Philippine Air Force Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Now if the six mentioned was to be the first purchase in a contracted squadron level fighter purchase, that would be one thing. So far though, I have not heard of a contract to puchase any others, and usually such contracts announce the total order first and then perhaps announce when sections of the order are actually paid for and/or delivered.

At this point I am still left wondering whether the journos reporting the story have not provided with more rumour than fact, or if the PAF is more focused on having fighters re-enter then inventory then actually deliver a useful capability.

-Cheers

Thailand did it a similar way, with it's Gripens. It stated a requirement for 12, could only afford 6, ordered them and several years later placed an order for a follow-on batch of 6 to meet their original requirement. It wouldn' t surprise me to see them order more in this way in future years.

PAF would need to do something simliar, but 6 would at least get them back into the fighter business and the limitations of such a small fleet could be clearly demonstrated...

 

[Todjaeger]

Thailand did it a similar way, with it's Gripens. It stated a requirement for 12, could only afford 6, ordered them and several years later placed an order for a follow-on batch of 6 to meet their original requirement. It wouldn' t surprise me to see them order more in this way in future years.

PAF would need to do something simliar, but 6 would at least get them back into the fighter business and the limitations of such a small fleet could be clearly demonstrated...

The RTAF order was a little bit different though. It was for an actual combat system of six Gripens as well as a Saab 340 'Erieye' AEW. Also if memory serves (and I admit it could be failing...) the initial order allowed for options so that the RTAF could increase the number of Gripens in increments. Another key difference between the PAF and RTAF is that the RTAF already has a number of fighter aircraft stil in service, the Gripens were/are to replace older fighters in service, not re-constitute a capability.

A number of the various orders different Air Forces place for fighters are contracts for nn of price yy, with the actual payments broken up and spread out to coincide with completion/delivery of the fighters. Again, if memory serves, there was a recent payment of ~$233 mil. for the delivery of ~6 F-16's to Greece, though it might have been a different country instead.

Really where I question the wisdom of the purchase is that so far there appears to be a commitment to purchase six fighters, yet no announcement for what the desired total numbers of fighters are, their intended roles, what sort of timeframe is expected for the total plan to be realised, and/or the expected total acquisition cost.

I expect most of us are aware that the global economy is still having some issues, with differing regions and countries being more greatly effected than others. With that being true, and the relationship between fighter aircraft cost and the Philippine, AFP, and PAF budgets, it is distinctly possible that another financial crisis could occurr, which could preclude the PAF from acquiring more fighters of the same model as is currently planned. Or even worse, there could end up being an indefinite delay leaving the PAF with just the six fighters ordered.

If the PAF is really looking to get back into fast jet/fighter operations, I would probably look at purchasing a number of the South Korean TA-50 Golden Eagle supersonic advanced trainer/light attack jets. These can perform the advanced jet training which the current PAF jet trainers do, but also fufill some of the roles of a fighter jet. Given their cost of ~$25 mil. per aircraft, they are not as expensive as new-build fighters or even some upgraded/MLU'd fighters. At the same time, if the PAF gets 'stuck' budget-wise, the Golden Eagles can still be used as jet trainers, albeit more capable and expensive than other jet trainers in inventory.

Something else worth considering IMO is having the AFP begin discussions with other countries about the possibilities of joint and/or foreign bases on Philippine soil. For a very long time, the US maintained bases in the Philippines, in part due to the relationship between the countries but also due to the location of the Philippines. While the US-Philippine defence relationship is not what it used to be, the US might find having a base(s) strategically useful again. The Philippines could benefit from potential access to US equipment, and/or interoperability with US forces. Also there would be the economic benefit from US personnel stationed in the Philippines or taking leaves, injecting US currency into the local economy. Another potential candidate for an overseas base would be Singapore. Given the Singaporean (sp?) defence situation, a good portion of the defence forces are stationed overseas due to training and space limitations. As such, it could be beneficial to them to have some forces (RSAF in particular) stationed in the Philippines. Currently some forces are stationed in Australia, but if those forces needed to respond or relocate to Singapore, they would need to overfly Indonesian and Malaysian air space. Having additional forces which would not necessarily have to come in from the same vector could help. On the Philippine side, there could be benefits similar to if the US had a base in the Philippines again as well.

-Cheers

 

[Pendekar]

Something else worth considering IMO is having the AFP begin discussions with other countries about the possibilities of joint and/or foreign bases on Philippine soil. For a very long time, the US maintained bases in the Philippines, in part due to the relationship between the countries but also due to the location of the Philippines. While the US-Philippine defence relationship is not what it used to be, the US might find having a base(s) strategically useful again. The Philippines could benefit from potential access to US equipment, and/or interoperability with US forces. Also there would be the economic benefit from US personnel stationed in the Philippines or taking leaves, injecting US currency into the local economy. Another potential candidate for an overseas base would be Singapore. Given the Singaporean (sp?) defence situation, a good portion of the defence forces are stationed overseas due to training and space limitations. As such, it could be beneficial to them to have some forces (RSAF in particular) stationed in the Philippines. Currently some forces are stationed in Australia, but if those forces needed to respond or relocate to Singapore, they would need to overfly Indonesian and Malaysian air space. Having additional forces which would not necessarily have to come in from the same vector could help. On the Philippine side, there could be benefits similar to if the US had a base in the Philippines again as well.

It's okay for Singapore to create a base in Philipines, But US is a big no. No sense in provoking China further. [Mod edit: Let me state reasons why Singapore is unlikley to consider basing in the Philippines:-

(i) shifting Philippines domestic politics will ensure that RSAF cannot consider basing there - basing is a long term decision (the Philippine Congress voted not to renew the lease to US bases and what's to stop their existing government from doing the same to the RSAF after the investments are made);

(ii) numerous Philippine rebel or other groups (like disgruntled former policemen) will suddenly find that dependents of RSAF personnel that come with the base attractive targets for kidnapping/attack to make a political point or draw attention to a grievance.

(iii) basing in Philippines would be seen as a irrational decision in Singapore domestic politics, as the foreign bases the RSAF selects, in Australia, France and the US, confers specific advantages that cannot be easily replicated in the Philippines (this includes dedicated and instrumented air ranges to practice bombing and other ingress tactics) as the RSAF taps on the existing infrastructure of these foreign bases (schools, medical care and so on for dependents of SAF personnel based there) that host the RSAF; and

(iv) the SAF has had other firm offers for basing or hosting of troops but have NOT acted on it (Lockheed and the Korean T-50 team made a bid to host the RSAF in NZ in this AJT competition and Timor-Leste has also offered to host Singapore troops for exercises but again we have not taken up that offer)]

 

[ManilaBoy]

It's a modest start for the PAF for plannig to acquire at least 6 LIFT jets and can always follow up by more aircraft order in the years to come, better to get started now since it takes years before the units are actually deliver...

 

[ed famie]

^ Saw that here: Armed trainers to help Philippines rebuild fighter capability

Conflicting reports: the earlier report said fighters and this one said trainers/light fighters.

Assuming this later report is the correct one, can the M-346 be armed?

Yes, according to the maker the M-346 has 9 hard points, it can carry bombs, rockets, 20-30 mm gunpods and air to air missile for self defense

 

[fretburner]

I believe so

Very cool.

Do you think any of the two (or both) can carry AMRAAMs? Or does it need a new radar to be able to do that?

I presume both will be able to carry the JAGMs when they become operational.

Edit: Just found an answer to my question for the T/A-50. Answer is no. But the F/A-50 variant is likely to be able to carry AMRAAMs...and even JSOWs: Link


The F/A-50 is also a joint KAI/ Lockheed Martin project, and the associated agreements includes a number of restrictive terms. One is that Lockheed will not transfer aircraft source code to other nations. Another is that the T-50’s capabilities cannot exceed Korea’s F-16s. A 3rd provision banned South Korea from integrating T-50 variants with non-U.S. technology that the United States doesn’t have.

Instead of Selex Galileo UK’s Vixen 500E AESA radar, therefore, the first 4 F/A-50s will use IAI’s popular EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar, installed by Lockheed Martin. It will be coupled to additional datalinks, a weapons management system, radar warning receivers, and a MIL-STD-1760 databus. F/A-50s will also be able to carry additional electronic countermeasures equipment, and specialty pods like LITENING or Sniper ATP for targeting, surveillance, etc. Weapons will include the same lightweight 3-barreled M61 20mm gun, AIM-9 Sidewinder air-air missiles, rockets, Mk80 family bombs, and AGM-65 Maverick missiles carried by the TA-50. The enhanced radar, databus, and related systems will expand the F/A-50’s range of potential weapons by adding GPS-guided weapons like JDAM bombs, WCMD cluster bombs, JSOW glide bombs, etc. They’re also likely to enable the addition of AIM-120 AMRAAM air-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, and other advanced armaments.

 

[STURM]

It's okay for Singapore to create a base in Philipines, But US is a big no. No sense in provoking China further.

The U.S. has had a liasion and logistics presence in Singapore for years already, to support visits of U.S. ships/planes and to support exercises. The RSAF used to have an A-4 training dtachment at Clark in the 1980's.

On the Philippine side, there could be benefits similar to if the US had a base in the Philippines again as well. -Cheers

Playing host to a U.S. military base again would be a very astute move on the part of the Philippine government and would also bring economic benefits. Despite the recent fuss over Chinese activities, I'm not sure however how the majority of the Philippine population would react to the U.S. again having a base in the country. Would it be another political issue?

 

[Todjaeger]

Playing host to a U.S. military base again would be a very astute move on the part of the Philippine government and would also bring economic benefits. Despite the recent fuss over Chinese activities, I'm not sure however how the majority of the Philippine population would react to the U.S. again having a base in the country. Would it be another political issue?

That (how politically palatable a US base is) is one of the things I do now know. Given at this point it has been ~two decades since there has been a US base in the Philippines, I would expect much of the younger population to have no real opinion on whether a base would be good or bad, apart from the practicalities of having revenue streams from US personnel purchasing from the local economy.

On a national political level, hard to say. The impression I have is that in 1991, at a national level, much of the legislative body was opposed to a continued US presence in the Philippines, hence the non-renewal of US base leases.

From the US POV, having a base closer to the South China Sea, as well as high traffic SLOC like the Malacca Straits could be important. It could become even more important if problems with the US presence on Okinawa continue or grow worse. On the down side, after the old leases lapsing, the US might be reluctant to build up the necessary infrastructure to resume basing in the Philippines. In addition, there might be questions on the stability and integrity of where any such bases were located.

-Cheers

 

[ed famie]

That (how politically palatable a US base is) is one of the things I do now know. Given at this point it has been ~two decades since there has been a US base in the Philippines, I would expect much of the younger population to have no real opinion on whether a base would be good or bad, apart from the practicalities of having revenue streams from US personnel purchasing from the local economy.

On a national political level, hard to say. The impression I have is that in 1991, at a national level, much of the legislative body was opposed to a continued US presence in the Philippines, hence the non-renewal of US base leases.

From the US POV, having a base closer to the South China Sea, as well as high traffic SLOC like the Malacca Straits could be important. It could become even more important if problems with the US presence on Okinawa continue or grow worse. On the down side, after the old leases lapsing, the US might be reluctant to build up the necessary infrastructure to resume basing in the Philippines. In addition, there might be questions on the stability and integrity of where any such bases were located.

-Cheers

It's true that in 1991 when a senate vote was made to dis-continue the U.S. bases and until now most of the politician do not want to have a U.S. base again in the Phils., and there is a plan in the senate to re-negotiate the Visiting Forces Agreement or totally scrap them

 

[fretburner]

^ I doubt Congress will scrap the VFA -- not when China is bullying the country. I also don't think there will be another US base in the Philippines in the next few decades. Although, some were flirting of a Submarine or Naval Base in General Santos City several years ago.

 

[STURM]

Unless things rapidly heat up in the South China Sea or reaches a point where armed conflict or even minor clashes become inevitible, I doubt there is the political will by either the U.S. or the Philippines to establish a permanent military presence again in the country. For one, the U.S. has already been expending its facilities in Guam and China is already faced with what one commentator has referred to as the 'Great Wall', a network of U.S. strategic allies - Japan and South Korea - the ASEAN countries, which include 2 non-NATO classified allies - Thailand and the Philippines - and further afield Australia, another strategic ally.

Whilst Philipine business leaders in the vicinity of a future base would welcome such an idea and certain politicans will go ahead with it, my guess is that it will be opposed by segments of congress, parts of the population, a well as a number of NGOs. The bright side of the arguement is that a future U.S. base will again provide the Philippines with a protective umbrella against an external threat, the downside is that in the event of a protracted clash between the U.S. and China over Taiwan or over something else in the Western Pacific, any U.S. bases in the Philippines will most certainly be a target for Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles....

Getting off-topic here but since we are on the subject of foreign bases on foreign soil, I'm very surprised that China has not stationed military units in Myanmmar. As part of its plans to secure its access to energy resources and to rival India in the Indian Ocean, China is funding the construction of a deep water port in Pakistan and has established a strong alliance with Myanmmar, as well as reportedly ELINT/SIGINT stations there to monitor U.S. and Indian activity.

The RTAF order was a little bit different though. It was for an actual combat system of six Gripens as well as a Saab 340 'Erieye' AEW. -Cheers

Would you agree that if the PAF were to order fighters to perform the interception and CAP roles, cash would also have to be allocated for ground based radars [unless of course the PAF already operates radars in the south]?

 

[Twinblade]

Getting off-topic here but since we are on the subject of foreign bases on foreign soil, I'm very surprised that China has not stationed military units in Myanmmar. As part of its plans to secure its access to energy resources and to rival India in the Indian Ocean, China is funding the construction of a deep water port in Pakistan and has established a strong alliance with Myanmmar, as well as reportedly ELINT/SIGINT stations there to monitor U.S. and Indian activity.

Myanmar is certainly playing off both India and China. They make India drop off support of their pro democracy movement and obtain some arms in exchange of hunting Indian rebels in their territory, China gets gas contracts and a listening post in Coco islands close to strategic Andaman and Nicobar islands.

Phillipines on the other hand cannot be expected to play off two countries against each other especially since they lack natural resources or any major vantage point.

 

[T.C.P]

U

Getting off-topic here but since we are on the subject of foreign bases on foreign soil, I'm very surprised that China has not stationed military units in Myanmmar. As part of its plans to secure its access to energy resources and to rival India in the Indian Ocean, China is funding the construction of a deep water port in Pakistan and has established a strong alliance with Myanmmar, as well as reportedly ELINT/SIGINT stations there to monitor U.S. and Indian activity.

China is building a deep sea port in Bangladesh too.

 

[ed famie]

^ I doubt Congress will scrap the VFA -- not when China is bullying the country. I also don't think there will be another US base in the Philippines in the next few decades. Although, some were flirting of a Submarine or Naval Base in General Santos City several years ago.

Surely they will not scrap the visiting forces agreement, they will just re-negotiate them for better advantage, the politician know that without the U.S. support the china aggression will be more aggressive and the AFP needs training were only the U.S. can share like what they do in Palawan in the first week of july 2011

 

[wormhole]

It difficult to gauge the public sentiment re allowing the US to re-establish military bases in the Philippines. The Senate would have to come up with a treaty w/c would then have to be approved in a public referendum. While some think the local business community would support the move, the ethnic Chinese who dominate a large part of the economy would likely be against it and favor Beijing over Washington.

 

[STURM]

Photos of a PAF C-130 undergoing a refurbishment in Malaysia.

ttp://malfly.blogspot.com/2011/08/philaf-c-130h-nearing-completion.html

 

[hotd]

Due to what is happening in are world, from the troubles in middle east, to the dept crisis that stroke parts of europe, including the united states of america, which has greatly affected the world market and the on going issue against china's military might, and don't forget the famine struck countries in the horn of africa (mainly somalia), and also the unjustified killings of the innocent from gadaffi in libya to assad in syria, the oil and gold price hike, the ongoing battle from countries around the world with insurgency and rebellion, including also environmental health issues, and also the food shortage and population growth, and above all the lives that were lost in natural calamities or man made disasters, where does it end thru all this.?

As I've read articles of acquisition/purchase of military hardware to millions/billions of sums from countries around the world. for what is now happening to this world. the question remains, are we preparing for war? or are they preparing for what may lie ahead?

 

[Kalasag]

^ I doubt Congress will scrap the VFA -- not when China is bullying the country. I also don't think there will be another US base in the Philippines in the next few decades. Although, some were flirting of a Submarine or Naval Base in General Santos City several years ago.

The Americans developed a great part of General Santos City. In event of a war, General Santos' well-built (American made) civilian airport would suit US fighter planes in case of a conflict. Not only is the international wharf in General Santos suitable for big warships, the roads going to General Santos in Sarangani (the poorest province in the Philippines) are built to standard and designed by American engineers. It seems the US were seriously thinking of making a naval base along the Sarangani coastline.

I heard rumors from a friend who lives there that the US was making subtle moves in that region again.

 

[fretburner]

Whoa. That's some news to me - I didn't know about the roads. Is the US funding all these? Are they also using General Santos City as a base of operations versus insurgents?

 

[Kalasag]

Whoa. That's some news to me - I didn't know about the roads. Is the US funding all these? Are they also using General Santos City as a base of operations versus insurgents?

A huge bulk of tuna canning factories in the Philippines is based in GenSan (our local abbreviation). So it would have been a wise business investment for the US regardless. As so far as I know, the only US forces stationed in the Philippines are in Zamboanga. The United States developed GenSan not just for military purposes, but developed it in a way so that they could have a base IF a conflict arose. I've been on flights from GenSan to Manila and the airport as a whole is not that great, but the runways are wider in the Philippine context (especially for a relatively insignificant domestic airport), very reminiscent of a military airbase.

But I'm sure the highway I've been on many times were made by American contractors and a huge bulk paid with American taxpayer money (USAID). And as for the rumors, don't take it too seriously.