Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1250
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post14 May 2020, 04:01

"Every ten weeks, the Hungarians come here to drop off aircraft for inspection or collect them following an inspection. Just before travel restrictions were implemented in Hungary, two aircraft had been dropped off in Linköping. An inspection takes between ten and twelve weeks and, last week, the Gripen aircraft were ready."

There may be a bit of a backlog. If they are dropped off every 10 weeks and the inspection takes up to 3 months. Thank god they are low maintenance, or it could be 12 months. The lease was cheap, because they were surplus to requirement. I don't think SAAB would screw them on 'inspection' would they?
Aussie fanboy
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 965
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post14 May 2020, 07:57

XanderCrews wrote: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.

Difficult to self-diagnose but due to COVID-19 I have been working from home for several weeks, working a lot, only short breaks to eat and write some quick messages here. Could possibly explain change in behavior. As I said, difficult to self-diagnose.
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?

I doubt buying and operating Gripen E currently is cheaper than F-16V (Gripen E/F has only 96 on order, needs some more orders to become cheaper than F-16V). Gripen C would be cheaper than F-16V. Bulgarian committee actually picked Gripen C but politicians chose F-16V. The president (a former fighter pilot) tried to veto but the government pushed through F-16V. As you know politics plays a big role, but mainly when it comes to which country (or in the case of Canada and Boeing potentially also which company) to pick. However when it comes to F-16V vs F-35 both are US and both are even LM. So politics is eliminated as a reason for choosing one over the other. Then you are left with costs and capabilities as the main determinants. We all know that F-35 is much more capable than F-16. What I have tried to explain is that as of today it is still more expensive than F-16V, and therefore, those with small budgets, will pick F-16V over F-35, if it meets their requirements. Infrastructure costs are much higher, and as of today also operating costs.
I believe there are many factors.
Anybody who can, will buy the F-35. Is that so hard to agree to? Now please present the "many factors" why a NATO country would not buy the Joint Strike Fighter in 2020?

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.

Exactly. TCO was not a good metric to refer to, too complicated and probably not even relevant. So I apologize for that. The initial costs is the key. And those are still higher for F-35 than F-16. This has been stated clearly by the Norwegian air force. I believe this is the reason why Bulgaria and Slovakia did not buy the F-35. Perhaps they did not even consider it because they knew it was financially out of reach for their small budgets.
I don't think it was ever offered officially or requested officially.

That may well be -- why would they request it and why would the US offer it if both knew it was financially out of reach? Listen, you are the one who has said F-35 will replace F-16, not me. I have given you two examples of two NATO countries that chose F-16V not F-35, in spite of the latter being much more capable, and also becoming the "standard" NATO fighter for the future. This is what you have told me many times. I think the explanation is simple: F-35 is still quite expensive, when you include all the costs. Probably they will buy F-35 the next time they buy fighter jets some 40 years from now, most likely second-hand. Should be plenty of cheap second-hand F-35 in excellent condition in Europe at that time. After all they are hardly ever flown ;)
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 965
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post14 May 2020, 08:46

According to the information in Suomen Kuvalehti, the successor to the Hornet fighters has sought to favour the American F-35. According to an anonymous source working on the HX project, the former Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces, Jarmo Lindberg, sought to make a difference in the benefit of the machine manufactured by Lockheed Martin while still in office. Lindberg and the HX project dispute the allegations.

"Before leaving, Lindberg instructed his subordinates to ensure that the F-35 is selected," the source says according to SK.
Retired Lindberg made headlines this spring after he was told he had signed a consulting contract with Lockheed Martin. The Ministry of Defence announced shortly thereafter that the use of external consultants in meetings of the HX project will cease. A few days later, Lockheed Martin terminated his contract with Lindberg's consulting firm.

According to SK's source, the reports on the candidates would, inter alia, have sought to avoid highlighting the f-35's allegedly high operating costs. The bad features of the F-35 are being played down or not told, and similarly trying to highlight other features that push them down in the selection process," the source says.
SK also reports confirmed the source's information from other people following the HX project.


Auto-translated from: https://www.keski-uusimaa.fi/kotimaa-ulkomaat/1805221

So the rumor mill has started in Finland. I wonder who is behind this particular rumor? The French have a certain "reputation" in this respect, but that is, of course, only a rumor...(I wonder who started the rumor about the French?? :devil: )

The only thing we can say with certainty is that it's not LM that is behind the rumor above.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post14 May 2020, 11:28

This is probably largely the result of the former chod Lindberg's fast and furious consulting gig for Lockheed Martin. Now these kind of accusations are easy to heave on him, amplified by covid financial worries and related rethinks.

Ultimately it seems like a move to discredit the whole competition, or to stall for time. It tries to mask itself as a concern for due process / supposedly identified intentional skewing toward F-35. It's just very hard to believe that doubts toward F-35 could really have been kept in the dark. Everybody knows to keep an eye on them just from the previous public discussion alone. The process also isn't in a stage where any binding information would be available to present.

Good fodder for the political Left. Their mp is the only one named and gives a comment according to what is expected of him. Clearly it isn't just them, since the magazine found someone inside the HX project to use as a source. But it's still not anything truly tangible. The final request hasn't even been sent (should be by the end of the year).

There's some good bits of information though. For example the mentioned Lockheed's yearly use charge for the F-35 and identifying it as the potential main source of maintenance cost disparity.

For a favorite
According to Suomen Kuvalehti, there's been an attempt to hide the expensive operating costs of the American fighter from politicians.

DOMESTIC 14.05.2020 07:30
TEXT MATTI RÄMÖ

IN APRIL 2020, Jarmo Lindberg, the former commander of the Defense Forces, caused a stir by becoming a consultant to Lockheed Martin, an American company offering F-35 fighters to Finland.

The soldiers had become fighter lobbyists earlier, but Lindberg's wash was, in principle, difficult to accept. The former Hornet pilot, who served as Commander of the Defense Forces in 2014–2019, has up-to-date information about the project. He has also been able to play a key role in influencing competition.

Lockheed Martin quickly terminated the contract after the Department of Defense found Lindberg had breached his tenure by three weeks.

According to SK, Lindberg sought to influence the choice of the F-35 while already serving as Commander of the Defense Forces.

“In Finland, it is shown that fighters compete equally. The play is intended to ensure that the general public believes the F-35 has been selected through competition. The choice of the F-35 has been on Jarmo Lindberg's agenda for a long time. That was clearly in his comments, too, when he served as Commander of the Defense Forces, ”says a source working on the HX fighter project.

SK has confirmed the identity of the source and assessed his expertise in the HX project as significant. SK has also confirmed the information he reports from other people following the project in various roles. The information has also been verified from written sources. SK does not disclose the identity of the sources due to the sensitivity of the matter. Much of the content of the HX project has been classified as secret.

This is a huge public procurement. According to the policy made by the Committee on Economic Policy in October 2019, fighters will pay EUR 10 billion at the procurement stage. During their approximately 30-year life cycle, they will pay significantly more. Machines will play a key role in Finland's defense capabilities until the 2060s.

The HX PROJECT was launched in 2015. Although the final decision rests with politicians, in practice the project is led by soldiers.

At the end of 2019, a specific call for tenders was sent to five bidders. On the basis of the new tenders, negotiations will take place with each candidate to define the final content of the procurement packages.

Final bids will be requested during 2020. If the planned timetable adheres, the Government will decide on a new fighter model in 2021.

The HX project is being promoted by a total of more than 40 people in the Air Force, the Defense Forces Logistics Department and the Ministry of Defense.

Employees prepare requests for quotations, research responses, and negotiate with bidders. Finally, the project management makes a proposal to the Government on which machine would be the best.

Options include Gripen of Sweden, Dassault Rafale of France, Eurofighter Typhoon of the UK, and F / A 18 Super Hornet and F-35 of the United States.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 is the only so-called fifth-generation fighter to take part in the race. The performance of the American fighter has garnered praise. It has been burdened by high operating costs and the provision of security of supply.

For many involved in the project, the F-35 is a luxury model for the race: its drivers are wanted, even if there is no money to spend. According to a source working on the HX project, the F-35 has been popular in the bidding race from the start.

“For former Hornet pilot Lindberg, who cherished close ties with the United States, the collaboration with the US and the F-35, considered a luxury model, are a pleasant combination. Before leaving, Lindberg instructed his subordinates to make sure that the F-35 was chosen, ”the source says.

According to him, favoring is, in practice, for example, modifying the estimates of fighters in favor of the favorite.

“Reports and memos downplay or omit the bad features of the F-35 and seek to highlight other features that weigh them down in the selection process. Politicians aren't being necessarily lied to directly, but they are not told everything.”

In particular, the detailed presentation of data on the costs of F-35 fighters will be avoided until the very end.

“Those who drive the F-35 are afraid that someone will get too much information too early and start arguing against it. Sometimes questions from politicians are circulated, saying final data is not yet available. If necessary, a military secret can be invoked and it can be said that these are classified items and cannot be talked about.”

THE DEFENSE FORCE Commander is involved in air defense performance planning and defining the HX procurement process.

Once the process has started, it will be led by the Defense Forces Logistics Department together with the Air Force and the Ministry of Defense. In the Air Force, the HX project is practically led by the operations manager, Colonel Juha-Pekka Keränen. The director of the logistics department, Major General Kari Renko, is responsible for the project ownership. Above them, the Defense Forces Strategy Manager, Lieutenant General Kim Jäämeri, is participating in the project.

During Lindberg's command, the project decision-making chain was dominated by officers who had served in the Air Force until the top of the Defense Forces. Jäämeri is a former Hornet pilot and Air Force commander. Lauri Puranen, the project manager responsible for tendering in the Ministry of Defense, is also a former commander of the Air Force.

Timo Kivinen, who succeeded Lindberg as Commander of the Finnish Defense Forces, has his background in the Army.

Why would officers follow Lindberg’s instructions when he is in command if he doesn’t have a formal role in carrying out the HX project? And why follow the instructions when Lindberg is retired?

“In a military organization, everything starts from following the instructions up the chain of command. The F-35 is also a pleasant choice for many of the current players in the HX project, ”the source says.

The allegations are heavy and difficult to prove fully. Classified documents are rarely visible. The papers will become public in decades to come.

IN THE HX PROJECT, candidates must first meet the conditions related to security of supply, life cycle costs and industrial cooperation with Finnish companies. Hornets' costs have been defined as the life cycle cost benchmark. In addition, it is required that the maintenance capacity of critical systems must be in Finland.

Only machines that meet these other conditions will be able to compare performance. It is implemented using simulation tasks.

SK asked about the flow of information about the project from several MPs sitting in the Defense and Finance Committees following the HX project. Many of them described the information reported so far as scarce or superficial.

“Not so little information should be used to form any position. Once one candidate has been selected, it is no longer difficult to have a debate, ”says one.

Markus Mustajärvi (left), a member of the Defense Committee who has previously critically assessed the project, describes the information provided on maintenance costs as insufficient.

“I don’t feel I have received enough accurate information about the life cycle costs of either future fighters or current Hornets. Without data on modern Hornets, no comparisons can be made. The attitude of the leaders of the HX project is that civilians should not interfere in complex matters when you do not know anything about them, ”says Mustajärvi.

"However, it is up to politicians to decide on the use of the single currency."

The figures in euros provided by bidders on the operating and life cycle costs of fighter candidates have not yet been communicated to even the top government. That is the advantage of the F-35.

According to a SK source, the operating costs of the F-35 clearly exceed those of its competitors. "In operating costs, the difference from other fighters is tens of percent."

According to him, the costs are formed differently from all others.

“A maintenance contract is made with other suppliers that specifies the prices of spare parts. Additional costs will be paid as maintenance and repair needs arise. Some of the repairs can also be outsourced to domestic companies. Instead, F-35s are subject to a fixed annual usage fee. The car leasing-like arrangement ensures that Lockheed Martin keeps the agreed number of machines in working order at all times. Continuous charging is the biggest reason for the higher price of the F-35. ”


The conditions for commercial cooperation can be met by teaching Finnish companies to manufacture or service parts. Self-sufficiency in the maintenance of existing Hornets has developed significantly over the past 20 years.

In Lockheed Martin's own Global Support Solution system, parts maintenance is decentralized to countries that have purchased F-35s.

“Finland may aim for a smaller share of global maintenance responsibility, but the probabilities of obtaining it are small. Many countries have years of lead in repairing F-35 fighters, ”the source says.

“The F-35 only flies and pays a user fee. Once the agreement is made, it will permanently bind Finland to procure spare parts where Lockheed Martin wants.”

No additional money will be given for the operating costs of the fighters, they will have to come from the defense budget.

From the military defense budget, it is about 270 million euros, which can thus become the annual cost of using fighters.

“The call for tenders specifies the Hornets’ annual costs at € 182 million. Sometimes even larger figures have been presented to the public so that the costs of new machines do not look so high. Estimates can be adjusted according to what spare parts and maintenance measures are included in them in any situation, ”the source says.

“Once an agreement is signed with Lockheed Martin, it will bind Finland for decades. The idea behind F-35 drivers seems to be that the money needed for operating costs is always dug out of somewhere. ”

The coronavirus poses a threat to the project. If the use of money is reassessed, it may be even more difficult to justify the most expensive machine.

“The price of the F-35 is sometimes justified on the grounds that it has features that others do not have. In negotiations, fighter representatives are happy to refer to these abilities. It has gone quite well with the Hornet, but experience has also taught us that the abilities made available to Finns will ultimately be decided by the US administration.”

---
The allegations are denied
Jarmo Lindberg, Kim Jäämeri, Juha-Pekka Keränen, Kari Renko and Lauri Puranen dispute by e-mail the allegations that the F-35 fighter would have been favored in the HX project.

According to Lindberg, it would be completely exceptional for the commander to intervene in the preparation and execution of the launched procurement.

“As an outsider in the process, the commander cannot interfere with the information gathered and its sharing within or outside the defense administration. This has not happened either, so I have not been actively and purposefully regulating the data in favor of the F-35 and it would not be possible, ”the former commander of the Defense Forces replies.

Strategy Manager Jäämeri denies that it received instructions from Lindberg regarding the F-35 fighter or that it acted improperly.

Operations Manager Keränen justifies the paucity of information provided about the project with security classifications. "In the HX project, we process both national and candidate-classified information, and we ensure that Finland does not endanger its own and the candidates' safety or the candidates' competitive position," he writes.

Puranen, Project Manager at the Ministry of Defense, and Renko, Director of the Department of Logistics, emphasize the impartiality of the HX project. According to them, the quality assurance reports of the audit firm Deloitte show that the competition went smoothly.

Puranen and Renko have different views on informing the political leadership.

“A summary based on the responses to the detailed call for tenders from the various candidates has recently been presented to senior political management, which has also included the candidates’ current operating and maintenance cost outlook,” Puranen replies.

Renko writes: “The project does not yet have definitive information on the cost of operating the machines. Thus, no candidate's operating or life cycle cost information has been presented to political actors or even to Finland's top political leadership. ”

When asked about the different answers, Puranen states that this is a “weighting difference”.

“Kari [Renko] wanted to say that no euro figures for any candidate have yet been communicated to the political leadership, but they have been told a clear view of how different candidates will meet our demands for different decision areas (security of supply, costs and industrial cooperation). The political leadership has got a very clear picture of the situation and the challenges of the various candidates from the presentation of this, ”Puranen writes in an e-mail.

In addition to SK, he also sent a message to Kari Renko.

“I will inform Kari of this when I tell you what Kari means by her answer,” Puranen writes.

Renko did not return.

https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotima ... 0b5112-500

loke wrote:The only thing we can say with certainty is that it's not LM that is behind the rumor above.

Agreed
Last edited by magitsu on 14 May 2020, 12:09, edited 5 times in total.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 965
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post14 May 2020, 12:00

XanderCrews wrote:
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.

I was not referring to you when I wrote the last sentence above...
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 May 2020, 14:42

loke wrote:Difficult to self-diagnose but due to COVID-19 I have been working from home for several weeks, working a lot, only short breaks to eat and write some quick messages here. Could possibly explain change in behavior. As I said, difficult to self-diagnose.


Get outside, get some sun on your face and take some breaks from the "news".

loke wrote:I doubt buying and operating Gripen E currently is cheaper than F-16V (Gripen E/F has only 96 on order, needs some more orders to become cheaper than F-16V). Gripen C would be cheaper than F-16V. Bulgarian committee actually picked Gripen C but politicians chose F-16V. The president (a former fighter pilot) tried to veto but the government pushed through F-16V. As you know politics plays a big role, but mainly when it comes to which country (or in the case of Canada and Boeing potentially also which company) to pick. However when it comes to F-16V vs F-35 both are US and both are even LM. So politics is eliminated as a reason for choosing one over the other.


yes, surely this is the first acquisition where politics was eliminated

Then you are left with costs and capabilities as the main determinants. We all know that F-35 is much more capable than F-16. What I have tried to explain is that as of today it is still more expensive than F-16V, and therefore, those with small budgets, will pick F-16V over F-35, if it meets their requirements. Infrastructure costs are much higher, and as of today also operating costs.


I don't think that's the case here.

Anybody who can, will buy the F-35. Is that so hard to agree to? Now please present the "many factors" why a NATO country would not buy the Joint Strike Fighter in 2020?


well for 1 they may not be fully read into F-35 capabilities. Bulgaria is purchasing 2 twin seat F-16. They wanted to keep some training or capability in house and there's no 2 seat F-35s. They have a local company doing the maintenance for the F-16 they may not have been capable of competitively working on F-35. wouldn't be the first time where local benefits took precedents over combat capabilities. Nobody is fighting for F-16 workshares. F-35 is bare knuckles

it comes down to what they emphasize. one country's "deal breaker" is another country's "who cares?"

The reason Australia has M-1 tanks and not Leopard II is because of just one factor that eliminated Leopard II. it happens. who cares? vs Deal breaker

Exactly. TCO was not a good metric to refer to, too complicated and probably not even relevant. So I apologize for that. The initial costs is the key. And those are still higher for F-35 than F-16. This has been stated clearly by the Norwegian air force. I believe this is the reason why Bulgaria and Slovakia did not buy the F-35. Perhaps they did not even consider it because they knew it was financially out of reach for their small budgets.


Perhaps is the key word there. I can explain why this logic doesn't help you below.

That may well be -- why would they request it and why would the US offer it if both knew it was financially out of reach? Listen, you are the one who has said F-35 will replace F-16, not me. I have given you two examples of two NATO countries that chose F-16V not F-35, in spite of the latter being much more capable, and also becoming the "standard" NATO fighter for the future. This is what you have told me many times. I think the explanation is simple: F-35 is still quite expensive, when you include all the costs. Probably they will buy F-35 the next time they buy fighter jets some 40 years from now, most likely second-hand. Should be plenty of cheap second-hand F-35 in excellent condition in Europe at that time. After all they are hardly ever flown ;)


Heres why "MONEY MONEY MONEY" doesn't help you and I want you to really think about this. And if you want to continue to pursue you can win this "battle" but big picture you will lose the "war". Lets look at Switzerland. the first round F-35 never came up. Boeing didn't bother to bid Super Hornet because they didn't think it would fit the RFP. So eurocanards and Gripen NG/E wins.

Referendum

Round 2 includes F-35, SH, Rafale, Typhoon, and no Gripen.

So the conclusion I can come to is that the Gripen was eliminated due to cost? because clearly it was available and F-35 was available, and SH was available at various times and they didn't go for it, so that means its the most costly? this is the logic thats being applied here. Am I doing it right? Switzerland had no interest in F-35 even though it was as the 2nd round shows, an option.

Bulgaria and Slovokia picked F-16V and not Gripens so the conclusion would be what? Gripen is more expensive than F-16V? This is fun. Lets go with this.

Do you really want to start the precedent that every time a Gripen isn't picked or even considered its completely on cost grounds? Because I'll gladly take that. :devil: god knows they're plenty available. I don't know if you'll like the results and these threads will get very short very quickly.

The other thing and I don't press it hard, but ill bring up here. I said Earlier "5th generation becomes the new standard" and you said "no but there are tiers!" and then as if to prove my point you should teirs and put 5th generation at the top. Which is exactly what I said. Now 15 years ago Bulgarian F-16s would have been tier 1, but not anymore. why? new top tier. Now 5th geneation is the standard. Now I can't stop people from buying teir 2 (gen 4.5) stuff but the bottom line is they are indeed tier 2. which was my point. Your point was people will keep buying stuff as something is better than nothing and not everyone has access to 5th gen. but the standard is the standard. Watching people argue this is like watching the F-4 club try to say the now numerous and highly standard F-16 is some rare and unneeded space magic. You can buy F-4s, just realize they are not F-16s. F-16 became the standard. F-35 is becoming the standard. And what happening with the F-35s capabilities in sensors and communications is well ahead that its harder to integrate without it. "harder" being an understatement.

What F-35 has done is basically shift costs up front, with the idea that money is saved on the back end. its the tortoise and the hair, slow and steady. BTW when looking into this more, I read about some F-35s that deployed to Bulgaria a few years back from Lakenheath and brought just 20 airmen. F-35 has a huge advantage from the start by flying 20 percent less. This also pushes the heavy maintenance out, and if my math is correct would also lead to 20 percent less heavy maintenance. Thats going to be really hard to top, when one takes the entire "born - death" equation into consideration
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 965
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post14 May 2020, 16:59

XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:Difficult to self-diagnose but due to COVID-19 I have been working from home for several weeks, working a lot, only short breaks to eat and write some quick messages here. Could possibly explain change in behavior. As I said, difficult to self-diagnose.


Get outside, get some sun on your face and take some breaks from the "news".


Good idea -- I will sign off the grid starting this evening and stay off until after the weekend.

17. May is a special day in Norway, by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Day_(Norway)

It will be very different this year with the COVID-19 and social distancing, most activities are cancelled. Nevertheless if the weather is good we will be in the garden with a barbecue, trying hard not to turn hamburgers and sausages into black non-edible bricks. We succeeded last year. And the cold beer is always good!
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post14 May 2020, 21:27

More balanced article from the National broadcasting company replying to the earlier SK magazine's accusations.
Defense leadership blamed for favoring F-35 in hunting plan procurement: "Absurd accusations"

The Armed Forces' senior leadership is accused of favoring US Lockheed Martin's F-35 in the ongoing competition for Finland's new fighter plan. Suomen Kuvalehti cites an anonymous source with insight into the process. The Ministry of Defense describes the charges as absurd.

According to the article in Suomen Kuvalehti, former Armed Forces commander Jarmo Lindberg would have given his subordinate instructions to ensure that the choice in the fighter race falls on precisely the F-35.

Jarmo Lindberg left his command post in the summer of 2019, but in April 2020 it emerged that he had signed a consulting agreement with Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin terminated the agreement just days later.

In the ongoing fighter plan competition, called the HX project, five planters participate and the project management has repeatedly ensured that everyone participates on equal terms. The procurement process has been reviewed by consulting firm Deloitte.

According to Suomen Kuvalehti, both Lindberg and other key individuals have strived to ignore in the reports and other contexts the weaker sides of the F-35 and at the same time emphasize the weaknesses of the other four candidates.

Operating costs can be an expensive pitfall
The F-35 is marketed as a "fifth generation" fighter plane with so-called stealth features and advanced sensor technology. The plan's operating costs are generally considered to be high compared to the other participants, and the question is whether Finland would really be able to afford F-35 in the long run.

Exactly how high the operating costs would be, given the requirements and types of assignments that the Air Force sets as conditions, is practically impossible to judge for an outsider. All such details in the plant manufacturers' quotations are non-public.

According to Suomen Kuvalehti's sources, the F-35 is really significantly more expensive to operate than the other plant types, as the user country undertakes to pay a fixed annual fee covering service and spare parts. The agreement is similar to a leasing agreement, and can be disproportionately expensive in the long run.

Suomen Kuvalehti has also anonymously interviewed members of the parliamentary defense committee, who believe that they have not received sufficient information on important details, such as the plant types' operating costs.

The defense committee chairman Ilkka Kanerva (Nat coal.) tells Svenska Yle that he is satisfied with the information that has reached the committee. Nor has he seen any signs that any plane type would have been favored.
Also, the committee member Anders Adlercreutz (SFP) considers himself to have had access to all the information available at this stage.


- There are certain requirements regarding the operating costs of the plan, only a certain proportion of the defense budget may go to operating costs. If you get a plan that does not meet the requirements, then you do not benefit the whole, then you can not use the equipment you get and I do not think anyone wants in this situation, says Adlercreutz.

Ministry of Defense: Absurd accusations
Both Jarmo Lindberg himself and other members of the defense team refute Suomen Kuvalehti's information.

Defense Minister Antti Kaikkonen (C) did not want to comment on the information, but refers to Program Director Lauri Puranen at the Ministry of Defense. He describes the charges as absurd.

Puranen confirms that Lockheed Martin has a service and operating cost model for the F-35 that differs from the other four candidates, but he does not want to go into any details as negotiations with the planter manufacturers are still ongoing.

- Our goal is to negotiate as favorable a deal as possible, says Puranen to Svenska Yle.

The final cost level for all five plant types will not be realized until during the final, binding offer round, which is scheduled to begin this fall. Puranen and his colleagues will conduct a final round of negotiations with the five manufacturers during the late summer and early autumn.

https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2020/05/ ... handlingen
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post14 May 2020, 23:29

magitsu wrote:
DOMESTIC 14.05.2020 07:30
TEXT MATTI RÄMÖ

For many involved in the project, the F-35 is a luxury model for the race



As if survival is a luxury.. :doh:
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post15 May 2020, 11:43

Saab Finland ceo states that he's seen no favoritism. If he had, he would've advised withdrawing since Saab invests considerably in completing the competition. https://twitter.com/AGardberg/status/12 ... 0642272256

Official Def min HX project leader's reply to yesterday's claims: https://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto ... 10317.blog
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2688
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post15 May 2020, 16:42

If Boeing believed a light fighter was appropriate then I would bet they'd of pushed a weaponized T-7A option rather than F/A-18 or EA-18G options. I suspect nobody went into the competition believing Gripen has a snowball's chance in Florida of making it through, save for Saab.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 May 2020, 19:51

magitsu wrote:Saab Finland ceo states that he's seen no favoritism. If he had, he would've advised withdrawing since Saab invests considerably in completing the competition. https://twitter.com/AGardberg/status/12 ... 0642272256


Yeah right... :roll:

And how about the fact or possibility that if Saab pulled out from the program that this would give the market a clear sign that even Saab admits that its Gripen offering is inferior to all other other competitors?? This would certainly be much worse than losing the money that Saab may have invested in the Finnish competition since the alternative could be to lose any possible future sales. If, actually when Saab loses in Finland then Saab can always "bitch as usual" that the competition was politically rigged (like in Norway), bla, bla, bla....
As such, I'm sure that Saab maintaining (and not withdrawing) from the Finish competition and the money invested in such competition seen (by Saab) as a "PR investment", something which would be completely lost in case it withdrawn from it.

Basically the same thing that happens with the Canadian competition.
“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: 6410
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 May 2020, 20:18

madrat wrote:If Boeing believed a light fighter was appropriate then I would bet they'd of pushed a weaponized T-7A option rather than F/A-18 or EA-18G options. I suspect nobody went into the competition believing Gripen has a snowball's chance in Florida of making it through, save for Saab.



No no, it can clearly compete. now for no reason at all throw some AWACS aircraft in there too.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post16 May 2020, 11:35

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lukfi wrote:Cheaper in terms of manpower to build, compared to what? This would only be a relevant comparison against an aircraft produced on a similarly equipped assembly line, not against the F-35.

Uh, Saab is already quoting a higher flyaway cost for the Gripen E than the F-35.

Yes, because the assembly is cheaper but not necessarily the parts, or the operation and maintenance.
XanderCrews wrote:
lukfi wrote:…by inflating the Gripen prices with a risk factor of Saab being a small manufacturer and the Gripen E in early stages of development.

Oh? how'd they manage that?

We've been over this already, no? Saab offered to guarantee a certain cost of operation, Norway did not trust that number and you said that it wasn't really a guarantee.
that Saab wouldn't be able to back their sales goals and other pie in the sky promises?

Sort of, yes. This was back in what, 2008? The Gripen NG was very much only on paper, so Norway calculated with some risk of Saab not being able to deliver. I don't mean sales numbers because Norway doesn't have to care about that, but rather technical parameters of a plane that was not done yet.
That is why they overstated the number.
In your example, if the first aircraft requires something to be replaced after 10 flight hours (...)

Don't quit your day job.

Was there a point to the original question?
a lot of the things needed to even find out aren't tracked

Yeah, then I agree it's difficult. Though in your example for an aircraft flying much less hours than budgeted, it would be hard to make the money magically disappear if it wasn't spent on fuel, consumables and spares and the like.
XanderCrews (emphasis mine) wrote:the curves always start high and then lower over time

The Gripen E is very new at the moment so it starts high and will get lower over time. Did you mean to say the "always" part applies only to aircraft that you like?
produced in the Czech Republic by Aero Vodochody. In 2003, the Czech Air Force fleet of 72 L-159A aircraft was reduced to 24 due to budget constraints. After several years of storage, the government has re-sold most of the redundant aircraft to both military and civilian operators, namely the Iraqi Air Force and Draken International.

Thanks for the assist.

I've been looking for some local sources to give me more context on the story and interestingly enough, none of them talks about "budget constraints", all of them say that the aircraft were "redundant". I'm not saying money isn't a factor, but… let me give you some context.
In 1993 it was estimated that the newly-formed Czech Republic would need 54 supersonic aircraft and 54 subsonic ones. Despite this, in 1997 the government ordered 72 L-159s, to support domestic industry. So it was already pretty questionable whether we would need that many.
From 2001, CzAF was looking for a replacement for the MiG-21 fleet, and the desired number of fighters was 24-36. But in 2002 the country was hit by a catastrophic flood and there was no money for a large one-time expense like that. Instead of buying, the government set their sights on leasing, and ended up leasing the 12+2 Gripens the CzAF operates to this day.
The role of the L-159 is two-fold: it's a light combat aircraft but it doubles as a trainer, and it's a stepping stone for pilots who continue onto the Gripen. And if you only have 14 Gripens instead of 54, it doesn't make much sense to operate 72 L-159s. As far as costs are concerned, the L-159 was rushed to service before completing all tests, so the air force had to endure some teething problems; but this was done so that Su-22 and Su-25 could be retired earlier, because the L-159 is so much cheaper to operate.
Despite its short production run, it was cheap to buy (CzAF ordered the 72 for less than $10M a piece in 1997 dollars) and according to all sources it's also cheap to operate.

white_lightning35 wrote:I am curious as to why so many people think the US is handling Covid-19 worse than anywhere else in the world. The US death rate is not as bad as several other countries, including your neighbor Sweden. Are the thoughts of their mismanagement on your mind, too?

Sweden took a very lenient approach to the pandemic. As a result they have 3600+ deaths while the similarly sized Czech Republic has 300, and Vietnam which borders with China claims to have 0 (their response was very quick and very strict). So the argument that Sweden mismanaged the situation could be made. The argument that the U.S. mismanaged the situation, well, there's really no argument about that.

magitsu wrote: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/

No, it doesn't. :doh:
They send two Gripens to Linköping every 10 weeks, not every Gripen every 10 weeks. To give you an idea, the distance between Kecskemét and Linköping is less than from Boston to Chicago. Most of the maintenance is done in Hungary, only for major servicing the aircraft fly to Sweden, which considering the number Hungary (or Czech Rep.) operates is more economical than doing it at home.
If you want to know more, there's this documentary on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ_wIptrASY

Also I'd like to follow up on the Bulgaria and Slovakia discussion: does anybody have actual information - not just assumptions or conjectures - whether these countries could buy the F-35 if they wanted?
The Czech Republic is pretty much on the same boat with these countries, regarding length of NATO membership and former East-bloc history, and the F-35 has been publicly discussed as a possible replacement for the Gripens. Romania has in the past expressed potential interest in F-35; they ended up buying second-hand F-16s but second-hand planes don't last forever. Finally, Hungary's leasing contract on Gripens will also expire before 2030. It would be nice to know if we are eligible to get the F-35 at all or if the only thing the U.S. will offer us is a 50-year old museum plane.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 May 2020, 16:11

lukfi wrote:
XanderCrews (emphasis mine) wrote:the curves always start high and then lower over time

The Gripen E is very new at the moment so it starts high and will get lower over time. Did you mean to say the "always" part applies only to aircraft that you like?


It MAY get lower IF and ONLY IF the Gripen E GETS MORE AND LOTS OR ORDERS! So far it only got 96 orders and that's not enough or far from enough to get low. And there's no real expectations that it will get any more orders or at least the chances of getting lots of more orders is extremely low/slim at best! It may end up getting 20-50 more orders past those 96 but this simply won't cut it (it wouldn't enough to "get low").
But then again this has been explained to you, time after time, after time, after time, after time, after time...
Jezz, this is getting tiresome! :bang:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests