Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 18:40

IMHO Saab should have chosen another strategy in Finland; instead of offering Gripen E/F + GlobalEye, they should have suggested to Boeing (which they already have a close collaboration with) to collaborate and offer a package consisting of:

SH block III
Growler
GlobalEye(in collaboration with Swedish AF).

Would this package be enough to compete with F-35? I don't know, but it seems more attractive than either the SH/Growler and the Gripen/GlobalEye package. Please note the text in parantheses above: to keep costs down GlobalEye should be purchased and operated in close collaboration with Sweden. Otherwise it would be too expensive.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2512
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 20:41

Can GlobalEye do austere basing?
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 21:06

loke wrote:IMHO Saab should have chosen another strategy in Finland; instead of offering Gripen E/F + GlobalEye, they should have suggested to Boeing (which they already have a close collaboration with) to collaborate and offer a package consisting of:

SH block III
Growler
GlobalEye(in collaboration with Swedish AF).

Would this package be enough to compete with F-35? I don't know, but it seems more attractive than either the SH/Growler and the Gripen/GlobalEye package. Please note the text in parantheses above: to keep costs down GlobalEye should be purchased and operated in close collaboration with Sweden. Otherwise it would be too expensive.


Have a look at the Q&A at the end, SAAB said simply that to meet the requirements of the comp. It had to include global eye. (The Gripen couldn't do it by itself, my guess is that the radar is insufficient in specs). Boeing and LM didn't need to include an AEW to fulfil the requirements. An AEW is not a requirement of the comp. They reduced the number of Gripens to include the AEW.
The problem I see with the SAAB offer is that 1 AEW. AEW working with the Gripens, isn't always going to be available. They will need more to have 24hr availability. There is no redundancy if the AEW is lost. I don't see them going for this offer.

Aussie fanboy
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 21:33

optimist wrote:
loke wrote:IMHO Saab should have chosen another strategy in Finland; instead of offering Gripen E/F + GlobalEye, they should have suggested to Boeing (which they already have a close collaboration with) to collaborate and offer a package consisting of:

SH block III
Growler
GlobalEye(in collaboration with Swedish AF).

Would this package be enough to compete with F-35? I don't know, but it seems more attractive than either the SH/Growler and the Gripen/GlobalEye package. Please note the text in parantheses above: to keep costs down GlobalEye should be purchased and operated in close collaboration with Sweden. Otherwise it would be too expensive.


Have a look at the Q&A at the end, SAAB said simply that to meet the requirements of the comp. It had to include global eye. (The Gripen couldn't do it by itself, my guess is that the radar is insuffents in specs). Boeing and LM didn't need to include an AEW. AEW is not a requirement of the comp. They reduced the number of Gripens to include the AEW.
The problem I see with the SAAB offer is that 1 AEW. AEW working with the Gripens, isn't always going to be available. They will need more to have 24hr availability. There is no redundancy if the AEW is lost. I don't see them going for this offer.

AEW was not a requirement but neither was the Growler. How do you know that "Boeing didn't need to include an AEW"? My guess it's more likely they could not do it withing the budget, without cutting significantly on the number of a/c. Thus it's simply not something they would be able to offer.

Anyway you seem to be missing some of the other points I was making.

1. Neither the Saab nor the Boeing offer stands a chance against the F-35 offer from LM.
2. I suggested the GlobalEye should be operated jointly by the Swedish and Finnish a/c. They would buy 4 together, and split the bill, so basically pay for 2 each). This will give a much lower price, and at the same time offer redundancy.

Having said that, I doubt even this offer would be able to beat the F-35, but would probably be closer..

You seem to be a F-35 fanboy, I am surprised that you really seem to believe that the SH+Growler could meet the requirements of the Finnish air force during the whole period anyway near the way the F-35 will be able to do? Growlers clearly helps a lot when combined with the 4.5 gen SH, but they would still lack one important thing (in addition to stealth): They would lack the "big picture" offered by the F-35, having 5. gen sensors and 5. gen sensor fusion... only a dedicated AEW would be able to offer a similar level of information of the battlefield. No way the SH will be able to provide it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 21:35

optimist wrote:
Have a look at the Q&A at the end, SAAB said simply that to meet the requirements of the comp. It had to include global eye. (The Gripen couldn't do it by itself, my guess is that the radar is insufficient in specs). Boeing and LM didn't need to include an AEW to fulfil the requirements. An AEW is not a requirement of the comp. They reduced the number of Gripens to include the AEW.
The problem I see with the SAAB offer is that 1 AEW. AEW working with the Gripens, isn't always going to be available. They will need more to have 24hr availability. There is no redundancy if the AEW is lost. I don't see them going for this offer.




This is one of the things I might have mentioned in one of the 4 concurrent Gripen threads we have going, Global Eye may have been an immediate response to the perception that the Gripen is considered lacking SA/EW/Sensor Fusion compared to competitors, and yes it becomes the weak link in the chain due to the smaller amount available and the fact that you need another logistics train...

luckily Finland dropped the "hard requirement of 64 fighters" and instead went with a price cap giving competitors a chance to problem solve within a different limit
Choose Crews
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 22:04

loke wrote:AEW was not a requirement but neither was the Growler. How do you know that "Boeing didn't need to include an AEW"? My guess it's more likely they could not do it withing the budget, without cutting significantly on the number of a/c. Thus it's simply not something they would be able to offer.

Anyway you seem to be missing some of the other points I was making.

1. Neither the Saab nor the Boeing offer stands a chance against the F-35 offer from LM.
Agreed
2. I suggested the GlobalEye should be operated jointly by the Swedish and Finnish a/c. They would buy 4 together, and split the bill, so basically pay for 2 each). This will give a much lower price, and at the same time offer redundancy.
But that isn't the offer
For AEW, it is sensible to work with neighbours and is a good idea. It could include ground, air and space assets. It could include more non-NATO neighbours and work closely with NATO

Having said that, I doubt even this offer would be able to beat the F-35, but would probably be closer..
I agree

You seem to be a F-35 fanboy, I am surprised that you really seem to believe that the SH+Growler could meet the requirements of the Finnish air force during the whole period anyway near the way the F-35 will be able to do? Growlers clearly helps a lot when combined with the 4.5 gen SH, but they would still lack one important thing (in addition to stealth): They would lack the "big picture" offered by the F-35, having 5. gen sensors and 5. gen sensor fusion... only a dedicated AEW would be able to offer a similar level of information of the battlefield. No way the SH will be able to provide it.

Now a F-35 and Growler, E-7 wedgetail, P-8A, global hawk, makes an aussie fanboy's eyes water, Plan Jericho.
It seems the SH/G will meet the base requirements of the comp. Even though I'm also a SH/G fanboy, it doesn't match the F-35. I think the F-35 will be chosen.

Found the Q&A at 1:17:00 in the video
Aussie fanboy
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 22:48

XanderCrews wrote:
This is one of the things I might have mentioned in one of the 4 concurrent Gripen threads we have going, Global Eye may have been an immediate response to the perception that the Gripen is considered lacking SA/EW/Sensor Fusion compared to competitors, and yes it becomes the weak link in the chain due to the smaller amount available and the fact that you need another logistics train...

luckily Finland dropped the "hard requirement of 64 fighters" and instead went with a price cap giving competitors a chance to problem solve within a different limit


Yep, it's nothing if the AEW goes down. Just little mice scurrying around are left. It is too much of a key asset.
SAAB at 1:17:00 in the video says, it was a response to the required 'fighter comp' capability. This is their band-aid plan to try and fill that requirement.

Everyone has seemed to have forgotten Rafale and Typhoon. We need more fanboys :mrgreen:
Aussie fanboy
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 23:18

SH/Growler long briefing.


**
Then from today's Finnish Army Seminar, a good tidbit about NASAMS which relates to HX (as it will be the 2nd most expensive system that remains in use alongside the fighters).

"Interesting point at #finarmyseminar - the choice of #NASAMS turned out in hindsight to be the right choice. Granted some of the competitors had missiles with better kinetics, but superior C2 and situational awareness (and ease of integration) much more important."
https://twitter.com/CorporalFrisk/statu ... 0076587009¨

"#NASAMS was widely criticized exactly due to the poorer kinetic specifications of the missile compared to both the #Buk it replaced and the #Aster it competed against. As such, it deserves to be pointed out that the greatest value of the system lay elsewhere."
https://twitter.com/CorporalFrisk/statu ... 4160368640

"NASAMS didn't replace Aster, it won against it because it provided a good bang-for-buck (meaning that we get an acceptable number of batteries) and a nice integration into the IADS/common air picture (without which you don't get much operational effect either)"
https://twitter.com/CorporalFrisk/statu ... 1889118210

"(The HX project leader) makes a key point: 4 out of 5 key missions #HXhanke must be able to complete are in support of
the Finnish Army." (should favor F-35 big time since due to its A2G, ISR prowess)
https://twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/12 ... 5134728192

Here's also one from the army side that might relate to HX:
"Finland needs a new doctrine, but "the majority of casualties will be caused by indirect fire and artillery." Anti-tank and night vision capabilities remain essential, but the essential need for coordinated sensor-shooter integration with arty is essential."
https://twitter.com/Sam_Cranny/status/1 ... 7631164416
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 586
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 00:09

Hmm, I remember that st the start of the comp they said A2A was the most highly valued quality?

Anyway, can the Gripen recce pod geolocate arty flashes like DAS can? Asking for a friend. :devil:
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 02:07

hythelday wrote:Hmm, I remember that st the start of the comp they said A2A was the most highly valued quality?

Counter-air remains the most valued. Since it can encounter A2A situations also while performing any of the other missions.

You can hear it at 12:35 in the video.

Anyway, can the Gripen recce pod geolocate arty flashes like DAS can? Asking for a friend.

Yeah, and even if it could it would appear under a very limited amount of them. For example the current F/A-18 fleet has only 10 Litening AT pods for 62.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2512
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 02:54

If only Boeing had an option that could extend a MAWS function to existing Super Hornet/Growler systems. They did it for F-15's, why not F/A-18s?
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1164
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 04:06

Corsair1963 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:As capable as the Growler is....The F-35 would still be a better solution vs Russian SAMs.


I would think Growlers would be more for protecting non-stealthy 4th and 4.5 gen assets. F-35s with their stealth, SA, and EW capabilities working with Growlers I would think be a overwhelming combination against air defense systems.



We are talking about Finland right???


Speaking in general term. Even though the F-35 will be the mainstay for NATO fighter aircraft, there will still be 4th and 4.5 gen fighter aircraft in NATO inventory for years to come.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6399
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 08:39

charlielima223 wrote:
Speaking in general term. Even though the F-35 will be the mainstay for NATO fighter aircraft, there will still be 4th and 4.5 gen fighter aircraft in NATO inventory for years to come.


Yes, but we surely want a ratio that favors newer 5th Generation Fighters over older and less capable 4/4.5 Generation Fighters....
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 09:27

charlielima223 wrote:.....Speaking in general term. Even though the F-35 will be the mainstay for NATO fighter aircraft, there will still be 4th and 4.5 gen fighter aircraft in NATO inventory for years to come.


Yes, but....Poland, Denmark, Norway (NATO) would be greatly benefited with F-35 bases in Finland and vice versa.

Eventually, a common NATO F-35 squadron shared/ supported by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania based at Riga?? could add support of Finland, Poland and Denmark F-35s.
IMHO
Fly Navy
:)
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6399
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 10:33

neptune wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:.....Speaking in general term. Even though the F-35 will be the mainstay for NATO fighter aircraft, there will still be 4th and 4.5 gen fighter aircraft in NATO inventory for years to come.


Yes, but....Poland, Denmark, Norway (NATO) would be greatly benefited with F-35 bases in Finland and vice versa.

Eventually, a common NATO F-35 squadron shared/ supported by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania based at Riga?? could add support of Finland, Poland and Denmark F-35s.
IMHO
Fly Navy
:)


I am sure Finland see that as a big advantage! Honestly, I would be shocked they don't select the F-35! :wink:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests