PLA-MKIIThe air bases seem wide apart to me, some cases more than the combat radius of the hornets. Also does Finland have interests near the pole?
It has to be american, best bet for them to defend against Russia.
I think f16s may just remain in production particularly if the “JSF” flops. Loads cheaper to operate for 98% of the typical roles combat aircraft play today.
PLA-MKIIDidn’t see any threads on it, so here:
http://www.ibtimes.com/china-iran-weigh-1-billion-deal-swap-chengdu-j-10-fighter-jets-major-oil-field-2042356Personally I don’t think it’s a very good idea, air power is the West’s forte.
It’s not a field where Iran can hope to pose any threat, between the F-22 dominating the skies and cruise missiles/UCAVs bombing any air fields with impunity, the J-10s would quickly run out of places (from) where they can operate.
For day to day air force tasks (hunting UAVs), Iran’s aging aircraft inventory still does the trick.Iran would be better off to invest in non-traditional forms of warfare, like cyberwarfare and scuds, that can do a lot more damage to the West and any ships trying to force open a naval blockade.
And yes nukes. No nuclear capable country has ever been invaded in all-out war.
Seems speculative. Yet to see any serious publication saying such a deal is even being negotiated, let alone finalized
PLA-MKIIThe Finns disagree with you; they have not even mentioned the F-16 as a potential candidate!
If you look around, you’ll see that in the last few years, the F-16 has participated in very few competitions; and in those cases where it was invited it was not shortlisted. (e.g., Indian MMRCA; competitions in Switzerland, Brazil, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Norway, Belgium, Canada, etc.)
The Western fighter jets that keep getting invited these days are: F-35, SH, Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen (mainly E).
I think each of those competitions had a parable that requires greater investigation. In addition, the F16 V is superior to anything offered before. However, if you are correct and FAF have specifically crossed out the F16, there is little more to discuss.
PLA-MKIIThe Korean T-50 is a supersonic trainer, its “combat” variant is a mach 1.5, 8g´s, twin seater equiped with a radar arguably inferior to the AN/APG-73, right what the doctor prescribed as the backbone of an Air Force wich has a bloody big border with a country called Russia…
The JF-17 while in theory being a slightly better fit than the KAI aircraft, in practice it would be even worse.
The entire arsenal of the Finnish Air Force (AIM-9X, AIM-120C7, JDAM, JSOW, JASSM) would be rendered useless and on top of that, even without the logistical nightmare that it would entail the actual aircraft doesnt bring absolutely nothing over the Finnish Classical Hornets or any EPAF MLU Tape 5/6 Viper.
It will snow in Ougadougou before the Fins evaluate any of those two for their fighter force.
If you read my post, I was first and foremost advocating the F-16V and Gripen. The F-16V would meet the criteria based on all the factors you outlined namely:
1. A superior aerodynamic platform
2. Superior sensors
3. Weapons integration issues
A single seater T-50 or JF-17 may be able to play a cameo role, or play a substitute for a country having no other economically viable options, surely highly unlikely for Finland despite its financial shortcomings.
Yet weapons integration may not be an issue. Consider the fact that we are looking at past 2023 scenario. The munitions would have a shelf life. They could be used by small numbers of F-18s left in service. JF-17s have an open architecture and could easily integrate some of those weapons without an issue. A Gripen would do even better. T-50s may already be wired for AIM-9X and AMRAAM (?)
Incidentally, Gripens and JF-17 would out-range a legacy Hornet for an a2a configuration. If you’re trying to intercept Russian aircraft, even a Tu-95, you’d need legs, something the Hornet does not have. The Finnish Hornets in any case are worn out. You can’t buy new ones, you’d have to go for the SH, which is pretty much a new plane.
Imagine the operational costs of an F-35 or even a Rafale / Eurofighter. For a limited budget, a light fighter would do much better for Finland. Particularly at a time when even for countries like South Africa, maintaining a Gripen is so costly as to leave much of their fleet as hanger queens.
Coming back to the realpolitik:
Finlands best defense is in aligning itself with the US. This means it should go for an F-16 / SH or F35. I think the F-16 would be the most suitable of the buys and would, without doubt, bring new capabilities to the Finnish AF.
PS: Combat radius for a2a load for the Hornet is 740 km
PLA-MKIIT50? JF17?
Unless their Hornets are falling apart it would be a downgrade, not an upgrade
F-16 is of similar generation as theirs Hornets, so, pretty much the same (and it is not on offer as LM needs any customer it can get for the F-35)
The concept of generations may be misleading. Think performance, range, technology…
PLA-MKIIIf you want to buy a Gripen or F-16V, you can also upgrade your Hornets with SABR or APG-79(V)X..
How much service life is there left with Finnish F-18s?
Problem with the hornets is pitiful range. F16 would help get them out of being a point intercept air force, barely capable of coving own territory.
Of course, SH would solve that…
PLA-MKIIWell, how about the T50 from Korea? Could that not be an option? Or the F16V?
I personally think the F16 makes the most sense, both politically and military capability wise. Remember the Gripen is severely restricted in range with a low altitude profile and Finland is a big country
Perhaps highly unlikely but the lowest cost with acceptable capabilities would be a JF17 with a western engine
PLA-MKIII think the discussion does not quite reflect the difference between the Su35 and Su30. The Su35 is probably the epitome of a 4th gen fighter along with the Typhoon as far as a2a is concerned while the MKI is a good all rounder.
PLA-MKIII would go out on a limb and say that i wouldn’t want an evolution. Rather, something like a complete rethink of air combat.
Imagine a hive with bees of different functionalities working together.
Type1:
A low cost fighter with IRST and Lidar and no radar.
Single engined.
Something like a modernized Gripen
Type 2:
A twin engined high flyer
Acting as a mini AWACS
A bvr mass shooter
Giant delta wings
Internal and external weapons carriage
Supercrusing
Strike capable
Emphasis on low cost design and build as much as reasonable
Perhaps an area ruled fuselage would help keep costs low for a given performance metric
Type 3:
Various types of UCAVs that are controlled and coordinated by the manned types
Eliminates satellite bandwidth issues
Type 4:
A simple CAS platform along the lines of a smaller, simpler a10
Type 5:
A COIN platform similar to the Air Tractor.
Type 4 and 5 should be shoved down the Marines throat and told never, ever again are they to ever whisper the idea of a SVTOL fighter for them, ever ever again.
Realistically, for my country, the next generation may mean JF17s with AESA radars. Or a cheaper option of F7s with RAM painted on them.
PS: here is an interesting thought: what if we took the last version of the F7, removed the radar for half the planes, putting IRST, jammers and lidar? With multiple ejection racks, could be a great next generation for poorer countries.
PLA-MKIIThanks for replying
WP quantity is only a factor if the VVS and PVO units in USSR are able to reinforce the frontline WP units.Otherwise quantitatively the FRG/Norwegian/Danish/Belgian/Dutch/RAF in FRG are a pretty significant force too
which missiles can WP use if the intermediate range weapons treaty eliminated are eliminated lets say in 1987? how effective are FROG and SCUD with conventional /chemical warheads ?
interesting this is what I was alluding to, how relevant are the much vaunted dog fighting capabilities when you are operating in an enviorment when what is most likely going to kill you will be an unseen attacker whether another fighter or SAM ?
The EW enviorment over central Europe will be such that there would be a lot of confusion esp in the IFF and a lot of friendly fire incidents
To counter the NATO , AWACs advantage what tactics can the WP airforces use ?True but how many of these were available in the late 80s ? was the R-60 later variants all aspect WvR weapon ?
I agree the layered defence of WP SAM will be a great disruption for NATO attackers even if they manage to get thru the WP interceptors , plus many of the NATo fighters will have to adapted for CAS to halt the Red army advance and this will mean more of them will be exposed to SAM/AA guns and NATO fighters will not have the luxury of being purely interceptors
NATO estimates during that era was a 3:1 disadvantage in numbers. Would not be reasonable to disagree with that.
I don’t know how effective SSMs would be. Maybe a Russian former can fill in the blanks.
Dog fights do not end just because of good radar coverage, that would be the wrong way to look at it.
AWACS are not that great an advantage in a highly sensor rich environment. Also WP had some AWACs too.
I think HOBS were available with the MiG29s and Su27s. As the war progressed they would be even more widely available. Remember the timeframe I outlined.
It would be a war unlike any we have seen so far. Hard to make reliable predictions IMHO
PLA-MKIIThanks for the info. Knew little about Turkish EW/ELINT assets.
Pls do keep us informed as things progress with pics and news. Would be much appreciated.
PLA-MKIII think MiG-35 would be easiest to add given the existing fleet. The Rafale is the most attractive looking plane of the competition. A bare basic JSF could be a dark horse. What would be lovely – the F16 – 90 units would give them a bigger fleet than their arch rival.
PLA-MKIIYou’re looking at a single location, with the newest & best aircraft in their inventory, probably kept spruced up because that’s the base that is shown to the fat boy & filmed for public consumption. Also, it’s near Pyongyang, & houses the fighters tasked with defending the capital, & therefore the leadership. I doubt it’s typical.
The aircraft pictured won’t be replaced any time soon. N. Korea still has many Shenyang F-5s – Chinese MiG-17 copies – & Il-28s. How many, if any, are usable is an interesting question.
Of course you are right, still, the impression these pics leave me with is a few steps better than it was prior. Also, the level of organization displayed is at least to some extent indicative of the organization even if these are elite units.
Its a most interesting question. They were turned down j10s if I recall. Perhaps they could use hand me downs. I once had a friend who worked with the Chinese foreign service and was surprised how much disdain the Chinese had for theDPRK. I can’t see them getting anything better than FC1s at best. Would complement the 29s nicely
PLA-MKIIThanks swerve, Steve49, that was informative. 20-30% does seem significant, I was wrong in calling it otherwise.
PLA-MKIIBeautiful pictures. I was wrong in seeing DPRK AF as a dilapidated run down affair. Seems in decent shape. Wonder what route they will take in replacing their equipment. Could go Russian or Chinese.
Sign In
