Philippine Air Force Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Ideally they would buy at least 8 or 12 but maybe 6 [assuming the number is correct] is all the all that the budget can support. I can't imagine it being anything apart from surplus USAF F-16s.

The issue I have with the PAF purchasing six, is that for virtually all intents and purposes, that does not provide any capability. Given that fighters operate in pairs for air combat, six would provide three air elements. Given the normal training and maintenance cycles for most Western fighters, out of three elements, one would be undergoing maintenance, another would be standing up or down from a training cycle, and the remaining third flight element would be available for operational use.

Now what can the PAF/AFP actually accomplish with a single fighter flight element available at any given time, to cover the whole of the Philippines? Realistically, not much.

Of course they could be used for maritime strike, but someone/something needs to vector the fighters until the fighters detect the target(s) themselves. IMO MPA would be a better investment, as they can provide sea and some air search and surveillance, as well as undertaking ASuW and ASW depending on fitout and armament.

They could be used for air interception/interdiction roles. In fact, this is largely the only role which the PAF could not accomplish better with another type of platform. However, only having six fighters puts a severe limit on just how often and effective this would be. Again, with only three air elements available, to maintain a capability for 24 hours/day means only having a single element available for deployment at all times, with a surge possible to two air elements. Now if there was some high value target or event which required maintaining a CAP, of if there was a known threat flight which required interception/shoot-down a single flight element could maintain that. Or at least do so around a single location. The Philippines is too large for a pair of fighters to be able to transit wherever required around the Philippines, whenever they might be required.

Now if the idea is to have some fighters providing air patrolling over the Spratleys, that is IMO a dangerous waste of resources. The PAF sending a pair of fighters there could result in actual between PLAAF fighters and PAF fighters. Or it could result in the PLAAF just increasing the size and frequency of flights it sends over the Spratleys. If the intent is to have a pair of PAF fighters overhead to reinforce Philippine claims to the Spratleys, how effective would that be if China then responded by no longer sending a pair of fighters, instead sending two pairs of fighters or more at a time...

There is no question that fighter aircraft can/do deliver useful capabilities. Such capabilities have to be considered in context with the threat matrix a nation/force is facing, and what force construct can be supported. Unfotunately, it does not appear that the AFP force construct can reasonable acquire and support fighter aircraft is useful numbers. Therefore, I would suggest that the funding intended for a fighter aircraft purchase would be better spent elsewhere within the AFP since there are a number of areas and capabilities which need acquisition, replacement, or upgrades.

-Cheers

 

[STURM]

The issue I have with the PAF purchasing six, is that for virtually all intents and purposes, that does not provide any capability. Given that fighters operate in pairs for air combat, six would provide three air elements. Given the normal training and maintenance cycles for most Western fighters, out of three elements, one would be undergoing maintenance, another would be standing up or down from a training cycle, and the remaining third flight element would be available for operational use. -Cheers

I totally agree with you . I was just pointing out that though the long term aim would be to get a full squadron or more, unfortunatly the present budget will only permit buying a small number of fighters. Buying 6 or even 8 might not make a difference but I think the intention is to gain a fast jet capability again, even if its a very modest or limited one.

Never mind maintaining CAPs, even a permanent QRA with just 6 fighters would be very hard to sustain - and would be hard without ground based radars. I have no idea what radars are operated by the PAF but I did read somewhere that Uncle Sam transferred 4-5 radars years ago but most are in a bad state - hopefully a Phillippino member has more info on this.

Like you, I'm convinced that cash should go to other keys areas like new corvettes, MPAs, UAVs, radar, etc, rather than jets, as the aim at the moment, should be in better equipping the PAF to monitor the country's airspace and waters against peacetime threats rather than dealing with a possible foreign aggressor.

 

[T.C.P]

I agree with Sturm I think that the 6 fighters could be the initial batch with the PAF targeting a full squadron in the near future.

If the fighters are going to be F-16s then PAF will probably get a deal similar to the Indonesian one.

 

[fretburner]

Can you buy used Blk 50/52 F-16s though, for $40M?

 

[T.C.P]

Can you buy used Blk 50/52 F-16s though, for $40M?

Who will sell used F-16 Block-50/52?

 

[fretburner]

I don't know. Maybe the Greeks will sell some of theirs? Or maybe this other EU country which just sold their older F-16s and then that can be upgraded to Blk 50/52 configuration?

 

[T.C.P]

I don't know. Maybe the Greeks will sell some of theirs? Or maybe this other EU country which just sold their older F-16s and then that can be upgraded to Blk 50/52 configuration?

Upgrading older models, I am guessing here Block32/40 to Block-50/52 sounds expensive.

 

[STURM]

The national defence budget will also have to be increased to cope with the operating costs, training, ordnance, etc. Sourcing surplus F-16s might not be an issue as I'm sure there are tonnes of F-16A/Bs at ARMARC that can be reactivated after a modest upgrade. Or are ex-IAF Kfirs, which in the long run might not be a good move, still on offer? If the PAF was willing to wait, in 4-5 years or more there might be ex-RCAF or Kuwaiti FA-18A/Bs on the market.

I'm repeating myself again, sorry, but I still feel that investing in OPVs/corvettes, MPA's, UAVs and radar would be a better option at the moment rather than getting a modest fighter capability.

 

[ed famie]

The national defence budget will also have to be increased to cope with the operating costs, training, ordnance, etc. Sourcing surplus F-16s might not be an issue as I'm sure there are tonnes of F-16A/Bs at ARMARC that can be reactivated after a modest upgrade. Or are ex-IAF Kfirs, which in the long run might not be a good move, still on offer? If the PAF was willing to wait, in 4-5 years or more there might be ex-RCAF or Kuwaiti FA-18A/Bs on the market.

I'm repeating myself again, sorry, but I still feel that investing in OPVs/corvettes, MPA's, UAVs and radar would be a better option at the moment rather than getting a modest fighter capability.

If the PAF will wait for 4-5 years to purchase second hand fighter jets is to long, they have no fighter jets since 2005 after the decommissioning of there F-5 jets, to begin with just 6 even its not enough is better, to let some PAF pilots to fly and patrol there airspace and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone.
And the PN has its modernization and purchases separate from the PAF according to Phil Ambassador to U.S. Mr. Jose Cuisia dated on June 2 2011, PN will be purchasing 8 more cutters within 5 year period, it is separate from the USCG Cutter Hamilton they purchase last May 13, 2011

 

[STURM]

And the PN has its modernization and purchases separate from the PAF according to Phil Ambassador to U.S. Mr. Jose Cuisia dated on June 2 2011, PN will be purchasing 8 more cutters within 5 year period, it is separate from the USCG Cutter Hamilton they purchase last May 13, 2011

The budget of the PN is indeed seperate from that of the PAF but is still part of the national defence budget and it can be argued that perhaps the cash can be put to better use. You're right in that having 6 is better than having none but mantaining servicibility rates whilst still being require to mantain a QRA and patrols over the Spratleys and other areas will be a huge challenge with such a small fleet and will require herculean efforts on the part of the ground crew.

Hopefully the PAF leadership will be able to convince the politicans that it needs a minimum of at least 10 or 12 fighters and that the political leadership will be able to allocate sufficient funding not only for the purchase but to cover operating, training and other stuff. A question that keeps coming to mind is what ground based radars are operated by the PAF? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I read that the U.S transfered 4-5 radars some years ago but that they were now in a bad state. I was hoping that Philippino members here at Defencetalk would have more info on this. If fighters are going to be bought, radars will be needed for GCI and to provide early warning of intruders in Philippine airspace so PAF fighters will have sufficient time to scramble and reach the required altitude to perform intercepts.

If the intent is to have a pair of PAF fighters overhead to reinforce Philippine claims to the Spratleys, how effective would that be if China then responded by no longer sending a pair of fighters, instead sending two pairs of fighters or more at a time...

Maybe not. The knowledge that the PAF has fighters, even a mere handful, might deter the Chinese from sending fighters. I think the whole idea behind these flights are to intimidate and send a political message rather than pose any threats. To date, the only reported sightings of Chinese fighters has been over areas claimed and occupied by the Philippines, and as we know the PAF has no fighters. There has been no public reports of Chinese fighters seen over areas that are occupied by claimants that have fighters.

 

[Todjaeger]

The budget of the PN is indeed seperate from that of the PAF but is still part of the national defence budget and it can be argued that perhaps the cash can be put to better use. You're right in that having 6is better than having none but mantaining servicibility rates whislt still being require to mantain a QRA and patrols over the Spratleys and other areas will be a huge challenge with such a small fleet.

Actually I do not agree with the bolded portion. Having just six, without a commitment to fund and purchase sufficient aircraft in the future, to reach squadron level is IMO a waste of funding.

Having just fix available still leaves the PAF with requirement to fund and support a logistics train for whatever fighter aircraft are purchased. Now granted, six aircraft are not going to be as expensive to support as a squadron of 18 - 24 aircraft, that number is so small there is unlikely to be any economies of scale, meaning the per aircraft cost for support is going to be higher. In addition, having just six fighters in service provides very little in the way of capability.

Such a small number effectively permits air patrolling within a limited area geographically. Depending on aircraft, flight fitout and airspeed flown, a fighter element might only have a 1-2 hour flight time before needing to land to refuel. This same limited pool of aircraft would also need to allow for maintenance and training. As for usage as a QRA, again it can do so, but only for a limited area. These limits are imposed both by the limited range a fighter might have in terms of platform capability and mission fitout, as well as how long it can take an aircraft to get into position even from a hotpad status.

Just to set things straight, use of a fighter jet for EEZ patrolling is largely an expensive and wasteful way of attempting such patrolling. As already mentioned, a air patrol flight (at high subsonic speeds) usually is only go for a few hours, depending on aircraft and fitout. Most MPA flights can run 9 - 18 hours, far longer than a fighter could maintain. Perhaps more importantly, MPA are fitted with large, downward looking sea/surface search radars which depending on altitude and radar could allow the MPA to scan the sea around/beneath the MPA for a radius of 100 miles or more. The radar aboard most fighters is typically not a long-ranged, and has a much smaller field of view corresponding roughly to the nose cone.

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

 

[vivtho]

Actually I do not agree with the bolded portion. Having just six, without a commitment to fund and purchase sufficient aircraft in the future, to reach squadron level is IMO a waste of funding.

Having just fix available still leaves the PAF with requirement to fund and support a logistics train for whatever fighter aircraft are purchased. Now granted, six aircraft are not going to be as expensive to support as a squadron of 18 - 24 aircraft, that number is so small there is unlikely to be any economies of scale, meaning the per aircraft cost for support is going to be higher. In addition, having just six fighters in service provides very little in the way of capability.

Such a small number effectively permits air patrolling within a limited area geographically. Depending on aircraft, flight fitout and airspeed flown, a fighter element might only have a 1-2 hour flight time before needing to land to refuel. This same limited pool of aircraft would also need to allow for maintenance and training. As for usage as a QRA, again it can do so, but only for a limited area. These limits are imposed both by the limited range a fighter might have in terms of platform capability and mission fitout, as well as how long it can take an aircraft to get into position even from a hotpad status.

Just to set things straight, use of a fighter jet for EEZ patrolling is largely an expensive and wasteful way of attempting such patrolling. As already mentioned, a air patrol flight (at high subsonic speeds) usually is only go for a few hours, depending on aircraft and fitout. Most MPA flights can run 9 - 18 hours, far longer than a fighter could maintain. Perhaps more importantly, MPA are fitted with large, downward looking sea/surface search radars which depending on altitude and radar could allow the MPA to scan the sea around/beneath the MPA for a radius of 100 miles or more. The radar aboard most fighters is typically not a long-ranged, and has a much smaller field of view corresponding roughly to the nose cone.

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

There's one advantage of buying a smaller number of fighters over a few MPAs. While the fighters might not have the persistence of an MPA, they would allow the Air Force to maintain fighter skills until such a time when the fleet increases in size.

 

[Todjaeger]

There's one advantage of buying a smaller number of fighters over a few MPAs. While the fighters might not have the persistence of an MPA, they would allow the Air Force to maintain fighter skills until such a time when the fleet increases in size.

That is really what advanced jet trainers are for and the PAF already has them in inventory. Also, as mentioned with fighters vs. MPA they are really for very different roles. A fighter 'patrolling' the EEZ is going to scanning with the Mk I eyeball much of the time, since it would have no other method of sidescanning. Not exactly a efficient use of airframe flight hours, or the costs for fuel, maintenance, engine wear and tear, etc. A single-engined civilian light prop could do the same patrolling but at a lower cost. Rebuild the wings somewhat and reinforce the fuselage and it could likely be fitted with a hardpoint or two for rocket, bomb or gun pods if it was felt that armaments were required.

As to the notion of the PAF having a small number of fighters in inventory leading to the PLAAF backing down in terms of airspace incursions. That might happen, at the same time it could also lead to an escalation of tensions. While I do not claim to know or understand the PLAAF thinking behind the incursions, I would not consider just six much of a threat. Especially if a non-surge deployment would only be ~two. An encounter between a single flight of PAF and PLAAF fighters which went pear-shaped might be explained diplomatically as a 'misunderstanding' on the world stage without much impact part from the possibly loss of two PLAAF fighters (no real effect) or two PAF fighters (significant impact due to budetary limitations and a third the fighter fleet). OTOH if there was a similar airspace incursion with another nation which does operate a fighter fleet, such an incident could quickly grow to being more than just two pairs of fighters, with countries like Malayasia potentially being able to scramble a squadron of fighters and the Vietnamese Air Force having potentially hundreds of fighters in inventory. Much more difficult to claim 'it was an accident' if a squadron scale incident occurs.

-Cheers

 

[Pendekar]

Having read the Histroy of PAF. I was surprised to know that PAF was once the largest air force in east asia. What happen?

 

[adroth]

Having read the Histroy of PAF. I was surprised to know that PAF was once the largest air force in east asia. What happen?

As the PAF's own history points out, that incarnation of the PAF was essentially the US Air Force . . . but with Philippine labor.

During that period, when the head of the PAF needed new or additional equipment, he didn't go the Philippine Congress or to Malacanang. He knocked on the door of the Pentagon. Everything from aircraft, fuel, weapons, weapons carts, etc. were sourced from the US. Because of Clark AFB in Pampanga, that wasn't all that hard to do. When relations with the US started to sour, then the PAF started to lose steam.

Things reportedly started to go bad as early as the middle of the Marcos administration, when the PH was kicked out of one of the broader military aid programs when Marcos declared Martial Law. As related by a second generation PAF officer, this was how the PAF only ended up with 24 F-5s instead of the originally programmed number. (That state of affairs also gave birth to the Self-Reliant Defense Posture [SRDP] program, but that is another story). From then on, all that the PAF had to go on was access to FMS, and to proceeds from US base (Clark and Subic) base rentals.

Things got really worse in 1991 when the Philippine Congress opted to close the US bases . . . and failed to increase the AFP budget to compensate.

Because the US funded the PAF for so long, we never really fully grasped what it took to operate and maintain an air force. We were reaping the benefits of air power, but we weren't spending much of our own funds for that benefit.

 

[gforce]

Air Force to acquire 6 fighter jets to boost security operations
By Alexis Romero (The Philippine Star) Updated July 02, 2011 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - The Air Force will acquire at least six fighter jets within the term of President Aquino to enhance its capability in conducting security operations, officials said yesterday.

Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin noted that fighter jets are essential in the military’s interdiction operations or intercepting enemy forces.

“These are important. The fighter planes are for interdiction. Within the term of the President we will have them,” Gazmin said in a press briefing at the Air Force headquarters in Pasay City.

Gazmin said acquiring fighter jets within the next five years is a realistic goal.

Armed Forces chief Gen. Eduardo Oban Jr. said the initial plan was to acquire six fighter jets but he declined to state what type of aircraft would be purchased. Officials did not say if the jets to be acquired are brand new or refurbished ones.

The Air Force welcomed the development, saying this would boost its capability to perform its mandate.

“That would mean that we are going to breach our capability... That is definitely a very welcome development not only for the air force but for everybody as well. We will be able to address a lot of issues,” Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Miguel Okol said.

Okol said the Air Force last flew a fighter jet in 2001. He said the Air Force’s last fighter jet was formally decommissioned in 2005. At present, there are no fighter jets in the Air Force’s inventory.

Okol, a member of Philippine Military Academy class ’92, said members of his batch were the last pilots to experience flying a fighter jet.

“We are looking (at acquiring jets) with multi-capability. It should be a multi-capability aircraft. It can also perform other missions like maritime patrol, limited interceptions,” he said.

Okol said the baseline cost of a fighter jet ranges from $23 million to $40 million depending on the type of aircraft. He said some types of jets cost as much as $100 million per unit.

Earlier, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad said the government would implement a P40-billion military modernization project over the next five years starting in 2012.

He said the government would allot P8 billion annually over the next five years for the Armed Forces’ modernization program.

The P8-billion annual funding for 2012 to 2016 is higher than the current modernization budget being allotted to the armed forces, which stands at P5 billion.

The Air Force will get P14 billion of the P40-billion outlay and is planning to acquire radars and aircraft to improve its patrolling capabilities. Other items to be purchased are air defense surveillance radars, surface attack aircraft, and combat utility helicopters.

Meanwhile, the Air Force yesterday renewed its commitment to fast-track its modernization efforts during the celebration of its 64th anniversary in Villamor Airbase, Pasay City.

Air Force chief Lt. Gen. Oscar Rabena said they would continue to defend the country’s territorial air space despite their limited equipment.

Gazmin, for his part, admitted that the Air Force’s assets are aging and dwindling.

“It (deterioration of equipment) left our air skippers with very few, obsolete and unsafe wings. Such is the sad state of our Air Force,” Gazmin said.

“We are now louder and clearer in our desire to modernize,” he added.

The Air Force expects to implement four projects worth P3.7 billion this year. These are the upgrade of an MD520MG helicopter, the purchase of basic trainer aircraft, combat utility helicopters and an aerial camera.

 

[STURM]

As the PAF's own history points out, that incarnation of the PAF was essentially the US Air Force . . . but with Philippine labor.

Adroth,

Out of curiosity, over the years have the incursions by PAF Sabres over the airspace of East Malaysia during the late 1960's received any coverage by the local press or defence magazines in the Philippines? These flights were a matter of great concern for the Malaysians as the RMAF during this period didn't have any fighters and all the government could do was deploy AA guns as a precautionary measure.

While I do not claim to know or understand the PLAAF thinking behind the incursions, I would not consider just six much of a threat. Especially if a non-surge deployment would only be ~two. -Cheers

I think we can safely speculate that the idea of these flights are to send a clear political message - to remind Manila that China regards the area as its sovereign territory and that the Philippines can't do anything about it. Either that or these incursions are the work of bored Chinese pilots. There have been no reported incursion by Chinese fighters in areas occupied by Vietnam or Malaysia, at least not yet.

 

[ed famie]

Air Force to acquire 6 fighter jets to boost security operations
By Alexis Romero (The Philippine Star) Updated July 02, 2011 12:00 AM

During the PAF 64th anniversary, DND Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and AFP Gen. Eduardo Oban, Jr. was interviewed and told that they are considering to buy either the 6 Korea's TA-50 Golden Eagle or the Italy's M-346 depending on their arms and in-flight instrumentation would cost about 1 billion pesos each Plane (written in Defense-Studies.blogspot.com/Philippines) the six jets will only the initial purchases for the P.A.F according to Gen E. Oban, Jr.

 

[fretburner]

^ 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?

 

[Pendekar]

^ 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?

I believe so