Finnish DefMin interested in F-35s, not Gripens

[Corsair1963]

Is Finland discussing the next level of surface to air-defence system that also can handle ballistic missiles like Sweden have done with the Patriot system? With Iskander's not far away I would guess that's a bit of a worry.

Probably not going to happen anytime soon. Just too expensive. The Finnish air force way to handle ballistic missiles is dispersed operations and the use of hardened structures. However, new early warning radars to give improved early warning against space and ballistic missile threats would be nice. Let´s wait and see what PESCO TWISTER project produces, if anything.

True. Currently we have program to improve higher altitude air defences than what the current systems (NASAMS 2 mainly) can reach. Systems considered are medium range systems with about 40 km reach and 20 km altitude coverage, so no real ballistic missile defence capability. It would definitely be expensive to have even decent ballistic missile defence. Especially against enemy that has a lot of advanced TBMs.

Btw, I think F-35A is extremely good for Finnish way of fighting using dispersed operations. VLO stealth means that it will not be easy for enemy to determine where, when and how they are operating. F-35 has a lot of gas while being VLO, so it can easily cover the whole combat area from any base anywhere in Finland. Being excellent ISR platform also provides valuable targeting data to artillery, naval and coastal units.

The F-35 was the ideal choice for Finland from the start. So, no surprise they selected it in the end............

[hornetfinn]

The F-35 was the ideal choice for Finland from the start. So, no surprise they selected it in the end............

True but it didn't hurt to run the competition. It obviously brought the best efforts from all the competitors and gave Finland extremely good deal. It also gave another great victory for LM against the very best Western 4th gen competitors could muster including dedicated support systems. And the costs were proven to be equivalent or lower to those same competitors.

Btw it will be highly interesting when Norwegian, Danish and Finnish F-35s train with Swedish Gripen Es...

[Corsair1963]

The F-35 was the ideal choice for Finland from the start. So, no surprise they selected it in the end............

True but it didn't hurt to run the competition. It obviously brought the best efforts from all the competitors and gave Finland extremely good deal. It also gave another great victory for LM against the very best Western 4th gen competitors could muster including dedicated support systems. And the costs were proven to be equivalent or lower to those same competitors.

Btw it will be highly interesting when Norwegian, Danish and Finnish F-35s train with Swedish Gripen Es...

Yes, Canada should have held a fighter competition from the start. As when they didn't the critics used it as a political weapon against them. Implying the fix was in and something shady was going on.....

Of course, it will be very interesting to see the impact of the Finnish decision on the Canadian Competition???

[magitsu]

Of course nobody wants to comment this but I think it's pretty likely that SH+Growler scored higher than the Saab offer.

Should be rather likely given how F-35 and Boeing package both had the same armaments, and the added value of 14 Growlers should match 14 Gripens + 2 GlobalEyes.

[hornetfinn]

The F-35 was the ideal choice for Finland from the start. So, no surprise they selected it in the end............

True but it didn't hurt to run the competition. It obviously brought the best efforts from all the competitors and gave Finland extremely good deal. It also gave another great victory for LM against the very best Western 4th gen competitors could muster including dedicated support systems. And the costs were proven to be equivalent or lower to those same competitors.

Btw it will be highly interesting when Norwegian, Danish and Finnish F-35s train with Swedish Gripen Es...

Yes, Canada should have held a fighter competition from the start. As when they didn't the critics used it as a political weapon against them. Implying the fix was in and something shady was going on.....

Of course, it will be very interesting to see the impact of the Finish decision on the Canadian Competition???

Agreed. I think that's one reason why FiAF did so thorough evaluation of all competitors with their own solutions. So there was really nothing left to argue about the results.

I think Finnish decision will make it pretty much impossible to make any other decision than to go for F-35. At least to me going for Gripen would give very many ways to attack the decision politically. Especially when Finland goes for F-35 instead of Swedish Gripen, then why the hell should Canada go for it? Things like costs have been very transparent in Finnish competition and there is not much left to argue about that aspect. Maybe Finnish decision will help Canada get a slightly better deal than they otherwise could...

[riddu]

Next Finland propably needs a new export permit for AMRAAMs. Let´s see how many and what configuration they will get. Both AIM-120C-8 and AIM-120D-3 are still both theoretically possible and NASAMS and F-35 systems in Finnish service also use the same missile pool, and NASAMS also needs new missiles.

[Corsair1963]

Agreed. I think that's one reason why FiAF did so thorough evaluation of all competitors with their own solutions. So there was really nothing left to argue about the results.

I think Finnish decision will make it pretty much impossible to make any other decision than to go for F-35. At least to me going for Gripen would give very many ways to attack the decision politically. Especially when Finland goes for F-35 instead of Swedish Gripen, then why the hell should Canada go for it? Things like costs have been very transparent in Finnish competition and there is not much left to argue about that aspect. Maybe Finnish decision will help Canada get a slightly better deal than they otherwise could...

Yes, with both Switzerland and Finland both selecting the F-35 just recently. Plus, other European Nations like Norway Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, etc.

Seems like it would be near impossible for Canada to select the Gripen or any other 4th Generation Fighter for that matter.

[Corsair1963]

Next Finland propably needs a new export permit for AMRAAMs. Let´s see how many and what configuration they will get. Both AIM-120C-8 and AIM-120D-3 are still both theoretically possible and NASAMS and F-35 systems in Finnish service also use the same missile pool, and NASAMS also needs new missiles.

Speaking of AMRAAM's......


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... Yget4iBDPM

[hornetfinn]

HX Program Director Lauri Puranen answers to some bitter statements from Saab:
https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/vaarinkasitys-havittajahankkeen-johtaja-tyrmaa-saabin-epailyt/#0ec115a3

Lauri Puranen, program director of the HX project, dispels the doubts expressed by Saab about the unevenness of the fighter project. Puranen relies on the confirmation of Deloitte Oy, which acted as an external quality assurance.

- Deloitte has also reviewed the results of our evaluation report very carefully. We will release a public version of the report this week. It does not find any basis for this allegation that any candidate was treated differently. All candidates have been evaluated on exactly the same basis, Puranen tells Online News .

Will be interesting to read that report, although it might not contain much really new information. But hope I'm wrong and there is some new interesting info there.

“Misunderstanding” - The leader of the fighter project knocks out Saab’s suspicions
ARNO RYDMAN | 13.12.2021 | 15:24- updated 13.12.2021 | 18:28
According to Lauri Puranen, all candidates have been evaluated on exactly the same basis.

Lauri Puranen, program director of the HX project, dispels the doubts expressed by Saab about the unevenness of the fighter project. Puranen relies on the confirmation of Deloitte Oy, which acted as an external quality assurance.

- Deloitte has also reviewed the results of our evaluation report very carefully. We will release a public version of the report this week. It does not find any basis for this allegation that any candidate was treated differently. All candidates have been evaluated on exactly the same basis, Puranen tells Online News .

Anders Gardberg, Saab's country manager for Finland, told Online News last Friday that the Finnish government's decision to choose Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighters in the United States to be the successor to the Hornets was confusing and surprising.

According to Gardberg, it is appropriate to ask whether all the candidates in the tender for the HX project have been evaluated on the same basis. He refers to the F-35's public information about high and rising operating costs and the weapons package on offer. Gardberg pays attention to the project process and compliance.

In addition to the F-35, there were four multi-purpose fighters on offer: the US Boeing F / A Super Hornet, the French Dassault Rafale, the Swedish Saab Gripen and the pan-European Eurofighter Typhoon. The last three tops consisted of the F-35, Gripen and Super Hornet. The victory was taken by the F-35.

Puranen says that the HX project has been taken forward transparently and fairly from the beginning.

- We have hired an external quality assurance who will not sing our songs. In fact, the opposite is true, and we have sung their guidance and followed their feedback closely if there has been room for improvement in the process, he says.

There has been a lot of public debate about the life-cycle costs of the F-35. In the United States, the matter has been raised by the country's inspection agency, GAO.

Puranen emphasizes that there are uncertainties regarding operating costs for all candidates

- Now we are talking about the operating environment of the 2030s, ie things that will happen in about ten years.

- Uncertainties have been taken into account for all candidates. The National Audit Office (VTV) has also followed our calculations, and the Ministry of Finance has also reviewed the calculations separately before the presentation and found them to be credible, Puranen says.

He emphasizes that officials act with official responsibility when matters are presented to the Government.

- We can't take the wrong information there. It is based on factual information. But as we have pointed out, these involve uncertainties. We do not know, for example, fuel prices (in the future).

- It must be remembered that all the candidates have been involved in this for seven years and there are certainly disappointments and they are distributed differently.

The necessary weapons will be procured

According to Saab's Anders Gardberg, the F-35's weapons package also caused confusion. AMRAAM and Sidewinder anti-aircraft missiles will be procured for the F-35. Among other things, more air-to-ground missiles will be procured later.

Gardberg does not swallow the argument that other missiles could be procured separately at a later date. According to him, throughout the project, the emphasis on Saab was to procure the entire weapons package at once and to start the final performance comparison with the weapons package on offer. The Saab package included both long-range and short-range anti-aircraft missiles and air-to-ground missiles.

Puranen reminds that not all weapons are acquired immediately.

- As for weapons, Gardberg has a misunderstanding. Now, at this point, we proposed to the Government that we acquire air-to-air weapons, Puranen says.

- We have ten years to acquire weapons. The premise is that we acquire all the necessary weapons.

Puranen emphasizes that the evaluation of the weapons package has been based on the weapons load offered by the candidates.

- In other words, all candidates have been treated equally. The evaluation has been based purely on the weapons they have offered in their final bids. That is the result.

- We're getting air-to-ground missiles. Now that we have about ten years to go before the final operational performance is achieved, we can see if we can still improve these weapons packages on offer and acquire more modern weapons, Puranen says.

According to him, the acquisition of air-to-ground weapons is about to begin, but it was not appropriate to acquire them now.

- Gardberg has a misunderstanding here, says Puranen.

- All offers were evaluated with the weapons they offered. We set scenarios that certain types of air warfare situations and threats should be addressed. They were asked how they would solve them and they offered that weapon package.

[hornetfinn]

Btw, it was reported that F-35 was either first or shared the first place in all the evaluation criteria. They were these:

Air-to-Air role (30% weight),
Supporting the Army (20% weight),
Long-range fires (20% weight),
ISR (20% weight),
Supporting the Navy (10 % weight)

So what do you think was/were the criteria that were shared? Maybe supporting the navy and/or long-range fires? With JASSM-ER both SH and F-35 should be pretty similar in long-range fires. Growler and F-35 could potentially escort the missiles and provide EW support to penetrate toughest defences.

[hornetfinn]

Some more info here:
https://www.defmin.fi/en/frontpage/administrative_branch/strategic_capability_projects/hx_fighter_program/hx_procurement_decision#7468433a

Ilmav_HX_F-35_factsheet_20211210.pdf

(79.99 KiB) Downloaded 184 times

[hythelday]

Saab made a 4+ gen fighter 20 years later than everyone else, it struggles with performance even againat F-16 and costs as much as F-35.

To treat them fairly would mean laugh at them and boot out the door immediately. Instead, it was Saab who got the "special" treatment by even allowing the joke of a plane like Gripen into competition that sought to protect Finland untill 2060+.

Seven years they have been in competition, and for seven years they didn't say squat about unfairness. Now that they have lost, despite the bullshit undeveloped capabilities and AEW planes they suspect unfair treatment.

According to Swedish media US had unfair advantage of "putting simulator in the embassy" and Saab is "surprised" because their strategy was based on 36000$ CPFH meme.

I used to be kind of neutral towards Gripen and used to try to find some good parts about it. Not anymore. If I were a cutthroat journalist for some Swedish newspaper, I would start asking unpleasant questions in return, like "Mr CEO, why does our miracle plane suck despite all the money we gave you? Why don't Sweden buy F-35s instead?".

It woild be very nice if this whining leads to "unfortunate leak" that confirms that 3.81 was Boeing's score.

[loke]

Saab made a 4+ gen fighter 20 years later than everyone else, it struggles with performance even againat F-16 and costs as much as F-35.

To treat them fairly would mean laugh at them and boot out the door immediately. Instead, it was Saab who got the "special" treatment by even allowing the joke of a plane like Gripen into competition that sought to protect Finland untill 2060+.

Seven years they have been in competition, and for seven years they didn't say squat about unfairness. Now that they have lost, despite the bullshit undeveloped capabilities and AEW planes they suspect unfair treatment.

According to Swedish media US had unfair advantage of "putting simulator in the embassy" and Saab is "surprised" because their strategy was based on 36000$ CPFH meme.

I used to be kind of neutral towards Gripen and used to try to find some good parts about it. Not anymore. If I were a cutthroat journalist for some Swedish newspaper, I would start asking unpleasant questions in return, like "Mr CEO, why does our miracle plane suck despite all the money we gave you? Why don't Sweden buy F-35s instead?".

It woild be very nice if this whining leads to "unfortunate leak" that confirms that 3.81 was Boeing's score.

I agree about the "whining" part.

However I don't completely agree that Gripen E "suck despite all the money". The development costs are relatively minor compared to developing a 5th gen fighter. So minor that Sweden and Brazil could afford to cover all development costs by themselves, on a quite limited budget.

It is what it is: a 4.5 gen light fighter. No more, but IMHO also not less.

The main question in my mind, is if it will be sufficient for Sweden to keep Russia from invading. One should keep in mind that the fighter jets, whether it's F-35 or Gripen, are not operating in a vacuum, they are integrated into a total defense system. It seems the Swedish Defence Force has concluded that 60 Gripen E + 40 Gripen C/D (D will be used mainly for training) + GlobalEye + Patriot will, together with the Swedish navy and army, suffice to make Russia think twice before invading. That's all there is to it, at least from a Swedish defense point of view.

Ultimately Gripen E will not be sufficient for Sweden, however the Swedish Air Force seems to believe that it will be sufficient until the Tempest fighters are ready, still quite some time into the future. When Tempest is ready, Sweden will, as a Tempest partner, have the option to buy some, whenever they believe Gripen is not enough.

Brazil, as you know, has a quite "benign" environment. Gripen E/F should suffice for Brazil for the foreseeable future.

If Gripen did not exist, e.g., if Sweden had bought F-16 or Hornets all those years ago, then most likely also Sweden would have bought F-35 now, instead of building Gripen E. However since they have Gripen, and since they have Saab, they decided otherwise. Was it worth it? I guess it depends who you ask. At least it has caused some lively discussions here and elsewhere And Saab has become a quite big employer in Sweden (compared to most other Swedish companies), providing interesting and high-tech jobs to a significant number of people, over many decades. With Gripen E, GlobalEye, Tempest, and also the jet trainer with Boeing, this will continue for the foreseeable future.

I may be wrong, but I doubt Boeing would have teamed up with Saab if Saab did not have decades of experience developing and fielding Gripen A/B/C/D. The trainer is a big thing for Saab, and therefore also for the Swedish aerospace industry. Gripen is more a "bonus" as well as an enabler. Gripen E development experience will probably help Saab get more interesting work on the Tempest.

[hornetfinn]

Yeah, it's getting close to impossible for a small country like Sweden to develop a modern fighter aircraft by themselves. It just requires a lot of money and qualified people to do it. Even lot larger countries like France are struggling to keep themselves relevant. Smart thing for Saab and Sweden would be to concentrate on their other business areas where they have some excellent products. I think the whole Gripen thing is just dead weight for them at this point of time. But that is likely not politically easy to do as they need to replace the current Gripen C/Ds and Gripen Es have been ordered and produced to do that. I would actually not be that surprised if they decide to order F-35s in 2030 or so to complement and replace the Gripen Es... I have my doubts about the European 5th gen projects, although I'd really like them to succeed to keep Europe relevant when it comes to developing fighter aircraft and new technologies.

[loke]

I disagree that Gripen E is "dead weight", I think it can still fly for many years to come, although it will become harder and harder to use it in the most demanding environments. On the other hand, Russia is still quite far behind in actual fielding 5th gen aircrafts, it's harder than most think.

I disagree with your assessment of the European aerospace industry. In particular I think the Tempest project will produce something very good. It will take a long time, but I think it will be a great plane in the end.

For the French/German/Spanish project, I think they have the technical know-how, it's more a question of political will and if they are able to make compromises that will allow the companies to work together in the most sensible manner, and also if the countries can agree on a set of consistent requirements.

From an financial and technical perspective the best would perhaps be to combine, but I think both political but also due to different requirements (in particular France with the aircraft carrier requirements) it will be difficult to combine the two programs.