Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Indonesia: 'green water navy'

This is a discussion on Indonesia: 'green water navy' within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by disneytime Well, I'd have to disagree, I think that design looks like it would be a great ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 14 votes, 4.07 average.
Old May 27th, 2009   #91
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
Well, I'd have to disagree, I think that design looks like it would be a great option. Has anyone heard anything further about whether it's going ahead?
disagree on what? that? that it looks looks nice or that its functionally a useless design?

The Indon Navy has made it pretty clear to australia that it needs assistance in developing appropriate force capability and develop new doctrine.

She has over 7000 islands, and no infrastructure - she has minimal capacity to provide air transport and support to those islands and the only way to provide sustained capability is through multi-role vessels. that means stable mono or twin hulls to provide fisheries, interdiction, temporary police van roles, light transport and military/para-military taxi roles.

a disproportionately long tri-maran will do none of this and provides almost zero utility.

so again, I ask, apart from the fact that it might look impressive (despite the length/beam ratio errors) what benefit does it provide to their stated needs?

ans: Zero, none, zilch.

Just because artist and vendor impressions look impressive has nothing to do with practical utility issues.

that is the wrong vessel to achieve any of her aims
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C

Last edited by gf0012-aust; May 27th, 2009 at 05:16 PM.
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009   #92
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,263
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
Well, I'd have to disagree, I think that design looks like it would be a great option. Has anyone heard anything further about whether it's going ahead?
I think Gf is reffering to the design shown on the web site. this would have some issues, particularlay spearing into waves as the ouriggers appear to be well aft of the the LCF and would cause the vessel to be more buoyant aft in a seaway and the very narrow bow without a flare is liable to slice in.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009   #93
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa View Post
I think Gf is reffering to the design shown on the web site. this would have some issues, particularlay spearing into waves as the ouriggers appear to be well aft of the the LCF and would cause the vessel to be more buoyant aft in a seaway and the very narrow bow without a flare is liable to slice in.
I was hoping that you'd be lurking on this one so as to give your perspective.....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009   #94
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,263
Threads:
Ahh Sorry Gf, we seem to have crossed on the same sort of response. I must have been typeing while you posted.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009   #95
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa View Post
I think Gf is reffering to the design shown on the web site. this would have some issues, particularlay spearing into waves as the ouriggers appear to be well aft of the the LCF and would cause the vessel to be more buoyant aft in a seaway and the very narrow bow without a flare is liable to slice in.
Well I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, although I am kind of more interested in whether they are actually going to be building it regardless of whether it is useless or not.

It looks to me that the bow is actually intended to immerse quite significantly in rough seas (as per the wavepiercing concept - the shape above the waterline of the middle hull gives some hint of this also i think), as wouldn't this tend to reduce the pitching motions? I can imagine that bow shape not having too much of an impact on resistance if it enters the water, given its slenderness in the forward sections.

As for the ratios, which ratios are you suggesting are wrong? the L/B of the demi-hulls themselves or are you more talking about the tunnel widths?

I also think the primary advantage of this design will be it's ability to achieve a high speed and get to areas quickly, which I think would be just as advantageous as a lower speed vessel with more utility.

I'd also kind of question whether it would be in Indonesia's interests to be telling Australia exactly what it wants from its navy, so perhaps the real aims may be somewhat different to the ones you suggest?
disneytime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009   #96
Senior Member
Colonel
Ananda's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,557
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
Well I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, although I am kind of more interested in whether they are actually going to be building it regardless of whether it is useless or not.
The design came from a local privately owned shipyard which until this moment their products that being used by military are RHIB's and Small Twill Hull patrol boats.
I put the design in the thread to asked whether this's aviable design or not. Still personally, since this's not comming from state owned PAL shipyard, I have big doubt if this design can attract attentions from the brass in here.

Also historically the naval brass in here are bunch of conservatives guys. They will not really interested on new and unproven concepts. In the late 80's the then ministry of technology BJ Habibie put Jetfoil designs for coastal FAC's. Due his politicall clout it gain momentarily attentions but not enthuthiastic ones from the navy. The project fell down the favor due to the demise of Soeharto's era.


Quote:
I'd also kind of question whether it would be in Indonesia's interests to be telling Australia exactly what it wants from its navy, so perhaps the real aims may be somewhat different to the ones you suggest?
Well I think at this moment the current administrations in here wants to have good and trusty relationships with Australia since a lot off suspicions still exsists on both countries. Off course both countries will still trying to maintain some cards to each respective chests, but will open the attentions to each other.

I believe part of the Australians Aus$ 25 billions for 12 new capable (and very expensives if I might say) submarines procurement plan comming from the realisations that We intend to have 8 Submarines by 2020, and off course the Vietnammese 6 Kilo's plan, and Chinese increasingly modern underwaters fleets.
Under current conditions the navy (and the rest of the armed forces) are more open on their developments plan.
By 2024 we still plan to have Green Water Navy with 274 ships (mostly coastal partrol boats), 137 Fixed Wing/Rotary Wing Naval Air Arm. 3 Marines Div., and 59 Naval Bases.

(sources ANTARA :: TNI AL Siap Kandangkan Alutsista Tua Sorry in Indonesian).

This look big but considering our geographical conditions and present infrastructures, it's still a Navy with Minimum Deterences capability.

Could it be build ??
Well with USD 500 bio economy, our current military budgets is less than 1% of GDP (only USD 3.8 bio). Current administrations more interested on poverty reductions programs and other economics and infrastructures projects.
But with presidential ellections looming all three candidates ( Incumbent President, Incumbent VP..yeah they're facing each other now , and an ex female president)..all promissing to increase significantly military budgets next year.
They're under pressure now..since popular view demand increased in the defences spending especially afther three Military transports crashses..

Honestly, we will be lucky if can maintain 2% GDP for the deffences budgets though...If the next Oil Price Hike happening, whoever in the administrations will be force to spend much money for the subsidies..if they want their political futures secures..
Well that Indonesia politics... All much promisses but no real actions..
Ananda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009   #97
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
Well I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, although I am kind of more interested in whether they are actually going to be building it regardless of whether it is useless or not.
Proof of Concept or Concept Technology Demonstrators still have to have relevance in tight budgets. The Indons aren't going to be throwing money at gear like this unless it works - or unless the platform is privately funded. and in any defence shop, thats too big a gamble in the current climate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
It looks to me that the bow is actually intended to immerse quite significantly in rough seas (as per the wavepiercing concept - the shape above the waterline of the middle hull gives some hint of this also i think), as wouldn't this tend to reduce the pitching motions? I can imagine that bow shape not having too much of an impact on resistance if it enters the water, given its slenderness in the forward sections.
platforms are built on their capacity to deliver the nations doctrine (air land or sea) - that platform does not deliver against their current stated intent on changing the way that they want to do business

Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
As for the ratios, which ratios are you suggesting are wrong? the L/B of the demi-hulls themselves or are you more talking about the tunnel widths?
beam width/length
citadel placement
centre of gravity as refer to length to width issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
I also think the primary advantage of this design will be it's ability to achieve a high speed and get to areas quickly, which I think would be just as advantageous as a lower speed vessel with more utility.
except they want utility and value for money. this is a single purpose vessel with limited capability to do anything - its certainly green water limited

Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
I'd also kind of question whether it would be in Indonesia's interests to be telling Australia exactly what it wants from its navy, so perhaps the real aims may be somewhat different to the ones you suggest?
Indonesia and Australia have had a very very different relationship since 2000. You would be surprised at how much we do actually share with each other. The military to military and govt to govt links are very very high. We give Indonesia access to docs (such as the higher level versions of the white paper)

Indonesia has very high level contacts with our Navy - and at an operational and planning level. There is a high degree of transparency - certainly nothing like what existed before 2000.

Our relationship with Indonesia is in some respects equal to that of our relationship with Malaysia and Singapore.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009   #98
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,263
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
Well I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, although I am kind of more interested in whether they are actually going to be building it regardless of whether it is useless or not.

It looks to me that the bow is actually intended to immerse quite significantly in rough seas (as per the wavepiercing concept - the shape above the waterline of the middle hull gives some hint of this also i think), as wouldn't this tend to reduce the pitching motions? I can imagine that bow shape not having too much of an impact on resistance if it enters the water, given its slenderness in the forward sections.
This is smooth/calm water craft (very small waves and no short swells) as driving into the fact of a wave with a low freeboard is a really good way of stoving in windows, ruining delicate electronics and coming to a rapid halt. You would not want to be pooped in this craft.

In calm water it will probably be very fast but that has it own limitations on range and if it cannot operate in even moderate conditions this it will have its utility further effceted.

As an aside even wave piecers have a raised centreline bow to prevent this buring the bow and they are desinged not to dig in as this has an adverse effect on speed and the power required to dirve the vessel. The closest design to this proposal is the Austal seaframe and it has a better ditribution of longtitudinal bouyancy in respect of the outriggers and has a flared raised bow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
As for the ratios, which ratios are you suggesting are wrong? the L/B of the demi-hulls themselves or are you more talking about the tunnel widths?.
No Lontitudinal Centre of floatation. This is a stabalised monohull in effect and most fo the bouyancy is provided by the centreline hull. As the outriggers are well aft as the vessel is lifted by a wave there is a significant increases in bouyancy aft as If the vessel which provides as an upward force aft.

In a following sea as there is no increase of bouyancy forward the bow is driven deeper into the water and will bury in the trough. The vessel may then be driven down the wave by the bouyancy aft. In a moderate short swell this will casue a problem. The option of speed to outrun pooping is a no go in short swells as the vessel will simply drive in faster that leaves slowing down or turning around.

In a head sea the bow has so little bouyancy (and given it is a needle) it will tend to dig into the wave. As the after body is behind the centre the net effect is that it will not provide the lever to pull the bow out and the vesel will drive through the wave. Given the low freeboard this means the vessel will have a lot of water over the bridge, sensors and guns in even a moderate swell (particualry if it is short). Anything above a mdoerate swell I supect the vesel will play at being a submersible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by disneytime View Post
I also think the primary advantage of this design will be it's ability to achieve a high speed and get to areas quickly, which I think would be just as advantageous as a lower speed vessel with more utility.

I'd also kind of question whether it would be in Indonesia's interests to be telling Australia exactly what it wants from its navy, so perhaps the real aims may be somewhat different to the ones you suggest?
Speed is great but it effects range (significantly) even on HSC and if thsi limits operations due to sea keeping and cost more then why bother. This vessel will not cruise at max speed and is likely to cruise at no more than a conventional monohull, it will however cost a lot more.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2009   #99
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 354
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ananda View Post
X3KTrimaran2.jpg (image)

X3KTrimaran1.jpg (image)

North Sea Boats X3K Trimaran
Dimensions :

Length (over all) : 55 meter
Beam : 16 meter
Draught : 2 meter
Main engine : 4 x C32 Caterpillar
Max speed : 40 Knots
Range : 2000 nm
Displacement : 130 tons

From ALUTSISTA : ALAT UTAMA SISTEM SENJATA: Kapal Patroli

Actually it's kind a old, has been shown in Last December Indodefences.

My Questions is:

1. Did any you guys have info if Austal involve in this ? since the trimaran concept very similar (if not much smaller) than what Austal have
2. Is it possible to mount light cannon above the superstructures..??

Just currious since this's in my oppinion still a very raw concept.
This looks like an old 90's design for the-then-whitbread around the world radio shack and rescue assistance boat.

It was an Irish design and instead of being a "stabilizied monohull" (as this one) is had a very clever set of aft stabilizer chines that actually made the boat handle like a bike, leaning into turns instead of leaning out.

Anyway, it was a wave piercer. The principle advantage of designs like this are efficiency => range.

I kind of differ with other's here in that it could work, as designs like it have been shown to work, by punching through and actually being submerged by waves. But it's not really a trimaran. It is more accurate to call it a stabilized monohull as I said before.

There is another boat running around on similar lines made by.. Nigel... ugh forgot the last name, but google stabilized monohull and it should come up.

voila:

nigel irens

Wave piercing monohull yacht for sale

cheers


w
Wooki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2009   #100
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,263
Threads:
Hi wooki

Your example makes my point. The outriggers are amidships not aft and you have a similar balance of bouyance foreard and aft. This vessel is more akin the the MV Triton the the indonesian example. Teh yacht is still pretty light construction and I would expect it to have operating restrictions.

The design proposed in the thread has long thin bow all forward of the outriggers and has diminsihishing bow height,

In slight seas will will cut trough the waves (piecing) but as soon as the swell gets up (and if it is a short swell) it will start to bury the bow and then resistance will actully reduce speed.

Even in long swells of moderate or greater size long thin hulls will tend to bury the bow and the stern when the vessel is in a trough as there is limted bouyance aft.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2009   #101
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 354
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa View Post
Hi wooki

Your example makes my point. The outriggers are amidships not aft and you have a similar balance of bouyance foreard and aft. This vessel is more akin the the MV Triton the the indonesian example. Teh yacht is still pretty light construction and I would expect it to have operating restrictions.

The design proposed in the thread has long thin bow all forward of the outriggers and has diminsihishing bow height,

In slight seas will will cut trough the waves (piecing) but as soon as the swell gets up (and if it is a short swell) it will start to bury the bow and then resistance will actully reduce speed.

Even in long swells of moderate or greater size long thin hulls will tend to bury the bow and the stern when the vessel is in a trough as there is limted bouyance aft.
I'm not arguing with Alex. I'm saying that there have been a number of monohull designs that take advantage of what you describe. It is unfortunate that I can't find an example. But it has been done before.

Its pretty simple to do, as it really is along the lines of the original torpedo boats before they made them submarines.

The only real issue is increased maintenance, as the engines don't like being starved of air as the platform punches through the swell. Essentially you need schnorkel tech. The other issue is that you need to spend more money on the superstructure, armored glass and what not, but that is not as big a deal as the increased maintenance of the power plant.

As to the LCF, the little pontoons aft are at the exit of the monohull. So it's six of one and half dozen of the other. If you are worried about it, you just make the monohull sleeker.

So, my assessment is that I can see what the designers are trying to do, but there are better ways to do it. I just don't have the time to do a patent search and find the flared chines I was speaking of so you can get rid of the pontoons.


cheers


w

edit

w

ps: and we must have posted at the same time, as I missed your points on following seas and talking about pontoon position. A semi submersible like this design is fast. If it stops or slows down enough that a following sea can catch up to it it becomes a vomit rocket.

Maybe that is what the pontoons aft are for (to provide stability when she is stopped).Who knows?

Last edited by Wooki; May 28th, 2009 at 07:48 AM.
Wooki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2009   #102
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Threads:
Has anyone read anything more about this in Indonesian media?

Quote:
The Netherlands Ready to Help with Battleships

TEMPO Interactive, Jakarta:The deputy speaker of the House of Representatives (DPR),Muhaimin Iskandar, said the Dutch government was reviewing a plan to assist Indonesia with providing battleships. “We have opened the opportunity to collaborate with with the Dutch senate which will be
discussed with the government,” Muhaimin said after receiving the Dutch delegation led by Senate Leader Y.M. Yvonne E.M.A. Timmerman Buck at the MPR/DPR building yesterday.

The DPR, Muhaimin said, had conveyed its urgent need of battleships to secure the nation against foreign attacks or illegal exploitation of Indonesia’s marine zones.

However, Muhaimin said, the discussion did not mention the kind or number of battleships to be loaned. Further details of the collaboration were to be discussed by the executive branch.

Muhaimin further said that besides the battleships, the DPR has asked for Dutch support in the area of technology transfer in ship manufacturing to enable the state-owned PT PAL to improve the quality of its products.

The Dutch Senate, according to Muhaimin, welcomed the collaboration to be discussed by their governments. “Such joint-venture is important,”he said. Collaboration in food production will also be discussed,Muhaimin added.
Tempointeraktif.com - The Netherlands Ready to Help with Battleships
gvg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2009   #103
Senior Member
Colonel
Ananda's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,557
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvg View Post
Has anyone read anything more about this in Indonesian media?
Gvg, this is nothing new, so not much talk locally (heck it's even not mentioned much). This's nothing much than some political support by the dutch to 'push' for Damen-Schelde Sigma design win the local projects with PAL for Light Frigates. They'are competting with Fincantieri Commandante design.
The deccission should come out in June but, considering this's the ellection time, I personally doubt any decission will come out soon. But will see.
Ananda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2009   #104
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Threads:
aha...thanks.

English news about the TNI-AL is often a bit 'vague' (at least to me).
gvg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2009   #105
Senior Member
Colonel
Ananda's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,557
Threads:
Finally, Two Submarines by 2011

From : http://www.militarium.eu/article.aspx?ID=2962

Quote:
Jakarta (ANTARA News) - Indonesian Navy Chief of Staff Admiral Tedjo Edhy Purdijatno has expressed hope that two new submarines would arrive soon in the next two years. Asked for confirmation here on Sunday, the Navy chief of staff said the procurement process of the two submarines has been discussed by the Defense Ministry.

"Technical specification and the operation requirement have been submitted to the Defense Ministry for discussion," Tejo Edhy said, expressing hope that the ministry this month would decide where the submarines would be procured from.

Indonesia has earlier opened a tender for the procurement of two submarines in 2010-2014 from several countries such as Germany, South Korea, Russia, and France.

"If the Defense Ministry decides the country the Navy will get the submarine from, then the contract will be signed immediately to procure the two submarine soon," Tedjo said.
From the Indonesian articles versions, the Navy Commander said that from 4 nations that forward the proposal (Germany, France, South Korea, and Russia), the choices strongly favor South Korea and Russia due to their financing scheme and their scope willingness for ToT.

The Navy strongly wants U 214. However with South Korea seems favoured compare to Germany, It's open to questions whether the South Korean licenses for U 214 from HDW can also open for them to provide U 214.

Sources also says that eventhough Russia put Kilo on their proposal, but what the navy really wants from them's Amur.

Budget put at USD 700 mio for two subs.
Ananda is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:23 AM.