Indonesia: 'green water navy'

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I just found this in the "World Defencw Zone" Facebook group.

=========================================
Spesifikasi Indonesia Future Frigate (Iver Huitfeldt)

Sensors and processing systems:
- Hensoldt TRS-4D fixed array
- Hensoldt MSSR 2000 IFF
- Terma Scanter 4603
- Terma C-Fire REO
- Terma C-Flex with 16 multi function console
- Atlas Elektronik ASO 713 Hull-Mounted Sonar

Electronic warfare & decoys:
- Terma C-Guard Naval decoy launching system
- Indra Rigel RESM/RECM

Armament:
- 1x Leonardo 76 mm SRGM
- 1x Rheinmetall 35 mm CIWS
- Leonardo A244/S M3
- MBDA VL Mica, 16 cells
- MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 3, 8 cells
- 2x FN M3 12.7 mm

==============================================
The source of this 'leaked information' is unknown, so it can be made by a fanboy with some knowledge of this project, or an overenthousiast journalist.

Anyway,
The Hensoldt TRS-4D is an advanced AESA radarsystem, superior to the APAR and even similar to the Sea Master 400 from Hollandse Signaalapparaten (Thales Nederand) in specs.

But for the other equipment its a downgrade.
- 1 Oto Melara 76 mm gun in stead of 2 is 50% less firepower.
- VL MICA in stead of SM-2, Aster 15 or Aster 30 is also clearly a downgrade.

So its basically an enlarged SIGMA 10514. Besides that the contract of $720 million is just for the frigates, its not including the missiles, torpedo and CIWS.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

Well-Known Member
Those KCR got MRO basically replacing Chinese suits with Terma suits, and that includes CMS.

As for 'rumours' of TNI-AL Iver based Frigates weapons config, well put it as it is just 'rumours'.
The number of VLS cells being talk as for VL MICA only is also still differed on internet rumours. Either 16 or 48. However if this is similar VLS as put in Sigma 10514 then I tend to see it on '12' multiplication.
So either 12, 24,36 or 48. This because the set is on 12 VLS.

The talk on number of Exocet launcer also differ from 8 to 16, as Rheinmettal millennial CIWS of either one or two. Perhaps all true in such it can be Fitted for 8 and 1 CIWS at first but with space and wiring for 16 and 2 CIWS.
That also work on VLS. That's potential the number of VLS is 24 but have space for 48 VLS. I tend to see similar VLS set that being put in PKR Sigma 10514, which is Sylver A35.

I will be surprised if the VLS is going to be US MK 41 or MK 56 as in Danish Iver. Like I said before, TNI-AL already set on MBDA as main supplier for Missiles. Despite more flexibility of US VLS compared to Sylver, but I do think based on historical procurement, they still go with Sylver.

As it's a GP Frigates, then it's not a bad configuration. It will be similar capabilities with UK Type 31, which also Iver based.
The talk on potential specialise AAW Heavy Frigates or Destroyers is in plan for what I heard from people in Bapenas. But it will not be this time around, as the budget for one will be double or more from one Iver based Frigates.

Add:
Some local fanboys in local forum I read some time ago, very adamant that with USD 360 Mio budget that being set for one Iver based Frigates, TNI-AL should get similar config with Danish Iver. They forgot two thing:
1. That kind of budget being set by Danes 12 years ago when they start to build first Iver class,
2. Iver being design and build by Danes own firm and yards, thus as PAL will build it in Surabaya, then there's going to be cost of Tech Transfer license and Odense tech support which will not be cheap.

So for me when I read the UK Type 31 will be build on similar budget that being set for Iver Based Frigates build in PAL facilities, then I strongly suspect the config will be in similar class capabilities.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The only reason the Royal Danish Navy Iver Huitfeld class frigates have two 76 mm guns mounted up forward is because the Danes couldn't afford new 5 inch / 127 mm guns at the time. The76 mm guns were pulled through from decommissioned ships. If you look at the Absalon class ships they have, the gun armament mounted up forward is what was / is intended for the Iver Huitfeld class.

I would disagree that losing the 76 mm gun in the B mount is a loss of firepower and detrimental. What is the intention for the guns in Indonesian naval service? Are they to be used for Naval Gunfire Support? Or is it for shipboard defence purposes? You have to determine what the main purpose of the gun is for before launching into whether or not it is fit for purpose.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I understand that Terma systems are ordered, but this ship is getting now a 14-days routine overhaul, thats way too fast to strip and remove all the wirings, sensors and other components and install new ones. Maybe the 628 will get those systems later.
Those KCR got MRO basically replacing Chinese suits with Terma suits, and that includes CMS.

As for 'rumours' of TNI-AL Iver based Frigates weapons config, well put it as it is just 'rumours'.
The number of VLS cells being talk as for VL MICA only is also still differed on internet rumours. Either 16 or 48. However if this is similar VLS as put in Sigma 10514 then I tend to see it on '12' multiplication.
So either 12, 24,36 or 48. This because the set is on 12 VLS.

The talk on number of Exocet launcer also differ from 8 to 16, as Rheinmettal millennial CIWS of either one or two. Perhaps all true in such it can be Fitted for 8 and 1 CIWS at first but with space and wiring for 16 and 2 CIWS.
That also work on VLS. That's potential the number of VLS is 24 but have space for 48 VLS. I tend to see similar VLS set that being put in PKR Sigma 10514, which is Sylver A35.

I will be surprised if the VLS is going to be US MK 41 or MK 56 as in Danish Iver. Like I said before, TNI-AL already set on MBDA as main supplier for Missiles. Despite more flexibility of US VLS compared to Sylver, but I do think based on historical procurement, they still go with Sylver.

As it's a GP Frigates, then it's not a bad configuration. It will be similar capabilities with UK Type 31, which also Iver based.
The talk on potential specialise AAW Heavy Frigates or Destroyers is in plan for what I heard from people in Bapenas. But it will not be this time around, as the budget for one will be double or more from one Iver based Frigates.

Add:
Some local fanboys in local forum I read some time ago, very adamant that with USD 360 Mio budget that being set for one Iver based Frigates, TNI-AL should get similar config with Danish Iver. They forgot two thing:
1. That kind of budget being set by Danes 12 years ago when they start to build first Iver class,
2. Iver being design and build by Danes own firm and yards, thus as PAL will build it in Surabaya, then there's going to be cost of Tech Transfer license and Odense tech support which will not be cheap.

So for me when I read the UK Type 31 will be build on similar budget that being set for Iver Based Frigates build in PAL facilities, then I strongly suspect the config will be in similar class capabilities.
About the 12, 24, 36 configuration.....
All the Sylver launchers come in eight-cell modules, except the A-35, which is available in four-cell modules.
So if TNI-AL will choose the VL MICA, then the A-35 will be enough, which can be installed in any 4 combination. But if TNI-AL wants future-proof flexibility with possible improvements/modernisations/modifications/VLS expansions, then an 8-combination of A-43 or A-50 VLS modules will be a wiser choice.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

Well-Known Member
But if TNI-AL wants future-proof flexibility with possible improvements/modernisations/modifications/VLS expansions, then an 8-combination of A-43 or A-50 VLS modules will be a wiser choice.
In paper, Iver based design can handle all Sylver model up to A70. How TNI-AL proceed with their Frigates project also in my opinion determine what kind of VLS being choose.

Despite all the 'hype' talk on Iver based Frigates for TNI-AL, it will not be much substantial improvement from Sigma 10514. This due to the budget that being allocated for building Iver based Frigates is only 'relative' marginally higher than budget for Sigma based Light Frigates.

This shown that This Iver based Frigates will be bigger and have more room to improve compared to Sigma based Light Frigates, but will be equip (at least initially) with similar capabilities armaments.
That's why the composition of the plan 8 Frigates in my opinion is matter. If they're planning to build only two Sigma as it is, and the rest will be this Iver based Frigates, then TNI-AL have more flexibility to build more differed on armaments suit compared to what presently being put in Sigma based PKR Light Frigates.
However if it is 4 Sigma and 4 Iver based Frigates, then TNI-AL need to have more commonality on armaments sets in both Frigates.

Thus in that case potential Iver based Frigates using Sylver A35 as in Sigma based PKR Light Frigates, also become more potential needed.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
I understand that Terma systems are ordered, but this ship is getting now a 14-days routine overhaul, thats way too fast to strip and remove all the wirings, sensors and other components and install new ones. Maybe the 628 will get those systems later.

About the 12, 24, 36 configuration.....
All the Sylver launchers come in eight-cell modules, except the A-35, which is available in four-cell modules.
So if TNI-AL will choose the VL MICA, then the A-35 will be enough, which can be installed in any 4 combination. But if TNI-AL wants future-proof flexibility with possible improvements/modernisations/modifications/VLS expansions, then an 8-combination of A-43 or A-50 VLS modules will be a wiser choice.
A43 would allow Aster 15, or potentially quad-packed CAMM. I think CAMM-ER might be slightly too tall, but I'm not sure.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
would allow Aster 15, or potentially quad-packed CAMM. I think CAMM-ER might be slightly too tall, but I'm not sure.
Isn't CAMM-ER only 4 M ? If looking on that A43 should be capable to be quad pack also for CAMM-ER.

There's discussion on local media and forums whether TNI-AL should be equip with VL MICA or CAMM. Rumours it's one of agenda being talked with MBDA. TNI-AL wants one Missile that can fit not only A35 Sylver VLS in PKR but also can be modified to Sea Wolf VLS on Bung Tomo (ex Nahkoda Ragam) Corvettes.
CAMM already able being modified for ex Sea Wolf VLS, not sure if VL MICA can also being fitted for a that.

SIPRI already put TNI-AL order VL MICA for PKR. However no info yet on what missile TNI-AL will be used for Bung Tomo Corvettes. Thus there's still also potential CAMM being choose for both Bung Tomo Corvettes, PKR or even that Iver based Frigates.
Logically CAMM at present config should be better choice than VL MICA. Although read somewhere that VL MICA also being developed to be able quad pack on Sylver VLS.

Frankly speaking I'm bit confused on MBDA strategy for VL MICA/MICA NG and CAMM/CAMM-ER, both still being market and developed with so far in paper have similar class of performance. Why they still market and developed two similar capabilities Missiles especially for Naval market ?
They should market VL MICA for land based SAM Missile and let CAMM for Naval Market.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Ananda, a quick note, CAMM/CAMM-ER is a UK effort. CAMM is slightly more longer ranged than the original MICA; and CAMM-ER has a longer range than the modern Aster 15 missile. But the critical measure is not range but size of NEZ.

The MICA NG is a French effort by MBDA with a contract with DGA. It is originally a A2A missile for the French Air Force (and likely sold to any buyer of French fighters) — the MICA NG is planned to enter service as in 2026 on the Rafale. The same French missile can be used on land systems called the VL MICA, with a 9km flight altitude and up to 20km in range. The missile is also available as a sea launched system.

As a buyer, Singapore is only looking at MICA NG, as an inner AAW missile layer, and the Aster 15, as a middle AAW missile layer, for fleet AAW defence. The MICA NG on the LMVs, when the missile is ordered in bulk in mid to end 2020s, replaces the inner AAW missile layer formerly provided by Barak 1 (on the Victory Class to be retired in 2027). Once DSTA selected MICA NG, the Singapore Navy is unlikely to seriously look at more expensive CAMM. And once DSTA selected Aster 15, with a 13km flight altitude and up to 30km in range, the interest for the less capable 25km in range CAMM falls away.

DGA heavily promoted the MICA NG to DSTA, and even inviting them to witness test firings. The French DGA even have a contract with MBDA where exports lead to lower buy prices for the French Air Force. Given that the MICA NG is being supported by DGA and used in air, land and sea systems, it will have a long production run. This enables the Singapore Navy to spread out purchases on a hot production line into the 2030s — to even out defence spending on a per year basis. The difficulty is not about buying the 1st reload of the Barak 1 but buying the 6th to 8th reloads (as war stocks) to last 2 to 3 months in a hot conflict. Buying in batches also manages ageing issues of war stocks.

In the last few years, the Singapore Navy is extra generous in firing the Harpoon 1C missiles for exercises, as the oldest ones are being fired before their end of life.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Frankly speaking I'm bit confused on MBDA strategy for VL MICA/MICA NG and CAMM/CAMM-ER, both still being market and developed with so far in paper have similar class of performance. Why they still market and developed two similar capabilities Missiles especially for Naval market ?
They should market VL MICA for land based SAM Missile and let CAMM for Naval Market.
OPSSG beat me to it. In a nutshell, MBDA Missile Systems is a European based defence conglomerate which has major aerospace shareholders, Airbus, BAE Systems, and Leonardo Finmeccanica and was more or less formed from leading missile companies in the UK, France and Italy, with Spanish and German companies (or national branches of pan-European EADS) added later. Since individual European nations have their own technical/industrail as well as national and defence interests different national branches of MBDA have sometimes developed their own similar products for the domestic market where the branch is located.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
Noted @OPSSG and @Todjaeger , understand that MICA and Sea Ceptor/CAMM come from separate French and UK program. Also MBDA as European Consortium seems still need to cater each Euro Nation program (especially the nation that part original shareholders).

I'm just thinking on the perspective of Market differentiation strategy and achieving more optimum efficiency for each product. Putting VL MICA for Ground Based market and CAMM for Naval market perhaps can reduce market internal competition from two of it's products. CAMM-ER and MICA-NG on the paper has much similarities on performance.

But again, as you have put, perhaps MBDA as multi-nation consortium still need to navigate different projects of each nation. Still in my opinion, as long as Euro Consortium still have to play on that, they will have difficulty competing with US Defense Producers that already have bigger market from beginning.

The Defense market already competitive enough, that having two products that competing for similar market, will not be good for any defense company/consortium effectiveness. If they can't avoid competing need/projects of each nation (like French and UK), perhaps they need to segregate the marketing strategy. Well that's just my two cents worth of opinion for effective marketing strategy.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
CAMM is across all three domains. CAMM(N) is the naval variant and used by UK, Canada, Chile and NZ as Sea Ceptor, CAMM(L) is in use with the UK as Land Ceptor and not sure when the airborne variant is supposed to be operational.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Also MBDA as European Consortium seems still need to cater each Euro Nation program (especially the nation that part original shareholders).
Product placement occurs across national divisions if MBDA sees a specific market opportunity. One example for that occuring is Brimstone for the German Air Force, a product of MBDA UK offered and sold for that market through MBDA Germany.

I'm just thinking on the perspective of Market differentiation strategy and achieving more optimum efficiency for each product.
Mica or CAMM isn't the product though. The primary product intended to be marketed is the GBAD package solution. While the missile systems are available outside that what MBDA tries to sell is the package.

-> MBDA will market PCP to customers looking for a GBAD integrated VSHORAD/SHORAD solution operating primarily as an independent local network, including under heavy ECM conditions. PCP integrates VL Mica and Mistral.
-> MBDA will market EMADS to customers looking for a GBAD dedicated SHORAD solution integrated into a wider network, including offsite tracking. EMADS integrates CAMM/CAMM-ER.

For customers without an integrated tactical air-defense network PCP is typically more beneficial, in particular as it can - standalone - be used to coordinate a wider local network with neighboring systems.

Product-wise LICORNE covers the layer below that (customers who only want a VSHORAD solution), SAMP/T the layer above that (customers who want a HIMAD solution).
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
All the Sylver launchers come in eight-cell modules, except the A-35, which is available in four-cell modules.
So if TNI-AL will choose the VL MICA, then the A-35 will be enough, which can be installed in any 4 combination.
The default installation of VL Mica does not involve Sylver A35. Default is an all-up round that firest straight out of its transport container without need for a VLS system around it. Benefit is the much lower weight (about 480 kg per installed "cell" vs about 900 kg), downside is a more complicated "reloading" that pretty much can't be done outside port. Also the control system for this is limited to 16 such transport/firing containers, although technically these can be placed individually wherever the ship design has space for it. Virtually all "self-defense" VL Mica installations sold so far use this concept instead of Sylver.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Isn't CAMM-ER only 4 M ? If looking on that A43 should be capable to be quad pack also for CAMM-ER.
..
MBDA says 4.2 metres - CAMM-ER - MBDA Given that CAMM comes with a cold-launch thingy under it which takes up a bit of space, & AFAIK Sylver 43 is 4.3 metres inside, it depends on whether the 4.2 is just the missile or includes the cold launch thing.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
understand that Terma systems are ordered, but this ship is getting now a 14-days routine overhaul, thats way too fast to strip and remove all the wirings, sensors and other components and install new ones. Maybe the 628 will get those systems later.

According to this, in 2020 the shipyard (PT. PAL) are doing SEWACO job (system and weapon integration) for existing KCR 3 & 4, and the newly build KCR 5 & 6. Thus this MRO seems part of that SEWACO job.

KCR 1 & 2 seems being modified last year, I believe part of the studies result to improve their stability. Thus PAL add fin stabilisers in the hull to improve their seaworthiness. The studies
(from local forum and media) also shown that additional KCR or OPV has to be at least 70m in length, to make them able to operate on all Indonesian waters and EEZ in the Indies, Pacific and SCS.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
KCR 1 & 2 seems being modified last year, I believe part of the studies result to improve their stability. Thus PAL add fin stabilisers in the hull to improve their seaworthiness. The studies (from local forum and media) also shown that additional KCR or OPV has to be at least 70m in length, to make them able to operate on all Indonesian waters and EEZ in the Indies, Pacific and SCS.
We discussed this point before, where I previously recommended that the Indonesian navy stop building vessels smaller than 60 metres long, in response to a specific query from you (but I have forgotten the context of the discussion).

Small vessels below 60 metres long are known to have a sea keeping problem in tropical thunderstorms — that can affect naval gun fire accuracy. A 70 metre long naval vessel is of course better and have more space for fuel, to support longer patrols. Regardless of whether the vessel is 50 metre, 60 metre, or 70metre long, fin stabilisers are worth adding. For smaller vessels, there are other types of systems to provide stability that do not need fins.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

Well-Known Member
We discussed this point before, where I previously recommended that the Indonesian navy stop building vessels smaller than 60 metres long, in response to a specific query from you (but I have forgotten the context of the discussion).
If not mistaken the context is in the idea for small patrol boats should be in area for Coast Guard, and TNI AL should focus on larger displacement for better sea control.

That's actually what seems being prepared by PAL if we see the design on OPV they are preparing. They're now seems focus on OPV 90m which many in Indonesia see it as Parchim replacement. However there're still some people in Defense circle that think on the idea of swarms of small Missile boats that using islands cover for ambushing larger vessels.

This's still back to my previous post some time ago on how the Political wrangling toward what Coast Guard should be control and where other maritime agencies including the Navy that still want to hold.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Ananda,

1. At this stage of development in the era of great power completion, Indonesia just has to build as many navy ships as your shipyards can produce. Hopefully not in 2 or 3s but 6 to 8 per class of vessel — so that "for but not with" is not such a big issue as it will be worth the effort to engineer and equip a class of vessel with better weapons and sensors over time.

2. Nothing the country builds will be survivable or sustainable without:
(i) allied air support by partners and the Indonesian Air Force (TNI AU), as China and Vietnam, as competitors in the South China Sea, are keen to develop their navies at a faster rate than the TNI AL;​
(ii) the provision of ISR from MPAs flown by TNI AU, neutrals or friendlies, supplemented by TNI AL submarines as forward sensors; and​
(iii) the TNI AL’s vessels needing to operate in task groups with other capable navies, who will go into harm’s way with the TNI AL.​

3. On a 365 day basis, the TNI AL’s surface vessels and submarines must have the ability to secure Indonesia’s littorals, dispute them, or just as importantly exercise in them in the face of a capable competitor who will contest them. A capability that the TNI AL does not have. And because the TNI AL is unable to do so, I am waiting for the day when you start to see the Chinese Coast Guard regularly ram Indonesian Navy and law enforcement ships during a time of tension. A TNI AL vessel was rammed by the Vietnamese Coast Guard on 30 April 2019. Let us see how well designed the TNI AL ships are after it is rammed a couple of times.

4. TNI AL better start thinking clearly about who is a neutral, who is a friendly and who can be an ally at a time of crisis and start building bridges with other more capable navies, accordingly. I wish the TNI AL good luck in sorting out its priorities. The 4 to 9 May 2018, Exercise Komodo held in the waters near Lombok Island, Indonesia is an important step forward for TNI AL in its bridge building efforts.

5. Indonesia’s SIGMA 10514 are cute little ships that I like. The TNI AL just needs 8 to 12 of them by 2045 (instead of 2). The PLA(N) will be able to track TNI AL from space. On a daily basis the PLA(N) will get updated on the location of every TNI AL ship. The ability of capable network centric navies like the USN, JMSDF, and PLA(N) to track ships from space is a key reason why Singapore gave up on playing hide and seek with our missile gun boats. The new FFG(X) program of the USN is a reflection of American belief that you need a forward screen for a task group.

6. The Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate is also a good platform, if chosen — the TNI AL will need 3 to 4 of them by 2035 — to maintain a minimum capability to conduct over the horizon surface warfare, as a task group command vessel, 365 days a year. Your ships need to train in task groups with more capable ships operating over the horizon (with the SIGMA 10514s being the forward sensor) or the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates are dead ducks 15 mins after shooting starts.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
If not mistaken the context is in the idea for small patrol boats should be in area for Coast Guard, and TNI AL should focus on larger displacement for better sea control.

That's actually what seems being prepared by PAL if we see the design on OPV they are preparing. They're now seems focus on OPV 90m which many in Indonesia see it as Parchim replacement. However there're still some people in Defense circle that think on the idea of swarms of small Missile boats that using islands cover for ambushing larger vessels.

This's still back to my previous post some time ago on how the Political wrangling toward what Coast Guard should be control and where other maritime agencies including the Navy that still want to hold.
It seems that BAKAMLA plans to open a centralized information centre, according to the Facebook page of "the Indonesian Coast Guard".
 
Top