For the last few weeks I have been working on Offensive counter air/deep strike scenario in Kannas Eastern Karelia region. This would be one of scenarios HX candidates would have to show their suitability. Again the premise comes from RAND scenario of NATO-Russia war in Baltic region. This scenario is a few hours into the conflich where Finnish Air Force has to cut the supply routes into the combat zone. The prospected combat zone is inLappeenranta-Viipuri-Imatra area, and FAF is to cut supplyroutes to said area. This entails destruction of bridges in Kannas and in Syväri area. There is XXX bridges in area, and destruction of those will hamper the troop movement and resupply in area.
The Russian Aerospace forces (Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily Rossii, VVS for short) are again present from their current bases and are flying DCA missions. VVS flies with assortment of MiG-31s SU-27s and Su-33s from their respective bases. There is also a sprinkle of A”A assets protecting the bridges and area defense systems to give more broad cover over Kannas and Ladoga area. Notably there is A-100 AWACS in air, which should help the VVS to contain the FAF in the area.
The Finnish Air Force does Offensive Counter Air (OCA) and Deep Strikes missions. OCA mission is meant to open windows for the deep strike missions to reach their targets and drop their ordnance on the bridges. OCA is also meant to cause maximum damage on VVS so that continued fighting is possible over Finland.
As the scenario is so different from previous ones, I’m taking more of a control in FAF missions: One cannot really try to accomplish the same goals with same kind of planning with F-35 A and say F/A-18 E/G. I’m not professional, so I’ll take quite a few iterations on this. But I’m sure that I eventually get to best practises, that might be obvious to professionals of the field.
Also one has to note that MLRS systems are not used in this scenario.
The first fighter to go will be Eurofighter Typhoon.
The HX bids were in by the end of April, and there were no big bangs fired in the media. SAAB’s and Boeing’s bids were generally known. Lockheed Martins foreign military sales permit allows also for 64 fighters, but it is not known, if that is the actual number proposed. It is of course common sence that the Dassault and BAE bids are in the same ballpark, as the number 64 is really dictated by fourship up in north and south at all times 24/365 with a few spares to make time for maintainance. 8x(24/4)x1,3=62,4 planes. This is conviniently just about what “daddy sunshine” Josef Stalin dictated in 1948. The right number should be closer to 100 than 60. So 86 might be the real number. Of course HX fighter will be supplemented by “Air force teaming assets” ie Loyal wingmen in 2030’ies so, I’m not too worried about this lack of platforms. This is not in any way limited to Boeing Australias exellent “Loyal Wingman” but concept is in development for all HX candidates, but it seems Boeing has a hefty head start in this.
Boeings Loyal WIngman as an artist expression. This aircraft flew her maiden flight earlier in 2021. I wrote something about said aircraft and there is a longer piece coming this summer.
In political front SAAB can be very happy as it seems the lefty-greenie government is going to be the one to give the nod in late 2021. And as swedes can do no wrong as far as said coalition is concerned things look good for the Gripen E.
Of course there is the EU connection concerning the Typhoon and Rafale, and I think the French might be ready to exert some pressure/influense on Finnish Govt. This could be extra money from EU relief bill, or some other boon, but I’m at loss what it might be. Same goes with the Germany of course. Britons in the other hand are most important defense partner of Finland after Sweden, which might play a role here.
F/A-35 A is of course been the forerunner because of “reasons”, but as it seems her career might be cut shorter by recent developments, I see Lockheed-Martins chances shrinking. F-35 A stealthcapabilities is of course the selling point, but in many other aspects F-35 struggles in competition.
The Americans benefit from the change of the POTUS, but as president Trump was eager to sell the F/A-18 E to Finland, this might lessen the propability of Rhino reeling in the bid. It is not known how VP Harris sees the deal, but I’d say Americans are still on the rise.
Meteor A2A capabilities EU Kinematics
stealth weaponry Meteor?
Meteor EU Kinematics A2S capabilities
Growler Known aircraft fast run up time weaponry pricepoint expenses A2S capabilities
Meteor “swedishness” Global Eye Pricepoint expenses FAF sayso in future development SAAB involvement in R&D in FIN
expenses fyture expansion BC Typhoon
weapon bays Expenses kinematics
supply pricepoint expenses?
