Indonesia Defence Forum

[umigami]

Closer lookView attachment 616942

Any reason or theory why the "body" need to be darker than "head" and Vertical fin?

 

[Fl0gger]

hmmm are you metioning the flight instructor from TFASA ? i think the 11th Squadron just asking some advice and consultancy for a decent BVR and dogfight scenario training to them .

yes i am ...ok then tq

 

[trishna_amṛta]

Any reason or theory why the "body" need to be darker than "head" and Vertical fin?

"Dazzling" effect

 

[umigami]

Alman talking about Radar option for our future frigate. But which one he was talking about? Iver?
A ship with such potential only use something like Smart-S ??!

 

[Raduga]

Alman talking about Radar option for our future frigate. But which one he was talking about? Iver?
A ship with such potential only use something like Smart-S ??!

hmmm.... if something that you said is true , than we're not hoping much from this future heavy frigate , most likely they will be the same like the babcock type 31 , which is an oversized heavy enforcer OPV , if our govt stay with the original iver specification , that ship would be the one who had the first Anti Ballistic Missile capability in our arsenal , especially with the SMART-L radar .

 

[radialv]

More photos
View attachment 616967 View attachment 616942

finnally,our falcon use common viper cammo....nice ...

 

[Kansel]

hmmm.... if something that you said is true , than we're not hoping much from this future heavy frigate , most likely they will be the same like the babcock type 31 , which is an oversized heavy enforcer OPV , if our govt stay with the original iver specification , that ship would be the one who had the first Anti Ballistic Missile capability in our arsenal , especially with the SMART-L radar .

Just wait for the official news mate, it's not 100% confirmed yet that we'll use smart s or radar with same classes.

What’s in the New Indonesia F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Chatter?


Speculation continues regarding how Jakarta will move forward on a longstanding requirement in its defense plans.

By Prashanth Parameswaran
March 24, 2020

A previous meeting between Presidents Trump and Jokowi.

Credit: Flickr/White House
among the key line items in Indonesia’s ongoing defense modernization is its purchase of fighter jets. Of particular note has been whether or not Jakarta will proceed with the longstanding intent to purchase Sukhoi Su-35s from Russia following an agreement reached back in 2018 for up to 11 aircraft. Since then, the agreement has been complicated by various concerns, including funding issues as well as recent geopolitical developments (like the imposition of sanctions by the United States) that have affected how other countries engage with Moscow on the defense front.

This has continued on over the past few months. Indeed, earlier this month, we saw conflicting reports of the status of Indonesia’s interest in the Su-35s. There were suggestions that the deal is all but dead in a report by Bloomberg on March 12 quoting an anonymous official, sparking speculation on what alternatives Indonesia could consider – but that was followed by denials on the Russian side.

Last week, we saw suggestions that Indonesia could look to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter instead to meet its requirements. A top Indonesian defense official suggested that Jakarta was considering looking at the F-35 as an option to meet its needs amid lingering doubts about the Su-35.

Indonesian Defense Minister Sakti Wahyu Trenggono told CNN Indonesia by text message on March 18 that while the Su-35 deal could not go ahead yet “because there are some obstacles,” Indonesia was “exploring to change procurement to F-35 from the US.”

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

The fact that Indonesia is exploring other options come as no surprise – there have been indications of this previously as well, and it would make sense for Jakarta to do so if there are hiccups in its earlier purchase plans. Trenggono also clarified that the Su-35 deal was technically never canceled, thereby avoiding the optics of Indonesia being seen as abandoning Russia and embracing the United States, which would in all likelihood be seen as a wider geopolitical shift rather than the product of specific developments on a particular acquisition tied to longstanding needs.

Whether or not Indonesia’s consideration of F-35s translates into an actual purchase remains to be seen. Indonesia’s fighter jet requirement is embedded in wider plans, including priorities of the defense ministry out to 2024. But given the financing that would be involved, we would need to see a lot more in the way of specifics that have thus far been lacking, including the nature of the purchase agreement and the specific contract terms that are worked out. Nonetheless, given Indonesia’s own heft as well as the wider geopolitical developments at play, we can expect speculation on this front to continue until more definitive details surface.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/whats-in-the-new-indonesia-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-chatter/

 

[Raduga]

Just wait for the official news mate, it's not 100% confirmed yet that we'll use smart s or radar with same classes.

What’s in the New Indonesia F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Chatter?


Speculation continues regarding how Jakarta will move forward on a longstanding requirement in its defense plans.

By Prashanth Parameswaran
March 24, 2020

A previous meeting between Presidents Trump and Jokowi.

Credit: Flickr/White House
among the key line items in Indonesia’s ongoing defense modernization is its purchase of fighter jets. Of particular note has been whether or not Jakarta will proceed with the longstanding intent to purchase Sukhoi Su-35s from Russia following an agreement reached back in 2018 for up to 11 aircraft. Since then, the agreement has been complicated by various concerns, including funding issues as well as recent geopolitical developments (like the imposition of sanctions by the United States) that have affected how other countries engage with Moscow on the defense front.

This has continued on over the past few months. Indeed, earlier this month, we saw conflicting reports of the status of Indonesia’s interest in the Su-35s. There were suggestions that the deal is all but dead in a report by Bloomberg on March 12 quoting an anonymous official, sparking speculation on what alternatives Indonesia could consider – but that was followed by denials on the Russian side.

Last week, we saw suggestions that Indonesia could look to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter instead to meet its requirements. A top Indonesian defense official suggested that Jakarta was considering looking at the F-35 as an option to meet its needs amid lingering doubts about the Su-35.

Indonesian Defense Minister Sakti Wahyu Trenggono told CNN Indonesia by text message on March 18 that while the Su-35 deal could not go ahead yet “because there are some obstacles,” Indonesia was “exploring to change procurement to F-35 from the US.”

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

The fact that Indonesia is exploring other options come as no surprise – there have been indications of this previously as well, and it would make sense for Jakarta to do so if there are hiccups in its earlier purchase plans. Trenggono also clarified that the Su-35 deal was technically never canceled, thereby avoiding the optics of Indonesia being seen as abandoning Russia and embracing the United States, which would in all likelihood be seen as a wider geopolitical shift rather than the product of specific developments on a particular acquisition tied to longstanding needs.

Whether or not Indonesia’s consideration of F-35s translates into an actual purchase remains to be seen. Indonesia’s fighter jet requirement is embedded in wider plans, including priorities of the defense ministry out to 2024. But given the financing that would be involved, we would need to see a lot more in the way of specifics that have thus far been lacking, including the nature of the purchase agreement and the specific contract terms that are worked out. Nonetheless, given Indonesia’s own heft as well as the wider geopolitical developments at play, we can expect speculation on this front to continue until more definitive details surface.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/whats-in-the-new-indonesia-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-chatter/

some of that information regarding the radar also have passed to my trusted "informant" , yet he said the same thing such as you , to wait for the official statement instead , well seek other option with same capability though , if the SMART-L deemed to be too pricy , there's other alternative such as SELEX RAN-40L or if our govt set aside to save face , the israeli IAI Elta Radar such as EL/M-2248 MF-STAR also deemed worthy with a hefty price .

 

[GraveDigger388]

Okay, so, I read this in one of the comments under one of Matsimus' Youtube videos:

"To fully understand the Puma (and the Marder), you need to know that the German army has a different doctrine/philosophy for the use of mechanized infantry and their IFV/APCs than other NATO forces. Most NATO armies follow the American "Battlefield Taxi" model, where the IFV/APC will drive infantry close to the front, dismount them and then either retreat to a overwatch position to give standoff fire support from there, or leave the infantry to independently do cavalry work, like scout for the MBTs, or pick off soft targets at the edge of the battle and stuff like that. Based on their WW2 experience, the Germans have a different approach. They really take the "Combined Arms" thing seriously and want their MBTs, mechanized infantry and IFV to work together, simultaneously, shoulder to shoulder, if you will. Most modern armed forces claim to be following a Combined Arms doctrine, but in most cases it is more of a "Alternating Arms" doctrine, where different types of units might operate close to each other, but will usually try to achieve different goals, attack different targets and stay out of each other's way. The MBTs will do their thing over there, while infantry does something else over here and the cavalry lurks around the flanks and so on. The Germans on the other hand try to overwhelm the enemy's ability to deal with any single element by mixing them all together and letting them operate like one unit, basically. Their IFVs stay with the infantry and the MBTs, while getting other support (like artillery) where possible. No single element is ever supposed to operate without the others. That is why for example, even though it was a German guy who invented it, the German army never used explosive reactive armor on their tanks. It would have been too much of a risk for their own infantry which was supposed to operate around the tanks and very close to them. It is also why the Marder and the Puma are not amphibious. They are not supposed to ever go where the Leopard 2 tanks can't go with them, so giving them the ability to swim made no sense. And of course they need heavier armor when operating side by side with the MBTs and facing the same opposition, while at the same time having no use for bigger guns, like some variants of the CV90 for example. Would be pointless to strap a MBT gun to a IFV when that IFV is always accompanied by the real MBTs anyways. The Germans take that Combined Arms doctrine so seriously, that they basically split their army in two. There is the main, heavy force that is all about following that doctrine and their special kind of mechanized infantry, which they call "Panzergrenadiere" is the infantry element of that. The problem is that that heavy element can't go everywhere. For all those places where the main "Spear Point" part of the army can't go, they have the so called "Jaeger" units. Those are all sorts of light infantry (regular Jaegers, mountaineers, which they call "Gebirgsjaeger" and paratroopers, which are called "Fallschirmjaeger") and they are considered a different type of infantry from the Panzergrenadiere and separate from the main part of the army, because they don't follow the Combined Arms doctrine. They are supposed to operate without heavy support, do hit and run attacks, lay ambushes and other semi guerrilla type of warfare and accordingly they get kind of a semi special forces training. This creates this weird situation where the German army kind of doesn't really have any regular, old fashioned infantry. All the infantry is either those Panzergrenadiers, who are specialized for basically doing tank warfare and the rest are the Jaegers, which are this weird half "guerrilla militia in uniform", half "semi special forces" thing. I digress. The point is just that German IFVs are a bit different because their doctrine is different and that is why they never sell on the international market. Even those countries that bought the Leopard MBTs, never bought the Marder or the Puma, which were specifically designed to operate together with the Leopards, because they didn't really fit into anyone else's doctrine. The Marder's 20mm cannon isn't really fit for the American style "Battlefield Taxi" role, or Cavalry work and the Puma is too heavy. That is why Rheinmetall developed the Lynx, basically as a lightweight, more Bradley- or CV90 style export version of the Puma."

Makes me wonder what kind of combined arms doctrine does our Army posses?

 

[Raduga]

Okay, so, I read this in one of the comments under one of Matsimus' Youtube videos:

"To fully understand the Puma (and the Marder), you need to know that the German army has a different doctrine/philosophy for the use of mechanized infantry and their IFV/APCs than other NATO forces. Most NATO armies follow the American "Battlefield Taxi" model, where the IFV/APC will drive infantry close to the front, dismount them and then either retreat to a overwatch position to give standoff fire support from there, or leave the infantry to independently do cavalry work, like scout for the MBTs, or pick off soft targets at the edge of the battle and stuff like that. Based on their WW2 experience, the Germans have a different approach. They really take the "Combined Arms" thing seriously and want their MBTs, mechanized infantry and IFV to work together, simultaneously, shoulder to shoulder, if you will. Most modern armed forces claim to be following a Combined Arms doctrine, but in most cases it is more of a "Alternating Arms" doctrine, where different types of units might operate close to each other, but will usually try to achieve different goals, attack different targets and stay out of each other's way. The MBTs will do their thing over there, while infantry does something else over here and the cavalry lurks around the flanks and so on. The Germans on the other hand try to overwhelm the enemy's ability to deal with any single element by mixing them all together and letting them operate like one unit, basically. Their IFVs stay with the infantry and the MBTs, while getting other support (like artillery) where possible. No single element is ever supposed to operate without the others. That is why for example, even though it was a German guy who invented it, the German army never used explosive reactive armor on their tanks. It would have been too much of a risk for their own infantry which was supposed to operate around the tanks and very close to them. It is also why the Marder and the Puma are not amphibious. They are not supposed to ever go where the Leopard 2 tanks can't go with them, so giving them the ability to swim made no sense. And of course they need heavier armor when operating side by side with the MBTs and facing the same opposition, while at the same time having no use for bigger guns, like some variants of the CV90 for example. Would be pointless to strap a MBT gun to a IFV when that IFV is always accompanied by the real MBTs anyways. The Germans take that Combined Arms doctrine so seriously, that they basically split their army in two. There is the main, heavy force that is all about following that doctrine and their special kind of mechanized infantry, which they call "Panzergrenadiere" is the infantry element of that. The problem is that that heavy element can't go everywhere. For all those places where the main "Spear Point" part of the army can't go, they have the so called "Jaeger" units. Those are all sorts of light infantry (regular Jaegers, mountaineers, which they call "Gebirgsjaeger" and paratroopers, which are called "Fallschirmjaeger") and they are considered a different type of infantry from the Panzergrenadiere and separate from the main part of the army, because they don't follow the Combined Arms doctrine. They are supposed to operate without heavy support, do hit and run attacks, lay ambushes and other semi guerrilla type of warfare and accordingly they get kind of a semi special forces training. This creates this weird situation where the German army kind of doesn't really have any regular, old fashioned infantry. All the infantry is either those Panzergrenadiers, who are specialized for basically doing tank warfare and the rest are the Jaegers, which are this weird half "guerrilla militia in uniform", half "semi special forces" thing. I digress. The point is just that German IFVs are a bit different because their doctrine is different and that is why they never sell on the international market. Even those countries that bought the Leopard MBTs, never bought the Marder or the Puma, which were specifically designed to operate together with the Leopards, because they didn't really fit into anyone else's doctrine. The Marder's 20mm cannon isn't really fit for the American style "Battlefield Taxi" role, or Cavalry work and the Puma is too heavy. That is why Rheinmetall developed the Lynx, basically as a lightweight, more Bradley- or CV90 style export version of the Puma."

Makes me wonder what kind of combined arms doctrine does our Army posses?

well based on my view of latgab , we are going into that way but still not perfected it nontheless , all of thing you mentioned above need a superb "Network and information exchange" capability , which we still lacking and still try to evaluate those problems .

this is from well known military observer Andi Widjajanto (source : kompas) :
"The first evaluative question is related to the formation of the tank war doctrine. At present the TNI AD tends to rely on the doctrine of infantry war to carry out ground and joint operations. The center of gravity of this doctrine is the unity of the TNI with the people who support the universal defense strategy which is supported by a strategy of layered defense and protracted war. The presence of the Leopard tank will require the Army to develop combat methods that make mobility and fire power the center of military power. The army must form a method of fighting that no longer makes tanks as mere support for infantry movements, but instead makes tank units a ground mechanical force that can carry out independent military operations. This process of differentiation that distinguishes infantry and mechanical units is a key condition for the formation of a modern tank war doctrine. This process will not eventually lead to a strict separation between infantry and mechanical cavalry, but will instead lead to integration between land forces. This integration would be achieved if infantry and cavalry forces succeeded in developing their unique combat strategy, then attempted to form the doctrine of a joint ground operation that merged the differentiation of forces into a reliable ground force. The transformation process does not stop at developing the doctrine and strength of tank combat which still relies on the dimension component approach (platform-based approach). At present, the dimension component approach must be upgraded to a network-centric approach. This approach requires the Army to develop an integrated command control system that involves the latest information technology and integrate it with the command control system at the TNI Headquarters level. If this information network structure is formed, the TNI will have an integrated mechanical beating force that integrates the army and artillery units of the Indonesian Army, with warships and Navy submarines, and Indonesian Air Force fighter planes."

 

[HellFireIndo]

Okay, so, I read this in one of the comments under one of Matsimus' Youtube videos:

"To fully understand the Puma (and the Marder), you need to know that the German army has a different doctrine/philosophy for the use of mechanized infantry and their IFV/APCs than other NATO forces. Most NATO armies follow the American "Battlefield Taxi" model, where the IFV/APC will drive infantry close to the front, dismount them and then either retreat to a overwatch position to give standoff fire support from there, or leave the infantry to independently do cavalry work, like scout for the MBTs, or pick off soft targets at the edge of the battle and stuff like that. Based on their WW2 experience, the Germans have a different approach. They really take the "Combined Arms" thing seriously and want their MBTs, mechanized infantry and IFV to work together, simultaneously, shoulder to shoulder, if you will. Most modern armed forces claim to be following a Combined Arms doctrine, but in most cases it is more of a "Alternating Arms" doctrine, where different types of units might operate close to each other, but will usually try to achieve different goals, attack different targets and stay out of each other's way. The MBTs will do their thing over there, while infantry does something else over here and the cavalry lurks around the flanks and so on. The Germans on the other hand try to overwhelm the enemy's ability to deal with any single element by mixing them all together and letting them operate like one unit, basically. Their IFVs stay with the infantry and the MBTs, while getting other support (like artillery) where possible. No single element is ever supposed to operate without the others. That is why for example, even though it was a German guy who invented it, the German army never used explosive reactive armor on their tanks. It would have been too much of a risk for their own infantry which was supposed to operate around the tanks and very close to them. It is also why the Marder and the Puma are not amphibious. They are not supposed to ever go where the Leopard 2 tanks can't go with them, so giving them the ability to swim made no sense. And of course they need heavier armor when operating side by side with the MBTs and facing the same opposition, while at the same time having no use for bigger guns, like some variants of the CV90 for example. Would be pointless to strap a MBT gun to a IFV when that IFV is always accompanied by the real MBTs anyways. The Germans take that Combined Arms doctrine so seriously, that they basically split their army in two. There is the main, heavy force that is all about following that doctrine and their special kind of mechanized infantry, which they call "Panzergrenadiere" is the infantry element of that. The problem is that that heavy element can't go everywhere. For all those places where the main "Spear Point" part of the army can't go, they have the so called "Jaeger" units. Those are all sorts of light infantry (regular Jaegers, mountaineers, which they call "Gebirgsjaeger" and paratroopers, which are called "Fallschirmjaeger") and they are considered a different type of infantry from the Panzergrenadiere and separate from the main part of the army, because they don't follow the Combined Arms doctrine. They are supposed to operate without heavy support, do hit and run attacks, lay ambushes and other semi guerrilla type of warfare and accordingly they get kind of a semi special forces training. This creates this weird situation where the German army kind of doesn't really have any regular, old fashioned infantry. All the infantry is either those Panzergrenadiers, who are specialized for basically doing tank warfare and the rest are the Jaegers, which are this weird half "guerrilla militia in uniform", half "semi special forces" thing. I digress. The point is just that German IFVs are a bit different because their doctrine is different and that is why they never sell on the international market. Even those countries that bought the Leopard MBTs, never bought the Marder or the Puma, which were specifically designed to operate together with the Leopards, because they didn't really fit into anyone else's doctrine. The Marder's 20mm cannon isn't really fit for the American style "Battlefield Taxi" role, or Cavalry work and the Puma is too heavy. That is why Rheinmetall developed the Lynx, basically as a lightweight, more Bradley- or CV90 style export version of the Puma."

Makes me wonder what kind of combined arms doctrine does our Army posses?

We uses WW2 German army doctrine and evolves from there on, you can see the pattern in Kostrad for example.

 

[Chestnut]

Okay, so, I read this in one of the comments under one of Matsimus' Youtube videos:

"To fully understand the Puma (and the Marder), you need to know that the German army has a different doctrine/philosophy for the use of mechanized infantry and their IFV/APCs than other NATO forces. Most NATO armies follow the American "Battlefield Taxi" model, where the IFV/APC will drive infantry close to the front, dismount them and then either retreat to a overwatch position to give standoff fire support from there, or leave the infantry to independently do cavalry work, like scout for the MBTs, or pick off soft targets at the edge of the battle and stuff like that. Based on their WW2 experience, the Germans have a different approach. They really take the "Combined Arms" thing seriously and want their MBTs, mechanized infantry and IFV to work together, simultaneously, shoulder to shoulder, if you will. Most modern armed forces claim to be following a Combined Arms doctrine, but in most cases it is more of a "Alternating Arms" doctrine, where different types of units might operate close to each other, but will usually try to achieve different goals, attack different targets and stay out of each other's way. The MBTs will do their thing over there, while infantry does something else over here and the cavalry lurks around the flanks and so on. The Germans on the other hand try to overwhelm the enemy's ability to deal with any single element by mixing them all together and letting them operate like one unit, basically. Their IFVs stay with the infantry and the MBTs, while getting other support (like artillery) where possible. No single element is ever supposed to operate without the others. That is why for example, even though it was a German guy who invented it, the German army never used explosive reactive armor on their tanks. It would have been too much of a risk for their own infantry which was supposed to operate around the tanks and very close to them. It is also why the Marder and the Puma are not amphibious. They are not supposed to ever go where the Leopard 2 tanks can't go with them, so giving them the ability to swim made no sense. And of course they need heavier armor when operating side by side with the MBTs and facing the same opposition, while at the same time having no use for bigger guns, like some variants of the CV90 for example. Would be pointless to strap a MBT gun to a IFV when that IFV is always accompanied by the real MBTs anyways. The Germans take that Combined Arms doctrine so seriously, that they basically split their army in two. There is the main, heavy force that is all about following that doctrine and their special kind of mechanized infantry, which they call "Panzergrenadiere" is the infantry element of that. The problem is that that heavy element can't go everywhere. For all those places where the main "Spear Point" part of the army can't go, they have the so called "Jaeger" units. Those are all sorts of light infantry (regular Jaegers, mountaineers, which they call "Gebirgsjaeger" and paratroopers, which are called "Fallschirmjaeger") and they are considered a different type of infantry from the Panzergrenadiere and separate from the main part of the army, because they don't follow the Combined Arms doctrine. They are supposed to operate without heavy support, do hit and run attacks, lay ambushes and other semi guerrilla type of warfare and accordingly they get kind of a semi special forces training. This creates this weird situation where the German army kind of doesn't really have any regular, old fashioned infantry. All the infantry is either those Panzergrenadiers, who are specialized for basically doing tank warfare and the rest are the Jaegers, which are this weird half "guerrilla militia in uniform", half "semi special forces" thing. I digress. The point is just that German IFVs are a bit different because their doctrine is different and that is why they never sell on the international market. Even those countries that bought the Leopard MBTs, never bought the Marder or the Puma, which were specifically designed to operate together with the Leopards, because they didn't really fit into anyone else's doctrine. The Marder's 20mm cannon isn't really fit for the American style "Battlefield Taxi" role, or Cavalry work and the Puma is too heavy. That is why Rheinmetall developed the Lynx, basically as a lightweight, more Bradley- or CV90 style export version of the Puma."

Makes me wonder what kind of combined arms doctrine does our Army posses?

I sincerely doubt our boomer generals have that much forethought and simply selected the Leopard 2 based off a Wikipedia article.

 

[GraveDigger388]

I

I sincerely doubt our boomer generals have that much forethought and simply selected the Leopard 2 based off a Wikipedia article.

THAT is exactly my concern.... Yeesh can't wait for the new blood to lead.

 

[NEKONEKO]

TNI AD should build their power mainly around kobra and future tracked APC.

 

[Nike]

TNI AD should build their power mainly around kobra and future tracked APC.

I am concern in number games, we are indeed very lacking. Syrian type conflict consumpt hundreds armor every month of large engagements and our industrial power need to support such possible thing.