| 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: |
| Ideal Aircraft station in Pag-asa island | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 26 2005, 07:00 PM (6,326 Views) | |
| israeli | Aug 24 2005, 12:54 PM Post #21 |
![]()
|
with City Hunter.basing combat aircraft in the Rancudo Airfield, whether those aircraft are modern MRFs or even rocket-armed OV-10s, may pose an image of "aggression" that the Philippines might pose against the other Spratly claimants. what i want to be done in Rancudo is to have the facilities there improved to "accomodate" C-130s. CN-235s and C-212s (the CN-235s and C-212s are must haves for the PAF, replacing the Fokker F-27s and N-22s) and "combat aircraft" such as MRFs. the combat aircraft and maritime patrol aircraft, along with a C-130B converted into a KC-130B tanker must be based in Palawan while Rancudo will see regular trips of C-130s, CN-235s and C-212s.
|
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| adroth | Aug 25 2005, 02:34 AM Post #22 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd put a coast guard station on Pag-asa, with SAR helicopter support facilities. |
|
Avatar c/o: http://www.proudlypinoy.org/ Defense of the Republic of the Philippines (DefensePH) | |
![]() |
|
| possible | Aug 25 2005, 04:00 AM Post #23 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
might not be possible at all to base combat jets at Rancudo: a high percentage of their airframes are made of aluminum, seawater will corrode their bodies with prolonged exposure. and how do the people there get fresh water anyway? what do they use to clean runways and equipment? |
|
War. What is it good for?--James Brown What's love got to do with it?--Tina Turner Only the intelligent are brave. | |
![]() |
|
| City Hunter | Aug 25 2005, 07:12 AM Post #24 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Late to add more details but Sir Possible has already hit the points I want to raise. I've been researching a bit on my free time about what MRFs might be ideal for our PAF. That's when I came across some bugging facts about the MiG 29. From what I gathered its a nice machine in itself but doesn't seem to suit proper MRF role. I guess its because it was designed differently. Also, the Malaysians are having a hard time with theirs despite the upgrades theirs already had. One was that it wasn't meant for tropical conditions and that despite the upgrades it was still seemingly inadequate for their purposes. But what bugs me is that the African report states that the MiG 29s bought there is seemingly performing well. I guess it might be just the advertisers at work as the Cuban pieces is also seemingly just in their hangars. Service support being a great difficulty too. Anyway, even with Israeli help in upgrading the MiG 29s which the Russian makers would surely contest as in the MiG 29 Sniper program we are then left with either European and American models to choose from. I negated the ChiCom option as I doubt if their quality control is yet that good. From reports in Iraq the ChiCom armored machines Saddam bought from China were mostly junk by then. If only our politicos and officials would stop lining their pockets with public funds we can surely afford these new MRFs. Not just the old F5s that Korea is said to be selling off. But we have to make sure these MRFs would last in our kind of conditions. Like our F8s which are the best that we had it didn't last long because of our tropical conditions (napansin ko nga hangar natin bulok at hindi yun talagang bagay na shelter for such important assets). The Gripen is nice especially as it was meant to be serviced mostly by conscripts with limited expert help. But will it survive our conditions? The F/A 18 is a naval aircraft hence no doubt it will last our environment. The only bad feedback I know about it comes from those Australian pieces which had problems about their engines and the seemingly inavailability of spares as the Americans got first dibs especially during the Iraqi invasion. The F 16 is a possible candidate in my opinion save that we would probably need to update it to our requirements (possibly along the A16 specs that was to be meant for the Navy back then). Maybe the Rafale M is we can afford those (have no idea yet if there's a naval version of the Eurofighter). As for our Pag-asa field, we would probably need to set it up like a carrier's deck. With arresting wires and barriers. From what I heard from commercial pilots landing at Baguio its like landing on an aircraft carrier except of course it doesn't have wires and barriers. I'm aiming for a C130 for now or its smaller siblings modified to seaplane capability (I recall there was such a concept) as those could land and taxi up the island if need be. And since those are modular too and being props they could serve as our immediate maritime patrol for now. As offensive weapons I remember that the Americans developed items for it. |
|
Command is about authority, about appointment to a position. Effective leadership is different. It must be learned and practiced in order for it to rise to the level of art. You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader. You can certainly command without that sense of commitment but you cannot lead without it; and without leadership, command is a hollow experience. .. a vacuum often filled with mistrust and ignorance. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki | |
![]() |
|
| edwin | Aug 27 2005, 06:30 PM Post #25 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
sir, F-16 needs a long runway to take off specially with heavy payload. If really our officials have the intention on fielding combat aircraft in pag-asa island , it must have the capability of short take of landing(STOL) landing. Correct me if im wrong, Pag-ASA island is already a long time military base of our country and putting MRF or any other military aircraft will not convey a message of aggrression to our neighbors. The place is strategic and we have troops in the area since Marcos time. Peace to all. |
![]() It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow. | |
![]() |
|
| jammerjamesky | Aug 28 2005, 02:03 AM Post #26 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pag-Asa Island is Full blown municipality with a base/detachment of navy and marines personnel.reviving the old plan for island,the expansion of the tarmak and some upgrades in the pavement plus arresting gears will be put is the only way to let the F-16 can land and take off. But first like the other fellows stated i agree of giving way to a coast guard station here. 3 vessel will do already (if only). and the development of a pier/ docks will be great. |
![]() |
|
| pantherscout78 | Aug 28 2005, 10:28 AM Post #27 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For me: 1. six (6) S-211 Recon Jets with AAM and ASM. 2. Four (4) Upgraded and Modernize F27 with the capability to carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles and torpedoes. 3. A dock/pier for which can handle 3 8, 000 tons(ENDURANCE LSD, Frigates, OPV's) ships and 5 1, 000 tons (Jacinto, Typhoon and PKM's). 4. 4 Bofors 40mm AA 5. 4 Humvee-equiped SAM 6. 2 CN235 STOL for transport and 2 for AEW. 7. 300 fully loaded and battle ready marines 8. logistics and supply. 9. more trees and plants for camouflaged |
![]() |
|
| GKB02 | Aug 28 2005, 12:21 PM Post #28 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
bantay kalikasan will provide that for free |
![]() Golden Knight Battalion | |
![]() |
|
| Austronesian | Aug 28 2005, 12:58 PM Post #29 |
|
Trainee
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
are you crazy, putting the most expensive and counter-strike capabities on the disputed island is a suicide. 2 DF-15 missiles armed with fragmented explonsive dispenser will renderly disabled or destroyed, any facilities and equipment within 1200 sqmeters of the island. |
![]() |
|
| jammerjamesky | Aug 31 2005, 10:07 AM Post #30 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Its a necessary action of putting such developmental plans in terms of military actions. Its has known already that the island is a military base since then, but no proper set up of its defense capabilities,naval asset and air equipment. For a country to have a forward stand out position is great advantage. Thru availability of funds on how 1200 sqm matters it will be set aside since expansion of the base will be consider in the development.its not only putting some expensive arsenal on this island but also planning and development is involved this situation guys is a fictional scenario only but this might be for real in fact that the island has already enter the military action of some claimants. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Philippine Air Force · Next Topic » |




with City Hunter.





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


8:53 AM Jul 11