Indonesia Indonesian Air Force, Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Udara (TNI-AU)

[FPXAllen]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487389643247165441

During the late 1930s the Dutch grew increasingly concerned about the security of the Dutch East Indies, a Dutch colony consisting of what is now Indonesia. Rather than building up a large naval force that would take at least a decade to design and construct, the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army Air Force instead came up with the aerial cruiser concept. [11] This concept called for the acquisition of large numbers of bomber aircraft and the construction of forward airstrips in every corner of the archipelago. In case of a Japanese invasion fleet nearing one of the Indonesian islands, large numbers of bombers could then be deployed to airstrips closer to the location of anger.

The aerial cruiser concept could perhaps be brought back to life to meet Indonesia's modern defence requirements through the acquistion of the Bayraktar Akıncı, which's 7,500km range and 24+-hour endurance is more than sufficient to cover each corner of the Indonesian archipelago while based at a centrally located air base.

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.

 

[Ravager]

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.

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 .

 

[FoodSoldier]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487389643247165441

During the late 1930s the Dutch grew increasingly concerned about the security of the Dutch East Indies, a Dutch colony consisting of what is now Indonesia. Rather than building up a large naval force that would take at least a decade to design and construct, the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army Air Force instead came up with the aerial cruiser concept. [11] This concept called for the acquisition of large numbers of bomber aircraft and the construction of forward airstrips in every corner of the archipelago. In case of a Japanese invasion fleet nearing one of the Indonesian islands, large numbers of bombers could then be deployed to airstrips closer to the location of anger.

The aerial cruiser concept could perhaps be brought back to life to meet Indonesia's modern defence requirements through the acquistion of the Bayraktar Akıncı, which's 7,500km range and 24+-hour endurance is more than sufficient to cover each corner of the Indonesian archipelago while based at a centrally located air base.

The Japanese army was able to leapfrog all the strongholds built by Dutch/Allied by using attacking column of no more that 400 miles radius (air coverage). They took Aceh, Plaju, Tarakan, Balikpapan, Cepu, Bojonegoro, Surabaya, Merak, Bogor, Jakarta, Bandung and Cilacap in less than 3 months campaign.

China may use the same strategy, coming from the south china sea with fast speed and leapfrogs to all key objectives. Hence, using this so-called “Aerial Cruiser” concept would not be effective to deter the enemy advance as they will be trapped in enemy territory once leapfrogged.

 

[HellFireIndo]

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.

 

[Ravager]

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).


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.

In essence .. you are simply explain the thing that me and FPXAllen are trying to convey here ..
In cost benefit ratio alone between drone web netting and submarine threats the cost were obvious . Between maintenancing a pseudo carrier fleet and spread around submarine naval base and auxilaries everybody could calculate the cost . Let alone who will bring more concrete result of deterrence and survavibility ...
Civis pacem parabellum was the key word here . Without a serious presence of threat of submarines fleet to inflict pain into their side , economically or militarily .
The superiority of mainland AF ( or kangooros AF if you so wishes it ) could just waltzed in our territory and ditching their hauls effortlessly . Drone netting without a sufficient AF strike force to enforce it were nothing but a glorified air bamboos fence ...
And those aplied both for our north or eastern corridor ...

Let me make my stand here ... I'm a proponent of bebas-aktif policy . Yet , we haven't the strengh to backing those policy as yet ... Not even India were there yet too . So use everything and anything we could get with the least possible cost and future consequence .

 

[FoodSoldier]

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).


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.

Japan also didn’t intend to invade dutch Indies because it was one of Japan largest export market at that time.

Japan changed their mind once Dutch and US decide to embargo all raw material export to Japan (especially oil). Also it was Dutch that declared war first. Japan didn’t respond to that declaration of war till one year later. Japan needs oil badly.

The same situation could happen with China in near future. Once Indonesia follow the west to embargo their raw material supply (hypothetical scenario but strongly possible), there’s no other option for China than to knock our door and seize the kitchen.

 

[HellFireIndo]

Japan also didn’t intend to invade dutch Indies because it was one of Japan largest export market at that time.

This is inaccurate, it is very clear that Japan has sent spies across Asia for decades, to map the strategic environment here, as part of their "Southern Plan" proposed by the Japanese Navy. They did intend to invade Dutch East Indies for the rubber and oil resources here. Japan didn't invade as if it is something rushed or decided on a last-minute, they literally prepared the military invasion for decades.

Japan changed their mind once Dutch and US decide to embargo all raw material export to Japan (especially oil). Also it was Dutch that declared war first. Japan didn’t respond to that declaration of war till one year later. Japan needs oil badly.

The same situation could happen with China in near future. Once Indonesia follow the west to embargo their raw material supply (hypothetical scenario but strongly possible), there’s no other option for China than to knock our door and seize the kitchen.

So if we don't follow the Bule initiative to be hostile to China, then China won't invade according to this logic. DEI was a bule owned country and part of the allied nations, so of course, they naturally align with the interest of other western countries who have colonies here or are friendly with the US. DEI's declaration of war is obviously stupid and we won't do that, so that's out of the question. But now the situation changed, we aren't bule, and we have bebas-aktif doctrine to not be bound with a long-term permanent alliance with any country or bloc. The hypothetical scenario of Indonesia embargoing China cannot be said to be 'strongly possible', what is the proof of that? I can argue that Indonesia could be like Sweden during WW2, they keep selling resources to Germany and didn't get invaded or get condemned for doing that, literally getting away with it.

I want to add some knowledge on bebas-aktif loophole here. Indeed even if we held the doctrine to not enter permanent alliances, it doesn't say that 1. It should be held at all times, so we technically may do alliance in times of major crisis if we have to, 2. That we cannot join ad-hoc coalition, so a certain conflict may require us to join a coalition to resolve a military conflict, but once the conflict ended so do our business there. But honestly, the doctrine serves the purpose, not the other way around. We are free to choose whatever decision may benefit us the most strategically in the long term.

 

[FoodSoldier]

This is inaccurate, it is very clear that Japan has sent spies across Asia for decades, to map the strategic environment here, as part of their "Southern Plan" proposed by the Japanese Navy. They did intend to invade Dutch East Indies for the rubber and oil resources here. Japan didn't invade as if it is something rushed or decided on a last-minute, they literally prepared the military invasion for decades.


So if we don't follow the Bule initiative to be hostile to China, then China won't invade according to this logic. DEI was a bule owned country and part of the allied nations, so of course, they naturally align with the interest of other western countries who have colonies here or are friendly with the US. DEI's declaration of war is obviously stupid and we won't do that, so that's out of the question. But now the situation changed, we aren't bule, and we have bebas-aktif doctrine to not be bound with a long-term permanent alliance with any country or bloc. The hypothetical scenario of Indonesia embargoing China cannot be said to be 'strongly possible', what is the proof of that? I can argue that Indonesia could be like Sweden during WW2, they keep selling resources to Germany and didn't get invaded or get condemned for doing that, literally getting away with it.

I want to add some knowledge on bebas-aktif loophole here. Indeed even if we held the doctrine to not enter permanent alliances, it doesn't say that 1. It should be held at all times, so we technically may do alliance in times of major crisis if we have to, 2. That we cannot join ad-hoc coalition, so a certain conflict may require us to join a coalition to resolve a military conflict, but once the conflict ended so do our business there. But honestly, the doctrine serves the purpose, not the other way around. We are free to choose whatever decision may benefit us the most strategically in the long term.

1. China sends spies too, human spies and tech spies.
2. China claims and intends to occuppy south china sea including natuna.
3. Whats your point? I’m talking about strategy of using Turkish drones for point aerial attack, in which that strategy won’t be effective as per lesson from history (Japan dutch indies invasion). Then you suddenly bring geopolitic discussion into Indonesian Airforce thread.

 

[HellFireIndo]

1. China sends spies too, human spies and tech spies.
2. China claims and intends to occuppy south china sea including natuna.
3. Whats your point? I’m talking about strategy of using Turkish drones for point aerial attack, in which that strategy won’t be effective as per lesson from history (Japan dutch indies invasion). Then you suddenly bring geopolitic discussion into Indonesian Airforce thread.

Well because you are replying to me therefore I responded.

1. Are the spies did what they did, supposedly, to prepare for military invasion? Either they do or don't, there's no concrete proof that they do it on a scale comparable to Japan. I think this is a classic case of assumption, assuming there are Chinese spies that are gathering intel for military invasion.

2. Didn't they already disclaim that? It's only that nine-dash line overlaps with some of Natuna's ZEE area, but not Natuna itself, and they already distanced themselves from crossing our line (well their diplomats say that, but let's observe the real situation). Other ASEAN countries had it worse, even then they didn't exactly do things that point out to possible military invasion of the countries themselves (preferring more diplomatic means). Domination of the region probably yes, but conquest is probably unlikely to happen in the manner of the Japanese empire. Well, at least not in the near future.

3. All discussion about defense involves all aspects of war, including geopolitics, not just technology. I mean isn't this obvious? Why do we link up Turkish drone usage with historical battles? Because they had something to do with each other. Japanese invasion shows us what could possibly be the scenario of future possibly invasion from the north, in which Drones might be useful to combat that and change the possible outcome. So why talk about Geopolitics? Because it gives us context to analyze.

Just think about it, we discuss how this or that thing is good, or bad, can be used in this or that scenario. But who is the enemy? what is our goal? Of course, these questions need clarification first. We answer things before we even ask the right question. People assume our enemy will certainly be China, and they will invade here in a full-scale military invasion. What if it's not going to happen? or happen in different ways? We can both discuss the strategic level and tactical level, we can also discuss the technical level, army, navy, air force ALL involves geopolitics consideration, so what is the problem?. Remember that they are all inseparable, we can discuss all of them together in a single thread, take any of those aspects away, and you get confused people.

 

[FoodSoldier]

Well because you are replying to me therefore I responded.

1. Are the spies did what they did, supposedly, to prepare for military invasion? Either they do or don't, there's no concrete proof that they do it on a scale comparable to Japan. I think this is a classic case of assumption, assuming there are Chinese spies that are gathering intel for military invasion.

2. Didn't they already disclaim that? It's only that nine-dash line overlaps with some of Natuna's ZEE area, but not Natuna itself, and they already distanced themselves from crossing our line (well their diplomats say that, but let's observe the real situation). Other ASEAN countries had it worse, even then they didn't exactly do things that point out to possible military invasion of the countries themselves (preferring more diplomatic means). Domination of the region probably yes, but conquest is probably unlikely to happen in the manner of the Japanese empire. Well, at least not in the near future.

3. All discussion about defense involves all aspects of war, including geopolitics, not just technology. I mean isn't this obvious? Why do we link up Turkish drone usage with historical battles? Because they had something to do with each other. Japanese invasion shows us what could possibly be the scenario of future possibly invasion from the north, in which Drones might be useful to combat that and change the possible outcome. So why talk about Geopolitics? Because it gives us context to analyze.

Just think about it, we discuss how this or that thing is good, or bad, can be used in this or that scenario. But who is the enemy? what is our goal? Of course, these questions need clarification first. We answer things before we even ask the right question. People assume our enemy will certainly be China, and they will invade here in a full-scale military invasion. What if it's not going to happen? or happen in different ways? We can both discuss the strategic level and tactical level, we can also discuss the technical level, army, navy, air force ALL involves geopolitics consideration, so what is the problem?. Remember that they are all inseparable, we can discuss all of them together in a single thread, take any of those aspects away, and you get confused people.

You love China so much

 

[Madokafc]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487389643247165441

During the late 1930s the Dutch grew increasingly concerned about the security of the Dutch East Indies, a Dutch colony consisting of what is now Indonesia. Rather than building up a large naval force that would take at least a decade to design and construct, the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army Air Force instead came up with the aerial cruiser concept. [11] This concept called for the acquisition of large numbers of bomber aircraft and the construction of forward airstrips in every corner of the archipelago. In case of a Japanese invasion fleet nearing one of the Indonesian islands, large numbers of bombers could then be deployed to airstrips closer to the location of anger.

The aerial cruiser concept could perhaps be brought back to life to meet Indonesia's modern defence requirements through the acquistion of the Bayraktar Akıncı, which's 7,500km range and 24+-hour endurance is more than sufficient to cover each corner of the Indonesian archipelago while based at a centrally located air base.

There is a reason why in Omar Dhani era our Air Force put heavy emphasize into heavy bomber fleets with more than 24 Tu 16 and 48 units of Il 28 Beagle along with other US Made medium bomber. We can't afford so many complex and complete Air Force base , the least is to put some important air force base on some important nodes and strategic places.

And now, Prabowo put that's kind of emphasize again with the acquisition of long leg fighter such as Rafale and F15EX. And there is also question about long range MPA/ASW aircraft coupled them with long range AWACS aircraft.

Well actually Osprey is one of important key for support units for rapid deplyment strategy of MoD. For the UAV units, my bet is for Akinci as they fit nicely into what we needed the most for persistent surveilance capability

 

[Ravager]

You love China so much

I'm not trying to disparage anybody here . Every thought and ideas were counted in the open discussion . Yes , he is confusing us much with his insinuated writing yet his point are not without merit . Things are still within gray area at this point of time . Even blind idiot knows ..... Invasion from a mainland side today would meant they would get isolated from the rest of the world of trade and diplomacy . They haven't that desperated as yet ..
They know a bad moves were to be made when even a small " gun boat diplomacy " could allready make us change our tone and posture and In turn it emboldened the rest of ASEAN's resolves . Don't belitle our self too much... While we were to small to be taken seriously .... Any move from our side could stil tilt the chess board and ruin the equation .
China are playing the long game here ... Because they have all the time in world for them .
It us who were in bind ...

 

[FPXAllen]

We should do both actually. [...] 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.

That was actually my main take on this. However, my suggestion of at least 20 more subs based on the fact that we tend to downplay the importance of having the capability to mount effective defense with wordplay like "Minimum Essential Force" and such.

I understand that there are reasons why those words are being used but I would argue that having enough numbers of subs, surface fleets and aerial platforms so that we can take the fight to the enemy's homeland if and when necessary is what we should be truly aiming for.

Ambitious, I know. It's also unrealistic given our current financial condition. But without such aim, we'll still basing our defense programs on the mindset or assumption that "there will be no war in the next X decades" while the reality is much more dynamic than that.

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).

Oh don't get me wrong, I do realize the importance of having a strong aerial drone force given that our airspace is so vast that it's simply uneconomical if we're using manned aircraft for tasks that can be done just as effectively with unmanned platforms.

In fact, I believe that we should adopt something like "layered" drone operation where both our radar network and drones of all types are constantly monitoring our airspace and territory. This will be something like a number of HALE drones to provide high-alt coverage from - say - 60.000-80,000 ft, MALE armed drones to provide both medium-alt coverage and response if required, as well as tactical, short range drones for those in the field. All of these are operational in any given time.

[...] 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.

Well, we've been screwed by both the "West" and the "East" historically, so I don't think today and the future is/will be any different. While it's hard to deny that our current, most potential, foreign power adversary is China, but we simply don't know how things will turn out in the next decade.

That's why I wrote "foreign powers" in my earlier post.

 

[Madokafc]

Sukhoi engine overhauling budget

 

[Madokafc]

Another vehicles for the Air Force

 

[Nilgiri]

Japan also didn’t intend to invade dutch Indies because it was one of Japan largest export market at that time.

Japan changed their mind once Dutch and US decide to embargo all raw material export to Japan (especially oil). Also it was Dutch that declared war first. Japan didn’t respond to that declaration of war till one year later. Japan needs oil badly.

The same situation could happen with China in near future. Once Indonesia follow the west to embargo their raw material supply (hypothetical scenario but strongly possible), there’s no other option for China than to knock our door and seize the kitchen.

If its oil/gas logistics, West will do that at hormuz strait....not in Indonesia area...as Indonesia does not present a viable chokepoint. Any closer to home chokepoint sense+interdiction will mostly take place in the island chain area (japan, taiwan etc).

Indonesia in a way is in a more relative sweetspot, as concerning as the SCS intrusions are (that Indonesia needs to develop a concise approach for to deal with).

Japan comparison in WW2 is quite different matter as Japan was heavily dependent on US for lot of raw materials (including energy)...even with its invasion of Manchuria (given the time, needs and logistics and pressures involved w.r.t both US and USSR primarily)

Middle East oil fields (and sea trade of it to east asia) had not come online in that era that much yet...and in any case were again mostly controlled (at source) by the western powers. A situation that would change somewhat only after WW2.

The levels used/supplied (in much more mercantile system as well) back then where also much smaller than modern economy today...offering far easier applied sanction and interdiction.

But today almost any raw material of note/relevance, China simply has a huge amount of land, territory, labour and warehousing to both provide and stockpile in a prior period if needed....commensurate to how they wargame what a conflict (esp duration wise) would look like from the US/West vs them....and what they have at their disposal to do so (unlike Japan pre-WW2).

It is simply not a thalassocracy like Japan (meiji to pre WW2) which was heavily dependent on sea trade. Consider the problems Japan had in developing certain industries and logistics on limited land (given local food + housing need) to begin with.

Japan simply did not have the continental land ....a baked in vulnerability that affected the strategies (during peace or war) it could develop and unfurl.

That is what prompted that all-in war towards China and then expansion of that concept into larger SEA region and Pacific once US and West put (severe) sanctions on them over China.

The clock was always ticking basically....and Europe with Hitler provided enough (severe) stretch for the Allies.... for Japan to exploit and have best chance (as low as it was, especially in hindsight).

They severely misjudged that mid and long term (that is a longer discussion to get into).

I don't think Indonesia needs to be too worried about this kind of paradigm in this kind of way (WW2 Japan vs US)..... between West and China today.... that could develop into something more over time between them.

The comparison is basically much more tenuous.

However Indonesia (given its basic geography splayed across the sea where it is) does need to make itself a reasonable naval power for maximum deterrence against anyone long term.

 

[Umigami]

I'm not trying to disparage anybody here . Every thought and ideas were counted in the open discussion . Yes , he is confusing us much with his insinuated writing yet his point are not without merit . Things are still within gray area at this point of time . Even blind idiot knows ..... Invasion from a mainland side today would meant they would get isolated from the rest of the world of trade and diplomacy . They haven't that desperated as yet ..
They know a bad moves were to be made when even a small " gun boat diplomacy " could allready make us change our tone and posture and In turn it emboldened the rest of ASEAN's resolves . Don't belitle our self too much... While we were to small to be taken seriously .... Any move from our side could stil tilt the chess board and ruin the equation .
China are playing the long game here ... Because they have all the time in world for them .
It us who were in bind ...

That was actually my main take on this. However, my suggestion of at least 20 more subs based on the fact that we tend to downplay the importance of having the capability to mount effective defense with wordplay like "Minimum Essential Force" and such.

I understand that there are reasons why those words are being used but I would argue that having enough numbers of subs, surface fleets and aerial platforms so that we can take the fight to the enemy's homeland if and when necessary is what we should be truly aiming for.

Ambitious, I know. It's also unrealistic given our current financial condition. But without such aim, we'll still basing our defense programs on the mindset or assumption that "there will be no war in the next X decades" while the reality is much more dynamic than that.


Oh don't get me wrong, I do realize the importance of having a strong aerial drone force given that our airspace is so vast that it's simply uneconomical if we're using manned aircraft for tasks that can be done just as effectively with unmanned platforms.

In fact, I believe that we should adopt something like "layered" drone operation where both our radar network and drones of all types are constantly monitoring our airspace and territory. This will be something like a number of HALE drones to provide high-alt coverage from - say - 60.000-80,000 ft, MALE armed drones to provide both medium-alt coverage and response if required, as well as tactical, short range drones for those in the field. All of these are operational in any given time.


Well, we've been screwed by both the "West" and the "East" historically, so I don't think today and the future is/will be any different. While it's hard to deny that our current, most potential, foreign power adversary is China, but we simply don't know how things will turn out in the next decade.

That's why I wrote "foreign powers" in my earlier post.

If its oil/gas logistics, West will do that at hormuz strait....not in Indonesia area...as Indonesia does not present a viable chokepoint. Any closer to home chokepoint sense+interdiction will mostly take place in the island chain area (japan, taiwan etc).

Indonesia in a way is in a more relative sweetspot, as concerning as the SCS intrusions are (that Indonesia needs to develop a concise approach for to deal with).

Japan comparison in WW2 is quite different matter as Japan was heavily dependent on US for lot of raw materials (including energy)...even with its invasion of Manchuria (given the time, needs and logistics and pressures involved w.r.t both US and USSR primarily)

Middle East oil fields (and sea trade of it to east asia) had not come online in that era that much yet...and in any case were again mostly controlled (at source) by the western powers. A situation that would change somewhat only after WW2.

The levels used/supplied (in much more mercantile system as well) back then where also much smaller than modern economy today...offering far easier applied sanction and interdiction.

But today almost any raw material of note/relevance, China simply has a huge amount of land, territory, labour and warehousing to both provide and stockpile in a prior period if needed....commensurate to how they wargame what a conflict (esp duration wise) would look like from the US/West vs them....and what they have at their disposal to do so (unlike Japan pre-WW2).

It is simply not a thalassocracy like Japan (meiji to pre WW2) which was heavily dependent on sea trade. Consider the problems Japan had in developing certain industries and logistics on limited land (given local food + housing need) to begin with.

Japan simply did not have the continental land ....a baked in vulnerability that affected the strategies (during peace or war) it could develop and unfurl.

That is what prompted that all-in war towards China and then expansion of that concept into larger SEA region and Pacific once US and West put (severe) sanctions on them over China.

The clock was always ticking basically....and Europe with Hitler provided enough (severe) stretch for the Allies.... for Japan to exploit and have best chance (as low as it was, especially in hindsight).

They severely misjudged that mid and long term (that is a longer discussion to get into).

I don't think Indonesia needs to be too worried about this kind of paradigm in this kind of way (WW2 Japan vs US)..... between West and China today.... that could develop into something more over time between them.

The comparison is basically much more tenuous.

However Indonesia (given its basic geography splayed across the sea where it is) does need to make itself a reasonable naval power for maximum deterrence against anyone long term.

I think this talk already derail too much from air force matter, isn't it?

 

[Nilgiri]

I think this talk already derail too much from air force matter, isn't it?

Maybe move these replies here? Or can start new one.... Indonesia geopolitics etc....

Indonesian Politics (History, Issue, culture etc)

Well, i am open this thread to talking about Indonesian Politics, in which actually quite complex and need more comprehensive knowledge to understanding the issue, psychology and culture of Indonesian people and related them to modern Indonesia politics.

defencehub.live

 

[Van Kravchenko]

Based on 2007 deal yes it is as far as I know.

Back to 2007, as for the FIR and extradition aggrement. The 27 April 2007 agrement must be ratified and the documets must be excange. Unless so the agrrement won't be effective.

As we know have devil in detail about this agrrement, they ask for water and airspace around sumatra and riau for tgeir military exercise regaerdless solo or bilateral exercise. Thus, make Goliath beliitle by David. What a tale in SEA nations.


I dont know if this kind of agreement will give an upperhand or vice versa.

 

[Indos]

Back to 2007, as for the FIR and extradition aggrement. The 27 April 2007 agrement must be ratified and the documets must be excange. Unless so the agrrement won't be effective.

As we know have devil in detail about this agrrement, they ask for water and airspace around sumatra and riau for tgeir military exercise regaerdless solo or bilateral exercise. Thus, make Goliath beliitle by David. What a tale in SEA nations.


I dont know if this kind of agreement will give an upperhand or vice versa.

I dont know about the detail, but indeed the fact that the pipe gas to Singapore has already been in the hand of Medco Energy, our national company where the owner is PDIP elite leader, will difficult our attempt to use it in a negotiation. Medco now has 2 gas field supplying Singapore, they (Arifin Panigoro and his son, Hilmi Panigoro) have very strong relationship with Singapore I believe.

But we will still get benefit with the extradition agreement and FIR deal despite not entirely being managed by us (which I think is still a good deal since we dont want to be busy managing planes that will take off and landing in Singapore airport/Changi). The deal will only be last in 20-25 years, then we can push more after that year since the gas will be negotiated again and possibly PDI-P will not win in that term that suggest we can use the pipe gas supply once again in our card.

The FIR deal will need to go to ICAO first as that is the international organization who regulate the FIR. Once ICAO delegate that to Indonesia, then it will be permanent just like how difficult for Indonesia to take the FIR from Singapore after 1946. Next negotiation after 20-25 years, our position is already much stronger than current one.

Any way Singapore will depend on Indonesia in their promise to the world about replacing their fossil fuel powered electricity into renewable energy, some inhabited islands in Riau province ( where once again Medco Energy project ) will be putted renewable energy project ( solar panel and maybe others ) and also our sea is used to connect Australia with Singapore to transmit electricity coming from solar panel.

Singapore I believe use some economic card to sweeten the deal, just Google where you can find news saying that some project in Batam, other island in Riau island province, and Tanjung Priok port will get huge Singapore funding.

I think there is no wrong in using some of our space and sea for their military training as long as permission should still be asked by them and with limited period of time every year. Singapore is not our threat, and better if we have stronger relationship with them than current one.

------------------------------------------

Parliament Today under Jokowi is different with during SBY period. Jokowi is able to get 80 % support from parliament for their administration. Golkar is quite solid supporting Jokowi and even Prabowo (Gerindra) is supporting the deal. PPP is also quite solid since their leader has very important position in cabinet which is Bappenas Head.