Sunday, November 15, 2015

The Philippine's Options for New Tanks & Wheeled IFVs for RAFPMP Horizon 2 Phase

Recently, MaxDefense partially discussed plans by the Philippine Army to acquire new armored vehicles in its inventory, including tanks, to improve its capability as defenders of the land. This would be in accordance to the Philippine Army's modernization plan for Horizon 2 & 3 phases of the Revised AFP Modernization Program.

Surprisingly, there are many inputs that are positive or negative for tanks in the Philippine Army's inventory due to different reasons and ideas.

Our previous MaxDefense blog entry dated September 2013 already provided a brief summary of tanks being operated by ASEAN countries, and it was concluded then that only the Philippines and Brunei remain as the only non-tank operator in the region.


MaxDefense received information from DND sources that the K1 tank was among those offered to the Philippine Army's future requirements. The extent of the offer is still unclear, but the Philippine Army has requested for several dozen new tanks as well as wheeled infantry fighting vehicles in its acquisition plan for Horizon 2 phase of the Revised AFP Modernization Program.




Issues with Tanks in the Philippine Setting:

For several years now, there are discussions online as to whether the Philippine Army really need tanks in its arsenal. Strong arguments were made against the need for the PA to have tanks, and continuous so until as recent as a previous MaxDefense post in Facebook about them. 

Among the major arguments made by those against having tanks are the following:

- the country's terrain is not tank-friendly due to being an archipelago without a continuous land formation between all major islands;
- the country's main islands, Luzon and Mindanao, are also not tank-friendly due to mountain ranges or impassable hilly and jungle terrain;
- the existing infrastructure is in poor condition, especially bridges in the rural area, and were not designed to accommodate tanks;
- the time of tanks is declining with the introduction of anti-tank missiles and cheaper armored fighting vehicles that are capable of killing tanks;
- tanks are expensive to acquire, maintain, and operate.



Poor infrastructure remains a problem in the Philippines, which will be detrimental in movement of very heavy main battle tanks. Even new bridges, like this one, that are built to replace old dilapidated bridges only has a 20-ton capacity. Even if we consider allowances, it is expected for the bridge to be structurally damaged if a 60-ton main battle tank crosses.


Infrastructure appears to be the biggest problem for main battle tanks in the Philippines, especially on the capacity of most bridges. As a MaxDefense reader from the DPWH confirmed, the standard concrete bridge commonly seen in the country have a capacity of 20 tons, but can accommodate at least 40 tons safely. Main battle tanks whose weight is greater than that would have detrimental effect on the bridge's structural performance in the longer run.  

But it is also worth mentioning that the Philippines uses specialized construction equipment that weighs more than a main battle tank, and make use of standard concrete and steel bridges on its own or carried by semi-trailers when being transported at long distances. Also, it was reported that the AFP's heaviest armored vehicle, the LVTP-5 and LVTH-6 which weighs almost 40 tons, have no trouble moving around the country and using bridges on its own or carried by semi-trailers.  


Currently the AFP heaviest armored vehicle is the PMC's LVTH-6, which weighs almost 40 tons (a little less than a T-72), but was reportedly fine with moving around the country on its own or ferried by semi-trailer, including using bridges, fly-overs, and roads than seems unable to accept such weight.


Although the above reasons are true, there are still many in the defense and military sector agreeing to the importance of tanks in the battlefield, and as an important asset of the Philippine Army. 

Among the most common reasons are as follows:

- Tanks remain the most well protected and heavily armed vehicle in the battlefield. They are still among the best assets that can kill other tanks or armored vehicles, as well as supporting the infantry on the ground by providing heavy armor, an assault weapon, and even as a psychological weapon;
- Tanks can be used even without proper civilian infrastructure as long as they are well supported by engineering & support units, as well as transport assets to help them move in long distances or over natural obstacles. This was proven by other Asian countries with similar terrain as the Philippines, like Indonesia;
- Although the country is archipelagic and has many areas that are not suitable for tanks, there are still locations where the tank can be considered king, and will definitely be used by invading armored units too. This includes the vast plains Central Luzon, Southern Luzon, Metro Manila itself, the plains of Central and Eastern Mindanao, and several other areas in the country;
- If used well as a combined arms asset, tanks remain an important asset that is difficult to destroy or incapacitate. This was among the lessons learned by the AFP in the All-Out War against the MILF in 2000;
- The greatest external threat the country is facing currently has the world's largest tank fleet, and it is highly likely that tanks will be used in a ground invasion against the Philippines. It is expected that any ground invasion by them will involve tanks. Tanks remain as among the best options to kill them, together with using anti-tank missile teams, helicopters, and use of terrain against enemy tank's favor;
- As the Philippine Army is starting from zero tanks, having several of them would be beneficial, although there is no need for several hundreds of them. They can also be used for red flag training to provide lesson and experience to Army troops to fight with or against tanks.


MaxDefense believes that both sides have their strengths and valid reasons, and should be taken into consideration before making a decision. In this case, the Philippine Army has long been planning and studying the need for tanks in the service, and has long made a conclusion that tanks are indeed needed by them. The question that remains is, what kind of tank.

MaxDefense believes more can be discussed about the viability of tanks in the Philippine setting, and MaxDefense is inviting its readers to take part in comments in this blog entry itself, or in the Facebook page wherein this topic will be brought out.


Despite the perceived unfriendly tank terain of the Philippines, both the US and Japanese forces made heavy use of tanks to its full battle potential. The photo above shows US Army M4 Sherman tanks supporting infantry somewhere in the Cagayan Valley, one of those areas considered a pocket of tank-friendly plains surrounded by the mountains of the Sierra Madre and Cordillera.


Can the Philippines Really Acquire, Maintain, and Operate Tanks in the near future?

According to MaxDefense sources from the DND and the Philippine Army,  the only reason why the Philippine Army remains tank-less to this day is because they cannot afford to buy, maintain, and operate them with the current budget they receive, and they are giving priority for other assets to be funded. This is the same reason why the wheeled armored vehicles will be given more importance than the tank should funding be less than expected.

It only means that the Philippine Army, like the entire Armed Forces of the Philippines, is expecting changes in the way the government is providing funding for the country's defense. Looking at the overall picture, all three major services are gunning to acquire assets that they honestly confirmed that they cannot acquire and maintain now with the budget they receive. 

History shows that the AFP does not acquire assets it knows it cannot maintain and use well, and is very frugal with acquiring new assets even if they believe they need them. So the earlier reason of budget concerns appear to hold bearing. The DND and AFP many know and expecting something in the future that we do not know or see, and this is giving them the will to request such acquisitions of not only tanks, but several other assets that are currently non-existent with the Philippine Army.  


Armored Vehicle Acquisition under Horizon 2

Among the planned acquisitions of the Philippine Army under the Horizon 2 phase of the Revised AFP Modernization Program are for new tanks and specialized armored vehicles.

1. Tanks

Tanks are among those being considered for acquisition. MaxDefense won't be too specific on the details and numbers, but the requirement for tanks is still quite vague due to the absence of information.

Market information shows that tanks vary in size, capability, and price. General definition may refer a tank as a medium to heavy tracked armored fighting vehicle, heavily armored, armed with a large-caliber gun and smaller secondary guns, and is designed to fight other tanks or support the army against ground targets.

Based on these, the definition of tanks for this specific acquisition program is too wide, with the only definite requirement being "tracked", and "armed with a gun, 90mm and above". The only other available information are the total budget allocated for them, and the quantity, which MaxDefense cannot disclose for now.

It also unclear yet if the Philippine Army is open in acquiring used, refurbished tanks, or are they going for brand new ones.

MaxDefense have several models in mind depending on the possible source based on the parameters above and the budget. Among the most probable choices are:

a. Brand new Hyundai Rotem K1 main battle tank from South Korea (also known as the Type 88 tank) in A2 variant, sporting a 120mm smoothbore cannon designed in Germany. MaxDefense believes that this could probably be the basis of the Philippine Army's tank requirements, being one of the lightest among the main battle tanks in the market, uses Western parts and specifications, and is not very expensive compared to American, Japanese, or European alternatives. According to open sources, the tank's expected cost is within the far end of the PA's budget even after inflation. MaxDefense believes that there would be no used K1 tanks available for sale or transfer to foreign armies since the Koreans are expected to retire older US-made M48 tanks first before retiring the K1 series, and the Philippine Army will be getting brand new units should they intend to acquire the K1.

A problem with the K1 is market, since only the South Korean Army uses this. A previous offer to Malaysia did not result to a sale. The good thing is, the Koreans have a very large fleet of more than 1,000 K1 tanks, far greater than the combined numbers of all the tanks listed below, and is expected to operate the type for more than 20 years more.


The K1A1 is a 3rd Generation main battle tank from Hyundai Rotem, which, according to a Hyundai Rotem representative's discussion with MaxDefense, is still in production upon request even with the entry of the newer, more expensive K2 Black Panther 4th Generation tank.
Photo taken from Wikipedia.


b. Brand new Doosan K21-105 or K21-120 light tank from South Korea, which is essentially a K21 infantry fighting vehicle armed with a 105mm or 120mm cannon mounted on a Cockerill XC-8 concept turret. It is expected to be cheaper than the K1 tank series, but with the system as a whole still a concept and without any buyers even if K21 in IFV variant is already in service with the Republic of Korea Army, technicalities may hinder the acquisition of this version of the K21. But its being lightweight (less than 30 tons without up-armoring) is a very important factor that the Philippine Army may highly consider.  


Doosan DST's K21-105 light tank, in collaboration with CMI Defense. Although the K21 is a proven design, the combined system is still under development and has not yet been confirmed for entry with the South Korean Army or any other armed forces. CMI Defense also offers a 120mm version, also still considered as concept.


c. Brand new T-84M Oplot, orT-84-120 Yatagan main battle tanks from Ukraine, which is a non-standard choice considering that this considered a Soviet design. While the T-84M Oplot retains the Russian/Soviet 125mm caliber gun, the T-84-120 Yatagan  is an export concept model using a 120mm NATO-compatible gun. Since the PA is not using any tank gun caliber greater than 76mm, having the 125mm won't really do harm on logistics except in combined logistics with allies in combined operations and among the positive values of EDCA and MDT.
While the T-84 is in service with many countries including fellow ASEAN member Thailand, the 120mm version is still considered a concept and may also be a problem in meeting procurement requirements. Due to preference on NATO standards, the PA may not be interested in using tested versions with the 125mm KBA-3 (2A46) gun. Thailand's T-84M Oplot tanks were reported to have cost an average of US$4 million per tank, or still within the PA's requested budget.


Ukraine's T-84M Oplot for Thailand, which uses the KBA-3 125mm cannon. Ukraine has not sold a NATO-standard 120mm variant of the tank until now to any market, and only has a concept T-84-120 Yatagan originally offered to Turkey. This would be a problem that may hinder its being chosen.


d. Used Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Type 90 main battle tank from Japan. There were previous announcements by the Japanese Ministry of Defense in the past already indicated the reduction of tanks, including the Type 90, in the Ground Self Defense Forces' inventory, allowing the PA to discuss for the transfer of specific number of units. MaxDefense believes that it would definitely be within the PA's budget, and may even be acquired for cheap as the Japanese government appears to be very willing to assist the Philippine military in acquiring their excess defense artilces. Like the K1A1/K1A2, it uses a license-built copy of the Rheinmetall L/44 120mm smoothbore cannon used by the American M1A1 and Leopard 2 tanks. As standard with Japanese equipment, it is equipped with advanced features and built with high quality in mind.

The only negative issue here would be product support, since Japan is the only user of the type, and they are already being prepared for retirement with the entry of the newer Type 10 tank.


A JGSDF Type 90 main battle tank. Japan is planning to reduce its tank inventory, including the Type 90, and these could be available for transfer to friendly countries either as grants or at a price.
Photo taken from Wikipedia.

e. Aside from the Type 90, Japan may also opt to provide the older Type 74 medium tank which would probably be taken out of service completely as more Type 10 tanks are acquired by the JGSDF. Their lightweight design would be very advantageous in the Philippine setting, although its age is already showing and might not be suitable for tank warfare against newer OPFOR tanks. But it could be used as a support vehicle for infantry or mechanized forces using its British-designed 105mm gun for fire support and against bunkers and infantry fighting vehicles. Despite its age, the JGSDF is well known for its maintenance of assets and keeping them in top shape. These tanks have never been deployed outside Japan, and are only used mostly in training and parades.


The Type 74 tank during a display at the JGSDF Ordnance School.
Photo taken from Wikimedia.



Although there are several more other possible choices, MaxDefense did not elaborate further because they are either too heavy, too old and outdated, or only a few units are available for transfer, or not practical to acquire. Weight is a very important aspect in the decision making which will be explained later on.




2. Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicles

Another requirement that the Philippine Army will be giving importance is the acquisition of a new type of wheeled IFVs that will be assigned for specific missions, including as armored personnel carriers, anti-tank and air defense platforms, mortar carriers, and armored recovery vehicles.

Not much information has been released by the Philippine Army as well, although they are expected to be larger and will have more wheels than the current 4x4 set-up of the Simba and V-150. MaxDefense also believes that these vehicles will have better armor protection, river fording capability, and will be compatible to accept future upgrades like up-armoring, availability of a high-caliber gun variant, battlefield management systems, and others. The adaptability of having a high-caliber gun variant is in anticipation of a Horizon 3 requirement for a "wheeled tank" which can be used as an anti-tank gun platform or as an assault vehicle possibly with at least a 105mm gun.

Being a non-4x4, it is expected to either be a 6x6 or 8x8 configuration, similar to those being pressed into service with neighboring armies like those of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. This would be brand new, although any changes in the funding targets on the minus side would definitely push the Philippine Army to look at cheaper alternatives like used platforms.


a. New or used M1126 Stryker 8x8 from the US & Canada. The standard US Army wheeled armored vehicle since 2000, it has a lot of variants in its belt, including all the variants that the Philippine Army might be looking for, including the M1128 mobile gun system variant & the M1129 mortar carrier. Compatibility with US forces will be a practical reason for choosing this, and the anticipation of a huge parts, upgrade,  and manufacturing support for several thousand units serving with the US Army could make this a top choice. Downside is the reportedly poor protection compared to much modern contemporaries, and lack of other users aside from the US and Iraqi armies. A double V-hull variant is being produced to address the protection issues from roadside bombs and IED. Another downside is the reported cost of the vehicle, which is quite on the high side as compared to contemporaries, although this is expected as US-made equipment are normally expensive. An earlier concluded deal with Lithuania puts the average price of a Stryker together with weapons, ammo, training, spares, and support past the US$7 million mark. Older units that are Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may also be offered by the US for sale as EDA, although the chances is slim as the US prefers to sell new-build units.


The M1126 APC variant of the Stryker 8x8.
The Stryker MGS with the 105mm gun has a high reputation for being effective in providing fire support to troops in the absence of tanks.



b. New Patria AMV from Finland or its licensed-built derivatives are among the possible vehicles being eyed by the Philippine Army. This may even include the license-built copy of the AMV, the KTO Rosomak variant built under license by Poland. Both the Patria & Rosomak 8x8 vehicle are considered to be among the best in its class, with a reputation of being highly robust, dependable, and highly reliable. They also have sufficient combat experience, especially the Rosomak which are used by the Polish military in Afghanistan and has gained respect by both allies and foes. Currently it has an APC, IFV/anti-tank variant, and can be configured to carry large-caliber mortars depending on Philippine Army requirements including a 120mm gun proposed by Cockerill. MaxDefense sources informed that the Rosomak was already offered to PA brass in the past, and is said to be cheaper than the Stryker and Singapore's Terrex. Sources also informed MaxDefense that the Patria/Rosomak is the favorite among the Mechanized Infantry brass and Philippine Army high command.


Shown above is the KTO Rosomak IFV variant of the Patria, in service with the Polish Army.
Photo taken from Wikipedia.


c. New ST Engineering Kinterics AV81 Terrex from Singapore. This has been among the benchmarks in the region, and has been previously offered to the Philippine Army several years ago. Well designed for a C4ISR centric army like those of Singapore, it is among the most modern in the market today. While it appears to be very good for consideration, among its setbacks include lack of a FSV variant (without modifications), and market, since it only being used by no other country aside from Singapore. Although it is among those in the running to bag the US Marine Corps' ongoing Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) acquisition project, a win would be greatly beneficial. 


ST Engineering's AV81 Terrex wheeled armored vehicle, in service with the Singapore Armed Forces.
Photo taken from military-today.com.


d. New Hyundai Rotem KW1 Scorpion 6x6 and KW2 Scorpion 8x8 Wheeled Armored Vehicle from South Korea. This specific model was in competition from other homegrown 6x6 & 8x8 offerings from Samsung Techwin and Doosan DST, and was chosen by the South Korean Army for their own requirement. The vehicle is among the newest in the market, and is also an interesting choice due to the close defense ties between the Philippines and South Korea. It could also be marketed in connection to the tank requirement of the Philippine Army, since MaxDefense believes that Hyundai Rotem's K1 88-type tank is among the best choice for the tank requirement. Currently the KW1 & KW2 are only armed with cupola mounted guns, but MaxDefense sources confirmed that the larger KW2 8x8 can accommodate heavier weapons including fire support gun turrets for 90mm or 105mm guns, and both KW1 & KW2 can mount autocannons of 25mm or 30mm caliber on both manned turret or RCWS, and configured as a mortar carrier.


The KW2 shown here in self-propelled anti-aircraft configuration carrying a twin 30mm gun system. The KW2 is the 8x8 version of the Scorpion, while there is a smaller 6x6 version known as the KW1.
Photo taken from Deagel.com.


e. New Iveco SuperAV from Italy. Another vehicle in the running for the US Marine Corps' ACV project, the vehicle is said to have excellent amphibious capability in its standard configuration, and is even being offered to the Italian Army to replace their ageing LVTP-7 armored vehicles of the Lagunari Regiment. The only major downside is market, since it is not even in service yet with the Italian Army, and was only used by Brazil as basis for their own homegrown armored vehicle project built by Iveco Brazil. Winning the USMC ACV would be the bedrock which it could start a successful export market. Another issue is cost, since it is expected to be priced higher than the Philippine Army's budget, and is said to be more expensive than the Patria and Terrex.


The Iveco SuperAV is a promising vehicle but has no market share yet, as even the Italians have not yet made an order for them. Its hopes hang on the USMC's ACV program.
Photo taken from 21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com.


f. New PT Pindad 6x6 Anoa from Indonesia. Said to be derived from the older variant of the successful VAB family of vehicles from France, the Anoa is the cheapest alternative in this listing, and is said to have been already checked by the Philippine Army before. The only one without an 8x8 variant here, it lacks the space offered by others although price has its reasons. Another problem is the weapons it can carry, the Anoa was not configured to have a FSV variant although PT Pindad may offer a different vehicle, the Badak 6x6 FSV, which is more of a combat vehicle rather than a infantry fighting vehicle due to lack of space to accommodate mounted infantry. The Badak is also confirmed to be able to carry a 90mm gun from Cockerill, but no confirmation if it can carry a 105mm gun. Nonetheless, the Anoa remains a very interesting offer since the Philippines is known to be very fixated on the price as history shows us.




The Anoa (above) and Badak (below) are 2 different vehicles from PT Pindad, with the Anoa more of an armored personnel carrier while the Badak is more of a armored fighting vehicle.
Photos taken from PT Pindad website (Anoa) and Wikipedia (Badak).




How about the Existing Wheeled and Tracked Armored Vehicle Fleet?


Horizon 2 phase has allocated programs for all existing armored vehicle assets of the Philippine Army, specifically the V-150 and Simba 4x4, and the AIFV and M113 tracked armored vehicles. It is expected that both wheeled 4x4 platforms, especially the Simba, will remain in service for at least another 2 decades, while the tracked assets, especially the M113, will remain a backbone of future PA armored formations. 

The V-150, Simba, M113 and AIFV will undergo rehabilitation and modernization under the Horizon 2 phase. Several of the existing M113A1 and upcoming M113A2 from the US will undergo life extension programs of its mechanical and electrical systems, and converted to upgraded combat vehicles, becoming platforms heavy weapons that are presently non-existent with the Philippine Army. The AIFV will be upgraded to current standards but will most likely retain its 25mm KBA cannon.


The PA's AIFV remains the same for the last 30 years, although it can still be rehabilitated and modernized to keep up with the times. The ACV-300 currently marketed by Turkey is very similar to the PA's AIFV bought  from the US in the early 1980s, and there are several companies that have the capability to bring back this vehicle up to date, including FNSS (which supplied the PA's ACV-300 a few years ago).
Photo taken from Army Recognition website.


The Simba and V-150 will also get upgrades, but will be retained as cavalry assets mostly supporting the several Infantry Division formations as newer assets arrive to fill-in mechanized infantry formations. Among those being eyed are replacing engines and mechanical systems with new ones, possibly replacing the manned turrets with RCWS, and improving its communications and battlefield connectivity with the introduction of improve command and control systems.

More on this development will be discussed by MaxDefense in future blog entries.


What Do We Expect Soon:

Horizon 2 is a long way to go as far as we are concerned, with several projects in Horizon 1 phase still not moving, or has only been awarded recently. As of this writing, there are only 4 Horizon 1 projects out of 33 that have been past the awarding stage, although several are scheduled for tender, or have already completed the tender submission.

Even if Horizon 2 is still far, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the DND have been moving ahead with its programs for Horizon 2 in terms of planning, studies, and even product evaluation, with the later probably starting as early as next year. As explained earlier, it is expected that the wheeled armored vehicle will be given priority than the tank.

Based on the budget being requested by the Philippine Army, it is clear that they are trying to squeeze as much capability and numbers from a very low allocated budget, and this is a reason why many other possible offers could not be included. Cost has always been a factor haunting the AFP Modernization, and has limited the AFP's choices by so much. It appears though that they are already eyeing certain brands and makes and is only looking for possible alternatives while trying to get the best of what they can only afford.

Although MaxDefense believes that the AFP and DND should prioritize modernizing the Philippine Navy and Philippine Air Force, being the first in line of defense against foreign threats, the Philippine Army should continue its modernization as well, and the Philippine government should provide a larger defense modernization budget for all 3 armed services for them to be able to meet their requirements without affecting each other's own needs.

114 comments:

  1. Personally I Think we should look into the Japanese Tanks and perhaps aquire a ferw lightweight Sheridan Tanks from the US it's 150mm gun filled with cannister shot can clear jungles full of insurgents, wheeled vehicles should also be a priority owing to its speed and its cheaper to run. Should look also at ACTIVE Defense systems to stop RPGS from killing tanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheridan has issues, that's why it was phased out of service.

      Delete
    2. The Sheridan's 152mm main gun is problematic. For starters, the huge caliber makes the entire tank rock in recoil. Plus, it's made out of aluminum. One well-placed RPG can disable it, if not destroy it.

      I doubt that the PA would want Sheridans. The US Army itself didn't wholly adopt the tank into its infantry divisions because of the problems stated above.

      Delete
    3. The Sheridan is out of the choices. The Philippine Army prefers something with good armor but not too heavy and too old.

      Delete
    4. Suggesting the acquisition of Sheridan Tanks is... ludicrous. A Leopard 2A6 is a better choice. Actually, they are being sold at lower price right now. Ask Swedish Army. They are very happy with the sail including support and logistics vehicles.

      Delete
    5. Sheridan?! Might as well tell the tank crew to shoot themselves in the head! Just get the Leopard 2A6. They are being sold at good prices now depending on how many the PH Army would want to acquire. Ask the Swedish Army they are happy with the sale of the Leopard 2A units they bought from Germany.

      Delete
    6. I think the Leapord 2A6 costs too much for my country maybe the PA should buy a M41 tank

      Delete
  2. Japanese Type 74 Nana-yon i think is the most suitable for our terrain because of its lightweight design and firepower, and it will prove very effective to combat insurgents in mindanao, japan upgraded it many times already with infrared and laser rangefinder. if the Government didn't wan't it because of their age and outdated features, it is still the best tank we can use for training and we can buy it in a very cheap price, it is time for our media to know the difference between Tanks and Armoured Carriers and we can discuss Korean K1s in some other time if we already have the budget for them..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nana-yon is actually a good choice and could be a good infantry support tank. I believe there was interest for the tank within the Philippine Army planners although the main issue with it is being technologically outdated. If Japan is willing to provide them for cheap or free, why not?

      Delete
    2. Nana-yon is too old Sir Max!!! Might as well ask old M 60 tank from USA and upgrade it.

      Delete
    3. Yeah right! Japanese tanks happen to be the most expensive in the world.

      Delete
  3. just a thought, the S-Tank (retired) of Sweden seems to be a good platform for entry to heavy tank, if we can ask them to donate the tanks in storage maybe PH can just pay for the ship transport and then refurbish and tropicalize the tank...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not possible now, considering that Sweden and most European countries are beefing up their reserve fleets in anticipation of a flare up with Russia.

      Delete
  4. NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (With Dart Vader Voice)

    Im not the first one.

    - Sebastian

    ReplyDelete
  5. As Indonesian i hope u pick my nation product.

    But as a tank lover, i suggest u buy T-84 Oplot.

    While its expected, Sir Max i still wish that u add Russian weapons in the selection. Maybe u make a special article about it "What if we go Russian" theme article.

    Anyway is an interesting article as always. Good work Sir Max.

    - Sebastian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the proposed defense cooperation agreement with Russia pushes through, why not? But I believe the Russians are still at a disadvantage but they can probably sell stand alone systems line anti tank missiles or MANPADS.

      Delete
    2. Can u at least made an article about "What if Philippine Go Russian"? With possible weapons list that u wish to own.

      - Sebastian

      Delete
    3. well, it will be quite interesting, but if it does happen, goodbye for donations from US and their allies though, and let us not forget that russia is the major ally of china which at it happens also the major enemy of the philippines..

      Delete
    4. With the issue of going Russian, I believe other former Soviet block countries like Poland with their Anders tanks that doubles as a troop carrier is a good buy, or Czezh tanks, Uraine all have license to build Russian armor if we really want Russian designs in the PA and its bound to be a logical choice since it does not costs as much.

      Delete
  6. PH is better off with IFVs rather than MBTs. We just need to get the most tank-like IFV and that would be enough (think CV9030). There's too many capabilities PH needs to address, and IMHO -- tanks would fall in the category of "nice to have but not totally necessary as we have other pressing needs" type of addition.

    But if the DND is really decided on acquiring tanks.. without thinking of budget constraints -- the CV90120-T would be the perfect tank for PH. Yes, it's a modern light tank, and it's going to be expensive. But if PH is going to get MBTs they better get the ones which won't be just "tin cans" in case a shooting war erupts. And it's very likely whatever tank PH gets during Horizon 2, would be PH tanks for no less than 20 years, so better they get the ones that aren't technologically disadvantaged right now because acquiring Type 74s would mean our MBTs would be old second hand tanks with 80's tech in year 2036!

    - Neo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CV90 even in IFV form is more expensive than several tank designs like K1 and T-84. Thats also a reason why its not on the list.

      Delete
    2. Is it possible to upgun the type 74 to 120mm L44/55? and is it also possible to attach ERA panels on it?

      Delete
    3. Is it possible to upgun the Type 74 to 120mm L44/55 and is it possible to attach ERA panels on it?

      Delete
  7. Sir Max, I would like to ask as to why Merkava III and used Leopard 2RI (similar to the ones acquired by Indonesia) were not included in your lists of options? On an unrelated note, could you enlighten us on the project update of the RPG-7 acquisition after comments on its alleged problems persist. Thanks and high regards as well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too heavy. New Merkava and Leopard 2 are also too expensive. Its weight is not only disdvantageous to the PH's infrastructure but also means they are fuel hungrier than lighter tanks.

      Delete
  8. HOW ABOUT MERKAVA Mk.IVm Windbreaker FROM ISRAEL???

    ReplyDelete
  9. T-90MS is light and good enough...with advanced ERA that can deflect kinetic energy.... it can withstand a sabot round from M1A2. India plans to buy it

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sir Max why was Merkava III and Leopard 2RI not considered as possible options for the Philippine future tank requirement?

    ReplyDelete
  11. wait how about the 2S25 Sprut-SD from Russia? its weight is 18 tons and has amazing power to weight ratio of 28.3 hp/tonne. she posses 125 mm anti-tank gun design to destroy M1A2 Abrams or the Merkava IV. since those mbts are expensive, i guess this amphibious tank destroyer really suits well in our country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this I agree. I also like many Russian made weapons including their fighter jets. they are comparable to the west yet cheaper.

      Delete
    2. does are army have any..err.. experience in russian weapons?

      Delete
    3. sir Renzo, if our country will buy equipment from Russia specially the 2S25 Sprut-SD they will be happy to give our army a training on handling it.

      Delete
  12. Turkey has FNSS which build wide variety of assets for the Turkish army and is being used by UN forces, even Malysia's Deftech collaborated to build PARS AV-8 model. Not sure if proposals had been made from FNSS or if there are talks from DND and AFP but would it be possible for a deal to acquire some of their Tank or APC's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PARS is very expensive, even more expensive many other 8x8 offered in the market. And some other reasons.

      Delete
    2. don't anything from terrorists supporter Turkey. their products are inferior anyway.

      Delete
  13. How about the Polish Anders tanks, its 30 tons weight with a sporty 120mm main gun. Carries 6 fully armed troops which dismounts on a rear barn door similar to a M-113. Fully computerized and since its made in Poland its bound to be within our budget. unlike most of what was posted here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's good to see the T-84M Oplot on the list. With its lower weight and reasonable cost, it should be a good fit for the Philippine army.

    Since cost obviously is an issue, it is baffling that the Ukrainian BTR3-E1 IFV platform is not also being considered. It would be a huge force amplifier for the army, with its 30mm gun, its impressive amphibious capabilities, and the Shturm turret that includes inexpensive ATGM's. Furthermore, it could be assembled/partially constructed in the Philippines in a similar manner to how it is being done in Thailand and how it was done in Myanmar.

    Laurence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the 2S25 Sprut-SD (from Russia) is much more lighter than the T-84. 2S25 Sprut-SD only weighs 18 tons plus she also got the 125 mm smooth bore gun then lastly she's amphibious so if the bridge is beyond her load she can swim.

      Delete
  15. It screams of pointless budget & prestige wars. Before you decide what sort of armoured vehicle the Philippines need some sort of idea, a vicion and a doctrine needs to be developed first - that would answer fairly well what sort of tanks and apcs are necessary. But firstly - it's not happening and seemingly the army just wants its usual share of money - and secondly - such doctrine would not favour traditional land forces in a island nation. The consequence of which however would be serious undermining of the army's position - which for political reasons is unlikely to happen to Philippine's defense capability detriment...

    XXX

    But any excuse is good to waste taxpayer money.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just to be clear, PH or any self respecting country for that matter needs MBTs. But I'm standing by my opinion that it's not a critical need for PH as there are more pressing needs the military has to fill-up first. So, we're better off with IFVs which can double as a quasi-MBT when the need arises.

    And I also said we're better off with new tech assets rather than Type 74 tanks. BUT -- if we're getting these Type 74s for a heavy discount. I'm all for it.

    Given a choice though, we may ought to get the newer MCV 8x8 from Japan along with the heavy discounted Type 74s. Yes, the MCV is not a legit tank, it's more IFV than it is a tank, but just like the CV90-120-T, it's the type of armor that's enough for the Philippine setting.

    The MCV 8x8 looks like it's cheaper to procure and maintain than MBTs too. Maybe Japan is willing to give us discounts on these babies too.

    http://www.armyrecognition.com/japan_japanese_army_wheeled_armoured_and_vehicles/mcv_8x8_maneuver_combat_vehicle_105mm_gun_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html

    - Neo

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sir max how about m60 patton? We can get them with the help of edca and simply upgrade it to sabra tank standard with 120mm turret and i think it will be cheaper. Is there a way that the government can do a g2g with italty to get b1 centauro for fire support? And i think patria is a good choice and also more acv 300 should be a standard for our m113 i read some info about fnss they do upgrade and give power packs to all m113 and with m1133 theres a lot of variant that afp can do with it we can do macbet by israel anti air or upgrade it with 25mm bradley turret.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Didn't the stryker had a bad reputation during it's service in the US army? I mean cramped space, inadequate gun, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Do we have the rights to buy russian maid armor like bmp3f,bmp3dragoon..or the us will not not allow it since they are helping us to up grade

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the BMPs are one of the best. the problem is we are under the care of Uncle Sugar. so this maybe disapproved by DND.

      Delete
  20. if still with tight budget, i will go for K1 tanks and 6x6 Anoa IFVs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. if still with tight budget, i prefer K1 tanks from Korea and 6x6 anoa from Indonesia for IFV.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sir, how about CV-90 of Sweden ( BAE Systems)? It is a light weight combat vehicle which has anti-tank capabilities. I must say that I do not know about its price, maintenance support, or your views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too expensive. See my reply to another poster with the same question above.

      Delete
  23. I suggest that they get m60 tank uaing edca it stil being used by other countries and it has a lot of spare parts and can easily be upgrade to sabra tank that iz currently being used by turkey and israel it has 120mm gun and at the same time cheap to maintain.And also afp should consider getting patria and b1 centauro for fire support and our m113 should be upgrade to acv s standard that is being offered by fnss to upgrade any m113 varianta and we can also convert some m113 to israel version macbeth that can provide close air support with 20mm vulcan and 4 ready to fire stinger missiles and short range radar.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A Stingray II Light Tank produced by Cadillac Gage in the US would also be a good option for PA. Its an upgrade version of the Stingray tanks used by Thailand. At 22+ metric tons and smaller size, it will not be a problem moving around our roads. With its L7A3 105 mm rifled gun it can already match the firepower of some MBTs. Its armor may be thin compared to MBTs but with some modifications, its crew protection can be greatly improved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very good find sir. Small size and weighing just 26-27 tons max. I wish we could get an idea of the cost of a basic unit and one which is souped up.

      - Neo

      Delete
    2. The Sringray design is not feasible now due to age and lack of further development. The K21 is a better alternative now due to its development and market.

      Delete
    3. Thanks sir Neo. Sadly I could not find any info on the basic cost of this tank.

      Only Thailand is the sole operator of the original Stingray model when they ordered a total of 106 units from 1988 to 1990. It was actually further developed into Stingray II in late 1996 but probably stopped further developments due to lack of customers.

      -rienard

      Delete
  25. I'll go for israeli merkava ( battle tested, an mbt and a personnel carrier as one. Others korean mbt or japan mbt.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The PA should be aware that in choosing a tank or any AFV, it is not just the main gun, armor type/thickness, speed and range that matters especially in RP where a tank can bog down on soft soil. It is very important to consider the flotation quality of a tank. Track width and track length in contact with the ground as well as the overall ground pressure plays a very important role in the overall performance of an AFV. Wheeled 6x6 or 8x8 AFV with central tire pressure system may has a better mobility than narrow-tracked vehicles. There are numerous photographic evidence that in WW2, many USAR Sherman tanks where caught in quamires during the rainy season. These Shermans have narrow tracks and were not equipped with the extended end connectors.
    IMHO, it would be better for PA to acquire some numbers of AMX-10RC and ERC-90 (heavy/light respectively) recce vehicles in order to familiarize and formulate a tactical doctrine involving the deployment of tank as an independent combined arms formation rather than an infantry support unit.
    Panzer Rat

    ReplyDelete
  27. Should PA needs the wheeled ones, here's my observation. Regarding 6x6 vs 8x8, there was a joint military exercise between Indonesia and Singapore on the island of Sumatra a few years ago. Indonesia used Anoa and Singapore used Terrex. I'm not comparing Anoa vs Terrex, I'm just comparing 6x6 vs 8x8 here. Each vehicles have their own pros n cons as Max stated, but from that military exercise, I observed the 6x6 is more maneuverable in tight conditions, like small village roads with tight turns, or maneuvering in the woods. Some might say "to hell with village roads just ram the villagers' houses to make way". Well if the villagers' houses belong to your own people you can't blindly destroy their houses unless you really have to. You need keep their sympathy to their own soldiers.

    Jump to another point. As Max pointed out, PA is interested in PINDAD due to it's price, but PINDAD's incomplete current product range remains a problem for PA needs. Here's my suggestion. Since Horizon 2 is still a long way, and PINDAD is still actively developing many armoured vehicles (tracked and wheeled) for TNI, I suggest PA work together with TNI to form a customer focus group for PINDAD. That way PA can submit a 'wish-list' to PINDAD for a degree of PA-customized future armoured vehicles when it is still on the design stage. Even when Horizon 2 is reached, some years from now, I'm pretty sure the Indonesians will retain the title of "competitive pricing". Why pay more for a product that we have no-say in the design stage when you can pay less for a product that listens to your needs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a point on your 1st observation as it was also validated to me by friends frm the SAF. The Terrex and even the PARS are expected to have difficulty moving in the rubber plantations in Malaysia.

      As for your 2nd opinion re. PINDAD, it may not be possible for the Army to allow a single entity to exclusively develop a product. If Pindad cannot produce a proven 8x8 product, it wont be considered. There are many 8x8 or even 6x6 in the market that can do what the PA is looking for.

      Delete
    2. Hi Max, sorry if I don't this right regarding "single entity" that you pointed out. So if PH wants to develop it's own locally made, locally designed armored vehicles for PA, then PH must have at least 2 local manufacturers with each one submitting their own designs to PA or one local design competing against foreign ones under the no exclusivity policy.

      I don't think it's wise. It's ideal, but it's not wise because I assume that one day PH wants to develop it's own AV or other weapon systems, and having to establish 2 local manufacturers for the sake of 'no exclusivity' policy - even if they are state owned enterprises - is going to be a very, very expensive investment.

      Delete
    3. Pindad is not a local company, so what you suggest of directly tapping Pindad to develop a product for the PA is not feasible. What you're saying is good if the PA taps a local company like Steelcraft.

      Delete
  28. The realistic choice for us would be more hand me downs from uncle sam. Maybe more m-113? And for battle tanks? I believe it will not be realized and its just plans.Renbios

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Acquisition of more M113 frm various sources is a different project simultaneous with acquisition of wheeled IFV and tanks. The discussion here does not include the tracked IFV plans which will be discussed later on.

      Delete
  29. How about French or Italian made armored vehicles?

    ERC 90, VAB, AMX 10 RC of the French or B1 Centauro variants and Dardo of the Italians.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Various types available in the market .. but we have no money to realize it ... .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although money is an issue, its not because the lack of it, but the short of it. The government gave a capping, and the notnso good news is that the PA needa to acquire a lot of things that it currently don't have, or need to replace. That's what happens if 30 years of no major acquisition was made.

      Delete
    2. We have to merge with USA to get military funding from them ... So, we can solve our problem and also we will have guts to fight with China ...

      Delete
    3. i'm comparing GDP earlier and see how the hell vietnam, egypt and bangladesh has a more powerful armed forces than ours?.. despite having the same huge population, how did they manage to have large number of modern military hardware while we still stick with world war 2 era ones?.i'm actually surprise how egypt maintain that large numbers..

      Delete
  31. Is US Super M60 tank still available? http://tanknutdave.com/the-us-super-m60-tank-upgrade-package/

    ReplyDelete
  32. I wonder if the upgraded t-64 bulat will be considered. Ukraine has plenty of t-64's that can be upgraded. Cheaper if do not specify thermal imaging and be satisfied with image intensifiers. Loaded weight is reported to be around 42 t.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I say combinations from K1 of South Korea to BMPs of Russia. the PA needs MBTs for controlling level grounds, cities or urban warfare, some modern tanks now can even fire anti aircraft rounds like the new Russian tank Armata is capable of firing at low flying aircrafts like choppers. it also has mini surface to air missiles. and its machinegun is remotely controlled this is a high tech tank that is better than Abrams tank. I say buy some Russian made defense armors and weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Type 74 and Type 50would be good especially if the philippines can get it for cheap or even free from Japan, then eventually some K1 tanks from Korea to give the army a modern tank fleet, we don't really need hundreds or thousands of these tanks around 100-150 might do as the more pressing need is for those cheaper IFV'S and AIFV's which are more suitable for us, especially those 8x8 AIFV's with 120mm guns, that should probably scare those terrorists enough, though the 6x6 from Indonesia is also a nice cheaper option for the Army, but most important of all is to get some f*cking missiles

    ReplyDelete
  35. sir max for the lvth6's 105mm cannon ask ko lang kung may plan sila na ilipat ang mga canyon nito sa isang apc or any much more able na vehicle to make it a fire support vehicle. Sayang naman kasi if they go kasama ng ating lvth6 in the future.

    - basty vero

    ReplyDelete
  36. can't even defeat rebels from north to south. can't even form a proper convoy. occasional soldier losses to ambushes. what do you expect these tanks to do?. educate yourself properly first. the luzon and visayans are slaves to china. mindanao is going to the malaysians.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think its better to wait for the governments decision than to make any suggestion without thinking of the characteristics of the MBT, AFV, IFV, if its good in our country or not and if it's affordable for us in the market

    Besides, if the next president of our country still wants to continue the AFP MODERNIZATION, why don't we first think of it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sir Max, how about the Russian T-90 MS Tagil which is also a good alternative of the much heavier K1A2 which weighs more than 50 tons while the T-90 only weighed 48 tons, but the T-90 is more expensive than the K1A2 which is 500,000 USD in difference. and this will open close ties between the russian and philippine government.

    and i agree that we should go acquire russian made platforms, russian made weapons are not that bad after all. just like the indian government did they had weapons that came from different suppliers in which they used as basis in making their own weapon systems.

    ReplyDelete
  39. We don't need tanks here in the Philippines except maybe as mobile bunkers and if given to us for FREE.

    Better solution are Hunter Killer Teams in amphibious armored vehicles like the French Véhicule Blindé Léger, armed with ATGMs and MANPADS. It's less expensive and we can buy more, that will require the opposition more resources to defeat if they can.

    These Hunter Killer Teams will also be easier to deploy among our different islands, even by air.

    Lapulapu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup .. Agree with you ...

      I believe that we can modernize our army for FREE ...

      We can issue our formal letter to request "everything" to our allies like US, Japan, South Korea, Europe etc fropm rifles into frigate or destroyer from them ... To comfort them .. we can offer our cheap peoples to be their soldiers in the next war with China ... For example .. we can offer our 5,000 soldiers who have basic military skill with 1 units of new FREMM for our navy ..

      Win-win scheme ... All win ...

      Delete
  40. it is time for the afp to have tanks...at sana kung bibili ehh yung medyo bago bago namn...hindi po reason na hindi suited ang bansang pilipinas kc nga binubuo ng pulo pulong lugar...and afp has no capability to operate and maintain it...lahat naman napapagaralan...and this will help our






    military to boost its capability when it comes to insurgency conflict specially in mindanao and kailangan natin maging advanced ang pagiisip in the future war......syempre kapag sinabing may tangke ang mga sundalo..it will degrade their moral and malamang goosebumps..kapag ganun..so for me its time for us to have a tanks...para mawala na tayo sa listahan ng mga walang tangke sa ating mga magigiting na armed forces of the philippines......mabuhay ang lahing kayumanggi...

    ReplyDelete
  41. My personal opinion of what our army should have (including present assets)

    50 brand new K1 battle tanks from Korea as our MBT's
    50 used Type 90 from Japan again as our MBT's
    and 25 of the older Type 74 from Japan as a support for our infantry units in Mindanao

    Around 500 AIFV's and IFV's (to send the guerillas in Mindanao too hell)
    Around 1200 APC's configured purely as personnel carriers and not as IFV's (for caryying our troops for f*ck's sake)

    I think it is quite reasonable to achieve what I posted and this is merely my opinion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm from mindanao and there is no need for a lot of apc and tanks being deployed here, but i'm not saying that it is not needed here.

      having too much military equipment being deployed here in mindanao is not good in making peace talks, it only escalate tensions here. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE SITUATION HERE BEFORE YOU CONCLUDE ANYTHING!!! MORON

      Delete
    2. original commenter here. Anonymous what will our men dot here when shit hits the fan? shit their pants? These rebels never follow the peace treaties. If they don't keep their word on the peace talks, then we send them to hell, you're the morn here mate. 70 billion peso BBL? It's cheaper to get hardware to wipe the BIFF out

      Delete
  42. how about the upgraded lav 600 variants? its battle tested in country

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sir Max, since MBTs are kind of not a priority at the moment, maybe the Army should look into developing its own MBT. It doesn't have to be at par with MBTs of today for now, since a steep learning curve is to be expected. After all, there's also a need to develop SRDP in the process if our armed forces are to become reliant on its own capabilities.

    I believe the potential is there--and would've been more clear-cut had the development of the Kalakian or Gagamba went further.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sir max what is the news on the CAS bidding yesterday? Do you also have news on the frigate acquisition?

    ReplyDelete
  45. on our infrastructure the 20T means is not the total capacity of the bridge, that is the load per axel of the vehicle, how ever the tank have difference distribution of load,

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sir Max, just today Dec.12 2015, I saw several GKN Simbas and several UHD-1, and MD Defender choppers here at the PAF base in Cauayan Isabela, normally we only have few UHD-1 choppers in the area, and our area isn't really one of the most important in the nation...

    -Rodney

    ReplyDelete
  47. Its better to buy tanks that will survive and defeat our expected rivals, chinese tanks, and even local insurgency even though it maybe an over kill.people think of savings but it would only be very expensive in the long run if your armour ends up being a target practice by your opponent as they prove no match in the battle field. M1a1 abrams is still the best and the us has lots of it in in stocks after iraq and afghan war. All it needs is negotiation specially when us is building its economy and standing down of military actions abroad. Besides they will be coming out with better models. The idea is why go to war with lesser capable weapon when its yourvlife thats on the line afterall war is not about fairness but he who carries the bigger stick

    ReplyDelete
  48. Its better to buy tanks that will survive and defeat our expected rivals, chinese tanks, and even local insurgency even though it maybe an over kill.people think of savings but it would only be very expensive in the long run if your armour ends up being a target practice by your opponent as they prove no match in the battle field. M1a1 abrams is still the best and the us has lots of it in in stocks after iraq and afghan war. All it needs is negotiation specially when us is building its economy and standing down of military actions abroad. Besides they will be coming out with better models. The idea is why go to war with lesser capable weapon when its yourvlife thats on the line afterall war is not about fairness but he who carries the bigger stick

    ReplyDelete
  49. To me I think we better stick to Russian made equipment due to how cheap and effective they are, Like the T-80UM or T-84 Oplot and some BMDs.

    ReplyDelete
  50. WAG NA KAYO UMASA SA MGA TANKE, KASI KHIT KAILAN EH HINDI BIBILI ANG GOBYERNO NATIN NYAN... HANGANG M113 NA LANG TAYO.. HAHAHA..

    KUNG AKO SENYO DI N KO AASA PA...

    ReplyDelete
  51. just buy half thousand japanese 4x4 pick-ups...

    ReplyDelete
  52. i say fu*k the americans and go russian.. we've always been given second rate weapons by them.. hamilton cutters, m113 APC, all of w/c are old and outdated systems.. they won't even give us F16's while one of our asean neighbor got some why not go for the t90 ms and the bmp3..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. Go Russian. Now show them the money. Go on. Show them the billions of dollars that will pay for the wonderful Russian defense systems.

      The Philippines get old second rate equipment because the politicians aren't willing to pay for brand new first rate equipment. Indonesia was "given" F-16 because they then paid $750 million to refurbish and upgrade them.

      Go on. Rage. It sure is easier than actually working and paying for what you want. Heck, the very word you use, "give", shows me the mendicant mentality.

      Delete
    2. Well that is why its given free, you do not get 1st rate weapons unless the Philippines pays for it.

      Delete
  53. There are many choices with too little funds. All the Filipino patriots and defense enthusiasts can do is salivate and dream that they have these good armored fighting vehicles. All we probably end up having in the next administration are another hundred or so of Uncle Sam's discarded M-113s. Of course these are far better than nothing especially when given free but if Filipinos really wanted something a lot better, they should put money where there mouth is.

    ReplyDelete
  54. For Philippines, I highly suggest to heavily investing on light tanks (very big bonus points is they actually make their own) that is heavily armored and capable of penning armor. As for the Philippine setting and to compare afvs, light tanks are maneuverable, heavier armored, has a more powerful gun, and at least more than affordable while they can be a bit taller than afvs.

    ReplyDelete
  55. one of the best choice is the south african rooikat 105 it combines the firepower,armor and mobility to match our terrain and probably, much price lower than western brand tanks.

    ReplyDelete
  56. i agree with light tanks...in our urban setting e.g. manila. a crowded city with lots of small roads...mbt will have difficult time moving around as to light tanks packed in every corner....boom goodbye heavy tanks

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think the biggest problem with main battle tanks for philippines is the terrain mountainous swampy and also poor road and bridges infrastructure and thousands of islands to protect but very little defense budget.

    Light tanks will be the way to go easy to transport and support highly mobile, big tanks will sink in swamps and require big transport ships to move around.

    Another thing is fuel big tanks like abrams uses gas turbines light tanks uses diesel engines which could be modified to run on veg and phil is a major palm oil producer in south-east asia.

    Look at the region nearest neighbor indonesia has almost similar terrain also thousands of islands and operates french amx-13 light tank.

    ReplyDelete
  58. My opinion on what philippine army should have

    I suggest not to have tanks because of our poor terrain and infrastructure. But if do need to aquire tanks in the right time i suggest russian tanks or the k1 88. I believe during duterte's administration we will rise and our country's roads,economy,afp, and tourism

    FOR IFV--> 400-600 UNITS OF PATRIA AMV OF KOMOSAK IFV

    FOR AIR DEFENSE--> CROTALE NG ON M113 PLATFORM & ANTI AIR WEAPONS LIKE STINGERS,IGLA ETC

    FOR ARTILLERY MORE 155 ARTILLERY OR SPH

    SIR MAXX HEAR ME OUT PLSSSS
    THIS MESSAGE IS IMPORTANT. MY OPINION COULD BE REVOLUTIONARY.

    Plssssss sir max can u let the generals of AFP read this message. Plsss do it for the country. If my opinion will be approved we will no longer be one of the worst army in THE WORLD

    ReplyDelete
  59. For tracked ifv isuggest The K21 IFV WE NEED THIS!!

    ReplyDelete
  60. worst list of tank you provided and worst IFV... try this..t-90 or t-14(russian tanks are really really cheap), leopard 2a4 then just upgrade to revolution variant or just leopard a7 or a6 and lastly merkava 3 or 4 which are really cheap.


    YOU SHOWED THE WORST>>> :( and dont argue with me that it can easily be destroyed by RPG-7,16,29,32 or others because it can be equip wiht modular armor(non reactive) like those form rafael of israel or passive reactive armor or mostly and most important everything can be equip with active defense system hardkill and softkill.. like the leds 150, or iron fist of iwi or trophy or amap ads

    FOR IFV.
    ---kaplan 20 or acv 19 from turkey which we currently have and have different varaiant like cavalry fighting,anti tank , anti air, recovery engineering and mortar.
    ---k21 - from korea 40mm cannon with twin atgmlaunchers or the 120mm or 105 fsv variant.. it is fully amphibous

    WHEELED IFV
    best and most effective i know is the PARS 6x6 or 8x8 from fnss like our acv15. it can be configuarable to any variant like SPM,DFS,AATV(atgm),CFV 30 and again it is fully amphibous just like the others and what we need.


    ReplyDelete
  61. All these assets are need by afp..specially PA.. For PH.. Terrain like paddy fields, jungles and swamp..K1 tanks..is fit for these (just read some info about K1 to know why) in short K1 is develop for ROK army..south korea has terrain same with us..,i research and compare it with others..K1 is the best in this case..i like russian to but we dont have any aggreement with them..so right now..its to imposible for pH to buy some weapons on russia..for AFV/IFV i go to K21 but the cost is too high..im waiting if russia and pH will go further and we can get T15..

    ReplyDelete
  62. Can the T-14 Armata be Suggested?

    ReplyDelete
  63. My opinion is why not use the M551 "Sheridan" AR/AAV (Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) a US light tank that can fired a MGM-51 Shillelagh guided anti-tank missile which is more accurate than ordinary long barrel cannon. In addition this light light armoured vehicle can also mounts a recoilless rifles like the M50 Ontos or the XM551 a superior balance between anti-tank and infantry support.

    ReplyDelete
  64. sir baka pwd po ninyo iparating sa mich div commander ....itong massage na ito your men and crew of your tank are not capable in there job they not doing they part as a crew of the tank... hnd manlang sila maronong kong pano gawin ang before during & after...kaya marami sa tank ninyo yellow statuse..

    ReplyDelete
  65. Why would be buy old tanks from 1950's? I accept the fact that it will be used for training, isn't it very different from the modern and advanced type? Well for me if we are buying tanks for training maybe it should be from the 1985 to 1990's. From there only a few difference from the modern ones. But if we must have on for warfare purpose, I suggest we should build on our own a prototype even if its out of the budget required. From that we would no longer rely from other countries. Well the technology for it we could still.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Is the PA considering M8 Buford for our tank requirments?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPQjHLYx954

    I think the only issue is that no countries has yet to operate this Tank.

    ReplyDelete
  67. i would look into the swedish CV90 IFV, this tank has many variants and a great bofors 40mm gun for standard IFV, it also has the 105mm gun as a light tank... and variants like anti tank missile, mortar & infantry support variant... swedish tech as we all know is one of the best... we don't need as of now a 60t leopard tank or other MBT because it expensive to operate for a our army who is in a tight budget... for APC i prefer the terrex from SG... could be much cheaper and it's starting to create different more variants... stryker is too expensive... patria from finland can also be a nice choice but terrex is more advance in technology

    ReplyDelete
  68. the swedish CV 90 is an excellent choice for us as a light tank & IFV it has a great gun 40mm bofors for the IFV, 105mm gun for the light tank.. and it has many variants... for now we don't need 50-60t MBT... buying a single model with many variants has to be much better because we can save more money pn maintenace budget... for the APC i would prefer the Terrex of SG as of now it is highly regarded as the best n most advance APC's in the world even the US, british and australian army are looking into it... stryker is more expensive to operate... the patria from finland is also a nice choice but looks ordinary like some yhe korean tanks...

    ReplyDelete
  69. Well it better to me if Philippines made their own version of tanks and amored vehicles its more better to do that :)

    ReplyDelete