How about you spend a summer holiday in East Ukraine. I bet the weather’s lovely this time of the year.

getting a little touchy are we? 😀
actually, Eastern Ukraine seperated by popular vote. even if you assume it wasn’t completely correct, it’s clear that the majority there wants to seperate from Kiev
Russia supported this, while the West has supported Kiev in invading and killing what is in effect a sovereign nation
when Russia supports a rebel movement, it’s terrorism and invasion. when the West supports seperatists in Kosovo, South Sudan, Lybia or Syria, it’s “democracy”

if Finland should be worried about being controlled by any foreign interests, it’s Washington and Brussels, rather than Moscow

That’s about 40% of the cost of a F-35A flyaway. And the MK2 doesn’t stand much of chance against the latter in air combat. Same applies to the $65M Su-30MKI.

1. Su-30s have done very well in practice against Western fighters. the F-35 uses the same missiles, so long range combat outcome would depend on the Su’s ability to detect, jam and dodge those missiles
2. if any Su every gets into a dogfight with an F-35, no amount of stealth or jamming will protect it against a faster and more mobile enemy with a cannon
3. that’s a pretty poor match up against an outdated aircraft that costs only 40%, asuming the F-35 can live up to its abilities (which I want to see first)
4. if the F-35 ever does face off against a Su, it’ll likely be one with post 2020 technology, including spheric optical sensors and optical missiles, that’ll make that stealth irrelevant at short range

I repeat – over 30,000 flight hours with only 1 Cat A mishap. Parroting the F-22’s safety record is pointless, when we already have a statistically adequate flight record from the F-35 to work with.

every aircraft in history has crashed and encountered other serious problems after its introduction
the F-35 wasn’t supposed to have any problems, because computer simulations were supposed to make that impossible
so it has already failed to deliver, is way over time, and has balooned in cost
and it is the most complex weapons system on the planet. believe me, it’s problems have yet to begin

As for the second part, the F-35’s production is already secure, retrofit costs have plummeted and it will be in its third iteration by the time the Finns order their aircraft, unlike the Gripen E which will just be IOCing.

the F-111 was a good aircraft too, eventually. it was way over cost, only a fraction of planned numbers were built, and it was a hangar queen. but it served its role, after many years of problems
the F-35 is its succesor, a total lemon. I’m sure they’ll get it to work to a degree, but it’ll still be a highly inefficient way of spending resources
but not that that matters, the US and the rest of the West are quickly spending their way into default, and they know it
which is why I’ll be emigrating to a safer place, I’m not going to pick up that bill

That the F-35 will one day be obsolescent is true. That older gen aircraft will be the ones to overtake is utter nonsense. Also, the Su-35 is not ‘being’ designed, it was designed a fairly long time ago. As for the PAK FA, it is a valid alternative to the F-35. Still in early development, so only time will tell how well they compare. It is however NOT a feasible alternative for Finland for obvious reasons.

the F-4 really struggled against older Mig designs in dogfights. the only edge it had was its speed. if the older Migs had been faster, they would have owned the F-4 no problem
the F-35 faces similar problems. it has the edge against older designs thanks to its technology and stealth, and to a degree its speed
but unlike the old Migs, the new ones will most likely be equiped with new engines, technology and weapons (Su-35)
in the coming years, the power of new technology will only increase, and its cost decrease, because of Moore’s law. and it will do so exponentially, which means the F-35’s tech will become obsolete faster than ever before
so 10 years from now, I do believe old Su-27 can get upgrades that make them equal, or even superior, to much newer and pricier F-35s
the most obvious reason for this is someone invents a radar that can detect current stealth designs, which would greatly undercut the F-35 and F-22

Its not Zeus sitting up there. It uses an optical sensor that has all the limitations of an optical sensor. There’s difference between reading a license plate of a car, and tracking every plate in Ireland in real time.

you might want to read up on the Gorgon Stare. it can track every license plate in a small city at the same time
http://www.military.com/video/military-intelligence/visual-surveillance/militarys-real-time-google-street-view/2129880016001/
in the near future every sensor will be able to do this
and you don’t need to watch an entire country, just known air bases and patrol routes

Explain to me what systems you intend to induct to protect that spy satellite in the sky. Because that’ll be the very first thing to be targeted.

in a nuke war, certainly. and so will every F-35 operating air base

And you think this ‘stealthy recon UAV’ in Iranian hands is capable of detecting and tracking stealth fighters?

if it sits on an air base and follows stealth fighters as they take off, then yes
but, like the F-35, that technology is top secret, which means its so good and unfallable that you can’t question it

Balderdash. Every ‘cheaper alternative’ available to the USAF is also available to the SwAF. As is the option of older Gripen C/Ds. Not to mention, if the world subscribed to your ‘peace in our time‘ certainty, the ‘efficient and effective’ qualities of any fighter would be redundant.

yes, which is why I think Finland shouldn’t buy new fighters
and just upgrade the F-18 if they insist on keeping it current

And the predictions about imminent cancellation, ring just as hollow, when one is done counting the 130 units in service, 120 odd in various stages of production, and the bulk buy of 450 units in advanced planning.

and how much did they plan for the F-22, before it got cancelled?

Which of these ‘other’ aircraft and UCAVs’ dedicated to operating as a comm relay, is available on the cheap?

the Avenger would be a good candidate, minimum of stealth, only $15 milion
and doubles as light recon aircraft
actually if Finland wants to buy anything, it should get the Avenger

So an ideal situation as per you in 2030 is an FAF fielding 12-15 Hornets.

if Russia doesn’t attack, and that’s enough to patrol Finland’s skies, then yes

Russia might attack, but then so might alien from another dimension. then Finland needs to start building starships and phasers
Fins realise this all too well btw, they even made a movie about it
http://www.starwreck.com/

Even in an immature Blk 2B configuration, it more effective than most serving Flankers. The Finns will likely be receiving a mix of Blk 4s and Blk 5s.

I hope so, considering most serving Flankers have obsolete technology and cost 20%-30% as much as an F-35
but until they’ve flown the F-35 operationally for a while without them crashing, I’ll put my money on obsolete Flankers
and as 43JSR pointed out, the Su-35 will have many technologies that counter the F-35’s strengths, at a fraction of the cost
technologies that could probably be installed into obsolete Flankers to make them useful again, not unlike the idea of installing AESA radars into older F-15s and F-16s, which the USAF has said will help detect stealth aircraft at range

You’re describing a fantasy. For one, nobody’s funding F-18 upgrades. Even a drop in AESA has found no takers yet. The F-35’s upgrade program is a surety and with development costs subsidized through large US orders. The definitive Blk 3F configuration is still two years away but has already been put through two tech refreshes.

I’m sure a number of companies would be all too happy and perfectly capable of upgrading F-18s, at a decent cost
as for the F-35, previous US stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22) were eventually only built in a fraction of planned aircraft
if the F-35 runs into any more surprises (technical problems, maintenance costs, unit cost), this will reduce numbers built, which will increase cost, which reduce numbers built, etc…

The F-35 doesn’t need a radar to generate a tracking solution. It can use off-board sources as well as the ASQ-239.

neither will future Su’s
meaning any satellite or stealthy recon UAV that can detect the F-35s optically can relay that information back to the Su’s, which will then be able to engage the F-35s at ranges longer than the AMRAAM’s range

The F-35 doesn’t give away its position ‘as soon’ as it launches nor is it practical for an enemy fighter to focus on shooting down incoming MRAAMs.

but I imagine opening those weapon bays does reduce its stealth, while the AMRAAM isn’t stealthy, and uses a data link to the F-35 for target updates. all factors that increase the chance of F-35 detection. plus I doubt the F-35’s rear is very stealthy, or its outlet very cool. so as soon as it has fired its missiles and runs off, its risks being spotted

as for shooting down AMRAAMs, when they get at short range they use their own radar, making them easy to track and engage, Russia has long developed weapons and tactics aimed at targetting the West’s overdependance on radar
Flankers already carry a huge number of a2A weapons, trading a few to deplete incoming AMRAAMs would be a superb strategy

