Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2818
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 13:52

magitsu wrote:Interesting... Saab's offer included 52 E and 12 F (two-seater).
https://www.suomenmaa.fi/uutiset/ruotsi ... 84c2973fd0

Currently flying F/A-18 Hornet buy was originally 57 C and 7 D.


Saab is clearly intensifying their efforts. Today there was an article in Finnish newspaper Aamulehti where Saab CEO told that two-seaters offers some benefits in more complex scenarios, like electronic warfare. That's very interesting as that's totally different approach to for example F-35 in general and Eurofighter offer specifically for Finland (single seaters only).
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 14:17

Boeing offer should also include Growlers since they bothered ($$$) to bring two of them last year to the air show. That lowers their cost competitiveness, but is probably currently the only variant among all other candidates that brings something else that the F-35 currently can't do. NGJ 2030+ might even things out, but it's not really yet on F-35 roadmap unlike Growlers.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2172
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 17:08

hornetfinn wrote:
magitsu wrote:Interesting... Saab's offer included 52 E and 12 F (two-seater).
https://www.suomenmaa.fi/uutiset/ruotsi ... 84c2973fd0

Currently flying F/A-18 Hornet buy was originally 57 C and 7 D.


Saab is clearly intensifying their efforts. Today there was an article in Finnish newspaper Aamulehti where Saab CEO told that two-seaters offers some benefits in more complex scenarios, like electronic warfare. That's very interesting as that's totally different approach to for example F-35 in general and Eurofighter offer specifically for Finland (single seaters only).


Could this also be a move to please the Brazilian partners even more?
I'm saying/asking this because from what I've read the Gripen F (the two-seater variant) is to be developed and assembled in Brazil. The only source that I could currently find about this at the moment was the Wikipedia entry on the Gripen (although I remember to have read this somewhere else). Anyway here's the source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_ ... #JAS_39E/F

Where it states:
JAS 39F: two-seat version of the E variant. Eight ordered by Brazil,[244] to be developed and assembled in São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil.;[378] planned for pilot training and combat, being optimised for back seat air battle management, with jamming, information warfare and network attack, besides weapon system officer and electronic warfare roles.[379] Brazil's designation for the variant is F-39F.[256][377]


An increase of two seater planes in comparison with single seater planes - this if the Gripen wins, which I obviously doubt - would mean increased work for the Brazilian partners for such (Finnish) order.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 17:28

Probably only a happy accident. The packages have been negotiated to include "max capability" by the provider and FiAF, so in the latter's eyes this probably just looks like the best capability package they can get from Saab. Though Saab obviously is in the drivers seat deciding ultimately what they want to offer and expect to fare the best.

In my opinion F just adds to the schedule risk that Gripen already has in relation to this competition's deadline. When is Brazil even going to start their test progam? Also the puny number of F's mean they (all unique work done on them, testing etc.) must cost bank. Finland's strategic partnership with Brazil makes also no sense, so it's just another coincidence if this setup is picked. I would've expected full on E offer to maximize the cost effectiveness argument.

Would you sign on to a foreign program where you become the main user?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJzJFean0ps
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2172
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 23:29

Yes, you're probably right magitsu.

I also agree with your opinion about the -F.

And of course regarding to your question: "Would you sign on to a foreign program where you become the main user?"
- My answer is a definitive NO (but of course that's IMO).

Regarding the youtube video that you linked (about the -F) what's also funny is what the Brazilian General said:
Because there are so many sensors, so many possibilities, that the pilot alone can't manage all of that. So, perhaps a system operator in the back will bring gains in a combat scenario


LoL, he never heard about Sensor Fusion and this not to mention the level of sensor fusion of the F-35 :mrgreen:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 23:59

From Red Flag 19-1

The threat level is high at Red Flag. From the skill and size of the aggressor forces in the air to the complexity and diversity of the surface to air threats, there is a real sense of the ‘fog and friction’ of war. The adversary force also uses space and cyber warfare to take out or limit technology that modern warfighters rely on. Cutting through the clutter is a strength of the F-35A.

One of the jet’s greatest assets is to see things that others can’t, take all the information it’s gathering from the sensors and present them to the pilot,” Moores said. “One of our biggest jobs is learning how to process and prioritize that. For the more experienced pilots it seems like it is second nature. … If we don’t, it’s not like we’re getting killed (in the F-35), but we could be doing more killing.

The pilots say seeing the F-35A’s capabilities being put to use as part of a larger force has been invaluable.

“When we mission plan with other units, it’s not always about kicking down the door,” said Rosenau “It may be about looking at what the enemy is presenting and ‘thinking skinny.’ With the F-35, we can think through a mission and choose how we want to attack it to make everyone more survivable.”

https://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/News/Artic ... 5a-pilots/

btw, a handful of the F-35 pilots at Red Flag 19-1 are straight out of school.
Moores is one of a handful of young F-35A pilots who recently graduated their initial training and are currently deployed here as part of Red-Flag 19-1.

...

“Going from F-35 training a little over a month ago to a large force exercise with dozens of aircraft in the sky is pretty crazy,” Moores said. “For the initial part of the first mission, I was just kind of sitting there listening. I was nervous. I was excited. Then the training kicked in.”
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 00:03

ricnunes wrote:LoL, he never heard about Sensor Fusion and this not to mention the level of sensor fusion of the F-35 :mrgreen:


Right, because sensor fusion is magic, and it actually replaces the pilot in the decision making process!

Not.

Sensor fusion or not, a second guy in the backseat will always be valuable in a heavy tactical environment.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2172
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 00:54

f4u7_corsair wrote:
ricnunes wrote:LoL, he never heard about Sensor Fusion and this not to mention the level of sensor fusion of the F-35 :mrgreen:


Right, because sensor fusion is magic, and it actually replaces the pilot in the decision making process!

Not.

Sensor fusion or not, a second guy in the backseat will always be valuable in a heavy tactical environment.


Yeah right, even because the:
- Australian Air Force
- Belgium Air Force (you know, those neighbors of yours which preferred the F-35 over your Rafale for example)
- Danish Air Force
- Italian Air Force
- Japanese Air Force
- Norwegian Air Force
- Dutch Air Force
- US Air Force
- Royal Air Force (UK)
- etc, etc , etc....

All seem disagree with you. But who are they against your "mighty knowledge" f4u7_corsair?? :roll:

But no, Sensor Fusion does not replace the pilot in the decision making process indeed but as sure as hell that the F-35 sensor fusion replaces the SECOND crewman on board of a fighter aircraft. But feel free to believe otherwise, I honestly couldn't care less...
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 01:10

f4u7_corsair wrote:a second guy in the backseat will always be valuable in a heavy tactical environment.

That value must be weighed against the value of much more fuel (which gives you more range, AB time, maneuvering energy, etc), lower operating costs, lower construction cost, etc.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 02:36

ricnunes wrote:I honestly couldn't care less...

I know that you don't value good faith and reason indeed, kinda like when I reminded you the 2000 had multirole variants contrary to your beliefs/dogma and you didn't even bother to ACK.

Also: the guy in the back is not always a sensors operator. I'm talking about its tactical (and doctrinal) value. Not his button-pushing value.

SpudmanWP wrote:
f4u7_corsair wrote:a second guy in the backseat will always be valuable in a heavy tactical environment.

That value must be weighed against the value of much more fuel (which gives you more range, AB time, maneuvering energy, etc), lower operating costs, lower construction cost, etc.

2-seaters usually lose a marginal fraction of fuel (200-500 lbs), I don't see such a loss being relevant unless in a few specific cases. Same for other metrics.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 04:31

I don't see such a loss being relevant unless in a few specific cases. Same for other metrics.

If that were true then every fighter would be two seater.. which they are not even close to being.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1365
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 04:54

ricnunes wrote: ... But no, Sensor Fusion does not replace the pilot in the decision making process indeed but as sure as hell that the F-35 sensor fusion replaces the SECOND crewman on board of a fighter aircraft. ...


To take it a step further the advanced automated auto-pilot could largely replace the pilot (most of the time) too, who is then freer to act as a 'third' crew member, to two F-35 'virtual-crew'.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23328
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 05:51

The F-35 as a 'fighter pilot tactician' LIVES! Some say they will be a quarterback for the also rans. QUEL DOMMAGE!
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 13:26

Take a look at this article. Gripen fanboys are in full overdrive. Muh EW!

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/swed ... ?r=DE&IR=T
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 14:49

Justin Bronk is a joke.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: optimist and 19 guests