36 ms·

Why Finland Selected the F-35A (2021)

114 points by sklargh 4y ago

belter 4y ago
This is an article about why Finland selected the F35A, without mentioning a single reason why Finland selected the F35A. No ranking, no mention of technical advantages no independent benchmark of this platform still to be proven in combat anywhere. And no, bombing ISIS does not count.
- zx8080 4y ago
  Do you mean that decisionmakers corruption is the reason?
- lfodofod 4y ago
  Have any of the competitors been proven in combat anywhere?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    Everybody of course would like to read a ranking of all fighter jet planes me included. Not like who is fastest or has most ammunition but who has the best rate of survival. This could perhaps be determined by some sort of simulation. Would not make sense to put them into an actual fight really. Countries who own the planes would not want the enemy to know their weaknesses.
    - KMag 4y ago
      Rate of survival under what circumstances? Even for the simple case of pairwise one-on-one dogfights, there could easily be a rock-paper-scissors scenario where there's no single dominant plane. Also, the data would be from simulations. Outside of Ukraine, there haven't been many fighters of advanced nations shot down in decades.
      - galaxyLogic 4y ago
        I just wonder if there are such simulations. My guess is there are. They are simulating nuclear weapons too.
        KMag 4y ago
        More than 20 years ago, I wrote networking portions of such simulations. Even for the unclassified components for those simulations, many of the components were still both commercial secrets and considered munitions under ITAR export controls. Terrain maps beyond a certain resolution are classified. As I remember, the somewhat lower resolution terrain maps were still ITAR controlled munitions. Some of the radio propagation models are classified. Even half-way decent simulation outputs are likely also classified. In my case, for the most part, the simulations were used to shorten the turnaround time in the early prototyping stages, and also a fair amount for the sales team to sell military hardware to governments.
      - gpderetta 4y ago
        And in Ukraine, the life expectancy of anything flying above treetop has been very very low (admittedly F35 would fare better than its competitors here).
      - yobbo 4y ago
        There were rumours of an Isreali F-35 targeted and damaged (but survived) by some old Russian AA system, maybe BUK? This was based on observed events and movements. Of course, we would never know, which is correct and appropriate. The topic of "spectral stealth" is complicated. It is vulnerable to systems of networked radars, among other things. It is one feature that may be very useful, but it is not a "panacea".
        red-iron-pine 4y ago
        Russian BUKs and S-400s in Syria repeatedly and consistently tracked Israeli F-16s. In an actual shooting war they'd have gone down, fast, and the Israelis knew it -- which is why they bought into the F-35. Price was good and, like, "stealth". There is little to suggest that the Israeli F-35 was taken down by a missile; the sources involved are not especially credible. Eurasia Times, for example, is basically Russia Today (RT) and is not really trustworthy. Most of the posts elsewhere, e.g. Quora, are from questionable accounts and aren't credible either. It's possible it happened and they're spinning it as something birds -- which is pretty lame and damning if true -- but most of the pro-shot-down points are difficult to take seriously.
    - fnrslvr 4y ago
      You might want to track down the information they release from multinational training exercises like Red Flag. Reportedly the F-35 has put in multiple dominant showings at Red Flag since its debut. I'm not sure how complete the information they release from these exercises is, though, and some of the aircraft involved (most notably the F-22) are notoriously restrained to keep the true capabilities of the platform secret.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Not really sure what “proven in combat” looks like, the US fortunately hasn’t fought a peer in a long, long time so all of our stuff has only been tested in fairly one sided wars. If a country’s Air Force is getting in fair fights, I’d suspect either they are in pretty dire circumstances, or they have some questionable decision making going on!
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > no mention of technical advantages no independent benchmark Because those weren't the deciding factors. Cost and maintainability were. (It's implied that the planes were close enough in capability that the "gate checks" were just that. Gates. Not goals.) Finland didn't want to end up with another Betamax fleet.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > Because those weren't the deciding factors. I think it's the other way around. Technically, the F-35 has been superior all along, but it used to be expensive. Now, with the cost coming down, the reason NOT to pick it went away.
- iosono88 4y ago
  [dead]
- defrost 4y ago
  > without mentioning a single reason why Finland selected the F35A There are at least three within the first tenth of that long article alone that I read, namely: * the most boring factor, simply the sheer amount of F-35s sold is a huge benefit. As has been stressed from the outset, Finland can’t afford to be the sole operator of an aircraft * Lockheed Martin provided a unique tailored solution to Finland – one described in their BAFO-press statement to “includes many opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35 that have not been offered before.” * Which brings us to what has been the most controversial aspect of the program: cost. The acquisition cost has come down nicely, I'll grant it's a badly written article for clarity and it's hard to pick the details out from the noise and fluff but it's simply incorrect to claim that not a single reason was mentioned. ( other than on the technical grounds that more than "a single reason" was provided in the article. )
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Are there any jet fighters available to buy that Finland would be the only operator of? I'd assume all other options would be operated in their country of origin at the very least (eg Gripen in Sweden, Rafale in France...) Those don't have stealth of course and having Russia as a direct neighbor it's much more likely they'll see combat against an advanced military (much more do than western Europe) so I can imagine they wanted that advantage even though it's not perfect.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > any jet fighters available to buy that Finland would be the only operator of? The concern isn't being sole operator at time of sale, but decades down the road. The Gripen, for example, is used by Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and Czechia [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
      - phillc73 4y ago
        I'm such a fan of the Gripen. It's significantly cheaper to operate than the F-35, with around 4 to 5 Gripen flight hours for the same cost as one F-35 flight hour. While it doesn't have stealth capabilities, it does have over the horizon radar, can carry the Meteor air-to-air missile which has a 100km range and was specifically designed to operate in a "distributed and de-centralised" manner; that is from rough, but still paved, runways and highways. I really wish they'd send a couple of squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine, because I think they'd be the perfect aircraft for that theatre.
- ummonk 4y ago
  But it did. Stealth, widespread adoption globally (resulting in a larger logistical support base and long term support), and low cost were all mentioned as features of the F-35 that made it preferable to its competitors.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  Does anyone seriously think the F-35A is not technically as-good-as or superior to the Typhoon on a number of axes? If it's similar in cost to the Typhoon, it seems like a no-brainer. Of course the "If" is doing a lot of work which is why TFA was so focused on whether or not the costs in the contracts were reasonable.
  - yobbo 4y ago
    The Eurofighter is higher specced than the F-35 on a number points - speed, manoeuvrability, capacity, and possibly endurance - but this is not really part of the debate. The question is how they are going to be used in practice, with everything that entails. The decision also includes a gamble on how the platform develops in the future, and how adversary's capabilities develop.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  The F-35 has already had numerous successes operating in a high-threat anti-air environments in Lebanon and Syria (edit: and Iran) at the hands of the Israelis.
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  Norway went with the F-35A some time ago[1] to replace our F-16s, and we got the first planes in 2015. Since then we've gotten a fair bit of experience with it, including join exercises[2] as well as developing a landing system for our arctic climate[3]. Denmark has also gone for the F-35A[4], and recently got its first planes. If Finland joins NATO, it makes sense to combine air forces[5] in Scandinavia, in which case I can imagine there's a lot of benefits from having the same airplane as one of the other members. Obviously that w as not a direct consideration back when the decision was made, but surely some of the people involved were eyeing close cooperation in Scandinavia if shit hit the fan. Regardless, I imagine Finland has had a chat with the Norwegian Air Force about the plane, which feedback should be highly relevant given the similarities between the countries. So far from what I've read the Norwegian Air Force seems quite happy with the F-35. [1]: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-global-partnership/f-35-norway.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-glob... [2]: https://www.tu.no/artikler/norske-flygere-har-for-forste-gang-deltatt-med-f-35-i-verdens-storste-luftovelse/461237/ https://www.tu.no/artikler/norske-flygere-har-for-forste-gan... [3]: https://www.ffi.no/aktuelt/podkaster/16-slik-har-ffi-forsket-pa-f-35 https://www.ffi.no/aktuelt/podkaster/16-slik-har-ffi-forsket... [4]: https://www.f35.com/f35/global-enterprise/denmark.html https://www.f35.com/f35/global-enterprise/denmark.html [5]: https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/luftfartssjefen-vil-ha-felles-nordisk-luftforsvar-om-sverige-og-finland-blir-medlemmer-av-nato-1.16264381 https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/luftfartssjefen-vil-ha-felles-n...
  - The_Double 4y ago
    I wonder how much value there would be in having some level of dissimilar redundancy in (soon to be) NATO air forces. All NATO countries having fleets of the F35 makes us vulnerable to any kind of weakness or bug that adversaries are able to exploit.
  - sklargh 4y ago
    It is worth noting that the US operates a number of F-35s out of Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. The weather conditions are comparable to the sub-arctic areas of Scandinavia. Heck they were figuring out how to operate in Thule this month.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  I know the most evident reason: If you want to be part of NATO you've got to pay your dues to NATO's overlord military industrial complex.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    France - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_and_Space_Force#Inventory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_and_Space_Force#Inv... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_French_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Frenc...
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Eurofighter Typhoon is produced by 4/5 NATO member states, and there is also the Rafale by France.
  - oaiey 4y ago
    It is not NATO which enforces that. It is the superior spending and technology the overlord ;) is producing which makes every competing product a tough sell regards its pricing. And yes, you spent your money with friendly nations.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  The main reason is one that is best not said out loud. Esp in 2021. This is a NATO buy in.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Except Finland wasn't part of NATO nor had plans to join NATO when this deal was negotiated.
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      Can't hurt to cozy up to NATO anyways. Finland bought F18s during the Cold War.
      - psychphysic 4y ago
        Exactly, that's why it was so important.
- miroljub 4y ago
  Maybe because the technical selection process was not important? The decision was purely political, they wanted to please the most important NATO country, and they wouldn't achieve that goal by buying MiG or Tornado.
- TruthShare 4y ago
  [dead]
whalesalad 4y ago
I don't think there is another fighter in the world that can compete, aside from the F-22 which is so advanced we will never sell it to allies.
- ttul 4y ago
  Help me understand what sets the F-22 apart from the F-35? I've read the Wikipedia pages, but I still don't get why F-22 is so remarkable that it cannot be sold to other countries.
  - kneebonian 4y ago
    Speed and stealth I assume. From what I understand the top speed is classified, and stealth is still a super secret technology where they count the milligrams of exterior coating when decommissioning a stealth fighter.
    - nl 4y ago
      Speed isn't very important at all, and I don't think it is classified. For example, the F22 has a slower top speed than the F15 (although higher non-afterburner speed).
      - nradov 4y ago
        Speed would be very important in a potential Pacific Theater conflict. The F-22 is significantly more fuel efficient than the F-15 so while the top speed might be slightly slower it can actually maintain a higher average speed in real operations.
      - trashtester 4y ago
        Speed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31, or when you want to avoid being intercepted yourself (such as after being detected during a penetration mission). Speed also provides an energy advantage against SAM's and very long range ATA missiles. The F-35 can probably go faster than the stated top speed of M1.6, though, if surivival depends on it. I would guess its real top speed is around M2, similar to an F-16.
anikan_vader 4y ago
It's the only 5th gen fighter jet that is available. The fact that the price point happens to be highly competitive with 4th gen fighters is almost irrelevant.
- pixodaros 4y ago
  Again, people trying to sell the F-35 in the oughties were saying that, but the experts I went to at the time were skeptical (and especially skeptical whether those extra capabilities matter for those countries which don't have a war against Russia, China, India, or Turkey in their threat model). We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was.
  - jandrewrogers 4y ago
    The calculus is pretty simple. The F-35 costs about as much as a modern 4th generation aircraft these days but consistently slaughters those 4th generation aircraft in exercises due to its unique capabilities. This gives it a high force multiplier for the cost that works well no matter the quality of the adversary. I think everyone expected the F-35 to be much more expensive than advanced 4th generation aircraft, which would change the argument, but that turned out not to be the case. That dozens of countries are buying fleets of F-35s also makes the practical logistics, operations, interoperability, and maintenance of the aircraft attractive. It is quickly becoming the new F-16 in terms of ubiquity in a modern Air Force.
  - yucky 4y ago
    > We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was. I'm fairly certain Russia has not bothered to unleash their T-50 PAK's against Ukraine, so that remains to be seen doesn't it? And from all available literature those are at least on par with the F-22 if not slightly better. Now the B-21 Raider (bomber, not a fighter) is probably without peer currently. That thing looks like a UFO.
    - pixodaros 4y ago
      After a year of losing the war and firing all kind of random munitions, if Russia had aircraft which it thought could survive against Ukrainian air defenses, I think it would use them. They certainly are not scared of losing people or equipment. It seems like the Russian air force can't carry out large operations with sophisticated aircraft, whereas NATO air forces have lots of practice at that.
pixodaros 4y ago
Ten years ago, everyone interested in military aircraft who was not trying to sell the F-35 told me that it was terrible (too expensive, trying to do too many incompatible things, dependent on software systems which did not work and possibly could not work). I would be interested in an article on what changed now that more countries are picking it.
- kyleyeats 4y ago
  All competing projects did even worse.
- elabajaba 4y ago
  The bugs have mostly been fixed, and it's cheaper than most 4.5 gen fighters (they're building a lot of them so the unit cost drops significantly) while being significantly more capable (see the ridiculous numbers it puts up at Red flag). People have also learned that a lot of the "experts" that criticized it were extremely noncredible (eg. Pierre Sprey) and are spouting nonsense that hasn't been true since before the Vietnam war (eg. Relevance of dogfighting and guns in air combat).
  - pixodaros 4y ago
    The thing about dogfighting and guns / mawr dakka seems to be an American thing, I did not hear it, but David 'Warisboring' Axe seemed like a serious reporter, and Marcus Ranum was a serious IT guy
    - Phiwise_ 4y ago
      Mirage 2000, Rafale, and Typhoon were/are all arguably designed with a huge emphasis on energy maneuverability, which is also only meant for dogfights according to postings on internet forums. And there are plenty of other isolated ways you could argue the reverse of the US showing restraint in ways others don't, such as Europe's love for delta wings (rejected most recently when the F-35 was first considered), or the Russkies' obsession with supermaneuverability, which the US has barely even considered sane enough for demonstrators. In terms of "mawr dakka", too, assuming you're referring to the A-10, that honor also belongs not to the US, per popular opinion, but to the Soviets in the MiG-27. You've just never heard of it because they wanted to fire essentially the same projectile in a slightly bigger casing at 2000 more rounds per minute, which the airframe simply couldn't handle reliably, and were also limited in the battles they did see due to an unusual weakness to ground fire as opposed to the A-10's unusual resiliency. And besides that, the US also built the F-111 and F-117 as an explicit alternative to light air attack craft. The only "American thing" that really exists in modern military history is a tendency to do more things than everyone else. The US has NIH-ed their way into pretty much every military technology that's been hypothesized by someone not wearing a tinfoil hat and raving about Nikola Tesla or Leonardo Da Vinci. The public hears about questions like dogfighting and firepower in US aircraft because the US is one of the only countries in the world whose military actively seeks out (or at least sought out, there's some argument that the F-35 is the beginning of the end) multiple home-grown variants of military equipment, especially aircraft, that are expected to compete both on economic and doctrinal value as actual service craft for continuing contracts, rather then just proving ground test beds. More chances to change preference, more chances for contracts, more argument, more buzz filtering into newspapers. In contrast, we're probably not going to talk much about if stealth is a Finnish thing or whatever else for quite some time after this. Perhaps the American thing is spending lots of money, but a full assessment doesn't really allow for more specifics than that.
coffeebeqn 4y ago
It also further aligns them with the US military complex team which - anyone who’s watching Ukraine knows is the right pick. Gripen is cool but Finland needs a strategic partnership with the US. Sweden is already their best friend and they certainly can’t rely on the big EU countries to not try to not hurt Putins feelings instead of helping a ally in an existential struggle
- throwawaysleep 4y ago
  Sweden has yet to prove it has any value as an ally either.
  - wahern 4y ago
    Nearly $1 billion USD in assistance to Ukraine, more than half of which is military material, isn't nothing.
    - ralusek 4y ago
      materiel*
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    The two countries are moving into NATO together, they are practically married.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The two countries are moving into NATO together, they are practically married. I think this is what you meant, but it could be misread: the former is a sign, not the cause, of the latter. They’ve had aligned security policy for a long time, which is reflected in their joint decision to choose to apply to NATO.
      - enra 4y ago
        This time it was Finland that pushing them both to NATO. Finland had friendly pack with Sweden that if either of them decide to pursue NATO membership they would let the other one know. Last year by the time Finnish leadership and people were pretty much decided on NATO, Sweden was just starting their discourse so they had to catch up not be left behind. Now somewhat ironically because of Sweden, Turkey has been delaying and objecting the membership. Finland has also kept with updating equipment and keeping the conscription military service these past 100 years, Sweden ended their conscription and mostly been downsizing their military.
dirtyid 4y ago
JSF programs killed competiton, there's nothing else that can compete for 20-30 years assuming current non US 4.5/5th gen programs deliver.
- trashtester 4y ago
  I doubt they will dominate for that long. I think we should see 6th gen within 10 years, and AI may make unmanned aircraft more cost efficient than F-35s even sooner than that. But for anytone (who is friendly with the US) that need a multi perpose fighter sooner than that, the F35 is the obvious choice today. And it may stay useful even when 6th gen arrives, just like F16's are still relevant today.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    NGAD + MUM-T likely in next 10 years, but not for export. US allies also now doing their own 6th gen program, i.e. JP-UK-IT-SE (Global Combat Air Programme), FR-DE-ES (Future Combat Air System) and 4.5 gen SKR (Bormae), but that's still 10-20 years away. So in meantime 35 only obvious choice for anything over 4.5 gen. I do agree that AI fighters the future. Simply because once you engineer without human limits, flight envelopes / performance will shift in attacker favour. Anti-air missiles work by arbituaging gap unmanned and manned limits. I can see performant UAVs being magnitude more capable in dodging anti air to the point where it becomes not feasible in terms of cost and magazine depth to try to even shoot them down, especially from naval platforms, i.e. 500 VLS cells in carrier group with 30% dedicated to AA might successfully interdict 50 manned fighters and need 200 to overwhelm, but with manned fighters that might only be effective against 5 unmanned, or 20 unmanned to overwhelm. Realistically less because ships become significantly less useful if they have disproportionately focus on anti air. Basically skip job of stealth of being difficult to detect to being nearly impossible to hit in the first place. Hence airforce betting/pouring 1000 F35s worth of $$$ on B21s that's difficult to detect and fly in altitudes that's difficult to hit, straight from CONUS.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      I think most of what you write are possible futures. Though I'm not sure they're the only possible futures. As aircraft (and particularily unmanned ones) improve, air defense systems will be likely to change to meet the new challenges. I find it really difficult to conclude what the balance will be in that arms race (apart from the prediction that humans are not likely to be needed in every plante anymore). For instance, it may be that lasers mounted in ships (or even large planes) may become really good at countering many of the threats that appear. Then again, that could lead to mirror coating as a counter, but that may reduce stealth, and so on. Furthermore, the distinction between missile and aircraft can go away. We may get hybrids that have the range of aircraft, but the power an manouverability of missiles, but with very short range guns replacing the warhead, making them reusable. Launch platforms may also change. The B21 may very well be just as important for anti-air duty as the F-35, if the right kind of missiles/air launched drones are available. The F-35 on the other hand, can act as drone control platforms, privding more advanced sensors and compute than each drone would have. Over oceans, maybe surface ships become obsolete, but in addition to options such as lasers, rail guns and more advanced missiles, one needs to keep in mind that they can be hard to detect (if satellites are knocked out). Subs are likely to stay relevant, though, even though they too may become unmanned relatively soon.
rq1 4y ago
Almost everything I read on the topic says that it’s inferior to competition. Eg. https://historyandwar.org/2015/09/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35/ https://historyandwar.org/2015/09/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35...
- toolslive 4y ago
  wasn't even Boeing's X-32 superior at the time of the JSF competition? I seem to recall that the biggest "flaw" was that it looked really ugly.
AstixAndBelix 4y ago
Imagine a 5th gen fighter costing as much as a 4th gen one and being able to do almost anything pretty well. Only a few countries can afford to have multiple types of aircraft to serve multiple roles. For everyone else the F-35 is a bargain and a technological marvel. Just buy a bunch of them and you're pretty set.
RektBoy 4y ago
I hope Finland will join NATO asap. (I'm not American).
- Synaesthesia 4y ago
  Just out of curiosity, why?
AndyMcConachie 4y ago
How can anyone look at the record of the F-35 and think anything other than it is a complete boon doggle? Just look at it. It's a fat turd of a plane that cannot turn, and they keep crashing. I guess people will tell themselves whatever they have to in order to believe in western military supremacy. How quickly we forget that the USA can't win a war and is really only good at bombing civilians from altitude.
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > How can anyone look at the record of the F-35 and think anything other than it is a complete boon doggle? Proper use of bribes can make any plane look fantastic to the buyer.
- AndyMcConachie 4y ago
  Nothing has changed about the F-35. It's still a piece of shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
devjab 4y ago
Isn't the title here on HN a little misleading considering it's: "F-35A is HX – The Winner Takes It All" on the site itself? Or that the article never really delves too hard into the Finnish procurement process, outside of a few anecdotes about cost and the Finnish competition being "too honest". As someone who spent quite a long time working in the Danish public sector, often on the higher levels of public procurement, I think it's sort of fun but ultimately fruitless to talk about these processes in the public. Denmark also went with the F-35A, and we too had a lot of discussion about whether or not that was a good idea (especially when Trump then won the election and started alienating Europe). Anyway, in our procurement processens there is thousand upon thousand worth of pages detailing all the different things that goes into these decade long procurement processes, spanning the length of different governments, and it's really hard to sum things up as "this is why we chose how we chose" because it's always a bunch of different things. Part of it is the technology, which is well described in this article. The F35 is better than it's competition. Part of it is cost. You could willingly buy the "deprecated" F18 Super Hornet which I believe was the most serious competition here in Denmark and hope that was "good enough". Or you could go with the more geo-political route of betting on more local industry to hopefully build up an European (or Swedish/Finnish) alternative in time while getting an inferior product until that succeeded. And a range of other things, but at the end of the day, in many Scandinavian countries the F-35 is going to replace the F-16, and with decades worth of co-operating with the American Airforce for training on top of the F-35 being the better project, and our countries tending to look more to American than to Europe (we speak English as our first second language, not French/German/Spanish/Itallian after all) it was likely always going to be the F-35. Even so, the process was very serious and produced a lot of documentation, and so far, it seems like one of the most successful and least corrupt public procurement processes at that scale in Denmarks history. So while it's easy to think this and that on the choice, I think it's also good to keep in mind the kind of serious work that seem to have gone into these processes in every Scandinavian country. I guess you can now even say that it was a good choice, and it probably was. Maybe the competition, like the Eurofighter would also have seen huge improvements if it had been given the same amount of money the F-35 project did, maybe it wouldn't have. My personal take-away from it, was how huge of a public discussion we hade about it here in Denmark when it was 18 Billion Danish Kroner. Yes, it's become a much more expensive process, but while 18 billion dkr is a lot of money. You can run a city with 60.000 citizens 6 full years for those money here in Denmark, we ended up paying the mink-farmers 19 billion dkr in "sorry we killed your mink sort of illegally because they might mutate covid". With that perspective in mind, I feel sort of silly about the public second guessing, my own included, about whether pouring 18, or even 35, billion dkr into the F-35 was better than going with it's cheaper alternatives because, well, I'd frankly rather have a bunch of F-35 than a bunch of dead mink. This last part is obviously a bit of a jest, but I think you can follow my meaning.
psychphysic 4y ago
I'm surprised the main reason isn't mentioned. NATO. This is a way to pony up money in a way that would be appreciated if Finland joined NATO. It's the killer feature of F-35 and F-22 and heck modernized F-16s. I suppose it's hinted at. Finland can't find and maintain an air force alone... Stealth simply isn't as important as one would think so long as you're not running missions into enemy territory.
- sofixa 4y ago
  There are other NATO jets outside of the US manufactured ones - Rafales, Typhoons, soon Gripens.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    This is a side note, but are you absolutely convinced Sweden will join NATO?
    - sofixa 4y ago
      I'm an optimist and hope that Erdogan will finally lose the next election, and thus there will be no more political blocking of Sweden joining.
      - miroljub 4y ago
        Why do you expect the next government will somehow be better for Sweden than Erdoğan? If they climb to power, they will still need to compel to hardcore nationalist population, in case of Sweden even more than Erdoğan, since they will need their social credit for topic they find important to them and won't burn it because of Sweden.
        mschuster91 4y ago
        In the end, Erdogan's opposition to Sweden is mostly related to Sweden granting asylum to Kurds, and Sweden can't (and won't) extradite them because Swedish law forbids them to. And if the opposition candidate wins, he will be busy repairing all the mess Erdogan did to Turkey's foreign relations - even if the nationalists in the coalition will whine, they can't afford wasting more political good-will for a couple hundred Kurds.
mikl 4y ago
Massive pressure and incentives from the U.S. Just like everyone else who want to be in good standing with NATO. The “selection process” in Denmark was a total sham, most of the competitors didn’t even bother submitting a bid, because it was obvious from the start that the F-35 would win.
- Idiot_in_Vain 4y ago
  Complete nonsense. There are no alternatives to F35.
- gggggg5 4y ago
  Which competitors? The J-20 or SU-57? Yeah, I wonder why those wouldn't be selected.
  - DSingularity 4y ago
    Euro fighter? Typhoon? Rafale? Are none of these competitions?
    - izacus 4y ago
      They're generation older (with everything that means for their sensor suite, pilot workload and situational awarness) and won't have all the benefits of sharing the same platform with the rest of the Europe.
      - gggggg5 4y ago
        They're also more expensive.
      - Octoth0rpe 4y ago
        > won't have all the benefits of sharing the same platform with the rest of the Europe. Buying the _eurofighter_ wouldn't let them share the same platform as the _rest of Europe_? I realize that the F-35 has racked up a number of sales recently, but there's quite a few eurofighters around still, and more on the way IIRC
rwmj 4y ago
Surprised that Finland quotes VAT (value added tax) in its costs. Isn't that the Finnish government paying tax to themselves?
- pm3003 4y ago
  Yeah, it's one ministry pating another, but it's still necessary. Possibly a European rule.
Gravityloss 4y ago
One idea I've not seen examined. Since most of the cost is in the software, engine and systems, why make the airframe commonality such a big point? There could be an F-35D that would be a totally new airframe but would use everything else from the other models. There will be lots of F-35:s manufactured, maintained and upgraded over the lifespan so it would make sense to "tap into" that ecosystem. Composite manufacturing has been advancing a lot. If the structure can be uncoupled from the rest, then it would allow for better performance. The current shape of the F-35 variants is limiting their supersonic performance. One could also optimize the airframe for cost or speed of manufacture. It might be deemed now that the airframe performance is adequate. This might change in the future as adversaries improve.
- nradov 4y ago
  The biggest problem with the F-35 airframe is that it's fat and thus the aerodynamics kind of suck. This design was essentially forced by the need for the B model to have a single engine with sufficient thrust for vertical landing. The A and C models would have been better as twin engine designs with the weapons bay in between, like a smaller version of the F-22. But at this point it's too late and there's no way to fund the development of a D model with a radically different outer mould line.
  - Gravityloss 4y ago
    Exactly! Also the length was limited because it has to fit to small aircraft carrier lifts. Something a new design for non-naval use wouldn't need to take into account. YF-23 had a narrow and deep weapons bay that was considered problematic since if a weapon jammed to the rail, it would prevent release of other weapons above it. Maybe it's also bad if you want to shoot a lot of missiles in a very short time span. The production design had a wider bay, worsening the aerodynamics a bit: https://yf-23.webs.com/F-23A.html https://yf-23.webs.com/F-23A.html
- ianburrell 4y ago
  Using common airframe for three variants was probably the major flaw of F-35 program. I think they were concerned about the design costs. They made it work but it was expensive to get working. Plus, the electronics and software were the really expensive pieces. It would have probably been cheaper and better to design two planes, one conventional (F-35A, F-35C) and one vertical take-off. Then save money by using common parts and the same avionics.
some_random 4y ago
Oh boy I'm very excited for a well articulated thread full of people who know about modern jet fighter combat and selection rather than a bunch of IT people who get everything they know from clickbait sites that cite RT contributors.
- 0xDEF 4y ago
  Norwegian and Danish pilots and technicians love the F-35 and prefer it over the competition. It's very typical of tech people to think we know more than domain experts.
  - belter 4y ago
    What is their opinion about being unable to go supersonic for more than short bursts currently classified as "will not fix"? [1] A hint they got from the world of software development clearly... :-) "...At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts... The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News... ...The F-35 Joint Program Office has classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet..." [1] - https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds...
    - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
      As an interested layman I'd have thought, the higher, the better, because less friction. Now I'm wondering why. Because of lower outside air temperature, making some material expand/shrink too fast? Now I'm puzzled. Does this mean it can't go (high) supersonic at lower altitudes either? Because denser air causing even more friction? I mean something like Mach 2 at 1000 feet. Mission impossible?
jononomo 4y ago
Didn't the US spend something like $1 trillion over a decade to develop this plane? I remember reading stories for years about how expensive it was. So maybe Finland is reaping the benefits of the extravagant development costs that the US sunk into this fighter. Also, the other contenders don't have stealth capabilities, which seems to be an obvious reason for not winning the contract.
- mrep 4y ago
  No, the 1.5 trillion dollar number everybody loves to quote is in 2070 then year dollars and is the total cost of the program which includes design, acquisition, operations and maintenance for making and using a lot of planes (~2,300) over the next ~50 years.
johnea 4y ago
So they can incinerate the poor?

114 points by sklargh 4y ago

This is an article about why Finland selected the F35A, without mentioning a single reason why Finland selected the F35A. No ranking, no mention of technical advantages no independent benchmark of this platform still to be proven in combat anywhere. And no, bombing ISIS does not count.

zx8080 4y ago
Do you mean that decisionmakers corruption is the reason?
lfodofod 4y ago
Have any of the competitors been proven in combat anywhere?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  Everybody of course would like to read a ranking of all fighter jet planes me included. Not like who is fastest or has most ammunition but who has the best rate of survival. This could perhaps be determined by some sort of simulation. Would not make sense to put them into an actual fight really. Countries who own the planes would not want the enemy to know their weaknesses.
  - KMag 4y ago
    Rate of survival under what circumstances? Even for the simple case of pairwise one-on-one dogfights, there could easily be a rock-paper-scissors scenario where there's no single dominant plane. Also, the data would be from simulations. Outside of Ukraine, there haven't been many fighters of advanced nations shot down in decades.
    - galaxyLogic 4y ago
      I just wonder if there are such simulations. My guess is there are. They are simulating nuclear weapons too.
      - KMag 4y ago
        More than 20 years ago, I wrote networking portions of such simulations. Even for the unclassified components for those simulations, many of the components were still both commercial secrets and considered munitions under ITAR export controls. Terrain maps beyond a certain resolution are classified. As I remember, the somewhat lower resolution terrain maps were still ITAR controlled munitions. Some of the radio propagation models are classified. Even half-way decent simulation outputs are likely also classified. In my case, for the most part, the simulations were used to shorten the turnaround time in the early prototyping stages, and also a fair amount for the sales team to sell military hardware to governments.
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      And in Ukraine, the life expectancy of anything flying above treetop has been very very low (admittedly F35 would fare better than its competitors here).
    - yobbo 4y ago
      There were rumours of an Isreali F-35 targeted and damaged (but survived) by some old Russian AA system, maybe BUK? This was based on observed events and movements. Of course, we would never know, which is correct and appropriate. The topic of "spectral stealth" is complicated. It is vulnerable to systems of networked radars, among other things. It is one feature that may be very useful, but it is not a "panacea".
      - red-iron-pine 4y ago
        Russian BUKs and S-400s in Syria repeatedly and consistently tracked Israeli F-16s. In an actual shooting war they'd have gone down, fast, and the Israelis knew it -- which is why they bought into the F-35. Price was good and, like, "stealth". There is little to suggest that the Israeli F-35 was taken down by a missile; the sources involved are not especially credible. Eurasia Times, for example, is basically Russia Today (RT) and is not really trustworthy. Most of the posts elsewhere, e.g. Quora, are from questionable accounts and aren't credible either. It's possible it happened and they're spinning it as something birds -- which is pretty lame and damning if true -- but most of the pro-shot-down points are difficult to take seriously.
  - fnrslvr 4y ago
    You might want to track down the information they release from multinational training exercises like Red Flag. Reportedly the F-35 has put in multiple dominant showings at Red Flag since its debut. I'm not sure how complete the information they release from these exercises is, though, and some of the aircraft involved (most notably the F-22) are notoriously restrained to keep the true capabilities of the platform secret.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Not really sure what “proven in combat” looks like, the US fortunately hasn’t fought a peer in a long, long time so all of our stuff has only been tested in fairly one sided wars. If a country’s Air Force is getting in fair fights, I’d suspect either they are in pretty dire circumstances, or they have some questionable decision making going on!
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> no mention of technical advantages no independent benchmark Because those weren't the deciding factors. Cost and maintainability were. (It's implied that the planes were close enough in capability that the "gate checks" were just that. Gates. Not goals.) Finland didn't want to end up with another Betamax fleet.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > Because those weren't the deciding factors. I think it's the other way around. Technically, the F-35 has been superior all along, but it used to be expensive. Now, with the cost coming down, the reason NOT to pick it went away.
iosono88 4y ago
[dead]
defrost 4y ago
> without mentioning a single reason why Finland selected the F35A There are at least three within the first tenth of that long article alone that I read, namely: * the most boring factor, simply the sheer amount of F-35s sold is a huge benefit. As has been stressed from the outset, Finland can’t afford to be the sole operator of an aircraft * Lockheed Martin provided a unique tailored solution to Finland – one described in their BAFO-press statement to “includes many opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35 that have not been offered before.” * Which brings us to what has been the most controversial aspect of the program: cost. The acquisition cost has come down nicely, I'll grant it's a badly written article for clarity and it's hard to pick the details out from the noise and fluff but it's simply incorrect to claim that not a single reason was mentioned. ( other than on the technical grounds that more than "a single reason" was provided in the article. )
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Are there any jet fighters available to buy that Finland would be the only operator of? I'd assume all other options would be operated in their country of origin at the very least (eg Gripen in Sweden, Rafale in France...) Those don't have stealth of course and having Russia as a direct neighbor it's much more likely they'll see combat against an advanced military (much more do than western Europe) so I can imagine they wanted that advantage even though it's not perfect.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > any jet fighters available to buy that Finland would be the only operator of? The concern isn't being sole operator at time of sale, but decades down the road. The Gripen, for example, is used by Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and Czechia [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
    - phillc73 4y ago
      I'm such a fan of the Gripen. It's significantly cheaper to operate than the F-35, with around 4 to 5 Gripen flight hours for the same cost as one F-35 flight hour. While it doesn't have stealth capabilities, it does have over the horizon radar, can carry the Meteor air-to-air missile which has a 100km range and was specifically designed to operate in a "distributed and de-centralised" manner; that is from rough, but still paved, runways and highways. I really wish they'd send a couple of squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine, because I think they'd be the perfect aircraft for that theatre.
ummonk 4y ago
But it did. Stealth, widespread adoption globally (resulting in a larger logistical support base and long term support), and low cost were all mentioned as features of the F-35 that made it preferable to its competitors.
aidenn0 4y ago
Does anyone seriously think the F-35A is not technically as-good-as or superior to the Typhoon on a number of axes? If it's similar in cost to the Typhoon, it seems like a no-brainer. Of course the "If" is doing a lot of work which is why TFA was so focused on whether or not the costs in the contracts were reasonable.
- yobbo 4y ago
  The Eurofighter is higher specced than the F-35 on a number points - speed, manoeuvrability, capacity, and possibly endurance - but this is not really part of the debate. The question is how they are going to be used in practice, with everything that entails. The decision also includes a gamble on how the platform develops in the future, and how adversary's capabilities develop.
rocket_surgeron 4y ago
The F-35 has already had numerous successes operating in a high-threat anti-air environments in Lebanon and Syria (edit: and Iran) at the hands of the Israelis.
magicalhippo 4y ago
Norway went with the F-35A some time ago[1] to replace our F-16s, and we got the first planes in 2015. Since then we've gotten a fair bit of experience with it, including join exercises[2] as well as developing a landing system for our arctic climate[3]. Denmark has also gone for the F-35A[4], and recently got its first planes. If Finland joins NATO, it makes sense to combine air forces[5] in Scandinavia, in which case I can imagine there's a lot of benefits from having the same airplane as one of the other members. Obviously that w as not a direct consideration back when the decision was made, but surely some of the people involved were eyeing close cooperation in Scandinavia if shit hit the fan. Regardless, I imagine Finland has had a chat with the Norwegian Air Force about the plane, which feedback should be highly relevant given the similarities between the countries. So far from what I've read the Norwegian Air Force seems quite happy with the F-35. [1]: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-global-partnership/f-35-norway.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-glob... [2]: https://www.tu.no/artikler/norske-flygere-har-for-forste-gang-deltatt-med-f-35-i-verdens-storste-luftovelse/461237/ https://www.tu.no/artikler/norske-flygere-har-for-forste-gan... [3]: https://www.ffi.no/aktuelt/podkaster/16-slik-har-ffi-forsket-pa-f-35 https://www.ffi.no/aktuelt/podkaster/16-slik-har-ffi-forsket... [4]: https://www.f35.com/f35/global-enterprise/denmark.html https://www.f35.com/f35/global-enterprise/denmark.html [5]: https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/luftfartssjefen-vil-ha-felles-nordisk-luftforsvar-om-sverige-og-finland-blir-medlemmer-av-nato-1.16264381 https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/luftfartssjefen-vil-ha-felles-n...
- The_Double 4y ago
  I wonder how much value there would be in having some level of dissimilar redundancy in (soon to be) NATO air forces. All NATO countries having fleets of the F35 makes us vulnerable to any kind of weakness or bug that adversaries are able to exploit.
- sklargh 4y ago
  It is worth noting that the US operates a number of F-35s out of Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. The weather conditions are comparable to the sub-arctic areas of Scandinavia. Heck they were figuring out how to operate in Thule this month.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
I know the most evident reason: If you want to be part of NATO you've got to pay your dues to NATO's overlord military industrial complex.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  France - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_and_Space_Force#Inventory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_and_Space_Force#Inv... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_French_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Frenc...
- sofixa 4y ago
  Eurofighter Typhoon is produced by 4/5 NATO member states, and there is also the Rafale by France.
- oaiey 4y ago
  It is not NATO which enforces that. It is the superior spending and technology the overlord ;) is producing which makes every competing product a tough sell regards its pricing. And yes, you spent your money with friendly nations.
psychphysic 4y ago
The main reason is one that is best not said out loud. Esp in 2021. This is a NATO buy in.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Except Finland wasn't part of NATO nor had plans to join NATO when this deal was negotiated.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Can't hurt to cozy up to NATO anyways. Finland bought F18s during the Cold War.
    - psychphysic 4y ago
      Exactly, that's why it was so important.
miroljub 4y ago
Maybe because the technical selection process was not important? The decision was purely political, they wanted to please the most important NATO country, and they wouldn't achieve that goal by buying MiG or Tornado.
TruthShare 4y ago
[dead]

whalesalad 4y ago

I don't think there is another fighter in the world that can compete, aside from the F-22 which is so advanced we will never sell it to allies.

ttul 4y ago
Help me understand what sets the F-22 apart from the F-35? I've read the Wikipedia pages, but I still don't get why F-22 is so remarkable that it cannot be sold to other countries.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Speed and stealth I assume. From what I understand the top speed is classified, and stealth is still a super secret technology where they count the milligrams of exterior coating when decommissioning a stealth fighter.
  - nl 4y ago
    Speed isn't very important at all, and I don't think it is classified. For example, the F22 has a slower top speed than the F15 (although higher non-afterburner speed).
    - nradov 4y ago
      Speed would be very important in a potential Pacific Theater conflict. The F-22 is significantly more fuel efficient than the F-15 so while the top speed might be slightly slower it can actually maintain a higher average speed in real operations.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Speed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31, or when you want to avoid being intercepted yourself (such as after being detected during a penetration mission). Speed also provides an energy advantage against SAM's and very long range ATA missiles. The F-35 can probably go faster than the stated top speed of M1.6, though, if surivival depends on it. I would guess its real top speed is around M2, similar to an F-16.

anikan_vader 4y ago

It's the only 5th gen fighter jet that is available. The fact that the price point happens to be highly competitive with 4th gen fighters is almost irrelevant.

pixodaros 4y ago
Again, people trying to sell the F-35 in the oughties were saying that, but the experts I went to at the time were skeptical (and especially skeptical whether those extra capabilities matter for those countries which don't have a war against Russia, China, India, or Turkey in their threat model). We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The calculus is pretty simple. The F-35 costs about as much as a modern 4th generation aircraft these days but consistently slaughters those 4th generation aircraft in exercises due to its unique capabilities. This gives it a high force multiplier for the cost that works well no matter the quality of the adversary. I think everyone expected the F-35 to be much more expensive than advanced 4th generation aircraft, which would change the argument, but that turned out not to be the case. That dozens of countries are buying fleets of F-35s also makes the practical logistics, operations, interoperability, and maintenance of the aircraft attractive. It is quickly becoming the new F-16 in terms of ubiquity in a modern Air Force.
- yucky 4y ago
  > We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was. I'm fairly certain Russia has not bothered to unleash their T-50 PAK's against Ukraine, so that remains to be seen doesn't it? And from all available literature those are at least on par with the F-22 if not slightly better. Now the B-21 Raider (bomber, not a fighter) is probably without peer currently. That thing looks like a UFO.
  - pixodaros 4y ago
    After a year of losing the war and firing all kind of random munitions, if Russia had aircraft which it thought could survive against Ukrainian air defenses, I think it would use them. They certainly are not scared of losing people or equipment. It seems like the Russian air force can't carry out large operations with sophisticated aircraft, whereas NATO air forces have lots of practice at that.

pixodaros 4y ago

Ten years ago, everyone interested in military aircraft who was not trying to sell the F-35 told me that it was terrible (too expensive, trying to do too many incompatible things, dependent on software systems which did not work and possibly could not work). I would be interested in an article on what changed now that more countries are picking it.

kyleyeats 4y ago
All competing projects did even worse.
elabajaba 4y ago
The bugs have mostly been fixed, and it's cheaper than most 4.5 gen fighters (they're building a lot of them so the unit cost drops significantly) while being significantly more capable (see the ridiculous numbers it puts up at Red flag). People have also learned that a lot of the "experts" that criticized it were extremely noncredible (eg. Pierre Sprey) and are spouting nonsense that hasn't been true since before the Vietnam war (eg. Relevance of dogfighting and guns in air combat).
- pixodaros 4y ago
  The thing about dogfighting and guns / mawr dakka seems to be an American thing, I did not hear it, but David 'Warisboring' Axe seemed like a serious reporter, and Marcus Ranum was a serious IT guy
  - Phiwise_ 4y ago
    Mirage 2000, Rafale, and Typhoon were/are all arguably designed with a huge emphasis on energy maneuverability, which is also only meant for dogfights according to postings on internet forums. And there are plenty of other isolated ways you could argue the reverse of the US showing restraint in ways others don't, such as Europe's love for delta wings (rejected most recently when the F-35 was first considered), or the Russkies' obsession with supermaneuverability, which the US has barely even considered sane enough for demonstrators. In terms of "mawr dakka", too, assuming you're referring to the A-10, that honor also belongs not to the US, per popular opinion, but to the Soviets in the MiG-27. You've just never heard of it because they wanted to fire essentially the same projectile in a slightly bigger casing at 2000 more rounds per minute, which the airframe simply couldn't handle reliably, and were also limited in the battles they did see due to an unusual weakness to ground fire as opposed to the A-10's unusual resiliency. And besides that, the US also built the F-111 and F-117 as an explicit alternative to light air attack craft. The only "American thing" that really exists in modern military history is a tendency to do more things than everyone else. The US has NIH-ed their way into pretty much every military technology that's been hypothesized by someone not wearing a tinfoil hat and raving about Nikola Tesla or Leonardo Da Vinci. The public hears about questions like dogfighting and firepower in US aircraft because the US is one of the only countries in the world whose military actively seeks out (or at least sought out, there's some argument that the F-35 is the beginning of the end) multiple home-grown variants of military equipment, especially aircraft, that are expected to compete both on economic and doctrinal value as actual service craft for continuing contracts, rather then just proving ground test beds. More chances to change preference, more chances for contracts, more argument, more buzz filtering into newspapers. In contrast, we're probably not going to talk much about if stealth is a Finnish thing or whatever else for quite some time after this. Perhaps the American thing is spending lots of money, but a full assessment doesn't really allow for more specifics than that.

coffeebeqn 4y ago

It also further aligns them with the US military complex team which - anyone who’s watching Ukraine knows is the right pick. Gripen is cool but Finland needs a strategic partnership with the US. Sweden is already their best friend and they certainly can’t rely on the big EU countries to not try to not hurt Putins feelings instead of helping a ally in an existential struggle

throwawaysleep 4y ago
Sweden has yet to prove it has any value as an ally either.
- wahern 4y ago
  Nearly $1 billion USD in assistance to Ukraine, more than half of which is military material, isn't nothing.
  - ralusek 4y ago
    materiel*
- bee_rider 4y ago
  The two countries are moving into NATO together, they are practically married.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The two countries are moving into NATO together, they are practically married. I think this is what you meant, but it could be misread: the former is a sign, not the cause, of the latter. They’ve had aligned security policy for a long time, which is reflected in their joint decision to choose to apply to NATO.
    - enra 4y ago
      This time it was Finland that pushing them both to NATO. Finland had friendly pack with Sweden that if either of them decide to pursue NATO membership they would let the other one know. Last year by the time Finnish leadership and people were pretty much decided on NATO, Sweden was just starting their discourse so they had to catch up not be left behind. Now somewhat ironically because of Sweden, Turkey has been delaying and objecting the membership. Finland has also kept with updating equipment and keeping the conscription military service these past 100 years, Sweden ended their conscription and mostly been downsizing their military.

dirtyid 4y ago

JSF programs killed competiton, there's nothing else that can compete for 20-30 years assuming current non US 4.5/5th gen programs deliver.

trashtester 4y ago
I doubt they will dominate for that long. I think we should see 6th gen within 10 years, and AI may make unmanned aircraft more cost efficient than F-35s even sooner than that. But for anytone (who is friendly with the US) that need a multi perpose fighter sooner than that, the F35 is the obvious choice today. And it may stay useful even when 6th gen arrives, just like F16's are still relevant today.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  NGAD + MUM-T likely in next 10 years, but not for export. US allies also now doing their own 6th gen program, i.e. JP-UK-IT-SE (Global Combat Air Programme), FR-DE-ES (Future Combat Air System) and 4.5 gen SKR (Bormae), but that's still 10-20 years away. So in meantime 35 only obvious choice for anything over 4.5 gen. I do agree that AI fighters the future. Simply because once you engineer without human limits, flight envelopes / performance will shift in attacker favour. Anti-air missiles work by arbituaging gap unmanned and manned limits. I can see performant UAVs being magnitude more capable in dodging anti air to the point where it becomes not feasible in terms of cost and magazine depth to try to even shoot them down, especially from naval platforms, i.e. 500 VLS cells in carrier group with 30% dedicated to AA might successfully interdict 50 manned fighters and need 200 to overwhelm, but with manned fighters that might only be effective against 5 unmanned, or 20 unmanned to overwhelm. Realistically less because ships become significantly less useful if they have disproportionately focus on anti air. Basically skip job of stealth of being difficult to detect to being nearly impossible to hit in the first place. Hence airforce betting/pouring 1000 F35s worth of $$$ on B21s that's difficult to detect and fly in altitudes that's difficult to hit, straight from CONUS.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    I think most of what you write are possible futures. Though I'm not sure they're the only possible futures. As aircraft (and particularily unmanned ones) improve, air defense systems will be likely to change to meet the new challenges. I find it really difficult to conclude what the balance will be in that arms race (apart from the prediction that humans are not likely to be needed in every plante anymore). For instance, it may be that lasers mounted in ships (or even large planes) may become really good at countering many of the threats that appear. Then again, that could lead to mirror coating as a counter, but that may reduce stealth, and so on. Furthermore, the distinction between missile and aircraft can go away. We may get hybrids that have the range of aircraft, but the power an manouverability of missiles, but with very short range guns replacing the warhead, making them reusable. Launch platforms may also change. The B21 may very well be just as important for anti-air duty as the F-35, if the right kind of missiles/air launched drones are available. The F-35 on the other hand, can act as drone control platforms, privding more advanced sensors and compute than each drone would have. Over oceans, maybe surface ships become obsolete, but in addition to options such as lasers, rail guns and more advanced missiles, one needs to keep in mind that they can be hard to detect (if satellites are knocked out). Subs are likely to stay relevant, though, even though they too may become unmanned relatively soon.

rq1 4y ago

Almost everything I read on the topic says that it’s inferior to competition. Eg. https://historyandwar.org/2015/09/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35/ https://historyandwar.org/2015/09/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35...

toolslive 4y ago
wasn't even Boeing's X-32 superior at the time of the JSF competition? I seem to recall that the biggest "flaw" was that it looked really ugly.

AstixAndBelix 4y ago

Imagine a 5th gen fighter costing as much as a 4th gen one and being able to do almost anything pretty well. Only a few countries can afford to have multiple types of aircraft to serve multiple roles. For everyone else the F-35 is a bargain and a technological marvel. Just buy a bunch of them and you're pretty set.

RektBoy 4y ago

I hope Finland will join NATO asap. (I'm not American).

Synaesthesia 4y ago
Just out of curiosity, why?

AndyMcConachie 4y ago

How can anyone look at the record of the F-35 and think anything other than it is a complete boon doggle? Just look at it. It's a fat turd of a plane that cannot turn, and they keep crashing. I guess people will tell themselves whatever they have to in order to believe in western military supremacy. How quickly we forget that the USA can't win a war and is really only good at bombing civilians from altitude.

ur-whale 4y ago
> How can anyone look at the record of the F-35 and think anything other than it is a complete boon doggle? Proper use of bribes can make any plane look fantastic to the buyer.
AndyMcConachie 4y ago
Nothing has changed about the F-35. It's still a piece of shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI

devjab 4y ago

Isn't the title here on HN a little misleading considering it's: "F-35A is HX – The Winner Takes It All" on the site itself? Or that the article never really delves too hard into the Finnish procurement process, outside of a few anecdotes about cost and the Finnish competition being "too honest". As someone who spent quite a long time working in the Danish public sector, often on the higher levels of public procurement, I think it's sort of fun but ultimately fruitless to talk about these processes in the public. Denmark also went with the F-35A, and we too had a lot of discussion about whether or not that was a good idea (especially when Trump then won the election and started alienating Europe). Anyway, in our procurement processens there is thousand upon thousand worth of pages detailing all the different things that goes into these decade long procurement processes, spanning the length of different governments, and it's really hard to sum things up as "this is why we chose how we chose" because it's always a bunch of different things. Part of it is the technology, which is well described in this article. The F35 is better than it's competition. Part of it is cost. You could willingly buy the "deprecated" F18 Super Hornet which I believe was the most serious competition here in Denmark and hope that was "good enough". Or you could go with the more geo-political route of betting on more local industry to hopefully build up an European (or Swedish/Finnish) alternative in time while getting an inferior product until that succeeded. And a range of other things, but at the end of the day, in many Scandinavian countries the F-35 is going to replace the F-16, and with decades worth of co-operating with the American Airforce for training on top of the F-35 being the better project, and our countries tending to look more to American than to Europe (we speak English as our first second language, not French/German/Spanish/Itallian after all) it was likely always going to be the F-35. Even so, the process was very serious and produced a lot of documentation, and so far, it seems like one of the most successful and least corrupt public procurement processes at that scale in Denmarks history. So while it's easy to think this and that on the choice, I think it's also good to keep in mind the kind of serious work that seem to have gone into these processes in every Scandinavian country. I guess you can now even say that it was a good choice, and it probably was. Maybe the competition, like the Eurofighter would also have seen huge improvements if it had been given the same amount of money the F-35 project did, maybe it wouldn't have. My personal take-away from it, was how huge of a public discussion we hade about it here in Denmark when it was 18 Billion Danish Kroner. Yes, it's become a much more expensive process, but while 18 billion dkr is a lot of money. You can run a city with 60.000 citizens 6 full years for those money here in Denmark, we ended up paying the mink-farmers 19 billion dkr in "sorry we killed your mink sort of illegally because they might mutate covid". With that perspective in mind, I feel sort of silly about the public second guessing, my own included, about whether pouring 18, or even 35, billion dkr into the F-35 was better than going with it's cheaper alternatives because, well, I'd frankly rather have a bunch of F-35 than a bunch of dead mink. This last part is obviously a bit of a jest, but I think you can follow my meaning.

psychphysic 4y ago

I'm surprised the main reason isn't mentioned. NATO. This is a way to pony up money in a way that would be appreciated if Finland joined NATO. It's the killer feature of F-35 and F-22 and heck modernized F-16s. I suppose it's hinted at. Finland can't find and maintain an air force alone... Stealth simply isn't as important as one would think so long as you're not running missions into enemy territory.

sofixa 4y ago
There are other NATO jets outside of the US manufactured ones - Rafales, Typhoons, soon Gripens.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  This is a side note, but are you absolutely convinced Sweden will join NATO?
  - sofixa 4y ago
    I'm an optimist and hope that Erdogan will finally lose the next election, and thus there will be no more political blocking of Sweden joining.
    - miroljub 4y ago
      Why do you expect the next government will somehow be better for Sweden than Erdoğan? If they climb to power, they will still need to compel to hardcore nationalist population, in case of Sweden even more than Erdoğan, since they will need their social credit for topic they find important to them and won't burn it because of Sweden.
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        In the end, Erdogan's opposition to Sweden is mostly related to Sweden granting asylum to Kurds, and Sweden can't (and won't) extradite them because Swedish law forbids them to. And if the opposition candidate wins, he will be busy repairing all the mess Erdogan did to Turkey's foreign relations - even if the nationalists in the coalition will whine, they can't afford wasting more political good-will for a couple hundred Kurds.

mikl 4y ago

Massive pressure and incentives from the U.S. Just like everyone else who want to be in good standing with NATO. The “selection process” in Denmark was a total sham, most of the competitors didn’t even bother submitting a bid, because it was obvious from the start that the F-35 would win.

Idiot_in_Vain 4y ago
Complete nonsense. There are no alternatives to F35.
gggggg5 4y ago
Which competitors? The J-20 or SU-57? Yeah, I wonder why those wouldn't be selected.
- DSingularity 4y ago
  Euro fighter? Typhoon? Rafale? Are none of these competitions?
  - izacus 4y ago
    They're generation older (with everything that means for their sensor suite, pilot workload and situational awarness) and won't have all the benefits of sharing the same platform with the rest of the Europe.
    - gggggg5 4y ago
      They're also more expensive.
    - Octoth0rpe 4y ago
      > won't have all the benefits of sharing the same platform with the rest of the Europe. Buying the _eurofighter_ wouldn't let them share the same platform as the _rest of Europe_? I realize that the F-35 has racked up a number of sales recently, but there's quite a few eurofighters around still, and more on the way IIRC

rwmj 4y ago

Surprised that Finland quotes VAT (value added tax) in its costs. Isn't that the Finnish government paying tax to themselves?

pm3003 4y ago
Yeah, it's one ministry pating another, but it's still necessary. Possibly a European rule.

Gravityloss 4y ago

One idea I've not seen examined. Since most of the cost is in the software, engine and systems, why make the airframe commonality such a big point? There could be an F-35D that would be a totally new airframe but would use everything else from the other models. There will be lots of F-35:s manufactured, maintained and upgraded over the lifespan so it would make sense to "tap into" that ecosystem. Composite manufacturing has been advancing a lot. If the structure can be uncoupled from the rest, then it would allow for better performance. The current shape of the F-35 variants is limiting their supersonic performance. One could also optimize the airframe for cost or speed of manufacture. It might be deemed now that the airframe performance is adequate. This might change in the future as adversaries improve.

nradov 4y ago
The biggest problem with the F-35 airframe is that it's fat and thus the aerodynamics kind of suck. This design was essentially forced by the need for the B model to have a single engine with sufficient thrust for vertical landing. The A and C models would have been better as twin engine designs with the weapons bay in between, like a smaller version of the F-22. But at this point it's too late and there's no way to fund the development of a D model with a radically different outer mould line.
- Gravityloss 4y ago
  Exactly! Also the length was limited because it has to fit to small aircraft carrier lifts. Something a new design for non-naval use wouldn't need to take into account. YF-23 had a narrow and deep weapons bay that was considered problematic since if a weapon jammed to the rail, it would prevent release of other weapons above it. Maybe it's also bad if you want to shoot a lot of missiles in a very short time span. The production design had a wider bay, worsening the aerodynamics a bit: https://yf-23.webs.com/F-23A.html https://yf-23.webs.com/F-23A.html
ianburrell 4y ago
Using common airframe for three variants was probably the major flaw of F-35 program. I think they were concerned about the design costs. They made it work but it was expensive to get working. Plus, the electronics and software were the really expensive pieces. It would have probably been cheaper and better to design two planes, one conventional (F-35A, F-35C) and one vertical take-off. Then save money by using common parts and the same avionics.

some_random 4y ago

Oh boy I'm very excited for a well articulated thread full of people who know about modern jet fighter combat and selection rather than a bunch of IT people who get everything they know from clickbait sites that cite RT contributors.

0xDEF 4y ago
Norwegian and Danish pilots and technicians love the F-35 and prefer it over the competition. It's very typical of tech people to think we know more than domain experts.
- belter 4y ago
  What is their opinion about being unable to go supersonic for more than short bursts currently classified as "will not fix"? [1] A hint they got from the world of software development clearly... :-) "...At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts... The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News... ...The F-35 Joint Program Office has classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet..." [1] - https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds...
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    As an interested layman I'd have thought, the higher, the better, because less friction. Now I'm wondering why. Because of lower outside air temperature, making some material expand/shrink too fast? Now I'm puzzled. Does this mean it can't go (high) supersonic at lower altitudes either? Because denser air causing even more friction? I mean something like Mach 2 at 1000 feet. Mission impossible?

jononomo 4y ago

Didn't the US spend something like $1 trillion over a decade to develop this plane? I remember reading stories for years about how expensive it was. So maybe Finland is reaping the benefits of the extravagant development costs that the US sunk into this fighter. Also, the other contenders don't have stealth capabilities, which seems to be an obvious reason for not winning the contract.

mrep 4y ago
No, the 1.5 trillion dollar number everybody loves to quote is in 2070 then year dollars and is the total cost of the program which includes design, acquisition, operations and maintenance for making and using a lot of planes (~2,300) over the next ~50 years.

johnea 4y ago

So they can incinerate the poor?