 |
| A Brahmos Mobile Missile Launcher with 3 missiles. Photo courtesy of Anirvan Shukla thru Wikipedia Commons. |
I discussed in my previous blog1 what I think are our prospects of establishing "Sea Control" against the Chinese Armada in the West Philippine Sea (WPS), which, painful as it may seem, seems basically (to quote Muhammad Ali) "Slim and None" as of now. Which brings us to the next naval strategic concept available, SEA DENIAL. Unlike Sea Control, Sea Denial is more achievable for us because instead of establishing a presence in an area, protecting it and keeping our opponents out of that area, the goal of Sea Denial is much simpler: It only aims to keep our opponent OUT of that area.2
Of course it means we won't be able to use that same area for our own purposes, like for example put mining assets at Recto Bank, etc., it's just that our opponent won't be able to do the same also. Think of it as like a "Mexican Standoff", or a DRAW where they or we will not be able to do anything on the contested area.
The Philippines has a couple of claims in the Spratly Islands, but I will just focus on Recto Bank (also called "Reed Bank" or "Reed Tablemount") for a number of reasons. First is because Recto Bank is estimated to hold up to 49% or 5.4 Billion of the 11 Billion Barrels of oil in the entire Spratly Islands,3 probably the single largest concentration of oil in the area. Second is that the Philippines holds the position that since no part of Recto Bank is above the water, then it is part of the continental shelf of Palawan and thus the Philippines has exclusive rights to it.4 Hence it looks like if we are going to make a "last stand" of protecting a territory in the Spratlys, it will likely be at Recto Bank.
'Missile Blanket by Land'
One way of establishing Sea Denial would be thru the use of a "Missile Blanket" over the area we want to keep our enemy away from. This means employing missiles against assets that our enemy can deploy into that area, particularly Anti-Ship Missiles (AShM), and hopefully this will DETER them from establishing any presence there. There are a couple of platforms we can use to launch our missiles from, and one of them is a LAND-BASED PLATFORM.
Land-based AShMs are ideal because the platforms used for them like large trailer trucks are simpler than comparable platforms like ships or aircraft, and therefore more cost-effective and simpler to maintain. They also have the advantage of being able to HIDE behind whatever available cover there might be around them, like trees, buildings, mountains, hills, etc. They can also be CAMOUFLAGED to blend in with their background and therefore be more difficult to spot and neutralize.
These missiles don't have to be launched from near the shore, as long as they have the range to reach the target from where they are and have datalink capability, they theoretically can be launched from anywhere on land. Aircraft could be used to relay initial target information to the missiles thru datalink, and could be used also to provide updates of a moving target's latest position to the missiles via the same datalink as it does take time for the missiles to reach their targets.
'Mass Saturation Attacks'
I am a firm believer in using "Mass Saturation Attacks" against ships, meaning the use of a couple of missiles against a single target to overwhelm its defenses, I think it is now even more important due to the countermeasures and defenses that can be employed against missiles these days. This is also the favored tactic intended to use by the Soviets against the American Carrier fleets, which is why they specialized and mass-produced AShMs. To this day, the Russians arguably still have the BEST AShMs in the world, certainly the fastest and the longest ranged.
As to how many missiles are needed, let's assume that we will need three missiles to neutralize a single Chinese naval surface vessel, and with China's West Philippine Sea (WPS) Fleet having approximately 62 such vessels, we will need around 186 missiles. Assuming that a mobile launcher can carry three missiles each, then we will need around 62 of such land-based mobile launchers for our missiles.
'Distance and Missile Range'
A big problem with using land-based AShMs is the issue of DISTANCE and MISSILE RANGE. Recto Bank is approximately 300 km from Palawan, and this is just the distance measured perpendicularly from its far point to the nearest landfall in Palawan. In reality, this distance will need to be further out to:
- Cover all of the areas of the bank;
- Allow our missiles to be stationed further inland along the entire area of Palawan, giving them more area to hide around and launch their missiles from.
Hence to cover the entire Recto Bank from Palawan, we will need a missile with a range of around 400 km. The problem is that there aren't many AShMs with this type of range available from western countries, most have ranges of only below 200 km. In fact, as of now there is only ONE western missile with such range, and that is the Brahmos. China has very long range AShMs, but for obvious reasons we won't be getting any from them. Russia also has these types of missiles, but with them being very close politically to China, there will be a lot of complications if we acquire their missiles. Even the Brahmos could be a risk to us as it is a joint venture with Russia by India.
On a side note: There seems to be some confusion about the Brahmos' range, officially it is "only" 290 km supposedly due to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) regulations, but a closer look at the rule and actual practice shows that the Brahmos SHOULD be exempted from the MTCR regulations as its warhead is below 500 kg (only 200 kg). In fact, land-attack Cruise Missiles like the Taurus KEPD,5 and AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)6 have ranges of well beyond 300 km but have been exported to many countries as their warheads are below 500 kg.7 Even the Brahmos' manufacturer and main designer seems to be confused about the MTCR regulations as they ended up giving conflicting statements about it.8 9 In reality, though, the Brahmos' actual range is closer to 500 km,10 which would be way more than enough for our purposes.
 |
| Approximate distances from Palawan to the edges of the Recto Bank. Original photo before editing courtesy of Roel Balingit thru Wikipedia Commons. |
'Targeting and Identification'
Another main issue about these AShMs are TARGETING and IDENTIFICATION. Even if we can get the Brahmos with its 500 km range, we will still need to overcome the Horizon Problem11 to effectively track and identify targets at such long ranges. This is usually done by SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT with surface search radars, and most such radars have ranges of around 360 km at most for the largest targets. For smaller targets, the aircraft will have to move in closer to detect and track it, and even closer still to be able to identify effectively the ship using other sensors. This puts them in danger of long-range enemy Surface to Air Missiles (SAM) and aircraft.
This is arguably the weakest link in the entire land-based system, without an effective way to track and identify targets Over-The-Horizon (OTH), then our missiles will not be able to do their job. In fact, China doesn't even have to physically destroy the missiles, all they have to do is neutralize its "Eyes and Ears", and if they CAN do that, then our missiles will be rendered ineffective.
Using jet-powered instead of propeller-driven propulsion will improve the survivability of these Surveillance aircraft owing to their ability to get in and out of an area faster due to their higher speeds. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) I feel will also be more survivable because of their smaller size, making them more difficult to detect by radar at longer ranges. And we will need to have enough of these aircraft/UAVs to allow for "Combat Attrition" and still maintain that ability to spot targets at Recto Bank. Not sure what is a good number for this one, but the more the merrier, so to speak, so probably at least a dozen if I were to speculate.
'Availability Issue'
Since there is only currently a single source for an AShM that fits our needs, then the issue of AVAILABILITY crops up. Philippine and Indian relations have not really been that great, there has always been tensions between the overseas workers of both countries of which I personally have had a first-hand experience with, and which I intend to blog about at a later time. China can also take actions to force India to keep away the sale of these missiles to us. For example, there are SPECULATIONS that China could use the issue of PAKISTAN as a LEVERAGE to keep India from selling the Brahmos to Vietnam.12 India has a decades-long Cold War with Pakistan, and China could use the threat of selling/transfering more weapons and/or weapons technology to Pakistan against India to prevent the sale of the missiles. If they could do that to Vietnam, they could well do it to us also.
'Threat to Palawan'
If China cannot neutralize our long-range sensors over Recto Bank, then it will only speed up the decision on their part to attack and possibly even invade Palawan. China will not let us just take leisurely pot shots against their ships, they will try to neutralize the threat, and if the threat is in Palawan, that is where they will go. To try to destroy our Land-based AShMs, China could use a combination of Surveillance and Attack aircraft as "Hunter-Killer" teams to hunt them down, much in the same way the US hunted down mobile Scud missile launchers during the Iraqi Wars. Investing in long-range mobile SAM launchers on our part will help minimize this threat, they don't have to be necessarily paired with the AShM launchers, they can be stationed separately and it will still be enough to harass or deter enemy aircraft from getting too close.
Another way the Chinese could attempt to neutralize our AShMs would be to insert Special Forces commando teams via Submarines to locate them and relay their positions to aircraft and/or Submarines which can then use Cruise Missiles to destroy the AShMs. This will keep our own Special Forces teams busy countering their Chinese counterparts, who will be worthy opponents, indeed.
Or the Chinese could just launch an actual invasion of Palawan, taking it would be the best way to keep their assets at Recto Bank "safe" from a strong attack. Putting all these offensive military equipment on Palawan that could be used in a MAIN attack could also result in a "Militarization" of the island, which could result in the dampening of the local economic climate there due to the threat of attack from China, and local industries like Tourism could be affected.
'Parting Shot'
To summarize, the Pros and Cons of a Land-based Missile System are:
PROS:
- Likely to be more cost-effective in terms of Acquisition, Operation and Maintenance due to its simpler platform;
- Will be more survivable due its ability to hide behind and blend in with its surroundings, even more so if coupled with a SAM Umbrella
CONS:
- Its weakest link is its entire dependency on aircraft for OTH targeting, without which it won't be able to do its main job of hitting targets at Recto Bank;
- Will increase the risk of attack and/or invasion of Palawan;
- Militarization of Palawan could dampen its local economy;
- Its single-source availability has too many complications
In theory, the use of land-based AShMs for Sea Denial over Recto Bank could be feasible, and it actually has a couple of advantages going for it compared to other AShM platforms, like it being simpler and more cost-effective and also it being not as easy to neutralize. However, in reality there are a number of issues working against it. There is only a single source to a country we only have lukewarm relations with at best, and the missile is made in joint-venture with a country with close political relations to China. On top of that, we need to be able to ensure a targeting and identification system that will survive attack by the enemy.
Improving the availability will remove some of these issues, like if the manufacturer of the Taurus KEPD 350 (500 km range) could be persuaded to make an Anti-Ship version of their missile, for example, or if other manufacturers can come up with a 400 km range AShM soon. There is another option in the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)13 (1,000 km range) that the US is currently developing, but it won't be ready until 2018, and that is assuming that there will be no delays in its development.
Personally, I think there are just too many complications right now involving the use of land-based AShMs to protect Recto Bank, the most critical I feel is the issue of availability. If the LRASM becomes available in a couple of years, then the concept perhaps could be more feasible.
 |
| A Hermes 900 Maritime Patrol UAV. Photo courtesy of Matthieu Sontag thru Wikipedia Commons. |
SOURCES:
- OUR PROSPECTS OF ESTABLISHING SEA CONTROL IN THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20161115044223/https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/our-prospects-of-establishing-sea-control-in-the-west-philippine-sea/) - Sea Control and Sea Denial: Controlling of the Seas today, (https://web.archive.org/web/20150325064806/http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/15981)
- Reed Bank 'holds huge Oil, Gas Reserves',
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160513160533/http://www.rappler.com/business/21460-reed-bank-holds-untapped-riches-us-agency) - PH protests Chinese incursion in Recto Bank,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20161115044842/http://www.manilatimes.net/ph-protests-chinese-incursion-recto-bank/119971/) - TAURUS KEPD 350 – High precision stand-off, (https://web.archive.org/web/20151009164200/http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/weapon-systems/air-to-surface-missile-systems/taurus-kepd-350/taurus_kepd_350_precision.pdf)
- AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), United States of America, (https://web.archive.org/web/20161002013746/http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/agm-158-jassm-standoff-missile/)
- Strategic Myopia: The United State, Cruise Missiles and the Missile Technology Control Regime, (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transnational/vol14_1/dutra.pdf)
- India, Russia to develop new Hypersonic Cruise Missile, (https://web.archive.org/web/20160313052020/http://brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=102)
- BrahMos Cruise Missile not bound by MTCR, Range can be extended beyond 300 kilometres,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20151010114727/http://www.aame.in/2013/02/brahmos-cruise-missile-not-bound-by.html) - India modifies Brahmos Missile with New Nav System, (https://web.archive.org/web/20140724194210/http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20121009/176500812.html)
- RADAR DETECTION AND THE HORIZON DISTANCE, (https://web.archive.org/web/20161115050041/https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.wordpress.com/2005/01/10/radar-detection-and-the-horizon-distance/)
- India to train Vietnamese Pilots to fly Sukhoi Fighters, (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/After-submarine-training-India-likely-to-train-Vietnamese-pilots-to-fly-Sukhois/articleshow/44954895.cms)
- LRASM: Long Range Maritime Strike for Air-Sea Battle, (https://web.archive.org/web/20160130122651/http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/lrasm-long-range-maritime-strike-for-air-sea-battle/)
LRASM is network-based missiles.
ReplyDeleteYou can use only the United States.
The very lack of surveillance equipment Philippines
UAV, air search radar, spy plane, spy satellites .....
The United States does not provide information for the Philippines.
Philippines is varied attack vectors.
China's submarine, water penetration, fighter, air infiltration, long-range missiles ....
Can you use expensive AShM penetration by small boat?
Philippines should have a variety of information management can AShM
JASSM, Taurus KEPD air-launched, so the longer range.
Brahmos missile will sell to the Philippines.
ReplyDeletePhilippine American allies is
You want to know the Brahmos missile technology, United States
And, Russia, China relationship is very good
China is expected to repulsion this
The way things are looking, whether we mount the AShMs on land or on ships, we really will need 500 km-range missiles.
ReplyDelete- On land, we need that range to reach targets in Recto Bank;
- On ships, we still need missiles with that range or else the Chinese ships will outrange ours. They have a number of AShM models with 400-500 km range, some of them even supersonic.
I still have doubts about those Indian Brahmos missiles, but if the government can make it work, why not? But I still am hoping another western missile manufacturer steps up. I can't understand why they allow Russia and China to have that 200-300 km advantage over their missiles?
"Defense in Depth" is good, it allows redundancy in times of war. But it does increase cost, and also right now we are still hampered by the availability of long-range missiles, unless we are willing to bet it all on the Brahmos.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Taiwan is switching to this kind of strategy rather than the air centric strategy which they are fast loosing if their F-16's are not upgraded soon enough.
ReplyDeleteVietnam's strategy by ordering 6 Kilos Class subs will allow them to carry 3M-54 Klub missiles with a 300km range but that is a huge investment that we have to fork out if we go that route. I like this to complement your land based Brahmos. The subs can hide at the bottom of the Palawan Passage and will have enough range to cover Reed Bank.
If we have no budget, like we always say, we can start with long range torpedoes. One thing to ponder about in my opinion is the extra long range torpedo. It was published 2 years ago that an extended range (export) version of the newest German modular heavyweight torpedo has set a range record of 140 km. Torpedoes can be deployed easily. A container ship with torpedo launchers in outwardly innocuous long ISO containers could deploy hundreds of torpedoes or self-deploying mines during a night and it wouldn't even look conspicuously on a radar screen. There is very little defence against such a platform in the opening stages of a naval war and you don't have to have a warship to launch your torpedoes. Just my 2 cents.
Congratulations, Rhk111
ReplyDeleteFor yet another comprehensive post on one of the most critical National interest of the Philippines
Or we could mine the areas around our claims hehe. I think we should start using drones or start turning our fa50's into oth spotters. Or buy drones that will escort drones is that possible?
ReplyDeleteThanks, rhoydec, I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteAn aircraft's speed and ability to attack and retreat quickly is actually ideal for the anti-shipping role, but the problem is that it lacks FIREPOWER. Even a twin-engined aircraft like the F/A-18E can usually carry only around 2 AShMs each along with self-defense missiles, hence assuming we need 3 AShMs to neutralize China's 62-ship WPS fleet we will need around 93 aircraft.
ReplyDeleteOr, a more realistic option would be, say 24 strike aircraft with 48 missiles can attack 16 enemy ships at a time. To neutralize all 62 ships, it would need to make around 4 roundtrips or attacks. Assuming an additional 6 aircraft for air cover you are looking at a 30-aircraft strike force per attack.
Against China's Flankers and SAMs, assuming a 25% attrition rate per attack means we will need approximately 60 aircraft to complete those 4 roundtrips. I would also arm them with as standoff an AShM as possible, which means for now the SLAM-ER and its 250 km range.
Russia actually uses its supersonic bombers for maritime strike, each carrying anywhere from between 6-12 AShMs, but I don't think we will be going by that route anytime soon ...
I've always liked Submarines, but the problem is that China just has so many ships. Assuming, for example, a 3-to-1 loss ratio, meaning neutralizing 3 Chinese ships for the loss of a single Submarine (which are very good odds already), we will need around 20 to wipe out China's 62 ship WPS fleet, which is a lot to maintain, and to think how frequent a maintenance these subs need (at least 1 major overhaul per decade) means high operating costs. But it should be doable, if we decide to go by that route ...
ReplyDeleteAs per Wikipedia information. Australia has the JORN over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) network that can monitor air and sea movements across 37,000 km2 and has an official range of 3,000 km.It is so sensitive it is able to track planes as small as a Cessna 172 taking off and landing 2600 km away, can detect missile launches by China and reportedly able to detect stealth aircraft. It is a multistatic radar (multiple-receiver) system using 560-KW OTH-B, allowing it to have both long range as well as anti-stealth capabilities. If we have this type of radar N/W, we won't be needing AWACS or long-range Patrol Aircraft anymore I think.
ReplyDeleteOne F-16 can carry sixteen Spice 250s which according to the video has anti-ship capability and is compatible with aircraft as slow as the Super Tucano. One Gripen E can carry four Kongsberg JSMs (air-launched NSM). There is even a version of the Small Diameter Bomb you can put on a ground-launched rocket. All these next-gen PGMs aimed at internal carriage in the F-35 thus compact munitions are the wave of the future. They will only get better as the US and its allies strive to deal with China's and Russia's A2/AD strategies. http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/spice-250.jpg, http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=126274&stc=1&d=1147881200, http://www.armada.ch/ausa-2013/
ReplyDeleteGood and cost-effective complement for LRPAs, frigates, and land-based radar stations: aerostats. The Israelis supply a model with Green Pine technology ("500-600km" 3D coverage) and the US has even tested one aboard a ship. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elta-buoyed-by-new-aerostat-radar-contract-343523/, http://ravenaerostar.com/solutions/aerostats/tif-25k
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the Spice 250 as its range is only around 100 km, China does have SAMs that can go way beyond that.
ReplyDeleteI think the NSMs are a better option, even if their range (185 km) is shorter than the SLAM-ERs 250 km.
My mistake there, most of the time I see only these strike aircraft armed only with 2 AShMs at most. With 4 AShMs each, a 30-strong Strike Aircraft package will only need TWO roundtrips instead of 4 to theoretically eliminate all of China's ships.
That means we will only need around 45 aircraft for Sea Denial, assuming 25% loss per trip to their Flankers and SAMs. Less, actually, if you don't want to maintain the same number of aircraft you started with at the end of the 2nd strike.
Another factor to consider, though: Chinese strikes on airbases. Since airbases are fixed, they are prime targets for China's Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles, so these will have to be adequately defended against.
However, as rhoydec pointed out, if we can improve the number of airbases we have and make use of highways, that will make it more difficult for China to shut down our air force. But the ability to SERVICE aircraft on highways or rough airfields are important, and this is where the Gripen's ability to do so comes in handy ...
My mistake there, I never really saw a lot of aircraft armed with 4 AShMs, and I thought the weight and drag penalty of those large AShMs will make their range impractical. But since an aircraft will only need to have a combat radius of around 200 km to cover Recto Bank, then it might be feasible ...
ReplyDeleteThe number of airfields, ability to use highways and rough field performance of the aircraft will be very important as China's Submarines have Cruise Missiles which could shut runways down, hence aircraft like the Gripen will be ideal for us.
ReplyDeleteThe air force also needs to be able to service the Gripens on these rough conditions, like arm, service and fuel them. If they can do that, then we will have a more survivable air force after China's Cruise Missile attacks ...
This one (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elta-buoyed-by-new-aerostat-radar-contract-343523/) is more ideal since it can fly higher (4,000 m) and maintain coverage all the way to Recto Bank ...
ReplyDelete100-km+ range SAMs (especially Russian-derived) are too big for most warships. Take out the ships with area air defenses and the rest become sitting ducks. Use the expensive million-dollar AShMs to take out the high-value air warfare destroyers and then clean up with the "low cost" $100k@ PGMs like Spice 250, SDB, and JDAM. The FA-50 with its speed, electronic warfare capability, and above all backseat WSO is an ideal complementary maritime strike aircraft to come in after the MRFs. In addition to everything going for it, imo the fact it basically shares the same engines with the FA-50 makes the Gripen the logical MRF for the PAF.
ReplyDeleteNo, the ship-based SM2-ER already have a range of 185 km, while the SM-3 even farther out at more than twice that range. As for China, almost all of their Destroyers have SAMs with ranges of around 200 km.
ReplyDeleteThere are also the Flankers flying cover for their ships ...
HI RHK,
ReplyDeleteIn my personal evaluation, I firmly believe that Land-based AShMs is the best way for the Philippines to go.
However, I have some vital questions that needs to answered:
- How many do we need in order to get to that enemy defence "saturation" level?
- Where do we strategically place it?
- How long is it going to take to establish a formidable LB AShM system?
- I know Russia has the best land-based missile defense system in the world that it is even the top worry of NATO. Is it possible that we can employ the Russian system here? If not, where do we get it?
- and the most important one for me is how much would it COST? Can we afford a missile defence system that is formidable enough to deter a mighty navy like China?
You mean the HQ-9 a copy of the S-300 a very large and heavy missile. The naval version sees reduced range (65 miles) and the South Sea Fleet currently fields a grand total of 3 HQ-9-capable Type 52C/D destroyers, the best of the rest are ten or so ships with naval variants of the 30-40 km range Buk. http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/hongqi-9-hq-9/
ReplyDeleteI am an advocate of an AShM-based defense but I'm not saying we should fire one off against every target that comes along. Between the MRFs, frigates, subs, and land-based batteries we could stock enough high-quality AShMs to neutralize 10 or so AAW destroyers and employ cheaper air-launched PGMs or guided shells/rockets against the rest of the fleet should they insist on staying around without area air defenses. The Flankers look great but distance favors us, with early warning from naval/land-based EW/ELINT assets, aerostats, etc. we would have the tools to place our jets in a favorable position. Incidentally here is another "low cost" long-range surveillance solution, the Vigilance "AEW in a pod" for the CN235, C-130, and even the S-70B Seahawk. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-uk-offers-vigilance-aew-system-to-malaysia-365257/
rhk111 may i suggest you to make a commentary of the PN 2025 Vision in your blog and how is the vision would put into place our strategic interest in Recto Bank? Would that be possible?
ReplyDeleteI am your avid reader of your blog, even the older version your blog. I am incline to believe that your blog may somehow influence the policy maker of our DND and our patriotic politicians both in the Senate and House of Rep. Thank you and more power.
ReplyDeleteRHK111, is it possible & feasible to place an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system used by aircraft to be installed at the highest peak (2,085 m or 6,841 ft) of Mount Mantalingajan in Palawan that can cover our 200 nm EEZ or beyond. Just an idea. If it is achievable, it will be many times economically cost-effective than AWACS or long-range Patrol craft I think.
ReplyDeleteYou are right about the SAM ranges and SAM capabilities of their Destroyers, but I would disagree that the range advantage is with us in terms of aircraft. Our air bases are fixed, and Recto Bank is around 300-400 km from Palawan which is a good distance.
ReplyDeleteTheir Flankers, on the other hand, are built for long-range capability that's why it can carry a lot of fuel, and 2 dozen are those are or will be on the Liaoning, so in terms of fuel status I feel their fixed-wing aircraft will always have the advantage against ours.
Time permitting I will try to discuss the other AShM or weapons platform for Sea Denial over Recto Bank, next one will be for Ships and then maybe Aircraft and Submarines ...
Deewi,
ReplyDelete- I think 3 AShMs x 62 Chinese Surface Vessels = 186 AShMs is my guess.
- Palawan is the nearest large land mass where it can be ideally put.
- A couple of years, probably, depends on how fast the Philippine government can fund it.
- No, I wouldn't get anything from Russia right now, not with Putin being a "macho" as&%ole and jump-starting the Cold War back again. If we can't get from Russia, let us HOPE a western manufacturer steps up to match their AShM ranges.
- Its going to cost a lot, a very rough estimate would be, say, around USD 3 Billion?
Since the US will be placing it's military assets at Philippine military bases in Palawan, attacking these bases by China will oblige the US to counter-attack if lives of US soldiers are lost . With the rotational stationing of US soldiers in Palawan, I think the economy of Palawan will prosper as the families & friends of these US soldiers will be attracted with it's natural beauty & visit the scenic spots. Also, we have better, warm relations with the Indian government than China so intimidating or making threats to India by selling more arms to Pakistan will only push India to sell Brahmos missiles to Vietnam & the Philippines especially if we have the cash to buy them.
ReplyDeleteIndia is trending to gravitate towards a security alignment with US-Japan-Vietnam. Please see the related article in The National Interest opinion site -
ReplyDeletehttp://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-the-rise-america-must-woo-india-11275
There is much opportunity here for the Philippines diplomatically. Perhaps, if Philippines prioritises India on the lease of oil blocks on the Reed bank like what Vietnam has done, India will have a strong incentive to have Brahmos missile protection umbrella over their 'future' rigs within Philippine EEZ
OUCH! That's about twice more than the AFP modernization program budget.
ReplyDeleteNow, there's the USD 3B challenge... Whew! I believe It can never be done without the political will of whoever will reign in the Palace.
But who knows? We can start with Israeli SAM batteries to compliment the planned maritime coastal radar system. And hoping against hope that we can also develop our own ingenuous missiles and a system for it. Actually, we're hoping for a breaktrough because the AFP, DND and DOTC are on current R&D collaboration.
Sana nga lang meron.
In addition, Corregidor, Lubang in Mindoro, Subic and Laoag are also a strategic place for these AShM's. But much of these should be in Palawan.
I'm glad you like my blog, willyboy.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first time I've read about the PN 2025 Vision, not sure if its the same as the other programs the PhN has had, I will need to do a little bit more research about it ...
ReplyDeleteIn terms of covering Recto Bank, at 2,000 m Mt. Mantalingajan is not high enough, its Radar horizon is only up to a little over 200 km. It needs to be at least twice higher.
ReplyDeleteI think the Aerostat concept with Radar is good since it can reach 4,000 m in height and thus have good coverage up to Recto Bank, although it is only semi-mobile and would need adequate SAM/Fighter Aircraft protection.
According to Saab the Gripen E has a maximum A2G combat radius of 1,500 km. In air-to-air configuration it can stay 2 hours on-station 900 km from base. Supercruise at M1.2 without afterburner it can feasibly get in and out long before hostile aircraft from the mainland reach the area, especially when armed with AShMs that outrange hostile naval SAMs. Safe to say its RCS is smaller than the Flanker, which no one will call a stealth aircraft. The best we can hope for is to equip our pilots with the right equipment the rest is down to skill and tactics. http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-and-Switzerland/Gripen-E/Gripen-E-features-at-a-glance/#Range
ReplyDeleteI suggest taking a closer look at next-gen PGMs like Spice 250. This is just too good to ignore:
"enabling a single aircraft to deliver 16 highly lethal warheads, striking with high precision from ranges over 100km, a capability currently enabled by eight aircraft or more.
To increase weapon load the Spice is delivered with a smart quad rack carrying four weapons. An F-16 carries four such racks, thus hauling a loadout of up to 16 weapons. An F-15I would be able to carry 28. “Such weapon loadouts that were previously available only on strategic bombers, are now available for tactical strike fighters” Oriol noted.
deliver mobile target engagement capability over land and sea
He noted that while the weapon’s 250 lbs warhead weighs half the mass of 500 lbs class weapons its enhanced effect exceeds that of the 500 lbs weapon, particularly in target penetration capability."
http://defense-update.com/20140211_israels-f-35s-will-carry-spice-1000-guided-weapons.html
All,
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned to franmar, I will try to cover the other AShM weapons platforms also for Sea Denial against China over Recto Bank, which means Ships, Aircraft and Submarines, and maybe something that puts all of those together if time permits. If something more interesting comes along, though, it may get pushed back, but I'll see what I can finish ...
I also believe we can get the "extended range" BrahMos. Look how South Korea got around the MTCR:
ReplyDelete"Since the KEPD 350 exceeds the range limit imposed by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Taurus Systems maintained its warhead weight below the MTCR threshold of 500 kg."
http://defense-update.com/20130405_south-korea-selects-the-taurus-kepd-350-cruise-missile.html
That would be a good idea. Locate the ashms inside or near the US base...china would not dare drop a bomb there. Even if a gripen or a hornet with 4 to 2 ashms they still need cover against the flankers. Another suggestion would be to bait the flankers into a waiting sam field battery. Assuming we could deploy them near enough
ReplyDeleteThe MTCR is trading control of the state and country.
ReplyDeleteThis is about the control of itself development.
Are as follows Taurus KEPD Korea deal
Korean Taurus KEPD Technology Transfer
Korea Seoul offices
200 + @ production
FA-50 Integrator
K.G.G.B upgrade (350km)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN4kPekSRYs
USA, Korea missile instructions Revision
Warhead 500kg, 800km range ballistic missile modified
Thanks for the links, franmar. I call the SU-35 "The Beast" because its capabilities means nothing but the F-22 or F-35 will be able to beat it. Great range, and astounding radar range. If China does get those planes, it will make it harder for aircraft to provide Sea Denial over Recto Bank ...
ReplyDeleteInteresting concept there, rhoydec. If we can offer India those lease of Oil Blocks like Vietnam did, then that will bring India closer to our alliance. Plus the fact that they are a superpower will deter China even more. It will really piss off China against both India and the Philippines, though, LOL.
ReplyDeleteIf we can form a solid alliance with India, then the prospect of getting those Brahmos might not be so bad after all ...
ReplyDeleteWell you are right about that, Roberts. If EDCA does go into effect, and China attacks or invades Palawan, then it will bring the US into the conflict also. It's just a question of how determined China really is in taking away Recto Bank from us ...
ReplyDeleteThe good thing about the Spice 250 is that since it glides to its target, there is no heat signature to track. It is also small which will make it difficult to track by radar. My only reservation about it is that it is kinda small, only 113 kg. Not sure how effective it will be against large ships. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI estimate its actual explosive content to be only around 40-50 kg, a far cry from an AShM's 200 kg warhead. But this can be made up by using a couple, say, 3-4 to hit the same target.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20130622.aspx
They absolutely need the Su-35 because the commonly cited range figures for their current fighters (Su-27 derivatives) are overstated:
ReplyDelete"The image below demonstrates the comparative ranges (two way) of Su-27s (thick yellow lines), Su-35s flying on internal fuel (thick red lines) and Su-35s with two drop tanks (thin red lines) flying from two major air bases in China. Note: All distances are estimated combat radii.
As the image above shows, the Su-35, even on internal fuel only, offers significant advantages over the Su-27, which are limited only to quick fly-overs of trouble spots such as the Reed Bank (lile tan) or Scarborough Shoal (huangyan dao)."
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=41472&no_cache=1
No loiter time over Recto Bank, no challenging PhilAF fighters flying a mere 300 kms from Palawan.
RHK when you talk about submarines you always intend them for direct combat, (3 to 1 comparison for example) meanwhile when talking about Chinese Subs you wrote about possible Spec Ops infiltration to take out missile launchers.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you consider the same for your subs. Don't use them to attack their fleet, sabotage their petroleum platforms, make them use most of their fleet to secure their resources. Hunt down their commercial ships crossing the Malacca strait since 4/5 of their petroleum use that route.
Make the holding of the reef so expensive(without a direct confrontation) that the benefits won't justify the conflict.
Somehow the first link isn't working:
ReplyDeleteWhy China Wants the Su-35
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=41472&tx_ttnews[backPid]=688&no_cache=1#.UpVf_8RDuSo
How China Plans to Use the Su-35
ReplyDeletehttp://thediplomat.com/2013/11/how-china-plans-to-use-the-su-35/?allpages=yes
Yes, of course. If you ask the manufacturer, they'll always say how great their planes are, LOL.
ReplyDeleteThe article says that the reason for the SU-27s lower range was due to its inability to carry fuel tanks and inability to refuel. Not really sure if that is factual, but the Chinese also have the SU-30s which do have refueling capability, like this exported SU-30MKI shows.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.siasat.com/photos/aerial-refuelling
Also, I would ASSUME that a country with China's aeronautical manufacturing capabilities should be able to provide such aerial refueling and drop tank capabilities on the SU-27s they bought.
The point is that the Gripen E's performance and technology is at least equal and in some respects better than the Su-35's. But while the Su-35 must fly more than 1,000 kms to reach the area, a PhilAF Gripen E is basically flying in its own backyard (300 kms from Palawan) with friendly frigates and ground-based SAM/radar/EW sites in its corner. With supercruise and little restrictions on fuel imposed by distance, not only can it get in and out of the area quickly, it can launch AAMs, AShMs, and unpowered PGMs at maximum stand-off range. Putting more distance between itself and the threat, at the same time putting itself closer to supporting assets, and saving another 100-200 kms of fuel in the process.
ReplyDeleteIf you are talking about land-based Flankers, sure, their bases are farther away compared to ours. But again, China does have 2 squadrons of Flankers on their carriers which can be moved closer to wherever they want, which will give better loiter and response time.
ReplyDeleteYou mean go after their supply and trading routes? I think as part of an overall tactic that will do well, but used exclusively a main strategy, not sure if that will really be effective because it seems that such an approach is not very efficient in "strangling" your opponent's trade and supply lines.
ReplyDeleteThere are some historical examples about this, like the failed strategy to cut off Britain from the US by German U-Boats in World War 2, for example. It turns out that Britain was unusually resilient and despite heavy merchant vessel losses, they still managed to survive until technology caught up against the U-Boats.
Another example is when Iran and Iraq tried to cut off each other's supply lines using aircraft and ships. I forgot the exact figures, but a lot of merchant shipping were lost and/or damaged, I think running into the hundreds. But still, both countries survived. Their actions also resulted in a lot of misidentifications so non-Iraqi or non-Iranian ships were hit, including the USS Stark.
I think China's only aircraft carrier can easily be sunk by 3 fully-armed F-22 Raptors preceded by 3 FA-50 decoys. The carrier goes down with the 2 squadrons of Flankers and it's thousands of sailors & airmen. If we can buy just even only 3 F-22s, it will be an enormous tactical advantage on our side.
ReplyDeleteThat is if the aircraft carrier is within our EEZ. Even if some of the Flankers are able to scramble up into the air for a dogfight before the carrier is sunk. They will have the problem of returning back to the Chinese mainland.
ReplyDeleteHi RHK. I can't really understand why can't RP buy from Russia the anti-ship missiles we need. Look at Malaysia or Indonesia. Both countries are more or less allied to the US. Indonesia uses American F-16 and Russian Flankers. Malaysia uses the F-18 Hornet side by side with MiG-29. Moreover, South Korea a staunch American ally is acquiring weapons from Russia as well as Greece, a major NATO ally acquiresd Russian weapons as well. Why can't the Phils. can't? Because we don't have money? Arms business is the largest earning business in the world. We should be aware of the fact na lahat nang malalaking bansa na yan ay arms dealer or supplier. the US, Russia, France, China, Britain,etal are making good profits out of arms sale. France is even supplying Russia with its latest design of LPD, the Mistral, along with all of its component including it's top of the line C4I. France also did supplied China before with radar, missile and C4I technology like the TAVITAC combat management systems. On, the other hand, if the US supplies us with weapons, patche-patche! Kasi kailangan ang approval ng US Congress if this or that nation is an ally. I can't really ignore my frustration when I compare the ex-USCG cutters transferred to the HDP with its electronics, surveillance and weapon systems stripped from the ship while they are delivering to Egypt a brand-new guided missile corvette.
ReplyDeleteMaraming maaring pagpilian o bibilhan. Kung hindi makabili sa isa , e di sa iba. Halos lahat ng iyan eh may generic counterparts. IMHO, dapat sigurong lumabas muna ang Pinas sa anino ni Uncle Sam at maging non-aligned kagaya ng ibang bansa sa SEA. Asa tayo nang asa sa Amerikano tapos iiwanan din tayo niyan sa ere. Just a repeat of WW2 scenario. Kaso lang kakaunti ang nakaka-alam ng detalye ng kasaysayan ng Pilipinas sa ating mga Pilipino. Siguro nga walang nakaka-alam na kaya lang ni-liberate ng Amerika ang Pilipinas dahil lang sa Amor-propio ni Douglas Mac. Kung tutuusin ang balak ng Amerika ay unahin ang Taiwan at iwan ang Pinas sa Hapon.IMHO, we Filipinos tend to ignore or to ignorant of that fact, kaya, nagsusumiksik tayo kay Uncle Sam. Dapat siguro na may maupo na lider ang Pinas na ilalabas tayo sa aninong ito nang sa gayon maisakatuparan natin ang ating misyon nang hindi tayo umaasa sa Kano.
The Phils. should establish a strong diplomatic relation outside the U.S. And if we can establish a status quo with China over the WPS, habang pinalalakas natin ang ating Sandatahang Lakas para sa anumang maaring kaganapan. Maybe, by then we can buy any item we need without juresprudence from any nation. The SLP should procure in silence. Dapat wala silang malalaman tungkol sa ating nilalayon. Dapat malapit tayo sa ating kaibigan, ngunit maging mas malapit tayo sa ating mga kaaway.
i would like to see a stronger military relations with japan. since japan is also a naval power we could seek military assistance from them such as their ASHMs or naval support if needed. enough we could get the FA-50s or incheon frigates from south korea but since its relation with china is strong i think in case of trouble we cannot get military and political leverage from south korea. our situation with japan confronting china is the same. strong military alliance with japan is more interesting.
ReplyDeletefurther, i prefer opening up of U.S. bases in the philippines. i think this is the best thing to do. it is only the militant groups in congress that will oppose on that but they never lift a finger when portion of our territory was taken by china. this will strengthen our territorial integrity with u.s. air force and navy in the country, i think china will now thinks twice if they do some shenanigans. any illegal intrusion of our territory is a threat to the u.s. bases.
amend the constitution to allow u.s. bases in our country.
There are PROS and CONS in buying Russian arms, some countries think the Pros outweigh the Cons, others don't, and that's just the way it is. Sure, SEA countries like Indonesia and Malaysia buy Russian weapons, but other SEA countries don't also, like Singapore and Thailand.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I wouldn't go Russian, not even if they have the cheaper weapons we need for reasons I have enumerated already in some of my blogs. Plus add in the fact that Putin has been such an a@#hole recently that he is single-handedly restarting the Cold War.
China is taking political steps to shut down our supply of weapons from South Korea, and where that will lead to in the future is a bit of a question mark, I think. Hopefully they will continue sticking with us ...
ReplyDeletebut right now china and korea is best of friends since they have also territorial dispute with japan
ReplyDeleteThe best last option and guaranteed solution to regain back the whole Spratly Islands group, Scarborough Shoal and also Sabah from China & Malaysia and be stronger than even the military strength of the 2 countries combined is to join the US Statehood as a member-state of USA and let the US do the kicking of China and Malaysia out of our territories. Solved ang problema. Nagpapakahirap pa tayong bumili ng mga latest and most sophisticated weapon systems sa US samantalang libre naman pag naging US State na tayo. 3 million Fil-Ams are already residing and enjoying a decent life in the US and every year ay sobra pa sa US quota ang nag-aaply ng mga Pnoy na makapag-immigrate, mag-trabao o mag-tour sa US. Mga may kaya lang may pag-asang makakuha ng US visa. As a US State kahit mahirap ay makakapunta na ng US basta't may pamasahe lang at hindina kailangan ng visa pa. Maraming walang trabaho mga Pinoy ay makakapag trabaho na sa US armed forces. Hindi rin lang kaya ng gobyerno na ipagtanggol ang terrtorial integrity natin as a Sovereign state even ina hundred years dahil sa corruption buti pang mag US statehood na lang ang Pinas. Walang pakialam ang mga masang pilipinong mahihirap tungkol sa sovereignty.. Ang kailangan nila ay ang pag-unlad ng kabuhayan nila at maka-ahon sa kahirapan. And that is the reality na hindi matanggap ng mga politicians natin dahil maapektuhan ang mga sariling interests nila.
ReplyDeleteKorea is not a friend of China.
ReplyDeleteMove according to the international community profit.
South Korea has developed a cruise missile range 2,500km
Development in southern China full range target.
The same is true in Japan.
Move according to Japanese profit
Today Filipino friends ...... ever tomorrow ...
The inexorable international relations.
I placed the THAAD in the Philippines?
ReplyDeleteYou X- band radar deployed to the Philippines to the United States International News
South Korea is the THAAD Deployment 'NO'
ReplyDeleteThe news that one of the Philippines AN / TPY-2 X- band radar deployed Review
http://www.vop.co.kr/A00000792498.html
Japan, Korea, Guam, Finland, Turkey, Poland .... X- band radar deployed !!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen deployed to Mongolia ...
China isolated
Sorry, Philippines deployment
ReplyDeleteYes RHK, but Thailand don't buy from Russia. They buy from China. The PH, can buy Russian made military hardware with no strings attached, because they sell export versions. whereas, if we buy made in the USA, if there are sensitive technologies, it needs to pass the US Congress even though the PH is an ally.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what's all the fuss about China's Aircraft Carrier is all about. Lots of Aircraft Carriers uses Ski-Jump, India's INS Vikramatditya and Russia's 2 Kuznetsov class Aircraft Carriers ALL use Ski Jump technology, then everybody is nitpicking about how China uses it. Even the HMS Hermes the British used in the Falklands War used Ski Jump, and that didn't keep their Harriers from making effective sorties against the Argentines.
ReplyDeleteAll aircraft go on full afterburner (or full military power) when taking off, regardless of whether its Catapult of Ski Jump, and a Ski Jump's runway length isn't really that much longer than that of one using Catapults.
It is a given fact that using Ski Jump will mean LESS PAYLOAD than one that uses Catapult technology, but that doesn't mean there is NO payload at all. Yes, compared to American Aircraft Carriers the Liaoning with its Ski Jump is inferior, but that still makes it superior that navies with NO Aircraft Carriers at all.
Degrading China's Aircraft Carrier by talking about will not degrade it in reality, at the end of the day we just need to face the fact and deal with it.
What are you saying, if China attacks the Philippines, Taiwan will wage war against China also? How about the reverse, if China attacks Taiwan, the Philippines should attack China also in the WPS? I doubt either will happen.
ReplyDeleteI doubt it will result much other than laying the ground work for future possible military procurements. The winner of the new Frigates hasn't been announced yet, so I don't think that will be touched upon a lot.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I don't really see a lot of promise in terms of military hardware from Europe, its likely to be mostly just "moral support" coming from them.
Thank you very much for this, kim205co. I think the Filipino people will really appreciate this. We badly need South Korean support against China, even if only as a source of military hardware. We really, really need your help on this ...
ReplyDeleteNo news about THAAD deployment by US troops in the Philippines, kim205co.
ReplyDeleteYou mean the procedure of informing Congress of all military sales? That is their procedure, their DND needs to inform their Congress of ALL military sales to ALL countries, and Congress has the right to veto each sale. If they don't veto it, it goes thru.
ReplyDeleteI think all countries have similar procedures, I am sure a country like Russia with so many foreign sales have a similar procedure, we're just not familiar with it.
Russia's weapons are cheap, but they do have their own set of problems also ...
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140721/main2.htm
We should not expect help from anyone country since they also have their own vested interests with china. They may support us but help us? Doubt it. We are a dime a dozen country which has high population but little resources(relatively). We could however start building up our afp and shut the f up those leftist bastards and corrupt politicos. We need those gripens and now (ayos ba). A swing role aircraft is all we need. From recon to ground attack to air to air to etc. This i think is not a panacea but will somehow inject a little fear to the chinese navy. Btw, the uk is retiring their c130js maybe we can ask for some hehe.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying China will not attack the Philippines from inside Taiwan's EEZ. That China, to avoid complications involving third parties, is limited to positioning its carrier within a narrow stretch of the WPS in the event of conflict.
ReplyDeleteThe Falklands case is different. Argentina was at a disadvantage in that its combat aircraft lacked the endurance to contest control of the air against the Royal Navy. This despite their Skyhawks, Super Etendards, and supersonic Mirages and Daggers outnumbering the Harriers five to one. Argentina likewise had an aircraft carrier but were never able to deploy it effectively because of the danger posed by the UK's nuclear subs.
In our case the situation would be reversed. 300 kms is easily within a modern Western MRF like the Gripen E's combat radius. A PhilAF MRF would arrive within AShM range of a carrier in the WPS with fuel to spare for aggressive tactics. Palawan would be our HMS Hermes while the Flankers flying 1,000 kms from base (or taking-off under fuel/payload restraints from a ski-jump) would be in the position of the Argentinian Mirages. Factor in modern long-range AShMs and surveillance platforms and the tools are there if we stay the course on AFP Modernization. It is almost a cliche that, thanks to geography, the Philippines enjoys a favorable strategic location. We could out-A2/AD the bully. We merely need to take advantage.
I'm also bringing attention to "low cost" PGMs like SDB and Spice 250 because I believe the bully's advantage lies mainly in numbers. They actually have few ships with long-range air defenses. Against these an expensive AShM is justified, but launching a BrahMos at an FAC or obsolete frigate is a waste of resources. We need something affordable enough to stock in quantity and which we can deploy effectively from something less expensive to buy and operate than a frigate or MRF. You can put Spice 250 on a Super Tucano. Vulcano guided rounds and cheap guided rockets are ideas in the same vein.
ReplyDeletePres. Aquino should have gone to Sweden instead and negotiate with the Swedish government about procuring Gripen NG MRFs.
ReplyDeletePnoy's trip and main mission in going to Europe is probably getting European support to our ITLOS memorabilia. And maybe request some decommissioned ships, phase-out MRFs or old military hardwares on the sideline. Economic or military cooperation is unlikely because of the distance and Sotheast Asia is not much of a concern among the European countries. Their interests are in Eastern Europe. Pnoy must focus more on military cooperaion with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea whom we don't have serious geographical border or territorial problems.
ReplyDeleteYup. I sense a US conspiracy to deny our afp weapons to properly defend itself so as not to make a new conflict zone in asia. after all the f414 turbofan engine of the gripen is US made and we have to ask permission to use it. the same as the kfir with the j79 turbojet. but as soon as we get delivery of our fa 50 there should now be no excuse to purchase the jas39 next. unless kai upgrades our fa 50's with bvr missiles and aesa radar or offers us the kf16 or kf15. so far the meteor missile of the jas 39 is unbeatable in range in the west for air to air combat. a couple of meteor armed jas39s can turn the tide (maybe) in the air but still we need boots on the ground to really stake our claim. hope that the phn selects the right frigate for the job as well.
ReplyDeleteThe Philippines, US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, & S. Korea can form a military organization exclusively limited only to these 6 countries covering Southeast Asia, the Far East & the Pacific just like NATO. The US is probably interested in such organization and will likely takw a dominant role in South China Sea and the Pacific that will restrict China & Russia from projecting their military power, sphere of influence and spread of communist ideology.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I don't agree. Even if their SU-27s don't have Drop Tanks or Aerial Refueling capability, they are not the only Flankers in the Chinese Air Force inventory, they also have their J-11s and SU-30s, and those do have Drop Tank and Aerial Refueling capability. The presence of both should allow them good loiter time over Recto Bank, maybe even all the way to Palawan.
ReplyDeleteNo arguments there.
ReplyDeleteExcess defense articles maybe part of the agenda, but not sure how deep the talks will be. Much of the money for the modernization is already allocated for the biddings, etc., so not much money anymore for these, unless they re-allocate them ...
ReplyDeleteThe Pnoy Administration can always request Congress for additional or supplemental budget for needed military procurements by re-allocating the excess or unused budget of other departments, utilizing the income from PAGCOR and casino operators, selling GOCCs, increasing sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, enter into loan negotiations with private financial institutions, etc.
ReplyDeleteJ-11s are clones of the Su-27 with the same capabilities (no refueling probes). On the other hand even with air refueling a land-based Su-30MKK is still faced with the fact it needs to fly at least 1,000 kms to reach Recto Bank.
ReplyDeleteHow much time will it need to cover that distance? At 1,380 km/h high altitude cruise speed that's 43 minutes in perfect weather without delays for air refueling. Even flying balls to the wall at maximum speed (2,125 km/h) takes 28 minutes, which will never happen in reality, never mind loiter time undoubtedly suffers. A supercruising Gripen flying 1/5th that distance to get in AShM range will be long gone by then. We could even see multiple waves of Gripens coming and going before a single Su-30 arrives. Factor in air refueling from a KC-130T, or even Saab's claimed 10-minute turnaround time, and the chance of setting up an ambush on those Su-30s and their stressed pilots and reduced loiter time (and maybe even reduced missile loadout if we look at the example of the J-15 flying with a full fuel load) is there.
All this before considering BrahMos from a land-based battery can cover 300 kms in five minutes. None of this is a secret, if we had BrahMos and Gripens an enemy strategist could game the scenario and decide "cost outweighs the benefits" like Meriv says. Distance truly favors us if we just stand our ground and make it happen.
First of all, most if not all Chinese Flankers (SU-27s, J-11s, SU-30s) do have refueling capability: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Tanker-Programs.html
ReplyDeleteSecond, ACIG estimates that the RANGE RADIUS of an SU-27 is actually 1,550 km on Internal Fuel only, not counting drop tanks and aerial refueling: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Tanker-Programs.html
However, upon closer consideration, I would agree that threats from land-based Flankers will be minimal, mainly because of the difficulty of maintaining a 24/7 Combat Air Patrol over any area. For example, even if we have Chinese Flankers maintaining a 1.5-2 hour loiter time over Recto Bank, the problem is that they will have to maintain this 24/7. This means you would need 12 shifts of aircraft for only a SINGLE day.
This applies not only to the Flankers, but for Gripen also. Even if the Gripen can maintain a 3-4 hour loiter time at Recto Bank you are still looking at 6-8 shifts of aircraft to maintain a 24 hour coverage. In other words, I think loiter time would be too expensive and inefficient to maintain. Fighter/Attack aircraft would be at their most efficient when attacking since they dictate the tempo, I think all that airframe hours would just be wasted quickly while on guard duty.
China maybe able to do it because they have so many Flankers, but probably will not be as extensive since the bottleneck will be at their aerial refueling capability, probably up to 4 at a time only, maybe even less down to 2 at a time its inefficiency.
China's Su-27s and J-11s don't have air refueling capability. This was one of the reasons they bought the Su-30.
ReplyDelete"There is no air-to-air refueling capability for the Su-27, and that limits the Flanker to a range of about 1,500 kilometers."
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32572
"However, to project power into the southern reaches of the South China Sea by Chinese land based aircraft, aerial refueling is required (an SU-27, operating from China’s forward air bases, would have a loiter time over the Spratly Islands of less than thirty minutes)."
http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/reecechina.pdf
But you are right to say that sustained aerial patrols are a drain on resources, even for a wealthy nation like China. This is one of the things in our favor since at only 300 kms distant ground-based radar on Palawan can monitor the airspace over Recto Bank. LRPAs, UAVs, frigates, and OPVs can sustain surveillance efficiently, and, unlike theirs, ours will be operating close to home. We can also look at aerostats and over-the-horizon radar. Even the seaplanes help here.
On the other hand the Gripen E's loiter time is an advantage not because it's long per se but because in our situation range can be traded for speed. As long as we maintain surveillance through other assets we wouldn't need to put our MRFs on patrols since taking-off from Palawan they can get within missile range of Recto Bank very quickly and have sufficient fuel left for optimum tactics.
Those reclaimed islands will surely be used as a base for those flankers once developed. They will have those islands operational way before we receive our first Grippen.
ReplyDeleteThe combat air patrols would be expensive. A drone and a modified c295awac/mpa may suffice. Just make sure a squad of gripens are on alert 24/7 with meteors and f a 50s as back up. Now we may have an advantage in location but do we have the experience in acm? We should also start joining red flag or its regional equivalent for practice.
ReplyDeleteThe SU-27s were the first Flankers that China bought, the J-11s being copies of the SU-27 came later. The PDF copy that you sourced was from 1998, and the DoD article was from 2007. Air Power Australia's article was updated 2012 and it did confirm that the late model SU-27SMK/J-11s do have air to air refueling capability.
ReplyDeleteYes, very much so. Once those island-airbases are finished, they will be able to commit more planes for CAPs. Right now my guess is that they can only commit 2-4 CAPs on 24/7 coverage, but with those island-airbases, they might be able to commit more because their loiter times will be increased, meaning less planes will be used/rotated per day.
ReplyDeleteAny fixed airbase is vulnerable to attack from Cruise Missiles, though. But since it is in the middle of the ocean, there is nowhere for any CM to hide around with so they will be able to see it coming easily as they come over the horizon ...
Without shore-based anti-ship missiles and over-the horizon radar, the Philippines will not be able to stop China from completing it's reclamation project in terms of sea denial. Pnoy knows the danger that China will pose to the Phil. once China has installed even just a single airforce and missile base in one of the reclaimed reefs. I hope he will be replaced by a new president who has the guts and the balls to put the AFP and law-enforcement agencies to the task of kicking China out of our Chinese occupied reefs and shoals inside our EEZ.
ReplyDeletethanks kim205co for that assurance
ReplyDeleteImpossible (Asian NATO) is Europe is not.
ReplyDeleteDifferent languages, different culture ... but
If you participate in the K-FX program in Korea Southeast Asia is the stronger.
South Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan
This must be done first military industrial cooperation.
Tanks, missile technology exchange, battle ships, radar technology, etc.
Except Japanese ATD-X technology demonstrated
China's problem is pester!
Not free from economic retaliation.
China can not be ignored in countries around the world (except USA)
Philippines deployment AN / TPY-2 X- Band Radar News interpretation:
ReplyDeleteAuthor: Gregory Elich, 59, USA (Weapons Laboratory Director)
In Japan during the second AN / TPY-2 X- band radar deployment
Philippine Review of deployment.
Asia can not afford to spend money on military buildup is no longer the United States.
Forcing military spending buildup in Asian countries
Korea ...... THAAD 1Batteries $ 1 billion to buy force (minimum 4 battery's required)
A runway in the middle of a tightly packed cluster of islands at the end of a very long logistical chain. Which would you attack first, the runway or the oil tanker coming to resupply it? AFTER you ship MANPADS to all of your garrisoned islands ...
ReplyDeleteThe Asian country is necessary military information exchanges
ReplyDeleteJapan, South Korea sign agreement on military information exchanges. (American mediation)
Global Hawk joint purchasing,
Japan, South Korea spy satellite ---> Chinese scout secret information exchange, early warning system complete early
However, China is the 1 ranking country THADD deploy missile target professed
I think it will be too expensive for the Philippines to participate in the KFX program, kim205co, and too much risk.
ReplyDeleteI don't think shore-based missiles will keep the Chinese from completing their air bases, but it will give us Sea Denial capabilities against their naval assets.
ReplyDeleteIdeally you should be attacking both. Those islands will have oil depots good for a couple of days, maybe even weeks to keep their operations going.
ReplyDeleteI think once China gets the point that their patrol ships guarding & loitering around the reefs are in danger by shore-based Anti-ship missiles, China will likely move their big ships just outside of our EEZ. And that's the time that PCG/BFAR/PNP Maritime police can start hit-and-run tactics of raiding the occupied reefs & small Chinese CG Patrol Boats & arresting the occupiers during good weather conditions. The PN just need to turn-over all it's small naval ships and patrol boats (& temporarily transferring naval personnel manning them) to the law-enforcement agencies and retain only the Frigates. If Chinese CG ships starts re-entering the EEZ to protect the reefs being raided & starts shooting any of our law-enforcement patrol boats, that's the time to withdraw them and let the laser-guided Anti-ship missiles do the job of disabling the Chinese ship which started the shooting.
ReplyDeleteWell, well, well ... It looks like Uncle Sam finally got the balls to do something about China. If they keep sending more of these all year round, that will make China pause really, really hard about pursuing their Imperialistic ambitions on the WPS.
ReplyDeleteLet them dock at subic or oyster bay once in a while so china will even be more reluctant. Then again china does not play by the rules. If they sink one sub then we will see a new facet of their imperyalism and the US finally taking notice.
ReplyDeleteOur government must not withhold but start giving oil exploraion rights to US companies in the entire Reed Bank. If the Philippines cannot protect these US oil companies from Chinese harassments, request US gov't. assistance to send the 7th fleet carrier group in protecting these US oil companies just like what India is doing in assisting Vietnam in protecting the state-owned Indian oil company exploring near Vietnam's waters.
ReplyDeleteIs the AFP have miscalculated to buy the Fa-50 for starter instead buying the Gripen in the first place? They can send the a trainer to Sweden to practice there just like Thailand.
ReplyDeletewell, still dont feel is a miscalculation of the part of AFP that the FA-50 was acquired. after all, it can function an interim fighter and trainer pending acquisition of brand new MRF. lets admit it as of this time we cannot afford MRFs. even how many times we argue here in this blog, we could not simply afford it just look at the budget of the AFP it is stretch to the limit. we have still a pending acquisition of 2 new missile frigates.
ReplyDeletebut i rather think it is an advantage. in the world today, only s. korea and the phils has the most advance supersonic trainer jet that can make a multiple role as interim fighter and attack aircraft. others only have the T-50s/fa-50, bae hawks, yak 130 and m-346.
lets just cross our fingers, once at least 12 MRFs will arrive maybe a gripen or f-16 block 50/52 (the 12 jets is the most we can afford if the budget is available). at least the 12 gripens or the f-16s will be assigned as fighter role and 6 of the fa-50s as attack role. the other 6 will be assigned as pure trainers but can be activate for fighter or attack role if the needs arises.
surely the fa-50 is till a wise buy.
Its true that some countries like Sweden do away with a "Lead In Fighter Trainer" (LIFT) aircraft, but they are the EXCEPTION rather than the RULE. If you look at most air forces around the world today, MOST of them do have LIFTs or Advanced Jet Trainers (AJT).
ReplyDeleteAs for Thailand, no, it is not true that they did not use LIFTs/AJTs to train their pilots for the Gripen, they do have such aircraft in the Dornier Alpha Jets and L-39 Albatross. And guess what, they are upgrading by buying new LIFTs or AJTs soon: http://www.janes.com/article/32846/thailand-to-launch-lead-in-fighter-programme-after-new-government-forms
The most vocal supporter of this No-LIFT-aircraft-needed is that retired former PhAF Chief, I think Farolan was his name. Good thing he isn't with the PhAF anymore. Not sure if it was his time, buy maybe somebody should remind him the importance of Trainers because 11 out of the 24 S-211s that we bought ended up crashing due to one reason or the other. Better to weed out or train the pilots first on lesser aircraft than handing over a hundred-million dollar jet for them to fly ...
all major crashes of s-211s is recorded in the PAF. i think the s-211s are good trainer jets it could be the PAF has a bad maintenance or parts acquisition system that resulted to cannibalizing of spare parts.
ReplyDeleteHaay there they go nauna pa ang Indonesia. Cant we just abandon the ongoing plan in the list and shift into the main aerial strategical defense.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.janes.com/article/43342/saab-offers-100-technology-transfer-in-bid-to-secure-tni-gripen-deal
What amazes me about this project is first, the cost. Its only USD 62.5 million per aircraft (16 aircraft for USD 1 billion).
ReplyDeleteSecond, the candidates. Not only do you have the Gripen, but there is also the FA-18E Super Hornet and SU-35 Flanker. Its gonna be hard to pick as all those 3 are excellent aircraft ...
I think there are 2 problems with the S-211 and the PhAF: First, the S-211 does not have a Fly-By-Wire system, thus it lacks that extra margin of safety.
ReplyDeleteSecond is that the PhAF lacks Simulators, which is the best way to drill into students emergency procedures and also familiarize them with the adverse handling characteristics of an aircraft.
I actually wanted to blog about this, and I might still do ...
I think the PAF did a wise choice of selecting the FA-50 as its supersonic advanced trainer. But for a real MRF, our government missed the opportunity of negotiating with Northrop for the license-manufacturing of the cancelled F-20 Tigershark when it lost to F-16 for the US DoD “FX” project. F-20 is an up-grade of Northrop's F-5 Freedom Fighter/ Tiger II (of which our fighter pilots are already familiar with). Compared to the F-16, the F-20 Tigershark was reported to use 53% less fuel, required 52% less maintenance, had 63% lower operating costs, was four times more reliable, and had the fastest scramble time (in less than a minute) of any fighter jet in the world. It can be the starting platform for the PAF in developing and mass-producing our own indigenous low-cost fighter just like S. Korea. Maybe our government can still negotiate and make a deal with Northrop under the US Mutual Defense Assistance Act. It’s not yet late.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FD_EufwRdA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark
Im also curious about our next acquisition of mrf. would it be the jas39, kf16, kf15, super hornet (doubt the US would give us any combat aircraft at all...they are scared we might drag them into conflict directly) or an upgraded fa50? the tigershark is also worth licensing but again i doubt they will give us anything US made to work with. the US would rather go indirectly through intermediaries to supply us high tech weapons. In the case of the used f16's they would sell us early block versions and charge extra upgrades not including the new block 52s or 60s. This is my opinion because if the US really wants to help us out we should have been given military support like what they give to Egypt or even Singapore for that matter. Egypt has one of the biggest f16 fleets of the world and singapore has more than enough f15sg's to invade small country. Look at taiwan as well. the US wont sell them f35's, f15's, f18's even if they have the money. we are better off not buying US arms since they will only restrict its use. We could either go korean or european or Japanese...russian? we could but at the risk of irking the US and it is like condoning what they are doing to Ukraine (which is also like our situation minus the actual fighting).
ReplyDeleteYun na nga, e. Yung mga Amerikano e bigay ng bigay dun sa mga bansa na hindi naman kailangan porke't gusto nilang magpalakas dun, habang tayo e hindi man lang mabigyan ng matino. Yung mga M-1 Abrams daw ng Ehipto e nabubulok na nga lang daw sa disyerto, tapos nagbigay pa ng mga F-16s e hindi naman kailangan ng Ehipto kasi wala naman silang kaaway.
ReplyDeleteCan you share the source of this information, kim205co?
ReplyDeleteHi RHK, October is just around the corner, do you have any news on the Pohang?
ReplyDeleteAs per Defense Studies news dated sept. 19,2014 Saab-Gripen-maker of gripen fighter plane ,they offering 18 multi role fighter planes to indonesia worth $1 billion PLUS 100% TRANSFER OF Technology....you think this is good deal? Considering this tranfer of technolgy?indonesia someday would become self sufficient on all aspect of its military arsenal needs....they are capable building ships for their navy and now with this offer from saab....it will enhance indonesia's military technoligical prowess.
ReplyDeleteNo news so far. I guess we will just have to wait a little longer.
ReplyDeleteJane's says the deal is only for 16 aircraft. I think its a good deal, but I would like to see what the other manufacturers are offering ...
ReplyDeleteIndonesia now virtually produces its own hardware or major parts of it. It can tip the balance vs china but also tip the balance vs the US. We are smack dab in the middle. If we do not continue our modernization then we will again be smothered by our own asean potential hegemonists plus china and the US. Those people who think the afp is a waste of money should be ready to be lap dogs to the powers they supposedly want to defend against. We all know who they are...
ReplyDeleteI think the 1b budget of indonesia is meant for 16 units but if the saab prices its jas39 cheaper than the f18 or su35 then the 16 can theoratically be18. We should turn to european models since there are no extra geopolitical conditions to their purchase. Are there?
i can just surmise that although the budget is available for the 2 frigates but its release due to so much bureaucracy all are put on hold.
ReplyDeletethis is the problem if there is not enough or surplus budget for the afp. this is also the reason there are lot of plans to buy modern equipment but we cannot fast track we have to do it piecemeal.
The Griffin seems too small to do much damage to even Corvettes, it is really just for small boats less than 100 tons.
ReplyDeleteAs for our Navy, they really do have problems. The bidding started October 2013, so it is going to be 1 year next month and still nothing. They themselves said the winner would be announced by July 2014 and its September 2014 now and nothing yet.
Does anybody know how long it took Thailand to announce the winner of their latest bidding project from the time they started the bidding?
The British are very sensitive to Human Rights reports, while the French have a reputation for reneging on arms deals if political pressure is applied to them.
ReplyDeleteTsk-tsk-tsk. Thailand started their Frigate Acquisition on September 2012, and by April 2013 they already announced the winner, a period of only 7 months.
ReplyDelete- http://www.strategicdefenceintelligence.com/article/K7XFUFd7Lfw/2013/04/22/south_korean_daewoo_shipbuilding_to_build_navy_frigate_for_t/
And unlike our bidding 'na pa secret-secret pa', theirs was quite transparent with various manufacturers openly saying what model they were going to offer;
- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2985042/posts
- http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2013/01/lockheed-martin-offers-lcs-to-thailand.html
Hay, naku, Pilipinas kong mahal ...
A book published annually.
ReplyDeleteThe Department of Defense Publishing in
USA., Japan, Russia, Israel, France, UK, Germany, ...
Each country is also to Publishing
The weapons list is separate from the
Show me the money!
ReplyDeleteMoney, money, money, money
The defense is money ^ _ ^;;;;
I think the PN should concentrate more on acquiring Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, Submarines & Helicopter Carriers for the next 100 years. It should turn-over to the PCG all of it's small naval ships and patrol boats so they can be immediately utilized for confronting China's CG ships & illegal fishing vessels coming and going at will inside our Exclusive Economic Zone. At least China will not have a reason to sent it's naval ships against our non-military law enforcement civilian agency. Even if China's CG has large ships facing our small ships, we can augment our small ships or corvettes with at least 4-8 lightly-armed small, fast patrol boats to swarm around each Chinese CG.ship every time there is a stand-off. Our gov't. can tap our local shipbuilding industry to build these low-cost, small and fast attack boats or revive the PT torpedo boats.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem, kim205co, we don't have a lot of money for defense because most people in government are busy making themselves rich off our taxes ...
ReplyDeleteThe Federation of American Scientists write-up dates from Mar 29, 2000 and the Global Security one is almost a word for word copy except for the sections on newer aircraft. If Jane's says they're short on tankers it follows that "hundreds" of Su-27s fitted with refuelling probes (which would contradict the AusAirPower claim refuelling only appeared on recent-production Su-27s/J-11s) is impossible. And now out of the blue ... buddy refuelling pods on Su-27s/J-11s? Sources please.
ReplyDeleteIf the Chinese were so short of aerial tankers, then why the hell would they put refuelling probes on their J-10s and SU-30s in the first place when they have hundreds of those in inventory. Certainly not for "display".
ReplyDeleteAnd lastly, here are pictures of the SU-27SMKs with retractable refuelling probes ...
ReplyDelete- http://mil.qianlong.com/4919/2004/10/26/228@2341154_1.htm
- http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2004-11-03/1202239726.html
50-60 at a time may not be up the American standards, but clearly that is still a considerable compared to the capabilities of most air forces out there.
ReplyDeleteE yun na nga, how would they extend the range of their J-10s were it not for refuelling?
Well if you want pictures of J-11s with refuelling probes, then here you go, then ...
ReplyDelete- http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2012/09/j-11-sino-flanker-fighter-jet.html
- http://i.imgur.com/LPUUz.jpg
- http://i.imgur.com/57oYM.jpg
J-11s are NOT limited to single-seat variants only, there are MANY credible sources in the internet which cites them as having twin-seat versions also. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/shenyang-j11-multirole-fighter-aircraft-china/
ReplyDeleteUN SUCKS
ReplyDeleteMissile arms refused to Irish troops in line of fire - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/missile-arms-refused-to-irish-troops-in-line-of-fire-30602902.html#sthash.CHYPIqmU.dpuf
Off topic. A fellow blogger just said that France is offering us an A400 atlas transport and even through soft loans. Its ginormous! Do we have an airfield or hangar that can even accommodate this? Well its not bad but is it practical for us? france is also offering its old frigates. maybe rhk can have a comparo between getting an ulsan/pohang vs its french equivalent. hope we here news from the dnd what pnoy has been offered in terms of arms.
ReplyDeleteI think its all about OPERATING COSTS, how much will it really be compared to the C-130? Now, this website claims Fuel Economy figures for both aircraft:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aircraftcompare.com/
It says that the A400M has a fuel consumption of 22% more than the C-130J, but can carry 80% more load than the C-130J. If the figures are true, then it seems the A400M would be a good buy in the long run compared to, say, buying 2 C-130Js.
All aircraft need to fly regularly, for the C-130s of the PhAF I don't know how much they are allocating for it to fly, maybe once a month to maintain the proficiency of the aircrews. In that case, flying 1 A400M would be more economical than flying 2 C-130Js.
But there is a downside, and that is availability. If the A400M is down for some reason, then you lose a lot of lift capability. On the other hand, if 1 C-130J is down, at least there will still be another C-130J to use (remember that we are comparing 1 A400M to 2 C-130Js).
good day rhk111, i have a query that is kind of off-topic although along the line of missile systems nonetheless. regarding the OTH targeting, i encountered this UAV system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiebel_Camcopter_S-100.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is possible that we can use these on our guided missile ships which are unable to carry manned helicopter systems? this could certainly stretch missile range of corvettes, like our future pohang acquisition. what is your take on this?
I think the problem with putting these on the Jacintos and Pohangs is that an enclosed space will still have to be found for them to protect them from the elements and to allow servicing of them even while under bad weather.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the advantage of these small UAVs is that more can be carried per ship, so instead of just 1 manned helicopter for our Del Pilar class ships, for example, they can carry 2, maybe even 3 such UAVs, allowing for wider coverage of areas or combat attrition.
These are also smaller and thus harder to detect by enemy ships. Their disadvantage are that you can't arm them with large missiles or with torpedos, and they aren't able to carry sonar equipment, they will largely be good only for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance ...
Sure, and ignore the pictures clearly showing twin seat J-11s. You're just nitpicking now, franmar.
ReplyDeleteThose aren't J-11s. They're Su-27s according to the original source of those photos:
ReplyDelete"There is no air-to-air refueling capability for the Su-27, and that limits the Flanker to a range of about 1,500 kilometers."
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32572
Of course you can't see the probe from this side, the probe is located on the other side, not on this side. And it RETRACTABLE, hence you won't normally see it protruding out.
ReplyDeleteReally? Your link doesn't show the numerous photos I posted before, I don't know what you are referring to.
ReplyDeleteSo? I don't see these photos contributing to the J-11 refuelling probe issue at all.
ReplyDeleteRussian-style refuelling probes are on the left-hand side of the aircraft as clearly depicted in these photos of Su-30MKKs:
ReplyDeletehttp://i.imgur.com/LPUUz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/57oYM.jpg
These photos are yours by the way. Please compare them to the set from Flickr.
And here is a photo of the right-hand side of a two-seat J-11 from the set I posted earlier. No refuelling probe here either.
ReplyDeletehttp://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_193_13167.html#p=3
Really? Show me the Flickr link, then identifying them as SU-30MKKs.
ReplyDeletewhether or not the j-11s, su-27s, su-30mkks have aerial refueling capability or not, it still remains that China can easily project aerial dominance once they are able to complete airfields at the KIG and they can position their carriers. whereas, we on the other hand, still have nil assets to even limit chinese incursions in our eez skies. IMHO, the chinese jets need not loiter in the air for a long period of time, that's the mission of the AEW. the jets can be easily scrambled if they already position themselves in the middle of the KIG. so there, technically, the aerial refueling argument wouldn't even matter.
ReplyDeleteThe response time will be the issue. It depends on how far the area to be responded to is, if its at 300 km, even if you blaze in at Mach 2 or 2,400 kph, it will still take you 7.5 minutes to reach there, not counting time for take off, climb and acceleration. Also, going at full speed means depleting quickly your fuel tanks, meaning less time for combat.
ReplyDeleteIn 7.5 minutes, an attacking air armada could be gone already, hence if you want full time protection, you will need aircraft on Combat Air Patrol.
In terms of air defense, I think an AAW Frigate supported by long duration Surveillance aircraft is better, it can stay for longer periods and are therefore much more efficient ...
Spratly I. is around 1,095.33 km away from Hainan and 300 km from Palawan. A Palawan-based FA-50 flying at Mach 1 (1,234.8o km/h) can strike a Chinese naval target or Chinese-occupied reef in Spratly I. within 14.57 minutes while a Hainan-based J-11/SU-27/SU-30 will take 53.22 minutes (at Mach 1) to arrive at Spratly I which by that time our strike fighters have already returned back to Palawan. With this distance advantage, we need air power to be able to deny China the ability to occupy and control our reefs and shoals.
ReplyDeleteAs of this time....distance is the problem for chinese air force planes,but sooner or later it would be not a problem in the future,remember,the chinese are enlarging some of the islands on KIG at Philippines 's sea,when its done,those islands are capable servicing /mooring the chinese coast guard ships and they could implements and enforce continous patrol on those areas thereby streghtening their claim of sovereighty of our philippines sea,as well as better surveilance on our assets at palawan.
ReplyDeleteThe danger will come from their carrier/s. Theoretically, they can station one within 100 km from the area they want to protect, like Recto Bank, for example. They don't even need to have Combat Air Patrols, their aircraft can stay on the carriers with only a long endurance Surveillance aircraft hovering overhead because as soon as those carrier aircraft takes off, anything within 100 km will already be within the range of their long-range air to air missiles ...
ReplyDeleteOrder na kasi tayo ng submarine e. At least one. Kahit yung collins class ng australia. Kahit maingay siya basta panakot lang. When the carrier becomes fully operational wala na reed bank natn.
ReplyDeleteIisa lang ang carrier ng China and even if China is able to complete a sea port and airbase at Mischief or Mabini Reefs, it will be very easy to disable the carrier and decimate anything on the small reefs. Bec. of our distance advantage, we just need 3 stealth F-22 Raptors augmented by 6 FA-50s and 2 batteries of 500-km range shore-based Brahmos AShM & SAM missiles, I think they are sufficient to discourage China from ever stationing it's carrier near Spratly Islands or putting up an airbase on the reefs if the dispute escalates into a conflict.
ReplyDeleteJust one or 2 good hits at the carrier deck will make it's SU fighters useless and helpless from either taking-off or landing.
ReplyDeleteOn sea denial over Recto Bank. The Phils needs to acquire a mix of long ranged, land-based anti-ship cruise missile (AShCM) like Brahmos and a ship-based medium ranged AShCM like the MM40 Exocet Block III and the Phil. should acquire it fast.
ReplyDeleteIf there are emergency funds for natural calamity and disasters, There should be an emergency funds allocated for any catastrophy, natural and man-made. Losing Recto Bank to any foreign forces is tantamount to any natural disaster. The Phil.gov't. should be able to execise its powers to prevent any eventuality like this. The Chinese intrusions to Recto Bank presents "a clear and present danger to the Philippine Sovereignty," as J. Roilo-Golez puts it.
Mahusay ang Pinoy sa pag-papaubra sa mga gamit. Bakit di natin gamitin ang katangiang ito ng Pinoy. Paubrahin natin na maarmahan ng misel ang bapor nating pampatruya ng karagatan.
Many will say that the gov't should prioritize food production and education instead of modernization. Hay nakupo, ano ba ang nakain nila?
We don't need to wait until the new frigates contract are awarded. Its already long overdued. We need to act now for 2moro we may lose not just Recto Bank but the whole KIG. Pinoy Gising! wag puro gilas.
Education has always been the number 1 priority of most, if not all Administrations. As for Defense, I think it can use a little more especially since the US won't be helping us in the Spratlys issue ...
ReplyDeletehttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2014/07/Budget2a.jpg
We should go French! Bon Jour Mossiur...he-he-he.
ReplyDeleteMonseiur pala! Wrong spelling agad. Ha-ha-ha.
ReplyDeleteNasaan na frigates natin? We should be realistic. Weapons are not cheap and those arms dealer countries dont always want to share tech let alone be dragged into our conflict. We should go neutral country arms purchases as much as possible. Smaller countries with very active defense industries should be considered. We should look to them as well.
ReplyDeleteSo far i have not been hearing of any new purchases. Is this the end of our modernization? Tapos na ba?
i think it will be a long process in getting the 2 brand new frigates. The pre-bid conference is scheduled October 11, 2014.
ReplyDeletenow, after october 11 the next question when will be the official announcement of the winner. another question mark.
accordingly in the contract if signed, the requirement the frigates will be delivered within 1,460 calendar days or approximately 4 years. the catch here we have to count the number of days upon the opening letter of credit. so from the signing of the contract we have to wait of the letter of credit before we start counting and we dont have the definite schedules of each process.
what if the new administration comes in and contract is not yet signed.
we should have pursued in re-arming the del pilars with missiles and ASW while waiting for these so long process of acquiring the new frigates.
Try a more diplomatic approach, franmar. I do allow people to post here their opinions as long as it doesn't result in friction between the posters. This is a democracy, and like it or not everybody gets to share their thoughts as much as possible ...
ReplyDeleteLike all afp acqusitions this will take a while. Drawing drawing muna. I think except for the fa50s all navy big ticket items are a minimum of 4 to 5 years depending sa topak ng mga taga senado at congreso. Meanwhile i hope jokowi of indonesia will also see the other side of the chinese...kahit yung fishermen lang nila. I give up on the malaysians. Nasa harap na nga nila hindi pa rin nila nakikita. Frigate news please...... Btw, when will our 2 ssvs be completed? Are they armed?
ReplyDeletethanks for that rhk111 for so diplomatic of your approach in this blog. well, in the articles mentioned of the del pilars system upgrade (missile, asw and sensors) is still understudy. is not yet a definite agenda when to act on the project. there is still a lot of consideration, such as if the 2 new missile frigates will arrived, is it feasible to upgrade the hamiltons or just maintain its weapon system and the multi purpose helicopters already assigned to it.
ReplyDeletei like kim205c0...he is so blatant "SHOW THE MONEY". after all is not only about talks. no money...no weapons. before talking the budgets or funds should be ready. if research is properly made it should first look into the budget of the AFP if we can fast track our modernization. but it does not fit in the real situation. the weaponry such us shore base missile system, the MRFs. submarines and etc. we have to wait for a long time before we can get the 2 brand new missile frigates. the fa-50 alone we bleed for its budget and will take us 3 years staggered deliveries.
Vietnam has already learned a lesson from its skirmishes with China at Paracel Islands. Now, they are accelerating their defense activties & weapons procurements as fast as they are able to (Radar Systems, 5 submarines, warship building, high-speed landing crafts, 4 Gunships, Brahmos missiles, weapons up-grading, self-propelled artillery guns, 6 patrol ships, 3 C-295 Transports, 2 Missile ships, 2 DN-2000 Class OPVs, Sea Planes, UAVs, etc) and is forecasted to spend $4,7 Billion (2.8% of GDP) for their 2015 Defense budget while our gov't.will spend only $2.6 Billion (0.8% of our GDP) for our 2015 Defense budget. Maybe we need more forceful intimidation and bullying from China so it will knock the sense of Pnoy Administration & next president to quadruple our defense budget for the next 6 years.
ReplyDeleteVietnam can even devote more to its defense budget if it wanted to because they are communists. And we know that their government pretty much is unopposed. Ours on the other hand isnt. We have politicians that are oblivious to china and insist that china is welcome to rape the spratlys since we can do nothing about it. They claim being nationalistic but in the face of a bigger aggressor they are pretty much cowards. All talk. The most of which are the leftists who do not know that a rotten brp sierra madre is the only thing that prevents the chinese from completely overrunning our claims. Btw, aside from the 2 frigates and the hamilton upgrade i understand the ssvs under contract from ptpal are being constructed already. Will we get both sabay or one by one? No weapons?
ReplyDeletewell, singapore is not a communist but it is the most pwerful armed force in south east asia.
ReplyDelete