Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5902
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Apr 2014, 08:41

loke wrote:1. If the Swedes were such lying bastards why are Hungary and Chzeckia happy to renew their contracts? And why does Thailand keep buying more Gripen in spite of their fiscal issues? Also, are you then saying that Saab managed to trick both the Swiss and Brazil into believing their "misleading" data? No doubt they have a marketing dept, and I would not trust what is coming from any marketing dept, including Saab's. However when they respond to an RFP it's a bit different.


important notes:

Gripen is not GRipen NG.

LEasing is not buying

Swiss picked gripen because it was "cheapest of the 3" Brazil picked it for political reasons and some sweet offsets.

If you want to play this game, why did south africa mothball its gripens?

2. They did not participate in Canada for obvious reasons,


I'm an idiot. may I have the obvious reasons please.


Or do you also think that Rafale and Typhoon participate because they are "cheap" compared to the F-35?


you lost me on that one.

3. Finland is not looking at buying a fighter currently. He is the MoD, his main focus currently is on the army first, navy second, and third comes upgrades of the AF. They are very, very far from doing even an RFI. Thus if you insist on believing the first version, then it boils down to yadayda-talk from a politician that simply don't have the numbers, and no time to even consider looking at them, for a purchase that is so far into the future for Finland. So to say that he "knows" that they cost the same is based on rather thin assumptions, to say the least.


its a bold assumption that you think you know what he knows.

Can he not read numbers quickly? to the point where even "considering looking at them" is just too overwhelming for the poor dear? is he 6? What does he do all day at work that keeps him so busy he can't do his job? or delegate?

does any ministry of defense in the world get the luxury of just worrying about one services problem at a time and not having to look years ahead? Damn that rocks Finland MoD. Are you taking applications? I can read numbers, and then I could tell the Minister of Defense those numbers before he went on camera. You know, so he looks like he knows what he is talking about? Do you have a guy for that? Cause I can do it.

what does finlands defense minister speaking on the record really know anyway, right? tell him to just shut up and get back in the kitchen. just shut your face minister. The internet has got this, so don't give me any of your "This is my job, I know what I am doing" lip. Defense ministers need to learn their place, and its not speaking on the record about things they are expected to know as a part of their job. You aren't fooling anyone minister. Go learn to read numbers, you silly man. I know you met with the US defense secretary in January, but you were so busy telling him about your pet cat that the F-35 never came up, so don't pretend like it did.

Amazing:

http://www.defmin.fi/index.phtml?l=en&s=318


4. I don't know how big the difference will be, that remains to be seen; clearly not as big as those "fanboys" you are so happy to fight against (where are they on this forum? If they are not here why do you keep arguing against their numbers?) Anyway this is again a useless discussions since the Gripen and the F-35 are adressing completely different markets (also see item 2 above).


GRipen NG aint cheap. And Saab is making big claims about its ability to hang with the big boys... Why some are even claiming its a 6th generation fighter.

5. The cost of the a/c will always be just a small percentage of the total; just look at how "expensive" those F-16 deals turn out to be even if the a/c is given for free.


You've got us there, a gripen will always consume less fuel than an actual combat fighter. (Ok that was a bit too far-sorry)

hornetfinn wrote: DefMin Haglund has said before in TV interview that it now seems that all potential new fighters cost about the same at 70-80 million euros each.


Well Loke thinks hes too busy to know such things, and he is probably just assuming anyway. so don't put much credit into that.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 24 Apr 2014, 09:13, edited 2 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post24 Apr 2014, 08:57

XanderCrews wrote:
2. They did not participate in Canada for obvious reasons,


I'm an idiot. may I have the obvious reasons please.
:lmao: :lmao:
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2749
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post24 Apr 2014, 13:27

popcorn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Professionals are very strongly supporting F-35, although there is relatively large anti-F-35 movement in public forums and magazines. There is also some political support for JAS Gripen NG. Our AF has pretty good idea what the Gripen and Gripen NG will be capable of and what the F-35 will be capable of. I think it's extremely likely that Finland will select F-35 (most likely A-version). Our politicians have mostly bought the equipment our military has wanted/selected. Expect the numbers be around 30-40 aircraft.


Refreshing that your country has what seems to be a pragmatic, no-nonsense approach in addressing it's security concerns. This bodes well for the F-35 which enjoys clear tech superiority over rival platforms. Finland's decision timeframe should benefit from FRP pricing while the performance of the jet in the field should address any remaining technical concerns.


I agree that Finnish timeframe for new fighters is very good one considering F-35. We are currently upgrading (mostly done) our Hornets with new equipment and especially weapons that could be directly used in F-35. We have bought: AIM-120C7, AIM-9X Block 1, JASSM, JSOW, JDAM. While some of these could be used in for example JAS Gripen NG, there would be additional integration work involved increasing costs while they would be already integrated in the F-35. That is another major consideration in our fighter purchase. Especially the A/G weapons would still have at least 10-15 years of operational service left in them when the new fighters would enter service at about 2025 or so.
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 302
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post24 Apr 2014, 19:20

If you want to play this game, why did south africa mothball its gripens?


I will play, no matter what air craft you buy you have to pay for a support contract. SA let the contract they had laps, guess what, no support no spares!
Offline

newmanfrigan

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post24 Apr 2014, 20:14

h-bomb wrote:
If you want to play this game, why did south africa mothball its gripens?


I will play, no matter what air craft you buy you have to pay for a support contract. SA let the contract they had laps, guess what, no support no spares!


South Africa's government had no interest in fighters, or their use as an implement of policy or security. SAAB merely bribed the appropriate parties with enormous amounts of cash. No thought was ever given to the employment or sustainment of the fleet by S.A. The SA airforce wanted something cheaper. That they could actually operate.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... bes-Report

This article includes SAAB admitting to a small portion of the total bribes involved. This is typical of Euro fighter deals.

Typhoon to Saudi Arabia

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/f ... di-yamamah

...and with a $500,000,000+ fine, the Euro consortium still walks away with a sweet profit.
Offline

joost

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 22 May 2010, 10:11
  • Location: Netherlands

Unread post24 Apr 2014, 22:01

Pretty simple:

Gripen, flying since somewhere around 1996 operationally, export track record: 38 sold, 28 leased.
Gripen NG, not yet flying operationally: export track record: 36 for Brazil, maybe 22 for Swiss.

F-35, flying operationally now for a few years: export track record 400 aircraft. (unless Italy cuts 45 a/c)

If the Gripen was super cheap and super performing, it would have been the opposite. I rest my case.
Offline

cola

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 559
  • Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52

Unread post25 Apr 2014, 01:03

joost wrote:F-35, flying operationally now for a few years...

You're joking, right?
Cheers, Cola
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5902
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post25 Apr 2014, 05:44

cola wrote:
joost wrote:F-35, flying operationally now for a few years...

You're joking, right?


I think when he says operationally he means as in it can fly around landing and taking off. and that it has 15,000 hours. None of which we have seen from the Gripen NG yet outside a concept demonstrator.
Choose Crews
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8349
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Apr 2014, 07:51

No, he likely means that the jets are currently being flown in an operational environment, by operational crews, being maintained by operational maintainers, as opposed to a "developmental" or "testing" environment.

That being said, nobody is inferring that it has reached IOC yet.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

joost

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 22 May 2010, 10:11
  • Location: Netherlands

Unread post25 Apr 2014, 07:57

SpudmanWP wrote:No, he likely means that the jets are currently being flown in an operational environment, by operational crews, being maintained by operational maintainers, as opposed to a "developmental" or "testing" environment.

That being said, nobody is inferring that it has reached IOC yet.


Correct! Thanks Spudman. I make the distinction between test aircraft like on Pax, and a/c flown by 58 FS etc like you describe.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5902
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post25 Apr 2014, 08:20

h-bomb wrote:
If you want to play this game, why did south africa mothball its gripens?


I will play, no matter what air craft you buy you have to pay for a support contract. SA let the contract they had laps, guess what, no support no spares!


Indeed, which must mean they weren't happy with it by loke's logic, since they didn't renew. :doh:
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 May 2014, 10:05

Lockheed and Martin’s Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon have been eliminated from the FX-III competition to build South Korea 60 new fighter jets, Yonhap News Agency reports. That leaves Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle as the only remaining aircraft vying for the contract.

Citing a source who is familiar with the matter, Yonhap reported on Friday that Lockheed Martin had failed to submit a bid that was within South Korea’s 8.3 trillion won ($7.43 billion) budget, effectively eliminating the F-35 from contention.

Then, on Sunday, South Korea’s defense procurement agency, Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), said that EADS had failed to follow procedures. As Yonhap explained the decision: “South Korea is seeking 45 one-seater aircraft and 15 two-seaters. But EADS proposed only six two-seater aircraft, which are costly to produce, due to budget problems.”

South Korea’s FX-III competition was being contested by three aircraft: Lockheed’s F-35, Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle, and the EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon. The F-35 was the early favorite among defense analysts. As James Hardy wrote on The Diplomat last November, the “FX-III should be a one-horse race.”

After 55 rounds, however, DAPA suspended bids for the contract last month after all the ones it received were above the 8.3 trillion won allocated for the program. It reopened bids last week and closed bidding on Friday.

According to Yonhap, both Boeing and EADS submitted bids before Friday that were within the program’s budget, which is the ROK’s largest defense import contract ever. With the elimination of the F-35 and Eurofighter, Boeing’s F-15SE is the only candidate still in contention. DAPA is expected to officially announce the results of its review of the bids next month.

Already, however, EADS objected to its elimination on Monday.

“I would like to stress that Eurofighter's intention has been to provide DAPA, to consider within its discretion, fully within the boundaries of the Request for Proposal (RFP), a bid package that would meet the declared essential budget,” an EADS spokesperson told Yonhap.

The spokesperson went on to say that only a preference as to the amount of twin-seat aircraft had been conveyed to the company, not a mandatory requirement. Additionally, EADS said that offering an alternative option was, a “simple, legitimate and constructive response” to the budgetary constraints South Korea faces.


http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/f-35-and ... mpetition/

We all know how it ended; SK in the end decided to use their budget on 40 F-35.

Thus it seems to me that a package of 60 Eurofighter Typhoon (of which 6 are twin-seat) cost roughly the same as 40 F-35A.

Now IF you are to believe that the F-35 and the Gripen E cost roughly the same; it seems to me that some people on this forum also need to believe that Gripen E is significantly more expensive than the Typhoon.

Another possibility is that Gripen E is cheaper than the Typhoon, and therefore also significantly cheaper than the F-35.

Why do I think Gripen E is cheaper than Typhoon? Apart from the obvious; a light, single-engine fighter vs a much bigger twin-engine fighter, both of the same generation, it has also been demonstrated in several competitons including the Swiss competition.

One surprise to me was that in Korea there was such a big difference in price between the Typhoon and the F-35. Can you really get a package of 60 Typhoon for the cost of 40 F-35.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2749
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 May 2014, 10:52

South Korean F-35 deal is supposed to be somewhat smaller than the original tender was (about $6.79 bn vs $7.7 bn). Also the final price and details are not yet negotiated, so changes in details are more than likely.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 May 2014, 11:05

hornetfinn wrote:South Korean F-35 deal is supposed to be somewhat smaller than the original tender was (about $6.79 bn vs $7.7 bn). Also the final price and details are not yet negotiated, so changes in details are more than likely.

Seems you are partly right, budget was reduced from 7.43 to 6.79, a reduction of 8.6%, still not enough to explain the 60 vs 40 (33% less a/c).

"Lockheed Martin agrees ... that the cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million," said Randy Howard, Director of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Korea Business Development in an emailed statement last week.

A separate South Korean military source briefed on the buy cautioned that although F-35 flyaway cost is expected to fall between now and first delivery, Lockheed's projections might not fully apply to South Korea as the estimate "paints a rosy picture" that appears to presuppose "the best scenario" for the progress of the F-35 program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 7220140324

So it seems SK are sceptical to LMs claims about how much the price will drop. Perhaps they should talk to the Finnish Defence Minister, since he knows about these things ... :D
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2749
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 May 2014, 11:16

loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:South Korean F-35 deal is supposed to be somewhat smaller than the original tender was (about $6.79 bn vs $7.7 bn). Also the final price and details are not yet negotiated, so changes in details are more than likely.

Seems you are partly right, budget was reduced from 7.43 to 6.79, a reduction of 8.6%, still not enough to explain the 60 vs 40 (33% less a/c).


Actually it was from 8.3 billion won to 7.34 billion won (to keep exchange rates out of this), a reduction of 13,1%. Of course that still doesn't fully explain the 60 vs 40 aircraft thing, but we do not know of exactly what these numbers contain. The 8.3 billion won was a hard limit for that tender (which proved very difficult to achieve) and that 7.34 billion won is very likely just the upper cap for the F-35 acquisition. Since we do not know what the equipment fit and all kinds of support stuff would've been, it's very difficult to compare these numbers reliably. Let's see if the Koreans publish the numbers after they have been finalized.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 12 guests