Defending Scandanavia (catch all)

[jmm99]

---------------------------------------
Hawk Training for F-18 Pilots

A description of, and projected future options for, the Finnish program to train its F-18 pilots is in a summary of a larger classified study.

KAUHAVA WORKING GROUP
A working group investigating the potential for setting up
a common European flight training center at Kauhava
SUMMARY OF THE FINAL REPORT 16 May 2006

http://www.defmin.fi/files/652/Kauhava_eng-nettiin.pdf

After basic flight training, the pilots move on to Hawk training at Kauhava (home of puukot manufacturer Iisakki Järvenpää). The multi-phased program is graphiced at pp. 6-7 of the report. I am not competent to judge how good this training is. Others are obviously free to comment.

The official view of the Finnish Hornets is found in the article "The Hornet’s ten years in service". The article notes the two-phased upgrade program; and formation of a special international unit of 4 F-18s, with the balance committed to territorial defense.

During the intended 30-year life cycle of the Hornet the Air Force will undertake two upgrades to maintain its capabilities up-to-date and to ensure that functional and structural lifespan requirements will be met. The first of these will take place during 2007 and 2008. The second upgrade, planned for incorporation between 2012 and 2014, will include a study of giving the aircraft air-to-ground capability, among other matters.
...
As laid down in a Government report of 2004, the Air Force is developing a rapid reaction F-18 unit capable of undertaking combined crisis management operations. This four-aircraft unit will be provided with means to operate as part of a multinational detachment and in this way achieve the objectives of missions, the scope of which will be respectively widened. The goal of the preparation work is set at achieving operational capability towards the close of this decade. Training and flight operations related requirements have for the most part been met already, while the building of the unit’s technical support and organisation to match the required schedule is underway.

http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=651

From the official view, the F-18 project has been a great success - so, many thanks (kiitos paljon) to all those involved:

(from above url)
The project turned into a success story

The Air Force commander-in-chief, Major General Heikki Lyytinen expressed his thanks to all personnel involved in the running of the project in a speech that he delivered in the occasion. The project was a success story that was completed ahead of schedule and on budget.

- The final decision to purchase the aircraft made the Finnish Air Force to embark in the most intensive training programme in its history. 150 aircraft maintainers and 15 pilots were trained in the United States. The lessons they learned were subsequently modified to be compatible with the respective Finnish systems.

Lyytinen explained how the arrival of the Hornet brought along major changes in the Air Force’s operations, know-how and capabilities. Its sophisticated technology changed mission preparation procedures, and more importantly, post-flight debriefings and mission analyses. The effectiveness of training was boosted, and avenues opened for the developments of tactical doctrines.

According to Lyytinen, the Hornet has met the Air Force’s expectations as an efficacious and pilot-friendly fighter. The transition into the new era has therefore gone as planned, and the Air Force has established a good operational capability. Experiences obtained during various exercises have shown that this capability is also appreciated internationally.

- As for its flight characteristics and performance the Hornet remains a top-class fighter. The aircraft also has potential for further developments and enhancement of its performance.

Enhancement of capability is the story of the two-phase upgrade process. The official view of that is found in the article "More Capability to the Hornet"

Development of the Hornet

MLU 1 of the Hornet will take place by the end of this decade. The capabilities of the fighter will be enhanced by new air-to-air missiles and the JHMCS associated with the upgrade of the software. Engagement range will be increased by introducing long-range missiles. The fighter’s close-in combat capabilities and the deterrent effect will be also improved.

The objective is to achieve a better exchange ratio in case of a fighter getting unexpectedly involved in close combat due to identification problems or depletion of radar missiles. Situational awareness can be increased by enabling the transmission of air picture even under jamming or interference.

MLU 2, the last upgrade according to the present plans, is scheduled to be implemented at the beginning of the next decade. It includes, among other things, the improvement of the electronic countermeasures suites and, possibly, the procurement of new air-to-air missiles. To increase situational awareness the Hornet will be equipped with new warning systems and upgraded communications and identification systems compatible with those of other nations. The structural lifespan of the aircraft will be ensured up to the planned withdrawal from service of the aircraft.

http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=742

The air-to-ground missile enhancement has been discussed above in the OP.

-----------------------------------------------------
Based on the suggestions stated in responses, the questions seem to be these:

1. How much would it cost the Russians in men and materiel (aircraft) to overwhelm the Finnish Hornets ?

2. Would the Russians be willing to make that expenditure of men and materiel (aircraft) ?

3. Is there any other weapon system that could force a higher cost to the Russians for the same expenditure ?

4. Do the Russians have capabilities in the Leningrad Military District to accomplish # 1 ?

5. If not, what would be required from other districts or their strategic reserve to accomplish # 1 ?

6. Is Finnish training and tactics adequate for the mission (deterrence of Russians by requiring an expenditure in excess of Russian resolve, #2) ?

7. Will the Finnish Hornets (with projected upgrade II) and C4ISR upgrade be adequate for the same mission ?

8. How essential is full air-to-ground missile capability to the same mission ?

Kiitos paljon to all who have responded.

Hyvää päivää.

[jmm99]

An upgrade to the Finnish air defense system has been long scheduled. Seems that FDF has scrapped upgrading the present Russian-made system and leans toward either of two NATO compatible systems.

A factor may be flexibility (the NASAMS missile can be used by the Hornets)vs. range (25k vs 100k), as outlined by Sanomat here.

HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - HOME
16.1.2009
Government plans to replace Russian anti-aircraft missiles with NATO version

Finland’s air defences are to be upgraded with a missile system used by NATO countries to replace a Russian-built system. A formal decision on the matter is expected early this year.

Helsingin Sanomat has learned that the price tag of the new system could be about EUR 400 million.
....
The aim is to replace the Russian-built Buk or "Gadfly" system with either a Norwegian or a French-Italian system as of 2012.
....
The Norwegian missile which is under consideration could also be used by the Hornet jet fighters of the Finnish Air Force. It has a range of 25 kilometres, whereas the Buk can reach targets 35 kilometres away. The range of the French-Italian candidate is 100 kilometres.

Some background on NASAMS (Wiki), AIM-120 AMRAAM (Wiki), NASAMS (manufacturer) and SL-AMRAAM (manufacturer).

Ref to French-Italian SAMP/T (Wiki).

[charlyjsp]

Hi,

My two cents on A2G capability for the FDF Hornets. There undoubtedly are a list of reasons, but I'd have to say three near the top are: Ability to actually participate in CM ops, political-military technical reasons (relations with the U.S.) and long range strike capability. The latter is an outgrowth of a study published in 2004 (http://www.mil.fi/paaesikunta/tiedotteet/368.dsp), which in essence looked at how the FDF can increase the range at which it can touch Russians in any scenario.

The questions seem good, but I'd like to add another perspective: What missions-tasks can ONLY the Hornet accomplish (for the Finns)? There may be other ways to 'take on' Russian planes and deny them air superiority (LOTS of AA missiles) but you may need Hornets for other things that AA-missiles cannot help with. Intercept of Russian planes along the southern flight path to Kalingrad would be an example.

-Charly Salonius-Pasternak

PS reed11b asked why Gripen isn't more popular in places like Finland. Good question, the short non-official answer is something like this: (a) it wasn't ready when Finland needed to buy new planes, the best was bought (b) it wasn't built in the U.S., no political benefits in Gripen and fewer countertrade opportunities. Finally, the Hornet is good enough at short landings...there are already a few unnaturally long and straight highways in Finland, from previous generations of planes, the Hornet is fine on them.

[William F. Owen]

Sorry to throw a rock in the water here, but the idea that a single type of aircraft effectively or even marginally addresses Finland's defence needs is pretty slim on evidence. Finland held off the Russians with good pilots, not good planes.

The question is surely best addressed by asking, what does Finland want to do to Russia if it is attacked? What would break Russian will to persist? How casualty sensitive is Russia versus Finland? What about the Baltic States.

In terms of F-18's, capable though they may be, I'd be far more interested in what Tanker and EW aircraft might be in the mix.

[Fuchs]

The Finnish Army has a great need for new equipment as far as I know. I know about attempts to fix the ATGM problem with Eurospike or Javelin, but the survivability of the artillery and likely also the EW equipment need to be addressed. Towed guns are almost useless for national defence nowadays.
That's only the hardware issues. Improvements of reservist and marksmanship training as well as general increase in training spending is likely much more effective than expensive planes.

Otherwise - it's quite common to upgrade fighters, and an integration of AIM-9X/IRIS-T/Python5, AMRAAM, HMD, new radio tech (better ECCM), new pylons (with integral chaff/flare dispenser and missile warning sensors) and finally a towed ECM pod would improve the fighter to almost state-of-the-art.
Old F/A-18 have furthermore a poor INS that needs a long calibration on the ground - that should be replaced as well.

I wouldn't assign the long range strike mission to the Hornets at all. Instead, I'd simply ask PR China for some of their MRBMs, one of which seems to be close to Iskander in accuracy and would be a much greater threat than a few normal fighter-bombers.

The backbone of the Finnish defence needs to be the infantry with sufficient indirect fire support, AT capability and a small armored reserve to counter breakthroughs of mechanized OPFOR.

[davidbfpo]

Taken fom: I wouldn't assign the long range strike mission to the Hornets at all. Instead, I'd simply ask PR China for some of their MRBMs, one of which seems to be close to Iskander in accuracy and would be a much greater threat than a few normal fighter-bombers.

I hardly think a Finnish defence strategy with MRBMs is likely, nor would PRC sell them given their current friendly relations with Russia. Dispite recent Russian actions I still find it hard to imagine relations with Finland require such a significant upgrade, I concede the lower profile, local actions that Fuchs makes do make sense.

From a non-expert reader.

davidbfpo