TonnycSpeaking of future plans, has Pakistan decided to skip the J-10 and to just make do with the existing F-16 until they get FC-31? Isn’t this risky? Wouldn’t it be safer to hedge by obtaining some J-10? Or does the financial situation not permit this for the next few years?
TonnycOnly 41% of the funding has been secured. The rest is to be determined later.
I am quite certain that up to 50% of the $5.46 billion will be provided, but past that, who knows. Oh, the money is there, but no, the approval does not automatically imply funding. This may seem counterintuitive, but that’s politics.
TonnycSaab begins building structures plant for Gripen in Brazil:
Wrong link. You want
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-begins-building-structures-plant-for-gripen-in-448475/
TonnycDuterte said he respects Canada’s decision on the helicopter deal but asked the military to no longer procure other arms from Canada and the United States.
So no buying F-16. But that’s okay, since there was never any real chance of buying actual MRF. Now if they’re given free stuff, that’s okay, but see my earlier post about this being political, not about cost-and-capability.
Don’t ask me why a review of Canadian Bell 412 purchase suddenly becomes a refusal to buy US arms. I’d say someone’s being emo, but that’s unfair to all the emo teens out there.
TonnycYeah, you know what, this Gripen C vs. F-16 is old and boring. Not going to bother.
Say, alexz, are you alexpz in another forum? If so, hi.
I know the PHP 139.319 billion number comes from MaxDefense, but do you have the full list of the 16 projects proposed?
You also say that the light transports are likely C-295 and that the MPA is C-295 MPA, but aren’t the light transport C-212 and the MPA, well, dunno, but the Philippines has thrice tried to get two “Long Range Patrol Aircraft” (read: MPA) for $118 million and failed. Airbus just aren’t willing to sell for that amount. So what makes you think that they can get 4 C-295 MPA for $200 million? If Airbus wasn’t willing to sell for $59 million each, why would Airbus sell for $50 million? Surely the MPA will have to be some other aircraft.
TonnycSome facts:
The SAA/LIFT project is going to continue independently from the MRF project. It’s possible some T-50 will be acquired in the second batch rather than all FA-50.
The idea that all Gripen C requires parts of Gripen A is false. South African Gripens and IIRC Hungarian ones were all new. Moreover, there is no more Gripen A. The contract to convert the Gripen A from Gripen C was completed either in 2016 or early 2017. Swedish Air Force has said that they plan to keep all their Gripens. Which means all future Gripen C will be new. Saab has confirmed they have the ability to build new Gripen C.
Why aren’t we talking of something other than fighter jets? The 25 billion for 2018 is already allocated. We know that the Philippines is getting 24 attack helicopters, one jet, and one turboprop patrol aircraft.
Some people is guessing that the jet is just a VVIP transport, likely a small business jet for the president. Patrol aircraft might be C-295 MPA, but that’s very uncertain. It could be a King Air or a Hercules for all we know. Attack helos.. Not sure if it’s actually Air Force or Army, but there’s an amount in the article, so why not discuss that?
TonnycAlexz, you keep focusing on the wrong thing. Let’s go back to your very first post.
The Philippine Air Force is not being given PHP 139 billion. That number is what they are asking for the Horizon 2 modernization program. The government is free to deny part or even all of it. Heck originally they had a 500 billion peso program and the government said Hahahaha, no, try again. The Philippine Air Force actually need 500 billion to be a credible Air Force, but they’d be lucky if they get the 139 billion.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines has a special fund that they use for the modernization program. This fund gets money from the general appropriation allocation, which is pretty much whatever the state gives them, and the BCDA. What the BCDA is is not important for this discussion, but last year they put about PHP 5 billion into this fund, and historically they have given anywhere between 2-4 billion peso into the fund. Last year’s 5 billion was a record. Given the economic outlook, okay, let’s say that they can continue to give 5 billion peso yearly on average. Now, the general appropriation allocation for the fund is PHP 25 billion for 2018. This is not expected to increase significantly for the remainder of Duterte’s presidency.
What this means is that the expected modernization funding for the six year period of Horizon 2 for the entire armed forces is 180 billion peso. Even if we assume a modest increase, of what, 10%, naw, call it 25%, that’s only PHP 216 billion. And this has to be divided over all three branches.
The situation is such that the MRF acquisition is not planned on being sourced from the modernization fund, but rather from “the good graces of the government”. Now, look at the current Duterte administration and the track record of past Philippine governments. You think they will be willing to create a special allocation for the MRF? Me, I don’t think so. Call me a crank, but the question of future MRF for the Philippine Air Force is not about which aircraft is best. It’s about who is willing to give Philippines “free” stuff.
Oh, Gripen can be considered too. Sweden will have to provide a loan with a twelve year grace period or longer. The important thing is that some other president is the one who gets stuck with the bill, not Duterte. Frankly I don’t think Sweden will be willing to do provide the loan, but stranger things have happened.
TonnycAlexz, I understand that you really really want the F-16 to become Philippine Air Force’s multi-role fighters, but
1. I already argued that this is a political question, not a cost-and-capability question.
2. Your data is irrelevant anyway because the A-50 does not exist, and the FA-50 Expanded Weapons and Avionics brochure is not a binding document or even something with a timetable. With the possible exception of AIM-9X, none of them have actually been done, and the only one that might get done in the near future is the AIM-120, and I stress again that there is no timetable. And goodness gracious, do you realize how ridiculous your arguments about the Gripen C sound?
You don’t need to push the F-16 narrative here. We are all familiar with that narrative. But if you are not familiar with the current political situation in the Philippines, go do an internet search for the Philippine Frigate Acquisition Project and read up. Then realize that while the Armed Forces of the Philippines may have preferences, in the end Malacanang Palace goes for political expediency. Because if it’s good enough for the Palace it’s good enough for the soldiers and they’d better say, “SIR THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER SIR!”
So watch for envoys visiting the US and China, and watch whether President Duterte says “new jets” or stays silent. Because what’s important is not technical capabilities or logistical cost or any of the things we usually talk about, but whether President Duterte can spin it as getting the best from his bestest friend, be it Xi or Trump.
TonnycYou need to account for the current administration’s loud declaration of buying only new stuff. Now, this does not cover “free stuff”, and I place very little faith that they will actually follow the “no buying secondhand” policy to the letter, but it does add uncertainty to the used F-16 idea which otherwise would have been the obvious candidate.
Anyway, other candidates are Gripen C and FC-1. FC-1’s chance in particular can not be assessed simply by comparing its supposed price and capability. China can easily just give away a dozen FC-1 Block 1 and ruin everyone else’s chance. The fact that it will couple poorly with the Philippine Air Force logistics and has little interoperability with current and near-future Philippine defense assets and that it is less capable than Gripen C or F-16 MLU are of concern to the Philippine Air Force but Malacanang’s priorities are not the same as the Air Force’s.
“Free” FC-1 doesn’t even have to be free. The cost can be partially recouped by selling upgrades to Block 2, selling logistical support, and selling armaments.
FC-1’s chance will have to be assessed politically.
Mind you, used F-16 can also be given away “for free”. Heck, I thought up the “free” FC-1 because of the precedent of “free used F-16” for other countries.
TonnycThe defensenews article above mentions SAAB seeing Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines as potential Gripen buyers. I can’t see why Philippines would be interested since they recently bought the KAI T-50.
The Philippine Air Force’s original plan is to get the T-50 mainly for its LIFT capability and transition to multirole fighters afterward. The FA-50 is a compromise but the PAF does not consider it sufficient. You can say that FA-50 is close enough or that both are lightweight fighters and so on, but PAF disagrees.
In all three countries the Gripen is not the favoured candidate, but its chance is not zero.
And even if they wanted to buy it they would not be allowed thanks to their new “questionable” leadership.
Budget realities for the past 4-5 years (or heck, as far back as the Asian Financial Crisis) suggest that despite the PAF wanting MRF for years, they probably won’t get it until post-2020. By which time it will be only a short two years until the current Philippine president’s term is over. Given that MRF acquisitions is practically a multi-years sales pitch, I can see Saab doing lightweight marketing for less controversial products while waiting out the political situation.
TonnycI just read that the procedure to impeach Dilma Rousseff is moving forward. If she is removed, could this affect the Gripen deal?
Likely not. The FAB is fully behind the deal and the deal does not require Brazil to pay for it until after delivery. So at the moment Brazil has not paid anything. Dassault and Boeing all quoted higher prices, and IIRC with no deferred payment option. So had it been one of the other two, Brazil’s budget woes would have been worse. About the only option that is lighter on the Brazilian budget is to get nothing at all, and that is something the FAB is very much against.
TonnycIt’s interesting to read the following:
“The first opportunity to accommodate orders on the E line beyond Sweden and Brazil will be in 2022. There are many near-term fighter requirements that won’t wait until then, and so the C/D is a very viable proposal for those nations.”
I don’t quite understand why SAAB is marketing the E to anyone if none can be delivered for 6+ years. What happens if Switzerland revives its F-5 replacement this year or next – does SAAB respond, offering to build some new Gripen C to lend/lease to Switzerland until they can be replaced by Gripen E in 2022+? Same thing for Belgium/Denmark?
Err, it’s how defense companies are expected to work. While the F-35 has a different history, the date between the partner nations deciding to join up and the date they’re expected to receive their first delivery can be wider than a decade. And even if we discount partner nations, look at Singapore’s interest in the F-35. What’s a reasonable estimate on F-35 delivery to Singapore? Did that stop LM from putting a booth at the Singapore Air Show and displaying a mock-up of the F-35? And how about the J-31? When did China start marketing the J-31 and when is the expected first delivery?
Defense companies do not stop their marketing efforts even when they have several years backlog or when they aren’t sure when the product will be ready for delivery. There is no benefit in doing so. The onus is on the buyer to decide whether they’re willing to accept the deal. Sometimes the defense company will offer a stopgap measure, but it is still up to the buyer, not the defense companies.
TonnycThere may still be a stockpile of unused parts from the ‘scrapped for parts’ A/Bs, so perhaps SAAB could build ‘new’ C/Ds from a mix of re-lifed old parts & new.
I doubt it. Logically the unused Gripen A/B parts that can be used in Gripen C/D would have been used to maintain the C/D a long time ago. The Swedish Air Force owns the Gripen A/B and any parts that came when they break them down for spares. Since all air forces have to worry about budget, they would use the stored parts first before ordering new ones from Saab. The parts that can’t be used in C/D is irrelevant because no one is asking for A/B these days.
The stored A/Bs belong to Swedish Air Force too. I am not sure the Swedish Air Force wants to let them go. Even though they don’t use A/B anymore, those represent the option of getting 12 more C/D (IIRC the conversion ratio is 2:1) at a cheaper and faster rate than buying new. If they are willing to let them go, Saab would not need to offer new ones to Bulgaria and Slovakia.
TonnycOnly 24 remaining A/B means that they’re running out of aircraft to rebuild.
This has been speculated for a while now and while Saab did not outright say how many are left in storage, they have been saying that they can build new ones. I take that as confirmation that the stored Gripen are running out. Saab’s offer to Bulgaria are new Gripen C/D, for example.
TonnycSo.. if the 50% got blocked by some reason (embargo etc) Is there any suitable alternative ? Can say.. one grab rest 50% from somewhere ? Like say RD-33 or other EU engine ?
Engines do not work that way. But to be frank I don’t understand this paranoia. The air forces in question do not seem to worry about this. Thailand Air Forces gladly use F-16. Brazilian Air Force has some French aircrafts, but a quick look shows most of their fleet use American engines. Hungary and Czech use a lot of Russian planes, but they signed the lease extension, no?
Sign In
