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?
Anan, this discussion is the 'Poor Man' scenarios on getting as much it can on a very limited budget.
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.
"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