even said it directly to the president's face ... And jkw acknowledged it .
Hence .... The next CBG batch's order were ( un ) officially entering the permanent pending status

If it was me ....i would simply pay the contract's penalty and walk out of it and move on to a new procurement contract ...

Yet , i am just a mere plebians ..

And i had enough with this dead horse beatings

Gary said:

[...] we are facing a situation where we have 2 a lot of potential enemies [...]

Click to expand...

Corrected that for you. But of course, to limit the scope of this discussion let's just say there are two main competing interests at play other than ours: China's and the US.

Gary said:

what makes you guys not think that the ones in the South are just being opportunistic

Click to expand...

It's dangerous to assume what others think especially if their thoughts are not being shown directly.

I can't speak for others, but I am well aware that both the "Northern" and the "Southern" powers are potential threats to our well-being and sovereignty as a nation. We have always been like a deer stuck between two fighting elephants after all.

And there's no need for me to eye on their forums to know how they (at least those hawks down South) think about us. They have made their thoughts obvious for the longest time already.

Gary said:

We could not, (less attacked and invaded by China) to play 100% pro-Western moves, it's stupid, it basically positions the Americans and the Australians to be the only guarantor of our safety which they could manipulate or blackmail us with.

Click to expand...

And who ever said that we are? If it's about arms procurements, I would say that we're just being pragmatic. Still, being pragmatic is different than being careless and if it's about the rumor of acquiring YJ-12, I'd say it's closer to the latter than the former.

Gary said:

As much as people want us to be fully Westernized (in equipment and doctrine) there's always the need to diversify equipment source because we don't know when we will be facing the West. An embargo would mean that the Indonesian military readiness plunges to an unacceptable level once again. France is 'acting' independent until Washington's weight are brought to bear.

Click to expand...

And before that, we've been embargoed and sabotaged by the Soviets as well, and so forth. Anyone who thinks that we'll be free from the risk of an arms embargo by buying from France (or any other country) is clearly not fit to be a military analyst.

Bold: and with that, comes another can of worms as well. I'm not against diversifying our sources, just to put it into perspective: in this age of networked arms technology, it will take serious manpower capabilities and lots of investment to integrate weapons from - say - "the West" and "the East" so they can work together.

We currently don't have enough of those two.

Gary said:

France will bow down to U.S pressure if we ever find ourselves against the Australians once again, because Anglo Saxons will defend other Anglo Saxons. If wefound ourselves in that position, kiss goodbye to spare parts, missiles, smart bomb kits etc for Rafale.

Click to expand...

Bold: and yet, they're still preying on each other when it comes to business, even if it means letting the other "Anglo-Saxon country" suffer high troop casualties.

We don't know what will happen five years from now. Heck, even in the next few months when we have our new president, we can't say for certain whether things will improve for us, remain the same, or - God forbid - get worse, and how they will affect our standing in the eyes of those competing "elephants". What we can say with almost certainty is that if the shooting starts between those two, we may find ourselves dragged into their conflict whether we like it or not, involuntarily or otherwise.

Now here's the interesting part: according to some OSINT reports, there's a higher chance that China will attempt to take over Taiwan by force before 2028. This is partly due to China's leadership promise to their constituent, as well as the increasing risk of the Chinese economic collapse where they will be forced to divert their citizens' frustration abroad.

Of course, none of us want it to happen in our backyard of the North Natuna Sea, but since the area has already been recognized as a potential flashpoint, once again, God forbid, if or when it happens within the next five to ten years, which side would you prefer to back us up?

Mind you, we currently have not enough deterrence capabilities to be able to say no to both of those mammoths and to force them to abide by our terms.

Gary said:

This is why we must diversify our weapons source until we are self sufficient

Click to expand...

No debate there. But once again, being pragmatic is different than being careless.

norman88 said:

Reiss class price > US$340 million each
Nagapasa class price > US$373 million each
IYKWIM,,,,,

Click to expand...

No, Reis class sub > $ 660 million per unit (EUR/USD conversion in 2009).

Turkey selected German shipbuilder Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft's (now ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems) Type 214-class air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine design in 2008 to meet its requirement for new boats to replace Turkey's ageing Type 209 boats. A contract worth around EUR2.5 billion (then valued at USD3.96 billion) was signed in 2009 covering the delivery of material packages for the six boats, which are being built by Gölcük Naval Dockyard using a high degree of local content.

Windchime said:

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...

Sorry i have to butt in because this line is pissed me off, also one key word "embargo" well maybe you are ignorant about the Hawk circumstance, but are you telling me we have to give them full pay at that time after they left our Hawks in Thailand in the middle of delivery and we used some tricks so we can take 'em from Thailand under US pressure?

Establishing Collaboration with International Ship Manufacturers, Navy Chief Receives Courtesy Call from Fincantieri CEO



Bisnismetro.id, JAKARTA — Commitment to establishing good cooperative relations with partners of the Indonesian Navy (TNI AL), Chief of Naval Staff (Kasal) Admiral TNI Dr. Muhammad Ali received a Courtesy Call with Mr. Dario Deste, CEO of Fincantieri, an Italian shipping company which is a working partner of PT. Noahtu Shipyard, located in the Main Headquarters Building, Cilangkap, East Jakarta, Wednesday (31/01).


Read more:

Gary said:

As much as people want us to be fully Westernized (in equipment and doctrine) there's always the need to diversify equipment source because we don't know when we will be facing the West. An embargo would mean that the Indonesian military readiness plunges to an unacceptable level once again. France is 'acting' independent until Washington's weight are brought to bear.

Click to expand...

Logistics-wise it is much more pragmatic & rational to have uniform weapon systems. Diversitfication only causes more confusion, delay of supplies, technical challneges and most importantly, budget spending.

I understand Indonesia's paranoid over potential sanctions & interventions by the West, but at the moment, the West almost universially agrees that China is a bigger threat and they don't mind trading weapons with Indonesia as long as she basically acts a regional power against China. Therefore, the US is happy to sell F-16 & F-15 to Indonesia and Australia doesn't mind conducting a joint militiary training with Indonesia. It is the same with naval platforms & military weapons.