Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The changing character of modern warfare has expanded the competencies required of Indonesian Army Cavalry personnel, particularly in responding to UAS and counter-UAS threats, electronic warfare, networked command and control, and combined-arms and multidomain operations. This study aims to analyze the adaptation of the Indonesian Army Cavalry education and training system, identify remaining gaps, and formulate relevant directions for improvement. It employs a qualitative approach with a descriptive-analytical case study design. Pusdikkav serves as the primary locus, while Pussenkav TNI AD and Yonkav 1 Kostrad provide complementary perspectives on branch development, education, and unit requirements. Data are collected through semi-structured interviews, limited observation, documentation, and literature review, and are analyzed thematically with SWOT used as a strategic analytical tool. The findings indicate that adaptation has begun through the use of battlefield management systems, integrated training, and the introduction of unmanned technologies, yet institutionalization across curricula, training methods, instructor competence, learning facilities, and interoperability remains uneven. The study highlights the need to move toward system-oriented training, strengthen instructor capacity, integrate learning technologies, expand interoperability training, and establish a continuous unit-feedback mechanism to maintain the relevance of Cavalry education amid changing operational demands.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pratama et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: