Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 63

Thread: Philippine Air Force Horizon 2 Project

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323

    Philippine Air Force Horizon 2 Project

    Philippine Air Force Horizon 2 Project

    The philippine air force is being provided with php139.319 billion (around 2.73 billion usd) for their part of the Horizon 2 (2018-2022) defence plan.

    There would be 16 projects under the new Horizon 2 for PAF. Some of it are:

    - Maritime patrol aircraft. Probably 4 medium MPAs. C-295? CN-235?

    - Surface Attack Aircraft (SAA) / Lead Fighter Trainer Aircraft (LFTA). Thia would probably be additional 12 FA-50s

    - Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) Aircraft. 12 units. Gripens? Tejas? used F-16s?

    - attack helicopters. 24 units. HAL Rudra? Z-19E? used AH-1Ws?

    - Additional light transport. Most probably additional C-295s

    - 1 air tanker. Most probably KC-130 variant.

    What do you think is the best combination based on the political consideration, budget and timeframe available?

    My take

    - MPA. 4 C-95MPA. 200 million usd.

    - SAA/LIFT. 12 FA-50. 450 million usd

    - MRF. 12 F-16. With SLEP to 13,856 flying hours and general upgrades. Upgrades to F-16V only in Horizon 3. With weapons package. 750 million usd.

    - attack helicopters. 24 AH-1W. 200 million usd.

    Total around 1.6 billion usd, with lots to spare for other projects in horizon 2, ground radars, ground based air defence, bombs and missiles for the fighters etc.
    Last edited by alexz; 30th January 2018 at 08:12.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    You need to account for the current administration's loud declaration of buying only new stuff. Now, this does not cover "free stuff", and I place very little faith that they will actually follow the "no buying secondhand" policy to the letter, but it does add uncertainty to the used F-16 idea which otherwise would have been the obvious candidate.

    Anyway, other candidates are Gripen C and FC-1. FC-1's chance in particular can not be assessed simply by comparing its supposed price and capability. China can easily just give away a dozen FC-1 Block 1 and ruin everyone else's chance. The fact that it will couple poorly with the Philippine Air Force logistics and has little interoperability with current and near-future Philippine defense assets and that it is less capable than Gripen C or F-16 MLU are of concern to the Philippine Air Force but Malacanang's priorities are not the same as the Air Force's.

    "Free" FC-1 doesn't even have to be free. The cost can be partially recouped by selling upgrades to Block 2, selling logistical support, and selling armaments.

    FC-1's chance will have to be assessed politically.

    Mind you, used F-16 can also be given away "for free". Heck, I thought up the "free" FC-1 because of the precedent of "free used F-16" for other countries.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    I really think the FC-1 and Gripen C does not give significant performance difference compared to the FA-50. Brand new F-16s are still available, but that is probably beyond what PAF can afford.

    Most USAF F-16s are retired after 6,000 hours and with the latest SLEP, it can still fly for a futher 7000 hours easily. That is like more than 40 years worth of flying hours. It is really the default choice for PAF. A program something like Indonesian Peace Bima Sena 2 could be requested, free EDA F-16s with the upgrade costs paid for by indonesia.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,682
    Quote Originally Posted by alexz View Post
    I really think the FC-1 and Gripen C does not give significant performance difference compared to the FA-50. Brand new F-16s are still available, but that is probably beyond what PAF can afford.
    The Gripen C "does not give significant performance difference compared to the F/A—50"?!!
    The F/A—50 is data linked, does mach 2 and fields the MBDA Meteor and the RBS15?
    No?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    91
    Gripen C > FC-1 >>> F/A-50

    Unless KAI makes some serious advances in integrating a greater variety of weapons on their jet and make it faster.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    The Gripen C is exactly twice the price of the FA-50.

    The FA-50 comes with Link-16 datalink.

    Its max weapons load is also similar to the gripen c. There is now plans to integrate more weapons to the FA-50.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0f7acc5d.jpg 
Views:	78 
Size:	37.5 KB 
ID:	258615

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20100925140812_2.jpg 
Views:	65 
Size:	74.6 KB 
ID:	258616

    As the Philippines already has the FA-50, it is better for them to go for something in the F-16 class of fighter. Anyway all new gripen c are cobbled up from used parts taken off canibalised gripen a anyway, so why not used F-16s?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    Alexz, I understand that you really really want the F-16 to become Philippine Air Force's multi-role fighters, but
    1. I already argued that this is a political question, not a cost-and-capability question.
    2. Your data is irrelevant anyway because the A-50 does not exist, and the FA-50 Expanded Weapons and Avionics brochure is not a binding document or even something with a timetable. With the possible exception of AIM-9X, none of them have actually been done, and the only one that might get done in the near future is the AIM-120, and I stress again that there is no timetable. And goodness gracious, do you realize how ridiculous your arguments about the Gripen C sound?

    You don't need to push the F-16 narrative here. We are all familiar with that narrative. But if you are not familiar with the current political situation in the Philippines, go do an internet search for the Philippine Frigate Acquisition Project and read up. Then realize that while the Armed Forces of the Philippines may have preferences, in the end Malacanang Palace goes for political expediency. Because if it's good enough for the Palace it's good enough for the soldiers and they'd better say, "SIR THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER SIR!"

    So watch for envoys visiting the US and China, and watch whether President Duterte says "new jets" or stays silent. Because what's important is not technical capabilities or logistical cost or any of the things we usually talk about, but whether President Duterte can spin it as getting the best from his bestest friend, be it Xi or Trump.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    Prople are too blinded by the glossy advertisements that saab put out. Kudos to saab for the brilliant marketing plan. They blatantly put out max numbers with different setups. Max range is actually with 3 drop tanks, max speed was at high altitude in winter, max weapons load will mean limited internal fuel by weight etc etc. Things they highlight like datalink, low operating costs are also applicable to the FA-50 (same engine, same fuel consumption, with link-16 datalink). So why is the gripen 2x the price of the FA-50?

    But when you compare all the hard technical specifications, the gripen c, and the golden eagle are basically a similar class of fighter, with similar engine thrust and similar internal fuel capacity.

    Carrying more loads with the same sized airframe and same powerplant performance will incur performance penalties, which obviously not pointed out by saab.

    Basically what im trying to say is, PAF had its FA-50, so for MRF, go for something that is more potent than just a very expensive tarted up lightweight fighter pretending it is a medium fighter that is the gripen c.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,556
    FA-50 does't have the same engine as any model of Gripen. Gripen A-D has the RM12, an upgraded, slightly higher-thrust, Swedish-modified F404. Gripen E has a version of the F414, which is significantly more powerful. The T-50 & derivatives have the F404.

    Gripen has its own datalink (with capabilities I don't think link-16 has) in addition to link-16.
    Gripen A-D has the PS-05/A radar. New build aircraft will have an improved version (also available as an upgrade for existing airframes). Gripen E has the ES05 Raven AESA radar. T-50/FA-50 is offered with the EL/M-2032, though I think the T-50 is fitted with the older AN/APG-67. The Gripen E radar is clearly superior to any of these, & the PS-05 clearly better than the APG-67. I expect SAAB would claim it's also better than the EL/M-2032.

    Gripen is praised for being aerodynamically 'clean', & low drag. The current FA-50 is still using the two-seat trainer configuration.

    Gripen has AIM-120 & Meteor missiles integrated. FA-50 has no BVR missiles, last I heard. AFAIK, nor does it have air-air refuelling.

    And so on . . . FA-50 is cheap largely because you get what you pay for.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    Swerve,

    I am comparing the FA-50 specifically with Gripen C. Why are you bringing in the Gripen E in this? As they already have the FA-50, I am pointing out that the Gripen C does not give double performance of the FA-50 for double the price.

    The total budget is just 2.73 billion usd for everything, including a second batch of FA-50, MPAs, Transports, Ground radars the lot. You would clean up all the budget if you go with the Gripen E.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    91
    Swerve and Tonnyc is correct.

    you need to separate what haves from what we want.

    The Gripen C is already flying with BVRAAMs and Meteor, as well as being integrated with a variety of weapons. In other words its operational.

    the FA-50 has the POTENTIAL to fly with BVRAAMs, its posed next to mock ups with BVRAAMs, but it hasn't completed integration tests with it. As far as I can tell, the FA-50 is only operational with basic short range missiles and dumb munitions (rockets, bombs). Unless a customer is willing to pay for it, it will never reach that same level of operational status as a Gripen or F-16.
    The Koreans probably have no intention of doing so since they have plenty of other planes tasked for that. It will have to be up to an export order. And why would they do that when there are plenty of F-16s, Gripens, etc going around.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    For the Philippines

    They already have the FA-50, and they are planning additional batch of FA-50 in Horizon 2, giving a total of 24 FA-50s. Why do they need a second lightweight fighter too? No matter if it is gripen c or even FC-1, other than political (in FC-1 case) reasons? In gripen's case, it is double the price of FA-50, is that worth it? If you want to say cheap operating costs, that is also already applicable to the FA-50. Other than things like BVR missiles, AAR capability and other weapons that can be added in the future to the FA-50, what is the advantage of the gripen c compared to the FA-50? Does it have a longer internal fuel range compared to FA-50? Does it have significantly higher weapons load than the FA-50? Is it really better than the F-16?

    The quoted cost for 16 gripen c/d for botswana is around 1.4 billion usd. You could have refurbished F-16 to the F-16V standard with AESA plus plenty of missiles and bombs with that price.
    Last edited by alexz; 30th January 2018 at 08:05.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    FA-50 refuelling studies.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	refuel.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	63.0 KB 
ID:	258623

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	refuel2.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	60.4 KB 
ID:	258624

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	refuel3.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	80.3 KB 
ID:	258625

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	refuel4.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	62.1 KB 
ID:	258626

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	refuel5.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	77.7 KB 
ID:	258627

    T-X boom receptacle

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	South Korean KAI LM T-50 T-X launch ceremony 15.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	58.0 KB 
ID:	258628

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    91
    ^ again, something Gripen already has and KAI would like to have (but will not build unless some one pays them to do it).
    Please learn the difference.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    I fully understand the difference. Are those little difference that can easily be implemented worth the more than twice the cost difference? Also understand PAF is already a FA-50 operator, the MRF needs to have a big difference in capability for it to be worthwhile.

    Simple, Gripen C costs more than twice of the FA-50 but does not give twice the performance capability.
    Last edited by alexz; 30th January 2018 at 09:52.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    Alexz, you keep focusing on the wrong thing. Let's go back to your very first post.

    The Philippine Air Force is not being given PHP 139 billion. That number is what they are asking for the Horizon 2 modernization program. The government is free to deny part or even all of it. Heck originally they had a 500 billion peso program and the government said Hahahaha, no, try again. The Philippine Air Force actually need 500 billion to be a credible Air Force, but they'd be lucky if they get the 139 billion.

    The Armed Forces of the Philippines has a special fund that they use for the modernization program. This fund gets money from the general appropriation allocation, which is pretty much whatever the state gives them, and the BCDA. What the BCDA is is not important for this discussion, but last year they put about PHP 5 billion into this fund, and historically they have given anywhere between 2-4 billion peso into the fund. Last year's 5 billion was a record. Given the economic outlook, okay, let's say that they can continue to give 5 billion peso yearly on average. Now, the general appropriation allocation for the fund is PHP 25 billion for 2018. This is not expected to increase significantly for the remainder of Duterte's presidency.

    What this means is that the expected modernization funding for the six year period of Horizon 2 for the entire armed forces is 180 billion peso. Even if we assume a modest increase, of what, 10%, naw, call it 25%, that's only PHP 216 billion. And this has to be divided over all three branches.

    The situation is such that the MRF acquisition is not planned on being sourced from the modernization fund, but rather from "the good graces of the government". Now, look at the current Duterte administration and the track record of past Philippine governments. You think they will be willing to create a special allocation for the MRF? Me, I don't think so. Call me a crank, but the question of future MRF for the Philippine Air Force is not about which aircraft is best. It's about who is willing to give Philippines "free" stuff.

    Oh, Gripen can be considered too. Sweden will have to provide a loan with a twelve year grace period or longer. The important thing is that some other president is the one who gets stuck with the bill, not Duterte. Frankly I don't think Sweden will be willing to do provide the loan, but stranger things have happened.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    Tonnyc

    Noted.

    So that is just a wish list, and that includes budgets for 16 projects, not just the MRF.

    More reasons for not getting the gripen c then. The best platform for MRF IMO is still the F-16. Unless they go and pick up the remaining ex IAF Su-30K in Belarus LoL!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,682
    Other than things like BVR missiles, AAR capability and other weapons that can be added in the future to the FA-50, what is the advantage of the gripen c compared to the FA-50?
    "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

    BVR capability, Ashm capability, an EW integrated suite, a vastly more capable sensor suite, etc, etc, etc...

    You are downplaying the problems and COST of integrating new weapons, sensors and capabilities on a massive scale. Its not cheap to integrate new weapons, Great Britain forked out the best part of one billion pounds in order to have Meteor, Storm Shadow and Brimstone integrated into Typhoon, France had to forego eight Rafale airframes in order to fund an AESA antena and so on. Unless the ROKAF funds the integration of new weapons on the FA-50, there´s no chances of that particular airframe receiving whatever new hardware on the kind of budget that Philipines can fund, just integrating the AIM-120 and its datalink on the FA-50 and you would be looking to a bill of a pair of hundred million US$.
    The weapons, pods, EW equipment, etc, that you´ve posted on post #6 are from a 2011 ppt and have not being contracted by anyone, right now the FA-50 is a AIM9/Maverick "only" capable light fighter, stick (and pay) a BVR, Ashm and an LDP capability and you are looking of a price tag of multiples of what the Philippines Air Force payed for their first batch, if (a mighty big "IF") the ROKAF foots the bill for their own units then we can discuss its capabilities versus the Gripen (whatever version of it), untill then its an F-5E (non upgraded) equivalent.
    Last edited by Sintra; 30th January 2018 at 19:33.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,722
    Think of it this way - what exactly is the primary threat profile for the Philippine Air Force? And then examine which airplanes fit that role and are then affordable. The Gripen C is a lot more capable than the FA-50 for sure, but its a lot costlier too and that is something that any small air force will have to worry about. And a FA-50 can, like the T-50TH (Thai variant) perhaps perform the role of a LIFT as well, which is a useful capability for smaller air forces that may find it too costly to buy dedicated fighters in large numbers.

    the FA-50 versus the Gripen C will always result in the Gripen C out-performing the FA-50, but what does the PAF's threat profile include? Fighting off hordes of PLAAF or PLANAF fighter jets? Or being able to carry out long range CAP and reconnaissance missions over the hundreds of islands of the Philippines and disputed islands in the South China Sea? Being able to attack surface warships from a stand-off distance? I think that anti-shipping missile capability would be extremely valueable to the PAF and there, the Gripen C has a clear advantage with the RBS-15, whereas the FA-50 would need to get in close and use AGM-65 Mavericks.

    Anti-radiation missile capability may be a useful capability- even though the PAF is unlikely to go over land into enemy territory and take down radar stations, they may in the future need to deal with China building artificial islands and putting up no-fly zones around those islands thanks to mobile radar installations with SAM batteries.

    Tejas Mk1 is affordable and would bring in more Gripen C level capability than the FA-50, but it needs to mature a bit and that will take some more time. the IAF has now invested in the type and will make sure that it is going to be a very capable 4th gen light fighter. But for an export to be successful needs a lot of other things to work out and that I don't see happening any time soon.

    Used F-16s, like the ones that the Indonesian AF procured, are not cheap and won't last anything like 13,000 hours. the Indonesian upgrade cost ~$32 million apiece and will give the jets another 15 years worth of flying life.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    Never ever said that FA-50 would be even a candidate for the philippine air force MRF requirement.

    Just saying as PAF already has 12 FA-50, and going to add another 12 in Horizon 2 as its SAA/LFTA, why do PAF need to add another lightweight fighter, no matter if it is a gripen, tejas, or FC-1? Philippines has a big archipelago to cover, and needs a MRF with more range than a lightweight fighter.

    The latest USAF SLEP would increase F-16 structural life to 13,856 equivalent flight hours. With the SLEP, USAF is planning to fly the F-16s past 2048, along with all the support required for it. Would the Gripen C still be supported in 2048?

    An F-16C/D modified with the SLEP package plus the F-16V modification and conformal tanks would not cost more than a Gripen C, and both are actually used planes ( all brand new Gripen C uses a lot of parts canibalized from a retired Gripen A). You would get a fighter with long range, AESA radar, exellent spares availability (can you borrow around critical spares in emergency situations like Marawi?)

    http://www.janes.com/article/71414/u...airframe-hours
    In this article it is said that USAF considers 4000 hours as equivalent to 8 years of operational flying. Most other air forces barely fly 200 hours annually. Even israeli F-16 retired after 40 years of service flown only about that much. Even if you pull out a used F-16 from davis-monthan with 6,000 hours (like the indonesian birds), that still gives you 7,856 hours remaining, which is more than enough for any air force outside of USAF to last a lifetime.

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...citati-443521/

    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...-configuration
    Last edited by alexz; 31st January 2018 at 01:48.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    Some facts:
    The SAA/LIFT project is going to continue independently from the MRF project. It's possible some T-50 will be acquired in the second batch rather than all FA-50.

    The idea that all Gripen C requires parts of Gripen A is false. South African Gripens and IIRC Hungarian ones were all new. Moreover, there is no more Gripen A. The contract to convert the Gripen A from Gripen C was completed either in 2016 or early 2017. Swedish Air Force has said that they plan to keep all their Gripens. Which means all future Gripen C will be new. Saab has confirmed they have the ability to build new Gripen C.

    Why aren't we talking of something other than fighter jets? The 25 billion for 2018 is already allocated. We know that the Philippines is getting 24 attack helicopters, one jet, and one turboprop patrol aircraft.

    Some people is guessing that the jet is just a VVIP transport, likely a small business jet for the president. Patrol aircraft might be C-295 MPA, but that's very uncertain. It could be a King Air or a Hercules for all we know. Attack helos.. Not sure if it's actually Air Force or Army, but there's an amount in the article, so why not discuss that?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    Yes the south african gripens are new. All others, including czech, hungarian, thai gripen c are brand new airframes with engine, landing gear, ejection seat, radar etc cannibalized from retired A models. The swedes will not be cannibalizing C models for their E newbuild, expecting to sell or lease their current C models after they received all their E orders. But for new C model build, they still have around 40 A models for them to cannibalize.

    As for gripen C performance, look back at the switzerland comparison with its own F/A-18. That is the real deal, not those glossy saab adverts. Swiss air force rated the gripen c capability even lower than its current F/A-18 hornets

    http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale/pdf/12332.pdf

    As for the patrol aircraft, the best match for philippines is surely the C-295mpa, to leverage the commonality with its current C-295 transports.

    For the atrack helos, i would prefer the AH-1Ws...

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,556
    First you say they're secondhand airframes, then you say they're new airframes with some internal parts cannibalised from old aircraft. Make up your mind!

    Obviously, a new airframe is not going to have the same remaining life as an old, already seen service, one. So why are you arguing that a new airframe is a secondhand aircraft?
    Last edited by swerve; 31st January 2018 at 18:33.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    It is not just some parts. Almost all parts except the airframe is used.

    Obviously remaining life of used F-16 now is not like other used fighters. When you compare with the F-16 that is now tested and certified to be able to go to 13,856 hours, which is like twice the equivalent life of other fighters, there is no disadvantage in getting used F-16s.

    Flying hours.

    A normal air force outside USAF usually fly about 200 hours annually for each of their fighters. For example australian hornets, used since 1984, has on average 6,000 hours when it is to be retired in a few years time. This link on hungary's gripen, has them flying only 2,000 hours annually for 14 aircraft, which is just like 150 hours annually for each airframe.

    https://www.upi.com/Hungary-gets-mor...7041487789472/

    So even if you pull out an airframe from davis-monthan with an acumulated 6,000 hour example, after putting it through SLEP and upgrades with plenty of new parts, you are still getting a better deal than with the gripen c.

    http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...Indonesia.aspx

    Let say the used F-16 has 6,000 hours minus 13,856 hours available. That is 7,856 hours remaining, and if you fly 200 hours annually, that is 39 years worth of service.

    USAF themselves are planning to use 300-489 the F-16s up till 2048 and beyond. That is a confirmation of a major user flying the F-16 to at least 30 years from now. So no issue of supportability, and assured upgrade options up till 2048 for sure.
    Last edited by alexz; 1st February 2018 at 00:30.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,556
    The airframe is the thing that's limited by fatigue.

    You then come out with a lot of irrelevancies. The number of flying hours the Hungarian air force wishes to buy (Hungary's choice) is completely unimportant in this context. What matters is the airframe fatigue life. Neither of your links tells us anything about the lifetime fatigue hours or costs of either aircraft.

    You're also assuming that quoted prices are on the same basis. That's an unsafe assumption. The true prices of military aircraft are notoriously hard to judge from quoted figures, because the contract terms differ greatly.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    True,

    But im putting that out to show that 200hours annually is what people fly. So with SLEP, the F-16 could be flown for as long as what people fly brand new fighters for. Check my post #21 for links on F-16 new increased fatigue life. All this info on the increased life of the F-16 with the SLEP to 13,856 hours, which from the solicitation is a minor upgrade of the F-16 airframe, costing about 1.5 million usd in parts, is only known in 2017. So a lot of prior studies did not take this into account as it is simply unavailable at that time. Now with the previously unthinkable high remaining flight hours of F-16 platform, which i think is unmatchable by any other fighter, with its wide range of tried and tested weapons, electronics suite, AESA radar, conformal tanks, IMO it would be foolish for any cash strapped air force to pick anything other than the F-16 for their MRF.

    In the philippines context, if they want to save money, they could always fly their SSA/LIFT platform more, which from botswana's KAI offer is said to have 1/3rd of gripen life cycle costs. The more expensive MRF F-16 platform could be flown less, for QRA and important strategic patrols in spratlys area, which requires long legs. F-16 with conformal tanks would be ideal for such missions, saving fuel costs with less drag than small fighters needing external tanks. Take also into account the swiss gripen c evaluation, which is a more representative comparison rather than saabs glossy brochures, that put its performance worse than their current F/A-18C/D in various mission profiles.

    https://quwa.org/2017/08/24/korea-ae...-aircraft-bid/

    This is in the case of comparing the used F-16c/d with the newish gripen c. If you take the gripen E/F into account, you could even get brand new F-16V for less than the gripen E/F. Bahrain is getting 19 new F-16V with weapons, and support (10 advisers and 75 contract technicians) for 2.785 billion usd. Compare to the old swiss offer of 22 gripen E/F for 3.5 billion usd. In any case that is an amount the philippines could barely afford. And there would be very little difference in capability between a new F-16V and used F-16C/D upgraded to V standards. So it would be an acceptable tradeoff to go for used.

    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...rcraft-support
    Last edited by alexz; 1st February 2018 at 18:48.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,682
    But im putting that out to show that 200hours annually is what people fly. So with SLEP, the F-16 could be flown for as long as what people fly brand new fighters for. Check my post #21 for links on F-16 new increased fatigue life. All this info on the increased life of the F-16 with the SLEP to 13,856 hours, which from the solicitation is a minor upgrade of the F-16 airframe, costing about 1.5 million usd in parts, is only known in 2017. So a lot of prior studies did not take this into account as it is simply unavailable at that time. Now with the previously unthinkable high remaining flight hours of F-16 platform, which i think is unmatchable by any other fighter, with its wide range of tried and tested weapons, electronics suite, AESA radar, conformal tanks, IMO it would be foolish for any cash strapped air force to pick anything other than the F-16 for their MRF.

    In the philippines context, if they want to save money, they could always fly their SSA/LIFT platform more, which from botswana's KAI offer is said to have 1/3rd of gripen life cycle costs. The more expensive MRF F-16 platform could be flown less, for QRA and important strategic patrols in spratlys area, which requires long legs. F-16 with conformal tanks would be ideal for such missions, saving fuel costs with less drag than small fighters needing external tanks. Take also into account the swiss gripen c evaluation, which is a more representative comparison rather than saabs glossy brochures, that put its performance worse than their current F/A-18C/D in various mission profiles.

    https://quwa.org/2017/08/24/korea-ae...-aircraft-bid/

    This is in the case of comparing the used F-16c/d with the newish gripen c. If you take the gripen E/F into account, you could even get brand new F-16V for less than the gripen E/F. Bahrain is getting 19 new F-16V with weapons, and support (10 advisers and 75 contract technicians) for 2.785 billion usd. Compare to the old swiss offer of 22 gripen E/F for 3.5 billion usd. In any case that is an amount the philippines could barely afford. And there would be very little difference in capability between a new F-16V and used F-16C/D upgraded to V standards. So it would be an acceptable tradeoff to go for used.

    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...rcraft-support
    Reality check:
    http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/bahrai...jets-1.2108034

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    Reality check:

    That 3.8 billion usd is for 16 new F-16V plus 3 option (2.785 billion usd); plus upgrades of 20 existing f-16c/d to f-16v standard (1.082 billion usd)

    http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/10...mbat-aircraft/

    https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...f-16v-fighters

    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...-configuration
    Last edited by alexz; 1st February 2018 at 20:34.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    Yeah, you know what, this Gripen C vs. F-16 is old and boring. Not going to bother.

    Say, alexz, are you alexpz in another forum? If so, hi.

    I know the PHP 139.319 billion number comes from MaxDefense, but do you have the full list of the 16 projects proposed?

    You also say that the light transports are likely C-295 and that the MPA is C-295 MPA, but aren't the light transport C-212 and the MPA, well, dunno, but the Philippines has thrice tried to get two "Long Range Patrol Aircraft" (read: MPA) for $118 million and failed. Airbus just aren't willing to sell for that amount. So what makes you think that they can get 4 C-295 MPA for $200 million? If Airbus wasn't willing to sell for $59 million each, why would Airbus sell for $50 million? Surely the MPA will have to be some other aircraft.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES