Indonesian Aero News

[ChestnutTree]

How much would it be for them to ask for more Excess Defense Articles from the boneyard? I assume the US would be more than happy to supply us with EDA F-16's at a reduced rate if we agree to purchase the F-16V to either replace the F-5 or the Hawk 200's (barring upgrade costs aside). Considering the fact a lot of the air frames in the boneyard were retired due to standardization/commonality reasons, the air frames would have substantially fewer hours than the Nordic F-16's.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

US right now is preparing to upgrade 300+ of their F-16 to be used at least another two decades. By that time those F-16 will be in average of 50 years old. So buying used F-16 and upgrade them is not a cheap 3rd world country solution

This method off course will create many debates, and some will used it to discredit the administration. Just like PDI attack SBY decision to buy 24 used but upgraded F-16 C/D, instead 8 brand new Block 52.
I put the scenario above just my potential prediction on what can happen. From present TNI-AU Fighters 8 sq ORBAT, 1 (F-5) already without operating aircraft and other 2 (Hawk 200/100) already showing deteriorating capabilities in operational and now numbers.

Thus if they still want to get in to 11 Sq Fighters ORBAT as TNI-AU aim, then they have to prepare six Fighters sq's with 3 for replacement and another 3 for additional growth.
Do Indonesia have budget for all 6 new Fighters sq's ? What if 3 sq of new fighters and 3 sq used but upgraded Fighters, comes as alternative ?

Well they're talking to Austria on getting used Eurofighters (albeit with relative low flying hours). I don't know about what this Norway F-16 will be, probably they will be used as spares. It's not new, the previous Bimasena 2 consists of 24 upgrade F-16 for fully operational use and 6 Spares.
Thus probably you're right, those ex Norway F-16 will be used as spares.

Got rumours (as got only through conversation), TNI-AU at this moment actually has 3:1 for Pilot - Fighter ratio for 8 sq. Thus if they want to maintain 2:1 ratio, they have enough Manning for 11 Sq. This's what I heard as "rumours" on why TNI-AU seems quite confidence for 11 Sq Fighters ORBAT, as seems they have enough Manning production.

Again all this just my own speculation on how TNI-AU going to get to 11 Sq within shortest possible route. Based on what I read in media, the potential tendencies what MinDef actions, and what realities on Budget.

So far the used but upgraded F-16 showing acceptable operational readiness. Thus shown doing with proper upgrade, those "old" F-16 still can provide acceptable performance.
Buying ex Norway F-16 perhaps will be more as spares to keep those F-16 in acceptable readiness. However the path for additional used but upgraded F-16 in my opinion can't be discounted yet as one option to be taken as strategy to get in to TNI-AU target postures.

Unless the Administration prepare for "more than proportional" Investment for Air Force. Considering they are also preparing another big Investment for Navy, I have doubt they will prepare to invest on 3 sq's of brand new F-16 plus another 3 sq's of brand new fighters (that could be Rafale, Eurofighter, or Flankers).
Well they can go for LCA (FA-50) instead F-16V, Rafale, Eurofighters or Flankers. Now if that what they're going to do, perhaps they will be enough budget for 6 sq's of brand new LCA.

Oohh well, that's enough for potential scenarios talking

I am sure that the 300+ USAF F-16s planned for upgrade are not from 1, 5, 10, 15 and 15 ADF Blocks.
These are undoubtly younger airframes, maybe even C/Ds.

With a limited budget the acquisition of 24 C/D Block 25 (plus 6 old airframes for spares for around $750 million, right?) to upgrade them later to Block 52- instead of 9 brandnew C/D Block 52, was the right decision.

The last Block 15 ADFs are all retired in 2007, thats 13 years ago, but these Norwegian F-16 are already flying for 36-41 years.

These thousands of flight hours over 4 decades will cause wear, fatigueness and cracks. You can arrest crack-growth by drilling stop-holes and replace obsolete, worn out and deteriorated parts during Mid-Life-Updates, but there is a limit.

Replacing our F-5E/Fs and Hawk Mk109/209 by even older twice refurbished F-16s is not the right solution in my opinion.
So buying used F-16 and upgrade them is not a cheap 3rd world country solution, but it is if these F-16s are 40 years old Block 1-15s.

 

[Ananda]

assume the US would be more than happy to supply us with EDA F-16's at a reduced rate if we agree to purchase the F-16V to either replace the F-5 or the Hawk 200's (barring upgrade costs aside).

Well that surplus Aircraft has no price as per say. Just like the previous Bimasena 2, we got them at no cost but must pay the upgrade cost. In sense they're price at USD 750 Mio that originally for 8 brand new F-16 blk 52.

So your scenario can be part of the potential package. Just like potential scenario offer from Airbus to upgrade ex Austrian Eurofighters as part of packages with 2 sq's of new Eurofighters.

At this time, we can only guess what LM, Airbus, Dasault or (not underestimate) Rosoboron packages. They're all still lobbying and manufer for most acceptable packages.

Replacing our F-5E/Fs and Hawk Mk109/209 by even older twice refurbished F-16s is not the right solution in my opinion.

I agree on that, however we are not really know the real condition of overall Norway's F-16. This all speculating come from that picture on potential export license. It could be for spare parts, but I just try to look on all possibility.

If MinDef looking for potential used upgrade F-16 scheme, looking on present DI-LM co-op for current upgrading project, then LM will be used to determine which Airframes will still be suitable for upgrade project.
In sense if they're going to take upgrade-used F-16 as part of their strategy to get in to TNI-AU target postures, I'm pretty sure they will use contractor like LM to help them choose the most suitable Airframes available.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Well that surplus Aircraft has no price as per say. Just like the previous Bimasena 2, we got them at no cost but must pay the upgrade cost. In sense they're price at USD 750 Mio that originally for 8 brand new F-16 blk 52.

So your scenario can be part of the potential package. Just like potential scenario offer from Airbus to upgrade ex Austrian Eurofighters as part of packages with 2 sq's of new Eurofighters.

At this time, we can only guess what LM, Airbus, Dasault or (not underestimate) Rosoboron packages. They're all still lobbying and manufer for most acceptable packages.



I agree on that, however we are not really know the real condition of overall Norway's F-16. This all speculating come from that picture on potential export license. It could be for spare parts, but I just try to look on all possibility.

If MinDef looking for potential used upgrade F-16 scheme, looking on present DI-LM co-op for current upgrading project, then LM will be used to determine which Airframes will still be suitable for upgrade project.
In sense if they're going to take upgrade-used F-16 as part of their strategy to get in to TNI-AU target postures, I'm pretty sure they will use contractor like LM to help them choose the most suitable Airframes available.

Yes, the most urgent replacement is ofcourse the F-5s from SkU 14. Looking to the other squadrons at Iswahyudi, the cheapest and most efficient choice would be more upgraded F-16s or T-50i (but then all with inboard guns and AN/APG-67 radar, and not just FFBNW).
For the other (additional) squadrons TNI-AU and MinDef can take more time to get the best deals.

 

[ngatimozart]

How much would it be for them to ask for more Excess Defense Articles from the boneyard? I assume the US would be more than happy to supply us with EDA F-16's at a reduced rate if we agree to purchase the F-16V to either replace the F-5 or the Hawk 200's (barring upgrade costs aside). Considering the fact a lot of the air frames in the boneyard were retired due to standardization/commonality reasons, the air frames would have substantially fewer hours than the Nordic F-16's.

There are 383 F-16s in the Boneyard at the moment, comprised of:

• 210 F-16A
• 37 F-16B
• 123 F-16C
• 13 F-16D

However the USAF are repurposing the Boneyard F-16s to QF-16 target drones, so available numbers will diminish over time.

 

[Ananda]

USAF releases M7.2+ upgrade to more than 600 F-16s

The US Air Force (USAF) has released the latest software and hardware upgrade planned for more than 600 of its Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon combat aircraft, the service disclosed on 28 April. An OFP M7.2+ standard F-16 undergoing pre-release flight trials. The USAF plans to roll out the

www.janes.com

This bit old news from Jane's, however it's shown why many Nations interested to continue upgrade their F-16. Simply because with US also upgrading their F-16 big time, then there's enough established project on that. This means upgrading F-16 can be economical simply due to Economics of scale on the existing project.

Thus there's enough incentive for LM to provide enough kits and research for Economics upgrade. Getting the upgrade to prolonging the Airframes from 8000-10000 hrs to 12000-14000 hrs is very big deal. With 20-25% cost of new frames you can add 4000-6000 hrs. This means adding toward up to two decades of more operational time.

Something that other manufacturer will struggle to keep up with that Economics. Mig and Sukhoi try to upgrade their older Airframes with their own kits also for example. However I'm still not see they can provide upgrade to the extent of LM do with F-16. Especially the Airframes additional flying hours.
I do believe they can do it, question is can they done it with same Economics as LM did with F-16 ?

 

[ngatimozart]

USAF releases M7.2+ upgrade to more than 600 F-16s

The US Air Force (USAF) has released the latest software and hardware upgrade planned for more than 600 of its Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon combat aircraft, the service disclosed on 28 April. An OFP M7.2+ standard F-16 undergoing pre-release flight trials. The USAF plans to roll out the

www.janes.com

This bit old news from Jane's, however it's shown why many Nations interested to continue upgrade their F-16. Simply because with US also upgrading their F-16 big time, then there's enough established project on that. This means upgrading F-16 can be economical simply due to Economics of scale on the existing project.

Thus there's enough incentive for LM to provide enough kits and research for Economics upgrade. Getting the upgrade to prolonging the Airframes from 8000-10000 hrs to 12000-14000 hrs is very big deal. With 20-25% cost of new frames you can add 4000-6000 hrs. This means adding toward up to two decades of more operational time.

Something that other manufacturer will struggle to keep up with that Economics. Mig and Sukhoi try to upgrade their older Airframes with their own kits also for example. However I'm still not see they can provide upgrade to the extent of LM do with F-16. Especially the Airframes additional flying hours.
I do believe they can do it, question is can they done it with same Economics as LM did with F-16 ?

That's still not the full F-16V upgrade though is it? I think it takes the USAF F-16s through to about Block 60 or something, which is still short of the Singaporean, SK F-16s etc.

 

[ChestnutTree]

If we're looking at F-16 forums, the M7.2 Tape upgrades apparently consists of:

• Integration of the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-83 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar
• Introduction of the latest AIM-120D missile
• Introduction of AGM-158B Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER)
• 39 more operational upgrades (more info needed)

Which leads me to believe that if it is lesser than the full Block 70/72 upgrade, the only things that are missing are confidential components that were derived from the F-35 that are present on the 'V' models. Since I would imagine they would be the most expensive ones taking economy of scale and new technologies into account. However with the '+', it is likely that their program contains things that are USAF specific.

 

[swerve]

There are 383 F-16s in the Boneyard at the moment, comprised of:

• 210 F-16A
• 37 F-16B
• 123 F-16C
• 13 F-16D

However the USAF are repurposing the Boneyard F-16s to QF-16 target drones, so available numbers will diminish over time.

It'd be logical to pick the oldest which could be economically converted for use as drones, which would presumably be F-16A/Bs. Anyone wanting a new air force could do a lot worse than buy all the F-16C/Ds in good enough condition & refurbish & modernise 'em, especially if their manpower costs are relatively low.

Pakistan has done well out of hoovering up retired Mirage III/Vs from around the world & doing the better ones up to a common (& evolving) standard while stripping others for parts. That's finally coming to an end, but the F-16 provides an even bigger opportunity, one with room for more than one air force.

 

[Ananda]

That's finally coming to an end, but the F-16 provides an even bigger opportunity, one with room for more than one air force.

I sense that, how the upgrade program of existing F-16 OCU being done locally (under LM supervision), could be the model in future. LM with huge USAF project it self on upgrade F-16 already see the market for continues upgrade projects for existing F-16 users.

There's politicall hurdles on buying second hand aircraft in Indonesia, but it's not going to be absolute hurdles. The present ruling party is very critical on this, since previous administration doing that with upgrade ex USAF F-16, and ex RAAF C-130H.

Still, as I point out in previous posts, the key is how to bring local industry work share and tech transfer. Thus the current upgrading program with DI collaborate with LM, potentially can be the model.

There's TNI-AU target postures, and with Indonesian budget and other defense projects and target postures from other services. It simply can't be afforded with all new fighters. Thus partial new fighters complement with second hand but upgraded fighters seems can be the solution.

So far, F-16 is the logical choice, but will see how Airbus will counter offer.

 

[Ananda]

Holding Industri Pertahanan Masih Dalam Tahap Konsolidasi

Holding industri pertahanan akan menggabungkan PT Len Industri, PT Dirgantara Indonesia (DI), PT Pindad dan PT Dahana.

nasional.kompas.com

This's quite interesting, at least from effort to streamline and accelerate Indonesian Defense Industry. The idea for State Owned Enterprise (SOE) being put in different holding company is something that already being in progress from previous administration.

The idea that SOE's from similar Industry will be consolidated on one holding to streamline the Investment process and to reduce bueracracy and potential waste (and corruption). This's also being do by Chinese on their vast SOE networks.

What interesting is the Holding company that being choose for SOE Defense is LEN. LEN it self is electronics Defense company. For me it's perhaps shown intention from MinDef to put LEN as point company to build neural networking toward all products. LEN as electronics company is suitable to consolidate all electronics network products. Thus shown all future defence products and projects will need be provide uniform network access capabilities.

Video profile of LEN in English. On financial sides, it's also the most healthier Defense SOE financially. Perhaps it's also the other reason why it becomes Holding Company.

Well off course it's still on going plan. Hope it's not differ much. As concept it do make sense to make Electronics company as Holding.

 

[Ananda]

As first pair of Locally Upgrade F-16 (A/B OCU) officially back to operational Squadron, TNI-AU media department put quite a lengthy video on YouTube. The video consists of the program, some videos on upgrade F-16 on trials.

Since it's bit lengthy I screen shoot some segment in the video, as what TNI-AU claim on the program. The program consist of two set, the Airframes modifications (Falcon Star) and Avionics upgrade e-MLU.
Basically on the modification in avionics, the upgrade is for Block 50 standard, while the Airframes modifications aim to provide up to additional 8000 flying hrs, or up to two decades more on operational.

Now, looking to other media, LM claim their study so far shown their Airframes upgrade packages will be sufficient for 12000 -14000 hrs. In local media, TNI-AU stated that the average Airframes on their A/B OCU around 6000hrs. Thus if the claim of 8000 hrs additional, it means they can go to 14000 hrs, just like LM studies claim.

I'm bit sceptical for additional 8000 hrs claim, but however 'even' if this upgrade can only give additional 5000-6000 hrs, it's already economics worth while program. They claim in local media, the costs for the program (seems on the upgrade modules) cost around USD 12 mio per aircraft. Seems fair enough Investment costs for up to additional two decades operation.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Thanks for sharing!
It seems that the Falcon Star + eMLU is indeed a deeper and more complete modernisation and refurbishment program than the MLU performed in Europe twenty years ago.
The cockpit looks the same, but the AN/APG-68(V)9 makes a big difference. Also compared to the 24 second hand upgraded Block 52ID, which all kept the original Block 25's APG-68, this eMLU makes the 10 old Block 15 OCU more advanced and updated.

Sadly the montage/video editing team of TNI-AU is still a little bit amateuristic. They repeat the same footages over and over again, and this 'AMRAAM'....i dont know what this is! Maybe some kind of fantasy-missile taken from a game, because its not an AIM-9B/C, R-13 or AAM-1...

Its btw the first time i see a video of an Indonesian F-16 firimg an AGM-65!

 

[Ananda]

The cockpit interface and display actually already in Block 50 standard. Already looking on line to the cockpit of Block 50, and seems already in that standard.

This upgrade seems similar with what Thailand did on their Block 15. As for the Block 25 upgrade (Bimasena 2), they already with AN/APG 68(V). Seems if we looking on the upgrade materials, it will need additional software system upgrades to make it (V)9 standard. Rumours say, if the program prove successful, the rest of F-16 from Bimasena 2 will be bring to similar standard, as it will only doing some added software systems since the upgrade being done to them already in Block 50 standard also.

Local forums speculate that the rest of F-16 C/D will be bring to V standard. They put example of Taiwan block 20 being able to upgrade to V, as reason that the F-16 from Bimasena 2 can also being upgrade to V.
I'm still not agree on that, as USAF, ROK and Singapore program shown the upgrade to V standard being done to Blk 40/50 aircraft. The Taiwanese Blk 20 is Blk 20 in paper from what I gather. It's close to Blk 40 actually, and US just did not want to be seen given Taiwan similar F-16 as USAF latest versions (which at that time is Blk 40).

For that to get F-16 V standard, TNI-AU seems only have two options. Either buy it brand new or getting excess Blk 40 from USAF to be upgraded. Problem is I don't think in Boneyard there's excess Blk 40. From what I gather mostly are Blk 15/25/30.

Thus if they can get additional surplus F-16, most probable can be upgraded only to Blk 50 standard as current program or in Bimasena 2. Unless there's excess Blk 40 from USAF inventory, which seems based number in Jane's article before, will all be upgraded by USAF to V or close to V standard.

Note:
My speculation that Taiwan Blk 20 is actually only Blk 20 in paper as at the time of Those Taiwanese Blk 20 being build, the production line for A/B that still open is for Blk 15 OCU.
I might be wrong on that. Still so far the upgrade on existing Airframes into V standard being done to Blk 40/50. For that I still have doubt that version before Blk 40/50 can be upgraded to F-16V standard.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

I dont know from which versions the C/Ds of the USAF are, but it seems that they upgrade the F-16s with the AN/APG-83 SABR, the radar of the F-16V Block 70/72.

Newsroom

news.northropgrumman.com

It is also unclear to me if the AN/APG-80 of the F-16E/F Block 60 is able to be retrofitted to older F-16 variants, but the AN/APG-83 is designed to fit F-16 aircraft with no structural, power or cooling modifications.

"The SABR APG-83 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fire control radar. Building on Northrop Grumman's 40-year legacy producing radars for the F-16, it integrates within the F-16's current structural, power and cooling constraints without Group A aircraft modification."

Northrop-Grumman doesnt tell about which Blocks they talk about.
Source: SABR (Scalable Agile Beam Radar) APG-83 AESA for the F-16 and Legacy Aircraft

 

[ChestnutTree]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have always assumed that V upgrades done onto older air frames only include avionics/internal systems. Not structural ones such as the CFT's (barring SLEP), which to be fair isn't that much of a concern if you have enough tankers to support them.

Either way, personally having a large (and well maintained and trained) fleet of F-16's equipped with SABR AESA's and standoff weaponry is already a very formidable deterrent against a lot of notional threats.

 

[Ananda]

dont know from which versions the C/Ds of the USAF are, but it seems that they upgrade the F-16s with the AN/APG-83 SABR, the radar of the F-16V Block 70/72.

From some on line sources including in F-16.net, The USAF operating F-16 Sq's at this moment uses Blk 40/50. Some National Guard Sq's still uses Blk 30. Blk 25 and Blk 15 mostly in reserve. That's why when US offer upgrade F-16, they offer what in Reserve that mostly Blk 25. Some surplus Airframes that being used as Spares in project Bimasena 2 coming from Blk 15.

That's Why I also still not find something definitive saying that upgrading to Blk 70/V standard can be done on Airframes that older than Blk 40/50. Singapore and ROK Upgrade to V standard also uses Blk 50. Only Taiwan that use Blk 20, but again there's talk that Taiwan Blk 20 Taiwan actually not same with the rest of Blk 20.

Blk 40 and Blk 50 consider sharing much similarities. Just like Blk 15 and Blk 25, which why TNI-AU also choose Blk 25 for Bimasena 2 due to similarities aspects with existing Blk 15 OCU.

have always assumed that V upgrades done onto older air frames only include avionics/internal systems.

Could be, and logically should be. It's just most Current upgrade programs to V uses Blk 40/50. Greece also in talk to upgrade some of it's F-16 to V standard. Again they will also using their Blk 50. For that I'm just thinking there's must be a reason on that.

Greece Contemplates F-35 Acquisition to Replace Oldest F-16s - Defense Security Monitor

by J. Kasper Oestergaard, European Correspondent, Forecast International. Greece might find itself joining the field of F-35 operators in the not-so-distant future as part of a larger effort to improve …

dsm.forecastinternational.com

Perhaps because Blk 40/50 has relatively younger frames. However since the upgrade also involve structural upgrade, then why can't Blk 25/30 being tried also ? ROKAF also has Blk 30, thus why the upgrade toward V standard only done with their Blk 50 ?

 

[ChestnutTree]

Well considering a "Block" is tied more towards the avionics, capabilities, and engine type, you could argue that there isn't any (publicly known) reason on why you would not be able to conduct a "V" upgrade onto a pre-Block 40 air frame.

As for why the majority of air frames being upgraded so far are Block 40/50, I would say that the fact that a lot of pre-Block 40 operators are switching over/supplemented by other platforms such as the F-35, Gripen, and the JF-17 likely had an effect to it.

 

[Ananda]

you could argue that there isn't any (publicly known) reason on why you would not be able to conduct a "V" upgrade onto a pre-Block 40 air frame.

Well, like I said in previous post. It could be only due to the structural age that make most users like Singapore, ROK and Greece only upgrading their Block 50+ for V standard.

But it can also raise question whether the structural condition of pre Block 40/50 are suitable for V standard.
Perhaps the pre Block 40/50 can be upgraded only to used Avionics and Sensors of V standard. However can't be upgraded to full V standard capabilities.
Thus if we see the cost for V standard upgrade, it's relatively substantial. Then it's also raise question, is it worth the Investment to upgrade pre Block 40/50 to V standard ?

Those are the questions I still have not find good answer yet.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Well considering a "Block" is tied more towards the avionics, capabilities, and engine type, you could argue that there isn't any (publicly known) reason on why you would not be able to conduct a "V" upgrade onto a pre-Block 40 air frame.

As for why the majority of air frames being upgraded so far are Block 40/50, I would say that the fact that a lot of pre-Block 40 operators are switching over/supplemented by other platforms such as the F-35, Gripen, and the JF-17 likely had an effect to it.

I dont think the US is willing to upgrade Pakistans Block 15s and 52s to 70/72 standard. They know if they do that, their highest and most advanced technology will end up with the chinese.