What's new

Indonesia Defence Forum

Geezzzz guys, take some chill pills please....

And whats up with the CPFH lengthy and panas discussion is all about. CPFH its only one of many variables in counting Life Cycle Cost. Not to mention we must value the price of acquiring the fighter as well so its not easy task to do. The more advance the fighter is, the more moving part it has, the more cost we have to pay to maintain. The question is not the CPFH only, but rather is the total CPFH and total asset ability worth the price? If the F-15 engine and Sukhoi engine are the same made for example; but Sukhoi one has TVC and F-15 is not then automatically Sukhoi CPFH will be higher period. Thats include the AESA radar systems that can move certain degree into some directions compare to static AESA and much higher compare to PESA. So arguing about CPFH without taking account on the full system made, capabilities, engine power stat/TVC,etc is pointless for god shake.

Sukhoi with all their downside as hangar queen still doing an important role in AU TS (tempur strategis) and irreplaceable in range and weapon carry domestically. Not to mention we can do almost anything we want with it and thats in some particular case is priceless. High CPFH?? We can suck it up while waiting or planning for better option to come by, No need to argue endlessly.

Do we need another SKA of Sukhoi with current geoplitic? No, because all of the region eyes are staring at the north and those extra SKA of Sukhoi supouse to cover certain part the South, one of the reason I say we better stick with F-16 for now. Not because I hate Sukhoi just because the threat concentration is shifted and I think we can fill the original Kupang base with F-16 (as planned before to cover/balance the south) and put some Viper with CFT in Iswahjudi as stop gap (from having another Heavy Weight SKA) for now.
 
Last edited:
Kalau tim Babcock baru datang setelah pandemi selesai, kapan mulainya?
Ga kekejar waktunya, baru bisa dimasukin 2021 budget allocation planning so plenty of time. One thing that strike me is the announcement of Bremen usage extention. The timing is just umm coincidental, too perfect to batalin rencana pembelian yg dah disusun by certain party group....but its prolly nothing :D
 
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.


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.



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.


What ever you say 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.


The problem for you my guy, what am I a fanboy of? Am I a Russophile because I stand for keeping our Flankers and buying more? Am I a Koreaboo because support the continuation of the KFX program? Or am I a Turkophile because I wanted for the Pussenkav to buy the Pindad-Turkey joint venture MMWT Harimau tanks? On the other hand, you my guy are clearly a Yankophile through and through, even a casual observer can see right through you from the first day you started commenting on this forum.

Who called me out? You and your homeboys? Sorry to break your heart, but responding to each one of your bromance pals doesn't really motivate me much, because firstly, they only regurgitated your viewpoints, and secondly I neither have the time nor the enthusiasm for repeating my points to each and every one of your homeys.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't hate you personally per se. Heck I even understood that marketing people like you needed to make a living, right? And we all know in order to sell stuff, marketing people needed to create a buzz. But what I don't like is the way you always tried to divert programs that our military or industry have invested a lot of time, effort, and most of all money just so that they should buy products or systems that you endorse or approve, or what you personally whimsically think are good for our country (partly due to fanboyish bias perhaps, or just plain old financial motivations), just on account because you said so.

You'd prefer we turn all of those investments into nothing just on account of what you think should happen in your head, WITHOUT any valid data, comparison, or factually provable information. I stand for consistency in the decisions that we made, waited for, put effort on, and payed for. If something went wrong, then let's fix those mistakes and improve things. Not just abandon ship, let those cost sunk into nothing, and just steer into short term programs that just suits some foreign defense companies' needs. I'd prefer for us to pay for our mistakes (if they were mistakes after all) rather than take shortcuts because our country is ruined by taking too many shortcuts, if you fail to see that already.

You're a hardened veteran in this field, right? Surely you can come up with solutions to improve ongoing programs rather than always offering short term solutions (which involved buying things from foreign defense companies almost all of the time) and steering those programs into potential source of income for people you used to (or still) represent.

All I hear from you are highly biased and prejudiced things that you think are right in your mind, what you heard from some high ranking official somewhere that you supposed to know, what you copy pasted from media that supported your viewpoints, yada yada yada I'm a big shot experienced defense contractor representative who knows some big brass somewhere so you better listen, because I'm always right!

Sorry guy, your tone made people think that you're taking them for a ride, always trying to steer and spin things to your benefits, rather than sounding like a genuine professional giving advice in the best interest of the Republic of Indonesia, something that someone with your experience and connections should easily be able to do.
 
Last edited:
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.

The onus is on you to prove that indeed some fighters in our inventory were indeed "hangar queens" all the while you admitted that calculating the CPFH of fighters is difficult and may vary by country for a plethora of reasons. How can we say that fighter A is expensive to maintain and are hangar queens if we don't even know it's exact maintenance costs, unless the Air Force gave that data to us?

You insisted that our Flankers were only used during parades and major exercises, but another poster here have proven that it was not the case, and I would also argue that even in Russia they only use their Flankers during important military maneuvers while for regular training and drills their Flanker pilots used the Yak-130 instead. It made perfect sense that the more maintenance heavy fighters used more sparingly by an Air Force than the less maintenance heavy ones, I reckon even the USAF's F-16s would have more flight hours than their F-15s or F-22s, for example.
 
Last edited:
our adversary at north using flanker as their fleet, they have exploited their pros and cons on flanker, and now some of us want to defend our homeland with a tools (flankers) that have gone exploited by our enemy,...? they have it more than us they are more advanced than us, it's like we are fighting in their own games, big no
 
The people from Babcock and OMT need to come here to asses our facilities first

they can do virtual visit like live online tour facilities for example, share their data in private channel,doing QnA online, it's hard but they should try it, they all not a newbie in shipbuilding industry, something need to be done
 
they can do virtual visit like live online tour facilities for example, share their data in private channel,doing QnA online, it's hard but they should try it, they all not a newbie in shipbuilding industry, something need to be done

Easier said than done, they would need to be hands on, assessing a facility through an online tour isn't exactly that and it isn't transparent enough
 
Back
Top Bottom