Suomi palaamassa takaisin YYA aikaan maanpuolustuksessa.

TauluPuolustusminiteriön tiedotteessa ja puolustusministeri Jussi Niinistön blokissa yritettiin paluu takaisin punaisimpaan 60-70 lukuun naamioida “uudistumiseksi”. Katin kontit, kyseessä on paluu vanhaan malliin, jossa puolustusvoimat vastaa, huonosti resurssipulasta johtuen, “sotilaallisesta  koulutuksesta”. Tähän päätökseen on muitakin motiiveja joista edessäpäin. Toiminta nojaa Valtioneuvoston puolustusselontekoon 3, jossa kolme S:ää on linjannut hallitusohjelmassa, (miten maanpuolustustoimintaa kehitetään sivulta 34 eteenpäin).

MPKta on muutaman viimevuoden aikana kehitetty suuntaan, jossa MPKn reserviläiskouluttajat, siis kouluttajat jotka ovat käyneet samat kurssit kuin PVn omakin väki, pitää koulutuksia murto-osalla siitä hinnasta mitä Puolustusvoimien omat kurssit maksavat PVn henkilökunnalla, ja PVn ajalla. Tämä “Turn Back Time” on vasemmiston halua kumartaa edelleen itään päin sekä sen ajamaa kostoa Suojeluskunnille. Suojeluskunnat on tosin lakkautettu jo Pariisin rauhansopimuksessa Stalinin käskyllä, koska ne tuottivat liian laadukasta taistelijaa Suomen sodanajan joukkoihin. SDP taas ei ole koskaan voinut antaa suojeluskunnille anteeksi sitä, että SDPn johdolla aloitettu kapina laillista esivaltaa vastaan kukistettiin sata vuotta sitten. Edelleen näistä syistä SDP koittaa suitsia isänmaallisten ihmisten ihailtavia pyrkimysiä kotimaan turvallisuuden parantamiseksi.

Puolustusvoimien henkilökunnan huoli rahakkaista metsäpäivistä, joita kertaus vrk:t yleensä ovat, on tietenkin heikäläisten tulonkehityksen kannalta ymmärrettävä: JOS Reino Reserviläinen tulee ja kouluttaa pelkän päivärahan hinnalla, ei Kaarle Kapiainen pääse nostamaan metsäkorvauksia. Monetaarisesti ymmärrettävää, mutta kokonaismaanpuolustuksellisesta näkökulmasta lyhytnäköistä ja vahingollista. Yhteinen kallis asia kärsii, kun ruvetaan pitämään huolta “omista eduista”.

Ylläolevien linnkien mukaan “sotilaalliset koulutukset” pitäisi siirtää MPKlta takaisin puolustusvoimille, eli kaikki koulutukset jotka ovat suoraan maanpuolustusta tukevia. Siis niitä, joita PV ei ole pystynyt kunnialla hoitamaan, määrärahojen puutteen takia, enää pitkään aikaan. Rahaa siirretään kertauksiin 6,5 M€ ja reserviläispäivä on 2013 maksanut 165€ (ja noussut aina noin 5€/vuosi) eli 2019 hinta on 195€/vrk. Tuolla rahalla saadaan jakolaskulla 33333 kertausvuorokautta. Eli tämän kannalta kaikki hienosti: Kertausten määrä alkaa nousta lähes riittävälle tasolle. Mutta minua ihmetyttää se, että MPK on kouluttanut (lähes) ilmaiseksi vuosittain 30 000 reserviläistä, jotka ovat itse maksaneet 5-20€ per kertaus vrk, niin mikä logiikka on siirtää kurssit takaisin Puolustusvoimille? Ainoa mitä tässä näen kannatettavana, on se että kertauksiin voidaan määrätä kaikki. MPKhan perustuu vapaaehtopisuuteen.

Epäilen että suuri syy, epäilen että jopa suurin syy, on tuleva EUn ampuma-ase direktiivi. Direktiivi, jolla EUn palatsimandariinit rakentavat Eurooppaan uutta uljasta kansojen vankilaa. Kuten tunnettua Suomen virkamieskunta ja  poliitikot kyllä tekevät mitä tahansa typerää mitä EU vaatii “sen oman hywän hillotolpan” toivossa. Euhan palkitsee avokätisesti uutterat ja uskolliset, ja rankaisee muita. Nyt EU ajaa, omien sääntöjään ja ohjeitaan vastaan, asedirektiiviä. Asedirektiiviin ajettiin Suomen johdolla maanpuolustuspoikkeus, jolla reserviläiset  saivat pitää omat puoliautomaattikiväärinsä ja isot lippaat. Perusteena tilanteenmukaisen toiminnan ja ampumataidon hankkimisen vaatimukset.

Nyt kelpo työteliäs virkamieskunta on sitten keksinyt, että kun EU kerran HALUAA, täysin järjettömästi, kieltää puoliautomaattiaseet ja kivääreissä yli 10 patruunan lippaat. täytyy tämä Brysselistä tullut pyhä toive ujuttaa kyökin kautta Suomalaiseen lainsäädäntöön. Tästä kertoo ansiokkaasti Suomen Sotilaan artikkeli aiheesta.

EUn miellyttämisen tarpeeseen siis liittyy myös tämä MPKn sotilaallisten kurssien siirto Puolustusvoimille, kas silloinhan ei Reino Reserviläisellä OLE ENÄÄ perustetta maanpuolustuspoikkeukseen, koska sodan aikana tarvittava ampumataito hankitaan kertausharjoituksissa, joita edelleen järjestetään edelleen liian vähän. Eli päästään ajamaan EUn huonosti harkittu reformi läpi. Ja Suomen “poliittisen johdon” EU projekti pysyy edelleen hengissä. Vaikkakin, Kuten Suomen sotilaan kysymyksiin vastanneen Johanna Puiron vastauksista käy selville, homma on taas kovin “rysseliläisesti hajalla”. Kuitenkin tämä hoplofoobikoiden äpärälapsi elää edelleen. (Kohdat 3-10) En usko että “tämä on vain sattumaa” koskapa kyseessä on Suomen poliisin ja Uusimaalaisen paremmiston yhteinen projekti. Vaikea ymmärtää miten muuten olisi mahdollista kouluttaa poliisia laista, jota ei ole vielä edes säädetty.

Lopputulemana siis, että Viher-Vasemmisto, Petteri Orvon SDP-Kokoomus mukaanluettuna, on tyytyväisenä, koska Suojeluskunnat on taas lakkautettu, EU on tyytyväinen, koska “kansojen Vankila” projekti etenee taas kukon askeleen verran, ja poliitikot ja virkamieskunta voi taas odottaa mukavia virkavuosia Eun palatseissa.  

Advertisements
Posted in Armeija 2020, Aselait, henk.koht, informaatiosota, Reserviläiset, sisäinen turvallisuus, Sodanajan joukot, SRA, TurPo | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

FAF preparing for wrong kind of war?

It seems to me that the Finnish Air Force is preparing for wrong kind of Air war. Mainly because the Finns still insist in using the “old Soviet” or Warsaw Pact style on command and control of fighter forces from underground command centres. These are, in all likelihood, more difficult to destroy, as being harder targets, than any of AWACS, as they are mobile and at least can try to get out of the harms way.These bunkers are still destroyable, and what more they are always limited in their capability in the information they can receive from out of the world. Even though KeVa 2010, the middle ranged surveillance RADARS 2010, from Thales Rayheon systems of which they are 12 in Finland.

ilmave_keva2010_20130115

KeVa 2010 RADAR, or Thales Rayhtheon Systems Groundmaster 403 on SISU 8X8 drive. Photo by Ilmavoimat

are indeed very good Radars and not permanently fixed to any one place but they are rather movable on their trailer beds there is still “around ten” in existence and they will not be measuring when they are moving so however you look at it they are still high value targets that are reasonably easy to destroy.

Now here is the Dilemma: To my knowledge Finish Air Forc,e the frontier guard or Army are not developing “passive sensor networks” that would in times of War pick up the bits and pieces after the main RADARs have been destroyed. It wouldn’t hurt if you had Multi static Radars that you would only be looking to loose the radiating parts. And still get to keep keep the receiving parts. Radiating part will be cheaper and easier to replace all things considered so if you lose the radiaiting component, you can set up the replacement fast, and you can still a keep the radar functioning by adding more radiating elements into the equation. Multistatic radars are really fascinating with their multi path propagation and calculating the 3D space around them based on those multi path signals.

Also infrared, near-infrared to Middle infrared, and Ultra violet plus Optical sensors would make sense in this kind of Air warfare on passive side, because in large networks they will give you the picture of the battlespace  quite realiably and by the virtue of being passive they are almost impossible to destroy. and even with functioning RADARs they still do very nicely again the Stealth or low observable Targets.

Multi static radar is also hell on the wheels in countering stealth technology and stealth aeroplanes so it would, in that sense also, make sense to cover at least to some extent the country with this kind of technology. Stealth technology does not eat the radar waves to great extend, they just try to bounce them off to somewhere where nobody will pick them up. Multistatic radar this makes this emission control virtually impossible. Even though you can still point your aeroplanes nose toward the radiating “active part” of the RADAR you have no knowledge of where they are receiving parts are placed so you cannot avoid in the long run bouncing the RADAR waves toward these receivers and then they have you.

But in The View of the HX program purchasing Mini AWACS like E-2 Hawkeye, or GlobalEye from SAAB would make a lot of sense. They would bring Finnish Air Force to the same level then all our Western Air Forces and maybe over advanced cababilities for the RADARS as well. Because about 10 km on the air they will see a lot of targets that ground-based RADARs will not be able to see just because they are so high that they will have a line of sight to the targets they are trying to measure. These would of course be advantageous for any Airforce.

Of course there are still things Finnish Air force lacks, particularly in electronic warfare and suppression of enemy air defences department. Fortunately the procurement of new Fighters will address some of these problems but still we do not have adequate numbers of and weaponry to threaten in any meaningful way the air defences in our vicinity.

So even though one hopes that the Air Forces would see the light and purchase three to five AWACS aeroplanes such as GlobalEye to bring FDF into 21st century I am not hopeful that this will happen. And the question is just money. When Finnish and All European political leaders felt that the history was over that Soviet Union or Russia will be counted free and  just like any other country, they decided to drive down the war fighting abilities of All European nations. Finland fortunately was one of those countries that did not get abroad into this “General Spirit of optimism” but still procured weapon systems because they could be gotten cheaply from European armies that we’re cutting that down their strengths.

Still the finances of the army were cut down pretty bad, so now that the Finnish Air Force is needing a new main fighter, Finnish Navy is needing new Surface combatants and the Army would be needing pretty much everything. So this is why I am afraid that the Air Force will not be getting brand new mini AWAS planes even though it would be a great force multiplier for the Air Force. Army and Navy need the Air force and navy needs their ships as well. The best I’m hoping right now is that at least FAF would get enough numbers so that it will be viable Air Force in this area. They will be needed to support the Navy and Army, in air defence and an escort duties. And of course they still need to be used as the operational “big stick” and do deep strikes and interdiction in the battlefield.

So we need at least sufficient numbers. I’m not even too hopeful with that because it has been said in many times will still be around 60 to 75is the goal, even though what we need is closer to 100 or 120. Tempus Fugit, gentlemen

Posted in HX-ohjelma, ilmavoimat, in English, Laivasto, Sodanajan joukot | Tagged , | Leave a comment

GlobalEye, another value for the € product from SAAB

SAAB has had an AWACS plane, or at least mini AWACS, in their product lineup since 1997 so for 20 years. Obviously the concept has evolved many times during the use of the radar and platform. The fuss right now is about new radar on all new Bombardier Global 6000 aircraft. Earlier SAAB has bolted their, well Ericsson’s originally, Erieye RADAR to Embraer or SAAB aeroplanes. Bombardier Global 6000 offers, compared to other platforms,  some more speed  (0,89 Mach max, 0,85 typical cruise, compared to Embraer max 0,78 Mach) and significant increase in range and thus boost in operational endurance. (Bombardier  a bit over 11 000 km Embraer 3019 km). Also Global 6000 flies a bit higher, which helps the radar performance. SAAB 340& 2000 performance as turboprops lags very far behind. This is because the higher the radar is, further away the radar horizon is. So just basically higher you are longer you see.

Although the radar, and other sensors, is the main asset of any AEW&C system, the platform helps to get the best possible performance out of the sensor suite. As ERIEYE radar operates in 2 GHz to 4 GHz range radar operates quite strictly in Line of sight: Detection can only happen if you have LOS to target you are trying to pick up. And higher you fly, longer you can see. Again you don’t get exemptions to laws of physics. Speed is mainly a survival asset: Bombardier 6000 has better chance of getting away from harm than less speedy platforms. Although self protection suite is in place, AEW&C system can not really be described as “violently maneuvering target”. Detection range against stealth fighters can put this kind of high priority target close to harms way, so self protection suite is essential.

globaleye-system-overview_2

Global Eye systems. Illustration by SAAB

As can be seen from the illustration package has come long ways from 1997. Then mini AWACS has evolved into mini JSTARS and mini EW/ELINT package. Also maritime surveillance is part of the regime. SAAB is offering a really competitive package here! advancements in electronics and software engineering has really made it possible to do all kinds of nifty things with the data that is collected from radars and IR sensors!

SAAB is one of the leading users of Gallium Nitride (GaN) electronics (To my knowledge) in their lectronic systems. In essense GaN offers more efficient electronics because of resistance. (Remember the Ohm’s law?) GaN electronics are more powerful because they produce less heat than our normal everyday copper wiring. This comes from GaN having lower resistance. This leads into two things: There is more throughput in systems, and heat is less of a problem in system. This comes to play when there are great electric powers in use, like in radar. Erieye radar’s sending power must be in high tens of kilowats, considering the range, some 450km. Also GaN is faster

Considering the multitude of components in radar installation it is impossible to give “efficiency rating” for a radar. But even with modern state of the art components it might rise as high as 75%, which means rest is turned to into heat. Lets say, for discussions sake, that Erieye ER’s sending power is 75 kW, this would mean another 25 kW was turned into heat. This is equivalent of having two large size electric Sauna kiuas (heaters that make sauna hot, like 80 degrees centigrade hot), in your electronics package. So using GaN to cut the heat burden down makes a lot of sense. Not to mention better efficiency. So in short: MORE POWER.

Erieye ER radar has still the same number of components in array, 192, as did the older versions, but due advances in electronics and mathematics they can now achieve better resolution with same number of elements. GaN helps also in beam forming because it is a bit faster medium compared to copper.

SAAB cites Electronic warfare capabilities as part of GlobalEye platform. These range from basic SIGINT and COMINT packages to radar jamming and communication suppression capabilities. Basic SIGINT, like collecting waveforms and other radiation and position data from radars and communications nodes and cataloguing those for future reference.

The basic jamming apparatus is the main sensor, the Erieye ER radar. These cababilities take advantage of power and versatility of the radar, to mimic different wave forms and and broad band of frequencies in order to suppress or jam the enemy integrated air defense and their communications.  SO GlobalEye is mini “Compass Call” as well, and SAAB can provide significant EW capability to her customers.

The sea surveillance radar is quite “ordinary X-band thing” that has high enough resolution to pick really small RCS targets from surface. There is also optical system that funtions in IR and seen light domains of spectrum. All together these sensors make Global eye a formidable surveillance tool. Globaleye can double also as JSTARS, so it can monitor land as well and pick moving targets from the clutter. This is helpful for monitoring troop movements and concentrations on the ground and really funtion as early warning cabapbility for nation.

So Globaleye is another SAAB product which would be extremely usefull for Finnish early warning and surveillance as well.

 

 

Posted in in English, Suomi ja Ruotsi, teknologia | 4 Comments

It is hard to get to be a terrorist in Finland…

I have found current court case against terrorist Abderrahman Bouanane bewildering: HOW is it possible, that lawyer of the said Bouanane mr Kaarle Gummerus, that his client, a self proclaimed terrorist is not in fact a terrorist. Mr Gummerus arguing comes from strain that two murders cannot terrorize a “country”, and thus  Bouanane cannot be a terrorist. as after killing two bystanders Bouanane hoped to get a way, but was shot and arrested by the police at the scene. Also Gummerrus blames error in translating the EU directive materiel into Finnish terrorism law.

So legalese bulshitry and Finnish gymnastics are indeed funny to witness, and I’m sure all participants (defense, prosecution and victims) hope for long and “productive” trials to get maximal revenues from the State. The guy has declared himself an ISIS supporter, has expressed the “hope to die as a martyr” for their cause, has declared that he wanted to kill Finns in order to carry out ISIS war against the west. But Getting to be a terrorist ain’t so easy in Finland. 

Some links (in Finnish unfortunately) Savon Sanomat daily, YLE Finnish broadcasting corporation

Posted in Epäselvää ajatustenlentoa, in English, Mamut, terrorismi | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

HX-program Current Issues

The Finnish Ministry of defense and Air Force is going to send that Pretender over HX fighter repair a replacement program later in this spring. the candidates are as I’m sure everybody is aware of Eurofighter typhoon, Boeing F/A-18 E/F/G Rhino, Dassault Rafale, F-35 of Lockheed Martin and SAABs JAS 39 Gripen E.

20170523_150537.jpg

What might not be in general knowledge outside Finland is that Finland is committed to 60 planes in future procurement and this is of course good news 2 most expensive planes of the competition namely Lockheed Martin F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon. As you know this hanging oneself in to 60 or 69 or 68 planes all the senseless because more bang in the back when you get more airplanes. so while I’m sure that both F-35 and typhoon would be great buys and I think this announcement really makes it easy for Eurofighter to up its efforts to get the nod.

But the fact remains that even 68 Fighters is too little amount to be truly effective in defense of Finland. There is a lot of air space to cover. And as all of the competitors are “about as fast” between them there is not much great difference that you would be able to buy space with speed. Of course there are areas, for example some parts of a northern Lapland, that do not require that much air defense. For example areas around Helsinki and in Åland Islands be or I will be needing but still want to place can 1 plane cannot be in very many places at the same time. 60 planes is a limitation that our glorious leader mr. Stalin gave to Finns end in peace talks in Paris in 1948 so it would definitely be time not to read that patent document anymore. In fact any number of Fighters below 100 is too little.

20170610_122805

Also in my humble opinion as International Studies have shown the specialized squadrons, for example in the United States Air Force found F-15 C squadrons and A-10 squadrons performed best in their duties, OCA/DCA for Eagles and ground attack for Warthogs, compared to “multipurpose” F-16 and F-15 E squadrons. This is because the humans are the limiting factor. F-15 C squadrons perform better in defensive and offensive air combat operations than F-15 E squadrons who also do OCA/DCA, but E squadrons also perform ground attack activities and thus have to spend some time practicing ground support and then they just cannot be as proficient as if F-15 C drivers are due F-15 E drivers more limited OCA and DCA operations training time. This doesn’t mean that F-15 E drivers are “badder” just that they have to practice more things they have to be able to do and then they cannot be as well versed in all aspects of their trade.

In Finland this would mean that squadrons down South, for example, could concentrate more on Maritime Strike operations above actions against enemy shipping and air defense and for example in units in Lapland could concentrate maybe in ground attack and some others testing defensive and offensive counter air. Basically the airplanes with perform all but as I said humans are the limiting factor here

The Ministry of Defense lists deciding factors of procurement as: Capabilities, Costs, Security of Supply and domestic industry’s role and Security and Defense policy impacts.

CABABILITIES

I called people about this and asked about the approximate impact of different Air war disciplines in CAPABILITIES. Most important disciplines are Defensive and offensive Counter Air and then survivability. Combined with target number of 64 planes this sounds good for the Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning: If you are nailed to certain number of planes it makes sense to buy the “the bestest” capabilities regardless of cost. This is only sensible because in this kind of calculus of power: number of planes multiplied by greatest coefficient brings about most capability. If you went the other way and looked what is the greatest capability over all, you calculate numbers of planes with respective coefficients and see how many planes your money can buy. In this kind of calculus the price tag of single plane starts to factor in more heavily. In very rough terms two “best” planes will beat two good planes, but 100 good planes will beat 60 best planes. So here the price of plane starts to factor in more heavily.

of course the “survivability” is not alone centered on the plane but also their use and doctrine. All Eurocanards should have state of the art EW/self protection capabilities in their respective systems. All have gone against low tier Air defence network in Libya in 2011, but none have gone against state of the art integrated Air Defense system such as Russia has. JAS-39 Gripen may have a slight advantage here due their brand new AREXIS pod, but the pod can be integrated to all current competitors in HX race. Some edge can also be gained from Gallium Nitride electronics that are understood to be part of next generation Gripen Es EW/self protection suite. Praetorian and Spectre still rely, in 2018, to conventional electronics in their systems, but this may change before 2025 when final decision in HX program is made.

dsc_0349

US planes, F/A-18 E and F-35, are on a bit different footing here. Rhino is tried and true and will remain in USN use until late 2040ies at least so there is still way forward with this plane, and current Trump administration seems to be keen of getting Finland to buy the F/A-18 E. And F-18 E/F/G would indeed be a good plane: it offers dedicated SEAD platform and would offer great synergy benefits for FAF to enjoy.

COSTS

As costs go there are two factors: pricetag of the plane and how much it costs to keep the plane flying per hour. As plane price tags go F/A-18 E is maybe the cheapest with little over 60 M€ per plane followed closely by JAS-39 Gripen. MAYBE. SAABs target per plane price tag for Gripen is “about 60M€” Dassault Rafales 68 M€ is in the neighbourhood as well. Then Typhoon with its over 90 M€ per plane is pretty far away not to mention F-35 very high and yet to stabilize 100-150 M€ price tag range. I was called out on this By Michael and yes I was wrong: listprice of F-35 in 2018 is 85 M$, or about 77 M€ a plane. So thank you Michael!

Weapons are pretty much the same, or “western standard” for all participants with France and Israel coming in to provide some competing and augmenting capabilities. So no tie breakers there. Stores and armaments cost what they cost and that is all she wrote.

Jet engines are compact and light compared to their power output, but they have one drawback: the damned things guzzle up JP5 about the same rate idling and in full power. Not to mention afterburner at all, which hikes the consumption up by some 60%. So by this rule plane with two engines use up almost two times the fuel. (Considering power output obviously.) So two engines cost about double to fly, and they add some survivability as you can hope to bring plane to the ground after jettisoning stores and flying back home staying on safe side of flight envelope.

SECURITY OF SUPPLY AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT

All competitors apart from Lockheed-Martin offer the option of assembling planes in Finland that would factor in “Security of Supply and Finnish domestic industry involvement”. It is important to have the capability of repairing your operational assets at home. And this may indeed be important factor against Lockheed-Martin: What ever happen, your fighter would need to be shipped all the way to Italy to be repaired or serviced.

20170611_142330.jpg

I feel that in “view of war time supply security” this has a very little to do with anything: As Finland is not a NATO ally, we will be last to receive anything anyway. And I’m sure any enemy Russia worth its salt would destroy all enemy fighter plane factories in prudent manner.

So no tie breakers here either. Only that Lockheed-Martin may have sort of pushed themselves out of the safe space here. Obviously paying jobs and industry is important in Finland as well, and will factor in but it will not be the deciding factor.

DEFENSE POLICY IMPACTS

HX fighter will tie Finland to west. There is no doubt about it. But in current cold war in Baltic the scent of neutralness or ties the acquisition builds will be important as barometer of Finnish defense and foreign policy. Some dingbats even believe it is possible to stay out of NATO Russia conflict in Baltic region. This is just not possible. How ever you play it you will be at war. So better wake up and decide whose side you are on.

Sweden and SAAB would be easy. They are as “neutral” as Finland, but would not thus add “allyfactor” into equation. Eurofighter may be the next most neutral, as it is EU fighter, and Finland is already part of EU so it should not hurt either way. Same holds true to France’s Dassault Rafale, but would tie Finland into Frances procurement processes and whims to great extend. US planes would have maybe the greatest “allyness” but would really rub Mr Putin’s face wrong way.

So here are where the tie breakers lie: How we see Finland’s part in future conflict in Europe? Will EU hold or break up? Will Finnish hopes of NATO-light agreements with Great Britain and USA hold in real world?

AS A CONCLUSION

The HX-programs resolution seems to really resolve in two categories: Capabilities and defense policy impacts.

If Finland decides to go with two planes F/A-18 E and F-35 will be the strongest pair followed by Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35. But this two plane scenario is unlikely.

If Finland decides to go with 1:1 number of fighters this maybe favours most Typhoon and somewhat Dassault Rafale. This is IMHO most senseless and idiotic way to go, but nobody asked me.

SAAB will be leftie greenies fighter of choice: It is cheap so you can save money to your pet projects, its Swedish so Uncle Wladi won’t get mad at you. and Sweden, every leftie greenies wet dream country, will be happy. Lefties felt during presidential election of 2018 that 18-36 fighters would be enough though.

F/A-18 would be maybe the most economical choice, but still would bring potent capabilities to FAF. It may not be spectacular, but it has all that counts. Plus it will tie Finland’s fortunes more closely to USA.

The black horse of the race is Dassault Rafale. It is pretty devastating in all categories, but not it headlines all the time. It is not as hard blow to Socialists and Russia as F-35 would be, it is not as expensive as Typhoon would be, and it it is indeed well thought of plane.

One should not put too much stock of other nations fighter procurement programs: SAAB Gripen and Boeing decided to drop Belgian competition because Boeing felt that belgians favoured the F-35. and Swedes were not willing to meet Belgium’s demands of tanker support and such. And Belgians are not happy with the French because the French believe the Belgians, as francophones, are obliged to buy their plane.

Typhoon has not met great successes in export market, because of price, but it offers great OCA/DCA capabilities that rival F-22. But it lost Swiss program to Rafale(as pilots choice) and Gripen (as politicians choice). But in the end Swiss bought no planes. People didn’t want them. Swiss scenarios are not really applicable to Finland.

So game is still open.

Posted in HX-ohjelma, ilmavoimat, in English | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Achtung Leopards in Syria! Full analysis of the Leopard 2A4TR in Syria

This gallery contains 16 photos.

Originally posted on OSINT:
Table of contents Introduction Operation Euphrates Shield, Syria Details about Leopard 2s in Syria Leopard 2s on the stage Does the cat have a thick fur? Final analysis and recommendations Also do not forget that we offer…

Gallery | Leave a comment

Another iconic SMG in in the test: Mini uzi

Kansi

In October I had a chanche to go again with EF-security’s Tommi to the range with an SMG. This time Tommi had another treat for me in  form of Mini UZI.The gun is very iconic and well liked by its users. First it must be noted that mini UZI is not, per se meant to be a military SMG but rather SMG for security and police personnel, who may need evening of odds against AK wielding terrorists.

This dictates that weight of weapon needs to be down: Weapon will be carried a lot more than it will be shot.

MiniUziPitkänä

Mini uzi  in all its lenght. The stock is sidefolder, and that is the easiest way to tell UZI and miniuzi apart. Uzis stock folds under the weapon.

That said in 9mm this gun is readily controllable, but less so than the military heavyweight SMG Icons we had last time.And as saying goes  IF weight is power overweight is overpower”. One can feel the lightness and thus recoil of the gun much more sharply than with KP-31 Suomi and Thompson SMGs.

lipas

The magazine is two stack untapered affair.

 

 

This is evident when you look me shooting the gun. it is quite nice gun to shoot short bursts to targets. First series was a bit iffy, but after that gun was fun and fast to shoot.

The compensator helps as well, but your best bet to score hits is as always short controlled burst on the target.

The barrel is short and maybe most effective way to shoot the mini UZI is by holding it pretty much as you would hold a pistol: BOTH hands on handle. There is a short front stock of the gun, but it gets pretty hot pretty fast, and don’t really have a stopper in front so it would be easy to put your hands in harms way in high stress situation.

etupää.jpg

As you can see the basic arrangement is really simple. Sights on ends and cocking handle in between. Muzzle compensator is also a really simple two grooves in the end of the barrel.

You CAN fit your hand to forestock, but it is easy to a) burn your hand b) push your hand in front of the muzzle. So I advise on both hands on handle approach to shooting this gun.

Target looked nice from short bursts from about 10m range. Not too bad for 1st rodeo with mini UZI, if I say so myself.TauluSo if you are travelling in Seinäjoki area, and you are a gun guy or gal, give EF-Security a visit. Tommi is a great gun guy, and you can make arrangements to shoot all kinds of really nice pieces of hardware.

Posted in Aseet, in English | Tagged , , | Leave a comment