Swiss Lightning?

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

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1387
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Jul 2021, 00:52

When it goes before the public government hearing. That will give us as much as we will get. Unless someone leaks a report. At the end of the day. the Swiss may go down the same road as NZ and not have fighter jets. It might buy cessnas and throw hand grenades out of the window. If they buy a fighter jet, there is little chance of it being anything but a F-35. With the F-35, they are moving from horse and cart to automobiles. I know the national pride of those that genuinely think their favourite 4.5gen is better. The world is cruel and shatter dreams.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26207
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Jul 2021, 01:22

As an OzFawner I suggest that when the F-35 won the Swiss comp that was it. IF a vote does not allow the F-35 to be bought that will have little impact overall on the production/development of the F-35 variants. On to next FINland comp.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 883
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post15 Jul 2021, 21:07

RAF seems to be signaling a similar desire to rely on simulators as the F-35 victory in Switerland indicated.
It comes from the RAF Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston.

Most RAF aircraft training will be via computer simulations on the ground, says air force head
Typically a Typhoon pilot will carry out about 30 per cent of flying training hours synthetically and 70 cent of flying training live, and Wigston wants this to be reversed.

A £36 million simulation system named Gladiator will be at initial operating capability by the end of this year. It replicates real-life scenarios, allowing US and UK aircrew to experience the same environment and threats. Pilots will be able to carry out exercises and practise tactics and procedures that would be impossible in a live environment as a result of airspace limitations, aircraft availability or security constraints.

Wigston said that while the initial focus for Gladiator had been training the Typhoon force, the RAF was investing £40 million to add training for the Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft, the MQ-9B Protector drone and the Guardian air defence control system, which will protect UK skies.

He said he also wanted to add the Royal Navy’s Type 45 air defence destroyers and other assets to the simulated environment, so they could all train together in the virtual world. Navy sources said: “People go online and fight with their friends in Call of Duty. This is like a big, complex version of that, where real airmen operate in a synthetic war without having to leave the ground. You can record and play it back, you can press pause. The enemy can’t watch what you are doing and what your tactics are.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aedc ... 46c33728a6

Then another professional opinion on the side - it won't work to the degree suggested:
I taught for 10 years in the RAF (fast jet) and now run a synthetic flying training school - I literally am living the problems associated with 'only' synthetic training and I'm saying that this will not work. 60/40 synthetic/live maybe but that's your limit.

https://twitter.com/timdavies_uk/status ... 7337881606

But clearly more simulator hours is the future.
Also sounds eerily similar to F-35 JSE aspiration.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7286
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post15 Jul 2021, 22:15

magitsu wrote:RAF seems to be signaling a similar desire to rely on simulators as the F-35 victory in Switerland indicated.
It comes from the RAF Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston.

Most RAF aircraft training will be via computer simulations on the ground, says air force head
Typically a Typhoon pilot will carry out about 30 per cent of flying training hours synthetically and 70 cent of flying training live, and Wigston wants this to be reversed.

A £36 million simulation system named Gladiator will be at initial operating capability by the end of this year. It replicates real-life scenarios, allowing US and UK aircrew to experience the same environment and threats. Pilots will be able to carry out exercises and practise tactics and procedures that would be impossible in a live environment as a result of airspace limitations, aircraft availability or security constraints.

Wigston said that while the initial focus for Gladiator had been training the Typhoon force, the RAF was investing £40 million to add training for the Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft, the MQ-9B Protector drone and the Guardian air defence control system, which will protect UK skies.

He said he also wanted to add the Royal Navy’s Type 45 air defence destroyers and other assets to the simulated environment, so they could all train together in the virtual world. Navy sources said: “People go online and fight with their friends in Call of Duty. This is like a big, complex version of that, where real airmen operate in a synthetic war without having to leave the ground. You can record and play it back, you can press pause. The enemy can’t watch what you are doing and what your tactics are.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aedc ... 46c33728a6

Then another professional opinion on the side - it won't work to the degree suggested:
I taught for 10 years in the RAF (fast jet) and now run a synthetic flying training school - I literally am living the problems associated with 'only' synthetic training and I'm saying that this will not work. 60/40 synthetic/live maybe but that's your limit.

https://twitter.com/timdavies_uk/status ... 7337881606

But clearly more simulator hours is the future.
Also sounds eerily similar to F-35 JSE aspiration.


I understand what he is trying to say, but that is such a bad example LOL

Image

lots of heartburn at the french forum about the simulator.

Its very much a trick of language. We want the just right amount of simulators. not too much. how do we know what too much is? when its excessive. How do we know when its excessive? when its too much. by definition we know what overboard means but quantifying the exact mix might be very difficult.

There needs to be a kind of clarification given, about the flying of the airplane, vs the scenarios played out. I think a lot of people assume we when we are talking about Simulators we are talking almost exclusively about the stick and rudder aspect, and I don't think that is the case or even the concern.

i believe a lot of this is set to focus on combat tactics, scenarios etc. Remember Red Flag is designed to get you through the critical "learning curve" of real life combat. I believe the simulators will be doing that. A pilot will fight "dozens of battles" in order to understand how to optimize and position his platform in combat to have maximum effect. This would also dovetail with the notion that the pilots are going to be more "battle managers" as opposed to a cog in the machine with a stick and rudder peddles swerving around to avoid the hun in the sun.

we want a bunch of "red flag" style simulations to be flown over and over in the simulator. we are talking like this Chief Marshal is, not simulators for landing practice, but simulators for highly complex combined arms operations with lots of moving parts

This is no longer sufficient:

Image

:mrgreen:
Choose Crews
Online
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2923
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Jul 2021, 00:47

XanderCrews wrote:Its very much a trick of language. We want the just right amount of simulators. not too much. how do we know what too much is? when its excessive. How do we know when its excessive? when its too much. by definition we know what overboard means but quantifying the exact mix might be very difficult.


Queue narrator from 1960's film reel...

"...the missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't..."
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5143
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post16 Jul 2021, 10:45

steve2267 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Its very much a trick of language. We want the just right amount of simulators. not too much. how do we know what too much is? when its excessive. How do we know when its excessive? when its too much. by definition we know what overboard means but quantifying the exact mix might be very difficult.


Queue narrator from 1960's film reel...

"...the missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't..."

Oh gawd, no....
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

boilermaker

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post17 Jul 2021, 04:35

magitsu wrote:RAF seems to be signaling a similar desire to rely on simulators as the F-35 victory in Switerland indicated.
It comes from the RAF Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston.

Most RAF aircraft training will be via computer simulations on the ground, says air force head
Typically a Typhoon pilot will carry out about 30 per cent of flying training hours synthetically and 70 cent of flying training live, and Wigston wants this to be reversed.

A £36 million simulation system named Gladiator will be at initial operating capability by the end of this year. It replicates real-life scenarios, allowing US and UK aircrew to experience the same environment and threats. Pilots will be able to carry out exercises and practise tactics and procedures that would be impossible in a live environment as a result of airspace limitations, aircraft availability or security constraints.

Wigston said that while the initial focus for Gladiator had been training the Typhoon force, the RAF was investing £40 million to add training for the Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft, the MQ-9B Protector drone and the Guardian air defence control system, which will protect UK skies.

He said he also wanted to add the Royal Navy’s Type 45 air defence destroyers and other assets to the simulated environment, so they could all train together in the virtual world. Navy sources said: “People go online and fight with their friends in Call of Duty. This is like a big, complex version of that, where real airmen operate in a synthetic war without having to leave the ground. You can record and play it back, you can press pause. The enemy can’t watch what you are doing and what your tactics are.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aedc ... 46c33728a6

Then another professional opinion on the side - it won't work to the degree suggested:
I taught for 10 years in the RAF (fast jet) and now run a synthetic flying training school - I literally am living the problems associated with 'only' synthetic training and I'm saying that this will not work. 60/40 synthetic/live maybe but that's your limit.

https://twitter.com/timdavies_uk/status ... 7337881606

But clearly more simulator hours is the future.
Also sounds eerily similar to F-35 JSE aspiration.



Such a "simulator" is nonsensical, unless it is a fully integrated battle simulation of which the f35 simulator is but one component. Right now they work with dots on a screen that does probability kills at best.

There is no substitute for real life scenarios with ID issues (red-green-blue) and where machines break down (eg E3s and connectivity issues going down)and contingency plans must be pushed forward such as the F35 pilot getting the best SA and becoming battle commander in the middle of it when the RC135 breaks down etc. 70% simulation is reckless. For the swiss who do not go to red flag , maybe, but not in for a serious NATO member unless a full blown battle simulation connectivity occurs (and even then).

This reinforced my sensing the Swiss wanted a dealership vehicle, not a battle or game observed athlete with actual statistics, resilience tests and real experience data involving team members and a fluid situation.

Other than that we are playing with Legos.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26207
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jul 2021, 04:50

'boilermaker' said above:
"...This reinforced my sensing the Swiss wanted a dealership vehicle, not a battle or game observed athlete with actual statistics and real experience data".

Am I guessing you mean the F-35 does not have "battle or game observed actual statistics and real experience data"? Does this mean (if I am correct in surmising) that the Swiss have been fooled by the F-35 proposal? Whilst the other competitors have the required 'data' you cite above & while these did not win they did not fool the Swiss evaluators?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 883
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post17 Jul 2021, 11:51

That 70% thing was also about Typhoons, not F-35.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7286
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post17 Jul 2021, 15:11

boilermaker wrote:
Such a "simulator" is nonsensical, unless it is a fully integrated battle simulation of which the f35 simulator is but one component. Right now they work with dots on a screen that does probability kills at best.

There is no substitute for real life scenarios with ID issues (red-green-blue) and where machines break down (eg E3s and connectivity issues going down)and contingency plans must be pushed forward such as the F35 pilot getting the best SA and becoming battle commander in the middle of it when the RC135 breaks down etc. 70% simulation is reckless. For the swiss who do not go to red flag , maybe, but not in for a serious NATO member unless a full blown battle simulation connectivity occurs (and even then).

This reinforced my sensing the Swiss wanted a dealership vehicle, not a battle or game observed athlete with actual statistics, resilience tests and real experience data involving team members and a fluid situation.

Other than that we are playing with Legos.


well at least you admitted your confirmation bias against F-35, even if it was via the Typhoon.

someone going to tell the UK they are not a serious NATO member? I don't want to make that phone call

Boilermaker is upset the Swiss didn't pick a more expensive option, that wasn't an option, that has no gun as he complains about the F-35B (also not an option for the Swiss) "not having a gun" and that was before completely misreading the latest post and outing himself completely.

So why is he in this thread again?
Choose Crews
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1387
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post18 Jul 2021, 09:07

I just hope he feels better. After getting that out of his system. "a dealership vehicle, not a battle or game observed athlete with actual statistics"

He needed an image, to shoot his point home.
Image
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3373
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Jul 2021, 12:28

boilermaker wrote:This reinforced my sensing the Swiss wanted a dealership vehicle, not a battle or game observed athlete with actual statistics, resilience tests and real experience data involving team members and a fluid situation.

Other than that we are playing with Legos.


Yeah right, so far and everytime the F-35 entered in a competition it WON!
Guess that everyone, namely the departments of defence os those countries where the competitions were taken (including Switzerland, South Korea, Denmark, etc...) are all dumb and stupid and you are the only "smart" guy around here... :roll:

Have you even considered that all those departments of defence have the actual numbers (which more of less concurs with what most say here, BTW) and are you even aware that the F-35 have already seen actual combat??
“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: 7286
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post18 Jul 2021, 15:28

optimist wrote:I just hope he feels better. After getting that out of his system. "a dealership vehicle, not a battle or game observed athlete with actual statistics"

He needed an image, to shoot his point home.
Image


I just can't believe we are referring to a Growler as an "athlete" at all, especially having seen its actual statistics


Image
Choose Crews
Offline

glennwhitten

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 12 May 2017, 18:42

Unread post19 Jul 2021, 00:26

Seems to me the Swiss would have been crazy not to choose the F-35, just the F-35's ability to pass targeting quality data to Patriot is HUGE!!
Offline
User avatar

doge

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 799
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post23 Jul 2021, 14:45

The Swiss GOV refutes the critics. 8)
https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokum ... 84409.html (Language is German. Use DeepL Translator.)
Air2030: Binding nature of the offer for the F-35A as a new fighter aircraft
Bern, 11.07.2021 - The reports in today's editions of Sonntagsblick and Sonntagszeitung on the binding nature of the offer for the F-35A as a new combat aircraft contain one-sided representations. The Federal Office of Armaments armasuisse has published a clarification on this matter.

In their editions of July 11, 2021, Sonntagsblick and Sonntagszeitung reported on the binding nature of the offer for the F-35A as a new combat aircraft. In addition, the operating costs of the aircraft in the U.S. were discussed in these newspapers as well as in the Tamedia newspapers on July 9, 2021.

The Federal Office of Armament armasuisse states in this regard:
    The offers and the figures offered therein are binding. This applies to both the procurement costs and the operating costs offered, for which we have an offer with a term of ten years of operation.

    Furthermore, prices cannot be compared between different countries because it is not clear which costs are included or not included in each case.

    The DDPS procures the aircraft from the U.S. government via Foreign Military Sales (FMS) at the same conditions that it applies to itself. The US government, in turn, handles the procurement through its own contracts with the companies. These contracts stipulate binding prices and contract terms and are also enforced by means of strict supervision. If cost overruns were to occur, the American government would therefore demand binding prices from the manufacturer in favor of Switzerland. Probably also due to this strong buyer position, armasuisse's more than 40 years of experience in handling FMS transactions has shown that there have been no cost overruns in any of the many contracts. This is, therefore, because the U.S. government, as simultaneous buyer and seller, pursues rigid control over costs. In addition, inflation in the U.S. is also included in the bid. During the evaluation, the bidder had to disclose which inflation assumptions were included. If, for example, the costs are lower due to a lower effective inflation rate, this works in Switzerland's favor.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wrightwing and 32 guests