What's new

Indonesia Defence Forum

Ukraine just recently Resume its corvette project "volodymyr".
project-58250-image07.jpg

its a soviet/russian desgin with westernized weapon .
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-po...me-building-volodymyr-the-great-corvette.html
and finland also recently signed contract with SAAB as it's subsystem contractor (9LV) for its pohjanmaa class corvette.
Saabs-combat-system-selected-for-Finnish-Navy-Squadron-2020-Program_001-770x410.jpg

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ected-for-finnish-navy-squadron-2020-program/

Is our navy already have a future scope of ship that would become the replacement for our current parchim fleet ?
 
Ukraine just recently Resume its corvette project "volodymyr".
project-58250-image07.jpg

its a soviet/russian desgin with westernized weapon .
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-po...me-building-volodymyr-the-great-corvette.html
and finland also recently signed contract with SAAB as it's subsystem contractor (9LV) for its pohjanmaa class corvette.
Saabs-combat-system-selected-for-Finnish-Navy-Squadron-2020-Program_001-770x410.jpg

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ected-for-finnish-navy-squadron-2020-program/

Is our navy already have a future scope of ship that would become the replacement for our current parchim fleet ?
I think it would be locally designed and made for economy sake, ordering such a vast amount the corvettes' replacement from foreign contractor would cost too much time and money.
 
Ukraine just recently Resume its corvette project "volodymyr".
project-58250-image07.jpg

its a soviet/russian desgin with westernized weapon .
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-po...me-building-volodymyr-the-great-corvette.html
and finland also recently signed contract with SAAB as it's subsystem contractor (9LV) for its pohjanmaa class corvette.
Saabs-combat-system-selected-for-Finnish-Navy-Squadron-2020-Program_001-770x410.jpg

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ected-for-finnish-navy-squadron-2020-program/

Is our navy already have a future scope of ship that would become the replacement for our current parchim fleet ?
Try look at gayduk brochure bro, 80m long with same layout of bata class and parchim class

You should read much past discustion about parchim replacement, dont need more DPN or other foreign shipbuilder just to find nicer look ship, we have all the capability to build 2000ton or 80-90m class ship
 
DEFENSE ONE



USAF: Our New Tanker Should Be Ready for War in 3 or 4 Years
defense-large.JPG



Facebook
  • BY MARCUS WEISGERBERGLOBAL BUSINESS EDITORREAD BIO
SEPTEMBER 18, 2019


A few big problems, and about 500 smaller ones, have put the Boeing-made plane about five years behind schedule.

A long list of technical problems means the KC-46 tanker will not be battle-ready for at least three to four years, a top U.S. Air Force general said Wednesday.

Problems with the new plane’s refueling system could prompt the Air Force to put off retiring 1960s-era KC-135 tankers that are supporting the U.S. military’s operations around the world. The KC-46 was supposed to be battle-ready in 2017, but numerous design and development problems have led to repeated delays and cost the plane’s maker Boeing more than $3 billion.

“I need to get this [plane] into the fight,” Gen. Maryanne Miller, head of Air Mobility Command, the arm of the Air Force that oversees refueling and cargo planes, said Wednesday at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber conference.

But the tankers will not fly combat missions until at least 2022, some 11 years after the Air Force selected Boeing over rival Airbus to build its next-generation refueling tanker.

The latest delays come as the office of the Pentagon’s inspector general announced it would investigate whether the Air Force followed its own engineering process in designing and developing the plane’s refueling boom.

Right now, there are nine “critical performance parameters” with the plane’s refueling systems, Miller said.

“We are, in my opinion, making progress on seven of those,” she said. “Two are very difficult.”

Among them is a complex video system that’s supposed to help the boom operator guide the refueling probe into the receiving aircraft. On today’s planes, the airman simply looks through a window. On the KC-46, three cameras feed imagery to a computer that presents a merged picture to the operator at a console in the front of the plane. But operators are having trouble with depth perception on the screen, meaning the boom might appear closer or farther away from the plane behind the tanker.

“We have work to do. It’s complex,” Miller said. “Boeing knows that they have to meet all nine parameters. It’s a pass/fail grade for them.”

Air Force scientists at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio are working with Boeing to fix the problem. Boeing will bring its proposed fix to the Air Force “within a couple months,” Miller said.

A former Air Force KC-46 program official said the service had long worried about Boeing’s ability to develop this kind of camera system.

“There were many, many other companies out there that could have done it better and they chose to do it in-house,” the official said. “We thought that was a risk.”

The new boom is also stiff, which makes it difficult for slow-flying planes, like the A-10 Warthog, to refuel. But the tab for that fix is on the Air Force; Boeing built it to service specifications laid out in the 2011 contract.

“The design is fairly well understood,” Jamie Burgess, Boeing’s KC-46 program manager, said in a Tuesday interview. “We’re going through the detailed design work right now and expect to have a detailed design that’s ready for testing about the middle of next year.”

The latest problem is with the clips, unique to the KC-46, that are supposed to hold cargo pallets and passenger seats to the floor. In Air Force testing, the twist locks that hold the clips to the floor slightly loosen, but did not unlock. Boeing is now figuring out how to fix the clips, which Burgess called “a fairly simple design solution.” In the meantime, the Air Force might have to secure cargo pallets with straps.

The plane also has about 500 less-serious problems, Miller said.

“We will work through these,” she said. “The pressure is on the get this [plane] into the fight. Out teams will work together to get to the solutions to get this into the fight.”

Despite the problems, the Air Force began accepting KC-46 deliveries in January, but has withheld nearly $28 million per plane. To date, it has received 19 aircraft and withheld more than $500 million from the company.

“We’re eight months into accepting our airplanes and Boeing has not presented a solution that has met all the parameters,” Miller said. “In a couple of months, that’s what I’m looking for. A pass-fail grade for Boeing on this.”

The Air Force has twice halted deliveries after crew found trash, parts and tools inside aircraft.

“We have all of the right procedures in place [but] some of our employees weren’t following the procedures as closely as they should,” Burgess said.

Boeing is now inspecting each plane for debris before it moves between stations on the assembly line, Burgess said.

“If a tool is misplaced on an airplane, everything stops and we find it,” he said.

The final 20 minutes of workers’ shifts are dedicated to cleanup. Smaller tools, including screwdriver bits, must be logged in and out.

“The amount of [debris] that is being found and removed from airplanes now is drastically higher than it was before,” Burgess said.

The most recent KC-46 delivered to the Air Force was free of debris, Miller said.

In March 2018, then-Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said Boeing executives were too focused on the company’s larger commercial airplane business.

The KC-46 is a modified Boeing 767 airliner. The plane’s assembly begins on an Everett, Washington, assembly line along alongside FedEx and UPS cargo planes. After it’s put together, the Air Force planes are moved to a different hanger in Everett where the boom and refueling system is installed.

Assembly line workers, engineers and executives from Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Defense, Space & Security, two of the company’s three business units, play a role in building the KC-46.

“The department and the Air Force on the KC-46 program needs to really take a look at the relationship between Boeing commercial and Boeing defense and ensure that it is seamless,” the former Air Force program official said. “And I think they might get better outcomes.”

Burgess refused to say how the company’s focus on fixing its 737 Max were impacting his access to engineers.

“The situation with Max has not impacted the priority that the company puts on KC-46,” Burgess said. “It has been the No. 1 priority on the defense side for a long time and it remains the top priority. The resources that we need are the resources that we get.”

Despite the long list of problems and lengthy delays, Miller said the Air Force would not consider buying aircraft from rival Airbus, leaving Boeing as the only option to build the 179 tankers it plans to order.

“The airmen love the airplane,” she said. “The capabilities that that airplane brings to the fight — will bring to the fight — is a whole new dimension for us in the facts of sensing the battlefield, connecting to the battlefield. We look forward to that capability.”

If we're going to buy pegasus are we going to contract it alongside with another products example with awacs and strategic mpa for maximum offset? I'm hoping the best for tanker,aewc and mpa
 
Try look at gayduk brochure bro, 80m long with same layout of bata class and parchim class

You should read much past discustion about parchim replacement, dont need more DPN or other foreign shipbuilder just to find nicer look ship, we have all the capability to build 2000ton or 80-90m class ship
OPV%2B95%2BPAL_1028571695897640960_n.jpg

i do crave for this one , but pt pal also need to look at russian or israeli corvette design like buyan , karakurt , or pseudo corvette destroyer like saar 6 , about how they could accomodate such many various range of weaponry on medium platform around 70-100 metre vessel , they were something i would call "korvet bertaring" .
 
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2019/07/boeings-range-of-products-could-meet.html?m=1

Let's just imagine if we contract wedgetail together with poseidon and pushed the imbal dagang till 50% just like sukhoi what i read from news is 4 wedgetail and 4 poseidon combined cost around US$ 3B if we push imbal dagang till 50% it will cost around US$ 1,5B maybe thats why our government looking for country (producer) that accept cpo for trade

OPV%2B95%2BPAL_1028571695897640960_n.jpg

i do crave for this one , but pt pal also need to look at russian or israeli corvette design like buyan , karakurt , or pseudo corvette destroyer like saar 6 , about how they could accomodate such many various range of weaponry on medium platform around 70-100 metre vessel , they were something i would call "korvet bertaring" .
Or we could make kcr 90 for parchim replacer,also here's pal brochure about opv
 
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2019/07/boeings-range-of-products-could-meet.html?m=1

Let's just imagine if we contract wedgetail together with poseidon and pushed the imbal dagang till 50% just like sukhoi what i read from news is 4 wedgetail and 4 poseidon combined cost around US$ 3B if we push imbal dagang till 50% it will cost around US$ 1,5B maybe thats why our government looking for country (producer) that accept cpo for trade


Or we could make kcr 90 for parchim replacer,also here's pal brochure about opv

and give it a better engine , like 3-4 x 7000-8000Kw CODOE or CODAD , That big boiler/funnel superstructure in the back are there not just for nothing (they seems like derivated from f2000 corvette) .
 
