Making A Choice Defending The Country’s Seas

“The goal of the AFP Modernization Program reads: the Philippines has the longest coast line in the world next to Indonesia and Canada. The sea is extremely significant from an international, navigational, economic, geopolitical and strategic perspective. There is an urgent need to develop a modern and adequately equipped force that will ensure maritime and air space security.”

– National Security Strategy 2018

The selection of very expensive military assets, which include major weapons and equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles, artillery and tanks, facilities and support structures to protect and defend a country.  It is a very crucial decision a government has to make. It is a classic choice of guns or bread. Have one, then lose or reduce the other. As resources are limited more budget for defense results in less for education, health, public works and the other sectors. Upgrading a war arsenal to make it more effective and lethal faces the same issue. The American Indians who faced the early European settlers had to replace their bows and arrows with flint rifles to protect and secure their lands.  General Emilio Aguinaldo, who at 29 years of age headed the Revolutionary Army, would not rely on Katipunero bolos. His soldiers attacked armories to get Spanish Mausers. While on exile in Hong Kong, he bought arms using indemnity funds intended for the rebels provided by the Spanish colonial government under the Pact of Biak na Bato of 1897. From horses to motor vehicles in WW I or from artillery to missiles, propeller driven aircraft to jet-powered, and unmanned aircraft vehicles, today, the issue of upgrading the country’s armed forces have to be resolved with limited resources and many competing demands under consideration.

Time, Effort, Expense, Significance  (TEES). An oversimplified approach called by the acronym TEES may be applied on any activity or undertaking in an organization, an institution, in business or a policy issue in government. Applying resources, which include time of preparation, action to be taken, material, men and money needed in an activity of such importance where you have the best chance of success and the least failure, achieve the optimal results or most benefits, with the least risks and losses. Some writers in management call it cost benefit, cost effective analysis, or an efficiency test.

Sporting events familiar and popular to Filipinos may exemplify this idea. Let us recall the FIBA world basketball tournament held in Shanghai, China last September 2019 where, the Philippines finished last, No. 32, with five straight losses. (In the 1950s, our team finished among the top 3 in a world basketball tourney held in a South American country). In terms of basketball height, strong bodies and arms to ward off guards and accurate shooting make scores. Height, which most Filipinos lack, is a prime advantage in shooting and guarding.  But not so in professional boxing where Filipinos excel, and weight limits are set — say for featherweight it is 119 to 126 pounds. The winning combinations are fast, strong hitting fists, ability to fend off or evade an opponent’s fists, speed of foot movements, body and head that can take hits. A boxer can fight up or down a weight group like Senator Pacquiao who is a champion in 8 divisions. I cannot count how many world champions the Philippines had since the Americans introduced boxing to the country.

Top players in professional basketball are paid as much as P500,000 a month, imports get more. Big companies spend for costly franchise and support of basketball teams earning big through promotion of their products. Filipino boxers usually come from an impoverished background, do not get regular income (unless given by patrons) and as professionals, earn from fights. But in world feats, win or lose, they are paid in dollars, enough for a comfortable living, to buy a house, and send their children to school. Senator Pacquiao earned a windfall that ordinary mortals can only dream of. He was assessed billions of pesos in taxes, paid hundred millions more, spent hundreds of millions for hospitals, schools, sports facilities and multipurpose buildings in his home province. In both basketball and boxing sports, private parties and sport associations provide funds, and give attention and support. But it is in boxing where Filipino pugilists have had more wins, and become champions in regional and world tourneys. Their big earnings benefit more families and communities and bring more taxes to government. The prestige and honor they give to the country and people are incalculable.

Lessons from World War II. There is a vast ocean of difference between sports, which is a friendly competition, and war, a violent confrontation. In the latter, enormous resources in men and material are harnessed and expended, the means employed are lethal and the outcome may result in countless death, unimaginable destruction, defeat and dishonor to a country. To illustrate further, the above-mentioned approach in decision- making. Let me cite horrifying and disastrous events in WW II that serve as lessons in the acquisition of major military assets.

Germany built its largest battleship, the Bismarck, years before WW II began on 01-September-1939, when German Panzer tanks invaded, and Stuka bombers rained bombs on hapless Poland. The ship was armed with 8 16-inch guns and protected by 14-inch thick armor on the turret and 13 inches on the side. It was built to challenge the British Fleet composed of aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines, and which had almost complete dominance of the Atlantic Ocean and parts of the Mediterranean Sea. On its first offensive foray, it left North Sea in May 1941 bound for the Atlantic. Ten days later, on May 27, the British Fleet located, chased and hit it with a barrage of torpedoes and gunfire from ships and aircraft forcing the ship captain to scuttle the ship. It sunk with him and 2,000 sailors to the bottom of the sea. From thereon, Admiral Donitz, Chief of the German Navy, opted to fight undersea in the vast Atlantic Ocean where stealth, surprise and cunning favored him. A flotilla of submarines, very much smaller than a battleship in size and much less costly to build, destroyed hundreds of cargo ships and their escorts bound for allied countries in Europe, and Soviet Russia later.

On 10-December-1941, 2 days after the Japanese naval task force attacked the U.S. Naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, the Japanese Zeros, armed with torpedoes, took off from aircraft carriers and flew 500 miles towards Singapore island, located and sunk the British battleship, Prince of Wales, and Repulse, a battle cruiser then esteemed impregnable and invincible. Without naval protection, most aircrafts on land were destroyed and threatened with the cut of water supply from Malaysia. The Japanese Imperial Army was now the occupying force. Lt General Arthur Percival, after a few skirmishes, surrendered on 15-February-1942, 2 months after Japan invaded Malaysia. General Percival’s army numbered 100,000 British, Australian, Malaysian and Indian troops versus General Yamashita’s 30,000 soldiers.

After Japan lost 4 aircraft carriers in the Battle of Midway in May 1942, conversion of its biggest battleship (the Shinano of the Yamato class) into an aircraft carrier began, to carry 50 aircrafts, armed with 9 18-inch guns, protected by 26-inch thick armor on the turret and 16 inches on the side, with a speed of 27 knots. Built under high secrecy, the design was to strike at the U.S. fleet which now sailed unopposed in the Pacific after it had decimated the Japanese fleet in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944. Ten days after it was launched, a lone U.S. submarine stalked its prey, ambushed and sunk it with 4 torpedoes on 29-November-1944. The submarine was 1/5 of the battleship in size, and its 4 torpedoes cost less than 1 of the 18-inch guns of the battleship.

Unprotected, unescorted big and slow moving ships despite their powerful and long range guns and protected by very thick steel armor are sitting ducks to torpedoes launched from submarines and aircrafts, and surface ship attacks. Most navies of the world have decommissioned their battleships, which are now moored in harbors as museum pieces. In the closing years of the war in the Pacific, in a desperate gamble to overcome weakness in naval and airpower, Japan launched Kamikaze attacks, piloted aircrafts armed with powerful bombs to explode upon impact on an aircraft carrier, a battleship, and other big ships of the U.S. Navy. It was the harbinger of a new weapon to come: rockets, pilotless air vehicles, missiles, and unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAVs), technically called Remotely Piloted Aircrafts, or drones. General Henry ‘Hap’ Arnold, commander of the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1945, as WW II in the Pacific was ending, had the foresight and said, “The next war will be fought by airplanes without men in them at all…It will be different from anything the world has ever seen.”

Missiles and UAVs. On 18-September-2018, an incident happened that might further influence current thinking on the acquisition of major weapons and equipment for war. In a surprise attack, some 25 land-based low altitude cruise missiles and UAVs or drones armed with powerful bombs hit and destroyed 50% of the oil production of Saudi Arabia from which it derives 70% of its state revenues. While it has supplied only 5% of the world’s demand for oil, its price per barrel shot up in the world market. How effective are air defense systems, detection and warning, and anti-missiles against low altitude flying drones? Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest buyer of military hardware next to U.S. and China. Last year, it bought some $70 billion worth of weapons mostly from U.S and Great Britain. UAVs have civilian and commercial, as well as military and police uses. They are currently used for reconnaissance, surveillance and armed attacks. In the past decades, they were employed in conflicts in the Balkans, countries in Africa, Middle East, and Central Asia. A complete UAV system that includes the cost of 4 unmanned aircrafts, the ground component, and electronics of a Predator model, cost about $40 million. Drones cost much less, are pilotless, and less costly to maintain.

Missiles, not Ships. This was the gist of the statement of Roilo Golez, who died last June. He was former National Security Adviser of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, a 3-term Congressman who strongly proposed missiles to protect the country’ maritime space in response to the P60 billion proposal to buy 4 more frigates, to add to the 2 at present. He was a U.S Naval Academy 1970 graduate, and a younger brother was a former FOIC of the Philippine Navy. He said 6 frigates could not patrol, watch, and protect a vast ocean of the country’s EEZ, 200 nm (370 kms) from the territorial baselines and extended continental shelf (ECS), which extends to 320 nm out to sea to include the Philippine Rise, and which has a combined area of 531,000 kms, far larger than the 300,000 square km of the Philippine archipelago.

(15 years ago as a Guest Speaker at the gathering of PMA alumni in Camp Aguinaldo, Golez compared the capabilities of the armed forces of ASEAN countries and warned that unless we update our military capabilities, we could not effectively protect our territorial space and maritime zones. In the early 1980s, as member of the planning staff at GHQ, we would land on an airstrip in Philippine occupied Kalayaan Island, which is part of the energy rich Spratly Islands and Islets claimed by several countries. We flew over these islands and we did not see any built up structures and nor runways in Mischief Reef and islets).

Anti-Access-Anti-Denial. Sec Golez’ position found support from a Washington based think tank, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA) that asked U.S. and her allies to help the Philippines acquire not frigates, but maritime surveillance aircraft to watch our maritime seas, anti-ship missiles to deter and destroy intruders and anti-aircraft systems to protect our missiles and bases. Planes can cover in just hours much larger areas than ships and their on-board radar can see beyond the horizontal limits of ships. Hidden on land, mobile anti-ship missiles can hit targets a hundred miles away. Cruise missiles in aircrafts can hit surface ships while out of range of their defensive guns. Land based concealed missile batteries can track and hit aircrafts before they can line up their targets. These A2/AD assets weapons and equipment will provide more surveillance and deterrence, and destructible capabilities at a cost much less than P75 billion for 6 frigates. (A2/AD is a strategy to deny an adversary from occupying or traversing an area of land, sea or air. It is not aimed at total prevention but to severely and sufficiently restrict, slowdown and endanger the opponent).

CSBA asked what could P35 billion (US$700 million) buy with less than one-half of the cost of 6 frigates. First, the Navy should buy marine patrol aircraft. Japan had already donated 8 T90 Beechcraft-design MPAs. Add a surveillance capable plane like the C295 ordered by PAF in 2014 from Europe Airbus joint venture with Casa Spain, which cost about $60 million. Less costly planes are CASAs, smaller C212 ($20 million) and Germany Dornier 228 ($12 million). Cost of one C295, two C-212s and 2 Dorniers would total  $150 million including ancillary facilities.  For anti-ship missiles, Sec Golez recommended the purchase from India of 200 BrahMos supersonic AShM capable of hitting targets 300-400 kms away at $3 million each. Hence, the entire EEZ would be covered. The Army was already considering long-range anti-ship missiles. It budgeted $144 million for 12 launchers. It may opt for the 200 km range Type 88 or 12 AShMs by Mitsubishi. The Philippine Navy could get 50 BrahMos ($150 million) or 200 type 88s or 12s. These missile launchers are truck-mounted and mobile. That leaves $200 million towards air defense and fast missile crafts like Indonesia’s KCR missile boats.

In sum, CSBA asked, “Which can monitor our vast seas more effectively and pose risks to intruders: 6 frigates with maybe 20 or so anti-ship missiles of 150-200 km range, costing $1.5 billion total; or 5 marine patrol aircrafts (plus 8 donated by Japan), 250 long and medium range mobile and camouflaged AShMs with air defense and fleets of KCR 40s and 60s, at half the price?”

(The discussions on Sec Golez and CSBA’s proposals, which included a list of A2/AD assets were excerpted from Mr. Ricardo Saludo’s column, ‘To Protect the Seas Get Missiles, Not Ships,’ Manila Times, 29-August-2019).

These military assets have been in the pipeline or under consideration and evaluation as indicated in published reports and from the AFP Modernization Program. The Philippine Army has been evaluating 200 BrahMos AShMs, surface to air missiles, anti-missile warning systems from Israel and other countries, and the use of drones. The Philippine Air Force will complete its order of 12 FA-50 fighter jets and is considering fighter interceptors and radars offered by U.S. and other countries. It offered to buy 5 maritime patrol trainer aircrafts from Japan, and will acquire Scan Eagel UAVs. The Philippine Navy is evaluating proposals to install anti-ship missiles on board the 2 frigates, fast patrol crafts with anti-ship missiles, with longer range, speed of up to 50 knots, and anti-submarine helicopters. Current planning for acquisition of major military assets is from bottom to top, unlike many decades ago when in most cases, purchases/acquisitions would be handed down from ‘upstairs’.

The major services have a much better knowledge and understanding of the environment where their assets will operate, and are aware of the strength and weaknesses of these assets as well as the threats they face. Hence, they are in a much better position to determine the most effective major weapons, equipment and facilities needed to perform their assigned mission and tasks. Many top officials of the DND and AFP have been schooled in management tools like systems analysis, operations research, cost effective analysis, war gaming and simulation, integrated defense planning and other decision-making approaches. Hence, we are assured of sound choices.

This paper is a modest contribution towards achieving a defense goal as envisioned in the National Security Strategy 2018. Let’s get more bang for less buck, and less sitting fat ducks.

About the author: Brig Gen Manuel P Oxales AFP (Ret) was with GHQ Plans in the early 1980s, and Wing Commander in Southern Mindanao. A Golden Aviators Awardee, he has published three books: “Advocacy,” officially a designated reference at the NDCP, Public Safety College and two offices in the Senate; and  “Advocacy Through the years,” a reference of the AFP Education, Training & Doctrine Command; and “Two Stories of the February 1986 Philippine Revolution.” He has an MBA from U.P.; MNSA from NDCP (Distinguished Graduate); and completed the U.S. Industrial College (ICAF) National Security Management program. He was a lecturer at NDCP, Ateneo, and U.P. Graduate School of Business.