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

JATOSINT 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
2,254
Reactions
4 3,224
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Another magical carrier path...from MP/Provost background to become chief of KOSTRAD
get anticipate for the next path : chief of Army....or even more...chief of TNI

Yeahh....all these silly political lust....makes it possible
MP/Provost background? The new Pangkostrad came from the Inf corps and spent a large part of his mil career in Kopassus
 

Stuka Dive

Active member
Professional
Messages
116
Reactions
197
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
MP/Provost background? The new Pangkostrad came from the Inf corps and spent a large part of his mil career in Kopassus
Alright....my bad...I was wrongly concluded from the glimpse reading of his military carrier history since he also serve many years in the PASPAMPRES unit.
 

satria

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
634
Reactions
7 1,016
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Explaination of MLRS Busur Geni calibre 90 mm

The Poltekad Research and Development Team which in this case was represented by Major Arh Moh. Ali, ST. Explaining the MLRS Busur Geni AND 90 MM ROCKET, starting from the history of why it is called Busur Geni, the aims and objectives of R&D to specifications and technical matters.

 

kooppyyy

Active member
Messages
95
Reactions
118
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Explaination of MLRS Busur Geni calibre 90 mm

The Poltekad Research and Development Team which in this case was represented by Major Arh Moh. Ali, ST. Explaining the MLRS Busur Geni AND 90 MM ROCKET, starting from the history of why it is called Busur Geni, the aims and objectives of R&D to specifications and technical matters.

Why are we wasting time and efforts to RnD MLRS in this caliber? for a 90mm rocket, I'd rather have it as shoulder-launch direct-fire munition for infantry teams. 90mm will provide too small of coverage for saturation attack. Our 122mm RHAN should be the minimum for MLRS
 

Tonil

Active member
Messages
147
Reactions
350
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Qatar
It could be a passive radar, like that was made by ITB. The radome and the vehicle is different though.
P_20181108_111419.jpg


There is another radar made by Balitbang and PT RTI, it is for air defense
260825987_3095335060590083_4535585435915919355_n.jpg


261094239_3095334997256756_8154714996020644852_n.jpg


261073808_3095335097256746_6737732133763581990_n.jpg
It looks good by all means
 

HellFireIndo

Committed member
Messages
284
Reactions
358
Why are we wasting time and efforts to RnD MLRS in this caliber? for a 90mm rocket, I'd rather have it as shoulder-launch direct-fire munition for infantry teams. 90mm will provide too small of coverage for saturation attack. Our 122mm RHAN should be the minimum for MLRS
As you can see, that's the entire point: Making it smaller and therefore more compact for use in lesser intensity conflicts. The bigger and smaller caliber rockets serve different functions and don't necessarily substitute one another. 122mm class is for "field artillery" function, saturating large area in higher intensity for bigger conflict across larger areas of operation. While these 90mm rockets could be used as somewhat akin to the role of "mortar" in their range and firepower. Their small size allows for greater flexibility and for a lower level of deployment, as you can see they can be easily transported by a single truck and by helicopter.

Suppose we talk about potentially deploying rockets to Poso, in which geography severely limits mobility.... so how are we suppose to deploy them then? these 122m MLRS are too big and bulky for the rugged terrain there. The same logic applies to Papua in which we rarely ever deploy trucks heavier than Toyota Hilux, why? obviously, because the terrain cannot support bulkier vehicles, but then apparently we going to only use 122mm class exclusively? that's your idea?

I have an issue with a defense forum like this. The people here all talk about technical things over and over again. Enlightening, but that's not the only thing that matters in the military. People talk about weaponry as if it is a magic bullet, that only the weapon itself matters and it wins the war instantly depending on how strong the magical weapon is. But they completely forget to consider the strategic environment, how the weapons can be used effectively in that environment. When is the last time strategy is actually discussed here? I've been in this community for years and I cannot even recall any substantial discussion on it.

If the technical aspect of a war is the only thing that matters, then why do military command schools, all primarily teach non-technical materials? Why do USCGSC, Seskoad, NDU, focus on teaching social sciences and not technical sciences? This is the issue here, we never ever discuss the tactics, nor the strategy, or even actually consider the national security situation. This is why we keep falling into the blunder of forgetting to think about HOW we are going to use WHAT, thinking everything is one fits all, and that magic bullet can solve everything.
 

Madokafc

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
5,902
Reactions
4 10,019
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
The idea behind busur Geni 90 mm rocket should be look like Type 63 Norinco 107 mm mlrs or something like this the Croatian had in 128 mm caliber. They are cheap, easy to be deployed, easy to be maintained and easy to be used (even rag tag Rebel in many countries can use them ). Even the Turkey had this kind of their own version, used extensively against Kurdish in mountain area. Coupled them with cheap drone like DJI act as surveilance units you can give hell of Punch against target with cost effective measure. And from what the look like this Busur Geni should be more likely to be adapted by the Army itself soon....
 

kooppyyy

Active member
Messages
95
Reactions
118
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
As you can see, that's the entire point: Making it smaller and therefore more compact for use in lesser intensity conflicts. The bigger and smaller caliber rockets serve different functions and don't necessarily substitute one another. 122mm class is for "field artillery" function, saturating large area in higher intensity for bigger conflict across larger areas of operation. While these 90mm rockets could be used as somewhat akin to the role of "mortar" in their range and firepower. Their small size allows for greater flexibility and for a lower level of deployment, as you can see they can be easily transported by a single truck and by helicopter.

Suppose we talk about potentially deploying rockets to Poso, in which geography severely limits mobility.... so how are we suppose to deploy them then? these 122m MLRS are too big and bulky for the rugged terrain there. The same logic applies to Papua in which we rarely ever deploy trucks heavier than Toyota Hilux, why? obviously, because the terrain cannot support bulkier vehicles, but then apparently we going to only use 122mm class exclusively? that's your idea?

All I'm saying is a 90mm rocket would be too small to be an effective MLRS munition. Even the Type 63 that Madokafc mentioned above is sitting at 100++ mm (107mm to be exact). The old portable BM-14 that the army used to operate has a 140mm tube. Unless we're talking about aerial rockets like the FFAR or Soviet S series then I'm inclined to agree, but the video specifically mentioned for it to be a ground-to-ground rocket system akin to Astros or Smerch. If what require is sustained indirect fire, then the 81mm mortar is apt for our current needs and requirement. If MLRS is still to be insisted, enlarge the tube to be at least 100mm++, with less tube, literally more bang for your buck, that's my idea.

We are financially-strapped armed forces, we need to make sure these RnD activities can and will lead to something tangible, it's good if like what Madokafc said the army is keen to adopt it. Because on the other hand, our infantry at the fire team level lacks heavier firepower (at least for the army, I know KorMar equipped their weapon team with RPG and GPMG) I feel the army's maneuver/weapon team really need cheap-disposable-shoulder-launched rocket at around 80-90mm caliber. With our limited budget right now, that should be focus right now. Our indirect fire capabilities still lacking but they have gotten better, meanwhile our direct-fire, especially at the fireteam level still largely neglected.

All MLRS that I'm aware of is all mounted and transported in a single truck unless you're talking about the logistic support truck? Besides, I'm not sure you want to replace Mortar with MLRS one-to-one. Mortar is there for sustained suppression and fire support due to its faster reload and smaller logistic footprints. The same can't really be said with MLRS, once the tube is all fired then the crew would need to manually load back all the tubes, even KorMar RM-70 with great ergonomics for reloading still takes a while to be loaded, wired, and primed for firing.

Why do we even want or need to deploy MLRS to Poso, to begin with? MLRS is utilized against saturated forces, not some scattered jihadis where there are less than dozen of them, what's the logic behind that if I may ask? I can definitely see the use of Compact MLRS in Papua, albeit not in the fashion that you describe it and especially not in the current conflict where the cost of collateral damage can be really politically high.

I have an issue with a defense forum like this. The people here all talk about technical things over and over again. Enlightening, but that's not the only thing that matters in the military. People talk about weaponry as if it is a magic bullet, that only the weapon itself matters and it wins the war instantly depending on how strong the magical weapon is. But they completely forget to consider the strategic environment, how the weapons can be used effectively in that environment. When is the last time strategy is actually discussed here? I've been in this community for years and I cannot even recall any substantial discussion on it.

If the technical aspect of a war is the only thing that matters, then why do military command schools, all primarily teach non-technical materials? Why do USCGSC, Seskoad, NDU, focus on teaching social sciences and not technical sciences? This is the issue here, we never ever discuss the tactics, nor the strategy, or even actually consider the national security situation. This is why we keep falling into the blunder of forgetting to think about HOW we are going to use WHAT, thinking everything is one fits all, and that magic bullet can solve everything.
Sorry, I don't think this rant is either fair or warranted. If you feel the discussion here is too low for your intelligence level, then please feel free to start or initiate more discussion or even better; educate us on it. Otherwise, feel free to leave for the greener pasture. My background is in engineering and I was fortunate enough to be involved in the defense industry when I started my career, albeit I've now moved on from it, so I can only comment on what is within my scope. Unlike some people, I won't start talking about things I have no idea about unless it is something that's worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.
 

