The commander of Finnish Airforce talked too much

[Lemminkäinen]

Which on of five candidates is chosen?

Eurofighter Typhoon
Rafale
Saab 39 Gripen NG
Boeing F-18 Super Hornet
Lockheed Martin F-35

Finland makes the decision in this year, only 3 months left, to buy 64 fighters. The amount depends on what kind of support is included, probably planes for supervision and electronic jamming. The commander said now that the Finnish air force will be at same level with Norway, UK and the Netherlands. They all have now F-35. So it is likely that the F-35 will be chosen.

[Lemminkäinen]

It seems now that top fighters in negotiatipns are F-35 and Super Hornet and the bottom line keep Rafale and Gripen. Poor France will lose also this deal. USA probable see the Finnish location in the neighborhood of Russia interesting, because Finland has an excellent opportunity to test the capability and reactions of Russian air forces.

[Finnish Swede]

Which on of five candidates is chosen?

Eurofighter Typhoon
Rafale
Saab 39 Gripen NG
Boeing F-18 Super Hornet
Lockheed Martin F-35

Finland makes the decision in this year, only 3 months left, to buy 64 fighters. The amount depends on what kind of support is included, probably planes for supervision and electronic jamming. The commander said now that the Finnish air force will be at same level with Norway, UK and the Netherlands. They all have now F-35. So it is likely that the F-35 will be chosen.

They will publish the decision soon now?

F-35? Well, Finns taxpayers have more than enough money, right ? Otherwise you would not take poor muslim immigrants there. People who will never be able to support themselves (money wise), just making crimes. One friend of mine (who is living in Westend) told me about those teenager knife gangs in Helsingfors. New phenomenon in Finland (bit scary too)?

Super-Hornets would help next 10 - 15 years. Not really option. If Macron could had really created serious EU/European military forces to defense whole area, then maybe Rafale could be real option. But not now/today. Eurofighter is ok, but what Finland would ''win'' as choosing it? Saab would be my ''romantic'' choice but I agree ... Finns will not gonna just purchase the best plane vs selling prices/costs (as they say). Finns are also wanting to buy ''political aspects''. Always so even as they will not admit that. US fighters (like earlier F-18) would offer that more than any European fighter, even as country will not be NATO member (not yet anyway). Like some USA generals have said (while last years), Finland is more ready (better) than few NATO countries to work with NATO.

Smiling faces?


Boys will get new toys

[TheMaestro]

What a waste of money.

[Lemminkäinen]

They will publish the decision soon now?

F-35? Well, Finns taxpayers have more than enough money, right ? Otherwise you would not take poor muslim immigrants there. People who will never be able to support themselves (money wise), just making crimes. One friend of mine (who is living in Westend) told me about those teenager knife gangs in Helsingfors. New phenomenon in Finland (bit scary too)?

Super-Hornets would help next 10 - 15 years. Not really option. If Macron could had really created serious EU/European military forces to defense whole area, then maybe Rafale could be real option. But not now/today. Eurofighter is ok, but what Finland would ''win'' as choosing it? Saab would be my ''romantic'' choice but I agree ... Finns will not gonna just purchase the best plane vs selling prices/costs (as they say). Finns are also wanting to buy ''political aspects''. Always so even as they will not admit that. US fighters (like earlier F-18) would offer that more than any European fighter, even as country will not be NATO member (not yet anyway). Like some USA generals have said (while last years), Finland is more ready (better) than few NATO countries to work with NATO.

Smiling faces?


Boys will get new toys

We receive more refugees and asylum seekers. It is much more domestic than foreign policy, because whatever True Finns say will create an opposite reaction of the left wing. As to this question we don't live in a sane country. Politicians want to quarrel and million idiot follow them.

You are right and seemingly are very well informed about military questions in Finland. Finland buys always not only weapons, but also political values. Buying a French fighter would never give any political continuity. France simply is not a trustworthy country in our eyes. What kind of Russian-French relations we will see in 2050? Not that USA would be, but they want to come "under the skin" of Russians, so USA is more trustworthy. I think that Sweden is a too small vendor to be taken seriously. Arms are today always a big system, everything is connected together and small manufacturers have their limitations.

[Lemminkäinen]

What a waste of money.

Finland can never stand against military super powers, but without the self defence forces you have to agree with everyone, as long as we have not European defence forces with sober articles. In Nato you has to be like Germany, a giant on clay feet. Today Nato countries use around 2% of the GDP (at least what they have agreed to use). Finland uses quite the same.

[TheMaestro]

Finland can never stand against military super powers, but without the self defence forces you have to agree with everyone, as long as we have not European defence forces with sober articles. In Nato you has to be like Germany, a giant on clay feet. Today Nato countries use around 2% of the GDP (at least what they have agreed to use). Finland uses quite the same.

I mean if Russia would really like to take you, it will no matter what you will invest into. On the other hand NATO has a common defending pact, which means you are basically defended by every NATO member, therefore I think investing so much into army is a bit useless. I also think we live in an era, especially in Europe, letalone Scandinavia where you don't really need army spendings.

[Lemminkäinen]

I mean if Russia would really like to take you, it will no matter what you will invest into. On the other hand NATO has a common defending pact, which means you are basically defended by every NATO member, therefore I think investing so much into army is a bit useless. I also think we live in an era, especially in Europe, letalone Scandinavia where you don't really need army spendings.

Every nation needs defence forces. The same you say about Finland and Sweden, both unallied, fits even more to Baltic countries. If Russia wants to take them, they could do it in hours. Imagine what happens. Russian forces would be in a day in Tallinn, Riga and Vilna. What could Nato do, maybe they don't want to bomb those cities? It is sure that US forces will never hit to another country with nuke arms. It is absolutely out of realism. The reason this doesn't happen is not that Russia is afraid of couterattacks, but they don't want to be more isolated from the west. Russia needs western relations, technology etc. USA wants to restart cold war against other nuke power where ever they are, because US is now the leading superpower, but losing its power, and Europe has to swallow the medicine. Far away that I am anti-American, but we need to be realistic.

[Finnish Swede]

I mean if Russia would really like to take you, it will no matter what you will invest into. On the other hand NATO has a common defending pact, which means you are basically defended by every NATO member, therefore I think investing so much into army is a bit useless. I also think we live in an era, especially in Europe, letalone Scandinavia where you don't really need army spendings.

Finland's defense ideology since WWII has never based on changes to really totally stop Russians huge army. It has based on 4 aspects:

1.) try to keep situation (Northern Europe) as stable as possible => Russians would not face any real reasons to attack Finland.

2.) try to develop Finland's international position as well known as possible (via UN, EU) and as respected as possible so that Russians possible
attack against Finland would cost them more (politically) than they could ever benefit it. And someway silently get them understand this.

3.) try to create and keep up as good defense/military as possible. Someway show that country can not be taken like snapping fingers, not even
Russians (like case Crimea). Offering international community time to react someway.

4.) keep up Finns willingness to defense their own country. And let world knows that (they are ready to fight for it).


New fighters goes to 3. part.

[Lemminkäinen]

Finland's defense ideology since WWII has never based on changes to really totally stop Russians huge army. It has based on 4 aspects:

1.) try to keep situation (Northern Europe) as stable as possible => Russians would not face any real reasons to attack Finland.

2.) try to develop Finland's international position as well known as possible (via UN, EU) and as respected as possible so that Russians possible
attack against Finland would cost them more (politically) than they could ever benefit it. And someway silently get them understand this.

3.) try to create and keep up as good defense/military as possible. Someway show that country can not be taken like snapping fingers, not even
Russians (like case Crimea). Offering international community time to react someway.

4.) keep up Finns willingness to defense their own country. And let world knows that (they are ready to fight for it).


New fighters goes to 3. part.

Good analysis. You have probably studied international politics? There is advantages and disadvantages for the Nato membership. For Belgium, Spain and so on the membership is not a big deal. They see it like a gentleman club, or do they wait for a French or British invasion? For Finland it means to be a part of the bigger game between Russia and USA in good and bad.