Air Force to buy fighter jets by 2011

**niky** · July 4th, 2008 01:53 PM

Hahaha... sorry for the F16 smack-talk... but the issue I see with maintaining the F16 over the long haul is the fully electric operation of all the control surfaces... where the F/A 18 still has mechanical back-ups. Though both fighters have proven tough to kill in battle, I still favor the F/A 18 for deployment in a third-world country like ours.

**daimaoh** · July 4th, 2008 02:00 PM

as if we could afford to buy and maintain F-35's or F-16's

we might be better off buying A-4's. heck! the americans might even give it to us for free

**coiter** · July 4th, 2008 02:40 PM

mig-29s or Su-27s! these jets can land and take off from unpaved runways! they're resistant to extreme weather and are very cheap! with the aim of russia to be a major player in the arms sales once again, there shouldn't be any much quality or support issues. pero syempre, di papayag ang US. so balik tayo sa mas "realistic" hardware. surplus!

F-5E na lang. quantity over quality hehe. para may sukli pa pang C-130.

**JohnM** · July 4th, 2008 02:48 PM

Between the F16 and the F18 my bet is on the Electric Jet

1. It's pretty popular with neighboring countries (Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc) http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/f-16-fms.htm
2. I'm not sure if they're selling the Hornet to countries outside the US.
3. Hornet is too tough for our needs. It was designed for carrier landings. Two engines is a big plus though.

But nothing beats a Su-30 in terms of beauty

**jonski** · July 4th, 2008 03:13 PM

Ok satin ang Gripen kung for defense lang talaga since low cost and yung rugged design nya pwede mag landing sa kahit anong patag na kalsada.

Ok din sakin Rafale since 2 engine sya plus walang "no strings attached" sa mga french hindi tulad ng USA na limited lang mabibili mo mga weapons and kapag hindi ka nila nagustuhan ay hindi ka makakabili ng spares para sa pang ayos ng eroplano mo. Yung 1 Rafale pwede kalabanin atleast 4 fighters at the same time.

**1D4LV** · July 4th, 2008 03:21 PM

Are Harrier jets still operational? Mas mukhang bagay ata sa atin ito ah... Imagine, pwede mag land sa forest...

**1D4LV** · July 4th, 2008 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

Actually, the F-16 can and did although it wasn't the guns vs guns type of dogfight.
-------------

I think the biggest challenge of the PAF is maintaining the aircraft. The PAF had some 40+ F5s in its inventory. But, only a fraction were flyable at any given time. So, the track record of the PAF isn't really good. That's the trend they need to reverse.

That's why if I was to be the one to decide, I'd get the F-16 (the lowest cost) with strong logistics support, modern weaponry, and ample training time for the pilots. Well-trained pilots more than make up for any deficiency of the aircraft.

Add: Geeez. I can't believe the lack of faith of some people here with their own pilots. There were once a Philippine aerobatic team called the Blue Diamonds who were a match for other aerobatic teams around the world. If they can do it, why not now?.....

So defeatist. Tsk tsk. And people ask why Pinoys are looked down upon.

I agree with you bro. Filipino pilots are one of the best. Ang naging problema lang is we do not have enough hardware. And because they are paid low, they do not finish their tour. They transfer to commercial airlines where they are paid 8 x their salary.

And yes, i remember the PAF-Blue Diamonds. I used to watch them at Villamor when i was young.

To think about it....
Why not just get the cheapest fighter to maintain, and get some Apaches, which i think would be more beneficial to us.

And yes, i am an Air Force reservist... Rank of Captain. Assigned at the Logistics Wing.

**JohnM** · July 4th, 2008 03:38 PM

I think Apaches are overkill. After all they were designed to kill tanks. We're ok with the Little Birds for now. The Cobra is another option. Lots of parts commonality with the Huey

I've never seen the Blue Diamonds perform

All I get to see are scale models of their planes. Hope to see them fly again

**niky** · July 4th, 2008 04:04 PM

Harriers are too finicky, I think... hard to operate. Not saying that our pilots can't handle them, but they require a lot of training to operate, and we don't have the money for that training (simulator facilities, crashed planes, extra flying time... lots of extra flying time).

Su-30... purty... puwede na... Too bad the F-20 Tigershark never made it into active service... that was a pretty one... development of the F-5 with lots more power than the old F5 and comparable performance to the F16... developed as a "first-response" fighter. I remember their boast when they were pushing the airplane... that in the time it takes to prep an F16 and get it rolling down the runway, the F20 can be at 20,000 feet. With the maneuverability of the F5 and some parts commonality, it would have been a nice plane to get at the time, only it died in the market due to the technically superior F-16 finally being approved for sale to foreign markets... and due to the fact that it was still basically an F-5, which is old cow...

Burt Rutan Mudfighters? Hehehe... his proposal, if I remember right, was for a 2 million dollar close-support aircraft. Subsonic, jet-powered, ultra-light, rugged... too bad that never came to fruitition...

**Monseratto** · July 4th, 2008 05:06 PM

I'd rather purchase transport helos like the UH-60 or the EADS NH-70
and dedicated CAS planes like the Broncos or the A-10s than fighters. Who will you use the fighters against? Jet fighters are gas guzzlers and have little use for internal conflicts. Sadly there are no new dedicated CAS planes in the Western World. Only the SU-25 Frogfoot fits the bill.