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:
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.
www.indomiliter.com
