Indonesian Aero News

[Ananda]

PIKIRAN RAKYAT - PT DI Akan Produksi Pesawat Amfibi

I'm sorry the link is in local newspaper, but in short it's said that the Indonesian Aerospaces (PT. DI) will build (under license) with Dornier a light amphibious plane.

The DI spokesman says the plane will have capacities for 14 passanger (outside the pilot) and have two engines.
Try to find the info in dornier site, still has not find the relevant aircraft mentiones here. Any you guys have idea what kind of possible aircraft mentioned here ?

Thanks in advances

 

[Ananda]

Asian Military Review

There's quite through articles on current issues facing Indonesian Defences on the latest Asian Military Review AsianMilitaryReview.com.

Personally I'm interested with possible procurements for J 10 in replacing our existing fleet. According with the info in here, due to recent embargoes, the favor for western fightersare increasingly lossing. Many in parlements and defences establishments wants to get rid of Hawk 53, F 5, even the F 16 and Hawk 100 - 200 as soon as possible.

Su 30 & Su 27 are in favors right know but hard to acquaired them in quantities ( 48 is the max, 16 - 24 is more likeliness), thus must find cheaper alternatives.
South Korean T-50/A-50 is possible candidates but still heavy on western equipments. J 10 more and more have backing, and since it uses same engines with Flankers, many non-western supporters want to push it.

On capabilities and logistical cost purposes, just want oppinions if Flankers & J 10 combinations more prefarables than Flankers & A-50.

Thanks in advances.

 

[OPSSG]

Do you want the Indonesian air force to buy fighters, or be given fighters?

Your answer to the above question will affect my answer.

 

[Ananda]

Do you want the Indonesian air force to buy fighters, or be given fighters?

Your answer to the above question will affect my answer.

Sorry OPSSG, just got back to this thread.
Well for me, the most important thing is the most economical to maintan. Being given or buy, not neccesarelly same with ability to maintain. Especially with cash strap defence budget armed forces like us.
Many ideas that circulated, especially on this election time is to jack up current force of six squad to 12 squad in five years time.
I prefer less quantity but more economical to maintain rather than more quantity but hard to maintain.

Personally, I prefer only SU 30 and F 16 combinations, with 1 to 3 ratio's. Thus 24 SU 30 to 72 F 16, reflected on 8 sq (12 fighter each).
But still doubt on how willing the US to provide F 16 with heavy discount

Still many the 'wounded nationalistics' law makers in here try to push for Russian and Chinese solutions to reduce the so called neo-liberals influences from washington in our establishment

 

[Ananda]

Largest Indonesian Rocket being Lauched

Today, the Indonesian Space & Aeronautical Agency launch series of 12 rockets including RX 420, which is hoped being part of 2014 schedulled micro satelites launch vehicles.

Indonesia launches rocket

Well at least with limited budget, this is in my oppinion the realistic ways to keep the technological resources developing.

 

[OPSSG]

...But still doubt on how willing the US to provide F 16 with heavy discount

With the amount of F-16s due for retirement from the USAF (or already retired and 'stored'), they would be 'cheap' for Indonesia to buy. However, these Ex-USAF Vipers are rather beat up.

IMO, the US will be happy 'give' or sell them at a low price to Indonesia, in return for Indonesia paying Lockheed Martin to 'upgrade' them - which usually involved re-zeroing the air frame and a MLU (these 'upgrades can be quite expensive). It's the payment of the 'upgrades' that Indonesia can't really afford right now.

Well for me, the most important thing is the most economical to maintain. Being given or buy, not necessarily same with ability to maintain. Especially with cash strap defence budget armed forces like us.

For an example of a smart buyer, you need to look at what Chile is doing. Chile's government has bought 18 second-hand Vipers from the Dutch government. If Indonesia can afford to buy 2nd hand planes, you should be shopping for low hours Vipers that are being retired from non-US sources and you can avoid doing too much to 'upgrade' them before inducting them into Indonesian service. From a total cost perspective, these low hours Vipers will be cheaper to operate.

Many ideas that circulated, especially on this election time is to jack up current force of six squad to 12 squad in five years time...

Personally, I prefer only SU 30 and F 16 combination, with 1 to 3 ratio's. Thus 24 SU 30 to 72 F 16, reflected on 8 sq (12 fighter each).

I would rather that Indonesia NOT induct the J-10 at the moment, as your air force is already committed to 2 fighter aircraft types (F-16s and Su-30s). The J-10's WS10A* engine is not a 'proven' product (as early versions of the J-10 were using the Russian AL-31FN engine), so Indonesia cannot know how much parts to stock for the WS10A engine. Don't subsidize China's WS10A engine development by being their first sales guinea pig (let someone else be the first few foreign operators of the J-10). Why make your air force's life so hard in maintenance terms (you already have hard to maintain Su-30s)... and you have so few of each aircraft type any way.

Please do not propose to operate 12 plane fighter squadrons -- it is the most inefficient way to run squadrons (as each squadron will need tooling, maintenance manuals, parts and so on). I would rather Indonesia operate fewer but bigger squadrons of 18-24 planes each and rotate them via forward deployments of detachments to different Indonesian locations (you'll have less crashes that way), as and when, Indonesia feels the need to beef up security in a particular sector.

(i) I would rather Indonesia plan to have 3 to 4 big squadrons rather than 6 to 8 small squadrons.

(ii) I would rather Indonesia have 2 big squadrons of F-16s (with 160 A2A missiles) rather than 4 small squadrons of F-16s (with 50 A2A missiles). Please remind your air force generals that Su-30s without A2A missiles are targets for enemy planes - not fighters.

(iii) If you want to buy technology from China (to balance US's influence) stick to China's missiles (like their anti-ship missiles and their SAMs) at the moment, as their technology there is fairly mature.

------------
* Note: I currently assume that China's first sales of the J-10 (other than to Pakistan) will have domestic engines and not Russian engines. This is because I don't think that Russia would sell engines to enable the J-10 to compete for sales with the Su-30.

 

[Ananda]

I would rather that Indonesia NOT induct the J-10 at the moment, as your air force is already committed to 2 fighter aircraft types (F-16s and Su-30s). The J-10's WS10A* engine is not a 'proven' product (as early versions of the J-10 were using the Russian AL-31FN engine), so Indonesia cannot know how much parts to stock for the WS10A engine. Don't subsidize China's WS10A engine development by being their first sales guinea pig (let someone else be the first few foreign operators of the J-10). Why make your air force's life so hard in maintenance terms (you already have hard to maintain Su-30s)... and you have so few of each aircraft type any way.

OPSSG, I think you just hit the main issue, standarizations of aircraft types. The Air Force love their F 16, and deep down if they can choose, they want to replaces ASAP those F 5 and Hawk 200 (useless fighters if I might say, bought only due to Soeharto's cronies business) with F 16.
Before I put J 10 only for possibilities (distant but still there) of the comebacks of the previous Soekarnos daughter as president. After all her political block is the one whose fanning the anti american sentiment in here.

The current defence minister and the air force chief in several interviews already hinted they want more F 16. How to get it is the problem. Definetely (from sources in the air forces) we want 60 to 72 F 16 and if that can be achieved only 12 to 24 that will be brand new Block 52. The rest will be upgrading (MLU) of existing Block 15 and second hand Block 25.
Just like you say, that's the budget problem will show.
Realistically though If we upgrading F 16, it will come from US Inventory. Don't think at this moment there will be much extra non US F 16 left. We already missed that since Jordan, Chille, and other NAto's eastern members scoop them.

Please do not propose to operate 12 fighter squadrons -- it is the most inefficient way to run squadrons (as each squadron will need tooling, maintenance manuals, parts and so on). I would rather Indonesia operate fewer but bigger squadrons of 18-24 planes each and rotate them via forward deployments of detachments to different Indonesian locations (you'll have less crashes that way), as and when, Indonesia feels the need to beef up security in a particular sector.

I put the number 8 as the air force 5 years plan still call for 11 sq's in which 8 fighters and 1 COIN and 2 specialize ground attack. Don't now why they still need COIN since with the MI 35 in the army, no need for this type. Also with nature of multiroles of current fighters, specialize ground attacks is redundant.
But it's the nature in planning here, that you ask for more and settle for less. Thus I belive the airforce (from other interview) will settle for 8 sq.

