Finland selects F-35A for F-18 replacement

Ozair · Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:44 pm

steman wrote:
I wonder what is the political aspect of this selection. Finland is not part of NATO and it shares a long border with Russia. During Cold War Finland was neutral and used both soviet and swedish equipment (not sure if they ever had American or British combat assets before 1991). The F-18 were acquired after the Cold War ended and Russia was not putting too much pressure on Finland. But what about now? How would Russia react to Finland deploying F-35s? Would the Finnish Government consider chosing a less sensitive platform to appease their powerful neighbour?

A quick Google search shows there have bene plenty of interceptions of Russian aircraft by Finland and perhaps a sufficient number the other way. Given Finland has no other significant global military rival or adversary you would think Russian forces are the primary threat they are considering.

As for the political aspect of the competition the following is the selection criteria for HX;

- Capabilities. The system's capability to win fights during its service life.
- Costs. Can we afford to purchase, use and develop the system throughout is life cycle?
- Security of supply and the domestic industry’s role. The usability of the system in times of peace and war.
- Security and defence policy impacts. Potential impacts of the selection on Finland’s security and defence cooperation.

While the most crucial area for making the decision on the fighter selection is capabilities, all other areas are also important. The comparison of fighters will be carried out by the best experts in Finland. The defence administration will then make a proposal on the type and number of fighters to be procured. The final decision will be made by the Government in 2021. The funding for the project will be approved by Parliament

https://www.defmin.fi/en/administrative ... f_fighters

It is very clear then that the capability of the aircraft is the most important factor for the evaluation after which the other criteria are factored. The Finns have run a very professional competition to date and I expect that will continue to selection. None of the OEMS have complained about the process or withdrawn so that speaks well for the Finnish competition compared to others run over the last 10 years. As the text above makes clear though the final decision is with the Government and they could conceivably throw out all the work the HX team has done and chose an aircraft based solely on political considerations. I don’t think that is likely though, the intent of the competition is to select an aircraft that will best defend Finland for the next 40 years and I expect the Politicians also want to get that right.

I’m not sure Russia would be that upset about Finnish F-35s, I would expect that Polish F-35s are a bigger concern given their NATO membership. I also don’t expect that Finland’s selection will be about appeasing Russian concerns.

mcg · Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:37 pm

It seems to me the F-35 will be the most capable choice and the most expensive. The Finns have to decide if they want and are able to pay for the extra capability.

Planeflyer · Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:50 am

The Finns seem to be running a very balanced selection criteria.

The only reason to spend the type of money any of these AC cost is to maximize deterrence.

art · Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:47 am

steman wrote:
I wonder what is the political aspect of this selection. Finland is not part of NATO and it shares a long border with Russia. During Cold War Finland was neutral and used both soviet and swedish equipment (not sure if they ever had American or British combat assets before 1991). The F-18 were acquired after the Cold War ended and Russia was not putting too much pressure on Finland. But what about now? How would Russia react to Finland deploying F-35s? Would the Finnish Government consider chosing a less sensitive platform to appease their powerful neighbour?

I would say that whatever fighter Finland chose to operate, it could not resist a determined Russian attack from the air. In that context, what does it matter which fighter Finland chooses? In the face of overwhelming odds in a conflict with its neighbour, won't the real need be for an air policing tool at the best balance of cost/political gain?

mxaxai · Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:00 pm

art wrote:
I would say that whatever fighter Finland chose to operate, it could not resist a determined Russian attack from the air. In that context, what does it matter which fighter Finland chooses? In the face of overwhelming odds in a conflict with its neighbour, won't the real need be for an air policing tool at the best balance of cost/political gain?

Finland will not be alone against a "determined Russian attack". The primary objective is to defend Finland for long enough until reinforcements arrive, and to prevent small-scale hostile incursions. If Russia threw all their resources at Finland, their other flanks would be very vulnerable.

Planeflyer · Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:33 pm

Does anyone know, for the purposes of this evaluation if the fins assume they will be on their own?

art · Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:21 pm

About the Finns being on their own, the EU has a mutual defence clause.

The mutual defence clause was introduced in 2009 under Article 42 (7) of the Treaty of the European Union. It says that EU countries are obliged to assist a fellow member state that has become “a victim of armed aggression on its territory” and that this support should be consistent with potential NATO commitments.

No formal procedure has been set out and the article does not say that the assistance should be military in nature

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... ates-means

So Finland is not guaranteed military support by the EU in case of being subject to aggression.

Planeflyer · Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:26 pm

Unless the criteria are changed Finland will choose the option that provides the most deterrence.

art · Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:11 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Unless the criteria are changed Finland will choose the option that provides the most deterrence.

To me that means the aircraft most capable of inflicting damage on Russia ie F-35. However, would the Finnish government want to / dare to select the aircraft that presents the greatest threat to Russia? It will cost the most to operate (each F-35 costing perhaps $50 million - $75 million more than each Gripen E over 5000 flying hours) and may not be the most effective interceptor among the candidates to boot.

Planeflyer · Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:43 pm

Assuming your assessment of the cost delta to be correct does it factor in the cost of losses should war break out between Finland and Russia?

In Finland's hands, the F35 is not an offensive threat to Russia. If Finland were part of NATO it might be different as Russia would always need to be on guard against a land invasion on her northern flank.

Finland seems to understand the need to be as poisonous as possible w/o boxing the bear in the corner. She knows that the adventures by the bear that turn wrong open Russia to become the weak target. Any other AC besides the F35 will not last long enough to inflict enough pain and so are a very unlikely choice. It's all about balancing cost and risk

Wars in Europe have almost always started when country A is surrounded and threatened by Countries B,C, D et al. The more countries in the second group the more likely war, especially if Country A is lead by a megalomaniac. The other very dangerous case is where country A is surrounded by powerful neighbors and is seen as weak..The Nordic countries seem to understand this dynamic very well and of course, are aided by their geography.

The countries in Eastern Europe are the real quandary for European security. And this may include Turkey depending on a few bad rolls of the dice.

Ozair · Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:03 pm

An update on the Finnish competition. Looks like all vendors were apparently over the Euro 10 billion for 64 aircraft and that the total number will likely be less than that no matter which selection is made. Probably shouldn’t be a surprise given the Finns only have 62 Hornets in service. Security of supply is also a large issue and may be inflating the offers given the large store of spares and weapons required to be compliant with the bid.

The Big Dance that wasn’t to be

...

The interview also confirmed that the idea of a 64 aircraft fleet is effectively dead, as Puranen noted that all first round offers for 64-aircraft packages were “significantly over 10 billion Euros”. However, the requirement is still for a fleet of around 60 aircraft. The reasons are simple and well-known to followers of the project, in that the aircraft now included in the HX program aren’t really faster or have significantly better endurance compared to the current Hornet-fleet. Coupled with the fact that Finnish territory hasn’t gotten smaller (or rather, not significantly smaller) since the Hornet was bought, the same air defence capability will require more or less the same number of aircraft.

...

https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/08/29/th ... snt-to-be/

The Finns also expect the aircraft to deliver a very high kill ratio

We want something like the Brewster, [which] had 32:1 during the Second World War. Of course that is the kind of thing we are aiming for, whether it’s realistic or not is another thing, but if we can reach for example 10:1 that is 600 fighters that we can shoot down. Or bombers, depending on whatever comes.

As was posted in the Gripen E thread Saab are apparently offering an EW decoy missile for the competition which was quite amusing when at a press conference a reporter asked Boeing about a similar capability.

Boeing’s main sales pitch hasn’t moved anywhere, it is still the proven and mature option, two words that has worked well in Finnish defence procurement earlier. The one thing that didn’t excite the company was Saab’s announcement of the Lightweight Air-launched Decoy Missile (LADM), the representative sounding almost confused when he recounted an earlier question:

We got a question if we have anything similar. We’ve been doing that thing for years, first with the TALD and now with the MALD. I really don’t know what else to say.

Finally the Finns have indicated they are happy with the life cycle of all the aircraft in the competition,

The interview crucially also included a declaration that they are happy with the planned service lives of all aircraft, and see them continuing in service into 2060 and beyond. If that really is the case, it certainly is good news to, well, everyone besides F-35A (which we all knew would not have an issue with the lifespan requirement).

Perhaps that is a means to keep all the vendors in the hunt or a serious consideration by the Finnish Evaluation Team.

Ozair · Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:16 am

A former USAF fighter pilot and military attaché to Finland now working for LM has given a brief regarding LM’s F-35 offer and what it can provide Finland.

Finnish competition
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1jMKgXvAPZOGL

Some interesting info later about the DAS and detection ranges/integration as demonstrated with other US testing with BMD.

Mortyman · Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:23 am

I think it will be Gripen, F-18 or F-35.

Finland has asked Norway for information on the F-35 dragchute as apparently the F-35 USAF did not have that installed when it was on tour in Finland. I hope the Finns asks us Norwegians to land one of our F-35 on one of their roads ... :-)

It has not been tried in Norway as the majority of Our roads are not long and straight enough for that.

texl1649 · Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:06 pm

I would expect the stealth capabilities would be seen as high value with their proximity vs. the Russians.

Ozair · Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:57 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I would expect the stealth capabilities would be seen as high value with their proximity vs. the Russians.

It certainly must be a big factor. The advantages it provides both offensively and defensively cannot be denied.

Mortyman wrote:
I think it will be Gripen, F-18 or F-35.

Finland has asked Norway for information on the F-35 dragchute as apparently the F-35 USAF did not have that installed when it was on tour in Finland. I hope the Finns asks us Norwegians to land one of our F-35 on one of their roads ... It has not been tried in Norway as the majority of Our roads are not long and straight enough for that.

The drag chute is an interesting option for Finland. I wonder if information is all they can ask for, at perhaps witness it's use in Norway, because if the HX competition asked for a local demo they would likely have to give all other entrants the opportunity to demo as well.

Really if dispersed operations was that significant a factor you would think the F-35B would be the only option they were considering. It offers a capability that no other aircraft can replicate and would be incredibly difficult for a adversary to interdict on the ground let alone in the air. The extra cost of the F-35B, both acquisition and sustainment, would be an issue and result in a smaller fleet of aircraft but with likely higher potential survivability.

art · Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:38 pm

Ozair wrote:
Really if dispersed operations was that significant a factor you would think the F-35B would be the only option they were considering. It offers a capability that no other aircraft can replicate and would be incredibly difficult for a adversary to interdict on the ground let alone in the air. The extra cost of the F-35B, both acquisition and sustainment, would be an issue and result in a smaller fleet of aircraft but with likely higher potential survivability.

If Finland had an interest in the F-35B, LM would be offering it as well as the F-35A, wouldn't they?

Ozair · Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:08 pm

art wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Really if dispersed operations was that significant a factor you would think the F-35B would be the only option they were considering. It offers a capability that no other aircraft can replicate and would be incredibly difficult for a adversary to interdict on the ground let alone in the air. The extra cost of the F-35B, both acquisition and sustainment, would be an issue and result in a smaller fleet of aircraft but with likely higher potential survivability.

If Finland had an interest in the F-35B, LM would be offering it as well as the F-35A, wouldn't they?

LM would be trying to offer the best fit for what Finland have defined in their RFT. In that context the Finns almost certainly haven't requested F-35B capabilities because if they did it would be a one horse race. Clearly the Finnish Air Force see a need for continued fixed airbase operations and while having alternate highways to operate from are good these aren't permanent bases. Therefore Finland can try and have the best of both worlds, the cheaper cost to acquire and operate that comes with an aircraft based at fixed installations (all the current offerings) while also dabbling in dispersed ops via highways which all the current offerings are capable of.

Ozair · Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:13 am

As per the Swiss announcement the other day the DSCA have released the approval and packages for Finland should they select the F-35 or SH.

Finland gets the green light to buy F-35, F-18 and billions of dollars in weapons

The U.S. State Department on Oct. 9 approved the sale of the F/A-18EF Super Hornet and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Finland, paving the way for the nation to purchase American jets should either Boeing or Lockheed Martin win its ongoing fighter competition.

...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... n-weapons/

The F-35 deal at US$12.5 Billion.

The Government of Finland has requested to buy sixty-four (64) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter CTOL aircraft; sixty-six (66) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines (64 installed and 2 spares); five hundred (500) GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) All-Up Round (AUR); twelve (12) GBU-53/B SDB II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); twelve (12) GBU-53/B SDB II Captive Carry Vehicles (CCV); one hundred fifty (150) Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II+ (Plus) Tactical Missiles; thirty-two (32) Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II+ (Plus) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); thirty (30) AIM-9X Block II+ (Plus) Sidewinder Tactical Guidance Units; eight (8) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder CATM Guidance Units; one hundred (100) AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand Off Weapon (JSOW-C1) Tactical Missiles; two hundred (200) Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) AGM-158B-2 Missiles; two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER Separation Test Vehicles; two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER Instrumented Test Vehicles; two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER Jettison Test Vehicles; two (2) AGM-158B-2 Inert JASSM w/Intelligent Telemetry Instrumentation Kits; two (2) AGM-158 Dummy Air Training Missiles; one hundred twenty (120) KMU-556 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-31; three hundred (300) FMU-139D/B Fuzes; two (2) KMU-556(D-2)/B Trainer JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-31; thirty (30) KMU-557 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-31; one hundred fifty (150) KMU-572 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-38/54; one hundred twenty (120) BLU-117, General Purpose Bombs; thirty-two (32) BLU-109, General Purpose Bomb; one hundred fifty (150) BLU-111, General Purpose Bomb; six (6) MK-82, Inert Bomb; one (1) FMU-139D/B (D-1) Inert Fuze. Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence/Communications, Navigational, and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN); Air System Training Devices; Weapons Employment Capability and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center access; F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; aircraft ferry and tanker support; Detector Laser DSU-38A/B, Detector Laser DSU-38A(D-2)/B, KMU-572(D-2)/B Trainer (JDAM), 40 inch Wing Release Lanyard; GBU-53/B SDB II Weapon Load Crew Trainers (WLCT); GBU-53/B SDB II Practical Explosive Ordnance Disposal System Trainers (PEST); AGM-154C-1 JSOW Captive Flight Vehicles; AGM-154C-1 JSOW Dummy Air Training Missiles; AGM-154C-1 JSOW mission planning, integration support and testing, munitions storage security and training, weapon operational flight program software development; integration of the Joint Strike Missile; weapons containers; aircraft and munitions support and test equipment; communications equipment; provisioning, spares and repair parts; weapons repair and return support; personnel training and training equipment; weapon systems software, publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated cost is $12.5 billion.

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/f ... air-ground

The SH Deal at US$14.7 Billion.

The Government of Finland has requested to buy fifty (50) F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft; eight (8) F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft; fourteen (14) EA-18G Growler aircraft; one hundred sixty-six (166) F414-GE-400 engines (144 installed and 22 spares); five hundred (500) GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) All-Up Round (AUR); twelve (12) GBU-53/B SDB II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); twelve (12) GBU-53/B SDB II Captive Carry Reliability Trainers; one hundred fifty (150) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Tactical Missiles; thirty-two (32) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); thirty (30) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Tactical Guidance Units; eight (8) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder CATM Guidance Units; one hundred sixty (160) AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW); two hundred (200) AGM-158B-2B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range All Up Rounds (JASSM ER AUR); two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM Separation Test Vehicles (STV); two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM Instrumented Test Vehicles (ITV); two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM Jettison Test Vehicles (JTV); two (2) AGM-158B-2 Inert Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) with Telemetry Instrumental Kits; two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM Maintenance Training Missiles (DATM); one hundred twenty (120) BLU-117B/B 2000LB GP Bombs; one hundred twenty (120) KMU-556F/B Bomb Tail Kits (JDAM); three hundred (300) FMU-139D/B Fuzes; two (2) KMU-556(D-2)/B Trainers (JDAM); thirty (30) BLU-109C/B 2000LB Bombs; thirty (30) KMU-557F/B Bomb Tail Kits (JDAM); two (2) BLU-109(D-1)/B 2000LB Bombs; one hundred two (102) BLU-111B/B 500LB General Purpose Bombs; one hundred two (102) KMU-572F/B JDAM Bomb Tail Kits; six (6) MK-82-0,1 500LB, General Purpose Bombs, Inert; fifty-one (51) BLU-110B/B 1000LB General Purpose Bombs; fifty (50) KMU-559F/B Bomb Tail Kits; fifty-eight (58) M61A2 20MM Gun Systems; thirty-two (32) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR); thirty-two (32) Sniper Targeting Pods; fourteen (14) Advanced Electronic Attack Kit for EA-18G; sixty-five (65) AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets; sixty-five (65) AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems; seventy-four (74) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems – Joint Tactical Radio Systems (MIDS JTRS); eighty-nine (89) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); three hundred seventy-seven (377) LAU-127E/A Guided Missile Launchers; seventy-four (74) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting Processor – Networked (DTP-N); twenty-five (25) Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems; and eight (8) Next Generation Jammer Mid-Band (NGJ-MB) sets. Also included are AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars; High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR); AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG); AN/AVS-11 Night Vision Cueing Devices (NVCD); AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems; AN/ARC-210 Communication System; AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponder; AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys; Launchers (LAU-115D/A, LAU-116B/A, LAU118A); AN/AAQ-28(V) Litening Targeting Pod; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation; Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE); Aircraft Ferry transportation; Foreign Liaison Officer (FLO) Support; Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, FMU-139D(D-2)/B fuzes; MK84-4 2000LB General Purpose Inert Bombs, MK83 Bomb General Purpose Inert Bombs; KMU-557C(D-2)/B tail kits; KMU-572C(D-2)/B tail kits; Detector Laser DSU-38A/B, Detector Laser DSU-38A(D-2)/B, KMU-559C(D-2)/B load trainer; Wing Release Lanyard Assemblies; AGM-154C-1 JSOW Captive Flight Vehicles, Dummy Air Training Missiles, AGM-154C-1 JSOW mission planning, integration support and testing, munitions storage security and training, weapon operational flight program software development; weapons containers; aircraft and munitions support and test equipment; communications equipment; provisioning, spares and repair parts; weapons repair and return support; personnel training and training equipment; weapon systems software, publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated cost is $14.7 billion.

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/f ... nd-weapons

Some interesting things with the deal, we see the same increased cost of the SH compared to the F-35 as per the Swiss but this time the SH package also includes 14 Growler aircraft and 8 aircraft more overall. A decent number of weapons included as well although neither package includes the AIM-120 so perhaps Finland will continue with existing stocks for now. That would also benefit a Eurofighter and Gripen purchase. What is interesting and the same with the Swiss deal is the small number of additional engines ordered to support the F-35 fleet compared to the SH fleet. The F-35 has just two additional engines while the SH deal has 22 extra engines, so enough for eleven full aircraft engine swaps.

The Finnish MoD did release a statement stating this isn't a confirmation of sale and that negotiations continue with all vendors.

teme82 · Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:13 pm

Ozair wrote:
As per the Swiss announcement the other day the DSCA have released the approval and packages for Finland should they select the F-35 or SH.

Finland gets the green light to buy F-35, F-18 and billions of dollars in weapons

The U.S. State Department on Oct. 9 approved the sale of the F/A-18EF Super Hornet and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Finland, paving the way for the nation to purchase American jets should either Boeing or Lockheed Martin win its ongoing fighter competition.

...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... n-weapons/

The F-35 deal at US$12.5 Billion.

The Government of Finland has requested to buy sixty-four (64) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter CTOL aircraft; sixty-six (66) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines (64 installed and 2 spares); five hundred (500) GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) All-Up Round (AUR); twelve (12) GBU-53/B SDB II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); twelve (12) GBU-53/B SDB II Captive Carry Vehicles (CCV); one hundred fifty (150) Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II+ (Plus) Tactical Missiles; thirty-two (32) Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II+ (Plus) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); thirty (30) AIM-9X Block II+ (Plus) Sidewinder Tactical Guidance Units; eight (8) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder CATM Guidance Units; one hundred (100) AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand Off Weapon (JSOW-C1) Tactical Missiles; two hundred (200) Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) AGM-158B-2 Missiles; two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER Separation Test Vehicles; two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER Instrumented Test Vehicles; two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER Jettison Test Vehicles; two (2) AGM-158B-2 Inert JASSM w/Intelligent Telemetry Instrumentation Kits; two (2) AGM-158 Dummy Air Training Missiles; one hundred twenty (120) KMU-556 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-31; three hundred (300) FMU-139D/B Fuzes; two (2) KMU-556(D-2)/B Trainer JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-31; thirty (30) KMU-557 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-31; one hundred fifty (150) KMU-572 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-38/54; one hundred twenty (120) BLU-117, General Purpose Bombs; thirty-two (32) BLU-109, General Purpose Bomb; one hundred fifty (150) BLU-111, General Purpose Bomb; six (6) MK-82, Inert Bomb; one (1) FMU-139D/B (D-1) Inert Fuze. Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence/Communications, Navigational, and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN); Air System Training Devices; Weapons Employment Capability and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center access; F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; aircraft ferry and tanker support; Detector Laser DSU-38A/B, Detector Laser DSU-38A(D-2)/B, KMU-572(D-2)/B Trainer (JDAM), 40 inch Wing Release Lanyard; GBU-53/B SDB II Weapon Load Crew Trainers (WLCT); GBU-53/B SDB II Practical Explosive Ordnance Disposal System Trainers (PEST); AGM-154C-1 JSOW Captive Flight Vehicles; AGM-154C-1 JSOW Dummy Air Training Missiles; AGM-154C-1 JSOW mission planning, integration support and testing, munitions storage security and training, weapon operational flight program software development; integration of the Joint Strike Missile; weapons containers; aircraft and munitions support and test equipment; communications equipment; provisioning, spares and repair parts; weapons repair and return support; personnel training and training equipment; weapon systems software, publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated cost is $12.5 billion.

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/f ... air-ground

The SH Deal at US$14.7 Billion.
The Government of Finland has requested to buy fifty (50) F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft; eight (8) F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft; fourteen (14) EA-18G Growler aircraft; one hundred sixty-six (166) F414-GE-400 engines (144 installed and 22 spares); five hundred (500) GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) All-Up Round (AUR); twelve (12) GBU-53/B SDB II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); twelve (12) GBU-53/B SDB II Captive Carry Reliability Trainers; one hundred fifty (150) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Tactical Missiles; thirty-two (32) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); thirty (30) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Tactical Guidance Units; eight (8) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder CATM Guidance Units; one hundred sixty (160) AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW); two hundred (200) AGM-158B-2B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range All Up Rounds (JASSM ER AUR); two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM Separation Test Vehicles (STV); two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM Instrumented Test Vehicles (ITV); two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM Jettison Test Vehicles (JTV); two (2) AGM-158B-2 Inert Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) with Telemetry Instrumental Kits; two (2) AGM-158B-2 JASSM Maintenance Training Missiles (DATM); one hundred twenty (120) BLU-117B/B 2000LB GP Bombs; one hundred twenty (120) KMU-556F/B Bomb Tail Kits (JDAM); three hundred (300) FMU-139D/B Fuzes; two (2) KMU-556(D-2)/B Trainers (JDAM); thirty (30) BLU-109C/B 2000LB Bombs; thirty (30) KMU-557F/B Bomb Tail Kits (JDAM); two (2) BLU-109(D-1)/B 2000LB Bombs; one hundred two (102) BLU-111B/B 500LB General Purpose Bombs; one hundred two (102) KMU-572F/B JDAM Bomb Tail Kits; six (6) MK-82-0,1 500LB, General Purpose Bombs, Inert; fifty-one (51) BLU-110B/B 1000LB General Purpose Bombs; fifty (50) KMU-559F/B Bomb Tail Kits; fifty-eight (58) M61A2 20MM Gun Systems; thirty-two (32) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR); thirty-two (32) Sniper Targeting Pods; fourteen (14) Advanced Electronic Attack Kit for EA-18G; sixty-five (65) AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets; sixty-five (65) AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems; seventy-four (74) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems – Joint Tactical Radio Systems (MIDS JTRS); eighty-nine (89) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); three hundred seventy-seven (377) LAU-127E/A Guided Missile Launchers; seventy-four (74) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting Processor – Networked (DTP-N); twenty-five (25) Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems; and eight (8) Next Generation Jammer Mid-Band (NGJ-MB) sets. Also included are AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars; High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR); AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG); AN/AVS-11 Night Vision Cueing Devices (NVCD); AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems; AN/ARC-210 Communication System; AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponder; AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys; Launchers (LAU-115D/A, LAU-116B/A, LAU118A); AN/AAQ-28(V) Litening Targeting Pod; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation; Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE); Aircraft Ferry transportation; Foreign Liaison Officer (FLO) Support; Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, FMU-139D(D-2)/B fuzes; MK84-4 2000LB General Purpose Inert Bombs, MK83 Bomb General Purpose Inert Bombs; KMU-557C(D-2)/B tail kits; KMU-572C(D-2)/B tail kits; Detector Laser DSU-38A/B, Detector Laser DSU-38A(D-2)/B, KMU-559C(D-2)/B load trainer; Wing Release Lanyard Assemblies; AGM-154C-1 JSOW Captive Flight Vehicles, Dummy Air Training Missiles, AGM-154C-1 JSOW mission planning, integration support and testing, munitions storage security and training, weapon operational flight program software development; weapons containers; aircraft and munitions support and test equipment; communications equipment; provisioning, spares and repair parts; weapons repair and return support; personnel training and training equipment; weapon systems software, publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated cost is $14.7 billion.

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/f ... nd-weapons

Some interesting things with the deal, we see the same increased cost of the SH compared to the F-35 as per the Swiss but this time the SH package also includes 14 Growler aircraft and 8 aircraft more overall. A decent number of weapons included as well although neither package includes the AIM-120 so perhaps Finland will continue with existing stocks for now. That would also benefit a Eurofighter and Gripen purchase. What is interesting and the same with the Swiss deal is the small number of additional engines ordered to support the F-35 fleet compared to the SH fleet. The F-35 has just two additional engines while the SH deal has 22 extra engines, so enough for eleven full aircraft engine swaps.

The Finnish MoD did release a statement stating this isn't a confirmation of sale and that negotiations continue with all vendors.

Did you miss the JASSAM-ER ? I thin that wasn't offered for the Swiss. That thing can be launched within Finnish airspace to reach few capitals in the eastern hemisphere.

Ozair · Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:42 pm

teme82 wrote:
Did you miss the JASSAM-ER ? I think that wasn't offered for the Swiss. That thing can be launched within Finnish airspace to reach few capitals in the eastern hemisphere.

Correct it wasn’t offered for the Swiss deal but the weapons package is the same across the two aircraft so aside from the absence of the AIM-120 I didn’t think it too unusual. It does highlight that the F-35 will have JASSM integration, a point a few have argued previously, and is reasonably consistent given the Finnish Air Force already operate the JASSM.

