Indonesian Aero News
- Thread starter Ananda
- Start date
Well, thank you for that .. I do strive to avoid asking questions which I know to be moot.
What kind of commitnents is the U S. seeking and which Indonesia is unwilling to make?
Keeping in mind that there is no single answer, I think the biggest requirement is the abandonment of Indonesia's neutrality. The US sells F-35 only to their allies, and at this moment Indonesia is not willing to be allied with the US.
As a comparison, is the US willing to sell F-35 to India? Or to Brazil? Why not? What will it take so the US will sell F-35 to those countries? A similar answer (or answers) will apply to Indonesia.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Alliance and neutrality can be somewhat “lite” wrt F-35. Finland isn’t a NATO member nor is Switzerland and the latter is a neutral. However Finland is wary of Russia which why they get invited and Switzerland…because they are rich and harmless?
India, hard to say. Certainly their tensions with China warrants a fifth Gen fighter. I would not rule out an F-35 10 years from now. Brazil, why, they have no threat that warrants a fifth Gen at the moment. Their commitment to submarines seems more appropriate for their security.
India, hard to say. Certainly their tensions with China warrants a fifth Gen fighter. I would not rule out an F-35 10 years from now. Brazil, why, they have no threat that warrants a fifth Gen at the moment. Their commitment to submarines seems more appropriate for their security.
At this moment even the "lite" version of an alliance is not on the table though. There is this deep distrust over any alliances.
In ten years things could change, but it's hard enough predicting 5 years ahead, and 10 is way harder. But if India does get F-35 in ten years it means the situation is bad enough that it's possible we will follow suit.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Getting F-35 as it's been discussed in this Forum for long time, not only getting the assets but also the systems. Systems that fully integrated toward US networks. So it's understandable US wants to make sure whoever coming to use their network is some country they can fully trust.
On the other hand Indonesia it self even US give positive sign for F-35 is not ready yet for network oriented defense infrstructure. Something that many Indonesian Political Circles and many in public seems still doesn't understand that. Operating 5th gen Fighters in not just Investment in assets, but also on supporting infrastructure that Indonesian AF is not ready yet.
Asside on Geopolitical issue, it's also why US offer on F-16V or F-18E/F. Something that Indonesian AF and overall TNI can support with relatively lower investments on supporting infrastructure. Even F-15EX I still highly doubt TNI-AU can fully support that without more expensive Investment on supporting infrastructure. Same thing with Rafale.
If there's boundless money/credit to support (like the Gulf states) thats one thing. However it's not the case for TNI.
On the other hand Indonesia it self even US give positive sign for F-35 is not ready yet for network oriented defense infrstructure. Something that many Indonesian Political Circles and many in public seems still doesn't understand that. Operating 5th gen Fighters in not just Investment in assets, but also on supporting infrastructure that Indonesian AF is not ready yet.
Asside on Geopolitical issue, it's also why US offer on F-16V or F-18E/F. Something that Indonesian AF and overall TNI can support with relatively lower investments on supporting infrastructure. Even F-15EX I still highly doubt TNI-AU can fully support that without more expensive Investment on supporting infrastructure. Same thing with Rafale.
If there's boundless money/credit to support (like the Gulf states) thats one thing. However it's not the case for TNI.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Rumours are spreading now on the internet that the A400M will suddenly be ordered. Also that Smartass on Twitter feel the urge to post some smart comments.
|"Indonesia has proposed CN235 autonomous right to Airbus for A400M acquisition plan offset. Such right will give Indonesia advantages on CN235 production in Bandung. Airbus may have intention to give CN235 autonomous right to PTDI. But both firms should compare note for details.
Indonesia is eyeing two Airbus A400M and one A330. Other than transport function, Indonesia also wants A400M has capability for AAR. A330 expect as used aircraft and will become VIP aircraft. So far, A400M AAR has no capability for boom method. Will the contract sign today?"|
1. From which i understand IPTN and CASA have both full rights/ownership of the IP of the CN235. Thats why after the CN235-200/220 series both companies could independently continue with developing the -300/330, C295 and N245. Please correct me if i am wrong.
2. There are no reliable sources reporting about a serious development in the plan to buy the A400M. Also ordering 2-4 A330 MRTT refueling/transport aircrafts (new or ex-Garuda) should be more cost effective than a combination of 1 A330 MRTT + 2 A400M.
Maybe the Oracle is confused with the order of two A400Ms by Kazakhstan.
|"Indonesia has proposed CN235 autonomous right to Airbus for A400M acquisition plan offset. Such right will give Indonesia advantages on CN235 production in Bandung. Airbus may have intention to give CN235 autonomous right to PTDI. But both firms should compare note for details.
Indonesia is eyeing two Airbus A400M and one A330. Other than transport function, Indonesia also wants A400M has capability for AAR. A330 expect as used aircraft and will become VIP aircraft. So far, A400M AAR has no capability for boom method. Will the contract sign today?"|
1. From which i understand IPTN and CASA have both full rights/ownership of the IP of the CN235. Thats why after the CN235-200/220 series both companies could independently continue with developing the -300/330, C295 and N245. Please correct me if i am wrong.
2. There are no reliable sources reporting about a serious development in the plan to buy the A400M. Also ordering 2-4 A330 MRTT refueling/transport aircrafts (new or ex-Garuda) should be more cost effective than a combination of 1 A330 MRTT + 2 A400M.
Maybe the Oracle is confused with the order of two A400Ms by Kazakhstan.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Yes, The IP rights for CN 235 owned 50:50 by IPTN and CASA (as now part of Airbus). They can work their own version of CN 235. That's why Airbus CN 235 call 100/200/300 and IPTN/DI ones call 110/220/330.
However what that Tweeter guy talk is more for Airbus to move their CN 235 facility from Sevile to Bandung (just like in NC-212), if Indonesia choose to buy A400M. That's what I don't buy it.
CN235 and C295 shares many components. Thus facility that make CN 235 components in Airbus also build components for C 295. If they move all CN 235 facilities to DI, then it is also means they move most facilities for their own C 295.
Thus it's also meant Airbus give DI facilities to build and assembly all components not only for CN 235 but also most components for C 295. That's why I said I don't buy it. If Airbus agree on that, then it is part of business deals related to their manufacturing ecosystem with DI (like in N212i), that's mostly related to Joint agreement on using of DI facilities for long term, and not just cause Indonesia buy 2 A400M. Airbus not that stupid.
Well he claim that it's going to be sign soon, lets see about that. Other Rumours that I heard also talk that. However the rumours that I heard talking on changing option from 2+2 MRTT to 2 MRTT + 2 A400M. That more make sense to me, then just A400M and A330 VIP.
All this talking on A330 VIP is pure BS (for a sales agent like him). MRTT always has options to configure from fully Freighter + Tanker to Combo with Passenger facilities in Quick Change configuration. QC is Airbus patent method to do it.
Buying A330 for VIP as Business Jet only is going to create unneccesary Political Problem (remember when SBY boght present 737 BBJ for Presidential Plane). Why the present administration wants to attract unneccesary political complication ? Changing MRTT to passenger configuration is part what Airbus selling package for MRTT anyway. They can provide any passenger configuration that customers want and Quick Change it back to Tankers-Freighters configuration after that.
Last edited:
Is this what you guys were talking about?
It's more like 2 A400M and 1 MRTT. I have never heard of this twitter account before, so I'm not sure how reliable this is. But if it's true, that they're doing this for the sake of having the CN-235 line move entirely to Bandung, is it worth it? I feel like CN-235 is not that popular in the international market.
It's more like 2 A400M and 1 MRTT. I have never heard of this twitter account before, so I'm not sure how reliable this is. But if it's true, that they're doing this for the sake of having the CN-235 line move entirely to Bandung, is it worth it? I feel like CN-235 is not that popular in the international market.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Like I wrote in Indonesian Navy thread, closer to date line on making decisions, the more 'noises' generated by those Defense 'insiders'/sales agents.
For one thing though, budget for 2 MRTT already pass Bapenas and now in the MoF hand. So seems from 'rumours' that I heard, MinDef want some changes on 'packages' (they can't ask on changes in budget limit, unless they want to reprocessed it again from beginning). Budget process can still allowed some modifications, as long as it's not changing the basic allocation purpose. Thus if the allocation already for Transport-Tankers type of aircrafts, then the modification has still gone to that allocation purpose.
So the tweet that you posted can still make sense, since it doesn't change the basic budget allocation from Bapenas. As the allocation is for MRTT, then modifications on packages must also allocated to Transport-Tankers purpose aircraft. If they change to say VIP aircraft as that Tweeter guy saying, then they have to cancelled existing budget, and begin the process from beginning again. That's why I said that Tweeter guy talking nonsense.
Budget basic allocation purpose is very important. That's why the budget for Su-35 can repurpose to other fighters, but can't to be used on other aircraft then fighters. If they change from say 2 MRTT toward 2 A400M with tankers abilities and 1 MRTT, it's still within the basic purpose. Thus can be modified, as long as not exceeding the budget limit that's been allocated.
Let's say the budget been allocated for two brand new MRTT. Perhaps the budget can still be enough for two A400M and one used A330 refurbished as MRTT. That's just my speculations. However certainly can't be used for different purpose kind of aircraft as budget been allocated for, as that Tweeter guy talking.
It's possible to override the basic purpose of budget allocation. However its need longer process from Bapenas Head (as Country Chief Strategic Officer), Finance Minister (as Country CFO) up to President (as country CEO). It's also can open to audit process. That's why in practice many opted to just cancel the budget and begin new ones. Point is both ways takes time and process consuming.
For one thing though, budget for 2 MRTT already pass Bapenas and now in the MoF hand. So seems from 'rumours' that I heard, MinDef want some changes on 'packages' (they can't ask on changes in budget limit, unless they want to reprocessed it again from beginning). Budget process can still allowed some modifications, as long as it's not changing the basic allocation purpose. Thus if the allocation already for Transport-Tankers type of aircrafts, then the modification has still gone to that allocation purpose.
So the tweet that you posted can still make sense, since it doesn't change the basic budget allocation from Bapenas. As the allocation is for MRTT, then modifications on packages must also allocated to Transport-Tankers purpose aircraft. If they change to say VIP aircraft as that Tweeter guy saying, then they have to cancelled existing budget, and begin the process from beginning again. That's why I said that Tweeter guy talking nonsense.
Budget basic allocation purpose is very important. That's why the budget for Su-35 can repurpose to other fighters, but can't to be used on other aircraft then fighters. If they change from say 2 MRTT toward 2 A400M with tankers abilities and 1 MRTT, it's still within the basic purpose. Thus can be modified, as long as not exceeding the budget limit that's been allocated.
Let's say the budget been allocated for two brand new MRTT. Perhaps the budget can still be enough for two A400M and one used A330 refurbished as MRTT. That's just my speculations. However certainly can't be used for different purpose kind of aircraft as budget been allocated for, as that Tweeter guy talking.
It's possible to override the basic purpose of budget allocation. However its need longer process from Bapenas Head (as Country Chief Strategic Officer), Finance Minister (as Country CFO) up to President (as country CEO). It's also can open to audit process. That's why in practice many opted to just cancel the budget and begin new ones. Point is both ways takes time and process consuming.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
CN-235 is not popular this time around, related to Airbus more inclined to market C-295 instead. As I posted, I do have big doubt that Airbus wants to move their own entire CN-235 line to Bandung only for 2 A400M. Unless only means they close their CN-235 assembly line, and give all rights to market CN-235 to DI as they're doing with C-212. However of moving parts manufacturing ? Again if they closed all their own CN-235 parts manufacturing, then how they're going to support C-295 parts manufacturing as those two aircraft shares significant parts together ?
TNI-AU it self don't really a fan for A400M as being talk in this thread and even other Indonesian defense enthusiasts forum. It's clear on their budget submission also, they prefer C-130J.
This deal if it's come through shown the strength of Airbus lobby in Indonesia. Before they're using SOE Ministry to make one of the SOE take two A400M as commercial logistics aircraft. I suspect if MinDef are really changed the budget allocation from 2 MRTT to 1 MRTT and 2 A400M with tankers abilities, then the Airbus lobbyist some how manage to convince MinDef that by this way, they actually can get 3 Multipurpose Tankers.
Last edited:
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Your idol isn't agree with you. He even wrote an opinion article on the website of CNBC Indonesia.... :-D
|"Let me be clear: Negotiation between Indonesia and Airbus DS is about A400M as transport and tanker as well. Not about A330 MRTT. PSP budget title was "MRTT aircraft", not "A330 MRTT aircraft". One used A330 will be VIP with ACJ configuration, no capability for AAR. No A330 MRTT!"|
Yes, we shouldn't spend our time on this moron, but in the weekend nothing happen in the world of defence, so i got bored.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Well his tweets can be 'comical' sometimes. Just imagine that like Gartfields Sunday morning strip. As with his 'insistance' talk on using that MRTT budget for VIP Aircraft, that's where I know he's talking BS.
When SBY bought present 737 BBJ for Presidential VIP plane, it's specifically put the budget allocation for that. Even then it's still creating some Political problem. Lucky for him, it's in the end of his administration, thus the potential Political controversy not developing much.
His tweets on using budget already allocated for MRTT for VIP ? That's clearly shown even though he's talking as he has extensive knowledge on how budget works, actually he doesn't.
Again to change budget allocation will take an extensive process either modifications up to Presidential level or has to remake the budget as new ones. That's 101 in budgeting. If he's still talking that as easy as to change budget allocation purpose, then he's clearly doesn't grab the basic idea on complexity of government budgeting.
If this administration somehow just changing the MRTT budget allocation toward VIP Aircraft, it will open to Audit problem, thus potential Political controversy especially down in election time. Does this administration that foolish wants to do that ?
That's why I said some of his tweets are 'comical'. And he claim himself as expert on MinDef procurement process
Last edited:
I don't know about India, but Brazil sure enough US is willing to supply them if only Brazil government itself request it. Brazil is part of pan American hemisphere and one to invoke Rio treaty, and their military had close relationship with US government for centuries and there is also several important treaty between them. If only otherwise, there is must be rejection from the US when Brazil sought strategic platform like Aircraft Carrier and Nuclear powered Submarine by itself.
Maybe you should read the following. It gives a more authorative history of the military relationship between the US and Brazil. Centuries it definitely wasn't. I strongly suggest that you do some better research before posting a post like the one you just did.
A Look Back at the Remarkable US-Brazilian Military Relationship - Second Line of Defense
By Kenneth Maxell Frank D. McCann, professor of history emeritus at the University of New Hampshire, has long been an observer of US-Brazilian military relationships. He knows both sides very intimately. He taught at West Point in the 1960s during the Vietnam War. He met privately with the...
sldinfo.com
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I do suspect the TNI-AU planners watch what the assets that being operated by RSAF and RAAF, how's being operated and then put it as their request too. Except Rafale, most of the other assets on their wish lists is something that already or in process to be acquire by either RAAF or RSAF.
That's why I said either Flankers and Rafale or even KFX (if Indonesia choose to stay with the program) are mostly Political choices that being put to TNI-AU as the users, rather than what internal TNI-AU assessment. MRTT is also based on internal TNI-AU assessment, but A400M is more to MinDef Political consideration. TNI-AU it self internally don't show much enthusiasm with A400M.
Just hoping that TNI internal assessment are going to be taking more priority, rather than Political consideration when choose the Assets.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Video that Sari Bahari release in You Tube for about a day ago. This shown trial on their Exercise Bomb that practically in similar size with MK-82. The company make unguided aerial bombs base on NATO and Russian specs for F-16/Hawk 200 and Flankers.
One thing is MinDef now more open for Commercial/Private companies to take more opportunities with domestic defense Projects.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
This's already couple of days. Quite interesting in LM FB pages they make this page (under Indonesian). Seems the page being upload by LM Indonesia team. What interesting eventough it's talking on Sniper Pod, but it's showing picture not on F-16 but on FA-50.
Indonesia is not FA-50 users at present, but TA-50 users. Is LM working with KAI to help lobby for FA-50 ? For me, personally it's better for Indonesia and DI to work with KAI on licensing FA-50 then licensing KFX as IFX. It's more appropriate for DI learning curve on working with LCA/LIFT licensing first, just as Habibie plan with IPTN on Hawk 100/200 in 90's.
I'm not agree with all Habibie moves, as Economist by train, I see his ambition was bit too fast to create Economics scale capabilities. However even him knows well there's no jumping on getting sustainable learning curve.
Last edited: