Finnish Air Force news & discussions

Yama

New Member
As Finland's HX-Hanke (Hornet replacement project) is one of the largest ongoing fighter aircraft acquisition programs, I thought the FAF deserves its own thread. At least I couldn't find one previously.

(pic: Wikipedia)

Anyhow, HX is now at Best And Final Offers stage and recent news generated some buzz. All five candidates have left their offers, though only Saab and Boeing revealed number of the aircraft, probably because they were only ones who managed to fit required 64 fighters to ~10 billion€ budget. Saab offer 64 JAS-39E's and two GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Boeing offers 50 F/A-18E's and 14 Growlers. Latter number is...surprisingly large, it's bigger fleet than Australia's. Dassault has told next to nothing to public about the offer. Eurofighter promises engine manufacturing line for Finland (?!). LockMart has commented that their offer has 'superior performance' even though they apparently didn't make it to 64 airframes. In addition to armament selection revealed in DSCA, LM offers JSM and AIM-120D for F-35.

Flightglobal article about Saab offer

YLE article about the BAFO offers (sadly only in Finnish)
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Thanks for creating the thread.

Corporal Frisk has great articles in English on this topic. Let me just link a few of his blog posts including on best & final offers on the topic of this fighter acquisition contest, including Stealth, Dispersed Operations, and a big Jammer; and Fighters, Missiles, and Forces. Let me extract 2 relevant quotes below for your further consideration and discussion:

(i) On the F-35A, he says and I agree that “An interesting detail that often is overlooked for the F-35 is that a better capability to close with your enemy will not only give you more accurate information about what is happening and where, but also offer the possibility to use shorter-ranged (read: cheaper) weapons to hit defended ground targets.”​

(ii) “The missile expected to handle the long-range strike mission in case Finland chooses either the Super Hornet or the F-35A is the missile formerly known as JASSM-XR. This would mean a huge increase in range, from the current 370 km of the AGM-158A JASSM to 1,852 km of the AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ERB2 (usual caveat that all range figures are based on open sources and comes with a large dose of ‘it depends’ where things such as launch altitude come into play).”​
 
Last edited:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
As Finland's HX-Hanke (Hornet replacement project) is one of the largest ongoing fighter aircraft acquisition programs, I thought the FAF deserves its own thread. At least I couldn't find one previously.

(pic: Wikipedia)

Anyhow, HX is now at Best And Final Offers stage and recent news generated some buzz. All five candidates have left their offers, though only Saab and Boeing revealed number of the aircraft, probably because they were only ones who managed to fit required 64 fighters to ~10 billion€ budget. Saab offer 64 JAS-39E's and two GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. Boeing offers 50 F/A-18E's and 14 Growlers. Latter number is...surprisingly large, it's bigger fleet than Australia's. Dassault has told next to nothing to public about the offer. Eurofighter promises engine manufacturing line for Finland (?!). LockMart has commented that their offer has 'superior performance' even though they apparently didn't make it to 64 airframes. In addition to armament selection revealed in DSCA, LM offers JSM and AIM-120D for F-35.

Flightglobal article about Saab offer

YLE article about the BAFO offers (sadly only in Finnish)
50 FA-18E and 14 EA-18G is a strange mix though, no Fs for the OCU?
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
50 FA-18E and 14 EA-18G is a strange mix though, no Fs for the OCU?
The HX tender is in part about lowest price for almost 64 (for a price ceiling), so there is no spare cash for 2 seater OCU Fs, but I note that Growlers are 2 seater aircraft and can be pressed into service as OCUs with their pods removed.

Of the 5 manufacturers, only 2, Saab and Boeing have offered 64 fighters for the HX tender, while the other 3 companies are likely to be in the high 50 plus fighter range. As Corporal Frisk wrote in the latest link provided above:
“Saab... held a press conference on Friday, which included the news that they were to supply 64 JAS 39E Gripen as well as 2 GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft in case they got chosen.​
Those who have been watching the process closely will note that it is the two producers who have been expected to sport the cheapest fighters that have disclosed their numbers, and both match the current 64 fighter figure.​
...​
...there’s certainly an expectation for almost 64. This stems from years of writings, interviews, and podcasts in which both the HX programme leadership as well as the senior Air Force personnel commenting on the issue has noted that we need roughly the same number of fighters as A) Finland is still the same size as it was in 1995, B) the speed of the fighters are roughly the same as it was back then, and C) the range of the weapons is roughly the same as it was back then.​

...​

The big question for HX then is whether the three manufacturers that are withholding their numbers are doing so because 58 would look bad when someone else has 64 (and that 9% difference in my opinion is still one where it might be possible to make a case for better overall capability thanks to higher availability and lower losses), or whether it is because the numbers offered are outrageously low (the threshold is somewhere in the low-fifties in my book). It is somewhat surprising – and honestly, rather worrying – that three out of five doesn’t want to talk numbers.”​
 
Last edited:

Yama

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
According to Saab, decision to leave two-seaters out was based on discussion with the customer (FAF) to maximize the number of airframes. Primary need for two-seaters was apparently 'just for the most complicated EW missions'.
F-35, of course, has no two-seater at all. Eurofighter also announced that their preliminary offer was for 64 single-seaters. So I think odds are Dassault offer is just single-seaters too.

Point about F-35's advantages in strike mission cost/effectiveness certainly sounds plausible. Still, they apparently fell short of the 64 airframe requirement, probably even under 60. Super Hornet might also get some cost advantage from much easier transition from classic Hornet which Finland currently operates. Interestingly, this is quite opposite conclusion to Danish evaluation where F-35 was considered cheaper than Super Hornet...

64 is not 'set in stone' but FAF has stated that the final number must be 'in the ballpark'. I'd guess that cutoff is at around 56 airplanes. Anyone who can't reach that is probably effectively out.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Interesting procurement, 64 whatever versus Canada’s 88 whatever. Given the relative economic and geographical differences, what is one to make of the procurement numbers? Certainly the threat level is greater due to Finland being adjacent to Russia. The other factor is Canadian pollies thinking minimal numbers are ok because the US has to cover our six. Finland, like Canada, is a Hornet user, but other vendors may have a shot but LM is likely the choice and hopefully the same is true for the RCAF.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Finland spends on weapons & kit for defending Finland's borders & coastal waters. Its navy is small & purely local: no procurement of large ocean-going warships & the support ships to enable them to deploy across great distances. Its air force doesn't have any heavy transport aircraft ( transport fleet of 6 C-295) or tankers, or a fleet of long-range maritime patrol aircraft. And so on. Those things cost a lot to buy & operate.
 
Top