HellFireIndo

Committed member
Messages
284
Reactions
358
We are financially-strapped armed forces, we need to make sure these RnD activities can and will lead to something tangible, it's good if like what Madokafc said the army is keen to adopt it.
These RnD activities are carried out by different agencies. This 90mm is developed by Poltekad, while R-Han is Kemhan-PTDI project. So they don't supplant each other, they go in parallel, for a different purpose, by different researchers. You could criticize the technical aspect, but as for their potential use as a finished product (not yet), you cannot just assume out of nowhere it's unfit or anything, with no solid basis. I use Poso as an example, to visualize the geographic situation of a rural mountainous jungle environment with narrow passages, in which R-Han and ASTROS will have difficulty operating but that this Busur Geni may do better. Besides Poltekad itself is still small in size and budget, if this is what they can afford then let them do it. Their sphere of responsibility is different from national-level agencies like MoD and PTDI, as they are seeing it from Army tactical perspective. I mean what the heck, this prototype has nothing to do with army squad loadout, that's for another discussion.
All MLRS that I'm aware of is all mounted and transported in a single truck unless you're talking about the logistic support truck? Besides, I'm not sure you want to replace Mortar with MLRS one-to-one. Mortar is there for sustained suppression and fire support due to its faster reload and smaller logistic footprints. The same can't really be said with MLRS, once the tube is all fired then the crew would need to manually load back all the tubes, even KorMar RM-70 with great ergonomics for reloading still takes a while to be loaded, wired, and primed for firing.
Don't you watch the video? Busur Geni is transported by trucks, like towed artillery. I never suggest that BG is a replacement for mortars, I just use it as an analogy of how BG could be used, like mortar not replace mortar. And then you are assuming it is to be used for sustained suppression (longer), I don't imagine that to be the proper use of them, but fire support could be (shorter).
Why do we even want or need to deploy MLRS to Poso, to begin with? MLRS is utilized against saturated forces, not some scattered jihadis where there are less than dozen of them, what's the logic behind that if I may ask? I can definitely see the use of Compact MLRS in Papua, albeit not in the fashion that you describe it and especially not in the current conflict where the cost of collateral damage can be really politically high.
Again, I use Poso for visualization. I mean we have a lot of areas like Poso/ Central Sulawesi in this country, in which ASTROS or RHAN may not operate there as efficiently as in flatter and wider grounds. So there's a gap there, as apparently, TNI needs MLRS in a more compact size, that can be transported by lighter vehicle/ not heavy nor mounted. Be it 90mm, 100mm, 100mm, the requirement is that it has to be compact, smaller than RHAN, and probably for troops fire support rather than outright saturation. If you ask me then it'll probably be for bunker-busting purposes, where a certain point needs to be neutralized fast instead of by longer duration sustained fire.

Imagine the Marawi situation, so a medium to large scale insurgency with more fixed battle positions rather than bandit style hit and run like what KKB did (talk about a potential scenario here). They will tend to take positions in buildings and defend them, using the ruins and rubbles as a makeshift pillbox. You see this kind of tactics a lot in Syria, of course using troops to rush them in CQ combat won't always be a good idea because the defender has all the advantage. Yet using big MLRS is too overkill and will cause much more collateral damage, towed artillery is also the same, and because they are inflexible, the insurgent enemies could just leave the area before the guns can be set up. So one of the solutions might be this kind of ordnance, a smaller size MLRS that is enough to level a house, but not the entire block. Other options might be by using drones but as Madoka said, this stuff is cheaper and it fulfills different class of requirements. You can imagine this thing as similar to this:
1643275591735.png

Sorry, I don't think this rant is either fair or warranted. If you feel the discussion here is too low for your intelligence level, then please feel free to start or initiate more discussion or even better; educate us on it. Otherwise, feel free to leave for the greener pasture. My background is in engineering and I was fortunate enough to be involved in the defense industry when I started my career, albeit I've now moved on from it, so I can only comment on what is within my scope. Unlike some people, I won't start talking about things I have no idea about unless it is something that's worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.
It's not about which or who is better, but we need to expand our perspective. I'm not trying to discredit technical discussion because well they are essential, no doubt about it. But that by only looking from the technical-engineering side of military affairs, we lose sight of the other thing that is important too. When we discuss technical things and weaponry, we actually only talk about the means, the capacity, the tools. But any activity is not only about the tools, but many other things as well. There's the means, the way, and the ends, but we mostly discuss the means only, but forget how we gonna use means, to begin with. As you can see, from a technical perspective, and normative bias, this thing might not look ideal. But if you consider the strategic environment and our doctrine, then you'll see that the idea of BG somewhat makes more sense.
 

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,079
Reactions
4 1,605
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
0:50 : "Selain itu [...] masih dalam jangkauan peluru kendali antar benua negara tertentu..." ([The new capital] is still in the range of intercontinental missile fielded by a certain country).

So is Jakarta.

If we're talking about getting out of range of Chinese ICBMs, how about moving the capital to South America or to some part of Antarctic instead?

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg


smh... :rolleyes:
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom