**********
 |
| Colombian Air Force Kfir C12 in flight. Photo courtesy of the dreamlandresort.com website |
The Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has been trying to sell their Kfirs to the Philippine Air Force since the 1990s, towards the end of President Cory Aquino's term and all throughout President Fidel Ramos' term when the Philippines bought a lot of military equipment, but to no avail.
As of this writing, President Noynoy Aquino had indicated that the procurement for the Korean Aerospace Industries' (KAI) FA-50 Golden Eagle (or Geagle) are in its final stages,[1] hence the chances of the Kfir ending up in our inventory is now even more slim. Just out of curiousity, though, I decided to compare the Kfir to the Geagle, see how it fares on a one on one comparison.
'Aircraft Background'
The Kfir is based on the Mirage III/5 delta-winged aircraft whose blueprints were stolen by the Mossad (as is now detailed in various spy books and articles[2]), and is described as an all-weather, Multi-Role Fighter aircraft. It first entered service in 1975 and saw extensive combat duty with the Israeli Air Force (IAF) before finally being retired by the IAF in 1996. Currently the air forces of Colombia, Equador and Sri Lanka are still operating the aircraft.[3]
All Kfirs being sold now are taken from the mothballed stocks of the IAF, but are refurbished and upgraded with advanced avionics. The latest version in the market is the "Block 60" armed with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, the EL/M-2052. IAI is selling this new version with a 40-year manufacturer's guarantee for the low price of only USD 20 million each, which would be cheaper than the FA-50 Golden Eagles.[4]
The FA-50 is made by the South Korea’s “Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI)”, and is a smaller, license-built version of the F-16 Fighter aircraft. It is intended as a Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) which can also be used as a Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) for more advanced aircraft, and will enter South Korean Air Force service starting 2014.[5]
The Kfir is based on the Mirage III/5 delta-winged aircraft whose blueprints were stolen by the Mossad (as is now detailed in various spy books and articles[2]), and is described as an all-weather, Multi-Role Fighter aircraft. It first entered service in 1975 and saw extensive combat duty with the Israeli Air Force (IAF) before finally being retired by the IAF in 1996. Currently the air forces of Colombia, Equador and Sri Lanka are still operating the aircraft.[3]
All Kfirs being sold now are taken from the mothballed stocks of the IAF, but are refurbished and upgraded with advanced avionics. The latest version in the market is the "Block 60" armed with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, the EL/M-2052. IAI is selling this new version with a 40-year manufacturer's guarantee for the low price of only USD 20 million each, which would be cheaper than the FA-50 Golden Eagles.[4]
The FA-50 is made by the South Korea’s “Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI)”, and is a smaller, license-built version of the F-16 Fighter aircraft. It is intended as a Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) which can also be used as a Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) for more advanced aircraft, and will enter South Korean Air Force service starting 2014.[5]
As of this time, the Philippine Air Force is (still) negotiating for the final procurement of the FA-50 into service. At an estimated price of USD 38 million per unit for the Philippine contract, the Geagle is more expensive than the Kfir.[1]
'Evaluation Notes'
For the “Maneuverability” and “Payload and Range” sections, the following considerations were made:
- Weights with 100% internal fuel was used to try to simulate the aircraft going into combat with full internal fuel after dropping their External Fuel Tanks.
- The weights of the armaments were not included as the RATIOS and DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BOTH AIRCRAFT will remain the same if they will be armed with the same type and same number of armaments.
- Fuel density of 0.81 kg/l was used to convert fuel capacity to kilograms
- Data for each aircraft was derived from various websites at [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].
‘Manueverability’
For both aircraft’s maneuvering capability, I am looking at their WING LOADING* and THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO.* I would’ve wanted to take a look at more aspects like Stalling Speed, Maximum Alpha, etc., but those data are hard to come by for both aircraft. Hence, these should suffice for now. Remember that a lower Wing Loading means the aircraft can turn tighter and vice-versa, and a higher Thrust-to-Weight Ratio means the aircraft can go faster going straight up or straight down and vice-versa.
'Evaluation Notes'
For the “Maneuverability” and “Payload and Range” sections, the following considerations were made:
- Weights with 100% internal fuel was used to try to simulate the aircraft going into combat with full internal fuel after dropping their External Fuel Tanks.
- The weights of the armaments were not included as the RATIOS and DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BOTH AIRCRAFT will remain the same if they will be armed with the same type and same number of armaments.
- Fuel density of 0.81 kg/l was used to convert fuel capacity to kilograms
- Data for each aircraft was derived from various websites at [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].
‘Manueverability’
For both aircraft’s maneuvering capability, I am looking at their WING LOADING* and THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO.* I would’ve wanted to take a look at more aspects like Stalling Speed, Maximum Alpha, etc., but those data are hard to come by for both aircraft. Hence, these should suffice for now. Remember that a lower Wing Loading means the aircraft can turn tighter and vice-versa, and a higher Thrust-to-Weight Ratio means the aircraft can go faster going straight up or straight down and vice-versa.
* SUMMARY
- WING LOADING: Favors the Kfir with a large 28% lower wing loading compared to the Geagle
- THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO: Slight 8% advantage for the Geagle in terms of TTWR
+++ Typical of true delta-wing designs based on Dassault's Mirages, the Kfir has a huge wing for its given size and weight, giving it a much lower wing loading and thus better turning radius in the horizontal plane. Overall maneuverability when you factor in the differences in wing loading and TTWR shows that the Kfir is the more maneuverable aircraft.
‘Payload and Range’
For Range, I am using INTERNAL FUEL FRACTION (INTFF)* as a rough indicator how far each aircraft can go based on the internal fuel available to them.
The Kfir's IntFF value was multiplied by 0.87 to reflect the estimated 13% more fuel consumption of its J79 Turbojet engines as compared to the FA-50's more efficient F404 Turbofan engines. For more explanation of this, refer to a special section at the bottom page**
- WING LOADING: Favors the Kfir with a large 28% lower wing loading compared to the Geagle
- THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO: Slight 8% advantage for the Geagle in terms of TTWR
+++ Typical of true delta-wing designs based on Dassault's Mirages, the Kfir has a huge wing for its given size and weight, giving it a much lower wing loading and thus better turning radius in the horizontal plane. Overall maneuverability when you factor in the differences in wing loading and TTWR shows that the Kfir is the more maneuverable aircraft.
‘Payload and Range’
For Range, I am using INTERNAL FUEL FRACTION (INTFF)* as a rough indicator how far each aircraft can go based on the internal fuel available to them.
The Kfir's IntFF value was multiplied by 0.87 to reflect the estimated 13% more fuel consumption of its J79 Turbojet engines as compared to the FA-50's more efficient F404 Turbofan engines. For more explanation of this, refer to a special section at the bottom page**
 |
| The KAI FA-50 Golden Eagle. Photo courtesy of the Chosun Ilbo website |
* SUMMARY
- INTFF: Favors the Geagle indicating it will travel 26% farther on its own internal fuel than the Kfir
- PAYLOAD: Favors the Kfir as it can carry 79% (2,908 kg) more load than the Geagle
+++ Here again the Kfir benefits from its large delta wing, enabling it to carry much more load than the Geagle, although it can only do so at a much shorter range by virtue of its lower INTFF and less efficient Turbojet engine.
‘Air Combat-related Avionics and Weapons’
Here I am comparing the capability of both aircrafts in terms of Within Visual Range (WVR) and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air combat thru their Avionics and Weapons available to them. Just some notes, though:
- The Geagle’s Radar Cross-Section (RCS) is only ASSUMED to be 80% that of the F-16 as no reliable data is available for it, and that the Geagle is about 80% the size of the F-16.
- RCS data are for “clean” aircraft, with no armaments or fuel tanks
- No solid references for the RCS and detection ranges for the Kfir B60. RCS is taken from an obscure internet reference, while detection range is just estimated to be 25% higher than the detection range of the EL/M-2032 radar.
- Other data were taken from this website:[10] [11]
* SUMMARY
- WVR COMBAT: The Geagle is at an extreme disadvantage as it does not have the default mandatory avionics nowadays to be competitive in close-range air combat like a Helmet Mounted Sight and High Off-Boresight missiles
- BVR COMBAT: Favors the Kfir as the Geagle does not have the capability to use medium range air to air missiles yet. Radar detection range is pretty much even, though, not that it will help the Geagle much without those BVR missiles.
+++ The Geagle has a smaller RCS but has a less powerful radar, while the Kfir has a slightly more powerful radar but a bigger RCS also. Although the Kfir's RCS and radar detection range data are just speculative, I think a fair assessment is that it can at least match the Geagle in terms of detection range. I suspect that the Kfir's EL/M-2052 AESA radar has much better actual performance that stated above, but unless better data becomes available then we will just have to live with these numbers for now.
'Maintenance Issue'
The data so far shows that the Kfir Block 60 is the more capable aircraft overall. In the end, though, the reason for not getting the Kfir may not be based on its capability and performance, but more on our ability to maintain them. Even if these aircraft are refurbished, they still will not be as durable as brand new aircraft and hence will require more replacement of parts. And therein lies the problem because our process for releasing funds for procurement tend to be VERY SLOW.
Funds need to be released on time and frequently because if not, the aircraft are grounded until they can be fixed, resulting in less units in service for the PhAF. We've already seen this happen to so many of our aircraft: Three dozen F-5A/B Freedom Fighters bought since 1965, and all were retired by 2005 while over a dozen air forces around the world are still keeping their F-5s in the air all the way to 2020. Another example are the 25 S-211s bought in 1989 of which now only three are in flyable condition.
The same thing will happen with these FA-50s: We will be able to use them while they are new, but after 1 or 1 1/2 decades when they start breaking down we will end up having less and less flyable aircraft in our inventory, just as it had been before, and then we will again start to look to buy brand new aircraft.
The Philippines is in a unique situation where we want brand new equipment since they are easier to maintain, and yet many such equipments are beyond our budget. We can afford second-hand, refurbished equipment, but for aircraft we cannot afford its more frequent maintenance requirements. Hence we end up making a compromise of buying brand new but less capable aircraft.
'Parting Shot'
The Kfir Block 60 is superior to the Geagle in almost every way, whether it is maneuverability, payload, range, avionics and weapons. The Kfir's only major deficiency is its expected shorter range due to its use of an older turbojet engine instead of a newer and more efficient turbofan engine. As for the Geagle, contrary to KAI's claims I don't think it can be considered as an LCA due to its deficiencies, not in this day and age, anyway.
In fact, the way things look now is that the Geagle would best serve as a Intermediate or Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) FOR aircraft like the Kfir. Hence ideally, we could get the Geagle as a LIFT, and then have the Kfir Block 60 as our main combat aircraft.
However, unless our ability to release money for the procurement of items on a regular basis improves, I don't think we will be able to afford refurbished aircraft like the Kfir in our inventory as aircraft in general need more STRINGENT maintenance requirements than most military equipment. If an aircraft fails, it won't fly, or worse it will fly and then fail in the air, possibly causing death and destruction. But if we can get around that problem, then the Kfir would be a good, decent, and passable choice for the Philippine Air Force (PhAF) as its main Combat Aircraft.
- WVR COMBAT: The Geagle is at an extreme disadvantage as it does not have the default mandatory avionics nowadays to be competitive in close-range air combat like a Helmet Mounted Sight and High Off-Boresight missiles
- BVR COMBAT: Favors the Kfir as the Geagle does not have the capability to use medium range air to air missiles yet. Radar detection range is pretty much even, though, not that it will help the Geagle much without those BVR missiles.
+++ The Geagle has a smaller RCS but has a less powerful radar, while the Kfir has a slightly more powerful radar but a bigger RCS also. Although the Kfir's RCS and radar detection range data are just speculative, I think a fair assessment is that it can at least match the Geagle in terms of detection range. I suspect that the Kfir's EL/M-2052 AESA radar has much better actual performance that stated above, but unless better data becomes available then we will just have to live with these numbers for now.
'Maintenance Issue'
The data so far shows that the Kfir Block 60 is the more capable aircraft overall. In the end, though, the reason for not getting the Kfir may not be based on its capability and performance, but more on our ability to maintain them. Even if these aircraft are refurbished, they still will not be as durable as brand new aircraft and hence will require more replacement of parts. And therein lies the problem because our process for releasing funds for procurement tend to be VERY SLOW.
Funds need to be released on time and frequently because if not, the aircraft are grounded until they can be fixed, resulting in less units in service for the PhAF. We've already seen this happen to so many of our aircraft: Three dozen F-5A/B Freedom Fighters bought since 1965, and all were retired by 2005 while over a dozen air forces around the world are still keeping their F-5s in the air all the way to 2020. Another example are the 25 S-211s bought in 1989 of which now only three are in flyable condition.
The same thing will happen with these FA-50s: We will be able to use them while they are new, but after 1 or 1 1/2 decades when they start breaking down we will end up having less and less flyable aircraft in our inventory, just as it had been before, and then we will again start to look to buy brand new aircraft.
The Philippines is in a unique situation where we want brand new equipment since they are easier to maintain, and yet many such equipments are beyond our budget. We can afford second-hand, refurbished equipment, but for aircraft we cannot afford its more frequent maintenance requirements. Hence we end up making a compromise of buying brand new but less capable aircraft.
'Parting Shot'
The Kfir Block 60 is superior to the Geagle in almost every way, whether it is maneuverability, payload, range, avionics and weapons. The Kfir's only major deficiency is its expected shorter range due to its use of an older turbojet engine instead of a newer and more efficient turbofan engine. As for the Geagle, contrary to KAI's claims I don't think it can be considered as an LCA due to its deficiencies, not in this day and age, anyway.
In fact, the way things look now is that the Geagle would best serve as a Intermediate or Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) FOR aircraft like the Kfir. Hence ideally, we could get the Geagle as a LIFT, and then have the Kfir Block 60 as our main combat aircraft.
However, unless our ability to release money for the procurement of items on a regular basis improves, I don't think we will be able to afford refurbished aircraft like the Kfir in our inventory as aircraft in general need more STRINGENT maintenance requirements than most military equipment. If an aircraft fails, it won't fly, or worse it will fly and then fail in the air, possibly causing death and destruction. But if we can get around that problem, then the Kfir would be a good, decent, and passable choice for the Philippine Air Force (PhAF) as its main Combat Aircraft.
 |
| Colombian Air Force Kfir. Photo courtesy of The Aviationist website |
SOURCES:
[1] PH buying SK fighter jets,
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/88187/aquino-ph-close-to-finalizing-deal-on-purchase-of-korean-fighter-jets
[2] The 'Paper Planes' Caper,
[2] The 'Paper Planes' Caper,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19781022&id=nVcdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qlkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4758,3332381
[3] IAI Kfir,
[3] IAI Kfir,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Kfir
[4] Israel Aerospace Industries Marketing ‘Pre-Owned’ Kfir Fighter Jets to Eastern Europe, Latin America,
[4] Israel Aerospace Industries Marketing ‘Pre-Owned’ Kfir Fighter Jets to Eastern Europe, Latin America,
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/08/07/israel-aerospace-industries-marketing-pre-owned-kfir-fighter-jets-to-eastern-europe-latin-america/
[5] FA-50 Specifications and Features,
[5] FA-50 Specifications and Features,
http://www.koreaaero.com/english/product/fixedwing_t-50.asp
[6] Army and Weapons - Deadly KAI T-50 Golden Eagle,
[6] Army and Weapons - Deadly KAI T-50 Golden Eagle,
http://deadlyweapons-army.blogspot.com/2011/11/deadly-kai-t-50-golden-eagle.html
[7] KAI FA-50,
[7] KAI FA-50,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXauYBgqnHw
[8] Kfir,
[8] Kfir,
http://mil.aviations.tripod.com/asia/israel/kfir/info.html
[9] F-21 Kfir, IAI,
[9] F-21 Kfir, IAI,
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/kfir.htm
[10] Fighter Mig-21 Fishbed,
[10] Fighter Mig-21 Fishbed,
http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/mig21.htm
[11] KAI contracts for serial production of the FA-50,
[11] KAI contracts for serial production of the FA-50,
http://www.koreaaero.com/english/pr_center/cpr_view.asp?pg=1&seq=25400&bbs=10
* GLOSSARY
--> WING LOADING = is the amount of weight the wing supports during flight, and is expressed in weight per area, or in the metric system, kg/m^2. This is computed by: (Wing Area divided by Weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
--> THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO = means how much power the aircraft has compared to its weight, and is expressed by a simple number. This is computed by: (The maximum thrust of the aircraft’s engine divided by weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_to_weight_ratio
--> INTERNAL FUEL FRACTION = is the weight of the internal fuel the aircraft compared to its maximum take-off weight, and is expressed by a simple number. Formula used is: (Maximum internal fuel capacity divided by maximum take off weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fraction
** The F404 engine was developed from the J79 engine. They have the same thrust rating and specific fuel consumption, but the F404 Turbofan engine is 1,470 lbs. lighter than the J79 Turbojet engine, hence the F404 is more efficient as it will need less thrust for the same amount of weight to fly in the air. To reflect this efficiency, the weight savings is divided by the dry thrust or non-afterburning thrust rating (10,900 lbs) of the engine as the aircraft operates most of the time in dry thrust. Values were taken from the book, "An Introduction to Aircraft Performance by Mario Asselin p. 51", http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=kaqvC4e_EKcC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=f404+compared+to+j79&source=bl&ots=BJI4siX03v&sig=Xj2mtSqwqJFCDEZQUIXxVvf9UCU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=km1iUoG-H-6eiAfHnYHoDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=f404%20compared%20to%20j79&f=false
**********
Revision History:
* October 24, 2013: Originally posted
* November 9, 2013: Changed references and data for the FA-50 Golden Eagle as better data from the manufacturer has finally become available. Also revised some data and references for the Kfir. Some computations based on these data has also changed.
* December 4, 2013: Revised data for Avionics and weapons for the Geagle as a more accurate reference was found.
**********
* GLOSSARY
--> WING LOADING = is the amount of weight the wing supports during flight, and is expressed in weight per area, or in the metric system, kg/m^2. This is computed by: (Wing Area divided by Weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
--> THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO = means how much power the aircraft has compared to its weight, and is expressed by a simple number. This is computed by: (The maximum thrust of the aircraft’s engine divided by weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_to_weight_ratio
--> INTERNAL FUEL FRACTION = is the weight of the internal fuel the aircraft compared to its maximum take-off weight, and is expressed by a simple number. Formula used is: (Maximum internal fuel capacity divided by maximum take off weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fraction
** The F404 engine was developed from the J79 engine. They have the same thrust rating and specific fuel consumption, but the F404 Turbofan engine is 1,470 lbs. lighter than the J79 Turbojet engine, hence the F404 is more efficient as it will need less thrust for the same amount of weight to fly in the air. To reflect this efficiency, the weight savings is divided by the dry thrust or non-afterburning thrust rating (10,900 lbs) of the engine as the aircraft operates most of the time in dry thrust. Values were taken from the book, "An Introduction to Aircraft Performance by Mario Asselin p. 51", http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=kaqvC4e_EKcC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=f404+compared+to+j79&source=bl&ots=BJI4siX03v&sig=Xj2mtSqwqJFCDEZQUIXxVvf9UCU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=km1iUoG-H-6eiAfHnYHoDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=f404%20compared%20to%20j79&f=false
**********
Revision History:
* October 24, 2013: Originally posted
* November 9, 2013: Changed references and data for the FA-50 Golden Eagle as better data from the manufacturer has finally become available. Also revised some data and references for the Kfir. Some computations based on these data has also changed.
* December 4, 2013: Revised data for Avionics and weapons for the Geagle as a more accurate reference was found.
**********
the kfir (derive from mirage 5) was made due to france arm embargo against israel in 1967. the only hitch here that israel can only sale the kfirs to other countries upon prior approval of the U.S. since kfirs installed the engine of f-4 phantom the j-79.
ReplyDeletewhen at the time the kfirs was offered to us, the only payment is the supply of carrageenan to israel and there was no U.S. restrictions at that time. simultaneously, we have also an offer of 24 pakistan embargoed f-16s i think it was priced at $12m but all of these offers were not materialized. at that time is almost a bargain offer, and other countries capitalized on these offers but we dont know why we dont take advantage on it when it was offered to us first. these was offered to us in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
We just can't seem to afford to use refurbished aircrafts. If we buy brand new naman, we can't afford it also because it is too expensive ... LOL.
ReplyDeletewell it depends...the f-8 and f-5s although second hand aircrafts were able to stay a lot of years in our bases. a second hand f-16s i think is not that expensive. thailand, indonesia, pakistan, poland and even united states (bought some of the 24 pakistan embargoed f-16s for aggressor) buy second hand f-16s. now bulgaria, romania and iraq are also buying second hand but all have options to upgrade.
ReplyDelete26 countries have f-16s and more than 4,600 are still flying. block 50s and 60s extended the life of the f-16s up to 2025.
we can afford to buy brand new aircrafts. if bangladesh and sri lanka were able to buy brand new aircrafts and equipments why the philippines cant buy.
were able to extend billion of dollars financial assistance to europe. we can afford to loss billion of dollars in corruption in a year. the 10 billion pesos pdaf (pork barrel) scandal alone, we can buy at least 9 f/a 50 from south korea in 1 year or 27 jets in 3 years for $30m per jet. if it is a block 50 $60m per jet estimate again the 10 billion pesos of pork barrel scandal we could have at least 12 f-16s block 50 in 3 years. but we could have wasted an estimate of 60 billion to 100 billions in corruption per year.
we are a rich country my friend.
Well the money is there, but its a question of priorities. Every centavo you allocate for military equipment means less allocation of other equally important items like Education, Housing, Infrastructure, etc. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have better military equipment than ours, but that is because they put priority on their military rather than Infrastructure, etc. Which is why Filipinos still generally have much better quality of lives than those two countries because we prioritize the other stuff more.
ReplyDeleteA 3-D printer is cheap nowadays. If we need parts. We can make them.
ReplyDeleteDreaming aside,buy 18 Kfirs which is equivalent to the dozen of those FA-50's and also arm them properly with those lovely 250km Delilah's, Derby's or some of Israeli's 100km spice glide bombs.
Within 12 months you've got yourself AESA/BVR capable interceptors and potent surface attack aircrafts.
Would that bring China to the negotiating table? No, but it might bring the US to watch them carefully because now the US will be worried that it may bring them to a confrontation with the Chinese knowing that we have the capability to inflict damage if the Chinese tries to bully us. In other words, they will be ward them off before we ward them off. It is about control and the US is not about to give us toys to fight. Kind of weird but the Americans have been toying with us for the longest time and it's time for us to rise up and stand on our feet. Let us control the situation. Arm ourselves properly.
3D Printers are nice, but the current mass produced models can only handle softer types of plastic, while the high end ones are pretty expensive and more or less still in the experimental stage. Maybe another decade or so of development before we can actually have 3D Printers that can produce durable, high quality aircraft parts ...
ReplyDeletethis is about political well...if govt will just decide on the necessary priorities, then we will have a balance of our resources..in the 60s and 70s the philippines is second to japan in economy..at that time indonesia, malaysia, thailand and singapore cannot be compared with our economy ...but we have prioritize our security, by giving the biggest budget in our military thereby protecting our vital resources..our navy was just so modern at that time when we can hurl our cannons to any intruders in the south or west philippine sea. no one can just intrude our airspace without being scrambled by our fighters. at that time we have more than 40 f-8 and f-5s.
ReplyDeletenow, these countries indonesia, malaysia, thailand and singapore poured so much on their budgets in their military and having a strong deterrent, their economy overtake us. look at us now...no real external defense we are bullied by china..but can china do it with malaysia or singapore.
The money to be used are from the defense budget. Every sector in the government has its own budget. The money to be used has nothing to do with education, calamity funds etc. since they have their own budget allocation. And those budget were already determined a year before.
ReplyDelete:D
ReplyDeleteyes, thats true...but in our case we are in different situation. we have interlocking claims with other countries. malaysia, indonesia, brunei, vietnam, taiwan and china also claimed part in our territories. before edsa revolution military is no. 1 in the budget because we have to protect our territories. we are the ones who bullied our neighboring countries, including china. i still remember tails of our navy men that they fired on foreign ships and destroyed physical structures of foreign countries put up in our territories including china but they never respond because militarily we are strong at that time.
ReplyDeleteif you will just compare our military in the 60s and 70s and today in a per equipment, we are more modern in the 60s and 70s compared today. if we can protect our resources investors will come in..the philippines now is just like a bank without a security guard. no one will invest or deposit in a bank without a security guard.
the situation depends were to prioritize our budget. it does not mean if military should be no. 1 in the budget other priorities will be left behind. again an example, we put education above the military in the budget does it make a good program. we heard complains of lack of schools, lack of table and chairs, and low salary for teachers (a number of teachers become domestic helpers in hongkong and other countries) and lack of chalks supply. and in regards to world ranking even our best universities and schools is slumping. comparison 2012 and 2013, UP 348 to 380, ATENEO 501 to 550, UST 601 to 650, DLSU 601 TO 650 now if our top universities are slumping what more our public schools.
but when military was no. 1 in our budget U.P was in the top 50. and at that time we dont have gangs of children terrorizing the sidewalk and local govt and police enter into peace covenant with children gang not to make trouble in the community??? that is the state of our education in the country.
I agree with you, the Kfirs are tried and tested platforms unlike the fa50s and you are right the US has been treating us like little people and not like the staunch ally that we are. We should arm ourselves and stop looking at the US for our military hardware, there are other sources that are technologically equal eo those from the US.
ReplyDeletebut same if we buy kfirs we need u.s. approval.
ReplyDeleteTrue. Because of the old engine. But not the latest Derby's, Gabriel-5's, Spice kits, AESA, and avionics.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion... I will go for Kfir Block 60 for PAF...F4-E Kurnass for Navy....
ReplyDeleteMy biggest issue with the F-4 is that it is a maintenance nightmare, compared to more modern aircrafts like the F-16 ...
ReplyDeleteI believe that issue was already solve on the other variants (f4-e, f4-g)..the reason i choose the two aircraft because of the same engine (J79)... right now our government encountered problem in purchasing the FA-50
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rappler.com/nation/45046-fighter-jets-major-issues
and this is not a good sign...I hope they can resolve the issue ASAP so that we can use this fighter plane to our Territory
You forced me to pull out a large, hard bound book for this one, the "Aviation Fact File: Modern Fighting Aircraft - F-16 Fighting Falcon". :) Here are figures from the book comparing the F-16 and F-4:
ReplyDeleteAnnual Operating Costs F-16 (in USD millions):
Fuel - 2.1
Training - 0.3
Spares - 1.2
Depot Maintenance - 2.3
Annual Operating Costs F-4 (in USD millions):
Fuel - 4.3
Training - 1.1
Spares - 1.8
Depot Maintenance - 2.9
I have other books of other aircraft showing similar figures, and if the PhAF does seriously consider the F-4, I will blog about it. The F-4 is just too expensive to maintain, aircraft after it were designed for easier maintenance based on lessons learned from the F-4. More access panels, less kilometers of wiring, longer Mean Time Between Failures, the list goes on and on ...
As for the delay in FA-50 acquisition, I am blogging about it, out in a couple of days. Not good news for the PhAF overall if we don't get the FA-50.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I would be amenable to the Kfir Block 60 if the PhAF can keep them flying. Some rumors say Israeli F-16A Netz aircraft are being considered, and those Netz are some serious shit. Don't let the "A" designation fool you, those Netz are pretty wicked, with advance avionics, and better maneuverability than the "C" versions due to its lighter weight ...
the thing is, china has once again beaten most of the entire world to the puch with regard to this.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.3ders.org/articles/20130529-china-shows-off-world-largest-3d-printed-titanium-fighter-component.html
Nice find. It seems 3D Printing Technology is farther along than I thought it is.
ReplyDeleteThe carageenan for kfir deal reportedly didn't push through because middle eastern countries (where majority of our ofw's are) critical to Israel got in the way.
ReplyDeleteThe article presented facts excellently. However, comparing an mrf (kfir) to a lift (fa50) doesn't make much sense as they are apples and oranges. We don't chose between a lift and an mrf. We need them both as we need the former to get to the latter effectively and more economically. It may even give the idea to our (technologically-ignorant) lawmakers (fuera de los buenos) and the "masa" that since we already have one of the two, we don't need the other.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, if I may suggest, you'll be better off comparing the kfir and the Israeli f16 a/b's on sale. Both are true blue mrf's, made about the same time, served extensively in the Israeli air force for twenty years, got an upgrade, then put on storage as reserve fighters. If the walls of the DND office are telling the truth, there is an ongoing discussion on procuring a squadron of mrf and they are choosing between the two aircraft I just mentioned.
* RE: Apple and Oranges
ReplyDelete- I find it unsettling that a lot of people keep talking about this. I don't buy it because in real life, mismatches to do occur. The MIG-17 vs. F-4E is a clear mismatch, and yet it happened during the Vietnam War. The MIG-21 Bison vs. F-15C is another clear mismatch, and yet we saw it happen in Red Flag exercises. In a beautiful, ideal world we would only be seeing aircraft similar in nature go after each other, but in reality it doesn't always happen.
* RE: Kfir vs. Geagle
- The reason I compared the two is because KAI insist on calling the Geagle a "Light Combat Aircraft" in league with the Tejas. But later when I got better information about its CURRENT Avionics and Weapons, I do agree as it is now it is mainly an Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) at best with good ground attack capability. I did say in my blog that the Geagle would best serve as an AJT for aircraft like the Kfir.
* RE: F-16A Netz
- My initial reaction is that the Netz is definitely the better aircraft than the Kfir, but sure, no problem, blogs about them will be in the pipeline, out in a couple of weeks. I plan to write 2 blogs about this, one comparing it to Kfir, and one comparing it to the Flanker-G so we can see how it compares with the Kfir, and how it compares with the opposition.
Thanks for the info, Lino. This is disturbing, though. Will we have the same problems again if we try to get weapons from Israel? The Israelis make great weapons ...
ReplyDeleteChanged my mind, releasing the first blog about the F-16A Netz in about 4 days ...
ReplyDeleteI really like the f-16, f15, f-18, gripen, su-27, su -30 and su-35..but the biggest problem is... money?? we cannot buy a simple LIFT aircraft without having some issues... that' s why I am posting my "personal" opinion (Kfir & Kurnass 2000) for our "immediate defense" I'm not saying we need to buy hundreds of them...for me just give some credible options to our Soldiers to show us that they are willing to protect, even if it's old or new hardware...what is important to them is that..they have the equipment to use...
ReplyDeletewhoever make this blog i think you forgot something. the FA-50 is not a purely combat aircraft and can be replaced by another combat aircraft. That kind of thinking is wrong. the FA-50, is actually a lead-in fighter TRAINER (LIFT), being a LIFT with combat capability, but it was chosen because of being a LIFT In the even that the FA-50 deal fails, then the PAF will look for another LIFT to fill-in, not another combat aircraft. . and BTW we need 2 seaters aircrafts .
ReplyDeleteWell, I make this blog. And the Geagle is a combat aircraft. Read my blog again, clearly I indicated there that Geagle is an Advanced Jet Trainer with secondary combat capability.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the update admin...
ReplyDeleteI agree... for me this is the right platform for our PAF...
ReplyDeletea trainer is still a trainer jet while an all weather fighter is proven already. just compare the price GEAGLE US$ 38M KFIR US$20M
ReplyDeletearmaments are no much all in favor of KFIR including speed. mr Prez if the GEAGLE is that good the South Korean will use it for their air force as a figther jet ! not as a trainer jet
As I keep saying here, even if we buy the Kfir tomorrow, we will still need an Advanced Jet Trainer for it. If we don't, then the danger of crashing planes like the Kfir will be higher.
ReplyDeleteWell, if crashing is the problem,well , which do you think is more cost friendly, crashing a $ 20 million tried and true fighter or a $38 million unproven trainer. Using a trainer for training doesn't mean you won't crash. I say buy the Kfir train in it and keep our fingers cross that we don't crash and maybe if we are lucky after training and a few hundred flying ours we have an air force flying real MRFs rather than just glorified training planes at a much cheaper cost.
ReplyDeleteIts not just the cost, pretty soon you'll run out of Kfirs and pilots to fly them. The Kfir's mechanical system is just not as safe in general as an aircraft with a FBW system, and we have seen quite a number of crashes with the Kfir the last couple of years with the Colombian Air Force, 4 planes crashing or with some other incident in 4 years is not a good record. Even Colombia is now thinking of replacing them.
ReplyDeletei agree with rhk111 we still need the fa-50 advance trainers. however, the columbians kfirs are the c-10 or c-12 versions not the block 60. according to experts, the kfir block 60 has a big difference with the c-10 and c-12 and the block 60 is not a mere upgrade but its the re-birth of the kfir. the block 60 air frame is strip to the bone even the engines that it resembles a 4th generation plus fighter, its weapon system and radar is in comparison to the typhoon and rafaele. and with the statement by the israeli that the block 60, its airframe and engine is guaranteed for 40 years now i do believe they will stand by their word. just like we order 3 radar system to the israelis that is to be delivered within 2 years, the israelis will lent us 1 radar system that will be available within a year to fill the gap and i do believe they will do it.
ReplyDeleteif it is the israelis i will never question their intention but the once who will doubt the israelis will have a sleepless nights because every time they doubt they were proven wrong...philippines time to be with the israelis..buy israeli made weapons because they might teach us a lot. just like how an old m-113 will be used as a self propelled 155 or 105 howitzer and a lot of things to learn from them...the israelis will never throw garbage but instead make a good use to it.
hi rhk111, I thnk we should aso take a look at the DAssault Mirage 2000 as an option for our MRF...at $23M a piece this would be at the same price category as the Israeli KFIR... can you do a comparison between a KFIR block 60 and a Dassault Mirage 2000 D? also a comparison between the Mirage 2000 and the Gripen C..thanks
ReplyDeleteI might do it, but not really prioritizing it because I don't think the PhAF is seriously considering the Mirage 2000 as of now.
ReplyDeleteAs for the price, I don't think the USD 23 million figure is accurate for the Mirage 2000 as the recent upgrade of Mirage 2000s by the Indian Air Force already costs USD 27 million (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/High-cost-of-Mirage-2000-upgrade-raises-eyebrows/articleshow/18804336.cms).
Manufacturers tend to low ball their per unit price of fighter aircraft, I think a more accurate way to get a fighter's real-world price is to find an actual contract price and then just divide it by the number of aircraft bought. Of course that price means including weapons and logistics, but then it is not sensible to buy aircraft without weapons or logistics support these days.
The Mirage 2000 is a pretty good aircraft, though, definitely much better than the Kfir. For one, its radar is better, with longer range. Overall I think the Mirage 2000 is comparable to the F-16, and to which one is better I am not sure, but the gap between the two I expect to be relatively close.
I go for KfirBlock 60 due to complete package with Python 5 ( the 5th generation ) only US$20 million compared to the South Korean T-50=US$38 Million ( not armed ). The only reason why Israel IAF has to up-grade their Fighter Jets beacuse Russia is always supplying Israel enemy with most modern fighter jets. Philippine Airforce is just to patrol the territory not mentioning ( Intsik Fishing )
ReplyDeleteI used to think that the Kfir had a fair accident record, but now I am not so sure. I read an article that said they had 4 accidents in the last 3 years, which is not a good record at all. Even Columbia now seems to be looking for other alternatives.
ReplyDelete