Swiss Lightning?

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2763
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Oct 2020, 01:43

hornetfinn wrote:
noth wrote:They're not interested in buying a lot of weapons, especially air to ground ones. The mission is really limited, which is why F-35 is looking overkill to many a politician out there. Air to ground has basically been abandonned or will be doled out to UAVs.


No, but they definitely seem intrested in getting some air-to-ground capability as these DSCA notices have small amount of JDAMs and SDB IIs. They will also need new MRAAMs at some point, although they now have almost new AIM-120C-7s which they can use for both aircraft. But they have about 150 of those which means they have less than 4 missiles for each aircraft. Of course that's enough for anything less than actual war, which is very unlikely for Switzerland. But my point was that with the same money, they would get far superior capabilties with F-35 than with Super Hornet. Or they can save money in doing so.

F-35 might seem like overkill in capabilities, but it also seems that only Gripen E has any hope of being cheaper option in their competition. Besides, all other competitors also emphasize their air-to-ground and multirole capabilties.


Exactly!
Even for air policing missions the F-35 is best choice among all competitors. If someone thinks that a Super Hornet, Rafale or Typhoon are better than the F-35 in air policing missions then I have a bridge to sell.
Moreover those FLIR pod/sensors (which the F-35 already comes integrated with) are also extremely useful for Air-to-Air missions (including air policing missions) as well as for Air-to-Ground missions since for example they allow VID from a very far and 'standoff' distance/range.

Moreover, there's no such thing as 'overkill capability' when it comes to military equipment specially if such 'overkill capability' comes at the cheaper price compared to the other 'non-overkill' options :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

noth

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post02 Oct 2020, 17:49

ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
noth wrote:They're not interested in buying a lot of weapons, especially air to ground ones. The mission is really limited, which is why F-35 is looking overkill to many a politician out there. Air to ground has basically been abandonned or will be doled out to UAVs.


No, but they definitely seem intrested in getting some air-to-ground capability as these DSCA notices have small amount of JDAMs and SDB IIs. They will also need new MRAAMs at some point, although they now have almost new AIM-120C-7s which they can use for both aircraft. But they have about 150 of those which means they have less than 4 missiles for each aircraft. Of course that's enough for anything less than actual war, which is very unlikely for Switzerland. But my point was that with the same money, they would get far superior capabilties with F-35 than with Super Hornet. Or they can save money in doing so.

F-35 might seem like overkill in capabilities, but it also seems that only Gripen E has any hope of being cheaper option in their competition. Besides, all other competitors also emphasize their air-to-ground and multirole capabilties.


Exactly!
Even for air policing missions the F-35 is best choice among all competitors. If someone thinks that a Super Hornet, Rafale or Typhoon are better than the F-35 in air policing missions then I have a bridge to sell.
Moreover those FLIR pod/sensors (which the F-35 already comes integrated with) are also extremely useful for Air-to-Air missions (including air policing missions) as well as for Air-to-Ground missions since for example they allow VID from a very far and 'standoff' distance/range.

Moreover, there's no such thing as 'overkill capability' when it comes to military equipment specially if such 'overkill capability' comes at the cheaper price compared to the other 'non-overkill' options :wink:


I said "overkill to many a politician". Your military arguments are sound, but you have no idea of the hostile political climate here. We have left wing parties arguing that the armed forces should be abolished. We have politicians on both sides of the aisle who are anti-American for various reasons (Obama administration forcing the end to Swiss banking secrecy doesn't exactly make people grateful, I can tell you). There are those who think only European aircraft should be acquired, to curry favour with the EU right when we're (re)negociating a new institutional deal. This is still has to get Parliamentary assent on the final package. So yes, they're likely to push for the *least* capable platform. Don't be surprised. 50.1% made both sides think they won.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2763
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Oct 2020, 22:37

noth wrote:I said "overkill to many a politician". Your military arguments are sound, but you have no idea of the hostile political climate here. We have left wing parties arguing that the armed forces should be abolished. We have politicians on both sides of the aisle who are anti-American for various reasons (Obama administration forcing the end to Swiss banking secrecy doesn't exactly make people grateful, I can tell you). There are those who think only European aircraft should be acquired, to curry favour with the EU right when we're (re)negociating a new institutional deal. This is still has to get Parliamentary assent on the final package. So yes, they're likely to push for the *least* capable platform. Don't be surprised. 50.1% made both sides think they won.


I do get what you're saying but one of the most important arguments when purchasing something like a new fighter aircraft fleet in a political perspective is still the cost of that same fighter aircraft fleet. IMO, it becomes politically hard to push for a much more expensive fighter aircraft which at the same time is less effective just because it is 'European' which is exactly what happens with the Rafale or Typhoon compared to the F-35.
Heck, even the F-35 seems to be cheaper than the Super Hornet if we look at past posts in this same thread.
And I would even say that it could be 'easy' to overcome that 'buy European' argument with the F-35 - Just have the Swiss F-35s build (or assembled) in Italy :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 571
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post02 Oct 2020, 22:58

hornetfinn wrote:Only way Super Hornet is competitive here is if it has really significantly lower operating costs and I seriously doubt that.

Of course these are not the final costs, but I'd think the relative price difference will remain as the costs should be quite easy to calculate.


A reminder of the Danes evaluation (I put this together rather quickly, so I'm counting on you to point out any errors):

https://fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents ... mmary5.pdf

Procurement cost per aircraft (ajusted for 2016 currency):
F-35: 84 million USD
Super Hornet: 125 million USD
Eurofighter: 127 million USD

Sustainment per aircraft:
Super Hornet: 108 million USD
F-35: 136 million USD
Eurofighter: 165 million USD

Life-cycle costs over 30 year per aircraft:
F-35: 221 million USD
Super Hornet: 233 million USD
Eurofighter: 291 million USD
Attachments
Danish_fighter_evaluation.png
Danish fighter evaluation - costs
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 00:36

ricnunes wrote:I do get what you're saying but one of the most important arguments when purchasing something like a new fighter aircraft fleet in a political perspective is still the cost of that same fighter aircraft fleet. IMO, it becomes politically hard to push for a much more expensive fighter aircraft which at the same time is less effective just because it is 'European' which is exactly what happens with the Rafale or Typhoon compared to the F-35.
Heck, even the F-35 seems to be cheaper than the Super Hornet if we look at past posts in this same thread.
And I would even say that it could be 'easy' to overcome that 'buy European' argument with the F-35 - Just have the Swiss F-35s build (or assembled) in Italy :wink:


Real cost doesn't matter. The public thinks the F-35 is the most expensive option. If not in purchase costs, then in operating costs.
The F-35 has the additional disadvantage of the ALIS, with it's permanent connection to the US. There is a real fear of a killswitch function. Made in Italy wouldn't change that.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24759
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 02:00

KILLSWITCH? Talk to the hand. Some memes never die. I'LL BE BACK. Give some references please for this KILLSWITCH.

IF It is 'JUST A FEAR' then please pile on a bunch of real fears. CRASHING for one but hey you knew that. SINGLE ENGINE?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 02:11

It doesn't matter if it's real or not. Dependency on the US is regarded as very critical, in left but also right circles.
The left have threatened to conduct a popular initiative to ban the purchase of any US jet in case the gov. selects a US jet.
The threat is real.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1557
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 02:26

eagle3000 wrote:The F-35 has the additional disadvantage of the ALIS, with it's permanent connection to the US. There is a real fear of a killswitch function.


It's always been possible to ban supply of parts and weapons, ALIS changed nothing.

eagle3000 wrote:Real cost doesn't matter. The public thinks the F-35 is the most expensive option. If not in purchase costs, then in operating costs.


What the public thinks about fighter unit prices doesn't matter at all, as no one votes on the basis of fighter procurement and operating costs.

They do vote on the basis of the overall economy however, and they do like their country to have a better than average defense force capability and technology level.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

edpop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 558
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 05:55

The US State Department has preemptively cleared Switzerland to purchase the F-35A joint strike fighter and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, just days after a public vote narrowly ok’d the Swiss government to move forward with a planned procurement of new fighter aircraft. The F-35 deal external link comes with an estimated price tag of $6.58 billion, while the F/A-18 external link package with a price tag of $7.452 billion. The potential FMSs are not a sign that Switzerland has decided the Lockheed Martin F-35 or Boeing produced F/A-18 are their fighter of the future.
Vietnam veteran (Combat Engineer) 1967
Retired from Chrysler Engineering
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2763
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 15:18

eagle3000 wrote:Real cost doesn't matter. The public thinks the F-35 is the most expensive option. If not in purchase costs, then in operating costs.


So what you're trying to say is that the public is so dumb that it can never change its mind when presented with facts?

Then I wonder how in all western democracies (including Switzerland) sometimes governments changes?? I guess that this fact alone is more than evidence that the public can really change its mind when it's presented with a set of NEW facts.

And regarding the F-35, the 'NEW' fact is that in terms of 'purchase costs + operating costs' (which is what really matters, cost-wise) the F-35 seems to be the cheapest option (look at energo's post, for instance).

Not that the public opinion matters much regarding this since the stage for consulting the public seems to be behind regarding the Swiss competition.


eagle3000 wrote:The F-35 has the additional disadvantage of the ALIS, with it's permanent connection to the US. There is a real fear of a killswitch function. Made in Italy wouldn't change that.


ALIS and its functionality has been discussed in this forum to the death, I believe. However and trying to keep it short here's a memo: ALIS doesn't have any 'killswitch'!
Resuming and simplifying, ALIS is a system to help the aircraft's (F-35) maintenance. Basically and in terms of 'connectivity to the USA' what it does is to predict when many/most of the worldwide fleet of F-35s will need a certain part and then place the biggest possible single order of that part since and according to economics 1-0-1 the bigger the order the cheaper will be the cost per part, thus making the F-35 maintenance more effective and cheaper as possible.
So no, ALIS isn't needed or is mandatory in order to be able to operate a F-35 fleet but having it connected to ALIS will result in a more effective and cheaper way of operating this same F-35 fleet.


eagle3000 wrote:Dependency on the US is regarded as very critical, in left but also right circles.
The left have threatened to conduct a popular initiative to ban the purchase of any US jet in case the gov. selects a US jet.
The threat is real.


I don't know if you already noticed but the Swiss air force operates two fighter aircraft fleets and guess what? Both these fighter aircraft are American (F/A-18 and F-5)!
I believe that you cannot judge a minority sector of the Swiss population and politicians which may be anti-American as being representative of the majority of the Swiss population.

Moreover, if you believe Switzerland is that much, much more closer to the European countries (in terms of foreign relationships) compared to the US maybe you should think twice because last time I checked Switzerland is not part of the European Union and neither has the desire to be!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6446
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 20:04

eagle3000 wrote:
Real cost doesn't matter. The public thinks the F-35 is the most expensive option. If not in purchase costs, then in operating costs.



A simple look at the numbers would quickly debunk that one. sure the public is very dumb, but 6.6 billion vs 7.4 billion


The F-35 has the additional disadvantage of the ALIS, with it's permanent connection to the US. There is a real fear of a killswitch function. Made in Italy wouldn't change that.


uh the fear is "real" or the "kill switch" is "real"?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6446
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 20:08

element1loop wrote:
eagle3000 wrote:The F-35 has the additional disadvantage of the ALIS, with it's permanent connection to the US. There is a real fear of a killswitch function.

It's always been possible to ban supply of parts and weapons, ALIS changed nothing.
]

correct.

ALIS "never works", but you "need ALIS to fly", but the F-35 fleet is at 300,000 hours with a system that doesn't work, that you need to fly it?

:|
Choose Crews
Offline

noth

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 22:02

One really dumb "argument" I'm seeing bandied about on the Francophone (thus Rafale cheering) side of aviation forums is that amongst the many many supposed faults of the F-35, it can't fly in thunderstorms because its fuel tanks might catch fire. Where this comes from I have no idea, but they constantly bring this up of late. Anyone here who's more atuned to the program than I able to explain this? Seems incredibly unlikely.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6446
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 23:20

noth wrote:One really dumb "argument" I'm seeing bandied about on the Francophone (thus Rafale cheering) side of aviation forums is that amongst the many many supposed faults of the F-35, it can't fly in thunderstorms because its fuel tanks might catch fire. Where this comes from I have no idea, but they constantly bring this up of late. Anyone here who's more atuned to the program than I able to explain this? Seems incredibly unlikely.



https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ter-169505

This one is recent so thats probably what prompted it. In a month they will have moved on to whatever the next "bomb shell" is.
Choose Crews
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post03 Oct 2020, 23:54

element1loop wrote:It's always been possible to ban supply of parts and weapons, ALIS changed nothing.


Tell me about it. But for some circles, the constant connection ALIS requires is a no go. This is seen as total dependence whereas the fighter jet acquisition was sold as ensuring indepence.

element1loop wrote:What the public thinks about fighter unit prices doesn't matter at all, as no one votes on the basis of fighter procurement and operating costs.

They do vote on the basis of the overall economy however, and they do like their country to have a better than average defense force capability and technology level.


It totally matters. If the F-35 should be selected and the public thinks the sustainment cost plus the aforementioned dependence are unacceptable, the public is likely to support a popular initiative to ban the F-35.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests