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

rai456

Active member
Messages
90
Reactions
1 59
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I wish they did.

There is maybe the matter of the Israeli radar + Barak 8 and Indonesia-Israel relations (which are still informal) maybe limiting how such systems can be exported or re-exported. MRSAM (improved Barak 8) is also a joint venture in the end with Israel, so they have IP share.

Making a more exportable version of this destroyer is not priority for India, given shipyards are stretched to capacity to begin with for local orders. Shipyards need more investment for expansion going forward.

A full ToT with say PAL shipyard (and say they customise as they want), that could be considered in interim I suppose.

But how would that stack with say proceeding with Mogami where Japan has good capacity + interest to export 4 and transfer ToT for Indonesia to build 4 after?

Does Indonesia want the extra tonnage (and I guess endurance) of destroyers in say 7500t class or is heavy frigate/destroyer in 5500t class etc a better fit for its strategic allocation going forward?

i.e was the Chinese (export) destroyer project a serious contender in the strategy to begin with? I am unfamiliar with many of these matters.
Unlike China, India does not have any extra P-15Bs to spare. Also the program has already faced years of delay.
India can't build ships as quickly and efficiently as the East Asians( China, South Korea and Japan).
 

Madokafc

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
5,913
Reactions
4 10,053
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Unlike China, India does not have any extra P-15Bs to spare. Also the program has already faced years of delay.
India can't build ships as quickly and efficiently as the East Asians( China, South Korea and Japan).

Well their learning curve is quite okay to me, Visakhapatnam class need at least five to six year after commence of the first ship (which understandable for every first article), and only need two to four years to completed the Surat and Imphal. That's already enough to me.
 

Madokafc

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
5,913
Reactions
4 10,053
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia

Lordimperator

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Correspondent
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
5,023
Reactions
3 2,868
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Chinese offer is politically driven, and my bet, if certain party won the election, and put their own as Minister of Defense, Chinese weaponry would flooding Indonesia Arsenal in near future.
the upcoming presidential election? is it the red party who wants the Lunyang class to be acquired?
 

Parry Brima

Contributor
Messages
982
Reactions
1 1,057
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
the germans are still trying to offer indonesia their submarine, now through their own minister of defense, 1:45 timestamp.

They should offer EF Tranche 4 instead.

Btw, there are 100-300 people reading the forums recently. What's going on? Buzzers trying to generate something out of our discussion?
 

rai456

Active member
Messages
90
Reactions
1 59
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Well their learning curve is quite okay to me, Visakhapatnam class need at least five to six year after commence of the first ship (which understandable for every first article), and only need two to four years to completed the Surat and Imphal. That's already enough to me.
Two to four years for a destroyer isn't bad. Much better than the Russians.
The problem is that they don't have much commercial shipbuilding.
China, Korea and Japan dominate commercial shipbuilding and the infrastructure and skills developed for commercial shipbuilding allows them to build warships very efficiently and quickly.
ship2.jpg


Just imagine how many warships China could build if there is a hot war.
 

Lordimperator

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Correspondent
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
5,023
Reactions
3 2,868
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Two to four years for a destroyer isn't bad. Much better than the Russians.
The problem is that they don't have much commercial shipbuilding.
China, Korea and Japan dominate commercial shipbuilding and the infrastructure and skills developed for commercial shipbuilding allows them to build warships very efficiently and quickly.
View attachment 57984

Just imagine how many warships China could build if there is a hot war.
Kinda like US in WW ii
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
The problem with India's shipyard compared to Japan, US, China and many major shibuilding nations is the horrible build rate per tonne.

shared to me by Nilgiri from some conversation years ago.

1637529382557-png.36135


It took the MDL shipyard (who built the Visakhapatnam) 3.8X the amount of time needed to build a thousand ton of ship part compared to the US.

You want to wait that long ?
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
3,183
Reactions
4 2,806
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
The problem with India's shipyard compared to Japan, US, China and many major shibuilding nations is the horrible build rate per tonne.

shared to me by Nilgiri from some conversation years ago.

1637529382557-png.36135


It took the MDL shipyard (who built the Visakhapatnam) 3.8X the amount of time needed to build a thousand ton of ship part compared to the US.

You want to wait that long ?
What caused this?
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
3,183
Reactions
4 2,806
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Internal: Efficiency?
External: logistic and supply chain?
Hm corruption?
 

this is crunch

Contributor
Messages
657
Reactions
4 633
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Hello folks, today i'd like to share some information about ID Navy Submarine Nagapasa Class, a.k.a Improved Chang Bogo, a.k.a Type 209 1400 subclass that we all might don't aware of with it's illustration. It's all based on visual inspection and open source, so here we go

1. Do submarine even have an anchor? or do they just float around? the answer is YES THEY DO HAVE ANCHOR
20230606_143232.jpg

On this Cutaway and Blueprint file, notice there are a small anchor below the torpedo tubes on the front section. I believe every submarine has an anchor, but it's really hard to find an upclose photos of submarines underbelly. so with this illustration we can confirm that YES submarines do have an anchor

2. How do they reload the torpedoes? It's through the torpedo tubes
20230606_143328.jpg

The Photo above are from Cakra Class reloading the SUT Torpedoes, because, this class of submarine doesn't have dedicated hatch for the torpedoes, so how do they do that, first, they fill the aft ballast tank so the bow section lifted up and do the reload procedures.

3. HYDROPLANES! every other sub do have forward hydroplanes visible as you may see on the Type 212, Type 214, Scorpene and many others
20230606_150255.jpg


But not on Type 209 series
Kapal-selam-indonesia.jpg

so, do they have forward hydroplanes? YES THEY DO, but this is the unique part, the hydroplanes is located on the lower section of submarine, retractable, AND, it's not conform, i mean is the geometry is not the same,
20230606_141818.jpg

while the starboard (right) side is in concave angle, the port (left) side is in convex angle, it's very little to no information explaining this features, so my best guess is only one of them is used for each diving and surfacing manouvres.

if you have any information about this, let us know

Alright that's it for the 1 part, 2 part is soon coming
 

NEKO

Experienced member
Indonesia Correspondent
Messages
3,183
Reactions
4 2,806
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Hello folks, today i'd like to share some information about ID Navy Submarine Nagapasa Class, a.k.a Improved Chang Bogo, a.k.a Type 209 1400 subclass that we all might don't aware of with it's illustration. It's all based on visual inspection and open source, so here we go

1. Do submarine even have an anchor? or do they just float around? the answer is YES THEY DO HAVE ANCHOR
View attachment 57989
On this Cutaway and Blueprint file, notice there are a small anchor below the torpedo tubes on the front section. I believe every submarine has an anchor, but it's really hard to find an upclose photos of submarines underbelly. so with this illustration we can confirm that YES submarines do have an anchor

2. How do they reload the torpedoes? It's through the torpedo tubes
View attachment 57990
The Photo above are from Cakra Class reloading the SUT Torpedoes, because, this class of submarine doesn't have dedicated hatch for the torpedoes, so how do they do that, first, they fill the aft ballast tank so the bow section lifted up and do the reload procedures.

3. HYDROPLANES! every other sub do have forward hydroplanes visible as you may see on the Type 212, Type 214, Scorpene and many others
View attachment 57996

But not on Type 209 series View attachment 57997
so, do they have forward hydroplanes? YES THEY DO, but this is the unique part, the hydroplanes is located on the lower section of submarine, retractable, AND, it's not conform, i mean is the geometry is not the same,
View attachment 57998
while the starboard (right) side is in concave angle, the port (left) side is in convex angle, it's very little to no information explaining this features, so my best guess is only one of them is used for each diving and surfacing manouvres.

if you have any information about this, let us know

Alright that's it for the 1 part, 2 part is soon coming
Waiting for part.2
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,764
Reactions
119 19,787
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
For what i can get from current Indonesian Navy naval strategy and posture outlook, the Navy still need at least 18 ocean going large Frigate in various roles (ASW, AAW, and such) in which comprised of three full Naval Escort Squadron so they can fill all of the Command fleets with full "Frigate" Squadron. Meanwhile they also found they need dedicated large combatant surface warships in which also has Admiralty command facilities. Thus the need for large multipurpose Destroyer with inclined toward AAW and strike roles. From the information i can get they need at least three of such vessels, one for each Naval fleets command.

From the funding progress, i can said Indonesia only able to secure two Arrowhead 140 and three FREMM Frigate, so still far off from the target of requirement.

There is also need for each Command fleets to have smaller but ocean going/high seas capable Frigate/Corvette/OPV in matching number. So far the Navy already have four Diponegoro class Corvette, three Fatahillah class Corvette, three Bung Tomo class Corvette, two Martadinata class Frigate and now in the progress with two OPV 90 class and also secure the funding for at least another two more OPV 90.

