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

[Chestnut]

If it through DCS there is no DSCA

If it's a fighter it has to go through DSCA

 

[Chestnut]

i'm reading some quora stuff, ended like: wow, some poster seems very know what he/she's doing but there is some mistaken if my memory serve well, about f15ex and rafale procurement, Link-16 in TNI,, at first i think he/she writing it with comprehensive, but eventually some mistake and contradiction in his/her statement, anyone can elaborate in their discussion, or just give them "pencerahan", as far as i know so much mistake in her/his opinion

Mengapa Indonesia jadi membeli dan memborong Dassault Rafale, padahal jet tempur itu tidak diminati banyak negara?

Jawaban Kimberly T: Q: Mengapa Indonesia jadi membeli dan memborong Dassault Rafale, padahal jet tempur itu tidak diminati banyak negara? https://eurasiantimes.com/no-buyers-for-rafale-jets-why-almost-every-country-dumped-french-rafales-except-india/ A: Kabar dari Kemenhan mengatakan bahwa In...

id.quora.com

Give me the points that are confusing and I'll see if I can explain.

 

[San.geuk]

Give me the points that are confusing and I'll see if I can explain.

some of the poster said we don't have link16, but Afaik f16id has it, isn't it? j20 claim over 4.5gen fighter but suggest us to maximize the sutuc, t50, cn235 for patroling but seems against anything from buying 4.5 gen fighter, he/she stated we never have a change against j20 because we don't have 5th gen fighter but then questioning our procurement and our limitation over anything on SG assets, seems like very well know analist but in the wrong paradigma

 

[San.geuk]

If it through DCS there is no DSCA

how about link16 for our falcon and longbow? is it in DCS or we don't have it?

 

[trishna_amrta]

I'm tend to be more on the optimistic side . The shooting war won't start in 5 years time until mainland were confidence but things are gradually building up with the culmination of 5 years later period . We have a very tight window here and getting tighter by the minute...

Opening of hostility doesn't always mean bullet or missile flying. In the most likely case it will start in cyber domain. And by cyber domain, I wasn't referring to those forum buzzer either, those guys is at the bottom of the food chain.

Our utility infrastructure (power distribution) is extremely vulnerable. Remember during the last Jabodetabek blackout? In his visit to PLN JKW entourage were consisted mostly to cyber domain related officials. Apparently the presidential office were treating the whole fiasco as cyberattack until proven otherwise. Also keep in mind all those BTS towers only have less than 72 hours worth of fuel in them (most likely between 30 - 40 hours). WHEN our power grid get hit, it's not only the light that went out, but also our entire telecommunication. Good luck trying to order additional fuel for any generator set. The same things goes for agriculture produce. Without functional telecommunication (as in TCP/IP based), all economy activities including basic necessity will cease to function. The worst of all is all those cashless payment. All those EDC machines use mobile cellular connection to authorize transactions.

 

[trishna_amrta]

gw pusing bacanya

Best to avoid Quora, including r/Indonesia too. Although I'm still in Quora English, but even that is limited in certain topics due to Quora business model to endorse (paying ) for trolling. Most of the good writer have gradually left Quora for it.

 

[Parry Brima]

hmm the latest news about that is in about a few years ago we sign a contract to procure 1 T50 golden eagle from south korea to replace the one total lost cause of accident, and i still dont know have they been upgraded with radar or not

So far MoD seems to be against anything from Sokor, reluctant to continue both KFX/IFX program and 2nd batch order of CBG class submarine. He might be looking for the alternatives of T-50 as well.

While we're in discussions to buy Boeing F-15EX and Saab GlobalEye, why not ask them for T-7 Red Hawk. It's joint venture from both.

The price seems to be competitive, for USAF a total of 351 aircraft and 46 simulators, maintenance training, and support, are to be supplied at a program cost of US$9.2 billion. It's about $25 mil per aircraft.

Boeing also intends to offer an armed version of the T-7 as replacement for aging F-5.

 

[trishna_amrta]

Naval asymmetric warfare has become obsolete in the facteof satellite tracking + MPA's. Current satellite technology has progressed to the point that you can track a skiff fairly accurately with the aid of a manned/unmanned MPA aircraft. Why else do you think the Singaporeans largely abandoned their fast missile boat doctrine in favor of satellites, large warships, MPA's and and Strike Eagles equipped with Harpoons?

Yes ASSUMING you actually were looking for them and somehow know WHERE to look for them. Furthermore, one can always tell the orbit, thus reliably predict WHEN the bird will come into view.

way of doing things is applicable for their geographic condition, in this case they are being a city state. Moreover, their military establishment need to justify their relevancy of their very existence to their lawmaker (to keep theflowing)

No such thing as absolute when real bullets start flying for real. It came down in HOW, WHERE, and WHEN to apply a certain type of warfare. It's not about the theory but is about the execution.

You are VASTLY underestimating the ability of the Chinese electronics industry. Remember, they have far surpassed Russia's by 20-10 years, and are catching up behind the United States by 10-8. Do you really think a country that largely prioritizes their military (and have been constantly developing new military technologies) can't simply create (and improve) something based off technology that they stole or bought? If they can create the J-20 and the J-31 just from technical data stolen from the F-35 program, or the Z-20 from the Blackhawk; You really think China can't simply recreate the stuff that they bought from France? Remember, IP rights means nothing to them.

Based upon that logic of yours, that also mean it will be the same with buying anything from . Because had stolen & reverse engineering everything they bought right

I worked for that procurement process, I know for a fact it's a cash grab scheme. What benefit for a nation would it be we get something that would inevitably be a defense budget sinkhole? The army Alone is already cash strapped because of the constant purchase of assets that more or less functions the same, to do that to a an aircraft would be 10 times worse by the operational costs alone.

What is that isn't money grab in any gov't Does military procurement isn't money grab eeech sorry I mean "jobs creation" Does any platform design requirement was actually dictated by the end user and designed by engineers rather than by a committeeor as an example, does Boeing doesn't lobbying FAA to get that suicidal B-737 MAX to get approved

Gado-gado doctrine simply does not work and if you don't believe me, simply ask those over on places like DefenceTalk, r/credibledefense, etc. who are FAR mor experienced in the industry that I am.

Unfortunately, neither you or any of those sales rep eeech sorry I mean "Industrial Expert" would be in the line of fire and putting & risking their lives in the line of duty WHEN whatever it is you / they were proposing will be in actual combat operation.

If its were up to me, whenever someone came offering let say for example a body armour, that is rated for whatever cartridge. I will ask that sales rep eeech sorry I mean Industrial rep to wear it on and shoot him with the very cartridge that he was claiming the body armour is rated for.

Their aim IS the natural resources. The one thing the US has that they don't are oil reserves. if their aim is to control the strait than the 9 dash line would be FAR larger.

See the green blocks? That's Vietnam's gas block claims that are currently trying to be controlled by China. There is no point in China attempting to control the strai if US Navy ships can simply blockade any Chinese bound cargo ship heading towards the strait while it's in the Indian Ocean/Pacific Ocean.

View attachment 15008

That maybe true indeed, HOWEVER also have need to surge their fleet into Indian Ocean and also to secure commerce traffic which also include petroleum from the Gulf. Having railroad connection that goes all the way to is a start. However, when one is playing the long game, a single point of failure isn't an acceptable solution either. Thus, their need to also secure SEALOC between into the Indian Ocean

 

[Chestnut]

some of the poster said we don't have link16, but Afaik f16id has it, isn't it?

We only have a CISMOA agreement signed about it, meaning we can get but it whether or not it is here is anyone's guess.

j20 claim over 4.5gen fighter but suggest us to maximize the sutuc, t50, cn235 for patroling but seems against anything from buying 4.5 gen fighter

I think he's prioritizing over Maritime strike and patrol assets as the only thing the PLAAF has that can reach us in one go from their reefs are the Xian H-6 strategic bombers, which could arguably be countered by a strong and networked naval fleet.

he/she stated we never have a change against j20 because we don't have 5th gen fighter but then questioning our procurement and our limitation over anything on SG assets, seems like very well know analist but in the wrong paradigma

This is just misinformation, the DEWS is theorized to be able to counter any Chinese airborne EW equipment, you don't need EPAWWS for that. Furthermore he is under the impression that China would commit it's still nascent fleet of J-20 into frontline combat instead of homeland defense. You're going to see much more J-10 and J-11/15/16's in an air war outside of China.

 

[this is crunch]

Yes ASSUMING you actually were looking for them and somehow know WHERE to look for them. Furthermore, one can always tell the orbit, thus reliably predict WHEN the bird will come into view.

way of doing things is applicable for their geographic condition, in this case they are being a city state. Moreover, their military establishment need to justify their relevancy of their very existence to their lawmaker (to keep theflowing)

No such thing as absolute when real bullets start flying for real. It came down in HOW, WHERE, and WHEN to apply a certain type of warfare. It's not about the theory but is about the execution.


Based upon that logic of yours, that also mean it will be the same with buying anything from . Because had stolen & reverse engineering everything they bought right


What is that isn't money grab in any gov't Does military procurement isn't money grab eeech sorry I mean "jobs creation" Does any platform design requirement was actually dictated by the end user and designed by engineers rather than by a committeeor as an example, does Boeing doesn't lobbying FAA to get that suicidal B-737 MAX to get approved


Unfortunately, neither you or any of those sales rep eeech sorry I mean "Industrial Expert" would be in the line of fire and putting & risking their lives in the line of duty WHEN whatever it is you / they were proposing will be in actual combat operation.

If its were up to me, whenever someone came offering let say for example a body armour, that is rated for whatever cartridge. I will ask that sales rep eeech sorry I mean Industrial rep to wear it on and shoot him with the very cartridge that he was claiming the body armour is rated for.


That maybe true indeed, HOWEVER also have need to surge their fleet into Indian Ocean and also to secure commerce traffic which also include petroleum from the Gulf. Having railroad connection that goes all the way to is a start. However, when one is playing the long game, a single point of failure isn't an acceptable solution either. Thus, their need to also secure SEALOC between into the Indian Ocean

im sorry to interupt your discussion,but, is it something automatically become an emoticon like flag and question marks or you intended to use the emoticons

 

[reashot_xigwin]

Everyone knows we are militarily unable to do that. We can barely do regular patrols as it is, and to think we can attempt to sink a ship, (let alone a warship_ would simply put US in the wrong.


You would know that once money in involved, politics and ideologies goes right out the window.

The threat alone would have push insurance through the roof and cause disruption. No one mention we going to do it now but later when heavier frigates, destroyers (hopefully) & subs comes along. Not to mention air or ground assets.

Trade interdection is as old as naval warfare you don't need complete control just enough to make the enemy suffers. The loss in a few months are already expected in the tens of millions if not billions as time progresses. Also if a shooting war starts with china we would have the world backing by then it doesn't matters who's right or wrong.

This is about money. If we interdict global trade the QUAD countries and beyond even would immediately intervene putting china on hold and bringing both sides to the negotiating table. And guess which side benefit the most from the ceasefire and return to negotiation? Also real talk if there is actually interdiction going on it most likely the US doing most of the work and and we will only serves in auxiliary role. Even Australia defense plan include mine laying in the strait of Malacca meaning there is some sort of agreement and plans going on between the three countries.

 

[Chestnut]

Yes ASSUMING you actually were looking for them and somehow know WHERE to look for them. Furthermore, one can always tell the orbit, thus reliably predict WHEN the bird will come into view.

You are severely underestimating the ability of modern satellite tracking.

This is a satellite picture of the Lianoing Carrier Battlegroup that was taken by an American COMMERCIAL satellite. No help from surface combatants or MPA's whatsoever. So tell me again how you can't track ship based on satellite data alone.

way of doing things is applicable for their geographic condition, in this case they are being a city state. Moreover, their military establishment need to justify their relevancy of their very existence to their lawmaker (to keep theflowing)

Actually, apart from larger range one of the reasons they replaced the Fearless-Class PV's with the independence class is that they realized that the Missile Boat doctrine became obsolete in the fact of modern satellite tracking. You can ask OPSSG on DefenceTalk for the data on that, not my call to share it,

No such thing as absolute when real bullets start flying for real. It came down in HOW, WHERE, and WHEN to apply a certain type of warfare. It's not about the theory but is about the execution.

Nice rhetoric, still doesn't support your argument.

What is that isn't money grab in any gov't Does military procurement isn't money grab eeech sorry I mean "jobs creation" Does any platform design requirement was actually dictated by the end user and designed by engineers rather than by a committeeor as an example, does Boeing doesn't lobbying FAA to get that suicidal B-737 MAX to get approved

The difference is that when 1st world nations pick a product to procure, it is ALWAYS made by the lowest bidder. There's enough documentation you can see of how much operating the Rafale is vs. operating the F-15 or the F-16. Why else only 3 countries outside of France uses them? And those 3 aren't very known for their great procurement plans.

Unfortunately, neither you or any of those sales rep eeech sorry I mean "Industrial Expert" would be in the line of fire and putting & risking their lives in the line of duty WHEN whatever it is you / they were proposing will be in actual combat operation.

If its were up to me, whenever someone came offering let say for example a body armour, that is rated for whatever cartridge. I will ask that sales rep eeech sorry I mean Industrial rep to wear it on and shoot him with the very cartridge that he was claiming the body armour is rated for.

Ah yes see here is the quote I was waiting for, when someone has nothing else they can argue to me, they'll just call me a sales rep. The fact that you used an ad hominem as an insult means you have nothing else to say and you just lost the argument.

Maybe instead of trying to insult people who are more experienced than with a 'brash' tone, or claiming how all the younger generation are lazy and pathetic and how much of a mad man you are, you'd spend all that energy formulating a better argument.

That maybe true indeed, HOWEVER also have need to surge their fleet into Indian Ocean and also to secure commerce traffic which also include petroleum from the Gulf. Having railroad connection that goes all the way to is a start. However, when one is playing the long game, a single point of failure isn't an acceptable solution either. Thus, their need to also secure SEALOC between into the Indian Ocean

And to do that, they need oil from the SCS to sustain that campaign. Having oil right in your front yard is a better option vs. getting oil from your neighbor two blocks down.

 

[Chestnut]

The threat alone would have push insurance through the roof and cause disruption. No one mention we going to do it now but later when heavier frigates, destroyers (hopefully) & subs comes along. Not to mention air or ground assets.

The thing is we're discussing as US threatening the Chinese or France (which is laughable)

Your other points however I do agree, but since we know that France tends to go their own way in regards to NATO, this goes back to my argument that there is no surefire guarantee that the will keep supplying parts let alone make a ToT deal that looks good on paper AND in practice.

 

[reashot_xigwin]

The thing is we're discussing as US threatening the Chinese or France (which is laughable)

Your other points however I do agree, but since we know that France tends to go their own way in regards to NATO, this goes back to my argument that there is no surefire guarantee that the will keep supplying parts let alone make a ToT deal that looks good on paper AND in practice.

You should quote the correct post it's confusing what you meant by here.

Isn't that the whole reasons why we have the "don't put all our eggs in one basket" military approach? Just saying the word Embargo is enough to sends most of the top military generals running away like little girl. So I think our MoD knows better to keep our options open. But at least we keeping it in the NATO family in terms of ALUTSISTA.

 

[Required]

The difference is that when 1st world nations pick a product to procure, it is ALWAYS made by the lowest bidder. There's enough documentation you can see of how much operating the Rafale is vs. operating the F-15 or the F-16. Why else only 3 countries outside of France uses them? And those 3 aren't very known for their great procurement plans.

So, If we have Great Procurement Plan we should scraps our Rafale plan?

But yeah, I think it will be "cheaper" if we continue with Viper To fill the blank spot, F-15 EX to replace SU and F-5, and TA-50i to replace Hawk and fill our LIFT sq.

Then gradually replace our F-16 with KFX and drone Sq.

Our maintenance and procurement staff would be happy with this. But embargoes issues will be strong with this plan haha.

 

[trishna_amrta]

im sorry to interupt your discussion,but, is it something automatically become an emoticon like flag and question marks or you intended to use the emoticons

It was by intent. I just prefer to use emoticon if available rather than mentioning something

 

[trishna_amrta]

Trade interdection is as old as naval warfare you don't need complete control just enough to make the enemy suffers. The loss in a few months are already expected in the tens of millions if not billions as time progresses. Also if a shooting war starts with china we would have the world backing by then it doesn't matters who's right or wrong.

This is about money. If we interdict global trade the QUAD countries and beyond even would immediately intervene putting china on hold and bringing both sides to the negotiating table. And guess which side benefit the most from the ceasefire and return to negotiation? Also real talk if there is actually interdiction going on it most likely the US doing most of the work and and we will only serves in auxiliary role. Even Australia defense plan include mine laying in the strait of Malacca meaning there is some sort of agreement and plans going on between the three countries.

I extremely doubt any party will be insane enough to even saying upfront in public that their side is intent to block the Malacca Strait. The economic cost is simply far too high. However, I believe that is also the main reason for developing that railroad route from , In case there is any disruption in Malacca Strait, there will be an alternate route for trade.

 

[trishna_amrta]

You are severely underestimating the ability of modern satellite tracking.

View attachment 15014

This is a satellite picture of the Lianoing Carrier Battlegroup that was taken by an American COMMERCIAL satellite. No help from surface combatants or MPA's whatsoever. So tell me again how you can't track ship based on satellite data alone.

I'm not underestimating the capability of modern based surveillance. If the target is cruising in a predictable manner from the time they set off from the port, and as it happen there is a available that covering the area, or in a narrow waterway, etc. The point is, there isn't enough up there to cover the entire world oceans.

No such thing as absolute when real bullets start flying for real. It came down in HOW, WHERE, and WHEN to apply a certain type of warfare. It's not about the theory but is about the execution.

Nice rhetoric, still doesn't support your argument.

Does anyone have ever put to the test what works & what doesn't before the actual combat

Only after the fact happen does anyone could determine what works & what doesn't. Anything beforehand is academic at best.

The difference is that when 1st world nations pick a product to procure, it is ALWAYS made by the lowest bidder. There's enough documentation you can see of how much operating the Rafale is vs. operating the F-15 or the F-16. Why else only 3 countries outside of France uses them? And those 3 aren't very known for their great procurement plans.

Wasn't defending Rafale deal. In fact the way I see it, it's better to go with mix of Viper + either Super Eagle or Super Hornet. But then again anything is better than none.

However, big ticket items tend to come with offset deals (whatever that is), although not sure what get in return (counter trade or something else) from from this deal

 

[trishna_amrta]

Ah yes see here is the quote I was waiting for, when someone has nothing else they can argue to me, they'll just call me a sales rep. The fact that you used an ad hominem as an insult means you have nothing else to say and you just lost the argument.

Maybe instead of trying to insult people who are more experienced than with a 'brash' tone, or claiming how all the younger generation are lazy and pathetic and how much of a mad man you are, you'd spend all that energy formulating a better argument.

I need to address this separately.

Neither of my comment was specifically intended to aim or insult you in person. I was arguing your points. If I were going ad hominem at you (of which I'm not), it will be a lot more than just associating you as part of any grouping. Whether you felt insulted or whatever is your business. And yet so far (in regard to the quoted above) the only one whose going ad hominem is you toward me, not to mention you also indirectly bragging about yourself, and making whatever claims out of the blue.

If you feel insulted then just put me in your ignore list and be done with it. Beside neither of us get paid to write anything here, so nobody loss anything.

 

[NEKO]

So far MoD seems to be against anything from Sokor, reluctant to continue both KFX/IFX program and 2nd batch order of CBG class submarine. He might be looking for the alternatives of T-50 as well.

While we're in discussions to buy Boeing F-15EX and Saab GlobalEye, why not ask them for T-7 Red Hawk. It's joint venture from both.

The price seems to be competitive, for USAF a total of 351 aircraft and 46 simulators, maintenance training, and support, are to be supplied at a program cost of US$9.2 billion. It's about $25 mil per aircraft.

Boeing also intends to offer an armed version of the T-7 as replacement for aging F-5.

View attachment 15013

And have T50i and T7A as our LIFT? Lets just stick with T50