The F-35 Won in FINLAND and they REVEALED that ...

Head to brilliant.org/M... to get started for free with Brilliant s interactive lessons. The first 200 people will also get 20% off an annual membership.
This video was sponsored by Brilliant
#F35 #Finland
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com...
Join the Discord server / discord
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.c...
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the KZbin Partner Program, Community guidelines & KZbin terms of service.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Head to brilliant.org/Millennium7/ to get started for free with Brilliant s interactive lessons. The first 200 people will also get 20% off an annual membership. This video was sponsored by Brilliant #F35 #Finland Join this channel to support it: kzbin.info/door/VDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk ---------------------------- Ask me anything! Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below! forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0 -------------------- Visit the subreddit! www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/ ---------------------

[@IBelieve..............]

There is absolutely no way an f35 program would be price competitive to the Gripen, at least I can't see how it's possible. Now if you were to operate the 2 together as a force multiplier, well then I might be convinced.

[@mohammadsalah3319]

OOOOOOH my God how wrong could anyone be!!!!!!!????

[@112deeps]

Special Chemical Fuel ?

[@LRRPFco52]

@@IBelieve.............. The power of mass propaganda media is strong. F-35A current unit flyaway cost: $77.9 million Gripen E unit flyaway: $85 million Block 4 F-35A will be more expensive than Block 3, still less cost than Gripen E. Finland evaluated Operations & Maintenance costs of all the contenders and said there were no significant differences between any of the 3 finalists. They consulted with Norway, Netherlands, US Navy (Super Hornet), Swedish Air Force, RAF, and French Armee de L'Air over 7 years gathering relevant information from all entrants who responded with proposals. F-35A was the lowest cost to acquire, but has significantly better capabilities.

[@BoycottChinaa]

Surprised they aren't using the neighbors Meteor missile for air to air, is this one of those, "stealth up front painting targets, defending w US tech, and F18s or gripens linked up as rear bomb trucks, carrying longer range defense" sort of situations? Scandinavia may enjoy the vertical lift option in the f35 family, w the island defense and roadways as runways doctrine? Seems once you have them, swapping the orders and parts for secret surprise air defense stations? Great content always, spacibo )

[@kariruokola2183]

Finland has said that they intend to make decissions about air to ground weapons round 2025 when the F-35 is step by step coming into use because there are new air to ground weapon systems coming within a couple of years , so it is not any point to buy older versions now when more modern ones can be bought closer to when they might be needed.

[@pindot787]

@Drew Peacock AIM 260, presumably at block 4, F35 could carry 6 internally. Edit : oops you mean air to ground. nevermind.

[@magitsu]

@Drew Peacock Because nobody can afford to have specialty jets, so the same "safer" long-range fires platforms need to be also able to do low observable air to air and recon. There will be plenty of new internal bay fitting air to ground options (like JSM) between 2030-60 anyway due to the vast number of F-35 customers around.

[@LRRPFco52]

@Drew Peacock F-35 with JSM has more effective range than any legacy fighter with JASSM-EX because F-35s can penetrate where legacy can't. When you combine a stand-off VLO missile with a penetrating VLO fighter, you're into a different and new capability set that has never existed with TACAIR in history. We had some penetrating platforms with GBUs, but not cruise missiles. Think F-111F and F-117A. F-117A could go into the MEZ but could only carry GBUs, had very limited sensors for terminal phase after an autonomous, INS-based NAV profile into the TGT area, then could open up the aperture for the FLIR to provide targeting for GBUs. JSF have fused and networked AESAs with extreme long range Radar Ground Mapping with zoomable EOTS FLIR, so lead can execute D-SEAD while simultaneously update TGT coordinates for 2nd wave, and attrit the air threat. Nothing else in the world right now has these capabilities outside of JSF.

[@mikkoj1977]

f-35 can use weapons that Finland has to it,s Hornets..

[@kimm3423]

@Drew Peacock Could you describe some of these many ways to detect and engage the F-35?

[@Milvus_In_Excelsis]

Security. Including cyber security to protect the F35 classified information. That's something all countries who buy the F35 are required to beef up. None already had or have this in place.

[@gunmnky]

This is exactly what I was thinking. To include secured hangers to obscure laptops and maintenance tools that are propriety/secret.

[@SuperNiemi]

Here are some interesting key points that were not mentioned in this video: Each candidate had to pass 3 base categories before they could be considered: Security of Supply, Affordability (full lifecycle costs) and Industrial Participation. Here's the surprising thing: The Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale did not pass this first stage of the evaluation process, leaving only the Super Hornet, Grippen E and F-35 on the table for the performance evaluation that determined the winner.* The performance evaluation gave each aircraft a point score. The F-35 got 4,47 points and the next-best candidate (which had to be either SH or Grippen E) got 3,81 points. The F-35 was either the best or shared the top spot in all areas of the performance evaluation. This evaluation was broken into different focus areas that had a different emphasis: Air-superiority 30%, support of ground forces 20%, maritime support 10%, long range air-to-ground capability 20%, intelligence and surveillance 20%. Also quite surprising was the statement that "no candidate was significantly cheaper than others." (in overall lifecycle costs). Info above from the official HX press conference. It's on youtube but only in Finnish. ---- *most likely every candidate went through the performance evaluation since all 5 planes were flown to Finland specifically for this reason. Scores are not mentioned. I guess this means Rafale and/or Typhoon could have technically beaten the F-35 (in some areas at least) since they were left out because of not performance related issues. But this is just pure speculation.

[@Dubanx]

"no candidate was significantly cheaper than others." (in overall lifecycle costs). " This isn't the first time a European country looking to upgrade has mentioned this either. I'm guessing the F35 has the advantage in terms of economics of scale. The more an aircraft is produced the cheaper the individual cost. After all R&D and tooling are expensive. The more of an aircraft is produced the less weight is placed on any single aircraft. The F35 itself is inherently more expensive than the alternatives, but it's also being produced by the thousands, bringing per unit price down.

[@SuperNiemi]

@@Dubanx Probably so. The biggest surprise (for me at least) was that Saab's Grippen E didn't have an affordability edge which was sort of expected to be its main perk. Low production numbers may explain this.

[@louiscypher4186]

@@SuperNiemi According to Iltalehti (finnish newspaper) the issue was that the Grippen E bid did not commit to a sustainment program beyond 2060, Lockheed Martin has promised a sustainment program into the 2070's. The extra decade of support probably shifted the lifetime costs in favour of the F35. As Finland intends to fly their next gen fighter into the 2060's at the earlist. Whether Lockheed Martin can deliver on that promise time will tell.

[@magitsu]

@@louiscypher4186 Let's do some further thinking. Even if IL would suggest, there's no chance anything about 2070 mattered. HX wasn't looking for anything to be used that far. Besides Finland wanted and LM thus offered less maintenance price guarantees than in Switzerland. The Swiss wanted 10 years and Finland only wanted the transition (5 years) to be covered from the HX budget. Even that 10 years will cost Switzerland dearly because it's much more expensive for a private company to hedge currency risks than a state. But it might be a political necessity (referendum/cancel pressure) for Switzerland to have a set price for an extended time, even if it's higher due to that.

[@tonespeaks]

@@Dubanx I think you are right about the costs, as long as USAF buys what they have suggested they will. Costs of operations has been a huge issue in the US, with the Head of the USAF calling it a Ferrari that is driven on Sundays. Currently the US Gov't wants existing and future F35s to have new engines, that have more thrust and better fuel economy. This is telegraphing a design flaw in the aircraft, but the Gov't is handling these issues on the down low. Don't want to spook foreign buyers. When the Finnish Government states "no candidate was significantly cheaper than others", that is worrying, after the USA has had serious issues with the costs. In 1917 the USA was spending $47,000 per flight hour, is is currently $33,000 and Lockheed Martin says they can get it down to $27,000 around 2025. The Gripen costs around $8,000 per flight hour and requires about half the support crew.......interesting. I think Finland doesn't have the capacity to do their own Aviation work, so maybe buying something Turnkey is cheaper.

[@AugmentedGravity]

They revealed that it was the best aircraft. Done deal. Same story with basically every single competition the F-35 enters, because its no comparison to 4th gen platforms.

[@wiryantirta]

This was an extremely insightful explanation on things we often don’t see/hear about. I appreciate the time you took to scour through and translate the documents.

[@mariacheebandidos7183]

why the f-35 gets negative coverage (other than for views, clicks, ...) kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5a4dXlsfqh4ZtU

[@janizzkar]

The point of not buying all weapons right away was for obsolesence and not having "expired" stockpiles. Also they are most likely waiting for aim260s to become available. Our f35s also get jassm er versions. Being only the 4th to get it adter us, poland(?) and australia. Also finland will have the most extensive self reliant maintenance out of all the f35 users excluding US. Thats big.

[@arcticblue248]

Also the norwegian Joint strike missile that already is made for the F-35 is availiable and have showed pretty good results so far in tests .. They are now fitted to boats, planes and land vehicles...

[@janizzkar]

@@arcticblue248 YES. very true, i frogot the norwegian stealth Anti ship missle was also included for the F35. There was so much in that document and reveal event its easy to froget. Must not froget the SDBs aswell.

[@lordsqueak]

Buying the F-35 sounds more and more like buying a new multi purpose printer. The printer itself is cheap, but the ink cartridges are expensive, and it will refuse to scan a paper if it runs out of Cyan. . . .

[@kathrynck]

That's all aircraft really.

[@danielhandika8767]

Printer still refuses to scan any paper even if it has full ink Scanner on the other hand don't require any ink to scan

[@kathrynck]

@@danielhandika8767 Years ago, i got a color laser printer. Kinda pricey, but I don't use a printer at home very often, so I always had ink drying out before running out. Now, with big toner cartridges, it's lasted an eternity and still works :)

[@ramanjindal8669]

Ur reasoning analogy fits perfectly with f35.

[@lordsqueak]

@@danielhandika8767 I guess you never owned one of those all-in-one printers. ;)

[@sparty94]

f35 has classified tech on it, we don't know all of it's capabilities, nor it's requirements.

[@December314]

F-35 is fully integrated multi roll jet. All other competitors only look cheaper but if you want to equip them for a true multi roll, the cost of the extra equipment make them more expensive. Just adding an IR pod to the F-15 makes it more expensive than F-35. The Fins are not stupid. They will not proclaim openly that they will use F-35 for Air-to-Ground operations so the Russians will not start hyperventilating. The truth is that F-35 in its current package is ready for Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground and passive and active Reconnaissance and lets not forget - it is stealthy.

[@joripiira]

There has been a massive change in the air forces doctrine, before F-18 it was purely air-to-air intercept but now the mission priorities goes like this: air-to-air 30% air-to-ground 20% air-to-sea 10% long reach air-to-ground 20% reconnaissance 20% So overall 50% of mission priorities are for ground/sea effect.

[@aquaman3874]

@@r.hagenau3541 They have around 820M EUR (936M USD) reserved for air-to-ground, they just haven't finalized what mix of SDBs, JDAMs, JASSM-ER, and JSM they'll be purchasing.

[@justinlance4174]

@@r.hagenau3541 yes finland is wishing to join NATO. And we will accept them.

[@jarikinnunen1718]

@@r.hagenau3541 With who else? To NATO mean nothing war with Finns or without. It is too big.

[@wolfgangjr74]

@@r.hagenau3541 Thanks to Russia's own behavior. Russia can suck it. I do hope other countries in EU do purchase other craft though to keep some randomness which is essential to keep russia or anyone else from focusing on one platform.

[@thetreekeeper143]

@@wolfgangjr74 what do you mean? Russia are the good guys. NATO forces are warmongers around the world.

[@xwing8029]

Stealth planes that can land almost everywhere in country that borders with s400 - s500 anti air missles looks like only reasonable solution.

[@weasle2904]

For real. Anyone surprised by this, or somehow angry (which I don't understand since they ended up SAVING money by going with the F-35...), are just emotional crybabies who don't like reality and prefer to pick favorites based on looks. It's just like car guys lmao

[@iivaris]

It's not only stealth. The F-35 has also very impressive electronic warfare equipment and one of the many, many things he forgot to mention in the video was one of the key factors for the selection, survivability.

[@xwing8029]

@@iivaris Also in 2017 Red Flag exercise newly trained F-35 pilots fought against F-16's with experienced pilots and won in 20:1 ratio.

[@iivaris]

@@xwing8029 Nice!

[@carisi2k11]

@@xwing8029 Didn't it come out recently that this number was actualy 78:1 or something like that.

[@vincentbolduc4462]

The environment explosive or chemical building is most likely for the Anti radiation coating that the modern fighters use to lower the radar cross section by 8-12 %. Buddy of mine works on F22 and they have a dedicated hangar for that exact reason.

[@joripiira]

F-35 did get a score of 4,4/5 in the comparison, second best was Gripen or Super Hornet, with score of 3,8/5. Typhoon and Rafale were not in the performance comparison, because they did not fullfill the industrial cooperation requirement in earlier phase.

[@LRRPFco52]

Super Hornet Block 3 was 2nd place at 3.81/5. Gripen E came in dead last and was more expensive to acquire. Swedish news revealed this and the fact that Saab was in denial of how poorly the Gripen E performed.

[@lamalien2276]

@@LRRPFco52 That surprises me. I would have thought that with it's strong A2A, low maintenance cost and cold weather performance that it would do well.

[@sorennilsson9742]

@@LRRPFco52 Well since you claim it I would like to have a source that states it except for rumors. Finland has not said it boeing has not claimed it. The fact is that the choise of F35 is to a huge part based on 6000 jobs in Finland 30% of the cost will be covered by the USA bying products from Finland. Saab offer was not even close with 1000 jobs in Finland and Sweden is to small for bying that amount of goods from Finland. So it was good economic sence, good political sence. On top of this Finland thinks the F35 is a better air supremacy fighter. This is probebly true since they will get the block 4 capable of having 6 missiles in the comming extended weapon storage. The today existing F35 can at the most cary four missiles that is what is needed to down one enemy. If the F35 is loaded with two bombs and two missiles one has an aproximately 35% to 40% chanse of killing an enemy fighter. A Jas 39 E has a close to 90% chanse to kill 2 enemy fighters if armed with 7 Meteor missiles. So from my perspective the choise of F35 over the Jas 39 E can be questioned. The reason for this is that the F35 needs to get closer to the enemy to get a kill compared to Jas. It needs to be at a distance of less than 100 km and it is at that distance detecteble by IR detection.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@lamalien2276 Gripen E has very weak performance compared to all the 4th and 4.5 Gen fighters. It's more of a marketing scam than anything.

[@jameson1239]

@@LRRPFco52 again where is the source other then Trust me bro

[@sdfswords]

The Finns are extremely prudent about how they spend their defense dollars. They literally live next door to the Russian Bear, and they have gone toe to toe with the Russians more than once, which makes their decisions life or death important.Their evaluation of the F-35 is making me feel a bit better about the fiscal black hole we created while developing the Lightning here in the States, especially in light of the fact they compared it to the Saab Grippen, which is a wonderful fighter platform.

[@paulbedichek2679]

Please,the F 35 has turned out to be more capable and less expensive than we ever thought, it's OK to have some non stealthy missile carriers but any free country needs the F 35 to lead the way. No matter what happens in Urkraine EU needs to push the Russians out of Kaliningrad.

[@radivojevasiljevic3145]

@@paulbedichek2679 EU doesn't want to start nuclear war with Russia about Kaliningrad. It will be part of Russia for long time.

[@deadphone9639]

I salute you for having an objective view. Most of militant youtube specc warriors can't seem to understand that there is no fighter jet that is superior over all other jets. Every fighter jet is designed for a purpose and what counts is how well trained the pilot is and how good support system, EW and ECM they have.

[@paulbedichek2679]

@@radivojevasiljevic3145 I say take it, it’s up to the Russians to decide what to do about it, but if there is conflict inEurope, it makes it more complicated having anti aircraft missles stationed there.

[@radivojevasiljevic3145]

@@paulbedichek2679 not just AA but missiles which can hit the most important capitals very quickly, and even more important, all kinds of military infrastructure. No airfields and hangars with all fancy equipment, no F-35 in action or in best case, just one way mission.

[@ELMS]

Referring back to your video about your goals for the channel…sponsorships are always a good sign. People are noticing!

[@lamalien2276]

I'm glad it's brilliant and not raid shadow legends.

[@blazinchalice]

Currently, the US and allies field about 700 F-35's. That number will be getting closer to 1k at the end of this year. It's great to see all of the Panthers getting deployed. Every ally that flies them will be able to operate seamlessly with each other. Now, Finland needs to be supplied with the AARGM-ER to take out those S400 systems!

[@user-qn3xu5ee3t]

Nice way to commit a national level suicide

[@rollercoasterintogiantdomo]

I don't believe Finland plans on fighting an offensive war against Russia

[@universemultiverse3699]

In case of war all of these f-35's will not even have time to take off and will be destroyed at airfields by Iskander and Kalibr missiles.

[@quinndenver4075]

@@universemultiverse3699 sure bud

[@SuperSetright]

@@quinndenver4075 explain your reasoning?

[@greg5023]

Mr 7's opinion about using pods to "integrate" a new system on the F35 contradicts what pilots of the F35 have said on military news websites and Fighter Pilot Podcast and Ward Carroll's channel. They recognize the advantage of leaving the old external sensor pod architecture in the past. For example, "The JSF is very different from the aircraft it is replacing - the F-16, F/A-18, F-14, AV-8B, A-10 - or even the Eurofighter. They also have federated architectures, but with nothing close to the Communications, Navigation, and Information (CNI) system of the JSF, which will implement half a dozen different physical links to different ships and aircraft." One pilot said something like "We didn't get the number of F22s we wanted. We didn't get the number of B2 bombers we wanted. Those lessons have been learned. The F35 is going to be a 3000 plane franchise. What we've learned is the need for total software integration. Those old federated systems had a radar box, tacan box, a radio box and those were all separate and distinct and were meshed into the mission computer."

[@DirtyMardi]

He seems to not take into consideration that what he says applies to radars and guns as well, and it’s not like the components inside couldn’t be changed. Watching his videos, he just doesn’t like the F-35 and has hot takes left and right, even if they don’t make any sense, or are based on outdated information.

[@givemeabreak8784]

A nuclear weapon in a F 35 is a no problem. Being a stealth plane ..... it's a no brainer.

[@wolfgangjr74]

Another bonus but hopefully one never used.

[@Pertti456]

The candidates were: F-35, Super Hornet, Gripen, Eurofigter and Rafale. F-15 and F-16 were not...

[@LRRPFco52]

Yeah, that was weird that those were even mentioned.

[@mauricecohen3830]

The New F-15EX should have been.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@mauricecohen3830 Not even the USAF wanted the F-15EX. F-15EX was forced onto USAF by former acting SECDEF Shanahan and Congressman Adam Smith, both of whom represent Boeing. Shanahan was a Boeing marketing executive for 31 years and was fired from acting SECDEF for conflict of interests. Smith is now the House Armed Services Committee Chair, which should be a crime in and of itself. USAF put F-15EX into Red Flag Alaska, where it was shot down repeatedly with a very high loss rate, as expected. I love the F-15 and we worked on it feverishly to integrate new weapons and capabilities in the early 1990s, but it’s an outdated airframe now. The only reason it makes sense is to keep the assembly line open at Saint Louis for some of the NGAD work. My prediction is that we’ll see F-15EXs barely trickling out of there just to keep those folks employed until any of the 3-4 NGAD airframes are contracted. NGAD-A for USAF, NGAD-N for USN, NGAD-drones for both services.

[@quinndenver4075]

@@LRRPFco52 i mean it would still be useful to sit behind stealth fighters and lob standoff missiles using datalink from the stealth fighters given the very limited internal weapons capacity on the stealth fighters. The f-35 can carry 4 AMRAAMS internally while the F-15 EX can carry 16. I’m not saying ur wrong about the corruption (I have never heard about it in this case), but its not useless in any regard. I do agree with the premise however that we are generally in need of a large fighter replacement given the early cancellation on the f-22 program, although developing a sixth gen and its weapons systems will take a minimum of a decade.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@quinndenver4075 When you see it mentioned that JSF has limited weapons carrying capability, even when constrained to the bays only, you realize that the people making the statements aren’t very familiar with how F-16s and F/A-18s have been commonly configured since their introduction. An F-16A through F-16C Block 30 has 9 weapons stations. An F-16C Block 40-52 has 9 plus 2 intake stations for sensor pods, called 5R and 5L since 5 is the centerline. An F/A-18A-D also has 9 weapons stations. Almost every station is occupied by something other than weapons on the F-16 and F/A-18. 2 wingtips AAMs 2 hard points on wings carrying External Fuel Tanks (EFTs) 2 hard points only are available for A2G weapons Centerline station is used for ECM pod on the F-16 (800lbs weight, significantly restricts G limits) F-16 has outboard wing pylons for AAMs stations 2 & 8, Hornet has intake cheek conformal stations for AAMs and/or FLIR pod on 4 & 6. Almost all of the external combat configuration stores weight is taken up by external fuel, sensors, and ECM pods. This was one of the biggest complaints and design mandates for all of the future fighter designs being submitted in the 1980s and 1990s for MRF, CALF, A/F-X, ASTOVL, and JAST. We wanted a clean airframe with all of the above capability paths, only with next generation evolution of sensor and EW technology. We also wanted internal fuel fraction that would exceed the legacy combat radii significantly without need of EFTs. With JSF, you meet all of those requirements even when limited to the weapons bays and only 2 AAMs carried on stations 1 & 11 on the Very Low Observable pylons and rails. None of the hard points or ejector racks on JSF are used for EFTs or sensors. When you open up the wing hard points, you start to step into most of what an F-15E can carry for payload.

[@kpsig]

No one was surprised of the choice the moment Rafale and Eurofighter were disqualified. By the way, the F4 version of the Rafale is considered as a superior platform to SH or Grippen.

[@LRRPFco52]

Avionics of the Super Hornet Block II and III are superior to the Rafale F3 and F4. Rafale is definitely superior to the Gripen across the board. The Gripen is a sad excuse for a fighter in the 21st Century.

[@jonnekallu1627]

Apparently the 64 F-35A planes are going to cost Finland 20 billion over their lifetime. Meanwhile in Norway 52 F-35A planes are going to cost 32 billion over their lifetime. In fact the Finnish planes are the cheapest F-35's in the world...

[@mimimimeow]

different countries, different needs, different missions, different ops tempo, different wages, different bureaucracy. an objective comparison like that is simply not practical and not very meaningful.

[@suokkos]

Finnish hornet maintenance has been much cheaper than US. I have a weak memory that annual cost per fighter was about half.

[@davedeville6540]

@@suokkos Makes sense since the Finns operate from airfields and the USN from aircraft carriers

[@jonnekallu1627]

@@mimimimeow The Swiss have estimated that their yearly operating costs of F-35 are double that of Finland. Holland estimates it to be triple. The price tag is clearly an anomaly and requests for transparency have been issued by the VTV (Valtiontalouden Tarkastusvirasto).

[@mostlymessingabout]

Looks like they're using only for air to air...

[@Chivaltic]

The most interesting points about this acquisition was what the Commander of the Finnish Air Force said during a press conference. He stated that every aircraft was evaluated in different categories and the F-35 won or shared the top place in every single category. He also said the Air Force had set a target score of 4 (He did not say how they scored in different categories) and the F-35 was the only plane to score above target scoring something like 4.5 (max was 5). Also he did not mention what the other aircraft scored, but they scored less then what the Air Force wanted.

[@disadadi8958]

The second scored 3.81 if I remember correctly. The model was not published, but that means even the second best model didn't reach the target score of 4.0. Rumours tell that it was the super hornet.

[@paristo]

That isn't most interesting point. The most interesting point is that the person leading the program preferred the F-35 from the begin, and before retiring midway testing and starting a own business to provide F-35 support services for government, he commanded the personnel that they make sure that F-35 wins in every category and gets selected v as next fighter without any doubts in it performance. As well Donald Trump said to Finnish president visiting White House, that they made excellent choice to buy a American fighter for their next. And this was two years before the trials were over. Interesting point as well is that Saab already knew that competition is nothing else than a show. Yet they staid in it because they hope they Finland wouldn't do same as Switzerland did, based to leaked diplomatic documents that Gripenb was not too be chosen for any means. Two best choices for Finland were Gripenb and Eurofighter. Rafael coming third. But F-35 was selected before competition started.

[@disadadi8958]

@@paristo Why would Gripen be good? Sweden hasn't proven capable of producing even 64 of them, let alone providing all the planes to all of the customers. Over 700 F-35's have been manufactured and it's realistic to expect the capability of Lockheed Martin to manufacture and deliver the planes as agreed. Rafale is the same case, little to no users. Eurofighter could've been good, but the strong ties to the US are more valuable to Finland than being allies with countries like Germany or France.

[@MRtapio5]

@@paristo Gripen best choice for finland. But still it Lost.... Interesting 🤔

[@sampsalol]

@@paristo That is just false information. The general you mention did not command the program leader (Lauri Puranen) at any point since Lauri's employer was and is the ministry of defense and Jarmo Lindberg was employed by the army. Sure, Lindberg wanted the F-35, that is clear. But as the commander of the Finnish Air Force, he was most likely VERY well aware of each of the fighters' performance to begin with. Trump's statement was most likely a persuasion attempt to make Finland purchase the Super Hornet, which of course Trump wanted to celebrate in front of a crowd for his own political benefit. What makes you say that Saab knew it wasn't going to be selected? I would like to see those leaks, which have not been mentioned anywhere. There was strong support for the Saab Gripen in the parliament of Finland and was considered by many to be the second or third best after the Americans. However the Saab has a very limited life span because Sweden is joining the joint fighter program with the UK. Also Saab doesn't have major sales for the Gripen either, severily limiting the interest for it's further development. Thus the Saab would have been a stupid choice since we want to use the now selected fighter to the 2060. Eurofighter or Rafale did not meet the Air Force's demands and are probably the worst of the contenders in terms of performance. Also you can't depend on the French to actually get anything done, so why would you want to make them our strategic allies? The Americans have the capability and will (most of the time) to get things done, unlike the French.

[@hbtv6356]

I think the f35 deal is quite good considering Finland si getting block 4 standard. 78M I believe is for block 3. Hopefully you do another video since in this one you only put up numbers of the f35, without context of the others in the competition. How much are the others in all the categories you mentioned? Cost is only 1 metric, I hope you could compare the capability of the other options as well. By then we can gauge the value of each. Value = cost x capability. Only then we could objectively say that f35 was expensive or not.

[@kathrynck]

73m for block 4 is an amazing deal. The F-35 is really starting to hit it's stride.

[@johanmetreus1268]

Hm, I'd say the value is capability/cost rather than capability x cost. Regardless, Finland got an exceptional deal to the point they almost got paid to take the planes as a bonus.

[@LRRPFco52]

When you look into the future 5-7 years from now, and see how Norwegian, Danish, and Polish F-35As are sharing battlespace information with each other during exercises or worse, it will make sense. In every category the Finns tested, the F-35A out-performed the other contenders, while bringing capabilities with it that none of the others can ever have, especially in the MADL network and VLO of course. Maintainability is taken to a new level of low hours needed compared to other fighters. F-35A just dropped to 3.5 MMHPFH, which is insane and not a thing in legacy fighters.

[@TK199999]

The chemical aspect to the F-35 maintenance is because its anti-radar skin is still considered toxic. So you have to use special gear if you have to remove or replace it. Next gen ceramic based skins (which will probably be used on either the B-21A or in the upgraded B-21B) is not considered toxic, easier/cheaper to apply and is much more durable while having even higher radar absorbing capabilities. Also there is program by the UK to have their F-35B's use Meteor missiles. There are already talks of rest of NATO members who fly F-35 (which now includes Finland) to switch over from AMRAMM C's to Meteor.

[@formateuramzal1567]

I thing i saw it somewhere but there is more than the eye can see on the F35, for example Northrop grumman was working on a technology called Structural Arrays under an award from AFRL (Northrup LOBSTAR), and it just so happens that Northrop grumman is the manufacturer of the center fuselage of the F35

[@jamesmandahl444]

Ahh you mean full body antenna arrays. Yup cool new stuff going on.

[@formateuramzal1567]

@@jamesmandahl444 yeah exactly, I think it opens up entirely new possibilities (like putting a UHF radar on a fighter...etc)

[@kathrynck]

The F-35 has a lot of panel type RF sensors in it's wings & horizontal stabilizers. But as far as I know, none in the fuselage. The trend seems to be moving in a direction where I wouldn't be surprised if a 6th gen prototype might lack the traditional nose radome.

[@formateuramzal1567]

@@kathrynck the radar would be distrubuted all over the plane so as to apply interferometry to have a better resolution

[@arcticblue248]

it makes sense ... Norway and Denmark have F-35 A's and atleast in Norway we have Joint Strike Missiles developed for the planes so that means they can have 2 loaded internally, thats a medium highly advanced cruisemissile both for sea and land targets. When more neighbours have F-35's means we can coordinate maintainace for the whole fleet ... coordinate various stuff. Also nordic countries have a extended military cooperation going on now. Also wich have made quite a debate is how the Finns have got their F-35's cheaper than we had to pay for ours... !!! (Norway).

[@deadphone9639]

They dumped the price to win the deal. Its like the Corleones motto, _"I will give them an offer they can't refuse"_ 🤣

[@FlorinArjocu]

The first one to build a serious F35 maintenance & heavy repair infrastructure will benefit from the future contracts with most other European countries, too. I don't know if other countries will also have auch things, but in 40 years of operation, lots of F35 will need upgrades and repairs.

[@xntumrfo9ivrnwf]

Love your videos! Please don't take this as criticism but e.g. 5 billion is not pronounced with the "s" at the end (it's singular, not plural). I appreciated it when people corrected me when I was learning a new language but my apologies in advance if this is rude.

[@eemilheikkila]

The original 10bn€ budget also includes A/G weapons. They are just going to be bought a bit later. I don't remember the value of A/G weapons, but it was much more than the A/A arsenal.

[@pogo1140]

So if the A/G weapons are going to be purchased later, how much later?

[@TURKWING]

Chemical infrastructure could be related with ultimate layer of radar absorber polyuratane paint which can be coated using robots and before replacing with a new coating layer, it's necessary to remove actual degradated layer on F-35 surface with applying some chemical toxic agents. Chemical infrastructure can neutralize this agents before discharging into envorienment.

[@matthewsheeran]

Yes you hit the nail on the head even without the details you mention it's big difference is the complex radar reflective coating system and there must be some equally sophisticated infrastructure requirements to support this for the F35 and as with most of this hi tech shit it's not environmental friendly and likely even quite toxic.

[@marsmotion]

@@matthewsheeran they tried burn pits at groom lake it gave everyone cancer....

[@salamanderpete]

Great video, and congratulations on the sponsorship. Brilliant are gradually working their way around sponsoring all my favourite channels! 😁

[@plushiie_]

Believe finlands defence industry hold part ownership of Kongsberg, which makes systems, weapons and composit parts for the f-35. Suspect that contributed to the decision.

[@Poctyk]

Maybe that chemical infrastructure is related to stealth coating maintenance?

[@mikekopack6441]

Totally guessing but the Environmental/Chemical/Explosive structure is likely to provide storage for and application of stealth coating during repairs/maintenance of the aircraft which might have to be done in specific temps. But that's a total guess.... Also, the costs for the F-35, both for procurement and maintenance seems high compared to 4th gens because with the F-35 everything is built in, where as on 4th gens you have things like jammer and targeting pods and such which are add-ons and have their own purchase+maintenance cost numbers which aren't usually factored into the aircraft cost. Apples to Oranges cost structure comparison.

[@LRRPFco52]

All current 4.5 Gen fighters have higher stripped Unit Flyway Costs even without the added pod systems that are part of Unit Program Costs, or Operations and Maintenance costs. F-35A is literally the lowest cost Western fighter right now across each of those metrics.

[@magitsu]

The transition infrastructure costs are significant partly because it has made sense to postpone much of the Hornet infrastructure renovations until now, when the specific requirements of the new fighters are clear.

[@toyinyandinda7090]

Finally people starting to know the power of this bird after sending bad propagandas against f35

[@douginorlando6260]

Politics overrides technical merit. Here is behind the scene communications that show the reality how Norway was strong armed into F35. One cable reveals that high-level American officials conveyed “forceful” behind-the-scenes warnings to Norwegian politicians that failure to buy the fighter planes would damage relations between the two countries. The cable shows that at the same time, the US and Lockheed Martin worked together on an intense PR campaign

[@kellenhietpas7349]

where are these cables?

[@tristanpau1p]

Finnish politicians prefers Gripen for political reasons.

[@douginorlando6260]

Kellen Hietpas ... link got deleted

[@kimm3423]

You could have described how the whole process / competition was arranged , what were the selection criteria and how the performance of the planes was proved. It's quite interesting. Now I sort of got the impression from this video, that Finland would have chosen the F-35 only for cost reasons or something like that which is not really the whole story.

[@LRRPFco52]

Yup. Military performance was separately evaluated from industrial supply and economic considerations. The Finnish briefings were extremely emphatic about this.

[@AvroBellow]

If costs had ANYTHING to do with their selection process, the F-35 would have finished DEAD LAST. The idea that they're cheaper to fly and operate than the JAS-39E or F-16V is ludicrous. This is a situation where the Finnish government is taking advantage of the ignorance of the general population when it comes to aviation.

[@kevino.7348]

@@AvroBellow Why would the government do that? It looks like they selected the plane that has the most functionality and can accommodate the greatest number of missions in one package.

[@Albertkallal]

@@AvroBellow Really? And are you so sure of that? Explain why the F35 would cost more then say a Gripen to run per hour? I mean it is fact more difficult and a GREATER act of cognitive dissonance on your part to think this: Gripen; $4,700 per hour. F35 $33,000 per hour. That is a IMPOSSILE SEVEN TIMES more per hour!!! Go buy a similar sized truck from Ford, and then one from GM. Guess what - about the same cost per hour to run. go buy a similar aircraft from Boeing, and then one from Airbus. Guess what - about the same cost per hour to run. And we have what, about 80+ years of fighter jet cost numbers. Find me ONE example in which a lower priced aircraft cost more per hour to run? Gripen: 85 million each F35: 77.8 million each. Now this so called fly away cost varies depending on the actual deal (we see some higher per unit costs - such as Finland but THIS ALSO DOES OCCUR when say buying the Gripen also!!). Do you REALLY think it is possible that the Swiss, Norway, Belgium, Finland, Netherlands would ignore this issue? What do you think is more silly? The F35 would cost SEVEN times the Gripen to run? or All those nations are on drugs, and thus would actually EVER consider an aircraft that costs SEVEN TIMES per hour? You really have to start thinking here - you just do!!! Well, the cost using Saabs "air base consumables per hour?" We probably would get this: F35: 13k per hour Gipen: 8k per hour I mean, do you think Norway, Swiss, Japan, Finland, Belgium, Netherlands and more are not going to take that issue into account? WHY, do you think there going to be a significant difference in per hour flight cost? No, there is not. Why would there be? Do you folks really think that Swiss, or Finland would by a aircraft that costs over a whopping 7 times per hour to run? Do you think the Swiss are that crazy? Answer, they are not crazy! So, lets clear this up. There are two cost numbers being floated around. The lower cost does not include air base labor costs, and does not include other aircraft costs. This lower and OFTEN quoted number is quite much a air base consume cost per hour. And such quotes don't include air base people cost. Why? Well, they can sleep all day, play ping pong, march to the band, or put gas in a F16, or a F35. They get paid either way. As a result, MOST quotes do NOT include these costs, since that is a fixed cost - and occurs regardless. So, lets go to the office of USA air force accounting. Not some blog, not some news article, but the Air office of accounting, and pull the numbers. You get these numbers: *_Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: Year 2022_* Air force: per hour rates: F-16C $10,866 F-16D $10,782 F-15C $23,537 F-15D $23,564 F-15E $18,799 F-15EX $16,467 F-35A $13,185 (we can’t mix and match Navy numbers - they calculate their costs somewhat different (and you can’t pull numbers from one quote and compare to another - apples and oranges: Navy: AV-8B 17,094 (Harrier) FA-18C 21,288 FA-18D 23,137 FA-18E 16,742 FA-18F 17,838 F-35B 13,307 F-35C 12,498 Ok, so now we have a bucket of brain reality here!!!!! So, we see: F-16D $10,782 F-35A $13,185 And Gripen? Well, they state $8,000 per hour - don't really know if they can be less cost per hour then f16's. So, UNTILL we get a real nation doing real quotes - we are some what speculating here. Finding a good number from Saab? Forget that!!! - THEY DO NOT give such numbers out - they just don't!! Now what about the current 33k per hour quote for the F35? Well, SURE, but you THEN GET 30k per hour for the F16!!! And you get as high as 39k per hour for the F15!!!!!! So, these lower costs for example do not include air base labor costs. so, what people are doing here? Well, they go google F16 cost and then go google F35 cost - but THEN pull two VERY DIFFERNT quotes!!! If I was to do that with F16? then I would get this: F16: $30,000 per hour F35: $13,000 per hour How on earth does that make sense for compare???? You have to have some real brain freeze to thing that the F35 costs OVER 7 times per hour compared to say a F18, or a F15, or even F16. In fact, the F35 costs less then a F18, or F15 - and it would, since it is a single engine aircraft. And THAT does make common sense also! Why would a F35 cost any much more (or less) then similar fighters? (answer: NO REASON exists - and above numbers show this!!!). Think people - think about what you read!!! Now, for those having difficult with the above? For those that need to see this with their own eyes??? I can't post public office USA links on YT (required by law for USA PUBLIC reporting laws). For some crazy reason, YT does not allow such links!!! However, you can find the direct links to the government accounting site in the description of this video - that is the source of above: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXekqoCflLV9a9E So, if you thought it was crazy that the Swiss and say Finland would buy an aircraft that cost 7 times per hour to run? Well, you would be 100% correct, but as the above shows - THEY DID NOT DO THAT!!!! Those governments are not that stupid - the idea that such a VAST VAST cost difference hour would be ignored here? I not sure what is worse - the ability to people to think this is possible that one fighter would cost 7x per hour, or even 2x, or worse people thinking that government are that stupid to ignore this issue? Really, it is high time that people start trusting their own minds - a few seconds of thought on the above should easy make one realize that the claim of one aircraft being 33k per hour, and the other only be 8k per hour? Truly insane to think so - it just is! For ANYONE reading this? Go to the public records government site for the Air force - go SEE WITH your own eyes, and pull the above numbers.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@AvroBellow Cost was one of the main considerations since they aren’t made of gold. What most people don’t realize is that modern fighters in the 4.5 Generation all cost well over $100 million once you account for their necessary ancillary systems, like FLIR/LST pods, ECM pods, integrated pylon countermeasures, and reconnaissance pods. Even the baseline fighter unit flyway cost is lower with F-35A than any of the H-X entrants, including the Gripen E. When it comes to O&M costs, you again don’t have to maintain any FLIR, ECM, or Recce sensor pods with JSF nor do you need dedicated jammer aircraft with all their costs, because all of those capabilities are integrated into a low-cost airframe networked with each other. You can’t buy a combat-configured modern fighter in the West for lower than $77.9 million, nor can you buy one in the future when F-35A Block 4 starts rolling off the line a few million more than Lot 14. The stripped Gripen E without any pods is $85 million flyway, with nowhere near the capabilities. That’s the “lowest cost” European fighter. Rafale and Typhoon are in the $152 million and up unit flyway region, both with unit program costs over $200 million.

[@georgej7077]

In Canada we're waiting to see whether the government chooses the F35 or the Grippen. It will likely be decided on political grounds. I've been following this process for years and sway back and forth over which one I think the government should choose. We'll probably get the 35 based on who's in power at the moment.

[@louiscypher4186]

I think the Bio-fuel promise is why the Grippen will be chosen in Canada. It's a great political selling point to argue the plane is environmentally friendly.

[@a.fredscullard162]

The FFCP will select the F-35, period!

[@tonespeaks]

@George J The Conservatives have a deal to purchase the F-35s and Liberals (Trudeau) cancelled it and suggested that they would do something that wasn't as expensive. Part of the problem was the Conservatives (Harper), was purchasing the Aircraft, without looking at alternatives. Gripen is a better Aircraft for Canada, it has better range and can supercruise. F-35 is going to get engine update in the future, that will be pretty expensive. Canada doesn't have the kind of money to spend on the "Ferrari" of the Sky. We have Ships to build and took huge hits from COVID. More importantly Canada has an Aviation Industry that could get a huge shot in the arm (pardon the pun), if Gripens were built in Canada, especially with SAAB giving Canada the IP as part of the deal. The Gripen need half the support crew of a F-35, so with Canada's smaller Air Force this would be a much easier fit.

[@kannabis7999]

@@tonespeaksGripen is a lite fighter being passed off as a midsize fighter jet by Saab because the lite fighter jet market is small and Saab needs sales it is the least capable 4th generation aircraft we could possibly select entering a time when 5th generation fighter jets are available and affordable the f35 has a upgrade path that will keep the f35 advanced for a long time .On cost and capability there is no rational argument for Canada to purchase a legacy fighter jet.On the economic issue a Canadian built gripen including full transfer of technology and Canada's cost of living and wages will cost approximately twice what a gripen built in Sweden will and it will be irrelevant as soon as it's built because it's a lite fighter that's a generation behind from the start .Canada will receive lots of f35 contracts as Canada is known for having a high quality workforce and we are part of the north American supply chain so shipping will be a breeze and parts will be made out to the 2060s easy .The F35 makes Canada a valued capable and interoperable partner with most of the western worlds air forces including Norad and NATO as well as being the best choice for our own defence

[@starexcelsior]

@@tonespeaks these are literally the same points people cited when claiming Finland would choose the Jas39 over the F-35

[@jaakkomaaniemi2136]

What's interesting to me is that the Finnish air doctrine calls for dispersed operations from road bases, with very austere conditions and reservist ground crews. And this is not a fallback, it's the basic mode of operation in a time of crisis (Russia has all sorts of long range weaponry). The F-18 as a lower tech carrier plane was obviously a pretty good fit for this, as carriers aren't super fancy and luxurious operating environments either. Is the F-35 really a good enough fit? Brake chute pods are included, but landing is just one detail (although not trivial) in the greater picture. Maintenance, stealth coating, data stuff... Is all of that really going to go smoothly under a pinetree in the Finnish winter, as executed by reservists? I guess so, as the selection has been made. Or, will the air doctrine shift? We'll see. At least Finland's stealth fighter fleet will probably be bigger than Russia's when the delivery has concluded, which is quite stunning.

[@andrewhomo2461]

By 2027 Russia will have 78 su-57, by 2030 (the end of f-35 deliveries for Finland) even more.

[@damianketcham]

Is Finland using the B model???

[@andrewhomo2461]

@@damianketcham F-35A model

[@mimimimeow]

The F-35A is still one family with a carrier plane F-35C.. sure it is not a carrier plane but the easy access maintenance features are pretty much built into the platform design.

[@jkl9984]

That's what surprised me. Stealth coating is rather delicate, with debris like stones also creating an additional problem for the engines. This isn't a russian jet, that was meant to take off from poorly maintained landing strips and live it's life under the weather. I guess, they will change up their air doctrine specifically for this new acquisition.

[@DB-ji2ye]

Finland has some great machinists and engineers.

[@SuperVt100]

When you add up the total NATO Presence in Europe, it is quite large. The Finnish acquisition will take 10 years. That's about half a billion dollars a year. The F-35 offers the most plug-in-play functionality there is, because of stealth. That is the deciding factor. Has to be.

[@nicolaihilckmann4677]

NATO interoperability was most likely why the decision was made, one step closer to becoming a NATO member. This will certainly make Putin a little angry

[@SuperVt100]

@@nicolaihilckmann4677 NATO is an necessity to keep countries at bay. Having a common foe militarily, keeps NATO countries aligned. But it is in an impracticality to go to war. No one does. That is the idea. Deterrence.

[@carldavies4776]

Thought the bloopers came at the end Gus? 😜 I've always found defence procurement fascinating...the whole topic seems to be a big black hole but this video was helpful for that... certain scenarios always fascinate me...wonder what New Zealand would do if it ever came off the fence re China/Australia... excellent video mate... thanks again

[@louiscypher4186]

New Zealand would welcome a Chinese invasion with open arms.

[@ghansu]

No air to ground is because F-18s have those jassm, jdam and jtowls already. Finns dont want to buy those to rot in the stores if not needed. They have an option to buy more of those if they want.

[@LRRPFco52]

If he had watched the president briefings and read all the documents, they openly stated that F-35A was so affordable, it allowed them to leave money on the table for future weapons that are currently in development, but will be ready once deliveries start dropping on the H-X schedule. F-35A Block 4 was one of the only purchase options that gave Finland that choice. Saab formerly complained about it for some reason, but their Unit Flyway Cost was higher, as was their Unit Program Cost and nowhere near the weapons options (Saab doesn’t make any of the A2A weapons for the Gripen, not even the gun.) The weapons currently carried by F/A-18C are compatible or will be compatible with Block 4, JASSM being a big one. Norway is also the lead nation on a new Advanced Strike Missile that can do A2G and Anti-Ship, that fits inside the F-35A weapons bay. Finland just left a portion of the H-X budget open for future acquisition of soon-to-be weapons that are better fit for 5th Gen.

[@montagray3761]

At time index 9:05 what are the luminescent symbols under the cockpit?

[@ghansu]

F-15 and F-16 was not in that competiton.

[@SuperVt100]

The problem is the targeting has to be inside the body of the airplane to be stealthy. Having large pods on the outside may be easier, but it's not stealthy. With the stealth one gets everything at once.

[@kindanyume]

no the 35's "stealth: does not give you such at all.. and the all so often skipped fact is the 35s "stealth" is NOT the same as the F22s.. not even close it's a world apart not only in effectiveness but the 35's #s are only ever quoted for FA only.. which is moronic. Nevermind the fact the 35 continues to damage its RAM, cant go more than transonic w/o such and a ton of other flaws to add to that oh and of course the obvious... it CANNOT even carry and use more than a pittance of ord w/o the lil stealth it has going POOF and then FAT AMY is even more exposed for all the world to see.

[@forsaturn4629]

@@kindanyume Uh the f35 is almost if not as stealthy as the f22. it's coated with stealth materials and the shape of it also gives it the stealth capability.

[@douglasm3310]

@@kindanyume what uneducated drivel.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@kindanyume Lockheed stated that the F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-22 after they went into production with the carbon fiber tailplane design. The first 6 F-35s had aluminum structures in the tailplanes, which were replaced with carbon fiber. CF is Radar-transparent, so that alone dropped the RCS considerably. F-35 outer layers include 3 skins, which involved the use of carbon nanotubes and other Radar Absorbent Materials. The F-22 has older RAM that is extremely difficult to maintain. F-35’s RAM is embedded into the structure of the airframe. F-35A Maintenance Man Hours Per Flight Hour just dropped to 3.5 hours, which is unprecedented. F-16C is 11-14hrs in comparison. F-14A-D was 40-60 hours. As to ordnance carriage, the F-35A and F-35C are closer to the F-15E than any other TACAIR platform. The biggest oversight amateurs make is not taking into account the external fuel tanks, FLIR pods, ECM pods, draggy pylons, ejector rack adaptors, and special targeting pods carried by 4th Gen fighters. Those all add up to weight, drag, and hard points that can’t be used for weapons. F-35s have none of this problem since the FLIR, targeting, laser spot tracker, EW, and massive internal fuel capacity are all built into the basic airframe design. That leaves all of the weapons station open to air planners as to how they will configure the jets for each sortie. So with an F-16CM, we have 2 stations available for Air-to-Ground weapons in a combat configuration. Same with an F/A-18C. F-35s have those stations internally, plus 2 more Air-to-Air Missile stations internal. In effect, they carry the same combat payload without any external stores, which means the mission radius is much longer as there is no parasitic drag.

[@charlesrichardson8635]

First, pods can be added AFTER air superiority and SEAD/DEAD is complete, then the F35 Beast Mode is available. The problem with many changes and integrations is the complexity of the software in the F35. The level of testing to make sure other things are not affecting even with modern programming systems is still high. Plus that software is not shared. Lockheed Martin sustains a huge group that keeps that software up and then letting others change it would be astronomically difficult. You see this same issue in civilian software like complex industrial manufacturing systems.

[@JasonWolfeYT]

They may not be in NATO, but a whole lot of Lockheed Martin employees are going to be in Finland. Also, Finland will be on the USA side of the classification secrecy of the F35. This is a big step west.

[@Honken55]

Since when havent Finland been "west"....?

[@385x01y]

Great insight. Could you please elaborate more about offset agreements in defense industry?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

We will do for sure

[@385x01y]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech 👍

[@carldavies4776]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Gus maybe some discussion around Pods also? Maybe something about reducing RCS on external carriage?

[@JacobVahrSvenningsen]

I once met an offset office from the US on a plane, I cant help talking to people on planes. They seem more open on a journey. Bassically he explained that the MIlitry industrial complex made the world spin, seen as we dont have a lot of military sales in Denmark, we trade in other forms, and offshore sales of services breeds a ground for more sales internationally. I guess thats why the Sovjets didnt win, market forces... and some such sorts

[@SoaringStranger]

Holy cow that's cheaper than the Indian rafales oof they cost some 210 mil per aircraft I think. I may be wrong but our airforce did call the rafales as mercedes or costly. We paid 7.8 billion for 36 aircrafts. (200 something mil $ per craft? ...) I don't know if there will be any repeated orders.

[@vasxerikos8539]

India paid extra for all sorts of modifications (towed decoys, nuclear capabilities etc) that increase the price but the biggest reason you paid so high is that you requested 50% of the contract as offset i think. Dassault, MBDA etc are expected to reinvest in India.

[@SoaringStranger]

​@@vasxerikos8539 oh interesting, Dassault did not invest as per the offset agreement though, lets see if they get fined.

[@nullterm]

*watches intently in Canadian*

[@DonRaynor]

Finland according to local news, did not buy upkeep package, but lisence to maintain and repair in Finland.

[@PW060284]

Only Israel is allowed to make their own modifications for... reasons

[@82MrKanister]

Finland is currently considering to join NATO, so getting the F35 was surely not only a military decission but foremost a political one.

[@arska77]

No we are not joining a nato.

[@damianketcham]

@@arska77 You shouldn’t. We need to dissolve NATO. It’s no longer needed.

[@JS-dh1qg]

Wrong. The F-35 just a better plane and fits the needs of the air force.

[@jamesmandahl444]

Yup I hope it doesnt happen. No more instigating neocon wet dreams (war) pls.

[@chadhopkins2963]

@@JS-dh1qg it's funny all these haters. No matter how many pilots say this plane is great. I've seen 🇺🇸 pilots say they would never go back to there legacy fighters. No matter how many countries choose it because it's the best fighter. These guys always have there conspiracies of why they actually chose the f35. While they sit at home on their couch eating Doritos they seem to know best.

[@iamscoutstfu]

Check out this Aussi's channel. He goes into a deep dive on how F35 has progressed from it's inception to how it's used today.

[@up4open]

I would presume that LHM would be interested in adding compatibility to national made weapons where they can be shown to offer new sales options. I would guess, that's all of them. Who wouldn't want an F35 that can shoot missiles from Finland, France, England, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand? What a great way to open a bargain hunt, and a mix-and-match for any mission, ever.

[@stephenpage-murray7226]

The RAAF migrated from the F-18 to the F-35. They are more than happy with their decision.

[@lawrenceralph7481]

An Integrated stealth based electronic airspace gives the ability to out range the non stealth enemy.

[@stoyantodorov2133]

Finland buys 64 F-35s for 4.5billion and my country buys just 8 F-16V for 1.3 billion. I know Bulgaria has never operated a western fighter before and a lot of new infrastructure has to be built but it's still baffling how we get an inferior plane for more than double the price.

[@Nathan-ry3yu]

The F35 can beat an F15SE An F15SE is well more capable fighter than an F16V. Only F22 can defeat an F35. But with the new upgrades on the F35 even the F22 is losing its ability over it.. I'd go with F35 at $75 million USD a aircraft it's cheaper than most European aircraft is and way more interior

[@oghidden]

More than likely a country that buys the F-16 is dual purpose, its good aircraft with a solid record and a good intro to get their supply chain used to handling the maintenance and training before jumping straight into more expensive aircraft. It's all based your country's geographical, monetary and defence strategy needs.

[@Rockool52]

F-35 are cheaper by the dozen!

[@Conan-ny1um]

The Viper is a Badass Plane! It can beat any 4th Gen just about and is equal to latest Rafael and F15 Ex!

[@ilkkak3065]

Finlands 4.5billion didn't include infrastructure.

[@maninthemiddleground2316]

The reason for the low 30% Industrial Cooperation is because the F-35 has a lot of classified technology more than the Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter.

[@tonespeaks]

This makes it difficult to upgrade and maintain since really dependent on Lockheed Martin and USA for almost everything.

[@Pincer88]

Hypothesis: stripping old RAM-coating and disposing of the waste in an environmentally friendly way might require special infrastructure. Reapplication of RAM-coating maybe require a mix of chemicals that require the same. Big question mark here, but it's the only plausible thing that comes to mind right now.

[@damianketcham]

The f-35 doesn’t have RAM coating. It’s “baked” into the skin, unlike the f-22.

[@mimimimeow]

Also possible that they eliminated all toxic treatment processes. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center F-35 has begun eliminating any toxic chemical treatment processes of the F-35 since 2018. This isnt due to special operational requirement, just meeting regulations and REACH. Could have positive impacts on operational infrastructure too.

[@Pincer88]

@@damianketcham That's indeed what the public files stated. A honeycomb structure with radar absorbing properties under a composite layer baked on to it. But suppose this baked layer of sorts was damaged due to FOD, a bird strike or wear and tear due to the natural elements and you had to reapply or repair this layer. Then I suppose you'd be needing pretty aggressive chemicals with potential to form explosive or toxic gasses , wouldn't you say? Another hypothesis might be that some coolant liquids are used to cool down the air mixed with the exhaust gasses in order to reduce IR signature or to cool on board avionics, with more or less dangerous properties when exposed to air. But I'm not a chemist, so I have no clue what that could be other than liquid nitrogen or ammonia. Both of which I thought weren't exceptionally dangerous, but my guess is worth diddly.

[@Pincer88]

@@mimimimeow Might indeed. But since Finland is acquiring the block 4 - which suggests that these issues will be dealt with before the first F=35s arrive there - the question then remains: to what purpose this specific infrastructure? Might it be ordnance related? For example the solid fuel the AIM-120 missiles use that has to be replaced at regular intervals in order not to deteriorate ('sweating' of nitroglycerine based solids)? But that wouldn't be F-35 specific and would have affected the legacy Hornets in equal measure. Maybe... the Finnish government intended environmentally friendly measures anyway and simply 'buried' the costs in this budget for us and potential unfriendly analysts to break their pretty heads over. Would be a very nice intel honey trap :D

[@bjoolo655]

@@Pincer88 didn't they have problems with cracks when using the gun.

[@LRRPFco52]

It's not just the EOTS replacing legacy FLIR/LST/LRF pods. It's the integrated EW suite replacing legacy RWR systems and ancillary ECM pods. JSF is more capable, less complicated, and more affordable in acquisition and maintenance. No nation is going to individually be capable of developing better technology in each subsystem than the combined JSF enterprise working together. EOTS, the RF sensors, DAS, the cockpit, HMDS, and any of the subsystems are not permanent. They are modular subcomponent systems that get replaced with major tech refreshes once thresholds are crossed. For example, the DAS Finland will be getting is already going to be the next generation Raytheon EODAS with twice the resolution, lighter weight, lower cost. Totally different hardware. The weapons bays will have the new Sidekick ejector rack system to carry 6xBVRAAMs internally. The quad CPU bank has 10 years of Moore's Law memory and speed improvements. The PCD will be larger. Several classified systems will be about a generation more advanced.

No nation is capable individually such high tech programs capable to surpass the F-35 but both the SCAF and project Tempest might be able to make it. The JSF is more a weapon of economic warfare, designed to tie the european aerospace industry to the US one to avoid them designing projects like the Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon. In terms of high tech, history has proven that more modest solutions are more than capable to fight toe to toe with wunderwaffen. Planes like the Typhoon and Rafale are not yet obsolete

[@LRRPFco52]

@ JSF is really a product of a European initiative (UK) approaching the USMC/USAF in 1983 for a new generation STOVL fighter to supersede and improve upon the Harrier. That program (ASTOVL) merged with MRF, CALF, and A/F-X after JAST to become JSF. Not only did the UK invest heavily in it, but Canada, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Japan. A huge factor in the international investment into JSF was problems with interoperability in Desert Storm, Allied Force, and joint NATO exercises. The history of JSF negates any claims that it's a US economic warfare program against the Euro aerospace industry. It has been international before JAST even.

@@LRRPFco52 The UK is for the most part very dependant to the US for arms procurements since the Polaris purchase, it's no surprise they were the ones that offered the opportunity to coalesce european arms production under US control. Canada is an even worse example given their dependancy to the US industry since the Arrow failure. The JSF, as it stands today, is nontheless an attempt to kill in the egg, or to seriously hinder any new european soverign venture. Europeans have been accomplices but they are not the ones that are profiting the most of it. It's quite comparable to the F-104 affair

[@LRRPFco52]

@ Germany and France had every opportunity to join JSF, but either didn't take their security seriously or were too proud. Now they're both 20-30 years behind the development cycle in several of the basic critical technologies for early 5th Gen, namely VLO and propulsion. The F-16 NATO MSIP partners are all on-board since F-35A is the replacement for F-16.

@@LRRPFco52 The capacity gap between the Rafale and the F-35 isn't that big, and it will surely be the opposite when the FCAS will enter service. For now the Rafale is a choice with certain sacrifices and greater advantages, with capacities the F-35 doesn't even have (Stand-off nuclear or conventional land and anti-surface attack with the ASMP-A, the SCALP-EG and Exocet, Meteor capacity) For VLO, the F-35 sacrified aerodynamism for early-2000s stealth, which might become obsolete very quickly. The F-117 was able to be shot down by a rump state with 30 years old equipment.

[@suhan8382]

Congrats Finland Best wishes from Turkiye 🇹🇷👍🇫🇮

[@zoltancsikos5604]

The Leftist kleptocracy of Finland did a great job at crippling the Finnish Air Force, that’s for sure.

[@tomblord12]

i havent looked up much of the calculations behind the decision over here but once Lockheed announced that we can replace whole fleet (64 aircrafts) with newest block 4 F-35's in the budget.. there literally was no other choice.. only 5th gen aircraft on the list and you can get the wanted amount of them with your budget..

[@teddy.d174]

Way to break it down Millennium7, another wonderful video…👍🏼👍🏼 (you too Otis).

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Thanks for remembering Otis, he is quite mercurial on these things....😂😄

[@teddy.d174]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech …He’s part of the family as well.

[@db605]

Could the chemicals "stuff" have something to do with the stealth coating?

[@kathrynck]

Maybe. It's also possible that they just needed new storage areas anyway. Kinda like going to get new tires on your car, and while you're at it, getting an oil change, cuz that was getting kinda overdue.

[@spackle9999]

@@kathrynck Not to mention they'll need secure huts to keep the AIM-260's when they're ready.

[@jameson1239]

@@spackle9999 if they buy the AIM-260

[@rayjames6096]

The F-35 weapons bay is designed for US made weapons.

[@jtwilliams8895]

Well, F35 had many nations that partnered in its development. Those nations should have a priority in building the aircraft and providing spare parts. Join the program, by all means, and enjoy the discount that is achieved because others paid the high price of early production models. But it’s a bit much to expect a huge economic boost from domestic production of the aircraft.

[@JonMartinYXD]

So if the Block IV F-35s don't need targeting pods, that means they've fixed the problems with EOTS? Last I heard it couldn't automatically lead moving ground targets, effectively restricting the use of laser guided munitions to static targets.

[@gamelauri9307]

When a conflict occurs with Russia, the Russian side of the border will be littered with S-400 and S-500 systems. I guess with the F-35 Finland has a bit more freedom to fly around inside the country and perhaps do misisons closer to the eastern border, while the other candidate planes might have had more problems from the SAM systems.

[@universemultiverse3699]

In case of conflict all of these f-35's will not even have time to take off and will be destroyed at airfields by Iskander and Kalibr missiles.

[@gamelauri9307]

@@universemultiverse3699 Yes, maybe. However, the Finnish Air force will to some extend disperse its assets, and operate them from highway strips which might not provide so easy fixed targets.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@universemultiverse3699 Which forests are you going to fire Theater Ballistic Missiles towards? Who will secure the naval yards at Murmansk and Saint Petersburg? Who will secure the airfields for the Saint Petersburg aviation regiment? Who is going to protect the Baltic Fleet?

[@universemultiverse3699]

@@LRRPFco52 F-35's will be based in forests? I'm saying again - all finish aircrafts will be destroyed on the ground by preventive strike of the russian forces.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@universemultiverse3699 Finnish Air Force stores and operates from dispersed basing, meaning hidden barns, disguised structures or bunkers, and random locations all throughout the Finnish forest, which is vast. Finland has a modern highway system better than anything I ever saw in Russia, well-maintained, with multiple locations they use for taking off and landing. I’ve seen FiAF Hornets doing it in the dead of winter. You’re proposing that Russia would preemptively attack Finland with Theater Ballistic Missiles fired at these hidden bases all over the forest, which is one of the craziest things I’ve ever heard so far. They don’t keep the fighters on the ground all the time since they have a real-world policing mission as Russian Air Force violates Finnish Airspace all the time. If Russia did something like this kind of ill-conceived preemptive attack, it would cause a massive retaliation from the Baltic partners against any Russian vessel in the Gulf of Finland, basically ending the existence of the Saint Petersburg-based Russian Navy Baltic fleet. Every single Russian flagged vessel would be open season for submarines, anti-ship platforms, and aircraft to destroy. Any Russian naval yards within range of stand-off stealth cruise missiles would be fair game for being destroyed. JSF is a deterrent against such stupid proposals you have made, which helps keep Russia in-check in the event another adventurous dictator decides to violate territory in the region.

[@franlamas6242]

Great video as always, sir! I was wondering if you could ever make a video about Light Combat Aircraft derived from jet trainers (F5, M346FA, KAI F/A50, etc.) and their real capabilitties in modern conflicts. The ever-decreasing trend of military expenditure on small/poor countries doesn't seem like changing in the near future, thus, LCAs seem to me like the inevitable fate of most fighter forces of undeveloped nations. So, given this scenario, I would like to know if these kind of planes would make for a real asset for these nations. Specially when you compare deals like the one you explained in your video and the offering of F/A 50's for Argentina in 2017, where the expected costs of the program where around 1.050 millons US dollars for 24 aircraft, including logistics and a small package of weapons. KAI F/A 50, Leonardo M346FA and YAK130 seem to pack a lot of "punch for it's buck", but, since I'm not an expert on these matters, I would really love to hear your thoughts on this. Cheers!

[@carldavies4776]

Absolutely agree...I'm a bit obsessed with the JL 15 ATM which I would definitely put in this category

[@shaider1982]

FA50 has been used to attack ISIS inspired terrorists here in the Philippines. Can be equiped with Aim9L's and have beem fitted those. I have heard on AMRAAM's integrated to it. Would be interesting for it to be described by M7*.

[@sorennilsson9742]

30% that was a large sum, do not think any nation so far has given such a genorus offer. 84 millions is a rather high price.

[@JonMartinYXD]

A lot of the countries that have bought them so far are JSF program partners. They paid into the development and in return their industries got to participate in bidding to be part of the supply chain. The downside is that when it comes to actually ordering the aircraft, they are *not allowed* to ask for industrial offsets. This alone should have disqualified the F-35 from Canada's current fighter replacement program, which has a high requirement for industrial benefits, but I'm sure the RCAF is twisting themselves inside-out to find some way around this. In retrospect the smarter move would have been to not be a program partner, but at the time everyone thought that sales would be restricted to very close allies of the US. No one could have imagined that the US would eventually become so desperate to recoup costs that they would sell the F-35 to countries like the UAE and Thailand.

[@tombrunila2695]

The F-15 and F-16 were not among the candidates! There were only 4 candidates F-18 Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon and the F-35!

[@PHI35]

+ Gripen E.

[@SuperVt100]

Stealth must be the deciding factor. The F-35 is the only frame that has it in quantity today.

[@lobstereleven4610]

especially considering their location near Russian airspace and sea lanes. I don't see a non-stealth aircraft as a viable option in their specific situation.

[@Albertkallal]

Probably a minor part. The F35 being less cost then Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon also was one of the most significant factors. And that the F35 cost less to run then a Rafale, Typhoon, or F18 per hour also was a factor. In fact, numbers are hard to find, but the per hour costs of the F35 look to be less then the Gripen also (since it has a higher per unit cost right now then the F35).

[@eleventy-seven]

IR will find the jets large engine at 100 km. The F35 is a joke. Rand rated it double difficient . Stealth is dead. t

[@SuperVt100]

@@eleventy-seven the pilots who fly it seem to love it. Israel has had great success with it - their version has custom electronics.

[@eleventy-seven]

@@SuperVt100 Israel gets aid money from the USA and is forced to buy it's planes from us in return. They have done remarkable things with our deficient patriot missile that makes up their Iron Dome defense system. Also they still use F-16s and F-15s but as other allies were forced into taking F-35s. F-35 pilots risk their lives ejecting from them as the seating position is not optimum due to the Fan behind the pilot and in models without have the same almost upright seating position. If the pilots want to fly they take to politically correct position and I cant blame them for that. There are far better far cheaper planes and STEALTH is dead. You probably do not know that fuel must be kept below a certain temperature or the F35 will not start as it uses fuel circulation to cool electronics. This is a problem in the middle east. It has a large IR signature and it's hours of flight vs downtime for maintenance are not in the same league as it's many competitors. It only has a 60 degree radius of radar stealth. They will be clubbed like baby seals in a real air superiority mission regardless of the F-22s needed to bail them out.

[@fewyearsbehind9333]

Im from Poland and I don't trust my goverment. Butt when Finish goverment choses F35 maybe it is not that bad of a choice.

[@formateuramzal1567]

it's the best fighter currently available on the market

[@lubenovac]

Yes, it's the best fighter plane - for Lockheed Martin..😁

[@formateuramzal1567]

@@lubenovac better than rafale .....sorry for he french

[@dejvi5711]

@ FewYearsBehind The question is whether Finland chose or whether America forced it to buy 64 F-35s. It is too expensive for me, especially for small countries with 5 million inhabitants. Yes, Finland is not a poor country, but it is not rich either. Those 64 F-35s will cost brutally, probably twice as much as it was signed on paper. The political power of the US is huge, especially in Europe, although some countries would like to buy SAAB Gripen, Eurofighter or Rafale, the US immediately intervenes and "spills" its products. I cite examples of Norway, now Finland, Switzerland (which is related to France as a mother and child where the Americans politically took over the finished business with Rafale and Switzerland, then we have France and Australia regarding nuclear submarines, then we have a ready agreement between France and Greece regarding 2-3 ships that again the Americans politically forced Greece to reject all signed agreements with France.) Such cases are full of history where one political side dominates and cuts everything in the forefront.

[@formateuramzal1567]

@@dejvi5711 Switzerland speaks German for 2/3 and french for 1/3, and even their french population is protestant as opposed to the catholic majority in France

[@charlesrichardson8635]

Part of the problem on industrial cooperation is secrecy. You add countries and people you end up losing major secrets. It's one reason why the F22 wasn't shared with anyone.

[@whiskeysk]

eagerly awaiting the video on offset programmes!

[@kevino.7348]

Thanks for this. It was a reminder of how complicated these acquisition decisions are. Hopefully, the Fins are getting the best plane for their needs.

[@ray32245mv]

When a country buys into the F-35 program the upfront costs are substantial, but the cost-risk-benefit ratio simply cannot be matched by any other platform when tasked with operations against a near-peer adversary. The F-35 is a force-multiplier, and can vector assets launched by other platforms to a target with extreme precision. When loaded with even basic iron bombs it's sensor suite allows it to deliver them with greater precision than any other platform. This is one reason why the USMC declared IOC so quickly, it can perform basic CAS with legacy weapons in contested environments out of the box. With it's proven ability to discretely lock and fire on airborne targets it's PK is greater than any operational platform save for the F-22 and that gap is rapidly narrowing. It's accuracy, availability, and survivability drive the cost and risk per shot well below the cost inflicted to targets, while reducing risks to assets it is tasked with defending better than any other platform available for export.

[@iainw5081]

All assumptions. As Tyson quipped -everyone has a plan until they are punched in the mouth

[@DecalageChope]

Bullshit.

[@ray32245mv]

@@DecalageChope ok big guy

[@klaojaju]

We are also buying: five hundred (500) GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) All-Up Round , one hundred fifty (150) Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II+ (Plus), one hundred (100) AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand Off Weapon (JSOW-C1) Tactical Missiles; two hundred (200), Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) AGM-158B-2 Missiles; , (120) BLU-117, General Purpose Bombs; thirty-two (32) BLU-109, General Purpose Bomb; one hundred fifty (150) BLU-111, General Purpose Bomb; six (6) MK-82, Inert Bomb; one (1) FMU-139D/B (D-1) Inert Fuze.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Thanks for adding!

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Environmental is probably noise related infrastructure (hush houses and sound deadening walls). The F 35 is a bit noisier than the previous jets because it is heavier and needs a more powerful engine. I would be interested where the maintenance is done. All European users of F35 agreed to do this at a central location in the Netherlands, I believe.

[@ericknkili]

The F-35 is the most advanced wester fighter on the market, period! There is no better choice out there.

[@mwtrolle]

depends on what your needs are!

[@tylerclayton6081]

Mhmm I taste the salt emanating from this man. He hates the success of the F-35 and points out flaws often taken out of context. This is the sane guy who thinks RCS doesn’t matter when it is literally the number one most important thing in regards to having good stealth. IRST has a range 50km max against the F-35. L-Band radar is useless for getting a weapons grade lock. So extremely small RCS and being undetectable from X-band radar are most important when it comes to stealth and thus guy thinks it doesn’t matter all that much just because the Su-57 does those things the worse out of all the 5th gen jets. Even the J-20 is superior to the Su-57 in BVR engagements.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

I didn't realise you were licking me...a bit creepy to be honest. When did I say that stealth doesn't matter?

[@captainsensible298]

Just wondering what the final costs were for "equity, inclusion, diversity and social justice" from Lockheed Martin.

[@anirbande7893]

Aliens. When in doubt it's always aliens.

[@gamelauri9307]

The chemical, explosive and environmental safety funding metioned in the video (5:43) might be related to expantion/upgrades the bomb shelter of the planes at the air bases. F-18 had foldable wings and therefore the existing shelter are now to too small for the F-35A.

[@Albertkallal]

Probably not. If you ever worked on any industrial site - they have such regulations for everything. Bring in a new fridge into the lunch room? Well, now you have several inches of legal documents and reporting requirements - including someone to notify the fire department that you have fridge chemicals on site! All job sites of ANY kind have to maintain quite much a full time personal that catalogs, and keeps ALL of their safety records up to date This so called COSHH Assessments (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations) is a requirement for all organizations. Bring to the job site a bucket of cleaning fluid? Well, now handing procedures, how to put out with fire. How to handle, what do do if you spill some on the ground. Even what to do if you have to call the fire department - you have to tell them what you have on site: quote: *_Assessments are a legal requirement for companies that work with substances that could be hazardous to the health of their employees. Hazardous substances include any substances that could cause sickness or harm if they are inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin_* And even how are to dispose of simple cleaning products now takes a few inches of documents. The business regulations in the west are REALLY nuts these days. So, all that mumbo jumbo about dealing with materials on site? You also have to produce that HUGE pile of safety documents if you procure a new grease gun for use on the base to oil a squeaky front gate. Of course the above is standard knowledge for anyone that has had a job recently in any kind of environment where they deal with simple things like say gas, or cleaning products.

[@MihzvolWuriar]

"The F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen, we bought it for 73m each" Add 40m for the infrastructure, 10m for training, 20m for this and that... While Saab makes it clear that the 80m is *all you need to operate the aircraft,* which includes all of the above, so which one is cheaper now?

[@rockerobertson4002]

From Canada here.... we are going through the same process. I really hope we stay away from the F35 money pit.

[@MihzvolWuriar]

@@rockerobertson4002 Sorry to say mate, but you think both progressive governments Canada and US wouldn't find a way to spend people's money together?

[@juntingiee2602]

@@rockerobertson4002 lmao i think pierre sprey got to your head

[@kreb7]

WW 1 byplanes are cheaper why not buy those

[@rockerobertson4002]

@@juntingiee2602 lol. I honestly dont care if jets can go fast turn or evade radar. It has zero impact on me. But the lack of money for things the average Canadians need is a concern. Stupid money.

[@thetreekeeper143]

Don't forget, the F35 is also a sea superiority fighter.

[@duhni4551]

The way we see it, it is simply superiority fighter, according to the tests our military conducted for years with this jet, there are no competition against it at all, in any way.

[@bernardotorres2532]

How impressive that such a country ads Finland , with such a small population, can afford to buy 64 F35s !

[@semco72057]

Lockheed Martin should be happy to get that contract and Pratt & Whitney should be happy also and the Finnish government will be getting a great airplane to take on the Russians if needed.

[@matthewk9563]

None of those other aircraft are even close to the capability of the F-35. The F-35 is a transformational war fighting system. The specs on the airftame is pointless to compare. The F-35 changes the way you fight a war. All the others are Just 4th Gen with newer avionics.

[@adrien5834]

lol. You sound like Elon Musk...

[@amcds2867]

More and more F35s are being produced with numerous Nations purchasing it, the most sophisticated fighter in the world today. Just an incredible aircraft, budgetary issues aside.

[@disadadi8958]

I'm quite sure they bought air-to-ground weaponry, besides we have already such weapons bought for the hornets that is supposedly compatible with the F-35, such as the AGM-158 JASSM. Also two JDAMs, namely the GBU-38/54 and GBU-31 and last but not least AGM-154C-1 JSOW. Also included GBU-53/B SDB II. Maybe the data you saw wasn't exactly thorough, but the deal included quite a bit of air-to-ground weaponry as the fighters are for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions here. WE cannot buy dedicated air superiority and attack aircraft individually.

[@ycplum7062]

Just a consideration. A F-35 with just air to air missiles is defensive while one with air to surface ordnance can be offensive. The US can claim they are simply providing Finland with the means to defend themselves rather than to attack Russia, who have been paranoid lately.

[@x7Samuraix]

Paranoid? How the USA would react if they see Russia building military bases in Cuba, Canada and Mexico. Anyway, but related to the F35, Finland made a great deal. But they should not rely on the F35 alone.

[@oskarik7096]

Well, if Ivan wants to come across border, Finns prefer to have as many corpses to be on Russian soil as possible. It would be idiotic to kneecap oneself by not obtaining offensive capabilities. Without, enemy can just keep hitting and hitting until eventually he gets lucky. With retaliatory ability, enemy has to put effort to his defense as well.

[@ycplum7062]

@@oskarik7096 No arguments from me. But politically, the US may not want to suggest that. There will likely be a separate order or ordnance. ; )

[@paulbedichek2679]

No,no way, the Finns aren't pussy's, they'll get air to ground ordinance, the Russian already invaded Finland they didn't like it.

[@ycplum7062]

@@paulbedichek2679 I am confident that the Finns will get air to ground ordnance. All I am saying it that it won't be as part of the purchase of the F-35 so the US can claim we are not threatening Russia and preserve the appearance of Finland being neutral. Of course, that may change if Russia keeps threatening the Ukraine.

[@goodik4885]

F-35 💪💪

[@jamesmandahl444]

Goodik you Ukrainian mad man! Enjoy your hard fought earnings in posting on yt videos!

[@ottohonkala6861]

The F-15 was never part of the Finland fighter evaluation program.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

An offer was asked but Boeing never presented one

[@ottohonkala6861]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech No, Incorrect - request was never sent. It was never on a list. Not this time, or back the last time when the Horner was selected.

[@josephsmith3908]

The f35 is a very good plane regardless of it's bad press

[@AnonymousAlcoholic772]

Hm, the Finns do not usually do stupid shit. Quite a vote of confidence

[@juslitor]

Hope you are correct.

[@LRRPFco52]

Neither do the Norwegians, Swiss, Danes, Dutch, Japanese, South Koreans, etc.

[@AnonymousAlcoholic772]

@@LRRPFco52 danes? The Danish government was sworn in then?

[@LRRPFco52]

@@AnonymousAlcoholic772 The Danes are already flying F-35As. They’ve been a partner for years. They recently took delivery of one of the first Danish Air Force F-35As, although pilots have been training in the US for a long time in preparation of receiving them.

[@henrikerdland578]

I guess the Finnish evaluation report is made to favour the F-35 just like in Norway and Denmark. There has been a big debate about the evaluation reports in Norway and Denmark. Boeing as actually sued the Danish government for giving the F/A-18 Super Hornet a bad rating. It is not worth spending the time on these evaluation report. For political reasons many small country's in Europe buys American.

[@AvroBellow]

Yeah but to call it "the cheapest option" is a barefaced lie. I had no idea that Finland was so corrupt.

[@juslitor]

One can only hope that military sense overrides political BS

[@kimm3423]

@@AvroBellow Do you have better info on this? What was the real cost of the F-35 for Finland and which ones of the other planes were cheaper?

[@LRRPFco52]

@@AvroBellow You can’t even bribe one of the metro ticket inspector ladies in Finland. It’s one of the only countries I’ve been to (30 in total) where the concept of bribery is so foreign, they don’t even understand what it is or that anyone would do such a thing. The low cost assertions by Finland are absolutely correct from a basic and advanced accounting standpoint. Unit Flyway and Unit Program Costs are lower with F-35A than any other Western fighters currently on the market. Gripen E is more expensive than F-35A and has been for many years. Typhoon and Rafale are twice as much as F-35A. Super Hornet is about like the Gripen E/F, while Growler is $125 million. F-35A Block 3, Lot 14 is $77.9 million USD Unit Flyway. Gripen E is $85 million Flyway, $155.5 million Unit Program to Brazil.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@juslitor The Finnish Air Force evaluation lasted from 2014-2021, and was separate from any economic or political factors. They evaluated the pure military capabilities. Other agencies evaluated the industrial and economic impacts, and Finland even implemented 2 layers of independent auditing agencies to ensure that all metrics were fairly analyzed without coercion, politics, favoritism, or bias. The military performance superiority of the F-35A was clear and dizzying, in the words of the Air Chief.

[@saine414]

Fin did hell of a deal, not Norway is angry by their price 😂

[@ulf5738]

When you compare apples to apples it’s almost the same price. The “news” from Norway was fake news produced by angry left wing media in Norway who were clueless in this subject.