BVR missile? future
wartime supply future expansion available electricity
My thoughts on strenghts and weaknesses of HX- bids.
My views on matter are of course highly subjective, but I feel that are about the can of worms where the reasoning comes. As to question which is the strongest bid right now? Hmm. Maybe all things considered SAAB Gripen. Main reasons being the pledge to take FAF views wery strongly into consideration in path forward (This is evident on that SwAF will get their Gripen Es with software and equpment FAF pics; So big say in R&D for minor partner.) If the economics is the sole factor, nod will go to the Boeing and Rhino. This is not to say that Rhino and Growler are not VVS beating combo in their own right.
I may be overestimating SAAB’s chanses, because the relative closed mouthesness of Dassault, who has exellent fighter, and clear path forward. France is quite assertive in their politics, so there might be something there, that is not common knowledge. So I’d always keep the Rafale in mind. and Rafale’s performance and kinematics were on great display in Kauhava airshow August last.
AS I have pointed out quite many times, Command Modern Operations is COMMERCIAL software, ie a game, a very simulation oriented, very realistic but still a game. So the scenarios done here will not be 100% accurate representation of actual world. (Well, that is of course every simulation ever) but we can still except 50-65% realistic outcomes from these runs.So not totally accurate, but well within the ballpark.
The Scenario results
Each HX-hopefull was in the simulation 5 times plus extra time for a video (Video is not included in tabulation). All of them had significant edge over VVS (Vojenno-vozdušnyje sily Rossijskoi Federatsii), or Russian Air Force. The TO&E of VVS is generally known, so I used that. The missions the fighters are on are of course open for debate, but I’m pretty sure there would be SEAD/DEAD element and strikes against basing to “gather the eggs into fewer baskets”, ie forcing FAF into bigger concentrations to make striking against them more feasible.
All HX-candidates were put in the air in heaviest possible A2A configuration. This is heaviest with Rafale, 4 Meteor, 2 MICA IR, 2 MICA RF, then Typhoon and Gripen with 6 Meteor, and Typhoon with two ASRAAM and Gripen with two IRIS-T. F-18 E had 6 AIM-260 JATM and two AIM-9X sidewinders. There was two F/A-18 G Growlers there as well, who had a few AMRAAM Ds in their inventory. Least ordnance was carried by F-35 As who had four AMRAAM Ds internally and two Sidewinders externally.
If we look first how many fighters got into air with each HX hopefuls scorecard reads Typhoon seven fighters (four pairs) Gripen 8 fighters, (four pairs), Rafale 9 and F/A-18 E’s also 9 which means five pairs in air.(Plus pair of Growlers with Super hornets). F-35 keeps the rear with 11 fighters, so 6 sorties. This is germane for the matter, as this indicates that FAF with F-35 would need to fly a lot of more sorties compared to say Typhoon. This means that Typhoons can keep up the A2A bubble up longer than for F-35 can.
Another thing is damage sustained for infrastructure. It seems to be impossible to come out of this scenario without loosing SOME radar installations. Rafale and F-35 lost 2 as a rule, Typhoon lost 1,67 and JAS-39 Gripen and F/A-18 E lost 1. There also was, more often than not strikes against airfields. (In fact ONLY Rafale lost was lost when it was taking off, but suhois dropped anti runway bombs at the same time.) So F/A-18 E and Gripen won the defensive part of the scenario. then Typhoon and Rafale and F-35 last.
Counter Air combat was of course another big thing in this scenario. And as the whole HX exinstence revolves around counter air cababilities, it is THE yardstick the candidates live and die from. It was not really suprising that Typhoon was very strong in this: It consistently killed most planes, and the missiles had the highest Kp. And all this without a single loss. The second place is detable: Gripen or Rafale? Gripen has better Kp (0,443 vs 0,411), and on average more splashes (19,4 vs 17,6) but lost significanly more fighters than Rafale did (0,7 vs 0,2). And as this lost Rafale was on the ground, one might argue that it should not be included in A2A losses at all. As the ratio of kills to losses goes to Rafale 88 vs 27,71 I give second place to Rafale and third to Gripen. AS the American contenders, F/A-18 had more splashes 18,6 vs 16,2 F-35 had better Pk, 0,356 vs 0,336 and less losses 0,3 vs 1 Fourth spot goes to F-35 and fifth to F/A-18 E. I do point out that F/A-18 had one really abyssmal run, where it lost four planes, and hat missile Kp of 0,224, and lost only one fighter after that, so one can hardly say F/A-18 E is a bust. Same can be said about F-35: in one run F-35s used 9 AIM-9X sidewinders, so VVS got really close, and no matter HOW stealthy you are WVR battle is about manouver and energy, and that was where 1,5 Lightnings were lost. The Americans had inferior performing missiles, and thus could not rack as much kills as the Eurocanards did. AIM-260 JATM has the range yes, and You could easily take out the A-50 Mainstay and Il-22 EW platforms, but the Pk was BAD.
If you took the worst runs of for each this is most evident in missile Kp and lost fighters categories. For example F/A-18 E would go from average of one fighter lost in each run to 0,2 fighters lost, and JAS-39 Gripen from 0,7 to 0,3. So maybe next time I’ll make seven runs and drop off the best and the worst, to get things more even.
Main points you can draw from this exercise: 1)If your main A2A missile performs badly you will have losses. 2) it is mostly impossible to save everything
First: I do not have ANY knowledge of the “official” scenarios of the HX program, but I have tried to make educated guess what kind of situations these might be. DCA scenario is definately there as defensive and offensive counter air is the core mission of HX fighter.
Second: I have run these simulations on “Command Modern Operations”, so the simulation is as accurate as it can be on commercial software. So don’t take this as Word of God, but it will still be around 60-70% accurate.
However, I’m looking to get the professional version, if economics are there. If you wish to chip in, feel free to throw me a dime.
Gripen’s in Arctic
As SAAB has previously said: “We have black belt in fighting Suhois” the JAS-39 E Gripens give a good accounting of themselves in this scenario. In fact I used Brasilian Gripens, because they were a bit more modern that was offered for Sweden in Command Modern Operations.
In HX-hopefulls SAAB offers “light fighter” concept along with Lockheed Martin, in a way that both are single engine affairs. Well, as empty weight goes, F-35 is the second heaviest 13000kg after F/A-18 E’s 14552kg. So Gripens empty weight of 8000kgs, is indeed “light”. In essence “weight” is nowadays a pretty obscure yardstick to measure fighters by, but here it does highlight the fact how sleek and small Gripen E is. In case you wonder: second engine weights about 1100kg in F/A-18 E that uses the same engine. The size then affects the relative stealthiness of the platform in visual domain.
Other big thing, maybe the bigger thing, is SAABs inclusion of GlobalEye mini AWACS into the bid. This would indeed bring more value to the pack and would take Finnish Air Forces battle management away from Warsaw Packt years to current times. Global eye is eye in the sky: It can see all of the aerospace from ground up to the skies with same ease. Targets cannot really hope to hide behind terrain or sneak into your aerospace low. All can be seen. This is really really important in scheme of things!
This leads to one of the SAAB’s strenghts in HX-competition: One engine guzzles about half of the avgas two engines use. Thus flight hour is about half of what it is with other HX competitors. This would mean that you can fly about twice as much what you can fly with other HX fighters, which leads to better trained Air Force. (Yes there are simulators, but that is hardly the same as training in meat)
But same time single engine saves costs it produces half the electricity two engine fighter produces. This is not catastrofic in it self in 2020’ies, but will limit the amount of electricity is available for direct energy weapons in future. (Direct energy weapons mean for example microwave and laser weapons that use electricity to get energy into target.) This is exemplified by Future Air dominance concept of BAE (and SAAB) Tempest where her Rolls-Royce engines are very much optimized to conjure electricity for direct energy and other applications.
SAAB had exellent press conference about week ago: SAABs directors and their guests from Swedish Government and Air Force did paint a very compelling picture about JAS Gripen E as HX. Which would not of course be “bad”, but is it “the bestest” is another question. SAABs guests really made the effort to emphasis that “Finland does its own decisions” but painted a picture about common Air Force with two commanders. This sort of would make sence because that common air force would have 120 JAS-39 Gripen E fighters (Plus quite a few C/Ds to run along) and it would free Swedish component to South eastern theatre, Baltic Sea and Baltic islands, and the other component, Finnish, to deal with everything that is happening north of say Pori (Björneborg)-Tampere (Tammerfors)-Mikkeli (St. Michael) Line. This would of course help out with DCA greatly in both operational directions.
Also, Swedes flashed oppourtunity to use Swedish basing as back area for Finnish Air Force in war. This would of course mean that Finns and Swedes need to be allied to some extend. Would being members of EU be enough? Or would this mean F and Sw being NATO allies? Alliance between? Or Personal Union with Queen Victoria of Sweden as the Monark?
As Fighters go, JAS Gripen is exellent prospect: It is just beginning production, it will have widening userbase (Many South American AF is eyeing Gripen E/F as a step up from American legacy aircraft.) So Gripen E will be relevant untill 2060. Yes there is the Tempest. Tempest will not be flying for quite a long time yet. But stuff they are developing for the said Tempest will first fly in both Gripen and Typhoon. developement of new fighter craft does take decades!
This is about after 18 minutes run. VVS has no idea where the threat is coming from. What is surprising in Command Modern Operations simulation is that Gripen E’s identification range with its sensors. Gripes has hard time identifying targets before they are 2/3rds in her radar coverage. I do not know if this is supposed to be threat library thing or what. If it was radar thing Gripen would not be very successful in guiding missiles to targets,
As you can see from the scorecard, Gripen did not lose as many radars, as others did, but still lost them. Other was that SAAB’s HX-hopefull did manage to get pretty decent run: it got 97 to 3,5 drop ratio, there was some hits on Air force bases, but nothing too serious. All together it got the job done and mostly kicked ass.
First: I do not have ANY knowledge of the “official” scenarios of the HX program, but I have tried to make educated guess what kind of situations these might be. DCA scenario is definately there as defensive and offensive counter air is the core mission of HX fighter.
Second: I have run these simulations on “Command Modern Operations”, so the simulation is as accurate as it can be on commercial software. So dont take this as Word of God, but it will still be around 60-70% accurate
The Super Hornet
F/A-18 E/F is seen as the “oldie but goldie” of HX- hopefulls. And indeed has achieved it’s Initial Operational Capability in 2001. (Typhoon 2003, Rafale 2001, F-35 2016 and JAS-39 Gripen has not yet achieved the IOC) For some unfathomable reason Boeings HX hopeful is seen as the “too old” in the competition, this may be because there is the F-35 C, but USN has never intended to replace the whole F-18 E fleet with Lightning IIs. USN is bying under 300 F-35 Cs, so there will be at least 300 Super Hornets in service side by side with the stealth fighters. This is if USN stays at 11-12 carriers.
On the other hand: USN has 2045 plan that would require force of at least 11 super carriers, and 6 light carriers. And light carriers not being “amphibious assault ships” but sort of medium carriers along the lines of Queen Elizabeth or France’s PANG carrier So there is MUCH room still for the 600 plane F/A-18 E/F/G force. This means that speculations of Super Hornets retirement are very much premature. In fact, with the situation deteoriating in South China sea and Sea of Japan, I would wager that there is need for more F/A-18 E/F/G air frames and squadrons as the USN grows to 500 ship navy.
In HX context we really don’t know what kind of A2A missiles Finland is looking for in tandem with the Rhinos. There are AMRAAM D, JATM and Peregrine missiles as options. Other than that, US congress sales permit made it really clear what else Finland is looking to a quire as stores for HX fighters.
In the simulation again it is very sobering to see how much Finland’s air defense is really centered around the missiles Air Force uses and their performance: IF we think perfect hit rate as pk50% (every volley of two missiles drops an enemy target) when kill probability goes under pk30% you are looking more and more likely hood of blue casualities. (1st column in picture below being the case in point: pk around 21%, four blue losses) This is mainly because the the red force will get so close that they can see targets and get to fire. After that Super Hornet is not at it’s strongest.
In this scenario I used F/A-18 Es with JATM missiles (Growlers were still with AMRAAM Ds). The AF-bases were the same, and again no fire untill at least four VVS fighters were in Finnish aerospace. As HX hopefulls go, F/A-18 E is in the slow side with F-35: Both can clock speeds up to 1,6 mach (This might be in some kind of load, because I have seen quotes of 1,8M clean/ in A2A nission) The European HX-hopefulls bit faster (Rafale 1,8 Mach, Gripen 2 Mach and Typhoon 2,2+ Mach). The speed is significant in two ways: It allowe you get faster where you need to be, and it helps missiles to fly a bit farther.(Height of launch is here more significant, but speed is not without impact on matter. Not to mention relative altitude between launching aircraft and the target)
Super Hornets AN/APG-79 radar is very sophisticated and powerful AESA radar and combined with long range AIM-260 JATM missile it gives quite a good accounting of itself. But as an average it seems that every third missile hits. One still has to point out, that frequently the F/A-18 Es tried shooting down the AS-17 and 18 missiles, and did get some scores, but that it is quite difficult exercise to pull it of.
As an interceptor F/A-18 E is not at its best performance, but never the less, it gives quite a good account of itself. Granted the first round was really awful, and 4 fighters were lost, but after that thing evened out. also Pk with JATM was on that time abyssal 0,224, so Suhois got really close and managed to shoot some missiles themselves. that led to casualties. When JATMs performed, there was no real problems in that account.
The basic scenario is introduced HERE. and as a side note: I do not know if HX scenarios really have a DCA scenario in Lapland and Northern Finland. You can rest assured there IS a DCA scenario, as that is the core competence of HX fighter.
Also it is good to bear in mind that Command Modern operations is commercial software, and not really military/government level simulation. I do suspect however that you get reasonably good picture of respective capabilities of the different platforms with this software.
Rafale gave exellent run for the money in Arctic winter warfare exercise this time around. One fighter was lost, on the ground, when Meteors and MICAs performed lest than stellarly, and VVS got to drop ordnance on Rovaniemi airfield. Also Rafales in this simulation were FR3.4 standard and NOT of FR4 standard that is offered to Finland, so there might be quite significant enchantments in capabilities in the pipelines.
The Early warning (KAVA) radars and surveillance radars (KEVA) took again serious beating and Air force would be seriously hampered in following weeks of fighting. Also Radars are truck mounted, so it is feasible that after fighting starts they should get the hell out of Dodge.
Rafale loadout philosofy is different from other HX candidates: It has 4 Meteors and four MICAs, For example Eurofighter Typhoon has 6 Meteor and 2 ASRAAM. This is because of well thought of MICA- RAFALE interplay, where Rafale fighter can get data from MICA IR missiles, and thus enhance platforms capabilities. Also MICA sports much longer range compared (80km) to IRIS-T(25km), ASRAAM (25km) or Sidewinder X(35km) missiles. So MICA offers much more offensive capability compared to other IR missiles in HX competition.
Even though Rafale’s don’t use that option very often in these scenarios (I’m pondering should I take more hand in running the simulation or not. In order to make the fighters fight to, as I see them, to edge of their capabilities.) But as scorecard tells us, MUCH more “short range” missiles are used compared to other runs, so I think this really reflects the capabilities Rafale brings into the fray.
As an Air superiority fighter Rafale is quite capable. While it can be described as fighter-bomber optimized platform, it is still very good as an air dominance. After all, Rafale dominated the former Swiss Fighter replacement program in air. (After politics came involved, winner was Gripen and in referendum “we the people” decided to do without the new fighters at all.) [There is lesson here for HX candidates as well, there is also political aspect in this whether you like it or not] The French messaging boards are quite confident in Rafales ability to pull in the deal. They see French HX-hopefull as politically most formidable, second most affordable and as a fighter the best offering in the bunch.
As a side note; there is in fact fighter replacement program going on in Switzerland currently as well, and candidates are the same apart from Gripen E which was deemed too immature to enter competition. This is of course noteworthy, as Gripen C/D won the last round, Granted E/F is still in development and it IS a rather “new plane” even though it looks like former C/D. The Swiss will be giving some kind of resolution in first quarter or 2021, so before Finnish “late April” timeline.
AS it can be seen here again. closer you get the 50% kill probability, the better the scenario is going to go on you. Another factor affecting the kp is how many AS-17/18 VVS side manages to shoot: Meteor and MICA are cabable of downing a missile too, but they don’t achieve nearly the kp assosiated with fighters.
So there; On video again Rafale did really good. And as a side note I did take more command in this run than with the previous ones. This is because after Typhoon or F-35 A have fired their BVR missiles there just isn’t much to do anymore. On Rafale on the other hand we still have four more mid range MICA missiles. I felt that I would be downplaying Rafales capability if I didn’t do this and thus not give a fair run.
Because of my more aggressive posture, I lost one Rafale though.
It is not a secret that F-35 A is not and Air Superiority Fighter: It is a Joint Strike Fighter. This Defensive Counter Air scenario brings the “failings” of the F-35 A platform to fore: It is not speedy (1,6 Mach in height), it doesn’t carry a lot of missiles (4 AIM-120D and 2 AIM-9X). These failings make it impossible for F-35 A to capitalize on it’s strengths in environment where there is a lot of targets but they are quite far apart.
As you can see from the scorecard, F-35 As have to quite often resort into AIM-9X WVR missiles. That in itself is not bad: they will get the job done just as well, but the problem is that there were not enough AMRAAMS to take care of all the targets that came within the striking distance. This leads to more losses on FAF side. VVS had a quite of easy task of taking down Rangemaster and other radar sites. Also they got to try taking down runways. Rovaniemi was gotten to three times and Oulu once. Fortunately bases kept working just fine. (I suspect that Command Modern Warfare is not configured really well for dispersed basing). So in this scenario lack of speed and missiles transferred to more losses in Radar and basing department.
So even though A-50 was present, it never got a bead on the F-35 As. Only time F-35 got shot down was when they got really close to SU-27 closing from SE. That led into a little furball that led to one downed and one hit F-35. So as VVS playbook goes, maybe it would be better to saturate the Lapland aerospace so that you would get evetually bead on the Lightnings, but this would be rather costly exercise.
AIM-120 D is last iteration of AMRAAM family of missiles, and it doesn’t give some kind of performance as with METEOR missiles. At least British F-35 Bs would have METEROR available, but as Congressional permit to sell AA missiles didn’t include AMRAAMS or JATMS,I think it could have been fair to use METEORs as well, but I just don’t see Lightning IIs without US made missiles. I do suspect that the HX deal will in the end include JATM missiles, if Lockheed gets the nod.
AS the AMRAAMS were fired mostly from extreme range, it was not too difficult for the VVS fighters to manouver to avoid them. That of course leads to lower Kps. In many instances F-35s fired right after taking off. And as a rule of the thumb every 6000m of height doubles the missiles range, you can see that the kill probability was not that high.
As with Typhoon, VVS got lucky 1,5 times when Lightnings got too close to comfort with Suhois, and they managed to get bead on the FAF. (After I give FAF the initial target, I don’t meddle in to keep all things even) One splashed, the another could return to base.
VVS was not really succesfull in strikes on Air Force bases: BetAP anti runway bobmlets did not render the facilities unusable. So one might say no “harm done”, but this fact that VVS COULD get over the air basing and COULD drop ordnance on the fields higlights the fact as Air Superiority fighter/interceptor F-35 leaves a lot to be desired. So I fail, to some extend, to see the point in RAND publication of NATO/EU airforce development. Unless they are going to operate in hunter killer configuration with sensor platforms (F-35s) in front and killers (F-22, F-15, F/A-18, Typhoon) shoot from behind.
If F-35 is a pony, it is hardly an one trick pony, but it’s best trick is not air superiority. That was not the core mission of it, so F-35 is not optimized on it. It would be ludricous to expect othervice.
Typhoon is the clearest Air Superiority platform of the HX-hopefulls, and has speed, agility and altitude advantage to all other candidates in Finnish fighter replacement program. THe EUrofighter Typhoon would be a pan European choice as it is in use in most premier Airforces in Europe: Great Britain, Germany and Italy. This assures that Typhoon will be in use with the proposed European 6th gen fighters in 2050’ies.
Typhoon is Air superiority optimized multi-role fighter which would give a great reach in time&space continuum for Finland. On the downside is that EF is a bit on expensive side both to procure and to fly. Armaments are the same for most HX candidates, so no big differences in there.
I simulated the scenario 5 times and did the video on sixth time. As you can see from the tally of losses it is quite hard to keep the Air defense and monitoring bubble intact in Northern Finland and Lapland against offensive operation, with four ship on initial patrol. But it is not totally undoable either. Limiting factor for success seems mostly to be the amount of A2A ordnance
With 6 Meteor 2 ASRAAM carried the staying power of Typhoons is limited by ordnance. One could do MUCH more harm to attaking VVS, if one had option to carry 10-12 Meteors on takeoff, with just internal fuel, or possibly one extra tank as the staying power is not limited by amout of AvGas carried, but amount of Foxes under wings. (I’m trying to keep this real, and not to meddle with the database.)
As mentioned, I did 5 runs on simulation and made a table of the results. Basics of each run was the same: VVS has it’s assets up, and Finns are launching two pairs to guard neutrality. Even though Typhoon is the fastest burner in HX competition even it doesn’t have time enough to zoom all over Lapland and be everywhere at once: Even Typhoon needs some time to come into Meteor range of red fighters to be able to fire. Fighters move fast, so time to react is always short.
Also, the KAVA radars (Thompson Rangemasters) are mounted on wheeled chassis, so after the shooting starts they should be able to pull stakes and change positions, in real life. But this simulation software doesn’t quite give that option here. As the Meteors are always fired two at a target from far range, you seldom get to re target the missiles if you score hits on 1st missile of the salvo. So that tends to push the kill ratio down (even if you get perfect score of 1 splash per salvo of two, your hit rate is still going to be 50%)
In the video things went pretty surprisingly: One Typhoon got hit but managed to return to base. This happened in a fur ball near Kajaani on the late stages of the video. Another gets his and is lost also. Finns also lost two radars, but managed also to down most VVS air assets (21).
So Eurofighter typhoon gave a good showing again.
Next up will be the Lockheed Martin F-35 on the weekend.
Disclaimer. I do not have any knowledge of what the scenarios used as a base for HX program fighter evaluation are, but I have tried to make an educated guess what these might be.
Also the suftware used for simulation is the most accurate simulation software in civilian market. Here the word in operation is civilian market, so I do not think I am 100% accurate in this simulation. I think the accuracy of simulation will be in the neighborhood of D/C in F-A scale or 2/3 in 1-5 scale. So more then 50% accurate, but not much more than 70% accurate.
The basics of the scenario
Scenario this time is Defensive Counter Air action in Lappland and Northern Finland. It is based on assumption what Russia would need to accomplish in order to brake out to Atlantic with Red Banner Northern Fleet surface forces to distrupt NATO reinforcements from arriving from USA and Canada. THis would need to be accomplished as a part of annexing of the Baltic States and distrupting NATO as a alliance.
In Finnish Defense Forces neck of woods this would mean at the very least guarding of neutrality in the Lapland and Southern Finland and we are now concentrating in Lappland in in extreme weather and in darkness. Russia would need to grab Norwegian Finnmark coast most of the way to Lofoten as well, in order to keep surface units secure from anti ship missiles and to most extent of NATO submarines. This would involve land attack to NATO Northern flank and shortest way to Lofotes island runs through Finnish and Swedish Lappland. So the WILL be sizeable shooting war there.
As a preliminary for that attack there needs to be air action to limit effectiveness of Finnsih and Swedish Air Forces in the theatre.
Russian AF bases have (Accroding to Pentti Perttula’s “Nykyaikainen ilmasodankäynti” page 119 ) 14 SU-33 multi role fighters in Severomorsk 3 AFB. 17 SU-24MR strike planes and 14 MiG-25RB recon planes in Montsegorsk and 52 SU-27 at Petrozavodsk/Besovets AFB. The OCA and strike elements are composed of these forces. There may have been changes, but it will be close enough for this scenario.
So here we are….
VVS is heading in from all the bases that they have around Kola and Karelia. They have support of Il-50U MAINSTAY AWACS and Il-22PP EW platform. Radar and jamming are active on the beginning of scenario.
Finnis side has three radars active: long range Ahvenvaara out in the north, Kajaani in the south (Says JAMMED) next to it on picture and Middle distance one Sodankylä (also JAMMED). I think that MIGHT have been going for some time, so that to get Finnish radar operators used to having their radars jammed, and not take it too seriously. Also the game is to get time for the strike package and the SEAD package to get to shoot without alarming the defense.
Finnish AD network picks up the Packages at about 11 minustes after the scenario has begun at about KEVA (Thompson Groundmaster). and to the south with KAVA (TRS 2230 radar) at 192,3 nm
After this we proceed to performance of different HX candidates. Permission to fire is given once something is detected on Finnish side of the border. Finnish side has 14 fighters available that are disperced in all over the Lapland and Northern Finland.
The air force and ministry of defense are getting ready to send final request for tender by the end of this month. We got some inkling what the bid entails from Foreign Military Sales permit from US Congress in October 2020: as planes go either 64 F-35 As or 72 Boeing F/A-18 E/F/Gs (50 Es, 8 Fs and 12 Gs respectively). This along with various munitions and equipment (no mention there about AMRAAMs or JATMs though). JATM should be available by 2021, so it should be available for US planes in HX competition, when 2025 comes along. Obviously MBDA Meteor will be integrated to F-35 by that time too, so it could be outside chance fo BWR-missile. The Lockheed asks for 10,6G€ and Boeing 12,5G€ for the packet. There is no same kind of data from European competitors.
As always, left side of political spectrum is complaining about the price tag associated with the HX-program, and how the money could be spent much more sensibly on X, Y or Z. There has also been calls to limit the HX program to 40 fighters and other such, mostly meant for own voters kind of stuff. Also limiting to 40 planes have been quoted because “Finland doesn’t want to go on offensive war.”
Over the weekend Finnish Broadcasting Corporations Swedish language side started making noises about “not having honest discussion about HX program”. They quoted professor Hiilamo about the level of discussion. I’m sure prof. Hiilamo is bees knees in his own field, social policy, but as his beef with the HX program centers about it’s costs and not so much about the why and how many? Of the matter.
The “YYA-sopimus” people (agreement on friendship, co-operation and assistance) [The agreement that made Finladisierung the thing in 1960’ies] folk would sleep much better, if there was “only a few” fighters, say max 24, and they would only have defensive missiles. The cause of this is: “our fighters will be shot down in few minutes anyhow” and “money would be much better spend on [insert your pet cause here]”. I have proved in various simulations that even a quite limited technically advanced fighter force will be able to conduct effective defensive counter air against technologically near peer larger air force. Also this YYA people would only consider fighter that is made in Sweden, because of neutrality.
This message was brought to fore by bunch of wellmeaning fools (Kansan uutiset is far left paper associated with Finnish Vasemmistoliitto, a part little right from communist and left of socialists). who wanted to take a time out in HX-program. They feel that more comprehensive evaluation of defense policy and broader options. (Maybe they would like to see Russian and/or Chinese “peace”fighters in place of western “oppressor” fighters).
Other folks, so called “S2A missile people” see that it would be better to spent the odd G€ to get the surface to air defense into top notch. This would not of course be bad way to go as such, and with enough missiles and launchers would create a hefty size AD bubble around the vital parts of Finland. This would of course mean that Finnish Defense Force would loose the much of the capability to project power especially into Åland Archipelago and more broadly into the Baltic sea. This would mean that Finland would in essence drop the Åland neutrality agreement. This would be very costly exercise in Finnish blood, as by agreement FDF would have to take Åland back in some time frame.