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

[Umigami]

how player with rank 100 marshall in warthunder looks like
source : https://www.tribunnews.com/nasional...d-di-sekolah-para-prajurit-baret-hitam?page=3
pusdikkav simulator
View attachment 17204
View attachment 17205

This is leo driver simulator, isn't it?
How about turret simulator?
Do we have them?

 

[JATOSINT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1376777734634971140

 

[trishna_amrta]

how player with rank 100 marshall in warthunder looks like
source : https://www.tribunnews.com/nasional...d-di-sekolah-para-prajurit-baret-hitam?page=3
pusdikkav simulator
View attachment 17204
View attachment 17205

Our Leo driver sim. The rendering engine seem to use Steel Beast Pro engine.

 

[Umigami]

1:39 A very good question!

 

[JATOSINT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1377092026873745412

 

[Parry Brima]

from the video .
View attachment 17020

I'd like to think that you need armored hull to carry 60 soldiers for more protection.

It's probably better to build the "real tank boat" to accompany this type of vessel. Two tank turrets (76mm minimum), some anti-aircraft guns (to deal with the helo/drones/jets), or you can probably add RCWS as well.

The old WW2 Soviet's tank boat (Bronekater) design had two 76mm T-34 turrets plus 2-4 anti-aircraft guns in about 23m-25m hull length.

 

[Madokafc]

I'd like to think that you need armored hull to carry 60 soldiers for more protection.

It's probably better to build the "real tank boat" to accompany this type of vessel. Two tank turrets (76mm minimum), some anti-aircraft guns (to deal with the helo/drones/jets), or you can probably add RCWS as well.

The old WW2 Soviet's tank boat (Bronekater) design had two 76mm T-34 turrets plus 2-4 anti-aircraft guns in about 23m-25m hull length.

View attachment 17266

Nowadays, not matter how much armor you had or how much AA gun on such small boat it would be never adequate against armor piercing long range guided Missiles system in which many of them had top attack profile guidance, the likes of NLOS SPIKE, Javelin, Hellfire and such. ECM and other decoy should be prioritized, Datalink and along with high speed processing system on onboard system.

 

[NEKO]

Nowadays, not matter how much armor you had or how much AA gun on such small boat it would be never adequate against armor piercing long range guided Missiles system in which many of them had top attack profile guidance, the likes of NLOS SPIKE, Javelin, Hellfire and such. ECM and other decoy should be prioritized, Datalink and along with high speed processing system on onboard system.

First thing first that this boat should have is smoke launcher, because it can also be used when disembarking troops it can give smoke cover, they are quite exposed when getting down from the boat.

 

[FPXAllen]

I'd like to think that you need armored hull to carry 60 soldiers for more protection.

It's probably better to build the "real tank boat" to accompany this type of vessel. Two tank turrets (76mm minimum), some anti-aircraft guns (to deal with the helo/drones/jets), or you can probably add RCWS as well.

The old WW2 Soviet's tank boat (Bronekater) design had two 76mm T-34 turrets plus 2-4 anti-aircraft guns in about 23m-25m hull length.

View attachment 17266

The problem with this approach is that this kind of armored boat, while they're better protected, is their lack of speed and maneuverability. With Lundin's approach, we can at least have choices between making a lightly armored boat that carries troops or to ditch this ability and make a better armored boat.

All without sacrificing speed and maneuverability.

First thing first that this boat should have is smoke launcher, because it can also be used when disembarking troops it can give smoke cover, they are quite exposed when getting down from the boat.

Smoke, chaff and flare counter measure launchers.

It's also a good idea to have some kind of automatic CIWS capability whether it's through the machine gun RCWS turret or just install something like Phalanx or Goalkeeper CIWS to replace the Cockerill turret altogether.

 

[NEKO]

It's also a good idea to have some kind of automatic CIWS capability whether it's through the machine gun RCWS turret or just install something like Phalanx or Goalkeeper CIWS to replace the Cockerill turret altogether.

Why would you need ciws?
Rcws? But the turret with 30mm can do the same job you want.

No need some fancy ECM, flare, chaff etc, but some good and secure comm would be nice, smoke launcher yes its needed, if more fire power is needed then mortar launcher put it in the back of the boat, rather than RBS70, mortar would be more useful.

 

[FPXAllen]

Why would you need ciws?
Rcws? But the turret with 30mm can do the same job you want.

No need some fancy ECM, flare, chaff etc, but some good and secure comm would be nice, smoke launcher yes its needed, if more fire power is needed then mortar launcher put it in the back of the boat, rather than RBS70, mortar would be more useful.

To maximize protection against explosive projectiles like RPG and ATGM, as well as to counter anti ship missiles. I thought at first that active protection system like AMAP-ADS or Trophy will be sufficient, but since this is a boat, a close in weapon system will be more suitable.

Besides, a CIWS should also be configurable to be used on ground or surface targets.

This is just an idea though. If the current 30 mm turret can also be used against incoming missiles and low flying aircrafts / helicopters / drones, then all the better since there will be less need for the RBS-70 onboard.

Re: "fancy" ECM: I beg to differ. Some kind of basic electronic and / or IR jammer will go a long way to ensure survivability on the battlefield. And considering that the potential opponents can be anything from local pirates to full blown sophisticated state actors and their military, it should be a no brainer to be prepared rather than waiting to see what kind of opponents that the boat will be facing first.

At the very least, the ability to have them installed on the boat is a big plus.

Agree on the secure comm, but then again, it will be better if there are also plans to include some kind of data link.

 

[NEKO]

To maximize protection against explosive projectiles like RPG and ATGM, as well as to counter anti ship missiles. I thought at first that active protection system like AMAP-ADS or Trophy will be sufficient, but since this is a boat, a close in weapon system will be more suitable.

Besides, a CIWS should also be configurable to be used on ground or surface targets.

This is just an idea though. If the current 30 mm turret can also be used against incoming missiles and low flying aircrafts / helicopters / drones, then all the better since there will be less need for the RBS-70 onboard.

Re: "fancy" ECM: I beg to differ. Some kind of basic electronic and / or IR jammer will go a long way to ensure survivability on the battlefield. And considering that the potential opponents can be anything from local pirates to full blown sophisticated state actors and their military, it should be a no brainer to be prepared rather than waiting to see what kind of opponents that the boat will be facing first.

At the very least, the ability to have them installed on the boat is a big plus.

Agree on the secure comm, but then again, it will be better if there are also plans to include some kind of data link.

What do you think this boat should do, like for its purpose and mission?

 

[BBOn]

What do you think this boat should do, like for its purpose and mission?

I believed he miss understanding this boat purpose.

This boat MAIN purpose is to deliver troops to shore and while the troops embark the turret of this boat give bantuan tembak role.

In amphibious landing operations, ships like this will move in groups and to be able to reach their destination. the shore must be bombarded first to minimize the threat that comes from enemy.

This is not corvette or frigate. No need close in weapon system to defend it self while this boat hiding it self right in the middle of the fleet.

 

[NEKO]

I believed he miss understanding this boat purpose.

This boat MAIN purpose is to deliver troops to shore and while the troops embark the turret of this boat give bantuan tembak role.

In amphibious landing operations, ships like this will move in groups and to be able to reach their destination. the shore must be bombarded first to minimize the threat that comes from enemy.

This is not corvette or frigate. No need close in weapon system to defend it self while this boat hiding it self right in the middle of the fleet.

Thanks for the explanation and did you just create an account just to reply wkwwk nice, I noticed several new account created around the same time, klonengan or legit new user? And why the surge of new user?

Yes, this is more like for amphibious ops, for air defense should rely to escort vessels (definitely need something more than mica).
Mortar would be really good isn't it? With it's trajectory mortar can be shoot from behind the "bridge" not exposed to enemy and won't interfere the turret operation.

Hiding among the fleet to be precise, the one that hide right in the middle of the fleet would be our LPD.

To maximize protection against explosive projectiles like RPG and ATGM, as well as to counter anti ship missiles. I thought at first that active protection system like AMAP-ADS or Trophy will be sufficient, but since this is a boat, a close in weapon system will be more suitable.

Besides, a CIWS should also be configurable to be used on ground or surface targets.

This is just an idea though. If the current 30 mm turret can also be used against incoming missiles and low flying aircrafts / helicopters / drones, then all the better since there will be less need for the RBS-70 onboard.

Re: "fancy" ECM: I beg to differ. Some kind of basic electronic and / or IR jammer will go a long way to ensure survivability on the battlefield. And considering that the potential opponents can be anything from local pirates to full blown sophisticated state actors and their military, it should be a no brainer to be prepared rather than waiting to see what kind of opponents that the boat will be facing first.

At the very least, the ability to have them installed on the boat is a big plus.

Agree on the secure comm, but then again, it will be better if there are also plans to include some kind of data link.

All jamer, decoys, ecm, active air defense (missile and gun) you can relly to the escort vessels.

 

[BBOn]

Why do you think I am the same person that make another account only to make a forum looks more crowd for nothing. i am SR since Pdf exist. But because I am not good when regarding english thing I keep my self silence.

 

[whatintarnation]

And why the surge of new user?

i think theyre users from .pk that just found out that we moved

(our farewell messages were deleted remember lol)

 

[NEKO]

i think theyre users from .pk that just found out that we moved

(our farewell messages were deleted remember lol)

Well not only the old-timer that bedol desa from that place but also the SR, i am just curious, 2 or 3 account created around 1:30 pm and ^^that around 3 pm , did they come here because of a link bacause something posted here maybe.

 

[BBOn]

Why do you think I am the same person that make another account only to make a forum looks more crowd for nothing. i am SR since Pdf exist. But because I am not good when regarding english thing I keep my self silence.

Yes, this is more like for amphibious ops, for air defense should rely to escort vessels (definitely need something more than mica).
Mortar would be really good isn't it? With it's trajectory mortar can be shoot from behind the "bridge" not exposed to enemy and won't interfere the turret operation

Why you ask mortar if you can load 6.10m width boat with 6 rocket to give maximum punch.
1. Mortar only provide small effect to enemy. Especially Fortification like bunker near shore.
2. Others than limit range, mortar also less horror than rocket.
3. Depend the sea condition is hard to maintain right Trejectory for both weapon. But rocket is different, kekurangannya sebanding dengan daya hancurnya yg masif.

Correct me if I wrong.

 

[NEKO]

3. Depend the sea condition is hard to maintain right Trejectory for both weapon.

No the mortar would be used after reaching shore.

 

[BBOn]

No the mortar would be used after reaching shore.

You said before that you wish they replaced the RBS with mortar instead.
I think we have KAPA for that role. While not only can delivered howitzer the kapa also can ferrying 2 mortar team along with the howitzer it self (I am not relly sure, some one maybe can add more Possibilitty here)

My point is we cannot decide where we can embark troops. It depend on deeps, tide, topografy and other thing else.
Sometimes It could be in the front of enemy machine gun it self (example, open area like normandy. thats why US and Allied force heavily depending on carpet bombing and bombardment by navy).
While doctrin of beaching operation is start with 'again..' Massive bombardment , TNI AL In this chase dont have battle ship for this role.
from my perpective fitting rocket on this boat is more reliable for providing fire power since we can trust sari bahana and pindad to provided loots of rocket.