Finnish DefMin interested in F-35s, not Gripens

[loke]

Another article on SEAD:

France, Spain and Sweden are jointly developing the AEA via a European Union initiative to develop an escort jammer to protect packages of aircraft in contested airspace. Specifically, the pod must counter contemporary and emerging SAM systems with engagement ranges of up to 400km – a veiled reference to the S-400 which could greatly restrict EU air forces’ use of stand-off weapons during future conflicts, according to the original AEA solicitation.

While not disclosed, the pod may be effective against radars transmitting in frequencies of 2GHz to 40GHz, encompassing the majority of early warning, ground-based air surveillance, and FC/GCI radars that such aircraft may encounter in a future conflict.

The AEA programme may also reflect the reality that, in future, EU nations might have to perform operations outside NATO auspices if the US is unable or unwilling to offer assistance. Hence, they will require robust electronic attack capabilities to accompany the robust kinetic SEAD assets currently maintained by EU members in the form of the Panavia Tornado-ECR air defence suppression aircraft –flown by Italy’s Aeronautica Militaire and Germany’s Luftwaffe – deploying the AGM-88.

Saab’s EAJP is designed to engage low frequency radars across a 150MHz to 4GHz waveband. Early-warning and ground-based air surveillance radars transmitting in VHF/UHF wavebands are an increasing concern – Russia has made notable investments into such systems with NIIDAR’s Podsolnukh-E and NNIIRT’s 55ZH6M Nebo-M VHF radars which entered service from 2000 being two examples.

Such radars may be able detect aircraft with a low radar cross-section. While not capable of producing sufficient track quality for SAM systems, they could indicate to fighters an area where hostile aircraft may be present. Jonas Grönberg, Saab’s head of emerging EW products, says that the EAJP is an escort jammer designed to get strike packages safely through contested airspace for use “against low frequency threats… to help get a strike package within stand-off range to fire their weapons”. The EAJP has been developed privately by Saab and a prototype is undergoing flight testing. Grönberg says the pod could complete development in the next three years.

At the technical level, debates are emerging concerning the employment of electronic versus kinetic effects to neutralise hostile radars. Saab’s Grönberg believes that in “10 to 15 years’ time it will be much more common that SEAD will be conducted primarily through EW assets directing jamming towards radars and the communications upon which networked IADS depend.”

Grönberg expects the possession of jamming pods to be “much more common than having ARMs,” which could result from the financial considerations discussed above. Nonetheless, he stresses that the choice of attack will be dictated by the desired effect: “Do you just want to suppress enemy radars, or do you want them completely out of the game?”

https://adbr.com.au/feature-suppress-to-distress/

[loke]

More about the AEA:

Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) forms a cornerstone of the European Union’s Common Defence and Security Policy (CSDP). PESCO projects serve to deepen cooperation and resource-sharing on military equipment research and development; acquisition and employment. The latter concerns those programmes under the auspices of the European Defence Agency (EDA), the European Union’s (EU) organisation tasked with improving Europe’s defence capabilities.

The Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) pod was launched in April 2019 with the intention of developing a “pod to be used by EU air platforms in contested electromagnetic environments,” according to the original funding and tender opportunity published by the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch.

The document continued that the AEA “must find, locate and track electromagnetic threats and deliver high power jamming signals in the full radio frequency spectrum used in military operations.”

The publication added that the proliferation of sophisticated ground-based air defences such as Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems with engagement ranges in excess of 216 nautical miles/nm (400 kilometres/km) posed dangers by creating areas where “air power cannot operate or be projected,” with the risk that such weapons could deny “access to large swathes of territory over an EU nation’s airspace.”

This appears to be a thinly-veiled reference to Russia’s Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumf (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler) SAM system. One month before the solicitation was published, it was reported that Russia had deployed an S-400 battery to protect its Kaliningrad enclave in the Baltic region.

The AEA will use electronic attack to protect formations of aircraft against such threats by jamming the latter’s radars. It appears that the initiative is also aimed at easing the dependence of EU nations on the US air defence suppression assets the US Air Force has deployed in Europe, should EU members be involved in future multilateral operations sans the United States.

These capabilities include around 24 General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16CJ Viper Weasel air defence suppression aircraft deployed with the 480th Fighter Squadron, part of the 52nd Fighter Wing, at Spangdahlem airbase, western Germany. These aircraft are equipped with Raytheon’s AN/ASQ-213(V) HTS (HARM Targeting System) to detect and geo-locate hostile emitters, and the Raytheon AGM-88B/C High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) family of air-to-surface weapons to prosecute such targets.

CONOPs and Performance
Once in service, the AEA pod could complement the kinetic SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) capabilities in service with the Luftwaffe (German Air Force), and the Aeronautica Militaire (Italian Air Force). These include 21 Panavia Tornado-ECR jets flown by the Luftwaffe and five similar aircraft flown by the Aeronautica Militaire.

These aircraft can also deploy the AGM-88B/C, and are transitioning to the more advanced Northrop Grumman AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile. In place of the AN/ASQ-213(V) the Tornado-ECR uses Raytheon’s Emitter Locator System which is similar in performance to the HTS.

Over the long term, the Luftwaffe is considering a replacement for the Tornado-ECR with the jet expected to be retired by circa 2030.

In November Airbus offered a variant of its Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft series configured to support the SEAD mission. Reports stated that this variant of the aircraft could be equipped with an escort jammer, for which the AEA could be a prime candidate, along with MBDA’s Spear-EW stand-in jammer. This would allow the aircraft to provide an electronic attack escort for strike packages of aircraft ingressing and egressing towards their targets, and a fire-and-forget jammer which could provide additional electronic protection to aircraft loitering in contested airspace.

Sources close to the initiative have also told Armada Analysis that a variant of MBDA’s Meteor radar-guided beyond-line-of-sight air-to-air missile, configured with a radio frequency seeker to detect and home in on hostile radar transmissions could equip the aircraft. This would be dependent on the development of this missile being financed by Germany or several European nations through the EDA.

No details have been publicly released regarding the technical aspects of the AEA. It is reasonable to assume that it would be capable of detecting, prioritising and jamming early warning, ground-based air surveillance and fire control radars transmitting in a waveband of two gigahertz/GHz to 40GHz.

The inclusion of a digital radio frequency memory could allow the pod to transmit discreet jamming waveforms and use sophisticated electronic attack tactics such as range and velocity gate pull-off and angle deception, to name just three. This will no doubt be in addition to conventional spot and barrage jamming techniques.

An open architecture design will enable the pod to be easily upgraded with software improvements such as new jamming waveforms as and when necessary, while an active electronically scanned array is certain to be used to ensure that multiple threats can be jammed simultaneously.

Furthermore, electronic intelligence collection by the pod will allow the later analysis of new signals of interest encountered during a mission. It is reasonable to speculate that cyber attack functions maybe added to the pod to allow it to transmit malicious code into a radar and potentially elsewhere into a hostile IADS via the radar’s antenna: Cyber attack is fast becoming another arrow in the electronic warfare practitioner’s quiver.

All things considered the AEA looks like an important shot-in-the-arm for European SEAD capabilities at a moment when some of those capabilities are reaching the end of their service lives, and when the long term strategic US commitment to the continent is under debate.

https://armadainternational.com/2020/01 ... -it-hurts/

It seems this jammer pod will nicely supplement the EAJP pod by Saab.

[loke]

PESCO’s updated list of projects states that Spain, France, and Italy are to co-operate in the development of an AEA system to protect EU and NATO air forces on deployed operations. Industry officials familiar with the project told Jane’s and other defence media at the IQPC International Fighter Conference in Berlin that, while not listed in the PESCO announcement, Germany and Sweden are included in the project also.

According to the officials, Spain and Indra will lead the effort, supported by Sweden/Saab, Italy/Eletronicca, France/Thales, and Germany/Hensoldt will develop the system, with a contract expected in early 2020.

According to the PESCO listing, “the system will be interoperable with current and planned EU member states assets and in cross-domain operations. The project covers the design, development, and testing of a multi-jamming capability (including stand-off, stand-in and escort jamming), and will be based in state-of-the-art existing technological cores at European industrial level, including in particular Cyber Electro-Magnetic Activities (CEMA).

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ack-system

[magitsu]

More vaporware which can't be tested before the decision. The Swiss dodged a bullet in this regard.

[loke]

There is another EU project, called REACT:

The project aims at providing a design for Air Electronic Attack Capability (AEAC) and allowing European Union air forces to
conduct operations in a contested anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment responding to low-frequency radars challenges and
countering new sophisticated threats in Electromagnetic Spectrum of Operations. Ultimately this capability will be developed in
form of POD’s (mainly for ESCORT operations) and on board of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (mainly for stand-in operations).
Related PESCO project: Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... N-o5GjpQdw

Clearly the REACT project has the coolest acronym!

[XanderCrews]

More vaporware which can't be tested before the decision. The Swiss dodged a bullet in this regard.

kind of funny watching the "scramble" though. I was assured by so many LO was just a a passing fad, and now there is a terrifying rush to get everyone electronically capable, wide debates about scrambling the enemy vs eliminating them...



Bring back the ALARM its what all "real" Tornados use.

[loke]

More vaporware which can't be tested before the decision. The Swiss dodged a bullet in this regard.

All companies have ongoing R&D activities at all times.

The EAJP prototype was brought to Finland I believe -- was it demonstrated?

[loke]

Finland is spending quite a lot on defense:

https://twitter.com/Bull603/status/1362484607086702595

[hornetfinn]

Anyway Norway should increase the defence budget up to at least 2%, as per NATO agreement. After the transition to F-35 only the Norwegian Air Force will be "acceptable" (assuming there is enough money left to buy missiles, and assuming they can buy SAMs to protect the airbase) -- the navy and army are not. Both are way too small and not enough equipment.

Since when does Finland has a better Navy than Norway??

For instance in terms of "first line" warships/combatants Norway has compared to Finland:
- 6 Submarines while Finland has none.
- 4 advanced frigates - the Fridtjof Nansen class. And again Finland has none.
- 6 advanced and stealthy Skjold class Corvettes. The closest Finnish equivalent are 4 also advanced and stealthy Hamina class Missile boats. On top of this Finland has 4 older Rauma class Missile Boats.

So in terms of Navies, Norway is at a clear advantage over Finland.

In terms of Army, Finland seems to have a slight edge over Norway but generally speaking the equipment is very much lookalike among each army, like for example: Leopard 2 MBTs, CV90 IFVs, M270 MLRS, NASAMS, etc...

Agreed. Norwegian Navy is significantly more powerful than Finnish one right now. Finland will get significant boost for navy with Squadron 2020 meaning 4 Pohjanmaa class corvettes. Those are slightly smaller but otherwise similarly equipped to Norwegian navy 5 Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. Of course Norwegian Navy still has those submarines and P-3 and P-8 aircraft along with actual ASW helicopters. That is pretty decent naval force for such a small country.

Comparatively Finland puts much more emphasis on Army and Norway puts more emphasis on Navy. Not surprising given our geographical differences... Finland has about seven times longer land border with Russia while Norway has huge coastline and national waters/exclusive economic zone. Army equipment is similar mostly, but Finland does have significantly more equipment. Especially so when it comes to tanks, anti-tank systems and air defence systems.

[hornetfinn]

Finland is spending quite a lot on defense:

https://twitter.com/Bull603/status/1362484607086702595

Yes and luckily Sweden and Norway are also increasing their military expenditure and finally correcting past mistakes of driving down their defence.

Norway:
https://sldinfo.com/2020/10/norway-incr ... ense-plan/

The plan details a budget increase in the coming eight years. In 2024 the defence-expenditure will increase to a level of 8,3 billion NOK above the 2020 budget. I In the2021 defence-budget, the Government proposed a spending increase of more than 3 billion NOK.

Sound pretty good to me. Can you tell us if this is going to happen in reality? Norway should easily have the money to do all that.

[loke]

It seems people tend to misinterpret... I never said "Finnish Navy is better than Norwegian" (what a stupid statement that would be).

My point was rather that the Norwegian Navy is much too weak compared to our needs. We have 4 Nansen Frigates, true, but they have some limitations, in terms of VLS cells, for instance.

The current subs are very old and in urgent need of replacement.

Norway has a much bigger economy than Finland, this opens the possibility to spend more on defence. However we are a bitt away from the 2.1% that Finland is currently spending. In addition money is not spent wisely, unfortunately.

[loke]

Well known former Gripen pilot and military analyst Wiseman on the Drive Article:

This is the best article I have read about the JAS 39E Gripen so far. Highly recommended.

https://twitter.com/wisemanswisdoms/sta ... 1964648450

I think this is very interesting -- Wiseman has been known to very clearly state his opinion on Swedish defence systems, materials, structures etc., whether it is positive or negative.

All fighters jets have weak points and strong points, we all know that. I take his comment to mean that he basically endorses what Gripen E is now becoming, and that he believes it will be able to meet the requirements of the Swedish air force.

Given his background and his access to classified info, I think his opinion on Gripen E carries much more weight than the "Gripen naysayers" on this forum. I do believe Wiseman is right and therefore Sweden will most likely be happy with this little bird. It probably does not meet Finnish needs as good as it will meet Swedish needs, so Finland will no doubt go for F-35.

[pron]

It seems people tend to misinterpret... I never said "Finnish Navy is better than Norwegian" (what a stupid statement that would be).

My point was rather that the Norwegian Navy is much too weak compared to our needs. We have 4 Nansen Frigates, true, but they have some limitations, in terms of VLS cells, for instance.

The current subs are very old and in urgent need of replacement.

Norway has a much bigger economy than Finland, this opens the possibility to spend more on defence. However we are a bitt away from the 2.1% that Finland is currently spending. In addition money is not spent wisely, unfortunately.

The process for 4 new subs are ongoing, but this kind of replacement use to take time. Actually late this decade, and it will be the largest investment for the navy ever.

[pron]

Well known former Gripen pilot and military analyst Wiseman on the Drive Article:

This is the best article I have read about the JAS 39E Gripen so far. Highly recommended.

https://twitter.com/wisemanswisdoms/sta ... 1964648450

I think this is very interesting -- Wiseman has been known to very clearly state his opinion on Swedish defence systems, materials, structures etc., whether it is positive or negative.

Can you show me where Wiseman have been critical against the Gripen?
The article you ref. are more or less like a rewritten sales brochure from Saab as I read it.

[loke]

Well known former Gripen pilot and military analyst Wiseman on the Drive Article:

This is the best article I have read about the JAS 39E Gripen so far. Highly recommended.

https://twitter.com/wisemanswisdoms/sta ... 1964648450

I think this is very interesting -- Wiseman has been known to very clearly state his opinion on Swedish defence systems, materials, structures etc., whether it is positive or negative.

Can you show me where Wiseman have been critical against the Gripen?
The article you ref. are more or less like a rewritten sales brochure from Saab as I read it.

It is like a sales brochure from Saab, mainly because the weak points are not highlighted.

The thing is that a number of people of this forum keep claiming that a lot of the sales brochure info from Saab are lies. I don't think Wiseman would have praised an article if he found it to be full of lies. Do you?

Furthermore, I don't think he would have praised the article if he had disagreed with the overall conclusion of the article.

Of course Gripen E has a lot of weaknesses. The question is, what are the strengths of Gripen E? And can Sweden take advantage of those strengths and compensate for the weaknesses? His conclusion is yes, on the basis of what he knows first hand on the aircraft, and of working in the Swedish Air Force for many years. I strongly doubt he is even reading sales brochures from Saab and comparing the articles to them... He is reading the articles and comparing the contents to what he knows first hand about Gripen E.

Anyway, before the usual suspects arrive in this thread: I am aware that Saab marketing is often "over the top", and some of the information they provide is not quite reflecting the reality. I think that's a pity because people like Wiseman who understand the operational requirements of Sweden and also know a lot about Gripen E clearly seems to appreciate the way it is developing, in spite of the slight delay, and in spite of e.g. the weight growth, which if one of the favorite topics of naysayers on this forum.

Also, just to repeat myself: Gripen was initially developed for Sweden. Gripen E is of course better suited for Sweden and Swedish tactics & conops that most other countries. So no surprise if other countries (including Finland) conclude that Gripen E is not the right a/c for them.