What's new

Indonesia Defence Forum

That's what he said.


Oknum anggota dewan terhormat : "LOL Noob"


As non russian fanboys it is sad if su35 purchase to be terminated, F16 is a good jet fighter, relatively cheap to maintain and operate, even our technician can upgrade it here, but we need non western jet too.
Because of US embargoes in the past we started to operate Flankers and when we want to get the newest version of Flanker E the US threathened to give sanctions, sounds like more reason for us to get more Russian stuff.

More sukhoi = good
More F16 = good
More F16 + anti embargoes card = GOOD

Hi All..! First time poster (in PDF), long time lurker... :)

I agree with you that it will be sad to see the SU 35 terminated, I also really prefer that we continue with the purchase...

No, it's not because I think the Su35 is Russian strong Uberfighter... but because the Flanker family (Su27/30/35) is simply not replaceable by smaller fighters like the F-16. Flankers and Falcons are different classes of fighters with different set of strengths and weaknesses. It’s not like the Su35 is so much better than the F16V or vice versa. Both classes complement each other and should not be mutually exclusive.

For example, Flankers can fly very long distances carrying lots of ordinances without carrying fuel tanks, while F-16s other than short range patrols, will need to carry fuel tanks anywhere or use air refueling (which we don't have). On the other hand F-16s are easier/cheaper to operate and maintain, and so are more cost effective for routine air patrols or interceptions than Flankers. Both Flankers and Falcons have excellent maneuverability and dogfighting abilities, although the new F16V is reportedly less agile compared to F16A/B even with more powerful engine due to the increased weight and the addition of CFT in F16V. Meanwhile Su35 is actually more agile than the older Su27 due to better aerodynamics, TVC and more powerful engines. F16V on the other hand most probably have better radars and avionics compared to Su35. For AAM (short and long range) I say both are roughly comparable, although AMRAAM is probably better.

One point which I feel really lacking in Falcons (other than its short range) is its limited Maritime Strike ability... a very important capability for an archipelagic nation like ours.. Falcons can carry only.. Harpoon and Penguin, both are slow/subsonic ASMs with short (Penguin) to medium (Harpoon) range... Flankers on the other hand can also carry heavier longer range supersonic ASMs (KH-31/Brahmos/Yakhont) in addition to subsonic ASMs... This is not surprising as in the US, naval strike is mostly the domain of USN with its F-18s and not the USAF. Additionally I have never seen our Falcons equipped with Harpoon, even after operating it for about 30 years. So either we don’t have it or our Falcons are not equipped to carry it. On the other hand we seem to already have some Kh-31 and Kh-59 for our Flankers. So it’s clear that TNI-AU also considers Maritime strike capability important, but for some reason still decided not to provide our Falcons with ASMs, only the Flankers.

In short, even though F16V is an excellent fighter, it’s simply is not a suitable replacement for Su35/30. Just like we shouldn’t replace our C130B/H with C295 simply because it’s cheaper and easier to maintain. Or replace the old Van Speijk frigates with KCR60. The size and capabilities are simply too different. We need to have them both. We should purchase both. If the US really don’t want us to have the Su35, they better offer us a comparable jet, the F-15, with very favorable pricing.

But even with F-15 in the offering, I would probably still prefer we get the Su35… Again not because the Su35 is considered better compared to F-15 or vice versa… but because I feel we need to diversify our sources / partners. We shouldn’t put all our eggs in a single basket, no matter how good or pretty that basket is. Too risky. In the past we have experienced military embargo / sanction from both Russia (during Orla to Orba) and the US (during Orba to Reformasi), and both times our capabilities suffered badly due to our over-reliance with a single partner. Based on that experience, instead of relying in only one of them, we should be friendly with both. But at the same time also not fully depend or rely on either of them completely. This is also inline with our foreign policy of “Bebas Aktif” and “Non-blok”.

Yes, there will be increased complexities with spare parts, interconnectivity etc… But I feel that the complexities / risks are acceptable, as those issues can be worked out (although with increased cost), but most importantly we will have better redundancy with our alutsista. We won’t suddenly lose 100% of our capability overnight just because we piss one of them.

We are currently in good terms with the US, which is good. But there’s no guarantee it’s going to be smooth sailing all the time… Orba regime was a diehard western/US fanboy and still they got sanctioned in the end. Who knows we too might piss the US (or Russia) in the future. Us partnering with different nations in terms of military hardware and development is a good hedging strategy.
 
Last edited:
.
Is it just me or everyone else also feel we kind of face more problems with Vietnamese than Chinese in North Natuna Sea. It's been multiple times we met their Maritime & Fishery Agency vessels interupting our authority there and hundreds times we seized their illegal fishing boats within our EEZ and check these from Fb page Vietdefense
Screenshot_2019-07-18-10-58-29.png
Screenshot_2019-07-18-10-58-45.png
Screenshot_2019-07-18-10-58-56.png
Screenshot_2019-07-18-10-59-13.png

Moreover a couple months ago, a Filipino fishing ship sunk, collided with Chinese vessel in Recto Bank. The tragic part isn't where Philippines Navy & Coast Guard unable to guarantee the security for their fishermen within their own EEZ, but those fishermen were rescued by illegal unwanted fishing ship from Vietnam, they even shamelessly admitted it below
Screenshot_2019-07-18-11-19-08-1.png

The situation now is clear, due to Chinese military heavy presence in Spratly is and sometimes in Scarborough shoals, both Vietnamese & Filipino fishermen lost their traditional fishing ground and so they go down south, to our waters. However, this particular nation Vietnam, their government not only close its eyes on its fishermen stealing behaviour, they sponsor them, endorse and facillitate them, worsened by Philippines Gov passive and defeatist attitude those Vietnamese perception grows it is new normal for them to fish in the " whole of SCS " whereas actually there are multiple claimants with their own EEZ. I say we should not let ourself to be like 2nd Philippines in this matter, i support Gov though policies battling illegal fishing but we need to build and expand our Navy, Coast Guard or any maritime law enforcements reflecting them
 
Last edited:
.
Is it just me or everyone else also feel we kind of face more problems with Vietnamese than Chinese in North Natuna Sea. It's been multiple times we met their Maritime & Fishery Agency vessels interupting our authority there and hundreds times we seized their illegal fishing boats within our EEZ and check these from Fb page Vietdefense
View attachment 569790 View attachment 569791 View attachment 569792 View attachment 569793
Moreover a couple months ago, a Filipino fishing ship sunk, collided with Chinese vessel in Recto Bank. The tragic part isn't where Philippines Navy & Coast Guard unable to guarantee the security for their fishermen within their own EEZ, but those fishermen were rescued by illegal unwanted fishing ship from Vietnam, they even shamelessly admitted it below
View attachment 569794
Overlapping EEZ
 
. .
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/t...re-smart-choices-that-need-better-explaining/

Interesting writing on how Australia perceives Indonesian Air Force, rather actually a fact that mostly we deny

" Take the proposition that Indonesia will have ‘air superiority over northern Australia’ in coming years because they are ‘buying even more lethal Russian aircraft’.

Here’s the reality: the Indonesian Air Force struggles to get its combat aircraft off the ground. Poor-quality purchases mean that Indonesia has fewer than a dozen each of American F-5 and F-16 fighter aircraft along with British Hawk, South Korean T-50 and Russian Su-27 aircraft in fighter and ground attack roles and the Brazilian Super Tucano aircraft in a ground attack role.

That’s six aircraft types from five different countries—a disastrous logistic support recipe for a country with a defence budget one-quarter of Australia’s.

Indonesia is now buying 11 Russian Su-35 Flanker multirole fighter aircraft, which will add further to the burden of maintaining a mixed fleet of aircraft with separate supply lines, different weapons and different sensors.

The Indonesians also have no air-to-air refuelling aircraft and no airborne early warning and control aircraft that coordinate the fighting capabilities of multiple aircraft.

This is a far cry from dominating northern Australian airspace. In fact, the Indonesian Air Force is struggling to maintain a capacity to move troops around its own archipelago, which is why Australia has assisted Jakarta with airframes and maintenance for its C-130 Hercules transport aircraft.

Most Southeast Asian countries that have bought Russian fighter aircraft find that the only long-term use for them is to put them up on sticks in front of bases. No rational decision-making process focused on designing a sensible air force would go Russian. "
 
.
The situation now is clear, due to Chinese military heavy presence in Spratly is and sometimes in Scarborough shoals, both Vietnamese & Filipino fishermen lost their traditional fishing ground and so they go down south, to our waters. However, this particular nation Vietnam, their government not only close its eyes on its fishermen stealing behaviour, they sponsor them, endorse and facillitate them, worsened by Philippines Gov passive and defeatist attitude those Vietnamese perception grows it is new normal for them to fish in the " whole of SCS " whereas actually there are multiple claimants with their own EEZ. I say we should not let ourself to be like 2nd Philippines in this matter, i support Gov though policies battling illegal fishing but we need to build and expand our Navy, Coast Guard or any maritime law enforcements reflecting them

I couldnt agree more. Its nice to see our Coast Guard having and hopefully continue to have more ships to patrol. So in a future around EEZ would be civil vs civil. I recomment coast guard ships using thick steel to be ready for "boom-boom car" battle :D
 
.
.
I couldnt agree more. Its nice to see our Coast Guard having and hopefully continue to have more ships to patrol. So in a future around EEZ would be civil vs civil. I recomment coast guard ships using thick steel to be ready for "boom-boom car" battle :D
The points we need to be more assertive on our EEZ rights not just in diplomacy but also in actions, it's not impossible that they'll eventually send their grey hull instead of white ones in not too distant future

I just remember when pence meet jokowi in april 2017.with strategic partnership..
Same said pence bring some offer from boeing and LM..
What we agreed upon back then during VP Mike Pence state visit and yes not only Lockheed Martin & Boeing, companies such as Raytheon, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, etc have proposals to us
17966090_10156007131698538_4922095985422588676_o.jpg
Credit to Lockheedmartin.com
 
Last edited:
.
Hi All..! First time poster (in PDF), long time lurker... :)

I agree with you that it will be sad to see the SU 35 terminated, I also really prefer that we continue with the purchase...

No, it's not because I think the Su35 is Russian strong Uberfighter... but because the Flanker family (Su27/30/35) is simply not replaceable by smaller fighters like the F-16. Flankers and Falcons are different classes of fighters with different set of strengths and weaknesses. It’s not like the Su35 is so much better than the F16V or vice versa. Both classes complement each other and should not be mutually exclusive.

For example, Flankers can fly very long distances carrying lots of ordinances without carrying fuel tanks, while F-16s other than short range patrols, will need to carry fuel tanks anywhere or use air refueling (which we don't have). On the other hand F-16s are easier/cheaper to operate and maintain, and so are more cost effective for routine air patrols or interceptions than Flankers. Both Flankers and Falcons have excellent maneuverability and dogfighting abilities, although the new F16V is reportedly less agile compared to F16A/B even with more powerful engine due to the increased weight and the addition of CFT in F16V. Meanwhile Su35 is actually more agile than the older Su27 due to better aerodynamics, TVC and more powerful engines. F16V on the other hand most probably have better radars and avionics compared to Su35. For AAM (short and long range) I say both are roughly comparable, although AMRAAM is probably better.

One point which I feel really lacking in Falcons (other than its short range) is its limited Maritime Strike ability... a very important capability for an archipelagic nation like ours.. Falcons can carry only.. Harpoon and Penguin, both are slow/subsonic ASMs with short (Penguin) to medium (Harpoon) range... Flankers on the other hand can also carry heavier longer range supersonic ASMs (KH-31/Brahmos/Yakhont) in addition to subsonic ASMs... This is not surprising as in the US, naval strike is mostly the domain of USN with its F-18s and not the USAF. Additionally I have never seen our Falcons equipped with Harpoon, even after operating it for about 30 years. So either we don’t have it or our Falcons are not equipped to carry it. On the other hand we seem to already have some Kh-31 and Kh-59 for our Flankers. So it’s clear that TNI-AU also considers Maritime strike capability important, but for some reason still decided not to provide our Falcons with ASMs, only the Flankers.

In short, even though F16V is an excellent fighter, it’s simply is not a suitable replacement for Su35/30. Just like we shouldn’t replace our C130B/H with C295 simply because it’s cheaper and easier to maintain. Or replace the old Van Speijk frigates with KCR60. The size and capabilities are simply too different. We need to have them both. We should purchase both. If the US really don’t want us to have the Su35, they better offer us a comparable jet, the F-15, with very favorable pricing.

But even with F-15 in the offering, I would probably still prefer we get the Su35… Again not because the Su35 is considered better compared to F-15 or vice versa… but because I feel we need to diversify our sources / partners. We shouldn’t put all our eggs in a single basket, no matter how good or pretty that basket is. Too risky. In the past we have experienced military embargo / sanction from both Russia (during Orla to Orba) and the US (during Orba to Reformasi), and both times our capabilities suffered badly due to our over-reliance with a single partner. Based on that experience, instead of relying in only one of them, we should be friendly with both. But at the same time also not fully depend or rely on either of them completely. This is also inline with our foreign policy of “Bebas Aktif” and “Non-blok”.

Yes, there will be increased complexities with spare parts, interconnectivity etc… But I feel that the complexities / risks are acceptable, as those issues can be worked out (although with increased cost), but most importantly we will have better redundancy with our alutsista. We won’t suddenly lose 100% of our capability overnight just because we piss one of them.

We are currently in good terms with the US, which is good. But there’s no guarantee it’s going to be smooth sailing all the time… Orba regime was a diehard western/US fanboy and still they got sanctioned in the end. Who knows we too might piss the US (or Russia) in the future. Us partnering with different nations in terms of military hardware and development is a good hedging strategy.
These complexities can be very problematic sometimes, it cost us a lot of money and headache, not to mention the Flankers keeps needing "difficult" overhauls like the one being sent to Belarus. Russia is notoriously bad at customer service and there's enough proofs of that, not just from our own experience but also from the neighbors' too. We don'd need to scrap existing Flankers, but investing on a new one that's going to have the same problem as the old one is a really bad investment in the long-term. We are no China or India who hoard Russian technology en-masse, that in case of India they still have problem with maintenance even with such a scale of Flanker fleet.

Filling in that role of heavier fighter with heavier payload, higher performace and wider range of capability than Falcon, i think KFX/IFX will fit in that role just fine (they are designed for that requirement in mind anyway), as it is pretty much on the level of F-18 Hornet-Super Hornet in term of loaded weight, and the fact that it used F414 engine, it's performance won't be that far of from them, and IFX variant is projected to have higher range and higher capacity drop tanks to suit Indonesia's need. Not to mention that currently KFX/IFX program is seeking less dependence on US made components, so US sanction won't be that much of a trouble compared to with the case of F-16 and Flankers (US could still sanction us economically for these Flankers).
1S0TIC8G6S_1.jpg


https://www.boeing.com/global/boeing-southeast-asia/indonesia/index.page
What Boeing Defense, Space & Security offers Indonesia
AH-64E Apache
Boeing 737 AEWC Wedgetail
P-8 ASW Poseidon
KC-46A MRTT Pegasus
CH-47F Chinook
View attachment 569796 View attachment 569797
I'm supporting all of these offers.
 
Last edited:
.
we should made distance from the Briton

Indonesia condemns decision to award Benny Wenda
21 minutes ago

20170510antarafoto-presiden-tinjau-trans-papua-100517-ies-1.jpg

President Joko Widodo observed Trans Papua Road. The incumbent president (second right) was accompanied by TNI Commander General (TNI) Gatot Nurmantyo (fourth right) and Minister of Public Works and Public Housing Basuki Hadimuljono (left behind).

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Indonesia has strongly condemned the Oxford City Council’s decision to award Benny Wenda, a member of the West Papua movement separatist group, the Freedom of the City. "The Oxford City Council's has lack of understanding of Benny Wenda's action and the actual conditions of the Provinces of Papua and West Papua, including their development and progress," said a statement from Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jakarta Thursday.

Indonesia's position on separatist groups would remain firm. Indonesia will not retreat even an inch to enforce the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), the statement clarified.

The Oxford Freedom of the City Award announced for Wenda on July 17, 2019, was being presented to the wrong person because he believed in the use of violence to achieve his political goals, the Indonesian Embassy in London earlier said in its written statement.

The Indonesian Embassy in London questioned the basis for giving the award to those called "peaceful campaigners for democracy" in the midst of the abundant evidence linking those concerned with various armed violence in Papua.

The award would actually provide legitimacy to the person and his group to increase their acts of violence against civilians and government officials who maintain the sustainability of economic, social and cultural development in Papua, the embassy stated.

Therefore, awarding people with criminal records through armed separatist movements shows the lack of understanding of the Council and the progress of the actual development of the Provinces of Papua and West Papua.

Through this action, the Oxford City Council has again hurt the feelings of the Indonesian people.

The award was a continuation of the Council's support for the Free Papua movement after giving permission for the opening of the Free West Papua Campaign office in Oxford in 2013.

Presenting awards to such people also reduces the credibility of the city of Oxford as one of the leading education centers in the world.

The award can hamper efforts to increase cooperation between Indonesia and the United Kingdom (UK), and with the City of Oxford, especially when the two countries are celebrating 70 years of diplomatic relations, the embassy argued.

However, the Indonesian government noted the assertive statement of the British government that fully supported the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia, and that the award from the Oxford City Council did not represent the position of the British government.

"The Indonesian government respects the stance of the United Kingdom which continues to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia, and acknowledges that Papua is an inseparable part of Indonesia," the embassy stated.



Editor: Rahmad Nasution

COPYRIGHT © ANTARA 2019
 
.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/t...re-smart-choices-that-need-better-explaining/

Interesting writing on how Australia perceives Indonesian Air Force, rather actually a fact that mostly we deny

" Take the proposition that Indonesia will have ‘air superiority over northern Australia’ in coming years because they are ‘buying even more lethal Russian aircraft’.

Here’s the reality: the Indonesian Air Force struggles to get its combat aircraft off the ground. Poor-quality purchases mean that Indonesia has fewer than a dozen each of American F-5 and F-16 fighter aircraft along with British Hawk, South Korean T-50 and Russian Su-27 aircraft in fighter and ground attack roles and the Brazilian Super Tucano aircraft in a ground attack role.

That’s six aircraft types from five different countries—a disastrous logistic support recipe for a country with a defence budget one-quarter of Australia’s.

Indonesia is now buying 11 Russian Su-35 Flanker multirole fighter aircraft, which will add further to the burden of maintaining a mixed fleet of aircraft with separate supply lines, different weapons and different sensors.

The Indonesians also have no air-to-air refuelling aircraft and no airborne early warning and control aircraft that coordinate the fighting capabilities of multiple aircraft.

This is a far cry from dominating northern Australian airspace. In fact, the Indonesian Air Force is struggling to maintain a capacity to move troops around its own archipelago, which is why Australia has assisted Jakarta with airframes and maintenance for its C-130 Hercules transport aircraft.

Most Southeast Asian countries that have bought Russian fighter aircraft find that the only long-term use for them is to put them up on sticks in front of bases. No rational decision-making process focused on designing a sensible air force would go Russian. "

Reading on the article, rather than as a scholarly assessment or even criticism to TNI AU, the above Australian article seems more of a counter to (possibly) another Australian article that for some reason enormously exaggerates TNI AU capabilities... "Take the proposition that Indonesia will have ‘air superiority over northern Australia’ in coming years because they are ‘buying even more lethal Russian aircraft’ "... Who the hell have such an opinion anyway..?? No way any self-respecting defense analyst will write such rubbish! Most likely an Australian politician looking to increase the defense budget wrote the original fear-mongering article, and is now being countered by the above article.

On the other hand, the above article does correctly asses the TNI AU weaknesses (lack of numbers, lack of air refueling, lack of AEW/AWACS, lack of transport, etc) but at the same time also stating some weird opinions... Take for example the below statements :

"Poor-quality purchases..." Huh? what does it mean..? F-5s, F-16s, Hawks, Flankers, Tucanos are all respectable fighters during their era and in their assigned roles... All are purchased new and currently in regular operations, except for the F-5s which have been retired, and that's after about 30 years of service. The only poor-quality thing in these purchases are the quantity... which unfortunately is lacking.

"That’s six aircraft types from five different countries" — Well no single fighter type can do all the roles effectively or efficiently (Air superiority/strike/ground attack/COIN/LIFT) so of course we need to purchase according to the necessary roles... What is inefficient is if we have multiple models for a single type, ex: having Mirage 2000, F-16, Gripen at the same time, as all are single engine fighters with similar roles and performance... but so far we are not doing that...

"a disastrous logistic support " - an exaggeration I would think, the jets are still flying regularly... We should continue to better manage the logistic flow and planning of spare parts and support course.. but to say that it's currently disastrous is ridiculous...

"Most Southeast Asian countries that have bought Russian fighter aircraft find that the only long-term use for them is to put them up on sticks in front of bases" - Most Russian fighter in use in South east Asia are still being used regularly till now... Except maybe for RMAF Mig-29N.

"No rational decision-making process focused on designing a sensible air force would go Russian." - Irrational for an Australian perhaps... As a developed western country and a self-proclaimed Deputy Sheriff of the US in Asia, it will be crazy for them to get Russian hardware. They already have assured access to all the latest US/western gadgets and with a healthy defense budget they can get almost anything they want without fear of embargoes or restrictions... On the contrary, with our history of having been embargoed/sanctioned, it's irrational for us to depend or rely only on a single supplier/partner/country for our defense needs.
 
.
we should made distance from the Briton

Indonesia condemns decision to award Benny Wenda
21 minutes ago

20170510antarafoto-presiden-tinjau-trans-papua-100517-ies-1.jpg

President Joko Widodo observed Trans Papua Road. The incumbent president (second right) was accompanied by TNI Commander General (TNI) Gatot Nurmantyo (fourth right) and Minister of Public Works and Public Housing Basuki Hadimuljono (left behind).

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Indonesia has strongly condemned the Oxford City Council’s decision to award Benny Wenda, a member of the West Papua movement separatist group, the Freedom of the City. "The Oxford City Council's has lack of understanding of Benny Wenda's action and the actual conditions of the Provinces of Papua and West Papua, including their development and progress," said a statement from Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jakarta Thursday.

Indonesia's position on separatist groups would remain firm. Indonesia will not retreat even an inch to enforce the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), the statement clarified.

The Oxford Freedom of the City Award announced for Wenda on July 17, 2019, was being presented to the wrong person because he believed in the use of violence to achieve his political goals, the Indonesian Embassy in London earlier said in its written statement.

The Indonesian Embassy in London questioned the basis for giving the award to those called "peaceful campaigners for democracy" in the midst of the abundant evidence linking those concerned with various armed violence in Papua.

The award would actually provide legitimacy to the person and his group to increase their acts of violence against civilians and government officials who maintain the sustainability of economic, social and cultural development in Papua, the embassy stated.

Therefore, awarding people with criminal records through armed separatist movements shows the lack of understanding of the Council and the progress of the actual development of the Provinces of Papua and West Papua.

Through this action, the Oxford City Council has again hurt the feelings of the Indonesian people.

The award was a continuation of the Council's support for the Free Papua movement after giving permission for the opening of the Free West Papua Campaign office in Oxford in 2013.

Presenting awards to such people also reduces the credibility of the city of Oxford as one of the leading education centers in the world.

The award can hamper efforts to increase cooperation between Indonesia and the United Kingdom (UK), and with the City of Oxford, especially when the two countries are celebrating 70 years of diplomatic relations, the embassy argued.

However, the Indonesian government noted the assertive statement of the British government that fully supported the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia, and that the award from the Oxford City Council did not represent the position of the British government.

"The Indonesian government respects the stance of the United Kingdom which continues to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia, and acknowledges that Papua is an inseparable part of Indonesia," the embassy stated.



Editor: Rahmad Nasution

COPYRIGHT © ANTARA 2019
So long those weren't Downing Street no 10 or incumbent policies in House of Commons we can still engage them positively however the problems with UK political policies are they constantly change in accordance whose in majority power ( main political parties are Conservative Party, Labour Party & Liberal Democrat Party ). Indeed we have to be cautious in arms & defence policies especially judging our past ( controversies on Hawk series & Scorpio ) we generally see no problem with Conservatives ( there's no issue between us during New Order era with PM Thatcher & PM John Major ) however during Labour era it's different ( PM Tony Blair arms embargo during Timor referendum crisis 1999 & problems circulating usage of Hawk & Scorpio during Aceh insurgency early 2000s ).
 
.
Self sufficient is a way, should emulate what the Turks and South Korean do and doing harder twice or even thrice of their efforts and should increase the defense budget and allocated more R and D budget from education budget into an actual thing in military sector by financing R and D from LIPI, BPPT and other universities in colab project with the armed forces (like combat medic Healthcare, technical (like material compositions for armor, RCWS and robotic arms, military ships and other) , pengindraan jarak jauh and rocket tech. )

So long those weren't Downing Street no 10 or incumbent policies in House of Commons we can still engage them positively however the problems with UK political policies are they constantly change in accordance whose in majority power ( main political parties are Conservative Party, Labour Party & Liberal Democrat Party ). Indeed we have to be cautious in arms & defence policies especially judging our past ( controversies on Hawk series & Scorpio ) we generally see no problem with Conservatives ( there's no issue between us during New Order era with PM Thatcher & PM John Major ) however during Labour era it's different ( PM Tony Blair arms embargo during Timor referendum crisis 1999 & problems circulating usage of Hawk & Scorpio during Aceh insurgency early 2000s ).

Unlike the Spaniard (cassa) , Krauts (bolcow and other) and Frenchie who regarding us as their equal partner without even mentioned human rights issue in the past and even supporting our Air Forces in dire times (same with Israel who provided spare parts for our F16 during embargo time), Briton foreign policy regarding us is not stable and need caution. We should made more active defense procurement from other second or third tier neutral and reliable countries like Cheko, Serbia, Spain, Norway, Danish, South Korea, South Africa, Israel and other
 
. .
Self sufficient is a way, should emulate what the Turks and South Korean do and doing harder twice or even thrice of their efforts and should increase the defense budget and allocated more R and D budget from education budget into an actual thing in military sector by financing R and D from LIPI, BPPT and other universities in colab project with the armed forces (like combat medic Healthcare, technical (like material compositions for armor, RCWS and robotic arms, military ships and other) , pengindraan jarak jauh and rocket tech. )



Unlike the Spaniard (cassa) , Krauts (bolcow and other) and Frenchie who regarding us as their equal partner without even mentioned human rights issue in the past and even supporting our Air Forces in dire times (same with Israel who provided spare parts for our F16 during embargo time), Briton foreign policy regarding us is not stable and need caution. We should made more active defense procurement from other second or third tier neutral and reliable countries like Cheko, Serbia, Spain, Norway, Danish, South Korea, South Africa, Israel and other
Well generally Non Anglosphere countries especially France doesn't care oh how their military products being used by the operator which is extra points for Asian & African countries ( developing countries trying to build their military ). French even did supply Argentine Exocet missiles and provided technical assistances during Falkland War 1984 againts UK ( fellow NATO nation ). You want a country which sells their arms even provides friendly ToT without political string then Israel. Business is business for them they even provided assistances for indigeneous defence industries of South Africa during heavily condemned and opposed Apartheid regime back then

https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/countries/indonesia/factsheet
British arms sales records to Indonesia & Human Rights + UK made arms' assurance of usage + corruption issues from 60s to early 2000s however this was past era. Different Indonesia back then and different geopolitical back then.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom