Indonesian Aero News

[Ahmad]

I also do not completely understand. What is the problem to order more F-16s? Indonesia doesnt need to order the F-15 to please the americans, the F-16 is their product too.
And if the government choose the Rafale as a Su-35 alternative, choosing also the F-15EX is actually double, both expensive twin-engine aircrafts. Even if Indonesia feel pressed to order the F-15 in order to help Boeing in this time of crisis, then it is better to order the P-8 or 737 AEW/E-7, after all the 737-2X9 Surveiller can not fly forever.


It is unclear which type(s) of jetfighter the Indonesian Airforce plan to upgrade/give a MLU. It doesnt make sense to upgrade the Hawk Mk 209. It is maybe the cheapest fighter in Indonesian fleet to operate, but it makes no chance above the Natuna Sea. Even if 8 Hawk Mk.209s confront a single simple J-11/Su-27SK, the J-11 will fart them out of the sky in no time. Also the range of the Hawks are that limited, armed Hawks departing from Supadio AFB in Pontianak, have to return directly at the moment they reach Pulau Natuna.
They are also not really useful to fight rebels in the rainforest. The EMB-314 and armed helicopters are more suitable for it.

Of course Air Force will use one type of fighter to fill F 5 former squadron and as they have previously decided to fill it by heavy fighters with long range capabilities like SU 35, so the types of plane to fill that squadron should be ideally F 15 EX. SU 35, in the other hand, is unlikely to acquire due to CATSAA and we have to be careful as it can jeopardice our KFX/IFX program.

Rafale is likely intended for new squadrons but as Air Force official recently said that the pressing needs is for squadron which doesnt have planes any more so I predict they are going to buy just 8 F15 EX for 2021-2024 period to fill F5 squadron. Currently the squadron is also being maintain with the present of 3 SU 30 planes (heavy fighters).

In my opinion, economic constrain is the main reason of why the number of acquisition will be likely just 8, particularly due to our current economic situation (greater debt to GDP ratio, stressing economic condition, the need to help economic recovery after pandemic is inshaAllah over ) and previous Jokowi administration tendency toward economic and domestic defense industry development (funding KFX/IFX program and giving the money to buy more IFX).

I think buying F15 EX will also be valuable to develop KFX/IFX further, so KFX block 1 in Korea can have training/dog fight with F35 while in Indonesia it can have dog fight with F 15 EX. The planes can also bring a lot of missiles, so despite the number is small but it can challenge even 24-30 J 10 or SU 35 with just 8 F 15 EX with full missiles capacity.

Hawk

Hawk is actually more like a lead in jet trainer and can be valuable to maintain present, practice, bombing, do patrolling, chase black flight, and grow our man powers (pilots and maintenance units). Maintaining the fleets is also more like securing a transition period before Indonesia economy inshaAllah reaches 4 trillion USD in 2035, as CEBR projection stated, so that our gov can possibly buy fighters in hundred.

Phasing out 32 Hawks now is stupid in my opinion as it means we are not expanding in term of man power and infrastructure, but rather staying idle. We cannot suddently produce large fighter pilots and maintenance officers when we are about to buy many fighters, it should be done in stages in order to maintain the quality of the pilots and maintenance officers. It is why Air Force seems to have prepared for refurbushing the plane (although I believe the idea would come from Armed Force HQ (Mabes TNI) and Defense Ministry since previous Air Force commander wanted to phase it out). Any way we have capabilities to do overhaul of the plane in the country as it has been done before.

 

[ngatimozart]

Each country calculates its LCC (Life Cycle Costs) differently, but here in NZ as a rough rule of thumb we find that about 50% of the flyaway cost has to be added for maintenance, manuals, simulators, training, infrastructure, support contracts etc. But it doesn't include weapons, which in the NZ context, come out of the Defence operational expenditure budget. Platform acquisitions come out of the Defence capital expenditure budget.

 

[Def Leppard]

Regarding the financial stuff, there's interesting info from another defence forum about the details stuff involved in India's Rafale deal. I quote below :

"The price for the aircraft iself is only $110 mil/jet. You add weapons, simulators, spares, maintenance, and Performance Based Logistics support for five years, it becomes $132 mil/jet."

That's cheap for 4.5 gen fighter. The link that they used as the source of information saying that the total deal was bloated only because India was asking for twice as much offset businesses.

If we compare that deal with Taiwan F-16V, they buy 66 aircrafts for $8 bil, which means $121 mil/jet. We can assume this Taiwan deal also includes weapons, parts, etc.

So Rafale is $132 mil vs $121 mil for F-16V. It's pretty much on-par, especially if you consider that Taiwan don't need any platform introduction like India with Rafale, which already included in that $132 mil. The one thing that F-16V still has against Rafale is the CPFH which probably almost half as much.

Now I can't find any valid argument financially for F-15EX. It's much more expensive than both F-16V and Rafale. The CPFH is also much higher than Rafale. One thing finance related that I could argue is only the expected service life which is 20.000 flight hours. This is special case as no fighters in the world could compete with this. Even F-16V only expected to have around 12.000 flight hours.

EDIT : As requested, this is the Rafale deal link info :

India, France ink €7.87 billion agreement for 36 Rafales

The deal includes aircraft in fly-away condition, weapons, simulators, spares, maintenance, and Performance Based Logistics support for five years.

www.thehindu.com

While for Taiwan's F-16V deal you can find almost everywhere, just put one link here :

Taiwan’s President (and Her Challenger) Thank US for $8 Billion F-16V Sale

Tsai Ing-wen thanked the United States for the deal. So did her main presidential challenger, the Beijing-friendly Han Kuo-yu.

thediplomat.com

 

[ngatimozart]

Regarding the financial stuff, there's interesting info from another defence forum about the details stuff involved in India's Rafale deal. I quote below :

"The price for the aircraft iself is only $110 mil/jet. You add weapons, simulators, spares, maintenance, and Performance Based Logistics support for five years, it becomes $132 mil/jet."

That's cheap for 4.5 gen fighter. The link that they used as the source of information saying that the total deal was bloated only because India was asking for twice as much offset businesses.

If we compare that deal with Taiwan F-16V, they buy 66 aircrafts for $8 bil, which means $121 mil/jet. We can assume this Taiwan deal also includes weapons, parts, etc.

So Rafale is $132 mil vs $121 mil for F-16V. It's pretty much on-par, especially if you consider that Taiwan don't need any platform introduction like India with Rafale, which already included in that $132 mil. The one thing that F-16V still has against Rafale is the CPFH which probably almost half as much.

Now I can't find any valid argument financially for F-15EX. It's much more expensive than both F-16V and Rafale. The CPFH is also much higher than Rafale. One thing finance related that I could argue is only the expected service life which is 20.000 flight hours. This is special case as no fighters in the world could compete with this. Even F-16V only expected to have around 12.000 flight hours.

The rules require that you provide a source for your claims. However when citing claims from other forums you have to be careful to check that the original poster is posting accurate accurate material from reliable sources. And if they don't provide the sources for their claims, how can you verify that what they say is valid and not just rubbish? That's why we insist on sources being provided.

Now what is the currency of the costs provided? And what do the costs cited cover? If the currency is US$ and the cost is flyaway, then the F-16V cost is definitely wrong. At present it's flyaway cost is about US$75 million at last report. IIRC the flyaway cost of the Rafale is in the region of US$110 - 120 million (similar price to the Eurofighter Typhoon), and the F-15EX will be around US$80 - 85 million flyaway. What variant of the Rafale are you looking at? Is the CPFH of the F-15EX that much higher than the Rafale? Do you have sources for the Rafale CPFH? I have for the F-15EX CPFH.

What we have to remember when we are discussing acquisition costs, is what are the costs we are talking about. It gets quite confusing because many sources don't specify the costs that they are discussing. So are they discussing the flyaway cost which is the aircraft straight off the showroom floor. Then there is the acquisition cost which is the aircraft, plus simulators, training, manuals, maintenance, spares, maintenance contract etc. That's the one usual cited. Then there is the LCC or Life Cycle Costs that cover everything required to support and sustain that aircraft during its service life with a particular owner.

I am away from my PC at the moment so will provide the sources later.

 

[Def Leppard]

The rules require that you provide a source for your claims. However when citing claims from other forums you have to be careful to check that the original poster is posting accurate accurate material from reliable sources. And if they don't provide the sources for their claims, how can you verify that what they say is valid and not just rubbish? That's why we insist on sources being provided.

Now what is the currency of the costs provided? And what do the costs cited cover? If the currency is US$ and the cost is flyaway, then the F-16V cost is definitely wrong. At present it's flyaway cost is about US$75 million at last report. IIRC the flyaway cost of the Rafale is in the region of US$110 - 120 million (similar price to the Eurofighter Typhoon), and the F-15EX will be around US$80 - 85 million flyaway. What variant of the Rafale are you looking at? Is the CPFH of the F-15EX that much higher than the Rafale? Do you have sources for the Rafale CPFH? I have for the F-15EX CPFH.

What we have to remember when we are discussing acquisition costs, is what are the costs we are talking about. It gets quite confusing because many sources don't specify the costs that they are discussing. So are they discussing the flyaway cost which is the aircraft straight off the showroom floor. Then there is the acquisition cost which is the aircraft, plus simulators, training, manuals, maintenance, spares, maintenance contract etc. That's the one usual cited. Then there is the LCC or Life Cycle Costs that cover everything required to support and sustain that aircraft during its service life with a particular owner.

I am away from my PC at the moment so will provide the sources later.

I have edited the post to include the links. The $8 bil cost for 66 jets of F-16V is valid, the source is everywhere (I put one in my edited post).

Ok, to compile all the sources, here I place them all here below.

Source for Rafale India deal :

India, France ink €7.87 billion agreement for 36 Rafales

The deal includes aircraft in fly-away condition, weapons, simulators, spares, maintenance, and Performance Based Logistics support for five years.

www.thehindu.com

Source for F-16V Taiwan's deal :

Chinese military says Taiwan’s US$8 billion fighter deal is a waste of money

Beijing reacts with fury after Donald Trump agrees to the sale of the fighters, but military officials say the warplanes will prove to be ‘useless’ in any case.

www.scmp.com

Taiwan’s President (and Her Challenger) Thank US for $8 Billion F-16V Sale

Tsai Ing-wen thanked the United States for the deal. So did her main presidential challenger, the Beijing-friendly Han Kuo-yu.

thediplomat.com

Source for CPFH of Rafale $16,500 and F-16 $8,000 (along with Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen, F-18, F-35) :

Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane’s

The study conducted by IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

stratpost.com

Source for 20,000 flight hours of F-15EX :

F-15EX: Careful What You Don't Ask For | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Be careful what you don’t wish for... New F-15s, T-X, and the cost of ownership....

www.airforcemag.com

Source for 12,000 flight hours of F-16V :

F-16 Indonesia

TO DATE, 4,588 F-16S HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR 28 CUSTOMERS. THE F-16 CONTINUES TO EVOLVE TO STAY AHEAD OF EMERGING THREATS BY INCORPORATING COMBAT LESSONS-LEARNED AND CAPABILITIES DEVELOPED ON LOCKHEED MARTIN’S F-22 AND F-35.

www.lockheedmartin.com

Source for CPFH of F-15EX $29,000 :

F-15EX is a boon to Boeing, but it might not break the international fighter market

Is the F-15EX ready for the competitive international field?

www.defensenews.com

Watch the Air Force's Brand New F-15 Make Its First Flight

But don’t call it a comeback. It’s been here for years.

www.popularmechanics.com

Why Boeing thinks F-15EX will help it win the Digital Century Series fighter programme

Source: Boeing F-15EX rendering Boeing says the revamp of the F-15 makes the -EX variant into a "pathfinder" for future fighter aircraft development.

www.flightglobal.com

I said it clearly in my post "We can assume this Taiwan deal also includes weapons, parts, etc.", so for the $8 bil (66 jets) deal is not only fly away cost.

Oh btw, forgot another thing, the price for F-15EX is $150 mil. This is from the USAF $1.2 bil deal for the first 8 jets. USAF don't need any platform introduction and no mention about weapons, spares, etc, in this deal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/13/boeing-f15ex-contract/

 

[tonnyc]

With regard to Rafale, keep in mind that every country's order is unique. Consider that Greece ordered 12 used Rafale and 6 new ones for 2.5 billion euro, or approximately $3 billion. This includes armaments and while the article mentions a second contract for 4.5 years of logistical support, I am going to assume it's included in the $3 billion price tag. If not, then the total cost is even higher.

$3 billion for 18 Rafales is about $167 million each. Keeping in mind that twelve of those are used Rafales, it's not implausible that the overall cost of new Rafales will be over $200 million each. Granted we don't know the exact composition of the package deal, and thus this pricing is only valid for Greece, but there's no mention of an offset deal for Greece, so regardless of what claims were made about the basic cost of the aircraft alone, I am leaning more towards estimating that 36 new Rafales for Indonesia will not be close to the $4.75 billion that a $132 million price tag suggests. Since by law all major defense procurement must include some sort of offset deal (by 2022 the offset must be at least 55% of the deal's value), I expect that a Rafale deal for Indonesia will be closer to the 7 billion euro deal that India has.

And that's why even hobbyist defense observers like us are really skeptical that Indonesia is going to get Rafale. Indonesia's military really really do not want to make big money commitment ever. Most likely the defense ministry is just window-shopping.

 

[Ananda]

Just to add on what Ngati has post. Be cautious to quote cost of flying hours or even Life Cycle Cost of each type of Fighters only base on other countries deal. Because usually the details is not going to be similar.

Just an example, Cost of Maintenance thus operation costs of Flankers under TNI-AU will be different with what occurred in Vietnam AF. Vietnam AF has more supporting infrastructure for Flankers compared to TNI-AU. They even able to do MRO locally while TNI-AU has to send abroad. On the contrary, Vietnam AF cost to operate F-16 (if they're going to go there) will be higher than with TNI-AU whose support infrastructure toward F-16 already being build. The abilities for TNI-AU and local Industry to support maintenance and refurbished F-16 is not there in Vietnam, while they have it for Flankers.

Thus we can't compare what Vietnam AF incurred on operating Flankers as guidelines toward TNI-AU. I have seen some Indonesian forumers even media using Indian AF LCC on Flankers as guidelines toward what TNI-AU cost on flying Flankers. That's a big "no" on doing comparison. India infrastructure on support Flankers even more massive compared to Vietnam AF, let alone TNI-AU.

The truth is, TNI-AU (just like overall TNI) is very secretive on what their operating costs of each type of fighters. I only once read in Media on TNI-AU brass (during SBY time), that talk the cost hours to fly Flankers was more than twice than flying F-16. However even that they're not open on the calculation. Is it only the cost to fly, or already included cost to maintain.

We can use all the cost each countries procurement as rough ball park calculation only. Not as definitive comparison as some countries only calculate the procurement cost, some others using the overall life time sustainment cost. That's why I'm bit laugh on some so 'called' Local Defense analyst talking in Media on the cost of procurement and life time support, but they're making completely incompatible comparison.

As just enthusiasts, I still hope in the end MinDef will make final deals with F-16V plus getting more refurbished F-16 to fill the numbers of the target squadron. It's simply due to F-16 support that's been build so far.

However If they're going still with Rafale, they have to make sure this's going to be Rafale all the way. Means the off set including building parts manufacturing, final assembly infrastructure, MRO capabilities, and future upgrading. Just like Brazil/Embrear got with Gripen NG from SAAB (which's much better than what Korean give to Indonesia on IFX deal). This also means no more talking on future other type (at least until end of 2030), which means no more IFX or F-15EX or even F-35. Build population and support around Rafale.

This's not only for getting Industrial capabilities, but also support capabilities. One of TNI weakness until now is their continue capabilities toward maintenance and parts support. They're only prepared budget for procurement, but keep support budget on different submission. We know why this practice, it's more for getting different 'projects' rather than prepared for life time commitment. Hopefully Bapenas and Ministry of Finance can force them now (with multiyears budget calculation) on that.

Getting one type (whatever the choices) has to calculate the life time cost toward at least 2 decades operation. If they still only talking procurement, without life time cost. Which resulted of several types each with limited population as like now, then whatever the types they choose it's going to be more expensive to maintain and operate compared to other more efficient AF.

There's reasons why Airlines globally now simplified their Airliners types. There's reasons why Minister of SOE force Garuda to return their Bombardier. Garuda's group is an example of inefficient operating types of Airliners. They operate 777, A330, 737, Bombardier, ATR and A320. It's too much types, even Singapore Airlines Group (with it's subsidiary) did not operate that much. Two or Three types of Airliners is what most Global Airlines aim now.

Similar thinking should also reflect to Air Force operation. How you're going to be efficient if you spend most of your budget on many types each with limited inventory like what TNI done right now ?.

 

[Def Leppard]

With regard to Rafale, keep in mind that every country's order is unique. Consider that Greece ordered 12 used Rafale and 6 new ones for 2.5 billion euro, or approximately $3 billion. This includes armaments and while the article mentions a second contract for 4.5 years of logistical support, I am going to assume it's included in the $3 billion price tag. If not, then the total cost is even higher.

$3 billion for 18 Rafales is about $167 million each. Keeping in mind that twelve of those are used Rafales, it's not implausible that the overall cost of new Rafales will be over $200 million each. Granted we don't know the exact composition of the package deal, and thus this pricing is only valid for Greece, but there's no mention of an offset deal for Greece, so regardless of what claims were made about the basic cost of the aircraft alone, I am leaning more towards estimating that 36 new Rafales for Indonesia will not be close to the $4.75 billion that a $132 million price tag suggests. Since by law all major defense procurement must include some sort of offset deal (by 2022 the offset must be at least 55% of the deal's value), I expect that a Rafale deal for Indonesia will be closer to the 7 billion euro deal that India has.

And that's why even hobbyist defense observers like us are really skeptical that Indonesia is going to get Rafale. Indonesia's military really really do not want to make big money commitment ever. Most likely the defense ministry is just window-shopping.

