Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

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

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3089
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post01 Mar 2021, 19:27

XanderCrews wrote:I like the idea of Sweden shelling out 10 billion so Finland can lease them for a tenth of that and then return them used.

Its not everyday you convince a country to pay 9 billion dollars for a fleet of used aircraft they can use in 15 years :mrgreen:


Yeah, that's gold comedy! By far the most 'comical' argument that I read here in 2021 (so far) - It certainly beats Mr. Bean and Monty Python combined... :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3089
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post01 Mar 2021, 19:38

loke wrote: Normally leasing would be impossible however Sweden has demonstrated that it can work, with both Hungary and Czechia. Sweden and Saab are the only ones who can offer such a model, one reason being that they have 100 Gripen C/D today, this makes it possible to offer an unprecedented level of flexibility.


Leasing doesn't seem to work as well as you're (again) claiming to the seven winds. For instance Hungary seems to be looking at alternatives to the current Gripen lease.
Anyway the only reason why the Gripen leasing to the Czech Republic and Hungary 'works' is because the leased fleet is very small, with 14 Leased Gripens to each country and the aircraft weren't purposely build for the lease (these are 'surplus' aircraft).
If you start leasing bigger fleets of 64+ more expensive aircraft (the Gripen E is more expensive than the Gripen C) which you have to purposely build for the lease than the cost of the lease will increase exponentially to the point where it's far better for the 'costumer nation' to actually buy the aircraft fleet instead of leasing it!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1180
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post01 Mar 2021, 19:49

Gripens are not the only ones being leased:

India has proposed leasing of military equipment in its revised draft of Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020, that may enable the military to possess and operate costly platforms required for a limited period.

Leasing was introduced as another category for acquisition in addition to the existing ‘Buy’ and ‘Make’ acquisition. “Leasing provides for an innovative technique for financing of equipment/platforms. It provides means to possess and operate the asset without owning the asset and is useful to substitute huge initial capital outlays with periodical rental payments. A longer-term lease may provide best value for money, compared to a short(er) term lease,” Indian Ministry of Defence’s DAP 2020 says.

Leasing would be permitted in two sub categories i.e. Lease (Indian), where Lessor is an Indian entity and is the owner of the asset, and Lease (Global) which refers to lease of equipment from foreign or Indian Lessors.

The document states that a lease option may be preferred where procurement is not feasible due to time constraint, where asset/capability is needed for a specific time or would be under-utilised if procured, where smaller numbers of assets are needed and administrative /maintenance infrastructure expenditure would be high, when service life lease rentals are a better option compared to a one-time acquisition cost, to gain experience for operational exploitation of equipment, and due to operational necessity.

The lease contract will take into consideration insurance and equipment modifications. Payments for such modifications/de- modifications must be included in the contract.

India is not new to this concept, having taken on lease a nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine from the Soviet Union in 1987-88. In March 2019, India inked a deal to lease Russia’s mothballed nuclear Akula-1 class submarine for ten years for over $3 billion (INR 21,000 crore).

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27576 ... D02q06SmUk

Clearly, leasing of military equipment has some merit, but only in specific instances where the conditions are such that it can be arranged in a mutually agreeable manner.
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1180
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post01 Mar 2021, 20:10

The U.K.'s Ministry of Defense has awarded a £30 million contract to Spirit AeroSystems in Belfast to lead Project Mosquito which will design and manufacture a prototype for the UK’s first fleet of unmanned fighter aircraft, according to a Jan. 25 press release from the Royal Air Force (RAF).

“Project Mosquito is a vital element of our approach to Future Combat Air, rapidly bringing to life design, build and test skills for next-generation combat air capabilities,” Richard Berthon, director of future combat air, said in a press statement. “Autonomous ‘loyal wingman’ aircraft create the opportunity to expand, diversify and rapidly upgrade Combat Air Forces in a cost-effective way, now and in the future."

he goal of Project Mosquito is to create a demonstrator for the RAF’s Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) concept with flight tests by the end of 2023, according to the release.

“The Project will deliver a demonstration of a capability that the RAF may wish to develop further in the future,” a spokesperson from the RAF told Avionics. “It is not intended to output an operational capability at this stage, but it will inform future decisions for the future UK combat air capability. We are exploring the optimum way in which such capabilities could complement platforms such as Typhoon, F-35, and Tempest as loyal wingmen.”

According to the RAF release, these aircraft could have capabilities to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and survive against surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft would fly alongside Typhoon, the F-35, or the Tempest to provide protection, survivability, and information as part of the future combat air system.

“We’re taking a revolutionary approach, looking at a game-changing mix of swarming drones and uncrewed fighter aircraft like Mosquito, alongside piloted fighters like Tempest, that will transform the combat battlespace in a way not seen since the advent of the jet age,” Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, Chief of the Air Staff, said in a press statement.

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2021/02/0 ... ter-drone/

The "Loyal wingman" will have to be cheaper than a manned fighter but will probably still cost a bit..
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3089
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post01 Mar 2021, 20:19

loke wrote:Gripens are not the only ones being leased:

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27576 ... D02q06SmUk

Clearly, leasing of military equipment has some merit, but only in specific instances where the conditions are such that it can be arranged in a mutually agreeable manner.


Again that only proves my point above.
Leasing only works with a very small fleet of military equipment such as a dozen aircraft (Gripen for Hungary and Czech Republic) or a single submarine (Akula for India).

EDIT:
And in reality the Akula lease deal for India has another objective: To gain experience with nuclear powered attack submarines until a fleet of permanent and new nuclear attack submarines is built in India and enters in service (Project 75 Alpha).
Last edited by ricnunes on 01 Mar 2021, 20:30, edited 2 times in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Mar 2021, 20:26

loke wrote:I didn't mean to single out the F-35, just pointed out that it would win... the argument would be the same against purchasing Gripen E.


You should really think about that statement. Reread it a few times and see what kind of conclusion you can draw from it.

Whatever they buy they will be locked in, at a time where AI and loyal wingmen are at the brink of a revolution.


Which is why Sweden should give up on Gripen E completely, luckily for them they can nip this in the bud since they are not "locked in" yet with no aircraft in service, and being years away from even their first delivery.

they can sit back and embrace the revolution.

Since Gripen E is the "least finished, least operational, least locked in etc" its should signal the death of the manned fighter and be put to pasture before more money is wasted in its development and fielding.

Normally leasing would be impossible however Sweden has demonstrated that it can work, with both Hungary and Czechia.


we have now crossed into yet another realm where Sweden has invented something no one else has done. Leasing aircraft. this has never worked before until it was demonstrated in hungary and CZ rep.


Sweden and Saab are the only ones who can offer such a model, one reason being that they have 100 Gripen C/D today, this makes it possible to offer an unprecedented level of flexibility.


not really, no. for two reasons.

1. there's actually more aircraft that other nations possess to trade or lease with more flexibility and options, at a level that's far about Sweden's "unprecedented" level.

2. The Gripen lease success only works because Sweden overproduced the Gripen for what Sweden could sustain with its budget (I thought it was so cheap that was irrelevant, but lets not think to hard about that) So Sweden had an excess of aircraft it was able to lease out. The Gripen E is not the same situation. In order to lease Gripen Es, they will first have to be paid for by someone in your plan that someone is Sweden. Even worse, the majority of those swedish bought airplanes, won't go to the SwAF. I think they had plans for 60? yes? now they get 20 after paying for 84? dynamite!

Seeing as Sweden couldn't procure even 60 Gripen E for themselves, I'm very tickled that they would instead purchase 84, and then lease 64 of those to Finland. That's really kind of them. Then they would take them back in 15 years for some reason, "post AI revolution" when they are obsolete

The whole thing is hilarious, Loke. not only for its absurdity but for the completely incongruent logic througout.

Lets review:

Don't buy soon to be obsolete aircraft

Lease the soon to be obsolete aircraft, after sweden buys them for you

Then when the aircraft are obsolete, return them so sweden can use the obsolete aircraft. They'll need them.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 01 Mar 2021, 22:03, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Mar 2021, 20:31

loke wrote:
The "Loyal wingman" will have to be cheaper than a manned fighter but will probably still cost a bit..


yes loke, let me guess it will be the perfect combination where it would cost too much if one had bought F-35s, not too much if one had leased Gripens that don't exist to be leased?

Am I getting it right?

Since we are talking about HX, I have no idea why we are cluttering the thread with other programs that are in their infancy and have no idea if they'll be canceled or available to FInland at all

I will point out one more time though, that of all the airplanes available the Gripen E is the worst option. its the least developed and least future proof.

I'm all for this discussion if we first talk, first and foremost about canceling the weakest link and that the Gripen E. No idea why we are fielding a gen 4.5 fighter 20 years later than all the other gen 4.5s and on the eve of a technological revolution that will make it even more obsolete.
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1180
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post02 Mar 2021, 08:34

Asked whether Australia would take up the option for extra aircraft, Air Marshal Hupfeld was non-committal.

He said it would be “foolish” of him not to examine the changing strategic circumstances and advances in technology “to find out whether the right answer is more F-35s, or whether indeed there is a sixth-generation fighter”.

“And it may not be a fighter. I would like to be able to believe there is a bunch of alternate technologies and opportunities that would allow me to achieve air combat superiority in the times and places that we need it to be able to operate and/or strike capabilities that might be needed, and there is already emerging many options,” he said.

“I will keep an open mind. [With] the changing landscape, I’ve got to be open to what other options might be there.”

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ai ... 211-p571lh

As I was saying... ;)
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1710
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post02 Mar 2021, 09:36

Countries need to fight with what they have, not with a technological dream that has not proven itself suitable, capable or useful. Hupfeld will use the capability that he's provided with by governments, and that proven capability at present is F-35A, and its developmental blocks. There is nothing else currently better. There maybe one day, via other means, but there isn't right now. If a war starts next week, all this talk of other stuff is irrelevant, if we don't have enough F-35A squadrons - NOW.

Same applies to every country. I would much rather be fighting with an F-35A force, than an outclassed Gipen-E force any day.

They are not even comparable in capabilities or potential.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3456
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post02 Mar 2021, 13:04

All the HX competitors could've included combat drones or loyal wingmen if they were deemed to increase combat capability. None have done so and it definitely seems like it will take a long time before they operational in larger scale for roles where HX program is aimed for. I'm sure they will have an important role in the future but they will not be operating alone (at least not in initial couple of decades). Of course F-35 is currently the most suitable for operating alongside such capabilities of all HX candidates.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post02 Mar 2021, 13:13

I heard X-Wings and Tie Fighters are emerging technologies. We just need to wait until they are developed and we won't need the F-35 today.
Offline

loke

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1180
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post02 Mar 2021, 13:55

hornetfinn wrote:All the HX competitors could've included combat drones or loyal wingmen if they were deemed to increase combat capability. None have done so and it definitely seems like it will take a long time before they operational in larger scale for roles where HX program is aimed for.

You are right that as of today the loyal wingman concept is not ready. However I hope the US (and other Western countries) will have something ready sooner rather than later. Unmanned will be the only way the US can realistically compete with China. If the US cannot have the first generation of loyal wingman ready within 15 years then they will really struggle against a China that is rapidly ramping up. China is not slowing down, it's accelerating. China will become a bigger challenge than the USSR ever was. The US needs to speed up, be smart, and invest heavily in future winners. Flying the NGDAD prototype last year was a good sign. Unmanned however will also be needed.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post02 Mar 2021, 15:56

kimjongnumbaun wrote:I heard X-Wings and Tie Fighters are emerging technologies. We just need to wait until they are developed and we won't need the F-35 today.



it why you shouldn't waste money on the F-86, because the F-4 will just replace it, and then the F-15 will replace that. So just stick with P-51s for the next few decades.
Choose Crews
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5070
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post02 Mar 2021, 16:08

XanderCrews wrote:it why you shouldn't waste money on the F-86, because the F-4 will just replace it, and then the F-15 will replace that. So just stick with P-51s for the next few decades.

Funny you bring that up.

F-15 entry to service was 45 years ago. P-51 introduction to service was 34 years before that. Less time separates P-51 initial service and F-15 initial service than separates F-15 initial service to F-15 retirement (yet to be seen).
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post02 Mar 2021, 16:13

loke wrote:
As I was saying... ;)


I'm fine with everyone buying 72 F-35s and then seeing where to go from there :mrgreen: Great example, Loke.
Buy lots of F-35s, SH, Growler, Wedgetails too and then add the new capabilities to them. Everyone should do the same "as I was saying" :roll:

Not at all the same as HX, but I guess we have given up on that in the Finland thread?


loke wrote:You are right that as of today the loyal wingman concept is not ready. However I hope the US (and other Western countries) will have something ready sooner rather than later. Unmanned will be the only way the US can realistically compete with China. If the US cannot have the first generation of loyal wingman ready within 15 years then they will really struggle against a China that is rapidly ramping up. China is not slowing down, it's accelerating. China will become a bigger challenge than the USSR ever was. The US needs to speed up, be smart, and invest heavily in future winners. Flying the NGDAD prototype last year was a good sign. Unmanned however will also be needed.


You really have no idea what you're talking about. The US spends 750 billion annually and is still well ahead of China in tech, procurement, and experience, and even outdoes it on size on many occasions as well. The US has also been using unmanned aircraft in recon and strike roles in combat for decades already. "UnMaNnEd HoWeVeR WiLl AlSo Be Ne3dEd" Hey thanks man, very timely. Let me know how things are back in 1997.

Watching the guy who promotes the least advanced Gripen complain that others aren't doing more is a lack of awareness that really needs to be seen to be believed. You've successfully derailed the thread though. So thanks. One thing that would help the US fight China is if Norway bought and funded more F-35s, F-35 upgrades, and direct funding of Unmanned and AI in the future to help that fight since we clearly are slacking. Its always what the US has to do more of.

And Yeah that's America's problem lately, not enough time and money and trillions invested in advancing the military and the science of warfare. We really gotta step things up around here.

What needs to be remembered, and kept in mind especially for folks like Loke here, the US is going back to not being the sole super power that it enjoyed for 25 years or so. What that means, is that the enemy will indeed field new tech, it will build its forces. That will be happening for decades-- that does not mean, that since we previously enjoyed an uncontested lead that we should panic. even if the enemy enjoyed a 1:1 ratio of force structure or better that doesn't speak to quality, training or the thousands of other critical factors that decide victory or defeat. So the US which enjoys superiority should maintain that superiority but not panic whenever China breathes. Great Power Competition means things will be competitive. Spending into obscenity to create an impossible level of "overmatch" is doomed to catastrophic failure

You've completely derailed this thread between the Thailand Temple pass, the "Other than HX options" posts, suggesting vaporware and leasing options that aren't even available, and now you're topping it off with "I told you so" on things people already know, and you've topped it all off on US Vs China. You've completely started saying "i told you so" on things you don't even understand, and then went further by postulating cost claims for options that don't exist. As I said. Cancel the Gripen E. its the least advanced, least viable, least future proof option. Start over with Unmanned, Saab.


Why are you doing this, loke? it looks like you're just trolling the thread and creating BS to break things in a very specific thread. If you want to spread your stupidity make your own thread
Last edited by XanderCrews on 02 Mar 2021, 19:11, edited 4 times in total.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests