Hi All..! First time poster (in PDF), long time lurker...
I agree with you that it will be sad to see the SU 35 terminated, I also really prefer that we continue with the purchase...
No, it's not because I think the Su35 is Russian strong Uberfighter... but because the Flanker family (Su27/30/35) is simply not replaceable by smaller fighters like the F-16. Flankers and Falcons are different classes of fighters with different set of strengths and weaknesses. It’s not like the Su35 is so much better than the F16V or vice versa. Both classes complement each other and should not be mutually exclusive.
For example, Flankers can fly very long distances carrying lots of ordinances without carrying fuel tanks, while F-16s other than short range patrols, will need to carry fuel tanks anywhere or use air refueling (which we don't have). On the other hand F-16s are easier/cheaper to operate and maintain, and so are more cost effective for routine air patrols or interceptions than Flankers. Both Flankers and Falcons have excellent maneuverability and dogfighting abilities, although the new F16V is reportedly less agile compared to F16A/B even with more powerful engine due to the increased weight and the addition of CFT in F16V. Meanwhile Su35 is actually more agile than the older Su27 due to better aerodynamics, TVC and more powerful engines. F16V on the other hand most probably have better radars and avionics compared to Su35. For AAM (short and long range) I say both are roughly comparable, although AMRAAM is probably better.
One point which I feel really lacking in Falcons (other than its short range) is its limited Maritime Strike ability... a very important capability for an archipelagic nation like ours.. Falcons can carry only.. Harpoon and Penguin, both are slow/subsonic ASMs with short (Penguin) to medium (Harpoon) range... Flankers on the other hand can also carry heavier longer range supersonic ASMs (KH-31/Brahmos/Yakhont) in addition to subsonic ASMs... This is not surprising as in the US, naval strike is mostly the domain of USN with its F-18s and not the USAF. Additionally I have never seen our Falcons equipped with Harpoon, even after operating it for about 30 years. So either we don’t have it or our Falcons are not equipped to carry it. On the other hand we seem to already have some Kh-31 and Kh-59 for our Flankers. So it’s clear that TNI-AU also considers Maritime strike capability important, but for some reason still decided not to provide our Falcons with ASMs, only the Flankers.
In short, even though F16V is an excellent fighter, it’s simply is not a suitable replacement for Su35/30. Just like we shouldn’t replace our C130B/H with C295 simply because it’s cheaper and easier to maintain. Or replace the old Van Speijk frigates with KCR60. The size and capabilities are simply too different. We need to have them both. We should purchase both. If the US really don’t want us to have the Su35, they better offer us a comparable jet, the F-15, with very favorable pricing.
But even with F-15 in the offering, I would probably still prefer we get the Su35… Again not because the Su35 is considered better compared to F-15 or vice versa… but because I feel we need to diversify our sources / partners. We shouldn’t put all our eggs in a single basket, no matter how good or pretty that basket is. Too risky. In the past we have experienced military embargo / sanction from both Russia (during Orla to Orba) and the US (during Orba to Reformasi), and both times our capabilities suffered badly due to our over-reliance with a single partner. Based on that experience, instead of relying in only one of them, we should be friendly with both. But at the same time also not fully depend or rely on either of them completely. This is also inline with our foreign policy of “Bebas Aktif” and “Non-blok”.
Yes, there will be increased complexities with spare parts, interconnectivity etc… But I feel that the complexities / risks are acceptable, as those issues can be worked out (although with increased cost), but most importantly we will have better redundancy with our alutsista. We won’t suddenly lose 100% of our capability overnight just because we piss one of them.
We are currently in good terms with the US, which is good. But there’s no guarantee it’s going to be smooth sailing all the time… Orba regime was a diehard western/US fanboy and still they got sanctioned in the end. Who knows we too might piss the US (or Russia) in the future. Us partnering with different nations in terms of military hardware and development is a good hedging strategy.
Last edited:
