Friday, October 26, 2018

Combat Jet that can Land/Take Off on Graft Prone Highways of DPWH

By Mortz C. Ortigoza


Son of a gun, after some U.S high officials from the White House and Capitol Hill offered the top of the line multiple - role combat jet F-16 Viper to the Philippines, they are using now a Filipina-American F-16 lady pilot United States Air Force Major Monessa Balzhiser nee Catunca (her photo at the bottom of this article) to hype the multi-billion pesos each jet, yes Virginia EACH jet for a squadron (12 Jets), for the Philippines Air Force.
Last month, the maker of multiple - role combat jet Saab Gripen Jas 39 C (P5 billion each) sent not only its Vice President for Communication Robert Hewson but even its "deadly bird" at the Asian Defense & Security (ADAS) 2018/ Arms Expo at the World Trade Center in Pasay City to show off to high officials led by President Rodrigo Duterte, wide eyed Filipino pilots from the air force, and others the plane and its array of lethal missiles it carries.

The JAS, by the way, is the Swedish abbreviation of the aircraft for Jakt (air-to-air), Attack (air-to-surface) and Spaning (reconnaissance) - a feature for three kinds of jets in the past we now called "multi-role" just like what 3-in-1 instant coffee the Filipino pedestrians understand.

 I even have a lengthy video interview there with Saab Vice President Hewson (his and my photo at the bottom here), an Irish guy, where he crowed that the Sweden made aircraft is not only cheaper to maintain but could compete with the F-16 V versus the jets of the Chinks. 

LAND ANYWHERE - Sweden Saab Gripen Jas 39 C jet can land and short take off in Philippines highways so it can effectively fight the Chinese jets that would surely bomb into smithereens those runways in Palawan, Basa, Clark, and Villamor.

One-hour flying the F-16 V cost more than a million peso from our coffer versus Gripen's P350, 000 where the Saab made "messenger of death” can land on 400 meters long RUDIMENTARY highway, with some palay being solar dried by our hard headed farmers, with few crew to assist it compared to the one - engine's  F-16s, and other twin engines jets like F-15 that need two to more than two kilometers of runway.


Compared to F-16V, the old Jas 39, with all the payloads of death, during the Cold War  can take off on the  800 meters feeder road. The latest Jas 39 C or D can take off today less of these meters I mentioned.

Compared to F-16V . Gripen has a short-turnaround time of just ten minutes, during which a team composed of a technician and five conscripts would be able to re-arm, refuel (remember that drum where the Gripen can just suck the fuel from the hose?), and perform basic inspections and servicing inside that time window before returning to flight and shoot the bad guys Chink above. 

Primordially, to a cash strapped NATO Country or No Action Talk Only country Philippines. Gripen is ideal because it provides "50% lower operating costs than its best competitors like the F-16 V.

According to Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting study (2012) compared the operational costs of a number of modern combat aircraft, concluding that Gripen had the lowest cost per flight hour (CPFH) when fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs were combined. The Gripen had an estimated CPFH of US$4,700 whereas the next lowest, the F-16 Block 40/50, had a 49% higher CPFH at $7,000.

One of the other arguments of the pro Gripen jet's proponents is in case war ensued with the Mainland Chinese and our lilliputian air force our runways in Palawan, Basa, Clark, and Villamor will be turned into smithereens by Chinese guided missiles from its ships, long range jet bombers, battle ships, or submarines lurking menacingly at the water of Scarborough in Masinloc, Zambales.

 But it we buy the Gripen, gee whiz, the plane can just land and take off in any national highway built by the Department of Public Works & Highway and keep shooting those Chinese jets above our air spaces. 

Never mind, salamabit, the quality of the pot holed and crack paved concrete as a result of the S.O.Ps given by the contractors to our corrupt congressmen who interceded for the national projects, the Gripen will still land and take off on the hated road and keeps shootin' with its missiles those bad guys in the sky.

What price glory, as the Yanks would tell us in the history books.

***

Moreover, one key aspect of the Gripen program that Saab have been keen to emphasize has been technology-transfer agreements and industrial partnerships with export customers like the Philippines.
According to an article "Gripen and Switzerland: Industrial Partnership", the Gripen is typically customized to customer requirements, enabling the routine inclusion of local suppliers in the manufacturing and support processes. A number of South African firms provide components and systems – including the communications suite and electronic warfare systems – for the Gripens operated by South African Air Force. Wikipedia cited that operators also have access to the Gripen's source code and technical documentation, allowing for upgrades and new equipment to be independently integrated. Some export customers intend to domestically assemble the Gripen; it has been proposed that Brazilian aerospace manufacturer Embraer may produce Gripens for other export customers as well.

*** 

HERE'S the National Interest: 


"The JAS-39 is an excellent low cost fourth-generation fighter. Originally developed in Sweden the 1980s—part of the that nation’s efforts at maintaining a neutral foreign policy stance—the Nordic machine is designed to be relatively cheap, easy to maintain and fight off any potential aggressor.
Those traits have made the Gripen an attractive prospect for many nations including Brazil, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. More countries—deterred by the outrageous price tags of rival machines—are likely to jump onboard the Gripen bandwagon as more advanced derivatives of the Swedish jet enter production. Croatia, Finland, and Bulgaria are but a few possibilities as they begin to look for replacements for ageing hardware.
Sweden started developing the Gripen in 1979 as a replacement for its J-35 Draken and JA-37 Viggen fighters. The basic requirement was a Mach 2.0-class fighter with good short-field performance. Sweden expected to disperse its aircraft in case of an invasion, which meant that the aircraft had to be able to operate from 2,600 feet by 30 feet strips. The jets also had to be serviceable away from the comforts of a proper airbases since the most likely operating areas were going to be highways.
The aircraft that emerged was a single-engine, single-seat, canard design powered by a Volvo-Flygmotor RM12—a derivative of the F/A-18’s General Electric F404-GE-400. It’s a myth that Sweden developed the Gripen entirely on its own, a lot of the technologies like the engine, were outsourced to keep costs down. (Indeed, the use of British components scuttled a potential deal with Argentian) 
Over the years, there have been two previous iterations of the Gripen. The original A and B models gave way to the much-improved C and D model  aircraft. Saab is currently developing an advanced next-generation Gripen model called the JAS-39E/F Gripen NG that is likely to be delivered to the Swedish air force in 2018. It will also fly with Brazil’s air force.

READ MY OTHER ARTICLE:




Image may contain: 1 person, text
Filipina-American F-16 lady pilot United States Air Force Major Monessa Balzhiser nee Catunca




Image may contain: 2 people, including Mar C. Ortigoza, people sitting
Author being shown by Saab Gripen Vice President for Communication Robert Hewson the  mock- up display of multiple role fighter  multi-billion pesos Gripen Jas 39 C and its vaunted long range fire and forget Robot System (RBS) 15 anti-ship missile at the three-day arms expo dubbed as Asian Defense & Security (ADAS) 2018 held recently at the World Trade Center in Pasay City, Philippines.


(You can read my selected columns at http://mortzortigoza.blogspot.com and articles at Pangasinan News Aro. You can send comments too at totomortz@yahoo.com)

11 comments:

  1. Jason Brian: but does it have range to fly to WPS?

    Jc Pangilinan: maybe with an external drop tanks

    Jason Brian: that limits weapon stores

    JC Dacillo: to have an effective range to WPS , Gripen needs to carry 2 External Drop Tanks . That will eat up 2 of the 7 hardpoints of the Gripen. Given that i think Gripen can only carry 4 AAMs in that config.

    JC Dacillo: F-16 with CFTs can cover the WPS without Drop tanks thats giving two more hardpoints to the Viper.

    Jason Brian: JC Dacillo I am wondering if the Saab can get their hands on a much more powerful powerplant for the Gripen C/D would it suffice the PAF's need to protect WPS?

    JC Dacillo :Jason Brian more powerful powerplant means greater fuel consumption. Gripen is great but its internal fuel capacity is low because of its size. That gives it lower range.

    Imaduddin Yusuf No offense, Singapore already conducted such training with falcon and eagle in highway
    Carlos Roderick de Leon: Imaduddin Yusuf likewise Indians are doing it with their current crop of MRF since November 2016 and Swiss Air Force in CH starting with their F5 Tigres and right with FA18

    Imaduddin Yusuf: Almost all fighter plane can land on paved field, as long as no wire or telephone cable hanging around.

    Tan Tian Cai: Indeed. Well said Imaduddin Yusuf. It's called EX Torrent. Alternate runway exercise. Conducted every 5 years. Last in 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Carlos Roderick de Leon: A lot of folks Tan Tian Cai, Bro are too fixated about marketing brochures. The idea of landing on roadways, highways and non-airfield paved infrastructure are as old as the Cold War.

    Tan Tian Cai; What was forgotten will always be rediscovered when in extremis

    Imaduddin Yusuf: SAAB actually only good at marketing jet plane


    Clint Trinidad: When push comes to shove these fighters wont be fighting over the WPS.. they will be fighting over our mainlands airspace.. if china decides to occupy all islands in the WSP a dozen F16 or gripens wont deter them.. however they will think twice of flying over our mainland air space.. so this debate about the f16 is better than the gripen because it has more legs, in future combat scenerios is neglegible.. i believe to properly patrol the WPS we need more better equip surface assets..

    Gillan Baclayon: The U.S. anticipated this during the Cold War. Hence, interstates could function as emergency runways.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JC Dacillo Gripen: is boastful of the STOL capability, but the Viper can also land on a highway fyi.

    Jason Brian: that is STOL, but not any aircraft can land on "unpaved proper" highways like here in the Philippines.

    Jeremy de Manille: would the Pag Asa Island runaway suffice for it as a runway? I saw in a documentary before that it was made from crushed coral.

    Joe Epstein: lol any aircraft can land on highways

    Tan Tian Cai Big deal. F-16 can do it too

    Tan Tian Cai Meh. Even the bigger F-15 can do it. On the same piece of road in the same exercise in Singapore.

    Joe Epstein : just another marketing from saab. some people are so gullible


    Mark Machiavelli Ortigoza: Saab Gripen can land and take off at 400 meters, how many kilometers an F16 and F 15 need?


    Joe Epstein 400: meters with how much payload?

    Joe Epstein: how much fuel?

    JC Dacillo: 400 meters landing not takeoff. and thats a clean config already.


    MORTZ Ortigoza: Compared to F-16V . Gripen has a short-turnaround time of just ten minutes, during which a team composed of a technician and five conscripts would be able to re-arm, refuel (remember that drum where the Gripen can just suck the fuel from the hose?, and perform basic inspections and servicing inside that time window before returning to flight and shoot the bad guys chink above. Primordially, to a cash strapped NATO Country or No Action Talk Only country Philippines. Gripen is ideal because it provides "50% lower operating costs than its best competitor like the F-16 V.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lemmor Errot Aled : Kung dagdagan nlng sana ang budget why not buy both plane nlng haha

    JC Dacillo: and complicate the logistics , great idea mate



    Aaron Joshua Aldovino: But how many highways do we have that can be used as an alternative runway? Afaik...zero.

    Jason Brian: tollways?

    Adroth SingkoAdroth and 15 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Defense of the Republic of the Philippines. Mark Machiavelli Ortigoza the Gripen isn't the only aircraft that can land on runways. Singapore, for example, even has its F-15s involved in runway exercises

    Richard de Leon: As long as the road is clear and long enough, it shouldnt be a problem

    Paulo Mercado: Lol just what any defense contractor needs a hype man. As what was posted by our Singaporean friend,other planes can land on paved highways. Heck I bet the Russian Flankers and MIGs can do that as well. In any emergency situations any road will do.

    Tan Tian Cai Paulo Mercado: they can indeed do just that. Ask the Belarussians.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jason Brian: Doesn't mean highways, you're snobbing tollways...It's much more proper maintained than highways

    MORTZ Ortigoza tollways my friend are where you pay for your use of the highways we called Express Ways like at NLEX SCTEX created by the Build and Operate and Transfer (BOT). It 's been taught in high .


    Michael EvidenteMichael and 15 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Defense of the Republic of the Philippines. Aaron Joshua Aldovino, all of the new hoghways in the provinces, especially al9ng the nautical super highway, the NLEX, SCTEX, CAVITEX, Star, SLEX could all handle aircraft. You just need a straight portion of road and no powerlines
    2
    Manage
    Like · Reply · 2h
    Gombaljaya
    GombaljayaGombaljaya and 14 others are consistently creating meaningful discussions with their posts. Philippines have lots of airstrip that could be useful in wartime, better to improve those assets than road airstrip.
    Singapore did road airstrip, due to limited land area.

    Romel Miranda; oo na maganda na cya. ano pa ba hinihintay?

    Jason Brian: any sense?

    Richard de Leon; Anong any sense?

    Jason Brian; Richard de Leon so what kung kaya ng Gripen mag takeoff/landing sa unpaved roads, kung ang F16 kaya din..Marketing strategy kasi un..di lahat ng "maganda" the best in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ryan Bracamonte: Its true that not only the Gripen but other aircraft can land on higjways but the difference is that the Gripen only needs a third of the length needed by larger aircraft to land...The Gripen can land on a stretch of higjway 800m long while latget aircraft needs 2400m of length.


    JC Dacillo : were comparing gripen and viper here.

    Ryan Bracamonte :JC Dacillo I know but larger aircraft like the F15S of the Singapore Air Force is featured also to be capable of landing on highways.

    Japheth Abellana: technically any plane can land on highways - it's the length that matters. I remember a discussion in timawa ways back on how the runway length on our airbases can limit what type of aircraft we can field.

    ReplyDelete

  7. Dan Rey Manzano Ramones Saab gripen and f 16 ok na kung anu sa dalawang yan ang tanong kung matutuloy at kelan matutupad ang procurement nayan
    Baka puro biding na namn

    Eugene Rustico Torrento: Hahaha grabe marketing push ah

    Kenneth Nakada Indian sukhois and Migs can do it too in their major highways

    Maki Macawile: Wow! Sales talk!

    Ryan Bracamonte: Its true that not only the Gripen but other aircraft can land on higjways but the difference is that the Gripen only needs a third of the length needed by larger aircraft to land...The Gripen can land on a stretch of higjway 800m long while latget aircraft needs 2400m of length.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ivan Natividad: Pakistan and China is the closest threat for India. In a war one of the main objective of any armed of forces is to take out your enemy air force bases. Countries such as India, Taiwan and others understand this very concept that is why they have to train turning a simple road into road base simply because they have to..

    GombaljayaGombaljaya: Dozens of active airstrip could be alternarive in contingency, i think thats more effective than highway landing and take off.

    Ivan Natividad Gombaljaya: I think its better to have both In case of an all out war against a nation. Its better than sorry, because in a war every resources you have matters. And countries that are practicing this understand it.

    GombaljayaGombaljay: For limited budget country, there should became priority, both ways are ideal condition. Road and Airstrip. But in low budget, you have to

    Rubby Pareja: Germans in WW2 used their autobahn when their airfield have been overrun by bombing by allied forces and after the WW2 NATO Countries they using their highways or Autobahn in Germany and Autostrada in Italy are using emergency airfields incase soviet invasion and In USA their Highways have been design to Emergency Airfields during the Cold War. FYI All MRF can land highway's or expressway. even the highway 54(now EDSA) is design to land aircraft when US comeback in here in 1945.

    MORTZ Ortigoza Saab made "messenger of death” can land on 400 meters long RUDIMENTARY highway, with some palay being solar dried by our hard headed farmers, with few crew to assist it compared to the one - engine's F-16s, and other twin engines jets like F-15 that need two to more than two kilometers of runway.

    Compared to F-16V, the old Jas 39, with all the payloads of death, during the Cold War can take off on the 800 meters feeder road. The latest Jas 39 C or D can take off today less of these meters I mentioned.

    Compared to F-16V . Gripen has a short-turnaround time of just ten minutes, during which a team composed of a technician and five conscripts would be able to re-arm, refuel (remember that drum where the Gripen can just suck the fuel from the hose?), and perform basic inspections and servicing inside that time window before returning to flight and shoot the bad guys Chink above.

    Nel Malabonga: I think what we also need to consider here is that with just 12 aircraft and overwhelming Chinese firepower, will the F-16V even be a factor in a shooting war in the WPS? If the WPS situation turns kinetic, the PAF's 24 combat jets (12 FA-50s + 12 whatever MRF we choose) will already be hard-pressed just to keep the rest of the Philippines secure so what more the outlying outposts way out in the WPS. Most probably, a war in the WPS will mainly be a tussle between the US and China with the AFP just trying to keep home ground safe, given our capabilities.

    In fact, in that situation, an argument could even be made that the Gripens may even have the advantage since it can use Meteor missiles, i.e. receive targeting data from US aircraft then fire off the Meteors from a safe distance where the Gripen's short legs don't matter as much.

    I'm not necessarily saying we should get the Gripen, just that there are more factors involved than just the fuel capacities of either aircraft.

    MORTZ Ortigoza You're right the long range Meteor missile as what Saab Vice President Hewes told me helps the efficiency of the Gripen.


    ReplyDelete
  9. Shōn Michael Mauri: Grabi yung promotion nila sa gripen������

    MORTZ Ortigoza To a cash strapped NATO Country or No Action Talk Only country Philippines. Gripen is ideal because it provides "50% lower operating costs than its best competitors like the F-16 V.

    According to Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting study (2012) compared the operational costs of a number of modern combat aircraft, concluding that Gripen had the lowest cost per flight hour (CPFH) when fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs were combined. The Gripen had an estimated CPFH of US$4,700 whereas the next lowest, the F-16 Block 40/50, had a 49% higher CPFH at $7,000.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MORTZ Ortigoza: Denmark SuedeYung pang tapat dito sa F16 V block 70 ung Gripen Jas 39 E , or called as NG or New Generation. It was the answer of Saab to all the features of Lockheed Martin F16 V. Ung advantage ng Jas 39 C vs F16 the savings Philippines get from it in the long run sa maintenance na 50 percent difference.

    Denmark Suede: 12 mins lang sa combat area ang Gripen C from Basa airbase. PAF needs a capable combat aircraft. Performance or savings? Gripen has yet to prove itself in combat.


    MORTZ Ortigoza: Denmark Suede huwag na tayong gumawa ng tens of billions of pesos na dikes vs flood that kills and damage properties he he he buy na natin ung mahal na F16 V


    Denmark Suede: FMS ng US ang funding for the 12 F16V plus guaranteed tayo ng MLS . Look at what happened to the South African Gripens . Maintenance can be programmed. Either Gripens or F16's maintenance budget my magnanakaw pa din diyan.

    Mortz Ortigoza: Denmark Suede maliit lang iyong FMS natin now compared sa almost $1 billion yearly na U.S Aid noong dito pa kano sa Clark and Subic. The bulk of the expenses would be shouldered by the Philippine government. Our coffer is declining, thanks to the incompetent economic managers and senators who until now sit on the Public Service Acts. Pag F-16 tayo, paano iyong maintenance niyan in the long run. More than a million pesos ang one flight expenses niyan pa lang, sa Gripen C P300K lang. Saka iyong giyera hinde natin kaya iyong doon sa Spratly malayo iyon. Pabayaan na ang U.S vs China doon. Kahit sa Palawan pa ang base mahihirapan tayo dahil malayo iyong mga islets natin doon sa Spratlys. Gripen C is good for the defense of the Motherland against carrier based jets ng Chinese that would lurk diyan sa Scarborough sa Masinloc Zambales

    ReplyDelete
  11. Denmark Suede: Ph cant be neutral in any war you forgot Taiwain is just a stone throw away from Batanes. Combat Loitering time is very important. Kung 12 mins lang ang Gripen for every combat sortie from Basa better not buy any MRF . FMS yes maliit but what the US is offering is a soft loan in the form of FMS. Yung budget na 61B can be realigned to maintenance, plus while waiting for the F16V the US is willing to transfer F16C/D as training platfoRM.

    Denmark Suede :Plus in the event of a shooting war, Sweden is in no position to supply as with spare parts for the Gripens

    Denmark Suede: Talo ang Gripen
    1. ILS guarantee
    2. Combat radius
    3. Access to MLS of the US
    4. Proven in combat ang F16

    MORTZ Ortigoza Denmark Suede Loan tayo sa U.S lalo ng babagsak ang peso vs dollar, kawawa naman si Juan dela Cruz baon na baon, mataas na ang oil, may Train law pa. bakit ipipilit natin iyong mahal na F-16 V na di natin kaya ang maintainance. On spareparts, I don't believe that Saab could not afford to supply spare parts, kung ganoon hindi na bumili ang Thailand, Hungary, South Africa, Sweden, Czeck, United Kingdom, others sa kanila kung may spare parts problem sila

    Denmark Suede: I said in the event of war my problem tayo sa spare parts. Ano ang magagawa ng MRF kung ang combat time niya is just 12 mins?


    MORTZ Ortigoza Denmark Suede 12 minutes combat time dito sa dog fight sa Lingayen gulf, Metro Manila, Zambales? ang giyera na effective tayo dito sa mainland at nearby sea. We could not afford to fly at Spratly, talo tayo doon kahit F16 V pa. malayo iyon. Defense ang…See More

    Denmark Suede : The warfare of today is you seek the enemy before it finds you. Mas superior ang AESA ng F16V it can detect more targets at the same time than the radar of the Gripen. With 12 mins of dog fight? Putok then takbo? Against sa 100+ mins of the F16?

    Denmark Suede: If the combat radius of the Gripen can be increase, then Gripen will be my choice.

    MORTZ Ortigoza Denmark Suede Saab said it has its new version of AESA that could be at par with those sa F-16V. Ang issue dito incase may carrier ang Chinese sa Scarborough, so hangang 12 minutes lang ang flying capacity ni Gripen. Paano iyong BVR na na it shoot in the long distance the Chinese jet? Ang issue dito not F-16 vs. Gripen. Chinese jets that will fly 300 kilometers to and from Lingayen Gulf after Chinese ship based or bomber based missiles destroyed the runways sa Basa, Clark, Villamor, Palawan. Iyong Gripen kahit sa highway ng Lingayen 400 meters lang makalanding and it needs 500 meters to take off and chase the Chinese jets whose pilots think about their fuels. Credible defense for cheap aircraft for PAF? he he

    Denmark Suede Gripen: forgot about the state of Phil highways. They cant compare yan sa mga highways of sweden or australia. 😂😂😂

    MORTZ Ortigoza Denmark Suede sabi ng Saab Rudimentary Road puede na. It means feeder road. kahit may palay pa diyan na nakabilad. Ang problem lang ng pilots ng Gripen iyong itak ng farmers na tataga sa kanya dahil inilipad niya iyong mga solar dried na palay

    ReplyDelete