March 21, 2017

"Fourth" new Indonesian Submarine to be Built

PT PAL shipyard at Surabaya, Java, Indonesia. PT PAL will assemble Indonesia's third Improved Chang Bogo (Type 209) submarine and hopes to build a fourth (and following) Type 209s.
---.

Indonesia’s state owned PT PAL shipyard in Surabaya, Indonesia, has for several years planned to build the third of three new Type 209 submarines. The first two were built in DSME's shipyard in South Korea. The 209s are called “Improved Chang Bogo class” in South Korea.

In mid March 2017 news emerged that Indonesia had plans to build a “fourth and following” Type 209 submarines for the Indonesia Navy. Indonesia’s Antara News Agency on March 20-21, 2017, reports: 

“...Of the three submarines ordered, one is totally assembled by the Indonesian workers while the fourth and following orders will be done fully by Indonesian workers..." 

Indonesia’s PT PAL hopes to be able to build Type 209 submarines independently of South Korea. Indonesia sent 206 technicians to South Korea to be educated in submarine building. 


COMMENT

Indonesian naval analysts have indicated for years that Indonesia really needs 12 submarines to police and defend the 1,000s of islands, straits and narrows of the Indonesian Archipelago. It may be no coincidence that 12 subs is also the number preferred by the Australian Government for the RAN (Australia being the middle power just south of Indonesia).

As well as making the deal for 3 x Type 209s with South Korea Indonesia has for years been in talks with Russia and a shorter time with DCNS to build extra subs to reach the 12 total. 

I think Indonesia buying or building additional 209s is much more logical and efficient than owning  two completely different submarine classes. Also significant is that Indonesia has owned 2 x 209s, of the Cakra class, for many years, apparently finding them satisfactory.

On Indonesia's Type 209 purchase see this earlier Submarine Matters' report, Slight delay in Indonesia accommodating two Chang Bogo submarines of March 1, 2016.

Pete

12 comments:

MHalblaub said...

Is it possible that Indonesia now has more operational submarines than Australia and also "superior" ones?

Australia will get their bigger submarines some day (2030 or even later). In case Indonesia closes the straits Australian submarines really need long rang to reach China.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Two years ago, Japanese government pointed out that though high transportation demand was expected in Indonesia, its shipbuilding ability was low [1].

This report implicitly suggests the indiginous builing of submarine is a challenge for Indonesia and that this challenge may be as big as that Australia had experienced in Collins building. In the case of Collins, submarine industry existed, but building started from scratch. While design and building procedures of 209 had been established, but submarine building ability of Indonesia does not seem to be high.

[1] http://www5.jetro.go.jp/newsletter/obb/2015/S2_4.mlit.pdf (JPN)
“Possibilities for Development in Shipbuilding Industry in Indonesia”, may/24/2017, by Toshiya Morishige, Director of Matitime Bureau (Land, Infrastructure and Transportation Ministry of Japan)

In this report, problems of Indonesian shipbuilder are summarized as follows: i) insuffient facilities for shipbuilding and repair, ii) long building period and high cost, iii) lack of engineer/production manager and undevelopment of related industry. In i), as financing from bank for new capital investiment is difficult, investiment is poor and plants/falities are old. In ii), there are lack of production management and know-how, insuffient facilities, and long period for transport and customs clearance caused by high import ratio (more than 70%) of materials and equipments. In iii), there is no tradition of technology skilled engineer, and less forgein companies.

Regards
S

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

Hi Pete,
Looks like Taiwan is at it again with their on and off submarine program

Taiwan announces plan to build own submarines
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/taiwan-announces-plan-to-build-own-submarines

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [at 22/3/17 2:23 AM]

I wonder if Indonesia's PT PAL building and exporting two Landing Platform Docks [1] to the Philippines runs counter to the Japanese repots predictions?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarlac-class_landing_platform_dock

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Nope. Indonesia only has 3 active submarines:

- 2 very old launched 1981 (probably diving-depth, mission limited) Cakra class 209s, and

- 2 x new Nagapasa class 209s

They are unlikely to be superior to the Collins.

Australia and Indonesia have been at peace since the 1960s.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...


Hi Pete (22/3/17 9:53 AM)

It was not fault of the Japanese report, it was my fault. The report was analyzed commercial ship builder not warship builder. I simply assumed that ability of the latter reflected that of the former. Indonesia concentrates its resource on warship builder. On the analysis of social phenomena, there are two approaches via average and advanced phenomenon. But, I adopted only former approach.

Indonesia can realize TYPE 209 submarines.

Regards
S

MHalblaub said...

"Unlikely "?

The Cakras are not the latest submarines but refurbished ones.
Cakra itself was modernized until 2006 in South Korea: new batteries, Kongsberg combat system, ELAC sonar sensors, engine enhancements,...
The second Cakra, Nanggala was modernized until 2012.
I doubt Collins class with its wired hull cut can dive deeper.
Also initial test deepth for Type 209 seems to be much deeper than for Collins.

The new and improved Chang Bogos Indonesia received lately won't be less efficient than the refurbished Cakras.

Comparison Collins vs. Cakra
21 inch weapons load: 22 vs. 14
Range snorkeling: 9,000 nm vs. 8,000 nm (? due to great differences of Type 209/1100 up to Type 209/1500)
Crew: ~60 vs. 33
Endurance: 80 days vs. 50 days (? due to Type 209 variance)
Power system: Garden Island Diesel + Jeumont-Schneider generator vs. MTU 396 SE
Propulsion: Jeumont-Schneider vs. Siemens permanent
Combat system: AN/BYG-1 vs. Kongsberg MSI-90U MK2

On a submarine vs. submarine engagement range and endurance is of less importance even the torpedo count.
I doubt that Collins class has a better sonar detection capabilities than Cakra. The Siemens engine has a higher torque and can drive a propeller with less cycles for same propulsion effect: less noise.

Collins class offers slightly more on paper.
What makes Cakras superior in my opinion is the relation of capabilities to price and availability (spare parts available from at least 2 reliable companies). I guess the 4 Indonesian submarines offer more time at sea than 6 Collins class submarines.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hmmm... overstrained bias over logical argument Mr Halblaub?

Yes the combat system, weapons, crew experience and naval traditions of the Indonesian submarine corps are clearly above the German 212As! :)

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [at 22/3/17 7:20 PM]

No problem. PT PAL may have lost money on the LPDs for the Philippines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarlac-class_landing_platform_dock to get into the export market.

Deciding what is profitable and efficient is very difficult. This difficulty is certainly true about submarines and ships built in Adelaide.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi again S

Another reason the Philippines bought from PT PAL is probably for Southeast Asian political solidarity reasons.

It seems the Philippine Tarlac class LPDs [1] were derived from the Indonesian Makassar class LPDs [2] which were originally based on South Korea's DSME designed and built Tanjung Dalpele class [3].

So I assume all three LPD types could have been built in S Korea most cheaply but politics and a desire to be self-sufficient in naval shipbuilding altered a strictly business at lowest price process.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarlac-class_landing_platform_dock
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makassar-class_landing_platform_dock
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRI_Tanjung_Dalpele

Regards

Pete

Ztev Konrad said...

A comment was made that Indonesia could 'close the straits'. Not really possible, partly because there are so many and the main north-south strait is between Lombok and Bali is 20 km wide, so not within territorial waters.( Bali strait is only 2.5km) Its 60km long and more usefully for submarines is 250 m deep.
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombok_Strait
Use of the Lombok and then the Makassar Str is the main route for ships to big for the shallow Malacca St
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makassar_Strait

MHalblaub said...

Dear Ztev Konrad,

to call a straight closed by a destroyer you need a destroyer at place. To close a straight with a submarine you just need to say a submarine is there. Sometimes a submarine tender in a nearby harbor is sufficient to pretend it.

That just works in case there are enough submarines at sea. 5 out of 6 submarines on dry land for maintenance and one submarine in the harbor won't do the trick.

Regards,
MHalblaub