Finnish DefMin interested in F-35s, not Gripens

[lbk000]

Hang on just a second. Wasn't Finland back then also fighting an acutely dysfunctional Soviet army suffering from purges? Institutional experience is a huge maker and breaker. Both its Buffalos and G.50s were already considered obsolete designs in 1939 and neither design performed well for their original nations. It's got nothing to do with the machines, it was a combination of circumstances between the Finns being competent and the Soviets being incompetent.
If anything WW2 showed that the Finns were willing and able to do more with less, and I wouldn't interpret the comment as anything more than a show of determination.

But I do think if you couldn't count on the Russians being retarded the next time around then yes, the Finns would want the F-35.

[ricnunes]

Hang on just a second. Wasn't Finland back then also fighting an acutely dysfunctional Soviet army suffering from purges? Institutional experience is a huge maker and breaker. Both its Buffalos and G.50s were already considered obsolete designs in 1939 and neither design performed well for their original nations. It's got nothing to do with the machines, it was a combination of circumstances between the Finns being competent and the Soviets being incompetent.
If anything WW2 showed that the Finns were willing and able to do more with less, and I wouldn't interpret the comment as anything more than a show of determination.

But I do think if you couldn't count on the Russians being retarded the next time around then yes, the Finns would want the F-35.

Don't forget that in 1939 the Soviets despite being more numerous fought mostly with I-15 and I-153 biplanes and the best fighter aircraft available to them during the campaign was the I-16 monoplane. The Soviets also used SB-2 twin-engine bombers. All these Soviet aircraft were more obsolete compared to the Brewster.
Besides, the Finnish Brewsters had up-rated engines and had the heavier Naval equipment (such as tailhooks and life raft containers) removed so they generally had better performance than their American counterparts.

But yes, the F-35 is the only aircraft in the list that can guarantee now and in the future a "high kill ratio" for the Finns.

[Corsair1963]

Hang on just a second. Wasn't Finland back then also fighting an acutely dysfunctional Soviet army suffering from purges? Institutional experience is a huge maker and breaker. Both its Buffalos and G.50s were already considered obsolete designs in 1939 and neither design performed well for their original nations. It's got nothing to do with the machines, it was a combination of circumstances between the Finns being competent and the Soviets being incompetent.
If anything WW2 showed that the Finns were willing and able to do more with less, and I wouldn't interpret the comment as anything more than a show of determination.

But I do think if you couldn't count on the Russians being retarded the next time around then yes, the Finns would want the F-35.

Don't forget that in 1939 the Soviets despite being more numerous fought mostly with I-15 and I-153 biplanes and the best fighter aircraft available to them during the campaign was the I-16 monoplane. The Soviets also used SB-2 twin-engine bombers. All these Soviet aircraft were more obsolete compared to the Brewster.
Besides, the Finnish Brewsters had up-rated engines and had the heavier Naval equipment (such as tailhooks and life raft containers) removed so they generally had better performance than their American counterparts.

But yes, the F-35 is the only aircraft in the list that can guarantee now and in the future a "high kill ratio" for the Finns.

Greg Boyington (WWII Corsair Ace) spoke highly of the Brewster Buffalo. Said it was a good fighter until the USN added a whole bunch of junk to it...

[loke]

Further details of the LADM design have not been disclosed, but he confirms that work on the concept began “a number of years back”. Saab chief executive Micael Johansson adds that the development activity involved engineers at the Saab Technology Centre in Tampere, Finland.

The Swedish air force sent its first Gripen E (aircraft 6002) to participate in the 29-30 August Kauhava show, while a GlobalEye surveillance aircraft also visited the event.

Helsinki has set a budget of €10 billion ($12 billion) for the HX procurement, which will field replacements for its current Boeing F/A-18C/Ds.

“Our package stays within these boundaries,” Skogberg says, with only minor adaptations required at Finnish maintenance facilities. The Swedish proposal also includes personnel training and simulators, a five-year package of in-service support during the new fighter’s introduction from 2025, plus what the company describes as a “substantial weapons package”.

Describing Finland and Sweden as “sister countries”, Johansson says the nations could defend their territories using the Gripen “way out to 2060” should Helsinki also acquire the single-engine type.

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/el ... 90.article

No doubt the F-35 will win this.

Most likely it's not going to happen but from an SA point of view, both Sweden and Finland could benefit from collaborating on together purchasing and operating, say, 4 GlobalEye 6500. Of course the Finnish F-35 will have very good SA, nevertheless the GlobalEye will have some advantages and could also free up the Finnish F-35 for other tasks.

[blindpilot]

.... Of course the Finnish F-35 will have very good SA, nevertheless the [... XYZ ... ] will have some advantages and could also free up the Finnish F-35 for other tasks.

Good post but this last is another example of not "getting" (understanding) Fifth Gen operations. It is trapped in 4th gen mindset. SA is not something that "takes from" another task that needs to be "freed up" to function. It just .. IS ... as a part of the entire framework. All any "XYZ" mission aircraft will do is add to confusion, unless it is plugged into the SA world of the F-35. You don't add EW/SEAD mission aircraft or Defensive AA sorties or ... to an F-35 mission set. That just adds costs and another layer of confusion.

The 4 ship F-35 flight will handle all of that by itself, and provide data to other 4th gen efforts on the side without needing to be "freed up." AWACS type platforms will need to be adapted (plugged into) the F-35 5th gen framework, much like the US Navy and Aussies are doing.

FWIW MHO,
BP

[ricnunes]

Greg Boyington (WWII Corsair Ace) spoke highly of the Brewster Buffalo. Said it was a good fighter until the USN added a whole bunch of junk to it...

Interesting! Actually, I wasn't aware of that

[loke]

.... Of course the Finnish F-35 will have very good SA, nevertheless the [... XYZ ... ] will have some advantages and could also free up the Finnish F-35 for other tasks.

Good post but this last is another example of not "getting" (understanding) Fifth Gen operations. It is trapped in 4th gen mindset. SA is not something that "takes from" another task that needs to be "freed up" to function. It just .. IS ... as a part of the entire framework. All any "XYZ" mission aircraft will do is add to confusion, unless it is plugged into the SA world of the F-35. You don't add EW/SEAD mission aircraft or Defensive AA sorties or ... to an F-35 mission set. That just adds costs and another layer of confusion.

The 4 ship F-35 flight will handle all of that by itself, and provide data to other 4th gen efforts on the side without needing to be "freed up." AWACS type platforms will need to be adapted (plugged into) the F-35 5th gen framework, much like the US Navy and Aussies are doing.

FWIW MHO,
BP

What I had in mind was that Finland will have much less F-35 than what they ideally would like to have, Each F-35 can only be in one place at any one time, and they would need to prioritize what missions they will assign to the F-35 at any time. So perhaps they will give priority to some a2a, a2g and anti-shipping missions in specific regions, Those F-35s will of course also be able to do surveillance and provide SA in those regions where they happen to be at any time, but they cannot provide information in regions they are not physically present; my thinking was that GlobalEyes could help plug some of those "holes". Of course they would need to communicate to the F-35s and all the other nodes, both at land and sea.

How do the Wedgetails communicate with the RAAF F-35? Did the Wedgetails already get MADL integrated? How about the USN and Australians ships, how are they communicating with their F-35s?

[spazsinbad]

AARRGGG AYE ThereBe Secret Squirrel Stuff mebbe meanwhile this article may answer some DISPARATE COMMS Questions:

Link 16 To Tie Legacy Platforms To SDA Satellites
01 Sep 2020 Theresa Hitchens

"WASHINGTON: The venerable Link 16 tactical data network, used by the US and NATO allies, will serve as a key channel for the Space Development Agency’s transport layer satellites being designed as the communications backbone for future all-domain operations.

Link 16 will allow the new satellites to connect with “fighter aircraft like F-16, F-22, and F-35, missile defense networks like PAC-3 and THAAD, weapons systems, and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) networks,” says a Lockheed Martin press release today....

...“Adding Link 16, Integrated Broadcast System (IBS), and eventually Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), will further decentralize communications, so you have fewer single-points of failure,” Erik Daehler, director of Protected Communications at Lockheed Martin Space, told me in an email today. MADL is the stealthy data link designed for and used on F-35s...." [LOTS of details not in this excerpt best read at source]

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/lin ... atellites/

[hornetfinn]

Hang on just a second. Wasn't Finland back then also fighting an acutely dysfunctional Soviet army suffering from purges? Institutional experience is a huge maker and breaker. Both its Buffalos and G.50s were already considered obsolete designs in 1939 and neither design performed well for their original nations. It's got nothing to do with the machines, it was a combination of circumstances between the Finns being competent and the Soviets being incompetent.
If anything WW2 showed that the Finns were willing and able to do more with less, and I wouldn't interpret the comment as anything more than a show of determination.

But I do think if you couldn't count on the Russians being retarded the next time around then yes, the Finns would want the F-35.

That was definitely true for the Winter War in late 1939 to early 1940. After that the Soviet Air Forces gradually improved with better equipment, training and tactics during the following 4 years. Luckily we were able to get more modern equipment, especially the Messerschmitt Bf 109, which we started to receive in 1942. Of course the number of Bf 109s was always small, so the Brewsters, Curtiss P-36 Hawks, and Morane Saulniers had to go against fighters with significantly superior performance like La-5, LaGG-3, Yak-1/3/7. Amazingly Finnish Air Force managed to keep very good exchange ratio of something like 8 to 9:1 even at the end of the war against the Soviet Union.

I think that there were several reasons for that. Finnish Air Force level of training was very high (and still is). We were back against the wall, which definitely helps to get the best out of everybody. Then we mostly fought over Finnish territory which helped and we had good systems and procedures that allowed high level of situational awareness and communications to aircraft. Of course much of the enemy aircraft were bombers and attack aircraft which were easier to shoot down.

I agree that only the F-35 can guarantee to have really significant advantages against current and future threats. Others probably have minor advantages against threat systems and overall might well enjoy fairly nice kill ratios now. But with 60 or so aircraft, having nice kill ratios is not enough IMO. Especially so when threat air defence systems can target our fighters rather far away. F-35 would basically take the threat away automatically through stealth and SA. It's also the one with easily the largest potential for upgrades and clear upgrade path for decades to come.

[ricnunes]

What I had in mind was that Finland will have much less F-35 than what they ideally would like to have, Each F-35 can only be in one place at any one time, and they would need to prioritize what missions they will assign to the F-35 at any time. So perhaps they will give priority to some a2a, a2g and anti-shipping missions in specific regions, Those F-35s will of course also be able to do surveillance and provide SA in those regions where they happen to be at any time, but they cannot provide information in regions they are not physically present; my thinking was that GlobalEyes could help plug some of those "holes". Of course they would need to communicate to the F-35s and all the other nodes, both at land and sea.

And how many times is a GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft more expensive than a F-35A?
I would say that if a GlobalEye is 'X' times more expensive than a F-35A perhaps it would be better to purchase extra F-35As instead of purchasing GlobalEyes.

Or instead and since Finland would always start on the defensive and fight mostly on the defensive and only carrying offensive operations after being attacked and it isn't a very big or huge country (specially compared to its potential 'ofensor', Russia) perhaps it would make much more sense to adquire more advanced and more mobile land based EW radars (in case Finland doesn't have them already) instead of purchasing GlobalEyes.

How do the Wedgetails communicate with the RAAF F-35? Did the Wedgetails already get MADL integrated? How about the USN and Australians ships, how are they communicating with their F-35s?

Like spaz said, they can communicate thru Link 16.

[ricnunes]

That was definitely true for the Winter War in late 1939 to early 1940. After that the Soviet Air Forces gradually improved with better equipment, training and tactics during the following 4 years. Luckily we were able to get more modern equipment, especially the Messerschmitt Bf 109, which we started to receive in 1942. Of course the number of Bf 109s was always small, so the Brewsters, Curtiss P-36 Hawks, and Morane Saulniers had to go against fighters with significantly superior performance like La-5, LaGG-3, Yak-1/3/7. Amazingly Finnish Air Force managed to keep very good exchange ratio of something like 8 to 9:1 even at the end of the war against the Soviet Union.

Aren't you confusing the Winter War (late 1939 to early 1940) with the Continuation War (1941 to 1944)?

Everything that I read about the Winter War or more precisely about the aerial part of it was that the best fighter aircraft that the Soviets had during this same war was the I-16.
For instance the Yak-1 was in introduced into service in 1940, the LaGG-3 introduced in 1941 and the La-5 in 1942. All were too late to have ever seen service during the Winter War which somehow proves that the best fighter aircraft that Soviets had during the Winter War was in fact the I-16.

I know it's wikipedia but I found an interesting article about the subject (Aerial warfare in the Winter War) which seems to be quite accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_wa ... Winter_War

[hornetfinn]

That was definitely true for the Winter War in late 1939 to early 1940. After that the Soviet Air Forces gradually improved with better equipment, training and tactics during the following 4 years. Luckily we were able to get more modern equipment, especially the Messerschmitt Bf 109, which we started to receive in 1942. Of course the number of Bf 109s was always small, so the Brewsters, Curtiss P-36 Hawks, and Morane Saulniers had to go against fighters with significantly superior performance like La-5, LaGG-3, Yak-1/3/7. Amazingly Finnish Air Force managed to keep very good exchange ratio of something like 8 to 9:1 even at the end of the war against the Soviet Union.

Aren't you confusing the Winter War (late 1939 to early 1940) with the Continuation War (1941 to 1944)?

Everything that I read about the Winter War or more precisely about the aerial part of it was that the best fighter aircraft that the Soviets had during this same war was the I-16.
For instance the Yak-1 was in introduced into service in 1940, the LaGG-3 introduced in 1941 and the La-5 in 1942. All were too late to have ever seen service during the Winter War which somehow proves that the best fighter aircraft that Soviets had during the Winter War was in fact the I-16.

I know it's wikipedia but I found an interesting article about the subject (Aerial warfare in the Winter War) which seems to be quite accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_wa ... Winter_War

No I'm not confusing them but I wrote a little too vaguely. I meant to say that what you wrote was definitely true for the Winter War. Soviet forces were poorly trained, inexperienced and ill equipped. However during the Continuation War the Soviets got a lot better equipment, got better training, more experience and developed more sound tactics. Finnish Air Forces still managed about 8 to 9:1 ratio with all the fighter aircraft combined, including Brewsters, M.S 406s, P-36s and some other totally obsolete aircraft. With Bf 109 the exchange ratio was over twice that and naturally much worse with those less capable aircraft. Bf 109G was about equal to the best Soviet aircraft like La-5 and Yak-9. But the Soviets had problems with pilot training and tactics.

But I do agree that we can't presume similar performance these days with roughly equal equipment, training and tactics. We really can't rely on enemy having poor training and tactics. We definitely need decisive technological advantages and I see only F-35 being able to provide that. Other contenders probably are good enough in the short term, but I seriously doubt that will be true for the decades to come. I also think that F-35 would enjoy significantly superior exchange ratio right now but the difference will likely be even bigger against more advanced threat systems.

[ricnunes]

No I'm not confusing them but I wrote a little too vaguely. I meant to say that what you wrote was definitely true for the Winter War. Soviet forces were poorly trained, inexperienced and ill equipped.

Oh, I see. Since you quoted lbk000's post (and not mine) I assumed (wrongly) that you missed my reply to lbk000.

However during the Continuation War the Soviets got a lot better equipment, got better training, more experience and developed more sound tactics. Finnish Air Forces still managed about 8 to 9:1 ratio with all the fighter aircraft combined, including Brewsters, M.S 406s, P-36s and some other totally obsolete aircraft. With Bf 109 the exchange ratio was over twice that and naturally much worse with those less capable aircraft.

The period between the Winter War and the Continuation War happened during the beginning of WWII and from what I see a 'massive events' like World Wars (WWI and WWII) have huge impacts which among may other things results in extremely fast development of military equipment something which during peacetime would never happen just as fast. What I mean with this is that for example an aircraft which was a very good or top technology in 1939 it would be outright obsolete by 1941. An example of this would be the Spitfire Mk I which in 1939 was probably the best (or at least among the best) fighter aircraft of the period but by 1941 the Spitfire Mk I was obsolete, having being replaced by the more advanced Spitfire Mk V.
Obviously with the Brewster Buffalo the situation was similar - by 1939 it was a quite good aircraft (specially with the up-rated engines and without the heavy naval equipment) but by 1941 it was completely obsolete.

Bf 109G was about equal to the best Soviet aircraft like La-5 and Yak-9. But the Soviets had problems with pilot training and tactics.

Here I believe, I have to disagree a bit since and if I'm not mistaken the BF-109G was developed mainly as an interceptor or more precisely to intercept bombers such as the US heavy bombers B-17s and B-24s as well as British heavy bombers (namely the Lancaster) and was also developed as a fighter-bomber. For this the BF-109G was up-armed with more powerful weaponry (namely more powerful guns and cannons) and other equipment and also equipped with better armor. This meant that the BF-109G wasn't as a good dogfighter even compared to the earlier BF-109F and it was generally inferior at this compared to the La-5 and Yak-9.

But I do agree that we can't presume similar performance these days with roughly equal equipment, training and tactics. We really can't rely on enemy having poor training and tactics. We definitely need decisive technological advantages and I see only F-35 being able to provide that. Other contenders probably are good enough in the short term, but I seriously doubt that will be true for the decades to come. I also think that F-35 would enjoy significantly superior exchange ratio right now but the difference will likely be even bigger against more advanced threat systems.

Here, I fully agree with you!

[loke]

What I had in mind was that Finland will have much less F-35 than what they ideally would like to have, Each F-35 can only be in one place at any one time, and they would need to prioritize what missions they will assign to the F-35 at any time. So perhaps they will give priority to some a2a, a2g and anti-shipping missions in specific regions, Those F-35s will of course also be able to do surveillance and provide SA in those regions where they happen to be at any time, but they cannot provide information in regions they are not physically present; my thinking was that GlobalEyes could help plug some of those "holes". Of course they would need to communicate to the F-35s and all the other nodes, both at land and sea.

And how many times is a GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft more expensive than a F-35A?
I would say that if a GlobalEye is 'X' times more expensive than a F-35A perhaps it would be better to purchase extra F-35As instead of purchasing GlobalEyes.

Again you fail to consider operating costs. If they pool with Sweden the GlobalEye operating costs would be very low. I do not know how much it would cost, but I think at least it could be an interesting idea to consider. Normally only larger countries can afford the "luxury" of having modern AWACS; however due to the geography and already existing defence collaboration with Sweden, it would be feasible to have a close AWACS collaboration with Sweden. Whether it would be better to share, say, 4 GlobalEyes with Sweden or buy a couple of extra F-35, neither I nor you have the information or expertise to tell.

NATO countries have long experience in sharing both tanker and AWACS resources, so sharing such resources between countries is already well established, and has been demonstrated to work. Of course this will be different and on a much smaller scale, but the principle has been demonstrated.

How do the Wedgetails communicate with the RAAF F-35? Did the Wedgetails already get MADL integrated? How about the USN and Australians ships, how are they communicating with their F-35s?

Like spaz said, they can communicate thru Link 16.

Exactly as I suspected! GlobalEye also has Link 16. Integration with F-35 should be as straightforward for Globaleye as it is for Wedgetail.

[magitsu]

BAE confirms that the ECRS Mk2 sensor has already been offered to Finland as part of a UK-led campaign promoting the Typhoon for its HX fighter requirement.

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/uk ... 35.article

Aka CAPTOR-E. ECRS Mk1 has been ordered for Germany and Spain early this year. The UK is going for Mk2, so it's not surprising that BAe offers that to Finland as well.

https://des.mod.uk/raf-typhoon-radar-developed/
https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/ ... w-horizons
(more about it)

"In-development radar" is the funny part when remembering CAPTOR-E's saga with EF.

BAE Systems will lead work to integrate the Leonardo UK-developed European Common Radar System (ECRS) Mk2 sensor, with flight-test activities due to commence in 2022 and initial operational capability targeted for 2025.

(from the flightglobal article)