Is the AFP pursuing an impractical weapons acquisition program ?

Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Is the AFP pursuing an impractical weapons acquisition program ?
Tweet Topic Started: Oct 10 2012, 02:27 PM (1,978 Views)
pachador	Oct 10 2012, 02:27 PM Post #1
Posts: 3,560 Group: Elite Member #4,608 Joined: May 1, 2008	just for discussion. I am not necessarily for or against some of the current AFP weapons acquisition projects.... we all agree on the following current realities: 1.) our defense budget is still small compared to our neighbors even after the recent 75 billion pesos 5 year program 2.) the AFP's wish versus the reality is painful. For example, the navy wishlist is 500 billion pesos and yet the reality is for the first 5 years, there is only 75 billion but this has to be shared among the navy, air force and army. is the AFP pursuing an impractical weapons acquisition program, at least, for some of the projects ?? for example, it seems like some of the AFP projects is hewing or following closely the doctrines of rich countries such as that long-range helicopter project( whats the justification for this ???) other than transporting air force commandos, perhaps ?? please correct me if im mistaken. shouldn't the AFP be purchasing weapons based on assymetric warface doctrine ???if so, is the AFP following the assymentric doctrine or more the expensive doctrines of rich countries(at least for some projects ??? this brings up questions like, if you were the communist bully navy, what would worry you more ?? three decade-old frigates or 3 decade old submarines ?? if the communist bully landed an invading force of 50,000 men with 500 heavy tanks, for example, would the bully worry more about confronting, example lang, 36 philippine army main battle tanks or 500 RPGs ??? to summarize , i just wished to table for discussion whether at least some of the AFP projects can be considered impractical or not realistic ??? or are all the projects cost-effective and practical ???



gammy322	Oct 10 2012, 07:37 PM Post #2
Member Posts: 1,516 Group: Regulars Member #7,608 Joined: July 20, 2012	kaya po sabi ng AFP si minimal defence posture na pwedeng ipagmalaki at ipang kalabit or ipang kurot panandalian sa kalaban coz once a war is imminent, nandyan si uncle sam and other nations to save us... hay buhay!



fernandez705	Oct 11 2012, 03:58 AM Post #3
Member Posts: 1,231 Group: Regulars Member #7,225 Joined: December 27, 2011	1 of the ways that we can save lots of money is through our SRDP. things such as: navy: building multi role patrol vessels similar to the danish Flyvefisken class patrol vessel using our JCPV blueprints, further development of LCUs, mpacs. air force: our UAV split into 2 types a small version to be launched by troops and command vehicles and a larger UCAV version ideal for 24/7 surveillance, 1st engagements against jets, light skirmishes against vessels, most imporrtant of all no pilots so its expendable. army: continued development on the mx-8 barako, with amphibious capabilities and a fire support variant ranging from mortars, 155mm gun, MLRS. a standard variant (my suggestion is a turret armed with 20mm, 7.62mm and 2 atgm). support variant(medvac, truck) the revival and improvement of the hari digma/mx-1 kalakian again with fire support variant armed with mortars, towed artillery (the vehicle towing it carries the ammo), standard variant ( my suggestion is a turret armed with 20/30mm, 7.62mm and 2 atgm and a 7.62mm/50cal rcws), command variant with ability to launch drones similar to one of the CROCs variants, medvac. for the infantry equipment (vests, helmets, electronics ie radios etc), firearms are all possible to be ingeniously built. but we also need to ingeniously build man portable atgms and sams because if we go to war against china there is a high chance that all our equipment and its replacement will be destroyed and we will be left with our infantry to defend our nation. munitions: we must have the ability to produce any kind of munitions from pistol round,5.56mm,7.62mm up to the 155mm shells. also the ability to produce guided munitions such as a guided version of our Philippine made HIVARS rocket to increase our chance of a kill and get the blueprints for short range anti air missile like the stinger and atgms like the LAHAT to gain the knowledge needed to build our own missiles. having the ability to produce munitions means having the abilty to keep on fighting. we can achieve this on our own and with joint developments with other countries such as croatia, italy, south korea, vietnam, india, russia and japan to speed up the development. it may seems bogus and people may think im just dreaming but its a collected suggestions by everyone in this forum which some of us agree to be possible. if the government does this it will benefit us in the long run through creation of jobs, also the multi-platform capability of some of the equipment and its cost effectiveness will definitely attract lots of customers in the world market especially if we target our ASEAN neighbors not only it will be good for our economy but also it will strengthen our alliance. plus the money saved can be spent on even more foreign equipments or be used for our peoples benefit ie child care, education etc.



Hong Nam	Oct 12 2012, 10:58 AM Post #4
Bought by China Posts: 6,025 Group: Elite Member #7,580 Joined: July 4, 2012	pachador Oct 10 2012, 02:27 PM is the AFP pursuing an impractical weapons acquisition program, at least, for some of the projects ?? for example, it seems like some of the AFP projects is hewing or following closely the doctrines of rich countries such as that long-range helicopter project( whats the justification for this ???) other than transporting air force commandos, perhaps ?? please correct me if im mistaken. Long range helos, for transporting commandos for covert ops is asymmetric warfare. I think this is a smart move as these platforms can be also used for transport of relief supplies during natural calamities, for SAR and possibly extraction of downed aviators behind enemy lines. - perhaps with them around, the airbase in Puerto Princesa, Palawan wouldn't have been named Lt. Col. Antonio Bautista Air Force Base. IMHO, the Fennec purchase is a crappy deal. That's money that could have been saved for something else. We don't need another type of "so called attack" helo. We need more of the same. - MG's Edited by Hong Nam, Oct 12 2012, 11:12 AM.
	*Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90*


Hong Nam	Oct 12 2012, 11:52 AM Post #5
Bought by China Posts: 6,025 Group: Elite Member #7,580 Joined: July 4, 2012	fernandez705 Oct 11 2012, 03:58 AM 1 of the ways that we can save lots of money is through our SRDP. Lot's of possibilities here. Difficult, involves a lot of "wheeling and dealing" and long term planning. Here are two examples: 1. If the Philippines plan to purchase/lease SAAB Gripens, then try and strike a deal with their government for possible "packaging" with the G�teborg class corvette and Karlskronavarvet AB for possible tie-ups or relocation to the Philippines and make them here. Even possible export in the future. Will probably make access to the Swedish systems (Erieye, RBS-15, Sea Giraffe Radars) easier and cheaper. You can probably add the manufacture of KAMEWA waterjets in the Philippines to the lot. 2. The Maestrales possibly packaged with *Minervas* are coming. Same thing - Fincantieri - Surely they would be interested in getting a foothold in the Asia Pacific. Otobreda/Otomelara, Otomat, Selenia systems, Augusta Westland and Alenia just to name a few. Do these names sound familiar? They sure do! - lots of possibilities. The key here is going for a single country. That way, you deal with only one government. Attain most favoured trading status and reap the benefits. I think you gentlemen can think of even way better ideas than those above. Edited by Hong Nam, Oct 12 2012, 11:59 AM.
	*Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90*


dewey	Oct 12 2012, 12:08 PM Post #6
metro aide sweeper Posts: 5,738 Group: Elite Member #7,096 Joined: September 26, 2011	i dont think pursueing a single country procurement is a good idea. if a major "enemy" pressures that country, there goes the program. or if that country decides that were better off with "lesser" defense articles and not good enough for their tech, again there goes the program. and if theres an imbargo?
	IDI@T!!! COWARD!!!


Hong Nam	Oct 12 2012, 12:33 PM Post #7
Bought by China Posts: 6,025 Group: Elite Member #7,580 Joined: July 4, 2012	dewey Oct 12 2012, 12:08 PM i dont think pursueing a single country procurement is a good idea. if a major "enemy" pressures that country, there goes the program. or if that country decides that were better off with "lesser" defense articles and not good enough for their tech, again there goes the program. and if theres an imbargo? if a major "enemy" pressures that country? - Surely our enemy isn't that powerful. I remember the major "enemy" wanting to get into the ARCTIC CLUB. Guess who stomped their application? - Little Norway. I may be wrong, but I think you over-estimate the "enemy's" influence in the world. Certainly not in Italy or Spain. if that country decides that were better off with "lesser" defense articles and not good enough for their tech? - It's happening now. But, who's fault is that? if theres an imbargo? - Nothing anybody can do about an embargo when it is imposed on you. Besides, is the Philippines planning to do something so horrible (genocide, coup de'tat) as to warrant an embargo? Point is. It's on the deals and the pacts the Philippines forge. - Strengthen those relations, build trust, show you deserve it and you wouldn't have to worry about any of these. The proverbial "ball" is in your court and it is up to you on what to do with it. Salud
	*Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90*


dewey	Oct 12 2012, 07:06 PM Post #8
metro aide sweeper Posts: 5,738 Group: Elite Member #7,096 Joined: September 26, 2011	the "enemy" joining the arctic club seem preposterous, thats why they were stomped by "little norway". they really have no business there. but in some other areas they could be influential, esp in areas they have legit say. remember the mirage problems of taiwan? (and other defense problem taiwan?) taiwanese officials were begging the us for the f16s to address the problems (they were even forced to buy very over priced kidd-class destoyers as a result of these. "if that country decides that were better off with "lesser" defense articles and not good enough for their tech? - It's happening now. But, who's fault is that?" exactly my point. this is the long time practice already until the jcpv and ultimately the sokol buy. now italy, indonesia, spain are in the mix already. and look who are sighing signs of relief? almost everybody. and this is why dnd is moving in this direction
	IDI@T!!! COWARD!!!


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · General Military and Law Enforcement · Next Topic »