Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - eagle from davao

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

One reason, why im pushing for these.
I interviewed the simba units attached to 10th ID , they welcome the idea of installing 60mm mortar inside the turret. They welcome the idea of indirect fire capability. These simba crews are veteran in maguindanao against MILF since 2000. The common problem why they cant move fast into MILF position because of RPG-2 threat. When they fire their 0.50 cal HMG, MILF simply hide in the drainage canals. they have wait for 81mm mortar and 105mm fire and even air support just get within 200 to 300 meters distance. These crews need to have a indirect fire capability so they can use it anytime they need one. They dont have to wait for mortar battery or 105 battery for them to move. Fire support are delayed most of the time. These are frustrating for them . They have to wait before they can move forward to retrieve and rescue their wounded because of RPG-2 threat. According to them,they wait for 30 minutes to one hour the most before fire support comes. Troops speaks freely when no senior officers are around. They encourage me to post that idea. For they need it. These crews are senior NCO's with 20 yrs in field experience. They even lamented why Mk 19 was removed from simba. They even have idea how MK-19 can be installed back without exposing the gunner.

A year ago i post it  hoping AFP will catch this idea. The need for indirect fire is real and badly needed, be in the jungle, in the rice paddies, be it in the MOUT. the idea of firing a 60mm mortar inside the turret, protected from sniper fire, machine gun fire and far from rpg-2 range is a game changer for our troops.

From the perspective of ground troops , a quick indirect fire is life -saver and time -saver. for them it is personal when your buddy lying wounded but  you are constrained because of RPG-2 threats. Most them makes unnecessary risk just to rescue wounded troops. Sometimes they are lucky.

for size , if observed carefully, it wont occupy a 500mm wall vertical space and  300mm horizontal space on left side wall. 15 rounds can be stowed by 2 boxes.

one reality AFP is facing .
1] Accurate and sophisticated weapon system are expensive- JDAM or laser guided small diameter bomb are expensive and needs to invest more on our air force assets . This is okey if we have the budget of US air force and US army. A few 60mm mortar bombs cost less compared to one JDAM or SDB . 

2] active protection system is very expensive - even the US army and IDF needs more budget and more time to install these systems in their M1 abram and merkava tanks. As of per AFP needs, we dont need Trophy active protection system and even for near future . A simple 60mm mortar can fill our  current needs. It is good to have but it is very expensive.

3] Russian BMPT" terminator " is a good system but we cant buy these without facing sanctions by the US. Remember AFP backout in purchasing weapons system and helicopter platform from Russia because of these sanctions. Russian Chenchen campaigns was not a good one. Russian army suffers a lot of casualties and humiliations . Russian make a political compromise in Chencya by installing a leader that is acceptable on both parties which keeps the region " appease" or at least peaceful.

4] Turret Space is not a problem. Sabra turret is spacious enough for 60mm mortar. It is install at the left side wall and the 60mm bombs are small. 15 or 20 rounds wont eat a lot of space.

60mm mortar is very cheap but effective weapon system compared to trophy active protection system and to JDAm or SDB or Excalibur 155mm rounds and other very accurate and sophisticated systems.

The light tanks are supposed to provide direct fire support when lighter weapons (whether man-portable or vehicle-borne) like the RPG-7, M67 recoilless rifle, M242 Bushmaster or the 76mm cannon aren't enough.

The infantry already have mortars of various calibers if they need to hit a target that warrants indirect fire. Not to mention the Mechanized Infantry's new mortar carriers which can carry either 81mm or 120mm mortars.

An additional turret mortar would be largely superfluous for these vehicles' intended role. There are already other assets that could to the same job.

In addition we are talking about mechanized infantry assets. The armored vehicles do not go in alone. They have accompanying infantry assets and other supporting forces to help them. Direct fire support assets have a specific job within the combined arms doctrine, as do others. If there is a need for indirect fire support, then they can call indirect fire support (that's one of the benefits of the new communications and battle management suites that the Philippine Army has been acquiring from Elbit). As it is, having to carry around more ammunition for another onboard weapons system could detract from the main purpose of the asset.

Lastly, equipment acquisitions should be dependent on needs. The Marawi siege highlighted the need for more powerful mobile direct fire support assets. If the Army ever needs any of its direct fire support vehicles to have mortars, then they would ask for mortars. As it is, they are incorporating them as separate, dedicated assets.

IDF have a lot of experience in MOUT compared to us. They installed 60mm in merkava mark 1 up to mark 4. They knew the value of a 60mm mortar as a complement to the main gun and HMG. They have 81mm/120mm mortar/155mm howitzer batteries mounted in M109 and superior air support  available at their disposal. Merkava tank crew can call anytime for fire support from these artillery teams . They have more advance battlefield communication and real-time information sharing within their combat teams . Why they retain the 60mm mortar despite the availability of 81mm/120mm and 155 howitzer ? merkava tank dont operate alone but fight as a combine team.
This video :

confirms the usefulness of 60mm mortar .  Imagine in this video, the point of impact of mortar bomb is a fox hole occupied by enemy anti-tank team waiting for merkava tank to expose itself for a clear shot. The tank commander expressed his satisfaction when his crew hit the desired mark . This video was taken in IDF live fire exercise. If IDF didnt find 60mm mortar useful , why they toke time to train their tank crews in firing this mortar? The tank crew did not  have to bother calling their 120mm mortar battery to pound one foxhole when it can be done by firing their 60mm mortar.

 It takes time to call to mortar battery team , then time for approval of battalion commander and time to redirect the mortar battery ,then more time to prepare the right mortar bombs and calculate the right charge until the first bomb drops to the desired target plus more adjustment until fire for effect order is given.  We can say five to ten minutes at the best , but probably wait for 20 minutes if the mortar battery is still busy in engaging a more priority target. The worst one hour wait ,probably of other factors beyond control of mortar battery. Let us add pressure to the tank commander ,he is tasked by the battalion commander to arrive in designated area within 10 minutes but cannot go forward because a well entrenched anti tank team waiting at the corner. Tank commander will have to risk exposing his tank to fire direct tank rounds hoping to eliminate it. The enemy anti-tank team now have the chance to fire RPG-29 when the tank is now exposed. This scenario is plausible in MOUT. If the tank have a 60mm mortar , it can destroy the well entrenched anti tank team  without exposing itself ,then it can proceed to its designated area on time.
AFP should learn more from IDF on how they used their merkava and namer  in MOUT and what are the valuable lessons of using 60mm mortar(mounted in merkava tank)in MOUT scenario.


The mortar carrier is already ongoing with Elbit systems using m113 and 120mm mortars. Mortar carrier is a separate project from the light tank.

The Israeli doctrine and concept of installing 60mm mortar on merkava tanks and namer IFV is to provide indirect fire capability against enemy troops directly engaging their armored vehicles. Hidden enemy troops with PRG-7 or RPG-29 can kill tanks or IFV if not eliminated immediately. 60 mm mortar is tank integral weapon used primarily to target entrenched anti-tank teams , to lobbed smoke bombs to cover infantry advance and to provide point indirect fire support for its dismounted troops in MOUT scenario.
Using tank 105/120 mm main gun to destroy enemy troops behind a building is waste of ammo and destroys the whole building block before it can even hit the enemy troops . Merkava tanks use 60mm mortar to lobbed bombs on hezbollah anti-tank teams hiding behind walls and buildings and crouching in trenches. It was very effective in 2006 lebanon war , in 2014 gaza, 2004 hebron and rafah . IDF installed 60mm mortar for its effectiveness in MOUT operations which are very similar in marawi and zamboanga siege.  60mm mortar is just another tool similar to 105/120mm main gun for different type of target. it complements tank main gun and HMG in MOUT . AFP purchase Sabra tank for MOUT purpose . Indirect fire capability is an extra edge for Sabra Tank.

The doctrine of 81/120mm mortar in M113 vehicle is of different level , intensity and different purpose.  Its an artillery battery with armored protection and all terrain mobility. Its main purpose is to provide artillery support for mechanized and infantry operations.

The 60mm mortar in Sabra tank cannot eliminate , nor surpass nor overlapped the artillery role of 81mm/120mm mortar in M113. Th 60mm mortar in Sabra will complement  the direct fire capability of 105mm main gun but it will not surpass the role of tank's main gun.

in short ,it is another useful weapon with different use in Sabra's whole array of weapons and capabilities.
Just like a wine bottle cork puller in a Swiss knife . Odd but useful.


indirect fire capability ( 60mm mortar) is already a proven weapon system installed in merkava tanks and namer IFV. In MOUT scenario, 60mm mortar is indispensable and effective to target enemy combatants hiding behind, walls, behind buildings, hiding inside trenches, firing in reverse slopes and firing on top of buildings or structures. During Marawi siege, 60mm and 81mm mortars were used to hit targets hiding behind walls and buildings. Indirect fire capability (60mm mortar)is an effective weapon for phil. army Sabra light tank.

These are the links as references.

I hope AFP weapons technical committee or its equivalent will consider this additional weapon for new Sabra light tank purchase.


Is our govt(RP) have a clear plan to increase our defense spending up to 2.5 percent of our GDP?

In NATO, each member nation are obligated to increase their defense spending to 2.5 percent of their GDP so it can make a significant contribution in their common defense commitments.  In our country , as of 2019, we have a GDP worth of 376.8 billion US dollars . if we use this as basis, AFP must have a defense budget within 471 billion pesos for 2020. But for 2020, AFP got a budget for 258 billion pesos for 2020. The difference between 471 billion pesos to 258 billion is  huge. The national security threats we are facing dont match with the budget our govt are allocation for our national defense needs. Our neighbors have better national defense allocations compared to us  despite the greater threats we are facing. Vietnam in 2019, have a GDP of 261.92 billion US dollars and have a defense budget of 5.451 billion US dollars ,that is roughly 2.08 percent of their GDP. Yet they dont have internal insurgency problem compared to us.

Why our govt dont spend enough for our national defense needs despite the threats we are facing. Did  AFP leadership had done enough to explain our predicament ? or congress doesnt understand enough the threat we are facing. Do we need a shooting incident to emphasize that need? Im frustrated the way our govt is prioritizing our national defense needs. We are spending to degrade our national security capability. If the govt is really serious for our national defense, then increase the budget to 2 percent of GDP.

General Discussion / Re: Multi-Purpose Assault Craft Mk.IV
« on: July 28, 2020, 11:56:30 AM »
Is the PN planning to provide linkup between newly acquired hermes and missile armed MPAC and to C4I in near future?  Hermes can vector MPAC to intercept any intruder or threat as it patrols its AOR.


" Chinese communist predatory behavior long predates 2016, but in retrospect, Beijing's appalling reaction to the ruling clearly demonstrated the CCP could not be trusted to abide by even the most meticulously negotiated treaty. The CCP's June 2020 decision to break the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 and impose its authoritarian laws on Hong Kong reinforced the ugly lesson that treaties with communist China do not protect smaller nations and territories from Chinese theft and absorption.

Reneging on treaties, spurning just verdicts and, of course, seizing territory without suffering severe consequences tells China's leaders that its opponents are weak and lack the will to resist. Undermining, co-opting and ultimately dominating global diplomatic and economic institutions; public and private organizations; and methods of interaction is another CCP goal. Revealing weakness forwards this line of operation.

For decades, the U.S. Navy has conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS). During a FONOP, a Navy vessel enters contested waters and demonstrates American opposition to maritime territorial claims that intrude on international shipping lanes. In 2015, the U.S. began regular FONOPS specifically challenging China's spurious claims in the South China Sea.

In 2016, the U.S. limited its response to China's rejection of the tribunal ruling. Washington strongly criticized China's mistreatment of the Philippines, encouraged diplomatic and defense cooperation among southeast Asian nations, and continued the FONOPS, but it avoided a direct, "great power" diplomatic confrontation with Beijing.

The Hong Kong invasion, China's cyber hacking, China's pervasive espionage operations and its duplicity regarding the COVID-19/Wuhan virus pandemic have finally convinced senior American leaders that a CCP-led China only respects power, and only greater power can deter its ambitions.

On July 13, 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a "strengthened" U.S. policy in the South China Sea that specifically aligns American policy with the tribunal's decision. "Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them," Pompeo said. "(W)e seek to preserve peace and stability, uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce, and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes."

Calling CCP-led China an unprecedented threat, he succinctly described Beijing's theft and extortion racket. "Beijing uses intimidation to undermine the sovereign rights of Southeast Asian coastal states in the South China Sea, bully them out of offshore resources, assert unilateral dominion, and replace international law with 'might makes right.'"

Pompeo backed his statement with a promise: "America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law."

Protection: Since China ignores treaties, protecting means employing American military might."

I think this problem arises from the design of the sight of the mortar. the sight of M6-210 model is installed at the bottom to facilitate prone position . This can be disorienting if you fire from kneeling position. Compared to Denel M4 60mm mortar and Antos 60 mm mortar where the sight is installed with natural line of sight .

the sight system of Denel M4 model and Antos are shown here. The sight is installed at the top end of the tube.

These sight design differs from hirtenberger M6-210 sight design . The level bubble installed at the bottom or base of the tube has slight inaccuracy issue unlike to the sight level bubble installed at the top end of the tube. The sensitivity of level bubble on the top end is greater compared to bottom installed.

This is just my observation.

this is the british army views in deploying platoon based hand fired or commando mortar. It states here contradicting views . the first statement says that first shot missed the target and requires second round to hit the target and plan to replace it  with carl gustav and multi-shot grenade launcher. But in the second statement that mortar and sharpshooter rifle are the professional killer of its weapon in platoon level. This is the link.

This is just my observation. Carl Gustav 84mm RR and M6-210 60mm mortar are two different weapon system that has two differing role ,capability and limitation.  RR is a direct -fire ,line of sight and flat trajectory weapon platform. The M6-210 mortar is indirect -arch trajectory weapon platform.

the PN recruitment team , IMHO will establish a recruitment extension office in technical and engineering schools from region 1 to region 13. They conduct aggressive recruitment promotion in every school to inspire our youth  to join PN. Here in davao city, they can promote in University of Mindanao ,University of South eastern Phils, Ateneo de Davao University, Mindanao Aeronautical Technical School, TESDA,Malayan University and other schools that offers technical and engineering courses. This way, there will be a steady flow of quality graduates willing to join the PN. I had seen some posters on the bulletin boards but i seldom heard any visiting PN personnel actively promoting in the campuses. I think PN should intensify their efforts.

for the milkor m32 cost is based on this link. the price here is outlandish for a military gear offered to civilian market. In reality this tag price here must be lower in G2G agreement due to qty and service parts and other factors. just a reference for discussion i post it here

For the commando mortar both 51mm to 60mm calibers. The prices shown was already outdated since this pdf  file published more than 10 years ago. Unfortunately the link for this pdf file was no longer traceable. So i just took a screen shot on each page and posted here for discussion reference only. I agree there are so many factors will affect the purchase price. For the sake of comparison , the milkor m32 grenade launcher is more expensive compared to 60mm commando mortar  for its simplicity and cheaper manufacturing cost.

Argentine Army 60mm commando mortar

Hirtenberger 60mm commando mortar

British 60mm commando mortar

British 51mm commando mortar

Czech 60mm commando mortar

French 51mm commando mortar

Chilean Army 60mm commando mortar

Indian Army commando mortar

Iranian 60mm commando mortar

Israeli 52mm commando mortar

South African -DENEL 60mm commando mortar

Israel Soltham 60mm commando mortar

Singaporean Army 60mm commando mortar

Ammo price comparison for 37mm to 52mm

Swiss 60mm commando mortar

US 60mm mortar

ammo price comparison for 60mm

In these images , shows only the commando mortar types and its ammo. the cheapest here are the israeli soltham commando 60mm mortar models both drop-fired and trigger-fired. the most expensive is the m224 US mortar. This mortar is more expensive compared to others because of manufacturing process and its designed to withstand 4 to 6 charges and sustained fire operations. The Antos and hirtenberger are design not to take more than 2 charges and using aluminum and light materials . it is strictly for platoon fire support only.

note. kindly save the images if you find it useful. i only choose limited use in imageshack. If someone want to avail the pdf file please pm me. I will share the pdf file . thanks

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4