Indonesia Defence Forum

[Raduga]

lol , what a reckless driving, my condolence to for the meatballs seller

https://www.facebook.com/Friederik.Mikkelsen/posts/3607116002642468

 

[¿Por qué?]

Can we be clear first, are we talking about Gripen C/D or Gripen NG (E/F)? They're quite a leap with each other though

I don't see the point of replacing the F-16 with the Gripen especially if you're referring to the Gripen C/D which would actually be a downgrade. They are in the same class and the Gripen won't bring much difference in capabilities in the single engine segment, not too mention introducing a more foreign fighter would introduce more costs. Plus the $4700 figure from what I read is for the Gripen C/D, the numbers for the Gripen E/F (NG) aren't there yet considering its new and only a few are undergoing tests currently and its probably going to be a tad bit more costly than the Gripen C/D also considering its a major upgrade of the Gripen by giving it AESA radar as well as newer engine (F414 compared to the RM12 (F404 based) on the Gripen C/D). If you want to compare F-16V it should be with Gripen NG since both are latest developments of each airframe, Gripen C/D is more comparable to earlier F-16C/D while F-16V is comparable to Gripen NG.

And btw if you want to pair the Gripen (Gripen E/F in this case) with a twin-engine, its better to pair it with the Super Hornet. I think engine commonality is a big cost saver and both the Gripen and Super Hornet uses F414's although not interchangeable unlike some of the F100's and F110's on the F-16 and F-15 pairing. In this case Gripen + Super Hornet or F-16 + F-15 pairing is more compatible IMO. Another problem with the Gripen in my opinion is its to short-legged I think in terms of fuel and range.

Plus its no use having the Gripen if the main goal is to have different 2 sets of fighters of US and non-US. The reason I call the Gripen a Swedish F-16 is because it is literally a Swedish American jet, half of its components are American so no use there, the other European options especially the Rafale is better for this particular problem.

View attachment 668418

I just don't think its worth transitioning to another single engine fighter when its not going to introduce much difference in capability despite cheaper CPFH, you also need to think about the cost of transition. The part I agree with you is the armament flexibility, the Gripen can utilize both American AIM-120's, AIM-9's as well as European IRIS-T, Meteor, etc.

But I get your point and partly agree though, If I was building an air force from scratch the Gripen is something I would certainly be looking at first.



Then why keep saying that US 'fanboys' will never mention about cost, infrastructure, training when thats mostly what US fanboys like Chestnut keep talking about, I mean they probably talk about that more compared to network centric capabilities and engine commonality (which is also considered as infrastructure in this case). Its not that hard to realize either that a jet like the F-16V and F-15 or even the F-35, the jet that is literally meant to replace the F-16 among its operators in the future would probably be more easier on on the introduction cost, infrastructure and training part since both our personnel and pilots would be more familiar with it and already have some experience with them.

And are you sure the AU actually gets to decide what they want to do? I mean if thats the case, I'm all for it. But thats not really what I've been seeing and been told at least hehe

The picture that you shared really hit the nail on the head. It totally destroys my argument about having Gripen as the non-U.S. set of fighter.

I could probably still argue with your other points, but that one particular picture is enough for me to say big, big NO to Gripen. It's definitely a no go.

Thanks for sharing it.

 

[¿Por qué?]

This is how the USAF calculated their F-16 CPFH back in 2009.

This is the aftermath of the photo op incident when the Air Force One (VC-25A) flew low near the statue of Liberty, escorted by two birds, F-16C and F-16D, which causing some people ran out of buildings and panicked in the streets thinking that this is terrorist attack.

To cut the story short, the government had to answer many questions and providing the cost calculation for the 3 aircrafts involved.

You can see all the components involved (DLR and fuel are the biggest).

As you can see, the CPFH is $7928 and $7726 for each of F-16. This is back in 2009.

Also found interesting stuff from the USAF Captain thesis in 2005 about this CPFH topic. He conducted a study on the bunch of F-16C and F-16D. He found that the increase rate of CPFH every year is about 16.6%.

So if last year CPFH was $8000, then this year it's expected to increase to $9328.

Not sure how this annual increase rate compare with other fighters.

link : https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a436138.pdf

 

[Gundala]

The picture that you shared really hit the nail on the head. It totally destroys my argument about having Gripen as the non-U.S. set of fighter

But to me those avionics/radar & EW suites really tempting to be put in our future KFX/IFX. At least it is proven design that works compare to the one Sokor has right?

 

[JCMan]

Operating cost of a Su-30 is roughly around $35,000. For a Mig-29 it's around $20,000. That's for Myanmar, a country with a larger base of Russian equipment than we do. It would be larger for us.

Myanmar confirm Russian military aircraft order - Sukhoi Su-30. | FocusCore Myanmar

company incorporation services, ongoing corporate secretarial services, payroll & bookkeeping services

myanmarcs.focuscoregroup.com

An F-15EX's operating costs is estimated to be around $29,000, but is projected to decrease to $25,000 as production lines increase.

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

For an F/A-18 Super Hornet, the operating costs is around $11,000 by a DoD estimate.

Why Sloppy Accounting Is Destroying the US Fighter Inventory

The DoD's cost per flight hour of military aircraft misses the mark. FighterSweep's financial expert Brett Odom gives the real cost breakdown

sofrep.com

For an F-16, it costs around $8,000.

The Hourly Cost Of Operating The U.S. Military's Fighter Fleet [Infographic]

Modern military fighter aircraft are extremely expensive to procure with the unit cost for a single F-35A coming to $98 million, according to Lockheed Martin. That program has already gone down as the most expensive weapons system in history and it's set to cost $1.509 trillion through to 2070...

www.forbes.com

A Gripen C/D costs around $4,700 in 2012. Adjusting to current inflation it is $5,300. Keep in mind this is the C/D. But as @Gen3115 has said, we currently don't know how much the E/F would cost. But a new aircraft with few operators it would likely be more.

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

Although yes, CPFH is difficult to determine because of a variety of factors, it still provides a basic idea of how much it would be. And from these few sources alone you can already tell the big difference of operating costs regarding US/EU aircraft compared to Russian aircraft.

So again, us "fanboys" are not making baseless assumptions as you claim. Everything we say has been said before by actual professionals. The only fanboy here is you.

It's good that a professional turned fanboy (due to obvious bias) like you actually use data to back up your arguments, for once. But I found it curious that you left out the CPFH of Rafale (estimated at around USD 16,500) and Typhoon (estimated at around USD 8,200 - 18,000), which were significantly lower than that of F-15 and also no mention about the CPFH of F-35 (estimated at around USD 31,000 up to a whopping 36,000). It's also convenient to left out estimates made by Australia regarding their Superbugs fleet about their CPFH of around USD 24,400. Not surprisingly, also no mention about when those numbers were ESTIMATED and who made the calculations, since the numbers calculated by Myanmar (about Russian made Su-30s) was certainly as valid as numbers calculated by the US (about the Hornets manufactured by.. themselves), right?

But then again, surely nobody cares about those numbers as long as they have commonality, interoperability, and the almighty network centric capability as the one ring to rule them all argument.

Lastly, try to bring numbers and data more often without first being scrutinized, would you? People will get bored eventually by conjectures such as "western planes are known to be wholly superior" or "upgrades to Russian planes were known to be not transparent, according to certain sources" or "my buddy, a brass in certain branch of military told me such and such". Why? Since "news" from hearsay and own bias will not get you anywhere, my guy.

 

[Chestnut]

It's good that a professional turned fanboy (due to obvious bias) like you actually use data to back up your arguments, for once. But I found it curious that you left out the CPFH of Rafale (estimated at around USD 16,500) and Typhoon (estimated at around USD 8,200 - 18,000), which were significantly lower than that of F-15 and also no mention about the CPFH of F-35 (estimated at around USD 31,000 up to a whopping 36,000). It's also convenient to left out estimates made by Australia regarding their Superbugs fleet about their CPFH of around USD 24,400. Not surprisingly, also no mention about when those numbers were ESTIMATED and who made the calculations, since the numbers calculated by Myanmar (about Russian made Su-30s) was certainly as valid as numbers calculated by the US (about the Hornets manufactured by.. themselves), right?

Then share your sources, you keep saying everyone else doesn't share sources but you yourself is the one that resorts to ad hominems and name calling when you're replying to others. And I did mention the CPFH would vary by country for a plethora of reasons, you're the one who is willingly excluding that since you're so obsessed with getting a "gotcha!" moment. It's already written on this article that I shared as well.

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

And the whole point of my argument was saying that US/EU jets are more cost-effective to operate than Russian ones, which apart from the F-35 is true. So I don't see what you're trying to get at here.

And from these few sources alone you can already tell the big difference of operating costs regarding US/EU aircraft compared to Russian aircraft.

Again, at this point it's very obvious you're letting your emotions over a hobby get the better of you. That's just pure fanboyism. Imagine being the pot that called the kettle back.

But then again, surely nobody cares about those numbers as long as they have commonality, interoperability, and the almighty network centric capability as the one ring to rule them all argument.

What ever you say my guy.

Lastly, try to bring numbers and data more often without first being scrutinized, would you? People will get bored eventually by conjectures such as "western planes are known to be wholly superior" or "upgrades to Russian planes were known to be not transparent, according to certain sources" or "my buddy, a brass in certain branch of military told me such and such". Why? Since "news" from hearsay and own bias will not get you anywhere, my guy.

Literally scroll up. The past several replies to your post has been people calling you out and debunking your argument just as I have. Me and others have already have proven our sources credible to other posters on this thread, and just because you don't know them doesn't make them invalid. Literally the only person going absolutely nowhere here is you, fanboy.

 

[Chestnut]

Not sure how this annual increase rate compare with other fighters.

Comparing CPFH between jets and countries is very difficult. Everyone makes different assumptions in their accounting and includes/excludes different items. Not to mention things such as economy-of-scale, how far/accessible are you to an MRO facility, how often your aircraft fly, etc. also plays a part in a fleet's operating cost.

At the end of the day the only thing you can do is go for what the average is, and draw up your own conclusion based on things that are known about the current operator (parts availability, maintenance doctrine, aftersales service in country, etc.).

 

[¿Por qué?]

But to me those avionics/radar & EW suites really tempting to be put in our future KFX/IFX. At least it is proven design that works compare to the one Sokor has right?

Our KFX/IFX won't have AESA radar? Really?

Btw, is it normal practice to ask an aircraft manufacturer to upgrade the aircraft that's produced by different manufacturer?

If so, considering their good track record in flexibility, can we ask SAAB to upgrade all of our fighter fleet (at least F-16s) with their brand new AESA. Also for the upcoming European jets fleet?

 

[Nike]

Our KFX/IFX won't have AESA radar? Really?

Btw, is it normal practice to ask an aircraft manufacturer to upgrade the aircraft that's produced by different manufacturer?

If so, considering their good track record in flexibility, can we ask SAAB to upgrade all of our fighter fleet (at least F-16s) with their brand new AESA. Also the upcoming European jets fleet?

Instead of SAAB, BAE system had license to upgrading and do major overhaul for F16 and among other task.

 

[Nike]

PAL Laksanakan First Steel Cutting Kapal Bantu Rumah Sakit Kedua TNI AL

10 September 2020

Sremoni first steel cutting Kapal Bantu Rumah Sakit Kedua PT PAL (photos : PAL)
Bertepatan dengan Hari Jadi TNI AL Ke – 75 tahun TNI AL, PT PAL Indonesia (Persero) melaksanakan Seremoni First Steel Cutting (FSC) Kapal Bantu Rumah Sakit (BRS) Kedua pesanan TNI AL di Bengkel Fabrikasi Divisi Kapal Niaga PT PAL Indonesia (Persero). Hadir dalam acara tersebut Asisten Komunikasi dan Elektronika (Askomlek) KASAL Laksamana Muda TNI Atok Dushanto, Pangkoarmada II Laksamana Muda TNI Heru Kuswanto, Jajaran Pejabat TNI AL, serta Jajaran Direksi PT PAL Indonesia (Persero). Seremoni tersebut menerapkan protokol kesehatan Covid-19 dan dihadiri tidak lebih 30 tamu undangan.
Dalam sambutannya Askomlek KASAL Laksamana Muda TNI Atok Dushanto menyatakan pembangunan Kapal BRS Kedua ini merupakan realisasi Rencana Strategis TNI AL menuju Minimum Essential Force (MEF) serta bentuk komitmen TNI AL untuk mendukung kebijakan pemerintah dalam upaya pemberdayaan potensi nasional. Lebih lanjut Askomlek KASAL dalam sambutannya menaruh harapan kepada PT PAL Indonesia (Persero) agar membangun kapal BRS secara tepat mutu dan tepat guna yang nantinya akan digunakan untuk mendukung tugas-tugas TNI AL, tidak hanya penegakan kedaulatan namun juga membantu pelaksanaan tugas-tugas kemanusiaan, antara lain bencana alam dan sebagainya.

Sementara itu dalam sambutannya Direktur Rekayasa Umum, Pemeliharaan dan Perbaikan PT PAL Indonesia (Persero) Sutrisno mewakili Direktur Utama PT PAL Indonesia (Persero) menyatakan terimakasih atas kepercayaan yang diberikan oleh TNI AL dalam proyek pembangunan Kapal BRS Kedua tersebut. Proses pembangunan Kapal BRS Kedua tersebut saat ini telah mencapai 8,6%. Tahapan-tahapan penting seperti keel laying direncanakan dilaksanakan pada Desember 2020, launching Desember 2021, dan delivery pada November 2022. Pada sambutan tersebut Direktur Rekayasa Umum, Pemeliharaan dan Perbaikan PT PAL Indonesia (Persero) tak lupa mengucapkan Dirgahayu kepada TNI AL yang jatuh bertepatan dengan pelaksanaan Seremoni FSC.
Kapal BRS tidak hanya berfungsi dalam mendukung Operasi Militer Perang (OMP) namun juga Operasi Militer Selain Perang (OMSP). Kapal tersebut akan dilengkapi peralatan kesehatan setingkat rumah sakit seperti poli klinik, UGD, fasilitas operasi, fasilitas rawat inap, serta fasilitas kesehatan lainnya. Selain itu Kapal BRS Kedua tersebut juga dapat melaksanakan operasi search and rescue, bantuan kemanusiaan dan bencana alam nasional maupun internasional, evakuasi massal, hingga pelaksanaan misi naval diplomacy.
Kapal BRS memiliki panjang 124 meter, lebar 21,8 meter, berat 7300 ton, kecepatan maksimum 18 knot, endurance selama 30 hari, serta memiliki kapasitas akomodasi personel sebanyak 643 orang. kapal tersebut mampu untuk menampung 2 unit helikopter di dek dan 2 unit ambulance boat. Kapal BRS sangat sangat dibutuhkan dan sesuai dengan karakteristik dan wawasan maritim Indonesia. Indonesia sebagai negara kepulauan negara yang terletak dalam kawasan ring of fire memiliki kerentanan bencana alam seperti gunung meletus, gempa bumi yang dapat diikuti oleh bencana sekunder seperti tsunami dan lainnya. Dengan situasi tersebut, Kapal BRS bersifat sebagai Rumah Sakit mobile dan dapat digerakkan kapan saja ke wilayah terdampak bencana untuk melaksanakan kegiatan tanggap darurat bencana.
(PAL)

 

[¿Por qué?]

Instead of SAAB, BAE system had license to upgrading and do major overhaul for F16 and among other task.

Then why didn't we go with BAE AESA radar, instead settled with AN/APG-68 upgrade?

 

[umigami]

Then why didn't we go with BAE AESA radar, instead settled with AN/APG-68 upgrade?

Maybe because air force using USAF as model and use their operation syllabus. So it's better to use the same radar as theirs.

And if we are going towards Viper as our future fleet. It's better to stick with lockheed as our supplier.

And I don't remember any F16 using BAE AESA radar right now.

 

[Chestnut]

I knew it.

I've been observing this "Nike" guy. He's full of bullsh*t

BAE Systems to Provide Flight Controls for Next-generation F-16s in UAE

BAE Systems will provide its Digital Flight Control Computer to Lockheed Martin for F-16s in the United Arab Emirates

www.baesystems.com

BAE is licensed to conduct upgrades on the F-16 fleet, but it does not mean they can simply add whatever they make onto an F-16 let alone offer them to customers. As the F-16's IP rights was bought from General Dynamics by Lockheed Martin, anyone that is licensed to perform work on it is still subject to restrictions from Lockheed Martin.

Also, please refrain from using ad hominems and insults, we don't need another JCMan.

 

[umigami]

I knew it.

I've been observing this "Nike" guy. He's full of bullsh*t

Wow wow... chill bro..
she never said anything about AESA radar

Instead of SAAB, BAE system had license to upgrading and do major overhaul for F16 and among other task.

And Why The H**l you mentioning Saab to handle F16 upgrade?
Falcon is alien to them.
Of course Nike will choose BAE instead of SAAB, they upgrade korean falcon.
And no brainer, of course you can't just put Saab's gripen radar into falcon.
Their cooling method is different, their space availability is different, their weight is different. Do falcon's MMC6000A mission computer can even process data from Saab radar ?

 

[Gundala]

Our KFX/IFX won't have AESA radar? Really?

erghhh no, I mean we use their latest AESA radar and EW suites, afaik their radar isnt related to ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation) so we can worry less about US embargo. Having the same manufacture/source for avionics/radar/EW imo would make it easier to integrate and maximize its individual function in certain way. It also can work with our future data link-16.

If somehow the KFX go thru we might as well get it from somewhere else and ask for ToT/offset rather using the Sokor one and gain nothing.