Talk:Indonesian Navy

Untitled

can anyone tell me about the preparation of the naval ship for the un mission in lebanon. what are the total requirement in regard to armaments, ammunition, stores and other administration? what about your experience onboard indonesian ship in lebanon? mahmud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.142 (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong grammar

In the opening statement, "the indonesian navy is the largest navies.. Etc" is grammat ically wrong, someone please fix this..

Largest Navy

The claim of blanket largest is questionable. Using global firepower just as a summary, total combat vesials in the the Indonesian navy is 150 http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Indonesia, compaired to the Thai navy of 596 http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Thailand. Most of Thialand's, and for that matter Indonesia's navy consists of various patrol boats, mine warfare and other smaller ships, but for this claim to be made, it needs to be accompanied by either largest fleet of ships covert or larger or change it to say "one of the largest navies in domestic to South East Asia". Any thoughts on this?The Australian Red Man (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the claim that the Indonesia has 150 "ships" is misleading and should be changed. Wikipedia defines a "modern ship" as "any large buoyant watercraft" Ship. A ship is not a patrol boat, tug boat, motorized barge, or garbage scow. As it stands the article states the Indonesian navy has more ships than the UK Royal Navy or the French_Navy. I wanted to change "ship" to "vessel", but in Wikipedia "vessel" defaults to the Marine_vessel article. If someone wants to do a further break up of "ship" and "small vessels" of the Indonesia Navy then please do. Surfing bird (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Questionable statement

Does anyone else find the statement a bit iffy?

"The Indonesian Navy is also one of only few navies in the region which are substantially supported by domestic military industries as well as armed with marine corps, supersonic missiles and attack submarines."

Firstly, the vast majority of their ships at the moment are imports from foreign suppliers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Indonesian_Navy_ships and all their aircraft are foreign. Is it trying to say that they one of only a few Southeast Asian nations that maintain their ships domestically? Can anyone tell me what is meant by this?

Second: Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, East Timor (albit a small one), Cambodia ect have a marine core; malaysia, australia, singapore, vietnam have submarines capable of an attack role and the same story for supersonic missiles. I suppose the question is does this represent a "few navies" in the region. In my opinion, it does not.

I propose that this is rewritten to remove the 'substantially supported' part and listing the indonesian navy as one of only a few that have these things.

Tarima Kaseh Everyone!

I will be doing a large cleanup for this article in the next few days. Lagoonaville (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lukenos94: I need your response Lagoonaville (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Kilo Submarine & SIGMA frigate

I have removed the Kilo submarine that 180.253.39.141 added, they provide no sources, and my search only turned up some untrustworthy blogs saying that the order is confirmed, with the more reputable places saying that some members of the navy have talked about how Kilos are under consideration.

Also, the claim that 6 SIGMA frigates needs some more sources. The only one provided does not mention the number of SIGMAS on order, and most other sources say that only two are ordered. As it clarifies that the additional 4 are being planned further on, I would like to ask if anyone has any links to a good source stating this? The Australian Red Man (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

TNI AL Insignia and Flag.

The Insignia with the green colour is correct according to the official TNI-AL Flag currently in use. --EvoSwatch (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The SVG flag? It is made vector by the same person who made the out-of-nowhere greeny logo. The original bears no green at all (from official website or from its branch armada). Flix11 (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The green one is from the official TNI-AL Flag. https://www.acehportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/8.3.jpeg https://img.inews.co.id/media/822/files/inews_new/2018/10/05/hut_tni2.jpg https://papuasatu.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/kirab-ok1.jpg https://penanegeri.com/kirab-bendera-merah-putih-hut-ke-73-tni-tahun-2018-tiba-di-merauke/ --EvoSwatch (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind this one as the Insignia (current one). As long as someone change the colour of the "Jalesveva Jayamahe" because its not supposed to be black. But the flag one is still correct (albeit not 100% accurate), and it should stay there. --EvoSwatch (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@EvoSwatch: Not a single one are the official website and its descendants. And the green are unseen in all. I emphasized the official website links above. BTW, the anchor in the flag on all pics are white, which means the flag is wrong anyway. Flix11 (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Flix11: Well if we are going to nitpick every single thing, then nothing is correct. The Army insignia on the TNI site is all yellow, no green no white while the TNI-AD site is yellow-goldish on the edges. The Air Force official site have different feathers compared to the wikipedia TNI-AU Insignia, and East Malaysia is also yellow while the wikipedia its black. TNI-AD/AL/AU sites all have different TNI Insignia compared to Wikipedia's TNI Insignia. TNI-AL site have a different TNI-AD insignia as well. The point is, if we nitpick then nothing is the same. All i'm saying the Flag is correct albeit not 100% accurate as i said, like there is no white colour where there should be. I also hope someone will change the current TNI-AL "Jalesveva Jayamahe" because its not supposed to be black. The motto on the flag is accurate, the font, the colour is very similar to TNI-AL Insignia on their site. --EvoSwatch (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest two different variants of the Insignia, one with no green is for the Insignia while the one with green and white anchor is for the Insignia on the flag. --EvoSwatch (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@EvoSwatch: Agreed. Flix11 (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Flix11: Glad we can found a common ground, and not turn it into a flame war lol. --EvoSwatch (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• KOLINLAMIL.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Principal Commands under the Navy Chief of Staff

Its seems that there is redundant information on Principal Commands under the Navy Chief of Staff section. this section have table and list that pretty much provide the same information and the table is full of icons (exactly definition of MOS:XMASTREE). I propose to remove the table with all of those icons. pinging @EvoSwatch: @Atara123: @Cal1407: @Davidelit: for your comments. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for the notification, I just got your ping. I personally am fine with the table as it is imho a nice bite-sized info to read that is also easy and user friendly compared to plaintext, but I am interested to hear what others have to say. - EvoSwatch (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

OK.. table is good when use appropriately per WP:WHENTABLE, so the list is the one that should gone then.

Btw, for the MOS:XMASTREE part, this section is not as bad as Indonesian Marine Corps#Operational commands. But still refer to MOS:LOGO, The insertion of logos as icons into articles is strongly discouraged. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I personally think more is good, so I would rather keep the list over the table. - EvoSwatch (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Refer to MOS:REDUNDANCY, WP policy seems to prefer to minimize redundancy. I suggest to remove the list, keep the table and keep some information on the list as a prose. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping the list as it is there first and has been for a long time and it would fit more with the rest of the page, and more consistent. The list is also able to fit more info than the table with the same size. While take some relevant information from the table and inserting it on the list. I can edit it if you would like me to. - EvoSwatch (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to keep it as list as well. Please feel free to edit if you'd like. the consensus for now is to remove the table and all its Xmas Tree. Actually, it was @Atara123: who makes that table here and also on other Indonesian military unit page, So I'd like to hear his opinion. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)