In the Army threads of this forum, they have designed rifles and armored vehicles for the Defenders of our Land. The "Taxi Drivers and Bomb Delivery Boys" of the Defenders of our Land (AKA the PAF), meanwhile, need a fighter jet to replace the newly-retired F5A Freedom Fighter. Unfortunately there are hardly any other aircraft available to take the niche of the simple and easy to fly F5.

Here's the challenge. Design a new low-cost multi-role fighter for the PAF that will meet its Internal and External Defense requirements with the following Specs:

1. Relatively low operating costs. Can be maintained by crews with minimal training and with minimal technical support from manufacturer

2. Can execute reconaissance, air defense and ground attack missions effectively

3. Can engage aerial targets beyond visual range and in close-in aerial combat

4. Has overall performance equivalent to F5Es and F20 Tigersharks at the very least.

5. Has an operating radius that allows it to fly on sorties to any point in the Philippines EEZ from Basa AB without aerial refuelling.

6. Can take-off and land from stretches of highway if necessary.

7. Can operate in both fair an foul weather conditions as well as at night.

8. Highly fuel-efficient even while maneuvering in air combat

as far as 1,2,3,4,6,7, and 8
I lean towards the Grippen.
Hopefully range issue can be alleviated by stationing aircraft in Palawan or developing air to air refuelling capability.
just my 50 cents

well better to get TOT of F7 MG or make the F7 MF or buy a lot of FC1
it will cost a lot when you have to make a ac of you own

there are a lot of ac you can get TOT for, trainers or fighters

no need for making a new ones

I think it was in Asian Aerospace mag, around 1994/95. Northrop had offered India (then building the LCA) complete plans, toolings and jigs for the licensed production of the F20. i'll post a scan of it on this thread once i find it.

As for #5, it kind of limits us to heavy fighters, complicated and expensive. AFAIK, even the F8 was near its range limits when launching CAP from Basa. Im not sure the F5 could do it even with three tanks.

Here's a supposedly actual timeline of an F20 doing 12 sorties in a day.
http://members.aon.at/mwade/f20time.gif

F-5 IIIs would be nice. low-cost, easy to maintain, and our air force know more about the F-5 as the army to the M-16.

now that our F-5s has just been retired... now i know why the subtitle of the philippine air force forum is 'flyboys of the blue philippine skies.' the marines are fearless, the navy are the guardians of the 7,100 islands, and the air force are just flyboys...

wehehehehehehehe.... :drunk: :drunk: :drunk:

Yup they're fly boys. Though as I pointed out, they're role was downgraded to merely playing a supporting role to the Army and Marines in COIN operations. They bring troops to and from the battlefront with their Hueys. They airlfit supplies and additional personnel on their C130 and F27s. They also provide CAS with their MG520s, OV10s and SF260s.

I understand that even if the US didn't badger us with their "War on Terror" rhetoric, COIN would still be the AFP's bread and butter. At the spearhead would be the Marines and the Army since they're the ones who go head to head with the enemy. They need all the help they can get to defeat them and come home alive and sane. That is not as easy as playing Battlefield 2 or Full Spectrum Warrior (there are no cheat codes in real life combat).

Furthermore I know that this sort of war costs a lot to fight per day. Aside from bullets, our APCs and trucks need gas as do Hueys and OV10s. You also need to feed the troops out on the field and let's not forget their combat pay. You also need money for medicines to help patch up the wounded and funerary expenses for the KIAed.

I also understand that maintaining assests for use in external defense also costs a bundle. For this game, you a lot more machinery than fighting insurgents since it would be fought first in the air and on sea. Both ships and planes need lots of fuel to keep them running. You also need spare parts to keep them running. If ever we need to open fire at intruders, we will need shells, bombs and guided missiles. Furthermore we would also need to update our systems regularly to be on par with potential threats. We also need to extensively train crews to prepare for the worst case.

However, what I do not understand why do we have to ditch our external defense capabilities to focus on our COIN operations? The JDA claims that we have no urgent external threat. But is being left unguarded an invitation to more external threats? Besides, a decently managed, trained and equipped AFP is the ultimate deterrent against imported terrorists. If we couldn't fight them off, then they can easily set up shop in our backyard to add to our current insurgency problems.

If you guys think #5 is next to impossible given the range restrictions on lightweight fighters, here's how to get around it. Aside from midair refuelling (in our case it could be by C130 or buddy-buddy using probably an AS211), we can also use conformal tanks. The Typhoon IIs use them as do F15C/D/Es and even F16 C/D Block 60s. These tanks free up slots for weapons and have a negligible effect on its speed and maneuverability while increasing their range.

another option would be to simply stretch the fuselage. the F20 was a bit shorter than the F5E, while the F5F was around three feet longer than the E. i think it's safe to assume you can stretch the F20 in the area after the cockpit and before the engine. this is where the main fuel cell is in the F5/20. you stretch that, you increase space for fuel. it's already aerodynamically proven with the F5F so it's fair to assume that this would be the same for the F20.

Good suggestions...

but for me maybe the best for us since we have no cash for JAS 39 maybe its better if we purchase surplus F-5E's and subject it to upgrades similar to what the Taiwanese are doing making their F-5E's compatible with their FC-1 figthers.

And the upgrades should be done here so that tech transfer will be absorbed by our PAF Engineers and thereby making it more econimical in the long run.

Taiwanese F-5E tiger 1V is a new fighter that can provide to handle SU-27 and Chinese F-7MG and F-8H... its firepower is very much improved and its manueverability was even more enhanced.

Guys,

We've already retired the F5s.

Let it be.

LET'S PREPARE FOR TOMMOROW.

Aim for what is really fitting for tomorrow's environment.

GET THE GRIPEN.

It's the best buy.

It's the best option considering tomorrow's environment.

Consider this. :thumb: Saab JAS39 Gripen

Check this thread also. http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?showtopic=749&st=0







MINSAN KAYA DI TAYO NAGIGING MODERNO KASI SA MENTALITY NATIN NA OKAY NA ANG PWEDE NA.

LET'S CHANGE OUR MINDSET! :thumb:

"50 year-old technology" - F5 Freedom Fighters had done their part in our history.

Let's set our future right!

From Airforceworld.com



http://top.jschina.com.cn/air/fighter/eng/jas39_1.htm

Gripen is the world's best light weight multi role combat aircraft in production. It is now fully operational with the Swedish air force with more than 115 (as of Jan 2002) delivered. As of January 2002 more than 25 000 missions have been flown resulting in more than 20 000 flying hours. This document will give a brief overview of the technical and operational aspects of the aircraft and programme so far.

FULL DETAIL:

http://top.jschina.com.cn/air/fighter/eng/jas39_1.htm

Well I hope im not mis understood.. my previous thread only speaks as a no money solutions... im not against the idea of buying the JAS 39 which i see is the most qualified for philippine needs..

Many said that JAS 39 has shorter range than its rivals (F-16C/D, Rafale, F-18E/F, SU 30Mk) but it can easily be address by putting forward bases and refueling tankers. Since we do not intend to use PAF offensively but for a potent force defensively forward bases and refuelings are the best solutions..

Im dying to see JAS 39 Grippens even just one squadron.... :patrioticpinoy:

:exactly:

But we need one squadron or 2 of longer range strike-fighters, like the F18, or F16 or even the MK30 to ensure the success of our defense setup.

That first squadron of MRF will only cost us about 2 billion pesos a year in 5 years. Bobo lang talaga or puro pagnanakaw lang talaga ang nasa isip ng lawmakers natin.

BTW, i wasnt directly replying to your own post, Sir Scorpio, when i made that one. :armycheers:

My apologies, if it did appear that way. My fault.

well JAS39 Grippen go for it guys i love the grippen more then the f16
it looks more sexy


i think they have the 2nd hand grippen also


but if Philippines is serious about making a ac then it wont be hard if they have decieded to spend money

PH dont really have a threat like us in airforce, so they design a very cheap one
like F5, put some digital stuff and make it good looking etc..

when it is cheap, there will be a lot of ac in the airforce

and can add 1 squad of latest ac like grippen or su30 or f16 or mig29

This may seem funny...

but i cant wait to see JAS39s park in our bases with this color set.





The "Cobra" 6TFS logo, in "black and white", reminds me of the logo carried by the F14 Tomcats from the USS Nimitz. The logo concept is quite similar, SIMPLE yet FEARSOME.



I know this is something that may make you grin, but hey, nothing is wrong with being optimistic right?

Anyway, i know they will come soom. Hehehe :thumb:

Tora^2, well its hard to come out with the a plane to fullfill requirement no. 5 but we have a solution to that.

1. 3-5 units of KC -130 refuelling plane stationed in Mactan (Logistics Base), Palawan, and Basa Air Base.
2. Pag-asa island upgrade facility as a forward stand off position/ deployment base.
3. to develop a new air jet version or modified version of the JAS grippen in which its hard to obtained right now.

For me JAS Grippen has been the best ive seen that is the best for the PAF right now. to look for a tandem might be the F-18 version in which few years from now we will see them in the excess military hardware of the americans. JSF is on its way to deployment and the new CVN- George Bush its near to the fullfillment.

i agree with the others that the JAS 39 Gripen is the most suited MRF for the Philippine Air Force. the Gripen's ruggedness truly is what something that the PAF must take advantage of. no wonder most PAF officers favor the Gripen over other MRFs. :thumb:

regarding the "short legs" problem of the Gripen, perhaps aerial refuelling (that means converting some C-130s into KC-130 tankers), the attachment of drop tanks (if possible) and the establishment of forward deployment bases are the solutions to address the said problem.

the PAF 5th Fighter Wing that i want to see is:


-- one 16 to 18 aircraft squadron of JAS 39 Gripens


-- two 18 to 20 aircraft squadrons of L-159As (the Czechs are planning to sell 40+ of their L-159As. of course, if the PAF will get those L-159A single-seaters, it might as well order from Aero Vodochody 18 L-159B tandem-seaters to be used for advanced jet training)

o those who JAS 39 fans out there, I put up this thread not because I like the Gripen. I actually think this is a more worthy successor to the F5A. That is if it weren't for the fact that if we import such weapon systems, there are political strings attached even if the Gripen was built by an avowedly neutral nation. If we want to buy jets from US , they will blackball it and insist we buy helicopters and machine guns instead. If we buy from other countries like Sweden, France or Russia, the US will make it difficult for us by imposing sanctions or vetoing sales of vital related systems like avionics and missiles. That's why Israel and Sweden have their own Defense Industries.

Developing our own combat aircraft would help develop our aviation and defense industries so that we do not have to rely on manipulative foreign powers like the US and PRC. It can also generate jobs so that our graduates do not only have a choice of becoming a nurse or a call center agent.

Regarding the range problem of the JAS 39, it is due to the fact that it was designed by Sweden to be a purely defensive combat aircraft. Something for exclusive use within its orders and not for invading their neighbors.

Thank you for your opinions It's okay for me for the jet to be based in other inland bases like Andrews and Mactan. If we base them too near the front line like in Puerto Princesa, they're juicy targets sitting on their alert pads when they come blasting in. I am for deploying the fighters in very well-defended rear or middle-line bases close to highways. They can be be gassed up on the way by AS211s with buddy-buddy refuelling systems. It would be a more efficient platform compared to a gas-guzzling 4-engined C130.

tora^2: but then, the Philippines has no indigenously designed fighter (except for the Hummingbird, Defiant 300 and the Cali Pinto, but, again, the military's R&D group did not even bother to exploit the possibility of developing the said aircraft and, instead, opted to rely on dole outs from Uncle Sam) so the PAF has no other choice but to get the multi-role fighter from abroad.

if we get the JAS 39 Gripen over American-made MRFs such as the F-16, the Americans will surely get offended. as a result, the Americans will blackball Philippine attempts to get weapons that arm the Gripen such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM and AGM-65 Maverick. what we will get then are Gripens armed only with its internal gun and RBS-15 missiles! :armyeek:

if we are to get American-made MRFs such as the F-16, it will take so much redtape before the fighters actually get into PAF's possession. aside from seeking US Congress' approval, the Americans will not sell "everything" to us if ever we buy their MRFs (one example of this is Saudi Arabia, which purchased F-15Es from the Americans but due to the lobbying of pro-Israel groups, the Saudis only got downgraded versions of the Strike Eagle, known as the F-15S). worst, the Americans might opt not sell us MRFs to replace the F-5A/Bs for the simple reason that the Americans only want the Armed Forces of the Philippines to be a large anti-terrorist police force! the good thing about buying American though is that if we buy American-made MRFs, the Americans might give us some of their excess defense articles for free alongside with the aircraft that we bought from them (example, with Thailand's purchase of F-16A/B Block 15OCUs and F-16A/B ADFs, the Americans handed over two Knox class frigates and other excess defense articles to the Thais for free).

the next option to the Gripen and American-made fighters is to get French- or Russian-made MRFs. unlike the Americans, the French and the Russians go for counter-trade deals for weapons purchases by countries. they can also grant rights for license-production of weapons and spare parts of the MRFs and can even give much support to their customers. unlike the US, there is no more need for the weapons deals to get the go-ahead from their respective legislatures. the best part of acquiring French- or Russian-made fighters is that there is no limit to the specifications of the aircraft that France or Russia will sell to the Philippines (example, the Russians will sell to the Philippines the AA-12 Adder BVR missile to arm the Su-30MK Flankers without hesitations on the part of the Russians). however, the Philippine Armed Forces seemed to be "too Americanized" and not open to the idea of acquiring weapons from France or Russia, thus the PAF and other branches of the AFP is stuck into using old American dole-outs. :drunk: :headbang:

given such facts, it now boils down to our country's military planners as to how they will play their cards. i just hope that the deals that the Philippines will entering is favorable to us Filipinos and, at the same time, free from any form of controversy. :armywink:


p.s.: still, i maintain my preference for the JAS 39 Gripen as the best suited MRF for the PAF. :thumb:

as for the MRF that must replace the F-5A/Bs, here are my favorites, according to rank:


1. JAS 39 Gripen - its ruggedness surely makes it the best suited fighter for the Philippine Air Force


2. Sukhoi Su-30MK Flanker (i personally have a bias on the Su-30MK and F-15E for two reasons: larger weapons payload and longer range. if we're lucky enough, we will be able to equip our Su-30MKs with Western-made avionics :thumb: )


3. F-15E Strike Eagle


4. Canadian CF-18A/B Hornets. Canada is planning to sell about 40 of its 121 CF-18 Hornets to pay for the modernization of the other Hornets. the Canadian F/A-18s may be a little bit old but certainly very much capable. however, they can only carry and fire the AIM-7 Sparrow unlike the upgraded Spanish and Australian F/A-18A/Bs that can carry and fire the AIM-120 AMRAAM.


5. F-16 Fighting Falcon


6. Rafale


7. Dassault Mirage 2000-5 Mk. 2

Israeli, if we can't buy American because of the red tape and politics it involve, as you have asserted, we can always buy Swedish, Russian or French.

If we do get away with buying SU30MKs, we would have to modify in the same way the Indian Air Force did with theirs. Stock Russian aircraft like MiG29s and Su27s are built on different ergonomics and doctrines as the US and the rest of the "Free World".

The cockpit lay-out of even an SU30MK is very old compared to F16s and F18s. It was engineered such that pilots who flew MiG21s and MiG27s can easily transtion to Flankers or MiG29s since all share a similar lay-out.

Soviet Fighter Doctrine is also different from that of NATO. Instead of achieving a level of independence in the air, Former soviet Bloc Pilots are trained to strictly comply with instructions given by ground-based or aew plane-based controllers.

Among the upgrades of Indian SU30s include glass cockpits and western-style controls. Such are readily available from France.

The beauty of buying Russian is that you don't have to rely on the US for missiles. Russians have their own.

JAS Gripen is realy ideal for PAF.But we need a tandem for them also. JAS and F-18 will be a good partner for me. Like the F-5 and F-8 before in the golden years of the PAF. Well, Coming up with a Good Terms of Agreement and Sales will be in the hands of the PAF and AFP.We needed much firepower on the air.But the "redtape" problem is only here in the country.Kahit nga tulog ka ngayon alam mo na may bayaran na nangyayari sa mga sangay ng government natin eh.

Regards to the avionics of the SU-30, Tora^2 have a good point there. If you only see also the Discovery Channel's presentation on this fighter might give you also the idea that it needed an upgrade in the avionics parts.No doubt in the Ability and Payload capacity. Pilots from Russia is very eager to maintain this jet but their government has no money to maintain them.Just for a ride Tourist pay $10,000 and for the exchange of the maintainance.

The political divisions was only here in our country. We need enough maturity for our potician to came up with a good reputation. Total political restructuring is what we need. The Venable LLP contract was intended for arms transfer and the cha-cha blues. In aid of legislation daw eh. "Put it in record" a senator said talgang nakarecord ka pati pambabastos sa secretary national security eh. Tao na maghusga kung anong rule's ang nilabag nila.

How about fighters from Japan, i believed they copy it from US made fighter.

The L59A is a perfect replacement for our S211 as a jet trainer.

This jets can also augment the JAS39 fleet when the need arises, like in times of war.

Sana meron single engined Rafale at Typhoon models rin.

It would have been a nice idea. Japan not only manufactured under license F4Es. They also make a strike fighter called the Mitsubishi F1. They've even made a lightweight fighter called the FS-X.

Unfortunately Japanese Defense Policy forbids the export of weapons like F4EJs and Type 89 Howa Rifles. They're made strictly for self-defense only.

The problem with our political climate is not only with grandstanding congressmen and senators. In another thread, it was mentioned that the opposition senators wants to make an issue out of our negligible external defense capability. IMHO, they mean to use it as a means to counterfoil the administration's defense policy. The administration's War on Terror- friendly policy which focuses on internal defense and most especially COIN/CT operations was meant to gain the favor of the US. If the RP focuses on being the US proxy in SEA, the Bush administration would be more than willing to support the beleagured Arroyo administration and its political initiatives like Cha Cha.

There is also a conflict of National over parochial interests. When budget time comes along, our Congressmen would rather keep their Pork barrel so that they can have easy access to funds for development projects for their constituents as opposed to giving most of the money to the National government who will use it for their line agencies like the DND, DepEd, DPWH and DOH. These Congressmen also fear that the National Government will only help out those LGUs who like GMA or will put in their own discretionary funds (AKA Intel funds, Appropriations in Aid of Political Survival, Allocations for Covert Partisan Political Activities).

I beleive that the F4 jets arent suitable for us. They burn a lot of fuel. IT'S NOT ECONOMICAL FOR US.

The PAF getting the Rafale is unlikely. It costs too much.

They would rather get the F16 or F18.

JAS39 and the L59 are really good choices, considering cost and performance.

Also, one of teh best replacement for ther S211 is the HAWK100 Trainer/Light Combat Aircraft.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/

Even the Bristish Aerobatic Team uses this aircraft. So, manueverability is not a question here.





Perfect for COIN too!

These Hawk 100 can serve as our lead jet trainer and then arm them for combat missions in times of war or for COIN missions.

HAWK 200

The Hawk 200 is a single-seat, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft for air defence and ground attack missions. On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refueling.

WEAPONS

The Hawk 200 has eleven external store points with four underwing pylons, an under-fuselage pylon, and wingtip air-to-air missile stations. The range of external stores includes air-to-air missiles, a gunpod, rocket launchers, reconnaissance pod, retarded and free-fall bombs up to 1,000lb, runway cratering, anti-personnel and light armour bombs, cluster bombs, practice bomb and rocket carriers and external fuel tanks.

The electronic warfare systems include a radar warning receiver and automatic or manually operated chaff and flare dispensers.

SENSORS

The Hawk 200 is equipped with a Northrop Grumman APG-66H multi-mode radar, LINS 300 ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system, air data sensor, display processor and mission computer. The systems are interconnected by dual redundant digital bus. The radar has ten air-to-surface and ten air-to-ground modes for navigation fixing and weapon aiming.

COCKPIT

The pilot has a Hands On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS) control system and a wide-field-of-view Head Up Display (HUD). The pilot can select the weapons and release mode prior to initiating an attack by using the weapon control panel, which controls the stores management system.

The cockpit has a colour display, with a dedicated processor and 15-colour graphics symbology generator. 27 display formats provide flight and aircraft data.

ENGINE

The Hawk 200 is powered by an Adour 871 twin-spool, low bypass ratio turbofan engine from Rolls-Royce. The flexible fuel tanks are installed in the fuselage and compartmented integral tanks are located in the wings. External tanks can also be carried on the inboard underwing pylons








==================


SINCE, OUR PRIORITY IS COIN,...

... THIS HAWK 200s FITS OUR REQUIREMENT.

WE SHOULD GET THESE FOR OUR INTERIM MULTI-MISSION COMBAT AIRCRAFTS.

Yun uprated Crusaders mas ok kesa dun sa F4s pero hindi kinuha due to politics. Sayang, sana kinuha na lang ni Apo yun para matindi talaga yun F8s natin.

May balita na yun mga Mirage 2k - 5 ng Taiwan ay nagkakaproblema kasi nga hindi suited sa ating type of weather conditions. Kamusta kaya yun sa China na Sukhois? Kasi may issues rin na ganito yun mga MiGs ng mga iba dito sa region natin. Ano na nangyari dun sa inalok na Mirage F1s sa atin? Baka naman pwede pa tawaran kahit konti kasi luma naman na. Yun nga lang baka hindi rin tumagal. Sana yun mga Crusaders na lang ng French pero nabili na ata yun. Another consideration, hindi kaya pwede awitan na lang yun mga A4 ng Singapore ngayon mag F15 na sila. Wala na kasi yun sa New Zealand.

Saan pa ba may mga murang jets na pwede sa PAF natin? Yun parang cross breed na A10 at SR71 na gawang Poland ata. Pwede ba yun? Di ba inalok na rin tayo ng mga Hawks noon at nakalista pa nga ata na isa tayo sa mga operators nito pero error ata yun.

Meron ba kayang option na i-mod to end-user requirement yun Gripen? Pahabain lang ng konti at syempre kasama na yun wing area. Ano na nga pala na nangyari sa mga luma nilang fighters? Baka mas mura yun at yun muna kunin ng PAF.

The Crusaders are like the F4s. They burn a lot of gas.

These are old also and the canopy arent as better than the new-gen aircrafts.

They will be the underdogs when within visual range engagement becomes the name of the game.

Forget the F4s, Crusaders (F8) and the A4s.

Get the Hawk 200 or L59 instead ... if we cant still get the Gripen and or the F18, F16 or Su30.

Let's set our future right.






The Hawk 200 are also suitable for our COIN campaign. This might as well be our choice amidst this "virtual" shortage of funds.

Virtual nga po talaga kung tutuusin. :headbang:

We have the money anyway. ONLY PROBLEM IS, "THE IDIOTS IN CONGRESS DONT WANT TO USE THEM WISELY".

Hawk 200s or even 100s can be a good compromise fighters. The US would not mind since it can pass off as trainers or COIN planes. They seem less expensive compared to Gripens in terms of running and unit costs. They can even replace 3 types of aircraft in use namely the F5A, S211 (advanced trainer and attack roles) and even the OV10.

The only problem though with Hawks as COIN planes is that the DND and JUSMAG would prefer to use slower turboprops like OV10s as COIN planes. These props consume less gas and are cheaper to maintain considering that we could use the extra money for additional troops and helicopters. Fast jets are more appropriate in the COIN role if our adversaries have access to heavy machine guns, air defense autocannons and shoulder-launched SAMs.

Either way, I find it more practical to keep a stable of Hawks since they can train our pilots, deliver bombs to the enemy and scare aerial intruders away. We only need a common pool of spare parts to keep them running and it will reduce training costs.

Ideally, the Hawks and Gripens can coexist. Provided that we need to replace 36 fighters plus a few more advanced trainers and attack planes, we can equip one or two squadron (6th and 7th TFSes) with Gripens for duelling with fighters and blasting ships out of the water. The rest of our fighter squads will use the Hawk 100s/200s in local air defense for taking out smaller ships, helicopters, transport planes and light attack jets deploying from forward bases like Bautista. The rest will be assigned to attack and training units. After all Gripens are distributed by BAe, makers of the Hawk and we can buy them both in a package deal.

Nice setup, Sir Tora2. :thumb: :thumb:

I saw that too.

Who knows? British Aerospace may be encouraged to set up a production or repair facility here, in Clark probably, servicing the entire Pacific region. That would mean more jobs to Pinoys and more taxes.

Not a bad strategy, right?

NOW, WE ARE GETTING MORE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE BAe PLANES.

Ito ang nangyari sa F-5A pagkatapos pagtuunan ng tamang atensyon at pondo:



Ito rin ang gusto ko mangyari sa ating mga F-5A. Lagyan na lang ng thrust vector kumpleto nang pantapat sa MIG MFI. Sana hindi ito hanggang pangarap lang.

Su 47 Berkut pala hindi MIG MFI ang katapat. May problem issues daw noong una itong X29 kasi masyadong advanced for that time. Sana tayo ang makagawa ng paraan for it.



Ito ang magiging kalaban nang F5X natin.



Ito yun MIG 35 (malaki na lahat letra ng MIG) na sinasabing Raptor Killer. Tiyak hihingi ng tulong sa atin ang mga kano atbp para saklolohan sila ng F5X natin (sana totoo):

Will that F5X be as effective as the JAS39 or the Hawk 200?

It doesnt look as agile as the JAS39 or Hawk200. What about the amount of weapons and avionics that it can carry?

Pero, ewan po. Sa tingin ko lang naman po.

More info on this F5X, please.

Here is the reality of your dream of the modified F-5 used in NASA experimen this August 25, 2003.



NASA's F-15B research testbed jet from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center flew in the supersonic shockwave of a Northrop Grumman Corp. modified U.S. Navy F-5E jet in support of the Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration (SSBD) project, which is part of the DARPA's Quiet Supersonic Platform (QSP) program.
The project is an effort to lessen sonic booms.

During the recent demonstration, the F-15B flew behind the modified F-5E sonic boom demonstrator aircraft in order to measure the aircraft's sonic boom characteristics.

Flying behind and below the F-5E, and using its specially-instrumented nose boom, the F-15B recorded many shockwave patterns from the F-5E at various distances and orientations from the aircraft


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This only shows that Americans are still up on the F-5 design and its feature.upon basing its result for the future development on the F-5 may sounds something new.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nasa has Apporved already the Funding on this Experiment to be put online production. US Airforce also might colaborate on this project.

flipzi: sorry but i really think the Hawk 200 is an overrated aircraft aside from being VERY EXPENSIVE although the Hawk is definitely a great training aircraft.

one problem that the PAF might encounter in buying Hawks is the Brits' objection to the use of their weapons and equipment in "internal oppression". examples of this are the Brits' constant monitoring of the use of the Indonesian Hawks, which are allegedly being used against rebels in Aceh, and the Brits' initial objection to the sale of the Simba wheeled armored vehicles to the Philippine Army.

a mix of JAS 39 Gripens and L-159A/B Alcas will surely work well for the PAF. the substitute for the L-159A/Bs could be the AMX. :thumb: