Indonesia Indonesian Air Force, Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Udara (TNI-AU)

[JATOSINT]

Also depends if they layered and integrated it with other GBAD assets.

If there's anything you can learn off the current Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is that you need to have a capable and integrated air defense network that is supported by credible EW assets. Especially if you don't have the material to burn.

Totally agree

NASAMS should be able to be integrated with other Air Defense asset like Skyshield and F-16

 

[Parry Brima]

Operational & Maintenance Cost is part of CPFH (Cost Per Flight Hour).

O & M (mostly Direct Cost) include:

1. Fuel
2. Technical Support
3. Maintenance
4. Crew

CPFH (Direct and Indirect cost) in summary:

• Aviation Fuel
• Consumable Supplies
• Operation & Maintenance
• Unit level Manpower
• System Improvements
• Capital Charges
• Depreciation
• Amortisation

Huge different between them, but O & M is part of CPFH.

CPFH usually count towards as parts of LCC (Life Cycle Cost).

LCC is basically all the cost related to purchasing the assets from innitial Planning until the cost to write them off/destroy them.

If you're disregarding the flight hours, you can actually make F-35 annual operating cost cheaper than F-16. Simply fly your F-35 just 100 hours per year and your F-16 1000 hours in the same period. You might end up paying more for F-16 than F-35.

If you include flight hours into equation (as CPFH), you would get something like $8000 for F-16 and $30,000 for F-35. That would represents both aircraft more correctly.

 

[Gundala]

If you're disregarding the flight hours, you can actually make F-35 annual operating cost cheaper than F-16. Simply fly your F-35 just 100 hours per year and your F-16 1000 hours in the same period. You might end up paying more for F-16 than F-35.

If you include flight hours into equation (as CPFH), you would get something like $8000 for F-16 and $30,000 for F-35. That would represents both aircraft more correctly.

O & M will increase as one fighter getting more flight hours as it counts on the variables I mentioned and it also increase CPFH as it shares the same denominator. The common assumption is in 1 year different fighters will take the same X amounts of flight hours that count towards the annual O & M.

 

[Madokafc]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1333613457019609088

 

[Madokafc]

From lembaga keris, anti tank weapon 90 mm caliber. 10 Billion rupiah, around 714 thousand US Dollar. Not much in number i supposed only for Special force of Air Force and i can only think about Matador

 

[R4duga]

From lembaga keris, anti tank weapon 90 mm caliber. 10 Billion rupiah, around 714 thousand US Dollar. Not much in number i supposed only for Special force of Air Force and i can only think about Matador

View attachment 7679

the admin said M79 OSA.

 

[Umigami]

From lembaga keris, anti tank weapon 90 mm caliber. 10 Billion rupiah, around 714 thousand US Dollar. Not much in number i supposed only for Special force of Air Force and i can only think about Matador

View attachment 7679

How about PF89 or C90 ?

 

[Madokafc]

How about PF89 or C90 ?

Maybe , i can't take more conclusion then

 

[Madokafc]

the admin said M79 OSA.

Limited edition weapon then?

 

[kooppyyy]

It sure sounds like the Osa. But whatever it is going to be I'm just glad the Korpaskhas finally have an anti-armor capability at the squad level.

 

[Umigami]

I think the one he push the hardest is Fighter (Viper) so I put it here too.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1334281442243776512

If it's still Viper, It's next to impossible.

 

[Madokafc]

 

[Parry Brima]

Actually which fighter would be our best choice to handle china's threat in North Natuna Sea?

If we take a look at rough comparison between their navy and the U.S. Pacific fleet (and QUAD countries) below, it seems that their threats from the air (from 2 carriers) will be handled equally if not more by U.S. Pacific fleet carriers (5 of them). Not to mention another additional carrier from Royal Navy that will be in the mix starting next year.

So what's left for us to deal with is probably going to be their Frigates and Submarines.

From all of our options now, F16V, SHornet, EF Typhoon, SU-35, Rafale, which one is the best to choose from especially in terms of naval warfare (anti-ship and anti-sub)?

(pic credited to Indo Pacific News)

 

[Madokafc]

Actually which fighter would be our best choice to handle china's threat in North Natuna Sea?

If we take a look at rough comparison between their navy and the U.S. Pacific fleet (and QUAD countries) below, it seems that their threats from the air (from 2 carriers) will be handled equally if not more by U.S. Pacific fleet carriers (5 of them). Not to mention another additional carrier from Royal Navy that will be in the mix starting next year.

View attachment 7721

So what's left for us to deal with is probably going to be their Frigates and Submarines.

From all of our options now, F16V, SHornet, EF Typhoon, SU-35, Rafale, which one is the best to choose from especially in terms of naval warfare (anti-ship and anti-sub)?

(pic credited to Indo Pacific News)

If it to me, my opinion is actually combo of Super Hornet or Viper if you are want to have reliability. Super Hornet means they are marinized and suitable to fly over distance ocean for prolonged time. For Viper you all know about what they can do and how they fit into our Air Force structure and indeed a very reliable platform.

 

[Parry Brima]

If it to me, my opinion is actually combo of Super Hornet or Viper if you are want to have reliability. Super Hornet means they are marinized and suitable to fly over distance ocean for prolonged time. For Viper you all know about what they can do and how they fit into our Air Force structure and indeed a very reliable platform.

On second thought, I think the first question that we should ask is not "which aircraft" but "which missile". Then we decide "which aircraft" based on the answer of "which missile".

We have to assume that china's warships all are equipped with 100 km anti-aircraft missiles (IIRC naval version of S-300 has about 100 km range). Our AGM-65 Maverick won't cut it as its operational range is only about 30km. So can we get AGM-84 Harpoon? If the answer is yes (the U.S. will sell us Harpoon) then we should definitely buy SHornet (btw, SHornet can carry 4 Harpoon instead of 2 in F-16).

But if the answer is no (the U.S. won't sell us their Harpoon), then we should find other missiles to do the job.

Brahmo's anti-ship missile would be an option. India has been using Brahmo's anti-ship missile on their SU-30. So instead of placing F-16 in Natuna, we'd place Sukhoi + Brahmos there.

I'm not sure if AM39 Exocet can do the job due to its operational range. The other European made anti-ship missiles seem to be > 300 km (CMIIW), so we're definitely not allowed to buy them.

EDIT : I completely forgot that our Turkish friends have anti-ship missile called SOM with operational range > 180 km. They already integrate this to their F-16. So this is another good option to blast china warship with F-16.

 

[Gary]

Actually which fighter would be our best choice to handle china's threat in North Natuna Sea?

If we take a look at rough comparison between their navy and the U.S. Pacific fleet (and QUAD countries) below, it seems that their threats from the air (from 2 carriers) will be handled equally if not more by U.S. Pacific fleet carriers (5 of them). Not to mention another additional carrier from Royal Navy that will be in the mix starting next year.

View attachment 7721

So what's left for us to deal with is probably going to be their Frigates and Submarines.

From all of our options now, F16V, SHornet, EF Typhoon, SU-35, Rafale, which one is the best to choose from especially in terms of naval warfare (anti-ship and anti-sub)?

(pic credited to Indo Pacific News)

F-16, I mean like a lot of F-16.

 

[Gary]

we need something like this, a converted dual engine civilian jet, armed with long range radar and at least hardpoints for 4x AShM, make a dedicated naval bomber squadron of it.

 

[JATOSINT]

On second thought, I think the first question that we should ask is not "which aircraft" but "which missile". Then we decide "which aircraft" based on the answer of "which missile".

We have to assume that china's warships all are equipped with 100 km anti-aircraft missiles (IIRC naval version of S-300 has about 100 km range). Our AGM-65 Maverick won't cut it as its operational range is only about 30km. So can we get AGM-84 Harpoon? If the answer is yes (the U.S. will sell us Harpoon) then we should definitely buy SHornet (btw, SHornet can carry 4 Harpoon instead of 2 in F-16).

But if the answer is no (the U.S. won't sell us their Harpoon), then we should find other missiles to do the job.

Brahmo's anti-ship missile would be an option. India has been using Brahmo's anti-ship missile on their SU-30. So instead of placing F-16 in Natuna, we'd place Sukhoi + Brahmos there.

I'm not sure if AM39 Exocet can do the job due to its operational range. The other European made anti-ship missiles seem to be > 300 km (CMIIW), so we're definitely not allowed to buy them.

EDIT : I completely forgot that our Turkish friends have anti-ship missile called SOM with operational range > 180 km. They already integrate this to their F-16. So this is another good option to blast china warship with F-16.

The question is does the air force aims for a serious Anti-Ship missile capability?

 

[trishna_amrta]

On second thought, I think the first question that we should ask is not "which aircraft" but "which missile".

NO Missile at all. Unless of course you want to adopt Soviet style tactical doctrine, which would require Soviet (Russia) strike fighter and of course Russian weapons, then go ahead use missiles

 

[Umigami]

Sstt.. Ada Kabar dari Austria Soal Prabowo Borong Eurofighter

Kementerian Pertahanan RI membeli 15 jet tempur jenis Eurofighter Typhoon

www.cnbcindonesia.com

I don't know this is an update or not