F-35 is massive overkill and massively overweight/draggy for the Swiss mission. For that matter so is the Rhino. F-18C+ (19k F404-INS-6 engines) or Gripen C with INS-6 engines are more than adequate. Switzerland is surrendering to LM and Boeing's production line efficiencies.

Not a pound for air to ground.

art wrote:

I have just read (old news) that the F-35 deal is subject to review by a Swiss parliament committee, starting February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/swiss-d ... SL8N2S80ZN

The committee will start work in February and report back to the public at an unspecified later date.

“The aim of these investigations will in particular be to assess the methodology used when evaluating the aircraft available for selection,” it said.

They would also “investigate the allegation of the destruction of files by (military procurement agency) Armasuisse,... clarify the consideration of any political leeway in relation to the country of manufacture and... check compliance with other legal procurement principles,” it said.

I wonder about them looking into the possible destruction of files by Armasuisse. That does not sound so good.

Been a lot of disinformation flowing around. Swiss had their whole tender evaluation reviewed by an external independent bank so expect very likely nothing will change.

744SPX wrote:

F-35 is massive overkill and massively overweight/draggy for the Swiss mission. For that matter so is the Rhino. F-18C+ (19k F404-INS-6 engines) or Gripen C with INS-6 engines are more than adequate. Switzerland is surrendering to LM and Boeing's production line efficiencies.

Not a pound for air to ground.

Swiss have been flying US jets for 40 years...Swiss flying US jets into the future is nothing new. Gripen wasn't even in the selection, it was excluded because it was too immature, and they don't want used jets. F-35 was cheaper and more capable than all the other options, what do you want them to do select something more expensive and less capable? Also Swiss have an A2G requirement now so no longer not a pound for air to ground...

There is a bit of uproar now...

Because one of the mission capability criterions involved taking off in Switzerland, and attacking an airfield in the Czech Republic, as well as a military convoy there. Because, Switzerland, is, uh, a neutral country.

But this doesn't surprise me. The tactical doctrine of our ooooold Dassault Mirage jets has always involved engaging Soviet troops and fighters in the neighbouring countries.

744SPX wrote:

F-35 is massive overkill and massively overweight/draggy for the Swiss mission. For that matter so is the Rhino. F-18C+ (19k F404-INS-6 engines) or Gripen C with INS-6 engines are more than adequate. Switzerland is surrendering to LM and Boeing's production line efficiencies.

Not a pound for air to ground.

Swiss wanted a multirole fighter that is future-proof for the next 30 years at least so no the F-35A was exactly the right choice for them.

F/A-18C/D is no longer in production since 2000 so it was never an option.

Gripen C was deemed inferior to the F/A-18C/D in the previous Swiss evaluation for a F-5E replacement back in 2009 so again not an option.

Ground attack capability, while desired by Switzerland, was a minor benefit of the F-35. Maintenance, training requirements, cost and the long term outlook were all weighted higher (and were all won by the F-35). The sensor suite, sensor fusion and data link capabilities also played a large part. Obviously stealth played into the survivability too.

st21 wrote:

744SPX wrote:

F-35 is massive overkill and massively overweight/draggy for the Swiss mission. For that matter so is the Rhino. F-18C+ (19k F404-INS-6 engines) or Gripen C with INS-6 engines are more than adequate. Switzerland is surrendering to LM and Boeing's production line efficiencies.

Not a pound for air to ground.

Swiss wanted a multirole fighter that is future-proof for the next 30 years at least so no the F-35A was exactly the right choice for them.

F/A-18C/D is no longer in production since 2000 so it was never an option.

Gripen C was deemed inferior to the F/A-18C/D in the previous Swiss evaluation for a F-5E replacement back in 2009 so again not an option.

On top of that, support for the Hornet is going to end in about a decade's time; this includes stuff like updates to the aircraft's threat libraries for the ECM and ESM systems, along with spare parts.

Remember that the USN has already retired their Hornet fleet, and the USMC will be retiring theirs fairly soon as well. The world Hornet fleet is shrinking quite significantly with many users now moving onto new aircraft types to replace it, and that will continue to drive up the costs of sustainment.

The Swiss will be receiving F-35's primarily from the Italian assembly line:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... lian-plant

Basically, the first 8 are to be built in the US at the Fort Worth production line, as the initial cadre of Swiss pilots will train in the US. At least 24 will be assembled in Cameri, Italy, with the balance subject to negotiations for assembly in Switzerland by RUAG.

ThePointblank wrote:

The Swiss will be receiving F-35's primarily from the Italian assembly line:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... lian-plant

Basically, the first 8 are to be built in the US at the Fort Worth production line, as the initial cadre of Swiss pilots will train in the US. At least 24 will be assembled in Cameri, Italy, with the balance subject to negotiations for assembly in Switzerland by RUAG.

What I never understood is why there was no assembly line at BAE SYSTEMS. Aren't they one of the first partners to jump on board the project (after originally being part of the competing McD bid iirc)?
Or is it because they already manufacture the aft fuselage and tails?

This question is perhaps more suited to the F35 production thread. I'll ask there instead.

Two F-35s from ItAF just visited Emmen AFB and stayed there for a few days.

Pictures from the official ItAF FB page.

777 wrote:

Two F-35s from ItAF just visited Emmen AFB and stayed there for a few days.

Pictures from the official ItAF FB page.

At the same time and place, the MIM-104 Patriot was presented. It was difficult to get a launcher and a radar unit given the Russian "special military operation" right now. Switzerland plans to acquire four units (each consisting of a command module, a power generator unit, a radar unit, and four launchers). In total, they want to acquire 70 missiles.

Near where I live. Shame I haven't seen them flying over yet.

flyingturtle wrote:

At the same time and place, the MIM-104 Patriot was presented. It was difficult to get a launcher and a radar unit given the Russian "special military operation" right now. Switzerland plans to acquire four units (each consisting of a command module, a power generator unit, a radar unit, and four launchers). In total, they want to acquire 70 missiles.

Good to know, Patriots will never be enough in these hard times.
Interesting to note that the relatively small Switzerland is supposed to get more F-35s than Germany.

777 wrote:

Interesting to note that the relatively small Switzerland is supposed to get more F-35s than Germany.

Switzerland bought 380 Leopard 2 main battle tanks in the 1980ies. We still have 134 of them, the rest has been converted to special vehicles, put to storage, or sold. Germany currently has between 200 and 220 - despite Germany being a lot bigger, and a lot more suitable for tank warfare.

Somehow we love to have too much materiel. We also bought flak jackets for *all* the servicemen. The cooks, the administrative staff, et cetera included.

But there's a difference: The "old" airplanes of the Luftwaffe are newer (Typhoon) than the Swiss ones (F/A-18 C and D models).

How about the Luftwaffe Tornados? They're older than dirt.

johns624 wrote:

How about the Luftwaffe Tornados? They're older than dirt.

How old are the Swiss F-5's?

kurtverbose wrote:

johns624 wrote:

How about the Luftwaffe Tornados? They're older than dirt.

How old are the Swiss F-5's?

Wikipedia says they were built in 1978 and 1979, most of them in Swiss license production.

France had promised Switzerland political support in its future negotiations with the EU - and also more tax income due to a different kind of taxation for employees who commute across the Swiss-French border if Switzerland would choose the Rafale jet.

Swiss defense secretary Viola Amherd is now being criticized for being dishonest. She said that she didn't know about these offers. But secret documents show otherwise.

https://www.20min.ch/story/hat-viola-am ... 0615357438

When Switzerland decided on the F-25, Viola Amherd stated that reciprocal trades - even political ones - did not play any role, and any such offers had to be disregarded.

But for years, the Swiss defense department publicly stated, on a website, that such reciprocal trades would be valid, and if such were offered, they would be taken into account.

https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/kampfje ... ts-erlaubt

Today, it got even better.

Usually, when Switzerland buys more expensive armament (e.g. fighters or tanks), it will demand that the selected manufacturer (and its partner firms) will buy Swiss products for about 30 to 50% of the contract value.

When the technical analysis of the offers (F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, F-18E/F) was nearly complete, the Swiss government still asked *all* competitors which kinds of counter-trade deals they could offer.

Just a week before the F-35 was announced as the winning model, Switzerland asked the French government for a written guarantee of these counter-trade deals.

If I were Dassault or the French government, I'd feel a bit... micturated.

Use The Goog to translate: https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/kampfje ... ins-rollen

Maybe the French didn't offer enough. Remember, the F35 is a full generation beyond the other competitors, so they couldn't just offer enough to be "equal".

johns624 wrote:

Maybe the French didn't offer enough. Remember, the F35 is a full generation beyond the other competitors, so they couldn't just offer enough to be "equal".

On the other hand, you don't ask for a written guarantee if you already know an offer is insufficient. There were also voices that proposed buying Rafales or Eurofighters specifically to improve ties with the EU.

But I wouldn't bet on a revision of the F-35 decision.

Or maybe the French offered stuff verbally but then wouldn't put the exact offer in writing.

English report from July 8th reflecting my earlier postings: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-figh ... r/47737862

Newer research by journalists indicate that the French government saw the situation as a whole package: Rafale fighter jet, in exchange for a Swiss-French partnership treaty that encompasses French support for Switzerland in the EU, a new framework for BSL airport (mostly used by Swiss, but on French territory), police collaboration, better access to shipping on the Rhone river... and France was sure that the Rafale would be way more economical than the F-35.

Also, shortly before Switzerland decided to buy the F-35, it also decided to stop negotiating the "Rahmenabkommen" (a Swiss-EU treaty that streamlines future negotiations). It was in this Rahmenabkommen where France would have played an important part... benefitting... the... Swiss.

When the Rahmenabkommen was dropped, buying the Rafale made much less sense.

Here, a journalist criticizes that the Swiss government separates interior policy and foreign policy, ignoring that stuff like fighter jet deals always have a foreign policy effect, and vice versa. Use The Goog to translate: https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/entsche ... frankreich

flyingturtle wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

johns624 wrote:

How about the Luftwaffe Tornados? They're older than dirt.

How old are the Swiss F-5's?

Wikipedia says they were built in 1978 and 1979, most of them in Swiss license production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvkNGK4aBPY

But still in mint condition, I have to say.

Probably because they only flew them 8am-5pm Mon-Fri... sorry, couldn't resist....

889091 wrote:

But still in mint condition, I have to say.

Probably because they only flew them 8am-5pm Mon-Fri... sorry, couldn't resist....

Yeah. When Switzerland sold dozens of them to the Navy's TOP GUN, they were said to be in mint condition.

Don't worry about the joke. The Swiss Armed Forces are quite funny. You cannot carry out any exercise without resorting to civilian mobile phones... but at least they've bought flak jackets. For every single serviceman and -woman.

Today, the Swiss House has approved the F-35A purchase for 6.035 billion CHF, after the Senate has already done so. The sales offer is only valid until March 1st, 2023. So it was a pressing matter... for the parliament.

But given that referendums (both to vote on a law and for changing the constitution) are sacred in our political culture, this will lead to some repercussions.

The GSoA, Social Democrats and the Greens collected 102'664 valid signatures of Swiss citizens wishing a national vote on the matter. They had a deadline of March 23rd to collect 100'000, which they beat by more than half a year.

It has never happened in Swiss history that the parliament (or the government) basically says: "We don't respect what the voters say, we just push our thing through."

https://www-srf-ch.translate.goog/news/ ... r_pto=wapp

I have friends in Switzerland, they tell me there is some public annoyance with this petition, since the last one caused a long delay. Also the F-35 decision has been bolstered by selection within other nations, since the petition was started. As well as by recent Russian actions in Ukraine. And by positive reports about the F-35 from the nations that have purchased it.

Still the referendum probably would be close, if it comes to fruition. We'll have to see. The government is plainly all-in.

I can maybe provide a bit of clarity on some of points raised above.
For many people in Switzerland, democracy has spoken in 2019 when the acquisition of a new fighter was approved by 50.1% of the population. At that time, the F-35 was one of 4 jets that could be selected. Not having to vote again - this time on the specific model - is not seen as an issue for most people.
Now that the parlement has approved the deal with LM, signature of the contracts should happen anytime.
It is unclear if a vote on the F-35 will be held anyway. It would for sure happen after the signature of the contracts and would not be retroactive. Worse case, Switzerland would not be able to acquire additional F-35.

art wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Today, the Swiss House has approved the F-35A purchase for 6.035 billion CHF, after the Senate has already done so. The sales offer is only valid until March 1st, 2023. So it was a pressing matter... for the parliament.

But given that referendums (both to vote on a law and for changing the constitution) are sacred in our political culture, this will lead to some repercussions.

The GSoA, Social Democrats and the Greens collected 102'664 valid signatures of Swiss citizens wishing a national vote on the matter. They had a deadline of March 23rd to collect 100'000, which they beat by more than half a year.

It has never happened in Swiss history that the parliament (or the government) basically says: "We don't respect what the voters say, we just push our thing through."

https://www-srf-ch.translate.goog/news/ ... r_pto=wapp

Are you saying that there will be a referendum on whether to accept the deal negotiated with LM?

Not exactly. If the Swiss voters approve the referendum, then the Swiss constitution will contain these phrases:

13. Transitional Provisions to Article 60 (Organization, Training and Equipment of the Armed Forces)
1 The federal government does not procure any F-35 combat aircraft.
2 The army budget will be adjusted accordingly.
3 These provisions will expire on January 1, 2040.

Because this is a initiative (which changes the constitution, in contrast to a referendum on a law), it needs to get more than 50% of the votes, and the population in more than 13 states must approve it. About 60% of the Swiss voters must approve something so that the other criterion is fulfilled with a very high probability.

But given that we don't have a constitutional court on the federal level, the parliament and the government can ignore the vote, anyway.

And, given that Swiss politicians are extremely shy of saying "the voters are wrong", it will be very interesting if the initiative gets approved...

I've helped to collect several hundreds of these 100k signatures, and we made the point that according by phone polls, a majority would not approve the F-35. Among the 49.9% who were against the a new jet in 2019 were motivated by the chance it would be the F-35.

xorrygva wrote:

Now that the parlement has approved the deal with LM, signature of the contracts should happen anytime.

Yep.

Article 190 of our constitution:

"The Federal Supreme Court and the other judicial authorities apply the federal acts and international law."

Whatever the parliament decides is constitutional and has the full legal force. The Supreme Court cannot declare any act of the parliament invalid. Which is surprising for a direct democracy....

Thanks for the additional insights, very helpful.

flyingturtle wrote:

I've helped to collect several hundreds of these 100k signatures, and we made the point that according by phone polls, a majority would not approve the F-35. Among the 49.9% who were against the a new jet in 2019 were motivated by the chance it would be the F-35.

This should have been before the Ukrainian war. Polls I have seen the last 5 months were consistently showing a rejection of the initiative by c.60%.

Even if the constitution is modified, it would not have a retroactive effect. An approval of the initiative would not terminate or cancel the contract with LM unless the parlement decides so this which is very unlikely.

xorrygva wrote:

This should have been before the Ukrainian war. Polls I have seen the last 5 months were consistently showing a rejection of the initiative by c.60%.

Exactly. When collecting signatures, quite a few people had reservations because of Russia. Our arguments were basically that there are cheaper alternatives (F-18E or Rafale), that with buying something European we could make amends with the EU, and that we only need a bunch of air policing jets, not the most advanced available fighter jet of the world.

xorrygva wrote:

Even if the constitution is modified, it would not have a retroactive effect. An approval of the initiative would not terminate or cancel the contract with LM unless the parlement decides so this which is very unlikely.

Yep. Still, in our political culture, it's a completely unheard-of maneuver to have a vote in parliament and sign a contract when there's a popular vote lined up...

The citizens will vote on the F-35 either on March 12th, or on July 18th. (October 22th would violate the 10-month limit, and it's a parliamentary election date anyway.)

One of the greatest benefits of the F-35 program is the joint international training at Luke AFB in the US. Most partner nations have established a permanent presence there, due to the large number of jets available for training. Some 80 sorties per day, and another 50 in the 12 simulators.

There is full equivalency among the partners. They fly each other's jets and all nations serve in all roles, including as instructors. This ensures all partners have the same competency and capability. They work and train as one force.

For Europe, as more nations become partners, this has a force multiplier effect. The national fleets can easily merge and cooperate fully. With the F-35 sensing capabilities, fighters can contribute to missions without being directly engaged, observing and sharing tactical information.

The F-35 really is a game changer in that respect. The US has been smart about advocating equivalency and full partnership.

One of the negative arguments put forward is that the US will have insight into partner nation activities due to surveillance of the world wide fleet. But in reality that level of cooperation already exists, voluntarily.

flyingturtle wrote:

Our arguments were basically that there are cheaper alternatives (F-18E or Rafale),

This Perun video might shed light on why it may be more difficult to determine what is cheaper in the long run.

https://youtu.be/7Z_gTGJc7nQ


bt

bikerthai wrote:

https://youtu.be/7Z_gTGJc7nQ

Thanks, I'll watch it!

Avatar2go wrote:

For Europe, as more nations become partners, this has a force multiplier effect. The national fleets can easily merge and cooperate fully. With the F-35 sensing capabilities, fighters can contribute to missions without being directly engaged, observing and sharing tactical information.

This is an impressive input, thank you!

flyingturtle wrote:

This is an impressive input, thank you!

It's notable that the joint training fleet, created by participation of all the allies, would by itself be among the largest air forces in the world. The fact that the West invests so much in pilot development, is huge. It means that survivability of both man and machine in a real conflict, is much higher. For example, the typical training sortie is two F-35 against six aggressor aircraft.

When the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) comes online, there will be another step change in capability, as pilots can practice flying against the most advanced and recent adversary threats. Something they could not do in real life, outside of conflict.

The reason the JSE has been so delayed, is that only people with top secret clearance can work on it, since it involves the highest level of adversary intelligence. But forearming pilots with that knowledge and experience, is key to the success of the program. So much so that the USAF will not fully certify the F-35 until that component is available, even though it has nothing to do with the aircraft itself.

For partner nations, having access to that is another major benefit, that most could not achieve on their own. By pooling intelligence, everyone is stronger.

It's also the reason for not selling the F-35 to nations like Turkiye, with close ties to the adversary systems.

Avatar2go wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

This is an impressive input, thank you!

It's notable that the joint training fleet, created by participation of all the allies, would by itself be among the largest air forces in the world. The fact that the West invests so much in pilot development, is huge. It means that survivability of both man and machine in a real conflict, is much higher. For example, the typical training sortie is two F-35 against six aggressor aircraft.

When the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) comes online, there will be another step change in capability, as pilots can practice flying against the most advanced and recent adversary threats. Something they could not do in real life, outside of conflict.

The reason the JSE has been so delayed, is that only people with top secret clearance can work on it, since it involves the highest level of adversary intelligence. But forearming pilots with that knowledge and experience, is key to the success of the program. So much so that the USAF will not fully certify the F-35 until that component is available, even though it has nothing to do with the aircraft itself.

For partner nations, having access to that is another major benefit, that most could not achieve on their own. By pooling intelligence, everyone is stronger.

It's also the reason for not selling the F-35 to nations like Turkiye, with close ties to the adversary systems.

Thank you again, for these inputs!

The biggest point of criticism that remains, though, is that Switzerland is firmly embedded in the EU's economy and has strong ties with any neighboring country. Switzerland and Austria are encircled by NATO. It would take a cataclysmic change in European politics until Switzerland would need a fighter jet to combat Russian- or Chinese-made jets. (Or a Swiss NATO membership.)

flyingturtle wrote:

It would take a cataclysmic change in European politics until Switzerland would need a fighter jet to combat Russian- or Chinese-made jets.

I agree. For me it really comes down to future proof.

If we agree that Switzerland does need a fighter for air space patrol, at a minimum.

What airframe available today that will not be a maintenance nightmare is 30-40 years time? The list is short. Unless one stick with the very basic FA/Trainer type.

bt

Avatar2go wrote:

When the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) comes online, there will be another step change in capability, as pilots can practice flying against the most advanced and recent adversary threats. Something they could not do in real life, outside of conflict.

The reason the JSE has been so delayed, is that only people with top secret clearance can work on it, since it involves the highest level of adversary intelligence. But forearming pilots with that knowledge and experience, is key to the success of the program. So much so that the USAF will not fully certify the F-35 until that component is available, even though it has nothing to do with the aircraft itself.

Brings to mind the Red Hats and their successor programs, only in a virtual environment.

Contract has been signed.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... hter-jets/

firemansparky wrote:

Contract has been signed.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... hter-jets/

And today, the GSoA army reform and peace group retracted its popular vote... They say "we don't want to have a meaningless vote", because the government would have to honor the contract anyway. If the Swiss citizens vote not to purchase the F-35, the new law cannot be applied retroactively.

Yet, the GSoA has decried un-democratic maneuvers by the parliament and the government. But now they want to deny the citizens their vote on the project, however meaningless the vote would be. The GSoA could have campaigned low-key, but with public actions that stress the point, "Swiss laws allow you to vote on the biggest armament purchase in our history, but the government will not respect your opinion."

I'm not amused... I've been collecting signatures for hours. On cold days, on hot days...

The signature was a good face-saver for them to back off from the popular vote, as they knew it wouldn't turn well now with the war in Ukraine.

Regarding the type, now that Germany is buying the F-35 as well, it's even more a no-brainer.

Excellent news for the Swiss. Hands down the best option.

Now we just need Spain, Greece and the Czech Republic to order.

Avatar2go wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

This is an impressive input, thank you!

It's notable that the joint training fleet, created by participation of all the allies, would by itself be among the largest air forces in the world. The fact that the West invests so much in pilot development, is huge. It means that survivability of both man and machine in a real conflict, is much higher. For example, the typical training sortie is two F-35 against six aggressor aircraft.

When the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) comes online, there will be another step change in capability, as pilots can practice flying against the most advanced and recent adversary threats. Something they could not do in real life, outside of conflict.

The reason the JSE has been so delayed, is that only people with top secret clearance can work on it, since it involves the highest level of adversary intelligence. But forearming pilots with that knowledge and experience, is key to the success of the program. So much so that the USAF will not fully certify the F-35 until that component is available, even though it has nothing to do with the aircraft itself.

For partner nations, having access to that is another major benefit, that most could not achieve on their own. By pooling intelligence, everyone is stronger.

It's also the reason for not selling the F-35 to nations like Turkiye, with close ties to the adversary systems.

So I have a question about this. Speaking for a Norwegian perspective, we have multiple F-35s at Luke AFB which are used for training. But the operating environment in Norway is completely opposite of that at Luke AFB. Meaning, we have a lot of tall, snowcapped mountains, freezing cold, dark all winter, and we operate in a heavy maritime environment. So the crews over in Norway will acquire a lot of experience and data for that kind of operation and adapt to it. But how good is the pipeline of experience and information going back to the training AFB? Do they get briefed and receive reports from actual experience around the world? For example, Switzerland pilots will likely have some of the challenges the Norwegian pilots do, and training and useful information should be shared between them. Is there a system for this?

JetBuddy wrote:

So I have a question about this. Speaking for a Norwegian perspective, we have multiple F-35s at Luke AFB which are used for training. But the operating environment in Norway is completely opposite of that at Luke AFB. Meaning, we have a lot of tall, snowcapped mountains, freezing cold, dark all winter, and we operate in a heavy maritime environment. So the crews over in Norway will acquire a lot of experience and data for that kind of operation and adapt to it. But how good is the pipeline of experience and information going back to the training AFB? Do they get briefed and receive reports from actual experience around the world? For example, Switzerland pilots will likely have some of the challenges the Norwegian pilots do, and training and useful information should be shared between them. Is there a system for this?

I think that kind of sharing is one of the benefits of the joint training. I know the US exercised some F-35's in Norway for awhile, before stationing them permanently in Alaska. The combined knowledge of highly variable environments is very valuable, for deployments into different climates. Especially with regard to maintenance and readiness rates. So I'm sure all the partners are interested in the experiences of the others.

A good example is the Brits figuring out how to do rolling carrier landings with the F-35B, to increase the bring-back loads. They did that for the Harrier as well, and the technique is now shared. There are likely to be insights from the Norwegians on their winter operations as well.

Avatar2go wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

So I have a question about this. Speaking for a Norwegian perspective, we have multiple F-35s at Luke AFB which are used for training. But the operating environment in Norway is completely opposite of that at Luke AFB. Meaning, we have a lot of tall, snowcapped mountains, freezing cold, dark all winter, and we operate in a heavy maritime environment. So the crews over in Norway will acquire a lot of experience and data for that kind of operation and adapt to it. But how good is the pipeline of experience and information going back to the training AFB? Do they get briefed and receive reports from actual experience around the world? For example, Switzerland pilots will likely have some of the challenges the Norwegian pilots do, and training and useful information should be shared between them. Is there a system for this?

I think that kind of sharing is one of the benefits of the joint training. I know the US exercised some F-35's in Norway for awhile, before stationing them permanently in Alaska. The combined knowledge of highly variable environments is very valuable, for deployments into different climates. Especially with regard to maintenance and readiness rates. So I'm sure all the partners are interested in the experiences of the others.

A good example is the Brits figuring out how to do rolling carrier landings with the F-35B, to increase the bring-back loads. They did that for the Harrier as well, and the technique is now shared. There are likely to be insights from the Norwegians on their winter operations as well.

Thanks for the answer, you're probably right. Experience in different theatres of operation is really valuable.

Hello,
I read somewhere that the first Swiss F-35A would be delivered not before 2027... it is known if they will receive the block 4 upgrade ?