Indonesia Defence Forum

[Chestnut]

In short as the world is changing and technology dependece become a must, the nature type of war itself evolve. But as we see today many countries went to smaller type warship for some reasons. Frigate become more popular then destroyer, who knows there might be a time when our own 28m KAL might shine well in a certain situation with the right equiptmen off course

Keep in mind whether one is called a "Frigate" or "Destroyer" is subjective. A lot of the Frigates in European navies can be classified as Destroyers under the US Naval system in terms of size and capabilities. Also, the trend with global power navies is actually moving towards bigger ships. The US Navy's Large Surface Combatant is designed to be bigger than the 16.000 ton Zumwalt-Class Destroyer. (For context, the Zumwalt-Class rivals the Pennsylvania-Class Battleships of WWII)

 

[Nike]

There would be eternal debate over it. But the fact remains; smaller ship means less sea state it can go thru, less fuel to carry thus effect range, etc. Imho the main reason for the idea of "smaller" ship or the thought of obsolete conventional warfare like the WWII is the coming of another type of warfare such as Hybrid Warfare. This type of warfare might be cost effective and can be done with smaller vessels due to the circumstances. Land occupation isnt something too popular right now as it turned out to be costly. Might as well do what US did with Iraq and let the local fight between them self while selling weapons to them and controling their sumur minyak

In short as the world is changing and technology dependece become a must, the nature type of war itself evolve. But as we see today many countries went to smaller type warship for some reasons. Frigate become more popular then destroyer, who knows there might be a time when our own 28m KAL might shine well in a certain situation with the right equiptmen off course

On open seas, size does MATTER, pea sized combat boats cannot traverse open seas where even Corvette size warship like Bung Tomo class is Will be in very vulnerable position when facing big waves of over 3 to five meter high and thats happened a lot on our seas where Monsoon winds capable to raising large waves on ocean let alone something like KAL 28 and KCR series.

And today big sized warships from advance country like US , China, France contain a lot of new novel technological advancement and they had a lot of measure to be used against small boats swarm tactics.

 

[trishna_amṛta]

How you can overcame Nature limitation with small size? Sea state over five or open seas is not that forgiving for small transport ships

As I had said NOT that small. Meaning not too big but also NOT too small. Again its about increasing the survivalability of the task force as a whole.

 

[Nike]

As I had said NOT that small. Meaning not too big but also NOT too small. Again its about increasing the survivalability of the task force as a whole.

One must invest enough for the whole system, like the escort units, the Air superiority, the electronic attack and defense system, eyc as there is no panacea or ultimate cure for such problem even when you spread out your task forces to more smaller units and spread it out on to more larger area of operation (and in turn Will affect your response time for timely piece meals decisive enemy attacks) as the enemy Will prefer to invest more on Anti Ship Missiles in number to obliterated your whole forces.

 

[Crunch]

As I had said NOT that small. Meaning not too big but also NOT too small. Again its about increasing the survivalability of the task force as a whole.

In my way to understand this, came to understanding as the ship have to be slightly bigger than our LPD and smaller from the common LHD, if we want an LHD but in size of our LPD, the french a few years ago published a concept mockup of mini mistral, i think this could be enough for indonesian environment and defense budget,

This ship is only 140 meters long and 14.000ton of displacement, our national shipyard should be capable of building this,

https://www.navyrecognition.com/531-mistral-class-lhd-bpc-amphibious-assault-

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

In my way to understand this, came to understanding as the ship have to be slightly bigger than our LPD and smaller from the common LHD, if we want an LHD but in size of our LPD, the french a few years ago published a concept mockup of mini mistral, i think this could be enough for indonesian environment and defense budget,

This ship is only 140 meters long and 14.000ton of displacement, our national shipyard should be capable of building this,
View attachment 643414 View attachment 643415 View attachment 643416
https://www.navyrecognition.com/531-mistral-class-lhd-bpc-amphibious-assault-

No just get the Dokdo class ship from the Korean.

A mini Mistral will just be a waste of money.

 

[Chestnut]

In my way to understand this, came to understanding as the ship have to be slightly bigger than our LPD and smaller from the common LHD, if we want an LHD but in size of our LPD, the french a few years ago published a concept mockup of mini mistral, i think this could be enough for indonesian environment and defense budget,

This ship is only 140 meters long and 14.000ton of displacement, our national shipyard should be capable of building this,
View attachment 643414 View attachment 643415 View attachment 643416
https://www.navyrecognition.com/531-mistral-class-lhd-bpc-amphibious-assault-

The Mistral is a big meme to be honest.

 

[Kansel]

Anyone know anything regarding this? I only got limited information

 

[Raduga]

Anyone know anything regarding this? I only got limited informationView attachment 643437

you'd pretty much got a clear hint there , qatar , india ,finnish and us , that's NASAMS/NASAM II , if AU wanted a more long ranged anti air missile solution , it's probably will be provided by US manufacture .

while AD GBAD(ground based air defense) pretty much just like what Alman said, they will most likely use european missile solution such as SAMP/T ASTER-30.

entah kenapa antara kecabangan bisa beda beda gitu permintaan nya, probably for redudancy reason (if one prove to work better than the other one) .

 

[Chestnut]

Personally I don't think the budget allows for 2 different HIMAD systems being operated simultaneously. The amount of infrastructure and networking that needs to be implemented would add up on top of the initial order for the system itself.

If anything, I think it's a done deal that the AU would get the system. It'll cost less for them to operate and network since they already have the necessary VHORAD/SHORAD and NASAMS II's already linked to the GCI radars along with the background GBAD C4I infrastructure. Adding the Patriot to the AU by any chance would cost the government a lot less money and effort then the AD suddenly demanding the SAMP/T.

 

[Gundala]

Keep in mind whether one is called a "Frigate" or "Destroyer" is subjective. A lot of the Frigates in European navies can be classified as Destroyers under the US Naval system in terms of size and capabilities. Also, the trend with global power navies is actually moving towards bigger ships. The US Navy's Large Surface Combatant is designed to be bigger than the 16.000 ton Zumwalt-Class Destroyer. (For context, the Zumwalt-Class rivals the Pennsylvania-Class Battleships of WWII)

Agree with the frigate & destroyer classification. But I have to disagree with the global trend toward bigger ship (bigger tonnage then frigate). US policy is always to bring the war far from their home land, surely they need blue navy kinda warship. But there are some thoughts inside their own that challange the strategy and prefer smaller (frigate) compare to destroyer. Like I said who knows? Aside from advanced Island nations or nation with offensive/agresive policy such as US/China I dont see the others followed the "destroyer" path. Maybe it will change if the global seccurity becoming more unstable.

On open seas, size does MATTER, pea sized combat boats cannot traverse open seas where even Corvette size warship like Bung Tomo class is Will be in very vulnerable position when facing big waves of over 3 to five meter high and thats happened a lot on our seas where Monsoon winds capable to raising large waves on ocean let alone something like KAL 28 and KCR series.

And today big sized warships from advance country like US , China, France contain a lot of new novel technological advancement and they had a lot of measure to be used against small boats swarm tactics.

Im not saying KAL for open sea. The context was war within our own border in shallow waters etc. I do agree size does matter in a open/deep sea.

 

[Nike]

Agree with the frigate & destroyer classification. But I have to disagree with the global trend toward bigger ship (bigger tonnage then frigate). US policy is always to bring the war far from their home land, surely they need blue navy kinda warship. But there are some thoughts inside their own that challange the strategy and prefer smaller (frigate) compare to destroyer. Like I said who knows? Aside from advanced Island nations or nation with offensive/agresive policy such as US/China I dont see the others followed the "destroyer" path. Maybe it will change if the global seccurity becoming more unstable.



Im not saying KAL for open sea. The context was war within our own border in shallow waters etc. I do agree size does matter in a open/deep sea.

And why not Indonesia must not follow the (obvious capability to have) to acquire ocean going capable warship in category of heavy Frigates and Destroyer, in the past Indonesia had acquired such capability as we are known have to secure large array of Islands in which the ocean between the scaterred Islands is much much large than Mediterania seas or Baltic seas. And the reason why Indonesia revert back ocean going Navy policy is very very much to do with politics situation at home in which Soeharto largely only interested to secure his throne at home compared to build a credible Navy.

And now, Indonesia largest security threat aside from terrorist and armed gangs is China with their blue water Navy aspired Navy and their large number of ocean going OPV in which most larger than Indonesia current Naval vessels, and their playing ground for their salamy tactics harrasment is just north of Natuna in which are open seas areas.

Btw i am not a believer of KCR and Missiles equipped swarm boats tactics, Iraq War had prove a bloody lessons for all of us, Destroyer with organic ASW/ASuW capability helicopters equipped with air to surface Missiles capable to engage poorly defended Missiles armed boats from save distance. And too with their better sensor and Command control system and array of electronic warfare suite, a Destroyer is capable to give such swarm boats tactics a run for money as they Will directed their helicopters and other air asset in the area to twarth such threat from long distance.

And KCR and other boats still needed base to run their operation, base to store their logistic units and weapons system (Missiles) R&R for their crew, and usually the facility needed is almost at the same level of where to run larger combatant warships like corvettes and light Frigates this very redundant with what they intend for

 

[polanski]

US donates TPS-77 long-range surveillance radar to Malaysia and Indonesia: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...surveillance-radar-to-malaysia-and-indonesia/

 

[Ruhnama]

you can correct me if I'm wrong......

Landing craft with rcws.....

Btw are it is true that our iver didnt have/support stanflex modul? So why and what is the special of iver design without the stanflex?
(Kata komnetar2 org di twitter n ig)

How about kalaat beni Abbes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_amphibious_transport_dock_Kalaat_Béni_Abbès

It can carry 5 chopper armed with aster (maybe for cheaper can armed with mica)

 

[san.geuk]

Agree with the frigate & destroyer classification. But I have to disagree with the global trend toward bigger ship (bigger tonnage then frigate). US policy is always to bring the war far from their home land, surely they need blue navy kinda warship. But there are some thoughts inside their own that challange the strategy and prefer smaller (frigate) compare to destroyer. Like I said who knows? Aside from advanced Island nations or nation with offensive/agresive policy such as US/China I dont see the others followed the "destroyer" path. Maybe it will change if the global seccurity becoming more unstable.



Im not saying KAL for open sea. The context was war within our own border in shallow waters etc. I do agree size does matter in a open/deep sea.

Enemy can make invasion or even amphibious assault anytime time with their large ship, day and night, even with stormy/ bad weather at sea which can make sea level increase significanly, without proper all weather ships can take sea denial at sea, we Will just waiting in coastline?

Enemy Will not pick a calm good weather to attack, they Will attack when we are not capable dealing with rough weather

Big ship like like iver or even bigger ship can sail in sea state 5+ you should looks for footage on YouTube, i doubt small ship like kcr wil survive through big wave like big ship do