Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 959
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post13 May 2020, 15:58

magitsu wrote:
loke wrote:Probably you mean "will have" -- why else are several countries still buying F-16, if TCO of F-35 is already as low as for 4.gen like F-16?

Ehh... which countries that also have access to F-35 are buying new F-16?

Bulgaria is in the process of buying 8 new F-16:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ocurement/

Why did they not buy 8 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?

Slovakia is buying 14 new F-16:
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2019/08/ ... -contract/

Why did they not buy 14 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?. Actually for Slovakia it would make more sense to buy 8-10 F-35 rather than 14 F-16. Very odd.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 587
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post13 May 2020, 16:04

They have limited ambitions.
I'd bet they aren't also up to scratch to utilize the F-35's abilities in the other parts of their defense. It requires substantial commitment in communications, analysis capability etc.

But yes, F-35 is still probably initially a too big investment if the ordered amount is small.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 959
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post13 May 2020, 16:32

magitsu wrote:They have limited ambitions.
I'd bet they aren't also up to scratch to utilize the F-35's abilities in the other parts of their defense. It requires substantial commitment in communications, analysis capability etc.

But yes, F-35 is still probably initially a too big investment if the ordered amount is small.

They are going to fly these for several decades and the ambitions may well change during that period!

Clearly if F-35 had been as cheap as F-16 block 70 they would have gone for the F-35 instead. And clearly it is not, so therefore they have to fly 4.5 gen jets for several decades to come.

It will be interesting to see if they can lower the TCO for F-35 down to the same level as F-16 block 70.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2687
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 May 2020, 19:45

loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:
loke wrote:Probably you mean "will have" -- why else are several countries still buying F-16, if TCO of F-35 is already as low as for 4.gen like F-16?

Ehh... which countries that also have access to F-35 are buying new F-16?

Bulgaria is in the process of buying 8 new F-16:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ocurement/

Why did they not buy 8 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?

Slovakia is buying 14 new F-16:
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2019/08/ ... -contract/

Why did they not buy 14 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?. Actually for Slovakia it would make more sense to buy 8-10 F-35 rather than 14 F-16. Very odd.


And since when Bulgaria and Slovakia really have access to the F-35? As far as I know the F-35 was never offered to both Bulgaria and Slovakia.

Besides, just because Bulgaria and Slovakia are NATO members that doesn't automatically makes them 'eligible' to adquire the F-35. One just need to look at Turkey as an example (although granted that several well known things happened which made the F-35 off-limits to Turkey).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 959
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post13 May 2020, 19:56

ricnunes wrote:
And since when Bulgaria and Slovakia really have access to the F-35? As far as I know the F-35 was never offered to both Bulgaria and Slovakia.

Besides, just because Bulgaria and Slovakia are NATO members that doesn't automatically makes them 'eligible' to adquire the F-35. One just need to look at Turkey as an example (although granted that several well known things happened which made the F-35 off-limits to Turkey).

You are wrong. Bulgaria and Slovakia are of course eligible to get the F-35. Turkey is a very poor example; as I am sure you know they will not get the F-35 because the insisted on buying the S-400.

The only reason why Bulgaria and Slovakia did not buy the F-35 is because they could not afford it.

There are many non-NATO members that are being offered F-35. Apart from the obvious example of Turkey (and I explained to you already why they cannot get it), then all NATO countries can of course get the F-35. However they must be able to pay for it.

Come to think of it I was never offered to buy a Ferrari. I guess you would from that conclude that I am not "eligible" to buy a Ferrari? Well, you would be wrong, again.
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post13 May 2020, 20:01

loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:
loke wrote:Probably you mean "will have" -- why else are several countries still buying F-16, if TCO of F-35 is already as low as for 4.gen like F-16?

Ehh... which countries that also have access to F-35 are buying new F-16?

Bulgaria is in the process of buying 8 new F-16:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ocurement/

Why did they not buy 8 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?

Slovakia is buying 14 new F-16:
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2019/08/ ... -contract/

Why did they not buy 14 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?. Actually for Slovakia it would make more sense to buy 8-10 F-35 rather than 14 F-16. Very odd.


The reason Bulgaria is buying 8 new f-16 then 8 F-35 is because the f-16 is still cheaper to buy. You are looking at the total package and not the cost of the jet.

That is same with Slovakia.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 959
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post13 May 2020, 20:08

skyward wrote:
loke wrote:Bulgaria is in the process of buying 8 new F-16:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ocurement/

Why did they not buy 8 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?

Slovakia is buying 14 new F-16:
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2019/08/ ... -contract/

Why did they not buy 14 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?. Actually for Slovakia it would make more sense to buy 8-10 F-35 rather than 14 F-16. Very odd.


The reason Bulgaria is buying 8 new f-16 then 8 F-35 is because the f-16 is still cheaper to buy. You are looking at the total package and not the cost of the jet.

That is same with Slovakia.

Yes of course, the explanation is that F-16 is cheaper. Unfortunately there are some people on this forum who does not accept this, yet.
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post13 May 2020, 20:34

loke wrote:
skyward wrote:
loke wrote:Bulgaria is in the process of buying 8 new F-16:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ocurement/

Why did they not buy 8 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?

Slovakia is buying 14 new F-16:
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2019/08/ ... -contract/

Why did they not buy 14 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?. Actually for Slovakia it would make more sense to buy 8-10 F-35 rather than 14 F-16. Very odd.


The reason Bulgaria is buying 8 new f-16 then 8 F-35 is because the f-16 is still cheaper to buy. You are looking at the total package and not the cost of the jet.

That is same with Slovakia.

Yes of course, the explanation is that F-16 is cheaper. Unfortunately there are some people on this forum who does not accept this, yet.


That not true. Most people here say that the value of the f-35 for its cost is better the f-16V. They don't say for at fact that f-35 is cheaper to buy then f-16. For country like Slovakia and Bulgaria, a cheaper fighter is better then a better value fighter.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 959
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post13 May 2020, 22:25

skyward wrote:That not true. Most people here say that the value of the f-35 for its cost is better the f-16V. They don't say for at fact that f-35 is cheaper to buy then f-16. For country like Slovakia and Bulgaria, a cheaper fighter is better then a better value fighter.

That's not what I said. I did not say "most". I said "some".
So, your statement "That's not true" is incorrect ;)
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 382
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post13 May 2020, 23:01

loke wrote:
skyward wrote:That not true. Most people here say that the value of the f-35 for its cost is better the f-16V. They don't say for at fact that f-35 is cheaper to buy then f-16. For country like Slovakia and Bulgaria, a cheaper fighter is better then a better value fighter.

That's not what I said. I did not say "most". I said "some".
So, your statement "That's not true" is incorrect ;)


Where have Bulgaria and Slovakia been offered the F-35? Just because they are in NATO doesn't mean they get it. They might not meet the security requirements to have the plane.

The F-35 is cheaper to buy than an F-16 and most likely cheaper to operate, because F-16 maintenance doesn't include the podded items that are included in the F-35's maintenance.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2687
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 May 2020, 23:34

loke wrote:You are wrong. Bulgaria and Slovakia are of course eligible to get the F-35.


Source??

loke wrote:The only reason why Bulgaria and Slovakia did not buy the F-35 is because they could not afford it.


Source??

loke wrote:There are many non-NATO members that are being offered F-35.


Just because a country is a NATO member it doesn't mean that it's a very, very close ally of the USA or that it is "allied enough" and like kimjongnumbaun said it might not meet the security requirements to be 'eligible' to buy a F-35.

Those non-NATO members that you're referring to (Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Singapore) are far, far closer allies to the USA then Bulgaria and Slovakia are or (probably) will ever be.
If you can't understand this simple exercise of international politics then I'm afraid that can't help you any further here.


loke wrote:Come to think of it I was never offered to buy a Ferrari. I guess you would from that conclude that I am not "eligible" to buy a Ferrari? Well, you would be wrong, again.


Actually it's you who are wrong even with your 'Ferrari' analogy above! Speaking of Ferrari's, didn't you know that even if you have the money you may not be and you probably aren't eligible to buy a Ferrari?!
Don't believe me? Well don't take my word for it:
https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/want-to- ... -the-money

https://www.thethings.com/20-rules-for- ... a-ferrari/

Resuming, buying a F-35 reminds me a bit like buying a Ferrari. Just because you belong to a club (NATO or being already a Ferrari owner) it doesn't mean that you can buy the latest from that same club (NATO or Ferrari).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2687
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 May 2020, 23:36

kimjongnumbaun wrote:Where have Bulgaria and Slovakia been offered the F-35? Just because they are in NATO doesn't mean they get it. They might not meet the security requirements to have the plane.


DITTO :thumb:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6392
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 May 2020, 02:58

I don't know whats going on with you lately loke, if you've hit some kind of cold streak, or if you are deliberately twisting things or just being obtuse but allow me to explain.

loke wrote:
Why did they not buy 14 F-35 instead, if the cost is the same?. Actually for Slovakia it would make more sense to buy 8-10 F-35 rather than 14 F-16. Very odd.


By this logic Loke, why did they not buy Gripen instead of F-16? very odd. if its all about the money only, surely the Gripen is cheaper than the block 70 F-16V or the F-35 correct?

or is there more than something to it?


loke wrote:They are going to fly these for several decades and the ambitions may well change during that period!

Clearly if F-35 had been as cheap as F-16 block 70 they would have gone for the F-35 instead. And clearly it is not, so therefore they have to fly 4.5 gen jets for several decades to come.


I believe there are many factors.

The simple fact, and again I see this as an extremely obtuse post is that the initial invest of F-35 vs the amount they could buy might have simply eliminated it for consideration assuming either party ever really considered it in the first place.

It will be interesting to see if they can lower the TCO for Gripen down to the same level as F-16 block 70.


Fixed

loke wrote:You are wrong. Bulgaria and Slovakia are of course eligible to get the F-35. Turkey is a very poor example; as I am sure you know they will not get the F-35 because the insisted on buying the S-400.

The only reason why Bulgaria and Slovakia did not buy the F-35 is because they could not afford it.

There are many non-NATO members that are being offered F-35. Apart from the obvious example of Turkey (and I explained to you already why they cannot get it), then all NATO countries can of course get the F-35. However they must be able to pay for it.


I don't think it was ever offered officially or requested officially. Your posts lately seem really heavy on conspiracy and very light on facts. you're trying to prove a negative here in fact i believe.

come to think of it I was never offered to buy a Ferrari. I guess you would from that conclude that I am not "eligible" to buy a Ferrari? Well, you would be wrong, again.


terrible example is terrible.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6392
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 May 2020, 03:14

loke wrote: They have made improvements in the production process.


That doesn't mean that its going to be cheaper or flatten the curve it means they've made in improvements. If you improve manufacturing but increase the difficulty that's not a guarantee of success.

Then there is also a higher amount of COTS in Gripen E than A. ;)


you can't just keep saying COTS, Loke. I actually provided a paper from NASA youve contributed nothing but repeating company talking points.

You also never got back to me on the price of the COTS bolt you said would be so cheap. I'd like a number please. I need to compare it. In fact all your posts could do with a firm dose of attribution, numbers, proof, etc.

you really gotta wonder about someone who keeps talking low cost but never tells you the price...


loke wrote:Yes of course, the explanation is that F-16 is cheaper. Unfortunately there are some people on this forum who does not accept this, yet.


no Loke I think you are twisting my words and some other facts. again I don't know whether its because youre trying to pick fights or deliberately ignoring facts.

I'll explain it very simple. "TCO" as you refer to it means "Total Cost of Operation" I assume?

What I am saying and you "do not accept" is I'm saying that an air force like for example Canada can buy 65 F-35s, and spend a total of 42 billion for 40 years of operation to include procurement and even decommission ( I believe I used the phrase "Womb to tomb" ) its even more stark when heavy maintenance and upgrades are incorporated and it will save over any other competitor "total cost of operation" when compared with similar options even if it has a higher initial cost than its competitors.

The reasons for this are myriad, but the most obvious is a thick order book, mutual funding for upgrades and support, and a firm backing by the United States who have said they will use it into the 2060s. The F-35 will always, always beat a competitive airplane on a long timeline in terms of cost. Which is why people like bill sweetman turned into children, because they realized it was the culling of things like the Gripen and other Eurocanards.

I also believed I mentioned and even illustrated with a little vgraph that the F-35 at the moment is not as cheap as an F-16, but over time the F-35 will get cheaper at the F-16 gets more expensive.

I think you know that aircraft introduced into the fleet in both procurement and sustainment, start high and then get lower as improvements are made and more are produced and the costs essentially stabilize for the majority of the aircraft fleets lifespan before rising again toward the end of service.

Again and I can't stress this enough, The F-35 is in service and the price is dropping, pretty impressively in some areas (85 million vs 77.9 :wink: ) the burder of proof is on the Gripen E which is in a far more precarious and risky position. Loke is currently lecturing us on how they can fly make the aircraft affordable at 150 units, when they don't even have 100 on the books... even if they did have 150 theres still no knowing if that is the magic number or what it will cost to operate, especially if it falls short of this number.

Oh and Bulgaria and Slovakia didn't buy them which means theyre more expensive or they would have bought them. :wink:
Last edited by XanderCrews on 14 May 2020, 03:37, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6392
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 May 2020, 03:32

magitsu wrote:
Used F-16 market is a special case like Gripen leasing. For example the Hungarians have pretty much outsourced the maintenance since it requires a flight for a check up to Sweden every 10 weeks. https://saabgroup.com/media/stories/sto ... solutions/



Image

that Saab PR department, when will they learn?

COTS= Common Only To Sweden!! I guess there's no shelves in Hungary?
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests