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
Self-Reliance Defense Posture survey; Describe and name your Pinoy aircraft
Topic Started: Feb 15 2006, 06:47 AM (2,584 Views)
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
flipzi
Feb 16 2006, 12:01 PM
spearhead
Feb 16 2006, 11:44 AM
Dont you guys like the sound of Raja, Sultan, Berdugo, or Bardagol for an aircraft?

Raja and Sultan fits a MEDIUM or HEAVY LIFT TRANSPORT PLANE.

Berdugo fits a COMBAT AIRCRAFT or an ATTACK CHOPPER.

Bardagol just sounds so weird. Maybe we can find a more fitting one.

Ok, make sense, I will take note of that and keep it in mind. Your suggestions about armament details can actually help us more to think... Thanks.

BTW, anyone here knows the meaning of "Anas Luzonica"? It means Philippine Duck. How do you like the sound of it specially if we use it in a Maritime Patrol Aircraft or similar planes?

Remember, you can also use names that may represent our countries' uniqueness.

Here is a photo taken in one of the pages from an asian issued military technology and news regarding our SRDP:

Posted Image

GKB02

"Alon" is a nice one too but it doesnt seem like it fits for a maritime patrol plane, cuz its more on a sea power though, for a boat or sub?

Ano nga ba ang ibig sabihin muli ng "Buhawi"?

saver111
 
Posted on Feb 15 2006, 01:39 PM
  I'm not being pessimistic but what I want is get it on the ground.

Make one first, naming them follows. Parang baby. Gawa ka muna, pag-labas, binyagan naman. 


Well, not a bad suggestion. Although i know that sometimes we use a model to inspire us, in this case we use some pinoy things such as animals to inspire our work.

Lastly, how do you like the sounds of KALAPATI for an aircraft, TUKLAW or SAWA for rocket weapons or any type of weapons (maybe ballistic missile/anti-aircraft/anti-tank missile/anti-ship missile), and BUWAYA for an amphibious vechicle/tank?

Some alternative english names if we couldn't really come with pinoy nicks:
ATLAS
GUNNER
DESTROYER
TERMINATOR
PREDATOR
SPARROW
JUGGERNAUGHT
VORTEX
VALKERIE

:armycheers: :patrioticpinoy:
"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yaberdaber
Feb 15 2006, 08:51 AM
How about a logistics support or radar plane?  Or maybe gunship support?

Actually, I hate to say this but since you're asking, I'll give you an answer... Any filipino-made radar planes, logistic support planes or refuelling planes were not really belong under this initial SRDP program, although there are chances that under any joint-venture/production with other countries, we may build a pinoy version of example, a fighter-bomber/attack plane during the span (not 100% pinoy design/made), otherwise we may simply upgrade some existing planes and its weapons.

We have 2 phases of modernization programs, 1st SRDP is this initial 18 yr plan including the acquisition of initial imported modern planes and other local military upgrades/weapons, although in the span of 18 yrs there are times that we will be joint-producting planes and etc with other countries for sure... Second is the continuation of SRDP program in which when we PLAN to build and design our truly own weapons, and that means we're talking about 20 to 30 yrs more from now. The thing is WE dont know IF we are still alive by that time. Sana buhay pa tayo...

:fire: :sniper: :patrioticpinoy:
"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tora^2
Feb 15 2006, 09:12 AM

However, I don't agree with the idea of V/STOLs for air superiority fighters since such aircraft have penalties like reduced range, payloads, diminished performance.

If im not mistaken, there is an existing technology today to answer that problem.

The new 2-D thrust vectoring nozzles of the F-22, and the 3-D thrust vectoring nozzles of the S-37. In other words, it's the new Jump Jet Directional Thrust Valve or Chamber. That means a plane can have 1 or 2 typical engines with an attachment or forgement of 2-D or 3-D directional chambers jump jets to lift it off or landing it to the ground verticaly without any penalties.

Some related links:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/jumpjet.html
:patrioticpinoy:
"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GKB02
Member
[ *  *  * ]
buhawi - tornado...
how bout "tanod" for the maritime patrol plane then... :armycool:
Posted Image
Golden Knight Battalion
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
City Hunter
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Ok, me naman.

Nothing unique like a Pinoy name. Ang idea ko would still be on using the F-5 series as a takeoff point. Bale, ito ang magiging basis on improving the Cali to a true ALCA. Kapag nakuha yun rights at design for the F20 at makuha rin natin ang Gripen ay gamitin ang tech ng dalawa to improve it further. Why am I still after the F20? Kasi hindi siya based on instability. Parang sa mga Russians na improve on the existing. Low tech approach naman. Yun Gripen follow-up pang high-tech approach natin. At kapag nakuha yun designs like those on the two-engine Novi Avion successor (I think) yun ang maging successor ng Gripen natin. At yun F20 ay maging X29 na true combat fighter na. For ALCA then yun improved Cali na mix ng low at high tech from Gripen and F5/F20 designs. Yun F20 magiging X29 pantapat sa mga Berkuts. At yun Gripen lalaki na to something like the Rafale.

For vertical take off roles, hindi na kailangan complicated. Gawin na lang compound helicopters na may vectored thrust ducted propellers ang mga nasa current inventory. Then buhayin ang Hummingbird pero not as an improve Bo105 kundi as a compound helicopter na may VTDP. No idea if this will still be stepping on the patent though kaya dapat maayos ang transaction for the design. That way, bilhin natin lahat ng mga Cobras at turn them to compound helicopters. Mas mabilis na sa Apache at Hokums at mas maraming payload, mas malayong range, at mas mataas ang service ceiling (as lift is provided by the wings). Pwede pa mag rolling takeoff. Hindi nga lang pa kasing bilis ng Harrier. Kaya dapat mag-invest ng sariling design natin at the Bo105/Hummingbird is a good candidate to use of. Besides making our own utility helicopters pati gunship gawa rin tayo based on that. And with experience on making and designing helicopters gawa tayon ng heavy lift helicopters na may speed at range tulad ng advocated design ko for the Skycranes.

Pero, kailangan ma advance or masabayan man lang rin ang development for alternative fuel at engine. Sa land and naval vessels meron na available but none really good yet commercially available sa pagkakaalam ko for aircrafts.
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
City Hunter
Member
[ *  *  * ]
This is my analysis on the mentioned variants for the said survey. Vertical take-off capability is indeed an awesome capability to have. But impractical for the Philippines at this point. Why is this so. First, vertical take-off consumes more fuel that would've been better spent on the actual flight. Second, it would mean less load no matter how many engines you use. And unless we are using the design from the Harrier on this "jump jet" idea it would mean losing VIFFING capability. As realized on the Forger design, having two engines is indeed the shortcut to VTOL. It would give a smoother transition but also more dangerous when one engine goes out. As from what I've gathered, the JSF will not be featured with VIFFING capability. If this is true, this means that a definite edge that Western jumpjets have will be gone in the future (as I doubt that they'll manufacture more Harriers once the JSF is operational). The Harrier gets its VIFFING ability by using similar tech as on the space vehicles. I forgot what its properly called at the moment, thruster jets I think, but the Harrier uses the air from its engine which is then channeled to the said thruster jets placed on certain portions of the aircraft. This is what gives it the ability like that of a helicopter while in flight.

The best approach if one is to undertake such a project is to first develop an alternative fuel and an engine that is not only fuel efficient when using petrol but also capable of efficiently using a proposed alternative fuel. Fuel not only being the lifeblood of commerce and war is also becoming very precious and expensive these days. So, unless a proper program is established that would seek answers on this the jumpjet idea is dead. We could mount it with the engines and jet thrusters of the Harrier to make it operational in a short time but with no fuel, source or budget, for it to keep it operationally cost-effective I doubt that it would get beyond the drawing board.

This is why I did not undertake at this point to include in my proposed idea the Harrier despite its awesome abilities. What would be more practical for us at this point are STOL capable aircrafts that could operate on rough surfaces.

The Cali is still an awesome design that must be exploited despite its current aged looks (especially when compared to the T50 Golden Eagle). But it is STOL capable and has a good acceleration. And with the right funding and dedicated engineers assigned to it we could field it faster and more cost-effective too. Plus, it has a market on both military and civilian sectors too. And if redesigned to accept more of the F5s components and systems it would be a more inviting factor to those thinking of an economical replacement for their aging F5s. And instead of using the container carrier vessel that I posted on another thread as our answer for naval carrier needs, we instead use one of the passenger transports and reconfigure them as like those of the earlier carriers. With a flat deck on top and a ski jump at one end, a lightly loaded Cali can take off and land from it (we need to redesign the design though to be a bit more stronger to take on the load imposed by carrier-borne operations).

The F5 design is also yet to be fully exploited and put into effective use. Northrop had offered to package then with the sale the blueprints, production tooling, and manufacturing jigs for the E/F models then to India. The same was also done on the F20 offer when the Tiger II was not seen as the answer to India's needs. As we know, India went with another aircraft and they are still designing the LCA.

The F5 in the F20 form is already a capable aircraft. And when coupled with certain advances used on the current line-up of modern aircrafts it would be an awesome machine. Some ideas would be to adapt the voice-command feature on the Typhoon. And also the Typhoon's G-suit which the pilot would need to enable him to fully exploit the Tigershark's awesome pointing ability. Coupled with fully functioning canards and rear control surfaces and properly placed and thrust vectors plus a helmet mounted sight connected to vectored thrust offensive missiles which are all currently available then the Tigershark is a low-tech approach for an awesome fighter piece that our nation badly needs. If I'm correct, it uses a similar design approach as what the Russians did on the MiG-29 and Su-27 which are both impressive and agile fighters. Instead of instability in design they improved upon the basic design to make them as capable as the Western ones using instability. The only sore point in Russian tech is that they tend to make them for war production standards hence a bit low on compactness and durability. Then, we integrate it either with the Oerlikon KCA 30mm cannon (mounted on the Viggen) or the Mauser equivalent for a powerful internal gun that could double as anti-armor too. If its too heavy we can opt for the 27mm Mauser mounted on the Gripen.

And going a bit sci fi but still reasonable is adapting a "cloaking capability" to the aircraft. I've mentioned (and lost the link at this time) a Japanese university study on a primitive kind of cloaking technology. I'm not sure if any here have read a book titled "The Ransom of Black Stealth One" but it also describes a realistic use of such a similar technology. It features that although the whole aircraft cannot be "cloaked" it can be disguised from a selected angle. Say, if the opfor is below you then you disguise the aircraft's belly to look like the sky above it. But it would be exposed from an enemy above it. You need to weigh then which is more important. It could also be disguised to look like an animal (although not in scale) in flight.

And if we are to take on the Gripen Bs for PAF service and mod it with some of the existing tech on the D and that enlarged internal tanks which is already in the works similar to those new F16s and a helmet mounted sight we would then be able to field a capable aircraft for our nation's defense. And why is the Gripen important in our factor for a good indigenous multi-role fighter? It would teach us the pluses and minuses of what a fourth generation design has. And more so on the fly-by-wire and instability design. Then we use this lessons along with the F20s (and F5s) to create a combat capable X-29 for our MRF. This is the future of combat aircrafts. They need only the tech and capability to handle such a demanding aircraft. But with the lessons that we will learn from designing an improved F20 and Gripen B we can achieve that. And the first subject that may benefit from it would be the Cali. Integrating the F20 design on the Cali and we would have a good equivalent to the Golden Eagle and that formidable Yak attack aircraft design.

And these just by using current tech. Only a determined funding is required to realize this in a very short time. I'm still working on the said report (had to revise it with that analysis of the L159 and the Cebu mods done by FERFRANS - compiling along the required support and their upgrades) and hope to finish half of it soon.

And still working on those alternative fuel ideas.
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
City Hunter
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Jump jets too for transport although admirable is also not practical. Mas ok pa rin ang rotary wing aircrafts kung kailangan ng vertical take off and landing as mas marami na ang tech na ginawa for this at present. Ang kailangan na lang natin gawin ay develop it further using designs that are proven but not accepted for production (again due to marketing forces and not because of engineering reasons). Take for example the idea for turning our helicopters into compound helicopters. The Russian Hind gunship is an adequate example. High speed, high payload (especially with those heavy armor) and high service ceiling. Ang problem nga lang sa laki ng original wings hindi na siya pwede mag hover. Kaya either a rolling take off or something like it kung nagmamadali. With the new Hind inayos nila yun wing design para pwede na mag hover ayon sa reports. Ang kulang nga lang gumagamit pa rin sila ng tail rotor. Dapat palitan natin with vectored thrust ducted propellers or our copy of it para mas more speed at better control. Also, sa low altitudes mas ok ang rotary wing compared sa fixed wing. Baligtad naman sa high altitudes. Ang major setback nga lang with current designs ay di pa explored ang full potential ng compound helicopter with VTDP. Kaya mahigit lang sa Hind speed ang mga projections like kung isalpak sa mga binabalak na lumang Cobras na gusto ng PAF (yun Cobras not yet the mod). Still, mabilis pa rin compared to normal helicopters. Kung heavy lift, the Skycrane modded with such at naka bottle boxes could deliver equipment and personnel better. There is such a mod too for an cargo aircraft pero nakalimutan ko yun pangalan as of the moment.

Mas practical kasi na simple lang ang design. Yun sa Osprey impressive siya pero sa sobrang complex ang design ay hindi niya na-meet yun standards from reports. It would be better to have compound helicopters do the heavy lift kung kinakailangan ng vertical take off and landings at dedicated fixed wing transports for others na di naman kailangan ng VTOL.

Another idea naman would be to launch the aircrafts na parang rocket at land siya normally. This was tested before at may mga nag-attempt pa na landing ala rocket rin where the thruster section settles back on the ground again after flight. Ang hirap raw at too dangerous to attempt by ordinary pilots.

If such a self-reliance program is to be initiated mas magagamit ang pondo using practical and existing designs muna. Like on the C130 seaplane na makakatulong rin sa disaster relief. Sa qualification tests ng Cali for carrier operations sa modified transport ship. And cornering the F20 to make it ours na and mod it up with the latest tech available on the market today. Then, continue with funds being generated from the sales and savings by these projects to make ourselves first a more efficient and powerful engine ng Harrier na pwede rin gumamit ng alternative fuel. With that engine we could develop the said line up of aircrafts. Sa ngayon, I doubt any politico and bean counter dito sa atin will fund that as the projected returns is doubtful. Kung sa F20 pwede natin ibenta as mod to upgrade existing F5s at the very least. Or ipalit nila ang ilan F5s nila for either a Cali or F20. Yun lumang F5 kahuyin para magamit sa modified Cali or mod the airframe to F20 standard wherein may option sila either a new airframe at engine ng F20/Gripen at konting update lang muna sa avionics and systems until their budget allows more.
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Many thanks to City Hunter's creative ideas. Your ideas are indeed can be very helpful specially for the first phase of AFP modernization in which local upgrades to our existing military hardwares will really make sense. I agree with you in some concepts though, I still believe that we need some fighters with VTOL capabilities for quick launches or faster deployments.

Anyway, here are some articles from an asian military journal related to our AFP modernization programs and news (i got it from PEX):

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

And some current local upgrades of our Armoured vehicles:

Posted Image
Posted Image

:fire: :patrioticpinoy:


"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
City Hunter
Member
[ *  *  * ]
I like that mod done on the wheeled APC. BTW, V150 ba yun sa likod niya? Mukhang ok pa condition. Marines must have maintained it well.
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
the reaper
Trainee
[ *  * ]
VTOL aircraft should be given a good look. The German VJ101 was an F-104 Starfighter with rotating jets mounted on the wingtips. It worked very well as it was capable of going supersonic, but it was cancelled. The other West German VTOL, whose name I can't seem to remember, was the basis for most subsequent Russian designs including the gas guzzling Forger. The problem was with the guzzling engine, not the aircraft.

But by far, the most promising of the cancelled VTOL projects was the Hawker p1154, whose cancellation led to the smaller-scaled p1127, the venerable Harrier. The p1154 was supposed to be a larger aircraft capable of carrying heavier loads at longer ranges while going supersonic. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages in fielding VTOL aircraft. Most are gas guzzlers and carries less payload. But the Harrier can carry up to 9,000 lbs of mixed ordnance and has decent range. The Super Harrier would have even been better. Most old designers and analysts say that the F-35 is nothing more than a modernized version of the British aircraft that flew about 40 years ago. But the advantages of not needing airfields, having very good maneuverability, and flexibility is worth considering.

If they could build this 40 years ago, then it is very plausible to have a slightly modernized, improved, and watered-down (If need be) version today.

Imagine what the British could have fielded if they didn't go crazy over missiles, declaring that 'manned aircraft are obsolete.' And if Le May also didn't go crazy over strategic bombers. Just watched this History Channel special last night.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Philippine Air Force · Next Topic »
Add Reply