Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post06 Mar 2020, 15:40

I don't think so, unless they directly represent the challenges around eventual operation of the fleet. Mostly the large logistical footprint. 2 of 4 not making there due to storm / tanker availability and the breaking of one of would be ridiculous to draw conclusions from when you are considering full life cycle of a fleet 2030-60.

Hopefully this makes LM sweeten the deal or at least take more care of the details. It's likely to win, but that can happen only if it makes to the performance evaluation stage. General Dynamics is told to have failed with their industrial participation side with F-16, when the Hornets won. That time around F-16 had the clear cost advantage, but Hornets were better performing. Arrogance is probably among the few reasons why F-35 could fail. It should be clearer than the last time who has the performance advantage. Maintenance cost issue is probably the only reason that would be acceptable if the F-35 lost, any other should lead to introspection.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post06 Mar 2020, 17:51

magitsu wrote:....
Hopefully this makes LM sweeten the deal ...


I guess I don't understand comments like these. The F-35 is a tightly controlled program. Partners get Price X. FMS is a legally binding Price X+Y=Price Z. All production logistics support business is managed (at cost quality conditions) at the Program level. There's no crumbs for LM to pass out.

LM doesn't have any sweetener to provide a customer (outside of program business). WTF are you talking about "sweetening the deal?"

Are they going to hand out Sikorsky helicopters like "bank toasters?" (and why would they? They are going to sell 3000+ frickin aircraft at this point no matter what. Are they going to give a country Lot X ac for a discount when they have a dozen countries with Discount+$ cash in hand ready to pay more for those same Lot X ac?! )

As in there is "no crying in Baseball!". There is no "sweetening in F-35 sales!" That's why Canada(Trudeau) keeps squealing like a fat pig!

Just Asking,
BP
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post06 Mar 2020, 18:11

Yes, I acknowledge how the FMS restricts the pricing of the exact same items that the DoD is also buying (aka can't be lower + then FMS-costs added). Or how ultimately further tech sales clearances aren't up to LM but the government.

Nevertheless there's quite a bit of creative freedom within how each approaches for example the Industrial partnership requirement. Like the last time when McDonnell passed it, whereas GD failed *. Both under the same FMS rules also then.

*
Regarding General Dynamic's troubles with selling the F-16.
According to the memo, the F-16 did not meet all the requirements of the Air Force in the comparison. The manufacturer's bid for the Finnish aerospace industry to participate in the project was also unsatisfactory.

A further problem was the basic attitude of the sales company [GD], according to which the [F-16] fighters would be delivered finished [assembled in the US - whereas winner's 7 F-18D's were delivered from St. Louis with 57 C's assembled in Finland] and in the version that the manufacturer thought was suitable for Finland.

The salesman was not willing to listen to the wishes of his potential Finnish customer. The same policy was repeated for other losers. The cooperation would have been painful.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/201707022200238131

F-35 bid can't include manufacturing / subcontracting as easily as the others. But the IP requirement isn't restricted to strictly fighter related things. It's just a matter of taking the bid seriously enough (or as I alternatively described "sweeten the deal", basically just make sure that the offer doesn't match it's current slightly sloppy public image).

The know-how of the participants must be related to, for example, one of the following areas:

Software
Cyber skills
Artificial intelligence
Autonomous systems
Structures, materials, logistics
Directed energy
Research
Critical dual-use items
Sensors
C4: Command, Control, Communications, Computers
Systems for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition
Management of multi-technology systems
Energetic materials
https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/for-f ... r-program/

Plenty of leeway in the areas above that are acceptable for the 30% (2-3B€) IP package.

Or another perspective, the one that hornetfinn just discussed about in this thread:
He [Col. Juha-Pekka Keranen, the Finnish Air Force’s HX Fighter program director] noted that some of the candidates may still have “aces up their sleeves” in terms of capabilities that could be released after the procurement has been made.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... rials-data

Unrelated, a good general article about HX:
https://www.apu.fi/artikkelit/ilmavoimi ... aa-luokkaa

Small taster translated:
- Sixty-four is still close to the target, but probably every manufacturer offers a different number of fighters in its solution package. We test the performance of that package with a simulated war game. The differences are there - one fighter may be more battle-resistant and may suffer less fighter losses, even if the original amount is smaller than others.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post08 Mar 2020, 17:57

More about how each mission type was tested. This took quite a bit of cleaning up after google trans. It failed the first sentences of each chapter most spectacularly.

Five main types of tasks were evaluated

The focus of counter air testing, or air combat capability, was to validate the usability and sensor fusion of the HX weapon system.
The performance of each sensor - measuring distances, resolution and tracking retention as the targets move or use their own countermeasures [not sure about this part whether it was when the target or the targeter uses its CM, likely the target] - was evaluated against the values ​​reported by the candidate. The targets used were Hawk and Hornet jets, target UAVs and anti-aircraft systems both on land and at sea.

Counter land or air to ground operation is centered around supporting the Army with targeting and own use of fire.
In the HX Challenge, the goal was to test three different fire implementation options: independent target acquisition and attack, attack on a target assigned by the air ops controller, and attack on pre-designated targets.
Research questions included, for example, whether targeting information is properly transmitted to the weapon system, how easy it is to prepare the use of weapons, how long it takes, and whether the pilot can identify the target based on the image created by various sensors or whether the system generates automatic target identification.

Counter sea, or air to sea, activities must have the ability to support the Navy by means of target indication and fire application.
In the HX Challenge, the aim was to verify autonomous attack, and timed attack with the Navy in the Finnish archipelago, partly in ice cover and offshore areas.
The research questions were virtually identical to those of the counter land. Sharing of targeting information and collaboration were included in the verification of overall situational awareness.

Long-range fires differs from the previous ones in that the preparation is usually done in advance and the data is transferred to the fighter during task preparation. When needed, targeting data can be refined with data links when the fighter is in the air. It is important that the target information and the mission data required by the weapon are correctly transferred to the fighter, the pilot is being presented with the launch area and possibly the launch time.

Intelligence, control, command, and targeting ability, aka forming the situational awareness, was verified with active and passive methods. Research questions included, for example, the candidate's ability to identify and locate electronic transmissions, how the fighter is able to form situational awareness of the target area with it's own radar, electro-optical sensors and ESM capabilities, and how the SA or target information can be shared in real time.
At the same time, the usability of the data collected during the mission after the flight was also assessed. In a battle situation, it is imperative to know whether the system produces accurate enough target data for fixed and moving targets and whether the target data can be exploited as such according to the requirements of different weapons and weapon systems.

Armed Forces combat and armament operations were not tested in HX Challenge, as these tasks are performed by operational units. The actual verification will be done later by the operational actors. Naturally, during the HX Challenge, the experts followed the principles of maintenance and discussed the requirements therein.

In order for the candidate to reach the final benchmark, it must pass through the areas of reliability, cost and industrial cooperation.
The “Design to Cost” budgeting model aims to maximize the military performance that can be achieved.
However, each change to the HX package is likely to affect different decision areas, which requires optimization as a whole.

https://siivet.fi/sotilasilmailu/hx-cha ... ta-tietoa/
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 959
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post10 Mar 2020, 20:19

One of the photos is from the last time the mission "Iceland Air Policing" (IAP) was carried out by Norway, in 2016. At that time the so-called detachment numbered 60 people.
When the Air Force is now on its first foreign mission with the F-35A, there are around 150 people accompanying the cargo.
- Yes, the F-35 is more resource intensive than the F-16, both in terms of operating costs on the aircraft and the support with more personnel. But we have been aware of this all the time and planned accordingly, says Defense Chief Haakon Bruun-Hanssen to Teknisk Ukeblad.


Google translated from: https://www.tu.no/artikler/nar-norge-dr ... _most_read

I am guessing that Gripen has a similar logistical footprint as the Norwegian F-16?

Not that it really matters to Finland, they will of course go for F-35.
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post10 Mar 2020, 21:53

loke wrote:
One of the photos is from the last time the mission "Iceland Air Policing" (IAP) was carried out by Norway, in 2016. At that time the so-called detachment numbered 60 people.
When the Air Force is now on its first foreign mission with the F-35A, there are around 150 people accompanying the cargo.
- Yes, the F-35 is more resource intensive than the F-16, both in terms of operating costs on the aircraft and the support with more personnel. But we have been aware of this all the time and planned accordingly, says Defense Chief Haakon Bruun-Hanssen to Teknisk Ukeblad.


Google translated from: https://www.tu.no/artikler/nar-norge-dr ... _most_read

I am guessing that Gripen has a similar logistical footprint as the Norwegian F-16?

Not that it really matters to Finland, they will of course go for F-35.

I don't think the two detachment numbers ( 60 vs 150 ) are quite right to compare. I don't think they had cyberpeople, security and guards during the F-16 mission, and when you go on the first international mission with a new airplane you play it safe. I'm quite sure that the count will drop for the next mission outside Norway.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 959
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post10 Mar 2020, 22:10

pron wrote:
loke wrote:
One of the photos is from the last time the mission "Iceland Air Policing" (IAP) was carried out by Norway, in 2016. At that time the so-called detachment numbered 60 people.
When the Air Force is now on its first foreign mission with the F-35A, there are around 150 people accompanying the cargo.
- Yes, the F-35 is more resource intensive than the F-16, both in terms of operating costs on the aircraft and the support with more personnel. But we have been aware of this all the time and planned accordingly, says Defense Chief Haakon Bruun-Hanssen to Teknisk Ukeblad.


Google translated from: https://www.tu.no/artikler/nar-norge-dr ... _most_read

I am guessing that Gripen has a similar logistical footprint as the Norwegian F-16?

Not that it really matters to Finland, they will of course go for F-35.

I don't think the two detachment numbers ( 60 vs 150 ) are quite right to compare. I don't think they had cyberpeople, security and guards during the F-16 mission, and when you go on the first international mission with a new airplane you play it safe. I'm quite sure that the count will drop for the next mission outside Norway.

The count will drop for future missions, however they do not expect it to be anywhere near what it was for the F-16. It is clear that the F-35 for the foreseeable future will be significantly more expensive to operate that what the F-16 ever was.

Infrastructure is also much more expensive.

Of course I am aware that there are currently no high-end alternatives available that are more cost-effective -- operating a 4.5 gen you need more a/c to take into account attrition etc... and that is probably even more expensive. Things have changed and F-35 is the best bang for the buck -- unless QRA is all you aim for, in that case F-35 may actually not be the best choice...
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1090
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post11 Mar 2020, 19:26

pron wrote:
loke wrote:
One of the photos is from the last time the mission "Iceland Air Policing" (IAP) was carried out by Norway, in 2016. At that time the so-called detachment numbered 60 people.
When the Air Force is now on its first foreign mission with the F-35A, there are around 150 people accompanying the cargo.
- Yes, the F-35 is more resource intensive than the F-16, both in terms of operating costs on the aircraft and the support with more personnel. But we have been aware of this all the time and planned accordingly, says Defense Chief Haakon Bruun-Hanssen to Teknisk Ukeblad.


Google translated from: https://www.tu.no/artikler/nar-norge-dr ... _most_read

I am guessing that Gripen has a similar logistical footprint as the Norwegian F-16?

Not that it really matters to Finland, they will of course go for F-35.

I don't think the two detachment numbers ( 60 vs 150 ) are quite right to compare. I don't think they had cyberpeople, security and guards during the F-16 mission, and when you go on the first international mission with a new airplane you play it safe. I'm quite sure that the count will drop for the next mission outside Norway.


Nor camera crews...
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2691
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Apr 2020, 02:44

It's times like this when I completely and totally lose faith in humanity :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post04 Apr 2020, 22:34

loke wrote:The count will drop for future missions, however they do not expect it to be anywhere near what it was for the F-16. It is clear that the F-35 for the foreseeable future will be significantly more expensive to operate that what the F-16 ever was.


Being an umature system and the stringent security requirements accounts for a portion of that. The expectation is still that the F-35 will be 20 percent more expensive to operate than the F-16, once mature. And of course, having the huge sensor capability will require more resources to handle down the line. But that's a bonus to the entire force, which is harder to put a price tag on.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1248
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post05 Apr 2020, 09:54

Everyone buys from JPO, including the US. All the partners through JPO and their MOU, run the show.
Doing an evaluation on the f-35 for a possible sale. Doesn't let you look behind the curtain. A lot is only available after you sign for purchase. Including basic things like even the RCS. That has been one of the early criticisms of buying a pig in a poke.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24405
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Apr 2020, 10:20

Got references for these details about 'pig in a poke' RCS etc.?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1248
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post05 Apr 2020, 12:59

Nope, not at hand. i'd have to google.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 650
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post05 Apr 2020, 17:18

With regards to the logistic footprint of the RNoAF iceland Air policing, I noticed someone saying a sizable part was base security - bigger than for the F-16.

So - the difference for the *flying part* should likely not be observed on the detachment size alone.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post05 Apr 2020, 19:11

Covid has increased the security of supply considerations, which were already high in HX. Several countries (USA, France, Germany) at the moment are forbidding export of PPEs. So the free market certainly can't be trusted to deliver in case of global emergency.

Lockheed Martin best adapt their offer to not rely on any shared Euro depot or it might not make to the performance evaluation. It's going to be expensive to build bigger domestic stockpiles, but at least it doesn't mean that domestic manufacturing capability needs to happen.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests