> no mention of technical advantages no independent benchmark

Because those weren't the deciding factors. Cost and maintainability were. (It's implied that the planes were close enough in capability that the "gate checks" were just that. Gates. Not goals.)

Finland didn't want to end up with another Betamax fleet.

> Because those weren't the deciding factors.

I think it's the other way around. Technically, the F-35 has been superior all along, but it used to be expensive.

Now, with the cost coming down, the reason NOT to pick it went away.

Have any of the competitors been proven in combat anywhere?

Everybody of course would like to read a ranking of all fighter jet planes me included. Not like who is fastest or has most ammunition but who has the best rate of survival. This could perhaps be determined by some sort of simulation. Would not make sense to put them into an actual fight really. Countries who own the planes would not want the enemy to know their weaknesses.

Rate of survival under what circumstances? Even for the simple case of pairwise one-on-one dogfights, there could easily be a rock-paper-scissors scenario where there's no single dominant plane.

Also, the data would be from simulations. Outside of Ukraine, there haven't been many fighters of advanced nations shot down in decades.

I just wonder if there are such simulations. My guess is there are. They are simulating nuclear weapons too.

More than 20 years ago, I wrote networking portions of such simulations. Even for the unclassified components for those simulations, many of the components were still both commercial secrets and considered munitions under ITAR export controls.

Terrain maps beyond a certain resolution are classified. As I remember, the somewhat lower resolution terrain maps were still ITAR controlled munitions. Some of the radio propagation models are classified.

Even half-way decent simulation outputs are likely also classified.

In my case, for the most part, the simulations were used to shorten the turnaround time in the early prototyping stages, and also a fair amount for the sales team to sell military hardware to governments.

And in Ukraine, the life expectancy of anything flying above treetop has been very very low (admittedly F35 would better than its competitors here).

There were rumours of an Isreali F-35 targeted and damaged (but survived) by some old Russian AA system, maybe BUK? This was based on observed events and movements. Of course, we would never know, which is correct and appropriate.

The topic of "spectral stealth" is complicated. It is vulnerable to systems of networked radars, among other things. It is one feature that may be very useful, but it is not a "panacea".

Russian BUKs and S-400s in Syria repeatedly and consistently tracked Israeli F-16s. In an actual shooting war they'd have gone down, fast, and the Israelis knew it -- which is why they bought into the F-35. Price was good and, like, "stealth".

There is little to suggest that the Israeli F-35 was taken down by a missile; the sources involved are not especially credible. Eurasia Times, for example, is basically Russia Today (RT) and is not really trustworthy. Most of the posts elsewhere, e.g. Quora, are from questionable accounts and aren't credible either.

It's possible it happened and they're spinning it as something birds -- which is pretty lame and damning if true -- but most of the pro-shot-down points are difficult to take seriously.

Nothing is known, but if we assume the basic events are not fabricated, then the behaviour of an F-35 was somehow altered by a fired missile. If such a missile detonated within a radius of maybe 30-40m (or something) then damage would have been substantial. If greater than maybe 100m (or something) there would only be mild damage, but that means the missile wasn't tracking the target. This scenario would also not be surprising.

If true, I don't think it necessarily presents the F-35 poorly. But it's only a rumour. And if true, it most likely would be classified as secret, since reporting it would be like handing the enemy a damage assessment report.

You might want to track down the information they release from multinational training exercises like Red Flag. Reportedly the F-35 has put in multiple dominant showings at Red Flag since its debut. I'm not sure how complete the information they release from these exercises is, though, and some of the aircraft involved (most notably the F-22) are notoriously restrained to keep the true capabilities of the platform secret.

Not really sure what “proven in combat” looks like, the US fortunately hasn’t fought a peer in a long, long time so all of our stuff has only been tested in fairly one sided wars.

If a country’s Air Force is getting in fair fights, I’d suspect either they are in pretty dire circumstances, or they have some questionable decision making going on!

Do you mean that decisionmakers corruption is the reason?

> without mentioning a single reason why Finland selected the F35A

There are at least three within the first tenth of that long article alone that I read, namely:

* the most boring factor, simply the sheer amount of F-35s sold is a huge benefit. As has been stressed from the outset, Finland can’t afford to be the sole operator of an aircraft

* Lockheed Martin provided a unique tailored solution to Finland – one described in their BAFO-press statement to “includes many opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35 that have not been offered before.”

* Which brings us to what has been the most controversial aspect of the program: cost. The acquisition cost has come down nicely,

I'll grant it's a badly written article for clarity and it's hard to pick the details out from the noise and fluff but it's simply incorrect to claim that not a single reason was mentioned.

( other than on the technical grounds that more than "a single reason" was provided in the article. )

Are there any jet fighters available to buy that Finland would be the only operator of? I'd assume all other options would be operated in their country of origin at the very least (eg Gripen in Sweden, Rafale in France...)

Those don't have stealth of course and having Russia as a direct neighbor it's much more likely they'll see combat against an advanced military (much more do than western Europe) so I can imagine they wanted that advantage even though it's not perfect.

> any jet fighters available to buy that Finland would be the only operator of?

The concern isn't being sole operator at time of sale, but decades down the road. The Gripen, for example, is used by Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and Czechia [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

I'm such a fan of the Gripen. It's significantly cheaper to operate than the F-35, with around 4 to 5 Gripen flight hours for the same cost as one F-35 flight hour. While it doesn't have stealth capabilities, it does have over the horizon radar, can carry the Meteor air-to-air missile which has a 100km range and was specifically designed to operate in a "distributed and de-centralised" manner; that is from rough, but still paved, runways and highways.

I really wish they'd send a couple of squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine, because I think they'd be the perfect aircraft for that theatre.

Yep, and especially for smaller countries with smaller air forces and budgets, having more Gripens makes more sense than having fewer but more expensive F-35s. The risk of not being able to properly maintain them down the line and ending up with 3-4 operable planes is too high for the advantages of stealth (which IMO comes more into play when on the offence, which Finland probably won't be anytime soon).

Agree about Ukraine too. Sending highly sophisticated jets that will take months to learn is wasting Ukraine's time - Gripens, maybe Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s make the most sense.

> maybe Mirage 2000s

Stopped being produced 15 years ago.

> MiG-29

Ukraine can't get new ones.

> Gripens

Could be an option, but available only in low numbers.

The Ukraine war will be won through stocks and new production.

Ukraine can't afford a dead-end platform. Especially because "sending highly sophisticated jets that will take months to learn".

The F-16 is probably the best option, still being made, but much more importantly, available in large numbers, thousands of them out there.

> The Ukraine war will be won through stocks and new production.

Or on the diplomatic table. While I agree it is a good thing to send Ukraine all we reasonably can, it is a nonzero probability Putin gets into hot water and ousted - bad health, pissed-off bureaucracy, domestic protests once he's forced to conscript people in central (ethnic) Russia.

> Or on the diplomatic table. While I agree it is a good thing to send Ukraine all we reasonably can, it is a nonzero probability Putin gets into hot water and ousted - bad health, pissed-off bureaucracy, domestic protests once he's forced to conscript people in central (ethnic) Russia.

Ukraine being a part of Russia is a mainstream opinion in Russia. It's a core part of Russian propaganda abroad and has been so since the 1800s (Novorossya).

I'm not saying it's impossible, but a new leader will adopt many of the nationalist tropes.

Russia completely leaving occupied territories, especially Crimea, diplomatically, will be extremely hard to do.

And Ukraine without Crimea will always be exposed. It's too easy to choke off their maritime access without it.

The thing is, Russian economy is in shambles. The only major trading partners they have left is China and India... and the West won't ever open up unless Russia at the very least leaves the occupied territories, which leaves the Ukrainians free to focus on regaining Crimea.

Some countries can be hellbent on self-destruction if they feel their "national pride" is being offended.

And European messaging is... strongly in favor of Ukraine but at reduced/no cost for Europe. So in practice European messaging is actually weak.

There are quite a few big European economies that would want to open up the Russian economy again. Conflicting interests are still fighting it out and we can't be sure which side will out. It could very well be that the winning political side in the West says a chopped up Ukraine is sufficient at the end of this war.

We'll see, it's super hard to predict.

Don't be so sure. Trump wants to "end the war" by cutting off help to Ukraine and force them to "negotiate" with Russia, i.e. surrender their territory. Orban is making things harder than necessary for EU to show a united front against Russia. Who knows what the political reality will be in a few years if the war continues then, too many wants things to go back to normal even if that means appeasing Putin.

> only… China and India

For Russia at least, wouldn’t that be plenty enough to get by on?

It is not a given that, if Putin is ousted, his replacement will stop the war. While there are factions that are not keen on the war (many of the oligarchs that have interest in trading with the west) , there are some others (the warlords) that are even more hawkish than Putin, and seeing as he is very careful to please them, they have a lot of power.

> Stopped being produced 15 years ago.

Doesn't really matter when there are hundreds in stock (recently decommissioned or soon to be decommissioned) - they're faster to deliver than ones that are yet to be produced.

> Ukraine can't get new ones.

They don't need new ones, they need flying ones, yesterday. The proposed swaps with various NATO countries like Bulgaria sounded like the best option - Ukraine gets jets they can fly today, and the other country gets an upgrade for their help.

> The risk of not being able to properly maintain them down the line and ending up with 3-4 operable planes is too high for the advantages of stealth (which IMO comes more into play when on the offence, which Finland probably won't be anytime soon).

I guess, it really depends on your threat model.

If you assume that Russia is the main threat, and assume that what's going on in Ukraine is what future combat would likely look like, forward deployed SAMs are the main threat to aircraft. I have to imagine that advanced stealth capabilities would really help Sweden maintain an air capability in such an environment.

From what I understand, the Ukrainian airforce has taken a pretty severe beating (understandably). Heck - the Russian airforce has been pretty limited as well - they do run sorties, but they aren't exactly operating with impunity.

Small, high-GDP countries like the nordics are also likely to rear a small amount of the high-quality pilots required for operating fighter jets. Maximizing those pilots by putting them in exquisite, high-end aircraft, with strong interoperability with aircraft operated by close allies (in this case most of the rest of NATO), makes a lot of sense.

It's crazy that Finland is OK with only being able to fly their planes 20 minutes a day. I get they are so fast that intercept from takeoff isn't much longer than intercept from up in the air but still...

> I really wish they'd send a couple of squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine, because I think they'd be the perfect aircraft for that theatre.

With or without pilots?

I think with pilots would amount to, in practice, a declaration of war from Sweden to Russia. So that's not going to happen. And since Sweden applied for NATO membership, it's not even a theoretical possibility at this point I'd say.

But even without pilots, and crewed by Ukrainian pilots lacking training on the system, I think the ability to lob 100 km range missiles over the horizen, has to be worth something.

Are those numbers still accurate? F-35 was a lot more expensive early on and a lot of number comparisons are stuck on those early production numbers rather than later ones.

I took the estimate from the Wikipedia page where the 2021 cost comparison numbers show a x4.5 difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational...

> While it doesn't have stealth capabilities

That makes the Gripen a non-starter for picking a new aircraft to base your air force around in 2023. Stealth is now the single-most important factor, bar none. Non-stealthy aircraft are sitting ducks to a wide variety of threats.

> it does have over the horizon radar, can carry the Meteor air-to-air missile which has a 100km range

Yes see this is the kind of capability that allows stealthy aircraft like the F-35 to completely obliterate a Gripen at long range, with the Gripen never having a chance of even detecting the F-35. And of course the F-35 has long range air-to-air missiles for it too.

You make it sound as stealth is a boolean value. Stealth is not that easy. It depends on many factors. Stealth from whom, when, systems, where, and how much.

There is a probability (only indirect rumors) that F-35 can already be detected in some situations on some systems (global eye?) and there is definitely no guarantee that F-35 will keep it's stealth ability in the future.

Yes, but whatever improvements in radar will happen in the future, if they can see a stealthy jet twice as far, they can see a non-stealthy jet twice as far too. If the window of vulnerability of a stealthy jet goes from 2 minutes to 4 minutes, the one for non-stealthy could go from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. You still want the stealthy jet.

Its trickle down economics effect is certainly not stealth! Its not stealth from satellites either.

Ironically, you're the one treating stealthiness as a boolean value here:

> there is definitely no guarantee that F-35 will keep it's stealth ability in the future.

Of course as radar and computer systems improve it's likely that stealthy airplanes will become detectable from farther away, but they're not just gonna lose their stealthy characteristics entirely, in a boolean manner!

Exactly, sorry if I did not use the right word (not native english speaker). I did not know that "keep" was so binary. With keep stealth ability I meant that it may not keep all it's properties to the same degree as today and some of them can decay. For example as you mention about the distance for detection from a single radar in normal flight.

Note that Czechia, Hungary and South Africa have much older Gripens which are not relevant to this conversation. Czechia is moving to the F-35 instead of ordering the Gripen E.

Only Sweden and Brazil ordered the new Gripens.

I think it's a little bit relevant because it still gives a hint of how SAAB performs as a partner, which is very important for such an advanced weapons system, but I'll upvote you.

FWIW Czechia asked Gripen to keep its plane until 2030.

Yes. But those are the old Gripens, not at all relevant in this conversation.

Tangent: Why is Brazil buying a modern fighter. Don’t they have the capacity to produce something of their own?

> Don’t they have the capacity to produce something of their own?

Not really, and even if they did, it might not be worth the effort. Instead they got a super attractive technology transfer deal from SAAB.

Yeah, this. Smaller countries can easily wind up holding the bag with less-widely adopted defence procurements, and without a wider community of users investing in the platform and its parts ecosystem it can become a sustainment nightmare.

For example, Australia became the sole operator of the F-111 from when the USAF retired it in 1998, until the RAAF retired it in 2010. The Australian Army also found itself in the position of sole operator of the ARH variant of the Eurocopter Tiger, a situation which lead to severe sustainment issues and exorbitant per-hour flight costs (estimates of up to AU$34k), and eventually lead to the 2021 decision to replace them with Apache Guardians.

But it did. Stealth, widespread adoption globally (resulting in a larger logistical support base and long term support), and low cost were all mentioned as features of the F-35 that made it preferable to its competitors.

Does anyone seriously think the F-35A is not technically as-good-as or superior to the Typhoon on a number of axes? If it's similar in cost to the Typhoon, it seems like a no-brainer. Of course the "If" is doing a lot of work which is why TFA was so focused on whether or not the costs in the contracts were reasonable.

The Eurofighter is higher specced than the F-35 on a number points - speed, manoeuvrability, capacity, and possibly endurance - but this is not really part of the debate.

The question is how they are going to be used in practice, with everything that entails. The decision also includes a gamble on how the platform develops in the future, and how adversary's capabilities develop.

The F-35 has already had numerous successes operating in a high-threat anti-air environments in Lebanon and Syria in the hands of the Israelis.

Norway went with the F-35A some time ago[1] to replace our F-16s, and we got the first planes in 2015. Since then we've gotten a fair bit of experience with it, including join exercises[2] as well as developing a landing system for our arctic climate[3]. Denmark has also gone for the F-35A[4], and recently got its first planes.

If Finland joins NATO, it makes sense to combine air forces[5] in Scandinavia, in which case I can imagine there's a lot of benefits from having the same airplane as one of the other members. Obviously that w as not a direct consideration back when the decision was made, but surely some of the people involved were eyeing close cooperation in Scandinavia if shit hit the fan.

Regardless, I imagine Finland has had a chat with the Norwegian Air Force about the plane, which feedback should be highly relevant given the similarities between the countries. So far from what I've read the Norwegian Air Force seems quite happy with the F-35.

[1]: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-glob...

[2]: https://www.tu.no/artikler/norske-flygere-har-for-forste-gan...

[3]: https://www.ffi.no/aktuelt/podkaster/16-slik-har-ffi-forsket...

[4]: https://www.f35.com/f35/global-enterprise/denmark.html

[5]: https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/luftfartssjefen-vil-ha-felles-n...

I wonder how much value there would be in having some level of dissimilar redundancy in (soon to be) NATO air forces. All NATO countries having fleets of the F35 makes us vulnerable to any kind of weakness or bug that adversaries are able to exploit.

It is worth noting that the US operates a number of F-35s out of Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. The weather conditions are comparable to the sub-arctic areas of Scandinavia.

Heck they were figuring out how to operate in Thule this month.

The F-35s in Eielson seems to be a quite recent development though from what I can see[1][2], while the article I linked to was from 2017 when they were doing final certification tests of the "arctic landing device".

But yeah, seems like it's definitely not an issue these days.

[1]: https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/north-to-the-futur...

[2]: https://alaskapublic.org/2023/01/23/the-air-force-is-swappin...

I know the most evident reason: If you want to be part of NATO you've got to pay your dues to NATO's overlord military industrial complex.

France -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_and_Space_Force#Inv...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Frenc...

Eurofighter Typhoon is produced by 4/5 NATO member states, and there is also the Rafale by France.

It is not NATO which enforces that. It is the superior spending and technology the overlord ;) is producing which makes every competing product a tough sell regards its pricing.

And yes, you spent your money with friendly nations.

The main reason is one that is best not said out loud. Esp in 2021.

This is a NATO buy in.

Except Finland wasn't part of NATO nor had plans to join NATO when this deal was negotiated.

Can't hurt to cozy up to NATO anyways. Finland bought F18s during the Cold War.

Exactly, that's why it was so important.

Maybe because the technical selection process was not important? The decision was purely political, they wanted to please the most important NATO country, and they wouldn't achieve that goal by buying MiG or Tornado.