What's new

Indonesia Defence Forum

Half load full load ? So our previous KCR can only reach 28knots while the ship carrying only half of max allocated displacement weight ??
Some said that when early batch KCR was tested with maximum displacement weight. The velocity reduces significantly and the ship a bit unbalanced & " shaking ", i just don't know what English term to explain it, the ship just seems unbalanced & a bit " shaking " they said

Local contents of H-225M ( formerly known as EC-725 prior acquisition of Eurocopter by Airbus ) & C-295.
FB_IMG_15638108492822407.jpg
FB_IMG_15638108858519003.jpg
 
.
May be some of you still remember this
https://fas.org/asmp/profiles/indonesia_f16.htm
The Saga of the Indonesian F-16 Sale


In 1990, the U.S. government sold Pakistan 28 F-16 fighter/bomber jets for $658 million. Pakistan paid---in part with U.S. military aid---but America never delivered the aircraft because of a U.S. law barring arms transfers to Pakistan if Pakistan was attempting to build a nuclear weapon. In 1991, the Bush Administration determined that Pakistan was, in fact, building a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, General Dynamics built the F-16s.

Pakistan became restive about the issue in 1995 and has been more forceful about trying to get its money back. Rather than simply buying the planes for the U.S. Air Force, and paying Pakistan back, the Clinton Administration proposed to sell the F-16s to another country in order to refund Pakistan. The administration marketed the jets to Indonesia, the Philippines, and others.

There is currently no law or policy barring the sale of jet fighters to Indonesia, although the State Dept. has implemented a policy barring small arms and crowd control equipment. The State Department claims that, " the sale to Indonesia would not conflict with U.S. policies on human rights because it is unlikely that Indonesia would be able to use the aircraft to suppress legitimate dissent, as it might with small arms." Why a government that can�t be trusted with small arms can be trusted with major weapons systems is unclear.

Nevertheless, a deal was struck in principle in June 1996 for the sale of nine of the aircraft to Indonesia, with a few wrinkles to work out on price and financing. The Indonesian government was proposing to buy the aircraft for $9 million a piece, instead $12 million per plane as the U.S. was hoping.

In early August, though, riots erupted in Jakarta when police raided the headquarters of the Indonesian Democratic party, the main pro-democracy opposition. At least five people died and scores of buildings and vehicles were set on fire. The Clinton Administration decided to put the F-16 sale on hold until later in the year, but then reversed itself the next month and went ahead with the deal. The State Department said: "A regionally respected [Indonesian] armed forces with credible defense capabilities that trains and operates in a non-threatening manner is an important contributor to the regional stability." (Washington Post, 19 September 1996)

The next couple of months the F-16 sale seemed relatively certain. However, this all changed after the 1996 U.S. elections when allegations arose concerning inappropriate campaign contributions by Indonesian nationals to the Democratic party. Congress began looking at the relationship between the sale of these planes and the campaign contributions. It called upon the Administration to delay the sale until after such an investigation could be competed. The Administration nonetheless, continued to support the sale which was to be competed in later part 1997. Congressional criticism strengthened with the recent crack down on the pre-election riots. In response to those elections, Sen. Feingold stated: "We cannot mistake this process for a real election. Rather, it was a pitiful example of a brutal authoritarian Government attempting to masquerade as a democracy" (Congressional Record, 4 June 1997, S5280). Yet the Administration continued to support the transfer.

However, in early June, Indonesia cancelled the order for the F-16s. In a letter sent to President Clinton, they cited that the "wholly unjustified criticisms in the United States Congress against Indonesia, which are linked to its participation in the IMET program and the planned purchase of the F-16 planes" was not worth the making the deal. (AP, 6 June 1997, to see that story.)

The State department regretted the decision (see transcripts below) but said it would continue to look for a suitable buyer for the planes, since Pakistan still has not been paid.

The following exchange is taken verbatim from the State Department Briefing on 6 June, 1997. Click here to see the full transcript of the 6 June State Department Briefing.

QUESTION: Indonesia, apparently, says they don't want the F-16s after all. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I understand that we have been informed by the government of Indonesia that it has withdrawn its offer to purchase nine F-16 aircraft. It has also decided to forego its participation in the IMET program -- the International Military and Education Training Program -- which is a very successful program worldwide. The United States regrets this decision by Indonesia. It is, of course, a decision that Indonesia had to make on its own. The United States and Indonesia have cooperated closely on a variety of issues throughout the years -regional issues, global issues - and we intend to do that. We intend to continue working with Indonesia and we will just have to move on.

Now, these F-16s, as you remember, are the F-16s that have been promised to the government of Pakistan and so we will continue our efforts to look for countries that wish to purchase these F-16s.

QUESTION: Nick, so far you haven't found anybody else who is interested. I mean, what expectation do you have that you will do better now?

MR. BURNS: We are going to keep trying. We have felt for a number of years that Indonesia was the right answer to this problem because, as the President said, I think two years ago, when former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto visited here, the United States does want to put its best foot forward to try to resolve this problem so that there is some measure of fair play for Pakistan. That is only fair. We are trying, Carol. But with this latest decision just taken today and just given to us today by the Indonesian Government, we will have to redouble our efforts to look for other countries. This is an excellent aircraft. It is the best American aircraft or the best in the world. You all know that, and we think there will be no shortage of potential buyers. We are talking to some countries, but I can't talk about those negotiations until they move further along.

QUESTION: So you have already started talking to other countries?

MR. BURNS: We had started to talk to other countries, actually, before this formal announcement was made, anticipating that the government of Indonesia might get cold feet.

QUESTION: Any report on which countries?

MR. BURNS: I don't want to speculate publicly as to which countries we are talking about. But you can be assured that the Department of State and Department of Defense are both working very hard on this issue.

QUESTION: Has the Administration come to a decision yet on whether it would allow the sale of advance jets to Latin America?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe the President has made a decision. As you know, we have had a review underway for the past 12 months or so of United States arms sales to Latin America. The State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council and other agencies have all been involved in that. We have had a policy of restraint in place. We have not had a policy of a ban on arms sales but of restraint, and the President will have to make the ultimate decision here.

QUESTION: How can you make a clear sales pitch while this review is going on?

MR. BURNS: Are you referring to Chile?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Well, I think I told you - that was six to eight weeks ago - that while the President had not made a final decision, we did not want U.S. companies to be at a competitive disadvantage at the initial stages of Chile's decision-making process, as to which advance fighter aircraft it would purchase. Therefore, we did allow American companies to make available to the government of Chile, to the ministry of defense there, technical information that describes the characteristics of American jet fighter aircraft. That does not mean that the United States Government has made a decision to give approval to any American company should the Chileans wish to purchase an American aircraft, but it does mean that we want our aircraft to be considered in this competition. We are confident that the United States American companies make the best fighter aircraft in the world. All you have to do is look at the performance of those aircraft all around the world to know that.

QUESTION: Won't the process then drive the decision though?

MR. BURNS: Well, no, I don't think it does, Judd, because, as I said, the review was really begun on behalf of the President by Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry. Both of them have stepped down. We have two new secretaries in place and I am sure that the President will make a decision when it is necessary to make a decision, when the time is right. I am not aware that the Chileans have come forward with a decision on which aircraft -- that Chile has made a decision on which aircraft it wishes to purchase. So there is no pressure on us. We just wanted our companies to be in the right position here. That is consistent with the Clinton Administration's strong desire to support American exports around the world.

QUESTION: Well, exactly, but that is the point of my question. I mean, Chile -- we're getting into the realm of hypotheticals here, but if Chile comes back and says, yes, we want to buy X number of these planes

MR. BURNS: Then we'll have to say to ourselves, well, should we finally make a decision here? Should we make a decision in this government, finally, about our arms sales policies to Latin America? I expect that might be a consideration, but we don't feel under pressure and these decisions often take quite a long time, these competitions. Yes, sir.

FAS Home | ASMP Home | Search | About ASMP
 
.
10-f-16-ocu-50-juta-dollar-amerika-serikat-ist-1.jpg

50 Millions US$ the value of MLU ( Mid-Life Updates ) on 10 F-16 A/B Block 15 OCU
 
.
Some said that when early batch KCR was tested with maximum displacement weight. The velocity reduces significantly and the ship a bit unbalanced & " shaking ", i just don't know what English term to explain it, the ship just seems unbalanced & a bit " shaking " they said

Local contents of H-225M ( formerly known as EC-725 prior acquisition of Eurocopter by Airbus ) & C-295.
View attachment 570659 View attachment 570660
Ussualy easyly call center of gravity, or metacentric of heigh, its related to Buoyancy stability is not match with ship center gyroscope movement and so weight is not distributed well when ship in certain speed or loading capacity
 
.
May be some of you still remember this
https://fas.org/asmp/profiles/indonesia_f16.htm
The Saga of the Indonesian F-16 Sale


In 1990, the U.S. government sold Pakistan 28 F-16 fighter/bomber jets for $658 million. Pakistan paid---in part with U.S. military aid---but America never delivered the aircraft because of a U.S. law barring arms transfers to Pakistan if Pakistan was attempting to build a nuclear weapon. In 1991, the Bush Administration determined that Pakistan was, in fact, building a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, General Dynamics built the F-16s.

Pakistan became restive about the issue in 1995 and has been more forceful about trying to get its money back. Rather than simply buying the planes for the U.S. Air Force, and paying Pakistan back, the Clinton Administration proposed to sell the F-16s to another country in order to refund Pakistan. The administration marketed the jets to Indonesia, the Philippines, and others.

There is currently no law or policy barring the sale of jet fighters to Indonesia, although the State Dept. has implemented a policy barring small arms and crowd control equipment. The State Department claims that, " the sale to Indonesia would not conflict with U.S. policies on human rights because it is unlikely that Indonesia would be able to use the aircraft to suppress legitimate dissent, as it might with small arms." Why a government that can�t be trusted with small arms can be trusted with major weapons systems is unclear.

Nevertheless, a deal was struck in principle in June 1996 for the sale of nine of the aircraft to Indonesia, with a few wrinkles to work out on price and financing. The Indonesian government was proposing to buy the aircraft for $9 million a piece, instead $12 million per plane as the U.S. was hoping.

In early August, though, riots erupted in Jakarta when police raided the headquarters of the Indonesian Democratic party, the main pro-democracy opposition. At least five people died and scores of buildings and vehicles were set on fire. The Clinton Administration decided to put the F-16 sale on hold until later in the year, but then reversed itself the next month and went ahead with the deal. The State Department said: "A regionally respected [Indonesian] armed forces with credible defense capabilities that trains and operates in a non-threatening manner is an important contributor to the regional stability." (Washington Post, 19 September 1996)

The next couple of months the F-16 sale seemed relatively certain. However, this all changed after the 1996 U.S. elections when allegations arose concerning inappropriate campaign contributions by Indonesian nationals to the Democratic party. Congress began looking at the relationship between the sale of these planes and the campaign contributions. It called upon the Administration to delay the sale until after such an investigation could be competed. The Administration nonetheless, continued to support the sale which was to be competed in later part 1997. Congressional criticism strengthened with the recent crack down on the pre-election riots. In response to those elections, Sen. Feingold stated: "We cannot mistake this process for a real election. Rather, it was a pitiful example of a brutal authoritarian Government attempting to masquerade as a democracy" (Congressional Record, 4 June 1997, S5280). Yet the Administration continued to support the transfer.

However, in early June, Indonesia cancelled the order for the F-16s. In a letter sent to President Clinton, they cited that the "wholly unjustified criticisms in the United States Congress against Indonesia, which are linked to its participation in the IMET program and the planned purchase of the F-16 planes" was not worth the making the deal. (AP, 6 June 1997, to see that story.)

The State department regretted the decision (see transcripts below) but said it would continue to look for a suitable buyer for the planes, since Pakistan still has not been paid.

The following exchange is taken verbatim from the State Department Briefing on 6 June, 1997. Click here to see the full transcript of the 6 June State Department Briefing.

QUESTION: Indonesia, apparently, says they don't want the F-16s after all. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I understand that we have been informed by the government of Indonesia that it has withdrawn its offer to purchase nine F-16 aircraft. It has also decided to forego its participation in the IMET program -- the International Military and Education Training Program -- which is a very successful program worldwide. The United States regrets this decision by Indonesia. It is, of course, a decision that Indonesia had to make on its own. The United States and Indonesia have cooperated closely on a variety of issues throughout the years -regional issues, global issues - and we intend to do that. We intend to continue working with Indonesia and we will just have to move on.

Now, these F-16s, as you remember, are the F-16s that have been promised to the government of Pakistan and so we will continue our efforts to look for countries that wish to purchase these F-16s.

QUESTION: Nick, so far you haven't found anybody else who is interested. I mean, what expectation do you have that you will do better now?

MR. BURNS: We are going to keep trying. We have felt for a number of years that Indonesia was the right answer to this problem because, as the President said, I think two years ago, when former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto visited here, the United States does want to put its best foot forward to try to resolve this problem so that there is some measure of fair play for Pakistan. That is only fair. We are trying, Carol. But with this latest decision just taken today and just given to us today by the Indonesian Government, we will have to redouble our efforts to look for other countries. This is an excellent aircraft. It is the best American aircraft or the best in the world. You all know that, and we think there will be no shortage of potential buyers. We are talking to some countries, but I can't talk about those negotiations until they move further along.

QUESTION: So you have already started talking to other countries?

MR. BURNS: We had started to talk to other countries, actually, before this formal announcement was made, anticipating that the government of Indonesia might get cold feet.

QUESTION: Any report on which countries?

MR. BURNS: I don't want to speculate publicly as to which countries we are talking about. But you can be assured that the Department of State and Department of Defense are both working very hard on this issue.

QUESTION: Has the Administration come to a decision yet on whether it would allow the sale of advance jets to Latin America?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe the President has made a decision. As you know, we have had a review underway for the past 12 months or so of United States arms sales to Latin America. The State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council and other agencies have all been involved in that. We have had a policy of restraint in place. We have not had a policy of a ban on arms sales but of restraint, and the President will have to make the ultimate decision here.

QUESTION: How can you make a clear sales pitch while this review is going on?

MR. BURNS: Are you referring to Chile?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Well, I think I told you - that was six to eight weeks ago - that while the President had not made a final decision, we did not want U.S. companies to be at a competitive disadvantage at the initial stages of Chile's decision-making process, as to which advance fighter aircraft it would purchase. Therefore, we did allow American companies to make available to the government of Chile, to the ministry of defense there, technical information that describes the characteristics of American jet fighter aircraft. That does not mean that the United States Government has made a decision to give approval to any American company should the Chileans wish to purchase an American aircraft, but it does mean that we want our aircraft to be considered in this competition. We are confident that the United States American companies make the best fighter aircraft in the world. All you have to do is look at the performance of those aircraft all around the world to know that.

QUESTION: Won't the process then drive the decision though?

MR. BURNS: Well, no, I don't think it does, Judd, because, as I said, the review was really begun on behalf of the President by Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry. Both of them have stepped down. We have two new secretaries in place and I am sure that the President will make a decision when it is necessary to make a decision, when the time is right. I am not aware that the Chileans have come forward with a decision on which aircraft -- that Chile has made a decision on which aircraft it wishes to purchase. So there is no pressure on us. We just wanted our companies to be in the right position here. That is consistent with the Clinton Administration's strong desire to support American exports around the world.

QUESTION: Well, exactly, but that is the point of my question. I mean, Chile -- we're getting into the realm of hypotheticals here, but if Chile comes back and says, yes, we want to buy X number of these planes

MR. BURNS: Then we'll have to say to ourselves, well, should we finally make a decision here? Should we make a decision in this government, finally, about our arms sales policies to Latin America? I expect that might be a consideration, but we don't feel under pressure and these decisions often take quite a long time, these competitions. Yes, sir.

FAS Home | ASMP Home | Search | About ASMP
In www.f-16.net those 9 F-16s ( Pakistani initial order ) were supposed to be TS-1613 - TS-1621 signed in March 1996 however due Bill Clinton's administration critism especially on human rights abuse issue by June 1997, we cancelled the order as well withdrawing on all exercises with US. It was actually decent plan to increase F-16 fleet up to 60 units according to Air Vice Marshal Tubagus Sutria but then political environment was impossible back then up at least untill 2007 ( after sanctions lifted up in 2005 ) according the file i uploaded from Wikileaks a while ago where we originally planned for 16 F-16 C/D Block 52, additional 6 F-16 A/B from Belgium or Netherlands while MLU is to be applied on all A/B series.
 
Last edited:
.
In www.f-16.net those 9 F-16s ( Pakistani initial order ) were supposed to be TS-1613 - TS-1621 signed in March 1996 however due Bill Clinton's administration critism especially on human rights abuse issue by June 1997, we cancelled the order as well withdrawing on all exercises with US. It was actually decent plan to increase F-16 fleet up to 60 units according to Air Vice Marshal Tubagus Sutria but then political environment was impossible back then up at least untill 2007 ( after sanctions lifted up in 2005 ) according the file i uploaded from Wikileaks a while ago where we originally planned for 16 F-16 C/D Block 50/52, additional 6 F-16 A/B from Belgium or Netherlands while MLU is to be applied on all A/B series.
The year marking our first love to sukhoi LOL
 
. .

This is great!! I hope police forces have enough armored vehicle for papua. Last time I saw the "kontak senjata" on youtube our policeman using a pick up truck. I dont know much about APC, but what you guys think best to have for our police for papua condition? Is komodo enough to do the job? or Anoa?
 
.
This is great!! I hope police forces have enough armored vehicle for papua. Last time I saw the "kontak senjata" on youtube our policeman using a pick up truck. I dont know much about APC, but what you guys think best to have for our police for papua condition? Is komodo enough to do the job? or Anoa?

Something lighter than komodo, like ilsv and heavily armed open truck like Jankel al thalab using many commercial parts as possible for easy maintenance and lighter footprint. But in swamp and mountain forest, there is no other choices except by foot and using hellicopter borne raider units.

by the end of 2019, Army will get 51 komodo nexter variants

https://pindad.com/danpussenarmed-kunjungi-pindad-tinjau-progress-komodo-nexter

DSC_2794.jpeg
 
. .
Figure TNI-AU intends to achieve by 2024 though i doubt the whole points achievable by that time
View attachment 570716
so we're going to get over 56 (if the case they wouldn't retire the hawk) new jets ? does "surveillance" include AEW/AWACS ? and guess that maritime patrol would stay at 3 cn-235mpa only (no poseidon or so)

Something lighter than komodo, like ilsv and heavily armed open truck like Jankel al thalab using many commercial parts as possible for easy maintenance and lighter footprint. But in swamp and mountain forest, there is no other choices except by foot and using hellicopter borne raider units.

by the end of 2019, Army will get 51 komodo nexter variants

https://pindad.com/danpussenarmed-kunjungi-pindad-tinjau-progress-komodo-nexter

View attachment 570700

should produce more p2 commando , turangga 4x4 and komodo , and stay on that platform and improved it , i really hate seeing army had too much prototype that only stay at minimum ten or dozen unit , look at doosan tarantula , badak FSV ,and pandur FSV they have rather so much uncertain platform to use ,(not with the case of anoa though)
 
Last edited:
.
so we're going to get over 56 (if the case they wouldn't retire the hawk) new jets ? does "surveillance" include AEW/AWACS ? and guess that maritime patrol would stay at 3 cn-235mpa only (no poseidon or so)



should produce more p2 commando , turangga 4x4 and komodo , and stay on that platform and improved it , i really hate seeing army had too much prototype that only stay at minimum ten or dozen unit , look at doosan tarantula , badak FSV ,and pandur FSV they have rather so much uncertain platform to use ,(not with the case of anoa though)
AEWC is classified as " strategic surveillance " aircraft according to various articles about our Air Force so i suppose yes.
 
. . . .
Back
Top Bottom