Armée de l'air Finlandaise - Ilmavoimat

[SLT]

8 hours ago, Teenytoon said:

Il y a 65 % de suisses allemands en Suisse ?

En approximant les romanches, oui 

Il ne faut pas oublier aussi que la Suisse étant un pays multilingue, plusieurs personnes parlent plus ou moins couramment 2 ou 3 des langues officielles, en plus de l'anglais...
Donc oui, c'est bien la répartition officielle, même si le ressenti sur place est parfois différent. (Un serveur à Berne parlera généralement le haut allemand Hochdeutsch, le suisse allemand Bernois, un Français plus que correct et l'anglais. Il n'empêche qu'officiellement, Berne est alémanique, même si de nombreux panneaux et pancartes sont renseignés en plusieurs langues, typiquement allemand et français)

D'ailleurs, d'après wikipédia (source suffisament fiable pour ce sujet je pense) c'est plus 70% de la population. La répartition 65-30-5 c'est plus en canton/territoire/superficie apparemment. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suisse_alémanique

 

De même en Finlande, qui est plus le sujet de ce fil, dont les langues officielles sont le finnois et le suédois (environ 5,5% de la population de la Finlande est uniquement suédophone, mais près de la moitié de la population du pays peut parler suédois) et où on retrouve aussi des expressions samies (Lapons).

Mais pour le HX challenge, il n'y aura pas de répartition des contreparties de la même façon qu'en Suisse, les différences entre les régions (maakunta) ou les sous-régions (seutukunta) ne se faisant pas au niveau de la langue officielle de celles-ci.

(Et hop, petite pirouette et atterrissage propre et en douceur pour recoller au sujet)

Modifié le 3 novembre 2021 par SLT
Rajout entre les parenthèses, apparemment pas enregistré lorsque j'ai écrit mon message

[Alberas]

J'ai repéré un article dans uusi suomi mais il est réservé au abonnés. Peut être @jeannelaflamme peut l'avoir en entier?

 

Le commerce des chasseurs finlandais devient une séquelle difficile, prévient Jari Ronkainen, vice-président de la commission de la défense - "Nous devons prendre un sauna"

La plus grande préoccupation ici est peut-être de savoir comment la Suède se sentira si nous ne choisissons pas une machine suédoise", déclare Jari Ronkainen de Basic Finland. Il considère qu'il est inévitable que la Finlande doive envisager une modification de la loi sur l'utilisation des conscrits dans les opérations sur son propre sol, y compris dans des conditions normales. L'ascension de Ronkainen au Parlement a également été décevante, mais rétrospectivement, sa famille a évité une « tâche impossible ».......

[Alberas]

Voila un  article de Corporal Frisk qui devrait en intéresser plus d'un. Attention, c'est très pro-SAAB ou, plus exactement pro-GLOBAL EYE

http://corporalfrisk.com/2021/11/13/one-last-hurrah-finnish-media-visits-an-hx-contender/

[Patrick]

Il y a 4 heures, Alberas a dit :

Voila un  article de Corporal Frisk qui devrait en intéresser plus d'un. Attention, c'est très pro-SAAB ou, plus exactement pro-GLOBAL EYE

http://corporalfrisk.com/2021/11/13/one-last-hurrah-finnish-media-visits-an-hx-contender/

Site inaccessible. Il faudra s'armer d'un peu de patience pour qu'il revienne en ligne.

[Alberas]

Il y a 9 heures, Patrick a dit :

Site inaccessible. Il faudra s'armer d'un peu de patience pour qu'il revienne en ligne.

J e viens de réessayer. ça marche.

[Tetsuo]

One Last Hurrah – Finnish Media visits an HX-contender

ON NOVEMBER 13, 2021 BY CORPORAL FRISK

It’s getting difficult to remember how it all started back when HX was just a working group thinking about if Finland needed a new fighter, but seven years later here we are, perhaps a month away from the decision.

But there was still room for one last media trip, this time by Saab who used their corporate Saab 2000 (the particular example, SE-LTV, being the last civilian airliner ever built by the company) to fly a whole bunch of media representatives for a day-trip to Linköping to one more time share the details about their bid, with the GlobalEye getting much of the attention.

And it’s hard to argue with this. Yes, the Gripen sport a number of nice features from a Finnish point of view, but what really sets Saab’s offer apart from the rest is the inclusion of not one but two airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft. The capability in itself would bring a huge shift in Finnish air operations regardless of whichever fighter would be at the other end of the chain (no, your favourite fighter isn’t a “mini-AWACS” just because it has a nice radar, you still won’t leisurely be cruising around on 10 hour missions gathering intelligence and keeping an up to date air picture while paying biz-jet operating costs). The value of the kind of persistent situational picture provided by a modern AEW&C platform is hard to overstate, especially in a Finnish scenario where the attacker will have numerical superiority (meaning that the decision about when and where to send Finnish fighters will have to be calculated carefully to ensure it is possible for them to do something that actually has an impact on the battle), the flat and forested nature of the country (meaning that there is a lack of suitable mountaintops on which to place groundbased sensors, instead anyone operating at very low levels will enjoy lots of radar shadows from which they can sneak up on Finnish targets), and the very joint nature of any major conflict stemming from the long land-border and the right flank and rear being composed of water (meaning that any higher-level situational picture need to take into account all three domains).

It is difficult to express exactly how much of an asset a modern AEW&C platform would be for Finland, and that include both the Air Force but also the FDF as a whole as well as the government. And for the foreseeable future, the only realistic option for a Finnish AEW&C platform would be if Saab takes home HX. Picture courtesy of Saab

Crucially, the value of the GlobalEye as an intelligence gathering platform for everything from the operational level commanders to the highest levels of political leadership is unprecedented in HX (and arguably within the FDF as a whole, the SIGINT CASA is nice, but it fills a more niched role). With two GlobalEyes, building a baseline situational picture in peacetime is possible (even more so if data is shared with the two Swedish aircraft coming), and that include both airborne and ground traffic, as the aircraft sports a ground moving target indicator mode (GMTI) making it possible to see any vehicles moving on the ground (the cut-off being rather low, in the neighbourhood of 20 km/h). The GMTI doesn’t create individual tracks for every echo due to the huge amount of vehicles moving at most roads during any given time (though it is possible to manually start tracks for interesting vehicles) but instead the operator will follow general flows and densities. Needless to say, keeping an eye on vehicle movements around garrisons and on exercise fields or counting trains (feel free to start measuring how much of the Oktyabrskaya Railway is within say 300 km of the border) would be a huge boost to the Finnish intelligence gathering work and a huge benefit for all branches of the FDF and the government it supports. Having this baseline situational picture and being able to detect changes in it would be of immeasurable value to both the civilian and military leadership in any kind of crisis, and there is no other single measure that would provide as much bang for buck as getting an AEW&C when it comes to this aspect – and the only way to get it into the budget is through Saab’s HX offer.

(The EA-18G Growler does share some of the same traits in this regards in raising the peacetime intelligence gathering capabilities to a significantly higher degree than ‘ordinary’ fighters, but when stuff stops emitting the value decreases rapidly)

This is an aspect that – even if not completely forgotten – has received surprisingly little attention in media. It might be that the inclusion of the completely new capability and the ramifications it has have been difficult to grasp, but in any case it is likely to have a significant impact on the wargames.

Interlude: in some of the darker places of aviation forums there have been people claiming that Saab is trying to sell a fighter that in fact isn’t the best one out there through packaging it with an AEW&C platform. Regardless of whether it is correct or not, that is a completely moot point. The Finnish Air Force isn’t looking for the best fighter, the Finnish Defence Forces is looking for the best capability they can get for 10 billion Euro (and 250 MEUR in annual operating costs), and if pairing 64 JAS 39E Gripen with two GlobalEyes provide a greater combat capability than the competing packages, how Gripen fares in one-on-one air combat against some other fighter isn’t interesting in the slightest to Puranen or his team.

The GlobalEye is more or less everything you would expect from it. Based on the Global 6000, it leverages the comfort of the airliner to ensure that crew can handle the missions that can go “well above” 11 hours. This means a rest area for the relief crew members, as well as cabin pressure and noise levels on par with the regular business jet. The top speed is slightly reduced due to drag from the radar, but the range is in fact more or less the same as the lower and more economic cruising speed roughly cancels out the increased drag. The business jet philosophy of the baseline Global 6000 also brings with it a lot of other nice details, such as dispersed operations being aided by a very high redundancy of key systems and small logistical footprint (the airliner is e.g. equipped with four generators to ensure that it isn’t stopped by a generator failure. On the GlobalEye that means that no additional power sources are required, and the aircraft can in fact remain fully mission capable even if one generator is lost). For a Finnish scenario, a key detail is that the sensors can be initiated already on the ground, meaning that the aircraft is operating as soon as the wheels are up. The five operators can either do general work or specialise in different roles, such as air surveillance, sea surveillance, the aforementioned GMTI-mointoring, ESM/SIGINT, and so forth. Displays in the relief area and in the cockpit allow for the relief crew and pilots to follow the situation, which is valuable e.g. if new threats appear. The exact sensor setup can be changed according to customer needs, but can include everything from the ErieEye-ER radar, a dedicated maritime radar, AIS, DSB, IFF, and classified ESM systems.

Now, an AEW&C alone doesn’t win any wars, but the Gripen is no slouch either. Much has already been said on this blog, but the baseline fact that Gripen from the outset is made for the very same concept of operations that Finland employs certainly gives it something of an edge. Worries about size and range are also of relatively minor importance in a Finnish scenario, and instead factors such as 40% less fuel consumption compared to legacy Hornets (and with that obviously also significantly reduced exhaust emissions, which should make certain government parties happier) play a significant role when laying out the budget for the upcoming years.

 

While the usage of a very much originally naval fighter has proved a great success in Finland, and  while several other countries have had good luck operating “normal” fighters in the high north, there’s no denying that Gripen is the only fighter (honourable mention to the MiG-31, but we’re not getting that one) from the outset made to feel at home in the subarctic conditions. Picture courtesy of Saab

Saab was happy to go into some detail about how they envision missions to be flown, illustrating with a typical high-end SEAD/DEAD mission against S-400 batteries where the aim was to take out two 92N6E “Grave Stone” radars. The batteries where in turn protected by a number of other ground-based air defence systems, including a Nebo-M (no doubt chosen for the express purpose of raising questions about the viability of the F-35 in the same scenario), Pantsirs, and a pop-up Buk-M1-2 (or M2, just the ‘SA-17’ designation was shown). In addition two pairs of Su-35s were flying CAP under the guiding eye of an A-100. The approach for this mission was rather straightforward. Two Gripens did a hook to the north where they feigned an attack through using the EAJP EW-pods and swarms of LADM cruising around presenting jamming and false targets, thereby drawing two Su-35s north.

At the same time the main striking force consisting of a four-ship Gripen with 7 Meteors and 2 IRIS-T on each acting as fighter escort and two additional Gripens doing the actual strikes with six SPEAR and six LADM each (plus pairs of Meteors and IRIS-T for self-defence) headed east towards the target. With the LADM and the internal EW-systems providing jamming and the escorting Gripens dealing with the fighters (of which one pair was out of position, as you might remember), the strike pair launches their  full dozen of SPEARs which, together with escorting LADMs, go out and hunt down the two radars. Not even the pop-up Buk appearing behind the strike aircraft can ruin the day.

Now, the scenario above is both rather fascinating in that Saab was ready to go into such detail, and not at all surprising since that is more or less exactly how nine aviation geeks out of ten would have set up the mission given what we known about Saab’s talking points and the weapons and stores offered to Finland. Perhaps the most interesting detail is that Saab thinks six SPEAR are enough to take down a defended S-400 radar (when escorted by EW-missiles). However, what on the other hand was interesting was who was telling the story.

Mikko Koli in a 39E Gripen simulator, note the large WAD-display up front. In real aircrafts, he has now also logged time in the front-seat of the JAS 39D two-seater. Picture courtesy of Saab

Meet Mikko Koli, pilot and operational advisor to Saab since this spring when he retired from his job as test pilot for the Finnish Air Force. As a retired major, he may be outranked by many of the other advisors involved in different parts of the HX circus, but he brings some serious street cred instead. Most of his career was spent doing a fifteen year posting as an air force test pilot, mainly focused on the F/A-18 C/D Hornet and the upgrades it went through in Finnish service. This include different roles in both MLUs, but also being among the key players in the AGM-158A JASSM integration project, which culminated in him being the first Finnish pilot to release a live JASSM.

Which definitely is cool, but don’t let that distract you from the main story: he is a seasoned test pilot who has spent years studying and implementing how to get the best out of a fighter in a Finnish context. When Koli decides to spend his retirement days at Saab, that says something. And when he says that he trusts that their bid is “extremely strong”, that is something else compared to Saab’s regular sales guys.

What Koli decided to focus on, in addition to guiding the assembled Finnish media through the scenario described above (together with retired Swedish Air Force pilot Jussi Halmetoja) was certainly things we have heard before, but with a bit of a different emphasis. The “superior situational awareness” thanks to advanced networking and “excellent” human-machine communication of the aircraft are talking points we’ve heard from Saab before, but they often take something of a back seat when non-pilots talk. Discussing the “live chain” is also a refreshing change to just talking about the kill chain, because as we all know actually living and flying a working aircraft is the first step to being able to actually do something useful. And Koli also in no uncertain words explained what he thinks about the GlobalEye.

GlobalEye pays itself back at any level of a crisis, both for military as well as for political decisionmakers [… It is also] a very capable SIGINT-platform

The JAS 39E Gripen is rapidly approaching operational service, but so is the scheduled date for first aircraft delivery under HX. Picture courtesy of Saab

Speaking of JASSM-integrations, I would be wrong not to mention Saab’s latest talking point when describing the size of their weapons package. Readers of the blog might remember that I had some questions regarding the numbers presented during the BAFO release, when it sounded like the weapons offered were worth 1.8+ Bn EUR, until you read the fine print, at which point it sounded more like 1.35+ Bn EUR. Now Saab was back with the comparison “more than ten times the total publicly quoted costs of the Finnish JASSM-project”, which they confirmed referred to 170 MEUR for the JASSM integration and missiles, making the weapons package coming with the Gripen worth 1.7+ Bn EUR. That is a lot, and considering the 9 Bn EUR acquisition cost also include the aforementioned two GlobalEyes, puts things into scale. An interesting detail is that the JASSM-project as mentioned included the integration costs as well, with Saab now taking care to point out that all weapons integration costs are found under other budgetary lines, and the 1.7+ Bn EUR figure just covers the series production and delivery of the munitions.

Modern weapons are expensive, but that is indeed an arsenal you can go to war with without having to worry about every single missile. At least not initially.

With the Norwegian budget figures having raised more questions than the Swiss decision answered for the F-35, and the US Navy trying to kill off the Super Hornet production line faster than you can get a hornets nest fully cleaned out from a redcurrant shrub (which for me is approximately two weeks of time based on empirical testing), the Finnish skies are perhaps looking ready to accept a non-US fighter again. In that scenario, the Gripen is certainly a more likely choice than the two larger eurocanards, but at the same time questions of maturity surround the aircraft that is bound to reach IOC with an operational unit only in 2025 – the same year the first HX fighters are to be delivered. Basing the 39E on the proven 39C/D-platform certainly helps, and the decoupling of flight critical software from other systems seems to have been a winning concept considering the pace at which the test program has advanced (this includes software updates on flying aircraft every four weeks on average up to this point of the program). However, with nine aircraft operational and the first Batch 2 (series production standard) already off the production line, Saab just might be able to cut it in time.

And there’s always the GlobalEye.

 

An interesting detail is that as the GlobalEye is optimised for endurance, the aircraft is expected to most of the time operate with a 4.8° angle of attack, meaning that the radar is tilted downwards the same amount to keep it horizontal for optimal performance (as are the operator positions inside aircraft, including chairs, desks, and displays). Picture courtesy of Saab

A big thank you to Saab for the travel arrangements.

 

 

 

 

 

15 thoughts on “One Last Hurrah – Finnish Media visits an HX-contender”

Uroxen

First of all I just want to say thank you for covering the HX program like this. Both the blog and your contributions to different research reports on defense policy are absolutely fantastic. The fact that you understand Swedish defense policy and the Swedish perspective but remain an outsider who does not gloss over it’s failings is something that really contributes to getting the Swedish defense back on track.

With the HX nearing it’s close I think it may be a good idea to think about what any decision means before it actually happen. Hindsight bias is a powerful force and the moment we know what decision is made we will start reinterpreting the entire HX history.

My personal views:

Gripen
This is in many ways do or die for Gripen. There is no better evaluation of Total Cost of Ownership than the HX competition and given the Global Eye and sizeable weapons package Saab is looking to deliver on Gripen being the Smart fighter. This also means that if the Gripen doesn’t win the selection we really need to ask ourselves what critical weaknesses there are that killed the proposal. Simply put I don’t see much room for excuses for Saab other than Gripen just not being seen as a trustworthy choice for the duration of the operational period. As outsiders we will never know about the most critical capabilities of a modern fighter jet but if Gripen as a package fails then it is time for Sweden to critically reassess how we rely on our domestic defense industry for strategic assets such as fighters and submarines.

F-35
I think Lockheed Martin has played this game to fail gracefully since making their best and final offer. The “up to 64” offer is likely a way to play to their own audience while realizing that the package isn’t realistic for Finland due to not allowing sufficient infrastructure investments and weapons procurement. So setting the number 64 is important for the domestic audience while being oddly humble about it minimize the risk of backlash that would’ve been created by being as brazen about it as Saab or Boeing. Being somewhat cynical I view the recent claims delivered to Iltalehti as a form of damage control in a similar vein as they without much proof try to present any selection of Gripen as a political choice made by lobbyists and anti American politicians.

On the other hand, if the F-35 bid wins it is a massive validation for the the F-35 project. The HX competition is as close as we come to an objective evaluation for the European theatre of operations. So the F-35 winning means that issues such as what we’ve seen with ODIN/ALIS, high Total Cost of Ownership and actual capability are solved or at least have a clear plan for resolution.

F/A-18
The F/A-18 is by now extremely well proven so a procurement of the F/A-18 really tells us more about Gripen and the F-35 than it tells us about the F/A-18 (apart from it not being dead yet). Given where it is in its life cycle, a procurement of the F/A-18 would be quite the statement about the current status of Gripen and the F-35.

Rafale
The dark horse of the race as I see it. It’s an aircraft and it definitely works but selecting it mean that it works well enough for Finland to tie itself to what today is the only functional western military power within the EU. It would be a huge win for France but I would wonder how much France would’ve been willing to subsidize such a deal to strengthen European defense cooperation with France as an undisputed leader. In many ways it would actually make sense as it would strengthen Frances bargaining position within FCAS and show their commitment to the Eastern border of the EU.

Eurofighter
This would be a surprise

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 10:52REPLY

Täsmäsää

Very good sum-up.

The GlobalEye is really a huge plus, and I would even go so far as to say it is the ‘center of gravity’ of SAAB’s offer.

For the kind of hybrid operations we have seen in recent years, the GlobalEye and Growler could be most beneficial.

It is kind of useless to argue about these, because very soon we shall know. We don’t know what the Frenchies have offered. It could still be any one of the five, but some would be more of a surprise than others.

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 12:28REPLY

asafasfaf

If I remember correctly, it was Iltalehti who attacked Saab around the time when GlobalEye&HX was reveiled and one competitor was hidden co-operator in that writing. Saab’s Gardberg commented that some competitor “lost nerve” due to GlobalEye news.

It would be interesting to know what motivated Iltalehti’s latest writing spree, as they are basicly trying to paint a picture that if Saab wins, it was a purely political decision. Is this pre-emptive face saving? LM’s marketing has specifically stressed that they are the cheapest fighter, no if’s or but’s.

If Saab wins Finland, it would have some immediate ramifications. Canada’s political leadership would get needed help on how to overrule what generals want and they could pick Saab instead. What happens in Finland would not go unnoticed in Switzerland either, F-35 skeptical press would go overdrive and F-35’s referendum chances would be weakened. And snowball would not stop there.

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 19:16REPLY

Boren

“It would be interesting to know what motivated Iltalehti’s latest writing spree,”

Because certain Finnish politicians, who usually tend to be very fond of our eastern neighbor, HAVE advocated Gripen. Lockmart doesn’t control our media.

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 23:37

Morten Knorborg Poulsen

Well at least you’ve given up on pretending to be neutral or unbiased, so i guess that is something.

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 16:47REPLY

Corporal Frisk

Oh, that happened long ago! Just this last half a year I’ve been accused of favouring at least F-35, Gripen, and Super Hornet. Believe it’s a bit longer since someone claimed I was bought by Eurofighter or Dassault.

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 16:50REPLY

Swedish chef

Neutral and unbiased – do you even have those words in the Danish defence procurement vocabulary? 

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 18:09REPLY

Jouni Laari

Blog sounded again more or less full scale Saab advertisement.

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 18:40REPLY

Dorfeus

“A big thank you to Saab for the travel arrangements.”

I’m still eagerly waiting the same from Dassault and Eurofighter co-op so we could see nice detailed write up about details of their proposal also!

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 19:16REPLY

Corporal Frisk

Unfortunately I had to decline visits to Bordeaux, DSEI, and St Loius earlier this fall due to other commitments, that’s the issue with having a real work. Linköping was easier to fit in due to it being a one-day trip and the COVID-19 situation being more straightforward.

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 19:44

asafasfaf

HX-announcement could potentially come within weeks from now, before Independence Day. I think it’s understandable that blogger makes some conclusion(s) at this moment in time, it’s now or never. Might look silly afterwards, but no game no win when it comes to speculation.

When FIN-AF’s head of research, testpilot Major Koli(ret.) joins Saab immediately after legally sensible(after best and final HX offers), then even a blind man should see the writing on the wall what is about to happen.
If he wants to keep on flying, why didnt he wait a bit more and then get hired by the winning company to overlook the HX integration process? Why take the risk of joining the wrong company? Unless…

https://www.saab.com/fi/markets/finland/artikkelit/2021/vahva-kokonaisvaltainen-tarjous-mahdollistaa-erittain-suorituskykyiset-ilmavoimat–koelentaja-mikko-koli-pitaa-saabin-tarjousta-suomelle-ainutlaatuisena

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 19:36REPLY

Znail

It seems pretty obvious that Mikko Koli thinks Gripen E will win and he does have some inside information making his guess fairly likely to be true, but it’s still possible that things changed after he left and he gets it wrong.

 NOVEMBER 14, 2021 AT 02:56

BB3

There’s nothing in the Saab.com piece or Corporal Frisk’s article suggesting that Maj. Koli (ret) has any inside information or any special insight re: which entrant might be likely to win Finland’s HX competition. He’s now working for Saab and he predictably lauds Saab’s products – the Gripen E and GlobalEye, but its clear from the history of his service that he’s not flown the other planes so he can’t really formulate an informed opinion as to which fighter is better let alone which overall proposal is better since he can’t know what each of the contenders has offered. Maj. Koli does express his opinion that Gripen E = GlobalEye would be an upgrade over Finland’s existing F-18 Hornet fleet – but you’d expect every one of the HX fighters to be a big upgrade over those legacy fighters. However, that’s far from having any real insights re: the winning proposal.

 NOVEMBER 14, 2021 AT 06:41

Täsmäsää

It is none of your business, this is not your blog.

 NOVEMBER 13, 2021 AT 22:49REPLY

BB3

I’m thinking it comes down to Saab’s Gripen/ GlobalEye package vs. LM’s F35A. There are a lot of synergies associated w/ Finland fully partnering w/ Sweden and the 2 GlobalEye AEWC platforms offer a unique force multiplier and arguably a cost savings freeing up fighters from lots of patrol duties. However the advertised 15-1/ 20-1 kill ratios of the F35 in Red Flag exercises are hard to overlook. But how many get taken out on the ground by a day 1 surprise 1st strike and how hard/ expensive will it be to operate them from remote/ austere bases during a more extended/ drawn out conflict?

The Super Hornet is being phased out by the USN and the EF doesn’t currently have a dedicated SEAD/DEAD variant and may be too expensive. The Rafale seems quite capable but again may be too expensive unless subsidized by France and Finland would be stuck using a lot of French munitions. The F35 operating costs are seen by the US as quite high but somehow the Swiss didn’t think so. We’ll likely not know how the Finns view same unless the F35 wins, but can’t count it out on capability alone.

 NOVEMBER 14, 2021 AT 00:06REPLY

 

 

 

Modifié le 14 novembre 2021 par Tetsuo
Ajout

[Alberas]

il y a 8 minutes, Alberas a dit :

J e viens de réessayer. ça marche.

 

Corporal Frisk

Finnish blogger in reserve, defence and national security.

About

 

·        Corporal Frisk – Analysis and Consulting

 

 

One Last Hurrah – Finnish Media visits an HX-contender

ON NOVEMBER 13, 2021 BY CORPORAL FRISKIN AIR, FINLAND

It’s getting difficult to remember how it all started back when HX was just a working group thinking about if Finland needed a new fighter, but seven years later here we are, perhaps a month away from the decision.

But there was still room for one last media trip, this time by Saab who used their corporate Saab 2000 (the particular example, SE-LTV, being the last civilian airliner ever built by the company) to fly a whole bunch of media representatives for a day-trip to Linköping to one more time share the details about their bid, with the GlobalEye getting much of the attention.

And it’s hard to argue with this. Yes, the Gripen sport a number of nice features from a Finnish point of view, but what really sets Saab’s offer apart from the rest is the inclusion of not one but two airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft. The capability in itself would bring a huge shift in Finnish air operations regardless of whichever fighter would be at the other end of the chain (no, your favourite fighter isn’t a “mini-AWACS” just because it has a nice radar, you still won’t leisurely be cruising around on 10 hour missions gathering intelligence and keeping an up to date air picture while paying biz-jet operating costs). The value of the kind of persistent situational picture provided by a modern AEW&C platform is hard to overstate, especially in a Finnish scenario where the attacker will have numerical superiority (meaning that the decision about when and where to send Finnish fighters will have to be calculated carefully to ensure it is possible for them to do something that actually has an impact on the battle), the flat and forested nature of the country (meaning that there is a lack of suitable mountaintops on which to place groundbased sensors, instead anyone operating at very low levels will enjoy lots of radar shadows from which they can sneak up on Finnish targets), and the very joint nature of any major conflict stemming from the long land-border and the right flank and rear being composed of water (meaning that any higher-level situational picture need to take into account all three domains).

It is difficult to express exactly how much of an asset a modern AEW&C platform would be for Finland, and that include both the Air Force but also the FDF as a whole as well as the government. And for the foreseeable future, the only realistic option for a Finnish AEW&C platform would be if Saab takes home HX. Picture courtesy of Saab

Crucially, the value of the GlobalEye as an intelligence gathering platform for everything from the operational level commanders to the highest levels of political leadership is unprecedented in HX (and arguably within the FDF as a whole, the SIGINT CASA is nice, but it fills a more niched role). With two GlobalEyes, building a baseline situational picture in peacetime is possible (even more so if data is shared with the two Swedish aircraft coming), and that include both airborne and ground traffic, as the aircraft sports a ground moving target indicator mode (GMTI) making it possible to see any vehicles moving on the ground (the cut-off being rather low, in the neighbourhood of 20 km/h). The GMTI doesn’t create individual tracks for every echo due to the huge amount of vehicles moving at most roads during any given time (though it is possible to manually start tracks for interesting vehicles) but instead the operator will follow general flows and densities. Needless to say, keeping an eye on vehicle movements around garrisons and on exercise fields or counting trains (feel free to start measuring how much of the Oktyabrskaya Railway is within say 300 km of the border) would be a huge boost to the Finnish intelligence gathering work and a huge benefit for all branches of the FDF and the government it supports. Having this baseline situational picture and being able to detect changes in it would be of immeasurable value to both the civilian and military leadership in any kind of crisis, and there is no other single measure that would provide as much bang for buck as getting an AEW&C when it comes to this aspect – and the only way to get it into the budget is through Saab’s HX offer.

(The EA-18G Growler does share some of the same traits in this regards in raising the peacetime intelligence gathering capabilities to a significantly higher degree than ‘ordinary’ fighters, but when stuff stops emitting the value decreases rapidly)

This is an aspect that – even if not completely forgotten – has received surprisingly little attention in media. It might be that the inclusion of the completely new capability and the ramifications it has have been difficult to grasp, but in any case it is likely to have a significant impact on the wargames.

Interlude: in some of the darker places of aviation forums there have been people claiming that Saab is trying to sell a fighter that in fact isn’t the best one out there through packaging it with an AEW&C platform. Regardless of whether it is correct or not, that is a completely moot point. The Finnish Air Force isn’t looking for the best fighter, the Finnish Defence Forces is looking for the best capability they can get for 10 billion Euro (and 250 MEUR in annual operating costs), and if pairing 64 JAS 39E Gripen with two GlobalEyes provide a greater combat capability than the competing packages, how Gripen fares in one-on-one air combat against some other fighter isn’t interesting in the slightest to Puranen or his team.

The GlobalEye is more or less everything you would expect from it. Based on the Global 6000, it leverages the comfort of the airliner to ensure that crew can handle the missions that can go “well above” 11 hours. This means a rest area for the relief crew members, as well as cabin pressure and noise levels on par with the regular business jet. The top speed is slightly reduced due to drag from the radar, but the range is in fact more or less the same as the lower and more economic cruising speed roughly cancels out the increased drag. The business jet philosophy of the baseline Global 6000 also brings with it a lot of other nice details, such as dispersed operations being aided by a very high redundancy of key systems and small logistical footprint (the airliner is e.g. equipped with four generators to ensure that it isn’t stopped by a generator failure. On the GlobalEye that means that no additional power sources are required, and the aircraft can in fact remain fully mission capable even if one generator is lost). For a Finnish scenario, a key detail is that the sensors can be initiated already on the ground, meaning that the aircraft is operating as soon as the wheels are up. The five operators can either do general work or specialise in different roles, such as air surveillance, sea surveillance, the aforementioned GMTI-mointoring, ESM/SIGINT, and so forth. Displays in the relief area and in the cockpit allow for the relief crew and pilots to follow the situation, which is valuable e.g. if new threats appear. The exact sensor setup can be changed according to customer needs, but can include everything from the ErieEye-ER radar, a dedicated maritime radar, AIS, DSB, IFF, and classified ESM systems.

Now, an AEW&C alone doesn’t win any wars, but the Gripen is no slouch either. Much has already been said on this blog, but the baseline fact that Gripen from the outset is made for the very same concept of operations that Finland employs certainly gives it something of an edge. Worries about size and range are also of relatively minor importance in a Finnish scenario, and instead factors such as 40% less fuel consumption compared to legacy Hornets (and with that obviously also significantly reduced exhaust emissions, which should make certain government parties happier) play a significant role when laying out the budget for the upcoming years.

While the usage of a very much originally naval fighter has proved a great success in Finland, and  while several other countries have had good luck operating “normal” fighters in the high north, there’s no denying that Gripen is the only fighter (honourable mention to the MiG-31, but we’re not getting that one) from the outset made to feel at home in the subarctic conditions. Picture courtesy of Saab

Saab was happy to go into some detail about how they envision missions to be flown, illustrating with a typical high-end SEAD/DEAD mission against S-400 batteries where the aim was to take out two 92N6E “Grave Stone” radars. The batteries where in turn protected by a number of other ground-based air defence systems, including a Nebo-M (no doubt chosen for the express purpose of raising questions about the viability of the F-35 in the same scenario), Pantsirs, and a pop-up Buk-M1-2 (or M2, just the ‘SA-17’ designation was shown). In addition two pairs of Su-35s were flying CAP under the guiding eye of an A-100. The approach for this mission was rather straightforward. Two Gripens did a hook to the north where they feigned an attack through using the EAJP EW-pods and swarms of LADM cruising around presenting jamming and false targets, thereby drawing two Su-35s north.

At the same time the main striking force consisting of a four-ship Gripen with 7 Meteors and 2 IRIS-T on each acting as fighter escort and two additional Gripens doing the actual strikes with six SPEAR and six LADM each (plus pairs of Meteors and IRIS-T for self-defence) headed east towards the target. With the LADM and the internal EW-systems providing jamming and the escorting Gripens dealing with the fighters (of which one pair was out of position, as you might remember), the strike pair launches their  full dozen of SPEARs which, together with escorting LADMs, go out and hunt down the two radars. Not even the pop-up Buk appearing behind the strike aircraft can ruin the day.

Now, the scenario above is both rather fascinating in that Saab was ready to go into such detail, and not at all surprising since that is more or less exactly how nine aviation geeks out of ten would have set up the mission given what we known about Saab’s talking points and the weapons and stores offered to Finland. Perhaps the most interesting detail is that Saab thinks six SPEAR are enough to take down a defended S-400 radar (when escorted by EW-missiles). However, what on the other hand was interesting was who was telling the story.

Mikko Koli in a 39E Gripen simulator, note the large WAD-display up front. In real aircrafts, he has now also logged time in the front-seat of the JAS 39D two-seater. Picture courtesy of Saab

Meet Mikko Koli, pilot and operational advisor to Saab since this spring when he retired from his job as test pilot for the Finnish Air Force. As a retired major, he may be outranked by many of the other advisors involved in different parts of the HX circus, but he brings some serious street cred instead. Most of his career was spent doing a fifteen year posting as an air force test pilot, mainly focused on the F/A-18 C/D Hornet and the upgrades it went through in Finnish service. This include different roles in both MLUs, but also being among the key players in the AGM-158A JASSM integration project, which culminated in him being the first Finnish pilot to release a live JASSM.

Which definitely is cool, but don’t let that distract you from the main story: he is a seasoned test pilot who has spent years studying and implementing how to get the best out of a fighter in a Finnish context. When Koli decides to spend his retirement days at Saab, that says something. And when he says that he trusts that their bid is “extremely strong”, that is something else compared to Saab’s regular sales guys.

What Koli decided to focus on, in addition to guiding the assembled Finnish media through the scenario described above (together with retired Swedish Air Force pilot Jussi Halmetoja) was certainly things we have heard before, but with a bit of a different emphasis. The “superior situational awareness” thanks to advanced networking and “excellent” human-machine communication of the aircraft are talking points we’ve heard from Saab before, but they often take something of a back seat when non-pilots talk. Discussing the “live chain” is also a refreshing change to just talking about the kill chain, because as we all know actually living and flying a working aircraft is the first step to being able to actually do something useful. And Koli also in no uncertain words explained what he thinks about the GlobalEye.

GlobalEye pays itself back at any level of a crisis, both for military as well as for political decisionmakers [… It is also] a very capable SIGINT-platform

The JAS 39E Gripen is rapidly approaching operational service, but so is the scheduled date for first aircraft delivery under HX. Picture courtesy of Saab

Speaking of JASSM-integrations, I would be wrong not to mention Saab’s latest talking point when describing the size of their weapons package. Readers of the blog might remember that I had some questions regarding the numbers presented during the BAFO release, when it sounded like the weapons offered were worth 1.8+ Bn EUR, until you read the fine print, at which point it sounded more like 1.35+ Bn EUR. Now Saab was back with the comparison “more than ten times the total publicly quoted costs of the Finnish JASSM-project”, which they confirmed referred to 170 MEUR for the JASSM integration and missiles, making the weapons package coming with the Gripen worth 1.7+ Bn EUR. That is a lot, and considering the 9 Bn EUR acquisition cost also include the aforementioned two GlobalEyes, puts things into scale. An interesting detail is that the JASSM-project as mentioned included the integration costs as well, with Saab now taking care to point out that all weapons integration costs are found under other budgetary lines, and the 1.7+ Bn EUR figure just covers the series production and delivery of the munitions.

Modern weapons are expensive, but that is indeed an arsenal you can go to war with without having to worry about every single missile. At least not initially.

With the Norwegian budget figures having raised more questions than the Swiss decision answered for the F-35, and the US Navy trying to kill off the Super Hornet production line faster than you can get a hornets nest fully cleaned out from a redcurrant shrub (which for me is approximately two weeks of time based on empirical testing), the Finnish skies are perhaps looking ready to accept a non-US fighter again. In that scenario, the Gripen is certainly a more likely choice than the two larger eurocanards, but at the same time questions of maturity surround the aircraft that is bound to reach IOC with an operational unit only in 2025 – the same year the first HX fighters are to be delivered. Basing the 39E on the proven 39C/D-platform certainly helps, and the decoupling of flight critical software from other systems seems to have been a winning concept considering the pace at which the test program has advanced (this includes software updates on flying aircraft every four weeks on average up to this point of the program). However, with nine aircraft operational and the first Batch 2 (series production standard) already off the production line, Saab just might be able to cut it in time.

And there’s always the GlobalEye.

An interesting detail is that as the GlobalEye is optimised for endurance, the aircraft is expected to most of the time operate with a 4.8° angle of attack, meaning that the radar is tilted downwards the same amount to keep it horizontal for optimal performance (as are the operator positions inside aircraft, including chairs, desks, and displays). Picture courtesy of Saab

A big thank you to Saab for the travel arrangements.

GLOBALEYEHXJAS 39 GRIPENSAAB 39E GRIPENSAAB GLOBALEYE

[Tetsuo]

J etais entrain de le copier quand tu as posté que ca marchais....

Si au moins tu l avais traduit ...

[herciv]

Le 13/11/2021 à 19:00, Alberas a dit :

Voila un  article de Corporal Frisk qui devrait en intéresser plus d'un. Attention, c'est très pro-SAAB ou, plus exactement pro-GLOBAL EYE

http://corporalfrisk.com/2021/11/13/one-last-hurrah-finnish-media-visits-an-hx-contender/

Alors toi tu as très mal analysé Corporal Frisk. C'est un pro du camouflage. Il est capable de te faire croire qu'il est pro quelque chose sur un forum et pro autre chose sur un autre. Son but je pense est d'arriver à discuter avec les fan club de tous les bords sans se fâcher avec les uns ou les autres. Et je pense qu'il s'en sort très bien avec cette méthode.

Ses analyses sont vraiment très complètes et c'est ce qui peut te faire penser qu'il a un parti pris. 

Il est officier et connaît parfaitement le rôle d'une doctrine d'emploi d'un materiel. Dis-toi simplement que dans chacun de ces articles il essaye d'imaginer cette doctrine comme si un de ses collègues/ amis/ connaissances du programme Hx le faisait.

 

Modifié le 15 novembre 2021 par herciv

[Picdelamirand-oil]

il y a une heure, Tetsuo a dit :

Uroxen

First of all I just want to say thank you for covering the HX program like this. Both the blog and your contributions to different research reports on defense policy are absolutely fantastic. The fact that you understand Swedish defense policy and the Swedish perspective but remain an outsider who does not gloss over it’s failings is something that really contributes to getting the Swedish defense back on track.

With the HX nearing it’s close I think it may be a good idea to think about what any decision means before it actually happen. Hindsight bias is a powerful force and the moment we know what decision is made we will start reinterpreting the entire HX history.

My personal views:

Gripen
This is in many ways do or die for Gripen. There is no better evaluation of Total Cost of Ownership than the HX competition and given the Global Eye and sizeable weapons package Saab is looking to deliver on Gripen being the Smart fighter. This also means that if the Gripen doesn’t win the selection we really need to ask ourselves what critical weaknesses there are that killed the proposal. Simply put I don’t see much room for excuses for Saab other than Gripen just not being seen as a trustworthy choice for the duration of the operational period. As outsiders we will never know about the most critical capabilities of a modern fighter jet but if Gripen as a package fails then it is time for Sweden to critically reassess how we rely on our domestic defense industry for strategic assets such as fighters and submarines.

F-35
I think Lockheed Martin has played this game to fail gracefully since making their best and final offer. The “up to 64” offer is likely a way to play to their own audience while realizing that the package isn’t realistic for Finland due to not allowing sufficient infrastructure investments and weapons procurement. So setting the number 64 is important for the domestic audience while being oddly humble about it minimize the risk of backlash that would’ve been created by being as brazen about it as Saab or Boeing. Being somewhat cynical I view the recent claims delivered to Iltalehti as a form of damage control in a similar vein as they without much proof try to present any selection of Gripen as a political choice made by lobbyists and anti American politicians.

On the other hand, if the F-35 bid wins it is a massive validation for the the F-35 project. The HX competition is as close as we come to an objective evaluation for the European theatre of operations. So the F-35 winning means that issues such as what we’ve seen with ODIN/ALIS, high Total Cost of Ownership and actual capability are solved or at least have a clear plan for resolution.

F/A-18
The F/A-18 is by now extremely well proven so a procurement of the F/A-18 really tells us more about Gripen and the F-35 than it tells us about the F/A-18 (apart from it not being dead yet). Given where it is in its life cycle, a procurement of the F/A-18 would be quite the statement about the current status of Gripen and the F-35.

Rafale
The dark horse of the race as I see it. It’s an aircraft and it definitely works but selecting it mean that it works well enough for Finland to tie itself to what today is the only functional western military power within the EU. It would be a huge win for France but I would wonder how much France would’ve been willing to subsidize such a deal to strengthen European defense cooperation with France as an undisputed leader. In many ways it would actually make sense as it would strengthen Frances bargaining position within FCAS and show their commitment to the Eastern border of the EU.

Eurofighter
This would be a surprise

Uroxen

Tout d'abord, je tiens à vous remercier d'avoir couvert le programme HX de cette manière. Tant le blog que vos contributions à différents rapports de recherche sur la politique de défense sont absolument fantastiques. Le fait que vous compreniez la politique de défense suédoise et le point de vue suédois tout en restant une personne extérieure qui ne passe pas sous silence ses défauts est quelque chose qui contribue vraiment à remettre la défense suédoise sur les rails.

Avec l'approche de la fin du HX, je pense que ce serait une bonne idée de réfléchir à ce que signifie chaque décision avant qu'elle ne se produise. Le biais rétrospectif est une force puissante et dès que nous saurons quelle décision a été prise, nous commencerons à réinterpréter toute l'histoire du HX.

Mon point de vue personnel :

Gripen
A bien des égards, c'est une question de vie ou de mort pour le Gripen. Il n'y a pas de meilleure évaluation du coût total de possession que la concurrence du HX et, compte tenu du Global Eye et de l'important arsenal d'armes, Saab cherche à faire du Gripen le chasseur intelligent. Cela signifie également que si le Gripen ne remporte pas la sélection, nous devons vraiment nous demander quelles sont les faiblesses critiques qui ont tué la proposition. Pour dire les choses simplement, je ne vois pas beaucoup d'excuses possibles pour Saab, si ce n'est que le Gripen n'est tout simplement pas considéré comme un choix digne de confiance pour la durée de la période opérationnelle. En tant qu'étrangers, nous ne connaîtrons jamais les capacités les plus critiques d'un avion de combat moderne, mais si le Gripen en tant qu'ensemble échoue, il est temps pour la Suède de réévaluer de manière critique la façon dont nous comptons sur notre industrie de défense nationale pour les actifs stratégiques tels que les chasseurs et les sous-marins.

F-35
Je pense que Lockheed Martin a joué le jeu de l'échec avec élégance depuis qu'il a fait sa meilleure et dernière offre. L'offre "jusqu'à 64" est probablement une façon de jouer avec son propre public tout en réalisant que l'offre n'est pas réaliste pour la Finlande car elle ne permet pas des investissements suffisants dans les infrastructures et l'acquisition d'armes. Il est donc important de fixer le chiffre 64 pour le public national, tout en restant étrangement humble à ce sujet, afin de minimiser le risque de réaction négative qui aurait été créé en étant aussi effronté que Saab ou Boeing. Étant quelque peu cynique, je considère les récentes réclamations adressées à Iltalehti comme une forme de limitation des dégâts dans la même veine, puisqu'elles tentent, sans grande preuve, de présenter toute sélection du Gripen comme un choix politique fait par des lobbyistes et des politiciens anti-américains.

D'un autre côté, si l'appel d'offres pour le F-35 est remporté, c'est une validation massive du projet F-35. La compétition HX est ce qui se rapproche le plus d'une évaluation objective pour le théâtre d'opérations européen. La victoire du F-35 signifie donc que les problèmes tels que ceux que nous avons observés avec ODIN/ALIS, le coût total de possession élevé et la capacité réelle sont résolus ou, du moins, qu'il existe un plan clair pour les résoudre.

F/A-18
Le F/A-18 est désormais extrêmement bien éprouvé, de sorte qu'une acquisition du F/A-18 nous en dit plus sur le Gripen et le F-35 que sur le F/A-18 (à part qu'il n'est pas encore mort). Compte tenu de l'état d'avancement de son cycle de vie, l'acquisition du F/A-18 serait une véritable déclaration sur le statut actuel du Gripen et du F-35.

Rafale
Le cheval noir de la course, selon moi. C'est un avion et il fonctionne sans aucun doute, mais cela signifie qu'il fonctionne suffisamment bien pour que la Finlande se lie à ce qui est aujourd'hui la seule puissance militaire occidentale fonctionnelle au sein de l'UE. Ce serait une énorme victoire pour la France, mais je me demande à quel point la France aurait été prête à subventionner un tel accord pour renforcer la coopération européenne en matière de défense avec la France comme leader incontesté. A bien des égards, cela aurait du sens car cela renforcerait la position de négociation de la France au sein du FCAS et montrerait son engagement envers la frontière orientale de l'UE.

Eurofighter
Ce serait une surprise
 

[Alberas]

Il y a 1 heure, herciv a dit :

Alors toi tu as très mal analysé Corporal Frisk. C'est un pro du camouflage. Il est capable de te faire croire qu'il est pro quelque chose sur un forum et pro autre chose sur un autre. Son but je pense est d'arriver à discuter avec les fan club de tous les bords sans se fâcher avec les uns ou les autres. Et je pense qu'il s'en sort très bien avec cette méthode.

Ces analyses sont vraiment très complètes et c'est ce qui peut te faire penser qu'il a un parti pris. 

Il est officier et connaît parfaitement le rôle d'une doctrine d'emploi d'un materiel. Dis-toi simplement que dans chacun de ces articles il essaye d'imaginer cette doctrine comme si un de ses collègues/ amis/ connaissances du programme Hx le faisait.

 

T'excite pas Jeannot!

J'ai seulement voulu provoquer la lecture. Mais si tu étais allé au bout du lien, il y a un forum de discussion sur l'article de Corporal Frisk où certains le taxent d'être pro-Saab et il répond très clairement qu'il a été accusé successivement d'être pro-tous les concurrents chaque fois qu'il en analysait un. Et il ne se cache pas de reproduire l'argumentation de SAAB. Il ajoute même que, s'il avait pu, il serait allé avec plaisir chez chacun des constructeurs. J'avais déjà compris comment il fonctionne. Cela a déjà été expliqué plusieurs fois dans le forum.

Dans la discussion de son blog, il y a même un contributeur qui dit que les GlobalEye serait détruits dès la 1ère heure d'un conflit. A croire que c'est un de nos forumers qui l'a écrit!

 

[Coriace]

Le 03/11/2021 à 14:00, SLT a dit :

En approximant les romanches, oui 

Il ne faut pas oublier aussi que la Suisse étant un pays multilingue, plusieurs personnes parlent plus ou moins couramment 2 ou 3 des langues officielles, en plus de l'anglais...
Donc oui, c'est bien la répartition officielle, même si le ressenti sur place est parfois différent. (Un serveur à Berne parlera généralement le haut allemand Hochdeutsch, le suisse allemand Bernois, un Français plus que correct et l'anglais. Il n'empêche qu'officiellement, Berne est alémanique, même si de nombreux panneaux et pancartes sont renseignés en plusieurs langues, typiquement allemand et français)

D'ailleurs, d'après wikipédia (source suffisament fiable pour ce sujet je pense) c'est plus 70% de la population. La répartition 65-30-5 c'est plus en canton/territoire/superficie apparemment. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suisse_alémanique

 

De même en Finlande, qui est plus le sujet de ce fil, dont les langues officielles sont le finnois et le suédois (environ 5,5% de la population de la Finlande est uniquement suédophone, mais près de la moitié de la population du pays peut parler suédois) et où on retrouve aussi des expressions samies (Lapons).

Mais pour le HX challenge, il n'y aura pas de répartition des contreparties de la même façon qu'en Suisse, les différences entre les régions (maakunta) ou les sous-régions (seutukunta) ne se faisant pas au niveau de la langue officielle de celles-ci.

(Et hop, petite pirouette et atterrissage propre et en douceur pour recoller au sujet)

Les Suedophones Finlandais ne sont pas simplement les Habitant d'Aaland ? 

[emixam]

il y a une heure, Coriace a dit :

Les Suedophones Finlandais ne sont pas simplement les Habitant d'Aaland ? 

Il y a un peu moins de 300 000 suedophone en Finlande et Åland c'est un peu moins de 30 000 habitants. La majorité des suedophone (90%) seraient sur la côte au nord et au sud de l'archipel.

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suédois_en_Finlande

[Pakal]

Quid d'une intégration Rafale + Global Eye ?

[Alberas]

Il y a 4 heures, Pakal a dit :

Quid d'une intégration Rafale + Global Eye ?

De ce que j'ai compris, le Global Eye est hors appel d'offre. C'est une manœuvre de Saab, qui complète son offre tout en restant dans le budget. 

[Lordtemplar]

18 hours ago, Alberas said:

...main striking force consisting of a four-ship Gripen with 7 Meteors and 2 IRIS-T on each acting as fighter escort...

Je ne savais que le Gripen avait 7 hardpoints Meteor certifies.  Encore une config de reve?  Vu le prix du Meteor j'ai deja du mal a voir 4 sur un zingue, plutot 2

Sinon je suis plutot d'accord avec Frisk que le GlobalEye apporte une capacite tres interessante pour la Finlande.  Pour moi l'offre Saab est la plus coherente pour la Finlande, a suivre...

Modifié le 15 novembre 2021 par Lordtemplar

[FAFA]

il y a 18 minutes, Lordtemplar a dit :

Je ne savais que le Gripen avait 7 hardpoints Meteor certifies.  Encore une config de reve?  Vu le prix du Meteor j'ai deja du mal a voir 4 sur un zingue, plutot 2

Si la Suisse avait acheté le Gripen, l'une des configurations "temps de guerre" aurait été 5 Meteor (3 sous fuselage et 2 sous les ailes) + 2 réservoirs + 2 IRS-T en bout d'ailes. J'imagine que pour emporter 7 Meteor il faudrait se passer de réservoirs sous la voilure et que l'autonomie s'en trouverait grandement réduite. Le Meteor ayant les mêmes dimensions que les AMRAAM, certainement que ces derniers pourraient également emportés.

Par contre aujourd'hui il n'est pas rare d'apercevoir des F-18C finlandais emportant 6 AMRAAM et 2 AIM-9. Cela semble une configuration "de guerre " standard chez eux.

[pascal]

Avec des Meteor les appareils suisses engagent l'ennemi au-dessus du territoire de leurs voisins dans la plupart des cas de figure ...

[Alberas]

Il y a 5 heures, Lordtemplar a dit :

Sinon je suis plutot d'accord avec Frisk que le GlobalEye apporte une capacite tres interessante pour la Finlande.  Pour moi l'offre Saab est la plus coherente pour la Finlande, a suivre...

Je ne voudrais pas paraphraser @herciv, mais Frisk ne juge pas l'offre Saab. Il dit avoir été invité, comme la presse, par Saab et il en fait un compte rendu. Dans les discussions qui suivent son article, il se défend de prendre parti. Le fait est que l'argumentaire est bien construit (surtout pour du grand public comme moi) mais c'est de la com.

Quand à l'intérêt du global eye, qui ressemble à un mini AWACS, je ne sais pas juger de son intérêt opérationnel.

[Patrick]

Il y a 7 heures, Lordtemplar a dit :

Je ne savais que le Gripen avait 7 hardpoints Meteor certifies.  Encore une config de reve?  Vu le prix du Meteor j'ai deja du mal a voir 4 sur un zingue, plutot 2

Config' promise. Pas opérationnelle.

Quand on regarde ce qui vole en test et ce qui est promis, ça change beaucoup de choses.

[Bon Plan]

il y a 18 minutes, Patrick a dit :

Config' promise. Pas opérationnelle.

Quand on regarde ce qui vole en test et ce qui est promis, ça change beaucoup de choses.

Tu as raison.

Dassault pourrait faire voler juste une fois une config avec 7 Meteor et 4 Mica.   Ca occuperait tous les points d'emport, mais ca serait juste pour le fun et pour clouer certains becs.   Ajoutons pour le fun 2 réservoirs conformes déjà testés.

[Patrick]

il y a 10 minutes, Bon Plan a dit :

Tu as raison.

Dassault pourrait faire voler juste une fois une config avec 7 Meteor et 4 Mica.   Ca occuperait tous les points d'emport, mais ca serait juste pour le fun et pour clouer certains becs.   Ajoutons pour le fun 2 réservoirs conformes déjà testés.

En théorie on pourrait envisager 9 Meteor en points 1 2 et 3 (ça passe et MBDA le markettait à une époque) latéraux arrière mais aussi ventral. Plus 2 MICA IR bien entendu.

Ça ne servirait absolument à rien vu le faible rayon d'action au combat qu'aurait l'avion, mais pourquoi pas si ça intéresse un client se préparant à un combat de proximité sur un tout petit territoire.

Ah et puis n'oublions pas que tout ça c'est sans pylônes d'emport multiples (doubles, quadruples...) comme ce que font les US sous F-18 ou F-15.

[FATac]

il y a 1 minute, Patrick a dit :

Ça ne servirait absolument à rien vu le faible rayon d'action au combat qu'aurait l'avion, mais pourquoi pas si ça intéresse un client se préparant à un combat de proximité sur un tout petit territoire.

Faut voir ... comment ça peut se substituer à une batterie de SAM ? Ça fait une bonne défense de point fixe, non ?

[Salverius]

Il y a 8 heures, Lordtemplar a dit :

Pour moi l'offre Saab est la plus coherente pour la Finlande, a suivre...

Le souci de l'offre de Saab, ce n'est pas le Global Eye, mais le Gripen E/F.

Cet avion n'est pas opérationnel, et ne le sera sans doute pas complètement d'ici à 2030. Et encore, la Finlande n'a aucune garantie sur les performances opérationnelles de cet appareil à ce moment là.

C'est d'ailleurs pour cela que la Suisse a écarté le Gripen de sa sélection: pas assez mature.

[Coriace]

il y a 44 minutes, Patrick a dit :

En théorie on pourrait envisager 9 Meteor en points 1 2 et 3 (ça passe et MBDA le markettait à une époque) latéraux arrière mais aussi ventral. Plus 2 MICA IR bien entendu.

Ça ne servirait absolument à rien vu le faible rayon d'action au combat qu'aurait l'avion, mais pourquoi pas si ça intéresse un client se préparant à un combat de proximité sur un tout petit territoire.

Ah et puis n'oublions pas que tout ça c'est sans pylônes d'emport multiples (doubles, quadruples...) comme ce que font les US sous F-18 ou F-15.

On prépare l'offre pour Singapour mon Patrick ;)