How many airbases does Finland currently operate? Are there plans to reduce the number of airbases when the new planes are being bought?

Norway will close the airbase in Bodø, and operate all F-35 from Ørlandet, in addition a small number (3-4?) of F-35 will be based at Evenes, for QRA duty.

The problem Norway was facing was that due to the high costs of the F-35 we could not afford two full airbases. I would not be surprised if Finland ends up in the same situation. The danger is that if an enemy launches a surprise attack against that airbase, he can knock out a very significant part of the air force with one strike. Having two bases (or more) makes it much more difficult to successfully launch a surprise attack.

Ah, a response from the RAF to the claims from IAF:

Responding to the Indian claims, the RAF source they were clearly designed for the “domestic audience”. He told The Independent: “There must have been some clouded recollection on the flights back to India, as the headlines of the Indian press bear no relation to the results of the tactical scenarios completed on the exercise in any shape or form.”

Full story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/indian-air-force-beats-raf-120-in-training-exercise–using-russiandesigned-jets-10444466.html

🙂

Edit:

Speaking shortly after his first encounter with the thrust-vectoring equipped Su-30MKI, Typhoon pilot Flt Lt Mike Highmoor had no doubt about the values of the bilateral exercise: ‘This is fantastic. It’s the first time I’ve flown against a ‘Flanker’ this morning and it’s fascinating to see another air force do its thing in a different aeroplane. Flying against an aircraft which is equally comparable to the Typhoon isn’t something we get to fight against on a regular basis in the UK. It’s very exciting. It’s an incredibly impressive fighter but the Typhoon is a good match for it.’

Hmm — in 2011 there was “no comparison”

Leader of the Indian Contingent was Grp Capt Ashu Srivastav, a previous ‘Flanker’ squadron commander responsible for bringing the jets into IAF service and holding over 2,200hrs on the type. ‘Comparing the two fighters I have to be politically correct; both have got their plus and minus points, but I am going to say that the ‘Flanker’ probably has more plus points due to its super-manoeuvrability and BVR system is very good’ he said. ‘We are highly manoeuvrable in close combat and we employ the vectoring whenever we need to depending on the combat situation – generally speaking, we use it when we feel that the opponent is in a position where it cannot manoeuvre but we can, and so we can use TVC to still get the shot. We have had no restriction on IRS-T or the radar usage’. But Grp Capt Srivastav was keen to sing the Typhoon’s praises, saying ‘Typhoon is extremely good in high rates of turn and that has been great to see…’ before adding with a wry grin ‘But we have a counter for that…!’

http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2015/08/06/military-exercise-indian-summer-indradhanush-2015/

I may be wrong, but I suspect that perhaps the IAF were unhappy with previous comments from the RAF on previous exercises and used this opportunity to “even the score” in the media…

there is something fundamentally wrong if it takes an inventory of 48, in order to have 12 ready to work

The issue is regarding cost and budget — unless the budget is increased there will not be enough money to keep a higher fraction of the F-35 flying.

Case in point: Norway bought 5 frigates some years ago. The plan was to sail 3; have one in maintainence, and use one for training. Instead 1 or at most 2 are sailing…

We expect to see the same with the F-35. Why 48? Because they looked at different scenarios and decided that 48 was the minimum to successfully handle the most demanding of those scenarios. In addition we buy 4 for training, so a total of 52.

Of course we can keep more of the F-35 flying; however then we would lose some other capabilities. We could get rid of the navy, for instance. Or the army… Or we could increase the budget significantly, but that is unlikely to happen.

I think it does not matter how many F-35 we get or how many is flying; what matters is that we spend a reasonable amount on defence (we should get closer to 2% of GDP) and get the most out of the money we’ve got. If there are some gaps then so be it — after all the “true defence” of Norway is based on NATO not on how many F-35 or frigates we’ve got flying/sailing.

Didn’t the RAF side claim back a few years ago that they comprehensively won the engagements the last time they went head to head with these aircraft?

See post 2402 above (end of post)

But I think, RAF would have tried hard to beat Sukhoi 30 to show, EF superiority over Sukhoi 30 and hence a better sales pitch to IAF, especially during the time when
rumors of 80 MMRCA rfp’s to be sent again.

what sales pitch to the IAF?

I simply don’t see IAF choosing the Typhoon, since cost is clearly a big issue.

Also, if they struggle to negotiate with the French, how will it be to negotiate with a consortium made up of companies from 4 different countries? In addition: How committed will the other countries be to the Typhoon in the future? The UK and Italy will focus on the F-35; the Germans don’t care much about their military, apart from trying to keep the costs down.

Edit: Perhaps the IAF is just “getting even” with the RAF:

‘Well, they lost,’ was Stephen Dalton’s response when IANS asked how the Russia-developed India-manufactured Su-30MKI air superiority jets performed against the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) Typhoons when they matched their wits during the joint exercises in recent years.
However, he was quick to add that the two aircraft are different in technologies, and that Typhoons are next generation, and hence there is no comparison.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/british-typhoons-whacked-indias-sukhois-joint-exercises-085435986.html

:dev2:

No IAF officer has been quoted making a 12-0 claim in there. No IAF pilot commented on the Cope India results either AFAIK (those results were put out by the USAF brass IIRC, likely looking to shore up support for the F-22). As for what the media can get hold off, I’m sure you remember the RAF Typhoon that ‘killed’ two USAF F-15Es single-handedly. Now where did that story come from?

So are you suggesting the journalist made up the 12-0 claim?

As for “shoring up support for the F-22”; that’s exactly the point. This is all political. The question then becomes; what political signals can we read from this? First, that the IAF are world-class, and they know what they are doing.

Second, that the SU-30mki is world-class.

Third; Typhoon will never fly in Indian colors… :dev2:

Hence the interim Mk1P variant upgraded with the Elta AESA.

I was not aware of that one, interesting. Will this mk1p variant have an impact on the number of mk1 they will order? Or will they stick to the 40?

Taken in isolation, buying more Su-30MKIs makes more sense. However, we’re discussing this in the context of the Rafale purchase. If the IAF is insistent of buying a Eurocanard (not that its a prudent position to take), opting for EF T3s, with an option on at least 73 T1s, is a lot more sensible than buying 36 Rafales.

The Indians seem to disagree, since it seems they are moving forward with the 36 Rafale (at least according to Dassault — on verra).

It is not clear why they have decided to do so, however I recall they used the word “strategic” to describe the decision to go for a small number of Rafale in G2G purchase. Perhaps they want to integrate nukes? That could explain why they are so interested in Rafale. Would the Eurofighter partners (in particular Germany) allow them to integrate nukes on the Typhoon?

Also, in any case I doubt the Typhoon would be a “solution”, since, as already stated, the issue they had with the Rafale MMRCA was with costs; I don’t see how the Typhoon could come out as much cheaper than the Rafale, even if you through some (unwanted) T1s into the mix. It’s not just about the cost of purchase, but also operating costs. Another big factor is the tech transfer.