Chinese offer is politically driven, and my bet, if certain party won the election, and put their own as Minister of Defense, Chinese weaponry would flooding Indonesia Arsenal in near future.

Got it.

Is there any plan to have PAL shipyard capacity/expansion for building with ToT these (3) destroyers or they (assuming funding allotted etc)have to be built for most part in foreign shipyard?

If its the latter, definitely India has little to no chance for this decade. Everything is near 100% commited already (for own domestic warship production) and being restructured (for expansion to catch up with the larger powers) where possible.



Unlike China, India does not have any extra P-15Bs to spare. Also the program has already faced years of delay.
India can't build ships as quickly and efficiently as the East Asians( China, South Korea and Japan).
Yup, pretty much.


Well their learning curve is quite okay to me, Visakhapatnam class need at least five to six year after commence of the first ship (which understandable for every first article), and only need two to four years to completed the Surat and Imphal. That's already enough to me.
Yah, but the issue is shipyard capacity (for shipyards that have the capital equipment + mgmt + labour expertise i.e public owned big 4: MDL, GRSE, HSL, CSL) for warships.

Building one in India for export of new (large i.e destroyer, frigate etc) warship is basically not possible....everything is tied up.

Reorganisation + more funding to expand the public owned ones and build institutional trust etc with private ones will take time to achieve say export capacity.

They should offer EF Tranche 4 instead.

Btw, there are 100-300 people reading the forums recently. What's going on? Buzzers trying to generate something out of our discussion?

@TR_123456 and I noticed the viewership had even touched 1000+ at times in recent days.


Two to four years for a destroyer isn't bad. Much better than the Russians.
The problem is that they don't have much commercial shipbuilding.
China, Korea and Japan dominate commercial shipbuilding and the infrastructure and skills developed for commercial shipbuilding allows them to build warships very efficiently and quickly.


Just imagine how many warships China could build if there is a hot war.

Yup thats all a big part of the reason. The civilian shipbuilding leveraging. However the nature of war has changed a lot since WW2, the capacities will be targetted much quicker by opponents.

I dont think there will be long term capacity operation/utilisation in the equation to the degree we saw in WW2 in a major world war today.

Even international logistics argument (often used as to why so and so routes are invested in and made as alternative to some shipping chokepoints)... I think is overrated.

Every sensitive node will be targeted as a piority by whichever opponent....a lot of these are and will remain extremely vulnerable. Large powers will want to have as much advantageous initial starting power + positioning as possible with all of this in mind.


The problem with India's shipyard compared to Japan, US, China and many major shibuilding nations is the horrible build rate per tonne.

shared to me by Nilgiri from some conversation years ago.

1637529382557-png.36135


It took the MDL shipyard (who built the Visakhapatnam) 3.8X the amount of time needed to build a thousand ton of ship part compared to the US.

You want to wait that long ?

The numbers are a bit old now (this was in the previous decade ~ 2000 - 2010), things are changing now as India economy and investment capacity grows in absolute levels that are required (roughly where china was in early 2000s, assuming the accounting of inflation is about the same which may not be the case in Chinese statistics but thats another story).

In any case a number of specific reasons are explored in this paper below ("productivity" issues along with suggestion to merge the 6 PSUs into just one):


Basically the public shipyards (which are preferred when it come to warships) suffer lack of investment and infrastructure given way the budgeting works from govt along with strong unionisation and associated corruption + bureaucracy norms caused by that.

The private shipyards that are more responsive/dynamic and have better accountability (from market pressures) and scope to grow (say using India's market capitalisation and debt market financing) and use their existing capacity etc, are not looked upon favourably for large warship builds....though some smaller ones have been given for now. Some also facing insolvency on top that needs to be sorted out first before recapitalisation of their capacity (whereas public shipyards will never face such insolvency like that).

This is exacerbated by lack of real volume of scale to leverage (in first place) like East Asia has in its shipyard raw output and labour + mgmt pools that Rai spoke to earlier.

That will take time to grow to anything appreciable, so in interim extra competent handholding is needed to account for that lacking, which is why the Admiral suggests merging PSU's as first step to generate more economy of scale there given the mental block in defence block about role of private sector here (and let private sector grow its commerce shipbuild side this decade and see where they stand next decade etc).

Otherwise there will just be piecemeal capacity expansion and iterative improvement separately which definitely will only just about manage to keep up with domestic needs, forget about export capacity:


Maybe @Gessler @Anmdt et al. can add their thoughts to this from anything they know.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom