Indonesia Defence Forum

[umigami]

@Cromwell
If I remember correctly, in the past, back when chestnut got banned. I think You said to us that you are a doctor in West Java (I don't remember you ever said you serve at which hospital though)

Maybe they know it from there.

 

[umigami]

In my eyes gripens are just too small for the job and actually more equal to Fa50.

Pespur nanggung.

 

[umigami]

Duet Prabowo dan Luhut Menjamu Menhan China, Apa Hasilnya?
something interesting happened?

 

[Gen3115]

Good points, but curiously if it was the F-18, F-15, or F-35 that we're going to buy, a certain section of fanboys here will undoubtedly keep silent and will NEVER even mention about things such as "cost on introducing new infrastructure, training cost, cost to operate and maintain" despite the fact that these will also apply and those US fighters were all also notoriously known to be costly to operate and maintain.

On the contrary, terms such as "network centric, datalink, engine commonality, etc etc" will be frantically thrown around to obscure the fact that those US planes are also completely new types of planes that we haven't operated before and the aforementioned downsides related to cost to infrastructures, pilot training, and cost to operate and maintain will also apply to those planes.

Lets just make this clear, any kind of fighter introduced to the TNI-AU will always have costs of introduction regardless, even when we brought in the EDA F-16C's we had to build a new squadron in Pekanbaru.

But you can't deny the fact that American fighters would be easier to introduce and cheaper to build new infra and train compared to other unfamiliar EU airframes because we already have the existing infrastructure and familiarity here and for the past 40+ years we've seen the AU oriented towards American hardware and infrastructure (Sabre, F-5, A-4, OV-10, C-130, etc.) and btw engine commonality is considered part of the infrastructure as well as shared armaments stock, subcomponents stock, etc. Is it really that hard to see for you?

Based on this logic though, this should be the same case with the Su-35, but if you actually know the maintenance reputation of the Flanker here, then no lol. I don't think I need to explain this one, but I think everyone here knows already how we have always have to send Flankers back to Russia or Belarus as well as always needing to outsource procurements related to them to shady third parties through the LKPP for example (some people on here would know I had personal experience in this).

The Flankers will be just fine, they are useful and AU has invested a lot in them too... They are flying regularly, training regularly, even doing trainings which F-16 pilots can't, like AAR... Some has been upgraded and new flankers simulators has also been setup recently... Even Prabowo has mentioned that he would prioritize fixing (and I assume also upgrading) existing assets rather than buying new... So it's possible that the Flanker fleet might actually undergo a eMLU-like update program somewhat similar to what had been done to our F-16 A/B fleet...

I wouldn't be as optimistic If I were you. Plus AAR is a different problem, the problem isn't on the Flanker or the F-16. Its just our lack of boom equipped Tanker. Why'd you think the Air Force has been trying to get its hands on the MRTT for?

@Whizzack question for you, do you seriously think our Air Force can afford to operate 3 types (Typhoon, Flanker, Viper) especially when these 3 have little to no commonality with each other? I am genuinely curious if you think we can actually afford it, based on what I've been told even we've been struggling operating 2 incompatible frontline fighter types.

We need to maintain our current policy to have 2 different set of fighters. It's too risky to have just one. Any problem on the supply (parts/missiles/etc) for whatever reason (technical, political, etc) will cripple our air force instantly.

So far we have been managing the U.S. and Russians sets very well. If we want to phase out the Russian ones and stop importing them once and for all, then we have to start looking for the alternative to replace them.

European jets will do nicely. It's obviously easier to manage the U.S + European ones compare to the U.S. + Russians.

Building new infrastructure is off course costly. Initial investment in almost any kind of sectors always needs more money. That's why we have to make sure it's worth it.

Just compare all the future development and replacement of any European jet alternatives that we have now. Pick the best of the bunch.

(sorry I don't really trust our KFX program for now)

I partly agree with this and also have mixed opinions on it since its a mostly political problem rather than technical. Even though I think embargo's and sanctions can certainly be circumvented like we did before, I do think its acceptable to have options available. However if we do need 2 different sets of fighters, I am not sure if a US + Russian sets actually work well. Yes, for the past 20 years our F-16 + Flanker combo might look ok, but lets be honest we mostly see the Flanker in either high profile exercises and interceptions or PR events, we don't really know how it is behind the scenes, but doesn't the news tell you anything? I mean we've been struggling keeping all 16 Flankers flying, theres always 2-4 not operationally ready and requiring overhaul (its not the Flankers fault btw, just Soviet philosophy of maintenance).

I might agree with you that a European + US mix might work, but not sure with the Rafale considering the Rafale is an all French fighter and exclusively only uses French armaments and systems, is isn't compatible with American armaments such as AIM-9 or AIM-120 which we have in stock for our F-16's, so even armament commonality is out of the question. However, if the reason for having 2 sets of foreign jets is to circumvent embargo, then yea the Rafale is a good choice considering the Rafale is fully French made and doesn't depend on multiple countries like the Eurofighter Typhoon. Also the French have been very relaxed when it comes to arms embargo, during the 1999 East Timor crisis they only bothered to embargo us for less than a year while the UK + US imposed a 5 year embargo on us. The French also have reputation for having attractive offset offers, just look at our licensed product portofolio (Super Puma, Caracal, Anoa, Komodo, etc.).

As for the Eurofighter Typhoon, this is my preferred choice if we really need to introduce a different set of fighter. Personally based on specs I like its climb rate, speed, T/W ratio, on paper its a very good interceptor. The Typhoon is also very flexible on armaments allowing both EU armaments like Meteor, ASRAAM, IRIS-T as well as American armaments like the AIM-9 and AIM-120. But my guess is the Eurofighter would be very prone to sanctions considering the countries involved in the Eurofighter consortium. However I wouldn't worry much since unless we **** up again, sanctions are kinda unlikely.

If your choice is the Gripen, uhmmm, screw that you're basically just getting a Swedish F-16.

and btw we kinda do need to think about replacing our Russian assets, considering CAATSA is still in place until God knows when and Trump voted out of office won't change much considering CAATSA is a Bi-partisan Act.

 

[JCMan]

not that Im not agree with you, but comparing US fighter mantain and operating cost with fighter from another country is pointless because US fighter has the cheapest cost among them, so those US fanboy ur mentioning has their points. its the same thing with the said introducing and build new infrastructure cost. they are the cheapest. so its just pointless to mention about US fighter maintenance cost because they are the cheapest for us.


this is also a fact, u cant deny it. even if you have F16 and now you even want to buy F35, its easy to integrate them.

US planes have the cheapest maintenance cost? Could you please elaborate further and provide valid data related to this conjectures and assumptions of yours?

Please share and enlighten us with data pertaining the CPFH for the F-16 compared to the Gripen, for example. Or the CPFH of the F-18, F-15, and even the F-35 (planes which I mentioned to also have notoriously high maintenance cost) compared to the Typhoon, Rafale or Su-35, for example.

This should prove to be more fruitful than uttering fanboyish statements such as "my toys are cheaper to maintain because I said so!" a very laymen viewpoint which curiously yet again, sparked no response, scrutiny or inquiry whatsoever from your fellow "industry expert" Yankophile US tech fanboys just because your standpoints aligned with their interests.

 

[JCMan]

Lets just make this clear, any kind of fighter introduced to the TNI-AU will always have costs of introduction regardless, even when we brought in the EDA F-16C's we had to build a new squadron in Pekanbaru.

But you can't deny the fact that American fighters would be easier to introduce and cheaper to build new infra and train compared to other unfamiliar EU airframes because we already have the existing infrastructure and familiarity here and for the past 40+ years we've seen the AU oriented towards American hardware and infrastructure (Sabre, F-5, A-4, OV-10, C-130, etc.) and btw engine commonality is considered part of the infrastructure as well as shared armaments stock, subcomponents stock, etc. Is it really that hard to see for you?

Based on this logic though, this should be the same case with the Su-35, but if you actually know the maintenance reputation of the Flanker here, then no lol. I don't think I need to explain this one, but I think everyone here knows already how we have always have to send Flankers back to Russia or Belarus as well as always needing to outsource procurements related to them to shady third parties through the LKPP for example (some people on here would know I had personal experience in this).

I partly agree with this and also have mixed opinions on it since its a mostly political problem rather than technical. Even though I think embargo's and sanctions can certainly be circumvented like we did before, I do think its acceptable to have options available. However if we do need 2 different sets of fighters, I am not sure if a US + Russian sets actually work well. Yes, for the past 20 years our F-16 + Flanker combo might look ok, but lets be honest we mostly see the Flanker in either high profile exercises and interceptions or PR events, we don't really know how it is behind the scenes, but doesn't the news tell you anything? I mean we've been struggling keeping all 16 Flankers flying, theres always 2-4 not operationally ready and requiring overhaul (its not the Flankers fault btw, just Soviet philosophy of maintenance).

I might agree with you that a European + US mix might work, but not sure with the Rafale considering the Rafale is an all French fighter and exclusively only uses French armaments and systems, is isn't compatible with American armaments such as AIM-9 or AIM-120 which we have in stock for our F-16's, so even armament commonality is out of the question. However, if the reason for having 2 sets of foreign jets is to circumvent embargo, then yea the Rafale is a good choice considering the Rafale is fully French made and doesn't depend on multiple countries like the Eurofighter Typhoon. Also the French have been very relaxed when it comes to arms embargo, during the 1999 East Timor crisis they only bothered to embargo us for less than a year while the UK + US imposed a 5 year embargo on us. The French also have reputation for having attractive offset offers, just look at our licensed product portofolio (Super Puma, Caracal, Anoa, Komodo, etc.).

No, it's not hard for me to see that the Air Force's systems and infrastructures are geared towards the US, but it's also seems that it's hard for you to see that the Air Force didn't procure, maintain, upgrade and even aimed to supplement their existing multi sourced fighters because they think that they are all useless, or didn't have specific roles to fill, or because it's absolutely necessary not to put all of their eggs in one basket.

Trust me, if at some point the Air Force ever felt that there's no point in keeping hold of any type of fighters that they have, or if they felt that maintaining a certain type of fighters cost an arm and a leg, then they will happily discard those planes without fanboys like you and your buddies ever need to waste your breath on repeated marketing spins over and over again.

 

[Alex898]

US planes have the cheapest maintenance cost? Could you please elaborate further and provide valid data related to this conjectures and assumptions of yours?

Please share and enlighten us with data pertaining the CPFH for the F-16 compared to the Gripen

seems like you forgot that I also said this.
"so its just pointless to mention about US fighter maintenance cost because they are the cheapest for us"
F-16 already familiar in our AF maintenance depot, we even do the uograde by ourself. F-16 is the most exported fighter, it would be easier to find spareparts and besides we also already operate 33 of them, so sparepart can be canibalized from other units.
thats all I can say, yes it was a conjecture, but it has logic behind it.
if you introduce gripen, they need to build new local MRO, train the maintenance crew, also train the pilots with new and different tech. and one more, the cost for ToT deals.
that is why I think F-16 is cheaper, and if you think Im makin a wrong comparison because I add the integration cost, just read the bolded sentences above.

also, what is your argument against those claims that US fighter is cheapest for us ? all you did was saying that it is fanboyish to think that US fighter is the cheapest, but you never argued about why they are not the cheapest. Actually, it would be helpful that you could point if my logic is wrong, by providing some actual data (about why US fighter is not the cheapest for us) or at least your logic that against my opinion.

I see that you labelled some member here that defends or preffers US fighter as "US fanboy", so is it okay to call you "Non-US fanboy"?

 

[Azull]

Well, regardless of all the arguments here. The way i see it. Mindef is looking for an exit strategy to introduce new fighters fast. Most of this decision was made because of the mess that was left behind by the previous mindef.

With all that taken into consideration, i think the typhoon is going to be in the forefront in this aspect, followed closely by the F16 if we do get the EDA option as these two is going to be ready sooner than any other option that was mentioned by us here.

Building new fighter jets takes time. Meanwhile the typhoon and the F16 EDA would be able to be delivered to us faster than the new build ones. This is of course if we manage to close the deal fast too.

So, regardless of what our opinions are. The fact is we badly need new birds. And we need them fast. If were going to be ready for whats to come at SCS, i dont see any viable options other than the typhoon and the F16EDA.

Mind you that this doesnt mean that i support the decision of introducing another new fighter to the Air force. Based on simple logic alone, it would be best to add more F16. Why? Because we already operated them, because our boys already knew how to handle them, because we already have weapons for them with more advanced ones coming soon, because we have plenty spareparts for them. Any other arguments is useless because this is the cold hard fact that a lot of people seems to forget.

 

[Fl0gger]

Correct me if i am wrong , about spare part of f16 its not planty of them here that we own and betwen the AM/BM and 52id not mantion VIPER thay are have a commonility but they also have a difrent spare part to so in worst case scanario it can't just like canibalize one into another just like that also their is also some diffrent tool's and jig's and manner to maintain them. Well at least that what the LM tehnician and DI told me when i at the skatek 042 having coffe break to gather. Well dont get me wrong I am no body jjust the guy who served them coffe a waiter that is

 

[¿Por qué?]

If your choice is the Gripen, uhmmm, screw that you're basically just getting a Swedish F-16.

and btw we kinda do need to think about replacing our Russian assets, considering CAATSA is still in place until God knows when and Trump voted out of office won't change much considering CAATSA is a Bi-partisan Act.

Well, actually that's the point. Gripen is basically cheaper version of F-16V. So if we go down Gripen route it'd be to replace the F-16.

Maybe this is very very unpopular opinion, but let's dissect this option for awhile.

Imagine replacing all of our F-16 with Gripen. So Gripen will be our single engine fleet.

How about our big baddie? Well, we can go for F-15 or F-18 Shornet (I love F-15 so I prefer F-15).

So we go from our original configuration of Su-35 + F-16V, to F-15 (ideally EX haha) + Gripen.

This F-15EX + Gripen configuration is giving us some advantages than other alternatives of :

1. SU-35 + F-16V
2. Typhoon + F-16V
3. Rafale + F-16V

We can expect some of these pros with F-15EX + Gripen than the other 3 configurations:

- probably more jets, obviously in the single engine side

- lower total operating cost. The very low CPFH of Gripen ($4700 vs $8000 of F-16V) can help to balance out the high CPFH of twin-engine fleet.

- MRO related stuff. Since we have F-16 already, we can assume that there will be no major problem of getting MRO for F-15. But the MRO issue for SU-35, Typhoon, and Rafale surely can't compete against Gripen.

- we can still maintain our current policy to have 2 different sets of fighter (the U.S. + non-U.S.).

- flexibility on weaponry. Gripen can fire almost all that F-15s have. SAAB also already started to introduce AESA for their Gripen.

 

[Nike]

Well, actually that's the point. Gripen is basically cheaper version of F-16V. So if we go down Gripen route it'd be to replace the F-16.

Maybe this is very very unpopular opinion, but let's dissect this option for awhile.

Imagine replacing all of our F-16 with Gripen. So Gripen will be our single engine fleet.

How about our big baddie? Well, we can go for F-15 or F-18 Shornet (I love F-15 so I prefer F-15).

So we go from our original configuration of Su-35 + F-16V, to F-15 (ideally EX haha) + Gripen.

This F-15EX + Gripen configuration is giving us some advantages than other alternatives of :

1. SU-35 + F-16V
2. Typhoon + F-16V
3. Rafale + F-16V

We can expect some of these pros with F-15EX + Gripen than the other 3 configurations:

- probably more jets, obviously in the single engine side

- lower total operating cost. The very low CPFH of Gripen ($4700 vs $8000 of F-16V) can help to balance out the high CPFH of twin-engine fleet.

- MRO related stuff. Since we have F-16 already, we can assume that there will be no major problem of getting MRO for F-15. But the MRO issue for SU-35, Typhoon, and Rafale surely can't compete against Gripen.

- we can still maintain our current policy to have 2 different sets of fighter (the U.S. + non-U.S.).

- flexibility on weaponry. Gripen can fire almost all that F-15s have. SAAB also already started to introduce AESA for their Gripen.

Gripen C/D doesn't bring much capability to begin with again. They are very short legged, lacked carrying capacity, and their claims over cheaper Operational cost is very dubious, as even relatively well off Air Force like South Africa Air Defense Forces is must put their 26 units fleets into short term storage for rotation basis as they facing difficulties over operational cost and maintenance support even though they had signed contract with SAAB for long term support services.

I don't bought their gimmick

 

[Gundala]

Gripen is a great fighter with it great EW suits and network integration (among them). Again we comparing a fighter with its spec/maintenance cost for us to use, not at what its intended role then the spec/maintenance cost/LCC come after.

This is my take, one thing Gripen lacking over F-16 on a operational usage perspective is its Fuel Capacity/Range. Gripen E version slightly carry more fuel, but the introduction of F-16 CFT totally put Gripen out of the equation. Please keep in mind we are officially only have one tanker, and it only been added up recently. WIth this flying tanker shortage do you think AU will buy fighter to play TS role with limited ferry/combat range?

If you are a pilot or have a pilot friend ask them about fuel capacity in relation to flying. Most military and non-military pilot would be agree that fuel is their life-line.

 

[Gundala]

outsource procurements related to them to shady third parties through the LKPP for example (some people on here would know I had personal experience in this).

lapak rusky ada satpol pp-nya ya bro?

 

[¿Por qué?]

Well, regardless of all the arguments here. The way i see it. Mindef is looking for an exit strategy to introduce new fighters fast. Most of this decision was made because of the mess that was left behind by the previous mindef.

With all that taken into consideration, i think the typhoon is going to be in the forefront in this aspect, followed closely by the F16 if we do get the EDA option as these two is going to be ready sooner than any other option that was mentioned by us here.

Building new fighter jets takes time. Meanwhile the typhoon and the F16 EDA would be able to be delivered to us faster than the new build ones. This is of course if we manage to close the deal fast too.

So, regardless of what our opinions are. The fact is we badly need new birds. And we need them fast. If were going to be ready for whats to come at SCS, i dont see any viable options other than the typhoon and the F16EDA.

Yes, this messy interim program until MEF 2024 requires us to buy used fighters.

I'm not saying that we can buy all of them (for some reason), but so far this is the used jets that are probably available :

- Typhoon. Plenty of them.
Not just the Austrian but also more coming from Germany, Spain, Italy, and UK.

- F-16A/B EDA. Probably plenty as well.

- Rafale. Limited. France sold several used Armee de l'Air Rafale to Greece recently.

- F-18A/B. Plenty. Australia have more than 60 they want to replace with F-35. Sold some of them to Canada already.

- F-18C. Plenty. Finland have more than 50 they want to replace soon.

It's difficult to find used SU-30/27 jets for sale as usually that is the most advanced jets that the countries have (I suppose CAATSA only applies when we buy directly from Russia).

 

[umigami]

Duh.. AL Jerman Batal Pensiunkan Frigat Bremen Class – F214 Lübeck

Any other choice?