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

FPXAllen

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
1,083
Reactions
4 1,612
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
If KRI Golok have great stealth capability like advertised, I am not against getting more of it, preferably the newer design like in this picture and it should be faster and have longer endurance (than KRI Golok).

First thing first, even though many media (both ours and abroad) reported it as "stealth", I will be the one to claim that KRI Golok, as well as its predecessor, does not possess such capability in its current iterations - at least not as advanced as, say, Visby class corvettes. It is, however, a low-observable ship due to its construction and materials used since I believe its head-on RCS will be considerably smaller than conventional ships like our KCR-60 / Sampari-class ships. Mind you, KRI Klewang was supposed to be the first prototype that if it hadn't been destroyed in a fire, its testing data would be used to make important changes in KRI Golok.

Regarding its speed, something must have happened back then that made them changed its listed specification from 40-50 knots to 28 knots maximum speed. It could be either due to the changes in its engines, or that they think that its real capability should not be advertised publicly, or some other reasons that probably will never be made public.

Whatever the reason, it is still the first prototype in which the final form of the production version may differ in some aspects. Unfortunately, most of us are still not used to this process of product development since we kind of expecting 'instant result' or that anything that should be taken one step at a time is considered as a waste of both time and money.

Case in point: Remember SpaceX many failures which were always shown publicly when they were testing their Falcon 9 rocket? They weren't wasting money and time by celebrating their failures. Instead, they made clear signs of progress from one failed prototype to the next, and now the landing of their Falcon-9 rockets is something that has become a usual sight.

As a comparison, think of why the Soviet Union failed spectacularly to make their N-1 moon rockets. They tried four times, all failed, due to the lack of static testings of their rocket engine as well as various other shortcuts that were politically motivated.

What paint is used for the ship and where did they bought it from, Sweden?
I don't know what paint they used, but I still remember that KRI Klewang had a rough surface. It could be either because it was a rushed product, or it was actually deliberate since the rough finish was meant to scatter radar signal or for some other reason. We may never know, though.
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
2,913
Reactions
3 2,481
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Whatever the reason, it is still the first prototype in which the final form of the production version may differ in some aspects. Unfortunately, most of us are still not used to this process of product development since we kind of expecting 'instant result' or that anything that should be taken one step at a time is
That is so us.
Case in point: Remember SpaceX many failures which were always shown publicly when they were testing their Falcon 9 rocket? They weren't wasting money and time by celebrating their failures. Instead, they made clear signs of progress from one failed prototype to the next, and now the landing of their Falcon-9 rockets is something that has become a usual sight.
They memeing their own failures, and its funny and good.

rough finish was meant to scatter radar signal or for some other reason
PT Lundin: its not a defect its an unplanned special feature.
 

Madokafc

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
5,903
Reactions
4 10,020
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
First thing first, even though many media (both ours and abroad) reported it as "stealth", I will be the one to claim that KRI Golok, as well as its predecessor, does not possess such capability in its current iterations - at least not as advanced as, say, Visby class corvettes. It is, however, a low-observable ship due to its construction and materials used since I believe its head-on RCS will be considerably smaller than conventional ships like our KCR-60 / Sampari-class ships. Mind you, KRI Klewang was supposed to be the first prototype that if it hadn't been destroyed in a fire, its testing data would be used to make important changes in KRI Golok.

Regarding its speed, something must have happened back then that made them changed its listed specification from 40-50 knots to 28 knots maximum speed. It could be either due to the changes in its engines, or that they think that its real capability should not be advertised publicly, or some other reasons that probably will never be made public.

Whatever the reason, it is still the first prototype in which the final form of the production version may differ in some aspects. Unfortunately, most of us are still not used to this process of product development since we kind of expecting 'instant result' or that anything that should be taken one step at a time is considered as a waste of both time and money.

Case in point: Remember SpaceX many failures which were always shown publicly when they were testing their Falcon 9 rocket? They weren't wasting money and time by celebrating their failures. Instead, they made clear signs of progress from one failed prototype to the next, and now the landing of their Falcon-9 rockets is something that has become a usual sight.

As a comparison, think of why the Soviet Union failed spectacularly to make their N-1 moon rockets. They tried four times, all failed, due to the lack of static testings of their rocket engine as well as various other shortcuts that were politically motivated.


I don't know what paint they used, but I still remember that KRI Klewang had a rough surface. It could be either because it was a rushed product, or it was actually deliberate since the rough finish was meant to scatter radar signal or for some other reason. We may never know, though.

You know, we are far from the so called research and development stage, should use more of the limited resource we had toward license producing and manufacturing process first, this kind of move is far more important to us to gain experience for the true "producing", increasing local content for important stuff like (engine for warships or rocket to say, chips or Electronic stuff or processing data system stuff, gyro , gearbox, chasis for heavy vehicles, radar system, large caliber gun barrel and such). Of course if you want to do research, the scope should be limited toward reverse engineering, not trying to build platform from scratch but end up instead importing much of the components from aboard that's more like to shoot your own feets.
 

chiphocks

Committed member
Messages
217
Reactions
70
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
First thing first, even though many media (both ours and abroad) reported it as "stealth", I will be the one to claim that KRI Golok, as well as its predecessor, does not possess such capability in its current iterations - at least not as advanced as, say, Visby class corvettes. It is, however, a low-observable ship due to its construction and materials used since I believe its head-on RCS will be considerably smaller than conventional ships like our KCR-60 / Sampari-class ships. Mind you, KRI Klewang was supposed to be the first prototype that if it hadn't been destroyed in a fire, its testing data would be used to make important changes in KRI Golok.

Regarding its speed, something must have happened back then that made them changed its listed specification from 40-50 knots to 28 knots maximum speed. It could be either due to the changes in its engines, or that they think that its real capability should not be advertised publicly, or some other reasons that probably will never be made public.

Whatever the reason, it is still the first prototype in which the final form of the production version may differ in some aspects. Unfortunately, most of us are still not used to this process of product development since we kind of expecting 'instant result' or that anything that should be taken one step at a time is considered as a waste of both time and money.

Case in point: Remember SpaceX many failures which were always shown publicly when they were testing their Falcon 9 rocket? They weren't wasting money and time by celebrating their failures. Instead, they made clear signs of progress from one failed prototype to the next, and now the landing of their Falcon-9 rockets is something that has become a usual sight.

As a comparison, think of why the Soviet Union failed spectacularly to make their N-1 moon rockets. They tried four times, all failed, due to the lack of static testings of their rocket engine as well as various other shortcuts that were politically motivated.


I don't know what paint they used, but I still remember that KRI Klewang had a rough surface. It could be either because it was a rushed product, or it was actually deliberate since the rough finish was meant to scatter radar signal or for some other reason. We may never know, though.
Hopefully that is what happened....
cause if they downgrade it from 40 to 28 knot, it's just to ridiculous for a fast attack boat

Btw, they did change the engine
KRI Golok
1.800 hp diesel engine + MJP 500 QD CSU

KRI Klewang
1.800 hp diesel engine + MJP55
 

Var Dracon

Well-known member
Messages
446
Reactions
1 473
Nation of residence
Indonesia
That is so us.

They memeing their own failures, and its funny and good.


PT Lundin: its not a defect its an unplanned special feature.
Well, what do you expect from the same people who believe in sim salabim abra kadabracar by Vocational High School?
 

deadlast

Committed member
Professional
Messages
153
Reactions
2 350
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
But there is video showing the bridge(not showing much) not too long ago.
Sure but, who cares about the bridge, the only thing worth noting about that video was that we now know that they use Raymarine bridge & navigation suite.

I'm sure it's still empty but the more interesting stuff should be the room behind that bridge, directly behind the bridge are the space for C&C center and further back should be the naval weapon (gun) room.

Oh isn't it the one that also getting catapulted by an aircraft carrier. Submersible + CATOBAR.
Yes, Short Take-Off (LoL) off then French's FS Clemencau.
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
2,913
Reactions
3 2,481
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
directly behind the bridge are the space for C&C center and further back should be the naval weapon (gun) room
Not sure if there is any dedicated C&C center, it only have 30mm gun(FFBNW) they could just put the gun console computer in the bridge, and does that antenna tower have radar in it? I am not sure that it will have Sea Giraffe like in the previous plan.
 

deadlast

Committed member
Professional
Messages
153
Reactions
2 350
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Not sure if there is any dedicated C&C center, it only have 30mm gun(FFBNW) they could just put the gun console computer in the bridge, and does that antenna tower have radar in it? I am not sure that it will have Sea Giraffe like in the previous plan.
Well, there are dedicated (provisioned) room for C&C center just behind the bridge most likely for gun/missile/mission control and also room behind this C&C center for gun ammo hoist/storage for whatever main gun they decide to put on this boat.

I don't think there are any subsystem (weapon/primary & fire control radar/CMS) currently fitted on her at the moment, most likely the usual FFBNW-things that would be ordered & integrated later down the road.
 

