LokeActually it probably does not matter whether the Typhoon is 40% more expensive, 20% more expensive or “only” 10% more expensive than the F-35 — it is no doubt more expensive, and I don’t see why Finland would even consider it.
We have a strong opinion that we want to buy the best available defense material, wherever we want, because since 1992, when Finland decided to buy F-18 fighter planes, we have been practically married with United States defense technology, and we buy a lot of stuff, from Israel also. So for a country like Finland, which is militarily nonaligned and has territorial defense, [it] has to take care of defense on her own if needed. Of course we hope partners [will come to our aid], but alone if needed. It’s very important that PESCO is not excluding [non-EU industries].
We have money for €7-10 billion (U.S. $8-12 billion), and we are going to buy 64 fighter planes.
This clarifies that:
1. Finland is still more than happy to buy US equipment
2. They want to go for the best capabilities that can fit their budget
3. They definitely aim for 64 a/c.
It is almost guaranteed that they will go for the F-35, there is a huge capability gap between the F-35 and the others. In addition the F-35 will be cheaper than the Rafale and Typhoon and no more expensive than the SH/Growler solution.
Had Rafale/Typhoon cost the same as the F-35 (they do not) there will still be a capability gap, in particular between Typhoon and F-35. The capability gap between Rafale F4.2 and the F-35 will be much smaller, but nevertheless there will still be a gap, add to that the higher cost of the Rafale, and the lack of US integrated weapons, and it becomes a no-brainer for a US-oriented Finland.
What will happen if the budget can support 64 Gripen only? I guess they will then reduce the numbers slightly and still go for F-35. They will probably prefer 54 F-35 to 64 Gripen E.
And just to remind you all: They will not just look at the acquisition costs, but also life cycle costs.
LokeFirst 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…!)
LokeRafale 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.
LokeOn the RBS15 NG:
However, the Swedish Air Force had other thoughts, and had a requirement for the weapon to be lighter to allow four missiles to be carried simultaneously by the upcoming 39E Gripen. The result was the RBS15 ‘Next Generation’ (still lacking an official designation, though Mk4 wouldn’t come as a surprise), which is an upgraded Mk3 with a lighter launch weight, longer range, and generally improved performance.
https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/04/28/rbs15-on-the-road-to-the-next-generation/
So it seems the Swedish Air Force is indeed planning to carry up to four RBS15 NG anti-ship/land attack on one Gripen E.
LokePress conference on the Finnish competition:
https://areena.yle.fi/1-50001494
Summary in English (from f-16.net):
* 64 planes needed
* 7 – 10 Billion € (8.5 – 12 Billion $)
* The most important criteria in the competition is performance
* Performance advantage against potential regional threats required for the next 30 years (current performance + development potential)
* Development potential is important (EW, Sensors, Weapons), future development path by manufacturer + main user evaluated
* Performance through out the whole life cycle evaluated based on development potential
* Finnish Air Force not willing to solely pay integration costs for future sensors, weapons etc.
* Five evaluation areas
* 4 of the 5 evaluation areas will have minimum threshold criteria that need to be met in order to get evaluated in the fifth (performance)
* In the Fifth evaluation area (military performance) candidates will be graded and the best performing candidate will be selected
In other words: the winner is the F-35! Finland will get one of the most potent air forces in Europe…
Loke“Due to the strong interest in Gripen E/F, Saab has now accelerated the pace of investment to develop the system for future exports,” the company disclosed in a quarterly results announcement on 26 April.
Chief executive Håkan Buskhe describes the measure as relating to “industrialisation, and also some key development on features for the export market”. While he declines to identify specific updates, he notes: “There are things that will enhance the product that we have seen during the development time for the Gripen E.”
Buskhe says Saab received fresh interest in the new-generation fighter from several undisclosed nations during the first three months of this year. The company cites a long list of prospective customers for the type, including Austria, Bulgaria, India and Slovakia.
I thought Slovakia had made their decision already?
I wonder what he is referring to when he talks about “key development on features for the export market”
LokeSo, yes, the 35 is in a class of it’s own.
Nope, this is also not entirely correct (at least not for several missions including a2a missions).
There is also the F-22…..
LokeI would not say the F-35 is better than the F-16 — I would say it is much, much better than the F-16, both for ground and also for air superiority.
This is mainly due to a combination of: stealth, huge improvements in sensors, sensor fusion, and HMI.
IMHO the gap between, say, the F-35 and Typhoon is bigger than the gap between Typhoon and F-16 also for the air roles.
LokeFor the collective NATO capability, the only thing better than Germany buying the F-35 is Germany investing back into the Typhoon allowing othre NATO users to also get the benefits of higher capability for the next few decades.
Given the large number of F-35 that NATO will operate by 2025, I am not sure if a small number of additional German F-35 will make a huge difference to the overall NATO capabilities to be honest…
However I agree that if Germany goes for Typhoon for this role then it will most likely give a significant boost to the Typhoon, and hopefully other NATO countries operating Typhoon will be able to benefit, as you suggest.
LokeKongsberg Defence Systems has confirmed receipt of a EUR125 million (USD155 million) contract to supply Naval Strike Missile (NSM) rounds to the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN).
Announced on 18 April at the Defence Services Asia (DSA) 2018 show in Kuala Lumpur, the sale comes three years after Kongsberg received a letter of award from Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd in Lumut, Perak, to provide NSM shipboard equipment for the RMN’s six-ship Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme. The LCS is based on Naval Group’s Gowind 2500 corvette design and the same company’s SETIS combat management system (CMS).
Read more: http://www.janes.com/article/79388/dsa-2018-malaysia-confirms-nsm-choice-with-missile-order
Malaysia is the 4th country ordering NSM (the others are Norway, Poland, and Germany)
LokeRafale’s main issue remains the high cost.
F-35 main issue could be the perception that it is an offensive platform. However another issue of the F-35 could be high operational costs.
SH may have a better balance between capabilities and costs. My guess is, it may meet the requirements, and will be cheaper.
If Gripen E meet the requirements, it will however remain the most attractive choice due to lower costs.
LokeGuys, this is a thread about F-16 in Belgium.
I thought this was a thread about the plane replacing the F-16 in Belgium!?
Let’s not let this thread being hijacked.
Sneaky, sneaky… 😉
LokeNot the first F-15 the Houthis have tagged.
A number of other Saudi coalition jets have gone down in the region, just usually without the spectacular footage.
There was this one: https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/09/yemens-shiite-houthis-claim-saudi-f-15-kill-with-sam-over-capital-city-of-sanaa/
Seems flares were released but were inefficient(?).
There was also some that were claimed to be technical issues not downed by missiles AFAIK.
Is there a list of a/c that have been downed in this conflict?
LokeSaab’s GlobalEye swing-role surveillance aircraft completed a 1h 46min debut flight from Linköping in Sweden on 14 March, less than three weeks after its formal unveiling.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-saabs-globaleye-makes-flight-debut-446775/
LokeEfforts to integrate the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) with the Navy’s other internal logistics systems is thwarted by developer Lockheed Martin’s insistence that the software code is proprietary, said Vice Admiral Paul Grosklags in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Programs on 6 March.
Read more: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-vexed-by-lack-of-access-to-f-35-logistics-446566/
Sign In
