Alman Helvas

There's a type of rotorcraft that suitable for ASW role in the market. This helo also able to operate from biggest frigate operated by ID. However, there is possibility the OEM won't offer that rotary wing to ID despite they have a big chance to win it. Let's see what happen.

Seems until 2030, ID defense rotorcraft market will be dominated by Leonardo instead of Airbus Helicopters. MoD is buying or will buy rotary wing aircraft from GB-IT firm for Army, Navy and AF. Why does the market shift? Most likely it's about good governance and compliance.

According to common sense, ID needs Aster 30, Teseo and Exocet MM40 for its navy. However, we shall see whether such a common sense also adopted by decision maker. Is MoD going to buy MBDA missiles next year for navy? As you know, MBDA won't sell missiles to ID via makelaar.

Next month ID and KR will hold DICC in Jakarta. Seems some issues will be discussed during the meeting, include defense trade. This iteration of DICC seems very important for KR and may determine ID-KR cooperation in the future. We shall see what the results of DICC are.

What are of ID's weaknesses on arm export? One of them is export credit facility. ID isn't automatically offered export credit facility to any country which interest to purchase ID made defense equipment. Look at CN235-220 case. Not all potential customer offered such facility.

As long as ID defense acquisition policy is promoting the makelaar role, don't expect ID will purchase A330 MRTT, additional A400M, H225M and H145. Meanwhile, additional Rafale still hang in the balance due to another issue. In short, ID is going to waste most of US$34.8 billion.

Is CN235 sunset a/c because of no new order from customer? Airbus DS and GE Aerospace respectively have a role on whether ID airframer should continue CN235 production or not. Autonomous right related to A400M new order by ID. CT7-9C made by GE Aerospace. cnbcindonesia.com/opini/2026…

A firm want to stay low despite it agreed with local company to explore opportunity on submarine MRO. Meanwhile, local firm want to have a high profile with that "achievement". That's why there was a mess on press release because press release retracted after previously released.

At least two ID patrol boats adopted RU 57 mm gun. Was the performance good enough? What about sustainment? Is there enough support from OEM? What about IN 40 mm gun? How's the gun's performance? On sustainment, is there enough support from L&T? ID love diversity to the bone.

What Hanwha Ocean would do if ID insisted not to activate former DSME submarine contract? Bring the case to arbitration court? Seems ID doesn't care with that contract anymore. On the other hand, ID has reasons not to activate it. Better for Hanwha Ocean to forget that contract.

During 2020-2024 MEF, only a few contracts signed without budget availability. Today, in the 2025-2029 OEF, numbers are increasing. Including some high-profile contracts. We don't know the fate of these contracts yet. Maybe budget can be taken from PSP because PSP is lump sum.

A foreign defense firm CEO will be in Jakarta next week to meet MoD officials. The visit's objective is trying to move forward his OEM business. However, most likely ID has no interest to do business anymore due to some reasons. We shall see whether CEO's mission succeed or fail.

MoU between ID, QA, PK and TR on defense industry is about defense trade. QA will be lender for ID procurement, PK and TR will export their equipment to ID and ID will be the market. No beneficiary for ID as a country. Only certain party in ID will be beneficiary on that trade.

With current development on ID defense market, is that still attractive for tier one OEMs? Favorability on certain countries only, no transparency on defense procurement, preference for acquisition through makelaar have prevailed. No level playing field. cnbcindonesia.com/opini/2026…

Sometimes a country decision to buy another country's defense equipment not based on needs but based on gesture of recompense over the former. Buyer doesn't need such defense equipment, but political consideration prevailed over operational requirement. How if buyer re-export it?

How robust ID's defense trade regulation is? Let's say a country which bought an ID made equipment want to re-export it to a third country. Does that country need ID approval first for re-export? Or it can re-export without ID approval at all? This is not a hypothetical question.

A CMS claimed made in-house by a SOE actually made by another firm. A torpedo claimed made in-house actually made by a foreign firm. Neither that SOE has capability on defense electronics nor torpedo production. Being honest about own capability seem hard. Boasting is number one.

Unless something happens, we may see the era of CN235-220 will be ended soon. No new order for export. ID government didn't offer to provide export credit for CN235-220 customer. It also has challenge on engine supply from GE Aerospace. Further, autonomous right may not grant.

Sometimes there is a gap of understanding between MoD and end-user about the purpose of certain weapon. Such gap, if MoD doesn't understand the purpose, may make end-user failed to have their desire equipment. This case may happen in the 2025-2029 defense procurement program.

How to manage ID government debt if MoF doesn't know in advance how much debt issuance in the current-year budget? Also not know what program will be executed in the current-year budget? This is the risk of lump sum budget approval for defense procurement in the Blue Book today.