Finnish DefMin interested in F-35s, not Gripens

[spazsinbad]

Haglund advises against JAS fighter acquisition 22 Apr 2014

"Carl Haglund (SFP), the Minister of Defence, has rejected the proposal by Eero Heinäluoma (SDP), the Speaker of the Parliament, to acquire JAS Gripen fighters from Sweden in a bid to promote Nordic co-operation.

“The Finnish Air Force must get the best equipment we can afford,” Haglund states....

...“Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish JAS fighters when we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment,” emphasises Haglund.

The current defence appropriations, he admits, will not suffice for the planned fighter acquisition. “There may be fewer aircraft than at present, but the price tag will be a minimum of five billion euros. A special funding is required.”...

...According to Haglund, discussions during last week's meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg indicate that several European countries are poised to increase their defence spending as a consequence of the crisis in Ukraine. “The conclusion drawn by many a country […] is that more money must be spent on defence. There are no other options. To me, it's surprising how many countries are set to do so,” reveals Haglund...."

Source: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/fin ... ition.html

[XanderCrews]

Hey look another indicator that the Gripen NG isn't going to "cheap"

[gtx]

And yet, over on Defense-aerospace.com they have the hide to "correct" (their actual words!) the announcement to downplay the F-35 bit.

[loke]

It seems Janes has a slightly different version:

Finland should reject overtures to procure the Saab Gripen E fighter aircraft, if the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be acquired at a comparable cost, the country's defence minister said on 22 April.

As reported in the Helsinki Times , Carl Haglund said Finland should not put Nordic defence co-operation ahead of performance when choosing between the Swedish-built Gripen E and the US-built F-35, providing there is little difference in cost between the two types.

"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish [Gripen E] fighters if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," he is quoted as saying.

While Haglund's comments would appear to indicate Finland favours the F-35 as a potential replacement for the air force's current 55 Boeing F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornet fighters, his use of the word 'if' would suggest the Gripen E might be best placed to secure any such requirement.

http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finl ... ister-says


(and before somebody comments that the Janes article seems to refer to the helsinki Times article which is the "original"; note that the original article was in Finnish, the one qouted in the first post was a translation into English -- ever heard the expression "lost in translation"...?)

[hb_pencil]

It seems Janes has a slightly different version:

Finland should reject overtures to procure the Saab Gripen E fighter aircraft, if the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be acquired at a comparable cost, the country's defence minister said on 22 April.

As reported in the Helsinki Times , Carl Haglund said Finland should not put Nordic defence co-operation ahead of performance when choosing between the Swedish-built Gripen E and the US-built F-35, providing there is little difference in cost between the two types.

"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish [Gripen E] fighters if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," he is quoted as saying.

While Haglund's comments would appear to indicate Finland favours the F-35 as a potential replacement for the air force's current 55 Boeing F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornet fighters, his use of the word 'if' would suggest the Gripen E might be best placed to secure any such requirement.

http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finl ... ister-says


(and before somebody comments that the Janes article seems to refer to the helsinki Times article which is the "original"; note that the original article was in Finnish, the one qouted in the first post was a translation into English -- ever heard the expression "lost in translation"...?)

I would suspect that Janes emphasis is different, in some part because they were hired by SAAB to comment how much cheaper their aircraft is to operate over its competitors. That report was shoddily done, yet they have to defend it as part of their work (It uses the much discredited $5000 dollars CPFH figure). So its in their best interest to go and say "its only an IF the price is right," rather than what the Helsinki times claims. The reality is that, like what I've said here several times, the Gripen's acquisition price will be near that of the F-35 by the time both reach full rate production, sometime after 2016 or so.

[popcorn]

Hmmm.. apparently the closer one is to Russia, the greater the interest in the JSF. Thanks Vlad.

[loke]

It seems Janes has a slightly different version:

Finland should reject overtures to procure the Saab Gripen E fighter aircraft, if the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be acquired at a comparable cost, the country's defence minister said on 22 April.

As reported in the Helsinki Times , Carl Haglund said Finland should not put Nordic defence co-operation ahead of performance when choosing between the Swedish-built Gripen E and the US-built F-35, providing there is little difference in cost between the two types.

"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish [Gripen E] fighters if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," he is quoted as saying.

While Haglund's comments would appear to indicate Finland favours the F-35 as a potential replacement for the air force's current 55 Boeing F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornet fighters, his use of the word 'if' would suggest the Gripen E might be best placed to secure any such requirement.

http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finl ... ister-says


(and before somebody comments that the Janes article seems to refer to the helsinki Times article which is the "original"; note that the original article was in Finnish, the one qouted in the first post was a translation into English -- ever heard the expression "lost in translation"...?)

I would suspect that Janes emphasis is different, in some part because they were hired by SAAB to comment how much cheaper their aircraft is to operate over its competitors. That report was shoddily done, yet they have to defend it as part of their work (It uses the much discredited $5000 dollars CPFH figure). So its in their best interest to go and say "its only an IF the price is right," rather than what the Helsinki times claims. The reality is that, like what I've said here several times, the Gripen's acquisition price will be near that of the F-35 by the time both reach full rate production, sometime after 2016 or so.

The reality is that you really don't know, unless you have access to information that is not public accessible -- let's wait and see what the costs will be around 2020 or so.

[spazsinbad]

HAGGLING over the meaning of 'IF' is excellent. An ex-Prez of USA was famous for haggling about another two letter word. I like it - but 2020 is way too long to wait for an answer - doncha thunk?

[hb_pencil]

The reality is that you really don't know, unless you have access to information that is not public accessible -- let's wait and see what the costs will be around 2020 or so.

Lets not wait, because Saab certainly hasn't been in regards to Canada. They have been happy to give us misleading data on the aircraft's cost in order to create as much political disruption as possible. They have said on numerous occasions they never believed they had a chance, but have been happy to say all manner of things in order to further the political mess in our state.

And yes I do have perspective on the Gripen's costing that isn't out there in the public, based on my own work. Is it an exact amount? no, its a pretty rough estimate. I've shown here before ways you can come to that cost based on other contracts and information, like Brazil or Norway.

viewtopic.php?p=266783#p266783

Certainly there are significant unknowns to that, I would admit. However, now you see Defence minister of a neighbouring country to Sweden (one of its closest in terms of relations), suggest the F-35 may well be as cheap as the Gripen. Do you really think he's going to say that if there is no chance that will happen, or based on no information whatsoever? Of course not. He's got a briefing, presumably undertaken by his MOD, which estimates the prices will be pretty close in the future. I assume he's got "not publicly available" information to make that assessment.

What I'm really getting at is that the claims by gripen supporters that the NG is some sort of wunderplane that will be 30~50% cheaper to acquire than the F-35 and 80% cheaper to operate just aren't factual at all. Might it be 10~15% difference? Maybe, and yes we can wait to see that. However 10~15% is enough to make some reasonable inferences about capabilities and force structure decisions that we can talk about.

[spazsinbad]

Another bite of the 'IF' question. IF the DefMinOfFin says this: "...Performance must take precedence in the investment..." whereis the IF there? I guess one would have to argue that the GripenE will perform better than whatever?

[XanderCrews]

(and before somebody comments that the Janes article seems to refer to the helsinki Times article which is the "original"; note that the original article was in Finnish, the one qouted in the first post was a translation into English -- ever heard the expression "lost in translation"...?)

that's being pretty generous, and certainly letting Jane's off the hook. The alternative looks pretty ugly

[Corsair1963]

Finland is not going to purchase a New Fighter in the short-term. Then by time it is ready the price of the F-35 will be considerably lower and it's capabilities will be well known.

[loke]

The reality is that you really don't know, unless you have access to information that is not public accessible -- let's wait and see what the costs will be around 2020 or so.

Lets not wait, because Saab certainly hasn't been in regards to Canada. They have been happy to give us misleading data on the aircraft's cost in order to create as much political disruption as possible. They have said on numerous occasions they never believed they had a chance, but have been happy to say all manner of things in order to further the political mess in our state.

And yes I do have perspective on the Gripen's costing that isn't out there in the public, based on my own work. Is it an exact amount? no, its a pretty rough estimate. I've shown here before ways you can come to that cost based on other contracts and information, like Brazil or Norway.

viewtopic.php?p=266783#p266783

Certainly there are significant unknowns to that, I would admit. However, now you see Defence minister of a neighbouring country to Sweden (one of its closest in terms of relations), suggest the F-35 may well be as cheap as the Gripen. Do you really think he's going to say that if there is no chance that will happen, or based on no information whatsoever? Of course not. He's got a briefing, presumably undertaken by his MOD, which estimates the prices will be pretty close in the future. I assume he's got "not publicly available" information to make that assessment.

What I'm really getting at is that the claims by gripen supporters that the NG is some sort of wunderplane that will be 30~50% cheaper to acquire than the F-35 and 80% cheaper to operate just aren't factual at all. Might it be 10~15% difference? Maybe, and yes we can wait to see that. However 10~15% is enough to make some reasonable inferences about capabilities and force structure decisions that we can talk about.

1. If the Swedes were such lying bastards why are Hungary and Chzeckia happy to renew their contracts? And why does Thailand keep buying more Gripen in spite of their fiscal issues? Also, are you then saying that Saab managed to trick both the Swiss and Brazil into believing their "misleading" data? No doubt they have a marketing dept, and I would not trust what is coming from any marketing dept, including Saab's. However when they respond to an RFP it's a bit different.

2. They did not participate in Canada for obvious reasons, and they are not related to the cost of the a/c. Or do you also think that Rafale and Typhoon participate because they are "cheap" compared to the F-35?


3. Finland is not looking at buying a fighter currently. He is the MoD, his main focus currently is on the army first, navy second, and third comes upgrades of the AF. They are very, very far from doing even an RFI. Thus if you insist on believing the first version, then it boils down to yadayda-talk from a politician that simply don't have the numbers, and no time to even consider looking at them, for a purchase that is so far into the future for Finland. So to say that he "knows" that they cost the same is based on rather thin assumptions, to say the least.

4. I don't know how big the difference will be, that remains to be seen; clearly not as big as those "fanboys" you are so happy to fight against (where are they on this forum? If they are not here why do you keep arguing against their numbers?) Anyway this is again a useless discussions since the Gripen and the F-35 are adressing completely different markets (also see item 2 above).

5. The cost of the a/c will always be just a small percentage of the total; just look at how "expensive" those F-16 deals turn out to be even if the a/c is given for free.

[hornetfinn]

Finland has the need for new fighters to replace our current F/A-18C/D Hornets during 2025-2030 time frame. That means that first of our Hornets will be phased out by 2025 and last Hornet will likely be phased out at about 2030 or so. It also means that we must begin our evaluation phase pretty soon as the actual buy should be done several years before that (about 2020-2022). I'm sure we will do very thorough evaluation as done before Hornet deal, but now it seems that there are very few real candidates for the time frame we would need those new fighters (2025-2060+). DefMin Haglund has said before in TV interview that it now seems that all potential new fighters cost about the same at 70-80 million euros each.

In Finland the professionals are very strongly supporting F-35, although there is relatively large anti-F-35 movement in public forums and magazines. There is also some political support for JAS Gripen NG. Our AF has pretty good idea what the Gripen and Gripen NG will be capable of and what the F-35 will be capable of. I think it's extremely likely that Finland will select F-35 (most likely A-version). Our politicians have mostly bought the equipment our military has wanted/selected. Expect the numbers be around 30-40 aircraft.

[popcorn]

Professionals are very strongly supporting F-35, although there is relatively large anti-F-35 movement in public forums and magazines. There is also some political support for JAS Gripen NG. Our AF has pretty good idea what the Gripen and Gripen NG will be capable of and what the F-35 will be capable of. I think it's extremely likely that Finland will select F-35 (most likely A-version). Our politicians have mostly bought the equipment our military has wanted/selected. Expect the numbers be around 30-40 aircraft.

Refreshing that your country has what seems to be a pragmatic, no-nonsense approach in addressing it's security concerns. This bodes well for the F-35 which enjoys clear tech superiority over rival platforms. Finland's decision timeframe should benefit from FRP pricing while the performance of the jet in the field should address any remaining technical concerns.