The strategic value of the Navy’s submarine capabilities is greatly influenced by the ability of its supporting infrastructure to be able to maintain the confidentiality of submarine operations. Based on these conditions, this study aims to identify and analyze the operational readiness of submarines to increase the deterrence of the state defense system at sea. This study uses Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and MIC-MAC diagrams. The ISM method is used to analyze the effect on the criteria. MICMAC diagrams are used as criteria for determining the related variables. Based on the results of the ISM and MICMAC diagram analysis, it was found that fifteen elements were divided into \(4\) (four) quadrants. Quadrant I (Autonomous) consists of six elements, such as \((C_1)\), \((C_2)\), \((C_3)\), \((C_4)\), \((C_{13)}\), \((C_{15})\). Quadrant II (Dependent) consists of six elements, such as \((C_5)\), \((C_6)\), \((C_7)\), \((C_{11})\), \((C_{12})\), \((C_{14})\). Quadrant IV (Independent) consists of three elements, such as \((C_8)\), \((C_9)\), \((C_{10})\). This research is expected to provide benefits to both academics and practitioners in the field of submarines and defense strategy.
A national defense system that has a deterrent power needs to be realized in the development of a defense force capable of protecting and ensuring the fulfillment of the national interests of the Indonesian nation (Ministry of Defence, 2015) [1]. As an archipelagic country with 2/3 of its territorial territory constituting the sea, it is necessary to carry out the development of Navy forces to realize a state defense system at sea [2].
The development of the naval force also needs to be carried out strategically and effectively to achieve the desired deterrence [3]. One of the effective forces to build deterrence in the country’s defense strategy at sea is a submarine fleet. Due to the confidentiality, silence, and speed of a submarine that can paralyze a strategic maritime route (maritime chokepoint) and threaten the safety of shipping commercial vessels and naval vessels [4].
The strategic value of the Navy’s submarine capabilities is greatly influenced by the ability of its supporting infrastructure to be able to maintain the confidentiality of submarine operations. However, infrastructure development supports the operational resilience of submarines in facing the limitations of the country’s capabilities. Based on these conditions, this study aims to identify and analyze the operational readiness of submarines to increase the deterrence of the state defense system at sea. This study uses Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and MIC-MAC diagrams. The ISM method is used to analyze the effect on the criteria. MICMAC diagrams are used as criteria for determining the related variables.
There are several previous texts in supporting research, namely A Maritime Research Concept through Establishing Ship Operational Problem Solution (Shipos) Centre via Information Technologies Integrated With or/Ms [5]. Determinants of Port Performance – Case Study of 4 Main Ports in Indonesia (2005-2015) [6]. Analysis of the Determinants of Micro Enterprises Graduation [7]. Determinants of Indonesian Crude Palm Oil Export: Gravity Model Approach [8]. ISM for analyzing interactions between barriers to just-in-time (JIT) production operations [9]. ISM to an analysis of core industry competencies in Pekalongan City [10]. ISM uses for identification of readiness in implementing Business Intelligence projects [11]. ISM to identify the drivers of travel/tourism growth and build relationships between enablers [12]. ISM to study various aspects and correlations between youth and sustainable rural development [13]. Navy Ability Development Strategy using SWOT Analysis-Interpretative Structural Modeling (ISM) [14].
This research is limited to the operational durability of submarines in Indonesia. This research is expected to provide benefits to both academics and practitioners in the field of submarines and defense strategy, Developing knowledge about the management of the national defense system.
This research consists of several parts. Section 2 describes ship operations during the state defense system, ISM method, MICMAC diagram, research stages, and research subjects & objects. Section 3 describes the influence of variables in submarine operations and the classification of the distribution of these variables. Section 4 describes the conclusions in the study.
Seapower is projected to control the use of marine areas, trade, and commerce at sea, as well as for deterrence, resistance at sea, defense diplomacy, and exerting political influence. The use of naval power is generally defined as the trinity of the role of maritime security forces which is manifested in the strength of a country’s Navy [16].
The Navy has a unique ability compared to other militaries, namely the ability to produce coercive signals and deterrence to the enemy. Naval power can effectively transmit these signals, and their effectiveness stems from two unique features of the Navy’s capabilities. Referring to the nature and geographical conditions of the Indonesian nation, the development and development of the Navy’s strength is a strategic policy analysis that needs attention in building a deterrent state defense system [17].
The submarine will be strategically connected to the command and control system where all warning and sensor systems will be the basis for providing command. The submarine fleet has certain advantages that surface warships do not have. Operational advantages include; can be used to bring troops into special operations fields; can be used to collect intelligence data as well as underwater surveys related to oil and natural gas mining sources; can be more effective in pursuing enemy warships during sea battles; as well as in terms of weaponry it is considered more accurate in carrying out subsurface and torpedo missile launches for both warships, submarines, and surface targets on land [18].
The strategic value of the submarine fleet can also be proven at an operational level that is not owned by surface warships or land and air warfare vehicles. These operational advantages include its ability to be used as a means of bringing troops into special operations in full confidence; can be used to collect intelligence data as well as underwater surveys related to oil and natural gas mining sources; can be more effective in destroying the strength of the enemy warship fleet during sea battles; as well as in terms of weaponry it is considered more accurate in carrying out subsurface and torpedo missile launches for both warships, submarines, and surface targets on land (Ministry of Defence, 2015) [1].
The above technological factors can be broadly grouped into ship hull technology (platform), machinery system technology, propulsion system technology, navigation and communication system technology, and weapon systems technology. The sustainability of submarine operations is also determined by the technological aspects of the support equipment in the submarine maintenance and repair system owned by a country’s navy. Submarine maintenance and repair support technology involves several main indicators, such as the submarine operation support logistics system, submarine maintenance and repair systems, and submarine operational financing systems [20].
Thus, the existence of supporting equipment technology, which includes a logistics system to support the submarine movement, policies related to the use, maintenance, and repair of submarines, as well as technical aspects which include the use of technology and submarine maintenance and repair facilities can be used as indicators key both in the framework of developing a strategy formula and implementing a sustainable submarine operational strategy [21].
ISM is well-proven to identify structural relationships among system-specific variables. The basic idea is to use practical experience and expert knowledge to break down a complex system into sub-systems (elements) and build a multilevel structural model [25]. The ISM-based approach is one of the most versatile and powerful techniques that have been used to solve complex multi-factor problems. ISM is interpretive, in that the assessment of the group selected for research determines whether and how the variables are related [26]. ISM is often used to provide a fundamental understanding of a complex situation, as well as to construct a series of actions to solve a problem. There are procedures or stages in using the ISM method, these stages include [25]:
The elements to be considered for the identification of relationships were obtained through literature surveyors by conducting surveys.
The development of the interpretive structural model begins with the construction of a structural self-interaction matrix, which shows the direction of contextual relationships among elements. In developing SSIM, the following four symbols have been used to indicate the direction of the relationship between two constraints i and j.
From the reachability matrix, for each parameter, the reachability set and the antecedent set are derived. Variables, which are common in reachability sets and antecedent sets, are allocated to intersection sets. Once the upper-level barrier is identified, it is removed from consideration, and other upper-level barriers are found [25]. This process will continue until all levels of each barrier are found.
From the partitioned parameters and reachability matrix, the structured model is derived, showing the parameters at each level and arrows showing the direction of the relationship.
| Symbol | Relationship Between Element Row (i) and Column (j) |
|---|---|
| V | There is a contextual relationship between the \(E_i\) element and the |
| \(E_j\) element, but it is not the other way around. | |
| A | There is a contextual relationship between the element \(E_j\) and the element \(E_i\), but not vice versa. |
| X | There is a reciprocal contextual relationship between \(E_i\) elements and \(E_j\) elements. |
| O | There is no reciprocal contextual relationship between element \(E_i\) and element \(E_j\). |
| (i)Enablers | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Indicators used to collect data from resource persons about the influence of various conditions (the system in the submarine, the mode of sailing during operation, physical and psychological readiness of the crew, availability of operational budgets, and the development of the strategic environment of the Indonesian nation) on the operational durability of the submarine.
| No. | Expert | Total | Code |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commander of First Fleet Command, Vice Admiral Muhammad Ali | 1 | \(E_{1}\) |
| 2 | Head of the Submarine Program of PT PAL Indonesia, Marx Jefferson | 1 | \(E_{1}\) |
| 3 | Head of the KKIP Technology Transfer and Offset Division, | 1 | \(E_{3}\) |
| Vice Admiral (Rtr) Rachmad Lubis | |||
| 4 | Vice Admiral Iwan Isnurwanto | 1 | \(E_{4}\) |
| 5 | Vice Admiral TNI Tunggul Suropati | 1 | \(E_{5}\) |
The object of research is essentially the topic of the problem understudy in the research. The object of research is essentially the topic of the problem understudy in the research. In this study, the object of research is the durability of submarine operations in Indonesia.
The submarine operational survival variable is measured (observable variables) through indicators fuel tank capacity; freshwater tank capacity; submarine battery capacity; air regeneration system capacity; sail with surface mode/periscope depth / operational depth; operating area wave conditions; the physical properties of the water column (temperature, salinity, depth); crew physical readiness; the psychic readiness of the crew; Operating budget; Operation pattern; Strategic Environment Development Conditions.
| Code | Criteria |
|---|---|
| \(C_1\) | Fuel Tank Capacity |
| \(C_2\) | Fuel Tank Capacity |
| \(C_3\) | Submarine Battery Capacity |
| \(C_4\) | Air Regeneration System Capacity |
| \(C_5\) | Sail With Surface Mode |
| \(C_6\) | Sail With A Periscope Depth |
| \(C_7\) | Sail With Operational Depth |
| \(C_8\) | Operating Area Wave Conditions |
| \(C_{9}\) | Current conditions of the operating area |
| \(C_{10}\) | The Physical Properties Of The Water Column (Temperature, Salinity, Depth) |
| \(C_{11}\) | Crew Physical Readiness |
| \(C_{12}\) | The Psychic Readiness Of The Crew |
| \(C_{13}\) | Operating Budget |
| \(C_{14}\) | Operation Pattern |
| \(C_{15}\) | Strategic Environment Development Conditions |
The second step, application of identified criteria or variables that are defined in pairs. Then with SSIM, paired relationships are developed between the factors that affect the system. The association matrix is evaluated by SSIM and used for transitivity within the ISM. Next, factorization was carried out on the related criteria. Data recapitulation of interconnection between strategies is analyzed in the Structural Self Interaction Matrix (SSIM) by converting numbers into letters that represent the categories of relationships. At this stage, a contextual relationship is made between variable \(i\) and variable \(j\). Next, review the contextual relationship in the form of the SSIM-VAXO Matrix.
| No | Code | Factorization | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 1 | \(C_{1}\) | O | A | A | O | O | O | O | O | V | V | V | O | O | O | |
| 2 | \(C_{2}\) | O | O | V | O | O | V | O | O | V | V | V | O | O | ||
| 3 | \(C_{3}\) | O | V | O | O | O | O | O | O | V | V | V | O | |||
| 4 | \(C_{4}\) | O | O | O | O | V | X | O | O | V | V | V | ||||
| 5 | \(C_{5}\) | O | A | O | V | V | A | A | A | X | X | |||||
| 6 | \(C_{6}\) | O | O | O | A | A | A | A | X | X | ||||||
| 7 | \(C_{7}\) | O | A | O | V | V | A | A | A | |||||||
| 8 | \(C_{8}\) | O | V | O | V | V | X | X | ||||||||
| 9 | \(C_{9}\) | A | V | O | V | V | A | |||||||||
| 10 | \(C_{10}\) | O | V | O | O | O | ||||||||||
| 11 | \(C_{11}\) | O | V | A | X | |||||||||||
| 12 | \(C_{12}\) | O | A | A | ||||||||||||
| 13 | \(C_{13}\) | A | X | |||||||||||||
| 14 | \(C_{14}\) | A | ||||||||||||||
| 15 | \(C_{15}\) | |||||||||||||||
In the second stage, the reachability matrix table is generated by the symbols V, O, A, and X to become binary 1 and 0, with the following conditions:
| No. | Code | Factorization | DP | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |||
| 1 | \(C_1\) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2 | \(C_2\) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 3 | \(C_3\) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 4 | \(C_4\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 5 | \(C_5\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 6 | \(C_6\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 7 | \(C_7\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 8 | \(C_8\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| 9 | \(C_9\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| 10 | \(C_{10}\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| 11 | \(C_{11}\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 12 | \(C_{12}\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 13 | \(C_{13}\) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 14 | \(C_{14}\) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| 15 | \(C_{15}\) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Dependence | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 13 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 1 | ||
| \textbf{\(C_1\)} | \textbf{\(C_4\)} | \textbf{\(C_3\)} | \textbf{\(C_{4}\)} | \textbf{\(C_5\)} | \textbf{\(C_6\)} | \textbf{\(C_7\)} | \textbf{\(C_8\)} | \textbf{\(C_9\)} | \textbf{\(C_{10}\)} | \textbf{\(C_{11}\)} | \textbf{\(C_{12}\)} | \textbf{\(C_{13}\)} | \textbf{\(C_{14}\)} | \textbf{\(C_{15}\)} | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| \textbf{X} | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 13 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 1 |
| \textbf{Y} | 4 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
The result of the MICMAC diagram analysis classifies the elements into four sectors in a two-dimensional graph with the x (dependence) and y (powder driver) axes.
Based on Figure 4, obtained several classifications of submarine operational durability elements. These elements are divided into four classifications, namely:
