Finnish DefMin interested in F-35s, not Gripens

[XanderCrews]

An interesting report on ballistic and cruise missile threats, highly relevant for both Sweden and Finland:

https://www.foi.se/rapportsammanfattnin ... --4991--SE

Some quotes:

In essence, Finnish planning takes into account that the enemy can direct fire
towards all Finnish targets from the outset of the crisis. The Finnish national
defence system is based on small and highly mobile units operating independently
under mission command, making it hard for relatively short-range anti-ballistic
missile systems to find their place in it. The Finnish Defence Forces lists the cost
of a generic short-range ABM system, such as the Patriot, as approximately EUR
1 bn,217 while the need for early warning sensors further increases the cost of this
already expensive system. In the end, the Finnish view is that when considering
the limited area covered by anti-ballistic missile systems relative to their cost as
well as sensor and manpower needs, relying on active measures for missile
defences is not an option. For a small country with limited resources, the defence
against ballistic missiles will instead rely on deterrence and passive measures such
as dispersion and constant movement. 218 This view was further cemented by
General Timo Kivinen in an interview given shortly after he had taken up the
position of Chief of Defence, where he stated that, “No minor country has the
resources to develop and maintain an active missile defence system. […] Finland
has a passive missile defence system, based on an analysed and identified threat.
The concept is based on protection, movement, and decentralized operations.”219
The Finnish involvement in the French-led TWISTER project, announced in
November 2019, should be seen against this backdrop; as Minister of Defence
Antti Kaikkonen stressed, in an interview, Finland is not going to acquire the endoatmospheric interceptor that is part of the project, but is interested in the potential
for improved early warning of incoming long-range weapons.220 Movement is not
only relevant when troops are deployed out in the field, but also within individual
bases and garrisons.221 However, there is also a requirement for robustness that
allows for losses to be accepted without undue damage to the combat capability of
the defence forces or the warfighting ability of society as a whole.

However, the step back in altitude coverage from the Buk-M1 to the NASAMS II
does open up for a scenario where if the Finnish Air Force suffers serious losses
amongst its fighters, the enemy would be able to operate with impunity at medium
to high altitude. In part because of these shortcomings, and in part as a general
modernisation drive, the Finnish Defence Forces is currently in the midst of a
major upgrade of its air defence capabilities, including a serious step-up in
capability against cruise missiles. The three main components of this package are
the HX multipurpose fighter programme aimed at replacing the current fleet of
F/A-18C/D Hornets; the Pohjanmaa-class233 multipurpose corvettes; and a new
ground-based air defence system with higher reach, approximately 8 to 15
kilometres, and longer range compared to the NASAMS II.234 The new system will
have defence against enemy strike aircraft and bombers as its main purpose, with
capabilities against cruise missiles coming along as a “freebie.”235 The upcoming
Pohjanmaa-class corvettes will be fitted with quad-packed ESSM missiles as their
primary anti-aircraft weapon. The missiles will provide a potent defence against
weapons such as the anti-ship version of the Kalibr cruise missile, the 3M54, and
allow the vessels to participate in the air defence of the coastal regions; but, they
are not able to target ballistic missiles.

The introduction of the Meteor very long-range air-to-air missile in Swedish
service as the main weapon of the JAS 39C Gripen has added significantly to the
SwAF’s ability to counter cruise missiles, something which will be further
enhanced with the introduction of the JAS 39E Gripen, with its more powerful
sensor suite that was destined to replace the current fleet of “legacy” Gripens
within the current decade.

praying they don't find that handful of AEWC that the whole thing hinges on.

[ricnunes]

praying they don't find that handful of AEWC that the whole thing hinges on.

Exactly!
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that for example 2-3 F-35s would be more effective than 1 Globaleye + 4 Gripen Es while at the same time the cost of operating 2-3 F-35's (the so called CPFH) is certainly less than operating 1 Globaleye + 4 Gripen Es

[hornetfinn]

And JAS Gripen operating costs are likely not very low either. Why else does Sweden only operate such a small fleet of Gripens when the defence budget is so large? Especially since Sweden is hiking the budget up by whopping 40% in the next few years but without plans to buy more Gripens or Erieye/GlobalEyes.

Another example of what the Swedes are spending money on (apart from operating 100 Gripen E & C/D fighter jets and in the future also GlobalEye):

Saab and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, (FMV), have signed two agreements concerning the next generation of surface ships and corvettes. A Product Definition Phase for the Mid-Life Upgrades (MLU) of five Visby-class corvettes, as well as a Product Definition Phase for the next generation; Visby Generation 2 corvettes. The collected value of the contracts is 190 MSEK.

The first Visby-class corvette was launched on June 8, 2000 and today five corvettes are in operational service. The product definition phase regarding Mid-Life Upgrades, aims to make the five ships in the class operationally relevant beyond 2040. In addition to modifying the ships' existing systems, an air defence missile system will be added as a new capability. The RBS15 anti-ship missile system will be upgraded to the latest version as well as will the torpedo system with the new Saab Lightweight Torpedo.

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-rel ... for-sweden

And at the same time Finland with roughly half the defence budget is acquiring:
- about 60 fighters (HX) at a cost of 10 billion euros
- 4 Pohjanmaa-class corvettes 4,000 ton ships (costing about 1.3 billion euros), these will be equipped with
- ESSM missiles
- Gabriel V
- Saab Torped 47 (same as that Visby class upgrade)
- Saab combat management and Sea Giraffe radars
- new coastal defence missile Gabriel V from Israel (replacing RBS-15 in Finland), also used in those corvettes
- 48 slightly used K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers
- longer range air defence system
- ER GMLRS- AW- and UNITARY rockets for our MLRS system
- new 6x6 APC (development and acquisition to replace aging XA180-series vehicles)
- new light anti-tank rockets (M72 LAW new version) for 26 million euros

So Finland is also acquiring a lot of new equipment, so it's not like we spend all our money on keeping those Hornets in the air. It has been said that HX fighters operating costs (everything included) for a year must not exceed 10 percent of our military budget. It has been calculated that it will be about 250 million euros using current rates.

30 years ago Hornets were found to be slightly cheaper to acquire but very slightly costlier to operate (total operating, maintenance and support costs) than Saab Gripen was promised to be. It has also been found that the agreed costs have been exactly (within reasonable limits as requirements and needs change over time) what was promised then. I doubt that Saab overstated their operating and support costs then. I also doubt that Saab has managed to get the operating costs down very significantly. Especially since current HX competition seems to indicate that costs between each candidate are quite close to each other.

[loke]

And JAS Gripen operating costs are likely not very low either. Why else does Sweden only operate such a small fleet of Gripens when the defence budget is so large? Especially since Sweden is hiking the budget up by whopping 40% in the next few years but without plans to buy more Gripens or Erieye/GlobalEyes.

Another example of what the Swedes are spending money on (apart from operating 100 Gripen E & C/D fighter jets and in the future also GlobalEye):

Saab and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, (FMV), have signed two agreements concerning the next generation of surface ships and corvettes. A Product Definition Phase for the Mid-Life Upgrades (MLU) of five Visby-class corvettes, as well as a Product Definition Phase for the next generation; Visby Generation 2 corvettes. The collected value of the contracts is 190 MSEK.

The first Visby-class corvette was launched on June 8, 2000 and today five corvettes are in operational service. The product definition phase regarding Mid-Life Upgrades, aims to make the five ships in the class operationally relevant beyond 2040. In addition to modifying the ships' existing systems, an air defence missile system will be added as a new capability. The RBS15 anti-ship missile system will be upgraded to the latest version as well as will the torpedo system with the new Saab Lightweight Torpedo.

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-rel ... for-sweden

And at the same time Finland with roughly half the defence budget is acquiring:
- about 60 fighters (HX) at a cost of 10 billion euros
- 4 Pohjanmaa-class corvettes 4,000 ton ships (costing about 1.3 billion euros), these will be equipped with
- ESSM missiles
- Gabriel V
- Saab Torped 47 (same as that Visby class upgrade)
- Saab combat management and Sea Giraffe radars
- new coastal defence missile Gabriel V from Israel (replacing RBS-15 in Finland), also used in those corvettes
- 48 slightly used K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers
- longer range air defence system
- ER GMLRS- AW- and UNITARY rockets for our MLRS system
- new 6x6 APC (development and acquisition to replace aging XA180-series vehicles)
- new light anti-tank rockets (M72 LAW new version) for 26 million euros

So Finland is also acquiring a lot of new equipment, so it's not like we spend all our money on keeping those Hornets in the air. It has been said that HX fighters operating costs (everything included) for a year must not exceed 10 percent of our military budget. It has been calculated that it will be about 250 million euros using current rates.

30 years ago Hornets were found to be slightly cheaper to acquire but very slightly costlier to operate (total operating, maintenance and support costs) than Saab Gripen was promised to be. It has also been found that the agreed costs have been exactly (within reasonable limits as requirements and needs change over time) what was promised then. I doubt that Saab overstated their operating and support costs then. I also doubt that Saab has managed to get the operating costs down very significantly. Especially since current HX competition seems to indicate that costs between each candidate are quite close to each other.

We in Norway are very envious at how Finland is managing to build such a strong defence force, with a strong air force, army, and also a very good navy, on such a small budget. Like Finland, Norway has very limited defence industry, most is bought off-the-shelf (at least in theory) and still we are not very good at getting a lot of bangs for the bucks. You higlighted the Norwegian Navy in a previous post; unfortunately the reality is not as rosy as you depict it...

No doubt Sweden pays extra to develop fighter jets, submarines, corvettes, radars, missiles, AEW&C systems, etc. etc. in-house. During the cold war, as a "neutral" country it probably made sense. Their defence budget was much bigger then. They made a big mistake in shutting down so much of their defence after the cold war; it may have been cheaper to keep more of the infrastructure, than shutting it down and then rebuilding it now. I think that's another reason why they need to increase so much. They started almost from rock-bottom.

Anyway Norway should increase the defence budget up to at least 2%, as per NATO agreement. After the transition to F-35 only the Norwegian Air Force will be "acceptable" (assuming there is enough money left to buy missiles, and assuming they can buy SAMs to protect the airbase) -- the navy and army are not. Both are way too small and not enough equipment.

[spazsinbad]

Combat Aircraft Journal April 2020 Volume 21 No 4 GRIPEN MAKES BID FOR FINLAND four PDF pages attached.

[ricnunes]

Anyway Norway should increase the defence budget up to at least 2%, as per NATO agreement. After the transition to F-35 only the Norwegian Air Force will be "acceptable" (assuming there is enough money left to buy missiles, and assuming they can buy SAMs to protect the airbase) -- the navy and army are not. Both are way too small and not enough equipment.

Since when does Finland has a better Navy than Norway??

For instance in terms of "first line" warships/combatants Norway has compared to Finland:
- 6 Submarines while Finland has none.
- 4 advanced frigates - the Fridtjof Nansen class. And again Finland has none.
- 6 advanced and stealthy Skjold class Corvettes. The closest Finnish equivalent are 4 also advanced and stealthy Hamina class Missile boats. On top of this Finland has 4 older Rauma class Missile Boats.

So in terms of Navies, Norway is at a clear advantage over Finland.

In terms of Army, Finland seems to have a slight edge over Norway but generally speaking the equipment is very much lookalike among each army, like for example: Leopard 2 MBTs, CV90 IFVs, M270 MLRS, NASAMS, etc...

Bringing back the Portuguese theme of the other thread, there's a saying here in Portugal that says:
"A Galinha da minha vizinha é melhor"

Which translated to English means:
"My neighbor's chicken is better than mine"

Don't get me wrong Loke, but you seem to be suffering from the "above syndrome".

[pron]

Anyway Norway should increase the defence budget up to at least 2%, as per NATO agreement. After the transition to F-35 only the Norwegian Air Force will be "acceptable" (assuming there is enough money left to buy missiles, and assuming they can buy SAMs to protect the airbase) -- the navy and army are not. Both are way too small and not enough equipment.

Since when does Finland has a better Navy than Norway??

For instance in terms of "first line" warships/combatants Norway has compared to Finland:
- 6 Submarines while Finland has none.
- 4 advanced frigates - the Fridtjof Nansen class. And again Finland has none.
- 6 advanced and stealthy Skjold class Corvettes. The closest Finnish equivalent are 4 also advanced and stealthy Hamina class Missile boats. On top of this Finland has 4 Rauma class Missile Boats.
So in terms of Navies, Norway is at a clear advantage over Finland.

And don't forget the P-3 Orion submarine hunters soon to be replaced by the Boeing P-8 Poseidon. And then we have the spyship's Marjata IV and III where even the old one are still used. Marjata IV are probably the worlds most advanced ship in it's category.

[magitsu]

https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/02/19/fi ... nd-forces/

[pron]

https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/02/19/fighters-missiles-and-forces/

Thx, it was just in time.

[ricnunes]

And don't forget the P-3 Orion submarine hunters soon to be replaced by the Boeing P-8 Poseidon. And then we have the spyship's Marjata IV and III where even the old one are still used. Marjata IV are probably the worlds most advanced ship in it's category.

Indeed!
Anti-submarine/maritime patrol aircraft like the P-3 Orion and P-8 Poseidon are vital to naval warfare and will definitely give an edge to any Navy specially when compared to other Navies that don't possess such assets.

[magitsu]

https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/02/19/fighters-missiles-and-forces/

You really want to read this one. One of the best fighter related articles in recent times.

[loke]

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has received its third Saab GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, the manufacturer announced on 20 February.

The delivery of the third of the five Bombardier Global 6000 business jet-based platforms that were contracted to the UAE Air Force and Defence (AF&D) under the Swing Role Surveillance System (SRSS) programme came about 10 months after the first was handed over in late April 2020 and five months after the second was delivered in September 2020.

Having signed for an initial three platforms in 2015, the UAE added two more to its SRSS requirement in late December 2020. All five aircraft are due to be with the UAE AF&D by the end of 2025.

The GlobalEye platform is built around the Saab Erieye Extended Range (ER) S-band (2–4 GHz) radar that is housed in the same external dorsal ‘plank’ as the company’s original Erieye system. Equipped with gallium nitride (GaN) and other technologies, the Erieye ER is an active electronically scanned-array (AESA) system that doubles the radar’s power efficiency compared with previous Erieye iterations. It has a range in excess of 650 km that, as with all AESA radars, can be dramatically extended by focusing the radar’s energy in a particular direction. Saab has said the Erieye ER is resistant to jamming and features all-weather functionality in all domains (air, sea, and land surveillance), as well as an “extremely high” tracking update rate against targets of interest.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... c-aircraft

[loke]

Indonesia considering GlobalEye:

It is also looking at airborne early warning aircraft, and in the presentation slides the AEW platform is represented by the Saab GlobalEye.

“Starting from 2021 to 2021, the TNI-AU will realize the acquisition of various modern defense platforms in stages,” Fadjar said. “The most important essence is not the increase in [the] number of platforms but the increase in capabilities.”

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... new-assets

[loke]

Indonesia considering GlobalEye:

It is also looking at airborne early warning aircraft, and in the presentation slides the AEW platform is represented by the Saab GlobalEye.

“Starting from 2021 to 2021, the TNI-AU will realize the acquisition of various modern defense platforms in stages,” Fadjar said. “The most important essence is not the increase in [the] number of platforms but the increase in capabilities.”

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... new-assets

[XanderCrews]

https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/02/19/fighters-missiles-and-forces/

You really want to read this one. One of the best fighter related articles in recent times.

Agreed that was really well laid out, best thing I've read from him yet (he does good stuff generally, I sometimes have my complaints)

This was very well done.