the state of the Philippine navy

[Pachada]

here is a 2001 paper about the sad state of the Philippine navy training. it gives numerous anecdotes about how bad our navy has deteriorated. I wonder, if things have improved since the 1990s:
www.apan-info.net/partners/ph_naval_edu/Related%20Papers/Commandant's%20Paper%20of%20Capt%20Araojo.pdf

Moderator's note:

The document above can now be found here:

TOWARDS A RESPONSIVE EDUCATION AND SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM IN PREPARATION FOR PN MODERNIZATION

[Manokski]

Nice paper.  The first step in addressing a problem is to face it rather than sweep it under the rug.

As to whether things have improved, that's the million dollar question.  Have you seen the courses offered by the PN?  The PN has fixed the Oto Melaras on the Peacocks and the ships capabilities have improved as well.  Are maintenance courses for the Oto Melaro 76mm gun being offered?  Are 25mm maintenance courses being offered?

We still have a very long way to go.  We didnt lose the skills over night and we certainly dont get a modern navy over night. 

[flanker]

Does the Navy possess simulators?

[jetmech]

    The paper made it official what the people in this forum have been discussing since.  The problem with the Peacock's main armament was an example of the leadership's failure to anticipate requirements for new weapons platform. The word foresight should be a qualification imbedded.
    It's like my question with regards to gas turbine training. Now I understand why there were no inputs or suggestions. We might as well forget getting any mothballed USN destroyers or soon to be retired frigates. Maybe that's the reason the gov't cannot negotiate fair deals because of lack of foresight. Of course I'll get some response from posters who will say the US is not the only source of weapons. You are right if the Philippines will put up the money. Right now, the US is IT, if the Philippines  can get its act together.

[cylon]

what a terribly honest assessment froom an operator.  even the navy isnt spared by the ongoing brain drain and it doesnt help that training levels have reaced a pitiful level. is it a sign that funds should be concentrated in the time being for brown water operations (with our existing effective hulls) rather than the (IMHO) more technologically- challenging blue water ops? i mean if our navy could do one thing, at least it could do that one thing effectively.

we are an island nation, can't our politicians read a MAP?
 

[opus]

Still reading.....

Eight and a half years ago, it was no less than the Flag-Officer-In-Command, Philippine Navy, Rear Admiral Mariano J. Dumancas AFP who made a similar comment when he made a honest-to-goodness assessment of our naval capabilities. His stark assessment runs like this, “should the Chinese or Vietnamese naval forces seize the Spratley Islands, the PN ships may not even reach the scene of battle in the South China Sea. They can fire their missiles even before we can see them on radar and we may never know what hit us”.1 Many people would probably say that the FOIC was so pessimistic against the very organization that he leads. But that was the most candid, accurate and realistic assessment of our navy’s capabilities. The FOIC will be committing a grave sin not only before the eyes of God but also towards the Filipino people if he will continue to lie and pretend that the Philippine Navy is capable of defending our country against external threats.

 

Like Cylon says, terribly honest, as it should be.

[flanker]

One thing, the study highlights the necessity of training before buying those modern patrol boats and ships. In this forum, we always talk about buying these, and that. But if you read thoroughly the study, modernization is not that easy. Repairing the Oto Melara gun took 2 years for the navy personnel to study, how much more if we buy those more modern warships?

We even talk of outfitting the Peacocks with missiles. Yet, our men has to be trained first. So, instead of buying ships outright, why not buy simulators first?

[jetmech]

   I don't know the truth about the US plan to lease an FFG-7 class a couple years back. That would have been an excellent training platform for future planning. Expensive simulator? Depends on how do you want to look at it, but it will be available for real time training to all qualified personnel  (no airline, hotel, per diem expenses). Negotiate with JUSMAG for tech reps (paid for by US) to establish training modules until the PN can take over. A fire control technician course for the USN is about 2 years before the recruit joins the fleet. Of course the Philippine gov't has to negotiate which weapon system must be retained (probably skip the CIWS for now). Dual role function, a trainer and a combatant (when needed). It's in the US interest to train because it is just a lease.
   Makes me wonder why the Philippine gov't did not accept the offer for the diesel powered D'Estienne D'Orves class corvettes?

[Adroth]

It's like my question with regards to gas turbine training. Now I understand why there were no inputs or suggestions.

Yup. Hence the importance of "the basics".

[Pachada]

mabuti na lang at yung cyclone class at peacock class ay parehong hinihila ng diesel engines. kung gas turbine pa yun ay naku ....... standbye kaya lagi na lang sa cavite naval base??/

[jetmech]

   To experience the modern day technology of naval warfare, you have to have a platform to use. Like in the paper, how could you have an experienced leader and crew if there is nothing that will give them experience on different tactical scenarios (CIC controlling ASW, AAW, and surface warfare as well as countermeasures)? You cannnot buy simulators if you don't know what weapon system you will have.
   So, which one will be the worst scenario? Build one or lease one? 

[jetmech]

mabuti na lang at yung cyclone class at peacock class ay parehong hinihila ng diesel engines. kung gas turbine pa yun ay naku ....... standbye kaya lagi na lang sa cavite naval base??/

One thing about gas turbines, they can run on diesel fuel as well as other types of fuel. It is not practical to employ gas turbines on small patrol crafts or corvettes.  The PHMs are the only small crafts I know that uses them (different application).

[Wowowiee]

One thing, the study highlights the necessity of training before buying those modern patrol boats and ships. In this forum, we always talk about buying these, and that. But if you read thoroughly the study, modernization is not that easy. Repairing the Oto Melara gun took 2 years for the navy personnel to study, how much more if we buy those more modern warships?

We even talk of outfitting the Peacocks with missiles. Yet, our men has to be trained first. So, instead of buying ships outright, why not buy simulators first?

Most of the articles I've read and encountered about the purchase of military material by other countries seem to include a training package, for example the purchase of Apache helicopters by Singapore and Great Britain..the purchase included the training of trainors and related paraphernalia. 

Of course in cases wherein aircraft and advance electronics is concerned some opt for the provision of simulators. Of course we have to agree that no Nation in its right mind would purchase any "new" (first time in inventory) equipment without considering the training of personnel to use such new acquisitions, an exemption of course can be some African and Baltic states that were caught in unplanned conflict, they made emergency purchases of planes/tanks/helicopters/artillery that were not in their current inventory, they of course did not have any time to wait for their own troops to train on the newly purchased equipment so the procurements included merc pilots and crews.

For our situation which is peacetime, we can afford to wait for our crews to be trained by the Nation that has sold us our equipment..if we are to purchase brand new ships then most probably it would take 2 to 3 years before a ship is completed..enough time for crews to be trained before the ship is turned over. Some suggest purchasing "interim" ships or planes (and further reduce the money available for the purchase of brand new equipment) for training purposes, it's good if the ships or planes to be purchased are as capable (most probably not) and will not really be a factor in training personnel simply because the NEW platforms are totally different and way to advanced.

e.g. Purchasing of A4 skyhawks as interim replacement for F5's to graduate to F16's or Gripens or SU30MKK, that would just be a total waste....just train new pilots on new platforms.....let the veteran pilots fly the heritage or legacy aircraft until they retire..that would be much more efficient.

[flanker]

Our Peacocks could provide our navy personnel a good basic training in a more modern ship minus the missiles. At least we have the three platforms to start with. The other ship from the US which was donated to the Navy is another platform that our naval personnel could use in training.These are far more better and advanced than our World War II ships.

With our present status as a US ally, I think its not hard for the AFP hieararchy to request Washington to provide us with some of the simulators that will compensate our lack of real platforms.

Leasing is a good option at present if the lessor could provide us with training equipment for the personnel. Building a ship will take years while leasing, we can have it the soonest, esp. if we have competent personnel to man it.


 

[Adroth]

The best trainers are those that have actually had a chance to apply the skills that they are teaching. Given that a substantial number of our experienced navy men are no longer with the service, wouldn't it therefore make sense to ask for help from the civilian fleet?

The Philippines contributes hundreds of sailors to the global merchant marine industry. I suspect that there are naval reservists out there who would be more than willing to respond to a Call to Active Duty (CAD) -- and receive the corresponding rank increase -- to help train their regular force counterparts.