- Nov 24, 2020
- Reaction score
- Nation of residence
- Nation of origin
i think its a not realistic ranking system because it misplaced the ammunition
There is a rank from global fire power, which counts only by quantity:
Ranking total aircraft fleet strength by country, from highest to lowest.www.globalfirepower.com
Which is silly. There are many other ranks which use subjective opinions. I decided to make a rank based both on quality and quantity. Of course it is far from perfect but surelly better than global fire power approach.
Well usually countries which buy aircraft also buy adequate ammunition. I did downgrade ranks of Egyptian and Iraqi F-16s for their lack of AMRAAMs however.i think its a not realistic ranking system because it misplaced the ammunition
I used F-16C as base (1 air to air and 1 air to ground points). And estimated power. If u have better ranking method u are welcome to use it.What is the methodology that you used for your ranking?
I used F-16C as base (1 air to air and 1 air to ground points). And estimated power. If u have better ranking method u are welcome to use it.
Mea culpa. Added to list.
Based on the airpower scores racked up in this arbitrary ranking, Indonesia also can not be said to be a leader in the ASEAN region.
Indonesia can not be said to be a leader in the wider Islamic world based on the airpower scores of its inventory of aircrafts.
Indonesia can be closely compared with Bangladesh and Nigeria. Arguably it more closely resembles Nigeria than Bangladesh. For example, both Indonesia and Nigeria are the most populous countries in their respective regions of ASEAN and Africa.
Both of these two countries are said to possess the two largest economies within their respective socioeconomic, regional and/or religious bloc. Indonesia being the biggest economy in ASEAN and the wider Muslim world, Nigeria being the biggest economy in Africa, Subsaharan Africa, Western Africa and in what can be termed the Black World.
However, militarily, technologically or in terms of advanced scientific developments, both of these countries are overshadowed by numerous countries within their respective socioeconomic, regional and/or religious blocs.
Indonesia lacks advanced technologies possessed or developed by its immediate neighbour to the South (Australia) or even tiny neighbour in Singapore. In some sectors, other neighbours such as Malaysia or Thailand still lead Indonesia quite comfortably.
Other countries such as Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, China or India can also be seen clearly leading Indonesia in various civilian and defence technologies.
Moving beyond the immediate region, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Algeria, Morocco, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan can be said to possess more powerful aircrafts in their inventory.
Many of these countries possess technologies that are yet to be mastered by Indonesia. Such as nuclear weapons in Pakistan, medium range ballistic missiles in Pakistan, submarine launched cruise missiles in Pakistan, partially assembled and manufactured fighter aircrafts such as JF-17.
Similarly, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and numerous other countries may be said to be more advanced than Indonesia in various parameters of interest.
Nigeria would not be too different in that Egypt, arguably, remains the best armed, equipped and trained military in Africa. South African civilian and defence industrial base can be said to be considerably more advanced than Nigeria's in many ways.
Morocco and Algeria can also lay claims to being leaders ahead of Nigeria in some specialized areas or niche areas.
In short, a slightly bigger population and therefore a slightly larger economy, by themselves, are not sufficient to propel a country to the status of undisputed leader of a region or bloc.
Mastery of more complicated ideas, technologies, scientific knowledge is a prerequisite that is ignored all too often.
Indonesia, like Nigeria, trails many countries within the neighbourhood or within their regional, cultural or religious bloc by quite some margin in those aspects.
Turkey has 150 male class armed UAV against ground forces... i think the best way would be to compare them with Air to Air capabilities.. other that that wouldnt be fair i think... but we could give little more additional points for having transport aircrafts as they are also important..Well usually countries which buy aircraft also buy adequate ammunition. I did downgrade ranks of Egyptian and Iraqi F-16s for their lack of AMRAAMs however.
I used F-16C as base (1 air to air and 1 air to ground points). And estimated power. If u have better ranking method u are welcome to use it.
The reason Indonesia doesnt have nuclear weapon is merely due to political than capability.
Indonesia has already had nuclear research since 1954 and build its first nuclear reactor in early 1960. There is CIA report saying Soekarno seeks to build nuclear weapon during his tenure alone. He was replaced by Soeharto before he can achieve his ambition. Soeharto is more practical and prefer economic growth than becoming some sort of world power like Soekarno.
Pakistan on the other hand needs to have nuclear weapon after India has one already. We dont have such situation. During Soeharto period, Indonesia is the only big guy in the region. Today the situation is different after China emerges and start showing her present in SCS (South East Asia). Despite so, the situation is still under control and we are not going to make one unless there is real threat.
For your information, Indonesia nuclear institution (BATAN) makes their own nuclear fuel already and is under close supervision of IAEA. Indonesia prefers growing their economy than getting sanction from Western world. We can see Iran GDP get stuck the moment they get sanction by UN and US due to their nuclear program under their conservative government.
Many of your analysis actually are not really deep and only see something in the surface to draw a conclusion. I also see emotion has also entered your analyst that make your judgement is not fair. I know some of your other claims are also wrong but I dont want to reveal here as it is related to other brotherly nations, but I want to reveal non Muslim nation example, South Africa.
Do you think their defense industry is built by who ? Do you know past history of South Africa, dont you...This is why comparing Nigeria with South Africa is just another example showing that your analysis lack of depth.
I'm not going to address everything but Indonesia does in fact have nuclear reactors built, solely for research purposes, however.Irrelevant and false.
Irrelevant because we never discussed why Indonesia lacks nuclear weapons. It is a simple fact that Indonesia, like many other countries, lacks nuclear weapons.
False because, although irrelevant but you brought this topic up, we may as well discuss it briefly. Indonesia simply does not possess the required trained technical manpower, raw materials, industry and political will to build nuclear weapons.
There is not a single commercial nuclear reactor in Indonesia as of today. The evidence for Indonesia's incapability in nuclear technologies is overwhelming.
There has never been a single Indonesian designed and built nuclear reactor in existence. Irrespective of whether the reactors were built for commercial or "research" purposes, there has never been a single Indonesian designed and built nuclear reactor.
This is inaccurate on so many levels, it is hard to explicate.
First, Indonesia has never designed and built an indigenous nuclear reactor. Purchasing research reactors from abroad, which the USA was selling to plenty of countries for such ridiculous programmes as "Atoms for Peace", does not constitute mastery or development of any nuclear technologies.
Two, CIA and other American intelligence agencies had provided the intel that Saddam Hussein-led Iraq was on the verge of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMD. Using such false intelligence, the American administration led the illegal - under international law - invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA or other American intelligence agencies are not incapable of intelligence failures. Those same agencies do not only publish reports for the sake of divulging otherwise secret information. They also publish reports with an oftentimes political inclination.
As of 2020, Indonesia has yet to design and built a single nuclear reactor, whether for commercial or 'research' purposes.
This is a false line of argumentation.
For instance, according to this line of argumentation, Bangladesh, Nepal or Sri Lanka needs nuclear weapons more urgently than Pakistan since India already possess such weapons, and the Pakistani Armed Forces is substantially more capable than that of all of those three countries combined in more ways than one.
Similarly, you could argue Japan, South Korea and Taiwan would have needed nuclear weapons since China has long had such weapons and since, recently, North Korea has developed and acquired them.
A similar argument would also hold for numerous other countries in other parts of the world. Plenty of countries in the Latin American region, wary of American history of military interventions, assisted coups and regime change operations, would have all the reasons to develop and/or acquire such weapons.
This line of argumentation can be extended further to the Middle East region. Arab and non Arab majority countries alike would like to develop and/or acquire such weapons to counter the American, Israeli, Russian, French and/or British arsenal.
The same line of argumentation can be equally applicable to many countries in the African region, Caucasus region, ASEAN or Oceania region.
I hope it is clear to see that this line of argumentation does not merit much consideration.
The bulk of the world remains without any nuclear weapons in their inventory, as much as they would have liked reality to be different.
Thank you for this entirely useless piece of information.
Although useless, this piece of information still deserves some thanks because it reveals, once again, that Indonesia has never in its entire history designed and built a single nuclear reactor, whether for commercial or for 'research' purposes.
As much as some people may like to be in denial or would hope reality would be altered, the bitter reality remains that the vast majority of the world's countries are not in possession of any nuclear weapons.
The discussion about Iran is again, irrelevant. The regime has repeatedly insisted it never seeks nuclear weapons. Whether such assurances are credible or not, the fact remains due to their political stance, the West would always oppose Iran so long as the current regime is in power.
As simple as that.
Such examples could be seen in Saddam Hussein led Iraq, where the country was invaded by the USA and allies/poodles (depending on how you call them) irrespective of Iraq abandoning any such programme and undergoing intense UN-supervision (read: Western intelligence operatives scouring the length and breadth of Iraq for any 'smoking guns' evidence) and irrespective of its proven inability to develop any medium, intermediate or inter continental ranged ballistic missiles.
Such examples could also be seen in Libya, where the Gaddafi regime had abandoned its nuclear and WMD programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Only to be backstabbed later, by the same Western powers that had assured him earlier that abandoning nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems development programmes is in the best interests of Libya.
Irrespective of Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programme being shelved, or otherwise, the regime will continue to be under American/Western/Israeli crosshairs due to its very nature so long as it remains in power.
Therefore, while you made an irrelevant detour on the Iranian nuclear file, the point you made was unfortunately not in line with reality.
There are mostly ad-hominems and you would be well served in not resorting to such tactics when presenting your arguments.
Although I could pay you back in the same coin, the fact remains I do not need to as I consider myself above such childish tactics.
If you want to deviate into the topic of emotional outbursts, a certain member @Zafer and his emotional outbursts (that were subsequently well handled by moderator @Test7) or your irrelevant detours oftentimes containing inconsistent and illogical arguments as well as conveniently skirting bitter facts, may be worth taking a look into.
It can be argued that your lengthy detours on Indonesian supposed nuclear capabilities, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is an example of shallow emotional outbursts that arose due to personal insecurities.
However, such arguments serve no purpose. Ad hominems do not improve the quality of any discussion. All members would do well to avoid ad hominems.
The first question may require rephrasing.
The second question may also require a greater deal of explanation.
Which particular period in South African history are you referring to? And how may they be relevant to our original discussion? That South African civilian and defence industrial development leaves their Nigerian counterpart in the dust?
Let us try avoid emotional outbursts because bitter facts are often hard to swallow.
You are free, at your convenience, to look up the first Muslim majority country to have publicly detonated a nuclear weapon and also the first Muslim majority country to have designed and developed a nuclear reactor.
I can assure you that country would not be Indonesia. I can also assure you that country would not be Nigeria, Bangladesh or Malaysia.
It is not unreasonable, as I have argued elsewhere previously in this forum, to list Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as, arguably, the five most militarily powerful Muslim majority countries on the planet.
The Emirati regime, the regimes in Morocco or Algeria might also deserve an honourable mention. Perhaps, if the modernization attempts by the State of Qatar are successfully completed, their small but probably well equipped and probably well trained military may also deserve a mention.
I am not sure why your long and irrelevant detours, often filled with irrelevant or false facts and inconsistent and illogical arguments have to do with the totally inadequate Indonesian air force inventory.
The purpose of this thread, by Zionist regime/Israeli (depending on how you view it) member @500 was to approximate, using arbitrary effectiveness numbers assigned to each model of aircraft, to compile a rank of national airpower.
The 'national airpower score', if you can call it so, is a somewhat useful indicator of the effective airpower that can be mustered by a country based on aircrafts in their inventory - as estimated by the member @500.
It is not clear how he addressed such concerns as the multiplier effects of special missions aircrafts and whether the presence of an inordinately high number of bomber aircrafts in USAF inventory distorts the 'national airpower scores' for some countries.
It is also not clear if stealth, or low observable, aircrafts were awarded adequate scores for their air to air or air to surface capabilities.
Some intangible factors, as outlined in my previous post in this thread, were also hard to quantify and account for.
This comment is once again showing your impulse to talk about Indonesia geopolitical status with the urge to try to down play it in many of your posts.Based on the airpower scores racked up in this arbitrary ranking, Indonesia also can not be said to be a leader in the ASEAN region.
This comment is once again showing your impulse to talk about Indonesia geopolitical status with the urge to try to down play it in many of your posts.
I will try to answer it. With our current military equipment we have been regarded as regional power in ASEAN countries and it is actually a general understanding where knowledgeable people usually know. We dont need to have Air Force that is more powerful than Singapore in order to be regarded as regional power/leader in the region.
You need to see what leaders and big country formal think thank opinion to understand geopolitics situation in our region (South East Asia). Obama administration first foreign visit is to Japan, China, and Indonesia. Trump is not a parameter since he is considered as acting beyond the US general foreign policy but Trump administration still show great importance on US-Indonesia relationship despite we reject their demand to give them access for permanent air- refueling airbase where Malaysia fulfill it and Singapore is under US military protection PACT. Japan new administration first foreign visit is to Vietnam (current ASEAN chairman) and Indonesia.
To give you more perspective of what leaders and strategists are thinking I would give this statement from Chinese think thank that has close relationship with China government. It is in Global Times, Chinese government mouth piece. The statements are still fresh.
Source: Global Times Published: 2020/12/22 19:23:39
Zheng Yongnian (Zheng), Presidential Chair Professor, Director of The Advanced Institute of Global and Contemporary China Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen), shared his views on these issues with Global Times (GT) reporter Xu Hailin in a telephone interview.
GT: The world has been through so much in 2020. History will record it. What concerns you the most going forward into next year and beyond? And what do you expect most?
Zheng: Even if there was no COVID-19 pandemic, structural changes in the world had started. The coronavirus has accelerated many of emerging trends. The downfall of China-US ties and the US-launched trade war against China was already happening before the pandemic. These changes are a reflection of the West's relative decline and China's rapid growth. The changes are related to the United Nations-centered world order established after the WWII, and how it can be rebuilt.
The current world structure was basically built with the US as its center. I suppose, in the future world, there might not be any country that can build the world with itself as the core. The world won't be polarized but multipollar: China is growing; Russia remains a strong power; Germany and India are rising; and regional big powers like Indonesia are also getting a bigger role on the international stage.
Therefore, the world in the future will not be US-centered or China-centered, but multipolar. The scope of multilateralism that China has been adhering to is a great trend for the world. This is a reality and it is more in line with the interests of different countries.
I will try to respond to your latest post if I have some time but before that I would like to know your education first if you dont mind. What is your educational status ? Bachelor or master or Phd degree ? Do you get that from Canadian universities or non-Western universities ? I will disclose mine first to make it fair as I am just a bachelor degree from one of Indonesian universities.
If you dont mind to further disclose your identity, are you man or woman ? To make my question fair I will disclose mine as the photo in my profile is my own, so I am a man.
Indonesia can bought more fighter aircraft in hundreds if needed, the annual budget of more than 180 Billion US Dollar is clearly let us do that, and period of 1959 to 1965 is the obvious example on how determined Indonesia can be if needed.
That is equally as naive as thinking Indonesia can develop nuclear weapons at any time if it wanted to.
Reality is more complicated and oftentimes, bitter reality is hard to accept.
The reality is Indonesian air force, navy and armed forces, in general, remain in pitiful state.
Purchasing weapons is only one part of the equation. Saudi Arabian armed forces do not become exceedingly competent on account of purchasing a lot of overpriced weapons.
Even on this metric, Indonesia has repeatedly fallen short. We are yet to see any real progress on the development of Indonesian Armed Forces.
We have only seen speculation, discussions, negotiations, haggling, cancellation of contracts, failures after failures to meet publicized objectives such as "Minimum Essential Force".
We are yet to see this mythical mighty powerful Indonesian military, Air Force, Navy, Army, Ballistic and Cruise Missile Force, Nuclear Power that can lay waste to countries in any corner of the world.
More than half of Israel territory (about 13,000 km) is Negev desert: 200 x 120 x 220 km triangle. Its enough to put airbases and training + training can be done over sea also.