What's new

Indonesia Defence Forum

Some wanna to bet for KFX /IFX, but with lacksluster performa of current admin i still doubt that. For me getting some F15 Will be a bigger game changer compared to other fighter on the field unless you want to go for F18 bomb truck variant combo with Growler for future Air warfare games and proceed with F35.

But do we really need twin-engines with long ranges if we can have a good number of F-16's that can be spread out to various bases in the archipelago?

I believe we need it the most, in the past why Indonesia Air Force fielding large number of bomber is because of their range and payload. Now we need double engine heavy fighter to cover more of our space.
 
.
In the past. Our air force guys want F-15 if we had enough budget. AFAIK boeing already offered us F-15 multiple times but lack of budget always prevent us from getting F-15, even tho we decide to buy F-15 in the end. What variant are we getting? F-15E or F-15X?. I kinda envy Qatar rn
There's no such "F-15 buat sekutu AS doang" thing in terms of our Procurement, it's always about budget and our officer political decision

It's more unrealistic for us to operate F-35. Our infrastructure is not ready for 5th gen fighter
 
.
In the past. Our air force guys want F-15 if we had enough budget. AFAIK boeing already offered us F-15 multiple times but lack of budget always prevent us from getting F-15, even tho we decide to buy F-15 in the end. What variant are we getting? F-15E or F-15X?. I kinda envy Qatar rn
There's no such "F-15 buat sekutu AS doang" thing in terms of our Procurement, it's always about budget and our officer political decision

It's more unrealistic for us to operate F-35. Our infrastructure is not ready for 5th gen fighter
Ironically it's cheaper to buy the F-15 than the Rafale.
 
.
.
Ironically it's cheaper to buy the F-15 than the Rafale.
It's not ironic. f15 were produced in the thousands with multiple international operator more like a Toyota supra kind. Rafale is that kind of exotic sports cars that is hand build for very few type of costumer. It's more like Morgan's or pagani.
 
. . .
It's not ironic. f15 were produced in the thousands with multiple international operator more like a Toyota supra kind. Rafale is that kind of exotic sports cars that is hand build for very few type of costumer. It's more like Morgan's or pagani.
Hand built exotic that doesn't have a similar endurance time, bomb load, and multipurpose loadout as its contemporaries. My only hope is that it's true that Prabowo is a defense matters expert as he claims. Because if he does then it's a no brainer that the best plane for the AU logistically, economically, and lethally is the F-15.
 
.
Quiet Monday so I got to ask, why is it that so many people in this country's internet-sphere is hellbent on getting the Rafale over the F-15 if the Su-35 gets officially cancelled?

The fact that we'd have to buy a completely different weapons package altogether alongside the IOC/FOC costs, infrastructure costs, training costs, on top of the already expensive base price should be a dealbreaker. Not to mention it would eat into the F-16/Flanker operational budget just setting everything up for what can be considered a small benefit over the F-16 series.

Makes more sense just to buy the F-15 if they didn't want to have EW capability with the Growler. Shares the same engine as well as the ability of carrying more (and cheaper) ordnance. Not to mention it's cheaper per plane ($49M vs. €76M vs. $60M) than the Rafale or the Gripen.
Because french rarely embargoed us (?) Are french have emabrgoed us? But likely french will do that thing. Somone like rafale because TOT (katanya gtu), carry exocet and mica
(Maybe because people in here find "jalan tengah" not use russian or american but just buy french, kind


Still F15 is better for money and more common. It can used same engine with F16. So logically easier to maintain. Also there are many F15 outhere so if get embatgoed we can buy parts from blackmarket maybe.
 
.
the news about sensor is very recent , the weapon package probably are still on talk and discussion , i personally wanted the iver to atleast rev up to wet dream specification, 64x universal vls (the stanflex module can make it happen) , let say 64x MK41 or Sylver A-50 , since both VLS have compatibility with quad packed missile (CAMM-ER and ESSM) , 48 of the VLS can be filled with Long Range SAM , while the remaining 16 can be filled with quadpacked short to medium range SAM , that's going to make it , 48x Long Range SAM + 64x Short To Medium range SAM (quadpacked in 16 vls) a good layered wide area air defense, even though our navy have tendency not to filled the whole ship with full combat load of missile , posessing such number of VLS still going to gave atleast a detterence effect since our enemy will questioning whether the ship is in full combat load or not .

The Navy need something like Asroc, we don't have the equivalent weaponry.
 
.
The Navy need something like Asroc, we don't have the equivalent weaponry.
The Navy need something like Asroc, we don't have the equivalent weaponry.

Don't talk about weapons just yet ... because our detection equipment is still lacking.
PKR alone is not equipped with VDS (CPTAS ?) ... Is it better if an Iver becomes acquired ???
Right now only 2 Panther units are planned to be installed a dipping sonar, maybe only for PKR ... For an Iver still use Panther?
 
.
In the past. Our air force guys want F-15 if we had enough budget. AFAIK boeing already offered us F-15 multiple times but lack of budget always prevent us from getting F-15, even tho we decide to buy F-15 in the end. What variant are we getting? F-15E or F-15X?. I kinda envy Qatar rn
There's no such "F-15 buat sekutu AS doang" thing in terms of our Procurement, it's always about budget and our officer political decision

It's more unrealistic for us to operate F-35. Our infrastructure is not ready for 5th gen fighter
Well too bad, it is still applicable. Before F-35 not every country can have their hand on F-15. Thailand as major ally non Nato, was refused to buy F-15 second hand in the 90's. I bet that Indonesia also had no chance at that time.
But now, with F-35 around, things have changed. Singapore got their advanced F-15 (later F-35) and Australia now has F-35 (heck their pilot even got his first 1,000 fly hours with F-35 already).
Indonesia has better opportunity to have F-15 too.

Have money? Get F-15.
"No money"? Get Viper.

All we need now is allocated budget and will power.
 
.
Indonesia Rejects Beijing’s Offer for South China Sea Talks
Tia Asmara
Jakarta
2020-06-05

d9a9975f-d05e-4e52-8393-3d28ca727143.jpeg

Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo (center) speaks to journalists during his visit to a military base in the Natuna Islands, Jan. 8, 2020.
Handout/Presidential Palace/AFP

Indonesia on Friday rejected a Chinese offer for negotiations on the South China Sea, as Jakarta reiterated that it had no overlapping claims with Beijing in its exclusive economic zone.

The Chinese government, in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on Tuesday, acknowledged it had no territorial dispute with Indonesia but said the two countries had overlapping claims over maritime rights in parts of the South China Sea.

Beijing’s letter was in response to a diplomatic note sent by the Indonesian government to the U.N. chief on May 26, in which Jakarta rejected China’s Nine-Dash Line map or claim of historical rights to nearly all of the contested waterway.

“Based on UNCLOS 1982 Indonesia does not have overlapping claims with the PRC, so it is not relevant to hold any dialogue on maritime boundary delimitation,” Damos Dumoli Agusman, the director general of international law and treaties at Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told BenarNews on Friday.

He was referring to a January 2020 statement from the ministry confirming that Indonesia had no territorial dispute with Beijing in the South China Sea based on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

“It was stated that we reject (any negotiation),” Damos said.

In its letter to the U.N. this week, China argued that its maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea were “established in the long course of historical practice and consistent with international law,” including UNCLOS.

“There is no territorial dispute between China and Indonesia in the South China Sea. However, China and Indonesia have overlapping claims on maritime rights and interests in some parts of the South China Sea,” China’s permanent mission to the United Nations said in the letter, a copy of which was posted on the mission’s website.

“China is willing to settle the overlapping claims through negotiation and consultation with Indonesia, and work together with Indonesia to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea,” the letter said.

Indonesia has insisted that China’s claims are “unilateral” and have no legal basis in international law.

In the letter sent to Guterres last week, Indonesia spelled out the Indonesian government’s support for a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, when the court sided with the Philippines in a case that Manila brought against Beijing over a territorial dispute in the South China Sea.

“Indonesia reiterates that the Nine-Dash line map implying historic rights claim clearly lacks international legal basis and is tantamount to upset UNCLOS 1982,” said the letter from Indonesia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, referring to a boundary on Chinese maps that encompasses Beijing’s claims in the maritime region.

A spokesman for the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Jakarta used the letter to indicate that China’s Nine-Dash Line had crossed boundaries set by Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

“We never know what China’s intentions are in establishing a Nine-Dash Line. It may have the potential to create conditions that disrupt what was determined by Indonesia from a long time ago,” ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah told BenarNews on May 29. “Therefore, we need to inform these matters by communicating our position openly to the international community.”

The Indonesian letter was the latest in a flurry of documents from members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China following a Malaysian submission to the U.N. in December 2019. The Malaysian government claimed sovereignty over an extended continental shelf in the South China Sea off its northern coast, potentially an area with significant undersea resources.

On Thursday, Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi reiterated her country’s stance on the issue.

“In a diplomatic memorandum sent on 26 May 2020, Indonesia reaffirmed its consistent position in responding to China’s claim to the U.N. that could affect Indonesia’s EEZ (exclusive economic zone) and also emphasize the need for full compliance with UNCLOS 1982,” Retno told reporters during a virtual press conference.

‘Not an apples-to-apples thing’

Meanwhile, an international maritime law researcher at the University of Gadjah Mada (UGM), I Made Andi Arsana, described China’s offer for negotiation as illogical.

“Indonesia’s claim is based on international law while China’s claim is unilateral. It’s not an apples-to-apples thing,” Arsana told BenarNews, adding that Indonesia should not and would not agree to bilateral talks or negotiations on the issue.

Hikmahanto Juwana, an international relations professor at the University of Indonesia, said the Chinese response was consistent with its playbook.

“Indonesia should never allow itself to be lured into negotiating. So far, Indonesia has consistently refused and will never want to negotiate with China,” he said.

The Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam – all ASEAN members – are among countries that, along with China and Taiwan, have competing claims in the South China Sea.

Indonesia is not among the claimant countries, but in early 2020 and in 2016, tensions flared between Jakarta and Beijing over the presence of Chinese fishing boats swarming in South China Sea waters near Indonesia’s Natuna Islands.

In 2002, the 10-nation ASEAN bloc and China agreed on a Declaration of Conduct, which was a statement of principles on how parties should behave in the South China Sea. But completing a more detailed – and binding – Code of Conduct (CoC) has proved much harder to establish.

Negotiations began in earnest in 2016 with a tentative deadline for acceptance in 2021. A draft of the text of the agreement has been released.

https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/indonesian/no-negotiation-06052020155450.html
 
.
Indonesia Rejects Beijing’s Offer for South China Sea Talks
Tia Asmara
Jakarta
2020-06-05

d9a9975f-d05e-4e52-8393-3d28ca727143.jpeg

Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo (center) speaks to journalists during his visit to a military base in the Natuna Islands, Jan. 8, 2020.
Handout/Presidential Palace/AFP

Indonesia on Friday rejected a Chinese offer for negotiations on the South China Sea, as Jakarta reiterated that it had no overlapping claims with Beijing in its exclusive economic zone.

The Chinese government, in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on Tuesday, acknowledged it had no territorial dispute with Indonesia but said the two countries had overlapping claims over maritime rights in parts of the South China Sea.

Beijing’s letter was in response to a diplomatic note sent by the Indonesian government to the U.N. chief on May 26, in which Jakarta rejected China’s Nine-Dash Line map or claim of historical rights to nearly all of the contested waterway.

“Based on UNCLOS 1982 Indonesia does not have overlapping claims with the PRC, so it is not relevant to hold any dialogue on maritime boundary delimitation,” Damos Dumoli Agusman, the director general of international law and treaties at Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told BenarNews on Friday.

He was referring to a January 2020 statement from the ministry confirming that Indonesia had no territorial dispute with Beijing in the South China Sea based on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

“It was stated that we reject (any negotiation),” Damos said.

In its letter to the U.N. this week, China argued that its maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea were “established in the long course of historical practice and consistent with international law,” including UNCLOS.

“There is no territorial dispute between China and Indonesia in the South China Sea. However, China and Indonesia have overlapping claims on maritime rights and interests in some parts of the South China Sea,” China’s permanent mission to the United Nations said in the letter, a copy of which was posted on the mission’s website.

“China is willing to settle the overlapping claims through negotiation and consultation with Indonesia, and work together with Indonesia to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea,” the letter said.

Indonesia has insisted that China’s claims are “unilateral” and have no legal basis in international law.

In the letter sent to Guterres last week, Indonesia spelled out the Indonesian government’s support for a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, when the court sided with the Philippines in a case that Manila brought against Beijing over a territorial dispute in the South China Sea.

“Indonesia reiterates that the Nine-Dash line map implying historic rights claim clearly lacks international legal basis and is tantamount to upset UNCLOS 1982,” said the letter from Indonesia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, referring to a boundary on Chinese maps that encompasses Beijing’s claims in the maritime region.

A spokesman for the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Jakarta used the letter to indicate that China’s Nine-Dash Line had crossed boundaries set by Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

“We never know what China’s intentions are in establishing a Nine-Dash Line. It may have the potential to create conditions that disrupt what was determined by Indonesia from a long time ago,” ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah told BenarNews on May 29. “Therefore, we need to inform these matters by communicating our position openly to the international community.”

The Indonesian letter was the latest in a flurry of documents from members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China following a Malaysian submission to the U.N. in December 2019. The Malaysian government claimed sovereignty over an extended continental shelf in the South China Sea off its northern coast, potentially an area with significant undersea resources.

On Thursday, Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi reiterated her country’s stance on the issue.

“In a diplomatic memorandum sent on 26 May 2020, Indonesia reaffirmed its consistent position in responding to China’s claim to the U.N. that could affect Indonesia’s EEZ (exclusive economic zone) and also emphasize the need for full compliance with UNCLOS 1982,” Retno told reporters during a virtual press conference.

‘Not an apples-to-apples thing’

Meanwhile, an international maritime law researcher at the University of Gadjah Mada (UGM), I Made Andi Arsana, described China’s offer for negotiation as illogical.

“Indonesia’s claim is based on international law while China’s claim is unilateral. It’s not an apples-to-apples thing,” Arsana told BenarNews, adding that Indonesia should not and would not agree to bilateral talks or negotiations on the issue.

Hikmahanto Juwana, an international relations professor at the University of Indonesia, said the Chinese response was consistent with its playbook.

“Indonesia should never allow itself to be lured into negotiating. So far, Indonesia has consistently refused and will never want to negotiate with China,” he said.

The Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam – all ASEAN members – are among countries that, along with China and Taiwan, have competing claims in the South China Sea.

Indonesia is not among the claimant countries, but in early 2020 and in 2016, tensions flared between Jakarta and Beijing over the presence of Chinese fishing boats swarming in South China Sea waters near Indonesia’s Natuna Islands.

In 2002, the 10-nation ASEAN bloc and China agreed on a Declaration of Conduct, which was a statement of principles on how parties should behave in the South China Sea. But completing a more detailed – and binding – Code of Conduct (CoC) has proved much harder to establish.

Negotiations began in earnest in 2016 with a tentative deadline for acceptance in 2021. A draft of the text of the agreement has been released.

https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/indonesian/no-negotiation-06052020155450.html
words already spoken , now buy a lot more 100 meter+ OPV .
 
. .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom