Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...ow-are-on-their-way-but-not-to-the-air-force/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...d-shattered-into-pieces/ar-AARC5gz?li=BBoPWjQ
The stealth fighter that crashed during an attempted take-off from HMS Queen Elizabeth last month was recovered after a multinational operation involving US and Italian forces.

A spokesman for the MoD said the wreckage had broken into multiple pieces and was found in “significant large parts”.

All sensitive equipment and aircraft parts had been secured, the spokesman confirmed.

The loss of the stealth jet in the Mediterranean Sea prompted a desperate three-week search to ensure sensitive technology didn’t fall into Russian hands.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
At a quick look at a Finnish news special, I understood that they were trying to tell Rafale and Eurofighter what they want. Those two did not provide proof of meeting the requirement.
 

Affordability​

The F-35 solution fitted to the allocated funding frame was the most cost-effective. The F-35 had the lowest procurement cost when considering all aspects of the offer. The operating and sustainment costs of the system will fall below the 254 million euro yearly budget. F-35 operations and lifespan development will be feasible with the Defence Forces’ resources.
No offer was significantly less expensive than others in operating and sustainment costs.
Click to expand...
It kills a lot of unending debates. Let's hope that some of it echoes back to the US...
 
Last edited:
Congress did not specify whether the competitive acquisition strategies to be evaluated include a winner-take-all approach, or whether it will consider annual competitive buys, as was done during the “Great Engine War” of the 1980s. Under that approach GE and Pratt competed for the lion’s share of engine production for the F-15 and F-16 in any given year, with the “loser” receiving at least some work. The benefit was constant competition and product improvement, with the byproduct of maintaining two companies capable of fighter engine production for wartime surge capacity.
Click to expand...

https://www.airforcemag.com/congres...-be-installed-in-all-f-35as-starting-in-2027/
 
TomcatViP said:

Affordability​

The F-35 solution fitted to the allocated funding frame was the most cost-effective. The F-35 had the lowest procurement cost when considering all aspects of the offer. The operating and sustainment costs of the system will fall below the 254 million euro yearly budget. F-35 operations and lifespan development will be feasible with the Defence Forces’ resources.
No offer was significantly less expensive than others in operating and sustainment costs.
Click to expand...
It kills a lot of unending debate. Let's hope that some of it echoes back to the US...
Click to expand...
I posted a link earlier that highly disproves the aircraft as as affordable as claimed based off Norway's real world data. It also challenges the Swiss & Belgian cost claims (both of which don't actually operate the type yet)- pretty sure Finland has fallen in the same hole...

That said - the F-35A was the logical winner here based on the amount of operators. I understand they will also have significant industrial work provided like building the forward fuselage and an indepth engine service capability. Likely a key area that helped win the deal.
 
TomcatViP said:

Affordability​

The F-35 solution fitted to the allocated funding frame was the most cost-effective. The F-35 had the lowest procurement cost when considering all aspects of the offer. The operating and sustainment costs of the system will fall below the 254 million euro yearly budget.
No offer was significantly less expensive than others in operating and sustainment costs.
Click to expand...
It kills a lot of unending debate. Let's hope that some of it echoes back to the US...
Click to expand...
Interesting… those statements don’t quite state that the F-35 was cheapest. In fact they read to me like they could have been designed to obfuscate:

« Most cost effective » … easy if they rated the F-35 as more effective than the others. That could offset higher costs.

« When considering all aspects »… one could drive a bus through this statement. Maybe the US weapons package was cheaper or they assumed they needed fewer F-35s than other types?

« No offer was significantly less expensive » implies that the F-35 was not the cheapest (otherwise they would have said so)… and we all know F-35 operating costs are just PowerPoint promises at this stage.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
« No offer was significantly less expensive » implies that the F-35 was not the cheapest… and we are all know F-35 operating costs are just PowerPoint promises at this stage.
Click to expand...
To be fair - the bid claiming to be the most effective - Gripen E - (which is probably true) isn't even in service yet, and won't be for some years to come.
Yes, Gripen E is closely related to Gripen A/B/C/D, but in the end, it's a new plane.
 
H_K said:
Interesting… those statements don’t quite state that the F-35 was cheapest. In fact they read to me like they could have been designed to obfuscate:

« Most cost effective » … easy if they rated the F-35 as more effective than the others. That could offset higher costs.

« When considering all aspects »… one could drive a bus through this statement. Maybe the US weapons package was cheaper or they assumed they needed fewer F-35s than other types?

« No offer was significantly less expensive » implies that the F-35 was not the cheapest (otherwise they would have said so)… and we all know F-35 operating costs are just PowerPoint promises at this stage.
Click to expand...
All good points.

I'm just goint to point out the ordered 64 F-35's with Saab's offer being 64 Gripen E/F + Globaleye so F-35 numbers required, at least those ordered, don't seem particularly less than for the others.

In the end this press release reads like most of those that select the F-35... Very cryptic about matters with detail kept to a minimum.

Ainen said:
H_K said:
.
Click to expand...
To be fair - the bid claiming to be the most effective - Gripen E - (which is probably true) isn't even in service yet, and won't be for some years to come.
Yes, Gripen E is closely related to Gripen A/B/C/D, but in the end, it's a new plane.
Click to expand...
Also true. Gripen E has been stated to have almost no commonality besides aerodynamic shape with previous Gripen's. The technology might have been evaluated as more risky/less proven? The F-35's operators are expanding quickly so service problems are guaranteed to be resolved quickly. Block 4 updates will be well proven too by the time Finland receive its first aircraft.
Not saying Gripen's can't offer the same level of support from Saab, but the Gripen is the less proven candidate between the three competitors that met all required criteria, thus more risky.

In the end though, the F-35 probably isn't a bad choice in the longrun. Seems to be ever evolving into a fantastic aircraft with plenty operators, but for a nation focussed on running a lean and efficient defence force I still think it wasn't the right choice, but that is just a personal opinion based of information available.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
In the end though, the F-35 probably isn't a bad choice in the longrun. Seems to be ever evolving into a fantastic aircraft with plenty operators, but for a nation focussed on running a lean and efficient defence force I still think it wasn't the right choice, but that is just a personal opinion based of information available.
Click to expand...

Lean, in that context, is all about being cost effective. If you need a 24 planes package to do what 4 F-35 can do, even by being marginally cheaper, you are not the leanest solution but the more expensive in term of cost, blood and capital investments...
 
Cannonfodder43 said:
Apparently the Super Hornet and the Gripen E also passed the tests, the Rafale and Eurofighter did not pass the requitement gates.
Click to expand...
The link didn't really mention anything about the other four aircraft, just about the advantages of the F-35.
 
helmutkohl said:
Cannonfodder43 said:
Apparently the Super Hornet and the Gripen E also passed the tests, the Rafale and Eurofighter did not pass the requitement gates.
Click to expand...
The link didn't really mention anything about the other four aircraft, just about the advantages of the F-35.
Click to expand...

Rafale and Eurofighter failing to qualify has been mentioned in Finnish media.
"Rafale putosi Suomen kilpailusta Eurofighter Typhoonin kanssa jo ennen ratkaisevaa suorituskykyvertailua."
https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000008467433.html
Google translation can be misleading: "Rafale dropped out of the Finnish competition with Eurofighter Typhoon even before the decisive performance comparison." It is more like: "Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon were eliminated from the Finnish competition even before the decisive performance comparison."

Finnish Broadcasting Company (Yle) had a live program about the choice as soon as it was made. A Government official said that they were trying to guide Rafale and Eurofighter to provide what was required - but never got what they asked for. It was not clear if they were missing performance documentation, details of the economics of the proposed deal, or what.
 
TomcatViP said:

Lean, in that context, is all about being cost effective. If you need a 24 planes package to do what 4 F-35 can do, even by being marginally cheaper, you are not the leanest solution but the more expensive in term of cost, blood and capital investments...
Click to expand...
You are welcome to provide a link where that ratio is said? They ordered 64 F-35A. Saab's offer was 64 Gripen and 2 Globaleye. Hardly the 6:1 ratio claimed... Finland only needed something like 12 F-35's from LM then to meet the mission requirements if Saab needed 64 Gripens to meet it. With what has been emerging about the F-35 and operating costs from sources other than LM 64 Gripen will in all likelihood be the cheaper option. Being non stealth and needing an AEW aircraft in the mix might be a valid argument assuming the F-35 is that good to do it alone. Which, to be fair, it has thus far shown it to be. Being easier and cheaper to operate also allows a higher sortie rate.

I must further add it's all nice and well having a technological advantage if you aren't in the air as much... That said - according to USAF numbers at least F-35 measures well to other legacy types which does counter my argument here somewhat. Would love some comparisons as achieved by other operators although most European operators are replacing legacy F-16A's so it wouldn't be surprising the new toy is better. Like-for-like comparisons between F-35 and other contenders like Gripen E, SuperBug, Typhoon and Rafale would be interesting. As I said earlier, Gripen E is just coming into service too which makes assumptions of it more difficult - and likely inaccurate. More risk to someone like Finland too but with Sweden and Brazil already taking deliveries they will strat dealing with issues even before the first carbon sheets are laid for Finland. F-35 seems to now be mostly over the initial growing pains too.

Like I said - F-35 was the logical choice and certainly not a poor one. Not in the slightest, but I suspect the real cost of getting the type will become real very soon to Finland. And cost seemed to be one area of particular concern.

trose213 said:
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Very cryptic about matters with detail kept to a minimum.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Finland isn't allowed to reveal proprietary data, until companies contest and start shit talking.

Click to expand...
Like I said - difference in revealing proprietary data and stating why you chose one type. F-35 selection statements always hint at some sort of advantage and try and either avoid, or downplay the cost aspects. If it was that much better - they can state several reasons why without leaking any sensitive information about any of the competitors. I suspect the industrial offer from LM helped quite a bit in the Finnish deal.

trose213 said:

BLACK_MAMBA said:
the Gripen is the less proven candidate
Click to expand...
It was also the least capable plane, which probably is why it's so concerning.
Click to expand...
Least capable in what context? Gripen E has been beating multiple contenders which should in theory be superior in multiple program downselects. True, like-for-like in a game of Top Trumps it doesn't compare well to say the F-35 but it offers other advantages like low operating and support cost with less infrastructure costs. By all accounts a potent EW package too. Does that make it better than F-35? Well, depends of the context, mission sets etc you want... And those are the matters govts tend to hide so following their logic is difficult. Add cryptic reasons for selection and you see where the questions start coming from.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Like I said - difference in revealing proprietary data and stating why you chose one type. F-35 selection statements always hint at some sort of advantage and try and either avoid, or downplay the cost aspects.
Click to expand...
Finland said how they arrived at the solution, just not their work. They don't care about leaking to competitors vs. hostile countries. After all, whoever runs the competition has to explain in detail why the plane got the score it did and how the other plane scored higher.

BLACK_MAMBA said:
Least capable in what context? Gripen E has been beating multiple contenders which should in theory be superior in multiple program downselects.
Click to expand...
Least capable in war fighting capabilities? Industrial and cost were simple pass-fails. Finland did extensive vetting of the planes combat capabilities and made the decision based on those facts.
 
trose213 said:

Least capable in war fighting capabilities? Industrial and cost were simple pass-fails. Finland did extensive vetting of the planes combat capabilities and made the decision based on those facts.
Click to expand...
Then you will notice this statement: "The F-35 came first in the assessment or shared the top score in all mission areas and achieved the highest total score." I have yet to see the actual scores per criteria per aircraft so how one can conclude the Gripen E suddenly became the 'least capable in war fighting capabilities' is beyond me... All we know is Finland judged F-35 the best overall according to their criteria - the specifics will undoubtedly be kept hidden. You are welcome to provide the proof that Gripen didn't 'share the top score' in some criteria with F-35 and or Hornet which would make it the 'least capable'.

Side note: Industrial off sets are also not to be underestimated - especially since they influence the view of those actually signing the cheques! Support for local industry creates jobs and generates votes... The DoD can only recommend their choice based on their evaluations. That said, I doubt they would have gone totally against the recommendations. The F-35 most probably outscored Gripen & Super Hornet in long range interdiction (20% weight) and ISR (20% weight) specifically due to stealth and its associated benefits. That would probably have been the key criteria for getting the DoD nod. Add the large industrial offer and I can see why they went for F-35.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
You are welcome to provide the proof that Gripen didn't 'share the top score' in some criteria with F-35 and or Hornet which would make it the 'least capable'.
Click to expand...
We don't know how any of the planes scored besides the other F-35 being the highest or tied for the highest. There were other aspects of the bids too, like munitions.

BLACK_MAMBA said:
The F-35 most probably outscored Gripen & Super Hornet in long range interdiction (20% weight) and ISR (20% weight) specifically due to stealth and its associated benefits.
Click to expand...
We know the weightings and that's why they can't release the scores until companies start complaining.

BLACK_MAMBA said:
Gripen E suddenly became the 'least capable in war fighting capabilities'
Click to expand...
The Gripen competes on cost and is a single engine fighter with a less powerful engine.
 
Flyaway said:
Wonder if LM will be pulling some political levers as that’s a big deal going south
Click to expand...
CNN reported that the US was conditional on the terms of selling the F-35. The biggest prerequisite, it seems, is UAE distancing itself from Chinese tech, especially Huawei's telecom network devices. UAE was repuctant of it.

Seems like a lot of countries aren't really aware what it takes to buy this jet.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Flyaway said:
Wonder if LM will be pulling some political levers as that’s a big deal going south
Click to expand...
CNN reported that the US was conditional on the terms of selling the F-35. The biggest prerequisite, it seems, is UAE distancing itself from Chinese tech, especially Huawei's telecom network devices. UAE was repuctant of it.

Seems like a lot of countries aren't really aware what it takes to buy this jet.
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder if was at all a factor in the big debate that blew up a few years ago over here in the U.K. about Chinese technology in our 5G rollout.
 
Josh_TN said:
The UAE is welcome to buy more French airframes if they prefer.
Click to expand...

The UAE will always diversify suppliers of such important weapons. And it's not just Russia who is in the game. See who Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan met recently.
 
Look at how flagrant e5es have been and how inappropriate western corps have behaved. Things I have read concerning China have kept me up at night. Hearing this, I think the f-35 was always a long shot and that the sheikhs are just doing a good job with haggling the usual people. I bet they are doing similar with the checkmate which is irritating. they will probably go rafale like someone was alluding to earlier.

Edit: used the word bet in three consecutive sentences. ffs
 
I popped along to RAF Lakenheath at 5/6 am to save a spot to see the new F-35A for the newly established 495th Fighter Squadron ‘Valkyries‘ part of the 48th Fighter Wing so here are my photos below.

cheers
 

Attachments

  • 11502B71-8513-4063-A447-6D8E866C5CEB.jpeg
    11502B71-8513-4063-A447-6D8E866C5CEB.jpeg
    3 MB · Views: 25
  • B77247DE-8724-4DB7-B5B0-71EFFF6FC644.jpeg
    B77247DE-8724-4DB7-B5B0-71EFFF6FC644.jpeg
    3.1 MB · Views: 21
  • 3C66A0A6-5807-47F5-816C-7FBDA97BA45A.jpeg
    3C66A0A6-5807-47F5-816C-7FBDA97BA45A.jpeg
    2.7 MB · Views: 19
  • 5F1A0D42-AE01-4655-A5D9-0F11875B574E.jpeg
    5F1A0D42-AE01-4655-A5D9-0F11875B574E.jpeg
    2.6 MB · Views: 21
  • 50C40C68-8D87-43BE-9BBF-9A3B3BCE2385.jpeg
    50C40C68-8D87-43BE-9BBF-9A3B3BCE2385.jpeg
    3.4 MB · Views: 18
  • 8A2997D3-5D44-421D-96C7-531CEEE4F697.jpeg
    8A2997D3-5D44-421D-96C7-531CEEE4F697.jpeg
    2.6 MB · Views: 13
  • B7DA29D4-E039-4779-936E-432ED4E0593D.jpeg
    B7DA29D4-E039-4779-936E-432ED4E0593D.jpeg
    3.1 MB · Views: 14
  • CA171704-A051-4688-8363-B2AA0E10BEE2.jpeg
    CA171704-A051-4688-8363-B2AA0E10BEE2.jpeg
    31.4 KB · Views: 19
  • 82A7D006-C19A-473F-89AD-A3C64EB358FF.jpeg
    82A7D006-C19A-473F-89AD-A3C64EB358FF.jpeg
    35.7 KB · Views: 23

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom