I Need To Vote On May 18 For Gripen E

Alfons · Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:13 am

Dear all,

I'm asking for some help.

I'll need to vote on May 18th for a Gripen E (not built yet) for Switzerland, or no new fighter at all. I've read and heard alot about this new airplane, and as an airplane enthusiast and believer that any country needs to be able to defend itself, and even if it's only for the morale of the population/commercial reasons and political reasons, I start to have doubts (as usual before you have to decide for something) about the object of desire.

We already own F/A-18's today, I guess first iterations of this kind. And today I'm ready to vote 'no' for the Gripen E, in hope a new process would be created to search for a better alternative, like the Superhornet.

My question to you guys is, is the Gripen E really that much better than actual F-18's? Not talking here about maneuvrability, but things like radar coverage, data streaming of important information to ground installations and other fighters (communication mobility), awareness of airspace, and speed to scramble an incoming jet with enough fuel to accompany it to any airbase/airport in Switzerland.

What do you think? Would a newest F-18 revision with actual technology, not be on-par with a Gripen E? Or has a Gripen -E some clear advantage regarding lifecycle?

Thank you.

Regards,
Alfons

bunumuring · Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:48 am

Alfons,
I thought that the Hornets were to continue in Swiss service alongside the Gripens, and not to be replaced by them?
Maybe I am wrong.
In any case, I would vote 'Yes'.
Regards,
Bunumuring.

Alfons · Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:56 am

Hello Bunumuring,

you thought right, they would be as an addition to our F-18's, not replacement. Which even further tells me that additional fighters of same kind but newest iteration, would make more sense. If the plane is at least same good like the Gripen E.

Thunderboltdrgn · Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:42 pm

Alfons, to my knowledge you will vote on whether or not the government/parliament will
be allowed to add extra funds for the purchase. The decision to purchase has already
been taken and even if there is a no in the referendum, the jets will be bought anyway,
with an alternate method of funding and over a longer time frame.

So you do not vote on whether or not Switzerland should by new jets or if
Switzerland should be another jet but only about the funding.

LIke Bunumuring says, the Gripen will replace the F-5 and not the F18 and I think
it is more likely that Switzerland will retire the F18s eventually and replace them
with more Gripens then buying more F-18 instead of the Gripen.

The Gripen E cost will also be about 30% lower then for the Gripen C/D versions
and the twin engined F18 is much more expensive to operate and is also an older design.

[Edited 2014-04-25 05:46:31]

bunumuring · Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:16 pm

Hi guys,
Another aspect: I would like to think that the Swiss authorities held a fair and thorough assessment of all options before deciding on the Gripen E. My understanding is that they did. If they say the Gripen E is the best for Switzerland, so be it in my opinion.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Alfons · Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:27 pm

Bunumuring, for sure. But the definition of "is the best for Switzerland" requests from the public to understand all aspects of such purchases, the economical, and the political. But usually, we don't have insight into those regions. And I'm not going so far now about the other influences of "what is best for Switzerland", which are powerful influences from some people and families (in any country). So the only thing we can vote, is about what we know or think to know. And that goes back to the motivation of my initial question; in what is the Gripen E really the better plane than the F-18, when it comes to the job requirement.

thunderboltdrgn mentions price and age of architecture. That's for sure 2 very good points. But that's it? There's no big difference anymore between 3.3Mia for a Gripen, or 3.8 (guessed) for the same amount of F-35 or Rafales... .

thomil13FRA · Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:21 pm

Have you considered the size of the aircraft as well? The F-5 Tiger isn't really a large plane, and the Gripen is the only aircraft that is comparable in size, with a wingspan of 8.4 meters compared to 8.13 meters on the F-5. The F/A 18 E/F come in at a wingspan of 13.62 meters, while the F-35 comes in at 10.7 meters. The Swiss Air Force still uses a few bases with tunnel hangars for their fighter aircraft, and the Gripen should be able to use the facilities designed for the F-5 with minimal or no modifications to those facilities. No need to drill a new tunnel for 120 million CHF, as was the case when Meiringen was prepared for the F/A-18.
Furthermore, while I am a huge fan of the F-35 and can't wait to see production ramped up and the aircraft rolling out to frontline squadrons, that design is a very high risk one. The Gripen-E, while a substantial, indeed radical improvement on the original design, carries much less risk. Then there is the political aspect. With the US political landscape being the way it is, you can expect US policy to get a lot more erratic once the mid-term elections are through. Sweden is more stable on that front, and from my limited perspective, the likelihood of relations between Bern and Stockholm turning sour are much lower than of a downturn in US-Swiss relations.

ThePointblank · Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:22 pm

Quoting thomil13FRA (Reply 6):
The Gripen-E, while a substantial, indeed radical improvement on the original design, carries much less risk. Then there is the political aspect. With the US political landscape being the way it is, you can expect US policy to get a lot more erratic once the mid-term elections are through. Sweden is more stable on that front, and from my limited perspective, the likelihood of relations between Bern and Stockholm turning sour are much lower than of a downturn in US-Swiss relations.

The Gripen uses a lot of American-sourced hardware, from engines to avionics. And for an aircraft, that's at best on par with the original Hornet in terms of capability. The Swiss never has had an issue with relations with the US.

If the Swiss wanted to minimize this risk even further, the Rafale was an option.

Quoting thomil13FRA (Reply 6):
The F/A 18 E/F come in at a wingspan of 13.62 meters, while the F-35 comes in at 10.7 meters.

The Super Hornet can fold its wings though. Wings folded, the Super Hornet has a wingspan of 9.32m.

prebennorholm · Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:27 am

Quoting alfons (Reply 2):
they would be as an addition to our F-18's, not replacement. Which even further tells me that additional fighters of same kind but newest iteration, would make more sense.

I think you can totally rule out the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It is a lot more aircraft than the Hornets you have. It is not just a refined F/A-18A/B/C/D, but a considerably larger plane, and it is the "bomber plane" for the US Navy.

Quote from Wiki: The Navy retained the F/A-18 designation to help sell the program to Congress as a low-risk "derivative", though the Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft.

But seen from distance they look pretty much the same, just like Boeing 737 and 767 do.

Switzerland doesn't need a navy bomber. More F/A-18C/D would be more relevant, but is out of production to be replaced in US Navy by F-35 over a long time frame.

The Super Hornet will also need replacement one day, but certainly not by the F-35.

flyingturtle · Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:56 am

Given the state of our federal finances and that we should ensure 24/7 readiness first (for a much smaller amount of money!), I will vote no.

I also helped collect signatures to make this referendum happen.

In all the interviews and news reports I've read, the army staff could not give a clear and stringent answer about *why* we need those Gripen. 32 F/A-18Cs and Ds are still enough air power for such a small country.

David

SAS A340 · Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:46 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 9):
32 F/A-18Cs and Ds are still enough air power for such a small country.

The Swiss have yet anyway soon start thinking on what fighter that should replace the current F-18 when their lifetime expires in about 2025, and the process of making it, and that truly has the fighter in operation on Swiss soil can easaly take 5-10 years.
As i have understand it,it,s about having Gripen or no fighter at all? What does that meen? no Airforce after 2025?

flyingturtle · Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:14 pm

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 10):
As i have understand it,it,s about having Gripen or no fighter at all? What does that meen? no Airforce after 2025?

There are conflicting numbers about the F/A-18C/D life span. Some earlier reports said that they will soldier on until 2030 or even 2035, but newer answers from our Secretary say that they'll be good until 2025.

http://bazonline.ch/schweiz/standard...neue-Berechnungnobr/story/17736253

The vote is solely about appropriating the funds to purchase the Gripen. It does not say anything about the other parts of the Swiss Armed Forces. But you need to know that the army is a holy cow since World War II, and any attempt by the social democrats to slaughter or dismember it has been met with fierce resistance. If you argue against the wishes of our army you're liable to be called un-patriotic.

David

[Edited 2014-04-26 13:20:18]

ThePointblank · Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:59 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 11):
There are conflicting numbers about the F/A-18C/D life span. Some earlier reports said that they will soldier on until 2030 or even 2035, but newer answers from our Secretary say that they'll be good until 2025.

It depends on a lot of factors, including airframe time, and when was the last structural check and repairs were done. The centre fuselage barrel is the key structure in the Hornet, and thus has the lowest life. If the Swiss Hornets want to fly beyond 8,000 hours, this section must be replaced prior to. Therefore, it is pertinent to know when was the last SLEP for the Swiss Hornets.

sandrozrh · Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:15 am

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 3):

That's the point. If we say no, they will have to fund the Gripen through the current defense budget, if they want to buy it. This will mean saving money in other areas of the military. Being in the military myself i can see what a money-burner it is and there is a lot of potential for savings. Like, we still maintain a huge fleet of combat tanks! i mean, really?!

Taking into consideration the whole evaluation process that was a disaster and the impression that rhis just turns out to be a new toy for a few high-ranking officials I have just voted no.

flyingturtle · Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:55 am

Quoting sandrozrh (Reply 13):
Like, we still maintain a huge fleet of combat tanks! i mean, really?!

We bought 380 of these Leopard II between 1987 and 1993!

We still operate 134 of them. 12 were sold to Canada, and the rest, to my knowledge, is mothballed. We could single-handedly conquer half of Europe.

David

art · Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:59 pm

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 3):
The Gripen E cost will also be about 30% lower then for the Gripen C/D versions

That is much better than I expect. Do you have a source?

Re voting no because it seems unnecessary to buy more aircraft, how long will the F-5 aircraft last? If they run out of hours, will they not need to be replaced? Again, if the F-5 aircraft are not replaced that means more F-18 hours each year, shortening their lives (or requiring very costly rebuild much sooner). It seems to me that not buying Gripen will either decrease capability or increase operational costs (F-5 cannot handle a lot of missions, so F-18 would need to be used) and will result in Switzerland having to choose to scrap its air force in 10 or so years unless it buys 50+ Gripen equivalent or better aircraft at that point.

So the way I see it is that if Gripen funding is voted down the Swiss air force will be less useful and the usefulness it retains will cost more unless the intention is to shut down in the next decade. Of course, that is the cheapest option but I do not think that has been proposed. Perhaps I am wrong there.

Any thoughts?

[Edited 2014-04-27 06:17:55]

kc135topboom · Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:52 pm

Quoting alfons (Thread starter):
I'll need to vote on May 18th for a Gripen E (not built yet) for Switzerland, or no new fighter at all.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 9):
I will vote no.

Well it is your country, and your call, but you need to think about this very carefully and without emotion.

Today's world is a very dangerous place, much like it was during most of the last century. Things can happen quickly. Just 6 months ago Ukraine and Russia were buddies, now they are on the brink of war. China and Japan cannot get along, and who knows what that little nut case in the DPRK will do tomorrow? Do you really trust Iran? Are you perfectly safe from a 9/11 style attack from terrorists?

Quoting art (Reply 15):
voting no because it seems unnecessary to buy more aircraft, how long will the F-5 aircraft last? If they run out of hours, will they not need to be replaced? Again, if the F-5 aircraft are not replaced that means more F-18 hours each year, shortening their lives (or requiring very costly rebuild much sooner).

I agree. I find it hard to believe there are still questions about replacing 22 worn out F-5s with 22 new Gripens. After all, almost all Swiss citizens are subject to mandatory conscription. The Swiss are comfortable with that as it was just a few months ago more than 3/4 of Switzerland voted to keep mandatory conscription.

ThePointblank · Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:58 pm

Quoting art (Reply 15):
That is much better than I expect. Do you have a source?

I hardly believe it as well. I want to see numbers, and if it is anywhere near $5000 CPFH, it's bogus. To fill a Gripen's gas tank will cost more in one go, let alone labour and costs for spares.

9VSIO · Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:04 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Are you perfectly safe from a 9/11 style attack from terrorists?

I believe we saw the answer with the Ethiopian hijacking.

flyingturtle · Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:36 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
After all, almost all Swiss citizens are subject to mandatory conscription.

Women are not, so you're missing half of the citizen.

And in cities, up to 30% of the recruits are sorted out due to medical and "medical" reasons. Switzerland having 22% foreigners is another topic for the justice of our much-loved mandatory conscription. Companies sometimes prefer foreigners to Swiss as long as the Swiss applicant still has to serve time.

Both the government and the employers of men and women alike already pay

Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 18):
I believe we saw the answer with the Ethiopian hijacking.

AFAIK appropriating 30 million/year for establishing 24/7 combat alert readiness was discussed back in 2010, but was shelved. I don't know why...

David

[Edited 2014-04-28 03:39:49]

flyingturtle · Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:16 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):

Strange, a lot of text has disappeared...

prebennorholm · Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:29 am

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 10):
The Swiss have yet anyway soon start thinking on what fighter that should replace the current F-18 when their lifetime expires in about 2025.

Remember how long time the Swiss kept their Vampires flying. In Swiss hands those F-18s can last a hundred years.

rheinwaldner · Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:16 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 8):
I think you can totally rule out the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

It was even Boeing who did withdraw the offer for the Super Hornet.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 9):
In all the interviews and news reports I've read, the army staff could not give a clear and stringent answer about *why* we need those Gripen.

The main factor I see is the endurance of operations. You are right for singular air policy operations. But what if the tension goes on for more than a week or so?

If e.g. patrolling along the borders for 2 months is required, there must be more aircraft available than our F/A-18C fleet has. This could be a similar scenario like the Ukraine is facing now (I would expect that they run patrol flights along their borders currently, if they have the capabilities)....

flyingturtle · Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:02 pm

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 21):
Remember how long time the Swiss kept their Vampires flying. In Swiss hands those F-18s can last a hundred years.

...I remember the USN or USAF that bought back some F-5E for dissimilar training also said that they were, compared to their age, in a top condition.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 22):

Yes, if the tension goes up, the air force will be very stretched. But in such a scenario we will need cooperation with NATO anyway. It's ludicrous to think we could have something like a World War II scenario where we quite successfully engaged German Messerschmitts. (Yes, before we were ordered by the Reichsluftfahrtsminister not to shoot down German planes, but Allied ones instead.

)

I wonder how fast our runways would be taken out by a determined and well-equipped enemy. After all, we do not have many weapons Germany, France, the U.S. or the Russian have. For example, our air force only has air-air capability. The air-ground-capability is long gone.

So we're broken anyway as soon as such Ukraine-like tensions would arise.

David

tommy1808 · Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:51 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Are you perfectly safe from a 9/11 style attack from terrorists?

a) a country that, worst case, takes 20 minutes to fly over for an airlines can never be protected against that by fighters.
b) shooting down an airliner with civilians on board? Does Switzerland even have a law permitting that? Does the constitution in Switzerland permit that at all. In Germany it sure doesn´t, government tried, supreme court struck it down.

best regards
Thomas

flyingturtle · Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:40 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 24):
a) a country that, worst case, takes 20 minutes to fly over for an airlines can never be protected against that by fighters.

Even better... just descend from cruise altitude to any city. You don't need any obvious course deviations. A 9/11 style attacker just needs to catch a flight over Switzerland, and these are plenty.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 24):
b) shooting down an airliner with civilians on board? Does Switzerland even have a law permitting that? Does the constitution in Switzerland permit that at all. In Germany it sure doesn´t, government tried, supreme court struck it down.

There is no specific law allowing or permitting that. There are provisions that any aircraft can be forced to land or even shot down if it doesn't follow orders from ATC or the military (airspace sovereignity). And the constitution as well as the criminal law allow acts if it averts a bigger evil. And last but not least, the Swiss government enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution if the specific act involves official duties. That immunity can only be voided by a decision by the... government.

http://www.parlament.ch/d/suche/seit.../geschaefte.aspx?gesch_id=20083375 gives details on that matter.

David

[Edited 2014-04-29 08:43:22]

rheinwaldner · Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:40 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 23):
It's ludicrous to think we could have something like a World War II scenario where we quite successfully engaged German Messerschmitts.

Thats not the scenario I talked about. In Ukraine there is just tension. For months now. Assumed the Ukrainian AF has the equipment in sufficient numbers (and to a certain degree the assertive power) I would certainly expect that they permanently deploy armed fighters along their border. In a situation like this it will make a huge difference, whether the Ukraine "seems" to be able and willing to fight for their territory. Imagine if the Ukrainian AF today would need regular out-of-business periods to maintain their aircraft (again I actually have no idea, whether that is the case or not, it is just about the example)...

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 23):
I wonder how fast our runways would be taken out by a determined and well-equipped enemy.

There are a lot of former airfields in the alps. I used to make a Flightsim flight departing from Emmen. And within less than 30 minutes I approached 18 (!) different active or former Air Force bases for a touch and go.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 23):
The air-ground-capability is long gone.

It is there in the A-designation of the F/A-18 and also the Gripen would be used to train that capability again (IIRC).

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 24):
a) a country that, worst case, takes 20 minutes to fly over for an airlines can never be protected against that by fighters.

Maybe the first would hit, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th would be catched.

[Edited 2014-04-30 00:42:06]

Kiwirob · Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:36 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 26):
Maybe the first would hit, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th would be catched.

That would all depend on the time lines of the hyjackings, if they all happened within minutes of each other, you'd have no chance of getting them.

[Edited 2014-04-30 03:37:39]

rheinwaldner · Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:30 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):
That would all depend on the time lines of the hyjackings

It would be hard for hijackers to achieve that four hijacked civil flights appear in the same minute over their target...

In fact they would have to leave their normal, planned cruise path at exactly the same time, which is not possible to plan exactly. After the deviation from the cleared flight path, they would be unmasked anyway. Then the descend alone takes many minutes. And any deviation from a cleared flight path would draw highest attention after the first hit...

flyingturtle · Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:17 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
In fact they would have to leave their normal, planned cruise path at exactly the same time, which is not possible to plan exactly.

MH370 raises the possibility of a early hijack, and then the plane is flown on and on... until whatever the target is. A plane can be taken over hours before somebody gets suspicious. You could even demand a deviation for maintenance reasons.

But still, after the first attack each and every A/C in a specified area will be commanded to land ASAP. The air force will deal with the rest that does not comply.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 26):
There are a lot of former airfields in the alps. I used to make a Flightsim flight departing from Emmen. And within less than 30 minutes I approached 18 (!) different active or former Air Force bases for a touch and go.

How many of them can be reactivated in a timely fashion?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 26):
It is there in the A-designation of the F/A-18 and also the Gripen would be used to train that capability again (IIRC).

I don't think it makes sense first flying the PC-9 for initial training, then going on to the Gripen and then transitioning again to the F/A-18. Better buy some air-ground-weapons for the F/A-18. And use them at the annual public Fliegerschiessen on the Axalp.

David

tommy1808 · Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:01 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 26):

Maybe the first would hit, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th would be catched.

How many QRA flight would you like to have ready 24/7? The would scramble ofter one, scramble after number two and there won´t be fighters to go after no. 3 and 4.
And, like KiwiRob, already pointed out, that would only be a matter of coordination.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 29):
But still, after the first attack each and every A/C in a specified area will be commanded to land ASAP. The air force will deal with the rest that does not comply.

I highly doubt that the swiss government would order the shut down of an airliner full with innocent passengers.

best regards
Thomas

neutronstar73 · Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:29 pm

I'd vote for the Gripen E. It looks to be a fantastic aircraft, and given how well the Swiss maintain their gear, you'd operate it for as long as the F-5 has been in service, so your costs over time will be relatively minor in comparison to the upfront "sticker shock" you currently see.

bjorn14 · Thu May 01, 2014 12:36 pm

I vote yes for the Gripen E essentially same performance as the F18 at lower costs.

Alfons · Thu May 01, 2014 8:21 pm

Unfortunately I will vote "no" for the Gripen. I don't like this attitude to simply try to take the cheapest one, so at least we have something new. If I should spend out 3.x milliards, I'd like the best employee which fits the job requirements. And the job requirement doesn't ask for best air-to-ground capabilities, nor longest range radar or weapon diversity. It's asking simply for fastest arrival at the target when scrambling and to be able to do that when it's night, raining, storming and snowing. I also know that with such kind of a fighter, it will make me sleep better at night.

That for, I think the Eurofighter would fit the best. Little, strong and maneuvrable. Can supercruise (better fuel consumption), 5 tons of internal fuel tanks (Gripen NG 4.7 tons (40% more than E)), and in case the Germans mind gets again berserk we know and they know that we know what planes they have and weaknesses.

Bottom line, it's a joke for so much money that it is already, to save a few hundred millions and not getting the perfect match.

Kindergarden.

rheinwaldner · Fri May 02, 2014 7:51 am

Quoting alfons (Reply 33):
I don't like this attitude to simply try to take the cheapest one

You are probably the only Swiss who thinks the Gripen solution is too cheap...

IMO the only thing that counts is the capability per spent CHF. I also think that other types would be somewhat better in absolute terms. But at much higher cost. In essence this means, you get more Gripens for the same price than e.g. Eurofighters.

Quoting alfons (Reply 33):
Little, strong and maneuvrable

You might review your assessment here:
http://www.aviatia.net/versus/gripen-vs-eurofighter/

Especially about the aircraft size and bang for buck...

I think the evaluation of the aircraft is not the issue and I do respect the evaluation result.

Alfons · Fri May 02, 2014 9:04 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 34):
You might review your assessment here:
http://www.aviatia.net/versus/gripen-vs-eurofighter/

Especially about the aircraft size and bang for buck...

Yeah, and as for every review from outside, you build it the way you want the reader's impression to go. Your link simply tells me: "hey, the Gripen is good enough, more little and cheaper".

I took my time yesterday and read the whole original (confidential) report of the Swiss Army after they did the tests on the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon. It's out on the net. The nice thing about such a report is that it's done from people who have the only intent to report job technical facts, with no view on political things and money. The right way actually. While I admit the Typhoon seems to be a money hole on the long term and Rafale the dream child of the Army, what comes out in this report is that the Gripen is almost in every job scope inferior to the old F/A-18. And with the planned 93 updates of Saab for the NG, some performance factors will arrive to F/A-18 level and a few percent higher. But that's an estimation, as the updates only exist on paper.

This is why I don't understand why spending 3.x milliards on a plane, which doesn't achieve the requested levels of performance in every point that the Swiss Army set. Just to have something new, from another "neutral" state who doesn't bother us about their expat tax behaviour?

If I want to keep my pilots motivated who should very well protect my family and me, we have to keep them motivated, so don't offer them a Volkswagen to chase bad guys in their Porsche on a highway, just to show the bystanders that we have a new car. The motivation will decline very fast, and all of that won't make sense anymore.

aviationmaster · Fri May 02, 2014 9:28 am

I voted "yes", despite the fact that I think the vote will most likely result in a "no".

In all honesty, the TTE evaluation program is a typical "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the SAF and in terms of price-performance ratio, the Gripen E seems to be the right aircraft for the SAF. Unfortunately in today's political environment in Switzerland, any major purchase on behalf of the Swiss military will result in scandals. That's just the way it is.

Yes, being in the military myself, I have witnessed the amount of money that is thrown away at certain times, but IMO the air force is still one of the few meaningful branches of the military.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
AFAIK appropriating 30 million/year for establishing 24/7 combat alert readiness was discussed back in 2010, but was shelved. I don't know why...

Politics. That's why.

rheinwaldner · Fri May 02, 2014 10:09 am

Quoting alfons (Reply 35):
what comes out in this report is that the Gripen is almost in every job scope inferior to the old F/A-18.

I dont believe that for Gripen NG. This does look a bit different than the F/A 18s do:

And b.t.w. the Tiger was also inferior to the Mirage in many aspects...

I certainly don't believe that a Gripen pilot has any reason to be less motivated than a F/A 18 pilot. There is no aircraft comparable to a Porsche that would make the Gripen look like a VW...

SAS A340 · Sun May 18, 2014 1:44 pm

Looks like the Swiss people says NO to Gripen.....

flyingturtle · Sun May 18, 2014 2:01 pm

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 38):
Looks like the Swiss people says NO to Gripen.....

Yes, 52% are expected to vote against the grammatically incorrect Swedish fighters. As somebody learning Norwegian, I have a gripe

with "der Gripen", which would be tantamount to "en gripen" in swedish.

It is the first time the citizen vote against the wishes of the army!

David

agill · Sun May 18, 2014 4:24 pm

Will be interesting to see what happens now. If Gripen is too expensive i guess the swiss can buy some hawks or just go with the fact that switzerland doesn't really need an air force.

flyingturtle · Sun May 18, 2014 7:42 pm

Quoting Agill (Reply 40):

Much is said about SecDef Ueli Maurer's campaign. He once said, translated by me: "How many 30 years old articles of daily use do you have in your households? In my home it's only the housewife."

And the compensation businesses - for the Swiss to buy the Swedish jets, the Swedish must buy goods from Switzerland. It was revealed that many of these "compensations" were already running... and then the relevations about how the Swedish ambassador tried to influence the vote.

All this antagonized otherwise staunch army supporters. And the leftists knew that they can only lose by campaigning openly - they needed the votes of conservative people who care about the federal budget.

In the recent years, the parliament itself shelved the procurement of some C-27 Spartans. Beside the Eurocopter Super Puma/Cougar, the Swiss army hasn't had airlift capability since they retired the Junkers 52. The Spartans would really have filled a gap. But no, suddenly we have more than 3 billion CHF to blow for 22 new fighters...

David

[Edited 2014-05-18 12:49:57]

Alfons · Sun May 18, 2014 9:22 pm

I must go back to my first post. I really think that many (not telling most) people didn't agree to spend money on the "cheapest" just to have something. Because this cheap isn't 30 Million instead of 4.2 billion, but it's a massive 3.1 billion Swiss Francs. It's giving a bad gut feeling, and we human often decide by gut feeling. I don't think they have a solution, but this one was just not feeling ok.

Again, and I mentioned that once before. 3 billion (us metrics) is already a lot of money. And If you have it, so why not spend 30% more and get the best aircraft out there which at least fullfills all of the job requirements the Army did define.

If the whole call for bids is postponed to 2018 now, it could even give us a better price than today for Rafales (or Typhoons, or F-35, or T-50 or Kfir-C2

).

Regards.

[Edited 2014-05-18 14:34:24]

seahawk · Mon May 19, 2014 5:39 am

Maybe for Rafales, as your choice will be Gripen vs. Rafale. All others are either no longer in production (Typhoon) or not really matching the Swiss needs. (a stealthy attack aircraft like the F-35 for air policing duties??) Now depending on which T-50 you mean - the Korean or the Russian - the Korean would make lots of sense (but be less capable than Gripen), the Russian would be a little big for Switzerland.

The best option is to make do the with the Hornet fleet until it runs out of service life and then re-consider the need for an Air Force.

flyingturtle · Mon May 19, 2014 1:56 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 43):
The best option is to make do the with the Hornet fleet until it runs out of service life and then re-consider the need for an Air Force.

And if we decide to keep a an army whose main task is defending the own country... why not invest in some CAP (close air support) aircraft? We already have a fleet of PC-7, -9 and -21 that can be used in this role.

Given our topography, a F-35B could make sense though. Nothing annoys the enemy more than with dealing half a dozen covert airbases in narrow valleys...

David

mila · Mon May 19, 2014 3:33 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 43):
The best option is to make do the with the Hornet fleet until it runs out of service life and then re-consider the need for an Air Force

The problem if doing that is that your good pilots may quit whenever they get a opportunity leaving the AF with less good ones, we have had or has this problem in Sweden when it comes to nuclear power.

Funny is that was also caused by a stupid public vote where people did not understand fully the question which is understandable and where given 3 options, "NO, YES and keep it until it ends it service life" and that was 30 years ago and we still run them

Everyone needs know if there is a future in their profession, thats basic.

moo · Mon May 19, 2014 5:20 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 43):
All others are either no longer in production (Typhoon)

Since when has the Typhoon been out of production?

SAS A340 · Mon May 19, 2014 5:27 pm

Saab and its partners in Switzerland, subcontractors and the Wallenberg sphere, have already signed 500 contracts with 125 companies . Those agreements remains unchanged despite that Switzerland now has made a U-turn.....
"Not the most preferable but a contract is a contract" according to SAAB.

mffoda · Mon May 19, 2014 7:09 pm

Looks like a "NO" on the Gripen...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...s-swiss-vote-idUSBREA4H03E20140518

flyingturtle · Mon May 19, 2014 7:59 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 48):

You're a bit late. The "no" was a fact about 28 hours ago.

David

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net