Well if ever my budget tyo, di naman yung super, what do you think will be a good replacement for our, excuse me for the term, "ancient" weaponries. 'Lam nyo na para sa ating army, airforce and navy. lets hear it gentlemen

M1025 Humvees and Bradleys. Pwede na rin ang Russian tanks like T-72 and such. As with AC's, Apaches and Harriers would do.

Well, I'm thinking that the AFP is mostly going to be fighting rebels and performing aid ops - in both cases huge tanks like the M1A1 and others might be worthless, or even a liability! (Seriously, can you imagine an M1 trying to maneuver in jungle warfare??) I mean, it's not like we're going to be taking on America or some world power anytime soon anyway...

The ground forces might find APCs (maybe the next Philippine President can get us some used M-113s from the US) and smaller tanks, like the British Scimitar (I think we have a few Scorpions na...) more useful. Hummers, being multi-purpose vehicles, and cargo trucks, for logistics and food aid or evac, would also be a good investment.

For aid ops, and possibly evacuating OFWs from crisis areas (there was a fuss before OIF about Filipinos in the Middle East being stranded, since the PAF only had 2 C-130s to evacuate), some transport aircraft like used C-130s would be nice. Close Air Support planes like the OV-10 Bronco (we've got some of those too), or helicopters like the Cobra or more Hueys, would be useful for covering our troops from the air.

We should also invest in training and equipment for our military (maybe even before we think of getting new stuff...) Without proper training, even the most high-tech weapon in the world is nothing but an expensive way to show off. But with the proper training, even poorly equipped troops can prevail - as the Israelis have proved in the many wars they have fought with their neighbors.

But personally, though it would certainly help national pride to get shiny new tanks (not to mention more things for us to model!), I don't really think the military should be that much of a priority for the government. They've got MUCH bigger fish to fry, like corruption, the falling economy and crime problems....

BRDM-2 and 3 or BMP-2. Quite small, amphibious and packs some power for our little country.

Sounds like a great thread.

Blank, youre right. M-1s or any other MBT might not be useful for the AFP. One of the major considerations is the fact that most of our bridges are in the 15-ton capacity category. The M-1 weighs in at about 54 tons, IIRC. And if a tank cant cross bridges in a country criss-crossed by rivers and ravines, its practically useless.

The most important thing the Phil Army lacks is mobility. There just arent enough APCs, trucks and helos (well, our helos are kept by the PAF). Airpower might pound the enemy, but you still need troops to capture enemy territory. And if our troops have to walk there ... well. AMX-10 IFVs would be nice... or at least more YPR-765 AIFVs. Now if the government would build strategic bridges that can support MBTs, imagine what even up-armored M-60s can do in terms of fire suppression and sheer shock effect.

Of course, close air support in the form of Apache or Cobra choppers and A-10s would also help a lot. Our current CAS aircraft cant deliver sufficient ordnance to the enemy.

Another important consideration is territorial integrity. We need new fighters and ships. The new Cyclone gunboat may look mean, but it doesnt have sufficient seakeeping capabilities to patrol our shores. Plus, theres only 1 of that. We need frigates and/or off shore patrol vessels (OPVs) that can go out to sea farther and stay at sea longer.

Since the PAF is inclined to get twin-engined multi-role fighters, then the FA-18 would do just fine. The MiG-29 might be a nimble fighter, but its engine TBO (time between overhauls) is only about half that of its western counterparts. Which means that a MiG-29 will stay in the air only about half the time than would an FA-18.

Haay. Sarap mangarap no?

Helicopters! ( MI 24's? ) and Aircraft ( Mig 29's? i know lousy engine service life but they look so damn good )...and whatever money is needed to stamp out corruption. We need armor like we need a hole in the head. We need light support and transport vehicles. We need naval patrol craft and politicians who won't pocket part of the ransoms paid to free hostages.

I feel strongly about this. I was at dos palmas when robot showed up.

The Phil is an archipelago. I think we must not concentrate much on land power but instead on air and naval. Remember why Germans can't enter Britain? Because they concentrate more on naval and air superiority. Also, CAS would do. Mi-24 is a nice touch combining a Heli's firepower with transport. Also, a naval carrier could be useful even if it's just an LHD. If ever we gonna use land weapons, I suggest amphibious ones and small, compact and very mobile ones. A hovercraft can carry these to shore.

BTW, what does LHD mean? I've experienced it in only game and only Harriers can take off and land on it. Quite short for a CV.

Heeeeres Katze! Welcome back, Albert! Actually, I agree with your post. Lets rid the country of ALL politicians first. Hehehe!

Shonen,
An LHD stands for Landing Ship, Helicopter, Dock. Its the Wasp class amphibious vessel (available from Revell AG in 1/700, batteries not included. Hehehe). It was also called a "Sea Control Ship" in that it can be configured to carry as many 20 Harriers in its secondary role as an aircraft carrier.

We dont (and probably wont) have the money for it, but yes, it would do wonders for our defense. Imagine one anchoring off Sulu and sending AV-8s and AH-1s to blast the heck outta the bandits. (sorry, cant resist that).

Personally I don't think we need MBT's. Like what SR said we're an archipelago, jungle & mountain terrain. Maybe what we need are Helicopters, more helicopters, updated naval vessels & new fighter aircraft to protect our interest in the Spratly's. For land/ jungle warfare maybe we need more AFV's like M113's, softskins like HMMWV & of course since the government can't afford most of this, why not convert the existing transport trucks of the military to GUNTRUCKS.

[quote]I feel strongly about this. I was at dos palmas when robot showed up.quote]
wow! what happened??? i mean you were able to avoid those ASF bandits ? oh btw what happened to Robot ....i mean the last time i heard was that the second leg had to be amputated....did it push through??? i hope it did...that man is an animal for killing and raping his victims

One thing I can think of is get all the A-10s. The USAF doesn't want them. The US Army can't have them. Why don't we 'loan-to-buy' them? Would be effective in COIN ops.

Alabrador: I heard that the MiG-29s don't have that crappy engine anymore - well, the upgrades at least. The old Cold War era types had them, but those currently serving have new better engines. Dunno though when they upgraded these and what particular air force has them. The Mi-24 would do just nice. Rugged as hell alright.

Alabrador's right. We don't need armor. Well, heavy armor, that is (unless we plan on taking on the Malaysians at Sabah against their PT-91s). I've been saying this one as well for years on end.

I don't think that the AFP would be upgraded in the very near future, especially right now that it's election year. Besides even if it does gets upgraded somebody, either a politician or some high ranking AFP official, would just pocket a large chunk of the budget. So I say go for the GUNTRUCKS, it's much cheaper & most of the materials is at hand. Just my personal opinion.

Four .50 cal HMG's firing simultaneously are really noisy, just like the M16 halftrack, hehehe.
That's a good suggestion, it will really make the rebels' lives seem like hell with that.

What do you guys think is the better AC for the PAF, MiG-29's or Su-30's? but of course those stuff need runways. I think Harriers are better. One can easily hide them. All you need is a small flat space from where to take off or a really short runway.

Yeah, and with the V/STOL Joint Strike Fighter coming out for both the US and Britain, we might be able to get lots of "used" Harriers for a reasonable price! I'm not sure we'd get a lot out of the MIG-29 though - it's only good as an interceptor. Maybe a multi-role aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18 might be more useful - and, again, with the JSF coming out and replacing both of these for the US military (I think), we might be able to get some for a good price.

As for CAS planes, have you guys heard of the SU-25 Frogfoot? It's the Soviet version of the A-10. Not sure about its quality though...

Here's a pic of it.

http://www.desertcombat.com/Vehicle%20Images/SU-25-sm.jpg (From Desert Combat)

Looks good but I would still prefer A-10.

here's mine comrades...

army:
Humvees- a lot of them!
Centauro ng italy (like AMX10 ng pranses)
Bradley or Warrior MCV's o kaya Piranhas
russian surplus - BMP2 or 3 sma mo na rin yung airborne version, BTR80
pwede rin siguro yung mga flame tank na gamit ng mga ruso
*wala ba tyong sheridan?

helos:
Blackhawk series (retire na natin yung mga hueys)
AH1 or Apache, Kiowa
Mi-24 or Mi-28 (lagas yan mga hinayupak na yan!)
A-10

PAF:
A-4 (pwede pa rin to di ba? kala ko ba may na-order na tyo sa NZ?)
F-16
MiG-29
C-130 dagdagan pa

lastly dapat talaga palakasin ang PAF, ska PN. Another is yung intel natin di ba? saka mga radars and stuffs. Isa naman tyo sa pinaka-trainable sa mundo kaya imagine kung meron tyong ganitong equipments.

If we intend to bomb Malaysia, the Su-30 is a better choice. But we don't want to do that now, right? hehehehe

MiG-29 v Su-30:

At www.ACIG.org, there's an article there on which is the greater threat - the Fulcrum or the Flanker. According to the article, the Fulcrum is still a greater threat because it was designed as a fighter pilot's fighter. The main reason: Fuel. Apparently, the Flanker, being a bigger and heavier aircraft, needs to have most of its fuel gone before it can do those whiz-bang maneuvers. The maneuvers we get to see in those airshows have the Flanker with its tanks at 10% full. In combat, that's too small an amount. Hence, in combat, the Flanker must remove most of its weight before it can do those tight maneuvers - rated to be tighter than the F-16. The MiG-29, being smaller fighter, is nimbler. Ok, so it's small it doesn't have range. I seem to recall that this is rectified by having Fulcrums capable of aerial refueling (IIRC, early Fulcrums and even Flankers did not have this capability).

A Fulcrum with aerial refueling capability and Western avionics (not to mention better engines) is a more potent threat compared to the Flanker, according to the article.

I was surprised about that one.

Problem with Russian aircraft that they may be dirt cheap, the avionics ain't that great. Actually, everything Russian is almost dirt cheap but the FCS, avionics, and other electronics isn't perfect. A T-80UK costs nearly as much as a Leopard 2A4. One reason why Malaysia feels "short changed" with its acquisition of several PT-91s is because they paid for a cheap tank alright, but had to replace nearly everything electronic to bring it up to Western standards. In the end, I heard it costs a lot more than what they bargained for.

For wheeled thingies, I'd take the Fuchs, it being more capable than the BTRs (the latter still have an exit problem IIRC).

The problem with buying the Sheridan is you have to dredge them up from the ocean basin hehehe (they've become artificial coral reefs) or steal them from the NTC which act as VISMODS for T-XXs.

The problem with Harriers is that they're quite complex to maintain because of their unique capabilities. Although Harriers were forward deployed in Europe underneath camoflauge in forests, using the autobahn as their runway, you need a lot of logistics to keep them operating. And by that, I mean spare parts. Theoretically, we can maybe have some in the inventory at around 24, but if they are used constantly and without us being able to manufacture parts and the factories stop producing the same, then in a few months time, that'll be whittled down to maybe 10 or so. It's better to have a conventional aircraft which is easier to maintain than a complex one.

Just a question? Which Mig-29? A or B?




I must agree, with a single engine, things can change suddenly. It's engine is not a good as other craft types. At some airshows, it even malfunctioned while doing it's hover mode.

Only for an experienced pilot is this craft. In the US, many pilots can use the F/A-18 but not the Harrier. It's way complicated. Adding the hover mode, it'll take a lot of practice and a lot of spending for maintenance and fuel.

Shonen,
Not only that, we mustnt forget that Harriers arent true fighters. Theyre more CAS aircraft than anything. Sure the RAF/RN had successes during the Falklands war, but a Harrier just cant maintain a prolonged CAP mission with its limited fuel. And with our limited budget, we couldnt afford to buy two squadrons of different aircraft types. The logistics would be a nightmare. Dont get me wrong, I actually like the AV-8B/GR5/7.

Alex,
Cool drawings. And a very practical solution to both mobility and firepower. Imagine if one of those gun trucks had parked near the hospital in Lamitan. .. Oops! There goes the trigger finger again.

GI,
Most aircraft will have to let go of external tanks before "mixing it up." The only instance I heard of reports of a fighter engaging enemy planes with tanks was a pair of 18s in Desert Storm (although Im not sure if this is true).

Another problem with Russian aircraft is that there are reports that MIkoyan and Sukhoi are having money problems. Thats why theyre selling at bargain bin prices. A serious dilemma would occur if the PAF buys their planes and the companies making spare parts go bankrupt. With crappy engines and no spare parts, this will mean more display pieces in the PAF Outdoor Museum. #:-)

Well, look at the bright side. We'll have access to first-hand reference for our model kits. #:-) Plus, I gets to touch the real thing again.

As for the drop tanks, yup. But the problem is the Flanker is - according to the article - that most of its internal fuel should be dispensed with before it can do those stunning maneuvers.

SR: I dunno. Can't remember. Check the link I posted. Search and read the article. Sorry, I'm lazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy.

But do remember that CAS are more prone to getting hit. Were of the same side! Harrier addict din ako! I love the AV-8B, AV-8BII, Sea Harrier and GR5

I think another investment worth looking at is Intelligence Support. If you can't get a fix on the insurgents, how can the military use their hardware ?

Madali lang yan. P500 plus isang case ng SMB. Magsasalita na ang mga yan hehehe

Basta, wag lang ipakanta ang "My Way" hehehe

Seriously now...

One nice thing to have are UAVs. IIRC, we had an indigenously developed UAV. Buck, 4-Eyes, Wanze, El-Jefe and/or Jepot would know this better than I do.

I agree with you maybe a high end karaoke player will do!! to do all the interrogation.hehehe