I asked first

That's a non answer. But anyway

Frankly I don't see a difference. There's no enemy in sight where US will support and EU won't, or vice versa. So it's a waste of time and money to split procurement that way.

Why is being a defensive or not force relevant? Defensive or offensive, you expect that the opponent may be EU or US sponsored, right?

Pastu tanya balik TLDM for what? I don't give a fuck about them in the context of Indonesian procurement.

Simple question that can be answered simply, seribu dalih kenapa

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Sep 21 2021, 11:22 PM

Again, besides the point. Offensive or defensive, you will be in a war and you expect your opponent to try and do all they can including to call for embargo, correct?

The question is: what's the purpose of buying from 2 different sources?

Simple question.

I just want an explanation what scenario in your mind would see Indo defending itself with EU support but not US support thus justifying the split procurement.

Strength is relative; 10,000 infantrymen is very strong against say 100 insurgents, not so much against a carrier strike group.

I'm sure there is a logic kan? Because it can't possibly be that Indo is just buying a rojak fleet for no reason, as that would be criminally inefficient wouldn't it? If everyone is your friend then it doesn't matter who you buy from.

As you yourself said:

You said this
and this

So clearly you have worked out an answer in your head. Which is that, if you buy from EU but not from US then clearly you have considered that someone who is "friend of US but not of EU" may cause trouble in future, and that is the reason for the procurement. Logical right.

I just want to know who that is, in your opinion.

Simple question.

is this fucking cool or what?

Cockpit of the Italian Navy Thaon di Revel-class OPV



external for context



This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Sep 23 2021, 05:22 PM

not all ships are fitted with the full missile loadout, some will be guns only therefore making it an OPV

"Light, Light+, Full" spec

No irony at all

WW2 is more than a lifetime away by this point

Size and weight is indeed a major factor

But I'm more impressed by reports of the custom ammo they are said to use. Sounds like something of a video game - hundred dollar HE and AP rounds...

How do you come to that conclusion?

I don't think they will be reluctant to pew pew China. Seeking industrial independence is just that, I believe.

I think that's a mistake. Russia for reasons of its own will always take the anti-US position. In the event of a China vs US war, they will either be neutral or sabo US and US allies.

The Vietnam war is one example of this. Even though theoretically Russia and China were antagonists at that time due to the Sino-Soviet Split, they agreed on a detente in order to support the North Vietnamese. And it can be argued that even today they are somewhat co-operating. Only very recently have relations cooled somewhat, due to China copying Russian military hardware, and that also is a relatively small thing in the overall geopolitical situation.

France is following Germany's lead, and Germany is reluctant to move against China due to strong trade ties and lack of political will to participate in the superpower conflicts. Same story with Russia; Poland accused Germany of using it as a buffer, and Baltics accused the German-led Continental NATO coalition of abandoning them to be Crimea'd by Russia. It took major Trump and possibly other Anglo pressure to get them to move their asses and form the EFP.

One additional problem with MICA and similar European weapons is the low production count. This means both higher expense per unit and potential lower availability in conflict.

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Oct 9 2021, 01:08 AM

Not joining the China conflict will only see them eventually overrun by a strong NK, if China wins. There are no long-term benefits to helping China or even staying neutral.

Furthermore, during this "market penetration" phrase of Korean arms industry, they will be less susceptible to sanctions.

Russia and China are the same as Russia and Germany in 1939, and Russia and France in 1810. They may have long-term antagonism but China won't be so stupid as to play Napoleon and Hitler twice, and Russia likewise will at best play both sides off against each other. Neutrality will thus also affect availability of Russian-sourced arms.

India is a different story. Previously they have been lukewarm to the US until the Osama fiasco so now the US still regards them cautiously, but yes we will probably see gradual warming up.

Opposite mapren

France still wants Anglo help (at least until this recent submarine issue, not sure how far that will go) because they are still UK's #1 European trading partner, plus they are working together at grassroots in Africa. They are furthest away from the front lines so they don't care as much about superpower struggles, just like in Cold War 1.

It is Germany, the strongest economy (and political force thanks to Merkel) in the EU who wants to play big brother on the Continent and supplant the US. They want to recruit France away from the Anglo alliance but don't have the bargaining power of the full Anglo alliance. So now they are turning to the Dutch and Scandis.

Observe the EFP lead nations. 3 Anglos, 1 German. That tells you the lay of the land; France is not a lead nation.


With Germany at the lead, as the big brother.

True, but not because French want to be lead nation; France is just a worldwide arms supplier since the AMX-13 and Mirage III

They won't even sanction unless pressured by somebody, they don't give fuck for SJWs


Nah. If we are talking about solely from the view of cost and availability, my ranking is Anglo-Saxon, Korean, French, Turkish.

The reason why is Anglo is cheap and anti-China, Korean is cheap and at the very least neutral, French is expensive but neutral, Turkish is cheap and probably neutral.

This is a very good point though.

We'll see how it goes. SK will always

They have certain advantages... actually they are like this only because we in EA/SEA are politically fragmented and we let them play. If we present a stronger, united front they have no chance.

Before Osama, US thought Pakistan can help them as a "moderate Islamic country" to counter AQ. So they cuddled up to Pakistan and that pissed off India. Manatau the extremist side won, so US dumped them and China picked up the pieces.

Only cause you probably haven't been following Continental NATO news. Actually the French main belakang in all areas except Africa and West Indies where they have significant ex-colonial and EEZ interests. Germany is the undisputed big boss of Europe.


"Very well, alone"

UK has always been sucking hind tit with the Continentals, only now they are giving up the EU dream, albeit reluctantly for the Bremoaners and SNPs. AUKUS has been a long time coming, the real stubborn ass is Australia who used to dream of replacing UK as US's special relationship. But now that they have been shown to need help more than they are able to give help, they accept their position as adik ke-2 behind UK lor

I believe it will come.

Tempest is British-led, Italians only join because they fed up with the Franco-German alliance, which was dragging its feet - that one a whole nother story.

Otherwise, italians mainly rival France for #2 European military power, and of course dreams of Mediterranean supremacy. (Not sure how true that is.) They are very closely allied to US actually, 1 of the most reliable NATO partners. Diam2 ubi berisi. Still, not sure about their hardware.

I wouldn't be so sure. They seem to be growing by leaps and bounds, nearly as much as China is.

Titik anda ialah...?

QE docked in Singapore, it's definitely in the area, but not sure if it really is participating

I think somewhat unlikely, given certain indications but I really can't say. Got argument for and against based on current indicators

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Oct 10 2021, 11:25 PM

Bruh

This is a Delta IV submarine, mainstay of the Russian fleet

Same "hump" is there what. Apa problem?

Dardo, the 1st pic, is a CIWS (Close In Weapon System) of about the same generation as Goalkeeper, and it outranges Goalkeeper

Although to be fair in more recent pics of the Laksamanas I see the system seems to have been removed. In storage or decommissioned, I wonder.

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Oct 12 2021, 01:41 AM

This modification would entail opening up the hull I believe

The Dardo is still on the Laksamana but it seems the CIWS fire control radar has been removed, so maybe it operates in manually-controlled gun mode now?

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Oct 12 2021, 11:11 AM