Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Old new again; second-hand bargains
Topic Started: Aug 3 2005, 06:31 AM (8,060 Views)
datu
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Honestly, F-5s for patrol? For one thing F-5s arent well known for their range and loiter time, and another thing, the radar for the $100 South Korean F-5 is the Mk.1 eyeball, so any recoinasance these planes will undertake will only be within the pilot's visual range. F-5 for patrol? For the time being, the governement will be better off than bringing back mothballed Fokker-27 or Islanders or atleast bring back more BO-105s for patrol NOT F-5s.

There is talk about the Polish giving a loan to buy military equipment, including planes i think? They might be M-28Skytrucks or even better M-28Bryza MPA. The PAF also is looking for more Fokker-27, might be reverted back to MPA? And for plans the original PAF plan for MPA/surveilance aircraft was for the PAF to buy C-130s and convert these to MPA aircraft, which in my opinion is not a good idea.


"F*ck it, Dude. Let's go bowling."
---The Big Lebowski
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eagle1
Member
[ *  *  * ]
no insult intended but that is why i mentioned a squadron of newer mrf planes. hopefully it would be something like the f/a-18d, optimized for maritime strike. two strike packages, each one with one hornet and 5 to 6 f-5. i'm just using the f-5 as an example but it could be an f-86f with ir capability. the f-5 at one point carried sidewinders and my guess is the koreans most likely mounted a -9L on those wings. we are not talking crossing the pacific here so by the time an enemy is spotted (with the help of us sats), intentions verified, warned, etc, we maybe talking less than 100 miles at intercept. now with the f-18 radar and ir systems, you have both active and passive detection capability. add to that , you can use something like a maverick which has both radar guided and ir versions. better and cheaper would be what i call the "hydra de ville". told opus about this one a while back. it is essentially a 5 inch hydra rocket which uses the ir (night viz) camera used on the cadillac de ville. testing showed it is more accurate and more robust than the mav. now once the invading fleet is located by the hornet, fired its longer range radar guided ordy, the f-5s can go in closer and use their ir munitions. the -18 can just hang back since it is a very valuable asset compared to the f-5. i know the argentinians lost but follow their example on this one. lost two frigs and the atlantic conveyor loaded with harriers to cheap airplanes...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
datu
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Thats different if youre talking about Maritime/Surface Strike Aircraft. But nearly fell off my chair when i read using jets just for patrol rather than ships or atleast mentioning MP/surveilance aircraft. :wow: Now that would be an expensive mistake.


"F*ck it, Dude. Let's go bowling."
---The Big Lebowski
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eagle1
Member
[ *  *  * ]
why not use them for patrol? pilots need to get hours and hone in their skills on terrainless navigation. also give the pilots a good camera and a hand held gps so they can take pictures and mark areas of interest. these pics can be analyzed on landing. the flights are to be secondary to dedicated mpa functions and should not take their place. pilots might as well practice intercepting commercial airlines flying through phil airspace without paying the fee....

btw, why the 9L (see prev post)? when the AIM-9B were upgraded to the 9J followed by the L,M,P and so on, the aircraft systems where also upgraded. pretty much they made the planes compatible with a lot of other weapon systems. this is why (i think) one does not see a paf f-5 with an upgraded sidewinder...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
possible
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
don’t exactly agree with the means given, but the concept laid-out by eagle1 makes perfect sense: why waste resources using ships for 24/7 EEZ surveillance when other platforms can do this more efficiently?

posted on the SURFACE WAVE RADAR thread

Quote:
 
APPENDIX XIII p. 103

Comparison of the Cost of Satellite Surveillance, Aerial Surveillance, and Ground-Based Radar Surveillance

AERIAL SURVEILLANCE 

Aircraft would cost $12,000 CDN per day, per surveillance area ($4,380,000 a year).  They can travel to and cover an area relatively quickly, and have the added benefit of being able to conduct a more intensive surveillance than radar stations or satellites.  However, the endurance of aircraft is limited, and it is possible for a large object to be missed during a pass.

HIGH-FREQUENCY SURFACE WAVE RADAR 

Radar stations would cost about $3,500 per day, per surveillance area ($1,246,000 a year).  Stations can provide continuous coverage of a large area.  According to DND, they have a nominal range starting at 35 nautical miles from the site that extends out to 150-200 nautical miles, with an azimuth range of 120 degrees.  The major weakness of this system is high-frequency signal clutter, which can mar signals from true targets.

http://www.parl.gc.ca (PDF!)

posted here

Quote:
 
9.2  The Committee was provided with the following indication of the magnitude of annual operating costs of some major platforms:

Table 9.1  Indicative Personnel and Operating Costs for Major Platforms

Capability/Annual operating cost (in A$ millions)

F-111 aircraft  244

F/A-18 aircraft  300

Adelaide class frigates  152

Perth class destroyers  106

Collins class submarines  36*

Anzac class frigates  23*

* indicates that these are preliminary figures as these systems were just entering service at time of advice.

Funding Australia’s Defence: Chapter 9 (PDF file!)

the most cost-effective means of 24/7 surveillance aren’t ships, it’s ground-based radar stations and MPAs, as datu pointed out. the most operationally-effective means of turning-back intruders isn’t ships, it’s MRFs, as eagle1 said – so who needs ships for 24/7 surveillance or long-range external defense missions?

what I'd like the PN inventory to look like

2-3 subs
2-4 frigates
12 or more corvettes/littoral combat ships
12 or more specialized ISO small craft

no OPVs: the PN needs combat vessels – why? because what the PN has been losing all these years of neglect isn’t only ships per se, it’s the capability to perform true external defense-relevant missions like ASuW, AAW, and especially ASW, so the PN needs most of all training to restore/acquire those skills, can’t train while you’re patrolling (except if you’re in a sub) and you can’t train for ASW on an OPV. give the OPVs to the Coast Guard, give real warships to the PN.

which are: subs are the most expedient way to real deterrence, and they also happen to be more effective surveillance platforms than surface ships, from the SUBMARINES thread

Quote:
 
Submarines and Peacekeeping

Support Operations

There are a wide variety of other tasks that can be effectively performed by submarines that would serve to free up other resources, allow for the more efficient use of those resources, or perform tasks that would place them at risk. The sensors aboard a submarine enable it to scrutinise a far larger area than is possible with a surface ship. Under good sonar conditions and equipped with a towed array, submarines are capable of covering 125,000 km2 over a forty to fifty day patrol, whereas a surface task group of five to six ships, with a combined helicopter capacity of eight craft, has a continuous surveillance coverage of 192,000 km2 in a 30 day patrol. Thus, considerable resource savings can be had with submarines, especially given that most SSKs are crewed by as few as 30 personnel.

http://www.jmss.org

frigates are needed for their size, which allows mounting electronics, weapons, and other equipment that wouldn’t fit on smaller vessels (like large towed arrays, longer range radar, 5-inch guns, and larger ASW helos - basically, a package like this Italian beauty brings to the table - though an affordable version of edwin's LCS would be great long-term). but as argued in the SECURING THE LITTORAL thread, we don't need so many large and expensive-to-run ships, and the rest of the PN need not be so sophisticated: what the A69 (“AVISO” isn’t the type name, just French for “corvette”), MINERVA, DESCUBIERTA posted on datu’s OPV thread, and the POHANG-class corvettes posted here, share in common is economy (else how can you afford to train extensively) and crucially survivability since all are true warships built to military standards, get a few of these to get the PN’s training on-track then get a local shipbuilding program going as soon as possible (smaller designs like israeli's FLYVEFISKEN would be ok, but this licence-built-in-UAE-by-way-of-France corvette is also interesting). as for ISO the PN and PMC need versatile platforms like this Turkish product (but not necessarily identical to the one pictured!) which can pursue terrs, patrol places like Western Minda efficiently, and deliver SF teams stealthily.

the only non-combat vessels necessary: LSTs like the ENDURANCE-class, plus support vessels. that's all.


War. What is it good for?--James Brown

What's love got to do with it?--Tina Turner

Only the intelligent are brave.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Philippine Navy · Next Topic »
Add Reply