Indonesia Defence Forum

[Chestnut]

I am concern in number games, we are indeed very lacking. Syrian type conflict consumpt hundreds armor every month of large engagements and our industrial power need to support such possible thing.

The problem with the Syrian military is that their tactics, training, and doctrine is crap and they outright refuse to learn from their mistakes. If they bothered to learn they wouldn't lose hundreds of vehicles in a month. Without Russian air and materiel support; ISIS, Al-Nusra, and Turkey would have wiped them years ago. We shouldn't be looking to them for inspiration.

Rather than having to match a peer like China in the amount of armed vehicles we can produce, we should focus on things that we have a definite advantage at. For the most part, our infantry are better trained but badly lead, we should focus on integrating a dedicated NCO corps much like how the US/NATO does it in there armies. Decreasing the amount of officers we have while also empowering NCO's to make independent tactical decisions in lieu of an officer is a proven method in increasing combat effectiveness.

Furthermore, our current squad format is incredibly outdated (it mimics the Wehrmacht and British Army format during WW2) and does not translate to a 21st century battlefield. We should consider mimicking how modern western armies are set up. Consider having 2 automatic riflemen + 2 grenadiers + 2 light anti-tank riflemen in a squad along with personal radios. This would dramatically increase combat effectiveness whilst being relatively cheap. Couple that with a multi-service networked battlefield management system (consider something like Rafael's FIRE-WEAVER), dedicated air support, networked armored vehicles, and AA coverage and you would have something that can match the firepower of a thousand armored vehicles at half the cost.

Tl;Dr fight smarter not harder.

Some reading:
https://www.rafael.co.il/worlds/land/multi-service-network-centric-warfare/

 

[Bhayangkara]

Alman talking about Radar option for our future frigate. But which one he was talking about? Iver?
A ship with such potential only use something like Smart-S ??!

IIRC, base on the initial requirements plan it's actually would not be much difference to the original configuration, or, at least it would still use dual-band frequency systems. MFR as primary + air surveillance as secondary. So the concern is whether it will use combos of X + L band, G + L , or E/F + L band radar? I have no idea.

Well, sekali lg itu cuma info yg saya dapat beberapa thn lalu soal Iver. Mungkin juga sekarang udah ada perubahan atau bisa jadi info yg saya dapat memang gak valid

 

[NEKONEKO]

Smart S is enough.

 

[Raduga]

IIRC, base on the initial requirements plan it's actually would not be much difference to the original configuration, or, at least it would still use dual-band frequency systems. MFR as primary + air surveillance as secondary. So the concern is whether it will use combos of X + L band, G + L , or E/F + L band radar? I have no idea.

Well, sekali lg itu cuma info yg saya dapat beberapa thn lalu soal Iver. Mungkin juga sekarang udah ada perubahan atau bisa jadi info yg saya dapat memang gak valid

so its the konde (APAR AESA) that would be changed to smart-s or TRS-4D ??

 

[san.geuk]

so its the konde (APAR AESA) that would be changed to smart-s or TRS-4D ??

I tought smart s radar Will be replacing smart l, the thing that rotating blackscreen look alike?

 

[Kansel]

Smart S is enough.

*Smart-L is necessary , this ship purpose is to be our guardian fleet, mean it needs long range radar for early warning. If we equipped it with smart-s, then what's the different with our PKR? Just more bigger in size?

And with current budget it's enough to buy fully equipped standard Iver huitfeld, this one comes from Denmark navy itself.

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07...flex-frigate-for-us-navy-but-whats-real-cost/

Fully equipped, an Iver Huitfeldt frigate costs the equivalent of $340 million, Rear Adm. Olsen said. Most of that, about $207 million, goes to weapons, sensors, and other electronics, which drive the cost of modern warships worldwide. The hull, engines, and other mechanical systems (HME) only cost about $133 million

Plus i heard we gonna local build this ship right? That means more local content more budget saved.

 

[Lasa-X]

Smart S is enough.

Really? Seriously? Then better use the money to get more PKR.
What next? Tetral or Mistral RC as air defense?

 

[Raduga]

IIRC, base on the initial requirements plan it's actually would not be much difference to the original configuration, or, at least it would still use dual-band frequency systems. MFR as primary + air surveillance as secondary. So the concern is whether it will use combos of X + L band, G + L , or E/F + L band radar? I have no idea.

Well, sekali lg itu cuma info yg saya dapat beberapa thn lalu soal Iver. Mungkin juga sekarang udah ada perubahan atau bisa jadi info yg saya dapat memang gak valid

let's just hope it's not iver , that thing is going to be a backbone combatant in future , alman also previously said the kornas project will be evaluated and the previous bidder which is fincantieri will have a chance to present again at the table (even though i kinda skeptical especially with their home country current situation) .

 

[NEKONEKO]

rotating blackscreen look alike

Hehe
Big flat screen tv

*Smart-L is necessary , this ship purpose is to be our guardian fleet, mean it needs long range radar for early warning. If we equipped it with smart-s, then what's the different with our PKR? Just more bigger in size?

And with current budget it's enough to buy fully equipped standard Iver huitfeld, this one comes from Denmark navy itself.

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07...flex-frigate-for-us-navy-but-whats-real-cost/


Plus i heard we gonna local build this ship right? That means more local content more budget saved.

Better SAM than PKR.

What next? Tetral or Mistral RC as air defense?

Yes, for corvette.

 

[umigami]

Smart S is enough.
View attachment 617175 View attachment 617176 View attachment 617177 View attachment 617178 View attachment 617179 View attachment 617180

So that's mean it's absalon class!
Not Iver!!

 

[Nike]

*Smart-L is necessary , this ship purpose is to be our guardian fleet, mean it needs long range radar for early warning. If we equipped it with smart-s, then what's the different with our PKR? Just more bigger in size?

And with current budget it's enough to buy fully equipped standard Iver huitfeld, this one comes from Denmark navy itself.

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07...flex-frigate-for-us-navy-but-whats-real-cost/


Plus i heard we gonna local build this ship right? That means more local content more budget saved.

Smart S mk2 is enough, they can guide ESSM missile, CAMM and Aster series, its not like we soon will own ABM ships capable

Well for high end capable radar, i would take AN SPY series over other any days.

This Itver Huitveld Indonesia version should be fleet escort but not the high end ones, to be able to iluminate ESSM or CAMM is enough for mid-long range engagements less than 50 kilos. For high end stuff, Arleigh burke derivative should be our next target

 

[Fl0gger]

The problem with the Syrian military is that their tactics, training, and doctrine is crap and they outright refuse to learn from their mistakes. If they bothered to learn they wouldn't lose hundreds of vehicles in a month. Without Russian air and materiel support; ISIS, Al-Nusra, and Turkey would have wiped them years ago. We shouldn't be looking to them for inspiration.

Rather than having to match a peer like China in the amount of armed vehicles we can produce, we should focus on things that we have a definite advantage at. For the most part, our infantry are better trained but badly lead, we should focus on integrating a dedicated NCO corps much like how the US/NATO does it in there armies. Decreasing the amount of officers we have while also empowering NCO's to make independent tactical decisions in lieu of an officer is a proven method in increasing combat effectiveness.

Furthermore, our current squad format is incredibly outdated (it mimics the Wehrmacht and British Army format during WW2) and does not translate to a 21st century battlefield. We should consider mimicking how modern western armies are set up. Consider having 2 automatic riflemen + 2 grenadiers + 2 light anti-tank riflemen in a squad along with personal radios. This would dramatically increase combat effectiveness whilst being relatively cheap. Couple that with a multi-service networked battlefield management system (consider something like Rafael's FIRE-WEAVER), dedicated air support, networked armored vehicles, and AA coverage and you would have something that can match the firepower of a thousand armored vehicles at half the cost.

Tl;Dr fight smarter not harder.

Some reading:
https://www.rafael.co.il/worlds/land/multi-service-network-centric-warfare/

kejauhan kl bicara ini mas utk kasus syiria maybe in the next future but well terlepas dr itu they have learned and manage to recover sebagian besar dr tanah air mereka dr para muhajilin backingan AS turki dan Rest of the world even dr war in syria world learn about urban warfare look like so they not bad at all old outdate simple plus semangat juang tinggi proof to be still efective cmiiw

 

[Raduga]

Smart S mk2 is enough, they can guide ESSM missile, CAMM and Aster series, its not like we soon will own ABM ships capable

Well for high end capable radar, i would take AN SPY series over other any days.

This Itver Huitveld Indonesia version should be fleet escort but not the high end ones, to be able to iluminate ESSM or CAMM is enough for mid-long range engagements less than 50 kilos. For high end stuff, Arleigh burke derivative should be our next target

https://www.quora.com/Between-the-A...er-of-the-Royal-Navy-which-is-the-better-ship
a former royal navy engineer at quora (i dont know if his claim were true or not) give his opinion about type 45 with their s1850m radar which is derivated from SMART-L (with minor software upgrades) and comparing it with alreigh burke

"Now to give you some perspective, while on War-Games the Type-45 can acquire targets and engage said targets on the extreme range of an Arleigh Burke’s radar, before the Arleigh Burke even has a chance to fully engage it, this is due to the combination of having a twin phased radar mounted 45 metres above sea level (which can Track 1000 targets at a range of 400 kilometres) doubled with PAAMS better known as a Principle Anti-Air Missile System, with a computer system capable of launching 8 missiles in 10 seconds whilst being able to control 16 at once.

This had caused some friendly rivalry in the two navies as well as some good old ribbing, American senior officers have to ask that on War-Games that Type-45’s turn off their radars so their own destroyers can actually get some training in.

It’s also stated that if an American battlegroup had a choice between any of their NATO allies Destroyers to pick from to deploy alongside the first they would ask is the Royal Navy. (Though I am unable to verify this claim, so if this is wrong tell me and I’ll correct it ASAP.)

Now nothing is perfect, you see the Type-45’s suffer a problem, that problem being Min-Maxing, to achieve this absolute dominance in the Anti-Air role, Type-45’s have sacrificed capability in the Anti-Ship and Anti-Submarine role, for Anti-ship the Type-45 has eight Harpoon missiles, that's it. (I suppose in a pinch Sea-Viper could be used to inflict damage.)

In the Anti-Submarine role each Type-45 has a Merlin ASW Helicopter armed with eight torpedo’s, that's it, Type-45’s don’t utilise an ASROC system like the Arleigh Burke’s."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rather than AEGIS , a long cooperation with Thales and MBDA will most likely direct us at PAAMS for future destroyer system instead .

he was honest in the start of the topic though : "let me take another crack at answering a question about two of the worlds ‘best’ (Dependent on Doctrine) destroyers, now neither vessel is objectively worse than the other, I’m an Englishman I’m biased, won’t deny it."

 

[umigami]

Smart S mk2 is enough, they can guide ESSM missile, CAMM and Aster series, its not like we soon will own ABM ships capable

Well for high end capable radar, i would take AN SPY series over other any days.

This Itver Huitveld Indonesia version should be fleet escort but not the high end ones, to be able to iluminate ESSM or CAMM is enough for mid-long range engagements less than 50 kilos. For high end stuff, Arleigh burke derivative should be our next target

Radars aren't just to accommodate missiles you know. If they could track threats from far away, they can be tasked as Radar picked to defence fleet from incoming air attacks.

 

[NEKONEKO]

But Frigate with Smart S is enough to provide radar and missile picket.
Smart L impressive long range of thousands km is for ballistic target ( high altitude), with earth curvature and terrain hugging flight, aerial target detection is hundreds something km or less.

Smart S is the bottom line, chill guys.