Indonesia & South Korea Cooperating in Jet Fighter Projects?

[Ananda]

I think Indonesia could make do with 2 squadrons of F 16 E Block 60 aircraft for air superiority, strategic air strike, and air defense suppression defense capabilities. Couldn't they use their older F 16s (refurbished) and turboprop light attack fighters for everything else? It isn't like Indonesia has any potential regional military adversaries.

What we want to do is playing 'catching up'. Except Philipines, from the original Asean 5, our overall air force capabilities already slightly behind Malaysia & Thailand and definetely behind Singapore..we used to have the most capable air force in SEA in the 60's..siiighhh

I'm not bring in Block 60..cause nobody's except UAE being offered ones, and also US already hinted possibility for getting Block 52..
However I'm trying to be realistically..like I said before under current budget constrains even with 5 years plan to 2014, in my oppinion it's unlikely we can afford to have F-16 Block 52 with Sukhois 27/30 side by side.
The current defence minister and the air force already repeated their intentions to reduce the aircraft types, but in the same time still trying to keep the numbers of squandrons intack. Thus in my oppinion it's 1 sq of turboprop COIN, 2 sq of High Performance Figthers, and 4 sq of Secondary Fighters. Plus 1 sq of LIFT, 1 sq of Trainers, and 1 sq of Basic Trainers. That's the numbers of current Fixed wing fighters..and again the secondary fighters its' unlikely to be F-16. unless the US suddenly wants to sell Block 52 half price
That's why this agreement with South Korea seems opening new possibilities on the secondary fighters type..off course it's laso related if the current administration survive the next elections
BTW the current F-16A already calculated only having just another decade max on operational lifetime

Keep in mind that Indonesia, in the past was not adverse to buying Israeli products and services. I'm not sure about the current climate but I'm sure Ananda can provide an indicative current response.

Except our A-4..but that's in Soeharto era in very hush-hush thus public only knows after he's demoted..But he's the dictactor...and he can get away with it Remember he's the only President that dare's meet and invite current Israeli PM (that time Yisthack Rabin) to Jakarta. But Rabin it's not regular Israel PM though...that's why he's being assasinated..

Please also note that Singapore has not been traditionally seen as a threat to Indonesia and often supports Indonesia's position in ASEAN. Kindly ask Ananda for more information about current boundary disputes and other considerations, after East Timor.

At this moment we have a boundary dispute with Malaysia. On the eastern side of Kalimantan/Borneo there is an area, Ambalat Blok, rich of mineral resources, and Malaysia claims it belongs to them.

Guys..the dispute with Singapore, In my oppinion is more on border line clarifications. Its more on economics though..with border line formarly acknowledged..it's more to signal everybody else that Singapores have limited sea line and potential land reclamation. Thus if needed nearby land, and BATAM is OPEN.. It's about the same with Singapore and Malaysia dispute..basically also to provide potential of JOHOR's as nearby facilities..
No of those three wants to make the lucrative Malaca and Singapore Straits as potential hot spot...it's just way too much to lose...

While the dispute in Ambalat related to different maps being used..the Malaysian used British map, Indonesian used Dutch map..this is the dispute that's being unresolve since colonial era..same's as border line between Singapore and Indonesia...by using different maps and claims base on what British and Ducth original claims..
It's surfacing after Soeharto's fall...because despite being a Dictactor the old general is uniformly adored by our nerby neighbours..(Mahathir and Lee Sr both adores and get along well with him)...
Heck...in many rural area in Java and outside Java (excluding Aceh, Papua and East Timor off Course)...many still look up for him..and many still did not understand why the 'smart' people in Cities wants him gone..

 

[OPSSG]

Guys..the dispute with Singapore, In my opinion is more on border line clarifications. Its more on economics though..with border line formarly acknowledged..it's more to signal everybody else that Singapores have limited sea line and potential land reclamation. Thus if needed nearby land, and BATAM is OPEN.. It's about the same with Singapore and Malaysia dispute..basically also to provide potential of JOHOR's as nearby facilities..

No of those three wants to make the lucrative Malacca and Singapore Straits as potential hot spot...it's just way too much to lose...

Agreed. IIRC we have come to an agreement on our maritime boundary in Feb 2009. More importantly, Indonesia has not traditionally viewed Singapore as a military threat, given our close military to military ties (which has remained relatively intact despite the fall of Soeharto).

In fact, the Indonesian, Malaysian and Singaporean navies are working together to reduce piracy in our region.

While the dispute in Ambalat related to different maps being used..the Malaysian used British map, Indonesian used Dutch map..this is the dispute that's being unresolved since colonial era... same's as border line between Singapore and Indonesia...by using different maps and claims base on what British and Dutch original claims..

You are correct that both Malaysia and Indonesia are working on their border dispute issues and part of the dispute was settled by the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Sipadan and Ligitan Case in 2002 and is now awaiting delimitation between the two countries.

The Ambalat issue with Malaysia is still not resolved.

What we want to do is playing 'catching up'. Except Philipines, from the original Asean 5, our overall air force capabilities already slightly behind Malaysia & Thailand and definitely behind Singapore..we used to have the most capable air force in SEA in the 60's..sighhh

Yes, Indonesia is very much in catch-up mode and of greater immediate concern for Indonesia is capabilities of the Malaysian air force and navy.

I'm not bring in Block 60..cause nobody's except UAE being offered ones, and also US already hinted possibility for getting Block 52..

However I'm trying to be realistically..like I said before under current budget constrains even with 5 years plan to 2014, in my opinion it's unlikely we can afford to have F-16 Block 52 with Sukhois 27/30 side by side.

I agree. At the moment, it seems that Indonesia cannot afford to buy both Su-30s and F-16s.

We never go to buy the F-16C/D Block 50/52 or F-16E/F Block 60:
1: Too expensive
2: The US will never want to sell such high-tech capable aircraft to us.
(Until now, UAE is the only country who have bought the Block 60)

That's why this agreement with South Korea seems opening new possibilities on the secondary fighters type..off course it's also related if the current administration survive the next elections
BTW the current F-16A already calculated only having just another decade max on operational lifetime

Indonesia is already buying other S.Korean equipment and the Koreans are really keen to sell more military gear to Indonesia. I would see a T-50 / A-50 purchase as a cheaper substitute to buying F-16s and I would imagine that the Indonesian intention would be to employ the aircraft in a strike role.

 

[Ananda]

Smart Move

March 20, 2009
Markus Junianto Sihaloho

Defense Says ‘Thanks, but No Thanks’ to Qatari Jets
The government has turned down a grant offer of 10 Mirage 2000 jet fighters from the Qatari government due to a lack of funds for maintenance, Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono said on Thursday.

Juwono said Qatar offered the jets six months ago through Indonesia’s ambassador in Doha. The government needed only to send a letter requesting the aircraft.

“I have not sent a letter,” Juwono said. “But had I sent one, I would have told them that our state budget is focused on infrastructure and improving the people’s welfare. The military’s procurement of equipment must give way to those programs.”

Stopping short of disclosing maintenance costs for currently operated aircraft, Juwono said that the military’s budget did not allow for maintaining additional planes.

The Air Force was tempted by Qatar’s offer, Juwono said, but “I have told them that it is the maintenance costs that made us think twice about accepting the offer.”

The minister said there was no guarantee that French company Dassault Aviation, the maker of the Mirage fighters, would maintain its position in the international aviation industry in light of the current global recession.

“We do not want equipment that cannot be used for the long term,” he said.

++++++++++++++

From http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/national/article/13651.html

Smart Move
It's a tempting offer (actually there's still unclear issue wheather the Qatary offered Mirage 2000 or Mirage F1), however many people in here still do not realize that maintaining different types of fighters will create extreamlly expensives logistical problems.

Still what i'm interested in is the comment of our current defence minister on the 'long term survivebility/realibility' of Dasault as dependable suppliers. I guest he means that with reducing numbers of fighters orders, Dasault capability to provide long term support for it's manufactured aircraft will be in questions.

Comment anyones ?

 

[swerve]

Still what i'm interested in is the comment of our current defence minister on the 'long term survivebility/realibility' of Dasault as dependable suppliers. I guest he means that with reducing numbers of fighters orders, Dasault capability to provide long term support for it's manufactured aircraft will be in questions.

Comment anyones ?

As long as France has an air force, I would expect Dassault (or whoever takes it over) to be capable of providing support for aircraft in its inventory, or which have recently been retired.

That means a long time for the Mirage 2000.

Even the Mirage F.1 will have support for long enough that a gift of spare aircraft could be worth accepting. The AdlA still has a few, which will be available for spares breakdown in a few years, along with AdlA spares stocks, Dassault makes a profit supporting them in several countries, & there are some stored aircraft elsewhere which can be bought & broken down. But that really only makes sense for an existing operator with good maintenance abilities, or someone intending to hoover up all the spare airframes scattered around the world. Introducing a handful of a new type has drawbacks even without worrying about future support.

 

[dragonfire]

We never go to buy the F-16C/D Block 50/52 or F-16E/F Block 60:
1: Too expensive
2: The US will never want to sell such high-tech capable aircraft to us.
(Until now, UAE is the only country who have bought the Block 60)

The Block 60 version of the F-16 fighter is the newest version of the fighter and the development cost itself (3 Billion USD) was borne by UAE, since this the latest version, the company will try to sell this version wherever possible - case in point the Indian MMRCA/MRCA competition. The Block-60 F-16 is on offer to India. Infact they had flown in a UAE Block-60 F-16 to India for the Aero India Def Expo. Am sure if one could afford the cost then i doubt why US would refuse to sell it, it should be a money spinner for the highly successful series, except that better fighters are readily available these days. But if one had to consider a below 5th Gen American fighter then i guess the obvious choices are only F-16 Block-60 and F-16I and the Super Hornet

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I don't think there would be major technical issues, as long as an engine is available that fits in the engine bay without major modifications. But there would probably be great legal & political obstacles. The T-50 and its derivatives were jointly developed with Lockheed Martin, & the contract gives both LM & the US government a great deal of control over it. This is why it does not have the Selex Vixen 500E radar, despite KAI wanting to fit it. LM & the US government could, & did, refuse permission. I am sure they would refuse permission for a Russian engine, & probably for a French or other European engine.

In my opinion the EL/M-2032 the F/A-50 just fine. remember we are talking about a lightweight/cheap fighter here. It is literally a modern F-5E and not intended to compete with the F-16, more the Tejas or JF-17. Fitting an AESA will undoubtedly increase the cost significantly, which erodes the platforms biggest advantage. There had to be commercial interest in LM blocking the deal though.

The F/A-50 is a perfect option for Indonesia, it's cheap enough to provide the TNI with some numbers and can operate very effectively in a Hi-Lo mix with their Flankers, but i would have thought Tejas or JF-17 would have been a better choice considering the common weapons fit.

 

[Ananda]

As long as France has an air force, I would expect Dassault (or whoever takes it over) to be capable of providing support for aircraft in its inventory, or which have recently been retired.

However, with increasingly reduced numbers of fighters being build, this will increase the cost of maintaining and procured spare parts right ? More and more Dassault seems will not get the level of 'economic of scale' that it used to boost in the 60's and 70's..
I checked with lokal media in here..seems the matter of high cost of maintaining Dassault produced aircraft made the main issue that lead the defense ministry turning down Qatary's offer. Plus doubt on the ability of dassault providing enough spare parts on time (with off course relatively competitive costs).

Seems quite ironic since Dassault still cappable on producing very good fighters, but with Rafalle's still haven't scored any export orders yet (the closest one from Libya's still not a done deal yet), it can reducing much export potential (thus further productions) with potential customers moving away due to higher maintanance cost.

Even the Mirage F.1 will have support for long enough that a gift of spare aircraft could be worth accepting.

For us that means the cost of early retirements (ableit only for few years ahead) of F5. I means the Mirage F1 does not provide significant improvement compares to F5, and the those two fighters have similar aging issue.

 

[Ananda]

i would have thought Tejas or JF-17 would have been a better choice considering the common weapons fit.

Hi OB, could you clarified a little bit ?
It seems you suggest that JF-17 and Tejas will have more matching weapons fit since India and China also using Flankers Right ?
But isn't that weapons fit can be addjust depending on the weapons system architectures ? If Tejas is being open to be fit with also western weaponery (not just traditionally Russian and Indegenous weapons fit that in current Indian arsenal), and I believe JF-17 also by Pakistan being fited with western equipments and weapons fit, thus the same thing can also be done to potential F-50 right ? Or do you see more diificulty on F-50 due to involvement of LM ?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Hi OB, could you clarified a little bit ?
It seems you suggest that JF-17 and Tejas will have more matching weapons fit since India and China also using Flankers Right ?
But isn't that weapons fit can be addjust depending on the weapons system architectures ? If Tejas is being open to be fit with also western weaponery (not just traditionally Russian and Indegenous weapons fit that in current Indian arsenal), and I believe JF-17 also by Pakistan being fited with western equipments and weapons fit, thus the same thing can also be done to potential F-50 right ? Or do you see more diificulty on F-50 due to involvement of LM ?

Considering JF-17 and Tejas' primary users use a mixed set of weapons on other platforms there was an existing requirement for western and Russian weapons compatibility. The same can not be said for South Korea. Considering the difficulties involved and the security relationship between ROK and Russia (amicable but hardly close) and US input, I don't see the F/A-50 coming with a mixed weapons load. This may be acceptable to the Indonesians, they already use Russian and western weapons on different platforms. For nations like Malaysia and Indonesia this kind of mixed weapon's fit is just one element of the significant logistical and parts supply issues they have with heaped upon themselves with their polygot air fleets. Having two or in some cases three national suppliers of not only the same class of weapons but parts is not a recipe for efficient maintenance and logistics during a real shooting war if you ask me.

This is why I think the Malay's should be looking at another Flanker buy instead of Rhino's, its crazy to double up on everything.

 

[Ananda]

For nations like Malaysia and Indonesia this kind of mixed weapon's fit is just one element of the significant logistical and parts supply issues they have with heaped upon themselves with their polygot air fleets. Having two or in some cases three national suppliers of not only the same class of weapons but parts is not a recipe for efficient maintenance and logistics during a real shooting war if you ask me.

Agreed on that. However for a nation like us that already burn twice due to embargo cause rellying to much to east (in case of Soekarno) or west (in case of Soeharto)..Choices seems still in diversifying the weapons sources.
Thus the move on present administration on begin to build as much as possible locally by own technology or Transfer of Technology (TOT) even going to be expensive, but can create more independent flexibility.

Still for this deal with south koreans on fighters development will be interesting when the details coming up..afterall 'the devil always in the details'

 

[swerve]

In my opinion the EL/M-2032 the F/A-50 just fine. remember we are talking about a lightweight/cheap fighter here. It is literally a modern F-5E and not intended to compete with the F-16, more the Tejas or JF-17. Fitting an AESA will undoubtedly increase the cost significantly, which erodes the platforms biggest advantage.

In general I agree, but the big selling point of the Vixen 500E is, AFAIK, its low price. It's being marketed for exactly this sort of aircraft - and remember, AESA prices are dropping all the time. What was too expensive a few years ago may not be now.

It was reported recently that the Vixen 500E had been selected by US customs for its border surveillance aircraft, replacing old, & I think secondhand, F-16 radars. That's an organisation with a relatively tight budget, I think.

 

[swerve]

For us that means the cost of early retirements (ableit only for few years ahead) of F5. I means the Mirage F1 does not provide significant improvement compares to F5, and the those two fighters have similar aging issue.

Don't misunderstand: I think that for Indonesia, it isn't worth it. I did say that it would only make sense for an existing user, or a user intending to build up a sizable fleet. It might be worthwhile for a country such as Morocco or Libya to buy all the stored Mirage F1s on the market, upgrade the best, & cannibalise the rest. But not for a new user to get a few.

 

[Ananda]

Thanks for clariffications swerve..
However even though you stated that Dassault will still a relliable supplier for forseable future..however do you think it will be a cost competitive supplier ? JUst like I said, with economics of scale of dassault continue decreasing, thus 'economic logics' says it will not be a cost competitive suppliers (i,e the parts it produced will be pricier than relative competitors)..

 

[swerve]

Thanks for clariffications swerve..
However even though you stated that Dassault will still a relliable supplier for forseable future..however do you think it will be a cost competitive supplier ? JUst like I said, with economics of scale of dassault continue decreasing, thus 'economic logics' says it will not be a cost competitive suppliers (i,e the parts it produced will be pricier than relative competitors)..

You need to consider overall cost. If you are buying second hand airframes, the initial cost can be quite low in relation to what you get. Spare parts are only a small proportion of operating costs. Even if they are expensive, it does not necessarily make the aircraft expensive overall. And in any case, it may be possible to buy spares cheaply from users retiring the type.

Pakistan, for example, has successfully operated a fleet of Mirage IIIs, long after most users have retired them, at quite low cost. Pakistan has bought up old airframes to break down for spares (or sometimes, to refurbish & put back into use) & bought the remaining spares stocks of air forces retiring the aircraft. I think Pakistan has not had to buy many new spares from France. The aircraft have been kept competitive with avionics upgrades.

The same could be done with the Mirage F1 or Mirage 2000. Spain has actually been doing this with its Mirage F1s, buying up retired fleets - but there is scope for another country to do the same.

 

[ROCK45]

Spare parts

However even though you stated that Dassault will still a reliable supplier for foreseeable future.

Taiwan might not agree with this statement I read in a different forum that France isn't selling MICA missiles to Taiwan. I assume as long as your not pro Taiwan your be alright.

 

[Ananda]

Flankers tanking with KC 130 B

Link http://www.antarafoto.com/dom/prevw/grab.php?id=1238495644

It's little bit out of topic, just want to show that Flankers can be compatible with US made tankers (KC 130 B). I don't know if it's already shown before, but seems there's questions somewhere on the compatibility of flankers or russian fighters with western made tankers.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

In my opinion the EL/M-2032 the F/A-50 just fine. remember we are talking about a lightweight/cheap fighter here. It is literally a modern F-5E and not intended to compete with the F-16, more the Tejas or JF-17. Fitting an AESA will undoubtedly increase the cost significantly, which erodes the platforms biggest advantage. There had to be commercial interest in LM blocking the deal though.

The F/A-50 is a perfect option for Indonesia, it's cheap enough to provide the TNI with some numbers and can operate very effectively in a Hi-Lo mix with their Flankers, but i would have thought Tejas or JF-17 would have been a better choice considering the common weapons fit.

The EL/M-2032 is an Israelian radar, so i think that will never be fitted in the A-50s for Indonesia (if we gonna buy them). The AN/APG-67(V)4 multi-mode radar, supplied by Lockheed Martin is capable enough i think.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Link http://www.antarafoto.com/dom/prevw/grab.php?id=1238495644

It's little bit out of topic, just want to show that Flankers can be compatible with US made tankers (KC 130 B). I don't know if it's already shown before, but seems there's questions somewhere on the compatibility of flankers or russian fighters with western made tankers.

Yes, its capable, it has been tested some weeks ago by our Aitforce.. Ill try to find pictures and info on the internet about this.

 

[Ananda]

SY, the link in my previous post is from Antara, thus it's the recent exercise conducted by our air forces. I put it because there's still speculations on compatibility of Russian Fighthers with US/Western tankers.

What our airforces already showed that there's no problem in matting Russian Fighters with US Tankers. I think the speculations come up due before us and maybe Malaysian (I forgot if Malaysia has KC 130 too or not), other Russian fighters users usually do not have US build tankers.

 

[OPSSG]

SY, the link in my previous post is from Antara, thus it's the recent exercise conducted by our air forces. I put it because there's still speculations on compatibility of Russian Fighters with US/Western tankers.

What our airforces already showed that there's no problem in matting Russian Fighters with US Tankers. I think the speculations come up due before us and maybe Malaysian (I forgot if Malaysia has KC 130 too or not), other Russian fighters users usually do not have US build tankers.

Ananda, IMHO, there is nothing unusual with Probe and Drogue mid-air refueling which is prevalent on most non-US aircraft like the Su-30. Kindly note that USN fixed wing aircraft like the Hornet also use the Probe and Drogue system. Even certain F-5s have been modified to use the same method of mid-air refueling.

Indonesia's F-16s OTOH require a Boom and Receptacle system for mid-air refueling, which is really a USAF standard.