Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post16 Dec 2015, 22:56

hornetfinn wrote:FA-50 costs about 35 million US$ according to this:


Since this site is F-16.net and the F-16 is a lighter fighter from a US perspective, what are the main differences between an FA-50 and a F-16 that explain why an FA-50 is so much cheaper?
Offline

thepointblank

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 11:17
  • Location: The True North Strong and Free

Unread post17 Dec 2015, 06:56

talkitron wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:FA-50 costs about 35 million US$ according to this:


Since this site is F-16.net and the F-16 is a lighter fighter from a US perspective, what are the main differences between an FA-50 and a F-16 that explain why an FA-50 is so much cheaper?

A FA-50 is basically an armed supersonic trainer. Smaller engine, no BVR capabilities, less payload, less capabilities. You get what you pay for.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post17 Dec 2015, 22:04

thepointblank wrote:A FA-50 is basically an armed supersonic trainer. Smaller engine, no BVR capabilities, less payload, less capabilities. You get what you pay for.


So it is smaller and doesn't have a radar for BVR targeting?
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post17 Dec 2015, 22:15

talkitron wrote:So it is smaller and doesn't have a radar for BVR targeting?


Actually, this War is Boring article says that Israeli radar currently being used could support an Israeli BVR missile:

"Though the FA-50 can’t currently use BVR weapons — it carries only the AIM-9M visual-range dogfighting missile — a KAI briefing slide shows that the growth path for the aircraft includes the integration of the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM and the AIM-9X. Given that the EL/M-2032 can already support the Israeli-built Derby BVR missile, there is no reason to doubt that the FA-50 could not add that weapon or the Python 5 high-off boresight missile."

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/this-s ... .sjahto9nh
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1893
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post17 Dec 2015, 22:33

KAI have put some basic specs up

FA-50.JPG
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2133
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post18 Dec 2015, 00:51

thepointblank wrote:
talkitron wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:FA-50 costs about 35 million US$ according to this:


Since this site is F-16.net and the F-16 is a lighter fighter from a US perspective, what are the main differences between an FA-50 and a F-16 that explain why an FA-50 is so much cheaper?

A FA-50 is basically an armed supersonic trainer. Smaller engine, no BVR capabilities, less payload, less capabilities. You get what you pay for.


And built with much lower labor and overhead rates.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2439
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post18 Dec 2015, 19:00

Most importantly no hardening against damage. Would you rather pay three times the cost and be reasonably strong against modern SAM threats or cheap and know you'll sustain a high attrition rate. Any attrition rate - even a 3% margin - is really unsustainable. Stretch the argument even further now, would you rather have an even down FA-50's, four F-16 Blk 52+, or a pair of F-35A against a modern SAM brigade? My bet is that the F-35A pair has the lowest attrition rate.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post18 Dec 2015, 20:54

madrat wrote:Most importantly no hardening against damage.


How is the F-16 hardened against damage in a way that the FA-50 is not?
Offline

newmanfrigan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2013, 05:14
  • Location: Kansas City, MO

Unread post22 Dec 2015, 22:47

talkitron wrote:
madrat wrote:Most importantly no hardening against damage.


How is the F-16 hardened against damage in a way that the FA-50 is not?


One aspect would be Electronic Warfare suites that have SAMS in mind.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post23 Dec 2015, 01:31

newmanfrigan wrote:One aspect would be Electronic Warfare suites that have SAMS in mind.


Is there any evidence of this? The FA-50 has a RWR and CMDS.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post23 Dec 2015, 03:12

talkitron wrote:
madrat wrote:Most importantly no hardening against damage.


How is the F-16 hardened against damage in a way that the FA-50 is not?

The F-16 is designed for combat survivability to a level beyond that of FA-50.

F-16 has fuel tank innerting, were as the FA-50 does not. The FA-50 may not be able to continue flying in situations were a F-16 could limp home. F-16s have been known to return to base after being damaged by AAA fire.

I'd be surprised if the FA-50 has the integrated avionics to the same level as a F-16 Block 50+ fighter. A RWR doesn't make a trainer into a fighter aircraft.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2967
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Dec 2015, 13:26

Here is an auto-translated article from Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat about JAS Gripen production:

http://www.techsite.io/p/208235

Original in Finnish:
http://www.hs.fi/talous/a1450421122667

Interesting things about Gripen E (corrected by me to be readable)

There are currently both current model Gripen C / D machines and the first machines of the latest generation E-model being riveted. E-model could be an option for Finland. Each machine production time is 50 000 hours, ie two years, says production manager Hans Häggroth.

Almost everything is handmade. We have only one robot at the production line he says.


I don't think this sounds very good at all for Gripen E. Yes, some exclusive cars have been handmade earlier but now pretty much everybody, including Ferrari and Rolls Royce are using a lot of robots to have high and consistent quality. Of course the production rate and numbers for Gripen are so low that setting up automated lines would be expensive.
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 284
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post23 Dec 2015, 14:17

I don't know, if anyone noticed, but the split trainer/fighter ida seems a bit more in doubt now after these news:
One of the basic premises of this short series went out the window Friday, as Patria Aviation bagged a 18.6 million Euro deal for further upgrades of the Finnish Hawk fleet, this time related to the older Mk 51 jets, with the aim of keeping the Hawk as the Finnish advanced trainer up until 2036.
https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/201 ... ht-combat/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post15 Feb 2016, 00:00

I think Rogoway doesn't realize the Finns take their security a tad more seriously than the Canadians and for good reason. :devil:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/unprec ... 1758221233


...As with Canada, the Super Hornet, especially in its mature form, would be the most logical choice for Finland as conversion would be simplified to a large degree compared to its competitors. And because Finland likes to be able to operate its fighters in austere and harsh environments, the Gripen E/F would also be a good choice.
Since Finland does not primarily use its fighter force for expeditionary warfare, the high-end capabilities and stealth technology seen of the F-35 would be hard to justify.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post15 Feb 2016, 00:00

I think Rogoway doesn't realize the Finns take their security a tad more seriously than the Canadians and for good reason. :devil:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/unprec ... 1758221233


...As with Canada, the Super Hornet, especially in its mature form, would be the most logical choice for Finland as conversion would be simplified to a large degree compared to its competitors. And because Finland likes to be able to operate its fighters in austere and harsh environments, the Gripen E/F would also be a good choice.
Since Finland does not primarily use its fighter force for expeditionary warfare, the high-end capabilities and stealth technology seen of the F-35 would be hard to justify.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests