Indonesian Aero News [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum

OPSSG

July 2nd, 2009, 06:47 AM

...But still doubt on how willing the US to provide F 16 with heavy discount :D

With the amount of F-16s due for retirement from the USAF (or already retired and 'stored'), they would be 'cheap' for Indonesia to buy. However, these Ex-USAF Vipers are rather beat up.

IMO, the US will be happy 'give' or sell them at a low price to Indonesia, in return for Indonesia paying Lockheed Martin to 'upgrade' them - which usually involved re-zeroing the air frame and a MLU (these 'upgrades can be quite expensive). It's the payment of the 'upgrades' that Indonesia can't really afford right now.

Well for me, the most important thing is the most economical to maintain. Being given or buy, not necessarily same with ability to maintain. Especially with cash strap defence budget armed forces like us.

For an example of a smart buyer, you need to look at what Chile is doing. Chile's government has bought 18 second-hand Vipers (http://www.f-16.net/news_article3419.html) from the Dutch government. If Indonesia can afford to buy 2nd hand planes, you should be shopping for low hours Vipers that are being retired from non-US sources and you can avoid doing too much to 'upgrade' them before inducting them into Indonesian service. From a total cost perspective, these low hours Vipers will be cheaper to operate.

Many ideas that circulated, especially on this election time is to jack up current force of six squad to 12 squad in five years time...

Personally, I prefer only SU 30 and F 16 combination, with 1 to 3 ratio's. Thus 24 SU 30 to 72 F 16, reflected on 8 sq (12 fighter each).

I would rather that Indonesia NOT induct the J-10 at the moment, as your air force is already committed to 2 fighter aircraft types (F-16s and Su-30s). The J-10's WS10A* engine is not a 'proven' product (as early versions of the J-10 were using the Russian AL-31FN engine), so Indonesia cannot know how much parts to stock for the WS10A engine. Don't subsidize China's WS10A engine development by being their first sales guinea pig (let someone else be the first few foreign operators of the J-10). Why make your air force's life so hard in maintenance terms (you already have hard to maintain Su-30s)... and you have so few of each aircraft type any way.

Please do not propose to operate 12 plane fighter squadrons -- it is the most inefficient way to run squadrons (as each squadron will need tooling, maintenance manuals, parts and so on). I would rather Indonesia operate fewer but bigger squadrons of 18-24 planes each and rotate them via forward deployments of detachments to different Indonesian locations (you'll have less crashes that way), as and when, Indonesia feels the need to beef up security in a particular sector.

(i) I would rather Indonesia plan to have 3 to 4 big squadrons rather than 6 to 8 small squadrons.

(ii) I would rather Indonesia have 2 big squadrons of F-16s (with 160 A2A missiles) rather than 4 small squadrons of F-16s (with 50 A2A missiles). Please remind your air force generals that Su-30s without A2A missiles are targets for enemy planes - not fighters.

(iii) If you want to buy technology from China (to balance US's influence) stick to China's missiles (like their anti-ship missiles and their SAMs) at the moment, as their technology there is fairly mature.

------------
* Note: I currently assume that China's first sales of the J-10 (other than to Pakistan) will have domestic engines and not Russian engines. This is because I don't think that Russia would sell engines to enable the J-10 to compete for sales with the Su-30.

Ananda

July 2nd, 2009, 08:53 AM

[QUOTE=OPSSG;177544]
I would rather that Indonesia NOT induct the J-10 at the moment, as your air force is already committed to 2 fighter aircraft types (F-16s and Su-30s). The J-10's WS10A* engine is not a 'proven' product (as early versions of the J-10 were using the Russian AL-31FN engine), so Indonesia cannot know how much parts to stock for the WS10A engine. Don't subsidize China's WS10A engine development by being their first sales guinea pig (let someone else be the first few foreign operators of the J-10). Why make your air force's life so hard in maintenance terms (you already have hard to maintain Su-30s)... and you have so few of each aircraft type any way.

OPSSG, I think you just hit the main issue, standarizations of aircraft types. The Air Force love their F 16, and deep down if they can choose, they want to replaces ASAP those F 5 and Hawk 200 (useless fighters if I might say, bought only due to Soeharto's cronies business) with F 16.
Before I put J 10 only for possibilities (distant but still there) of the comebacks of the previous Soekarnos daughter as president. After all her political block is the one whose fanning the anti american sentiment in here.

The current defence minister and the air force chief in several interviews already hinted they want more F 16. How to get it is the problem. Definetely (from sources in the air forces) we want 60 to 72 F 16 and if that can be achieved only 12 to 24 that will be brand new Block 52. The rest will be upgrading (MLU) of existing Block 15 and second hand Block 25.
Just like you say, that's the budget problem will show.
Realistically though If we upgrading F 16, it will come from US Inventory. Don't think at this moment there will be much extra non US F 16 left. We already missed that since Jordan, Chille, and other NAto's eastern members scoop them.

Please do not propose to operate 12 fighter squadrons -- it is the most inefficient way to run squadrons (as each squadron will need tooling, maintenance manuals, parts and so on). I would rather Indonesia operate fewer but bigger squadrons of 18-24 planes each and rotate them via forward deployments of detachments to different Indonesian locations (you'll have less crashes that way), as and when, Indonesia feels the need to beef up security in a particular sector.

I put the number 8 as the air force 5 years plan still call for 11 sq's in which 8 fighters and 1 COIN and 2 specialize ground attack. Don't now why they still need COIN since with the MI 35 in the army, no need for this type. Also with nature of multiroles of current fighters, specialize ground attacks is redundant.
But it's the nature in planning here, that you ask for more and settle for less. Thus I belive the airforce (from other interview) will settle for 8 sq.

Again if they want standardize with SU 30 and F 16, the most realistical and optimist number will be 72 + 24. More of that beyond affordability unless suddenly we can have more than USD 10 bio defece budget annualy for the next five years (Tripple from what now :rolleyes:)

The questions is 12 fighters per sq is it optimal ? The airforce wants to have 18 per sq, but if we can only have below 100, than 8 simply out of questions. 8 because the airforce want to have 8 fighter main bases.
Rotating them off course is what they're doing now (with only 5 sq of fighters), and even with 8 sq they will also still rotating them to secondary bases.

Thus came argument that 12 per sq still can achieve optimal maintanance capabilities, that as long as we can have overall quantity numbers that spreading them in several sq still maintanable.
But personally I agree that's this means still higher maintanance costs. But sadlly theres still bonehead lawmakers in here more attracted to hollow national pride and prestige on having more sq eventhough it's means having less aircraft per sq.

I'm just hoping by the time the money comes for getting those aircraft, it's also means getting the missiles and the other armaments. The situations with the first flankers purchase hopefully not to be repeated again..

OPSSG

July 2nd, 2009, 10:33 AM

... I believe the airforce (from other interview) will settle for 8 sq.

The questions is 12 fighters per sq is it optimal ? The airforce wants to have 18 per sq...

IMO, Indonesia and Malaysia defence planners are much more concerned about each other's defence developments - than say with Singapore. A significant increase in Indonesia's military capabilities will more likely attract a counter response from Malaysia. This means that when you buy more they will too - so Indonesia will need to keep that in mind as your air force signals your country's intentions.

Beyond just maintenance costs, when you split your planes into smaller groups on more airbases - the likelihood of each airbase surviving in an air war is lower.

If your air force concentrates its resources, each base/squadron becomes stronger. It's not just about planes, it is about defence planning. To be survivable, each air base will need a SAM battery, a base defence squadron and some form of radar early warning from surrounding radar stations that is connected to the base (which I will call support elements). These ground based radars stations also need to be strategically located a certain distance from air base, to cover possible aggressor ingress routes. So from a defence capability planning standpoint I would rather Indonesia develop 4 big F-16 airbases with support elements (and with 18x F-16s per squadron - i.e. total of 72 planes) rather than 6 smaller F-16 bases without support elements (and with 12x F-16s per squadron - i.e. total of 72 planes).

...if they want standardize with SU 30 and F 16, the most realistical and optimist number will be 72 + 24....

...I'm just hoping by the time the money comes for getting those aircraft, it's also means getting the missiles and the other armaments. The situations with the first flankers purchase hopefully not to be repeated again...

In this discussion I would assume that we are talking about the planned total force of 72x F-16s and 24x Sukhois (adding up to a total of 92 planes).

Acquiring an additional 66x 2nd hand F-16s, after 'upgrades' (currently operating 6x F-16s at the moment) would cost approximately US$1.2 billion - US$1.45 billion (assuming the cost of buying and upgrading is kept low at US$18 million to US$22 million each).* Having 66 more F-16s would also mean the need to acquire at least 200 more AIM-120C missiles, 200 AIM-9 sidewinders, a few bombs, NVGs and other misc supporting gear. See this link for an idea of possible munitions and other support equipment costs (http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Singapore_08-34.pdf) - for a suggested additional price tag of US$600 million to US$900 million.

Realistically, from a budget stand point, I don't think the Indonesian air force will be given the capital acquisition budget in the next 10 years to acquire 66 more 2nd hand F-16s - so all these plans are just talk, without the necessary budget allocation at the moment. The current operating budget required to operate 6x F-16s is very different from your proposed 96 aircraft (8 bases x 12 planes each).

IIRC, Indonesia already has 7x Sukhois (with 3 more Su-27SKM to be delivered) (http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/3516/Third-Su-30-fighter-for-Indonesia-passes-flight-tests.html). Your air force will need to buy a few more (you proposed a total of 24 Sukhois). The Indonesian air force can use this proposed squadron for long range missions to better make use of this plane's range and size. Operating costs for a Su-27/Su-30 squadron will be more than twice that of a F-16 squadron, you can also expect to have lower availability and the planes may need to be overhauled more frequently.

------------------
*Notes: In Pakistan's case, they are spending US$75 million to upgrade 42 of their F-16A/Bs (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/01/329050/turkish-aerospace-to-start-pakistani-f-16-upgrades-in.html) (which works out to US$1.7 million each) and Chile bought their 18x 2nd hand F-16s at US$270 million (http://www.f-16.net/news_article3419.html) (which works out to US$15 million each).

Ananda

July 3rd, 2009, 04:07 AM

[QUOTE=OPSSG;177557].
Acquiring an additional 66x 2nd hand F-16s, after 'upgrades' (currently operating 6x F-16s at the moment) would cost approximately US$1.2 billion - US$1.45 billion (assuming the cost of buying and upgrading is kept low at US$18 million to US$22 million each).* Having 66 more F-16s would also mean the need to acquire at least 200 more AIM-120C missiles, 200 AIM-9 sidewinders, a few bombs, NVGs and other misc supporting gear. See this link for an idea of possible munitions and other support equipment costs (http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Singapore_08-34.pdf) - for a suggested additional price tag of US$600 million to US$900 million.

On one interview in Tempo magazine and also Angkasa, the air force predicts to be able achieve their 5 years (2010-2014) expansion plan, they need minimum capital expenditure of USD 5 bio (USD 1 bio per year). USD 2 bio earmarked for fighters expansion alone, while the rest USD 3 bio needed for Transports, Trainers, SAM's, Radars etc.
Lets assume for F 16 they need USD 1.5 bio for 5 years or USD 300 mio per year. With total costs for acquairing second hand F 16 and upgrading package they assume USD 25 mio per fighter. Thus means they can have potential 10 - 12 fighthers a year.
On this assumption they theoritically have 50 - 60 F 16 in 5 years. Short for minimum 72 needed if they still wants to have 6 sq.

This scenarios show that what the air force wants for F 16 and SU only fighters fleet of 8 sq are difficult to achive even with their projections of 5 bio capex, which incidently already more than 3 times current annual capex of only in neighbourhood of USD 300 mio annualy or USD 1.5 bio in five years.

Even somehow they manage to do that, I don't think they will buy armaments on your scenarios. If you look at Sirpi reports you can see historically (except in Soekarno's era) we bought equivalent only half off armament for a fighter compares what Singapore provide for one simmilar fighter.

IIRC, Indonesia already has 7x Sukhois (with 3 more Su-27SKM to be delivered) (http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/3516/Third-Su-30-fighter-for-Indonesia-passes-flight-tests.html). Your air force will need to buy a few more (you proposed a total of 24 Sukhois). The Indonesian air force can use this proposed squadron for long range missions to better make use of this plane's range and size. Operating costs for a Su-27/Su-30 squadron will be more than twice that of a F-16 squadron, you can also expect to have lower availability and the planes may need to be overhauled more frequently.

According to their sq leader, the operational costs for SU 30 is almost 3 times than F 16, thus twice really in moderate view :)
I don't how much it's contributed due to we have very limited SU 30, but considering the number of operational F 16 also only 6, then I think the costs comparisons should be in line.

Just like you say, the main attractions for us of Flankers is their ranges, their relatively larger radar coverage compared to F 16 (and don't mentioned those useless Hawk 200).
The airforce wants to have 48, but off the record they say that getting and operating 48 Flankers, means we can not operate other types, due the fighters opeartional budget will be suck in altogethers.

Something that don't reasonate well with the so called 'nationalist law makers. In fact rumours say that one of them accused the current Defence Ministers as US Lackeys in Parlement hearing simply because he put reasoning on having more F 16 than Flankers is economically sounder.

Ohh well nice scenarios deduction :D

OPSSG

July 30th, 2009, 11:04 AM

...According to their sq leader, the operational costs for SU 30 is almost 3 times than F 16, thus twice really in moderate view :)

...The air force wants to have 48, but off the record they say that getting and operating 48 Flankers, means we can not operate other types, due the fighters operational budget will be suck in altogether.

...Something that don't resonate well with the so called 'nationalist law makers. In fact rumours say that one of them accused the current Defence Ministers as US Lackeys in Parliament hearing simply because he put reasoning on having more F 16 than Flankers is economically sounder.

The political climate in Indonesia is such that it is very hard to achieve the necessary consensus to proceed forward. Anyone leading the Indonesian Parliament has the job of a cat herder (an impossible task :) ). The net result is that it would be hard for Indonesia to take advantage of buying more 2nd hand F-16s as the European air forces trim their capacity. Jordan is the latest air force to grow its F-16 fleet (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a016a00a0-6842-4988-b0ca-c32fbf415555&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest) by buying 2nd hand.

Sandhi Yudha

July 31st, 2009, 03:58 AM

[

According to their sq leader, the operational costs for SU 30 is almost 3 times than F 16, thus twice really in moderate view :)
I don't how much it's contributed due to we have very limited SU 30, but considering the number of operational F 16 also only 6, then I think the costs comparisons should be in line.

Just like you say, the main attractions for us of Flankers is their ranges, their relatively larger radar coverage compared to F 16 (and don't mentioned those useless Hawk 200).
The airforce wants to have 48, but off the record they say that getting and operating 48 Flankers, means we can not operate other types, due the fighters opeartional budget will be suck in altogethers.
:D
Why are they useless? They almost have the same radarsystem, they have the same weapons (AIM9-P4), they are only non-supersonic.

I dont expect in the next five years some new fighters, except the 3 Su-27SKM. Our government dont want to spend too much for our national defence. The acquisition of the subs are also postponed/dimundurkan.
Sometimes i become depressed, if i see how weak we have become...

Ananda

August 3rd, 2009, 08:31 AM

Sandhi Yudha

August 6th, 2009, 01:16 AM

[QUOTE=Sandhi Yudha;178750]Why are they useless? They almost have the same radarsystem, they have the same weapons (AIM9-P4), they are only non-supersonic.
IQUOTE]

The range is limited, and because we pay too much for that Hawk 200. Thus I say for us, Hawk 200 are useless aircraft.
After Soeharto's downfall, sources in the airforce dare to come out saying, that the cost on acquaring those Hawks 100/200 were in same leugue with the costs of getting more F 16.

"On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refuelling."
Yes, not very impressive. Not enough for Pekanbaru-Natuna or Peknbr-Ambalat. What about T-50/A-50? I couldn't find the range/combat radius of this plane yet.

Sandhi Yudha

August 6th, 2009, 01:29 AM

Found it!
Max Range 1,150miles (1,851km)
Ceiling 48,000ft (14,600m; 9.1 miles)
Hardpoints 7 (including wingtips)
Empty Weight 14,200lbs (6,441kg)
MTOW 26,422lbs (11,985kg)
Engine 1 x General Electric F404-102 turbofan engine delivering 17,700lbs of thrust with afterburning.
# Weapons Suite 1 x 20mm M61A1 Vulcan gatling cannon
# 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (wingtip mounts)
# 6 x AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
# Cluster Bombs
# Rocket Pods
# General Purpose Bombs
Better than Hawk Mk200!

OPSSG

August 6th, 2009, 02:05 AM

@Sandhi Yudha, I agree that the Korean T-50/A-50 has impressive specifications. We'll have to wait to see the radar they are equipped with on their first sale - both Israel and Singapore are separately considering a Korean trainer aircraft purchase.

Why are they useless? They almost have the same radar system, they have the same weapons (AIM9-P4), they are only non-supersonic.

[The range is limited, and because we pay too much for that Hawk 200. Thus I say for us, Hawk 200 are useless aircraft.

After Soeharto's downfall, sources in the air force dare to come out saying, that the cost on acquiring those Hawks 100/200 were in same league with the costs of getting more F 16.

Yes, based on your sources, Indonesia may have over paid for the Hawk 200 because of corruption during the Suharto era. Given that Indonesia already owns these aircraft, the question becomes: How to best make use of them?

Compared to Indonesia's F-16s and the Hawk 200s, the Sukhois much more costly to maintain. IMO, the Indonesian air force may want to look at different ways to manage the costs of flying the Sukhois. Your air force may need to consider looking at how other countries manage their costs. In the case of Malaysia, they post their their junior pilots to the Hawk 200s squadrons, to make sure that these junior pilots get enough flight hours. Some sources have suggested that the Malaysians only send senior pilots to their Su-30MKM squadron. Which is one way of managing costs while ensuring that only their best pilots (with enough flight hours) get to fly their Sukhois.

BTW, has Indonesia invested in a Sukhoi simulator? Simulators are a good way to limit type conversion and operating costs but they require upfront capital investment.

anan

August 6th, 2009, 03:12 AM

OPSSG

August 6th, 2009, 10:11 PM

Interesting discussion.

Yes, it is interesting to look at how different countries spend their limited defence dollars to maximize their military capability. :D

Used F16s might be harder to come from since Iraq is insisting that the US transfer some from the USAF to them. Perhaps 96 in all.

Sigh... I believe that US has a inventory of used F-16s and they have a contingency plan in case the JSF program is delayed. If I'm not wrong, the US established a program to earmark in FY 2000 some 200 older, F-16 fighter aircraft in inactive storage for potential reactivation. The purpose of this program was to provide a basis for constituting two combat wings more quickly than would be possible through new production.

I'm not current on actual USAF inactive inventory levels and their plans - perhaps another forum member would be kind enough to point you in the right direction. Alternatively, you can do a search of DT, the information on USAF early retirement plans was previously posted in other threads.

It seems to me that Indonesia probably only needs a small quantity of air supremacy fighters and turboprop light attack aircraft (KT 1.) Why does it need more than that?

Please ask the Indonesian forum members on their point of view. I don't want to comment on your point of view, as there is a limit to my willingness to explain.

OPSSG, what are the operations costs of different aircraft?

My estimates on F16s for example (depreciating over 20 years):
-$5,000/hr * 210 hours/year = $1.1 annual million operations costs
-$70 million Acquisition cost + $30 million upgrade + initial munitions + initial spares costs = $100 million or $5 million a year.
-$100 million in other munitions = $5 million per year
-$50 million in upgrades + spares = $2.5 million per year
-$1.4 million per year in other unaccounted for costs
= $300 million total or $15 million per year

Is the above in the right ballpark?

I don't want to comment (via providing a figure) as it is too much trouble to explain why any figure cited can be totally wrong.

Kindly do some internet searches on USAF F-16 standards for Mission Capable Rates (MCRs) and operational deployment rates (DepTempo). Upon reading related articles of these sort, it would clear that any operations cost figures would be tempered by the respective DepTempo (or operations tempo) of different countries.

If you look at the Thai air force, they actually decommission 1 or 2 F-16s for cannibalization of parts (to keep their operating costs down). Different countries also face different threats (thereby having different operations tempo) and they also have different flying hours standards.

BTW, arms purchases and levels of war stocks vary depending on various geo-strategic considerations. Please keep the cost of the missiles and bombs as a separate line item from your maintenance numbers, as the numbers purchased for each F-16 (or such other aircraft) will vary greatly. To some extent this is threat and relationship based. For example, for Pakistan, their existential threat is India (and they don't trust that the US will supply them with more missiles in a pinch). Given the size of India's air force, the number of air to air missiles Pakistan would want to buy per plane is much more than that of Indonesia.

How do the F/A 50 and SU 30... costs compare?

I'm not very interested in the topic of maintenance costs and will not further reply on that topic. However, you should note that Russian planes (in the Su-30s and in PLAAF planes with Russian engines) have a relatively short Mean Time Between Failure rates (MBTF) compared to Western engines and have other serviceability problems. Read up on the MBTF of the engines of the fighters you are interested in.

If you are so inclined, have a look at the RMAF thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/rmaf-future-need-opinions-4710-76/) as they operate both Su-30MKMs and F-18Ds. Finally, see my prior comments here (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/iraq-buys-f-16s-8689/#post165539) and here (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/iraq-buys-f-16s-8689-3/) - sorry about not wanting to repeat them, as I don't want to be seen as bashing a particular air frame.

Sandhi Yudha

August 7th, 2009, 01:06 AM

Hehe...i have somewere read that in the nineties our government had the plan to order 96 Hawks in total from UK...

->OPSSG: Also in our Airforce only the best ones will be placed in the F16 or Sukhoi squadron.

It seems to me that Indonesia probably only needs a small quantity of air supremacy fighters and turboprop light attack aircraft (KT 1.) Why does it need more than that?
OUr country is the biggest archipelago of the world, some 5,5 square km, if you can cut Indonesia from the globe, you can put it above whole Europe.
So even if all of our fightersquadrons are equipped with the Su-30 (SkU 1,3,11,12 dan 14), its still not enough.

Ananda

August 7th, 2009, 01:48 AM

Interesting discussion. Used F16s might be harder to come from since Iraq is insisting that the US transfer some from the USAF to them. Perhaps 96 in all.

It seems to me that Indonesia probably only needs a small quantity of air supremacy fighters and turboprop light attack aircraft (KT 1.) Why does it need more than that?
QUOTE]

Anan, this discussion is the 'Poor Man' scenarios on getting as much it can on a very limited budget.:D We spend 20% - 25% of Government budget (eq of USD 25 bio - 30 bio) on several subsidies ranging from food, fuel, energy, poverty alliniation, etc.. only left USD 3.5 bio for overall armed forces to operate and doing acquisitions and somehow the Air Force (which left less than 30% of that USD 3.5 bio) still managed conducting training and Patrol (even limited), in my book's is already quite miracelous.

The perceived threat scenarios' actually still debated now by government and parlements..thus on the issue of 'minimum deterences' needed also being talked.
How many fighters do we really need...?? Are we need more transport rather than Fighters..?? Do we really need Air Supremacy or just COIN and Bomb Trucks..??
Well, even with limited external threat scenarios perceived, Indonesia's from western tip to eastern end..has the simmilar range of US Continental West Coast to East Coast.

This requaired minimum patroling capabilities. The number of aircraft and sq's that' I've discussed with OPSSG in this thread, coming from our Air Force calculations on minimum partrol forces needed.
I'm not high on the need of Turboprop/COIN Fighters, simply because in my oppinion the job can be taken over by MI 35 that army acquairing.
Still the Air Force want's the COIN even the Army secretly wants the money for COIN to be switch for them on acquairing more MI 35 and MI 17.
Personally I suspected the Air Force insistance on getting COIN more as tools in budget rivalry with the Army and the Navy. Afterall, like other nations, the three branches of the Armed Forces continue having 'permanent' budget rivalry.

I'm not have extensive knowledge on Fighters operating costs, but I agree with OPSSG that several factors needed to be considered on operating costs comparisons. For me domestically the Air Forces and ministry of defences already agree that Operation costs of F 16 is much cheaper than SU 27/30.

Probably this one of the factor why the planned acquistion of Russian equipment now being reconsidered for switching. Rumours says that the ministry wants to increase acquisition from Russia on Land Equipments, and Anti Aircraft bateries, and reducing the acquisition on Russian Fighters or Naval Equipments due to operating costs considerations.

[QUOTE]"On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refuelling."

Sandhi Yudha, I've to admit my dislike to Hawk 200 related to my bias due to the way they acquired. However I'm still think those aircraft are not suitable for our need. But again like OPSSG say, those fighters already at hand, and has to be optimize.
I believe the air forces already doing fine job on optimising them. Still in my oppinion we do need to get rid of them as soon as possible.

OPSSG, no I haven't heard possible acquisitions on Flankers Simulators, the Air Forces had some talked with the Indian Air Forces on possible training there. Funny though, on why they're talking with Indian, since in my oppinion our Flankres are more comparables with the Chinese ones.

On the other hand, what I heard on Simmulators business that the Air Forces planned to upgrades the existing F 16 simulators, even getting another one.
Probable sign that F 16 more prefered than Flankers..??? :unknown

OPSSG

August 7th, 2009, 03:09 PM

@Sandhi Yudha and Ananda, good posts both of you. :D

Our country is the biggest archipelago of the world, some 5,5 square km...

I think there is a small typo, Indonesia can't be 5.5 square km. :unknown

...I'm not have extensive knowledge on Fighters operating costs, but I agree with OPSSG that several factors needed to be considered on operating costs comparisons. For me domestically the Air Forces and the Ministry of Defence already agree that Operation costs of F 16 is much cheaper than SU 27/30.

Probably this one of the factor why the planned acquisition of Russian equipment now being reconsidered for switching...

(i) If anyone is really interested in the topic of F-16 operating and support costs, kindly take a look at this June 2006 NPS MBA thesis/report (which relates to Poland's F-16 purchase):

"Analysis and Forecasting of Operating and Support costs for F-16 C/D (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA451410&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)"

This is a useful starting point to acquaint yourself on the basic issues.

(ii) In the separate issue of missile costs, the latest purchases by Jordan (http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/Jordan_09-33.pdf), at US$131m for 85 AIM120C-7 missiles (or US$1.54m per AIM120C-7 missile) and S. Korea (http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/ROK_09-52.pdf) (55 AIM-9X missles, 12 training rounds and support equipment for US$41m) may be helpful in enabling those interested in calculating these costs.

[h/t to weasel1962 for the links to the latest missile costs]

Sandhi Yudha

August 9th, 2009, 10:06 PM

@Sandhi Yudha and Ananda, good posts both of you. :D

I think there is a small typo, Indonesia can't be 5.5 square km. :unknown

]

:)
Sorry i mean 5,5 million square km
Its including our territorial seas. Landmass only: 1,9 million

Sandhi Yudha

August 20th, 2009, 04:09 AM

Does anybody know something about the status of the acquisition of the TD-2000B air defence system?
3698

Ananda

October 18th, 2009, 07:23 AM

From Defesanet..Using Google translation:

Indonesia buys eight jets Embraer Super Tucano Agreement between Brazil and the U.S. could open the U.S. market

Embraer has just closed the sale of eight jets Super Tucano aircraft of advanced training and light attack aircraft for the Air Force of Indonesia. The information was disclosed yesterday (15 Oct '09) by the Air Force commander, Brigadier Juniti Saito, certification event for the sub-orbital rocket VSB-30 and test engine sounding rocket VS-40, Department of Aerospace Science and Technology (DCTA) Sao Jose dos Campos.

Embraer, sought by value, said, through a spokesperson, would not comment on the transaction. With this new contract of sale, the third international supply of the Super Tucano in 2009, aircraft orders this year totaling 40 units. Sales of the model now totaling 177 units, of which 100 have been delivered, and 75 for the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) and 25 for Colombia.

The value of the contract with Indonesia was not disclosed, but the basic version of the Super Tucano costs about $ 10 million. The growth in sales of the Super Tucano should also increase the participation of defense in sales and CEO. In 2008, for example, the aircraft was responsible for more than half of exports of this segment of the company, which amounted to U $ 504 million.

Well I haven't been able to get confirmation yet on this matter in here, since eventhough the airforce wants COIN replacement for OV 10 for sometime and already submit Super Tucano as the prefered candidates, but some noises in defense ministries admiited the South Korean still want to pursue hard with KO-1.

Anyway, personally I still hold my oppinion that buying another sq's for COIN relacement is not really smart move for our situations. It will again put our relative small air forces in logistics trap with more than aircraft types it can really maintain optimally. If the airforce really want COIN (wasted resources I'm still say with the Army already have MI-35), then KO-1 with 80% commonality with KT-1 should be the choices.

But let see if any confirmation come out from here.

Ananda

October 18th, 2009, 07:33 AM

From Antara, Using Google translation:
"Puna" Terrorist Surveillance Aircraft Operated By 2010

Tangerang (ANTARA News) - Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) in 2010, immediately operate the aircraft crew or mini-nir "Puna" as a supporter of national defense and security and terrorist surveillance.

Minister for Research and Technology (Research and Technology) Kusmayanto Kadiman in Tangerang, Banten, Saturday, saying, BPPT has researched and successfully developed Puna as a reconnaissance aircraft of the air of what is happening on land and sea.

He said, Puna will be used by the military and police personnel to Indonesia in the infiltration of activities in conflict-prone areas.

"Puna also conduct surveillance of terrorists who were hiding in inaccessible locations," said Puna Menristek.Pesawat miniature camera is also equipped to photograph events on the ground and report to stakeholders as evidence.

Research and Technology said the aircraft Puna is currently in final stages of manufacturing process and will be operated in 2010.

"We want to show researchers aircraft made Puna Indonesia could be used as a supporter of national security, so it must not be purchased from abroad," said Research and Technology.

Meanwhile, Director of Technology Center for Defense and Security Industry BPPT, Joko Purwono said, Puna can reach a height in the air up to 120 kilometers (km).

Puna is an aircraft equipped with surveillance cameras otonomos and not controlled through the remote.

Joko added, Puna has a body length of four meters and seven meters long with a wing reach a sufficient height above the air.

"Puna aircraft will be produced next year by PT Dirgantara Indonesia (DI), for the moment the plane was in the process of completion," said Joko.

In addition, said Joko BPPT has also developed two miniature reconnaissance aircraft other types of aircraft Swallow weighing 10 kilograms (kg) and reconnaissance aircraft called Alap-Alap weighing 25 kg, to monitor Indonesia's marine waters. (*)

Bellow the image of Puna UAV, from defense-studies blogspot.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_En-sxfOkXP8/StnkeQRtegI/AAAAAAAADgg/hdRzJuVVNxc/s400/Pelatuk_Defense+Studies.JPG

Not much info other than this one, on the specific result of the test. I put the bold on the autonomous claim, since it's quite a leap for Indonesia UAV. All the local UAV before still controlled by remote piloting. Still not really much info on 'how autonomous' the claim really mean.

Sandhi Yudha

October 19th, 2009, 07:49 AM

From Defesanet..Using Google translation:

Well I haven't been able to get confirmation yet on this matter in here, since eventhough the airforce wants COIN replacement for OV 10 for sometime and already submit Super Tucano as the prefered candidates, but some noises in defense ministries admiited the South Korean still want to pursue hard with KO-1.

Anyway, personally I still hold my oppinion that buying another sq's for COIN relacement is not really smart move for our situations. It will again put our relative small air forces in logistics trap with more than aircraft types it can really maintain optimally. If the airforce really want COIN (wasted resources I'm still say with the Army already have MI-35), then KO-1 with 80% commonality with KT-1 should be the choices.

But let see if any confirmation come out from here.
Im 100% agree with you. Its waste of our money. Why would we need a fixed wing COIN AIRCRAFT? And if we need them now, Some extra Mi-35P or as you said KO-1 would be better....
Mendingan we use the budget for the maintenance of our existing fleet, for spareparts and weapons, so all our airplanes are operationable and usable for their role.

http://94.100.114.197/762950001-763000000/762961001-762961100/762961037_5_E2k0.jpeg
This picture is taken from far away, but you can see a new CN235-220.
Maybe its for South-Korea's order for 4 aircraft, but maybe its for our own airforce. On the body of the aircraft the code beginning with AX-23.. is visible...

Ananda

October 20th, 2009, 03:17 AM

This picture is taken from far away, but you can see a new CN235-220.
Maybe its for South-Korea's order for 4 aircraft, but maybe its for our own airforce. On the body of the aircraft the code beginning with AX-23.. is visible...

According to publish work load from DI/IPTN, the schedulled delivery and existing CN 235 on the facility should go to South Korea. Anyway the colour scheme seems not the one being used by our Air Force or Naval Air Wing.

pokemon21

October 23rd, 2009, 12:47 PM

@OPSSG T50 looks great indeed let's see what it comes with in "the real world"

OPSSG

November 8th, 2009, 08:25 AM

@OPSSG T50 looks great indeed let's see what it comes with in "the real world"

Sorry for the late reply (I've been kind of tied up and my schedule is looking worse over time). Yes, we'll find out more once the T-50 makes its first export sales. Here's some recent Raytheon news related to the Korean aircraft (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/29/334087/raytheon-to-offer-aesa-radar-for-seouls-fa-50-fighter.html).

Sandhi Yudha

November 14th, 2009, 12:00 AM

Sorry for the late reply (I've been kind of tied up and my schedule is looking worse over time). Yes, we'll find out more once the T-50 makes its first export sales. Here's some recent Raytheon news related to the Korean aircraft (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/29/334087/raytheon-to-offer-aesa-radar-for-seouls-fa-50-fighter.html).

Thanks, interesting article. But i dont think the US is willing to sell such a high-tech radar as a AESA to an islamic brown non-Western/white/NATO country, specially to Indonesia.
But an AESA makes the F/A-50 an even more capable LIFT/ F-16 replacement.

swerve

November 14th, 2009, 12:54 PM

The USA has sold 60 F-16E to the UAE. The F-16E (also known as F-16 Block 60) has the APG-80 AESA radar. The F-16E & F-18E (the latter with APG-79 AESA) are being offered to India.

BTW, the F/A-50 would be for sale with the British Selex Vixen 500E AESA radar by now, if Lockheed Martin & the US government hadn't objected. The contract under which LM assisted in T-50 development allowed them to block it.

Ananda

December 4th, 2009, 09:59 AM

Indonesia Looking at Russian, Chinese Trainer/Attack Aircraft
16-Nov-2009 15:41 EST
Related Stories: Asia - China, Asia - Other, Contracts - Intent, Fighters & Attack, Issues - International, Issues - Political, Russia, Specialty Aircraft

In August 2007, “Indonesia’s Air Force Adds More Flankers” chronicled its purchase of Russian SU-27SK and SU-30MKK fighters. The Flankers would supplement and/or replace fleets of F-16A/B and F-5E/F Tiger II fighters, whose condition was harmed by a long arms embargo imposed in response to widespread repression and genocide in East Timor.

East Timor became independent in 2002, and the American embargo on military supplies to Indonesia was lifted in 2005. Nevertheless, the effects of foregone maintenance can be lasting, and the experience was firmly etched into Indonesia’s military consciousness. Subsequent incidents, such as the UK’s injunctions against using British-made Scorpion light tanks against Aceh’s separatist revolt, only deepened the determination of Indonesia’s military and political leaders to deal with a different set of military suppliers.

In fall 2007, “Indonesia Signs $1B+ Defense Credit Agreement With Russia” chronicled the next step under that policy. Now Indonesia is looking to replace its fleets of BAE Hawk Mk.53 trainer jets, and OV-10 Bronco forward air control/ counterinsurgency aircraft. Their replacements will reportedly be Russian – and Chinese…

The Yak-130 was developed as a joint project by Alenia Aermacchi, and Russia’s Yakolev Design Bureau. The partners ended up going their separate ways, fielding 2-seat aircraft with similar lines but different internal equipment. By 2006 the aircraft had beaten the MiG-AT and Sukhoi’s S-54 to be selected as Russia’s next advanced jet trainer, and has also been sold to Algeria. There are also reports that Libya has 6 on order.

While Alenia’s M-346 Master emphasizes its role as an advanced trainer and aerobatic jet, the similar Yak-130 can also be heavily armed for air policing patrol, or counter-insurgency/ ground attack missions. Its NIIP Zhukovsky Osa radar offers adequate performance, and its 8 hardpoints can carry up to 3,000 kg/ 6,600 pounds of weapons. These reportedly include Western equipment like AIM-9L/Magic 2 short-range air-air missiles (SRAAM) and AGM-65 Maverick precision strike missiles; as well as Russian weapons like the advanced R-73/ AA-11 Archer SRAAM, a Platan targeting pod, the Vhikr and KH-25ML laser guided missiles, the KAB-500Kr guided bomb, 23mm or 30mm gun pods, or rockets and unguided bombs. The Yak-130 is powered by a pair of AI-222-25 or Povazske Strojarne DV-2SM (export option) turbofans.

The Yak-130 offers similar capabilities to Indonesia’s 8 existing Hawk 109 trainers, and may be actually more comparable to its 29 single-seat Hawk 209 light attack aircraft. Unlike the Tentara Nasional Indonesia Angkatan Udara’s (TNI–AU, Indonesia’s air force) 20 Hawk Mk.53 trainers, which were ordered in 1980-81 and reportedly have few operational planes left, these 1990s-era Hawk fleets remain operational, and are expected to remain in service with the TNI-AU.

China National Guizhou Aviation Industry’s JiaoLian-9, known as FTC-2000 Shanying (Mountain Eagle) when exported, is derived from China’s JJ-7 trainer. Which was, in turn, derived from Russian 2-seat MiG-21s. Visible enhancements include a raised cockpit that greatly improves visibility for both pilots, a correspondingly larger dorsal “spine”, a cranked delta wing to improve handling characteristics, and moving the engine intake from the plane’s nose to a pair of small side intakes.

The JL-9 uses a Chinese WP-13 or WP-14 turbojet engine, and carries Chinese electronics, and weapons. It reportedly packs an internal 23mm cannon, and has 5 stores stations that can carry up to 2,000 kg/ 4,400 pounds of fuel tanks, short-range air-air missiles, or rocket launders and unguided bombs. Its derivation from the MiG-21 gives it questionable suitability as a ground attack aircraft, but they could be used effectively for secondary air policing, especially if equipped with SELEX Galileo’s Grifo S7 radar.

Contracts and Key Events

Indonesia
Nov 13/09: The Jakarta Post quotes newly sworn-in Indonesian Air Force chief of staff Vice Marshal Imam Safaat, who says that Russian Yak-130s and Chinese FTC-2000s would replace Indonesia’s 20 remaining British Hawk Mk.53 trainer jets (2 reportedly operational), and remaining American OV-10 Bronco turboprops (0-8 operational).

At this point, this is pre-budget intent, and not a contract. The age of Indonesia’s Hawk and Bronco fleets, and the importance of training, will add urgency to this request. Imam said that these aircraft are “expensive” and would be bought with the help of foreign aid.

The new TNI-AU chief added that the service also plans to replace its 16 F-5E/Fs (4 reportedly operational) by 2013.

Indonesia’s economy has performed well in recent years, and the TNI-AU budget is expected to increase by 25%-75% over the next year, adding $105-320 million. Nevertheless, a verdict that even the Yak-130 and FTC-2000 are expensive could suggest these very aircraft for the F-5’s roles. Both designs are capable of handling those roles at comparable performance levels, and the shrinkage of Indonesia’s front-line combat fleet makes a large array of single-focus trainers a dubious proposition, unless ample money is available for more front-line fighters as well. The flip side of that choice is that beyond the Yak-130’s strong close air support capabilities, these 2 choices would not be competitive with modern fighters.

Alternatively, Indonesia could cast a wider net, and look to purchase both replacement trainers, and low-budget dedicated fighters like the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17 Thunder, India’s Tejas, or South Korea’s TA-50 Golden Eagle to replace its F-5s. A more ambitious effort might even examine higher-end lightweight fighters like the Russian MiG-29/35, Chinese J-10, or the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen flown by nearby Thailand. Of these lightweight fighter choices, the Russian MiG-29/35 and Chinese JF-17 or J-10 are the only options that would be immune to future western military sanctions. All of the other choices currently fly with General Electric turbofan engines, and are slated to continue using western designs.

This was couple of weeks old from defense industry dailly. I brought this up to show seems some of our brass are getting the massage that we do not need spesialised COIN to replace the OV 10. Getting the armed trainers will do the job.

This perhaps show indications on how the 8 sq of TNI AU will be in 2014. 2 sq of Hawk 100-200, 2 sq of Yak 130 then perhaps 2 sq of F/A 50 (if the planned with South Korea still moving forward) replacing F 5 and F 16, and 2 Sq of Flankers. However if the South Korean planned go sour than 4 sq of Yak 130 seems will be the target. Don't think on using Chinese Fighthers though, resistances in hre on using Chinese fighthers still quite strong. Using Chinese misssiles is one thing, than using the Chinese fighters.
Again this still speculations based on the how the potential procurements moving.

bambu runcing

December 6th, 2009, 03:43 AM

Oh no, not again
FTC 2000? Its just a heavy facelifted MIG-21

As for COIN, Ind AF has signed to buy Embraer Super Tucano

Indonesia Looking at Russian, Chinese Trainer/Attack Aircraft
16-Nov-2009 15:41 EST
Related Stories: Asia - China, Asia - Other, Contracts - Intent, Fighters & Attack, Issues - International, Issues - Political, Russia, Specialty Aircraft

This was couple of weeks old from defense industry dailly. I brought this up to show seems some of our brass are getting the massage that we do not need spesialised COIN to replace the OV 10. Getting the armed trainers will do the job.

This perhaps show indications on how the 8 sq of TNI AU will be in 2014. 2 sq of Hawk 100-200, 2 sq of Yak 130 then perhaps 2 sq of F/A 50 (if the planned with South Korea still moving forward) replacing F 5 and F 16, and 2 Sq of Flankers. However if the South Korean planned go sour than 4 sq of Yak 130 seems will be the target. Don't think on using Chinese Fighthers though, resistances in hre on using Chinese fighthers still quite strong. Using Chinese misssiles is one thing, than using the Chinese fighters.
Again this still speculations based on the how the potential procurements moving.

anan

December 6th, 2009, 03:53 AM

Confusing. Indonesia should only buy one type of COIN aircraft (Embraer Super Tucano A-29 light attack turboprop, K-1, etc.) It is much cheaper to develop maintenance/operations specialization in one aircraft family; then it is to develop maintenance/operations specialization in several aircraft families.

What will Indonesia eventually decide?

Off topic, Embraer Super Tucano A-29 light attack aircraft has had a lot of recent sales wins against its competitor platforms, including with the Afghan Air Force.

bambu runcing

December 7th, 2009, 08:09 AM

It's only a single engine turboprop aircraft
maybe the maintenance issue will be not so different

As to why TNI AU chose Super Tucano
The strong point is its 5th hard points (under belly) against only 4 in her competitor...
This could means longer endurance
And don't forget about its Israeli made avionic (Elbit) which made Super Tucano feels like a Mini Cooper whilst F-16 considered as BMW sedan

Something TNI AU couldn't find in KO-1

They desperately want more F-16s.... even in smaller scale

Confusing. Indonesia should only buy one type of COIN aircraft (Embraer Super Tucano A-29 light attack turboprop, K-1, etc.) It is much cheaper to develop maintenance/operations specialization in one aircraft family; then it is to develop maintenance/operations specialization in several aircraft families.

What will Indonesia eventually decide?

Off topic, Embraer Super Tucano A-29 light attack aircraft has had a lot of recent sales wins against its competitor platforms, including with the Afghan Air Force.

Ananda

December 7th, 2009, 11:04 PM

Oh no, not again
FTC 2000? Its just a heavy facelifted MIG-21

As for COIN, Ind AF has signed to buy Embraer Super Tucano

Bambu Runcing, TNI AU only put Super Tucano's as their prefrences to replaced OV 10, however not any singgle contract has been ink. Remembered, the one that can ink the contract is the MInistry of Defences and not TNI AU.

I have put previously the articles from Brazil that say Indonesia has put contract on Super Tucano's however none of sources from Defence Ministry can confirm that.

The articles that I put here is quite interesting since this come from the new Air Force's chief. In this articles clearly he said that the new light fighter/trainers will replaces both Hawk Mk 53 and OV 10. Thus the new Air Force's Chief does not talked about Super Tucano's anymore.

This in my oppinions not supprising, since the advance of Super Tucano's to Defences Ministry seems not running smoothly.
Again there's still discussions on Defence MInistry on the need of spesialised COIN fighters. The idea that already put by then Ministry Of Defences Juwono Sudharsono was TNI AU already have too many aircraft types' but each only in limited numbers.

This will put strain on maintanance budgets..Thus the defence ministry also want to reduce the numbers of aircraft types on TNI AU inventories, however incerased the number of each type so the maintanaces can be done more economically. This point of view already said several times by MIniter of Defences and other Ministry sources.

I think the articles show that the new Air Force Chief are more in line with the thinking of ministry of defences, thus he wants to reduce the number of Aircraft types..like replacing two types (Hawk MK 53 and OV 10) to just one type. Even the articles suggest that the types choosen will potentially also to replace F 5. If this happen than the new types will replaces 3 sq of 3 different types of aircraft. This for TNI AU conditions is more sensibles.

I don't think they will choose Chinese fighters, like I put in my previous comment, buying Chinese MIssiles is one thing, but buying chinese fighters is another diiferent matter. Seems the strong candidates is Yak 130.

However do remembered, that the Government already have MoU with South Korea on possible join development of new Fighters which according to South Korean sources more likely to be A 50 (derivatives of T 50 Golden Eagle).
However with huge US components, can it be sell to the parlements which still show reluctances on buying US or Western equipments..???
Well that has to be seen..

anan

December 8th, 2009, 01:50 AM

Feanor

December 8th, 2009, 02:16 AM

I don't know that the numbers you're asking for are even publicly available. But if they are I wouldn't be surprised if the Yak-130 turned out to be quite inexpensive in those categories.

Ananda

December 8th, 2009, 02:42 AM

Ananda (nice name by the way :-) ), what is the life cycle cost of a Yak 130 versus an A 50?

-cost per mile flown in maintenance refit?
-cost per mile flown in fuel?
-cost per engine?
-miles each engine can fly?

I would imagine that an A50 light attack aircraft substantially outperforms the Yak 130 in the large majority of military metrics.

Sorry Anan, I don't think I have the number. Besides, A 50 it self actually (if I'm not mistaken) not exist yet (afterall only T 50 that already exist right..??).

I only have see one quatations from an Air Force Marshall (however regretfully that I read in one of Indonesian Magazines which no on line edition yet), who said that Yak 130 was considered due to relatively good quality, and economies to maintan.

A 50 I brought up in here due to certain MoU between Indonesia and South Korea on possible joint program of developing light weight Fighters. Still like I said, don't know how this MoU will developed further on.

Ananda

December 16th, 2009, 12:08 AM

From an East Kalimantan Local newspaper (Tribun Kaltim), using google translations

TARAKAN - Army Chief of Staff of the Air Force (KSAU) Air Vice Marshall Imam Sufaat with entourage, Tuesday (15/12) made a visit to the Headquarters Operations Command II, Tarakan airforce base.Danlanud Tarakan, pilots Lt. Col. Andrian Erwan revealed, the visit was related to KSAU TNI AU plans to put the Super Tucano aircraft in Tarakan. This aircraft will be patrolling the border area.

"Placement Super Tucano aircraft was, as a form of central government attention to the border area. This was in accordance with the mandate of the president to be noted in the border area. In the presence of these aircraft are expected to security in border areas can be maintained from the interference of other countries," he said.

In addition to placement of the Super Tucano aircraft, said Erwan, will be placed also a number of airforce personnel. The plan is 300 airforce personnel who will be stationed at Headquarters Operations Command in Tarakan. "Well certainly the number of personnel will be added, with the presence of the Super Tucano aircraft," he said.

According to Erwan, currently airforce personnel in Tarakan, only 33 people. Because until now the construction of housing for members of the TNI AU has not finished. "Building this house is still minimal, and not yet finished, so still waiting until 2010 to come," he said.

As information, Tucano aircraft is capable trainer aircraft COIN (Counter insurgency) or antigerilya attack aircraft made by Embraer Defense Systems, Brasilia. Super Tucano aircraft is a development of the EMB-312 Tucano.

Super Tucano has 2 machine guns located on the left and right, 5 hooks with composition stations each in 2 pieces left and right wing and 1 piece of the fuselage with a total weight 1550 kg. All stations can be installed MK-81 classed bomb, MK-82, multiple rocket launchers, and laser-guided bombs.

Source: TRIBUNKALTIM

I gave up on this one :confused: Seems the Air Force still show strong inclinations on having Super Tucano's eventhough no Defence Ministry source can confirm that they already agree with Super Tucano's as choices.

This newspaper quoted Tarakan air based commander which claim the Super Tucano will be based in there. This alone is not a news, since last year the previous Air Force Chief already stated their intentions if Super Tucano can be bought, they will stationed the sq near Malaysian Borneo's border in Tarakan.

Well perhaps another push by the Air Force to get approval from Defences Ministry on Super Tucano's. Personally I still don't understand why the air force insists on Spesialised COIN this days, when the perious statement from new Air Force Chief indicated they will replaced the trainers (Hawk Mk 52) and the COIN OV 10 with only one type of aircraft.

Well again, this's Indonesia...nothing clear..until it's being done anyway..:D

anan

December 16th, 2009, 04:26 AM

Know I have asked this question before, but how much does an Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano A-29 cost over 20 years assuming reasonable peace-time training excercises?
-Perhaps $100 million or $5 million per year?
-What is the cost per hour flown or per mile flown in fuel and maintenance?
-What is the life expectancy of the engine and the cost of replacing it?

How does this cost compare to the KT-1 or AT-6B Texan II? Presumably (from this thread and many others) the A-29 outperforms the KT-1 and AT-6B on most performance metrics.

Would it be fair to estimate that 100 A-29 attack aircraft might cost about $10 billion over 20 years, or $500 million a year assuming moderate flying time? Or would they be more expensive than that?

Thanks for your help.

STURM

December 20th, 2009, 03:47 PM

Ananda

December 22nd, 2009, 12:07 AM

Greetings everyone,

I have some questions about the TNI-AU and TNI-AD and would appreciate all feedback.

1. Have any weapons been delivered for the Flankers?

2. How many F-16As are operational and apart from Sidewinders and free fall bombs
were any other weapons acquired?

3. What is the status of the Hawk fleet with regards to attritional losses?

4. Have any missiles been acquired for the MiL-35s?

Thank you.

Sturm,

1. Yes the latest packages (3 SU 30 & 3 SU 27) also included weapon packages and wepons packages for the first 2 Su 30 & 2 Su 27. But what's not clear whether this includes Vympel BVRAAM.
2.For F 16, the latest exercise TNI AU flew 6 of them. The last four schedulled to be refiited to operational status by early next year. Sidewinder still the only AAM for our F 16, the other missiles's Mavericks.
3. Attritional loss for Hawk was quite high, but perhaps in percentage wise not as high as Hawk in RMAF. So far by last count there are 27 Hawk 200 and 5 Hawk 100 still operating, from original 40 Hawk (32 Hawk 200 and 8 Hawk 100). I'm not quite thrill with Hawk, as you can see from my previous posts. It's underperformed, hight atrition and in our cased overprices.
4. They already got Rockets and ATGM.

Feanor

December 22nd, 2009, 04:54 AM

Just out of curiosity, why does Indonesia purchase Su-27SK and Su-30MK?

STURM

December 22nd, 2009, 07:27 AM

Ananda

December 23rd, 2009, 12:20 AM

Ananda,

Thank you for your response. Another few questions,

Are the TNI-AUs Hawk 100s used for the light attack role apart from LIFT?

Did the TNI-AU require any modifications to be done for its Flankers prior to delivery, like changing the Russians radios, IFF, TACAN and cockpit instrumentstion?

Are the reports that a number of Pumas and CN-235s are armed with Exocets true?

Yes I noticed you're not a Hawk fan. What do you mean by its underperformed?
I think the TNI-AU had the same humidty problems as the RMAF did with the Hawks.

Has the TNI-AU or government indicated a requirement in the near future to supplement or replace the C-130s?

Feanor, I have no clear sources that's explain why we buy both SU 27 SK and SU 30 MK. However for SU 30 from what I read from several sources and media in here, TNI AU desired to have two seats high performance fighthers was already exist for a long time. In early 90's the Brits offer us Tornado IDS (before we settle with Hawks 100/200).
As far us i can gather, SU 27 SK supposedly in the end as F 5 Replacements, and potentials as F 16 replacements also. That's why in 2004 the then air force chief comments that they need at least 4 sq of both version of Flankers. When this will fullfill, that's still a guessing games in here.

Sturm,

Hawk 100 uses both as light attack and LIFT. But seems the emphasis more on Light Attack and not LIFT.

Our Flankers so far still using standard Russian avionics for SK,SK2 & MK, MK2. As far as I know the original flankers that we ordered back in 1996 (SU 30 K) was supposedly uses some Western Avionics, however I have'nt found any references whether this also done to our current Flankers. There some articles (unconfirmed though) that the SU 30 MK2 already have IFF system that can communicate to TNI AU western standard IFF.

No, the Puma & CN 235 using exocet as far as the sources in here says, was technological demo from Indonesian Aerospaces/PT DI. The Puma & CN 235 can be wired with exocet and DI already have the capabilities integrating the missiles. But no operational version has been made yet.

For Hawks, perhaps I have to go back to the back drop on their acquisitions. Back in 1990's TNI AU wants replacements for A-4. They have looked for several candidates including Tornado IDS (which deemed to high costs to maintain). From sources that I have read back in the 90's (remembered this was still Soeharto's era, so Information was much scarce), the then MInistry of Technology BJ Habibie push Bae Hawks, because the willingness of Bae to help DI (then IPTN) establishing Hawk 100/200 productions line. While at the same time the Air Force preferences was more F 16. However deteriorating political relationship due to East Timor, reduces our chances on Having more F 16, while the Brit's at that time still show willingness to provide us with Hawk 100/200. On darker side, the procurements on Hawks was done through Soeharto's children companies, which in the end push the acquisition of Hawks 100/200 as high as F 16 costs.
I put the underperformed, because the the requirements for the jobs (F 16 class fighters) clearly can not be done by Hawks 200. In sense they're underperformed, because the expectations for the job's to high to their specs.

Yes the TNI AU already show their expectations for more C 130. However we still can't afford for C 130 J, thus the choices was seconhand C 130 H. Facing on the options, seems the Air Force now turning on refurbishing existing C 130 B to C 130 H standard, and optimizing current C 130 H fleet to at least 90% readiness. If this can be done, then our operational C 130 will be back to the 30 aircraft fleet readiness.

Feanor

December 23rd, 2009, 04:37 AM

Ananda

December 23rd, 2009, 05:35 AM

I would imagine it's not that hard to fiddle with the IFFs to match with what you already fly. But 4 squadrons of each? That's pretty expensive. If your squadrons are at 12 aircraft a piece, that's an order of 96 aircraft. Not cheap. Not cheap at all. In fact completely out of line with the tiny purchases of 4 and 6 planes that have been going on so far.

Feanor, sorry for my english. What I mean was in 2004, the then Air Force Chief comment on requirements of 4 sq of Flankers from both types. So, it's 2 sq for each types.
However even that it's preety ambitious considering it's amount to 48 Flankers (12 pc for 1 sq). Considering the amount of money being invested in the Air Force, and considering the money will be prioritize on Transports and replacements of Hawk Mk 53 and OV 10, the additional flankers (in that number) still a far, far way to go.

Recent sources only says that after 2009 contract for 6 Flankers ( 3 SU 30 and 3 SU 27), the additional potential for the next contract will be another 6 (the fastest with 2010 contract thus 2011 delivery), in order to make full sq stregth of 16 aircrafts in Makasar.

Frankly speaking beyond the number of 16 (thus 6 more flankers than current 10 already purchased), I don't see any additional purchase in the next two years.

However back to your original questions on why both SU 27 & SU 30, one of the law makers/parlement members on the defence comitte, already stated that both SU 30 & SU 27 will in the end replaced F 5 and Potential F 16. For that, I can only provide you with this explanations, why we choose to acquaired both types of Flankers.

But then again, the air force still wants F 16 Blok 52 :)

If this guessing game, the best possibility for TNI AU Orbat will be in 2014

1 sq of SU 30
1 sq of SU 27 (for F 5 replacements)
1 sq of F 16 A
1 sq of F 16 Blok 52 (the Air Force best wish, however still do not hold many political support) *
2 Sq of Hawk 100/200
1 sq of Super Tucano...(yes I have to bit my own tounge on this :rolleyes:)
1 sq of Yak 130 (due to now it's the front end candidates in replacing Hawk MK 53).\

8 sq of Fighters was the number of sq that's being shown by the air force on their 5 years (2010 - 2014) plan.
*) those F 16 Blok 52 already in US offer, but getting them facing thoughest political challanges in parlements, since many in here still remembered US embargoes, thus in the name of National Security, many politicians still want to get rid of US Build Fighters if the opportunity arise. Thus why the 4 Sq of Flankers still hold support, if they can come out with the money to acquired them.

So how this will end up, it's still a guessing game. After all in Indonesia, anything it's possible.;)

STURM

December 23rd, 2009, 05:57 AM

Ananda

December 23rd, 2009, 06:11 AM

Ananda, terima kasih! Appreciate the input.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the US embargo due to East Timor, which led to the grounding of the F-16s and C-130s played a big part in the Flankers being ordered, is this correct?

Are all the Flanker pilots former F-16 pilots? I think in the comings years it will be interesting to see TNI-AU and RMAF Flankers taking part in MALINDO.

Yep, the US embargoes was the catalyst. However the planned for Flankers dated back before the US embargoes, at the time after Santa Cruz incidents when Soeharto request for adittional F 16 (ex Pakistan that're still in US soils), faces tough oppositions in US congress.

Those Flankers pilots not necceseraly ex F 16. Many of them also ex A-4.

Feanor

December 24th, 2009, 12:13 AM

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense.

sunshin3

December 26th, 2009, 12:25 AM

Feanor, sorry for my english. What I mean was in 2004, the then Air Force Chief comment on requirements of 4 sq of Flankers from both types. So, it's 2 sq for each types.
However even that it's preety ambitious considering it's amount to 48 Flankers (12 pc for 1 sq). Considering the amount of money being invested in the Air Force, and considering the money will be prioritize on Transports and replacements of Hawk Mk 53 and OV 10, the additional flankers (in that number) still a far, far way to go.

Don't worry about your English as your subsequent explanation has clarified the post.

But then again, the air force still wants F 16 Blok 52 :)

If this guessing game, the best possibility for TNI AU Orbat will be in 2014

1 sq of SU 30
1 sq of SU 27 (for F 5 replacements)
1 sq of F 16 A
1 sq of F 16 Blok 52 (the Air Force best wish, however still do not hold many political support) *
2 Sq of Hawk 100/200
1 sq of Super Tucano...(yes I have to bit my own tounge on this :rolleyes:)
1 sq of Yak 130 (due to now it's the front end candidates in replacing Hawk MK 53).

I also think that it is unlikely that Indonesia will acquire more F-16s.

Ananda

January 12th, 2010, 04:51 AM

From ANTARA news agency using Google Translate

MATARAM - airforce will buy 16 Super Tucano aircraft made by Embraer of Brazil to replace the tactical fighter aircraft OV-10 Bronco North American Rockwell.

"It had been decided at the Air Force Headquarters to replace the aircraft that had been using the OV-10 Bronco with as many as 16 Super Tucano to the needs of the unit or a squadron of fighter," said Commander of the Air Force Operational Command (Pangkoopsau) Vice Marshal Yushan Sayuti, in Mataram, Tuesday (12 / 1).

He suggested that after leading a ceremony for receiving the position of Rembiga Airfield from Lieutenant Colonel Pnb I Made Susila Adnyana to Lieutenant Colonel Pnb Anondo.

Sayuti said the replacement aircraft had been planned since 2007 but will not be realized in this year after the government provides budgetary support. "Efforts to replaced the OV-10 Bronco was in the process at the Department of Defense, hopefully soon be realized according to the amount specified," he said.

OV-10F (OV-10 variant specifically for the TNI-AU) was incorporated in 1/Bronco Flight Squadron based in Lanud Abdul Rachman Saleh, Malang, East Java.

Super Tucano aircraft made by Embraer of Brazil is operated by several countries in Latin America, including Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. As OV-10 Bronco, Super Tucano is also designed for light air attacks, antigerilya, training aircraft and patrol the border with weapons and avionics systems are more sophisticated.

Bleeh, bleeh, bleeehh...what' the h**l they're thinking...:mad: Another COIN...??
Common sense are gone...with limited budgets...why still forcing to have specialised COIN sq's..??

Oohhh well I really have to bit my tounge this time...

STURM

January 25th, 2010, 03:33 AM

Ananda

January 27th, 2010, 08:09 AM

Ananda,

With the fighting in Acheh now over do you think there is still a need for a COIN tuboprop such as the Tucano? Or does the TNI-AU intend to use the Tucano for FAC, patrol and as a CAS platform? In my opinion, the real value of the Tucano for the TNI-AU will be in patroling land borders and littoral areas.

Lastly, despite all the controvesy in the West over the combat use of TNI-AU Hawks in the early 90's, were Hawks actually used in Acheh? Thank you.

Well...I think I already stated my oppinion on having specialised turboprop like tucano's...when the need for counterinsurgencies are dwindling...and the Army already having MI 35 anyway..as if they (TNI AU) flooding with budgets that they can afford on having specialised COIN anyway..:rolleyes:

However your oppinion on potential usage of Tucano's was right..at least from TNI AU stand of point..they need it to patrol land borders.
That's why they planned to stationed them in Tarakan near Sabah's border...the arguments's that the land border in borneo's difficult to patrol by land thus the smugling of raw timber and coal's rampant.
I think they want also to stationed a tucano's flight in Papua's border..

Still with limited budgets they should be more focus on having/reducing the aircraft types..
Anyway..the actual confirmation of agrrement from Ministry Of Defences's not out yet..Rumours says that several brass in the MinDef procurements agency wants TNI AU to have simmilar aircraft to replaces Hawk Mk 53 and OV 10..Which in my mind is the right move...

On Hawk issues..from what I gather..TNI AU on Aceh by that time relly on OV 10 and Not Hawk 100/200.

Ananda

January 27th, 2010, 08:14 AM

From IA (PT DI) press statement:

Cooperation Between PTDI and Eurocopter

PT Dirgantara Indonesia (PTDI) and Eurocopter Directors celebrated today in Bandung the beginning of Airframe assembly for EC725/EC225 Helicopters, the latest version of the “Super Puma” family. This milestone highlights the excellent project coordination and relationship between the two teams. The first fuselage is expected to be delivered at the end of 2011.

Through this cooperation PTDI will produce Tail Boom and Fuselage for EC725/EC225 Helicopters until 2020. The production phase will start with the production of tail boom, in January 2010 and will be continued with the production of fuselage in May 2010. The first Tail Boom is expected to be delivered in October 2010, while the first Fuselage is intended to be delivered in November 2011. 6 Tail Boom units will be delivered in 2011, followed by 10 units in 2012 and then 12 units per year (one unit per month) during the remaining years until 2020.

Eurocopter chose PTDI as the main Supplier in the world for the airframe component on this family of helicopters. The work package will absorb no less than 50% of domestic share value from the manufacturing of elementary parts in more than 4000 parts and assembly of major component, in more than 500 sub-assemblies.

Eurocopter is assisting PTDI during the early stage of the cooperation (non recurring-phase) in the following areas: product planning and tooling; qualification of special processes, jigs and production facilities; certification of key production staff ; procurement planning and supply-chain management. The assistance will enhance DI capabilities to produce airframe for the most advanced transport helicopters.

PTDI signed a cooperation agreement on Airframe production with Eurocopter in the end of 2008. The cooperation is a continuation of long history of cooperation between PTDI & Eurocopter which began in 1978, when PTDI (former IPTN) began assemble SA-330 “Puma” Helicopter, then continued in 1981 with the production of airframe for AS-332 “Super Puma” MK I.

Its a good business move from DI (IA). Having more subcontract jobs was a sensible way to move forward..and making better bases to specialised on lighter planes. Not doing High Prestige but Commercially Unviable projects like they used to do at Soeharto's era.

Ananda

February 22nd, 2010, 10:05 PM

JAKARTA - MI: Air Force Chief of Staff (rafters) Imam Sufaat Marshal TNI TNI AU says planning to buy one Squadron (16 units) Super Tucano fighter planes made by Brazil as a replacement for OV-fighter who has 10 years dikandangkan since 2007.

"Initially budgeted at only U.S. $ 200 million, but because of information from producer price rises then the budget is not enough U.S. $ 13 million per unit. Therefore, the TNI AU proposes additional budget of U.S. $ 50 million in 2010 bringing the total budget to U.S. $ 250 million," said Imam the Working Meeting with the House Commission I with the Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro.

The meeting was also attended by TNI Commander General Djoko Santoso, Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Agus Suhartono, Vice Minister of Defense, Army General Sjafrie Sjamsuddin, and the Deputy Army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General John Suryo Prabowo was held at the House of Representatives Commission I Senayan Jakarta, Monday (22 / 2).

Rafter explains, the plan purchase Super Tucano aircraft have been programmed in the budget two years in 2009 is budgeted U.S. $ 148 million and in 2010 reached U.S. $ 52 million.
According to Imam, the benefits of super tucano aircraft is not only cheaper than the type of fighter F-16, but the most expensive operating costs. For an hour the Super Tucano aircraft operation requires only U.S. $ 70.

"I hope the House of Representatives Commission I, Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Commander can support the faster realization of the Super Tucano aircraft purchases in 2010 was," he said. Beams also explained, the Super Tucano aircraft is a tactical fighter aircraft that served as a counter insurgency, and as the plane remote control air (air control aircraft). Another advantage, said rafter, the Super Tucano aircraft capable of carrying at least 1500 pounds of ammunition grams. In addition, the Super Tucano aircraft was also used by many countries including the United States. Super Tucano aircraft is also better because it can operate at least three hours.

In Brazil, according to the rafters, the Super Tucano aircraft was successfully reduced illegal logging, trafficking. "Specification Super Tucano fighter planes are better and bigger. Temput Used as a tactical aircraft and counter insurgency and water remote control, and also be used as reconnaissance aircraft," he said.

Rafter added, the process of buying Super Tucano aircraft have been discussed since 2007, and the process also has been running announcements.TNI AU, including the House of Representatives Commission I've 2004-2009 period conduct a review in its factory in February 2007.
According to him, desperately need airforce aircraft purchase temput type Super Tucano aircraft to replace temput OV-10 type of dikandangkan after an accident on October 4, 2007. (ST/OL-7) (ST/OL-7)

( Media Indonesia ) (Media Indonesia)

From Media Indonesia using Google translate.

Well, that's the Air Force Chief acting just like Embraer Salesman discussing why TNI AU need Super Tucano. The Aircraft will be based on Tarakan near Malaysian Borneo borders to conducts border patrols and illegal logging preventions as the main job (just what the Brazillian air force uses their Super Tucano on Amazon patrol duties).

Well that's it...with limited budget they still wastes that on Specialized coin fighters...regardless that money could be better off buying second hand F 16 sq.

O welll:)

dtwn

February 24th, 2010, 02:50 PM

Well that's it...with limited budget they still wastes that on Specialized coin fighters...regardless that money could be better off buying second hand F 16 sq.

O welll:)

How would a second hand F16 squadron help? An additional F16 squadron would bolster the air force's capabilities substantially in comparison to existing capabilities, but would the air force be able to support, sustain and maintain an additional squadron? In addition, what purpose would this additional F16 squadron serve? While providing additional combat and patrol capability as well showing the flag/chest thumping, an additional squadron of F16s would not help very much with the duties outlined. In a combat situation, would the additional squadron, if that much could be afforded in the first place, be particularly useful? Would an additional F16 squadron deter any possible hostilities from taking place? The Tucanos certainly wouldn't, but they provide options for daily use, especially for monitoring and patrol purposes.

As for money spent, how many F16s do you think the TNI-AU could have bought with the money budgeted for the Tucanos?

Ananda

February 24th, 2010, 10:20 PM

How would a second hand F16 squadron help? An additional F16 squadron would bolster the air force's capabilities substantially in comparison to existing capabilities, but would the air force be able to support, sustain and maintain an additional squadron? In addition, what purpose would this additional F16 squadron serve? While providing additional combat and patrol capability as well showing the flag/chest thumping, an additional squadron of F16s would not help very much with the duties outlined. In a combat situation, would the additional squadron, if that much could be afforded in the first place, be particularly useful? Would an additional F16 squadron deter any possible hostilities from taking place? The Tucanos certainly wouldn't, but they provide options for daily use, especially for monitoring and patrol purposes.

As for money spent, how many F16s do you think the TNI-AU could have bought with the money budgeted for the Tucanos?

First of all, what's the need for specialized COIN (Counter Insurgences) for TNI AU anymore...It's urgent..??
The Air Force said it's urgent because the OV 10 already grounded, and they need replacements for COIN duty soon..Again the questions is; It's still neceesary for the Air Force to maintain COIN capabilities.??
COIN (in the form of OV 10) was build by TNI AU basically to handle the problem in East Timor, and latter on double duty with problem in Aceh..
Indonesia do not have to worry anymore with problem in East Timor..and Aceh already got political solutions. Problem lays still in Papua..but this problem is very low intensity compared what the East Timor Guerilla and Aceh separatist capable of..certaintly is not worth to have COIN fighters there.

Second, the Army already and will keep continue build their own Gunship capabilities in the form of MI 35. This alone basically abble to conduct COIN duties, which again will raised the questions why the Air Force still need specialised COIN... Are the Air Force not willing to let the Army taking over COIN duties..??
The only arguments that the Air Force can sold now to have Super Tucano, was it's needed for border control in Borneo just as the Brazillian do in the Amazon. However there're other ways to improved border control that's does not requires building specialised COIN sq...Improving the Army Gunship inventories certaintly was one.

Third, even the operational cost of supersonic fighters like F 16 certaintly will be more expensive then a turboprop COIN fighters like Super Tucano, however maintaining squadrons with different types of Aircraft also not cheap. On Fighters TNI AU now have to maintain SU27/30, F 16, F 5, Hawk 100/200, and now will have to maintain Super Tucano. The numbers of each aircraft types also very limited..thus also increased the operational logistical costs.
In sense TNI AU should reduce the aircraft types it's operated...not acquairing another type which will need another set of logistical support lines..And even if they still demanding COIN..for the sake of the costs they should go with Modified KT-1..since they already use that as basic trainers anyway.
In short, for long term..maintaining 2 sq of F 16 will be not more expensive than maintaining 1 sq of F 16 and 1 sq of Super Tucano.

Fourth, based on the amount that Jordan, Chille and what the US Air Force has offered for second hand modified (MLU) F 16, it's around USD 20 mio and USD 25 mio. Thus the Air Force can have another 10-12 F 16 (MLU) with the money they will spend on Super Tucano. It's enough for another sq of F 16.
Super Tucano will be limited to operated on Borneo land border or litoral water near Borneo's border. It's not enough and not build to operated conducting CAP throughout this Archipelago air spaces. F 16 also provided the Airforce the flexibility to be stationed on temporary basis in the supporting air bases throughout Indonesia. You can also move Super Tucano's around, however they will not provide the smae flexibility as F 16 did.

Last, looking all the above, getting another COIN sq by the air force is not more than another inter agency budget competions. The Air Force do not provide enough strong reasons to maintain COIN sq, however they also do not want that budget to be given to the Army to support additional gunships capabilities.

dtwn

February 25th, 2010, 05:16 AM

First of all, what's the need for specialized COIN (Counter Insurgences) for TNI AU anymore...It's urgent..??
The Air Force said it's urgent because the OV 10 already grounded, and they need replacements for COIN duty soon..Again the questions is; It's still neceesary for the Air Force to maintain COIN capabilities.??
COIN (in the form of OV 10) was build by TNI AU basically to handle the problem in East Timor, and latter on double duty with problem in Aceh..
Indonesia do not have to worry anymore with problem in East Timor..and Aceh already got political solutions. Problem lays still in Papua..but this problem is very low intensity compared what the East Timor Guerilla and Aceh separatist capable of..certaintly is not worth to have COIN fighters there.

Why focus on COIN? The Tucano can do more than that. COIN operations are winding down, that's a fact. The Tucano is marketed as a COIN aircraft, but it can do far more.However, the Tucano can do more than COIN ops, as you've noted, border patrols and patrols against illegal logging are still applicable, and will only grow in use, as demands for COIN operations trail off. Evidently you know that, as you have stated as much.

However your oppinion on potential usage of Tucano's was right..at least from TNI AU stand of point..they need it to patrol land borders.
That's why they planned to stationed them in Tarakan near Sabah's border...the arguments's that the land border in borneo's difficult to patrol by land thus the smugling of raw timber and coal's rampant.
I think they want also to stationed a tucano's flight in Papua's border..

Are you simply drawing too much from the fact that the Tucano is marketed as a light attack/COIN aircraft?

Second, the Army already and will keep continue build their own Gunship capabilities in the form of MI 35. This alone basically abble to conduct COIN duties, which again will raised the questions why the Air Force still need specialised COIN... Are the Air Force not willing to let the Army taking over COIN duties..??
The only arguments that the Air Force can sold now to have Super Tucano, was it's needed for border control in Borneo just as the Brazillian do in the Amazon. However there're other ways to improved border control that's does not requires building specialised COIN sq...Improving the Army Gunship inventories certaintly was one.

For one, fixed wing CAS and rotary wing CAS are quite different things. Both sides have their pros and cons. I'm actually curious as to why you're simply focusing on COIN. Could the Tucano not be used for patrol purposes as well? And you've mentioned the patrolling duties yourself, so why emphasize on the fact that it is a COIN aircraft? It is more than that. Much as how the Brazilians are using theirs.

Third, even the operational cost of supersonic fighters like F 16 certaintly will be more expensive then a turboprop COIN fighters like Super Tucano, however maintaining squadrons with different types of Aircraft also not cheap. On Fighters TNI AU now have to maintain SU27/30, F 16, F 5, Hawk 100/200, and now will have to maintain Super Tucano. The numbers of each aircraft types also very limited..thus also increased the operational logistical costs.
In sense TNI AU should reduce the aircraft types it's operated...not acquairing another type which will need another set of logistical support lines..And even if they still demanding COIN..for the sake of the costs they should go with Modified KT-1..since they already use that as basic trainers anyway.

If the TNI-AU was previously maintaining OV-10s, and now intends to replace OV-10s with Super Tucanos, how does that increase the number of types of aircraft to be maintained? It doesn't. And while the KT-1 is an interesting option, the Super Tucano is capable of a substantially larger load. The Tucano has a far larger payload and an extended range compared to the KT-1. The KT-1 would have to be modified with at least an upgraded engine to provide similar performance to the Tucano, but that's not a bad idea, especially if they were willing to take the performance hit.

In short, for long term..maintaining 2 sq of F 16 will be not more expensive than maintaining 1 sq of F 16 and 1 sq of Super Tucano.

Are you serious? There's little accurate information for quantifying the two, and while you would not require cross training for the support staff, you're probably going to need more specialized and trained staff to deal with the F16s as well, and while you may have some of that existing staff, and will have to train more as you go, you will still have to increase the number of staff to deal with the increased number of aircraft. The cost of spares is also drastically higher compared to the simpler parts in the Tucano. Avionics, electrical and engine components are likely to be substantially cheaper for the Tucano. They are also very different aircraft designed for different purposes.

Fourth, based on the amount that Jordan, Chille and what the US Air Force has offered for second hand modified (MLU) F 16, it's around USD 20 mio and USD 25 mio. Thus the Air Force can have another 10-12 F 16 (MLU) with the money they will spend on Super Tucano. It's enough for another sq of F 16.
Super Tucano will be limited to operated on Borneo land border or litoral water near Borneo's border. It's not enough and not build to operated conducting CAP throughout this Archipelago air spaces. F 16 also provided the Airforce the flexibility to be stationed on temporary basis in the supporting air bases throughout Indonesia. You can also move Super Tucano's around, however they will not provide the smae flexibility as F 16 did.

Last, looking all the above, getting another COIN sq by the air force is not more than another inter agency budget competions. The Air Force do not provide enough strong reasons to maintain COIN sq, however they also do not want that budget to be given to the Army to support additional gunships capabilities.

Kinda curious as to where you got the figures for the MLU units, as the data I found was somewhat scattered. The Jordan and Chile units were also released from Dutch/Belgian aircraft, and the European states have been offering their surplus stuff for sale at fire-sale prices as they cut down on military expenditure and forces. If TNI-AU can afford to get in on that deal, more power to them.

As I mentioned earlier, the F16s may offer an increased combat capability, but is that combat capability of any use? Would it be sufficient to deter hostilities, and if not, would the additional combat capability be sufficient to defeat potential attackers? Having the aircraft, but not the weapons and systems capability to locate and destroy the attackers is of little more utility. The air forces in the region, i.e. RAAF, RMAF or RSAF could at the very least maintain parity the TNI-AU, even with the additional F-16 squadron. Am I saying that an extra F-16 purchase is ill-conceived? Hardly. I'm saying, there's a need to prioritize, and the TNI-AU has chosen to do so in a direction you do not agree upon.

Regarding the claim of the F-16's superior flexibility over the Tucano,, what exactly were you referring to? Tthe Tucano is capable of using airfields that require far less preparation and maintenance compared to the F-16. If you are referring to weapons capability and speed of deployment, the Tucano certainly has lower speed, but could be based much closer to the action and possibly provide a longer loiter time at substantially lower costs. And the Tucano is designed for the CAS, COIN and ground patrol roles; roles that the F-16, especially with the more limited weapon loadout the TNI-AU units have, may not be substantially better at, if at all. If you are looking for air space denial or defense, the Tucano is obviously not in the same league, but the TNI-AU isn't looking for an interceptor in the Tucano.

You don't like the Tucano purchase, by all means, feel free to do so, but it certainly has its uses.

Ananda

February 27th, 2010, 06:53 AM

Let put in short response:

1. Super Tucano is a COIN fighters..not marketed as one..but it's a COIN fighters. Coin fighters like OV 10, Pucara, was able to do CAS, Patrol. SAR, and off course COIN. Nothing that super tucano offer that's different than what OV 10 and Pucar does dexades ago..except it has modern equipement..which done more or less same thing with more efficient capabilities. But no mistake it's JUST a COIN Fighters.
So I suggest don't make even assumption that Tucano can even match the basic capabilities of F 16.
2.TNI AU was not a rich air force. However it has to maintain large types of aircraft with limited numbers each. That's mean high and unefficient logistical maiintannaces costs. Richer Air Force likes Singaporean and RAAF maintain less number of Aircraft Types (however each with much larger numbers) than TNI AU. Even commercial airliner now only run two. three or four at most types of aircraft, however each with larger number of aircraft. So the anwers is on quantity of each types and not the quantity of types the air force operating.
And before talking back to me saying Air Force is diiferent than commercial airliner, however the basic princip for operation effectiveness is the same, so does the logistical problem onmaintaining the Fleet. In short found the type of aircrat that's can do several jobs (multipuprpose) better. F 16 can do majority jobs that Tucano can..however tucanos' can not begin to do even half of what F 16 capable off.
3. I never said Super Tucano is a not capable fighters (for its purpose) I have mentioned on several posts before that super tucano is a superb COIN. However the questions was, that with limited budget..TNI AU should not maintain large types of Aircraft. Having COIN while in the same time maintaining several types of Jets was not a smart move (again for TNI AU consitions).
Look at the Philipines..due to budget constraint choose to maintain only COIN and not Jets..however Philipines do need COIN most than jets. So it's prioritizing. That's what i'm getting on. TNI AU must do prioritizing. The need for COIN was much reduced..and the Army already has and build it's own COIN capabilities. Then why should the Air Force priotize to get and maintain it's own SPECIALISED COIN capabilities..??
TNI AU says it wants to have technological par with the neighbours. That's mean having MODERN Jets fighters (simplification offcourse). If that's what it's wants..then the money should be used on having more. Even it means can not get the same amount of fighters like the Tucano's proposed deal.

Again all my objections on Super Tucano's deal will be different if TNI AU is a RICH Air force.

Toptob

February 27th, 2010, 10:34 PM

I just read about the recent decission to purchase the Tucano in the new AFM (hence my reason for visiting this topic) and I thought that the Tucano at least is a nice replacement for the OV-10.

On the F-16 Tucano debate I want to add some comments:

1: Yes purchasing and operating a sqn of F-16 is significantly more expensive than operating Tucano's. Think about maintenance, spares, additional airbase infrastructure and I think (although I'm not an expert) that training an F-16 pilot is markebly more expensive than a Tucano pilot.

2: The way you can deploy a Tucano is very different than is an F-16. As mentioned above, tucano's can land on much more airfields then F-16's can, Since Indonesia is a pretty big country that is a big plus and the support footprint must be much smaller and therefore much easyer to take with you on detachments.

3: Ofcoarse the Tucano does not have the combat potential the F-16 has, but it's not useless. It carries bombs, rockets and advanced sensors (if they buy those ofcoarse). And it performs better at lower speeds which means that it's better for recon and patrol. Also the Tucano is not a COIN aircraft per se, It's also a trainer aircraft. Couldn't it be used as such by Indonesia?

4: The Dutch MLU's are by no means up to par to the Aussies superbugs or much of the other hardware country's in the region are purchasing (Su-30MKM etc.). Also why would you go buying 20yr old crap when the main supplier of parts and weaponry (i.e. the US) is a spotty one at best. The US doesnt have a good repore with Indonesia when it comes to defense support, just look at all the country's that avoid the US as a supplier because they have had bad experiences with embargo's. The Russians (or the French or Chinese for that matter) have much less regard for such things, maybe that's morally wrong but a nice thing nonetheless if you have an embargo on your ass.

5.1: A point was made of the TNI AU's diverse inventory, which is a totally valid and very relevant point. Not only is it cheaper to operate a less diverse fleet, it would also present oppertunities for local industries for more stable income (i.e. less diverse but more profitable contracts?) and more barter room voor both TOT and the right(?) to have more input in the systems of a particular platform.
Arms purchases are also an important way of asserting a country's political conontation. So to me the question is not what toy do I want but who are my friends and how am I goin to show that? I dont know the political situation of Indonesia very well, but for the sake of arguments, lets assume that dealing with the US could be a costly mistake (because one transgression internally and there's another embargo), then it is logical that the TNI AU has a great platform to expand on and thats the Su-30. If the airforce has to buy jets instead why not go that way, the SU has a much greater range (and thats what I would want if I had to defend a large area with limited assets) a much large payload and two engines. With Indonesia being an island nation the security of a twin engined platform sounds reassuring to me.
I also think you could replace all the F-16, and Hawks with Su-30 and Tucano's and dont even bother with the Yak-130's. It would also seem (to me at least) that you have commonality with a lot of country's in the region, and those would then become potential cusomers(?).

5.2: Then again if you go the other way (the US way), I still wouldn't go for second hand raggety-ass F-16's (that we the Dutch think wont last past 2018 or so). But with maybe the Hornet, it would give you commonality with the Aussie's which would be your friend if the US is, and also has two engines plus maintenance is going to be cheaper on the long run seeing the USN is still ordering superbugs, and the us is not buying any more F-16's (I think), so other than the UAE and maaaaaaaybe India no one is going to require significant spare parts let alone do some development on it. What would make more sense to me (in this scenario) is to go european. There are some nice options there, first of all the rafale/typhoon, I know very expensive and probably not feasible but with some goodwill and the decomissioning of F-16's and Hawks and not purchasing Yak's it wouls seem a posibility at least. A remote one though but the hawks where purchased from the UK, so why not some typhoons, and I believe the UK also uses Tucano's so thats another strong link to be used for support (maybe TOT?). More realisting would be old mirage 2000's with some nice mileage left, if things go alright there are some pretty nice UAE ones comming on the market. And there are bound to be some nice ones left in the old French cold war stocks.
Buying more old F-16's just doesn't seem logical to me, wouldn't it be nice to have a consolidated fleet of shiny mirages with sexy sensors? ;)

anyway grtz Toprob (yeah made a typo with my nickname)

(Edit)
point 5.2: Another thing could be that the Chinese start causing trouble. I dont believe there are territorial disputes with Indonesia, but as we say in Holland "wat niet is kan nog komen" (meaning you never know). It seems unlikely to me, but if China doesnt like you (and I dont know if that's the case) anything could happen... Just look at the problems the ROC had with its procurements.

Segway or maybe point 5.3: Could they buy Chinese or Pakistani those JF-17's seem nice, and you could operate a lot with limited resources.

And I have a question for the experts: I read somewhere, I think in a Thai AF thread, that their diverse inventory was because purchase with a new supplier secured bigger bribes to the bureaucrat who orders. And that corruption was one of the reasons they had an overly diverse airforce that was very expensive to maintain.
Is this a problem in Indonesia too?

OPSSG

February 27th, 2010, 11:40 PM

Ananda

February 28th, 2010, 01:04 AM

@Toptob, just a quick note, Ananda is not posting in his native language, so while it may appear that he is shouting, IMHO that is not his intention. He thinks in another language and he translates it into English. The other forum members interacting with him in this thread know that. :D

OPSSG. thanks for your clarifications on my behalf. Like I said before on my posts, my objections on Super Tucano's deal more to the problem of limited budgets that TNI AU has, and not on the capabilities of Super Tucano.
As my post # 47 said, from sources in the defence ministry and what i heard already comunicated to the ministry of finance..the way the Air Force wants to spend their budgets was not you can call efficiency based. They still want to have Fankers, F 16, Hawk 200/100, Super Tucano, and on top of that the training sq will be made of Yak, and KT 1. Too many types of aircraft with limited numbers each..which will translate to logistical nightmare and very costly onmaintanance.

If they want to have COIN then they should bought more than a sq and let go their ambitions for fast jets...howeverthey still adamant for F 16 (wheather it's MLU or Blok 52) and Flankers to maintain Technological parity in the neighbourhood.
If that's what they want..and with the limited budgets they have,,then they should let go supertucano. That's why i comne up with possibility of using the budget of super tucano for second hand F 16. Off course it's not optimum, but better than maintaining fast jets and super tucano with limited budgets.
I'm just a liitle bit frustrated. For the last couple of years, the defence ministry show common sense in dealing with military procurements. This super tucano deal, certaintly not moving in that directions.

@toptob..you made valid arguments, however i'm affraid that's more made sense for richer air forces. If it's up to me..then TNI AU should choose either having Flankers or F 16 and not both of them..and forget super tucano and yak's..and relly training only with KT 1...Or if they on having super tucano..and forget the fast jets altogther for time being..except perhaps the Hawk 200 that already in the inventory..( i don't like hawk 200, but TNI AU already have relative significant number of them..so it's more economical to keep). Not worth to have couple or three types of fast jets with only limited numbers. Realistically with the amount of TNI AU budgets..they should only have two or three at most type of fighters and trainers.
They should only have Flankers (or F 16 but not both of them), Hawk 200/100 and KT 1..This way, their budget can support effective oprational capabilities...and not like now..they are strugling to provide enough spare parts..since too many sources they have to stores...and with only limited spare parts for each type that they can bought..it's also reduces their capacity for effective oprational readiness..

Toptob

February 28th, 2010, 11:03 AM

Ananda

February 28th, 2010, 10:57 PM

Hmm.. I totally overlooked the KT-1. Can you not strap some bombs to those? Maybe upgrading and extending that fleet is a better idea, I think that would also bring more work to local industries.

@Ananda:
You're absolutely right about the diversity of types, its outrageous to be operating so much different aircraft. Could the TNI AU not drop both the F-16 (or flanker) and the hawk/Yak130 and do training on flankers in... I dont know India? I mean if you're going to be flying a limited fleet of fast jets would it not be cheaper to outsource you training to share in the expertise and investment another user already has in place?

I also agree that the TNI AU wants to play to many roles, but it doesnt surprise me. We are in a recession and services around the world are scrambling to prove their necessity to their respective nations.
Then again it baffled me that they have an AC in inventory that does (with some investment) roughly the same thing as a new aircraft type they already operate. Thats something countries like the US and China do, but even they standardise.
So to me its not "do we need a COIN platform" because thats always better to have then not to. No what I'm asking myself is "couldn't the KT-1 platform be modified to fulfill this role" , maybe with local industries and build up that fleet.

If i'm not mistaken the concept of outsourcing the training facilities has been put by South Korean. This mimic what the Canadian do with providing facilities for outsourcing traning in Canada for NATO countries.
Whether this approach can be sold in this region..need to be seen further.

Super Tucano main rival in the selection period actually the KT-1C the armed derivatives of KT-1. Why super tucano won..well the TNI AU only put that Super Tucano has more point on the job that TNI AU wants (so more to technical considerations)..
In the mean time South Korean actually already offered DI to further developed KT-1...Thus whether this ToT potentials with South Korean has been calculated or not..I Don't know. One thing that been's heard until now, Embraer has not offer any ToT or join development with DI if SUperTucano being chooses..

In the same time the Defense Ministry already show strong support for ToT for any new acquisition..so Why Super Tucano now the front Runner...nobody nows for sure...This's Indonesia afterall :)
On the outside..the defense ministry already show interest for efficiency on the Military procurement so it can provide better operational readiness...
However this Super Tucano deal was not in that direction..since it means that TNI AU still support too many types of aircraft..I just hope that somewhere in the current admnistrations still show more common sense...
We certaintly can not hope for that from our JOKE quality of Parlements.

Toptob

March 1st, 2010, 09:49 AM

In the same time the Defense Ministry already show strong support for ToT for any new acquisition..so Why Super Tucano now the front Runner...nobody nows for sure...This's Indonesia afterall

I don't know but could it be corruption? As I asked before:

And I have a question for the experts: I read somewhere, I think in a Thai AF thread, that their diverse inventory was because purchase with a new supplier secured bigger bribes to the bureaucrat who orders. And that corruption was one of the reasons they had an overly diverse airforce that was very expensive to maintain.
Is this a problem in Indonesia too?

Anyway from what Ananda said I take that the ROK can be a very important ally if you swing the way of the west. In that case maybe you could build a high low mix of F-16 and T-50's instead of Sukhoi and Yak's. I dont really know about procurement costs, but russian material is known to have high maintenance costs.

Also could the TNI AU not make do with just T-50 (or F-CK-1 but going taiwanese is problematic) and scrap the rest of the fleet except KT-1 and develop a credible AG and AA capability for T-50. Seems so much cheaper to me, and it keeps in place some sort of training infrastructure.

Again I'm of the opinion that arms procurement is a big way of showing who your friends are. So how I see it, Indonesia can make a choice between West (global north) and East (global south). But it seems they make no choice at all, which seems costly and ineffective.

Ananda

March 1st, 2010, 11:37 PM

DELETED for Double Posting

Ananda

March 1st, 2010, 11:46 PM

I don't know but could it be corruption? As I asked before:

Ooo..I'm not going to say that now the Indonesia beurocracy already corruption free..but the current situations will made doing that much more difficult. I can only say that the EFFICIENCY path still not in their perceptions. THey're still thinking 'compermentalize' ways. I'm just hoping the brass in the defence ministry can seen more 'broad perceptions' then the brass in the individual armed establishment.

Anyway from what Ananda said I take that the ROK can be a very important ally if you swing the way of the west. In that case maybe you could build a high low mix of F-16 and T-50's instead of Sukhoi and Yak's. I dont really know about procurement costs, but russian material is known to have high maintenance costs.

Also could the TNI AU not make do with just T-50 (or F-CK-1 but going taiwanese is problematic) and scrap the rest of the fleet except KT-1 and develop a credible AG and AA capability for T-50. Seems so much cheaper to me, and it keeps in place some sort of training infrastructure.

Well if you take a look back on my earlier posts in this forum, I have open a thread on the possible join cooperations between Indonesia and South Korea on developing new light fighters. From what i can gather, the Fighters supposed to be derivatives of T-50.
This new light fighters supposed to be rolling by 2015-2016 and starting to enter productions phase by 2018. At that time it's suggested this would replaced the Hawk 200/100, and F 16.

However now there's a much concern that the time frame will not be ready for the replacement of F 5 and Hawk Mk 53. That's why there's mulling on the possible Yak 130 to be used as replacements for those two.
It's also why there's some speculations for second hand F 16 as a stop gap until the planned fighthers with South Korea can be ready.

How serious is the planned with South Korea..?? well politically the MoU was signed between the two president in which both of them still holding the presidency in both countries. Thus it's quite serious..However how the implementations..that's the informations which still scetchy.

Cooperations with South Korea on the paper should be quite substantials:
1. LPD (already on hand)
2. Submarines (possible..still on the discussion. however south korea show strongest inclinations on helping PAL to build it's own submarines manufacturing facilities).
3. Whelled APC (The current APC developed by Pindad already use some of south korean components, to add the components from french and local components),
4. Light canon armoured vehicles (on preparations),
5. Amphibious armoured vehicles (still on discussion).
6. Light Fighters ( already on MoU and in the operational discussion).

We'll see latter on whether this will be developed on production basis. Since now only LPD and APC already in productions.

So as you can see the planned was quite good..and all border on efficientcy on sourcing, ToT and best on value of money..
That's why again..the super tucano..was not in reality in line with this efficiency pitcures.