Philippine Air Force Discussions and Updates

[Andri F]

I understand the costs perfectly well which is my point the golden eagle is a brand new aircraft and more technologically advanced than anything else the PAF have at the moment it would not just be a step change in capability but in the resources needed to keep it in the air the idea behind the A4 was straight forward it is a much simpler plane can carry a range of affordable weapon systems allows getting to grips with fast jet technology and Affordable modern avionic suites I'm not saying the political will isn't there to make the Golden eagle happen I'm just worried the PAF will run out of money and they will sit in a hangar unused for lack spares/ training as for the hawk 200 it is a proven airframe again with a multi role ability OK may not be super sonic in level flight but does it have to be the PAF are not seeking a strategic aircraft just something that could help enforce its territorial integrity.

Just curious but are you suggesting that we buy A-4s instead? I mean how are we going to get the spare parts easily?
One more thing. The A-4s first flight was June 22, 1954 while our old F-5As first flew in Junly 30, 1959. If one of the reasons why we've let our F-5s retire was because of maintenance difficulties (6th death anniversary of PAF fighter capability «) then what could happen if we buy jets that are older and less distributed?

If they feel they must buy new then why not Hawk 200's again like the A4 tough reliable simple airframe also used by allies such as Malaysia and Australia ( trainer version) good platform to move the PAF onto the next level

I don't have knowledge about their cost but could someone please post the cost of the Hawk 200 and the A-4. The TA-50 is Php 1.25 billion (http://www.rappler.com/nation/7331-air-force-to-beef-up-fleet-with-south-korean-made-jets)

If you're suggesting that we use A-4s as trainers (your statement is not quite clear), wouldn't a modern trainer jet be better? More accessability, probably less maintenance cost (the A-4 is quite old after all) and more flying hours left.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't have knowledge about their cost but could someone please post the cost of the Hawk 200 and the A-4. The TA-50 is Php 1.25 billion (Air Force to beef up fleet with South Korean-made jets)

If you're suggesting that we use A-4s as trainers (your statement is not quite clear), wouldn't a modern trainer jet be better? More accessability, probably less maintenance cost (the A-4 is quite old after all) and more flying hours left.

A few things, while so far unable to locate the programme price for Malaysia's Hawk 208 or Indonesia's Hawk 209, they are single seat fighter/attack jets, not two seater jet trainers. Further, the general per aircraft price of various Hawk jets has been between $29 mil to $33 mil.

Now making a direct price comparison with the A-4 Skyhawk just will not be possible, unless/until one of the current operators announces an offer to sell theirs, and at what price. Even then, the real cost and difficulty with the Skyhawk is going to be in maintaining and sustaining them. Given that Skyhawk users have been declining as the aircraft gets either mothballed or retired by operators, in part because of the decreasing relevance of the aircraft, as well as the increasing cost and difficulties associated with keeping them airworthy... I just cannot see the PAF succeeding in Skyhawk ops, when other air arms already experienced with the Skyhawk have found it better to retire the design.

By way of analogy, it would be like an airline which has no current or recent experience operating jetliners or other multi-engines, choosing to introduce the B707 (which also ceased production in 1979...) into service. While the startup cost for 2nd/3rd/4th hand B707's are likely to be low, the maintenance, ongoing costs, safety and availability or some combination of these are likely to be atrocious.

-Cheers

 

[shaun]

My point that I'm trying to make with sky hawk / hawk is simple it is cheap has had some fairly good updates in the last decade with Brazil and Argentina keeping their fleets flying with regular mods it is a known airframe it can carry a wide assortment of weapon systems it also tough and durable. The phillipines needs new aircraft but what would be the point of buying planes they cannot afford to or unable to keep in the air because they lack the technical capability the PAF struggles to keep its Broncos in the air. The Korean jet is nice but it is carrying some up to date kit I believe the PAF will struggle to master in the short term I'm not advocating the A4 as a long term solution but they would give the Paf time to master what it takes to actually run a fleet of modern jets on their own terms while giving the country some much needed teeth in the air.

 

[Bonza]

You seem to be missing the point, again and again, that keeping an A-4's airframe in the air isn't necessarily simple, because the design's age leads to a scarcity of parts and maintenance knowledge, in addition to the airframe's age leading to an increase in required maintenance hours per flight hour.

Yes, it's a relatively simple airframe. But simple to keep in the air? That's a different variable and is dependent on a range of external factors, such as the ones I've listed.

And I can't stress enough that the modern nature of the Korean design means that not only are parts more freely available, but if additional training in maintenance is necessary, then that is available too from existing users.

 

[Andri F]

My point that I'm trying to make with sky hawk / hawk is simple it is cheap has had some fairly good updates in the last decade with Brazil and Argentina keeping their fleets flying with regular mods it is a known airframe it can carry a wide assortment of weapon systems it also tough and durable. The phillipines needs new aircraft but what would be the point of buying planes they cannot afford to or unable to keep in the air because they lack the technical capability the PAF struggles to keep its Broncos in the air. The Korean jet is nice but it is carrying some up to date kit I believe the PAF will struggle to master in the short term I'm not advocating the A4 as a long term solution but they would give the Paf time to master what it takes to actually run a fleet of modern jets on their own terms while giving the country some much needed teeth in the air.

Uh we needed trainer jets not attack aircrafts and the TA-50 is also combat-capable. Besides, the A-4F could carry only 4 Sidewinders. If you want a more known airframe, how bout the F-5E Tiger II? Tough, durable, and we have F-5As of old so its just like going one step up the ladder. Just saying. I'm not suggesting that we get A-4s or F-5Es.

A few things, while so far unable to locate the programme price for Malaysia's Hawk 208 or Indonesia's Hawk 209, they are single seat fighter/attack jets, not two seater jet trainers. Further, the general per aircraft price of various Hawk jets has been between $29 mil to $33 mil.

Now making a direct price comparison with the A-4 Skyhawk just will not be possible, unless/until one of the current operators announces an offer to sell theirs, and at what price. Even then, the real cost and difficulty with the Skyhawk is going to be in maintaining and sustaining them. Given that Skyhawk users have been declining as the aircraft gets either mothballed or retired by operators, in part because of the decreasing relevance of the aircraft, as well as the increasing cost and difficulties associated with keeping them airworthy... I just cannot see the PAF succeeding in Skyhawk ops, when other air arms already experienced with the Skyhawk have found it better to retire the design.

By way of analogy, it would be like an airline which has no current or recent experience operating jetliners or other multi-engines, choosing to introduce the B707 (which also ceased production in 1979...) into service. While the startup cost for 2nd/3rd/4th hand B707's are likely to be low, the maintenance, ongoing costs, safety and availability or some combination of these are likely to be atrocious.

-Cheers

Thanks. Anyway there is Hawk 100, a two-seat weapons system trainer (British Aerospace Hawk 100 & Hawk 200).
I think we should stop this A-4 discusssion for now because of the reasons mentioned above (maintenance and such).

 

[Todjaeger]

My point that I'm trying to make with sky hawk / hawk is simple it is cheap has had some fairly good updates in the last decade with Brazil and Argentina keeping their fleets flying with regular mods it is a known airframe it can carry a wide assortment of weapon systems it also tough and durable. The phillipines needs new aircraft but what would be the point of buying planes they cannot afford to or unable to keep in the air because they lack the technical capability the PAF struggles to keep its Broncos in the air. The Korean jet is nice but it is carrying some up to date kit I believe the PAF will struggle to master in the short term I'm not advocating the A4 as a long term solution but they would give the Paf time to master what it takes to actually run a fleet of modern jets on their own terms while giving the country some much needed teeth in the air.

One has managed to contradict what they appear to be trying to say, apparently without realizing it.

The Skyhawk is (by modern standards) a fairly simple, subsonic attack jet. Given the respective design and manufacture dates, keeping these aircraft flying is neither simple, nor economical. There are currently four operators of the A-4 Skyhawk, namely Argentina, Brazil, Israel and Singapore. Of these, Israel and Singapore have withdrawn them from frontline service, and AFAIK Israel will be retiring them from the training role in the 2014-2015 timeframe. Part of the reason why Israel is withdrawing them from service, is due to maintenance issues.

The usual service life for most fighter aircraft is typically somewhere in the range of 20 - 30 years, and usually require some sort of Midlife Update (MLU) to remain relevant after 10-15 years of service. The newest A-4 Skyhawk is ~33 years old, and any A-4 Skyhawks which the PAF could obtain would almost certainly need a Service Life Extension Programme (SLEP) in order for them to remain flying.

Presently, the Argentinian Skyhawks are hitting the 12 year mark from their last upgrade. The Brazilian Skyhawks are undergoing a modernization and refurbishment programme to allow them to resume carrier ops. The RSAF Skyhawks had undergone an upgrade programme which finished in 1989...

Basically that means any A-4 Skyhawk that the PAF could get would need upgrade and overhaul. Given the age, potential wear and metal fatigue, then it would not be unreasonable to think that the aircraft would require significant work before being capable of delivering some sort of combat or training capability.

The engines would likely need either overhaul or replacement. Given the age, getting parts and spares would likely prove problematic.

The cable control system (this design is from before FBW) would certainly need to be tested, and it or, portions of it might require replacement.

The wiring harness of the aircraft would need testing and again, possible replacement. Again given the age of the design, testing and replacing the harness is not as easy on this design as it is on newer designs.

Structural members (wing spars, struts, etc) would need to be inspected to ensure integrity. Using the RNZAF upgrade programme from ~1989 as an example, some of the wing spars and landing gear might need replacement.

And so on...

So, if A-4'Skyhawks were to become available, it would be likely that a fair amount of reconditioning work would be required in order to make them servicable for the PAF. And due to age, the components used would have already seen significant service and wear, meaning more frequently failures and/or maintenance required.

I personally suspect that the reasons why Argentina and Brazil still operate the Skyhawk is that those respective nations have not found a suitable jet replacement which falls within their defence budgets. Brazil needs a jet which can operate off their carrier which IIRC is too small to operate Hornets off of, and might be too small for the Rafale-M. Argentina OTOH lacks a defence budget sufficient to replace the Skyhawks.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Others have tried to be more subtle -- and it hasn't appeared to get much traction.

Here's the blunt version.

Lets move away from wally world force construct offers and get back to real world considerations.

The thread needs to get back in its lane real soon.....

 

[Andri F]

Military losing sight of its primary role
Politics really kept messing our military. They'd rather be spoon-feeding the people to have a chance in reelection than upgrading our degraded military which is facing a mountain of troubles, from insurgents to old materiel to civil military operations to just pure nonsense. And our military officers doesn't really correct them. How about improving doctrine, providing funds for training and studying military history (the WWII onward part)? It might come in handy in a tight spot someday.

Well at least some good news:
http://betterphils.blogspot.com/2012/09/philippine-air-force-holds-up-new-air.html
PH welcomes US defense buildup plan in Asia | Inquirer Global Nation
DND welcomes US radar in PH | Inquirer Global Nation

Finally some very welcome developments for our Air Force and for the entire AFP, although it's still not official. Any idea on the specific X-band radar (they said it's from Raytheon Co.)?
There's apparent danger side to this though.
"There is a large database of calculated and measured hazard distances of X-band systems."
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q315.html
On the other side is this:
PIA | Philippine Information Agency | Air Defense Wing of Air Force celebrates its 51st anniv
Oh come on. Mountain program! Yeah it would be something worthwhile to do instead of probably staying at base but how does that help our Air Defense Wing? Wouldn't it be better if they do some study of past air actions and some new information on aircraft maintenance of our probable upcoming planes?

 

[shaun]

Thanks for the links i m glad the PAF is getting the Korean Jets I have a soft spot for the PHILLIPINES as my wife is Filipino I just hope they mean what they say in building up the capability and realise they can't cut corners but what I see of the governments is they are fond of the grand gestures but not of grand actions I hope the PAF realise the opportunity they have to bring back a capability they have sorley missed.

 

[the concerned]

Hi just read on (janes weekly) that the Phillipines have ordered super tucanos is this true and with numerous helicopter requiremnents could these all be satisfied by blackhawk variants and is it beyond the realm of possibility that they could order helicopters from russia.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Short answer, no.

The SuperT (or any COIN aircraft) is faster, safer, and carries bigger and more accurate weapons than any Blackhawk (or any other utility helo).

 

[fretburner]

I'd love to have Blackhawks for the PAF, but like you said, they're expensive. I think the PAF is better of with more Sokol orders.

Has the PAF already made a decision on the COIN aircraft? I know they've been eyeing the Super Tucano to replace the Broncos, but I don't think a decision has been made already. Super Tucano or AT-6 is good with me I favor the AT-6 a little since it's fire control system is derived from the A-10C.

 

[Bonza]

Is it a coin aircraft their after or a coin/trainer because if it is a coin why not wait and go for ex-US a-10's anyway better than both turboprops

[Mod Edit: Read the thread you post in before going off-half cocked without understanding the local challenges faced and constrains. Going off-topic in every thread you post in is not going to tolerated.

Most of us contribute here to join a mature and considered discussion with some relevant context. Shape up or stop posting, we do not cater to children.]

Because the turboprops are cheaper, and actually in production/service? Not to mention the differences in maintenance and sustainment requirements. It's not necessarily "better" just because it's got a big gun and goes faster, you have to look at an air force's ability to support the platform. Taking on a bunch of aging airframes orphaned by the USAF is not going to help in that regard.

 

[fretburner]

^ Agreed. I don't envision the PAF COIN aircraft taking on column of tanks in Sulu. The warthog will be too expensive and a bit of overkill. A Super Tucano and AT-6 with some armed Sokols would be better. If we have money to buy and sustain A-10s, I would rather buy so Super Cobras or whichever is the cheapest Light Attack helo available.

[Mod Edit: General warning to all.

A number of participants in this thread have been previously warned about the quality of their posts. A one-liner post with a link is still a violation of forum rules. Continued going off-topic and failing to heed instructions is another reason bans.

Here are some numbers (to give an idea of their ability to sustain their equipment):-

Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (from National Expenditure Program, the executive department's funding request that Congress has to turn into a law)

.........................................................................2012 (Proposed)
Travelling Expenses............................................168,681,000
Communication Expenses.....................................30,105,000
Repair and Maintenance...................................1,975,996,000
Transportation and Delivery Expenses.....................23,555,000
Supplies and Materials.......................................1,403,022,000
Rents.....................................................................2,133,000
Subsidies and Donations............................................600,000
Uti,ity Expenses...................................................272,709,000
Training and Scholarship Expenses.........................60,056,000
Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses................6,011,000
Confidential and Intelligence Expenses.....................12,000,000
Taxes, Insurance Premiums and Other Fees.............17,975,000
Professional Services................................................9,683,000
Printing and Binding Expenses...................................2,972,000
Advertising Expenses.................................................2,592,000
Representation Expenses..........................................97,512,000
Storage Expenses...........................................................50,000
Subscription Expenses................................................3,241,000
Survey Expenses...........................................................182,000
Membership Dues and Contributions to Organizations.......140,000
Awards and Indemnities...........................................48,000
Rewards and Other Claims.....................................150,000

Total Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses ..........4,089,263,000

Have you seen their historically small defence budget, a point brought up by others in the thread (and their 2012 annual MOOE budget, at page 58 and cited above)?]

 

[OPSSG]

The warthog will be too expensive and a bit of overkill.

For an air force that now operates 2 C-130s (tail number 4704 after being sent to the United States for Periodic Depot Maintenance at the cost of P190 million), I would say get the basics right and stop dreaming pie-in-the-sky dreams. In comparative terms, Indonesia (about 10 operational, plus 4 more from Australia), Malaysia (about 15 or 16 operational), Thailand (about 12 operational) and Singapore (about 8 operational with 2 in depot maintenance). All these peer ASEAN air forces all operate more C-130s each than the PAF.

Traditionally, PAF has not been able to budget enough sustain its C-130 fleet, leading to crashes (last crash in August 2008, off-Davao and another in December 1993) and pre-mature scrapping of air frames (and without preserving parts, engines and spares that could have been preserved).

The size of the PAF operations budget was a historical problem but the current bigger problem is that the PAF purchases items on a piece-by-piece basis in a bureaucratic manner that defies logic (all in the name of clean government, when it is actually a model of bureaucratic inefficiency and symptom of government waste). For example, the AFP Procurement Service about has about 7.9 million pesos worth of bid invitations. Instead of establishing a service support agreements with pre-qualified aircraft suppliers (and there are many around in Asia, be it in Malaysia, Singapore or Korea), the AFP Procurement Service invited potential suppliers to submit 18 individual bids for C-130 components. This mode of procurement is inherently more expensive and less efficient in keeping C-130s operational.

A Super Tucano and AT-6

These would be potential replacements for PAF's aging OV-10s. The OV-10s have been used to drop Paveway guided munitions in support of COIN warfare. This video by U.S. Navy Fleet Combat Camera Pacific (FLTCOMCAMPAC) at 2 min 09 secs, at Alert 5 seems to show Philippine OV-10 dropping a Paveway.

I would rather buy so Super Cobras or whichever is the cheapest Light Attack helo available.

Philippines need troop lift first and attack 2nd. And if Philippine procurement was logical, another batch of Sokols would be good, whether it be the armed variant or just plain transport. Initially, the Attack Helicopter (AH) acquisition project (AFPMP-PAF-00-06-042) was awarded to PZL Swidnik for the attack version of the W-3 Sokol. AH award decision was cancelled in September 2010 due to suspected anomalies.

The present administration seems to be keen to undo all the prior administration procurement decisions because of a fear of prior deeds of corruption. This lack of continuity across different administrations and lack of bureaucratic logic will handicap PAF procurement for some years to come.

 

[Andri F]

Thanks for the links i m glad the PAF is getting the Korean Jets I have a soft spot for the PHILLIPINES as my wife is Filipino I just hope they mean what they say in building up the capability and realise they can't cut corners but what I see of the governments is they are fond of the grand gestures but not of grand actions I hope the PAF realise the opportunity they have to bring back a capability they have sorley missed.

Well, the PAF not only need a fighter (or interim fighter) capability. They still have to get maritime patrol aircrafts because we don't have enough of that. Only F-27s and BN Islanders and sometimes OV-10s and S-211s fill that role for now. We need a dedicated MPA or make that three, along with the promised fighters because the fighters are to be utilized to intercept and escort intruding aircrafts out of our airspace. Their maintenance are costly so they could not be used as patrol aircrafts. Besides, only a dedicated MPA could pack enough stuff to patrol the SCS as efficiently as possible.

With the limited budget available, getting C-130s and transport choppers along with the need to get the territorial defense capability going so that the people will see that the government is doing something, I think its up to the list of priorities of the AFP and the Palace to determine which project gets the green light first.

 

[Andri F]

They have identified all these different aircrafts but no mention of what kind of ships they're going to acquire? I wonder why they're concentrating on air power but how about their sea deterrence acquisition? Are they going to pursue frigates and corvettes from Italy, more Hamiltons [Mod Edit: The ex-Hamiltons are OPVs, not first line surface combatants. A SSM on a OPV just makes it a well armed OPV and its role is to patrol offshore areas. To minimize cost, an OPV is often minimally armed, as they are not designed to go head to head with other warships.] from the USA, other patrol boats, etc.?

I think its because anti-ship armed MRFs stood a better chance at taking down an entire fleet and evading the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. [Mod Edit: Read the thread you post in before going off-half cocked without understanding the local challenges faced (with an air force, with all air but no force and a green water navy, with limited war fighting capability) and constrains. As stated by the US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, on October 23, 2011:-

"...As we have noted before, the U.S. position on maritime security remains clear: we have a national interest in freedom of navigation and overflight, in unimpeded economic development and commerce, and in respect for international law. I would also add that while we do not take a position on competing claims, we do hope that in the interest of peaceful resolution, all parties will clarify their maritime claims in terms consistent with customary international law, as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention.

I applaud the July accord between ASEAN and China on implementing guidelines to the 2002 declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea. I would encourage you to maintain this momentum, and continue working towards a binding code of conduct. I know that president Obama will be interested in hearing your views at the East Asia summit..."​

The problem with your perspective across a number of threads is your failure to take into account that Obama's Asia pivot is not a Philippines pivot. Philippines is only one of the countries in the region and it is in US interest to ring-fence Chinese influence. However, this contest of influence is not what is driving the changes in the region. The more interesting question is:-

How can ASEAN build a security architecture robust enough to deal with such challenges as committing parties to an ‘Incidents at Sea’ agreement?​

At this time, the region lacks the institutions necessary to make such actions credible. While establishing new mechanisms like the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM+) and expanding existing ones like the East Asia Summit (EAS) could potentially lead to a security architecture that produces tangible results, neither approach has yet borne fruit.]

And MRFs are essential to protect our airspace from bombers that might feast on our cities or our army. [Mod Edit: Last warning. Most of us contribute here to join a mature and considered discussion with some relevant context. For those that are really interested, read this CNAS article by Richard D. Fisher, Jr., namely "Defending the Philippines: Military Modernization and the Challenges Ahead" and this article by Bonnie S. Glaser, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, namely, "Armed Clash in the South China Sea: Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14".]

Recently, I've read a very interesting work by Felix K. Chang entitled Transforming the Philippines Defense Architecture which suggest that mobile shore based anti-ship and anti-air batteries placed in Palawan would provide an effective and far cheaper substitute than getting jets and warships.[Mod Edit: In this case, it is more of a blue-sky wish-list without regard to budget realities and time frame (rather than a real analysis of alternatives and an action plan) for the threat matrix faced in the South China Sea, which takes into consideration the geopolitical context and the presence of other competing claimants there). As Richard D. Fisher, Jr. noted:-

"Since the early 1980s the Philippines has lacked a credible air defense capability: modern fighters, anti-aircraft missiles, long-range air defense radar and the maritime patrol aircraft to monitor its vast maritime territory and economic zones...

In 2012 or 2013, the PAF expects to purchase its first modern maritime patrol aircraft, a mission that has been carried out by OV-10s – two of which were intercepted by Chinese fighters in early 2011. This year, the PAF is also expected to purchase new long-range radar to support its air defense mission...

...

In an article published in the PLA Daily on April 14, Chinese Academy of Military Science scholar Wang Xinjun warned that China has 'relative military superiority' over the Philippines and that China’s use of coast guard ships conveyed 'restraint, not weakness'.

...

But as part of its reaction to growing assertiveness by Beijing, at the July 2010 foreign ministers’ meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Obama administration offered to assist multilateral negotiations to settle conflicting South China Sea claims..."​

And you have been specifically warned not turn this into a fantasy wishlist. Fantasy wishlist participants do not fare well in this forum.]

Here's a sort of summary: E-Notes: “Moneyball-ing†the Philippines’ Defense Architecture - FPRI

I think that it would work really well. [Mod Edit: No, it will not. As I said before in another thread, the most pressing issue in the immediate future is lack of maritime domain awareness and the lack of naval presence by the Philippines. How sensible is it for you to talk about the threat of DF-21Ds? DF-21Ds are meant to deter the US Navy, not to deal with the Philippine Navy.

More importantly, Felix K. Chang's list does not take into account the Philippine Navy’s 15-year strategic development plan, called the “Philippine Fleet Desired Force Mix”.]

Add in the Otomat SSMs that might come with the mentioned Maestrale frigates and that's some serious firepower. [Mod Edit: Serious firepower for a green water ocean patrol navy? Serious compared to what? I hope you realise that technologically, the Philippines has the least advanced navy of any claimant in the S. China Sea. Brunei, for example, has a more advanced and combat capable navy than the Philippines, as they have been operating missile armed gun boats (with the necessary maritime domain awareness supporting systems) for a number of years, unlike the Philippine Navy. This myopic focus on acquiring SSMs is a lip stick on a pig issue and is usually proposed by those who are still living in a platform centric world, or lust for the days of jousting where one visible force could be countered by another visible force.]

That would serve as a good defense system until we completed the slow modernization of our navy and air force. But I guess only the facilities should be made ready in Palawan while the mobile launchers (except the SAMs and probably the Harpoons), especially the long range and powerful ones, stay somewhere near that it could be transported immediately but far enough not to pose a threat to the disputed territories or international shipping or cause provocations.

[Mod Edit: According to old SIPRI data (complied a from a couple of years ago), Philippines' defence spending as a percentage of GDP from 2000 to 2009 and the amount spent for defence in constant (2008) US dollars [side by side with Thailand's figures] were as follows:

2000 - Philippines: 1.1% (US$1,270 m)------[Thailand: 1.4% {US$2,702 m}]
2001 - Philippines: 1.0% (US$1,181 m)------[Thailand: 1.5% {US$2,813 m}]
2002 - Philippines: 1.0% (US$1,240 m)------[Thailand: 1.4% {US$2,842 m}]
2003 - Philippines: 1.0% (US$1,369 m)------[Thailand: 1.3% {US$2,803 m}]
2004 - Philippines: 0.9% (US$1,275 m)------[Thailand: 1.2% {US$2,673 m}]
2005 - Philippines: 0.9% (US$1,287 m)------[Thailand: 1.1% {US$2,693 m}]
2006 - Philippines: 0.9% (US$1,310 m)------[Thailand: 1.1% {US$2,807 m}]
2007 - Philippines: 0.9% (US$1,538 m)------[Thailand: 1.3% {US$3,500 m}]
2008 - Philippines: 0.8% (US$1,402 m)------[Thailand: 1.5% {US$4,117 m}]
2009 - Philippines: N.A. (US$1,424 m)-------[Thailand: N.A. {US$4,908 m}]

Not only does the Philippines spend less on defence in absolute amounts, it also spends less as a percentage of GDP compared to Thailand. According to SIPRI data, Indonesia's defence spending as a percentage of GDP from 1990 to 2009 and the amount spent for defence in constant (2008) US dollars are as follows:

2000 - Indonesia: 1.0% (US$2,970 m)
2001 - Indonesia: 1.0% (US$3,136 m)
2002 - Indonesia: 1.1% (US$3,294 m)
2003 - Indonesia: 1.4% (US$4,397 m)
2004 - Indonesia: 1.4% (US$4,840 m)
2005 - Indonesia: 1.2% (US$4,731 m)
2006 - Indonesia: 1.2% (US$5,037 m)
2007 - Indonesia: 1.2% (US$5,478 m)
2008 - Indonesia: 1.0% (US$5,011 m)
2009 - Indonesia: no data shown (US$4,908 m)

Certainly, no one can accuse the AFP of being traditionally well resourced (even for its current modernisation efforts), especially when its historic defence spending pattern is compared to that of Indonesia or Thailand. Historically, Philippines is a house divided with presence of internal insurgents. Which is why -- spending for defence was never a priority. This is why the country is so unprepared to face external threats. However, the presence of external threats can serve to unify or to divide a country. And it remains to be seen how this will affect Philippine defence spending patterns over the mid to longer term.

The rise of China needs to be managed, especially as it is accompanied by the rise of Indian, Vietnamese, Singaporean and Australian sea power, even as the advanced navies of Japan and South Korea modernize their fleets with the latest combat systems. Make no mistake, the Indo-Pacific is in the midst of an arms race that complicates the security of the region's sea lanes to which the Philippines has a front row seat (and at the moment, not a master of its own destiny).

Andri F has shown again that he is not able to follow Mod directions in the thread. ]

 

[fretburner]

Manila plans wide-ranging modernisation of air force

From this report, the TA-50s are NOT yet a done deal! If the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 is ever going to win this, it's really going to put a lot of hurt in the Korean manufacturer, who, I thought was the chosen company already.

Apart from the 12 aircraft LIFT purchase, already approved are:

1 C-130
2 Medium Lift AC
2 Light Lift AC

UH-1s will be refurbished and the Sokols already delivered and on-order are going move from utility to SAR helos.

I wonder what happened to the COIN aircraft "need"? Did the Bangsamoro agreement erase that "need"?

 

[Glendora]

Good evening, first post for me on this forum nevertheless I'd like to have some confirms to my thoughts:

Anyone thinks that the Philippines air force requirements for a trainer aircraft are a bit unrealistic?

I read from the above link:

The highest profile acquisition planned is for 12 lead-in fighter trainer aircraft. Requirements for the type include radar, supersonic speed, and the ability to prosecute both ground and air targets - the latter with beyond visual range missiles.

So they are looking for an advanced supersonic jet trainer (or for an aircraft affordable as a jet trainer) capable of BVR combat and possibly equippped with an AESA type radar, if the requirements implies that the aircraft should be able to prosecute both ground and air targets at the same time.

Thank you for any input on the matter.

 

[horge]

Anyone thinks that the Philippines air force requirements for a trainer aircraft are a bit unrealistic?

So they are looking for an advanced supersonic jet trainer (or for an aircraft affordable as a jet trainer) capable of BVR combat and possibly equippped with an AESA type radar, if the requirements implies that the aircraft should be able to prosecute both ground and air targets at the same time.

Thank you for any input on the matter.

My first post as well...
What would you consider to be 'realistic'?

The Philippines intends to (re)capitalize a vanished combat-jet capability
with both longterm and immediate horizons. Before it can even pretend
to operate fastjets, its combat pilots require time on advanced-jet trainers
(AJT), so the value of acquiring such trainers should be obvious.

The short-term redress of a void in combat-jet capability is accomplished
by configuring at least some of the AJT's as light-combat aircraft (LCA).
Any requirement for multimode FCR and BVRAAM would be driven by
current and future-projected needs, which I think have been mentioned
enough in this and other threads.

One might welcome a needs-driven argument, as opposed to one defined
solely by politics (read: arbitrary budgetary priorities).

To those determined to reduce 'Philippine Defense' to a matter of ISO...
it's too easy for bean counters to focus overmuch on cost-effectiveness,
thence dismiss jets in favor of turboprops, like this...

In 2008 direct cost per flight hour:
AT-6B cost US$1,000 per fh, hauling up to 2000 lbs of ordnance.[1]
AS-211 cost US$3,359 per fh, hauling up to 1500 lbs of ordnance.[2]

[1] Torres-Laboy, J. David. A New Light Attack Aircraft: Making the Case for the Current Fight and Preparing for Future Conflicts. Pre-Decisional Draft, Langley AFB: Air Combat Command, 2008. p. 2
[2] Inflation and exchange-rate adjusted from 1999 (US$1=PHP29.4), grounded in adroth's DCPFH figures over at timawa

...until one considers vector. When the (ISO) enemy is wont to vanish
within 30-60 minutes of initiating very bloody contact, the time it takes
for CAS to get on-scene with a significant warload is critical. In this
sad situation, once the enemy breaks contact, it begins to enjoy all
manner of political protection.

The military can do little about that sort of pseudo-cultural insanity, but
it can do something about faster CAS (along with other necessary
capability-improvements).