Philippine Airforce - One of the weakest in the world

[YellowSubmarine]

---

CAS is more effectively (i.e. commensurate, in terms of cost over results) done by dedicated ground attack a/c (i.e. A-10, Frogfoot, etc.) rather than MRCA's (i.e. F-16C, Tornado, etc.). Furthermore, attack helos (esp. the Apache/Apache Longbow) have inflicted better statistics in CAS ops compared to all types of fixed wing a/c combined.

MRCA's are better suited to situations wherein a CAS op has to be made, pero naay posebilidad nga naay enemy a/c's in the target area. Since A-10's and choppers are practically sitting ducks in cases like this, F-16's, the JAS Gripen, and the Tornado are well suited for such tasks. Now don't tell me the NPA has any jets.

IMHO, if we do need MRCA's, in lieu of the F-16C, a wiser choice cost-wise (i.e. if I was asked to recommend what to buy for our air force) is the Swedish JAS Gripen. Can do most things an F-16C can do, for less. And this statement comes from a Viper die hard, and someone who is fanatic enough to know exactly how to cold-start a Viper.

YouTube - FALCON4:AF F-16C Rampstart by rodsky

I love the F-16, but when belt-tightening is the more important issue, the Gripen will do fine.

-RODION

I agree.. between the Apache and the Hind or any gunship which one stays longer in the air, carry more ammo, more manuverable and easy to maintain?

Wiki says F-16 is cheaper than the Gripen by more than 200%.. but the Gripen looks cooler though

[rodsky]

I agree.. between the Apache and the Hind or any gunship which one stays longer in the air, carry more ammo, more manuverable and easy to maintain?

Wiki says F-16 is cheaper than the Gripen by more than 200%.. but the Gripen looks cooler though

I am in error. The Gripen is indeed more expensive diay.

From wikipedia...

Accordingly, among the requirements from the Swedish Air Force was that the Gripen fighter should be able to land on public roads near military stores for quick maintenance, and take off again. As a result, the Gripen fighter can be refueled and re-armed in ten minutes by a five man mobile ground crew operating out of a truck, and then resume flying sorties.

That would really work here, due to our lack of airfields...however, if DPWH botches the job, patay ang Gripen landing on a Philippine provincial road!

-RODION

[gregggy_ph]

a powerful naval force would be better

aegis cruisers for example are built to counter ballistic missiles how much more a higher signature and a slower aircraft, not so sure about stealth aircraft though and new countermeasures. anyway if an aircraft flies low to evade a ship's radar, the phalanx defense systems will greet them, i've read that phalanx can also counter artillery fire. well it would really be who-sees-who-first for a naval vs air war

uss missouri btw i think would still be the same mighty battleship that scared US enemies for many years. those massive guns hurl armor-piercing rounds up to 40+ kms. equip it with phalanx and aegis plus tomahawk then you have the recipe for the ultimate killing machine..hehe

[gregggy_ph]

When this day comes, IT specialists and armchair pilots with joysticks will have more important roles in warfare--me likes hehehe.


*remembers Card's "Enders Game"*

-RODION

too me likes.hehe..i hope i pass the psychological test..if there is..or else ill be shooting on friendlies

I dont think capable and sea worthy pa ang mga USN BATTLESHIPS . Unless i overhaul siya but since strategically speaking ... Philippines are composed of small islands , why not invest on CRUISERS and Amphibious ships ? My last sea duty command was the USS Anchorage LSD-36 , after decommisioning it , the Taiwanese Navy bought it cheap . Kana lage if the PN can afford , AFAIK ... mga surplus ships nato are from the Vietnam era and is not even capable of producing potale water .

nice ship there sir. i think i saw a video of your ship deploying LCACs and rubberboats for seals?..really fascinated about hovercrafts..how they "float" in water and land..hehe i also wonder what will happen if the rubber cushion is damaged would the "aircraft" sink?

[rodsky]

Actually bai RODS .... I am not that literate in the AIR WARFARE because I am more of a SURFACE WARFARE guy .... considering the AIRFORCE is that equipped , you are against a much lesser equipped of an ENEMY NAVAL FORCE maybe from another country . What I am trying to portray here is , let the US AIRFORCE attack the US NAVY ... it will never happened but the technology we are talking about is at PAR with each other and I can guarantee you the USAF will not win bai .

Battle of Midway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Air supremacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-RODION

[cottonmouth]

Very OT: ANyway I just want to share this interesting comparison between flying Air and Naval planes.

NAVY vs AIR FORCE
Bob Norris is a former Naval aviator who also did a 3 year exchange tour flying the F-15 Eagle. He is now an accomplished author of entertaining books about US Naval Aviation including "Check Six" and "Fly-Off." In response to a letter from an aspiring fighter pilot on which military academy to attend, Bob replied with the following:

12 Feb 04

Young Man,

Congratulations on your selection to both the Naval and Air Force Academies. Your goal of becoming a fighter pilot is impressive and a fine way to serve your country. As you requested, I'd be happy to share some insight into which service would be the best choice.

Each service has a distinctly different culture. You need to ask yourself "Which one am I more likely to thrive in?"

USAF Snapshot: The USAF is exceptionally well organized and well run. Their training programs are terrific. All pilots are groomed to meet high standards for knowledge and professionalism. Their aircraft are top-notch and extremely well maintained. Their facilities are excellent. Their enlisted personnel are the brightest and the best trained. The USAF is homogenous and macro. No matter where you go, you'll know what to expect, what is expected of you, and you'll be given the training & tools you need to meet those expectations. You will never be put in a situation over your head. Over a 20-year career, you will be home for most important family events. Your Mom would want you to be an Air Force pilot...so would your wife. Your Dad would want your sister to marry one.

Navy Snapshot: Aviators are part of the Navy, but so are Black shoes (surface warfare) and bubble heads (submariners). Furthermore, the Navy is split into two distinctly different Fleets (West and East Coast). The Navy is heterogeneous and micro. Your squadron is your home; it may be great, average, or awful. A squadron can go from one extreme to the other before you know it. You will spend months preparing for cruise and months on cruise. The quality of the aircraft varies directly with the availability of parts. Senior Navy enlisted are salt of the earth; you'll be proud if you earn their respect. Junior enlisted vary from terrific to the troubled kid the judge made join the service. You will be given the opportunity to lead these people during your career; you will be humbled and get your hands dirty. The quality of your training will vary and sometimes you will be over your head. You will miss many important family events. There will be long stretches of tedious duty aboard ship. You will fly in very bad weather and/or at night and you will be scared many times. You will fly with legends in the Navy and they will kick your ass until you become a lethal force. And some days - when the scheduling Gods have smiled upon you - your jet will catapult into a glorious morning over a far-away sea and you will be drop-jawed that someone would pay you to do it. The hottest girl in the bar wants to meet the Naval Aviator. That bar is in Singapore.

Bottom line, son, if you gotta ask...pack warm & good luck in Colorado.

PS: Air Force pilots wear scarves and iron their flight suits

[cottonmouth]

IMHO, naval and air forces have their distinct advantages. The choice between the two would largely depend on the country it will be defending.

In case of the US, they need a stronger naval forces because they use them as a political leverage. On the other hand, the size of their country means they need one hell of an airforce to defend it. IMHO, that is probably the reason why they bring the war to the enemies homecourt rather than be forced to defend a big country. The navy probably cannot defend better than the airforce when it comes to countries as big as US or Russia.

But with the Philippines it is a different ballgame. We have 7000+ islands to defend and mostly the threats are internal. IMHO, a bigger naval forces (US model) is what the Philippines needed. We only need airforce with bigger lifting capability for humanitarian reasons. Leave the close air support to the Army by issuing them deadly choppers and warthogs.

Having the types of ship like the IOWA Class roaming our coastline will be a mighty show but I now believe it is too expensive for a limited purpose. @Springfield is right, we need something lighter and versatile. I believe the Australian navy model is more applicable in the Philippines. They are the first to use the catamaran design that shocked and awed the US during the East Timor conflict. We can have there ANZAC class frigates too for power package.

[7DMM]

i dont think capable and sea worthy pa ang mga usn battleships . Unless i overhaul siya but since strategically speaking ... Philippines are composed of small islands , why not invest on cruisers and amphibious ships ? My last sea duty command was the uss anchorage lsd-36 , after decommisioning it , the taiwanese navy bought it cheap . Kana lage if the pn can afford , afaik ... Mga surplus ships nato are from the vietnam era and is not even capable of producing potale water .

Back on topic .... Kung maka afford ta ug used warships and some helo's and planes ... The navy can run the show without the help of the airforces to function well during war and peace times . The flight deck of an amphibious ship can cater the needs of a transport helo , a harrier and the lower dock can accomodate lcac's and lcu's . The naval forces is one big package deal ... It can function as both the army and the airforce .

Remember ... To win a war , you must have control over the seas first before anything else .

go navy!!!!! Hoooyaahhh!

[cottonmouth]

Despite its weaknesses the F-16 Fighting Falcon is still the Old Reliable. And the US might be selling it at a bargain soon. Philippines should buy two squadrons ar least.


Quote:

A fighter conceived in the 1960s is still on the job
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

Monday, October 22, 2007

The Air Force calls the F-16 a "legacy" aircraft, a polite way of saying its days are numbered as flashy new fighters like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II come on line.

Even so, the F-16 is still playing a central role in Iraq and beyond, and is likely to be on the job well into the 2020s.


An American F-16 dropped the 500-pound bomb last year that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. A nearly identical F-16 strike last month killed another senior al-Qaida leader in Iraq, Abu Osama al-Tunisi.


The plane has a long history in Iraq. The F-16 flew thousands of sorties over the country during Operations Northern and Southern Watch, which enforced no-fly zones in Iraq after the first Gulf War, and it was Israeli F-16s that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.


The F-16 emerged from the drawing boards of the 1960s as the brainchild of a small corps of pilots and engineers who wanted a small, nimble dogfighter. Military budget chiefs embraced the concept of an aircraft that promised to be less expensive to build and maintain.


The first operational F-16 was delivered to the Air Force in 1979 — around the same time F-15s started rolling off the production lines with two engines. F-16s have since logged a cumulative 8.7 million miles in the air, according to Air Force figures.


The absence of a second engine has also helped make the F-16 impossible to keep aloft if it is stricken by engine flameout. If one engine on an Air Force F-15 or a Navy F/A-18 conks out, a pilot can usually make it home on the other engine.


"Obviously, if the only motor you have quits, your options become pretty limited," said Col. Willie Brandt, the chief of the Aviation Safety Division at the Air Force Safety Center and an F-16 pilot currently deployed flying combat missions in Iraq.


In April 2001, for instance, an F-15 flew into a flock of birds, causing the right engine to burst into flames and "catastrophically fail," according to the accident report. The pilot returned safely to a North Carolina base on the left engine.


Not so aboard the single-engine F-16, which historically has had more crashes related to engine failure than the F-15.


Still, the Air Force continues to rely heavily upon the F-16. Three squadrons operate out of Balad Air Base in Iraq, 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Many state Air National Guards use the F-16 for homeland defense patrols, too. In all, there are 1,300 F-16s still in the Air Force fleet.


That is in part because of the transformations the plane has undergone. It was initially designed to be a daytime fighter, Brandt said in a series of e-mail responses to The Associated Press in recent weeks.


"It has now become a day/night, all weather, multi-role aircraft capable of delivering precision guided weapons in any conditions, and swinging to an air-to-air role in a heartbeat," he said. "It has truly become the workhorse of the USAF as well as many air forces around the world."


The United States currently plans to retire its last F-16 the fighter in roughly 2025, say Brandt and others.


Even after the United States mothballs its last F-16, the fighter is bound to remain in service elsewhere. Twenty-three other nations field the warplane, and hundreds more "retired" F-16s sit in shrink-wrapped storage at a military boneyard in Arizona, ready to be revved up and sold to foreign governments.

[captstar]

pirmi ko naa sa mactan air base kay naa man amo skul dd2...and i have been with those honorable paf soldiers for years nah....i have known all aircraft sad that are used sa paf and it really dismays me nga daghan ang mga courageous na sundalo sa paf pero ang mga equipments nila kay dili bagsik...as of now, we only got C-130's, fokker 27's and nomads for transport, hueys for helicopter utility, attack, patrol, rescue and training usage, ov-10 bronco's for ground support, and these aircrafts got relatively high airframe hours meaning tguwang najud....i just hope and pray na aksyunan ni sa government...i cant imagine the philippines kng i.invade ta through air power nya la ta'y defense....tsk tsk....