Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

hythelday

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post21 Oct 2017, 22:00

ricnunes wrote:What's all this fuzz about Finland's future fighter and the JASSM about??

If the JASSM integration is really required by the Finnish than I'm pretty sure that this is part of the tender and as such all proposals (F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet - These are all the 5 contenders for the Finnish tender, aren't they?) will take this into account even because none of the 5 contenders can currently carry the JASSM - The JASSM is currently integrated on the Legacy Hornet but still not on the Super Hornet, here:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... -16-pc.pdf

Besides I would say that integrating the JASSM on the external pylons of the F-35 shouldn't be that hard or even that costly since the JASSM is also a Lockheed Martin product.
So from all 5 contenders, the integration of the JASSM should be far easier on the F-35 and the Super Hornet compared to all other 3 remaining contenders.


I think the point of the article (and what magitsu referenced) was that Rafale or Typhoon would come together with their "indigenous" cruise missiles, and SH with a SLAM-ER, as opposed to F-35 or Gripen E which still don't carry any cruise missiles.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Oct 2017, 22:53

hythelday wrote:I think the point of the article (and what magitsu referenced) was that Rafale or Typhoon would come together with their "indigenous" cruise missiles, and SH with a SLAM-ER, as opposed to F-35 or Gripen E which still don't carry any cruise missiles.


Ok I see. However the F-35 is still ending its development and the Gripen E is still in development and I would say that the Gripen E still years away from an IOC let alone from the "ending" of its development all of this opposed to the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet whose development phases have ended for quite awhile and have been in service since then.

Nevertheless the F-35 will definitely have its cruise missile which can be carried internally, the JSM.
Norway and Australia are going to use the JSM on their F-35s so there's no reason why the F-35 couldn't come with its cruise missile - the JSM - when it comes to the Finnish tender.
Offline

white_lightning35

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07

Unread post21 Oct 2017, 23:01

What I got from the post is that "while there has been much speculation about keeping the JASSM’s, their shelf-life does in fact end about the time the Hornets are withdrawn". So the Finns will either buy new ones or a different type of missile, and if the f-35 is chosen and brought into service they supposedly won't be able to use a cruise missile with it?. I don't understand the issue. Shouldn't block 5, and with it Lrasm and JSM, be around then if the f-35 wins?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19381
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Oct 2017, 23:11

SOM-J anyone? viewtopic.php?f=54&t=27305&p=290661&hilit=IDEF#p290661
Turkey’s Roketsan highlights SOM-J stand-off missile
28 Feb 2017 Australian Defence Business Review

"...The SOM is an autonomous, long-range (250km class), low-observable, all-weather, air-to-surface weapon which can be employed against stationary and moving land and naval targets, and is already in service on Turkish Air Force F-16s and upgraded F-4E Phantom fighters.

Roketsan is now developing the SOM-J for internal carriage on the F-35, having signed a cooperation agreement Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control to jointly develop, market and support the new weapon. Roketsan says SOM-J serial production is expected to begin in 2018 following the flight tests from F-16 Block 40s in the first quarter of 2017."

Photo: http://adbr.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2 ... AD0447.jpg

Source: http://adbr.com.au/turkeys-roketsan-hig ... f-missile/
Attachments
PSAD0447.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6975
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 00:51

ricnunes wrote:So from all 5 contenders, the integration of the JASSM should be far easier on the F-35 and the Super Hornet compared to all other 3 remaining contenders.


The F-18 Super has virtually no avionics commonality with the Classic Hornet. In any case, UAI trumps any "similarity" as it only takes 3 months to do the UIA=based integration.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 01:50

SpudmanWP wrote:
ricnunes wrote:So from all 5 contenders, the integration of the JASSM should be far easier on the F-35 and the Super Hornet compared to all other 3 remaining contenders.


The F-18 Super has virtually no avionics commonality with the Classic Hornet. In any case, UAI trumps any "similarity" as it only takes 3 months to do the UIA=based integration.


Yes, that's a very good point indeed.

I really choose my words poorly regarding the Super Hornet and potential JASSM integration since I was thinking more about what I read here:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/agm ... es-014343/

Where the following can be read:
The US military intends to add the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet family to this list, and to extend F-16 compatibility to earlier Block 40 models. JASSM will also be carried by the F-35, eventually, but it’s no longer on the list of weapons for certification by the end of the development program. If and when it’s certified for the F-35 family after 2020, it will have to be carried externally, because it’s too large for the internal weapon bays.


So this doesn't mean that integrating the JASSM on the Super Hornet is easier because it's integrated on the legacy Hornet but there's already a plan to eventually integrate the JASSM on the Super Hornet and as such JASSM integration may happen faster compared to the other 3 fighter aircraft mentioned above (Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen E).

Oh and by the way, the link above also mentions that the JASSM will be integrated on the F-35 as well :wink:
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 11:13

ricnunes wrote:What's all this fuzz about Finland's future fighter and the JASSM about??

It's also about today. Currently two Finnish F/A-18C's are sitting at China Lake waiting for permission from the US to do a live fire. It's not public knowledge why this happened. Even the crews were sent home in August (integration was due to end then) since they had nothing to do. There's just a few janitors for the planes.

If this thing doesn't clear out soon, it could affect both US candidates.

ricnunes wrote:Nevertheless the F-35 will definitely have its cruise missile which can be carried internally, the JSM.
Norway and Australia are going to use the JSM on their F-35s so there's no reason why the F-35 couldn't come with its cruise missile - the JSM - when it comes to the Finnish tender.

Read the article, man. It clearly suggests that JSM is not the heavy cruise missile for penetration attack.

RAAF also found out that classic Hornet integration projects are a headache.
None of these weapons (jassm, asraam, jdam-er) are in the U.S. Navy’s Classic Hornet inventory, and Australian engineers made “some startling discoveries” during the integration process, Kitcher added.

don’t think we could repeat our F-18 Classic experience on the F-35; a higher-complexity platform with multiple security layers, Kitcher said. He was referring to the RAAF’s choice of some unique weapons to arm its F/A-18A/B Hornets

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... 35-choices

Whether UAI makes it easier or not, if there's no willingness to do own integration projects that needs to be accounted for. For Gripen this is deadly, since Brazil and Sweden have no plan to acquire land attack cruise missiles. Beside their tough scheduling in general (IOC 2023).
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 12:24

magitsu wrote:
ricnunes wrote:What's all this fuzz about Finland's future fighter and the JASSM about??

It's also about today. Currently two Finnish F/A-18C's are sitting at China Lake waiting for permission from the US to do a live fire. It's not public knowledge why this happened. Even the crews were sent home in August (integration was due to end then) since they had nothing to do. There's just a few janitors for the planes.

If this thing doesn't clear out soon, it could affect both US candidates.


Again, I would say that it affects ALL 5 candidates and not only the US candidates.
None of the 5 candidates carries the JASSM which like you said is a "cruise missile for penetration attack".
Yes, both Typhoon and Rafale can carry the Storm Shadow which is a "cruise missile with penetration attack capabilities" but guess what? This is not the missile that the Finnish Air Force has in its inventory (instead it's the JASSM), so the problem still remains the same, right?


magitsu wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Nevertheless the F-35 will definitely have its cruise missile which can be carried internally, the JSM.
Norway and Australia are going to use the JSM on their F-35s so there's no reason why the F-35 couldn't come with its cruise missile - the JSM - when it comes to the Finnish tender.

Read the article, man. It clearly suggests that JSM is not the heavy cruise missile for penetration attack.


I never said (and I hope I never implied) that the JSM was a "cruise missile for penetration attack". What I implied was that besides the JASSM (which is planned to be integrated on the F-35) the F-35 will also carry another cruise missile option (as "generalist" option and not a "penetration attack" specific option) in the form of the JSM.

And also like spazsinbad mentioned there's even a third cruise missile option for the F-35, the SOM-J.

So I don't believe for a second that the lack of cruise missile integration will be a future problem with the F-35 and as such affecting the Finnish or any other country's tender :wink:


magitsu wrote:RAAF also found out that classic Hornet integration projects are a headache.
None of these weapons (jassm, asraam, jdam-er) are in the U.S. Navy’s Classic Hornet inventory, and Australian engineers made “some startling discoveries” during the integration process, Kitcher added.

don’t think we could repeat our F-18 Classic experience on the F-35; a higher-complexity platform with multiple security layers, Kitcher said. He was referring to the RAAF’s choice of some unique weapons to arm its F/A-18A/B Hornets

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... 35-choices

Whether UAI makes it easier or not, if there's no willingness to do own integration projects that needs to be accounted for. For Gripen this is deadly, since Brazil and Sweden have no plan to acquire land attack cruise missiles. Beside their tough scheduling in general (IOC 2023).


About UAI, well I strongly believe that it will make integration a LOT easier.
I believe a good analogy specially for those that like me, worked with PC computers since the very early 1990's would be how we can appreciate what the USB interface (also a Universal/Unified interface) did for the PC industry when it came up in the late 1990's and how it made the integration of external hardware so much easier than it was ever possible before with the existing (at that time) Serial and Parallel ports.
I would say that current weapon interfaces on combat aircraft are the Serial and Parallel ports seem on PCs of the past while UAI is todays USB. :wink:

About the Gripen E, yes I agree with you.
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 13:06

SpudmanWP wrote:
ricnunes wrote:So from all 5 contenders, the integration of the JASSM should be far easier on the F-35 and the Super Hornet compared to all other 3 remaining contenders.


The F-18 Super has virtually no avionics commonality with the Classic Hornet. In any case, UAI trumps any "similarity" as it only takes 3 months to do the UIA=based integration.


µIt is not only UAI. There are also aerodynamic tests, separation tests etc.
Corporal Frisk in his very first sentences clears many things saying that Finnish are replacing capabilities (aka they do not intend to necessaril keep the very same missile in their inventory). Presently only to planes are compatible (heavy penetration cruise missiles) : Typhoon and Rafale.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 15:42

cavok wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
ricnunes wrote:So from all 5 contenders, the integration of the JASSM should be far easier on the F-35 and the Super Hornet compared to all other 3 remaining contenders.


The F-18 Super has virtually no avionics commonality with the Classic Hornet. In any case, UAI trumps any "similarity" as it only takes 3 months to do the UIA=based integration.


µIt is not only UAI. There are also aerodynamic tests, separation tests etc.
Corporal Frisk in his very first sentences clears many things saying that Finnish are replacing capabilities (aka they do not intend to necessaril keep the very same missile in their inventory).


Finland just very recently (2012-2013) purchased the JASSM, a missile that almost costs USD $1 Million per each unit and is still being integrated in the current fleet of legacy Hornets and all of this only to purchase another similar missile right away to replace the JASSM, instead of adapting the JASSM to another aircraft (like the F-35 or even the Super Hornet, Rafale or Typhoon) yeah right! :doh:

Or putting it into a slight different perspective: The Finnish JASSM contract cost 178.5 million Euros, so Finland is going to trash 178.5 million Euros and spend another similar or even higher amount of money (purchasing an other cruise missile) just because other aircraft like the Rafale or Typhoon carries another type of cruise missile (Storm Shadow), yeah right again...


cavok wrote:Presently only to planes are compatible (heavy penetration cruise missiles) : Typhoon and Rafale.


And your point is??
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 15:54

You are probably reading too much into cavok's usual intentions.

Finland did buy them recently, that's true. However 2015 to 2030, when the last fighter is supposed to be delivered, is 15 year. The shelf life for JASSM is 15 years. That batch was also the last non -ER production lot at least for now, quite likely for good.
This makes JASSM similar to what F/A-18 is now for the Finnish Air Force. They decided against SLEP for that one as well.

The minimum at this is that everyone seems to be needing one to offer for this competition.

This could still change. RFP is sent next year. By the end of this year they should be getting answers for the weapons/external avionics RFI that they just sent. It was sent to Norway and Israel beside the usual suspects. Not Turkey (SOM-J), but I guess LM will sell those anyway internationally instead of Roketsan.

In the end if this requirement is true and not only our imagination, Rafale and Typhoon got some good news. But they are still too expensive otherwise. Especially for Rafale the more older weapons are to be kept, the worse it gets. NASAMS being the 2nd most expensive Finnish system in use is going to favor continuing with AMRAAM.
Offline

mas

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 16:23

Why can't the Turkish SOM-J be offered by LMT ?

http://defense-update.com/20141024_som- ... E2KhfmUeSo
Offline

hythelday

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 16:48

mas wrote:Why can't the Turkish SOM-J be offered by LMT ?

http://defense-update.com/20141024_som- ... E2KhfmUeSo


Probably same reason why JSOW/SLAM/JSM "don't cut it" - any missile that firs into F-35 internally will lose in range/payload to whatever missile bigger than internal bay allows for.

More weapons is certainly good, there's no denying that. If FiAF wants to have a stand-off, they should have it. One reason I came up with was Finns not wanting to send a CSAR team to pick up pilot behind enemy lines - regardless of the reason why would one have to punch out. Keep in mind that those potential JASSM/SCALP targets are likely on Russian soil.

Luckly, F-35 still has quite some time to build up weapon "portfolio". At this time lack of cruise missile hurts Gripen E much more.
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 18:54

Ehmm... I just said it might be offered even though Turkey wasn't included in the distribution of the weapons RFI. Because the US inquiry, which will be passed to LM among others might cover it.

Israel is interesting, given they are planning to integrate weapons to F-35. Their government was included in the inquiry.

That RFI will probably also catch some projects that aren't public knowledge.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 21:28

magitsu wrote:Finland did buy them recently, that's true. However 2015 to 2030, when the last fighter is supposed to be delivered, is 15 year. The shelf life for JASSM is 15 years. That batch was also the last non -ER production lot at least for now, quite likely for good.
This makes JASSM similar to what F/A-18 is now for the Finnish Air Force. They decided against SLEP for that one as well.


Well, even if that's the case, a 15 year period is more than enough to integrate not only one but several cruise missiles in the F-35.
So, in terms of planned cruise missile integration for the F-35 we have:
- JASSM (external only, just like ANY OTHER competitor)
- JSM (doesn't have the same penetration attack capabilities as the JASSM but it can be carried internally and it can be used against a wider array of targets including for example naval targets - something that unless I'm mistaken the JASSM and the Storm Shadow aren't capable - as well as land targets).
- SOM-J (similar to the JSM but there's also a penetration attack capable version of this missile - the SOM-B2 - which can only be carried externally but then again ANY OTHER competitor can only carry any and all weapons except the gun externally!).
- JSOW-C and JSOW-C1 -> Actually I forgot about this one: It has the same penetration attack capabilities as the JASSM/Storm Shadow, the C1 variant can be used against moving targets (namely naval) and can be carried internally. It has a shorter range compared to the JASSM/Storm Shadow BUT it's still has a very long range nevertheless and it's likely cheaper and the Stealth capabilities of the F-35 certainly offsets the shorter range of the JSOW. In the end, a JSOW-ER variant is being developed which should give the missile a range similar to those of the JASSM and Storm Shadow.
- And who knows, probably I'm still forgetting other(s) here. And I would even dare to say that there are more cruise missile options being planned for integration into the F-35 compared to ANY OTHER competitor.


magitsu wrote:The minimum at this is that everyone seems to be needing one to offer for this competition.

This could still change. RFP is sent next year. By the end of this year they should be getting answers for the weapons/external avionics RFI that they just sent. It was sent to Norway and Israel beside the usual suspects. Not Turkey (SOM-J), but I guess LM will sell those anyway internationally instead of Roketsan.

In the end if this requirement is true and not only our imagination, Rafale and Typhoon got some good news. But they are still too expensive otherwise. Especially for Rafale the more older weapons are to be kept, the worse it gets. NASAMS being the 2nd most expensive Finnish system in use is going to favor continuing with AMRAAM.


As you can see above there's PLENTY of cruise missile options for the F-35 and all in-line and planned to be integrated so if (and as you correctly implied, this is really an IF) the Finns really requires cruise missile capabilities for its future fighter it certainly won't be because of this reason that the F-35 won't be selected by Finland :wink:
Last edited by ricnunes on 22 Oct 2017, 23:26, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests