What's new

The Submarine Race in the Malaccan Strait

Yes yes, this^ is exactly what I am trying to say.

Qing dynasty is the first Chinese dynasty that use the term 中國 to represent the whole Empire, the "whole China". Back to the period of the three Kingdoms and Song/Jing Dynasty. Only the region of 魏 and 金 are "中國".

Most importantly, as you and I have mentioned above, China can not directly translated to 中國 and 中國 can not directly translated to China in Chinese history, since there are many other meanings of 中國 and the meanings have been changing for thousands year.

In addition, according to the other theaty the Treaty of Nanjing, 清朝皇帝 and 清朝are translated to "Emperor of China" and "China", not the "Emperor of Qing" and "Qing".

Moreover, there was a conversion in Qing Dynasty, they called and introduced themselves 中國 in foreign affairs but 大清 in internal affairs.

In other word, in Qing dynasty, 中國, 大清, China did share the same meanings and influence in documents.
也就是說,清朝和中國的意思相互通,清朝=中國,中國=清朝,中國一詞係清朝基本上同民國一樣有代表整個國家的法律地位,同時外國人也同樣認為China同中國/大清都係一回事, therefore Qing Dynasty did officially call their land China
.

This is actually what I said in my very first post.

I remember I quoted this
至清朝後期,“中國”一詞已經有著超過三千年的使用歷史,一直只是作為一種泛指的词汇來使用,不曾將“中國 ”兩字明確作為其政體的直接名稱。清廷與西方國家交流時,虽然往往按照传统的观点以世界中心自居而使用“中 國”這個名稱來稱呼自己,但在多数官方正式文书上还是把“大清”作为国号,与“中国”混合使用

Indeed in late Qing period, the government of Qing did start mixing the term China and Qing, but still, using it does not mean they are officially calling it, as with many Chinese Literature point out, China was first officially use in political entity during Republic of China.

I never said 中國 was not use in any capacity in any political level. I am only saying they use it unofficially.

@jhungary

The Qing even translated Zhongguo as "Dulimbai Gurun" (Zhongguo in Manchu) for the Manchu version of the Treaty of Nerchinsk. This was translated into Latin and Russian as "China", and clearly referred to the territories of the Qing empire.

Are you really that thick??

China does not mean 中國 the word China does not come from the word 中國, China does REFER to 中國

This is the same when we say 英國 in Chinese, Both United Kingdom and Britain does not literally mean 英國.

United Kingdom - 聯合王國
Great Britain - 大不列顛

Then where is the term 英國 from? 英國 coming from the term Kingdom of England 英格蘭王國, short for 英國, however, the 英國 we refer to as of today does not only include the kingdom of England, no sir, it refer to the United Kingdom, which consist of Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland and Medival Wales. The union of 3 kingdoms formed the country United Kingdom. In Chinese - 英國, however, if you go by the meaning 英國 only mean England, one part of United Kingdom.

So both United Kingdom and Great Britain does not mean 英國, but they refer to 英國. Same as China does not mean 中國, nor does it came from 中國 to Is that clear??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys, guys, let's stick to the subject matter, okay dokie?

Depending on exactly what action IN take, of course it okay if IN is taking discriminating action (eg. force boarding the Chinese Vessel and turn them around) or if you are enacting a blockade in Andaman or Nicobar Island, however, if IN take an Non-discriminating action (Like mining the entrant to the strait) then not only US will intervene but UN would too.....

So, in your case, how IN stop Chinese shipping is a key not the goal of stopping Chinese Shipping.

This is what USAHawk mean, well I guess....


If the Indian Navy was to blockade the straits , any Indian Navy ships will be eradicated by the USN by force. If they initiated an non-discriminatory sinking of Chinese ships bound for US ports or any ports outside China, then these hostile ships will be eradicated.
 
This is about Law of War, maybe USAHawk had a real aggressive side in it but let me explain to you further.

You can declare a Chinese Citizen in India a "Persona Non-Grata" and expel him or simply lock him up. You cannot destroy his home in India or kill him if that person has no Military Connection to China enough to call that Person a Enemy Combatant.

Same law applies in the Sea.

Merchant ship = Civilian. Under Law of war, in case of a Indian/Chinese War scenario, India have the right to say "Ok, you are not welcome here) if the ship flying Chinese flag enter Indian water. And what you can do is Board the ship and turn them around.

Unless you classified that shipping is "War Ship" IN cannot fire upon civilian shipping, even if the shipping is registered to a country you are currently at war.

If the Chinese shipping did only carry Resource and or Goods. There are no justification for IN to open fire. Fire on a civilian ship of any region (Regardless of status of war) are in violation of Geneva Convention Law of the war. Broad it, if you did find the good turns out to be armament or ammunition, then you can sink them. But if you are talking about oil, gold, food or any product, you can turn them around and not let them come in Indian water, but you have no right sinking them.

It is the same way it's a war crime to sink Hospital Ship even if that's your enemy hospital ship....

Good posting.
 
Indian navy's submarines are outdated and obsolete, and they are years away from getting new conventional submarines so to even say they could block any ships be PLAN or USN is ridiculous.
 
Indian navy's submarines are outdated and obsolete, and they are years away from getting new conventional submarines so to even say they could block any ships be PLAN or USN is ridiculous.


I will concur, their submarine fleet is rather lacking, albeit their surface fleet is formidable. In the event that the IN initiated a blockade, the US 7th Fleet's Submarine Wolf Packs would be unleashed deep inside the IOR to wreak havoc on the IN's Eastern Fleet. The 7th Fleet and 5th Fleet would merge and strangle the IN.

US_Navy_101210-N-6720T-142_The_Los_Angeles-class_attack_submarine_USS_Houston_(SSN_713)_leads_a_formation_of_ships_from_USS_George_Washington_(CVN_.jpg


1326906915564.jpg
 
Lets get back to the topic. This is not a Vietnamese thread. The Country is not anywhere near Malacca strait & IN<USN. Now that I got it out of the way lets begin.

Indonesia&#8217;s Submarine Doctrine Explained
By Zachary Keck
July 19, 2013

Holmes11-400x285.jpg


Earlier this week I wrote a piece outlining the submarine forces of the three countries that sit atop the Malacca Strait&#8212; Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. In discussing Indonesia&#8217;s expanding submarine force in that article, I quoted liberally from an interview I did with Koh Swee Lean Collin, an Associate Research Fellow at the RSIS Military Studies Program, and an expert on all things naval (particularly naval modernization) among ASEAN nations (see here and here, for instance).

The whole exchange is really worth reading, however, and so, with Collin&#8217;s permission, I&#8217;ve published it below. Enjoy!

The Diplomat: What is Indonesia&#8217;s submarine doctrine?

Koh Swee Lean Collin: As we all understand, Indonesia is a vast archipelagic country, which correspondingly means that effectively and comprehensively policing its vast maritime expanses poses a unique challenge. This thus also shapes the way the Indonesian Navy (or TNI-AL) prioritizes and builds its force structure in view also of the persistent resource constraints.

Submarines certainly form a major facet of the whole game plan. Their role is intended largely in peacetime to constitute a &#8220;fleet-in-being&#8221; deterrent to any potential foe. In wartime, due to the multiplicity of possible sea approaches the adversary may undertake, it is necessary to carry out effective sea denial using submarines, by focusing them on the strategic SLOCs [Sea Lines of Communication] of the highest priority.

To effectively accomplish this feat, Indonesia's ideal submarine fleet strength has to hover around eight at the minimum, and 12 ideally. Historical experiences had a role to play in deciding the envisaged submarine capacity TNI-AL should have. During its &#8220;golden age&#8221; in the 1960s, the TNI-AL had up to 12 Soviet-built submarines of the Whiskey class.

However, for the foreseeable future, TNI-AL seemed to realize that 12 boats could be financially implausible to attain, hence eight would be the best [number] to strive for. However, as we see today, the TNI-AL remains a distance from this intended target. With the new trio of South Korean-built submarines ordered recently, at the very most there'll be just five boats including the existing pair of Type-209s. It is most likely that not all boats will be operational at any one time.

Hence, the peacetime role of &#8220;fleet-in-being&#8221; deterrent and wartime sea denial role will remain the centerpiece of TNI-AL submarine doctrine. A limited sea control role would be possible in specific contexts, but more effective sea control over the Indonesian archipelago [only] appears more possible with a further expansion of TNI-AL's submarine force. More likely, the three South Korean-built boats will be the only operational boats gradually supplanting the aging pair of 209s, by then too old and less cost-effective to operate and maintain.

Why was the Palu Bay selected to serve as Indonesia&#8217;s submarine base?

The primary reasons for selecting Palu surely have to do with geography. It's located, first of all. astride the Strait of Makassar and the Palu Bay is a narrow, deep inlet (reportedly 400m) which provides maximum security for the submarine force in terms of concealment and defense against attacks. Besides its sitting astride the strategic waterway, Palu offers direct access northwards into the Sulawesi Sea, where Indonesia still has an outstanding dispute with Malaysia over the Ambalat offshore oil block, off the Malaysian-controlled Ligitan and Sipadan Islands (which were awarded to Kuala Lumpur in the early 2000s by the International Court of Justice). The historic loss of the islands to Malaysia made it even more imperative for Indonesia to safeguard its rights over the Ambalat block. This was also taken into account during previous naval standoffs between the two countries' maritime forces in 2005 and 2009.

Therefore, the significance of Palu Bay is to facilitate TNI-AL's ability to project a submarine presence into the Ambalat, and perhaps to serve as a form of deterrent against unilateral naval moves by the Malaysians whose existing Scorpene class submarines were based nearby in Sabah's Sepanggar. In fact, in 2009 Indonesia suspected that Malaysia had deployed the submarines in the disputed waters, leading to the RMN chief to assure Indonesian legislators that KL would not make such moves. Whether or not it had assured Jakarta of this remains debatable, but the Palu Bay would offer TNI-AL a form of insurance against potential Malaysian naval moves into the waters. It is not inconceivable that TNI-AL subs would be well poised to conduct covert surveillance in the Ambalat waters, keeping track of unusual Malaysian activities in the area.

From a broader perspective, the Palu base is also part of the TNI-AL's overall reorganization efforts, fronted by the expansion from two existing fleets &#8212; the Eastern and Western Fleet Commands &#8212; to three, including the new Central Fleet Command. This appears to be a move to reorganize the division of labor of the TNI-AL more equitably into distinct geographical areas of responsibilities. It also signifies the increasing strategic importance of the central waterways of the Indonesian Archipelago, which are believed to be the arena of foreign submarine activities. TNI-AL's Palu base hence should also be seen in this light. However, the Palu base also has another focus down south, as I explain in greater detail in the following question about the strategic waterways.

To what extent, then, is Indonesia trying to gain the capabilities necessary to exert more control over the shipping routes it is located upon, potentially being able to interdict shipping from specific countries during a conflict?

I believe Indonesia is certainly seeking to exert greater control over the three main strategic waterways - Lombok, Makassar and Sunda. These are often relegated to secondary importance after the Malacca Strait, which carries greater economic value. However, the geostrategic location of Indonesia means that its archipelagic waters would become the conduit for foreign naval movements to and fro the Indian and Pacific Oceans. This certainly includes foreign submarine activities, as mentioned earlier.

The Indonesians have long been conscious of the vulnerability of these waterways to foreign naval activities, which Jakarta deemed as rather disconcerting, especially with the rise of major power rivalries and tensions in the region, which correspondingly amplifies the importance of these waterways. For many years since 2004, the TNI-AL has focused a significant portion of the maritime surveillance assets to counter piracy and sea robberies in the Malacca Strait and to deter separatism in the Papuan province, as well as to the Ambalat waters. It's therefore time for the Indonesians to place more attention on the three strategic waterways.

However, the tasks at hand for TNI-AL are daunting, given the emergent need to refocus attention on the Natuna Islands, where the South China Sea tensions and recent PLA Navy forays deep south in the area (as exemplified by the PLA Navy's &#8220;show of might&#8221; near James Shoal at the southernmost rim of the South China Sea) have created renewed concerns. To accomplish all these tasks, including greater control over the strategic waterways, Indonesia would have to expand its current naval forces in multiple dimensions, including surface, subsurface and land-based maritime aerial support elements.

We have recently seen procurement and force restructuring efforts that appear to be geared towards this mega effort. More emphasis has been placed on enhancing surface and aerial surveillance capabilities, while the earlier mention expansion from two to three fleet commands are all manifestations of this endeavor. This will certainly continue to be an incremental, gradual enhancement process which takes time, and until then the TNI-AL could only best hope for intermittent control over the waterways instead of round-the-clock ability to do so. One only needs to note the extremely daunting task TNI-AL faces in acquiring, operating and maintaining a capacity sufficient to police the entire archipelago.

Submarines hence serve as a useful force in the effort to exert greater control over those strategic waterways, which are geographically ideal for subsurface actions in times of peace and war. The proximity of Palu base to these three waterways (Makassar astride, and Sunda and Lombok down south across the Java Sea) facilitates TNI-AL's submarine presence in those areas in both periods of peace and contingencies. However, in view of the small size of the TNI-AL submarine fleet even with the entry of the new boats, the best it can hope for presently remains primarily sea denial and at best, limited amount of sea control in those three waterways. The Palu base certainly serves as a &#8220;force multiplier&#8221; in this respect.

Indonesia
 
I will concur, their submarine fleet is rather lacking, albeit their surface fleet is formidable. In the event that the IN initiated a blockade, the US 7th Fleet's Submarine Wolf Packs would be unleashed deep inside the IOR to wreak havoc on the IN's Eastern Fleet. The 7th Fleet and 5th Fleet would merge and strangle the IN.

US_Navy_101210-N-6720T-142_The_Los_Angeles-class_attack_submarine_USS_Houston_(SSN_713)_leads_a_formation_of_ships_from_USS_George_Washington_(CVN_.jpg


1326906915564.jpg
I wonder why you dislike the Indians. Your posts even assume that the USN would initiate strikes on Indian naval fleet if they dare to blockace the strait in conflict with China?

What happens to the US-India relationship? just empty rhetorics?
 
Lets get back to the topic. This is not a Vietnamese thread. The Country is not anywhere near Malacca strait & IN<USN. Now that I got it out of the way lets begin. ..
LOL agreed, you are right...Indonesia has own ambitions.
 
I wonder why you dislike the Indians. Your posts even assume that the USN would initiate strikes on Indian naval fleet if they dare to blockace the strait in conflict with China?

What happens to the US-India relationship? just empty rhetorics?
Well, we have a war in here, everyone involved and ... :blah:
 
I wonder why you dislike the Indians. Your posts even assume that the USN would initiate strikes on Indian naval fleet if they dare to blockace the strait in conflict with China?

What happens to the US-India relationship? just empty rhetorics?


I don't have disdain for Indians, I have a great respect for the Indian people, their culture. My response was towards a hypothetical scenario in which one indian poster claimed that the Indian Navy would blockade the Malaccas Strait. It is a hypothetical scenario that no one wants to happen.

There is warm and cordial relations between the Indian Navy and the USN, I personally have met many IN officers through my tenure in the USN.

The Strait of Malaccas is under the jurisdictional control of the United States 7th Fleet. Since a large portion of the trade that passes through that aforementioned Strait is bound for the United States, it is detrimental for US strategic interest to have the flow of trade interrupted.

I reiterate, I have no disdain for Indians, rather have a considerable respect for them and their culture. Thank You.


Regards,
Dr. Kurt

Lets get back to the topic. This is not a Vietnamese thread. The Country is not anywhere near Malacca strait & IN<USN. Now that I got it out of the way lets begin.

Indonesia’s Submarine Doctrine Explained
By Zachary Keck
July 19, 2013

Holmes11-400x285.jpg


Earlier this week I wrote a piece outlining the submarine forces of the three countries that sit atop the Malacca Strait— Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. In discussing Indonesia’s expanding submarine force in that article, I quoted liberally from an interview I did with Koh Swee Lean Collin, an Associate Research Fellow at the RSIS Military Studies Program, and an expert on all things naval (particularly naval modernization) among ASEAN nations (see here and here, for instance).

The whole exchange is really worth reading, however, and so, with Collin’s permission, I’ve published it below. Enjoy!

The Diplomat: What is Indonesia’s submarine doctrine?

Koh Swee Lean Collin: As we all understand, Indonesia is a vast archipelagic country, which correspondingly means that effectively and comprehensively policing its vast maritime expanses poses a unique challenge. This thus also shapes the way the Indonesian Navy (or TNI-AL) prioritizes and builds its force structure in view also of the persistent resource constraints.

Submarines certainly form a major facet of the whole game plan. Their role is intended largely in peacetime to constitute a “fleet-in-being” deterrent to any potential foe. In wartime, due to the multiplicity of possible sea approaches the adversary may undertake, it is necessary to carry out effective sea denial using submarines, by focusing them on the strategic SLOCs [Sea Lines of Communication] of the highest priority.

To effectively accomplish this feat, Indonesia's ideal submarine fleet strength has to hover around eight at the minimum, and 12 ideally. Historical experiences had a role to play in deciding the envisaged submarine capacity TNI-AL should have. During its “golden age” in the 1960s, the TNI-AL had up to 12 Soviet-built submarines of the Whiskey class.

However, for the foreseeable future, TNI-AL seemed to realize that 12 boats could be financially implausible to attain, hence eight would be the best [number] to strive for. However, as we see today, the TNI-AL remains a distance from this intended target. With the new trio of South Korean-built submarines ordered recently, at the very most there'll be just five boats including the existing pair of Type-209s. It is most likely that not all boats will be operational at any one time.

Hence, the peacetime role of “fleet-in-being” deterrent and wartime sea denial role will remain the centerpiece of TNI-AL submarine doctrine. A limited sea control role would be possible in specific contexts, but more effective sea control over the Indonesian archipelago [only] appears more possible with a further expansion of TNI-AL's submarine force. More likely, the three South Korean-built boats will be the only operational boats gradually supplanting the aging pair of 209s, by then too old and less cost-effective to operate and maintain.

Why was the Palu Bay selected to serve as Indonesia’s submarine base?

The primary reasons for selecting Palu surely have to do with geography. It's located, first of all. astride the Strait of Makassar and the Palu Bay is a narrow, deep inlet (reportedly 400m) which provides maximum security for the submarine force in terms of concealment and defense against attacks. Besides its sitting astride the strategic waterway, Palu offers direct access northwards into the Sulawesi Sea, where Indonesia still has an outstanding dispute with Malaysia over the Ambalat offshore oil block, off the Malaysian-controlled Ligitan and Sipadan Islands (which were awarded to Kuala Lumpur in the early 2000s by the International Court of Justice). The historic loss of the islands to Malaysia made it even more imperative for Indonesia to safeguard its rights over the Ambalat block. This was also taken into account during previous naval standoffs between the two countries' maritime forces in 2005 and 2009.

Therefore, the significance of Palu Bay is to facilitate TNI-AL's ability to project a submarine presence into the Ambalat, and perhaps to serve as a form of deterrent against unilateral naval moves by the Malaysians whose existing Scorpene class submarines were based nearby in Sabah's Sepanggar. In fact, in 2009 Indonesia suspected that Malaysia had deployed the submarines in the disputed waters, leading to the RMN chief to assure Indonesian legislators that KL would not make such moves. Whether or not it had assured Jakarta of this remains debatable, but the Palu Bay would offer TNI-AL a form of insurance against potential Malaysian naval moves into the waters. It is not inconceivable that TNI-AL subs would be well poised to conduct covert surveillance in the Ambalat waters, keeping track of unusual Malaysian activities in the area.

From a broader perspective, the Palu base is also part of the TNI-AL's overall reorganization efforts, fronted by the expansion from two existing fleets — the Eastern and Western Fleet Commands — to three, including the new Central Fleet Command. This appears to be a move to reorganize the division of labor of the TNI-AL more equitably into distinct geographical areas of responsibilities. It also signifies the increasing strategic importance of the central waterways of the Indonesian Archipelago, which are believed to be the arena of foreign submarine activities. TNI-AL's Palu base hence should also be seen in this light. However, the Palu base also has another focus down south, as I explain in greater detail in the following question about the strategic waterways.

To what extent, then, is Indonesia trying to gain the capabilities necessary to exert more control over the shipping routes it is located upon, potentially being able to interdict shipping from specific countries during a conflict?

I believe Indonesia is certainly seeking to exert greater control over the three main strategic waterways - Lombok, Makassar and Sunda. These are often relegated to secondary importance after the Malacca Strait, which carries greater economic value. However, the geostrategic location of Indonesia means that its archipelagic waters would become the conduit for foreign naval movements to and fro the Indian and Pacific Oceans. This certainly includes foreign submarine activities, as mentioned earlier.

The Indonesians have long been conscious of the vulnerability of these waterways to foreign naval activities, which Jakarta deemed as rather disconcerting, especially with the rise of major power rivalries and tensions in the region, which correspondingly amplifies the importance of these waterways. For many years since 2004, the TNI-AL has focused a significant portion of the maritime surveillance assets to counter piracy and sea robberies in the Malacca Strait and to deter separatism in the Papuan province, as well as to the Ambalat waters. It's therefore time for the Indonesians to place more attention on the three strategic waterways.

However, the tasks at hand for TNI-AL are daunting, given the emergent need to refocus attention on the Natuna Islands, where the South China Sea tensions and recent PLA Navy forays deep south in the area (as exemplified by the PLA Navy's “show of might” near James Shoal at the southernmost rim of the South China Sea) have created renewed concerns. To accomplish all these tasks, including greater control over the strategic waterways, Indonesia would have to expand its current naval forces in multiple dimensions, including surface, subsurface and land-based maritime aerial support elements.

We have recently seen procurement and force restructuring efforts that appear to be geared towards this mega effort. More emphasis has been placed on enhancing surface and aerial surveillance capabilities, while the earlier mention expansion from two to three fleet commands are all manifestations of this endeavor. This will certainly continue to be an incremental, gradual enhancement process which takes time, and until then the TNI-AL could only best hope for intermittent control over the waterways instead of round-the-clock ability to do so. One only needs to note the extremely daunting task TNI-AL faces in acquiring, operating and maintaining a capacity sufficient to police the entire archipelago.

Submarines hence serve as a useful force in the effort to exert greater control over those strategic waterways, which are geographically ideal for subsurface actions in times of peace and war. The proximity of Palu base to these three waterways (Makassar astride, and Sunda and Lombok down south across the Java Sea) facilitates TNI-AL's submarine presence in those areas in both periods of peace and contingencies. However, in view of the small size of the TNI-AL submarine fleet even with the entry of the new boats, the best it can hope for presently remains primarily sea denial and at best, limited amount of sea control in those three waterways. The Palu base certainly serves as a “force multiplier” in this respect.

Indonesia


Its a bout time you started to develop your Sub Force Matrix. The Singaporeans and the Malaysians have beaten you in the race.

A nation the size of Indonesia should have at LEAST 15 subs.
 
1. The Indian Navy's current ambitions are restricted upto the Malacca Straits. The area of interest and operations remains the IOR. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. The importance of the ANC is more to build bridges with the navies of the south east asia and not as a threat perception. This base will be our Diego Garcia. It is more sea denial to the Chinese Navy, which means blocking the entry from the east to the west, not stop traffic from west to east.

3. The IN has an extremely cordial relationship with the USN. If there was one arm of the Indian military which is engaging actively with the US, its the IN.

4. The IN is at-least 10 years away from any kind of domination in the IOR region. And in case you really want to dominate you need 4 CBGs, not 3 as currently planned. Which means you need one stationed at ANC.

5. The ANC is our outreach program for disaster relief and diplomacy to the south east asian states.

6. The Chinese focus is not the IOR, but the USN in the Pacific and the frolicking Japanese Navy.

7. The only aggressive stance of the IN will remain the Arabian Sea.

The IN as of date has not ambitions to project power beyond the Malacca straits. Not for the next 10 years and not till the full deployment of a unified command in Fortress Command.

All the waters from Gulf of Eden to Malacca straights and northern Indian Ocean is IN's area of operation. This region is important to China too since major part of its energy supplies has to pass through this region.. China has more interests in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal than India has in South china sea.
 
I don't have disdain for Indians, I have a great respect for the Indian people, their culture. My response was towards a hypothetical scenario in which one indian poster claimed that the Indian Navy would blockade the Malaccas Strait. It is a hypothetical scenario that no one wants to happen.

There is warm and cordial relations between the Indian Navy and the USN, I personally have met many IN officers through my tenure in the USN.

The Strait of Malaccas is under the jurisdictional control of the United States 7th Fleet. Since a large portion of the trade that passes through that aforementioned Strait is bound for the United States, it is detrimental for US strategic interest to have the flow of trade interrupted.

I reiterate, I have no disdain for Indians, rather have a considerable respect for them and their culture. Thank You.


Regards,
Dr. Kurt




Its a bout time you started to develop your Sub Force Matrix. The Singaporeans and the Malaysians have beaten you in the race.

A nation the size of Indonesia should have at LEAST 15 subs.

Nope, we are already catching up with them. It is you who doesn't know the truth :)
 
Back
Top Bottom