Finnish fighter replacement revisited

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

With what counterparty? Alliance membership?

Have you read anything about the reprogramming labs? Partner nations want to control aspects of their data and mission files (Italy and Netherlands partner on the lab, but in separate sections). If Finland wanted to set up their own, they could include that as a stipulation. FMS customers have a separate lab, Israel has opted for some independent control, as well as Denmark. If this was a serious concern, which it isn't, Finland could address it in their request.


Ah, good news considering F-35 is probably already at the very high end of their 7-10 G$ range.
They must be very interested in the outraging quote proposed to Belgium...

Now we are in the business of predicting bids? Or are we still operating on the fallacy that other aircraft are cheaper to procure? That horse has been beaten to death, and if recent contracts are any prediction, quite the opposite is true.

You are entilted to your own analysis. LM cancelling vulnerability tests (and not rescheduling them, publicly at least) is also a good sign for the system's security, eh? Furthrmore, your so-called ALIS independance, is in fact a mere buffer to cope with deployment ops and log issues... not a standalone capability.

How is the ability to operate without ALIS "so-called" it came up due to ALIS reliability issues (still unresolved). Every time the fallacy that the F-35 could be grounded by the U.S. (or foreign hacking), JPO has actively refuted this. The coding is proprietary to L-M not the DoD. If the aircraft can operate without ALIS then it is the very definition of a Standalone capability as the USMC has stated that it may need to operate outside of the network in austere conditions. For the most part, it makes no sense not to be connected to ALIS. This has been brought up in UK Parliament, Australian Parliament. Again the worst case scenario for being denied access to ALIS would be going back to manpower intensive maintenance logging and troubleshooting (and having to maintain an expensive ready stock of spares) MDF would not be updated but the ones in Finnish SOU at squadron level and data stored in the CPE would be available.

Finland sure counts on 30-days limited reliance in case of war, right?
Right, and now we are entering into fantasy conversation. This is another canard. How many nations that have forces in Europe (outside of Russia, and U.S.) maintain even a 30 day war reserve stock of ordinance and parts for their fleets? In a high intensity conflict, there isn't an air force in Europe (outside of the above) that could sustain a 30 day war (Libya was far from a high intensity conflict and both France and UK depleted stocks of PGM). Can you honestly state that France, Eurofighter Consortium nations would be able to support Finland with weapons and parts for a conflict even half that long? Recent events and readiness reports suggest otherwise.

..and maintenande hubs? How do they go towards self-reliance?

Those hubs are for heavy maintenance. Partner nations decided to pool resources into those hubs for cost reasons. Here is the work performed:
"Heavy maintenance entails repairing large structural components like bulkheads, spars and wings, which require more advanced facilities and technical acumen....engine overhaul" -https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/italy-turkey-will-lead-f-35-…
How often do you think spars and bulkheads need replacing?

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 3,280

Rafale and Eurofighter do stand a credible chance, because of potential of strategic defence partnership with France or UK and because they're well suited for the requirements, and for a smaller (non-aligned) airforce that operates a single fighter type due to their platform flexibility.

Nope, Rafale and Typhoon will not make it -- the FiAF seems to put emphasis on the fighter having to fit within the current operational budget, and at the same time they want 64 a/c.... Rafale and Typhoon are too expensive. In addition of the fighters that meet the first 4 criteria, the fifth (capability) will determine who will win.

Thus most likely the following will be short-listed:

F-35
SH/Growler
Gripen E.

When they are ranked according to capability, F-35 will win.

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 128

Oh, thanks Loke. I'll give a call to Lauri Puranen and tell him to ditch them off the programme. Too bad because they just sent their RfQ, what a load of paper watsed!

FBW: bids are hard to eyeball I concur. But it's equally fallacious to assume the F-35 quote will be well within the range of the HX budget, especially more if you think Finland can afford to go shopping and put the "independant control" option in its cart. Oh, and of course JPO will refute any vulnerability claim, come on... we talked about Egypt last page. I think it's also useful to wonder why UAE didn't go the F-16 route to perform its first strikes in Libya in '14. But I'm not gonna go off topic.

Right, and now we are entering into fantasy conversation. This is another canard. How many nations that have forces in Europe (outside of Russia, and U.S.) maintain even a 30 day war reserve stock of ordinance and parts for their fleets? In a high intensity conflict, there isn't an air force in Europe (outside of the above) that could sustain a 30 day war. Can you honestly state that France, Eurofighter nations would be able to support Finland with weapons and parts for a conflict even half that long? Recent events and readiness reports suggest otherwise.

That's frankly the worst argument you could pick.

"We think you don't have enough ressources to sustain yourself for 30 days, so let us sell you a system that's unable to work reliably and independantly past that period".

Please. Go sell that argument to a Finn and I'd be glad to watch him scoff at you, if not more.

You'd be surprised to see the level of resilience Finnish achieve. These guys have consistently kept preparing themselves for territorial defense since the CW, with little to no downtempo, while the rest of Europe was embrassing that peace dividend that ended up being more destructive than anything else (even including for Finland's closest defense partner).

Finns talk and communicate little. Yet when Russians are kicking off Zapad every four year or so, Finns are doing the same kind of exercice (volume wise) yearly. So, high intensity air ops for 30+ days, probably not (and I'd be keen to say nor the Russians.. and the Americans would probably be digging in their rusty Mk8x stocks at that time)... but it is certainly against the Finnish strategic thinking, planning and readiness preparation to assume they will automatically need foreign support as long as a conflic goes beyond a month long.

Even so, would the US actively support Finland if they are involved into a conflict, while being out of NATO, which Finland is not ready to join? Doubts arise from the audience.

How often do you think spars and bulkheads need replacing?

Right. Because high level maintenance visit is only performed because a spar needs to be replaced and not following a precise schedule. /s
Where's the F135 hub in Europe, by the way...?

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

Look Corsair, it is sad to say but Rafale would have had a chance if it was undoubtedly over passing the capacity now fielded by the Fin AF. On other words, what worth billion the non-uS offer does have?
Given the recent upgrade of their C and Ds, there is not much left to emphasize. As I wrote above, this RFP is not all about looking for another SLEP! You can't re-skin a cat and call it a Tiger.

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 128

Your point doesn't make sense. If F-35 was bringing zillions of new features and/or the 4 other contenders featured way too little gap as you claim (and let's be real, it's not the case unlike you might think), they would have gone for OTS F-35. I'm not gonna go over the SLEP parallel... pedantically ignorant at best. But that point of yours fails considering the (1) pragmatic nature of Finns that would not seem compatible with your assessement, i.e. why bother with RFP if the solution is so obvious? Makes even less sense considering Finland is way less US-tied than nations who made the direct choice (2) they are not looking for aircraft as their current state but with specific requirements. Hint: Gripen E is slowly maturing, and Rafale big update will be underway at the time of the selection, to give only two examples.

It would be too easy if the F-35 already won such in advance (as you would like), right?

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

No like or dis-like on my side. don't venture on that field. thanks. it's all about being rationale.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 621

At the top of the page I put a link specifically referring to the F-35's ability to operate without outside support, which was why I was puzzled when you brought up "self-sustainability" again.

No, you obviously did not read. All I said was that Finland has requirements concerning sustaining the plane, which are somewhat more extensive than JSF partners/NATO countries have, due to simple fact that Finland is neither. Nothing more, nothing less. If a manufacturer is willing to provide a support package which fits those requirements (and I believe LockMart is on record saying that they are), then their plane is in the contest. If not, then they're out, simple as that.
I very much doubt it is going to be a stumbling block for any of the contestants, only question is whether it brings some extra cost.

Member for

6 years 4 months

Posts: 14

Nope, Rafale and Typhoon will not make it -- the FiAF seems to put emphasis on the fighter having to fit within the current operational budget, and at the same time they want 64 a/c.... Rafale and Typhoon are too expensive. In addition of the fighters that meet the first 4 criteria, the fifth (capability) will determine who will win.

Thus most likely the following will be short-listed:

F-35
SH/Growler
Gripen E.

When they are ranked according to capability, F-35 will win.

First off, the FiAF is already operating a 64 strong fleet of F/A-18C, which is by no any means an inexpensive aircraft to operate. The next aircraft should cost about the same amount or slightly more to operate, according to them. All of the candidates should be able to meet this criteria in O&S costs.

Secondly, it's been already said by the FiAF that all of the aircraft are about the same in acquisition costs. Don't believe every figure you read in the Internet.

Thirdly, it's been often misreported that the acquisition will be of 64 aircraft. Nope, this is a number that has been set according to the current requirements for a fleet of F/A-18C and to set a common baseline. It has been said, that the proposed solutions can include a number of different airframes, weapons, sensors and other platforms. They've also repeatedly stated that they're not looking to replace 64 aircraft verbatim, but are looking for a solution that provides the best capability possible.

Finally, the judging criteria includes not only performance metrics but a prerequisite in the value of defence partnership, this should not be overlooked in the current context. I agree with the first two choices, but the defence partnership criteria might favout EF or Rafale. I don't see a proposition that favours Gripen.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 2,619

First off, the FiAF is already operating a 64 strong fleet of F/A-18C, which is by no any means an inexpensive aircraft to operate. The next aircraft should cost about the same amount or slightly more to operate, according to them. All of the candidates should be able to meet this criteria in O&S costs.

Secondly, it's been already said by the FiAF that all of the aircraft are about the same in acquisition costs. Don't believe every figure you read in the Internet.

Thirdly, it's been often misreported that the acquisition will be of 64 aircraft. Nope, this is a number that has been set according to the current requirements for a fleet of F/A-18C and to set a common baseline. It has been said, that the proposed solutions can include a number of different airframes, weapons, sensors and other platforms. They've also repeatedly stated that they're not looking to replace 64 aircraft verbatim, but are looking for a solution that provides the best capability possible.

Finally, the judging criteria includes not only performance metrics but a prerequisite in the value of defence partnership, this should not be overlooked in the current context. I agree with the first two choices, but the defence partnership criteria might favout EF or Rafale. I don't see a proposition that favours Gripen.

You have to see that fuel prices have 50 folded in 100 years...and in next 40 years when the next fighter is at the end stages there may be 100 fold increase in fuel price .....so the size does matter...especially as we are not oil producer like Norway.

https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/Petrol_Prices_1896_todate_gallons.pdf

Also our Jyrki Laukkanen sees the Gripen as a strong candidate...and he is the leading aviation expert. He is more concerned about the plane than the fuel cost.

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 3,280

First off, the FiAF is already operating a 64 strong fleet of F/A-18C, which is by no any means an inexpensive aircraft to operate. The next aircraft should cost about the same amount or slightly more to operate, according to them. All of the candidates should be able to meet this criteria in O&S costs.

Secondly, it's been already said by the FiAF that all of the aircraft are about the same in acquisition costs. Don't believe every figure you read in the Internet.

Nope, Typhoon and Rafale are significantly more expensive than F-35, SH and Gripen. Also please do not focus only on acqiusition costs, operating costs and costs for upgrades are also very important (i.e. life cycle costs).

Check official figures from e.g. the Danish competition, it clearly shows that Typhoons is more expensive. Rafale is probably in a similar ballpark.

Both are great a/c, in particular the Rafale is very impressive. However it is also more expensive than F-35/SH.

Look at the Swiss competition. Rafale won clearly the technical eval, and the Swiss air force clearly preferred it, but it was just way too expensive. Had the cost difference been minimal clearly Rafale would have won in Switzerland.

Official Danish numbers:

Typhoon life cycle costs per a/c: 2.1 billion
F-35 life cycle costs per a/c: 1.51 billion
SH life cycle costs per a/c: 1.59 billion

The life cycle costs of SH and F-35 are quite similar (5% difference) however Typhoon is 40% above the costs of F-35. I would say that is significant, in particular if you take into account that the F-35 is much more capable than the Typhoon. You need some pretty good reasons to buy a less capable platform at a 40% higher cost!

I am not sure about the Rafale, perhaps a bit cheaper than the Typhoon, OTOH Finland would probably go for the F4.2 version with significant upgrades which may push the price up a bit?

In any case my understanding is that they will use the first 4 criteria to "shortlist", and then pick the most capable a/c. This is different from many other competitions that will typically shortlist and then pick the cheapest of those shortlisted (since all shortlisted will meet minimum criteria).
The F-35 is clearly the most capable, and also quite cost-efficient.

Only if Saab manage to convince them that Gripen E life cycle costs will be significantly lower (e.g. 30-40%) than the F-35, will Gripen E have a chance since a larger number could be purchased. However I believe this to be unlikely.

Since the SH is not cheaper than the F-35 and less capable there really are no reasons to select that one either. Thus the only fighter remaining is the F-35.

Another thing that could potentially turn things around could be politics -- if, hypothetically, Trump keeps pulling the US further away from Europe, and EU at the same time decides to pull their act together and become independent, one may imagine a deal whereby Finland is leasing 64 Gripen E for, say, 10-15 years and then buys the 5. gen European a/c that should be available from 2035 or so*... however the chances of this happening is very low (but then again most people would have said 3 years ago that the chances of UK leaving EU and Trump becoming president were also very low!)

(*Belgium could do the same, BTW...!)

Member for

6 years 4 months

Posts: 14

I'm aware of those figures, but it's really a moot point to argue about it. FiAF and MoD have explicitly stated that all of the candidates are able to fit within the budget (both acquisition and O&S) and were able to complete the scenarios given in the RFI.

I don't mean to say that Gripen doesn't have any chance, of course it does and it has its merits. I just don't see it as a likely winning candidate, the outline of the competition and the performance criteria favor the other candidates more.

I agree that if the F-35 passes the qualifying criteria it's almost certainly the winner of the performance evaluation. I do see some question marks with it in regard to this competition and FiAF though.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 2,619

I'm aware of those figures, but it's really a moot point to argue about it. FiAF and MoD have explicitly stated that all of the candidates are able to fit within the budget (both acquisition and O&S) and were able to complete the scenarios given in the RFI.

I don't mean to say that Gripen doesn't have any chance, of course it does and it has its merits. I just don't see it as a likely winning candidate, the outline of the competition and the performance criteria favor the other candidates more.

I agree that if the F-35 passes the qualifying criteria it's almost certainly the winner of the performance evaluation. I do see some question marks with it in regard to this competition and FiAF though.

-----

Gripen can almost reach the Soviet plane speeds. F-35 hardly even half of that. How could it ( F-35 ) be an interceptor ( as it needs F-22 cover ) ?

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

Danish numbers were heavily criticized. F-35 life cycle cost is impossible to compute (see Uk lawmekers inquiries), and the way danish estimated other lifecycles was -at best- disputable as they did not use the same sources, numbers etc. For each plane.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

Gripen can almost reach the Soviet plane speeds. F-35 hardly even half of that. How could it ( F-35 ) be an interceptor ( as it needs F-22 cover ) ?

Appropriate post from someone with the tag "topspeed".

What exactly is soviet plane speed? [ATTACH=CONFIG]260502[/ATTACH]

There isn't a significant difference in the maximum speeds of any of the aircraft mentioned when armed, maybe 80 knots at 30,000 feet. The F-18E/F being the slowest in reality.

Not that it matters, how often do you think Finland will be involved in intercepts or air combat at speeds much above mach 1?

Attachments

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

There is a very significant difference between a plane able to supercruise - or not-. Remember supercruise was part of the definition of 5th gen acording to LM?

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

There is a very significant difference between a plane able to supercruise - or not-. Remember supercruise was part of the definition of 5th gen acording to LM?

Sorry Hallow, not biting. Show me the times/distances that any of the supercruisers can maintain speeds above mach 1 (along with at what loads/weights they don't need afterburners to cross transonic). Super cruise is a nice marketing pitch, until we see adaptive cycle engines and internal fuel fractions approaching .4 that about all it is.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

Mach 1.6+ while carrying 4 AMRAAMs & fuel for 760nmi (ie more fuel for AB use) not fast enough for you?

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

Less than some others. And i do not care really about 20 or 30 secs to cross transsonic. Supercruise is not a marketing pitch. It was part of fighters requirements in Europe (specially F-22) in order to cross western Europe quickly. There is no + to the mach 1.6, and afaik (i may be wrong) there is no clue that it is while carrying 4 AMRAAMS and fuel for 760 nmi. FBW you know perfe tly those data are not public. Adaptative cycle engines arent a new thing btw.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Nope, Typhoon and Rafale are significantly more expensive than F-35, SH and Gripen. Also please do not focus only on acqiusition costs, operating costs and costs for upgrades are also very important (i.e. life cycle costs).

Check official figures from e.g. the Danish competition, it clearly shows that Typhoons is more expensive. Rafale is probably in a similar ballpark.

Both are great a/c, in particular the Rafale is very impressive. However it is also more expensive than F-35/SH.

Look at the Swiss competition. Rafale won clearly the technical eval, and the Swiss air force clearly preferred it, but it was just way too expensive. Had the cost difference been minimal clearly Rafale would have won in Switzerland.

Official Danish numbers:

Typhoon life cycle costs per a/c: 2.1 billion
F-35 life cycle costs per a/c: 1.51 billion
SH life cycle costs per a/c: 1.59 billion

The life cycle costs of SH and F-35 are quite similar (5% difference) however Typhoon is 40% above the costs of F-35. I would say that is significant, in particular if you take into account that the F-35 is much more capable than the Typhoon. You need some pretty good reasons to buy a less capable platform at a 40% higher cost!

I am not sure about the Rafale, perhaps a bit cheaper than the Typhoon, OTOH Finland would probably go for the F4.2 version with significant upgrades which may push the price up a bit?

In any case my understanding is that they will use the first 4 criteria to "shortlist", and then pick the most capable a/c. This is different from many other competitions that will typically shortlist and then pick the cheapest of those shortlisted (since all shortlisted will meet minimum criteria).
The F-35 is clearly the most capable, and also quite cost-efficient.

Only if Saab manage to convince them that Gripen E life cycle costs will be significantly lower (e.g. 30-40%) than the F-35, will Gripen E have a chance since a larger number could be purchased. However I believe this to be unlikely.

Since the SH is not cheaper than the F-35 and less capable there really are no reasons to select that one either. Thus the only fighter remaining is the F-35.

Another thing that could potentially turn things around could be politics -- if, hypothetically, Trump keeps pulling the US further away from Europe, and EU at the same time decides to pull their act together and become independent, one may imagine a deal whereby Finland is leasing 64 Gripen E for, say, 10-15 years and then buys the 5. gen European a/c that should be available from 2035 or so*... however the chances of this happening is very low (but then again most people would have said 3 years ago that the chances of UK leaving EU and Trump becoming president were also very low!)

(*Belgium could do the same, BTW...!)

Dont use the Danish evaluation if you want to prove a particular point related to costs, at least without reading the documents proper and getting a good idea of how they've come to those numbers. Half of this board could do a better job.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

there is no clue that it is while carrying 4 AMRAAMS and fuel for 760 nmi

That is the A2A config shown to Israel which is the slide where the 760nmi came from.

IIRC the F-35 hit mach 1.61 in testing. Besides, mach 1.6 is for full A2G load-out so it is 3300lbs heavier than in A2A mode.

That being said, even the vaunted F-15C with a top speed of mach 2.5 has never gone faster than 1.4 in combat.