Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 17:18
by spazsinbad
Haglund advises against JAS fighter acquisition 22 Apr 2014

"Carl Haglund (SFP), the Minister of Defence, has rejected the proposal by Eero Heinäluoma (SDP), the Speaker of the Parliament, to acquire JAS Gripen fighters from Sweden in a bid to promote Nordic co-operation.

“The Finnish Air Force must get the best equipment we can afford,” Haglund states....

...“Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish JAS fighters when we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment,” emphasises Haglund.

The current defence appropriations, he admits, will not suffice for the planned fighter acquisition. “There may be fewer aircraft than at present, but the price tag will be a minimum of five billion euros. A special funding is required.”...

...According to Haglund, discussions during last week's meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg indicate that several European countries are poised to increase their defence spending as a consequence of the crisis in Ukraine. “The conclusion drawn by many a country […] is that more money must be spent on defence. There are no other options. To me, it's surprising how many countries are set to do so,” reveals Haglund...."

SOURCE: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/fin ... ition.html

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 18:24
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:
Haglund advises against JAS fighter acquisition 22 Apr 2014

"Carl Haglund (SFP), the Minister of Defence, has rejected the proposal by Eero Heinäluoma (SDP), the Speaker of the Parliament, to acquire JAS Gripen fighters from Sweden in a bid to promote Nordic co-operation.

“The Finnish Air Force must get the best equipment we can afford,” Haglund states....

...“Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish JAS fighters when we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment,” emphasises Haglund.

The current defence appropriations, he admits, will not suffice for the planned fighter acquisition. “There may be fewer aircraft than at present, but the price tag will be a minimum of five billion euros. A special funding is required.”...

...According to Haglund, discussions during last week's meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg indicate that several European countries are poised to increase their defence spending as a consequence of the crisis in Ukraine. “The conclusion drawn by many a country […] is that more money must be spent on defence. There are no other options. To me, it's surprising how many countries are set to do so,” reveals Haglund...."

SOURCE: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/fin ... ition.html



hey look another indicator that the Gripen NG isn't going to "cheap"

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 19:23
by gtx
And yet, over on Defense-aerospace.com they have the hide to "correct" (their actual words!) the announcement to downplay the F-35 bit.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 21:56
by loke
It seems Janes has a slightly different version:

Finland should reject overtures to procure the Saab Gripen E fighter aircraft, if the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be acquired at a comparable cost, the country's defence minister said on 22 April.

As reported in the Helsinki Times , Carl Haglund said Finland should not put Nordic defence co-operation ahead of performance when choosing between the Swedish-built Gripen E and the US-built F-35, providing there is little difference in cost between the two types.

"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish [Gripen E] fighters if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," he is quoted as saying.


While Haglund's comments would appear to indicate Finland favours the F-35 as a potential replacement for the air force's current 55 Boeing F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornet fighters, his use of the word 'if' would suggest the Gripen E might be best placed to secure any such requirement.



http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finl ... ister-says


(and before somebody comments that the Janes article seems to refer to the helsinki Times article which is the "original"; note that the original article was in Finnish, the one qouted in the first post was a translation into English -- ever heard the expression "lost in translation"...?)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 22:08
by hb_pencil
loke wrote:It seems Janes has a slightly different version:

Finland should reject overtures to procure the Saab Gripen E fighter aircraft, if the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be acquired at a comparable cost, the country's defence minister said on 22 April.

As reported in the Helsinki Times , Carl Haglund said Finland should not put Nordic defence co-operation ahead of performance when choosing between the Swedish-built Gripen E and the US-built F-35, providing there is little difference in cost between the two types.

"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish [Gripen E] fighters if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," he is quoted as saying.


While Haglund's comments would appear to indicate Finland favours the F-35 as a potential replacement for the air force's current 55 Boeing F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornet fighters, his use of the word 'if' would suggest the Gripen E might be best placed to secure any such requirement.



http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finl ... ister-says


(and before somebody comments that the Janes article seems to refer to the helsinki Times article which is the "original"; note that the original article was in Finnish, the one qouted in the first post was a translation into English -- ever heard the expression "lost in translation"...?)


I would suspect that Janes emphasis is different, in some part because they were hired by SAAB to comment how much cheaper their aircraft is to operate over its competitors. That report was shoddily done, yet they have to defend it as part of their work (It uses the much discredited $5000 dollars CPFH figure). So its in their best interest to go and say "its only an IF the price is right," rather than what the Helsinki times claims. The reality is that, like what I've said here several times, the Gripen's acquisition price will be near that of the F-35 by the time both reach full rate production, sometime after 2016 or so.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 22:15
by popcorn
Hmmm.. apparently the closer one is to Russia, the greater the interest in the JSF. Thanks Vlad. :D

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 22:17
by loke
hb_pencil wrote:
loke wrote:It seems Janes has a slightly different version:

Finland should reject overtures to procure the Saab Gripen E fighter aircraft, if the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be acquired at a comparable cost, the country's defence minister said on 22 April.

As reported in the Helsinki Times , Carl Haglund said Finland should not put Nordic defence co-operation ahead of performance when choosing between the Swedish-built Gripen E and the US-built F-35, providing there is little difference in cost between the two types.

"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish [Gripen E] fighters if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," he is quoted as saying.


While Haglund's comments would appear to indicate Finland favours the F-35 as a potential replacement for the air force's current 55 Boeing F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornet fighters, his use of the word 'if' would suggest the Gripen E might be best placed to secure any such requirement.



http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finl ... ister-says


(and before somebody comments that the Janes article seems to refer to the helsinki Times article which is the "original"; note that the original article was in Finnish, the one qouted in the first post was a translation into English -- ever heard the expression "lost in translation"...?)


I would suspect that Janes emphasis is different, in some part because they were hired by SAAB to comment how much cheaper their aircraft is to operate over its competitors. That report was shoddily done, yet they have to defend it as part of their work (It uses the much discredited $5000 dollars CPFH figure). So its in their best interest to go and say "its only an IF the price is right," rather than what the Helsinki times claims. The reality is that, like what I've said here several times, the Gripen's acquisition price will be near that of the F-35 by the time both reach full rate production, sometime after 2016 or so.

The reality is that you really don't know, unless you have access to information that is not public accessible -- let's wait and see what the costs will be around 2020 or so.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 22:58
by spazsinbad
HAGGLING over the meaning of 'IF' is excellent. An ex-Prez of USA was famous for haggling about another two letter word. I like it - but 2020 is way too long to wait for an answer - doncha thunk? :devil:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 23:17
by hb_pencil
loke wrote:The reality is that you really don't know, unless you have access to information that is not public accessible -- let's wait and see what the costs will be around 2020 or so.


Lets not wait, because Saab certainly hasn't been in regards to Canada. They have been happy to give us misleading data on the aircraft's cost in order to create as much political disruption as possible. They have said on numerous occasions they never believed they had a chance, but have been happy to say all manner of things in order to further the political mess in our state.

And yes I do have perspective on the Gripen's costing that isn't out there in the public, based on my own work. Is it an exact amount? no, its a pretty rough estimate. I've shown here before ways you can come to that cost based on other contracts and information, like Brazil or Norway.

viewtopic.php?p=266783#p266783

Certainly there are significant unknowns to that, I would admit. However, now you see Defence minister of a neighbouring country to Sweden (one of its closest in terms of relations), suggest the F-35 may well be as cheap as the Gripen. Do you really think he's going to say that if there is no chance that will happen, or based on no information whatsoever? Of course not. He's got a briefing, presumably undertaken by his MOD, which estimates the prices will be pretty close in the future. I assume he's got "not publicly available" information to make that assessment.

What I'm really getting at is that the claims by gripen supporters that the NG is some sort of wunderplane that will be 30~50% cheaper to acquire than the F-35 and 80% cheaper to operate just aren't factual at all. Might it be 10~15% difference? Maybe, and yes we can wait to see that. However 10~15% is enough to make some reasonable inferences about capabilities and force structure decisions that we can talk about.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 23:53
by spazsinbad
Another bite of the 'IF' question. IF the DefMinOfFin says this: "...Performance must take precedence in the investment..." whereis the IF there? I guess one would have to argue that the GripenE will perform better than whatever?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 00:43
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
(and before somebody comments that the Janes article seems to refer to the helsinki Times article which is the "original"; note that the original article was in Finnish, the one qouted in the first post was a translation into English -- ever heard the expression "lost in translation"...?)


that's being pretty generous, and certainly letting Jane's off the hook. The alternative looks pretty ugly

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 05:47
by Corsair1963
Finland is not going to purchase a New Fighter in the short-term. Then by time it is ready the price of the F-35 will be considerably lower and it's capabilities will be well known. :wink:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 06:38
by loke
hb_pencil wrote:
loke wrote:The reality is that you really don't know, unless you have access to information that is not public accessible -- let's wait and see what the costs will be around 2020 or so.


Lets not wait, because Saab certainly hasn't been in regards to Canada. They have been happy to give us misleading data on the aircraft's cost in order to create as much political disruption as possible. They have said on numerous occasions they never believed they had a chance, but have been happy to say all manner of things in order to further the political mess in our state.

And yes I do have perspective on the Gripen's costing that isn't out there in the public, based on my own work. Is it an exact amount? no, its a pretty rough estimate. I've shown here before ways you can come to that cost based on other contracts and information, like Brazil or Norway.

viewtopic.php?p=266783#p266783

Certainly there are significant unknowns to that, I would admit. However, now you see Defence minister of a neighbouring country to Sweden (one of its closest in terms of relations), suggest the F-35 may well be as cheap as the Gripen. Do you really think he's going to say that if there is no chance that will happen, or based on no information whatsoever? Of course not. He's got a briefing, presumably undertaken by his MOD, which estimates the prices will be pretty close in the future. I assume he's got "not publicly available" information to make that assessment.

What I'm really getting at is that the claims by gripen supporters that the NG is some sort of wunderplane that will be 30~50% cheaper to acquire than the F-35 and 80% cheaper to operate just aren't factual at all. Might it be 10~15% difference? Maybe, and yes we can wait to see that. However 10~15% is enough to make some reasonable inferences about capabilities and force structure decisions that we can talk about.

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.

2. They did not participate in Canada for obvious reasons, and they are not related to the cost of the a/c. Or do you also think that Rafale and Typhoon participate because they are "cheap" compared to the F-35?


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.

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).

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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 06:53
by hornetfinn
Finland has the need for new fighters to replace our current F/A-18C/D Hornets during 2025-2030 time frame. That means that first of our Hornets will be phased out by 2025 and last Hornet will likely be phased out at about 2030 or so. It also means that we must begin our evaluation phase pretty soon as the actual buy should be done several years before that (about 2020-2022). I'm sure we will do very thorough evaluation as done before Hornet deal, but now it seems that there are very few real candidates for the time frame we would need those new fighters (2025-2060+). 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.

In Finland the 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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 07:32
by popcorn
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 08:41
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 08:57
by lookieloo
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:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 13:27
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 19:20
by h-bomb
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!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 20:14
by newmanfrigan
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 22:01
by joost
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 01:03
by cola
joost wrote:F-35, flying operationally now for a few years...

You're joking, right?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 05:44
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 07:51
by SpudmanWP
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 07:57
by joost
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 08:20
by XanderCrews
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:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 10:05
by loke
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 10:52
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 11:05
by loke
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

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 11:16
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 12:11
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
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.

Well, to nitpick further, in won it is actually 11.6% reduction in budget.

I find it interesting that after a lot of general claims that Gripen and F-35 will cost roughly the same, when Typhoon seems to come out much cheaper than the F-35 in one and the same competition it suddenly becomes "very difficult to compare these numbers reliably".....

Of course that's difficult however how on earth can people then claim that they already "know" that F-35 and Gripen will cost roughly the same?

For South Korea (or Switzerland) to be able to compare different offers, the vendors must follow rules and specifications of the customer that are designed to allow a comparison of the offers. Thus, although there will be some uncertainty and variance, in one and same competition one should expect to see comparable offers and packages, otherwise the "competition" becomes completely useless.

My take-home is that LM believes F-35 costs will drop very significantly the next 4 years; but that not everybody (including SK) is convinced yet that the prices will drop as much as LM insist they will. And that as of today, F-35 is still a very expensive plane, and (surprisingly to me) is still more expensive than the Typhoon, which is known to be a rather expensive fighter jet.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 13:32
by bring_it_on
From what i remember reading Lockheed was able to adjust its offering during R2 of the competition as it had hard data from the LRIP7 deal and from prelim work on the LRIP8 deal. The trend of cost etc was right in front of them as opposed to the last time they did such an exercise based on LRIP4 and LRIP5 costs. Any future FMS deal would given them the hindsight of seeing how the cost equation changes from LRIP7 to LRIP9 (production bump from 34 to 57) and beyond LRIP 10 as the program enters full rate of production. While the Gripen and Typhoon programs are mature and much into their overall production numbers, the f-35 is just getting started. To nail down the cost at full rate of production years out is not an easy task especially given what can happen between then and now with the ramp up.

You are correct in the assessment that Lockheed would/could better convince future buyers if they present hard data from negotiated contracts from previous sales. Just as they were armed with LRIP 7 data instead of LRIP4/5 data for the FX competition, they'd be much better armed to drive home their cost-assesment if they show up to a future competition with LRIP 9 data or one from the first few full production lots.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 13:40
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:I'm an idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself! :)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 16:01
by SpudmanWP
loke wrote: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.


Keep in mind that it was 60 FRP Eurofighters vs 40 (mostly) LRIP F-35As.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 16:31
by loke
SpudmanWP wrote:
loke wrote: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.


Keep in mind that it was 60 FRP Eurofighters vs 40 (mostly) LRIP F-35As.

I know, and I already pointed out that also for the Gripen E the first a/c will be more expensive than those produced later on.

For SK, I believe it's LRIP 10 or so? How many F-35 have been produced by then? will it be around 300?

To compare like with like, let's compare the price of the first 50 Gripen E with the first 50 F-35....

Or we can compare the price of Gripens 300-350 produced, to F-35 300-350 produced... :devil:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 17:48
by bring_it_on
loke wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
loke wrote: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.


Keep in mind that it was 60 FRP Eurofighters vs 40 (mostly) LRIP F-35As.

I know, and I already pointed out that also for the Gripen E the first a/c will be more expensive than those produced later on.

For SK, I believe it's LRIP 10 or so? How many F-35 have been produced by then? will it be around 300?

To compare like with like, let's compare the price of the first 50 Gripen E with the first 50 F-35....

Or we can compare the price of Gripens 300-350 produced, to F-35 300-350 produced... :devil:


To be honest, that would be a rather questionable way to compare programs. The Gripen program was never designed to have a production line at triple digit production rates for example (starters). What might be an LRIP production rate for the JSF may be the highest other fighter programs will ever achieve per year, at full production. The No of F-35's ordered between LRIP 1 and 9 would be 255. Not sure what the scheduled purchase for LRIP 10 is but if it is the same as LRIP 9 then around 300 fighters (which is still around 10-15% of what the total production is expected to be) would be delivered or in some stage of assembly / long lead procurements by the time the LRIP 10 jets get into production. The F-35 rolls out of an assembly line (irrespective of LRIP block) with an AESA, An integrated targeting, FLIR/IRST combo, and HMD (which the rafale for example gets just now) therefore its not a very straight forward way to compare programs.

The best way to compare the gripen or any other fighter with the F-35 as a matter of "economics" is to take it on a per BID / CONTEST basis. The ROKAF competition showed us that the F-35 was perhaps 30-35% more expensive to procure for those delivery dates (deliveries starting LRIP 10, and going into an unknown production ramp up post that). The status of the F-35 program is way different from the Typhoon. The F-35 is still in testing, with mission capability delivery out into the future. The F-35's production is still in LRIP mode etc etc etc. It would be tough for Lockheed (given the circumstances) to live up to the expectations that it could still be under the typhoon bid amount. Perhaps once block 3 capability is handed over the warfighter ( 2018 or so) and full production rate is well in motion, can the F-35's true upfront cost be determined as a relative to that of fully tested, certified and In service (FOC) Typhoons or any other program that is looking to offer upgrades to its proven designs.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 18:03
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I'm an idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself! :)


I seem to be given more credit than you did the Finnish Defense Minister though, so thats a plus. The Poor thing is apparently helpless.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 18:57
by lookieloo
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I'm an idiot.
Don't be so hard on yourself! :)
I had wondered if you possessed the wherewithal to answer the question to which that hyperbole was attached... guess not.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 19:31
by bumtish
The Finnish defence minister have good reason to predict that Gripen E and F-35A pricing will be in roughly the same bracket.

The Finnish air force need to recapitalize post 2025.

In 2019 F-35A is anticipated to cost $75 mn in 2014 dollars.

1. Learning curve effects will take place beyond 2019 and into the first half of of the 2020s. It would be reasonable to expect lower unit costs post 2025 when the learning curve effects are fully realised.

2. Full rate production takes place after 2019 which is an LRIP lot; e.g. US orders for F-35s in 2019 stand at 96 units and 120 in 2020+.

3. AFAIK MYP contract effects are not included in the SARs. If so then further reductions can be expected. Example: latest Super Hornet contract reduced price with 6%.

It seems Gripen E URF comes in at $50-60 mn. With SH in the same ballpark. The cheapest fighters in the West!

But if the F-35A comes in at 10-20% above that, then in acquistion terms we are roughly in the same bracket. Because at those differences, the systems which provide the better capability will win!

Which is what the Finnish minister of defence is hinting at. He won't sacrifice capability over a cost saving of that magnitude. And not for industrial cooperation with Sweden either.

Yes I know the naysayers seek refuge and comfort in announced contract numbers and look to Briganti and Wheeler style analyses of the numbers. But hey, they ignore the three points above. B&W also amortize the huge costs of standing up bases and squadrons and establing training facilities and many other things over current lots consisting of a few scores of aircraft. Costs which will largely go away post 2018 and at that time will be spread over larger quantities.

They are ignoring what these numbers mean.

So cometh 2018 are Briganti and Wheeler going to change their premise for their methods at that time, because it will look really bad continuing presenting them like this? Or is it part of the calculation that they do more damage now and the heck with what comes later?

Hummm..

What about operating costs?

F-35A will at 2025 plug into a huge logistics system. Bigger aircraft can beat smaller ones on this parameter if built in multiples of numbers. Win F-35.

RDT&E for F-35 is spread across a huge customer base. The F-35 will beat Gripen E on this cost variable. Unless Gripen E development is very modest. Did I mention Gripen E development is not funded post 2026?

Outside of the US the concept of staffing for the same tasks and readiness/depoyability is also much less lavish than what is reflected in US numbers. Expect that Finnish (and partner) costs for operating the aircraft to be lower (this is what Bogdan is talking about when mentioning that CPFH for individual customers should be developed).

In short, Gripen E, being the smaller aircraft, may have lower direct costs, where only fuel and basic maintenance is included. But owning an aircraft - a capability, over a lifetime - and producing flight hours, is much more than that.

F-35A eats the Gripen E on items other than direct costs per flight hour.

And this is where there the naysayers put the tinfoil hat on and say that the Norwegian competition reports are fudged. But they were not. They just took the above points into consideration. And also added a fair deal of project risk on top.

(in fact, if you remove the $9B of project risk added to the Gripen E in the Norwegian eval you end up with the F-35 being 10% more expensive!)

P.S. I know the 414 may be more fuel efficent that the 404. But if the Gripen A/B had a fuel per flight hour design-to-cost of $3500, then not much can be done with what is left after the $4500 the Brazilian Air Force says it costs to run the Gripen for an hour.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 20:46
by loke
lookieloo wrote:
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I'm an idiot.
Don't be so hard on yourself! :)
I had wondered if you possessed the wherewithal to answer the question to which that hyperbole was attached... guess not.

You guessed wrong. It's just that I don't want to waste my time, since some people here seem to have made up their minds on a number of things. In other words, providing a response would be pointless.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 23:44
by lookieloo
loke wrote:
lookieloo wrote:I had wondered if you possessed the wherewithal to answer the question to which that hyperbole was attached... guess not.
You guessed wrong. It's just that I don't want to waste my time, since some people here seem to have made up their minds on a number of things. In other words, providing a response would be pointless.
In other words, you know exactly how idiotic said response would sound to anyone not wearing a tinfoil hat.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 06:35
by loke
lookieloo wrote:
loke wrote:
lookieloo wrote:I had wondered if you possessed the wherewithal to answer the question to which that hyperbole was attached... guess not.
You guessed wrong. It's just that I don't want to waste my time, since some people here seem to have made up their minds on a number of things. In other words, providing a response would be pointless.
In other words, you know exactly how idiotic said response would sound to anyone not wearing a tinfoil hat.

look lookieloo, you are wrong, again :doh:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 07:03
by lookieloo
loke wrote:look lookieloo, you are wrong, again :doh:
Ok, you feel that your superior intellect exempts you from explaining the basis for your claims to anyone else... we get it... you don't want to lay your pearls before us swine. Unfortunately, "nuh-uh" ain't gonna cut it around here, so go ahead and tell everyone why Gripen didn't participate in Canada, I dare you.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 08:01
by mk82
Loke, the Eurofighter Typhhon is not a good example of necessarily being cheaper than the F35. Auditors for the German government recently discovered that the support cost for the Luftwaffe's Eurofighter will be much more than what was originally forecasted (much much more!). Sure, its not an apple to apple comparison but it does raise the possibility that the Eurofighter consortium deliberately (?not entirely honest) underestimates the support cost of the Eurofighter.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 08:14
by loke
lookieloo wrote:
loke wrote:look lookieloo, you are wrong, again :doh:
Ok, you feel that your superior intellect exempts you from explaining the basis for your claims to anyone else... we get it... you don't want to lay your pearls before us swine. Unfortunately, "nuh-uh" ain't gonna cut it around here, so go ahead and tell everyone here why Gripen didn't participate in Canada, I dare you.

Superior intellect -- LOL remember that irony does not convey well on the internet.

OK I I'll bite :D

Several factors come into play when deciding what to buy, the most important being; technical capabilities, politics, and economy.

Canada is a very close ally of the US, and operates closely with the US on a number of different levels. Thus a 4th very important factor is interoperability with NATO allies in particular and the US in particular.

In addition to the above, Canada is also F-35 partner.

That Canada will go for F-35 is therefore a "no-brainer". One of the very few things that can potentially "ruin" that would be if some stupid politicians in Canada decides that the F-35 will be too expensive. Or that huge rocks from out space hits LM and P&W manufacturing facilities.

However in the (highly unlikely) scenario that happens, the SH will clearly be the second option; it is US made, it is quite capable, Boeing is desperate to sell more and will offer a "good deal", and it is an evolution of what Canada flies today. But again this is very very unlikely to happen.

Thus; the probability that any other fighter than the F-35 or the SH will have a chance of winning in Canada is very very close to zero.

Capabilities: Although Gripen is growing with the E version it remains a lightweight fighter and might be too far away from the capabilities that Canada is looking for. Thus; even if LM and Boeing goes bankrupt tomorrow, Gripen would probably still not be the first choice in Canada, it's probably too small.

However as if the above reasons were not enough (they should be!) I believe there is another reason why Saab is not participating in Canada: Saab is a small company and they can support only so many competitions around the world. Let's say they can target 4-5 countries at any time. The logical thing would then be to look around, make an assessment of the probability of a win, and target the countries with a highest probability of a win. Switzerland is obviously in (50% chance of "winning" in the referendum); Malaysia (Gripen cheaper than Rafale/Typhoon/SH, and can offer a cheap lease deal); Indonesia (needs a very cost-effective solution) and a few other countries.

Canada would be very long down on that list... Saab sees real opportunities in other places; in Canada it does not currently see an opportunity at all, mainly for the above-listed reasons.

Re: Finnish DefMin interest in F-35s, NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 08:17
by loke
mk82 wrote:Loke, the Eurofighter Typhhon is not a good example of necessarily being cheaper than the F35. Auditors for the German government recently discovered that the support cost for the Luftwaffe's Eurofighter will be much more than what was originally forecasted (much much more!). Sure, its not an apple to apple comparison but it does raise the possibility that the Eurofighter consortium deliberately (?not entirely honest) underestimates the support cost of the Eurofighter.

LOL I am aware of that -- however this useless thread is mainly about the cost of purchasing the stuff not operating it :wink:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 08:35
by lookieloo
loke wrote:OK I I'll bite :D
Alright... in so many words, you've basically admitted that F-35 provides superior cost-benefit to anything else... along with being a politically-sound choice to boot.


What are you doing here again? :? Perhaps your irony isn't conveying well across the internet.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2014, 15:28
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
In addition to the above, Canada is also F-35 partner.

That Canada will go for F-35 is therefore a "no-brainer". One of the very few things that can potentially "ruin" that would be if some stupid politicians in Canada decides that the F-35 will be too expensive. Or that huge rocks from out space hits LM and P&W manufacturing facilities.

However in the (highly unlikely) scenario that happens, the SH will clearly be the second option; it is US made, it is quite capable, Boeing is desperate to sell more and will offer a "good deal", and it is an evolution of what Canada flies today. But again this is very very unlikely to happen.

Thus; the probability that any other fighter than the F-35 or the SH will have a chance of winning in Canada is very very close to zero.



I wonder why other eurocanards are trying then?

Canada has been an F-35 partner since 1997--wonder why Saab wasted its time trying to convince Canada for a split buy at all? seeing as its a no brainer and all, and below you explain that Saab doesn't mess around with bids it can't win, I wonder why the bothered with the Canadian No Brainer as much as they did? I wonder why they withdrew so quickly while others stayed, and before the Canadians could take a good look at them?

The reason I heard they withdrew is they got caught trying to sell some Bull poo to the Canadians one too many times, and they didn't want a detailed audit similar to the ones being run on the F-35 to taint there claims and learn that...


...Wait for it


The Gripen NG and F-35 are going to be near the same cost to buy just as the Clueless Finnish Defense Minister claims (poor stupid thing)

However as if the above reasons were not enough (they should be!) I believe there is another reason why Saab is not participating in Canada: Saab is a small company and they can support only so many competitions around the world. Let's say they can target 4-5 countries at any time. The logical thing would then be to look around, make an assessment of the probability of a win, and target the countries with a highest probability of a win. Switzerland is obviously in (50% chance of "winning" in the referendum); Malaysia (Gripen cheaper than Rafale/Typhoon/SH, and can offer a cheap lease deal); Indonesia (needs a very cost-effective solution) and a few other countries.


Bang up job so far! Saab has only withdrawn NG from Canada, and lost in India and Norway, looks like they won't have to bother with Finland at least. it will be fun to see how future contests shake out. (you know if they bother to enter them at all against all the other "no brainers")

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 03:18
by bumtish
Now it is time to elaborate on my previous post. Hang on, it will be worth it!

First a little detour to the comptrollers office for some budget materials (P-40 exhibits) where we will see how actual contract prices have gone below previous years estimates.

Sources are:
Air Force Aircraft Procurement Vol 1, FY14 page 63
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 08-079.pdf

Air Force Aircraft Procurement, Vol I, FY15 page 37
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 10-041.pdf

How to read dollar figures in the P-40? Well, the dollar amounts in the column of the budget year is the estimate and in that years dollar value. To the left you have realized values in dollar values of those years. Thus, using these documents we can compare what was predicted for FY13 and was the actual contract value.

Estimated flyaway/gross unit system cost 2013, million $
153.114 / 176.488

Realized flyaway/gross unit system cost 2013, million $
126.859 / 145.324

Realized flyaway/gross unit system cost 2013, in % below estimate
20.1% / 22.0%

When that 22% popped up, I instantly connected it to Brigantis editorial Recent Statements by F-35 Program Chief Strains Credibility.

But that link somehow doesn't work anymore....

But fortunately SMsgtMac was on top of things and caught Briganti airing his skepticism.

The $98 million cost quoted by DellaVedova is $28.8 million lower than the $126.8 million budgeted by the US Air Force for LRIP 7 aircraft, implying that the JPO was able to negotiate a reduction of 22% in the price of F-35A fighters

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.dk/2014 ... y2019.html


It could seem that the F-35 has beaten all pessimistic cost predictions since 2010 by a large margin.

But I went to the comptroller to get the gross unit system cost of the F-35A. Because the gross unit system cost of the Gripen for Switzerland is also known (but somehow not made public to the English-speaking community by the Gripen proponents).

Acquisition phase cost of the Gripen E for Switzerland is budgeted to $3.4B. This doesn't tell us much. But documents and details were leaked to the Swedish engineering journal nyteknik.se.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_m ... 776435.ece

From this we know that the Swiss lease of interim Gripen C/D will cost the Swiss $280M. We can also see that the price of the Gripen E hardware and service rendered from Saab amounts to SEK17.7B. This is very close to the definition of gross unit system cost and it translates to $121M per plane!

F-35A LRIP7 was $145.324M. Even when being very, very conservative, LRIP7 is already within 30% of the price for an Gripen E export customer.

It is of course possible to point to other F-35A partners like the Netherlands. Here we shall remember that the €4.7B the Dutch set aside is an acquisition phase cost, not just the price of hardware and services from LM. It also includes €500M which has been spent on SDD and €300-400M used on two OET&E aircraft. So only €3.9 is left for the actual acquisition phase. And of this 10% is set aside for risk, which will be spent on additional F-35s if not used. The budget is also based on estimates, where real contract values have gone below (and which the Norwegians have confirmed in their press releases when finalizing contracts). Going by the Swiss ratio of acquisition phase/hardware money, the funding available for the dutch for hardware and services from LM would be €3.1B for the remaining 35 F-35. That is a gross unit system cost of $123M by the way. Gripen E was $121... Australia has budgeted with AUD130M gross...

So just scratch the surface and understand what lies beneath the big numbers instead of reinforcing a flawed narrative.

Finally, on direct costs... There can be found examples that much heavier aircraft can cost the same LCC. For instance I have recently been cued that The Seahawk won over the Wildcat in Denmark. The Seahawk weighs 60% more but cost the same LCC. The Seahawk happens to have 10 times the numbers over the Wildcat.

Just like fighters, helo DMC also correlate strongly with weight.

Using weight as a first order approximation is fair. But it assumes all is equal which it is not. If one aircraft is operated in 10 times the quantities the approximation is no longer a fair representation.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 14:46
by loke
bumtish, I think BIO had a great point when he suggested that comparisons make the most sense within a competition, I think they must be done with great care between. Consider that:

1. In Switzerland the Typhoon bid was significantly more expensive than the Gripen E (T > E)

2. In SK the bid F-35 bid was significantly more expensive than the Typhoon (F > T)

It is difficult to make sense of items 1 and 2 if you want to reconcile with the claim that:

3. "Gripen E and F-35 cost the same" ("F > T, T > E, F = E")

unless you bring some other factors in. Keep in mind both the SK and Swiss sales are for roughly the same period, AFAIK (delivery starting 2018).

Also interesting to note is that when I pointed out that Typhoon was cheaper than F-35 in SK, it was explained by referring to LRIP, and the cost curve for F-35 that has not gone down yet... well if you want to make such considerations for F-35 would it then not be fair to do the same for Gripen E? Consider that the Swiss Gripens Es will be among the very first produced (if they vote yes in the referendum). One alternative would be to recognize that costs of all a/c (not just the F-35) is changing as a function of a number of factors including numbers of a/c produced at the time, TOT, offsets, "add-ons", etc, etc.

I have the impression that most of you seem to assume that only F-35 will keep coming down in price, and this cannot happen with the Gripen E. Obviously Saab would need to sell more to bring costs further down, however considering that 2 export countries have selected it even before the first E has been finalized, I would say that's a quite good sign. Rafale, Typhoon, SH, none of them were in such a position at that point in the development.

One final comment about a difference of say, 10%; if we are talking about, say, 2billion USD then 10% is 200 million USD. For some countries that's peanuts however for other countries 200 million USD may be a significant amount of money.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 15:29
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
I have the impression that most of you seem to assume that only F-35 will keep coming down in price, and this cannot happen with the Gripen E. Obviously Saab would need to sell more to bring costs further down, however considering that 2 export countries have selected it even before the first E has been finalized, I would say that's a quite good sign. Rafale, Typhoon, SH, none of them were in such a position at that point in the development.



I have the impression that you assume that the Gripen would be mass produced by the thousands and can be compared to the JSF plans in the slightest.

As of right now there are just over 100 that are going to be produced on 2 different assembly lines. This is not at all close to the JSF model mass production model. the costs will come down, but not nearly to the level you are trying to compare with JSF. Because its simply not as efficient. this has been brought up many times with the fantabulous eurocanard deals, and was of course also brought up with Canada as Saab not surprisingly offered Canada the moon including production. (remember Saab withdrew for reasons that are obvious?) The additional cost is not seen as a hindrance thanks to all the jobs its brings, but it is additional cost and an inefficient production scale.

I know it sounds silly to a lot of people now but that was the purpose of the JSF. To come together to deliver an advanced aircraft at an affordable price by pooling resources. Thanks to this the JSF will be able offer excellent value. I think a lot of countries like say, Finland with their kooky defense minister realize that the cost goal will be realized and that they don't have to jump in and buy it right now, but can wait 10 years and reap all the rewards anyway, While the Gripen NG purchase cost will remain relatively high for what it is.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 16:23
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:
I have the impression that most of you seem to assume that only F-35 will keep coming down in price, and this cannot happen with the Gripen E. Obviously Saab would need to sell more to bring costs further down, however considering that 2 export countries have selected it even before the first E has been finalized, I would say that's a quite good sign. Rafale, Typhoon, SH, none of them were in such a position at that point in the development.



I have the impression that you assume that the Gripen would be mass produced by the thousands and can be compared to the JSF plans in the slightest.

Then you have a quite wrong impression -- however even with just a few hundreds the cost will still come down. Saab aims for around 400. Tiny compared to F-35, but not that shabby compared to Rafale, Typhoon and SH. I could turn this around and ask; why don't you think Gripen E costs will come down, just like it did for these other a/c? Sure F-35 cost reductions from the first F-35 produced to number 1000 produced will be much bigger, however keep also in mind that Gripen starts at a much lower baseline.

Anyway it is too early to tell; currently they have an excellent start, in 3-5 years it should become more clear if Gripen E will succeed outside the 3 countries that so far has selected it.

And returning to Finland; I agree that since the capabilities are much better for the F-35, they will definitely go for the F-35, unless something very unlikely should happen (e.g. Finland hit by a big rock, annexed by Russia, etc).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 16:39
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:Then you have a quite wrong impression -- however even with just a few hundreds the cost will still come down. Saab aims for around 400.


did you miss the part where I said the cost would come down ?

This is not at all close to the JSF model mass production model. the costs will come down, but not nearly to the level you are trying to compare with JSF.


I could turn this around and ask; why don't you think Gripen E costs will come down, just like it did for these other a/c?


did you miss the part where I said the cost would come down?

This is not at all close to the JSF model mass production model. the costs will come down, but not nearly to the level you are trying to compare with JSF.


I don't know If I can make that any more clear.

THE COST WILL COME DOWN ON THE SAAB GRIPEN NG however the nature of its production strategy will keep the cost higher than comparing it to say the JSF, which will utilize a different production strategy.

but the mere fact that we are talking about the "simple/cheap/natural growth/proven" Gripen NG is going to be within even range of the "complex/expensive/risky/not-operation" JSF is interesting in and of itself, 10 percent or not.

One final comment about a difference of say, 10%; if we are talking about, say, 2billion USD then 10% is 200 million USD. For some countries that's peanuts however for other countries 200 million USD may be a significant amount of money.


It should not be that close, for what the Gripen NG is, and what it claims to be. When did "cheap" become "only 90 percent of a the universally-declared-expensive JSF?"

How does that work? Why would 10 Gripen NGs be "a good deal" but 9 F-35s for the same price be "too expensive?" the only advantage the Gripen has at that point is the long term operating costs, and that not because its in the same class as JSF and more efficient, its because its in a lighter weight class with less capability.

And returning to Finland; I agree that since the capabilities are much better for the F-35, they will definitely go for the F-35, unless something very unlikely should happen (e.g. Finland hit by a big rock, annexed by Russia, etc).


Indeed, but if you recall the Ministers claim about cost is what started this great debate. You said the guy didn't know what he was talking about and was off his rocker, now you are saying that a Gripen NG may be only 10 percent cheaper than the JSF, which you know, kind of proved him right:

From the first post:

..“Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish JAS fighters when we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment,” emphasises Haglund.


You then said:

loke wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
loke wrote:The reality is that you really don't know, unless you have access to information that is not public accessible -- let's wait and see what the costs will be around 2020 or so.


Lets not wait, because Saab certainly hasn't been in regards to Canada. They have been happy to give us misleading data on the aircraft's cost in order to create as much political disruption as possible. They have said on numerous occasions they never believed they had a chance, but have been happy to say all manner of things in order to further the political mess in our state.

And yes I do have perspective on the Gripen's costing that isn't out there in the public, based on my own work. Is it an exact amount? no, its a pretty rough estimate. I've shown here before ways you can come to that cost based on other contracts and information, like Brazil or Norway.

viewtopic.php?p=266783#p266783

Certainly there are significant unknowns to that, I would admit. However, now you see Defence minister of a neighbouring country to Sweden (one of its closest in terms of relations), suggest the F-35 may well be as cheap as the Gripen. Do you really think he's going to say that if there is no chance that will happen, or based on no information whatsoever? Of course not. He's got a briefing, presumably undertaken by his MOD, which estimates the prices will be pretty close in the future. I assume he's got "not publicly available" information to make that assessment.

What I'm really getting at is that the claims by gripen supporters that the NG is some sort of wunderplane that will be 30~50% cheaper to acquire than the F-35 and 80% cheaper to operate just aren't factual at all. Might it be 10~15% difference? Maybe, and yes we can wait to see that. However 10~15% is enough to make some reasonable inferences about capabilities and force structure decisions that we can talk about.

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.

2. They did not participate in Canada for obvious reasons, and they are not related to the cost of the a/c. Or do you also think that Rafale and Typhoon participate because they are "cheap" compared to the F-35?


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.

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).

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.


So we are all on the same page now then yes?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 16:58
by bumtish
Loke,

We agree that learning curve effects also apply to the Gripen E and that the planes for Switzerland are "early lots." But as Xander pointed out The F-35 just has a lot more ooomph going for it with much greater build rates and total numbers - this allows for much larger reduction as the production matures. I compared F-35 LRIP7 and Gripen E for Switzerland. Relatively the reductions in price for further F-35 lots will be greater than what Saab can achieve. We are already with a 30% difference and the F-35A will close on this.

I think it is difficult to use the SK numbers for much as we don't know exactly what they include. As we saw with the Netherlands, the €4.7B for 37 F-35A is in reality closer to €3.2B gross system cost for the remaining 35 jets. But I will offer my thoughts on SK.

The F-35A bid was an FMS sale with a 3.5% fee on top of it.

When F-35 bids, it is locked into a specific package with specific prices, which are non-negotiable since they have to be the same for all (DOD is the direct LM customer). Thus there is little flexibiity as the EADS and Boeing have, which are bidding on DMS terms or close to it. This means they are more adaptable and as an example can push items included in the acquisition phase cost for the F-35, into the support and sustainment phase - aftermarket. They are also financially more flexible. This matters when there is a hard ceiling you must meet as a bidder. F-35A FMS can't do this. The package is pretty much fixed.

I will also point out, that it seems the budget has been reduced 11% for 40 F-35. If it hadn't been reduced, a linear scaling says it would buy 45 F-35A. But it doesn't scale linearly, because the fixed costs for establishing the setup are pretty much the same wether you buy 40 or 45 jets. So when you reduce the budget you lower the variable cost, i.e. the number of aircraft. We are probably closer to 50 jets than 45 if the budget had remained the same.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 17:28
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
did you miss the part where I said the cost would come down ?

Yes actually I did, apologies.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 18:59
by hb_pencil
loke wrote:bumtish, I think BIO had a great point when he suggested that comparisons make the most sense within a competition, I think they must be done with great care between. Consider that:

1. In Switzerland the Typhoon bid was significantly more expensive than the Gripen E (T > E)

2. In SK the bid F-35 bid was significantly more expensive than the Typhoon (F > T)

It is difficult to make sense of items 1 and 2 if you want to reconcile with the claim that:

3. "Gripen E and F-35 cost the same" ("F > T, T > E, F = E")

unless you bring some other factors in. Keep in mind both the SK and Swiss sales are for roughly the same period, AFAIK (delivery starting 2018).

Also interesting to note is that when I pointed out that Typhoon was cheaper than F-35 in SK, it was explained by referring to LRIP, and the cost curve for F-35 that has not gone down yet... well if you want to make such considerations for F-35 would it then not be fair to do the same for Gripen E? Consider that the Swiss Gripens Es will be among the very first produced (if they vote yes in the referendum). One alternative would be to recognize that costs of all a/c (not just the F-35) is changing as a function of a number of factors including numbers of a/c produced at the time, TOT, offsets, "add-ons", etc, etc.


I completely agree that there are a number of variables involved... I've been saying this throughout this thread. However you need to recognize that this isn't something you can wave your hand and say "oh nobody can do it." Its an specialized field with post-graduate degree programs that allow individuals to undertake research professionally. You just don't know how to do it... as your simplistic logic with the Eurofighter illustrates.

What you completely fail to account for is WHEN the ROKAF and Swiss aircraft were to be purchased. SK mandated that the replacement aircraft be delivered no later than by 2017. So the F-35 are in the LRIP 7 territory with only 200 or so F-35s produced, at production numbers around the 60s. I would also argue that the program cuts to the Eurofighter over the last year has boosted its price, likely making it more expensive than the F-35 if the ROKAF had to run a competition today. The Finnish competition will be after 2020, when there will be over 500 F-35s through production, with large multi year production buys of 80 or more aircraft and major economies of scale. The price decrease pressure is significant at that stage.

What you don't get is that there are no "free lunches" when it comes to fighter aircraft. There is no miracle way to make things cheaper and just as effective. There are ways to make it more expensive and less effective, but the JSF program's structure avoids some of those issues (large volume purchases, stable production length and high levels of commonality between versions). You either don't pay and get less capable, older technology (like the gripen), or you pay for the technology and get cutting edge stuff (F-35). There is no way to have it both ways.

loke wrote:I have the impression that most of you seem to assume that only F-35 will keep coming down in price, and this cannot happen with the Gripen E. Obviously Saab would need to sell more to bring costs further down, however considering that 2 export countries have selected it even before the first E has been finalized, I would say that's a quite good sign. Rafale, Typhoon, SH, none of them were in such a position at that point in the development.


No, the problem is much more complex than that. This is the biggest problem with Gripen: the aircraft's price is totally fixed upon export sales of relatively small purchases, and a total program size of less than 300 aircraft.... and even then its not even 300 aircraft.

So lets think about this. The F-35 has an established global supply chain, where most aircraft (in the order of 2,500), will be manufactured using the same parts and processes, with final assembly in Fort Worth. It maximizes the potential learning curve effects, and creates massive economies of scale.

The Gripen is a mishmash of production. The Swiss order of 22 aircraft is the only genuine Gripen order on the books. The Swedish aircraft are remanufactured C models, and Brazil will eventually produce over 80% of the aircraft in-country with only the first few being built in Sweden. This means that there are extremely low learning curve effects. Even small disruptions to production means a company has to lay off workers, many of whom do not return. Then you need to train new workers and design new processes... which means no decreases in cost. This is a clear issue with the Eurofighter program, where constant starts and stops helped to increase the aircraft's costs.

So right now, no its not likely that there will be much of a decrease at all. You have an estimated total production of 300, with less than 50 being actual new Gripens. The rest will either be conversions, or produced in Brazil, possibly to a completely different standard.

loke wrote:One final comment about a difference of say, 10%; if we are talking about, say, 2billion USD then 10% is 200 million USD. For some countries that's peanuts however for other countries 200 million USD may be a significant amount of money.


If its 10% is the cost difference then I would suggest that most countries would select the F-35 over the Gripen without much second thought. 1 gripen does not equal 1 F-35. The F-35's capabilities are far in excess of that 10%. you can buy fewer F-35s and carry out a broader range of missions more successfully than the Gripen. For example, the F-35's sensors and comms systems allow you to cover a far broader area, more effectively than the Gripen. Lets say you had to defend an city from a low-flying cruise missile attack. Which aircraft do you think is going to have a better success rate identifying targets close to ground clutter and destroying them? The Northrop Grumman APG-81 equipped F-35 or the Selex Raven NG? I would argue that virtually all states interested in success would go with the F-35.

One of the biggest advantages you get with the F-35 through FMS isn't just the aircraft and its capabilities, but you also take advantage of U.S. training and doctrine. You don't need to figure out the broad swaths of doctrine on your own, you get the US to teach it to you and then you modify it for local uses. You also receive the opportunity to tack on to meaningful upgrades that the other partners are implementing. Those, in reality, are worth more than 10% or even 20% of cost: it ensures that you're actually able to employ these aircraft to their greatest potential for their expected lifecycle.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2014, 19:09
by hb_pencil
bumtish wrote:Loke,

We agree that learning curve effects also apply to the Gripen E and that the planes for Switzerland are "early lots." But as Xander pointed out The F-35 just has a lot more ooomph going for it with much greater build rates and total numbers - this allows for much larger reduction as the production matures. I compared F-35 LRIP7 and Gripen E for Switzerland. Relatively the reductions in price for further F-35 lots will be greater than what Saab can achieve. We are already with a 30% difference and the F-35A will close on this.

I think it is difficult to use the SK numbers for much as we don't know exactly what they include. As we saw with the Netherlands, the €4.7B for 37 F-35A is in reality closer to €3.2B gross system cost for the remaining 35 jets. But I will offer my thoughts on SK.

The F-35A bid was an FMS sale with a 3.5% fee on top of it.

When F-35 bids, it is locked into a specific package with specific prices, which are non-negotiable since they have to be the same for all (DOD is the direct LM customer). Thus there is little flexibiity as the EADS and Boeing have, which are bidding on DMS terms or close to it. This means they are more adaptable and as an example can push items included in the acquisition phase cost for the F-35, into the support and sustainment phase - aftermarket. They are also financially more flexible. This matters when there is a hard ceiling you must meet as a bidder. F-35A FMS can't do this. The package is pretty much fixed.


I'm almost certain that Boeing and EADS used commercial division sales tactics to artificially decrease their acquisition costs in order to meet the DAPA guidelines. The rules of the competition there with an extremely low upper acquisitions ceiling as a mandatory requirement was ridiculous, to say the least. It basically encouraged cheating by those two manufacturers while completely handcuffed Lockheed martin who had to go through the highly constrained FMS process rather than the DCMS route.

Edit: what does commercial sales tactics mean?

Basically manufacturers make huge discounts on the aircraft purchase costs, then sell parts at higher cost to make up the difference. Since you're locked into the supply chain, you have no choice in this matter. Militaries have started to crack down on this practice, because there are often legal limits to the profits that a company can accrue from government sales contract.

http://theblogbyjavier.com/2014/02/15/b ... -for-2013/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2829051078

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 20:37
by Corsair1963
HELSINKI — Finland’s surprise decision to move toward a historic defense pact with NATO is expected to bolster the country’s interest in acquiring F-35 aircraft to replace the F/A-18 Hornets in 2025-30.

Yet the government here is playing down local speculation that the April 22 memorandum of understanding (MoU) with NATO marks the beginning of a process toward membership within 10 years.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ATO-Sweden

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 11:03
by popcorn
Thanks, Vlad!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2014, 22:01
by m
bumtish wrote:Now it is time to elaborate on my previous post. Hang on, it will be worth it!

It is of course possible to point to other F-35A partners like the Netherlands. Here we shall remember that the €4.7B the Dutch set aside is an acquisition phase cost, not just the price of hardware and services from LM. It also includes €500M which has been spent on SDD and €300-400M used on two OET&E aircraft. So only €3.9 is left for the actual acquisition phase. And of this 10% is set aside for risk, which will be spent on additional F-35s if not used. The budget is also based on estimates, where real contract values have gone below (and which the Norwegians have confirmed in their press releases when finalizing contracts). Going by the Swiss ratio of acquisition phase/hardware money, the funding available for the dutch for hardware and services from LM would be €3.1B for the remaining 35 F-35. That is a gross unit system cost of $123M by the way. Gripen E was $121... Australia has budgeted with AUD130M gross...

.


Some correction concerning Dutch figures
€4.7 billion I have never read before in letters to parliament. The SDD phase money is not part of the €4,500 milion budget
Actually the IOT&E phase is a separated project within the JSF project. The two test F35's were not seen as part of the possible 85 F35's to order. In that case the number would have been 87.
Because of shortage of money these two F35's became included in the number to order.

When the Dutch joined the JSF project they never budgetted money for 85 F35's, only a budget for a first batch of F35's.
A second batch would be ordererd by a government in charge, in case this would be needed (situation in the world, as well economically)
At the moment political parties (at least 5 parties) seem like to favour raising the defence budget.

Known figures:
- Budget: €4.500 million
- Reserves within budget €4,500 million: 10%
- Used budget IOT&E phase etc: ±€450 million
* Reserves budget, estimated operational costs: 10%

Budget: €4,500 million
- 10%: €450 million
Total: €4,050

€4,050
IOT&E phase, including order F35A(2x) ±€450 million
Total: €3,600 million


Budget 35 x F35A: €3,600 million
In case the F35A will not become more expensive (expected), €450 (10%) will be used for ordering more F35’s.

A. €4050 (35)
F35A (all in): €115,7 million

B. €3600 million (35)
F35A (all in): €102.85 million

C. €450 million (4): theoretically
4,3 F35’s


Theoretically
Including 2 test F35, 35 F35, plus 4 F35: 41 F35
o €4,050 (39): €103.8 million p/35A (all in) / €3,600 (35) + €450 (4)
o €4,050 (35): €115.7 million p/F35 (all in) / €4,050 (35)

All in price (US $)
o Per F35A (all in): $138.4 million (€103.8 million)
o Per F35A (all in): $154.3 million (€115.7 million)

Actually the price is cheaper while 21% are taxes BTW
o 21% = €21,7 million: €82.1 million ($109.5 million) p/F35A (all in)
o 21% = €24.2 million: €91.5 million ($122 million) p/F35A (all in)

The price of a F35 becomes cheaper for the Dutch as well, while they receive a few hunderd thousand dollars per sold F35 to none levelpartners.

[u]IOT&E phase[/u]: ±€450 million
This budget concerned not only buying 2 F35A (one orange wired) plus spares etc, but the needed money for participating the IOT&E phase as well.
€8 million for bombs, missiles, grenades (25 mm) etc. being used during the IOT&E phase is a separated budget, not part of the Dutch F16 replacement budget,

Rate: may 24, 2014

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 09:34
by popcorn
Thanks to Putin, Finnish Hornets are racking up their flying hours at an accelerated pace. Perhaps a decision on a follow-on fighter may move forward as a consequence?



http://www.adn.com/article/20141008/fin ... ills-north

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2014, 11:49
by hornetfinn
Finnish DefMin has just set up a working group this week to prepare the Hornet replacement process start. They will just do some preliminary report to help decision making when and how to start the actual replacement process. The report will include the basic needs, requirements and possible ways to replace the Hornets. The replacement process will be officially started in 2015 and the selection will be made in early 2020s. The actual aircraft would be produced and procured during 2025-2030 or so. Of course all this can change, but that's the current plan.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2014, 10:15
by spazsinbad
GOOD LUCK to dem FInns and what are dose Norwayians up to?....
Finnish Defence Forces to replace aging Hornet fighter fleet
18 Oct 2014 Sources Yle

"If the fleet is replaced with new jets, it will cost an estimated 6 billion euros. How its replaced will also signal Finland's future defence strategy: whether to go solo, join forces with Sweden, or enter the NATO alliance.

The Ministry of Defence has commissioned a working group to investigate what type of air defence system Finland needs in the future. Replacing the aging Hornet fighter fleet will cost an estimated 6 billion euros. Owing to the hefty price tag, the working group is also looking to see whether its possible to upgrade the existing fleet, which has been in service since 1995.

"Technical developments need to be taken into account as do the changing needs of our defence environment, which is what we're investigating," says Lauri Puranen, who is responsible for Ministry of Defence acquisitions....

...The preliminary working group will not take a stand on the type or number of planes that should be purchased. To provide some context, neighbour Norway recently chose a new generation of F-35 Hornets. In Finland, the new version of the familiar fighter jet family seems to be favoured -- in spite of their very high price tag. The new fighter jets would be the most expensive defence acquisition in the next decade and take place in about 2030...."

Source: http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_defence_f ... et/7535139

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2014, 14:01
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:Finnish DefMin has just set up a working group this week to prepare the Hornet replacement process start. They will just do some preliminary report to help decision making when and how to start the actual replacement process. The report will include the basic needs, requirements and possible ways to replace the Hornets. The replacement process will be officially started in 2015 and the selection will be made in early 2020s. The actual aircraft would be produced and procured during 2025-2030 or so. Of course all this can change, but that's the current plan.

By early next decade -Teen Series no longer in production, every likely EF and Rafale as well. Looks like an open field for the F-35.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 03:56
by popcorn
I don't see the Brazil deal having that big an impact on Finland's decision process.

http://www.c4isrnet.com/article/M5/2014 ... en-Finland
Sweden Sees New Chance To Sell Gripen to Finland

HELSINKI — Sweden hopes Saab’s $5.4 billion Gripen-E deal with Brazil can open a dialogue with Finland, which is on course to replace its F/A-18 Hornets in the next 10 years...According to Paulsen, the potential for the joint development of Gripen, and whether a common fighter type could be envisaged as a “serious proposition” going forward, will become clear once the armed forces of both states deliver their preliminary reports on practical cooperation later this year.

“These reports are expected by the end of November. The important political decision-making on bilateral defense collaboration is scheduled to start in February 2015, while the first concrete projects are expected to flow from April.

“As for Finland choosing Gripen, the present Finnish defense minister appears more impressed with the F-35 Lightning 11. How this may impact on Finnish-Swedish bilateral relations under the agreed framework will be interesting to see,” Paulsen said.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 07:34
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:I don't see the Brazil deal having that big an impact on Finland's decision process.

http://www.c4isrnet.com/article/M5/2014 ... en-Finland
Sweden Sees New Chance To Sell Gripen to Finland

HELSINKI — Sweden hopes Saab’s $5.4 billion Gripen-E deal with Brazil can open a dialogue with Finland, which is on course to replace its F/A-18 Hornets in the next 10 years...According to Paulsen, the potential for the joint development of Gripen, and whether a common fighter type could be envisaged as a “serious proposition” going forward, will become clear once the armed forces of both states deliver their preliminary reports on practical cooperation later this year.

“These reports are expected by the end of November. The important political decision-making on bilateral defense collaboration is scheduled to start in February 2015, while the first concrete projects are expected to flow from April.

“As for Finland choosing Gripen, the present Finnish defense minister appears more impressed with the F-35 Lightning 11. How this may impact on Finnish-Swedish bilateral relations under the agreed framework will be interesting to see,” Paulsen said.


While, I am sure Finland wants strong and even closer ties with Sweden. What it needs most is a strong deterrent towards Russia. My guess is Finland will in fact join NATO and likely purchase the F-35. Just my two cents.... :wink:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 08:23
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:While, I am sure Finland wants strong and even closer ties with Sweden. What it needs most is a strong deterrent towards Russia. My guess is Finland will in fact join NATO and likely purchase the F-35. Just my two cents.... :wink:


I definitely agree. Gripen-E would not make much sense militarily, although it might be politically easier choice in some ways. Potentially going against PAK FAs, Su-35s and S-500/400 systems, I'd much rather take 30 F-35s than 40 Gripen-Es.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2014, 03:45
by Corsair1963
hornetfinn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:While, I am sure Finland wants strong and even closer ties with Sweden. What it needs most is a strong deterrent towards Russia. My guess is Finland will in fact join NATO and likely purchase the F-35. Just my two cents.... :wink:


I definitely agree. Gripen-E would not make much sense militarily, although it might be politically easier choice in some ways. Potentially going against PAK FAs, Su-35s and S-500/400 systems, I'd much rather take 30 F-35s than 40 Gripen-Es.



Yes, and the Lightning's would work closely with US and NATO F-35's. :twisted:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 21:05
by pron
Today a newspaper in Sweden tells that the government have opened up for Saab to share classified information about the new Gripen E with Finland. More on Swedish in the article, but you can use google translate.

http://www.di.se/artiklar/2015/4/1/finl ... pa-radarn/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 18:48
by barrelnut
pron wrote:Today a newspaper in Sweden tells that the government have opened up for Saab to share classified information about the new Gripen E with Finland. More on Swedish in the article, but you can use google translate.

http://www.di.se/artiklar/2015/4/1/finl ... pa-radarn/


Yes, I'm sure that the Gripen NG will be one of the candidates, however comments from the Air Force and the politicians in the defense committee, namely from the chairman Jussi Niinistö, indicates that the F-35 will be the preferred one.

He recently said in an interview that the "selecting an other plane besides the F-35 would be a purely political decision".

http://blogit.iltalehti.fi/jussi-niinis ... haamottaa/

Anyways, the Air Force has also said that they are currently drafting a document outlining the acquisition process, the document should be ready by next summer. They also said that it's far too early to talk about types, the whole process is in a very early stage at this point.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2015, 00:15
by zerion

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2015, 00:18
by vilters
If they want a reliable aircraft??

Make a VERY LARGE turn around the Griphen.

A very-very-large turn around the thing.

Even the Sweeds can not make them fly reliably.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2015, 00:31
by vilters
The most economical solution for the Fins is to buy the newest generation of Hornets.

They have the logistical chain in place, they have the weapons, maintainers, pilots.
Honestly, for the role they are playing? Its the best aircraft.

Nothing else comes close.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2015, 08:55
by Dragon029
vilters wrote:The most economical solution for the Fins is to buy the newest generation of Hornets.

They have the logistical chain in place, they have the weapons, maintainers, pilots.
Honestly, for the role they are playing? Its the best aircraft.

Nothing else comes close.


The logistic chain for the Super Hornet is separate to the classic Hornet's however - it'll be more familiar for the pilots, but that shouldn't really be used as a metric for comparison. I delegate my opinion to the staff that'll be making the decision for Finland, as they know what they want far better than I do, but I wonder whether a slightly smaller fleet of F-35s would be superior in the long run to a larger fleet of Super Hornets?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2015, 08:56
by thomonkey
vilters wrote:The most economical solution for the Fins is to buy the newest generation of Hornets.

They have the logistical chain in place, they have the weapons, maintainers, pilots.
Honestly, for the role they are playing? Its the best aircraft.

Nothing else comes close.


Ya, but then you come around the problem of whether you want an economical air force that can't defend your airspace or a more expensive airforce that CAN.

In 5 years 4th gen will not be able to operate without 5th gen support and in 15 years, 4th gen will just be a liability in a battle, so its extremely short sighted to get super hornets.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2015, 13:54
by vilters
Depends: Defend against what?

The Russians are some 30 years behind in 5th Gen Aircraft.
- Airframe
- Engine
- Avionix
- Stealth
You name it, they are 30 years behind.

For the role they are playing, they can "afford" to skip the F-35 and wait for the next one.

With all logistics in place, their pilots and maintainers well trained, I' do a bulk buy of new F-18 with all the new upgrades.

Best bang for the buck, and good for at least the next 30 years or so.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2015, 15:04
by XanderCrews
barrelnut wrote:
pron wrote:Today a newspaper in Sweden tells that the government have opened up for Saab to share classified information about the new Gripen E with Finland. More on Swedish in the article, but you can use google translate.

http://www.di.se/artiklar/2015/4/1/finl ... pa-radarn/


Yes, I'm sure that the Gripen NG will be one of the candidates, however comments from the Air Force and the politicians in the defense committee, namely from the chairman Jussi Niinistö, indicates that the F-35 will be the preferred one.

He recently said in an interview that the "selecting an other plane besides the F-35 would be a purely political decision".

http://blogit.iltalehti.fi/jussi-niinis ... haamottaa/

Anyways, the Air Force has also said that they are currently drafting a document outlining the acquisition process, the document should be ready by next summer. They also said that it's far too early to talk about types, the whole process is in a very early stage at this point.


I used a translator on this and found it very interesting along with the comments, thank you for posting it

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 09:18
by hornetfinn
vilters wrote:Depends: Defend against what?

The Russians are some 30 years behind in 5th Gen Aircraft.
- Airframe
- Engine
- Avionix
- Stealth
You name it, they are 30 years behind.

For the role they are playing, they can "afford" to skip the F-35 and wait for the next one.

With all logistics in place, their pilots and maintainers well trained, I' do a bulk buy of new F-18 with all the new upgrades.

Best bang for the buck, and good for at least the next 30 years or so.


Buying Super Hornet would not be good for many reasons in our (Finnish) time frame, IMO. That means years 2025-2030 when the actual aircraft will arrive and that is 10-15 years from now. So the aircraft would likely serve until 2060 or even longer.

Current Super Hornet users (USN and Australia) will very likely retire their aircraft (or at least most of them) by about 2040. This means we would be the only operators of Super Hornet for 20 years or even longer. We would be able to buy rather small amount of any aircraft (about 30-40 most likely). This means that those Super Hornets would receive very minor upgrades as it would not be economical to implement any major upgrades for such a small amount of aircraft. Flight hour costs would very likely rapidly increase during those 20 years also as the cost of spare parts and cost of all kinds of consumable parts would increase significantly and increase flight hour costs. I think that even though Super Hornets might be somewhat cheaper to procure, they would likely be much more expensive to operate especially after 2040. Of course the capabilities would be significantly lower than what F-35 brings and difference would grow during later years as F-35 will likely be very actively developed and SH not. Dassault Rafale, EF Typhoon and JAS Gripen have similar problems for our fighter selection.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 09:51
by vilters
Agreed to some extend.

But never forget the logistical chain (that you already have in place).

One of the most forgotten cost of a new weapon system is the installation of the logistical chain.

Everybody "thinks" in cost per airframe. Maintenance and fuel cost per flight hr.

Nobody talks about the cost of the logistical chain. => And that is the one that can bite HARD.

You have it in place already.

- Logistical chain is in place. => Known spare parts flow and fixed contracts.
- Maintainers and pilots "know the aircraft" => A HUGE advantage, and a HUGE saving in initial training costs. => This alone would justify to choose the SH.

- Continuity & stability of the fleet.
----------------------------------

That is also why Finland should plan for the future.
You guys can afford to buy 10 to 20 airframes more then minimum required, with all you will gain by having the logistical chain in place. => And these extra airframes will keep the overall flight hrs / airframe younger over the long time.

And for Russia? The way the Russian economy is going? I would not worry too much for the next 50 years or so.

As I wrote; You guys "can" afford to skip the F-35 and wait for the next one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And agreed again;
Typhoon, Rafale, Griphen, are no valid options.

All are pretty expensive and what do they bring extra?
- New logistical chain to be installed? => And be sure. => A logistical chain costs WAY- WAY more then the initial buy sum in the long run.
- New training of maintainers, pilots, managers.

And again, relatively small build numbers, older 4+ airframes, and they bring no "added value" at all.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 10:31
by mk82
vilters wrote:Agreed to some extend.

But never forget the logistical chain (that you already have in place).

One of the most forgotten cost of a new weapon system is the installation of the logistical chain.

Everybody "thinks" in cost per airframe. Maintenance and fuel cost per flight hr.

Nobody talks about the cost of the logistical chain. => And that is the one that can bite HARD.

You have it in place already.

- Logistical chain is in place. => Known spare parts flow and fixed contracts.
- Maintainers and pilots "know the aircraft" => A HUGE advantage, and a HUGE saving in initial training costs. => This alone would justify to choose the SH.

- Continuity & stability of the fleet.
----------------------------------

That is also why Finland should plan for the future.
You guys can afford to buy 10 to 20 airframes more then minimum required, with all you will gain by having the logistical chain in place. => And these extra airframes will keep the overall flight hrs / airframe younger over the long time.

And for Russia? The way the Russian economy is going? I would not worry too much for the next 50 years or so.

As I wrote; You guys "can" afford to skip the F-35 and wait for the next one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And agreed again;
Typhoon, Rafale, Griphen, are no valid options.

All are pretty expensive and what do they bring extra?
- New logistical chain to be installed? => And be sure. => A logistical chain costs WAY- WAY more then the initial buy sum in the long run.
- New training of maintainers, pilots, managers.

And again, relatively small build numbers, older 4+ airframes, and they bring no "added value" at all.


F/A 18 E/F Super Hornets are not exactly equivalent to the legacy Hornets. There are a lot of systems and parts that are unique to the Super Hornet only...the savings from a supposedly common logistics chain may not be as big as you think. Hornetfinn's point about the potentially exorbitant cost to upgrade their Super Hornets as other users retire their fleet is a pretty valid point. Good luck funding Boeing to develop upgrades just for your few squadrons of Super Hornet.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 11:29
by hornetfinn
mk82 wrote:F/A 18 E/F Super Hornets are not exactly equivalent to the legacy Hornets. There are a lot of systems and parts that are unique to the Super Hornet only...the savings from a supposedly common logistics chain may not be as big as you think. Hornetfinn's point about the potentially exorbitant cost to upgrade their Super Hornets as other users retire their fleet is a pretty valid point. Good luck funding Boeing to develop upgrades just for your few squadrons of Super Hornet.


This is exactly what I was trying to say, thanks mk82!

Developing upgrades which cost say 5 billion dollars to develop would likely not happen for 30-40 fighters only. Or it might happen, but Finland would have to pay for it all and that would double the price of each aircraft. Developing similar upgrades for 3,000 F-35s would only cost about 60-70 million dollars for 30-40 fighters if development costs are divided equally. This is also serious problem for Gripen NG too.

Another point is that our fighters would likely have to operate under threat from rather hostile and advanced IADS. Without Growlers, Super Hornets might have serious trouble surviving it in the future. Buying also Growlers would be rather costly for our budget. Growlers would suffer from not being developed any more when we would operate them, or it becoming rather expensive for us.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 11:41
by cantaz
[quote="hornetfinn"]Developing upgrades which cost say 5 billion dollars to develop would likely not happen for 30-40 fighters only./quote]

There might be another idiotic 70ish in Canada. :bang: But I hope not, for all the same reasons already stated.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 12:21
by barrelnut
Preliminary report of replacing the capabilities provided by our current Hornet force has been released, summary also in english (and swedish):

http://www.defmin.fi/files/3168/Esiselv ... isesta.pdf

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 13:25
by hornetfinn
Thanks barrelnut, I was about to post that same report but you beat me to it.

Last weekend there was a Turku Airshow (surprisingly in Turku, Finland) where there was F-35 simulator presented by Lockheed Martin and Swedes brought couple of JAS-39 Gripen C's for the show.

Gripen show:


Finnish Hornet did an own show:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 14:22
by lamoey
mk82 wrote:F/A 18 E/F Super Hornets are not exactly equivalent to the legacy Hornets. There are a lot of systems and parts that are unique to the Super Hornet only...the savings from a supposedly common logistics chain may not be as big as you think. Hornetfinn's point about the potentially exorbitant cost to upgrade their Super Hornets as other users retire their fleet is a pretty valid point. Good luck funding Boeing to develop upgrades just for your few squadrons of Super Hornet.


I would go one step further and ask if there are any systems that remained the same between the C/D and the E/F? They are also a good bit bigger, hence may not even fit in the same facilities as the older Hornets.

They do, however, still need their inch size tools, but that goes for the F-35 as well.

The support phone number will stay the same, so if they want to stick with the devil they know...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2015, 02:03
by spazsinbad
Finland should replace Hornet fleet in 2020s: official report
11 Jun 2015 Jussi Rosendahl

"Finland should replace its aging Hornet fighter jet fleet with multirole fighter aircraft in a procurement estimated at 5 to 10 billion euros ($5.6-$11.2 billion), a government commissioned report showed on Thursday.

The planned service life of Finland's 62 F/A-18 Hornet jets comes to an end from 2025 to 2030. The report proposed that a request for quotations for new jets should be carried out in 2017-2018 with final decisions made in the early 2020s.

The working group did not recommend any specific model or manufacturer.

It mentioned as possible candidates: Saab's Jas Gripen; Dassault Aviation's Rafale; Boeing's Super Hornet; Lockheed Martin's F-35; the Eurofighter, which is made by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/ ... FR20150611

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2015, 06:22
by hornetfinn
I think we might get real evaluation between Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, Super Hornet and F-35 for Finnish acquisition. We had very thorough one 25 years ago when Mirage 2000, Gripen, F-16 and Hornet were evaluated. Funnily, Gripen and Hornet will likely be in this one too in their evolved form... :)

If we manage to get 5 to 10 billion euros for our acquisition, it would be more than previously thought and also quite large one for any fighter manufacturer. I think this is quite likely last chance for European manufacturers and Boeing to get major new order for their jets. It would also be very good order for F-35 program. Interesting to see how this plays out.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2015, 07:25
by barrelnut
Few observations regarding the released report.

* No preferred type at this point, lists all the usual suspects as potential candidates
* Emphasizes the importance of stealth multiple times (Air combat, SEAD, recon etc.)
* Lists European manufactured planes and adds the F-35 into that list because of the Italian production line (so it's a domestic plane in that sense)
* Needs to be able to detect, classify, target and attack moving ground targets
* Needs to be able to collect intelligence info and do swift recon missions on areas of interest
* Needs to able to perform SEAD missions to neutralize enemy AD assets, EW capability needed also

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2015, 14:07
by XanderCrews
How many of these contenders are going to be in production during that timeframe?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2015, 09:03
by magitsu
The political side will be interesting as well. I have a hunch that bilateral sensibilities are actually more important since Finland is not in the NATO.

France isn't really active around the Baltic sea. There's some French equipment in use (retiring APILAS AT and Mistral SAM, Crotale NG SAM, radars). All MBTs come from Germany, but far less dependency within the AF. Bundeswehr in their current state doesn't look all that convincing partner. Sweden would need the deal to happen more than Finland. But that offers little else to what's already there. Neither Finland or Sweden want to take over the air defense of the Baltics, but it seems that more needs to be done. The Iceland air policing mission a few years back was also a matter of considerable debate.

Other Air Force purchases: Kongsberg/Raytheon NASAMS II (the 2nd most expensive system after jets), most radars are Thales-Raytheon. New mid-sized cargo planes 3 CASA C295, they don't link directly to anyone. Trainers, around 24 BAe Hawk like the Hornets will have to be replaced by 2030 as well. Or establish co-operation in pilot training. Fleet of NH90 transport helicopters is a big money commitment in the army side, but that offers no direct link to anyone.

LM has a rather good grip: MLRS (modernization, cancelled ATACMS bid), JASSM, Dragon Shield sigint platform sale. Plenty of business during last five years.
Boeing obviously through Hornets and local partner network that has been built during current systems buildup/maint/recent MLU upgrades.
Saab currently owns the minds of the general public & non-specialist press. That's probably the biggest hurdle to overcome for F-35 because this procurement will be subject to wide and open public participation. The public isn't exactly well informed (exhibit from yesterday, the largest daily) I have some ideas on how the gap could be bridged, so they probably can figure out some as well. There's time to do all kinds of positioning. Swedes obviously have some political/industry acumen. They probably don't want to see anything resembling the Norwegian procurement. Although the losers always seem to have good explanations. Naivete and the ensuing circus around Patria AMV sales in Slovenia should probably be noted. Some staff officer also got fined for bungling the scrapping of T72s so the threshold for bullshit should be at its historical low.

The FDF has really bought into the idea of network centric warfare. Everything has been upgraded within last 10 years. For example the air situation data isn't solely based on radars any more. Acoustic, passive, ir - who knows? This probably means that F-35 has a leg up because it can extend the situational awareness of the whole command chain in a meaningful way. There's also little money for separate AEW&C capability, so a pair of F-35s could be a poor man's solution for these too.
FiAF can't buy large UAVs due to MTCR treaty restrictions, probably couldn't afford anyway. Smaller ones will be used for recon. Sea based interdiction also needs new ideas. It could be done more from air (LRASM, few NH90s to AS(u)W), since navy can't afford to replace all of its boats.

The Minister of Defence Jussi Niinisto told on Thursday that integration with JASSM needs to happen, whichever gets picked. That probably tells more about their view of needed competencies than is about one specific system. Swedes are handicapped by their insistence on not having similar capacity, thus having no experience.

Whatever happens, it seems that FDF won't become dependent on a sole supplier. There's plenty of big ticket items from both Europe and the United States.

I wonder how many planes 10 Bn dollars would buy? The cost of operation will be important. F-35 is a rather expensive proposition for all those identification flights. Finland probably can't afford to fall back to simulator use as much as some others.

New platform is expensive but that seems to be the only real problem. Finland is in a good situation in every sense of the matter and can afford to consider its options. It will be harder than picking the Hornet was. Now it would be probably the hardest, but production line closures and getting real world experience from the new entrants should make it easier.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2015, 14:10
by magitsu
This was a rather interesting find:
The Finnish Air Force expeditionary unit has experienced the NATO evaluation once before. It was in 2009 when the unit passed the evaluation process as the first non-NATO air force unit. The final evaluation took place in Germany.

Finland is still the only non-NATO country which has a fully capable fighter unit verified by TACEVAL program.


http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/portal/pu ... i+%28EN%29

Finland is participating in the Air Transport, Air-to Air Refueling and other Exchange of Services (ATARES), as well as the Air Situation Data Exchange (ASDE). It has joined the Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) programme, participating along with Sweden and several NATO Allies in the operation of three C-17 transport aircraft based in Hungary.


http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49594.htm

International crisis management capabilities and Nato-compatibility seem to be valued highly in FiAF, which should reflect in the replacement fighter procurement.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2015, 22:40
by hb_pencil
magitsu wrote:I wonder how many planes 10 Bn dollars would buy? The cost of operation will be important. F-35 is a rather expensive proposition for all those identification flights. Finland probably can't afford to fall back to simulator use as much as some others.

New platform is expensive but that seems to be the only real problem. Finland is in a good situation in every sense of the matter and can afford to consider its options. It will be harder than picking the Hornet was. Now it would be probably the hardest, but production line closures and getting real world experience from the new entrants should make it easier.


Thanks for this. By 2020 there will be only two realistic choices: Gripen NG and F-35. Eurofighter and Rafale will have likely wound down their production lines, be more costly, and have inferior avionics.

For 10 billion USD (with a 2012 base year, not then-year dollars), we can get a rough picture of what the Finns might get if we extrapolate from Canadian cost estimates (just transferring over the Milcon, and other ancillary costs - 500 million in development costs can be used to offset inflation). That gives approximately 6.3 billion in actual acquisition funds. The other ground rules are purchases around 2023~2030, so unit prices in 85 million dollar range. You'll be hit for FMS and other DoD charges as a non JSF partner, which would add about 4% to the costs of each fighter over the recurring flyaway and approximately 1.5 million: so at about 85 million each you're looking at about 91 million dollars per copy. With 6.3 billion, you're looking at about 70 aircraft... so more than your current fleet.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2015, 23:00
by spazsinbad
'magitsu' could you explain more about this claim (over on previous page) of yours please? Thanks.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25426&p=292899&hilit=simulator#p292899
"...Finland probably can't afford to fall back to simulator use as much as some others...."

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2015, 06:11
by hornetfinn
FiAF is very much into simulator use and I'm sure that will continue into future. Not many air forces have equal simulator capacity and capabilities FiAF currently has, compared to number of pilots and aircraft. I'm sure this will continue and no matter what fighter is selected, simulators will be employed heavily.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2015, 09:09
by hornetfinn
hb_pencil wrote:
magitsu wrote:I wonder how many planes 10 Bn dollars would buy? The cost of operation will be important. F-35 is a rather expensive proposition for all those identification flights. Finland probably can't afford to fall back to simulator use as much as some others.

New platform is expensive but that seems to be the only real problem. Finland is in a good situation in every sense of the matter and can afford to consider its options. It will be harder than picking the Hornet was. Now it would be probably the hardest, but production line closures and getting real world experience from the new entrants should make it easier.


Thanks for this. By 2020 there will be only two realistic choices: Gripen NG and F-35. Eurofighter and Rafale will have likely wound down their production lines, be more costly, and have inferior avionics.

For 10 billion USD (with a 2012 base year, not then-year dollars), we can get a rough picture of what the Finns might get if we extrapolate from Canadian cost estimates (just transferring over the Milcon, and other ancillary costs - 500 million in development costs can be used to offset inflation). That gives approximately 6.3 billion in actual acquisition funds. The other ground rules are purchases around 2023~2030, so unit prices in 85 million dollar range. You'll be hit for FMS and other DoD charges as a non JSF partner, which would add about 4% to the costs of each fighter over the recurring flyaway and approximately 1.5 million: so at about 85 million each you're looking at about 91 million dollars per copy. With 6.3 billion, you're looking at about 70 aircraft... so more than your current fleet.


That might be possible. Previously it was thought that less aicraft (than our current Hornet fleet) would be acquired, but latest world events might make it possible that more aircraft will be bought.

I think that for Eurofighter, Rafale and Super Hornet our acquisition schedule is not very good. IIRC, their production will end by 2020 and that leaves a gap of at least half a decade in production. Rafale seems to be in production for longest, but likely not much further than 2020. Still, I think all manufacturers will have capability to produce jets during 2024-2030 when new jets for Finland would be manufactured. However, I think that would bring costs for starting up production.

I don't see Gripen NG having particularly good avionics for 2025 onwards. It will be well behind F-35 and does not seem any more advanced compared to latest upgraded versions of Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2015, 00:48
by magitsu
spazsinbad wrote:'magitsu' could you explain more about this claim (over on previous page) of yours please? Thanks.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25426&p=292899&hilit=simulator#p292899
"...Finland probably can't afford to fall back to simulator use as much as some others...."


It was a passing thought that some needs (id flights and such) can't be replaced by adding more "cheaper" sim use.
My second thought is that I grossly overestimated the need for identification flights. They won't matter in the grand scheme of things no matter the flight hour cost. The amount added won't affect the need for sim use. The overall increase of running costs related to F-35 might. But that's something which the current buyers have already identified and will be doing.

I think that the final number is still more likely to be less than the current fleet. Fifty-something if lucky, forty-something if not. But if the pick was Gripen E, then it should be as close to the current numbers as possible since it isn't as big of a leap in performance. Or it could be something like Gripens + saved money to extended ISR capabilities through uavs.

A/G or CAS capability and its international dimension through participation in the NRF is something that has just been added to FiAF's plate. They are likely to appear as a requirement in the procurement. Probably another thing that's going to prove tough for Gripen. As a related note, Finland would probably appreciate more an invite to the Green Flag rather than the Red Flag due to this newly acquired skill and current training needs. Frisian Flag has sufficed thus far.
FiAF is looking for true multi-role capability and the noted disdain for "prototype solutions" will probably favor those with proven experience. Gripen E will be so late to the party that it's doubtful whether it can be a truly convincing mature platform. But since Sweden at least now appears to need the deal more than Finland they are very likely to do a highly competitive bid.

Boeing probably already missed one opportunity to sell Super Hornets to Finland some 10 years ago. I'm referring to the supposed offer to Canada for their current Hornets and replacing them with E/Fs. That could've been an interesting offer for Finland as well since MLU1&2 proved really expensive.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2015, 23:08
by spazsinbad
Finns To Link Fighter Buy to Investment Plan
21 Jun 2015 Gerard O'Dwyer

"HELSINKI — Finland's center-right government plans to link the armed forces' Fighter Replacement Program (FRP) to its National Investment Plan (NIP), an initiative to use the project to generate maximum value in terms of offset, spin-off contracts and job creation.

Connecting the FRP to the NIP will also protect the capital funding element in the project for what is the most costly defense investment in the armed forces history

The Finnish economy was hard hit by the financial crisis in 2008, and has been in and out of recession since. Finnish GDP hasn't grown since 2012, and is facing another year of negative growth in 2015....

...The government's intent to maximize national and local value from the eventual aircraft contract is certain to benefit Finnish defense and engineering sector contractors, but in particular Patria, the state-owned group that capitalized on the final assembly program covering the Air Force's purchase of 57 F-18 C Hornets in the 1990s. Patria has provided continuing life-cycle support to the aircraft.

Consequently, the manufacturers of the five candidate aircraft short-listed by the Ministry of Defense — Boeing's Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, the French Dassault Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab's JAS Gripen — will be required to beef-up their industrial cooperation and investment offerings....

...The Air Force is scheduled to retire the last of its current stock of 62 Hornets by 2030.

"A formal decision to proceed with the procurement project will be taken later in 2015. It is the government's intention to follow the report's recommendations," Niinisto said.

It is expected that the precise level of capital funding needed will be determined by a government decision on the number of aircraft to be bought. Neither the MoD nor the Air Force have indicated what this number will be.

"We are not commenting on the number of new fighters at this point, but what I can say is the current number of aircraft that we have has responded well to the operating needs of a country of this size," Puranen said."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /28943609/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2015, 12:45
by magitsu
Good catch.

It's important to note that old-fashioned industry offsets are banned after an EU directive came into effect. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/pub ... ets_en.pdf (2010)

"If Offset is to be used as an award criterion, it cannot be of significant weight when determining the
economically most advantageous tender and can in no case be discriminating" http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/di ... TEXT01.pdf

I think it was restricted further with an amendment that came into effect 1.1.2012.

The previous article, among others, talks about the Finnish fighter procurement and intentions of branding industrial cooperation as nationally important project, which seemingly allows more leeway. Unlike before the offsets can't be simply justified e.g. with economical reasons or simply providing jobs.
It's likely to realize in form of R&D investments between aerospace companies or something similar.

Current Min. of Defense Jussi Niinisto: "It is clear, however, whoever the manufacturer is, that industrial co-operation is an important factor with regards to making the choice. Keeping in mind the size of the purchase - we need to get a solution that will also benefit the Finnish economy." http://www.tiedetuubi.fi/tekniikka/suom ... pariisissa

Where and how maintenance happens is probably somewhat important due to emergency preparedness considerations.
Sweden and Gripen probably are the strongest in the industry part of the bid. Boeing and LM have plenty of experience due to previous projects (LM weapons procurement and integration, Boeing F-18 maint. and MLUs). E.g. JASSM has been said as one system that needs to transfer between the old and new. But it should be noted that the missiles could be in life-extension or replacement age at that time.

"We are not commenting on the number of new fighters at this point, but what I can say is the current number of aircraft that we have has responded well to the operating needs of a country of this size," Puranen said."

That (64 originally, 62 F/A-18 now) would potentially make it a very substantial F-35 acquisition compared to the numbers other European countries have signed on.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 10:02
by barrelnut
Finnish MOD has been authorized by the Minister of Defense to start a fighter acquisition program to replace our Hornets (article in finnish):

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1 ... 00489.html

RFI's will be sent to five suppliers (LockMart, Boeing, EADS, Dassault, Saab) in February 2016 and RFP's are expected to be sent in early 2018.

BTW, comment section for that article is full of usual "F-35 is crap/flop must buy Gripens" stuff...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 15:45
by kukemaim
barrelnut wrote:BTW, comment section for that article is full of usual "F-35 is crap/flop must buy Gripens" stuff...


You can be sure that a good part of those comments are made by russian trolls. Right now the only way russia can "beat" a F-35 is through politics which it manipulates through false information which in turn affects public opinion.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:36
by XanderCrews
barrelnut wrote:Finnish MOD has been authorized by the Minister of Defense to start a fighter acquisition program to replace our Hornets (article in finnish):

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1 ... 00489.html

RFI's will be sent to five suppliers (LockMart, Boeing, EADS, Dassault, Saab) in February 2016 and RFP's are expected to be sent in early 2018.

BTW, comment section for that article is full of usual "F-35 is crap/flop must buy Gripens" stuff...


What is the fascination with the gripen?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:43
by geforcerfx
XanderCrews wrote:
What is the fascination with the gripen?



I ask myself the same question every single day, it seems to just be that aircraft that if you can't afford the F-16 here's the next best (not equal)option. The Gripen NG will prob be the flop of the century aviation wise, lets release a 4th+ gen aircraft 20 years behind everyone else and see how it does. :shrug:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:51
by spazsinbad
Finnish air force launches Hornet replacement project
21 Oct 2015 Stephen Trimble

"The Finnish air force has launched a five-year process to select a new fighter to replace 61 active Boeing F/A-18C/Ds acquired in the 1990s.

Defence minister Jussi Niinistö authorised the air force on 20 October to begin the selection process for the HX fighter project.

Five fighters – the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-35 and Saab Gripen E – were named as candidates in a preliminary HX fighter project assessment released by the defence ministry.

The 64-page assessment recommends that the air force send requests for information to the potential bidders in February 2016, with responses due next October.

Requests for quotations will be sent out in February 2018, followed by the release of a final tender 12 months later. Contract award is recommended to occur in February 2021, with initial operational capability to be declared by the end of 2026 and full operational capability set for mid-2031.

Cost and low-observability have been an early focus of inquiry for the HX fighter project....

...The acquisition cost of the new fighter fleet is not possible within the defence ministry’s normal funding allotment, according to Niinistö’s statement. The Finnish parliament must decide how to finance the project under the legislature’s budget authority."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ec-418040/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 17:07
by cosmicdwarf
XanderCrews wrote:
barrelnut wrote:Finnish MOD has been authorized by the Minister of Defense to start a fighter acquisition program to replace our Hornets (article in finnish):

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1 ... 00489.html

RFI's will be sent to five suppliers (LockMart, Boeing, EADS, Dassault, Saab) in February 2016 and RFP's are expected to be sent in early 2018.

BTW, comment section for that article is full of usual "F-35 is crap/flop must buy Gripens" stuff...


What is the fascination with the gripen?

They have impressive marketing?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 17:29
by KamenRiderBlade
cosmicdwarf wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
barrelnut wrote:Finnish MOD has been authorized by the Minister of Defense to start a fighter acquisition program to replace our Hornets (article in finnish):

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1 ... 00489.html

RFI's will be sent to five suppliers (LockMart, Boeing, EADS, Dassault, Saab) in February 2016 and RFP's are expected to be sent in early 2018.

BTW, comment section for that article is full of usual "F-35 is crap/flop must buy Gripens" stuff...


What is the fascination with the gripen?

They have impressive marketing?


They are loved by Bill Sweetman and his ilk for being the perfect solution to mass swarm enemies in a glorious war of attrition.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 05:48
by magitsu
cosmicdwarf wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:What is the fascination with the gripen?

They have impressive marketing?

Their slideshow/brochure game is on point.

Familiar neighbor Sweden. Sentimental reasons. They see big scary numbers being thrown around and assume too much based on what current Gripen supposedly offers. Failing to even consider whether Gripen E is that much of an upgrade over the F/A-18. When at least for the air to ground part it seems like a definite downgrade. Random joes love the idea of dispersed operations which has been gaining more ground recently in the FiAF doctrine. They assume that operating from highways is some unique capacity of Hornet and Gripen. Restrictions related to operating from such places rarely enter into discussion. Everyone also tends to conveniently forget how many neighbors have already been leaning towards F-35. They can't possibly have that much different needs.

Objectively put there is little reason buy them. Sweden needs that deal much more than Finland. Either way they are forced to cooperate with Finland in the defense of the area. Geopolitically it's interesting to consider what Rafale would entail in the big picture. For smaller countries it's never about one single system. Lately FDF has probably bought as much materiel* from LM alone than from all French companies combined. Typhoon is a project without a master, which unlike the Rafale isn't going to be the sole solution for any of it's host countries - everyone is buying complementary F-35s.
Ideally Rafale would go head to head with F-35. Gripen is a poor man's fighter, not ambitious enough for improving Finnish geopolitical positioning.

The tough part in this project is related to numbers and securing non-budget dependent funding. I wonder which one is seen as the more crucial part, numbers or total cost and what kind of deductions it forces.

There's also the question of trainer jets. New solution for 2030-> is needed.

*French systems:
Ground Master 400
Crotale
Apilas

LM systems:
MLRS (permission to buy GMLRS is being processed)
Dragon Shield ISR
JASSM (has to be transferred to Hornet replacement according to the minister of d)

So both (though not Dassault specifically) have extensive experience working with FiAF.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 10:38
by spazsinbad
Finland Report on Hornet Replacement PDF attached. Graphic of timeline from it below.
Preliminary Assessment for Replacing the Capabilities of the Hornet Fleet Final Report
08 Jun 2015 Finland MinDef

Source: http://www.defmin.fi/files/3182/HX-ENG.pdf (0.5Mb)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 11:39
by hornetfinn
Finnish acquisition timeline seems to put Rafale, Super Hornet and Typhoon in a tough spot as it's quite likely that none of these will be produced after 2018 or so. Rafale might go couple of years longer, but it's still tough to keep production line capable of delivering aircraft but not producing aircraft for 5-10 years. JAS Gripen E might be produced in very limited numbers, but of course it also offers very limited capabilities. Professionals will understand this, but general public does not understand these things at all. Even many enthusiasts don't understand these issues at all. Of course there are a lot denigrating F-35 in Finnish media and internet forums. I think some of that comes from certain geographical direction...

If considering only military and technological aspects, there is no way F-35 loses. It can lose on political and financial aspect though, but hopefully this decision will be made like our selection of F/A-18 C/D Hornet and be done by professionals after thorough evaluation process.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 17:40
by cantaz
Canada might end up buying time for one manufacturer to be around for the Finnish decision.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 18:00
by cosmicdwarf
cantaz wrote:Canada might end up buying time for one manufacturer to be around for the Finnish decision.

Possibly. It depends on how long our process takes.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2015, 12:33
by popcorn
Hard to see F-35 losing this sale.


http://www.defensedaily.com/finnish-air ... -facility/


Finnish Air Force Officials Visit F-35 Facility

The Finnish Ministry of Defence in June said a working group proposed buying multi-role fighter jets after making a preliminary assessment of how to replace its F/A-18 aircraft. Finland said the life cycle of its F/A-18s will end by the end of 2020s.

The project to replace the F/A-18s will last about 15 years and needs to be launched this fall at the latest. Finland said the procurement decision should be made in the early 2020s.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2015, 13:11
by raffaauk48
Finnland should follow Norway and buy F-35.
Russians will think twice now before making any stupid move in Scandinavia !

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2015, 13:56
by magitsu
popcorn wrote:Hard to see F-35 losing this sale.

Yes, and not only because of technical merit.
I think that developing bilateral ties with the United States is of utmost importance because Finland is not in the NATO. If it was the geopolitical side of the selection would be more relaxed.

Correction to the previous quote: the project was launched 20th Oct.
The decision happens 2021. The next cabinet should still be serving. The current cabinet will handle RFI & RFP.
Key members (mostly the Chief of Defence, who is former Mig-21 and Hornet pilot - was actually trained for that in the US) have been busy visiting all manufacturers lately.

The group that did the background study for starting this project looked into Norway, Denmark and Canada.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 17:40
by magitsu
RFIs are being sent to BAE Systems, Dassault Aviation, Saab, Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
It's not model-specific, so even the viability of F-15 and F-16 could be evaluated if the manufacturers decide to provide that info. There is no one fixed number, but several different size packages that could be used to fill the capability requirement.

Newest turn of events is that supposedly mixed fleet is not out of the picture.

The amount of other operators for the platform was pointed as a major factor when looking into future sustainment costs.

Covering all bases it seems. Mixed fleet analysis sounds like a complete waste of time.

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1449030147399

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 03:01
by popcorn
A mixed flleet possibility could be a ploy to ensure initial participaion by other vendors given the apparent prererence for the F-35. It would be embarrassing to throw a party and only one guest shows up. :devil:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 14:58
by krorvik
... but it would simplify the choice :mrgreen:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 19:20
by maus92
magitsu wrote:RFIs are being sent to BAE Systems, Dassault Aviation, Saab, Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
It's not model-specific, so even the viability of F-15 and F-16 could be evaluated if the manufacturers decide to provide that info. There is no one fixed number, but several different size packages that could be used to fill the capability requirement.

Newest turn of events is that supposedly mixed fleet is not out of the picture.

The amount of other operators for the platform was pointed as a major factor when looking into future sustainment costs.

Covering all bases it seems. Mixed fleet analysis sounds like a complete waste of time.

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1449030147399


A mixed fleet implemented by an air force of this size probably won't save significant amounts of money. If the Finns went in this direction, and assuming that the mixed fleet concept is in reaction to the potentially crippling costs of operating the F-35, then it would make sense to procure another type that could share the same weapons, like Gripen and Super Hornet. I would go with the Super Hornet, given its unmatched ability to carry a greater mix of weaponry, and prior investment in support equipment.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 00:55
by popcorn
So it's so now more affordable to grow a separate logistics tail to support just squadron or two of a less capable, less survivable aircraft? I'll give the Finns more credit than that and see the multiple RFIs as an exercise in due dilligence. No skin off their nose.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 02:23
by magitsu
Yep, more likely just an acknowledgement from the military towards the politicians that will ultimately decide. Starting from the allotted budget. Broad assessment leaves least room to unanswered questions. It's easier to sell whatever gets picked when there's proof that the unknowns are certainly not better.

If mixed fleet was mandated with this kind of resources, I think it would make sense to pick M-346 and arm that for secondary duties and the rest F-35. This is keeping in mind that BAe Hawks retire with the F/A-18C/D and a whole new training scheme needs to be built.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 02:44
by spazsinbad
Vaguely I recall some EUROPES intending to operate F-35s to get together a training cadre - perhaps that was just talk? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Then there is the initial USofA training sites with perhaps glomming on there?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 08:25
by hornetfinn
I think only vaguely sensible mixed fleet from the contenders would be having Super Hornet and JAS Gripen E as they share the same engine. Of course that would be sensible only if Gripen was much cheaper (in lifetime costs) than SH and if both were much cheaper than F-35. As neither seems to be probable, I think it's very improbable that we will have mixed fleet.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 04:05
by magitsu
Recently there's been isolated speculation that the oddly non-specific RFI packages could in effect ask for a combination of multiroles and trainers (or a training solution of local simulators and trainer jets somewhere close).

When contrasting the companies against T-X bidders they've got half covered: BAe, LM, Boeing/Saab, leaving Textron, Alenia and Northrop Grumman out.

It remains to be seen how crucial domestic training scheme is for FiAF. Might be a challenge for the F-35 bid at this point.
At the moment the clearest combined package, if there really was a need for one would be Typhoon + Hawk AJT from BAe.
FiAF's current trainers are BAe Hawk Mk. 51s and Mk. 66s.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 04:12
by cosmicdwarf
magitsu wrote:Recently there's been isolated speculation that the oddly non-specific RFI packages could in effect ask for a combination of multiroles and trainers (or a training solution of local simulators and trainer jets somewhere close).

When contrasting the companies against T-X bidders they've got half covered: BAe, LM, Boeing/Saab, leaving Textron, Alenia and Northrop Grumman out.

It remains to be seen how crucial domestic training scheme is for FiAF. Might be a challenge for the F-35 bid at this point.

Shouldn't be. Other than the cost that is.

Training in new craft usually starts in the manufacturing country to train the trainers anyway (if I'm wrong please correct me, I'd rather learn), after that if the country wants to pay to set up their own training that's up to them.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 04:17
by magitsu
cosmicdwarf wrote:Shouldn't be. Other than the cost that is.

Training in new craft usually starts in the manufacturing country to train the trainers anyway (if I'm wrong please correct me, I'd rather learn), after that if the country wants to pay to set up their own training that's up to them.

True, but we don't know whether it will be seen as a separate issue. There's only been talk of replacing the capabilities of the current Hornets (HX-project), but everyone knows that Hawks retire at the same time. Where does the money for those come from? Frankly it seems unlikely that they would be considering making another request, because these are not funded from the regular procurement budget.

Keep in mind that theoretically these jet trainers could serve in some limited military role. Even the current FiAF Hawks can carry Sidewinders (no radar though).

Month ago FiAF aborted a turboprop trainer replacement (VX-project) due to high cost (Grob G 120TP >2M/ea) which is beans compared to a jet trainer. http://www.c4defence.com/en/YaziDetay.aspx?ID=38&KID=1

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 09:27
by Corsair1963
magitsu wrote:Recently there's been isolated speculation that the oddly non-specific RFI packages could in effect ask for a combination of multiroles and trainers (or a training solution of local simulators and trainer jets somewhere close).

When contrasting the companies against T-X bidders they've got half covered: BAe, LM, Boeing/Saab, leaving Textron, Alenia and Northrop Grumman out.

It remains to be seen how crucial domestic training scheme is for FiAF. Might be a challenge for the F-35 bid at this point.
At the moment the clearest combined package, if there really was a need for one would be Typhoon + Hawk AJT from BAe.
FiAF's current trainers are BAe Hawk Mk. 51s and Mk. 66s.


Why not F-35A's and M-346 Advance Trainers from Italy??? :wink:

MP15-1031-AL-1-First-Flight-TRM005-960x639.jpg



M-346-LAVI_680-1.jpg

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 13:51
by magitsu
Corsair1963 wrote:Why not F-35A's and M-346 Advance Trainers from Italy??? :wink:

My favorite combo if one is needed. But Alenia wasn't included in the list of five pre-RFI companies (BAe, LM, Boeing, Saab, Dassault). So it's more likely that only F-35s and simulators come out of it. Norwegian, Danish and Dutch solutions for F-35 training should provide a good early indicator.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 14:22
by hornetfinn
IMO, F-35 would likely be combined with T-50 trainer and it has good qualities to double up as light combat aircraft to support more capable F-35s. Of course Alenia Aermacchi is also major partner in F-35 program and so I don't think M-346 is out of the window either even if Alenia was not included in the list if F-35 is selected.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 19:28
by KamenRiderBlade
I'm hoping Northrop Grumman designs a stealthy shaped trainer that is basically a V-tailed F-20 Tigershark without all the expensive materials needed in a stealthy plane so that they can be mass produced for cheap.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 21:48
by Dragon029
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I'm hoping Northrop Grumman designs a stealthy shaped trainer that is basically a V-tailed F-20 Tigershark without all the expensive materials needed in a stealthy plane so that they can be mass produced for cheap.


They've actually privately shown off their T-X concept; it's apparently a single-engine T-38 lookalike (area-ruled, low wings, twin side-mounted intakes) with some chines running back from the nose and a conventional tail - it might have a reduced RCS, but it won't be particularly 'stealthy' from what they're describing.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2015, 02:00
by magitsu
hornetfinn wrote:IMO, F-35 would likely be combined with T-50 trainer and it has good qualities to double up as light combat aircraft to support more capable F-35s. Of course Alenia Aermacchi is also major partner in F-35 program and so I don't think M-346 is out of the window either even if Alenia was not included in the list if F-35 is selected.

T-50 has lost 2 times to M-346. Singapore and Israel. South Korea is a good case (but the only one with F-35) for T-50 and also the fact that Indonesia replaced Hawk Mk 53s with it.

M-346 has more prestigious buyers (Israel, Italy, Poland, Singapore - all likely F-35 buyers) at the moment.
Both are definite contenders and assuming there won't be a move to shared training capabilities.
The fact that LM is selling the T-50 is probably its best selling point at this moment.

M-346 is 1bn dollars per 30 based on to the Israeli buy. http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-1000725663 Finland has 24 or 26 modernized Hawks left starting next year.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2015, 10:30
by hornetfinn
T-50 seems more advanced and capable aircraft, but it's likely also quite a bit more expensive than M-346. It's definitely larger, more powerful and can carry more stuff. FA-50 version has very impressive weapons capability (AMRAAM, AIM-9, JDAM, Spice, targeting pods). Being more capable doesn't necessarily mean better trainer where cost is very important criteria everywhere. M-346 is likely very fine trainer aircraft and LCA version could also carry Brimstone, IRIS-T and AIM-9 missiles.

I think for Finland there might be some interest to buy say 6-10 T-50/M-346 (trainer only) and 10-20 FA-50/M-346 LCA variants (dual role light fighter/trainer) in addition to actual fighters (say F-35A). This would give cheaper alternative to fighters both to acquire and operate while giving some combat utility also.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2015, 10:58
by Corsair1963
hornetfinn wrote:T-50 seems more advanced and capable aircraft, but it's likely also quite a bit more expensive than M-346. It's definitely larger, more powerful and can carry more stuff. FA-50 version has very impressive weapons capability (AMRAAM, AIM-9, JDAM, Spice, targeting pods). Being more capable doesn't necessarily mean better trainer where cost is very important criteria everywhere. M-346 is likely very fine trainer aircraft and LCA version could also carry Brimstone, IRIS-T and AIM-9 missiles.

I think for Finland there might be some interest to buy say 6-10 T-50/M-346 (trainer only) and 10-20 FA-50/M-346 LCA variants (dual role light fighter/trainer) in addition to actual fighters (say F-35A). This would give cheaper alternative to fighters both to acquire and operate while giving some combat utility also.



Honestly, I think the odds are very good than Finland will purchase the F-35. As it looks to move closer to Europe the US and NATO. As for the M-346 it think it a good fit for the F-35 and would also be a good choice. Yet, I have no idea of the odds of Finland acquiring it???

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2015, 11:56
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, I think the odds are very good than Finland will purchase the F-35. As it looks to move closer to Europe the US and NATO. As for the M-346 it think it a good fit for the F-35 and would also be a good choice. Yet, I have no idea of the odds of Finland acquiring it???


I think only potential new trainers to replace our Hawks currently in existence are T-50 and M-346. All others are too old designs and not being produced any more. Of course some new trainer aircraft might surface within the time frame, like Boeing/Saab project or Northrop Grumman proposal for USAF T-X program.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2015, 13:07
by magitsu
How big is the price difference between armed trainer and the basic versions?
Because I wonder whether it's a better idea to not buy any armed trainers (just the basic ones) and just get max amount of actual jets.

It's interesting to consider whether F-35s could be used to target FA-50s weapons (Amraam) while they loiter further back... because then there would be more missiles in the air without it really mattering that both don't have the same capability.

FA-50 as a low cost bomb truck, what do you think?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2015, 14:27
by hornetfinn
FA-50 costs about 35 million US$ according to this: http://www.koreaaero.com/english/pr_center/cpr_view.asp?pg=1&gubun=v&seq=25777&bbs=10#

T-50 costs about 25 million US$ according to this: http://www.koreaaero.com/english/pr_center/cpr_view.asp?pg=1&gubun=v&seq=23695&bbs=10#

So, armed trainer/light attack aircraft costs about 10 million US$ more per aircraft than basic version. Of course this depends on exact details of each version and each contract.

So, let's say each F-35A costs about 120 million US$, FA-50 about 35 million US$ and T-50 about 25 million US$. If Finland uses say 6 billion US$ to buy the aircraft, we could get the following:

A) 48 F-35s, 10 T-50s (IMO, about minimum number of trainers, max number of fighters)
B) 45 F-35s, 24 T-50s (Direct conversion of Hawks to new aircraft)
C) 40 F-35s, 25 FA-50s, 10 T-50s
D) 36 F-35s, 40 FA-50s, 10 T-50s (balanced high/low mix)
E) 24 F-35s, 80 FA-50s, 10 T-50s
F) 0 F-35s, 160 FA-50s, 10 T-50s

Of course last two are not feasible at all because they'd increase the number of aircraft significantly and thus requirements for personnel a lot which would increase costs too much. They'd also be inadequate to face well equipped enemy with modern systems. IMO, I'd also buy max number of actual fighter jets and minimum amount of trainers. IMO, 5 F-35s would be more useful in most cases in our threat environment than 25 armed trainers. I would rather maximize the number and capability of weapons instead.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2015, 22:56
by talkitron
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?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2015, 06:56
by thepointblank
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2015, 22:04
by talkitron
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?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2015, 22:15
by talkitron
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

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2015, 22:33
by basher54321
KAI have put some basic specs up

FA-50.JPG

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 00:51
by johnwill
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 19:00
by madrat
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 20:54
by talkitron
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?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2015, 22:47
by newmanfrigan
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2015, 01:31
by talkitron
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2015, 03:12
by neurotech
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2015, 13:26
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2015, 14:17
by gideonic
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/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 00:00
by popcorn
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 00:00
by popcorn
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 00:00
by popcorn
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 04:40
by smsgtmac
popcorn wrote: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
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.

Memo to Ty: When you live next door to Russia, you don't need to be 'expeditionary' to find an area denial IADS, IT FINDS YOU. And it probably extends over your own airspace to boot.
Whot a Maroon!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 04:45
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote: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.


I understand that Tyler Rogoaway is so stupid I feel like he should have a handicap sticker, but even for him this is retarded.

Beyond the timeline for the Super Hornet being in doubt, Its already been mentioned here that the Gripen is not the primary choice, and the F-35 not fitting with the Finns "for expeditionary warfare, the high-end capabilities and stealth" is pure fallacy, because Finnish fighters may be in SAM range the moment they take off being in such close proximity to Russia. Survivability and capability are always popular, not just for fighting away from home.

If, as the original post in this thread says, the F-35 ends up being the same cost as the Gripen, then the F-35 should be the choice. And the latest USAF SAR and JPO statements ae certainly making that seem to be the case. In fact the F-35 may well be cheaper to buy.


This is ridiculously poorly researched even for Tyler. He actually could have read this whole 11 page thread complete with links and written a more factual article. Christ he could have read a f**king map, and figured this out

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 08:53
by hornetfinn
Exactly. S-300 and S-400 systems can reach very deep inside Finnish territory and can cover over half of Finnish territory. And if Russia gets PAK-FA or even Su-35S to service, then the high-end capabilities and stealth technology would be rather nice to have. Of course having ability to collect ISTAR information close to enemy is invaluable in the event of war. No 4th gen fighter can do that, but F-35 can.

Btw, I warmly welcome F-15s and their crews to Finland! Anyone know how 123rd Fighter Squadron F-15C/Ds are equipped?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 09:26
by gideonic
hornetfinn wrote:Exactly. S-300 and S-400 systems can reach very deep inside Finnish territory and can cover over half of Finnish territory. And if Russia gets PAK-FA or even Su-35S to service, then the high-end capabilities and stealth technology would be rather nice to have. Of course having ability to collect ISTAR information close to enemy is invaluable in the event of war. No 4th gen fighter can do that, but F-35 can.

Btw, I warmly welcome F-15s and their crews to Finland! Anyone know how 123rd Fighter Squadron F-15C/Ds are equipped?

How certain is the possiblity that you'll get the F-35? There was an article that even reached newspapers here in Estonia, about Finnish ex-prime minister openly pitching Gripen for Finland here (equivalent of say Bush or Kissinger doing it in the US). As well as some finnish-swedish bloggers here. IMO he seems quite unaware of the progress and capabilities of the F-35 (considering his previous posts). Perhaps hornetfinn you'd find time to educate him a bit?

He seems influential enough to pay visits to Gripen factory, yet he doesn't come off as outright fallacious fanboy, rather uninformed. He seems to know naval stuff well enough and considering his credentials (that he posts openly) imo it would be worth a try.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 10:04
by gideonic
In the blog post there was also a mention of a confidential study for the HX program. The abstract however is public:
http://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto/ ... utkimukset
Can someone translate it ? Google translate seems to do a really poor job at it.

From my own poor FinnishI understand, it mostly focuses on the viability of Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) radar systems in the 2030+ timeframe. I hope they are not oversimplifying the simulations to use these reports as a holy grail for selecting Gripen (never mind the kinematic and other deficiencies compared to the F-35) :|

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 11:20
by barrelnut
Last summer I had a conversation with a family member who happens to be a seasoned Finnish Air Force Hornet pilot and we briefly discussed about the new fighter acquisition program. I didn't want to push him to say anything that could be even remotely classified, but I was clear that the pilots would prefer the F-35. The Russians are now fielding (in low numbers) advanced jets (Su-35 etc.), and fourth gen 90's jets would not suffice in the future, especially when Russia starts fielding it's own fifth gen fighters.

He did not have high remarks about the Gripen in general, and we both were concerned that some of the politicians might want to make the selection a political decision instead of letting the Air Force select the winner by itself (like it was allowed to do last time when we selected the F/A-18C/D).

Anyways, the Gripen E is basically a longer ranged Gripen C with a new AESA radar. That's what it is. It could have been OK choice in 2005 (if it had existed) instead of the Super Bug if we had made a selection then, but we are now selecting a new fighter for 2025 - 2055 time frame. None of the fourth gen jets are future proof enough for us.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 12:30
by element1loop
"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."

Logic and weasel words of a used car salesman.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 12:34
by hornetfinn
gideonic wrote:In the blog post there was also a mention of a confidential study for the HX program. The abstract however is public:
http://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto/ ... utkimukset
Can someone translate it ? Google translate seems to do a really poor job at it.

From my own poor FinnishI understand, it mostly focuses on the viability of Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) radar systems in the 2030+ timeframe. I hope they are not oversimplifying the simulations to use these reports as a holy grail for selecting Gripen (never mind the kinematic and other deficiencies compared to the F-35) :|


Google translate is very poor with Finnish language as Finnish is rather difficult for artificial translation mainly due to being highly synthetic language (lots of morphemes, basically diverse language) which is opposite to English which is analytic language (not many morphemes, basically straightforward language and easy for artificial translation.

That link is about a study done about significance of stealth technology in the future. The study did concentrate on differences of 4th gen and 5th gen fighters as seen by MIMO radars. The study was done using computer simulations only but given the parties who did the study, the simulation was likely as good as it gets. The study itself is confidential, so it's not published but the summary does give some clues about the end results. It says that MIMO radar can offer improved detection/tracking probability against stealth fighter target and it was said that they got up to 30 percent improvement in tracking probability against stealth fighter using MIMO radars. It was however highly dependant on where exactly the transmitters and receivers were located and what flight path the target had. It was also found out that lower frequencies give longer detection range against stealth fighters, just as expected. It was also noted that having just detections or tracking by low frequency radar is not enough for air defences if stealth aircraft can not be engaged effectively. From the summary I get the feeling that 5th gen fighter still exhibits healthy advantage against 4th gen fighters even against MIMO and low frequency radars, although the advantage might not be nearly as large as against high frequency radars. It was noted also that computer simulations can not accurately take into account the effects of RAM and external weapons because simulations always have certain simplifications.

It was noted that additional studies will be done to support Finnish fighter acquisition process.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 12:45
by hornetfinn
barrelnut wrote:Last summer I had a conversation with a family member who happens to be a seasoned Finnish Air Force Hornet pilot and we briefly discussed about the new fighter acquisition program. I didn't want to push him to say anything that could be even remotely classified, but I was clear that the pilots would prefer the F-35. The Russians are now fielding (in low numbers) advanced jets (Su-35 etc.), and fourth gen 90's jets would not suffice in the future, especially when Russia starts fielding it's own fifth gen fighters.

He did not have high remarks about the Gripen in general, and we both were concerned that some of the politicians might want to make the selection a political decision instead of letting the Air Force select the winner by itself (like it was allowed to do last time when we selected the F/A-18C/D).

Anyways, the Gripen E is basically a longer ranged Gripen C with a new AESA radar. That's what it is. It could have been OK choice in 2005 (if it had existed) instead of the Super Bug if we had made a selection then, but we are now selecting a new fighter for 2025 - 2055 time frame. None of the fourth gen jets are future proof enough for us.


I've been involved in exercises where Gripens have taken part and they are definitely no wonder-fighters some people make them to be. They are solid fighters but let's say that I have not heard a single Finnish fighter pilot willing to swap their F/A-18C/Ds for Gripens and I've talked to a number of them.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 13:23
by gideonic
hornetfinn wrote: ...
It was noted that additional studies will be done to support Finnish fighter acquisition process.

Thank you very much for the translation and synopsis!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 13:31
by hornetfinn
gideonic wrote:How certain is the possiblity that you'll get the F-35? There was an article that even reached newspapers here in Estonia, about Finnish ex-prime minister openly pitching Gripen for Finland here (equivalent of say Bush or Kissinger doing it in the US). As well as some finnish-swedish bloggers here. IMO he seems quite unaware of the progress and capabilities of the F-35 (considering his previous posts). Perhaps hornetfinn you'd find time to educate him a bit?

He seems influential enough to pay visits to Gripen factory, yet he doesn't come off as outright fallacious fanboy, rather uninformed. He seems to know naval stuff well enough and considering his credentials (that he posts openly) imo it would be worth a try.


None of these opinions have any influence to Finnish fighter selection process. I'm sure Finnish selection process will be very thorough and also transparent and best option for us will be selected by military. I don't see politicians in Finland being able to overturn the selection made by military personnel unless two candidates are very close to each other. While Gripen and Finnish-Swedish military co-operation has support in Finland, I doubt these will affect the selection process at all. I see so many things going for F-35 that I'd be really surprised if anything else gets selected. Maybe if Swedes give us Gripen Es for free... :mrgreen:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 16:02
by les_paul59
I've seen the comments section of tyler's articles and he doesn't even believe that the u.s. needs the f-35, so why would he think that Finland does? He must really not give the russians any credit for their S.A.M. technology and their new fighters. The thing is once you start losing jets and pilot's, you're going to wish you bought that "high end stealth capability"

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 21:10
by krorvik
hornetfinn wrote:Exactly. S-300 and S-400 systems can reach very deep inside Finnish territory and can cover over half of Finnish territory.


I've served in the Norwegian Army, monitoring the russians deploy S-300 within visual range from the border. They can most certainly take out targets well within norwegian airspace too.

Our F16's would be sitting ducks.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 23:21
by meatshield
krorvik wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Exactly. S-300 and S-400 systems can reach very deep inside Finnish territory and can cover over half of Finnish territory.


I've served in the Norwegian Army, monitoring the russians deploy S-300 within visual range from the border. They can most certainly take out targets well within norwegian airspace too.

Our F16's would be sitting ducks.


If you can see them then artillery would be already aimed at them. Surely the Russian are just trying to rattle the cage.

I hope the Finns do go for the F35. I think it is starting to scare the Russians by the sheer scale of the numbers of 5th gen aircraft they will have aimed at them.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 23:43
by krorvik
meatshield wrote:If you can see them then artillery would be already aimed at them. Surly the Russian are just trying to rattle the cage.


Much like in Syria. Helps to be able to (try to) point their radars at something foreign too ;)

The russians have many ways of trying to "rattle the cage". Their MBTs would sometimes point their turrets towards and "wave" at our OPs when leaving their station. In peacetime - a gesture. They did not when leaving for Chechnya (We saw them leaving a couple of days beforethe second Chechen war - and understood ~ what was coming).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 00:59
by meatshield
Being at the wrong end of a barrel like that would definitely get the blood pumping! :shock:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 01:15
by mk82
hornetfinn wrote:
barrelnut wrote:Last summer I had a conversation with a family member who happens to be a seasoned Finnish Air Force Hornet pilot and we briefly discussed about the new fighter acquisition program. I didn't want to push him to say anything that could be even remotely classified, but I was clear that the pilots would prefer the F-35. The Russians are now fielding (in low numbers) advanced jets (Su-35 etc.), and fourth gen 90's jets would not suffice in the future, especially when Russia starts fielding it's own fifth gen fighters.

He did not have high remarks about the Gripen in general, and we both were concerned that some of the politicians might want to make the selection a political decision instead of letting the Air Force select the winner by itself (like it was allowed to do last time when we selected the F/A-18C/D).

Anyways, the Gripen E is basically a longer ranged Gripen C with a new AESA radar. That's what it is. It could have been OK choice in 2005 (if it had existed) instead of the Super Bug if we had made a selection then, but we are now selecting a new fighter for 2025 - 2055 time frame. None of the fourth gen jets are future proof enough for us.


I've been involved in exercises where Gripens have taken part and they are definitely no wonder-fighters some people make them to be. They are solid fighters but let's say that I have not heard a single Finnish fighter pilot willing to swap their F/A-18C/Ds for Gripens and I've talked to a number of them.


The Swiss public agrees! Haha :mrgreen:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 02:52
by XanderCrews
hornetfinn wrote:
barrelnut wrote:Last summer I had a conversation with a family member who happens to be a seasoned Finnish Air Force Hornet pilot and we briefly discussed about the new fighter acquisition program. I didn't want to push him to say anything that could be even remotely classified, but I was clear that the pilots would prefer the F-35. The Russians are now fielding (in low numbers) advanced jets (Su-35 etc.), and fourth gen 90's jets would not suffice in the future, especially when Russia starts fielding it's own fifth gen fighters.

He did not have high remarks about the Gripen in general, and we both were concerned that some of the politicians might want to make the selection a political decision instead of letting the Air Force select the winner by itself (like it was allowed to do last time when we selected the F/A-18C/D).

Anyways, the Gripen E is basically a longer ranged Gripen C with a new AESA radar. That's what it is. It could have been OK choice in 2005 (if it had existed) instead of the Super Bug if we had made a selection then, but we are now selecting a new fighter for 2025 - 2055 time frame. None of the fourth gen jets are future proof enough for us.


I've been involved in exercises where Gripens have taken part and they are definitely no wonder-fighters some people make them to be. They are solid fighters but let's say that I have not heard a single Finnish fighter pilot willing to swap their F/A-18C/Ds for Gripens and I've talked to a number of them.


You mean they aren't willing to cash in capable hornets for armed trainers with 60 percent of the thrust? Shocking lol

Way out west here the Gripen gets a lot of awe thanks to marketing but countries norway and Finland have worked and sparred with them, like you say they aren't wonder planes and they know that. There was good reason why norway rejected the new gen gripen and Finland rejected it and picked hornets.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 12:34
by hornetfinn
meatshield wrote: I hope the Finns do go for the F35. I think it is starting to scare the Russians by the sheer scale of the numbers of 5th gen aircraft they will have aimed at them.


I hope too as I don't see any other option being good enough to survive and be really effective against modern and future Russian systems and forces. I don't see any real advantages in going with any of the competitors as they are not significantly cheaper (if at all) and are definitely much less capable in multitude of ways.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 12:53
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
barrelnut wrote:Last summer I had a conversation with a family member who happens to be a seasoned Finnish Air Force Hornet pilot and we briefly discussed about the new fighter acquisition program. I didn't want to push him to say anything that could be even remotely classified, but I was clear that the pilots would prefer the F-35. The Russians are now fielding (in low numbers) advanced jets (Su-35 etc.), and fourth gen 90's jets would not suffice in the future, especially when Russia starts fielding it's own fifth gen fighters.

He did not have high remarks about the Gripen in general, and we both were concerned that some of the politicians might want to make the selection a political decision instead of letting the Air Force select the winner by itself (like it was allowed to do last time when we selected the F/A-18C/D).

Anyways, the Gripen E is basically a longer ranged Gripen C with a new AESA radar. That's what it is. It could have been OK choice in 2005 (if it had existed) instead of the Super Bug if we had made a selection then, but we are now selecting a new fighter for 2025 - 2055 time frame. None of the fourth gen jets are future proof enough for us.


I've been involved in exercises where Gripens have taken part and they are definitely no wonder-fighters some people make them to be. They are solid fighters but let's say that I have not heard a single Finnish fighter pilot willing to swap their F/A-18C/Ds for Gripens and I've talked to a number of them.


You mean they aren't willing to cash in capable hornets for armed trainers with 60 percent of the thrust? Shocking lol

Way out west here the Gripen gets a lot of awe thanks to marketing but countries norway and Finland have worked and sparred with them, like you say they aren't wonder planes and they know that. There was good reason why norway rejected the new gen gripen and Finland rejected it and picked hornets.



But, but. . .the Gripen is a 6th Gen aircraft. Bill Sweetman even said so.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 13:49
by optimist
sferrin wrote:But, but. . .the Gripen is a 6th Gen aircraft. Bill Sweetman even said so.

let's not forget this gem of wisdom

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 14:40
by hornetfinn
mk82 wrote:The Swiss public agrees! Haha :mrgreen:


LOL, true. Incidentally, I think the Swiss would be best served with buying F-35 in two or three batches to replace both F-5 and F/A-18C/Ds. They might as well loan some F/A-18C/Ds from USA to fill in for F-5 replacement until F-35 is operational to avoid too big drop in numbers. Say buy 20-30 F-35s in 2020 and second batch in 2025-30.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 15:07
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:But, but. . .the Gripen is a 6th Gen aircraft. Bill Sweetman even said so.



You just know at northrop they are kicking themselves at not creating better propaganda regarding the F-20 and F-5. Saab has created this idea that you can have superior than Medium weight fighter performance at BELOW light weight cost. I don't even think a T-38 can be operated for $4700 CPFH, you can't operate a lot of lear jets at that price.

:roll:

the trick was lying and having a bunch of gullible internet fanboys who still can't figure out why their home nations aren't interested in the Gripen's "sixth gen" capability

Watch as fanboys argue that the Gripen Demo is a true Gripen NG prototype (Its not, even saab has said the Gripen NG prototype will fly this year)

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ad-4/page3

Continues again on page 7


So much Schadenfreude to be had. :lmao: :lmao:


from page 6:

Gripen engineers say that they have still to optimise the air intakes, which they expect will boost engine power by another 25%.


LOL damn GE will be stoked, who would have thought their engine was under perfoming by 25 percent all this time? That would put them in F100 class! Who knew it was the intake holding that engine back this whole time, eh?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 15:33
by durahawk
optimist wrote:
sferrin wrote:But, but. . .the Gripen is a 6th Gen aircraft. Bill Sweetman even said so.

let's not forget this gem of wisdom

Heh "conceding the first look" means that your fantastically supermanuverable flanker will be scrap metal before it ever makes it to the merge.
hornetfinn wrote:LOL, true. Incidentally, I think the Swiss would be best served with buying F-35 in two or three batches to replace both F-5 and F/A-18C/Ds. They might as well loan some F/A-18C/Ds from USA to fill in for F-5 replacement until F-35 is operational to avoid too big drop in numbers. Say buy 20-30 F-35s in 2020 and second batch in 2025-30.
[OR] you could just go the Iran route and turn the F-5's into F-18's, twice the tails, twice the burminating right? :mrgreen:

1573292_-_main.jpg
Source: Janes

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 16:01
by barrelnut
sferrin wrote:Watch as fanboys argue that the Gripen Demo is a true Gripen NG prototype (Its not, even saab has said the Gripen NG prototype will fly this year)

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ad-4/page3


Jebus christ those Gripen fanbois are thick! You can get a head ache from reading that nonsense there...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 17:30
by cosmicdwarf
If the Gripen was as good as they think it is, then it would definitely be selling better than it is.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 17:53
by XanderCrews
cosmicdwarf wrote:If the Gripen was as good as they think it is, then it would definitely be selling better than it is.


So far NG is replacing F-5s and other Gripens. Revolutionary!!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 18:47
by cosmicdwarf
XanderCrews wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:If the Gripen was as good as they think it is, then it would definitely be selling better than it is.


So far NG is replacing F-5s and other Gripens. Revolutionary!!

This clearly means that the US should drop the F-22, F-35, LSR-B and F-X in favour of the Gripen.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 18:53
by XanderCrews
cosmicdwarf wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:If the Gripen was as good as they think it is, then it would definitely be selling better than it is.


So far NG is replacing F-5s and other Gripens. Revolutionary!!

This clearly means that the US should drop the F-22, F-35, LSR-B and F-X in favour of the Gripen.


Oh exactly! And since no one in the US trains on light fighters, or trains against them, the US just has no clue about what light fighters are capable of. Saab is breaking the laws of physics on the daily. Can you imagine if they made revolutionary airliners? How quick would Boeing and Airbus be out of business with cheaper more efficient Saab airliners? We all know how airline companies don't comprehend cost and efficiency. Saab engineers could be getting 25 percent more thrust from a 737 as we speak!!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 20:42
by optimist
remember this Sweetman love-rant?
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... gripen-t-x
Boeing and Saab will announce “in weeks rather than months” that they will team up to offer the JAS 39 Gripen for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X future trainer requirement, according to sources familiar with the deal. Saab is apparently confident that the two companies will be able to undercut the cost of the closest rival contender, the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 22:24
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:remember this Sweetman love-rant?
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... gripen-t-x
Boeing and Saab will announce “in weeks rather than months” that they will team up to offer the JAS 39 Gripen for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X future trainer requirement, according to sources familiar with the deal. Saab is apparently confident that the two companies will be able to undercut the cost of the closest rival contender, the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50.


I'm sure if anything goes wrong or falls short it will be Boeing's fault rest assured.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 23:10
by cosmicdwarf
XanderCrews wrote:
optimist wrote:remember this Sweetman love-rant?
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... gripen-t-x
Boeing and Saab will announce “in weeks rather than months” that they will team up to offer the JAS 39 Gripen for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X future trainer requirement, according to sources familiar with the deal. Saab is apparently confident that the two companies will be able to undercut the cost of the closest rival contender, the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50.


I'm sure if anything goes wrong or falls short it will be Boeing's fault rest assured.

Saab can do no wrong afterall.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 23:18
by sferrin
Just for lulz:

Northrop Lavi Proposal '81.jpg


Northrop Lavi proposal from 1981.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 23:44
by element1loop
Gripen, an especially well-developed (expensive) multirole trainer with aspirations.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2016, 02:27
by charlielima223
optimist wrote:


I am pretty sure the Su-35 IS A GOOD aircraft but some of the stuff Billy-boy says seems rather...


Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 11:57
by gideonic
https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/201 ... e-program/

This is in stark contrast to Lockheed-Martin who demands a very tight control over the maintenance chain for the F-35, and the possibility to overhaul the F-35 locally is indeed one of the main questions raised in light of the preliminary report. The exact form of cooperation Saab is ready to offer is still open, but they are looking into a number of different options, which could include buying components/sub-assemblies from Finnish companies, or even a final assemble line in Finland.

:doh: Assembly line for every country and every squadron !!

And yeah, Italy and Japan totally are unable to assemble F-35, nor is there any change to actually produce any subcomponents for the F-35, as noone has ever done so ...
</sarcasm>

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 12:24
by hornetfinn
gideonic wrote:https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/a-visit-to-the-griffins-nest-the-program/

This is in stark contrast to Lockheed-Martin who demands a very tight control over the maintenance chain for the F-35, and the possibility to overhaul the F-35 locally is indeed one of the main questions raised in light of the preliminary report. The exact form of cooperation Saab is ready to offer is still open, but they are looking into a number of different options, which could include buying components/sub-assemblies from Finnish companies, or even a final assemble line in Finland.

:doh: Assembly line for every country and every squadron !!

And yeah, Italy and Japan totally are unable to assemble F-35, nor is there any change to actually produce any subcomponents for the F-35, as noone has ever done so ...
</sarcasm>


And F-35 is not suitable for dispersed operations...
and is so expensive and it's not certain that the price will go down and Gripen will be so cheap and has proven this...
and F-35 is not good for SEAD/DEAD because it's only a single seater...
:roll:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 12:58
by gideonic
hornetfinn wrote:And F-35 is not suitable for dispersed operations...
and is so expensive and it's not certain that the price will go down and Gripen will be so cheap and has proven this...
and F-35 is not good for SEAD/DEAD because it's only a single seater...
:roll:

Yes caught my eye as well. Gee I wonder why the bother to make the Next Generation Jammer F-35 compatible then.

Though that begs a question, why is NAVY still buying Growlers so actively?
I get it that F-35C is far from ready, but it will be in just a few years and NGJ support will follow in 2022-2023 (just year after Growler). They will be stuck with those Super-Hornet derivatives for decades and they already have over a hundred.

I presume it's because Growler also has some specific EW hardware integrated in it, for some mission sets that are not done by the pods? E.g. radio psyops or other tasks not specifically radar jamming? Otherwise it seems quite like a waste to continue buying them after 2016-17 the latest.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 13:22
by barrelnut
gideonic wrote:Though that begs a question, why is NAVY still buying Growlers so actively?


I think they have to. The Congress have mandated (with funds too) that they have to to buy some number of Growlers/SuperBugs to keep Boeing's St. Louis factory open.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 13:36
by barrelnut
gideonic wrote:https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/a-visit-to-the-griffins-nest-the-program/


Saab is actually pretty clever at guerilla marketing. They have been feeding "info" to various sympathetic bloggers etc. that are able to influence people in discussion forums and on social media etc. and thus gaining traction in people's minds while having inferior product compared to the F-35 or other euro canards.

LockMart should do the same IMHO.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 14:26
by XanderCrews
gideonic wrote:
Though that begs a question, why is NAVY still buying Growlers so actively?
I get it that F-35C is far from ready, but it will be in just a few years and NGJ support will follow in 2022-2023 (just year after Growler). They will be stuck with those Super-Hornet derivatives for decades and they already have over a hundred.




Kind of answered your own question there. :D

barrelnut wrote:
gideonic wrote:<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/a-visit-to-the-griffins-nest-the-program</span>/


Saab is actually pretty clever at guerilla marketing. They have been feeding "info" to various sympathetic bloggers etc. that are able to influence people in discussion forums and on social media etc. and thus gaining traction in people's minds while having inferior product compared to the F-35 or other euro canards.

LockMart should do the same IMHO.


It was money well spent. They have a blogger who has jumped to conclusions without bothering to research the competition that favors saab-- sounds about right. They gave the monkey a banana and he did a little dance

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 14:41
by hornetfinn
barrelnut wrote:
gideonic wrote:https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/a-visit-to-the-griffins-nest-the-program/


Saab is actually pretty clever at guerilla marketing. They have been feeding "info" to various sympathetic bloggers etc. that are able to influence people in discussion forums and on social media etc. and thus gaining traction in people's minds while having inferior product compared to the F-35 or other euro canards.

LockMart should do the same IMHO.


I think that way too. I think LM has taken the professional road, but general public is not professional at all and some kind of guerilla marketing might prove to be useful. It's very cheap and with Internet information and disinformation both spread around the world almost instantly. LM and F-35 program have the professional people but a handful of anti-F-35 people seem to have quite a following. Problem are the politicians and who they listen to. They might be tempted to listen to anti-F-35 people as they are very vocal and seem to have large following (=voters). Canada is prime example lately.

I think any new defence program need to have dedicated marketing programs for professionals, politicians and general public and be well prepared for countering a lot of stupidity along with real issues.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 14:44
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:Just for lulz:

Northrop Lavi Proposal '81.jpg


Northrop Lavi proposal from 1981.



Google: BAE P106B

Image

Image

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 14:52
by XanderCrews
hornetfinn wrote:
barrelnut wrote:
gideonic wrote:https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/a-visit-to-the-griffins-nest-the-program/


Saab is actually pretty clever at guerilla marketing. They have been feeding "info" to various sympathetic bloggers etc. that are able to influence people in discussion forums and on social media etc. and thus gaining traction in people's minds while having inferior product compared to the F-35 or other euro canards.

LockMart should do the same IMHO.


I think that way too. I think LM has taken the professional road, but general public is not professional at all and some kind of guerilla marketing might prove to be useful. It's very cheap and with Internet information and disinformation both spread around the world almost instantly. LM and F-35 program have the professional people but a handful of anti-F-35 people seem to have quite a following. Problem are the politicians and who they listen to. They might be tempted to listen to anti-F-35 people as they are very vocal and seem to have large following (=voters). Canada is prime example lately.

I think any new defence program need to have dedicated marketing programs for professionals, politicians and general public and be well prepared for countering a lot of stupidity along with real issues.


Its harder for LM to get away with this as well.


POP Quiz:

What does an Gripen NG cost? Actual dollar amount?

What does a GRipen NG cost to operate? actual Dollar amount?

Now What does an F-35 cost? and what does it cost to operate an hour? LM is compelled by US regulations to share such info, just like DOT&E reports that become a matter of public record. Where is equivalent for SAAB?


The president of saab claimed that the Gripen NG flyaway cost in Brazil is only 25 percent of the contract cost. Thats a flat lie. unless you believe an airplane with a 5 million dollar engine is only $32 million.

Does anyone have a line by line copy of the Brazil deal?


there is a ton of misinformation, both deliberate and undeliberate about the Gripen NG. an example of deliberate is the above lie, and the false claim of $4700 CPFH. an undeliberate example would be the range claims that can still be found leftover from 2008, before even the GRipen demo flew and the aircraft gained a thousand kilos in empty weight. (surely this and the small amount of thrust won't affect it, surely)

lastly NG is still in the honeymoon phase. It still hasn't even flown. Its easy to have perfect airplanes, and perfect factories, and perfect costs, until you need to fly. Hell the last time Saab made the Gripen it crashed 3 times. But they are just so perfect, I'm sure even the crashes were perfectly scheduled, and run without issue.

Look at the brazil price again. Then look at the Swiss price. Tell me this isn't an expensive aircraft to procure. Next the same people who look at the F-35 and say "look how much it costs to buy! now think how much it will cost to run!!" OK apply the same logic to the Gripen NG. The swedes are saying they are 80 million a piece flyaway.

As for building a new factory everywhere that wants them, that sounds wonderfully cheap and highly efficient :roll:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 15:15
by hornetfinn
XanderCrews wrote:POP Quiz:

What does an Gripen NG cost? Actual dollar amount?

What does a GRipen NG cost to operate? actual Dollar amount?

Now What does an F-35 cost? and what does it cost to operate an hour? LM is compelled by US regulations to share such info, just like DOT&E reports that become a matter of public record. Where is equivalent for SAAB?


This is very true and I find it amusing and infuriating at the same time that a lot of (anti-F-35) people are claiming the opposite. "Oh, but we don't know the F-35 costs yet" or "F-35 costs are skyrocketing" or "Gripen NG will be so cheap because Saab says so and F-35 is so expensive and LM and about dozen Air Forces are lying about what it costs" or "only USA needs those expensive stealth features".

F-35 is by far the most well known fighter program to date for general public due to very open and transparent development, testing and procurement processes and people still fail to understand that. People also think that because other fighter programs have not published problems, there are no problems with them.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 15:45
by cosmicdwarf
hornetfinn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:POP Quiz:

What does an Gripen NG cost? Actual dollar amount?

What does a GRipen NG cost to operate? actual Dollar amount?

Now What does an F-35 cost? and what does it cost to operate an hour? LM is compelled by US regulations to share such info, just like DOT&E reports that become a matter of public record. Where is equivalent for SAAB?


This is very true and I find it amusing and infuriating at the same time that a lot of (anti-F-35) people are claiming the opposite. "Oh, but we don't know the F-35 costs yet" or "F-35 costs are skyrocketing" or "Gripen NG will be so cheap because Saab says so and F-35 is so expensive and LM and about dozen Air Forces are lying about what it costs" or "only USA needs those expensive stealth features".

F-35 is by far the most well known fighter program to date for general public due to very open and transparent development, testing and procurement processes and people still fail to understand that. People also think that because other fighter programs have not published problems, there are no problems with them.

People also seem to assume that previous fighters had no problems and everything was okay with their development. That's why I tend to recommend to people to read up on previous fighter programs.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 14:26
by magitsu
Kongsberg A/S just bought 49.9 percent of Patria Oyj (similar centerpiece for Finland than Kongsberg is for Norway) from the Finnish state (after 50.1%). Deal is set to be finalized by the end of June. Only 272 million euros changes hands. http://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/artik ... le/5794022

Nammo is the other Norwegian company of note. Patria owns 50% and the Norwegian state 50%.

Image

The key A2/AD weaponry in both countries is now in Finnish-Norwegian hands. Meaning basically Nasams II (Kongsberg/Raytheon system, which uses Amraam) and Amraam (Nammo makes all motors) at the moment.

Quite a strong move related to F-35 and Finland. Also there's a Finnish billion dollar corvette program (3-4x) to compete for. Patria was the likely candidate to lead the project and Rauma docks the likely place to make the hulls. Now with added expertise from Kongsberg should be even more obvious.

What is your assessment?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 12:03
by hornetfinn
Finnish Ministry of Defence has a website for the HX fighter program (HX means Fighter X or something like that) in Finnish language.
http://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto/strategiset_suorituskykyhankkeet/havittajahanke_hx

According to it the Request For Information (RFI) will be sent to the governments of candidates by 22rd of April. There has been news earlier that RFIs were sent in December but that was only a notification of upcoming formal RFI.

The governments and candidates are the same as mentioned earlier.

United Kingdom (Eurofighter Typhoon)
France (Dassault Rafale)
Sweden (JAS39 Gripen
United States (F-35, F-18, F-16, F-15)

Responses to RFI are required to by end of October this year. After that it takes almost couple of years before Request For Quotation are sent. It takes further couple years before decisions are made and contract is to be made in about 2021. Of course during that time there are tests and comparisons done, along with a lot of negotiating. First aircraft will probably be received in about 2025 or so.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 12:18
by hornetfinn
magitsu wrote:Quite a strong move related to F-35 and Finland. Also there's a Finnish billion dollar corvette program (3-4x) to compete for. Patria was the likely candidate to lead the project and Rauma docks the likely place to make the hulls. Now with added expertise from Kongsberg should be even more obvious.

What is your assessment?


If FInland selects F-35, it might be good move since Kongsberg already makes some parts for F-35 along with JSM. Of course those new corvettes need Anti-Ship Missiles and JSM might well be fitting instead of our current RBS-15 missiles. I don't think this is indication of anything regarding fighter selection, though.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2016, 09:23
by hornetfinn
Finland has now sent RFIs (Request For Information) to all previously mentioned manufacturers and governments about new fighters for Finland. Interesting is that besides offering one fighter type, it's possible to offer several types or UCAVs to complement manned fighters. Answers to these RFIs are expected to be sent by the end of this year. Request for quotations (RFDs) will likely be sent during 2018 and selection of future fighter will likely be during 2021. This shows how long process selecting a fighter with competition really is nowadays.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2016, 09:24
by magitsu
If you're interested in how the manufacturers are trying to sell these fighters to the Finnish public, here's one video of each provided to the Finnish Defmin for the RFI.

http://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto/ ... eed_martin
http://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto/ ... ae_systems
http://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto/ ... a_dassault
http://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto/ ... uotsi_saab

My first impression is that LM was lazy. Everyone else provided a custom video that had given some thought to the actual requirements related to this project. Missed opportunity to showcase the mountain of previous buys & cooperation like most of the others did. Dassault even hinted to "transfer of key technologies", which is quite bold compared to the slick adjectives most were going for.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2016, 10:34
by spazsinbad
With the front matter junk edited out here is the last 2 min 20 sec of the LM F-35 for Finland (music: 'The Bridge' theme).


Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2016, 15:15
by XanderCrews
magitsu wrote: Dassault even hinted to "transfer of key technologies", which is quite bold compared to the slick adjectives most were going for.



Dassualt promised something bold they won't be able to deliver on? I was shocked!!! :D

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2016, 18:08
by magitsu
spazsinbad wrote:With the front matter junk edited out here is the last 2 min 20 sec of the LM F-35 for Finland (music: 'The Bridge' theme).

Much better.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2016, 22:30
by talkitron
magitsu wrote: Dassault even hinted to "transfer of key technologies", which is quite bold compared to the slick adjectives most were going for.


I doubt Finland is trying to develop an indigeneous fighter aircraft industry, so the key technologies are probably worth a lot less than to Brazil, Japan, South Korea and Turkey.

Of the videos, the Dassault one was the best to this non-Finnish speaker.

The safest political bet is probably to go with the cheapest option. I doubt the typical Finnish voter wants to spend a lot of money on fighter aircraft. Defense is 1.4% of GDP, according to Wikipedia.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2016, 09:19
by hornetfinn
talkitron wrote:
magitsu wrote:
The safest political bet is probably to go with the cheapest option. I doubt the typical Finnish voter wants to spend a lot of money on fighter aircraft. Defense is 1.4% of GDP, according to Wikipedia.


But what is the cheapest option? Is it the one that gives the highest number of airframes for given money or the one that gives the highest capability for given money? I think it should definitely be the latter one, but it might be somewhat difficult to explain how 30 higher capability fighters are better than 40 lower capability fighters.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2016, 10:57
by hornetfinn
magitsu wrote:My first impression is that LM was lazy. Everyone else provided a custom video that had given some thought to the actual requirements related to this project. Missed opportunity to showcase the mountain of previous buys & cooperation like most of the others did. Dassault even hinted to "transfer of key technologies", which is quite bold compared to the slick adjectives most were going for.


Agree with that. I think F-35 definitely seems like the best fighter, but the video here is pretty poor showing. Given that while Finnish deal will be fairly small, we are still talking about a deal worth several billion dollars and I'd expect better video presentation even at this early stage.

From comments in public forums, it seems like Finnish people are rating these videos in this order:

1. Dassault
2. Saab
3. Eurofighter
4. Boeing
5. LM

I'd agree with that order and I'm really surprised that US companies have done fairly poor videos given that advertising and infomercials are very important and large business itself in USA.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2016, 07:22
by spazsinbad
BOING! has a problem Houston methinks mit NorskDanewegians
Boeing, Denmark and Reaching Out to Danish Voters: An Unprecedented Ad Campaign
23 Apr 2016 SLDinfo

"2016-04-23 Unless you read and speak Danish or have friends in Denmark, you might have missed this one. Boeing is reinventing itself in Denmark using its American approach in Nordic country. Instead of the Vikings invading Anglo-Saxon territory, we are seeing something in reverse.

When companies compete to sell their products, systems or services in the defense sector, they do many things in terms of public relations. But Boeing is doing something quite unusual in Denmark – they are using their time-tested approach used in the United States now in Denmark.

But Denmark is not the United States...." [read on McDuff]

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/boeing-denmark-a ... -campaign/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2016, 10:38
by hornetfinn
Advertising in USA and at least in Northern Europe are two different animals and I doubt some Finnish or Swedish ads would work well in USA and vice versa. However IMO, advertising military equipment follows the same general lines all over the world. Military ads must target national needs and patriotic feelings. For USA these might be "Global Reach" and "Built in America" type of things. For Finland it might be "Independent Defence" and "Sovereignty". I think Boeing and LM are both missing these.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2016, 21:53
by XanderCrews
So do we think the Danes will really pick the fat F-18?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2016, 22:29
by botsing
XanderCrews wrote:So do we think the Danes will really pick the fat F-18?

Knowing the Danes, Boeing seriously pissed them off by this ad campaign.

To me it looks like the Boeing management took a decision without listening to, or maybe even consulting, the local experts on this.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2016, 00:49
by XanderCrews
botsing wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So do we think the Danes will really pick the fat F-18?

Knowing the Danes, Boeing seriously pissed them off by this ad campaign.

To me it looks like the Boeing management took a decision without listening to, or maybe even consulting, the local experts on this.


Remember when they got caught paying off former pilots to write an opinion piece about The benefits of the fat Hornet too?

It's always a lol when I see boeing doing the things people routinely accuse LM of doing...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2016, 09:29
by hornetfinn
botsing wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So do we think the Danes will really pick the fat F-18?

Knowing the Danes, Boeing seriously pissed them off by this ad campaign.

To me it looks like the Boeing management took a decision without listening to, or maybe even consulting, the local experts on this.


Agree, that seems pretty stupid way of presenting your product to Danes and shows no understanding of how things are handled there. At least in Finland each competing company has their own Finnish consulting companies/representatives for our future fighter program. Boeing and Dassault have not yet published their representatives, but they have ample time to do so.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2016, 14:44
by magitsu
hornetfinn wrote:Agree, that seems pretty stupid way of presenting your product to Danes and shows no understanding of how things are handled there. At least in Finland each competing company has their own Finnish consulting companies/representatives for our future fighter program. Boeing and Dassault have not yet published their representatives, but they have ample time to do so.


At least is a good reservation for now, keeping in mind that LM managed to bungle their intro video.

Boeing used at least 1,5M USD for their ad campaign attack in Denmark. Big bucks with surprisingly little foresight. http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 30c65.html (more defensive talk about the Boeing ads)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2016, 12:02
by hornetfinn
Official site for Finnish HX program now states that Boeing and Lockheed Martin will respond to RFI with information about F-18 and F-35. F-18 most definitely means Super Hornet, but in Finland F/A-18 is almost always shortened to F-18. This information has been provided by US DoD. So F-15 and F-16 seem to be out of competition by default. I'm sure nobody is suprised with that...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2016, 19:08
by talkitron
How much are the massive cutbacks in the Swedish defense budget over the last 15 years playing a role in the decionmaking? Sweden is less of a useful military ally in a conflict with Russia because of Sweden's micro-scale military. Sweden lost a recent Norwegian sub deal, perhaps for partly this reason. Part of buying a fighter is influencing a potential military ally. From this perspective, France might not be as close to Finland as the UK, in terms of rushing in troops in the event of a Russian invasion.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2016, 19:43
by krorvik
talkitron wrote:How much are the massive cutbacks in the Swedish defense budget over the last 15 years playing a role in the decionmaking? Sweden is less of a useful military ally in a conflict with Russia because of Sweden's micro-scale military. Sweden lost a recent Norwegian sub deal, perhaps for partly this reason. Part of buying a fighter is influencing a potential military ally. From this perspective, France might not be as close to Finland as the UK, in terms of rushing in troops in the event of a Russian invasion.


My guess is the budget itself is not as important a factor as potential maintenance and experience partnership. Although, a weak budget may of course play a secondary role there.

The size of the swedish armed forces can be compared to those of it's scandinavian cousins, so it's not micro-scale when compared to GDP (1,24 % according to wikipedia, Norway at 1,4% and Denmark at 1,3 % - Finland at 1,37%).

There's constant chirping from some US people when it comes to the apparently unfair absolute scaling of this vs the US (@ 3%) , but it is extremely important to keep in mind that the US is a much bigger economy overall.

If you look at the military spending per capita:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

... things look a bit different. Granted, sweden is not on that list ;)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2016, 20:17
by magitsu
talkitron wrote:Part of buying a fighter is influencing a potential military ally. From this perspective, France might not be as close to Finland as the UK, in terms of rushing in troops in the event of a Russian invasion.

Finally some geopolitical thought. I think that it's possible that the politicians will realize that Sweden has to participate no matter the pick, but getting anyone else entangled with the business in the Baltics would be beneficial to both.
Typhoon probably doesn't represent anyone in the long term, but Rafale might lure France in for good. It has affordability problem, which could be theoretically alleviated with a combo-solution including drones. But that would strip the "unproven, risky" mantle from the F-35.

krorvik wrote:The size of the swedish armed forces can be compared to those of it's scandinavian cousins, so it's not micro-scale when compared to GDP (1,24 % according to wikipedia, Norway at 1,4% and Denmark at 1,3 % - Finland at 1,37%).

According to François Heisbourg, comparable number for Finland is 1,75%. It would place in the upper third of Nato countries. This is for the most part due to Finland having militarized Border Guard, unlike most of Europe (Sweden for example), which has transformed them into police organizations. In Finland the Border Guard is under the Ministry of Interior, not MoD like the rest, so it's easy to miss the few hundred million.

krorvik, how do you see the possibilities in F-35 maintenance sharing? FiAF has outsourced theirs to Patria a decade ago and apparently Kongsberg CEO hinted that similar thing is discussed in Norway, which was prob. one of the reasons why they sprung for 49,9% stake in Patria. Could Kongsberg-Patria end up servicing Nordic F-35s? Danes probably won't get very big offsets aside from what Terma already has since their purchase is smaller.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2016, 22:36
by krorvik
magitsu wrote:According to François Heisbourg, comparable number for Finland is 1,75%. It would place in the upper third of Nato countries. This is for the most part due to Finland having militarized Border Guard, unlike most of Europe (Sweden for example), which has transformed them into police organizations. In Finland the Border Guard is under the Ministry of Interior, not MoD like the rest, so it's easy to miss the few hundred million.

krorvik, how do you see the possibilities in F-35 maintenance sharing? FiAF has outsourced theirs to Patria a decade ago and apparently Kongsberg CEO hinted that similar thing is discussed in Norway, which was prob. one of the reasons why they sprung for 49,9% stake in Patria. Could Kongsberg-Patria end up servicing Nordic F-35s? Danes probably won't get very big offsets aside from what Terma already has since their purchase is smaller.


The 1,75% is interesting, especially since Finland is known in Norway to spend less on defense - but to be more efficient - I'd certainly like to know how that number is calculated - it'll certainly throw some political arguments here under the bus if true. If you could provide a reference that'd be great!

Norwegian border guard is also military by the way (I served there myself), although we only protect some 196kms of border, Finland has quite some more :) The swedes only border on Norway and Finland, so my guess is they're more concerned about drunken norwegians out for cheap beer. Or submerged Whisky, hehehe.

I believe AIM Norway (Nice name eh...) has bean dealt engine maintenance for RNoAF - their main depot is just down the road here actually (Kjeller), but they are closing Kjeller Military base when the F-16s are retired, and moving to Rygge.

For Kongsberg, I don't know, they are probably closer tied in to the JSM.

Edit: Of course, we have more than those 196kms if you count air and sea.... have to give credit to the Royal .no Navy and of course Air Force :)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2016, 23:52
by magitsu
krorvik wrote:The 1,75% is interesting, especially since Finland is known in Norway to spend less on defense - but to be more efficient - I'd certainly like to know how that number is calculated - it'll certainly throw some political arguments here under the bus if true. If you could provide a reference that'd be great!

That info is from last Friday's press confrence, where an assessment "The effects of Finland's possible Nato-membership" commissioned by the Finnish government was released. Heisbourg was one of the experts who wrote it and he told this 1,75% figure to the reporters (live on tv, where I heard it) and the reasoning behind it.

Here it is in the actual text (I might have misheard the ".75").

"NATO’s benchmark for defence expenditure is set at 2% of GDP: out of
28 members, only four countries (including neighbouring Estonia) meet it,
possibly joined by a fifth (Poland) in 2016. Finland’s defence budget of EUR
2.69 billion stands at 1.3% of a GDP of EUR 207 billion. However, according
to our assessment, the figure rises to EUR 3.41 billion and 1.64% of GDP on
the basis of NATO definitions.
To close the gap, annual expenditure would
have to increase by approximately EUR 730 million."
http://formin.finland.fi/public/default ... ture=en-US
pg. 44-45. (link to pdf at the above page)

Border Guard budget is 230 million euros. They are definitely above average light infantry/jaegers, not police. Surprisingly they are allowed to operate at Åland Islands unlike the regular military, even though that area is demilitarized.

Here's the Nato definition of defence expenditures:

"They might also
include only those proportions of "Other
Forces" like Ministry of Interior troops, border
guards, national police forces, customs,
gendarmerie, carabinierie, coast guards etc.
that are trained in military tactics, are equipped
as a military force, can operate under direct
military authority in deployed operations, and
can, realistically, be deployed outside national
territory in support of a military force. Other
Forces expenditures, although financed by the
other ministries' budgets, should also be
included in the defence expenditures."
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/ ... df#page=11

Not sure what the heck the rest btw 2.69 and 3.41 is... icebreakers etc.? Or some weird way of accounting for "free labour" of conscripts?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 00:14
by talkitron
krorvik wrote:The size of the swedish armed forces can be compared to those of it's scandinavian cousins, so it's not micro-scale when compared to GDP (1,24 % according to wikipedia, Norway at 1,4% and Denmark at 1,3 % - Finland at 1,37%).


According to this Wikipedia article, Sweden's land forces can field only two battalions right now. That is like 1000 guys. There is also a perhaps optimistic ambition to move this to two brigades in 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_A ... .80.932020

Maybe the Swedish government is too focused on subsidizing fighter development at SAAB for commercial reasons.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 00:27
by magitsu
talkitron wrote:Maybe the Swedish government is too focused on subsidizing fighter development at SAAB for commercial reasons.

No doubt. They are also doing it again with two A26 submarines that will cost around 1.2 billion dollars, or 8M SEK, more. Which will only be armed with torpedoes. Norwegians said no a few weeks ago and will buy ThyssenKrupp or DNCS instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine

Swedes also have rather significant recruiting woes, so their formations might be thinner than advertised.
"As of April 2016, the armed forces were missing 1,000 of the 6,600 full-time soldiers and 6,500 of the 10,500 part-time reservists it needs." https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ort-handed

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 06:07
by krorvik
magitsu wrote:"NATO’s benchmark for defence expenditure is set at 2% of GDP: out of
28 members, only four countries (including neighbouring Estonia) meet it,
possibly joined by a fifth (Poland) in 2016. Finland’s defence budget of EUR
2.69 billion stands at 1.3% of a GDP of EUR 207 billion. However, according
to our assessment, the figure rises to EUR 3.41 billion and 1.64% of GDP on
the basis of NATO definitions.
To close the gap, annual expenditure would
have to increase by approximately EUR 730 million."
http://formin.finland.fi/public/default ... ture=en-US
pg. 44-45. (link to pdf at the above page)

Border Guard budget is 230 million euros. They are definitely above average light infantry/jaegers, not police. Surprisingly they are allowed to operate at Åland Islands unlike the regular military, even though that area is demilitarized.


It sounds a little to me as if they are trying to cuddle up to NATO a bit - whether true or not I cannot assess. Definition game...

The norwegian border guard is well trained too, quite longer basic training (recon jaegers), and better kit. Also granted limited police authority. Peacetime the most important job is fining fishermen who throw their kit too far into Grense Jakobselv - the river between .no and .ru.... ;)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 10:24
by magitsu
krorvik wrote:It sounds a little to me as if they are trying to cuddle up to NATO a bit - whether true or not I cannot assess. Definition game...

Unlikely, this was independent team of experts. One Swede, one French and two Finns. If you have doubts, you should check whether the Norwegian Border Guard is accounted for in the overall defense spending.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 11:41
by krorvik
The norwegian border guard certainly is accounted for, as it is a regular unit apart from the mission. https://forsvaret.no/karriere/forstegan ... /haren/gsv

And, you may very well be right about the numbers ;)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 19:24
by magitsu
krorvik wrote:The norwegian border guard certainly is accounted for, as it is a regular unit apart from the mission. https://forsvaret.no/karriere/forstegan ... /haren/gsv

And, you may very well be right about the numbers ;)

Ok, so it means that we have at least 290 million covered. Which gets us from 1,3% to 1,44%. For the rest I don't know what they have included. Heisbourg mentioned something else in the press conference besides the Border Guard, but I didn't hear it.

But even 1,44% is more than Norway and this is undisputable since they are under MoI here, whose expenses are not counted into MoD's expenses aka "defense spending".

Now you can start annoying Norwegian poiticians with good cause. :devil:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2016, 00:32
by talkitron
Two articles on Defense News about Finland right now.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/04/finland-may-turn-drones-supplement-combat-aircraft/83948296/

Finland is indeed exploring the issue of buying a smaller number of fighter aircraft in order to save money. At the same time as this possibly penny pinching, Russia is threatening them if they join NATO.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/2016/05/05/russia-issues-fresh-threats-against-unaligned-nordic-states/83959852/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2016, 13:51
by magitsu
talkitron wrote:Finland is indeed exploring the issue of buying a smaller number of fighter aircraft in order to save money.

It's contingency planning and proper due diligence. Fact is that they haven't secured anything yet. That money doesn't exist inside the MoD's expenditure framework. It has to be talked into the state budget as an external item. There is only vague 5-10 Bn hope. But probably no-one really knows how much work has been done behind the scenes. The next cabinet will pull the trigger.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 10:51
by magitsu
LM had a booth in the biggest air show (Tour de Sky) of the year past weekend. Quite unassuming tent, but it housed the simulator and they brought plenty of foreign program heads to talk about the F-35.

Competitors were a bit more flashy. BAe had brought two Typhoons and an extended trailer. Rafale had a very visible booth and handed out hundreds of ballcap hats. Probably half a dozen French suits were there selling their product.
Saab had a rather big two story pavillion. Probably the coziest atmosphere and didn't forget to offer enough people to converse with in Finnish. They had one Gripen on display and another doing a show, with third one for reserve.
Boeing dropped the ball big time. They had only something small in the back of one remote tent, where only VIPs were allowed, missing the opportunity to market their product for about 10k other visitors. Those probably left the site wondering why Boeing was a no show. Quite amazing turn of tables after the highly visible Danish campaign effort.

Highlights were probably MV-22B Osprey and MC-130J from Lakenheath. Other visitors included MiG-21 & Alenia 22 from Romania, P.-3 Orion and EC-125 from Germany. Plenty of local helicopters from the Army and Border Guard. Weather was mostly bad.

My estimte is that LM is going to offer only manned jets (with the A-variant satisfying the need for Hornet-like dispersed ops from roads - we can forget the B), while Rafale sellers weren't quite sure yet what their reply will include. Saab acknowledged the immense costs of UCAVs and thought they are less viable for this project than say for the Finnish four frigate acquisition program Laivue 2020. They are probably quite right. There's no need for larger non-survivable sensor platform with extended loiter time in this kind of A2AD realm.

Boeing stalled badly and Rafale continued strong after showing the way in the earlier "competition" of promotional videos sent to the HX program office. It's beginning to look that the race between 2nd place hopefuls is between Rafale and Saab. I have to give some credit to BAE, which seems to be handling their campaign much better than Airbus did in Denmark.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 13:35
by hornetfinn
magitsu wrote:Boeing dropped the ball big time. They had only something small in the back of one remote tent, where only VIPs were allowed, missing the opportunity to market their product for about 10k other visitors. Those probably left the site wondering why Boeing was a no show. Quite amazing turn of tables after the highly visible Danish campaign effort.


Probably because Boeing has made decision to leave new fighter business by about 2020 or so. They probably don't consider it very likely that they'd get new orders anymore for SH and Finnish (fairly small) order is also pretty unlikely and also almost 10 years to the future requiring keeping SH line idle for a pretty long time. They know they won't beat F-35 in technical merits and other contenders would be political decisions, not based on miltary capabilites but other attributes (political, economic).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 14:04
by cosmicdwarf
hornetfinn wrote:
magitsu wrote:Boeing dropped the ball big time. They had only something small in the back of one remote tent, where only VIPs were allowed, missing the opportunity to market their product for about 10k other visitors. Those probably left the site wondering why Boeing was a no show. Quite amazing turn of tables after the highly visible Danish campaign effort.


Probably because Boeing has made decision to leave new fighter business by about 2020 or so. They probably don't consider it very likely that they'd get new orders anymore for SH and Finnish (fairly small) order is also pretty unlikely and also almost 10 years to the future requiring keeping SH line idle for a pretty long time. They know they won't beat F-35 in technical merits and other contenders would be political decisions, not based on miltary capabilites but other attributes (political, economic).

Yeah unless some hail mary pass comes from somewhere Boeing is effectively out. It's probably also why they are lobbying Canada so much.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 22:57
by spazsinbad
TOP of Previous Page there is reference to NATO Defence Expenditures (& elsewhere) so here is the news....

Document: Defense Expenditures of NATO Countries 05 Jul 2016

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/05/defenc ... _nato_2016

https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... 16-116.pdf (0.6Mb)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 03:12
by talkitron
spazsinbad wrote:TOP of Previous Page there is reference to NATO Defence Expenditures (& elsewhere) so here is the news....


Thanks. I wonder if France at 1.78% of GDP ($43B USD) is not getting more from its expenditure than the UK at 2.21% of GDP ($60B USD)? The two countries are often thought of as being comparable militarily. I suppose the UK is building a second aircraft carrier.

Belgium's spending only 2.17% of its tiny defense budget on equipment is shocking. Multiplying, that is $80 million a year, maybe enough for one inexpensive fighter. Do they buy more than few rifles and some ammo for them?

The US represents 72% of all NATO defense expenditure!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 16:21
by sprstdlyscottsmn
talkitron wrote:The US represents 72% of all NATO defense expenditure!

And often constitutes a similar fraction of deployed defense forces.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2016, 11:45
by hornetfinn
Gripens were just training in Finland with Finnish Hornets with focus on operating from road bases. Both Finland and Sweden do this regularly and would be done no matter what aircraft we choose. I also don't think it will be much of a problem for any modern fighter. I see F-35 being really great also for road operations with EODAS and drag chute system. Of course B- and C-models would be really great for road operations but I don't see them being worth the added cost and complexity compared to chute equipped A-model.

Here are some videos:

Gripens and Hornets doing some practice:




Some night operations:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2016, 16:44
by tincansailor
[quote="hornetfinn"]Gripens were just training in Finland with Finnish Hornets with focus on operating from road bases. Both Finland and Sweden do this regularly and would be done no matter what aircraft we choose. I also don't think it will be much of a problem for any modern fighter. I see F-35 being really great also for road operations with EODAS and drag chute system. Of course B- and C-models would be really great for road operations but I don't see them being worth the added cost and complexity compared to chute equipped A-model.

Can you tell us hornetfinn who usually comes out on top in dogfights between your Hornets, and the Swedish Gripens? Is one markedly superior, or do they just have different strengths, and weaknesses that can be exploited by good pilots? I've always been impressed that in WWII Finnish pilots were able to consistently defeat superior Russian fighters using such marginal machines as the Gloster Gladiator, and the Brewster Buffalo. Thank you for your insights.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2016, 11:10
by hornetfinn
tincansailor wrote:Can you tell us hornetfinn who usually comes out on top in dogfights between your Hornets, and the Swedish Gripens? Is one markedly superior, or do they just have different strengths, and weaknesses that can be exploited by good pilots? I've always been impressed that in WWII Finnish pilots were able to consistently defeat superior Russian fighters using such marginal machines as the Gloster Gladiator, and the Brewster Buffalo. Thank you for your insights.


AFAIK, neither is markedly superior to another in WVR dogfights and both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Both now have HMS and HOBS missiles and good performance. Hornet has better high-AoA abilities and has more power and better TW ratio. Gripen is smaller and has very good aerodynamics. Both have very similar self-protection systems as both use the same Swedish countermeasures dispenser system (BOL). I know for a fact that Finnish Hornets have won WVR engagements against Gripens but have also heard from Finnish pilots that Gripen is a good aircraft and not to be taken lightly.

When it comes to overall combat effectiveness, I think Hornet takes it pretty clearly. It's larger and more powerful and can easily carry more weapons and has better range/endurance. For example Gripen C/D can carry 4 AMRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs and centerline tank or 2 AMRAAMs, 2 SRAAMs and 3 tanks. Hornet C/D can carry up to 10 AMRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs or 3 EFTs and up to 6 AMRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs. So it can carry 3 times as many AMRAAMs in some configurations and has better range/endurance/performance in most real world configurations. AN/APG-73 is also larger and has longer range and FiAF pilots seem to think it outperforms the Ericsson PS-05/A radar in Gripen C/D. In air-to-ground work there is really no comparison as the larger and more powerful Hornet can carry quite a bit more quite a bit further and has ability to use heavier, longer ranged and more powerful weapons. Swedes might have different view but FiAF pilots seem to really prefer Hornet over Gripen.

WWII Finnish pilots achieved some almost miraculous achievements. Soviets generally had superior equipment but had less skilled pilots and rigid tactics. Along with Brewster Buffalo and Gloster Gladiatior they made good use to Curtiss P-36 Hawk, Fiat G.50 and captured Soviet aircraft... even in 1944... :shock:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2016, 11:39
by krorvik
The same can be said for norwegian fighter pilots against the Luftwaffe in early 1940.

There were, IIRC, seven Gloster Gladiators on Fornebu air base the day of the invation, who actually managed to pick a good fight against a superior Luftwaffe, downing four attackers. Of course, far too few.

Most of them were destroyed landing or on the ground on refuel/rearm, far outbumbered.

I shall be raising a glass for the pilots and crew tonight.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2016, 12:02
by hornetfinn
Very true krorvik. Actually Norwegian Air Force (unintentionally) helped Finland fight Soviet Union as some of those P-36 Hawks I mentioned came from Norway as Germans sold them to Finland after invasion. These were aircraft that just arrived Norway and there was no time to make them operational. A small number of Norwegian naval aircraft also fled to Finland after being overwhelmed by the Germans and when they could no longer keep fighting back.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2016, 12:18
by krorvik
I remember reading about those Hawks, they were actually partially constructed, at my "local" airport Kjeller when the war began. Some still in cases on the dock. Nowhere near useable at that time. Not that it would have mattered much ;)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2016, 21:48
by magitsu
Finnish RFI due date runs out tomorrow. It was launched 22. April 2016.

18 to 72 fighters? Read further to find out what this means... :devil: (current number is 62, of which 57 are F/A-18C - losses 1 C and 1 D, so it was 64 at first)

"They have drawn up a hell of a RFI", laughs F-35 fighter aircraft manufacturer LM's representative Mark Pranke.
He describes that the basic premise of the Finnish RFI was: "We'll give you a set of possible circumstances that we face. Tell us how you would solve them?". Typhoon rep Mark Parkinson from BAE also commented that the Finnish RFI was "possibly the most thorough we've seen". http://www.suomenmaa.fi/?app=NeoDirect& ... e392a2896b (ref 1)

RFI was a thick, 300 page document. It included about 3000 questions. Some could be answered briefly, the others would require significant effort. http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa ... a-valtava/ (ref 3, paywall)

Besides this another thing proves that they are really covering all bases. They've asked for solutions ranging from 18 to 72 jets. The former would mean a mixed plane purchase, which nobody expects to happen but might be useful to be able to provide information for. Project manager for the HX replacement Lauri Puranen continued that it's most likely utopian and it would "be a big miracle" if two-plane purchase happened. (ref 3)

Supposedly it was also possible to cover some capabilities with UAVs. Pre-study specified only that the replacement will rely mainly on multi-use fighters.

All five are likely answering to the RFI, estimated project leader Lauri Puranen during the summer.

Evaluation is a big task with dozens of people participating. Finnish Defence Forces Logistics Command will do the technical assessment and Finnish Air Force will assess the operational side. (ref 3)

Ref 1 article noted that there are some differences in the level of activity. For example Dassault and Boeing still haven't appointed communications partner. Lockheed Martin are advised by Hill+Knowlton and local Tekir plus Ossi Sivén, former chief of Karelian Air Command (the slightly larger one of two F/A-18 home nests).

It seems that there will be no early cutting of competitors. All five can participate to RFP stage, which opens in 2018. The deal will be finalized 2/2021.

Lately there's been a media fad in which every manufacturer takes a turn in proposing that it's possible to manufacture the planes in Finland, with Dassault even promising tech transfer. Some politicans have even been dumb enough to comment that it has some news value. Project manager Puranen has commented that if the added cost is 5-10%, meaning several planes less acquired, it remains to be seen whether it makes sense. http://www.iltasanomat.fi/taloussanomat ... af-isios-3 (ref 2)

It's quite sure that Israel-type maintenance setup will be necessary. It's up to LM to convince decision makers that it doesn't require expertise derived from local production. Pranke said it's too early to tell whether building in Finland like in Italy and Japan would even be possible. (ref 1)

Typhoon salesman Paul Hitchcock from BAE suggested that F-35 in Finland would require the Finns to find oil. Nevertheless he suggested that even his Typhoon's "cigarbox" should be pre-built in the UK. (ref 2) His estimation for adding production line to the Typhoon deal was just that previously mentioned 5-10%. (ref 3)

Typhoon salesmen have stated that E-Scan, better known as CAPTOR-E will be ready and tested for Finland. But obviously it's not a game changer since everyone else already has AESA. http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/eurof ... en-6599888
Qatar became the launch customer when it ordered them this spring, even before the test phase has started. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-423938/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2016, 21:19
by magitsu
Ok. Here's the official announcement that RFI due date passed. Everyone replied as expected. They will tell more about the RFI in April 2017. http://puolustusvoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/a ... um=twitter

Respondents may also provide solutions that can be, for example, more than one type of aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles to complement the multi-purpose fighter aircraft performance.


National daily Helsingin Sanomat reports today that packages of 18, 48, 64 or 72 fighters were specified. Plenty of options! http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1479705100060 ... f=tw-share

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2016, 05:18
by spazsinbad
Finland receives five responses for HX fighter procurement
26 Nov 2016 Beth Stevenson

"...The HX fighter replacement programme was kicked off in November 2015 by defence minister Jussi Niinistö. This was followed some weeks later by the issue of a request for information (RFI) from the government to five manufacturers....

...All five manufacturers have responded, namely Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab, with their respective F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, F-35 and Gripen E aircraft. Information on the Lockheed F-16 and Boeing F-15 has not been offered.

The government is expected to issue its counter-response in April 2017, once the RFI responses have been analysed. A subsequent request for proposals is expected to be issued in 2018, and the government has indicated that a selection will be made in 2021.

“Through a RFI it is possible to bring together visions as to what kind of solutions the recipients of the RFIs offer to replace the capabilities of the air force F/A-18 aircraft in the post-2030 security environment,” the defence ministry says.

Notably, the defence ministry adds that a mix of vehicles could have been offered – including unmanned air vehicles – which could complement the multirole fighter. Weapons, training, command and control systems, and maintenance offerings will also be assessed by the government...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... cu-431832/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2016, 13:46
by hornetfinn
Thanks spaz! I think nobody really thought that F-16 or F-15 would be offered for Finland. I think concentrating on one type is right way for both LM and Boeing. Both F-16 and F-15 have little chace of winning the contest and competing with two aircraft types in single contest would just create distraction and added costs to manufacturers themselves.

Btw, that post shows how long a real fighter competititon takes place nowadays. It will take roughly 6 years from RFI to the selection and some years further before the fighters are ready to be delivered.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2016, 22:31
by jakobs
There are two real strong interest here, defense corporation with Sweden and buying american fighters. Anyone but Gripen and F-35 should just bail from this instead of wasting big sums of money on something they won't achieve.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2016, 23:26
by hythelday
jakobs wrote:There are two real strong interest here, defense corporation with Sweden and buying american fighters. Anyone but Gripen and F-35 should just bail from this instead of wasting big sums of money on something they won't achieve.


Cooperation with Sweden would have made sense 40 years ago, when Sweden gave a damn about defence and Finland was more non-aligned that it is now; Moreover, five years from now F-35 will be FOC or close to it, whereas Gripen NG will be where F-35 was 10 years ago at best (schesule wise, not capability wise). SAAB of course will offer everything they can, including localized manufacture (not even sure Finland is interested), offsets, some usual bullshitting about conscript maintainers and dispersed operations, participation in whatever UCAV they are making... However, I am absolutely sure it will have zero effect. Finland takes national defence very seriously and for good reasons, fighters are a utility, not accessory - they'll look at what the fighter bring to the table performance-wise - that is why IMO Gripen is already out.

Dassault won't get far because of propriatary weapons, mostly. SH already went against F-35 in Daniash evaluation and we all know how it went; I don't suppose the Finns will fall for "you already use Hornets, it will be like an upgrade, simple and cheap!" logic. EF might have a slim chance because it's more of an air dominance fighter (I suspect that FiAF does not put as strong of an emphazis on AG missions); however, F-35 is no slouch in air to air combat either and has some major advantages over it's rivals. With price consistingly going down and capability constantly going up, I don't see the reason why F-35 couldn't be Finland's next fighter.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2016, 01:16
by magitsu
hythelday wrote:EF might have a slim chance because it's more of an air dominance fighter (I suspect that FiAF does not put as strong of an emphazis on AG missions); however, F-35 is no slouch in air to air combat either and has some major advantages over it's rivals.

Less true than it was before. Hornet MLU2 was largely about enabling A2G. Price tag of 1.6 billion for 61 planes.
It saw the introduction of JDAM, JSOW and JASSM. First one's (GBU-31(V)1/(V)3 2000lb, GBU-32 1000lb and GBU-38A 500lb) have been live fired already. JSOW won't be bought (only test batch of 11) since JASSM was approved, with 180 million extra (on top of MLU2) going that way. Two F/A-18's are currently at China Lake to finalize the integration. Live fire validation quite possibly early next summer.

MLU2 2012-16:
MIDS Link 16
AN/ALR-67(V)2
LCD cockpit displays
AMRAAM 120C-7
Litening AT
JASSM, JDAM, JSOW
plenty of A2G-related software

Previous MLU1 2004-10:
JHMCS
AIM-9X
Have Quick radio
Mode S IFF
TAMMAC

At least BAE has offered Storm Shadow to complement Typhoon. But it's not really newsworthy that there's a possibility to buy cruise missiles since there's already one, maybe even better.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2016, 06:39
by hythelday
magitsu wrote:
hythelday wrote:EF might have a slim chance because it's more of an air dominance fighter (I suspect that FiAF does not put as strong of an emphazis on AG missions); however, F-35 is no slouch in air to air combat either and has some major advantages over it's rivals.

Less true than it was before. Hornet MLU2 was largely about enabling A2G. Price tag of 1.6 billion for 61 planes.
It saw the introduction of JDAM, JSOW and JASSM. First one's (GBU-31(V)1/(V)3 2000lb, GBU-32 1000lb and GBU-38A 500lb) have been live fired already. JSOW won't be bought (only test batch of 11) since JASSM was approved, with 180 million extra (on top of MLU2) going that way. Two F/A-18's are currently at China Lake to finalize the integration. Live fire validation quite possibly early next summer.

MLU2 2012-16:
MIDS Link 16
AN/ALR-67(V)2
LCD cockpit displays
AMRAAM 120C-7
Litening AT
JASSM, JDAM, JSOW
plenty of A2G-related software

Previous MLU1 2004-10:
JHMCS
AIM-9X
Have Quick radio
Mode S IFF
TAMMAC

At least BAE has offered Storm Shadow to complement Typhoon. But it's not really newsworthy that there's a possibility to buy cruise missiles since there's already one, maybe even better.


I knew about JDAMs and standoff missiles (read something about first live bomb drops in decades on Finnish Armed Forces FB I think), but I wasn't sure about targeting pods.How many does FiAF have anyway? While FiAF is definitely AG mission capable they'll (probably) mainly focus on interdiction, not CAS, since the Army has plenty of artillery (big upgrade effort also underway right now).

Point is EF might have a slight edge in kinematic performance (supercruise & ceiling), which, again, might play favorably in EF's hands - in case traits where F-35 really excells are considered overkill and EF is considered enough to counter Flankers. However, I do believe Finland will want to future-proof it's force with 5th gen; besides, EF is almost guaranteed to be more expensive choice.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 00:37
by magitsu
hythelday wrote:I knew about JDAMs and standoff missiles (read something about first live bomb drops in decades on Finnish Armed Forces FB I think), but I wasn't sure about targeting pods.How many does FiAF have anyway? While FiAF is definitely AG mission capable they'll (probably) mainly focus on interdiction, not CAS, since the Army has plenty of artillery (big upgrade effort also underway right now).

From 2013 Sipri it seems that FDF bought 10 Litening AT Block 2 and 96 JDAMs.

Interestingly the purchase was made already in Dec 17/07 but it took until Dec 2012 to be complete (due to the overall MLU effort). https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fi ... ods-04475/

Didn't look further than this because 10 seems reasonable.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 04:23
by steve2267
Buying a squadron (or two or ...) of F-35s would really leverage Finland's existing F-18's. The F-18's could be extra shooters for the Xwings, and the sensors + fusion would greatly improve the FiAF SA. I don't see any of those advantages with any of the other 4th gen planes.

The Xwing makes everybody better. SH, Rafale, EF, Gripen... Not so much.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 10:26
by hornetfinn
Finland will use F/A-18s and F-35 (or whatever is chosen) side by side only for few years (five years max). We only have two fighter squadrons (they are pretty large squadrons) right now and they will both very likely be quickly replaced as that maximizes effectiveness to costs ratio. I do agree that F-35 would bring totally unparalleled SA to FiAF.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2016, 11:20
by krorvik
The same goes for RNoAF F-16s. They are A/B MLU machines, and as such they're getting old. I believe the overlap is about five years before retirement. F-35 FOC is scheduled for 2025.

Our trusty old vipers simpy won't *hold* much longer.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2016, 12:40
by jakobs
hythelday wrote:Cooperation with Sweden would have made sense 40 years ago, when Sweden gave a damn about defence and Finland was more non-aligned that it is now


Although I agree that Sweden is in a sad state right now, let's not forgett that Finland have serious problems on their own with their armed forces. There is a huge mountain of old equipment and they have the same budget problems as everybody else affecting the availability. There are lot's of things that they can benefit from the corporation.

Since both countries also categorically refuses to join Nato the increased corporation makes a lot of sense.

hythelday wrote:that is why IMO Gripen is already out.


I don't believe it would be that easy to count it out already. The future will tell.

hythelday wrote:EF might have a slim chance because it's more of an air dominance fighter


This I do not agree with, there is zero chances of the Typhoon going to Finland.

hythelday wrote:I don't see the reason why F-35 couldn't be Finland's next fighter.


I don't see no reason why it couldn't be, but they do things a bit different so I can also see a scenario where they might go with the swedish jet.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2016, 13:42
by andreas77
hythelday wrote: Cooperation with Sweden would have made sense 40 years ago, when Sweden gave a damn about defence and Finland was more non-aligned that it is now


Tell that to the Swedish and finnish political leaders, they dont seem to share your view on this topic...

"Sweden, Finland Stress Defense Cooperation Ahead of Russian Visit"

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /86334800/


hythelday wrote:...some usual bullshitting about conscript maintainers and dispersed operations...


Yes, why would the Finnish air force with their conscripts and road bases care about things like that...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 03:07
by magitsu
andreas77 wrote:Yes, why would the Finnish air force with their conscripts and road bases care about things like that...

Hasn't been a problem with F/A-18, so it's exactly as pointless as hythelday said.

Gripen is in a bit of a trouble with its testing schedule. Finnish HX project won't buy a non-proven solution, that has been stated already.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 17:32
by hythelday
jakobs wrote:
hythelday wrote:Cooperation with Sweden would have made sense 40 years ago, when Sweden gave a damn about defence and Finland was more non-aligned that it is now


Although I agree that Sweden is in a sad state right now, let's not forgett that Finland have serious problems on their own with their armed forces. There is a huge mountain of old equipment and they have the same budget problems as everybody else affecting the availability. There are lot's of things that they can benefit from the corporation.

Since both countries also categorically refuses to join Nato the increased corporation makes a lot of sense.


Bankrolling development of Swedish fighter isn't a good way of cooperating. Buying F-35 in no way prohibits actual viable cooperation in other areas.

andreas77 wrote:
hythelday wrote: Cooperation with Sweden would have made sense 40 years ago, when Sweden gave a damn about defence and Finland was more non-aligned that it is now


Tell that to the Swedish and finnish political leaders, they dont seem to share your view on this topic...

"Sweden, Finland Stress Defense Cooperation Ahead of Russian Visit"

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /86334800/


I can find similar "meaningful" announcements whenever X foreign/defence minister meets Y counterpart. What does Finland stand to gain by cooperating with Sweden on Gripen, that it cannot gain by cooperating with half a dozen other countries on F-35? Cooperate where it actually makes sense. I hear ARCHER is all the rage.... too soon?

This underlines Finland’s retention of its nonalignment policy status while keeping the strategic option of possible NATO membership as a fall-back position.


In other words Nordic solidarity is a wonderful thing, but should things go south Finland would still like a little more support than His Majestry's three-and-a-half tank companies.

andreas77 wrote:
hythelday wrote:...some usual bullshitting about conscript maintainers and dispersed operations...


Yes, why would the Finnish air force with their conscripts and road bases care about things like that...


Because dispersed operation and conscript maintainers are not unique to Gripen in the slightest.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 19:30
by jakobs
hythelday wrote:Buying F-35 in no way prohibits actual viable cooperation in other areas.


No, I don't think the F-35 would block the corporation (in fact it may even be very good to operate two different fighters).

The Finnish defense however don't always get what they want. For an example they advocated Aster for SAM but got NASAMS. There are lot's of other examples on this and there is a very big need for investment in all areas.

For this reason I don't rule out the Gripen even though I see the JSF as the favorite.

hythelday wrote:In other words Nordic solidarity is a wonderful thing, but should things go south Finland would still like a little more support than His Majestry's three-and-a-half tank companies.


Who else would come and help Finland, that categorically refuses to make any commitment to anybody?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2016, 23:23
by bojack_horseman
jakobs wrote:Who else would come and help Finland, that categorically refuses to make any commitment to anybody?


Not that it is important in this discussion, but ever since Finaland ratified the Lisbon Treaty over 8 years ago it has been part of the EU's common defence area.

In the event that Finaland (or any member) come under attack from an outside force; "the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power"

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 02:15
by jakobs
bojack_horseman wrote:Not that it is important in this discussion, but ever since Finaland ratified the Lisbon Treaty over 8 years ago it has been part of the EU's common defence area.

In the event that Finaland (or any member) come under attack from an outside force; "the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power"


I do agree that we should probably keep this discussion out of this thread, but Like Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: France invoked article 42.7 and they didn't get crap.

Nato is the only viable way forward for Sweden and Finland (obviously with increased military spending), they just need to abandon the old-time thinking.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2016, 04:05
by nutshell
jakobs wrote:
bojack_horseman wrote:Not that it is important in this discussion, but ever since Finaland ratified the Lisbon Treaty over 8 years ago it has been part of the EU's common defence area.

In the event that Finaland (or any member) come under attack from an outside force; "the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power"


I do agree that we should probably keep this discussion out of this thread, but Like Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: France invoked article 42.7 and they didn't get crap.

Nato is the only viable way forward for Sweden and Finland (obviously with increased military spending), they just need to abandon the old-time thinking.


It's not like they can wak up in the morning, pick up the phone and give Trump's a call "ehy buddy, we join the alliance!"

Russia is pressuring, it's close and it's powerful. Finland and Sweden need to tread softly.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 00:57
by magitsu
Interesting. Finnish F/A-18 radios weren't updated yet despite the MLU nominally ending in 2016 (except JASSM validation).

Today FMS approval for 90 MIDS-JTRS surfaced. Is this actually operational with any major platform yet? Basically it's MIDS-LVT with 14 legacy waveforms + added support for three new Mobile Ad Hoc Networking Waveforms: WNW, SRW, MUOS. (ref 3)

US approves upgrade for Finnish Hornets
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

The US State Department has approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Finland for USD156 million of equipment and services in support of its ongoing Boeing F/A-18 Hornet mid-life upgrade (MLU) programme.

The approval, which was announced by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) on 5 December, covers 90 Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio Systems (MIDS-JTRSs), as well as software services and contractor/US government technical support. As noted by the DSCA, the MIDS-JTRSs will improve the survivability and communications connectivity of the Finnish Air Force's legacy Hornet fighters.

Work will be conducted by Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE North America, General Electric, Northrop Grumman, Rockwell Collins, ViaSat, and Data Link Solutions.

http://www.janes.com/article/66018/us-a ... sh-hornets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunc ... ion_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Tac ... dio_System (ref 3)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2016, 10:23
by hornetfinn
magitsu wrote:Interesting. Finnish F/A-18 radios weren't updated yet despite the MLU nominally ending in 2016 (except JASSM validation).

Today FMS approval for 90 MIDS-JTRS surfaced. Is this actually operational with any major platform yet? Basically it's MIDS-LVT with 14 legacy waveforms + added support for three new Mobile Ad Hoc Networking Waveforms: WNW, SRW, MUOS. (ref 3)


MIDS JTRS is actually very different system than MIDS-LVT despite looking very much the same. JTRS is truly a new generation communication terminal in comparison. JTRS is truly modern software defined radio system with 4 channels instead of one in earlier systems allowing far more complex communications schemes. It allows new waveforms to be added very easily as they are just software. Similarly crypto can be changed with just changing the software which does it etc. It also has ability to allow much greater throughput rates compared to MIDS-LVT systems. It can also be upgraded easier than older systems. Basically it offers a lot of important advantages now and is far easier to upgrade in the future. It allows things like this:
https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Data/Ne ... -MADL.aspx

AFAIK, MIDS JTRS is in operational use or close to it with (at least USN) Super Hornets, RC-135 Rivet Joint and, EC-130H Compass Call and E-8C Joint Stars aircraft at least. It's true that this is very new capability and great improvement for Finnish Air Force.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2016, 13:49
by magitsu
Today Commander of the Finnish Air Force had his annual media day.

Some interesting tidbits. RFI included no real surprise. Everyone is in the 7 to 10 billion threshold.

Modern RFI in numbers:

RFI Questions sent 22 April 2016
Part 1, 45 pages, 200 questions
Part 2, 162 pages, 214 questions
Part 3, 6 pages

RFI Answers received 22 November 2016
Part 1, 1500 pages
Part 2, 6500 pages

Next Tuesday the National Audit Office of Finland will tell more about the Industrial Partnership requirement.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2017, 11:43
by hornetfinn
Some new information in Finnish news about Finnish fighter competition. Saab and BAE Systems are offering fiscally very flexible contracts for Finnish fighter acquisition. Basically the Swedish and British government would back up a loan for acquiring the fighters and with very flexible payment schedule. First several years could go without needing to pay anything. Saab CEO have said that Brazil also got very similar contract and payment schedule. Both companies have offered large amount of work for Finnish companies and investments in them. It seems pretty smart for both companies to compete in those areas when they really can't compete in performance with F-35.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2017, 13:28
by krorvik
Newsfeed here says Austria is suing Airbus for fraud in the Eurofighter aquisition - can't find the release, but will post when it appears.

Oh, here it is:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-austr ... 5V118?il=0

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2017, 18:59
by jakobs
hornetfinn wrote:Some new information in Finnish news about Finnish fighter competition. Saab and BAE Systems are offering fiscally very flexible contracts for Finnish fighter acquisition. Basically the Swedish and British government would back up a loan for acquiring the fighters and with very flexible payment schedule. First several years could go without needing to pay anything. Saab CEO have said that Brazil also got very similar contract and payment schedule. Both companies have offered large amount of work for Finnish companies and investments in them. It seems pretty smart for both companies to compete in those areas when they really can't compete in performance with F-35.


Any chance we may see fighters back in Tampere with the HX, or is that gone for good?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2017, 08:13
by hornetfinn
jakobs wrote:Any chance we may see fighters back in Tampere with the HX, or is that gone for good?


Finnish Hornets and Hawks do visit Tampere-Pirkkala quite often and can be stationed there any time without much difficulties. I doubt that fighters will be stationed there with HX, but these things change and it would be possible to do. I think we will buy fighters for 2 squadrons only and those will be stationed to 2 air bases in peace time. Most likely where Hornets are now stationed.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 10:24
by spazsinbad
Finland cracks down on direct lobbying for HX fighter
27 Feb 2017 Gerard O’Dwyer

"HELSINKI — Finland's Ministry of Defence is blocking direct lobbying efforts by companies vying for its fighter replacement contract to add greater transparency to the selection and decision-making process.

The block mechanism will effectively curtail direct approaches by aircraft manufacturers, or lobbyists hired to represent them on their behalf, in connection with all forms of marketing efforts linked to the Finnish Air Force's HX Fighter Replacement Program, or HX-FRP.

All contenders for the fighter program contract, including Boeing (F/A-18), BAE Systems (Eurofighter Typhoon), Saab (JAS Gripen), Dassault Aviation (Rafale) and Lockheed Martin (F-35), have recruited Finland-based specialist lobbying and public relations agencies to represent their special interests.

Moreover, the five European and U.S. fighter aircraft suppliers have contracted former senior Finnish military officers to help them develop sales strategies and add energy to their separate marketing efforts.

Finnish Defence Minister Jussi Niinistö said the MoD’s position on direct lobbying adds more transparency to the overall tendering and competition process.

"The defense minister does not take meetings with lobbyists. The reasons are well understood by them. The ministry's staff may have contact with manufacturing representatives but solely as a normal part of their duties," Niinistö said.

Depending on the aircraft type and number of units acquired, the HX-FRP could carry an estimated project value of between $15 billion and $20 billion. This estimate includes the purchase of primary weapons systems and 30-year aircraft life cycle costs.

The HX-FRP sets out to replace the operational capability of the Air Force’s F/A-18 aircraft. The service plans to phase out its fleet of 60 F/A-18 Hornets from 2025. A call for tender is scheduled to be dispatched by the MoD during the first half of 2018. The MoD is expected to deliver a procurement decision in 2021...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/fin ... hx-fighter

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2017, 18:54
by magitsu
The Finnish Defence Forces' Logistics Command sent a Request for Information (RfI) on weapons and other equipment regarding the HX fighter project

To replace the Hornet fleet, the Finnish Defence Forces' Logistics Command has sent a preliminary Request for Information on suitable weapons and other task-related external equipment for the fighter aircraft. The RfI was sent to a number of government representatives in countries where such weapons and equipment are manufactured (France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, Norway (missing at source, is in the original Finnish text), Sweden and the United States). The governments were asked to forward the RfI to weapons manufacturers in their countries.

The goal of the RfI is to establish the true weapons and equipment options offered by the candidates for the HX project (F/A-18, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35 and JAS Gripen). To be able to compare capabilities, information will be collected also on prices, availability, life-cycle costs and integration into different fighter models. Together with the future multi-role fighter, weapons and equipment will form an entity fit for task. Procurement of weapons and equipment is part of the HX project and is included in the budget.

The deadline for answers to the preliminary RFIs is in mid-June. The actual RfIs on weapons and equipment will be sent in August-September 2017.

Tenderers are informed of what kind of weapons and equipment will be procured for the fighters replacing the Hornet fleet so that fighter manufacturers will be able to support weapons suppliers, if necessary. Negotiations to procure weapons and equipment will be scheduled to take place alongside negotiations to procure fighters; this will ensure that aircraft-specific systems can be managed. Some of the weapons can be used in several of the fighter candidates.

The Commander of the Air Force is the project owner. The Finnish Defence Forces' Logistics Command is responsible for the technical and commercial preparation of the project while the Ministry of Defence is in charge of providing materiel policy guidance. A call for tender regarding the replacement for the Horner fleet will be sent in spring 2018 and the procurement decision is scheduled to be made in 2021.

Source: http://puolustusvoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/a ... geId=en_US

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2017, 09:57
by spazsinbad
I'll guess Finnish people understand but I do not pretend - just passing on info.... not my neck o'the woods/part of ship.
Still Five Candidates On Finland’s Fighter Shortlist
26 Apr 2017 Tony Osborne

"LONDON—Finland is planning to send out a Request for Quotations (RfQ) for its future fighter to replace its F/A-18 Hornets in the Spring of 2018, with a possible fly-off planned in-country in 2019.

Helsinki has yet to eliminate any of the five fighter manufacturers who responded to the request for information sent out by the Finnish Defense Forces’ Logistics Command back in April 2016....

...The Logistics Command says that analysis of the answers provided by the manufacturers confirmed that all five aircraft could be integrated into Finland’s surveillance, command and control system without significant modifications.

Although the manufacturers were asked to present solutions “which include several types of aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles that could contribute to the capabilities of multi-role fighters,” officials said, “all of the responses recommend replacing the capability of the Hornet fleet with solutions based on multi-role fighters.”

Officials said that using the data they had received, all the candidate aircraft could fully replace the capabilities of the Hornet fleet within the projected spending limits of €7-10 billion ($7.63-10.9 billion) and operations and maintenance could be covered even within what they describe as “present-level defense budgets.”

“The responses to the Requests for Information for the HX Program provide a solid foundation for preparing a comprehensive and demanding Request for Quotation appropriate to Finland’s defense system for replacing the Hornet fighters,” officials said....

...Selection of aircraft type is expected in 2021 with criteria weighted on the aircraft’s capability, security of supply and industrial participation, life-cycle costs and the security and defense policy effects of the acquisition.

Helsinki’s irregular pattern of fighter purchase make Finland’s plans difficult to predict this time around."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/still-f ... -shortlist

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 08:15
by spazsinbad
Finland analyses responses in Hornet replacement effort
18 May 2017 Dominic Perry

"Finland is continuing to analyse responses to a request for information it issued last year as part of the HX programme to replace its air force’s fleet of Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornets. It anticipates beginning the formal selection process in early 2018, when it will send a request for quotation (RFQ) to five manufacturers. These are Boeing, BAE Systems (representing Eurofighter), Dassault, Lockheed Martin and Saab, for their respective F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 and Gripen E....

...Helsinki’s baseline requirement is for 64 multi-role fighters, says Puranen, but acknowledges that the capability could be met in different ways. “If somebody provides that capability working with the fighter and that solution looks good, then it’s up to the providers.”...

...“The fighter should strengthen our national capabilities. Only the Finnish defence forces will take care of our defence,” he says, noting that the country is not a NATO member.

In-country trials of all five proposed aircraft will take place in late 2019 and early 2020 in order to demonstrate performance in severe weather conditions. Selection of the preferred bidder is scheduled for 2021, with deliveries running between 2025-2030.

Helsinki has provisionally allocated €7-10 billion ($7.79-11.1 billion) for the acquisition, based on the government's latest defence white paper, but this could change depending on the outcome of elections due in 2019."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ff-437357/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 09:32
by hornetfinn
Thank you spaz for that! We did similar comparison in previous competition in early 1990s when Hornets were chosen. It's interesting that certain Jon Beesley showed the capabilties of F-16 in USA to FiAF then even though it was not selected. Funny thing is that Saab Gripen is participating in both competitions in prototype form even though there are 25 years difference between them... :shock:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 14:55
by magitsu
FiAF drops the hottest mixtape of the season in preparation for RFQ. 8)
Finland analyses responses in Hornet replacement effort

18 MAY, 2017 SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM BY: DOMINIC PERRY LONDON
Finland is continuing to analyse responses to a request for information it issued last year as part of the HX programme to replace its air force’s fleet of Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornets.

It anticipates beginning the formal selection process in early 2018, when it will send a request for quotation (RFQ) to five manufacturers. These are Boeing, BAE Systems (representing Eurofighter), Dassault, Lockheed Martin and Saab, for their respective F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 and Gripen E. (it seems they won't cut anyone early, but I'm not sure whether everyone should continue to the finish - see "in-country trials" below)

Lauri Puranen, HX project manager at the Finnish defence ministry, says it will not be overly prescriptive in its specifications, allowing bidders to propose a range of solutions – both manned and unmanned – to meet a number of key scenarios. (like in RFI)

However, Helsinki’s baseline requirement is for 64 multi-role fighters, says Puranen. (RFI included question for the price of 18, 48, 64 and 72 fighters)

“It is still possible in the RFQ that someone would provide a solution which could include a fighter and a [signals intelligence] SIGINT aircraft together. It is still open,” he says.

Helsinki’s baseline requirement is for 64 multi-role fighters, says Puranen, but acknowledges that the capability could be met in different ways. “If somebody provides that capability working with the fighter and that solution looks good, then it’s up to the providers.

However, Puranen stresses that Finland is not actively seeking SIGINT or unmanned aircraft as part of the acquisition.

The defence ministry has also not prioritised low-observability or other performance characteristics, but stresses that the aircraft must be able to link with the air force’s command and control system, and that of the wider Finnish defence forces, without any modifications. (based on previous info, all of these are able to do so)

“The fighter should strengthen our national capabilities. Only the Finnish defence forces will take care of our defence,” he says, noting that the country is not a NATO member.

In-country trials of all five proposed aircraft will take place in late 2019 and early 2020 in order to demonstrate performance in severe weather conditions. (based on previous info, prep for Typhoon test flight in England starts this summer - seems that at least they won't opt out until the bitter end)

Selection of the preferred bidder is scheduled for 2021, with deliveries running between 2025-2030.

Helsinki has provisionally allocated €7-10 billion ($7.79-11.1 billion) for the acquisition, based on the government's latest defence white paper, but this could change depending on the outcome of elections due in 2019.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ff-437357/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 15:32
by steve2267
So Helsinki is figuring on paying between $121M and $179M per aircraft. Of course, this probably includes spares, training, etc. But still shows that even "4th gen" aircraft would appear to be no less expensive than F-35.

For all the Nordic dwellers east of Sweden on this forum... is there any feeling as to whether Helsinki is more interested in F-35A or F-35B? I know you have performed numerous exercises and train to operate your Hornets from highways. (The youtube videos are interesting to watch.) The Killer Bee would seem to offer more basing options and complicate an attackers ops plans more than the conventional -A variant and the other 4th gen contenders.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 16:25
by magitsu
A for sure. LM's Gary North* assured last summer that it can handle dispersed ops. But he was also willing to sell whatever is wanted.

It makes sense. Dispersed ops are not (limited by runway length nearly as much as) carrier ops. They also aren't practiced often enough to warrant specific arrangements. As in buying specific plane that can take hard hits to the deck. Sturdy tail hook is not the #1 problem, though non-carrier plane's hook is often attached too high for safe carrier ops. The current F-18 just happens to be a carrier plane. F-35A comes with a tailhook for emergency stops and strapping down the jet for engine checks after engine maintenance. It can also be fitted with chutes like the Dutch and Norwegians have decided.

A has logistical advantages because of Denmark and Norway. Especially latter, since their biggest weapons manufacturer Kongsberg is neck deep in the F-35 program and owns 49,9% of Finland's largest weapons manufacturer Patria, which handles the maintenance and assembled Finnish F-18Cs. Together they own Nammo, which manufactures engines for Amraam and ammo for the F-35's gun. A is also cheaper and carries bigger payload.

B is STOVL, not VTOL when it carries more ammo. So it really doesn't make sense when long range power projection/portability and the cost of making carriers don't need to be taken into consideration. Note how RN almost went with C, but at that point QE's were too expensive to turn into full length carriers-

Highways are much less of a problem than is advertised. I mean here's a F-15SG taking off from one. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/f ... s-exercise

*bio http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/conten ... graphy.pdf

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2017, 22:44
by magitsu
New Chief of Air Force took the reins on 1 June. While the upcoming RFQ seems to be rather flexible, his personal preference is to include minimum of 60 jets according to local media.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2017, 23:49
by loke
magitsu wrote:New Chief of Air Force took the reins on 1 June. While the upcoming RFQ seems to be rather flexible, his personal preference is to include minimum of 60 jets according to local media.

I am struggling to see how Finland can afford 60 F-35 -- Finland would that case become one of the largest operators of F-35 in Europe!

30-40 is probably more realistic, given the financial constraints of the Finnish economy (GDP 64% of Norway's...)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2017, 04:13
by XanderCrews
magitsu wrote:
B is STOVL, not VTOL when it carries more ammo. So it really doesn't make sense when long range power projection/portability and the cost of making carriers don't need to be taken into consideration. Note how RN almost went with C, but at that point QE's were too expensive to turn into full length carriers-



Hold on a second, that decision had no military basis and at no point was the RN not STOVL focused. The brief "switch" to the C was nearly purely political. I am giving myself a little wiggle room by using the word "nearly" there, but I can safely say it was never an RN decision. On that note I would not try and connect those dots because they simply don't connect.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2017, 06:57
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:New Chief of Air Force took the reins on 1 June. While the upcoming RFQ seems to be rather flexible, his personal preference is to include minimum of 60 jets according to local media.

I am struggling to see how Finland can afford 60 F-35 -- Finland would that case become one of the largest operators of F-35 in Europe!

30-40 is probably more realistic, given the financial constraints of the Finnish economy (GDP 64% of Norway's...)


I think Finland could afford to buy those, but naturally that would be very large and expensive deal for us Finns. It has been stated that 5-10 billion euros will be used for this aquisition and if that holds, we are talking about roughly 30-60 aircraft. I think those numbers suggest that the real numbers will rely how well Finnish economy will develop and what the political situation is when contract is being negotiated. I think in right circumstances 60 is possibility, but if things go badly we might be buying significantly less. Currently economy is going up very nicely and political situation seems to be pretty good for fighter acqusition. Of course things can change very quickly.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2017, 08:15
by popcorn
Like the saying goes.. " the only thing more expensive than a first-rate Air Force is a second-rate one".

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2017, 09:46
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:New Chief of Air Force took the reins on 1 June. While the upcoming RFQ seems to be rather flexible, his personal preference is to include minimum of 60 jets according to local media.

I am struggling to see how Finland can afford 60 F-35 -- Finland would that case become one of the largest operators of F-35 in Europe!

30-40 is probably more realistic, given the financial constraints of the Finnish economy (GDP 64% of Norway's...)


I think Finland could afford to buy those, but naturally that would be very large and expensive deal for us Finns. It has been stated that 5-10 billion euros will be used for this aquisition and if that holds, we are talking about roughly 30-60 aircraft. I think those numbers suggest that the real numbers will rely how well Finnish economy will develop and what the political situation is when contract is being negotiated. I think in right circumstances 60 is possibility, but if things go badly we might be buying significantly less. Currently economy is going up very nicely and political situation seems to be pretty good for fighter acqusition. Of course things can change very quickly.

The problem is that (as you are well aware) the actual purchase of the F-35 is just a part of the total costs.. you also need to operate the planes.

One of the huge costs related to the Norwegian F-35 purchase is to rebuild Ørlandet for the F-35. Perhaps the Finns can somehow rebuild their airbase at much lower cost?

Costs will keep going up however; for instance there is a realization that in the future the NASAMS system (which Finland also has bought) is not really sufficient to protect the Norwegian airbase. Therefore the plan is to supplement with another system (e.g., something like Patriot).

Another problem is you also need to invest in some other military capabilities over the next 20 years... it's not just the Finnish air force that needs significant investments, also the Finnish Navy, Finnish Army, and Finnish Cyber capabilities will need a lot of investments in the future.

Finland has been extremely good at getting a lof of "bang for the bucks" however moving forward I think finding highly cost-effective solutions will become increasingly difficult.

It remains a fact that military inflation is way above inflation in the rest of the society. Small countries like Finland is going to struggle to keep up. Either you need to reduce the number of units (be it planes, tanks, or ships) or you have to reduce the quality. Norway is betting on a strong air force consisting of 48 F-35, and a tiny but high-quality army and navy, with significant gaps. What keeps Norway safe is really participation in NATO, and a strong US alliance, since the Norwegian armed forces are simply too small, too few to make a difference.


If we were to strengthen the navy and army to anything that would resemble useful we would either have to significantly reduce spending on the air force or significantly increase the defence budget.

It will be interesting to see what Finland will do when the Finns realize just how expensive defence is becoming. (And by "the Finns" I mean the general population of Finland, the Finnish MoD and armed forces are of course fully aware of this)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2017, 13:33
by hornetfinn
I don't know what needed to be done with Norwegian airbases to accommodate F-35 vs. what they had. Got any information what was required. I know that Finnish airbases required quite extensive upgrades going from Draken and Mig-21 to Hornets.

Anyway, currenty Finland spends about 1.3 percent of the GDP to defence. That's rather low value when compared to other countries (although about average in EU) or even when compared to our spending history. We could afford to spend more, but that's naturally a choice where we spend our money. Besides, F-35 is not really that much more expensive (especially compared to economy) than what F-18 Hornets were when we bought them in the middle of serious financial crisis in Finland. One problem is that our defence spending is comparatively much lower than what it was then. But the fighter procurement will come from separate money and not from defence budget (although some of it likely will). How much will be available is impossible to tell, but currently the consensus is that it will be between 5 to 10 billion euros. Low end would mean something like 30 fighters (or even slightly less) and high end could be about 60. I think the reality will be somewhere between those two.

I agree that Finland has been able to make great procurements recently with buying very little used Leopard 2A6 MBTs, K9 Thunder SPGs and M270 MLRS systems along with Stinger MANPADs. We do need new equipment for Navy, but I'd say Army is in pretty good shape right now. Next decade spending will be mostly for Air Force and Navy. There is no cheap alternatives as nobody is selling used top-of-the-line equipment like they what has happened with ground vehicles.

Btw, Norway spends money very evenly between Army, Navy and Air Force: https://forsvaret.no/en/facts/the-armed ... ers/budget. I also would not call Norwegian navy tiny as they have decent number of pretty capable ships and submarises for such a small country. Finland however has tiny navy with no submarines and small number of missile boats and mine hunters. Norwegian army is very small though but that's pretty understandable given their geography.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2017, 16:31
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:I don't know what needed to be done with Norwegian airbases to accommodate F-35 vs. what they had. Got any information what was required. I know that Finnish airbases required quite extensive upgrades going from Draken and Mig-21 to Hornets.

Anyway, currenty Finland spends about 1.3 percent of the GDP to defence. That's rather low value when compared to other countries (although about average in EU) or even when compared to our spending history. We could afford to spend more, but that's naturally a choice where we spend our money. Besides, F-35 is not really that much more expensive (especially compared to economy) than what F-18 Hornets were when we bought them in the middle of serious financial crisis in Finland. One problem is that our defence spending is comparatively much lower than what it was then. But the fighter procurement will come from separate money and not from defence budget (although some of it likely will). How much will be available is impossible to tell, but currently the consensus is that it will be between 5 to 10 billion euros. Low end would mean something like 30 fighters (or even slightly less) and high end could be about 60. I think the reality will be somewhere between those two.

I agree that Finland has been able to make great procurements recently with buying very little used Leopard 2A6 MBTs, K9 Thunder SPGs and M270 MLRS systems along with Stinger MANPADs. We do need new equipment for Navy, but I'd say Army is in pretty good shape right now. Next decade spending will be mostly for Air Force and Navy. There is no cheap alternatives as nobody is selling used top-of-the-line equipment like they what has happened with ground vehicles.

Btw, Norway spends money very evenly between Army, Navy and Air Force: https://forsvaret.no/en/facts/the-armed ... ers/budget. I also would not call Norwegian navy tiny as they have decent number of pretty capable ships and submarises for such a small country. Finland however has tiny navy with no submarines and small number of missile boats and mine hunters. Norwegian army is very small though but that's pretty understandable given their geography.



This story from 2016 claims that cost for Ørlandet had increased to 15 billion NOK (1.8 billion USD):

https://www.an.no/forsvaret/orland/luft ... 5-4-295111

This does not include a Patriot system. Also, there may well be more cost overruns.

There are many reasons for the high cost: Higher requirements to securing the airbase and the planes, runway must be expanded, also the F-35 are generating more noise meaning that many houses nearby the airbase most be relocated or made soundproof; in addition there is general inflation...

Our navy today looks OK, however looks can be deceiving. We are struggling to keep more than 1-2 of the 5 Nansen frigates operational at the same time. The 6 Skjold class "corvettes" will be replaced by F-35 (with JSM missiles) once the F-35 becomes operational. 6 Ula class subs will be replaced by 4 new subs, etc.

So in a few years time the Norwegian navy will mainly consist of 5 frigates and 4 subs. The Navy people are not happy about this (they would have liked at least 6 subs, and a few new surface ships to supplement the 5 frigates.) However they will not get more and the reason is that there is no willingness to significantly increase defence spending and one has to prioritize. Right now the F-35 and also new P-8 has top priority.

I am not sure if I understand your logic regarding the army: why does Norwegian geography dictate such a tiny army?

We also have "Heimevernet" (national guard) that has been cut repeatedly -- currently at 42,000 men, it was supposed to be cut to 35,000 but it seems they decided to put the next cut on hold.

With Trump in the WH perhaps things will change, since we probably need to go up to 2% of GDP, currently we are at 1.5 I believe.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2017, 17:50
by magitsu
loke wrote:I am not sure if I understand your logic regarding the army: why does Norwegian geography dictate such a tiny army?

Unpassable areas and very small border towards Russia. Since they have rather limited amphibious capability Norway can obviously make do with a small army.

loke wrote:his story from 2016 claims that cost for Ørlandet had increased to 15 billion NOK (1.8 billion USD):

That's basically for an airbase that isn't already there unlike in Finland.

Finnish ones are average sized airports/airbases whereas Ørland is a backwater airport with no regular operators. Passenger capacity of 50 according to Wikipedia. Only 5,546 passengers in 2014 whereas Rovaniemi had 444,561 and Kuopio 260,364. There's a world of difference in already built civilian and military infrastructure between these. When Ørland starts from 0 hardened hangars (likely) and Kuopio/Rovaniemi can keep all of Finland's 62 Hornets on their roster already you bet it's going to cost to get to that level.

There's a possibility that the hangars are fine for both. Hornet is 10 meters with wing tips folded, F-35A wing span is 10.7 meters. F-35A (15.67 m) is shorter than Hornet (17.07 m). F-35A is also less tall (4.33 m) vs. Hornet (4.67 m).

Rovaniemi runway (3km) is within 50 meters of Luke AFB's. Kuopio is 2.8km. Both of them are 10 meters wider (60 m) than in Ørland.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2017, 19:59
by krorvik
magitsu wrote:Unpassable areas and very small border towards Russia. Since they have rather limited amphibious capability Norway can obviously make do with a small army.


The border itself is 196km, guarded by six stations of well trained personnel. And hopelessly outnumbered if Vladimir summons his troops ;) Let's just say their job in a crisis is not to stop them.

The points further south where the fight will be are very narrow, 2km IIRC. This of course, is old news... I've no idea what current plans are.

The main idea is that it is rather heavy on the logistics to make a fast run through the northernmost parts (they are bigger than many people think - and have seen many a marine defeated).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2017, 14:31
by hornetfinn
It's all about using money where it's most efficient. Navy and Air Force are most important for Norwegian defence and fairly small sized Army will do if properly equipped. I don't say situation is good in that regard, but it's not that bad either. Norwegian Navy is still pretty capable for a country so small and along with F-35s it can make any potential threat nation (Russia) think twice.

Finland has similar situation, but in our case Navy is of low importance compared to Army and Air Force. We have constantly increased spending on Air Force equipment as importance of air combat capability has become evident. I think most likely we will buy something like 40-50 F-35As, but that remains to be seen.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2017, 17:40
by krorvik
yep "we're small, but the talons are razor sharp".

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 15:51
by magitsu
LM's social media campaign page for this weekend's air show.
https://f35.com/global/participation/fi ... anslate/fi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kthgTNzHws

Most selling points from the video translated:

Need for less planes vs. 4 gen strike package
Difference between 4 gen and 5 gen described similar as between landline & smartphone
Ability to shoot first
Mechanical 4g radars vs. APG-81 1000 tr electronical scanning, more power, identifies further
SAR
Sharing of the situational picture, relaying targeting data
APG-81's stand-off jamming
6x IR-cameras IRST, missile warning, 360 situational awareness, projecting data to helmet visor
Less workload, no multiple screens or mental processing required for IFF
MADL comms without radio

Basically most things crammed into one video. Maybe a bit too much in terms of effective communication?

They are not customizing these enough. For example they should downplay the A2G features when Finland and especially Finnish general population are not accustomed to it. Fewer selling points, more visible localization!
Kick the engineer out of planning meeting and bring in someone who understands that joes just need one or few reasons to like it. Where's the PERSONALITY?!? Have they really not understood that Morten *Dolby' Hanche has been basically their number one salesman in Europe? Similar approach would work here. LM's North and Yung Le did ok last summer but why not go big?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 16:59
by Dragon029
Here's the original English video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC8VhGq0R4o

English version of the Finland page: https://f35.com/global/participation/finland/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 17:05
by loke
magitsu wrote:LM's social media campaign page for this weekend's air show.
https://f35.com/global/participation/fi ... anslate/fi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kthgTNzHws

Most selling points from the video translated:

Need for less planes vs. 4 gen strike package
Difference between 4 gen and 5 gen described similar as between landline & smartphone
Ability to shoot first
Mechanical 4g radars vs. APG-81 1000 tr electronical scanning, more power, identifies further
SAR
Sharing of the situational picture, relaying targeting data
APG-81's stand-off jamming
6x IR-cameras IRST, missile warning, 360 situational awareness, projecting data to helmet visor
Less workload, no multiple screens or mental processing required for IFF
MADL comms without radio

Basically most things crammed into one video. Maybe a bit too much in terms of effective communication?

They are not customizing these enough. For example they should downplay the A2G features when Finland and especially Finnish general population are not accustomed to it. Fewer selling points, more visible localization!
Kick the engineer out of planning meeting and bring in someone who understands that joes just need one or few reasons to like it. Where's the PERSONALITY?!? Have they really not understood that Morten *Dolby' Hanche has been basically their number one salesman in Europe? Similar approach would work here. LM's North and Yung Le did ok last summer but why not go big?

Is it really that important in Finland?

No doubt the evaluation committee will conclude that F-35 is the fighter best suited to meet the needs for Finland. Then it is up to the politicians to decide whether they want to follow that advice or not.

Unless Trump is doing something terribly stupid between now and their decision point (which may be a real possibility!!!) then there is overwhelming probability that the politicians will go for the recommendations given by the evaluation committee. And if both the xperts and the politicians agree on the F-35 does it really matter that the PR efforts of LM targeting the general population is less than optimal? I think LM knows all this and that is why they don't really bother trying so hard. Why put more efforts into this when they have virtually won already?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 17:07
by magitsu
Finnish conundrum lies in the need for separate budget for this acquisition. So not only the plane but the need itself needs to be sold to general population. Politicians need to look responsible. The next cabinet will decide the plane and the next parliament will find the funds. Only about 1 billion+ is allotted for now since they need to show commitment to the bidders at this stage between RFI and RFQ.

5-10 billion... whatever it ends up being is the first hurdle. Only then is the actual choice made.

Why put effort? Because it's a serious matter!

They should produce promo material from scratch. Ditch the whole 4 gen vs 5 gen jargon and just pretend that competition doesn't exist (it doesn't really). Then just provide comparisons between current F-18C/D and F-35. Those would be meaningful and relatable.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 18:27
by neptune
krorvik wrote:[..The border itself is 196km, guarded by six stations of well trained personnel....).


...in light of what happened in the Crimea, joining NATO and having several squadrons of F-35s to train with NATO F-35 squadrons, should make one sleep better at home!
:)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 19:15
by XanderCrews
Putin is the F-35 salesman of the year once again

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 19:56
by krorvik
magitsu wrote:For example they should downplay the A2G features when Finland and especially Finnish general population are not accustomed to it.


I'm torn on this one. Yep, the general public in scandinavia thinks that "we only need defensive" weapons, and in this context, that means A2A only. They don't realise that you absolutely need offensive weapons to defend home too.

So, if you focus on A2A, perhaps you might turn it a bit around. Then again, it'll bite you when the folks realise that the new planes are used to drop bombs on Libyan dicators too. Ouch.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 19:58
by krorvik
loke wrote:No doubt the evaluation committee will conclude that F-35 is the fighter best suited to meet the needs for Finland. Then it is up to the politicians to decide whether they want to follow that advice or not.


Agreed. Let political processes do their job. Worked in Norway, Denmark, Holland, UK, despite all the noise from those with less knowledge, and it seems more are on the way.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 20:08
by magitsu
krorvik wrote:
loke wrote:No doubt the evaluation committee will conclude that F-35 is the fighter best suited to meet the needs for Finland. Then it is up to the politicians to decide whether they want to follow that advice or not.


Agreed. Let political processes do their job. Worked in Norway, Denmark, Holland, UK, despite all the noise from those with less knowledge, and it seems more are on the way.

Yes. They don't need to sell it. That's why engineer's checklist of features approach is bad. Just provide enough oversight so that the population can feel at ease. They need to be somewhat familiar about the whole business and that's about it. F-35 = responsible choice would be one of the best images to portray. Quite enough on its own. Let the Gripen sellers go overboard with their candy man antics.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2017, 20:25
by steve2267
magitsu wrote:
krorvik wrote:
loke wrote:No doubt the evaluation committee will conclude that F-35 is the fighter best suited to meet the needs for Finland. Then it is up to the politicians to decide whether they want to follow that advice or not.


Agreed. Let political processes do their job. Worked in Norway, Denmark, Holland, UK, despite all the noise from those with less knowledge, and it seems more are on the way.

Yes. They don't need to sell it. That's why engineer's checklist of features approach is bad. Just provide enough oversight so that the population can feel at ease. They need to be somewhat familiar about the whole business and that's about it. F-35 = responsible choice would be one of the best images to portray. Quite enough on its own. Let the Gripen sellers go overboard with their candy man antics.


Even if Finland never joins NATO, hinting or just plain pointing out that buying the same aircraft as almost all its neighbors positions Finland to better interoperate with its neighbors should they need to band together in times of need against the big bad bear to the east. Plus operating the same type should yield some maintenance cost savings with common parts / depot maintenance available nearby.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2017, 13:07
by magitsu
Slight curveball. The Finnish cabinet just collapsed. This means new Minister of Defense (and new Minister of Foreign Affairs) at the very least since the current one is from the party that just got booted out. New election is quite unlikely. Hasn't happened since 1975.
If there would be one, that parliament would serve until 2021. It would come very close to signing the deal for Hornet replacements.

Effects to this program are probably very limited since it's well planned and quite non-partisan issue with sweeping support. No doubt RFQ will be sent next spring as planned.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2017, 18:17
by mixelflick
Norwegian Navy is still pretty capable for a country so small and along with F-35s it can make any potential threat nation (Russia) think twice.

^^^THIS^^^

The same can't be said about any number of Gripen's..

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 18:02
by magitsu
Ok, apparently there will be no changes in the government. All current ministers just splintered off from their party. More actually jumped ship (23 vs 15) than remained. :doh:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 20:10
by magitsu
Competitors jockey for Finland fighter deal
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/com ... ghter-deal

Interesting view. The author assesses that sellers have upped their game after seeing the funds being allocated for the first installment due 2021, the year of signing of the deal.

$4 billion is quite an indication to be set aside even before the RFQ is sent.

In a significant move, Finland’s Finance Ministry has included a provision to pay for the first tranche of the proposed new fighter acquisition from debt incurred from 2018 to 2019. It's a decision that has spurred competitors' marketing to kick into overdrive.

The government plans to fund the first tranche, payment expected by 2021, from loans totaling €3.6 billion (U.S. $4 billion).

"We are confident the operating and maintenance costs of the fighters we are buying can be covered from within the annual defense budgets going forward," said Petteri Orpo, Finland’s finance minister.


Five international bidding groups, including Boeing (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet), Lockheed Martin (F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter), BAE Systems (Eurofighter Typhoon), Saab (Gripen E) and Dassault Aviation (Rafale), will battle for the HX FPP contract. Depending on the aircraft type selected by Finland, the value of the contract is expected to be worth between €7 billion (U.S. $7.8 billion) and €10 billion (U.S. $11.2 billion).

The next stage in the HX FPP will see Finland's Defence project office issue requests for proposals to the governments of the five aircraft manufacturers. The RFPs will be sent out to competing manufacturers during the second quarter of 2018. In a forward-looking request, the MoD will ask all five manufacturers to demonstrate how the capabilities of their specific fighter aircraft offerings can be augmented by other aircraft types, including unmanned platforms like surveillance and weaponized drones.

"The Finnish Air Force (FAF) of tomorrow will need to be stronger and more adaptable. We are looking for a full range of options that will reflect possible future changes in air defense," said Jussi Niinistö, Finland’s defense minister.

The FAF is on course to replace its existing fleet of an estimated 60 operational multi-role Boeing F/A-18 Hornets by 2025. Technical information received from the fighter manufacturers differs in terms of stealth technology and electronic warfare solutions, according to Lauri Puranen, the HX FPP’s director and the FAF’s former chief.

An important feature sought by the MoD from manufacturers is the ability to integrate each candidate aircraft into the FAF’s surveillance and command-and-control system "without any significant modifications," said Puranen.

The MoD's project office plans to begin the process of examining the purchase costs attaching to each candidate aircraft during the second half of 2018. This process will commence once all proposals relating to candidate aircraft have been received from manufacturers.

The cost analysis dimension to the HX FPP will include the unit flyaway price for a NATO-compatible multi-role fighter in addition to ancillary systems, sensors and other mission configurations as well as the weapons required by an initial operational capability.

The scaling-up of marketing efforts by the five competing manufacturers includes the recruitment of local PR firms in addition to the recruitment of lobbyists. These include senior government officials and military chiefs.

Niinistö, under existing contract tendering and transparency rules, has prohibited meetings with lobbyists representing any of the competing aircraft manufacturers, statying that "the reasons are well understood by everyone concerned." Contacts between lobbyists and other officials representing Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Saab and Dassault are restricted to "normal duties" such as dealing with requests for information or practical guidance regarding all stages of the tendering process.

The Finnish Defence Committee on Defense has also established its own contact and transparency rules governing the HX FPP. Committee members are restricting meetings with lobbyists and other officials representing the five international manufacturers to committee meeting rooms inside the Parliament building.

The high operational performance of the FAF’s F/A-18 Hornet fleet has been maintained through midlife upgrades, which have cost more than U.S. $3 billion since 2004 and agreements to secure a reliable supply of spare parts. The aircraft have been fitted with new data transmission systems to strengthen the fighters' ability to handle engagements within and beyond visual range under all weather conditions.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 00:05
by magitsu
Trump supposedly told today that Finland is buying large amount of F-18s. It was probably a jab towards LM like few other statements recently. The purchase was immediately denied by the Finnish president. It would make little sense anyway.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 02:40
by white_lightning35
3 1/2 years, we can make it...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 19:25
by krorvik
magitsu wrote:Trump supposedly told today that Finland is buying large amount of F-18s. It was probably a jab towards LM like few other statements recently. The purchase was immediately denied by the Finnish president. It would make little sense anyway.


It would make no sense at all - legally. Finland has no way to shortcut that tender without a heap of trouble. From the courts, from the media, from the voters.

And Donald is being his regular self, that's all I can say on that...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 06:40
by spazsinbad
Trump's remarks on Boeing Super Hornet confuse Finnish fighter competition
29 Aug 2017 Gerard O'Dwyer

"HELSINKI ― A gaffe by U.S. President Donald Trump has cast confusion over Finland’s fighter replacement program, FRP-HX, and the connected integral process. The U.S. president said during a joint news conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö in Washington on Monday that Finland had agreed to purchase “a large number” of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from Boeing....

...Trump’s remarks have caused shock and amazement within political circles in Helsinki....

...“President Trump’s remarks are baffling. There are still years to run in the fighter replacement competition before a final decision is reached. If the leadership of the United States harbors the idea that the matter is a done deal, then this is not good,” said Matti Vanhanen, chairman of the Finnish national parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

There was also surprise in Helsinki that [BAFFLED] Niinistö did not immediately refute the U.S. president’s inaccurate aircraft “purchase” claims. Niinistö did later debunk Trump’s claims via Twitter....

...Finland’s Ministry of Defence was quick to refute Trump’s “done deal” claims. The MoD reiterated that the FRP-HX program is still ongoing and several years away from a final aircraft selection. “We have received answers to requests for information from five fighter manufacturers, but we have not even sent out invitations to tender yet,” said Lauri Puranen, the FRP-HX program director at the MoD...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08/ ... mpetition/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 07:53
by popcorn
I'm guessing someone from Boeing told him Finland operates Hornets just prior to the meeting with the Finnish president. Hornet... SuperHornet.... It's all the same to him. :D

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 12:16
by magitsu
popcorn wrote:I'm guessing someone from Boeing told him Finland operates Hornets just prior to the meeting with the Finnish president. Hornet... SuperHornet.... It's all the same to him. :D

I'm more inclined to believe it was continuation for the push for lower F-35 prices. Or just Trump trying to appear like he's making jobs as he promised. No one remembers it in 2021 when the pick is another american jet.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 12:34
by white_lightning35
Or he honestly has no idea what he talks about in his ramblings, on or off Twitter.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 15:50
by krorvik
Another explanation is he is too impatient to properly analyze what others tell him. Especially when the message has a finnish accent ;)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2017, 08:47
by hornetfinn
Some latest information about the futureFinnish fighter acquisition.

Our Minister of Defence Jussi Niinistö held a speech where he said that our current F/A-18C/D Hornets will be "fully replaced" and wording seems to indicate that we are going (or at least trying) to buy about similar number of fighters (originally we bought 64, now 62 left). He also stated that performance is the decisive selection criteria and not price for example.

On an another note, when Trump mistakenly spoke about Finland buying "a large number" of Super Hornets. Finnish Defence Committee chairman said that Finland has been following F-35 development much more closely and that his opnion is that it's more relevant choice than Super Hornet. Of course that is also because F-35 is new and in development while Super Hornet is well known by FiAF.

All these seem to make F-35 the front runner in the competition, but of course there is a lot of time for many things to change before selection is made.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 02:41
by neptune
hornetfinn wrote:......when Trump mistakenly spoke about Finland buying "a large number" of Super Hornets....


.....but was this just a "Dig" at LM..for better quantity pricing???
:)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 02:53
by talkitron
hornetfinn wrote:All these seem to make F-35 the front runner in the competition, but of course there is a lot of time for many things to change before selection is made.


Thanks for the update. Politics seem to be less important than in Canada and Switzerland, perhaps because of the imminent military threat in Finland.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 03:12
by white_lightning35
talkitron wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:All these seem to make F-35 the front runner in the competition, but of course there is a lot of time for many things to change before selection is made.


Thanks for the update. Politics seem to be less important than in Canada and Switzerland, perhaps because of the imminent military threat in Finland.


Xaxaxa, no imminent threat from Russia at least comrade. They will just send peaceful vacationers to view the wonderful sights of suomi, da?

Simo haya's ghost probably scares Russians enough in reality, though.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 06:43
by hornetfinn
talkitron wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:All these seem to make F-35 the front runner in the competition, but of course there is a lot of time for many things to change before selection is made.


Thanks for the update. Politics seem to be less important than in Canada and Switzerland, perhaps because of the imminent military threat in Finland.


In Finland politics has almost always been rather rational when it comes to military acquisitions and politicians have very much respected what the military professionals have wanted/selected. We bought F/A-18C/D Hornets in early 1990ss because they best met our military needs even though it probably was the least desirable politically. I'm very confident that this selection will go in similar fashion and our AF gets what they want. This also leads me to believe that F-35 is the most likely to win.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 14:58
by viper12
white_lightning35 wrote:Xaxaxa, no imminent threat from Russia at least comrade. They will just send peaceful vacationers to view the wonderful sights of suomi, da?

Simo haya's ghost probably scares Russians enough in reality, though.


Xaxaxa, toverit of land of Perkele know toverit of Russia never invade their neighbors. Totta ! They just invade their language !

And weak F-35 already has a disadvantage in the selection process ; it's not a Sisu ! :mrgreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu_Auto

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 16:51
by magitsu
viper12 wrote:And weak F-35 already has a disadvantage in the selection process ; it's not a Sisu ! :mrgreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu_Auto

That's actually a plus. FDF purchasers and Sisu are known to have some bad blood between them since around 2011.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 18:29
by viper12
But...

The FDF is lacking Sisu since 2011 then ? :mrgreen:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 02:57
by white_lightning35
I was reading up on the interwebs about f-35 procurements and stumbled upon words spoken about the FiAF fighter competition. As we all know, the f-35 should almost certainly win the competition if politics don't get in the way. My question: in this day and age, will an f-35 purchase come with wide implications for NATO and Finnish military relations? I ask this while knowing that Finland is not part of NATO, although there is extensive cooperation between the two parties already. According to Wikipedia, the National Coalition Party is a major party who supports NATO entry. ( It also said Swedish People's Party, but that doesn't appear to be a major party anymore?) In addition, I have read that some polls show that the Finnish people would consider joining if their leaders thought it wise.

There are obviously issues. Many fear that Finland joining NATO would be poking the bear. (get it? bear?) If a NATO country was attacked, Finland would then be obligated to defend that country. It is understandable to be thorough when looking at this difficult question.

Time to tie this back to the f-35. It seems that with Russia and China doing what they are, people are starting to take sides. It also seems that when deciding which fighter to pick in a competition, a nation picks more than just the fighter. The f-35 is built for coalition operations and would not only be a force multiplier for the finns, but also send a strong message that Russia has an even bigger problem on it's hands.

The reason I brought this up is that I saw in the news that there would be a NATO-EU hybrid threat center in Finland, and it would appear to the average Joe - or Simo - :mrgreen: that this would not be happening if ambivalent and neutral parties were involved. The question is if it's worth it to give up neutrality, and if it is, when to do so.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 06:50
by hornetfinn
I think F-35 would clearly be the best option for NATO compatibility and commonality and would likely strengthen Finnish and NATO military relations further. Other candidates are fairly compatible due to having common data links (Link 16), compatible radios and weapons (Rafale less so). However they all have issues with future commonality and all have been produced in much lower numbers than what F-35 will be and some of them will be retired in other services pretty soon. I think F-35 selection would be best for both co-operation with NATO countries and also for sovereign Finnish defense (due to clearly best capabilities and survivability).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 09:18
by viper12
To further white_lightning35's point, do all/most parties in land of Perkele support the F-35 procurement ? Or do fringe parties such as Vææræt Suomalaiset (Aren't my jokes terrible ? :twisted: ) support other options, more in line with their nationalistic views ?

Also, what does the average Jussi think of the F-35 ?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 14:33
by barrelnut
I think that the expectation among politicians, the military and the general public is such that Air Force picks up the best candidate full filling the requirements and within the budget defined by the parliament (incl. defence committees with members of the opposition parties included).

But I also expect some older generation politicians and the socialist/green parties to try to score some political points by opposing the whole procurement and specifically the F-35 (because of evil Trump, evil USA and evil NATO).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 18:08
by talkitron
white_lightning35 wrote:I was reading up on the interwebs about f-35 procurements and stumbled upon words spoken about the FiAF fighter competition. As we all know, the f-35 should almost certainly win the competition if politics don't get in the way. My question: in this day and age, will an f-35 purchase come with wide implications for NATO and Finnish military relations? I ask this while knowing that Finland is not part of NATO, although there is extensive cooperation between the two parties already. According to Wikipedia, the National Coalition Party is a major party who supports NATO entry. ( It also said Swedish People's Party, but that doesn't appear to be a major party anymore?) In addition, I have read that some polls show that the Finnish people would consider joining if their leaders thought it wise.


Collective defense is not popular with European voters. No one in the recent German election was really running on the idea of increasing land troops to reinforce Poland, Ukraine, etc in case of a war with Russia. Likewise, joining NATO in the absence of an imminent threat likely seems like a hassle to most Finnish and Swedish voters. Everyday Finnish and Swedish (and Swiss and Austrian...) maybe worry about getting involved in a war over the Baltics, Poland, etc that they can safely sit out if not in NATO.

I believe collective defense is one of those issues, like free trade, foreign aid and environmental protection, that elites think are important but that average voters shy away from unless prodded by a media campaign organized by elites. It is better for votes for pro-defense politicians to wrap defense spending in terms of nationalism than some troubling concept like collective defense.

Advocating NATO membership is not a big way to get votes in Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland but what politicians would do in a war with Russia is unclear. I think if the German government fell into line with SAUCEUR/SHAPE/the US president than maybe there would be a way of prodding some of these other countries, particularly Finland and Sweden. It would be interesting to see the actions of many other European governments that are NATO members. I am looking at Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, etc. Would they start sacrificing more than token troops already prepared to fight a land war in Eastern Europe even if the US president said that NATO agreements said they had to?

In any case, many of these countries have run down their militaries in terms of the number of maneuver units so they probably would not pose a conventional threat to Russian land armies. The headline of this news article may not be exactly right but it is suggestive of the current low quantity of NATO land forces capable of fighting Russians.

https://www.unian.info/war/2164616-russ ... icial.html

My 1980s Cold War opinion is that France would have fought a conventional war in Germany as part of NATO (although NATO would have lost Germany in the end without nuclear weapons) despite not being part of the integrated NATO military command for domestic political reasons.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 19:14
by krorvik
It is important to note that both sweden and finland contribute *considerably* to nordic defense, and run large (for scandinavian purposes ;) joint exercises regularly. Sweden knows well what lurks across the baltic sea - and Finland even more so.

That is in official circles of course - it's much harder to speak of public opinion.

Be careful with judging from social media and tabloid news however... :devil:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 19:45
by white_lightning35
cavok wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think F-35 would clearly be the best option for NATO compatibility and commonality and would likely strengthen Finnish and NATO military relations further. Other candidates are fairly compatible due to having common data links (Link 16), compatible radios and weapons (Rafale less so). However they all have issues with future commonality and all have been produced in much lower numbers than what F-35 will be and some of them will be retired in other services pretty soon. I think F-35 selection would be best for both co-operation with NATO countries and also for sovereign Finnish defense (due to clearly best capabilities and survivability).


Still to be assessed....


By whom? The internet? The Finns probably know exactly which one is the most capable and survivable and the competition will just be a formality.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 21:58
by krorvik
Well, cavok is right, in that it must be assessed according to the finnish requirements.

That being said, it's hard to see the F-35 losing.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 22:46
by ricnunes
white_lightning35 wrote:
cavok wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think F-35 would clearly be the best option for NATO compatibility and commonality and would likely strengthen Finnish and NATO military relations further. Other candidates are fairly compatible due to having common data links (Link 16), compatible radios and weapons (Rafale less so). However they all have issues with future commonality and all have been produced in much lower numbers than what F-35 will be and some of them will be retired in other services pretty soon. I think F-35 selection would be best for both co-operation with NATO countries and also for sovereign Finnish defense (due to clearly best capabilities and survivability).


Still to be assessed....


By whom? The internet? The Finns probably know exactly which one is the most capable and survivable and the competition will just be a formality.


The "still to be assessed" comes from some delusional Frenchmen (and not only) who thinks that the Rafale, namely the mythical and future F4 can stand a chance even against a Block 3i F-35 :doh:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 23:39
by magitsu
This interview gives some strong hints. If they can be taken at face value, then at least Rafale is in dire straits. https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000005393678.html

The Chief of Logistics Command * says that they are looking to spend only 10% of the total cost of the project to weapons and equipment. Which means 700 to 1000 million, most likely being the former.

700 million, aka the amount RAAF is looking to spend on 450 AIM-120D alone, to be used for all weapons and equipment?!? That's basically impossible proposition with regard to Rafale since it would mean a complete change of weaponry. The current kit is 120C7, AIM-9X, JDAMs and JASSM. Some of the previous kit could be used by first and foremost the Super Hornet and the F-35. Rafale on the other hand needs to go big or go home. I'd consider some kind of weapon leasing for e.g. cruise missiles since they can't realistically expect them to be able to swap everything in one go.

The 2nd most expensive system in Finland is NASAMS, which uses AMRAAM. So going blindly for Meteor makes no sense either.

Another thing that is said in the article that there's no appetite for integration projects like the Jassm for F-18C/D was/is.
This I'm counting against Gripen, which draws blank with regard to current/signed on cruise missile operators. So there's no ready solution that could be bought. It'd mean another diy-integration project.

Interestingly enough, RAAF also seems to have some regret with regard to integration projects of ASRAAM, JASSM and JDAM-ER.

“I 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, 75 of which were acquired and entered service in the 1980s. They were the MBDA ASRAAM (advanced short range air-to-air missile), the Lockheed Martin JASSM (joint air-to-surface standoff missile), and the extended-range (ER) version of the JDAM (joint direct attack munition). None of these weapons are in the U.S. Navy’s Classic Hornet inventory, and Australian engineers made “some startling discoveries” during the integration process, Kitcher added. And although the wide-open spaces of the Woomera range were available, “flight-testing 200- to 300-km-range weapons is a considerable challenge,” he noted.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-02-15/australian-air-force-must-make-careful-f-35-choices

I wonder what kind of "startling discoveries" and did both countries find those?

* Logistics Command is the one sending RFI/RFQ and is responsible for tech/business preparation work in the replacement project

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 01:06
by rheonomic
I'd expect weapons integration to be easier on F-35 than the F/A-18 given the former's open architecture. I guess separation from the internal bays could be an issue, but avionics wise F-35 should be much easier.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 02:37
by maus92
rheonomic wrote:I'd expect weapons integration to be easier on F-35 than the F/A-18 given the former's open architecture. I guess separation from the internal bays could be an issue, but avionics wise F-35 should be much easier.


JASSM (or LRASM) will not fit internally in the F-35A/B/C.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 04:22
by rheonomic
maus92 wrote:JASSM (or LRASM) will not fit internally in the F-35A/B/C.


And your point is?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 12:00
by cavok
krorvik wrote:It is important to note that both sweden and finland contribute *considerably* to nordic defense, and run large (for scandinavian purposes ;) joint exercises regularly. Sweden knows well what lurks across the baltic sea - and Finland even more so.

That is in official circles of course - it's much harder to speak of public opinion.

Be careful with judging from social media and tabloid news however... :devil:


Most ppl do not know what are Sweden present efforts for defence (remilitarization of Gotland), conscription, restart of "road strips" trials, improvements of Air Force infrastrictures, major exercises etc. Same foese for Finland.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 13:50
by ricnunes
rheonomic wrote:
maus92 wrote:JASSM (or LRASM) will not fit internally in the F-35A/B/C.


And your point is?


Yeah, I would like to know what was maus point as well. Moreover many people (including maus it seems) seems to forget that the F-35 can also carry weapons EXTERNALY just like for example a Hornet, Super Hornet or any other 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation jet fighter aircraft...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 16:20
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:I'd expect weapons integration to be easier on F-35 than the F/A-18 given the former's open architecture. I guess separation from the internal bays could be an issue, but avionics wise F-35 should be much easier.


JASSM (or LRASM) will not fit internally in the F-35A/B/C.


Thus making integration easier

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 18:47
by neptune
maus92 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:I'd expect weapons integration to be easier on F-35 than the F/A-18 given the former's open architecture. I guess separation from the internal bays could be an issue, but avionics wise F-35 should be much easier.


JASSM (or LRASM) will not fit internally in the F-35A/B/C.


....nor does it fit internally in the "teens" (as qualified) or the F-22/ 35 but several of the smaller JSM do.
The LRASM does fit internally in the "Bone".

275 vs. 1000lb warhead, 345 vs. 350mi. range, 900 vs. 2500lb weight
:)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2017, 10:40
by Conan
maus92 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:I'd expect weapons integration to be easier on F-35 than the F/A-18 given the former's open architecture. I guess separation from the internal bays could be an issue, but avionics wise F-35 should be much easier.


JASSM (or LRASM) will not fit internally in the F-35A/B/C.


They won’t fit internally on a Super Hornet either...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2017, 17:44
by magitsu
Finnish Air Force has just announced that they will take part in the Red Flag Alaska next year. So there's a good chance of them getting to know first hand the prowess of the F-35. https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-200000540 ... f1fb36071e

This is their first time doing so, representing a considerable investment. 6–8 Finnish F/A-18 is planned to participate.

Currently there are two F-18C being integrated with JASSM at China Lake. Keeping these two things in mind the Red Flag participation is probably desired due to learning opportunities related to Air to Ground operation. There's plenty of open airspace in the Nordics, but few suitable areas to do very long range ground fires. E.g. Nammo's new HE-ER ammo for K9 Thunder SPG's was tested in Ravlunda, Sweden.

There's also an ongoing three-year flight instructor swap between USMC and FiAF. One marine captain has been serving for a year now at the Karelian Air Command (Fighter Squadron 31) in Kuopio, Finland. The Finnish one is at MCAS Miramar (3rd Marine Air Wing, Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 101).



His blog (mostly in Englsh) is here:
https://lennonopettajavaihto.blogspot.fi/

Captain Daugherty's interview is here (run through Google Translate or just look at the pics):
http://ilmavoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_ ... lennostoon

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2017, 18:24
by cavok
magitsu wrote:Finnish Air Force has just announced that they will take part in the Red Flag Alaska next year. So there's a good chance of them getting to know first hand the prowess of the F-35. https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-200000540 ... f1fb36071e

This is their first time doing so, representing a considerable investment. 6–8 Finnish F/A-18 is planned to participate.

Currently there are two F-18C being integrated with JASSM at China Lake. Keeping these two things in mind the Red Flag participation is probably desired due to learning opportunities related to Air to Ground operation. There's plenty of open airspace in the Nordics, but few suitable areas to do very long range ground fires. E.g. Nammo's new HE-ER ammo for K9 Thunder SPG's was tested in Ravlunda, Sweden.

There's also an ongoing three-year flight instructor swap between USMC and FiAF. One marine captain has been serving for a year now at the Karelian Air Command (Fighter Squadron 31) in Kuopio, Finland. The Finnish one is at MCAS Miramar (3rd Marine Air Wing, Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 101).



His blog (mostly in Englsh) is here:
https://lennonopettajavaihto.blogspot.fi/

Captain Daugherty's interview is here (run through Google Translate or just look at the pics):
http://ilmavoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_ ... lennostoon



There are HUGE ranges in Sweden , sorry.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2017, 23:08
by magitsu
Aside from Finland's upcoming 2018 participation in the Red Flag Alaska, it seems that the yearly Arctic Challenge Exercise (ACE) between the Nordic countries will be developed into Northern Flag.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 17:26
by magitsu
Corporal Frisk (reputable navy resevist blogger) provides an overview of two recent interviews of the program heads.
He sounds warning for F-35 and Gripen, which both lack in commitment to integrating heavy cruise missile.

Please do read, good content doesn't come by often.
https://corporalfrisk.com/2017/10/21/cr ... es-for-hx/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 18:22
by hythelday
magitsu wrote:Corporal Frisk (reputable navy resevist blogger) provides an overview of two recent interviews of the program heads.
He sounds warning for F-35 and Gripen, which both lack in commitment to integrating heavy cruise missile.

Please do read, good content doesn't come by often.
https://corporalfrisk.com/2017/10/21/cr ... es-for-hx/


Even with UAI/Block 4 software simplifying JASSM integration there's an issue of separation tests which according to the quotes Finns are not interesting in footing the bill for (that is IF USAF isn't bothered to put JASSM on Stubby by 2029). However, since F-35As already did good on DEAD missions during Red Flag, I don't think FiAF will miss their 3,6M$ cruise missiles that much, just of how many more BLU-109 one can get for that money :D

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 18:54
by cavok
If the Finnish want a high penetration high explosive long range missile and consider it as mandatory, it is their privilege isn't it?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 18:54
by hythelday
cavok wrote:If the Finnish want a high penetration high explosive long range missile and consider it as mandatory, it is their privilege isn't it?


Yes, it is.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 21:47
by ricnunes
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 22:00
by hythelday
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 22:53
by ricnunes
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 23:01
by white_lightning35
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?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 23:11
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 00:51
by SpudmanWP
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 01:50
by ricnunes
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:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 11:13
by magitsu
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).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 12:24
by ricnunes
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 15:42
by ricnunes
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??

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 15:54
by magitsu
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 16:23
by mas
Why can't the Turkish SOM-J be offered by LMT ?

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

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 16:48
by hythelday
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 18:54
by magitsu
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.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 21:28
by ricnunes
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:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 21:45
by magitsu
True. In the long term F-35 won't have any trouble since it's the best business case available for air launched weapons.
For now it's just in an interesting position. The answers to queries still might change things and likely before 2021 there's plenty of solid commitments in this area. Swedes on the other hand :oops:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 22:34
by SpudmanWP
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.


Um, did you miss the 3-month part?

The FY18 budget includes work to get JASSM-ER UAI certified.

Just to give you an idea of the cost & time savings of UAI vs traditional weapon integration...

Image

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 00:23
by spazsinbad
IIRC read somewhere recently that STORM SHADOW is not going to used with the UK F-35B - guess I have to find it now....

https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/c ... _followon/ THEN:
"...The MoD confirmed that Storm Shadow integration had been dropped for the UK’s F-35B in January 2016, instead, it will likely concentrate on the SPEAR Capability 5 in the longer term. Storm Shadow was a threshold weapon in the original Operational Requirements Document (ORD). This means the UK’s Carrier Strike capability centred on the QE Class Carriers and F-35B will have no stand-off deep strike capability against hardened targets until 2030...." http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-comple ... ile-casom/


However the RAF website lists STORM SHADOW: https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/ BTM OF WEAPON LIST FOR F-35B

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 00:50
by SpudmanWP
What I don't get is given that UAI is an internationally available spec (hello, "NUAI"), why is it that only the Spear3 & SOM-J are the only non-US munition so far listed as working on UAI integration?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 02:38
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:What I don't get is given that UAI is an internationally available spec (hello, "NUAI"), why is it that only the Spear3 & SOM-J are the only non-US munition so far listed as working on UAI integration?

Do we have a list of a/c that support UAI?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 04:02
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:What I don't get is given that UAI is an internationally available spec (hello, "NUAI"), why is it that only the Spear3 & SOM-J are the only non-US munition so far listed as working on UAI integration?

Do we have a list of a/c that support UAI?


Besides the F-15Es and F-16s listed above:
F-35 in Blk4 (not sure which one)
Reaper, B-1B & Superhornet is in the works but no date set in the budget

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 04:10
by popcorn
It would be reasonable to expect the F-35 to spur development of more UAI-compliant ordnance by foreign suppliers. Give it time.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 00:34
by magitsu
Surprising development. 10 days ago Finland to Nato's air to grounds weapons sharing (not really, more like "interchangeable"), procurement and research program. It's the only non-Nato country. The United Kingdom and Hungary joined with them. It peviously included Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain.

As it doesn't include France, Rafale's biggest worry with regard to this competition remains. Which is the need to start from scratch with weapons & equipment.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2017, 03:17
by neptune
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/mod_ ... nd/9946949

MoD: At least 64 fighter jets needed to defend Finland

Finland's Ministry of Defense plans to send out invitations to tender for the purchase of 64 new fighter jets. The new jets will replace the current stock of 64 F/A-18 Hornet jets, which have served the Finnish military since 1992. The defense report, which was approved by the Parliament in February, says that the readiness of the current fleet must be fully maintained after the procurement. "We have interpreted that to mean 64 fighter jets. Because the new jets are not faster and can't stay up in the air any longer than the current ones, we will require the same number of jets to maintain the performance of our air defense", says Lauri Puranen from the Ministry. "That is the minimum number we need to defend a country of this size."

Parliament has decided that it will spend between 7 and 10 billion euros the new jets, which will make the acquisition the most purchase by Finland ever. The ministry said it will send out invitations to tender in early 2018 to Boeing and Lockheed Martin from the US, Saab from Sweden, Dessault Aviation in France and the British-European BAE Systems. The new government taking up office in 2019 will make a decision about purchasing fighter jets to replace the current stock of Hornet jets at the end of 2021. The current fleet will be retired by 2030. In August President Donald Trump caused a minor controversy when he announced during a joint press conference with President Sauli Niinistö that Finland was buying fighter jets from the US. That claim was denied by Niinistö later on Twitter.
:)

....@ $187.5 million dollars per a/c for 64 replacements "might" could make the $80 million dollar F-35A a consideration even with the infrastructure requirements!...and... go faster and go further!
:)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2018, 12:45
by magitsu
Finnish Air Force has already test flown 4 out of 5 candidates. F-35 is the odd one out besides sim flight, not so unsurprisingly. Gripen test was on the demonstrator, which is a souped up D.

We're told that tech development alone doesn't allow lowering the number from current 60+.
Two plane solution not closed out, but very far fetched.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 21:07
by loke
It will be incredible if they really buy 64 F-35 -- tiny Finland with a mediocre economy will then get one of the largest F-35 air forces in Europe...!

Can Finland really afford this?

I understand the Finnish Air Force says they need 64 a/c to defend the whole of Finland -- however in all other European countries that I can think of the defence forces had to accept that they will not be able to defend the whole country in the future if attacked by a major military power.


Will Finland make a shortlist from the 5 or just declare a winner? I hope they make a shortlist, would be interesting to see who would pass the threshold -- my guess is Rafale, in addition to the F-35 of course. The SH may also be shortlisted if Finland accepts a SH/Growler mix, but probably not otherwise? The SH (w.o. Growler) did not fare well in the Danish competition, and neither did the Typhoon. I think neither will make it.

Pretty Gripen will also not make it in Finland -- I think it will be too small, and the only thing that could bring Gripen price down (sales to other countries like India etc) has so far not happened, so price will probably not be sufficiently low to make it attractive compared to F-35.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 21:17
by spazsinbad
You could offer the Gripen for FREE and it still would not be attractive compared to the F-35. Buehler? Anyone? Buehler.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 21:40
by rheonomic
loke wrote:It will be incredible if they really buy 64 F-35 -- tiny Finland with a mediocre economy will then get one of the largest F-35 air forces in Europe...!


Not to mention interoperability with the RNoAF F-35 fleet of 50ish a/c as well. That would be a significant amount of 5th gen airpower up north...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 22:00
by loke
rheonomic wrote:
loke wrote:It will be incredible if they really buy 64 F-35 -- tiny Finland with a mediocre economy will then get one of the largest F-35 air forces in Europe...!


Not to mention interoperability with the RNoAF F-35 fleet of 50ish a/c as well. That would be a significant amount of 5th gen airpower up north...

We will have 52 F-35 however 4 of those will be used for training only and AFAIK be stationed in the US; 48 will be operational in Norway.

Perhaps Finland will do the same? Or will they hire training a/c in the US?

In any case, you are right the 5 gen airpower will become quite massive on the Scandinavian peninsula.

I am still not sure if Finland really can afford 64 F-35 though... on verra. Even if they drop to 40-50 it is still quite significant.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 22:49
by ricnunes
loke wrote:It will be incredible if they really buy 64 F-35 -- tiny Finland with a mediocre economy will then get one of the largest F-35 air forces in Europe...!

Can Finland really afford this?


I guess that one can also say for sure that if Finland won't be able to buy 64 F-35 than "sure as hell" that it won't be able to buy 64 fighter aircraft of any other (modern western) model and that includes the Gripen NG/E/Whatever...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 00:17
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:It will be incredible if they really buy 64 F-35 -- tiny Finland with a mediocre economy will then get one of the largest F-35 air forces in Europe...!

Can Finland really afford this?

I understand the Finnish Air Force says they need 64 a/c to defend the whole of Finland -- however in all other European countries that I can think of the defence forces had to accept that they will not be able to defend the whole country in the future if attacked by a major military power.


Will Finland make a shortlist from the 5 or just declare a winner? I hope they make a shortlist, would be interesting to see who would pass the threshold -- my guess is Rafale, in addition to the F-35 of course. The SH may also be shortlisted if Finland accepts a SH/Growler mix, but probably not otherwise? The SH (w.o. Growler) did not fare well in the Danish competition, and neither did the Typhoon. I think neither will make it.

Pretty Gripen will also not make it in Finland -- I think it will be too small, and the only thing that could bring Gripen price down (sales to other countries like India etc) has so far not happened, so price will probably not be sufficiently low to make it attractive compared to F-35.



The only thing more expensive than a first class air force is a second class air force

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 09:20
by magitsu
The Chief of Defense was interviewed a week ago and he mentioned 8,5 billion euros. That would maintain according to him the same ratio compared to GDP when the classic Hornets were bought.

The cabinet will change before then, so the amount is not set in stone. High likelihood that the technical assessment will be respected. It's more of a mystery who will be in the driver's seat. As in do the politicans pony up whatever the military asks (accept the rationale of 1:1 replacement, supposedly required to defend the whole country) or do they set the money and military has to decide how much they value numbers vs. capabiity they can get with that.

In the previous competition, the Hornet C/D was assessed as the most capable, and the cheapest pick after the F-16C/D.

I personally don't expect 64 F-35s. Anything that starts with 5 is quite acceptable. Certainly if it somehow could end up being Gripen, then 64 would be necessary and probably still not comparable in capability. The killer apps of F-35 do not really translate into public consciousness. Like the never before seen ability for a small air force to do C2/ISR with their main instead of few or nonexistent support assets.

There's been a few comments related to the RFI. They were initially struggling to understand how much the different answers are comparable and how to make them so. We've of course seen this with wildly different quotes for cost per flight hour among others.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 09:36
by krorvik
loke wrote:In any case, you are right the 5 gen airpower will become quite massive on the Scandinavian peninsula.


Having the Finns in "EPAF 2" would be a very good thing indeed.

So, that'd be 52 RNoAF, 37 Dutch, 27 danish and 138 british(?) . Then possibly 50+ Finn-35s in northern Europe. Without doing actual math, we're near 300 aircraft in northern Europe when delivered.

Count in Poland and Belgium too please... :)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 10:11
by neptune
krorvik wrote:
loke wrote:In any case, you are right the 5 gen airpower will become quite massive on the Scandinavian peninsula.


Having the Finns in "EPAF 2" would be a very good thing indeed.

So, that'd be 52 RNoAF, 37 Dutch, 27 danish and 138 british(?) . Then possibly 50+ Finn-35s in northern Europe. Without doing actual math, we're near 300 aircraft in northern Europe when delivered.

Count in Poland and Belgium too please... :)


NATO in EurAsia; is about 500 with Turkey's 100, Israel's 50; not counting Finnland, Poland, Belgium, etc.

Pacific?; Australia, Japan, Korea about 180.
:)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 21:39
by steve2267
neptune wrote:Pacific?; Australia, Japan, Korea about 180.


If Singapore opts for the Lightning, and if Kim keeps rattling his nuclear sabre... the Pacific Rim might be pushing 250-300 when all is said and done.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 21:47
by rheonomic
Also at some point the WP and WW Vipers will probably be replaced by F-35s...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 09:30
by loke
rheonomic wrote:Also at some point the WP and WW Vipers will probably be replaced by F-35s...

WP and WW?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 09:38
by loke
L will continue to talk to new pilots. He is the author of 15 books about flying. There is therefore good reason to ask for his views on the future of Laukkaselta hävittäjähankinnasta.

If, on the basis of the current data should bet on Finland's upcoming machine model, Laukkasen list would be in this order: Gripen, Typhoon, or Super Hornet.


Auto-translated from: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10103487

Another elderly man who has not completely assimilated the importance of "5. gen"...?

Apart from that I am very surprised he is listing Typhoon before the SH!

My list would be like this (probability of a "win" in parantheses):

F-35 (99.5%), Gripen E(0.25%), SH (0.15%), Rafale&Typhoon (0.05% each)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 10:03
by Corsair1963
neptune wrote:


Pacific?; Australia, Japan, Korea about 180.
:)



Honestly, that is likely on the low side.....My guess is Australia and South Korea will acquire ~ 100 each and Japan more like 200! (i.e. ~ 400)
8)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 10:43
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:
L will continue to talk to new pilots. He is the author of 15 books about flying. There is therefore good reason to ask for his views on the future of Laukkaselta hävittäjähankinnasta.

If, on the basis of the current data should bet on Finland's upcoming machine model, Laukkasen list would be in this order: Gripen, Typhoon, or Super Hornet.


Auto-translated from: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10103487

Another elderly man who has not completely assimilated the importance of "5. gen"...?

Apart from that I am very surprised he is listing Typhoon before the SH!

My list would be like this (probability of a "win" in parantheses):

F-35 (99.5%), Gripen E(0.25%), SH (0.15%), Rafale&Typhoon (0.05% each)


Fully agree. Jyrki Laukkanen is incredibly experienced former FiAF test pilot, but that article was total nonsence. Either he lost technology track totally about 40 years ago or the editor twisted his word incredibly. Poor thing is that many people including politicians will believe those comments... :x

Basically he seems to be saying that F-35 is not good because "Strike fighter" means it's meant only for attack missions :shock: Next claim is that it does not carry own weapons and is only meant for reconnaissance.. :roll: . Then there is the usual claim of Gripen CPFH of 7000 euros vs. F-35 26,000 euros... And that F-35 stealth features increase costs and require much more maintenance...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2018, 14:51
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
rheonomic wrote:Also at some point the WP and WW Vipers will probably be replaced by F-35s...

WP and WW?



The Tail code on the F-16s in Korea and Japan.

Image

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2018, 16:34
by magitsu
Previous Hornet selection papers were due to be released last summer, but their secrecy was extended to 2030.

What is told here is a bit baffling.
At the Defense Ministry's background conference last autumn, it was reported that the Finnish Hornet's lifetime flight ours cap out at 6,000 hours. At some point it was thought that aircraft could fly up to 12,000 hours.

The truth soon came out after the Hornet operations began. In Finland, the machines are utilized heavy (only about 3 min transit flight time to training areas) that they have a running time of 4,500 hours. The difference between the two other estimates is very high in terms of money.

Hornet was by far the overwhelming winner. What was generally thought to be the the contender (to the F-18), the F-16, was considered in the air force evaluation as having the worst performance among the of the Western entrants.

According to the comparison, the F-16 was the worst of the Westerners. In addition, it lacked growth potential and the main developer resources were estimated to have been outsourced elsewhere in the early 1990s.


https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotima ... 3cfd16db-4

F-16 the worst? How the heck? Even offering Sparrow instead of Amraam shouldn't explain that. It was supposedly also changed to F-16C/D instead of original A/B after the F-18 got in through the kitchen. F-18 wasn't included in the original selection because it was thought to be unaffordable. The offered Gripen model was B, which never happened. Though if bought, it probably would've been updated at great cost to Gripen C/D.

F-16 was evaluated as being the cheapest, so they got that probably right. Gripen would've been the 2nd most expensive western option after the Mirage. F-18 was considered the 2nd most cheapest. What's also weird that they thought that 30 year lifetime costs would be less than the purchase price. Doesn't make sense if we assume that currently we assume that the purchase price is about 1/3 of the total cost.

Image
(left column purchase price, right lifetime cost 30 y, MiG had only 15 y lifetime)
http://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/2017070 ... 1_u0.shtml

The Air Force tested four Western fighter aircraft types from summer 1991 to winter 1992. The MiG-29 was also tested.

Hornet clearly proved to be better.

According to the presentation note, choosing a machine used by an American fleet was, inter alia, the fact that the machine was in continuous serial production, so the risk of a delivery delay was small.

When the US government was a party, it guaranteed a large buyer's support and negotiating position with the American industry. The large production volume of the machine type and the wide user base secured cheap spare parts prices and product support throughout the 30 year lifespan.

The Air Force kept the aircraft modern and its potential for development great. The costs of development during the use of the fighter were shared among multiple users.

The aircraft type was clearly superior to its operating range, operating hours and missile loads. This was an advantage over a large area in Finland.

Hornet was found to be well suited to the air force support system.


Poor Swedish offer

According to the note, the F-16 did not meet all the requirements of the Air Force in comparison. Nor did the offer of the Finnish aircraft industry participate in the project.

Gripen and, in particular, some of its important systems were prototype. In addition, the schedule of implementation of the project included significant risks to the Air Force.

In practice, Saab would have preferred to share the high cost of development of the unfinished machine with it and thus finance the export of machinery to other countries.

The Mirage fulfilled the requirements of the Air Force, but the maintenance of the machine was difficult for Finland. Machine maintenance costs were feared to rise to a high level due to a small user base.

The MiG-29 did not meet the requirements of the Air Force for the electronics and maintenance system. Machine life was only half of what the other machines did.

The best price comparison was F-16, the most expensive MiG-29.

F-16 machines Finland would have received an orderly authorization by the Finnish Parliament for a total of 67 aircraft, 58 of MiGs only.

The Air Force's draft was prepared in April. Prior to that, manufacturers were still given the opportunity to review their bids. No one changed their offer.


Odd attitude

At the time of ordering, the F-16 production line was closing. The last update of the machine was known.

Although, for example, Norway and the Netherlands came to F-16, the type of future after 2010 was completely open.

An additional problem was the basic attitude of the sales company that the machines would be delivered ready and in the version that the manufacturer considered fit to Finland.

The seller was not willing to listen to the wishes of any Finnish customer. The same policy was repeated for the other losers. Co-operation would have been painful.

JAS Gripen was a prototype impregnated with numerous problems.

The Air Force's estimate was that Sweden would be faced with major difficulties in defusing the machine's defects and deficiencies. The salesmen had a lot of speeches and promises, but without cover.

The Swedish way of producing and supporting machines during the life cycle was very expensive. The offer to Finland was a shame. Finland would be committed to open bills. Finland should have paid for its share of machine development costs, no matter how high.

Mirage was a really good machine for the pilot, but technically and in terms of operating costs, a horrible collection of museum supplies for decades. Gripen did not know any other foreign buyers either.

Great power politics of Moscow

MiG had its own reading. Moscow tried to push for procurement in the political preparatory pipeline.

In 1990, the Soviet Union tried to attract Finland to develop a fighting machine to export markets to third countries.

Finland despised this desperate attempt to continue the yya agreement and prevent the flagging of Finland from its front lines.

It was clear to the Russians that Finland's interest was to get a suitable fighter machine at the lowest possible price and on schedule, and that the co-operation machine would hardly be ready for production for Finland as early as possible.

Finland did not have the funds to contribute to financing the machine. Finland would not have had any say in buying buyers. It would have been an arm's breakthrough, which could have been a major political problem.

Finland took the view that joining the co-operation project would have meant a new type of defense co-operation that Finland did not have any interest in.

The state leadership decided that if any of the Soviets were not suitable for Finland's needs, they should not be bought.

In practice, MiG dropped out of the supply list due to the economic collapse of Soviet Russia. There was no guarantee that the country would have been able to supply machines with a lifetime of only half of what Westerners did.


Good relations can be deduced from the handling of a problem situation that was revealed shortly after buying the machines.

Finland had ordered Hornet's advanced C/D version. The machine's self-protection systems, radar and engine were updated. The software of the machine was improved on the basis of the experiences of the First Gulf War.

Hornet's production had already begun and deliveries had begun. For some reason, however, Finland was offered an armored A / B version of the parent. It did not fit into the new version of the software.

Air Force Commander Matti Ahola told the question to the then US Defense Secretary William Perry. The United States quickly corrected the mistake as a clear oversight on the American side.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2018, 19:59
by sunstersun
Lol, interesting how badly the F-16 scored, seems funny given what we know now.

The greatest military program like ever.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2018, 21:15
by loke
sunstersun wrote:Lol, interesting how badly the F-16 scored, seems funny given what we know now.

The greatest military program like ever.

What is funny is how many has underestimated the Hornet... and the Mirage...

Another country that did thorough eval was Switzerland... they also ended up with the Hornet. Very happy.

My guess is, as a reflection of the previous eval, only F-35 and Rafale will meet technical requirements (i.e. the most capable US and European fighters), and the F-35 will be chosen based on costs, capabilities, and political considerations.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2018, 00:34
by barrelnut
BTW, Finnish Air Force has conducted two successful live firings of AGM-158 JASSM Standoff missiles in the United States on 5 and 9 March.

http://ilmavoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_ ... geId=en_US

Image

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2018, 10:20
by hornetfinn
magitsu wrote:Previous Hornet selection papers were due to be released last summer, but their secrecy was extended to 2030.

What is told here is a bit baffling.
At the Defense Ministry's background conference last autumn, it was reported that the Finnish Hornet's lifetime flight ours cap out at 6,000 hours. At some point it was thought that aircraft could fly up to 12,000 hours.

The truth soon came out after the Hornet operations began. In Finland, the machines are utilized heavy (only about 3 min transit flight time to training areas) that they have a running time of 4,500 hours. The difference between the two other estimates is very high in terms of money.

Hornet was by far the overwhelming winner. What was generally thought to be the the contender (to the F-18), the F-16, was considered in the air force evaluation as having the worst performance among the of the Western entrants.

According to the comparison, the F-16 was the worst of the Westerners. In addition, it lacked growth potential and the main developer resources were estimated to have been outsourced elsewhere in the early 1990s.


https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotima ... 3cfd16db-4

F-16 the worst? How the heck? Even offering Sparrow instead of Amraam shouldn't explain that. It was supposedly also changed to F-16C/D instead of original A/B after the F-18 got in through the kitchen. F-18 wasn't included in the original selection because it was thought to be unaffordable. The offered Gripen model was B, which never happened. Though if bought, it probably would've been updated at great cost to Gripen C/D.

F-16 was evaluated as being the cheapest, so they got that probably right. Gripen would've been the 2nd most expensive western option after the Mirage. F-18 was considered the 2nd most cheapest. What's also weird that they thought that 30 year lifetime costs would be less than the purchase price. Doesn't make sense if we assume that currently we assume that the purchase price is about 1/3 of the total cost.


At least F/A-16C/D was the one which flew the tests done in Finland. AFAIK, this was the exact aircraft which flew in Finnish tests:
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F ... file/3026/

So F-16D Block 40G (GE engine) was the one tested in Finland, so it was not like we tested some old F-16A after all. I wonder if they really did think they could win when F-16A was offered...

I'm not sure if F-16 really was seen as the worst but F/A-18C/D was definitely the best for our missions and environment at that evaluation. I think it's also up to what was really offered with each aircraft (weapons, equipment, logistics package etc). Of course our missions then were pretty much defensive counter air missions and Hornet had very good qualities for that with AN/APG-73 radar, good AMRAAM loadout, F404-GE-402 EPE engines and ASPJ jammer. Since we didn't really test any air-to-ground capabilities at that time, F-16 biggest strength was taken away. Gripen and Mirage 2000-5 probably were pretty good for DCA missions.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2018, 02:25
by magitsu
First ever Finnish pilot made a carrier landing. Capt Juha "Stallion" Järvinen landed F/A-18C Hornet on to USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72).

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp? ... mpaign=Ops

The current Chief of Defense is also a Hornet pilot. According to a book source, he's also done a carrier landing decade+ ago, but likely sitting in the back seat.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2018, 02:29
by spazsinbad
:devil: AND he is small - but perfectly formed - also: "...Capt. Juha "Stallion" Jrvinen preformed..." :doh:
&
AND... "..."[he] was a little disappointed because I caught the second wire and not the third."..."

& THE BEAT GOES ON....: "..."We put him through the same repetitions of fuel carrier landing practice events that all students go through," said Maj. Shane Bursae, an instructor for VMFAT 101. "The purpose of this is so that when he does move on to teach students in the Finnish Air Force, he has knowledge and first-hand experience of what he is teaching."..."

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=104763

From same URL above PHOTO: "180317-N-FK070-0120 ATLANTIC OCEAN (March 17, 2018) Finnish Air Force Capt. Juha Jarvinen lands an F/A-18C Hornet assigned to the Sharpshooters of Marine Strike Fighter Training Squadron (VMFAT) 101 on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). This marks the first time a Finnish pilot has performed an arrested landing aboard an aircraft carrier. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Brian M. Wilbur/Released) March 19, 2018" http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 0-0120.JPG (0.75Mb)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2018, 19:58
by magitsu
General opens up the most secretive project in Finland - "The Germans visited us".

We are not only purchasing an airplane replacement. Primarily we are seeking capabilities for our entire defense system.
This is what Lauri Puranen, former Air Force commander, now head of the strategic projects in the Ministry of Defense, tells Uusi Suomi. His head is the one inside of which the main fighter manufacturers in the world now want to reach.

Puranen serves as the program leader in the carefully guarded HX project in Finland aimed at replacing the current main equipment of the Air Force, the F/A-18 Hornets. The project is already in an advanced phase. Next month there will be a transition into the actual bidding phase, which features five bidders.

The call for a multipurpose fighter claimed by the Defense Administration as Hornet's 64 is going to American Boeing (type F/A-18 Super Hornet), French Dassault (Rafale), British-German Eurofighter (Typhoon), American Lockheed Martin (F-35) Saab (Gripen).

Bidders who have their own offices in Helsinki have also become acquainted with Puranen because there have been many meetings with company representatives. Everyone has a lot to play in, as winning the Finnish competition would mean billions more turnover and would be a good reference to competitions in other countries.

-I'm meeting everybody, it's my job. All are committed, says General Puranen, who is a former pilot himself and served at the Lapland Air Command.

Puranen has to thoughtfully choose his words, because anything could be possible to interpret someone's favor. He is not willing to talk about the competitors, even by name, but he will be happy to clarify the big picture.

The key to all is the military term used in the term performance that the machine to be purchased should be able to maximally provide. In addition, future life-cycle costs, security of supply, industrial co-operation, and security and defense policy effectiveness, where the provider and its home country should be able to make the most of it.

-There are some indicators of goodness being judged. I emphasize that it is of no consequence whatsoever if it does not produce the performance that must be present, but it must also be able to offer it throughout the life cycle. There must be a development potential up to 2060, "Puranen says.

The performance of the fighter type is a multifaceted figure, and it is estimated by Finnish soldiers in 2020. According to Puranen, it is worth remembering that the aircraft itself is only "lavetti" when weapons, radar, protection systems and electronic warfare systems are performed, but not all.

-Disting systems require time for detailed data from an opponent, for example. There must also be paint ability from the air to the ground. It will only become a combatable unit that has the aircraft, guns, sensors and data needed for their use.

According to Puranen, this "hockey team striker" still needs the ability to play as a team that is known as a fellow in the villain of the villain, which includes four aircraft in a basic condition. This feature is also being explored in the selection situation with various tests, including on their own war games.

Everyone in the bar must be able to pass the information. It is measured how the flock works with the information it collects itself, but also receives from the ground, and sends the country its own snapshot and is associated with the battle line.

The jump from the current F / A-18 Hornets to a new fighter is remarkable, but technically and not mentally as high as in 1992 when Finland made its decision to replace the Swede's Drakenee and Soviet Mig-21s with the American fighter.

In addition to the Hornets, which were introduced in the 1990s, EUR 3 billion were paid, while the value of their replacement in the defense report is estimated at EUR 7-10 billion. Then the choice of the machine type went to the button , and Finland got an exceptionally strong European aircraft.

This time, there has been a lot of discussion about the so-called lifecycle costs, that is, what the total use of the machines will cost over the next 30 years. The strongest estimates have been up to 30 billion euros, which is not supported by the calculations provided by Puranen.

He recalls that the starting point is that the annual cost of machinery should be at the same level as the current one under ten percent of the defense budget of € 2.4 billion. This would currently amount to about EUR 200 million per year, which would be EUR 6 billion per 30 years.

When it adds up to EUR 7 to 10 billion in purchasing costs, the current limit is set at EUR 13-16 billion, which is half the horror scenarios. However, it is impossible to make a precise forecast because inflation can not be known.

- During a lifecycle of 30 years, the use, maintenance and development of the machine must be done within the normal defense budget as the Hornets are currently. That means that the maintenance of its new fighter, the whole system, must be about the same size as Hornet. How much does it cost in the end games, it's terribly hard to say.

However, he assures that taxpayers will not have additional burdens on the use of new fighters because their use and development is tied to the current defense budget.

It does not eliminate the fact that the acquisition itself would not be a costly operation, especially for a debt-bearing state. The Ministry of Finance estimates to Parliament's Finance Committee in its opinion that a year later , in 2021, that the HX project to be decided by the Government in 2021 will cost the state over the years 2021-2031. It could mean about one billion euros a year in the second half of the next decade.

Finland is currently not the only European state to renew its fighter equipment . There are, for example, Nato country Germany and non-aligned Switzerland when the Nato countries Norway and Denmark recently entered the American F-35.

According to Puranen, the non-aligned Finland will operate independently in the project, although information is exchanged with other buyers in the market.

-We know these projects and we have a good exchange of information with all of us and we have been well supported by the process. Last week we had the Germans here to tell us about their plans and we talked about our own process. Information has been exchanged with the Swiss and the Belgian Air Force Commander has informed the Belgian project. The machine itself is an obligation of confidentiality.

It is noteworthy that fighters have very different tasks by country, ie, one type of aircraft is more suitable than another. Finland's first criterion is to defend its own country when someone else offers machines primarily for the joint use of the military union.

Finland buys its machine in a situation where it is non-allied. If the situation were to change in the future, it would not be a problem either. Each of the available machine types is NATO-compliant and used in the NATO countries. On the other hand, if Finland liked NATO, its own air defense should in any case be in good shape.

The HX project is now moving to the bidding phase, whereby the Puranen's project group will continue discussions with five candidates in order to find the most suitable paper for each one. The hottest step begins with 2020 when the bidders are asked for a final offer.

Finland alone does not intend to remain with its solution.

-When the project goes further, we will certainly be looking for user experiences from others, "Puranen says.

Soldiers under political control under the type of fighter have their own choice, but the decision will ultimately be taken by the end of 2021 by the State Council, and the President of the Republic will not be excluded from decision-making. Then there is a new government in the country, the name of the Prime Minister we do not know at the moment.

"Our mission is not yet to rank, but to keep the hard and bloody competition above. We do not have a favorite at this time. Everyone has good points and there are challenges, "says Puranen.

The 1992 defeat of the fighter is largely different from the fact that this time, because of the EU rules, it can not do so-called counter-trade. According to the knowledge of many new Finnish companies, however, it is well known to many new fighters.

https://www.uusisuomi.fi/kotimaa/244478 ... et-kavivat

Basically the meat (new info) is that "swarm capabilities" will be evaluated with wargaming scenarios. Meaning what the capabilities are with a typical flight of 2-4 units.

Then just the usual, 1st priority is the defense of homeland instead of some smaller Nato-countries, which offer capabilities to a shared pool.

RFP phase next month!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2018, 20:20
by spazsinbad
Cute Flight Gear BAGS: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 0-0221.JPG & FinPilot + F-35C photo bomb.
"180317-N-FK070-0221 ATLANTIC OCEAN (March 17, 2018) U.S. Marine Corps. Capt. Michael Humiston congratulates Finnish Air Force Capt. Juha Jarvinen upon completion of an arrested landing of an F/A-18C Hornet assigned to the Sharpshooters of Marine Strike Fighter Training Squadron (VMFAT) 101 on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). This marks the first time a Finish pilot has performed and arrested gear landing aboard an aircraft carrier. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Brian M. Wilbur/Released)"

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2018, 22:27
by spazsinbad
WiB has more or less the same story as above however with a caption that at first did not make sense (from my earlier assumption) but looking at the shoes (and of course the moustache :-) ) for sure those polished flight boots on the right belong MARINE!
"Capt. Juha Jarvinin at left bumps fists with a Marine Corps aviator on the deck of USS ‘Abraham Lincoln.’ An F-35 is visible in the background. U.S. Navy photo" https://warisboring.com/in-a-first-a-fi ... t-carrier/
&
“...Nimitz-class aircraft carriers — with two exceptions, the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — have four arresting wires, or cables. Catching the third cable is safest, but the snagging the second one isn’t bad....”

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2018, 11:04
by magitsu
Two very good articles from SLDinfo, which never fails to deliver:

Distributed Operations, Exercises and Building Out Finnish Defense Capabilities: The Perspective of Lt. General Kim Jäämeri (interview of the previous FiAF commander, now FDF strategy chief)
03/02/2018

http://sldinfo.com/distributed-operatio ... m-jaameri/

Small bite:
Lt. General Kim Jäämeri: “It is becoming clear to our partners that you cannot run air operations in a legacy manner under the threat of missile barrages of long range weapons.

“The legacy approach to operating from air bases just won’t work in these conditions.

For many of our partners, this is a revelation; for us it has been a fact of life for a long time, and we have operated with this threat in the forefront of operations for a long time.”

Lt. General Kim Jäämeri: “With regard to the Hornet successor, clearly its contribution to joint operations is a key aspect.

“For example, how will it help the navy more effectively fire their missiles at the relevant targets?


“For more than two decades now there’s only one force development process and it’s fully joint.

“I’ve sat in a meeting this morning running through capability reviews from different services where any capability that’s required for our defense is always looked through the joint glasses.

“We only have one defense minister, no secretaries for the air force or navy or whatever; it’s all under the Chief of Defense (CHOD) and he drives this as a joint machine.


Foundation Principles and Modernization of the Finnish Armed Forces: The Perspective of the Permanent Secretary of Defense of Finland (interview of the MoD permanent sec, aka the leading bureaucrat in the Finnish MoD - role is civ, but he's not - a MajGen with background in eng/log)
03/22/2018

http://sldinfo.com/foundation-principle ... f-finland/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2018, 11:23
by magitsu
HX project leader's latest blog:

HX is much more than an airplane
Lauri Puranen

As far as the HX project is concerned, the public debate has focused on different machine types and brands, fighter guns, machine speeds, or wing wings. Understandably, public debate is difficult because many critical information about procurement is not public and the principles and practices of modern air strikes are not very familiar to many.

In accordance with the Government's defense report, the HX project prepares full compensation for the Air Force Hornet's performance in accordance with the requirements set by the security environment with occupied multifunction fighters. In the HX project, our task is to acquire the best possible performance through our resources in our defense system. It is not just about the characteristics of a single fighter aircraft, or its performance in an air battle, but can be said to be the total combat ability of the Air Force in the future.

The basic element of performance is a multifunctional fighter, as well as its integrated sensors, self-protection devices, communication and other systems. The impact of a multipurpose fighter on air, land and sea paint is based not only on effective missiles, bombs and cannons, but also electronic warfare systems, all integrated into the multifunctional fighter and its systems. Effective operation of modern weapons and electronic systems requires a lot of information about the machine's own systems, but also information obtained elsewhere and pre-input, for example about the paints and the parameters of the systems used by the opponent. When all of the above work seamlessly together, it is the result of a multiplayer fighter fighter.

However, a single multipurpose fighter is just like a single attacker in a hockey game; the power points (this was so good error from the google translate that I had to leave it :D ) start to emerge only when the individual excellence within the lineup comes together seamlessly. In Air War the lineup is comprised of four multifunction fighters (flight) and a fight leader. The power of this department is based on the performance of the fighters and the networking between the fighters and the fighter leader, as well as networking with other players in the defense system. Networking refers to the immediate allocation of target information, paint marks and machine location data from the fighter sensors and other systems between the other units of the unit and the fight leader. This way, a real-time and comprehensive picture of the situation is created for all members of the department, which is far more complete than the snapshot of a single machine. This creates many different tactical possibilities to combat a goal, such as launching a missile on a goal scored by another machine. This networking will multiply the fighter power of fighters and improve the survival of the battle.

The safe refueling, arming and maintenance of multifunction fighters in all circumstances from a diversified group to different bases is one of the cornerstones of performance. Reliable maintenance in both war and peace is a prerequisite for our ability to fight.

Another cornerstone of our performance is the competence of our personnel and the efficient working methods developed in our circumstances. This requires high-quality training in the new system and effective practice training as well as modern networked simulators and other training tools to keep our staff's competence at a high level cost-effective.

In addition, the Government's defense report has determined that the cumulative performance must be in place for at least 30 years. This is a tough claim. It can only be fulfilled if the entire set presented above can be maintained and developed according to the requirements of our security environment throughout its life cycle. This is referred to as the Future Growth Capabilities, which is one of the key elements of performance.

The HX acquisition is therefore about much more than a flying platform, the actual airplane. With response, negotiation and evaluation of tenders, Finland provides binding information, solution models and verified performance of all available systems. The overall performance is proven through tests, simulations, war games and many other methods by using our best professionals in our country.

I'm sure that in 2021 we will present acquired by the Finnish operating environment and an appropriate defense system the best performance to produce a solution.

http://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto/ ... .9245.blog

Highly likely that the assessment was/will be done based on that mentioned analysis of 4 flight + flight leader in different scenarios, extending to whatever each choice would mean to the capabilities of the whole defense.

TL;DR LM handlers should 1+1 this and Jäämeri's previous interview together and realize that distributed operations and requisite security of supply setup are crucial. No room for arrogance, which led to then GD's F-16C/D being the last previously even though it was the cheapest to buy and use.

Finland and New Combat Aircraft: Looking Back at the Hornet Acquisition
02/19/2018
http://sldinfo.com/finland-and-new-comb ... quisition/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2018, 13:25
by hythelday
Lt. General Kim Jäämeri wrote:“With regard to the Hornet successor, clearly its contribution to joint operations is a key aspect.

“For example, how will it help the navy more effectively fire their missiles at the relevant targets?”


Finland was cleared for sale of Mk 41 Baseline VII Strike-Length VLS for their future ships :roll: :roll: Not looking good for eurocanards!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2018, 13:56
by magitsu
hythelday wrote:
Lt. General Kim Jäämeri wrote:“With regard to the Hornet successor, clearly its contribution to joint operations is a key aspect.

“For example, how will it help the navy more effectively fire their missiles at the relevant targets?”


Finland was cleared for sale of Mk 41 Baseline VII Strike-Length VLS for their future ships :roll: :roll: Not looking good for eurocanards!

Indeed. Though I'm somewhat perversely attracted by the idea of seeing what kind of marketing ploy Saab has to fight against the likes of NIFC-CA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperati ... Capability

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2018, 14:49
by loke
hythelday wrote:
Lt. General Kim Jäämeri wrote:“With regard to the Hornet successor, clearly its contribution to joint operations is a key aspect.

“For example, how will it help the navy more effectively fire their missiles at the relevant targets?”


Finland was cleared for sale of Mk 41 Baseline VII Strike-Length VLS for their future ships :roll: :roll: Not looking good for eurocanards!

It does not look good for the SH either, even if it will be CEC "compatible"...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2018, 04:57
by optimist
If the f-35 is on offer, it really is a foregone conclusion. Extreme politics being the exception.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2018, 06:06
by spazsinbad
'magitsu' put us on to the FINNy One Trapping by his LONEsome the other day & the story continued up top on this thread:

But HEY - there is more to it (NOT!) according to a blogger with NO Investigative Skills whatsoever:

Finnish planes land on a US carrier? Not quite. It's all show pony, no real "go"....
http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/03/fi ... r-not.html

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2018, 07:07
by element1loop
This part deserves a quote:

---
" ... So why are they trumpeting this to unknowing members of the mainstream news media?

Because most of those bastards don't know and will simply repeat whatever they're told if the person telling them this sh*t wears stars.

The amount of utter hatred that I have for the caviar class of journalists increases everyday. Investigative reporting is dead. They're simply mouth pieces for people with agendas.

That's why watching the news coverage out of DC is so frustrating. No one has even the basic knowledge to ask the simplest of questions.

To sum it up.

This sh*t happens every damn day. The difference? We usually don't put foreign insignia on the planes that the exchange pilots fly. ...
"

http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/03/fi ... t.html?m=1
---

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2018, 10:49
by optimist
Things are going downhill when we start using the SNAFU blog, even in jest. It really does belong in the basement dweller's thread.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2018, 11:08
by spazsinbad
Yeah but SOLOMON used to post here (as far back as when I joined - with others knowing this thing of his here for longer) so it is just like old times to call in every now & then. I'll say no more, however the idiocy belonged in the NORSK thread.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2018, 11:15
by magitsu
Well, he's basically just correcting Yahoo's (actually National Interest's, which is obviously a turd publication) folly. I haven't seen any other outlet claim that it was a Finnish plane, especially not any Finnish one.

It was this guy's plane: http://www.3rdmaw.marines.mil/Leaders/L ... -g-burton/

It easily could've been a Finnish plane if there was any reason to do it. They have the carrier enabling kit (e.g. catapult connection is in the front landing gear) still in place because removing it would've been more expensive. Also there were two Finnish Hornets in the US for almost the whole year until the JASSM test launch finally happened in 5. & 9. March.

https://twitter.com/USNavy/status/975814429211275264

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 14:02
by gideonic
Well, it seems that Finnish mainstream media is no better than other mainstream media :D

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finl ... e/10173084

The latest version of the plane, known as the Gripen JAS 39E/F, was first tested last year. So far fewer than 100 of the planes have been sold, only to Sweden and Brazil.

In comparison, the American planes are sold in vast numbers and are assured of a long future. For instance the US Navy plans to fly Boeing’s Super Hornets into the 2040s, so service and support for the planes will not be phased out anytime soon.

Rival Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, has sold fewer than 300 of its F-35, but many orders for the plane are pending – including from European countries including neighbouring Norway.

Over 280 delivered (+ at least 5 in "limbo") translates to "under 300 sold" Against 100 sold paper-Gripens. Oh and Norway's buy is still pending? :D

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 15:51
by SpudmanWP
I think he forgot the hundreds of F-35 that are in production.... aka "Sold" :)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 16:15
by playloud
SpudmanWP wrote:I think he forgot the hundreds of F-35 that are in production.... aka "Sold" :)

Yup. I count 355 through LRIP 10.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2018, 16:32
by SpudmanWP
Don't forget that Lots 11 & 12 are "sold" and in production. Add another ~150+.

Technically Lot 13 (FY2019) LL items are contracted so add another 130.

That's a total of 645 delivered or in production.

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... 4-18_2.pdf

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2018, 06:51
by hornetfinn
gideonic wrote:Well, it seems that Finnish mainstream media is no better than other mainstream media :D

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finl ... e/10173084

The latest version of the plane, known as the Gripen JAS 39E/F, was first tested last year. So far fewer than 100 of the planes have been sold, only to Sweden and Brazil.

In comparison, the American planes are sold in vast numbers and are assured of a long future. For instance the US Navy plans to fly Boeing’s Super Hornets into the 2040s, so service and support for the planes will not be phased out anytime soon.

Rival Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, has sold fewer than 300 of its F-35, but many orders for the plane are pending – including from European countries including neighbouring Norway.

Over 280 delivered (+ at least 5 in "limbo") translates to "under 300 sold" Against 100 sold paper-Gripens. Oh and Norway's buy is still pending? :D


The same article in Finnish gives quite different meaning and tones. I think the problem here is simply sloppy translation. Better translation would've been something like this:
According to Lockheed Martin, slightly under 300 F-35s has been built, but a lot has been ordered - including from European countries.


There is no mention about anything 'pending' in original Finnish version, so I'd say that somebody just made a bad translation. To my eyes the Finnish version is pretty good without any big errors, but English version is shoddy.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2018, 12:19
by magitsu
Finnish MoD Niinistö confirms today's #HX RFQ cover 64 fighters, making it one of the largest fighter competitions currently ongoing anywhere in the world.

https://twitter.com/CorporalFrisk/statu ... 7161126912

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2018, 13:13
by loke
magitsu wrote:
Finnish MoD Niinistö confirms today's #HX RFQ cover 64 fighters, making it one of the largest fighter competitions currently ongoing anywhere in the world.

https://twitter.com/CorporalFrisk/statu ... 7161126912

I am pretty amazed by this -- IF they really get the money to pay for 64 F-35 they will get one of the most potent air forces in Europe! (assuming they also can afford the operating expenses and infrastructure)...

Holland, a country with much larger economy and much larger population, will go for a much smaller number of a/c -- was it 34 or 37 or something like that?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2018, 13:51
by barrelnut
Today's press conference (in Finnish):

https://areena.yle.fi/1-50001494

* 64 planes needed
* 7 - 10 Billion € (8.5 - 12 Billion $)
* The most important criteria in the competition is performance
* Performance advantage against potential regional threats required for the next 30 years (current performance + development potential)
* Development potential is important (EW, Sensors, Weapons), future development path by manufacturer + main user evaluated
* Performance through out the whole life cycle evaluated based on development potential
* Finnish Air Force not willing to solely pay integration costs for future sensors, weapons etc.
* Five evaluation areas
* 4 of the 5 evaluation areas will have minimum threshold criteria that need to be met in order to get evaluated in the fifth (performance)
* In the Fifth evaluation area (military performance) candidates will be graded and the best performing candidate will be selected

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2018, 14:04
by hythelday
F-35 it is then.

10 billion divided by 64 is roughly 150M. Qatar and India deals give about the same arithmetics, so Dassault still has a slight chance :D :D

It'llalso be quite amusing to see how well the Eurofighter "better at 90% of stuff other than stealth" Typhoon will fare against F-35 in a performance oriented evaluation.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2018, 16:35
by loke
So the fifth criterion is performance; what are the other 4?

Indeed, F-35 will win this; we can increase the probability from 99.99 to 100%....

The only "exciting" things remaining in this competition could be:

1. Will some of the bidders withdraw now that more is known about criteria?

2. Which will be "short-listed" (i.e. meet the first 4 criteria) -- impossible to comment on without knowing more about the criteria.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2018, 17:44
by f-pole
The five mission types mentioned were basically Air Superiority, CAS, Air Interdiction (from stand-off distances), ASuW and ISR.

The qualifying criteria are:

1. Maintenance, training and mission support systems that enable independent operation during wartime. There probably is a requirement to be able to handle basic sustainment and maintenance tasks independently.
2. Life cycle costs, which were mentioned to cover not only acquisition and operation costs, but also planned upgrades to maintain capabilities to 2060. Acquisition costs have fit within the budget frame, and operating costs should be able to be covered with the current budget.
3. Industrial co-operation, mostly related to maintenance, training and building proficiency to upgrade the aircraft. 30% of the acquisition cost was mentioned as the baseline.

The Finnish DefMin will work together with the candidates to prepare a package offer that satisfies these criteria and offers the best performance possible to meet the requirements, it was mentioned that the requirements differ somewhat from what other countries have. After this the candidates are only scored on performance criteria, with the winner being the preferred choice.

Another thing that has been stressed many times, is that they're not looking for just an aircraft but capability, which includes e.g. level of integration with national C4I and air defence systems, weapon systems and possibly other platforms, most likely referring to Growler with SH.

The performance criteria was covered briefly, it's split into two categories with the first being effectiveness and suitability in 2025 and the second upgrade potential. The key performance questions in the first category were listed as:

1. Does the offered solution ensure the means to achieve air superiority?
1b. What qualities are required to achieve it?
1c. How does the offered solution offer those qualities?
2. Does it provide necessary means to support the Army in combat?
3. Does it provide necessary means to support the Navy in combat?
4. Does it provide situational awareness?
5. Is it capable of air interdiction of high value targets at long distances?
6. Is it suitable for the distributed and mobile basing system of the Air Force?

The questions for the upgradeability were:

1. Is there a credible roadmap to the development of the solutions?
Consisting of:
- References provided by the manufacturers
- The number of airframes produced and it's effect
- R&D investments of the manufacturrers
- Level of technological risk involved

2. Are the upgrades operationally relevant?
Consisting of upgrade potentials of:
- The complete solution
- The airframe
- The engine
- Avionics and sensors
- Weapons and external stores

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2018, 21:20
by magitsu
Since the deal will be signed by the next cabinet, not the current one, there might be some room for "adjustment". Though generally I think that there's high trust towards FiAF.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2018, 03:54
by spazsinbad
Finland invites bids to supply 64 fighter jets
28 Apr 2018 Reuters Staff

"HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland invited bids on Friday to supply 64 multi-role fighter aircraft to replace its ageing fleet of F/A-18 Hornet jets, due to be phased out from 2025. The deal is expected to cost 7-10 billion euros ($9-12 billion). Possible candidates include Saab’s Gripen, Dassault’s Rafale, Boeing’s Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and the Eurofighter, a joint project by Airbus, BAE and Leonardo.

“If we want to keep defending the entire Finnish territory in a credible way, this is a necessity, especially as we do not belong to a military alliance,” defense minister Jussi Niinisto told a news conference. He said performance of the jets would be the main criterion and Finland was committed to thorough talks with all plane makers....

...Helsinki is asking manufacturers to provide price quotations for the new jets by early 2019, and plans to make the final decision in 2021...."

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-finl ... SKBN1HY27V

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2018, 08:07
by mk82
hythelday wrote:F-35 it is then.

10 billion divided by 64 is roughly 150M. Qatar and India deals give about the same arithmetics, so Dassault still has a slight chance :D :D

It'llalso be quite amusing to see how well the Eurofighter "better at 90% of stuff other than stealth" Typhoon will fare against F-35 in a performance oriented evaluation.


Barrelnut: “ * Finnish Air Force not willing to solely pay integration costs for future sensors, weapons etc”

Good luck to Eurofighter in this competition.......especially when the Finnish MOD finds out that it will have to fund future Finnish specific upgrades on its own (which the Eurofighter partner nations are not interested in).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2018, 11:00
by popcorn
So who foots the bill for Finnish-specific kit for the F-35?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2018, 14:24
by hythelday
popcorn wrote:So who foots the bill for Finnish-specific kit for the F-35?



Which is what exactly? Custom Moomin paintjob?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2018, 14:31
by popcorn
hythelday wrote:
popcorn wrote:So who foots the bill for Finnish-specific kit for the F-35?



Which is what exactly? Custom Moomin paintjob?

No free lunch, Finland would pay for any custom capabilities it would require regardless of which platform it chooses.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2018, 17:14
by barrelnut
popcorn wrote:
hythelday wrote:
popcorn wrote:So who foots the bill for Finnish-specific kit for the F-35?



Which is what exactly? Custom Moomin paintjob?

No free lunch, Finland would pay for any custom capabilities it would require regardless of which platform it chooses.


Well, that's the thing. Finnish Air Force does not want any custom capabilities, those can get very expensive. They want widely used upgrades (funded by multiple interested parties) that are affordable.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2018, 07:33
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:So who foots the bill for Finnish-specific kit for the F-35?


Chutes, done
Custom A2G munitions, very cheap thanks to UAI
Custom radio stuff, super cheap thanks to software-based radio

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2018, 20:05
by magitsu
No pressing need for anything besides the semi-autonomous maintenance ability.

It's going to be interesting. FiAF will negotiate with everyone to make each offer the best possible package to match the evaluation criteria. Those are only meets minimum / doesn't. If those are cleared, only then will they get ranked in the performance criteria.

Price/performance isn't going to be compared directly. But perhaps the cheaper offers can include more fighters in their package, which would lead to better capability assessment.

It will be interesting to see whether any of the candidates reach conclusion that they won't pass one or more of those minimum criteria, which could lead to them not placing the final bid.

One big cutoff point is that they need to be able to fund the upkeep from normal budget. Which means around 10% of the defense spending. That would be slightly less than 300 million yearly.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 07:54
by loke
f-pole wrote:
The qualifying criteria are:

1. Maintenance, training and mission support systems that enable independent operation during wartime. There probably is a requirement to be able to handle basic sustainment and maintenance tasks independently.
2. Life cycle costs, which were mentioned to cover not only acquisition and operation costs, but also planned upgrades to maintain capabilities to 2060. Acquisition costs have fit within the budget frame, and operating costs should be able to be covered with the current budget.
3. Industrial co-operation, mostly related to maintenance, training and building proficiency to upgrade the aircraft. 30% of the acquisition cost was mentioned as the baseline.

Welcome to the forum!
And thanks for the information!

I thought there were 5 criteria in total? Or am I mistaken? If not, what was the 4th criterion?

Item 2 seems a pretty tough one, in particular for the Typhoon and Rafale.... They are very expensive to operate.

Regarding item 1: How would this affect the F-35? I may be wrong but I thought one of the ideas behind costs savings with the F-35 was that a lot of the maintainance and upgrade work will happen centralized?

In any case: in the Danish eval they concluded that operating costs per a/c was slightly higher for F-35 than the SH.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 08:42
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:
f-pole wrote:
The qualifying criteria are:

1. Maintenance, training and mission support systems that enable independent operation during wartime. There probably is a requirement to be able to handle basic sustainment and maintenance tasks independently.
2. Life cycle costs, which were mentioned to cover not only acquisition and operation costs, but also planned upgrades to maintain capabilities to 2060. Acquisition costs have fit within the budget frame, and operating costs should be able to be covered with the current budget.
3. Industrial co-operation, mostly related to maintenance, training and building proficiency to upgrade the aircraft. 30% of the acquisition cost was mentioned as the baseline.

Welcome to the forum!
And thanks for the information!

I thought there were 5 criteria in total? Or am I mistaken? If not, what was the 4th criterion?


4th criterion is impact on security and defence policy. This is a criteria that is evaluated separately and is not really part of the competition. Candidates have no requirements in this and they don't have any way of affecting it. Basically it's just a political evaluation of what would likely happen politically if a candidate is selected.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 09:45
by loke
magitsu wrote:Price/performance isn't going to be compared directly. But perhaps the cheaper offers can include more fighters in their package, which would lead to better capability assessment.

I had the impression that the number of a/c was pretty much fixed at 64? Is this not the case?

In a way I would not be surprised if this requirement was relaxed. I doubt it would be possible to operate 64 F-35 in a meaningful manner on the annual budget of the Finnish Air Force (unless the budget is expanded considerably).

Since military inflation is higher than the general inflation I wonder if there is actually a risk that none of the fighter jets would meet the annual budgetary requiments, unless the number of a/c is reduced!?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 11:13
by barrelnut
loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:Price/performance isn't going to be compared directly. But perhaps the cheaper offers can include more fighters in their package, which would lead to better capability assessment.

I had the impression that the number of a/c was pretty much fixed at 64? Is this not the case?


It's just speculation. I don't think purchasing more than 64 is a realistic option. It would mean that more pilots, other personnel and resources in general would needed thus pushing annual cost of fighter force upwards. And that's not possible.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 12:03
by loke
barrelnut wrote:
loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:Price/performance isn't going to be compared directly. But perhaps the cheaper offers can include more fighters in their package, which would lead to better capability assessment.

I had the impression that the number of a/c was pretty much fixed at 64? Is this not the case?


It's just speculation. I don't think purchasing more than 64 is a realistic option. It would mean that more pilots, other personnel and resources in general would needed thus pushing annual cost of fighter force upwards. And that's not possible.

I agree it not realistic to purchase more than 64, and that's not what I meant. I think the question is rather, could less than 64 be an option?

E.g., 48 F-35 instead of 64 Gripen E

This is an important question because, it may well be that 64 F-35 may not fit into the annual budget of the Finnish defence forces. The Danish eval seemed to indicate higher per plane operating costs for F-35 than the SH... Finland of course has other requirements than Denmark, and the operating costs per plane may well be higher for Finland than for Denmark (it seems they require more autonomy and more local support).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 18:03
by magitsu
Yes, certainly not more than 64 is not likely. But as I said, the packages will be negotiated one on one to provide the best capability. The best capability could still mean something else than just "64 fighters".
For the more expensive to operate jets it's indeed possible that they don't reach 64, but the cheapest might. Then it would become a matter of how do they assess the total capability of the package. Certainly 1 F-35 is more capability than 1 Gripen, but how much...

Indeed, they have to be able to fund the upkeep with 10% of the defense budget, which is close to what the current costs are. So they'll have about 300 million each year to pay for the whole setup.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 18:17
by SpudmanWP
64 F-35s for $10 Billion is doable given that the Korean deal was $7 billion for 40 leave $3 billion for 24 ($125 mil each). Keep in mind that F-35s for Finland will be a lot cheaper than F-35s for Korea due to being in later Lots (more economy of scale).

Damn, that's a long sentence :)

"Gross Weapon System Cost" (the highest per-F-35 cost calculated) in the 2020-2023 range is about $100 mil, so the above calculation (ie 64 for $10 Billion) is doable.

The package contains 64 aircraft along with the technical systems, training systems, maintenance tools, testing equipment and spare parts as well as weapons, sensors and other type-specific support functions.


So, that is about $6.4 Billion for the F-35, initial spares, helmets, tools, docs, etc (ie "Gross Weapon System Cost"). That leaves $3.6 Billion for the weapons (about a $Billion), Full-Mission simulators ($7.2 mil each), etc. Looks to be doable depending on the parts, level, and length of support required under contract.

One other thing to keep in mind, the F-35 comes with an 8000hr airframe life built in where other fighters need a MLU to achieve that. That was one of the factors that the Denmark eval brought to life.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 18:20
by loke
OK, thanks for clarifying that the number of a/c is not fixed at 64 but can be negotiated to a potentially lower number, depending on the capabilities and cost.

No doubt the F-35 will win this.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 18:25
by loke
SpudmanWP wrote:64 F-35s for $10 Billion is doable given that the Korean deal was $7 billion for 40 leave $3 billion for 24 ($125 mil each). Keep in mind that F-35s for Finland will be a lot cheaper than F-35s for Korea due to being in later Lots (more economy of scale).

Damn, that's a long sentence :)

"Gross Weapon System Cost" (the highest per-F-35 cost calculated) in the 2020-2023 range is about $100 mil, so the above calculation (ie 64 for $10 Billion) is doable.

Who talked about acquisition costs?

We were talking about operating costs. Finland is a small country with a small economy. They have stated they need to fit the operating cost of the new a/c within the existing budget.

Operating 64 F-35 will be quite expensive for such a small country!

It is still not clear to me if the operating costs per plane would be higher for Finland than for e.g. Denmark, given that Finland wants more autonomy in operating their F-35 -- I guess it might!?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 18:29
by SpudmanWP
F-35s have better range & can do more than their classic Hornets so my calculation is that it will be cheaper, per mission, to operate the F-35.

The F-35 is also cheaper to upgrade, lasts longer, etc.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 18:47
by magitsu
It's more like that they are aiming for full replacement of 64, but since the next cabinet decides they can decide to go for 7 bn instead of 10.

Operating cost of the package can't exceed 10% of defence budget, which is close to what the current F-18 setup costs. 2018 budget is around 2.9 Bn, so 10% for 300 million euros per year should be close enough estimate. That's for "64" F-35, ammo and other kit.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 18:57
by loke
SpudmanWP wrote:F-35s have better range & can do more than their classic Hornets so my calculation is that it will be cheaper, per mission, to operate the F-35.

The F-35 is also cheaper to upgrade, lasts longer, etc.

Better range and can do more? Indeed but nevertheless they still want 64!

Regarding the costs: Did you miss my comment about "military inflation"? It hits everybody including the F-35.

Denmark has a slightly bigger economy than Finland (and a much more robust economy!) and still they will be struggling to operate a much smaller number of F-35 that what Finland is is hoping to operate. This is not just because of reduction in military budgets you know.

Finland has made it clear they want 64 a/c. I predict they need to go to a lower number to be able to afford the operating costs if they want the F-35. The only other alternative would be to shift money from e.g. the army or navy. I doubt that will happen.

It is also interesting to note (as stated above) that the Danes concluded that per plane the F-35 had higher operating costs than the SH, even if the F-35 is cheaper to upgrade, etc.

My guess: Finland will go for F-35 in the end but they will have to accept a lower number. They can probably afford to buy 64 F-35 but they will not be able to afford to operate them in any meaningful manner given their fiscal constraints.

That's all.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 19:12
by geforcerfx
Someone through out $300 million being the operational cost cap

@ $35,000 a flight hour 64 aircraft would cost $224 million a year, at 100 flight hours a jet/year

@ $30,000 a flight hour 64 aircraft would cost $192 million a year , at 100 flight hours a jet/year



@ $35,000 a flight hour 64 aircraft would cost $336 million a year, at 150 flight hours a jet/year

@ $30,000 a flight hour 64 aircraft would cost $288 million a year, at 150 flight hours a jet/year


I think they can do it on 300 million a year for basic costs, with a lot left over. Guess it depends on how many hours they are going to try and fly per year, then again the F-35 has it's advance sims which should help cut down on training flight hours per year. Plus the USAF is somewhere in the $30,000 range per hour atm, I would assume by the time 2023-2024 roles around and the fleet is over 1000 aircraft that cost per flight hour for the USAF will be in the mid $20,000 range, so my numbers are prob high. But not knowing what special requirements the FiAF might demand there cost's could stay higher than USAF.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 19:19
by magitsu
The current amount is 8900 hours per year (slightly below 145 per jet), at slightly below than 12k dollars per hour. So around 110 M/year should be going to the direct cost of Hornet. Of course MLUs have been funded from the same 300 million, weapons...

If the current CPFH is 12k and if it doesn't include completely different numbers than the US, then you can be sure it can't be doubled and stlll survive with the same amount of units and share of the total budget. There isn't that much slack in the current setup.

I guess the old F-18 cost can't be that much lower than F-35A eventually, so it must be that the 30k CPFHs just include much more items than Finnish 12k/h.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 19:23
by loke
magitsu wrote:The current amount is 8900 hours per year, at slightly below than 12k dollars per hour. So around 110 M/year should be going to the direct cost of Hornet. Of course MLUs have been funded from the same 300 million, weapons...
Exactly.

Then there is also inflation.

Another thing I have mentioned several times but not seen a response to, is that it seems Finland wants to be operate their F-35 in a more independent manner than what others are asking for. Could this further inflate the operating costs for Finland?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 21:53
by ricnunes
loke wrote:Another thing I have mentioned several times but not seen a response to, is that it seems Finland wants to be operate their F-35 in a more independent manner than what others are asking for. Could this further inflate the operating costs for Finland?


Well, the question that you're referring to the one below, right?

loke wrote:Regarding item 1: How would this affect the F-35? I may be wrong but I thought one of the ideas behind costs savings with the F-35 was that a lot of the maintainance and upgrade work will happen centralized?



Well, I could be wrong but I guess that you're probably confusing the ALIS functionalities with actual maintenance work. While ALIS is a centralized system in order to help maintenance, this doesn't mean that the actual maintenance work or most of this work to be more precise has to be made in a "centralized depot".
I would say that most of the maintenance work can and will be done in country (Finland in this case) and this applies to other countries that will operate the F-35 as well. Actually ALIS should make in-country maintenance much easier while at the same time lowering the cost of extra parts.
Moreover and since most of the F-35's upgrades will be done solely or based on Software (as opposed to Hardware), this makes in-country upgrades much easier (and cheaper) compared to any other fighter aircraft.

Of course there will always be extensive "maintenance work" that will likely have to be done abroad such as a potential Mid Life Upgrades (MLU) among other extensive work but this will also and certainly affect any other of the competing fighter aircraft.

Well, my 2 cents anyway...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 03:05
by SpudmanWP
loke wrote:It is also interesting to note (as stated above) that the Danes concluded that per plane the F-35 had higher operating costs than the SH, even if the F-35 is cheaper to upgrade, etc.


Keep in mind that the Danes also stated that more F-18s were required (38 F-18s vs 28 F-35s) in order to fly fewer hours per year with the goal to lasting as long as the F-35 (8k hrs).

Image

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 03:11
by spazsinbad
To my knowledge the US, UK and Oz and perhaps some other Northern Europeans have stated the FMS Full Mission Simulator will account for 50% of F-35 pilot training - not only initial but mission training (with perhaps more mission training as the FMS (becomes networked)/aircraft become more capable Block 4 onwards and upwardswise).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 10:20
by loke
ricnunes wrote:Well, I could be wrong but I guess that you're probably confusing the ALIS functionalities with actual maintenance work. While ALIS is a centralized system in order to help maintenance, this doesn't mean that the actual maintenance work or most of this work to be more precise has to be made in a "centralized depot".
I would say that most of the maintenance work can and will be done in country (Finland in this case) and this applies to other countries that will operate the F-35 as well. Actually ALIS should make in-country maintenance much easier while at the same time lowering the cost of extra parts.
Moreover and since most of the F-35's upgrades will be done solely or based on Software (as opposed to Hardware), this makes in-country upgrades much easier (and cheaper) compared to any other fighter aircraft.

Of course there will always be extensive "maintenance work" that will likely have to be done abroad such as a potential Mid Life Upgrades (MLU) among other extensive work but this will also and certainly affect any other of the competing fighter aircraft.

Well, my 2 cents anyway...

You are wrong.

Also, perhaps you are confusing MLU with other activities.

For the plan to achieve its savings goals, all of the partner nations must sign on to the F-35 program's regional approach to aircraft maintenance.

But that may be tough to swallow for some participating nations, for military and also economic reasons. Countries want to hire as many homegrown workers as possible, and they also want to make sure they have enough spare parts and technology data to fly their aircraft independently.

Lockheed Martin says it is working through these issues, in partnership with the Pentagon program office. So far, the need to keep costs down has helped to offset pressure to build extensive facilities in each participating nation, Gavaletz said.
"They all want to do everything in every country, but they're also realistic that that's not going to be the case," Gavaletz said. "My biggest concern is people will put too much in and we'll have too much capacity."

The military strategy of participating nations could be the biggest factor in how well this plan succeeds, Aboulafia said. He said the first eight participating nations are likely to support the maintenance plan to keep costs down. But countries that join later may be more reluctant, especially if they can tap into big defense budgets.

"There are peacetime customers that want a turn-key solution, like Norway. Then there's the exact opposite, which is a customer like, say, Israel. They want a big in-country logistical presence of their own," Aboulafia said.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lockh ... revolution

I think one question is -- how much independence does Finland need?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 14:15
by ricnunes
@loke,

That article in case you notice is from 2007 and we're now in 2018 or slightly more than a decade and as such many things have changed since then.
But and for what's worth I've been aware of the information that is on that article that you posted and that same "information" is IMO the result of a wrong perception and confusion by "analysts" between what is ALIS and what is actual "in-field" maintenance. What that article that you posted is trying to refer to (IMO) is ALIS which again the author/authors seem to be confusing with actual maintenance.

ALIS (Autonomic Logistics Information System) is not the maintenance itself. ALIS is an integrated system which allows the planning and schedule of maintenance operations, ordering of spare parts among other operations, or resuming to help maintenance operations. Here:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... -alis.html

And again I believe that many analysts confuse with centralized nature of ALIS - a system which helps maintenance - with maintenance itself. Again ALIS is not the maintenance, ALIS is a tool to help maintenance.

I believe it's unrealistic to think that the majority of maintenance operations won't happen in country and will/must have to happen in foreign countries such as USA or Italy.
For example, recently the US Navy demonstrated that it could perform F-35 maintenance operations onboard carriers (with the help of ALIS) so why on Earth couldn't Finland do the same with their F-35s in country, this if they choose the F-35?

Finally and recurring in the risk of repeating myself, the majority of F-35 upgrades will be done (solely) via Software which makes these kind of upgrades much easier to perform in-country as opposed to abroad.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 16:02
by SpudmanWP
the majority of F-35 upgrades will be done (solely) via Software which makes these kind of upgrades much easier to perform in-country as opposed to abroad.


On that note, the first C2D2 drop is scheduled for next month (June 2018).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2018, 19:11
by magitsu
Does anyone envision trouble from the fact that Finland requests a prime contractor instead of just buying planes? The contractor has to combine the best package, integrate it and deliver it working.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2018, 16:54
by magitsu
I looked into the 10% upkeep costs. It's actually closer to 150 million, so 10% is bs and 5-10% of total defense budjet would be a closer assessment. The whole FiAF ran in 2015 with 180 million euros. Obviously not all of it was used on Hornets. So it's seems like only 150 million+ can be planned for the yearly cost of the new fighters.

8900*n=150,000,000... n would be 17k€/h. It should work nevertheless.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2018, 21:04
by magitsu
About the capability assessment of the Finnish project.

Some highlights:

"If a candidate can provide the required supply and training system with less resources than others, it can allocate resources to increasing the military capability or lowering the upkeep costs.
For the former this may enable extra investment into the amount or quality of armament, sensors and EW systems. For the latter, provider can for example increase the amount of spare equipment and supplies in their package."

https://pastebin.com/eJkkms0r

The original in Finnish: http://ilmavoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_ ... havittajan

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2018, 16:48
by spazsinbad
Interview: Finland’s defense minister talks air defense, EU procurement regulations
12 May 2018 Aaron Mehta

"...We go to exercise, for instance, to Sweden or the United States, Finnish Air Force is taking part at Red Flag exercise in October this year. This is the first time in Finnish Air Force history that we take part in this biggest exercise in the world. The United States comes to our exercise. So everybody hopes to benefit in this cooperation....

...Finland is in the early process of buying a new fighter. How do you balance between quantity and quality when looking at the new fighter?

We have money for €7-10 billion (U.S. $8-12 billion), and we are going to buy 64 fighter planes. We have been always counting on quality: quality on planes and quality on training our pilots. Our pilots are the best in the world, let me say that, because they are trained so well. We have our own special program. We train them in Finland, and they get along very well in international [exercises]. I am thrilled to see what happens in the Red Flag exercise, what is the level of expertise of Finnish pilots now, because it has been very good during the recent years...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/ ... gulations/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2018, 09:22
by hornetfinn
magitsu wrote:About the capability assessment of the Finnish project.

Some highlights:

"If a candidate can provide the required supply and training system with less resources than others, it can allocate resources to increasing the military capability or lowering the upkeep costs.
For the former this may enable extra investment into the amount or quality of armament, sensors and EW systems. For the latter, provider can for example increase the amount of spare equipment and supplies in their package."

https://pastebin.com/eJkkms0r

The original in Finnish: http://ilmavoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_ ... havittajan


That was a good description of the evaluation process from now on. I ran it through Google tranlate and it seems to make pretty good job in translating that article. I'm really looking forward to see how this evaluation unfolds... :drool:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2018, 15:23
by loke
hornetfinn wrote: I'm really looking forward to see how this evaluation unfolds... :drool:

I agree it will be interesting to follow the process -- but it will not be very exciting, we already know the outcome...

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2018, 22:07
by f4u7_corsair
frequently violates Finnish air space

Once last year.

There are undetected overflights the Russians have run doing low-level reconnaissance in central Finland.

Pure fantasy...

an impressive AWACS and systems air defense network that has never existed for the Baltic region before

If you exclude Swedish, NATO and US assets (which are all close Finland partners), then yes, of course.
Finnish ground-based radar coverage is actually surprisingly good.

They also have the country populated with Russian ex-pats (...)

Russian influence operations is something acknowledged and certainly dealt with.

Sounds like you mixed Tom Clancy with a bit too much of the wrong kind of medication. You're describing a near-state of war. Russia is no innocent, but the situation is far more normalized than what you seem to believe.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 02:33
by Corsair1963
lrrpf52 wrote:Why anyone would want to buy a 4th Gen + aircraft now when they can get the F-35 defies logic, especially when France, Germany, and Sweden are all scrambling to develop 5th Gen aircraft now.

The Rafale is a far superior system to the Gripen, and even France realizes they are behind the curve with the advent of the F-35. If Sweden is working on Flygsystem 2020, it makes no sense at all for Finland to waste her time with 4th Gen that will have to face Su-27, Su-30, or Su-35S out of the Saint Petersburg region. 6th Leningrad Air and Air Defence Forces Army works out of that area and frequently violates Finnish air space.

F-35s would not only provide a superior air dominance solution for Finland, but an impressive AWACS and systems air defense network that has never existed for the Baltic region before. There are undetected overflights the Russians have run doing low-level reconnaissance in central Finland.

They also have the country populated with Russian ex-pats who provide covert strategic reconnaissance, disinformation, on-call sabotage, and counter-resistance to the Finnish active reserves. Russians have purchased tons of real estate near Finnish military bases under cover of civilian status.

It would be great for Finland to track Su-27 flights out of 6th Leningrad Air and park up next to them for intercept when they violate Finnish airspace, shut off their comms with Ground Controllers back in Russia, let them know their antics aren't going to fly anymore.


Finland has express interest in acquiring the F-35 in the past. So, I think the odds are petty good they she will ultimately select the Lightning.

Also, considering Finlands close proximity to Russia. Could we see her select the STOVL F-35B over the Conventional F-35A???

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 02:36
by Corsair1963
loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: I'm really looking forward to see how this evaluation unfolds... :drool:

I agree it will be interesting to follow the process -- but it will not be very exciting, we already know the outcome...



Honestly, I think the JSF Program and the US Government should be pushing for Free and Open Fighter Competitions in cases like Germany and Canada. As the F-35 will surely win.....(and put to bed any controversy)

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 09:14
by magitsu
They start by planning the best capability package with each candidate. So FiAF and the manufacturer both put their mind to it.

First the packages have to meet the minimum requirement in the other parts of the evaluation (e.g. sec of supply, life cycle cost). If they are money-wise more efficient (than others), they can add more spares, improve quantity or quality sensors/weapons etc. to the package.

Then they enter the military capability assesssment which is ultimately a wargame that goes on for several runs of flights.
Counter-air the most important scenario, because they can get engaged in that fashion in all of the other scenarios as well.
The other scenarios are counter-land (air to ground), counter-sea (air to sea), intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), airspace control and targeting, and long-range strike.

The scenario based evaluation measures performance in set missions and their sub-parts instead of verifying single requirements.

The growth potential assessment used to assess whether the ranking will change when the capability increase described in their development plans is taken into consideration.

Just take a read through the artcle, it's highly detailed:
https://pastebin.com/eJkkms0r

Probably no F-35B due to considering the need for a high number of frames vs. questionable extra utility of stovl against lesser payload, more cost. There would also be no neighbor-related synergies. Norway bought F-35A and their state company Kongsberg purchased 49,9% of Finnish state co Patria a year ago. Patria does the Hornet, Hawk and CASA C-295 maintenance and is the key domestic company in the field. So there's an obvious incentive there as well.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 10:36
by loke
As said before, the F-35 is such a much better deal than the others that there will be no excitement.

I am struggling to see why Dassault and Eurofighter bother to participate. They are both more expensive and less capable, in particular the Typhoon has many weak points. Why would anybody pay more to get less (unless there is a political angle)

I am also not sure why Boeing is bothering with this. Roughly the same cost but much less capable.

The only thing that can prevent F-35 from winning would be some very surprising political development over the next few years, that would compell Finland to buy European instead of US. For instance if Trump is pulling the US out of Europe/NATO, and the EU responds with creating their own defence alliance. Perhaps then the pressure from Brussels would become too big for Finland to ignore.

Otherwise, I do not see this happening.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 11:04
by magitsu
Perhaps it would be seen as cowardice to back away from the one competition that is surely in depth and without too much "rigging" already in place in form of F-35 partnership and alike?

Or they might expect that F-35 could fail in the security of supply and industrial participation (30%) requirements. Because if the F-35 makes into the military capability assessment everybody else is toast.
Though I believe everybody is expected to be able to make it since FiAF will negotiate the packages until they fit the minimum requirement for the other parts of the eval.

Complex things. Like in terms of quasi-alliances the UK has JEF which needs cooperation. France is trying to build their own PRY, which would lose a lot of its already anemic appeal if they suddenly didn't believe in their main product. Finland is already in the former and is slightly unlikely to join the latter due to not really giving a sh*t about former French colonies in Africa.

Maybe the companies themselves think long term. Many of them have other bids in, for example Boeing is trying to sell Harpoons to the Finnish corvette project. Eurofighter doesn't have anything other to sell and Dassault is quite dud too (except subcontractor Thales, which has their paws on all of the FiAF's radars).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 11:54
by hornetfinn
I think taking part in this competition is absolute necessity for all the companies as it's one of the largest competitions and it'd be very difficult to not take part as there are no real excuses available. Finland is politically very neutral country and has no stake in any of the programs unlike for example Denmark or Norway had. I'd say that making a good showing would significantly increase chances of selling their products to some other countries even if they didn't win Finnish order. There are other possible future competitions and procurement processes like Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Spain and UAE for example.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 12:04
by talkitron
Here are my thoughts on why companies / countries other than Lockheed & the USA participate in fighter competitions against the F-35.

1. Domestic politics can swing politicians against the F-35. We have seen that in Canada. In Belgium, the Typhoon marketing emphasizes it as the choice for European unity, something the Belgians may care about.

2. Related to domestic politics, the companies other than the F-35 may involve greater offset agreements. Domestic defense contractors can be influential in defense procurement.

3. The Middle East is, remarkably, still buying Rafales, Typhoons, Eagles and Super Hornets. If a competitor acknowledged the superiority of the F-35, the Middle Eastern countries might skip that company in favor of a competitor. Allegedly the UAE / Abu Dhabi crown prince really wants the F-35. We will see.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 12:16
by f4u7_corsair
Complex things. Like in terms of quasi-alliances the UK has JEF which needs cooperation. France is trying to build their own PRY, which would lose a lot of its already anemic appeal if they suddenly didn't believe in their main product. Finland is already in the former and is slightly unlikely to join the latter due to not really giving a sh*t about former French colonies in Africa.

French IEI is not a counterpart to JEF. Nor IEI is a tool to draw European assets to Africa.
Oh, and Finland has 200 soldiers (out of 300-ish) under French command in UNIFIL/FCR.

Or they might expect that F-35 could fail in the security of supply and industrial participation (30%) requirements.

Well it very well could. Finland is much more attentive to that, since it is nor a NATO member, nor a US puppet. So far, every F-35 buyer ticks either of these two boxes (and even if they do.... you know what current discussions on Turkey & F-35 are about).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 12:51
by loke
talkitron wrote:3. The Middle East is, remarkably, still buying Rafales, Typhoons, Eagles and Super Hornets. If a competitor acknowledged the superiority of the F-35, the Middle Eastern countries might skip that company in favor of a competitor. Allegedly the UAE / Abu Dhabi crown prince really wants the F-35. We will see.

Wrong -- the main reason why those rich ME countries are buying Typhoon/Rafale is because they want to have equipment from both Europe and the US.

Also wrong from another perspective -- the reason why F-15/SH are being sold in the ME and not F-35 is not because there is a lack of "acknowledged superiority" but simply because Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US are blocking sales of F-35 to ME countries (apart from Israel itself of course). Had the ME countries been allowed to buy F-35 then they would have done so, instead of F-15/SH. They may still have bought Rafale/Typhoon in addition of course (see paragraph above).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 13:35
by magitsu
Yeah, they are allowed to buy better than US stock 4 gen fighters and cruise missiles. Even the cruise missile part is questionable, but has worked out because UK/France doesn't have qualms about selling theirs.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 13:48
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:
talkitron wrote:3. The Middle East is, remarkably, still buying Rafales, Typhoons, Eagles and Super Hornets. If a competitor acknowledged the superiority of the F-35, the Middle Eastern countries might skip that company in favor of a competitor. Allegedly the UAE / Abu Dhabi crown prince really wants the F-35. We will see.

Wrong -- the main reason why those rich ME countries are buying Typhoon/Rafale is because they want to have equipment from both Europe and the US.

Also wrong from another perspective -- the reason why F-15/SH are being sold in the ME and not F-35 is not because there is a lack of "acknowledged superiority" but simply because Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US are blocking sales of F-35 to ME countries (apart from Israel itself of course). Had the ME countries been allowed to buy F-35 then they would have done so, instead of F-15/SH. They may still have bought Rafale/Typhoon in addition of course (see paragraph above).


I'd say F-15 and SH are sold in the ME because they are what Boeing has for sale. Besides, F-35 is being considered for being available for at least UAE and Saudi Arabia. Other countries there have just received their brand new Rafales and Eurofighters and are not really active in seeking new aircraft, except maybe Egypt. There is really no urgent need to sell F-35 in that part of the world.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2018, 14:02
by talkitron
loke wrote:Wrong -- the main reason why those rich ME countries are buying Typhoon/Rafale is because they want to have equipment from both Europe and the US.

Also wrong from another perspective -- the reason why F-15/SH are being sold in the ME and not F-35 is not because there is a lack of "acknowledged superiority" but simply because Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US are blocking sales of F-35 to ME countries (apart from Israel itself of course). Had the ME countries been allowed to buy F-35 then they would have done so, instead of F-15/SH. They may still have bought Rafale/Typhoon in addition of course (see paragraph above).


I didn’t state what you say twice is “wrong”. Indeed I agree with your claims.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 01:26
by Corsair1963
loke wrote:As said before, the F-35 is such a much better deal than the others that there will be no excitement.

I am struggling to see why Dassault and Eurofighter bother to participate. They are both more expensive and less capable, in particular the Typhoon has many weak points. Why would anybody pay more to get less (unless there is a political angle)

I am also not sure why Boeing is bothering with this. Roughly the same cost but much less capable.

The only thing that can prevent F-35 from winning would be some very surprising political development over the next few years, that would compell Finland to buy European instead of US. For instance if Trump is pulling the US out of Europe/NATO, and the EU responds with creating their own defence alliance. Perhaps then the pressure from Brussels would become too big for Finland to ignore.

Otherwise, I do not see this happening.


I think after a few more sales of the F-35. The writing will pretty much be on the wall and the fighter market for 4.5 Generation Fighters will quickly tank! :shock:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 01:36
by bojack_horseman
loke wrote:For instance if Trump is pulling the US out of Europe/NATO, and the EU responds with creating their own defence alliance


The EU formerly became a military alliance in December 2009.

I doubt Finland's membership of this makes any difference in its defence procurement.
It hasn't thus far in the last decade

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 07:52
by magitsu
lrrpf52 wrote:I've seen a Russian low-level flight with my own eyes out on a lake near Joutsa in the summer of 2010.

Probably flight to an air show in Tampere. Makes zero sense otherwise.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 08:12
by loke
bojack_horseman wrote:
loke wrote:For instance if Trump is pulling the US out of Europe/NATO, and the EU responds with creating their own defence alliance


The EU formerly became a military alliance in December 2009.

Sure but it is pretty worthless in that it does not really intimidate Russia.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 09:25
by f4u7_corsair
magitsu wrote:
lrrpf52 wrote:I've seen a Russian low-level flight with my own eyes out on a lake near Joutsa in the summer of 2010.

Probably flight to an air show in Tampere. Makes zero sense otherwise.

Pretty much ; I know a Flanker is recognizable and I don't question your ID skills. But considering this was a reconnaissance penetration flight is frankly hair stretched. Makes even less sense considering Joutsa is 40-ish nm away from Tikkakoski and its C2 assets. There also was LLv 21 at Pirkkala at the time... You can be certain such a flight would have created a big fuss.

There was an airshow in Pirkkala in July or August 2010, by the way.

A single fighter has never had the AWACS capability that the F-35 does, so that is what I was referring to regarding unprecedented regional SA for the Finnish Air Force, not US and Swedish Air Force assets that aren't OPCON to FiAF.

F-35 has a quite remarkable SA bubble, but it cannot substitute an AWACS, come on..

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 10:09
by loke
f4u7_corsair wrote:
A single fighter has never had the AWACS capability that the F-35 does, so that is what I was referring to regarding unprecedented regional SA for the Finnish Air Force, not US and Swedish Air Force assets that aren't OPCON to FiAF.

F-35 has a quite remarkable SA bubble, but it cannot substitute an AWACS, come on..

Some of those who have flown it has actually referred to it as a "mini AWACS"...

It cannot substitute an AWACS but not all countries can afford an AWACS!

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 14:51
by magitsu
Finland can't afford even a tanker.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 15:43
by ricnunes
loke wrote:
f4u7_corsair wrote:
A single fighter has never had the AWACS capability that the F-35 does, so that is what I was referring to regarding unprecedented regional SA for the Finnish Air Force, not US and Swedish Air Force assets that aren't OPCON to FiAF.

F-35 has a quite remarkable SA bubble, but it cannot substitute an AWACS, come on..

Some of those who have flown it has actually referred to it as a "mini AWACS"...

It cannot substitute an AWACS but not all countries can afford an AWACS!


I fully agree with you loke! For example how many NATO countries have their own AWACS? (this is a rhetoric question, BTW)

Or resuming, the F-35 will significantly bolster "AWACS capabilities" for those (most) countries that don't have their own dedicated AWACS aircraft.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 17:17
by magitsu
lrrpf52 wrote:Either way, Finnish Air Defense isn't going to report every penetration of their airspace in the open, especially if it's NOE.

Nope. They have a practice of reporting exactly every airspace violation in public.

Yes, air refueling would be a luxury. Now the capability is maintained for international practices and Nato compatibility (NEL) since AF unit is occasionally allocated to JEF and other international response duties.

Last week two Hornets came back from USA after almost a year there for JASSM integration and test launches. They used Omega Tanker, which is a private company that offers air refueling services.

Affording to maintain F-35Bs could be trickier problem than buying them. There's quite a big push to get "64" since the whole country is meant to be defended, at least officially.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2018, 21:44
by sunstersun
If the Gripen loses in Finland, that plane is toast.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2018, 07:15
by hornetfinn
magitsu wrote:
lrrpf52 wrote:Either way, Finnish Air Defense isn't going to report every penetration of their airspace in the open, especially if it's NOE.

Nope. They have a practice of reporting exactly every airspace violation in public.


Exactly. Besides Finland was then already filled with cameras and a lot of people would recognize a Sukhoi or MiG and would also know that NOE flying was something very much out of the ordinary. There is just no way this kind of activity would stay secret in Finland.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2018, 07:28
by hythelday
sunstersun wrote:If the Gripen loses in Finland, that plane is toast.


Do not agree. Gripen is not toast unless it loses in Sweden, which it will not. There is also Indian competition vs F-16, which can go either way really regardless of the planes' capabilities.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2018, 08:53
by hornetfinn
hythelday wrote:
sunstersun wrote:If the Gripen loses in Finland, that plane is toast.


Do not agree. Gripen is not toast unless it loses in Sweden, which it will not. There is also Indian competition vs F-16, which can go either way really regardless of the planes' capabilities.


Agreed. It's going to become operational in Sweden, almost no matter what. E-model might get some small orders from smaller Air Forces just like original Gripen. Making a decent showing in Finnish competition would be beneficial for that.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2018, 11:05
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
hythelday wrote:
sunstersun wrote:If the Gripen loses in Finland, that plane is toast.


Do not agree. Gripen is not toast unless it loses in Sweden, which it will not. There is also Indian competition vs F-16, which can go either way really regardless of the planes' capabilities.


Agreed. It's going to become operational in Sweden, almost no matter what. E-model might get some small orders from smaller Air Forces just like original Gripen. Making a decent showing in Finnish competition would be beneficial for that.

I think there is also a very high likelyhood it becomes operational in Brazil. Brazil may open other doors in Latin America.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2018, 12:06
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:I think there is also a very high likelyhood it becomes operational in Brazil. Brazil may open other doors in Latin America.


I agree with that. Those countries and current Gripen C users are most likely to buy Gripen E.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 13:17
by magitsu
Boeing seems to be trying their hardest. Two EA-18G's from VAQ-129 at Whidbey are to feature in the 100th anniversary air show of FiAF on June 16-17. F-35 will feature with a full sized mockup, like Gripen E. Rafale and Typhoon will fly, for the former it's the first time in a Finnish airshow. Last year there were two Super Hornets and Typhoon has featured for at least two years in a row.

https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 8042924032

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 14:57
by loke
Boeing will try hard but the probability of F-35 winning this is still very very high (more than 99% imho).

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2018, 11:46
by magitsu
They have already test flown all of them, from the back seat obviously. For F-35 this obviously hasn't been possible. The Gripen one is also only the Gripen Demonstrator, which is somewhere between D and F but without extensive structural mods.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 17:00
by magitsu
Eurofighter consortium went balls deep in the 100th anniversary air show of FiAF yesterday and today.
They had seven Typhoons on display, from Italy, UK, Spain and Germany. More than other visiting fighters combined.

Growler made an appearance and some light maneuvers. Rafale dynamic duo put on a proper show, but none were in the ground display for visitors.

F-35 had a replica on display and the visitors were able to go and see the cockpit. Similar setup was available for Gripen E.

LM basically promised that in 2019 the actual F-35 will appear in Finland.

There was some unexpected action. On Thursday a French C-130J had some landing gear hydraulics problems, but backup systems turned out fine. On Saturday Finnish Hawk trainer had another landing gear worry because it blew a tire upon takeoff. It came down with flat right rear tire and veered to the grass in the right at the end of the runway. No major damage.

Typhoon reaped small PR benefits from Sundays surprise visit of the minister of defense, because there were so many of them in the background for pictures.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 17:13
by steve2267
magitsu wrote:Eurofighter consortium went balls deep in the 100th anniversary air show of FiAF yesterday and today.
They had seven Typhoons on display, from Italy, UK, Spain and Germany. More than other visiting fighters combined.


The Luftwaffe had a few flyable, eh?

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 23:27
by f4u7_corsair
Rafale duo seemed to receive universal praise (although n°2 was a bit left behind in some runs, at least on Saturday). Too bad for the lack of ground display indeed, but on the very same weekend, 5 Rafale were mobilized for airshows (may I remind, for a single airforce).

As for the EF, it's good to have sitting ducks on the floor, but it's better to actually demonstrate something in the air. The EF alpha display was boring, as usual (not as much as the Growler's, though). Long repositioning runs, not doing much more than aileron rolls (helps gain 50 kts in a run while pretending you're doing some mad aerobatics!).

I jokingly asked about whether the EFs on display had the ESA radar as advertised on the gates in front of the planes. Mixed reactions... :roll: They also went balls deep in Helsingin Sanomat where they bought a full ad page.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 21:07
by spazsinbad

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 06:43
by magitsu
Another, slightly longer Flynn video
https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1007975022059802625

Video which has Flynn's Paris F-35 airshow and his 1987 F-18 show as picture in picture for comparison
https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1007678063096631297

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 07:06
by hornetfinn
Thans magitsu, that latter video is very nice comparison of the two jets. Hornet is still very impressive jet in air show setting.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 07:12
by magitsu
Indeed it is. Here's an example, full routine from inside the cockpit. From last weekend.

https://www.facebook.com/Ilmavoimat/vid ... 537639217/

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2018, 09:27
by magitsu
Finland just announced this morning a really surprising pick for their new surface to surface missile. Israeli Aerospace Industries Gabriel. It will be fitted into the main surface combatants of the Navy, and will also serve on a truck mounted coastal launcher platform. That makes it the main weapon choice of the Finnish Navy, apart from sea mines (some very recent kit, but domestic one, there as well).

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ssels.html

Possible fighter jet connection is not immediately obvious. Though they did send a RFI to Israel for the armament/sensors side of the fighter buy.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2018, 10:57
by hornetfinn
The selection of Israeli missile over the others is very interesting and rather surprising. That it beat Nordic options, RBS-15 and NSM is interesting as former is currently used in earlier variant and NSM is supposed to be very good and modern missile also. So now we will have all our anti-ship missiles coming from Israel, Spike-ER for short range/small targets and Gabriel for long range/large targets.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2018, 11:11
by jakobs
hornetfinn wrote:The selection of Israeli missile over the others is very interesting and rather surprising. That it beat Nordic options, RBS-15 and NSM is interesting as former is currently used in earlier variant and NSM is supposed to be very good and modern missile also. So now we will have all our anti-ship missiles coming from Israel, Spike-ER for short range/small targets and Gabriel for long range/large targets.


I love that they picked it! Shows that they really go by the missiles own merits rather than politic when evaluating the options.

So maybe also Barak 8 for the new ships? Seems like a really capable offering.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2018, 11:19
by magitsu
jakobs wrote:So maybe also Barak 8 for the new ships? Seems like a really capable offering.

It's possible because unlike these the new surface to air missiles don't need to fit anything but the new ship class. Though Barak only has India as a reference, which is terrible compared to the customer list of ESSM.

But the rest might actually be a package deal based on the combat management system provider's preferences. Because they have asked for packages including weapons (AAM), which is a similar approach to the Fighter jet acquisition project. In that one the first rough sketches will be done early 2019. More specific adjustment late 2019. Final bids in 2020.
Ship CMS pick and rest should be settled by the end of this year.

Another thing that might effect the AAM choice is that there's a project to improve the range of NASAMS II + AMRAAM combo. That either means a new missile or some new launch platforms connected to the system. ESSM is clearly potential also in this regard. MEADS and Patriot won't be within means: SAMP/T (Aster) also went head to head vs. Nasams originally and lost hands down due to utility/cost.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 17:25
by magitsu
Regarding Gripens, Aboulafia had something to say:

“The potential is great. If you apply Boeing’s’ cost control methods and supply management methods to the Gripen, you get the Gripen product at a lower price point,” he said. “That’s always been the Gripen’s problem. Great plane. Way too expensive for what it is.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... s-unclear/

He's talking about Gripen E specifically. The article is talking about what Boeing could bring to Saab, probably not unlike what F-35 is doing trying to save costs. They just have less than 100 frames bought, which doesn't justify similar investment.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 14:01
by magitsu
Finnish Air Force will participate in the Exercise RED FLAG-Alaska 19-1 in October. Six F/A-18s and up to 70 airmen will be deployed to Eielson AFB during the exercise. It's their first time in the Red Flag.

There they can see (or specifically not see :wink: ) F-35 and F-22 through their own radars, which could be a good reference to the ongoing fighter acquisition. Other participants will include at least: F-15Ks from SK, EA-18Gs from USN, F-18Ds from USMC, A-10s & F-16s from USAF. The Aggressors have Eagles and Fighting Falcons.

They will also participate in the preceding exercises Distant Frontier 1 (24th Sept to 3th Oct) & Distant Frontier 2 (22th Oct to 26th Oct) bilaterally with the USAF. So the Finns are going to be in Alaska for quite some time.

https://twitter.com/FinnishAirForce/sta ... 6811427840

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2018, 16:25
by magitsu
Hornetfinn, if you are reading this, what are your expectations about Red Flag & Distant Frontier 1&2?

Anyone other familiar with Red Flag, please chime in. This is something new and exciting to Finland.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 07:03
by hornetfinn
Magitsu, I definitely agree that this is great training opportunity and something new and exciting for Finnish Air Force! We have had or participated some pretty large exercises, but naturally Red Flag is the biggest one with a huge number of assets and systems around.

I'm not sure if there will be any F-22 or F-35s around in that exercise. All sources I could find say that there will be F-15SKs, F-16s, A-10s, Growlers, USMC Hornets and naturally AWACS and tankers etc.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 07:51
by popcorn
The 5Gens may possibly make an appearance during Distant Frontier 1 & 2.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 09:26
by magitsu
popcorn wrote:The 5Gens may possibly make an appearance during Distant Frontier 1 & 2.

Hopefully. This USMC pic from a Distant Frontier in 2017 seems to at least have F-22s (which are Elmendorf locals). https://www.477fg.afrc.af.mil/News/Phot ... 001753303/

August 8 (wed), 2007: the base officially welcomed the first of its F-22A Raptor fleet.
http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article2469.html

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 00:26
by magitsu
The Finns have arrived to Eielson for Distant Frontier trainings, and the main course Red Flag in between them.

https://twitter.com/EielsonAirForce/sta ... 0269214720

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 00:35
by Corsair1963
I would be shocked if Finland didn't acquire the F-35.... :wink:

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2018, 13:10
by hythelday
A discussion regarding Finlands choice seems to have developed. There were some suggesting F-35 is advertise as "offensive" and hence will be at a disadvantage in defenseively-minded Finland. Well, this is what Finnish Air Force has to say about that:

In an internationally tense situation the effects of the adversary’s electronic attacks, anti-aircraft systems, interdiction and long-range weapons set limits on the use of one’s own aircraft. In such cases, the airspace which is permissive for air operations can shrink considerably, with one only being able to operate in uncontested areas where the adversary cannot freely employ his weapon systems. Operations deep into the adversary’s territory are often necessary to engage his key targets and to achieve a successful result in the war effort. Targets are in areas which the adversary tries to hold by maintaining a continuous air defence capability. The means for limiting operations in the rear include: the denial of base operations in areas from where an air operation could be launched; denying the use or airspace by active counter-air defence in areas important to one’s own operations, and limiting or denying the C2 and situation and intelligence picture capability as well as launching direct pre-emptive attacks on the adversary’s offensive forces. Operations deep into heavily defended areas intended to resolve the outcome of battle or war are extremely risky.


Page 18 of "Preliminary Assessment for Replacing the Capabilities of the Hornet Fleet" (https://www.defmin.fi/files/3178/Prelim ... _Fleet.pdf)

In other words - Finnish military is not made up of blue-eyed idiots who plan dig in along the border and wait until the enemy attacks. Finnish Air Force is aware of the fact large parts, if not all of Finnish air space is withing range of Russian SAMs and all of Finland can be struck by either mobile ground based or naval SSMs from hundreds of miles outside Finnish territory. Finnish military also plans to destroy those threats by means of air attacks (maybe coupled with naval missile strikes of their own). It's a fact that they openly proclaim in the papers regarding their future fighter and their justification to do so is clear to anyone who spends more than two minutes pondering Finnish military-strategic situation.

Now, regarding "political" side of the question, I am bewildered as to why some people think that because Finland is "neutral", it is naturally in some sort of mutual defence agreement with "neutral" Sweden, thus giving Gripen an edge. Finland buys what deems the biggest bang for the buck, there is no clear bias towards any national supplier - their kit is a mix of indigenous, European and American systems gradually replacing old Soviet equipment. South Korean K-9 was recently chosen as their newest SPG, Archer - not so much. Their only major distinctly Swedish weapon systems is CV90 (which is arguably the best in the world for Finns need) and the only Swedish weapon that was undoubtedly favored by the military in competition was the light torpedos for their future fleet. I am sure @hornetfinn can tell you in more detail how Finnish public attitude changed over time towards joining NATO, but I can tell you that right now NATO planes fly from Finnish bases as part of Trident Juncture exercise, and Finnish Hornets are over in Alaska for Red Flag. And please, don't even bring the "friendly with NATO means Russia treats you as an enemy!!!!" argument here, it's no secret who is Finland's most probable enemy anyway.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2018, 13:27
by hornetfinn
Agreed hythelday. I think the FiAF started building more offensive capability as soon as possible. It was really made possible with the F/A-18 and acquisition of air to ground weaponry. Another thing is that ISR has always been important and being able to do that against effective IADS is very important. Of course being able to put up a fight seriously outnumbered in the air is important. I think all those favour F-35.

Re: Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2018, 14:31
by steve2267
In the Belgium thread,

XanderCrews wrote:
We will sell you a special F-35 model with super tiny fuel tanks lest you go beyond your own borders.

Or buy gripens, they come like that already

:devil:


I'll do you one better...

Buy your Gripens, and I'll sell you an add-on stealth kit for your Gripens!

Bad news: stealth isn't cheap... it will roughly double the purchase price of your Gripen. But the good news is that you can use all the Gripens as trainers...

(OH, and everyone will accuse you of being in Lockheed Martin's pocket, but don't believe them!)