On 10 December, the government in Helsinki authorized the Finnish Armed Forces Logistics Command to sign a procurement contract with the USA and manufacturer Lockheed-Martin (LM) for the delivery of 64 F-35A fighter jets with an (estimated) value of around 8.3 billion euros. This means that – with a view to a more distant future – the 5th generation jet has already been ordered in Switzerland (Militär Aktuell reported) has beaten all its 4th generation counterparts.
Officially, the key criteria for the HX decision were: Military capabilities, security of supply, industrial cooperation, procurement and life cycle costs, and security and defense implications.
The decision in favor of the F-35A is only a surprise at first glance, as it was always felt that the F-35A was the one to beat in the race for the lucrative contract. Nevertheless, for a long time it looked as if a different model might be chosen in Finland. Following the recent export successes of the F-35A, the impression is growing that the “Joint Strike Fighter” is the right choice despite its many problems (Militär Aktuell reported) could be the leading aircraft type of the coming decades. The stealth fighter was much maligned due to many persistent shortcomings and cost overruns caused by parallel development and production and the possible need to replace the engine due to wear and tear. The triumph in traditionally conservative Finland should now underline the manufacturer’s claim that the aircraft is “maturing well” against all odds.
Finland is the EU country with the longest border with Russia. Therefore, in addition to the 64 jets, the procurement includes, among other things, extensive and versatile armament tailored to the Scandinavian-Baltic operating conditions and Finland’s strategic environment and – compared to Switzerland, for example – quite extensive, the necessary training and maintenance solutions as well as maintenance services until the end of 2030, according to the official announcement.
Historical or political logic no longer “stings”
Many experts in Finland were banking on the “logical” successor being the Super Hornet/Growler combination or the neighboring Swedish Gripen E solution. But the long-term perspective of the overall service life is likely to have tipped the scales for Helsinki against the flagship product of Sweden, another non-NATO member, even though air force contacts, including joint exercises and the use of each other’s airspace, have been very close for decades. This was also due to the Saab proposed joint use of Gripen-E together with two Saab Global-Eye AEW&C platforms. In the decision, the F/A-18E/F was certainly hurt by the fact that, contrary to earlier plans, the US Navy, as the largest customer in the budget estimate for the 2021 financial year, will no longer be purchasing Super Hornets until 2024 and instead wants to provide more funds for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. Apart from this Boeing’s fighter is only the processing of the order in Kuwait and a – see the see German government program – upcoming procurement for the German Air Force for nuclear sharing and SEAD/DEAD.
Unit versus operating and life cycle costs
With the HX decision approaching, the Finnish government approved an increase in its defense procurement budget for 2022 in September to cover the upfront costs associated with the purchase of the new fighter jets. The current award now provides for unit costs of 73.49 million euros per Finnish aircraft, which would mean that the (bare) unit price of the F-35 would also have fallen again compared to US lots. More controversial than this, however, are the annual operating costs and the increasingly important life cycle costs. During the tendering process, it was stated that the operating costs should not exceed ten percent of the armed forces’ peacetime budget, i.e. they should be less than 250 million euros per year. At this stage, however, it is not clear how the Finnish evaluators have weighted the operating costs. However, compared to similar figures from Norway (practical operator) and Switzerland (theoretical extrapolation), there seem to be some question marks over the calculation, which may have involved – as in Switzerland – buying a smaller number of jets or reducing flying hours in favor of more simulator training.
In any case, the issue of operating costs has long been the subject of intense discussion in Finland and is a growing concern for existing and potential future F-35 operators, including congressional and committee members in the US demanding a new and more heat-resistant, longer-life engine for Block 4 from 2027. And thus, for example, for future customers precisely from 2027, such as the Swiss and the Finns. In November, a high-ranking representative of the Swiss Ministry of Defense therefore visited Finland, apparently to discuss the F-35 costs with Raimo Jyväsjärvi, head of the resource policy department at the Finnish Ministry of Defense.
Another factor to consider is that – as a major difference between the Finnish and many other European air forces – Finland is planning to transfer training back to Finland from the USA relatively early on. The reason for this is the good experience gained with the current and cost-effective Proptrainer Hawk operational type pipeline. Keeping pilots at home instead of paying for them to live abroad for years, sometimes with their families, generally proves to be cheaper. Not to mention the mechanics, most of whom are conscripted in Finland. The entire current base network – including road sections – will also remain in operation, and to ensure braking in poor (winter) conditions, the Finnish aircraft will be equipped with an extra braking parachute, just like the F-35 in Norway. This means that the necessary infrastructure modernization has been detailed in the official documents, with 409 million euros for buildings and 75 million euros for upgrades to command/communication and ICT systems. This includes the “infamous” cyber security upgrades in line with US requirements.
The sheer number of units alone is surprising
With the F-35, Helsinki is buying into a multinational military and industrial effort that seems to be the strongest way of ensuring that the type remains viable in service well beyond the middle of this century in a truly global network. The old Hornet already had an established industrial relationship with the United States, for example via the VALMET company. And with regard to the deepening of this industrial cooperation, one thing should be noted: LM apparently provided a unique and tailored solution for Finland in the “Best and Final Offer” (BAFO) to, as their BAFO states, “provide many opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35 that were not previously offered.” This is said to include not only a firm commitment for a number of components and sub-assemblies for the Finnish F-35s, but also (even more far-reaching than for most other countries) a commitment that 400 forward fuselages for the global F-35 fleet will be assembled in Finland. Once again, the logic of the bare figures of the current and future distribution of the type, discussions in US committees or not, stands out.
Another topic far removed from the (future) “impact” of Stealth in this industrial context was the promised security of supply. Finland wants to be able to keep the system in the air even if the borders are closed and the normal ongoing cycles to the manufacturer are interrupted. In other words, when no more C-130s or C-17s (can) deliver green boxes. It should be explicitly ensured that Finland has a domestic maintenance and repair capacity for more than 100 components (including critical parts of the fuselage and engine) covered by that industrial cooperation agreement. According to LM, there will also be significant stocks of components that are not on the list of items that Finland can organically repair and overhaul. And the Finnish maintenance capability is also said to be part of the GSS (the global support solution), which means it will be used to maintain parts for the F-35’s global spares pool. Again, none of the other suppliers could apparently compete on this scale.
Much more armament than in comparable procurements
As far as the armament of the selected system was concerned, its composition and number were significantly more important and valued more highly than in the procurements of other countries (such as Switzerland). It was to provide the Finnish Air Force with serious new capabilities, such as the ability to hit moving and mobile targets on land and at sea. With this in mind, the “initial package”, which will be signed at the same time as the fighter aircraft contract, includes AIM-120C-8 AMRAAMs and AIM-9X Sidewinders. Later, the package will most likely include JSMs in the joint air-to-ground and anti-ship roles, as well as the AGM-158B2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) heavy cruise missile, the GBU-54 and GBU-56 LJDAM laser/GPS-guided guided bombs in the 250- and 1,000-kg classes, and the GBU-39 SDB and GBU-53/B StormBreaker SDB II small-diameter bombs. The F-35 package submitted to the US Congress by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) for Finland includes 100 AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), 200 of those AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER for the robust reduction and destruction of an enemy A2/AD network, and 120 guided bomb kits for the GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). As already mentioned with other US authorizations, these are maximum packages that are often not “exhausted”. This “all inclusive” was also 11.1 billion euros, while the costs in Finland were “capped” at 8.9 billion euros (10 billion US dollars).
The entire weapons package amounts to around 1.58 billion euros, of which 754.6 million euros are earmarked for the air-to-air missiles to be acquired in the first stage and 823.8 million euros for later procurement up to around 2030 (and which – very far-sightedly – would also be used as a financial reserve in relation to the final number of units in case parts of the contract have to be renegotiated or technical risks arise that are not yet known). In any case, it is noteworthy that the large number and range of weapons included had a positive effect on the evaluation. It is also worth noting that the F-35 has the largest internal fuel quantity and therefore does not require any additional tanks, but thanks to the built-in sensor technology it also does not require any external target illumination pods, which would occupy both weapon stations. Incidentally, some of the same weapons are already available for the Finnish Legacy Hornet and were also included in the Super Hornet offer.
Beacon for the Europeans
After the end of the French submarines and the NRH-90 helicopters from Airbus in Australia or the F-35 decision in Switzerland – which will be even more exciting due to the costs – the Nordic contract award to the Americans is another beacon for the European defense industry. For Brazil or the Emirates, the current Generation 4++ models, which are certainly excellent but do not project so far into the future, may still be good, but the more modern European air forces prefer to move on to the next generation, provided this is not politically and ideologically impossible for them – as was once the case in Austria or now in Germany.
Result: More European countries (nine, six of which are EU members) have ordered the F-35 than the Eurofighter (five countries), Rafále (three) or the Gripen (three, two of which have “only” leased). In Europe, a total of 420 F-35s have been ordered, which almost equals the 487 Eurofighters (all tranches) and is already higher than the 332 Gripen (-C to -E) and 216 Rafále. On the basis of public Norwegian data on life cycle costs, a total of 39.8 billion euros will flow to the Americans for the operation and maintenance of F-35s, which is about five years of total European spending on defense procurement. Conclusion: The development of a 5th generation fighter jet was completely overslept in Europe, with the development of the 6th generation (
Enlightening AI-based impact simulation
Speaking of the “frontline state”, it is interesting to note the work of the excellent Finnish military aviation blogger “Corporal Frisk” has done. Based on the tactical game simulation software “Command: Modern Operations (CMO)” – an expensive professional version of which is also used or recommended by Boeing and Lockheed – he has created a fictitious strike scenario in a few years’ time between Finland and a limited Russian operation in Karelia from the Vyborg area. Based on the characteristics and weapons data of the four HX candidates from open sources (including support from AWACS) as well as modern Russian systems such as Su-57, S-400 or the guided missile cruiser “Gorshkov”, he then let the artificial intelligence of the program work – with quite sobering results (see report).
Thanks to their stealth design, the F-35s, which were (more) difficult to detect than Gripen E and F/A-18E/F, came closer to their targets (five bridges) with fewer losses, but then had too little weapon load and targeting effect. A future Eurofighter T4 with Storm Shadow (or KEPD Taurus) and Meteor in the escort role performed best in the scenario. Incidentally, this revealed the often suppressed reality that, in an emergency, both sides would have used up several years’ worth of ammunition within a few hours and would no longer have any significant stocks of modern air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles or guided weapons.
Here for more reports about Lockheed-Martin and here for more current news about the Finnish armed forces.
