Jet Fighters II
It seems that at least Hbl has woken up to the question by what new model of jet fighter(s) to replace the slowly-ageing Hornets of the Finnish air force: on Lö 29.04. it devoted two full pages to the advice of some pilots of the British RAF that Finland, same as the United Kingdom, should buy two different types of jet fighters (so that each type should be able to compensate for the weak sides of the other).
It is possible that the advice of those pilots is honestly well-meant. What it fails to consider is, though, the fact that Great Britain has more than ten times the number of inhabitants (from whose taxes one would have to pay for those fighter planes) than Finland. Which means that the up-to-now result of the discussion in this blog seems still the best idea: SAAB’s Gripen, because it is not only a reasonably good jet fighter, but also because it could get the possibility to use Swedish airfields and there get help from ground crews who are familiar with and equipped for just the Gripen.
If one should see really urgent reasons why it would be essential to have, in addition to the Gripen, e.g. a really stealthy fighter (such as the astronomically expensive F-35), then one would have to try and improve the European collective defence that way that there would be a fund into which every EU member pays and from which are then bought those stealth fighters. Of course these collectively payed-for fighters would then have to be available for the defence of EVERY EU country. – It is in this context perhaps not so bad that Great Britain is not any more a member of the EU. We have seen how blindly it has in the past been following the USA into any even doubtful military adventure, and it would not be so very economical if collectively payed-for systems would be used up for such adventures only because, e.g., Britain would claim that the adventure were essential for its security.
Som 100 % lekman i fråga om stridsflygplan kan jag ändå inte låta bli att undra om inte den här stealth-egenskapen (hos svindyra F-35) är mera liksom tänkt att vara nyttig i fientligt luftrum där luftvapen och -missiler kan tänkas lurpassa. Så länge man försvarar eget territorium – vilket väl Finlands försvarspolitik går ut på – borde väl inte stealth-egenskapen vara speciellt viktig ?
As I wrote: ”If one should see really urgent reasons …”; thus: IF! But unluckily there may really be reasons, because modern surface-to-air systems can reach far beyond any front line deep into an opponent’s air space. And e.g. for ”taking out” such systems a really stealthy fighter bomber might in fact have its uses.
Har med en viss förvåning tagit del av den pågående diskussionen om för- och nackdelar hos diverse förstörelsevapen. Med tanke på att just förstörelse är avsikten med dessa vapen, kan jag inte se någon viktigare diskussion än den om förstörandet av dem. Förstörande av existerande vapen och förbud mot tillverkning av nya.
Överallt. Fredsrörelserna i världen har gjort ett gediget arbete för att ge oss sakliga argument mot kapprustningen. Även om sunda förnuftet torde räcka.
As a reply to Kristin’s comment, perhaps this: I fully agree that kapprustningen is a very dangerous, extremely wasteful and certainly not any intelligent activity. On the other hand, I am biologist and psychologist enough to know that humans are primates (though less hairy than most) with primate psychological tendencies and reactions. This means that the simple wish (however reasonable it is) that weapons should be destroyed and the production of further weapons be stopped will not be sufficient to overcome the tendencies of politicians, military professionals or even a public which is exposed to our media. As just two examples what ideas the minds of military professionals are capable of producing, (a) the Sovjet military was, for the case that an invasion of Western Europe should be felt necessary, reserving 40 nuclear warheads to be used on the city of Bremen (which is about as big as Helsinki – though more densely built – and militarily perfectly harmless), while (b) there is even now among the US military a widespread opinion that, in order to achieve an acceptable state of the world, the USA should be made capable of striking militarily at any point of the globe within 24 hours (or still faster). In this situation it might (considering human psychology) still be wise to keep SOME weapons (though certainly not so many that any neighbour should feel threatened) just as a warning that an invasion might ”become expensive”. – In addition to this, just one experience from the recent past: To a peace activist to whom I have some personal contact I was presenting a suggestion how to get (not very fast but anyway) very largely rid of nuclear weapons (while applying my view of human psychology!), but he was simply unable to accept (and perhaps promote) the idea because it did not fit with his thinking habits about his matter. I have since tried to contact some other peace activists about this idea, but so far without success. And I should STILL like very much an opportunity to present the idea to some of them (preferably some who are sufficiently respected among peace activists to be able to promote the idea).
Men varför inte presentera din idé på Tigerbloggen?
Jag anser mej för övrigt vara fredsaktivist, om än med skamlösa perioder av passivitet, varför jag knappast åtnjuter den respekt du efterlyser, varken av mej själv eller andra.
Men vågar vi inte tro att temat intresserar alla Tigrar?
My thanks for your encouragement! Considering that I should meanwhile be so used to the usual resounding lack of any reactions that it should not harm me very much to be exposed to the experience still once, I think I could in fact describe my idea in this blog. But I shall not do it yet today (but presumably in this week), and I shall write it as a new text with an own headline (to write it as a comment under the main headline ”Jet Fighters II” would not help people even to find the text).