Indonesian Aero News

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Some messages from Airbus/Eurocopter and Boeing.
This will be the first user of the brandnew H160 in Indonesia.

Smart way to promote their stuff.


Google algorithm just shown me the article on Tempo Online regarding LM still doing their Lobby for F-16V/ F-16 Blk 72. Just as I put before, never underestimate LM Lobby connection on Indonesian Military establishment.

I suspect they see their chances back looking on the packages the competitors Airbus, Dasault and Boeing offering. Perhaps they are now pushing on affordability factor. This is getting interesting, Dasault also increase the tempo of their Lobby. Interesting that latest Boeing or Airbus ones seems not feasible on Media or online sources yet.

There're push from Parliement for MinDef to conclude the choices soon. Could the end of TNI-AU fighter procurement drama already entering final stages ?
The Oracle on Twitter isnt agree with you.

|"Boeing business in Indonesia on defense sector today depend on F-15 offer. MV-22 business opportunity has been vanished into thin air. Indonesia can't afford for MV-22. Lockheed Martin has to forget about F-16V penetration on Indonesian market. The only expectation is on S70i."|
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
The Oracle on Twitter isnt agree with you.
There's things in my opinion for not to write off F-16V yet as he's inclined to think. Budget, Budget, and Budget. Tempo article in my thinking shown that they're perhaps got information on F-16V potentially still has a chance. If MinDef still want to build Tankers, AEW, MPA, and ISTAR capabilities as plan, then there's question if the budget will be enough for both F-15E and Rafale.

Anyway:

This's officially MinDef more openly shown that they're planning to use NASAMS as area SAM replacing SA-75 that being written off 40 years ago. Seems they're acknowledge that by end of 70's some of SA-75 inventory still operational despite difficulty maintaining Sovyet Defense assets from the 60's.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
There's things in my opinion for not to write off F-16V yet as he's inclined to think. Budget, Budget, and Budget. Tempo article in my thinking shown that they're perhaps got information on F-16V potentially still has a chance. If MinDef still want to build Tankers, AEW, MPA, and ISTAR capabilities as plan, then there's question if the budget will be enough for both F-15E and Rafale.

Anyway:

This's officially MinDef more openly shown that they're planning to use NASAMS as area SAM replacing SA-75 that being written off 40 years ago. Seems they're acknowledge that by end of 70's some of SA-75 inventory still operational despite difficulty maintaining Sovyet Defense assets from the 60's.
I thought this was already revealed in januari 2021, around post #1768, with the resurrection of Satuan Rudal 111 for operating the NASAMS.

And we still need more AMRAAMs, because until now TNI-AU's stock consists of only 36 AIM-120C7, which have to be spread not only over the NASAMS launchers, but also the 33 F-16s.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
thought this was already revealed in januari 2021, around post #1768, with the resurrection of Satuan Rudal 111 for operating the NASAMS.
It is, but seems this is just more official on their plan for Area medium range SAM. The way I see it, it is acknowlegement that so far they will use NASAMS for the purpose. Well you know how MinDef on their planning, look how many types of SHORAD that TNI uses ;)
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Interesting....
But it is unclear where they get this stuff from. It is also unclear how many systems they have, and if they are still evaluating it or if its completely operational.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

I think some of local forumers already put it. It's Israel vendors Opgal. It's very similar system that they have sold to Thailand. As usual any system that procured from Israel will not be 'officialy' stated the origin, or they will call it origin from third parties vendors (remember TNI-AU Aerostar UAV that for sometime told originated from Philippines as they use Philippines companies as third parties vendors).

Perhaps they will call it origin from India, as seems this Opgal have presence in India. From that Detik online article, seems it's already procured and operated by them. However I don't think in large numbers yet.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

I think some of local forumers already put it. It's Israel vendors Opgal. It's very similar system that they have sold to Thailand. As usual any system that procured from Israel will not be 'officialy' stated the origin, or they will call it origin from third parties vendors (remember TNI-AU Aerostar UAV that for sometime told originated from Philippines as they use Philippines companies as third parties vendors).

Perhaps they will call it origin from India, as seems this Opgal have presence in India. From that Detik online article, seems it's already procured and operated by them. However I don't think in large numbers yet.
Ah the politics of buying the best affordable gear around and keeping the great hairy unwashed from rioting in the street demanding that ones head be displayed upon a stake. Doesn't it make life interesting o_O
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Doesn't it make life interesting
It is :D

Every one in business circle knows existence of Israel Chamber of Commerce in Jakarta. Acting like unofficial representative. There're pilgrimage packages for Islamic ones and Christian ones to Jerusalem sold heavily (before COVID at least), through Jordan. Israel IT and Communication vendors (usually work with Indian Partners) are selling their products with Indonesian communication and financial business. Defense vendors are known sometimes sourcing components from Israel sources.

As long as it doesn't say 'made in Israel', is business as usual.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I think, I’ve found the missile. It is the chinese AR-2!

Probably for the CH-4B UCAVs.
Confirmed by Janes...
These missiles are AR-2s...
The photo above of the AR-2 missiles (the light-gray ones) are not from the Indonesian missiles, its probably from an event or air show in china.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I think TNI-AU is the free fall bomb specialist of ASEAN, they perform continuously bombing exercises. I dont know why, they dont use them to fight the OPM-terrorists, freefall bombs are useless for air defence and using them to bomb invading naval vessels is pure suicide these days.

Here we can see two F-16s with 2 inert and 4 live Mk.82s each.

But sometimes TNI-AU also use more modern stuff, like this Kh-29TE.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
freefall bombs are useless for air defence and using them to bomb invading naval vessels is pure suicide these days.
I do believe it depends on the condition of each naval fleet area or even point defense SAM capabilities. It's also still depends to the fleet air coverage. Royal Navy losses in Falkland mostly due to conventional dumb bombs, as Argentinian AF and Naval Air Arm has limited ASM in form of Exocet.

There's still limited Fleet even today that can provide better Area and Point Defense SAM coverage then RN combine fleet in the 80's during Falkland campaign. Let alone air coverage from 2 RN carriers. Still Argentinian able to break the SAM and Air coverage on certain conditions.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
...freefall bombs are useless for air defence and using them to bomb invading naval vessels is pure suicide these days.
1. Against Type 055 destroyers and Type 054A frigates (or even second line combatants like the Type 056), use of dumb bombs is a suicidal move (as an Indonesia fighter aircraft can’t get within range before it is shot down) — especially in a troubled peace scenario, where the decision for escalation is a choice of China.
(a) In a troubled peace, I expect the sinking of 1 to 2 Indonesian ships (or a flight of 2 to 4 Indonesian fighters), before peace talks begin and neutrals like Australia, Thailand, Korea or Singapore make an offer to come in — see NLL naval examples in Korea for the various troubled peace scenarios. And the TNI needs ADMM Plus neutrals who are willing to take risk to support a troubled peace fairly (and only if these navies have a good enough relationship with the TNI AL).​
(b) For a troubled peace scenario, Indonesia as a G20 country with a trillion dollar economy must think in terms of developing the capability to conduct an attack from the air, up to 72 km away, against certain types of littoral naval targets, using multiple small diameter bomb IIs, launched at each vessel and delivered by TNI AU F-16s (and their future fighter buys), are the way to go to kill PLA(N) Type 22 FAC swarms (as we don’t want to waste a million dollar missiles against such low value small craft).​
(c) This form of smart bomb delivery attack (combined with hellfire or such other missile delivery from TNI AU Apaches) can be a tactic against a small FAC swarm of 12 to 36 vessels; and likewise China’s PLA(N) will plan to use dumb bombs or UAV launched missiles against Indonesia’s KCR-60 vessels and below — which is why I keep talking about force structure for sortie generation on a 365 day basis in an area of dispute. It’s a waste of a PLA(N) anti-ship missile to use against the TNI AL’s FACs, as they have to means to spoof and decoy the TNI AL’s Chinese anti-ship missile. TNI AL’s continued building of 40 metre FACs that don’t have the needed endurance to sortie against the Type 22 is a waste of your country’s precious resources.​

2. This is why I keep asking — both the TNI AL and TNI AU have to decide who the enemy is. Is it the US Navy / Singapore Navy or the PLA(N)? If PLA(N) is the notional enemy, why has the Indonesian Air Force bought a batch of AR-2 small diameter air-to-ground missiles for its CH-4B UAV fleet? The missiles are similar to the Hellfire missile used by American Reaper UAVs. Incidentally, these Chinese made TNI AU UAVs are expected to be deployed in the Natuna Islands region to guard against Chinese intrusions into the Natuna Islands and its EEZ in the southern parts of South China Sea. I can’t believe the stupidity of proposing to buy twin engine European fighters (with incompatible weapons to existing inventory, along with a high OPEX cost) and Chinese UAVs, when the TNI AU needs to deliver a certain volume of surface ordinance against:

(a) multiple PLA(N) targets like a swarm of PLA(N) FACs; or​

(b) an even more dangerous Type 055 led naval task group.​

3. By 2030s, the PLA(N), it’s carrier task groups, and its armed coast guard, with a mandate to shoot, will be even more assertive in the South China Sea, and they will use grey zone tactics to wear out TNI AL’s KCR-60 vessels and sailors from daily patrols. I wish the TNI good luck to generate the needed naval patrols, when a maritime militia swarm arrives — with the Singapore Navy watching as an armed neutral, nearby. What type of relationship Indonesia decides to build with Singapore is a choice it’s armed forces and people must make.

4. For others within ASEAN to believe that Indonesia, as its leader, is able to chart an independent foreign policy, your country must develop a limited military capability to be independent from 2030 to 2049. As a 2 frigate navy, the country has less than a limited capability to patrol its waters in the face of capable opposition in a troubled peace; and the TNI AU’s choices made today, will deeply affect future capability. While Indonesia may not be preparing to fight China (and understandably so), I can assure you the PLA(N) and its maritime militia has plans in your country’s EEZ and will aggressively enforce its disputed claim in the near future; to ensure a troubled peace.

5. As I said in another thread, Australia and Singapore have capable air forces that don’t have enough fighters for a hot war — the force structure is too small to take combat induced attrition (over a period of 30 days). But we can inject a man with a gun in most troubled peace scenarios but our capabilities, even when combined under the FPDA auspices are limited, when compared to the JSDF or Korean Armed Forces. Therefore, I see the Australian and Singaporean desire for our air forces and navies to be more capable as a desire to secure a troubled peace.

6. After watching the PLA teach a lesson to the Indian Army at their disputed border in 2020, by killing 20 Indian soldiers by clubbing them to death, as part of their troubled peace plans, I hope Indonesia will brace yourself for a troubled peace when your country’s turn to be tested comes.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Mk 82 or Indonesian made BNT-250 (BNL-250 for practice version) are relatively cheap to put in exercises. That's why TNI-AU pilots practice more with this kind of bomb more often. TNI-AU have guided bomb in form of 90's Laser Guided and JDAM. I believe they're standardize their guided munitions (outside missiles) with JDAM. Still I don't think they have much already in Inventory. There are also effort from Indonesian Defense Industry consortium to build locally guided munitions kit. I don't know what the latest progress on this, last information they're going to partner with South Korean.

Indonesian MinDef already factor in 'trouble peace' scenarios especially in SCS. TNI development and procurement strategy already base on that scenario. However I also see that their preparation and planning are not firm enough (at least from the onset). TNI-AU planning for example in one hand already preparing for more capabilities on better logistics build up, electronics warfare (including AEW and ISTAR) and also wider deployment capabilities (like MRTT). However in other hand still want to build hodge pot of Fighters Assets.

I do believe TNI-AU planners already knows well the important of build up relative larger number but homogeneous Fighters assets. That's why they're asking F-16V. However at the same time there are also still Political pressure from some sections that still want diversified Fighters assets. Just to make Political (and Projects) points of Indonesia work with multiple Defense Partners.

It is Idiotic, and that's why I sometimes put how I missed Soekarno and Soeharto. At least with both dictators, they make clearer guidance position. Soekarno doesn't get what he wants from West, he goes to East. Vice versa with Soeharto.

There're still significant thinking in Political circle and Public to be call on neutrality and Free & Active and international diplomacy. At least both Dictators knows well that thinking in the end is illusion. They in the end put clearer Indonesia position and stick with it (whether right or wrong). Both of them knows in the end Indonesia can't continue hope to 'sitting on the fence'. Position has to be given where Indonesia need to leaning on.

I do see the current administration already shown where their inclination are, however as this administration weakness so far also shown their 'still' inefficient implementation of their own plan. Too much talk-late action, especially if it is sensitive project that deemed has to make sometimes unpopular Political decision (in Parliament).

Defense Project is part of the sensitive project as it is big and many Political factions try to get 'piece of the pie'. Thus most likely they will only act on close to last minute, which is typical of Jokowi's administration.

I do see in the end they will make choices, and it also doesn't mean the choices will be consistent with their own initial planning. Some last minute adjustment can happen.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I do believe it depends on the condition of each naval fleet area or even point defense SAM capabilities. It's also still depends to the fleet air coverage. Royal Navy losses in Falkland mostly due to conventional dumb bombs, as Argentinian AF and Naval Air Arm has limited ASM in form of Exocet.

There's still limited Fleet even today that can provide better Area and Point Defense SAM coverage then RN combine fleet in the 80's during Falkland campaign. Let alone air coverage from 2 RN carriers. Still Argentinian able to break the SAM and Air coverage on certain conditions.
I think the situation in 1982 is a little bit different with the situation now in the Spratly Sea.
That the Argentina Armed Forces performed quite well against the Royal Navy with just dumb bombs and a handful of AM39 Exocets, was, from which i understand, because
- the Sea Darts were already becoming obsolete,
- the Argentine Navy knew the character of the GWS30 Sea Dart + Type 965 combination, because they had two Type 42 destroyers
- just bad luck on the side of the RN.

(Maybe some British or Argentine DT-members can correct me if necessary.)

Like OPSSG already said
Against Type 055 destroyers and Type 054A frigates (or even second line combatants like the Type 056), use of dumb bombs is a suicidal move (as an Indonesia fighter aircraft can’t get within range before it is shot down)
Using Freefall bombs against naval vessels is maybe only possible if navies like from the Philippines or Papua-Nugini decide to invade Indonesia.

Mk 82 or Indonesian made BNT-250 (BNL-250 for practice version) are relatively cheap to put in exercises. That's why TNI-AU pilots practice more with this kind of bomb more often. TNI-AU have guided bomb in form of 90's Laser Guided and JDAM. I believe they're standardize their guided munitions (outside missiles) with JDAM. Still I don't think they have much already in Inventory. There are also effort from Indonesian Defense Industry consortium to build locally guided munitions kit. I don't know what the latest progress on this, last information they're going to partner with South Korean.

Indonesian MinDef already factor in 'trouble peace' scenarios especially in SCS. TNI development and procurement strategy already base on that scenario. However I also see that their preparation and planning are not firm enough (at least from the onset). TNI-AU planning for example in one hand already preparing for more capabilities on better logistics build up, electronics warfare (including AEW and ISTAR) and also wider deployment capabilities (like MRTT). However in other hand still want to build hodge pot of Fighters Assets.

I do believe TNI-AU planners already knows well the important of build up relative larger number but homogeneous Fighters assets. That's why they're asking F-16V. However at the same time there are also still Political pressure from some sections that still want diversified Fighters assets. Just to make Political (and Projects) points of Indonesia work with multiple Defense Partners.

It is Idiotic, and that's why I sometimes put how I missed Soekarno and Soeharto. At least with both dictators, they make clearer guidance position. Soekarno doesn't get what he wants from West, he goes to East. Vice versa with Soeharto.

There're still significant thinking in Political circle and Public to be call on neutrality and Free & Active and international diplomacy. At least both Dictators knows well that thinking in the end is illusion. They in the end put clearer Indonesia position and stick with it (whether right or wrong). Both of them knows in the end Indonesia can't continue hope to 'sitting on the fence'. Position has to be given where Indonesia need to leaning on.

I do see the current administration already shown where their inclination are, however as this administration weakness so far also shown their 'still' inefficient implementation of their own plan. Too much talk-late action, especially if it is sensitive project that deemed has to make sometimes unpopular Political decision (in Parliament).

Defense Project is part of the sensitive project as it is big and many Political factions try to get 'piece of the pie'. Thus most likely they will only act on close to last minute, which is typical of Jokowi's administration.

I do see in the end they will make choices, and it also doesn't mean the choices will be consistent with their own initial planning. Some last minute adjustment can happen.
Yes, and at least the SBY-administration created the MEF-program and started to modernize TNI.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Sea Dart was nowhere near obsolete. It was designed for high altitude & long range, & was effective enough to force the Argentinean attack aircraft to operate at low level. There, there were AA guns & two shipboard missiles: Seacat & Sea Wolf. Seacat had been in service for 20 years & was being replaced by Sea Wolf. Seacat did poorly: Sea Wolf did much better.

Sea Dart remained in service for another 30 years, with updates (mostly to electronics) through its life. It shot down an anti-ship missile during the 1991 Gulf War, despite being designed as a long-range high-altitude weapon.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Using Freefall bombs against naval vessels is maybe only possible if navies like from the Philippines or Papua-Nugini decide to invade
I'm sorry @Sandhi Yudha bit disagree on this. Not every naval from PLAN will have sufficient anti air capabilities to deflect low flying F-16 equipped with only conventional mk82 like RN face on Argentinian A-4/Dagger/Mirage. Yes if it's face their task force of Type 52, 55 destroyers and Type 54 Frigates, it's suicidal and folly.

OPSSG give example on type 22 FAC, I'm also thinking on type 56 Corvettes also still possible to be taken out by mk82/83/84 (if they work outside PLAN Destroyers and Frigates anti air missiles coverage).

That's why I say on my previous post, that it's depends on what kind of naval assets being face. I'm certainly not a Naval or Air Assault expert. However judging from Argentinian done in Falkland, they manage to find gaps on attacking RN assets that have not been covered by sufficient air coverage or assets with sufficient Air Defense Missiles.

My point is more on there're still gaps on Naval Air Defense to be exploits on certain conditions toward certain type of assets by low flying Fighter Bomber using conventional tossed down bombs. On that condition, even dumb bombs still can be effective toward naval targets.

Seacat had been in service for 20 years & was being replaced by Sea Wolf. Seacat did poorly: Sea Wolf did much better.
Yes, I see some documentary videos on RN landing parties that only be cover by older Frigates with sea cats. Turn to be not enough, and whole operation save by combination of limited Argentinian A-4 and Dagger that can be send, plus better whether next day, which made Air Coverage from Sea Harrier can be send.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Actually, there was one element of the Sea Dart system on the older Type 42 destroyers which was rather dated, & limited the effectiveness of Sea Dart in some circumstances: the target acquisition radar. It was fine against high-flying targets, but had trouble with ground clutter against low-flying aircraft. The Argentineans knew all about that, as they had two Type 42s. But the newest Type 42 had a different radar, & gave quite a shock to some low-flying (maybe 10-15 metres) Argentinean aircraft when it shot down a couple of them whose pilots must have thought themselves safe from Sea Dart. All RN Sea Dart ships had their radars updated after the war.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Just bit update from Antara article with Indonesian Agency for Technology Development (BPPT). PhotoGrid_1618985235485.jpg

The picture from the article, shown basic capabilities aim of 250 km operating range (with LOS only, thus they're not disclose yet the capabilities of Automated Satellite Navigation), 30 hrs endurance, 23.000 feet operational hight and 235 km/he cruising speed.

This type of UAV will be aim to the developed for multi purpose operation set. Thus seems they aim on modular payload modules. The initial flight aim on Q4 last year, but seems they're aiming for this year plan.
 
Top