Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

They could just fly a couple of their Hornets, across Sweden, to Ørlandet AFB in Norway. That would be the closest opportunity to get their tail feathers whipped by an F-35

They'll get that chance, but focus is likely to be on IOT for a couple more years still. Would love to see the neighbours griffins get their feathers ruffled too.

JHMCS and AIM-9X in Hornet proved effective even against F-22. Whatever that means...

Even with IR signature reduction measures the F-22's exhaust is still warm. Considering all aspect IR seekers are sensitive enough to lock onto a head-on shot (where the target's body is blocking direct view of the exhaust), it should trivial for the AIM-9X to threaten the F-22 at HMS employment ranges.

Sure I agree with that. Just wanted to throw that somewhere..

JHMCS and AIM-9X in Hornet proved effective even against F-22. Whatever that means...

Even with IR signature reduction measures the F-22's exhaust is still warm. Considering all aspect IR seekers are sensitive enough to lock onto a head-on shot (where the target's body is blocking direct view of the exhaust), it should trivial for the AIM-9X to threaten the F-22 at HMS employment ranges.

Hmmmm.... but isn’t the 9x an imaging infrared seeker? As such, doesn’t it rely far less on the heat plume of the engines, and is far harder to decoy with countermeasures? If one of these locks on to you, I think (future?) DIRCM / point-defense DEW might be your best option or only hope of defeating the incoming smart robot — even if to only blind its sensor.

Btw, Finnish Hornets have also done close-combat exercises against F-22s couple of months ago and according to Lt. Col. in charge of that exercise, it was highly interesting experience and that JHMCS and AIM-9X in Hornet proved effective even against F-22. Whatever that means...

Perhaps the Finns were able to “down” some Raptors with their 9x before they died? We have all read (some here experienced or demonstrated) how dangerous a Hornet is with its nose pointing ability. Combine that with a 90deg off-boresight capability of the 9x and perhaps a few (or more than a few?) Raptors had their feathers clipped that day? If nothing else, it would show the effectiveness of the 9x and also the lethality of the modern day WVR fight, and why you really DON’T want to go there. I would find that interesting.

Btw, Finnish Hornets have also done close-combat exercises against F-22s couple of months ago and according to Lt. Col. in charge of that exercise, it was highly interesting experience and that JHMCS and AIM-9X in Hornet proved effective even against F-22. Whatever that means...

Perhaps the Finns were able to “down” some Raptors with their 9x before they died? We have all read (some here experienced or demonstrated) how dangerous a Hornet is with its nose pointing ability. Combine that with a 90deg off-boresight capability of the 9x and perhaps a few (or more than a few?) Raptors had their feathers clipped that day? If nothing else, it would show the effectiveness of the 9x and also the lethality of the modern day WVR fight, and why you really DON’T want to go there. I would find that interesting.

According to info on Finnish websites, this was purely WVR excercise. They probably figured that there would be no point in BVR training as that would be so one sided. In pictures it seems that F-22s had Lüneburg lens attached. Hornets have proven extremely capable in WVR especially with JHMCS and AIM-9X. Finnish Hornets are latest Classic Hornets with -402 engines and have good power to help maneuvering. I think they can give even F-22 pretty good fight when almost clean.

There is no need to give F-22 magical properties. Some users have suggested recently that F-22s have a way more advanced IR countermeasures than openly admitted, but that seems counter to logic, even if Australian exchange pilot said it was hard to lock on F-22 WVR.

If a T-38 can gun down F-22, then there is no reason a Hornet utilizing AIM-9X HOBS to the fullest cannot "splash" a Raptor or two, in the right circumstances that is.

Saab's HX-campaign driving Magnus Skogberg has in the past attracted the attention by pointing out that the replacement of the existing 64 Hornet fighter aircraft in Finland by Saab's new Gripen E/F-destroyers would cost a total of about 10 billion euros for the whole of their life cycle.

The estimate is considered low, as Finland has set aside merely on the cost of acquisition for about 7 to 10 billion euros. On top of this come from the life-cycle costs, such as maintenance of machines and software, as well as asepäivitykset, which are spending billions of euros worth of those as well. HX-project program director Lauri Puranen has, however, pointed out that the annual cost of the new machines will be on the same level as the current less than 10% of the defence budget. That means about 200 million euros a year, which would be around six billion euros for 30 years.

Saab's HX-campaign director Skogberg stands still 10 billion euro promise on the back, but to refine the New Finland and to the economy, what it means. The company has a strong view on the fact that none of your competitors are not doing well in the full life cycle costs.

Machine translated from: https://www.uusisuomi.fi/kotimaa/267152 ... a-hinnassa

"asepäivitykset" in the machine translated text in loke's message means "weapon upgrades". Things like integration of new weapons or new versions of existing weapons.

Saab representatives sure like to play with the cost issue. There Magnus Skogberg says that the acquisition cost of 64 Gripen E's would be on the lower end of scale (7 to 10 billion euros). So it could be 8 billion euros which would mean 125 million euros for each Gripen E, which sounds about right for it including support and maintenance and training etc. But he then says that 10 billion euros is "not that wrong for lifetime costs for Gripen E". I claim that it is terribly wrong to claim that. Maybe if he means that acquisition cost is 8 billion and other lifetime costs are about 10 billion that might be even remotely believable. Even if 64 Gripen Es would cost 5 billion euros (possible, but not likely IMO), even then it'd certainly cost way more than 10 billion euros to use them for 30 years.

Just simple math. Saab claims (through study they that basic flight hour cost including fuel, lubricants and only preflight preparation and scheduled airfield-level maintenance (using conscripts) costs 4,700 US$ (in 2012 USD). Our fighters are supposed to fly about 180 hours a year. So that would cost about 1,5 billion euros alone even without taking into account inflation. Then we add real maintenance and support costs for lifetime including software and hardware upgrades. Swiss air force estimated about a decade ago that flight hour cost for Gripen E would be something like 20,000 euros on average for 30 years. This would mean about 7-8 billion euros for 64 Gripen Es. So I say that 10 billion euros for lifetime costs is total BS!

SAAB proposals with eye-watering low costs to e.g. Denmark has usually only included costs that SAAB will be contracted for, i.e. acquisition cost plus spares over a 20 or 30 year life cycle.

Salaries, fuel, weapons, modifications and upgrades are not included. These are all the purvey of the customer.

It is an efficient, and previously used way, for SAAB to throw a spanner into a public cost discussion as the respective air forces announce their cost expectations for a total cost, not a partial cost.

Agreed bumtish. Somewhat similar that Eurofighter Typhoon representatives emphasize high speed and large weapons load. Dassault representatives emphasize multi-role capabilities and long range/endurance. Naturally F-35 representatives emphasize SA, stealth and survivability in most difficult environments.

I think all competitors see F-35 as the main threat as they always specifically target it in their comments. One EF representative claimed that it can only carry two air-to-air missiles and two bombs in stealth mode. I really doubt he didn't know that it can carry 4 air-to-air now and 6 in the future. He also claimed that maintaining stealth coatings in F-35 is extremely laborous and expensive... Many competitors have claimed that stealth is needless and they can achieve similar capability with EW and modern weapons systems. Just as if F-35 didn't the most powerful EW system in any fighter (and helped immensely by the stealth) and could not use the same weapons.

RFQ's are due tomorrow.

Saab already told that they responded. They publicly announce that their offer included 64, both one seater E's and two seater F's. https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... o-finland/

For comparison here's Saab's Swiss press release from 25th Jan.
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... itzerland/

For the F-35, this newspaper article is interesting. It claims that Finland wanted also F-15 to be included, but supposedly Pentagon didn't include it. Similarly the F-35 type is "still up to Pentagon".

It's probably more likely that the user's preference matters more. Clearly they will sell any of them, and it's very likely A based on neighbors' choices.

Here's the relevant bit google translated:

However, the US government is expected to reduce the list by offering Finland only one version of F-35. Before that, all three are involved in negotiations and evaluations.

The US government made one choice on behalf of Finland already at the beginning of the project. Finland would have liked to have included a Boeing F-15 fighter, but the Pentagon did not agree.

https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotima ... 705c47-999

In this one the soon to retire AF commander doesn't want to make distinctions of 4th and 5th gen fighters for the journalist. Instead he tells that one of the contestants has superior RCS.

google translate:

Commander of the Air Force, Major General Sampo Eskelinen, who will transfer to the reserve during the spring, did not want to make a breakdown on the fifth and fourth generation machines on Tuesday. According to Eskelinen, one candidate stands out just because it is clearly smaller than the other radar cross-sectional area.

https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000005982439.html

In another article it's confirmed that the fighters will be tested in Finland in the Spring of 2020. They will be subjected to a track of some kind. Each fighter gets two weeks to display its capabilities there (10 weeks total). Some of the testing might happen out of country. This is said by the project office, so there's no doubt it will happen.

Another google translate for your convenience:

Hornet fighter followers will arrive in Finland in the spring of 2020. At that time, the Air Force organizes a 10-week test event for them.

The matter was reported by Juha-Pekka Keränen, Operations Manager of the Air Force on Tuesday, when the Defense Administration arranged an information session on the current phase of the HX project in Helsinki. The HX project chooses the successor to the Hornet fighter.

For testing, a test track for fighters will be built in Finland, where each fighter candidate can show their abilities for two weeks. According to Colonel Keränen, all five fighters do not necessarily present all their performances in Finland, but some tests may be carried out abroad.

RFQ will be clarified once more this fall. Final offers should be in Q3 or Q4 2020. They will recommend only one solution to the next Cabinet (election this spring) in 2021. Some think that this is because they'd like to prevent the possibility of polticians having a secondary option to choose from. There's an appearance that the FDF would rather redo the whole competition, also in the case if the politicans would want a significant cut in numbers.

https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000005981781.html

Here's also a blog post from yesterday by the HX project leader. There's an interesting bit about Canada:

Lessons have also been learned from other fighter projects going on elsewhere. The recently published Canadian State Auditor's assessment of the Canadian fighter project also highlights the importance of timely and consistent political guidance and reception. The intention is not to judge or criticize other countries' fighter projects, but the choice of military performance in Canada is often watered down due to political turbulences.

https://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto ... .9639.blog

Does not look like there is a lot of room for bribery and rigging. It will be horribly hard to spin HX as biased towards anything other than the best war machine

May the best fighter win!

Why not sell or offer F-15 to Finland if they truly want the Eagle?

The only answer that makes sense to me is range. The Hornet, after all, is a rather short ranged fighter compared to other 4th gen aircraft. Or perhaps I should say, the Hornet is not regarded as particularly long legged. Maybe the US does not want to sell to Finland an aircraft that could conceivably poke the bear deeply in its territory? If true, then I would expect the Lightning offered Finland will be the F-35B, and the reason being that it best fits in with a dispersed, STOL / STOVL operations scheme. If that were to happen, perhaps the Swiss would take more interest in the Killer Bee, despite its higher per unit cost. Where's my popcorn?

Maybe the US does not want to sell to Finland an aircraft that could conceivably poke the bear deeply in its territory?

So they sold JASSM instead?

Petersburg and Murmansk will be within F-35's striking distance regardless of the version. This theory does not hold any weight. Besides, is it really "confirmed" that F-15 wasn't offered because of US Gov obstruction?

Maybe the US does not want to sell to Finland an aircraft that could conceivably poke the bear deeply in its territory?

So they sold JASSM instead?

Petersburg and Murmansk will be within F-35's striking distance regardless of the version. This theory does not hold any weight. Besides, is it really "confirmed" that F-15 wasn't offered because of US Gov obstruction?

Point noted, and I stand corrected!