Air Force to buy fighter jets by 2011

**yebo** · July 5th, 2008 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

I do have to ask if jets are useless, then why are most Asian countries arming and modernizing to the teeth when there hasn't been a conflict among them since what, when China made that incursion into Vietnam (after the NVA won back in the 70's)? Why do they see it fit to maintain an air force when they've been at peace for this long? I don't know the answer. But, they have maintained their militaries even in the midst of the Asian economic crisis while the Philippines' AFP went into disrepair. Most of them recovered while the Philippines is what, still recovering? Is there a corelation between their military and their recovery? Again, I don't know. But, I felt I had to point that out.

even tiny Brunei has a problem similar to ours. I personally know of an incident a few years back (sometime 2003) when our drilling rig was suppose to drill near the Brunei-Malaysia sea boundary. although the drill site was 1km inside the territorial seas of Brunei the Malaysians sent in their missile gunboats and we could not drop a single anchor. the Brunei navy only had small gunboats with no missile capability. shell brunei ended up paying for 2 months (duration of tow in and tow out) of rig day rate for nothing.

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

Add: By the same token, I have to ask why the heck does Singapore need tankers for air to air refueling? It's a nice capability. But, that island is so tiny they can fly around it within minutes. What's their gameplan?

Singapore has a lot of planes stashed in Darwin, Australia. you know, big air space, lots of room to practice unlike in tiny Singapore. those planes are it's "reserve" force, far from danger from a first strike and in a friendly commonwealth territory. it needs air refueling capability to bring those planes in in case of attack.

**redorange** · July 5th, 2008 08:14 AM

Any stealth fighter would be over kill for the Philippines since the strength of the stealth fighter is to attack/enter enemy target/airspace without being seen. If it's purely for defense purposes an F-16 would be one of the cheapest they can buy from the US with modern technology, the F/A-18 is newer and will cost more to maintain with the two engines. Two engines are better but can they maintain the aircraft with the added cost? Maybe F-16's and some A-10's would be better since they can use the A-10's for the insurgency battles as an attack aircraft and the F-16 for territorial defense. The F/A-18 can do both but having two separate aircrafts to do different missions may be a better solution. In car terms as a pilot told me the F-16 is a Porsche 911 and the F/A-18 is a Corvette. Whichever one they buy doesn't matter it would still be a very capable aircraft as long as it's not a Mig. I see both everyday along with F-14, F-15, B1, B2, & B-52 and they are all reliable aircrafts.

If they really want to scare the other countries just get a B-52.

Nothing comes close to the sound of a B-52 flying above you ready to drop bombs on your head.

**userfriendly** · July 5th, 2008 08:31 AM

para mura mga china made jets nalang free lead paint pa

Seriously, they have developed their own fighter aircraft, the J-10 and FC-1

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/news/fighter.php

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm

**Jun aka Pekto** · July 5th, 2008 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by yebo

even tiny Brunei has a problem similar to ours. I personally know of an incident a few years back (sometime 2003) when our drilling rig was suppose to drill near the Brunei-Malaysia sea boundary. although the drill site was 1km inside the territorial seas of Brunei the Malaysians sent in their missile gunboats and we could not drop a single anchor. the Brunei navy only had small gunboats with no missile capability. shell brunei ended up paying for 2 months (duration of tow in and tow out) of rig day rate for nothing.

Singapore has a lot of planes stashed in Darwin, Australia. you know, big air space, lots of room to practice unlike in tiny Singapore. those planes are it's "reserve" force, far from danger from a first strike and in a friendly commonwealth territory. it needs air refueling capability to bring those planes in in case of attack.

I thought about Australia as a safe haven and it makes sense.

Malaysia seems to be quite territorial. More than likely, they'll get involved if the Philippines does something similar in the South China Sea. It'll get even more interesting if Vietnam and China also join in.

**Jun aka Pekto** · July 5th, 2008 10:06 AM

The F-16 has enough capabilities the Philippines may need: air defense, anti-ship, and even CAS if needed be. It's ubiquitious and parts are bound to be plentiful. More than likely there'll also be different sources. The PAF can always go with the lowest bidder.

I think the A-10's overkill. For the Philippines, COIN aircraft are more suitable. The Philippines still have serviceable OV-10 Broncos. Just because they're old doesn't mean they're not capable of the job they were made to do. There are suitable replacements such as Argentina's Pucara:

and Brazil's Tucano. The Tucano can also double as a trainer.

**yebo** · July 5th, 2008 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

Malaysia seems to be quite territorial. More than likely, they'll get involved if the Philippines does something similar in the South China Sea. It'll get even more interesting if Vietnam and China also join in.

yup, those malaysians sure like to bully it's neighbors, the very reason why the sultan of brunei gave the whole territory of sabah to the sultan of sulu way way back. brunei's problem is not money but manpower. everything is free so why work, especally not in the armed forces. they got gurkas instead for an army.

malaysians also like to play games with singapore, like closing the water valve every now and then just to remind the singaporeans who's boss.

add ko na rin, we also drilled 2 wells for unocal philippines in the sulu sea some time ago, 2 km inside philippine territorial waters. guess who was there to watch our every move, malaysian navy. the philippine navy had to keep it's old ww2 corvete and 2 sokor donated gunboats all the time with us, ostensibly to keep off the abu sayaff but ended up more like to keep the malaysians from harassing us.

**Jun aka Pekto** · July 5th, 2008 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by yebo

yup, those malaysians sure like to bully it's neighbors, the very reason why the sultan of brunei gave the whole territory of sabah to the sultan of sulu way way back. brunei's problem is not money but manpower. everything is free so why work, especally not in the armed forces. they got gurkas instead for an army.

malaysians also like to play games with singapore, like closing the water valve every now and then just to remind the singaporeans who's boss.

add ko na rin, we also drilled 2 wells for unocal philippines in the sulu sea some time ago, 2 km inside philippine territorial waters. guess who was there to watch our every move, malaysian navy. the philippine navy had to keep it's old ww2 corvete and 2 sokor donated gunboats all the time with us, ostensibly to keep off the abu sayaff but ended up more like to keep the malaysians from harassing us.

Hmmm. These are incidents very few Pinoys are probably aware of. All the more for the PAF to modernize.

A map of the region certainly puts things in perspective...... The Spratly Islands, the vital oil/shipping routes..... all within earshot of Malaysia.

**lazyfoot** · December 18th, 2008 08:01 PM

most likely just some 2nd hand trainer/combat planes considering the finances of our country

**jinggoy13** · September 30th, 2009 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by niky

I'd rate the F18 more than the F16... pricing should actually be similar, since the planes are of similar vintage, and our mechanics might be more familiar with the F18 if it's similar to the F5 (Both planes are Northrop-designed).

The US Navy went for the F/A 18 due to serviceability and reliability (yeah, they're the ones who insist on a twin-engine layout, for safety reasons). It's designed to be robust and extremely serviceable. Besides that, the F18 is an excellent fighter-bomber... with the ability to dogfight commendably while carrying a full bomb load. Let's see the F16 do that, eh?

An F35? Fat chance... but 48 million is a pretty good price for any kind of advanced fighter... that's only... hmmm... 2 billion pesos. Two wings of F35s... kasya sa 50 billion, with room for spares....

But I'd still rather we got a cheaper platform, so that those aircraft could cover more of the archipelago... We could buy twice as many F/A 18s for the price of those F35s, with spares, and they'd last us another 20-30 years... they're still up-to-date aircraft with a proven record in the Gulf against the sort of aircraft (modern Sukhois and MiGs) that they'd most likely encounter.

Maybe just fund one flight of F35s, about five or six, as a showcase, then spend the rest of the money on more realistic workhorses... one squadron of F18s (maybe half being secondhand, the others being brand new... but at brand-new prices, the F35 looks good...) then add more modern helicopters... Westland Lynxes for close air support in Mindanao and some heavy lifters for more menial duty.

My fear is that if they go for the best stuff available, those aircraft will end up rotting on the runways being unused. Better to have something more familiar and cheaper to operate.

i totally agree, F-18's are the logical choice , being the pilot's already familiarity with the aircraft.( besides being produced by northrop, the frame of an F-18 were a redesign F-5, other than that , the only thing that's holding us back is the price , and of course the corruption that goes with every procurement.)

**lazyfoot** · October 1st, 2009 11:52 AM

F 16 or F 18, we don't really need those kind of fighters, what we need now is a good mud mover and transport planes, in short C-130 transports and A-10 or SU-25 ground attack planes. Somehow A-1 Skyraiders seems to be a good choice too if we're really short on budget.