Finland has chosen the F-35A to replace its ageing F/A-18 fleet and will order 64 of the jets and their support equipment in a $9.4 billion deal.

According to the Finnish defence Ministry:

“The Government has today decided to acquire Lockheed Martin’s F-35 as Finland’s next multi-supplier fighter jet. The acquisition includes 64 aircraft, armaments adapted to Finland’s needs and other necessary systems. “The new multi-purpose fighters will be the foundation of air defense and a necessary part of land and sea defense. The capabilities of the fighters also contribute to the reform of intelligence, control and management.”

The F-35A beat the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon.

“When comparing military performance, the F-35 best met our needs,” Defence Minister Antti Kaikkonen told a news conference.

“The F-35 will provide Finnish industries unique digital capabilities that leverage 5th generation engineering and manufacturing,” said Bridget Lauderdale, Lockheed Martin’s vice president and general manager of the F-35 programme.

“The production work will continue for more than 20 years, and the F-35 sustainment work will continue into the 2070s.”

Lockheed Martin said in a statement:

“The F-35’s advanced capabilities transform the way air forces conduct operations. It is the most advanced, survivable and connected fighter aircraft in the world, giving pilots an advantage against any adversary and enabling them to execute their mission and come home safe. Its interoperability facilitates seamless information exchanges with surface and air platforms, strengthening interoperability between the different branches of the Finnish Defence Forces.

The F-35 selection will deliver economic and technical advantages to Finland for decades to come. Finnish industry will have many first-of-a-kind opportunities to work directly on F-35 production and sustainment. Through indirect industrial participation projects outside of F-35 production, Lockheed Martin will build industry partnerships with Finnish companies and academic institutions that offer opportunities focused on developing and advancing security partnerships far into the future.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

92 COMMENTS

  1. Poor old Sweden. Can’t sell the Gripen for love nor money. That’s literally all their neighbours that have picked the F-35 over the Gripen in direct competition

    • Yup, gone are the days when the Scandinavian countries bought Swedish fighters by default. I also think that the Gripen is getting a bit old news now and given the above article is talking of an operational life into the 2070’s that has got to count…

      Mind you the UK had interests in three of the five contenders, Gripen, Typhoon and F35 so we still win… 🙂

      Cheers CR

      • Apart from the days of the Draken….a very, very long time ago…when both Denmark, Sweden and Finland used it that has been true through Viggen and Gripen A/B/C/D.

        • It also means, with the dwindling prospects of the Gripen, that the Tempest collaboration looks more important for the Swedes.

    • A bit unfair Levi. Some 271 Gripen built since 1993 and vast majority still in service with Sweden, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, Czech Republic, Hungary. Many other countries are evaluating Gripen.

      Not bad for a country of 10m people. The UK with a population of 65m and a vastly bigger economy has not made its own national design of fighter in a British-owned factory since the Harrier line closed in 2003.

      • Harrier was a joint German/US/British project though the initial concept was the work of a Frenchman (Michel Wibault) who worked at NATO.

      • Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon were joint designs – and construction -with our European partners. The F-35 is, of course, a US aircraft designed by Lockheed Martin with BAE, and other companies, taking a workshare. As you say the Harrier was the last, true, British-designed combat aircraft but this may hopefully change with Tempest – despite cooperation with some international partners

        As you say, like France, Sweden’s defence industries have been doing very well in the global marketplace.

        • The Harrier GR.5 was also not a solely UK design…it was 50/50 between McDonnell Douglas and BAE, in fact MDD did most of the early work on it…

      • But this shows exactly why we haven’t, the development costs are unviable unless you can sell a lot of them, and the best way to guarantee selling a decent number is to share development and manufacturing with partners who commit to buying them. The Gripen has been a real success in terms of finding something of a niche and then winning exports with countries who weren’t involved in the development (although Brazil has major workshare in the actual production now). Despite that, I suspect that Gripen hasn’t really covered it’s development costs. We’ve done very well out of Eurofighter, we designed and developed about 75% of it what with it being heavily based on BAC’s EAP and a Rolls Royce engine, and we now produce about 30% of all of them and have a final assembly line. We could have done the whole thing ourselves but far fewer would have been sold and we wouldn’t have as many ourselves as the price would be much higher, the production line would have closed already and we’d have little appetite for a project like Tempest.

    • I also thought Gripen had a real shot in Finland esp. since Finland is not a NATO member, Sweden’s offer with GlobalEye was quite interesting, and Gripen works well in cold and from roads.
      But since Finland had F18 it’s logical they upgrade their fleet to F35 like the Swiss and probably the Canadians as well.

  2. I smell something, considering four F-35 were sent to compete in the Finnish trials, only two successfully arrived in the country and only one took part in the trials as the other couldn’t cope with the weather so the aircraft failed the minimum service availability part of the specification.

    • One is all it took is what you smell . Honestly if this forum is filled with defense types at least one must be recently retired and if that person has flown both the typhoon and the F-35 then it is your duty to your country to speak candidly on how inferior the Typhoon is in all its possible Tranches .

        • Irrelevant , could be a Cessna pilot or maybe an graduate of class 100 Pax River 1991 in either case what my hours on each type are dont matter . It is what I know and what you can find out that does . So try and do some research , ask some one who is flying F-35 for your nation and they will most politely ask you to advocate for no more Typhoons . Guaranteed .

    • Finland only had to ask any of the other 13 F35 operators including it’s neighbours. And they will have access to all the performance data that we will never see. I love Typhoon, but it’s easy to see why everyone wants F35. Some very clever people make these decisions. And they are not put off with all these Internet stories of cost overruns and delays. Which let’s be honest, has plagued every fighter project of the last 50 years.

      • Indeed, Robert – even during a Finnish delegation to Lossiemouth a few years ago to look at Typhoon, it was hinted by RAF base personnel that F-35 was the way to go!

    • Hi Jonny,

      My understanding is 15% across whole programme. However, I am not sure how that works for each variant. Most seem to think that the UK ‘builds’ 15% of each aircraft. The more I think about it the less sure I am that is the full story.

      For starters Rolls Royce had a significant part in the lift fan for the B variant, which obviously is not applicable to the A and C variants. The UK has, reportedly, contibuted significantly to the software on the aircraft and one article I read quite sometime ago a US engineer on the project was quoted as saying that the “finger printers” of UK programmers can be seen all over the software.

      With these factors in mind I think the 15% is spread variable and spread across the full programme. Whatever the actual numbers I think the UK does pretty well out of the deal. I think we nearly blew when we looked to switch to the C variant according to one article I read a little while ago…

      Cheers CR

    • Figures I have seen are 15% average for the programme with 10% on each aircraft rising to 40% of components (but no assembly) for the B’s.

  4. Is Typhoon likely to win anymore orders outside of Germany and Spain?

    A cursory wiki search shows Bahrain and Bangladesh have expressed some interest in new builds with Indonesia, Peru and Columbia being offered old tranche 1’s, but that’s about it!

    Ideally we’d see enough extra exports to keep the production lines ticking over and spiral development continue until Tempest ramps up in the 2030’s.

    • To be honest mate, what our fleet number will be is all over the place. The article about us committing to a second tranche buy has 48 (about fears that would be the cap), 60 (intended, which is less than the Finns), (maybe up to) 80 and finally 138 (though that’s a lifetime number so meh on that). Having 80 as a “maybe” is slightly worrying as sixty seems flipping tight for four squadrons, even if they’re only eight strong.

      • 60 is tight though to be honest when there was a real fear the A would be bought hamstringing the carriers I’d have accepted it.

        70 to 80 is fine for this capability. I’d spend the money elsewhere.

        My comment was also tongue in cheek as the detractors never take into account just what other assets the UK has that Finland and most others do not. Good luck to them.

        I consider all the Scandinavian nations firm allies and Sweden and Finland joining NATO would be something.

    • Important point is that our F-35s are just for the carriers and will be supplemented by Typhoon and eventually Tempest, whereas Finland are having only F-35.

    • The UK does not have a 1300 K active border with the Russian Federation that requires patrolling and preparation for Russian infringement

  6. It may be worth pointing out that these will be the only high end of the range fighter jets that Finland will have – RAF has Typhoons as well.

    A media report in my native land said last week test the Finnish defence force has 1,500 pieces of field artillery, including heavy grenade launchers.

    Apparently that is the highest figure in Western Europe.

  7. I am slightly surprised that they didn’t buy the B variant over the A, regardless of the cost considering the assymetric edge they gain by having that varient much like the RAF with their Harriers positioned at small mobile ‘airbases’ that made them harder to detect and subsequently attack since the enemy would be more likely to search for large infrastructure such as airports and airfields that could facilitate those jets.

    And Finland is by no means a ‘large’ country so they can’t have their forces split over a large landmass meaning that infrastructure is fairly easy to take out not to mention tensions with Russia are high, I wonder why they would go with a varient that is less useful for their circumstances.

    • With the installation of the Norwegian pattern drag chute the F-35 will have no issues operating from civilian road networks. Ability to do so (and to perform standard maintenance and sortie turn-around tasks in roadside field bases) was part of the Finnish requirements. It is unlikely the Lightning would have been chosen if this had been an issue considering the absolute necessity of dispersed operations when operating in the range of Russian ballistic missiles.

      Also even if basing was an problem buying the more capable air frame (larger weapon bays, better endurance) for cheaper made the A variant only realistic option for Finland.

    • Finland already have many dispersal bases on their highway network with enough to choose from to make sure that Ivan can’t be sure where they are, and probably can’t afford to hit them all. So they have many alternatives to the establishment bases with no need for STOL rather 1km plus runways. Flying stealth rather than 4th generation will only make them harder to find…

  9. Another operator and still the UK is the only country to solely use F-35Bs, I still think it is utterly ridiculous for the RAF to use the most limited of the variants.

    • In my opinion the main purpose of purchasing the B variant is for the carriers which obviously can’t facilitate A or C variants. However, the the F-35B’s capabilities is sufficiently greater than previous aircraft such as the Tornado for it to warrant the RAF investing such a large amount in the aircraft.

      • Right! As proven by the fact that our allies are picking the A variant over the more limited B variant for their forces.

        • Italy, Japan, ROK, all order and have coming into service the B version as they want to operate them from a carrier, which is their, and our requirements. Mixing the A version within the RAF/RN, would reduce both overall numbers, create less availability and make a fleet within a fleet issue and all the extra duplication of logistics and procurement. The Typhoon, planned Tempest and future drones are the way forward for the RAF. However it will be interesting to see what is decided in the future as head sheds do seem to make the most ill thought out changes to plans and procurement.

          • All those you countries mentioned also operate the A variant. How would it would reduce overall numbers, I was under the impression that the B variant was most expensive of the three variants because of its STOVL capability. The F-35A makes more sense for the RAF then a limited STOVL aircraft.

            The F-35A is a more suitable replacement for the Tornado then the Eurofighter which was designed as a air superiority fighter.

            And I don’t think it wise to be basing the layout of the RAF purely on the possibly that Tempest may manifest into something tangible, just look at the Army with Ajax.

          • F35 is not a Tornado replacement. Project Centurion for Typhoon added many of the strike capability from Tornado. StormShadow, Brimstone, Paveway 4. With the SPEAR 3 family of weapons to come next.The RAF doesn’t have the money or the need to operate a fleet of F35A’s, plus the joint Lightning force with the F35B. Fund Tempest in the long term and loyal wingman capability, and also some very expensive Typhoon enhancements. Radar 2 will be superb, but comes with a hefty price tag. Which is being paid for in part with the retirement of the remaining Tranche 1 fleet. (24 aircraft I think).

          • Only problem with F35A, which nobody seems to have mentioned, is that it is not compatible with the probe and drogue system on our Voyager air refuelling assets. We’d have to rely on the US or other allies for A2A!! Otherwise we’d have to pay for a major fuselage mod which would be very, if not prohibitively costly. Alternatively, get Air Tanker to mod their A330’s with a boom. Then at least we could also A2A refuel Poseidon, Wedgetail and Rivet Joint.

          • Yes they do also operate the A, but you would have a fleet within a fleet with both variants, and that would duplicate the logistic chain etc. But others have described that issue previous and in a much more eloquent way than I! The RAF could want the A in the future but why? They have the Tranche 4 Typhoon, and have edged their bets on Tempest and smaller drones. We now have 2 bloody big carriers and like it or not, the B is the chosen one. But as we know shit does change quite fast and for no apparent reason in the current climate. So for now it’s the B, ok the future could be a flying Ajax……

          • Heavens! Even PARA can learn, well, blow me down with a willow wisp of wind, wonders happen.

            Happy Christmas Airborne!

      • Your not qualified to use that name . Sean should be reserved for some one with an IQ above average such as my self ; how about you spell it “Shaun” in order to not denigrate what should only be associated with competence when commenting on the contemporary and thus giving incisive contemplative secure to the lesser individuals in this forum who are not Sean’s by title or own ability .

      • Whilst Finland has a proud maritime history there is no need for carriers or a deep ocean navy. They can see the Russian navy quite well already…

    • And if we didn’t have aircraft carriers we would have bought the A varient. But we do, so we are buying the B. And the RAF has an very capable fleet of Typhoons.

        • Then your chain of thought is still stuck in 70’s. It’s been a very long time since the RN had a truly independent fast jet fleet. And it’s not going to happen again anytime soon. The F35 Lightning Force is 50/50 manned RN/RAF, just like Joint Force Harrier before it. It’s the best use of resources.

          • Hmmm… Try telling that to the Koreans, Italians and Japanese. They have all opted to use a mix of A and B variants instead of being limited to the more restricted B variant.

          • And those nations have very different requirements to our own. Plus two of them don’t operate Typhoon. And Italian Typhoons are not as capable as ours. They do not have StormShadow capability for example or two 65k aircraft carriers. And in terms of combat capability, A and B are identical. Yes, F35A can carry larger weapons in it’s internal weapon bay’s. But we have never planned to use 2000lb Paveways on F35, or Typhoon. And the 500lb Paveway 4 has all but replaced the 1000lb weapon. F35B can carry 6 PE4’s plus 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x ASRAAM. 8 x SPEAR 3’s internally when that weapon enters service. And has a considerable larger internal fuel capacity than a Typhoon. A 5th gen supersonic, agile all aspect stealth VSTOL fighter we can take to sea is a very potent capability. A capability that simply would not have been technically possible 20 years ago. And now it’s a reality.

          • Yes. The RAF haven’t used unguided weapons for years exceptfor 27mm Mauser cannon in Typhoon. Paveway IV is a very flexible weapon, along with Brimstone 2. StormShadow for the more strategic stuff. And the new SPEAR 3/EW, which is like a mini cruise missile once it enters service. StormShadow is also being upgraded under SPEAR 4 requirements. SPEAR 5 will be the StormShadow replacement. 👍

          • Was never a big fan of joint Force Harrier ,I think it was to make numbers up after the The Government of the time started playing no money in the pot .Always better when the RAF,RN had there own aircraft it work in the old days .If the cold war didn’t end there would never been a joint Force Harrier.But do understand both services have to work together and do a great job.😀

          • No, look at the bad decisions made when the RAF and RN had their own jets

            As HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry, HMS Antelope, HMS Ardent and RFA Sir Galahad showed in Falklands

            Bad decisions proved fatal

          • Bit before my time to be honest 😄. But the money saved from a joint fast jet fleet at the time, could have been put to better use across the fleet. Inter service rivalries benefited no one. And I’m glad that lesson has been learned. The RAF have been involved in carrier strike from day one. It’s as important to the Air Force, as it is to the RN. And the AAC. 👍

          • Yeah as it stops the government from cutting the carriers like they did in the 70s with the Audacious

          • Hi Knight …..
            I agree in general terms that the lack of a big carrier like Ark Royal hindered operations during the Falklands Conflict, in particular, with no means to deploy AEW assets (until it was too late).

            But in the interests of balance, I think you may be overstating the case in assigning all six ship losses to the lack a fleet carrier. Operating a fixed-wing air-group of about 30 Phantoms, Buccaneers and Gannets would have presented its own problems.

            For instance, Sharkey Ward has stated that weather conditions in the South Atlantic were appalling and would have hindered conventional flying operations; in addition, the attrition-rate in Phantoms/Buccaneers due to accidents would probably have been greater, and reinforcing such an air-group much more difficult. Without the flexibility of the Sea Harrier, it’s likely the British sortie-rate may have dangerously declined as the conflict progressed.
            You’ve also got to take into account the human-factor – understandably people make mistakes when under pressure, including mishandling of air-assets by the Admiral’s staff during the campaign.

            For instance, on 4 May, ships of the task-force picked up the incoming Etendard raid – and took effective counter-measures. But for reasons too complicated to go into here, the operations-room of the Sheffield did not protect their ship. According to Ward, the Admiral’s staff had also erroneously diverted the SHAR CAP away on a fruitless chase of a spurious surface contact.

            On 25 May, Coventry was sunk after the operations room of that ship called-off Sea Harriers in close pursuit of incoming Skyhawks. The ship-borne missile radar-lock was then lost – and three 1,000 lb bombs went into the hull of the destroyer.

            According to Ward, a low-level Sea Harrier barrier-CAP was the most effective means to protect the San Carlos anchorage – but it was not implemented by the flagship.

            Just to sum-up: it’s an interesting debate – but I do think STOVL air-operations in 1982 provided opportunities, as well as challenges. I believe it’s misleading to assign all six shipping losses to the lack of a conventional air-group.

          • Yeah the Harriers had never seen combat before 82 and frankly the British are probably better at war fighting given they’ve basically fought everywhere and in the worst conditions in the world

          • Hi Alan , good post -I enjoyed reading your commentary. Out of interest, SW referenced that on occasion, the weather conditions would have hampered conventional carrier ops. I do wonder though if the argentines were flying ops on these days anyway?.

          • Hi Klonkie
            Many thanks for those very kind comments.

            I don’t have specific details of the weather conditions, although it’s a good question. There were suitable air-bases running about 1, 000 miles up the South American coast from Rio Grande to Trelew – so Argentinian forces did have some flexibility in avoiding bad weather when planning sorties. But Sea Harrier pilots didn’t have that luxury – they had to respond to incursions and defend the fleet in all weathers – day and night.

            Airborne CAP was maintained 150-100 miles from the task-force during daylight hours, with other SHARS on deck-alert for reinforcement, if needed – plus at night-time deck-alert, ready to scramble, was also manned. During the San Carlos beachhead, Sea Harriers maintained three CAP stations over Falkland Sound.

            I believe conventional jets would have taken 2, 000 pounds of fuel back to the carrier ie requiring a large safety margin in the event of several attempts to land-on. But on the basis that it’s easier to stop-and-then-land (!), Sea Harriers could cut those margins to the bone. After shooting down three Skyhawks on 8 June, Dave Morgan and Dave Smith returned to Hermes with just 300Ibs of fuel in their tanks.

            When Invincible couldn’t get out of a fog-bank at night, Charlie Cantan recovered to the ship by descending almost vertically through cloud using the ship’s searchlight as a reference point. He was awarded the AFC for his airmanship.

            All this just shows the versatility of STOVL operations, and how the new F-35B is the right choice for the Navy, allowing it to offset smaller numbers (compared to the USN) with maximum flexibility.

          • The “what if” scenario of either HMS Ark Royal or Eagle being available versus the smaller HMS Hermes, Invincible then later Illustrious is an endless debate. Those within the Harrier community knew how good it was as a fighter, but everyone else saw it as show pony for air displays. How wrong they were!

            Regardless of the carriers sent to the Falklands, the Sea Harrier was the most suited for the South Atlantic environment. After all, it is far easier to stop then land, rather land then trying to stop, which is the beauty of VSTOL. Meaning the deck could be pitching, rolling and heaving unpredictably, making a conventional carrier landing very precarious, especially when catching the wire is the only way of stopping the aircraft when it hits the deck!
            The main problem for the Harrier was its short legs, range and low payload.

            Would the Phantom and Buccaneer made that much of a difference. Well there’s no denying that both had significantly longer ranges and carried at a minimum three times as heavy a payload. The conventional carrier debate also includes using the Buccaneer as a buddy refueler and the Gannet AEW3 aircraft. The question would remain on whether these aircraft and the Gannet in particular would have been upgraded by 1982. The Phantoms armed with Sparrow missiles looked good on paper, but when put to the test were terrible in real life engagements. It did have an additional four Sidewinders as within visual range weapons. Which would have been twice as many as a Sea Harrier. In trials the Phantom’s AN/AWG-11/12 radar was inferior to the Sea Harrier’s Blue Fox radar in some respects and both suffered performance issues in the look down mode. If the Phantoms were fitted with the later AN/AWG-14, this had a much better performance than the Blue Fox in all respects.

            I think the Buccaneer would have made a significant difference in the ground attack operations within the Falklands. But, it would have raised the interesting possibilities of attacking the Argentine mainland, especially against airbases and ports. Another possibility was that the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile was undergoing trials in 1981/82, could it have been rushed into service and allowed a strike on their carrier?

            The aircraft that could have made a major impact on the war, was the Gannet AEW. In the pre-1975 guise the AN/APS-20 radar was already way past obsolete. It had very poor low level clutter rejection and a so-so 100 mile detection range against a large bomber; never mind a small fighter type aircraft! If the carriers had not been cancelled, then the improved Gannet AEW7 may have been ready by 1982. Both BAC and Ferranti had submitted proposals for a new much improved radar. Having an improved Gannet would have greatly changed how the air war was fought.

          • Thanks for a really interesting post Davey, great reading!
            I imagine the lack of an AEW asset was likely the key missing piece in the air defence challenges .

          • Yes, to make matters worse, the RN knew how deadly the Exocet could be, even before hostilities were announced. They bought it and had done trials with live firings so fully understood it’s capabilities.

            Flying medium to high level attacks would be suicide against the T42’s Sea Dart and Argentina knew it. However, as they had a pair of T42s themselves, they developed low level attacks to fly under the radar.

            To counter both sea skimming missiles and low level attacks, the Navy had been developing a “cheap” AEW that could be fitted to a Sea King on slow time. The Searchwater radar from the Nimrod was chosen, as it had awesome performance for detecting really small objects in choppy seas. It was fairly light weight and didn’t need an additional generator, as the two existing ones were sufficient to power it. As soon as things kicked off, getting the radar up and running was given top priority.

            Unfortunately the system wasn’t ready in time. However, a pair of AEW equipped Sea Kings were sent south with HMS Illustrious along with some additional Sea Harriers to replace HMS Invincible. The Sea Kings proved their worth detecting numerous low level incursions by Argentinian aircraft following the surrender, trying it on. Providing vectoring for intercepting Sea Harriers and later on RAF Phantoms.

            To put things into perspective. The Searchwater radar could provide significantly more detection capability than the Gannet AEW3 could ever dream of. The original version could easily detect a Exocet type of sea skimming missile when flying at 10,000ft some 70 miles away. The later versions of Searchwater even further.

            The story of how the Sea King AEW came about should be made into a documentary. The people involved moved heaven and earth trying to get it ready for the conflict. In the end they did set the foundations for an excellent multi-mode radar that exceeded their expectations.

          • And thank you again Alan for the insights. I did see a you tube interview with Dave Morgan re the A4 engagement you referenced – fascinating stuff.

            Regardless of the carrier and aircraft debate , there is no ambiguity about the skill and courage of the RN/RAF Harrier pilots. Can’t believe this was nearly 40 year ago. I remember it so clearly.

          • Actually Coventry’s Sea Dart system lost lock when HMS Broadsword eclipsed its radar between it and the Sky Hawks. Broadsword didn’t have Sea Dart, it had the shorter range Sea Wolf. Neither engaged leaving both with only point defence.

            A bomb hit the deck below our ops room.

    • I think you need to reflect for a while on the assertion that the B is the most limited variant. It has a smaller internal weapons load and range it also has slower acceleration, lower G limit and lacks an internal gun….but (there was a ‘but’ coming here) it has the same sensor suite, data fusion and stealth characteristics. When the USMC took the B model to Red Flag it dominated, which rather shows that the B model is a cutting edge world beating capability.

      Personally I think there is a moderately strong argument for the UK to adopt the A model (possibly with the alternative probe installation) but I also think there are other priorities that need to be considered procurement wise.

    • Most limited on what way? It’s ability to fly off of aircraft carriers (our own and all our allies carriers) or from short austere airstrips?

    • Consider that the Eurofighter Typhoon is replacing the Panavia Tornado and the F-35B is to fill the gap created by the decision of coalition government in 2010 to retire the British Aerospace Harrier 2 seven years earlier than planned

  10. This speaks to how technologically advanced the F35 is. The fact that a fighter jet introduced in 2016 is expected to still be competitive 50 years from now is amazing but that speaks to how it’s basic platform and system was designed to accept modifications as new technology arrived. It’s competitors that were largely one off creations with limited scope for upgrades cannot compete.

  11. History repeats itself again in European fighter procurement ……
    F-104: 1960s, F-16:1980s – and now the F-35.
    Both Rafale and Typhoon shot-down by their American rival.
    Some good analysis over on Corporal Frisk, the Finnish blogger.

    • Timing is everything and the 5G systems won the day. Not going to be able to sustain a 4.5G system into a 6.5G world, but a 5G might.

      I think its a lesson in go early go strong.

  12. I am a bit surprised as it would not seem to be the right aircraft for Finland, as a neutral they tend to focus on making themselves a very hard nut to swallow and don’t really have the need for the first day of the war kick the door down, more mass for preventing the invader (and we know that’s Russia) from getting air superiority. So they are paying for a capacity they don’t need.

    • None of the aircraft are cheap at all, and in modern air warfare older aircraft are next to useless against a more capable nation like Russia which has (relatively) modern combat aircraft. You have to go high quality or none at all, unlike infantry where they can have large amounts and focus on each one less.

      If you look at a situation like Iraq against the US and Western coalition, the coalition had a far larger air fleet overall and got air supremacy as a result but because the Iraqi jets were less capable as a whole, they were practically useless. A smaller number of modern jets would have inflicted some damage or at least have been able to maintain their capabilities in more restricted areas.

    • The stealth advantage is not limited to evading the s400 and other similar platforms. Furthermore, this acquisition isn’t about defending against present Russian aircraft, but also future ones which may not yet exist or at the cutting edge which will be in greater numbers later.

    • Finland have stated that an attack on Estonia is an attack on Finland and they will defend Estonia… Finnish headshed want NATO membership, Finns have nothing but love for Estonia – linguistically the same

      However, Finnish populace is not 100% Finn: many Russian people live there.

      Ergo, great interoperability with allied air forces and which Navy would… probably… have a carrier nearest the FEBA? The UK…

      Makes perfect sense.

  13. Like many other people with aviation interests, I often wonder what would have happened if Harold Wilson’s government had not cancelled the P1154 programme. The UK and Hawker Siddeley would have led the word on supersonic SVTOL

  14. UAE has suspended indefinitely its $10bn order for 50 F-35A announced two weeks ago (part of a wider $23bn deal for drones an munitions), notifying the US it is withdrawing its letter of acceptance and technical agreement.

    UAE cites three reasons for cancelling the order:
    Technical Requirements, Sovereign Operating Conditions (restrictions on use Huawei tech in their phone network imposed as conditions of sale and people are guessing a ban on using the aircraft in the Yemen conflict and concern over a Chinese military port facility being established in the country) and a reappraisal of the value for money (operating cost) of the aircraft.

    UAE F-35 Stealth Fighter Deal Hangs By A Thread Amid Chinese Espionage Worries (thedrive.com)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here