Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 24 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 692

Thread: Finland Air Force

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,031

    Finland Air Force

    In the 80s the Finns planned to buy 40 new Western aircraft and 20 new Soviet ones. but they went all in for hornets after USSR went kaput
    before this happened, what were the other aircraft the finns were considering?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,227
    I presume the Mig-29, the aircraft actually made its Western debut in 1986 with a visit to Finland.

    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,227
    Finland still operates an interesting mix of Western and Russian equipment, the ZU-23-2 for example:



    The most interesting is the Marksman system which is basically a T-55 with a turret mounting two 35mm cannon (same as fitted to the Flakpanzer Gepard):

    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Philly PA, USA
    Posts
    921
    I recall seeing a Mirage 2000 evaluation patch in World Air Power Journal wayyyyyy back when. Presumably they considered that option as well.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
    In the 80s the Finns planned to buy 40 new Western aircraft and 20 new Soviet ones. but they went all in for hornets after USSR went kaput
    before this happened, what were the other aircraft the finns were considering?
    Most people were really surprised when it was announced that F-18 Hornet had won the competition! F-16 was thought to be the sure winner since it was cheaper and less expensive to operate.


    Here is some info I have read from various Finnish aviation and military forums.

    - Gripen: Not ready when decision was made.

    - F-16: First LM offered the F-16 A/B, but after Hornet come to competition LM changed offer to F-16 C/D... too late.

    - MiG-29 and MiG-31: According to papers Yeltsin said that Russia was ready to give those for free to get rid of debts Russia owed to Finland, that debt was used to get BUK-M1's from Russia instead.

    - Mirage 2000: Pilots said it was a good plane but government thought it was too expensive.
    Last edited by Broccoli; 8th September 2013 at 01:11.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,618
    I think the twin engines may have helped, given the (harsh) climate of Finland...

    They say that the German F-4s are the planes in Germany that can operate optimally at all its climatic conditions... and Finland is much worse.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Norway and Sweden are next to Finland, both operating single engined fighters.
    I think Broccoli had the answer:

    - F-16: First LM offered the F-16 A/B, but after Hornet come to competition LM changed offer to F-16 C/D... too late.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,031
    are you sure.. mig-31 for finland.. really?
    a bit overkill

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,227
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    Norway and Sweden are next to Finland, both operating single engined fighters.
    I think Broccoli had the answer:

    - F-16: First LM offered the F-16 A/B, but after Hornet come to competition LM changed offer to F-16 C/D... too late.
    Was it a similar offer to the one made to Taiwan in 92, effectively C/D variant downgraded to an MLU standard and called an A/B Block 20?

    Aside from the obvious attraction of a twin engine configuration up north considering the intended long service duration the beefier carrier airframe of the Hornet was probably attractive.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
    are you sure.. mig-31 for finland.. really?
    a bit overkill
    It was Yeltsin's personal offer to help write off debts.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Was it a similar offer to the one made to Taiwan in 92, effectively C/D variant downgraded to an MLU standard and called an A/B Block 20?

    Aside from the obvious attraction of a twin engine configuration up north considering the intended long service duration the beefier carrier airframe of the Hornet was probably attractive.
    There is nothing attractive with a beefy airframe if there is any way around it

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Broccoli View Post
    Mirage 2000: Pilots said it was a good plane but government thought it was too expensive.
    Are you sure the F-18s were cheaper?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Are you sure the F-18s were cheaper?
    I don't know about exact prices, but my understand is that they were comparing it to F-16 as both were single engine. Like said before, it was a total surprise to everyone that F-18 was selected, so after all these years there is still some confusion why F-18 was selected. Some say there was supposed to be some deals between US and Finland after the Hornet deal, and others claim that F-18 was selected because someone was bribed... incompetence of defense minister has been also suggested.

    FiAF seems to be happy with the F-18.
    Last edited by Broccoli; 10th September 2013 at 00:45.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Given choice of F-16, F/A-18 and Mirage 2000, I don't think you can really go wrong with any of them.

    All are high performance and very versatile jets with good manufacturer support including timely upgrades. Operating costs are different but that's not important in many instances where F/A-18s have been purchased.

    EDIT: Also any news as to progress on F-18 replacement? I've heard formal process is meant to commence in 2015 with potential service entry date being 2025.
    Last edited by thobbes; 10th September 2013 at 02:07.
    "It will be so loud that if we move in next door to you, your lawn will die".
    Lemmy on Motorhead

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    328
    - F-16: First LM offered the F-16 A/B, but after Hornet come to competition LM changed offer to F-16 C/D... too late.
    I think something similar happened in Spain. Only F-16A/B were offered but Hornet was more versatile.

    - MiG-29 and MiG-31: According to papers Yeltsin said that Russia was ready to give those for free to get rid of debts Russia owed to Finland, that debt was used to get BUK-M1's from Russia instead.
    Did the Finnish Air force perform any evaluation of the types?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by thobbes View Post
    EDIT: Also any news as to progress on F-18 replacement? I've heard formal process is meant to commence in 2015 with potential service entry date being 2025.
    FiAF officer told in news that everything from Rafale (he called it Rafael) to F-35 are been looked at, but since Finland has purchased JASSM and JSOW's it will be western fighter for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by a89 View Post
    I think something similar happened in Spain. Only F-16A/B were offered but Hornet was more versatile.

    Did the Finnish Air force perform any evaluation of the types?
    No, FiAF did not evaluate MiG-29 or MiG-31 since there was no need to buy from both east and west anymore. Perhaps Yeltsin was drunk again when he did that offer or he wanted to keep Finland close to Russia.
    Last edited by Broccoli; 10th September 2013 at 09:15.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,227
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    There is nothing attractive with a beefy airframe if there is any way around it
    A beefier airframe means the fatigue index will be used up slower leading to a potentially longer service life.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Was it a similar offer to the one made to Taiwan in 92, effectively C/D variant downgraded to an MLU standard and called an A/B Block 20?

    Aside from the obvious attraction of a twin engine configuration up north considering the intended long service duration the beefier carrier airframe of the Hornet was probably attractive.
    Originally they offered A/B MLU, then when F-18 entered the competition they switched it to C/D.
    Finnish requirement was that planes were to be assembled in Finland, to gain technical familiarity with them, even though this increased cost of the contract. When General Dynamics picked up that they were losing, they offered a discount deal where planes were assembled in USA, but it would have been substantially cheaper option. This was very attractive given that the country was in severe depression, however even this was rejected. F-18 won largely because its best radar, longest service life and lowest attrition rate - combination thereof made it actually cheapest option over entire lifespan. Also, it was probably much better suited for road bases than F-16: Swedes came to same conclusion in the '80s. Swiss also chose F-18 (so did South Korea before GD bribed them), so result of the competition was not a huge surprise for the people who were well acquinted with matters. Gripen was more expensive than either and also could not have been delivered in required timespace, Mirage was even more expensive. MiG-29 had very low service life compared to others which made it very expensive over projected service lifespan, also at the time there was no missile available which would have fulfilled Finnish requirements.

    Quote Originally Posted by thobbes View Post
    EDIT: Also any news as to progress on F-18 replacement? I've heard formal process is meant to commence in 2015 with potential service entry date being 2025.
    2025 is looking increasingly optimistic. There has been talk about modernizing the Hornet and giving them 5 to 10 years more service life.
    Last edited by Yama; 10th September 2013 at 10:48.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Yama View Post
    Originally they offered A/B MLU, then when F-18 entered the competition they switched it to C/D.
    Finnish requirement was that planes were to be assembled in Finland, to gain technical familiarity with them, even though this increased cost of the contract. When General Dynamics picked up that they were losing, they offered a discount deal where planes were assembled in USA, but it would have been substantially cheaper option. This was very attractive given that the country was in severe depression, however even this was rejected. F-18 won largely because its best radar, longest service life and lowest attrition rate - combination thereof made it actually cheapest option over entire lifespan. Also, it was probably much better suited for road bases than F-16: Swedes came to same conclusion in the '80s. Swiss also chose F-18 (so did South Korea before GD bribed them), so result of the competition was not a huge surprise for the people who were well acquinted with matters. Gripen was more expensive than either and also could not have been delivered in required timespace, Mirage was even more expensive. MiG-29 had very low service life compared to others which made it very expensive over projected service lifespan, also at the time there was no missile available which would have fulfilled Finnish requirements.



    2025 is looking increasingly optimistic. There has been talk about modernizing the Hornet and giving them 5 to 10 years more service life.
    It could have been interesting if Boris Yeltsin and if Kekkonen was still alive having made a deal to get 200 Mig-31s for free...it would have immediately meant that Sweden would have acquired 500 more Gripens and possibly bought 200 F-15s from USA to get back up before Gripens were delivered and operational.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Finland still operates an interesting mix of Western and Russian equipment, the ZU-23-2 for example:

    Right ...as operational as these RMB 88s; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/8,8_cm_FlaK_18

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._cannon_37.JPG
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,225
    The Finish Air Force will shrink under 50 combat planes. The main task will be air policing and the F-18C/D are not in need of replacement before 2020.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    The Finish Air Force will shrink under 50 combat planes. The main task will be air policing and the F-18C/D are not in need of replacement before 2020.
    What does that figgure mean? 50 fighter jets (i.e 50 F-18s)? Or are the Hawk-trainers included? I assume pure transport and liasion aircraft do not count as "combat planes" in this case?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    328
    It could have been interesting if Boris Yeltsin and if Kekkonen was still alive having made a deal to get 200 Mig-31s for free...it would have immediately meant that Sweden would have acquired 500 more Gripens and possibly bought 200 F-15s from USA to get back up before Gripens were delivered and operational.
    200 MiG-31?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Broccoli View Post
    I don't know about exact prices, but my understand is that they were comparing it to F-16 as both were single engine. Like said before, it was a total surprise to everyone that F-18 was selected, so after all these years there is still some confusion why F-18 was selected. Some say there was supposed to be some deals between US and Finland after the Hornet deal, and others claim that F-18 was selected because someone was bribed... incompetence of defense minister has been also suggested.

    FiAF seems to be happy with the F-18.
    I have heard technology transfer from Motorola cellphones which effectively formed NOKIA as a main brand within few years. Could be wrong, though..

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    328
    ike said before, it was a total surprise to everyone that F-18 was selected, so after all these years there is still some confusion why F-18 was selected. Some say there was supposed to be some deals between US and Finland after the Hornet deal, and others claim that F-18 was selected
    IIRC another reason was the fact that it had 2 engines and was safer to fly... Other reasons have been already given above (multirole).

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by a89 View Post
    200 MiG-31?
    Well since the Versailles treaty was longer prohibiting and you get planes for free..then I think 200 would have been AOK.

    ------

    Seriously wasn't Mig-31 obsolete already in 1991 ?
    Last edited by topspeed; 9th February 2015 at 19:45.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    272
    It was very unlikely that Finland would buy fighters from Russia after cold war ended and now it's even more unlikely.

    Defence Minister: ”Russian jets not trustworthy”
    Defence Minister Carl Haglund says in an interview with joint venture news service Lännen Media that he has “severe doubts” towards Finland buying Russian military equipment. He claims in the paper that there is no way of telling “what back-door systems” have been installed in the planes’ components.

    ”And we can’t trust that the jets would be functional in a crisis situation,” Haglund goes on. “Would we be able to service and maintain them, or find the right spare parts for them?”

    Haglund says that in selecting new military equipment, the decision has to be sound in economic, political and – most importantly, he says – purely technical terms.

    In the interview, Haglund says that Russia has proven itself to be “completely untrustworthy” in the past 18 months.

    ”Russia has severely violated European safety and has flouted international agreements,” Haglund says. “Russia says one thing but does another. I do not trust Russia at all, and I could never be in favour of purchasing Russian military jets.”

    Lännen Media says the working group for a future jet deal is lead by ex-Air Force commander Lauri Puranen. Haglund says that the group has not received political guidance, but that he finds it doubtful that they would propose the purchase of a Russian military aircraft.

    Sources Yle
    http://yle.fi/uutiset/defence_minist...worthy/7786274

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,835
    I feel Poland and Finland should be bolstered to prevent a repeat of the Ukraine. I hope Finland bulks up its army capabilities, not just options in the air.
    Go Huskers!

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the run.. Scandinavia & China
    Posts
    204
    Sweden and Finland is slowly increasing cooperation, currently it involves common situational awareness and basic preparations to each others airbases.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    I have heard technology transfer from Motorola cellphones which effectively formed NOKIA as a main brand within few years. Could be wrong, though..
    I know for sure a firm called MyOrigo had touch screen, orientating screen and scrollable screen for cellphones invented already in 2003 ( in a phone they named MyDevice ) when Apple introduced iPod...the music gadget. Chief of that company is now a hobo in Estonia. He tried to sell the invention to Nokia, Apple and Samsung in 2003 onwards, but he also succeeded...problem is none of them paid them a nickle.



    http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyDevice

    Mr. Väänänen says IPhone was a dicect copy of his MyDevice he had introduced to Jobs.....

    http://www.digitoday.fi/mobiili/2014...an/20147058/66
    Last edited by topspeed; 9th February 2015 at 19:49.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES