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

[Gary]

Technical Difficulties

How about:

We can put it in our panther.

Very small warhead that will not suffice to do much against ships >>>800 tons + very short-legged @20km

 

[norman88]

And now i step in,
The deal with TKMS (or rather Germans as the shipyard ownership and the name has changed several times) and Turkish submarine industry dates back to 70s, this is nowhere close or comparable to DSME-Indonesia deal that took place in 2010s. If approved, TKMS-Turkish-Indonesia deal would have provided even less ToT than what Koreans have offered and delivered.

What I mean is the Reiss-class, in terms of contract value, it's comparable.

 

[Gary]

I'd imagine our planned LHD to have at the very least 4-6x H225, each with 2x AM39 Exocet. Once the target is detected, all will sortie and release a salvo of 8-12 Exocet before returning to re-arm, refuel, and fly again to do a repeat salvo against targets hundreds of kilometers from the main fleet.

STOL UAVs like the TB-3 or Mojave numbering around 6-10 should be carried as well, preferably with folding wings. To be used as the eyes and ears of the fleet, spread in a searching pattern to warn against incoming hostiles. There's an innovation in Ukraine where select drones are used as 'queen' with repeaters to extend the range beyond the line of sight. That would be useful for a country with no 24/7/365 coverage of military satellites.

There's of course the need for an early warning helicopter + a general-purpose cargo helicopter

This kind of air wing, IMO. Could justify the procurement of an LHD like PAL talked earlier. What do u guys think ?

 

[Dosirak]

I working in manufacturing industry, doing some toll manufaturing too for multinasional companies and local companies. when the principal came to our company they can bring their own production methode/technology or using our method, bring their own raw material or using our existing material. prinsipal/customer had the right to choose what they want, but as manufacuring company, when prinsipal came with their own method an material, we conduct assesment and risk analysys, what we can and what can't do, an always tell all of the risk that can be occure with their choice if the product still want to be manufactured in our site, we also gave the solution for all the rrisk that can be occure. we sign secrecy agreement regarding manufacturing proces. when production run, we validate the process to guarrantee the product quality. and as product manufacturer we responsible for the product quality until end of its life cycle, with main term n condition, as long as the product packaging are in good conditions. for the technology that prinsipal bring to our company we had secrecy agreement and the principal should aware and understand that we, our company can learn, modify, apply some of the technology to improve our production without broke secrecy agreement. becoming transfer of technology. its risk doing toll manufacturing. all bussinessman should understand and aware of this

back to the Submarine problems, is it wrong for us to halt another project because the first batch had many problems. where does the manufacturer responsibility regarding this problem. for the third one what i said maybe can be quetioned, because the segmen was assembled in indonesia, but how about the 1st and 2nd .. it 100 % builted in DMSE facilities. and no way indonesia can modified the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd from its original design from DSME

I don't know ANY manufacturer who takes responsibility of alledged problems of own product when a customer doesn't formally lodge a complaint nor claims a warranty repair nor requests refund on the ground of alledged problems and it has not been reasonably proved with factual evidence that the manufactuer is at fault.

Has the end user, Indonesia lodged a complaint to the manufacturer? - No
Has the end user, Indonesia accused that the manufacturer is responsbiled alledged problems? - No.
Has any of you present any evidence that the manufacturer is responsibile of alledged problems? - No.
Is the end user, Indonesia still receiving technical assistance & support from the manufacturer? - Yes.

Under those circumstances, Hanwha Ocean (formerlly DSME) is not liable and this is a global standard business pratice. Otherwise, any manufacturing company will be sued for tens of billion dollars and found liable for a claim that isn't even filed by a customer.

and please don tell us like we stole the segments assembling process

Stop clutching at straws. I didn't accuse 'you' of stealing the technology.

we pay for those transfer technology...

Yes, like I said it is a business. Indonesia paid money and got ToT from Korea and built a submarine locally. It was a contract that was mutually agreed between both parites and It served Indonesia's interest.

Now you should feel pretty dumb for claiming 'you always force us to accomodate Sokor interest', but I guess you still try to claim that Korea & Hanwha Ocean are still at fault without persenting any sustinatial evidence. Sigh.

Now there is no but or if. Indonesia has to pay a cancellation fee if she desires to terminate the contract unless she could prove that DSME & Korea have breached the contract first and your gov't would never find any excuse because there isn't any.

 

[Dosirak]

If you compare the ToT between TKMS and Turkiye, with almost the same contract value, the ToT between Indonesia and DSME is very, very minimal.

(Faceplam) Turkey bought 14 Type 209 and is planned to expand their submarine fleet with 6 additional Type 214 submarines from TKMS.

How many did Indonesia buy from DSME (Hanwha Ocean)? 3 with additional 3 is on order. How do you think those acqusition is comparable? That's incredibly dumb.

I guess you have to say something, even though how intellectually dumb it is, to justify your previous comment that ToT was 'minimal'.

 

[NEKO]

I'd imagine our planned LHD to have at the very least 4-6x H225, each with 2x AM39 Exocet. Once the target is detected, all will sortie and release a salvo of 8-12 Exocet before returning to re-arm, refuel, and fly again to do a repeat salvo against targets hundreds of kilometers from the main fleet.

STOL UAVs like the TB-3 or Mojave numbering around 6-10 should be carried as well, preferably with folding wings. To be used as the eyes and ears of the fleet, spread in a searching pattern to warn against incoming hostiles. There's an innovation in Ukraine where select drones are used as 'queen' with repeaters to extend the range beyond the line of sight. That would be useful for a country with no 24/7/365 coverage of military satellites.

There's of course the need for an early warning helicopter + a general-purpose cargo helicopter

This kind of air wing, IMO. Could justify the procurement of an LHD like PAL talked earlier. What do u guys think ?

TNI AL are not operating Super Puma right?
Why not SH-60? Mumpung TNI AD also getting UH-60.

 

[Gary]

TNI AL are not operating Super Puma right?
Why not SH-60? Mumpung TNI AD also getting UH-60.

TNI AL did operate H225 older sister, the Super Puma once, if TNI AL decide to prioritize ASW, they should go with SH-60, but if navy prioritize ASuW,they should pick the H225.

Having both is good as well

Certainly navy needs something more capable than the lightweights the likes of Bo-105, Bell 412.

 

[NEKO]

Having both is good as well

No thanks.

How about chinook for LHD?

 

[Gary]

No thanks.

How about chinook for LHD?

Hangar size ? Like how many would fit ?

Our LHD hull will have to share space between aircraft hangars above and dock well below. Not worth the effort designing a ship centered around its ability to store Chinook.

I really wish the navy harness the full potential of an LHD carrier. With missile armed helicopters and shipborne drones, not just an over glorified LPD.

 

[Lordimperator]

Hangar size ? Like how many would fit ?

Our LHD hull will have to share space between aircraft hangars above and dock well below. Not worth the effort designing a ship centered around its ability to store Chinook.

I really wish the navy harness the full potential of an LHD carrier. With missile armed helicopters and shipborne drones, not just an over glorified LPD.

I dont think chinook will ever fit on the elevator, for comparison HMAS Adelaide could be landed by Chinook on its deck (up to 4 chinook).

 

[Lordimperator]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489172192659181570

It could.

 

[Gary]

An LHD would have even smaller elevator

 

[norman88]

(Faceplam) Turkey bought 14 Type 209 and is planned to expand their submarine fleet with 6 additional Type 214 submarines from TKMS.

How many did Indonesia buy from DSME (Hanwha Ocean)? 3 with additional 3 is on order. How do you think those acqusition is comparable? That's incredibly dumb.

I guess you have to say something, even though how intellectually dumb it is, to justify your previous comment that ToT was 'minimal'.

Reiss-class is not an additional contract, but a new submarine program that was followed by many tenders such as Navantia and Naval Group, and won by TKMS, so there is no connection between type 209 and reiss-class contract.
It's an entirely new procurement, just like the contract between Indonesia and DSME.

 

[Lordimperator]

An LHD would have even smaller elevator

Plus the Chinook blade cant be folded.
The QE lift 27 x 15m vs Navantia LHD 13 x 13m, yep its smaller.

 

[NEKO]

Our LHD hull will have to share space between aircraft hangars above and dock well below.

Not sure about the well deck, do we need it? Or just maximized the ship for air wing ops, just like USS America.
I think we already have enough number of LPD to carry amphibious vehicles and LCU, also didn't TNI AL said that when the LPD's well deck is being flooded the ship tilt too much and TNI AL can't use the helipad for helicopter operation?
We can just use the LHD for the helicopter, and drones. LPD for the amphibious vehicles and LCU.

 

[Dosirak]

Reiss-class is not an additional contract, but a new submarine program that was followed by many tenders such as Navantia and Naval Group, and won by TKMS, so there is no connection between type 209 and reiss-class contract.
It's an entirely new procurement, just like the contract between Indonesia and DSME.

That's the very definition of additional procurement of submarine from the same company and I am not sure why you keep digging your own grave. Maybe, you feel compelled to say something, no matter how dumb it is, since you were objectively proven wrong when you absurdly claimed that ToT that Indonesia received from from Korea was 'minimal' and again you were exposed as a completely clueless clown who attempted to compare ToT that Turkey has received from TKMS and ToT that Indonesia has received from Hanwha Ocean (DSME) even though Turkey bought many, many more ships from TKMS than Indonesia did with DSME.

I guess you won't stop since you are determined to prove yourself a buffoon who thinks he could justify his incredibly dumb comment no matter objectively wrong you are. Sigh. Have a great day, mate.

 

[norman88]

That's the very definition of additional procurement of submarine from the same company and I am not sure why you keep digging your own grave. Maybe, you feel compelled to say something, no matter how dumb it is, since you were objectively proven wrong when you absurdly claimed that ToT that Indonesia received from from Korea was 'minimal' and again you were exposed as a completely clueless clown who attempted to compare ToT that Turkey has received from TKMS and ToT that Indonesia has received from Hanwha Ocean (DSME) even though Turkey bought many, many more ships from TKMS than Indonesia did with DSME.

I guess you won't stop since you are determined to prove yourself a buffoon who thinks he could justify his incredibly dumb comment no matter objectively wrong you are. Sigh. Have a great day, mate.

First of all, you must be able to differentiate between additional contracts and new procurement. They are completely different and unrelated. Even if you've bought dozens of submarines from the same company before, it does not necessarily enter the negotiating table for a transfer of technology agreement.

 

[Gary]

Not sure about the well deck, do we need it? Or just maximized the ship for air wing ops, just like USS America.
I think we already have enough number of LPD to carry amphibious vehicles and LCU, also didn't TNI AL said that when the LPD's well deck is being flooded the ship tilt too much and TNI AL can't use the helipad for helicopter operation?
We can just use the LHD for the helicopter, and drones. LPD for the amphibious vehicles and LCU.

I prefer no well deck as well, but even with increased hangar size, Chinook as part of the air wing is just a bit too much.

Btw the Americans reintroduce well deck for Flight I forward (USS Tripoli)

 

[Anmdt]

What I mean is the Reiss-class, in terms of contract value, it's comparable.

Not really comparable if you consider 50+ years of partnership and 30+ years construction / conducting MRO of submarines. Indonesia hasn't had the latter. Comparing only on the basis of contract value is pointless.

 

[Windchime]

Technical Difficulties

How about:

We can put it in our panther.

Sea Venom is more like a newer generation Sea Skua or Penguin. It is not a replacement for Exocet.