You are right though, JASSM-ER is a significant improvement on the existing JASSM in Finnish service and close to twice the range of the expected competitor offerings in SCALP/Storm Shadow/KEPD 350.

smithbs · Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:03 pm

From what I gather of the Finnish Air Force, it has not historically been interested in A/G weapons (like, not at all). If this tender is to introduce that capability, that would explain why the FMS authorization listings were full of them. But it's also just an offering - we will have to see what the Finns pick up.

For the lack of AIM-120, I think Finland already has stocks and therefore it doesn't need to appear in this bundle. If they need more, I bet it would be better to let out a separate contract and keep it off this project that is already over budget.

I think Finland is interested in keeping their treaty limit of 64 aircraft. If so, that makes the Boeing offer kind of strange. But also, it is just an offering and the Finns can walk down it like a salad bar. It looks like budget will prevent a full 64-unit purchase at this time. However, maybe they can top up later when money comes around again.

art · Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:38 pm

smithbs wrote:
I think Finland is interested in keeping their treaty limit of 64 aircraft.

What's the treaty, please?

mxaxai · Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:41 pm

smithbs wrote:
From what I gather of the Finnish Air Force, it has not historically been interested in A/G weapons (like, not at all). If this tender is to introduce that capability, that would explain why the FMS authorization listings were full of them. But it's also just an offering - we will have to see what the Finns pick up.

Historically, Finland has been limited by being on the losing side of WW2 and the peace treaties that followed it (similar to Austria). But this changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and they have operated A2G weapons for quite some time now.

The most noticeable upgrade is the increased number of JASSM (+ the ER variant) and the addition of "bunker busting" bombs (BLU-109). Everything else (or a similar weapon) is in the Finnish inventory already.

F-18 A2G summarized:

five hundred (500) GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) All-Up Round (AUR)
one hundred two (102) BLU-111B/B 500LB General Purpose Bombs + one hundred two (102) KMU-572F/B JDAM Bomb Tail Kits
fifty-one (51) BLU-110B/B 1000LB General Purpose Bombs + fifty (50) KMU-559F/B Bomb Tail Kits
one hundred twenty (120) BLU-117B/B 2000LB GP Bombs + one hundred twenty (120) KMU-556F/B Bomb Tail Kits (JDAM)
thirty (30) BLU-109C/B 2000LB Bombs + thirty (30) KMU-557F/B Bomb Tail Kits (JDAM)

one hundred sixty (160) AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW)
two hundred (200) AGM-158B-2B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range All Up Rounds (JASSM ER AUR)

F-35 A2G is identical except:

five hundred (500) GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) All-Up Round (AUR)
one hundred fifty (150) BLU-111, General Purpose Bomb + one hundred fifty (150) KMU-572 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-38/54 [more]
-- no 1000 lbs bombs --
one hundred twenty (120) BLU-117, General Purpose Bombs + one hundred twenty (120) KMU-556 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-31
thirty-two (32) BLU-109, General Purpose Bomb + thirty (30) KMU-557 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU-31 [ slightly more]

one hundred (100) AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand Off Weapon (JSOW-C1) Tactical Missiles [fewer]
two hundred (200) Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) AGM-158B-2 Missiles

Overall the F-35 offers approximately the same weapons suite except a significant reduction in AGM-154 glide bombs and a one-by-one exchange of 1000 lbs bombs for 500 lbs bombs. Is that justified by the F-35's stealth that lets it go closer to the target?

smithbs · Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:44 pm

art wrote:
What's the treaty, please?

The Paris treaties after WW2 limited the FAF to 60 aircraft, none of which could be bombers. Apparently this number excluded trainers. This treaty was repudiated by Finland in 1990.

From what I gather, in 1990 a treaty with Russia was made that set the magic number at 64. If so, this would have been part of the treaties of that period that sought to unwind Soviet authority over Finland. I can't find details, so maybe it is just rumor. But true or not, it appears the FAF operates with 64 as its magic number - that was the F-18C purchase, and it appears again for this selection round.

mxaxai wrote:
...and they have operated A2G weapons for quite some time now.

I think it has only been since 2015 that they've started looking at this stuff. They made some headlines since then with a few A/G trials. But did it progress into full usage? I.e., the whole F-18C fleet has been updated and qualified?

teme82 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:12 pm

smithbs wrote:

From what I gather, in 1990 a treaty with Russia was made that set the magic number at 64. If so, this would have been part of the treaties of that period that sought to unwind Soviet authority over Finland. I can't find details, so maybe it is just rumor. But true or not, it appears the FAF operates with 64 as its magic number - that was the F-18C purchase, and it appears again for this selection round.

I can with 100% confidence say it's false. In the early 90's when the Soviet Union collapsed. Finland notified the other Paris peace treaty signatories that the military accords were nullified. No-one opposed this move. So the status quo is that the Finnish Air force can have as much aircraft they like. Also the Navy can have Submarines and torpedo weapons installed on any vessel. Yeah submarines and torpedoes were banned in the military accords of Paris peace treaty.

smithbs · Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:55 pm

teme82 wrote:
smithbs wrote:

From what I gather, in 1990 a treaty with Russia was made that set the magic number at 64. If so, this would have been part of the treaties of that period that sought to unwind Soviet authority over Finland. I can't find details, so maybe it is just rumor. But true or not, it appears the FAF operates with 64 as its magic number - that was the F-18C purchase, and it appears again for this selection round.

I can with 100% confidence say it's false. In the early 90's when the Soviet Union collapsed. Finland notified the other Paris peace treaty signatories that the military accords were nullified. No-one opposed this move. So the status quo is that the Finnish Air force can have as much aircraft they like. Also the Navy can have Submarines and torpedo weapons installed on any vessel. Yeah submarines and torpedoes were banned in the military accords of Paris peace treaty.

I can understand if it was just rumor. Can you shed light on why '64' was the magic number in 1994 and now 2020?

744SPX · Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:05 pm

I think the F-35B would be less survivable than the F-35A even with remote siting as its a step down in performance in the air to air role vs the A model, and I would think the Finns are looking for more of an air defense aircraft.

Ozair · Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:33 pm

smithbs wrote:
I can understand if it was just rumor. Can you shed light on why '64' was the magic number in 1994 and now 2020?

64 was/is just the budgetary number they could/can afford for the original competition. The expectation from most watchers, and confirmed by the HX Program director with no entrant being able to fit within the approx 10 billion cap with 64 aircraft, is that they will have less than 64 aircraft going forward.

smithbs wrote:
I think it has only been since 2015 that they've started looking at this stuff. They made some headlines since then with a few A/G trials. But did it progress into full usage? I.e., the whole F-18C fleet has been updated and qualified?

The Finnish Military started looking at equipping the Hornets with an A2G strike capability as far back as 2004.

The findings of the Defence Forces Striking Capability Report issued in 2004 led to the launch of a development program to boost the Hornet's capabilities in order to enable the aircraft to support tasks that had been assigned to the Air Force in a Defence Forces long-term development plan.
The foregoing documents called for an upgrade to the Hornet's counterair capability to meet challenges posed by changes in the operational environment. The Air Force was also tasked to confer the aircraft with a standoff air-to-ground capability.

https://ilmavoimat.fi/en/development_of ... capability

mxaxai wrote:
Overall the F-35 offers approximately the same weapons suite except a significant reduction in AGM-154 glide bombs and a one-by-one exchange of 1000 lbs bombs for 500 lbs bombs. Is that justified by the F-35's stealth that lets it go closer to the target?

Possibly but I wouldn’t read too much into the specifics of the bomb ratios. There is additional info in each of the DSCA announcements that is missing in the other but doesn’t preclude the numbers being changed slightly or more detail being available to Finland but not released in the DSCA announcement.

Corporal Frisk had a write up here as well with a reasonable analysis, https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/10/11/hx-goes-dsca/

smithbs wrote:
For the lack of AIM-120, I think Finland already has stocks and therefore it doesn't need to appear in this bundle. If they need more, I bet it would be better to let out a separate contract and keep it off this project that is already over budget.

The issue with that is fairness across the tendered solutions as it significantly disadvantages the Dassault Rafale bid being the only aircraft not capable of operating it. Perhaps that doesn’t matter because the Rafale was always the outsider anyway but given how well the HX competition has been run to date I would have expected at the least a request to have equivalent packages.

744SPX wrote:
I think the F-35B would be less survivable than the F-35A even with remote siting as its a step down in performance in the air to air role vs the A model, and I would think the Finns are looking for more of an air defense aircraft.

The step down in performance is marginal though, the G capability of the jet is 7G compared to 9G for the A model, a slightly reduced acceleration, a reduced range by ~125nm and a smaller weapons bay not allowing 2,000lb weapons.

Would Finland miss the range, not likely given both aircraft will still outrange a classic Hornet and potentially irrelevant given it could be located closer to the threat. Will they miss the two additional G, perhaps for rudimentary BFM but the F-35 Finnish pilot who gets into BFM has already made mistakes. Acceleration is marginal and perhaps irrelevant if the aircraft can be again positioned closer. The 2,000lb weapon would likely be a loss, as would the Bee model not being able to take the 6 AIM-120 internal load, via the sidekick rack, expected next year.

The F-35B isn't being offered though so the argument is very much academic...

mxaxai · Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:36 pm

Ozair wrote:
Corporal Frisk had a write up here as well with a reasonable analysis, https://corporalfrisk.com/2020/10/11/hx-goes-dsca/

smithbs wrote:
For the lack of AIM-120, I think Finland already has stocks and therefore it doesn't need to appear in this bundle. If they need more, I bet it would be better to let out a separate contract and keep it off this project that is already over budget.

The issue with that is fairness across the tendered solutions as it significantly disadvantages the Dassault Rafale bid being the only aircraft not capable of operating it. Perhaps that doesn’t matter because the Rafale was always the outsider anyway but given how well the HX competition has been run to date I would have expected at the least a request to have equivalent packages.

Good article. Let me just quote a bit specifically on that topic:

To use a hypothetical example to make things really clear: the Finnish Air Force says they need 200 precision-guided free-fall bombs of a 250 kg class. Eurofighter brings 200 Paveway IV in their offer, but Boeing and Lockheed Martin knows that the Finnish Air Force already has 50 GBU-38 in their current stocks, so they offer 150 new GBU-38 and an engineer that comes over with a toolbox and some spares to ensure that the old stock is good to go for another decade or two. As the whole competition is based on the design to cost method, this allows for the inclusion of more stuff elsewhere in the package. What package would then be evaluated in the wargame? A US fighter with only three quarters of the number of light bombs compared to the competition? A hypothetical package that include 200 new-built bombs but skips on the extra? So far everything we’ve seen and heard from the Finnish LOGCOM indicate that they aren’t interested in playing games, but that they want to evaluate what is on offer. If that include continued life for some current equipment, then I am quite sure that that is what is evaluated.

The Meteor is unlikely to enter service on a US fighter, but that doesn’t mean that the US fighters are set to remain looking on while the Europeans (and crucially, the Chinese) have all the fun at longer ranges. When asked about the situation at HX Challenge, Boeing representatives noted that “There’s an opportunity for an advanced air-to-air missile within our offer to address that need”. Exactly what it is wasn’t said, and apparently it won’t be part of the original package.

It should, however, be acknowledged that there are some worrying signs that the budget really is tight, just having two spare engines for the F-35 and no HARM/AARGM for the Super Hornet/Growler comes to mind. Even if those two items can be sorted out, the question lingers if they are only the tip of the iceberg, and what more is hidden under the surface when it comes to missing or low quantities of crucial items?

I don't believe that the precise weapons package will make or break a deal but it definitely offers opportunities for some competitors to either reduce their cost or increase their capability by (not) including certain weapons. IMHO including existing stocks is not "fair" since Finland could certainly sell those missiles & bombs to other operators; for example the UK could offer to buy Finlands GBU-38 bombs (from the given example) for use on their own F-35 while Finland is supplied with Paveway IV for their hypothetical new Eurofighter fleet.

Ozair · Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:06 pm

mxaxai wrote:
The Meteor is unlikely to enter service on a US fighter, but that doesn’t mean that the US fighters are set to remain looking on while the Europeans (and crucially, the Chinese) have all the fun at longer ranges. When asked about the situation at HX Challenge, Boeing representatives noted that “There’s an opportunity for an advanced air-to-air missile within our offer to address that need”. Exactly what it is wasn’t said, and apparently it won’t be part of the original package.

This quote stands out for me given F-35 Meteor integration is being funded by the UK and will happen. I agree it may never get to the SH but F-35 is well on the way and will be in service with the RAF by the time Finland takes their first HX aircraft.

mxaxai wrote:
It should, however, be acknowledged that there are some worrying signs that the budget really is tight, just having two spare engines for the F-35 and no HARM/AARGM for the Super Hornet/Growler comes to mind. Even if those two items can be sorted out, the question lingers if they are only the tip of the iceberg, and what more is hidden under the surface when it comes to missing or low quantities of crucial items?

I don’t agree on his analysis of the engine issue. While two is smaller than previous DSCA requests there is a lot more knowledge of the engine today than even two years ago and more in line with the Polish and 2020 Japanese orders. The Swiss order is an outlier in my opinion.

Examples of previous engine spares include
Swiss 2020 – 6 spares for 40 aircraft.
Singapore 2020 – 1 spare for 12 aircraft.
Japan 2020 – 5 spares for their 105 aircraft.
Poland 2019 – 1 spare for 32 aircraft.
Belgium 2018 – 4 spares for 34 aircraft.
Japan 2015 – 5 spares for 42 aircraft.
South Korea 2013 – 9 spares for 60 aircraft

mxaxai wrote:
I don't believe that the precise weapons package will make or break a deal but it definitely offers opportunities for some competitors to either reduce their cost or increase their capability by (not) including certain weapons. IMHO including existing stocks is not "fair" since Finland could certainly sell those missiles & bombs to other operators; for example the UK could offer to buy Finlands GBU-38 bombs (from the given example) for use on their own F-35 while Finland is supplied with Paveway IV for their hypothetical new Eurofighter fleet.

The question remains though how much of that is at the request of the HX program. Surely if that was a sticking point then Boeing and LM would offer the missiles as part of their packages. We may never see the details of the Gripen and Eurofighter offers to Finland which would indicate whether they also sold short on some of the weapons. Again, it seems like Dassault are the only real losers here from a competitive perspective.

The other thing is the claim of Finnish independence or isolation is really, IMO, being oversold. Finland may want as much independence as they can with spares and weapons stocks but in the end they will be reliant on whatever nation they acquire an aircraft from and none of those nations really have a better position than any other.

Ozair · Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:07 pm

Forbes have published a reasonable article on the Finnish competition that covers the recent DSCA release, the potential issues going forward including budget and the chances of each of the competitors.

F-35, F-18 Or European Jets? Handicapping Finland’s Fighter Competition.

On October 9, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency authorized Finland to purchase dozens of Boeing BA -2% FA-18E/F Super Hornet or Lockheed LMT -1.4% F-35A Lightning II multi-role jet fighters.

Both documents also authorized sale of hundreds of munitions, including 200 AGM-158B JASSM-ER stealth cruise missiles that could reach Moscow when launched from Finnish airspace, as well as JDAM, JSOW and GBU-39 precision guided air-to-ground munitions and AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles (though curiously, no additional medium/long-range AIM-120 air-to-air missiles).

However, the authorization doesn’t mean Finland is committed to purchasing fighters from either company for its HX Challenge program, which seeks to procure 64 multi-role jet fighters to replace its current fleet of FA-18C/D Hornets due for retirement between 2025 and 2030.

...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... 2c3e2636c2

smithbs · Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:43 pm

Ozair wrote:
Forbes have published a reasonable article on the Finnish competition that covers the recent DSCA release, the potential issues going forward including budget and the chances of each of the competitors.

Nice article.

Earlier, the FAF concluded that drones and ground-based air defense missiles couldn’t replace the full spectrum of capabilities offered by manned multi-role fighters.

And SAAB is next door, nodding their heads at this part:

Helsinki has emphasized that is seeking jets that can endure harsh weather and low temperature extremes while performing diverse missions including offensive and defensive air superiority, anti-ship and air-to-ground strike, networked surveillance/reconnaissance capabilities, and deep strikes beyond Finnish borders to deter against foreign attack...

Because Finnish airbases are themselves exposed to attack, it even prefers to procure jets capable of taking off from rough forward air strips or even civilian highways.

The article has an emphasis on penetration deep strike and cruise missiles that could reach Moscow from Finnish airspace. Is this really what the FAF wants?

I bring up two rules about being a neighbor with Russia, which requires a delicate balance:
1. Maintain your strength.
2. Don't antagonize them.

Showing off some JASSMs or similar long-range kit could be poking the bear in the nose for no good reason.

Ozair · Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:48 pm

smithbs wrote:

And SAAB is next door, nodding their heads at this part:
Helsinki has emphasized that is seeking jets that can endure harsh weather and low temperature extremes while performing diverse missions including offensive and defensive air superiority, anti-ship and air-to-ground strike, networked surveillance/reconnaissance capabilities, and deep strikes beyond Finnish borders to deter against foreign attack...

Because Finnish airbases are themselves exposed to attack, it even prefers to procure jets capable of taking off from rough forward air strips or even civilian highways.

Just to be clear on that point, the Gripen offers nothing over any of the other competitors. None of the competitors have rough field performance and all, as stated by the HX competition themselves, are capable of operating from the civilian highways that Finland would use.

smithbs wrote:

The article has an emphasis on penetration deep strike and cruise missiles that could reach Moscow from Finnish airspace. Is this really what the FAF wants?

I bring up two rules about being a neighbor with Russia, which requires a delicate balance:
1. Maintain your strength.
2. Don't antagonize them.

Showing off some JASSMs or similar long-range kit could be poking the bear in the nose for no good reason.

