Finnish fighter replacement revisited

In all likeliness the Globaleyes were in the RFQ response which was delivered in February. It’s not like they can suddenly come and say “Oh and you get this lovely baseball cap on top of all that”. But clearly publishing the matter now, just day after the Swiss debacle, is no coincidence.

FAF was studying possibility for AEW aircraft acquisition in the ’90s, but back then it was clearly complely unrealistic, with it already being not-a-minor miracle that they got the Hornets.

I could not find an English language news piece about this, but today in somewhat surprising twist, Saab announced that its response for Finnish bid includes two Globaleye AEW&C aircraft, in addition to 64 Gripens.

Being kicked out of the Swiss fighter competition was a direct consequence of their Peace and Love management attitude (why an extra long range Gripen for a Swiss size country?). They just missed the train by their own fault. So it’s nice to see that they are reacting with an aggressive offer: the duo is what brings the most to the Gripen concept as we know it for years (yes, yes, we read their endless marketing mat. :sleeping: ).

I could not find an English language news piece about this, but today in somewhat surprising twist, Saab announced that its response for Finnish bid includes two Globaleye AEW&C aircraft, in addition to 64 Gripens.

as I replied there: with much greater effectiveness, and at a fraction of the cost

and I answered it as well… it doesn’t work that way 😉

same question as for switzerland’s thread: how do you do your main job, which consists of air policing and assistance with it?

as I replied there: with much greater effectiveness, and at a fraction of the cost

Finland should get together with Switzerland and order 100 UTAP-22s at just $2 million each. They can launch and recover from pretty much any location, meaning they’d be next to impossible to take out in a surprise attack.

After fighting starts they can be launched from forward operating bases, be it a small bunker, a truck or a small ship, and then land at a different location for recovery. This forward location also makes them great for launching surprise attacks of their own against enemy forces, be it in the air (a UTAP could carry 2 Sidewinder plus 6 Stinger missiles), ground or sea, as well as being great for ISR, ECM and SEAD missions.

same question as for switzerland’s thread: how do you do your main job, which consists of air policing and assistance with it?

Finland should get together with Switzerland and order 100 UTAP-22s at just $2 million each. They can launch and recover from pretty much any location, meaning they’d be next to impossible to take out in a surprise attack.

After fighting starts they can be launched from forward operating bases, be it a small bunker, a truck or a small ship, and then land at a different location for recovery. This forward location also makes them great for launching surprise attacks of their own against enemy forces, be it in the air (a UTAP could carry 2 Sidewinder plus 6 Stinger missiles), ground or sea, as well as being great for ISR, ECM and SEAD missions.

How about 40 TX trainers and 40 Gripens….only 2.1 billion ??

Growler in EU would be a good for sure.

So as was somewhat expected, Boeing offer for Finland does contain Growlers, and Boeing now secured export permit for them:
U.S. Government Approves Release of Boeing EA-18G Growler to Finland

No it can’t.
It’s 7+2 at the moment (once testing is done of course).
Using twin launchers this could be increased to 11+2 but twin launchers are not a thing at the moment.

Okay !

GaNs will come to the F-35 in a Tech Refresh if and when there is shown to be a substantial benefit to doing so and that the cost difference will not bee too great.

The technology baselines for F-35 and Super Hornet were frozen when the development contracts were signed, in 2003 and 1992 respectively. Bean counters rule the American procurement system and no improvements are allowed unless they are justified by a business case with a short payback period. This means the only way to replace GaAs with GaN is when GaAs is no longer available from the supply chain and a GaN system must be used. Unfortunately, GaAs is still available and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources tipping point has not yet been reached. “Better is the enemy of good enough”.

GaN transistors have been commercially available in US for like 15 years at least, yet F-35 is produced using only GaAs technology, ditto for Super Hornet etc.

I am just trying to figure out why there are many users here coming up with as much excuses under the sun as possible.

Then you should join the flat earth society. If many users disagree with you, that must mean they conspired against you.

Software can do that, such as changing from deceptive to noise jamming, you can mask a bunch of aircraft, cooling can do that too, because you can increase ON-time
You are solely looking for an excuse to conclude L-265 has GaN while it could be a bazillions others things.

You can keep making excuse but there is no correlation between: ( experimental UHF MMIC/2 ECM pod the same size/ 1 new ECM pod ) and (Su-35/Su-34/Su-57 have GaN MMIC)

one guy says 10 years, you are still pushing the fact that cooling and software offer that much effectiveness instead of new mmics being installed. L-265 is still labeled as a new Khibiny-M feature than the old L-175 which also goes by this name for the Su-35. Unless you think a 2 year timeframe isn’t enough than be more useful than FBW why to some extent it takes 10 years. No one knows if the production went beforehand of the experimentation or how many modules they can produce of these in a months or years timeframe. I am just trying to figure out why there are many users here coming up with as much excuses under the sun as possible.

Announcing 3 new EW systems with the announcement of GaN after 2014 is a little too much of a coincidence. Experiment was a success with the announcement that those modules would be used for those 3 aircraft EW systems which all coincidentally for some reason came after 2014. Whatever you, Garry/mig-31(same person in my opinion) and FBW already tire me out with boredom. I will let you guys be.

We got a lot of try hards oh it can be the cooling ohh it must be the software, its its experimental, if there is anything else you want to add just let it all out XD(I was not kidding when I said in denial responses come later did I?). The purpose of jammers are to jam when talking about the ability to suppress you aircrafts location, to acquiring the ability to mask a bunch of aircrafts. I do not think cooling alone or software can do this buddy.

Software can do that, such as changing from deceptive to noise jamming, you can mask a bunch of aircraft, cooling can do that too, because you can increase ON-time
You are solely looking for an excuse to conclude L-265 has GaN while it could be a bazillions others things.

the developments and experimentations were done but were considered successful in 2014. one system was put around the end of 2014, another 2016 than comes 2018 for the last system. It did take some time for these implementations to be done. Got more excuses for me?

You can keep making excuse but there is no correlation between: ( experimental UHF MMIC/2 ECM pod the same size/ 1 new ECM pod ) and (Su-35/Su-34/Su-57 have GaN MMIC)

I understand what you wrote but I can’t understand your logic because there is no correlation between the evidence you present and your conclusion.
There are many ways to improve the capabilities of a jammer, many of which involve software, cooling so L-175M to the L-265 being the same size doesn’t mean L-265 has GaN. ECM pod don’t change their size a lot, ALQ-184 and ALQ-184v11 are the same sizes, ALQ-131 block I and block are the same sizes.
You are too naive to think manufacturing chain and cost are not a problem and new technologies are always implemented immediately

We got a lot of try hards oh it can be the cooling ohh it must be the software, its its experimental, if there is anything else you want to add just let it all out XD(I was not kidding when I said in denial responses come later did I?). The purpose of jammers are to jam when talking about the ability to suppress you aircrafts location, to acquiring the ability to mask a bunch of aircrafts. I do not think cooling alone or software can do this buddy.

“

and new technologies are always implemented immediately” the developments and experimentations were done but were considered successful in 2014. one system was put around the end of 2014, another 2016 than comes 2018 for the last system. It did take some time for these implementations to be done. Got more excuses for me?

Ahh English is not your 1st language. Comparing the L-175M to the L-265 being the same size while offering better capabilities. Tarantul was included on the GaN mmic list I am just wondering if your naïve enough to believe the system was introduced with GaAS?

I understand what you wrote but I can’t understand your logic because there is no correlation between the evidence you present and your conclusion.
There are many ways to improve the capabilities of a jammer, many of which involve software, cooling so L-175M to the L-265 being the same size doesn’t mean L-265 has GaN. ECM pod don’t change their size a lot, ALQ-184 and ALQ-184v11 are the same sizes, ALQ-131 block I and block are the same sizes.
You are too naive to think manufacturing chain and cost are not a problem and new technologies are always implemented immediately

Broadband is wide range of frequency while UHF is Ultra high frequency, why do you think they are the same? and when did US/Sweden used UHF terms to talk about a broadband system?

So ” Tarantul has GaN because it is new and therefore Su-35 has GaN because its EW look the same size to you?” What is this crap? i can’t understand your logic

Ahh English is not your 1st language. Comparing the L-175M to the L-265 being the same size while offering better capabilities. Tarantul was included on the GaN mmic list I am just wondering if your naïve enough to believe the system was introduced with GaAS?

“

and when did US/Sweden used UHF terms to talk about a broadband system?”

https://www.janes.com/article/74074/arexis-airborne-attack-dsei17d4

“

The pod design developed by Saab incorporates VHF and UHF antennas in fin surfaces, with L-band and S-band active electronically scanned array antennas, based on gallium nitride technology, fitted front and rear.” Systems use the term broadband because of there wider frequency ranges like UHF and VHF getting involved.