Try look at gayduk brochure bro, 80m long with same layout of bata class and parchim class

You should read much past discustion about parchim replacement, dont need more DPN or other foreign shipbuilder just to find nicer look ship, we have all the capability to build 2000ton or 80-90m class ship

Not yet, but to build an enlarged KCR 60 with not too "sophisticated " CMS, command control system, is still within our scope thanks to decades of experiences
 
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2019/07/boeings-range-of-products-could-meet.html?m=1

Let's just imagine if we contract wedgetail together with poseidon and pushed the imbal dagang till 50% just like sukhoi what i read from news is 4 wedgetail and 4 poseidon combined cost around US$ 3B if we push imbal dagang till 50% it will cost around US$ 1,5B maybe thats why our government looking for country (producer) that accept cpo for trade

That's the best part about ordering from Boeing, is that they structure their business practices to account for offsets when it comes to bulk ordering.

If we simultaneously order the Pegasus, Wedgetail, Poseidon, Chinook, and 2nd batch of Apaches we'd be able to meet the MEF defense needs at half the cost. Hell at that point we should just order SHornets or SEagles from Boeing to replace the troublesome Flanker fleet.
 
and give it a better engine , like 3-4 x 7000-8000Kw CODOE or CODAD , That big boiler/funnel superstructure in the back are there not just for nothing (they seems like derivated from f2000 corvette) .
Make it 2x8000 with 2 propellers, remove complicated gear couplings reduce price and size of vessel. The overally figure doesnt look effective to me and i am sure indonesian engineers can design something better.
A multi-purpose OPV has better be equipped with 2x25 (30) mm RCW(at least) stations along with main gun (76mm),a telescopic hangar could increase efficiency of deck area in disaster relief operations, a large under deck area can be used for multi purposes but mainly for launching and retrieving UUVs, Special Forces Unit. 2*2 SAM is useful, hellfire like weapons can be used to increase efficiency against anti symmetric targets.
All these can be achieved below 75 meters.
It took about 3months to design the vessel by below,from scratch. It has some flaws though.
And integrated mast is quite overdone for an OPV without AAW capabilites. simple IGLA would do fine.
cok%20maksat.jpg

credits: RMK Marine.
 
That's the best part about ordering from Boeing, is that they structure their business practices to account for offsets when it comes to bulk ordering.

If we simultaneously order the Pegasus, Wedgetail, Poseidon, Chinook, and 2nd batch of Apaches we'd be able to meet the MEF defense needs at half the cost. Hell at that point we should just order SHornets or SEagles from Boeing to replace the troublesome Flanker fleet.
Agree with you,also with this stuff used in Shornet,making Shornet become missile truck we should consider Shornet as F-5 or maybe for long rang program to replace sukhoi's family
IMG_20190920_214126_005.jpg


How many squadron we gonna form later? I heard we're gonna make one in kupang amd another one in tarakan as well for tarakan i hope we consider Shornet fr
 
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2019/07/boeings-range-of-products-could-meet.html?m=1

Let's just imagine if we contract wedgetail together with poseidon and pushed the imbal dagang till 50% just like sukhoi what i read from news is 4 wedgetail and 4 poseidon combined cost around US$ 3B if we push imbal dagang till 50% it will cost around US$ 1,5B maybe thats why our government looking for country (producer) that accept cpo for trade


Or we could make kcr 90 for parchim replacer,also here's pal brochure about opv
Throw this ship to maxdefense..and they all become horny..:D:D
 
Ukraine just recently Resume its corvette project "volodymyr".
project-58250-image07.jpg

its a soviet/russian desgin with westernized weapon .
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-po...me-building-volodymyr-the-great-corvette.html
and finland also recently signed contract with SAAB as it's subsystem contractor (9LV) for its pohjanmaa class corvette.
Saabs-combat-system-selected-for-Finnish-Navy-Squadron-2020-Program_001-770x410.jpg

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ected-for-finnish-navy-squadron-2020-program/

Is our navy already have a future scope of ship that would become the replacement for our current parchim fleet ?
Probably another DPN class. Its better that way
 
9813 would be great choice,also id there a plan for dpn class to use VL (mica especially) in the future?
Tbh if we're going to go with Raytheon (very likely with the ongoing palm oil issue) for the new Iver's it's more cost effective to retrofit the rest of the fleet with the Mk41/56 VLS's.

They're also cheaper and in general terms more battle proven than their European counterparts.
 
Back
Top Bottom