Indonesian Aero News

[tonnyc]

In the article at Indonesian Air Force Draws Up Shopping List | Aviation International News
They are telling now that there is a possibility that TNI-AU will not get new fighters in the near future.

This is correct. The Minister of Defense last year said that there will be no new fighter acquisitions until at least 2015. While he did not say why, it is obvious to me that since 2014 is an election year in Indonesia, no politician wants to stick his neck out. No matter which fighter jets one supports, there will be plenty of opponents championing other fighters or even questioning the need in the first place.

As an aside, Mr. Alan Warnes is clearly working with somewhat outdated sources. From the numbers of CN-235 and C-295 he gave, it seems that his sources date back to 2012 to early 2013.

 

[STURM]

No matter which fighter jets one supports, there will be plenty of opponents championing other fighters or even questioning the need in the first place.

Have there been an political figures or NGOs who have questioned the need for all the recent tri-service purchces?

As an aside, Mr. Alan Warnes is clearly working with somewhat outdated sources. From the numbers of CN-235 and C-295 he gave, it seems that his sources date back to 2012 to early 2013.

Possible. He was the editor of Air Forces Monthly and visited Indonesia in the late 1990's to do an article on the TNI-AU.

 

[Ananda]

Local but foreign funded human rights NGO's, ussually very active on their opposition for any military projects. Many of them did not hide their anti TNI view, and seems will not rest until TNI disbanded altogether.

The publics usually did not paid much attention to those NGO's anymore. They used to get much attention on the early days of Reformasi at the time Soeharto regime ends. Still nowdays most public did not care much on them anymore.

However their opinion can be hijacked by other political faction, if considered beneficial for them on this election year. Thus this administration tends not to made any new high value contract this year, and mostly just fullfill the contract that being signed previous years. They do not want to provide any more new political ammo that can be used against them on the election time.

 

[tonnyc]

Have there been an political figures or NGOs who have questioned the need for all the recent tri-service purchces?

Nobody worth mentioning, and not recently. But like Ananda said, there are. Moreover, politicians can find political ammo even when they agree of the need for defense in the first place. Politicians from the opposition slammed the F-16 grant in 2012, for example, calling it "old used stuff with not much life left" and saying the money can be better spent buying Russian Flankers. Same think with the Leopard tank. The opposition criticized it as "too heavy and would sink on Indonesian fields" and called on the government to buy T-90s instead.

You may notice that the Russian lobby is quite influential, but even they are not safe. When Flankers were delivered in 2011-2012 a different group accused the government of buying unarmed fighter jets, implying but not quite saying that the money for buying the missiles got diverted. As I recall, the Congressional Comittee on Defense was forced to issue a statement that they will investigate the issue.

 

[koxinga]

The article does highlight one point worth discussing. While TNI-AU had made strides in fighter capabilities, there is a need to look at replacing ageing force multiplier assets such as the KC-130B and the 737 Surveillance.

Has there been any corresponding comments from TNI-AU about these replacements? Short of some talk about evaluating AWAC/AEW and the need for a platform with a longer loitering capabilities, not much has been discussed the tanker platform.

For combat capabilities, short of the replacement of the F-5, I think and correct me if I am wrong, the long term plan is to replace the Hawks with the KFX. But if the KFX gets delayed, will we see another replacement programme?

 

[Ananda]

Nobody in this present administration want to talk what the alternative if KFX is not progressing. KFX is one of ambitious plan by this administration to take, many from other political faction criticized the program. Thus for the administration admitting KFX program can failed to progress is not something they want to talk. But yes, if we see the Hawk 209/109 planned to be retain up to 2020+ and KFX planned to be inducted by that period, it is logical to conclude they will be replace by KFX. Off course it's all still big 'if'.

For new tankers and AEW, well it's still in study. Or in other word, it will be left to next administration to decide. If I can speculated, considering political atmosphere on much of political faction, the move for much involvement of domestic industry on next defense procurement is quite strong. Thus the involvement of DI on AEW and Tankers will also quite strong. Therefore I agree with the article on EADS platform will have strong possibilities for AEW and Tankers.

The AF, seems want plane that can have much longer loitering time than C-295, but from what I gather DI lobbied hard for more usages of C-295 within Indonesian Military including special purpose plane. So, I tend to see C-295 AEW. For Tankers, even the Article says A-330 MRTT, I tend to think A-400 Tankers have more possibility to replace those 2 very aging KC-130B.

Then again it will depend to next administration decision.

Add:
Just an idea of mine, A-330 MRTT from what I gathered can be converted from present A-330 airliners. Garuda has at least 6 A-330 300 that already around 10 years in age. Since Garuda (the government owned Indonesian flag carriers) keep adding newer A-330, can this Airliners (the number not need to be all 6) be bought by Government and converted to MRTT ? Well I don't have the cost scenerio though comparing that to buying brand new A-400 Tankers for KC-130B replacement. Also must considered operational cost consideration.

Well just my thought.

 

[STURM]

Has the TNI-AU ever publicly announced whether the Adour engines that power the Hawks have been overhauled? With the RMAF, the Adours are placed in a engine test bed for inspections and individuals parts - rather then the whole engine - are sent to the UK; I would imagine that's it the same with the TNI-AU.

Ideally the Hawks would be upgraded with a glass cockpit and an AESA radar [like the Selex Vixen] to enable AMRAAM to be fired. As the Hawks - both in the RMAF and the TNI-AU - have lots of life left this would make sense. I realise that Ananda is not a Hawk fan : but on paper at least the Hawks would be useful as pount interceptors and for the light attack role.

 

[Ananda]

So far the official info on Hawk 209/109 contract with Bae is for supplying spare parts. Some spareparts is for overhauling Adour, and like RMAF I suspect this also going to be done at TNI-AU facilities. The technician in there also have long term exposure on maintain Adour since Hawk MK-53 era.

Unconfirmed talk in local forum, indicating some parts on the contract will also be used for upgrading the Avionics and Electronics. However, I don't think will be as extensive as you have mention. They will not going to be kept for long time anyway, if everything went as plan.

Like you say, I'm definetely not a fan for Hawk 200/100, but as I've mentioned on other post, it's proved a reliable work horse for TNI-AU.

 

[STURM]

Overhauls are done back at Blighty but having a test bed means the whole engine does not need to be sent back; only the parts that need working on.

 

[koxinga]

Indonesia May Replace F-5s With Su-35s | Defense News | defensenews.com

An article that seems to tell nothing at all.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Nobody in this present administration want to talk what the alternative if KFX is not progressing. KFX is one of ambitious plan by this administration to take, many from other political faction criticized the program. Thus for the administration admitting KFX program can failed to progress is not something they want to talk. But yes, if we see the Hawk 209/109 planned to be retain up to 2020+ and KFX planned to be inducted by that period, it is logical to conclude they will be replace by KFX. Off course it's all still big 'if'.

For new tankers and AEW, well it's still in study. Or in other word, it will be left to next administration to decide. If I can speculated, considering political atmosphere on much of political faction, the move for much involvement of domestic industry on next defense procurement is quite strong. Thus the involvement of DI on AEW and Tankers will also quite strong. Therefore I agree with the article on EADS platform will have strong possibilities for AEW and Tankers.

The AF, seems want plane that can have much longer loitering time than C-295, but from what I gather DI lobbied hard for more usages of C-295 within Indonesian Military including special purpose plane. So, I tend to see C-295 AEW. For Tankers, even the Article says A-330 MRTT, I tend to think A-400 Tankers have more possibility to replace those 2 very aging KC-130B.

Then again it will depend to next administration decision.

Add:
Just an idea of mine, A-330 MRTT from what I gathered can be converted from present A-330 airliners. Garuda has at least 6 A-330 300 that already around 10 years in age. Since Garuda (the government owned Indonesian flag carriers) keep adding newer A-330, can this Airliners (the number not need to be all 6) be bought by Government and converted to MRTT ? Well I don't have the cost scenerio though comparing that to buying brand new A-400 Tankers for KC-130B replacement. Also must considered operational cost consideration.

Well just my thought.

Thats maybe a good idea, if the conversion costs are not too high.
For example the Royal Netherlands Air Force (KLu) has 2 KDC-10 (tailnumber T235 and T264) and 1 DC-10 (which came operational in 2007 and will be withdrawn in 2014) in use.The two KDC-10s are actually converted DC-10s bought in june 1992 from the Dutch airline Martinair (in those days they still transport passengers) and came operational in 1995. But according to some reports the acquisition of these two DC-10s and the conversion to the KDC-10 tanker/transport version was much more expensive than buying direct McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extenders from the US.

For our own aircraftindustry its ofcourse better to buy CN235 or NC295 aeroplanes as tankers. As you said the A330 MRTT and A400M have much more range and loitering time but they are also very expensive. Il-78 Midas are ofcourse cheaper but as far as i know they dont have the Aerial Refuelling Boom System for our F-16s, only the under-wing refuelling pods for probe-equipped receiver aircraft like the Hawk Mk209 and Su-27/-30.

 

[Vegan-Zombie]

I'd say having more C-295's as interim tankers would be ideal if the KC-130's become much more costly to maintain, and no alternative has come up. This is only if the C-295's are capable for the job, with all the extra weight and equipment that has to be put in. As for the refueling boom for the F-16's, the A330's are more likely to be procured in the long run, seeing as I don't think an A400M can mount anything other than an underwing fuel pod.

 

[tonnyc]

There are no technical reason why the C-295 can't be used as a tanker platform. In theory even the CN-235 can be so modified. Logistically though, the C-295 is borderline acceptable and the CN-235 would be out of consideration due to the cargo capacity.

CN-235 has a maximum payload of 5950 kg. At this payload, its maximum range is 390 nm. It can go farther, but at that point it will have to start using the fuel payload. Anyway, let's say that the tanks takes up less than a tonne, so there's about 5 tonnes of fuel available. F-16's internal fuel capacity is more than 5 tonnes. So a single CN-235 could then refuel 2 half-empty F-16. The Flanker's internal fuel is about 9 tonnes, so the CN-235 can refuel one Flanker at most. The CN-235 has an internal fuel capacity of 4150 kg, and in theory with the right modifications some of these can be transferred too, but with the limited range, one questions how much fuel can be safely transferred.

The C-295 is better, with a payload of 9250 kg and a range of 700 nm under max payload. Internal fuel capacity is 6150 kg. It can refuel 3 half-empty F-16, maybe 4 under certain conditions. It can refuel two half-empty Flankers, although some internal fuel may need to be transferred if you want the Flankers to have full tanks.

I read that Airbus Military is proposing a palletized aerial refueling system for C-295 though, anyone knows more about it? The Airbus Military pages say nothing, and the best reference I have found so far is this abstract of a paper. No idea of there's any follow-up yet.

 

[Ananda]

I think eventhough converting CN-235 or C-295 as tankers is technically veasible, but with limited capacity and range, the uses for them will be limited. At most they can be used for stand by tankers close to an AB, with duty for refuelling fighters that came close to empty after some operational duty.
With that ability, then better and more economical to buy some buddy to buddy refuelling system.

Eventhough TNI-AU does not envisage themself to operated on Aeriel Coalition operation, but considering the area of Indonesian airspace, the need for Tankers that able to accompanying fighters flight for ferry operation is there. At this moment, I believe only flankers that can fly unrefueled from western end of Indonesia to the eastern end. That also can only be achieved by carrying full external tanks configuration. Also with more F-16 come, then the need for boom refuelling capabilities is there.

Most of the AF transport and special purpose aircraft also still not equiped with refuelling capabilities. Large tankers can refuelled those transport, AEW, MPA, thus provide them with longer loitering time to patrol. Having large tankers will increased the patrol range on CN-235 MPA or C-295 AEW, which can improved their operational range close to say P-8 or 737 AEW.

So for involvement of DI for this tankers business can be not directly providing platform for tankers, but more modifying existing transport or special purpose aircraft with refuelling capabilities.

 

[tonnyc]

Is there any Indonesian Air Force assets other than the F-16 that requires a boom refueling method? Because from what I have read in f-16.net, the F-16 (and indeed fighter jets in general) can't actually use the boom's high flow rate and will have to throttle down the fuel transfer rate to something no better than a drogue's.

If there are no other air assets that requires a boom, then maybe what should be done is modify the F-16 to use the drogue method. That should simplify the logistics a bit.

Edit: it occurs to me that a CN-235 or C-295 based tanker is adequate for some uses. Extending the endurance of an CN-235 MPA, for example. In fact it is probably overkill to use large tankers for that purpose. So maybe there is room for a two-tier system, with dedicated large tankers serving combat planes and perhaps a small fleet of modified CN-235 or C-295 for other ad-hoc uses.

 

[koxinga]

DEFENSE STUDIES: Radar Terbang untuk Perang Udara

Well, indirect confirmation the TNI-AU is indeed looking at their tanker requirements along with AEW&C, although I am doubtful that any decision could be made soon given the coming elections.

 

[Ananda]

TNI mulai latih pilot Apache - ANTARA News

Indonesia will get borrowed Apache. The Article in Indonesian from Antara news agency. The Army Chief of Staff stated that the 8 Apache procured will come on 2017. However Indonesian Army pilots will begin induction and training with US personnel with borrowed Apache. It's not clear yet, whether the borrowed Apache will be in US or send To Indonesia for training.

The Apache will be stationed in Natuna after operational, facing South China sea.

 

[Ananda]

First batch of F-16C/D.

Indonesia

From USAF Hiltop Times. Relating to the inspection of Indonesian AF Chief to Hilltop AB of 573rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, to see the progress of Upgrade job for ex USAF/USANG F-16 to Indonesian AF program.

The article indicating the target of first batch (4 F-16 C) will be shipped to Indonesia on July this year. The local media before put AF statement that the first 16 of plan 24 ex USAF F-16 will be stationed on new squadron in Pekanbaru (adjacent to existing Hawk 209/109 squadron).

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Indonesia

From USAF Hiltop Times. Relating to the inspection of Indonesian AF Chief to Hilltop AB of 573rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, to see the progress of Upgrade job for ex USAF/USANG F-16 to Indonesian AF program.

The article indicating the target of first batch (4 F-16 C) will be shipped to Indonesia on July this year. The local media before put AF statement that the first 16 of plan 24 ex USAF F-16 will be stationed on new squadron in Pekanbaru (adjacent to existing Hawk 209/109 squadron).

Thank you for sharing, great to hear that the first four will come in July this year!
So, the last 8 will be add to SkU 3? BTW, do you know the composition of C and D from these 24 F-16s?

 

[Ananda]

AMARC Experience - AMARC Experience

From Amarc database seems from 24 to Indonesia, divided into 19 C and 5 D. However, I read on local forum that says 20 C and 4 D. No official info on this, but I guess will be around 18-20 C and 4-6 D.