RP defense against air attacks weak, says PAF
abs-cbnNEWS.com
06/19/2009 7:03 PM


The chief of the Philippine Air Force on Friday admitted that the country's air defense capability is weak due to limited radar capability and a small Air Force fleet of 66 operational aircraft.

PAF chief Lt. Gen. Oscar Rabena said most of the 66 operational aircraft are UH-1H or Huey helicopters. The PAF fleet includes a number of S211 trainer jets, which are the main assets used for aerial territorial patrol but are sometimes aided by OV-10 bomber planes.

"Our defense is basically at very low level because we only have jet trainer aircraft (for territorial defense) and of course, we have limited capability as far as radars are concerned," Rabena said.

"We have a limited capability (in monitoring foreign aerial intrusions)...We can only cover so much," he added.

But the official said he was optimistic that this weakness will be addressed once the military finishes fighting domestic security threats such as the New People's Army. President Arroyo earlier ordered the military to finish off the communist insurgency before her term ends next year.

"The priority for our government now is really finishing our insurgency problem and so resources are channeled on air assets that will help defeat our enemies, in so far as ISO (internal security operation) is concerned," he said.

"As we improve on our counter insurgency campaign...we then transition to improving our capabilities for territorial defense which means (acquisition of) fighter aircraft, long range radars and maritime patrol air craft."

Rabena is referring to the P350-billion modernization program of the Armed Forces which was approved by Congress as early as 1996. The national government started allocating P5 billion a year for the program four years later.

"Part of the modernization program is acquisition of long range radars and if these will be pre-positioned in strategic areas, then we would cover our territorial air space," the official also said.

Meanwhile, Rabena announced that the Air Force had recently brought back to service a C-130 aircraft, which provides heavy-lift capability to the military. The Air Force now has two C-130s that are operational.

The recently-activated aircraft had undergone refurbishing under the Foreign Military Sales with the United States. He said at least $4.5 million was spent for the aicraft.

A third C-130 is at a storage facility and the Air Force is planning to revive the plane but this may entail a cost of P185 million. Five others remain idle but these are no longer feasible to be repaired.

Rabena said he is eyeing the acquisition of a refurbished C-130 costing P1.7 billion. He said the ideal number of C-130s that should be maintained by the Air Force is four.

C-130s are usually used for the transport of troops to far areas and in the transport of relief goods to areas affected by disasters.

pardon me for ranting but reports like this just frustrates people like me who pay taxes honestly and expects something in return (i.e. good roads, good schools, good health care infrastructure, a modern and well-equipped AFP):

it goes to show several things:

1. the head of the PAF, just like the rest of the people in the government and the military nowadays, has a losing attitude and is completely short-sighted (i.e. they do not want to do anything to change their current status, when the proper method to things is to actually give both external defense and internal defense EQUAL priority similar to what Colombia is doing, regardless of what some here are saying that the Colombians have the Americans to back them up [if the Colombians were able to enlist the help of the Americans, how come we can't? do we need to have coke plantations or have Osama Bin Laden based in Mindanao just for us to get the full backing of the Americans similar to what they did in Colombia?]).

2. the government and the military keeps on telling that they wanted to end the insurgency soon enough so that they can jump start the building-up of the AFP's external defenses but, still, it is either they remain clueless as to how they wanted to annhilate the NPA, MILF, MNLF, Abu Sayyaf and similar groups (shameful enough, the Sri Lankans have more balls in deciding they had enough of the Tamil Tigers that they, simply, defeated them for good unlike our government and military who keep on doing things on a "half-dead snake" approach) or they just do not want the insurgency to end because that is the only thing that "keeps them busy" (i.e. generals, government officials use the insurgency as a tool for their personal gain).

3. the funds for the modernization of the entire AFP has gone not to its intended purpose but only for the personal gain of several government and military people (no need for proof about this. just take a look at how many government and military officials of the Philippines, the only mostly Christian nation in Asia but, ironically, also its most corrupt, live lavish lifestyles amidst the grinding poverty that exists within the rest of the country).

4. the AFP has become completely become a mere employment agency because it only exists to "give jobs" (i.e. funds are slated more for "allowances" and "salaries", but, sadly, much of it goes unaccounted for, no thanks to the culture of extreme corruption that persists within the military) instead of having its funds focused MOSTLY on weapons and equipment acquisition and maintenance.

This is erroneous, there is no such thing or amount P350-Billion mention on Republic Act 7898 (RA 7898) or the AFP Modernization Act of 1995.

And neither our GNP is getting better since then.

WE need to prioritize everything with our economy going south and internal security still no where to be solve as expected. Our problem is not the gov't and the economy, is the crocodile and parasite politician, we - the people chosen to manage. And we just got exactly what we want, we chose the fox to watch the hen house. The Gov't we have is the gov't we deserve! So the next time better make it right, but the question is "Is there any better choice out there anyway?" Is a lazy dog any better than the quick fox?

Great! So this could mean like...in 3-4 more decades by earnest?

:headbang:

Right, for career boosting. tsk tsk tsk

There are two underlining principles of Democracy (democrazy-Philippine style), Citizens have equal access to power; we have opportunity to chose and select our representative to manage our Gov't, in which we repeatedly failed, second all citizens enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties, in which we I think we abuse. Freedom is not free, our heroes has sacrifice their lives, and would only die in vain knowing what the heck was going on to our nation. We have to do our share, it is our responsibility to choose the right leader, and the kind of country we want for the greater good of all. Now look what kind of system we have in place? Political dynasty everywhere, celebrity politician, dummy party-list representative, businessmen politician, contractor-politician, you name it, hell you got it! And what else do you expect from all these crooks? And why do all these crooks are in the gov't? Simply because we allowed it!
And do we have a choice for a better public servant around the corner? Back then early days of mobilephone, only Smart and Globe with no choice but having tied-up by their crooked service and skyrocketed prices, but since ever-demanding growing consumer wants better service at a lesser price, you now enjoy changing your cellphone whenever you want at a price even kids can afford. And why not demand a better service and scrap the old crooks in politics. No good candidate around? A demanding consumer creates a better product. Is it really that hard? Let us shape the politics in this country not the politician shaped us, because we have the ultimate choice and limited time offer.

DATE: June 24, 2009
PRESS RELEASE

24 June 2009

PAF HOLDS AIR POWER SYMPOSIUM ‘09

Undersecretary to Defense Affairs, Hon Antonio C Santos Jr was Keynote Speaker in today’s opening ceremony for Air Power Symposium (APS) ’09 hosted by Air Force Chief Lt Gen Oscar H Rabena AFP. The annual convention is being held for the first time at the Philippine Air Force Aerospace Museum in Colonel Jesus Villamor Air Base, Pasay City. The daylong event started at 7:00 o’ clock this morning with the theme “Enhancing Operational Responsiveness Amidst Emerging Challenges and Opportunities”. AFP Chief of Staff, Gen Victor S Ibrado AFP is Guest of Honor during the Closing Ceremony.

In 1982, the PAF and the PAF Flying School initiated holding of the first Air Power Symposium with the intention to examine why Philippine Aviation Industry did not develop unlike its ASEAN neighbors. Another one was held in 1984 adopting the theme, “Self Reliance: The Key to the Development of the Philippine Aviation Industry”. The event was not held until in 1990 when the PAF collaborated with the Philippine Exhibition Services Organization, Inc to hold APS ’90 that highlighted the challenges and prospects of civil aviation and aviation-related activities. Foreign participants were included in APS’90.

There had been no conventions until year 2000 and since then it is held annually as part of lined up activities in celebration of the yearly PAF anniversary.

Like earlier conventions held, Air Power Symposium ’09 advocates spreading Air Power philosophy and steadfastly campaigns for the use of Air Power for national security and development. Resourced speakers will present and discuss crucial perspectives and standpoints on Air Power.

The holding of Air Power Symposium ’09 is part of the month-long series of activities that will culminate in a formal program marking the 62nd Air Force Anniversary on July 1, 2009.

http://www.paf.mil.ph/hq/pio/PR%20JUNE%202...0APS%202009.htm

such unbelievable cynicism...

It's one way of studying, evaluating and comparing what we have from our neighbours. In other words, a reality check!

I believe what the outcome and findings of this symposium will be presented to those concerned. Something like a wake up call. Remember 2011 is nearby, they need the time for decision making. :armywink:

Air Power haha such funny words in PAF

What for its no secret that AFP not just the Air force is weak then any military force on earth! hell even Bangladesh can kick our filipino asses sure we can fight the question is can we win? what? they final determine the air force is falling apart since many of their pilots are leaving the service? well better late then never right! so did the fools in the air force did their anyway pictures? like hot supper models they wish! and waste more of the common tao money? any news on this foolishness?

yup,thats right even bangladesh is more powerful than us,they only need to send only one mig-29 to us and we are all dead,the s-211 can't defeat that, :armysad:

Man you said it why waste time?

This is great but I hope its not just TALKING....and the AirForce will announce their newly acquired air power assets instead of just planning........

Can a lone MIG-29 occupy ground territory?

I can't understand the strategic or tactical logic of a single MIG-29 attacking a sovereign country like the Philippines.

I think Maverick meant theoretically, one MIG 29 can totally wipe out the PAF out of the sky and on the tarmac. Provided it has a nearby base to sortie out and return.

well we don't have credible air defense capability well with the exception of the PSG but for the rest well i just don't know how or why can we fight air treats or any conventional warfare treats? so that theory can be possible

Agree and hoping that there is a chance that we can acquire T/A-50 as our Lightweight Tactical fighter to fill the gap since several countries have intent to buy them like the Israel, Poland and Iraq...That makes 3 countries so that it will be considered by PAF Command.

The KAI T/A-50 is the only LIFT available today that has both Training and Attack Configuration while the M346 and T-45 Goshawk doesn't have it yet.

http://news.combataircraft.com/readnews.aspx?i=188

Israel’s Skyhawk Scandal Leads to End of an Era

Defense Industry Daily
08/05/2009


McDonnell Douglas’ A-4 Skyhawk, aka. “Scooter,” has a long and storied career as a carrier-based attack aircraft with the US Navy. It’s old enough that Sen. John McCain was flying one when he was shot down over North Vietnam. It also has a storied land-based career with the Israeli Air Force, who used this simple, pilot-friendly aircraft from late 1967 onward as a versatile attack aircraft with surprising air-air teeth.

Israel’s induction of F-16s was a turning point for the type, which has declined in importance but never vanished from service. Some are in storage or used as specialty platforms, others have been sold or leased to private operators, and the “Flying Tigers” of 102 Squadron at Hatzerim Air Base still use their A-4Ns and 2-seat TA-4Js for advanced IAF Lead-In Fighter Training.

A maintenance scandal has led Israel to conclude, after more than 40 years, that its Skyhawks need replacement. The latest news involves an official Israeli delegation that’s in South Korea to test-fly KAI’s supersonic T-50

On Wings of Skyhawks: Service in Israel

The Skyhawk is a much-beloved jet in the Israeli Air Force. The little A-4’s surprising maneuverability was coupled with an equally surprising ability to take battle damage, made it a popular and reliable choice over several wars. The type was used heavily in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and the Israeli fleet took correspondingly heavy loses: of 102 aircraft lost, 53 were Skyhawks.

That war was not without its moments of distinction. In one engagement, an Israeli A-4 Skyhawk found itself facing 3 MiG-21s. The maneuverable little Skyhawk turned on them and brought 2 of them down, and was reportedly on the 3rd Fishbed’s tail when an IAF Mirage IIIC zipped through and blasted the MiG out of the sky. Per mission losses in 1973 were just 0.6%, a lower figure than the previous 1970 War of Attrition with Egypt. Nevertheless, the writing was on the wall.

When Israel began inducting F-16s, the A-4s began to take a back seat. Some did participate in the 1982 Lebanon War, and one even scored a MiG-17 kill. By that time, however, squadron migrations to the F-16 had already begun, and 33 of the Skyhawks had been sold to Indonesia. By the mid 1990s, almost all of Israel’s fighter squadrons had migrated, and 2000-2001 saw a handful of Israeli Skyhawks sold to corporate operators in BAE and ATSI.

A number of A-4E/H/N aircraft are currently stored at Ovda Air Base, some planes have been used as electronic warfare support aircraft, others have been sold or leased to contractors like ATAC, and as noted earlier, the “Flying Tigers” of 102 Squadron at Hatzerim Air Base still use their A-4Ns and 2-seat TA-4Js for advanced IAF pilot training.

Surviving Israeli aircraft required maintenance, which was being provided by the contractor Kanfei Tahzuka via Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). Unfortunately, the little plane that could appears to have finally met its match. A scandal has grounded Israel’s Skyhawk fleet – and is about to lead to its replacement.

IAF Replacement Candidates

Candidates to replace the aircraft reportedly include converted IAF early-model F-16Bs, Boeing’s license-produced T-45TS Goshawk used by the US Navy, Finmeccanica’s M346 variant of the Yak-130, and Korea’s supersonic T-50.

The F-16s are reportedly a low-ranking option, because of the difficulty of transitioning from a primary jet trainer like the Fouga Magister or its T-6A turboprop replacement.

The Goshawk would offer a welcome boost for Boeing’s closing production line, and could be purchased with American military aid dollars. The flip side is that the US Navy has not invested in giving them secondary mission capabilities beyond their training role.


The M346’s performance profile and ordnance-carrying capability in a pinch is probably the closest to the Skyhawk’s, but Finmeccanica would have to overcome significant doubts regarding its long-term political stability as a supplier.

South Korea’s supersonic T-50 offers the highest potential performance within the group, with the ability to operate as an “F-16 Lite” in addition to its training role. Israeli firms have made inroads into the Korean market with their UAVs, and a T-50 order could represent the next step for both countries. An agreement that deepened bilateral defense ties, and included Israeli cooperation toward a T/A-50 with light attack capabilities, would create the most capable option for the IAF, while solving a problem for South Korea. The resulting trainer/ light fighter would have the potential for significant ripple effects in the global arms market. That high potential upside would come with a corresponding cost, however, as this would be Israel’s most expensive option.[B]

Unless we have an aircraft that is capable of intercepting an aircraft such as the Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11 (Chinese copy of Su-27), we have no chances on defending ourselves against any air attacks

It is not enough that the air force buy MRFs that can intercept intruders. With that, the air force also needs to consider acquiring advanced radar systems, AEW aircrafts, ordnance, support facilities, trainings, spare parts, fuel costs and maintainance. It's too costly for us as of now. I think that one way of beefing up our air defense as of this time is starting it with updated radar systems and a decent number of SAMs. These will cost money but this is a necessity but it is not as costly as the acquisition of new MRFs and all the things required to operate a decent MRF interceptor fleet. It is an investement for our sovereignity and national pride. With these assets, I think there will already be deterrence in asserting our airspace, at least.

Then, let's just wait and save a little more for the jets to come.

:specool:

dude,anti-ballistic missiles,SAM,etc. cost like millions of dollars and you can only use that once,a hundred million dollars can acquire dozens of modern MRFs,MRFs first before missiles like those.

Dude, MRFs cost millions of dollars too. Not only SAMs. And you can't buy dozens of "modern" MRFs with only a hundred million dollars. Maybe you can buy 3 to 5 units of modern MRFs but I think it doesn't include missiles and other costs that should be taken into account like AEW systems, etc. And because of that, your MRFs will fly blind and would still be vulnerable to attack.

Dozens of modern MRFs for only a hundred million dollars? Wow, that's cheap. What kind of "modern" MRFs are these?

There are SAMs that are less than a million dollar. Have you heard about the ground launched AMRAAM? AMRAAMs cost range from $300,000 - $700,000 (source: Wikipedia) depending on the variant. The lauch platform for this is a humvee and the system is known as the SLAMRAAM. This is just one... there are others too.



Anyway, you also have point that SAMs can only be used once and MRFs can be used over and over. But if the PhAF are going to send out MRFs against attackers, I think MRFs must be potent enough engage interception and air combat with the help of support units. Without the support units, I think the other side would be well favored. So, if it's MRFs, PhAF should also consider acquiring support units.

Peace out.

Agreed. No room for myopia here, buying MRFs piecemeal without the system to back it up is a waste of money. Radar before fighters, which, apparently, is exactly what the government's thinking:

EADS Defence & Security to enhance Philippine air traffic security

Not a radar per se, but the fact they're willing to invest in top-of-the-line "building blocks" is encouraging. It's a start.

RE: SAMs, this is an option that should not be readily dismissed.

Russian SAMs are just an example, but the obvious advantage of SAMs is in being a hell of a lot easier to operate and maintain than MRFs. A competent pilot takes years and millions of dollars in fuel, simulator time, and spare parts to train; a missile crew can get going in a matter of months. Also, like the second article says, a SAM umbrella supports your navy and ground forces without risking your precious MRFs against other MRFs. An F/A-18 might be in trouble against an Su-27, but all planes are equal to a SAM.

Besides, the radar system controlling those SAMs is never idle, it's watching your airspace 24/7; the radar on an MRF is no good when it's on the ground.

FYC

Very true indeed. Nice back-up raider1011.

Let's drink to that!

:armycheers:

yeah,we are going use that 300,000 dollar missile in just 1 fighter jet or any other aircraft,thats gonna be a waste,

You still don't get it, do you?

Haven't you done the math?

Let me break it down for you.

You have a $20-50 million worth MRF, plus the missiles on it, let's say 4 AMRAAMS. 1 low variant AMRAAM costs $300,000. So $300,000 X 4 is equals to $1.2 million. That's $20-50 million worth of MRF and $1.2 million worth of missiles. Plus factor in the fuel and the traing cost of the pilot. Do not forget to include the life of the pilot (and the RIO or navigator, if it has).

Now, your MRF is flying blind in pursuit of an intruder or an attacker... BUT... your MRF got shot down without even seeing the enemy and without putting up any fight because it does not have any radar or AEW support.

BOOM! There you go...

Which one is more costly, hmmmmmmmm?

Think boy!

Cool it, dudes, we're all anonymous posters here. Let's keep things friendly. :ssalute:

BTT: A $300,000 SAM--in exchange for bringing down a $100 million MRF?! Deal! Besides, shooter brings up a good point, firing off an AAM costs just as much money. And who says you can't use a SAM as an AAM?

Missiles are just expendables; with an MRF, your capital equipment is the airframe. With a SAM system, it's the radar controlling it.

Oooops... I never really intended to hurt anyone's feelings. I might have over-emphasized.

:ssalute:

Missiles like SAMs will be wasted if the fighter your trying to shoot down used counter measures,still think that this type of defense your suggesting is not gonna happen,though that is a good defense but still......,the philippine government will not approve this,our airforce will only rely on missiles (ground to air)?,don't think so

I think you haven't read my 1st post thoroughly.

That is why I said this ---

I did not say that the Philippine government must rely solely on SAMs.

If you think so, then that's your problem. It was not my argument with you. My argument was the first reply I posted.

To reiterate :

(excerpts) ...Then, let's just wait and save a little more for the jets to come.

:armywink:

Radar is good. So to are SAMs. The problem is that these are passive measures. We do need active measures to prevent air attacks. Hence, the need for combat aircraft able to identify, intercept and destroy threats.

Radar can be defeated nowadays easily and there is no certainty that it will remain effective once the battle begins as what happened in Iraq when the US-led forces attacked it. The same goes for SAMs which need to be guided by such mostly not unless it comes within visual range.

There's also the active defensive suite employed by some (the US and ChiComs to name some) to defeat the seeker unit for the missiles.

Thus, although we are in a bad situation when it concerns to air defense (especially with the suffering these floodings have brought upon us) we should take advantage of the circumstances. We can adopt more effective measures to overcome such problems when the situation finally (hopefully soon) favors in having something to invest with on it.

Might be myopia, but that seems to read 'radar before fighters', not 'radar not fighters'. As it stands, the PAF has no radar and no fighters, so you have to start somewhere.

I kinda have this impression interception is a passive measure too, since you're just reacting to the enemy's initiative. It's also wasteful and inefficient, an unaffordable way to fight: MRFs are wasted in static defense since you're exposing your pilots to the same risks opposing pilots face. The British lost 1,000+ fighter planes in the Battle of Britain, meaning the most heroic pilots in history lost more planes than they started with (675). If ever we get them, the Philippines will be the last country in the region to put MRFs into service--meaning we'll have the least experienced pilots. What minimum kill ratio must we achieve to repel a determined aggressor--and what kill ratio can we achieve, weighing things objectively?

Area denial, that's a job for a SAM battery, and still is after 1991. Sure, the Iraqi air defense network got trashed … by a coalition of NATO air forces, counting 1,800+ aircraft. Not saying we have to match what Saddam had, but it's doubtful anyone will be sending 1,000 sorties per day against what we can put in place (unless the fellas up north forget about their neighbor across the Strait).

MRFs are offensive weapons, so use them offensively--as in proactively--instead of betting everything on a single platform. A complete system, not compromise.

RE: Countermeasures, so who owns the advantage in a battle of electrons, this antenna, or this one?

Your right, we will waste $300,000 "if" that missile missed. Chances are that the enemy MRF will use counter-meausres. However, MRFs can only carry limited couter-meausres, so we can just shoot it again with another SAM but this time the enemy MRF is already vulnerable because it may have depleated all of its couter-measures.

But, how much will you waste if your $20-50 million MRF with $1.2 million worth of missiles got shot down by the enemy because it is flying blind?
MRFs without radar support from ground stations and AEW aircrafts are sitting ducks in the air.

In this case, you will waste $20-50 million (that's the worth of the MRF) + $1.2 million (worth of missiles that your MRF is carrying) + the life of the pilot + the training cost for the pilot + the fuel cost of your MRF. There's a whole lot more to waste in your scenario than a SAM that "missed".

How many times do I have to tell you that you have consider the maths first?

Do the math again, think again. Please..?

And kindly read my replies thoroughly before you post because I do not want to reiterate an answer that I have already discussed before. Just like this.

Thank you very much and have a nice day. Muah!

( I hope I did not hurt anyone's feelings now, hahaha. )

This is a question about priorities not about capabilities.

If you hold the budget for the PhAF, which one will you buy first? New MRFs or New Radar Systems/Networks?

In order to determine what priority is more important you need to first know about the capabilities.

If I'm holding the budget for PAF then the priority should be on radars as it can both address civil and military needs. MRFs can take secondary priority (not unless it comes with the package).

So, the FIRST PRIORITY is on RADARS.

Very well said. Thank you.

In defining that radar is of utmost priority doesn't mean we don't include in the equation (potential candidate) MRFs. For it will include the need to communicate that information effectively, to counter and counter-measures, and even how to secure and defend the site. And that doesn't include even the building and locating of structures.

Admittedly, the same problem applies when acquiring MRFs. Nothing is ever simple :P

The perfect solution is to start both programs simultaneously. Acquire MRFs and support equipment to enable these to defend our territory effectively. Of course, such a thing can only be made possible if our leaders have political will.

Um, who's saying we should forget about MRFs again? Isn't the subject of radars the one being neglected?

No one is saying to neglect one or the other. The question raised was which should be given a priority when the proper answer is simply both especially for the situation the Philippines is in right now.

Losing attitude, short sighted and Maybe pessimistic about our nation arms procurement.

If that is the case then something to ponder on by our goverment and military officials.

:armycheers: