Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Tiera » Mon 20 Mar 2017 18:35

Adarius wrote:
I would love to see the Strv 122 with its 7 tonnes of extra armor included as a super heavy in the game.

Faustmann mod has them?
Image

Pantheon
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri 9 Dec 2016 15:03
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Pantheon » Mon 20 Mar 2017 21:53

Tiera wrote:
Adarius wrote:
I would love to see the Strv 122 with its 7 tonnes of extra armor included as a super heavy in the game.

Faustmann mod has them?


They just gave it more SAV, IIRC.

Adarius wrote:For those interested in the Finnish fighter jet procurement. It is ongoing and with the usual suspects in the competition. Based on the Finnish budget restrictions we can expect Gripen-E and F/A-18E/F as the favorites unless something exceptional is offered by the other producers.

DefenseNews wrote:The Ministry of Defense (MoD) issued a request for information (RFI) to manufacturers in November 2016. The candidate aircraft offered include BAE Systems’ Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab’s JAS Gripen-E, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Aviation’s Rafale and Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II.

The HX-FRP office plans to respond to information provided as part of the RFI by May 2017. Officials are expected to issue a follow-up request for proposals in 2018. The MoD aims to conclude the selection process in 2021.


But muh JSF.

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11623
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Xeno426 » Tue 21 Mar 2017 00:03

Pantheon wrote:But muh JSF.

For Finland's geographical location, the Gripen is pretty good value for the money.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Tiera » Tue 21 Mar 2017 11:13

Xeno426 wrote:
Pantheon wrote:But muh JSF.

For Finland's geographical location, the Gripen is pretty good value for the money.

Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't have to maintained at Italy...I seriously hope the fighter jocks at FAF won't go for JSF.
Image

User avatar
ST21
Specialist
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 18:15
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby ST21 » Wed 22 Mar 2017 02:15

wargamer1985 wrote:Its first test flight took place circa 1994, and prototype designs were available far earlier than that. One of the reasons it is in game is because the Super Hornet program was delayed with less budget than it was originally promised under the threat of the USSR, meaning that in a Cold War gone hot scenario as is represented in game, the Super Hornet would likely have rolled off the production line at a far earlier time period. That is why the craft is in game and not regulated to the land of complete and utter unicorns like the T-90S, ATACMS, or Ka-52 is.


Super Hornet shouldnt be in the game IMO. Its a pure post-Cold War aircraft that came into existence due to the end of the Cold War and drastic budget cuts. With the evaporation of the Soviet threat, some felt that the Navy didnt need a high-end, long range fighter anymore and the Super Hornet reflected that. It was seen as "good enough" for most scenarios envisioned in the post Cold War-era where carrier-borne aircraft were expected to be used at shorter ranges in littoral operations in permissive environments. Its safe to say that if the Cold War had not ended, the Super Hornet would have never seen the light of the day and the US Navy would have carried on with its original procurement plans:

- Procure F-14Ds and A-6Fs in large numbers in the late 80s/90s as an interim solution pending the introduction of the NATF (basically a navalized F-22) and the A-12 Avenger II in the late 90s/2000s.

I think Eugen dropped the ball with the F/A-18E and instead should have added the F-14D* and A-6F. Would have been more credible. SH is also way OOTF since the program started in 1992, prototype first flew in 1995 and it reached IOC only in 2001. I know Rafale and Eurofighter reached IOC even later but a least both aircraft have their roots in the Cold War and flew earlier.



* Why does RD have only one F-14 (a generic "F-14 Tomcat" without specifying which version) anyway while the MiG-31 has two variants?
Last edited by ST21 on Thu 23 Mar 2017 18:56, edited 1 time in total.

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3420
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby GARGEAN » Wed 22 Mar 2017 02:33

ST21 wrote:* Why does RD have only one F-14 (a generic "F-14 Tomcat" without specifying which version) anyway while the MiG-31 has two variants?

Because it is better that both and drastically overmodelled?

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3280
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby wargamer1985 » Wed 22 Mar 2017 02:44

ST21 wrote:Super Hornet shouldnt be in the game IMO. Its a pure post-Cold War aircraft that came into existence due to end of the of the Cold War and drastic budget cuts.

Not true in the slightest. As I have previously said, the F/A-18E/F project (or simply known as the "Super Hornet" before any official designation came through) was actually the accumulation of much progress during the Cold War. As early as 1988 there were concepts and proposals for a souped-up F/A-18, but none of them really achieved maturity due to the fact that the F/A-18C was such a relatively new aircraft with "good enough" systems in place. It wasn't until the very early days of the 1990s that a design was "finalized" and proposed to the US Navy. The Super Hornet project was very much up and running during the hey-day of the Cold War, and regulating it as a "post-Cold War" aircraft is simply incorrect.

With the evaporation of the Soviet threat, some felt that the Navy didnt need a high-end, long range fighter anymore and the Super Hornet reflected that. It was seen as "good enough" for most scenarios envisioned in the post Cold War-era where carrier-borne aircraft were expected to be used at shorter ranges in littoral operations in permissive environments.

Because some felt that this was the case does not make it necessarily true. The US Navy desired very much a long-range and cost-effective strike aircraft, and this role the Super Hornet filled perfectly. Being cheaper, more maneuverable and versatile than the F-14A/D, while having longer range and endurance than the Legacy F/A-18s it provided the perfect balance of the two necessities. Hell, your last comment on how the Navy only wanted a "good enough" aircraft designed for permissive environments is quite handily refuted by the procurement of the EA-18G Growler. The Super Hornet was not procured because it was "good enough," it was procured because it was the only "good" aircraft in the development phase that had not been cancelled, and as such it became the primary combatant of the USN.

Its safe to say that if the Cold War had not ended, the Super Hornet would have never seen the light of the day and the US Navy would have carried on with its original procurement plans:

False. The Super Hornet program had begun in earnest far before the Cold War ended, the Navy was just as interested in upgrading its F/A-18 lineage as it was its F-14s, because it realized that the Super Hornets provided the quantitative and versatility edge that the F-14 simply could not, even in the form of the F-14D. In fact, had the Cold War not ended and instead gone hot, it is very safe to say that the Super Hornet's procurement would have been greatly accelerated during this time period.

- Procure F-14Ds and A-6Fs in large numbers in the late 80s/90s as an interim solution pending the introduction of the NATF (basically a navalized F-22) and the A-12 Avenger II in the late 90s/2000s.

Pending the introduction of what was sometimes unofficially dubbed the "F/A-22" the Navy was interested in upgrading its F-14s to the F-14D, yes. But also it was interested in having the slow, and aging A-6 air frame with the potential of the Super Hornet program, as the early and more ambitious designs of the Super Hornet allowed it to carry more ordinance than the A-6 while retaining many of the combat capabilities of the Legacy Hornets. This meant that the Navy could use the F-14D for long-range strike and interception while using the Super Hornet en mass for anything from aerial supremacy to SEAD roles, with a greatly improved capacity for this capabilities than the Legacy Hornets.


I think Eugen dropped the ball with the F/A-18E and instead should have added the F-14D* and A-6F. Would have been more credible. SH is also way OOTF since the program started in 1992, prototype first flew in 1995 and it reached IOC only in 2001. I know Rafale and Eurofighter reached IOC even later but a least both aircraft have their roots in the Cold War and flew earlier.

The F-14D should have been included in the game, yes, but that does not mean that the F/A-18E is unwarranted. If we are talking realism, the Super Hornet has as much of a place in game as the Rafale, Eurofighter, or other "advanced" 4th generation aircraft do, if not more, because unlike the Rafale, the Super Hornet would still have been a completed aircraft should the Cold War have gone hot. If we want 100% authenticity, the F-14D would be flying around with the USN and the bigger, beefier brother prototype of the Super Hornet would take the place of the F/A-18E. Not that it matters much anyway, because for all intensive purposes the F/A-18E isn't in the game at all.
[/quote]
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE SHERIDAN! LIBERATING COMMIES SINCE 1959!
Image

User avatar
Narcissistic 2036
Sergeant
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2016 12:49
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Narcissistic 2036 » Wed 22 Mar 2017 04:04

Tiera wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:
Pantheon wrote:But muh JSF.

For Finland's geographical location, the Gripen is pretty good value for the money.

Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't have to maintained at Italy...I seriously hope the fighter jocks at FAF won't go for JSF.


Maintained in Italy...? You off your rocker?

You'd have to hit it with a tank for it to be that serious. The type of maintaining and repair F-35s have to go international for is mostly comparable to that time the JASDF lost some F-2s in a Tsunami.

But more relevant than major repairs having to go to foreign nations (spoiler alert: Finnish allies bound by the EU and somewhat by NATO to defend Finland in most situations) are the fact that Gripens probably wouldn't be able to actually prevent a Russian invasion. With F-35s, it's a "maybe". For reference, the current Swedish Minister of Defense only expects that he'd be able to defend Sweden for something like 3 weeks? In no small part due to Russian airpower, more than likely. Gripens landing on roads would only last as long as Russian tanks didn't drive down the right highway.

EDIT: I probably should have mentioned that the FAF is speculated to be in talks with Lockheed Martin for the aircraft, as are Switzerland, Belgium, and Spain. Spain is the least likely current customer, I feel inclined to mention, and they probably won't be buying them until their Harriers have some more cracks in their airframes.
The F-35 Lightning II is better at air superiority than the F-22 Raptor. Fight me!

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3280
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby wargamer1985 » Wed 22 Mar 2017 04:34

Narcissistic 2036 wrote:
Tiera wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:For Finland's geographical location, the Gripen is pretty good value for the money.

Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't have to maintained at Italy...I seriously hope the fighter jocks at FAF won't go for JSF.


Maintained in Italy...? You off your rocker?

You'd have to hit it with a tank for it to be that serious. The type of maintaining and repair F-35s have to go international for is mostly comparable to that time the JASDF lost some F-2s in a Tsunami.

But more relevant than major repairs having to go to foreign nations (spoiler alert: Finnish allies bound by the EU and somewhat by NATO to defend Finland in most situations) are the fact that Gripens probably wouldn't be able to actually prevent a Russian invasion. With F-35s, it's a "maybe". For reference, the current Swedish Minister of Defense only expects that he'd be able to defend Sweden for something like 3 weeks? In no small part due to Russian airpower, more than likely. Gripens landing on roads would only last as long as Russian tanks didn't drive down the right highway.

EDIT: I probably should have mentioned that the FAF is speculated to be in talks with Lockheed Martin for the aircraft, as are Switzerland, Belgium, and Spain. Spain is the least likely current customer, I feel inclined to mention, and they probably won't be buying them until their Harriers have some more cracks in their airframes.

That doesn't change the fact that the F-35 simply isn't as cost-effective as a Gripen of F/A-18E/F Block I-III. Both aircraft provide the necessary strike capabilities of the F-35 (and in some cases superior to) while being far less expensive to operate and maintain.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE SHERIDAN! LIBERATING COMMIES SINCE 1959!
Image

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11363
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Why does the Finnish F/A-18C Have better ECM?

Postby Mike » Wed 22 Mar 2017 05:01

wargamer1985 wrote:That doesn't change the fact that the F-35 simply isn't as cost-effective as a Gripen of F/A-18E/F Block I-III. Both aircraft provide the necessary strike capabilities of the F-35 (and in some cases superior to) while being far less expensive to operate and maintain.


No, they need to buy it to drive the cost down and save the USA some money. I always knew you were a damn Putin lover! You wanna bankrupt the US. Everyone must by the Lightning II.
Image
Delta Force or Delta Farce?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 26 guests