BulgarianMilitary.com – Military and defence news, analysis, research and data
On April 14, 2025, reports surfaced that Russia has formally requested permission from Indonesia to station long-range military aircraft at Manuhua Air Force Base in Biak Numfor, Papua, a mere 1,200 kilometers from Darwin, Australia.
The revelation, first published by defense outlet Janes, sent ripples through Canberra, prompting Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to seek urgent clarification from Jakarta. By the following day, Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles announced he had spoken with his Indonesian counterpart, Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, who assured him the reports were untrue.
The episode, amplified by open-source intelligence accounts like OSINTdefender, has sparked debate about Russia’s intentions in the Indo-Pacific, the strategic significance of the Manuhua base, and the reliability of the information itself.
Russia Seeks to Base Warplanes in Papua, Alarming Australia
Russia has reportedly requested permission to station long-range aircraft at Manuhua Air Base in Papua New Guinea, just 1,200km from Darwin, according to Janes.
Australian PM Anthony Albanese said Canberra is seeking… pic.twitter.com/nnDtbLVf0N
For the United States, Australia’s closest ally in the region, the incident underscores the delicate balance of power in a theater increasingly contested by Russia and China.
The Manuhua Air Force Base, located on Biak Island in Indonesia’s easternmost province, is a modest facility by global standards. It shares a runway with Frans Kaisiepo Airport and serves as the home of the Indonesian Air Force’s Aviation Squadron 27, which operates a small fleet of CN235 surveillance aircraft.
The base also hosts the newly established 9th Air Wing, though no aircraft have been assigned to it yet, according to Janes. Its proximity to Darwin, where U.S. Marines maintain a rotational presence and Australian air bases are being upgraded to accommodate American bombers, makes it a point of strategic interest.
The base’s location offers potential access to key maritime routes in the Pacific, including the approaches to the South China Sea, a hotspot for U.S.-China tensions.
Historically, Biak has seen limited foreign military activity, though Russia conducted a notable patrol mission in 2017, flying two nuclear-capable Tu-95 bombers from Manuhua on what appeared to be an intelligence-gathering exercise. That event, while temporary, hinted at Moscow’s interest in projecting power closer to Western allies.
The infrastructure at Manuhua raises questions about its suitability for sustained Russian operations. The base’s runway, while adequate for smaller aircraft like the CN235, would likely require upgrades to support heavier strategic bombers or long-range reconnaissance platforms.
Fuel storage, maintenance facilities, and logistical supply chains would also need significant investment, as Biak’s remote location complicates sustained operations. Indonesia’s defense budget, which prioritizes maritime security over air force modernization, may limit Jakarta’s ability to support such enhancements without external funding.
Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles has just now said that he spoke to his Indonesian counterpart and has been assured that reporting surrounding a deal, offered by Russia, to base strategic bombers in the archipelago nation is “not true.”
It’s yet unclear if the reports…
Russia, facing economic constraints due to sanctions and its ongoing war in Ukraine, would likely struggle to finance these improvements itself. These practical challenges cast doubt on the feasibility of Russia’s request, assuming it was made in earnest.
Speculation about the types of aircraft Russia might deploy to Manuhua centers on its long-range aerospace assets, particularly strategic bombers like the Tupolev Tu-95 and Tu-160. The Tu-95, a Cold War-era turboprop bomber known as the “Bear” in NATO parlance, remains a cornerstone of Russia’s strategic aviation.
Powered by four Kuznetsov NK-12 engines, the Tu-95 has a range of approximately 15,000 kilometers without refueling, allowing it to conduct extended missions across the Pacific. It can carry up to 15,000 kilograms of ordnance, including Kh-55 and Kh-101 cruise missiles, which have ranges exceeding 2,500 kilometers and can be fitted with conventional or nuclear warheads.
The aircraft’s slow speed and distinctive noise make it less stealthy than modern platforms, but its endurance and payload capacity make it a versatile tool for power projection and intelligence gathering. In 2017, Tu-95s operating from Manuhua demonstrated Russia’s ability to reach deep into the Pacific, a move that rattled Australian and U.S. defense planners.
The Tu-160, known as the “Blackjack,” is a more modern counterpart. A supersonic, variable-sweep wing bomber introduced in the 1980s, the Tu-160 boasts a range of 12,300 kilometers and a payload capacity of 45,000 kilograms.
It can carry advanced munitions like the Kh-101 and Kh-102 cruise missiles, which offer precision strike capabilities against ground and naval targets. The Tu-160’s speed—up to Mach 2—makes it a more elusive platform than the Tu-95, though its high maintenance costs and limited production [only 36 were built] restrict its availability.
Russia has modernized a handful of Tu-160s since 2015, equipping them with upgraded avionics and electronic warfare systems, but the fleet remains small. Deploying either aircraft to Manuhua would signal Russia’s intent to challenge U.S. and Australian dominance in the region, though the logistical hurdles of sustaining such operations would be formidable.
Beyond bombers, Russia might consider deploying reconnaissance platforms like the Il-20M, a modified Ilyushin Il-18 used for signals intelligence and maritime surveillance. The Il-20M, with a range of 6,500 kilometers, is equipped with radar, infrared sensors, and electronic intercept systems, making it ideal for monitoring U.S. and Australian naval movements in the Pacific.
Such a deployment would align with Russia’s history of using Biak for intelligence missions, as seen in 2017. Compared to U.S. assets like the P-8 Poseidon, which offers similar maritime surveillance capabilities with greater range and modern sensors, the Il-20M is less advanced but still effective for Russia’s purposes.
China’s Y-9 reconnaissance aircraft, increasingly active in the South China Sea, provide another regional benchmark, though they lack the global reach of Russian or American platforms.
The geopolitical context of Russia’s request, if accurate, points to a broader strategy of expanding influence in the Indo-Pacific. Moscow’s outreach to Indonesia follows a February 2025 meeting between Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu and Indonesian Defense Minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, as reported by Janes.
Since President Prabowo Subianto took office in October 2024, Indonesia has deepened military ties with Russia, including joint naval drills in November. This shift aligns with Jakarta’s tradition of strategic neutrality, balancing relations with Western powers, Russia, and China.
For Russia, securing a foothold in Indonesia would counterbalance the AUKUS pact, which has strengthened U.S.-Australian-UK cooperation in the region. It would also complement Russia’s growing alignment with China, whose naval presence in the South China Sea has strained relations with Washington and Canberra.
Indonesia’s response to the request remains opaque. Janes reported that the Indonesian Ministry of Defense is consulting with other government departments, suggesting internal deliberation.
Defense Minister Sjamsoeddin’s assurance to Marles that the reports are untrue may reflect Jakarta’s desire to avoid antagonizing Australia, a key regional partner. Indonesia’s defense cooperation agreement with Australia, signed in 2024, underscores the deepening ties between the two nations, making it unlikely that Jakarta would jeopardize this relationship for a Russian deal.
However, Indonesia’s economic challenges and interest in diversifying defense partnerships could make Russian offers of military aid or technology transfers appealing, especially if tied to infrastructure investments in Papua.
Papua New Guinea, though not directly mentioned in the request, looms large in the regional equation. The country’s proximity to Biak—less than 500 kilometers across the water—makes it a potential stakeholder.
Papua New Guinea’s Defense Force, numbering around 3,600 personnel, relies heavily on Australian and U.S. support, including training and equipment like the Guardian-class patrol boats donated by Australia in 2018.
The 2023 U.S.-Papua New Guinea defense agreement, which grants American forces access to local bases, reflects Washington’s efforts to counter Chinese and Russian influence in the Pacific. Any Russian presence in Biak could complicate these arrangements, potentially drawing Papua New Guinea into a broader geopolitical contest.
The reliability of the initial report adds another layer of complexity. Janes, a respected defense intelligence outlet, cited Indonesian government sources and documents, lending credibility to its claims. However, the swift denial from Indonesia, as relayed by Marles and echoed by OSINTdefender, raises questions about the report’s accuracy or the motives behind its release.
Open-source intelligence, while valuable, is vulnerable to misinterpretation or deliberate leaks designed to shape narratives. Russia has a history of using disinformation to test Western responses, as seen in its 2017 Tu-95 mission from Biak, which prompted a flurry of media coverage but no lasting presence.
The timing of the report, amid Australia’s 2025 federal election, may have amplified its political impact, with opposition leader Peter Dutton calling it a “catastrophic failure” of diplomacy if Canberra was caught unaware.
The episode highlights the growing role of open-source intelligence in shaping defense narratives. Platforms like OSINTdefender, which aggregate and analyze publicly available data, have become influential in real-time reporting, often outpacing traditional media.
Yet their reliance on unverified sources can lead to discrepancies, as seen in the conflicting accounts of Russia’s request. For defense planners in Washington and Canberra, distinguishing signal from noise is critical, especially in a region where China’s military buildup and Russia’s opportunistic maneuvers demand constant vigilance.
The U.S., with its extensive intelligence capabilities, likely has access to classified data that could clarify the situation, though no public statements from the Pentagon have emerged.
Historically, Russia’s forays into the Indo-Pacific have been sporadic but calculated. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union maintained a naval presence in Vietnam’s Cam Ranh Bay, using it to monitor U.S. activities in the Pacific.
More recently, Russia has conducted joint patrols with China, including a 2023 mission involving Tu-95 bombers and Chinese H-6K aircraft near Alaska. These operations, while symbolic, demonstrate Moscow’s intent to project power beyond its traditional sphere.
The 2017 Biak mission fits this pattern, serving as a reminder of Russia’s global reach despite its economic and military constraints. A permanent presence in Indonesia, however, would mark a significant escalation, requiring resources Russia may struggle to commit given its focus on Ukraine.
For the United States, the implications of a Russian presence in Biak would be multifaceted. It would challenge the U.S. Navy’s freedom of movement in the Pacific, particularly around key chokepoints like the Malacca Strait.
It could also strain the AUKUS framework, which relies on seamless coordination between U.S., Australian, and UK forces. The U.S. has already responded to regional challenges by expanding its footprint in Papua New Guinea and upgrading bases in northern Australia, including Tindal, which hosts B-52 bombers.
Any Russian deployment to Biak would likely prompt further investments in these facilities, as well as increased patrols by U.S. and Australian P-8 Poseidons to monitor Russian activity.
The broader Indo-Pacific context underscores the stakes. China’s growing naval presence, including its Y-9 reconnaissance flights and Type 055 destroyers, has already shifted the regional balance. Russia’s alignment with Beijing formalized through joint exercises and arms sales, adds complexity to U.S. and Australian planning.
The AUKUS pact, which includes Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, is partly a response to this dynamic. A Russian base in Indonesia, even if limited in scope, would complicate these efforts, forcing Washington to divert resources from other priorities, such as countering China in the South China Sea.
From an analytical perspective, the incident reveals as much about information warfare as it does about military strategy. The rapid spread of the Janes report, amplified by OSINT accounts and politicized by Australian opposition leaders, demonstrates how unverified claims can shape public and political discourse.
If Russia’s request was a deliberate leak, it succeeded in sowing uncertainty and straining diplomatic relations, even if only briefly. If genuine, it reflects Moscow’s ambition to challenge the West in a region where its influence has historically been limited. Either way, the episode underscores the need for robust intelligence-sharing among allies to counter such maneuvers.
Looking ahead, the U.S. and Australia are likely to deepen their engagement with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea to prevent similar incidents. Strengthened defense ties, including joint exercises like Exercise Pitch Black, which saw Papua New Guinea’s participation in 2024, will be critical.
The U.S. may also push for greater transparency from Jakarta, leveraging its economic influence to ensure Indonesia remains aligned with Western interests. For Russia, the Indo-Pacific remains a secondary theater, but its ability to generate headlines with minimal investment highlights the asymmetric nature of modern geopolitics.
Whether this episode marks a genuine shift or a fleeting provocation, it raises a lingering question: in a region defined by great power competition, can the U.S. and its allies afford to dismiss even the smallest moves on the board?
***
Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news, follow our Google News, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, and Twitter pages. Our standards: Manifesto & ethical principles.
Most popular
Two British jets ambush Russian fighters with transponders…
US P-8 Poseidon searches for Russian sub 66 miles off…
Russia gave US the sonar signature of Yasen-class Kazan…
$168K for first downed Ukrainian F-16, $5.6K for each next…
Su-30MKI rapidly loses altitude after thrust vectoring…
‘Reports’ come: ‘RQ-4B shot down over the…
Israel permanently suspends combat flights with the F-16Cs
China claims its Su-27 Ultimate Flanker surpasses…
200 Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider bombers fall short of the…
China: Russian Su-57 to hunt SAAB 340 AEW&C after A-50s…
