***Why not helicopters? Like the Harriers they can pretty much operate without a runway if VTOL is a key feature. And lets not forget the reason behind this project shall we? The new aircrafts will replace our old OV-10 which is used for COIN operations. So the main mission would be against insurgents. Do the MILF Why not helicopters? Like the Harriers they can pretty much operate without a runway if VTOL is a key feature. And lets not forget the reason behind this project shall we? The new aircrafts will replace our old OV-10 which is used for COIN operations. So the main mission would be against insurgents. Do the MILF, ASG, NPA and other local hooligans have SAMs and AAAs?
Can the Helicopters had the same "turn around" capability as the Harrier II? How fast do you think Helicopters can arrived in a battlefield? Its obvious Harrier II is a "jet". So its fast!
You know what? This is really a good question- Do the MILF, ASG, NPA and other local hooligans have SAMs and AAAs? Those you mentioned like MILF, ASG, and NPA was just simple armed groups but now look at them they are wearing uniforms with insignias meaning they are visible "armies" capable of waging war and can handle any weapons, they even had their own "Strike Teams" well trained abroad. Its just a matter of time now, sooner or later they will have AAA guns and shoulder fired SAM. Most of this "armies" are now well finance secretly by some countries. Do you think they would not bring "heavy weapons" to defeat the Phil Government?
***If you're going to argue that in case we come against a foe that can actually shoot an aircraft down, survivability in a high threat environment is important, then again why the harrier? If we are to spend so much money on acquisition of aircrafts and pilot training then why don't we just go with full pledge MRFs like the F-16 or Gripens? They're hell of a lot better than any Harrier in air-to-air and can do pretty much everything the Harrier can in air-to-ground. They are also meant to operate in a high threat environment, as such survivability is not a question.
You just missed the point of argruement, we are talking about close air support meaning ground attack aircrafts not full blown air warefare, F-16 or Gripen are not even a dedicated close air support.
***Also, what do all Harrier operators have in common? AIRCRAFT CARRIERS! With the exception of the Royal Air Force, everyone else operates theirs on board a flat-top. That is where the Harrier make most sense. That is where its STOL/VTOL capability is most needed. Is the Philippines planing to acquire its first carrier anytime soon?
Am sorry to tell you, your actually wrong thats why its STOL/VTOL so it can operate any ground even on top of the buildings. You can even use "power barges" as a flatform. I think you read so much modern warfare. Another why to operate Harrier II is by FOB ( Forward Operating Base) and even "Fire Base". This why the USMC love their Harrier II due to "flexibility" and 24 hours air support it can provide.
***Finally, Why do you think Thailand ditch their Harriers? Sure they bought the old models but they pretty much have the money to buy the newer ones as replacement if they see fit. Not only that, they actually have a carrier to host it. Yet we don't see the Thai's flying harriers now do we? Why? If its so good of a plane why is it that in Asia only India has it? Even then, instead of buying more, India choose the Mig-29k for their new carrier. Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, even Japan and South Korea, all of them decided to pass. If these countries do not see the Harrier to be useful to them then why should the Philippines?
Thailand ditch their Harrier due to "Economic Crisis" and shortage of pilots. Now the next question why India has it? At that time India was building "sea defense" and Harrier was the right aircraft. Next question is why India choose Mig-29k?
Because India had a good Diplomatic standing with Russia, they are willing to give all the support the Indian Air Force needs. Secondly, The US can not allow the India to use the Harrier II against its friendly Pakistan nation. India and Pakistan had this "territorial dispute". Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Japan opted more on fighter - interceptor capable aircrafts, they don't have the use for ground attack aircraft. Korea opted due to the development of their own aircraft.