To pacify Trump, Indonesia seeks American arms

Jakarta is weighing big-ticket US weapons purchases to rebalance trade relations and maintain privileged access to US markets

ByJOHN MCBETH, JAKARTA

Indonesia is quietly talking to the United States about the purchase of 32 new Lockheed Martin F-16 Viper jets and six C-130J cargo aircraft in what may partly be an effort to remove the country from any possible sanctions as the US-China trade war returns to a boil.

Well-placed Washington sources speculate that the Indonesians are seeking to protect their Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP) access, as well as to ward off possible US congressional retaliation against friendly countries that have recently purchased Russian military hardware.

Indonesia does not appear to be prominent on US President Donald Trump’s radar. But a US$12.6 billion bilateral trade imbalance and a rising trend of protectionism in Washington could change that, despite Indonesia just reporting its largest monthly trade deficit since 2013.

Although Indonesia already has a squadron of twin-engine Sukhoi Su-27/30 jets, the subsequent lifting of the embargo has seen the delivery in the last two years of 24 refurbished US-made F-16s and eight Boeing AH-64E Apache attack helicopters worth an estimated $1.4 billion.

Indonesia’s intended purchases, including the $1.1 billion Su-35 deal, fit with an ambitious air force modernization plan, announced in June 2018, to bring its force level up to eight fighter squadrons and six refreshed transport squadrons by 2024.

It currently has six fighter squadrons spread across Java, Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi, with an inventory that includes 25 F-16C/Ds, 16 Su-27/30s and 24 British Aerospace BAE Hawk 200s.

Government sources say the C-130 workhorses are a higher priority than the costly, state-of-the-art Vipers because of the steady depletion of its current 18-strong fleet, invaluable in flying troops and relief supplies to remote parts of the archipelago.

Apart from its normal transport role, the Super Hercules C-130 can also be quickly configured for prolonged maritime surveillance duties with belly-mounted radar and roll-on, roll-off sensor stations in place of cargo.

The Indonesians have yet to publicly announce their interest in the F-16V, which was first demonstrated at the Singapore Air Show in 2012 and only went into service with Taiwan’s Air Force this year.

Developed to inter-operate with Lockheed’s fifth-generation F-35 and F-22 fighters, the latest F-16 variant can be deployed against enemy air defenses and also in air-to-air, air-to-ground and deep interdiction and maritime missions.

All  the USV need to do is do a mission kill...esp w r t to a critical ship system..see what damage a minior collision can do a AB destroyer forcing it to back to port. And we are talking about an anti tank round here.

India Agrees To Acquire Palm Oil, MiG-29 From Malaysia To Secure Tejas Deal

by Swarajya Staff May 20 2019, 10:35 am,

India is among the five contenders competing for the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s (RMAF) intended purchase of 30 light combat aircraft over the next 10 years. New Delhi has put forth its indigenously developed Tejas fighter jet for the RM (Malaysian Ringgit) 36 billion (~ $8.7 billion) deal.

Other aircraft that are on offer are believed to be the F-50 of Korea Aerospace Industries (South Korea), YAK-130 by Irkut Aerospace (Russia), JF-17 Thunder (Pakistan) and Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master (Italy), reports Free Malaysia Today.

According to the report, the political consideration will be the main factor behind Malaysia’s purchase of the aircraft.

Despite heavy lobbying from Pakistan, Malaysia is unlikely to buy the JF-17 as the Kuala Lumpur reportedly intends to link the deal to purchases of palm oil.

India, which is one of the largest buyer of Malaysian palm oil, could easily meet the country’s demand. Besides, New Delhi, in a bid to boost its chances for the deal, has also offered to buy the retired MiG-29 jets from Malaysia.

Read more: https://swarajyamag.com/insta/india-agrees-...cure-tejas-deal

RM (Malaysian Ringgit) 36 billion (~ $8.7 billion) deal for 30 light combat aircraft ????     

just how expensive is this tejas??it feel funny  

Iinm i don't think its the Tejas price offering but budget for Malaysian light combat aircraft deal.

A more detail article by The Strait Times including budget and local agents representing each aircrafts:

https://www.pressreader.com/singapore/the-s...281736975912510

RM (Malaysian Ringgit) 36 billion (~ $8.7 billion) deal for 30 light combat aircraft ????     

just how expensive is this tejas??it feel funny 

hehehe, as expensive as gempita...

could have even gotten top of the line f22 with that px

huh....i thought gempita priced at RM8 billion 

f22 even friendly US allied also cant get 

but for 8.7 billion USD can get F35(34 block 4)+4 MQ-9B SkyGuardian based on Belgium deal with few billion left 

check out the per vehicle px vs others within the same category

few bill left? lol... nothing will be left, lame excuse that it is package which includes yada yada yada that's why it is so high... while the middleman laugh all the way to the bank with his Mongolian mistress

Warhead too small to do much, same criticism for the Hellfire missile

The Fitz wasn't hit by a "minor" collision by the way, it was a very serious one

Thing about the USV is how far can it really see, being a small surface vessel? And how many can the ship carry?

Iinm i don't think its the Tejas price offering but budget for Malaysian light combat aircraft deal.

A more detail article by The Strait Times including budget and local agents representing each aircrafts:

https://www.pressreader.com/singapore/the-s...281736975912510

That is stupid redicilous price for shitty light combat aircraft

Belgium will pay EUR3.8 billion for 34 F-35A block 4 aircraft, two flight simulation centres, equipment and information and communications technology for operational and technical support, and pilot helmets.
https://www.janes.com/article/84054/belgium...es-and-male-uas

That is stupid redicilous price for shitty light combat aircraft

Why cant a spike or hell fire designed to take out MBTs cause a similar degree of damage? As shared, they do not need to sink a ship but damage it enough so as to kill the mission. Well timed shots at key locations e.g. bridge, sensors, engines etc.can terminate the mission or even leave the ship vulnerable to more attacks.

If spikes and hell fires are already popping attack boats <30m in size, I dont see how such missiles are not a significant threat to naval warships esp.when carried by small and stealthy USVs. Navies already consider rpgs a grave threat. A marine spike nlos can be fired 25-30 km away.

To my mind, the future main threat to a naval ship lies not in SSMs but Uav or USV swarms that are hard to detect from far and hard to knock out when close or at least before they shoot their warload at a naval ship.

The USVs carried by the MRCV are at least 16 metres (Venus USV) at least with high sea states and much bigger than a littoral USV like the Protector class - at least 4 Spikes.

I sincerely hope this is wrong

or maybe the 9 billion includes, I dunno, lots of other things

Dassault offered this same price to India for 36 Rafales, btw
With a warhead that small it would be relying on a lot of luck to hit something important.

Something the size of a Kongsberg Penguin would be much more impressive.

30km is quite short in marine ranges.

2 USVs isn't a "swarm"

A UAV would be more useful for surveillance use.

No, I really don't see this as a fantastic step up that can beat a similar-sized frigate equipped with capable AMS such as SeaRAM.

How many ships in the region let alone the RMN are equipped with SeaRam? At any rate, I have never read RAM missile shooting down a missile as tiny as an atgm i.e. slightly larger than an artillery shell. Have you?

In the first place, it will not be easy to locate a tiny stealthy USV esp. in congested waters amongst bigger ships.

Have you even considered what a hole or ensuing damage an atgm can do to a thin hulled naval ship vis a vis a 60 plus ton tank that it will tear apart from within? Even <25 mm cannons can punch holes in the skin of most naval ships.

How many naval warship are there in the region that can withstand the pummeling of more than even 1 atgm and still fight?

I was referring to a future naval threat in fact even aerial threat in a generic sense when i referenced uav swarm. In fact, what is to stop a country with such tech from doing so since it can be very effective. Singapore, China and the US are pursuing long range persistent USVs that can stay in water for weeks.

No. To ignore such assymeteric new threats to naval ships is foolhardy. Having such a capability from USVs is a means to an end but certainly deadly when used in the right context.
.

Was thinking more about destroying the USV itself. RAM (at least, the later blocks) is well suited for anti-drone defence. For something that can destroy this size of missile, possibly Phalanx, certainly Oto Melara STRALES can.

A ship is not a tank. Even with a tank, what ATGMs want to achieve is a relatively small diameter penetration that destroys the equipment and kills the crew inside, also hopefully detonating ammunition. The compact nature of the tank amplifies the effect. A ship is very big, unlike a small and cramped tank, and there's plenty of places an ATGM can hit and not damage anything of serious consequence. So yes most of the time you will be punching holes and that's it.

A Spike modded for naval use would almost certainly have a high-explosive frag warhead instead of an armour-piercing one. Even so, it's only equivalent to about a 57mm shell. It might damage some equipment but again, it's the luck of the draw. Ships have taken bigger hits and survived with only some degradation in combat ability.

So yeah, a lot of naval warships in the region can withstand an ATGM hit and continue fighting.

Well like I said, you are thinking hypothetically of a generic drone swarm whereas I am thinking of the Vanguard 130 and its two USVs. Ultimately I think UAVs would have been more useful.