So you're essentially saying that it was okay that the Indonesian government stepped out of line and silenced foreign journalists by murdering them. Because let's be real, that was the tipping point. The Clinton administration didn't really care about our policies in East Timor as they were more concerned about keeping us as a close ally. It was the fact that the TNI murdered foreign journalists that threw them past the point of foreign understanding from an Indonesian point of view.
Considering what the Indonesian Government did in terms of public relations with their neighbours and allies, the Indonesian government really shot itself in the foot with that one. We can both agree that it is not the ideal representation that we want.
So you never heard any news, for God knows how many decades, regarding the Israeli forces killing journalist, or civilian, or........ children?
Any embargo?
We did the mistake here, and accepted the punishment. How come they did a lot worse and nothing happened?
Or maybe you are trying to say that killing civilians are immoral here, but it's completely okay elsewhere as long as it's done by their so called close "allies"?
Is this the norm to be "aligned with them"? If so then I'm not fond of it to say the least.
And why is that? our most pressing security concern right now is an encroaching PLAN/PLAAF, however judging from your previous post, you are more concerned over the USAF, RAAF, and RSAF even though multiple members have shown you otherwise why we should not be concerned over them. Please explain why we should be concerned over China over our direct neighbours.
Because several members have shown you that there is no "regional issue". Indonesia is allies of interest and convenience with the US, Australia, and Singapore and has many military cooperations and agreements with its neighbours to show for it.
I told you already, the most ideal solution for china problem is "to blow them to pieces and wiped them off the world map".
Do you really think it'll be us who do it?
Do you think it'll be our F-16 who do it? Or perhaps our Sukhoi?
Really?
Dude, the most that we can contribute is exactly what you guys were talking about several pages above, providing area for refueling for the big guns.
Our air forces hold not so much relevance with china problem.
It's strange that you're optimistic as hell for us to get all the U.S. support but totally pessimistic in the U.S. chance to destroy China.
I'm the opposite. I believe 100% that even with just their Pacific fleet, they can beat china. Never mind with full QUAD support plus UK.
And after they got rid of china problem, what do we have left? Obviously our usual business, means our regional challenge.
Not difficult to grasp.
How so? The Su-35 shares almost no commonality with our current Flanker fleet. Exactly explain how it is the best option. Also, you have never replied to my question of how having US-built jet aircraft is a "problem" in your view. Please explain that as well.
Yes, because commonality and standardization mean a lot in modern warfighting. Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics
Dude, the commonality is not the only thing that we should consider. If so then why the heck we wait for so many years, analyzing so many different aircrafts, and then came up with SU-35, and then after CAATSA we (probably) turn our attention to Rafale.
So you're saying our government is full of amateurs?
We can build the new infrastructure, albeit with much more investment. We should not be allergic to that.
And by the end of the embargo, the US offered to have us be a part of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program if we purchased the F-16 Block 52+, funny how realpolitik works?
@Gen3115 and
@Nike can tell you more about that.
Again, if that means we have to buy 3 squadrons of F-16V first before get our hands on F-35 then it's a s**t offer.
Once we get our hand on F-35, china problem would probably have been resolved, and it'll be Martians who claim not just our EEZ in Natuna, but our fricking patio as well. And I'll probably be the one who say, "I told you to get that S-500!".
Having the F-16V would allow us to have better F-16's than Thailand and give us a similar capability to Singapore. Also, what source do you have that China as you said "has all complete collection of F-16 A/V", I would like to see it.
Also, like or not the AN/APG-83 SABR AESA radar is about a few years newer than the RBE2-AA radar. Exactly in your view how is it that the F-16V 's avionics is inferior to the Rafale even though, practicality in mind, the F-16V is a very recent upgrade program that beats the Rafale upgrades by a few years in age.
I said "better U.S. made fighter", so I was clearly talking about the upcoming F-35.
I said cmiiw because I was sure china got a copy of F-16, build their own (is it J-10 or J-16?) and then develop it further, but I was not sure how it fares against the original F-16. The point remains, F-16 is not something new for them. Different than Rafale.
Unless they also got a copy of Rafale and already built their version, then I stand corrected.
(note : maybe I'm not really IT/web savvy, but this multi-quote jobs is a pain in the ***)
