The KF-21 Boramae should have been a symbol of Korea’s rise as a world-class aerospace power. Instead, critics argue that Korea accepted a deep concession—allowing Indonesia to retain co-developer rights even after paying only a third of its original commitment. This analysis explores why the decision shocked defense experts and what it means for Korea’s strategic future.
Keep reading to understand the core controversy, Indonesia’s negotiation tactics, and why analysts warn this decision may weaken Korea’s long-term defense leverage.
The Core Claim: Korea Accepted 1/3 Payment and Still Handed Over Fighter Jet Rights
Critics argue that Korea was effectively “taken advantage of” when the government accepted only ₩600 billion—roughly one-third of Indonesia’s promised share—while still agreeing to:
- Maintain Indonesia as a co-developer
- Share fighter jet technologies
- Provide access to prototypes
This decision followed years of unpaid contributions, missed deadlines, stalled cooperation, and even a technology-leak attempt. For Korea’s most advanced aerospace program, many see this as an unprecedented concession.
Why the Decision Sparked Strong Backlash
Indonesia has repeatedly acted as an unreliable partner—defaulting on payments, shifting narratives, and pursuing opportunistic deals with France and the U.S. Critics argue that:
- Korea gave discounted co-developer rights to a partner that broke trust
- World-class defense technology was undervalued
- The concession sets a harmful precedent for future negotiations
- Korea’s rapidly growing defense exporter reputation may be undermined
1. The KF-21 Project and Indonesia’s Role
Korea joined the elite club of nations capable of developing advanced fighter jets—years ahead of global expectations. Indonesia agreed in 2015 to finance 20% of development, pledging ₩1.7 trillion. But chronic financial instability led to long-term payment defaults, causing the partnership to deteriorate.
2. Why Indonesia’s Participation Initially Made Strategic Sense
The partnership originally offered strategic benefits:
- Shared development costs
- Environmental diversity for testing
- Operational data from Indonesia’s vast maritime territory
This model reflects global best practices—similar to U.S. and European multinational defense programs. On paper, the arrangement had clear advantages.
3. Indonesia’s Calculated Delay Tactics and Payment Default
Indonesia understood the risks and rewards of a next-generation fighter project. Their strategy:
- Delay payments → maintain deniability if the project failed
- Claim rights later → if the project succeeded
Domestically, Indonesian officials promoted the misleading claim that a 20% contribution entitled them to “100% technology transfer”, despite lacking industrial capacity to use such technology.
4. 2021 Negotiation: The First Major Concession
Indonesia proposed paying with palm oil when cash was unavailable. Korea rejected this initially but eventually agreed to:
- Allow 30% payment in commodities (oil, gas, rubber)
- Reduce Indonesia’s total dues by ₩100 billion
Even after this accommodation, Indonesia defaulted again.
5. Indonesia’s “Double Dealing”: Buying French and U.S. Jets
After renegotiating terms with Korea, Indonesia abruptly purchased:
- Rafale fighters from France
- F-15 jets from the United States
To many in Korea, this signaled:
“We won’t pay you, but we will pay others.”
6. Technology Theft Attempt Exposed (2024)
Korean authorities discovered Indonesian engineers attempting to copy KF-21 data onto USB drives. Indonesia claimed Korea did something similar in 2011— but the comparison is inaccurate:
- Indonesia attempted to take technology it had not earned
- Korea’s incident involved surveillance—not theft
This event gave Korea a legitimate basis to void or renegotiate the entire framework.
7. Indonesia’s 2034 Repayment Promise: A Strategic Trap?
Indonesia promised to settle its balance by 2034—the year Korea is projected to reach near-U.S. levels in fighter jet capability. Critics interpret this timing as a strategy to:
- Pay later with devalued money
- Demand valuable future technologies
- Preserve leverage despite non-payment
8. The 2024 Decision: 1/3 Payment for Equal Rights
Korea’s announcement:
- Indonesia remains a full co-developer
- Only ₩600 billion will be required
- Technology sharing and prototype access continue
Critics raised urgent questions:
- Why offer a 70% discount to a non-paying partner?
- Why preserve rights after a technology-leak attempt?
- Why hand over peak-value aerospace technology?
The danger of “1/N” technology share
Fighter jet technology includes:
- Materials science
- Avionics
- Propulsion integration
- Radar and stealth design
- Software systems
- Aerodynamics
- Precision manufacturing
Without a precise definition of the “1” in “1/N,” Indonesia may claim rights to core technologies—creating long-term national security risks.
9. Why Critics Say This Decision Is Outside Presidential Authority
A fighter jet is not a simple product. It represents decades of national capability:
- 225 private companies
- 20 state-funded agencies
- 10 national laboratories
- 15 universities
- 80 years of industrial development
Critics argue no president can unilaterally “discount” such a collective national asset— and that this decision risks weakening Korea’s defense position for decades.
Conclusion: A Warning for Korea’s Defense Future
The KF-21 should have been a pure geopolitical win. Instead, Indonesia’s chronic non-payment, broken promises, and even attempted technology theft culminated in a deal where Korea accepted less money, more risk, and unprecedented concessions.
This controversy underscores a crucial lesson:
Cutting-edge defense technology must never be undervalued—once it leaves your hands, it never returns.
