Transitioning from Western to Russian/Chinese aircraft

[adroth]

Another topic that has been the focus of intense, emotional, debate on our forum is the issue of exploring the acquisition of Russian and/or Chinese aircraft (assuming, of course, that the Philippine Air Force [PAF] ever gets the budget for it)

The forces of caution have long advocated against it, citing logistical and training issues, since the PAF has been a "Western shop" since its inception.

Recently, two concrete points have recently been raised by this camp:

Artificial horizon design. Although not really a deal breaker, it does add to the things that a pilot must remember. This is probably the weakest of the new arguments. Here's a quote:

In a US/Western type attitude indicator, the airplane "icon" remains steady, fixed against the aircraft's nose/wings alignment. During a roll, the background horizon tilts to reflect the "image" of the actual horizon outside. Same thing with pitch - the horizon line moves up and down to indicate the aircraft nose's vertical pitch. Your photo shows the aircraft performing a 20 degree roll to the right without any nose-up/nose-down. as you can observe, it is the blue/black background that tilted to demonstrate the roll.

In a Russian-type AI, the background horizon will be fixed on the roll axis. yes, the horizon line will move up and down to reflect the pitch (nose-up/nose-down) but when performing a turn, the horizon line remains fixed on the x axis. Instead, the tiny airplane icon will tilt.

Service bulletins. We currently have no information about how well Russian and Chinese aircraft manufacturers issue service bulletins like the one below, and if they even translate these to English.

http://www.nasc.gov.tw/upload/safe/asb_76_66_47A.pdf

There are many examples of countries that have diversified their air forces with Western and non-Western aircraft: Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. So these countries have managed to work around these issues.

Does anyone here know how they did it?

Are there any other issues that countries considering diversification should consider?

 

[defhurl]

it sounds like the cold war never ended.

The type of airforce they have depends on AIPAC and the other jewish lobby groups.

ie
Singapore friendly to Jews, lots of nice US aircraft
Malaysia, a Islamic country not so much.

So if you really want to know, digress whether Philipino's are "friendly" toward Israel and the jews.

There are countries like South Korea and Japan who are not friendly to Israel but fell under US influence before the beginning of jewish lobby groups for Israel.

Countries unfriendly to Jewish interests are most likely going to fall under the Russian sphere of influence. China being Israel's biggest ally would become a conundrum.

[Mod edit] Whatever your personal political opinions, this is not the place to drag them out. Behave as if you are in polite company (NB. attributing the conduct of US foreign policy to Jewish conspiracies is not appropriate to polite company) or you will not last long. This is your first warning

PJI
[/Mod edit]

 

[adroth]

To the mods,

Thank you for the edit. The rapid response was most appreciated.

Defhurl,

Its "Filipino", not "Philipino".

=== ~~~ ===

Back to topic.

 

[tphuang]

i would think that JF-17 fits Philipines pretty well. It's cheap and presents a relatively good value. Of course, you can also go for second-hand teen series fighters or Russian fighters. But, I would take a new fighter over a used one.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

i would think that JF-17 fits Philipines pretty well. It's cheap and presents a relatively good value. Of course, you can also go for second-hand teen series fighters or Russian fighters. But, I would take a new fighter over a used one.

J-10 is probably a better option. More capability in a small number of squadrons, if of cource its for sale and when it can be delivered. Then again the Philipine government may be unwilling give PROC that much leverage over its arms supplies, i.e. any conflict with chinese interests in SEA and bingo no more spare parts!

If I was them i would probably go for MiG 29M/SMT, either new builds or refurbished. Good, multirole capability, low cost and a mature upgrade path (with MiG 35 upgrades being offered if it becomes a reality) with features such as ZHUK-AE & a true glass cockpit. Most importantly the Russian's will be much less likely to use the support and parts issue as leverage due to russia's lack of strategic interest in SEA. The US played that trick with the Indo's to devistateing effect, basically makeing TNIAU a non entity.

BTW tphuang do you know were i can get some decent shots of chinese military aircraft, J-10 in particular? Its a bit of a hole in my collection.

 

[adroth]

Gents,

Let us focus on the two points presented at the start of the thread. Clarification of those points is the main reason why this thread was created.

Stay on track please.

 

[Todjaeger]

The first two questions I would really need to have answered would be

1) What does one want the aircraft/force to accomplish
2) How much money is available to be spent on the aircraft/force

The answers to those questions IMV would colour the whole decision-making process with regards to any transition.

As for how such a transition would be handled, I would imagine that there are a number of different approaches.

With regards to the Artificial Horizon indicator, AFAIK that can be changed to whichever format an airforce/country uses. There are (I believe) a number of companies whose business is updating and modifying avionics and cockpit display systems. I do think that an airforce would want to standardize on one method of displaying the information, but once that is (has been) decided, it should not present much of an issue.

IMV of much greater interest and importance in the decision making process would be the level of support provided by the aircraft manufacturors, as well as the support requirements of the aircraft themselves. From what I understand, a Western-style aircraft typically has a high initial acquisition cost, but low ongoing costs. For a Russian-style, I believe the situation is reversed with low(er) initial costs, but high(er) ongoing costs. Something I feel would be relevant would be an estimate on what the service life of the aircraft would be, compared to how long the role will last.

With more information on what is being attempted, or a more specific scenario, the details can begin to emerge and be discussed.

-Cheers

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[tphuang]

J-10 is probably a better option. More capability in a small number of squadrons, if of cource its for sale and when it can be delivered. Then again the Philipine government may be unwilling give PROC that much leverage over its arms supplies, i.e. any conflict with chinese interests in SEA and bingo no more spare parts!

not up for sale any time soon. Besides, they don't need that much capability. You can get JF-17 for $20 million each even if weapons + servicing are factored in. And it's cheap to operate. And it even fits PAF's role, since they PLA is most likely going to turn it into more of a CAS fighter to replace Q-5.

If I was them i would probably go for MiG 29M/SMT, either new builds or refurbished. Good, multirole capability, low cost and a mature upgrade path (with MiG 35 upgrades being offered if it becomes a reality) with features such as ZHUK-AE & a true glass cockpit. Most importantly the Russian's will be much less likely to use the support and parts issue as leverage due to russia's lack of strategic interest in SEA. The US played that trick with the Indo's to devistateing effect, basically makeing TNIAU a non entity.

BTW tphuang do you know were i can get some decent shots of chinese military aircraft, J-10 in particular? Its a bit of a hole in my collection.

you can get the photos off http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/military-aviation-air-force/new-j-10-thread-ii-3031.html
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/military-aviation-air-force/new-j-10-thread-1546.html
don't think this is a problem, since DT and SDF are sister forums
and other J-10 threads there. I have many photos, but it will take too long to upload them.

 

[adroth]

The first two questions I would really need to have answered would be

1) What does one want the aircraft/force to accomplish
2) How much money is available to be spent on the aircraft/force

The answers to those questions IMV would colour the whole decision-making process with regards to any transition.

As for how such a transition would be handled, I would imagine that there are a number of different approaches.

With more information on what is being attempted, or a more specific scenario, the details can begin to emerge and be discussed.

-Cheers

Weasel is quite right when he says that the PAF does not have the funds to purchase advanced aircraft. To put things into perspective for ourselves while back, we ran the numbers and if the entire PAF budget for 2007 (including money for maintenance, salaries, etc.) were spent on buying F-16 Block 52s (quoted at Greek prices), we'd only be able to buy 4, and have enough funds left over to keep them flying for 5 to 6 hours each for the whole year. No doubt that we are currently cash strapped.

Our credit ratings aren't so great either. But that is a different story.

For the near term, and probably for a few years beyond the 2010 deadline given to our armed forces to reduce the insurgency to a police problem, we will have to stay with our traditional sources of equipment: the US, Italy, and the UK.

This thread is actually about the future. Equipment diversification takes years, if not decades, of political confidence building. So if we are to diversify our equipment in the Russian / Ukranian / Chinese / Etc. direction, preliminary step have to be taken today. The entails making a choice of which direction, deciding which one holds the most promise and the least pain.

When identifying the equipment that the PAF will probably look for in the post-2010 timeframe, one can actually use the AFP Modernization Law of 1995 for guidance. The law prescribes the full range of modern capabilities for the PAF -- from fighters to radars.

The implementation of the law has been drastically affected by a number of factors, to include the focus on COIN. However if the insurgency does become a police problem beyond 2010, as per plan; and GDP growth stays at 6.5% or better (2007 saw the largest jump since the late 70s), we could be on track to finally implement that frigg'n law.

With regards to the Artificial Horizon indicator, AFAIK that can be changed to whichever format an airforce/country uses. There are (I believe) a number of companies whose business is updating and modifying avionics and cockpit display systems. I do think that an airforce would want to standardize on one method of displaying the information, but once that is (has been) decided, it should not present much of an issue.

Thanks for the note about instrumentation replacement. For our reference, would you know of specific air forces that actually did that?

IMV of much greater interest and importance in the decision making process would be the level of support provided by the aircraft manufacturors, as well as the support requirements of the aircraft themselves. From what I understand, a Western-style aircraft typically has a high initial acquisition cost, but low ongoing costs. For a Russian-style, I believe the situation is reversed with low(er) initial costs, but high(er) ongoing costs. Something I feel would be relevant would be an estimate on what the service life of the aircraft would be, compared to how long the role will last.

Agreed.

The aircraft maintenance savvy members of our community are quite curious about how the suppliers mentioned above provide maintenance support. The service bulletin was presented as an example of the level of support that our folks have come to expect.

Do the Russians, et. al. actually issue translated service bulletins?

 

[Chrom]

Do the Russians, et. al. actually issue translated service bulletins?

Yes. Usually as a part of service support if agreed before.

 

[adroth]

Yes. Usually as a part of service support if agreed before.

Thanks Chrom.

Will be searching for PDF samples on my own to spruce up our own discussions. But if you know where Russian bulletins can be accessed, that info would be most appreciated.

 

[defhurl]

Whatever your personal political opinions, this is not the place to drag them out. Behave as if you are in polite company (NB. attributing the conduct of US foreign policy to Jewish conspiracies is not appropriate to polite company) or you will not last long. This is your first warning

Dont put words into my mouth. No one asked you to speak for me. I never said there was a Jewish conspiracy and contrary to your bias towards Jews I have been pretty polite.

AIPAC influence determines alot of who gets what, unless you have some experience dont try to superimpose.

filipino's have been historically friendly to Jews so try not to jump the gun here.

Mod edit: 2nd Warning Defencetalk engages in Defence-related, not political discussions, therefore confine discussion to defence matters. Keep any posts relevant to the topic under discussion and do not go deliberately off-topic. While members are free to agree or disagree, discussion must be kept polite and respectful of other members as well as different countries and cultures since this an International defence forum. Attempting to bring the AIPAC into a discussion about possible Filipino aircraft plans violates a number of forum rules due to involving politics, ethnicity, inflammatory statements as well as being inaccurate.

I would strongly suggest that one take heed about ones posting behavior and be more respectful of moderators, since this is the 2nd Warning issued in five posts. Re-read the rules before making any further posts.
-Preceptor

 

[adroth]

Defhurl,

1. Don't speak for my people, and do not presume to know who we call friends, and who we don't

2. STAY ON TOPIC

 

[KGB]

Also, the primary needs of the PAF are for COIN missions. A role that is more adequately and cost-effectively fulfilled by helos (esp when the insurgents don't have very good AA capabilities).

The other primary need is to patrol the Spratly island chain.

 

[Salty Dog]

Also, the primary needs of the PAF are for COIN missions. A role that is more adequately and cost-effectively fulfilled by helos (esp when the insurgents don't have very good AA capabilities).

Soviet era (and perhaps present day Russian) maintenance philosophy is different from USA/Europe. Russian hardware is more robust which fits their philosophy of "use until failure", then the item goes back for depot level maintenance. This may be why you won't be finding many technical manuals on Russina equipment readily available. US/Europe does regular scheduled maintenance at the unit level. Especially since most modern equipment is modular and is like swapping a hard drive on your PC.

As far as PAF aircraft, the F-16 or the Gripen would fill the high end. There numerous used F-16's available from the US. Gripens would be new, and are not quite as expensive as newer F-16s. The Mig-29/Su-30 are a bit of an overkill for PAF requirements and will most likely have higher maintenance costs.

On the low end, the AT-29 (EMB-314) Super Tucano is the ideal asset for COIN. The AT-29 has the latest avionics and the requisite ground attack weapons for COIN. The AT-29 costs about US$ 8M per copy as compared to about US$ 50M for a new F-16/Gripen.

 

[KGB]

UAVs might be a good adjunct, though they'd probably have to be produced indigenously. They'd be useful for patrolling the spratly islands for example, since the locations of the islands and the fixed structures are known. They don't have to be as sophisticated, or as stealthy as a predator to serve their purpose.

One difficulty would be communications. Predators use a satellite network to communicate with their remote pilots. Otherwise, LOS would be recessary. Work arounds might include networking UAVs so that the more distant UAVs' signals are relayed through UAVs closer to the remote pilot, they way cellular phone towers work. I'm not an authority but its my impression that much of the technology is already in existence. The predator, likewise, was very much a new application of existing technology.

Regardless of vendor advanced fighter jets will not be of much help if the potential aggressors have more of the same. With the absence of a comprehensive detection system, they will end up as white elephants. Using them for COIN would be like using ferraris to buy groceries.

Despite the challenges of developing the technology, it seems more realistic for the PAF to focus on UAVs for patrol and possibly strike missions, and relying on cheap and reliable equiptment for COIN. Witness the reports that an Iranian UAV was able to take deck shots of a Carrier. Countries around the world will eventually see the UAV as a serious means of assymetrical warfare.

 

[adroth]

KGB,

While I appreciate your input and suggestions, the kind of posts that interest me are the ones posted by Salty Dog, Chrom, and Todjaeger.

I am looking for data about what a country that chooses to transition from Western to Russian/Chinese equipment would encounter. Suggestions about specific types of aircraft, etc., are not what this thread needs.

Please focus on the objectives set out at the start of the thread. Lets stay on topic.

=== ~~~ ===

Based on the information gathered here thus far, and other companion threads on other fora, a transition would actually entail a major doctrinal and mindset change on the part of the PAF -- which has been oriented since its inception to operate like the USAF.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The PAF has been operating like a First World air force for years . . . and is struggling. Maybe a change is what it needs. Hoping to get more data.

Any Malaysians on the forum?

Countries like Pakistan and India have successfully used both Western and Eastern aircraft, but have reported opted to outfit their Russian/Chinese aircraft with Western equipment, and have the capacity to complete the integration themselves. They also have the capacity to manufacture the necessary spares themselves.

The Philippine manufacturing base is weak, so the latter will be a problem. With the former, the know-how is certainly there . . . but will we have the clout to get electronic components at a fair price -- separate from the aircraft?

 

[Salty Dog]

You might also want to take a look at Venezuela. They have been shifting over to Russian equipment, mainly due to policital reasons.

I do not feel Russia is the way to go for aircraft. They are still trying to catch up to US and European aerospace projects. Russia has not produced a new fighter aircraft since the cold war. Russia is mainly recycling/upgrading older Mig-29 and Su-27 projects and re-branding these as Mig-35 and Su-30/35 as marketing ploys. Russia had yet to show the world a true Gen 5 fighter project.

As mentioned earlier the AT-29 Super Tucano would be a wise asset for the PAF.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the note about instrumentation replacement. For our reference, would you know of specific air forces that actually did that?

I unfortunately have not had the time to really look to see which companies/air forces have done conversion work on instrumentation. Once I have a bit more time, then I will see. From what comes to mind thought, I believe Thales has done some conversion work as well as IAI. Could be wrong though.

-Cheers