Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Nov 2019, 06:14

The contenders for the HX Fighter Program (Finland) are Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet (US), Dassault Rafale (FR), Eurofighter Typhoon (UK), Lockheed Martin F-35 (US) and Saab Gripen (SE).


Which, type do you believe will win....... :?:
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2883
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Nov 2019, 10:51

magitsu wrote:Dassault: "We'll bring 2-3 to the evaluation in Finland, full repertoire except nukes"


LOL, they missed the chance to have really interesting offer... :shock: :mrgreen:

magitsu wrote:"“All five manufacturers are facing challenges [to reach the 10 billion price cap]. Everyone", emphasizes HX project leader Puranen, who spoke at the HX press briefing on Friday."


So it seems like there isn't that huge price difference between each aircraft. Gripen is naturally the cheapest option when their offer includes 64 Gripens and 2 GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Rafale and Eurofighter are obviously slightly more expensive but they both offer the full 64 aircraft. Of course both have higher operational costs but also superior performance overall. Those GlobalEyes might make it more even though. Will be interesting to hear from F-35 and SH offers. I think they should also be close to 64 aircraft although Growlers are rather expensive.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1336
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post13 Nov 2019, 13:25

Corsair1963 wrote:The contenders for the HX Fighter Program (Finland) are Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet (US), Dassault Rafale (FR), Eurofighter Typhoon (UK), Lockheed Martin F-35 (US) and Saab Gripen (SE).

Which, type do you believe will win....... :?:


The stock answer is F-35 but the evaluations and bang for buck will also count.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post13 Nov 2019, 19:47

hornetfinn wrote:So it seems like there isn't that huge price difference between each aircraft. Gripen is naturally the cheapest option when their offer includes 64 Gripens and 2 GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Rafale and Eurofighter are obviously slightly more expensive but they both offer the full 64 aircraft. Of course both have higher operational costs but also superior performance overall. Those GlobalEyes might make it more even though. Will be interesting to hear from F-35 and SH offers. I think they should also be close to 64 aircraft although Growlers are rather expensive.


It's probably because the offers aren't ranked based on price, just performance (the package's effects to the whole defense system). So everyone tries to cram in as much as they can. Though theoretically someone could've played the "cheaper package" card hoping for enough bean counter politicians when the pick is made.

I think that all of the offers went for 64 in the 1st RFQ because it asked for it. Now with the 2nd RFQ I assume they could have worked out whether it makes sense to up the amount of the rest of the contents even if it meant letting go of a few frames. There's a ton of infrastructure work, software work, data/sovereignty assurance etc. in combining it to the existing defense system. For some (except F-35 where it's not feasible) there's also the big question of how much initial manufacturing work is required to achieve the required expertise to keep them maintained. That's probably the main thing that matters because just building them in Finland is not economical on its own. We shouldn't ask for more than is required because production lines require heavy investment and there won't be more work after they are done.

The packages are interesting. There are simple ones like Typhoon and F-35 where its all one-seaters. Then there's Saab and Boeing with everything but the kitchen sink (B also hinted that they could include drones not just Growler). Saab may have a more compelling package by offering E, F & GlobalE than just E, but this way it also magnifies the development risks related to it. Boeing has NGJ in the pipeline to offer.

Rafale on the other hand is the only one offering strategic choice in terms of security of supply as it's the only ITAR free etc. But when considering this we must remember the rather extensive attachment to US tech elsewhere. NASAMS as the second most valuable system with AMRAAM will continue. All air force radars are French. So R pick could theoretically be a diversifying choice. But things like this require a cool head since a country outside of Nato is ironically probably less free to make a choice without upsetting the rest.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post18 Nov 2019, 21:02

Here's a really good article for a change.

General of Finland's fighter candidates: "I haven't seen any flight hour prices in public which would be close to our calculations."


- some useless paragraphs removed so don't be alarmed by weird starts like the one just below -

According to him [CO of the FDF Logistics Command Gen Kari Renko, which does the procurement], the negotiations are not coffee table discussions, but the negotiation teams of each of the five fighter manufacturers consist of groups of 40 to 60 people. On the Finnish side, some 70 people are involved in the whole procurement process in one way or another.

If a system is still in the development stage, performance can be measured under laboratory conditions. The information is not so good, so it adds to the uncertainty, and we look at the [lower threshold] of results. The more unfinished a candidate is, its performance is sort of diminished in comparison, ”Renko explains.

Iterative process

“We give the manufacturer feedback on what kind of problems they have with their proposal. Then they change the content of the acquisition, offering, for example, one type of missile instead of another because it solves something better in our scenarios, ”says Renko.

According to him, there were significant information gaps in the answers to the first invitation to tender.

"The questions were misunderstood, there was a hurry to answer, or the bidder might have had an answer, but the government of the country had not had time to grant the release."

Due to the shortcomings, an additional round of negotiations was held.

Based on the initial replies to the initial invitation to tender, no tenderer met the requirements of the first evaluation area. That's not the point, because the process is iterative.”

Maintenance, price calculation

The price estimate cannot go far if you focus only on the airplane. For example, if a fighter candidate has a relatively weaker self defense system, it cannot go near the target, but needs a longer range weapon system, respectively. Range increase, on the other hand, typically means a more expensive weapon.

The Defense Forces have a sophisticated calculation model based on international military standards to determine the cost of the various components. The model feeds, for example, failure intervals for various devices, repair times, logistics delays in repair processes, and personnel.

If equipment maintenance is overseas, the repair may have a greater logistical delay, requiring replacement equipment. The cost impact can then be significant. If the maintenance is organized in Finland, you will need trained staff, specialized tools and testing equipment.

The calculation model is validated by entering data from the current Hornet fleet. According to Renko, the end results are close enough to the real costs.

“In public, there's for example flight hour price information floating around, for which the data has been supplied by these providers. I've yet to see the first number that would be relatively close to what it would be in our system. I'm not claiming that the figures are wrong, it's more of a matter of what is included in the calculation.'

In calculating operating costs, the armed forces are bound by the accounting rules of the central government. For example, the costs of air control and combat are not included in the costs of fighter jets.

Renko jokes that a four-hour answer could be given.

“The short answer is that we use cost excluding depreciation. We include all maintenance, spare parts, replacement equipment, fuel, direct personnel and space costs, and air traffic control services that we purchase. ”

Type of use

“On the basis of Hornet usage, we have provided estimates of Finland's usage spectrum. The manufacturer is allowed to comment on this, as the mission mix (= set of different flight tasks and their shares) may be aircraft-specific. You have to justify why their machine type would be different. ”

Then it's winter. According to Renko, there is no scientific approach to this, but the Air Force has learned over the decades that operating in cold climates is often a question of use.

“For example, there was a lot of malfunction in the steering system when the Hornet fleet was launched. We then learn that when you take a moving control system test before taking off, the hydraulic fluid remains cold. When the same test was run twice, the problems disappeared. ”

Typical disturbances caused by winter weather include seals leaking in the cold. Problems are solved by replacing them with alternative seals.

"After the first five years of use, those [problems] start to recede."

https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/uutiset/ ... ff44ba57ea
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post21 Nov 2019, 15:08

Corporal Frisk writes about "HX Challenge"

https://corporalfrisk.com/2019/11/05/hx ... e-horizon/

The aim here is to judge the survivability, ability to perform set missions, and the effectiveness in destroying enemy assets. As this is the Finnish Air Force, air-to-air capabilities will be the most important facto.


Based on this picture of the fighting capability of the aircrafts in their 2025-configuration together with input from an study into the development potential of the system (it’s never just about the individual aircraft) up until the end of the 2050’s the final warfighting capability-ranking will be made, and this should then in turn dictate which aircraft will be bought (the rest of the conditions being pass/fail-style).


All I can say is that HX seems to be an extremely thorough eval. While one can argue that every country has unique set of demands, I think it is fair to say that Finnish choice will demonstrate who the real top dog of the Western fighters really is.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post21 Nov 2019, 23:16

hornetfinn wrote:So it seems like there isn't that huge price difference between each aircraft. Gripen is naturally the cheapest option when their offer includes 64 Gripens and 2 GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Rafale and Eurofighter are obviously slightly more expensive but they both offer the full 64 aircraft. Of course both have higher operational costs but also superior performance overall. Those GlobalEyes might make it more even though. Will be interesting to hear from F-35 and SH offers. I think they should also be close to 64 aircraft although Growlers are rather expensive.


The Gripen may not be the cheaper flyaway one. Perhaps surprisingly, that may go to the super hornet. Then if you add mission sets, number of aircraft/assets needed to complete and the LER. Along with what is added with pods, come standard with the f-35, It may be the F-35 that has the overall lower cost.
Jan 01, 2019
https://militarymachine.com/saab-jas-39-gripen/
the fly-away cost trends up to $80 million. This makes the F-16C an understandable top choice for a lot of foreign militaries. The Gripen has a better range and has a fly-away cost of $85 million according to sources at the National Interest.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 08:52

optimist wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:So it seems like there isn't that huge price difference between each aircraft. Gripen is naturally the cheapest option when their offer includes 64 Gripens and 2 GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Rafale and Eurofighter are obviously slightly more expensive but they both offer the full 64 aircraft. Of course both have higher operational costs but also superior performance overall. Those GlobalEyes might make it more even though. Will be interesting to hear from F-35 and SH offers. I think they should also be close to 64 aircraft although Growlers are rather expensive.


The Gripen may not be the cheaper flyaway one. Perhaps surprisingly, that may go to the super hornet. Then if you add mission sets, number of aircraft/assets needed to complete and the LER. Along with what is added with pods, come standard with the f-35, It may be the F-35 that has the overall lower cost.
Jan 01, 2019
https://militarymachine.com/saab-jas-39-gripen/
the fly-away cost trends up to $80 million. This makes the F-16C an understandable top choice for a lot of foreign militaries. The Gripen has a better range and has a fly-away cost of $85 million according to sources at the National Interest.


That link is just a huge sales brochure for Saab. They talk about how the Gripen can land on carriers. What version is that except the ones on paper?

I highly doubt the Gripen can fly further than the F-16 if both are carrying the same payload. The Gripen has a smaller engine, carries less fuel, has a worse T:W ratio, and is a smaller plane so it is more affected by parasitic drag from carrying externals. Unless the Gripen can ignore physics, then National Interest is wrong.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23605
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 09:17

:devil: Apart from being 'carrier capable' I like the 'aggressive canard'. :devil: So much to laugh at it is not funny. :roll: :mrgreen:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2883
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 10:11

optimist wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:So it seems like there isn't that huge price difference between each aircraft. Gripen is naturally the cheapest option when their offer includes 64 Gripens and 2 GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Rafale and Eurofighter are obviously slightly more expensive but they both offer the full 64 aircraft. Of course both have higher operational costs but also superior performance overall. Those GlobalEyes might make it more even though. Will be interesting to hear from F-35 and SH offers. I think they should also be close to 64 aircraft although Growlers are rather expensive.


The Gripen may not be the cheaper flyaway one. Perhaps surprisingly, that may go to the super hornet. Then if you add mission sets, number of aircraft/assets needed to complete and the LER. Along with what is added with pods, come standard with the f-35, It may be the F-35 that has the overall lower cost.
Jan 01, 2019
https://militarymachine.com/saab-jas-39-gripen/
the fly-away cost trends up to $80 million. This makes the F-16C an understandable top choice for a lot of foreign militaries. The Gripen has a better range and has a fly-away cost of $85 million according to sources at the National Interest.


I agree that Super Hornet might very well be cheaper to acquire and even running costs are likely not that different despite having two engines. SH seems to be very economical fighter aircraft especially considering the size, versatility and carrier capability. Currently we don't know what Boeing offer numbers, just that it includes E/F Block 3 models and G-model. So it's difficult to tell but it seems there is not much difference between SH and Gripen E prices.

I agree that F-35 is also extremely economical aircraft especially considering the capabilties, survivability and guaranteed future. With F-35 there is really no need for dedicated jammer aircraft, no need for EFTs and targeting pods. I'd also say that the A/G weapons selection could be cheaper as it can more effectively use lower cost weapons due to stealth. All 4th gens definitely need a lot of long range missiles to combat sophisticated air defences.

EF Typhoon is likely the most expensive option. Danes calculated that the lifetime costs of EF Typhoon to be about third higher than in F-35 and SH. Rafale is likely the second most expensive option.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 11:54

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
That link is just a huge sales brochure for Saab. They talk about how the Gripen can land on carriers. What version is that except the ones on paper?

I highly doubt the Gripen can fly further than the F-16 if both are carrying the same payload. The Gripen has a smaller engine, carries less fuel, has a worse T:W ratio, and is a smaller plane so it is more affected by parasitic drag from carrying externals. Unless the Gripen can ignore physics, then National Interest is wrong.

Agreed, it is pro Gripen and magical hype, sprinkled with pixie dust, but that does add credibility to the $85M flyaway cost.

hornetfinn wrote:I agree that Super Hornet might very well be cheaper to acquire and even running costs are likely not that different despite having two engines. SH seems to be very economical fighter aircraft especially considering the size, versatility and carrier capability. Currently we don't know what Boeing offer numbers, just that it includes E/F Block 3 models and G-model. So it's difficult to tell but it seems there is not much difference between SH and Gripen E prices.

I agree that F-35 is also extremely economical aircraft especially considering the capabilties, survivability and guaranteed future. With F-35 there is really no need for dedicated jammer aircraft, no need for EFTs and targeting pods. I'd also say that the A/G weapons selection could be cheaper as it can more effectively use lower cost weapons due to stealth. All 4th gens definitely need a lot of long range missiles to combat sophisticated air defences.

EF Typhoon is likely the most expensive option. Danes calculated that the lifetime costs of EF Typhoon to be about third higher than in F-35 and SH. Rafale is likely the second most expensive option.

As you said, once you bring in the number of platforms and assets you need to complete a comparison mission, including the loss exchange ratio. Overall the f-35 is hard to beat.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 18:50

optimist wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:So it seems like there isn't that huge price difference between each aircraft. Gripen is naturally the cheapest option when their offer includes 64 Gripens and 2 GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Rafale and Eurofighter are obviously slightly more expensive but they both offer the full 64 aircraft. Of course both have higher operational costs but also superior performance overall. Those GlobalEyes might make it more even though. Will be interesting to hear from F-35 and SH offers. I think they should also be close to 64 aircraft although Growlers are rather expensive.


The Gripen may not be the cheaper flyaway one. Perhaps surprisingly, that may go to the super hornet. Then if you add mission sets, number of aircraft/assets needed to complete and the LER. Along with what is added with pods, come standard with the f-35, It may be the F-35 that has the overall lower cost.
Jan 01, 2019
https://militarymachine.com/saab-jas-39-gripen/
the fly-away cost trends up to $80 million. This makes the F-16C an understandable top choice for a lot of foreign militaries. The Gripen has a better range and has a fly-away cost of $85 million according to sources at the National Interest.

It looks like the swedes are going to use money on getting more power to the Gripen E. Here translated:

The fighter aircraft Gripen E can fly in operational combatable condition in the Swedish Air Force 2021. That message left the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (FMV) at a hearing in Parliament on Thursday. FMV is also investing an extra 100 million(SEK) to increase the power of the aircraft's engines.

https://www.svd.se/beskedet-gripen-e-ka ... ativt-2021

Can something be done with the F414-GE-39E, or is it F414 Enhanced Engine they have plans for?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 19:12

pron wrote:
optimist wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:So it seems like there isn't that huge price difference between each aircraft. Gripen is naturally the cheapest option when their offer includes 64 Gripens and 2 GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Rafale and Eurofighter are obviously slightly more expensive but they both offer the full 64 aircraft. Of course both have higher operational costs but also superior performance overall. Those GlobalEyes might make it more even though. Will be interesting to hear from F-35 and SH offers. I think they should also be close to 64 aircraft although Growlers are rather expensive.


The Gripen may not be the cheaper flyaway one. Perhaps surprisingly, that may go to the super hornet. Then if you add mission sets, number of aircraft/assets needed to complete and the LER. Along with what is added with pods, come standard with the f-35, It may be the F-35 that has the overall lower cost.
Jan 01, 2019
https://militarymachine.com/saab-jas-39-gripen/
the fly-away cost trends up to $80 million. This makes the F-16C an understandable top choice for a lot of foreign militaries. The Gripen has a better range and has a fly-away cost of $85 million according to sources at the National Interest.

It looks like the swedes are going to use money on getting more power to the Gripen E. Here translated:

The fighter aircraft Gripen E can fly in operational combatable condition in the Swedish Air Force 2021. That message left the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (FMV) at a hearing in Parliament on Thursday. FMV is also investing an extra 100 million(SEK) to increase the power of the aircraft's engines.

https://www.svd.se/beskedet-gripen-e-ka ... ativt-2021

Can something be done with the F414-GE-39E, or is it F414 Enhanced Engine they have plans for?


WOW its like what I have been saying for YEARS now-- its under powered.

so not even in service and already going with engine upgrades??
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 19:19

optimist wrote:the fly-away cost trends up to $80 million. This makes the F-16C an understandable top choice for a lot of foreign militaries. The Gripen has a better range and has a fly-away cost of $85 million according to sources at the National Interest.



85 million?

Image


have I used up my allotment of "i told you so's" In this thread??
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 19:23

The F-35 is so far above and beyond the other fighter jets in this competition that unless extraordinary is happening (e.g. Trump is doing something incredibly stupid that makes it politically impossible to buy for Finland) then it is guaranteed to be a winner. Capability-wise there is an enormous gap between the F-35 and the others; at the same time, it is not even the most expensive plane in the competition.

To add to that, the only country in this competition that can offer credible guarantees of Finland's security (if they want to do it of course) is the US. No other country in this competition can do that(*). Not the Eurofighter countries, not France, and not Sweden.

This is a no-brainer.

(*) there are of course other countries on the planet that could "guarantee" Finland's security but they are not in the competition, for various reasons... ;)
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests