Keeping all eggs (or fighter jets) in one basket

[Eki]

Keeping all eggs in one basket isn't wise IMO. In the Cold War days, Finland used to buy some of its weapons from the West and some from the East. We had for example Mig-21 fighter jets from the Soviet Union and SAAB Draken fighter jets from Sweden. About 10 years ago Finland decided to abandon them and buy F-16 Hornets from the US. This morning the news say the US has refused to sell Finland missiles for those Hornets. What good are fighter jets without weapons? I think it might have been wiser if we had bought Mig-29s from Russia AND Mirage from France, or even JAS 39 Gripen from Sweden. Now we are totally at the mercy of the US.

[Eki]

Luckily there is a German-Swedish alternative (Taurus) for that JASSM missile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASSM

[Skid Marx]

Correction - you refer to F-16 Hornets. The F-16 is the Fighting Falcon, the Hornet is the F/A-18. If indeed it is the F-16 which Finland has purchased, they don't have to purchase missiles from the U.S. The Israeli Air Force flies F-16s, and their domestic armaments industry (notably Rafael Corp., in conjunction with IAI) has developed a range of homegrown ordnance which can be carried by the F-16, including the Derby and the Python series of missiles.

[Eki]

Correction - you refer to F-16 Hornets. The F-16 is the Fighting Falcon, the Hornet is the F/A-18. If indeed it is the F-16 which Finland has purchased, they don't have to purchase missiles from the U.S. The Israeli Air Force flies F-16s, and their domestic armaments industry (notably Rafael Corp., in conjunction with IAI) has developed a range of homegrown ordnance which can be carried by the F-16, including the Derby and the Python series of missiles.
It's F-18 Hornet

http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index.php?id=168

[janneppi]

Having two different fighter would have been costly and overly complicated. They would need two seperate maintanence crews, parts, training...
In the olden days it was possible because upkeep was cheaper and simpler.
I can't imagine having two different main battle tank systems anymore either. Leopard2's are expensive enough as it is.

I wouldn't have minded Mig-29's myself, they're much more prettier to look at that F-18's. :)

[Eki]

I wouldn't have minded Mig-29's myself, they're much more prettier to look at that F-18's. :)
And living in Hervanta, you have to look at Hornets quite often, not to mention hearing them.

[janneppi]

Unfortunately, luckily they don't fly as close to where i live as some passenger or cargo planes, which nowadays seem to do a 180 degree turn over Tapsantori. :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, has it been said in the papers why the F-18's are not coming with missles?? IF it is any consolation, Canada has the f-18 as well and we don't have all the latest updates for it either. The Yanks keep the good stuff for themselves because they have a policy of looking after their own first, which is only natural.

The Mig might be prettier, and I think it is a hot plane,but I think the Sukoi is even better, and I think better built. One thing though about Russian aircraft in the past, they were hit and miss on their ergonomics and quality control.

If I was in the Finnish gov't, I would be buying whatever the Swedes have. Lets face it, if anything DID Happen where people started shooting, your neighbours are going to be on your side, and knowing their equipment could be a plus. The Saab's have always been excellent fighters.....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Fins should have got Eurofighter Typhoons ;)

In simulated dog fight between the ASAF and RAF. 1 Eurofighter can out manouver 2 F-16's and get in a position to take them down.

Not that i'm biased but I thinks it's the prettiest jet out there :D

http://www.kamrafa.co.uk/assets/images/typhoon.jpg

[veeten]

rather have the F-22 Raptor, myself... :D

http://www.f22fighter.com/Specs.htm

[janneppi]

Eki, has it been said in the papers why the F-18's are not coming with missles?? IF it is any consolation, Canada has the f-18 as well and we don't have all the latest updates for it either. The Yanks keep the good stuff for themselves because they have a policy of looking after their own first, which is only natural.
We've had Hornets for ten(ish) year, this is a case of a hi tech missile, which has been sold only to Australia(outside US), personally i might go for the Taurus because it's not GPS dependant where as the JASM needs more GPS data. And if there is international shooting excersize, i have very little doubts who get to use GPS systems. :)


If I was in the Finnish gov't, I would be buying whatever the Swedes have. Lets face it, if anything DID Happen where people started shooting, your neighbours are going to be on your side, and knowing their equipment could be a plus. The Saab's have always been excellent fighters.....
Grippen is a fine plane if you want to fly it rear first into ground. :p :
As for using the same stuff, we do use Leopard2's which are very common in Europe, Brits and the French are pretty much only ones who don't use it.

We also bought CV90's from Swedes, but i don't trust any war machine that has brushes on top of the hull to wipe you feet before entering. :p :

[veeten]

:D

449

[Eki]

Eki, has it been said in the papers why the F-18's are not coming with missles?? IF it is any consolation, Canada has the f-18 as well and we don't have all the latest updates for it either. The Yanks keep the good stuff for themselves because they have a policy of looking after their own first, which is only natural.

The planes have been here already since year 2000, but Finland hasn't tried to buy any air-to-ground missiles until now.

The papers didn't say why, but they speculated that it may be an indication of that the relations between the US and Finland have chilled in recent years. However it may not be so serious, since the US have sold that missile only to the UK and Australia this far. I can only come up with two reasons:

1.) It's a revenge for Finland not joining the Iraq coalition and the Finnish parliament discussing if it was OK to sell the US a license to build the Finnish-Swedish AMOS mortar system, because the Finnish law forbids selling weapons to countries in war.

2.) It's some sort of political mind-game and blackmailing. Later the news said that the refusal happened already in December, and that yesterday Finland signed some treaty with the US that's supposed to make buying weapons easier.

[Storm]

Putin was here for our Republic Day celebrations (Jan 26) and he signed a deal with govt. for 100+ MiG-35 :eek:
Also HAL is now licensed to make MiG-29 engines....the 29s along with the Sukhoi Su-30 MKi being our main multi-role fighter planes now.

Luckily we did not go begging the US for the F-16s when they were selling them to Pakistan but did get Mirage 2000 and Jaguars from France & the UK.

[Mark]

The papers didn't say why, but they speculated that it may be an indication of that the relations between the US and Finland have chilled in recent years.

Because they've been reading your posts here? ;) :p

[BDunnell]

There are still very serious question marks over the reliability, technical support and ultimate performance of Russian-built fighters, so it should come as no surprise that no Western country has ever purchased them, as extremely capable as they are.

A country the size of Finland only needs one fighter aircraft type - indeed, commonality is the name of the game for many larger air arms too. That type need not be the most capable around, so there is no point going for something like the F-22, nor indeed Eurofighter. The F-18 (not designated F/A-18 in Finnish service, by the way) was an outstanding aircraft when chosen and remains so today, being ideally suited to Finland's needs.

The question of weapons is a thorny one — I don't know much about the current dispute between Finland and the US on this matter, but I would presume that it centres around technology transfer issues. The US has been exceptionally awkward on this point of late, and will stop notching up so many export orders for aircraft and weapons as it traditionally has if it keeps up this stance.

[Roamy]

Eki - just who in the hell are you going to blow up?? or are they just to protect the Nokia factory who produces the No1 cell phone used in terror attacks. Anyway have fun with them but don't come our way as nothing will come close to the raptor. And when it does new cruise missiles will make aircraft obsolete. We will just fire cruises from global monitoring satellites.

But thanks for buying USA we need the money

[BDunnell]

Anyway have fun with them but don't come our way as nothing will come close to the raptor.

Anything with a decent radar will come perfectly close to the Raptor, or any fighter with vectored thrust. I am yet to see any evidence as to how 'super-manoeuvrability' will offer an advantage in today's beyond visual range air-to-air engagements.

[Eki]

I am yet to see any evidence as to how 'super-manoeuvrability' will offer an advantage in today's beyond visual range air-to-air engagements.
Maybe they'll fly zigzag so that Iraqi rifle fire won't bring them down:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250190,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq

"Caldwell did not elaborate, presumably for security reasons. In the past, defensive measures have included flying lower and faster, varying routes and using zigzag patterns over dangerous areas."

[luvracin]

Anything with a decent radar will come perfectly close to the Raptor, or any fighter with vectored thrust. I am yet to see any evidence as to how 'super-manoeuvrability' will offer an advantage in today's beyond visual range air-to-air engagements.

Long range missiles are fast but have trouble making sharp turns. You could use the "Super-Manoeuvrability" to make a last second, super sharp side slip to cause the missile to overshoot.

.....and in these politically uncertain times, pilots will always be asked to make a visual confirmation before firing, so beyond visual range engagements are only going to happen in a fully declared war....

[schmenke]

Eki, has it been said in the papers why the F-18's are not coming with missles?? IF it is any consolation, Canada has the f-18 as well and we don't have all the latest updates for it either. ...

Where does the RCAF acquire the missles for our F/A-18s?

Or do the pilots just open the canopy and chuck hockey pucks at the enemy? :p :

[Eki]

Or do the pilots just open the canopy and chuck hockey pucks at the enemy? :p :
They can also use a hockey stick polo style.

[schmenke]

They can also use a hockey stick polo style.

...for dogfights? :p :

[Eki]

...for dogfights? :p :
I'm strongly against cruelty towards animals.

[BrentJackson]

The F-18 I'm sure has other missile makers than just US makers. The Israelis for starters. The best jets out there are F-22 Raptors, but those cost gigantic $$$. Finland shoulda got into the F-35 JST project like the Yanks, Aussies, brits and us Canucks did. :D

[janneppi]

Were not going to be getting a new models anytime soon, a friend of mine worked in a project where they researched ways to give them 10-15 years more air time than the intented US estimate was. It apparently wasn't even that hard.

[schmenke]

Were not going to be getting a new models anytime soon, a friend of mine worked in a project where they researched ways to give them 10-15 years more air time than the intented US estimate was. It apparently wasn't even that hard.

Similar experience in Canada. The RCAF have been flying the same planes for quite some time now (not sure exactly how many years...) and have been quite creative in significantly extending their life spans.

[Roamy]

well I just don't understand what all you guy are doing with this defense hardware. You don't fight wars - you don't believe in them. and above all who and the hell are you going to fight. Save the money and give it to medicare

[schmenke]

well I just don't understand what all you guy are doing with this defense hardware. You don't fight wars - you don't believe in them. and above all who and the hell are you going to fight. Save the money and give it to medicare

Works for me :up:

And let's not forget education... Many of the world's conflicts would be avoided today through expansion of education through the general public.
Fousto, I believe it's one of your country's founders who once said: "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."

:)

[Tomi]

Better to buy the missiles from elsewhere, and next time when need planes to think twice from where buy those.

[janneppi]

well I just don't understand what all you guy are doing with this defense hardware. You don't fight wars - you don't believe in them. and above all who and the hell are you going to fight. Save the money and give it to medicare
Have you looked at a map of northern Europe lately?
Sweden is right next to us, Estonia isn't far either and it belongs to NATO, all it takes is someone to find oil and US comes here to liberate it in two weeks time. ;)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

well I just don't understand what all you guy are doing with this defense hardware. You don't fight wars - you don't believe in them. and above all who and the hell are you going to fight. Save the money and give it to medicare

It's better to be prepared for war than to be a sitting duck. Who knows what will happen in the near future. Weren't France close to getting a bogotted racist president in there election a few years ago? It doesn't take much for the world to be thrown into conflict.

[Eki]

well I just don't understand what all you guy are doing with this defense hardware. You don't fight wars - you don't believe in them. and above all who and the hell are you going to fight. Save the money and give it to medicare
Well, many people have fire extinguishers and insurances even when they aren't planning to torch their home too.

[BDunnell]

Long range missiles are fast but have trouble making sharp turns. You could use the "Super-Manoeuvrability" to make a last second, super sharp side slip to cause the missile to overshoot.

Thereby slowing down your aircraft, and giving someone else a chance to fire at you while you recover.


.....and in these politically uncertain times, pilots will always be asked to make a visual confirmation before firing, so beyond visual range engagements are only going to happen in a fully declared war....

In which case, super-manoeuvrability is of no advantage.

[viper_man]

Sod all of that, you need to get yourself a SU-37 Terminator.

THE most manouverable (sp) fighter jet.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Sod all of that, you need to get yourself a SU-37 Terminator.

THE most manouverable (sp) fighter jet.

I don't know if that's true?? :confused:

[jonas_mcrae]

the f22 is out of the scale

[BrentJackson]

It's better to be prepared for war than to be a sitting duck. Who knows what will happen in the near future. Weren't France close to getting a bogotted racist president in there election a few years ago? It doesn't take much for the world to be thrown into conflict.

Jean-Marie Le Pen I think is who you are referring to, and he'll never be president unless France has a 9/11 happen there within a few months of an election. If that happens, France's minorities will be headed for Britain in numbers and the EU will be as good as dead.

[luvracin]

Thereby slowing down your aircraft, and giving someone else a chance to fire at you while you recover.



In which case, super-manoeuvrability is of no advantage.

Good thing about the Raptor is that it's got the power to get back up to speed damn quick, and one of the things also about the thrust vectoring is that it keeps the speed wash-off to a minimum(if you're body can take it that is).

If I'm close enough to someone to make a visual ID, then thats precisely when I want maouevrability. I want to be able to out turn, out climb and make wild unexpected manouvers in order to get my nose pointing at him to take a shot.

But we're probably gonna have to agree to disagree.....

[viper_man]

I don't know if that's true?? :confused:

Just google or youtube 'Cobra Manouver' (sp again)

[Rollo]

The best jets out there are F-22 Raptors, but those cost gigantic $$$. Finland shoulda got into the F-35 JST project like the Yanks, Aussies, brits and us Canucks did. :D

It depends what the use is.

Australia intends to replace the F-111 with the F-35 which is utterly stupid for Australian conditions. As a nation with no carriers and the fact that we're in the middle of bloody nowhere, Australia needs aircraft with long-range capability.
The F-111 is currently the fastest combat service aircraft in the world and has a massive operating range. Added to this, he avionics are done in-house by Australians who know what they're doing for Australian conditions.

The definition of "the best" relates more to operating environment than latest technology. No-one would use a GT-40 to carry the groceries home in, unless you're Jeremy Clarkson in which case, you still can't anyway - wrong purpose.

[Quattroporte]

Eki I don't know why you're complaining!

NZ's Fighter Jet Inventory? A grand total of...... zero.

[Storm]

I was watching some news last night and there is a Aero India 07 show in Bangalore where the reporter was taking test flights in a F-16 and F/A-18. They have been flown in from Eye-Rack (so said the test pilot) and as the report mentioned it would have been unthinkable few years ago to see US fighter planes/companies vying to sign deals with the IAF.

[Schultz]

It depends what the use is.

Australia intends to replace the F-111 with the F-35 which is utterly stupid for Australian conditions. As a nation with no carriers and the fact that we're in the middle of bloody nowhere, Australia needs aircraft with long-range capability.
The F-111 is currently the fastest combat service aircraft in the world and has a massive operating range. Added to this, he avionics are done in-house by Australians who know what they're doing for Australian conditions.

The definition of "the best" relates more to operating environment than latest technology. No-one would use a GT-40 to carry the groceries home in, unless you're Jeremy Clarkson in which case, you still can't anyway - wrong purpose.

The F-111's cannot hang around for that much longer whether we like it or not. I've heard lots about ageing air frames and wings. But your right, the F-35 will not have some of the capabilities the F-111 has, but it will be more capable in this role than any other top notch jet fighter/bomber that will be in service in 2013.

I can't see how range will be such a problem. We will have some of the best refuellers in the air by the time the F-35 is delivered add to that the Wedgetail AWAC capability and we will be doing alright. Certainly comparatively to any possible adversary from the north. And who says we won't have a carrier capability? The new amphibius ships to be built by about 2011 will be massive. Most of the options have the capability to carry 6-10 jets. The F35B is not out of the question (at least under a Howard government). Especially with the growing emphasis on the mobility of our military.