Implementation Strategy of Multi-Domain Operations Post Law No. 21/2025 on Airspace Management: Legal-Defense Perspectives

Edward Elisa Pattiwael; I Gde Prabawa Wicaksana; Budi Santoso; Tri Budianto; Munip Suharmono; Isa Hidayat

doi:10.55227/ijhess.v5i5.2312

Authors

Edward Elisa Pattiwael Indonesian Air Force Command and Staff College/Department of Science and Technology
I Gde Prabawa Wicaksana Indonesian Air Force Command and Staff College/Department of Science and Technology
Budi Santoso Indonesian Air Force Command and Staff College/Department of Science and Technology
Tri Budianto Indonesian Air Force Command and Staff College/Department of Science and Technology
Munip Suharmono Indonesian Air Force Command and Staff College/Department of Science and Technology
Isa Hidayat Indonesian Air Force Command and Staff College/Department of Science and Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v5i5.2312

Keywords:

Multi-Domain Operations, Airspace Management, Law No. 21 of 2025, Interoperability, Defense Policy Implementation, McKinsey 7S Framework

Abstract

The defense capability of a nation in conducting Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) has become an essential requirement in facing modern multidimensional warfare threats. In Indonesia, the enactment of Law No. 21 of 2025 concerning Airspace Management provides a more dynamic legal foundation for integrating airspace management into the national defense system. However, the implementation of this law still faces various gaps, including regulatory disharmony between civilian and military perspectives, institutional fragmentation, data silos between systems, and dependence on foreign technology. This study employs a qualitative descriptive-analytical approach based on data from the Seskoau A-64 workshop to analyze the real conditions of MDO implementation readiness following the enactment of Law No. 21/2025. The analysis reveals five main strategic issues hindering cross-domain interoperability. To address these, an implementation strategy is formulated using the McKinsey 7S framework, covering shared values, structure, systems, style, staff, skills, and strategy. This strategy is then operationalized into a phased roadmap (short-term, medium-term, and long-term) along with a stakeholder role matrix. The study concludes that policy harmonization, strengthening of cross-sectoral institutions, integration of network-centric command and control systems, and achievement of technological self-reliance are the primary prerequisites for successful MDO implementation in Indonesia. Without an applicable and measurable roadmap, the potential of Law No. 21/2025 as an enabler for national air defense will not be optimally realized.

Author Biography

Edward Elisa Pattiwael, Indonesian Air Force Command and Staff College/Department of Science and Technology

Edward is a Electronic officer in the Indonesian Air Force. He is mainly on duty in the radar and electronic systems, and is well-versed in active country-to-country cooperation as the lead of Indonesian representatives.

References

Alberts, D. S., & Hayes, R. E. (2003). Power to the edge: Command and control in the information age. CCRP Publication Series.

Black, J., Lynch, A., Gustafson, K., Blagden, D., Paillé, P., & Quimbre, F. (2022). Multi-domain integration in defence: Conceptual approaches and lessons from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA528-1.html

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Department of Defense. (2001). Network centric warfare. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.

Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public policy analysis: An integrated approach (6th ed.). Routledge.

Gilli, A. (2025). NATO, multi-domain operations and the future of the Atlantic Alliance. Comparative Strategy, 44(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2024.2445491

Groh, J. L. (2009). Network-centric warfare: Leveraging the power of information. U.S. Army War College.

Grindle, M. S. (1980). Politics and policy implementation in the Third World. Princeton University Press.

Gunderson, C. (2009). Network-centric warfare revisited: Its origin and its future. Naval Postgraduate School.

ICAO. (2022). Global air navigation plan (Doc 9750). Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organization.

Keller, K. M., et al. (2020). Human aspects of Air Force operations. RAND Corporation.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

NATO Allied Command Transformation. (2025). 2025 conference report: NATO multi-domain operations.

Priebe, M., et al. (2020). Multiple dilemmas: Challenges and options for all-domain command and control. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA381-1.html

Tolk, A., & Muguira, J. A. (2003). The levels of conceptual interoperability model (LCIM). In Proceedings of the Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop. Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.

UK Ministry of Defence. (2020). Joint concept note 1/20: Multi-domain integration.

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.

Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2009 tentang Penerbangan.

Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2002 tentang Pertahanan Negara.

Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2025 tentang Pengelolaan Ruang Udara.

Undang-Undang Nomor 34 Tahun 2004 tentang Tentara Nasional Indonesia.

US Army. (2018). TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1: The U.S. Army in multi-domain operations 2028. Fort Eustis, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

Waterman, R. H., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14–26.