Philippine Air Force Discussions and Updates

fretburner

Banned Member
It seems like the DND have picked a winner! Purchase Of Korean Jets Recommended

“Based on our assessment it is the T50 of South Korea that is most advantageous to us in consideration to the obtaining situation in the West Philippine Sea,” said Manalo.

Aside from capability, the T50s are also ideal in terms of the country’s limited budget for Air Force modernization, he said.

If the contract is signed with South Korea before the end of 2012, Manalo said the fighter jets could be delivered to the country within two years from 2013.


Good choice!

Now... How costly would it be to update these to TA-50s later on?
 

colay

New Member
There had been previous reports that the PAF was considering the more capable TA-50 variant so we will have to await official confirmation of the contract details.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
In the meantime, the Muslim and Communist insurgencies are still festering and the new aircraft will boost the PAF's ability to deal with them.
Point understood, but I would imagine that the most realistic solution to the longstanding problem with the MILF and the NPA would be in seeking a political settlement. On paper, the existing fleet of Sokols, MD500s, UH-1s and Broncos, would be more than sufficient to deal with the MILF and the NPA.

Will be interesting to see if there are any plans to arm the Sokols with unguided rockets or MGs.
 

Andri F

Banned Member
There had been previous reports that the PAF was considering the more capable TA-50 variant so we will have to await official confirmation of the contract details.
In my personal opinion, the TA-50 is an armed trainer. Sure, they could fire Sidewinders and AMRAAMs but they won't last long in a furball against Sukhois. They could be utilized by sending them with AMRAAMs and having them fire at beyond-visual-range then have them turn home but that's all. Unlike a multirole aircraft that could be used for air defense, combat air patrol and the likes, and anti-ship attacks.

T-50 Golden Eagle

KAI / Lockheed Martin T-50 Golden Eagle Advanced Trainer / Light Attack Aircraft - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft
 

the concerned

Active Member
It would be nice to see the Phillipines operate the Fa-50 variant plus sign up to Koreas new fighter to augment them. With regards to it mixing it up with Chinese sukhois it doesn't need to i'm sure that China would have more to lose than the Phillipines if it started attacking them.
 

shaun

New Member
I agree it does not need to mix it up just have enough teeth to make them think twice modern jets are just as expensive to run for china as the phillipines they would need at least four sqaudrons though of the more capable version to make those teeth look like they could bite and actually enforce phillipine territorial integrity
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
In my personal opinion, the TA-50 is an armed trainer. Sure, they could fire Sidewinders and AMRAAMs but they won't last long in a furball against Sukhois. They could be utilized by sending them with AMRAAMs and having them fire at beyond-visual-range then have them turn home but that's all. Unlike a multirole aircraft that could be used for air defense, combat air patrol and the likes, and anti-ship attacks.

T-50 Golden Eagle

KAI / Lockheed Martin T-50 Golden Eagle*Advanced Trainer / Light Attack Aircraft - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft
They don't need to last long in a furball against Sukhois. That implies the Philippines is at open war with China, and the outcome of that would be the same regardless of whether the Philippines had a squadron of T-50s or F-16s. What the T-50 will do is start the process of regenerating the fast jet capability. They're not supposed to go off and pick fights with Chinese front-line fighters.

But then any attempt to inject reason into this thread is doomed to failure so I don't know why I'm bothering...
 

shaun

New Member
I will refer to an earlier point I made about the phillipines ability to sustain the aircraft these Korean jets particularly the more capable version will do a job for the PAF but I still have my doubts weather the PAF will be given the resources needed to maintain and sustain the capability? This will be the first time the PAF has gone for a primary war plane that isn't from the USA and so will not be able to be sustained with gifts or aid. There must be at least in my opinion at least four sqaudrons of aircraft for them to represent any sort of threat. This will have to be an increase in manpower highly trained at that and investment in facilities both maintenance and storage as well as signifigant new weapon systems. My fear would be that that they go for a couple of sqaudrons of less capable versions then try to bluff it or they buy only one sqaudron of the more capable version and it becomes a political show peice for airshows.
 

Andri F

Banned Member
They don't need to last long in a furball against Sukhois. That implies the Philippines is at open war with China, and the outcome of that would be the same regardless of whether the Philippines had a squadron of T-50s or F-16s. What the T-50 will do is start the process of regenerating the fast jet capability. They're not supposed to go off and pick fights with Chinese front-line fighters.

But then any attempt to inject reason into this thread is doomed to failure so I don't know why I'm bothering...
I'm not saying that we go to war with anything. What I'm trying to say (and sorry it's not clear in my statement above) is that MRFs would present a better deterrent force. I'm not saying that we should buy the MRFs directly. I'm pretty much aware of the process and of our lack of fighter pilots. The T-50s could fix that.

Ok I just realized I made a mistake. It wasn't colay's post I was suppose to reply (I was distracted yesterday). It was fretburner's link about the purchase being recommended.
(“Based on our assessment it is the T50 of South Korea that is most advantageous to us in consideration to the obtaining situation in the West Philippine Sea,” said Manalo.)
The statement could be interpreted differently. And what I mean is how advantageous compared to an MRF? Maybe economically wise but it's not stated.

And also I want to imply that the TA-50 is an armed trainer because colay said "I hope". I want to know his reason since the ta-50 and the t-50 are both trainers and the only difference is the ta-50 is combat-capable.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that we go to war with anything. What I'm trying to say (and sorry it's not clear in my statement above) is that MRFs would present a better deterrent force.
If China - for whatever reason - decided to use armed force, I very much doubt if a handful of MRFs 'would present a better deterrent force'.

On another note, last month's issue of 'Air Forces Monthly' has a pretty detailed article on Chinese air power. According to the article, PLAAF Fighter Regiments based in the Guangzhou Military District have J-10s, J-11s and Su-30MKKs. Should the the dispute over the Spratleys turn into a shooting war, it will be these fighters, based in Hainan island, that will be used. What the article doesn't mention is whether any AAR assets are based at Hainan or even in the Guangzhou Military District - we do know however that China does not have large numbers of AAR platforms. I would hazard a guess that even with a full weapons load and without AAR support, the huge fuel tanks on the J-11s and Su-30MKKs would enable them to operate over the Spratleys, at least for short periods [presumably China has also bought UPAZ pods].
 

the concerned

Active Member
So like Taiwan what the Phillipines could do with is a sam capability.this would compliment their fighters. What i mean't by the statement that Phillipine aircraft wouldn't have to mix it up with Chinese fighters for long is that pretty quickly reinforcments in the shape of the US would be on seen.
 

fretburner

Banned Member
I'm not saying that we go to war with anything. What I'm trying to say (and sorry it's not clear in my statement above) is that MRFs would present a better deterrent force. I'm not saying that we should buy the MRFs directly. I'm pretty much aware of the process and of our lack of fighter pilots. The T-50s could fix that.

Ok I just realized I made a mistake. It wasn't colay's post I was suppose to reply (I was distracted yesterday). It was fretburner's link about the purchase being recommended.
(“Based on our assessment it is the T50 of South Korea that is most advantageous to us in consideration to the obtaining situation in the West Philippine Sea,” said Manalo.)
The statement could be interpreted differently. And what I mean is how advantageous compared to an MRF? Maybe economically wise but it's not stated.
A MRF is going to be more expensive - both to acquire and maintain. Besides, why would you want a MRF now?

As already mentioned several times, if China really wants to invade the Philippines, it can do so whether you have F-16s or TA-50s.

So like Taiwan what the Phillipines could do with is a sam capability.this would compliment their fighters. What i mean't by the statement that Phillipine aircraft wouldn't have to mix it up with Chinese fighters for long is that pretty quickly reinforcments in the shape of the US would be on seen.
SAMs are great, but they can only do 1 thing. TA-50s can do more. A few fighters launching missiles into Chinese fighters low on fuel and then turning back to re-arm, is the better option. [Mod edit: We already have enough problems with the usual problem kids, who continue to hold fast to their fortress of mistaken beliefs. What's the point of this talking about such an unlikely scenario? Sure shoot at the forces of a Permanent Member of the UN Security council with veto powers? Not very bright.]

They can also bomb/strafe landing craft/amphibious ships, something that SAMs won't be able to do. [Mod edit: What's with this trash talking? Planning for a viable defence is very different from teenagers trash talking. Air patrols are an important mission set, that is not available to a SAM battery. ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Andri F

Banned Member
So like Taiwan what the Phillipines could do with is a sam capability.this would compliment their fighters. What i mean't by the statement that Phillipine aircraft wouldn't have to mix it up with Chinese fighters for long is that pretty quickly reinforcments in the shape of the US would be on seen.
How sure are you about the US reinforcements? Anyway, that's not related to our thread.

Taiwan has a pretty good airforce [http://www.scramble.nl/tw.htm]. And the SAMs are last line of defense. The "aircrafts" could engage enemy long before it sees our coastline provided there is good intelligence and radar coverage (which I doubt).

If China - for whatever reason - decided to use armed force, I very much doubt if a handful of MRFs 'would present a better deterrent force'.

On another note, last month's issue of 'Air Forces Monthly' has a pretty detailed article on Chinese air power. According to the article, PLAAF Fighter Regiments based in the Guangzhou Military District have J-10s, J-11s and Su-30MKKs. Should the the dispute over the Spratleys turn into a shooting war, it will be these fighters, based in Hainan island, that will be used. What the article doesn't mention is whether any AAR assets are based at Hainan or even in the Guangzhou Military District - we do know however that China does not have large numbers of AAR platforms. I would hazard a guess that even with a full weapons load and without AAR support, the huge fuel tanks on the J-11s and Su-30MKKs would enable them to operate over the Spratleys, at least for short periods [presumably China has also bought UPAZ pods].
How long would an MRF based in Antonio Bautista AB be able to do combat air patrol when situations get sticky? Longer than PLAAF aircrafts right? That fact is a good example of better deterrent. PLAAF aircrafts would be reduced to dropping their fuel tanks when our fighters engage them as soon as they are detected, then firing their missiles and go home least they be force into a dogfight with reduced fuel. Anyway, these are what ifs.

And you already read this right?:
US think-tank: PH needs jetfighters, submarines, warships - Manila Standard Today
US think-tank wish list: 48 F-16 jets, 6 mini subs for AFP modernization
Black Pearl - Daily News Brief: US think-tank: PH needs jetfighters, submarines, warships

[Mod edit: General warning to all. If the quality of the posts continues below a sensible threshold, the Mod Team will intervene, again with bans. And the Mod Team is just about ready to issue bans like giving out candy filled gift packs at a kid's birthday party.

This constant clueless attempts at a discussion on a specific platform war fighting capability (TA-50) without the ability to understand the role of airpower results in the inability to intelligently discuss:-

(i) the purpose of the platform;
(ii) what is required from the platform to be acquired; and
(iii) the range required for the platform.​

The acquisition of 6 LIFT is not a magic panacea to your country's chronic under-investment in defence. Sadly, even after your country acquires the first squadron of multi-role fighters (on top of the 6 LIFT), the effort will still not be credible as deterence viz a viz all (but one other competing claimant in the S. China Sea). That claimant, like the Philippines does not operate multi-role fighters. Keep in mind that any intelligent discussion on air warfare is not just a discussion on the platform's capability alone.

Various senior members and Moderators have tried to steer the conversation back on track in this thread but you and some other participants on this thread continue to hold fast to your fortress of mistaken beliefs. It is clear to the Mod Team that you lack the ability to process information provided. Do yourself a favour, at least read up on the classics on airpower before talking about air warfare:

(i) "The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat" by Col John A. Warden III (1988); and
(ii) "The Air Campaign: John Warden and the Classical Airpower Theorists" by David Mets (April 1999),​

to improve your conceptual ability to process the information provided by other members. Read the links provided before posting again. Develop a real interest in the defence matters you post about and stop posting self-deluded rubbish. We have already issued official warnings recently. Therefore, there will be no further reminders.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fretburner

Banned Member
^ That is a WISH LIST. The Philippine Government could NOT afford those. The move to acquire an air search radar which will probably be based in Palawan and a handful of T/A-50s are the right move.

When the PH becomes wealthier, and pilots are up to speed with jets, then we can think of F-16s with AMRAAMs. I would say modern ASW and ASuW Frigates before Subs.
 

SpartanSG

New Member
If China - for whatever reason - decided to use armed force, I very much doubt if a handful of MRFs 'would present a better deterrent force'.
By that logic, all countries with territorial disputes with China should just disband their militaries because it won't make a difference anyway?

The point about PAF acquiring fighters is so that they can at least patrol their sovereign air space and if necessary, to intercept intruders. This does not mean they have to shoot intruders down, but it gives them the capability to send fighters up to take a look and escort the intruder out.

That's a useful capability to have for any country that want to enforce sovereignty in their own air space.

[Mod edit: Guys, legitimate discussion, but remember to keep any punches above the waist (or we will just close the thread). We already have enough problems with the usual problem kids, who continue to hold fast to their fortress of mistaken beliefs. ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shaun

New Member
Know I've been talking about the Korean TA 50s but if its just about putting on a show and regenerating ability are there no A4's going spare any where they are a tough but simple plane had a good history of been easily updated and have the ability to carry a wide ranging pay load OK they aren't F 16s but could do a job till like Spartan suggests the PAF build confidence and technical capability to handle the next step they could look to Singapore who share their concerns about china fo help as they have recent experience with the airframe.

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Know I've been talking about the Korean TA 50s but if its just about putting on a show and regenerating ability are there no A4's going spare any where they are a tough but simple plane had a good history of been easily updated and have the ability to carry a wide ranging pay load OK they aren't F 16s but could do a job till like Spartan suggests the PAF build confidence and technical capability to handle the next step they could look to Singapore who share their concerns about china fo help as they have recent experience with the airframe.
IMO honestly, the A-4 Skyhawk would be a poor choice for the PAF to adopt if they wished (and were able to...) regenerate some sort of fast jet capability. There are some Skyhawks still in service with various Air Arms around the world, but these organizations have current/historical experience operating and maintaining the Skyhawk. The PAF does not have that same experience, which is one of the capabilities which would need to be regenerated in order for the PAF to properly operate and sustain fast jets. Choosing to adopt an aircraft design which achieved first flight 58 years ago, and went out of production 33 years ago would be a step in the wrong direction.

Some of the things experience built up over time provides, is knowledge of what fails under what conditions, when things should be replaced, and how to replace them.

Given the age of the Skyawks, some components would be expected to fail even under normal conditions, just do to the age. That leads into difficulties because the PAF would not necessarily be able to determine if a failure was due to operations outside of the Skyhawk envelope, or age/fatigue. This in turn leads to questions on what sort of parts supply would be required to sustain a Skyhawk force, since the PAF would not know what to expect to fail, or when. Compounding this is the fact that replacement parts for the Skyhawk could be 30+ years old, and themselves subject to failure.

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
IIRC the price a number of nations have paid for their subsonic Hawk 200 single-seater lightweight fighters, is comparable to, if not more than the prices offered to different nations for the supersonic T/A-50 Golden Eagle from S. Korea.

There seem to be a few things which still have not sunk in with people.

The first is that the while the initial outlay to purchase a combat aircraft might seem "high", the real cost to purchase, operate and sustain that combat aircraft over its service life is typically three to four times that of the initial purchase price. Further, failure to allocate funding for operations and sustainment would likely drive up costs associated with resuming ops and sustainment in the future. Think of the costs involved in returning some of the ex-Soviet MiG-29's which parked following the end of the Cold War and the reductions in fighter numbers in service.

-Cheers
 

shaun

New Member
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.
 

colay

New Member
Long-term sustainment of any aircraft fleet the PAF acquires will be the big challenge but I would rather assume that the powers-that-be have done their due diligence in their decision to acquire new aircraft. I had a '59 Chevy and now use a year-old Ford .. the former was cool but a pain to operate and maintain and not really relevant in today's environment.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
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.
By ones arguments, it is manifest that the costs are not understood, "perfectly well..."

If one looks at some of the various LIFT competitions held in the last few years, it should be noted that the Golden Eagle has competed against Hawk 100-series LIF and other, comparable designs. In terms of programme costs, the Golden Eagle has been competitive with the Hawk (~US$30 mil. v. ~£18 mil.) while offering supersonic vs. high subsonic performance. With the T/A-50 featuring a version of the EL/M-2032 radar allowing a secondary fighter/attack role, a T/A-50 can perform the functions of both a Hawk 100 series LIFT and a Hawk 200 series lightweight, subsonic fighter. At both approximately the same cost (or slightly less) and for a prolonged period of time (Golden Eagles were apparently designed with a 10,000 flight hour service life...) and also self-diagnostic features were included to reduce maintenance costs.

In other words, the KAI T/A/F-50 Golden Eagle series of trainers/fighters was designed to be affordable, both initially and ongoing, but also capable designs. It is certainly possible that KAI could have had design issues, but since the aircraft has already had the first production models get rolled out, it would likely already have been mentioned.

As for the other notion, about operating A-4 Skyhawks... Even if the PAF were given Skyhawks as a gift... How much would it cost the PAF setup the required infrastructure to enable sustained operations of a jet which entered production nearly six decades ago, and ceased production over three decades ago? The PAF would need to setup the facilities, expertise and parts stockpile (or fabrication) from scratch. With newer aircraft which are still in production or just recently ceased production, parts are significantly easier to come by. If a spar or strut on a Skyhawk should need replacement, either one would need to be fabricated, or the required part would need to be found in a boneyard somewhere, then inspected to ensure it was without defect and safe to use. Existing A-4 operators have had time for them to build up their own respective spare parts stockpiles, as well as the expertise to know what is most likely needed and when.

The PAF would need to develop that all on their own. As Colay alluded to, if one were to go out and purchase a new (to them at least) vehicle for regular use, which would make more economical a brand new or nearly new used vehicle, or a late 70's model car which has been out of production since the end of the 70's?

-Cheers
 
Top