Indonesia Defence Forum

[Nike]

Cost wise (total), it's a lot cheaper. In fact, it's hugely cheaper.

The actual plan was to have 64 units of F-16 and 96 units of Hawk, so 160 jets.

We now have 55 jets (F-16 + Hawk). So we still need 105 additional jets.

I can't imagine how expensive it'd be to purchase 105 F-16V.

Buying 105 Gripen we can save almost 40%. Those 40% is more than enough to build the new infrastructure.

On the operating cost, we even save 70%! (sorry, the CPFH for F-16V is more like $8000 than $7000). Operating 105 jets with 70% cost saving is huge.

After sales service wise, Gripen so far doesn't have any problems at all.

SAAB knows that they're not big name, so they are really committed in providing flexibility and very good after sales service/MRO.

Even the Thais managed to have in-service support (maintenance, repair, overhaul, etc) delivered by their local firm Thai Aircraft Industries (TAI).

Saab itself doesn't have much Gripen C/D in stock and they don't produce older variant anymore and now all gears and tooling been geared toward Gripen E version in which is not cheapo if we look at Brazilian deal. If you ask me which one better for Indonesia Air Force between Gripen E or Viper block 72, i will take Viper all the way. First logistic footprint issue, second familiarization and training, third political standing USA is much greater than Sweden , if anything USA will always be the major player in the region and sharing interoperability with them will bring lot of benefit for Indonesia forces goals.

 

[NEKONEKO]

Koreans were not willing to give much in this project either way which is why Turkey didn't want the joint program with them.

What parts are you going to produce?

Wing parts for international market I think.

This is news to me. Ryamizar Ryancudu seemed to always be competent, even if he didn't have the influence Prabowo has. What exactly is his mess up in 2018?

Some of the problems

Kontrak Kasel CBG Batch 2 itu sebenarnya Pengadaan pas zaman Pak Menhan RR, tapi karena Pak RR bisa dikatakan lamban saat itu (Kontrak sewa Satelit ama bayar program KFX aja lupa bayar), makanya mundur ke tahun ini.

Btw what happened to cargo plane procurement?

 

[Raduga]

Koreans were not willing to give much in this project either way which is why Turkey didn't want the joint program with them.

What parts are you going to produce?

no , we're actually still up to the agreement for what will we get from this project since it was first signed ,

"In the KFX / IFX program development strategy, PTDI will be greatly assisted, especially in terms of increasing the ability to produce composite aerostructure technology in the form of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), in accordance with the Strategic Plan set out in the PTDI's RJPP. Given the tendency of the aerostructure market to be dominated by composite technology in 2022 at 74.5%." ~ elfien goentoro , this is one of the offset of the agreement .

 

[Chestnut]

Believe me all our activities and even our accounts are subject of discussion in another forum. I found out by accident, i barely saw local military forums untill recently

What forum is this?

 

[Whizzack]

Are you sure the AU wanted the Flankers, or parliament wants it?

Does it really matter? AU has been preparing for sometime now to induct an additional heavy fighter squadron in the form of Sq 14 with Su-35s... They even send down 3 Flankers from Sq 11 to Sq 14 to prepare for that...

They would if they don't have enough money to operate them. Which I doubt they do. Reaching IOC/FOC on a platform that's newly introduce with no commonality on preceeding platforms takes a lot of time and money. And with the Flankers being costlier to maintain over the F-16, it's a no brainer on which plane they're going to chop. If you don't believe me, let's just wait and see.

Lol... that's a very big 'if' you are assuming... but If AU is really going to be that broke after receiving the Typhoons, it's more likely they will just stop buying new toys and then re-route those funds to support and induct what they already have in hand...

Because if the majority of the time your air frame flies is during major exercises or PR events because it isn't cost effective to operate as the engine life is SUBSTANTIALLY lower than the other combat aircraft you operate then it is be definition a "hangar queen".

and how many flighthours would you consider "not hangar queen"...? Can you compare it to.. let's say the flighthours of Sq 3 or Sq 16 which flies F-16s...?

So I counter argued that AAR capability is hardly a counter-argument. Another argument I can make is that ne being the Typhoon is also probe refueled, and not having the similar engine life issues of the Flanker. And two because it uses US weapons the Air Force doesn't need to spend a lot of money on a completely separate stock of weapons.

We already have Russian weaponry stocks even without the Typhoons, so the appearance of Typhoons will not change the stocks inventory structure already in place today...

Because I don't need to know the details. You can simply look at how the Russians will not export anything that they use themselves, anything for export is a clearly marked "export variant" which if their own policies in the Cold War has anything to say about it, is clearly heavily downgraded systems than what their own forces use.

So it's just your own assumptions then...

Which begs the question on why the Air Force would bother keeping and upgrading the jets if they're a drain on the maintenance budget, offer no new capabilities over the Typhoon and F-16's, and have upgrades that don't provide any advantages over what the Typhoon or F-16 can do?

Simple, it means that AU does values their Flankers and wants to get the most out of it, be in capabilities or lifetime... contrary to your beliefs... No different with why we chose to upgrade our F16 A/Bs.

Because again, all payments and discussions were done PRIOR to CAATSA being a thing. Is is HIGHLY unlikely the US would let us off with a CAATSA waiver.

Also:

i.) Egypt paid with cash, which we don't have.

ii.) India also paid with cash.

iii.) Turkey got booted out of the program after the S-400 fiasco and are suffering it's own sanctions from the US as a result. If Erdogan goes forward with his PR stunt involving the Su-57, you can guarantee it's going to be a lot worse for them economically.

Why do we even need to worry about CAATSA waivers when the plan is only for maintenance and upgrades...? CAATSA clearly states that it concerns mainly with new major weapons acquisitions of high value, and not of maintenance, spare parts, consumables of existing platforms, or even new purchases of minor weaponry...

Btw... now that you brought it up, does buying cash means CAATSA will not apply...? that's new...

 

[Indos]

Quick note: Our GDP to Debt Ratio was actually at 29% before covid 19. The Government did keep it below 30, but only barely.

Also, it is my belief that the deficit above 3% until 2022 is not only to fight pandemic, but also so that government can spend at precovid levels for other sectors as well. As I see it there is a big chance that while out rising Debt to GDP ratio will slow after 2022, the administration tasked to bring it back down to below 30% is the administration after Jokowi.

Partially due to "kick the can down the road, someone else's problem" but also because in the post-covid global recovery which may well last till 2024, our economy will rely more on government spending and consumption.

So there is a chance a lot of these procurements might still happen. Especially due to Prabowo's influence. Jokowi might see the funding of defense programs as a means to ensure Prabowo and the military stay supportive of his administration

Yup, 29 percent, I have edited my post to show the exact number. Of course economic measure that I mean still happen in 2021-2022 is not necessary about fighting the pandemic but to get the economy back into pre-covid level since I said clearly it is Covid 19 economic effect. As you also have stated, the negative economic effect will likely to last for some time despite the pandemic itself may be already over due to nationwide vaccination in 2021 inshaAllah.

In my opinion Jokowi doesnt have any worry anymore about his image since it is his last term in office, so I think he will act more responsibly and will do all out to bring the nation back to its pre-covid level. Because of that, IMO, he will be more willing to follow Sri Mulyani or Sentral Bank advice than listen to his political party.

Our parliament is also proven to be quite rational during our crisis period and it is why that 3 percent number had previously become a law and just being changed after this pandemic comes. Our discipline to follow that 3 percent deficit ceiling for almost 2 decades have made current government has enough room to do huge spending to tacle the pandemic related economic crisis.

Talking about our military, I believe they have become professional soldiers. Our military leaders, I believe, are quite wise and understand that they need to follow civilian rule since it is what our people want to.

I talk about unnecessary spending bro, not all government spending, so spending that will effect our economy and make the money circulated inside our own economy will be prioritized, while spending that will make our money leave our economy will be curbed. It is what I think will likely be done by current administration in most of its term period.

 

[¿Por qué?]

Saab itself doesn't have much Gripen C/D in stock and they don't produce older variant anymore and now all gears and tooling been geared toward Gripen E version in which is not cheapo if we look at Brazilian deal. If you ask me which one better for Indonesia Air Force between Gripen E or Viper block 72, i will take Viper all the way. First logistic footprint issue, second familiarization and training, third political standing USA is much greater than Sweden , if anything USA will always be the major player in the region and sharing interoperability with them will bring lot of benefit for Indonesia forces goals.

Brazil deal is special case. It's similar to their deal with Naval Group to buy 4 Scorpene subs for almost $10 billions.

They are asking for transfer technology, full local production, involvement in the development, many specific features, etc.

Familiarization and training is easy. The Thais are using T-50 to train their Gripen pilots.

So we're willing to spend 30%-40% more for US political standing (which is intangible), and refuse to spend a lot less to build new infrastructure. On top of that, we're willing to spend 70% more in terms of flight cost per hour. On top of, on top of that, even knowing SAAB has very good MRO even the Thais can do it locally.

Doesn't really make sense, does it.

 

[Raduga]

Btw what happened to cargo plane procurement?

you mean the C-130J ? the last time i heard rumour about them , they forgot to arrange budget for the down/initial payment , another "Lupa dianggarkan" moment .

 

[NEKONEKO]

Brazil deal is special case. It's similar to their deal with Naval Group to buy 4 Scorpene subs for almost $10 billions

They want nuclear powered scorpene.

you mean the C-130J ? the last time i heard rumour about them , they forgot to arrange budget for the down/initial payment , another "Lupa dianggarkan" moment .

Wah...
And how about A400M for Bulog?

 

[¿Por qué?]

They want nuclear powered scorpene.

The point remains. They want much much more than just owning them. So the price is obviously much more expensive.

 

[Cromwell]

Cost wise (total), it's a lot cheaper. In fact, it's hugely cheaper.

The actual plan was to have 64 units of F-16 and 96 units of Hawk, so 160 jets.

We now have 55 jets (F-16 + Hawk). So we still need 105 additional jets.

I can't imagine how expensive it'd be to purchase 105 F-16V.

Buying 105 Gripen we can save almost 40%. Those 40% is more than enough to build the new infrastructure.

On the operating cost, we even save 70%! (sorry, the CPFH for F-16V is more like $8000 than $7000). Operating 105 jets with 70% cost saving is huge.

After sales service wise, Gripen so far doesn't have any problems at all.

SAAB knows that they're not big name, so they are really committed in providing flexibility and very good after sales service/MRO.

Even the Thais managed to have in-service support (maintenance, repair, overhaul, etc) delivered by their local firm Thai Aircraft Industries (TAI).

Don't imagine getting 105 F-16V, stay on the original plan on 24 F-16V & " at least " a squadron of F-16 EDA, F-16 EDA stands triumph over F-16 V & Gripen. The question regarding MRO, Engineer Squadron & Depot Maintainance units from TNI AU does the whole eMLU & Falcon Star in Indonesia, Lockheed Martin can offer the same to PT.DI even more like 1989 contract which awarded certain airframe productions in Indonesia

 

[Cromwell]

What forum is this?

Just forget it not worth your attention anyway

 

[¿Por qué?]

Don't imagine getting 105 F-16V, stay on the original plan on 24 F-16V & " at least " a squadron of F-16 EDA, F-16 EDA stands triumph over F-16 V & Gripen. The question regarding MRO, Engineer Squadron & Depot Maintainance units from TNI AU does the whole eMLU & Falcon Star in Indonesia, Lockheed Martin can offer the same to PT.DI even more like 1989 contract which awarded certain airframe productions in Indonesia

Your idea is to use many smaller jets in many airbases to cover more territory. We're doing comparison here.

- The same amount of money can give you more Gripens than F-16V. This is the basic concept of your idea. To use many more smaller jets. Btw, you can save up to 40% from this.

- This 40% is more than enough to build new infrastructure

- Gripen can give you 70% saving in cost per flight hour than F-16V. Gripen can even still give you 49% saving in cost per flight hour than F-16 Block 40/50. This is huge.

- You said SAAB have poor after sales service. The fact is that even the Thais managed to have in-service support (maintenance, repair, overhaul, etc) delivered by their local firm Thai Aircraft Industries (TAI).

-

 

[Cromwell]

Your idea is to use many smaller jets in many airbases to cover more territory. We're doing comparison here.

- The same amount of money can give you more Gripens than F-16V. This is the basic concept of your idea. To use many more smaller jets. Btw, you can save up to 40% from this.

- This 40% is more than enough to build new infrastructure

- Gripen can give you 70% saving in cost per flight hour than F-16V. Gripen can even still give you 49% saving in cost per flight hour than F-16 Block 40/50. This is huge.

- You said SAAB have poor after sales service. The fact is that even the Thais managed to have in-service support (maintenance, repair, overhaul, etc) delivered by their local firm Thai Aircraft Industries (TAI).

-

I never said Saab didn't deliver good aftersales however i said that Lockheed Martin could offer the same. The fact is PT.DI did whole assemble and spare parts production in 1989 Peace Bima Sena I and whole major MRO process including eMLU & Falcon Star delivered by Engineer Squadron & Maintenance Depot by our own TNI AU & PT.DI assistance.
I'm doing comparrison on using F-16 EDA which we don't need to pay anything except for upgrades which relatively cheap. F-16 EDA stands above brand new F-16 V & Gripen

 

[Nike]

Brazil deal is special case. It's similar to their deal with Naval Group to buy 4 Scorpene subs for almost $10 billions.

They are asking for transfer technology, full local production, involvement in the development, many specific features, etc.

Familiarization and training is easy. The Thais are using T-50 to train their Gripen pilots.

So we're willing to spend 30%-40% more for US political standing (which is intangible), and refuse to spend a lot less to build new infrastructure. On top of that, we're willing to spend 70% more in terms of flight cost per hour. On top of, on top of that, even knowing SAAB has very good MRO even the Thais can do it locally.

Doesn't really make sense, does it.

Gripen C/D is not cheapo by any means, Thailand spent 1,1 Billion US Dollar to get 11 of them in 2007 deals though they can get some offset but dealing with any European is quite shady to begin with.


Not really that, if you can get me actual comparison price and life cycle cost between Gripen E and Viper you should show me there instead talking about 70 percentage of more cost meanwhile even Gripen E still not active in any uniformed services yet. Not to mention Viper had better long term use of their guaranted use of support until 2060 and beyond with more than 25 country is in use of F 16 family. If you got Viper you will get aircraft with service life is more than 12000 hours and better range of weapon of choices.