Indonesia Defence Forum

[Jatosint]

Anyone know kaplan armor thickness ? Om windu said it is stanag 4 and front stanag 5. 105 mm but it is equipped with falarick it can use against mbt. But if we upgrase kaplan to use 120mm are tank structure strong enough to absorb the energy? Or we still want use 120 mm so maybe using oto melara 120 mm low pressure gun. As i remember from kaskus trid in 2015s low pressure gun mean lower velocity. Projectile use kinetic energy so faster better

Harimau has STANAG Level 4 armor so it can withstand 14.5mm projectiles and 155mm shell splinters. Add-on armor can be added to increase its protection to Level 5 --> able to withstand 25mm projectiles

Lesson from battle of Marawi, small calibre guns can't do much in urban warfare where building made from concrete blocks.
AFP found that 105mm is best for them to make a way for friendly force trough the building or destroy enemies hid behind the wall.
View attachment 626638
I believe this is one of the reasons they are in the market for 105mm-equipped medium tank. Their 76mm and 90mm were not good enough as expected.
So to say certain calibre is better than others is relatively depend on which battle environment you are in.

Yup we can learn many valuable lessons from Battle of Marawi in which Philippine armed forces used 105mm howitzer in a direct-fire mode because they don't have any mobile large-caliber gun/vehicle (like MBT or FSV) which is badly needed in an urban warfare

====================================================================
Talking about increasing Harimau anti-armor capability, can we add ATGM launcher to its turret?

 

[Raduga]

At this point i hope we can purchase PzH 2000+leo 2a7 together there's a price discount for it AFAIK.

pzh 2000 no , leo 2a7 ? probably

Harimau has STANAG Level 4 armor so it can withstand 14.5mm projectiles and 155mm shell splinters. Add-on armor can be added to increase its protection to Level 5 --> able to withstand 25mm projectiles



Yup we can learn many valuable lessons from Battle of Marawi in which Philippine armed forces used 105mm howitzer in a direct-fire mode because they don't have any mobile large-caliber gun/vehicle (like MBT or FSV) which is badly needed in an urban warfare

====================================================================
Talking about increasing Harimau anti-armor capability, can we add ATGM launcher to its turret?

the cockerill 105mm have ability to fire Falarick 105 ATGM , so does the cockeril 90mm on our badak with Falarick 90 ATGM , no need for external ATGM launcher .

this ATGM were made by ukraine in cooperation with belgium .

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

An MBT project is a national prestige project. Prepare to lose money developing an MBT and not make profit on it.


So can an IFV with a 30mm/40mm autocannon + ATGM's. And an IFV would still be a lot more cost effective as it can do more than just FSV tasks. I still stand by my statement how the Harimau isn't a well planned project.

An IFV Don't have an MBT sized cannon that's the point of having the MT. You can have more firepower in a medium sized chassis. Most soldiers on the ground & officers up top would be elated to have a tank that's easy to deploy & cost effective. Especially considering urban combat report from desert storm & onward wanting something like the harimau for urban operation.

I argue that the harimau is actually more versatile & can fill almost every role from IFV, Artillery to MBT. While yes you are correct that the harimau might not be as good operating in said role compared to its contemporary but remember we are in asia. The usual rule doesn't apply. Indonesian terrain especially doesn't allow for tanks to be used to their full potential.

While it can be argued that the kaplan chassis may not be a good fit for the TNI, the ideas of having medium tanks like the harimau to serve as a backbone for the TNI is actually brilliant & actually well thought off for once.

 

[Chestnut]

An IFV Don't have an MBT sized cannon that's the point of having the MT. You can have more firepower in a medium sized chassis. Most soldiers on the ground & officers up top would be elated to have a tank that's easy to deploy & cost effective. Especially considering urban combat report from desert storm & onward wanting something like the harimau for urban operation.

Then why not just take a Pandur II or an Anoa with a 105mm, it would have been cheaper in the long run. There was absolutely no need to build a chassis from the ground up. You are right that a cannon-armed FSV still has some merit in the modern day battlespace, but to design a completely one off chassis is not the best play. There is a reason why other countries are moving to a common modular chassis with than having a dedicated one. Think of the Ajax SV program, the Strv 90, or the Chinese ZBD-04. They are well armed and well protected but keeping modularity, infantry support, and ease of maintenance in mind

I argue that the harimau is actually more versatile & can fill almost every role from IFV, Artillery to MBT. While yes you are correct that the harimau might not be as good operating in said role compared to its contemporary but remember we are in asia. The usual rule doesn't apply. Indonesian terrain especially doesn't allow for tanks to be used to their full potential.

It's not as versatile as you may think. What is the point of having an IFV if it can't carry infantry as well? I also won't go as far as giving it an MBT role. The high lower glacis makes it largely vulnerable in a 1-on-1 tank fight, and you can expect it to get penned almost immediately.

Had the Kaplan been designed for modularity, I would willing to admit it might work as an SPG with a common chassis. But what you have currently is a one role vehicle with modularity made as an after thought, not the other way around.

While it can be argued that the kaplan chassis may not be a good fit for the TNI, the ideas of having medium tanks like the harimau to serve as a backbone for the TNI is actually brilliant & actually well thought off for once.

The idea of having 1 common tank platform for the cavalry is good in theory but failed in practice. They should have either armed a Pandur or an Anoa with a 105mm or just get more Leopard 2's to replace everything else.

 

[Nike]

Well, talking about Anoa and Komodo or so on, those upper brass in most battalion infantry is more inclined to bought Corolla Altis or something like that as their mobdin compared to issue funds and request for procuring APC to be used for their troops. Although the operational cost of many APC (especially 4X4) is not much compared to a truck.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Then why not just take a Pandur II or an Anoa with a 105mm, it would have been cheaper in the long run. There was absolutely no need to build a chassis from the ground up. You are right that a cannon-armed FSV still has some merit in the modern day battlespace, but to design a completely one off chassis is not the best play. There is a reason why other countries are moving to a common modular chassis with than having a dedicated one. Think of the Ajax SV program, the Strv 90, or the Chinese ZBD-04. They are well armed and well protected but keeping modularity, infantry support, and ease of maintenance in mind


It's not as versatile as you may think. What is the point of having an IFV if it can't carry infantry as well? I also won't go as far as giving it an MBT role. The high lower glacis makes it largely vulnerable in a 1-on-1 tank fight, and you can expect it to get penned almost immediately.

Had the Kaplan been designed for modularity, I would willing to admit it might work as an SPG with a common chassis. But what you have currently is a one role vehicle with modularity made as an after thought, not the other way around.



The idea of having 1 common tank platform for the cavalry is good in theory but failed in practice. They should have either armed a Pandur or an Anoa with a 105mm or just get more Leopard 2's to replace everything else.

Pandur & anoa are wheeled chassis. So there's your answer. Tracked is still king when traversing the terrains. Beside I can pretty much already see the pandur having to be pulled out off of a ditch/trench somewhere because of the heavy 105mm cannon. Also I don't think anoa can carry anything above a 75. Although I been saying that we should copy the Ratel for years now.

But the point is that the harimau is not a niche vehicle as you might think it is. While we both agree that having dedicated combat vehicles that are suited for their roles are better. The harimau have more flexibility compared to MBT & at reduced cost. It all pretty much depends in how you use the tank.

Having a one off-design isn't the end of the world. That means it actually meant to be a tank in the first place & not an armored vehicle pretending to be one (I'm looking at you T-14). Also the AD are considering a new JV with turkey on IFV & more importantly amphibious vehicle with it being likely based off the ZAHA. So I think the problems with modularity are going to solves it self.

As an army brat, yes we need at least 300 leopard 2 in 2A6 variants or equivalent. But the effing infrastructure & terrain just does not supports it, our country aren't flat like in europe & we are scattered to all corners of the map. Having an easily deployable, cheaper alternative to an MBT is a godsend.

 

[deadlast]

Then why not just take a Pandur II or an Anoa with a 105mm

Most likely that both of them were wheeled platform while the army wanted them tracked.

but to design a completely one off chassis is not the best play. There is a reason why other countries are moving to a common modular chassis with than having a dedicated one.

Except that it isn't. From Windu's IG post long ago and the latest news about IFV development by PINDAD, we know that it would be based on Harimau chassis, the key word here is the same chassis, not the same hull or hull layout in this case.

I also won't go as far as giving it an MBT role. The high lower glacis makes it largely vulnerable in a 1-on-1 tank fight, and you can expect it to get penned almost immediately.

No one expect it to fight an MBT anyways, most armored vehicle nowadays would be almost as vulnerable frontally against most modern munitions no matter how high their lower/upper glacis may be. In the fields almost no one would spare any other second to aim deliberately on the lower glacis when they detect an enemy vehicles, they would be busy sending their shot as fast as possible on the center of mass of the said target because the ones who shot first in modern tank-to-tank engagement usually the ones who is going to ends up winning.

Had the Kaplan been designed for modularity, I would willing to admit it might work as an SPG with a common chassis.

They did. In PINDAD's visions anyways.

But what you have currently is a one role vehicle with modularity made as an after thought, not the other way around.

"Currently"

The idea of having 1 common tank platform for the cavalry is good in theory but failed in practice.

Spoiler: Spoiler

There is a reason why other countries are moving to a common modular chassis with than having a dedicated one. Think of the Ajax SV program, the Strv 90, or the Chinese ZBD-04. They are well armed and well protected but keeping modularity, infantry support, and ease of maintenance in mind

 

[Nike]

Indonesia debuts upgraded F-16 in new livery scheme
Ridzwan Rahmat, Singapore - Jane's Defence Weekly
19 April 2020
Follow

RSS

The first TNI-AU F-16 A/B airframe that underwent under the Falcon STAR (Structural Augmentation Roadmap) and enhanced mid-life upgrade programme. Source: TNI-AU
Key Points

• Indonesia has rolled-out its first F-16 upgraded under the Falcon STAR programme
• The aircraft features improved avionics and weapon systems

The Indonesian Air Force (Tentara Nasional Indonesia - Angkatan Udara: TNI-AU) has introduced a new Pewter grey livery scheme for its F-16 A/B airframes that have undergone the Falcon STAR (Structural Augmentation Roadmap) and enhanced mid-life upgrade (EMLU) programme.

The new livery, which has been applied to the aircraft with serial number TS-1610, was rolled out on 9 April as part of the TNI-AU's 74th anniversary celebrations. It previously sported a Tosca green livery scheme.

The airframe was showcased in a 'combat air patrol' configuration and this included AIM-9X dan AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. However, a military source confirmed with Jane's on 20 April that the missiles are captive air training missile (CATM) versions of these weapons.

The airframe was also seen with the Sniper electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) advanced targeting pod (ATP) manufactured by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC). This equipment is yet to be operationalised pending the delivery of the airframe's Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidance tail kit, the same military source confirmed.

TS-1610 is the first TNI-AU F-16 aircraft to undergo the Falcon STAR and EMLU programme. As part of the upgrades, the airframe was structurally reinforced, and received improved avionics and weapon systems, including interrogator antennae for an identification, friend or foe (IFF) system.

 

[Chestnut]

Pandur & anoa are wheeled chassis. So there's your answer. Tracked is still king when traversing the terrains. Beside I can pretty much already see the pandur having to be pulled out off of a ditch/trench somewhere because of the heavy 105mm cannon. Also I don't think anoa can carry anything above a 75. Although I been saying that we should copy the Ratel for years now.

But the point is that the harimau is not a niche vehicle as you might think it is. While we both agree that having dedicated combat vehicles that are suited for their roles are better. The harimau have more flexibility compared to MBT & at reduced cost. It all pretty much depends in how you use the tank.

Having a one off-design isn't the end of the world. That means it actually meant to be a tank in the first place & not an armored vehicle pretending to be one (I'm looking at you T-14). Also the AD are considering a new JV with turkey on IFV & more importantly amphibious vehicle with it being likely based off the ZAHA. So I think the problems with modularity are going to solves it self.

As an army brat, yes we need at least 300 leopard 2 in 2A6 variants or equivalent. But the effing infrastructure & terrain just does not supports it, our country aren't flat like in europe & we are scattered to all corners of the map. Having an easily deployable, cheaper alternative to an MBT is a godsend.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree and see future developments on the MT. I honestly don't think we need that many Leopard 2's (like need 50 to 100 more as spares), but focus more on wheeled ATGM carriers and better portable infantry AT (standardize on 2-3 types of AT launchers at the platoon, battalion, and company levels).

Most likely that both of them were wheeled platform while the army wanted them tracked.

Likely, but considering the MT is forced onto the cavalry and not out of a genuine want from PUSENKAV, it wouldn't be hard to force them to use a wheeled FSV.

Except that it isn't. From Windu's IG post long ago and the latest news about IFV development by PINDAD, we know that it would be based on Harimau chassis, the key word here is the same chassis, not the same hull or hull layout in this case.

Notice how I said it was designed with modularity as an afterthought. If it were designed to be modular from the get-go, then they would have placed the engine somewhere else other than the rear to facilitate space for a troop bay or artillery shells.

They did. In PINDAD's visions anyways.

Again, see above. If they actually did they would have done it differently. Just because Pindad said so doesn't make it true.

No one expect it to fight an MBT anyways, most armored vehicle nowadays would be almost as vulnerable frontally against most modern munitions no matter how high their lower/upper glacis may be. In the fields almost no one would spare any other second to aim deliberately on the lower glacis when they detect an enemy vehicles, they would be busy sending their shot as fast as possible on the center of mass of the said target because the ones who shot first in modern tank-to-tank engagement usually the ones who is going to ends up winning.

Not particularly, most tank crews nowadays are trained to focus on shots that would result in either an M-kill or a K-kill. I agree that the one's who fire first are often times the victors on traditional tank-on-tank engagement, but to say that they reactively shoot first at the target and not focus on what area their shooting at is incorrect.

Spoiler

And? Notice how I said cavalry on my post, referring to the army cavalry units. Not the general idea of modular vehicles.

 

[Fl0gger]

as i recal pengembangan MT itu melibatkan pusenkav dan pusenkav juga yang memberikan syarat teknis yang harus di penuhi oleh proyek MT sampai ke tahap pengujian juga kan kebutulan rekan kami di pusenkav juga terlibat dlm proyek MT ini nah kl masalah kemudian karena hal politik lah ya itu masalah yang berbeda kl pendapat saya hanya saja terlepas dr segala.kekurangan nya proyek ini adalah salah satu bentuk semangat kemandirian alutsista lah kl mau gampang ya bener beli ajah leo etc tapi ya gagasan kemandirian itu yang harus di apresiasi nanti kl ahli nya kabur keluar karena ndak di hargai di negara sendiri di bilang ndak nasionalis dll kan repot yah ini pendapat saya kebiasaan penak tuku timbang ribet gawe dewe ini ya repot tergantung dr sisi mana kita menilainya regard

 

[Raduga]

anyone have info about our NASAMS ? i ask this because my high school friends in AU told me about this in personal chat without any context in sahur lol .

 

[deadlast]

Likely, but considering the MT is forced onto the cavalry and not out of a genuine want from PUSENKAV, it wouldn't be hard to force them to use a wheeled FSV.

It's not forced into,

Selanjutnya PT Pindad melakukan riset dengan pengguna dalam hal ini Pussenkav TNI AD untuk mendapatkan masukan kebutuhan kavaleri akan medium tank.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160307210329/http://dmc.kemhan.go.id/post-pt-pindad-dan-fnss-turki-tandatangani-kesepakatan-pembangunan-bersama-medium-tank.html

And comparing wheeled with tracked vehicles = comparing apples with orange, they're not the same.

Notice how I said it was designed with modularity as an afterthought. If it were designed to be modular from the get-go, then they would have placed the engine somewhere else other than the rear to facilitate space for a troop bay or artillery shells.

It's not afterthought, the design Harimau based on, FNSS KAPLAN does have the engine mounted on the front, Harimau got it's engine on the back due to it's role as MT necessitate much lower frontal profile, provides accommodation for ammo stowage and reducing the chances of mobility kill in case of frontal arch penetration (it's thickest armor). As I said before modular chassis, not hull, you can put the engine wherever you want, shaped the hull however you want.

Again, see above. If they actually did they would have done it differently. Just because Pindad said so doesn't make it true.

True, just because someone said so doesn't always make it true. But, based on report, news and current development proved that Harimau design does facilitate modular concept in mind.

Not particularly, most tank crews nowadays are trained to focus on shots that would result in either an M-kill or a K-kill. I agree that the one's who fire first are often times the victors on traditional tank-on-tank engagement, but to say that they reactively shoot first at the target and not focus on what area their shooting at is incorrect.

Then tell me how the tank crew can confirm whether their shot result in either mobility or complete kill by shooting the so called 'weak area'? they can't. They cannot confirm the vehicle harmless just because they shot at their engine/gun/tracks. That's why they need to shot a target multiple time as fast as possible, preventing them from retaliate until either the target get deformed out of shape/burned/explode before they can declare that the threats has been eliminated.

And? Notice how I said cavalry on my post, referring to the army cavalry units. Not the general idea of modular vehicles.

Said that to the British CVR(T) family.

 

[striver44]

Indonesia debuts upgraded F-16 in new livery scheme
Ridzwan Rahmat, Singapore - Jane's Defence Weekly
19 April 2020
Follow

RSS

The first TNI-AU F-16 A/B airframe that underwent under the Falcon STAR (Structural Augmentation Roadmap) and enhanced mid-life upgrade programme. Source: TNI-AU
Key Points

• Indonesia has rolled-out its first F-16 upgraded under the Falcon STAR programme
• The aircraft features improved avionics and weapon systems

The Indonesian Air Force (Tentara Nasional Indonesia - Angkatan Udara: TNI-AU) has introduced a new Pewter grey livery scheme for its F-16 A/B airframes that have undergone the Falcon STAR (Structural Augmentation Roadmap) and enhanced mid-life upgrade (EMLU) programme.

The new livery, which has been applied to the aircraft with serial number TS-1610, was rolled out on 9 April as part of the TNI-AU's 74th anniversary celebrations. It previously sported a Tosca green livery scheme.

The airframe was showcased in a 'combat air patrol' configuration and this included AIM-9X dan AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. However, a military source confirmed with Jane's on 20 April that the missiles are captive air training missile (CATM) versions of these weapons.

The airframe was also seen with the Sniper electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) advanced targeting pod (ATP) manufactured by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC). This equipment is yet to be operationalised pending the delivery of the airframe's Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidance tail kit, the same military source confirmed.

TS-1610 is the first TNI-AU F-16 aircraft to undergo the Falcon STAR and EMLU programme. As part of the upgrades, the airframe was structurally reinforced, and received improved avionics and weapon systems, including interrogator antennae for an identification, friend or foe (IFF) system.

we should ask for air launched harpoons, It's more pressing now considering the threat we faced.

 

[umigami]

anyone have info about our NASAMS ? i ask this because my high school friends in AU told me about this in personal chat without any context in sahur lol .

What did he say?

we should ask for air launched harpoons, It's more pressing now considering the threat we faced.

Or just go all the way with NSM

 

[striver44]

Or just go all the way with NSM

whatever, but I think Harpoons are much cheaper.Because what I mean by equip is buying in the hundreds.