Swiss Lightning?

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

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 00:04

ricnunes wrote: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).


There are no facts about operating costs covering some 30+ years, unless you have a time machine. There's just estimates.

Energos post with the Danish info is outdated as Switzerland will be offered Block III SHs with either 9000 or 10000 hours of service life.
The EF I see as total outsider anyway. Airbus' only chances is if Dassault should try to screw over the Swiss, imho.

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


Again, it totally matters. The Group for a Switzerland Without an Army have already made it clear they will start a popular initiative to block an F-35 purchase if the gov. selects the Lightning 2.
Considering the very narrow victory this time plus the issues with the F-35 in particular and the US in general, I don't think this is a risk the gov. wants to take. 30-40 of anything is better than 0 F-35. Even Eurofighters. :mrgreen:

ricnunes wrote: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.


Sure. You want to go ahead and try to sell this to the Swiss public, so a majority of the people would support an F-35 purchase? Be my guest.
From my experience, most people didn't even understand the funds for this purchase are sourced from the regular budget, so not a sincle Swiss franc more will be spent. But most people simply don't care enough or don't understand technicalities.

ricnunes wrote: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!


I think you'll find the situation has changed quite a bit since 1993 when the decision has been made to buy the Hornets.

Here's my prediction. If the Trump is president of the US sometimes next year when the Swiss gov. announces their selection, I give the F-35 a chance of winning somewhere between nil and zero. 99% Rafale.
If not, I'd say about 20% for an US jet and 80% Rafale.
Overall, 90% Rafale.
Last edited by eagle3000 on 04 Oct 2020, 00:15, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 00:05

'ealgle3000' said: "...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...." Do these 'circles' matter? The F-35 can function for the coronavirus quarantine period (14 days or more) entirely without connection. Some countries already have 'firewalls' for their perceived sensitive F-35 info that is NOT passed back to the main ALIS server in USofA. (BTW ALIS is being replaced by ODIN soon - how that replacement will work in this regard is not known AFAIK.) At moment an expeditionary form of ALIS allows a much longer operating period with very little information flow back & forth. ALIS is for the benefit of all F-35 users so I guess the SWISS being NEUTRAL don't want any part of it and hence they want no part of the F-35. Bad luck for them. It seems clear to me that this is irrelevant now anyway, despite a threat to repeal whatever decision on which aircraft is made, by a future referendum. If the SWISS gubmint/fighter manufacturer have any sense they will make the selection contract have severe repercussions if it is voided by such a referendum. Where does it leave SCHWYZ?
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 post04 Oct 2020, 00:20

XanderCrews wrote: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


These are a) ceiling amounts for any offer, no offer over 6 billion CHF / 6.5 billion USD will be accepted anyway. And b) they don't cover operating costs.

XanderCrews wrote:uh the fear is "real" or the "kill switch" is "real"?


The fear is real. It would make such an easy target in any campaign, I'm pretty sure the Swiss gov, wants to avoid that battle.
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 00:26

spazsinbad wrote:Do these 'circles' matter?


Well, you could argue they convinced 49.9% of the voters, which is already pretty meaningful I'd say. They only need to convince about 4500 voters more.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 01:08

eagle3000 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Do these 'circles' matter?

Well, you could argue they convinced 49.9% of the voters, which is already pretty meaningful I'd say. They only need to convince about 4500 voters more.

Those same 'circles of appropriate persuasion' can argue against whatever aircraft is selected - apparently - NOT JUST THE F-35. I must say I'm not familiar with the wording (in English) of the referendum. Can the government pose a referendum saying the ''fighter decision / replace decision' is final and no correspondence/referendum will be entertained about it?

BTW you are not counting the silent vote which may or may not be MEH about it all but when threatened may just vote for the F-35 or another American killswitch controlled aircraft the SuperFrickin'LaserSharkHorneto? I would guess no F-35 operator is much concerned with the William Tells being neutral and not much use in an F-35 allied coalition force. Although having an F-35 stopover in the Alps will be nice; & looking good at AXALP - when the virus fades away yodelling.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

noth

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 01:41

XanderCrews wrote:
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.


Thanks. The NI, another useless "news" source. Yes they basically operate on the "reporting on the Trump administration" model.
Offline

noth

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 02:20

spazsinbad wrote:
eagle3000 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Do these 'circles' matter?

Well, you could argue they convinced 49.9% of the voters, which is already pretty meaningful I'd say. They only need to convince about 4500 voters more.

Those same 'circles of appropriate persuasion' can argue against whatever aircraft is selected - apparently - NOT JUST THE F-35. I must say I'm not familiar with the wording (in English) of the referendum. Can the government pose a referendum saying the ''fighter decision / replace decision' is final and no correspondence/referendum will be entertained about it?

BTW you are not counting the silent vote which may or may not be MEH about it all but when threatened may just vote for the F-35 or another American killswitch controlled aircraft the SuperFrickin'LaserSharkHorneto? I would guess no F-35 operator is much concerned with the William Tells being neutral and not much use in an F-35 allied coalition force. Although having an F-35 stopover in the Alps will be nice; & looking good at AXALP - when the virus fades away yodelling.


The silent vote? We don't have that here. Switzerland's population believes the main threat is cyber, terrorist, and climate. Turnout was exceptionaly high (59.4%) because immigration control was on the ballot. If it sinks back down to the usual under 40%, only activists vote, and that's not in our favour. However, it'll take a ballot initiative, it needs not just a majority of the votes but also of the cantons (so 14 of 26), and they don't have that based on last Sunday's vote. But it's given them wings, believe me.

And yes "circles" do have some influence, there's always some dumb leftwing radio or tv journalist invoking some blog as expert advice on something, be it any subject. On the military, the population is under informed, and in the Latin parts, mostly hostile, because of negative experience during military service and/or trying to get out of it. People's civic purpose is eroding fast here, the young only seem interested in climate change, everything else barely motivates them beyond saying no. People who get their information off smartphones are wide open to manipulation against the choice of one aircraft or an other, as you point out. We'll see what happens in June 2021, if the economy has survived well enough, asi t has so far.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 03:48

Forgive me but as I see things the government of Switzerland has been given the OK to pick a fighter? Why does not the controversy end at selection? I'll presume the selection cannot be changed? So why does your FUD matter. Inexplicable.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

noth

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 04:21

spazsinbad wrote:Forgive me but as I see things the government of Switzerland has been given the OK to pick a fighter? Why does not the controversy end at selection? I'll presume the selection cannot be changed? So why does your FUD matter. Inexplicable.


The result was so close that the opponents think they have a chance at a ballot initiative. Yes they have the go ahead, but that's on fighter acquisition at a price of 6B CHF. Final choice of fighter may face fresh opposition. It shouldn't, but this Parliament leans further left than it used to. It's not FUD, it's what may happen. The politics are swirling a lot more than expected around this project. But the end result will only be known in about 11-12 months. Till then, plenty of inanities will show up to dupe the population.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 05:18

'noth' said above: "... it's what may happen..." So the sky is NOT falling and yet the SKY MAY FALL? Duck and Cover indeed.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post04 Oct 2020, 21:39

eagle3000 wrote:There are no facts about operating costs covering some 30+ years, unless you have a time machine. There's just estimates.

Energos post with the Danish info is outdated as Switzerland will be offered Block III SHs with either 9000 or 10000 hours of service life.
The EF I see as total outsider anyway. Airbus' only chances is if Dassault should try to screw over the Swiss, imho.


Yes, these are estimates and the estimates aren't only for the F-35 but it's also for all other competitors. None of the competitors (Super Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon) have 30+ years of service.

And speaking of facts, the FACT is that when a fighter aircraft reaches the end of its production line its operating/sustainment costs will increase as opposed to a fighter aircraft whose full production line is about to start where its operating/sustainment costs will definitely decrease and guess what?? The full production line for the Super Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon will eventually and soon come to an end while the full production line of the F-35 is about to begin.
The above together with the already lower procurement cost will inevitably make the F-35 'purchase + operating costs' cheaper compared to its competitors and while this is still an 'estimate', this same 'estimate' is and will inevitably become more and more a reality.


eagle3000 wrote:Again, it totally matters. The Group for a Switzerland Without an Army have already made it clear they will start a popular initiative to block an F-35 purchase if the gov. selects the Lightning 2.


And what's percentage of the total population of Switzerland that same group represents??

And by looking at that group's name 'Switzerland Without an Army', something tells me that same group will attempt to start initiatives to block any other fighter aircraft if selected and not only try to block the F-35. For instance I would say that if the Rafale gets selected (as you seem to hint/bet) then it is likely that this same group will attempt to block it as well, don't you think?
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post09 Oct 2020, 05:07

ricnunes wrote:Yes, these are estimates and the estimates aren't only for the F-35 but it's also for all other competitors. None of the competitors (Super Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon) have 30+ years of service.


Well the SH at least has 20+ years, Rafale almost 20 now and EF around 15 years of service.
But true, there are uncertainties for all. But considering the F-35 is the newest and arguably the most complex option, it has the highest risk for unpleasant surprises. Sure any future issues will be fixed because there are no alternatives, but Swiss AF is not the USAF.
Overall, I don't think the Swiss experts automatically rate the F-35 best in operating cost because LM says so, they'll be a bit more thorough ;)

ricnunes wrote:And speaking of facts, the FACT is that when a fighter aircraft reaches the end of its production line its operating/sustainment costs will increase as opposed to a fighter aircraft whose full production line is about to start where its operating/sustainment costs will definitely decrease and guess what?? The full production line for the Super Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon will eventually and soon come to an end while the full production line of the F-35 is about to begin.
The above together with the already lower procurement cost will inevitably make the F-35 'purchase + operating costs' cheaper compared to its competitors and while this is still an 'estimate', this same 'estimate' is and will inevitably become more and more a reality.


Not inevitably, only a few things in life are inevitable. :wink:
Swiss AF and others happily operate F-5s at very low cost, where the production line is long gone. No problem because it's a simple aircraft. Simplicity is not what the F-35 is known for.
And lines closing soon is possibly true in case of the SH. But Rafale and EF lines are to remain open for some time now with new orders coming in. Also France is dependant on the Rafale until well after 2040.

ricnunes wrote:And what's percentage of the total population of Switzerland that same group represents??


We will hopefully never find out. But as I wrote earlier, only around 5000 people made the difference...

ricnunes wrote:And by looking at that group's name 'Switzerland Without an Army', something tells me that same group will attempt to start initiatives to block any other fighter aircraft if selected and not only try to block the F-35. For instance I would say that if the Rafale gets selected (as you seem to hint/bet) then it is likely that this same group will attempt to block it as well, don't you think?


They announced they will start the initiative in case an American jet will be selected. This is a very controversial issue in Switzerland and anything American makes it more so, esp. in case of a "stealth bomber". Anything European is regarded as less controversial and given the close call, they could argue that the population would have said no to an American jet, but not to a European solution so no need to have another initiative in that case.

I can see the gov. trying to avoid the risk of an initiave by not selecting an US jet regardless of the technical score.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 18:21

eagle3000 wrote:Well the SH at least has 20+ years, Rafale almost 20 now and EF around 15 years of service.


Super Hornet's IOC was in 2001 which means around 19 years into service (and not 20+) but I digress...
Regarding the Rafale and EF one thing is sure since their 'day 1' in service: they are extremely expensive aircraft to purchase and operate. Look at the export orders that these aircraft had! 10+ for one country, 20+ for another, and so on... and all of them below 40.

Heck, even one of Switzerland neighbors this case Austria which operates 15 Eurofighters wants to retire them because they are too costly to operate!


eagle3000 wrote:But true, there are uncertainties for all. But considering the F-35 is the newest and arguably the most complex option, it has the highest risk for unpleasant surprises. Sure any future issues will be fixed because there are no alternatives, but Swiss AF is not the USAF.


And guess what? The F-16 when it was developed was also the most complex option at that time and fast forwarding today it's one of the most affordable fighter aircraft in existence today and why? Because very large numbers were ordered and by several countries which also placed large orders and still continue to place orders today. These are the same 'ingredients' behind the F-35.


eagle3000 wrote:Overall, I don't think the Swiss experts automatically rate the F-35 best in operating cost because LM says so, they'll be a bit more thorough ;)


Oh, here we go again :roll:

So everything that LM says is a lie why everything that others (Boeing, Dassault, Airbus) say is the absolute truth... :roll:


eagle3000 wrote:Not inevitably, only a few things in life are inevitable. :wink:


Again, it was 'inevitable' for the F-16 :wink:


eagle3000 wrote:Swiss AF and others happily operate F-5s at very low cost, where the production line is long gone. No problem because it's a simple aircraft. Simplicity is not what the F-35 is known for.


And guess what? Neither the SH, Rafale and EF are 'simple aircraft' to operate (as opposed to the F-5)!
All these three (3) aircraft (SH, Rafale and EF) are 'complex' aircraft like the F-35 is. Operating in smaller and with a lesser user base makes those 3 aircraft even 'more complex' to operate in the future.

Heck, the first time when I looked at the engine of a F-5 (actually it was an engine of a T-38) I though it was a scale model (almost a toy) of an engine :shock:
Again, neither the SH, Rafale and EF have nearly the 'simplicity' of the F-5. They are almost as complex as the F-35 but being much less capable (and more expensive).


eagle3000 wrote:And lines closing soon is possibly true in case of the SH. But Rafale and EF lines are to remain open for some time now with new orders coming in. Also France is dependant on the Rafale until well after 2040.


I'll give you two 'words':
NGF for the Rafale and Tempest for the EF.
This means that if the French (together with the Germans and Spanish) wants to develop the NGF and the British wants to develop the Typhoon (possibly together with the Swedish or Italians) they will need money something which is quite limited to these countries defense budgets so they will soon have to decide whether they wan't to continue to build their already becoming obsolete Rafales and Typhoon or to develop new and modern NGFs and Tempests? IMO, the answer is clear! (and no, they cannot afford both!)


eagle3000 wrote:They announced they will start the initiative in case an American jet will be selected. This is a very controversial issue in Switzerland and anything American makes it more so, esp. in case of a "stealth bomber". Anything European is regarded as less controversial and given the close call, they could argue that the population would have said no to an American jet, but not to a European solution so no need to have another initiative in that case.

I can see the gov. trying to avoid the risk of an initiave by not selecting an US jet regardless of the technical score.


And then again, there are short sighted people everywhere even in most developed countries such as Switzerland. If such people becomes a majority of a very big minority then the Swiss people as a whole will have much more things to worry about then the purchase of a fighter aircraft fleet...
“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 post15 Oct 2020, 22:00

eagle3000 wrote:[

Well the SH at least has 20+ years, Rafale almost 20 now and EF around 15 years of service.
But true, there are uncertainties for all. But considering the F-35 is the newest and arguably the most complex option,


2 engines are always more "complex" than 1.

The "complexity" argument always gives me a giggle, so thanks for the smile.

it has the highest risk for unpleasant surprises. Sure any future issues will be fixed because there are no alternatives, but Swiss AF is not the USAF.


not really, but its some good FUD. The F-35 is longest and most assured option going into the future. if the Swiss timeline doesn't matter as much its a fine argument but the F-35 has more backing than any other fighter. I mean we have nearly 3 times as many F-35s built as Rafale, and there are more F-35s than Typhoons. And that's with that 20 year headstart you mentioned there. It just makes me laugh what some people consider "risky" The F-35 is more risky. didn't the Swiss opt for a paper airplane with Gripen E years back? Now the airplane with more units and orders produced than any other competitor and with all 3 variants in service is the "unknown" somehow?

I don't question some of your insider political info regarding the unique Swiss and the F-35. I just question your argruments. If you want to say "well the swiss politically don't like it, the youth are all green energy tree hugging types, and europe over all others" thats peachy, but some of this is just ridiculous. As you say the Swiss can evaluate it and the Air Force will find it far superior, as every other air force has. They'll count 1 engine as less complex than 2 engines for example (which is some real advanced stuff apparently)




Overall, I don't think the Swiss experts automatically rate the F-35 best in operating cost because LM says so, they'll be a bit more thorough ;)



not just LM saying it, but thanks for playing
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests