Defense of the Republic of the Philippines

Nope. Like the FAP, Hanwha has blown up this project. They cannot obtain the licensing clearance from BAE to export new KAAVs. Currently they are desperately trying to keep the lid on this and retain the business by offering up to fourteen (14) EDA KAAVs. This is one of several stinky cheeses lighting up the DND cupboard.

The PAF keeps letting Lift/HADR creep into every mission and acquisition. If there was a way for the FA-50s to lug relief goods as well as bombs, they would find it.

The country needs an EM Agency with it's own transportation fleet, given the volume and high-impact nature of natural disasters that occur. Stop putting this burden directly on defense. Defense can auxiliary these efforts, but we'll never get anywhere hamstringing acquisitions this way.

The relief of Fitz's Command Triad (CO, XO, CMC) and the signs that most of the Watch at time of collision is also up for NJP is an indication that it's an operational and personnel issue, not one of equipment. It was already clear by photos of the damage that Fitz was the Give-Way vessel and should have maneuvered to avoid the collision (Starboard Side damage forward of Amidships).

McCain was the stand-on vessel since she was struck port-side, which means she could NOT maneuver until it was clear that the Give-Way was not maneuvering safely to avoid a collision approach. The Straits of Malacca aren't as big as you think - there's hundreds of major motor vessels making the the transit daily, and in the dark at 0524L, there's not enough room to be overly cautious - COLREGs wouldn't let you anyway as the stand-on. 

Militaries are a microcosm of the societies from which they came, mistakes are made because they're human. The question becomes - was the failure one of equipment, procedure or personnel? You'll find in most cases, it's a combination of all three, but certainly in Fitz's case, it's looking more and more like a Personnel fault. McCain? Too soon to tell, but the blow port-side already tells a story that Alnic MC's watch wasn't up to par.

How about PT Dirgantara and Airbus, why were they DQ'ed?

Both Way Over ABC. Between the number of restarts and the FX volatility, the ABC had always been marginal for what the specs call for.

The material condition of the HME is the limiting factor. Upgrading the combat capabilities of this vessel requires some more EMD; you can't go straight into yard refit - after a while it ends up just being more money into a pit.

Bryan's comments are very relevant. If CNO really deemed the Perries return to service, they'd be nothing more than Presence Assets. Not particularly useful to the USN, given they'd have to reinstate a whole logistics, support and training chain unless they could find enough standers who did serve on the class before. At this point, they're struggling to figure what to do now they've dumped the 3-2-1 manning model on LCS, hence the intimation that crewing is a problem.

The reasoning behind the PN looking into the Perry class recently again is mired more in the ugliness of what's happening in the HHI bid behind the scenes.

Interesting that the aft Spike Launchers will combine ER and NLOS (although no NLOS rounds have been purchased). At least there's some commonality with the AW-159s in the future. For now, the PN budget can barely sustain sending out a full load of ERs on each MPAC once installed, but typical of the barely-there budget. Hopefully more missiles to be stocked in the future.