No.
It's LM that gave the 5th gen definition with the eve of F22 :
Stealthy, Sensor fusion, supercruise, super agility, affordable.
F22 was all except affordable.
F35 failed on supercruise and agility.
Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
It's LM that gave the 5th gen definition with the eve of F22 :
Stealthy, Sensor fusion, supercruise, super agility, affordable.
F22 was all except affordable.
F35 failed on supercruise and agility.
New Finnish article about HX. Use your favourite translator!
www.hs.fi
Puranen mentions the three "gates" that need to be passed: serviceability, affordability and industrial co-operation. I can not see how F-35 could pass the "affordability" check with 64 aircraft. It will not happen. If it does not happen... F-35 will not be included in the final analysis and comparison.
Of course I could be wrong too. I think the safest bet is that any one of the five planes could win.
My bet is Rafale. Perhaps unnoticed by many is that the French have been hinting at nuclear weapons, there have been mentions of Rafale being THE carrier of French nukes etc. This could be the thing that separates Rafale from Gripen and Typhoon. Of course France is not going to sell Finland any nukes, that is out of the question. But Macron has been talking about the French nuclear shield, and how it could cover EU as well, with the co-operation of other EU states.
The caveat here is - once again - that I could be wrong, since I am not an expert or a professional. We shall soon see, and of course I know that people will make fun of me if I was wrong. Same applies to every other candidate
-There is a fairly good translation of this article on F-16.net, but of course all commentary there is biased towards the American options. I know that I am biased, I have a bias towards a European option and my favourite is Rafale.
Lauantaivieras | ”Tämä ei ole ollenkaan kuin jokin autokauppa”, sanoo entinen Draken-lentäjä, josta tehtiin hävittäjäkaupan kilpimies
Suomen hävittäjähankkeen puhemies Lauri Puranen muistuttaa, ettei hävittäjien osto ole mitään autokauppaa.
www.hs.fi
Puranen mentions the three "gates" that need to be passed: serviceability, affordability and industrial co-operation. I can not see how F-35 could pass the "affordability" check with 64 aircraft. It will not happen. If it does not happen... F-35 will not be included in the final analysis and comparison.
Of course I could be wrong too. I think the safest bet is that any one of the five planes could win.
My bet is Rafale. Perhaps unnoticed by many is that the French have been hinting at nuclear weapons, there have been mentions of Rafale being THE carrier of French nukes etc. This could be the thing that separates Rafale from Gripen and Typhoon. Of course France is not going to sell Finland any nukes, that is out of the question. But Macron has been talking about the French nuclear shield, and how it could cover EU as well, with the co-operation of other EU states.
The caveat here is - once again - that I could be wrong, since I am not an expert or a professional. We shall soon see, and of course I know that people will make fun of me if I was wrong. Same applies to every other candidate
-There is a fairly good translation of this article on F-16.net, but of course all commentary there is biased towards the American options. I know that I am biased, I have a bias towards a European option and my favourite is Rafale.
Let us have another look at the F-35 deal and Finland. Finland's requirement is a cruise missile with a range similar to JASSM.
Now then, they are offering the JASSM-ER with the F-35 for Finland. BUT: integration of said missile will be in Block 5. NO-one knows when Block five will happen.
This is in itself could be a deal breaker. The requirement is clear, and it is not answered fully.
Same applies to ownership costs. Finland's requirement is that operating can only cost as much as with the current Hornet fleet.
What is the answer to this? Reduce number of planes. It is not possible to operate 64 Typhoons or Rafales with this budget.
It is also not possible to operate 64 F-35's with this budget. Why are they offering 64 planes then? One answer is - and this was not my idea but somebody else's - that Lockheed know they are out of the game already. They know that they will lose, and therefore they are doing this for publicity.
Look at the above article. The organization behind HX is ruthless. It is run completely by rules which shall not be bent. Same applies to Puranen. If Puranen says something will not happen, it will not happen.
This is Finland, and we are talking about the Finnish military. Rules are not going to be bent. It will simply not happen.
Now then, they are offering the JASSM-ER with the F-35 for Finland. BUT: integration of said missile will be in Block 5. NO-one knows when Block five will happen.
This is in itself could be a deal breaker. The requirement is clear, and it is not answered fully.
Same applies to ownership costs. Finland's requirement is that operating can only cost as much as with the current Hornet fleet.
What is the answer to this? Reduce number of planes. It is not possible to operate 64 Typhoons or Rafales with this budget.
It is also not possible to operate 64 F-35's with this budget. Why are they offering 64 planes then? One answer is - and this was not my idea but somebody else's - that Lockheed know they are out of the game already. They know that they will lose, and therefore they are doing this for publicity.
Look at the above article. The organization behind HX is ruthless. It is run completely by rules which shall not be bent. Same applies to Puranen. If Puranen says something will not happen, it will not happen.
This is Finland, and we are talking about the Finnish military. Rules are not going to be bent. It will simply not happen.
Back to HX. Let us have a look at this graph:
www.statista.com
This gives us some idea of the costs associated with different aircraft.
-Super Hornet is more expensive to fly than legacy Hornet. 64 Super Hornets were offered to Finland. This will have to mean more simulator hours and less flying hours.
-F-35 is more expensive to operate than even F-15. It is very very hard for me to imagine this thing passing through the preliminary gate checks of HX. The only way possible is if simulator hours are massively increased, and real flying is minimized.
Other problems with the F-35: it is least suited for distributed operations, and least independent because of ALIS/ODIN. JASSM-ER is not integrated yet.
Typhoon has a problem, the new radar won't be ready in time. They are asking for Finland to wait for it, and also to co-operate with design work. Gripen has a similar problem, it might be late for the party.
Therefore, the stars could align just right for Rafale. It won't be 64 planes, but less. But Dassault might just have the most balanced offer for HX.
I don't know how many times I have said it already, but with all the usual caveats, it could really be any one of the five. It all depends on how different performance aspects are weighted. If F-35 wins, it will mean massively more simulator hours and much less actual flying, and I don't see that as very likely.
Counting days till HXmas
Infographic: The Mammoth Cost Of Operating America's Combat Aircraft
This chart shows the operating cost per aircraft in fiscal year 2018.
www.statista.com
This gives us some idea of the costs associated with different aircraft.
-Super Hornet is more expensive to fly than legacy Hornet. 64 Super Hornets were offered to Finland. This will have to mean more simulator hours and less flying hours.
-F-35 is more expensive to operate than even F-15. It is very very hard for me to imagine this thing passing through the preliminary gate checks of HX. The only way possible is if simulator hours are massively increased, and real flying is minimized.
Other problems with the F-35: it is least suited for distributed operations, and least independent because of ALIS/ODIN. JASSM-ER is not integrated yet.
Typhoon has a problem, the new radar won't be ready in time. They are asking for Finland to wait for it, and also to co-operate with design work. Gripen has a similar problem, it might be late for the party.
Therefore, the stars could align just right for Rafale. It won't be 64 planes, but less. But Dassault might just have the most balanced offer for HX.
I don't know how many times I have said it already, but with all the usual caveats, it could really be any one of the five. It all depends on how different performance aspects are weighted. If F-35 wins, it will mean massively more simulator hours and much less actual flying, and I don't see that as very likely.
Counting days till HXmas
New Finnish article about HX. Use your favourite translator!
Lauantaivieras | ”Tämä ei ole ollenkaan kuin jokin autokauppa”, sanoo entinen Draken-lentäjä, josta tehtiin hävittäjäkaupan kilpimies
Suomen hävittäjähankkeen puhemies Lauri Puranen muistuttaa, ettei hävittäjien osto ole mitään autokauppaa.
Puranen mentions the three "gates" that need to be passed: serviceability, affordability and industrial co-operation. I can not see how F-35 could pass the "affordability" check with 64 aircraft. It will not happen. If it does not happen... F-35 will not be included in the final analysis and comparison.
Of course I could be wrong too. I think the safest bet is that any one of the five planes could win.
My bet is Rafale. Perhaps unnoticed by many is that the French have been hinting at nuclear weapons, there have been mentions of Rafale being THE carrier of French nukes etc. This could be the thing that separates Rafale from Gripen and Typhoon. Of course France is not going to sell Finland any nukes, that is out of the question. But Macron has been talking about the French nuclear shield, and how it could cover EU as well, with the co-operation of other EU states.
