- Messages
- 1,126
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Hello all.
Source.
Wider Adoption Of Amphibious Aircrafts For Indonesia?
Indonesia, an archipelagic nation consisting of more than 17.000 islands, certainly has its own challenges when it comes to interconnecting those islands - especially smaller and remote ones. While it is true that most of those smaller islands aren't known to be inhabited, but some do, as well as some other which also happen to be located at the nation's borders.
There was an interest to acquire amphibious airplanes for Indonesia which resulted in a 2019 contract for six Bombardier / Viking Air CL-515 and one CL-415 (4 in SAR / multi-mission + 3 in firefighting configuration, delivery expected in 2024). However, allthough there's no doubt that they'll be valuable assets here, this still gave me another idea: What if Indonesia adopt more of this kind of aircraft for its primary (or secondary) means of transportation to and from its remote islands?
While it's not necessarily limited only for internal security or defence matter - such as monitoring those remote islands as well as building, manning and supplying sea border outposts or anti-submarine warfare, to name a few examples, those planes will be highly valuable for tourism industry, especially to reinvigorate tourism post Covid-19 pandemic which is still happening today. Furthermore, even if we exclude tourism, more of them means that there will be more valuable assets to have for search and rescue operations within and around Indonesia waters. In this case, first responders can arrive on the scene of emergencies a lot faster compared to using ships to reach those emergency locations.
I have researched a bit before I wrote this, and found out that commercial amphibious plane operations sharply decreased right after WWII. Higher operational and maintenance cost, as well as the construction of many land-based airports all around the world are some of the main causes which negated its advantages. But those are, arguably, mostly true only for countries which aren't archipelagic by nature.
Some might think that since we can just build airstrips in Indonesia's remote islands, therefore we don't need amphibious airplanes that much. Or that travelling by boats from the nearest island which has an airstrip to smaller ones nearby is far more economical. However, there are still some advantages to be gained if one can travel from major airports or seaplane ports directly to remote islands especially ones which are too small to build airstrip at.
Yes, there's an ongoing attempt at PTDI to build an amphibious version of the N219 transport aircraft and it is something that I'm eagerly waiting for. But since it wasn't purposely designed as amphibious aircraft from the beginning, it will face the same limitations as other types which are also converted land-based to amphibious aircrafts: reduced cargo capacity and range due to added weight and drag. Therefore, we might still need dedicated amphibious aircrafts that have more range and cargo capacity to fill in.
So with all that above, I would like to learn more from your perspective about this. Feel free to reply to include things that I may have missed and whether there are probably more cons than pros of what have already written here.
Maaf sebelumnya, saya tadinya terpikir untuk menulis ini dalam salah satu thread yang sudah ada tapi mengingat ini bukan spesifik tentang pertahanan (walaupun masih ada sangkut-pautnya juga), dan karena formatnya adalah diskusi serius (yang sepertinya kurang cocok untuk dimasukkan dalam Warkop), jadi saya buat thread baru.
Kemudian, mohon maaf juga karena pakai bahasa Inggris. Ini semata-mata karena saya ingin mendapatkan masukan-masukan dari members lain termasuk para moderator yang bukan orang Indonesia yang mungkin memiliki pengetahuan yang sangat layak untuk dipertimbangkan. Saya berharap dengan semakin banyak input yang didapat, akan semakin membuka wawasan bagi kita semua.
Kemudian, mohon maaf juga karena pakai bahasa Inggris. Ini semata-mata karena saya ingin mendapatkan masukan-masukan dari members lain termasuk para moderator yang bukan orang Indonesia yang mungkin memiliki pengetahuan yang sangat layak untuk dipertimbangkan. Saya berharap dengan semakin banyak input yang didapat, akan semakin membuka wawasan bagi kita semua.
Sorry in advance, I thought about writing this in one of the existing threads but considering it's not defense specific (although it's still related to it somehow), and because the format is a serious discussion (which doesn't seem suitable for inclusion in Casual Discussion / Warkop thread), so I created a new one.
Then, I also apologize for using English. This is solely because I wanted to get inputs from other members including moderators who are not Indonesians who may have knowledge that is very worthy of consideration. I hope that the more input we get, it will open up more insight for all of us.
Then, I also apologize for using English. This is solely because I wanted to get inputs from other members including moderators who are not Indonesians who may have knowledge that is very worthy of consideration. I hope that the more input we get, it will open up more insight for all of us.
Source.
Wider Adoption Of Amphibious Aircrafts For Indonesia?
Indonesia, an archipelagic nation consisting of more than 17.000 islands, certainly has its own challenges when it comes to interconnecting those islands - especially smaller and remote ones. While it is true that most of those smaller islands aren't known to be inhabited, but some do, as well as some other which also happen to be located at the nation's borders.
There was an interest to acquire amphibious airplanes for Indonesia which resulted in a 2019 contract for six Bombardier / Viking Air CL-515 and one CL-415 (4 in SAR / multi-mission + 3 in firefighting configuration, delivery expected in 2024). However, allthough there's no doubt that they'll be valuable assets here, this still gave me another idea: What if Indonesia adopt more of this kind of aircraft for its primary (or secondary) means of transportation to and from its remote islands?
While it's not necessarily limited only for internal security or defence matter - such as monitoring those remote islands as well as building, manning and supplying sea border outposts or anti-submarine warfare, to name a few examples, those planes will be highly valuable for tourism industry, especially to reinvigorate tourism post Covid-19 pandemic which is still happening today. Furthermore, even if we exclude tourism, more of them means that there will be more valuable assets to have for search and rescue operations within and around Indonesia waters. In this case, first responders can arrive on the scene of emergencies a lot faster compared to using ships to reach those emergency locations.
I have researched a bit before I wrote this, and found out that commercial amphibious plane operations sharply decreased right after WWII. Higher operational and maintenance cost, as well as the construction of many land-based airports all around the world are some of the main causes which negated its advantages. But those are, arguably, mostly true only for countries which aren't archipelagic by nature.
Some might think that since we can just build airstrips in Indonesia's remote islands, therefore we don't need amphibious airplanes that much. Or that travelling by boats from the nearest island which has an airstrip to smaller ones nearby is far more economical. However, there are still some advantages to be gained if one can travel from major airports or seaplane ports directly to remote islands especially ones which are too small to build airstrip at.
Yes, there's an ongoing attempt at PTDI to build an amphibious version of the N219 transport aircraft and it is something that I'm eagerly waiting for. But since it wasn't purposely designed as amphibious aircraft from the beginning, it will face the same limitations as other types which are also converted land-based to amphibious aircrafts: reduced cargo capacity and range due to added weight and drag. Therefore, we might still need dedicated amphibious aircrafts that have more range and cargo capacity to fill in.
So with all that above, I would like to learn more from your perspective about this. Feel free to reply to include things that I may have missed and whether there are probably more cons than pros of what have already written here.
, I don't see it happening within any foreseeable future. The main reason for this is the mindset of policymaker rather than any lack of technicality. All policymakers all over the world think about is "land", because its tangible enough for everyone involve, while a body of water is always seen as "an obstacle"
