Yes, and also most detrimental.Whereas it was Indonesia's first ever time to build a submarine locally and Koreans were the most generous one in terms of the ToT and even the price.
Yes, and also most detrimental.Whereas it was Indonesia's first ever time to build a submarine locally and Koreans were the most generous one in terms of the ToT and even the price.
Yep 1 billion, for 3 submarines plus ToT. The cheapest on the tender with that amount of subs, if iam not wrong.1st. Navantia has joined with Naval Group design, license building.
2nd. Tender was merely procedural, as the requirements even changed after signing contract with HDW and the project's name changed from Cerbe to Reis.
3rd. Holding a tender does not reset decades long commitment of TR in submarine construction and MRO with Germans. Whereas it was Indonesia's first ever time to build a submarine locally and Koreans were the most generous one in terms of the ToT and even the price.
Well, your people have chosen them among other options, which one was TR-DE consortium and not gonna lie, your people hasn't treat us TR boys that 'good' or friendly on the table. I have a lot to speak, but i prefer not to.Yes, and also most detrimental.
Like I've said, however "detrimental", TNI had two years after the commissioning of KRI Nagapasa until the signing of batch 2 contract. Whatever the KRI Nagapasa turned out to be, it was enough to warrant a second batch of the same ship.Yes, and also most detrimental.
+ Highest fraction of ToT and know-how transfer.Yep 1 billion, for 3 submarines plus ToT. The cheapest on the tender with that amount of subs, if iam not wrong.
Reiss class price > US$340 million eachYep 1 billion, for 3 submarines plus ToT. The cheapest on the tender with that amount of subs, if iam not wrong.
Did they include reiss class in our tender back then?Reiss class price > US$340 million each
Nagapasa class price > US$373 million each
IYKWIM,,,,,
Most if not all high-tech weapon-exporting countries have developed countermeasures when their weapons are being used against them. The forms can vary from a total shutdown of said weapons via a "kill switch", to reduced effectiveness, or any other. Even if there aren't any "kill switches" included, those countries are the ones who designed and built the weapons so they have a complete and thorough understanding of how those weapons work, including how to develop ways to counter them.It's not like China has a secret button to deactivate those missiles.
There were, and still are. But one of the main reasons why such things aren't being questioned out loud is because their interests and ours still align for the time being.If this is true, and that means the science to do such is possible and a reality, why isn't there any legitimate question for Western sourced weapons?
Aside from the aforementioned aligned interests, well, business.what's stopping the French for example to secretly code the Rafale so that it couldn't fire towards our 2nd enemy, Australia ?
if you want to claim 'ToT was minimal' then you have to bring up something more relevant than 2013 articles as PT PAL built a submarine in Indonesia with ToT that the company received from DSME & delievered the submarine in 2021. Any ToT to make this happen is not 'minimal' by any strech of imagination and even President Jokowi acknowledged this, too. I'd appreciate if you could stop being an idiot, but that's not in your interest is it?I'm just clarifying your previous statement, which seemed to equate the additional contract with the new procurement, while they are entirely different. And the previous procurement cannot automatically be considered as part of the agreement in ToT negotiations.
About "minimal ToT".
The President Director of PT PAL Indonesia (Persero), M. Firmansyah Arifin, stated that the submarine transfer of technology (ToT) program to South Korea tends to be detrimental to national interests. After studying the contract clauses, Firmansyah observed that the ToT program emphasizes more on learning by seeing rather than learning by doing.
Berita Terkini, Berita Hari Ini Indonesia dan Dunia | tempo.co
nasional.tempo.co
"The problem is that Daewoo requires the experts we send to be under the age of 30, and the technology transfer process is done by site seeing (just coming to observe) rather than learning by doing. These requirements made the technology transfer process difficult".
Alih Teknologi Kapal Selam, PT PAL Kirim 8 Tenaga Ahli ke Daewoo
Kapal Selam (navaltechnology.com)BISNIS.COM, SURABAYA- PT PAL Indonesia (Persero) segera mengirimkan 8 enjineer ke Korea Selatan, untuk alih teknologi pembuatan kapal selam pesanan Kementerian Pertahanan yang diproduksi di perusahaan galangan Daewoo.m.bisnis.com
Ok dude, keep your denial.if you want to claim 'ToT was minimal' then you have to bring up something more relevant than 2013 articles as PT PAL built a submarine in Indonesia with ToT that the company received from DSME & delievered the submarine in 2021. Any ToT to make this happen is not 'minimal' by any strech of imagination and even President Jokowi acknowledged this, too. I'd appreciate if you could stop being an idiot, but that's not in your interest is it?
Yeah they know the in and out, the characteristic, performance and limitations etc.Most if not all high-tech weapon-exporting countries have developed countermeasures when their weapons are being used against them. The forms can vary from a total shutdown of said weapons via a "kill switch", to reduced effectiveness, or any other. Even if there aren't any "kill switches" included, those countries are the ones who designed and built the weapons so they have a complete and thorough understanding of how those weapons work, including how to develop ways to counter them.
There were, and still are. But one of the main reasons why such things aren't being questioned out loud is because their interests and ours still align for the time being.
Aside from the aforementioned aligned interests, well, business.
France once rejected the request from the UK to provide them with Exocet "kill switch" during the Falkland War, saying that there was no such thing on their missile. In turn, 40 years later in 2022, it was revealed that there was a method to disable Exocet if it was being used to attack the French Navy's warships. This was kept secret because Francois Mitterand, the French president at that time, saw it as handing over the "secret keys" to their rival in the global arms trade.
They still helped in other ways though, like forbidding other South American countries who already bought the missile to aid Argentina, to provide "parts of the technical details" of Exocet to the US and UK.
Most if not all high-tech weapon-exporting countries have developed countermeasures when their weapons are being used against them. The forms can vary from a total shutdown of said weapons via a "kill switch", to reduced effectiveness, or any other. Even if there aren't any "kill switches" included, those countries are the ones who designed and built the weapons so they have a complete and thorough understanding of how those weapons work, including how to develop ways to counter them.
There were, and still are. But one of the main reasons why such things aren't being questioned out loud is because their interests and ours still align for the time being.
Aside from the aforementioned aligned interests, well, business.
France once rejected the request from the UK to provide them with Exocet "kill switch" during the Falkland War, saying that there was no such thing on their missile. In turn, 40 years later in 2022, it was revealed that there was a method to disable Exocet if it was being used to attack the French Navy's warships. This was kept secret because Francois Mitterand, the French president at that time, saw it as handing over the "secret keys" to their rival in the global arms trade.
They still helped in other ways though, like forbidding other South American countries who already bought the missile to aid Argentina, to provide "parts of the technical details" of Exocet to the US and UK.
Then we buy from Turkiye.This is the dilemma of weapons importers, we don't get to choose what to do with our weapons. But for Indonesia, we are facing a situation where we have 2 enemies, North and South.
China is the bigger dog, but what makes you guys not think that the ones in the South are just being opportunistic, waiting for the China threat to subside so that they could play big bros in the region once again if it recede, If you guys ever read Australian think tanks like ASPI and what they actually think or just happens to visit forums where there's a lot of Australians inside and casually talk about Indonesia, you'll get the idea.
We could not, (less attacked and invaded by China) to play 100% pro-Western moves, it's stupid, it basically positions the Americans and the Australians to be the only guarantor of our safety which they could manipulate or blackmail us with.
As much as people want us to be fully Westernized (in equipment and doctrine) there's always the need to diversify equipment source because we don't know when we will be facing the West. An embargo would mean that the Indonesian military readiness plunges to an unacceptable level once again. France is 'acting' independent until Washington's weight are brought to bear.
Remember Saddam's Iraq ? Iraq used to be a prolific user of French-sourced equipment, notably, the Mirage F1 which the French tailor-made for the Iraqis( EQ-4, EQ-5 and EQ-7 model), as well as borrowing their Super Etendard with Exocet pending deliveries, France also supplied Iraq with the Roland SAM and the most impressive is the Iraq's KARI IADS which are designed by France (reportedly the 6th largest in the world in 1990).
Did this romance of business survive U.S. pressure? Nope
France will bow down to U.S pressure if we ever find ourselves against the Australians once again, because Anglo Saxons will defend other Anglo Saxons. If wefound ourselves in that position, kiss goodbye to spare parts, missiles, smart bomb kits etc for Rafale.
This is why we must diversify our weapons source until we are self sufficient
Just want to make sure that you also know how contracts are carried out and Indonesia has known the terms and conditions which were included to be covered during warranty term. For anything occuring beyond the warranty term, and anything occuring within the planned maintenance schedule the operator is responsible, unless a separate long term support agreement has been signed. This works as such for all industries, for some this contract has been signed with the first actual contract, sometimes after commissioning.
Not telling that Koreans are 100% pure and clean here but i can sense Indonesia owns majority of the nonsense that still goes on.
Dunno why you are still going with it. Some members in the Indonesian forum are bad-faithed when it comes to matters concerning Nagapasa class.
I've had similar convos here and all I was able to get is that "there are problems concerning the battery". Else, all they could show was just routine maintenance. Never was there any concrete outline of problems, or where the liability fell. They parrot that its "not open to public", since they seem to be completely unaware that in countries like the US, Korea, Australia, UK, Germany, etc. there would've been parliamentary or auditory reports concerning the program fully open to the public, had there been as much problem with the program.
None of these idiots were actually able to tell me why Indonesia comissioned the KRI Nagapasa, operate her for 2 years and then sign the contract for the second batch, had there been as much problem, which DSME and Korea would've been responsible for.
Good luck with that. Indonesia has a history of not respecting contracts. Their Hawk procurement (which they didn't pay the UK for) was a good example, so is the nonsense in the KF-X program.
Should've followed France with its independent policy. Dont forget PRC also got their submarine tech from the USA back then.
Then we buy from Turkiye.
Corrected that for you. But of course, to limit the scope of this discussion let's just say there are two main competing interests at play other than ours: China's and the US.[...] we are facing a situation where we have2a lot of potential enemies [...]
It's dangerous to assume what others think especially if their thoughts are not being shown directly.what makes you guys not think that the ones in the South are just being opportunistic
And who ever said that we are? If it's about arms procurements, I would say that we're just being pragmatic. Still, being pragmatic is different than being careless and if it's about the rumor of acquiring YJ-12, I'd say it's closer to the latter than the former.We could not, (less attacked and invaded by China) to play 100% pro-Western moves, it's stupid, it basically positions the Americans and the Australians to be the only guarantor of our safety which they could manipulate or blackmail us with.
And before that, we've been embargoed and sabotaged by the Soviets as well, and so forth. Anyone who thinks that we'll be free from the risk of an arms embargo by buying from France (or any other country) is clearly not fit to be a military analyst.As much as people want us to be fully Westernized (in equipment and doctrine) there's always the need to diversify equipment source because we don't know when we will be facing the West. An embargo would mean that the Indonesian military readiness plunges to an unacceptable level once again. France is 'acting' independent until Washington's weight are brought to bear.
Bold: and yet, they're still preying on each other when it comes to business, even if it means letting the other "Anglo-Saxon country" suffer high troop casualties.France will bow down to U.S pressure if we ever find ourselves against the Australians once again, because Anglo Saxons will defend other Anglo Saxons. If wefound ourselves in that position, kiss goodbye to spare parts, missiles, smart bomb kits etc for Rafale.
No debate there. But once again, being pragmatic is different than being careless.This is why we must diversify our weapons source until we are self sufficient
No, Reis class sub > $ 660 million per unit (EUR/USD conversion in 2009).Reiss class price > US$340 million each
Nagapasa class price > US$373 million each
IYKWIM,,,,,
Sorry i have to butt in because this line is pissed me off, also one key word "embargo" well maybe you are ignorant about the Hawk circumstance, but are you telling me we have to give them full pay at that time after they left our Hawks in Thailand in the middle of delivery and we used some tricks so we can take 'em from Thailand under US pressure?Good luck with that. Indonesia has a history of not respecting contracts. Their Hawk procurement (which they didn't pay the UK for) was a good example, so is the nonsense in the KF-X program.
As much as people want us to be fully Westernized (in equipment and doctrine) there's always the need to diversify equipment source because we don't know when we will be facing the West. An embargo would mean that the Indonesian military readiness plunges to an unacceptable level once again. France is 'acting' independent until Washington's weight are brought to bear.