Finland already has JASSMs though so the acquisition of a cruise missile within HX is just a continuation of the status quo.

smithbs · Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:34 pm

Ozair wrote:
Just to be clear on that point, the Gripen offers nothing over any of the other competitors. None of the competitors have rough field performance and all, as stated by the HX competition themselves, are capable of operating from the civilian highways that Finland would use.

I agree with you that "rough field" means something different than what the article author was trying to say. But I disagree over your first sentence there. The Gripen system (airplane, AGE, etc) was specifically designed to operate in a dispersed manner with a particular type of national military system. Of course you could land a F-18E or a Typhoon on a highway if you wanted, but that doesn't mean its ecosystem was designed for it. It would have to be redesigned and adapted, if one wanted to adapt a Swedish-type system. But if the Finns don't intend to go all the way in that direction, then it becomes moot.

Ozair wrote:
Finland already has JASSMs though so the acquisition of a cruise missile within HX is just a continuation of the status quo.

I hate to revive the discussion above but my point was and is that it is a "new" status quo. I finally found the article I had seen a long time ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/finland-conduc ... war-328096

You mentioned earlier that Finland began studying A/G in 2003 and that is correct, but it appears that a munition never actually departed an airframe until 2015. You are correct that JASSM integration has been in the works for the FAF for about a decade, but the first FAF demonstration of a JASSM launch off their Hornets was just in 2018. To me, that means A/G is still very new and is still percolating through the force (TO&E updates, training, qualification, etc). It takes a lot of time to do this.

But I concede the main point - Finland is indeed bringing these capabilities on board. Hopefully it doesn't ruffle Russia enough to cause trouble.

Ozair · Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:00 pm

smithbs wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Just to be clear on that point, the Gripen offers nothing over any of the other competitors. None of the competitors have rough field performance and all, as stated by the HX competition themselves, are capable of operating from the civilian highways that Finland would use.

But I disagree over your first sentence there. The Gripen system (airplane, AGE, etc) was specifically designed to operate in a dispersed manner with a particular type of national military system.

And the evidence for that is? Not trying to be sarcastic but there is plenty of claims made about these types of things but little evidence provided. Sweden has all of one single instance of the Gripen operating in a deployed conflict (where it only conducted reconnaissance and no fly zone enforcement) and has only deployed fighters on operations twice in the last 70 years.

You could for instance read the following and think the Gripen does something different to other aircraft,
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 16.article
but other militaries have been operating aircraft deployed far from home and in dispersed locations for generations. The oft made claim is Gripen is designed to be maintained by conscripts is no different to any other aircraft as long as those conscripts had direction.

Gripen is claimed to turn around in 10 minutes after fuel and weapons. Again that is primarily because the Gripen has less fuel and comparatively fewer ordnance than comparable aircraft. Put more fuel in the aircraft or an equal amount of fuel in other aircraft and the times would be very similar. Additionally other nations have operated aircraft in combat zones and had to undertake rapid refuelling and rearming, they have experience which to Sweden and Saab is merely conceptual.

smithbs wrote:
[Of course you could land a F-18E or a Typhoon on a highway if you wanted, but that doesn't mean its ecosystem was designed for it. It would have to be redesigned and adapted, if one wanted to adapt a Swedish-type system. But if the Finns don't intend to go all the way in that direction, then it becomes moot.

I have posted previously how other nations fly aircraft from highways. Taiwan did it again just the other week and are a prime example of a nation that would have a handle on dispersed ops and trying to maintain survivability against a massive attack on fixed infrastructure. They don’t disseminate the propaganda of dispersed ops but I expect they will rearm and refuel their aircraft as rapidly as the Swedes and with a lot more incentive to get it right in training and in war time.

The USMC has experience operating dispersed and are building their STOVL CONOPS around mobile forward arming and refuelling points with an aircraft that is technically more advanced and capable.

smithbs wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Finland already has JASSMs though so the acquisition of a cruise missile within HX is just a continuation of the status quo.

I hate to revive the discussion above but my point was and is that it is a "new" status quo. I finally found the article I had seen a long time ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/finland-conduc ... war-328096

You mentioned earlier that Finland began studying A/G in 2003 and that is correct, but it appears that a munition never actually departed an airframe until 2015. You are correct that JASSM integration has been in the works for the FAF for about a decade, but the first FAF demonstration of a JASSM launch off their Hornets was just in 2018. To me, that means A/G is still very new and is still percolating through the force (TO&E updates, training, qualification, etc). It takes a lot of time to do this.

But I concede the main point - Finland is indeed bringing these capabilities on board. Hopefully it doesn't ruffle Russia enough to cause trouble.

Sure Finland was delayed to IOC for the JASSM but the Finland JASSM DSCA release was in 2011 and this replacement aircraft is not being delivered any earlier than 2025 and the Hornet won’t leave Finnish service until almost 2030, hence the cruise missile will have been announced for almost 20 and in service 12 years by the time it is replaced. If a US aircraft is selected then the capability will significantly increase given range improvement but a standoff cruise missile capability will persist.

smithbs · Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:50 pm

Ozair wrote:
And the evidence for that is?

Here you go. It's a very documented topic.
https://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/PDF-dokum ... bas_90.pdf
https://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/PDF-dokum ... goring.pdf
https://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/PDF-dokum ... _10_ar.pdf
http://www.fht.nu/Dokument/Flygvapnet/f ... tem_90.pdf

Another interesting supporting document:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... 2007-1.pdf

Ozair wrote:
I have posted previously how other nations fly aircraft from highways. Taiwan did it again just the other week and are a prime example of a nation that would have a handle on dispersed ops and trying to maintain survivability against a massive attack on fixed infrastructure. They don’t disseminate the propaganda of dispersed ops but I expect they will rearm and refuel their aircraft as rapidly as the Swedes and with a lot more incentive to get it right in training and in war time.

The USMC has experience operating dispersed and are building their STOVL CONOPS around mobile forward arming and refuelling points with an aircraft that is technically more advanced and capable.

I think some confusion is caused here by the difference between "dispersed operations" and "expeditionary operations." There are of course similarities and differences between these two concepts. Dispersed operations, in the Nordic definition, is a home-base arrangement of a particular design. The crews, aircraft and AGE live in the system, long enough for all the components to be designed, trained and qualified for it. It's a complete national system.

As a prior USAF engineering officer who was involved in airfield engineering, I'll say that expeditionary operations are different. An expeditionary operation seeks to arrive at some random location and make it usable as quickly as possible. That's often what my exercises focused on. Focusing on the fighters, were the aircraft, AGE and whatnot designed specifically for it? Some yes, and some not really but could be made to work with it. For example, A-10 was more amenable to it, less so with F-16 or F-15. But the brute force of logistics could overcome and make it work.

However, I'll also say that I never encountered a highway scenario in my exercises, but I was more fixed base-oriented, so maybe I just wasn't privy to it. But there is a definite preference for an expeditionary airbase to be an existing airbase facility and not just a highway strip. Also, we had misgivings about deploying an airbase very far forward. The chances of getting wiped out by the enemy increases dramatically the closer you get to them*. The USAF would prefer "proper" air bases and has the aerial refueling capability to locate them way far in the back. ODS is a good example. All USAF bases were far back, and the ground advance never saw a close-in airbase made operational for USAF use. The USMC was closer in, though, through both their CAS mentality and the shorter ranges of their aircraft.

A home-base dispersed system by nature assumes the enemy is already close and will be getting indirect and aerial fires very quickly. The trick is to stay operational despite the attack. The up-shot is that you are on home turf and have years to let the engineers work out a good system.

Reflecting back, it makes sense to me that the Finns would have seen value in the F-18C over the F-15 or F-16. The F-18C is a kind-of short-field aircraft by both design and practice: Navy pilots always land short and hard. You can give them two miles of concrete and they still act like they're on the carrier. Also, ODS found a shortcoming with the Navy and that was carrier air wings being unable to tie into the USAF to receive ATOs, and that became a homework item for them afterwards. With that addressed, if you "dismount" a carrier air wing, you could conceivably include the command/control system that assumed each base was in constant motion, and such a capability could be adapted into a home-base dispersed system with some interesting benefits.

* Even Afghanistan shows this - the mere threat of a mortar or a couple ancient rockets being nearby will shut down a base for a couple days.

Ozair · Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:36 am

smithbs wrote:
Ozair wrote:
And the evidence for that is?

Here you go. It's a very documented topic.
https://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/PDF-dokum ... bas_90.pdf
https://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/PDF-dokum ... goring.pdf
https://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/PDF-dokum ... _10_ar.pdf
http://www.fht.nu/Dokument/Flygvapnet/f ... tem_90.pdf

Another interesting supporting document:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... 2007-1.pdf

I have never doubted it is documented. There is a lack of evidence, based on the happy situation that Sweden hasn’t been attacked, as to whether the system would actually function as expected in a war time scenario.

smithbs wrote:
I think some confusion is caused here by the difference between "dispersed operations" and "expeditionary operations." There are of course similarities and differences between these two concepts. Dispersed operations, in the Nordic definition, is a home-base arrangement of a particular design. The crews, aircraft and AGE live in the system, long enough for all the components to be designed, trained and qualified for it. It's a complete national system.

Sure the terminology here is somewhat confusing but operating dispersed is pretty straight forward. I’d also suggest the Swedes essentially don’t do the above linked anymore, at least to the degree they practised during the Cold War.

smithbs wrote:
However, I'll also say that I never encountered a highway scenario in my exercises, but I was more fixed base-oriented, so maybe I just wasn't privy to it. But there is a definite preference for an expeditionary airbase to be an existing airbase facility and not just a highway strip. Also, we had misgivings about deploying an airbase very far forward. The chances of getting wiped out by the enemy increases dramatically the closer you get to them*.

The RAF had plenty of practise with the Harrier during the Cold War. Multiple images, docos, footage and publications wrote about the Harrier forest hides all through the 70s and 80s. Plenty of examples of USAF during the Cold War training from highways strips etc. I’ve posted multiple videos of such on here previously.

smithbs wrote:

The USAF would prefer "proper" air bases and has the aerial refueling capability to locate them way far in the back. ODS is a good example. All USAF bases were far back, and the ground advance never saw a close-in airbase made operational for USAF use. The USMC was closer in, though, through both their CAS mentality and the shorter ranges of their aircraft.

A home-base dispersed system by nature assumes the enemy is already close and will be getting indirect and aerial fires very quickly. The trick is to stay operational despite the attack. The up-shot is that you are on home turf and have years to let the engineers work out a good system.

The USMC is all over this issue especially with the F-35B and designing their doctrine around this concept. No doubt the USAF isn’t an exemplar with these types of ops.

smithbs wrote:

Reflecting back, it makes sense to me that the Finns would have seen value in the F-18C over the F-15 or F-16. The F-18C is a kind-of short-field aircraft by both design and practice: Navy pilots always land short and hard. You can give them two miles of concrete and they still act like they're on the carrier.

Only one of the aircraft offered in the Finnish competition today is carrier capable even though two of the other vendors have a carrier version. Clearly the requirements are not awarding points for short take off or hard landing capability. Had it done so then Dassault would have included the Rafale M and LM would have offered the F-35B or C. Additionally Finland only had to look at the nations operating Hornets without carriers, such as Australia and Canada, who still had fatigue issues with their Hornets despite those aircrew never landing on a carrier and landing the aircraft in a very conventional manner.

smithbs wrote:

Also, ODS found a shortcoming with the Navy and that was carrier air wings being unable to tie into the USAF to receive ATOs, and that became a homework item for them afterwards. With that addressed, if you "dismount" a carrier air wing, you could conceivably include the command/control system that assumed each base was in constant motion, and such a capability could be adapted into a home-base dispersed system with some interesting benefits.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. The Australian and Canadian Classic Hornets had no problem integrating with the ATO process, it is less the aircraft and much more the service. The ATO process is also significantly refined today to what it was in the late 80s. A dismounted F-14 still required F-14 levels of maintenance in the same way as a Hornet or A-7 did. The Gripen is no different, it uses the same engine as the Hornet after all and a plethora of systems designed outside of Sweden for other aircraft.

smithbs wrote:

* Even Afghanistan shows this - the mere threat of a mortar or a couple ancient rockets being nearby will shut down a base for a couple days.

A strange and incorrect claim. Anyone here who served in Afghanistan/Iraq and flew in and out of BIAP or Kandahar can confirm to you that air ops were not closed down for days at a time, for durations less than an hour after actual attacks and never on the potential presence of munitions IVO of the base.

smithbs · Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:03 am

Ozair wrote:
smithbs wrote:
* Even Afghanistan shows this - the mere threat of a mortar or a couple ancient rockets being nearby will shut down a base for a couple days.

A strange and incorrect claim. Anyone here who served in Afghanistan/Iraq and flew in and out of BIAP or Kandahar can confirm to you that air ops were not closed down for days at a time, for durations less than an hour after actual attacks and never on the potential presence of munitions IVO of the base.

A real and valid claim. I was there, Bagram specifically. An actual attack results in an hour or two of interruption while the post-attack sweep occurs. But if intel gets a threat, a pre-emptive defensive stance and flying shutdown may occur, and I myself experienced several that lasted several days, in one instance most of a week*.

What does this mean for our conversation? That a couple guys with a rocket or mortar tube can disrupt air operations, and if they play it well, it could result in impacts that are way out of proportion to the effort they expend. Our two scenarios, one being a dispersed home field complex and the other an expeditionary airfield in some random location, have different risk levels: one is on home turf and therefore SF has the home field advantage, and the latter is in foreign land and at a big disadvantage for securing against such a threat. If I was a Red Force commander, I could have a couple guys with a tube and a Toyota pay for themselves many times over for putting a dent in the operations of a field operating location for, say, F-35Bs. Maybe in the end, my point is that being dispersed and expeditionary is a force protection risk in itself that a commander of a wing of expensive F-35Bs would think twice about.

How does this go back to the FAF selection program? I don't know anymore - our conversation, although engaging and enjoyable, seems to be getting further away from it. :white:

* In that case, nothing ever actually happened.

Ozair · Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:10 am

smithbs wrote:
Ozair wrote:
smithbs wrote:
* Even Afghanistan shows this - the mere threat of a mortar or a couple ancient rockets being nearby will shut down a base for a couple days.

A strange and incorrect claim. Anyone here who served in Afghanistan/Iraq and flew in and out of BIAP or Kandahar can confirm to you that air ops were not closed down for days at a time, for durations less than an hour after actual attacks and never on the potential presence of munitions IVO of the base.

A real and valid claim. I was there, Bagram specifically. An actual attack results in an hour or two of interruption while the post-attack sweep occurs. But if intel gets a threat, a pre-emptive defensive stance and flying shutdown may occur, and I myself experienced several that lasted several days, in one instance most of a week*.

Fair enough but interestingly completely opposite of my and other’s experiences I have spoken to. I am surprised that Bagram could close for almost a week based on intel alone when rocket attacks were a not infrequent occurrence.

smithbs wrote:
What does this mean for our conversation? That a couple guys with a rocket or mortar tube can disrupt air operations, and if they play it well, it could result in impacts that are way out of proportion to the effort they expend. Our two scenarios, one being a dispersed home field complex and the other an expeditionary airfield in some random location, have different risk levels: one is on home turf and therefore SF has the home field advantage, and the latter is in foreign land and at a big disadvantage for securing against such a threat. If I was a Red Force commander, I could have a couple guys with a tube and a Toyota pay for themselves many times over for putting a dent in the operations of a field operating location for, say, F-35Bs. Maybe in the end, my point is that being dispersed and expeditionary is a force protection risk in itself that a commander of a wing of expensive F-35Bs would think twice about.

The cost ratio isn’t significantly different between a Gripen, SH, F-35B etc. It is still a lot more than what the ground guy costs to kill the target. Threat is essentially boiled down to capability versus intent. No matter which scenario you are in if the capability exists and the intent is there then you have a threat you deal with or mitigate. For Sweden and an all-out assault by a foreign power with many times the resources you would expect basing is at risk no matter the location and that can be from ground or air based threats. Sweden for example has so few SAMs they would almost certainly be unable to prevent a large cruise missile attack against any fixed infrastructure let alone dispersed locations that a large nearby neighbour probably knows the location of.

smithbs wrote:
How does this go back to the FAF selection program? I don't know anymore - our conversation, although engaging and enjoyable, seems to be getting further away from it.

Good question, I think we diverged on suggestions that Gripen is more suitable to Finnish requirements, a point I still disagree with.

94717 · Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:46 pm

Ozair wrote:
steman wrote:
I wonder what is the political aspect of this selection. Finland is not part of NATO and it shares a long border with Russia. During Cold War Finland was neutral and used both soviet and swedish equipment (not sure if they ever had American or British combat assets before 1991). The F-18 were acquired after the Cold War ended and Russia was not putting too much pressure on Finland. But what about now? How would Russia react to Finland deploying F-35s? Would the Finnish Government consider chosing a less sensitive platform to appease their powerful neighbour?

A quick Google search shows there have bene plenty of interceptions of Russian aircraft by Finland and perhaps a sufficient number the other way. Given Finland has no other significant global military rival or adversary you would think Russian forces are the primary threat they are considering.

As for the political aspect of the competition the following is the selection criteria for HX;
- Capabilities. The system's capability to win fights during its service life.
- Costs. Can we afford to purchase, use and develop the system throughout is life cycle?
- Security of supply and the domestic industry’s role. The usability of the system in times of peace and war.
- Security and defence policy impacts. Potential impacts of the selection on Finland’s security and defence cooperation.

While the most crucial area for making the decision on the fighter selection is capabilities, all other areas are also important. The comparison of fighters will be carried out by the best experts in Finland. The defence administration will then make a proposal on the type and number of fighters to be procured. The final decision will be made by the Government in 2021. The funding for the project will be approved by Parliament

https://www.defmin.fi/en/administrative ... f_fighters

It is very clear then that the capability of the aircraft is the most important factor for the evaluation after which the other criteria are factored. The Finns have run a very professional competition to date and I expect that will continue to selection. None of the OEMS have complained about the process or withdrawn so that speaks well for the Finnish competition compared to others run over the last 10 years. As the text above makes clear though the final decision is with the Government and they could conceivably throw out all the work the HX team has done and chose an aircraft based solely on political considerations. I don’t think that is likely though, the intent of the competition is to select an aircraft that will best defend Finland for the next 40 years and I expect the Politicians also want to get that right.

I’m not sure Russia would be that upset about Finnish F-35s, I would expect that Polish F-35s are a bigger concern given their NATO membership. I also don’t expect that Finland’s selection will be about appeasing Russian concerns.

Finland had a special agreement with Sweden where it educated more pilots then having airplanes and that in case of war had airplanes waiting underground to be picked up.

This agreement was terminated with the purchase of F18.

Ozair · Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:49 am

A delay of six months has been called for the HX competition due to Covid-19 as they can't finish the last round of meetings with the various vendors.

HX Program Director Lauri Puranen: next year's budget must include funding for the entire procurement period

Lauri Puranen, Program Director of the Ministry of Defense's strategic HX and Squadron 2020 projects, told the Finnish Soldier about the progress of the HX project. Lauri Puranen is Major General Evp and served in his military career in 2005–2008 as Commander of the Lapland Air Force and Commander of the Air Force in 2012–2014.

...

Where is the progress of the HX project now and how has its schedule changed? 
Korona has caused us a delay of about 6 months as we had to postpone the last fourth round of negotiations with all the candidates. Because of this, the final final call for tenders leaves about 5-6 months late from the original plan. Yes, we have reached the goal of the government program, ie the decision will be made during 2021. This was the original goal - to make a decision to replace Hornet’s performance in 2021. We are working to catch up with the timetable in the final meters.

...

http://www.suomensotilas.fi/hx-ohjelmaj ... i-puranen/

art · Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:53 pm

Update from From Finnish MOD site:

https://www.defmin.fi/en/frontpage/admi ... s#e862c470

Ozair · Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:15 pm

art wrote:
Update from From Finnish MOD site:

https://www.defmin.fi/en/frontpage/admi ... s#e862c470

What is the update?

art · Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:38 pm

Ozair wrote:
art wrote:
Update from From Finnish MOD site:

https://www.defmin.fi/en/frontpage/admi ... s#e862c470

What is the update?

I don't know but it was reported Dec 8. Perhaps there is nothing new and this release is just an affirmation of what they had already said.

This is where I saw it

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... grams.html

mxaxai · Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:31 pm

Op-ed by Finland's defense minister (11/01/2021):

Finland’s defense minister: We’re preparing to thwart any potential military threat

We have maintained and developed a national defense capability throughout the decades. We never dropped the ball on defense. In addition, we are members of the European Union, are partners to NATO and cooperate actively with our Nordic neighbors.
...
Finland’s response to the deteriorating security environment is twofold. First, we continue to invest in defense. Our focus is to maintain a strong national defense capability for credible deterrence; and if deterrence fails, for defending the nation against external threats. Second, we continue to participate in international defense cooperation.
...
During the next decade we will also replace the current fleet of F-18 Hornet fighters; a procurement decision will be made this year.
...
Bilateral defense cooperation between Finland and Sweden is a good example of a pragmatic, goal-oriented mindset. Cooperation has developed step by step over the years. Today, it covers times of peace, crisis and war. ...
The United States is among Finland’s closest and most important partners. Built on mutual interests, our relationship has systematically deepened under presidents and governments of different political orientations. I am proud to be a link in this chain.

Europe must take more responsibility for its own security. ...

https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/202 ... ry-threat/

Nothing particularly new, but perhaps an emphasis that none of the competitors for the F-18 replacement are to be excluded for political reasons.

Ozair · Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:54 am

Below is a translated excerpt of a Finnish article on the competition. Some interesting confirmations in there.

The battle for the air force's new fighter plane will be decided in the spring - expensive weapon systems a stumbling block for manufacturers

In the next few months, the competition for the air force's new fighter plane will be decided. The Swedish Armed Forces is expected to request the final quotations from the five competing plan manufacturers within January. The government is expected to give the go-ahead within a couple of weeks.

Manufacturers now have one last chance to improve their quotes, which must be submitted by the end of April. The winner of the race plan race will be ready by the end of the year.

The total budget for the project is still a maximum of EUR 10 billion. Of that amount, the Ministry of Defense has now earmarked EUR 600 million for rebuilding work at the air bases, new simulators, data connections and other necessary expenses over a five-year period, when the plan is put into use.

Such renovation work and upgrades are necessary, regardless of which type of plan is chosen, the ministry states. The purchase of the new planes, including weapon systems and other related equipment, thus leaves EUR 9.4 billion.

...

https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2021/01/ ... nsystem-en

A few of the confirmations are
- Existing weapon stocks cannot be used by any vendor in their bid.
- Vendors can submit more or less than the 64 aircraft suggested and expectations are vendors will be around 60 or less.
- Local manufacture is still factored in to the total procurement cost. The intent is that Finland must be able to maintain the aircraft and have local knowledge to do so.

mxaxai wrote:
Nothing particularly new, but perhaps an emphasis that none of the competitors for the F-18 replacement are to be excluded for political reasons.

You would think if that was going to happen it would have been done by now and given there are only US and European vendors it shouldn't surprise.

art · Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:56 pm

Interesting argument in favour of Gripen being chosen. Was this approach investigated in Sweden-Finland exercises when Finland used Draaken?

Brig. Gen. Anders Persson, the Swedish deputy chief of the Air Force, zeroed in on Sweden and Finland as potential points of incursion for Russian forces. Adversarial airplanes could enter their airspace in large numbers, benefitting from the countries’ long northeast orientation, he said.

In such a case, the more exposed Finnish air fleet could fall back west on bases in neighboring Sweden, a feat that would be more easily accomplished if both countries had the Gripen, Persson argued.

“We’ll be like one air force with two commanders,” he said.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... r-finland/

Ozair · Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 pm

art wrote:
Interesting argument in favour of Gripen being chosen. Was this approach investigated in Sweden-Finland exercises when Finland used Draaken?

Brig. Gen. Anders Persson, the Swedish deputy chief of the Air Force, zeroed in on Sweden and Finland as potential points of incursion for Russian forces. Adversarial airplanes could enter their airspace in large numbers, benefitting from the countries’ long northeast orientation, he said.

In such a case, the more exposed Finnish air fleet could fall back west on bases in neighboring Sweden, a feat that would be more easily accomplished if both countries had the Gripen, Persson argued.

“We’ll be like one air force with two commanders,” he said.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... r-finland/

I don't buy the argument given Finland and Sweden already have close cooperation and have been fine operating different aircraft since the middle 90s. Unless the Rafale is selected Finnish aircraft will use the same fuel and weapons as the Swedish Gripen anyway. There is too much mass behind the respective militaries to make that a reality. Joint training sure, joint doctrine perhaps but unlikely, joint funding of sustainment for just one force seems very unlikely.

Realistically a Russian invasion that overruns Finnish bases likely means there won't be a Finnish Air Force left to move to Sweden anyway... but a similar argument could be made with Norway, fall back any remaining Finnish F-35s to Norway and have the same infrastructure, spares, weapons etc.

Irt · Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:59 am

Ozair wrote:
art wrote:
Interesting argument in favour of Gripen being chosen. Was this approach investigated in Sweden-Finland exercises when Finland used Draaken?

Brig. Gen. Anders Persson, the Swedish deputy chief of the Air Force, zeroed in on Sweden and Finland as potential points of incursion for Russian forces. Adversarial airplanes could enter their airspace in large numbers, benefitting from the countries’ long northeast orientation, he said.

In such a case, the more exposed Finnish air fleet could fall back west on bases in neighboring Sweden, a feat that would be more easily accomplished if both countries had the Gripen, Persson argued.

“We’ll be like one air force with two commanders,” he said.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... r-finland/

I don't buy the argument given Finland and Sweden already have close cooperation and have been fine operating different aircraft since the middle 90s. Unless the Rafale is selected Finnish aircraft will use the same fuel and weapons as the Swedish Gripen anyway. There is too much mass behind the respective militaries to make that a reality. Joint training sure, joint doctrine perhaps but unlikely, joint funding of sustainment for just one force seems very unlikely.

Realistically a Russian invasion that overruns Finnish bases likely means there won't be a Finnish Air Force left to move to Sweden anyway... but a similar argument could be made with Norway, fall back any remaining Finnish F-35s to Norway and have the same infrastructure, spares, weapons etc.

Sure they can operate from Norway. But since most of the major cities and infrastructure in Finland are located in the southwestern part of the country the distance to Norwegian bases could be a problem. The distance from Ørland to Helsinki is about 1000km, and the distance from Oslo to Helsinki is about 800km. From Uppsala Sweden its only about 250km to Åbo and about 400km to Helsinki.

art · Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:44 pm

BAE sweeten Typhoon deal with Finland

Jeremy Quin MP, the UK’s Minister of State for Defence Procurement said during a press event I atteded online that a role in developing the new ECRS Mk 2 radar is part of Eurofighter’s “best and final” offer to Finland’s HX fighter acquisition programme.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-swe ... h-finland/

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net