NationStates Jolt Archive

This morning before going to school I checked out the news on my cell phone. Then I stumble upon a news about the modernisation of the Finnish F-18s. Apparantly they're gonna blow over 1 billion to modernising Hornets bought in 1995. Modifications include air-to-ground capability(they have been used only as regular fighters), NATO standardization, helmet mounted sights, improved AAM and other stuff. so, what does NSG think about this? Do we really need this?

Why, is Norway starting to piss you guys off?

This morning before going to school I checked out the news on my cell phone. Then I stumble upon a news about the modernisation of the Finnish F-18s. Apparantly they're gonna blow over 1 billion to modernising Hornets bought in 1995. Modifications include air-to-ground capability(they have been used only as regular fighters), NATO standardization, helmet mounted sights, improved AAM and other stuff. so, what does NSG think about this? Do we really need this?

Eh, might be a good idea, what with Russia flying around bombers again like idiots.

Yes. U should get as many guns and planes and tanks as possible. U will be needing them soon and they will be harder to get once the USSR decides to repatriate U.

This morning before going to school I checked out the news on my cell phone. Then I stumble upon a news about the modernisation of the Finnish F-18s. Apparantly they're gonna blow over 1 billion to modernising Hornets bought in 1995. Modifications include air-to-ground capability(they have been used only as regular fighters), NATO standardization, helmet mounted sights, improved AAM and other stuff. so, what does NSG think about this? Do we really need this?

Well it's about time, however, and I know that I will be corrected here the upgrade will still be lagging behind 5th gen planes such as the F-35 F-22 and even the Europlane (if that is the right name for it), I may be wrong but for those in the know will it not still be behind the newer planes?

This morning before going to school I checked out the news on my cell phone. Then I stumble upon a news about the modernisation of the Finnish F-18s.

Well, new skis are essential.

Meh, you'd think there'd be closer cooperation with the Swedes, so you could get cheap Gripens.

They'll do the job though, and it's probably cheaper than getting a bunch of new jets. The F-35 is going to be delayed too. And with the extra NATO integration, superior command systems should allow them to deal with anything the Russians might throw at them.

Any progress on joining yet, by the way?

Meh, you'd think there'd be closer cooperation with the Swedes, so you could get cheap Gripens.

They'll do the job though, and it's probably cheaper than getting a bunch of new jets. The F-35 is going to be delayed too. And with the extra NATO integration, superior command systems should allow them to deal with anything the Russians might throw at them.

Any progress on joining yet, by the way?

Nope, still opposition from the people and the opposition. Although, we could join NATO nobody really wants that and now they are talking about the ''NATO-option''(thats all they talk about when its about joining the NATO.)

I may be wrong but for those in the know will it not still be behind the newer planes?

Yes...the Eurofighter, F-35, F-22, and Sukhoi Su-34 are all still a step ahead.

Yes. U should get as many guns and planes and tanks as possible. U will be needing them soon and they will be harder to get once the USSR decides to repatriate U.

Silly Lacadaemon, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.

Yes...the Eurofighter, F-35, F-22, and Sukhoi Su-34 are all still a step ahead.

You mean Su-30, right? Su-34 is more of a bomber type plane.

Silly Lacadaemon, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.
No, it is now Great Triumphant Empire of Putin, the GTEP.

Silly Lacadaemon, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.

That is what they want you to think. I see their plan is working perfectly.

That is what they want you to think. I see their plan is working perfectly.

They are very clever indeed in that respect. :p

They are very clever indeed in that respect. :p

They are good. The have not bamboozled me yet though.

This morning before going to school I checked out the news on my cell phone. Then I stumble upon a news about the modernisation of the Finnish F-18s. Apparantly they're gonna blow over 1 billion to modernising Hornets bought in 1995. Modifications include air-to-ground capability(they have been used only as regular fighters), NATO standardization, helmet mounted sights, improved AAM and other stuff. so, what does NSG think about this? Do we really need this?

Last time you kicked their sorry ass using outdated airplanes and sheer willpower. I say you should invest in swords and nunchuks ... swordchuks!

Leave the planes to the pussies, real men and real women use SWORDCHUCKS!

They are good. The have not bamboozled me yet though.

Nah - they do that to themselves. :D

Maybe they'll kick Russia's ass a second time and liberate Karelia. Of course, given the costs of repairing decades of Russian mismanagement of, well, everything it's not going to be a particularly wonderful triumph. Nonetheless, soundly kicking Russia's ass would make everyone happy.

Why, is Norway starting to piss you guys off?

It's an arms race, since Norway is updating their fighters to either a fleet of Joint Strike Fighters or a fleet of JAS Gripen.

Drunken air brawl will commence shortly.

to be honest I dont think it is a good investment since Finland will not and does not want to be part of NATO. If your an ally but not part of NATO your a Georgia. Which means we will feel sorry for you but not even lift a finger to come help you. Finland would not be able to beat Russia in a conventional war. Finland would depend on a Guerrilla resistance like last time that severely slowed down the Russians and deliver high causalities. If you joined NATO it would be a different story since you would want to resist by conventional means until NATO could mount a counter offensive.

Do we really need this?

It will be too late to start modernization then you actually need it.

Do we really need this?

Where is the love for the JAS 39 Gripen?

Given the Finnish proximity to, and history with, it's gigantic neighbor to the East, Russia, it's not an awful idea to keep their capabilities up to snuff. Especially with how Russia has been behaving towards its now independent, former subjects of late.

The flag of the Finnish Air Force concerns me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Rv1007_s11_lentosotakoulu.jpg

The flag of the Finnish Air Force concerns me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Rv1007_s11_lentosotakoulu.jpg
Oh my god, SKY NAZIS TURNED SLIGHTLY ASKEW!!
They quit using that after Hitler and Eva challenged one another to a cyanide eating contest. Now they use a stupid bird of some sort or another. Wow, a bird representing the air force, why didn't hundreds of other people think of that first?

Oh my god, SKY NAZIS TURNED SLIGHTLY ASKEW!!
They quit using that after Hitler and Eva challenged one another to a cyanide eating contest. Now they use a stupid bird of some sort or another. Wow, a bird representing the air force, why didn't hundreds of other people think of that first?

Sorry, it's the flag of the Finnish Air Force Academy. Still not promising.

The flag of the Finnish Air Force concerns me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Rv1007_s11_lentosotakoulu.jpg

One problem, that isn't the symbol of the Finnish Air Force...
This is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Suomen_Ilmavoimien_tunnus.svg/484px-Suomen_Ilmavoimien_tunnus.svg.png
So, are you still concerned? About something other than you obvious ignorance that is...

What? Finland has AN AIR FORCE???

First I find out Canada has a warship, and now this? What is the world coming to?

One problem, that isn't the symbol of the Finnish Air Force...
This is:

So, are you still concerned? About something other than you obvious ignorance that is...

See post above yours.

Sorry, it's the flag of the Finnish Air Force Academy. Still not promising.

Fail again, go to their website (http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index.php?id=115), the only symbol you'll see is the FAF one...

What? Finland has AN AIR FORCE???

First I find out Canada has a warship, and now this? What is the world coming to?

not much of one, but yes they do:

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet United States Multi-role fighter C / D: 63
BAE Hawk United Kingdom Trainer Attack Mk.51/51A / Mk.66: 65
Learjet 35 United States Transport A/S 3
Fokker F27 Netherlands Transport F.27-100 / F.27-400M: 2
EADS CASA C-295 Spain Transport M 2
Valmet L-70 Vinka Finland Trainer 28
Piper PA-31-350 Chieftain United States Liaison A 6
Valmet L-90 Redigo Finland Liaison 9

So a total of 178 aircraft

Fail again, go to their website (http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index.php?id=115), the only symbol you'll see is the FAF one...

I took it from Wiki, feel free to edit it out if you're so certain.

Why does the academy look like a giant trailer? Did you get people from Mississippi to help you build it?

Teh USSR is so going to kick ur ass.

I took it from Wiki, feel free to edit it out if you're so certain.

Gee, which do you think is a more reliable source of information about the Finnish Air Force Academy?
Would it be wikipedia or would it be the Finnish Air Force Academy?

Of course Finland needs better planes. Somebody has to defend Sweden from the russians.

Gee, which do you think is a more reliable source of information about the Finnish Air Force Academy?
Would it be wikipedia or would it be the Finnish Air Force Academy?

So you've removed it?

You might want to head over to the page on swastikas to remove all the explaination of why it's there as well.

Finland

The swastika was adopted by the Finnish Air Force after 6 March 1918, when Eric von Rosen donated an aeroplane adorned with swastikas which was his personal good luck symbol from Sweden to the Finnish white army. The swastika was officially adopted as the nationality marking on the Finnish Air Force planes on 18 March 1918.

The roundel was used until late 1944 when a substitution for a blue on white roundel was made. Existing decorations and unit flags of the Finnish Air Force were not altered, and they still feature the traditional blue swastika within a white circle.

The president of Finland is the grand master of the Order of the White Rose. According to the protocol, the president shall wear the Cross of Liberty with Chains on formal occasions. The original design of the chains, decorated with swastikas, dates from 1918 by the artist Akseli Gallen-Kallela. The Grand Cross with Chains has been awarded 11 times to foreign heads of state. To avoid misunderstandings, the swastika decorations were replaced by fir-crosses at the request of President Kekkonen in 1963.

Also a design by Gallen-Kallela of 1918, the Cross of Liberty has a swastika pattern in the arms of the cross. The Cross of Liberty is depicted in the upper left corner of the flag of the President of Finland.[80]

In December 2007, a silver replica of the WWII Finnish air defences relief ring decorated with swastika became available.[81] The original war-time idea was that the public swap their precious metal rings for the State air defences relief ring, made of iron.

A traditional symbol that incorporates a swastika, the tursaansydän, is used by scouts in some instances [82] and a certain student organization[83]. The village of Tursa uses the tursaansydän as a kind of a certificate of genuineness of products made there. [84] Traditional textiles are still being made with swastikas as a part of traditional ornaments.

So you've removed it?
No, why would I bother?
You might want to head over to the page on swastikas to remove all the explaination of why it's there as well.
I don't edit wikipedia...

Care to provide where you got the quote you included, or a re you afraid to since it looks to be pulled from wikipedia and I've already shown that to be unreliable on this topic...

No, why would I bother?

I don't edit wikipedia...

Care to provide where you got the quote you included, or a re you afraid to since it looks to be pulled from wikipedia and I've already shown that to be unreliable on this topic...

I said it was a wiki quote. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Finland

Where did you show it unreliable? The site you linked to shows none of the individual colours of Finnish Air Force units that I could see.

And the wikipedia article has no sources which back up the flag shown being actually a unit flag, wikipedia is by default unreliable. Lack of sources just supports that.

This morning before going to school I checked out the news on my cell phone. Then I stumble upon a news about the modernisation of the Finnish F-18s. Apparantly they're gonna blow over 1 billion to modernising Hornets bought in 1995. Modifications include air-to-ground capability(they have been used only as regular fighters), NATO standardization, helmet mounted sights, improved AAM and other stuff. so, what does NSG think about this? Do we really need this?

Don't be silly. There is no Finnish Air Force. And that's because there's no such thing as Finland.

And the wikipedia article has no sources which back up the flag shown being actually a unit flag, wikipedia is by default unreliable. Lack of sources just supports that.

So we both have websites that prove absolutely nothing.

It seems we have a Mexican stand off.

Apparently it is actually the flag for the Finnish Air Force Academy (see this is what you get when you actually research stuff not just visit wikipedia)

From the FAF website.... (http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=624)
Why did the Finnish Air Force use the swastika as the national marking between 1918 and 1945? Why is the swastika still part of badges of Air Force units?

The swastika has been used since ancient times both as an ornament and a motif. It is known to appear, among other applications, in the sewing works of the Finno-Ugric peoples until the modern days. The swastika is very often construed as a symbol of good luck.

The first publicly displayed swastika motif in Finland is probably the swastika ornament around Akseli Gallen-Kallela’s Aino triptych from 1891. This painting is currently hung in the stateroom of the Bank of Finland in Helsinki. The armed forces of Finland adopted the swastika during the Civil War in 1918. Swedish Count Eric von Rosen donated the White Army a Thulin typ D airplane in Vaasa on March 6, 1918. On the wings he had painted blue swastikas, his personal mofif of good luck, in Umeå on March 2, before the airplane took off for the crossing of Gulf of Bothnia. After landing in Vaasa the airplane was incorporated as Aircraft Number 1 in the parc d’avions of Finland, later to be renamed the Aviation Force. It was therefore decided to adopt the blue swastika on a white circular background as the national marking, and this was retained until 1945 when it was superseded by the current roundel due to a directive issued by the Allied Control Commission. The directive, however, did not require that the symbol be replaced in other Air Force symbols and flags where it remains in use.

The base unit flag is this:
http://flagspot.net/images/f/fi%5Eaf.gif
with unit designation appearing in the top left corner


This all brings up the question of why it is disturbing since it predates the Third Reich.

Apparently it is actually the flag for the Finnish Air Force Academy (see this is what you get when you actually research stuff not just visit wikipedia)

From the FAF website.... (http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=624)


The base unit flag is this:
http://flagspot.net/images/f/fi%5Eaf.gif
with unit designation appearing in the top left corner


This all brings up the question of why it is disturbing since it predates the Third Reich.

I know that. It's why I corrected myself 14 posts ago.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14062002&postcount=26

I misread it initially.

Edit: Why is it disturbing? The continued usage post WW2. I doesn't matter that they had it first, some connotations mean you change your flag.

I know that. It's why I corrected myself 14 posts ago.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14062002&postcount=26

I misread it initially.

Edit: Why is it disturbing? The continued usage post WW2. I doesn't matter that they had it first, some connotations mean you change your flag.

So, you'll also complain to the Germans that they use "führer" to refer to the people that drive trains and subway there? And to the Indians that used this symbol for who knows how long? Maybe to the Japanese that have it as a kanji?

Big rolleyes. Language and symbolism are not one group's to control. Nothing is more democratic than language.

So, you'll also complain to the Germans that they use "führer" to refer to the people that drive trains and subway there? And to the Indians that used this symbol for who knows how long? Maybe to the Japanese that have it as a kanji?

Big rolleyes. Language and symbolism are not one group's to control. Nothing is more democratic than language.

You're right.

Which of those uses are for a military or political group in Europe?

Edit: Why is it disturbing? The continued usage post WW2. I doesn't matter that they had it first, some connotations mean you change your flag.

So they should stop using a symbol which happens to resemble the Nationalist-Socialist Party's symbol because you lack basic understanding of the history of the swastika?

My apologies for the Nazi Flag, but I feel it is necessary to show the difference between the 2 symbols
Nazi Flag:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg/180px-Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg.png
Finnish Air Force Unit Flag:http://flagspot.net/images/f/fi%5Eaf.gif

The symbols are similar, not the same

So they should stop using a symbol which happens to resemble the Nationalist-Socialist Party's symbol because you lack basic understanding of the history of the swastika?

My apologies for the Nazi Flag, but I feel it is necessary to show the difference between the 2 symbols
Nazi Flag:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg/180px-Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg.png
Finnish Air Force Unit Flag:http://flagspot.net/images/f/fi%5Eaf.gif

The symbols are similar, not the same

I understand the symbol and it's history. I know the difference between the two flags.

I don't agree with the bans on swastikas in many parts of Europe or even with he illegality of holocaust denial in some countries (infringes free speech).

What I do think is that the continued usage of the symbol to represent a modern military force, or part thereof, is questionable.

I understand the symbol and it's history. I know the difference between the two flags.

I don't agree with the bans on swastikas in many parts of Europe or even with he illegality of holocaust denial in some countries (infringes free speech).

What I do think is that the continued usage of the symbol to represent a modern military force, or part thereof, is questionable.

Why? If you actually understand the symbol and its meaning and history, why is it a problem?
Personally I think regardless of what you say, you can't get past the fact that a similar symbol was used by the Third Reich.

Why? If you actually understand the symbol and its meaning and history, why is it a problem?
Personally I think regardless of what you say, you can't get past the fact that a similar symbol was used by the Third Reich.

Of course it's because of the fact the swastika was used by the the Nazis. That is the major thing in European history, much more so than the odd Ancient Greek helmet it's been found on.

Of course it's because of the fact the swastika was used by the the Nazis. That is the major thing in European history, much more so than the odd Ancient Greek helmet it's been found on.

Apparently that swastika was used as a roundel from 1918 to 1945. Personally, I'd keep it just to piss off the Russians, especially to rub in the fact that the Finns held them off during the Winter War and Barbarossa. Of course, when said Operation turned against them, they lost those gains but the point was that the Finns were able to put up one hell of a fight against the Soviets (and Nazis, when the Lapland War began in 1944).

Too bad the Nazis had to poison the swastika for everyone...

This morning before going to school I checked out the news on my cell phone. Then I stumble upon a news about the modernisation of the Finnish F-18s. Apparantly they're gonna blow over 1 billion to modernising Hornets bought in 1995. Modifications include air-to-ground capability(they have been used only as regular fighters), NATO standardization, helmet mounted sights, improved AAM and other stuff. so, what does NSG think about this? Do we really need this?

Absolutely! The way things are going, the US won't be able to afford to defend Europe for much longer. :(

Triple your defense spending so it gets up to 5% or so of GDP, eh? ;)

This morning before going to school I checked out the news on my cell phone. Then I stumble upon a news about the modernisation of the Finnish F-18s. Apparantly they're gonna blow over 1 billion to modernising Hornets bought in 1995. Modifications include air-to-ground capability(they have been used only as regular fighters), NATO standardization, helmet mounted sights, improved AAM and other stuff. so, what does NSG think about this? Do we really need this?


It's better to have and not need, then to need and not have.

It's better to have and not need, then to need and not have.

Exactly

It's better to have and not need, then to need and not have.

Within reason, of course. Else you'll end up like Albania and have massive, outdated fixed defenses against enemies that never really posed a threat.

Within reason, of course. Else you'll end up like Albania and have massive, outdated fixed defenses against enemies that never really posed a threat.

Which also begs the question of who would want to invade Albania?

The argument obviously had limits, I mainly use it for people who think the US should scrap the F-22 and F-35 and just use F-15s and F-16s fro the enxt 30 years in order to save money.

How long is it estimated to be until the work is FINNISHED? If you think this will make you stronger than your neighbours, you're sadly mistaken. There's NORWAY that will happen.

Oh my. I'm on fire tonight. No, literally, I am...

*stops, drops, and rolls*

Which also begs the question of who would want to invade Albania?

The argument obviously had limits, I mainly use it for people who think the US should scrap the F-22 and F-35 and just use F-15s and F-16s fro the enxt 30 years in order to save money.

well...
I think we wasted our money on the F-35, but I may be proven wrong, we'll see once they enter service

well...
I think we wasted our money on the F-35, but I may be proven wrong, we'll see once they enter service

I think you'll find the value of the F-35 less in the US forces and more in the massively enhanced force projection ability of the UK. We are your closest ally and the old Sea Harrier was pants.

cool i love Suomi (finnish for Finland) this will put them one step closer to world domination lol

yo you guys know about this stuff too? i love winter war, continuation war, and lapland war

Hehe right on Jeff. Oh do not SPAM it's bad or doble post.

I think you'll find the value of the F-35 less in the US forces and more in the massively enhanced force projection ability of the UK. We are your closest ally and the old Sea Harrier was pants.

We're also replacing the Harrier (in the Marines), as well as the early model Hornets, and the F-16.

Yes...the Eurofighter, F-35, F-22, and Sukhoi Su-34 are all still a step ahead.

Yes so they should upgrade to one of these, obviously the F-22 is out but one of the others. Perhaps the Eurofighter that would be useful to cover Finland considering the size of the country.

Yes so they should upgrade to one of these, obviously the F-22 is out but one of the others. Perhaps the Eurofighter that would be useful to cover Finland considering the size of the country.

Eurofighter or F-35 is their best bet. Russian stuff doesn't work well alongside NATO gear, and that hinders joint ops with most NATO forces.

not much of one, but yes they do:

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet United States Multi-role fighter C / D: 63
BAE Hawk United Kingdom Trainer Attack Mk.51/51A / Mk.66: 65
Learjet 35 United States Transport A/S 3
Fokker F27 Netherlands Transport F.27-100 / F.27-400M: 2
EADS CASA C-295 Spain Transport M 2
Valmet L-70 Vinka Finland Trainer 28
Piper PA-31-350 Chieftain United States Liaison A 6
Valmet L-90 Redigo Finland Liaison 9

So a total of 178 aircraft

And now we have new choppers! The NH90. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHI_NH90