Indonesia Defence Forum

[Nike]

What I want to say is that they can use link TNI and Multilink gateway to connect to each other. Link 16 and Sukhoi link will be connected through them.

Can't do that, link network system need enhanced databus protocol on the receiver and sender, provide they must distributed on such way including programmable crypto, there is a reason why Russian Made electronic and avionic system will never be allowed to joint such architecture design.

 

[Nike]

Won't Turkey bag the deal?

Even of it's Turkey, the benefit for the projects continuation still obvious

 

[umigami]

What I want to say is that they can use link TNI and Multilink gateway to connect to each other. Link 16 and Sukhoi link will be connected through them.

Are you sure this link tni is for fighter jet operations and you can just put it on sukhoi willy-nilly like that?
Because nothing on that picture suggests that

 

[Raduga]

The tracks and hull is designed to cross obstacle to a certain height, but the tank mendongak so much when its moving. Yeah mendongak so much will help to cross obstacle but surely you don't wanna cross an obstacle at full speed while the tank is very mendongak so it will be easier to cross taller obstacle.

Lumayan mendongak, kalau jalan tambah.


The size requirement is 7 × 3.5 × 2.5 m (max).
View attachment 661341

Its not a flaw when Harimau size is still within the req size.
View attachment 661342


The requirement is 105mm.


MMWT is better than the oldies.

Its still a prototype its not surprising to have problem there and there, for every batch of production improvement is needed.

is tracked requirements ?

i feel like the proposed 8X8 FSV variants are much more reasonable than a full fledge tracked medium tank , and most of the country rather choose this kind of "Banpur" rather than medium tank , say Rooikat, Type-16, Stryker and Centauro , also knowing that one of the reqs is "Mine resistant" ,isn't it more easier to repair wheel rather than tracks when things get strucked by Mine/IED ?

 

[Chestnut]

So the Chinese wanted to and then succeeded in reverse engineering some monkey model Russian defense tech, did I understand it correctly? Bravo! Then clearly the Chinese have superior technology compared to the Russians because they can copy Russian downgraded techs.

Oh wait..

Thanks for providing yet another explanation of how easy it was to debunk some opinion based claims as opposed to factual based ones. Respect.

Notice guys that at no point did I mention anything about the Su-35, what I said was:

China likely learned how to defeat (and improve upon) the Russian SAP-518 ECM pod by reverse-engineering and developing their own for their J-16.

As usual, your grasping at straws my guy.

That's the claim that the Chinese made to provide justification for their internal public and stakeholders as to why they needed to buy the Su-35 when they can supposedly make better indigenous planes. Much like how our MoD sometimes needed to explain why we needed to buy helicopters made by Agusta Westland when we can build the same kind of choppers made by PTDI in collaboration with Airbus Military.

My point is, you don't reverse engineer technologies that you consider inferior to yours or that you can already manufacture yourself. This fact alone disproved a sly claim made by some guy who are supposedly expert in the ins and out of the defense industry and as a suggestion that he or she should just stick to an area of expertise and refrain from spreading false opinions which are not grounded on factual, verifiable and substantiated details.

You do when you need direction on where to direct your homegrown aviation industry or to assess the capabilities of equipment used by your peers in order to develop countermeasures against them. The problem is that you're too narrow minded to see that out of hatred towards me.

I like rumors as much as the the next guy, but ones that aren't factually verifiable are just bedtime stories which insults our intelligence and made us feel like being taken for ride and bordering, dare I say, fanboyism?

The only fanboy here is you. If you claim things such as how "Ace Flanker pilots in the TNI AU can't conversion train to Eagles" or how you have basically made your intentions clear in that you are somehow (laughably) trying to sway the policies of a government ministry using your opinions on certain assets that are posted on a foreign Defense Forum, then it's pretty plain to see who is the fanboy.

Actually my real gripe is with this statement, the one regarding the Russian vs Chinese fighter jet technology is just a snipe to show how easy it was to debunk a non factual opinion.

I know for a fact that Pindad worked very closely with Pussenkav during the design phase of the MMWT. The opsreq was from the Pussenkav and detailed specifications were also provided by them including but not limited to its STANAG protection level requirement, the calibre of the gun to be used, automotive performance, number of crews, even the placement of the engine. It would have been a commercial suicide for Pindad to develop the tank "without consulting or took only basic inputs" from Pussenkav, as they could end up spending millions of their own dollars on development costs only to see the user ended up refusing to buy their product.

The Pussenkav commander that you mentioned obviously did not paint the overall picture or hide certain details in the story, but boy am I not convinced of how he sounded way too much like what the media was saying about the tank.

1. How the tank was rear heavy and looked "mendongak" which was already explained by the designer himself that it was intentionally made that way to help the tank climb certain degrees of obstacles as per stated in the opsreq.
2. The high profile would have been a fatal flaw if the Harimau was designed as a tank destroyer like the Centauro, but Harimau was intended to act more in the battlefield fire support and flanking maneuver role.
3. Again, the decision to use the 105 mm was dictated by the tank's intended role. They could've installed the 120 mm gun if Pussenkav wanted a tank destroyer instead, but how many 120 mm rounds could the tiny turret hold as opposed the 105 mm rounds? Your Pussenkav commander must have known more about this than he make it out to be.
4. A tank designed in 2016 only had marginal improvements compared to the Scorpion which were purchased in the 1990's? I know a lot of people who will disagree with this statement almost immediately, but what do I know? Since you knew the head honcho, right? But please ask your Pussenkav commander friend about these "marginal" improvements, how marginal were these improvements exactly?

There really isn't anything more I can say about it. I have provided my credentials to others on this forum so if you choose not believe that's very much your own problem. My only advice to you is not to so much faith in the wordings of official publications. If MenHan and the BUMN genuinely cared about the inputs of end users, then we still would not have the Flanker drama as of 2020. Politics if a fickle.

All are valid points, but you're still missing the point that I was trying to make as you won't see the US buy Russian downgraded technologies in order to reverse engineer them.

I literally just gave you an article where they did just that and developed counter-measures from it. You’re at least willfully ignorant vs mentally disabled.

 

[Chestnut]

Idk man, do they even have one running already? I am uncomfortable of buying paper submarine compare to proven design, just like our 1400 Changbogo. Korea never made 1400 CBG before, and if we going to get this one again we better dang sure our Navy (specially Hiu Kencana PATI) have already giving the green light. I heard negative thoughts about this design but I hope its just a rumour. Or at least they fix it in this 2nd batch.

Yeah, one was launched already in 2018.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ine-dosan-ahn-chang-ho-passes-max-depth-test/

Well the contract for 3rd batch is still far ahead anything now is still speculative though i agree with you, considering long term partnership, greater participation & existing facillity i suppose we should go for DSME 2000

The DMSE 2000 has the advantage of being a clean sheet design. So emerging technologies that would be coming out in the next 5-10 years can be added on vs. sticking to say a 216 or Scorpene.

 

[umigami]

Is this a good thing?
Isn't it supposed to be the users that got priorities?

 

[Chestnut]

View attachment 661348
Is this a good thing?
Isn't it supposed to be the users that got priorities?

Not according to the wallets of politicians.

I mean, to be fair, it has it's ups and downs. I'm just too jaded to see the good things behind it. So I guess we would have to see.

But again, this literally just proves my point about not blindly trusting official publications from MenHan or BUMN. Those two have never gotten along great with the end users. If you add politics to procurement of course certain things will take a backseat.

 

[umigami]

Not according to the wallets of politicians.

I mean, to be fair, it has it's ups and downs. I'm just too jaded to see the good things behind it. So I guess we would have to see.

Is it for my first or second question?

 

[NEKONEKO]

is tracked requirements ?
View attachment 661343
i feel like the proposed 8X8 FSV variants are much more reasonable than a full fledge tracked medium tank , and most of the country rather choose this kind of "Banpur" rather than medium tank , say Rooikat, Type-16, Stryker and Centauro , also knowing that one of the reqs is "Mine resistant" ,isn't it more easier to repair wheel rather than tracks when things get strucked by Mine/IED ?
View attachment 661344
View attachment 661345

Maybe TNI consider that mobility is quite important.

 

[Chestnut]

Is it for my first or second question?

Both, I guess.

 

[Kansel]

There are few things interesting in our upcoming Kemenhan budget projection

http://www.koran-jakarta.com/anggaran-kemenhan-pada-2021-ditambah/

"program dukungan manajemen sebesar 76,28 triliun rupiah", What the heck is this program dukungan manajemen?

Komcad

 

[umigami]

Both, I guess.

So,
according to the wallets of politicians, it's not a good thing and the end user needs isn't the priority.



Hmmm... interesting.

Jadi semuanya sekarang tinggal terserah prabowo aja kan, mau nuruti permintaan user, politisi, sales, atau lain2

 

[Chestnut]

That's what I am getting out of this. And that is a very BIG issue considering his track record of impulsivity.

 

[NEKONEKO]

Dari pengembangan suatu produk bisa melebar ke pengembangan lain.

I know even for the next batch, our participation will mostly about the hull instead of subsystems & software related parts. There were talks about our involvement on battery section though, this one between our local private company with counterparts from Germany or Australia, it's been a couple or 3 years ago, i don't remember much.

*Sad noises.
Well subs is more complex but but but...