ITT: Which one should replace F/A-18C/D in Finnish service, Gripen or F-35? Why?
>>29480353
The F-35 because the Slavs are squatting on your doorstep.
>>29480353
The Gripen actually works so pretty easy choice there.
>>29480353
Wouldn't the Super Hornet be the most logical transition?
>>29480353
F35 because politics and one foot already on NATO.
>>29480369
assuming we'd maintain the current number of fighters (around 60) F-35 would be way too expensive, can it land on a highway, be serviced by a ground crew in minutes & take off with full combat load from that same strip of highway, and can it do it well enough to warrant the extra cost in comparison to Gripen?
>>29480353
The full list of competitors for the combination are:
- Super Hornet
- F-35
- Typhoon
- Rafale
- Gripen
Gripen seems the msot likely candidate. It has internal government support already.
>>29480353
Gripen is the only coherent choice.
But this board is too "muh F35 best RCS" to admit it.
>>29480416
Well the Singaporeans are buying them with that same purpose in mind. Of course the Singaporeans are richer and have only ever gone to Sweden for submarines, so take that as you will.
>>29480416
>Gripen NG
>$113 million
>but the F-35 is so EXPENSIVE guyz
>>29480489
>Thinking that flyaway cost is the only number involved
>>29480489
Consider operating costs.
F-35's are too expensive to operate in the numbers that Finland requires for a new plane.
Also, the F-35 has a poor track record for reliability.
Hyvä lanka!
>>29480416
I vote F-20; uses the same engine as Hornet, you can build hundreds for the cost of 60 Gripens/40 F-35s & apparently the F-5s have shown that they can kick 5th gen plane's asses...
>>29480640
i know of one example where a T-6 Texan II scored a gun kill on a F-22A at Red Flag. the F-22A pilot was going through WIC at the time too.
that doesn't mean the T-6 is a better plane for combat.
also nobody's built a F-20 in 35 years. we might as well have Finland buy surplus F-4's.
>>29480681
WIC?
>>29480353
Super Hornet, because you're already operating Hornets so operating the new model is the smart option.
>>29480518
>>29480521
Don't forget that the F-35 with ALIS will also massively reduce maintenance hours, since it's both designed to be insanely easy to work on, both in terms of access and modularity, as well as the plane itself being able to diagnose and predict maintenance needs.
>>29480418
>>29480720
Wait, so they're considering the Super Hornet but not the Advanced Super Hornet?
>>29480521
>Also, the F-35 has a poor track record for reliability.
>Plane still in final dev stage swarming with techs after every flight
>Still perfect flight record
>>29480732
The F-35 has more bugs than a beehive.
No software can fix that.
>>29480758
Wrong.
>>29480750
Other than the fact that the computer crashes every 4 hours and the weapons bay overheats every 10 minutes.
>>29480758
>all bugs are on the software side and will likely be fixed in the near future
>No software can fix that.
>>29480416
>can it land on a highway
The F-35B certainly can.
>>29480783
Every Gripen NG that has flown with weapons has crashed, killing the pilot.
>>29480743
The super-duper hornet isn't finished yet.
>>29480807
I assume you have some proof of this outrageous claim?
>>29480353
F-35, if you are actually interested in defending your country when Russia gets uppity.
>>29480828
No, I just thought if we were going to just straight up lie, go the whole way
>>29480803
can it get airborne from a highway without burning half of the fuel in its' tanks?
>>29480783
>Other than the fact that the computer crashes every 4 hours and the weapons bay overheats every 10 minutes.
You mean a minor radar freeze like the F-15 has regularly, and isn't that important because it can reboot in seconds, or the bay door thing that only matters at altitudes way below normal combat altitude and will be fixed in LRIP 9 or 10 and cascaded back to the current builds anyways?
>>29480812
Neither is the F-35 nor the Gripen NG.
>>29480353
Su-35.
>>29480521
>Also, the F-35 has a poor track record for reliability.
The F-35 has a fantastic track record for an aircraft in development.
>>29480846
Good meme anon
>>29480353
F35 is probably the best choice considering that they might actually have to use their aircraft. Gripen is the choice of nations who don't think they'll ever be in a real conflict and 3rd world countries.
>>29480836
can you shitpost without expending 99% of your mental capacity?
>>29480839
The F-35 is unable to even open its weapon bay if it is going above Mach 1.2. Combine that with the overheating and the F-35 will never be able to use internal weapons with any sort of reliability, completely negating the stealth advantage.
>>29480880
Source?
Also, you realize that it's an extremely limited duration supercruise, right? It's not exactly meant to fight at mach 1.2
Why the fuck would anyone want to replace the F-18?
>>29480416
The F-35 requires a runway at least 2400 meters long to operate from. By comparison, the Gripen is able to take off with less than 800 meters of runway.
>>29480908
It's old. The airframes are getting worn out. 5th gen technology is just coming around for export. Now's about as good a time as any to ditch legacy hornets, which is why so many nations are doing so.
>>29480923
The fact that you would specifiy that without quantifying stores load shows how ignorant you are.
Much like specifying clean aircraft maximum speed, or turn rates.
Its utterly meaningless.
>>29480732
>The F-35 has a logistics system (ALIS) that requires an internet connection to a centralized maintenance system in the United States. ALIS is kept permanently informed of each aircraft's technical status and maintenance requirements. ALIS can, and has, prevented aircraft taking off because of an incomplete data file. If the internet link is down, the aircraft can't fly even if there is nothing wrong with it. This is one of the more bizarre problems. It could lead to a situation in which enemy aircraft are inbound and the F-35s are refueled and ready to go but can't take off to meet the threat.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/5_reasons_why_our_f35s_are_too_dangerous_to_fly.html
>>29480908
because it's a shitty low-performance fighter?
Why don't they just build their own? I want to see Finnish jet fighter designs
>>29480880
>The F-35 is unable to even open its weapon bay if it is going above Mach 1.2.
>Releasing weapons, or even opening bays while supersonic
You're a special kind of idiot, aren't you?
>>29480923
Or less than 100 with the B.
>>29480923
>>29480949
>The F-35 requires a runway at least 2400 meters long to operate from.
Or 450 meters.
Or 0 meters, at the cost of carrying damn near no stores.
>>29480369
>F-35 runways in shooting distance of Russian MLRS
>>29480959
>unsourced bullshit article
About what I expect from that site.
>>29480983
>>29481005
Or 2400 meters for the version that actually matters in this context
>>29481005
You made the same mistake of quantifying jack shit.
2400 meters carrying 18,000lb stores? 2,000lb?
Who knows! Who cares!
>>29480959
That's wrong, and the source you quoted is retarded.
>>29481039
If you're planning to mainly deploy a 610nmi radius stealth fighter that close to the fighting you've already fucked up.
>>29480923
that settles it then, the highway base near my home has maybe 2km stretch of carefully paved road to be used as a runway, and the others seem to be of similar length.
>>29480353
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=sxMYFYDNF_g
At the end of the day, you have to admit that the Gripen can do everything that the F-35 can do, but for 1/3 the operating costs. The JAS-39 is a superior, more reliable aircraft.
>>29480930
Your mom is old and her airframe is getting worn out but that hasn't stopped me.
>>29481091
So you've given up actually refuting points or backing yours up, back to muh feelins
as expected of a swedeophile
>>29481098
To be quite honest dude you have some pretty low standards if you're fucking my mom. I recommend you find a replacement.
>>29481101
>>29480353
What points? The JAS-39 is simply a superior plane.
>Low Cost of Operation
>High Availability
>Easy to Maintain
>Super Maneuverable
>Advanced Avionics
But you don't have to take my word for it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3-PeY-heho
>>29481091
>barely better than the F-16 in every spec
>can do everything the F-35 can
Ha! Good one!
>>29481091
How about fly 1100 kilometers to strike a target and return?
>>29480983
>Or less than 100 with the B
as cool as STOVL is, I doubt FiAF can afford to buy the most complex version of an already expensive fighter just for the ability to burn half of the fuel in tanks (as well as burn/melt a hole in the paved runway in the process) during takeoff.
>>29481091
>At the end of the day, you have to admit that the Gripen can do everything that the F-35 can do
The amazing thing is there are people who probably actually believe this.
>>29481192
You're repeating yourself now, m8.
>>29481217
Its unlikely they actually do.
>>29481172
>will scream about Lockheed shills
>proceeds to shill for Saab
>>29480923
The F-35B (STOVL) can take off from less than 300 meters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7ZUVXs6Ec
>>29481091
>buy a plane with a great track record from your next door neighbour, whose best interests is your safety from Russia, that will easily provide support and parts.
or
>buy a plane with zero track record from a country where every military purchase you buy is of political nature and will throw you under the bus any given moment.
Jee that was sure hard!
>>29481192
>as well as burn/melt a hole in the paved runway in the process
If you're trying to land on a highway then your airstrips have already been burnt to a crisp so that matters little.
>>29481253
Anon, there is little point in having this discussion with someone that doesn't know anything past quoting numbers at you.
Saying an aircraft can take off in "800 meters" is great and all, but you need to quantify it. Is that on full afterburner? Carrying nothing but 2 AIM-9s and 50% fuel load? What?
Its completely arbitrary, much like saying a radar system can "detect a target at 500nmi" without quantifying target RCS.
>>29481266
>buying obsolete hardware from your neighbor because of muh feels
>cannot actually specify a nation that was "thrown under the bus" in his lifetime
>>29480353
One thing is for certain. You're not buying the Rafale.
>>29480845
And it the F-35 will take years to get finished. Better to stick with an air frame you're already familiar with like the Hornet.
Buy Sukhoi. You're going to be Russian property eventually anyway.
>>29481385
Familiarity is a good thing.
Adopting a 40 year old airframe and expecting it to last another 40-50 years is not.
Its thoroughly retarded.
>>29481278
oh, so now you are attacking my word choise (if a fixed-wing aircraft is taking off of it/landing on it it counts as a runway) when you very obviously understood what I meant, which was: one F-35 takes off vertically in a highway base & now there's a hole in the pavement preventing anyone from landing or taking off conventionally until someone patches the hole.
>>29481406
>one F-35 takes off vertically in a highway
kek, F-35s don't take off vertically. Nobody expects them to in an operational environment. They perform in a STOVL mode.
>>29481406
>one F-35 takes off vertically in a highway base & now there's a hole in the pavement preventing anyone from landing or taking off conventionally until someone patches the hole.
That's not the way it works for one thing. The heat is an issue for long-term usage, the idea that the F-35 melts roads and ship decks with one launch is a meme.
>>29481253
>>29480353
STOVL is irrelevant to this thread. Finland has no requirement for a STOVL aircraft. Rather, they want a conventional take-off plane that doesn't require a 2400+ runway like the F-35A.
>>29481463
see
>>29481287
Its great that you repeat yourself so hard I can just link previous posts. Much easier.
>>29481229
It was the year 2016. The battle for Finland's Military Aerospace capability was not fought in a boardroom, or the halls of government, but in a board of memes. The finns looked upon this, and saw that it was good.
>>29481319
some examples of USA throwing other nations under the bus because of politics:
South Korea (withheld promised weapons/ammunition deliveries because of fear that South would invade North, instead North invaded South and UN had to step in to throw the Norks out)
Taiwan (sales of hardware have been a constant rollercoaster because of butthurt PRC)
Iran (F-16s ordered by Iran sold to Israel instead because USA didn't like the new Iranian regime)
>>29480353
What are the Finns budgetary limits? Ideally they'd get the F-35 (because Russia), but F/A-18E/F/G are less expensive and would be an easier transition for Finnish pilots.
>>29480712
weapon instructor course.
like TOPGUN but better.
>>29481471
>>29480353
The requirement for the Gripen is that is must be able to take-off with less than 800 meters of runway. Actual numbers are something like 650 meters for take-off and 550 meters for landing. A specific load-out is not specified. You'll just have to accept that.
This outstanding runway performance is achieved by making clever use of the plane's two canard-wings. During take-off, the canards are angled upwards to improve lift and decrease minimum take-off distance. During landing, the canards are angled downward and used as airbrakes.
You can't do that with an F-35.
>>29481472
Indeed.
>>29481593
>A specific load-out is not specified. You'll just have to accept that.
Sorry, but that makes the numbers meaningless.
I can find maximum speed numbers for the F-16 carrying absolutely nothing, as well. Doesn't make them relevant.
>>29481480
None of those constitute 'thrown under the bus'.
>>29480983
supersonic AMRAAM useage is doctrinal for maximum WEZ
>>29480923
the distance you achieve liftoff and your min runway distance aren't the same. you need a longer runway when you're landing. this is basic TOLD stuff that you ought to know.
>>29481593
>This outstanding runway performance is achieved by making clever use of the plane's STOVL design. During take-off, the engine nozzle is angled downwards to improve lift and decrease minimum take-off distance. During landing, the lift fan intake cover is angled upwards and used as airbrakes.
>You can't do that with a Gripen.
>>29481607
>>29480353
Saab 39 Gripen: Able to take off with less than 800 meters of runway. (loadout unspecified)
F-35: Can't take off with less than 800 meters of runway regardless of conditions. (The ultra-expensive STOVL version doesn't count)
The runway that Saab uses to test the Gripen is EXACTLY 800 meters long. So really, the plane could manage it with any loadout.
>>29481593
we do the same thing with a F-15 (except with stabilators instead of canards). it's literally a 40-some year old design.
clearly you have no idea how fighter aircraft work.
>>29481593
You can do that with a B-1.
>>29481723
>F-35: Can't take off with less than 800 meters of runway regardless of conditions. (The ultra-expensive STOVL version doesn't count)
Got a source for that, champ?
>>29481723
>(The ultra-expensive STOVL version doesn't count)
>Nuh uh, that doesn't count!
What are you, 12?
>>29481663
The F-35B doesn't matter for this discussion. There is no way that Finland could ever afford that albatross. (although you can say that about all the F-35 variants, but especially the F-35B STOVL meme plane)
>>29481749
>The F-35 requires a runway at least 8,000 feet long to operate from. By comparison, the F-16's minimum runway length requirement is 3,000 feet.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/5_reasons_why_our_f35s_are_too_dangerous_to_fly.html
>>29481774
The Finnish Air Force has no requirement for a STOVL aircraft. The F-35B is not even being considered.
>>29480353
I don't think either is ideal, but I'm guessing in an imperfect world the Gripen is probably the best option. It's quite well suited to operating from short runways, are there actually any military runways in Finland long enough for an F-35 to base from at the moment?
Obviously they can lengthen some runways but the Gripen is designed to operate off rural highways, it's really quite handy.
And before y'all start whining about muh stealth, it doesn't need stealth when the battle plan involves staying at or below tree top level anyway.
>>29481806
You know thats not a source any more than if I rent a domain and said "The Gripen NG is 100% shit", right?
>>29481806
>http://www.americanthinker.com
everything fall to places now...
>>29481806
How about using an actual source instead of quoting a blog that itself does not provide a source.
>>29481814
>it doesn't need stealth when the battle plan involves staying at or below tree top level anyway.
are you clinically retarded?
>this retarded Gripen shill
Explain why the Gripen got absolutely BTFO in every tender it competed in.
>>29481806
8000 is a fairly standard minimum runway length restriction for fighter-type aircraft. and there are ways of getting around that. i will say that a fat, old F-15E with the weaker -220 motors and a pretty heavy bomb load gets airborne by about 4000 feet at sea level.
also not talking about atmospheric conditions and altitude shows you don't really understand TOLD calculations.
>>29481814
>it doesn't need stealth when the battle plan involves staying at or below tree top level anyway.
I'm fucking dying
>>29481814
>when the battle plan involves staying at or below tree top level anyway
You know nothing about air warfare
>>29481806
>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/5_reasons_why_our_f35s_are_too_dangerous_to_fly.html
>AmericanThinker
It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down
>>29481837
>>29481854
Within 10 years, advances in radar will make stealth pretty much irrelevant. It's not even worth factoring it into the equation.
Brewster Buffalo
>>29481901
>or below tree top level anyway.
i was referring to this part, and the answer seems to yes
>>29481607
doesn't it go without saying that the "has to be able to take off from 800m runway" means "take-off with full combat load" (an example of a combat load: 6 Sidewinders); the requirements Flygvapnet set also include turnaround time of 10 minutes with 1+5 -man ground crew, that means refueling and rearming the plane (if it didn't mean full refuel and rearming the turnaround time would be "as soon as the plane can physically turn around" instead of "10 minutes")
F-35 is the closest Finland can get to NATO status without joining NATO.
Finland will be able to send pilots/maintainers to NATO schools. Operate NATO weaponry and avionics. Link with and receive NATO assets relating to the F-35 with ease. And in a contingency, augmentee seamlessly with NATO forces.
It's either join NATO or ally with Russia and buy Su-35's. One or the other.
Finn here
>hoping for F-35A, buying outdated tech would be pointless
>fearing Gripen because politicians will cry "muh nordic defense" when ultimately allies are irrelevant militarily and nordics are irrelevant politically
I bet the retards will buy some ancient super hornets that will start falling out of the sky in 20 years to shove responsibility of major acquisitions to the next governments.
>>29480385
The Spitfire works and is even cheaper
>>29481950
6 sidewinders is not a full combat load. it's a ridiculous load that is so short-armed as to be completely asinine.
>>29481950
No, not really.
Much like them lying about operational costs, you're running completely into assumptions there. Could be that the most you can get out of a runway like that is an emergency CAP with a horrific fuel load.
6 Sidewinders is a hilariously light "combat load", by the way.
>>29481953
Finland should join NATO not for muh article 5 shit, but for equipment acquisitions and political weight. Ahtisaari was right.
Su-35 is never going to happen, buying Russian gear to fight against Russia is a terrible idea.
>>29481994
>mad
>>29481848
>get BTFO by a Swede
>m-muh F35! ;_;
Deal with it yankee that your plane is a pile of dogshit.
>>29481172
The avionics on the Gripen are no better than that on F-16C block 40.
Avionics are expensive, skimping on them is one of the reasons that the A and C version of the Gripen are cheap.
But Avionics also matter immensely in modern operations, and Saab is spending money to actually put something good in the NG.
>>29481901
>Chinese and Russian radars will make stealth irrelevant
>China and Russia are making stealth aircraft
I doubt you can resolve this conflict.
>>29481910
"flying beer bottle" was nice after Yanks stripped off all the shit they didn't want to give us (including some armor plus the engines, giving us second-hand engines of inferior specs), accidentaly resulting in a better fighter than what was sold to US Navy, the British and the Dutch.
>>29481978
>>29481997
where did I say 6 sidewinders was a *full* load? I said it was an example of a combat load.
>>29481994
The irony in this post is deafening.
>>29482015
>Fielded the only 5th gen aircraft a decade ago
B...but Putin said stealth was a meme
;_;
>>29482061
Neither of the posts you quoted said full load.
Pure IR missiles isn't a combat load at all.
>>29482015
>BTFO
No, not really. Just sad you're defending your national pride that can't even compete with 50 year old American air frames
>>29481266
You know what's thrown under the bus?
Finland in 1809 and 1939, by Sweden.
>>29480353
Why would you consider picking the meme-35 over the Gripen? The F-35 is fast becoming an international laughing stock.
>>29482115
Oh Saab, you so silly.
>>29482115
>That graph
![attachment[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WSTArcY.jpg "attachment[2].jpg")
>>29482115
>Implying turn rates matter
Behold what even SAAB thinks about their jet compared to the F-35
>>29482163
Its cute they're delusional enough to think even the NG has parity with other Eurocanards.
>>29482163
Funny how they think Gripen NG is the same price as the old Gripen and cheaper than F-16 C.
Or that a Super Hornet costs more than the two eurocanards.
>>29482098
they claimed *I* had called 9 Sidewinders a full combat load, I asked where did I say that, 6 Sidewinders is listed as a configuration on every website about Gripen I can find (the data on most seems to be the exact same as in Wikipedia, not sure which sources are original & which draw their info from Wikipedia), and I simply picked one because I needed an example of a weapons load & if I started making one up (like "16 Sidewinders, 20 AMRAAMS and ten tons of bombs lel") people would complain about the impossibility/retardedness of the configuration no matter what I wrote, so I picked the first config listed in Wikipedia.
>>29481806
Hey look, I can post sources too!
finlandairforce.spurdospar.de
Clearly the F-35 is the superior choice and the Gripen NG is a communist lie.
>>29481939
>>29482222
*6 sidewinders
>>29482246
Fighters have no radar? AWACS doesn't exist?
kek
Go for the Gripen, it will be more useful than the F-35
>>29482282
>Middle stick
What is this, 1960?
>>29482274
closer you fly to terrain the harder it gets for an airborne radar to spot you, come on this should be basic knowledge.
>>29482313
>vidya games
>>29482313
That's not how doppler radar works anon
>>29482338
Why do TV stations spend fucktons of money building 2000 foot towers for their transmitters if altitude doesn't affect RF?
Why do we even bother with satellites if we can just leave antennas on the ground?
>>29482313
What year do you live in?
>>29482392
The fact that you make that comparison is not surprising.
>>29482425
I'm not >>29482313
by the way, I'm just saying that altitude is a factor in detection distance.
>>29482282
>Go for the Gripen, it will be more useful than the F-35
>more useful
Ha, that's a great joke. F-16-grade payload and range, a .97 TW, and limited sensors and comms as well, and, again, no stealth.
>>29482442
If the enemy has airborne systems looking down, then low level penetration does basically nothing.
Look-down/Shoot-down has been a thing for decades.
Stealth at high levels can do penetration by flying between gaps in radar coverage. Just cutting detection range by half can open up opportunities.
>>29482274
An aerial radar operated from some distance away (i.e. inside Russia) is not going to be at much of an advantage over a ground radar here. The angle would be only slightly more favorable while the actual radar system poorer or perhaps with an AWACs plane still no better than the ground-based system.
Now when it gets to the point that the enemy can park an AWACS over the middle of Finland, yeah, that trick would no longer work. But as long as you have fighters operating they can't do that, you'd just shoot the AWACs down when it tried.
In the more likely scenario, with contested airspace, the ability of these fighters to hug very closely to the nap of earth until able to engage, then lock, fire weapons, and immediately break for a ridge and disappear behind it would be very practical. It takes shockingly little time for them to drop down onto a rural highway hit a cache re-arm re-fuel and get airborne again.
If they put the money into F-35s all the Russians have to do is mess up a couple of runways to ground their force.
>>29482599
>Scenario that depends entirely on NATO ignoring a partner nation getting attacked by Russia
>Scenario built around 1960s tactics and tech
>>29482599
> It takes shockingly little time for them to drop down onto a rural highway hit a cache re-arm re-fuel and get airborne again.
I'm a Bong, we planned on doing that in the Falklands, It ended well: honest boss
>>29482686
I can imagine if the first time you tried it was under fire it wouldn't go so well.
In Sweden they practice it constantly. You have to watch out on the highway because they WILL simply appear in front of you and set right down on the highway - they have the right of way and you pull over for them. The ones I saw seemed extremely practiced at it.
For obvious reasons they don't like too many pictures of the roadside bases floating around but they are everywhere. Here's one that's fairly easy to find. It's a Vigen in the pic obviously but the base is even more useful for the Gripen.
>>29483053
sounds about right for Finland as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1piR6LPJ6I
>>29483159
another video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pXKeyNeYs
>>29481480
>South Korea (withheld promised weapons/ammunition deliveries because of fear that South would invade North, instead North invaded South and UN had to step in to throw the Norks out)
Not in your lifetime.
>Taiwan (sales of hardware have been a constant rollercoaster because of butthurt PRC)
DESU pham IDK about this one.
>Iran (F-16s ordered by Iran sold to Israel instead because USA didn't like the new Iranian regime)
The F-16s were ordered by the previous government. You must be grasping for straws if you are saying that the US withholding fighter jets from a group that preformed a hostile takeover of the previous allied regime, and is literally screaming death to America, after storming the US embassy and taking hostages, throwing someone under the bus.
>>29483184
and another from the same place (probably different time though):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtFc0Z44m8
This could have been a good thread, but it isn't.
The Gripen E is expected to be launched on May 18th. It really is too early to give a judgement on this bird, which, after all, is significantly different from the previous Gripen models.
The F-35 is still also pretty young, and while people like to rip on in for low reliability, such things are liable to be improved upon very heavily with time.
Waiting a few months to see how it plays out is probably better than calling eachother shills repeatedly for hours on hours.
>>29481998
>Su-35 is never going to happen, buying Russian gear to fight against Russia is a terrible idea.
That's why I said ally with Russia instead of NATO you fucking doorknob
>>29483708
Finland has little to no incentive to ally with Russia. They're mostly culturally western, are part of the EU and the Eurozone, are despite not being members of NATO still fairly tightly allied with Estonia and the Scandinavian countries. Plus it's not like the Winter War made the finns particularly fond of their neighbours to the east.
>>29483708
>there's a growing threat that X will attack you
>become allies with X
>probably lose all of your old friends + any respect anyone might have had for you
>X might still attack because what are you going to do about it now that you have no friends?
yep, no way this could go horribly wrong...
>>29480385
the gripen that they consider arent even flying anon.
>>29483761
>Better to ally with a marxist country like America that forces you to open your borders/import millions of terrorists
Sounds like a brilliant idea
America totally isn't part of the globalist cabal that is dead set on destroying the west, right?
>>29483865
When did America force Europe to open its borders?
>>29480418
>>29480743
This, the ASH is the best thing if you're not willing to go full F-35.
>>29483901
The EU is a puppet government of America/globalists
>>29483949
But when did America force Europe to open its borders?
>>29483962
First time was in 1961 when USA forced germany to take turk "guest workers" who stayed permanently
>>29483865
>ally with Marxist America
uhh, what? Marxist and America don't really belong in the same sentence, also just because we don't want to ally with Russia doesn't mean we are going to ally with USA (though every time Kremlin starts foaming about some tinfoil hat conspiracy we supposedly have with USA to destroy Russia the idea of joining NATO becomes more and more tempting)
>forces you to open your borders/import millions of terrorists
USA hasn't forced us to open our borders, our decision to join EU did, about importing millions of terrorists, instead of "millions" we are talking about thousands (BTW around Christmas Russia was trying to get us to accept Syrian/Iraqi refugees that had entered Russia and had somehow ended up on our borders, I am sure they totally walked all the way without Russian government having in any way contributed to their travel from Black Sea/where ever they entered Russia to the Finnish border)
>>29484039
*and instead of "terrorists" it's "bums coming here to leech off of our social programs & complain about every detail they don't like even after the government is already bending over backwards to accommodate their needs"
>>29480353
The F-35's only real advantage over the Gripen NG was stealth. But now that the Gripen has a sensor that can detect stealth aircraft beyond visual range, that no longer matters.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/gripen-sensors-claim-counter-stealth-performance
Gripen because fingolls deserve to be cucked
Imagine if they actually bought the F-15 (it's apparently technically in the running).
Imagine the memes.
>>29481463
>we don't need stovl
>we need stol
Well guess what nigger, stovl aircraft are just like stol aircraft except they're better.
>>29484404
I.....I kinda want at least 1 country to buy the Silent eagle. Just so we can see what it looks like. I think it died when Korea said no, though.
>>29484404
You mean the Silent Eagle?
>>29484428
Finland doesn't even have an aircraft carrier. Why would they buy the F-35B? That plane is irrelevant to this discussion.
>>29484457
are swedposters the new austrailiaposters?
>>29484457
Did you even read his post? It fulfills their requirement of short take offs, having a carrier has nothing to do with it. The B model isn't even for carrier use.
>>29484485
The B model is for carrier use if your carrier isn't CATOBAR
>>29484469
>>29484485
The point is that the Gripen NG is able to achieve take-off and landing on a runway less than 800 meters in length WITHOUT relying on an expensive and complicated lift-fan set-up. Besides, only 1 version of the F-35 even has this lift-fan, and that's not the version that the Finns are looking at. The F-35A requires a runway that is at least 2400 meters long for take-off.
>>29483208
>DESU pham IDK about this one.
We just sold Taiwan a couple frigates, most of Taiwan's lack of purchases come from monetary reasons (like the delay on their M1A1 buy).
>>29484404
in that case it would probably be "Silent Eagle", I haven't looked into it, at least it has two engines (after the lecture we got from a Hornet pilot when we visited an air base en route to an air defence exercise I think our pilots might want to have two engines as a lucky shot from >23mm cannon in the right place can take out an engine)
>>29484560
If you're close enough that you're taking hits from a 30 mm cannon (you said greater than 23 mm) and the other guy is in a position where he is able to hit you with such a weapon then you're cooked no matter how many engines you have.
>>29484542
What sort of minimum runway can the F-35C manage?
Seems likely that you could manage on shorter runways for the F-35A with lower payload & rougher takeoffs/landings.
>>29484560
It's not the worst option, it's just not all that cost-effective for the benefits. The Super Hornet would be a better investment at that point.
>>29484542
The point is you keep avoiding what kind of payload it carries when doing that.
Being able to take off in 800 feet does not mean much if all you have is a pair of Sidewinders and 1/3 fuel.
>>29484521
That doesn't mean it is exclusively for carrier use. You lose nothing by not operating it from carriers.
>>29484542
So then why aren't they considering the B model if it fulfills their requirements?
>>29484595
If you're curious about what a standard combat load for the Swedish Air Force is, then got look it up yourself. I'm satisfied with knowing that the aircraft is able to take-off and land with less than 800 meters of runway, which was a core requirement during the Gripen's development. Of course, the actual number is more like 650 meters for take-off, and 550 meters for landing. You can't actually use the entire runway.
>>29484615
But the F-35B is made for carriers. Finland does not have a carrier. Why would they buy this plane?
>>29481014
BF4 pls go.
>>29484687
>But the F-35B is made for carriers. Finland does not have a carrier. Why would they buy this plane?
Just saying, but that's an odd argument given Finland's been using the Hornet for the last few decades.
>>29484592
>What sort of minimum runway can the F-35C manage?
It doesn't really matter, because it practice it is going to be assisted by catapult whenever it takes off.
>>29484595
800 meters, not feet, I think 800m is something like 2624 feet
>>29484687
why did countries without aircraft carriers buy the F-4, a naval aircraft? or like >>29484722 pointed out, why buy the F/A-18?
>>29481403
The ASH or Super Hornets aren't 40 years old.
>>29484745
That's different. The F-4 and the F-18 aren't STOVL. They're essentially conventional planes, just hardened for carrier use.
>>29484687
>But the F-35B is made for carriers. F
That's why it has an arresting hook and folding wings? Oh wait.
>>29484777
so why does it matter if it was designed for carrier use
>>29484812
almost all fighters have an arresting hook. the land-based ones don't usually use them except in emergencies, but they're on board.
>>29484829
The F-35B is a hideously expensive aircraft, both in terms of unit price and cost of operations. The Finns would not be able to operate a sufficiently large air fleet with that plane.
>>29484588
actually I was talking about being hit by triple-A, the reason I said >23mm was because the ZU-23-2 is one of two AA -cannons FDF uses & for some perverse reason we always use our own weapons as a yard stick when talking about how to best destroy our own equipment, a lucky burst from a ZU-23-2 on the right spot is a bit different than a lucky hit by another fighter.
>>29484777
Holy fuck the doublethink is strong with you.
>>29484777
The F-4 was originally developed for carrier use.
The F-18 is used mostly on carriers.
>>29484856
Theres literally nothing cheaper
>>29484750
the C -models in Finnish service are also what 22, 23 years old at oldest (not sure about the second-hand D -models we bought from Canada at the same time we were manufacturing the Cs)
>>29484865
It essentially doesn't matter. You're better off just trying to not get shot in the first place. If a plane loses an engine, it will be crippled even if it manages to get back to base.
>>29484896
The Gripen costs less than $5,000 per flight hour. The F-35 costs a whopping $32,000 per flight hour! The Gripen has the lowest operating costs of any modern jets fighter.
>>29484910
Did you? I thought all of Finland's F-18s were made for Finland.
>>29484954
>Talking about cost per flight hour as if its even a meaningful statistic
>F-35 isn't even in full production or a working fighter yet
>Using old costs per flight hour to refer to new gripens
>These improvements have reportedly increased the Gripen NG costs to an estimated 24,000 Swiss Francs (US$27,000) per hour,[315] and increased the flyaway cost to 100 million Swiss Francs (US$113M).
hm
>>29485001
That's not possible. What could they possible do to the Gripen that would make the operating cost go up like that? I don't believe it.
>>29484971
I mixed two different things into one; the Ds came straight from the factory in USA, the thing about buying Canadian Hornets was just one front-half of a CF-18B used to rebuild a crashed C -model into a D (it crashed again some time later and wasn't rebuilt again...)
>>29485028
A completely different engine for one thing, which is one of the major factors in aircraft maintenance.
>>29485028
Or maybe your claim of less than $5,000 per flight hour cost is wrong?
>>29484198
>The F-35's only real advantage over the Gripen NG was stealth.
So, the greater range, payload, EOTS, EODAS, ASQ-239 Barracuda and the comms suite don't count as advantages for the F-35? A basic IRST isn't the same thing as an EODAS, and I'll admit it's probably on par with the NG's radar, but that's the least important sensor on the -35.
>>29484954
The Gripen model you are getting that cost from is not a modern fighter.
>>29484687
>If you're curious about what a standard combat load for the Swedish Air Force is, then got look it up yourself.
>I don't know what the numbers I bleat mean.
>>29484687
>But the F-35B is made for carriers. Finland does not have a carrier. Why would they buy this plane?
No, the F-35B is designed to operate out of nearly anywhere Helos can operate from, that it, forward bases, USMC "complete military in a box" LHDs, and so on. You're thinking of the C, which is built for the CATOBAR carriers we are the sole users of.
>>29480640
But that plane was never put into production. Do you really think the manufactures could restart that program?
>>29480418
That's retarded. The newest Gripens are $100 million apiece. So you'd end up with a less capable aircraft for the same amount or slightly more money than the alternatives.
>>29482222
Dude, you just admitted you have no clue what you're speaking of. Either be more respective and listen to what people are telling you, or take a couple of months and learn the subject.
The fact that you need to rely on wikipedia to figure out possible combat loads should be a blazing alarm in your mind *I'm in over my head*.
Asking questions would serve you better than making silly assertions.
>>29484542
>The F-35A requires a runway that is at least 2400 meters long for take-off.
Fully loaded the F-35 requires 8,000 feet for takeoff. The recommendation for training fields is no less than 10,000 feet. (source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2b1ed75-dc16-447a-a878-b8670edb674d&subId=254100 )
2400 Metres = 7874 feet.
>The point is that the Gripen NG is able to achieve take-off and landing on a runway less than 800 meters in length
The Gripen *fully loaded* can take off in just under 2,000 feet (same source.) 800 metres = 2625 feet.
Fact check passes. If anything you are erring in favor of the F-35 on both ends of the calculation.
>>29485815
the point was that since the requirements set for Gripen were a take-off from an 800m runway it would make no sense if the requirement wasn't for a fully loaded plane, I wasn't going to spend all day googling for one result out of a million that mentions what a typical combat load for Gripen would be, and since all of the sources I could find easily had exactly the same list of different configurations I picked the first one from the list, the fact that this list is, among other sites, in Wikipedia doesn't mean I took the information from there, only that I saw the same list on a number of sites & Wikipedia was one of them.
>>29486024
That http://www.aph.gov.au link says nothing about the Gripen.
>>29480732
Gripen is designed to be maintained by conscripts. Switching an engine takes a few hours, which is basically no time at all.
Land on a desolate road base, refuel and reload and be out of there in 10 minutes. It is a great plane if that is your doctrine. However, i feel that Finland will turn away from atleast a completely conscription based system rather soon.
>>29486103
so you're saying you're full of shit and don't understand fighters or air combat.
cool, thanks for playing
>>29486170
the Navy and Air Force have a high percentage of career/fixed time period contract personnel, only the Army has more conscripts than professional soldiers.
>>29486151
Hmm you seem to be right.
5 minutes of googling gave me a half dozen sources for that number (800m full laden) but none of them as official as I wanted. One source ( http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/ ) actually claims 600 metres instead, and strongly implies that's fully loaded. Wikipedia gives the 800 metre number but says specifically that the design requirement was for take off from an 800 metre "snow-covered" strip so the 600 metre figure could be for dry pavement.
At any rate it's clear that the Gripen is much better on this one particular metric, the only room I can see for argument is as to how important that metric is, which is very situational and depends on a lot of assumptions about who you would be fighting, when, and why.
>>29486330
takeoff figures are exactly the same no matter the surface.
>>29480478
Being surrounded by illiterate warmongering mob (in the south) and jealous neighbor (in the north) does not equate to living next to a fucking bear
>>29486367
Then I suppose the difference must be down to loadouts or something.
At any rate they operate from stations like this and that's clearly just not going to happen with the F-35.
>>29486330
also the 8000 ft runway figure for the F-35 is undoubtedly the minimum for landing. that's an extremely standard distance for landing given that aircraft usually can take off in a lot shorter distance than they need to land. my F-15E can take off in 2400 ft but needs 6-9k to land.
>>29482231
>spurdospar.de
>>29482231
This is a severely underrated post
>>29485357
The Charles de Gaulle has steam catapults, and is nuclear powered.
Based France.
What the fuck are all these Swedeposters here doing quoting stats for the fucking Gripen A and C models like those are the ones Finland is looking to buy.
The Gripen NG is the one in the running. Get your fucking facts straight you autistic surströmming slurpers.
>>29486421
this is what a Finnish one looks like, I estimate about 2200m of usable runway, maybe a bit more if you come for landing from North-West.
>>29482163
Haha holy fuck, Grishill BTFO in perpetuity.
>>29484404
>>29484429
WHAT IF, somehow... somebody built a 4G++ air force completely out of Silent Eagles AND Super Duper Bugs?
>>29480353
Do it Finland....do it.....and not because I own stock.
>>29486708
>>Silent Eagles AND Super Duper Bugs
I
am
become
diamonds
>>29486779
go away and take your "let's have two different countries design a wing each so that we can trick another country into sharing the development costs!" -scam with you
>>29486563
I dont think france is buying F-35's tho
>>29487042
They have the Rafale which is the best 4.5 gen fighter available. I'm sure Dassault has a fifth gen fighter in the works and I bet it'll be just as aesthetic as the Rafale.
Just out of curiosity, why not just build a few runways that are long enough for whatever you want and then not limit your aircraft purchases by runway length?
what about the f35c? is its runway requirement shorter?
>>29487174
of course there's plenty of real airfields that fighters could use, the problem is our doctrine is based on the expectation of them getting bombed in the opening salvo of any war, that's the reason we have countless strips of highways designated as highway bases, the problem is finding long enough stretches that are also level enough to be used as runways, take >>29486619 for example; you can't tell it from satellite pictures, but even though the road further North-West is still straight, the pictured stretch is the only part of it that's level enough for aircraft (there's a rather steep slope starting right at where the road reaches the edge of the picture), so it's a trade-off between a large number of ~2000m strips or a smaller number of longer strips.
>>29487203
It's longer; these runway requirements are NOT the distance required for the F-35 to take off or stop normally; it's the runway length that's required to be able to safely receive F-35s that have had their brakes, etc fail.
>>29487249
since bombs are cheap, won't every 1000 meter stretch of highway get blasted along with every traditional runway?
Come to me
In all your glamour and cruelty
Just do that thing that you do
And I'll undress you
We could, we could belong together SUPER DUPER HORNET
>>29480681
>finns flying F-4s
its gonan be like the fucking winter war all over again. just with more thrust
>>29480353
Why not party like worst Korea and pick up the Silent Eagle?
>>29487277
Just don't think you get to do that unopposed. While their planes are trying to destroy everything on their target list (and obviously the longer you can make that list the longer this will take) your planes are hunting their planes.
The more bases you have for them the better, and it's plainly obvious that significantly reducing the length of straight-and-narrow required will dramatically increase the number of bases that can be used - and that must be bombed.
>>29487404
I wouldn't use planes for most if it, just barrages of cruise missiles. I'm sure the location of every fighter is known and plugged into a gps somewhere.
>>29483232
this was the sole intellegent post in this entire thread
>>29487419
You can stop arguing with the delusional gripencuck now, anon.
Its a waste of effort.
>>29487456
>only has 60 fighters
>announce to world that you'll spread them out and use streets as runways
>doesn't think the russians would think to counter this
>still thinks that fighting nazis 70 years ago means they could be the russians 1v1
>but only if they can use 600 foot runways
>>29480353
Gripen, because we know it works, and the cost won't go up.
>>29487505
>the Gripen NG's price has only increased as Saab has realized the problems associated with upgrading an older airframe
>the F35's price has only decreased as production increases
the delusion is too strong
>>29482656
NATO has no obligation to help Finland or Sweden, various heads of NATO has emphazised this repeatedly. Only full member states enjoy the security guarantee.
