Indonesia Defence Forum

[Nike]

The best of SAAB

 

[HellFireIndo]

The best of SAAB

View attachment 556298 View attachment 556299 View attachment 556300 View attachment 556301

Only SAAB ever show this level of dedication in promoting their stuffs to us, while most of their products are quite good and affordable (also marketed as low maintenance and operating cost), sadly, TNI rarely interested in them to supply strategic hardware such as military aircrafts and it's electronics, they only got the leftover bread crumbs, supplying non-essetial ground based radars and some small arms like the RBS 70 and some Carl Gustaf for the special forces.

Their premier product, the Gripen E/F NG, while a very good plane for it's class and also have interesting cost figure and good operability even in minimum infrastructure, is simply can't compete with the F-16V block 70/72 for the anticipated Air Force's next medium fighter acquisition, as the Air Force already have F-16 block 52 fleets and already investing quite an effort in mastering the MRO tech for the airframe, so obviously if there are plan for more fighter of the same class, naturally they would pick the latest variant of F-16, as the Air Force would have little problem in getting used to the new fighters, compared to the logistical problems they would certainly get if they did pick Gripen for the same slot as the F-16s.

There are possibility of Gripen getting into the TNI AU's inventory, that is if they fill in the slot for other class of fighters/being a replacement for soon-to-be retired fighters like the F-5s and Hawks, IF the Air Force is THAT ambitious though. The problem is that, the upcoming Su-35 acquisition takes the slot for F-5 Tiger's replacement, not in a standalone Flanker fighter line ( as i thought at first that Su-35 simply meant to complement the existing Flanker fleet, but apparently it is a replacement for F-5s), so it trims out the possibility of Gripen joining the fleet by half. While there's still a chance for Gripen to replace the Hawk fighters, there is still some speculation (or even official plan) that IFX is the main candidate to replace the Hawks, so there's even less chance for the Gripen to be with the TNI AU.

Gripen can only hope that it will be chosen as a replacement for retired fighters, if IFX is to be standalone line of fighter and not to replace the light fighters. I thought so because the Gripen is not really something that so stands out that worth the problem to acquire, especially if there are Fighters of the same class already exist in the inventory (F-16 block 52) and have a more advanced variant of the same model readily available and marketed specifically for TNI-AU. Heavy Fighters slot are filled with Flankers, Medium-Heavy Fighter with IFX (the weight, payload and the two engines configuration resembles more to the Super Hornets and F-15s than F-16), Medium Fighters with F-16s, and Light Fighter with T-50. I consider the Gripen pretty much the same as F-16, single engine 4th gen fighter, 4.5th gen for Gripen E/F and F-16V respectively, so buying them both doesn't make much sense and very unlikely for the case of Gripen, unless SAAB gone THAT FAR of getting inside lobby in the Defense Ministry (as i assume TNI-AU is very pro F-16) so that they will have greater chance to win the Fighter tender as it have been shown that the most unlikely scenario do happen, like the recent A-400 acquisition through Pertamina scheme. So, there's still a chance for Gripen to join TNI_AU.

 

[Chestnut]

Pengadaan itu nggak bisa dari 1 sumber aja, bisa bahaya kalo ada apa-apa sama 1 sumber itu. Kalo hanya dari 1 sumber itu namanya monopoli.

No, that's called being smart with cost effectiveness. This is military procurement and defense, you have to be smart with your purchases.

I don't think you have any idea how bad the logistical situation is right now. Alot of officers I work with are trying to stop the insane amount of diversification that exists in the TNI. We are literally wasting billions of dollars because of this situation. Having a hodgepodge of different weapons from different countries and slapping them together is not a credible deterrent. If you don't understand how important logistics, standardization, and commonality is in regards to defense, then I suggest you study the finer arts of defense instead of looking at a brochure and going "wow, that's cool".

From my calculation :

All B's and H's will be replaced gradually with Super J or the next series until 40-42 unit Herkies. First are B's until 2029 and H's from 2030 to 2044.

Also from my calculation :
A400m's will form a new heavy lift aircraft squadron from 2024 to 2044 with quantity of 12 to 24 units. Procurement will be gradually (pengadaan dicicil) and starting from this year (via Pertamina only 2 units) until 2044.

Thus in 2044 we will have 54 to 64 unit of heavy lift utility fixed wing aircrafts. Lumayan untuk negeri kita yang seluas Eropa.

You do realize by the time it's in the 2040's there likely already better cargo planes that would replace/replaced the A400M's and J's right?

This is why this whole idea of buying different airframes is stupid. By the time the program finishes your arsenal is already outdated. And what then? Start another program? Waste more billions?

The Air Force did the calculations and found out that replacing the older hercs with the J's would fulfill the transport requirements in half that time. But of course like a lot of things in this country, personal greed stepped in and screwed that up.

Again, I suggest you study defense more in depth.

@HellFireIndo

Saab makes good stuff and we should be looking to them for their ELINT/SIGINT, radar, Anti-Armor, and Anti-Ship missiles (I'm in the "Exocet is very shit" camp).

However, we should not be buying the Gripen. All of our fighter infrastructure is based around the Viper and the Flanker, so we should not be looking to add more airframes into our inventory lest they be force multipliers (EW aircraft, ELINT/SIGINT aircraft, AWACS, etc.).

Also, to add to that point, it is in my opinion that we should not have picked the Su-35 for the F-5 replacement. The Su-35 uses a different engine, radar, and avionics than its predecessors, thus increasing maintenance time and cost. We should have went with the F-16V's not only because it actually does share components with its predecessors but also because of LM's offering of potentially upgrading the A/B/C/D's to the V's if we ordered them.

 

[HellFireIndo]

Saab makes good stuff and we should be looking to them for their ELINT/SIGINT, radar, Anti-Armor, and Anti-Ship missiles (I'm in the "Exocet is very shit" camp).

Yes, while i'm not really knowledgeable in military radars and electronics (only basic PESA-AESA, datalinking, avionics kind of stuffs) my short look on their websites and product profile videos impressed me a little bit, i feel that they take their work more seriously that the like of Thales and they really wanted to sell their best latest stuffs to us, also, i'm interested if we can use their service to help with our plan for network-centric warfare. I'm still unsure about the RBS-15s or the Kongsberg NSM tho, but looking at their specs made me kinda interested, especially NSM with it's trajectory configuration, and also it's test firing video, seems to pack quite a punch for it's size.

Exocet is a go-to AShM, it is not particularly special in any way, but it works, it's reputation is well established and already have the bragging right of being "battle-proven", it also could be ordered in one package with the VL MICA (i prefer Aster tbh, it have more room for growth and more variant), so the Navy bought Exocets for the familiarity and convenience, perhaps also because they are still hesitant to try out new things.

I assume that SAAB are the best in support equipments like radars, software and electronics, something like that, and their small arms products also revolve around the support role, most famously the Anti-Tank role, where NLAW and Carl Gustaf could be a great addition to TNI-AD's stockpile, as we currently short on effective one-shot AT missiles , and versatile recoilless guns like the Carl Gustaf will be a nice (basically necessary) thing to equip every infantry battalions, while for reusable launcher ATGMs, i prefer Javelin more (we need all these in thousands, much cheaper than tanks, could one-kill it, only with these infantry strong army could make sense), but for MANPADS, i liked the South Korean Chiron more than RBS-70s and Mistrals.

However, we should not be buying the Gripen. All of our fighter infrastructure is based around the Viper and the Flanker, so we should not be looking to add more airframes into our inventory lest they be force multipliers (EW aircraft, ELINT/SIGINT aircraft, AWACS, etc.).

Standardization of airframes is logical thing to do in logistical point of view, as marketed performance is not the only attribute of an aircraft and not the only thing considered in their purchase, even the Americans realized this and went on with the single airframe F-35 concept (far from perfect! but at least they threw enough cash into the project so it could work eventually) even though they are more than capable to maintain their massive and diverse selection of aircrafts.

I don't really want the Gripen tbh, and i prefer F-16Vs more (if it's can really be proven that their electronics is THAT good, and still can be relevant in 20-30 years, as i worry about their old airframe design), but Gripen's hard marketing (and they really took it to a great length specifically for their potential customer) and video demonstrations pressured me to reconsider it over the F-16s, i can't help it lol. They marketed themselves as low cost in the long run model that able to operate efficiently even in improvised airstrip, ideal for operation from inner Kalimantan dan Papua.

I think we should really optimize out F-16s airframes' number and integration of latest techs, preferably at least 64 F-16Vs (new and upgraded airframes). TNI AU seems to like US' stuffs (or western stuff in general), so there's nothing to worry about their "tendency". But of course, we have to wait until the government finally come to their senses regarding the defense budget, when it will be around 1.5% of GDP. Flankers are here simply because the Air Force wanted to have a second option if the US embargoed us again, there are no guarantee they will not dictate how we use their weapons, like in Pakistan's case where they are not allowed to use their F-16s against India.

Indonesia is somewhat leaning towards the west in military hardware, even South Korean stuffs we bought is largely based on western models, the only part of TNI not leaning towards the west is the Marines, who are diehard fans of Russian amphibious vehicles and AK series/derivatives. Furthermore, upcoming acquisitions are dominated by western hardwares (of course duh), like the acquisition for 4 tankers already goes to KC-46 Pegasus, and the AEW&C is still undecided but already narrow down to 3 candidates, Wedgetail, SAAB Globaleye, and C295 AEW&C. I prefer the Wedgetail, but many pointed out that C295 is the most likely to be chosen, as PT DI is very familiar with the model and getting ToT could be much easier. With this path of development, i hoped Indonesia could catch the US' eyes and be considered a strategic partner in Asia-Pacific for them, so that there will more option to their weapons and less worry for embargoes. Being a simply "casual customer" or straight up US puppet are both dangerous

Wait, am i straying too far from the topic? ah, sorry, it's night and i'm sleepy while i write this reply, anyway i'm simply sharing my view and opinion.

 

[Indos]

Kopassus

 

[Jatosint]

LOL the sub-title "Artileri Buatan Perancis ini punya kemampuan Gerak Sendiri"

OF COURSE IT CAN MOVE BY ITSELF, IT HAS WHEELS AND ENGINE, IT'S a F***KING SPG

What next? "This hospital can move by itself" for Navy's Hospital Ships?

 

[deadlast]

Answering my own inquiries several pages back, it seems like they did installed the Scorpion 2 ECM at the same time (note the small radome on the rear mast).

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[HellFireIndo]

LOL the sub-title "Artileri Buatan Perancis ini punya kemampuan Gerak Sendiri"

OF COURSE IT CAN MOVE BY ITSELF, IT HAS WHEELS AND ENGINE, IT'S a F***KING SPG

What next? "This hospital can move by itself" for Navy's Hospital Ships?

Mainstream medias are normies (awam) media, they and their audiences are both awam, do not expect them to always get it right about the military topics. At least in this while o b v i o u s, they are technically right in their description of SPH, there's some worse example tho, like how they call A6M Zero as "Pesawat Jet".

They only got it right only if they meticulously prepared the reference material for the topic or got their material from the one they interviewed themself, for examples is their coverage of Alugoro's launching ceremony and the latest coverage of Pindad Harimau MT, i must say that at least they got everything's right as there's no shit like A6M jet fighters, both are more high profile than that old AMX SPHs, and i assume that they can't wrap their head around the topic of military, so they just stated what obvious to them (Artillery/cannon + can move on it's own).

 

[Chestnut]

Yes, while i'm not really knowledgeable in military radars and electronics (only basic PESA-AESA, datalinking, avionics kind of stuffs) my short look on their websites and product profile videos impressed me a little bit, i feel that they take their work more seriously that the like of Thales and they really wanted to sell their best latest stuffs to us, also, i'm interested if we can use their service to help with our plan for network-centric warfare. I'm still unsure about the RBS-15s or the Kongsberg NSM tho, but looking at their specs made me kinda interested, especially NSM with it's trajectory configuration, and also it's test firing video, seems to pack quite a punch for it's size.

Exocet is a go-to AShM, it is not particularly special in any way, but it works, it's reputation is well established and already have the bragging right of being "battle-proven", it also could be ordered in one package with the VL MICA (i prefer Aster tbh, it have more room for growth and more variant), so the Navy bought Exocets for the familiarity and convenience, perhaps also because they are still hesitant to try out new things.

In my professional opinion we're better off standardizing the NLAW/AT4, Carl Gustav, and Javelin at the Platoon, Company, Battalion level respectively. We also should be looking towards Kongsberg's NSM/JSM solution to replace the Exocet. The Exocet was a good missile when it came out but now its pretty much outdated. They're slow, non stealthy, and are the primary weapon system that EVERY SINGLE shipboard missile defense system considers a baseline threat.

Also, not saying the flanker is bad, but if we were deadset on getting the flankers, it would make more sense to either trade off the Su-30 AND purchase the Su-35, or just getting more Su-30MK2's. The hodge podge fleet of Flankers we have is actually costing us a lot of money, money that would be better spent on ordnance that our planes should carry.

 

[HellFireIndo]

In my professional opinion we're better off standardizing the NLAW/AT4, Carl Gustav, and Javelin at the Platoon, Company, Battalion level respectively. We also should be looking towards Kongsberg's NSM/JSM solution to replace the Exocet. The Exocet was a good missile when it came out but now its pretty much outdated. They're slow, non stealthy, and are the primary weapon system that EVERY SINGLE shipboard missile defense system considers a baseline threat.

Also, not saying the flanker is bad, but if we were deadset on getting the flankers, it would make more sense to either trade off the Su-30 AND purchase the Su-35, or just getting more Su-30MK2's. The hodge podge fleet of Flankers we have is actually costing us a lot of money, money that would be better spent on ordnance that our planes should carry.

It is said that in MEF 3 2020-2024 we're going to see modernization of infantry isn't it? So, it's same to assume that within this time period there will be more serious deal regarding these anti-tank assets and i especially anticipating more Javelin deals, we need at least 200 more Javelin launcher units, and for disposable AT Missiles, it could anything tbh, no problem with any models as long it's effective and we have enough stockpile of it. I'm not really sure of how the composition of AT-4 and NLAW will be, both are different class of caliber and size, 84mm and 150mm respectively, but the advantage is, both are produced by SAAB, so the only problem to acquire itis the will and the allocated budget.

I proposed that maybe AT-4 will to be equip all the regular infantry units (as they are only effective in destroying light armors and small fortification), and NLAW to the more dedicated AT infantry units, maybe for the Mechanized infantry battalions? as NLAW could be more useful in vs armor situation (due to it's large caliber) meant for Cavalry and Mechanized Infantry units.

For other AShM models, we have to be patient and wait if it's either the Norwegians/Swedish themselves that will offers their products to us (well, even Indians are more bold in this regard with their Brahmos) or will TNI/Kemenhan themselves will make the first move and be interested (somehow i feel that it's still quite a long time until they are interested). Let's hope that through NASAMS acquisition deal, they will somehow stumble upon the NSM and be interested. Other than that, should we also procure air launched and ship launched supersonic missiles? like the Brahmos for example? they could be a great addition for the inventory and offers more options, other than the current Yakhont stockpiles (which can only be fired from 1 soon-to-be-retired ship).

Flankers are great even though their maintenance is cumbersome (their foremost problem), actually my turn-down for Flankers are not because of the Flankers itself, but because of unsatisfactory service from Russia and all the political things surrounding it, to the point of maintenance be done in Belarus instead (indicating the lacking in any ToT to us whatsoever and the difficulty in maintaining Russian equipments in general), also the damned complicated Su 35 deal and Russia's percieved apathy towards Indonesia, they doesn't seems to see us as a priority, that's irritated me. Flanker is a good second plan option, multirole heavy fighter capable to fill the role for air superiority, ground support and bombing mission, and have quite large payload, it also generally immune to any sort of embargo by having no western components (or very little of it) in it.

I never knew that Su-27s, Su-30s and Su-35s are THAT different, i thought Su 35s are merely Su-27s with more advanced components? Ideally there should be an option to seek commonality of spare parts for all the Flankers, as outright replacing them with Su-35s are highly unlikely, costly and complicated (our 11 airframes deal says it all, even China only ordered 24 of them). Is it possible that there are upgrade options for the Su-27s and Su-30s so that they will have comparable spec to the Su-35s and will also shares the same components?

In short, we need to cut down the number of airframe models we have, more aircrafts of the same models, more parts availability and commonality, and less logistical problems. Well, at least we don't operate Hornets, custom Flankers and some Chinese modified jets all in the same air force, no one would do such thing (or even India's notorious gado-gado Air Force), while admittedly we also notorious for gado-gado Air Force, but we are heading away from it and gone on the right way by acquiring new stuffs with the requirement that it will have commonality of parts with already existing hardwares (such as BMP-3F and BT-3F, Viper with the Falcons, various support aircrafts that could be maintained by Garuda and PT DI, etc). 20% share for Eastern jets like the Flankers and 80% share for various "western" jets, that at least have some commonality of electronics, datalink, IFF, and having engines made by General Electrics.

 

[The Ronin]

Russia has exported $2.5 billion of military equipment ton Indonesia since 1992

Russian defense exports to the Republic of Indonesia has amounted to more than USD2.5 billion since late 1992, Russia`s arms exporter Rosoboronexport (a subsidiary of the state corporation Rostec) said in a statement. "Moscow has been cooperating with Jakarta in the military-technical realm since 1958, and the intensification of these connections dates back to the late 1990s - early 2000s. Since November 1992, the arms deliveries to Indonesia have exceeded USD2.5 billion," said a spokesperson for Rosoboronexport.

In recent years, Jakarta has received BTR-80A armored personnel carriers (APCs), BMP-3F marinized infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), Kalashnikov AK-100-family assault rifles, Sukhoi combat aircraft, Mil rotorcraft, and other items of military hardware.

According to the Military Balance 2018 analytical report released by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the Indonesian military operates 15 PT-76 light amphibious tanks, 34 BTR-50PK and 100 BTR-50P tracked amphibious APCs, three BREM-2 armored engineering vehicles, six Mil Mi-35P (NATO reporting name: Hind-D) gunships, 17 Mil Mi-17V-5 (Hip-H) utility rotorcraft, 22 BMP-2 and 54 BMP-3F IFVs, 12 BTR-80A APCs, and two Sukhoi Su-27SK (Flanker), three Su-27MKM (Flanker), two Su-30MK (Flanker), and nine Su-30MK2 (Flanker) multirole combat aircraft.

In April 2019, JSC Rosoboronexport (part of the Rostec State Corporation) and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Indonesia have signed a contract for the supply of a new batch of BMP-3F infantry fighting vehicles and amphibious armored personnel carriers (APCs) BT-3F developed and produced by JSC Kurganmashzavod in the interests of the country’s Marine Corps.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/apr...DTmFuKZYkGekaU1oJHnn83JinotOX03tMA_nCZE0Ijblc

 

[Chestnut]

It is said that in MEF 3 2020-2024 we're going to see modernization of infantry isn't it? So, it's same to assume that within this time period there will be more serious deal regarding these anti-tank assets and i especially anticipating more Javelin deals, we need at least 200 more Javelin launcher units, and for disposable AT Missiles, it could anything tbh, no problem with any models as long it's effective and we have enough stockpile of it. I'm not really sure of how the composition of AT-4 and NLAW will be, both are different class of caliber and size, 84mm and 150mm respectively, but the advantage is, both are produced by SAAB, so the only problem to acquire itis the will and the allocated budget.

I proposed that maybe AT-4 will to be equip all the regular infantry units (as they are only effective in destroying light armors and small fortification), and NLAW to the more dedicated AT infantry units, maybe for the Mechanized infantry battalions? as NLAW could be more useful in vs armor situation (due to it's large caliber) meant for Cavalry and Mechanized Infantry units.

For other AShM models, we have to be patient and wait if it's either the Norwegians/Swedish themselves that will offers their products to us (well, even Indians are more bold in this regard with their Brahmos) or will TNI/Kemenhan themselves will make the first move and be interested (somehow i feel that it's still quite a long time until they are interested). Let's hope that through NASAMS acquisition deal, they will somehow stumble upon the NSM and be interested. Other than that, should we also procure air launched and ship launched supersonic missiles? like the Brahmos for example? they could be a great addition for the inventory and offers more options, other than the current Yakhont stockpiles (which can only be fired from 1 soon-to-be-retired ship).

Flankers are great even though their maintenance is cumbersome (their foremost problem), actually my turn-down for Flankers are not because of the Flankers itself, but because of unsatisfactory service from Russia and all the political things surrounding it, to the point of maintenance be done in Belarus instead (indicating the lacking in any ToT to us whatsoever and the difficulty in maintaining Russian equipments in general), also the damned complicated Su 35 deal and Russia's percieved apathy towards Indonesia, they doesn't seems to see us as a priority, that's irritated me. Flanker is a good second plan option, multirole heavy fighter capable to fill the role for air superiority, ground support and bombing mission, and have quite large payload, it also generally immune to any sort of embargo by having no western components (or very little of it) in it.

I never knew that Su-27s, Su-30s and Su-35s are THAT different, i thought Su 35s are merely Su-27s with more advanced components? Ideally there should be an option to seek commonality of spare parts for all the Flankers, as outright replacing them with Su-35s are highly unlikely, costly and complicated (our 11 airframes deal says it all, even China only ordered 24 of them). Is it possible that there are upgrade options for the Su-27s and Su-30s so that they will have comparable spec to the Su-35s and will also shares the same components?

In short, we need to cut down the number of airframe models we have, more aircrafts of the same models, more parts availability and commonality, and less logistical problems. Well, at least we don't operate Hornets, custom Flankers and some Chinese modified jets all in the same air force, no one would do such thing (or even India's notorious gado-gado Air Force), while admittedly we also notorious for gado-gado Air Force, but we are heading away from it and gone on the right way by acquiring new stuffs with the requirement that it will have commonality of parts with already existing hardwares (such as BMP-3F and BT-3F, Viper with the Falcons, various support aircrafts that could be maintained by Garuda and PT DI, etc). 20% share for Eastern jets like the Flankers and 80% share for various "western" jets, that at least have some commonality of electronics, datalink, IFF, and having engines made by General Electrics.

The AT-4 is more than adequate in defeating armor, not just light armor. I'd rather we just stuck with either one imho.

And say we do go with the NSM/JSM, I'd rather we procure both ship launch and air launch variants. There's no reason why we have to operate 4 different types of AShM's. Logistics is what wins wars. There's a reason why Arabs never win wars.

The Flankers are fine for operating in our environment IF we have the necessary infrastructure to support them. The problem is that we really don't and the fact we're operating 3 different Flanker variants is only adding more problems to an already problematic system.

Honestly to tell you guys the truth, the whole "safeguard against embargoes" plan is heavily abused. Instead of having the Army standardize on western equipment and the Marines standardize on Eastern equipment what you actually see is a bunch of officers, businessmen, politicians, and bureaucrats taking advantage of the diversification to score contracts and win commissions from prime suppliers.

The reality is that there's no actual need to have 4 different tracked APC's/IFV's (*cough* M113 *cough*), several different AT options, a plethora of tactical trucks (like seriously you'd scream if you know how many different trucks we have in service), or even different ship Combat Management Systems. If you standardize on 1 western equipment and 1 eastern equipment you're pretty much relatively safe from embargoes.

 

[striver44]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1122465403454644225

This viets really need some beatings lol

 

[Jatosint]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1122465403454644225

This viets really need some beatings lol

Still waiting for the official statement from both countries. But those political buzzers on social media are already bragging about this incident as some kind of proof that our armed forces are 'weak' while the fact is that in the past few years our Navy's managed to catch a lot of illegal foreign vessels.

For now, I'm more curious about the SoP that TNI AL has when conducting this kind of pursuit/ramming. IMHO, In that video, our soldiers act unprofessionally:

1. Screaming bad words instead of giving the Vietnamese ship warning in English by using KRI's speakers
2. Looks like the soldiers at the deck didn't know what to do. Two soldiers are busy taking videos, some soldiers just stand there without taking any cover/firing positions, other soldiers tried to do some damage to the Vietnamese ship, and there is this dude in blue t-shirt casually walking and give the soldiers something (magz or radio perhaps???)

 

[striver44]

Still waiting for the official statement from both countries. But those political buzzers on social media are already bragging about this incident as some kind of proof that our armed forces are 'weak' while the fact is that in the past few years our Navy's managed to catch a lot of illegal foreign vessels.

For now, I'm more curious about the SoP that TNI AL has when conducting this kind of pursuit/ramming. IMHO, In that video, our soldiers act unprofessionally:

1. Screaming bad words instead of giving the Vietnamese ship warning in English by using KRI's speakers
2. Looks like the soldiers at the deck didn't know what to do. Two soldiers are busy taking videos, some soldiers just stand there without taking any cover/firing positions, other soldiers tried to do some damage to the Vietnamese ship, and there is this dude in blue t-shirt casually walking and give the soldiers something (magz or radio perhaps???)

Well its clear that the crew abide not to shot first. Anyway a visual proof would be usefull, it shows to the people and government on the reality our men are facing in the frontline.

Anyway where are our 80m opv's???