I-Hawk or Hawk XXI SAMs for the Philippine Army?

(Revised November 23, 2016. See bottom of the page for the complete revision history)

A MIM-23 Hawk Missile on Triple Launchers. Photo courtesy of Xuan Fumio Nanjo thru Wikipedia Commons.
A MIM-23 Hawk Missile on Triple Launchers. Photo courtesy of Xuan Fumio Nanjo thru Wikipedia Commons.

A media news article recently said that the Department of National Defense (DND) was considering the purchase of an improved version of the Hawk Surface to Air Missile (SAM) for the Philippine Army (PA).1 The source was unnamed, so this probably was an informal “leak” to the Press. The news is actually a bit confusing as the budget cited for this of P 6.5 billion (USD 144.44 million at the exchange rate of USD 1 = P 45) for 12 units, or an estimated price of USD 12 million each is actually the same as the budget for the planned Shore Based Anti-Ship Missile (SB-AshM) procurement that the DND also revealed a couple of months ago (see my blog, “Shore-Based Anti-Ship Missiles for the Philippine Army“). So either the DND changed its mind to buy SAMs instead of AshMs, or that this is a parallel procurement with the AShMs.

‘The Hawk SAM’
The MIM-23 Hawk SAM is made by the American company “Raytheon” and first entered service with the United States Armed Forces in 1960. It is described as a medium-range SAM and has been quite successful commercially with over 40,000 missiles built over the years and has seen service in the armed forces of at least 22 countries. Credit Raytheon for coming up with an acronym that actually sort of work, as “H.A.W.K.” reportedly means “Homing All the Way Killer”.2 The Hawk is a COMBAT PROVEN system having seen action in almost all of the major wars in the Middle East since the 1960s, and is credited with having shot down at least 74 aircraft throughout its combat career.3 The respected defense publishing company Jane’s reportedly puts the I-Hawk’s single-shot kill probability at 85% based on its combat record, which (if true) is quite good.

It is likely that the DND is looking at two versions of the Hawk SAM for acquisition, and these are either the Improved Hawk (I-Hawk) or the newer Hawk XXI.4 The I-Hawk was the last version in service before the missiles were retired from all of the US armed forces service in 2002, while the Hawk XXI is the latest version being offered by Raytheon in a joint venture with another defense company, Kongsberg. The main difference between the 2 is that the Hawk XXI is a more “compact” system in that it uses only one instead of two search radars, and its main control module is housed in a smaller, self-propelled platform mounted on a Humvee while the I-Hawk uses a towed trailer-type main control module. The Hawk XXI also allows use of more modern missiles such as the RIM-162 Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)5 or the AIM-120 Advanced Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM).6

A typical Hawk battery is actually quite complex, consisting of around 9-10 major semi-mobile towable or self-propelled components:7
– Either an AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel Radar for the Hawk XXI or a Pulse Acquisition Radar (PAR) and a Continuous Wave Acquisition Radar (CWAR) for the I-Hawk – Search Radars for detecting targets.
High Power Illuminator Radar (HIPIR) – Illuminating Radar for tracking targets and guiding the missiles.
Fire Distribution Center (FDC) mounted on a Humvee chassis for the Hawk XXI or a trailer-type unit on an I-Hawk
Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transceiver
Triple missile launcher for the MIM-23 missile or ESSM/AMRAAM launchers
MEP-816 Generators 60KW (400 Hz) each for the missile launchers.
M-390 Missile transport pallets with reserve missiles
M-501 Missile loading tractors.
Bucket Loader

‘MIM-23 Missile’
Although the ESSM or AMRAAM are available options for the Hawk XXI, I think the more realistic option for the Army purchase would be the older MIM-23 missile. The MIM-23 missiles will likely be refurbished by Raytheon/Kongsberg from existing US military stocks and thus would be the cheaper option than the ESSM or the AMRAAM, both of which are still being used at frontline service with the US armed forces. The MIM-23 is guided by the principle of Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH)8 system which, in simplest terms, means a separate radar “illuminates” the target, and a receiver on the missile receives the signal bounced off the target and homes on to it. This is similar to the Terminal Semi-Active Radar Homing (TSARH) guidance system used of the ESSM, but the TSARH guidance is newer and more advanced as it allows illumination of the target only when the missile is near it, giving the target less warning that a missile is already homing in on it.

A day/night Electro-Optical guidance system is also available as back up in case the radar systems are inoperable for one reason or the other. The latest and most capable version of the MIM-23 is the MIM-23K/J and is the culmination of improvements made to the MIM-23 missile over the years which include high resistance to jamming and better performance at low altitude. It has a range of 40 km and a ceiling of up to 18 km. Other physical and performance characteristics of the MIM-23K/J are as follows:
Diameter: 0.37 m
Length: 5.03 m
Weight: 635 kg
Warhead Weight: 74 kg
Speed: Mach 2.5

Despite being an old missile design, the MIM-23 does have advantages of its own compared to newer missile designs like the ESSM or AMRAAM, and the main one is its heavier and more powerful warhead. At 74 kg, the MIM-23’s warhead is 2-3 times heavier than that of the ESSM or AMRAAM, and this means it has a much larger “kill radius” (i.e., the distance from point of burst at which a missile will likely destroy a target), making it theoretically more effective than other missiles with a smaller kill radius. That large warhead also allows it to bring down bigger targets more effectively. In fact, the largest target that a MIM-23 missile has shot down is a Libyan TU-22 Bomber which French forces shot down over the African country of Chad in 1987.

And most important of all for me, the large warhead also enables it to have a limited Anti-Ballistic Missile capability which the ESSM or AMRAAM does not have. Ballistic missiles generally have large, heavy warheads and they travel at a very high speed thus giving them a lot of momentum necessitating the need for missiles with also large warheads to effectively counter them. In fact, the US Marine Corps developed the MIM-23K/J to have anti Theater Ballistic Missile (TBM, or ballistic missiles with ranges between 350 km to 3,500 km)9 capability. We all know that China has a lot of ballistic missiles, and having a SAM system that could also counter that would be a good thing to have.

An AN/APQ-64 Sentinel Radar used on the Hawk XXI. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.
An AN/APQ-64 Sentinel Radar used on the Hawk XXI. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.

While a larger warhead allows a bigger lethal radius and Anti-ballistic missile capability, it also means a much heavier and bulkier missile. Each MIM-23 launcher for example is limited only to three missiles per launcher with a combined weight of at least 1,905 kg, and to have more missiles at the ready one will need to bring around more launchers, with each launcher requiring its own separate vehicle to tow it around.

The MIM-23’s SARH guidance system also means it can only engage 1-2 targets at a time, a disadvantage when dealing with multiple attackers. The older SARH guidance and lack of datalink capability also limits its effectiveness to engage Cruise Missiles or very low flying/terrain-following aircraft from the ground, it won’t be able to engage them until they are visible within the radar’s line of sight, which maybe too late depending on the terrain. In contrast, an ESSM with its TSARH/Datalink guidance or an AMRAAM with its Active-Radar Homing/Datalink Guidance means a surveillance aircraft theoretically can guide it against low flying cruise missiles or aircraft.

‘Targets to be Defended’
The biggest question for me though is, “which targets does the DND and Army intend to defend against using these Hawk missiles?” This is because for me, a system like the Hawk SAM is only “semi-mobile” and not that easy to move around. First is that it has a lot of components (at least 5-6 main components, plus peripheral equipment) necessitating a good number of vehicles to tow all those equipment around. Because of its relative complexity, it is also not a very fast system to setup from one place to the other. Third is because of the number of equipment required it needs a fairly large area to spread all those equipment around.

The Hawk would be ideal for guarding FIXED or STATIC positions, like Airbases, for example, or SEMI-MOBILE assets like those new tow-able Radar Sets we have right now and those additional units we plan on buying. However, I am not so sure about the idea of having Army assets guarding Philippine Air Force (PAF) assets, so I imagine these Hawks could be used to guard Army barracks instead, or strategic targets like Power Stations, Communications Facilities, etc.

However, if the Army intends to use them to guard those Shore Based AShMs, then it would not be a good fit as the SB-AShM units are less complex requiring less equipment to transport and set-up, meaning it will be more mobile than the Hawk AShMs, and it wouldn’t be good to have them being slowed down just because the Hawk SAMs can’t keep up with them. A better “fit” to pair with those SB-AShMs would be something less complex and more mobile (i.e., less and lighter equipment to move around and set up), maybe something that is self-propelled, like the Crotale Mk3,10 for example which can carry its missiles, radars and command center on only 1-2 vehicle chassis. Unfortunately, such systems also will have shorter ranged radars and missiles (16 km for the missile), but if the purpose is for self-defense only, then I think such systems will suffice.

‘Parting Shot’
The MIM-23 Hawk is a good SAM system against aircraft and has anti-ballistic missile capability. It has limited capability against Cruise Missiles, but then again there aren’t many SAM systems that can work effectively against all the three main threats of Aircraft, Cruise Missile and Ballistic Missiles. Most armed forces uses a combination of platforms against all three threats. Besides, it remains to be seen just how good and reliable China’s Cruise Missile are since those missiles require a much more complex guidance system capability.

The Hawk would be a good and relatively cheap way to provide much needed protection for our Airbases and Radar Sites, hence I think the Air Force might want to procure units of their own for this in the future. The Hawk SAM platform is somewhat old, but I am not so worried about long-term logistical support as missiles are generally easier to refurbish than aircraft, hence as long as Raytheon and Kongsberg remains in business I don’t think it will be an issue. Because of its complexity that gives it less mobility and less flexibility, though, I don’t think this will be good fit to defend the planned SB-AShM units. A shorter ranged system that is lighter, less complex, more compact and more mobile would be more ideal to be paired with the SB-AShMs.

I almost forgot to mention that if this purchase pushes thru, it will be another “first” for the Philippines since it will be the first ever Medium Range Surface to Air Missile purchase by the Philippine government since its creation in 1946. We did buy some limited quantities of Very Short Range Air Defense (VSHORAD) systems before in the Mistral SAMs being used to defend Malacanang,11 but this is the first SAM of this size for us. Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of mentioning all these “first” military weapons buys being made by this Administration of President Benigno Aquino, like the first guided Air to Ground/Surface missiles, the first Short Range Air to Air Missile (SRAAM) since the mid-1960s, etc., and now this (I’m just kidding, of course 🙂 ).

A Crotale SAM system mounted on an Towable Chassis. Photo courtesy of Marie-Lan Nguyen thru Wikipedia Commons.
A Crotale SAM system mounted on an Towable Chassis. Photo courtesy of Marie-Lan Nguyen thru Wikipedia Commons.

Revision History:
(1) April 26, 2014: Originally posted.
(2) November 23, 2016: Updated formatting using Markdown syntax; archived links on “The Wayback Machine”; removed reference to the Blowpipe Missile


  1. Improved surface to air missiles hanap ng DND,
  2. Raytheon SAM-A-18/M3/MIM-23 Hawk,
  3. The Deadly Hawk Missile, (https://web.archive.org/web/20160119211911/http://6thbattalion56thartillery.com/The_Deadly_HAWK_Missile.html
  4. Raytheon / Kongsberg Hawk XXI,
  5. RIM-162 ESSM,
  6. AIM-120 AMRAAM,
  7. MIM-23 Hawk,
  8. Active and Semi Active Radar Missile Guidance,
  9. Theatre ballistic missile,
  10. Crotale NG Short Range Air Defence System – France,
  11. The Phoenix Journal, Doris’ Corner – The Roving Eye on Malacanang’s Mistral Missiles p. 18,

41 thoughts on “I-Hawk or Hawk XXI SAMs for the Philippine Army?”

  1. For my own.opinion it is better to have a SAM system with layered defense capability against for ABM, ALACM, AASCM. So this must studied very well because remember we have so many ISLANDs where strategically put this capability but remember also these missiles threat can cruise at low atltitude meaning it can use our mountains to hide. So we must use a proven SAM that has a higher kill capability during war with updated sensors.

      1. The SAM’s would be a great help for radar sites and airbases and harbors but it would also help if we have a hardened bunkers as added protection or hollowed out mountain bases like NORAD and what the Taiwanese have (just in case). The amount of airbases and harbors are so few in between that a first strike will from china is a breeze. We should also invest in fixed missile silo sites that could launch longer range SAMs, cruise missiles in the future of course. By the way just watched CNN’s fareed zakaria and his panel and the conclusion was the US will not help us and would rather help Japan and that the Philippines is a poor country not worth the US attention. I guess we are on our own in the end.

      2. Its the episode yesterday evening (4/27/14). I dont know if the panel was just closed minded or has access to top level info. If it is true then we are screwed. I didnt lke the sfatement he said that the rp will not be assisted because it was poorer than japan.

      3. Bad news for everyone, it looks like the US is not committing to us the same way they are committing to Japan:

        “In Japan, Obama gave a categorical statement declaring that the disputed islands in the East China Sea are covered by their defense agreements.

        In the Philippines, he evaded the question. Obama highlighted the peaceful resolution of the maritime conflict in the region and reiterated US support for the arbitration case the Philippines filed against China.”


        Because of this, we really need to start thinking about increasing the annual budget for our AFP. Even so, it looks to me like its just a matter of time before we lose our Spratly’s territories. The US will pound on the table, scream and shout, make a lot of noise but in the end will fall short of going into a shooting war with China. We will have to do it on our own …

      4. Hi Omar, I cannot possibly agree with the conclusion of those CNN panel. For one, the strategic and economic value of the Spratlys is not just an issue for the Philippines but of the US and the SEA nations too. Even if you take away the RP-US Mutual defense treaty, the Yanks would surely come to the aid of PH or otherwise, their Asia-Pacific Pivot would be rendered meaningless due to the control of China of the whole of WPS. And judging from the interest of the American companies (like Chevron) to exploit the potential of the WPS, ruling out the US interest in the area is a big boo-boo.

        Example of that is this article.


        I know the US is very much aware of the economic wealth and PROMISE of the WPS and they would rather deal with PH rather than China. After all, we’re easy to deal with than China.

        The panel may have been biased against the OBAMA Administration or they may have not considered the strategic value of the Philippines. I do not know but to tag PH as poor country and an inferior 2nd-rate strategic partner of the US is surely a lapse in judgement or is a VERY poor analysis or both.

  2. If we get US radars, then the Hawk is an excellent choise. The Hawk is a proven system, relatively cheap, and has a good 40km range. It may not be as mobile as other systems, but its good for our own purpose given that we are first time users of this kinds of SAMs.

    I also like th Spyder-MR.

  3. With so many equipment to carry its takes time to employ so many crew to fully operate the single SAM. Is this transportable?

    1. I think the individual components of the Hawk missile are light enough to be transportable by aircraft or towed by vehicles, but you will need a couple of trucks, say, maybe no more than a dozen per missile battery, which is quite a lot if you think about it.

  4. nice blog. very informative. that is why i always enjoy visiting this site. I enjoy reading so much. nway good luck to our armed forces to choose the best missile for our defense. thanks sir rhk

  5. Very very nice blog sir very informative and useful. I hope one day you would write an article regarding the possible use of unconventional weapons (such as drones, nano tech, remote controlled mines, use of animals (such as dolphins) against external threat or invasion. I mean as of now we really do not have the necessary conventional weapons to fight conventional warfare toe to toe. So I am hoping that our men in the uniform would have the mind/s (tactics) and creativity (use of unconventional
    weapons) to give the enemy a push, like what the greeks did during the Battle of Salamis.

    1. Glad you liked my blog, Koji, and thanks for the suggestion. I’ll can’t promise to write such an article down the road, but I’ll try if I see something interesting.

  6. The Republic of Korea will continue to improve the business, which is currently the latest Hawk 21 in use.
    Hawk Korea Army KM-SAM (Russia S-300/400 technology adoption) is planning to replace.
    Philippines can give you.

  7. Hawk conventional radar using four, but Hawk 21 is, first, uses only two radars. That is, the detection and tracking sentinel AN/MPQ-64 one X-band phased array radar processing, and three-dimensional aiming AN/MPQ-61 use radar. 30 revolutions per minute, and AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel, 75 km north of 60 targets can be tracked simultaneously. MPQ-61 HIPIR radar targets in close proximity to the low-altitude helps not to lose.
    Hawk 21 is a blast wave hyeonhyeong using the MIM-23K missile warhead, using the same Patriot Ballistic Missile (ABM) abilities. Short-range ballistic missiles, such as Scud missile (SRBM) can intercept. MIM-23K missile is better than the existing 13 km to 20 km altitude interception, and the existing range was increased to 45 km of the 30 km 에서.

  8. Hawk was launched six different systems. Basic Hawk (1959), Improved Hawk (1971), PIP Phase I (1979), PIP Phase II (1983), PIP Phase III (1989), Hawk 21

    1. I think it is still also under consideration, along with the Hawk SAM. But I think the Hawk is cheaper since the missiles will likely be refurbished. The Spyder is more expensive, though, I think USD 55 million per unit if I remember it correctly.

  9. HI RHK, is there really an urgency to guard our airspace from ballistic missiles?

    In my own understanding, it’s the worst the world can expect and I don’t think there is a need for it for China to use one. I am sure the Chinese cannot afford to make war with PH using the non-conventional hardware because that would mean the end of the world for them. For one and for sure the international community will isolate China if that happens. And when a state is isolated, they will be rendered vulnerable and economically helpless although not necessarily powerless just like Cuba, NoKor, Iran and Iraq.

    At this point, China cannot afford economic slowdown because that would mean less money to support their military. And when there is less money for their military, there will be bubble somewhere down the line that’s ready to pop and cave in.

    Even Russia downplayed escalation of the Ukrainian crisis into a full-blown military confrontation because they simply cannot afford it.

    I believe that what the DND are trying to respond to is the bullying of China. And by all accounts, the chinky landgrabbers are sending their ships most of the time as well as their planes in the WPS.

    So, to deter this Chinese military equipments from carrying out this bullying acts, we need those SB AShM System in place to back-up our frontline naval and aerial assets.

    So I am of the view that PhA is not aiming for the kind of MIM-23 (maybe not just yet) but rather the type Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile or the AMRAAM.

    1. Ballistic missiles can also be armed with conventional or non-nuclear warheads, hence there is a possibility that China could use them also against strategic targets (i.e., airbases, harbors, etc.), especially if their Cruise Missiles are not really that reliable or that accurate.

      Hawk XXIs with ESSMs or AMRAAMs would be lighter and more mobile, and would be a good pair for the SB-AShMs. I’m not sure if the budget of USD 12 million per set will be enough, though …

  10. as i read and research this comparison.. i must rather choose the Hawk XXI and it has more capable to counter Chinas missile especially those ICBM and sub standard chinese made missile. It has a wider range of capability as compared to the Hawk I

    1. I have to disagree about the notion about “substandard chinese made missile”. they have a state-of-the-art military technology that rivals that of the US.

      Their only disadvantage, if i may call it, is that their missiles have never been tested in actual battle.

      Without a doubt, China is a superpower by our standards.

      Even without them launching their missiles, they still can overwhelm PH with conventional warfare.

      That’s how strong they are.

  11. Yeah ,i concur…chinese become powerful now a days especially on its military arsenals and its military industries and its capabilties(early 80’s,the chinese df-1,df-2 and and df-3 were on trial stage,at thesame time philippines had santa barbarra project and had bonbong missiles rockets tested at caraballo island,off manila bay),finance by its double digits growth of its economy which started early 80’s (early 80’s,there were still a lot of bicycles on benjing as main mode of transportations and chinese were,still wearing that panjama and kamison,they could not even import fertilizer at that time,so human excreta/feces was one of their main fertilizer for their agriculture.)till 2010,and single digit growth from thence to present.what lead to these chinese economic and military might to this level?… Strong farsighted political will…they have a visionary political leaders who are,after for the progress and self reliant of their own country,even thought that, we calling them communist,they innovating and opening their communistic ideas for the rapidly changing world so that their communistic country could adapt, compete,survive and someday be number one on this globalized world of ours.bottom line,they have a brand new and different kind of political leadership.and you could check that kind and different political leadership on indonesia,malaysia,south korea,singapore,vietnam,taiwan and japan.these countries i mentioned have their own kind brand of politics and leaders that serves their country well.compare that to the phillippines…at mid 80’s,as i mentioned,we have had indegenous missiles project,our economy though better was going down at that time.and look on our political leaders….thesame faces….they are the faces of politicians i grew up with, plus their sons and daughters..and still thesame faces until this time….practicing same old ,outdated dirty politics they are administering ….which is not serving well on our country’s interest but their own personal interest.we called ourselves a democratic country and yet we borrow democratic ideals to the extreme…..this is not democracy….this chaos.from 1986-1992 – a left leaning goverment or should i say many left left leaning politician were in power at that time …they did progress our country.?no…what they have had done was voting out the u.s bases….established political dysnasty…make our present constitutions which hamper progress.a lot of labor strikes lead by left leaning labor groups(on which the left leaning labor secretary-augusto bobbit sanchez, happily sided with those left leaning labor groups)on manufacturing sectors,those manufacturers folded and closed their industrial plants,depriving us to acquired technological know how in industrilization and computer aided industry.so where did they go?in communist china….where labor cost is par cheaper as compare here,so you could make a connection from here,is communist china is funding those left leaning group to sabotage our economy? Until today.? To advance the chinese interest here in the phil?by having a lot of industrial manufacturing base on their own country,the chinese have acquired the technological know how,to make mechanical toys ,then it progress to machinery then heavy machinery ,computers aided industry…until it progress to military industries and that’s where and how the chinese is today…..we need our own brand new leaders and politics that would meet the needs of our country.we lost 20 years (remember,.china was just started growing its economy by mid 80’s and was virtually world isolated,economically and militarily becouse of tianenmen massacre of june 1886)from 1986-2010 to get our acts and visions together,to progress our country…2016 is coming and we need to educate our voters..or else,what we gained little for the last 4 years would be ending for nothing.we have nobody to rely on except ourself ,or else we and our future generations will be just bullied and taken for granted by our allies.

  12. The only good thing the obama trip gave us is the US vs china intimidation neutralization factor. While the US forces fly around the spratlys even if they do nothing the chinese will have no choice but to reconsider their hostile acts. The afp can coordinate with the US forces to act as monitors while resupplying brp sierra madre or act as interference. The only thing is if the chinese become too adventurous and decide to ram or intercept the US vessels then that is the start of an arms build up by the US. I wonder what assets they will deploy? Hope to get to see some f18’s in clark soon.

  13. Yes,it really shows unreliable/ hesistant our allies are….it is manifested on the kinds of politics we have,the pathetic status of our afp and the little economy we have,in short ,we are that much worth as korea and japan, its our fault…as i said ,we are the only one who could help out ourself from the morass state of our country…if were become succcessful and progressive then…and become valuable to them…that’s the only time ,the u.s.a and japan would openly declared their unequivocal support and protection to our country…america would not wage war and sacrifice their own citizens life and interest unless they have valuable national interest to gain with and or if they will attack directly by their enemies, example… American viz a viz mexican war,american vs spanish war,pearl harbor and 9-11 terrorist attack…
    Still we could take advantage our relationships to them by maximizing the acquisition of excess defense war articles, frequent miltary exsercise and harnessing military technology that they could provide on us while at thesame time we are trying to build and progress our economy ,create and established indegenous military industries as well as our defense capabilties….we all have all those nessessary element to attain this goals for our country…we have the educated people,we have the natural resources and we have money to finance those goals as evidence by the money we are loosing on graft and corruptions to our politicians ex…10 billions pesos to napoles alone…and what more from another scam and corruptions that are not yet accounted for,……all just we need to takes this is a good political leaderdship for our country.

  14. the U.S. is not hesistant…unlike Japan it is clear that the islands under dispute with china is under the administration of the japanese govt. and have been under its position until china made its claim. in the west philippine sea dispute it is not only china but several countries including allies of U.S.had overlapping claims. This makes the position of U.S. difficult where to stand on since it might antagonize his other allies if he will just make a unilateral support to the philippines only. further, the issue is still under arbitrary it will be pre-mature if U.S. will make a stand in the WPS. what is comforting that U.S. will come to aid if any of the philippines military component will be attacked by china. but if without any armed confrontation, if china will occupy the disputed areas in the WPS i dont think U.S will intervene unless the international tribunal will decide in favor of the philippines that will now define our territory in which in any occupation or invasion of China this time the U.S. can intervene.

  15. RHK,

    On the sidelights, I have to congratulate you this early for 200K hits of your blog (this blog I mean). I am sure that it took you quite faster to gain your second 100K hits than the first one.

    More power to you!

    1. Yeah, thanks. Just a couple more days and its 200k hits after just 3 months after I hit 100k. I`m glad that a lot of people at least get to read my blogs, and from all over the world, too. This blog so far has exceeded all my expectations …

  16. What our government can do to prevent China from harassing our patrol boats and re-supply boat in stopping the reclamation at our reefs, re-supplying BRP Sierra Madre and arresting Chinese poachers is to request the US to only escort our patrol boats and block Chinese ships from getting near to our boats without engaging China while the PCG do their job. China will never dare to ram US Navy ships to get near to our patrol boats inside our Exclusive Economic Zone. And more so when ITLOS finally makes a decision in our favor, then the US has every right to escort and protect our PCG patrol boats.

  17. I think a combination of MIM-23 Hawk and MIM-104 Patriot SAM Missile batteries are a more effective defense in protecting our military bases against enemy aircrafts and IRBM ballistic missiles.

  18. Why not just buy the spyder system that is being offered to us by israel. It is mobile and has a lot of variety of missiles like python and derby missiles, it also offers the new david’s sling missile giving it the capability of to counter ballistic missiles.

Leave a Reply to Roberts Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.