Umigami

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
5,984
Reactions
5 4,844
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
FB_IMG_1631107723390.jpg


I can't confirmed this is Martadinata class or not.
FB_IMG_1631107733868.jpg
 

deadlast

Committed member
Professional
Messages
153
Reactions
2 350
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
View attachment 30695

I can't confirmed this is Martadinata class or not.
View attachment 30696
Moroccan Navy Sigma 9813, the VLS cell itself is the same as the ones fitted on the Martadinata-class.

The system were called VL MICA, it uses MICA missile with CLA (Conteneur Lanceur Autonome – or Autonomous Launch Container) VLS cell, first developed for ground/land use VL MICA.

Unlike SYLVER A35 which each system contain 4 VLS cell with joint single uptake/exhaust hatch, the CLA system consist of only 1 VLS cell with small integrated uptake/exhaust hatch.

This resulted in CLA system having smaller footprint and offer more flexibility in term of number of VLS cell on a system compared to SYLVER A35 VLS.

Also IINM SYLVER A35 VLS were no longer offered for sale at the time of Martadinata-class construction (no one interested on them apparently).
 

deadlast

Committed member
Professional
Messages
153
Reactions
2 350
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Is our sigma corvette can be fitted with that vl ?

Well, if you really want that vls on Diponegoro-class then sure, technically it will fit, the front section (from bow to main mast) of Indonesian Sigma 9113 and Moroccan Sigma 9813/10513 are practically identical.

The problem then is that you need to remember vls are part of a system consisting not only the missile+vls itself but also a lot of other things (control console, computer rack, power generation, etc). In the case of Moroccan Sigma both of them accommodate this by lengthening their hull into 98/105m.

In the Diponeoro case however, the space for the vls were most likely already being used for something else, hence the need to relocate this space to other part of the ship (somehow) if they really wants to put vls system there. The space needed to accommodate a complete system of vls missile is just not there in my opinion.

The other problem Diponegoro has with this arrangement is that they also need to upgrade/replace her primary radar to support and guide the new vls missile (MICA), this mean more money needed to upgrade them if they wanted MICA vls fitted.
 
Last edited:

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,143
Solutions
2
Reactions
97 22,910
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Well, if you really want that vls on Diponegoro-class then sure, technically it will fit, the front section (from bow to main mast) of Indonesian Sigma 9113 and Moroccan Sigma 9813/10513 are practically identical.

The problem then is that you need to remember vls are part of a system consisting not only the missile+vls itself but also a lot of other things (control console, computer rack, power generation, etc). In the case of Moroccan Sigma both of them accommodate this by lengthening their hull into 98/105m.

In the Diponeoro case however, the space for the vls were most likely already being used for something else, hence the need to relocate this space to other part of the ship (somehow) if they really wants to put vls system there. The space needed to accommodate a complete system of vls missile is just not there in my opinion.

The other problem Diponegoro has with this arrangement is that they also need to upgrade/replace her primary radar to support and guide the new vls missile (MICA), this mean more money needed to upgrade them if they wanted MICA vls fitted.
Screenshot_2020-10-08 SIGMA_class_Corvette_9113- pdf - Copy.png

Well, this picture gives a brief summary on why it is possible, but not practical or feasible.
I would personally upgrade the hull with millenium gun, or newer dual purpose RCWS and additional 25-35 mm RCWS. Relocate Sadral to the frontside or double their amount.
 

Madokafc

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
5,903
Reactions
4 10,020
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
View attachment 30765
Well, this picture gives a brief summary on why it is possible, but not practical or feasible.
I would personally upgrade the hull with millenium gun, or newer dual purpose RCWS and additional 25-35 mm RCWS. Relocate Sadral to the frontside or double their amount.

Just do as it is, they are not intended for high level threat perception. Peace keeping off shore patrol duty, Escort duty for fleets and such. Not to mention TNI AL put more space for additional logistic (water, food and stuff) and crew comfort for long term patrol duty
 

Mandala

Contributor
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
817
Reactions
1,638
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
View attachment 30765
Well, this picture gives a brief summary on why it is possible, but not practical or feasible.
I would personally upgrade the hull with millenium gun, or newer dual purpose RCWS and additional 25-35 mm RCWS. Relocate Sadral to the frontside or double their amount.
How about adding a box type placement for the VLS like the Type 23 Frigate? Looks like its non hull penetrating.

thumb2-hms-montrose-f236-type-23-frigate-royal-navy.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom