Ananda,
With the gradual introduction of Kaplan in the coming years, what will happen to the 90mm equipped Scorpions? Do they stay on in service?
A few years ago when I used to work directly with PUSENKAV (Indonesian Army Cavalry Center), the initial plan was to gradually phase out the AMX-13 and replace them with Kaplan. The Scorpions wasn't supposed to be phased out completely as to my understanding the 1st Cavalry Battalion was supposed to split and relegate them to several regional military commands.
The rumours that actually circulated on Indonesian defense enthusiasts for some time, is whether unmodified Leo2-A4 will be modified to RI standard. Right now only 60% of Leo 2 in TNI-AD inventory already in RI standard.
When I used to work on the Leopards, there were talks circulating among PUSENKAV officers about going to KMW instead of Rheinmetall for an A6/A7 upgrade on the remaining A4's. Doubtful it will ever be a reality however. We would already be lucky if the the RI's get the remaining modules of the Revolution package.
Some talk on getting more MBT. However with this Kaplan as AMX13 replacement, I'm doubtful on potential additional MBT (although rumours that Rheinmettal already pitching on that). I suspect they will see how the progress on this Kaplan-Pindad medium tank collaboration progressing.
CMIIW but aren't the remaining Bundeswehr Leopard 2 reserve stocks are mostly depleted? Since if that were the case it's very doubtful the TNI AD would willingly spend it's budget on new Leopards when they have other more pressing things to fund.
Some rumours already talk on equipping that Medium Tank next batch with120mm gun that Cockerill developing. It's reported that Cockerill claim it will still fit the present turret that used their 105mm version.
Funny you should mention that, years ago the folks over at PUSENKAV did brought up the idea to work with Cockerill to refit Kaplan with the Leopard's L/44 guns as at the time there was a proposal to refit the Leopards with the L/55.
I'm interested in your personal opinion and preference. Do you personally agree with the decision to get Kaplan [to perform certain roles] or would you rather have seen more MBTs?
I know the question was directed to Ananda, but after working with the TNI AD Cavalry for a lengthy period of time I would say I can put some insight into your question.
Long story short, I think that they both have their separate niches that they fill.
For the most part, you shouldn't expect to have FSV's go head to head with MBT's, whereas simultaneously Indonesia has a lot of terrain and landscapes that doesn't permit the TNI AD to effectively or optimally employ the Leopard 2's. Piggybacking off what
@Ananda said, it is also more politically safe to employ a "locally made" FSV such as Kaplan to deal with the current challenges and conflicts the Indonesian military is currently facing. Also going back to what I said earlier, the Leopards can't operate within the battlespaces that these conflicts are currently occurring, further necessitating the Army's need for FSV's. Kaplan is also much easier to transport and with parts being produced locally, has a smaller logistical footprint. Kaplan also has the advantage of having the basis to form a common chassis. And if MinDef and Army Chief Andhika Perkasa's plans rings true, we can see the TNI AD employ a common IFV/APC family using Kaplan as a basis, further reducing the TNI AD already bloated logistical footprint.
Simultaneously with the current geopolitical climate in Southeast Asia, the TNI AD knows that it needs some MBT capability (
or at least something to effectively counter OPFOR MBT's), hence why they procured the Leopards. One might say that for a country with a geography such as Indonesia, there are probably much more effective alternatives then buying ex-Bundeswehr Leopard 2's. But as you all know, the TNI has a lot of older officers still in service that were trained at a time when strategists were expecting a Soviet push through the Fulda Gap, hence why they were/are adamant with going ahead with the Leopards. This mindset is also why it was only until very recently that the TNI AD isn't keen on employing vehicle's with autocannons.
However, I wouldn't necessarily say that procuring Leopard 2's was a wrong move, since at the end of the day I think we can all agree that the best way to counter a tank is with another tank. Rather I think at the time the Army simply did not know what it was getting itself into. While I was working on them, the Army units assigned to them was still struggling to keep them operationally ready. They had never operated anything of that capacity before and this was 2 years into the Leopard 2's service. Looking at them now, I would say that the TNI AD has definitely learned how to best maintain and employ them through trial and error as well as armor officer training with the SAF and the US. The fact that we see them in regular training use is a good indication that the TNI AD is serious in their employment.
Honestly, my only gripe with them is that to my knowledge the TNI AD has no current plans to develop the Leopard's further, at a time when Indonesia's neighbors are upgrading their respective MBT fleets. The Revolution package fit out that they chose is largely only the AMAP armor packages that Rheinmetall/IBD Diesenroth offered. There is little improvement in electronics and countermeasures apart from the improved driver's camera. You can even see that the commander's sight is still the old original Hensoldt ones from the 80's. And I'm not even sure this would ever change even as Indonesia's peers are looking into things such as fitting out next generation thermals, improved communication systems, or active protection systems. To the public and policy makers however, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference and I fear that the army might slip into complacency about it.
www.idntimes.com
