PAF seeks 12 F-16 fighter jets from US

April 19, 2012

Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said Wednesday that the Philippines will seek a squadron of F-16 fighter jets and a third coast guard cutter, communications and electronics jamming equipment as well as modern weapons systems for its two new cutters that is scheduled for delivery.

"We are upgrading the capacity of our armed forces and we are glad that the US government approved our request to acquire those fighter jets", says del Rosario who decline to reveal further details.
The jet deal would be for second-hand F-16s block C/ D with the Philippines paying for reconditioning, maintenance and pilot training which will run for two years, del Rosario added. 

A recent naval stand-off between the Philippines and China has not gone unnoticed by the United States which agreed to immediately schedule high-level talks between Manila and Washington on April 30 to establish the country's “minimum defense posture” against aggressors.

Secretary del Rosario will be accompanied by Defense Chief Voltaire Gazmin who is scheduled to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta in Washington next week to discuss the terms of the grant.  

The Foreign Secretary said that the potential jet deal was raised during a visit last month by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pledged a wide-ranging commitment to its former colony, from military to economic cooperation. 

The Philippines is offering the United States greater access to its airfields in exchange for military hardware necessary for its defense.

The April 30 talks between and among foreign and Defense Officials will precede the meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Philippine President Benigno Aquino later this year who is expected to issue the formal announcement.


  1. What's the source of this blog post, unless it's something credible then this is just another gossip ...

  2. Its also in the papers dude. And if you happen to tune in to Manila's AM radio Thursday, you could also have heard the pronouncement as well.

    But then, there is always our disclaimer.

  3. Which papers would that be ...

  4. We need to find a credible source to this claim, with respect to your blog sir can you post which paper posted this? If this is indeed true..

  5. This news is just like the KAI T/A-50 soft loans gossip! -KFIR from PDFF

  6. This post of yours about the F-16 seems to be taken from an article as it seems to be from a newsreporter? If so, can you please cite what local newspaper and date. We were trying hard to find what papers you got it from to no avail.

    Would help us a lot if you could at least say what specific paper and date of publication.


  7. Oh and please if you cant provide a source then just STFU! At least I have the balls to stand by my personal opinion -KFIR from PDFF

  8. We don't believe you! Stop spreading lies and rumors! -KFIR from PDFF

  9. Hey whoever you are using my PDFF username, stop it! I demand an IP address check here because I'm the original KFIR from that forum. You can ask the mods there for my IP address and it's one and the same as always.

  10. You guys want proof? Then search google:

    Tatamad niyo magtype!

  11. Azkalero,

    Tamad mo magbasa. :-) Only the title is the same. The contents are completely different. Try reading it first.

    The one you posted EVERYONE already knows MONTHS ago.

    The content of this blog is saying it was already approved by US Congress as a response to the request MONTHS ago.

    See now the difference?

  12. PAF is not ready to accept the F-16. This are craft is part of a total defense system and interoperablity with other defense systems such as RADARs, ships, troops and an integrated defense operations center. Further, the technology is so advance that thousands of people skills need to be trained and upgraded. better step would be to procure F-5e Tiger II

  13. 'STOP' Day Dreaming about these F-16's cause it's not happening ...

    1. Stop discouraging modernization. Help fight instead corruption in the military instead of being a publicity stunt seeker.

    2. Who say's I'm discouraging it, all I'm saying is to STOP posting FALSE news and gossips which is very counter productive... What's a publicity stunt seeker, What on earth are you talking about Mr.?

  14. If PAF flew F-5A from 1967-2006


    Ano ba kayo!? Mga engot ba kayo?

    Thailand had its first 10 F-16A in 1998-2001

    It only took a few months umorder na naman sila ng 10 F-16A
    sa sobrang saya nila [ because it was not hard to learn because
    its just like flying an F-5 +more modern HUD and cockpit"

    nagorder pa sila nung 2004 ng 10 F-16A

    Ngayon 50 F-16A nila may 10 F-16C pa sila

  15. My suggestion is that if you can't get an F-16 or F/A-18 from the US, is go to Either France for their used Mirage 2000, F-1's Or go straight to Russia and get a MIG 29, MIG 35 or SU-27. I believe Russia is Philippines best bet for Multi role fighters. The other option is look at Taiwan's AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. As for a CAS Bird, You can't go wrong with the Brazilian Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano. It's a perfect trainer, CAS and COIN bird. I would convert the c-130's to a tanker transport role and look at buying SAAB Erie eye AWACS. For Missile defense, go with a Patriot Missile defense system

    1. sorry but are you drunk or just day dreaming,,,,,the maintenance cost of the things you mention will run the DND budget like a dried up well,,,,,

  16. DND Reports to buy fighter jet elsewhere?

    The Department of National Defense (DND) is buying fighter jets elsewhere after PH proposal to buy F-16 jets hits snafu.

    Snafu is a military slang for Situation Normal, All Fucked Up, which means that the situation is bad, but that is the normal state of affairs.

    “F16 is an aging air asset. If they give us those that are mothballed, you will have to refurbish them. It will cost too much. If the remaining flying time is just three or four years, you are shortchanged,” Gazmin said.

  17. Official statement of Foreign Secretary Albert F. del Rosario regarding the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty.

    Part 1.

    In view of inaccurate information on the subject of whether or not the US is prepared to respond to its commitment to the Philippines under the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty, the Department of Foreign Affairs would like to establish as a matter of record that:

    1. The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) on August 30, 1951, in Washington, D.C.

    2. As stated in the MDT’s preamble, both the Philippines and the US desire to publicly declare, through the MDT, their sense of unity and common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific Area. (Refer to the third paragraph of the MDT’s preamble.)

    3. Article IV of the MDT states: “Each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.”

    4. Article V of the MDT further provides that “an armed attack on either of the parties is deemed to include an armed attack on:

    a. The metropolitan territory of either of the parties, or

    b. On the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, and

    c. Its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.”

    5. On Jan. 6, 1979, US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance in his letter to Foreign Secretary Carlos P. Romulo, cited Article V of the MDT and stated that “… as provided in Article V, an attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific would not have to occur within the metropolitan territory of the Philippines or island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific in order to come within the definition of Pacific area in Article V” (underscoring supplied).

    6. On May 24, 1999, US Ambassador to the Philippines Thomas C. Hubbard wrote a letter to Foreign Secretary Domingo L. Siazon affirming that “the US government stands by its statements in the Vance-Romulo letter of Jan. 6, 1979.” Moreover, in the same letter, Ambassador Hubbard cited US Defense Secretary William Cohen’s statement that “the US considers the South China Sea to be part of the Pacific Area” (underscoring supplied).

    7. On June 23, 2011, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed to Foreign Secretary Albert F. del Rosario during their meeting in Washington, D.C., that the US “will honor its treaty obligations to the Philippines.”

  18. Official statement of Foreign Secretary Albert F. del Rosario regarding the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty.

    Part 2

    8. In her remarks to the media after the said meeting, Clinton declared: “The Philippines and the United States are longstanding allies, and we are committed to honoring our mutual obligation.”

    9. During the question-and-answer session in the same media event, Clinton was asked by a correspondent from ABS-CBN this question: “What will America do if China attacks Filipino forces in the Spratly Islands?” Clinton’s reply was: “Well, as to your first question, the United States honors our Mutual Defense Treaty and our strategic alliance with the Philippines. I’m not going to discuss hypothetical events, but I want to underscore our commitment to the defense of the Philippines.” (Source: “Remarks with Philippines Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario After Their Meeting,” Washington, D.C., June 23, 2011)

    10. On Nov. 16, 2011, Clinton and Del Rosario signed the Manila Declaration which states: “The Republic of the Philippines and the United States today reaffirm our shared obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty.” (Source: “Manila Declaration on US-Philippine Alliance,” Nov. 16, 2011)

    11. On April 30, 2012, during the 2+2 meeting in Washington, D.C., Clinton reiterated that the US “reaffirms our commitment and obligations under the mutual defense treaty.” (Source: “Remarks during Press Availability,” State Department, Washington, D.C., April 30, 2012)

    12. As additional information, under the US Constitution, the US president as commander in chief may commit US armed forces into action overseas although the US president is obliged to notify the US Congress within 48 hours of such action, as provided for under the US War Powers Resolution of 1973. The same resolution requires that such commitment of US armed forces could not go beyond 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without US congressional authorization. This means that a US congressional authorization is needed only if the engagement of US armed forces abroad would go beyond 60 days.

    13. It is important to note that, even in the absence of an actual armed attack against either the Philippines and the US, Article III of the MDT provides that the Philippines and the US, “through their foreign ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this treaty and whenever in the opinion of either of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either of the parties is threatened by external armed attack in the Pacific” (underscoring supplied).

    14. The recently concluded 2+2 meeting, at the ministerial level, is a new mechanism for such high-level consultations.

  19. i think its just another gossip to hype us up,,,,i've read in some article that F16 was not even mention in the 2+2 meeting in DC and after the bilateral talks just today DND had a change of view regarding this plane saying its not wise to have it cause its ageing,,duhhhhhhhh we love 2nd hand stuff,,,,,,,,,or it was really never be offered to us?.....well lets just see what happens,,, when the summer ends.

  20. There are things which are best said by the country's top executive. Let us wait what the President would bring home after his visit to the United States.

    I'm sure, Filipinos would be surely glad.

  21. Suitable for the Missing man formation.