Friday, May 16, 2014

Analysis on the PAF's Upcoming Long Range Patrol Aircraft

For the past few months, you may have been hearing representatives from the Philippines' Department of National Defense (DND) and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) discussing the acquisition of long range patrol aircraft for the Philippine Air Force (PAF). The last of these announcements even came from President Benigno Aquino III himself during the appointment of new PAF chief Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Delgado last month, where he reiterated the national government's support for the aircraft purchase.

MaxDefense's previous blog entry discussions included the DND's ongoing deal with the US government on the procurement of patrol aircraft, in which they will be acquired under a US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. The Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) allocated for the 2 aircraft is Php 5.97 billion (around $133 million), which includes training of aircrew and ground personnel, and an Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) package. As of this writing, MaxDefense sources says that the deal with the US government is now in the final stages, and we can expect the DND to announce the deal completion within a few months, or even weeks, from now. Expected delivery of the 1st unit is expected by 2016, while the 2nd unit may arrive by 2017.


Purpose:
The PAF's Long Range Patrol Aircraft (LRPA) are expected to be the Philippine military's primary airborne "eyes and ears" platform, designed to detect and identify surface and possibly subsurface assets passing through or intruding the country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and territorial waters. They are equipped with advanced surveillance systems, can operate both day and night, have enough range and endurance to be present in the air for the longest possible time, and would probably be armed to defeat hostile naval threats.


Possible Offers:
So what is the long range patrol aircraft to be procured? Previously, MaxDefense discussed a possible shortlist of what the US can provide for the project: the Lockheed P-3C Orion, and the Airbus Military CN-235MP or the larger C-295 MP or ASW Persuader. Aside from these, MaxDefense also sees the Boeing MSA as a possible contender, which is presently offered using a Bombardier CL-600 Challenger 605 business jet as a platform, installed with the sensors of the P-8A Poseidon. The Boeing MSA can also be offered in other suitable business jet models like the larger Bombardier Global Express, depending on the client's requirement.


Lockheed's P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft
Photo taken from Wikimedia.

Being a US government assisted program, we can now say that other contenders that we have been discussing months ago can be taken out of the list, which includes the ATR-42MP Surveyor and ATR-72ASW from Italy.

Not much has been released on the specifications of the long range maritime patrol aircraft requirement of the PAF because of the DND's decision to go for a direct deal with the US government. The DND won't be required to publish the specifications to the public like what it usually do for its other projects undergoing tender. We can, for now, dwell on the ABC, averaging at around $66 million per aircraft.

Availability and Cost:
Non-flying P-3s are abundant in US military storage facilities and can be either be granted or sold to allies, and reactivated and upgraded anytime for immediate service. Some recent recipients of the aircraft include Pakistan and Taiwan, which have the same close military relationship with the US as the Philippines. If the US government provide the airframes to the Philippines by grant, the budget allocated by the DND would be enough to pay for refurbishing and reactivation of 2 P-3C Orions from the boneyard. Normally refurbished P-3s were sold by the US government above $80 million each, so the US government's offer would now depend on the US government's means to assist the Philippines. It would be best if the DND would get the newer P-3C variant, which is more advanced and less airframe hours.

The Boeing MSA using the Challenger 605 platform was quoted by Boeing to cost around $50-$60 million, within the budget allocated as well, but being a new platform with no buyers yet, it may encounter compliance issues on technicalities set by the DND for procurement of assets.

The CN-235MP Persuader is definitely within the budget allocated by the DND, and there are estimates we can take from previous deals that Airbus Military (or previously as EADS) had with other military units. Previously, Mexico's deal was for 6 CN-235 MP Persuaders was estimated at around $252 million for 6 aircraft, including ground infrastructure, plus full logistics and spares support for 5 years (average of $42 million per aircraft). Aside from Mexico and the US Coast Guard, there are several other countries operating the CN-235MP Persuader in different configurations. Previous contracts by Airbus Military with the US Coast Guard pegs the HC-144A Ocean Sentry at $35-40 million each as of 2010.

The C-295MP / C-295ASW are expected to be more expensive that the CN-235MP, but may still be within the budget provided by the DND. The sale of such aircraft to Chile a few years ago did not disclose the deal's value, but MaxDefense sources confirmed that the C-295MP and C-295ASW will not exceed $55 million each for the complete aircraft.






A Chilean Navy C-295MP Persuader maritime patrol aircraft, a product of EADS (now Airbus Military).


US Government Involvement:
A project that involves the US government should consider some factors as compared to buying in the open market. US interests will be in the forefront, and this may either include allowing (or disallowing) the Philippine military to use US-standard equipment and technology. Being a Major Non-NATO Ally, the Philippine may be eligible to obtain such equipment, but there might be some restrictions as well depending on the decision of the US government. 

Will the US allow the Philippines to own and operate the P-3C Orion, its equipment and systems, armaments, and obtain the training? From MaxDefense's opinion, yes, the Philippines may be allowed to do so, but MaxDefense can't confirm this yet. But this reason may not stop the DND from getting its hands on a P-3 Orion. The US may offer a less-capable version which also costs less than the standard high end version, it could probably have its surveillance systems replaced with another type, or it could also be a de-weaponised version similar to what was offered to Vietnam. 

Also, the source of equipment to be sold to the Philippines will probably be from US defense contractors, although there were recent instances that the US offered FMS for equipment sourced outside the US, like the proposed AT-26 Super Tucano program for Afghanistan, or the CN-235MP Persuader acquisition for Mexico. So the P-3C Orion has a greater chance of being offered as compared to the Spanish-built CN-235 or C-295 series aircraft.


Conflict of Interest:
The CN-235 and C-295 platforms are both from Airbus Military, and although they have offices in the US, they are sourced from CASA-Airbus Military's factory in Spain. This might have implications on the sale due to the involvement of the US government in the patrol aircraft acquisition. It is expected that the US will push to have its products sold, either EDA or new builds. The C-295MP/ASW Persuader's FITS (Fully Integrated Tactical System) was also developed by EADS/Airbus Military, which makes the aircraft less attractive as a US government offer.

A possible solution is for Airbus Military to provide the aircraft platform, and US defense contractors will provide the surveillance and integration systems. A similar project is on the USCG's HC-144A Ocean Sentry aircraft, which is actually a CN-235 MP Persuader using US-made systems. The US may offer a C-295 or CN-235 equipped with Lockheed Martin's Mission System Pallet (MSP), or any alternative systems from other American defense contractors like Northrop Grumman. 



The Airbus Military's HC-144 Ocean Sentry maritime surveillance aircraft operated by the US Coast Guard. This is based closely on Airbus Military's CN-235MP Persuader.
Photo taken from US Coast Guard website c/o Wikimedia.


Boeing may offer any business jet to install its MSA system, and may include US-made aircraft like the Gulfstream G550 Special Mission series, although the choice of aircraft to be used may dictate the final pricing of the aircraft. 


Boeing -Bombardier Challenger 605 MSA (maritime surveillance aircraft).
Photo taken from Australian Aviation website.


Natural Choice:
Among the possible contenders, the P-3 is said to be the best choice of the DND and AFP, being a favorite for several years now. According to MaxDefense sources from the AFP, both the Philippine Navy and Air Force have been looking at the P-3 Orion since the implementation of the AFP Modernization Program in 1995. It has been present in almost all PH-US military exercises and is also a usual visitor to the country. US Navy P-3s regularly patrol Philippine waters when the Americans were still occupying Subic Naval Base, and continues to do so "unofficially" in several occasions up to this time. It has become the baseline set by the PN & PAF for any future maritime patrol aircraft, even after the availability of newer and cheaper models in the market.

The C-295MP or C-295ASW Persuader are also strong contenders that we can consider a natural choice. With the C-295 platform chosen as the next medium-lift aircraft of the PAF, its chances of getting chosen rather than its smaller variant CN-235 is higher. The longer range and higher endurance of the larger C-295 is another advantage against the CN-235, but both can be equipped with US-supplied MPA equipment which might be an integral part of the deal being a US government sale.


Weapon Delivery Capability Requirement?
MaxDefense sources also revealed that the PAF ideally wanted an MPA aircraft that is capable of carrying and firing anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes, which the Boeing MSA does not have. In the meantime, the Lockheed P-3 Orion and the Airbus Military C-295ASW Persuader are configured to have the capability of weapons delivery. The C-295 has an ongoing test to carry the Italian Marte Mk.2/S anti-ship missiles, although no word yet on firing other types. 


Chile's C-295ASW Persuader. The underwing hardpoint is visible in this angle, which can be used to mount ASW torpedoes. 

The P-3C is certified to fire the AGM-84 Harpoon missile, as well as torpedoes and naval mines, giving it an advantage over all other competitors on this requirement.



Acquisition Numbers:
It is surprising to know that the DND and PAF are only looking for 2 units, when the total requirement is for at least 6 aircraft. This is probably the initial acquisition, and as more funds come in after this phase of the AFP Modernization Program, at least 4 more aircraft will be acquired. 



MaxDefense doesn't know yet which was offered by the US government to the DND and PAF, but it appears that refurbished Lockheed P-3C Orions has the higher probability of being offered or picked against its Airbus Military and Boeing competitors. The Orion is the most capable platform being a proven design,  But whatever is the result of the acquisition program would be beneficial to the Philippine military's goal of having a modest capability to patrol its vast EEZ and territorial waters. We await for more details on this FMS project, which we expect to be finalized very soon. 

MaxDefense will provide updates on this project as more information comes in. 




==========
UPDATES
==========
May 20, 2014: The DND released an Invitation to Bid for the PAF's upcoming Long Range Patrol Aircraft (LRPA). This is major turn-around for the project as the negotiations was already on the high-end between the Philippine and US governments for US FMS-sourced equipment. This can be considered a major set-back as the original timetable for the LRPA acquisition was pushed back by more than 1 year as the expected arrival of the 1st unit was scheduled on 2016, probably just before President Aquino steps down.

It appears that the US indeed offered refurbished P-3C Orion to the DND, but it is still unclear why the deal did not push-through. MaxDefense is still finding out the details, but there are 2 possible reasons why the DND decided to go for bidding, either the US government was asking for more than the allocated budget of the DND, or the US made an offer that the DND finds unacceptable. 

The tender for the LRPA has the following details:
* ABC remains at Php 5,976,000,000.00;
* 2-stage Competitive Bidding (similar to the bidding for the Philippine Navy's new frigates and anti-submarine helicopter acquisition programs);
* Delivery of both aircraft will be 1,095 days (2 years and 10 months) from receipt of Notice to Proceed;
* 1st stage pre-bid conference is scheduled on May 30, 2014, while submission of bids will be on or before June 13, 2014;
* The LRPA must be used by the armed forces of country of origin, or by the armed forces of at least 2 other countries;

Being a tender, it is expected that the aircraft will be brand new. If so, then the EDA Lockheed P-3C Orions, or any other EDA offers from the US or other friendly countries are definitely out of the game. But it would be best to check the Technical Specifications first, which will definitely indicate if the requirement are for brand new aircraft.

MaxDefense will continue to provide update on this LRPA acquisition project.

===============
June 28, 2014:
The DND released another Supplemental Bid Bulletin, showing the queries made by the expected bidders, and DND-BAC's replies. From the list, it shows the entities expected to submit a bid for the project as:

* Elbit Systems;
* Airbus Defense and Space;
* Raytheon;
* IAI Elta Systems Ltd.;
* Saab Technologies;
* PT Dirgantara Indonesia (Persero);
* Bombardier Aerospace;
* L3 Mission Integration
* Lockheed Martin.

Quoting from the replies made by the DND-BAC and the checklist included in the SBB, it shows that the aircraft platform should be brand new, turboprop-powered, 11,000 lbs. minimum payload at maximum fuel, 7 hours minimum endurance, cruising speed of at least 200 knots, range of at least 1,400nmi. 

It also indicated the need for the aircraft to accommodate 4 operator consoles, aerial surveillance camera (EO/IR), a search radar with ISAR, WAS, and SAR modes, ESM/ELINT, COMINT, Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), Sonobuoy receivers and processors, tactical data link, and availability of hardpoints to carry munitions and stores. 

=================
August 11, 2014:
Opening of bid documents for 1st stage bidding of Long Range Patrol Aircraft acquisition project ongoing. The bidding did not proceed as planned.

 All 7 bid submissions were opened and the following were noted:

For documentation requirements:
* Saab Asia Pacific was found ineligible to bid due to missing Tax Clearance documents;
* L3 Mission Integration was also found ineligible due to the same reason; 
* IAI Elta Systems was also found ineligible initially, but the decision was overturned after BAC found its submitted Financial Statement documents eligible;
* Elbit Systems' bid was considered eligible and was the first bidder to do so;
* Lockheed Martin was also considered ineligible due to documentation problems;
* PT Dirgantara Indonesia (Indonesian Aerospace) was also found ineligible. 
* CASA-Airbus Defense and Space was also found ineligible because of failing to meet certain requirements.

With only 2 Israeli companies, IAI Elta Systems and Elbit Systems, passing the documentation requirements, both underwent with the opening of technical specifications and performance parameters, both companies failed to make the mark

Due to the failure, further checking by the DND-BAC for the brand and type of aircraft platform offered - an important part of the bidding, did not continue.

Bidders that failed the documentation part of the bid opening are given a chance to file for a Motion for Reconsideration within 3 days. MaxDefense expects most of the bidders to make use of the MOR as majority failed only because of documentation requirements and not because their bids are non-compliant. CASA-Airbus Defense and Space, Saab Asia Pacific, and PT Dirgantara Indonesia already made known their intentions to file for MOR in the next few days.

The deadline for filing of Motion for Reconsideration was set on Thursday, August 14, 2014, and if the DND-BAC acknowledges the documents, the bidders will be given a chance to open the other parts of their bids.

More updates will be made later on as more information is made available.


==================
September 19, 2016:

Finally got updates on the Philippine Air Force's Long Range Patrol Aircraft (LRPA) acquisition project, which was not given updates for several months now. 

Based on the Supplementary Bid Bulletins made available by the Department of National Defense last March 2016, interests on the project was made through queries sent for clarifications. Among those noted to have submitted their queries are Elbit Systems, Boeing, Finmeccanica, PT Dirgantara Indonesia (Persero), Airbus Military, and ELTA Systems Ltd. 

Based on the queries made, Elbit Systems seemed interested to submit an offer based on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) platform which was not acceptable. 

Meanwhile, Boeing may require US Congress approval for the sale of their product, which means they still have a say if the deal can proceed or not, while the entire process can delay the project. 

PT Dirgantara Indonesia was trying to push for an extension of the delivery timeline, and appears to be having problems meeting the minimum requirements of having a minimum payload of 11,000lbs at maximum fuel. It was not posted in the SBB but as of June 2016, the company is actually blacklisted from joining biddings or projects with the AFP. 

Finmeccanica's query were more on administrative including their expected change of company name (now known as Leonardo), while Elta requested asked regarding the possible use of an aircraft model already offered by a competitor, which means they can use any aircraft model as long as it meets the specifications of the PAF.

According to MaxDefense's military and defense sources, the LRPA Project's 1st Stage Bidding proceeded with the Submission and Opening of Bid Envelopes (SOBE) last March 2016, with Airbus Military being the only one qualified to continue to the 2nd Stage. Although there was no confirmation of what Airbus is exactly offering, it was said to be using the C-295 aircraft as a platform. Based on the Technical Specifications used by the PAF, MaxDefense believes the offer will be derived from Airbus' C-295 ASW Persuader maritime patrol / anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

No schedule yet on when the 2nd Stage of the Bidding will be made.

The PAF's specifications for the LRPA included an anti-submarine warfare capability, including firing torpedoes and being equipped with a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), thus pointing that Airbus should be offering the armed ASW variant of their C-295ASW Persuader,
Photo taken from Airbus' website.



MaxDefense will provide updates later on as more information is gathered.

146 comments:

  1. P3 Orion or C-295 will be the best choice for MPA sana lang ma expedite na kasi mukhang hindi titigil ang mg SINGKIT sa paaagaw sa mga isla natin. Great info sir Max....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having a couple of MPA wont stop the Chinese in grabbing those islands. Just look at what they did with Vietnam in the Paracels, Vietnam has far greater firepower and surveillance capability than the AFP but that didn't matter for the Chinese. It didnt stop them from placing an oil rig within Vietnam's EEZ and claims.

      Delete
    2. yah i agree sir max it won't deter china but asian countries should work together and allied together to stop china ambition but its only a dream since each country has its own interest. anyway back to the issue I heard from the source that 6 MPA are plan to be acquire in the few years by AFP-DND? It's true?

      Delete
    3. I think the more important basis for buying a MPA is the capability to patrol a wider area of the West Philippine Sea, regardless of the no. of units, at the least cost within the allocated budget. So if 4 Boeing Bombardiers can cover a wider area of the WPS than 2 P-3 Orion that are both within the budget, then better buy the Boeing MPA. If the purpose is for surveillance, it doesn't need to have anti-ship or anti-submarine capabilities which are non-essential added costs.

      Delete
    4. Whatever the Philippines choose or the US offers, it would still be 2 aircraft. So its not a matter of numbers, but a matter of which platform/system. Its a fight between 2 C-295 vs 2 P-3C vs 2 Boeing MSA.

      Delete
    5. For a $133 million allocated budget, why would our gov't settle for only 2 MPAs if it can buy 3 units of let's say for example the Italian-made ATR-72 MP for only $105 at $35M each which can cover 3 areas of our EEZ than just 2 areas from 2 P-3Cs or 2 C-295s. I don't see the logic.
      http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/atr-72-mp-maritime-patrol-aircraft/

      Delete
    6. Good question. MaxDefense believes that its because of interoperability. That's why the P-3C Orion appears to be more palatable.

      Delete
    7. Another thing, the ATR-72MP project for Turkey involves several Turkish systems, which they can source at a lower price. Only the base model aircraft was supplied by the Italians. This enabled the Turkish to lower the acquisition cost of each ATR-72MP aircraft.

      Delete
    8. Today's modern aircraft can be customized and modified for interoperability with other platforms just like the Turkish system you cited.. Even if the cost will increase, it can still be manageable as per DND specifications and alloted budget. I think it's more of a political nature and whims or interest of the top brass involved in the decision-making process.

      Delete
    9. Yes today's aircraft can be Modified but the problem is that they are not yet Combat Proven. As of now the Turkish system you cited is still in process of improving, it may take years before they can catch up with the current system and if so they still cannot match the proven systems for software's and Equipment's upgrades simultaneously. Yes there is Political reason, if you're gonna get it cheap through Government to Government deal, why not opt for it, right?

      Delete
  2. patrol aircraft with anti sub capability? the AFP may be secretly planning to invade hainan island and destroy the chinese submarine base over there. it all makes perfect sense to me now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having ASW aircraft doesn't mean you have thr capability to destroy a sub base. What you need to do that are stealth strike aircraft capable of avoiding Chinese air defenses. Other than that, your idea is far fetched.

      Delete
    2. your opinion is noted, sir max. perhaps we can have 5 squadrons of these p3 orions. they will come in handy when we finally invade hainan islands.

      Delete
    3. If we don't have an.immediate solution.use sea.mine warfare surrounding of our Island para di makalapit mga intsik.na yan.pati torpedo sa.island with sensors. What do you think Max?

      Delete
    4. why we would do such a foolish idea of invading hainan island? so impossible to imagine either for the next decades to come. nuclear weapons will speak for it.

      Delete
    5. Don't feed the trolls!

      Delete
  3. This is great news! I hope this materializes sooner rather than later to help the PAF monitor our EEZ closely. Also hope it comes with weapons suite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It should materialize soon because thr DND is trying to catch up with a delivery deadline for the 1st aircraft before Pnoy steps down.

      Delete
    2. It is very practicle to decide really what we need to do in our limited defense budget. I suggest torpedo in Island with sensors, SAM for island platform surveillance air and sea. Corvette for ASW taskforce with ship with AShm, ASCM. Nandyan.na.mga intsik by 2015 wala.na.sa atin yang WPS and Bajo de masinloc. Gusto mo bigay ko sa iyo Sir Max yung US congressional research reference ko since 2008 ang ONI of the US nakatutok nadyan sa West and East Pacific. Let us tell the truth to our Politikos na.bigay tunay na.kalagayan.ng threat sa ating territiry. Nasan na paguging patriotism and.nationalism.natin.mga Filipino lalo lalo na mfa nakaupo sa ating national gov't. I hope magising na tayo sa katotohanan di puro politika.

      Delete
  4. I would say the C-295 MPA is the first choice cause it doesn't come with strings and conditions that are attached to the Aircraft. The other is P-3C or it's variants, the AP-3C or CP140. Though the one issue is stings and conditions that come with P-3C and how comfortable are the Philippines with the Stings and conditions that are attached with the P-3C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nicky, the main concern here is that the US government is already included in the deal as it was already decided to be an FMS purchase. The strings attached that you are saying are aready in place: the Expanded Defense Cooperation Agreement. US forces will be rotating on several Philippine military bases, and that includes basing some P-8 and P-3 patrol aircraft facing the WPS. So P-3C becomes more viable due to integration and supply chain issues. The C-295 is not bad, either.

      Delete
    2. the P-3s is clearly the front runner on AFP MPA requirement specially with the signing of EDCA, and in the just concluded Balikatan Exercise 2014 some PN personnel got to the chance to train inside a Australian P-3 which I saw from the link below:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3W7o7-UbzY

      Delete
    3. Jendrich, as I said in the past, interoperability is the key. AP-3C are among the most modern variants of the P-3C, and letting PH crew try out its surveillance systems on an actual flight says something. Remember this was a US approved video that you posted.

      Delete
    4. I agree Max, AP-3C is a proven platform and the recent videos on the official US approved youtube channel Balikatan Exercise clearly says something like the CALFLEX, Cobra familiarization flights etc.

      Delete
    5. The way I see it, I think for the Philippines, going with the C-295 MPA and AWE&C variant would be great for them, cause they can have one aircraft doing both. The Maintience cost would go down cause of the common airframe, Avionics and engines. On top of that, you can a common aircrew that can fly the C-295 MPA & C-295 AEW&C.

      As for the P-3C, AP-3C and CP-140, the parts are getting harder to come by and the Airframe hours are reaching their expiration date. So I wonder if it's worth it for the Philippines to take the P-3C since it's a Maintinence intensive Aircraft.

      Delete
    6. Sir Max, what's your opinion about this EDCA? is this EDCA is better than VFA? do you think this will help the Philippines against Chinese bullying in WPS?

      Delete
    7. EDCA and VFA are complementary. VFA stipulates the rules and arrangements for visiting US forces. EDCA follows what the conditions set in VFA, while expanding it more to allow rotational presence of US troops staying in Philippine military installations.

      Delete
    8. Max, what's your take on EDCA being lopsided in favor of the US as viewed by its critics, personally I also think EDCA is lopsided but I support this agreement because its the next best thing of having US bases here but I think PH got short change on this agreement unlike the Framework Agreement between US-SG were from what I understand when their LCS dock there for 6 month the sailors are not allowed to sleep on SG bases but they must stay on there ship. while EDCA allows US to build facilities inside AFP designated bases which no matter how DFA/DND/US try's to convince the public that its not a US bases but on the contrary its really a de-facto US Base.

      Delete
  5. The $80 Million dollar price tag of the Lockheed P-3 ORION is almost 10% of the cost of a brand new Boeing P-8 POSEIDON state of the art maritime ASW surveillance aircraft. This is a great deal money wise. The fact that the LOCKHEED P-3 ORION is certified and proven for firing the HARPOON ANTI-SHIP MISSILE and the ANTI-SUBMARINE TORPEDO makes the logical choice for the PHILIPPINES to control the WPS. Also the operational training that could be provided by the U.S. NAVY to the PHILIPPINE AFP air crews would be a great opportunity for the PHILIPPINE P-3 ORIONS to operate on a very professional and world class level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the P-8 Poseidon costs above $200 million each. So $80 million is not 10% of P-8. The SC-130J Sea Hercules was quoted by Lockheed Martin at $150 million in a previous offer to India.

      Delete
    2. I have read your.analysis in my point of view it is better to have a platform with proven and deterrent capability as part of our National Strategic Planning as force additional provider aside from upcoming helo ASW. Now, with regards to newly signed defense cooperation with US, the Philippine gov't must negotiate for deterrent platform to US counterparts. Our Island in WPS and the.bajo de masinloc is now strategically little by little the chinese will control that area
      Base on congreasionnal research by the US by year 2015 the WPS and bajo de masinloc will be under control of the chinese that is their strategy. So we Filipinos must act being a patriot and.nationalistic filipino ready to defend the integrity of our country. I am just a former junior naval officer ready to fight for my country. Yung mga polutiko dyan hwag palaging pag usapan.ang napolist kundi tutukan nyo ang ating National Defense Strategy natin. Alam ko naman kapag nagputukan pupunta kayo sa ibang bansa. Let the DOJ, ombudsman take the course of justice for napolist. And mga politiko natin magtrabaho.naman.kayo para sa defense ng ating bayan.

      Delete
  6. This is great for PhAF! Aiming to have less air and more force. Ang tagal pala ng delivery 2016, 2017 pa and 2 units lang. Meanwhile, the Tsekwa is building already an airstrip in Mabini Reef. Talking about their cabbage strategy.

    Dapat pala planned, continuous and fully-funded ang mga defense acquisitions. Hindi kasi siya ora mismo. Patchi-patching acquisitions doesn't work for credible defense. Or, our politicians really just don't appreciate the importance of having a strong and modernized armed forces.

    Ang tagal nitong last blog mo, sir Max. Sobra kami (mainly ako) nasabik sa new post mo. Hehe. Thank you, thank you...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The budget allocated is small. The next tranche of budget for AFP Modernization is only available by 2017 depending on the decision of the next president.

      Delete
  7. why is it that the government is not developing the Pag-asa island airstrip?.. if this procurement of patrol aircraft materialize.. then this would have chances to take landing on pag-asa island..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They won't use LRPA to land in Pag-asa even if it is developed, because it can stay in the air long enough for it to reach Pag-asa from Palawan and back, plus do its surveillance work for several hours more. One of the reasons why the PAF is also getting SAR Seaplanes equipped with surveillance systems.

      Delete
  8. It's interesting that they call it 'Long Range Patrol Aircraft' and not Long Range MARITIME Patrol Aircraft'. Could it mean that emphasis will be given on patrols over land than over sea? I don't know. From this point I don't think that it will have weapons capabilities considering the title of the project. It would have been more clear if it was titled LRMPA/ASW project. Lack of maritime emphasis also may be because that it will be operated by the PAF and not by the PN. And how's the SAR Seaplane project because from your previous blog sir it indicated 'limited maritime patrol' capabilities. Just my thoughts, but do clear me up a bit if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No emphasis on over land or sea capability. Obviously its more on maritime surveillance we do not have any landmass connected to any other country. The SSV was named SSV even though its actually an LPD. Its just a naming concern.

      Delete
  9. Hi, Max.
    Just want to add that the CN-235 MPA does have anti-ship and anti-submarine capability. Case in point, the Indonesian Navy's CN-235 MPA is capable of firing Mk.46 torpedoes or AM-39 Exocet.

    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2009/12/17/Indonesia-navy-opts-for-Casa-patrol-planes/UPI-79021261065600/

    Indonesian Aerospace brochure in Singapore Airshow 2014 also says that the CN-235 can be equipped with Harpoon missiles.

    http://apps.singaporeairshow.com/EPressBox/Download.aspx?id=M2U2MGE3ZGQtYzBmNy00MjU0LTliNzMtZDk1YTc2ZTRiY2Fk&file=QXJ0aWNsZV9DTjIzNV9NUEEucGRm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indonesia's version of the CN-235MPA is different from the Spanish version, which might be the basis for a US-sponsored CN-235MP project. They have the same platform aircraft (CN-235) but the systems are different. The US offer may even be different from the Spanish and Indonesian versions.

      Delete
    2. I am aware of that. What I am trying to say that there is no technical issue that prevents the CN-235 MPA from being armed. The HC-144 is unarmed because the USCG does not feel the need to arm them, not because it can't.

      Delete
    3. I cannot confirm if the Spanish version of the CN-235 Persuader were configured to fire missiles, but if the variant is not yet configured, it won't be acceptable to DND requirements if they require a weapons capable platform. Configuring a certain variant of the CN-235 may mean shouldering the development cost, which is not acceptable to DND procurement rules. Although this will depend on the final decision of the DND and PAF.

      Delete
    4. Ah. It is true that the purchases of the Spanish variants are all unarmed ones so far. However, given that:
      a. the C-295 MPA, which has similar wing structure, is said to be capable of firing Harpoons, and
      b. the Indonesian Aerospace has said that their CN-235 MPA can fire Harpoons, and
      c. the close cooperation of the two companies and
      d. the shared characteristics and development of the two platforms (e.g., winglet development are shared for both platforms),

      it seems to me that the only step remaining to make an armed version of the HC-144 is the certification. This does take money, but generally the company bears it as the cost of doing business. E.g., the development and certification of C-295 with winglet is being done before there is any buyer for that particular version, hence the ones shelling the money for it is Airbus Military.

      Arming the HC-144 variant of the CN-235 MPA isn't some weird once-in-a-time special request. It will only make them more attractive to potential buyers. Operators of unarmed CN-235 MPA might also decide to retrofit that capability into their CN-235 MPA. So if an armed CN-235 MPA/HC-144 gets selected, I am optimistic there will not be any special cost to be borne by the Philippines. I can't guarantee this, of course. Hehehe. So let's set aside this minor difference in opinion.

      That said, for various other reasons, my personal bet is on the P3 Orion.

      Delete
    5. It is better to buy the proven designed ASW platform with integrated weapon systems that is proven in actual war for this platform has been used by other countries for sustain logistic support. ASW is a complicated warfare capability for your information and the designed must be proven in our sea environment because sensors is the vital part of ASW.

      Delete
  10. Anything of the 3, P-3 orion, C295 or CN 235 are good choices..

    P-3 Orion- advantage of this aircraft is it is certified to carry Harpoons and Torpedoes, disadvantage is it is already old..

    CN 235 MPA - can carry weapons too.. has 6 hardpoints for Exocet and torpedoes.. Cost is 96 Million USD for South Korea for 4 units( that's 24 Million USD each)... Disadvantage is its range is shorter than the P3 and C295..

    C295- The most capable and most versatile transport and surveillance aircraft and now it has an ASW version.. Brand new and cost is about 55 million USD each as Sir Max has said..



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If refurbished and upgraded, the P-3C Orions are rated to still have 20 years airframe life.

      Delete
    2. P3 system is already proven.. But I still prefer the C295 even if it is still under development

      Delete
    3. Oh really you have been there as user of C295 so you prefer C295. I think you don't know how complicated is ASW? You just not say you prefer C295. This is PHP5.7B aircraft it must studied thouroughly specially the sensors and torpedo to be part of the platform. I think it is better to be open for poven technology with upgraded capability base on future threat. You know 4 th abd 5th generation submarine how evasive they are.

      Delete
    4. I prefer it since C 295 is brand new, and we will be getting the transport version of it as a medium lift aircraft for the AFP. It is not yet proven, but i believe Airbus would not make an MPA that cannot compete with the Orion. Maybe better C 295 is better in the coming years.

      Delete
  11. With our military's tendency to use and abuse their equipment, the best choice is the P3 Orion. These planes are built like tanks. Not only can you fly them in bad weather, they are also used to penetrate typhoons and hurricanes. They are perfect for SAR work as their wings are designed to fly low and slow. The plane has 50 years of proven history, although not the cheapest, but the best choice due to its airframe.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I hope our government can fast track these military hardwares. China is almost at our door steps. See they are now reclaiming part of our territory.

    ReplyDelete
  13. lets give the pagasa island to US. i hate losing it to china.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why give if we can do something to defend it well? It's just a matter of political will to provide the AFP what it needs to do its job well.

      Delete
    2. wake up to reality afp cant cannot defend it.
      china defense budget is 160 billion this year
      as 2 billion dollar wala ito mararating.

      Delete
    3. Always in history of battle even the great navy has its own weakness. Study the history of battle kababayan and you will be educated how great nation is being defeated. US-Vietnam, Battle of air bet Britain and Germany, etc.

      Delete
    4. ang tanong may ron ba tayong pang air battle sagot wala.mayron ba tayo pang naval battle sagot wala.sagot ko we are history tapos end ang history mo.

      Delete
    5. why surrender the territory or give to us? That's our and for future generation so we have to defend it by all means.

      Delete
    6. they spend 160 billion dollar alright,but the last time i checked they have a huge armed forces to maintain right? and we don't know how much of that is lost to corruption.

      Delete
    7. Why give when we can defend it. Sir max is right its a matter of political will. I hope our politicians are reading this blog.

      Delete
  14. This is one case where I have to vehemently disagree with your take on the best choice, Max. The upkeep costs for the P-3 Orion are out of this world, ie. it costs twice as much to operate one of these than it does a C-295 MPA. With the savings the Philippines would have over a ten year period using the C-295 MPA over the Orion, it could acquire two additional c-295 MPA. That means that you would have double the number of planes for the same cost in just a ten year period, ie. 4 instead of 2! I can't help but repeat the mantra that, for a cash-strapped nation like the Philippines, upkeep costs are just as, or even more important than, acquisition costs.

    And if the Philippines went with the CN-235, it would be able to afford 5 to 6 planes instead of 2 over a 10 year period.

    Military equipment is useless if you can't afford the upkeep/operating costs. The U.S. military has cared very little about this in the past, so a lot of U.S. equipment is not well-suited for the Philippines at this time. The Philippines cannot afford to be as careless about cost as the U.S., but instead urgently needs to maximize the bang for the buck that it is getting or it will just hobble along as a third rate military power for ages.

    Laurence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Laurence, operating cost is indeed a factor that comes in especially in the AFP's point of view. But it won't always be the case, especially if we factor in the advantages of having a P-3C as compared to having a C-295 Persuader. We do not have total access to these factors, but from what I was told, there are a lot of factors that may probably lead to choosing the P-3C, and operating costs and platform age are not part of the positive factors. From what I see, the PAF is factoring a hi-mid-lo mix on their choices, with the P-3C possibly going for the hi-end, while the SAR Seaplane may take the lo-end, and probably a fleet of cheaper alternatives to slot on mid-part of the mix to be procured in the next tranche of AFP Modernization budget.

      Delete
    2. Hi Max, good to be conversing with you again.

      Upkeep/operating cost should always be one of the main elements in the decision-making process for a cash-strapped nation like the Philippines, which is being leaned on by a belligerent large nation like China. The Philippines has to make it too costly for China to proceed with takeover plans, so it needs to do things in a smarter, less expensive manner than China, ie. with maximum efficiency. Operating costs over the decades in which equipment is utilized very often are a far greater cost factor than the initial purchase price.

      Sometimes it can make sense to get used equipment that has a high operating cost, such as when there is an immediate, urgent need to fill a capability gap and the equipment is available in a short time frame and almost for free, such as with the case of the WHEC's. I do have to note here, however, that - in the long run - it would have been more efficient and less expensive to build OPV's like the Fassmer OPV 80 in country (like Chile and Columbia did). It would have produced the same capabilities as the WHEC's for the medium term and been greatly advantageous in the long term in regards both to PN operational capability and Filipino ship-building expertise. Imo, the greatest failure in AFP modernization so far has been the lack of getting exactly such an OPV program off the ground. The AFP have been playing catch-up from far behind, so it was understandable with the WHEC's, but now it is time to increasingly start getting ahead of the game instead of merely playing catch-up.

      In regards to the high end MPA, the difference in operating/upkeep cost between the outdated, gas-guzzling, 4-engined P-3 Orion and the twin engine C-295 MPA would in no way, shape, or form be justifiable. The difference in cost is just too large, with the Cold War Era Orion costing somewhere around 12 to 13 million US $/year while the modern and virtually just as capable C-295 accrues costs of only about 6 to 7 million/year. The math already is unfavorable when one projects a decade ahead, and if one projects more decades into the future choosing the Orion would be like flushing hundreds of millions of dollars down the toilet. Those hundreds of millions could buy the Philippines more c-295's or c-235's or even a large fleet of capable, efficient OPV's.

      In conclusion, the C-295 would be a smart choice for the high-end MPA, whilst - as you have stated - there are many less expensive options for medium and low-end mpa's, such as the Cn-235, the Basler BT-67 mentioned in a comment below, the Twin Otter, and the Casa C-212.

      Laurence

      Delete
  15. in my opinion our AFP should insist offcourse to get MPA that can carry weapons (antisurface missiles, torpedoes and mines). for surveillance purposes, patrol i think we already have planes for this role. we should opt for fully capable not less capable.

    ReplyDelete
  16. buddy, nice analysis and reactions... kindly update us on CWS (static surviellance)... more on seaborne & airborne surviellance (mobile surviellance).... CQ_One

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi max. How could this be interoperability when your (possible/maybe) allied country are phasing out P3 to P8 LRPA. It was reported, in the next 10 years countries such as US, JAPAN, UK, AUSTRALIA and etc. will phaseout P3 with more modern P8. It sounds we have the same system in short period of time. My personal analysis here, I preferred to go with the best system that DND can afford to maintain these precious hardwares.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interoperability is not on aircraft or equipment similarity only, but also on systems compatibility. The P-8 was designed to be operable with current US systems including the P-3. US and its allies wont immediately take out the P-3C from service, and with the massive defense cuts in the US means fewer P-8 to immediately replace the P-3.

      Delete
    2. Is that mean, something like C295 is a good option as well since it was designed to meet NATO standards and interoperability requirements?

      Delete
  18. To my kababayan.who has limited knowledge on.military hardware. When you say inter operability is you would be a member of NATO allid country but the US and other NATO allied country has been selling their useable military hardware and software to Non NATO allied country. But first they would evaluate the security issue of the.non.NATO countries how the security of this country would not compromise their technology. But there are other technolgy which are non NATO where in case of emergency it can be interoperate with NATO standard. So is a matter of giving the protocol code for nato equipment as.per their security standards to follow by the non nato member. For information

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interoperability is not limited to NATO/US only. In the Philippine setting, the US may opt to limit the degree of systems interoperability and integration to a lesser extent than that of NATO, but still would be effective enough than using systems that need further integration. This additional integration needs would increase costs to the end user, especially that the Philippine defense infrastrucure is systematically connected to that of the US. For the P-3, the Americans will not be altering its offer by using non-US compatible systems since that capability would be the selling point that will give them advantage over non-US systems. Aside from systems, the US offer includes commonality issues, wherein the expected stationing of rotational US forces and equipment will provide the AFP the technological and educational base to improve on what it currenly has. The US could provide all necessary training for P-3 air and ground crew following their own standards.

      Delete
  19. The P-3C will be right on budget if

    1. US gives the aircraft alone for free through EDA, and
    2. Commercial off-the-shelf systems for refurbishments. For example for the Spanish Air Force, their P-3's were upgraded using the FITS which is also the system on board the Persuader. This kind of upgrades will indeed reduce cost both for procurement and operation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nice one kahit P-3 ....atleast may MPA na tayo...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The irony of it is, we had 4 F-27MPA during the Marcos era...one of them was converted to transport variant, and still operational until now.

      Delete
  21. look Sir Max, there are opening bids for CAS aircraft :)

    http://www.dnd.gov.ph/transparency/procurement/DND_BAC/Invitation_to_bid/Acquisitionofcloseairsupportaircraft.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. Finally.

      Delete
    2. Sir do you think the budget is enough for 6 Super Tucano?

      Delete
    3. Acrually its more than enough, lets wait for the technical specs. The Super Tucano is actually the most expensive of the possible offerings, and the only way for it to win is through specs that favors the aircraft.

      Delete
    4. Specs require a mil std 1553 data bus. The KT-1 specs on KAI website does not indicate it has this.

      Delete
  22. sir max, do you have any update about other afp modernization or equipment acquisition? Like the 21 hueys? And other stuffs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The partial delivery of Hueys are reportedly on the way. The new Remington rifles will also have partial delivery soon.

      Delete
  23. Recent Balikatan 2014 involve Australian Airforce training Philippine counterpart in Maritime Patrol using their P-3's i think its somewhere in davao area. With these development, it's obvious that we will be getting P-3's sooner.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sir Max the ITB for LRPA is released, it looks like they're looking for brand new units.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here's the link
    http://dnd.gov.ph/transparency/procurement/DND_BAC/Invitation_to_bid/ITBfor%20the%20Acquisition%20of%20Long%20Range%20Patrol%20Aircraft.pdf

    No more P3 for us I guess.

    -ginoginoako

    ReplyDelete
  26. Updates were posted by MaxDefense for May 21, 2014 regarding the changes in the acquisition procedure from FMS to Bidding. See above on Updates Section.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just when i thought that we'll having MPA for the shortest time, and this happen :(

      Delete
  27. Looks like there are high hopes for the C-295 Persuader, we'll see how it will persuade the DND to buy it. In the meantime, a refurbished P-3 with new wings and systems would be great, too. Sir any insights if the Being MSA can go through? I think it's still in the development stage. How about the SAAB MSA?

    Another criticism for the ASW helo:
    a certain Ernesto Maceda thinks we can counter the Chinese subs with 8 transport helicopters and 5 C-130's. (given the fact that we're already procuring 8 Bell 412's from Canada) http://www.angmalaya.net/nation/2014/05/21/610-ernesto-maceda-questions-procurment-of-anti-submarine-helicopters

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ernesto Maceda is a former senator. He has been anti-AFP Modernization since his time as a lawmaker.

      Delete
    2. The C-295 will almost certainly win the bidding. The P-3 has a relatively small airframe for a 4-engine turboprop. If there were more powerful and efficient turboprop engines back then - it should have had only 2 engines. Probably has horrible gas mileage and closer to a WW2 design. The AFP generals want to save the max pesos in operating cost so they can still have their kickbacks. I'm sure the C295 would have much better gas mileage and lower op costs.
      B4 all of these arms shopping spree -first order of biz for Pnoy should be to get rid of the old corrupt AFP brass. Thankfully - he seems do be retiring the old generals right now.

      Delete
  28. HAHAHAHA.. now I know what kind of person is this certain Maceda... This person cannot help in progress of our country... Not a loyal Filipino...

    ReplyDelete
  29. 20 years left to operate refurbished p3c-orion for 50 to 60+ million dollars? how about the US offered c-130 ASW variant to singapore? how much its cost?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SC-130J was said to cost somewhere around $160 million each.

      Delete
  30. Hi sir, based from this report, AFP is eyeing for "brand new" long range patrol aircrafts. Does this mean that refurbished Orions are out of our options?

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/58563-philippine-military-air-assets

    ReplyDelete
  31. If you go by the history of the Hamiltons it may be that they stripped it out of everything too that there is not much left on the plate. The American don't seem to trust us with their technology. So words of Obama is still an empty one, we are on our own. Why is Maceda against modernization, because he was incarcerated by the army?

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you go by the history of the Hamiltons they must have stripped off everything from the plane. Seems like Americans don't trust us with their technology. Then we are on our own again. It was an empty obama rhetorics after all. Maceda must have had a traumatic experience with the military during martial law.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If you go by the history of the Hamiltons they must have stripped off everything from the plane. Seems like Americans don't trust us with their technology. Then we are on our own again. It was an empty obama rhetorics after all. Maceda must have had a traumatic experience with the military during martial law.

    ReplyDelete
  34. A more bang for the buck is the Basler BT-67 as an MPPA. It will raise a lot of eyebrows but it is the better solution for a Very Asymmetric Defense. The opponent is 1000 times richer than us, so we have to be 1001 times wiser. We can not follow the sonobuoy route as we will only be throwing away our limited money. http://deftechph.blogspot.com/2014/05/basler-bt-67-multi-mission-patrol.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are the Bassler BT-67's advantages over newer aircraft designs like the CN-235? Would it really be more cost effective over proven MPA/transport aircraft designs? These considerations must be taken well first, even if the Basler is cheaper. Cheap is not always better.

      Delete
    2. First of all, I question the need for a Long Range Patrol Aircraft for our situation. We are on the defensive mode with a lot of airfields and airports covering our different seas, unlike the US who has worldwide interests and needs to cover the Pacific and the Atlantic.

      No need to carry the heavier weight of the aircraft and fuel around, spending more on fuel. Truth be told, the Islander Defender can do the job even up to torpedo-carrying level, given the low weight electronic and weapons technologies developed for UAV's. Vietnam is just using the Twin Otter as its MPA. Savings can have been used to acquire more corvettes from Europe.

      Advantages of the Bassler BT-67, proven across many Air Forces including the US

      1. Cost - you can acquire more than twice the number of aircraft with the given budget
      2. Customizable - based on myriad configurations of past modifications, for an exact needed configuration
      3. Very rough field capability - based on a proven tough reliable platform, making more airfields accessible
      4. Multi Misson - cargo, gunship, passenger; and civilian roles - Survey, Firefighting, Rainmaking, Search and Rescue
      5. Low stall speed - for more effective Search and Rescue

      Capable low cost defense solutions are always best, specially for a country such as ours defending against a wealthy adversary.

      Delete
    3. The Basler BT-67 is an interesting and possibly cost-effective option. Maybe not for the high end MPA, but for the medium-end MPA(or as a coast guard MPA) as well as for troop transport and as a gunship. This refurbishing of an an older, proven, and capable twin-engined airframe seems similar to what Ukraine is doing for the Indian Air Force with the refurbished and upgraded AN-32's, which makes a lot of sense.

      Do you know how the operating/upkeep costs of the BT-67 compare to the CN-235 and the C-295?

      Laurence

      Delete
    4. then tell them to submit bid

      Delete
    5. The BT-67 cannot qualify to the expensive western standards of the DND/AFP that will surely deprive the money for other important acquisitions like fast attack crafts, close in weapons systems, ship radars and sonar etc.

      Only the fragile C295 will qualify, not even the more expensive C-27J. It is as if the requirements were tailor made for that aircraft. Maybe the Bombardier Q400 and Antonov will enter the contest.

      Delete
  35. I cross my finger that we will still received LRPA trough EDA, even if these LRPA will be used in Short Term of service. Then, the budget of DND for LRPA is for Long Term services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EDA does not necessarily mean they're free. Previously the LRPA is actually an FMS project, but can have the option to source from EDA.

      Delete
  36. P- 8A Flyaway Cost: $ 177 million
    SC-130J Sea Hercules
    Price/Unit Cost: The unit cost of the C-130J is $66.53 million (flyaway cost in 2012).$ 160 million >>>>>>>>?Avionics, submarine detection
    C-295MPA :Flyaway Cost ¢$30.4 million

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Young Oh, the costing of military equipment is difficult to compare as every contract with certain military forces differ from each other. There are specific items and services included that differ from one deal to the other. The C-295MPA, for example, that Chile got as compared to that of Oman and Portugal may have a different contract price. You also have to consider inflation. A deal from 2010 may cost less than a similar deal in 2014.

      Delete
    2. hi max~!
      http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/C-130J-Hercules.html,(usa
      DOD report)

      Delete
  37. sir max ask ko lang what happen to the c-130? yung 2 ata na bibilin or republished may balita naba dun? tska pala tanong ko na rin yung 2 frigate 18 billion pesos for your opinion ano yung pinaka malaki chance na makuha yung iba kasi para corvette inoffer salmat :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. The Phl and Viet are experienced in asymmetric warfare. But I would recommend someone like Gen Riper to think outside of the box and put direction to all of it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It doesn't make sense to me that all these weapon platforms are being acquired while neglecting our bases/fort in the contested WPS territories.

    These patrol crafts will be useless if those bases are lost due to corrosion, incability to deflect invaders and inability to self sustain in a significant longer time.

    This acquisition should take a back sit until those bases have been fortified because the air power that this aircraft will bring is nothing more than complimentary to the Naval and ground power we should already possess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta think of parallel acquisitions and multiple projects. It doesn't bave to be serialized.

      Delete
  40. Anything new>>???

    ReplyDelete
  41. What really happened to the P3 negotiations with the United States?

    ReplyDelete
  42. list of bidders should have been out by now, its July 10 already. 1st stage bidding was supposed to be yesterday, July 9. Or are they postponing again. Any updates?

    ReplyDelete
  43. https://ph.news.yahoo.com/defense-firms-flock-manila-trade-show-175121818.html

    it seem lockheed is going to join the bidding.What do you think they going to offer sir max?SC-130J Sea Herc?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Update: The United States will give two Lockheed C-130 "Hercules" planes to the Philippines, newly appointed Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief-of-staff Lt. Gen. Gregorio Pio Catapang revealed.

    http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/07/23/1349457/us-give-c-130-planes-philippines

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi sir Max! isn't true that united states will donate 2 c130 plane to Philippine
    Air Force?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The deal is not yet finalized. Like the Hamilton-class cutters, the US will donate the airframe, but the Philippines will pay for the refurbishing, upgrades, logistics support, etc for the aircraft.

      Delete
  46. Ohh too many to updates, take your time Sir Max.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks for the update sir max. What did saab and l3 offered? Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the 1st stage of bid only defined the capability of suppliers to provide a system that can meet the LRPA requirements, and a aircraft platform that suits the technical specifications, we can't really determine yet what's in store. For the platforms, Saab was expected to offer the Saab 2000. L3 Mission Integration may offer a system based on a Bombardier Q-400 platform.

      Delete
  48. Why is the a Challenger-based MPA and the P3 was even mentioned?

    It was clear that only turboprop airframe are allowed and that the airframe should be b-new or factory new.

    Elta already asked if a gulfstream can be used and the DND-BAC said NO and said ONLY a turboprop engined airframe could qualify because a turbofan or jet engine would be too uneconomical for long-range surveillance.

    Bawal din refurbished airframes like the P3. Lockheed Martin can use a turboprop airframe outsourced to companies like Bombardier just like ELta has another version of their MPA using the Bombardier Q400 turboprop modified by Field avviation. L3 also uses a Q400 based platform.

    Hay naku.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please take note that this blog entry was written before the technical specifications were released. As indicated on the start of the blog entry, check the updates below, while MaxDefense prepares an updated blog entry of the LRPA project.

      Delete
  49. For those not reading the initial part of the blog which I edited for everyone's sake, this blog entry was originally written on May 2014, a full month before the technical specifications were released by the DND. May everyone be guided that the updates portion at the bottom part of the blog entry is updated as of the particular date indicated.

    A separate blog entry will be released later on as more information is available.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi Max, please clarify what will happen to the bid where it was mentioned that it is expected to have new aircrafts to be presented? With this development are we back to the original scenario and therefore the bid will be cancelled again? It seems the American has this habit of disrupting the process when they feel they will lose out on the bid and then turns around and says ok we will do an FMS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Originally FMS was the path the PAF and DND took, with ex-USN P-3C Orions planned as the future PAF LRPA. But there were issues that came out, and the DND/PAF decided to go brand new by way of bidding.

      This tender is the outcome of those changes. It is now required that the bidders submit an offer which uses a brand new aircraft that fits the general requirements provided in the technical specs. No used or EDA equipment like refurbished P-3 or C-130. The bid can't be cancelled especially that at least 2 bidders were successful in passing through the 1st stage of bidding. The possibility of other bidders filing a Motion for Reconsideration due to documentation issues may still have the chance since it is possible that red tape and difficulties in obtaining local documents in the Philippines might be the reason why these bidders fail to make the cut in the bid opening this afternoon.

      Delete
    2. Hi Max,
      I totally agrees with you, though it always happens when US using FMS it really put us on a disadvantage position when we are requesting for military assistance for the DND procurement of ex US equipments like since taken over the 2 USCG Cutters though we have ba saving there but when US tranfers to us the ships it has been stripped of all if not almost all the sensors and defensive equipment it should have been included and we have to buy them back with the US to reinstall them parang ginisa ka sa sariling mantika eh... its better not to rely too much with the US hardware equipments that already been used and pass to us and again to bu back the equipment it has been stripped off its better to get the newer European type of hardware at least better and much more reliable and cheaper to maintain with less political complications. I am not saying US equipment are not better but the kind of business they are dealing with DND we are looking like beggars just to hand over there old equipments eh.

      Delete
    3. PinoyMakabayan14, this is a common misconception on US military aid and FMS among Filipinos.

      There is a procedure on how to acquire military equipment, whether it be new or used, from the Americans. They follow a strict adherence to the policies and they won't bend that just to accommodate the Philippines.

      Before the transfer of the Hamilton-class cutters, the USCG already decided to transfer all the Mk. 38 guns and Phalanx CIWS to their upcoming National Security Cutter due to lack of budget to acquire new ones, while the SPS-40 air search radars are removed because of lack of spares to support the remaining ones in service. Remember that the US is now having financial issues and funding the USCG has been affected as well. So when the PH accepted the Hamiltons, the PN is aware that the said weapons and the SPS-40 radar are not included.

      We can acquire new Phalanx and 25mm guns if we wanted to, but that would be subject to the PN's available budget and planning. The PH received the ship for free from the US, and it only needs to pay for the refurbishing, staff expenditures for training, spare parts, tools, and all other needed items. You can't find that anywhere else.

      American wares are naturally expensive because of their higher quality, and the economic scale of the US economy. You don't expect getting something cheap from them.

      Delete
    4. Thank you Sir Max for clarifying this. Ang hirap kasi sa media sa atin laging sinasabi binili natin sa US ung "lumang" cutters from US, which is hindi naman pla ganon. Libre ung vessel at refurbishments, trainings etc. pla ung binayaran ng PH.

      Delete
    5. We could have requested the US for Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates as grants, but it was the PN who decided not to do so because it can't pay for the refurbishing and upgrade costs, and operation and maintenance costs if it enters PN service. So you can't blame the US government if we don't have these frigates in PN service. The US offered them several times in the past, the PH government and PN declined.

      Delete
  51. At this time the US government is playing more of a mediator and counselor on the " Spratly islands issues " rather than as an ally to the RP. A lot of political downplays and appeasement on their part because there are too many things at stakes especially with PROC. At the same time on the local side the red tapes and government requirements and procedures are factors that creates delays , not to mention the bidders themselves. Hopefully with the new addendum on the requirements would simplify matters and thus hasten the first stage of this procurement . Hopefully the DND has a better and clearer picture of what is in store for them . With all the right players and the cards on the table they should be able to make the right choices . They can always reserve the US options in other future defense requirements . Besides this the time that we can show to the rest of the world that the "sick man of Asia " has recovered and is back for redemption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, china's and the US's relationship is so intertwined. Watch on youtube ted koppel's commentary made in china.

      Delete
    2. Hi Max, are we running on two tracks with the bid for new LRPAs running on one and the FMS for 2nd hand P3s under one and yherefore we will have 4 LRPAs?

      Delete
    3. Phl is back for redemption. I like that, Oplan X.

      Key to that is who we will choose as the next President in 2016. If whether he/she will continue the AFP modernization momentum of the Aquino administration and the "Daang Matuwid."

      Delete
    4. The PAF already rejected the acquisition of refurbished P-3C Orions, that's why the PAF went for new builds. The 2 new LRPA will be the 1st batch, as the PAF is ultimately looking at having more in the near future.

      Delete
  52. bidding failed???

    ReplyDelete
  53. Its a lot of backlog in the AFP modernization.. No sense urgency. some has to failed and some has an added value.

    ReplyDelete
  54. p-3c major exporter of electronic sensors braking!
    2009 United States Congress has limited the export
    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/01/205_59170.html
    The renovated in the Nevada desert in good condition p-3b Korea Navy.
    P-3c is not Second hand worldwide.
    until you replace the p-8A .....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Young Oh, this shows that even Korea, a US ally with stronger alliance and technological base than the PH had difficulties getting advanced US equipment like the ESM system, which is also a requirement for the PAF LRPA.

      Delete
  55. LRPA Bidding Fails. Check link >>>

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/65882-long-range-patrol-aircraft-bidding-fails

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really failed. Yet. We still have to wait until the deadline for the filibg of Motion for Reconsideration, especially that the reasons of failure are because of local document submissions, a byproduct of PH government red tape and inefficiency.

      Delete
  56. aside patrol capability, we need attack capability. we can patrol till kingdom come and china will just do what ever it pleases, but with attack ability, they will have to think twice.

    its not possible for Philippines to match china in quantity of ships and equipments, but if RP/Vietnam/Malaysia/Indonesia can combined with a fleet plus once in awhile an Indian fleet that can match (in quantity) the chinese south sea fleet (it east sea fleet and north sea fleet are entangled with US/Japan), that will give the chinese pause.
    forget about its aircraft carrier, with only 1, we can use the swarm tactics- dedicate 30 missile patrol boat in exchange for its carrier and aircrafts - it's not sulit for those chinese.

    ReplyDelete
  57. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/08/10/1355874/dnd-spend-p15-b-two-ships-p2.5-b-ammunition

    ReplyDelete
  58. For those in the know of what actually transpired during the course of the procurement process for this LRPA project, the real reason for most of the disqualification is not due to the usual red tape and inefficiency of the concerned agency (BIR), but rather more because of either the ineptitude of the local agents who were supposed to know and provide the correct guidance and preparation of the bid tender in accordance with the IRR of RA9184, or the absence of such local agents.

    Take for example Saab and L3 Mission, clearly these two bidders did not avail of a local agent who is familiar with our procurement laws, such that most of the documents they submitted did not even follow the standard prescribed format. Lockheed Martin, who showed up during the bidding with locals appearing to be in their employ, was also no different from the kind of submissions made by Saab and L3 Mission. As such, no amount of reconsideration can revive the chances of these 3 bidders. As for PTDI and EADS CASA, both of whom maintained local agents and legal advisers and both of whom were already recently awarded with PAF projects, PTDI, the Lightlift and EADS-CASA, the Medium Lift, were primarily disqualified because of the ineptitude of their local agents not ensuring that these recently awarded projects to them are included in their submitted Statement of Ongoing and Awarded Contracts, a requisite which has been discussed in so many occasions in a number of GPPB's released Non-Policy Memorandums. Moreover, those present during the bidding was appalled by the submission of EADS-CASA, wherein this bidder also submitted eligibility documents of Saab and IAI Elta, who are also bidders in the same exercise. An act meritorious of a Blacklist proceeding in accordance with our procurement laws, especially so that these two companies denied any concurrence or authorization to the submission made when the SBAC1 Vice-Chairman clarified with the representatives of Saab and Elta whether the submission made by EADS-CASA has been cleared by them.

    Be that as it may, the info is that no Motion for Reconsideration submitted will be granted by the Bids and Awards Committee despite the fact that the issues surrounding the disqualification of the two eligible bidders (Elbit Systems and IAI-Elta) in the Technical aspect can be considered as minor and merely a clerical oversight. Hence, an official declaration of a failure of bid. Expect that the LRPA will be posted for a rebid in the coming weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Max, is it possible to incorporate the MPA and the AEW system in just one aircraft? Let's take a look at the Airbus C295. They have the C295 MPA and the C295 AEW. Each are designed to carry out specific missions. We should try to ask Airbus if they can build us a C295 that is an AEW and MPA capable. I think Airbus can make it for us. If they don't, then we can ask IAI Elta to incorporate an AEW system to our future C295 MPA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possible but not efficient. The radar system of an AEW aircraft can look down and detect ships, but this is about the only thing their sensors have in common.

      MPA aircraft ideally has a way to detect submarines. Sonobuoys capability, or magnetic anomaly detector, or both if possible. AEW mission doesn't need those. AEW needs to be able to look around for other aircraft, MPA doesn't need that capability. If you want to use MAD or drop sonobuoys you need to fly low. AEW mission on the other hand wants you to fly as high as possible.

      Combining AEW and MPA will degrade capability and operational flexibility. With separate AEW and MPA aircraft you can send the MPA ahead to investigate some suspicious sighting while the AEW hangs back with a squadron of fighters ready in case something tries to shoot at the MPA. If you combine the two aircraft you can't do the above. Also, the cost of the aircraft is often lower than the cost of the mission systems. So a combined version is going to be very pricy. Sure, it can be argued that they can do both, but the key point is they can only do either AEW or MPA at any one time. Militaries don't consider this a good tradeoff, so nobody does it.

      If you want to save money without sacrificing anything, go for a common platform for both. They will still be separate aircrafts, but with a common platform you can do bulk purchases of spare parts, have a common pool of ground crew and pilots, a single pilot training program instead of two, and so on. Most platforms that can be used for AEW aircraft can also be used for MPA mission.

      Delete
    2. Salamat Anonymous sa explanation mo. Nalinawan po ako ng husto. Ang galing nyo po magexplain tungkol dyan. I think you are right and i was wrong. Mas maganda nga if we have two different planes specialize for MPA and AEW. Salamat po sa info. I learned something from you.

      Delete
  60. A good system of Electro-Optical sensors can see clearly as far as 25km away! That's about the distance between Paranaque and Caloocan cities.


    Angry Chinese Soldiers Because US Plane Spying China Secret Island Made From Sand
    -- Daily Military Defense & War Archive

    https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=jmspARdNGh4&hd=1

    ReplyDelete