1. Finland needs a new fighter jet. Russia is a military thread and only someone living in a cave thinks it’s not.

2. Finland is going to have war against Russia if Russians attack or try same little green men BS they are doing in Ukraine.

3. Just because some people have fetish towards UCAV’s it doesn’t mean that such vehicles are capable to do air fighting. As pointed out before UCAV’s must be able to perform air combat duties on their own without any human assistance since jamming would make them useless otherwise. I’m still waiting evidence that sort of UCAV’s are going to fly by 2030…

4. Brazil deal and other such information prove that Gripen NG is far more expensive than 43 million. Did I mention not one Gripen NG has ever flown yet?

1-3 agreed. Not to mention that everything Finland dimensions its defense against is namely, Russia. Same with Sweden.

4. Gripen NG will not cost 43 million, agreed. But the reason as to why the Gripen BR has jumped up to 5.4 billion is because they’ve insisted on some special solutions such as the WAD. The Gripen E will be cheaper than the other Eurofighters, and the F-35 to purchase, operate and maintain throughout the years. The first Gripen E [39-8] will fly sometime soon and the first serial-produced 39E will fly in 17-18 depending on political decisions. Hardly a reason to look in another direction. Saab has previously mentioned that the Gripen production line can be ramped up depending on future demands quite significantly. But I think the Finns would rather be able to put up a local assembly line as Patria has done with the NH90. Good for the economy, good for security and as long as the F-18s still have hours, they can continue operation and gradually integrate the Gripens. By the time that the F-18’s have to be replaced, Gripen 39E will already have been thoroughly tested.

I have to be honest here…MIG-29 actually seems to clock the fastest runs on my about 3 minutes from take off to land race track.

How is that relevant in any way to the discussion?

Seriously, do pilots really think they can avoid being shot down using greater speed or maneuvering methods? How exactly will a jet outrun a missile AD system that was designed to shoot down ballistic missiles? What pilot is going to try to outturn SPAAG system that’s probably accurate enough to hit an artillary shell?

I don’t think any pilot believe that one might outmaneuver an incoming missile. However using maneuvers in order to use the countermeasures in a proper way is a key role. BVR type of combat allows for greater time of response and action, whilst shorter distances will require the plane to be more agile and rapid in its maneuvering. Different countermeasures require different tactics and angles of efficiency. It’s never foolproof, and will always be a struggle between improved missiles and improved countermeasures. But I wouldn’t rule out that maneuverability, maintaining energy whilst maneuvering and agility will be an important factor for many years to come. Just as an example, the IRIS-T might just be one of the best IR-missiles in service at this point, with a max turn rate of around 60 g at a rate of 60°/s, max speed at around Mach 3 and a much higher resistance to countermeasures than previous missiles. Against it, you would certainly need some very specific tactics to coordinate and maneuver your A/C into an optimal flight path in relation to the incoming missile and use the proper type/amount of countermeasures.

I seriously doubt that Finland would go for a lower number of F-35s.

– Industrial cooperation
It will have an affect on the fighter deal. Something the F-35 could offer NOTHING.
Seeing previous Gripen E bids, that’s a win for the Gripen which surely could offer local assembly and local industrial cooperation.

– Number of A/C
Finland has a really rational view on bang for the buck. Have a hard time seeing Finland settling for anything LESS than what they SPECIFIED AS A DEMAND [Instead of fewer SAMP/T they chose more NASAMS as an example].
Only A/C that has a realistic chance of getting the amount of planes for the FAF for a reasonable sum is *drumbroll* Gripen.

– A/C performance
So far all possible choices have impressive technical performance. Fairly similar on many levels where there’s some ups and downs here and there.

What will matter in the end? For a SEAD/Counter S-4/500 A/G stealth fighter with reduced numbers,virtually no industrial cooperation or offsets and MUCH higher operating/maintenance costs, relying on primarily stealth to keep its “air supremacy” then the F-35 is likely the choice for the FAF. For a well-rounded fighter jet with good possibility to upgrade it locally or take part in joint developments with close neighbors, that will be able to assemble Gripens locally and that will give FAF a modern, capable, nimble and smart little fighter in the requested numbers with even lower operating costs than the Hornets flying now, and that can offer a whole bunch of bang for the buck (the main concept of the FDF), they ought to choose the Gripen. My guess is 50/50 between F-35 and Gripen. It’s anyones game. Only time will tell. One thing is for sure, Gripen E will have matured by then, something the Gripen A had not accomplished when the FAF chose the Hornet.

Pardon me but none of that looks outside the normal operating procedures to me.. Even NATO allies are spying on each other and gathering intel, don’t see how this is anywhere close to being a true “war preparation”.. That Russia has started to flex muscles in reponse to the international sanctions having been imposed is an undeniable fact but the responses to this behavior are nothing but hysteric, IMO. Lets not get carried away too much and things will calm down..

Well, the whole reason as to why the Swedish defense is in a desperate state is because of the reforms during the 90’s and 00’s. The background was that, since the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no enemy that laid ground for a vast national defense. Regiments were shut down, capabilities lost, equipment was sold, destroyed or stored and all with the promise that, if there’s ever an increase in hostile intentions, the defense will be rebuilt and amped up. Well, here we are in 2015 and the politicians refuse to pay for even half of what they requested capability wise from the Swedish Armed Forces, even while a vast majority of the Swedish citizens are for increased defense spendings. Formerly, incidents were rarely reported and nobody really gave a flying fvck, but atleast thanks to the media, it reaches out to the most anti-military housewives to portray the real picture of what’s going on. Sweden has since ww2 had a constant threat of a soviet invasion. Russian subs have been swimming in our waters, Swedes have been killed during the cold war by Russians. There’s been several statements from e.g. SÄPO where they’ve said that war-preparations are currently at, or might even be worse, than during the cold war. Where the threat of war with USSR was an immense threat, and Sweden had one of the mightiest air forces in Europe at some points, a conscript army spread out over the entire country, reservists and volunteers ready for anything and large battle exercises were practiced from time to time. So for Swedes, it is a real problem, simply because we’re neither in NATO nor have any invasion defense agreement with any countries. Last couple of years we’ve witnessed that Russia isn’t afraid to take action as seen in e.g. Georgia and Ukraine. Gotland is a very important piece of land to control the baltic sea, something that might come to be a hot spot between Russia and certain unmentioned NATO countries.

Thanks, haven’t seen that before.. 90 meters, that’s dangerously close, I agree. Was there anything similar reported with the Tu-22M3s?

Yes it is, and it’s worrying. Probably only a matter of time before there’s an incident. Ofcorse Russia is not the only one flying with its transponders off, but so far I’ve only heard of incidents where Russian jets have been involved, many NATO flights in the baltic region have their transponders on, especially in the heavily trafficked areas. The Tu-22Ms were of no risk to my knowledge of any civilian flights nor did they pass into Swedish airspace.

Urban, you should calm down and read a bit:

1/ they did not enter swedish airspace, meaning, they were in international airspace which is their right. what’s more, there’s no law nor any sort of obligation to turn on your transponder in international airspace. In most countries, you even can fly in a Class G (uncontrolled airspace) without it.

2/ it’s a military flight, it is there to test Sweden’s military response. Transponder or not, they are visible on primary (military) radars

I think Urban means that either way, sending two Tu-22M bombers to fly in the near vicinity of Swedish airspace (which doesn’t extend very far outside of the Island) is a provocation from the Russian side. If there ever would be an attack, the Tu-22 wouldn’t even have to be near Swedish airspace to drop cruise missiles or even nuclear armed derivatives. But in this case, it’s just a provocation and to test the SwAF reactions. I wouldn’t imagine any rational news headlines coming out of Russia if Sweden flew armed/unarmed Gripens with their transponders off just outside of Russian air space in the outskirts of Kaliningrad or Saint Petersburg. SwAF would never fire on Russian A/C violating Swedish airspace in peacetime. Obviously.

It wasn’t too long ago that two Su-24 Fencers came into Swedish airspace when they flew into the airspace over the island of Öland. Which Russian MD denied. Obviously. So it’s standard for the SwAF to go up, mark their presence and to make sure the intercepted A/C doesn’t violate Swedish Air Space. And whether or not it’s legal to fly in international airspace without a transponder, it’s just absolutely stupid to do so whilst flying in the narrow strait between Malmö and Copenhagen, possibly one of the most heavily trafficked airspaces in Scandinavia, which is a huge risk for civilian lives. Could possibly create a spark that ignites something even bigger. Stupid and reckless in my opinion and almost caused an incident which risked Scandinavian civilian lives.

Can it? Flight tests so far only confirm Mach 1.6. Respective ranges are dubious due to exact mission profile.

In theory an SH would present the best radar and combat-proven AAM capability. That said Raven ES-05, IRST, Cobra HMD with Meteor and IRIS-T make for an interesting combination too.

The mach 1.6 is due to the fact that the new engine requires larger intakes, something that, to my knowledge hasn’t been fitted on the Demo, but IS incorporated in the new 39E/NG.

And yes, the Raven, IRST, HMD, METEOR & IRIS-T, on a small fighter such as the Gripen with a small RCS, small IR signature, good maneuverability/agility and with the capability to super cruise will be a force to be reckoned with in any aerial warfare situation. 🙂

Well they came to the conclusion that the prospective Gripen MS21 was not better than their Hornets.

Nic

And neither did the Rafale. Both lacked in air combat since the Hornet had HMD at that time, and neither the Rafale or Gripen managed to prove they would either. Adieu Monsieur.

Hard to put any stock in comments like that, we are talking about exercises where the scenarios are scripted, and aircraft given different mission sets, some opfor training. A lot goes into the perspective of the pilot. You will often hear F-16 pilots claim they could outturn anyone too ( at least till the F-22 entered service), despite the reality that the F-16 does not have the best turn rates at med to high altitude.

Every time you hear leaks about how X fighter did VS. Y, I can’t help thinking that it is a gross discredit to the service that pilot is from (the exercises are meant to be learning experiences, it’s not all about who wins).

Rarely do you hear anything like that from RAF pilots (to their credit), the USAF is usually tight lipped about Red Flag, etc (with one notable exception of a loud mouthed colonel who commented on the MKI). There is one Western air force that seems to delight in unofficially releasing how they performed in exercises, to the annoyance of the other participants who gently rebuff the comments.

If that was somehow unclear in my previous post, I whole heartedly agree with you. As I mentioned, it depends more on the layout of the exercise, the perimeters and the support elements than fighter X vs fighter Y. And in the vast majority of exercises, it’s not against a potential enemy, but rather friendly forces in order to exchange tactics, learn from the experience and to get more of a hands on experience of the practiced situation. If I made it unclear, my post was more about the different circumstances of each air-air engagement and the fact that the different A/C have different attributes in different areas. The Gripen might be more nimble and agile than a EF at certain speeds and altitudes and vice versa.