Again if they want standardize with SU 30 and F 16, the most realistical and optimist number will be 72 + 24. More of that beyond affordability unless suddenly we can have more than USD 10 bio defece budget annualy for the next five years (Tripple from what now )

The questions is 12 fighters per sq is it optimal ? The airforce wants to have 18 per sq, but if we can only have below 100, than 8 simply out of questions. 8 because the airforce want to have 8 fighter main bases.
Rotating them off course is what they're doing now (with only 5 sq of fighters), and even with 8 sq they will also still rotating them to secondary bases.

Thus came argument that 12 per sq still can achieve optimal maintanance capabilities, that as long as we can have overall quantity numbers that spreading them in several sq still maintanable.
But personally I agree that's this means still higher maintanance costs. But sadlly theres still bonehead lawmakers in here more attracted to hollow national pride and prestige on having more sq eventhough it's means having less aircraft per sq.

I'm just hoping by the time the money comes for getting those aircraft, it's also means getting the missiles and the other armaments. The situations with the first flankers purchase hopefully not to be repeated again...

 

[OPSSG]

... I believe the airforce (from other interview) will settle for 8 sq.

The questions is 12 fighters per sq is it optimal ? The airforce wants to have 18 per sq...

IMO, Indonesia and Malaysia defence planners are much more concerned about each other's defence developments - than say with Singapore. A significant increase in Indonesia's military capabilities will more likely attract a counter response from Malaysia. This means that when you buy more they will too - so Indonesia will need to keep that in mind as your air force signals your country's intentions.

Beyond just maintenance costs, when you split your planes into smaller groups on more airbases - the likelihood of each airbase surviving in an air war is lower.

If your air force concentrates its resources, each base/squadron becomes stronger. It's not just about planes, it is about defence planning. To be survivable, each air base will need a SAM battery, a base defence squadron and some form of radar early warning from surrounding radar stations that is connected to the base (which I will call support elements). These ground based radars stations also need to be strategically located a certain distance from air base, to cover possible aggressor ingress routes. So from a defence capability planning standpoint I would rather Indonesia develop 4 big F-16 airbases with support elements (and with 18x F-16s per squadron - i.e. total of 72 planes) rather than 6 smaller F-16 bases without support elements (and with 12x F-16s per squadron - i.e. total of 72 planes).

...if they want standardize with SU 30 and F 16, the most realistical and optimist number will be 72 + 24....

...I'm just hoping by the time the money comes for getting those aircraft, it's also means getting the missiles and the other armaments. The situations with the first flankers purchase hopefully not to be repeated again...

In this discussion I would assume that we are talking about the planned total force of 72x F-16s and 24x Sukhois (adding up to a total of 92 planes).

Acquiring an additional 66x 2nd hand F-16s, after 'upgrades' (currently operating 6x F-16s at the moment) would cost approximately US$1.2 billion - US$1.45 billion (assuming the cost of buying and upgrading is kept low at US$18 million to US$22 million each).* Having 66 more F-16s would also mean the need to acquire at least 200 more AIM-120C missiles, 200 AIM-9 sidewinders, a few bombs, NVGs and other misc supporting gear. See this link for an idea of possible munitions and other support equipment costs - for a suggested additional price tag of US$600 million to US$900 million.

Realistically, from a budget stand point, I don't think the Indonesian air force will be given the capital acquisition budget in the next 10 years to acquire 66 more 2nd hand F-16s - so all these plans are just talk, without the necessary budget allocation at the moment. The current operating budget required to operate 6x F-16s is very different from your proposed 96 aircraft (8 bases x 12 planes each).

IIRC, Indonesia already has 7x Sukhois (with 3 more Su-27SKM to be delivered). Your air force will need to buy a few more (you proposed a total of 24 Sukhois). The Indonesian air force can use this proposed squadron for long range missions to better make use of this plane's range and size. Operating costs for a Su-27/Su-30 squadron will be more than twice that of a F-16 squadron, you can also expect to have lower availability and the planes may need to be overhauled more frequently.

------------------
*Notes: In Pakistan's case, they are spending US$75 million to upgrade 42 of their F-16A/Bs (which works out to US$1.7 million each) and Chile bought their 18x 2nd hand F-16s at US$270 million (which works out to US$15 million each).

 

[Ananda]

Acquiring an additional 66x 2nd hand F-16s, after 'upgrades' (currently operating 6x F-16s at the moment) would cost approximately US$1.2 billion - US$1.45 billion (assuming the cost of buying and upgrading is kept low at US$18 million to US$22 million each).* Having 66 more F-16s would also mean the need to acquire at least 200 more AIM-120C missiles, 200 AIM-9 sidewinders, a few bombs, NVGs and other misc supporting gear. See this link for an idea of possible munitions and other support equipment costs - for a suggested additional price tag of US$600 million to US$900 million.

On one interview in Tempo magazine and also Angkasa, the air force predicts to be able achieve their 5 years (2010-2014) expansion plan, they need minimum capital expenditure of USD 5 bio (USD 1 bio per year). USD 2 bio earmarked for fighters expansion alone, while the rest USD 3 bio needed for Transports, Trainers, SAM's, Radars etc.
Lets assume for F 16 they need USD 1.5 bio for 5 years or USD 300 mio per year. With total costs for acquairing second hand F 16 and upgrading package they assume USD 25 mio per fighter. Thus means they can have potential 10 - 12 fighthers a year.
On this assumption they theoritically have 50 - 60 F 16 in 5 years. Short for minimum 72 needed if they still wants to have 6 sq.

This scenarios show that what the air force wants for F 16 and SU only fighters fleet of 8 sq are difficult to achive even with their projections of 5 bio capex, which incidently already more than 3 times current annual capex of only in neighbourhood of USD 300 mio annualy or USD 1.5 bio in five years.

Even somehow they manage to do that, I don't think they will buy armaments on your scenarios. If you look at Sirpi reports you can see historically (except in Soekarno's era) we bought equivalent only half off armament for a fighter compares what Singapore provide for one simmilar fighter.

IIRC, Indonesia already has 7x Sukhois (with 3 more Su-27SKM to be delivered). Your air force will need to buy a few more (you proposed a total of 24 Sukhois). The Indonesian air force can use this proposed squadron for long range missions to better make use of this plane's range and size. Operating costs for a Su-27/Su-30 squadron will be more than twice that of a F-16 squadron, you can also expect to have lower availability and the planes may need to be overhauled more frequently.

According to their sq leader, the operational costs for SU 30 is almost 3 times than F 16, thus twice really in moderate view
I don't how much it's contributed due to we have very limited SU 30, but considering the number of operational F 16 also only 6, then I think the costs comparisons should be in line.

Just like you say, the main attractions for us of Flankers is their ranges, their relatively larger radar coverage compared to F 16 (and don't mentioned those useless Hawk 200).
The airforce wants to have 48, but off the record they say that getting and operating 48 Flankers, means we can not operate other types, due the fighters opeartional budget will be suck in altogethers.

Something that don't reasonate well with the so called 'nationalist law makers. In fact rumours say that one of them accused the current Defence Ministers as US Lackeys in Parlement hearing simply because he put reasoning on having more F 16 than Flankers is economically sounder.

Ohh well nice scenarios deduction

 

[OPSSG]

...According to their sq leader, the operational costs for SU 30 is almost 3 times than F 16, thus twice really in moderate view

...The air force wants to have 48, but off the record they say that getting and operating 48 Flankers, means we can not operate other types, due the fighters operational budget will be suck in altogether.

...Something that don't resonate well with the so called 'nationalist law makers. In fact rumours say that one of them accused the current Defence Ministers as US Lackeys in Parliament hearing simply because he put reasoning on having more F 16 than Flankers is economically sounder.

The political climate in Indonesia is such that it is very hard to achieve the necessary consensus to proceed forward. Anyone leading the Indonesian Parliament has the job of a cat herder (an impossible task ). The net result is that it would be hard for Indonesia to take advantage of buying more 2nd hand F-16s as the European air forces trim their capacity. Jordan is the latest air force to grow its F-16 fleet by buying 2nd hand.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

According to their sq leader, the operational costs for SU 30 is almost 3 times than F 16, thus twice really in moderate view
I don't how much it's contributed due to we have very limited SU 30, but considering the number of operational F 16 also only 6, then I think the costs comparisons should be in line.

Just like you say, the main attractions for us of Flankers is their ranges, their relatively larger radar coverage compared to F 16 (and don't mentioned those useless Hawk 200).
The airforce wants to have 48, but off the record they say that getting and operating 48 Flankers, means we can not operate other types, due the fighters opeartional budget will be suck in altogethers.

