Finland HX Challenge |F18 Super Hornet | Gripen | Rafale | Eurofighter| F35

[@PilotPhotog]

Want to help support this channel? Become a channel member: kzbin.info/door/z_aGg3uEnfE4hU6Pu6Wj3gjoin Subscribe on Patreon: patreon.com/PilotPhotog

[@chriscunningham9740]

"also intergreates voice commands" "Alexa, drop bombs"

[@lukalaa1764]

Alexa pudota ne vitun pommit jo!

[@chriscunningham9740]

@@lukalaa1764 DAMN IT ALEXA! En halua pelata bongoa!

[@hibojoe1477]

@Richard Kendrick damn bro your right, no one does give a shit

[@mrSkandalpolisen]

Alexa - I don't know that. Would you like a cup of coffe instead?

[@markmergatroid2348]

That was brilliant, dude.

[@AirShark95]

High odds that Finland gets new fighters before Canada does.

[@vonpredator]

It’s more likely that Canada will buy Finland’s old Hornets.... 🤦‍♂️

[@AirShark95]

@@vonpredator So true it hurts

[@appa609]

:(

[@LRRPFco52]

With communists and millennials in charge of both nations, the future will be a disaster for both.

[@LRRPFco52]

Trudeau was asked which nation he admires the most. He said, "China, because their basic dictatorship allows them to make decisions about climate change on a dime." Someone needs to investigate him for Chinese bribes.

[@vivekkaushik9508]

Wow! A 24 min mini-documentary. A smart move but welcome one.

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you!

[@coldfusionspacexxx9814]

@@PilotPhotog You did not mention the GripenE new radar which seem to be superior to all the others...

[@PilotPhotog]

@@coldfusionspacexxx9814 great point and thanks for commenting

[@valko022]

@@coldfusionspacexxx9814 How so?? Isn't the same kind and from the same maker, the British, but lot smaller as the Eurofighter Typhoon's?? If not so the same, then it's great, very good, to hear that! : )

[@gobimurugesan2411]

@@coldfusionspacexxx9814 actually it's a small radar. No where near to F35 or Rafale.

[@CrypticPulsar]

That was 24 minutes of information-packed clip that I enjoyed every second of.. thank you, and awesome job!

[@vonpredator]

Canadian Airforce has entered the chat: Old legacy F-18s you say? We could take those off your hands?

[@SuperChodot]

Canada could end up like New Zealand

[@trevorhart545]

Canada needs NEW aircraft. After the USA "caused" the cancellation of the "Arrow" RCAF has never fully recovered. Maybe look at a joint purchase along with the Finns to get technology transfer and a better price.

[@dnlitsuh]

@@trevorhart545 what’s “Arrow”?

[@91-divochornet97]

​@@SuperChodot And rely on it's bigger cousin for defence? If Australia wasn't around NZ wouldn't have the luxury of not having a real air force. Canada has the US. Personally I think Canada should invest a few interim aircraft (possibly the Gripen)and wait for the tempest or the Japans sixth gen when they arrive. I also think NZ should have a few Gripens as they share the same engine as the Hornets Australia flies to cut cost. I'm not even a Gripen fan, fine aircraft but the internet is has gone all fan boy making out to be more than it is.

[@91-divochornet97]

@@trevorhart545 If only Canada and Australia had the balls to commit the the non naval F18L back in the day. They should of gotten together with Greece and made the thing. All 3 air forces felt it was the best out of the Mirage, FA18, F16 and F18L. But not one wanted to commit because of fear of being the only country to fly it. Even tho is was just a FA18 striped of weight fore better performance so actually making the plane simpler and cheaper to maintain with f16 like performance. With Greece politics was probably involved.

[@markvincentcocjin]

This is how you win subscribers. With quality content, lack of robot voice and stock music that is played by most "military" channels.

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you and I appreciate your subscribing! Using my voice doubles the time it takes me to make these videos but I think it is the way to go.

[@steelgear3876]

I just subbed. Quality content with no robo voice.

[@PilotPhotog]

@@steelgear3876 thank you for subscribing! More videos on the way!

[@tobilikebacon]

really great video! Great descriptions of each fighter, great footage showcasing the options, fair overview. everything was great

[@francoisguillamot1887]

Love Rafale shake at 14:10 ! Thanks for the video.

[@SAMX4949]

What a comprehensive video. Good job, Tog.

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you Sam!

[@pottierkurt1702]

This video is gonna blow up. Nicely done!!

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you as always and Merry Christmas!

[@EEEEEEE354]

fantastic video and comparison as always. Great work!

[@KernowekTim]

An excellent video! Really well presented as always! Merry Christmas man, and a Happy, Healthy, Peaceful New Year to you, your loved ones, and close friends. Thank you, for all that you do for your audiences.

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you so much Tim! Merry Christmas to you and yours, Happy New Year and more great things to come in 2021!

[@thaldass4461]

@@PilotPhotog Happy New Year 2021, and hope for a better year than 2020. Btw, when the Finland is supposed to give its decision, about the fighter jet of their final choice ? I mean if they already gave a date for it ? Thanks

[@PilotPhotog]

@@thaldass4461 thank you and happy new year to you and yours. Regarding a decision, my understanding was initially it was 2/2021 but last I saw the date got postponed to late 2021

[@susanartigas7498]

Thank you for your informative video. I enjoy all your videos. Great job! Happy and Healthy New Year.

[@LRRPFco52]

F-35A current lot 14 is $77.9 million Unit Flyway, roughly $103.6 million Unit Program, depending on the weapons suite and support contract. The Finnish request for F-35A includes a massive list of weapons greater than most DSCA approvals I’ve ever seen. Lots of stand-off weapons including 500 Small Diameter Bomb IIs, 150 AIM-9X Block II+ (BVR capable/VLO coatings/structures), 100 AGM-154C-1 JSOW missiles, 200 AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER missiles, 120 JDAM guidance kits, 150 GBU-38 guidance kits (500lb Mk.82 JDAM conversion), 120 BLU-117 2000lb bombs, 32 BLU-109 2000lb penetrators, 150 BLU-111 500lb bombs, EW equipment, test units, support equipment, ALIS/ODIN stations, training missiles, and tanker support. It’s interesting because there are no orders for AIM-120C7 or D AMRAAMs, because they already have ongoing contracts with those for their Hornet fleet, which they will still manage and sustain/upgrade over the next 3 years and transition them over to the F-35As as they come off the line.

[@PilotPhotog]

An excellent point and thanks for commenting!

[@dstavs]

Another great comparison video!? Just want I wanted for Christmas! Keep up the amazing work! Merry Christmas!

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you and Merry Christmas!

[@GM-fh5jp]

Nice commentary and analysis. Thanks for posting.

[@cancan-gd2lz]

Subscribe when you were first starting. Love how your honing your craft, and look forward to the bigger things comming. Great job!

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you Josh and thanks for being here since the early days, much appreciated!

[@ki-adi-mundi7469]

Im finnish and i respect your effort for this video

[@valko022]

Me Too!

[@evrydayamerican]

if for nothing else give this guy a thumbs up for all the research he had to do just to make this vid. Love the content.

[@t00talbr00tal]

he is literally just reading each aircraft's wikipedia page

[@dubaythecoward3650]

All those fighters just sound amazing. Going just by what I heard I this video I think the F-35 is the most electronically advanced of the lot. Combined with it’s stealth capabilities, it’s abilities as a force multiplier, and role in other NATO countries it makes it hard to beat.

[@LRRPFco52]

F-35A was officially selected by Finland today, announced in a public broadcast complete with the metrics they used. F-35A exceeded all competitors in military performance parameters, and was the most affordable.

[@mrc1500]

Great video. The FAF's existing tooling, logistics and extensive pilot experience make the Super Hornet a really compelling choice. Nevertheless, the Gripen E seems super cost effective and amazingly versatile, and Saab is just next door. It's a really tough choice.

[@PilotPhotog]

Agreed and thanks for commenting!

[@SimonRaahauge1973]

My money is on the gripen.. €10 Billion will buy you a large number of planes.

[@TealJosh]

@@SimonRaahauge1973 it's going to be roughly 64 planes no matter what. What the extra funds can do is buy extra munitions and spare parts. Or even other types of aircraft like EW aircraft and radar aircraft. My favourites are f-35 or super hornet. If Rafaele was cheaper it would be the obvious choice but as it stands it's more expensive than f-35 Btw all listed jets in the video have helmet mounted display. All have highly integrated data link systems that can communicate between branches of the military.

[@stitch77100]

@@TealJosh you need to explain how the Rafale is more expensive than the F-35 (especially for the operating costs and the extra cost for special storage units, as most of the European countries are actually surveying, but it's just what the "pro F-35" countries are thinking about their mistake ;) )

[@michaelkeller5008]

Actually, the Gripen-E is more compatible with the "legacy hornet" tools, AND PARTS. As the swiss evaluation (both 2009-2014 "Tiger replacement", and - until disqualification due to policital reasons - 2017-2020 "Air2030" (replacement of F-18C and F-5)) of the F-18E has shown: 70% of the groundequipment of the -C must be replaced when buying the Superhornet, while with the Gripen-E, you can KEEP 70% of the groundequipment...

[@777Outrigger]

Switzerland just chose the F-35. Finland's next.

[@unofficialpolitics9553]

A most excellent video. Subscribed

[@elestromusicgamesfun1101]

I'm not unbiased, but I think Gripen E makes very much sense for Finland. Sweden and Finland has a deep defence cooperation. None of them are part of NATO. The Gripen is developed with the Nordic climate in mind and meets both cost and the defensive nature of the Finnish needs. In the event of a regional conflict, the Finnish and Swedish airforces could very easily be integrated via the JAS-tactical link.

[@LRRPFco52]

Any modern fighter built in US or NATO is designed to work across the environmental extremes. US aircraft have had to function in Alaska, Iceland, Korea, Hawaii, Panama, Florida, Germany, Norway, Middle East, Philippines, Japan.....for decades. Sweden has far less experience designing and operating in extreme cold compared to the US, and the numbers aren't even close. If you run the numbers from the 1950s to present, the numbers of deployed squadrons, sorties, maintenance, intercepts, exercises, and types of fighters/interceptors employed by the USAF in arctic environments dwarf the Swedish Air Force to the point of almost insignificance. We know more about what it takes to make an aircraft work in the arctic than Sweden will ever know, which is why Sweden buys GE engines for the Gripen from the US. Sweden has historically used British Rolls Royce or US Pratt & Whitney fighter engines on the Draken & Viggen, then switched to the ultra-reliable GE F404 in the legacy Gripen, and GE F414 (Super Hornet engine) for the Gripen E. The very heart of Swedish fighters have always been foreign-produced in advanced economies that have the industrial and technical capacity to actually build fighter engines. You need a very large population to cross that industrial capacity threshold, and only a precious few countries have it. Since the emerging force of Russian fighters are purpose-built to be Eurocanard destroyers, and Finland is actually on the front lines, buying a Eurocanard seems like a really bad choice in 2021. Run some simulations of Gripen E/Saab GlobalEye up against Su-57/Su-35/Su-30SM2/Su-27SM3 networked together with Russian AWACS and drones and see how that works. Now run it with JSF linked to other JSF partners in Europe like Poland and Norway. You will quickly see what a waste of money Gripen E/GlobalEye would be.

[@LRRPFco52]

@Jörgen Persson You know what the current upgrade capabilities of the Su-30SM2, Su-27SM3, Su-35S, and Su-57 are? The Russians have all kinds of spies in Sweden, UK, France, Germany, Italy, US, Israel, etc. to acquire defense technology. Their engineers take that, make models that are producible in their industry, crank them out for testing and implementation into their fighters and missiles. Swedes are one of the easiest targets since they have no real alliance with anyone and have taken their security for granted for centuries now.

[@honyasenyou]

If you are going to war tomorrow, you should get the FA-18EF and the EA-18G along. Other than that, though, I think the F-35A is the most reasonable choice for the future.

[@anandarochisha]

@@LRRPFco52 Russian spying is so important because Putin has stolen about 8.6 BILLION from the Russian people. All he cares about is stealing oil money, and as a result, 1 of 4 homes in Russia do not have running water, and the average wage is what a Western teenager makes at a part time job. Russia economy is the size of italy. They cannot afford a full blown war, nor to match the West and increasingly the chinese..in weapons development. China now has more aircraft carriers and subs and a bigger army than Russia, and a land war would mean CHINA WOULD EASILY WIN. Putin, like Stalin, would be begging the West to save his A$$....again..Meanwhile he goes on about how a white christian NATO is the enemy, ignoring the godless yellow horde. RETARDED !

[@LRRPFco52]

If you read each of the 5 paragraphs that outline H-X, it's as if they wrote them with F-35 in mind.

[@Killjoy45]

Breaking News: We just found out that Lockheed is offering FAF 64 (at most) F-35s with weapons via price under 10 billion. That's most likely that then. The new fighter for FAF if not any miracles happen will be either Lockheed Martin F-35 or Boeing F/A-18E/F with Growlers added.

[@PilotPhotog]

Thanks for the update!

[@LRRPFco52]

Swiss Air Force just announced that the F-35A won against Rafale, Typhoon, and Super Hornet.

[@PilotPhotog]

@@LRRPFco52 here you go: kzbin.info/www/bejne/opjbnJyZfdytkNE

[@LRRPFco52]

You were right. 64 F-35A Block 4 Omnirole Fighters will be only 4.7 Billion euros. Initial A2A Weapons package will be 754.6 million euros. 2.411 Billion will be spent on spare parts, training, support, and equipment. They are offsetting money from the budget to buy weapons at a later date once deliveries begin in 2026, so looks like they know something about future weapons that can’t be discussed right now.

[@callumbush1]

The Gripen seems good value for money!

[@Dyro3000]

You will have to factor in the costs of the two GlobalEye aircraft and the infrastructure they require, which might make the Gripen package as expensive as the rest of the candidates.

[@callumbush1]

@@Dyro3000 doesn't it have the lowest overall operating costs to the other aircraft in this list though?

[@Dyro3000]

@@callumbush1 Possibly, but you will nevertheless have to take the operating costs of the GlobalEyes into account as they augment the Gripens' capabilities.

[@Dyro3000]

@Jörgen Persson Yes, and in my opinion GlobalEye is the most interesting plane of all in this competition, as very little about it is public.

[@simonriggs]

Grippen seems the best option when considering all the options

[@charlesandersson390]

Interesting video with some interesting facts!

[@jacobdautriche9023]

Dude 👌 thank you. God bless you in 2021. Merry Christmas

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you and a very Merry Christmas to you and yours!

[@calvinlee1813]

Block III Super Hornets and the E/A-18G would be awesome. Finland has to consider that the FAF aircraft will be in airspace with a high level of EW threats. The Super Hornets can do the short field operations. The Finnish AF and the USMC have a good amount of experience operating from roads and unimproved bases.

[@lalilulelo1989]

Give our lovely neighbours a discount on the Gripen. We are close allies would make sense to use the same aircraft

[@schwanzelstock1071]

Wish you had given your southern neighbours a discount instead of that piece of shite F-35

[@211212112]

@@schwanzelstock1071 I was really down on the f-35, but I think over time they will get the bugs worked out. It seems like progress has already been made

[@kega090]

We are NOT lovely allies...you guys never opt to do joint excercises with us, and Swedes are way too proud of people to even acknowledge our military. Stay over on your side....

[@lalilulelo1989]

@@kega090 Our nations cooperate extensively and do multiple joint exercises every year. Whether you like it or not 😘

[@oskarrrw]

@@lalilulelo1989 I think we should go torille and fight it out guys

[@disciplekevin1140]

Excellent video on the description of the new king snake design which I think they ought to build sharing F-22 engine sounds like a great idea as well

[@Killjoy45]

BREAKING NEWS: FAFs pick for the winner of HX-challenge was just announced. And the winner is: *Lockheed Martin F-35*

[@Bob10009]

Curveball - buy either Gripen or Super Hornet as cheaply as possible as a stop gap and join the Tempest program. That way they can skip 5th gen and jump to 6th gen in a decade. Then sell their low hours fighters to help fund the upgrade.

[@PilotPhotog]

Interesting strategy and thanks for commenting

[@jb76489]

>implying tempest will be flying in a decade Lmao. I have some property on the moon I’d like to sell you

[@joro5748]

This is indeed what we should do. It's a bad moment for choosing a fighter that should still be operational in 20-30 years' time, since most of what is on offer now will be nearing obsolescence soon, and F-35 is no air superiority fighter. So the solution would be to buy something that would tolerably serve us until the Tempest emerges. Sweden will be participating in the Tempest program - I wonder if buying Gripen now would give us an advantage in getting into the program, too.

[@Bob10009]

@@jb76489 I never said it would be flying in a decade, I said Finland could “jump to 6th gen in a decade”. Planned first flight is around 2035 with service entry in 2040. I am not implying, you are....

[@Bob10009]

@@joro5748 Tempest is actively seeking partners/contributors to the project. A purchase of Gripen now would increase interoperability with Sweden who is a Tempest partner. It would ensure the Finnish Air Force retains capability and could continue its dispersed operations. Then both Sweden and Finland could replace their Gripen with Tempest, possibly even gaining a good purchase price with a joint order. Likewise they could cooperate with the sale of their Gripens. Maybe I’m too positive about things....🤷🏼‍♂️

[@mrandrossguy9871]

I just like the thumbnail air craft silhouettes

[@primalhauler8484]

Merry Christmas PilotPhotog!!!

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you too!

[@harska]

I was looking forward to this video, and I surely wasn't disappointed. Thank you! About the omission of Russian aircraft from HX challenge: Finland has been in the past operating Russian aircraft for mainly if not solely political reasons. In the aftermath of 2nd World War and during the cold war Finland was balancing between Soviet and western countries. This has been reflected when sourcing military equipment. Finland was careful never to operate only western aircraft to avoid upsetting the USSR, but never fully committed to soviet equipment either given the fact that USSR was the most likely aggressor and maintaining soviet equipment during crisis situation would be next to impossible due to obvious lack of spare parts etc. As an example, while operating MIG-21s the Finnish Air Force was also operating Swedish Drakens. Furthermore, the US likely would have blocked exports of modern fighters to Finland to not risk leaking the technology to soviets. After the collapse of the USSR there was no longer need for this sort of politics (at least for some time). Since then all military equipment has been NATO compliant, and also all aircraft has been sourced from western countries.

[@abrahkadabra9501]

The fact that Finland is so close to Russia is a huge strategic factor when choosing a new fighter. This puts Gripen and the F-35 on the short list IMO....but I'm sending psychic hypnotic suggestions to Finnish Generals to buy the Rafale. 👾

[@Hairysteed]

Had it been a beauty competition Rafale would win right off the bat! ❤

[@abrahkadabra9501]

@@MrShpoulsen I suppose you have a point there. Russia recently announced funding to build many more SU-57s. If I was a Finnish high level military officer or politician that fact would definitely grab my attention. The Gripen was designed to be a Flanker (and variants) killer among other things but it's no match for the SU-57 and neither are all the other 4.5+ Gen fighters on the table IMO except maybe for Rafale which has SPECTRA and other jammers. Mind you, this is just my own speculation based on the limited information I have access to.

[@JK-rc8yi]

@Jörgen Persson With all due respect the gripen is 2 of ugliest out of these. F-35 and super hornet best and rafale pretty good as well. Then gripen and typhoon

[@aidanwilliams9452]

@@MrShpoulsen I doubt they'll buy F18's, eurofighter I reckon is more than they'll want to spend as they can get greater value and capability from the F35. Imo it'll be between F35 and Gripen depending how many they need and the requirements

[@Micha-qv5uf]

@@JK-rc8yi Ahm.. no offense towards my beloved neighbours but the Rafale is just a budget Eurofighter. The Eurofighter is in the top 3 among these. Probably with the F35 and Super Hornet.

[@natetaylor9002]

? Why didn't the video explain it's the Gripen E/F version that's up for bidding? Maybe I missed it?

[@Hairysteed]

For the average person a Gripen is a Gripen is a Gripen :P (I'm surprised they can tell the difference between a legacy Hornet and a Super Hornet)

[@almerindaromeira8352]

@@Hairysteed they can't. They probably think it's like getting the new yearly version of a car, only that this time it comes with substantial upgrades

[@Quilustrucu]

The video clips are showing older C/D versions maybe even A/Bs

[@andreaskavak2364]

@@Hairysteed intake

[@RickyJr46]

Very interesting overview of the players.

[@informationcollectionpost3257]

Very thorough listing of the pros and cons of each fighter. Personally, I would pick the state of the art up-graded Super Hornet due lower first costs and maintenance costs. All of the fighters are excellent planes. The Grippen also looks like an excellent option. Why not buy a mixed fleet of 50% Advanced Super Hornets & 50% Grippen F/E's.

[@LRRPFco52]

From most expensive to least expensive unit flyaway cost, the list goes like this: Typhoon Tranche 4 Rafale F4 EA-18G Block 3 F/A-18F Block 3 Gripen-F F/A-18E Block 3 Gripen E F-35A Most expensive to operate, maintain, buy spares, and pay personnel: Typhoon Rafale EA-18G F/A-18F F/A-18E Gripen F Gripen E F-35A F-35A is the “cheapest” to buy and operate. When you add the podded systems costs to the 4.5 Gen fighters, the O&M costs go up even more for them, whereas those are already integrated into the F-35 without pods, with vastly-superior capabilities overall. Operating a mixed force of more expensive, less-capable aircraft doesn’t make any sense, especially since they aren’t survivable against Su-57.

[@reddyvedvyas8734]

jas 39 gripen and also swedish awacs system hands down cos it saves money and increases finnish swedish friendliness

[@gustavb3673]

It would be a good choice but one also need to look at the security policy situation and how it would affect Finland. All contenders should meet the operational requirements but Finland chose the F-18 last time because of the security policy situation and to be a part of west and cut all old soviet ties. It's not all about the jet's it's also very much about strategic relations an partnership and Finland would look past a "better" deal if they think that would hurt their security policies.

[@LRRPFco52]

F-35 MADL net with fused/interleaved sensors provides a next-generation level of AWACS that fighter pilots have never known before, with no central flying nodes that are vulnerable to anti-AWACS interceptor missions. An F-35 pilot sees more of what’s going on in the battlespace before he even takes off than the combined crew of an AWACS see behind their stations in the air, because every other F-35 is feeding into the MADL net with multiple AESA, EOTS, DAS, and RF sensors that cover and PID a huge array of low earth orbit space, airborne, ground, and sea contacts. The Gripen E unit cost is more than F-35A, plus you have to pay 300-500 million euros per GlobalEye AWACS platform, which are huge chunks of the fighter budget. Inclusion of the GlobalEye with the Gripen E tells you that they know Gripen E can’t compare well alone against F-35 MADL network SA. So the Gripen E/GlobalEye is likely one of the most expensive choices in terms of initial procurement costs, sustainment costs, and risks to modern threat environment with Super Flankers and Felons networked together with S-400.

[@mortil]

@@LRRPFco52 Well. in the deal with Finland the GlobalEye is included in the price. And as Finland allready have SAAB radar systems you would be able to connect it all in to one unit Saab is delivering radarsystems to the US marine that is also being implemented in to the datalink for F35 and this radar is allready in the Finnish defence force JAS is built to be easy to maintain. conscripts can work on the most parts of it and you do a engine swap in a few hours Jas also collect information from other Gripen E, ground radars, ship radars and so on and calculate it directly in the plane. So it is not only the F35 that fuse all data togeather. but you allready made it clear you dont know what you talk about as you do not have your facts in order.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@mortil Yeah, after 40 years of being in Aerospace and Defense technical collection and analysis, flying, deploying, and being tasked with assessing emerging systems capabilities, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. You might not know this, but fighter data links were introduced by the US on the F-102 & F-106 interceptors in the 1950s. Interestingly, Sweden did the same thing immediately afterwards with the JAS-35 Draken with the same mission profile of the US delta wing interceptors-namely to intercept Soviet bombers before they could get within weapons parameters of strategic targets in the defended territory. We could then talk about data links in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, through the JAS-39C/D and the various stages of Link-16 development. Then we could discuss the next generation Raptor IFDL. The F-35's MADL is another generation ahead of that with multi-layered and integrated LPI transmit and receive features that can't be implemented on 4th Gen airframes. The top 2 fighter data links are on JSF and F-22. Gripen E data link, which is an exceptional system, still does not reach anywhere near the levels of connectivity, jam-resistance, and LPI methods employed in IFDL and MADL. More importantly, Gripen E does not have integrated spherical, multi-spectral, fused and interleaved sensor coverage. It has intermittent mechanically-steered IRST sweep coverage and steerable AESA field of regard coverage with excellent data-linked sharing with other Gripens and GlobalEye, so please don't mistake what I'm saying. It just doesn't take sensor integration to the levels that JSF does, because it doesn't even have the RF and IR sensor count that JSF does. It's an attempt to provide some of the coverage without having to spend $30 billion on RDT&E on a clean sheet design like Flygsystem 2020, which never happened.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@mortil Imagine telling Canada, "The GlobalEye deal is built into the price. Send us those Bombardier business jets at a massive discount/free." To understand foreign military sales, you really need to know important basics about business math, accounting, and contract management. If you don't know the existing supply chains, these deals won't make any sense. People think Sweden just spits out GlobalEye jets from some factory, without realizing they are built in Canada as complete corporate jets, with Rolls Royce engines made in UK, then sent to Sweden to be torn-down, reinforced, sensors, avionics, and structural mods performed, then sold for billions. You don't just roll them into the package deal as if they are negotiable quantities with elasticity in cost setting in your favor. Initial acquisition for GlobalEye requires over 1 billion euros to be spent. UAE just did their follow-up order for 2 more at over $1.01 billion. These are gigantic segments of the initial 9 billion euros available for H-X. Every single submission exceeded the H-X budget, including the Saab Gripen/GlobalEye proposal. A huge factor on the budget is maintenance and logistics infrastructure for the new systems, no matter which one you look at. None of them are low-cost.

[@rainewilen5022]

Thanks for the doc & kind comments. As a Finn I’m curious what shall be selected, although all of those platforms are wonderful. Personally must confess though that I feel the f-35 might be the most advanced system, however I’d sure like Finland to utilize Swedish stuff if possible. Amazing that Sweden can produce their own toys. Finland is happy if we even can afford to buy couple Volvo’s ;) As a more global long term solution, I’d like to suggest that Finland purchases the Gripen, but also the US offers Raptors for free, as well as Russia their SU-57 -models. That would make a feasible road-map, and maintain the peace and harmony in this Nordic region. I’ll open up this strategy bit more… Firstly.. Finnish people can’t escape more north than the North pole, so we’re unfortunately now stuck here, even though our ancestors tried their best to find an isolated place on this planet, where nobody clear minded human would approach, though avoiding the endless European wars/killing and eternal hassle. People were happy and freezing, perhaps hungry but at least alone in a dark forest, dancing shamanistically illuminated by artic lights with wolves and hugging trees and bears. They had only natural hornets and very few raptors. Nowadays, the cheapest option for all of us, especially for the US & Russia… would simply be to maintain this neutral area between the bullie..I mean the superpowers. (Although, Russia hasn’t concurred again or even used it’s artillery against Finland lately, which we’re grateful. Hmm..Maybe they will after my humor tough) Peace and harmony, even when providing Finland with a few hundred free aircraft is unfortunately bit less exiting perhaps to watch, yet much much cheaper. Finland then carries on acting as a mother figure between the teenage boys, if you will. Finland wouldn’t even need to use the systems as a weapon, as such, as those are now the very latest 5. gen ones. This Siberi...I mean area would become a real demonstration of harmony, where the West and East planes can fly in peace, hand in hand. Dropping only potatoes and onions (and vodka perhaps too) to the poor & hungry population. Gripens could be dedicated for surströmming. Any act of war would obviously be prevented by the 5. gen avionics and integrated AI. Here’s an example scenario, as a proof of concept: 1. Aggression from West or East (doesn’t matter). 2. P(ilot):”Fox 2 activate”. F(ighter):”Negative. Friendly systems detected” 3. P:”What a fxxx!??”. F:”We are from the same production line, and like bro’s” 4. P:”Stupid machine! Let me shoot!” F:”Aggression detected. Human element ejected” This is especially emphasized in the Finnish air force doctrine, with the possible Gripen -option. Finland has a long history of being under the danger of Sweden’s reaction in case of a theoretical Finland’s victory of an ice hockey match. The kind of Sweden could take it as an insult and mobilize their army. Finnish population would be evacuated behind the Ural mountains, but now with the new fighters, we could drop vodka and maybe some food for the starving children over there, with pin point accuracy.

[@martinaberg6157]

Thanks! Humor makes life worth living... From Sweden:: choose whats best for you, take the f35 of you can afford it. Hope we will be friends forever ( exept during ice -hockey matches, then its WAR! )

[@martinaberg6157]

P s. Just don’t choose the Rafale, its dropping frogs...

[@rainewilen5022]

@@martinaberg6157 Thanks Martin :) Funny indeed that every place seem to have their own special food which makes others smile, Like in FI it has typically been the "mämmi".

[@martinaberg6157]

@@rainewilen5022 Being married to a woman from the uppger parts of Torneå river - you can see Finland on the other side of the river, I have learned to like the bread, its something to eat and not the sweet meaningless bread we have here. Just ONE thing I dont like about Finland, your language is totally impossible to learn...

[@rainewilen5022]

@@martinaberg6157 Haha.. true true, but luckily we have that simple English to use (language for dummies). Many here speaks Swedish too, but as every Swede is pretty much fluent in English, it isn't used too much anyhow. Finnish works well as a secret "code" language. No need to encrypt the radio traffic :) I really agree it's a difficult one, and we can totally hear if someone is a born Finn, or just lived here past 30 years ;) Anyhow, I would wish that other people could feel the flexibility and possibilities in it, as it really can be used much "wider" ways. Also naturally the different dialects, much like in UK, but perhaps even more so. In some lyrics, finnish can be used and twisted in so many similar and simultaneous meanings that (if the message is good).. it can be quite beautiful & emotional. Some lyrics are unfortunately impossible to translate. Like Ismo Alanko's production as an example. Which is sad, yet there's plenty good stuff in English (and in Swedish) too. Cheers.

[@Tiagomottadmello]

Real Nice Documentary 👍👍. Finland should definitly Go to F-35 Lightning... If It want all that efficiency and fly into the future, that's the choice.

[@amcds2867]

Great video, sober and professionally presented. As you mentioned, the cost factor weighs significantly on the decision. If the FAF need to replace 64 aircraft, can they get that inventory from any of the 5 options with the 100 billion € budget?

[@LRRPFco52]

10 billion €, not 100B.

[@bagdaduk]

I feel you skrimpted on the info regarding the eurofighter..you didnt mention what Trance version they would be getting and what it entails. The new ASAR Radar. Weapons it carry etc..

[@spartanx9293]

Could be he was rushing or maybe he assumed the Eurofighter wasn't going to win (let's all be honest competition is fierce and it's basically a three-way between the super hornet Gripen and f-35 the typhoon can try and squeeze in it is a twin-engine design and it could leverage that but the super hornet is more familiar to them

[@bagdaduk]

@@spartanx9293 nah it's a 2 way race. Between Gripen and Hornet. F35 is too expensive.

[@Micha-qv5uf]

@@bagdaduk I don't think the Gripen is gonna make it. It's a fine aircraft but It's getting edged out slightly by the other options.

[@bagdaduk]

@@Micha-qv5uf to alot of other countries price matters. The Gripen is superior to the F16 and F18 and equal if not cheaper than them. Price comes first, then effectiveness!

[@trespire]

The Rafale is a serious peice of kit.

[@chriscunningham9740]

It's the only plane on the list that automatically ejects a surrender flag upon detection of an enemy target.

[@trespire]

@@chriscunningham9740 Flying only French jets, IAF decimated the combined air forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Plus, Finnish pilots are highly skilled.

[@chriscunningham9740]

@@trespire It was a joke

[@sublimefermion2205]

@Jörgen Persson Nope. They were rather new for that time.

[@laracroft938]

@@trespire Also iraqi french jets were completely decimated by F-15s and F-16s. You can't mention one without mentioning the other.

[@blech71]

The support and supply chain for the Hornet is crazy good and can’t be matched and is a huge benefit that most people don’t know. And that is a huge factor that goes into the decision.

[@johndoe-cd9vt]

it's the opposite, if the USA sanction you for any reason, the game is over, they wont give you what you need.

[@amcds2867]

i just subscribed.

[@telankiristyssylinteriasetelma]

The HX challenge is probably the most interesting weapons purchase program in years because all of the competetors except for the eurofighter are really close.

[@atklm1]

It seems that international audience stubornly believes there's a competition. I assure you, there is none. The plane is already chosen and it is F-35. The so called "competition" is made due to political reasons.

[@telankiristyssylinteriasetelma]

@@atklm1 onko sulla joku lähde tohon? Toki F-35 on parhaat mahdollisuudet koska se on kaikista modernein ja jenkit haluaa sitä myydä mutta kyllä mä uskon että Super Hornetilla ja Saabilla on mahdollisuus tulla valituksi.

[@atklm1]

@@telankiristyssylinteriasetelma Se on "julkinen salaisuus". Niin ilmavoimien kuin puolustusvaliokunnan sisällä asia ymmärretään oikein hyvin. Suomen lain mukaan kilpailutus on kuitenkin tehtävä ja poliittisista syistä kilpailu on käytävä, mutta se on teatteria. Kuten muissakin kilpailutushankkeissa, jo ehdot on kiertäen tehty sellaiseksi että saadaan valittua se mikä jo tiedetään että halutaan. Olin ite teini 90-luvulla kun samaa teatteria käytiin, mutta kuten silloinkin, vaatimuksiin oli lisätty ympäripyöreä "turvallisuuspolitiikka", ja vaikka Venäjän MIG-29 oli mukana ja sitä monet halusivat ja olivat varmoja että se tulee valituksi, toiset veikkasivat silloista Gripeniä, mutta oli alusta pitäen "julkinen salaisuus" hankintaprosessista tietäville että amerikanrauta hommataan. Ja huomioitava on että Venäjän S-400, Krasukha-4 sekä R-330Zh ovat jo nyt niin kehittyneitä että mikään muu kuin F-35:en häiveominaisuudet ja elektronisen sodankäynnin kyvyt eivät ole kelvollisia niitä vastaan koneiden suunnitellun elinkaaren aikana edes blokkipäivityksillä.

[@Killjoy45]

@@telankiristyssylinteriasetelma Suomi osti jo huolto-osaamista Norjan kanssa F-35:sta varten. Meillä on myös varastot täynnä Amerikasta olevia ohjuksia. Jos se Meteor jotakuta huolettaa, niin eiköhän se liene kohta F-35:ssakin. Super Hornetin kohdalla sen saaminen olisi hankalampaa. Jenkit pisti tarjoukseen jo risteilyohjuksiakin mikäli jompi kumpi valitaan ja se olisi melkoinen lisä Suomen asemateriaaliin. Saa nähdä millaisia tarjouksia muilla on antaa. Ruotsille tämä kyllä alkaa vaikuttaa vähän koko Gripen-projektin kannattavuuden kannalta elämän ja kuoleman kysymykseltä.

[@92HazelMocha]

@@atklm1 That’s a shame; the F35 is easily the worst choice for the FAF. It’s high maintenance cost and reliance on unproven technology are a poor combination especially given the small size of Finland’s Airforce. This combination is why other adopting nations still field majority number of conventional proven 4th Gen aircraft. To put that much faith in an aircraft that is even controversial in the country of origin is a huge gamble to be sure.

[@honda6353]

I'd go for Gripen E, because it's the perfect plane for Finland's already existing military infrastructure, short runway's ec.t. And also the Meteor.

[@valko022]

The Truth is. That Gripen would be the Easiest Transition after the Hornets, than the Super Hornet. But! Super Hornet might be more Technologically Advanced, than the Gripen E / F!?!? And The Super Hornet might Get Cheapest To Operate, Than The Gripen, Right Now. But Why Super Hornet?? Because Gripen use the AEW&C - Plane / Planes to help It = Them = Gripen Pilots To Win Or Try To Win The Fight, So How Much It costs to Operate And Maintain It, I Don't Know, Any One!?!? Right Now, Because There is Only 3 Or 4 Gripen E's, The perating and Maintain Costs Are Probably more or way more, than a Super Hornet, Over 20 000!, 21 000 - 26 000 US' Dollars / Euros! But in the Future Gripen E / F will costs less than 7000 and maybe at the best less, than 5000 US' Dollars / Euros To Operate and Maintaining! But Fixing It (Because Finland would If Want To, Could Build And Maintain Their Own Gripen E / F Fleet!), would probably costs (in the Future) lot / way less, than the Typhoon Or the Rafale and the Typhoon is the lot more Expensive to Fix, than the Rafale (100 000 US' Dollars or something, VS. 45 000!)! But Super Hornet To Operate and Maintain Costs at the best Is About 9000 US' Dollars / Euros, Or At Least About 10 000 Euros / Us' Dollars! But! Max. 18 000 US' Dollars / Euros, but could be at the worst Something Between 21 000 To 25 000 US' Dollars! And That Max. Probably Is For The Growler Only Or Is It Or Why That High = Expensive, I Don't Know!?!? But The Typhoon! On The Other Hand! Costs (To Operate, At Least), Minimum and if it is True, About 9 000 US' Dollars / Euros!?!? But Max is 16 000 If not even 18 000 US' Dollars / Euros!

[@Killjoy45]

Rafale can do not only all of those things mentioned, but also carry more weapons. Now that Greece is buying it and its heavily considered in Switzerland, its chances to be chosen by even more countries have grown alot.

[@moggridge1]

Very interesting. It would have been interesting to see the maintenance cost per flight hour as well. I believe those of the Rafale are very high for example, whereas the Gripen's are comparatively low. Thanks. 👍

[@steevoy9966]

rafale maintenace cost is quite low, probably higher than gripen, but low than american planes and eurofight

[@FishermansFriend72]

One engine, risk to lose plane by engine failure. What is the price after arming? Cost of maintenance? We have strong defense and also will be in future.

[@UltraMagaFan]

I personally think they will choose the block III Super Hornets since training and maintenance will be easier. If they don't choose the Super Hornets I think they will choose the Gripen or F-35.

[@oskarrrw]

Yeah! Probably the Super Hornet. Gripen is a smaller and cheaper one that is very good, (although it hurts to say that the swedes did anything good). The Gripen is maybe more intelligence centered and could pick up good data to give to ground or sea forces. I don't think Finland would need that superiority with who has the bigger bomb. Also, we have very good roads to possibly launch from, and the in-country part manufacturing would fit great. The F-35 would be the boldest and probably be the most expensive one. Although it would be awesome, I don't think we need all that stealth- and other stuff, the cost would not be worth it. Finland is a pretty small country and the Russians would detect us before we have an advantage anyway. I think the others have their strengths but are out of the question for the Finnish air force.

[@formateuramzal1567]

@@oskarrrw Good point, I Think that the competition will settle like ths : 1 - Super Hornet / Growler 2 - F35 3 - Gripen 4 - Eurofighter. and last but not least Rafale ;p

[@vberl9573]

@@formateuramzal1567 More likely to be Gripen in Second than the F35. The operating costs and that the US is very anal about how much information other countries are allowed to know about the plane makes the F35 simply not worth it. For example, Denmark, which was one of the countries which collaborated on the F35 project, has tons of problems already with their planes. The US has decided that only Finmeccanica can do large services on the planes, which means that that they need to be transported to Italy for maintenance (this may have changed though as I learned about this a year or two ago). The cost of buying the planes also lead to Denmark only buying 27 planes. Which is far from enough planes to have an effective airforce. I personally think the best plane for Finland would be the Gripen E but since they are so close to Russia they will likely get the Hornet, as this will get them more help from the US.

[@Baronstone]

Honestly I think they will get a mx of the super hornet and the F-35

[@LRRPFco52]

If you read through the fairly-specific 5 paragraph requirement areas, each one of them is written with only the F-35 in mind, all others need not even apply. It’s quite clear. The 5 paragraphs are: A2A: First sentence mentions sensor fusion. 2nd mentions long range detection/track/TGT assessment capabilities only the F-35s have. Next... A2G: Starts talking about net-centric warfare where HX will be able to interoperate with Finnish Army and Navy, JTACs, rapid TGT detection and engagement with ease of pilot interface with correct weapons....yeah Anti-Ship: Same net-centric warfare approach with Finnish Navy, able to detect sea-based targets autonomously and engage them quickly. Long Range Strike: Independent capability to prosecute a deep strike TGT set with quick updates to the pilot after taking off. Nothing is even close in this area due to the JSF sensor suite and data-sharing. ISTAR: They basically describe the mission profiles of several different types of spy planes here, which only JSF integrates with its sensor and EW suites. The other submissions aren’t even contenders when you look at the requirements and evaluated parameters.

[@tonyhawk94]

To me the best options are Rafale and Grippen. In the HX Challenge the F-35 left a bad impression in the Finnish army, among the 4 F-35 announced to participate, only 2 arrived and only 1 was able to complete the test program. Moreover the two F-35 were accompagnied by 2 C-17 transports to bring all the equipment necessary, which was unique in that trial...If the F-35 wins it will only be thanks to corruption and lobbying.

[@fasterthandragons7908]

Or because it's the best option overall.

[@paulchristensen2854]

Wow....4 days and only one reply to some of the truths/facts about the f-35. Rumours in Canada that the F-35 will not be required to fly "in winter conditions " that after the procurement rules were changed so the F-35 could even compete. A delicate one trick pony that is expensive to operate maintain and buy.....then as you say you need specific infrastructure to maintain it.....infrastructure that is fixed in place. Or as you point out two plane loads of crap following it around.. IMO For Canada the Grippen is best choice. Built at home helping to cut ties with an increasingly unstable/unreliable neighbour to the south and their expensive costly to fly high maintenance planes and increasing our countries sovereignty to boot

[@teutonieth]

Agreed. Grippen fits probably the best to the demands Finland makes in respect to battlefield doctrine, as it is small and nimble, has a very low unit price and, very important, an extremely short refuel & rearm duration. Thanks to it's datalink integration, an individual Grippen is even capable of functioning as an AWACS for another fighter wing. Rafale is not by any means a poor choice. When it comes to the upkeep and price, it may come out on top when put against F-18's and Typhoon, but Finland has some demands and preferences that Rafale may not be able to match. F-18 is not an unlikely choice, but because of its size it will incur additional costs as FAF would need to refit their hangars to fit the colossal plane. Typhoon has been a top candidate, sporting significant technical and performance aspects, but it's very high maintenance, which makes it eat through fuel and parts very quickly. a very undesirable property for FAF. F-35 is perhaps the least likely option, what with its colossal unit price and lacklustre performance in comparison to many others, DESPITE it being very high spec on paper. (some time ago there was a training excercise where 5 swedish Grippens were acting as the red team against F-35 blue team. red team won.)

[@LRRPFco52]

The H-X project manager said that no details about the ongoing evaluation would be publicized. What sources do you have for reference that support these claims?

[@LRRPFco52]

@@paulchristensen2854 Every US/NATO weapon system has to operate in extreme winter conditions. There are multiple operational units flying F-35As out of Alaska and Norway as we speak. Once an aircraft reaches altitude, the ambient temp is anywhere from -30 to -60C, depending on height. The US has more experience flying fighters in extreme cold conditions than the combined air forces of Norway, Sweden, and Finland if you ever run the numbers. Just look at sortie generation rates across multiple fighters dating to the 1950s, based out of AK, Iceland, UK, Japan, and ROK. The idea that Sweden knows better how to conduct fighter operations in extreme cold might make sense to someone with no familiarity with the past 70 years of US fighter intercept squadron history.

[@patrickkaempfer3746]

Please do the same for the swiss air force currently in the decision for what plane should remplace our Hornets. Same competitors except Saab who retired from the competition. Love your channel and thanks for your videos! Greets 🇨🇭

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you and will do! Cheers!

[@jonniiinferno9098]

Glad i am not the one making that decision, as that is a really tough choice. i dont think Finland could go wrong with any aircraft on this menu. That being said - as i see it, the Super Hornet, Gripen and Rafael are the top 3 choices - with the F-35 being the expensive and future proof longshot. As always - you have posted another great and very informative video. Thanks !!!!

[@LRRPFco52]

Finland chose the F-35A, which had the best military performance in all metrics, lowest cost. It was always the one to beat. Rafale and Typhoon didn’t pass the economic threshold requirements, and were eliminated from the finalists due to costs, sustainment, and lack of industrial share. This left only 3: F-35A with 4.47 out of 5 points overall, most affordable Unit Price and Unit Program Cost Super Hornet Block 3/Growler Gripen E/F and GlobalEye AWACS Super Hornet and the Gripen Deals were not very different in costs overall, according to Finnish H-X authorities. They are only spending 4.703 Billion on the 64x F-35As, and saving a bunch of money for later weapons developments that will be available in Block 4 2025-2028. The numbers are very interesting.

[@jonniiinferno9098]

@@LRRPFco52 thanks for the info !!!

[@ThomasBaldwin19677587]

F35 most flexible and dynamic of group

[@TheLoxapac]

Most flexible, no, it would be Rafale and F18. F35 is more designed for attack in hostile territory , and is very bad for interception . Slow , not maneuverable, and low disponibility due to very high maintenance needs. It is not very operational right now, it have a lot of big issues, and the cost of the program, plus delays is a big thing. It is very advanced but still have a lot of problems. The US a pushing a lot other countries to get onboard this program, as its cost is skyrocketing... So it is not a very good option for Finland, but i see high chances that they will get it anyway, US wont let them choose another one.

[@ravencookie5141]

Great video! F-18 seems to be the most likely choice with the price cap F-35 is the best choice but they must pay more than the price cap they have Getting a new aircraft isn’t just an aircraft Its a whole program that includes training, munitions, spare parts and maintenance and other things such as ground equipment that can vary from smaller tools (like the staircase used to board the aircraft) all the way bigger things that can potentially include the hangers and runways Of course since they are getting a fighter it would be similar but some offers include different planes for the electric warfare aircraft Thats why I think the F-18 will be the one to be chosen Relatively same equipment and the EW aircraft is actually a modified variant of the fighter itself Thanks for taking the time to make this video I enjoyed it! Merry Christmas

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you and thanks for commenting as always!

[@LRRPFco52]

Super Hornet is really almost entirely a different aircraft/engine/radar/sensors system. The stats about commonality of parts seem misrepresented to me. It is the least-survivable, but has one of the best AESAs. Current USN Super Hornet pilots are leery of fighting Super Flankers. Current SH pilots who converted to F-35 said they never want to see the inside of a SH again. That should tell you all you need to know. It has zero chance against any F-35, and a fraction of F-35 capabilities.

[@bjjace1]

It will take one Super Hornet and one growler to achieve what could be done with one F35. A Super Hornet will need EW support in the form of the growler in most conflict situations with the enemy. EW is organic to the F35, and as a VLO aircraft any EW mission where the F35 is deployed, is exponentially more efficient. That's physics. See, Germany's decision to buy Growlers to protect their Typhoons and Super Hornets. Germany reportedly moving toward a split buy of Super Hornets, Growlers and Eurofighter Typhoons to replace Tornado jets (defensenews.com) The Norwegians proved this in their tests where two F35s protected a strike package of 4 Vipers against 8 F16s flying Red Air. Why risk double the amount of pilots and aircraft in any mission?

[@Retroscoop]

I'm no airplane expert, so sorry if this is a silly question, but how good is that IRST "Stealth Equilizer" system ? I suppose the Russians too will explore this alley, so I was wondering, as my country (Belgium) is buying F 35's, which are supposed to last for the next 3 or more decades: is IRST-technology promising to be the first step in also being able to detect F 35's ? Because if it is, it's quite a lot of money we're putting on one horse only, that might be fast in the first rounds, but might not be as vibrant any longer after more rounds and newer technology ?

[@gamofin3447]

Leaning towards Superhornets. Given compatibility with current fighters and tooling and they would be great workhorse with no bullshit.

[@Leonidae]

Price and logistics wise Gripen and Super Hornet are the likely options for FAF. Gripen is designed for Scandinavian conditions and with roadside bases in mind, and Super Hornet would be easy extension from the legacy Hornets.

[@spartanx9293]

Finland isn't Scandinavian though (they're Nordic)

[@Leonidae]

@@spartanx9293 climate is same, stop splitting hairs.

[@spartanx9293]

@@Leonidae I know I just like catching people on technicalities

[@zhipx8289]

But can those achieve 10:1 ratio against modern Russian jets?

[@MrSpritzmeister]

@@spartanx9293 yes, the technicality is based on 19th century eugenics movement, I wouldn't be proud of that.

[@Dyro3000]

For Gripen and Rafale, this might be a particularly important race in terms of further sales. If either of them gets chosen, it might spur further sales, as the fleet in operation will be larger. The size of the operational fleet is an important consideration for many customers, as the larger the fleet, the lower the spare part costs etc.

[@LRRPFco52]

There will be over 1000 F-35s in 2025. There are currently over 600 built and delivered, with multiple countries jumping on-board once they see what it does.

[@philv3941]

@@LRRPFco52 come on lockheed Martin, nobody believes you now. Just read the letter the belgium parlementaries wrote to their government, asking them to stop the program. "A sh*t plane" : their words not mine. They jump yes, but not in the plane

[@LRRPFco52]

@@philv3941 Belgian Parliamentaries are experts on air warfare and modern combat systems now? Oh, that’s the joke. Sorry. The real scam in the modern fighter market is the Gripen E, which doesn’t even exist after decades of opportunity to develop it. All we have are glossy ads, fake capabilities claimed, with promises for potential buyers to be invited in on the development. It was announced in 2007 was it? Still no production models rolling off the line. Major sensors are missing from the developmental birds, while Saab claims “full technology transfer” to Brazil and any other sucker nation that is dumb enough to think about buying it. Yet all the articles are about how the F-35 is behind schedule, while they’re reliving the Lot 14 unit price of $77.9 million 3 years ahead of the projected schedule. ($77.9 million unit price wasn’t projected to hit until 2022). Carry on with the retardation though.

[@KungCrister]

@@LRRPFco52 Belgium is not the only country that has been disappointed. The UK seems to want to give up about half of the estimated f-35s, instead focusing on the Tempest project. In addition, when the U.S. seems to want to buy new versions of the F-16 and F-15 due to the extremely high cost of the F-35. The Swedish air force is expected to have its first arrests on active duty this year or next year. They already have some that they are testing at full speed, in addition to the test aircraft that SAAB uses. So the question is whether Finland needs the F-35. An aircraft on which they will barely be allowed to service, they will have to build new hangars, not be able to use their alternative remote airstrips and so on.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@KungCrister Read the Finnish Air Force HX evaluation metrics and description of the tests they already conducted. It reads like an ad for the F-35 in every measured parameter. USAF, USMC, and UK have been doing dispersed and remote airstrip ops for years now. Why wouldn’t Finland be able to? Where are you seeing these kinds of statements? USAF is buying new F-16s? USAF program of record for acquisition of F-16s ended in 2005. We were on the F-16 program at Edwards, and I’m more familiar with the Viper than any other aircraft in the inventory. You might have mistaken the F-16V Block 70 FMS contracts for Bulgaria, Singapore, Bahrain, and Taiwan. Those are strictly FMS. There won’t be any new F-16s purchased by the USAF. That ship sailed long ago. Why wouldn’t the US allow another foreign country to conduct maintenance on their fighters like every other nation with JSF does? Finland will be surrounded by JSF partners in Norway, Denmark, Poland, Italy (European F-35A assembly line is there), Belgium, UK, and Switzerland. Maintenance and logistics are part of the HX contract, where manufacturers have to provide a certain % of domestic manufacturing shares in the customer nation.

[@bigreb601]

The Blk 3 Super Hornets seem like a good way to cut back cost most of the ordinance you have should still work, it’s should be from what I heard similar enough to the legacy hornet in how it flies so that cuts back on conversion cost. I’m a proponent of the F-35 and if they also buy them that brings down unit cost and makes acquisition easier though it would be more expensive it would be a good idea considering it gives them a technology advantage over the Russians which could, if war broke out allow them to strike back and cut back losses.

[@92HazelMocha]

The problem is the technological edge of the F35 is already gone; if Russia is already operating stealth aircraft it follow that they’re fully capable of detecting them, thus rendering the stealth advantage null. If you disregard stealth, it’s a relatively level playing field, with the F35 just being unnecessarily expensive.

[@Cta2006]

The F-35A can also be equipped With drag chute pod. Norwegian F-35A has that installed.

[@harri9885]

As a Finn, I'd like the Saab Gripen E to be the next Fighter. Danes and Norway already bought the crazy expensive F-35 in small numbers. Finnish airforce does the flying and fighting. I'd like the pilots to decide, but its politics.

[@nope-jj1rw]

It would be strategically dumb to buy Gripen, unless SAAB goes above and beyond with their offer, or both Finland and Sweden join NATO soon. F-35 is less expensive than one might think and costs have dropped over time. Also, Finland needs a multi-role fighter. The F-35 has a _much_ better weapons package and is also a much larger craft. Gripen would probably be the best deal in a better geopolitical scenario, but where Finland and Sweden and SAAB stand today, it's not worth it. If 64x F-35 can be acquired within the cap, it is the best option, regardless of cost. If it's fewer than 52-56x, F-35 probably isn't worth it.

[@harri9885]

@@nope-jj1rw The cost of flying the F-35 is huge vs the Gripen E/F. Also, the passive stealth in the F-35 is a gimmick as we have hugely powerful radar arrays right on the other side of the eastern border. The Gripen E/F has the datalink, avionics, active jamming capabilities and is certified for both all versions of the AMRAAM and the METEOR. Even Super Hornet & Growler deal from Boeing is better than F-35:s for Finland.

[@harri9885]

The air force is as strong as his/her pilots. Pilots need air time to be effective. Qualitas potentia nostra.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@harri9885 Australian Air Force just reported very detailed operations and maintenance costs at $21,000 CPFH for their F-35As. Since there are no operational squadrons of Gripen Es (because there isn't a production Gripen E), we don't know what it actually costs to operate the less-survivable, less-capable fighter. Swiss Air Force just selected F-35A over Rafale, Typhoon, and Super Hornets.

[@harri9885]

@@LRRPFco52 And as a Finnish taxpayer I wish the Finnish air force avoids the same mistake.

[@jimmyw7530]

All these aircraft are excellent and I have a particular soft spot for the Gripen. However the F-35 is the best choice and easily has the best odds of winning this competition.

[@VikingTeddy]

Technologically speaking, yeah the F-35 comes out on top. But we're not a wealthy country so I doubt it's going to be chosen. I think it's ultimately going to be a choice between the super hornet or gripen, purely due to logistics cost.

[@Fabio-om4kb]

"Winning this competition" 🤣 c'est mal barré surtout quand on pense a la dernière prestation.

[@dnlitsuh]

@@VikingTeddy that’s what I was thinking too, the f-18 would be good for their industry and not too expensive. The f-35 would last the longest but the gripes would meet in the middle of the two.

[@valko022]

Super Hornet's Operating Costs Depends! Between about or over 9 000 to 18 000 US Dollars!

[@jimmyw7530]

@@VikingTeddy the thing about the F-35 is that the costs will continue to fall over time due to the scale of the of the program. The price is competitive at $79 million USD and if you factor in the potential lifetime of the aircraft it will be worth the initial cost of ownership. Plus if Finland teams up with other countries like the UK and Australia have they can share the development costs while they explore the F-35’s potential. The Super Hornet, while formidable now, how is it going to fare in 2040 when it’s retired all around the rest of the world. Same can be said for the Gripen.

[@UnclePutte]

I lean towards the super hornet for heritage reasons. They meet all the primary advantages, plus they'll be from a familiar culture. Training and supply chain will benefit, and relations to supplier already exist. Plus the flyboys here are already proud of their hornets.

[@VersedNJ]

I was thinking that as well but seeing they want a long term solution, while expensive as all hell, the F-35's up front cost is higher, but legacy cost will wash it out. Boeing also is more than happy to allow local production and contributions, The Euro Fighter is also a good choice politically, and Swedens entry seeing it's next door logistically good. Finland is right next to Russia, their eastern border is their biggest concern, stealth may not be a primary need being a defence force. It's picking the best they can get and being able to use it for years. All are capable fighters. Super Hornet does allow a quick transition quite a bit of common service equipment and low transition time.

[@einar8019]

i mean gripens would have alot better support since they are built just a hours flight away and could get upgraded and factory serviced very easily

[@wmsavana325]

The new artillery hits targets on the nose has a range of 1000 miles.Canada is almost 6000 miles wide .The possibilities ,I know the gripen can operate cost effectively and with numerical superiority in canadas northern frontier and has the electronics to operate with the ground based aa artillery . Both systems are also non static and quite effective working together.

[@Gripenace]

Lets hope for Gripen E :)

[@bjjace1]

To be kicked out. One can hope. It's the Toyota Corolla(Economy Car) of Fighter jets.

[@kingjack9502]

@@bjjace1 I mean, Gripen is the right choice for Finland, since we are neighbors, meanwhile, if they gonna buy from the US, it has to travel all over the place... and also, the Price doesn't mean its a bad aircraft.

[@willywampus3426]

@@kingjack9502 the price doesn't matter if you're military is Quality over Quantity, what matter is Technology, Performance and Quality

[@kirgan1000]

No they have good experience of the old Hornet, and as Canada will probebly transition to Super Hornets. Can Gripen do everything relevant that Super Hornet can do, to a lower price probebly, but Gripen will not buy the same amount of "politcal capital"

[@bjjace1]

@@willywampus3426 Price always matters. If it didn't, Finland would not have a set budget. They could buy a mixed fleet pretty much guaranteeing they get what they want. As it stands, Finland has a limited amount of money they can spend. All the jets on this competition are good. "performance"? Gripen e's performance at this time is only theoretical.

[@skipsteel]

What you mention in the Beginning COST, what you said at the end 10 to 1 Kill Ratio. The results of the latest Red Flag The Gripen won every challenge except the against the F-35 even then it was close.

[@kwkfortythree39]

Do you have a link for those red flag exercise with gripen? Thanks

[@bipboup7761]

Ye but France is banned from reflags :/

[@AlexKall]

Gripen and F-35 have never participated in a Red Flag exercise at the same time.

[@aRRakiri]

@@bipboup7761 americans dont want the spectra to x ray the f 35 ^^

[@johng669]

How many of each aircraft type does Finland get for 10 billion Euros? I believe the per unit cost of the Euro fighter jet is more compared to the F-35A.

[@LRRPFco52]

Unit flyaway cost for Typhoons and Rafales is twice that of F-35A even with F-35A price elevated a few million over the current $77.9 million in Lot 14. Lockheed has been talking about raising the price because they are very low compared to everything else, including Gripen E and Super Hornet. 64 F-35A Block 4 (future major tech refresh Block) only cost 4.7 Billion euros in the deal. The rest is allocated for additional weapons, support, training, sustainment, and basing.

[@perelfberg7415]

What is that F35 interoperability with allies that the video refer to? To my knowledge Finland does not have any strict ties. And if it does its towards Sweden. In which there are close cooperations between air and naval power. Sure they have ties to Nato but allies might ve the wrong term. Also not all aircrafts are from Nato country's.

[@KungCrister]

I hope they choose Gripen E, but I think it'll be the new Hornets. Finland has a very good military cooperation with Sweden, and I think that a co-operation of the Swedish Gripen and Finnish F18 would be a good continuation of the cooperation.

[@spartanx9293]

Slight issue the super hornet has a lower cost both in terms of FlyAway cost and operational cost before you fire back with the whole the Griffin only cost $6,000 to operate thing that only applies to the c and D models not the e that model cost $27,000 to operate per flight hour compared to the super hornets 18,000 (or at max 25,000 depending on the upgrades the block 3 gets) though I do not disagree with your idea of a mixed doctrine and I believe more Nations should consider that

[@KungCrister]

@@spartanx9293 What? Where do you get the numbers about the Gripen E operational cost?

[@spartanx9293]

@@KungCrister when the Swiss were offered it they ran a statistic on fuel maintenance etc and came to the conclusion on the operating cost costing roughly $24,000 francs or $27,000 an hour I'll link my source

[@spartanx9293]

@@KungCrister "The draft also estimates operating costs: 102 million Swiss francs per year (6 million Swiss francs for the operation of real estate included). The operating costs per hour are not explicitly mentioned in the template. Taking into account the listed annual costs for personnel (24 million), maintenance (51 million) and fuel (21 million), these are significantly more than Saab presented to journalists in previous presentations. The calculation of operating costs per hour is based on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year. With 22 Gripen this results in costs of 24 ' 242 francs per flight hour. On the occasion of a presentation in Sweden, Saab announced a price of less than CHF 10,000. This still requires explanation"

[@KungCrister]

@@spartanx9293 According to an acquaintance who's in testing and development , your numbers are wrong. He can't say exact numbers, but they're slightly more expensive than c/d but cheaper than the F-16 and F-18.

[@theangrydiver]

Force multiplier, multi role, integrated systems... Damn you could be a military salesman xD

[@92HazelMocha]

To be fair, most of these descriptions are directly ripped from the manufacturers. A solider never refers to his weapon as a “force multiplier” but the company that made the weapon always does.

[@johndoe62804]

Super Hornets could be the most cost efficient choice, if not the best one. Adopting them would be easier than any other participants since they've operated Legacy Hornets. The lack of stealth capability could be covered with EA-18G too.

[@johndoe62804]

@Jörgen Persson I'm rather thinking about personnel expenses, not flying cost solely. Converting into brand new craft would require more works for new manual, training, and/or maintenance centre. As long as Super Hornets are based on Legacy ones, those works can be minimized.

[@gustavb3673]

HX challange procurement cost isn't the most important but rather that the operational costs for the new fighters can't exceed Finland's current fleet of F-18. About the EA-18G Growler vs JAS-39 + Globaleye you missed that JAS-39 Gripen HX-challange offer includes the EAJP EW pod that gives them the capabilities that some would compare to those of the Growler, the offer also includes Globaleye AEW&C. The cap on the operational costs is much more limiting for the offered solution than the procurement cost and may limit the number of fighters to be offered. SAAB is being able to include Globaleye because of the low operational costs of the Gripen and it will surely be needed with all the great contenders in the HX challenge.

[@johanlassen6448]

Sincerely doubt that the Gripen even with a pod is even near the EW capabilities of the Growler.

[@gustavb3673]

​@@johanlassen6448 Who knows since it's all surrounded by secrecy, the EAJP EW pod is the most modern in the world and GaN-based but it's just another tool to get the job done.

[@teddy.d174]

F-35’s and Gripens would be my choices.

[@olyts59-57]

Team rafale 😘

[@tedenderpalmer6550]

Sagan explain why the Rafael has a reduced rate across section? Just because it uses advanced composite doesn't mean the radar cross-section is reduced at all. Material selection and coatings are only part of the equation. So tell us what you know.

[@aaronsanborn4291]

I'd drop the Typhoon off the list...Gripen is a very versatile and can take off from short & improvised runways. Super Hornet and Rafale M are both designed for carrier operations and are rugged on top of being versatile. Also with the Super Hornet and the Rafale M being capable of operating from American carriers is a plus. The Rafale M is currently the only European fighter compatible with U.S. carrier launching and landing equipment. Honestly I'd give the edge to the Super Hornet because of the existing E, F & Growler variants and the existing partnership with Boeing...plus the above mentioned ability to operate from American carriers if need be.

[@peternicho]

You should listen to the American test pilots of the super hornet who has tested both the hornet and the typhoon eurofighter and he said the eurofighter is the stand out choice.

[@flightmaster999]

Very interesting video, well done. I just want to mention that the nuclear capabilities of these aircraft are totally useless for Finland.

[@PilotPhotog]

Thanks for commenting, and yes the nuclear capabilities are likely useless but perhaps can be used a some kind of deterrence? Just a thought.

[@olivierrocat3932]

This kind of missile is considered as nuclear deterrent.

[@juslitor]

@@PilotPhotog Would take a major miracle to make the finnish goverment to even theoretically consider deploying nukes in any shape or form.

[@PilotPhotog]

@@juslitor agreed I guess planners have to consider all options, no matter how remote. Let's hope it never comes to that. Thanks for commenting!

[@92HazelMocha]

Beat me to it; the ability to carry nuclear weapons means nothing if your country doesn’t have any hahaha

[@Macovic]

If Gripen E variant is chosen it has more to offer. Stealthier than presented compared to competition. Plus cost efficiency will likely more than double flight hours compared to the competition. Means not only will flights more often be conducted but also with more than one or two planes at the same time compared to competition. There are strength in numbers.

[@JK-rc8yi]

The technology just aint as good as super hornet or f35

[@AlexKall]

@@JK-rc8yi what do you meant by technology? Can you be more specific?

[@JK-rc8yi]

@@AlexKall Gripen is made by saab and us planes made by boing and lockheed martin. That tells you it all in my opinion. Saab gripen is the same that we finns started to manufacture our own planes. It just coudnt be as good what usa is developping

[@SonnyKnutson]

@@JK-rc8yi You talk out of your ass. Gripen performed better than any other aircraft except F-22 Raptor in Red Flag 2013. That was only just a tiny bit worse than the F-22 too. That was the Gripen C. The Gripen E is top notch tech and will be a hell of a lot more capable than the C was then.

[@AlexKall]

@@JK-rc8yi No that tells me nothing other than that they are different companies. Please tell me what technologies you are referring to, please be more specific.

[@HM-wv2ft]

The rafale'd gun isn covered in a cap that is disposed of by the first 30 mm shell. 125 rounds are carried.

[@stuartw312000]

While all the contenders are remarkable and accomplished airframe nothing has the kinetic energy of the Typhoon though I think the FAF will stick with the F18 as it's a weapon system that they know well.

[@pahtar7189]

One thing not mentioned in the video is that the Gripen and F-35 are single-engine planes. Though that tends to reduce operating and maintenance costs, it's also a liability. Having two engines can often mean you get home when a single-engine fighter has to bailout.

[@Bald_Zeus]

The major advantage the Gripen has in a situation like that is that it is designes to be able to land on road bases, making airfields constantly nearby for a country with a defensive focus like Finland

[@Fabio-om4kb]

🤣

[@operator0]

This used to be a big concern, but fighter engines have advanced a lot since the 70s and 80s and are now so reliable that a modern single engine fighter is more reliable than the old, twin engine jets.

[@appa609]

@@operator0 mmm not likely. Old F-100PW-100's had a peak incident rate of about 5/100,000 flight hours in 1976. That's 1/20,000 in a given hour. The probability of two independent failures in that hour is 1/400,000,000. F-135's have a cumulative average accident rate of 0.73/100k FH. An F-35's chance of falling out of the sky from engine failure is not nearly as low as an F-15 (and there's not even evidence the engines themselves have lower failure rates ... the f-100's in question had a cumulative failure rate of 0.24/100k.)

[@Rodfriend]

@@appa609 perhaps but since most twin engines are side by side some malfunctions will cause both engines to fail

[@andreasleonardo6793]

Too nice video thanks for sending...excellent pilot photos channel...I think F 35 A most suitable...its 5 th generation ..others between 4 to 4th + aircrafts ...also its future aircrafts dominance aircrafts thanks for sending

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you Andreas and Merry Christmas!

[@andreasleonardo6793]

@@PilotPhotog mary Christmas for you and thanks

[@maikkelimattila1849]

Fun fact, during testings one aircraft didn't manage to take off while there was raining like Stalin's heavyweight farts.

[@andreasleonardo6793]

@@maikkelimattila1849 you opinion is logic thanks friend

[@Dyro3000]

In addition to Gripen E's and F's, SAAB's bid contains two GlobalEye airborne early warning & control platforms (AEW&C) to augment the Gripens' capabilities. They too need maintenance and incur costs, which must be factored in when considering the actual costs of this combination. As a result, the Gripen might not be any more affordable than the other contenders. But will the capabilities of the GlobalEyes offset this? There is very little information available on them. Since this is a design-to-cost race, some specific advanced capabilities might actually prove to be the decisive factor.

[@Max-ds5gd]

You mean the maintance of two globaleye would make the Gripen package just as expensive as the F-35?

[@i20010]

23:17 a 10:1 kill ratio? what does that mean?

[@Frog89mad]

i would take a wild guess that all fighter's are regularly practicing/testing "realistic" dog fights. like on a country vs country level with allies.

[@TheRogueElement]

Absolutely fascinating. Your videos are the most concise and best execution of delivering this type of content I've seen. The Gripen makes the most sense logistically and would be the best option for Finland if Russia was a friendly neighbor. However, they certainly are not friendly. For this reason, Russia holds all of Finland at risk, so there is a need for the most capable platform that can even hold Russian mainland targets at risk rather than being purely defensive. There needs to be a factor in play that gives a distinct advantage rather than trying to beat Russian gen 4.5 fighters in a turn and burn visual range fight. For that reason, I would say that the best choice would be the F-35 for it's stealth and strike capability as well as its sensor suites and networking capabilities. This choice also sends the strongest message of deterrence.

[@PilotPhotog]

Thank you glad you enjoyed the video and your analysis is well thought out.

[@Nikocum]

I think the F-35 would be a good choice since Norway is operating it as well...but same goes for the Gripen with Sweden and the F-35 is more expensive. The Typhoon wouldn't probably be a good choice, its MCO eats a lot of money to the point that Austria wants to get rid of its own Typhoons! The Rafale is battle proven and, as a French, I would love to see Finland flying it...but still a very expensive choice and it probably couldn't serve as long as the F-35. The Super-Hornet, as described in the video, has many advantages for Finland but would it be up to the task for the next 30-40 years? It's going to be a tough choice!

[@marcusaetius9309]

Rogue Element That’s odd, I don’t remember Russia/Putin threatening Finland. Do you know something the rest of the world doesn’t?

[@TheRogueElement]

@@marcusaetius9309 Whatever 🤣 I'm sure you'd say he never threatened Finland if they ever joined NATO. No need to debate it.

[@2whostruckjohn]

@@TheRogueElement Maybe the Swedes know something he doesn't, since the Swedes just decided to boost their defence spending by 40%. Pretty sure the Swedes aren't worried about NATO or the Finns.

[@antonindorne3769]

Nice video! Note that the non-naval rafales have 14 hardpoints so the typhoon is not the jet that can carry the most weapons

[@PilotPhotog]

Excellent point thank you!

[@antonindorne3769]

@@PilotPhotog Its not a problem your video is very well made. Merry christmas to you!

[@EEEEEEE354]

Rafale has 14 hardpoints, 2 of which are dedicated to pods. On long range mission, Rafale uses 2 centerline hardpoints for a 2000 L tank, and 1 hardpoint per wing for 2 more external hardpoints. This is the problem with Rafale. While it's a great jet, it's only holding 10,500 pounds of internal fuel. Even with 3 external hardpoints and 4 air to air missiles, it has a combat radius of 896 to 920mm The advertised 20,900 pounds of payload includes the external fuel and pods. In most situations, Rafale only has 8 usable WEAPONS hardpoints. The airplane with the largest payload in this competition is the F-35A, with 22,000 pounds of purely weapons. 10 usable hardpoints, and an internal fuel payload of 18,498 pounds. With internal fuel only, it can rival the combat radius of all these planes when using 3 fuel tanks. 760nm with 4 missiles and no tanks incredibly impressive for an aircraft of this class. With the future incorporation of external fuel tanks.

[@JoJo-vm8vk]

@@EEEEEEE354 This is bullshit. With full internal fuel, you can load about 18000lbs (which is already pretty good, it's true). But anyway, you won't go very far loaded like that, and the plane will be plenty detectable.

[@tetauruhatitio840]

@@EEEEEEE354 hahahahahah connerie

[@manifestman132]

I love the JAS 39 but the Super Hornet/Growler combo is a great option I thing Germany even went that route. Not sure about the Rafales cold weather abilities and not real sure about the Eurofighter other then keeping it in the EU. F35 is still kind of new its a cool aircraft but new.

[@KingKong-os7iv]

Get them all I say! Then come to my town for a display :)

[@patriciafarrow9586]

I think in 20 years from now, a country like Finland, or Sweden, or Canada will operate 100 armed drones for every single manned jet fighter. Will there be a new class of aircraft like a drone carrier [a 747] patrolling the the coasts refueling and taking video of all ship movements?

[@92HazelMocha]

That makes the most sense; we are on the verge of unmanned bombers and fighters today, so resources should be conserved for such technologies in the future.

[@patriciafarrow9586]

@FailZero I stand corrected - yes, 100 to 1 would be excessive and too costly. I just wanted to emphasize there will be a paradigm shift to unmanned surveillance and Canada should develop its own centre of competency in these matters.

[@ahmediqbal9869]

the f-35 is clearly the best and most futureproof jet. plus it's comparable in price to the others and will be survivable for a while. maintenance and local sourcing of parts would be the only real downside imo

[@johndoe-cd9vt]

Do more research before posting... The F35 is the most expensive and also the worst since it's full of bugs and potentially very dangerous for the life of pilot. The US have a better plane, the F22 but they don't sell it.

[@jerski14344]

@@johndoe-cd9vt all "NEW" planes has some hidden faults in it, theres no exception and theres no such thing as perfect, all planes wether civilian or military aircraft crash, F35 is constantly being upgraded and it will be the most numerous jet fighter in the world with 3,000+ will be made so compatibility and interoperability between nation will be no question in the future...

[@meggyfr0001]

Rafale look sooooooo goood and better !

[@Hairysteed]

She's a French beauty alright!

[@Baronstone]

Still Obsolete

[@kal_bewe1837]

@@Baronstone How ?

[@hoodedmirror1051]

@@Baronstone Better than the F35

[@Dyro3000]

Let’s see to what extent history repeats itself. When Finland was purchasing a replacement for its Fouga Magister jet trainer in the late 1970s, Dassault’s Alpha Jet was the expected winner, but lost to Hawk. One of the contenders was Saab, but their plane was already obsolete. (Furthermore, the trainer also had to be capable of operating a frontline fighter with some air-to-air and air-to-ground capability - not everything is public in deals like these!) When the Finnish MiG-21s and Saab Drakens were being replaced in the late 1980s, the favourite was Dassault Mirage 2000, until the F-18 joined the race. Saab Gripen was considered too unfinished at that time, as its design was still a work in progress. I would not be surprised if the top two contenders in the HX project were Dassault and Saab, but only time will tell.

[@Hairysteed]

The reason Alpha Jet could not be aquired was because it was half German and the Paris Peace treaty prohibited the aqcuisition of any war material of German (or Japanese) origin. After German reunification Finland unilaterally declared the arms limitations of the treaty void except in regards to nuclear weapons.

[@kirgan1000]

@Dyro3000 In what way are Saab 105 obsolete compare to Alpha Jet and Hawk. They are all from the same era. EDIT: Saab 105 are good at many thing but its not good in air-to-air.

[@danieldunlap4077]

I love a super hornet. I worked on it in the early 2000s. However, it's a fourth generation jet. Choosing the F-35 would future proof their air force for quite a while.

[@blegi1245]

I have no problem with F-35 being selected if the operating costs per year for 60+ fighters is the required 300 million € and local assembly of the planes and engines is used to enstablish depot maintenance capability in finland for both. The current F/A-18C fleet and it's engines were assembled in finland and currently 90% of hornet maintenance is performed in finland. Dassault is offering ability to update threat libraries for Rafale in finland. Boeing or LM can't do the same because US government demands that the threat libraries are processed in the US before they can be loaded to either the super hornet or F-35.

[@andreaskavak2364]

@Jörgen Persson without stealth the f-35 is a flying pingu

[@rockelino]

Eurofighter: "my gun 150 rounds" A-10C: "I match your 150 rounds and raise by an additional 1000" GAU-8: "I'm also thicker than my European counterpart..."

[@spartanx9293]

Any aircraft nicknamed thunderbolt is mandated to be thick even the viggan is thick by saab standards

[@forzaisspeed]

You do know that the Eurofighter and A-10 are 2 completely different jet's, one is for Ground Cover, while the over is a Muilt-Roll fighter right. Yes the Eurofighter has 150 rounds, but it beats the A-10 in around 99% of all areas, while the A-10 just sets there with his 1350 rounds, but 1350 don't last that long you know, the 30mm on the A-10 around 70 rounds per second meaning full firing time is only round 19 seconds on the tricker.

[@rockelino]

@@forzaisspeed I was making a joke, relax. You do know how to spell multi-role, not "multi-roll", right?

[@forzaisspeed]

@@rockelino So what I misspelt a word, quick call the news. Kid grow up really you sad if you try to get people to laugh at a misspelt word, is that the most fun you've had in your life or are you just that sad.

[@kwkfortythree39]

Medieval Knight: haha you don't have armor nor a horse!

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Basically Superhornets: planes finland already have lots of Gripens: cheapest European neighbor of the bunch Rafales: French aircraft version of the word omnipotence Typhoon: another european neighbor but british (I wonder if the fins, should they adopt it, would also be sipping tea 🍵 in the cockpit... Only time will tell.) And lastly, Lightning 2: something *smaller than a metal golf ball* hitting you with democracy and *FREEDOM*