Indonesia Defence Forum

[HellFireIndo]

I am for to continue this batch 2 contract , changing the choice halfway will make everything too complicated and perhaps could domino into hurted relationship with SK, we should continue the plan and seek to built the second batch modules in PAL. Other than that, i supported TKMS for a supposed U214 for additional submarine fleet (third batch).

But really,is it that easy tho, to just "ima cancel lol" things like this? we've been showing pride with Alugoro and already have this "4th, 5th, 6th Subs build at home" plan, then we just cancel to restart from zero just because we want what exactly? Scorpene ffs? We just, cannot let this kind of "i want this toy" shit continues, "kemandirian" is the key, we cant never be such significant power if we just keep doing this "buy not build", "khong guan military hardware".

Heck we wont even be able to make Anoa if we didnt outright steal the tech from VAB, which the French didnt just let it pass and copyrighted the shit. Now we wanna go back into this passive consumerism thing? hell nah! Why do i keep seeing these outrageous ideas from the stupid "Rafale license build" which have zero chance of happening, to this "lets cancel this decade long program for this one Frenchy stuff", for what? changing mediocre sub for another mediocre sub? These EU folks are protectionist in their trade, so i do not expect much of a ToT from people who also overcharge their stuff.

 

[Chestnut]

I am for to continue this batch 2 contract , changing the choice halfway will make everything too complicated and perhaps could domino into hurted relationship with SK, we should continue the plan and seek to built the second batch modules in PAL. Other than that, i supported TKMS for a supposed U214 for additional submarine fleet (third batch).

But really,is it that easy tho, to just "ima cancel lol" things like this? we've been showing pride with Alugoro and already have this "4th, 5th, 6th Subs build at home" plan, then we just cancel to restart from zero just because we want what exactly? Scorpene ffs? We just, cannot let this kind of "i want this toy" shit continues, "kemandirian" is the key, we cant never be such significant power if we just keep doing this "buy not build", "khong guan military hardware".

Heck we wont even be able to make Anoa if we didnt outright steal the tech from VAB, which the French didnt just let it pass and copyrighted the shit. Now we wanna go back into this passive consumerism thing? hell nah! Why do i keep seeing these outrageous ideas from the stupid "Rafale license build" which have zero chance of happening, to this "lets cancel this decade long program for this one Frenchy stuff", for what? changing mediocre sub for another mediocre sub? These EU folks are protectionist in their trade, so i do not expect much of a ToT from people who also overcharge their stuff.

Honestly, a good compromise is going for the DSME 2000 instead. It's a natural progression from a 209 type to a 214/216 type attack sub. It shares technologies from both the Korean 214 class and the newer KSS-III Dosan class.

 

[Indos]

Sorry new nuclear reactor for what purposes? Adding capacity for PLTN or just for more research? And with rssian help?
(Lumayan bangga sebagai warga serpong )

For research and they will also use the new reactor to provide electricity for some home around the BATAN complex. Yup preliminary design use Russian consultant but the final design is worked by BATAN itself.

 

[Indos]

I am for to continue this batch 2 contract , changing the choice halfway will make everything too complicated and perhaps could domino into hurted relationship with SK, we should continue the plan and seek to built the second batch modules in PAL. Other than that, i supported TKMS for a supposed U214 for additional submarine fleet (third batch).

But really,is it that easy tho, to just "ima cancel lol" things like this? we've been showing pride with Alugoro and already have this "4th, 5th, 6th Subs build at home" plan, then we just cancel to restart from zero just because we want what exactly? Scorpene ffs? We just, cannot let this kind of "i want this toy" shit continues, "kemandirian" is the key, we cant never be such significant power if we just keep doing this "buy not build", "khong guan military hardware".

Heck we wont even be able to make Anoa if we didnt outright steal the tech from VAB, which the French didnt just let it pass and copyrighted the shit. Now we wanna go back into this passive consumerism thing? hell nah! Why do i keep seeing these outrageous ideas from the stupid "Rafale license build" which have zero chance of happening, to this "lets cancel this decade long program for this one Frenchy stuff", for what? changing mediocre sub for another mediocre sub? These EU folks are protectionist in their trade, so i do not expect much of a ToT from people who also overcharge their stuff.

Thats right, it is why I am suspicious for any one who want this contract to be terminated. These additional submarine acquisition is a very strategic move to make us able to build whole submarine in PT PAL. Some defect issue that is always talked about the first 3 batch have already been solved anyway.

KFX program is also a very strategic to our defence industry, it has been started since 2010 and it is very stupid if we terminate the program now 10 years later in 2020 where one year from now the first prototype is likely to be rolled out. There will be no country ever believe with us in the future to have joint development in any expensive and long defense program if we are going to walk away from KFX program and reluctant to pay the development cost when the program already reach its critical phase.

This program will also improve our country image in term of making high tech stuff if it is going to be a successful program, so its present also will help indirectly our N 219 program and other future program like N 245 and R 80. Not easy to change mindset of buyer though, so KFX is our chance to prove them wrong. One main reason of why N 250 is a failed project IMO is due to lack of demand, not only because of IMF, this is why the program is not restarted again once we paid whole debt to IMF in 2008.

 

[Nilgiri]

Hope all my indonesian friends here are doing well and staying safe, best wishes to all of you.

@Nike @Indos @trishna_amṛta @Logam42 @HellFireIndo @pr1v4t33r et al.

 

[Ruhnama]

This kind of ego ineffective in modern warfare, in overall to relying in army while our geography archipelago soon or later well be pay higher price than the army ever got in 30 years budgets if war really breaks, the president and mod should get "reform" this elements

Kormar equipped with missile is like what usmc corps for restructurisation. More littoral combat and take out tank batt

 

[Ruhnama]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Protap upacara pemakaman uyk amggota tni yg wafat kemarin. Karena seragamnta dtutup APD makanya pke vest ya?

 

[Jatosint]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Protap upacara pemakaman uyk amggota tni yg wafat kemarin. Karena seragamnta dtutup APD makanya pke vest ya?

Sepertinya ini cuma simulasi kalau diliat dari lokasinya yg bukan pemakaman =====================================================================

I am for to continue this batch 2 contract , changing the choice halfway will make everything too complicated and perhaps could domino into hurted relationship with SK, we should continue the plan and seek to built the second batch modules in PAL. Other than that, i supported TKMS for a supposed U214 for additional submarine fleet (third batch).

But really,is it that easy tho, to just "ima cancel lol" things like this? we've been showing pride with Alugoro and already have this "4th, 5th, 6th Subs build at home" plan, then we just cancel to restart from zero just because we want what exactly? Scorpene ffs? We just, cannot let this kind of "i want this toy" shit continues, "kemandirian" is the key, we cant never be such significant power if we just keep doing this "buy not build", "khong guan military hardware".

Heck we wont even be able to make Anoa if we didnt outright steal the tech from VAB, which the French didnt just let it pass and copyrighted the shit. Now we wanna go back into this passive consumerism thing? hell nah! Why do i keep seeing these outrageous ideas from the stupid "Rafale license build" which have zero chance of happening, to this "lets cancel this decade long program for this one Frenchy stuff", for what? changing mediocre sub for another mediocre sub? These EU folks are protectionist in their trade, so i do not expect much of a ToT from people who also overcharge their stuff.

Thats right, it is why I am suspicious for any one who want this contract to be terminated. These additional submarine acquisition is a very strategic move to make us able to build whole submarine in PT PAL. Some defect issue that is always talked about the first 3 batch have already been solved anyway.

KFX program is also a very strategic to our defence industry, it has been started since 2010 and it is very stupid if we terminate the program now 10 years later in 2020 where one year from now the first prototype is likely to be rolled out. There will be no country ever believe with us in the future to have joint development in any expensive and long defense program if we are going to walk away from KFX program and reluctant to pay the development cost when the program already reach its critical phase.

This program will also improve our country image in term of making high tech stuff if it is going to be a successful program, so its present also will help indirectly our N 219 program and other future program like N 245 and R 80. Not easy to change mindset of buyer though, so KFX is our chance to prove them wrong. One main reason of why N 250 is a failed project IMO is due to lack of demand, not only because of IMF, this is why the program is not restarted again once we paid whole debt to IMF in 2008.

Totally agree, we should continue our sub building cooperation with SK

Anyway, brace yourself, "Perang Sales" is coming hehe

 

[NEKONEKO]

China's traditional fishing rights claim in North Natuna Sea baseless

Tensions arose afresh between Jakarta and Beijing following a series of incidents in the North Natuna Sea last December. China’s fishing activities in the seas north of the Natuna Islands, protected by that country’s coast guard, were deemed a violation of Indonesia’s sovereign rights in the natural resource-rich maritime territory.

The friction was unsurprising as China has insisted on its maritime claim covering almost the entire South China Sea, known as the “nine-dash line”, which overlaps Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the northern parts of the Natuna Sea.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China and Indonesia are parties, there is no such thing as the “nine-dash line”. Moreover, the July 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling on Philippines v. China stipulated that the “nine-dash line” had no basis under international law.

However, there are misconceptions about traditional fishing rights under UNCLOS in the article by Lei Xiaolu of Wuhan University that appeared in The Jakarta Post on March 11. She argues that China has traditional fishing rights in waters of the Natuna Islands.

The article wrongly analyzes the legal concept of traditional fishing rights under UNCLOS on least three accounts.

First, the concept of traditional fishing rights is introduced under Article 51 of UNCLOS in the context of archipelagic waters. It says an “archipelagic State shall respect existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighboring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters.”

This provision immediately nullifies China’s claim of traditional fishing rights in the waters around the Natuna Islands, because China is not an immediately adjacent neighbor of Indonesia. It is also because the southernmost parts of Chinese claims in the Spratly Islands, lie around 1,100 kilometers from the Natuna Islands, which is far beyond the maximum limit of an EEZ.

Second, Article 51 of UNCLOS also stipulates that the “terms and conditions for the exercise of such traditional fishing rights, including the nature, the extent and the areas to which they apply, shall, at the request of any of the States concerned, be regulated by bilateral agreements between them”. In the case of China’s claim of traditional fishing rights, there is no bilateral agreement between Indonesia and China, and it seems this will never happen because China is not Indonesia’s immediate neighbor.

Traditional fishing rights are not a new concept for Indonesia. Indonesia has signed at least two bilateral agreements regarding traditional fishing rights with its direct neighbors.

Indonesia and Malaysia entered into a bilateral agreement in 1982 called the Agreement on the Regime Laws of the State Archipelago and Malaysia’s Rights in the Territorial Sea and Waters. Indeed, the bilateral agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia is the right way of regulating traditional fishing rights mandated under Article 51 of UNCLOS.

Even before Indonesia was recognized as an archipelagic state, Malaysian fishermen already fished in Indonesian waters. Therefore, Indonesia agreed to grant traditional fishing rights to Malaysia under the bilateral agreement.

Third, in defending China’s traditional fishing rights in the North Natuna Sea, Prof. Lei also argues that Article 74(3) of UNCLOS requires that “coastal states shall make every effort to achieve a provisional arrangement pending the maritime delimitation agreement”. Again, this provision has no relevance in the case between Indonesia and China, as the foreign ministries of the two countries have confirmed they have no pending maritime boundary delimitations. Therefore there is no need to create such a provisional agreement between Indonesia and China.

Implementation of Article 74(3) is demonstrated by, for example, an agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia regarding the Common Guidelines Concerning Treatment of Fishermen by Maritime Law Enforcement Agencies.

Under this agreement, the two states agree on what kind of measures can be taken by both national authorities with respect to any law enforcement in the undelimited area between Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indeed, it is Indonesia’s right to refuse to negotiate any maritime boundary delimitation with China regarding the North Natuna Sea, although there are different opinions among Jakarta officials regarding how to respond to China in the North Natuna Sea issue.

Coordinating Maritime and Investment Minister Luhut Pandjaitan, for instance, has pleaded for calm, otherwise Chinese investment in Indonesia might be harmed. However, most officials, as well as public opinion, tend to support a strong response to China.

Clearly, China’s traditional fishing rights in Indonesia’s EEZ surrounding the Natuna Islands is misleading and constitutes a misconception.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/amp/...ights-claim-in-north-natuna-sea-baseless.html

Baseless indeed.

Seriously? Like there is no other investor out there.

 

[HellFireIndo]

China's traditional fishing rights claim in North Natuna Sea baseless

Tensions arose afresh between Jakarta and Beijing following a series of incidents in the North Natuna Sea last December. China’s fishing activities in the seas north of the Natuna Islands, protected by that country’s coast guard, were deemed a violation of Indonesia’s sovereign rights in the natural resource-rich maritime territory.

The friction was unsurprising as China has insisted on its maritime claim covering almost the entire South China Sea, known as the “nine-dash line”, which overlaps Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the northern parts of the Natuna Sea.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China and Indonesia are parties, there is no such thing as the “nine-dash line”. Moreover, the July 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling on Philippines v. China stipulated that the “nine-dash line” had no basis under international law.

However, there are misconceptions about traditional fishing rights under UNCLOS in the article by Lei Xiaolu of Wuhan University that appeared in The Jakarta Post on March 11. She argues that China has traditional fishing rights in waters of the Natuna Islands.

The article wrongly analyzes the legal concept of traditional fishing rights under UNCLOS on least three accounts.

First, the concept of traditional fishing rights is introduced under Article 51 of UNCLOS in the context of archipelagic waters. It says an “archipelagic State shall respect existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighboring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters.”

This provision immediately nullifies China’s claim of traditional fishing rights in the waters around the Natuna Islands, because China is not an immediately adjacent neighbor of Indonesia. It is also because the southernmost parts of Chinese claims in the Spratly Islands, lie around 1,100 kilometers from the Natuna Islands, which is far beyond the maximum limit of an EEZ.

Second, Article 51 of UNCLOS also stipulates that the “terms and conditions for the exercise of such traditional fishing rights, including the nature, the extent and the areas to which they apply, shall, at the request of any of the States concerned, be regulated by bilateral agreements between them”. In the case of China’s claim of traditional fishing rights, there is no bilateral agreement between Indonesia and China, and it seems this will never happen because China is not Indonesia’s immediate neighbor.

Traditional fishing rights are not a new concept for Indonesia. Indonesia has signed at least two bilateral agreements regarding traditional fishing rights with its direct neighbors.

Indonesia and Malaysia entered into a bilateral agreement in 1982 called the Agreement on the Regime Laws of the State Archipelago and Malaysia’s Rights in the Territorial Sea and Waters. Indeed, the bilateral agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia is the right way of regulating traditional fishing rights mandated under Article 51 of UNCLOS.

Even before Indonesia was recognized as an archipelagic state, Malaysian fishermen already fished in Indonesian waters. Therefore, Indonesia agreed to grant traditional fishing rights to Malaysia under the bilateral agreement.

Third, in defending China’s traditional fishing rights in the North Natuna Sea, Prof. Lei also argues that Article 74(3) of UNCLOS requires that “coastal states shall make every effort to achieve a provisional arrangement pending the maritime delimitation agreement”. Again, this provision has no relevance in the case between Indonesia and China, as the foreign ministries of the two countries have confirmed they have no pending maritime boundary delimitations. Therefore there is no need to create such a provisional agreement between Indonesia and China.

Implementation of Article 74(3) is demonstrated by, for example, an agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia regarding the Common Guidelines Concerning Treatment of Fishermen by Maritime Law Enforcement Agencies.

Under this agreement, the two states agree on what kind of measures can be taken by both national authorities with respect to any law enforcement in the undelimited area between Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indeed, it is Indonesia’s right to refuse to negotiate any maritime boundary delimitation with China regarding the North Natuna Sea, although there are different opinions among Jakarta officials regarding how to respond to China in the North Natuna Sea issue.

Coordinating Maritime and Investment Minister Luhut Pandjaitan, for instance, has pleaded for calm, otherwise Chinese investment in Indonesia might be harmed. However, most officials, as well as public opinion, tend to support a strong response to China.

Clearly, China’s traditional fishing rights in Indonesia’s EEZ surrounding the Natuna Islands is misleading and constitutes a misconception.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/amp/...ights-claim-in-north-natuna-sea-baseless.html

Baseless indeed.

Seriously? Like there is no other investor out there.

Lord Prime Minister Luhut is too money oriented that he forgets that it is a nation-state that he leads, not a corporation to always be run in business-like fashion. I never knew that sovereignty can be bargained for investments, that i think your average SD student know better the importance of holding up territorial sovereignty than this Shadow King.

 

[Kansel]

China's traditional fishing rights claim in North Natuna Sea baseless

Tensions arose afresh between Jakarta and Beijing following a series of incidents in the North Natuna Sea last December. China’s fishing activities in the seas north of the Natuna Islands, protected by that country’s coast guard, were deemed a violation of Indonesia’s sovereign rights in the natural resource-rich maritime territory.

The friction was unsurprising as China has insisted on its maritime claim covering almost the entire South China Sea, known as the “nine-dash line”, which overlaps Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the northern parts of the Natuna Sea.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China and Indonesia are parties, there is no such thing as the “nine-dash line”. Moreover, the July 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling on Philippines v. China stipulated that the “nine-dash line” had no basis under international law.

However, there are misconceptions about traditional fishing rights under UNCLOS in the article by Lei Xiaolu of Wuhan University that appeared in The Jakarta Post on March 11. She argues that China has traditional fishing rights in waters of the Natuna Islands.

The article wrongly analyzes the legal concept of traditional fishing rights under UNCLOS on least three accounts.

First, the concept of traditional fishing rights is introduced under Article 51 of UNCLOS in the context of archipelagic waters. It says an “archipelagic State shall respect existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighboring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters.”

This provision immediately nullifies China’s claim of traditional fishing rights in the waters around the Natuna Islands, because China is not an immediately adjacent neighbor of Indonesia. It is also because the southernmost parts of Chinese claims in the Spratly Islands, lie around 1,100 kilometers from the Natuna Islands, which is far beyond the maximum limit of an EEZ.

Second, Article 51 of UNCLOS also stipulates that the “terms and conditions for the exercise of such traditional fishing rights, including the nature, the extent and the areas to which they apply, shall, at the request of any of the States concerned, be regulated by bilateral agreements between them”. In the case of China’s claim of traditional fishing rights, there is no bilateral agreement between Indonesia and China, and it seems this will never happen because China is not Indonesia’s immediate neighbor.

Traditional fishing rights are not a new concept for Indonesia. Indonesia has signed at least two bilateral agreements regarding traditional fishing rights with its direct neighbors.

Indonesia and Malaysia entered into a bilateral agreement in 1982 called the Agreement on the Regime Laws of the State Archipelago and Malaysia’s Rights in the Territorial Sea and Waters. Indeed, the bilateral agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia is the right way of regulating traditional fishing rights mandated under Article 51 of UNCLOS.

Even before Indonesia was recognized as an archipelagic state, Malaysian fishermen already fished in Indonesian waters. Therefore, Indonesia agreed to grant traditional fishing rights to Malaysia under the bilateral agreement.

Third, in defending China’s traditional fishing rights in the North Natuna Sea, Prof. Lei also argues that Article 74(3) of UNCLOS requires that “coastal states shall make every effort to achieve a provisional arrangement pending the maritime delimitation agreement”. Again, this provision has no relevance in the case between Indonesia and China, as the foreign ministries of the two countries have confirmed they have no pending maritime boundary delimitations. Therefore there is no need to create such a provisional agreement between Indonesia and China.

Implementation of Article 74(3) is demonstrated by, for example, an agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia regarding the Common Guidelines Concerning Treatment of Fishermen by Maritime Law Enforcement Agencies.

Under this agreement, the two states agree on what kind of measures can be taken by both national authorities with respect to any law enforcement in the undelimited area between Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indeed, it is Indonesia’s right to refuse to negotiate any maritime boundary delimitation with China regarding the North Natuna Sea, although there are different opinions among Jakarta officials regarding how to respond to China in the North Natuna Sea issue.

Coordinating Maritime and Investment Minister Luhut Pandjaitan, for instance, has pleaded for calm, otherwise Chinese investment in Indonesia might be harmed. However, most officials, as well as public opinion, tend to support a strong response to China.

Clearly, China’s traditional fishing rights in Indonesia’s EEZ surrounding the Natuna Islands is misleading and constitutes a misconception.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/amp/...ights-claim-in-north-natuna-sea-baseless.html

Baseless indeed.

Seriously? Like there is no other investor out there.

 

[Ruhnama]

View attachment 620955

Wkwkkwkwk Mau ketawa sih tapi....
istiyorum ama korkuyorum, hükümet tarafından yakalanırsa

============

If we buy turkey sub and ToT from them are it is better and are realy we can get the knowladge or just lik what happen to with korea? Are turk have license to export?

Sepertinya ini cuma simulasi kalau diliat dari lokasinya yg bukan pemakaman

Tapi tulisan di fotonya itu lho selamat jalan....

 

[Jatosint]

Wkwkkwkwk Mau ketawa sih tapi....
istiyorum ama korkuyorum, hükümet tarafından yakalanırsa

============

If we buy turkey sub and ToT from them are it is better and are realy we can get the knowladge or just lik what happen to with korea? Are turk have license to export?


Tapi tulisan di fotonya itu lho selamat jalan....

Itu di komennya kyknya ada orang puspen yg bilang yg di foto itu cuma simulasi

 

[trishna_amṛta]

Lord Prime Minister Luhut is too money oriented that he forgets that it is a nation-state that he leads, not a corporation to always be run in business-like fashion. I never knew that sovereignty can be bargained for investments, that i think your average SD student know better the importance of holding up territorial sovereignty than this Shadow King.

View attachment 620955

waduuh. kok jadi ikut2x-an "El bepe" seperti di r/indonesia aja (Reddit). ati2x kena cyduc gan

 

[Chestnut]

waduuh. kok jadi ikut2x-an Luhut meme seperti di r/indonesia aja

I mean, he's not wrong.

Most of our country's problems can be attributed to his own mismanagement. I can attest to that from a professional standpoint as well.