Indonesia: 'green water navy'

Ananda

The Bunker Group
even three submarines at the same moment!
No it's not three subs at the same moment, not event two. It's still one Submarine at the time. They just doing in progressively. Just like when they are building PKR. They're doing it one vessel at the time, however when one vessels already finish one stage and moving to next stage, they are using facilities of previous stage for another vessel.

It's just regular manufacturing process. However it's not doing two vessels at the time (pararel time) just like some Enthusiasts claim.
 

madokafc

New Member
Just to add on Swerve excellent point, what do MBDA executive care if Naval Group does not get contract ? Because this's basically that French agent Twitter guy aiming for. Naval Group seems facing risk will not getting any large TNI-AL Projects. That's why he try to go back to his tactics on building negative expectations.

There are three major projects that seems going on with TNI-AL; Frigates, Light Frigates/GP/Corvettes, and Submarine. Naval group try to enter with FTI in Frigates, Gowind in Light Frigates, and Scorpene in Submarine. Frigates seems going to Fincantieri, Light Frigates/PKR Sigma continuation seems PAL going with this Iver based design, while Submarine still toss up but the Germans coming strong.

Back to Missiles, MBDA executive knows they have loyal customer with TNI-AL. Will they want to risk it and gave it to say Raytheon because some Agent sulking cause Naval Group loosing out ? What business logic on that ?

The USD 720 Mio budget (base on that PAL report from Kris FB) like I post before, will not be enough for Sylver+Aster30 thus will not be enough for the Raytheon alternative of Mk-41+SM-2. Thus his arguments on Sylver+Aster-30 in this Iver Based Frigates is moot point anyway.

However the budget should be enough for VL Mica/NG+ Canister launch or ESSM+Mk-58. If they (MBDA) being told (as he blabing claim) on holding out missile deals, then TNI-AL can go to Raytheon and make MBDA risk loosing out to one of their loyal long term customers. Do this sound like logical business thinking ?

MBDA now try to gain more customers from Raytheon, are they want to loosing out existing loyal customers to Raytheon ?

That's why I say on my previous posts this tweeter guy getting ridicelous on some of his tweet, especially related to his bread and butter deal with Frenchie. I just wait on his tweet that Indonesia will not get Raytheon missile on the class of Aster 30 (in this case SM-2) or Mk-41 VLS. Thus the only choice is to get Aster-30+Sylver, and that means giving Naval Group some Projects.

Then we can see some Indonesian enthusiasts eating this up, and believe his babling..;). Put it on media and try to get Public opinion pressure.
Indonesian Navy budget right now only focused much on their Koarmada fleets in which Frigates is on the high list of priority level. The second biggest fund is for Submarine, the third is for "true" KCR the rest is for other auxiliary units and much less for Shore based AShM system.

For Itver Huitveld class variant, the budget of 720 million US Dollar is from the very beginning is only fitted for basic hull and sensor package along with the main gun. In the original plan they would provided budget during MEF III along with the construction progress in which spent almost 69 months after effective contract. Just see how it Will be developed from now on. 69 month is a long time. They even can negotiated for Stanflex system module from Denmark and US for the usage permit of critical technology like VLS MK41 and even SM2 during the time.

Japanese FFM 30 class is actually done deal project as they have been endorsed by many Indonesian higher ups level, not to mention MoD, even Minister of SOE along with minister of Investment and Trade, even Minister of Finance (including Presiden himself and his Prime Minister confidant) along with their Japanese counterpart (including PM, and major investor in Indonesia including Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Sumitomo) the possibility of Japan export of lethal Defense article to Indonesia had been voiced and discussed during Taro Aso visit to Bogor and eventually signed in 2+2 meeting in the half year of 2021 yesterday. Japan and Indonesia deal is win win solution for both countries. I am still remember how Alman Helvas had said there is no possibility of Japan Frigate deal to be prevailed, but now with the preambule contract deal already signed and only need MOF to provided fund budget he is tweeting the otherwise (signed during 2+2 meeting).
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Itver Huitveld class variant, the budget of 720 million US Dollar is from the very beginning is only fitted for basic hull and sensor package along with the main gun.
Thank you for your explanation. If that so, then the budgeting process still follow the same patern as in PKR Damen. Seems as PAL considering this project as continuation of PKR, I always put my expectations on this Iver based frigates as but PKR class configuration. Using Iver based can provide better room to expand later on.

For that I suspect this is will become Type 31 with Indonesian flavor. I don't know how the final design will be. If it already been set, and both Iver based frigate already set in design with MICA VL class (as follow on with PKR), then I believe it will be difficult to change the VLS design for larger class like Mk41 or Sylver. Possible, but it will disrupt the production time line and cost. Perhaps changing to Mk58 with ESSM still possible. Unless the Final design set with Mk41 or Sylver class VLS from begining.

am still remember how Alman Helvas had said there is no possibility of Japan Frigate deal to be prevailed, but now with the preambule contract deal already signed and only need MOF to provided fund budget he is tweeting the otherwise
That what I always said in this forum, the tweeter guy (Alman) work on his own agenda, and he seems underestimating non Euro vendors. Japan work on different level of connectivity with Indonesian bureaucrats. We in Financial Industry always watch carefully any Japanese move, as they can do surprises in the end. They will provide different kind of financing scheme.

My question more on where those 30 FFM will be build (for portion that being talk build in Indonesia). PAL with present facility will be full capacity with this two Iver and two FREMM later on after 2026. Thus MHI has to work with other Shipyard in Indonesia. They have seen Shipyards facilities in Batam, still could those shipyards have capabilities for Frigates building ? Yes 110M OPV already been build by them, and they have build larger tankers and bulk carriers. However building complex warship like Frigates will be different.

If PAL can not have room.to build those 30 FFM because their projected work load, then MHI has to invest with those Batam's Shipyards (or perhaps SOE shipyard in Jakarta), to improve their capabilities. If that part of the deal, that will be strong incentive to take Japan deals.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Thank you for your explanation. If that so, then the budgeting process still follow the same patern as in PKR Damen. Seems as PAL considering this project as continuation of PKR, I always put my expectations on this Iver based frigates as but PKR class configuration. Using Iver based can provide better room to expand later on.

For that I suspect this is will become Type 31 with Indonesian flavor. I don't know how the final design will be. If it already been set, and both Iver based frigate already set in design with MICA VL class (as follow on with PKR), then I believe it will be difficult to change the VLS design for larger class like Mk41 or Sylver. Possible, but it will disrupt the production time line and cost. Perhaps changing to Mk58 with ESSM still possible. Unless the Final design set with Mk41 or Sylver class VLS from begining.



That what I always said in this forum, the tweeter guy (Alman) work on his own agenda, and he seems underestimating non Euro vendors. Japan work on different level of connectivity with Indonesian bureaucrats. We in Financial Industry always watch carefully any Japanese move, as they can do surprises in the end. They will provide different kind of financing scheme.

My question more on where those 30 FFM will be build (for portion that being talk build in Indonesia). PAL with present facility will be full capacity with this two Iver and two FREMM later on after 2026. Thus MHI has to work with other Shipyard in Indonesia. They have seen Shipyards facilities in Batam, still could those shipyards have capabilities for Frigates building ? Yes 110M OPV already been build by them, and they have build larger tankers and bulk carriers. However building complex warship like Frigates will be different.

If PAL can not have room.to build those 30 FFM because their projected work load, then MHI has to invest with those Batam's Shipyards (or perhaps SOE shipyard in Jakarta), to improve their capabilities. If that part of the deal, that will be strong incentive to take Japan deals.
That Oracle-on-Twitter is such a funny guy, last year he said that everyone who expect the 30FFM-class will become reality, is living in a dream world. Now he just pretends he never said such things.

Its so confusing all those (lack of) developments and possible plot twists. I dont think it is a good idea to get 4 different kinds of frigates: 2 x Iver Huitfeldts, 6 x FREMMs, 2 x Maestrales and 8 30FFMs. We dont have the budget for the acquisition, let alone the budget and infrastructure to build them, and the budget to properly equip and operate these ships.

And yes, a fleet of empty FFBNW-frigates is totally useless.
In my opinion its better to use that $720 million for the FREMM-order or the 30FFM-class. Cancellation of those two Iver Huitfeldts shouldnt be a problem, because this administration is so good with cancellations.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
dont think it is a good idea to get 4 different kinds of frigates: 2 x Iver Huitfeldts, 6 x FREMMs, 2 x Maestrales and 8 30FFM
I don't have experience on Naval fleet, but I have experience financing commercial fleet. However for me, whether Military or Commercial, there're similarities in concept of good fleet management.

Years ago I have talk with one of my debtor, a commercial shipping company. I ask them how they manage the costs on different type of vessels they have. How they manage diverse types logistics. They say to us, it's not matter for ships much if they have different types of hulls (for maintainance purpose). Cause the important thing is whether they have standard machinery and propulsion system plus electronics and sensors.

They shown us (in their costs book), even they have different types of hulls, but the internal system are standard. They source same machinery, navigation system, even down to transmission and propeller. That's what cost most in maintainance. The hull basically can be service by any ship yard. However sourcing the different internal systems that can raise the maintenance cost much.

It's different when we talk with Airlines. They on the other hand emphasis more on similar airframes asside similar flight system. Because Airliners is duopoly business. Thus different Airliners type will require different type pilot rating, that's cost much on training. That's why some Airlines even tough operate A320 and 737, they try to source the engine from same types. This to off set the costs of different type of pilot rating and System that Boeing and Airbus use.

So based on that, I guess different type of hulls can still be acceptable on logistics foot prints, if they have similarities in electronics, sensors systems, machineries, and weapons. Whether this Iver, 30FFM, and FREMM will have much different internal systems and weapons set, that's what still don't know yet.

So I do hope that eventough they (MinDef) then working on different types of Frigates, they manage to standardizing on sensors, weapons suit and machineries/propulsion system. Say they used same diesels or same gas turbine for example. The hull doesn't cost much in relative term for modern naval ships anyway.

Yes, it's more beneficial to have or standardize the hulls also. However seems matter of financing sources can also determine the potential suppliers. So I do hope at least they try to standardizing other items. Will it be done ? That's good question, this's Indonesian MinDef we are talking about anyway.

Add:
I'll be surprised if all this Frigates program will not be FFBNW in the beginning of their operation. We know Indonesia MinDef always put standard weapons system first when new ship operating. The budget for most weapons will be done separately. This's already happened for so many years.
 
Last edited:

ChestnutTree

Active Member
I think at this point the benefit of having a standardized hull is costs savings during procurement. Taking economy of scale into account they can likely get more hulls for the money if they swap the Iver Huitdfelt budget into either the FREMM or the 30FFM programs.

Add onto my last point, I realize doctrinally the FREMMs, IH, and 30FFMs can be separated onto a Frigate and Destroyer category. I forgot that most people here in Indonesia likes to refer to vessels that are considered Destroyers by Anglo navies to be Frigates, per the definition of a lot of European navies.

Realistically if either 2 hull types out of 3 are only going to be armed with MICA then they would fit into the GP Frigate category with likely specialized equipment for different missions (Much like the RN's Type 26 and Type 31). However if any of them are going to be fitted with Aster or SM-2 and full AAW fit outs then IMO they are fundamentally going to classed as Destroyers (Much like the Daring or the Horizon class).
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I don't have experience on Naval fleet, but I have experience financing commercial fleet. However for me, whether Military or Commercial, there're similarities in concept of good fleet management.

Years ago I have talk with one of my debtor, a commercial shipping company. I ask them how they manage the costs on different type of vessels they have. How they manage diverse types logistics. They say to us, it's not matter for ships much if they have different types of hulls (for maintainance purpose). Cause the important thing is whether they have standard machinery and propulsion system plus electronics and sensors.

They shown us (in their costs book), even they have different types of hulls, but the internal system are standard. They source same machinery, navigation system, even down to transmission and propeller. That's what cost most in maintainance. The hull basically can be service by any ship yard. However sourcing the different internal systems that can raise the maintenance cost much.

It's different when we talk with Airlines. They on the other hand emphasis more on similar airframes asside similar flight system. Because Airliners is duopoly business. Thus different Airliners type will require different type pilot rating, that's cost much on training. That's why some Airlines even tough operate A320 and 737, they try to source the engine from same types. This to off set the costs of different type of pilot rating and System that Boeing and Airbus use.

So based on that, I guess different type of hulls can still be acceptable on logistics foot prints, if they have similarities in electronics, sensors systems, machineries, and weapons. Whether this Iver, 30FFM, and FREMM will have much different internal systems and weapons set, that's what still don't know yet.

So I do hope that eventough they (MinDef) then working on different types of Frigates, they manage to standardizing on sensors, weapons suit and machineries/propulsion system. Say they used same diesels or same gas turbine for example. The hull doesn't cost much in relative term for modern naval ships anyway.

Yes, it's more beneficial to have or standardize the hulls also. However seems matter of financing sources can also determine the potential suppliers. So I do hope at least they try to standardizing other items. Will it be done ? That's good question, this's Indonesian MinDef we are talking about anyway.

Add:
I'll be surprised if all this Frigates program will not be FFBNW in the beginning of their operation. We know Indonesia MinDef always put standard weapons system first when new ship operating. The budget for most weapons will be done separately. This's already happened for so many years.
Yes, but thats the point.
If Indonesia only order for example 8 30FFM, these 8 ships will be identical, and there should be enough budget left over to equip these 8 vessels decently. Requesting to change the standard RR MT30 into MTU diesels for example should be possible. Shared construction between MHI, MES and PAL should also be possible.

But if Indonesia orders 18 vessels of 4 different classes:
1. Converting the propulsion system of the Maestrales from GE LM2500 to diesels and the refurbishment and renovation of the other systems is expensive and time consuming.
2. The Indonesian shipyards can not handle the construction of 16 new large frigates without huge investments and expansion of the current facilities.
3. The process of negotiations, study and carry out the conversion from all the different propulsion-, sensor, CMS- and weaponsystems of these 18 different ships into something similar/same, will be a nightmare and will undoubtly lead to cost and time overruns.
4. And in the end after 15-20 years these 18 frigates will still be in FFBNW-configuration, only armed with machineguns and recycled 40 and 25 mm guns.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
@ChestnutTree and @Sandhi Yudha, yes building more uniform hull types is more ideals. However I do sense this Frigates program depends also on financing projects. In sense the financing for this Iver, FREMM and 30FFM (if it become realize), will come from different financing sources which tied on specific projects.

That's why I post to minimize the logistics problem, those hulls better share similarities in systems, sensors, machineries/propulsion and weapons. Something I take up base from my experience financing commercial shipping company, as I put above.

Will that be happening ? I'm not too optimistic will happen, as after all those Frigates being Finance based on separate commercial deals. I just hope MinDef can push some what, but considering Indonesian practice so far, well I'm not that optimistic.

Don't put those two Maestrale in calculation, as they are just temporary gap Frigates and basically free of charge (as being part of overall Fincantieri FREMM deals). As for Japanese 30FFM deals (whether will be 6 or 8), it can happen only if Japanese in my opinion provide very good financing and Investment packages.

So, how many will be build in Indonesia ? Asside those 2 Iver based and 2 FREEM, probably add 3-4 30FFM. However as I have mentioned in my posts above, I have doubt PAL as one shipyard can handle 30FFM project. They don't have that capacity as they will be busy building that Iver and FREMM (Indonesian yard portion as Fincantieri already put).

So there will be no more than 7-8 Frigates at most being build in Indonesia. That's also only happens if other Shipyard asside PAL being involved. As in paper there's this capacity outside PAL, but need additional MHI workout. Thus that's my question so far on this 30FFM project, as where it will be build (as part of Indonesian workshare portion). Will MHI willing to invest on capabilities building with other Shipyard outside PAL ?

Both of your concern still happening if those Frigates don't shares systems, weapons suits, and machineries. It will be logistical nightmare, more on that it will increase TNI-AL operational budget significantly. Those Frigates if that happens can be risk as harbor queen just like Thailand Aircraft carrier.

Let's see when the final designs of those Frigates come out. Until then we can only doing speculations.
 
Last edited:

madokafc

New Member
That Oracle-on-Twitter is such a funny guy, last year he said that everyone who expect the 30FFM-class will become reality, is living in a dream world. Now he just pretends he never said such things.

Its so confusing all those (lack of) developments and possible plot twists. I dont think it is a good idea to get 4 different kinds of frigates: 2 x Iver Huitfeldts, 6 x FREMMs, 2 x Maestrales and 8 30FFMs. We dont have the budget for the acquisition, let alone the budget and infrastructure to build them, and the budget to properly equip and operate these ships.

And yes, a fleet of empty FFBNW-frigates is totally useless.
In my opinion its better to use that $720 million for the FREMM-order or the 30FFM-class. Cancellation of those two Iver Huitfeldts shouldnt be a problem, because this administration is so good with cancellations.
The current MoD doesn't like to Made FFBNW deal. The actual price would be much more expensive at the end of day by using FFBNW pattern and full of hole for corruption and rente seeker pattern at least "consulting" fees would be so great. The FREMM and FFM 30 is already full Spec from the beginning.

About the funding
Presiden, The Comission I, Minister of Finance, BAPPENAS even Mahkamah Konstitusi doesn't agree with you. They already being briefed by the MoD about the SCS situation and how our "new" good neighbor still doing their usual business in SCS even utilizing Pandemic situation for their own advantage. Pandemic for them is more for opportunity to push up their claim and grabs as much as possible gain when the countries in ASEAN being busy to handle the COVID19. This create a much bigger possibility of Armed clashes in the region which would bring a grim prediction ahead. That's why MoF can easily giving green light for many big item projects including maintenance and operational Costs included even when the country is in distress financially.

Btw there is big possibility about all of FFM 30 would be build in Japan shipyard wholly. As this would be much cheaper and time saving measure. Offset can be gained by other items/stuff we are much needed.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Btw there is big possibility about all of FFM
That will be logical answer on Domestic yard capacity and capabilities. PAL as I have mentioned will be too work out (under current infrastructure) to build 2 Iver and 2 FREMM. No other yards in Indonesia under current capabilities have the same technical track record on Naval building as PAL yet.

However the Political circles already set the trap for them selves by requiring Local Industry involvement. Yes off set can be way out, if they can packages it right. If not it can create Political conundrum that can derail whole program, just like Su-35 deals. We know this should be concluded by 2017, however the problem with counter trade derailed the program, until another problem come out (CAATSA).

Indonesian Politics full of that kind of derailments. Hopefully they can packages it right.

Funding commitment not only on procurement, but also on operational level. I already once put in one of Indonesian threads how TNI got problem paying 'utilities' bills due to unproper budget preparation. Those Frigates and Fighters that current MinDef wants have all higher operational bills to cover. Will they prepared well this time and future ?
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
For me, I just hope they are being relegated to Bakamla/Coast Guard. This is related to the focus of TNI-AL as Navy. I prefer them to concentrate with That KCR-60 above. Preparing their human resources for modern warfare doctrine. That kind of patrol boats only good for constabulary duties, something that should be Coast Guard duties. Those boats just represent in my opinion TNI-AL stubborness and reluctantly to give constabulary duties altogether to Coast Guard.

Hmm, perhaps there're enough criticism in media, enthusiasts forums, and local analysts on those small Patrol boats, that now TNI-AL
begin to build larger 60m Patrol Boats.

Still looking at the specs from TNI-AL official site, it's just proper for doing constabulary duties. While the Coast Guard/Bakamla still getting meager budget (despite the Political talk for them in charge on Maritime security and constabulary duties), for me shown how TNI-AL still want to hold that jurisdiction on the contrary.

I just hope with more OPV/Corvettes and Frigates being procured for them, those boats (as I have mentioned so many times) being relegated to Coast Guard. Something that I still don't see Political will on that, despite the public statement on supporting strong and effective Coast Guard.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
With a maximum speed of just 24 kts, they shouldn't call this type of boat a "Kapal Patroli Cepat (PC) 60".
"Kapal Patroli (KP) 60" fits better.

|" ....juga akan dipersenjatai dengan 1 unit Meriam berkaliber 40 mm type Oto Marlin buatan Leonardo Italia dan 2 unit Meriam 12,7 mm buatan FN Herstal Belgia. "|

It would become TNI-AL's first ship with the 40 mm version of the Oto Melara Marlin. And probably they mean the FN Herstal DeFNder 12,7 mm RCWS
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
would become TNI-AL's first ship with the 40 mm version of the Oto Melara Marlin.

If not mistaken you are the one that put this video of Oto Marlin 30mm trial on PC 40/44 before in this thread. With this PC 60 using Oto Marlin 40mm, Oto Melara seems going to be the dominant suppliers for TNI-AL in future.

Bofors usually has more dominant position on supplying TNI-AL. I don't know if this is related with plan tied up between Oto/Leonardo with Pindad. It's been a plan in Pindad to also venturing on Naval guns territory.

If Fincantieri FREMM contract come to fruition, then it's possible they will also going to be suppliers of 127mm gun. If that happens, Oto will then provide 30mm, 40mm, 76mm and 127mm and leave Bofors for 57mm. If the rumours are confirmed that TNI-AL will stop the Missiles Boats 60m (KCR-60) only to present work of 5th-6th boats, then potential usage of 57mm will also stop.

Seems the plan of that indigenous OPV/Corvette if come to fruition, will also use 76mm. There're will be some surplus 76mm from Van Speijk that can be use. The next Frigates plan either 76mm or 127mm. When that happens, Oto can be the standard providers for TNI-AL.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
FB_IMG_1627895145411.jpg

Before I want to put it in General Maritime thread, even thinking opening new thread for Vietnamese Navy (I couldn't find one here). However I decided to put it in Indonesian Navy thread as part of self mocking.

Vietnam new Submarine rescue vessel being inducted to their Navy. While Indonesia eventough already talk for several years on building it's own Submarine rescue vessel, still has no news on this.

Eventough after Nanggala accident, they already talk to public there's USD 90+ Mio budget prepared for that, but that talk already being put in media before Nanggala accident. Now MinDef talk on new Frigates, new Submarine batch as priority, however where's they put the priority for Submarine Rescue vessel ?

Indonesian Navy always talk that they have the longest experience on Submarine operation in SEA. They claim to know what to be done to have efficient and effective Submarine operation. However this kind of thing always being put off. I do hope they are going to be serious on putting one after Nanggala accident. However this seems being tone down. I do hope they are preparing one in silence, however more and more I'm being sceptics this one being put back on priority lists.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
View attachment 48409

Before I want to put it in General Maritime thread, even thinking opening new thread for Vietnamese Navy (I couldn't find one here). However I decided to put it in Indonesian Navy thread as part of self mocking.

Vietnam new Submarine rescue vessel being inducted to their Navy. While Indonesia eventough already talk for several years on building it's own Submarine rescue vessel, still has no news on this.

Eventough after Nanggala accident, they already talk to public there's USD 90+ Mio budget prepared for that, but that talk already being put in media before Nanggala accident. Now MinDef talk on new Frigates, new Submarine batch as priority, however where's they put the priority for Submarine Rescue vessel ?

Indonesian Navy always talk that they have the longest experience on Submarine operation in SEA. They claim to know what to be done to have efficient and effective Submarine operation. However this kind of thing always being put off. I do hope they are going to be serious on putting one after Nanggala accident. However this seems being tone down. I do hope they are preparing one in silence, however more and more I'm being sceptics this one being put back on priority lists.
It looks like a decent and complete package what Vietnam has ordered for the navy.

Thank You for sharing, sadly the background music is louder than the voice of the talking persons. I didnt expect that PT DRU already had the knowledge and expertise to design and construct combat warships that size.

I think it was almost 20 years ago that Indonesia planned to build corvettes based on the Comandanti class with ToT from Fincantieri, but from which i remember the plan was to construct the ships at PAL.

Not only the Project 1331 Kapitan Pattimura corvettes need to be replaced, but TNI-AL needs just a lot more larger vessels with longer endurence.

Not in the priority list, but still urgently needed is at least one submarine rescue and support ship. Because of the special design, requirements and equipment, a contract with a foreign shipyard is almost certain, which will make it a expensive procurement.

A program like the one from Vietnam can decrease the costs. The Vietnamese Navy will soon commision the Yet Kieu, a submarine rescue ship of the MSSARS 9316 design from Damen Shipyards, but built in Vietnam by Z189 shipyard.


And it seems that soon the ordered deep diving submarine rescue vehicle will be delivered, to be used by the Yet Kieu 927.


If Vietnam can have such a ship, then why not Indonesia?
Someone on Defencetalk told that the POLRI budget is 70% of TNI, which is ridiculous high. Some 5% less shouldn't be a problem, instead of ordering new expensive helicopters (several different types from a brand never used before by POLRI or TNI) for the police, its better to order one submarine rescue ship. Unless the government gives a sh1t about the submarine crews.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

At least what the plan for more procurement seems indeed getting traction. With that kind of amount seems the 'finance' guys really put the limit of USD 20+ bio for this term up to 2024. I suspects they will divide more or less on same credit line disbursement each year to 2024.

I put it here, since the rumours big part of credit line related to Fincantieri deal. However this is what I ask related to my previous post. Whether they are still take priority for support vessels, or they are more concern on flashy new combatan assets.

TNI-AL need new combatan, that's definetely relevant considering their run down combatant fleet. I just hope they are doing more balance approach for support infrastructure. Hope they are still doing it, and not being hijacked by 'shown off' mentality that still inflict many of senior brass and Political circles.

It's alright I guess they are increasing the missile inventories. However they need to decide what going to do with Flankers fleet (if they decide to go with more French or US fighters). Adding more missile imventories for the Flankers even tough is right move to keep Flankerd operational, however in the end it's taking some portion of budget.(eventough small).
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member

At least what the plan for more procurement seems indeed getting traction. With that kind of amount seems the 'finance' guys really put the limit of USD 20+ bio for this term up to 2024. I suspects they will divide more or less on same credit line disbursement each year to 2024.

I put it here, since the rumours big part of credit line related to Fincantieri deal. However this is what I ask related to my previous post. Whether they are still take priority for support vessels, or they are more concern on flashy new combatan assets.

TNI-AL need new combatan, that's definetely relevant considering their run down combatant fleet. I just hope they are doing more balance approach for support infrastructure. Hope they are still doing it, and not being hijacked by 'shown off' mentality that still inflict many of senior brass and Political circles.

It's alright I guess they are increasing the missile inventories. However they need to decide what going to do with Flankers fleet (if they decide to go with more French or US fighters). Adding more missile imventories for the Flankers even tough is right move to keep Flankerd operational, however in the end it's taking some portion of budget.(eventough small).
|" Among programmes that can now funded with proceeds from foreign loans include the R-73 (AA-11 ‘Archer') infrared homing dogfight missile, for which a total of USD15.7 million has been approved, and the Vympel R-27 (AA-10 ‘Alamo') air-to-air missile, which can be funded for up to USD36 million in foreign defence credits.

In addition, the MoD has also obtained approval to source up to USD750 million in loans for ground-controlled interception radar systems and up to USD540 million for medium-range missiles, launchers, and its associated systems. " |

Well it is a good development that they spend some money on missiles, after all you can not defend a country's airpace with just the onboard gun and free fall bombs.

And ive the feeling that the "USD540 million for medium-range missiles, launchers, and its associated systems" is for the AIM-120C-7 and more NASAMS launchers, which we also urgently need .

It is actually remarkable that TNI-AU ordered the R-27 instead of more RVV-AE. It also seems that this order doesnt give CAATSA-problems.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

This guy just couple tweet before talking on Foreign Made OPV. Now he's talking on Indigenous OPV program. Something that already talked by locals media and forums, especially after the model being tested by BPPT Hydrodynamic Center. So he's flipped flops in my opinion based on two things:
1. The brokerage circles still try to get foreign made OPV contract (due to better margin for middle guys like them),
2. When the Indigenous OPV program get more momentum, his changing the tweets to make it relevant.

Anyway my point on putting his tweet not only just to shown his flip flops (well he's known on that for some time), however talking on FFBNW. As he's talking the 'finance' people only agree on platform packages, and MinDef has to ask separate budget for Armament and sensors.

I'm bit sick for those 'defense' Analyst/Insider that put or inclined the blame on 'finance' people budget. I've put many times before, that 'finance' people only doing assessment on the budget submitted to them from every ministries. They only asses whether the budget cost make sense, whether the assets provide effective packages to be work operational, and whether the suppliers contract can be hold accountable if something happens.

So if MinDef still separating platform and armament packages, then the procurement budget (PSP) will still come out separately. Thus FFBNW is not related to how 'finance' people approving, however how the operational ministries (in this case MinDef) prepared the budget.

The package (PSP) actually can be put on several payment terms (thus put as related PSP batch). That happens on other ministries. Thus if they make it totally separate PSP, the blame is in MinDef.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
We dont know yet the details of the OPV-contract. The amount of vessels seems to be two, but we know nothing about the SEWACO-equipment. Although the contracts for equipment/armament and platform are separated, i expect the OPVs will be directly armed with machine guns, because unlike the larger naval guns, machine guns can be locally made.

I understand that PSP means sone kind of procurement budget, but what does "PSP" standing for?



Such exercises with neighbours have to be done more often.
 
Top