First a couple of disclaimers and or notifications on subject: I do not have any knowledge what the HX scenarios used in evaluation might be. Thus this scenario is just my personal view what HX scenario OCA/Deep Penetration scenario might be. This scenario is called Walz in Carelia
Second I have used commercial simulation program Command Modern Warfare to run these scenarios, so there is problems with accuracy of the software. I suspect it gets things about 50-65% right. So you would get around 2-3 out of six level of performance in school. So OK, but not good.
Third: I do not have NATO weaponeering manual, so there might be cases of wrong kind of ordnance used to targets, so
And to the business
This scenario should play well into the strengths of Lockheed Martins F-35 A platform: it is low observable, it is designed to be penetrating asset, it should be able to penetrate modern Russian Area Denial systems namely S-350 and S-400 systems. In this scenario named systems are supported by numerous BUK M-1 and Pantsir systems. Targets are numerous railroad and road bridges used to supply fighting north of Viipuri.
The F-35 Lightning II carries quite limited selection of AA missiles. 4 AMRAAM D’s and 2 Sidewinders in Air Superiority configuration, which leads to problems when trying to achieve the dominance over contested aerospace: you need more sorties to carry the needles into firing position. Almost all other HX-hopefulls carry 6 BVR missiles and 2 WVR missiles into the fray. Thus 10 other HX fighters in CAP patrol will be carrying 60 missiles and 10 Lightnings carry 40. This is of course partly amended by the fact that even when carrying other ordnance two bays are dedicated to AMRAAM D missiles.
This shows in this scenario, because the OCA element of attack need to fly in from within Finnish home territory. Even when you fly in three pairs for the beginning, the attrition takes its toll, and you have quite little air to air fighting power left quite soon. (This might be problem with Command, as there is development in Lockheed Martin to up the carrying capacity to six)
On the first run I tried to go through the scenario “as it should be run” with BLU-109 2000lb bombs for bridges, and SDB-53s in as SEAD munitions. This worked quite well, but there was quite a few bridges standing after the sortie, and six fighters lost out of 40. (AMG-88ER is not configured to F-35 as of yet in Command)
Second run I carried only SDB-53s for all targets, this was not really satisfactory, and Small diameter bomb II is still only 100 kg (200lb) weapon and 48kg (100lb) of explosives. so you need multiple hits on bridges to bring them down. As one F-35A carries 8 in SEAD configuration, and uses 7 of those against single air defense system, you see that you seem to need a lot of SDBs around to get effect.
Third time I changed 2 BLU-109s to 6 GBU-12 Paveways. So in I had to drop two bombs per bridge, but as I got three salvoes, it made possible to get more targets with same amount of fighters. As a rule of thumb 500kgs ordnance seems to be the right way to go per bridge. The exploding part of Paveway 12 is 227kg or (500lb) mark-82 low drag bomb, which is in itself rather inexpensive, but carries 87kgs (127lbs) of tritonal explosive. SDB-53 is about half of that (93kg/48kg explosives) plus it is of shaped charge type and is not as well suited for concrete buildings. Shaped charge is of course bees knees for bunkers and such, but nice round hole on driving surface is not too devastating a problem.
Really the problem here is the amount of SDB-IIs shot down by S-350 and 400 systems in defense of A2A and AD assets in area. This necessitates destruction of said systems. (As noted in round 2.) Even with jamming the S-350/400 systems you do not get too reliable effects on them. On the other hand they do not really bother the F-35s as long as they keep their distance. But as F-35 is not very highly maneuverable fighter, the BUK M-1 and Pantsir systems are dangerous to them in close range (dropping Paveways)
AS you can see from the scorecard, F-35 really did well again against the VVS. The Suhois don’t really get into position for shooting, but when they do get into position F-35 is really vulnerable. Greatest problem from S-350/400 systems was their ability to shoot down SDB IIs from the air before they got to BUK and PANTSIR system on ground. Through attrition you got to point that you could destroy the named systems, but it really took rounds to achieve that. After accomplishing the SEAD mission one could bring in the mud splashers to take care of the bridges.
In the third round, loss of F-35’s could have been 5, but I decided to try to push against bridges on Svir river. But as there was VVS assets close by and they managed to avoid AMRAAMs, we lost two more Lightnings. This would have bumbed kill/loss ratio up to 4,3.
I did not have time yet to edit the video, so that will be available in next few days. So look again in a few days.
EU magnates had a dinner and meeting in beutiful Slovenia. The most pressing matter is European Union’s strategic position within world. EU is mighty weak strategically, because there if many different factions within EU who push and pull into different directions. This leads into EU’s incapability to act, Ability to function strategically in ANY way would meant that EU CAN reach decisions and has force it can project. EU has none of that beside France’s capabilities. But if we listen Mrs Ursula von der Leyen, the things will change: EU has to become strategically more independent.
First. Considering what kind of hissyfit France’s government threw after AUKUS sub deal, I will not be very suprised if there will be payback for Finland if HX deal doesn’t go to Dassault. (Or BAE or SAAB at least). I do not mean that Rafale would be a bad deal, in fact I think it is the black horse of the race tecnically/tactically, but especially politically Rafale is indeed formidable. United kingdom is sort of out EU, but still factors into Finnish defense planning very much. Eurofighter Typhoon is also pushed by Spanish and German Govt’s as main users, but I still think France is the big player in EU defense and strategic partnerships. This was very evident in Kaivopuisto airshow in August.
Second, I don’t necessarily see way forward with F-35A or F/A-18 Block III’s. Strategic difficulities with China and looming war in Taiwan, futures of both US candidates seem unpleasantly murky. There is no clear indication which or maybe neither will be the prime air warfare tool for their respective services. This would leave Finland with obsolete fleet of fighters that will be needed to be replaced too soon.
(EDIT 8.10) Thirdly Mrs Vonder Leyen flashed tax exempt for military buys from EU. This was thought to be foot in the mouth moment, as taxing state would here be Finland, and finland doesn’t tax military sales to FDF. One starts wondering IS European Union going to impose some kind of sales tax Outside of EU defense procurement to boost EU’s own defense companies sales? I decided to have a look and lo and behold: in European Defense Agency’s pages it says: “Together with its Member States and in close cooperation with the European Commission, EDA supports and incentivises cooperative defence procurement programs/projects, based on a case-by-case assessment.” SO, It looks like EU states are going to “support and incentivy” some defense procurement.
This would tie in about noises Finnish politicians making noises about funding the HX-fighters with loans. These three things together would mean that EU states incentify HX procurement from EU sources by financial means. More fighters, which would work great, or at cheaper price point, which would be easier to sell to Finnish public. at the price maybe taking over or taking a role in the Baltic air policing.
So in short, and all in all: seems that British Aerospace, Dassault and SAAB are moving up in the scales. Precisely if EU will want strategic independence from USA.
Uskon, että Marja Sannikka tekee kysymyksensä vilpittömässä hengessä, ja yritän siksi vastata hänelle, parhaani mukaan, vilpittömässä hengessä. Kysymykset ovat aiheellisia, ja pyrin niihin täässä vastaamaan.
Miksi hävittäjät tarvitaan kontra miksi emme laita rahojamme ohjuspuolustukseen ja lennokeihin?
Kun seuraamme kuinka tehokkaasti Israelin Rafaelin Iron Dome ilmapuolustussysteemi poimii ilmasta palestiinalaisten ampumia raketteja ja vieläpä arvioi senkin, että ovatko raketit, luonnostaan epätarkat aseet, menossa asuinalueille vai joutomaalle. Jos ovat joutomaalle menossa saavat mennä. Yksi Rautakupu patteri pystyy suojaamaan noin 150 neliökilometrin alueen, eli huomattavan kokoisen kaupungin alueen, Kemin koko on esimerkiksi 90 neliökilometria. Osumatarkkuuden ilmoitetaan olevan 90%, ja systeemi on ajateltu lyhyen kantaman torjuntaan. Hinta yhdelle moiselle patterille on noin 50 M€ ja yhden torjunnan hinta 100 K€ luokassa. Eli ohjusten ampuminenkaan ei ole aivan halpaa hupia. Eli vaikka systeemin ilmoitetaan pystyvän torjumaan 155mm tykistöammukset sekä raketit, voisi se torjua myös muita staattisella radalla lentäviä kohteita, vaikkapa pommeja. Mutta jos vihulaiset, ne Venäjän 1500+ hävittäjää, voivat kaikessa rauhassa lentää torjuntakorkeuden yläpuolella, ja pudotella sieltä rauhalliseen tahtiin pommeja ja ampua ohjuksia valemaaleista puhumattakaan, loppuvat suomalaisilta ohjukset jossain vaiheessa, ja koska torjunta ei ole 100% tappioita alkaa tulla alusta asti.
Suomessa on käynnissä nimeomaan korkeatorjuntaan tähtäävä kehityshanke, jonka tarkoitus on täydentää hävittäjätorjunnan antamaa suojaa. Tallaisia järjestelmiä voisivat olla esimerkiksi THAAD, joka on myös ballististen ohjusten torjuntaan kykenevä järjestelmä, jo aijemmin Ruotsin valitsema Patriot tai Suomelle kovasti MBDAlta tarjottava CAMM-ER. Torjuntakorkeudet ylittävät 20km ja vaakatorjuntaetäisyyttäkin on tarjolla mojovasti, joten ainakin strategiset kohteet ja joukkokeskittymät on helppo suojata. Jos nyt sitten joku haluaa esimerkiksi Nurmon Sydänmaan peltoja pommittaa, niin antaa pommittaa.
Sodankäynti ei kuitenkaan, ainakaan jos aiotaan voittaa, voi perustua pelkkään puolustautumiseen: Puolustautuminen on passiivista, kun taas hyökkäys on aktiivista. Ei urheilussakaan ole yhtään joukkuetta, joka keskittyy vain oman maalin puolustamiseen yrittämättä edes tehdä maalia toiseen päähän. Voisimme ohjuspuolustuksella suojata monia tärkeitä kohteita ja pitää niitä suojassa, mutta esimerkiksi sodan vaativa logistiikka jäisi haavoittuvaksi. Ohjuksilla ei voi myöskään esimerkiksi tunnistaa ilmatilaa loukkaavaa lentokonetta. Ilmatilaa loukkaavan lentokoneen suora alasampuminen tunnistamista varten saattaisi olla hieman yliampuvaa.
Edelleen ilmatorjuntaohjukset eivät projisoi voimaa. Suomeen tarjolla olevista hävittäjistä mikä tahansa pystyy, esimerkiksi, hoitamaan puolueettomuuden valvontaa Ahvenanmaan yllä, ja tarvittaessa tuhoamaan puolueettomuutta loukkaavia lentokoneita tai laivoja. Edelleen, sama hävittäjä pystyy olemaan tunnin sisällä esimerkiksi Oulussa tai Enontekiöllä edelleen projisoimassa voimaa. Maavoimat suorittaisi saman siirtymän about kahteen päivään, ja merivoimat ei tietenkään Enontekiölle pääsisikään, mutta Ouluunkin menisi aikaa yön yli.
Lennokit voisivat periaatteessa tehdä valvontaa, mutta ne eivät, yleensä, kanna aseita, joten voimaa ne eivät projisoi.
Venäjällä on 1500 hävittäjää, kuudellakymmenellä ei ole jakoja taistelussa.
Todellakin “64 hävittäjää” tulee Isä Aurinkoisen ajattelusta ilmavoimista, joilla on helppo pyyhkiä sodan sattuessa pöytää. Tämä piti hyvinkin paikkaansa aina 1980-luvulle asti, mutta saattaa olla muuttunut parempaan päin viimevuosikymmeninä. Vaikka liikehtimyskyky ja erityisesti koneiden huippunopeudet ovat 1950-luvulta tähän päivään asti säilyneet melko muuttumattomina, on avioniikassa, eli koneiden elektronisessa kyvykkyydessä tapahtunut suuria muutoksia.
Päivittämätön 1980-luvun hävittäjä, vaikkapa F-16 tai MiG-29 on jo auttamattomasti vanhentunut tänä päivänä. Sen elektronisen taistelun järjestelmät eivät edes havaitsisi sitä, että konetta mitataan, tai se on joutumassa hyökkäyksen kohteeksi. Vaikkakaan Venäjällä ei ole käytössä päivittämättömiä MiG-29 tai SU-27 hävittäjiä, ovat nämä hyvin heikossa asemassa joutuessaan taistelemaan edistyneimpiä länsihävittäjiä vastaan. Olen saanut simulaatioissa jatkuvasti reippaasti yli 15:1 pudostulukuja kaikilla HX-ohjelmassa tarjolla olevilla hävittäjillä. (Tässä vaikkapa Lapin Skenaariot: Rafale, Typhoon, F-35 Lightning II, Gripen ja F/A-18 E Rhino) Tulokset skenaarioista on koottu tähän postaukseen . Kaikki nämä valitettavasti kolmannella kotimaisella.
Eli leikisti näillä 64 hävittäjällä voidaan odottaa tuhottavan 900-1280 konetta. Niillä tulisi jo aika iso lovi VVSn kykyyn käydä sotaa. Uusimpia SU-57 hävittäjiä Venäjällä on viitisen kappaletta. Edelleen Venäjänkin takana on agressiivinen Kiina, joka varmasti käyttää tilanetta hyväkseen, jos Venäjä ajautuu suurtotaan Lännen kanssa.
Minullakin olisi turvallisempi olo, jos hävittäjiä olisi enemmän kuin 96.
Helikon tex on puolalainen kuperkeikka- ja toiminnallista vaatetta valmistava yritys. Helikonin sarjassa on mitä laadukkain valikoima erilaista kangaspuolen varustetta eri sarjoissa suunnattuna ihan jokapäiväiseen “grey man” tyyppiseen sukkulointiin URBAN linjasta, että puskatemppuiluun sopivaa varustetta BUSHCRAFT-linjasta. Unohtamatta toiminnalliseen ammuntaa suunnattua varustekimaraa RANGE linjastolla. Tänäpäivänä perehdymme Swagman Roll ponchoon. Olemassa on myös saman ponchon ns basic versio.
HATKA puolestaan on Suomalainen perheyritys, josta olen saanut aina ystävällistä ja asiantuntevaa palvelua, ja ehdotuksia varusteista,kun olen heiltä niistä kysellyt. Hatka antoi minulle swagmanin, että pääsen tekemään siitä esittelyä.
Kyseinen poncho on ollut minulla noin vuoden päivät, ja Swagman roll on osoittautunut erittäin hyväksi kaveriksi Lapin moni-ilmeisessä mutta kylmässä säässä. Sen lisäksi, että poncho on palvellut taukovaatteena kylmemmillä keleillä, se voidaan myös kiinnittää sadeviitan alle vuoriksi ns Woobien tapaan. Hyvänä puolena Woobieen verrattuna on huppu: Pään saa vedettyä ponchon hupun kanssa sadeviitan huppuun, jolloin korbatkin pysyvät mukavan lämpiminä. kuulemisen kanssa on tietenkin silloin vähän huonoa.
Kuten mainittu Swagman on yhteensopiva NATO-standardin sadeviitan kanssa, ja sitä voidaan käyttää kesäisemmillä keleillä makuupussina, ja talvemmalla makuupussin lisäpussina. Myös “jouluisen runsas”-reservitaistelija mahtuu pujottautumaan pussiin. Hartioille ei kylläkään minun tapauksessani ole tilaa sisälle asti, ellei jätä vetoketjua hieman auki. Vaikka omakehun puolelle menee, niin todettakoon, että en tarvitse jenkkifutisharttareita joutuakseni menemään poikittain ovista.
survivalhenkinen monikäyttöinen poncho
sopii hyvin taukotakiksi tai NATO-sadeviitan alle lämmikkeeksi
voidaan käyttää myös makuupussin sisäpussina lisälämpöä varten
The Finnish main aviation event was again in last weekend. All Hornet replacement program (HX-program) hopefuls were in attendance some with mock ups and all with pavillions. All HX fighters were in air and Gripen E made first appearance in air manouvering (this is because of state of flight testing and proving program.) I had the good fortune to be invited for the pressday, so I got to listen and see the latest slideshows manufactures had to offer.
The real winner in HX race seems to be the MBDA: unless Boeing’s bid is succesful, MBDA will look to sell another 600+ Meteors!
SAAB JAS-39 E/F Gripen. Sweden will make the fighter YOU want!
SAAB is another of the forerunners in HX race: Gripen E has everything a fighter needs speed, manouverability and a great primary Air to Air missile in MBDA Meteor. The “Dinge an Sich” of the offer is the two GlobalEye AWACS planes. This cannot be overstated: FAF has so far been in “Warsaw Pact” air control mode, with fortificated air defense commands without airborne radar and controll assets. Global Eye would change all this and bring the Finnish air defense to current millenium.
Global Eye’s S-band ERIEYE radar can see virtually everything in 450km radius thoug the instrumental range is 550km. ERIYE radar is housed in a skibox over the fuselage of the Bombadier 6000 platform, and provides about 150 degree coverage both sides of the aeroplane.
The S-band means 2-4GHz frequency range, and wave lenght of about 7,5 to 15 centimeters. Because of nature of electromagnetic waves, this area brings boons of rain and general weather penetration and stealth fighter detection (Stealth bombers, however, are sufficiently large to still remain stealthy). Banes are required high pulse strenght and quite large antennas. This is due to T/R module sizes required to be able to operate on desired wave lenght. This also affects the radar resolution.
The Gripen E is as of this writing (08/2021) still in flight testing and verification process which are going according to plan according to Magnus Skogberg of SAAB. Newer and bigger Gripen has all it takes to be successful fighter in Finnish Air Force in 2020’ies and beyond: good A2A missile, nifty electronics and small logistical footprint. On the other hand Gripen is small and single engine. This translates into Gripen E still being quite stealthy in visible domain, and low emitting in NIR and MIR wavelengths. On trade-off Gripen E’s Leonardo’s Raven 05 AESA radar has to fit in quite small nosecone of Gripen E, and is thus limited in number of T/R elements it can carry. This translates into radar being less powerful than her counterparts in other HX hopefuls.
Having single engine means obviously that there is no redundancy in case of engine failure, and that there is about half the electrical power available (depending of make and manufacture obviously) than to twin engined HX-hopefulls. Future will show just how this deficiency might turn out to be, but as an direct energy weapons are making their way into fighter sized platforms, the loading time for Lasers or power output for other electrical doohickeys will be less than twin engined fighters. This might be devastating in 2050ies, but might not be, depending on evolution battery and direct energy technology, a showstopper even then.
Swedish gov’t has expressed their commitment to build Gripen’s EW capabilities to standard Finland wants, So that in essence Sweden would be getting the fighter Finland deemed sufficient. Further the current government is left leaning and in their view Sweden can do no wrong so politically SAABs offer is also quite strong. ALso even the most pidgeonish members of publick see aligning with Sweden as sort of NATO light, which might not arouse political suspicions in Kremlin.
One interesting sidetrack here is the Borderguards MVX-program. IF SAAB gets the nod, the Global eyes will, as per data sharing and requirements of defense of realm, be a part of maritime border guarding of Finland. BUT as Finland is long country, 1500km north to south and 500km east to west, it is quite clear that Global eye doing air surveillance in Sodankylä area cannot at the same time have a peek of what is coming closer to Åland islands. Thus two more Global eyes with Border guards colours and crews would remedy this kind of situation. However people in charge of MVX program stressed that SAAB has answered to RFI, but HX-program is not in any way tied to Borderguards MVX program. Still, IMHO, having same platform in Borderguards surveillance squadron and the FAFs AWACS squadron would not be a bad thing.
Eurofighter Typhoon: Industry and intelligence co-operation.
Typhoon is a bit of a hard to term participant in HX competition: Definately it is the clearest air dominance fighter of the bunch, and if Finland was simply looking for Air defense fighter without groundpounding requirements we would have no competition at all. Eurofighter is the fastest, flies highest and maybe even longest of the hopefulls. What is the other selling point besides the fighter is the question with BAE bid. There was talk about giving Finns access to intelligense assets (satellite imaginery) in the deal and now participation in developement of next generation radar and engine works are given as sweeteners for the deal.
Great Britain is important defense ally for the Finnish Defence forces and IS still militarily most powerfull country in Europe. Further EUROfighter really is an european project so the can be pressure from EU partners to give to nod to Common European fighter developement.
AS said Typhoon as Air dominance machine has all doctor orderedIt flies high and fast, is manouvarable, has all kinds of armament to effect all kinds of targets. BAE test pilot mentioned the the electrical power coming out of EJ-2000 . I did as if there is some kind of Direct energy weapon in pipelines for the Typhoon, and genteman in question stated “No”. So.. THAT would mean that CAPTOR AESA radar cannot do direct energy, in other words fry approaching missiles as the come in range, nor there seem to be a laser weaponry in the paperwork either. Suprising!
Industrial co-operation and sovereighn use were quite prominently iterated for listeners in sunny South helsinki by the Typhoon mockup.
Dassault Rafale Strategic partnership in EU.
The french had brought in the honourable mrs Agnès Cukierman to tell about the French offer. This fact sort of underlines the French selling point of the Dassault Rafale fighter: “Strategic partnership in EU”. Don’t get me wrong: Rafale is very capable fighter and has seen combat all over Africa and Middle-East and I’m sure when used right well capable of killing Suhois with good drop ratio. So there is no problems with the plane!
Only thing I have questioned in my mind is the Rafales EW capability up to par with S-400/450/500 systems? Can Rafale be effectively be deployed with SPECTRE system and expect them to full fill their missions. Not to worry said General (ret)Joel Rode because Rafale is the pre strategic nuclear weapon carrier in Armée de l’air et de l’espace it will be required to perform deep penetration. Also you can significantly enhance your chances with good mission planning. go in rain, in night and low and fast, and you have good chances of pulling trough a success. Good enough I guess. Still this leaves the question of anti radiation missile a bit open: Will it be JSM (originally Norwegian weapon) or AGM-88 ER. The picture here shows JSM, but it is a tad unsuited for the role.
Dassault Rafale has the capability to carry the BVR Meteor and MICA will be the other, WVR, missile in package. MICA IR is usefull as a sensor as well, as you can get IR picture from the missile back to the fighter, and use basic triangulation to do nifty 9th grade maths and get firing solutions and other data passively. Other than that HAMMER/AASM is good guidance package for iron bombs, Stand off weapon would be MBDA Storm Shadow
MICA would also have a very respective range for a “secondary” missile as 80km (ASRAAM +25km, and IRIS T 25km) which is more or less the same as offered by the current FAF AMRAAM C-7. So in max OCA/DCA Rafale in a sence has “mostest missiles”.
Lockheed F-35A Lightning It’s not as expensive as your think!
Lockheed Martins presser was for the grownups in HX-press community. The message was really “F-35 is a lot cheaper that you have been led to believe!” One has to concur, the price is trickling down and synergy is kicking in which is fine and good.
There will be “robust” weapons package included in HX bid but what is there in it is everybody’s educated guess. BVR missile: AMRAAM D or METEOR? WVR: ASRAAM or Sidewinder? Ground attack missile: SPEAR 3 or JAGM? Anti Radiation AAMRG-ER or JSM? Stand off/cruise missile AGM-158 JASSM?
Lockheed Martin’s offer lives and dies by the stealth: F-35 has not been designed as a maneuvering platform: it is not a fighter it is an assassin. It will kill you when/if you have no clue it is there, but if you can get a kill-chain on it, F-35 is in dire straits. And no I don’t think F-35 is incapable of maneuvering, it just is not her forte. It is one thing to get into advantageous position and stick a needle in enemy’s posterior than to try to be victorious in within visual range maneuvering fight with Suhois or MiGs
So I’m a bit skeptical about continued value of the (X-band or microwave length) stealth for the future decades, but it IS important right now. No manufacturer has overlooked the effect of microwave stealth in their designs and future platforms like Tempest are stealthy in X-band, so there is that. Still S-band radars have no such limitations, so that eats into the effectiveness of X-band stealth.
Boeing F/A-18 E/F/G and the Loyal Wing man: it has been so good, why not continue?
Boeing was responssible of the news bomb this time. Last year I asked is Loyan wingman part of HX deal and they denied it, but now they owned up and said “it is part of the options”. So Airpower Teaming System ATS or Loyal Wingman is on the table.
Finlands air warfare domain is the most challenging in the world. country is without great changes of terrain and lies pretty flat. All the AFBs are (somewhat) within radar range of the only potential adversary. So while F/A-18E is not that stealthy the ATS is, so Loyal wing man can go and have a peek and networking capabilities will take care of what the jockey in F/A-18 E sees. Thus you only risk losing relatively inexpensive platform and not a full blown fighter. In basic OCA/DCA scenario the ATSes would fly 50-80km forward of F-18s and when they pick up enemies, thay would act like forward observers do in artillery concept. They would help to guide in the missiles that the shooters/arsenal fighters, fired. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
The ATS concept is applicable to most scenarios HX-fighters are expected to perform. Other than that Boeing plays to its strenght, It has been good, you guys know us from 90’ies onwards, you know the consept and you know the plane. All fair and good points. Also the armaments are on known quality. the finns would stay with AMRAAM and eventually move to D-model, other armaments from legacy hornets era could be used at first and new ones brought online as they surface. so no great thrills there.
Then there is the Growler. Growler can deny the enemy the whole killchain. Let me elaborate. When Growler is in air with New Generation Jammer pods and protecting say a strike package, There might be a S-band search radar, Growler jams it with low band jammer, then it can also jam the microwave links that help command posts to control missile batteries. After that if air defense battery gets the strike package, the Growler can jam their X-band fire control radars. Ditto for fighter assets. So Boeing claim they can make pigs breakfast from the whole kill chain. Not just the last part that involves the X-band fire control radars. This is another strength of Rhino bid.
Concerns rise from the continued use of F/A-18 E/F/G by the primary user: United States Navy. Even though Germany picked F/A-18E and Growler earlier this year, 120 + fighters in Europe might not be enough to drive development further. This still is the mountain Boeing has to climb.
Other things of note in Kaivari21 are: cool aviators given by Prat and Whitney and Lockheed. SAAB had really neat Global EYE caps for us lemmings. Also the coffee cup was in same camo! It is nice to see leftie crap has not surfaced in France, cos we could still see cute girls in orange and black in Dassault Pavillion. Also they had their own winery produts. Being had maybe the coolest cap in Growler and in blue and white. Typhoon sales team made us laugh oftenest.
It has been a long while since I last wrote about the HX-things in this Blog. Now that Kaisaniemi air day is almost upon us maybe it is time to make something. Again Command modern operations is a game, not a real simulation environment, so accuracy is maybe on 50%-70% ballpark.
I’m going to put all results in this page as they come ready for viewers benefit. I have only made a few practice runs before real thing, and didn’t made statistics on the runs due family time constraints.
As can be seen from the scorecard, Eurofighter Typhoon caused substantial destruction on VVS side of things: 37 fighters and AWACS, 19 TELAR vehicles plus 15 different kind of bridges all together. The bridges and the logistical isolation of battle area is sort of the point here, but caused hole in opposing airforce would also be a boon in short to medium run. As I mentioned I did not do any kind of statistics on the scenario, but I venture to make and educated guess that “normal range” of losses for Finnish Air Force would be 3-7 fighters considering the complexity of situation.
So what we found out is that given enough flights FAF with Typhoon is indeed capable of offensive operations against VVS, but venturing outside of Finnish aerospace might prove costly thing to do. Also I feel some of the losses sustained by the FAF are due the limitations of AI in the game. So out of the 42 fighters out in scenario 5 were lost in this round.
Meteor performed 37 spalshes out of 76 meteors fired (plus 3 ASRAAMS) give Kp of 0,486-0,468. So Missile performance is quite par on what we saw in Arctic Night scenario where we had 0,486 Hit probability over a few runs of scenario. And as .500 would be a hit in each salvo, or “perfect score” [talking CMAMO, there is a possibility to change preferenses to fire a many missiles as you would want to each target, but I have left it alone, as a salvo fire each target seems to be the preferred way to go globally. (Well salvo of 2 against gen 4 and gen 5 fighters, gen 1-3 only get 1) It would maybe be better for Lightning II, as they only carry 4 AMRAAMs.]
SPEAR EW and SPEAR 3 missiles performed in SEAD role in combo quite well: As long as you get the SPEAR 3s in about same time in as SPEAR EW flies close you are good. If the timing is off Pantsir and Buk systems are quite capable of making pigs breakfast of your salvo. Video is of Defense webs production and quite informative about the systems and also how to attack them.
So FAF would be quite cabable to go on offensive counter air operations against VVS and support interdiction/deep strike missions against close by targets in Carelian Isthmus and East-Carelia and thus provide army help in war fighting. This of course has some limits as Finnish establisment has decided to honour uncle Joe’s dictates about sufficient Air Force size for Finland. And for that obscure reason to limit the Air Force to 64 fighters.
We do know that Eurofighter Typhoon is Air Dominance optimized fighter in HX competition, and is well capable to over-match current crop of Suhois. The problem in Typhoons HX run are the cost per fighter and cost per flight hour. (Two turbojets just suck up twice as much gas as one does.) The Eurofighter is quite prolific fighter in world so there is no fear of ending up as the sole user, and as Typhoon will be constantly used in action around the globe, the armaments will be top notch all the way to 60’s. The politics are also there as three major EU partners are using and developing the fighter on wards. So there might very well be heavy EU pressure from German/Italian/Spanish quarter. UK is no longer part of EU, but Finland has emerging military co-operation with the British so this will also add weight into scales in Typhoon’s favor Also there would be clear path to take part in Tempest development deals.
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.