All I can say is the AFP numbers doesnt add up based on a $285B budget and a story line more advance than OTL. The only rational explanation that I can come up is AFP tech in 2011 atl is using 1960s otl tech to fill and afford those numbers. The more advance you are the more expensive stuff becomes. And because you are more advance, the less assets you need to fill the roles of a previously less advance tech.
With regards to military assets, Whenever a military creates a doctrine, you dont fill everyone's shoe when others are already filling that shoe. NATO and every other US ally means US fills the high seas control while all the allies fills the littoral and some power projection. This means the Philippines dont need too many carriers unless it wants to fill the role of US Superpower role. For a US sidekick, that nation only needs 0-2 carriers(not necessarily super carrier; something like Charles de Gaulle), at least 2 LHDs.
For a rough estimate of those numbers based on your budget, 1/4 assets of what the otl US have if you want to be more advance than otl, 1/3 of what otl US have if you want the same tech as US otl.
With regards to military tech, the Philippines doesnt need to develop its own. The allies share tech. That is why you see Aegis ABM in multiple US allies in otl or the Harrier used by the US and NATO which is originally British tech. The only time Philippines would need to develop its own if that ally refuses to share tech like how US bans all f22 foreign sales.
