anandaTheir F-16’s are old, but they will be getting Falcon Star (or some sort of equivalent) and MLU updates to bring them up to a refurbished Block 52/+ status. I believe the TNI-AU is intending to acquire a force of approximately 36x F-16 Block 52+ fighters (10x existing fighters, plus 24 second hand fighters, donated by the US) to operate alongside it’s intended near term force of 16x SU-27/30 MKi fighters.
They are also planning on acquiring a force of 16x Super Tucanos to replace their ancient OV-10 Broncos.
They have a lot of plans to update the aircraft of TNI-AU, but the perennial problem in Indonesia is a lack of funding. Their SU-27/30 Flanker fleet was completely unarmed for more than 5 years after it entered service, because they couldn’t afford to purchase the weapons for them..
With their dire need for airlift, (as an example Australia is gifting them $5m worth of spare parts and logistical support to get a half a squadron of C-130H’s back in the air to help support their own people, instead of using our Hercules to do it all…) as well as modern training structures etc, I can’t honestly believe that Indonesia is serious about the Eurofighter, unless they’ve had a change of mind about the F-16’s, but it would be a strange decision if it is an addition to the F-16’s, more Flankers, more Super Tucanos, more C-130/S-235/295 etc…
Almost like someone’s personal wishlist, than a serious project…
Yes I believe it’s a wishlist from someone in Indonesian Mindef than any real interest. Guardian already put articles that state ‘no plan for Eurofighters to Indonesia’.
The plan up until end of this decade is more Flankers and F-16. The ‘noise’ in here indicated the deal that’s been talking with Britain is for MLU to existing 26 Hawk 209 + 8 Hawk 109. With the offered of 24 ex USAF F-16, the money that originally plan to acquaired 6-8 brand new F-16 Block 52 will be used to refurbished/MLU those 24 used F-16. While the budget for MLU existing 10 F-16 block 15 + already been set asside differently, so does the budget for additional 6 flankers (thus make the Flankers in TNI-AU inventory to 16/full sq).
The plan Orbat for TNI-AU:
16 SU-27/30 Mk2 (existing 10 MK2 in Inventory)/ 1 Sq.
32-36 F-16 MLU (existing 10 F-16 Block 15+)/2 sq
32-34 Hawk Mk109/209 (no additional)/2 sq
16 Super Tucano (replacement for OV-10, 8 Super Tucano will come end of this year)/1 sq
16 LIFT (replacement for Hawk mk 53, with KAI T-50 in the lead)/ 1 sq
Total 7 sq in Orbat.
Moreover the money/budget also reallocated for strengthening Transport (with existing 22 C-130 B/H already schedulled to be or already refurbished in Indonesia, Singapore and US, while F-27 more likely will be replaced by C-295 in which EADS already agree to be manufactured by DI facilities), some for electronic/survailence planes (in the form of CN-235 MPA), UAV (not clear what it’s, but definetely not Israeli ones), and strengthening Training infratructures with replacement of basic trainers and additional KAI KT-1 to replace the inventories of T-34C Turbo Mentor.
Some budget also allocated to get Eurocopters Cougars (to supplement existing Puma/Super Puma), although most of new helicopters will be allocated to Army.
Thus no money been allocated for Eurofighters, and it’s make sense since the majority bulk of the money (for Air Force) in long term budget, will be allocated for participating in KF-X (expected for 3 sq or 50-60 planes).
PS: It’s more believeble for TNI-AU to be interested with A-400M rather than Eurofighters (Although I’m not saying TNI-AU has plan for A-400M at this moment).
anandaWith the damages to F-2 sq in that AB, will this prompt Japan to reopen the F-2 production lines ? Perhaps this disaster will be blessing in disguise for F-2 program.
anandaT-50 was always intended to be one of a family including a fighter. The plan is for the family to replace the F-5E as well as the T-38, F-5B & F-5F.
It is designed as a fighter.
I try to follow the logic being set by Lockheed and KAI if I read/summarise several of their officials corectly. They said that T-50 was design as advance trainers/LIFT whille F/A-50 design as fighters (some will argue F/A-50 will be in the class of Grippen). From my previous posts I agree T-50 and it’s derivative F/A-50 designed from the beginning with replacing T-38 (for T-50) and F-5 (for F/A-50). That’s why I said T-50 not design as Fighter but can be said it’s a based for F/A-50 that’s being intended to replace F-5 class.
For M-346, if they build final assambly or even manufacturing facility in US, and it will greatly increased US content, that I don’t doubt that as my previous post say. But what I would like to put is whether the ‘adjustment’ on using more US parts will increase the costs much more (relative to) than T-50 since T-50 being design with US parts (or US design parts manufactured in ROK), whille M-346 design with large content of US parts but not majority with US parts.
Come back to topic, if T-X use T-38 as the base, then if we go back to the 60’s conditions, by then T-38 is also ‘much’ more than ussual trainers in the 60’s era. Same thing as T-50 at this time compared to M-346, Yak 130, or other in the market.
anandaF404 turned out to be nearly as expensive as the F100 to operate. The USAF wisely chose the latter so that they could bring down the F100 costs on both F-15 and F-16. The T-50 suffers the same fate; not enough power to be a great fighter and too expensive for most countries to be a trainer. The F125 size of motor is a considerable step back from the F404. First make it affordable. Second make it affordable. Third make it aff…. You get the picture.
Btw – the F-20A outclassed anything remotely F-5. Saying the F-5E was comparable to the F-20A is intellectually dishonest.
I underlined your comments on that sections since:
1. T-50 not design as Fighters but LIFT at the most,
2. US not just most countries.
I’m not a salesman for T-50, but seriously if USAF wants something that more than T-38, updated, and have more room to grow in the choices of LIFT in the market, then T-50 is the answered.
Affordability of M-346 is not much different than T-50, and based on several sources T-50 even more affordable than this latest Italian LIFT. Besides again, affordability for USAF is not the same with affordability to the ‘most countries’ Air Force. If USAF choose T-50, then the costs of T-50 potentially can be much reduced due to larger economic of scale.
BTW : The fighter versions that being developed based on T-50, the F/A-50, isn’t that ROK asked for GE F-414 as the powerplant ?
anandaThe F-5 is a mean little jet, simple, and IMHO a very good option. Yeah it is aging, but just look what has been done in terms of upgrades with A-4’s, F-4’s, etc among the remaining operators. That and it can give any gen 4/4.5 fighter a run for it’s money with a good stick wiggler on the controls 🙂 While they are at it, the AF could bring back the guns pattern to the syllabus as well!
Yes, and T-50 is actually design with most charateristics as T-38/F-5 replacements. Why bother with upgrading old airframe and 60’s design if Locheed already have an operational design specifically to replace T-38/F-5 inventories in mind ?
anandaConsidering no-fly zone over Libya. I think it’s better to discuss the establishment of no-fly zone from ground bases that to be in cooperation with the Arab League and through the active participation of the Egyptian Air Force, which has about 160 F-16s and aerial warning aircrafts of the type E-2c. But the problem of the Libyan air defense will remain. Perhaps similar to the experience of Iraq and Yugoslavia that will require neutralization.
The Arab League already say no to International military intervention in Libya, and I believe that’s included no fly zone. Hoping for Egyptian participation at this time close to ‘hopeless’ since they are busy stabilising their own country and border.
Now would the US/West really like to involve on another military intervention with Iraq and Afghanistan really overstrech US/Western military already ?
anandaM-346 has 50% US content already. Alenia reckons that a USAF model would have 70% US content. It would be built in the USA.
South Korea isn’t a third world country with dirt-cheap labour. Cheaper than Italy, yes, but not half as cheap. Factor in the US content, & the fact that it’d be assembled in the USA, & that becomes a fairly minor factor.
It make some of the differences for export market (those labor costs). ROK labours costs is no longger third world costs for nearly two decades, still the relatively cheapers than Italian’s make some differences in export market.
But the biggest differences I believe that T-50 from beggining was design with US contents (or US design mede by ROK), and we all now US contents (or US design build under license) still cheaper than European content in average. For T-X I do believe whoever want to enter has to prepared to set up US manufacturing facilities (thus US contents and US labour costs in mind). However with T-50 is actually Lockheed design and design with US content in mind, it will not need adjustments to manufactured them in US with 100% US content if it need be.
Not so with Italian M-346, it will need adjustments to increase the US content significantly. Granted it design with large US contents, but not as much as T-50 to begin with. Alenia/Aermachi think they can boost US content up to 70%, but they haven’t say what’s the costs for adjustment to be made to get to 70% US contents.
anandaT-50 is actually Locheed design, with US parts (design) and manufactured by KAI with lower costs (relatively) South Korean Labour. It will not have much difficulty and adjustments if Politically need to be manufactured in US.
Boeing says they will build new one to compete, but Lockheed already have one flying (T-50). This is not the fight between non US manufactures (Airbus) vs US based Manufacturers (Boeing) like in K-X. This is the fight between two US manufactures; Boeing (with their new design) and Lockheed (with an operational design) :cool:. Aermachi will dream to far if they think they can get in.
anandaThis aeroplane is very large and to produce it in quantity it will require a very large factory. Does Kawasaki have such a production facility or will each aeroplane have to be hand built on a one-off basis.
The answer to this question will affect whether it is ever offered to another customer.
Regards
Kawasaki is to build 40 this C-2 to replaced both aging C-1 and Japanese C-130. Plus they also has to build simmilar number (or more) of P-1 to replace Japanese P-3 fleet. This means that Kawasaki supposed to have large enough capacity.
anandaBut you cannot feather the P-1’s high bypass turbofans, so you are stuck with their drag. And you do not want the fans to windmill because the oil pumps are not lubricating the bearings (B-36s and P2Vs had shrouds that closed off the intakes on their jet pods for that reason and to reduce drag).
Sorry not to be disagree..in fact try to learn more. If there’s a problem with high bypasss turbofans as MPA..why then P-8 ? :confused: (considering this is another Boeing 737) ? Is it because it’s only two, then it can reduce drag compared to 4 in P-1 ?
Compared to shrouded turbofans in Nimrod (enclosed in the fuselage), the turbofans in P-1 I think will improved service time.
anandaBombardier Dash 8 Q300 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA)
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/bombardier-maritime-patrol-aircraft-for-uae-passes-critical-milestone-22949/Kawasaki P-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1
Yes that Kawasaki P-1 if the Japanese agree to let UK’s have it will be an attractive option. Isn’t it that the Japanese developed P-1 since they believe they can produce something that can match P-8 whille still cost efective ‘relatively’ ?
Well, Kawasaki getting permision selling P-1 will be more difficult then getting permission putting C-2 on export market anyway. But ‘just’ what if. Seems it’s directly compatible replacing what the Nimrod ‘forced’ to left behind.
anandaYou hit the point. A niche with several contenders from Airbus, Embraer, Iljuschin, Antonov and Boeing. All with a higher market share from start. 😎
Yes a niche market that Kawasaki did not enter before because C-1 is not being offered overseas. However if C-2 again got permissions to put in to the market, who’s they really face on that niche market ? Where’s that niche market ?
If the niche market is the 20 ton – 40 ton market, (something for someone that need bigger than C-130 J but can do but less than C-17 or IL-76) then Boeing is out, whille IL still need to developed their product with India. AN-70 already fly so like A-400 it’s the one Kawasaki going to face. Embrear ?? well they still need to developed their product, and Embrear also a new comer and practically unproven on this ‘niche market’.
Kawasaki products already fly, and their costs mostly already taking cared by Japanese taxes payers. What’s the incentive for Kawasaki to tap the export market ? Well for one thing continuity of the product line and spare part manufacturing efficiency.
How deep the Kawasaki ‘pocket’ in supporting ‘marketing drive’ for C-2 ?? Credit facility is important on aviation ‘export’ business whether civilian or military. If Japanese’s Bank willing to support Kawsaki marketing drive, then they can undercut the financial/marketing support ability of Embrear and the Russians, and will create hard campaign for Airbus European backers on supporting financial packages.
This one of the arsenal what I previously mean the Japanese can do on opening exportmarket for their products. You can manufactured effective products, but not necceserally can open export market without sufficient ‘marketing pocket’s support’. This that Japanese for sure can undercut the Russians, Indian, or Brazillian if they serious on opening export market for C-2.
The C-2 has a limited rough field capability only and by that it is an ordinary freighter mainly.
Well, permit me to wait untill all the data of C-2 performance became available. The Japanese so far as I know, not yet subjected C-2 on rough field conditions, however isn’t (correct me if I’m wrong) C-1 ws also being prepared on sub-standard field especially for Hokaido’s ? (with scenario’s it’s under attack from USSR ?). If so, then for C-2 Kawasaki will not have problem preparing the freightheir for rough air field.
anandaYou missed the point. The Japanese have very cost effective electronics at hand for exports. They did not offer that even as dual-use goods. Exporting military goods will make you a party in every conflict related to that. Civil goods can be delivered to both parties without problems and Japan has no shortage of that. Utmost we will see some limited military exports to NATO or SEATO members. 😉
Ahh I See, you basically say that since their possitions politically, then the potential market for Japan Defense products will be limited, right ? Well, I agree on ‘lethal’ products, however C-2 is not (well in my oppinion) a ‘lethal’ technology in the first place. It’s a ‘dual-used’ product, in such exporting C-2 I think will be politically less sensitive then exporting Type 90 MBT or F-2.
If we look for potential users of C-2 you will find mostly Nato, SEA nations, Middle East and some in Latin America (especially if Kawasaki can provide better deal then Embrear). South Korea also can be, which in short Kawasaki still can export to large potential users in the world except Russia-India, and China (since they all have their own project).
Even with US basically it can fill the gap between C-130 J and C-17. Or in short they can go (potentially) to every place the Airbus A-400 can. Offcourse it’s come back to Japan stance on ‘dual-technology’ products.
C-2 provide good alternative for the slot in the market of 20 ton – 40 ton capacity transport, and it’s already fly. The momentum is in Kawasaki hand if they can get permissions. That potential if they can get permissions will mean Kawasaki can reduced the costs of C-2 that’s more atractive to the market of it’s class. Afterall, as ussual in Japan defense product, most of the cost already beared by Japan tax payers anyway.
anandaIt does not matter, because the Japanese production for military items is too expensive for exports at all. At first we will see exports of communication and EW equipment of Japanese origin if such change will happen. 😉
But is’t it that Japanese Military Hardware being expensive due to they can’t be Exported in the first place ? Economically if they can be exported it potentially will reduce the cost quite substantially. Japan quite an expert to find market niche for their exported products, I do believe if they can allowed to export Military Hardware, they will found some arrangements to tab exported market more effectivelly.
It will not be more expensive then say French Stuff (in which eventhough many of them considered quite expensive then US Stuff, still can find respectable market niche this days).
anandalol, Best Joke Ever, my muttley friend.
already the CGs are coming out
Did Kawasaki already got permissions to sold Civilian versions of C-2 ? Sold it as Civilan or Military versions basically will not really matter for Transport aircraft like this. It’s about the same anyway.
Sign In
