f4u7_corsair wrote:My favorite tactical fighter is the 2000-5, which lost back in '92 against the Hornet in Finland (hurr durr obviously a rigged competition). But let's suppose it's the Rafale - seems like a fun bet. Feel free to PM me!
Ideally the last leg would be F-35 vs. Rafale instead of Gripen. But as I described above, they will deliver only one recommendation to avoid giving ideas. Everyone else is 2nd placed. The political cost of not following that recommendation is increased when there's a threat of the military wanting to redo everything in case their advice wouldn't be followed.
They will receive guidance on the final number of jets to purchase due to the planned budget being still quite rough estimate 7-10 Bn euros. New cabinet should be writing their program this May. That's the most meaningful milestone ahead. 64 was used as a goal post in this RFQ, but this quote describes the meaning:
- If someone offers 62 and the other 64, that 62 might produce a better capability for the Finnish defense system, Puranen explained.
However, according to him, a "somebody's angle" was to be placed on the initial invitation and 64 were considered to represent the complete substitution of Hornet performance in multipurpose fighters as outlined in the 2017 Defense Statement.
https://www.ilkka.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/su ... -1.2861412The president has also weighed in. He said that they won't be making a political effects study, like there wasn't one with the Hornet purchase either.
white_lightning35 wrote:
I think if the US wanted to seal the deal, they should invite the Finns to a Red Flag with some other f-35 users like the RAAF, put up a multinational four-ship to highlight interoperability, and tell the Finns to do their worst alongside red air. Then they can have first-hand experience of what the f-35 can do.
Finland was just at the Red Flag Alaska last October. It was their first time. They spent about a month there, taking part also in two other exercises before and after the main event. There probably were no F-35s, but F-22s certainly took part.
They won't have funds for another tour as this one is said to have taken 9 years of preparation. What happens instead is that the Nordic ACE event (one every 2 years) will be turned into Flag level exercise. This was confirmed by the Swedish defense minister at this years Almedalen Week (yearly top politcs conference retreat).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almedalen_WeekRAAF is certainly very good counterpart. Hornet, Super Hornet, JASSM, and non-Nato type of needs. The top brass has at least traveled to conferences there occasionally. Also to Israel, which is to be expected. Interestingly Israel was the only non-fighter producing country that received an inquiry in this HX project. So they sent separate inquries for jets and another for equipment/armament. Within the last year Israel has been winning the big Finnish military contracts, with IAI's Gabriel selected as the coastal missile, and for the new/renovated ships. IAI's subsidiary Elta won a smaller counter-battery radar deal.
f4u7_corsair wrote:hythelday wrote:steve2267 wrote:Maybe the US does not want to sell to Finland an aircraft that could conceivably poke the bear deeply in its territory?
So they sold JASSM instead?
Speaking of that, I believe the sale didn't go as smoothly as expected, with some feet dragging on the US side.
Yeah, they were denied the first time. But certain closely aligned countries like South Korea never got it.
2007 denied, then FiAF went looking for JSOW alongside JDAMs for the MLU2 phase which introduced air to ground capability. In 2011 JASSM was cleared leaving the JSOW purchase probably only to the initial batch of around a dozen.
hythelday wrote:Besides, is it really "confirmed" that F-15 wasn't offered because of US Gov obstruction?
Likely just a mental shortcut by the journalist. The most likely explanation is that it doesn't make sense for Boeing to offer two products. Prep work is too expensive against the potential, so they have decided on the more suitable product from their own selection. Note that Boeing loaned two Whidbey Growlers to visit Finland last summer. Growler's added capabilities likely match better against F-35 than just F-15. Looks like sound judgement given the price disparity to F-35 would likely be even worse with F-15.
The inquiries were sent for the governments, not the makers themselves. This might explain why "Pentagon decided". FMS process unlike most of the F-35 partner purchases thus far. But gov to gov is the main guiding reality for the others as well. They want to stay in lockstep (same pace of development, as little as possible extra integration work paid by themselves) with the main user whichever product they end up getting. To keep the costs at check etc.
30 Jan 2019, 19:40
