Detterent factor must be considered in building defence sector. As I said before SG can only get their detterent factor by aquiring advanced military equipments which MY doesnt have to but It is nice to have them.

SG defence will be depend on how much money they must spend. Like it or not.
But this money game sooner or later will push SG to their limit.
SG will be Taiwan, MY will be SK/Japan, ID will be china.
The good thing is we are more relatively peace then taiwan/Japan/china

SG will be Taiwan, MY will be SK/Japan, ID will be china.

Why you quote me? I already stopped quote you.
You don't like my post...lol.

Really?
For defence procurement only?

Well, if it is true one kiasu sinkie here will die of heart attack...lol.
He Will set up a rally SG government to spend $500 bn until 2044...lol

Fresh from Darwin, RSAF sends another aerial task force to Guam to train with US forces and likely F35s.

And spotted over by a pinoy:

Buy Rafale for the kickback (the french are very famous for these)
Use the money & drum up the Rafale as national pride ala modi to try for the 3rd time lucky bid for the presidency?

So it less to do with strengthening of the military
Just a politikus doing politikus things.

If Probowo want to do what best for the nation
Then just get more F16.

But buying sensible F16 won't win any votes though.

Why can't MY & ID accepted it When they been overspend on weapon then everyone else even ID all along?

One thing people got to remember is that SG has exhausted all source of growth, they aren't likely to grow higher than 3% annually.

Post 2030, they either double it to 6% of GDP to spend as much as ID then double it up again post 2040 to keep up with ID while all ID has to do is maintain it at 1% of GDP. But if they don't increase their military spending they would spend only as much as MY post 2040. L

Why do you think Israel are trying hard to have a normalized relationship with their neighbors nowdays?

Lol 4-6% this year only. Not 4-6% annually. Any country which able to get out of the pandemic would grow 200% more than usual due to the slowdowns before.
Remember state wealth is not equal citizens wealth.

Also the state doesn't pay for the rail, the citizens does. as rail lines are paid through state land sales whose monopoly on supplies inflated the price of property there. They don't pay for healthcare nor roads as well.

SG core competency is
1) low taxes rates which allowed them to be the paper HQ of MNC operating in ASEAN, infact 70% of their GDP is due to those MNC, the rest are filled by mostly GLC which monopolize almost all domestic industry.

2) very competent gov interference a result of blurring the lines between what is PAP and the civil service.
And yet even at the height of a pandemic where people priorities security over anything else, PAP only win 60% of popular votes.  If this trend continue and their citizens demanded more and more social services they can't afford to keep the taxes rates low for those MNC to still be there or if they demanded more & more democracy then they lose the effective gov interference.

The end of one party state is quite devastating for SG as they are very specialized on the taxes heaven economy. So unlike TW/SK even ID the end of one party state won't be of any benefits to them. So unless PAP prepared SG for a post PAP SG. It would take quite a miracle for SG to not follow the trejectory of HK. Afterall few decades back HK GDP was 200% of SG/MY.

The idea of Indonesia banking its fighter force on US warplanes is simply ludicrous. I don't think Indonesia has any more appetite for a high degree of dependence on US defense equipment given the history of US arms embargo on the country. In the early 2000s, US arms embargo effectively grounded the Indonesian Air Force's F-16s, effectively eliminating its primary (really, entire) fighter fleet, a condition which was only mitigated with the arrival of the Russian Sukhois.

Note that prior to this, Indonesia had actually planned to build a fighter force composed entirely of F-16s, with 80 examples planned. But the embargo proved that the US is an unreliable supplier. And once bitten twice shy, it now seeks to avoid dependence on one supplier. Neither the public nor the political establishment would accept a return to such a time since it had been taught the harsh lesson that when you depend on the armaments of one country, you'll have to obey its policies and dictates, and no country that has to obey another can claim to be truly sovereign.

Of course, I don't doubt that this policy is partly maintained by officials seeking to secure kickbacks from procurements, it is definitely a motivation. Indonesia is not like Singapore, its officials cannot just pay themselves millions over the table. The public would lynch them if they ever attempt to give themselves such a pay raise, so they have to skim them under the table. Malaysia - and pretty much the rest of Southeast Asia, really - is also in the same straits.

Of course, this isn't good since it lets officials get used to breaking the law. What I'd like to see happen is for countries like Indonesia and Malaysia to be more like the US where officials don't receive kickbacks or bribes and instead secure golden parachutes and run the revolving door of government and business. Instead of taking cash for making government decisions, they should instead take speaking and consultation fees. If these countries can reform their political culture in that direction, it will go a long way towards cleaning up their corruption reputation and perhaps approach the US ranking in the Corruptions Perceptions Index, the US being one the cleanest countries globally according to the index.

Of course, it still wouldn't be Singapore, but that's unrealistic for large and populous countries to aim for in the first place. Instead, countries like the US or Japan provides a better model for managing political corruption and diminishing its perceived impact. Such reforms would also professionalize arms procurement, giving the public greater confidence in the quality of defense spending.

SG kiasuness is unlimited...lol.
They will reject the rule of gravity, what is going up must going down. Nothing is stay on top forever. That is not surprising, even US is not ready if overtaken by PRC.

Like I said SG will be Taiwan sooner or later.

I understand Indonesia stand in acquiring military hardwares from various sources, ID/India/China have similar pattern. They all are too big to rely on one source. Self reliance at least for the major equipments is the best option. Naturally, they all big nations with abundant sources and domestic market. Why give their domestic market for others?
Even if they can build inferior equipment will be not a problem. They already have natural detterent efect.

You put ID is SG shoes? It wont fit.

MY has no problem with ID...we can sleep well...lol.
MY will happy if can be SK/Japan while let ID become China.

Rational?....lol.

MY also have incidents with SG....so what? We go to total war?...lol.
Yes MY can sleep well....MY can accept ID bigger and stronger as opportunity.

Of course the French may impose embargoes. Even the Russians may impose embargoes on Indonesia if the country ever crosses Russian interest - the Soviet Union, Russia's predecessor state, had done exactly this after 1965 - this fact is a given and well-understood. The entire point learned by the Indonesia that had the experience of being embargoed by the Soviet Union, the EU and the US is that none of them can be trusted to be a sole or majority supplier of Indonesian defense equipment for major and critical platforms, hence the insistence on multiplicity of sources. The idea being that they are a lot less likely to place embargoes in lockstep with one another, ensuring that at least some assets in any class would be usable in the event that an embargo is placed by a source country.

And of course, not all countries' interests are equally vast. France may be a great power whose island territories in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific put their core interests right next to Indonesia's doorstep, but they are far and away a much weaker power (compared to the US & China) which must seek cooperation with regional powers to maintain their interests. This helps constrain any decision by France - and by extension, the EU - that would strongly jeopardize French relations with Indonesia. Russia, on the other hand, is a greatly diminished and distant power and is therefore unlikely to have interests Indonesia is likely to cross, so they are a better supplier in terms of not constraining Indonesia's freedom of action. The US and China, the former being the current global hegemon with equally global interests and the latter being a rising superpower keen to break out of its containment within the so-called First Island Chain are the two countries Indonesia would most likely cross at some point in the future - depending on its choices - and so make poor choices as defense suppliers.

Being a large country straddling one of the most geostrategically important locations on Earth - especially more recently in the context of geostrategic competition between the US and China - Indonesia cannot hope to avoid crossing one major power or another forever. It is also unwilling to subordinate itself to the interest of any foreign power, hence its insistence on entering no alliance and its continuous swinging between the major powers as partners of choice at any point in time - part of the so-called dynamic equilibrium - to encourage great power competition. Therefore, at some point in time, someone somewhere would not agree with its choices and so seek to constrain its behavior, arms embargo being a viable tool for employment in such a scenario.

Of course, the safest course of action for a country like Indonesia is to source its armaments domestically, ensuring the greatest freedom of action least constrained by any external state's interest. But, for obvious reasons, this is not viable at the present time. The country had certainly made progress in this field and attempts had been made to adopt foreign technology for domestic manufacture of defense equipment, including by making them a requirement of major arms purchases from the time of the Yudhoyono presidency. Having said that, defense was, for a long time, not a government priority.

Indonesia may have made great strides in economic development, lifting itself from the poorest country in the world in 1949 to a middle-income country today, yet the need to deliver on infrastructure, economic growth and social development continue to weigh on government resources and diminish its ability to invest in defense and, commensurately, localized manufacturing and R&D. Although it is perfectly possible for Indonesia to lift defense spending to 1% of GDP from the current 0.8%, perhaps even to 1.5% if it decides to be ambitious, it will not militarize to the same extent as China or the US - and certainly not Singapore, which had often broadcasted its readiness to spend up to 6% of its GDP on defense - anytime in the foreseeable future.

So until then, imports of major advanced equipment cannot be avoided, so multiplicity of sources will continue to be the only viable way of maintaining its diplomatic and geopolitical independence.

I feel like you are not even reading my statement before insisting on regurgitating your own. 

I knew and freely acknowledge that from the perspective of logistics efficiency, having fewer platforms with commonalities from the same suppliers would be the better option. It would be fantastic for any armed force, the best option in terms of keeping upkeep costs low and maintaining a high degree of availability as you don't have to train as many technicians and can negotiate more favorable procurement deals due to larger orders. This is something understood in Indonesia as well, hence why the old Indonesian Air Force plan calls for standardizing on the F-16 as the country's only fighter/multi-role aircraft. In other words, its air force plan was awfully similar to Turkey's.

But countries must learn from experience too and Indonesia's experience over the last 20 years had taught it that such a plan was untenable. Depending on American supplies means that the US can cripple the Indonesian Air Force at will. The Indonesian Air Force had experienced this. The Indonesian political establishment and the public will not accept a repeat of this. Which part of this is difficult for you to understand?

How does your suggestion of dependence on the US as sole supplier - which you continued to insist on - secure Indonesia's freedom of action? It doesn't! But I suppose it would make sense for a country like Singapore to want Indonesia leashed in such a way. Becoming dependent on US armaments means accepting an assigned position within America's global order. No country that cares about their independence would accept such subordination.

So if Indonesia has to purchase fighter aircraft from just a single source, from the perspective of its national interest, that country would either be France or Russia, but never the US, and certainly not China. The reasons, I have already stated before, but I will state it again for the sake of clarity.

The US is a global hegemon with equally global interests and ambitions. It had shown itself happily willing to sanction and embargo countries that will not move in lockstep with it. Indonesia is a large and sovereign country, and it is a Non-Aligned country, it will never accept subordination to an American-assigned position within its world order, certainly not forever. So, any move that will make it dependent on the US is not only militarily foolish, but politically suicidal as well, because sometime, somewhere, it will piss off the US again, if only because it refuses American demands at some point in the future.