It wasn’t doing much hitting and running. The opposition forces simply couldn’t track it. Period.

the USAF said AESA can track stealth aircraft at a good range
at what range can the F-35 detect the F-22? or can a T-50?
with its optical sensors the F-35 can certainly detect any missiles as soon as they come within optical range. it’s just a matter of time before Russian jets have this ability

Blogspot? Seriously? Is it your blog by any chance?

here’s a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N9To90e-7s
by the way, the Gripen is an aircraft made by Sweden, in case you didn’t know that either

Sweden’s neighbour Netherlands and neighbour Norway have already ordered the F-35. Neighbour Denmark is all but certain to join them. Meanwhile neighbour Poland has specified an aircraft requirement tailored to the F-35.

sure, I fondly remember the Dutch defence minister calling LMT everytime he got a question about the F-35 in parliament
and the story of LMT bribing a Dutch prince to buy the F-16. I wonder how much they paid this time
and don’t get me started on Norway, they chose the F-35 because it’ll cost “$30 million” a piece. a logic which Cananda followed, but was forced to reconsider
btw both the Netherlands and Norway have economic reasons for buying the F-35

No UCAV capable of air combat is under development anywhere.

ofcourse not, then there would be no more reason to buy the F-35
the USN is developing a UCAV, which will be able of carrying AMRAAMs
but I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the organisation that rejected the USAF previous golden goose, the F-111, is developing an alternative to the F-35

Fact remain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc are irrelevant as far as Finland’s requirements are concerned.

it shows how useless it can be to buy gold plated (stealth) aircraft

And you don’t think 60 F-18s are overkill for this role? You could maintain a 24×7 QRA with a quarter of that number. So you should therefore be advocating a huge roll-back in FAF strength.

I think they are, if you reduce the number used, that leaves you more hours and spare parts to extend their frame lives
so if Finland can do with fewer jets, this way they can greatly extend the F-18s’ lives

That’s absurd. The F-35 will dominate any member of the Su-27 family including the Su-35S. How well its likely to fare against the PAK FA is a debatable issue (but not pertinent to this thread).

today, yes. if the could get its software to work, its engine not to rip itself to parts, its stealth to work as promised

but by 2025 (when Finland might have an operational F-35 force), they will face off against upgraded Su-27 types, equiped with sensors and mission computers that could be 10 years younger than the F-35’s
as I’ve explained, they’ll be way cheaper, and just as powerfull or better
not to mention technology that doesn’t even exist yet, but will then. like pod-carried S-wave radars, that’ll be perfectly capable of detecting the F-35 at a decent range, despite its stealth. or pod carried lasers

either way, the F-35 has some major problems when facing Su-27 types
if it turns on its radar, it risks giving away its position. if it gets within optical/IR range, the Su’s have their own sensors that can spot the F-35
also, since the Su’s don’t have stealth, they can use their radar and jamming at full power
even if the F-35 does get within firing range without being detected and getting the first shot, they’ll give away their position as soon as they do
then the Su’s will have a good amount of time to fire back with missiles that outrange the AMRAAM, or shoot down any AMRAAMs with short ranged missiles (the IRIS-T can do this)
so if it’s a matter of trading missiles at maximum range, the F-35 will be an overpriced and limited (4, maybe 6 missiles) platform, and a fat target as soon as it turns and shows its non-stealthy, big IR rear end
and it’ll be duelling with Su’s that carry way more missiles, fuel, and have superior performance

this contrary to the F-22, which has the superb speed/performance, stealth and a2a maximised sensors to hit and run
although in the near future its AMRAAMs run the same risk of getting shot down before they can close in, and its stealth might be compromised

1. It doesn’t work like that in real life. You don’t blow up airbases with ballistic missiles (unless they’re packing a nuclear payload). Its far more effective to employ cruise missiles/stand-off weaponry to hit aircraft shelters, storage sites, radar/C4I nodes and to crater runways. The downside is such an attack can be intercepted by fighters and ground-based air defences.

you don’t have to knock out the airbase with Scuds, you just need to keep those jets in their cover long enough for the cruise missiles and bombers to start their attack run
although any Finnish SAMs and radars would be a great and relatively easy target for Scuds too

2. You’ll be able to service the F-35 in a parking lot perfectly well, as long as you’ve done the legwork previously. And if Finland requires a fighter fleet that can be dispersed, the F-35B is more effective still. And thanks to its VLO airframe, its lot lot more survivable when it does get airborne.

really? here’s the Gripen’s capability

The Saab Gripen can take off and land on 800 meters of two lane, snow covered highway. It can be serviced from a transport truck. Within ten minutes, five recruits and one technician can get it refueled, rearmed, and ready to fly again.

http://gripen4canada.blogspot.be/p/the-saab-gripen-ng-capable-and.html

I’ve never seen an add from LMT saying how you can maintain the F-35 in your garage. can it even take off from a landing strip that’s not check for small debris?

and the Gripen is maintained at Finland’s neighbour, Sweden, who I’m sure will be happy to help Finland build them themselves. plus you get a guaranteed, low cost purchase price and multi-year cost
meanwhile the F-35 went from $30 million to a $100+ million in less then two decades, it could have major flaws which will have to be corrected after many of the aircraft are already built, if/when there’s a problem it’ll have to be sent to the Netherlands, Italy or the US, and the USN (its second biggest operator) says it’ll be more expensive to maintain than the F-18
and if the F-22 is any indicator, it’s going to be a hangar queen

Your exact words were – ‘you underestimate the willingness of generals, banks and military industry to start a war‘. And if, as you say, this applies to Russia, Finland’s defence priorities become a lot less opaque.

if Russia does go to war, Finland shouldn’t get the F-35, it should get the F-22, nukes and a whole lot of shelters

If conflict is impossible, why bother upgrading them?

I don’t think they should, I think they should go with UCAVs instead
but if you insist on an advanced manned fighter by 2025 for Finland, an upgraded F-18 will be a great and cheap alternative to the F-35, or even the Gripen

That cost curve swings the other way when the fighter’s loss-exchange ratio is computed. At Northern Edge 2006 that figure was 144-0 for the participating F-22s. If they can reproduce even a tenth of that in wartime, the economics rest in its favour. There’s a reason why Russia & China are pursuing new clean sheet designs instead of merely upgrading their J-10s and Sukhoi derivatives further.

too bad there are only 180 F-22s in the world, which have a history of hangar queens, and being grounded for chocking their pilots
and that as time goes by, Russia and China will develop ever better radars, optical sensors and anti-missile systems (like lasers) that will make the F-22’s tactic of going in at high speed and throwing out AMRAAMs at maximum range obsolete
not to mention the possibility of swarming the F-22 with cruise missiles and UAVs, a strategy which China seems to have developed. if the F-22 wants to trade AMRAAMs for unmanned Mig-15s, it already lost

These are irrelevant examples applicable mostly to COIN campaigns. The AC-130, for example, is even more effective at an attack role than the A-10. Unfortunately, a decimated ADGE and benign air environment cannot be taken for granted in a conventional conflict.

except that those operations have been 95% of missions in the last two decades
and that if you’re facing off against peer air power, you’re probably in a nuke war and your base has already been destroyed

Agreed.. except there is no separatist movement in Finland which could be used.. you cannot repeat the Crimea scenario without local support.

excactly. and since a full scale Russian invasion is impossible (unless you want to start throwing nukes around), chances of Russia invading Finland are pretty much zero
which doesn’t mean Finland shouldn’t have an army. but an F-35 (or even Gripen E) would not be the most efficient or even effective (1300 km border, I figure it’s easier to guard this with 54 F-18s than with 25 or so F-35s) choice

Finnish navy went for a ghost hunt of a submarine in order to gain more money for defense spending” are just some examples.

ah, but you underestimate the willingness of generals, banks and military industry to start a war, or at least create the threat of one, to make some money, or get more budgets
one might argue that this is so a country doesn’t lose its defensive capabilities for when there is a war. but I don’t know of many generals and CEO’s that give away their money and live like monks
it’s been well documented how food companies lobbied the US government to invade Iraq so they could provide the meals on the frontline (which as it turns out were expired)
I can assure you LMT and the US military/government are using every form of bribery and political pressure known to man to sell the Finnish Air Force the F-35, regardless if that’s actually a good thing for Finland
this compared to Sweden, where the Gripen is their only form of independant defence against Russia, and they offer a fixed price guarantee. you can be certain it’s an excellent aircraft at the best price

What does that even mean? Why do you need an AESA radar, high end EW system, HMDS, IRST, MAWS and sensor fusion in an aircraft employed for insipid border policing (and I’m referring to the Gripen E here)?
Much better to downsize the existing F-18 fleet, (which is already a huge overkill) and flog the ‘newest’ ones to 2040, without upgrades.They haven’t had to undergo the stresses of carrier ops (unlike the USMC’s units scheduled for retirement in 2030), so airframe life shouldn’t be an overwhelming concern.

+1

The F-18C/D is still a potent fighter today. But its potential for future growth is almost non-existent, AFAIK. At least I have not seen a single upgrade program available on the market. In ten years, fighters like Rafale F3-R, Typhoon with AESA or Su-35S will make mincemeat out of the vanilla Hornets… let alone the PAK-FA.. My $0.02 only

well I doub the F-35 in its current version will last much longer against those killer jets with 2025 tech

the thing is, upgrading the F-18s with 2025 tech could actually be an extremely efficient and effective solution
not ulike the Mig-21 Bison upgrade in the late 90’s, sticking the latest tech onto a 40 year old aircraft made it very potent, at a bargain price
in the future this method will only become more effective as the aircraft performance becomes less important than its technology (radar, IR/optical sensors, missiles, AI, EW…)

Moore’s law (which keeps going strong, against expectations) says computers halve in price every 2 years
meaning if an F-35 computer built in 2010 costs $1 million, that same computer will cost only $7,000 in 2024 (not counting inflation)
so why introduce the F-35 by mid 2020’s when you can just upgrade your F-18s with the same ability at a fraction of the cost
with radar, sensor and weapon that’ll be at least 10 years younger than the F-35, meaning they’ll be way cheaper, and probably a lot better

chances are by 2025 you can take any old jet, put some super computers in it, and turn into a UCAV with almost 50% AI (= not quite quoting shakespear, but smart enough to hunt down any intruders and shoot them down on commmand)
this wouldn’t be hard to do, as the super computers will be relatively cheap. and the UCAV software you will be able to buy from Saab, Dassault, BAe, NG, Boeing… probably with about 80% commonality
and the FAF will probably be able to print new wings or any other parts it needs to keep the F-18 flying on the spot with 3D printers

I don’t think you can get a UCAV capable of A2A for less then 70 million. You basically have to take everything out of a F35 and stuff it into a slightly smaller air frame.

no you don’t. it’s the concept of the A-4, when you make a design lighter and smaller, you’ll naturally get more weight savings. for example you can use a lighter engine, or landing gear, or need to carry less fuel
– you don’t need AESA. not wanted on a stealth aircraft anyway. that saves a lot of money, room and power
– an EOTS like system is a must, which is basically an integrated SNIPER pod with extra camera’s. the pod goes for about $1.6 million
– a light frame means light landing gear
– and a small, off the shelf, possibly civilian engine. not the most powerful but cheap, reliable and very efficient. and you’ll still cruise at a comfortable Mach 0.9
– a smaller weapons bay, so more weight savings because you lose less space and need less ports and hydraulics and what not
it basically becomes an oversized cruise missile with its own weapons and a landing gear

and such a UCAV could do A2A, which is basically detecting, identifying and firing upon a target
for this you can use target data from another aircraft. the F-35 and Typhoon have this ability
or you can use purely optical sensors. this allows the F-35 to fire missiles towards the rear

here’s a video of the SNIPER pod being used to track an F-16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi9d8bstWsE

so it’s a matter of sending the UCAV into an area, having it detect any aircraft autonomous (the F-35 can do this for example), report back to its human operators, and wait for the order to engage

but there is no real need for UCAV with severely down graded avionics compered to F35 because even degraded cheaper avionics will still result in a 50 million cost.

the X-47b offsping is projected to cost around $50 million. for that price you will get an aircraft that can launch off a carrier, fly extreme distances, into the strongest air defences, snoop around undetected, take out any targets and fly back home
an F-35 can do it too, but with its forward focussed stealth (and huge engine outlet) it’ll be easier to detect, and has only a fraction of the range, for at least double the price (not counting the cost and value of the pilot)

thats looking at it froma US perspective though.

the USAF perspective is that they don’t want UCAVs, because then they wouldn’t need (so many) gold plated F-35s
in Europe it’s different, because they already have their next generation jets, and there’s no money for gold plated 5th generation toys. here the lack of budget makes for efficient and effective decisions

Think your timeline on UCAV integration is hopelessly optimistic as well as the idea that a UCAV would somehow be able to bomb ‘Straight from above” yet any LO fighter with standoff range weapons like the SDB would just be shot down. That’s a bit simplistic and frankly not what experiences have shown.
Lastly, the idea of a “expendable $25 million stealthy UCAV”: any UCAV developed from the nEuron/Taranis, or X-47b would likely cost north of 25 million and I doubt the air force that uses them would view those as “expendable”.

UCAVs would be able to get on top of any target, because they have a natural stealth shape (flying wing), compared to the botchup of say an F-35
depending on what stealth coating you give it, it would be an extremely effective stealthy design
on top of that it doesn’t have a human pilot and costs only a fraction of an F-35. so you can actually risk flying it onto a target, especially if you use other assets and jamming to distract and disrupt the enemy attention
an F-35 can do this too, but then you’re risking an extremely expensive aircraft, pilot, valuable technology…

the same logic applies to air combat, an F-35 is too visible, valuable and expensive too risk against super-manouverable Russian dogfighters
the best it can hope for is to release missiles at maximum range and then run (showing its huge heat exhaust to the enemy), which is a great tactic, but you’re paying a lot for a bomber pretending to be a fighter
a UCAV can use its stealth and relatively expandability to get within long missile range and shoot and scoot. or it can risk getting really close so you can get a visual on the target, and swarm him with short ranged missiles

the USAF does think of UAVs as expendable, they’ve long used them as multi-million dollar forward spotters. that’s how they lost an $18 million MQ-8B over Lybia, because they flew it within AAA range, when no manned asset was allowed to do so

as for the price, the stealthy Predator C and proposed Boeing X-45A offspring are both costed around $15 million, little more than a stealthy airframe with an engine, a big reusable cruise missile if you will
it’s unclear what size the X-47b derrivate will be, some talk of a Tomcat sized aircraft, then yes it’ll be easily $50 million
but Dassault is projecting $25 million for a production nEuron, which I find credible

wasn’t it Norway that said the F-35 is actually cheaper than the Gripen? 😉
I wouldn’t hold my breath on the F-35, chances are more problems will be revealed by 2021, like software bugs and real maintenance costs. anyone not locked in already is going to think twice
also because Norway is getting the F-35, so the Fins will have a first row seat to any difficulties, when the RNoAF F-35s don’t show up to an excercise over technical problems time after time
LMT and the USAF can lobby all they want, I don’t the Fins will take that kind of risks when facing the Ruskies
speaking of which, Finland’s jets would likely have to go up against T-50s and S-500+ SAMs, which kind of defeats the point of the F-35 stealth. that and over such a large area you want to use your radar anyway

another aspect is UCAVs: Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon will likely offer full UCAV integration by 2021 or shortly after with the nEuron/Taranis offspring
so they’ll be selling a package system, with a cost and capability that the F-35 can never match
why risk a $50-$150 million manned jet to shoot missiles at a SAM that will shoot them down point blank anyway
when you can instead send an expendable $25 million stealthy UCAV that can just fly overhead and saturate bomb it (difficult to point defend against bombs coming straight from above)
the USAF doesn’t even have a UCAV program (as this would question the need for the F-35), and I doubt they’ll export the X-47b derivative