anandaOperational:
Japan’s requirements are largely defensive in nature. A2A-centric with limited A2G requirements. JASDF’s most modern platform, the F-2, is A2G-centric.
JASDF’s A2G requirements, such as they are, do not call for a stealthy, penetrating bomb truck but rather a stand-off missile truck. The F-35 is limited in internal carriage of anti-ship weapons and other cruise missiles, and external carriage both strips the F-35 of its greatest advantage over the other platforms, and – per data showing stuff-all benefit for F-35 from EFTs – likely compromises its range to an unusual degree. Super Hornet is of course a better missile truck than Typhoon, particularly Typhoon in its current state, but A2A performance – the primary criterion – is a different story.
I wonder, if those are the requirements, why noy just further developed F-2 ? I think F-2 can be further developed to match what Shornet and Typhoon can offered. Also by choosing developing further F-2, it also can covered the need for their Industry and Politics.
Developing further F-2 and using F-35 engine (if they can get it) also will be very interesting.
anandawow from Hawk 200 to Su-30 for the same task.. its like going from french fry to full on Quarter Pounder combo!
so we know the Hawk 200 isn’t the most ideal for Indonesia’s need as its too compromised a design.. but still had functional performance..
but what about Malaysia that operated the type.. surely they didn’t have the same corruption issues and supplier issues Indonesia faced at the time, and they certainly could’ve afforded more F-5s or FA-18s instead?
Hawk 200 is not intended to have same task with Su 30, and yes it’s a compromise that TNI-AU has to get for them to conduct maritime CAP (especially on Western teritorial water/sea lanes) with much smaller Aircraft in which they’re forced to accept. Thankfully for Eastern waters they begin to get Fighters that really more suitable for long range Maritime CAP.
For Malaysia, due to smaller teritory to patrol, perhaps Hawk 200 more suitable for the need. Afterall in my oppinion, Hawk 200 can be more workable for country with smaller teritorial to covered.
anandamaverick is not primary weapon of 209…even words ‘primary weapon’ only exist in game. Weapon chosen based on requirement and circumstances.. AGM-65G is standard weapon of tni-au… period until it is expired….
even in some exercise TNI-AU always prefer F-16 for AGM-65 strike mission, such as sikatan daya etc.
In the first half of the 90’s when the process of getting Hawk 109/209 to TNI-AU inventory underways, on several publications back then TNI-AU already stated that eventhough they have secondary Air-Defence capabilities, the main reasons for Hawk 200 in Indonesian Air Forces is for Ground attack. Specifically for maritime-surface attack, as the primary intended purpose for Hawk 200 in TNI-AU inventory is Maritime patrol.
That’s why they are based on Pekanbaru and Pontianak in which both AFB directly facing strategic sea lanes. This’s the intended primary jobs for Hawk 200 in which TNI-AU hopping for, in which also I believe they’re less effective for what TNI-AU hopping on the primary job due to their limitations on their size.
It’s not a secret that TNI-AU just now only got what they’re hoping for effective Maritime/sea lanes CAP in the form of SU-30. That’s the reasons those SU-30 based in Makasar so they can conducts Maritime patrol on Indonesian eastern teritorial waters and sea lanes.
Back to Hawk 200, TNI-AU did not have choices (in which on several publications after Soeharto’s fall some of the retired TNI-AU brass elaborated on publications their frustrations on Soeharto’s policy to the Air Force). One of their frustrations was to be forced getting Hawk 100/200 due to Soeharto’s children insistance rather than their prefered F-16.
I should stated that what I mean on ‘primary weapons’ is the primary weapon Hawk 200 in Indonesian inventory can get to fullfill their intended primary role which is surface and maritime attack. Maverick is the best thing that available for them in Indonesian inventory which made them able to conduct their ‘intended’ primary role in Indonesian Air Force.
anandaon the contrary,
most of the time the TNI-AU Hawk 209s doing air patrol with AIM-9P4….
Yes, because TNI-AU does not have AIM-7. I put the maverick as primary weapon for ground-surface attack, eventhough on the training due to the costs of Maverick mostly Hawk 209 used MK-52 bombs for ground attack. But with Maverick capabilities, they have capabilities to conduct sea-surface attack (although no objection for me to say that Exocet in Etandard more capable as ati-ship than mavericks).
But this does not hindered the fact that Hawk 200 does have capabilities for AIM-7, if the operator choose to do so.
The Hawk 200 may have a more advanced radar, but what use is the use an AN/APG-66H Radar if Sparrows have NEVER been equipped on a Hawk 200 ever and the aircraft is far too slow to add any real advantage over a supersonic fighter in WVR combat?
Well, Hawk 200 was not intended for primary Air-Defence Fighters, but as Second line Air-Defence. This will be usefull for country that can’t afford or can only afford a few First line Air Defence fighters. However I put my argument on the Hawk 200 capabilities as Air Defence (albeit only as second line/emergency ones), on the context of comparisons with Super Etandard. In short, Hawk-200 have better multi-role capabilities than Super Etandard. Which’s make it more attractive for country that can’t afford several lines of specialise Fighters, thus need more multi-role.
Off course as Multi-role it can’t be compared to F-16, in which why TNI-AU brass silently objected when Soeharto’s government then decided to buy 40 Hawk 109/209, with the simmilar costs for 40+ F-16 that the Indonesian Air Force hoping for. Still this does not make Hawk 200 as ‘fail’ concept. It’s intended for Multi-role light fighters for countries that can only afford relative cheap Light Fighters (eventhough in Indonesia’s case thanks to Soeharto’s, Hawk 200 was not ‘cheap’ light fighters to procured).
anandaIs the Hawk 200’s performance comparable to aircraft like the Hawker Hunter and Super Étendard?
I think it depends what the requirement will be. In the early 90’s, Indonesia begin to look for A-4 replacement. The candidates were F-16 (preferable by the Air Force), Hawk 200, and Super Etandard.
Super Etandard was offered by French even with possible under license manufacturing with Di/IAe, but loosing ground to Hawk 200 on the basis more economical engine, more advance avionics and sensors, and compatibility on servicing infrastructures with existing LIFT Hawk mk 53.
Although the radar of Hawk 200 capable for Air Defence with AIM-7, but in Indonesian services it’s being used more as surface attack (ground and sea) with maverick as primary weapons. The Hawk 200 being located in Pekanbaru AFB in Sumatra and Pontianak AFB in Borneo in which both directly facing strategic sea lanes (malaca and singapore straits for Pekanbaru and south china sea for Pontianak). This show that Hawk 200 primary duties in Indonesian services is to conduct sea lanes patrol.
They are doing alright, however due to the their size they are not able to cover intented teritorial sea lanes effctively. Still they show quite powerfull punch for their size.
Thus with good ground attack capabilities and reasonable second line Air Defence capabilities, I think it’s comparable and even more capable than Super Etandard. It’s just due their size, they are limited for long range patrol duties, in which for Indonesia is the requirements.
However seems the Indonesian Air Force still satisfied with Hawk 200 (or at least content with). THe plan is to get MLU for existing Hawk 200 inventories together with Hawk 100 (in which being used as Recce duties), although no new fighters intended.
anandaThe T-50 looks promising as it has the performance of a light fighter.. but do any of these trainers have useful range for anything else?
I believe the future development for T-50 as light fighters will in the end tied-up with what come out as KFX. If KFX proved economically and reliable enough as F-5 replacement, I think it will put the lid for future potential of T-50 as light fighters (ie, F/A-50).
I know KFX supposedly larger than F/A-50, but with F-15K on hand, F-16 still make large portion of ROKAF inventories and ROKAF also still looking for F-35 and in the meantime still want to developed KFX (with Indonesia as participant), then this many types of Fighters seems already more than enough for ROKAF.
anandaK-8 & Hawk same specs? Hawk is nearly twice as heavy, with three times the payload in armed versions, is significantly faster, & has a greater radius of action.
The K-8 isn’t in the “F-5 of the 21st century” market. It’s a pretty low-performance, but cheap, trainer. It’s not competing with the T-50, let alone the fighter versions. The countries that have evaluated the T-50 haven’t even looked at the K-8, & vice-versa AFAIK.
Ahh just found this thread, I should repply your comment on Hawk 200 on this thread Swerve. Like I put on my reply on the other thread, my objections to Hawk 200 in Indonesian air force inventory more to the fact thanks to Soeharto’s children and cronies, the TNI-AU’s Hawk 200 end-up costs at par or even more to F-16. The deal of Hawk 200 robbed TNI-AU chances to increased the F-16 inventory to the planned 60 at that time.
But in some way it did serve TNI-AU well. Due to Western embargo’s to Indonesia during East Timor crisis, the Hawk 200 did have some reliability problem even when UK already take-out the embargo since some of the Hawk 200 parts uses US origin (in which ending the embargo the last compared to UK/European).
However when the effect of the embargo wearing off, the Hawk proved to be quite reliable and still one of the most service-ready fighters in the Inventory.
I agree with you that Hawk 200 can’t be compared to K-8, it’s technologically different. For small fighters, Hawk 200 did provide quite powerfull punch. The avionics rig them even with Sparrow’s capabilities, thus provide reliable alternative as second line Air Defence fighters after Flankres and F-16 in the TNI-AU inventory.
However for Indonesian teritorial requairements, size do matter. The capabilities of Hawk 200 for loitering in the archipelagoes sea lanes quite limited. as CAS, the role can be more suitable handle by COIN specialize fighters like OV-10 or the replacement the Super Tucano’s. It’s more usefull for nation with smaller teritory, but for Indonesia it is actually quite limited due to the sizes even with quite powerfull punch and technological capabilities.
The Malaysian seems have problem when first conditioning their Hawk 200 on tropicalized conditions (this I heard already been taking care off). TNI-AU seems adapting well on this matter, perhaps because their Hawk 200 come to their Inventory after RMAF got theirs.
anandaI wonder, do you think Indonesia would consider South Korea’s single-seat KAI FA-50 light fighter in the future as well?
It depends what’s the future for KAI F/A-50, even in Korea. With KFX in the process, F/A-50 can be redundant.
That’s not a fault with the aircraft, & surely it applied to many things bought by the government back then?
Yes Swerve, it’s a bad deal because the action of Soeharto’s children and cronies. Back then the Air Force wants to increased the F-16 A/B from 12 to 60, but the money used instead to buy 40 Hawk 109/209. It’s bad deal bacause with the money that can be used to get 40+ F-16 (on the early 90’s), TNI-AU end-up with 40 less effective fighters.
Still TNI-AU did used well those Hawk. It’s still the most service-ready fighter in TNI-AU inventory.
anandayeah….if it vanilla pure trainer T-50 I hopes those cancelled….
On latest interview with Local defense magazines Angkasa, the Air Force Chief Imam Sufaat already stated that the T-50 that TNI-AU will get has the abbility for Air-Ground attack. In short it will be LIFT versions (thus have light fighters capabilities)
they do seem really cheap. 17 mill per plane?
i hope they replace the Hawk 200. what a horrible idea that was.
Actually the overall package deal cost USD 400 mio (as stated in my previous posts from Korea Times). However since this deal also in line with the deal from DI/IAe for Korean Costs Guard CN-235, the net deal that KAI will get only USD 280 mio (in which KAI has also to share with Lockheed). On local magazines the Air Force sources indicated the T-50 costs them around USD 22 mio – USD 25 mio.
BTW, I seconded on Hawk 200, on considerations the deal costs too much (well the Hawk 200 deal was in Soeharto’s era and brokered by his Children thus the Hawk 200 costs more that F-16 :D)
anandaT-50 barter deal with CN 235
South Korea prepared for T-50 deal with Indonesia.
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/04/205_84554.html
anandaForget it they’re not gonna get F-16s, they already have a 3rd gen plane (Mig-29A). The requirement is to get a 4th gen fighter.
I think what’s belong to fouth gen besides Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon also Block 50/52-60 F-16, Shornet and Mig 35. However forget financially, but politically what’s is the chance Serbia get those 4th gen Western stuff ?
Whille for Mig 35 without Indian order, there will not be a Mig 35 in existance on the market.
If 4th gen that Serbia wants, then J-10 seems the only thing that’s left. Unless you want the expensive to maintain Flankers family.
anandaWhat is more probable and doable as the next F-15E; developing 2 seat F-22 or developing derivative F-35 ?
anandaThe end of 2012 should see the Italians finish their lease of F-16s. A squadrons worth of those F-16s would be ideal for Serbia. I suppose that politics would get in the way, but it would be an ideal opportunity.
TJ
If only F-16 was not among the planes that destroy Serbian forces less a decade ago :D. I believe Yak 130 is the perfect choices for Serbia, if they want a new one. It’s realiable choices for small country with limited airspaces and not surounded by ‘immediate’ neighbours with sophisticated air force. However if they want sensibility, the most sensible ones considering their situations, is upgrading Mig 29.
For Mig 35, unless India choose that plane for MMRCA, no Mig 35 will be exist in the market.
anandaAl Jazeera’s Andrew Simmons, aboard the USS Kearsarge, says the aim of the Harrier jets aboard the ship is to help push Gaddafi’s troops back from their lines – not enforce a no-fly zone. He tells us:
“The rebels aren’t making much headway, so we’re seeing an escalation here.”
Do they really think that they can push the Khadafi’s army effectively only by Air Strikes ?? The rebels’ is hopeless, unless the West put troops in the ground, they’re only dreaming that the rebels can win by themselves.
anandaLike the official who said a few months back that Indonesia was going to be operating 200 Flankers by 2025 or whatever. How about get a full operational squadron of anything and then we’ll talk? :rolleyes:
Actually there’s misquote on what the Ministry of Defence really means. I already said this few months back in Tanggo III Thread, that looking to original quotations in Indonesian, he means that in the next decade (2020-2022) he envisage TNI-AU will have 10 Fighter sq (then the plan Orbat of 7 sq that I already put up to 2014).
At the same time he’s mentioning he will add 6 Flankers to existing Flankers Sq in Makasar to make it 16 fighters (full sq). Somehow Journalist misquote that and saying he’s planing to have 160-180 Flankers (or 10 sq of Flankers).
7 sq of Fighters at plan orbat means only add 1 sq from previously 6 sq consists of: 1 sq of F-16, 1 Sq of F-5, 2 sq of Hawk Mk109/209, 1 sq of LIFT (Hawk Mk 53), and 1 sq of COIN (OV-10). Thus up until 2014 the plan is only adding 1 sq (that’s Flankers), whille the rest (Additional F-16, Super Tucano/COIN, and T-50 or Yak 130/LIFT) are for replacements.
So TNI-AU plan is doing step by step and not running ;).
Sign In
