SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Other, By Region > Europe

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-05-2008   #1
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Defending Scandanavia (catch all)

Over the past decade, Finland has developed closer ties to the EU, NATO and the US in things military. It has always been close to the US in other ways - e.g., the largest population group of Finnish ancestry outside of Finland are US nationals (including JMM from his mother's side).

This is a longer backgrounder, followed by a short question.

The largest single military purchase in Finland's history was that of 64 F-18s, which are about to be updated (the second largest Finnish defense expenduture). While there are disputes about the exact cost of the update, no question that it will be done.

Quote:
HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - HOME
3.10.2008
....
Ministry denies Air Force’s price estimate for upgrading its Hornet fighter jets.
Price of conversion of interceptors into assault fighters clarified to MPs.

The Ministry of Defence has declared incorrect the information, carried by Helsingin Sanomat and others on Thursday, according to which the modernisation programme of the Air Force F/A-18 Hornets and turning them into assault fighters would come with a price tag of EUR 1.6 billion. ...
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Min.../1135239940183

and, the article prior

Quote:
HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - HOME
2.10.2008
.....
Mid-Life update of Hornets is second-largest weapons deal in Finnish military history.
Planes that cost EUR 3 billion to buy will be upgraded for EUR 1.6 billion.

The Finnish Air Force is starting the second phase of the renewal programme of its F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets. The aim is to secure the usability of the aircraft introduced in Finland in 1995 past the year 2020 and to equip the planes for their original purpose.

“The Hornet was designed to be a strike fighter jet that would fight its way to the target, deliver the payload, and fight its way back”, explains Air Force commander Major-General Jarmo Lindberg.

So far the aircraft have only been used as interceptors against aerial targets, which is the sole role the Finnish Air Force planes have been deployed in since the Second World War. Now the Hornets are to be converted into assault fighters as well, by equipping them with bombs, glide bombs, and air-to-ground missiles. ...
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Mid.../1135239907228

Both articles provide more information about the Finnish Hornet program.

Presently, an issue exists as to sourcing of the air-to-ground missiles.

Quote:
HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
5.2.2007
....
US refuses to sell air-to-ground missiles for Finland’s Hornet jets

Officials in the Untied States have rejected a preliminary request by Finland to buy JASSM air-to-ground missiles for the US-made Hornet F-18 jet fighters used by the Finnish Air Force. Finland inquired about the purchase last autumn as part of an extensive package aimed at implementing MLU2 - the second phase of the modernisation of the Air Force’s fleet of 62 jets. The Americans had no objections to Finnish requests in other respects. Finland will thus be allowed to buy missiles to attack radar stations, as well as NATO-standard Link 16 data exchange devices.
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/1135224850681

General background on the Finnish Hornet program over the last decade is here (all English).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish...ce#F-18_Hornet

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

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

There are also various MoD and Defense Forces papers which deal with the program, but which are not material to my question.

---------------------------------
Finland's Main Adversary is Russia, Russia, Russia. There is no other.

The Finnish assumption (worse case scenario) is that a Russian attack will have to be defensed by Finland alone. The defense strategy seems to have two components (not clearly stated as such in formal documents).

A conventional first stage would require Russia to deploy large conventional forces and sustain heavy casualties in order to win the first stage.

The second stage would be a total nation war which probably would result in the destruction of the Finnish people in Finland (the "Paasikivi doctrine"). About 70-80% of Finns agree with that strategy even though Finnish military success would be doubtful.

Quote:
My question is simply how long could the 62 Finnish Hornets stand up to Russian air power ? In short, is the expendure worth it, or could the Euros be better spent on other anti-Russian weapons ?
If there are any Hornet types (or anyone else knowledgeable) out there who would tackle this, your help would be appreciated.
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008   #2
Entropy
Council Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,457
Default

Quote:
My question is simply how long could the 62 Finnish Hornets stand up to Russian air power ? In short, is the expendure worth it, or could the Euros be better spent on other anti-Russian weapons ?
I supported Hornets for two deployments to Southern Watch in the 1990's when I was in the Navy. Overall, the hornet is a very capable multimission aircraft.

On your first question, without additional context, the answer has to be "it depends." If Finnish training and tactics are comparable with the US, I think they could do quite well against the Russians, assuming they have a robust air surveillance and C3 network to support the aircraft.

On your second question, any answer is going to be subjective. It seems Finland's primary goal is deterrence and for that purpose I think a multirole aircraft like the hornet is a decent choice. If deterrence fails, and when the aircraft are fully air-to-ground capable, the Finnish hornets will provide a flexible force able to respond to a variety of threat scenarios.
Entropy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008   #3
J Wolfsberger
Council Member
 
J Wolfsberger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 806
Default About your question ...

Quote:
My question is simply how long could the 62 Finnish Hornets stand up to Russian air power ? In short, is the expendure worth it, or could the Euros be better spent on other anti-Russian weapons ?
If you phrase the issue from the standpoint of systems analysis, I think you'll get a better focus. Let me suggest: How much would it cost the Russians to overwhelm the Finnish Hornets? Is there any other weapon system that could force a higher cost to the Russians for the same expenditure? Would the Russians be willing to make that expenditure of men and material (aircraft)?

During the Winter War, the Finns under Mannerheim were outnumbered 30 to 1 in aircraft and fought the Soviets to a stand still. Could they enforce the same ratio today? Given the differences in aerial combat between then and now, I don't think it reasonable to think the Russians would need over 1800 aircraft to achieve air superiority. On the other hand, even forcing a 10 to one ratio is pretty high.

At any rate, I suggest you address the issue along the lines I suggested, and decide accordingly.
__________________
John Wolfsberger, Jr.

An unruffled person with some useful skills.
J Wolfsberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008   #4
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Hey guys, thank you for the responses.

I realize that, however phrased, the question and answer is an "it depends". And, both of your responses address the concepts I was looking at - and better suggest the questions that should be asked.

I guess another related question is whether there has been any open-source "war gaming" re: "Russia attacks Finland". I haven't seen any, but probably do not know where to look.

The Winter-Continuation Wars were so long ago that they are not especially good precedents for the present. And, the Finns that would fight a present war are two or three generations removed from the warriors of that struggle - and have lived in a very peaceful environment.

BTW: While the Winter War ended in more or less of a stalemate, its end presaged the end of the Continuation War where Finland was within a few months of military collapse. See here (starting at post #7, with discussion in #8 - the rest is post-war politics),

http://finlander.eget.net/showthread...3900#post23900
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008   #5
Old Eagle
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rocky Mtn Empire
Posts: 473
Default

Positing an all-out war between Finland and Russia as the primary Hornet scenario is obviously not the driving factor behind the various hornet procurements. Truth in lending -- I was an SAO in Helsinki administering the original deal, so I have a slight bias. The Finns take their sovereignty very seriously and want to be able to deal with multiple contingencies. Adding an air-to-mud capability is an interesting development.
Old Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008   #6
Stan
Council Member
 
Stan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Estonia
Posts: 3,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Eagle View Post
Positing an all-out war between Finland and Russia as the primary Hornet scenario is obviously not the driving factor behind the various hornet procurements. Truth in lending -- I was an SAO in Helsinki administering the original deal, so I have a slight bias. The Finns take their sovereignty very seriously and want to be able to deal with multiple contingencies. Adding an air-to-mud capability is an interesting development.
I was wondering when you would add your 2 cents to this . Not to be cynical herein (God forbid), but I think the majority of the Finnish population is more concerned about the rising cost of alcohol in Estonia than Russian air superiority
__________________
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2008   #7
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default I will think overnite ...

about some assertions made in the above two posts. Too late at nite to do it now.

I would agree with Stan if he was dealing with the rising cost of alcohol in Finland - a definite cause of concern to some (many ?) of my cousins.

Kiitos paljon - hyvää iltaa.
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2008   #8
Entropy
Council Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,457
Default

All I know about alcohol and Finland is that one should consider carefully going anywhere with a Finn where drinking might be involved. I would relate the details of a particular night in London, but unfortunately, i can't remember them.
Entropy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2008   #9
120mm
Council Member
 
120mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wonderland
Posts: 1,284
Default

I defended the woman I would later marry, from being accosted by drunken Finns in Leningrad in 1985.

I'm a big fan of Finns of the non-drunken lecherous variety, and have a few friends in Finland, to include a woman who once almost kept the above-marriage from happening.

I'm a big fan of Light Attack systems with rough field capabilities for small countries. The Finnish success in the Winter War was with marginally inferior aircraft, taking off from airfields that couldn't be reliably interdicted due to their primitive nature.

F/A-18s are cool, though.
120mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2008   #10
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,055
Default What justifies this?

Given the history involved and the current strategic situation am I the only one who thinks this proposed upgrade has little to do with defending Finland in the unpredictable future?

What possible situation today would justify a Russian action against Finland? I recall Finland was a major economic partner of Russia.

Is the Finnish upgrade not just a bureaucratic / military proposal for a technological upgrade as the airframes get older?

davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2008   #11
Ken White
Council Member
 
Ken White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default IIRC, that's only part of it; I believe the Finns

(some of them at any rate) are interested in contributing to 'out of area' missions. That's the same reason Sweden is upgrading their Gripens to be NATO compatible.
Ken White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2008   #12
reed11b
Council Member
 
reed11b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Olympia WA
Posts: 531
Default speaking of Gripens

I was just wondering why the JAS 39 was not more popular in countries like Finland where there small size and short take off would seem to be ideal.
Reed
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
This truly is the bike helmet generation.
reed11b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2008   #13
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Many questions and some answers - part 1

These are good questions.

Quote:
from davidbfpo
What possible situation today would justify a Russian action against Finland?

Is the Finnish upgrade not just a bureaucratic / military proposal for a technological upgrade as the airframes get older?
There seems little question that Finnish-Russian relations have cooled, but there is certainly a divergence in how much. No one envisions a war tommorow; but, as was noted by David, we have "the unpredictable future".

Here are some sample opinions, the first from a broad survey of Finland's diplomats, the second from Finland's Foreign Minister and the third from Sweden's Foreign Minister.

Quote:
Diplomatic confessions
By Kari Huhta and Tanja Vasama
HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
7.10.2008 - THIS WEEK FEATURE ARTICLE

"I will not crouch into hushing things up, or slip into liturgy", one ambassador wrote at the beginning of his two pages of text - quoting the words of Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb (Nat. Coalition Party).

Then the ambassador made a number of observations about Finland’s eastern neighbour.

"Russia can never earn the trust of its neighbours unless it produces an honest accounting of its past."

The ambassador continued that Russia does not pay heed to rules that had been agreed upon jointly with others. It yearns for the 19th century, while the EU is living in the 21st. It is building a fence and is protecting its security on both sides of that fence. When China started its Summer Olympics on August the 8th, Russia attacked Georgia.

"China invited the world for a visit, and Russia showed the world its middle finger." ....
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Dip.../1135240031064

Quote:
HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
7.10.2008

Finnish-Russian relations under strain during OSCE Chairmanship
Cancelled military visits, complaints of Finnish decisions

The colder winds that have been blowing in relations between Russia and the West also extend to relations between Finland and Russia.

Russia has cancelled at least two visits by military officers since August, and the Russians have criticised Finnish actions during Finland’s turn holding the Chairmanship of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe. .....
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Fin.../1135240029652

Quote:
HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
22.9.2008

Swedish Foreign Minister sees Russia moving away from European values
Carl Bildt sees reflections of 19th century attitudes in today’s Russia

“It takes two to tango. If Russia doesn’t want to dance, then the tango will be a bit awkward.”

This is how Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt describes relations between the European Union and Russia, which have been put to a major test by the crisis in the Caucasus.

Bildt, who took part in a European security seminar in Helsinki on Friday, told Helsingin Sanomat that the EU must reassess its policy toward Russia. While he expects cooperation to continue on a wide front, the changing winds affecting the European security environment are blowing specifically from Moscow. ....
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Swe.../1135239631101

As to the second question, you will have to draw your own conclusions. The following references may help.

------------------------------
Overall Defense Policies

Finnish Security and Defence Policy 2004
Government report 6/2004 ["White Paper"]

http://www.defmin.fi/files/311/2574_...er_2004_1_.pdf

Quote:
(pp.109-110)
5.2.3 The services
The Army
The Army must be able to defend Finland’s entire territory, protect vital targets, provide executive assistance to other authorities, and prevent and repel military attacks supported by the other services. Regional forces are used for surveillance of land areas, to protect the society’s vital infrastructure and to hold key areas. Invaders will be defeated by using operational forces that are deployable nationwide, supported by long-range fire. ..... Border troops will especially be used for reconnaissance, surveillance, special operations and counter-special force operations.
One might ask: And what invaders are to be expected - Karelian wolves attacking Saami reindeer herds ?

Quote:
(p.111)
From 2009 onwards, development of the Army will concentrate on ground-based air defence and on regional forces. Ground-based air defence in the capital region will be increased in efficiency. Regional forces’ capacity for rapid action to protect military targets, the capacity to provide executive assistance to other authorities, and the capacity to protect society’s vital functions will be improved. The capacity of the troops in the capital region to safeguard operating conditions for the national leadership and to safeguard vital functions of the society will be further upgraded.
Quote:
(p.112)
The Navy
....
Ground-based air defence of naval bases and coastal troops will be developed as part of the national ground-based air defence development programme.
One might ask: "ground-based air defence" against whom - Flying Karelian wolves, perhaps ?

Quote:
(p.114)
The Air Force
....
During the planning period special attention will be given to raising the performance of fighter defence and to the air defence command and control system. The performance of the Hornet fleet will be increased by mid-life updating, thus improving the system’s situational awareness, interception capacity and international interoperability. Performance of the Hornet fleet will also be enhanced with the gradual procurement of a long-range precision guided weapon system, permitting air-to-ground operations.
....
.... The Air Force’s ground-based air defence capability will be improved as part of the national ground-based air defence, focusing on the capacity to protect the most important bases.
The bottom line is that someone is very much concerned with someone else having air superiority.

The focus in 2004 for projected procurements in the future is graphed at p.115. The primary components are (approximately):

Quote:
C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance & recon) - 25%
Mobility, firepower & regional troops - 17½ %
Ground-based air defense in the capital region - 17½%
Air Force (primarily Mid-life Update II for F-18s) - 20%
The largest part of the remaining 20% is Navy (mine counter-measires).

In terms of national effort, the following is instructive:

Quote:
(p.124)
5.2.8 Developing voluntary defence
People’s interest in voluntary activities is a resource that promotes everyday security, preparedness for new threats and military defence readiness. The basic premise for this activity must be the needs of the society as well as the needs of the Defence Forces and voluntary organizations. Voluntary defence activities supporting military defence will be reorganized to facilitate collaboration between authorities at all levels. For this purpose, local defence troops will be formed, which will belong to the Defence Forces’ wartime forces. The Government will consider the necessity of a separate act on voluntary defence.
The concept of a national defense is contained in a number of other documents (as well as expressed in the White Paper).

The overall plan meets not only an invasion by Nation X, but also other contingencies (terrorists, WMD attacks, epidemics, etc.). So, it is very correct to say that Finland's security policies include many contingencies - most are much less malignant than an invasion.

But, it is difficult for me to see how F-18s fit into those contingencies (terrorists, WMD attacks, epidemics, etc.). I do see how they would meet the invasion problem in part.

Last edited by jmm99; 10-07-2008 at 09:18 PM.
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2008   #14
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Many questions and some answers - part 2

---------------------------------------
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:

Quote:
(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"

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009   #15
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Finnish Surface-Air Update - NATO compatible

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.

Quote:
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).
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009   #16
charlyjsp
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 14
Default A2G from FDF Hornets

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.
charlyjsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009   #17
William F. Owen
Council Member
 
William F. Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
Posts: 3,947
Default

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.
__________________
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
William F. Owen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009   #18
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,189
Default

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.
Fuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009   #19
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,055
Default The Chinese card?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
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
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009   #20
1st Lieutenant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1
Default

its not the issue of number Russian Sukhois or Migs contra to Finnish Hornets and the number of the planes itself...it will do with the capability of the pilots the planes will last 2 weeks will the pilots last that far..

Will Finland again be the only country in n<orthern Europe to fight against russians, I doubt. What would be interest of Russia just to attack Finland, it will not give them any geopolitical ormilitary advantage.

Shall it 1 day happen anyhow we are happy to face them, again. Like highly respected ex WWII General Ehnrooth said..'Finnish defence is based on a methodof 1 man with a rifle under each tree..and we have loads of trees'

Gallup Intrenational study do show which country is most anti-Soviet...sorry anti-Russian...so no point of any US 'socialist' coming here with no better knowledge to comment we are leftisist..anti-Russïan is here deeper than in UK, Germany and in Uncle Sam...Kill!
1st Lieutenant is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Venezuela (catch all) Stratiotes Americas 71 3 Days Ago 11:32 AM
French urban rioting (catch all) SWJED Europe 37 02-22-2017 09:02 AM
Conflict, war and medicine (catch all). davidbfpo Military - Other 33 04-03-2013 08:03 AM
Defending Hamdan jmm99 Law Enforcement 35 05-22-2011 06:36 AM
Don't Send a Lion to Catch a Mouse SWJED Futurists & Theorists 23 03-15-2007 11:46 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation