04/01/2024
Best fighter for the Philippines
The Philippines approved a major military modernization program that should include the acquisition of new multifunctional fighters. Among the main competitors are the Swedish Gripen and the American F-16. Here are three reasons why the Gripen would be a better suited fighter for the PAF.
1: The Philippine scenario is very similar to the Swedish scenario.
Gripen was designed from the beginning to face a more powerful enemy, represented by Russia. Being outnumbered, the Swedish Air Force would not be able to defeat the Russian Air Force in traditional combat, and it's only chance of victory would be through aerial guerrilla warfare. This would include dispersion across secondary runways, such as small airports and even highways, the lowest possible logistical complexity to allow ground support to be provided mostly by low-specialized conscripts and also reduced rearming and refueling times and high operational availability to increase the number of sorties. This is exactly the same scenario as in the Philippines, but with China in Russia's place.
The F-16 was designed for a more traditional scenario. Although the potential enemy was the same, the F-16 was developed to fight with numerical superiority or parity, forming part of a much broader package that included es**rt aircraft, bombers, electronic warfare, sea-launched cruise missiles, and an extensive network of SAM systems protecting its bases. A practical consequence of this philosophy is the greater need for infrastructure and support, such as clean runways and more personnel on the ground, for example.
This means that whoever does not can If you pay for this entire package in which the F-16 is included, you will not be able to get the most out of its capabilities.
2: Gripen can face most Chinese weapons.
The Gripen was designed to virtually face the main Russian aircraft and SAM systems alone. This impacted the operational requirements of your project, such as RCS, datalink, electronic warfare capability, radar range, among others. Yes, the F-16 was also designed for this scenario, but with the difference that it would do so with the support of air superiority fighters, like the F-15, and even stealth bombers.
Considering that most Chinese weapons are of Russian origin or are copies of Russian systems, the Gripen would have no problem facing them. A good example of this was when Thai Gripen Cs destroyed J-11 fighters in BVR combat in the Falcon Strike 2015 exercise, with 41 Chinese fighters shot down and only 9 Gripen lost. An interesting detail is that the Gripen was not equipped with the most advanced missile, the Meteor, nor did it have support from AWACS aircraft. If the Gripen C caused this damage, we can imagine how powerful the new version, the Gripen E, would be.
3: Gripen is properly integrated with the best BVR missile in the world.
Just as important as the fighter are his weapons. They can define the success or failure of the mission.
Gripen is properly integrated with Meteor. The Meteor's main advantage over its competitors is its Ramjet propulsion system, which allows for an extremely long range and constant speed, which results in a large no-escape zone. The exact range is obviously classified, but some sources suggest the possibility of defeating fighter-sized targets at up to 180 km and large targets such as bombers to 300 km. At up to 60 km, no target can escape kinetically.
This creates a major problem for any enemy, as it puts at risk not only fighters, but also airborne early warning planes, tankers, transport planes, signals intelligence planes, and all types of aircraft necessary to maintain a large-scale aerial operation. It provides a capability equivalent to a long-range SAM, but launched from the air, and better, without the political limitations that the Americans impose on the use of their weapons.
Anyway, I could continue listing several other factors, but these are the main ones and the text is already getting too long. If want, I can do part two