Why are they useless? They almost have the same radarsystem, they have the same weapons (AIM9-P4), they are only non-supersonic.

I dont expect in the next five years some new fighters, except the 3 Su-27SKM. Our government dont want to spend too much for our national defence. The acquisition of the subs are also postponed/dimundurkan.
Sometimes i become depressed, if i see how weak we have become...

 

[Ananda]

Why are they useless? They almost have the same radarsystem, they have the same weapons (AIM9-P4), they are only non-supersonic.

The range is limited, and because we pay too much for that Hawk 200. Thus I say for us, Hawk 200 are useless aircraft.
After Soeharto's downfall, sources in the airforce dare to come out saying, that the cost on acquaring those Hawks 100/200 were in same leugue with the costs of getting more F 16.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Why are they useless? They almost have the same radarsystem, they have the same weapons (AIM9-P4), they are only non-supersonic.

The range is limited, and because we pay too much for that Hawk 200. Thus I say for us, Hawk 200 are useless aircraft.
After Soeharto's downfall, sources in the airforce dare to come out saying, that the cost on acquaring those Hawks 100/200 were in same leugue with the costs of getting more F 16.

"On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refuelling."

Yes, not very impressive. Not enough for Pekanbaru-Natuna or Peknbr-Ambalat. What about T-50/A-50? I couldn't find the range/combat radius of this plane yet.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Found it!

Max Range 1,150miles (1,851km)
Ceiling 48,000ft (14,600m; 9.1 miles)
Hardpoints 7 (including wingtips)
Empty Weight 14,200lbs (6,441kg)
MTOW 26,422lbs (11,985kg)
Engine 1 x General Electric F404-102 turbofan engine delivering 17,700lbs of thrust with afterburning.
# Weapons Suite 1 x 20mm M61A1 Vulcan gatling cannon
# 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (wingtip mounts)
# 6 x AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
# Cluster Bombs
# Rocket Pods
# General Purpose Bombs

Better than Hawk Mk200!

 

[OPSSG]

@Sandhi Yudha, I agree that the Korean T-50/A-50 has impressive specifications. We'll have to wait to see the radar they are equipped with on their first sale - both Israel and Singapore are separately considering a Korean trainer aircraft purchase.

Why are they useless? They almost have the same radar system, they have the same weapons (AIM9-P4), they are only non-supersonic.

[The range is limited, and because we pay too much for that Hawk 200. Thus I say for us, Hawk 200 are useless aircraft.

After Soeharto's downfall, sources in the air force dare to come out saying, that the cost on acquiring those Hawks 100/200 were in same league with the costs of getting more F 16.

Yes, based on your sources, Indonesia may have over paid for the Hawk 200 because of corruption during the Suharto era. Given that Indonesia already owns these aircraft, the question becomes: How to best make use of them?

Compared to Indonesia's F-16s and the Hawk 200s, the Sukhois much more costly to maintain. IMO, the Indonesian air force may want to look at different ways to manage the costs of flying the Sukhois. Your air force may need to consider looking at how other countries manage their costs. In the case of Malaysia, they post their their junior pilots to the Hawk 200s squadrons, to make sure that these junior pilots get enough flight hours. Some sources have suggested that the Malaysians only send senior pilots to their Su-30MKM squadron. Which is one way of managing costs while ensuring that only their best pilots (with enough flight hours) get to fly their Sukhois.

BTW, has Indonesia invested in a Sukhoi simulator? Simulators are a good way to limit type conversion and operating costs but they require upfront capital investment.

 

[anan]

Interesting discussion. Used F16s might be harder to come from since Iraq is insisting that the US transfer some from the USAF to them. Perhaps 96 in all.

It seems to me that Indonesia probably only needs a small quantity of air supremacy fighters and turboprop light attack aircraft (KT 1.) Why does it need more than that?

OPSSG, what are the operations costs of different aircraft?

My estimates on F16s for example (depreciating over 20 years):
-$5,000/hr * 210 hours/year = $1.1 annual million operations costs
-$70 million Acquisition cost + $30 million upgrade + initial munitions + initial spares costs = $100 million or $5 million a year.
-$100 million in other munitions = $5 million per year
-$50 million in upgrades + spares = $2.5 million per year
-$1.4 million per year in other unaccounted for costs
= $300 million total or $15 million per year

Is the above in the right ballpark? How do the F/A 50, SU 30, and turboprop aircraft (KT 1, Embraer Super Tucano A29, AT-6B) costs compare?

 

[OPSSG]

Interesting discussion.

Yes, it is interesting to look at how different countries spend their limited defence dollars to maximize their military capability.

Used F16s might be harder to come from since Iraq is insisting that the US transfer some from the USAF to them. Perhaps 96 in all.

Sigh... I believe that US has a inventory of used F-16s and they have a contingency plan in case the JSF program is delayed. If I'm not wrong, the US established a program to earmark in FY 2000 some 200 older, F-16 fighter aircraft in inactive storage for potential reactivation. The purpose of this program was to provide a basis for constituting two combat wings more quickly than would be possible through new production.

I'm not current on actual USAF inactive inventory levels and their plans - perhaps another forum member would be kind enough to point you in the right direction. Alternatively, you can do a search of DT, the information on USAF early retirement plans was previously posted in other threads.

It seems to me that Indonesia probably only needs a small quantity of air supremacy fighters and turboprop light attack aircraft (KT 1.) Why does it need more than that?

Please ask the Indonesian forum members on their point of view. I don't want to comment on your point of view, as there is a limit to my willingness to explain.

OPSSG, what are the operations costs of different aircraft?

My estimates on F16s for example (depreciating over 20 years):
-$5,000/hr * 210 hours/year = $1.1 annual million operations costs
-$70 million Acquisition cost + $30 million upgrade + initial munitions + initial spares costs = $100 million or $5 million a year.
-$100 million in other munitions = $5 million per year
-$50 million in upgrades + spares = $2.5 million per year
-$1.4 million per year in other unaccounted for costs
= $300 million total or $15 million per year

Is the above in the right ballpark?

I don't want to comment (via providing a figure) as it is too much trouble to explain why any figure cited can be totally wrong.

Kindly do some internet searches on USAF F-16 standards for Mission Capable Rates (MCRs) and operational deployment rates (DepTempo). Upon reading related articles of these sort, it would clear that any operations cost figures would be tempered by the respective DepTempo (or operations tempo) of different countries.

If you look at the Thai air force, they actually decommission 1 or 2 F-16s for cannibalization of parts (to keep their operating costs down). Different countries also face different threats (thereby having different operations tempo) and they also have different flying hours standards.

BTW, arms purchases and levels of war stocks vary depending on various geo-strategic considerations. Please keep the cost of the missiles and bombs as a separate line item from your maintenance numbers, as the numbers purchased for each F-16 (or such other aircraft) will vary greatly. To some extent this is threat and relationship based. For example, for Pakistan, their existential threat is India (and they don't trust that the US will supply them with more missiles in a pinch). Given the size of India's air force, the number of air to air missiles Pakistan would want to buy per plane is much more than that of Indonesia.

How do the F/A 50 and SU 30... costs compare?

I'm not very interested in the topic of maintenance costs and will not further reply on that topic. However, you should note that Russian planes (in the Su-30s and in PLAAF planes with Russian engines) have a relatively short Mean Time Between Failure rates (MBTF) compared to Western engines and have other serviceability problems. Read up on the MBTF of the engines of the fighters you are interested in.

If you are so inclined, have a look at the RMAF thread as they operate both Su-30MKMs and F-18Ds. Finally, see my prior comments here and here - sorry about not wanting to repeat them, as I don't want to be seen as bashing a particular air frame.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Hehe...i have somewere read that in the nineties our government had the plan to order 96 Hawks in total from UK...

->OPSSG: Also in our Airforce only the best ones will be placed in the F16 or Sukhoi squadron.

It seems to me that Indonesia probably only needs a small quantity of air supremacy fighters and turboprop light attack aircraft (KT 1.) Why does it need more than that?

OUr country is the biggest archipelago of the world, some 5,5 square km, if you can cut Indonesia from the globe, you can put it above whole Europe.
So even if all of our fightersquadrons are equipped with the Su-30 (SkU 1,3,11,12 dan 14), its still not enough.

 

[Ananda]

Interesting discussion. Used F16s might be harder to come from since Iraq is insisting that the US transfer some from the USAF to them. Perhaps 96 in all.

It seems to me that Indonesia probably only needs a small quantity of air supremacy fighters and turboprop light attack aircraft (KT 1.) Why does it need more than that?

Anan, this discussion is the 'Poor Man' scenarios on getting as much it can on a very limited budget. We spend 20% - 25% of Government budget (eq of USD 25 bio - 30 bio) on several subsidies ranging from food, fuel, energy, poverty alliniation, etc.. only left USD 3.5 bio for overall armed forces to operate and doing acquisitions and somehow the Air Force (which left less than 30% of that USD 3.5 bio) still managed conducting training and Patrol (even limited), in my book's is already quite miracelous.

The perceived threat scenarios' actually still debated now by government and parlements..thus on the issue of 'minimum deterences' needed also being talked.
How many fighters do we really need...?? Are we need more transport rather than Fighters..?? Do we really need Air Supremacy or just COIN and Bomb Trucks..??
Well, even with limited external threat scenarios perceived, Indonesia's from western tip to eastern end..has the simmilar range of US Continental West Coast to East Coast.

This requaired minimum patroling capabilities. The number of aircraft and sq's that' I've discussed with OPSSG in this thread, coming from our Air Force calculations on minimum partrol forces needed.
I'm not high on the need of Turboprop/COIN Fighters, simply because in my oppinion the job can be taken over by MI 35 that army acquairing.
Still the Air Force want's the COIN even the Army secretly wants the money for COIN to be switch for them on acquairing more MI 35 and MI 17.
Personally I suspected the Air Force insistance on getting COIN more as tools in budget rivalry with the Army and the Navy. Afterall, like other nations, the three branches of the Armed Forces continue having 'permanent' budget rivalry.

I'm not have extensive knowledge on Fighters operating costs, but I agree with OPSSG that several factors needed to be considered on operating costs comparisons. For me domestically the Air Forces and ministry of defences already agree that Operation costs of F 16 is much cheaper than SU 27/30.

Probably this one of the factor why the planned acquistion of Russian equipment now being reconsidered for switching. Rumours says that the ministry wants to increase acquisition from Russia on Land Equipments, and Anti Aircraft bateries, and reducing the acquisition on Russian Fighters or Naval Equipments due to operating costs considerations.

"On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refuelling."

Sandhi Yudha, I've to admit my dislike to Hawk 200 related to my bias due to the way they acquired. However I'm still think those aircraft are not suitable for our need. But again like OPSSG say, those fighters already at hand, and has to be optimize.
I believe the air forces already doing fine job on optimising them. Still in my oppinion we do need to get rid of them as soon as possible.

OPSSG, no I haven't heard possible acquisitions on Flankers Simulators, the Air Forces had some talked with the Indian Air Forces on possible training there. Funny though, on why they're talking with Indian, since in my oppinion our Flankres are more comparables with the Chinese ones.

On the other hand, what I heard on Simmulators business that the Air Forces planned to upgrades the existing F 16 simulators, even getting another one.
Probable sign that F 16 more prefered than Flankers..??? :unknown

 

[OPSSG]

@Sandhi Yudha and Ananda, good posts both of you.

Our country is the biggest archipelago of the world, some 5,5 square km...

I think there is a small typo, Indonesia can't be 5.5 square km. :unknown

...I'm not have extensive knowledge on Fighters operating costs, but I agree with OPSSG that several factors needed to be considered on operating costs comparisons. For me domestically the Air Forces and the Ministry of Defence already agree that Operation costs of F 16 is much cheaper than SU 27/30.

Probably this one of the factor why the planned acquisition of Russian equipment now being reconsidered for switching...

(i) If anyone is really interested in the topic of F-16 operating and support costs, kindly take a look at this June 2006 NPS MBA thesis/report (which relates to Poland's F-16 purchase):

"Analysis and Forecasting of Operating and Support costs for F-16 C/D"​

This is a useful starting point to acquaint yourself on the basic issues.

(ii) In the separate issue of missile costs, the latest purchases by Jordan, at US$131m for 85 AIM120C-7 missiles (or US$1.54m per AIM120C-7 missile) and S. Korea (55 AIM-9X missles, 12 training rounds and support equipment for US$41m) may be helpful in enabling those interested in calculating these costs.

[h/t to weasel1962 for the links to the latest missile costs]