China's first Aircraft Carrier, the Liaoning. Photo courtesy of The Japan Times[/caption]Everybody knows that China is a big and rich country with a powerful naval force, but just how powerful EXACTLY is that force, and what can we do to counter them in the West Philippine Sea (WPS)? This is not an easy question to answer, but let me offer my opinion about it. First let's take a good look at China's naval forces so we can see what we are up against.
'The PLAN'
The Chinese navy is called the "People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)", and no, there is no truth to the rumor that they own the "Army Navy Burger" chain of fastfood restaurants. The PLAN is composed of roughly 470 ships, although only around half are major armed naval combatants (i.e., which for me means Submarines and missile-armed Ships), broken down into:1
- One Aircraft Carrier
- 25 Destroyers
- 42 Frigates
- 120 Corvettes
- 65 Submarines
* 253 major naval combatants in total
These forces are divided into three main fleets covering different areas where the PLAN operates, which are the "North Sea Fleet", the "East Sea Fleet", and the "South China Sea Fleet" (which we shall refer to as the "West Philippine Sea Fleet").
Their Northern and Eastern sea fleets are facing off the navies of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, and since the navies of those countries are quite powerful themselves, the PLAN has put up their latest and/or their most powerful ships to face off against those navies, like their Sovremenny-class Destroyers, for example. The bulk of their submarine fleet are also shared between those two fleets.
The fleet that concerns us directly is the PLAN's WPS fleet, which right now consists of:2
- One Aircraft Carrier
- Nine Destroyers
- 17 Frigates
- 35 Corvettes (approximate only, assuming their Houbei-class Missile Boats are equally divided among the three fleets)
- Eight Submarines
* 70 major naval combatants in total
Hence while China has more powerful enemies further up north, they are still able to field quite a formidable fleet in our area. In terms of quantity they have equally large numbers of both big and small ships, complemented by a couple of Submarines. Their lone aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, is still not fully operational, and my guess is that they fielded it in the WPS because they are still gaining operational experience with it and they feel that it would be "safer" against the lesser navies in the WPS.
In the WPS, China is faced with not just one but two potential enemies in the Philippines and Vietnam. Vietnam is much closer to China than we are, in fact they share a border with them, and the "Vietnam People's Navy (VPN)" is a strong one, more powerful than ours and currently consisting of:3
- Two Submarines
- Seven Frigates
- 17 Corvettes/Missile Boats
* 26 major naval combatants in total
Compared to China's WPS fleet, the VPN only has less than half as many ships, but still formidable as they are of modern and contemporary design. Because of this, in any conflict with us, China will need to put a number of ships in reserve to pin down the VPN. However, since China has so many ships, even if they have a lot of potential enemies right now as long as they don't fight those enemies all at the same time and just fight them off one at a time, then they will still be able to shuffle their forces around enough to reinforce an area. Hence we can assume that at any given time, they can, at the very least, field their ENTIRE WPS fleet in any confrontation against us.
'Other Navies'
To better appreciate just how strong this fleet is, let's take a look at the current naval fleets of other rich and powerful countries:
- Australia (Eleven Frigates, six Submarines = 17 major ships in total)4
Germany, the number one economy in Europe (Eleven Frigates, eight Corvettes, four Submarines = 23 ships in total).5
India (Two Aircraft Carriers, nine Destroyers, 15 Frigates, 25 Corvettes, 15 Submarines = 66 ships in total)6
Taiwan (Four Destroyers, 22 Frigates, 90 Corvettes/Missile Boats, four Submarines = 120 ships in total)7
[caption id="attachment_3535" align="alignnone" width="1600"]
- Japan (Three Aircraft Carriers, 26 Destroyers, eleven Frigates, 16 Submarines = 56 ships in total)8
South Korea (One Aircraft Carrier, twelve Destroyers, ten Frigates, 21 Corvettes, twelve Submarines = 56 ships in total)9
(Note that Helicopters are also aircraft, hence a "Helicopter Carrier" is still an "Aircraft Carrier" which the navies of Japan and South Korea have.)
Remember that the number of ships cited above are the ENTIRE NAVIES of each country, and yet despite that only a few of them can numerically match up to just ONE FLEET of the PLAN. India, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have the numbers to almost numerically match up against a single fleet of China's navy.
'Sea Control?'
The sheer number of ships of the PLAN poses a huge problem for us in terms of establishing "Sea Control" anywhere in the Spratly Islands. Sea Control is defined as the power to use a maritime area for your own purposes AND at the same time PREVENT the use of that same area by your opponent.10 As applied to the WPS, we will need to establish Sea Control if we are to mine any area in the Spratlys because if not, our enemy will then be able to seize or destroy those mining assets.
Common sense dictates that to establish Sea Control you need to be STRONGER than your opponent in order to ensure that you can maintain your presence in an area despite opposition. If you are significantly WEAKER than you opponent, then you won't be able to consistently defend your presence in an area. At the very least, you should be AS STRONG as your opponent to be able to have a 50-50 chance of maintaining control of an area.
But with China having such a large armada, it is unlikely that we can realistically match up to their entire navy. In fact, in terms of the sheer number of major naval combatants, China is NUMBER ONE in the world, not even the navies of Russia (176 major naval combatants)11 or the United States (183 major naval combatants)12 can match up with them numerically. Matching up to their WPS Fleet ONLY MAY be the more achievable option for us.
'Establishing Presence'
To establish Sea Control, we need to put something that will be VISIBLE to clearly communicate with everybody where the physical boundaries of our territories are which they should not cross. Submarines, wonderful weapons of war that they are, are not ideal for this because they rely on stealth for survival and effectiveness, and if they are out there showing themselves to challenge trespassers, then they are just throwing away their advantage. It’s good if we could just shoot anybody crossing our boundaries, but the reality is that initially there will just be a lot of POSTURING between both sides, with any actual shooting occurring later, if at all they do lead to such a situation.
For the same reason you can't use land-based missiles as they are physically a hundred or so kilometers from an area, and will only come into play in a shooting war. Also, with the Recto Bank in the Spratlys being a good 260 km from the nearest area of Palawan, it is well beyond the range of most Anti Ship Missiles (AShM) made in the west, except for Russian missiles with their accompanying political complications.13
Aircraft would not be ideal as their endurance in patrolling areas are only measured in hours at a time, and they have relatively short lifespans measured only in thousands of flight hours before they need comprehensive overhauls. Also, with the Spratlys being a couple of hundred kilometers away, reinforcements even by high speed aircraft would arrive only after around 15-20 minutes, which may not be enough to prevent loss of our mining assets in the area.
So for me the only feasible tool that can establish visible presence and sea control of our boundaries for long periods of time are surface sea vessels or SHIPS as they can stay and monitor areas 24/7 for weeks or even months at a time.
'Deterrence?'
Truthfully, it is kinda intimidating to even imagine how we can match up to a country with the most number of major naval combatants in the world, but let's give it a try. It may be possible to discourage China from confronting our naval fleet thru "Deterrence". This will only work if we can find a way to INTIMIDATE China, like for example having the capability to wipe out all or most of their WPS Fleet.
True, even if we wipe out their entire fleet they will just pull in more ships from their other fleets and destroy or seize our mining assets anyway, but other factors may also be in play, like that it will seriously degrade their naval capability and make them more vulnerable to their other enemies, and that maybe enough to discourage or deter them. The effect we are aiming for is like, "They may be able to kill us, but we can maim them also", so in the end they will be thinking more about the prospect of being maimed rather than the prospect of "killing" us or our fleet.
[caption id="attachment_3536" align="alignnone" width="1440"]
The most straightforward way to do this would be to simple match up with them on a ship-for-ship basis, coming up with a fleet of around 70 vessels and target a 1:1 kill rate to wipe off their fleet, but this will be very difficult to do as it means having a navy as strong or as large of that of India, Japan, etc.
'Qualitative Advantage?'
Another way to have an effective deterrence would be to have a navy with a QUALITATIVE ADVANTAGE, specifically meaning a navy made of ships that can destroy more ships than their total number, or in other words a navy that can inflict a 2:1 kill rate, meaning destroy two enemy vessels for a single loss. This means we can field a lesser number of ships, say only 35 vessels, but they will be of better quality and thus strong enough to wipe out the enemy's entire fleet.
This "Qualitative Advantage" is what the navies of Russia and the US have over China, so even if their navies have lesser number of vessels, they are still more than a match for China's navy. The problem though is:
- How to ensure that the casualty rate will indeed be 2:1 in our favor because if not, we will just end up losing our entire force and also lose the battle anyway.
- In order to gain that Qualitative Advantage, we will have to invest in more advanced and thus much more expensive technology, hence acquisition, operating and maintenance costs will be much higher;
- Since China has deeper pockets than ours, they may end up winning the technological battle anyway simply because they can spend more.
Remember that even as this blog is being written, China is building MORE and BETTER Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers. China is expected to have 3 operational Aircraft Carriers within a decade14 and will also be fielding a new, bigger Type 055 Destroyer15 intended to rival the United States' new Zumwalt-class Destroyers.
'Quantitative Advantage?'
And yet another alternative in the opposite direction is to have a QUANTITATIVE ADVANTAGE, meaning have more ships that are smaller and simpler than they have to win a Battle of Attrition. So for example, we field a force two times the size of their WPS Fleet at 140 vessels, so even if they achieve a kill rate of 2:1 against us, we will still be able to wipe out their entire fleet. This seems to be what Taiwan is aiming for judging by the sheer number of Corvettes/Missile Boats that they have.
The problem with this approach though is:
- Timing will be both critical and difficult in fielding such a large force into the right place and at the right time. Remember that ships aren't very fast, it will take them hours if not days to go from one area to another depending on the distance. Smaller ships also have less range and endurance, compounding the problem.
- We will need to accept that we will have a LOT more CASUALTIES on our side than that of our enemy. We in fact will be SACRIFICING our naval assets and the lives of our sailors to win a victory;
- The MORALE of our force will have to be high enough so they will continue advancing and fighting even if they see most of their colleagues dying all around them;
- How to ensure that the casualty rate will indeed be no higher than 2:1 at most because if not, we will just end up losing our entire force and still lose the battle anyway.
- The costs of building, operating and maintaining such a large force will also be quite expensive.
'The Philippine Navy'
Currently the Philippine Navy (PN) has a fleet of only thirteen ships, more than half of which are World War Two relics, and none are armed with missiles. In fact, the Navy has still yet to see its first AShM-armed vessel in its history. This fleet consists of:16
- Three Frigates
- Ten Corvettes
* Thirteen major naval vessels in total
So our navy is outnumbered in the WPS by a factor of more than five to one, meaning China has five ships for every single vessel that we have, and their ships are also better equipped and better armed than ours. The Navy does have a solid plan on the type of force they envision to have, call it a "Wish List" if you want, and it is called the "Philippine Navy Desired Force Mix". In it, the Navy envisions a force of:17
- Six Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) Frigates
- Twelve Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Corvettes
- Three Submarines
* 21 major naval combatants in total
This force would not fit the theoretical forces needed to counter China as described in the previous sections, but then again when the navy came out with this list, their intention was to field a force enough to monitor and guard all of our vast territorial waters, and not necessarily to face up to China's WPS fleet.
'Parting Shot?'
THEORETICALLY, there may be ways for us to contest China for Sea Control of the Spratly Islands, but REALISTICALLY, I think our prospects are bleak as we are working on a LOT of assumptions, like what might deter China, loss rates, etc. which in the end might be wrong. The costs of building a force strong enough to deter China would be enormous, one which our economy would not likely be able to handle without sacrificing the other aspects of our country like Infrastructure, Education, Agriculture, etc. And with a current Poverty Rate of 25% (meaning one out of every four Filipinos are poor, higher than Vietnam, Thailand, etc.), that's not something that we might want to do.
So, does this mean that we should just give up on the modernization of our armed forces altogether? Not necessarily, as the whole idea above applies only to our prospects of securing mining assets in the Spratly Islands, and not necessarily to the defense of the Philippine mainland where the dynamics are a little bit different and may in fact still be in our favor despite China's formidable armada. Besides, if we as a people keep electing the RIGHT leaders to lead this country, we may end up prosperous enough within the next 1-2 decades to be able to field a force that may at least deter China.
Bottomline is that we may have problems standing up to China now, but if we play our cards right we may be able to do so in the future. If we give up now, then there will absolutely be no chance for us to stand up to them at all ...
[caption id="attachment_3531" align="alignnone" width="2048"]
SOURCES:
List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships, (https://web.archive.org/web/20150315054755/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships) ↩
South Sea Fleet,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140812092930/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Fleet) ↩
Vietnam People's Navy,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140814055631/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_People%27s_Navy) ↩
List of active Royal Australian Navy ships, (https://web.archive.org/web/20141016151705/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Royal_Australian_Navy_ships) ↩
List of active German Navy ships, (https://web.archive.org/web/20150413081603/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_ships) ↩
List of active Indian Navy ships, (https://web.archive.org/web/20141027162504/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_Navy_ships) ↩
List of active Republic of China Navy ships, (https://web.archive.org/web/20160508095514/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Republic_of_China_Navy) ↩
List of active Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140723025914/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force_ships) ↩
List of active Republic of Korea Navy ships, (https://web.archive.org/web/20150531041446/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Republic_of_Korea_Navy_ships) ↩
Sea Control and Sea Denial: Controlling of the seas today,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20131017190426/http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/15981) ↩
List of current ships of the Russian Navy 2014,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140927235737/http://russian-ships.info/eng/today/) ↩
U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2007 to 2011,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140903115016/http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm) ↩
BRAHMOS MISSILES FOR THE PHILIPPINES?,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160729013356/https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/brahmos-missiles-for-the-philippines/) ↩
China’s Oversized Aircraft Carrier Ambitions, (https://web.archive.org/web/20140903005010/http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/chinas-oversized-aircraft-carrier-ambitions/) ↩
Type 055 Desroyer,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160119100257/http://www.deagel.com/Destroyers-and-Cruisers/Type-055_a002885001.aspx) ↩
List of ships of the Philippine Navy, (https://web.archive.org/web/20150511020250/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Philippine_Navy) ↩
Philippine Desired Force Mix,
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYijAkw0Smw) ↩
The President himself has stated Recto Bank is 85 miles from the nearest coast of Palawan, or approximately 137 kms. Well within reach of modern Western shore-based missiles like RBS15 and NSM with ranges of >200 kms and 185 kms respectively. Coastal batteries don't denigrate the value of ships but we need force multipliers just the same.
ReplyDeleteThe center of Recto Bank is 260 km from the nearest Palawan landfall, and that is just the center, not including the outer edge. You can check using Google Maps like I did. Of course, the inner edge of the Recto Bank would be nearer and thus we could position our mining assets there, but I think what we want to do is protect the entire bank for ourselves ...
ReplyDeleteforce multiplier
ReplyDeleteDefinitions:
(DOD) A capability that, when added to and employed by a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of successful mission accomplishment.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/f/8037.html
Coastal missile batteries -> within 200 kms, minimal investment in crews, fuel, etc. compared to ships
Warships, MRFs, LRPAs, etc. -> beyond 200 kms
exploiting force multipliers = warfare as system against system, not just unit against unit
I 100% agree with Mr. Franmar, Air Power and Coastal Anti-ship missile batteries are the sure answers to counter China's WPS fleet but in terms of Sea Denial and not Sea Control that our Philippine government can afford and quickly deploy than building-up our PN ships that will never match-up to China's fleet anyways. Don't forget about China's long-range combat planes and theatre ballistic missiles which will complement it's naval forces in decimating our PN ships even if we have a 1:1 parity against China. For now, what the PN and PCG needs are MPACs which can patrol and cover our territories which we still occupy in the Spratly Islandsl, arrest Chinese illegal fishing vessels and confront Chinese maritime patrols inside our EEZ. Building up our Philippine naval fleet with big ships is not feasible, impractical and too expensive bec. the AFP is incapable of engaging the PLA in an offensive war. We only need to defend and protect all our territories inside our Exclusive Economic Zone and not beyond it.
ReplyDeleteSea Denial is the more realistic option for us, ideally we should be putting up a MISSILE UMBRELLA of both SAMs and AShMs from Palawan to enforce our ownership of Recto Bank. However, Recto Bank is a bit far, and if we rely on imported missiles, their range won't be enough as the "Missile Technology Control Regime" restricts all imported missiles to only under 300 km, and that won't be enough to cover all of Recto Bank.
ReplyDeleteMissile-armed MPACs I feel will only be target practice for aerial units, as shown by the allied aerial forces wiping out the Iraqi Missile Boat force during the Iraq wars. A bigger ship is needed, probably a couple of hundred tons, one with better self-defense capabilities, but it too will only be limited to hit and run attacks as it can't carry enough missiles to defend itself for a long time.
To sidestep the MTCR laws, we will have to develop missiles of our own, ones with around 400 km range. The best way to do this would be to license build existing missiles, then use the technology learned from such ventures to build missiles of our own. Even with such a strategy for acquiring missiles, it is a daunting task, because countries like South Korea who has been doing that doesn't seem to have developed missiles with more than 300 km range as far as I know.
ReplyDeletethere no way we can defend our island holding in west Philippine sea even our economy approach that of south Korea today.take note that china uses numerical superiority in conduct of there military operation. They w[ll overwhelm our defenses before we could react. like in a first phase EMP blast to disable our communication or a cyber warfare to over load our system and take note that PLDT, GLOBE uses Chinese equipment and Chinese company that supply that equipment will gladly assist there government in disrupting our communication. second is the land attack missile that was launch in submarine or destroyer another is stand off missile that target our radar. air defense battery and shore battery. they have a lot of option in table against us. but let us not loose hope. we can defend our island only anchored in a collective defense with japan , US and,Australia, own our own no way.Our conduct of operation is specific with the collective defense. in defense of our island we can do is have our jets equip with meteor AAM and joint strike anti ship missile let them fire 12 miles inside in our territory to knocked out Chinese ship, aircraft, structures and let the american public and the whole world react when china launch full scale invasion against us.lets use our MDT to fullest if the american will not come to aid us then japan will seek nuclear arms spread our forces and uses guerrilla tactics in air operation. we have to gamble we loose already.
ReplyDeleteOne weapon we can use in a Sea Denial strategy against China would be thru the use of an ANTI-SHIP BALLISTIC MISSILE like what China itself and Iran have developed. Ballistic missiles are the simplest missiles that can be built, hence this would be "doable" for us. We won't need a long ranged one, only up to 400 km at most, though with such a range we will need to develop it ourselves to sidestep MTCR laws.
ReplyDeleteThe initial salvos would be armed with bomblets to bombard an area, much like a shotgun approach. The purpose of the bomblets would be to destroy the communications and sensors of the enemy ships, making them vulnerable for the next wave of attacks which will then be using solid warheads. Here is a good account of how Iran intends to use these AShBMs: http://defence.pk/threads/surveying-iranian-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-capability.184618/
i agree with you sir. what worries me if Binay became president and he is known to be friendly to Chinese.....
ReplyDeleteI believe the quick solution in extending the limited range of of anti-ship / SAM missiles and in protecting our MPACs / Patrol Boats are Air-Superiority Fighters like the well-armed F-15C Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle and long-range land-based radars (beyond the 200 nm range) as the force multipliers, air cover and deterrent to Chinese adventurism into our EEZ if it escalates into a conflict. Even before Chinese warships and attack planes can enter our EEZ, long-range radars will already detect their presence and F-15 fighters and Strike Aircraft can be immediately scrambled to intercept them as our first layer of defense. The 2nd layer of defense are the Anti-Ship and SAM missiles. The 3rd layer will be US Air and Naval support under EDCA agreement if they reach our 12 nm territorial boundaryThe
ReplyDeleteAs against Chinese submarines, squadrons of ASW attack helicopters and MPACs armed with anti-sub torpedoes, dept charges and sophisticated sonar detectors will be sufficient to scare away these Chinese subs bec. they won’t be able to easily hit fast attack crafts and attack helicopters compared to long and slow-moving Frigates.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that china respects is power. with what we have right now we are easy pickings. the only thing preventing china from going through it is the force of international opinion and the US and Japanese MDT. the only thing realistic we can do apart from arbitration is really develop our Palawan front. the PLAN for the most part only wants reed bank and it would be the height of foolishness to send the whole PLAN south china fleet to the spratlys. halata na yun and it would be pretext for the US to send their Pacific carrier group to luzon as deterrence. like what they did to taiwan when china was being belligerent. Palawan would serve us our warship. station a couple of mpac's, our two new frigates, up armed hamiltons and pohangs, mpa's, a squad of fa50's, and budget willing surface to surface missiles and cruise missiles then at least they would blink before they decide to take it. they can but at least we sink a frigate or two.
ReplyDeleteWhether a war-weary US will really send a Carrier force on our behalf is questionable, especially after Obama's statements during his visit here. As for China, they can commit their entire WPS to the Spratlys if needed. They might do it piecemeal, but it is there if a shooting war starts.
ReplyDeleteTo defend Palawan only, an AShM and SAM Umbrella I feel would be enough. We will need a lot, though, 'hindi puede ang pa tingi-tingi mentality', at least a couple of dozen would be decent. If we can bump that to a couple of hundreds, then that would be good enough.
Decided 800km a range ballistic missiles to the United States and South Korea negotiated
ReplyDeleteBut secretly cheating on a range
Wikipedia ship the wrong number.
CIA report is more accurate
Currently no aircraft carrier is in Korea and Japan (LHA, LHD)
However, South Korea, Japan and now the aircraft carrier construction
It's away to find a way that can stand up to China, the Philippines.
Nuclear is not Korea, but the country the world's third-largest chemical and biological weapons.
If one day make nuclear weapons.
Everything is being made in secret
Nuclear submarines are also made Cancel in the press release make in 2006
The Philippines have signed a technical agreement with Japan, South Korea,
Which CIA Report, kim205co?
ReplyDeleteHelicopter is aircraft, so Helicopter Carrier is still an Aircraft Carrier.
You left out indonesia? the Indonesian Navy has a fair amount of naval power ranging submarines, frigates, and a lot of missile boats ranging from corvettes to FACs. And to our arsenal i'd prefer the Phl navy has its own Naval Air assets such as maybe acquiring a few AV-8Bs. Our Air force is too weak to deal with China's air power. Hence they can't cover our naval ships and defend our air territories at the same time. Obviously we rely on US for total defence on sea and air. We have so little time to upgrade our AFP which should have been done 30 years ago. China is itching to start a war any time.
ReplyDeleteCommunist rebels raid two Philippine plantations in one day
ReplyDeletehttps://ph.news.yahoo.com/communist-rebels-raid-two-philippine-plantations-one-day-073318527.html
Lets not forget this NPA can commit a sabotage or harass our troops and supplies to the front. Kakainis di pa tapos mga eto.
Our government should secretly install anti-ship and SAM missile batteries, long-range artillery and mutiple-rocket launchers on the coastal areas of Palawan and procure at least a squadron of F-15s for air cover as a surprise counter-attack against China's air and naval attack if the dispute escalates into a conflict at Spratly Islands. The US can only provide us military assets and protect our 12 nm territorial boundary and no more than that. Obama is a weak US president who does not want any American ground troops to be involved anymore in any reqional conflict unless it impacts America's interest. It will only use it's air force and naval forces at exceptional cases.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the Neps will not go away anytime soon, mainly because these days they are being funded by China as part of China's "Unconventional Warfare" against the PNoy government. The Neps are a perfect fit for China's UW because they are Communists, relatively well organized, and against the PNoy Administration ...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I heard Indonesia is targeting a 200-ship navy by 2020, but their navy is more of a small boat, Corvette/Missile Boat navy. They have 53 major naval combatants, but only around 8 of those are Frigates and Submarines, the rest (45) are Corvettes/Missile Boats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_Indonesian_Navy
ReplyDeleteEven Singapore's navy is not that big, only 18 major naval combatants in total, half a dozen each of Frigates, Corvettes and Submarines. But their surface ships are high tech, I'll give them that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Republic_of_Singapore_Navy
So in truth, NONE of the South East Asian navies are as strong as, say, South Korea, or Japan, let alone China ...
Good plan, not sure if we can afford those F-15s, though ...
ReplyDeleteNice assessment on this one, RHK. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading your blog, I came to realize that the HDP is already coping to address the WPS concern with two pronged solution, sea control and sea denial, all at once. IMHO, the HDP cannot sustain both paths at once but HDP needed both solutions to address the alarming rate of PLAN activities leading to the WPS problem. IMHO,the HDP can be capable to cope with both sea control ans sea denial mission if it can accomplish the short term requirements that I have thought off. These are short term solutions that can greatly enhance and multiply HDP's capabilities:
- The HDP should have a quick-reaction force that could be based in the WPS itself or at its periphery. The HDP should convert most if not all its minor combatants into FACMs armed with SSM (ie, RGM-84 Harpoon). Depending on the ship class' displacement, these should be armed with 1-2-4 SSM depending on its stability and top weight concerns. Note that the ROC Navy employs the Hai Ou class FACM (which is similar in size and displacement (at around 45) tons to the Tomas Batillo class patrol boats) armed with two Hsiung Feng SSM (a derivative of the Israeli Gabriel-1).
-The Bacolod City clas LSV should be converted to serve as replenishing mother ship to the WPS deployed FACMs.
-The HDP should provide air, surface, and sub-surface detection and surveillance capabilities to Malvar and Rizal class corvettes to enhance its patrolling capabilities especially in the WPS.They can serve as early warning radar pickets or simply as an OPV.
-The HDP should arm the Jacinto claass with at least 2 SSM like the Harpoon and a man portable SAM system like the Stinger for protection. Likewise, adding moderately modern air search radar. So that they can act as long ranged surveillance scouts
-The HDP should provide the del Pilar class its ASW, ASuW and AAW capabilities to the del Pilar class PF as its main surface units the class should be equipped with the following:
-A towed sonar array
-Two 3-tubed SSVT like the Mark 32
-Up 8 SSMs (Harpoon and alike)
-Air/surface search radars
-Electro-optical surveillance system
-Electronic warfare system like the AN/SLQ- 32A(V)2 that was previously installed.
-A Close in weapon system like the Mark 49 RAM or Mark 15 Phalanx 1B
-Air/ suface search radar like the Thales Smart-S 3-D radar
-Optional: Mark 48 VLS armed with ESSM for a wider AAW capability.
Currently, the Goyo and Alcaraz as of now are nothing but an over-sized gun ship.
- The HDP or the SLP as a whole should acquire mobile coastal SSM batteries that can be readily deploy-able by land and can easily be transported by air or sea.
Achieving these short term goals will greatly enhance and multiply the HDP's current meager capabilities without waiting for the long term acquisitions to materialize.
Thanks, panzer rat.
ReplyDelete* The Philippine Navy does have around 38 gunboats as candidates for upgrade, but not sure if all will be able to be upgraded accordingly. A ship has many other enemies aside from other ships, like aircraft and submarines, so a lot of systems will need to be put into place.
* They could be assigned different roles like some boats for ASW, others for ASUW, but the problem with this is coordinating their operations all the time, and if for example all the ASW boats are eliminated then the remaining boats will be vulnerable to Submarines.
* And even if all these gunboats are upgraded, China will still have the upper hand with their bigger and more sophisticated boats. But I would agree that it will improve the CONFIDENCE or OUTLOOK of our navy and their capability to defend our territory.
* The Alvarez, Andrada and Batillo class of boats (29 boats in all) are good candidates for upgrade, for me these could be upgraded with (at the very least, no ASW capability, though):
- 2D Air Search Radar
- Better Surface Search Radar
- At least 2 SSMs
- A good Decoy System
- MANPADS or VSHORADs
* I agree that the GDP-class should be upgraded, we are spending too much fuel on boats that are just gunboats as of now. But it is very frustrating that at times our navy seems to be moving perpetually in slow motion. For example, the installation of the Mk38 Mod 2 guns on the Alcaraz, more than 1 year when they first talked about it and they are STILL talking about it up to now.
* At the stern of the GDPs where the Phalanx CIWS was installed on the USCGC Mellon, they could put a Mark 49 RAM Launcher there, or better yet they may be able to put a 12 or even 24 cell Mk 48 launcher there for ESSMs.
* The problem now for the GDPs is where to put the Torpedo Tubes because the spaces allocated for it on the USCGC Mellon is now occupied by 20 mm guns on Mk 16 mounts, which they intend to replace with the Mk 38 Mod 2s.
I think the Jacintos are hopeless in terms of upgrade, that ship just doesn't have a lot of room for additional weapons and equipment and will likely just remain a gunboat throughout its career ...
ReplyDeleteOverall, a very good article Rhk111. I presume that it took much courage to write it from an engineer’s and military perspective given the challenges confronting AFP modernization. I would offer a different perspective though - That of Malacanan
ReplyDeleteLet me start with a scenario more likely in the near future -
It is June 2015, in just five months the PCA will render ruling on the UNCLOS case filed by the Philippines
China dispatched CNOOC’s HD-981 oil rig on Reed bank and is now positioning to commence drilling procedures. Tightly cordoning HD-981 are some 70 fishing boats and six Haijan-50/15 China Coast Guard ships
P8 surveillance report passed by USPACFLT places a small PLAN surface group just 90 nmiles north-east of HD-981. This group consists of one Type 52C destroyer and three Type 54A and 53H3 frigates. Less than a dozen aircrafts are also seen loitering south of Woody Island consisting of J-10s, J-7s and a Y-8 AEW
A crisis cabinet meeting in Malacanan concludes that Philippines must physically respond. The patrimony and economic costs of Reed bank and its energy deposits are well beyond a diplomatic compromise. Arrangement for counter deployment with a surface group has commenced
You are the President in Malacanan, you are about to phone Washington to coordinate the impending Philippine actions. The key questions are -
1) What will be the composition of the Philippine counter deployment?
2) Will you request deployment of US military assets?
My Gad, what a headache.
ReplyDeleteWhat can we do? You've seen the forces we have now, and what we are up against, it is a CLEAR MISMATCH. Not only are we OUTNUMBERED, QUALITATIVELY we are INFERIOR also.
Whatever Malacanang decides, it is a LOSE-LOSE situation. Sending our paltry forces to fight will be irresponsible as it will only mean sacrificing the lives of our sailors for nothing. Not responding with force will mean that the issue will be taken advantage of politically by the government's enemies as "surrendering" our territory to the Chinese, no matter how stupid that reasoning might be.
We need to THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX on this one, we need to explore options other than just downright confrontation.
First, I would ask the assistance of the US in containing China. Now Obama might be lukewarm about the idea as he had presented during his visit here, but it is worth a try. IF the US really does not assist us, then I see no other option but ... To improve relations with China. As the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them".
We need to dangle in front of the US' face the prospect of us moving closer to China if they don't assist us, and if they CALL that bluff ... Then by all means have us move to have closer ties with China.
Now, this option will not sit well with so-called "Ultra-Nationalists" out there who want a confrontational stance against China at all cost, but that is an impractical and unrealistic stance, driven by emotion and lack of logic.
We CAN stay neutral and co-exist with China. Look around our South East Asian neighbors, all of them do, even the regional power that is Indonesia. Indonesia is building up their armed forces, but at the same time still has DEEP military ties with China, buying weapons and equipment from them, and even having joint ventures with them on some of these weapons and equipment.
If we continue to take a confrontational stance with China and the US won't help, then we risk losing ALL of Recto Bank. You can see they have the military capability to establish SEA CONTROL on that area if they want to.
If we agree to have a joint venture with China, at least we will get something out of Recto Bank instead of nothing. That is a cruel reality, but that is reality.
In fact this is what the US wants, they keep harping about the competing countries "... working together ..." even if China is clearly an asshole and a bully. They just don't want to intervene, they have so many other problems right now like Putin, the Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, they don't want another headache, especially from a country like the Philippines who SHAMED them by kicking their bases out.
Don’t lose hope, my friend
ReplyDeleteI gave the HD 981 scenario above as a sample to emphasize that the PH modernization acquisitions needs to be linked to achieving specific political and diplomatic objectives
It would be unacceptable if the PN and PCG with some 30,000 personnel and two dozens of key vessels would not be able to field practical options to the President to dispose against an HD 981 scenario. This other than cry help to Uncle Sam. Surely, PH is more creative than VN
My concern is the benefit from our modernization program would just begin to be practically useful in real world scenarios only at its end. PH looks like we are developing all platforms at the same time. I’d rather see it on a series of programmed spends against specific milestones. Each milestone opening increasing number of political options for the State. For example, I would rate a HD 981 scenario as one of the top priority tied to the first phase of spend
The fact is we lack the material time which is the more important resource on top of finance. The VN case on HD 981 demonstrates that even if PH could quickly get to VN’s formidable level of military assets, that will not be enough to deter China
In my next post, I will provide a creative response to the HD 981 scenario
After that, my succeeding post will attempt to give a short term solution for the defense of the Reed bank
My neighbor's car ran out of battery and I have to assist him :)
Definitely, our government can afford to procure F-15s if it has the political will. And more likely if the dispute escalates into a conflict. The US would be very willing to provide us F-15s and train our pilots without being directly involved.
ReplyDeleteMy quick solution to a HD 981 scenario at the Reed bank -
ReplyDeleteWe just have to examine how the HD 981 case for VN transpired
PH must avoid sending in grey hulls. Like the HD 981 case for VN, there were PLAN grey ships at stand off distance. If PN goes in, that gives PLAN the pretext to go in as well
As in the VN case, China will not fire a real shot unless PH does it first. I am certain of that. If you wish to recall why, I have posted the rationale in your blog “The US will not help the PH defend the Spratlys”
We should have kept the Monching and Goyo white and assigned them to PCG. In fact, we should remove the 76 mm Oto Maleras and the secondary guns. Fit them with the most powerful water cannons. Remove glass windows, surface search radar and just leave the bare minimum antennas as these will be destroyed in a water cannon fight with CCG
Procure tear gas rifles and paint ball canons for all PCG vessels. Persistent and very foul smelling but non-lethal fluids such as MTBE used in domestic LPG is very effective. Monching, Goyo and the larger PCG ships must be reinforced for collision. Provide ribs at the sides and armour at the bow. Equip these vessels with RHIB and NAVSOG boarding parties. Obtain trawler nets to entangle the OPFOR
One very important ingredient is media. Camera crews must be in place in all these vessels
PNOC donated three oil tankers to the PN. Reinforce their hulls. This could be a trump card we can hold in reserve. If the Monching, Goyo and PCG vessels take a V-formation flight with the tanker(s) at the centre, the surface group can sweep the fishing vessels for the tanker to touchdown and damage HD 981
When I managed the design phase of military installations overseas, one key challenge is immunity to VBIED (Petrol lorry borne IED). The political option of loading the tankers with fuel instead of water … hmmmm
The most important component is Malacanan must be candid and pre-communicate its execution plan to Washington. Malacanan must seriously commit that the PH surface group will not fire the first shot and will keep actions in play with China’s ‘semi-civilian’ intent
Malacanan must insist that a small US surface group matching the four grey ships that PLAN has on the theatre be present at standoff distance. The US surface group is to intervene only when China fires a real shot. Air cover by a handful of fighters and local AEW from standoff distance can be drawn from Kadena AB. I am convinced that Washington will readily agree to the aforesaid ‘semi-civilian’ arrangements
All of the above preparation including pre-negotiation with Washington can be dome in just a very few months and we could stand ready
I just made the above up driving home from the office. I am certain that PN and PCG have something way better
A White-on-White encounter is a good idea, HOWEVER, China has pretty much the same idea when they planted their Oil Rig off Vietnam's coast this year. In fact, Vietnam was the one who said that China encircled the Oil Rig with 80 non-armed, non-combatant ships. A game of "Bumper Boats" happened between Vietnam and China, but in the end, China still got its way, although they did leave early, which may have been due to international pressure as a result of Vietnam's staunch white-on-white resistance tactics.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Philippine Navy and Coast Guard could do is STUDY CLOSELY the Oil Rig Incident with the aim of gaining lessons on how the Philippines could do better than what Vietnam did if such an incident happens in Recto Bank. If we can do that, then it is worth trying. We may need to squeeze the Coast Guard a little bit more, as far as I know they were not doing a very good job of maintaining their ships.
First of all, a squadron of F-15s won't do, we will actually need more, a LOT more. Each F-15 can carry probably 4 AShMs at most, and if you have only 12 then that's just 48 missiles, which I don't think will be enough to overwhelm a large fleet of well-armed ships. A good number to do that would probably be around 48 F-15s, around the same number that Singapore intends to have. 48 F-15s can carry almost 200 AShMs, probably enough to deal serious damage to any fleet that China can send over to us, at least that's my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSecond, "Political Will" is an overused word whenever discussions on military spending is concerned. Remember that spending MORE for the military means spending LESS on other areas of the budget. Where are we going to take away the money from so we can spend more for the military? Infrastructure? Education? Health? So we should be building less roads and bridges, less schools, sending less scholars, building less hospitals just so we can buy more F-15s?
As I said before, 1 out of every 4 Filipinos are poor, so should we spend less to lower this figure and instead spend more for the military, then? It is NOT an easy thing to do because lives of poor Filipinos will be affected.
You forgot one country that is gungho and willing to lend us a hand...Vietnam. If indeed china disrupts the status quo Vietnam will be in our corner diplomatically at least. I think we should not let this degenerate into that scenario. We know we cant go toe to toe but at least we should make ourselves look bigger and show to the world that we dont start fights. since the uscg is retiring their hamiltons for their new cutters we should get all of the old ones. a 76mm cannon is enough with an embarked aw109. then equip them with defensive weapons like ciws, decoys, chaff and flares as well as the most modern sensors available. never mind the ashms, sams muna. we just have to establish presence first (when that large drilling platform is seen coming our way) and we dont budge from that. let them water cannon our ass but we stay steadfast and let the world know that we stood up to a country far more powerful than us...maybe then the world would notice. countries like vietnam who have that never say die attitude will be of great help. an outspoken australia and japan would not be so bad as well. the US...they should or else that pivot to asia is a joke or it only wants to protect japan. and if japan is not assisted by the US then Japan arms itself and becomes a pacifist no more...
ReplyDeleteAs I have said before, the PN has no chance of beating the PLAN in any naval battle even if all our PN ships are up-graded. The counter to China’s plan to encircle Recto Bank for it’s oil rig with fishing boats and naval vessels is through the use of F-15 Strike Eagles and anti-ship missiles that can reach Recto Bank which will deny the Chinese the ability to take control of Recto Bank. China will not dare counter-attack coastal-based missile batteries in our mainland if it doesn’t want the US to be involved. It can only fight back the F-15s (once we have at least 3 squadrons) in the Spratly Islands area and try to shoot down incoming missiles from our mainland. So our government should base US forces in our military bases along the length of Palawan so the Chinese will not dare attack our mainland. It will be a long war of air dogfights so we need to start producing more fighter pilots, aeronautical engineers and aircraft mechanics. We have to start license manufacturing the F-15s and missile sytems bec. we will need lots of them if we are to defend our territorial sovereignty & integrity. We have the advantage of being nearer to the Spratly Islands. If we cannot exploit Recto Bank, then we can also deny China from exploiting it.
ReplyDeleteWe don't want China to be placing air and naval bases inside our EEZ that will enable their ship SSM missiles and attack aircrafts within a few seconds of striking distance to Metro Manila and the entire Philippines. Our government should be firm and decisive on this serious matter.
ReplyDeleteIf there is indication the engagement's trajectory is a draw. I meant to provide the tanker option to damage HD 981.
ReplyDeleteI worked in oil and gas industry and assure you that even a small amount of pure MTBE is humanly impossible to stand with and will make the crews of the Chinese fishing boats and CCG abandon ship. Now, combine that with several tear gas canisters. The Chinese would wish PH fired real bullets instead :)
Any country that is in a war footing have no choice but to strengthen it's military capability at the expense of education, health, social services and infrastructure. If it turns out that Recto Bank contains billions of dollars of oil and gas reserves, are the Spratly Islands & Panatag Shoal (and Sabah included) worth fighting for. Are we going to allow China place military bases inside our Exclusive Economic Zone (incl. Pag-Asa Island). Believe me, China is ready for war to enforce it's expansionist aggression in taking control of South China Sea and WPS even if ITLOS decides in favor of the Philippines.. Either we surrender our territories or immediately prepare into a limited regional war with the Spratly Islands and Panatag Shoal as the battleground. A military confrontation maybe will eventually change China's mind after feeling the heat from international condemnation & sanctions and it's economy is starting to get hurt.
ReplyDeleteChina will make it a NUMBERS GAME. They know this is their advantage, and thus will use it. They already showed they can field 80 white ships to protect their Oil Rig, and can probably increase that by a large margin if needed. If we want a White-on-White battle, we will need to field as large a White Force also. Can the Navy and Coast Guard do that?
ReplyDeleteSea Denial using AShMs and SAMs from Palawan just won't be able to cover Recto Bank effectively, thanks to the under 300 km range rule of the MTCR. It will defend Palawan, though.
ReplyDeleteAircraft CAN provide Sea Denial for Recto Bank, but these will have to be procured in SUFFICIENT NUMBERS. 12 or 24 aircraft won't likely do, we will need more, at least 50 with Maritime Strike Capability, especially when you consider the fact that China has an aircraft carrier that can provide air cover.
Argentina lost around 50 aircraft during the Falklands War if I'm not mistaken, the only reason why their Air Force survived is because they a lot more aircraft, 120 I think. If we want to seriously consider Sea Denial using aircraft against China, we will need a lot more aircraft, and also be prepared to lose a lot also if war comes.
I'm sorry, Roberts, but "few seconds" is an exaggeration, the Spratly Islands is a thousand kilometers from Manila, so it will take at least 20 minutes for even the fastest missiles to hit Manila from the Spratlys.
ReplyDeleteBesides, if China wants to strike the Philippines, there is no area in the Philippines that is safe from their Ballistic Missiles or Ship/Submarine-launched Cruise Missiles. I am just stating this as fact.
This will only apply if the Philippine mainland and/or the Philippine populace is under direct attack. To the poor eating Pagpag, or to the ordinary worker trying hard to earn enough just so they can eat within the day, their concern really is more on how they can have the opportunity to improve their living conditions.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to keep Recto Bank, then our armed forces will have to focus on achieving SEA DENIAL against China. I think this can be done with the limited resources that we have using AIRCRAFT, and I think a blog is in order for this ...
ReplyDeleteI trust our resolve as a nation RHK. We can overcome any challenge from China irregardless of who sits in Malacanang.
ReplyDeleteSea Denial it is, blog out in about 1 1/2 weeks ...
ReplyDeleteit would be doable for us to have LHD like the SK Dokdo Class.. classified it as an Helicopter destroyer like what Japan did to intimidate the Chinese that we are capable of detecting and sinking their subs.. I think we can afford to buy one.. since it only cost more than 300 million. same as the price of a sub.
ReplyDeleteRhk111 - Just reemphasizing our gratitude as avid readers for the good artciles you write. Please do keep up the good job
ReplyDeleteWhat about stick the plan on redesigning MPAC using swarm tactics.
ReplyDeletei have proposed before that philippine navy must produce stealth missile gun boats. taiwan has more or least 30 stealth missile gun boats that have the capability to carry 4 anti ship missiles per boat. if we have the capability, it is building small boats that is capable to carry missiles could be the immediate solution for the philippine navy. we have large ship building facilities in cebu, why not make use of it.
ReplyDeletei prefer stealth missile gun boats with ashm because they are not stationary and cannot be easily detected. they can play hide and seek in the numerous islets and shoals in the WPS and can make surprise attacks on larger ships including aircraft carriers. they can be more effective than the stationary land based ashms. if locally produced this could save us a lot of money than buying large naval ships such as frigates and destroyers. we need immediate solution and fast, so building small boats is the best option. if we can have 30 stealth missile boats this is already enough deterrent specially if they could be armed with harpoon missiles. 4 ashms per boat is equal to 120 ashms.that would at least make the chinese think twice. just imagine a least budgeted missile gun boats that can sink multi million frigates, destroyers and even aircraft carriers.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree Jmcenabre. Capital cost is more palatable. However, the downsides are -
ReplyDelete* Speed and turn around. If you count the number of munitions delivered per hour compared to fighters
* Defensibility against air threats
I think we are all in agreement that the reed bank should not be surrendered. If we give it up even if we get a share from the profits we are virtually slaves to china..like what is now happening to the eu in relation to russian gas. It is obvious that we own it giving it away is returning rp back to the days when colonialism was the in thing for world powers. It also sets a precedent that china can do whatever it wants including making the wps a lake. Maybe we should send an armada of fishing boats and make like an edsa revolution at sea if all else fails from diplomatic to military options.
ReplyDeleteThanks rhk111. I stand corrected. Did not bother to calculate the travel time of a Mach 1,5 Chinese MRF from Spratly to Metro Manila. But what matters now is that the AFP must have the capability to quickly react or respond to sudden, surprise attack from China if the dispute escalates into a conflict.
ReplyDeleteI think Argentina lost too many of their planes during the Falklands War bec. of the limited capabilities.of their attack aircrafts as compared to a well-armed F-15 (w/c has a very good battle record) And I am thinking of our government license manufacturinf F-15s in the hundreds (and not just 50 planes) & continuously maintaining & up-grading them to last into the next 5 decades. If we are going to have a strong PAF, we better equip the PAF with the best weapon possible bec. air dominance is the game changer. Our PN ships don't stand a chance against China.
ReplyDeleteIt is upon our current generation to find the means to defend Reed bank. Not only because it is morally correct but for the sake of our children's future. It is not easy as PH is not a wealthy country (yet) but I am convinced that the Filipino spirit will prevail
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go for swarming tactics with gunboats, since new ammo like the Vulcano is being designed just for that kind of threat.
ReplyDeleteWeren't you considering buying Brahmos? Doesn't it have a range of 500? I bet the indians would gladly do ToT under the table to bring the range back at 500km from the 300km limitation.
That range wouldn't be enough for complete sea denial?
Since you are facing this conflict over sea resources and oil platform will be obviously involved wouldn't be good to buy, just one, Type 212 submarine? buy it from the Italians and in the deal ask for COMSUBIN training too.
i agree with you rhoydec there is no comparison if we have fighter or attack aircrafts. but with the purchase of 12 fa-50s i dont think in the near future we can purchase MRFs to provide such need. the air force were given the fa-50s i know is not really capable as a fighter or attack aircraft due to its limited capabilities but the decision is already made.
ReplyDeletenow i believe is now the turn of the navy to be given the opportunity. this the reason we have a bidding of 2 capable missile frigates. however, i still firmly believe if we have the immediate capability to produce our own, is the small missile gun boats. what we only need is to purchase the ashms and its technology. this is the best alternative while the plan to purchase MRFs is till dim.
actually rhoydec, the offer of the israelis of the upgraded kfIR block 60 which technology is comparable to any 4th generation MRFS could have been a better option since it cost same or even less than the fa-50s. what is important with the israelis, we will have better equipments and training. .there might be a lot of debate of the capabilities of this aircraft since its an old airframe but with the warranty that it could last at least 40 years, i believe the israelis. the british know better, they dont like the argentines to have the kfir block 60s.
if were talking about immediate needs these should have been the options made by our government. the only problem, our government never attempt to mobilized our bright people, our scientist, naval engineers and architects, military analyst, and etc. to provide a prototype of a stealth missile gun boats which we can afford to build and manufacture. AND WE NEVER TRIED. we are still politicking, and every day inch by inch we lost a portion of our seas and lands.
OFFICIALLY, the range of the Brahmos is "only" 290 km, but there are whispers and rumors that its real range is closer to 500 km. The MTCR is not really a law, it is more of an agreement or something like "self-regulation" among countries, so theoretically it will be easier to bypass.
ReplyDeleteThe Indians will NEVER confirm the range of the Brahmos as beyond 300 km, though, so we won't really know until we buy some and test it. But if the Brahmos' range is really at least 400 km, it is more than enough to cover Recto Bank from anywhere in Palawan ...
To protect Recto Bank, IMHO we will need more than just stealth boats ...
ReplyDeleteThanks as usual, rhoydec. I do enjoy making these blogs also ...
ReplyDeleteBetween aircraft and land-based missiles, I initially thought aircraft would be best, but after looking at it closely now I am leaning now more to the missiles for Sea Denial. The only hindrance to it is that damn MTCR regulation. Hopefully it can really be "unofficially" bypassed, and if so, then Brahmos it is for Sea Denial ...
ReplyDeleteas of this moment, the Philippines is outgunned and outnumbered. even our whites are vastly outnumbered and out sized by the Chinese Coast Guard. The US is not as powerful before and is led by a president that is quite hesitant to involve US forces in foreign wars. China on the other hand is reaping the fruits of their decades of military build-up. Now, if were President Xi Jinping, if i wanted to take the Kalayaan Group of Islands from all of the claimants and impose the 9 dash line... today, yesterday, last week or last month was the best time to do so.
ReplyDeleteI would send out even half of my WPS fleet and cordon the KIG from all the other claimants. Or, to use divide and conquer strategy, occupy vietnam islands first (Vietnam is further from the KIG), then the Philippine controlled islands. I won't bother with Taiwan since it is a mere renegade province.
Now, i will then position part of my fleet around Paracel islands and continue drilling for oil. I will also move in drilling platforms in KIG and Recto bank. Continue with reclamation and position fighter planes in KIG and Paracel.
Today, all that China has in the WPS are actually token forces of CCG ships. they pulled out of the Paracels and have not moved in any drilling platform in Recto bank yesterday. Now the question is why?
Maybe China is just waiting for the decision of ITLOS to make it's decison before contemplating to take an all-out implementation of it's 9-dash line.
ReplyDeleteIf ITLOS finally decides that all sea states have the exclusive right to develop it's own 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zones, what now. How are we going to kick China out of Mischief Reef and the other reefs that it now occupies and expanding into air/naval bases.
ReplyDeleteRHK. have you read this blog? on how to transform the Jacinto class into fast attach craft.. what is your point of view about this one?
ReplyDeleteYou mean this blog, HiBlood? http://deftechph.blogspot.com/2012/12/fast-track-fac-fast-attack-craft.html
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm not a Marine Engineer, so I can't really say for sure on the merits on the blog, but my opinion is that some of it do have merits, like changing to a lighter crane system. I don't think you can put too many weapons or equipment on that ship, though, as it just doesn't seem to be as well designed to carry them, unlike, say, a Laksamana-class Corvette, for example, which is around the same weight as the Jacintos and yet can carry a LOT more weapons and equipment.
I think AShMs and MANPADS/VSHORADS at most can be fitted to it without aggravating the Top Weight problem. Not sure if the Jacintos can handle the 385 kg weight of the Penguin, the best bet would be the successor to the Sea Skua missile (which they planned to put on the Jacintos before), the much lighter FASGWH missile.
My guess is that first, the Oil Rig intrusion into Vietnam by China this year is in preparation for doing the same in Recto Bank, call it as sort of a "Dry Run", for example.
ReplyDeleteAs to when they will make the move, I suspect China is still wary of US involvement in the region (despite the US' ambiguity towards the Spratlys), hence they are being patient. Maybe they are waiting for them to grow stronger even more while the US grows weaker even more before they make the move.
What they will likely do is a series of escalating, calculated moves, like do something, wait for a couple of years for things to die down, then do something again ... Continuing this cycle all the while observing closely how the US will react.
Instead of trying to countervene MTCR we could simply position our missile-armed ships just inside the reach of the Palawan-based missile umbrella. In effect extending the reach of the land-based missile shield at the same time lowering a protective screen over sea-based assets. Beyond this the eyes and ears of the system namely submarines, MRFs, UAVs, and LRPAs feeding information to the missile batteries (floating or otherwise) at comparatively less risk to valuable personnel.
ReplyDeleteThe above is a wartime scenario. Presence is a peacetime activity forced on us by the troublemaker's unlawful actions, it should not be mistaken for a wartime tactic. In a shooting war we shouldn't expect our ships and sailors to pointlessly expose themselves to attack. Elusive submarines and stealthy MRFs and UAVs have a role here.
I would agree with your take on China's strategy rhk111. I would assume that they are wary of US intervention and of course international condemnation. The US is actually being vague right now. They would say they are pivoting in East Asia and they would say that they don't want to contain China. They would be vague on helping the Philippines' claim on the KIG but they would assist us in intelligence and even in intimidating the Chinese Coast Guard from blocking our supply ship to Ayungin. So, yes, China is just slowly moving in trying to gauge what is America's reaction to it's movements.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, I would presume China will intensify the pressure on Philippines to stop the arbitration. However, expect more back channels from paid politicians to convince the Philippine government to sit and discuss bilaterally.
I will presume that China will make another bold move this year. They will try to occupy all the other reefs nearest to the Philippines so that they can block the supply line of the bigger islands which are unfortunately further from Palawan.
Well yes, if we are to get the Brahmos, I expect China to make a big fuss about those missiles meeting the MTCR regulation to limit their effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteShips can be an alternative platform for a missile umbrella as they can be moved closer to Recto Bank. Here we can go with either small ships or big ships, ideally we should go with big ships, but our budget will likely limit us to only small ships. How many ships are needed will depend on how many missiles are needed to sink one Chinese ship.
I believe in the Soviet philosophy of mass saturation attack using missiles to overwhelm enemy air defenses, especially in this day and age of countermeasures and anti-missile defenses, so I would assume, say, 3 missiles for every single surface vessel of China's WPS fleet. They have 62 surface vessels, so that means 186 missiles.
If we go with big ships, like South Korea's Sejong Destroyers for example with their 128 cell VLS, assuming converting its configuration to General Purpose type with 64 AShMs instead, we will need 3 ships.
If we go with smaller Fast Attack Crafts, assuming each can carry 8 AShMs we are looking at 24 such boats.
We could keep the land-based AShMs and SAMs to provide a SAFE HAVEN for these ships after they have engaged the enemy at Recto Bank.
However, I still feel that land-based missiles would be the cheaper platform, and they would be more survivable as they can hide around the terrain of Palawan ...
Ships also have another problem in that they will have to deal with Submarines, so defense against these will also have to be considered ...
ReplyDeleteYes RHK.. that's what I'm referring to I'm so sorry I forgot to put the link..
ReplyDeleteThere is no need for the ships to leave the protection of the missile umbrella. With the 'eyes and ears' (subs, UAVs, etc.) acquiring targets for these ships they can launch their missiles from INSIDE the reach of the umbrella's land-based missiles. If a missile fired from land can fly 200 kms then the same missile launched from a ship 100 kms from shore (inside the 200 kms umbrella) can reach 300 kms. If the enemy pursues they will have to contend with the land-based shield as well as the shipborne one. Overall the same effect as wasting money on giant warships filled with missiles. Or why a land-based missile umbrella is a 'force multiplier': it makes your other assets better.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course. Western AShMs have ranges of under 200 km, so they can move to around 200 km from the Palawan coastline to launch their missiles.
ReplyDeleteWell 3 Sejong Destroyers would have the approximate firepower of 24 FACs, so its either we get them or the FACs. A careful cost study will have to be made in terms of which will be cheaper in terms of Acquisition, Operation and Maintenance.
Then make these ships primarily ASW combatants. 'Sensor-to-shooter chain': because you've offloaded the sensor or target-finding job to subs, UAVs, etc. you no longer need giant radars on your warships. (Being closer to shore and the radar stations/electronic listening posts therein also helps.) Because the land-based missile umbrella complements these ships' missile load-out they don't need to carry that many missiles. (And again being near shore and thus ports for reloading missiles helps.) Space and onboard generator power can then be committed to powerful sonars and electronic support measures for sniffing out emissions from mast-mounted submarine radar. There is no single magic bullet, the system is the sum of its parts working together.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, those assumptions would be a little bit too deep already. I would prefer to keep it as simple as possible, but you're free to have their own opinion, of course.
ReplyDeleteWe can't afford to commit our antiship missiles to every target that comes along. If another asset can do the job while saving us from baring our hand too early, why not?
ReplyDeleteFACs, OPVs, older frigates with poor AA defenses like the one that ran aground a few years ago = these are targets for FA-50s, the CAS a/c, ASW and attack helicopters as well as the missile MPACs.
Modern frigates sailing alone or in a small group especially at extreme range = this is a job for the MRFs and the LRPAs.
Massed fleets, AAW destroyers, aircraft carriers, amphibious transports with escorts = now is the time to commit the land-based/shipborne missile batteries. Taking out a major target is also a good reason to shift our subs from the sensor to the attack role.
Okay ... Agree ... I don't really have any objections to this ...
ReplyDeleteagree with you rhk111 that it needs more than just stealth boats to protect recto bank. but we also need to be self reliant not to be relying on other countries to supply us because it will cost as more and still we dont get the quantitative aspect of forces we need. but a small stealth missile boats similar what the taiwanese have made i feel we are capable to produce. since in all aspects we are outnumbered, then these missile boats can be a force multipliers while we dont have yet the MRFs and the missile frigates.
ReplyDeletei agree the strategic concept of the taiwanese. since they cannot match china in number of ships, producing missile gun boats is their best alternative to sneak on the chinese major ships patrolling in their own disputed territories. this is the reason they also designed it as stealth. the kuang hua Vl started its production in 2007 and completed its 30 missile boats requirement in 2011 these how fast they manufactured their missile boats. and it could happen in the philippines because we have the facilities and technologies to produce.
in our case, we are in the same predicament with the taiwanese..outnumbered. buying brand new 2 missile frigates is a good alternative but again. 2 missile frigates are not enough for the whole WPS. and how many years will it take to deliver these 2 frigates. the fa-50 alone will take us 3 years to deliver so for the 2 frigates these means 6 to 7 years or more.
I understand the desire to save some money and employ more Filipinos, but I don't think we should be forcing things. For example, the new Frigate bidding was an OPEN BIDDING, meaning Austal who has a shipyard in Cebu did NOT join the bidding.
ReplyDeleteThat was an opportunity for the ships to be made here and employ Filipinos, but they did not take it. I don't know why, but they must have good reasons for doing so.
As for building stealth ships on our own, countries with strong economies like Taiwan and South Korea also tend to have strong and competitive shipbuilding industries also, but if you look at our South East Asian neighbors, none of them that I know of have gone and taken the initiative to design and build their own ships.
Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. all rely on LICENSE BUILDING ships or submarines, but never really going out and doing it all on their own. And to think that they have more advanced shipbuilding capability than ours.
In our case, maybe we can push for license-buildings ships here locally, but going out on our own ... I don't think that is realistic, based on the experiences of our SEA neighbors.
The Dokdo costs $650 million. Where did you get your numbers?
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
The consortium source also commented as published by the Moscow daily "Kommersant" on an alternative to the Mistral, declaring that it is precisely the Dokdo, whose cost is estimated at 650 million dollars.
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1119173&pagina_chiamante=index.php
---------------------------------
Name: ROKS Dokdo
Namesake: Dokdo
Ordered: 28 Oct 2002
Builder: Hanjin Heavy Industries & Constructions Co., Busan ROK
Cost: $650 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Dokdo_(LPH-6111)
Austal makes this LCS-type of a ship, and it is actually quite nice, 8 Harpoons, 32-cell VLS, seems to fit our Frigate requirements: http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf
ReplyDeleteSo why did they not join the bidding? 'Sila ang me ayaw'.
Sea Denial, you were using that term, i think it is the most appropriate
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about the Umbrella I was referring to the idea of using ships based Ashw, as Franmar proposed to increase the range.
I wouldn't be investing at all in ships, not even a single frigate, i would go for coastal defence and air superiority to defend the batteries that grant you Sea Denial.
After that i would be going for a Sub Force more than a Surface one, something that will force the WPS fleet to divide to control all its resources sites (isn't that after all the objective of the conflict? petroleum drilling?).
And I was wrong on my last post on the Type 212, as italian i gave for granted the fact everyone can access that technology.
I definitely agree that a missile umbrella is the cheapest and quickest way to dissuade china. Frigates and or coastguard vessels to show presence and missile batteries for deterrence. It is also suggested by an australian defense white paper on the philippine military. India might help us in this area.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note china is slowly getting careless in its actions. If they screw up and accidentally shoot down a p8 or a p3 then guess who is passing by subic or palawan. Uss carrier group carl vinson is enroute to asia. Perhaps to escort the p8 according to janes.
The fourth Incheon-class frigate built by STX took 10 months to complete. The design stage is what prolongs procurement and the ROKN completed that years ago. The same can be said of all other candidates, all off-the-shelf designs with actual floating examples instead of something drawn from scratch like Malaysia's SGPV-LCS. The target number for the PN is 6 frigates thus 2 is merely the start. Steel hull construction being a requirement eliminating Austal's all-aluminum designs from contention.
ReplyDeleteThe next surface warship procurement for the PN was revealed at the Offshore Patrol Vessel Asia Conference in 2013: an 80-meter "OPV" with anti-air and anti-surface capability and armor plating ... in other words a corvette. In fact the ASW helicopter requirements list data link interoperatibility with "Frigates, OPVs, and SSVs". At ADAS 2014 Hyundai even exhibited a model of a missile-armed corvette next to the HDF-3000 stating their interest in meeting PN requirements beyond the frigates. Numerous other designs like the Gowind 1000, Avante 1800, DSME MSC, Israel Shipyards Sa'ar-72, and the Lürssen OPVs acquired by Brunei can potentially compete for this project which is very likely to involve local construction of, according to the PN speaker at OPV Asia 2013, at least 12 hulls. The frigates are just the start.
Assuming we need 24 vessels armed with 8 AShMs:
ReplyDelete- 2 GDP-class (8 AShMs each)
- 1 Pohang (2-4 AShMs)
- 2 Frigates ongoing bidding (8 AShMs each)
- 4 Frigates for possible procurement (8 AShMs each)
- 1 possible WHEC for inclusion into the GDP-class (8 AShMs)
10 total so far, so we are looking at 14 Missile Boats needed. If we can increase the AShM capacity of the bigger ships, then we will actually be needing less ships to meet the theoretical 186 missiles needed against the PLAN's WPS fleet.
I would look for the LIGHTEST possible boat that can carry 8 AShMs and have ASW capability, plus some short-range SAMs. The lighter the ship, the less expensive it will likely be, so if all of those can be fitted into a 500-700 ton ship, so much the better. If we can have these, then we will have a good chance of enforcing Sea Denial on China at Recto Bank.
Make those frigates the HDF-3000 and that's 16 AShMs each.
ReplyDeleteKongsberg NSM can be packed in denser load-outs than other 'heavy' AShMs --- http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/sea-air-space-2014/1733-kongsberg-introduces-some-qarmed-to-the-teethq-lcs-concepts-at-sea-air-space-2014.html
8-cell UKSK vertical launch system for BrahMos and Club-N is compact enough to fit onboard a 62-meter FAC! --- http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/51779/, http://vpk.name/file/img/project_21631_0614.t.jpg, http://www.concern-agat.com/products/defense-products/81-concern-agat/90-uksk
With a 2014 military budget of P92.9 billion pesos (4.1% of 2014 National Budget), I hope our government will double that budget to P185.8 billion pesos ($4.13 billion at 8.2%) in 2015 for missile procurements. (specifically Brahmos AShM, SAM & AAM missile systems). A Brahmos missile, with a range of 290 km, a warhead of 300 kg and a supersonic speed of 3,675 km/h, is a versatile, multi-purpose missile system suitable for our coastal and air defense. With a unit cost of around $2.8 million dollars each, the AFP can afford to buy 300 units of this Brahmos missiles as our immediate, cost-effective defensive system & deterrent against Chinese aggression. Better for the AFP to procure 300 Brahmos missiles with a total cost of $840 million compared to only buying 4 brand new Frigates with a total cost of $928 million (@ $232 million each).
ReplyDelete$928 million dollars can also buy 30 units of F-15C/E Eagle Air Superiority & Strike fighters at $31 million each.
ReplyDeleteYour quoted price for the F-15 is too low, Roberts. The "real world price" (i.e., including logistics, training, etc.) for an F-15 Silent Eagle contract by South Korea in 2013 was worth USD 122 million per aircraft: http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-08-22/korea-favors-f-15-silent-eagle-fighter-over-f-35-typhoon
ReplyDelete* The Brahmos would be nice if mounted on ships, but at 3,000 kg each, I have some doubts on just how many could be mounted on ships. So far the Indian Navy have mounted them only on their Frigates and Destroyers, and only up to 8 missiles for each ship.
ReplyDelete* After the Brahmos, the NSM would probably be the next best AShM around because of its stealth capability, and since it is very light at only 407 kg each, theoretically more could be packed into a ship. If so, we can have less than 24 ships to meet the 186 missile requirement. The only issue with the NSM is its relatively light 125 kg warhead, while missiles like the Harpoon have 200 kg warheads ...
I believe the fast attack craft project using MPAC is still very much alive. Or is it not?
ReplyDeleteIf it is, how would it compliment the big ships?
If not for that MCTR regulation that limits the Brahmos' range to under 300 km, I would agree to this, but the MCTR is there, hence my reservations about this ...
ReplyDeleteAt 20 tons, I think it is just too small to carry large missiles, and to have good defense capability against aircraft and submarines. But if they can design one that would fit the following, why not?
ReplyDelete- 8 large AShMs
- ASW
- Missile-based Air Defense
- Decoys
i think we should also consider MPAC and our current frigates, corvettes and fast patrol boats to carry anti ship missiles. hope this is an opener, taiwan in the 70's purchase from israel fast patrol boats the DVORA class. the DVORA was designed by the israelis not to carry anti-ship missiles but when acquired by taiwan they named it "HAIO OU class missile boats" that carries 2 hsiong feng anti-ship missiles. taiwan was able to built 50 of these missile boats from 1970s until it was retired beginning 1999 and were replaced by 30 kuang hua stealth missile boats.
ReplyDeletethe displacement of DVORA or HAIO OU is only 45 tons and a length of only 71.5 ft. the KUANG HUA 171 tons and a length of 112.2 feet
looking into the inventory of the philippine navy not only the newly acquired MPACs we have potential naval assets that can be armed with anti ship missiles of at least 2 or 4 anti ship missiles.
1. 2- Gregorio del Pilar class (Hamilton)- 3,250 tons- 378 feet can be
armed with 4 anti ship missiles
2. 3- Jacinto Class (Peacoc)- 712 tons- 205.4 feet can be armed with 2
anti ship missiles
3. 2- Gen. Emilio AGuinaldo class- 279 tons- 144 feet can be armed
with 2 anti ship missiles
4. 1- Gen. Mariano Alvarez class (Cyclone) - 331 tons- 179 feet can be
can be armed with 2 anti ship missiles
5. 22- Jose Andrada class - 56.4 tons - 78 feet can be armed with 2
anti-ship missiles
we have a potential of 30 boats that can be converted to carry anti ship missiles. we can re-armed them in a shorter period of time while waiting the delivery of 2 brand new frigates. the Pohang class corvette that will be donated by the south koreans is unarmed this can be also a potential acquisition to be re-armed with missiles.
i would be happy even just half of these assets will be converted to carry anti ship missiles.
with the needed budget and proper negotiation with anti ship missile suppliers, we can re-armed our potential naval assets with missiles much earlier than the delivery of 2 brand new missile frigates.
My Wordpress software keeps flagging your post as spam because of the links in them, franmar, so you will have to wait around awhile to see them posted as I have to manually approve each of them.
ReplyDeleteEither the Brahmos or the NSM is fine with me, although we will likely save more money with the NSMs as more can be packed into a ship, lowering the required number of ships as weapons platform. And they will have none of the complications tied to being a joint venture with the Russians like the Brahmos. At any rate, it is up to DND and navy to make the call on this one.
You are right rhk111, maybe, as quoted by Wikipedia & other source, $31M is the cost of the basic configuration of the F-15C/E models (w/o Stealth) and $100M for the F-15SE Silent Eagle with Stealth feature. Up-grades,training & logistics coasts are separate costs. The 290K limited range of Brahmos (due to the not-binding MTCR agreement), on the othe hand, is on paper only for public consumption but in reality india secretly modified & up-graded some (if not many) of it's Brahmos to a 500 KM range.
ReplyDeletehttp://defence.pk/threads/new-modified-brahmos-with-500-km-range.212136/
http://www.aircraftcompare.com/subcategory/Military-Jets/11
These are serious weaknesses but I think they can be overcome with planning. Size constraints might prohibit multirole equipment fits but a dedicated ASW variant could sanitize an area for its missile-armed brethren. Even if all the latter could do is run their speed makes them difficult targets for any torpedo, and forcing a sub to expose its presence is a victory in itself. Add air cover or at least early warning of airborne threats and this could work.
ReplyDeleteBad news on the Brahmos: It seems China will be using PAKISTAN as a bargaining leverage to prevent its sale to Vietnam. If they can do that to Vietnam, expect them to do the same with the Philippines also. China can provide weapons and/or weapons technology to Pakistan as leverage ...
ReplyDeletehttp://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/08/27/india_to_train_vietnamese_pilots_to_fly_sukhoi_fighters_37859.html
They don't have experience in building naval vessels, but would be a prime candidate for license building of foreign designed ships ... http://www.hermashipping.com/vessels/
ReplyDeletesaw the ghost fast craft by juliet marine in an article. impressive. the only thing that goes against it is the engines and the sea state (most likely a fair weather vessel only) where it operates. but for the price and weapons and plans to build a corvette sized unit it may be a partial solution. it still needs air cover though so it should be paired with maritime strike and maritime patrol aircraft. it would be cool though but i doubt they would pass the dnd bidding. no experience and highly experimental. looks bad ass...sayang
ReplyDeletejust an update local fishermen saw china make mabini reef into a tropical island paradise complete with trees according to philstar. is it just me or have we just been invaded... question, is the reed bank the only part with gas? oil? then i suggest giving up the others just let us keep the recto bank. how about benham rise? oil? gas? metals? anything? anything to fund thr phn and phaf.
ReplyDeleteMabini (or Johnson) Reef is a far from Recto Bank, around 330 km South-West of Recto Bank. What happened in Mabini Reef is the same thing that happened with Mischief Reef, we claim it as our territory and they occupied it.
ReplyDeleteRecto Bank is important because it holds 45% or 5 billion of the estimated 11 billion barrels of oil in the Spratly Islands. It seems that if the Philippines is to make a stand in the Spratlys, it should be at Recto Bank ...
India is currently developing a Mach 7 (8,568 KPH), 290-km range Brahmos-II cruise missile. With this extreme speed, it has a higher probably of hitting a target 290 km away in just 2.03 minutes after being detected by radar. And with the distance of Scarborough Shoal just 198 km west of Subic Bay, Brahmos-II can hit any naval target in that area in just 1.38 minutes. It will be nice if the Philippines will be able to procure that from India in the near future
ReplyDeleteI have personal reservations against supersonic AShMs like Brahmos. To put a powerful motor to achieve such speed, a USN analysis argues that the missile have to make considerable compromises - contrail detection, electronic counter counter measure, guidance, weight, size, etc
ReplyDeleteUSN is happy to retain the missiles subsonic and focus on stealth, sensors, counter measures and range instead
Hi RHK, i believe the US is trying their hands on hypersonic weapons such as the RAIL gun and this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.janes.com/article/42306/pentagon-s-advanced-hypersonic-weapon-test-abandoned-after-lift-off
Yeah, but for me it is a different type of a hypersonic weapon as it more like a cannon round as it is unguided, as opposed to, say, a Brahmos 2 missile which flies under its own power and has it own guidance unit.
ReplyDeleterhk111, how about the Chinese GPS-guided WS-2D & SY-400 Multiple-Rocket Launcher Systems (MLRS). Does the US or other Western countries have such a comparable MLRS sytem that our government can procure.ith a 400-km firing range and not subject to MCTR limitation, I think it is cheaper than cruise and ballistic missiles that can overwhelm and saturate the air defenses of a large group of naval vessels.or land-based installations. We should also have this long-tange rocket artillery system.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weishi_Rockets
The small vs. big boat debate has been ongoing for years if not decades now, and each platform has its own strengths and weaknesses. As far as I am concerned, there should be a mix between these 2. Small boats are cheap, but they lack the RANGE, ENDURANCE and FIREPOWER of the bigger boats.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of surveillance, for example, they can't go as far or stay as long at sea. Sure, they can be replenished, but buying replenishment ships and making replenishment operations will negate your cost savings of buying smaller boats in the first place. Hence, better to just have BOTH ...
Any missile with >300 km range is covered by the MTCR, Roberts: http://www.mtcr.info/english/FAQ-E.html
ReplyDeleteIf we can develop Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles (AShBMs) of our own, then so much the better. These will have to be able to hit moving targets like ships, though, and we will need to use other ways to increase their effectiveness, like using Decoys, versions that release Chaff, or versions that use bomblets ...
While i hate to admit it we are steadily loosing the spratlys conflict since china is reclaiming almost all of them. Rp should also now build on our remaining claims. Its now or never even if we win in itlos. Rp should also buy chinooks or sea stallions to ferry construction materials since we cannot do it by sea because of the chinese coast guard. I hope china builds on the malaysian claims para magkaalaman na they are china lovers.
ReplyDeleteTurns out it MAY be possible to be exempt from the MTCR as long as we don't use it for Weapons of Mass Destruction, but still not sure about this, there doesn't seem to be a lot of exemptions made for this rule: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/mtcr
ReplyDeleteThe late response. Sorry
ReplyDeleteNo official carrier in Korea, Japan
Sensitive to China, Korea, Japan
However, LHD, LHA has been renovated in an aircraft carrier, F-35B
You can take off and land is
To build an aircraft carrier to Japan, Korea, 2020.
BrahMos-M has entered into Korea technology
KM-SAM development in 1999 was the Russian Technology Transfer
We provide semiconductor technology, electronics technology, South Korea
Korea missiles, radar technology has improved so
Russia has increased missile accuracy
The United States has greatly anger
Ukrainian aircraft was shot down 9K338 Igla-S is
Went to Korea for Technology (Russia improvement)
Ukraine is better than the 9K338 Igla-S (source)
It was going to buy a kilo-class submarine in 1989, South Korea
Looking around Russian submarine in the 1991 Korea evaluation team
U-209 and determines the purchase
Kilo class submarines are outdated and was all analog
Russian weapons are not recommended if you trust too
T-80U tanks imported from Russia,
ReplyDeleteDifficult to repay the loan was repaid to the lender of Korea Russian military material
Difficult for the Russian economy is not doing the downgrade has been sent
This has to assemble and disassemble, Korea Design reverse
We admire the Russian technology was used in the XK-2 tank developed later
You must use a good opportunity to improve technology Philippines
I don't understand the either-or attitude. Land-based missiles or ships, frigates or FACs when all of these should be viewed as complementary assets. Some FAC-only advocates point to Sweden but even they want frigates now that Putin has made his move. Even Israel is trying to get frigates now that they have gas fields deep in their EEZ to worry about.
ReplyDeletethat should have been the right idea to have both, the big and small boats. thats why it is my proposal since the big boats such as the 2 new missile frigates is still a long wait (6 to 7 years delivery start counting from the signing of contract) at these early we should work to upgrade and re-armed our existing inventories of the 2 hamiltons, 3 peacock corvettes, 2 gen, aguilnaldo class, 1 cyclone class and choose among the 22 andrada class to be re-armed with anti-ship and air to air missiles.
ReplyDeletejust what i said, the dvora class purchased by the taiwanese from the israelis was not designed to carry anti ship missiles but with the taiwanese it was made a missile gun boat. the boats i mentioned in the phil navy inventory are much bigger or almost the same size with the dvora.
if only government will prioritized of re-arming our boats with missiles start form the hamiltons and peacocks which are very much bigger than the dvoras's we could have at least 5 vessels with in a period of 2 to 3 years already missile capable.
regardless we dont have the complete package such as ASW but at least we have something to throw against the chinese while waiting for the fa-50s or the new MRFs and the 2 missile frigate already ASW capable.
if we want to add more we have still 2 aguinaldo class and 1 cycone class which can become missile capable. once the 2 new frigates will arrived we have a total of 10 ships missile capable. now we have a combine big and small missile capable boats.
such notion that we are still outnumbered, is a fact we have to accept. but it should not be an excused that we will surrender our territory just because we are out gunned or out numbered. but we cannot move on if we will continue to be concerned of our weakness.
there are other alternatives to enhance our defence capabilities not only acquiring state of the art weaponries but we also enhance and strengthened our military pacts not only with the united states but also with other countries such as vietnam, japan and australia whom are also concerned of the chinese adventurism.
recent developments in the WPS such as the harassment of chinese fighter on a P-8 poseidon in the WPS also made a sharp reaction from the u.s. by sending another carrier battle group that puts 2 carrier battle groups in the western pacific. these is the a big blunder of the chinese because now u.s. interest was also threatened..
we been discussing the capability of the brahmos a hypersonic cruise missile and being hypersonic. but it was not yet proven how effective is it and its accuracy in an actual war. but we have not also consider the americans harpoons even sub sonic but have proven its effectiveness. what we have not considered also that cruisers, destroyers and submarines of the u.s,. navy not only carried harpoon missiles but also tomahawk missiles that has a range of more than 1,000 miles. the new tomahawk mark iv was designed to hit moving targets in the sea and land. so the tomahawk is not only for land but also sea targets. a supersonic speed of mach 3 was also in consideration by installing a ramjet on its system
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that those people wanted to extend the "Swarm Boat" concept to using more modern boats like the Visby.
ReplyDeleteSweden is, a "Corvette Navy", but they are an exception, a vast majority of navies around the world uses a mix of big and small boats. Also, our Coastline is more than 10 times longer than Sweden, so the small boat philosophy might have worked for them, but not for us because we have a much bigger area to patrol ...
The problem with the Andrada and Batillo class ships are, I think:
ReplyDelete- First they have been used a lot all these years, so they are in need of overhaul. So any up-arming will have to be timed with their overhauls
- Second is that they there is a LOT of things to upgrade to for those ships. Their main gun is a MANUAL, World War 2 era 40 mm Mk 3 Mod 0, and so are all of their guns, so the cost of upgrading the vessels will be large.
If the cost is high, maybe it is better to just get new boats, and keep these ships as Patrol Gun Boats like they are now ...
Thanks for the info, kim205co.
ReplyDeletei just make an example rhk111 that we have boats that are potential to be armed with missiles. well, we have still the hamiltons, peacocks, the aguinaldos and cyclones i know can be armed with missiles.
ReplyDeletethats why i made a comparison between the dvora which is a small patrol gun boat almost same size with the andrada and batillo class but converted to missile boats. im just identifying that can be a potential missile capable because if we dont make the initiative now, what is the use of the brand new missile frigates when WPS is already in the hands of the chinese.
All old PN ships retro-fitted with a few anti-ship missiles have no chance of surviving a battle against the more modern, bigger and better-armed Chinese frigates. Is is safer to relegate these old ships for patrol and surveillance activities only with their present guns/cannons which they carry. Better for our AFP to concentrate more at the soonest time possible on building up first the PAF air combat & land-based defensive missile capabilities by procuring Air-Superiority MRFs (and not LIFT trainers) & .placing coastal long-range Anti-Ship & Surface-to-Air missile batteries along the length of Palawan and Western Luzon to deny China's PLA Navy the ability to take complete control of Spratly Islands, Reed bank & Scarborough shoal inside our Exclusive Economic Zone. At any time,the probability of the dispute escalating into a conflict is very high w/c will be started by China. We only have our government to blame for its blunders in arming our AFP at a very very slow pace and wrong decisions & planning. Until now our government is blind in not realizing that China is unilateraly going to end the dispute by military force at all cost and the US cannot do anything about it bec. of a weak US president.
ReplyDeleteagain i say this, since we already ordered the fa-50 the chances of getting a brand new MRF is DIM. further, just to be practical if other countries was able to retrofit their naval vessels with missiles why the philippines cannot do it.
ReplyDeletei made this proposal because even the 2 missiles frigates were not still sure who win the bid and when the contract will be signed. just to give you a scenario only we can signed the contract you can count 6 to 7 years that the ships will reach our shores. without the contract no missile frigates.
but we have existing ships such as the hamilton, peacock, even the cyclone are capable to be armed with missiles.the cyclone itself in the u.s. was armed with BGM-176B Griffin B missiles why we cannot install that in our cyclone's or the hamilton that USCG cutter Melton proved it can carry a harpoon and ASW. Our peacock we can re-configure it to carry anti ship missiles or a smaller air to ait missiles like the minstral.
if we will only prioritize the upgrading of our existing ships i mentioned,with the budget, we could have a capable missile ships in 2 years time while waiting for the brand new frigates.
the delay have already cost as much,,,,just armed our existing assets with missiles. if there is a need to purchase land based ASHMS then we should make it a top priority BUT WHEN???
fi nothing is being done the best solution the return of the U.S. Naval and air force base in the philippines now at least through the rent of our bases we can re-arm our armed forces. .
In a battle scenario, we have to accept the reality that the PN has no chance against the PLA Navy. Even if we have 6 brand new frigates and all our old naval ships are armed with Anti-ship missiles this year. we stil won't be able to kick the Chinese out of our occupied reefs and it will be suicidal for the PN to engage them. But we can deny the Chinese naval ships the ability to take control of our reefs by hitting them with anti-ship missiles coming from our mainland instead of our naval ships so as to avoid.endangering the lives of our PN sailors. China will not dare attack our mainland to avoid involving the US but it will attack our naval ships if it goes beyond our 12 nm territorial boundary. We can only confront China with defensive measures in defending our reefs and not into an offensive action to start a war except if China will be the one to start it. I would rather prefer for the PAF and coastal missile batteries to provide the first line of defense than the PN bec, it can quickly respond so I think it should have been given more priority by our government.
ReplyDeletei agree with you robert that we do not have a chance against the PLA Navy in a shooting war. However, all other areas of concern in regards to our defence must taken into consideration. regardless even we will be defeated we have to improve our naval assets being an archipelago we need naval ships to patrol our boundaries and those ships must have the necessary means at least to have a credible defence and during these days they must have missiles.
ReplyDeletei for one, really push that we should start first with the air force by acquiring a real MRF and anti ship missiles. however, i already resigned the fact that when we acquired the fa-50 the prospect of getting MRFs in the near future is dim. and regards to the land based anti ship missiles due to the pending bidding of the 2 new missile frigates such acquisition is also dim. we have to admit that our government is trying its best to acquire the things that are needed but the defence budget is just too low that what we can do is only a piecemeal acquisition.
but if no naval ships to patrol our territories the chinese will take advantage on this situation everyday inch by inch we will lost territories until we will be denied of our economic zone as provided in the international law of the seas. we will be choked, just like an anaconda slowly tightening its grip in our body till we can no longer breath. and that is also a reality. thats why vietnam take the risk even they already lost a number of ships by ramming because they know if they will be allowed be bullied they are in the disadvantage being farther from the disputed areas. if vietnam confront china in the manner of ramming,, the philippines must result to active defence being the source of dispute is just in our backyard and our existing ships must provide for that active defence and they must be re-armed with missiles.
even we will be defeated we have all the rights to defend ourselves. but our foreign policy is also anemic. unlike vietnamn who seriously pursued military cooperation with the united states, india and japan. yes we have military ties with the u.s. but it is us have been lack enthusiasm of making such a tie more relevant because government is more concern on the negative response of some groups which clearly intention to sabotage the military cooperation.even questioning the legality of the agreement.
The Koreans took 10 months to build one Incheon Class frigate. Where did you get your number of "6 to 7 years"? http://stxons.com/service/kor/prcenter/ship_news/read.aspx?oidArticle=1265, http://www.janes.com/article/42363/south-korea-launches-fourth-incheon-class-frigate
ReplyDeleteTaiwan's Kuang Hua VI FACs cost $12.3 million each. The larger Japanese 40-meter MRRVs to be built for the PCG cost about the same for delivery starting next year. The drawings will be turned over to the DOTC. If Japan allows, Philippine shipyards can build a missile-armed version for the PN and earn valuable experience and income. This sounds better than helping foreign firms get richer up-arming 20-40 year-old boats. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2010/05/19/2003473346, http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/08/12/1356457/4-japanese-firms-vie-dotc-project
ReplyDeleteQuite cheap at that price, but can carry only 4 AShMs, so we will need more of them if the Navy agrees we really need to allocate 3 AShMs per Chinese ship to reach the 186 missiles needed. If they don't agree, then they can get less ships.
ReplyDeleteNo ASW capability, so will have to get ASW Escorts. Air defense is minimal, guns only, which to me is the more serious issue. Allied helicopters and fixed wing aircraft wiped out the entire inventory of Missile Boats by the Iraqi navy, so more robust air defenses will be needed.
But it is a good start, better than the gunboats we have now ...
The Kuang Hua design actually looks quite nice, like a nice, compact stealth boat ...
ReplyDeletehttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rWOtGtkPSuk/U5TMbWGYB8I/AAAAAAAABvQ/NWaQulVBJyk/s1600/Kuang+Hua+VI+FAC+(FACG64).jpg
Manual 20 mm gun? I thought the Taiwanese navy is rich enough to afford at least a 30 mm RWS ...
http://p1.storage.canalblog.com/10/73/524038/53247799.jpg
Of course, I also agree with you jmcenabre. The AFP should start the modernization of the PN/PCG by completing the up-grading & up-arming first all it's current inventory of naval/CG ships/boats with missiles & CIWSs before it starts enhancing the PN's naval combat capability with new MPACs,Missile boats, CG cutters/Corvettes/Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), frigates, destroyers, Cruisers, Assault Combat Ships, Helicopter Carriers & submarines as funds becomes available even if it takes.5 decades.The only gravest mistake & biggest blunder of the Pnoy Administration is for allowing the Chinese occupation of our reefs by withdrawing our PCG Patrol Boats during standoffs . Pnoy should have transferred some of the boats & ships of the PN to the PCG & Philippine maritime police so they will have the ability to confront Chinese maritime ships in any standoff and deny the Chinese the opportunity to occupy the reefs everytime we have no CG presence in those areas.Government can lease bigger civilian passenger/cargo shipsand tankers supported by PCG boats in blocking the big Chnese CG ships. It's either the result of the stupidity of the advice Pnoy received from it's civilian or military advisers as the cause for the loss of the Mabini Reef, Scarborough Shoal and other reefs to the Chinese. Ad now the gas & oil rich Reed bank is next inline for Chinese occupation.
ReplyDeletejust compute our orders of the 12 fa-50s. 18 monhts after the signing of contract the first 2 fa-50s will be delivered. and count again another 12 mos. another 2 fa-50s will be delivered and counting again another 12 months the last 8 fa-50s will be delivered. so for the 12 smaller fa-50s it will take more than 3 years to be delivered. but since the south korean air force ordered first, 90 fa-50s that will put us second to its priority.
ReplyDeletein regards to the incheon class frigate we ordered 2, but since that south korean navy also ordered first, about 24 boats we can assume again we are not the only customer so lets be practical its still a long wait.
yes, robert the only way we can prevent the chinese encroaching our territories in the WPS or KIG is physical occupation. we should put structures and men (philippine marines) that is the only option. look at ayungin since we have the old landing ships and marines, the chinese cannot just occupy. we have to learn that experience.
ReplyDeletewith the withdrawal of the 2nd marine brigade in sulu they can be re-stationed in the KIG.
The 51-meter Hamina Class: 8-cell VLS for Umkhonto SAMs, 57mm DP gun, 3D radar, towed-array sonar, and 4 RBS15 AShMs. Unfortunately the aluminum hull alone (before the carbon fiber superstructure, sensors, and weapons) cost $24 million in 2003. "Endurance: 5 days." I'd rather put the same systems on an 80-meter corvette. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-549401041.html, http://www.stxmarine.net/lib_PV50.html
ReplyDeleteThe Descubierta, Badr and Ratanakosin class Corvettes fill the characteristics I am looking for, and still retain decent endurance and range. These are big ships, though, at around 1,000 tons each. We can either get these 2nd hand, or at least base the design of new ships on them.
ReplyDeleteThe next best thing is the Roussen class Corvette, which carries a RAM launcher, 8 AShMs, but not ASW capability.
I don't think any of these ships will come close to the price of the Kuang Hua VI, though. It may be possible to fit 8 AShMs on the KH6 if we use the lighter NSMs, which are half the weight of the Hsiung Feng IIIs. If we fit the KH6s with 2 MSI Sigma CIWS, it may be decent enough for Air Defense, together with a good softkill system.
As for ASW, an ASW variant of the KH6 could be acquired, and set up to work with every 3-4 ASuW version of the KH6 ....
Actually we are currently loosing spratlys already. China already has 5 new islands to play with. The issue now is what can we do to save the remaining places we have. All this talk of mrfs, mpas, missile batteries and frigates is good but all bets are off already. We should spend on construction already. Win or loose at itlos we cant kick them off already. Buy 4 chinooks or sea stallions to ferry equipment and materials. If china says we are escalating tensions then let rp show the world what china is currently doing. If china shoots down the chinook then hopefully asean would notice. Best case they will be on our side worst case they will at least condemn the shooting and china becomes the new bad boy of asia.
ReplyDeleteWell i think because in the US's scheme of things, the aircraft is still the best solution to counter a floating sea threat. They employ a carrier group with E2s and Growlers that can scan farther than ship radars. And once they see you first, those hornets will be pouncing on you before you know it. Thats why you see a devt on Air launched cruise missiles, because aircraft can move around quicker than missile batteries.
ReplyDeletethe development of both ships and aircraft is the most logical thing to do. but with the afp budget of only less than 121 billion a year we cant really buy much.
ReplyDeleteunless, there will be a change of policy. education itself has more than 200 billion and just to buy txt books it has 2 billion pesos. while budget of afp external defense is only 1.5 billion and 5 billion for modernization.
This would fit my requirements perfectly, with the added bonus of a helicopter landing pad. Its good to see that almost all modern Corvette designs now incorporate at least a helicopter landing pad ...
ReplyDeleteAircraft is good if you have deep pockets like the US to be able to afford Aircraft Carriers, but not so much for everybody else. No other country in the world have at least half the Aircraft Carriers that the US has ...
ReplyDeleteToo many people. Approximately 2 million Filipinos are born every year, which why your Education budget is so high.
ReplyDeleteThe importance of Air Defense for ships: Ukrainian vessel attacked by Russian aircraft ...
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/8D8gFFpLavE
Ill say that this 'Ghost' is an impressive craft for charted waters. However, the SWATH technology that this craft uses has a deep draught that can hinder operations on areas with so many underwater obstacles like coral reef, sand banks, or shoals that lie three feet below the wave top at low tide. Its gas turbines is even located below the water line,.I would prefer a similar sized boat with a draught limit of just five feet. IMO, the KNM Sljold with its 1.0 meter would be a better alternative.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile Chinese Drones.
ReplyDeletehttp://english.cntv.cn/2014/09/01/VIDE1409523721365763.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JgAkkvHbxc
http://www.ecns.cn/military/2014/09-01/132443.shtml
We might encounter this someday. We need a strong anti-aircraft rather buying gunboats.
Damn China, that Rainbow No. 4 Drone is a clear rip off of the Predator Drone ...
ReplyDeleteGreat insight, rhoydec. And thanks for the link, that would a good read. Western AShMs means none of the issues related to the Brahmos in terms of political pressure from China to the countries involved in its manufacture, namely India and Russia ...
ReplyDeleteThe Saar S-72 is really quite nice, only around 800+ tons. Also, for the Saar S-72 and Avante 1400, if we remove the option for using helicopter and put AShM launchers on that landing pad, I bet we can fit in another 8 AShMs there, giving such small ships with 16 AShMs each.
ReplyDeleteOf course you lose the helicopter and its advantages, but it might be a worthwhile tradeoff ...
SUPERSONIC VS SUBSONIC AShM's
ReplyDeleteHere are the stats of the popular samples of supersonic and subsonic AShM’s which I used in the performance comparison above -
Brahmos ( PJ10 ) – SUPERSONIC
Warhead: 200~300 kg
Speed: Mach 2.8~3.0
Range: 300~(500) km
Weight: 2,500~3,000 kg
Length: 8.4 m
Engine: solid propellant booster + liquid fuel ramjet
Cost: $ 2.7 million
SLAM-ER ( AGM-84K/H ) – SUBSONIC
Warhead: 220 kg
Speed: Mach 0.7
Range: 270 km
Weight: 675 kg
Length: 4.4 m
Engine: turbojet
Cost: $ 0.5 million
Thanks, Rhk111
SLAM-ER Price: 2.6 Million
ReplyDeleteIntegrator: F-15E, F-16 Block 60
SLAM-ER is many a problem.
In the Republic of Korea Air Force F-15K was a failure fire test
The introduction of the Air Force XX Quantity Korea
The failure rate is 60%
I asked for a refund on Korea Air Force Boeing, but Boeing has declined.
The TAURUS introduced from Germany, South Korea Air Force.
SLAM-ER 0.5 million United States Air Force is the supply price
When the prices of large amount purchases
Brahmos missile is good, but there is no verification
The missile is reliable and consumables a (10 year life)
Metis -M good weapon system, but it is not suitable operating Partially Korea Army
Brahmos are more suitable for land-based emplacements and SLAM-ER for ship and aircraft platforms.
ReplyDeleteTAURUS KEPD 350 is also a good air-launched cruise missile more applicable on land targets with it's over 500 km operational range.Our government should have given more priority on procuring missile systems & start negotiating with governments to license-manufacture missiles locally since we need lots of them for all the services of the AFP (PA, PAF,.PN, PM, PCG).
ReplyDeleteNo, I think the Taurus KEPD is designed to hit fixed targets and not ships that are moving, so it is not an Anti Ship Missile ...
ReplyDeleteStumped by the fact that missiles like the Storm Shadow, AGM-158 JASSM and Taurus KEPD have been exported to other countries also even if they have more than 300 km range.
ReplyDeleteReviewing the MTCR regulations, the rule seems to restrict missiles only with 300 km range AND 500 kg warhead, so if the parameters are below these (like on the JASSM, KEPD and Storm Shadow), then they are not covered by the regulation.
So all those talk about the Brahmos limited to a range of only 290 km because of the MTCR seems to be FALSE, I think Russia or somebody misinterpreted the rule. The Brahmos should be exempted as its warhead is less than 500 kg. I think that is a SERIOUS error there on the part of the manufacturers or policy makers of India and Russia ...
Here's a report saying BrahMos can hit a target at 500km simply by adding satellite guidance. Since no mention is made of airframe or engine modifications this is an admission the basic missile already exceeds MTCR guidelines. http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20121009/176500812.html
ReplyDeleteA better explanation on the MTCR rule: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transnational/vol14_1/dutra.pdf
ReplyDeleteI am perplexed, even the manufacturer and main designer of the Brahmos are giving conflicting statements about its range and the MTCR rule. It should be embarrassing for them that it takes other people to figure it out when it was supposed to be their job to know about it (shakes head).
Hard to detect by radar, and won't set off your Radar Warning Receivers. A deadly combination, indeed ...
ReplyDeletePossible complication: we know the PN plans to obtain missiles for the newbuild frigates thru a separate competition. If this leads to a single ITB for both anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, then either (a) the AShMs and SAMs will be acquired from a single manufacturer, or (b) obtained via a joint venture.
ReplyDeletePresently only three Western-aligned companies manufacture both AShMs and SAMS: the Anglo/French/Italian MBDA, the German Diehl-BGT, and LIG Nex1 of South Korea. A strong advantage in the ability to offer a competitively-priced bid.
IAI of Israel advertises the Advanced Naval Attack Missile (believed to be Gabriel 5) but it is unknown if this is in production or a mere concept at this time. IAI and Rafael are collaborating on the Barak 8 SAM under contract with the Israeli Defense Forces.
Kongsberg, manufacturer of NSM, does not make SAMs. Due to a tie-up with Raytheon (land-based NASAMS) there is the possibility of a JV with the American company ... however the existing Raytheon and Diehl BGT partnership on the RAM Block 2 stands in Kongsberg's way.
BrahMos Aerospace offers a single product (guess what).
Denel makes the Umkhonto SAM in use with the navies of South Africa and Finland. It has no AShMs in its catalog.
The Harpoon AShM is a Boeing product. No SAMs in its catalog.
I think the ITBs for the SAMs and AShMs should be separate, this will give us more options to choose from and thus possibly better bargains.
ReplyDeleteA replacement for the Scorpion tank.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/scoutsv/index.html
Guess who sold us out...philstar's jarius bondoc says sen. Trillanes gave up the spratlys through back door channeling with china. Mabini reef in particular. For an ex navy man this is quite surprising even if done to prevent conflict this is like giving land to appease a conqueror. Both the dark lord and himself should be cellmates.
ReplyDeleteAnu kaya kapalit? Siguro etong shipment galing China may deliver ng Chinese made transport van naka blue para sa PAF.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't trust Jarius Bondoc, he is a known rabid Anti-PNoy writer and probably a fan of Gloria Arroyo. He is going after Trillanes because Trillanes is a known PNoy supporter.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you are looking at a real Chinese Manchurian candidate, look no further than Judge Jardeleeza. It would be VERY DANGEROUS for the Philippines if he does end up in the Supreme Court ...
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/66685-inside-story-jardeleza-disloyalty
Unfortunately Jardeleza's SC nomination was accepted. An even bigger problem is the identity of Jardeleza's pro-China benefactor, implied to be someone with designs on 2016. Not hard to guess ... http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/09/01/1364051/jardeleza-now-scs-third-division
ReplyDeleteOh shit. But the bigger issue, knowing what Jardeleeza did, then why the hell didn't PNoy choose a new candidate for SC Justice? Once they are in there, it will be difficult to kick them out. In the end, the decision was in the hands of PNoy, and he still went thru with it. I wonder why ...
ReplyDeleteSo who do you all think we should support in the 2016 presidential elections that will continuously accelerate the modernization of AFP much better and faster than Pnoy. How about Roilo Golez, Alan Cayetano, Pimentel & Miriam Santiago aside from Mar Roxas.
ReplyDeleteI personally would vote for Miriam, but the problem is that she does not have the nod of the masses, and therefore not "winnable". Our 'masa' thinks a different way than the middle or upper class, and they don't make really good choices, but it is what it is, and in the end we can only compromise to what they will also want.
ReplyDeleteIf Alan Cayetano, Grace Poe or Mar Roxas can prove to be "winnable" for us, then I will vote for them also ...
we have a big problem if in all people filipinos are the ones who revealed to the chinese our intentions and actions that will compromise security of our country and the cases we filed in the international court.
ReplyDeletewhy there is no such investigation in congress and in the senate. whether it is a trillanes or jardeleeza or whoever they are, they must explain what they been doing, what are the hidden agendas and what informations they revealed to the chinese and the influence from the chinese that make those so called filipinos act in the manner that it seems they sold us out.
again, territorial dispute with the chinese was never given serious consideration in the house of congress. sometimes there are many ways i disagree with the good mayor of davao but he humbly discourage people who want to nominate him to be president in the next election, when he told them if he will become president he will abolish congress and create a military junta. it seems very logical because congress and senate are the ones who give headaches to these country.
Remember he answers to someone inside the palace other than the president. Everything else follows. Quid pro quo.
ReplyDeleteThe new age of warfare is among us. No longer will countries fight openly but through the use of proxy forces which is true for russia and china. In our case they include the neps, ultra leftists, chinese supported candidates such as the dark lord, mutiny senator, an sc justice, common criminals out to discredit the govt. Corruption, poverty, bribery are also proxy devices that china can use to circumvent plausability. On a side note if our afp can do a golan defense why did we not do it in panatag? If we stood our ground i bet you we would not be in our situation now. We could have done arbitration at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI'm very surprised they hit those small boats 4.8 km from shore using Indirect Fire. The boats were probably traveling at a relatively slow speed and travelling at a straight course. Fast maneuvering boats are difficult to hit, the Syrians/Egyptians tried to use Indirect Artillery against Israeli boats during the Yom Kippur War with very little success.
ReplyDeleteOto Melara is offering a Semi-Active Laser Homing 155 mm Vulcano round that can hit moving targets, but maximum range is only 80 km. Also, the maximum range of a laser designator is only around 20 km, so you need somebody close to the target to lase it until the round arrives on target.
Incidentally, Oto Melara is now offering an IR-guided Vulcano round for the 76 mm cannon, range is up to 40 km, a good way to up-arm our ships, especially the Jacinto-class. Not sure how much damage you can do with a 76 mm round, though. You'd probably need a dozen or so hits to do some real damage on a Frigate-sized ship ...
http://www.otomelara.it/documents/1287567/3805308/body_VULCANO_76_mm_REV2013.pdf
i agree with u omar
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the price.
ReplyDeleteIt is too High Price
U.S Navy canceled the E.R.G.M identical
The prices are similar to missiles
You mean for the Vulcano rounds, kim205co?
ReplyDeleteI couldn't really find a good source on what the price is for the Vulcano rounds, but if it really is the same as missiles, then its no good, a missile would be better. If it were cheaper than a missile, then it would be worth it.
The guided missile rocket on patrol boat
ReplyDeleteThe price is $ 60,000 development plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-Cost_Guided_Imaging_Rocket
https://mirror.enha.kr/wiki/LOGIR
http://photolog.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=mc341&logNo=70102613922
The LOGIR can be fitted into the Chunmoo 230 mm rocket, right? If so, it would be an interesting Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile with its 80 km range. Do you have any ballistic rockets with 400 km range? :D
ReplyDeleteThe development of a variety of platforms (70mm, 130mm)
ReplyDeleteRange 6km -----> 10km increase is (Fire & Forge)
The first price is $ 40,000 -----> 2013. $ 60,000 estimated
Developed 2005-2016 (combat placement)
US Navy stopped development (2010) -> US Army APKWS joint development
AH-1W Launch Success at sea ---> Target Hit
The alternative for LOGIR is 2.75inch rocket pods
ReplyDeleteTerrorist small boats, small targets
Difficult to use the expensive Harpoon
Has been developed aiming at a target
K-MLRS (130mm.240mm equipped)
It is not designed for maritime targets
JADAM role and identical
Was developed for the simultaneous attack on the multi-target
South Korea is the MTCR member states. (800Km range limit)
Completed 800km ballistic missile development in the past
Rhk, the vulcano ammo should cost around 25k$ the 155 round, and the range isn't 80km but 100km (since the M982 excalibur cost 50k)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.diehl.com/en/diehl-defence/press-media/subjects-in-the-focus/new-precision-large-calibre-ammunition-for-armies-and-navies.html
"An additional plus of the VULCANO artillery ammunition is its range. It lies at approx.. 80 kilometers (land) and 100 kilometers (sea) nearly doubling the performance of the U.S. competitor. Furthermore its price is more reasonable: In series production, the artillery projectile is said to cost only half as much as the U.S. competitor. "
Since you were talking about the 76mm we can assume the cost will be a lot smaller, (if it goes by proportions it should cost around 13k but i imagine it will have higher cost)
No need of laser marking, they have mounted IR seeker,
Yes the 76mm probably doesn't do a lot of damage, but you have:
1-120RPM
2-No counter measures (no CIWS like against the missiles)
3-A deviance of just one meter.
4-Way cheaper than a missile with that range
5-It is both offensive and defensive, since you can use it as CIWS
Imagine how many targets a ship can engage with that RPM with the IR seeker doing the rest of the job.
Want a bonus? since the chinese use Supersonic missiles sooner or later the IR seeker on the Vulcano will be probably mounted on the AA version too, so you will get a 40km CIWS against supersonic, with guided and manoeuvring ammo against a target that has a giant IR signature.
My advice? Skjold class corvette this is the solution to your problems.
* Thanks for the cost estimates, meriv. Still quite expensive, if you need 10 rounds to hit and damage a ship, that's USD 130,000 for the 76 mm Vulcano rounds. Yes, since the 76 mm Vulcano round is pretty small, it is going to be hard to hit. With its IR Seeker though, the target can use decoys and hope it will spoof the cannon round away.
ReplyDelete* No, in order to reach 80 km against sea or land targets, the round will have to be fired in an INDIRECT manner, meaning using something similar to ballistic trajectory. However, since missiles are much smaller and much faster than ships, you can't use the same way to hit them, you need to use DIRECT fire to hit them, and the range will be much closer, typically only 4-6 km against missiles using direct fire and using conventional ammo.
* Oto Melara is offering ANOTHER round for CIWS against missiles, and that is the STRALES. It is a guided round used to shoot down a missile: http://www.otomelara.it/documents/1287567/3815358/STRALES_2013.pdf
* When a South American navy bought 3 of these, it cost them only around USD 2 million each, which is way cheaper than a Phalanx, and better range, too, at around 8 km. The rounds of course will be expensive, but I think it is a great way to improve the capabilities of our ships, especially the Jacintos. A ship armed with VULCANO and STRALES rounds could theoretically do away with AShMs and short-range SAMs, and just add in a medium-range SAM. Not many countries have adopted them, though. Only Italy and one other South American country ...
Singapore is studying STRALES for their frigates in combination with the Thales Pharos phased-array fire control radar. Pharos can also guide VSHORAD missiles which takes away a gun-based CIWS's main weakness (a gun can only engage one target at a time). http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140401/DEFREG01/304010016/Oto-Melara-s-Vulcano-Munitions-Ready-Sale, https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/pharos-multi-target-tracking-radar
ReplyDeleteWhat about similar to what Indonesia got from the US? 24 refurbished F-16's for $800 million. Maybe we can get refurbished F-18's for close to that amount and mount a couple of Harpoons each. The new ones can carry 4 harpoons.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say about those refurbished Indonesian F-16s is ... Sayang. If I'm not mistaken, those were the same F-16 taken from the US National Guard stocks that we refused a couple of years ago, thinking that the cost was too high it was almost like buying new aircraft.
ReplyDeleteIf we had bought those then, we'd have F-16s by now. Of course, I think this was before China became an assh%#e at Panatag Shoal ...
On paper those Strales really look good. For USD 2 million you get a hybrid gun/missile CIWS with a range of 8 km, farther than the USD 13 million Phalanx CIWS' 2.5 km range.
ReplyDeleteChina and Vietnam engaged into ship-ramming/blocking and water-cannon duels without resorting into a military confrontation. China has the advantage bec. it has more & bigger ships to use. Our government must support our shipbuilding industry by ordering Naval Fishing Trawlers armed with underwater rams and water cannons in large quantities for the PCG. This will generate employment and enhance the capability of the PCG to confront Chinese CG maritime vessels. These naval trawlers can serve as patrol boats, fishing boats, minesweepers, anti-submarine warfare and for ramming illegal Chinese fishing boats & water-cannon engagements against Chinese CG ships.
ReplyDelete1 year operating maintenance costs (Korea Air Force standards)
ReplyDeleteKF-16 1.2 million (2013)
F-15K 2.2 million (2012)
E-737 20 Million (2012)
Global Hawk 77 million (2012)
F-35A 5.7 million (2011)
KF-16 2 Million (2006) ---> maintenance, source code, parts localization
2014 (1 million estimate)
F-16 must be operating costs in each country.
Costs must be purchased
Taiwan F-16A / B the most expensive (politically)
Egyptian, Turkish F-16C / D cheapest (military support)
Estimated to be expensive if you buy the Philippines (market size, defense industry)
Gripen C / D leases recommended!
ReplyDeleteYep. We can always play the waiting game like what they did to us. Beef up spending for the next 10 years then we turn into aholes by suddenly escorting our fishermen with navy vessels and blocking their resupply routes. Difference is we have itlos. Btw, have been reading unclos laws recently and i might say the chinese if they have any brains know that they are wrong. Unclos is practically common sense and if they do believe they own it then its like saying that spain and portugal own both halves of the world. That is why they keep on claiming islets...time will run out until itlos decides and they are counting on the fact that asean will do nothing. Not even fight back...btw any frigate/corvette news?
ReplyDeleteThis one I think applies only to weapons with more predictable ballistic trajectories like Rockets, Artillery and Mortar (RAM), not sure if it will be as effective against sea-skimming and/or maneuvering aircraft or anti-ship missiles. It does put a wrench on my concept of using Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles though for the Philippines ...
ReplyDeleteThanks the for information, kim205co.
ReplyDeleteNo news yet on the new Frigates, but various speculations that some announcement will be made between now up to the end of 2014, which is about a 3-month wait at most.
ReplyDeleteThe donated Pohang Corvette is set to be transferred next month, so that is worth looking forward to. The RPG-7s and new/refurbished M-113s are scheduled to arrive the 4th Quarter of 2014, so those are again worth waiting for also. The delivery of the PhAF AW109s have been moved forward to the 1st Quarter of 2015 ...
RHK111, why do you think the PN prefers to procure Frigates than LCS which is more suitable for our costal defense. Is it more expensive.
ReplyDeleteAs per Wikipedia information, By 2019, all Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates in the United States Navy were to be replaced by the LCS. While the LCS class ships are smaller than the frigate class they will replace, they offer a similar degree of weaponry while requiring less than half the crew complement and offering a top speed of over 40 knots. A major advantage for the LCS ships is that they are designed around specific mission modules allowing them to fulfill a variety of roles. The modular system also allows for most upgrades to be performed ashore and installed later into the ship, keeping the ships available for deployment for the maximum time. The littoral combat ship (LCS) is a class of relatively small surface vessels intended for operations in the littoral zone (close to shore) by the United States Navy.[1] It was "envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals
C-RAM or CIWS since the same weapons are used the factors of ammo per kill, dwell time, cost per engagement, etc. apply for both. MANTIS (Millennium) and Centurion (Phalanx) both examples of naval CIWS adapted for C-RAM. STRALES relies on a guided shell (the DART) like one of the solutions described in the article, in fact there is a C-RAM version of STRALES (DRACO) using the same ammunition. Use your head no need to wait for someone to spell it out to extrapolate. http://www.otomelara.it/products-services/landsystems/draco
ReplyDeleteNo need to get testy here, franmar. After all, we are all allowed our opinions here, and as far as I'm concerned your insistence on using the C-RAM as CIWS is clearly just an opinion. The Denel Dynamics article clearly says:
ReplyDelete"The simplest guidance law will be command to intercept. RAM targets have highly predictable trajectories due to their ballistic nature."
This is why the name is specific only to "Counter - Rockets, Artillery and Mortar".
Sorry, I'm not a big fan of the LCS, not really sure what the US Navy wanted to do with it. It is very fast, but quite under-armed in its current configuration, although the manufacturer is offering a more heavily armed version of it. Its also quite expensive.
ReplyDeleteEven the USN is now changing its mind, ordering less of these boats and considering a better Frigate based on the National Security Cutter.
Read the quote in context not in isolation. Sensors and weapons are discrete components of the system. Sensors for land use and those for naval use will use different guidance laws but still the systems examined in the article rely on the same weapons. Centurion is Phalanx on a truck, MANTIS is Millennium on a pallet, and the Umkhonto is a missile developed for naval vessels.
ReplyDeleteThe factors analyzed (dwell time, cost/engagement, etc.) have to do with weapons not sensors. (Denel after all makes munitions not radar.) The harder it is to kill a target the more these factors become relevant: precisely because a C-RAM's job is arguably easier their effects will be magnified for a CIWS (e.g. dwell time against a maneuvering AShM will take longer relative to a mortar round with a ballistic trajectory) rather than be avoided. In other words these are factors inherent to weapons by their nature no matter their application. The difference is merely one of degree.
How much is Indonesian c- ram price?
ReplyDeleteAng suliranin ng hukbong dagat at ng buong sandatahang lakas ay pinababayaan nito ang kanilang mga gamit ng hindi inaalagaan nang husto. Halibawa, me nakita akong huey sa loob ng kampo aguinaldo na imbes na hairpin lock ang nakalagay sa maliit na elisi nito, ang ipinalit ay binaluktot na pakong simento. Tama ba yun? Pero, pag pinoy ang tatanungin, ang sagot lang ay "pwede na yan!". Ngayon kung putol ang isang dahon ng elisi ng barko, hahayaan lang yan, wala naman daw makakakita. Nakalubog ito sa tubig.
ReplyDeleteSana lang kung ang lahat ng miyembo ng sandatahang lakas ay katulad din ng Dragon boat team ng Phil. Army. Tahimik lang pero responsable at may binatbat! Bravo!
Tinagalog ko ang sagot ko dahil nahihiya ako baka mabasa ng mga intsik ang kahinaan natin. Atsk binabasa din nila ang blog na ito.
ReplyDeleteOur past & present government has already made the biggest mistake of allowing China to take control of Mischief Reef in the first place and still continued that mistake with Mabini Reef and Scarborough Shoal. And now Reed bank is in danger of being invaded. How far is the Pnoy government going to allow China to slowly give-in to China’s creeping invasion of our territories. Up to Pag-Asa Island or Palawan Island. If within this year before the ITLOS decision, China invades Pag-Asa Island and our other remaining reefs and shoals in Spratly Islands, what is the Phil. going to do now. Just let China occupy them while waiting for the AFP to have a credible defense capability for several years. This is pure stupidity bec. no matter how much we modernize the AFP, it will never match China’s military might. While we are still in the process of acquiring modern fully-armed Frigates for the PN, MRFs for the PAF and Coastal Missile Batteries for the PN, PAF & PA, our government should have turned-over all the PN small naval ships and patrol boats to the PCG, BFAR & PNP maritime police to confront and stop Chinese CG maritime ships & illegal fishing vessels coming in and out of our EEZ, extracting our marine resources and occupying our reefs and shoals no matter how few and weak our capabilities are bec. that is the solemn constitutional duty of our government and the AFP to defend our sovereign territory even if many Filipino lives will die for it. That is why our National Anthem has the words “…ang mamatay ng dahil sa iyo”. Many of our political leaders either simply don’t understand or are totally ignorant of the real, true meaning of “dying for our country.” Japan is also weaker than China even if it has more capable military force than us but the Japanese gov’t. has the guts to confront China even if it leads to war
ReplyDeleteI admire your noble effort, panzer rat.
ReplyDeleteGrabe. Subukan mong kuhanan ng piktyur sa susunod para makalampag ang AFP.
ReplyDeleteKung tutuo nga na ganito, gaano kahirap ba naman na pumunta sila sa isang "Aircraft Graveyard" para mangalap ng sim-pleng piyesang tulad nito? Marami tayong mga helikopter na hindi na talaga mapapakinabangan, mga tipong "scrap" na talaga, puede silang mangahoy duon.
Ideally, dapat me sangguni ng AFP na namamahala sa mga ganito na tinatanggal lahat ng mapapakinabangang piyesa sa mga eroplano o helikopter na wala na talagang silbi at i imbentaryo sa isang lugar para baka maaaring mapakinabangan pa. Pero ang problema siyempre e kung saan ilalagay at iimbak, kailangan ding gumastos para dito.
Atsaka baka maging ugat ng kuraptsyon dahil puedeng ibenta sa international market ang mga piyesang ganito, lalo na by internet ...
very much agree. i admit that if it were up to us we can just do what the vietnamese did but alas we are even weaker than the vietnamese. our president also wants to do this (i think) but he also has to think about the 100 million other mouths to feed (sadly this is a reality). its easy to say makibaka but harder to justify all out conflict with a more powerful foe. the law ultimately will be our ultimate equalizer...but if china still continues to assert its ownership of the south china sea and all of the spartlys and all its riches after arbitration then ultimately we will have to fight (those politicians will have no excuse now) with or without help from ASEAN (God help us). On the good side apparently ayungin shoal and the reed bank contain 45% of the total natural gas deposits of the area (tama ba?) so maybe let china get the others shoals (for now) lets just protect the remaining that we have. by the way while china may have the strength in numbers for their navy i think Japan's SDF navy is still more powerful (currently). It is a wild card navy since nobody knows exactly how they operate since some of their tech is indigenous and they have the biggest and quietest diesel sub fleet. China knows that their carrier is all show and no bite and can easily be defeated (for now) because it is limited by its ski jump (less missiles to carry for an aircraft), propulsion (non nuclear) and experience.
ReplyDeletesir jmcenabre, about playing hide and seek in the wps... that is actually quite difficult. wps is quite open. most islands don't even have trees. if a stealth boat is able to launch missles and hit some PLAN ships... they can counter-attack using helicopters and planes. so hide in seek in the wps is, well, almost impossible. unless the one doing the hiding is a submarine.
ReplyDelete