Notes from a friend on the Combat Management System CMS issue on Philippine Navy frigates:

Notes from a friend on the Combat Management System CMS issue on Philippine Navy frigates:

I'll try to put it in segments. First, my bias: I'm coming from the US point of view which is the Naval Surface Warfare Dahlgren Division. Anything flying in the air is AEGIS Weapons Systems (AWS) for me. I'm automatically biased, based on the weapon systems I grew up from, towards US' AWS vs foreign options including that of Thales. Thales has some systems with the US, particularly with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) but it is partnered with either Northrop Grumman, Lockhead, or Raytheon. >>>Defense should be homegrown.<<< My personal, non-US affiliated take here is that the chosen integrated Combat Mgmt System (ICMS) should be uniform across ALL combat environment (army-air, air force-air, navy-air, marine-air). I am sure you would agree. You may have a buffet of weapons and platforms, but the table they sit on is the same: the same ICMS. This would mean an enduring contract with that supplier. The Hanwa System is based on the Thales system. Period. They are identical, theoretically. Thales was partnered with Samsung which then partnered then sold to Hanwa. Hanwa Thales cut ties with Thales and became just Hanwa. My interpretation is that Hanwa's strategy was to get tech from other defense providers, reverse engineer then develop its own. My guess goes as far as Hanwa doing the same with the AEGIS system. S Korea had a Destroyer Experiment program where they 'bought' AEGIS parts, made a copy of our DDG but then made it their own. (See Sejong the Great-class destroyer). This potentially means Hanwa marries the US Aegis and the EU Thales systems but this could be a stretch. Not too much considering Hanwa is tasked to defend its homeland from its enduring enemy/neighbor/evil sibling NK. Looking after their own, HHI picked the korean Hanwa System to be its sole provider of ICMS. It can boil down to timing: when did the contract get awarded and was it during the time when Thales and Hanwa still had a partnership? Thales, suddenly finding itself on the outside, understandably would do things to get back in the deal. But again, the system, theoretically, should be the same. Is Thales tacticos proven? They are employed by several navies (up to 20 based on what I read) but how many of those have been tested in battle? How about Hanwa? I can say that I've seen Korean ships fire during SINKEX (sink exercises) and their shots are incredibly accurate. If the ships will come from HHI, it makes sense that the CMS also should come from the same, if not, closely tied company/supplier. However, if the PN or PA,PAF, PMC will get new systems, they should be part of the SAME ICMS. This means the same for LEGACY systems including the BRP Del Pilar-class and even the BRP Tarlac-class if she is to be used as an Afloat Forward Staging Base.