The plan that's been circling around for Indonesia is to buy all new 36 Rafale, no second hand unit. It doesn't make sense to compare it to Greece deal which :

1. consist only 18 jets. Remember, the more you buy the cheaper it gets. In this case it's twice as many.
2. in emergency needs. Greece is on the brink of the potential conflict in Mediterranian. They even ask if they can buy used F-35. All of this comes with premium price. So we can't treat the "used" Rafale for Greece here in similar fashion as buying the "used" Austrian Typhoon or some used legacy of F-16 or F-18.

The closest deal would be India's, not Greece. Just consider all the details and factoring the inflation of the euros vs usd.

But we agree on one thing, it seems that Dassault prefers to include almost everything from the weapons to the maintenance in their deal.

You claim that starting from 2022 all the defense deals have to include 55% offset businesses. I'm trying to google this but can't find any. Well, just like what the mod said, as per rules of this forum, could you help share the source.

Anyway, if that's true regarding the 55% offset businesses, then it's a suicide. How can we expect to have not just the money but also the technical know-how, the volume capacity, and the time to absorb & execute all of those 55% requirement, and we're not just talking about fighters here. We're also facing potential thread that is looming fast from the north.

 

[Def Leppard]

Just to add on what Ngati has post. Be cautious to quote cost of flying hours or even Life Cycle Cost of each type of Fighters only base on other countries deal. Because usually the details is not going to be similar.

Just an example, Cost of Maintenance thus operation costs of Flankers under TNI-AU will be different with what occurred in Vietnam AF. Vietnam AF has more supporting infrastructure for Flankers compared to TNI-AU. They even able to do MRO locally while TNI-AU has to send abroad. On the contrary, Vietnam AF cost to operate F-16 (if they're going to go there) will be higher than with TNI-AU whose support infrastructure toward F-16 already being build. The abilities for TNI-AU and local Industry to support maintenance and refurbished F-16 is not there in Vietnam, while they have it for Flankers.

Thus we can't compare what Vietnam AF incurred on operating Flankers as guidelines toward TNI-AU. I have seen some Indonesian forumers even media using Indian AF LCC on Flankers as guidelines toward what TNI-AU cost on flying Flankers. That's a big "no" on doing comparison. India infrastructure on support Flankers even more massive compared to Vietnam AF, let alone TNI-AU.

The truth is, TNI-AU (just like overall TNI) is very secretive on what their operating costs of each type of fighters. I only once read in Media on TNI-AU brass (during SBY time), that talk the cost hours to fly Flankers was more than twice than flying F-16. However even that they're not open on the calculation. Is it only the cost to fly, or already included cost to maintain.

We can use all the cost each countries procurement as rough ball park calculation only. Not as definitive comparison as some countries only calculate the procurement cost, some others using the overall life time sustainment cost. That's why I'm bit laugh on some so 'called' Local Defense analyst talking in Media on the cost of procurement and life time support, but they're making completely incompatible comparison.

As just enthusiasts, I still hope in the end MinDef will make final deals with F-16V plus getting more refurbished F-16 to fill the numbers of the target squadron. It's simply due to F-16 support that's been build so far.

However If they're going still with Rafale, they have to make sure this's going to be Rafale all the way. Means the off set including building parts manufacturing, final assembly infrastructure, MRO capabilities, and future upgrading. Just like Brazil/Embrear got with Gripen NG from SAAB (which's much better than what Korean give to Indonesia on IFX deal). This also means no more talking on future other type (at least until end of 2030), which means no more IFX or F-15EX or even F-35. Build population and support around Rafale.

This's not only for getting Industrial capabilities, but also support capabilities. One of TNI weakness until now is their continue capabilities toward maintenance and parts support. They're only prepared budget for procurement, but keep support budget on different submission. We know why this practice, it's more for getting different 'projects' rather than prepared for life time commitment. Hopefully Bapenas and Ministry of Finance can force them now (with multiyears budget calculation) on that.

Getting one type (whatever the choices) has to calculate the life time cost toward at least 2 decades operation. If they still only talking procurement, without life time cost. Which resulted of several types each with limited population as like now, then whatever the types they choose it's going to be more expensive to maintain and operate compared to other more efficient AF.

There's reasons why Airlines globally now simplified their Airliners types. There's reasons why Minister of SOE force Garuda to return their Bombardier. Garuda's group is an example of inefficient operating types of Airliners. They operate 777, A330, 737, Bombardier, ATR and A320. It's too much types, even Singapore Airlines Group (with it's subsidiary) did not operate that much. Two or Three types of Airliners is what most Global Airlines aim now.

Similar thinking should also reflect to Air Force operation. How you're going to be efficient if you spend most of your budget on many types each with limited inventory like what TNI done right now ?.

Everybody knows it's difficult to get the objective numbers regarding the Russian fighters. That's why it's useless to compare the Flankers, and we're not talking about Flankers here. On the other hand there's quite plenty information for us to use for forum discussions in regards to western made fighters.

Well, financially, I don't see significant difference (apart from CPFH) between F-16V and Rafale. So I don't mind any of the two options. What really bothers me is the F-15EX deal.

 

[Ananda]

it's difficult to get the objective numbers regarding the Russian fighters. That's why it's useless to compare the Flankers, and we're not talking about Flankers here. On the other hand there's quite plenty information for us to use for forum discussion

It doesn't matter if the Aircraft coming from Russian or Western suppliers. You simply can't do comparison on the costs of operating them simply by comparing the procurement packages. Without knowing the details you're end up comparing apple and orange eventough it's same aircraft.

Operating costs by Singapore AF of their F-16 will be more efficient than in TNI-AU. Eventough TNI-AU did not really open what their costs and how they're calculating it, but I do believe it will be higher overall then Singapore AF over Life Time Sustainment. This simply because Singapore AF already lock in their sustainment costs during the procurement. They also already lock their Parts supply, compared to TNI-AU that procured their parts on partial project to project basis.

Looking toward Thailand media and Forums, perhaps the F-16 operating costs in TNI-AU have more similarities with Thailand AF. This is due with both AF practices on securing maintenance and parts supplies. This's why I said in my previous post, no matter what Aircraft types you are going to procure, what's important is how the packages that follows on overall parts, weapons, and maintenance deals. That will be the determine whether you're going to get relative higher costs or lower costs in operating them through out the period.

I put the Airlines example also due to the fact whether it's for Commercial or Military, the philosophy on how to maintain them efficiently will be the same. The more homogeneous your fleet is or the more long term support package that you're already lock in from beginning, then the more efficient your operational budget will be.

Again, using procurement data from other countries as comparison can be miss leading, unless you also compared the packages in detail.

 

[ngatimozart]

The plan that's been circling around for Indonesia is to buy all new 36 Rafale, no second hand unit. It doesn't make sense to compare it to Greece deal which :

1. consist only 18 jets. Remember, the more you buy the cheaper it gets. In this case it's twice as many.

Pray tell where do you get that piece of logic from? It only works with large production runs because of the scale of economies. Have you looked at the sustainment costs of used aircraft with high airframe hours?

2. in emergency needs. Greece is on the brink of the potential conflict in Mediterranian. They even ask if they can buy used F-35.

Where do you get that idea from? A war with Turkey? Both are members of NATO and NATO will come down on either of them like a ton of bricks if they try starting a war. Used F-35? Pray tell who has used F-35 for sale?

All of this comes with premium price. So we can't treat the "used" Rafale for Greece here in similar fashion as buying the "used" Austrian Typhoon or some used legacy of F-16 or F-18.

The closest deal would be India's, not Greece. Just consider all the details and factoring the inflation of the euros vs usd.

You cannot compare India's or any other nations acquisition in any detail, except the very broadest because the data that is what is needed to be used for such comparisons is not available publicly because is deemed both nationally and commercially sensitive.

But we agree on one thing, it seems that Dassault prefers to include almost everything from the weapons to the maintenance in their deal.

You claim that starting from 2022 all the defense deals have to include 55% offset businesses. I'm trying to google this but can't find any. Well, just like what the mod said, as per rules of this forum, could you help share the source.

Anyway, if that's true regarding the 55% offset businesses, then it's a suicide. How can we expect to have not just the money but also the technical know-how, the volume capacity, and the time to absorb & execute all of those 55% requirement, and we're not just talking about fighters here. We're also facing potential thread that is looming fast from the north.

You are making claims without any reliable reputable sources and this is not acceptable. Any more repeats of such behaviour will result in Moderators escalating their responses. We try to allow people to learn here, but if they keep ignoring guidance from defence professionals, senior members, or Moderators, we will act to encourage improvements in their posting behaviours. It is up to the individual upon how this proceeds. We are a professional defence forum fun by mostly defence professionals, so we have standards that we adhere to and that the owner requires us to adhere to.

 

[tonnyc]

You claim that starting from 2022 all the defense deals have to include 55% offset businesses. I'm trying to google this but can't find any. Well, just like what the mod said, as per rules of this forum, could you help share the source.

Anyway, if that's true regarding the 55% offset businesses, then it's a suicide. How can we expect to have not just the money but also the technical know-how, the volume capacity, and the time to absorb & execute all of those 55% requirement, and we're not just talking about fighters here. We're also facing potential thread that is looming fast from the north.

The bill is written in Indonesian. Search for "UU no. 16 tahun 2012". Then when you get to the text, do a find for "pasal 43". Then look at item e and item f. Here's a link for convenience. It goes to BPK's page for that bill.

e. adanya imbal dagang, kandungan lokal dan/atau ofset paling rendah 85% (delapan puluh lima persen);
f. kandungan lokal dan/atau ofset sebagaimana dimaksud pada huruf e paling rendah 35% (tiga puluh lima persen) dengan peningkatan 10% (sepuluh persen) setiap 5 (lima) tahun; dan

I'm translating the above for the benefit of non-Indonesian forum readers;

e. there is at least 85% in counter-trade, local content and/or offset at least;
f. local content and/or offset as mentioned in e. is at least 35% (thirty five percent) with an increase of 10% (ten percent) every 5 (five) years; and

The "and" at the end there refers to line g., which I left out. Line g. gives an 18 months transition period between the time the bill becomes law and the time when the offset is required.

I must admit that I shouldn't be sure about the year 2022 since the law has a transition period and I'm not sure whether the 5 year increases are counted from the year the bill becomes law or from the end of the transition period, which would make it 2024. I'll leave that to Indonesian legal experts. But in that case, the offset/local content requirement is at least 45%. The remainder can be in counter-trades.

That law isn't actually that hard to fulfill. It can include transfer of technology but doesn't have to. The counter-trade is easy. The other country will just have to buy some stuff from us and it can be anything. Shoes for ships. As long as the dollar amount adds up, it's fine. Offsets can be any sort of investment. Sell fighter jets and open a tire factory and that tire factory counts as offset. The idea is for the seller country to invest some money in Indonesia, but it can be in any sector. It's the local content and transfer of technology that are hard to fulfill, but well, local content includes assembly work, so the actual amount of Indonesian-made components don't need to be that much.

 

[ChestnutTree]

Has it been confirmed that the F-15EX would cost more than the Rafale? I was under the impression that both aircraft were around the same ballpark estimate when you take into account introduction and IOC/FOC costs and the presence of a majority US weapons stocks/parts in the TNI AU. Personally, I just expect any purchase order to be well within the realm of common sense, not just now but in the future as well, per @Ananda's wish.

 

[ngatimozart]

Has it been confirmed that the F-15EX would cost more than the Rafale? I was under the impression that both aircraft were around the same ballpark estimate when you take into account introduction and IOC/FOC costs and the presence of a majority US weapons stocks/parts in the TNI AU. Personally, I just expect any purchase order to be well within the realm of common sense, not just now but in the future as well, per @Ananda's wish.

No it hasn't. The cost that Boeing has indicate is about US$80 million at the moment with a CPFH of US$29,000.

F-15EX is a boon to Boeing, but it might not break the international fighter market

Is the F-15EX ready for the competitive international field?

www.defensenews.com

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Here some nice images of several F-16s during recent patrols, armed with the AIM-120C-7 and (probably) the AIM-9P-4. (To be honest i can not see the difference between the AIM-9P-4 and AIM-9X-2)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362393486553583620

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1366740381317033984

Lanud Dhomber, ive never heard of it before, but it seems to be in Balikpapan, does it means it is the airforce part/area of Bandara Sepinggan?

 

[Ananda]

Dhomber AB basically shares same facilities with Balikpapan SAMS (Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman) International Airport.

https://tni-au.mil.id/danlanud-dhomber-sambut-kedatangan-pangkogabwilhan-ii/

Just shown one of articles on Dhomber AB from TNI-AU site. Basically it's shown when TNI-AU 737 VIP landed in Dhomber AB it's basically using SAMS International Apron.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Dhomber AB basically shares same facilities with Balikpapan SAMS (Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman) International Airport.

https://tni-au.mil.id/danlanud-dhomber-sambut-kedatangan-pangkogabwilhan-ii/

Just shown one of articles on Dhomber AB from TNI-AU site. Basically it's shown when TNI-AU 737 VIP landed in Dhomber AB it's basically using SAMS International Apron.

Oh yes, Bandar Udara Sepinggan/Sepinggan Airport BPN, they give it some years ago a ridiculous long name: "Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Sepinggan International Airport ".

Thats one of the things people like to do here, to give well known practical street names or airport names, a new and annoying long name, because those names have to including all the titles like "Prof.Dr.Ir. Haji Full Name".

 

[ngatimozart]

Oh yes, Bandar Udara Sepinggan/Sepinggan Airport BPN, they give it some years ago a ridiculous long name: "Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Sepinggan International Airport ".

Thats one of the things people like to do here, to give well known practical street names or airport names, a new and annoying long name, because those names have to including all the titles like "Prof.Dr.Ir. Haji Full Name".

Don't worry it's not just an Indonesian thing. Plenty of other cultures / nations do that.

 

[Ananda]

Bandar Udara Sepinggan/Sepinggan Airport BPN, they give it some years ago a ridiculous long name: "Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Sepinggan International Airport ".

Yes, after they spend millions of dollars to build representative terminal, seems people in the administration wants to have proper name from just Sepingan Airport. Still it's a very challenging airport to land. Once I land on that Airport during rain storm, and cross wind conditions quite severe that it took three times trying. On the last try, during the approach the cabin shaking sooo hard that I really thought this is end of my time.

Anyway, that's why during talk of new capital relocation in Kutai area, they're also talking building new Airport eventough both Balikpapan and Samarinda Airport already exists. Balikpapan SAMS airport already streatch to the limit of capabilities, while Samarinda Airport is smaller. If new capital relocation really being done (I do have doubts whether the administration has fund to do it after COVID situation), they have to build larger new Airport for new capital. That's why the talk of new capital relocation is getting longer. Turn out the relocation budget just keep increasing.

For me, it's better to used the money, work with some Dutch Engineering firms, and build large sea wall in Jakarta bay. Northern Jakarta ground level is going to keep sinking no matter what. Dutch is the Global leader on how to Dam the sea. Better use that money to save Northern Jakarta then moving Capital. Moving to New capital only support one thing, nobody going to go to new capital in East Kalimantan to do Demonstration

Anyway, Jakarta will not in this sinking situation level, if we follow the blue print the Dutch left us on Batavia/Jakarta planning. Once I saw the Blue Print the Dutch engineers build in 50's (during new republic transition). There's a lot off area in Jakarta that the Dutch blue print told either build as new canals or reservoir. Only around 25% of that being build. No wonder Jakarta keep sinking and flooding every rainy seasons.

Well that's enough of my out of topic ranting

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Yes, after they spend millions of dollars to build representative terminal, seems people in the administration wants to have proper name from just Sepingan Airport. Still it's a very challenging airport to land. Once I land on that Airport during rain storm, and cross wind conditions quite severe that it took three times trying. On the last try, during the approach the cabin shaking sooo hard that I really thought this is end of my time.

Anyway, that's why during talk of new capital relocation in Kutai area, they're also talking building new Airport eventough both Balikpapan and Samarinda Airport already exists. Balikpapan SAMS airport already streatch to the limit of capabilities, while Samarinda Airport is smaller. If new capital relocation really being done (I do have doubts whether the administration has fund to do it after COVID situation), they have to build larger new Airport for new capital. That's why the talk of new capital relocation is getting longer. Turn out the relocation budget just keep increasing.

For me, it's better to used the money, work with some Dutch Engineering firms, and build large sea wall in Jakarta bay. Northern Jakarta ground level is going to keep sinking no matter what. Dutch is the Global leader on how to Dam the sea. Better use that money to save Northern Jakarta then moving Capital. Moving to New capital only support one thing, nobody going to go to new capital in East Kalimantan to do Demonstration

Anyway, Jakarta will not in this sinking situation level, if we follow the blue print the Dutch left us on Batavia/Jakarta planning. Once I saw the Blue Print the Dutch engineers build in 50's (during new republic transition). There's a lot off area in Jakarta that the Dutch blue print told either build as new canals or reservoir. Only around 25% of that being build. No wonder Jakarta keep sinking and flooding every rainy seasons.

Well that's enough of my out of topic ranting

Totally agree.

Bandara Sepinggan is directly on the coast, extension into the sea is perfectly possible, including an additional runway.

A totally new capital is more prestigious and (most importantly) much more expensive than expansion/inpoldering on Jakarta's northern coast. As a bonus the nature of East-Kalimantan will be completely destroyed and foreign investors from a certain country can get a part of the projects, thats why East-Kalimantan is more attractive for the politicians.


But now something else....
We already havent talk a long time about our favourite Oracle on Twitter...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367193307101732870

So, Ananda...is it true?
Indeed they keep that EH-101 hidden somewhere, in order to let everyone forget about this corruption case, so having a special budget for this single EH-101 can attract attention. And do they really need to keep that thing in airworthy condition? Sending it back to Agusta-Westland will be easier and a headache-case less.