Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 09:36

loke wrote:In any case, you are right the 5 gen airpower will become quite massive on the Scandinavian peninsula.


Having the Finns in "EPAF 2" would be a very good thing indeed.

So, that'd be 52 RNoAF, 37 Dutch, 27 danish and 138 british(?) . Then possibly 50+ Finn-35s in northern Europe. Without doing actual math, we're near 300 aircraft in northern Europe when delivered.

Count in Poland and Belgium too please... :)
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 10:11

krorvik wrote:
loke wrote:In any case, you are right the 5 gen airpower will become quite massive on the Scandinavian peninsula.


Having the Finns in "EPAF 2" would be a very good thing indeed.

So, that'd be 52 RNoAF, 37 Dutch, 27 danish and 138 british(?) . Then possibly 50+ Finn-35s in northern Europe. Without doing actual math, we're near 300 aircraft in northern Europe when delivered.

Count in Poland and Belgium too please... :)


NATO in EurAsia; is about 500 with Turkey's 100, Israel's 50; not counting Finnland, Poland, Belgium, etc.

Pacific?; Australia, Japan, Korea about 180.
:)
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1497
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post03 Feb 2018, 21:39

neptune wrote:Pacific?; Australia, Japan, Korea about 180.


If Singapore opts for the Lightning, and if Kim keeps rattling his nuclear sabre... the Pacific Rim might be pushing 250-300 when all is said and done.
Take an F-16, add a dollop of A-7, a big gob of F-22, sprinkle on some AV-8B, stir well, then bake. What do you get? An F-35.
Online
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 591
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post03 Feb 2018, 21:47

Also at some point the WP and WW Vipers will probably be replaced by F-35s...
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Mar 2018, 09:30

rheonomic wrote:Also at some point the WP and WW Vipers will probably be replaced by F-35s...

WP and WW?
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Mar 2018, 09:38

L will continue to talk to new pilots. He is the author of 15 books about flying. There is therefore good reason to ask for his views on the future of Laukkaselta hävittäjähankinnasta.

If, on the basis of the current data should bet on Finland's upcoming machine model, Laukkasen list would be in this order: Gripen, Typhoon, or Super Hornet.


Auto-translated from: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10103487

Another elderly man who has not completely assimilated the importance of "5. gen"...?

Apart from that I am very surprised he is listing Typhoon before the SH!

My list would be like this (probability of a "win" in parantheses):

F-35 (99.5%), Gripen E(0.25%), SH (0.15%), Rafale&Typhoon (0.05% each)
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4203
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Mar 2018, 10:03

neptune wrote:


Pacific?; Australia, Japan, Korea about 180.
:)



Honestly, that is likely on the low side.....My guess is Australia and South Korea will acquire ~ 100 each and Japan more like 200! (i.e. ~ 400)
8)
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2360
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 Mar 2018, 10:43

loke wrote:
L will continue to talk to new pilots. He is the author of 15 books about flying. There is therefore good reason to ask for his views on the future of Laukkaselta hävittäjähankinnasta.

If, on the basis of the current data should bet on Finland's upcoming machine model, Laukkasen list would be in this order: Gripen, Typhoon, or Super Hornet.


Auto-translated from: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10103487

Another elderly man who has not completely assimilated the importance of "5. gen"...?

Apart from that I am very surprised he is listing Typhoon before the SH!

My list would be like this (probability of a "win" in parantheses):

F-35 (99.5%), Gripen E(0.25%), SH (0.15%), Rafale&Typhoon (0.05% each)


Fully agree. Jyrki Laukkanen is incredibly experienced former FiAF test pilot, but that article was total nonsence. Either he lost technology track totally about 40 years ago or the editor twisted his word incredibly. Poor thing is that many people including politicians will believe those comments... :x

Basically he seems to be saying that F-35 is not good because "Strike fighter" means it's meant only for attack missions :shock: Next claim is that it does not carry own weapons and is only meant for reconnaissance.. :roll: . Then there is the usual claim of Gripen CPFH of 7000 euros vs. F-35 26,000 euros... And that F-35 stealth features increase costs and require much more maintenance...
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5508
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post07 Mar 2018, 14:51

loke wrote:
rheonomic wrote:Also at some point the WP and WW Vipers will probably be replaced by F-35s...

WP and WW?



The Tail code on the F-16s in Korea and Japan.

Image
Choose Crews
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post09 Mar 2018, 16:34

Previous Hornet selection papers were due to be released last summer, but their secrecy was extended to 2030.

What is told here is a bit baffling.
At the Defense Ministry's background conference last autumn, it was reported that the Finnish Hornet's lifetime flight ours cap out at 6,000 hours. At some point it was thought that aircraft could fly up to 12,000 hours.

The truth soon came out after the Hornet operations began. In Finland, the machines are utilized heavy (only about 3 min transit flight time to training areas) that they have a running time of 4,500 hours. The difference between the two other estimates is very high in terms of money.

Hornet was by far the overwhelming winner. What was generally thought to be the the contender (to the F-18), the F-16, was considered in the air force evaluation as having the worst performance among the of the Western entrants.

According to the comparison, the F-16 was the worst of the Westerners. In addition, it lacked growth potential and the main developer resources were estimated to have been outsourced elsewhere in the early 1990s.


https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotima ... 3cfd16db-4

F-16 the worst? How the heck? Even offering Sparrow instead of Amraam shouldn't explain that. It was supposedly also changed to F-16C/D instead of original A/B after the F-18 got in through the kitchen. F-18 wasn't included in the original selection because it was thought to be unaffordable. The offered Gripen model was B, which never happened. Though if bought, it probably would've been updated at great cost to Gripen C/D.

F-16 was evaluated as being the cheapest, so they got that probably right. Gripen would've been the 2nd most expensive western option after the Mirage. F-18 was considered the 2nd most cheapest. What's also weird that they thought that 30 year lifetime costs would be less than the purchase price. Doesn't make sense if we assume that currently we assume that the purchase price is about 1/3 of the total cost.

Image
(left column purchase price, right lifetime cost 30 y, MiG had only 15 y lifetime)
http://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/2017070 ... 1_u0.shtml

The Air Force tested four Western fighter aircraft types from summer 1991 to winter 1992. The MiG-29 was also tested.

Hornet clearly proved to be better.

According to the presentation note, choosing a machine used by an American fleet was, inter alia, the fact that the machine was in continuous serial production, so the risk of a delivery delay was small.

When the US government was a party, it guaranteed a large buyer's support and negotiating position with the American industry. The large production volume of the machine type and the wide user base secured cheap spare parts prices and product support throughout the 30 year lifespan.

The Air Force kept the aircraft modern and its potential for development great. The costs of development during the use of the fighter were shared among multiple users.

The aircraft type was clearly superior to its operating range, operating hours and missile loads. This was an advantage over a large area in Finland.

Hornet was found to be well suited to the air force support system.


Poor Swedish offer

According to the note, the F-16 did not meet all the requirements of the Air Force in comparison. Nor did the offer of the Finnish aircraft industry participate in the project.

Gripen and, in particular, some of its important systems were prototype. In addition, the schedule of implementation of the project included significant risks to the Air Force.

In practice, Saab would have preferred to share the high cost of development of the unfinished machine with it and thus finance the export of machinery to other countries.

The Mirage fulfilled the requirements of the Air Force, but the maintenance of the machine was difficult for Finland. Machine maintenance costs were feared to rise to a high level due to a small user base.

The MiG-29 did not meet the requirements of the Air Force for the electronics and maintenance system. Machine life was only half of what the other machines did.

The best price comparison was F-16, the most expensive MiG-29.

F-16 machines Finland would have received an orderly authorization by the Finnish Parliament for a total of 67 aircraft, 58 of MiGs only.

The Air Force's draft was prepared in April. Prior to that, manufacturers were still given the opportunity to review their bids. No one changed their offer.


Odd attitude

At the time of ordering, the F-16 production line was closing. The last update of the machine was known.

Although, for example, Norway and the Netherlands came to F-16, the type of future after 2010 was completely open.

An additional problem was the basic attitude of the sales company that the machines would be delivered ready and in the version that the manufacturer considered fit to Finland.

The seller was not willing to listen to the wishes of any Finnish customer. The same policy was repeated for the other losers. Co-operation would have been painful.

JAS Gripen was a prototype impregnated with numerous problems.

The Air Force's estimate was that Sweden would be faced with major difficulties in defusing the machine's defects and deficiencies. The salesmen had a lot of speeches and promises, but without cover.

The Swedish way of producing and supporting machines during the life cycle was very expensive. The offer to Finland was a shame. Finland would be committed to open bills. Finland should have paid for its share of machine development costs, no matter how high.

Mirage was a really good machine for the pilot, but technically and in terms of operating costs, a horrible collection of museum supplies for decades. Gripen did not know any other foreign buyers either.

Great power politics of Moscow

MiG had its own reading. Moscow tried to push for procurement in the political preparatory pipeline.

In 1990, the Soviet Union tried to attract Finland to develop a fighting machine to export markets to third countries.

Finland despised this desperate attempt to continue the yya agreement and prevent the flagging of Finland from its front lines.

It was clear to the Russians that Finland's interest was to get a suitable fighter machine at the lowest possible price and on schedule, and that the co-operation machine would hardly be ready for production for Finland as early as possible.

Finland did not have the funds to contribute to financing the machine. Finland would not have had any say in buying buyers. It would have been an arm's breakthrough, which could have been a major political problem.

Finland took the view that joining the co-operation project would have meant a new type of defense co-operation that Finland did not have any interest in.

The state leadership decided that if any of the Soviets were not suitable for Finland's needs, they should not be bought.

In practice, MiG dropped out of the supply list due to the economic collapse of Soviet Russia. There was no guarantee that the country would have been able to supply machines with a lifetime of only half of what Westerners did.


Good relations can be deduced from the handling of a problem situation that was revealed shortly after buying the machines.

Finland had ordered Hornet's advanced C/D version. The machine's self-protection systems, radar and engine were updated. The software of the machine was improved on the basis of the experiences of the First Gulf War.

Hornet's production had already begun and deliveries had begun. For some reason, however, Finland was offered an armored A / B version of the parent. It did not fit into the new version of the software.

Air Force Commander Matti Ahola told the question to the then US Defense Secretary William Perry. The United States quickly corrected the mistake as a clear oversight on the American side.
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post09 Mar 2018, 19:59

Lol, interesting how badly the F-16 scored, seems funny given what we know now.

The greatest military program like ever.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post09 Mar 2018, 21:15

sunstersun wrote:Lol, interesting how badly the F-16 scored, seems funny given what we know now.

The greatest military program like ever.

What is funny is how many has underestimated the Hornet... and the Mirage...

Another country that did thorough eval was Switzerland... they also ended up with the Hornet. Very happy.

My guess is, as a reflection of the previous eval, only F-35 and Rafale will meet technical requirements (i.e. the most capable US and European fighters), and the F-35 will be chosen based on costs, capabilities, and political considerations.
Offline

barrelnut

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2015, 00:05

Unread post10 Mar 2018, 00:34

BTW, Finnish Air Force has conducted two successful live firings of AGM-158 JASSM Standoff missiles in the United States on 5 and 9 March.

http://ilmavoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_ ... geId=en_US

Image
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2360
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 10:20

magitsu wrote:Previous Hornet selection papers were due to be released last summer, but their secrecy was extended to 2030.

What is told here is a bit baffling.
At the Defense Ministry's background conference last autumn, it was reported that the Finnish Hornet's lifetime flight ours cap out at 6,000 hours. At some point it was thought that aircraft could fly up to 12,000 hours.

The truth soon came out after the Hornet operations began. In Finland, the machines are utilized heavy (only about 3 min transit flight time to training areas) that they have a running time of 4,500 hours. The difference between the two other estimates is very high in terms of money.

Hornet was by far the overwhelming winner. What was generally thought to be the the contender (to the F-18), the F-16, was considered in the air force evaluation as having the worst performance among the of the Western entrants.

According to the comparison, the F-16 was the worst of the Westerners. In addition, it lacked growth potential and the main developer resources were estimated to have been outsourced elsewhere in the early 1990s.


https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotima ... 3cfd16db-4

F-16 the worst? How the heck? Even offering Sparrow instead of Amraam shouldn't explain that. It was supposedly also changed to F-16C/D instead of original A/B after the F-18 got in through the kitchen. F-18 wasn't included in the original selection because it was thought to be unaffordable. The offered Gripen model was B, which never happened. Though if bought, it probably would've been updated at great cost to Gripen C/D.

F-16 was evaluated as being the cheapest, so they got that probably right. Gripen would've been the 2nd most expensive western option after the Mirage. F-18 was considered the 2nd most cheapest. What's also weird that they thought that 30 year lifetime costs would be less than the purchase price. Doesn't make sense if we assume that currently we assume that the purchase price is about 1/3 of the total cost.


At least F/A-16C/D was the one which flew the tests done in Finland. AFAIK, this was the exact aircraft which flew in Finnish tests:
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F ... file/3026/

So F-16D Block 40G (GE engine) was the one tested in Finland, so it was not like we tested some old F-16A after all. I wonder if they really did think they could win when F-16A was offered...

I'm not sure if F-16 really was seen as the worst but F/A-18C/D was definitely the best for our missions and environment at that evaluation. I think it's also up to what was really offered with each aircraft (weapons, equipment, logistics package etc). Of course our missions then were pretty much defensive counter air missions and Hornet had very good qualities for that with AN/APG-73 radar, good AMRAAM loadout, F404-GE-402 EPE engines and ASPJ jammer. Since we didn't really test any air-to-ground capabilities at that time, F-16 biggest strength was taken away. Gripen and Mirage 2000-5 probably were pretty good for DCA missions.
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 02:25

First ever Finnish pilot made a carrier landing. Capt Juha "Stallion" Järvinen landed F/A-18C Hornet on to USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72).

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp? ... mpaign=Ops

The current Chief of Defense is also a Hornet pilot. According to a book source, he's also done a carrier landing decade+ ago, but likely sitting in the back seat.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rheonomic, SpudmanWP and 13 guests