Tampilkan postingan dengan label indonesia. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label indonesia. Tampilkan semua postingan

Boneo: The Next National Car

Another prototype of the national car appeared, this time made by PT Daya Utama Boneo. Below are the data and photos that I got from Asianusa Facebook Group. Boneo seemed to make 3 car.

Mini MPV and mini pickups, while the green cars are projected for the possibility of public transport. It uses 600 cc engine with 20,5 Horse Power, developed by ITM . Maybe some of you are not satisfied with the design of this car, engine capacity, supporting technology, and others. You can send suggestions and criticisms directly to the Asianusa on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=328098202540

PT Boneo Daya Utama is an automotive engineering and manufacturing in Jakarta - Indonesia. Their main business are developping the automotive technology, specially small car with diesel engine technology.

Company Name: PT Boneo Daya Utama
Company Address: Circuit Sentul, Bogor, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
City/Town: Bogor
Province/State: Jawa Barat
Country/Region: Indonesia
Zip/Postal Code: 16802

How To Mass Produce "Mobnas" or Indonesia's National Car

Indonesia is able to produce its nastional car. Even high school students had the capability to build prestigious car like "ESEMKA (SMK)" car.

But all things stopped when the car will be mass produced. Why?? Indonesia face difficulties how to mass produce their own brand car.

To understand how to mass produce "Mobnas" or Indonesia's national car, we can start by understanding the facts below.

Mass production (also called flow production, repetitive flow production, series production, or serial production) is the production of large amounts of standardized products, including and especially on assembly lines. The concepts of mass production are applied to various kinds of products, from fluids and particulates handled in bulk (such as food, fuel, chemicals, and mined minerals) to discrete solid parts (such as fasteners) to assemblies of such parts (such as household appliances and automobiles).

The term mass production was defined in a 1926 article in the Encyclopedia Britannica supplement that was written based on correspondence with Ford Motor Co. The New York Times used the term in the title of an article that appeared before publication of the Britannica article. It was also referenced by Sir Chiozza Money, the Fabian banker, politician and author, writing in the London Observer in 1919, comparing the efficiency of Mass Production techniques as used in America, with British practice.

Overview

Mass production of assemblies typically uses electric-motor-powered moving tracks or conveyor belts to move partially complete products to workers, who perform simple repetitive tasks. It improves on earlier high-output, continuous-flow mass production made possible by the steam engine.

Mass production of fluid and particulate matter typically involves pipes with centrifugal pumps or screw conveyors (augers) to transfer raw materials or partially complete product between vessels. Fluid flow processes such as oil refining and bulk materials such as wood chips and pulp are automated using a system of process control which uses various instruments to measure variables such as temperature, pressure, volumetric throughput and level, providing feedback to a controller that holds a setpoint.

Bulk materials such as coal, ores, grains and wood chips are handled by belt, chain, pneumatic or screw conveyors, bucket elevators and mobile equipment such as front end loaders. Materials on pallets are handled with fork lifts. Also used for handling heavy items like reels of paper, steel or machinery are electric overhead cranes, sometimes called bridge cranes because they span large factory bays.

Mass production is capital intensive and energy intensive, as it uses a high proportion of machinery and energy in relation to workers. It is also usually automated to the highest extent possible. With fewer labour costs and a faster rate of production, capital and energy are increased while total expenditure per unit of product is decreased. However, the machinery that is needed to set up a mass production line (such as robots and machine presses) is so expensive that there must be some assurance that the product is to be successful to attain profits.

One of the descriptions of mass production is that "the skill is built into the tool", which means that the worker using the tool need not have the skill. For example, in the 19th or early 20th century, this could be expressed as "the craftsmanship is in the workbench itself" (not the training of the worker). Rather than having a skilled worker measure every dimension of each part of the product against the plans or the other parts as it is being formed, there were jigs ready at hand to ensure that the part was made to fit this set-up. It had already been checked that the finished part would be to specifications to fit all the other finished parts—and it would be made more quickly, with no time spent on finishing the parts to fit one another. Later, once computerized control came about (for example, CNC), jigs were obviated, but it remained true that the skill (or knowledge) was built into the tool (or process, or documentation) rather than residing in the worker's head. This is the specialized capital required for mass production; each workbench and set of tools (or each CNC cell, or each fractionating column) is different (fine-tuned to its task).

History

Prerequisites of mass production were interchangeable parts, machine tools and power, especially in the form of electricity.

Some of the organizational management concepts needed to create 20th-century mass production, such as scientific management, had been pioneered by other engineers (most of whom are not famous, but Frederick Winslow Taylor is one of the well-known ones), whose work would later be synthesized into fields such as industrial engineering, manufacturing engineering, operations research, and management consultancy. Henry Ford downplayed the role of Taylorism in the development of mass production at his company. However, Ford management performed time studies and experiments to mechanize their factory processes, focusing on minimizing worker movements. The difference is that while Taylor focused on efficiency of the worker, Ford used machines, thoughtfully arranged, wherever possible to substitute for labor.

The United States Department of War sponsored the development of interchangeable parts for guns produced at the arsenals at Springfield, Massachusetts and Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia) in the early decades of the 19th century, finally achieving reliable interchangeability by about 1850. This period coincided with the development of machine tools, with the armories designing and building many of their own. Some of the methods employed were a system of gauges for checking dimensions of the various parts and jigs and fixtures for guiding the machine tools and properly holding and aligning the work pieces. This system came to be known as armory practice or the American system of manufacturing, which spread throughout New England aided by skilled mechanics from the armories who were instrumental in transferring the technology to the sewing machines manufacturers and other industries such as machine tools, harvesting machines and bicycles. Singer Manufacturing Co., at one time the largest sewing machine manufacturer, did not achieve interchangeable parts until the late 1880s, around the same time Cyrus McCormick adopted modern manufacturing practices in making harvesting machines.

Mass production benefited from the development of materials such as inexpensive steel, high strength steel and plastics. Machining of metals was greatly enhanced with high speed steel and later very hard materials such as silicon carbide and tungsten carbide for cutting edges. Fabrication using steel components was aided by the development of electric welding and stamped steel parts, both which appeared in industry in about 1890. Plastics such as polyethylene, polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) can be easily formed into shapes by extrusion, blow molding or injection molding, resulting in very low cost manufacture of consumer products, plastic piping, containers and parts.

Factory electrification

Electrification of factories began in the 1880s after the introduction of a practical DC motor by Frank J. Sprague and accelerated later after the AC motor was developed by Nikola Tesla (Westinghouse) and others. Electric motors were several times more efficient than small steam engines because central station generation were more efficient than small steam engines and because line shafts and belts had high friction losses.

Electrification enabled modern mass production, as with Thomas Edison’s iron ore processing plant (about 1893) that could process 20,000 tons of ore per day with two shifts of five men each. At that time it was still common to handle bulk materials with shovels, wheelbarrows and small narrow gauge rail cars, and for comparison, a canal digger in previous decades typically handled 5 tons per 12 hour day.

The biggest impact of early mass production was in manufacturing everyday items, such as at the Ball Brothers Glass Manufacturing Company, which electrified its mason jar plant in Muncie, Indiana, USA around 1900. The new automated process used glass blowing machines to replace 210 craftsman glass blowers and helpers. A small electric truck was used to handle 150 dozen bottles at a time where previously a hand truck would carry 6 dozen. Electric mixers replaced men with shovels handling sand and other ingredients that were fed into the glass furnace. An electric overhead crane replaced 36 day laborers for moving heavy loads across the factory.

According to Henry Ford:

”The provision of a whole new system of electric generation emancipated industry from the leather belt and line shaft, for it eventually became possible to provide each tool with its own electric motor. This may seem only a detail of minor importance. In fact, modern industry could not be carried out with the belt and line shaft for a number of reasons. The motor enabled machinery to be arranged in the order of the work, and that alone has probably doubled the efficiency of industry, for it has cut out a tremendous amount of useless handling and hauling. The belt and line shaft were also tremendously wasteful – so wasteful indeed that no factory could be really large, for even the longest line shaft was small according to modern requirements. Also high speed tools were impossible under the old conditions – neither the pulleys nor the belts could stand modern speeds. Without high speed tools and the finer steels which they brought about, there could be nothing of what we call modern industry.”

Mass production was popularized in the 1910s and 1920s by Henry Ford's Ford Motor Company, which introduced electric motors to the then-well-known technique of chain or sequential production. Ford also bought or designed and built special purpose machine tools and fixtures such as multiple spindle drill presses that could drill every hole on one side of an engine block in one operation and a multiple head milling machine that could simultaneously machine 15 engine blocks held on a single fixture. All of these machine tools were arranged systematically in the production flow and some had special carriages for rolling heavy items into machining position. Production of the Ford Model T used 32,000 machine tools.

All processes in the factory were capable of capable of turning out high precision work within tolerances.

Ford's contribution to mass production was synthetic in nature, collating and improving upon existing methods of sequential production and applying electric power to them, resulting in extremely-high-throughput, continuous-flow mass production, making the Model T affordable and, as such, an instant success.

Although the Ford Motor Company brought mass production to new heights, it was a synthesizer and extrapolator of ideas rather than being the first creator of mass production. The following paragraphs touch on precursors from prior eras.

Before the 20th century

Ships had been mass-produced using prefabricated parts and assembly lines in Venice several hundred years earlier. The Venetian Arsenal apparently produced nearly one ship every day, in what was effectively the world's first factory which, at its height, employed 16,000 people. Mass production in the publishing industry has been commonplace since the Gutenberg Bible was published using a printing press in the mid-15th century.

In the Industrial Revolution simple mass production techniques were used at the Portsmouth Block Mills to make ships' pulley blocks for the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic Wars. These were also used to make clocks and watches, and to make small arms. Though produced on a very small scale, Crimean War gunboat engines designed and assembled by John Penn of Greenwich are recorded as the first instance of the application of mass production techniques (though not necessarily the assembly-line method) to marine engineering. In filling an Admiralty order for 90 sets to his high-pressure and high-revolution horizontal trunk engine design, Penn produced them all in 90 days. He also used Whitworth Standard threads throughout.

While the preceding American system of manufacturing relied on steam power, mass production factories were electrified and used sophisticated machinery. Adoption of these techniques coincided with the birth of the Second Industrial Revolution in the USA and its emergence as the dominant industrial superpower in the 20th century. Countries that were quick to follow (e.g. Germany and Japan) achieved high rates of growth.

Use of assembly lines in mass production

Mass production systems for items made of numerous parts are usually organized into assembly lines. The assemblies pass by on a conveyor, or if they are heavy, hung from an overhead crane or monorail.

In a factory for a complex product, rather than one assembly line, there may be many auxiliary assembly lines feeding sub-assemblies (i.e. car engines or seats) to a backbone "main" assembly line. A diagram of a typical mass-production factory looks more like the skeleton of a fish than a single line.

Vertical integration

Vertical integration is a business practice that involves gaining complete control over a product's production, from raw materials to final assembly.

In the age of mass production, this caused shipping and trade problems in that shipping systems were unable to transport huge volumes of finished automobiles (in Henry Ford's case) without causing damage, and also government policies imposed trade barriers on finished units.

Ford built the Ford River Rouge Complex with the idea of making the company's own iron and steel in the same factory as parts and car assembly took place. River Rouge also generated its own electricity.

Upstream vertical integration, such as to raw materials, is away from leading technology toward mature, low return industries. Most companies chose to focus on their core business rather than vertical integration. This included buying parts from outside suppliers, who could often produce them as cheaply or cheaper.

Standard Oil, the major oil company in the 19th century, was vertically integrated partly because there was no demand for unrefined crude oil, but kerosene and some other products were in great demand. The other reason was that Standard Oil monopolized the oil industry. The major oil companies were, and many still are, vertically integrated, from production to refining and with their own retail stations, although some sold off their retail operations. Some oil companies also have chemical divisions.

Lumber and paper companies at one time owned most of their timber lands and sold some finished products such as corrugated boxes. The tendency has been to divest of timber lands to raise cash and to avoid property taxes.

Today the trend is toward platform companies, where the value added is in market analysis, engineering and product design. The platform company contracts production to outside suppliers, often in low wage countries.

Advantages and disadvantages

The economies of mass production come from several sources. The primary cause is a reduction of nonproductive effort of all types. In craft production, the craftsman must bustle about a shop, getting parts and assembling them. He must locate and use many tools many times for varying tasks. In mass production, each worker repeats one or a few related tasks that use the same tool to perform identical or near-identical operations on a stream of products. The exact tool and parts are always at hand, having been moved down the assembly line consecutively. The worker spends little or no time retrieving and/or preparing materials and tools, and so the time taken to manufacture a product using mass production is shorter than when using traditional methods.

The probability of human error and variation is also reduced, as tasks are predominantly carried out by machinery. A reduction in labour costs, as well as an increased rate of production, enables a company to produce a larger quantity of one product at a lower cost than using traditional, non-linear methods.

However, mass production is inflexible because it is difficult to alter a design or production process after a production line is implemented. Also, all products produced on one production line will be identical or very similar, and introducing variety to satisfy individual tastes is not easy. However, some variety can be achieved by applying different finishes and decorations at the end of the production line if necessary.

The Ford Model T produced tremendous affordable output but was not very good at responding to demand for variety, customization, or design changes. As a consequence Ford eventually lost market share to General Motors, who introduced annual model changes, more accessories and a choice of colors.

With each passing decade, engineers have found ways to increase the flexibility of mass production systems, driving down the lead times on new product development and allowing greater customization and variety of products.

Socioeconomic impacts

In the 1830s, French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville identified one of the key characteristics of America that would later make it so amenable to the development of mass production: the homogeneous consumer base. De Tocqueville wrote in his Democracy in America (1835) that "The absence in the United States of those vast accumulations of wealth which favor the expenditures of large sums on articles of mere luxury... impact to the productions of American industry a character distinct from that of other countries' industries. [Production is geared toward] articles suited to the wants of the whole people".

Mass production improved productivity, which was a contributing factor to economic growth and the decline in work week hours, alongside other factors such as transportation infrastructures (canals, railroads and highways) and agricultural mechanization. These factors caused the typical work week to decline from 70 hours in the early 19th century to 60 hours late in the century, then to 50 hours in the early 20th century and finally to 40 hours in the mid 1930's.

Overproduction was a result of mass production. Using a European crafts system into the late 19th century it was difficult to meet demand for products such as sewing machines and animal powered mechanical harvesters. By the late 1920s most goods were over supplied, which contributed to high unemployment during the Great Depression.

Mass production allowed the evolution of consumerism by lowering the unit cost of many goods.

How to finance "Mobnas" project

Indonesia is facing difficulties on how to finance "Mobnas" or national car project. Although the demand for Mobnas is extremely high, car producer seem to be fail to finance their project.

To overcome this problem we should understand the background of financing a project as follow.

Project finance is the long term financing of infrastructure and industrial projects based upon the projected cash flows of the project rather than the balance sheets of the project sponsors. Usually, a project financing structure involves a number of equity investors, known as sponsors, as well as a syndicate of banks that provide loans to the operation. The loans are most commonly non-recourse loans, which are secured by the project assets and paid entirely from project cash flow, rather than from the general assets or creditworthiness of the project sponsors, a decision in part supported by financial modeling. The financing is typically secured by all of the project assets, including the revenue-producing contracts. Project lenders are given a lien on all of these assets, and are able to assume control of a project if the project company has difficulties complying with the loan terms.

Generally, a special purpose entity is created for each project, thereby shielding other assets owned by a project sponsor from the detrimental effects of a project failure. As a special purpose entity, the project company has no assets other than the project. Capital contribution commitments by the owners of the project company are sometimes necessary to ensure that the project is financially sound. Project finance is often more complicated than alternative financing methods. Traditionally, project financing has been most commonly used in the mining, transportation, telecommunication and public utility industries. More recently, particularly in Europe, project financing principles have been applied to public infrastructure under public–private partnerships (PPP) or, in the UK, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) transactions.

Risk identification and allocation is a key component of project finance. A project may be subject to a number of technical, environmental, economic and political risks, particularly in developing countries and emerging markets. Financial institutions and project sponsors may conclude that the risks inherent in project development and operation are unacceptable (unfinanceable). To cope with these risks, project sponsors in these industries (such as power plants or railway lines) are generally completed by a number of specialist companies operating in a contractual network with each other that allocates risk in a way that allows financing to take place. "Several long-term contracts such as construction, supply, off-take and concession agreements, along with a variety of joint-ownership structures, are used to align incentives and deter opportunistic behaviour by any party involved in the project." The various patterns of implementation are sometimes referred to as "project delivery methods." The financing of these projects must also be distributed among multiple parties, so as to distribute the risk associated with the project while simultaneously ensuring profits for each party involved.

A riskier or more expensive project may require limited recourse financing secured by a surety from sponsors. A complex project finance structure may incorporate corporate finance, securitization, options, insurance provisions or other types of collateral enhancement to mitigate unallocated risk.

Project finance shares many characteristics with maritime finance and aircraft finance; however, the latter two are more specialized fields.

Basic scheme

Hypothetical project finance scheme

Acme Coal Co. imports coal. Energen Inc. supplies energy to consumers. The two companies agree to build a power plant to accomplish their respective goals. Typically, the first step would be to sign a memorandum of understanding to set out the intentions of the two parties. This would be followed by an agreement to form a joint venture.

Acme Coal and Energen form an SPC (Special Purpose Corporation) called Power Holdings Inc. and divide the shares between them according to their contributions. Acme Coal, being more established, contributes more capital and takes 70% of the shares. Energen is a smaller company and takes the remaining 30%. The new company has no assets.

Power Holdings then signs a construction contract with Acme Construction to build a power plant. Acme Construction is an affiliate of Acme Coal and the only company with the know-how to construct a power plant in accordance with Acme's delivery specification.

A power plant can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. To pay Acme Construction, Power Holdings receives financing from a development bank and a commercial bank. These banks provide a guarantee to Acme Construction's financier that the company can pay for the completion of construction. Payment for construction is generally paid as such: 10% up front, 10% midway through construction, 10% shortly before completion, and 70% upon transfer of title to Power Holdings, which becomes the owner of the power plant.

Acme Coal and Energen form Power Manage Inc., another SPC, to manage the facility. The ultimate purpose of the two SPCs (Power Holding and Power Manage) is primarily to protect Acme Coal and Energen. If a disaster happens at the plant, prospective plaintiffs cannot sue Acme Coal or Energen and target their assets because neither company owns or operates the plant.

A Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) between Power Manage and Acme Coal supplies raw materials to the power plant. Electricity is then delivered to Energen using a wholesale delivery contract. The cashflow of both Acme Coal and Energen from this transaction will be used to repay the financiers.

Complicating factors

The above is a simple explanation which does not cover the mining, shipping, and delivery contracts involved in importing the coal (which in itself could be more complex than the financing scheme), nor the contracts for delivering the power to consumers. In developing countries, it is not unusual for one or more government entities to be the primary consumers of the project, undertaking the "last mile distribution" to the consuming population. The relevant purchase agreements between the government agencies and the project may contain clauses guaranteeing a minimum offtake and thereby guarantee a certain level of revenues. In other sectors including road transportation, the government may toll the roads and collect the revenues, while providing a guaranteed annual sum (along with clearly specified upside and downside conditions) to the project. This serves to minimise or eliminate the risks associated with traffic demand for the project investors and the lenders.

Minority owners of a project may wish to use "off-balance-sheet" financing, in which they disclose their participation in the project as an investment, and excludes the debt from financial statements by disclosing it as a footnote related to the investment. In the United States, this eligibility is determined by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Many projects in developing countries must also be covered with war risk insurance, which covers acts of hostile attack, derelict mines and torpedoes, and civil unrest which are not generally included in "standard" insurance policies. Today, some altered policies that include terrorism are called Terrorism Insurance or Political Risk Insurance. In many cases, an outside insurer will issue a performance bond to guarantee timely completion of the project by the contractor.

Publicly-funded projects may also use additional financing methods such as tax increment financing or Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Such projects are often governed by a Capital Improvement Plan which adds certain auditing capabilities and restrictions to the process.

History

Limited recourse lending was used to finance maritime voyages in ancient Greece and Rome. Its use in infrastructure projects dates to the development of the Panama Canal, and was widespread in the US oil and gas industry during the early 20th century. However, project finance for high-risk infrastructure schemes originated with the development of the North Sea oil fields in the 1970s and 1980s. For such investments, newly created Special Purpose Corporations (SPCs) were created for each project, with multiple owners and complex schemes distributing insurance, loans, management, and project operations. Such projects were previously accomplished through utility or government bond issuances, or other traditional corporate finance structures.

Project financing in the developing world peaked around the time of the Asian financial crisis, but the subsequent downturn in industrializing countries was offset by growth in the OECD countries, causing worldwide project financing to peak around 2000. The need for project financing remains high throughout the world as more countries require increasing supplies of public utilities and infrastructure. In recent years, project finance schemes have become increasingly common in the Middle East, some incorporating Islamic finance.

The new project finance structures emerged primarily in response to the opportunity presented by long term power purchase contracts available from utilities and government entities. These long term revenue streams were required by rules implementing PURPA, the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Originally envisioned as an energy initiative designed to encourage domestic renewable resources and conservation, the Act and the industry it created lead to further deregulation of electric generation and, significantly, international privatization following amendments to the Public Utilities Holding Company Act in 1994. The structure has evolved and forms the basis for energy and other projects throughout the world. so we should be aware while using these resorces

Indonesia the largest Daihatsu producer in the world

Japanese car manufacturer Daihatsu Motor Co. plans to invest 15 billion yen (126 million U.S. dollars) in its Indonesian plant with an aim to become the country's largest auto maker, local press said Tuesday.

Daihatsu Motor Co., Japans biggest minicar producer, will boost manufacturing capacity in Indonesia and make the Southeast Asian nation its center for overseas exports. The company will boost output capacity in Indonesia to 300,000 vehicles from 210,000, president Ter-uyuki Minoura said in an interview at the companys headquarters in Ikeda-City, Osaka.

Minoura didnt say when the addition would occur. "We will increase the capacity gradually," Minoura said. The "environment is really good" in Indonesia. Daihatsu said on Dec. 24 that it expects overseas output to increase by 20 percent this year to 295,000 units. Production in Indonesia will increase to 108,000 cars from 82,000.

The company, which is 51 percent owned by Toyota Motor Corp., in November boosted its full-year profit forecast, citing "solid" domestic and overseas sales. The company now forecasts net income of V13 billion (US$142 million) and operating profit of 26 billion yen on sales of ¥1.45 trillion for the year ending in March.

Daihatsu exported 3,100 cars in the 11 months through November from Indonesia to countries including Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.That compares with 1,500 vehicles shipped overseas from Malaysia in the 10 months through October, the latest figure available.

The minicar maker may reenter the Chinese market with Toyota, Minoura said without providing details.

Earlier this month Daihatsu canceled a joint venture in China with FAW Jilin Automobile Co. Daihatsu began selling cars in the worlds biggest auto market in 2007 and sold a total of 9,500 until last year, spokesman Shozo Shimizu said Tuesday.

Indonesia's MLRS range 10-400 km

A multiple rocket launcher (MRL) is a type of unguided rocket artillery system. Like other rocket artillery, multiple rocket launchers are less accurate and have a much lower (sustained) rate of fire than batteries of traditional artillery guns.

However, they have the capability of simultaneously dropping many hundreds of kilograms of explosive, with devastating effect.

First developed in 1409, the Korean Hwacha is the most likely example of the first weapon system with a resemblance to the modern-day multiple rocket launcher. The first modern multiple rocket launcher was the German Nebelwerfer of the 1930s, a small towed artillery piece. Only later in World War II did the Allies deploy similar weapons in the form of the Land Mattress.




NDL-40
NPU-70
The Indonesian designed and built NDL-40 Ground to Ground Multi Launcher 2.75", Rocket System has been designed and is in the process of testing. This devices used as FFAR 2.75" Multi-Launch Rocket System. The FFAR 2.75 " rocket system is a ground-to-ground weapon system designed to support infantry units in the field. Each system is comprised of 4 modules, each containing 5 rockets (a total of 20 rockets in a system). The modules may be used independently of each other or in any combination with any other module. This provides many useful configurations for the support of field infantry units. The NDL-40 system operator is approximately 15 meters away from the actual launchers and may adjust the fire control system to variety of different settings. The firing time (0.1 to 9.9 seconds interval) as well as the mode of launch (single, ripple or salvo firing) may be determined by the field operator.

FFAR 2.75" (70 mm or 2.75") rockets motors are manufactured by the flow forming process. The first batch underwater dynamic testing was successfully done in June 1985. This was the last test required in work frame of certification testing. This dynamic test was a success and since then the flowformed tubes were used in production of the FFAR. By using the rocket launcher [also called LAU 97] that has 40 launching tubes and enables "single" or "ripple" firing, the rocket can be fired within 6 seconds each. The impact pattern for such firing is 200 m x 300 m. The rocket launcher it self can go through a 360� azimuth position and has a maximum elevation of 50�. Its unladen weight is 365 kg.; with 40 rockets fitted with the FZ-71 warhead, it weights 935 kg. For firing the rockets one must reckon upon an interval of 150 msec with a "ripple" firing. Its high mobility and firing power make it a highly effective weapon. By using the MK-40 motor, its range is about 6,000 m. and when used with FZ-68 motor its range is about 8,000 m.




NPU-70 (Nusantara Poly-Urethane 70) is developed by IPTN at the stage of technological integration, while prior to this, during the stage of licensing, the factory manufactured FFAR 2.75" and SUT. Rockets with a surface-to-surface launching system and/or 70 mm caliber, NPU-70, will be produced by IPTN are already on a stage of research qualification and installed component development testing. The serial production was scheduled to take place in 1994/1995.




The first iron-cased metal-cylinder rocket artillery were developed by Tipu Sultan, an Indian ruler of the Kingdom of Mysore, and his father Hyder Ali, in the 1780s. He successfully used these metal-cylinder rockets against the larger forces of the British East India Company during the Anglo-Mysore Wars. The Mysore rockets of this period were much more advanced than what the British had seen, chiefly because of the use of iron tubes for holding the propellant; this enabled higher thrust and longer range for the missile (up to 2 km range).

According to Stephen Oliver Fought and John F. Guilmartin, Jr. in Encyclopedia Britannica (2008): "Hyder Ali, prince of Mysore, developed war rockets with an important change: the use of metal cylinders to contain the combustion powder. Although the hammered soft iron he used was crude, the bursting strength of the container of black powder was much higher than the earlier paper construction. Thus a greater internal pressure was possible, with a resultant greater thrust of the propulsive jet.

The rocket body was lashed with leather thongs to a long bamboo stick. Range was perhaps up to three-quarters of a mile (more than a kilometre). Although individually these rockets were not accurate, dispersion error became less important when large numbers were fired rapidly in mass attacks.

They were particularly effective against cavalry and were hurled into the air, after lighting, or skimmed along the hard dry ground. Hyder Ali's son, Tippu Sultan, continued to develop and expand the use of rocket weapons, reportedly increasing the number of rocket troops from 1,200 to a corps of 5,000. In battles at Seringapatam in 1792 and 1799 these rockets were used with considerable effect against the British."

After Tipu's eventual defeat in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, the Mysore iron rockets were captured by the British. These rockets were influential in British rocket development, inspiring the Congreve rocket, which were soon put into use in the Napoleonic Wars, including at the Battle of Waterloo. Ironically, the technology of metal-cylinder missiles developed by Tipu Sultan contributed to the defeat of his ally Napoleon at Waterloo.

Indonesia's MLRS using Anoa




Rocket Kal 122mm D230 Range: 20-30km




RX 1215 Range: 15km
Guided RX 2020 Range: 44km
Rocket X 1210 Range: 11km


RX 1213 Range: 12km folded fin
RX 1213/1210 Range: 18km fixed fin separasi



Rocket RX-420 Range: 110 km Speed: 4,4 mach





RX-250 Range: 50 km


RX-320



NDL-40




Roket R-Han 122 MLRS








RX 540






RX 750






1. RX-100 MLRS
diameter 110 mm, range 11 km

2. RX-150-120 MLRS
Diameter 150 mm, range: 13 km

3. RX-240 MLRS
diameter 240 mm range jangkauan 24 km

4. RX-250 MLRS
diameter 250 mm range 27,9 km

5. RX-320 MLRS
diameter 320 mm

6. RX-420 MLRS
Diameter 420 mm range 101 km

7. RX-520 MLRS
diameter 520 mm range range: 200 km

8. RX-530 MLRS
diameter 530 mm range 320 km









Comparisons:

Malaysia Astros MLRS





Singaporean MLRS M142 (HIMARS)


Thailand DT-1 multiple launch rocket system


China WS-2 MLRS


The South Korean K-136 Kooryong MLRS


Others