In addition...

According to Rolls-Royce director Business Development and Future Programmes Alex Zino, “Eurojet will subcontract Finnish industry to produce the EJ200 engine in Finland, resulting in the majority of the production being conducted in-country. This will be the largest in-country service and supply package provided by Eurojet to date. Finland will also be the only country to have an engine production line outside of the core nations.”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... land_16630

Looks like the final bids are in:

https://apnews.com/article/sweden-franc ... 8feaa3a8c4

SAAB had a press conference yesterday with it's final offer to Finland. The proposal comprises 64 Gripen E fighter aircraft and an extensive weapons package, as well as two GlobalEye Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft.

Interesting quote from press relase:
"The proposal also comprises the necessary equipment and associated services needed for operating the system through an extensive industrial co-operation programme, with the aim to build national capabilities in Finland for Security of Supply. This includes transfer to local industry of maintenance, repair and overhaul capabilities, parts production, as well as final assembly of engines and aircraft. Saab will also establish a Gripen & GlobalEye System Centre in Finland, to ensure independent operations and continuous capability growth of the systems until 2060."

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-rel ... or-finland

kanye wrote:

Interesting quote from press relase:
"The proposal also comprises the necessary equipment and associated services needed for operating the system through an extensive industrial co-operation programme, with the aim to build national capabilities in Finland for Security of Supply. This includes transfer to local industry of maintenance, repair and overhaul capabilities, parts production, as well as final assembly of engines and aircraft. Saab will also establish a Gripen & GlobalEye System Centre in Finland, to ensure independent operations and continuous capability growth of the systems until 2060."

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-rel ... or-finland

That is a very good industrial offset package but will Finland be interested in the lightweight aircraft option?

art wrote:

kanye wrote:

Interesting quote from press relase:
"The proposal also comprises the necessary equipment and associated services needed for operating the system through an extensive industrial co-operation programme, with the aim to build national capabilities in Finland for Security of Supply. This includes transfer to local industry of maintenance, repair and overhaul capabilities, parts production, as well as final assembly of engines and aircraft. Saab will also establish a Gripen & GlobalEye System Centre in Finland, to ensure independent operations and continuous capability growth of the systems until 2060."

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-rel ... or-finland

That is a very good industrial offset package but will Finland be interested in the lightweight aircraft option?

Maybe. After all Gripen is developed and designed for Sweden which face very similiar threats and in the same environment.
I think all contenders seems to have very strong offers for Finland.
SAAB with industrial offset, cooperation with Sweden and Globaleye. Boeing with the Growler. Eurofighter with industrial offset and domestic engine production for example.

The best and final offer from Lockheed is (maybe even) 64 F35:s and from Boeing 50 Super Hornets and 14 Growlers. I think others do not stand a chance against the American planes in this contest. Especially the F35 offer seems very good because it was speculated beforehand that 10 billion would give Finland only about 50 planes.

edit: it seems the number of F35's would be known only if Finland chooses it.

Finland better studies this US congressional report about the real costs of operating the F-35A (three times the F16 and higher than even the F22), than looking at the sales brochure.
And I would included more spare engines for the F35 (two for 64 aircraft is a joke)
See : https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... primer.pdf

A comprehensive analysis of Finland's needs and how the candidates could satisfy them here:

https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/05/02/stop-bafo-time/

art wrote:

A comprehensive analysis of Finland's needs and how the candidates could satisfy them here:

https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/05/02/stop-bafo-time/

A very interesting read. All in all I can only say that Finland has a good spread of options. Perhaps the best of any nation for quite some time as noted by the article author. They have the option to pick according to their planned defence strategy with plenty of options at hand.

I can't say much else really. Considering defence acquisitions balancing act of budgetary constraints, tactics, geography and geopolitical situations it's not exactly simple.

As a Swedish partisan I hope for the Gripen though!

According to Finnish media, Boeing has made a surprise offer to Finland to acquire ATS (Airpower Teaming System) drones as part of the F 18 Super Hornet/Growler deal. Alain Garcia of Boeing said Finland is the first country to be offered the new drone. Garcia made the announcement during the air show in Helsinki yesterday (August 6).
Sorry, only in Finnish:
https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/yllatyskaanne-havittajahankkeessa-boeing-tarjoaa-suomelle-myos-miehittamattomia-ilma-aluksia/5ab52e5d-f3a6-42b4-bc42-eac3399d4f6b?ref=box:0c25&utm_source=uusisuomi.fi&utm_medium=almainternal&utm_campaign=kiintea_kooste_luetuimmat_ohjausboksi&_ga=2.215863902.873538654.1628176006-1987341394.1624200889
Thoughts?

saleya22r wrote:

According to Finnish media, Boeing has made a surprise offer to Finland to acquire ATS (Airpower Teaming System) drones as part of the F 18 Super Hornet/Growler deal. Alain Garcia of Boeing said Finland is the first country to be offered the new drone. Garcia made the announcement during the air show in Helsinki yesterday (August 6).
Sorry, only in Finnish:
https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/yllatyskaanne-havittajahankkeessa-boeing-tarjoaa-suomelle-myos-miehittamattomia-ilma-aluksia/5ab52e5d-f3a6-42b4-bc42-eac3399d4f6b?ref=box:0c25&utm_source=uusisuomi.fi&utm_medium=almainternal&utm_campaign=kiintea_kooste_luetuimmat_ohjausboksi&_ga=2.215863902.873538654.1628176006-1987341394.1624200889
Thoughts?

So the super dooper and the growler and now ATS, I doubt it will make a difference and I expect the offer is quite hollow...

Well at least we know one company that has a deal already. It's Martin-Baker. All the canditates uses tehirs seats.

Finland's fighter competition is different. (I'm just learning about this, so please feel free to correct any errors.)

Rather than specifying a number of fighters, they are specifying $12B budget. Each contender is expected to offer whatever number of fighters they can fit within the budget, and are required to include weapons and missiles. So Saab, for example, is offering 64 Gripen, 2 Global Eye AWACS, and a bunch of missiles including the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile. Boeing is offering the 50 F-18E/F fighter, 18 EA-18 Growlers, and the JASSM-ER cruise missile.

On advantage of doing this is you get an integrated package at a known budget. A disadvantage is that you cannot pick and choose this plane but that missile. Also, you don't get to specify the number of aircraft being purchased.

The F-16 was disqualified as not meeting technical requirements. I don't know that the F-15 ever put in a bid. The Mig-29 was disqualified because.

Question:
Do other militaries do this? I've not heard of western nation packaging missiles with airplanes, and not specifying the quantity but the budget.


All of this is covered by the amazing blogger Corporal Frisk
Overview - https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/05/02/stop-bafo-time/
F-18 -- https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/08/09/bo ... -the-show/
F-35 -- https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/06/25/lifting-the-fog/
Eurofighter - https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/08/12/hi ... dependent/
Rafale - https://corporalfrisk.com/tag/dassault-rafale/
Gripen - https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/07/22/sc ... s-griffin/

Strangely, in July Bettson (a casino) put odds on the winner if you want to place a bet.
F-35 35 %
F/A-18E/F 25 %
JAS 39E/F 20 %
Eurofighter 12 %
Rafale 8%

According to the Finnish media, the Finnish Defence Forces have now selected F-35A as their F-18 replacement. While the final decision will be made by the Finnish Parliament by the end of this month, it's pretty obvious that they'll do as the Finnish Defence Forces have requested. It's currently unclear how many planes are included in this €10 billion deal, but based on the other offers it seems like it's going to be 64.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/8dfecfdf-e834-4f67-931d-ad255e54d3f4 (article only in Finnish)

Wow.

This seems like a (1) a desire for a plane that will be supported for a very long time and (2) a belief in the need for BVR success against (1) higher operating costs.
The F-35 really does rule them all.

kitplane01 wrote:

Wow.

This seems like a (1) a desire for a plane that will be supported for a very long time and (2) a belief in the need for BVR success against (1) higher operating costs.
The F-35 really does rule them all.

Not wow. After the Swiss win not sure why this should be a surprise. Comparably similar or cheaper to acquire than other entrants, more capable than all other entrants and also fit within the ops and maintenance cost cap the Finns had stated, 250 mill EUR per year, so not a higher operating cost.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Wow.

This seems like a (1) a desire for a plane that will be supported for a very long time and (2) a belief in the need for BVR success against (1) higher operating costs.
The F-35 really does rule them all.

Not wow. After the Swiss win not sure why this should be a surprise. Comparably similar or cheaper to acquire than other entrants, more capable than all other entrants and also fit within the ops and maintenance cost cap the Finns had stated, 250 mill EUR per year, so not a higher operating cost.

I don't think it's a surprise (it was the betting favorite after all) but wow, it's a big deal.

My best guess, the Gripen would have been the best choice for the near term, and the F-35 after that. Right now Russia does not have operational stealth aircraft and the F-35 operating costs are high. In many years both those might change.

I'm sick of hearing that the F-35 has high operating costs. It does not. How many competitions does it need to win for this to stop?

The F-35 will win every competition it enters. Capability per dollar is vastly higher than every competitor.

My personal favorite was Rafaele, but it was based more on the "better buy European" for security of supply reasons than any other. But as I trust the Finnish selection process, I'm confident that best solution won. And in that kind of selection process many myths are debunked, and true performance is revealed.
Some angry comment's are expected from France and Sweden mainly, but same Happened when Finland choose Hornet over Mirage 2000 and first generation Gripen and Finland survived that last time too...

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm sick of hearing that the F-35 has high operating costs. It does not. How many competitions does it need to win for this to stop?

People .. we need to not let RJMAZ read that the F-35 has high operating costs. Someone call both the DOD and LM, because they've have been saying it. Make them stop!

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-35 will win every competition it enters. Capability per dollar is vastly higher than every competitor.

This part might actually be true. The F-35 does win a lot of competitions, and does offer very good capability for the acquisition dollar.

The F-35 is expensive to operate

And even the relatively low $80 million-per-F-35 price tag is deceptive, because the F-35 has proven so expensive and challenging to maintain that every hour an F-35 is flown costs $36,000 on average, compared to $22,000 for an F-16. By an alternate metric, the F-35 is over three times more expensive per hour to fly.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/a ... cna1259781

F-35A Jet Price To Rise, But It’s Sustainment Costs That Could Bleed Air Force Budget Dry

The service, which operates the least expensive F-35A variant, has by far the biggest operating sustainment overruns. The GAO forecasts F-35As would cost $7.8 million per plane per year of operations—$3.7 million more than the Air Force’s ‘affordable’ budgetary target. That means the service must reduce operating costs by 47% to attain affordability. The GAO report claims that even if spare parts were furnished for free, the F-35A would overrun budget targets.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... udget-dry/

Mortyman wrote:

F-35 has proven so expensive and challenging to maintain that every hour an F-35 is flown costs $36,000 on average, compared to $22,000 for an F-16. By an alternate metric, the F-35 is over three times more expensive per hour to fly.

$36k is only 64% higher than $22k. That is not three times the cost.

The F-16 is well known for having low operating costs compared to F-15, Rafale and Eurofighter. The F-35 having an operating cost only 64% higher than the F-16 does not put it into the expensive category. If that was the case all the twin engine fighters should get the same "expensive" label.

I wonder what their "alternate metric" is.. Probably something silly like climate controlled bunkers and trying to add that to the F-35 hourly cost

By my "alternative metric" the F-35 is cheaper than the F-16. If one F-35 can kill more enemy fighters than two F-16 the hourly costs are $44,000 per hour Vs $36,000. The F-35 is cheaper.

Swedish prime minister will be in Finland on Wednesday

https://foreignbrief.com/daily-news/swe ... t-finland/

Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson will meet with her Finnish counterpart today.

Her discussion with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is expected to touch on bilateral relations and EU issues. They will likely discuss joint efforts in defense and economics. Finland has experienced economic disruptions related to COVID-19 supply chain bottlenecks and government spending.

Finland has also shown an increased interest in defense recently. There was concern over Belarus sending asylum seekers into the region which ultimately did not affect either country but brought up concerns of Russian aggression. Amidst this tension, Finland and Sweden carried out joint naval exercises in October meant to emphasise their defense relationship.

Expect Sweden and Finland to work towards greater military interoperability, following these talks if Russian or anti-EU threats increase. Finland may even sign onto an existing defence cooperation agreement between Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

janders wrote:

Swedish prime minister will be in Finland on Wednesday

https://foreignbrief.com/daily-news/swe ... t-finland/

Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson will meet with her Finnish counterpart today.

Her discussion with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is expected to touch on bilateral relations and EU issues. They will likely discuss joint efforts in defense and economics. Finland has experienced economic disruptions related to COVID-19 supply chain bottlenecks and government spending.

Finland has also shown an increased interest in defense recently. There was concern over Belarus sending asylum seekers into the region which ultimately did not affect either country but brought up concerns of Russian aggression. Amidst this tension, Finland and Sweden carried out joint naval exercises in October meant to emphasise their defense relationship.

Expect Sweden and Finland to work towards greater military interoperability, following these talks if Russian or anti-EU threats increase. Finland may even sign onto an existing defence cooperation agreement between Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

This visit is tradition when a new PM is elected in Sweden, and has nothing to do itself with Finland's F-18 replacement. At best she seeks a confirmation of F-35 being selected since we haven't seen anything of that yet, more than some newspaper clips.

Seems that early news about choosing F-35, were unconfirmed rumors, have to wait a little longer.

AYVN wrote:

Seems that early news about choosing F-35, were unconfirmed rumors, have to wait a little longer.

What made the news media think that a selection had been made? What makes you think that is not the case?

art wrote:

AYVN wrote:

Seems that early news about choosing F-35, were unconfirmed rumors, have to wait a little longer.

What made the news media think that a selection had been made? What makes you think that is not the case?

Statement from LM, Finnish defens or PM of Finland would be Nice.

SAS A340 wrote:

art wrote:

AYVN wrote:

Seems that early news about choosing F-35, were unconfirmed rumors, have to wait a little longer.

What made the news media think that a selection had been made? What makes you think that is not the case?

Statement from LM, Finnish defens or PM of Finland would be Nice.

Yes it was always unconfirmed but the respective news agencies are apparently well trusted. The statement was that the H-X had recommended the F-35 to the Finnish Govt which was always going to take 10 days to make their decision. The said it was going to be released before Christmas and not the week of so expect an actual result late next week.

This could well be a Swiss incident where the French papers claimed Rafale had won only for F-35 to be the winner a week later.

It seems like all the other articles just keep quoting the one tabloid.

The latest update has now confirmed that the number of F-35A's will be 64 if it gets selected. The goverment is expected to make it's final selection before their Christmas break. While earlier this week the Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson tried to lobby Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin's goverment to select Gripen instead of F-35A, it's quite hard to see that actually happening since according to the Finnish Defence Forces the F-35A offers the best amount of performance for their needs.

The deal also includes pilot training in the US at the Luke Air Force Base. It's currently unclear if this deal also includes the JSM-missiles for the planes, but it's likely due to the close relationship between the missile's manufacturer Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace and Patria (Patria is 50,1% owned by the Finnish Goverment and 49,9% by Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace). As a part of the deal Patria will also start making making parts for F-35 like they are already doing with F/A-18 planes.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/2a7343f1-2b76-4c80-b534-d12ac5143ace (Article only in Finnish)

The news are reporting that the government will provide more information about the purchase today. The deal may be decided today.

See https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008464967.html

AirlineCritic wrote:

The news are reporting that the government will provide more information about the purchase today. The deal may be decided today.

See https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008464967.html

You can replace "may be" with "has been"

Strato2 wrote:

AirlineCritic wrote:

The news are reporting that the government will provide more information about the purchase today. The deal may be decided today.

See https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008464967.html

You can replace "may be" with "has been"

So the winner is known and it is just a case of when that is announced?

It is official. 64 x F-35A.

It was announced an hour ago, F-35. See https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008464967.html

Unit cost at ($5.4b / 64 =) $83m is in line with what USAF is paying now, but Finland be get theirs 5+ years from now. LM recently talked about unit cost turning up. If Finland can keep the unit cost at this level it will be the first country to do so.

Yearly operations budget is at $287m, per plane $4.48m. With 200 hours that is $22k/hour. Very impressive for the F-35A since that's 35% lower than USAF right now.

AirlineCritic wrote:

It was announced an hour ago, F-35. See https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008464967.html

Are those 64 airframes supposed to get out from the Cameri’s FACO or straight from the US?

fbwless wrote:

Unit cost at ($5.4b / 64 =) $83m is in line with what USAF is paying now, but Finland be get theirs 5+ years from now. LM recently talked about unit cost turning up. If Finland can keep the unit cost at this level it will be the first country to do so.

Yearly operations budget is at $287m, per plane $4.48m. With 200 hours that is $22k/hour. Very impressive for the F-35A since that's 35% lower than USAF right now.

Read somewhere the US hasn't approved FRP yet. When they do they get to do multi-year block buys. This takes the acquisition cost down even further than it is today.

A news article quoting the Official Finnish press release

During the HX evaluation, the F-35 passed all criteria and placed highest of the bidders in terms of operational effectiveness and growth potential. It was considered the lowest in terms of procurement cost while operating/sustainment costs are below the €254 million annual budget. The defense ministry noted that no single bidder provided significantly lower operating costs than any other.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... eplacement

So F-35 was the most effective airframe as well as highest growth. No other offer had significantly lower operational costs. Potentially Gripen could have been lower but not significant enough to get over the capability hump provided by F-35.

Will the Finnish F-35 get the drag chute pod like the Norwegian ones ?

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

During the HX evaluation, the F-35 passed all criteria and placed highest of the bidders in terms of operational effectiveness and growth potential. It was considered the lowest in terms of procurement cost while operating/sustainment costs are below the €254 million annual budget. The defense ministry noted that no single bidder provided significantly lower operating costs than any other.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... eplacement

Makes one wonder that the operating costs of the European fighters are? I've never seen the costs for something like a Rafale or a Typhoon. I don't think Sweden publishes their Gripen costs (but please educate me). Strange to say but the US military is more transparent at providing things like operating costs and readiness rates.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Potentially Gripen could have been lower but not significant enough to get over the capability hump provided by F-35.

I assume that's true. If your metric is BVR air-air combat, the F-35 is awesome.

Am I the only one kinda sad? I like diversity, and the F-35 dominating everywhere is kinda boring. (Of course this is not an argument on who should win. But one reason the WWII era has a more interesting aviation history is that there we so many types of such diversity.)

Read all about it at https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/12/11/f- ... es-it-all/

1) He says that the F-35 industrial package was very important, and surprisingly large.

2) He says that the projected Finnish operating costs are estimated to be 37% below the current USAF costs, but in line with the projected-and-hoped-for-future costs of the USAF. They are based on 140 hours/plane, which is the Finnish air force average for the F-35 but half the USAF average.

3) They will have braking chutes (because icy runways).

4) First deliveries in 2025, Block 4 aircraft.

kitplane01 wrote:

3) They will have braking chutes (because icy runways).

Do they have tailhooks? I seem to recall from AvWeek in the 1990s that the Finns liked having these on their Hornets.

The finns budget the F-35 to $4.4 Million for 140 flight hours for each fighter and year... approx $30K/ hour.

Deleted...

N328KF wrote:

Do they have tailhooks? I seem to recall from AvWeek in the 1990s that the Finns liked having these on their Hornets.

Don't all F-35A have tailhooks? I'm not sure if that's optional equipment.

mxaxai wrote:

N328KF wrote:

Do they have tailhooks? I seem to recall from AvWeek in the 1990s that the Finns liked having these on their Hornets.

Don't all F-35A have tailhooks? I'm not sure if that's optional equipment.

No tail hooks. Just the brake chutes.

teme82 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

N328KF wrote:

Do they have tailhooks? I seem to recall from AvWeek in the 1990s that the Finns liked having these on their Hornets.

Don't all F-35A have tailhooks? I'm not sure if that's optional equipment.

No tail hooks. Just the brake chutes.

There are tailhooks and tailhooks. All A have a tailhook but it is a light emergency use only same as F-15/16/22/Eurofighrer etc. The C has a strengthened hook for day in day out use on the boat.

in capability scoring F-35 achieved 4.47 (where 4.0 was requirement), next best got 3.81.
64 jets w tooling, spares, comprehensive weapons package.

Wow! The Rafale and Eurofighter didn't even meet the minimum capability requirement.

https://eurasiantimes.com/f-35-stealth- ... l-usa/?amp

Based on the cost framework cost the Rafale and Eurofighter must have similar (at best) hourly operating cost to the F-35. This is not surprising.

I have heard rumours that the Eurofighter fleet has exceeded 60,000 € per hour o rence fixed costs are added. Very low availability rates are the end result due to fixed budget.

viewtopic.php?t=1384595

As someone noted in a new (probably soon-to-be-deleted thread), the deal has been signed for 64.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/fi ... 022-02-10/

N328KF wrote:

As someone noted in a new (probably soon-to-be-deleted thread), the deal has been signed for 64.

Covered here too.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/fi ... 77.article