Philippine Air Force Discussions and Updates

Glendora said:

Thank you for your reply horge,

Do Philippines Air Force need a trainer or an advanced fighter jet?

After reading the requirements I understood that they need an advanced fighter, but willing to pay just for a lower tier a/c.
So maybe all the vendors of M-346, T-50 and Yak-130 could try to sell their projects as machines able to perform BVR combat and ground attack at the same time.
Neverthelss these machines were intended for other purposes, i.e. advanced training for advanced 4th and 5th gen. fighters.

Click to expand...

The discussions for PAF need on LIFT has been conducted on this thread for some time. You can see the previous posts on this thread on that matter. The fact is if PAF wants to get back to fast jets game, then PAF need to regain the basic capabilities first.

The basic is not just the Pilot proficiency but also the ground support, logistics and management capabilities on handling fast jets operation again. LIFT is just the best compromise that PAF can get on their budget to begin regaining the capabilities back.

It's interesting to note that any BVRAAM requirement throws a monkey
wrench into what would have appeared to be a straightforward acquisition.
In contrast to the matter of having a multimode FCR, none of the leading
candidates for "SAA/LIFT" can boast of BVRAAM integration.

There was some hype about Golden Eagle and AMRAAM, 2010-2011, as
a carrot, back when RACR was being commercially flogged at ROKAF's
KF-16 upgrade proggy. Look it up. US.gov export restrictions came into
play, and nothing seems to have come of that AMRAAM angle, since. If
someone knows otherwise, I'd be happy for a correction.

M-346 (LCA) can perhaps soon claim a "sort-of" BVRAAM capability, if
Aermacchi's tryst with Israeli defense vendors bears fruit (in other words:
Derby). We'd be essentially looking at prior AMX integrations being grafted
onto M-346, the same way that MB-339 integrations will be (for Marte, etc.),
all this, of course, subject to Aermacchi running certification flights. Master's
win in Israel was after all premised on an offset of codevelopment of the
M-346 LCA. With the slow pace of the SAA/LIFT program, plus this most
recent sidestep, there may conveniently now be enough time for Aermacchi
to get its LCA fully-vetted.

Яk-130 is politically and logistically a no-go, and Hawk can't seem to win
against either Master or Geagle.

h.

horge said:

It's interesting to note that any BVRAAM requirement throws a monkey wrench into what would have appeared to be a straightforward acquisition. In contrast to the matter of having a multimode FCR, none of the leading
candidates for "SAA/LIFT" can boast of BVRAAM integration.

Click to expand...

The intention is for these jets to be used to train future fast jets pilots, for pilots to maintain currency and to have a basic means of intercepting intruders in national airspace. I would be very surprised if the PAF intends on giving these jets a BVR capability.

STURM said:

The intention is for these jets to be used to train future fast jets pilots, for pilots to maintain currency and to have a basic means of intercepting intruders in national airspace.

Click to expand...

The (awkward) name of the acquisition program belies a "trainer-only"
mission: "Surface Attack Aircraft - Lead in Fighter Trainer" or SAA/LIFT
points to strike and possibly CAS tasking, on top of serving as AJT.

I would be very surprised if the PAF intends on giving these jets a BVR capability.

Click to expand...

I was astonished at the report of a 'BVR' requirement.
Since the term does not appear as an actual quote from a Defense
Department or Air Force official, I'd like to assume that the reporter,
Greg Waldron, simply made a mistake...

horge said:

The (awkward) name of the acquisition program belies a "trainer-only"
mission: "Surface Attack Aircraft - Lead in Fighter Trainer" or SAA/LIFT
points to strike and possibly CAS tasking, on top of serving as AJT.


I was astonished at the report of a 'BVR' requirement.
Since the term does not appear as an actual quote from a Defense
Department or Air Force official, I'd like to assume that the reporter,
Greg Waldron, simply made a mistake...

Click to expand...

Hi Sir Horge,

I surely hope that the reporter or his source made a mistake regarding that 'BVR' requirement. LIFT/SAA with BVR?, on accounts I read from other defense forum sites, I find it difficult to find any trainers effectively (and tested) firing AMRAAM missiles. On the other hand, our current limited assets are more often pressed on doing jobs its not originally intended to do, say, the S-211 jets, doing CAS roles or for COIN operations (though modified with pylons to carry unguided rockets). Could this (the source) be just another person making assumptions that with the advancement in technologies, perhaps trainers can carry those weps intended for MRFs? lol. There must be another reason why all of a sudden, with all the pronouncements made in recent past on acquisitions, GRP changed its course (acquisition mode, choice, etc.) for the AFP, but I hope its still on the roll. BTW, on the side, - I came across a VOX ATVBVLVS topic from a Phil Defense forum site, I find it very informative. Thanks.

Griffin said:

Hi Sir Horge,

I surely hope that the reporter or his source made a mistake regarding that 'BVR' requirement. LIFT/SAA with BVR?, on accounts I read from other defense forum sites, I find it difficult to find any trainers effectively (and tested) firing AMRAAM missiles. On the other hand, our current limited assets are more often pressed on doing jobs its not originally intended to do, say, the S-211 jets, doing CAS roles or for COIN operations (though modified with pylons to carry unguided rockets). Could this (the source) be just another person making assumptions that with the advancement in technologies, perhaps trainers can carry those weps intended for MRFs? lol. There must be another reason why all of a sudden, with all the pronouncements made in recent past on acquisitions, GRP changed its course (acquisition mode, choice, etc.) for the AFP, but I hope its still on the roll. BTW, on the side, - I came across a VOX ATVBVLVS topic from a Phil Defense forum site, I find it very informative. Thanks.

Click to expand...

When we see "BVR" used in Western terms, everyone automatically thinks of AMRAAM (and in future no doubt Meteor too).

However other air to air weapons feature "BVR" range capability too. These include Python 5, ASRAAM, MICA and the new Block II variant of the AIM-9X.

So this requirement, may be nothing more than an intent to equip the aircraft with one of the weapons mentioned above.

Many advanced trainers are capable of carrying and operating Sidewinder style IR air to air weapons. With any of the 4 types mentioned above, PAF would technically possess a BVR air to air weapons capability albeit one far less capable than a full AMRAAM or similar capability would afford.

It would be much more affordable however...

ADMk2 said:

When we see "BVR" used in Western terms, everyone automatically thinks of AMRAAM (and in future no doubt Meteor too).

However other air to air weapons feature "BVR" range capability too. These include Python 5, ASRAAM, MICA and the new Block II variant of the AIM-9X.

So this requirement, may be nothing more than an intent to equip the aircraft with one of the weapons mentioned above.

Many advanced trainers are capable of carrying and operating Sidewinder style IR air to air weapons. With any of the 4 types mentioned above, PAF would technically possess a BVR air to air weapons capability albeit one far less capable than a full AMRAAM or similar capability would afford.

It would be much more affordable however...

Click to expand...

Hi Sir,

You are right, I thought about the AMRAAM (well that's just me). "BVR" capable trainers are about weps you mentioned and to include associated sensors fitted in the aircraft is after all a possibility? "Beyond visual range" engagement with OPFOR aircraft. Thanks.

Griffin said:

Hi Sir,

You are right, I thought about the AMRAAM (well that's just me). "BVR" capable trainers are about weps you mentioned and to include associated sensors fitted in the aircraft is after all a possibility? "Beyond visual range" engagement with OPFOR aircraft. Thanks.

Click to expand...

It would be a possibility, yes. The "classic" definition of "BVR range" seems to be a range of about 15 kilometres or so.

All the weapons I mentioned earlier are capable of engaging targets beyond 15k's so yes, PAF could have a BVR capable trainer, if they were armed with an appropriate weapon from that list and possibly others I'm unfamiliar with.

With an appropriate helmet mounted sight and a datalink capability (not to mention an IRST sensor if one could be afforded) and/or a radar of some sort an armed trainer could mount some BVR air to air attacks.

It won't be as capable as a full fighter setup, but it would provide a capability to secure your airspace and provide a credible response to intrusions.

A T/A-50 (for example) with a helmet sight, a basic EW setup (radar warning receiver, counter-measures and dispenser and EW controller) and a modern IR weapon such as AIM-9X II, ASRAAM or Python V, would be supersonic capable and more than useful in conducting the odd intercept and deter unwelcome intrusions.

When operated in conjunction with ground control capability and perhaps some cueing from an LCR-2020 radar system or similar, the PAF would be well able to offer an unwelcome surprise to those who might "accidentally stray off course"...

Griffin said:

You are right, I thought about the AMRAAM (well that's just me). "BVR" capable trainers are about weps you mentioned and to include associated sensors fitted in the aircraft is after all a possibility? "Beyond visual range" engagement with OPFOR aircraft. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Have there been any reports of any plans for either the M-436 or the TA-50 to be sent to the Philippines to undergo a flight evaluation? Have any officials from either KAI or Aermacchi visited the Philippines for discussions with the government and the PAF? It will be interesting to see which eventually gets selected as both can perform the roles that the PAF requires - as a LIFT, for pilots to maintain currency, as a point interceptor and for the light strike role. Both I imagine will come with a chaff/flare dispenser and an RWR as standard fit. An ISRT is unlikely as there have been no reports that either design have been integrated with one or that there is even internal space on board.

STURM said:

Have there been any reports of any plans for either the M-436 or the TA-50 to be sent to the Philippines to undergo a flight evaluation? Have any officials from either KAI or Aermacchi visited the Philippines for discussions with the government and the PAF? It will be interesting to see which eventually gets selected as both can perform the roles that the PAF requires - as a LIFT, for pilots to maintain currency, as a point interceptor and for the light strike role. Both I imagine will come with a chaff/flare dispenser and an RWR as standard fit. An ISRT is unlikely as there have been no reports that either design have been integrated with one or that there is even internal space on board.

Click to expand...

IRST doesn't necessarily have to be internal. Litening, Sniper XR pods etc, provide an IRST capability (in midwave band admittedly) and if this aircraft is to have a ground attack capability, (bearing in mind some PAF aircraft have already gained a capability to employ JDAM weapons reportedly) any future aircraft will be expected to provide a similar capability I'd imagine.

I understand PAF have a limited budget, but I can't imagine half a dozen or so Litening pods would "break the bank" yet they would help provide a strong strike capability as well as a very useful air surveillance capability.

ADMk2 said:

It would be a possibility, yes. The "classic" definition of "BVR range" seems to be a range of about 15 kilometres or so.

All the weapons I mentioned earlier are capable of engaging targets beyond 15k's so yes, PAF could have a BVR capable trainer, if they were armed with an appropriate weapon from that list and possibly others I'm unfamiliar with.

With an appropriate helmet mounted sight and a datalink capability (not to mention an IRST sensor if one could be afforded) and/or a radar of some sort an armed trainer could mount some BVR air to air attacks.

It won't be as capable as a full fighter setup, but it would provide a capability to secure your airspace and provide a credible response to intrusions.

A T/A-50 (for example) with a helmet sight, a basic EW setup (radar warning receiver, counter-measures and dispenser and EW controller) and a modern IR weapon such as AIM-9X II, ASRAAM or Python V, would be supersonic capable and more than useful in conducting the odd intercept and deter unwelcome intrusions.

When operated in conjunction with ground control capability and perhaps some cueing from an LCR-2020 radar system or similar, the PAF would be well able to offer an unwelcome surprise to those who might "accidentally stray off course"...

Click to expand...

Forgive for being not so knowledgeable of Philippine radar systems but if by ground control you mean GCI, I have read sometime ago that with the "shutdown" of Clark and Subic, we have lost some radar coverage in Luzon and also there has been some sort of dispute on setting radar in Palawan so effective GCI might take time. I don't know if we would use civil radars.

Land dispute derails setting up of radar system in Palawan - The Philippine Star » News » Headlines

As for the LIFT, yes we are looking at it as interim fighter solution and it will probably be used as interceptors but about the BVR capability, I don't know how that would be useful in an intercept since from what I've read and seen, you don't lock on an enemy at BVR or fire missiles at him/them, unless of course that aircraft has a hostile intent or when we are at war. Basic peacetime intercepts includes visual id of the intruding aircraft.

http://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Oct/Intercept_Procedures.pdf

Andri F said:

As for the LIFT, yes we are looking at it as interim fighter solution and it will probably be used as interceptors but about the BVR capability, I don't know how that would be useful in an intercept since from what I've read and seen, you don't lock on an enemy at BVR or fire missiles at him/them, unless of course that aircraft has a hostile intent or when we are at war. Basic peacetime intercepts includes visual id of the intruding aircraft.

http://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Oct/Intercept_Procedures.pdf

Click to expand...

It could be useful in the sense that if these jets are intended to be lead-in trainers for true combat aircraft, some BVR capability will help build on the skills and institutional knowledge required for engaging in BVR combat, as well as familiarising the Air Force with the supporting requirements they need to make effective use of a BVR capability.

It's important to remember these jets are not meant to be the end point, but a component of the larger goal of regenerating air combat capability.

Andri F said:

Forgive for being not so knowledgeable of Philippine radar systems but if by ground control you mean GCI, I have read sometime ago that with the "shutdown" of Clark and Subic, we have lost some radar coverage in Luzon and also there has been some sort of dispute on setting radar in Palawan so effective GCI might take time. I don't know if we would use civil radars.

Land dispute derails setting up of radar system in Palawan - The Philippine Star » News » Headlines

Click to expand...

I've no doubt you would use all radar coverage available to you, however I suspect you'll have military air surveillance radar coverage in place before LIFT the way things are going...

As for the LIFT, yes we are looking at it as interim fighter solution and it will probably be used as interceptors but about the BVR capability, I don't know how that would be useful in an intercept since from what I've read and seen, you don't lock on an enemy at BVR or fire missiles at him/them, unless of course that aircraft has a hostile intent or when we are at war. Basic peacetime intercepts includes visual id of the intruding aircraft.

http://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Oct/Intercept_Procedures.pdf

Click to expand...

Yes, but few militaries buy capability with only peacetime rules of engagement in mind...

If they could afford it, I've no doubt PAF would love to introduce an AMRAAM capability into their force.

Not for peacetime interceptions of course, though...

Andri F said:

I have read sometime ago that with the "shutdown" of Clark and Subic, we have lost some radar coverage in Luzon and also there has been some sort of dispute on setting radar in Palawan

Click to expand...

I've had previously asked this question in this thread but did not get an answer from anyone. At present, does the PAF actually operate any ground based radars or is coverage provided solely by civilian operated radars?

Looking to PAF organization (at least that available on public), seems the units within organization handle Air wings and support, however do not find unit/units that dedicated for electronic surveillance. There's a unit called "950th Communications Electronics and Information Systems Group". Don't have enough information though if this group that handle Radars.

Usually from several Air Forces organizations that I've seen, Radar and Electronic Surveillance has been dedicated to separated units or included on Air Defense command. However on PAF organization seems the Air Command only included Fighter sq. Thus don't know though if Philippine Ground Radar included on each Based organizations.

In short word, I also want to know if PAF operated Ground Radars and what kind of ground Radars asset that being operated. Hopefully someone can provide the info .

An AMRAAM-capable SAA/LIFT would be a good supporting asset to fighters but an intent to purchase them might give a message that fighters are still a long way to go. Just saying.

Unless we see a paper conducted by the Air Force sort of like what Capt. Araojo did for the PN back in 2001. We, the taxpayers, will never have an inkling as to what the PAF really wants to happen in the near future or come 2020. FA-50s as LIFTs are already a good choice. As to what else keeps the delay besides the AMRAAM requrement, who knows?

EDIT: I really had to tidy up your post. The content was fine - however you need to at least get basics like use of capital letters sorted. There is a standard on DT that we like to keep.

Andri F said:

An AMRAAM-capable SAA/LIFT would be a good supporting asset to fighters but an intent to purchase them might give a message that fighters are still a long way to go. Just saying.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more sir. For Philippine setting, after the retirement of the last F-5A/Bs "true" air interceptors in PAF inventory at the time, its been more or less seven years since. I would be surprised if GRP actually acquires "modern true fighters or MRF" in the next five years. But from what I had read in local news and other sites, with the current economic status backed by willingness of the GRP and the President, the SAA/LIFT becomes a viable option. Thanks,

Ananda said:

In short word, I also want to know if PAF operated Ground Radars and what kind of ground Radars asset that being operated. Hopefully someone can provide the info .

Click to expand...

Ananda, I read somewhere that the last radars operated by the PAF were a pair of radars that were supplied by the Americans in the 1960's. It seems that when these could no be operated anymore due to old age and a lack of spares, they were retired and air surveillance was provided solely by civilian radars. Not sure how accurate this is though.

I don't claim to know what is best for the PAF but it is my firm belief that given the current state of the PAF, the country's geo-political concerns and the country's geography, that after getting it's squadron of jets, priority should be given to improving the PAFs training infrastructure, its transport and surveillance capabilities and in establishing a ground based radar network. Everything else should be secondary.......

STURM said:

It seems that when these could no be operated anymore due to old age and a lack of spares, they were retired and air surveillance was provided solely by civilian radars. Not sure how accurate this is though.

Click to expand...

As I put it before, by organizations I can't find any unit in PAF that responsible for Radar operations. For that I agree with you on the ground survailance matter. How PAF will conduct effective Airborne Interdiction role (even they can manage to operate fast jets with that LIFT) will be in questions if they still have to rely with civilian Radars only.

Looking for procurement news that coming from Philippines, I haven't found more concern in the effort on rebuilding effective Ground Surveillance assets. Or perhaps I just miss it.

Reliance with Civilian Radars should only be temporary gap. For example, Indonesian Air Force calculated that they need 32 Military specs Radar to have minimum coverage on Indonesian Airspace effectively. However since now they only operate 18 (and by best estimate 24 in 2014), they have to fill the Gap with interoperability with civilian specs Radars. However this will be a temporary Gap that they hope can be left out after they can get full Military Specs radar coverage over Indonesian Airspace by 2017-18.

So far, I haven't seen any similar plan that PAF conducting for that kind transitions.