Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 184

Thread: Finnish fighter replacement revisited

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,273

    Finnish fighter replacement revisited

    It seems the Finnish fighter replacement thread is one of those that mysteriously disappeared...


    As luck would have it, it would be a Royal Air Force Typhoon that ultimately took down Tsar and I in Vodka 3. Within minutes of starting the fight, Vodka 1 and Vodka 2 were taken down before we even knew our flight was under attack. As Tsar started to maneuver our aircraft, trying to evade an enemy we couldn’t see, a Typhoon coordinating with an F-22 quickly and unceremoniously dispatched us.
    http://www.scout.com/military/warrio...-f-22-and-f-35

    No doubt F-35 is the "front-runner" -- however considering the above, if you replace the 5. gen fighter in that scenario with a modern AEW&C like GlobalEye, Gripen may still stand a chance.

    As mentioned previously, if Sweden wants to win this they should:

    1. Offer joint purchase and operation of 4-5 Globaleye
    2. Offer to share airbases, but in addition also pool spares and perhaps even ammo
    3. Offer a "growler" variant
    4. Offer to share tanker capabilities.
    5. Longer-term, co-develop stealh UCAV together with other partners.

    The importance of basing should not be underestimated. With F-35 the costs may be so high for Finland that they probably cannot afford more than one airbase. Even if well protected a massive surprise attack should be able to knock it out. Finland can only activate their road bases if they suspect an attack is imminent, however this may not be the case (there is a reason why it's called "surprise attack".)

    Costs of operating 42 F-35 in Japan are estimated to: 40 billion Yen per year (357 million USD)

    http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201704280005.html

    Australia is purchasing missiles for their Growlers to perform SEAD: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...lian-g-436761/

    In addition the USN keep purchasing Growlers. Thus it seems quite clear they believe that non-5th gen fighters can still play a role in the demanding SEAD/DEAD mission.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,214
    So they are here to choose for a fighter and you want them to buy a plethoric armada?

    Hint: who recently named the F35 an F/A/B/RC/EW/AWAC 35?
    Would Seems perfectly suited here, no?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,273
    “The recent US Tomahawk strike into Syria demonstrates that fixed airfields could be destroyed or made unusable for a short period of time."
    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...-in-every-f-35

    This is supporting what I've said previously; it may be dangerous for Finland to purchase a few F-35 and put them in one airbase -- especially considering the capabilities of the neighbour. An F-35 that cannot get airborne is useless.

    F-35B is in any case not an option for Finland -- way too expensive.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,690
    @Tomcat

    Is there nothing else to be considered when replacing fighters other than the only possible choice, whatever the factors involved, is F-35?

    @Loke

    Regarding basing all F-35's in one place, would that be due to the likely cost of buying and operating F-35? What if an alternative were chosen where more aircraft at 2 bases was affordale, wouldn't an aggressor just zap 2 airbases rather than 1?
    Sum ergo cogito

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,273
    Regarding basing all F-35's in one place, would that be due to the likely cost of buying and operating F-35? What if an alternative were chosen where more aircraft at 2 bases was affordale, wouldn't an aggressor just zap 2 airbases rather than 1?
    Yes, buying and operating "a large number" (i.e., 50 or so) F-35 is very expensive, and Norway which has a much stronger economy than Finland will operate their F-35 from one base in central Norway (although there will be a forward base with around 4 F-35 for QRA, in Northern Norway). I may be wrong but I doubt Finland can afford to operate more than one airbase.

    It seems to me it will be a much more challenging operation to take out two airbases in two simultanous surprise attacks, than to take out just one. The keyword remains "surprise"...

    What they could also do was to make an agreement with Sweden that in case the Finnish airbases are knocked out Finland could on very short notice get access to a certain number of Swedish Gripen E, and vice versa; after a surprise attack on Swedish airbases Sweden could get access to Finnish Gripen E. However such an agreement is of course not there.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,273
    It anticipates beginning the formal selection process in early 2018, when it will send a request for quotation (RFQ) to five manufacturers. These are Boeing, BAE Systems (representing Eurofighter), Dassault, Lockheed Martin and Saab, for their respective F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 and Gripen E.

    Lauri Puranen, HX project manager at the Finnish defence ministry, says it will not be overly prescriptive in its specifications, allowing bidders to propose a range of solutions – both manned and unmanned – to meet a number of key scenarios.
    However, Helsinki’s baseline requirement is for 64 multi-role fighters, says Puranen.

    “It is still possible in the RFQ that someone would provide a solution which could include a fighter and a [signals intelligence] SIGINT aircraft together. It is still open,” he says.
    Full story:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...nt-eff-437357/

    They still refer to this as an RFQ however reading the description above it seems pretty clear most would refer to this as an RFP... oh well.

    Very interesting that they still keep things so open, also interesting that they mention specificially SIGINT as a potential supplement.

    Who can offer a good SIGINT capability of the four that cannot offer a 5. gen fighter?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    234
    They can ask russkies for the Su-35 or T-50 when available ��

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,273
    Earlier this month, the US Navy signed an agreement to upgrade the service’s Super Hornet fleet to the Block 3 configuration. The potential configuration could include conformal fuel tanks, infrared search and track (IRST21), a centreline pod with an infrared telescope, and advanced cockpit, Boeing says.

    The proposed configuration could be introduced in the early 2020s and built on the same line as the legacy Super Hornet – much like E, F and G models, FlightGlobal has previously reported.

    “The timing of where we believe the development would match where the Finnish Hornets would be in the production line put it clearly in the Block 3,” Boeing Defense, Space & Security vice-president of global sales Gene Cunningham said at the show this week.
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-block-438591/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,273
    It seems they still stick to the same number of fighters (64):

    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/m...inland/9946949

    How will they afford it?

    Most likely when the politicians realize the costs they will force the AF to drop the numbers

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,259
    10 billion euros - 11.9 billion dollars / 64 aircraft = 186 453 125 dollars per one
    F-35 costs the foreign buyer exactly twice as expensive ...
    Last edited by paralay; 26th November 2017 at 18:06.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,523
    Finland should get Su35s.

    If I was Finland's drunkmeister or whatever they call their commie chief, I would get 24 upgraded Gripen Cs on lease & 24 Su35s.

    Nic
    Last edited by Nicolas10; 26th November 2017 at 19:23.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Philly PA, USA
    Posts
    982
    The Gripen makes sense for commonality and cost, but I don't get the Su-35. Finland does a decent amount of work with NATO (Response Force, and PfP), though not an actual member. How compatible could the Su-35 be made to those requirements? At what cost? Would the Russians sell it to the Finns given the amount of Western hands that will wind up all over it? I'm not suggesting the Finns would just hand one over to the U.S. or NATO, but it would be an interesting participant at a future Red Flag event. Nor am I suggesting the Su-35 contains some super-secret, high-tech kit that American industry and intel services would drool over, but it probably does have a few tricks up its sleeves.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    7
    There is literally one threat why we need the fighters in the first place, makes no sense to buy our hardware from the said threat.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,873
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    10 billion euros - 11.9 billion dollars / 64 aircraft = 186 453 125 dollars per one
    F-35 costs the foreign buyer exactly twice as expensive ...
    I see your costing skills are as poor as your estimations of weight, range, and combat capability.

    186 million per F-35..... how many government documents on cost do you want to prove you wrong, SAR or GAO? Your off by 80+ million on the most conservative estimates.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,800
    that mythical $80m price thats every export customer is taking two per year.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,860
    The $80 mil number is the URF/REC Flyaway price. Every customer knows this and is aware that you still have to buy all the rest of the goodies like spares, weapons, initial support & training, simulators, etc.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,690
    There is literally one threat why we need the fighters in the first place, makes no sense to buy our hardware from the said threat.
    +1

    Would India buy fighters made in Pakistan or vice versa? Would USA buy fighters made in Russia or vice versa?
    Sum ergo cogito

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Philly PA, USA
    Posts
    982
    The U.S. was always averse to buying military equipment from foreign suppliers. It has in the past, but only when no suitable domestic alternative existed. There's also the political aspect to consider.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,800
    +1

    Would India buy fighters made in Pakistan or vice versa? Would USA buy fighters made in Russia or vice versa?
    Its wrong comparision. Russia can cripple Finland in so many ways that they dont even realize and that without airstrikes. A few months back China put some sanctions on SKorea for THAAD deployment. Russia didnot join it. The sanctions would have been very differently designed if Russia wanted to join. started with air space closing to airlines. I dont think the Eastern EU and Scandinavian countries know there worth.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,860
    Finland's Ministry of Defence plans to send out invitations to tender for the purchase of 64 new fighter jets. The new jets will replace the current stock of 64 F/A-18 Hornet jets, which have served the Finnish military since 1992.

    The defence report, which was approved by the Parliament in February, says that the readiness of the current fleet must be fully maintained after the procurement.

    "We have interpreted that to mean 64 fighter jets. Because the new jets are not faster and can't stay up in the air any longer than the current ones, we will require the same number of jets to maintain the performance of our air defence", says Lauri Puranen from the Ministry.

    ...

    The ministry said it will send out invitations to tender in early 2018 to Boeing {F-18E/F} and Lockheed Martin {F-35A} from the US, Saab {Gripen E/F} from Sweden, Dessault Aviation {Rafale} in France and the British-European BAE Systems {Eurofighter}.

    https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/m...inland/9946949

    Um... Every jet that is on the RFP list has greater range & speed, especially armed, than a Classic Hornet. Where do they come up with these quotes?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    76
    @Spud

    I believe it might just be the media putting it out of context. I believe the range/speed might be in relation to the FAF requirements, and the number to the operational needs of the FAF [certain spread of a certain number of fighters, operational availability and turn-around times]

    The required number of fighters is arguably a disadvantage for the F-35. It's a bit ironic that the FAF might be a potentially larger user of the Gripen than the SwAF [If Sweden does not decide to commit to more than the 60 ordered].

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,860
    Given that the F-35 is cheaper than the Rafale & Eurofighter, close to the Gripen & Super Hornet, and requires less operational support than any of them, I don't see how the F-35 is at any disadvantage.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,646
    Given that the F-35 is cheaper than the Rafale & Eurofighter, close to the Gripen & Super Hornet, and requires less operational support than any of them, I don't see how the F-35 is at any disadvantage.

    That is called religious faith

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,860
    That is called religious faith
    aka Haters gotta Hate
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,646
    aka Haters gotta Hate
    No hate on my part

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,860
    @Sintra: Sorry that I was not clear enough, I was not referring to you.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,646
    @Sintra: Sorry that I was not clear enough, I was not referring to you.
    No problemo

    ps - I actually think Dave is almost certainly the Front Runner in Finland...

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,601
    That is called religious faith
    No it is called zealots fanatism... Or Dansih biased calculations...
    Last edited by halloweene; 28th November 2017 at 22:21.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,523
    Well I don't disagree that Dave is the frontrunner in Finland, but I'm quite unsure what it really tells us about that country though.

    Name:  Dave.jpg
Views: 619
Size:  161.1 KB

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,601
    Dave IS probably the front runner. Still, lifetie costs may not be its strongest point and budget is limited to about 100 million/aircraft.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES