Title: Gripen vs F-16
Description: suitable for Philippine setting
Description: suitable for Philippine setting
asianbloodline187 - July 28, 2008 08:07 PM (GMT)
NEW FIGHTERS ON PLESO AIRPORT BY 2011F-16 vs. Gripen - Croatian Air Force To Spend 800 Million $ For New Wings.
F-16Immediately following the parliamentary elections in November and the forming of a new Croatian Government, the future defence minister will at the start of their mandate face what will be so far the most complex and most expensive project in equipping the Croatian Armed Forces, three times more expensive than the procurement of armoured battle vehicles. In question is the purchase of 12 multi-purpose fighter planes for the needs of the Croatian Air Force, worth some 800 million US dollars.
The procurement of the multi-purpose aircraft has to start next year by the latest, and the decision on which aircraft Croatian pilots will be flying to control Croatian airspace will be adopted by the end of 2009, as the current MiG-21s are slated for withdrawal by 2010. The introduction of new aircraft in the battle squadron of the 91st Air Force base at Zagreb's Pleso Airport should start in 2011. In the race for the equipping of the Croatian squadron of fighter aircraft, according to the available information, are single-engine supersonic aircraft – the Swedish multi-purpose JAS-39 Gripen, and the American F-16 Block 52, as the latest F-16 Block 60 has shown itself to be overly expensive (85 million dollars). France's Dassault Mirrage 2000 is on its way out and is to be replaced in a few years by the Rafale, as soon as it reaches full operational capability, so that the French aircraft was never seriously considered as a Croatian option. The cited Gripen and F-16 Block 52 aircraft have for some time now been mentioned as the only competitors, for which there are several reasons.
Croatia needs a supersonic multi-purpose aircraft capable of interception in our airspace in as short a period as possible, it has to be of modern construction, relatively small in size with electronic systems and weaponry compatible to NATO systems and it has to be easy to maintain. The aircraft must be easy to operate with the option of a quick transformation from hunter-interceptor to hunter-bomber. Croatia is not a wealthy country, it does not have a large airspace, there are no real military threats on the long term, and it has not and will not declare its military aircraft ready for possible deployment to NATO combat missions. It therefore does not require twin-engine aircraft with a range of over 4,000 km, capable of carrying somewhat more weaponry than single-engine aircraft. Besides that, when it enters NATO, Croatia's defence strategy, because of the policy of the international community towards South Eastern Europe, will have neither the need nor the possibility of flexing its air power and military might in the region, as it will become a part of a collective security system.
F-16All of this means that the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the American F-15 were rejected straight off, which also goes for the Russian Suhoj-35 and MiG-29 aircraft, whose operational expenses are triple that of the western aircraft. Croatian does not need twin-engine aircraft not only because of its small territory and its defence strategy, but also because they are simply too expensive. The price of that kind of fully equipped aircraft in a package including pilot training, technical staff and reserve engine reaches from 110 to 120 million dollars. The procurement of a multi-purpose airplane is a major challenge for the Croatian Air Force and its technical services, because after decades of maintaining and operating now completely obsolete Russian technology, Croatian air personnel will have to learn a completely new technology and logistics system.
Up to now the publicly oft-cited price of a new aircraft of the Gripen or F-16 type was from 35 to 45 million euros a piece, which is incorrect, that is to say correct only if a country wished to purchase a "naked" airplane lacking its sophisticated equipment and pilot training program. In expert aircraft circles this is known as the fly away price. But with a complete package of pilot training on a simulator and in the air, with the training of technical staff, spare parts and land equipment, then the price for a Gripen is around the 68 million dollars paid for them by the Czech Republic and some 10% more for the F-16, around the 74 million dollars paid by Poland. This simplified comparison is not, however, key in making a decision, even though a 6 million dollar difference for the American aircraft is certainly important when it comes to not-so-wealthy Croatia, because in the end it means giving 72 million dollars more or less for a total of 12 aircraft. It is however much more important to regard the procurement cost through the aspect of their service life, which ranges from 25 to 30 years.
In consideration then are concrete and available data on the price of flying per hour. According to the available official data, the cost of an hour of airtime on a Swedish Gripen is 2,500 dollars, while an airborne hour on the F-16 Block 52 comes to 3,700 dollars. If we take into consideration that Croatian plots might spend 50 hours in the air a year, still well below the NATO standard (150 airborne hours), the cost of flying one Croatian pilot in a Gripen would come to 125 thousand dollars a year, and 185 thousand for the F-16. Annual costs and the difference in operational costs increase if we calculate the annual airborne time of all Croatian pilots of some 600 hours.
GripenIn that case the total price of using the Gripen comes to 1.5 million US dollars a year, while the estimated price for an F-16 is 2.2 million dollars a year. For a 25-year service life one would have to earmark 37.5 million US dollars for the Gripen and 55 million dollars for the F-16. It should be noted that minimal airtime has been used in this calculation, as the costs would triple based on the NATO-standard flight regime of 150 hours. The difference in annual operational costs between the two aircraft arise from the fact that the Gripen consumes less fuel, is easier to repair, needs a smaller maintenance staff of 60 people a year, unlike the F-16 which requires the attention of 230 people, that number relevant for a 150 hour annual airborne time. The Gripen also needs less ground maintenance equipment and a longer period between breakdowns. What can be considered an advantage for the F-16 is a greater mission range, as the Gripen has a maximum range of 3000 km, and the F-16 of 3900 km.
Some are inclined to claim that used F-16s should be purchased for the coming 5-10 years for financial reasons. "There has been no discussion of Croatia having already decided to replace its fleet of MiGs by 2010 with used American F-16s, and even less so that an arrangement for 12 used aircraft would cost about 100 million dollars, as has been speculated upon in the public. At a price of 10 million US dollars we can get, roughly put, the hull of a used airplane with wings and a 15 year-old cabin. If this kind of arrangement were to actually take place, Croatia would have to pay at least 230 million dollars for 12 aircraft, including pilot and mechanic training, ground infrastructure, spare parts, to say nothing of rocket systems and bombs, so that the price could climb to 400 million. Besides all that, an hour of flying time in a used aircraft of this kind costs 5,360 dollars, and that is the official data of the US National Guard, which means that the costs of an airborne hour are double that of an hour's flight in a new airplane", Nacional was told by a high ranking source at the Croatian Air Force.
GripenAccording to the claims of sources close to the Croatian Air Force command the price of a used aircraft depends on the condition it is in and how many hours of flight it has seen, while the production date is less important as aircraft can be older but conserved and with less airborne hours. The condition of the construction is not the only thing taken into consideration, as there is also the engine to take into consideration, and the condition of the engine chassis, i.e. the entire propulsion system is a topic to itself. The durability of an aircraft is an individual notion: individual aircraft can be a limited resource on account of, for example, their wings or landing gear because of landings in varied conditions. It is very important to know what country used them previously, on what airfields, in what kind of combat activity and so forth. When speaking of the F-16 there should be no doubt that most of them were involved in combat operations around the world from the early 1990s on: from Iraq to Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia. Some media have entirely unfoundedly already said that Croatian has opted for used F-16 aircraft, having quite erroneously interpreted the Armed Forces Long Term Development Plan that states Croatian Air Force investments up to 2015 will come to about 3.4 billion kunas, and concluded from this that that was an amount insufficient for the purchase of new Gripens, which would cost in the neighbourhood of 4.6 billion kunas or 800 million dollars.
They did not, however, take into consideration that the closing of a deal on the purchase of a multi-purpose aircraft is expected for 2010 and that payments would be made in ten annual instalments up to 2020. That makes the sum of 3.4 billion kunas quite sufficient for the payment of five annual instalments for the new aircraft, not to mention the possibilities of a grace period, already announced. Besides, no one can say anything yet with certainty, as the decision on the entire matter will be made by a new Croatian Government following the parliamentary elections in November.
The Gripen faces the future, the F-16 is tested
The F-16 can carry a complement of somewhat more weaponry than the Gripen, and has been in production for a longer period, with a total of 4,200 units already manufactured, while Gripen has so far manufactured 200 aircraft. Besides that the F-16 has shown itself to be a very good aircraft in US Army combat operations around the world over the past 15 years. Unlike the F-16 however, the Swedish Gripen requires a shorter takeoff and landing strip, 500 metres for take off and 400 for a full stop after touchdown without use of its additional braking parachute. Funds for new technologies research and development on the F-16 have been for the large part shifted by US military strategists to the F-35 aircraft, and there is growing speculation that the production of F-16s will be terminated within a decade. The Gripen is a new aircraft facing the possibility of additional development and modification.
F-16Immediately following the parliamentary elections in November and the forming of a new Croatian Government, the future defence minister will at the start of their mandate face what will be so far the most complex and most expensive project in equipping the Croatian Armed Forces, three times more expensive than the procurement of armoured battle vehicles. In question is the purchase of 12 multi-purpose fighter planes for the needs of the Croatian Air Force, worth some 800 million US dollars.
The procurement of the multi-purpose aircraft has to start next year by the latest, and the decision on which aircraft Croatian pilots will be flying to control Croatian airspace will be adopted by the end of 2009, as the current MiG-21s are slated for withdrawal by 2010. The introduction of new aircraft in the battle squadron of the 91st Air Force base at Zagreb's Pleso Airport should start in 2011. In the race for the equipping of the Croatian squadron of fighter aircraft, according to the available information, are single-engine supersonic aircraft – the Swedish multi-purpose JAS-39 Gripen, and the American F-16 Block 52, as the latest F-16 Block 60 has shown itself to be overly expensive (85 million dollars). France's Dassault Mirrage 2000 is on its way out and is to be replaced in a few years by the Rafale, as soon as it reaches full operational capability, so that the French aircraft was never seriously considered as a Croatian option. The cited Gripen and F-16 Block 52 aircraft have for some time now been mentioned as the only competitors, for which there are several reasons.
Croatia needs a supersonic multi-purpose aircraft capable of interception in our airspace in as short a period as possible, it has to be of modern construction, relatively small in size with electronic systems and weaponry compatible to NATO systems and it has to be easy to maintain. The aircraft must be easy to operate with the option of a quick transformation from hunter-interceptor to hunter-bomber. Croatia is not a wealthy country, it does not have a large airspace, there are no real military threats on the long term, and it has not and will not declare its military aircraft ready for possible deployment to NATO combat missions. It therefore does not require twin-engine aircraft with a range of over 4,000 km, capable of carrying somewhat more weaponry than single-engine aircraft. Besides that, when it enters NATO, Croatia's defence strategy, because of the policy of the international community towards South Eastern Europe, will have neither the need nor the possibility of flexing its air power and military might in the region, as it will become a part of a collective security system.
F-16All of this means that the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the American F-15 were rejected straight off, which also goes for the Russian Suhoj-35 and MiG-29 aircraft, whose operational expenses are triple that of the western aircraft. Croatian does not need twin-engine aircraft not only because of its small territory and its defence strategy, but also because they are simply too expensive. The price of that kind of fully equipped aircraft in a package including pilot training, technical staff and reserve engine reaches from 110 to 120 million dollars. The procurement of a multi-purpose airplane is a major challenge for the Croatian Air Force and its technical services, because after decades of maintaining and operating now completely obsolete Russian technology, Croatian air personnel will have to learn a completely new technology and logistics system.
Up to now the publicly oft-cited price of a new aircraft of the Gripen or F-16 type was from 35 to 45 million euros a piece, which is incorrect, that is to say correct only if a country wished to purchase a "naked" airplane lacking its sophisticated equipment and pilot training program. In expert aircraft circles this is known as the fly away price. But with a complete package of pilot training on a simulator and in the air, with the training of technical staff, spare parts and land equipment, then the price for a Gripen is around the 68 million dollars paid for them by the Czech Republic and some 10% more for the F-16, around the 74 million dollars paid by Poland. This simplified comparison is not, however, key in making a decision, even though a 6 million dollar difference for the American aircraft is certainly important when it comes to not-so-wealthy Croatia, because in the end it means giving 72 million dollars more or less for a total of 12 aircraft. It is however much more important to regard the procurement cost through the aspect of their service life, which ranges from 25 to 30 years.
In consideration then are concrete and available data on the price of flying per hour. According to the available official data, the cost of an hour of airtime on a Swedish Gripen is 2,500 dollars, while an airborne hour on the F-16 Block 52 comes to 3,700 dollars. If we take into consideration that Croatian plots might spend 50 hours in the air a year, still well below the NATO standard (150 airborne hours), the cost of flying one Croatian pilot in a Gripen would come to 125 thousand dollars a year, and 185 thousand for the F-16. Annual costs and the difference in operational costs increase if we calculate the annual airborne time of all Croatian pilots of some 600 hours.
GripenIn that case the total price of using the Gripen comes to 1.5 million US dollars a year, while the estimated price for an F-16 is 2.2 million dollars a year. For a 25-year service life one would have to earmark 37.5 million US dollars for the Gripen and 55 million dollars for the F-16. It should be noted that minimal airtime has been used in this calculation, as the costs would triple based on the NATO-standard flight regime of 150 hours. The difference in annual operational costs between the two aircraft arise from the fact that the Gripen consumes less fuel, is easier to repair, needs a smaller maintenance staff of 60 people a year, unlike the F-16 which requires the attention of 230 people, that number relevant for a 150 hour annual airborne time. The Gripen also needs less ground maintenance equipment and a longer period between breakdowns. What can be considered an advantage for the F-16 is a greater mission range, as the Gripen has a maximum range of 3000 km, and the F-16 of 3900 km.
Some are inclined to claim that used F-16s should be purchased for the coming 5-10 years for financial reasons. "There has been no discussion of Croatia having already decided to replace its fleet of MiGs by 2010 with used American F-16s, and even less so that an arrangement for 12 used aircraft would cost about 100 million dollars, as has been speculated upon in the public. At a price of 10 million US dollars we can get, roughly put, the hull of a used airplane with wings and a 15 year-old cabin. If this kind of arrangement were to actually take place, Croatia would have to pay at least 230 million dollars for 12 aircraft, including pilot and mechanic training, ground infrastructure, spare parts, to say nothing of rocket systems and bombs, so that the price could climb to 400 million. Besides all that, an hour of flying time in a used aircraft of this kind costs 5,360 dollars, and that is the official data of the US National Guard, which means that the costs of an airborne hour are double that of an hour's flight in a new airplane", Nacional was told by a high ranking source at the Croatian Air Force.
GripenAccording to the claims of sources close to the Croatian Air Force command the price of a used aircraft depends on the condition it is in and how many hours of flight it has seen, while the production date is less important as aircraft can be older but conserved and with less airborne hours. The condition of the construction is not the only thing taken into consideration, as there is also the engine to take into consideration, and the condition of the engine chassis, i.e. the entire propulsion system is a topic to itself. The durability of an aircraft is an individual notion: individual aircraft can be a limited resource on account of, for example, their wings or landing gear because of landings in varied conditions. It is very important to know what country used them previously, on what airfields, in what kind of combat activity and so forth. When speaking of the F-16 there should be no doubt that most of them were involved in combat operations around the world from the early 1990s on: from Iraq to Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia. Some media have entirely unfoundedly already said that Croatian has opted for used F-16 aircraft, having quite erroneously interpreted the Armed Forces Long Term Development Plan that states Croatian Air Force investments up to 2015 will come to about 3.4 billion kunas, and concluded from this that that was an amount insufficient for the purchase of new Gripens, which would cost in the neighbourhood of 4.6 billion kunas or 800 million dollars.
They did not, however, take into consideration that the closing of a deal on the purchase of a multi-purpose aircraft is expected for 2010 and that payments would be made in ten annual instalments up to 2020. That makes the sum of 3.4 billion kunas quite sufficient for the payment of five annual instalments for the new aircraft, not to mention the possibilities of a grace period, already announced. Besides, no one can say anything yet with certainty, as the decision on the entire matter will be made by a new Croatian Government following the parliamentary elections in November.
The Gripen faces the future, the F-16 is tested
The F-16 can carry a complement of somewhat more weaponry than the Gripen, and has been in production for a longer period, with a total of 4,200 units already manufactured, while Gripen has so far manufactured 200 aircraft. Besides that the F-16 has shown itself to be a very good aircraft in US Army combat operations around the world over the past 15 years. Unlike the F-16 however, the Swedish Gripen requires a shorter takeoff and landing strip, 500 metres for take off and 400 for a full stop after touchdown without use of its additional braking parachute. Funds for new technologies research and development on the F-16 have been for the large part shifted by US military strategists to the F-35 aircraft, and there is growing speculation that the production of F-16s will be terminated within a decade. The Gripen is a new aircraft facing the possibility of additional development and modification.
Vermonter - July 28, 2008 09:10 PM (GMT)
The F-16 is AESA radar capable and already has a record of taking down the Mig-29 1v1.
systema - July 29, 2008 02:39 AM (GMT)
Those F-16 would be at the same place along with the F-5 is now after 10 years we purchase it in 2011.
jonski - July 29, 2008 05:28 AM (GMT)
I agree.
asianbloodline187 - July 29, 2008 04:41 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (asianbloodline187 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:07 AM) |
| Croatia is not a wealthy country, it does not have a large airspace |
parang sa pilipinas din..
asianbloodline187 - July 29, 2008 04:47 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (asianbloodline187 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:07 AM) |
| The difference in annual operational costs between the two aircraft arise from the fact that the Gripen consumes less fuel, is easier to repair, needs a smaller maintenance staff of 60 people a year, unlike the F-16 which requires the attention of 230 people, that number relevant for a 150 hour annual airborne time. The Gripen also needs less ground maintenance equipment and a longer period between breakdowns. |
economically wise, GRIPEN is more suitable for the Philippines.. ang advantage lang naman ng f-16 is greater mission range and payload.. what do you think guys?
asianbloodline187 - July 29, 2008 06:43 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (asianbloodline187 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:07 AM) |
| NEW FIGHTERS ON PLESO AIRPORT BY 2011F-16 vs. Gripen - Croatian Air Force To Spend 800 Million $ For New Wings. F-16Immediately following the parliamentary elections in November and the forming of a new Croatian Government, the future defence minister will at the start of their mandate face what will be so far the most complex and most expensive project in equipping the Croatian Armed Forces, three times more expensive than the procurement of armoured battle vehicles. In question is the purchase of 12 multi-purpose fighter planes for the needs of the Croatian Air Force, worth some 800 million US dollars. The procurement of the multi-purpose aircraft has to start next year by the latest, and the decision on which aircraft Croatian pilots will be flying to control Croatian airspace will be adopted by the end of 2009, as the current MiG-21s are slated for withdrawal by 2010. The introduction of new aircraft in the battle squadron of the 91st Air Force base at Zagreb's Pleso Airport should start in 2011. In the race for the equipping of the Croatian squadron of fighter aircraft, according to the available information, are single-engine supersonic aircraft – the Swedish multi-purpose JAS-39 Gripen, and the American F-16 Block 52, as the latest F-16 Block 60 has shown itself to be overly expensive (85 million dollars). France's Dassault Mirrage 2000 is on its way out and is to be replaced in a few years by the Rafale, as soon as it reaches full operational capability, so that the French aircraft was never seriously considered as a Croatian option. The cited Gripen and F-16 Block 52 aircraft have for some time now been mentioned as the only competitors, for which there are several reasons. Croatia needs a supersonic multi-purpose aircraft capable of interception in our airspace in as short a period as possible, it has to be of modern construction, relatively small in size with electronic systems and weaponry compatible to NATO systems and it has to be easy to maintain. The aircraft must be easy to operate with the option of a quick transformation from hunter-interceptor to hunter-bomber. Croatia is not a wealthy country, it does not have a large airspace, there are no real military threats on the long term, and it has not and will not declare its military aircraft ready for possible deployment to NATO combat missions. It therefore does not require twin-engine aircraft with a range of over 4,000 km, capable of carrying somewhat more weaponry than single-engine aircraft. Besides that, when it enters NATO, Croatia's defence strategy, because of the policy of the international community towards South Eastern Europe, will have neither the need nor the possibility of flexing its air power and military might in the region, as it will become a part of a collective security system. F-16All of this means that the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the American F-15 were rejected straight off, which also goes for the Russian Suhoj-35 and MiG-29 aircraft, whose operational expenses are triple that of the western aircraft. Croatian does not need twin-engine aircraft not only because of its small territory and its defence strategy, but also because they are simply too expensive. The price of that kind of fully equipped aircraft in a package including pilot training, technical staff and reserve engine reaches from 110 to 120 million dollars. The procurement of a multi-purpose airplane is a major challenge for the Croatian Air Force and its technical services, because after decades of maintaining and operating now completely obsolete Russian technology, Croatian air personnel will have to learn a completely new technology and logistics system. Up to now the publicly oft-cited price of a new aircraft of the Gripen or F-16 type was from 35 to 45 million euros a piece, which is incorrect, that is to say correct only if a country wished to purchase a "naked" airplane lacking its sophisticated equipment and pilot training program. In expert aircraft circles this is known as the fly away price. But with a complete package of pilot training on a simulator and in the air, with the training of technical staff, spare parts and land equipment, then the price for a Gripen is around the 68 million dollars paid for them by the Czech Republic and some 10% more for the F-16, around the 74 million dollars paid by Poland. This simplified comparison is not, however, key in making a decision, even though a 6 million dollar difference for the American aircraft is certainly important when it comes to not-so-wealthy Croatia, because in the end it means giving 72 million dollars more or less for a total of 12 aircraft. It is however much more important to regard the procurement cost through the aspect of their service life, which ranges from 25 to 30 years. In consideration then are concrete and available data on the price of flying per hour. According to the available official data, the cost of an hour of airtime on a Swedish Gripen is 2,500 dollars, while an airborne hour on the F-16 Block 52 comes to 3,700 dollars. If we take into consideration that Croatian plots might spend 50 hours in the air a year, still well below the NATO standard (150 airborne hours), the cost of flying one Croatian pilot in a Gripen would come to 125 thousand dollars a year, and 185 thousand for the F-16. Annual costs and the difference in operational costs increase if we calculate the annual airborne time of all Croatian pilots of some 600 hours. GripenIn that case the total price of using the Gripen comes to 1.5 million US dollars a year, while the estimated price for an F-16 is 2.2 million dollars a year. For a 25-year service life one would have to earmark 37.5 million US dollars for the Gripen and 55 million dollars for the F-16. It should be noted that minimal airtime has been used in this calculation, as the costs would triple based on the NATO-standard flight regime of 150 hours. The difference in annual operational costs between the two aircraft arise from the fact that the Gripen consumes less fuel, is easier to repair, needs a smaller maintenance staff of 60 people a year, unlike the F-16 which requires the attention of 230 people, that number relevant for a 150 hour annual airborne time. The Gripen also needs less ground maintenance equipment and a longer period between breakdowns. What can be considered an advantage for the F-16 is a greater mission range, as the Gripen has a maximum range of 3000 km, and the F-16 of 3900 km. Some are inclined to claim that used F-16s should be purchased for the coming 5-10 years for financial reasons. "There has been no discussion of Croatia having already decided to replace its fleet of MiGs by 2010 with used American F-16s, and even less so that an arrangement for 12 used aircraft would cost about 100 million dollars, as has been speculated upon in the public. At a price of 10 million US dollars we can get, roughly put, the hull of a used airplane with wings and a 15 year-old cabin. If this kind of arrangement were to actually take place, Croatia would have to pay at least 230 million dollars for 12 aircraft, including pilot and mechanic training, ground infrastructure, spare parts, to say nothing of rocket systems and bombs, so that the price could climb to 400 million. Besides all that, an hour of flying time in a used aircraft of this kind costs 5,360 dollars, and that is the official data of the US National Guard, which means that the costs of an airborne hour are double that of an hour's flight in a new airplane", Nacional was told by a high ranking source at the Croatian Air Force. GripenAccording to the claims of sources close to the Croatian Air Force command the price of a used aircraft depends on the condition it is in and how many hours of flight it has seen, while the production date is less important as aircraft can be older but conserved and with less airborne hours. The condition of the construction is not the only thing taken into consideration, as there is also the engine to take into consideration, and the condition of the engine chassis, i.e. the entire propulsion system is a topic to itself. The durability of an aircraft is an individual notion: individual aircraft can be a limited resource on account of, for example, their wings or landing gear because of landings in varied conditions. It is very important to know what country used them previously, on what airfields, in what kind of combat activity and so forth. When speaking of the F-16 there should be no doubt that most of them were involved in combat operations around the world from the early 1990s on: from Iraq to Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia. Some media have entirely unfoundedly already said that Croatian has opted for used F-16 aircraft, having quite erroneously interpreted the Armed Forces Long Term Development Plan that states Croatian Air Force investments up to 2015 will come to about 3.4 billion kunas, and concluded from this that that was an amount insufficient for the purchase of new Gripens, which would cost in the neighbourhood of 4.6 billion kunas or 800 million dollars. They did not, however, take into consideration that the closing of a deal on the purchase of a multi-purpose aircraft is expected for 2010 and that payments would be made in ten annual instalments up to 2020. That makes the sum of 3.4 billion kunas quite sufficient for the payment of five annual instalments for the new aircraft, not to mention the possibilities of a grace period, already announced. Besides, no one can say anything yet with certainty, as the decision on the entire matter will be made by a new Croatian Government following the parliamentary elections in November. The Gripen faces the future, the F-16 is tested The F-16 can carry a complement of somewhat more weaponry than the Gripen, and has been in production for a longer period, with a total of 4,200 units already manufactured, while Gripen has so far manufactured 200 aircraft. Besides that the F-16 has shown itself to be a very good aircraft in US Army combat operations around the world over the past 15 years. Unlike the F-16 however, the Swedish Gripen requires a shorter takeoff and landing strip, 500 metres for take off and 400 for a full stop after touchdown without use of its additional braking parachute. Funds for new technologies research and development on the F-16 have been for the large part shifted by US military strategists to the F-35 aircraft, and there is growing speculation that the production of F-16s will be terminated within a decade. The Gripen is a new aircraft facing the possibility of additional development and modification. |
sensya na po bago lang po ako d2, eto po ung link ng article na to..
http://www.nacional.hr/en/articles/view/34674/
adrian_yamato - July 30, 2008 06:36 AM (GMT)
For me, both were needed. :thumb:
In case of, air attack by enemy force , The Jas39 Gripen will deploy first because it has the STOL capability, since the F-16 Falcon will take time to airborne, will follow.
That's the reason why Taiwan Acquirre both F-16 & dassault Mirage 2000, because the Mirage has STOL capability to immidiately airborne first to intercept enemy planes.
In case of, air attack by enemy force , The Jas39 Gripen will deploy first because it has the STOL capability, since the F-16 Falcon will take time to airborne, will follow.
That's the reason why Taiwan Acquirre both F-16 & dassault Mirage 2000, because the Mirage has STOL capability to immidiately airborne first to intercept enemy planes.
panzerkampfwagen - July 30, 2008 12:16 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (adrian_yamato @ Jul 30 2008, 02:36 PM) |
| For me, both were needed. :thumb: In case of, air attack by enemy force , The Jas39 Gripen will deploy first because it has the STOL capability, since the F-16 Falcon will take time to airborne, will follow. That's the reason why Taiwan Acquirre both F-16 & dassault Mirage 2000, because the Mirage has STOL capability to immidiately airborne first to intercept enemy planes. |
[QUOTE]
I agree :thumb:
It will be a great combo, JAS39 Gripens and F16's, if used right, will do great.
:salute:
:patrioticpinoy:
City Hunter - July 30, 2008 01:07 PM (GMT)
For now mas maganda acquire muna one platform na malaki ang potential for improvements. Hence my vote goes for the Gripen. Later on kapag may extra dinero na ay mag-acquire na mas high-performance combat aircraft na compatible syempre sa Gripen. Yun F16 kahit sabihin upgraded na ay hindi na dapat i-consider. The ChiComs have studied it and learned of its weaknesses and strengths. Kung yun Lavi nga na dapat super F16 version ay ang pinag-aralan nila ay dehado na agad tayo if we employ for our defense ang F16.
Sa pagkakaalam ko yun Taiwanese got the F16 for mid-altitude work while the Mirage for high-altitude work. This is because mas better performing yun latter sa ganun area compared to the F16 which would fare not so well at those altitudes. Yun Ching Kuo IDF nila pang mid to low altitudes lang.
Sa pagkakaalam ko yun Taiwanese got the F16 for mid-altitude work while the Mirage for high-altitude work. This is because mas better performing yun latter sa ganun area compared to the F16 which would fare not so well at those altitudes. Yun Ching Kuo IDF nila pang mid to low altitudes lang.
Zero wing - July 30, 2008 03:51 PM (GMT)
Ya tama rin we must prepare for battle mas need natin ng modern na Navy and Airforce so we need to build a Strong Airforce and Naval Air Corp and a strong Ships too and the Gripen can be the conner stone of the Airforce and maybe some Harrier for the Navy by the way i like the Idea for having bought F16s and Gripens since America will replace it with the new JSF and Raptors so we can even ask for their old F15s F18s too
asianbloodline187 - July 30, 2008 06:06 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (panzerkampfwagen @ Jul 30 2008, 08:16 PM) | ||
[QUOTE] I agree :thumb: It will be a great combo, JAS39 Gripens and F16's, if used right, will do great. :salute: :patrioticpinoy: |
i also agree.. if an enemy will try to invade us they're gonna need their navy, (since we dont have a strong navy yet) the PhAF's f-16's will do the work for attacking their ships before they set foot on our soil because of the f-16's heavy payload. while the gripen on the other hand will serve as escorts if the enemy tries to interept our f-16s.. gripens are excellent in dogfighting because of its high manouverability.. great combination indeed..
City Hunter - July 30, 2008 10:32 PM (GMT)
Hindi important ang heavy payload IF you have weapons that can effectively do the job naman. Heavy payload may seem impressive but wala rin kwenta kung hindi naman tatama sa target. Smart weapon is the key to effectively neutralize the opfor. Kung ang Gripen na possible candidate for our F5 replacement is armed with a smart weapon that can get past the defenses of the ChiCom vessels and neutralize it then it doesn't really need a lot to carry with in the first place. Extra range can always be achieved as a better engine is developed not adding extra fuel tanks.
I do have to agree that the Harrier is a good candidate pa rin. Sana nga lang magkaroon tayo ng closer ties to develop it with Thailand which has some of it and are going to get Gripens rin. We need to equip the old Harrier kasi with a better engine and redesign it a bit naman to keep it updated.
Ang magandang approach would be to develop the Gripen like the F16XL or like the F/A-18 A/B/C/D which became the E/F version. A bigger version of the small one. This way mas madali for the maintenance and flight crews. Most of the weapons naman for the F16 can be used for it.
For F16 advocates isipin na lang ninyo yun air intake design nito. Not ideal for the kind of maintenance level we have for our runways. Its why most Soviet designs don't feature such. If we want to capitalize on our future MRF to be able to fight a guerilla war hindi dapat F16. Maybe the F18 but certainly not the F16 - well, opinion ko lang naman ito and hopefully things get fleshed out. Sana nga lang magkaroon ng sariling air arm (na capable to do the requested missions) rin ang Navy at Army para kapag kapos ang Air Force may mag respond pa rin for assistance sa men in the field.
I do have to agree that the Harrier is a good candidate pa rin. Sana nga lang magkaroon tayo ng closer ties to develop it with Thailand which has some of it and are going to get Gripens rin. We need to equip the old Harrier kasi with a better engine and redesign it a bit naman to keep it updated.
Ang magandang approach would be to develop the Gripen like the F16XL or like the F/A-18 A/B/C/D which became the E/F version. A bigger version of the small one. This way mas madali for the maintenance and flight crews. Most of the weapons naman for the F16 can be used for it.
For F16 advocates isipin na lang ninyo yun air intake design nito. Not ideal for the kind of maintenance level we have for our runways. Its why most Soviet designs don't feature such. If we want to capitalize on our future MRF to be able to fight a guerilla war hindi dapat F16. Maybe the F18 but certainly not the F16 - well, opinion ko lang naman ito and hopefully things get fleshed out. Sana nga lang magkaroon ng sariling air arm (na capable to do the requested missions) rin ang Navy at Army para kapag kapos ang Air Force may mag respond pa rin for assistance sa men in the field.
strikeeagle - July 31, 2008 01:53 AM (GMT)
I agree with Sir Cityhunter. F-16's were studied by China, pinahiramm sa kanila ng Pakistan ang isa nilang F-16 para pag aralan while Israel naman sold the LAVI technology sa kanila kaya alam na alam na ng mga chicoms inside and out ng F-16 .Kung F-16 dapat yung E and F na Block 60 .
I go for Gripen c and d . Low maintenance cost and rugged desgin makes it an ideal candidate for PHAF MRF, low cost na konti pa tao kailangan 4 to 6 compare to F-16 na 16+ .
:ssalute:
I go for Gripen c and d . Low maintenance cost and rugged desgin makes it an ideal candidate for PHAF MRF, low cost na konti pa tao kailangan 4 to 6 compare to F-16 na 16+ .
:ssalute:
panzerkampfwagen - July 31, 2008 12:04 PM (GMT)
Looks deadly, isn't it?! :armywink:
Even this.
Sana magkaroon ng at least 2-3 squadrons ng jas 39 Gripens. Plus 2-3 squadrons ng F-16 Block 60's, in a span of 5 years. maganda talaga kasi kung 2 types ng MRFs ang bilhin. Para combo:
Example: Chinese fighters enters our territory, lets say Migs 29's. The gripens, because of their short take off ability, will get to air faster, then , they will be the interceptors. They will be able to intercept and ambush the enemy in just a few minutes. Then, after the gripens have already bloodied the enemy force, they will return to base to rearm and refuel, and the bloodied remnants of the enemy will try to escape. Here comes the F16's to finish them off. :aberet:
It is Ok too if we have the F18E/F's instead of the F16's. I'm not saying that the f16 isn't good, but the F18 has two engines. Mas reliable kasi kung dalawa yung engines dahil kung sakali man na mag fail yung isang engine, makakabalik ng ligtas ang piloto at eroplano sa base. pero kung sakali ung f16's ang mapili ng gobyerno, wala akong reklamo dahil maganda talaga ang fighter na ito.
:aberet: "If there is a will, there is a way." Right?
If there is a political will in acquiring this great birds, I'm sure, we can have them.
:patrioticpinoy:
panzerkampfwagen - July 31, 2008 12:12 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (strikeeagle @ Jul 31 2008, 09:53 AM) |
| I agree with Sir Cityhunter. F-16's were studied by China, pinahiramm sa kanila ng Pakistan ang isa nilang F-16 para pag aralan while Israel naman sold the LAVI technology sa kanila kaya alam na alam na ng mga chicoms inside and out ng F-16 .Kung F-16 dapat yung E and F na Block 60 . I go for Gripen c and d . Low maintenance cost and rugged desgin makes it an ideal candidate for PHAF MRF, low cost na konti pa tao kailangan 4 to 6 compare to F-16 na 16+ . :ssalute: |
[QUOTE]
I agree, :thumb:
In my own opinion, even if the Lumpiang Shanghai's(Chinese), knows almost everything about the capabilities, if you use your F16's in a good manner and if you use the best tactic against them, you will be able to defeat them. Yet, we must still buy the F16'BLOCK60, because if you use the old versions of it against the Chinese whom already knew the weakness of that plane, it will be a difficult fight to win. :aberet:
:patrioticpinoy:
crusader8 - August 1, 2008 10:16 AM (GMT)
Whether its the Griffen, F-16 or the F-18, the choice must be based on capability of the paltform NOT the KICKBACKS expected or requested.
panzerkampfwagen - August 2, 2008 05:49 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (crusader8 @ Aug 1 2008, 06:16 PM) |
| Whether its the Griffen, F-16 or the F-18, the choice must be based on capability of the paltform NOT the KICKBACKS expected or requested. |
[QUOTE]
What do you mean in saying "kickbacks"? :aberet:
strikeeagle - August 3, 2008 07:26 AM (GMT)
Kickbacks - tongpats,over price,bukol, lagay,for d boys, padulas,kotong,commissioner,porsyento. :armytwisted:[B]
asianbloodline187 - August 3, 2008 04:59 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (strikeeagle @ Aug 3 2008, 03:26 PM) |
| Kickbacks - tongpats,over price,bukol, lagay,for d boys, padulas,kotong,commissioner,porsyento. :armytwisted:[B] |
well said!!!
panzerkampfwagen - August 3, 2008 11:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (strikeeagle @ Aug 3 2008, 03:26 PM) |
| Kickbacks - tongpats,over price,bukol, lagay,for d boys, padulas,kotong,commissioner,porsyento. :armytwisted:[B] |
:banana: haha!
Ok i get it. Thanks :salute:
strikeeagle - August 4, 2008 02:10 AM (GMT)
Those in power can't live without it......Its sad but truth really hurts.....I hope and I wish PAF and the govt choose the best not for their won sake but the for the sake of the PAF and our beloved country. :salute:
boybim - August 4, 2008 06:25 AM (GMT)
id get the GRIPEN any time. The Croatian experience and research of both birds provides for us a glimpse of each of their capabilities vis a vis their goegraphical and financial position as a nation.
Similarly, the philippines and croatia are in a pretty much same scenario and geogarphy. We dont have a huge airspace, and we dont have not to say it in a mild mannered way, were naked and we dont currently have any fighter cap[ability.
What we need is a platform like the JAS39 to revive our fighter,multirole capabilities and focus on defense and essential homeland airspace coverage. We dont need a 2 engine gussler and a big payload carrying bird, we need a nimble STOL easy to fly and maintain aircraft like the gripen. a squadron of this and well have our airspace guraded,though still lacking,were investing in 4th gen tech and low maintenance.
THeres rapid development on the new Super Gripen variant on the works. reportedly as a 2 engine air superiority fighter,that will make us ready for it say in 2015. By that time, we are able to have strike beyond our airspace capability of which we can give any fighter from our neighbors in asean a fight they should consider. For now,wla silang maconsider sa atin kasi puro helis lang ang alam nila na meron tayu hehe :lollol:
Similarly, the philippines and croatia are in a pretty much same scenario and geogarphy. We dont have a huge airspace, and we dont have not to say it in a mild mannered way, were naked and we dont currently have any fighter cap[ability.
What we need is a platform like the JAS39 to revive our fighter,multirole capabilities and focus on defense and essential homeland airspace coverage. We dont need a 2 engine gussler and a big payload carrying bird, we need a nimble STOL easy to fly and maintain aircraft like the gripen. a squadron of this and well have our airspace guraded,though still lacking,were investing in 4th gen tech and low maintenance.
THeres rapid development on the new Super Gripen variant on the works. reportedly as a 2 engine air superiority fighter,that will make us ready for it say in 2015. By that time, we are able to have strike beyond our airspace capability of which we can give any fighter from our neighbors in asean a fight they should consider. For now,wla silang maconsider sa atin kasi puro helis lang ang alam nila na meron tayu hehe :lollol:
systema - August 4, 2008 09:25 AM (GMT)
Gripen has supercruise.
F-16 is old and a gas guzzler. We are dead in operating expenses.
F-16 is old and a gas guzzler. We are dead in operating expenses.
edwin - August 16, 2008 11:26 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (asianbloodline187 @ Jul 30 2008, 12:47 AM) |
| economically wise, GRIPEN is more suitable for the Philippines.. ang advantage lang naman ng f-16 is greater mission range and payload.. what do you think guys? |
Im not againts Gripen but your wrong.
Economically wise F-16 is the best cheap option both in acquisition and operating cost compared to Gripen.
The advantage of F-16 happens to be the greatest weakness of Gripen., and that is important in Philippine settings because we need an aircraft that can fly a long distance range with useful load over our territorial water..
We dont have a landborder with other country that can be easily crossed by other fighter..
Remember we have a long stretch of water to defend and extyernal threats will pass to that water.
So, F-16 is more better cheap option or stop gap for Philippines setting than overHype Gripen with range deficiencies.
Zero wing - August 16, 2008 11:59 AM (GMT)
well we do need a plane we can use when all of our runway are gone so gripens will be need or other STOL Plane not unless we have a F20 maybe a few
edwin - August 16, 2008 12:40 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Zero wing @ Aug 16 2008, 07:59 PM) |
| well we do need a plane we can use when all of our runway are gone so gripens will be need or other STOL Plane not unless we have a F20 maybe a few |
Gripen with STOL capability still need a RUNWAY before it CAN TAKE OFF. :headbang:
Besides, having GRIPEN with Stol Capability does not represent a quantum leap advantage in the capability of PAF.
The plane is short legged and anemic when it come to carrying warloads..
It will pull out more money in the budget of our goverment because you have to maintain and make a lot of Hidden Runways in the country just to implement what the Gripen can do....STOL...Guerilla Warfare.... other than that no more..
Im not againts Gripen. It is an Ultra Modern jet fighter plane, but it does not fit the requirement of Philippine Settings specially wartime. Peace brother
edwin - August 16, 2008 12:57 PM (GMT)
For this thread,
IM not a fan of F-16 because I have other type in mind, but F-16 is the most modern plane that is so far the best logical cheap option to acquire as far as Cost and Performance IS Concerned.
Heres the link why F-16 is the best Cheap option for PAF limited budget.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct1999/m1...99_m168-99.html
IM not a fan of F-16 because I have other type in mind, but F-16 is the most modern plane that is so far the best logical cheap option to acquire as far as Cost and Performance IS Concerned.
Heres the link why F-16 is the best Cheap option for PAF limited budget.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct1999/m1...99_m168-99.html
| QUOTE |
| The Government of Thailand has requested a possible sale of 18 F-16A/B Block 15 ADF aircraft including two non-flyable Block 10 OCU aircraft, two Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-220E spare engines, spare and repair parts, devices, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $157 million |
FOR 157 MILLION DOLLARS YOU HAVE ALREADY An 18 units of FULLY CAPABLE MODERN F-16 with spare parts, Training and Supporting equipment THAT CAN BE UPGRADED ANYTIME AS LONG REQUIRED BY Philippine Air Force..
Maybe the price will be lower if Philippine goverment will bargain for more.
I dont think GRIPEN can Match that bargain price with logistic support considering what the F-16 can do to defend our airspace and territorial water..
Zero wing - August 16, 2008 03:05 PM (GMT)
I see your point comrade but we also need a fast aircraft to be air born i see what your trying to picture don't worry but think we need 5 types of plane and one even multi role can't give us that advantage at having F16 and the gripen can help secure our borders and Territory am a POLSci Student and i know what i am talking about the Principles of International Laws state a Air space of a Country can only be determined by how it can defend it so since we have limit air capability we have big disadvantage and one thing our air space is open for all but the Immunity can be lifted if their is a danger to our country but as i said we have limited air power we can do both so that why as much a possible we should not just stop with a F16 we should get as much as many air assets as we could because in a nation 2 thing in our case are hard to protect the Seas and Air and to make matter worse we are lacking in both i hope understand now what am telling u.
Thanks Comrades :salute:
Thanks Comrades :salute:
edwin - August 18, 2008 04:43 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (strikeeagle @ Jul 31 2008, 09:53 AM) |
| I agree with Sir Cityhunter. F-16's were studied by China, pinahiramm sa kanila ng Pakistan ang isa nilang F-16 para pag aralan while Israel naman sold the LAVI technology sa kanila kaya alam na alam na ng mga chicoms inside and out ng F-16 .Kung F-16 dapat yung E and F na Block 60 . I go for Gripen c and d . Low maintenance cost and rugged desgin makes it an ideal candidate for PHAF MRF, low cost na konti pa tao kailangan 4 to 6 compare to F-16 na 16+ . :ssalute: |
Why Gripen? In what areas does Gripen had the advantage over F-16..??
In fairness, there are more than 22 countries that operate the famous F-16 Falcon/Viper as their primary Jet fighter.
So, it means F-16 has already an established and proven program for training and Air combat Tactics formulated by US Air Force and other allied countries using F-16...
If more than 22 countries are so confident using F-16 as their primary fighter plane., then Chinese copy of F-16 or having LAVI technology does not possess any advantage to those countries who are expert in operating F-16..
Cheers. :armycheers:
adrian_yamato - August 18, 2008 04:49 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (edwin @ Aug 19 2008, 12:43 AM) | ||
Why Gripen? In what areas does Gripen had the advantage over F-16..?? In fairness, there are more than 22 countries that operate the famous F-16 Falcon/Viper as their primary Jet fighter. So, it means F-16 has already an established and proven program for training and Air combat Tactics formulated by US Air Force and other allied countries using F-16... If more than 22 countries are so confident using F-16 as their primary fighter plane., then Chinese copy of F-16 or having LAVI technology does not possess any advantage to those countries who are expert in operating F-16.. Cheers. :armycheers: |
Yes, i agree, even they (Chicom) studie the inside & out of an F-16, the US can easily change some of it, Because if the Chicoms copy it's inside & out: the US knows how to counter it :thumb:
Vermonter - August 18, 2008 06:51 PM (GMT)
Okay how about this guys? Would we export the AESA radar to the Grippen, when our F-16s are in a direct competition for a fighter contract?
F-35 for President and F-18 Super Hornet for Vice-President in 2010! :patrioticpinoy:
F-35 for President and F-18 Super Hornet for Vice-President in 2010! :patrioticpinoy:
roughneck - August 20, 2008 12:07 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Vermonter @ Aug 19 2008, 02:51 AM) |
| F-35 for President and F-18 Super Hornet for Vice-President in 2010! :patrioticpinoy: |
Have you learned about F-18E/F Superhornet Block III?
I've learned it features TVC, extended range, additional forward stealth, new AESA and aim-120d and supercruise?
Vermonter - August 20, 2008 01:28 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (roughneck @ Aug 20 2008, 08:07 AM) |
| Have you learned about F-18E/F Superhornet Block III? I've learned it features TVC, extended range, additional forward stealth, new AESA and aim-120d and supercruise? |
R,
Your pulling my leg right? That would be really cool. :specool:
roughneck - August 20, 2008 10:06 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Vermonter @ Aug 20 2008, 09:28 AM) | ||
R, Your pulling my leg right? That would be really cool. :specool: |
Ya, I forgot the link, that was a joint project b/w australia and Boeing and this is what the Australian air force requirements to counter the sukhoi in asian region if they fails to acquire F-22 coz they have doubted F-35, aside from AESA radar, additional engine thrust, long range AAM, TVC. The Superhornet Block III also has internal weapons bay and has a combat radius of +1000 km.
Think of that if PAF considers it... :specool:
Zero wing - August 20, 2008 03:45 PM (GMT)
ya i agree a mix units of them F16 and Gripens or M346 or M311 will be a best for our Airforce saan the Airforce will take it in consideration
roughneck - August 21, 2008 04:35 AM (GMT)
Are you familiar w/ the Visiting Forces Agrements b/w the US and RP?
I think it was signed 9 years ago. the US forces came to train our forces and also we train them, specialy in jungle warfare and survival.
But what about our own forces visiting the US, what training that the US will provide them? are they trained to pilot F-16 or F-18? or may be trained on Apache or Cobra? Kung ganun for the last 9 years may mga pilit na tayo na can fly this aircraft kahit limited yung flight hours.
I think it was signed 9 years ago. the US forces came to train our forces and also we train them, specialy in jungle warfare and survival.
But what about our own forces visiting the US, what training that the US will provide them? are they trained to pilot F-16 or F-18? or may be trained on Apache or Cobra? Kung ganun for the last 9 years may mga pilit na tayo na can fly this aircraft kahit limited yung flight hours.
City Hunter - August 21, 2008 05:38 AM (GMT)
Mukhang malabo yun as I know may mga secrets yun mga gamit ng Kano. As per alam ko others who train there use either their equipment based there or bring their own. Correct me na lang kung mali.
Vermonter - August 21, 2008 01:09 PM (GMT)
Just leadership courses or basic primary lead-in training. No advanced platforms.
bustero - August 21, 2008 05:02 PM (GMT)
I like both of these aircraft and would have no problem with either aircraft is this is indeed the choice of the PAF. If I had my druthers though I'd prefer we start of with several squadrons of either of the two new LIFT platforms M346 or A50(my first preference) in Light Attack Configuration. I'd rather have these for the following reasons.
1) An A50 at US$ 22m is inexpensive enough so that we can buy 3 to 4 squadrons for the price of one squadron of comparable later model F16 CD or Gripens. This would allow the PAF to station more planes in different parts of the country allowing interdiction in the shortest possible time without long ferry times. Many folk seem to forget that the PHilippine is NOT a small country. While our land mass is limited we have under our watch one of the worlds largest territorial waters and we have to guard these as well. A half or full squadron each in Zamboanga, Gen San, Palawan, Cebu, Porac and Ilocos would cover the most likely areas of intrusion with the least flying time and less expense.
2) Having more aircraft means we also develop more pilots and attract more of them as they are able to actually fly supersonic highly manouverable fighters. This is more important than it seems as recruitment even for the PMA is down. Finding and keeping good people is always a big and important job.
3) The OM and flying cost of these smaller craft is very low. Much lower than either of the two full scale MRF. As was even written in the article posted above, just flying the NATO standard of 150 hours a year runs into to the milllions. This is then an important consideration while our budgets are very tight.
4) In a CAS, Ground support role, these aircraft may be much more relevant considering we still have an active internal conflict that could use air support without the extreme expense of flying F16s or Gripens just to pound out Commander Bravo. Witness the fact that the S211's are actually flying right now doing the same work. These birds can carry 4tons or more than 6 times of payload of the S211s.
5) The experience and training we get from operating a lot of these pushes the organization capability up to a level that moving up to much higher level 5th generation aircraft is a very short learning curve as these were designed to do. Remember that at least for the A50 LM actually makes more components for the current aircraft than KAI and sell this as what is essentially their starter model.
6) I believe that the near term external threat is not going to be another country and their Su30 but closer to Homeland Security/War on Terror type threats, meaning lower level interdiction like buzzing unknown ships and a lot of patroling are probably the more likely roles. This will require more planes not less, so having more marginally capable though much more expensive planes may not be the right fit.
Yes ultimately these birds are not true MRF's like the two mentioned above, but we are only paying a fraction of the price for each. And as a comparable holistic defense program addressing the most realistic expected probability threat and in consideration of actual available resources (money) I believe we get more bang for the buck with these light fighter type aircraft. The platforms are very new and true entry 4.5 generation aircraft albeit with more modest performance but good comparable even with the two aforementioned candidates. Also even platforms like the A50 actually have an F50 design in it's development path which makes it likely that there is probably an upgrade path for these planes or for additional orders.After we may actually find that in the later half of the next decade for Horizon 3 when power projection aircraft is more needed, that we may look directly at F35's or F15's as a better fit. Some interesting food for thought !
1) An A50 at US$ 22m is inexpensive enough so that we can buy 3 to 4 squadrons for the price of one squadron of comparable later model F16 CD or Gripens. This would allow the PAF to station more planes in different parts of the country allowing interdiction in the shortest possible time without long ferry times. Many folk seem to forget that the PHilippine is NOT a small country. While our land mass is limited we have under our watch one of the worlds largest territorial waters and we have to guard these as well. A half or full squadron each in Zamboanga, Gen San, Palawan, Cebu, Porac and Ilocos would cover the most likely areas of intrusion with the least flying time and less expense.
2) Having more aircraft means we also develop more pilots and attract more of them as they are able to actually fly supersonic highly manouverable fighters. This is more important than it seems as recruitment even for the PMA is down. Finding and keeping good people is always a big and important job.
3) The OM and flying cost of these smaller craft is very low. Much lower than either of the two full scale MRF. As was even written in the article posted above, just flying the NATO standard of 150 hours a year runs into to the milllions. This is then an important consideration while our budgets are very tight.
4) In a CAS, Ground support role, these aircraft may be much more relevant considering we still have an active internal conflict that could use air support without the extreme expense of flying F16s or Gripens just to pound out Commander Bravo. Witness the fact that the S211's are actually flying right now doing the same work. These birds can carry 4tons or more than 6 times of payload of the S211s.
5) The experience and training we get from operating a lot of these pushes the organization capability up to a level that moving up to much higher level 5th generation aircraft is a very short learning curve as these were designed to do. Remember that at least for the A50 LM actually makes more components for the current aircraft than KAI and sell this as what is essentially their starter model.
6) I believe that the near term external threat is not going to be another country and their Su30 but closer to Homeland Security/War on Terror type threats, meaning lower level interdiction like buzzing unknown ships and a lot of patroling are probably the more likely roles. This will require more planes not less, so having more marginally capable though much more expensive planes may not be the right fit.
Yes ultimately these birds are not true MRF's like the two mentioned above, but we are only paying a fraction of the price for each. And as a comparable holistic defense program addressing the most realistic expected probability threat and in consideration of actual available resources (money) I believe we get more bang for the buck with these light fighter type aircraft. The platforms are very new and true entry 4.5 generation aircraft albeit with more modest performance but good comparable even with the two aforementioned candidates. Also even platforms like the A50 actually have an F50 design in it's development path which makes it likely that there is probably an upgrade path for these planes or for additional orders.After we may actually find that in the later half of the next decade for Horizon 3 when power projection aircraft is more needed, that we may look directly at F35's or F15's as a better fit. Some interesting food for thought !