Philippine Air Force Discussions and Updates

[Zooee]

Looks like their focus switched from jets to boats that can help them patrol their seas.

I pity the Philippines. I do believe that they're the rightful owners of Scarborough Shoal but they can't even protect it.

They should also purchase some jets that can scramble towards Scarborough when needed. China has them ready.

 

[Zhaow]

I hear Russia is looking to sell off 18 Ex Indian SU-30 fighters and If I were the Philippines, I would be snapping them up real fast. Since Russia wants to off load used SU-30's and the Philippines are looking for a fighter. I think it's a win-win for both Russia and the Philippines.

 

[ADMk2]

SU-30's are a big and expensive jet to run. Furthermore these specific SU-30's were previously rejected by the Indian Air Force. Whilst they would provide reasonable capability, they may not be the best solution.

Sweden for instance has a fleet of low hour but retired JAS-39A/B Gripen aircraft (about 80 are available I believe) which would also provide good capability but would be infinitely cheaper to operate than an SU-30 fleet...

Your Country could then join the Gripen NG development program in years to come when these aircraft require an MLU and obtain a state of the art jet as a partner, rather than a mere customer...

 

[Bonza]

SU-30's are a big and expensive jet to run. Furthermore these specific SU-30's were previously rejected by the Indian Air Force. Whilst they would provide reasonable capability, they may not be the best solution.

Sweden for instance has a fleet of low hour but retired JAS-39A/B Gripen aircraft (about 80 are available I believe) which would also provide good capability but would be infinitely cheaper to operate than an SU-30 fleet...

Your Country could then join the Gripen NG development program in years to come when these aircraft require an MLU and obtain a state of the art jet as a partner, rather than a mere customer...

And it bears emphasising the costs outside of the purchase - maintaining and sustaining a complex fast jet capability is incredibly expensive, and I don't see the evidence for the Philippines being in the position to do this (no offence to anyone). Spare parts, through-life support, etc. Then there's training of both ground and air crews, and all the other associated personnel and equipment... it might look like a cheap deal on the surface, but there's a whole lot of other costs that aren't as immediately apparent.

There's been a lot of suggestions as to what platform the Philippines should buy but very little addressing the above issues.

 

[Ananda]

From this :President Mulls Buying New Jets | The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online

Seems the Philipines President finaly realise that acquiring F-16 even with similar grant scheme that US give Indonesia is not a 'cheap' business. The administarations finaly realise that the price of upgrading the F-16 will fall up to USD 800 mio (that the price that Indonesia has to preapared), to make those 'used' F-16 still a capable Aircraft up to 2020+ environment.

From what I read on previous info, the PAF brass never intended for F-16. The F-16 only come out as alternative by Philipine President that 'seems' demand Philipines got the same 'grant' scheme that Indonesia got from US, without realising the prices that have to be prepared to upgrade the F-16.

Anyway, from this interview, Philipines seems prepared to get two sq for USD 800 mio. Indonesia got USD 400 mio deal for 1 sq of TA-50. I tend to believe the Philipine President aimed for similar deal with ROK for TA-50.

USD 800 mio can get 2 sq of TA-50, and since this is a LIFT/Light Fighters catagory, the other 'additional' Investment that PAF need to prepared for soft and hard Infrastructure supporting TA-50 operations can be 'less' expensive than preparing the Infrastructures for F-16. At least that's based on TNI-AU experiences.

Flankers ? well TNI-AU has to perpared twice the costs for operating Flankers than F-16. I believe the PAF brass know from beginning this kind of Investment needed for operating Fast Jets, and opted for LIFT/Light Fighters type. The civilian politicians side tracking that, but seems finaly realise the error.

Democracy tend to let some civilian politicians which do not know anything on operating an Armed Force to side tracked the procurement process of Armed Forces including Air Force. Why then just let the professional decide it, and those politicians only have to monitored the process.
But then, that's when you got 'honest politicians' and honesty is a rare thing in politics anywhere .

 

[STURM]

There is also the question of politics. The Philippines is very dependent on the U.S. for diplomatic support, military aid and for security against external threats and in the unlikely event of the Philippine government selecting the Su-30, would come under intense pressure from Uncle Sam to ditch the deal and buy American. Politics aside, from the viewpoint of practicality and cost effectiveness, the Gripen seems the perfect choice - as Bonza pointed out.

 

[Zhaow]

The problem with the The Philippines is that they need to come up with a sizable Air force that is similar to Ecuador Air force,Chilean Air Force & Peruvian Air Force. If the the Philippines can take a page or lesson from the Ecuador Air force,Chilean Air Force & Peruvian Air Force that built a sizable Air force. The Philippines can have a sizable Air force that can defend itself based upon the Ecuador Air force,Chilean Air Force & Peruvian Air Force.

If I were the Philippines, I would look more at the T/A-50 and F/A-50 as a LIFT aircraft with getting either a new or used JAS-39 Gripen or get a used Mirage F-1 or Mirage 2000 that the French want to unload to replace theirs with a Rafele. The other option would be to keep the T/A-50 and F/A-50 and look at getting a used MIG-29 or MIG-35 from Russia.

As for CAS, COIN bird and basic trainer, I would go with a Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano or the Yakovlev Yak-130. The Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano, It's a proven platform and perfect for the Philippines environment. For their current C-130, they can get an upgrade to Tanker transport version of a C-130.

For AEW&C, I would go with either th SAAB Erieye radar system with a Saab 340 AEW&C or go with the EADS CASA C-295 AEW or the Boeing 737 AEW&C or the Beriev A-50.

For Air defense, I would look at Israel's Arrow missile system or the MIM-104 Patriot missile system or the NASAMS missile system.

[General warning to all in this thread: Kindly follow the forum rules and do not spam this thread with wish list nonsense, as there are a number of posts here that are lacking in thought and quality (a laundry list of what to buy without regard to national defence budgets and prior track record are frowned upon). If you have an opinion feel free to share it but remember to provide sources for your facts, where possible.

And if you are faced with a source challenge, please either provide the source or have the good graces to retract your prior statement in your next post. The Mod Team has no problem banning members who have been warned to preserve the quality of participation.

@Zhaow, you are hereby officially warned about making more spam like posts, which you have done in the Philippine navy thread and in this air force thread. One of the key features of this forum is that it is moderated and there is a minimum standard expected - that includes reading prior posts in this thread. Meet these standards or stop posting.

For the senior members, we would really appreciate your help in reminding new members to follow the Forum Rules and to lead by example. Many thanks in advance. ]

 

[ADMk2]

The problem with the The Philippines is that they need to come up with a sizable Air force that is similar to Ecuador Air force,Chilean Air Force & Peruvian Air Force. If the the Philippines can take a page or lesson from the Ecuador Air force,Chilean Air Force & Peruvian Air Force that built a sizable Air force. The Philippines can have a sizable Air force that can defend itself based upon the Ecuador Air force,Chilean Air Force & Peruvian Air Force.

If I were the Philippines, I would look more at the T/A-50 and F/A-50 as a LIFT aircraft with getting either a new or used JAS-39 Gripen or get a used Mirage F-1 or Mirage 2000 that the French want to unload to replace theirs with a Rafele. The other option would be to keep the T/A-50 and F/A-50 and look at getting a used MIG-29 or MIG-35 from Russia.

As for CAS, COIN bird and basic trainer, I would go with a Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano or the Yakovlev Yak-130. The Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano, It's a proven platform and perfect for the Philippines environment. For their current C-130, they can get an upgrade to Tanker transport version of a C-130.

For AEW&C, I would go with either th SAAB Erieye radar system with a Saab 340 AEW&C or go with the EADS CASA C-295 AEW or the Boeing 737 AEW&C or the Beriev A-50.

For Air defense, I would look at Israel's Arrow missile system or the MIM-104 Patriot missile system or the NASAMS missile system.

All those things are great, but capability (ie: the sum of the parts) can only effectively be delivered when everything is in place.

Bonza is absolutely correct in his earlier post and while a need to address the threats you see may exist, does the funding or wherewithal to address them also exist?

The Phillipines has a very low funding base for it's Defence Forces. If they had the funding base that Singapore enjoys, you might get close to what you're thinking of here...

 

[STURM]

The problem with the The Philippines is that they need to come up with a sizable Air force that is similar to Ecuador Air force,Chilean Air Force & Peruvian Air Force.

What the PAF needs and what the government can afford are 2 very profoundly different things. As far as I can tell, the PAF is also in urgent need of ground based radars. Does anyone here know if the PAF has any in operation or does it rely on commercial radars for coverage? No point in investing in fancy gear when it hasn't got its basics sorted out. I believe that at present, there is a much more pressing requirement for MPAs, radar, UAVs and transports rather than fighters. Despite all the recent news about China and the Spratleys, war is not about to erupt. The PAF has a lot of problems but its inability to deal with marauding foreign fighters in its airspace is not currently one of them.

For Air defense, I would look at Israel's Arrow missile system or the MIM-104 Patriot missile system or the NASAMS missile system.

Again, the PAF needs to start with the basics, at the moment the PAF doesn't even have MANPADs and alerting assets, how can anyone expect stuff like Patriot to be bought? There isn't even a basic AD network in place.

 

[boomerdl]

What the PAF needs and what the government can afford are 2 very profoundly different things. As far as I can tell, the PAF is also in urgent need of ground based radars. Does anyone here know if the PAF has any in operation or does it rely on commercial radars for coverage? No point in investing in fancy gear when it hasn't got its basics sorted out. I believe that at present, there is a much more pressing requirement for MPAs, radar, UAVs and transports rather than fighters. Despite all the recent news about China and the Spratleys, war is not about to erupt. The PAF has a lot of problems but its inability to deal with marauding foreign fighters in its airspace is not currently one of them.



Again, the PAF needs to start with the basics, at the moment the PAF doesn't even have MANPADs and alerting assets, how can anyone expect stuff like Patriot to be bought? There isn't even a basic AD network in place.

With all due respect to Col Sturm, why would the PAF needs to start with the basics? Understand they don't have any airforce if you can call them that at all, but would it be possible for their AF personnel to be trained in a very expeditious way so that in a very short period they may learn to fly the multi-role aircrafts? Also, I've learned by now by reading all these comments and posts that the Philippine government doesn't have the financial resources to finance the acquisition of these sophisticated aircrafts, weapon systems and sub-systems. However, just based on my humble opinion, if friendly countries are willing to provide loans predicated by the vast untapped natural resources of the country, that the Philippines may be able to acquire these weapons systems in short order?

 

[STURM]

With all due respect to Col Sturm, why would the PAF needs to start with the basics?

When I said 'start with the basics' I meant ensuring that a proper support infrastructure and other gear is in place before sexy stuff like fast jets and long range missiles, like Patriot are acquired. And ensuring that the PAF has the proper tools to perform its current tasks. It's a matter of opinion but which should come first - new mobile air surveillance radars to form the basis of a new national air surveillance network or fighters? Are there enough LIFTs at the moment to ensure that sufficient fast jets pilots can be trained over of given period? What is the point in having a single squadron of fighters when the PAF is in need of MPAs for surveillance of national waters against present threats like foreign trawlers operating illegally in Philppine waters and could do with extra C-130s for disaster relief work? Should we deal with existing requirements first, to deal with current problems or start investing in gear that may or might not be needed in the near future - this is an very important consideration given the scarcity of funding. Bear in mind that despite all the recent news about China, the Philippines is not in a any threat of going to war with anybody. At the end of the day, it is the top brass of the PAF who know best as to what they need, whether the politicans will listen is the question.

 

[boomerdl]

When I said 'start with the basics' I meant ensuring that a proper support infrastructure and other gear is in place before sexy stuff like fast jets and long range missiles, like Patriot are acquired. And ensuring that the PAF has the proper tools to perform its current tasks. It's a matter of opinion but which should come first - new mobile air surveillance radars to form the basis of a new national air surveillance network or fighters? Are there enough LIFTs at the moment to ensure that sufficient fast jets pilots can be trained over of given period? What is the point in having a single squadron of fighters when the PAF is in need of MPAs for surveillance of national waters against present threats like foreign trawlers operating illegally in Philppine waters and could do with extra C-130s for disaster relief work? Should we deal with existing requirements first, to deal with current problems or start investing in gear that may or might not be needed in the near future - this is an very important consideration given the scarcity of funding. Bear in mind that despite all the recent news about China, the Philippines is not in a any threat of going to war with anybody. At the end of the day, it is the top brass of the PAF who know best as to what they need, whether the politicans will listen is the question.

I agree with you 100%. The Philippines needs so many things and all at the same time. They have limited current available funds to finance all they need to acquire for their defense needs! However, if there is a will there is a way, and if other friendly countries will extend them loans, based on their vast natural resources, i.e., get the armaments on ala pay later basis. Understand they need enormous and probably insurmountable number of weapons systems, training and infrastructure, but in my opinion it is doable in a minimum of at least 2 years. They have to do it on the fly and concurrently. Securing the hardware, infrasture, and at the same obtaining the training. They don't have any choice with China doing all the posturing and bullying. Although China will probably will not go to war with the entire world looking. On the same token, probably they will steal another Philippines' territory if the government of the Philippines will not put up a fight or at least show some semblance of resistance or backbone?

 

[mangsu]

As an American. I agree that it is in the US interests that the Philippines has a viable military. If it were up to me. [Mod Edit: The issue is not increasing funding, which has already occurred. Rather, it's legacy issues related to PAF's prior institutional constraints and there are 3 new sources of funding to consider in their domestic legislative framework:-

1. Defense System of Management - to bypass bidding requirements and it sets up a process of choosing the best equipment based on quality, supportability, AND affordability. Price will no longer be the sole determining factor.
2. Multi-year purchasing authority to allow the PAF to pool funds from multiple annual budgets.
3. Access to oil/gas revenue as grants supplemental income for additional purchases.
​

Further, it has been reported that the US will nearly triple its military funding for the Philippines this year. Washington agreed to provide $30 million in FMF this year, up from an initial 2012 allocation of $15 million and from $11.9 million last year (see link). The issue is political will of the Phlipppine Congress and their administration. To further our discussion, below is a list of the top 6 SEA countries ranked by their defence spending to provide context to this discussion. The defence spending data is from SIPRI*, the Total Fighter Fleet** size data is extracted from Flight International's Dec 2009, "World Air Forces" (keep in mind that this is not the most accurate of sources) and the #No. of Troops (active/reserve) are extracted from the IISS' "The Military Balance 2010".

1. Singapore
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 99
(i) F-16C/Ds = 60 (other sources suggest higher numbers)
(ii) F-15SGs = 4 (20 on order)
(iii) F-5S/Ts = 35 (see other source on Singapore F-5s by tail numbers)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 72,500 (active) and 312,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$182.23 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 3.9% to a high of 5.1% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$7,966 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$6,661 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$5,997 million (at constant 2008 prices)


2. Indonesia
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 39
(i) F-16A = 7
(ii) Su-27/30 = 7 (3 on order)
(iii) Hawk 209 = 25

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 302,000 (active) and 400,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$539.37 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 1.0% to a high of 1.4% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,908 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$4,840 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,970 million (at constant 2008 prices)


3. Thailand
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 97
(i) F-16A/Bs = 50
(ii) F-5A/E = 47
(iii) Gripen C = 0 (other sources suggest that it is 6 +6 on order)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 305,860 (active) and 200,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$263.97 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 1.1% to a high of 1.5% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,117 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$2,673 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,702 million (at constant 2008 prices)


4. Malaysia
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 59
(i) Su-30MKM = 18
(ii) F/A-18D = 8
(iii) MiG-29 = 10
(iv) RF-5E= 9
(v) Hawk 208 = 14

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 109,000 (active) and 296,300 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$192.95 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 2.0% to a high of 2.6% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,078 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$3,691 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,122 million (at constant 2008 prices)


5. Vietnam
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 202
(i) MiG-21 = 146
(ii) Su-22 = 38
(iii) Su-27/30 = 18 (8 on order)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 455,000 (active) and 5 million (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$92.43 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 2% to a high of 2.5% (data from 2003 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$2,073 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$1,370 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: No data shown in SIPRI database


6. Philippines
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 0
(i) S-211 = 13 (S211 is not even an AJT & about 5 are operational)
(ii) OV-10 =11 (ground attack)
[Note: I believe the actual working inventory may be lower]

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 120,000 (active) and 131,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$161.19 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 0.8% to a high of 1.0% (from 2001 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$1,424 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$ 1,275 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$ 1,270 million (at constant 2008 prices)

A "credible defense posture" can't be achieved just by giving the PAF equipment, like a F-16 squadron without regard to their ability to operate and sustain them. PAF as aid recipients must have the systems, infrastructure and pilot training. The PAF needs to work on restarting their advanced pilot training before the US can help them further. It's a question of competence of the PAF to raise, train and sustain that is the issue at hand. For example, the USAF's pilot training syllabus:-

(ab initio) --> T-6B --> T-38 --> F-16D

Look up the raw performance of each aircraft and you'll see the '3 steps' on the training track to a F-16D are intelligently-spaced.

If PAF sticks to archaic ideas of what trainer types it needs (not saying that it will in the future), it will cost more and if the syllabus is not changed to modern standards, it would not meet PAF's future needs to train pilots to operate high performance jets. Let us take a look at the potential progression for the PAF pilot training syllabus:-

T-41D --> SF.260 --> (S.211 replacement) --> (LIFT/SAA) --> (F-16D)

Therefore, thank goodness it's not up to you. Read the thread you post in, so that there is no need for the thread discussion to go in circles. ]
The US would transfer a squadron of F16s to the Philippines at no cost.
[Mod Edit: Before the PAF acquire fighters, they need to budget for and maintain advanced jet trainers or LIFT/SAA, which was the plan before their President made a public statement that led to the current situation.

Military skill sets (of operating fighters) once lost are not so easy to regain (when the Philippines decided to retire their F-5s in 2005). This demonstrated their prior government's lack of determinaton to fund and operate fighters. As previously posted in this thread:-

"Air force spokesman Miguel Ernesto Okol said the military fleet was in dire straits, backing up a 2010 government audit that found only 91 of the 393 aircraft were 'full mission capable'."​

IMHO, they are not ready to take the leap to operate fighters like the F-16 (and hence not eligible to request for F-16s as excess defence articles (EDAs) transfers) and they also have a demonstrated inability to manage and preserve the assets given to them in the past. There is photographic evidence of C-130s (with only 1 working and another underdoing refurbishment - the others have rotted away), S-211's (if I'm not wrong less than 5 operational) and Broncos, literally rotting in the sun, rather than being treated as assets. There seems to be a shortage of proper storage and maintenance facilities. Further, the PAF needs a proper budget for parts/consumables for their existing assets.

As I have stated before, in a mature discussion, we must also take note that any US adminstration donating F-16s as EDAs must also demonstrate good stewardship of American tax dollars and the PAF as an organisation must demonstrate the capability to operate and to sustain the military capability donated (via having sufficient allocations for maintenance and other operating expenses for their existing fleet).]In addition I would provide two more of the Hamilton Class Cutters for a total of three to the Philippine Navy. Recently the Philippines said they would buy new jets from another country. If true ? At the very least I hope they get the supersonic T/A 50 from S. Korea. This jet can train pilots yet has similar performance to an F16.

 

[boomerdl]

As an American. I agree that it is in the US interests that the Philippines has a viable military. If it were up to me. The US would transfer a squadron of F16s to the Philippines at no cost. In addition I would provide two more of the Hamilton Class Cutters for a total of three to the Philippine Navy. Recently the Philippines said they would buy new jets from another country. If true ? At the very least I hope they get the supersonic T/A 50 from S. Korea. This jet can train pilots yet has similar performance to an F16.

Well, I think that is a debatable idea and it all depends if the USA will transfer or give brand new F-16s to the Philippines. The question remains that the Philippines will be saddled with the renovation and refurbishing costs of the used F-16s, which would cost a bundle and the remaining useful life of the airframes will probably not very much. Therefore, the Philippines is thinking of acquiring brand new jets which could be the Korean T/A 50 and can be transformed to a fighter jet with similar performance like the F-16s but not an MRF with less maintenance costs to start. [Congrats on having an opinion. As a member of the Mod Team, I am asking you to provide sources for your facts - the unit flyaway costs of T/A 50 compared to the unit flyaway costs of refurbished EDA F-16s (and explain the concepts of recurring flyaway cost, weapons systems cost or unit procurement cost apply to the figures you cite) given that you claim that the T/A 50 is cost effective. If possible, provide the estimates for lifecycle costs.

Please either provide the source within 2 days or the next time you post in this forum (whichever is sooner). If you fail to do so within the time frame requested, you will face administrative sanctions. You either meet our standards or leave. The Mod Team will also not tolerate a wave of stupid in DT. Take this as your last warning to up the quality of your posts by providing sources.]

 

[fretburner]

It appears that the PAF will be going for LIFT instead of MRF link. I guess the plans for F-16s would be pushed back several years now? I wish they buy T-50s

 

[ManilaBoy]

It appears that the PAF will be going for LIFT instead of MRF link. I guess the plans for F-16s would be pushed back several years now? I wish they buy T-50s

It's starting to look more clear now that the PAF is indeed heading that way with either the TA-50 from S.Korea or the M-346 of Italy while Russias YAK-130 and the Czech Republics L-159B is still not out of the picture for the LIFT aircrafts ...

DEFENSE STUDIES: PAF is Expected to Acquire Two Type of New Planes

http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=2271335919359

 

[fretburner]

^ Go TA-50! I know the PN is buying Korean ships (via Indonesia?) and so the PAF might get the TA-50 cheaper (although, from what I've read, it's still the most expensive of the bunch). Other pros might be that since we're eyeing F-16s, the T-50 is based on that fighter.

It's also great to hear that they're replacing the OV-10s. My vote is buying Super Tucanos! Although, if the T-6A would win that US contract for Afghanistan, maybe the US can aid the PAF in buying that plane instead.

 

[Zhaow]

^ Go TA-50! I know the PN is buying Korean ships (via Indonesia?) and so the PAF might get the TA-50 cheaper (although, from what I've read, it's still the most expensive of the bunch). Other pros might be that since we're eyeing F-16s, the T-50 is based on that fighter.

It's also great to hear that they're replacing the OV-10s. My vote is buying Super Tucanos! Although, if the T-6A would win that US contract for Afghanistan, maybe the US can aid the PAF in buying that plane instead.

I think it's more likely that PAF would go with South Korea's T/A-50 & F/A-50. It would be a good LIFT and lead in fighter with the potential to get the into some more advance fighters down the road. To replace their OV-10's I'm betting 60:100 that they will go with a Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano over the T-6A, only because it's combat proven and has experience to boot.

Now for their Multi-role fighter, if they can't get a used F-16 or used F/A-18 C/D from the US. Then they should be looking at a used Mirage 2000 or F-1 from France. The other would be to get a used MIG-29 from Russia.

If PAF wanted a brand new fighter and money was tight, I would say go to Taiwan and look at getting the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. I believe the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo piced at $24 million per copy would be something that Taiwan would be looking at

 

[STURM]

If PAF wanted a brand new fighter and money was tight, I would say go to Taiwan and look at getting the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. I believe the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo piced at $24 million per copy would be something that Taiwan would be looking at

Assuming Taiwan was willing to sell the AIDC, the Philippines would not want to buy it as this would effect bilateral relations with China. Both countries may have problems over the Spratleys but both have rising economic ties.

 

[fretburner]

^ Agreed. There's really not a lot of brand new fighters available for the PAF. And I would further argue on having to buy brand new in the near future.