Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Philipines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: island defense
rudel    6/16/2005 11:53:48 AM
the philippine needs less large warships and should consider more PT boats, it is more suited for the archipelago, it is faster, more maneuverable and cheaper
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
ret13f    RE:island defense   6/16/2005 11:13:18 PM
rpi has large warships?
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:island defense   6/16/2005 11:48:20 PM
Why not just massive amounts of shore-based ASMs, everything from 70mm APKWS types, up through the massive TacToms. That should be able to cover anything within 300-400 miles of their coast.
Quote    Reply

rudel    RE:island defense   6/17/2005 6:36:41 AM
philippines is trying to acquire frigates, lessons learned during world war 2 where amreican pt boats damaged many japanese ships using hit and run tactics, and for massing large amounts of ASM, it would be too costly to sink a few "sacrificial" amphibious ships, it also cannot protect the sea lanes from pirates operating on small vessels,
Quote    Reply

doggtag    pirate deterrence, fisheries patrol, etc.   6/17/2005 12:18:40 PM
FPBs (fast patrol boats) are the way to go here, and frigates are about as big a ship as you want to deploy on these tasks. Here's a suggestion: you want more US cooperation? Inquire about purchasing some of the latest USCG-type cutters (armed with 57mm guns: these are more than adequate, with a maximum range of 17km, for any piracy suppression or warding off unfriendly foreign incursions.) They provide sutiable armament, manpower space, and sufficient deck space for helo ops. Plus, there is room for upgrade potential: light/medium SAMs and SSMs if needed, as well as room to upgrade the sensor suites to accomodate more suitable electronic and sensor assets. There is also the full line of fairly modular MEKO ships, available in all makes, models, and armament configurations. Real question is, what kind of financial resources are you willing to commit to the project? Asking for US military assistance will most certainly mean less-than-state-of-the-art vessels, which may require considerable additional investment to make them suitable for your applications and roles. To determine what would best suit you, a maritime requirement would need to be drafted, dictating what range you wish to perform your operations in (how far from shore, and for how many days on end), what types of weapons you feel would suffice for the roles in question (against pirates with high-speed boats and cargo trawlers, 30mm-40mm guns are more than sufficient. But if you anticipate unfriendly incursion from other nations into your territorial waters, something bigger is needed. If anti-piarcy and fisheries protection is your primary mission, large numbers of small, fast vessels (similar to La Combattante types) are ideal. But if you expect conflict with surrounding neighbors (don't worry: I seriously doubt the UN, and most of the rest of the free world, would allow a chinese occupation to take the Philippines), something more along the lines of the larger MEKOs, armed with 76mm or even 127mm guns, is more preferred. It's hard to figure out what you should buy to suit your needs when you haven't fully established what your naval and maritime priorities are.
Quote    Reply

rudel    RE:pirate deterrence, fisheries patrol, etc.   6/17/2005 12:43:58 PM
what i envisioned was a 50 meter ship,armed with basic aaw capability, I'm impressed with the 35mm millenium AHEAD round, it will serve as the CIWS and main gun, maybe an 8 round VL Barak. The Anti-surface capability would be somewhere in the lines of Penguin ASM or Grabiel. No need for Anti-sub as it would be too fast for torpedoes, just detection for incoming torpedoes.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:pirate deterrence, fisheries patrol, etc.   6/17/2005 1:44:56 PM
With that fit in mind, it sounds like you need to deal with Norway or Israel, not the US. The 35mm AHEADS looks effective, but depending on your current naval guns in service, don't discount the Bofors (tried and true for more than 60 years running) 40mm gun, with its 3P multi-option fuze, which is perfect also for the 57mm series (and certainly should be readily adaptable to 76mm ammunition, I would think.) For the AAW role, Barak series seems good, but don't discount the UK SeaWolf and US SeaRAM systems. If you want bigger, there is ESSM (but also more expensive). Anti-ship/surface attack missiles come in a thousand varieties: there is the Hellfire and Sea Skua lightweights, the Gabriel, Harpoon/SLAM series, and formidable NSM (another Norwegian product like Penguin). I always wondered about a surface-launched Maverick: its 300 pound warhead would be very capable against a number of vessels up to about 25km away if surface launched. What rocket calibers are currently in Philippine military inventory? The current crop of laser seeker heads could be applied to any number of them, as is done with the US APKWS and a similar system developed by Kongsberg. The 70mm rocket family alone has a range out to 12km, so anything bigger could carry a larger warhead much farther. There is also plenty of lightweight ASW available: the US Mk44, 46, and 50 torps, the UK Stingray, Italian models of the US torps, and the MU90 Eurotorp. All of these are 12.75inch diameter, and are fairly easily handled and take up limited space on a vessel. Plus, dunking sonar deployed from a helo is still very effective: you don't need the several-tens-of-millions-of-dollars systems the US outfits its Burkes and SSNs with. As for furthering Pacific cooperation: Singapore plans on deleting all its A-4S Super Skyhawks from inventory. These should be ideal for Philippines coastal missions (light surface attack, light fighter), and should still be useful for at least another decade (by then, more nations buying JSF/F-35 will be unloading still-effective F-16s on the used fighter market.). As for AFVs, several countries have stockpiles of them just wasting away. I suggest making a bid on them somewhere, then inquiring of various nations with support infracstructure on upgrading them (Singapore Engineering, Australia, Turkey, and a few others all have practice with the M113 series). Tanks? Depends what exactly you want: light, medium, or heavy. Even the Dutch upgraded older M24 and M41 tanks into quite useful platforms, with more modern sensors, weapons, and ammunition, as did Israel and Chile with their old Shermans. Again, you don't need the latest multi-million-dollar production MBT if your national requirements suggest an upgraded 20-30 year old AFV will be plenty enough. You just have to shop around and make offers. Approach the ship-building defense contractors, and I'm certain they'll find a way to incorporate your preferred weapons kits.
Quote    Reply

gandalf    Defense against what kind of threat?   6/28/2005 10:48:25 PM
Island Defense is too vague. Are you protecting against encroachment, as in someone trying to take more of the Spratly's or one of the small islands off Sabah? Are you protecting against an actual invasion of inhabited areas? Do you mean fisheries protection? Anti-smuggling? Anti-piracy? Anti-terrorism? Each of these threats have different requirements. Consider what you'd need if China or Vietnam wanted to kick you off one of the Spratly Islands. Rushing 200-400km in 35m boats to fight frigates or destroyers is not something you'd want to do. Small boats are only a show of force if they are a credible threat. Who'd run the C3I for a bunch of small boat in the middle of a large ocean? Without radar, sonar, antiair or the means to see over the horizon, small boats alone would be dogmeat to any larger ship, helicopter or sub. As for these boats being faster then torpedos, it's possible to outrun them but very unlikely. Most small boats can go 45-50 knots, while most torpedos go anywhere from 40-60 knots. If you could detect them far enough you'd have a change, but you'd want a good sonar, probably a towed array from Elbit. Most torpedos use high frequency sonar, hard to detect with a hull array while moving, especially in a small boat. Travelling at speed, most small boats would be blind, and a sub skipper would know immediately position, heading and speed. He (or I suppose eventually, she?) would know when to use torpedos. More likely, the sub skipper would take out the larger ships in a task force, only launching against small boats to break up an assault force or ambush. In shore (30km or less), small boats are a serious threat and would be necessary for easier, numerous tasks like anti-piracy, anti-smuggling and inshore fisheries protection. May as well add anti-kidnapping patrol to the list, although after studying the Dos Palmas incident, the only thing that could have caught up to the kidnappers in time would have to be airborne. So, while the RP should definitely get more small boats, relying on them alone for semi-blue water operations or serious intimidation/defense would be insufficient. Now, should the RP get more large corvettes or frigates? Maybe one modern frigate / large OPV to serve as a command ship with helo capability. Those old Pea class light corvettes (700+ tons) should be modernized and put to better use too. According to "For the years 1996 to 2000, there are P12.4 billion pesos earmarked to buy brand new ships, including one(1) mine countermeasures (MCMV) ship; two(2) search and rescue(SAR) 56 meter ships; six(6) fast attack craft(FACs) with short-range SSMs; two(2) fast attack craft(FACs) with medium-range SSMs; three(3) offshore patrol vessels(OPVs), and two(2) guided missile corvettes." I'd be shocked if these purchases came to pass, but the OPVs are a good call. While I'm sure they don't mean the Meko 200 MPV, that'd be an even better call than something like Meko 100/140 OPV's, considering the amount of disasters that seem to hit the RP in a year. As for gun armament, 40mm is the way to go for commonality. The RP already has plenty of 40mm guns with 12.5km range. Just add 3P capability and modern fire control (radar and e/o). These would be the main anti-missile defense system. I'm convinced that unless you can reach out to 20km or more, most naval SAMs systems are anti-missile by default, as ASMs have much longer ranges than that, and you'd have to be either flying blind or an idiot to fly within 15km of your target. If your talking suicide pilot or SR-ASM/ATGM user, 12.5km is fine. Anti-air within say 20km range? Say high to my vampires. For small multi-purpose guns, pick compatible 20/25mm versions. Twice the range of 50cals, enough to get the attention of boats thinking of making a break for it, versatile loadings (HEI/APDS) and cheap enough ammo to use for warning shots all day long. Now as for APKWS, it's about time. Laser guidance is one of the least expensive forms of precision guidance and FFARs are almost the least expensive rockets. Add auto-target identification and contrast / thermal lock on the lauch platform and you got a versatile, usable guided missile system with 7 or 19 shots per pod. That takes care of your "swarm-protection", pirates/terrorists/smugglers and USVs all in one system, plus some anti-bunker capability near shore. It should be cheap enough to add to Kiowa O/D rotor-mast systems so the MG500s and UH60s can use it. Heck, I could start another thread on APKWS just to cover the possibilities fully. As for ASW threats, lightweight torpedos seem to be standard, but just like the SAM issue, first you have to detect. Then, you have to have at least equal range to threaten the launch platform. Without these 2 prerequisites, you're just an anti-torpedo system, and area which, btw, I think actually has room for innovation a
Quote    Reply

Caznable    RE:island defense   8/27/2005 7:07:11 PM
to lessen the need for frigate and PT boat docks< which more costly to maintain> much better if we supplement this with Exocet or silkworm missile batteries. If we can afford the harpoon that would be great.
Quote    Reply

gandalf    RE:island defense   9/11/2005 9:08:18 PM
Main threats to the Philippines are internal, seperatist and terrorist, in that order. Much farther down the list are actual ship confrontations, where Exocet / Harpoon would be useful (or economical). Tethered aerostats and UAVs would be the ticket - aerostats to detect and screen, UAVs to interrogate and investigate. Armed UAVs like a navalized Hunter II could prosecute as well. In which case, APKWS / Viper Strikes / Hellfires would be the best choices, in decending order, except for price. Hellfires cost $100K and even the APKWS would cost around $10K. The Budget Option - Gun n Run anyone? A belly pod with an M2 and 600 rounds would weigh about 300 pounds, possible, with a 10 round burst limiter. This would be cheap enough operate to go after smugglers, illegal fishing vessels and the like. Swap out the pod with APKWS/Hellfire to go after armed combatants like patrol boats and FAC. Assign 3-4 to swarm corvettes and even frigate sized opponents. With the tendency for light weight superstructures, a 17 pound (or even 10 pound) warhead on the APKWS would cause serious damage, enough to impair function or even take out sub-systems like radar on a ship. A Hellfire could even take out weapons or the bridge.
Quote    Reply

Caznable    RE:island defense   9/13/2005 4:36:44 PM
how bout fast attack boats three manned crew? that would be cheap for maretime patrols with a decent missile system or gun platform
Quote    Reply
1 2