If we take a lesson from Germany in WW2 when they should allocate more resources to build more U-Boats instead of a couple of pocket battleships, they probably could have hundreds more of U-Boats that potentially could turn the tide against allied fleets in the Atlantic in the early stage of the war. In our case, it's probably better to have - say - at least 20 more submarines rather than to only depend on this "aerial cruiser" concept.
This is because while the idea sounds good, but we should also consider that drone technologies are not without their countermeasures. This is especially important given that we'll be dealing with some technologically advanced foreign powers that have already developed various technologies such as directed energy weapons. All in all, this means that we may not be able to achieve the same level of success in using unmanned aerial platform in combat as seen in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan some time ago.
We should do both actually. Submarines have a good cost-to-benefit ratio and have the advantage of stealth compared to the surface fleet. DEI back then was also focused on their submarine fleet, probably the most effective assets they have during the Japanese invasion. But that being said, the Submarines alone cannot win the war singlehandedly, they are just one asset that fulfills certain roles only. I might argue that it is the surface fleet that ultimately the one that establishes naval control over the seas. Germany had a formidable U-boat fleet that was able to operate globally, but they still cannot challenge the Navies of the US and UK as they have the much stronger surface fleet and ultimately cannot gain control of the seas, as at most they can only resort to disrupts shipping. So I personally advise strengthening both anyway, even if there's a budget constraint we can find a spot between needs and means, a good ratio between surface fleet and subs fleet. I would say the
minimum number of subs should be 12 diesel submarines.
As for drones, I am a strong advocate for that. But they are not
the game-changer if we are talking about
great power competition. Because more advanced militaries have readily available AAW assets ranging from short to long-range, tactical to the strategical level that renders drones ineffective at best. Armenia and Azerbaijan were just local powers that operate within their unique geostrategic and geopolitical situation. Drones were effective in either low-
intensity conflict or low-
scale conflict, of which one side or another hasn't modernized to the standard of 21st-century warfare. Armenia was equipped for a cold war era context in which drones haven't been a big thing yet, but
they lack air and anti-air assets anyway. They are also landlocked, which is why Azerbaijan could rely on maximizing land-air operational strategy and capability, as the Navy and the seas are out of the equation. But in our context, the seas should be taken into context, which means air-sea capabilities should be taken seriously (and of course you cannot exactly take from the Armenia-Azerbaijan case).
But Drones are very useful to patrol our seas in non-military and low-intensity contexts and could serve us well in COIN operations across the archipelago. They are cheap, have long endurance, have good recon capability, can be operated remotely, and have been battle-proven in conflicts across the globe. Patrolling the straits and border seas is more effective if done using drones instead of fighter jets (which has a higher operating cost and is a bit overkill for regular patrol).
I seconded this .... Everything was " remote controlled " were always prone to hijacking and hacking . Let us be honest here .... We are the inferior one here . Let's put more an achievable and tangible goals .
This is just an assumption that we are going fight CHINA in peer-to-peer, straight-up military invasion in the manner of the Japanese invasion.
What if they don't intend to do that? Maybe they are logical enough to realize that invading an economic partner could not benefit them economically? I've spoken to the Chinese, and they know that's a foolish plan, and
economically dominating a country is more feasible than outright military conquest. TNI brass themselves know that the proper comparison, whether we are inferior, equal, or superior,
depends on the potential adversaries, and the
potential adversary is not just China, and so the comparison is not just to China or other Top 5 countries.
So let's aim to be the strongest in ASEAN instead, I think that's realistic enough.