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 - mamiyapis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
I've heard an interesting bit of information regarding the AH saga for both services: it seems the PA and PAF are not only on talking terms, but are likely to come to an agreement with regards to the platform to be purchased.

This would not only be a huge boon for service interoperability and long-term maintenance, but also ensure the AFP has a larger stock of attack helos than either of the services could ever hope to buy alone.

Agreed. The ships as they are might not look like much, but the hull is sound and can be modified later to suit our needs and once money(and better leadership) becomes available.

The CMS can be removed and replaced contrary to what both sides of this issue say, the weapons can be upgraded and/or replaced with more capable versions, and the sensors can be made better with some work to the boat.

Let the ships stand as a permanent reminder of what happens when personal interests are allowed to overtake the needs of the service. Maybe when the CAP comes into play, the Navy can take a look at the Jose Rizal class Flight I or whatever you want to call them... and be reminded not to allow anyone to mess with their ships, regardless of who is pushing.

Posting a small squadron of Navy and PCG ships should be enough. The distances involved are barely 40km and will be easy for any ship to patrol and monitor.

Kinetic options can be anything from guided artillery shells to lightweight AShMs like the Marte ER coastal defense battery, which has an indicated range of 30-100km.

The answer to launch and boost phase detection of ballistic missile detection is a pretty complicated one. In the US' case, it involves several overlapping radar and satellite detection systems that have been in place since the 1970s and even as far back as the late 60s for some(although those have already been replaced, same for the 70s and 80s deployed equipment).

US BMD detection uses the following systems for early warning and detection:

1. OTH radars - these are huge radars that use T/R antenna fields measuring in the acres/hectares. They employ atmospheric bounce and very high compute power to pull data from an otherwise highly cluttered radar picture caused by atmospheric interference. These are very exotic and are unlikely to be sold even to close allies. Australia developed their own OTH radar with some US assistance and they have one of the most recent OTH systems in the Western world.

2. Satellite Detection - another system in place since the Cold War are the satellite detection systems that have been continuously launched and replaced since the said era. These are what constitute the true "Launch Phase" detection of the BMEWS /PAVE PAWS/SSPARS early warning and detection system of the US... well this and their AEWACS aircraft which are constantly patrolling near Russian and other airspace for detection of ballistic missile threats. But safe to say the satellites are the most definitive detection system in play, with geosynchronous and geostationary orbits, they use various sensors(optical, IR, hyperspectral, radar, etc) to stare at launch sites and potential mobile launchers to "see" if the potential enemy is gearing up for launch.

3. Surface-based Radar Stations - while these are indeed capable of detecting ballistic missile launches, the job of radars like SSPARS is to see missiles in Late/Ascent/Post-Boost Phase should the other sensors miss them. Using huge land-based solid state phased array radars constantly being updated since the 60s, and housed in geographically advantageous sites around the world(Greenland, the UK, Alaska and the Aleutians, as well as several in the continental US). Notice I said surface-based rather than land-based? This is because the US Navy also employs forward deployed floating X-band radar bases as well as coverage from their AEGIS destroyers, C2 ships, as well as their aircraft-based detection systems. However the Navy detection systems come into play more in the Ascent/Post-Boost and Midcourse Phases of a ballistic missile launch. This is why BMD missiles employed by AEGIS systems often intercept at very high altitudes of the ASCENT phase and only work if early detection at launch or boost was achieved.

4. Airborne Early Warning Systems - again the US has multiple systems in play for this to happen, namely AEW&C aircraft like the E-3 Sentry and E-2 Hawleye, as well as HALE drones like GlobalHawk. These aircraft however need to be flying at the right altitude and right times to be able to detect a boost-phase launch. They still rely in early satellite detection of launch prep to be able to get up and the air and begin monitoring possible launch attempts.

So... if the Philippines really wanted BM detection, it would very quickly become either an expensive exercise where we buy/develop tracking satellites, OTH, and very powerful SSPARS radars to cover missile threats or one wherein we allow/ask Uncle Sam to establish a specific SSPARS/UEWS radar site in the country in exchange for the ability to detect early those said launches.

General Discussion / Re: C130 4726 burning at Clark
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:44:38 AM »
Where the hell is CIA's firefighting trucks then? The airforce and the airport share the same runway and tray. The trucks could easily make their way to the C130

Interesting... if the measuring tool is accurate, then it means the information about it being shrunk was wrong.

If that was wrong, then what else has been shared that is inaccurate?

General Discussion / Re: Facebook and Instagram are down
« on: March 15, 2019, 12:39:57 AM »
Did not notice as I rely on the app almost 95% of the time to access FB.

General Discussion / Re: Food-for-thought: Gripen vs Viper
« on: October 22, 2018, 09:06:17 PM »
True, but I would still go for the Gripen and ask the Swedes for a local MRO facility, especially given the PAF has just launched their ILS program, giving hope that the end to piecemeal acquisitions of spares and logistics has finally come to an end.

General Discussion / Re: C-130T Nr 5011
« on: October 14, 2018, 07:53:47 PM »
There is the possibility the USAF is supporting the upgrades through JUSMAG. The 8-blade propeller upgrades were done by the USAF themselves with a little support from Lockheed. It wouldn't be impossible to impart the knowledge if the replacement was a relatively straightforward affair.

Just 52 sets for the budget? What the hell, are they buying thermal-capable RDS?

Discussions about all nations and places / Re: Mikoyan MiG-29 (Fulcrum)
« on: September 16, 2018, 08:09:13 AM »
Recalling the time the Israelis were able to study and fly MiG-29s

IAF Magazine

The “Sting” has landed

In recent months, Russia negotiates the sales of MIG-29 fighter jets to Syria. This is a good time to recall that in 1997, under a heavy cloud of secrecy, three MIG-29 “Fulcrum” ("Sting" in Russian)) landed in Israel. For several weeks, Israeli test pilots learned the plane and its weapon systems inside and out, flown numerous hours, and tested the jet’s abilities when facing Israeli fighter jets

Noam Ofir | Udi Ezion | Nikolai Avrutov

“In terms of its abilities, the MIG-29 equals those of the F-15 and F-16 jets. In some respects it even surpasses the two”, said Major N, Chief Experimental Pilot of the MIG.
Three single seat MIG-29s stayed at one of the Israeli Air Force bases for a few weeks. The MIGs were secretly brought to Israel, and it was a rare opportunity for the air force to study up close what of the main interception jets used by Iran and Syria.

Who's to say that having a swarm of F/A-50s with some form of BVR and backed up by airborne radar platforms isn't the right way to go? :P Launch and land from a distance instead of trying to tangle with J-11s.  ;D

 ;D ;) :)

The point is, perhaps the PAF was realistic enough to understand that the old school way of just trying to reach the 'merge' so we can shoot down bad guys using superb training and skills to squeeze the last ounce of performance from our fighter aircraft is ultimately a losing strategy for an air force like ours.

And if that's the context, then I can certainly see why getting 2 Erieyes in the bargain is such an attractive proposition for the PAF, not to mention the possibility of also getting superb standoff weapons like the Meteor and the RBS15.  After all, the ability to engage hostile aircraft and vessels without exposing itself to counter-fire is probably 'sexier' in PAF's eyes than just the raw 'performance' represented by the Viper.

Of course, the US can always match whatever Saab is offering in terms of AWACS and standoff (i.e. BVRAAM, ASM) weaponry.  What I doubt is whether their offer can fit the PAF's approved budget.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

There is already a growing realization in the PAF that under current circumstances, there will never be enough
money to adequately fund a relatively large(lol) MRF force under any stretch of the imagination. It sounds a bit
wrong but the MRO side seems to have tipped things in favor of cost-effective defensive aircraft over outright
raw performance. This seems to be thanks to the introduction of the FA-50s into the system and exposing the
service of what it means to operate a modern jet force. It doesn't help any bidders for the program that the
Koreans, who in building their 80% F-16 basically pushed to the hilt, got 100% of the 80% they were gunning
to achieve... and basically built an over-achieving LCA. 

Besides, with the current state of the PAF's Air Defense network, if war were to break out rather soon... I think
we would probably be better served with 24-36 FA-50s just flying point defense inside PH airspace than a single
squadron of top-of-the-line F-16s trying their best to re-enact the Battle of Thermopylae.


Even 50/52 outmatches 39C/D, and therein may be one of the real tricks to keeping the 39's
on-paper sustainment costs low: actual combat capability can be correlated to TOW. 39C/D's
claimed DCPFH alone is astonishingly low, but is not quite so low for E/F (aka NG), yes?

As Saab made the 39 more and more capable, to match rival platforms (and more importantly,
potential-operators' NEEDS), the 39's weight increased generationally, and inevitably bloated
its DCPFH. If the 39 were to ever truly match Viper for capability, I suspect that the daylight
between the two platforms' opcosts would vanish, or that Viper might even come out costing
less, PFH.

The real question is whether there's enough capability daylight between FA-50PH and 39, to
justify the colossal cost of another combat jet logistical tail. IOW, if it's going to really hurt in
the nuts, no matter which MRF is selected, why not get the MRF that more substantially out-
performs the FA-50PH?

But there lies the rub... if the needs dictate we go with the sweet-spot solution and the PAF determined
that range... is it wrong to stick with that even if we know for a fact a different solution would bring us
better capability?

As for the lack of "daylight" between a putative 39 C/D and a 50, I offer a different argument for the
acquisition of the 39 as a weapons platform... why not use the 39s as a dedicated maritime strike or
anti-shipping platform? They have the necessary AAR/IFR capability the current crop of 50s lack. They
also bring the requisite sensor and payload capacity expected of a dedicated maritime strike platform.
They also bring a built-in capability in the RBS-15 missiles instead of having a missile system integrated
on whatever platform we own/buy(cause the Germans will never sell us the Taurus 350K2, Haesong air-
launched is also a long shot on any FA50s, and PDutz will never allow a Harpoon Block 2 integration to
happen... well, any for that matter).

I prefer to think of it this way... the FA50s would act as our Mirages(lol), while the JAS-39s act as our
pissed-off, Exocet-slinging Super Etendards(lolol).   

Flip it around: if Viper seems too much capability and cost (lol), and Gripen seems not enough
improvement over FA-50PH for its cost, then is it not an indication that FA-50PH actually hits
closest to a sweet-spot intersection of capability we actually need and cost we can afford

:o  ;)  ;D  :o  ;)  ;D

Yes, I'm trolling against my own preferences... but I'm trolling for a NEEDS-based discussion.

h... you don't know how close you are to the sweet spot ;D


And then there's this latest offer.
IMO, EDA Falcons --or even new-order Vipers-- are technically ALWAYS available. MNNA tayo.
They are technically ALWAYS on offer... but we still have to evidence a serious intent to
acquire, operate and sustain in a responsible manner. Balik an naman tayo sa 'maturity'.

That last thing aside, shit's ALWAYS on offer. All that really changes is the offer to finance.


However, Pakistan was a real buyer with real money, and had every right to voice concerns.
The Philippines seems more in the mode of demanding a triple discount on factory-overruns,
as well as a loan to pay the triple-discounted price, and still expecting full warranties and
VIP customer service, lol

As far as I understand, the funding for the MRF has actually been signed and is simply waiting for DBM(lol) to release funding.
I have a feeling this time, the money is actually there to buy what's needed... just needs the money to be released so that
the relevant agencies can do their thing.

If I heard correctly, the budget is around $2.1-2.0 billion @ P54-55 peg for the exchange rate?

Precondition?  ::)

Duterte on meeting US officials: Return Balangiga bells first

In a speech in Panacan, Davao Thursday night, Duterte said that before anything else, the United States should first return the Balangiga bells its soldiers took more than a century ago. “Kung hindi nila isauli ‘yang Balangiga bells, wala tayong pag-usapan (If they won’t return the Balangiga bells, then there’s nothing to talk about). I will not [talk to them],” Duterte said.

IF this is the precondition, then it has already been met... and means there is a chance the meeting is happening... and that Duterte actually already has made up his mind. Hopefully for the betterment of the PAF.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11