Also, it takes a long time to 'introduce' the aircraft and get it flying in a unit but even that is only a part of it's developmental cycle. Even fighters work with the 'early access' template because field use is the best way to really polish it out and finish it. It can easily take another 10 years in field use for the fighter to be actually finished properly. Some planes like Gripen were introduced to use in 1996 and they still say that it's not finished yet, for instance when it was compared to the F-18C and failed miserably.
https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000006676007.html According to latest article here the DSCA-notification to US congress does not include the AIM-120. In fact there is no medium to long range missile in the offer. This means that Finland is either looking up to make a separate deal for the AIM-260 when it comes available or is looking to have the ramjet powered Meteor for the new fighters. The article also reminds that the FAF will be replacing the F-18C's JASSM with possibly JASSM-ER or equivalent air launched cruise missile for deterrence. I'm still quite puzzled - the aim was to get a minimum of 64 planes but neither of the DSCA-notification offers are such that the FAF would be receiving 64 fighters and their missiles for the 10bn € that is the ceiling for the purchase. If this doesn't change - more money isn't granted, the minimum number isn't dropped or the prices don't change - it would seem to me that it would be a contest between Rafale and Gripen, yet I don't see the FAF buying Rafale or Typhoon. I could be wrong but I would doubt it a lot. It was mentioned by the FAF program manager that if no bid ends up with 64 aircraft or satisfying result for the FAF then the whole acquisition process will be terminated and restarted.
It's odd that there is no mid or long range air to air missile. The JASSM-ER is a part of the deal (for either the F-18 or F-35). I think the Meteor as it currently is cannot fit in the F-35 and requires a redesign. Because the U.S. navy is looking at the meteor (with the loss of the Pheonix missile which only the F-14 could carry). The meteor is compatible with the hardpoint. It's the fins (I think) why it can't fit in the internal bay. I have no idea if my math is right but I came to around 10 billion for the F-35s, engines (because the price for the F-35 does not count the engine) and the missiles (AIM 9 and JASSM-ER) and bombs mentioned in that deal. I don't know what the bomb guidance kits would cost but I doubt those would be much. The F-35 deal is for 64 planes and 66 engines (2 extra engines) and the F-18 is 72 planes total. 50 single seat E's 8 double seat F's and and 14 Growlers (the EW variant) and 166 engines total. I'm curious why the huge discrepancy in extra engines. only 2 for the F-35 but 22 extra for the F-18. Is there that much of difference in chance of failure/maintenance or whatever reason where the whole engine needs to be replaced? No idea if they actually produce the Meteor that fits in the F-35. Article on it is from 2010 saying they haven't yet found anyone to actually buy that specific version of the Meteor. https://www.flightglobal.com/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35/95870.article this one from a 2017 article about the UK F-35's carrying the missile starting in 2024. Also the export price is insane for the F-35. So domestically the F-35A is $78 million. Export cost is $133 Million (that's just fly away cost. No weapons.) So if the initial version of the AIM-260 is designed that it will fit the F-35 it would probably just require a software upgrade. But The F-35 isn't in the initial planes just the F-22 and 18. With integration into the F-35 later. And it doesn't start flight tests till next year. So either for that (AIM-260) or the Meteor it would probably be 2024 before the F-35 actually gets a beyond visual range weapon. For air to air.
The prices were based on the DSCA notifications where both F-35 and F-18 with all the engines and everything in both cases went over the 10bn mark. http://theskjaldborg.com/index.php?threads/jets-and-other-things.12799/page-6#post-295883 There the F-35 was much better priced there, 64 fighters with everything for 10.6bn € versus 72 fighters of three types with everything for 12.4bn €. Even if the F-18 packet was dropped to 64 fighters it would still be over 11bn €. So this by no means a closed deal for anyone at this stage. UK is indeed going to be equipping it's F-35B's with the Meteor, they're already working on the integration and that would help others to do it too.
Now that I think about it. I'm not sure if the U.S. currently even has a long range or beyond visual range air to air missile. The aim-120 can go beyond visual range but is technically a medium range missile.
Yes, the AIM-260 is due to also improve the long range capability. The issue with long range missiles is two fold - they won't usually have a lot of Mach speed left when they actually reach their target meaning they can be easy to defeat. Second they need to actually see the target from that distance. The speed issue is the big one. Solid rocket fuel engines don't have throttling, they go like fireworks, full thrust until they run out of fuel. Thus they need more fuel to reach higher velocities and more fuel requires even more fuel to offset the added mass from the fuel. Thus the missiles become very big very quickly to have any speed left at long range. This is why ramjet is so big such as on Meteor - you have throttling which means you can cruise to target and get full thrust for final pursuit.
Just read an article where the Israeli's objected to the sale of F-35's to the UAE. And apparently sought compensation for being ok with that they asked for older F-22's. That's not going to happen. Even if the U.S. were willing to sell them they are no longer in production and the U.S. air force isn't giving any of theirs up. I'm not sure why they would object. Those two countries have never fought each other. I'm not sure if they have ever even been politely hostile to each other.
UAE did not recognize that Israel even existed until the treaty this year brokered with help from the US. This means they didn't have any diplomatic relations for decades and only now with UAE's recognition that Israel exists they have some level of relations to begin with - but even this agreement included UAE demands towards Israel's policy in West Bank etc. which is a chafe for Israel. They have been somewhat brought together by their mutual hate of the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. Israel no doubt also sees that despite some positive development there could be equally negative development in future. They don't want to end up with UAE showing up backing one of their enemies with advanced stealth fighters and EW platforms. Israelis fear the most a sudden first strike which would in their worst fears lead to 'conclusion to holocaust', massive genocide against Jews if their military should fail. Where some countries see the military as a matter of whether they get to vote in elections or not many Israeli see the military as a matter of if their people will still exist in the future. So from their perspective UAE F-35 deal would introduce unwanted risks to some of the scenarios. There are precedents of countries buying advanced Western weapons only to deploy them against those countries. Argentinians using French fighters and missiles to sink UK ships, Iran still fielding American fighters and so on.
I do see this in the articles about the Finnish HX competition. I wonder if that is so they can buy either the F-18 or F-35 if they choose either of those. That increase would allow them to get the F-35 and a fair number of medium/long range air to air missiles maybe a few more engines. It wouldn't allow for as much munitions buying with the F-18 package
Yes, the HX-acquisition program is on top of the regular defense budget. Thus the GDP percentage jumps considerably with these massive purchases.
amazingly the Blue Angels use F-18 Hornets. Not Super Hornets. So they are using A-D still. They are moving to F-18E/F Super Hornet's next year. They do have some 2 seat aircraft for Press/VIPs to be in the show. But I thought they moved to the Super Hornet's awhile ago. For being the Nvay's flight demonstration team. And their planes are kept combat capable. Of course they don't have weapons during air shows. Which makes me wonder now. I'm not sure the F-35 can even be in a flight demonstration team because it's programming doesn't allow the pilot to do any of the maneuvers a flight demonstration team would do. Thunderbirds (Air Force) uses the latest version of the F-16. @SheepHugger this may be why there are no AIM 120 missiles in either package for the F-18/35. Because Finland already has more than 700 of them. And only 150 AIM9 X missiles (and 480 AIM-9M). AIM-120A 445 units AIM-120B AIM-120C-5 9 units AIM-120C-7 300 units[35] 70 AGM-158A JASSM (not extended range, the 158B is the extended range one that is in the deal). 114 GBU-31 JDAM bombs. Not sure how many GBU-32 and 38's (it's on wikipedia. with a link to some database that I guess has these kind of numbers for various countries).
Apparently (doesn't pertain to Finland) but the Ford class carriers which are the newest class as built and designed cannot support the F-35C. They couldn't wait for the 35 to be ready before they started building the For.d's
If I understood it correctly even the F-18 has a computer assisted flight system with a push down button that while kept down allows you more direct control bypassing the PID (or whatever they use) that ends up usually filtering and interpreting the pilot's input.
The only real advantage I see the Gripen and Eurofighter have are logistics, probably much easier to get parts because their plants are closer to Finland. F-35 would probably be the hardest because even if they build plants in Finland how much would be allowed to be produced at those plants (mostly for security/espionage reasons). I think that is mostly why the US won't sell F-35s to Taiwan because the US thinks there are Chinese loyalists in Taiwan. It does sound like Rafale/France could care less if they got the HX contract. I wonder how much Lockheed/US would allow for support in Finland because the F-35 needs constant computer/software support from Lockheed. So they would probably put a support center in Finland. But how much would they do for the physical parts.
The F-35 will be the backbone ubiquituous NATO fighter. The new spare part program and logistics system is designed around a concept of having various warehouses and stockpiles at various squadrons etc. in such a way that necessary parts are always available where they are needed. The logistics system itself has been quite a working project in itself. And the US military really wants to see FAF receive F-35's. They want to see it operated from Finnish bases and they want to look at Russian reactions and Russian tactics, signals etc. in response to F-35A here. Also Finnish company Patria already owns the company that is responsible for F-35 maintenance in Norway and Patria assembled the F-18C/D's in Finland. We won't get to manufacture the spare parts here - I don't think - but we can certainly store enough parts in Finland and in nearby NATO countries (Norway, Estonia) that will be very easily and rapidly accessible and allow for full and rapid logistics with Finnish stocks being respectively integrated to the logistical network. For the F-18 Boeing had a US based 24/7 support center where they had a test pilot constantly online able to immediately recreate any scenario that was being experienced so as to quickly come up with the best way to get out of that situation. Properly handled symmetric encryption cannot be broken.
Might allow manufacturing of parts that are not super secret. But it's probably all more assembly/maintenance. Large scale maintenance.
Yea, the right to buy a full DIY assembly kit with spares. Learn pretty much as much about how to build aircraft from it as one learns about injection molding when buying from GW.
I wonder if Finland would consider something that was x number of F-35s and Y number of super hornets. The latest upgrade sounds like it w(F-18bF-18) able to receive targeting information and leave it's own radar off, even from (more stealthy aircraft) meaning the f-35. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/more-super-super-hornet-180976338/
The only problem was indeed with the stealth aircraft such as F-35 operating with different stealth fighter specific datalink system that was not able to interface with the conventional fighters' datalinks. Otherwise the conventional ones could share targeting data for a long time just like stealths could among themselves. But even as that is being bridged I do not see us buying two types - I mean with the F-18E Super Hornet already comes the EA-18G Growler, they're mostly the same plane sure but then to add another frame entirely to the mix would make logistics a lot more difficult, twice the number of spare parts and so on.
and the support system. They probably wouldn't want to have to support 2 different airframes.. The only reason I can see why they might is the flight hour cost of the F-35. I don't know exactly what it is for the A variant but the C is about $35,000 per hour versus the F-18's $10,000 per hour. I can't imagine the A variant is that much different then the C. Probably is lower though but still more than double the F-18. Oh and this upgrade puts the lifespan of the F-18 super hornets at 2,000 hours over the F-35. F-35 is 8,000 hours. F-18 is going from 6,000 to 10,000 hours. I guess it really depends on which block of the F-18 is offered. If it is just block II then the F-35 mostly wins. but if it is block 3 or block II but really fast upgrade to block 3 then the F-18. I don't think Finland is really considering any of the other planes (well maybe the Gripen. But I think the electronic warfare of the F-18 and 35 packages beats the Gripen package out).
