Indonesia: 'green water navy'

[Twister]

Success story of South Korean-Indonesian deal for Makassar Class LPD could be a milestone for more co-op between two nation.

To many military deal with either US or Russian will put Indonesian Government indifferent since both nation has a long history with Indonesian population especially post 9/11.

South Korean technologies for Navy vessel has been recognised and on par with NATO standard. It's a good turning point for Indonesian Navy.

 

[Yahoo!]

I think that KRI Diponegoro the first of class of the Dutch-built Sigma looks pretty cool.
The TNI AL is also deploying her for a first ever deployment to UNIFIL -Maritime Taskforce. This will surely be a sign to the world that she is back in the running.

 

[OPSSG]

I've just see a Feb 2009 BBC report that states that the Indonesia's navy's ability to perform regular patrols is affected, as their debt to the state oil company, Pertamina, has grown to $400m (£277m) since the 2004 Asian tsunami.

Is this true that funding for the Indonesian navy is such an issue?

 

[Ananda]

I've just see a Feb 2009 BBC report that states that the Indonesia's navy's ability to perform regular patrols is affected, as their debt to the state oil company, Pertamina, has grown to $400m (£277m) since the 2004 Asian tsunami.

Is this true that funding for the Indonesian navy is such an issue?

On Pertamina issuee..?? Nahhh, that's only what Pertamina grumbling to Government that they still have unresolved receivables with several government institutions..
The issue happening actually by end of last year..when there's a lot off talk on then Pertamina's CEO to resign due to decreasing performance of Pertamina. It's just another talk to show that Pertamina's problem also related to other factor's (kind of self defence on then CEO). The talk subside after the CEO being replace last month.
Also at that time there's a lot of talked on how much the defence spending should be allocated, so I would not be suprise if the talk also coming from internal Navy..just to increase leverage on getting next year (2009) defence allocation.

However what's true that the navy currently can only operated 70% at most of their vessels. That's already improvement from 45% on 2004 (sources from Navy Commander interview on Tempo Newspaper last December)

 

[Ananda]

Indonesian Trimaran Concept.. ??

X3KTrimaran2.jpg (image)

X3KTrimaran1.jpg (image)

North Sea Boats X3K Trimaran
Dimensions :

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

From ALUTSISTA : ALAT UTAMA SISTEM SENJATA: Kapal Patroli

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

My Questions is:

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

Just currious since this's in my oppinion still a very raw concept.

 

[StevoJH]

X3KTrimaran2.jpg (image)

X3KTrimaran1.jpg (image)

North Sea Boats X3K Trimaran
Dimensions :

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

From ALUTSISTA : ALAT UTAMA SISTEM SENJATA: Kapal Patroli

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

My Questions is:

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

Just currious since this's in my oppinion still a very raw concept.

Honestly, it looks more like a yacht then a warship.

 

[gf0012-aust]

My Questions is:

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

Just currious since this's in my oppinion still a very raw concept.

I seriously doubt its an Austal design. I've got all their current designs (sent to me when I was on a different contract)

The ratios in that design are all a bit out of kilter. I can't see that it's a serious concept from a known builder.

 

[Ananda]

I seriously doubt its an Austal design. I've got all their current designs (sent to me when I was on a different contract)

The ratios in that design are all a bit out of kilter. I can't see that it's a serious concept from a known builder.

Thanks Guys,

Been want to ask this for some time since see it in Indodefence, however keep forgotting..
Seems rather odd even for a guy with little naval knowledge like me..especially looking on Multipurpose canon on top the superstructures.

Anyway the company is a local ones own by a Swedish enterpreneurs..most of their products that being heard used by the military in here are RHIB's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Seems rather odd even for a guy with little naval knowledge like me..especially looking on Multipurpose canon on top the superstructures.

.

The length/beam/centre of balance ratios are really quite out of whack and it would be awful in open water. Long nose trimarans are over 100m for a reason.

Indonesia is better served (IMO) by having fast cats that are flat packers for green water use.

You've got thousands of islands and minimal infrastructure, so your ships have to double up as trucks. A flat pack cat could go fast in your important green water areas ,yet carry a company and light vehicles.

It would be inherently more stable and functional than that trimaran design.

 

[disneytime]

The length/beam/centre of balance ratios are really quite out of whack and it would be awful in open water. Long nose trimarans are over 100m for a reason.

Indonesia is better served (IMO) by having fast cats that are flat packers for green water use.

You've got thousands of islands and minimal infrastructure, so your ships have to double up as trucks. A flat pack cat could go fast in your important green water areas ,yet carry a company and light vehicles.

It would be inherently more stable and functional than that trimaran design.

Well, I'd have to disagree, I think that design looks like it would be a great option. Has anyone heard anything further about whether it's going ahead?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, I'd have to disagree, I think that design looks like it would be a great option. Has anyone heard anything further about whether it's going ahead?

disagree on what? that? that it looks looks nice or that its functionally a useless design?

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

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

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

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

ans: Zero, none, zilch.

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

that is the wrong vessel to achieve any of her aims

 

[alexsa]

Well, I'd have to disagree, I think that design looks like it would be a great option. Has anyone heard anything further about whether it's going ahead?

I think Gf is reffering to the design shown on the web site. this would have some issues, particularlay spearing into waves as the ouriggers appear to be well aft of the the LCF and would cause the vessel to be more buoyant aft in a seaway and the very narrow bow without a flare is liable to slice in.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think Gf is reffering to the design shown on the web site. this would have some issues, particularlay spearing into waves as the ouriggers appear to be well aft of the the LCF and would cause the vessel to be more buoyant aft in a seaway and the very narrow bow without a flare is liable to slice in.

I was hoping that you'd be lurking on this one so as to give your perspective.....

 

[alexsa]

Ahh Sorry Gf, we seem to have crossed on the same sort of response. I must have been typeing while you posted.

 

[disneytime]

I think Gf is reffering to the design shown on the web site. this would have some issues, particularlay spearing into waves as the ouriggers appear to be well aft of the the LCF and would cause the vessel to be more buoyant aft in a seaway and the very narrow bow without a flare is liable to slice in.

Well I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, although I am kind of more interested in whether they are actually going to be building it regardless of whether it is useless or not.

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

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

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

I'd also kind of question whether it would be in Indonesia's interests to be telling Australia exactly what it wants from its navy, so perhaps the real aims may be somewhat different to the ones you suggest?

 

[Ananda]

Well I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, although I am kind of more interested in whether they are actually going to be building it regardless of whether it is useless or not.

The design came from a local privately owned shipyard which until this moment their products that being used by military are RHIB's and Small Twill Hull patrol boats.
I put the design in the thread to asked whether this's aviable design or not. Still personally, since this's not comming from state owned PAL shipyard, I have big doubt if this design can attract attentions from the brass in here.

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

I'd also kind of question whether it would be in Indonesia's interests to be telling Australia exactly what it wants from its navy, so perhaps the real aims may be somewhat different to the ones you suggest?

Well I think at this moment the current administrations in here wants to have good and trusty relationships with Australia since a lot off suspicions still exsists on both countries. Off course both countries will still trying to maintain some cards to each respective chests, but will open the attentions to each other.

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

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

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

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

Honestly, we will be lucky if can maintain 2% GDP for the deffences budgets though...If the next Oil Price Hike happening, whoever in the administrations will be force to spend much money for the subsidies..if they want their political futures secures..
Well that Indonesia politics...nfloorl: All much promisses but no real actions..

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, although I am kind of more interested in whether they are actually going to be building it regardless of whether it is useless or not.

Proof of Concept or Concept Technology Demonstrators still have to have relevance in tight budgets. The Indons aren't going to be throwing money at gear like this unless it works - or unless the platform is privately funded. and in any defence shop, thats too big a gamble in the current climate.

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

platforms are built on their capacity to deliver the nations doctrine (air land or sea) - that platform does not deliver against their current stated intent on changing the way that they want to do business

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

beam width/length
citadel placement
centre of gravity as refer to length to width issues

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

except they want utility and value for money. this is a single purpose vessel with limited capability to do anything - its certainly green water limited

I'd also kind of question whether it would be in Indonesia's interests to be telling Australia exactly what it wants from its navy, so perhaps the real aims may be somewhat different to the ones you suggest?

Indonesia and Australia have had a very very different relationship since 2000. You would be surprised at how much we do actually share with each other. The military to military and govt to govt links are very very high. We give Indonesia access to docs (such as the higher level versions of the white paper)

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

Our relationship with Indonesia is in some respects equal to that of our relationship with Malaysia and Singapore.

 

[alexsa]

Well I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, although I am kind of more interested in whether they are actually going to be building it regardless of whether it is useless or not.

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

This is smooth/calm water craft (very small waves and no short swells) as driving into the fact of a wave with a low freeboard is a really good way of stoving in windows, ruining delicate electronics and coming to a rapid halt. You would not want to be pooped in this craft.

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

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

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

No Lontitudinal Centre of floatation. This is a stabalised monohull in effect and most fo the bouyancy is provided by the centreline hull. As the outriggers are well aft as the vessel is lifted by a wave there is a significant increases in bouyancy aft as If the vessel which provides as an upward force aft.

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

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

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

I'd also kind of question whether it would be in Indonesia's interests to be telling Australia exactly what it wants from its navy, so perhaps the real aims may be somewhat different to the ones you suggest?

Speed is great but it effects range (significantly) even on HSC and if thsi limits operations due to sea keeping and cost more then why bother. This vessel will not cruise at max speed and is likely to cruise at no more than a conventional monohull, it will however cost a lot more.

 

[Wooki]

X3KTrimaran2.jpg (image)

X3KTrimaran1.jpg (image)

North Sea Boats X3K Trimaran
Dimensions :

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

From ALUTSISTA : ALAT UTAMA SISTEM SENJATA: Kapal Patroli

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

My Questions is:

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

Just currious since this's in my oppinion still a very raw concept.

This looks like an old 90's design for the-then-whitbread around the world radio shack and rescue assistance boat.

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

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

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

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

voila:

nigel irens

Wave piercing monohull yacht for sale

cheers


w

 

[alexsa]

Hi wooki

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

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

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

Even in long swells of moderate or greater size long thin hulls will tend to bury the bow and the stern when the vessel is in a trough as there is limted bouyance aft.