The caveat here is - once again - that I could be wrong, since I am not an expert or a professional. We shall soon see, and of course I know that people will make fun of me if I was wrong. Same applies to every other candidate
-There is a fairly good translation of this article on F-16.net, but of course all commentary there is biased towards the American options. I know that I am biased, I have a bias towards a European option and my favourite is Rafale.
Very interesting. It's the exact opposite of how India does it. We shortlist based on performance and then select the cheapest. Finland selects based on a benchmark price and then selects the most technically qualified. In India's case too there is a benchmark price, where a tender can be killed if the actual cost isn't close enough to the benchmark.
It's unlikely for weapons integration to be a deal breaker. The F-35 has the JSM option too, even if it has a smaller warhead.
If the F-35's upkeep is considered too expensive, then the Rafale will also be considered too expensive. The competition will then boil down to Gripen and SH. We know for a fact that the SH's CPFH is cheaper than the Hornet. Naturally the Gripen with its one engine will be even cheaper.
The SH is way cheaper than the Hornet. The SH's new engine almost triples service life compared to the old Hornet.
That's the trick. With the F-35's more advanced simulators, the pilots need 50% less air time for training, which means the flight hours are reduced by 20%. And the dollar is weaker by 20% too.
Actually, it's the most suitable for distributed operations. It's the first American jet made for use independently, without the need for external support from AWACS, ISTARS and EW.
It is possible to operate without ODIN for 30 days. Also Dassault is also developing their own ODIN for the Rafale. So any operational constraints will be similar.
Typhoon's future development is questionable. Only Rafale and F-35 have a post-2040 roadmap.
Rafale actually suffers from the same problem, even more so than the Gripen. Gripen's IOC is aimed for 2023. Rafale's F4.2 is aimed for 2024. However both will be ready before Finland gets the first delivery anyway. The F-35 also suffers from the same problem, with B4 expected to be ready only in 2027. Only the SH B3 is ready.
Why are you and not Finland's defense officials worried about this? Finns aren't getting the F-35/enter service until 2025+ by that time the F-35 will not be the F-35 of today.
No it's not. It has been answered just not to your liking.
Swiss evaluation report said that not only is the F-35 SUPERIOR to the planes it beat out by 95+ points but it is also $2 billion cheaper to operate and that will be the same outcome with Finland. We still don't know if the french plane came in second for all we know the F-18E or Typhoon could have been second place. Look I get it you're biased but you should be thankful Finish defense officials don't think like you and actually go by what fighter is more capable than the rest... and cheapest of course.
No, you don't understand. Lockheed is saying that they will sell 64 planes. Rafale will be cheaper, if they have fewer planes on offer. Lockheed could get disqualified. Rafale will not.
It is highly likely that both Typoon and Rafale are being offered in smaller numbers. This only means that they will stay in the game.
Absolutely not:
The Swiss have decided to ignore the known information about the staggering costs of F-35 operations that are so worrying the US Congress. The Finns, on the other hand, have decided not to believe the manufacturers' claims and to make their own judgement using all the data at their disposal.
Moreover, the cost of a Rafale flight hour in Switzerland is more than 50,000 Swiss francs, whereas it is less than 16,000 € in France. There is a problem that no one understands and that has no reason to be repeated in Finland.
In Finland, they are using a sophisticated statistical software package to model and predict operating costs. They have run the same software on the current Hornets just to see how close they can match real world operating costs. -I am not an expert on statistics, so I might not be getting the terminology right.
Also remember that Finland can talk with the Norwegians and they will tell how much they are spending on the F-35.
I can not see how it would be possible to operate 64 F-35's with the same budget as old Hornets. If they do it, then it will mean much less flying and much more simulator, and also much more flying with the old Hawk trainers.
Regarding Rafale: smaller fleet is needed, but probably also more hours in the simulator. Nevertheless Dassault would remain in the race.
Gripen is maybe cheapest to operate. However the big problem is that it might be late.
Also remember that Finland can talk with the Norwegians and they will tell how much they are spending on the F-35.
I can not see how it would be possible to operate 64 F-35's with the same budget as old Hornets. If they do it, then it will mean much less flying and much more simulator, and also much more flying with the old Hawk trainers.
Regarding Rafale: smaller fleet is needed, but probably also more hours in the simulator. Nevertheless Dassault would remain in the race.
Gripen is maybe cheapest to operate. However the big problem is that it might be late.
Let us imagine a scenario. This is only a game and an exercise of imagination. What if:
F-35 disqualified, operating costs too big
Typhoon disqualified, AESA radar late and risk too high
Gripen disqualified, late and risk too high
Then we have two options left. Superbug and Rafale.
We shall see very soon...!!! Christmas is approaching... of course I could be wrong too! Then people will laugh at me! Same applies to us all.
F-35 disqualified, operating costs too big
Typhoon disqualified, AESA radar late and risk too high
Gripen disqualified, late and risk too high
Then we have two options left. Superbug and Rafale.
We shall see very soon...!!! Christmas is approaching... of course I could be wrong too! Then people will laugh at me! Same applies to us all.
All right then, why did Finland not buy F-16's last time around? Because it was disqualified. "Does not meet requirements of the Air Force".
There were only two planes that met the requirements last time. Mirage 2000 and F-18.
There were only two planes that met the requirements last time. Mirage 2000 and F-18.
Relax chappy your nations defense officials who know what they are doing are going to select the F-35 and many french fanboys in here are going to cry like they did when the Swiss selected the F-35. Europe is becoming F-35 land for a good obvious reason... it is the best/most advanced fighter to ever take the skies. Duh, huh?
That makes it even more interesting. Since there is a benchmark price and all the competitors will know it, then if the Americans are offering 64 jets, then it means they are confident of meeting the benchmark price for all 64. Whereas if the French are offering lesser jets, then they are compensating for their higher price with lesser units.
The Swiss price depends on what all they have added to the CPFH. Do recall that American prices are also quite insane when some additional costs are added, for example, the American CPFH of the F-16 is $25000. It's the same price they are hoping to achieve for the F-35A. But we know that doesn't include the cost of spares, maintenance and fuel alone, which is likely just $7500-9000. I also recall other big CPFH prices like $45000 for F-15s and $60000 for F-22s.
Here's a more interesting way to look at it. If you look at the unit price, spares/maintenance, basing and weapons cost of the Rafale deal with India, it comes up to $200M per jet, without fuel and other fluids. For 6000 hours lifespan, that's $33000 CPFH. Add 7000 more for fuel and others, you get $40000 CPFH. There are so many other costs associated with running the jets, like electricity to run all the infrastructure, C&C, running supercomputers, other manpower costs, which could easily cover another $10000. Since it's lifecycle, we can even include 30% of the unit cost for MLU, which is $10000 for 3000 hours. This has taken us to $60000 CPFH already.
The planned $25000 for the F-35 is divided between three parties, 39% for LM, 14% for P&W and the rest for the USAF. Which means contractor responsibility is $13250. Anyway, if we assume it's the same for the Swiss, then the air force costs could be much higher in comparison since the rest will be locally sourced in a more expensive economy than the US or France.
What price are you talking about? It doesn't matter if 64 F-35's fit into the buying price. It doesn't matter what the rate of the dollar is. I am talking about operating costs.
There are three pass/fail gates for all planes. One is serviceability/ security of supply. Second is operating costs. Third is industrail co-operation.
As far as I can tell, F-35 could fail two or even three of these. Do you understand that a fail means it disco'd? This happened to F-16 last time around.
F-16 was perceived to be the Air Force favourite last time around, but it failed on two counts. It did not meet the requirements, and industrial co-operation was not taken seriously by the seller. It was not bought. It was disco'd.
The Finnish are a lot more relaxed about the capabilities demonstrated on prototypes. It's unlikely for any of the jets to be rejected for being under testing. Unlike the Swiss, the Finnish are considering both Gripen E and Rafale F4.2, so they have given OEMs a lot of leeway.
The point is this. If any one of the planes fails one of the pass/fail gates, it will not be in the war games. There will be nothing to talk about. Politicians will not know anything about the capabilities of said plane, however wonderful.
If only two planes pass the gates, then only two planes will be in the final war games and simulations. There will be nothing to discuss about the other planes. Maybe they were "better", but no-one will know.
If only two planes pass the gates, then only two planes will be in the final war games and simulations. There will be nothing to discuss about the other planes. Maybe they were "better", but no-one will know.