https://ptvnews.ph/dnd-likely-to-acquire-swedish-made-fighter-jets/

"After a thorough study and research, the Department of National Defense (DND) is most likely to buy the Swedish-made Gripenmulti-role supersonic jet fighter for the Philippine Air Force (PAF).

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana made this disclosure in an exclusive interview with the Philippine News Agency (PNA) on the sidelines of the book launching of former President Fidel V. Ramos at the Manila Hotel on Sunday."

Gripen C or E? Is it known how many they want to aquire? probably 15-20..? At least new ones,since we don´t offer used ones anymore.

I think they're interested in the C/D version.

agill wrote:

I think they're interested in the C/D version.

Not sure it would be a wise acquisition, not only because there are no Gripens C/D available, but used F-16s have won multiple competitions over the Gripen lately. Additionally there are more regional F-16 operators, likely improving integration and training.

Hey guys,
I wonder how the finances will go with this...
The Gripen seems to be a great aircraft but I agree with Ozair that used F-16s might well have been a better choice. Sometimes I guess that buying 'brand new' is a priority.... And the Philippines have just ordered two brand new Wildcats, from my favourite helicopter family! Maybe military spending has become a priority and to be 'seen' to be ordering new is important?!?!
Any news on the transfer of some Japanese MPA to the Philippines? There's been speculation....
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Congrats to Philippines and Sweden! Good choice.

AirlineCritic wrote:

Congrats to Philippines and Sweden! Good choice.

Bit early for that, nothing has been ordered, it is just a news report on a DND finding. As already indicated they still need to allocate funding which is not easy right now for an acquisition this size.

Here we go again...hopefully, something would come out of it this time around.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -says.html

SAS A340 wrote:

Gripen C or E? Is it known how many they want to aquire? probably 15-20..? At least new ones,since we don´t offer used ones anymore.

I'm hoping they could stretch for the E since it's envisioned to be in service for a long time and updating the older model may be problematic as time passes. They could potentially order a squadron first and top up with a second batch.

Ozair wrote:

Not sure it would be a wise acquisition, not only because there are no Gripens C/D available, but used F-16s have won multiple competitions over the Gripen lately. Additionally there are more regional F-16 operators, likely improving integration and training.

The country's neighbors in Asia are upgrading from their current F-16s. LockMart executives were in town recently reportedly offering AESA-equipped Block 70 Vipers. The thinking was they had an advantage given the F-16 derived FA-50s in the PAF's inventory. Apparently, the Vipers were too expensive for the PAF's budget, as noted in the above link. I just wonder if SAAB's recent collaboration with Boeing has boosted their chances somewhat.

https://www.philstar.com/business/2018/ ... hilippines

It can be recalled that embargoed F-16 A/Bs for Pakistan were offered to the PAF a long time ago which were also declined for lack of funds.

Ozair wrote:

Bit early for that, nothing has been ordered, it is just a news report on a DND finding. As already indicated they still need to allocate funding which is not easy right now for an acquisition this size.

Very much so...especially since there are other big-ticket procurement in the pipeline. Note also that it is midterm elections next year and candidates are looking for popular programs to append their names to...if not for sources of campaign contributions.

Hey Devilfish,
Thanks for your information! Your absolute last point is most interesting....
Cheers,
Bunumuring

According to Swedish press, Philippines are interested in 10-12 Gripen C.
Ann Wolgers, press officer at Saab, confirms that pilots from the Philippine Air Force have been in Sweden and flown the Gripen.

Could this be part of a financing deal that allows Sweden to sell off some of it's C/D Gripens to enable them to afford newer E models?

bunumuring wrote:

Thanks for your information! Your absolute last point is most interesting....

I was just speculating mate. To be fair, they may be serious this time. The MRFs were promised to the Air Force and the Government may want the deal squared away before the current administration's term ends. Interestingly, there were no accounts of it in the other local mainstream media except for a passing reference to the scale model Gripen displayed at the exhibition.....

https://globalnation.inquirer.net/17007 ... ontractors

SAS A340 wrote:

According to Swedish press, Philippines are interested in 10-12 Gripen C.
Ann Wolgers, press officer at Saab, confirms that pilots from the Philippine Air Force have been in Sweden and flown the Gripen.

This Flightglobal report confirms the variant but does not give the number of frames required nor does it mention any adjunct weapons package.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ce-452807/

Some new noises regarding this AF project.....

http://philippineairspace.blogspot.com/ ... ition.html


I still wish it'd be the Gripen E..... .....



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ut-453900/


Maybe the Air Force wanted the MRFs sooner. Well, there's still Horizon 3 anyway.

Related to the above, the PAF has selected the Blackhawk from LM's Sikorsky division as its next combat utility helicopter.....

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018 ... -lorenzana

Perhaps this could be a backdoor way for the Viper to get back into the picture?


Along with this is the yet to be officially announced selection of TAI's T129 ATAK helicopter pending resolution of the export restriction on its LHTEC's T800-4A powerplant.....

http://philippineairspace.blogspot.com/ ... ttack.html


https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/STza5 ... uality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/KTRNOE4O6FBCHMEHAPJPUU7TRY.jpg

Is the country considering any other types / contenders ?

Mortyman wrote:

Is the country considering any other types / contenders ?

If you're referring to the MRFs, not anymore...the Gripen was the only candidate which came within the PAF's budget (unless.....). As I understand it, the Air Force/Navy also had a long standing requirement for maritime patrol aircraft but currently are not actively seeking tenders for it. The government has these other studies for the civilian transportation sector.....

https://www.philstar.com/business/2018/ ... -transport

Update: Now that the midterm elections are over...new buzz regarding the MRF requirement.....

http://philippineairspace.blogspot.com/ ... ext-5.html


Not sure if the PAF could afford this one...but it is increasingly getting more interesting..... .....


https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/get ... emid=77794


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ft-458808/

Gripen vs F-16 for the Philippines: JAS-39 may have the edge

I am not quite sure exactly what financial assistance the US is offering in the article. If US is offering to give F-16 away for almost nothing, SAAB cannot compete. Yet the writer thinks that Gripen's chances are slightly better than F-16's.

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2022/12/2 ... -the-edge/

art wrote:

If US is offering to give F-16 away for almost nothing, SAAB cannot compete.

No such thing was mentioned in the article.

art wrote:

Yet the writer thinks that Gripen's chances are slightly better than F-16's.

Well, leasing new-build JAS-39C/Ds would certainly be an easier way for the PAF to stand-up an operational MRF squadron than buying those outright. Might even lead to a follow-on order of Gripen Es when they could actually afford the latter - if they were sufficiently impressed with the leased units.



https://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonli ... 1575626130

Devilfish wrote:

art wrote:

If US is offering to give F-16 away for almost nothing, SAAB cannot compete.

No such thing was mentioned in the article.

It is this bit in the article that I find difficult to understand. Perhaps the writer has poor command of English or translation is bad:

Washington announced that US$2.4 billion would have to be provided to the Philippines to acquire 12 F-16 Vipers.

Does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion credit? Or does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion?

@Devilfish - You know the zone, I think. Any idea when a decision will be made? Has US Congress approved the supply of F-16 and weapons?

art wrote:

It is this bit in the article that I find difficult to understand. Perhaps the writer has poor command of English or translation is bad:

Washington announced that US$2.4 billion would have to be provided to the Philippines to acquire 12 F-16 Vipers.

Nevertheless, $2.4B for 12 "armed" Block 70 Vipers nearing the end of their production run is still a very steep price for the PAF to pay.

"However, this amount does not include the delivery of the AGM-84-L-1 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles. They will need at least another 120 million USD."

art wrote:

Does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion credit? Or does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion?

I too, am at a loss on how to interpret that. If indeed it comes under the DSCA's Foreign Military Financing program, then it's a really powerful incentive -- (sans strings).....

Definition

"That portion of the United States Security Assistance program authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which once provided defense articles and services to recipients on a nonreimbursable (grant) basis. Funding for MAP was consolidated under the Foreign Military Financing program beginning in Fiscal Year 1990."

art wrote:

You know the zone, I think. Any idea when a decision will be made? Has US Congress approved the supply of F-16 and weapons?

Am just a kibitzer like most everyone else. I had long ago given up making heads or tails of the AFP's acquisition programs.

Devilfish wrote:

art wrote:

It is this bit in the article that I find difficult to understand. Perhaps the writer has poor command of English or translation is bad:

Washington announced that US$2.4 billion would have to be provided to the Philippines to acquire 12 F-16 Vipers.

Nevertheless, $2.4B for 12 "armed" Block 70 Vipers nearing the end of their production run is still a very steep price for the PAF to pay.

"However, this amount does not include the delivery of the AGM-84-L-1 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles. They will need at least another 120 million USD."

art wrote:

Does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion credit? Or does it mean US would have to give Philippines US$2.4 billion?

I too, am at a loss on how to interpret that. If indeed it comes under the DSCA's Foreign Military Financing program, then it's a really powerful incentive -- (sans strings).....

Definition

"That portion of the United States Security Assistance program authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which once provided defense articles and services to recipients on a nonreimbursable (grant) basis. Funding for MAP was consolidated under the Foreign Military Financing program beginning in Fiscal Year 1990."

art wrote:

You know the zone, I think. Any idea when a decision will be made? Has US Congress approved the supply of F-16 and weapons?

Am just a kibitzer like most everyone else. I had long ago given up making heads or tails of the AFP's acquisition programs.

Given what has happening in the House over the last few days how likely is it that this financing will go through?.

US/Philippines discuss roadmap for weapon buys including potential multi-role fighter sale

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/04/us- ... hter-sale/

Does it make more sense to select the American F-16 rather than the Swedish Gripen C/D, due to the politics involved in the South China Sea, regardless of which better suits PAF requirements?

In the case of procurement of fighters for the PAF being delayed further, what about considering KAI KF-21? The initial air defence version should complete testing in 2026.

art wrote:

Does it make more sense to select the American F-16 rather than the Swedish Gripen C/D, due to the politics involved in the South China Sea, regardless of which better suits PAF requirements?

Quite apart from the political environment, Block 70/72 Vipers are capable, proven fighters that would be very compelling coupled to a weapons package under a FMS agreement. The incomplete Gripen's (supposedly updated to a higher standard) main draw is its lower acquisition and lifecycle costs - hopefully leaving enough funds in the meager PAF budget for more air combat training time in the actual aircraft.

art wrote:

In the case of procurement of fighters for the PAF being delayed further, what about considering KAI KF-21? The initial air defence version should complete testing in 2026.

I wish (in-service performance, durability and price unseen) so the PAF could have a current generation MRF for a change - with modern systems and an upgraded version of their FA-50 engines. It is rumored that has been offered, but with the AFP's purse strings controlled by legislators, a political choice may be unavoidable.

Adding a bit of info from this post. I have a few acquaintances inside Philippine military circles and here are some of the reasons they cited on why the Gripen was selected over the F-16 block 70.

Operating Cost: They estimate the operating cost for the Gripen be around PHP180 to 200 thousand per flight hour (around $3,500) while the F-16's was PHP 600T to 1M ($10,000 to $18,000).

This is cheaper than the numbers pegged by Janes, indicating that the Gripen CPFH averages at around $4,700 while the F-16's is around $7,000 without EW pods and up to $25,000 with EW and IRST pods. I think the F-16 block 70 is generally higher because its equipped with the AN/ALQ-254 Viper shield EW suite built into the aircraft, this may be why the F-16's operating cost has significantly jumped. As one of them put it, "we will be abl0e to fly the Gripen up to 3 times more than the F-16"
https://stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes/

Capability: they admit that the F-16V is more capable but the Gripen C/D MS20+ does meet their capability requirements and is expected to more than hold it's own against the majority of PLAAF and PLAN aircraft stationed in the South china sea.

They raved about the PS-05/A Mark 4 radar for example as one of the most advanced radars on a fighter today despite not being an AESA radar. Its capable of LPI modes, sub meter resolution for SAR mode and the capability to detect very low RCS contacts like missiles and stealth aircraft, though I expect the range to be reduced.

Swedish briefings on kinematics were also impressive, one of them said that the Gripen actually has an altitude advantage over Chinese Flankers despite Wikipedia numbers saying the opposite. This gives the Gripen a serious advantage in a BVR fight, paired with Meteor missiles makes it a real Flanker killer.

I find that a bit harder to believe but then again, according to Thai pilots during exercise Falcon strike, their Gripens dominated PLAAF J-11s in BVR exchanges. They did get their rear ends handed to them in WVR but that was due to the absence of HOBS capable missiles. Chinese pilots opinion on the performance of the Gripen was also very good
Read here: https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/flankers-vs-gripens-what-happened-at-the-falcon-strike-2015-exercise/

Anyway, take it as you will. cheers

New article by Philippine defense insider Max Defense says that the Armed forces plans to procure around Php 1 Trillion worth of assets ($18, billion) in the next few years as part of it's Horizon 3 modernization program

http://maxdefense.blogspot.com/2023/09/a-brief-on-horizon-3-phase-of-revised.html

I wonder how much SAAB has spent on the incomplete Gripen C's they reportedly have. If PAF does not buy/lease them, what will SAAB do with them? I imagine that SAAB is not well placed to negotiate a very profitable price for them from the Philippines if there is no other air force interested.in procuring Gripen C. Even if PAF does select Gripen, how long could it be before they are actually ordered?

I see one way out - Sweden offers to transfer enough Gripen C to Ukraine to get Gripen C 'up and running' in the Ukrainian air force, those frames being held as reserves as the 'white tails' are delivered over time. EU could help with financing. The Philippines could go for F-16 or KF-21 instead.

Philippine defense pages on social media suddenly and simultaneously changed their profile photos to Gripen pictures today.

Take that as you will but these military insiders often drop hints like that followed by announcements in a couple of days/weeks as soon as they get the green light from the department of defense.

Sweden announced that they plan to keep Gripen support line open past 2030, and add Gripen Cs to their inventory. I don't know if this will be new build Gripen Cs or convert more Gripen As in storage to C models. I know they didn't convert all of them.

Would be good if SAAB got the order. It's about 10 years since they got a new Gripen customer.

T-7 orders should keep Saab aviation division afloat

All A modell are either scraped or converted to C. We nearly start scraping some C before Russia got from idiots to extreme idiots.

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

T-7 orders should keep Saab aviation division afloat

Saab also develops and manufactures parts for all Airbus models and Boeing 787.

SAS A340 wrote:

All A modell are either scraped or converted to C. We nearly start scraping some C before Russia got from idiots to extreme idiots.

Are there any plans to continue the C/D model production line after completing orders from the Philippines?

I acctualy haven't heard anything of a Philippine order, but if true, i guess there will be no more C after that. Just my guess.

I assume that Gripen C production will end after the dozen incomplete frames are finished. If PAF got those and wanted more in the future, they could buy some of the C's in SwAF service as the SwAF will be receiving new E's for the next few years. That would suit a country with a limited budget for fighters and should suit Sweden, too. Why store/scrap the SwAF surplus C's when they could carry on being used by the PAF, generating spares business for SAAB?

art wrote:

I assume that Gripen C production will end after the dozen incomplete frames are finished. If PAF got those and wanted more in the future, they could buy some of the C's in SwAF service as the SwAF will be receiving new E's for the next few years. That would suit a country with a limited budget for fighters and should suit Sweden, too. Why store/scrap the SwAF surplus C's when they could carry on being used by the PAF, generating spares business for SAAB?

Difficult at the moment as under the current Philippine modernization law, (Republic Act 10349), they are not allowed to buy 2nd hand items using the budget allocated for that law. So if they want 2nd hand stuff, they'll need to source the budget somewhere else. Thats what they did to refurbish the USCG Hamilton class cutters and Pohang class corvettes. From what I read, the Hamilton itself was donated for free then the refurbishment and additional equipment installed was diverted from the energy department since the primary mission of the Hamilton will be to safeguard the oil rigs in the South Chine sea.
The US is also in talks to give them retired F-16s, block 40s the Philippines will pay for the refurbishment and upgrades to get them up to block 70.

Currently the Philippines will embark on the last phase of their modernization from 2023 to 2028 after that, the law will expire if they don't extend it. But its ambitious, preliminary reports are that the Philippine armed forces is asking for around $18 billion in military contracts mostly made up of Air and Sea assets. My friends in their military circles say the KF-21 is currently the favorite. Another friend of mine in the Philippine airforce posted a photo of him in the backseat of a Rafale B, no captions, just a photo, I think Sweden has a chance to pull of a win if PAF pilots are really impressed with the Gripen C, they may recommend the E model

SAS A340 wrote:

I acctualy haven't heard anything of a Philippine order, but if true, i guess there will be no more C after that. Just my guess.

Currently waiting for Swedish ratification of the MOU with the Philippine government. Insiders say its a done deal, announcement may be released before the end of 2023

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

I think Sweden has a chance to pull of a win if PAF pilots are really impressed with the Gripen C, they may recommend the E model

They may be sufficiently impressed if this RM12 engine upgrade is integrated with SAAB's offer.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/gk ... 13.article

.....thus allowing the PAF to simply bypass the Gripen E and wait for KF-21 instead -- though as always -- at the 'right' price!

New development,
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1211080

MANILA – Department of National Defense (DND) Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. said Tuesday night they have deliberated on a "new set of specifications" and "quantity" for the country's multi-role fighter (MRF) program, which they would present to President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. for approval.

"(On) the MRF (Multi-role fighters) we just set, to be approved by the President, a new set of specs that we need and a new quantity. We deliberated upon it. There are few tweaks," Teodoro said during a chance interview with reporters at the National Day and Armed Forces Day of the Republic of Korea held at the Grand Hyatt Manila in Taguig City.

Their Defense secretary earlier quoted during budgetary deliberations that they should not be buying fighters in small numbers (so far PAF orders for combat jets has been 12 F/A-50s and 14 Gripen C/Ds). He mentioned that the number should be 30 - 40 airframes. If this is the result of his earlier pronouncements then perhaps the next MRF program of the PAF will result in these numbers.

Some possibilities:

1. Additional Gripen C/Ds are out the window unless they reach an agreement with Saab to continue the production line, 40 Gripen Cs automatically makes the PAF the 2nd largest Gripen operator next to Sweden and its also a substantial number in Gripen fleet numbers worldwide, since Sweden wants to keep the Gripen C operational, this will be a big help for them to do that.

2. More likely candidates are advanced F-16 variants which the US is willing to transfer under their EDA (excess defense articles) program. These are actually old block 30s and 40s which will be refurbished and upgraded to Block 70s. The USANG will already transfer around a dozzen of these to the Philippines in the coming years under the Security assistance roadmap, the Philippines could simply add more to build a robust fleet of advanced F-16s

3. If the Philippines decides to have a bigger fighter fleet without increasing the budget substantially, then they could opt for advanced F/A-50 variants. They already have 12 of them and seem to be satisfied with it's operational performance. I could see them easily buying up to 48 new F/A-50 block 40s and upgrading the 12 they already have for a 60 airframe fighter fleet of Fighting Eagles.

4. Their defense secretary was also quoted on saying they should prioritize on buying the "best" equipment even if its not necessarily the most "affordable" equipment. My connections in the Philippine military have said that the current front runner for their next gen fighter is the KF-21. So if they can really get the approval for funds, the dream scenario is for them to acquire some 30 KF-21s, its probably gona be the most expensive option but with the Philippine GDP expected to hit $1 Trillion by the early 2030s, it might not be too farfetched.

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

4. Their defense secretary was also quoted on saying they should prioritize on buying the "best" equipment even if its not necessarily the most "affordable" equipment. My connections in the Philippine military have said that the current front runner for their next gen fighter is the KF-21. So if they can really get the approval for funds, the dream scenario is for them to acquire some 30 KF-21s, its probably gona be the most expensive option but with the Philippine GDP expected to hit $1 Trillion by the early 2030s, it might not be too farfetched.

The Philippines seems to be having a major rethink. KF-21 seems to offer PAF more than Gripen C or F-16. Apart from being stealthier, I believe it offers the best range of the three and should continue being developed and updated for the longest of the three. Perhaps the budget could be raised from $1.2 billion to procure an initial dozen to be followed by more when further funding is available. I don't see new build Gripen or updated used F-16 offering the level of capability the PAF needs to counter the threat offered by Chinese stealth aircraft.

Philippines does not have the budget to buy high end fighters to counter the threat of Chinese stealth aircraft.

It is inefficient from a cost perspective to operate multiple aircraft types in very small quantities. The PAF has a huge number of aircraft types with single digit number of aircraft. The PAF has more aircraft types than air forces 10 times or even 50 times the budget. The PAF has quite a few new types coming in for important specific niche roles. So it would be a very good idea to just increase quantity of these existing types. Reducing the number of aircraft types should be a priority by retiring old types in the short term. They then should concentrate on purchasing high value for money multi role platforms in the medium term.

New aircraft for the PAF
6 T129 ATAK attack helicopters.
2 ATR 72MP maritime patrol aircraft.
3 C-130J medium transport.
6 CASA C-212 light transport.
32 used Blackhawk helicopters.

They already operate the FA-50 which is the best value all rounder fighter. If they need to improve air defense then purchasing more FA-50 is the best option. The best way to improve the capability of a fighter is to increase its situational awareness. High powered ground and sea based radar is the best value here. Inflight refueling tankers and AWACs are the best force multiplier but the budget would never allow for this.

art wrote:

Perhaps the budget could be raised from $1.2 billion to procure an initial dozen to be followed by more when further funding is available.

I don't see that to be honest, the $1.2 billion budget was part of the Horizon 2 multi role fighter acquisition program which has already been approved and finalized. I think the changes they are referring to are for the much bigger Horizon 3 MRF program which was supposedly submitted for approval earlier this year. but lets see

RJMAZ wrote:

32 used Blackhawk helicopters.

Tiny nitpick, but the blackhawks they ordered aren't used. they'll be built by Lockheed's subsidiary PZL Mielec, This is on top of the 16 they ordered from the same company earlier. Apparently under the current modernization law, they are not allowed to buy 2nd hand items with the funds allocated for that law. something they need to change if they want more numbers.
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2022-02 ... elicopters

MIELEC, Poland, Feb. 22, 2022 – PZL Mielec, a Lockheed Martin company (NYSE: LMT) has signed a contract award with the Philippine Department of National Defense (DND) to manufacture 32 additional S-70i™ Black Hawk® utility helicopters for the Philippine Air Force.

Anyway, the F/A-50 doesn't meet the current range, payload and overall capability requirements of the Philippine airforce for a multi-role fighter. In fact the project that purchased those planes weren't even referred to as MRF, the name of the program was LIFT (Lead in fighter trainers) under the Horizon 1 program back in 2012. there is another program within Horizon 3 called the SAA (Surface Attack Aircraft) program that the F/A-50 is contending for.

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

Anyway, the F/A-50 doesn't meet the current range, payload and overall capability requirements of the Philippine airforce for a multi-role fighter. In fact the project that purchased those planes weren't even referred to as MRF, the name of the program was LIFT (Lead in fighter trainers) under the Horizon 1 program back in 2012. there is another program within Horizon 3 called the SAA (Surface Attack Aircraft) program that the F/A-50 is contending for.

The FA-50 actually does meet the range requirement. It has excellent range and is more than capable.

Range is related to the fuel fraction of the fighter and the lift to drag ratio. Wingspan plays a big part to lift to drag ratio. A long straight wing with minimum sweep will have better range than a shorter delta wing. So more wingspan is better. Delta wings have great supersonic performance that is rarely used.

Let's look at some fuel fractions (higher is better) and wingspan taken from Wikipedia.

FA-50
Empty weight: 6,470 kg
Fuel capacity: 2,655 litres (2,124kg)
Fuel fraction: 24.7%
Wingspan: 9.45 m

Gripen C
Empty weight: 6,800 kg
Fuel capacity: 3,000 litres (2,400kg)
Fuel fraction: 26%
Wingspan: 8.4 m

F-16C
Empty weight: 8,573 kg
Fuel capacity: 3,200 kg
Fuel fraction: 27.2%
Wingspan: 9.96 m

Gripen E has more fuel but it's empty weight is also higher. Higher weight with the same wing means a worse lift to drag ratio. The F414 also guzzles more fuel than the F404.

The wingspan if the FA-50 is very good relative to its weight. It will have a better lift to drag ratio than Gripen and most likely better than the F-16.

The FA-50 has a good fuel fraction if you consider the fact it is a 2 seater. Nearly all fighters sacrifice fuel capacity to gain the second seat. If you compare twin seat versions the FA-50 now equals the fuel fraction of the the slightly larger fighters.

The second seat has proven to be highly valuable with 4th gen fighters as situational awareness is significantly increased. If pilot quality is below average having a co-pilot should have an even bigger gain in capability.

A twin seat FA-50 in the PAF would be more capable than a single seat F-16 in most missions due to having a co-pilot. South Korea now provides two AESA radar options for the FA-50. So it makes perfect sense to buy the highest spec AESA version of the FA-50 for both the fighter role and the attack role. The FA-50 can now carry AMRAAM, 500lb glide bombs and the Joint Strike Missile for anti ship missions.

On a long range fighter patrol the FA-50 can carry three 150 gallon external fuel tanks, two AMRAAM and two Sidewinder missiles. That would have excellent range.

The FA-50 as a fighter would be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate compared to Gripen and F-16. Pilot training would be cheaper as going from the current FA-50 trainers to the AESA quipped FA-50 fighters could be done in a single flight. If the budget is fixed the PAF could easily buy and operate 50% more aircraft compared to the F-16. This would provide far greater capability and cover any potential weakness. For example on the occasional long range strike mission a pair of FA-50 could carry a bomb each instead of a single F-16 carrying two bombs. The greater number of FA-50 allows for this.

Alright, but all the same, right now as it stands the F/A-50 is not a contender for any Philippine MRF projects. I don't know if the changes to these TOR requirements will make them take a 2nd look at it. SKorea has been floating the idea of an F-50 around, single seat version of the F/A-50. Maybe that would have an even higher fuel fraction.

their new defense chief recently said to the senate budgetary hearing that they shouldn't be buying 12 jet fighters only. Apparently that was the required number for their LIFT, MRF and SAA programs. He suggested that the number should be 30 or 40. I can see why the F/A-50 fits that possibility much better. But he also said that the criteria should also be changed from buying the most affordable option to buying the best option. He also wants the law to be changed to allow modernization funds to be used to acquire used assets as well.

With these 3 statements I think the changes to the TOR will be:
1. Required aircraft will be changed from 12 to 36 (exactly 3 PAF squadrons and smack in the middile of the 30 to 40 number he wants)
2. They may want something that can really give them an advantage against the Primary threat aircraft in the area which is the J-11.
3. They may go for a combo of 2nd hand and brand new assets

Given that the approved budget for the Horizon 2 MRF program was $1.2 billion, I think horizon 3 could be around $2 to 3 billion maybe. So if all these speculations are anywhere near accurate I think their options are
-Combination of refurbished and new build F-16s block 70s
-F/A-50 block 20s
-KF-21 but maybe they need to reduce numbers to 24 or increase the budget .

but this is just my 2 cents.

NB no voice over from 5m0s in video (just film of Gripen for the rest of the video)

https://youtu.be/39z044fwd0w

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

Alright, but all the same, right now as it stands the F/A-50 is not a contender for any Philippine MRF projects. I don't know if the changes to these TOR requirements will make them take a 2nd look at it. SKorea has been floating the idea of an F-50 around, single seat version of the F/A-50. Maybe that would have an even higher fuel fraction.

I would say that a single seat F-50 would be inferior in everyday to a twin seat FA-50. The single seat F-50 would need an F-35 style cockpit with 360degree sensors for it to have better situational awareness of the twin seat FA-50.

It is worth noting that the FA-50 block 20 has 300 gallon conformal tanks. This represents a massive 43% increase on the internal fuel capacity. This would give the FA-50 a higher combat radius than the Gripen E and similar to a bigger aircraft like a Super Hornet.



The tank sits between the cockpit and tail. The thrust to weight ratio of the FA-50 is excellent. It is higher than Gripen C and Super Hornet. The agility is so good at air shows that it will not suffer from the added weight of conformal tanks.

duplicate

From what I've seen so far, conventional wing and tail designs seem to need much higher thrust to weight in order to match or exceed delta-canard designs in high sub-sonic to supersonic turn performance.
FB_IMG_1691681305315 (002).jpg (Edit how did you add photos? I went to attachments and added a file then placed the incline, what am I missing)

In this graph we see that the Gripen matches the F-16 blk 52 in sustained turn performance and exceeds it slightly in instantaneous turn performance despite having far less Thrust to weight. the F-16 does have much much better payload capacity.

this isn't a problem for the US which has a lot of very powerful engines, but if we're going to compare, Gripen C/D vs F/A-50, which has basically the same engine, then the Gripen does come on top based on the graphic.

anyway, my sources say there is an idea floating around that Sweden is in talks with them to offer some Gripen Es to augment the number of Gripen C/D that they need. if the PAF is asking for 24 to 36 fighters, Sweden may add 10 Gripen Es to the 14 Gripen C/Ds to the package I expect the price to substantially increase though. To sweeten the deal Saab is also in talks to open a manufacturing facility for local production of components in the Philippines for those Gripens.

KAI for their part is offering 36 F/A-50s block 20 or 50 and KF-21s in 5 to 7 years time.

Meanwhile the US is already in talks for used block 40 Vipers to the PAF as part of different project, the security assistance roadmap, this is basically in exchange for letting US forces operate in Philippine soil as part of the EDCA agreement. So I expect Lockheed to use that opportunity to offer F-16s. Because no matter what fighter the Philippines selects, they're still getting F-16s, so why not just have an all F-16 logistics pipeline.

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

but if we're going to compare, Gripen C/D vs F/A-50, which has basically the same engine, then the Gripen does come on top based on the graphic.

Sustained turn performance at high subsonic and transonic speeds is quite irrelevant to nearly every mission. Range and endurance is far more valuable. If the FA-50 has 10% greater range and the Gripen C has 10% better sustained turn performance at mach 0.9 then the FA-50 wins easily.

Second hand Gripen C that have been sitting in storage for 10 years might be cheaper. Second hand USAF F-16 with political strings attached is also attractive.

The FA-50 wins hands down if you are being objective. The PAF needs to stop collecting cheap second hand equipment. Training costs will be higher, pilot quality will be lower. It will be harder to link everything together as a joint force.


Regarding image uploads try to use https://imgbb.com/

JuggernautAlpha wrote:

Meanwhile the US is already in talks for used block 40 Vipers to the PAF as part of different project, the security assistance roadmap, this is basically in exchange for letting US forces operate in Philippine soil as part of the EDCA agreement.

Hopefully the PAF realise that shiny fighter jets don't have to be part of that agreement.

The Philippines Navy needs new ships. They already operates old ships from the US coast guard with some over 50 years old. Maintenance costs would be extremely high. The Philippines operates three 3,250 ton Hamilton-class cutters built in the 1960's. They were handed over to the Philippines in 2011. If the US wants to give some second hand equipment then how about the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) that they want to retire early? They would be a match made in heaven. The LCS are highly automated with low crew requirements. The disputed islands are effectively in the littoral which is what the LCS were built for with their low draft. The high speed allows them to intercept easily. Regarding the corrosion issues the Philippines crew would just put some paint on it and away they go. The large helicopter landing pad allows low skilled pilots to safely land.

The LCS would effectively go from being the laughing stock of the US Navy to the flagships of Philippines Navy. If the Philippines Navy put in a wish list for their ultimate dream ship the requirement would perfectly match the USS Freedom class. The Freedom class LCS are going to be entirely scrapped. A huge waste.

Thank you, well here was the graph



Heres a video on how the Gripen was ultimately selected. Its much better quality than the typical robot narrator military videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPP6sgDE0Ww

Apparently the F/A-50 was briefly considered for the MRF program but it did not sit well with the pilots., according to Paul Metz, during the ATF program, one reason why the Raptor was selected was because it was preferred by the Eagle Mafia, they wanted the hands down best BFM platform around. I think the Philippines also has its own Fighter mafia that is very influential on decision making. The PAF hasn't had a real high performance fighter since retiring the F-8s in 1991, these probably know that the government probably won't purchase another one for another 30 years, they're gona want something more than an aircraft that started life as a trainer

Depending on threat perceptions and thoughts on the future trajectory of regional security, Manila has to consider whether it needs to field the new capability as soon as possible or whether it can afford to wait. The answer to this question bears significance to the final decision made. Acquiring either new-build or second-hand F-16s requires a significant lead time before the first aircraft would be delivered to the Philippines. Manila would have to queue up for manufacturing slots behind existing customers who have placed their orders years in advance. Similarly, deciding to take up the US offer of second-hand F-16s, which need to be overhauled and upgraded, will also take up a lot of time to accomplish. In either scenario, the PAF would likely get its first aircraft within three to five years from signing the contract. In comparison, Saab has assured Manila that it could deliver an initial batch of four aircraft to the Philippines in under one year. This would help PAF reach initial operating capability significantly faster than in the case of the F-16.

https://www.factsasia.org/blog/philippi ... iderations

Setting aside a new requirement being prepared, I guess that with the cost of upgrading, used F-16 would cost more than Gripen. I also guess that the operating cost of F-16 would be higher than Gripen. If the procurement and operating budgets are really tight, I don't see the sense of selecting F-16.

If South Korea could extend very generous terms, KF-21 seems like the best long term solution to me. The odds are that it will be upgraded for several decades and if a decent number are produced, upgrades should not be prohibitively costly.