Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

flyingturtle · Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:13 pm

art wrote:
Subsonic interceptor problem: the air force may not be able to catch up with an aircraft travelling at 800+ kilometres per hour. If your interceptor cannot intercept potential threats a lot of the time it is not very useful IMO.

Tell me again how that works in Switzerland, which is about 200 x 120 nautical miles big. If you want to crash an airplane into a building in Zurich, just declare mayday or a missed approach at ZRH and 4.3 nm later you're there.

art · Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:16 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
art wrote:
Subsonic interceptor problem: the air force may not be able to catch up with an aircraft travelling at 800+ kilometres per hour. If your interceptor cannot intercept potential threats a lot of the time it is not very useful IMO.

Tell me again how that works in Switzerland, which is about 200 x 120 nautical miles big. If you want to crash an airplane into a building in Zurich, just declare mayday or a missed approach at ZRH and 4.3 nm later you're there.

Agreed, Switzerland is not a large country and I think a subsonic fighter on the ground would have problems trying to catch up with an aircraft heading away from the fighter base at 800 kph. I'm not saying a supersonic fighter would always catch up but with a 1000 kph or so speed advantage (F/A-18/Rafale/Typhoon/F-35) a supersonic fighter would be much. much more likely to succeed.

Since the Germanwings crash it is not so easy to deliberately crash an airliner if the cockpit always has at least 2 people in it. I think that is the rule now, isn't it? No pilot can leave the cockpit unless another crew member enters the cockpit to prevent the possibility of the second pilot being locked out.

rlwynn · Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:54 am

The M346 seems to be at the top of non afterburning jets. 1200kmh and over 20,000fpm climb.

seahawk · Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:26 am

Which still has no chance to intercept an airline at Mach 0.8 and 35.000 feet. In addition the Swiss also desire to be able to intercept other fighter aircraft as well and provide control of the airspace in times of conflict.

flyingturtle · Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:52 pm

art wrote:
Since the Germanwings crash it is not so easy to deliberately crash an airliner if the cockpit always has at least 2 people in it. I think that is the rule now, isn't it? No pilot can leave the cockpit unless another crew member enters the cockpit to prevent the possibility of the second pilot being locked out.

I don't have aggressive tendencies, but I don't know about other people and their capacity to incapacitate their colleagues in close quarter combat...

seahawk wrote:
Which still has no chance to intercept an airline at Mach 0.8 and 35.000 feet. In addition the Swiss also desire to be able to intercept other fighter aircraft as well and provide control of the airspace in times of conflict.

Yeah, but that capability is ultra-expensive for such a small country. In the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian ... Flight_702 a French Mirage escorted the hi-jacked 767 over Switzerland. They should pool their resources and establish command procedures that would allow a shootdown over the respective neighboring country, if this would ever be needed.

During the Cold War, Swiss doctrine envisioned battling Warsaw Pact forces over Germany and Austria, and not so much over Switzerland itself.

seahawk · Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:57 pm

If you let NATO fighters control your airspace regularly your neutrality goes away. It would make a lot of sense to pool a fighter fleet with Austria though.

flyingturtle · Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:56 pm

seahawk wrote:
If you let NATO fighters control your airspace regularly your neutrality goes away. It would make a lot of sense to pool a fighter fleet with Austria though.

We have updated the meaning of our neutrality quite frequently. Strictly speaking, Swiss neutrality only applies to blocs (e.g. the Western and the Eastern blocs during the Cold War) or to countries that are waging war without a UN/OSCE mandate. Having German fighters fly over Switzerland and vice versa would be less problematic than our arms dealing with Saudi Arabia, for example. We at least share the same values and face the same security problems.

flyingturtle · Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:30 pm

Today, the Representatives have approved buying fighter jets for 6 billion CHF (6.07 billion USD). The Senators have done so earlier.

The government will decide the type of aircraft to be purchased. A proposal by democratic socialists to buy cheaper all-purpose Leonardo M-346 and to restrict the faster, already purchased F/A-18 to QRA missions was defeated.

The senators and the representatives still disagree on how much of the deal shall be compensated. Senators want that the manufacturer must, in turn, buy Swiss technology products for 6 billion USD (compensation of 100%), and the representatives are happy with 60%. A compensation is basically a subsidy to Swiss manufacturers, because they'll get contracts without having to compete for them. But, of course, if Lockheed Martin has to buy Swiss stuff for billions, they'll just say "Duh, we'll give you fewer airplanes for those 6 billion USD..."

Ozair · Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:15 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
Today, the Representatives have approved buying fighter jets for 6 billion CHF (6.07 billion USD). The Senators have done so earlier.

An article on FlightGlobal earlier in the year indicated that a referendum would still have to be held but it would cover only approval for the funding and not for the specific aircraft selected. Do you know of a proposed date or expectation for the referendum?

flyingturtle wrote:
The government will decide the type of aircraft to be purchased. A proposal by democratic socialists to buy cheaper all-purpose Leonardo M-346 and to restrict the faster, already purchased F/A-18 to QRA missions was defeated.

Good news, it was a suboptimal plan at best…

flyingturtle wrote:
The senators and the representatives still disagree on how much of the deal shall be compensated. Senators want that the manufacturer must, in turn, buy Swiss technology products for 6 billion USD (compensation of 100%), and the representatives are happy with 60%. A compensation is basically a subsidy to Swiss manufacturers, because they'll get contracts without having to compete for them.

Compensation/offsets will be difficult for all the manufacturers, especially if 100% is mandated.

flyingturtle wrote:
But, of course, if Lockheed Martin has to buy Swiss stuff for billions, they'll just say "Duh, we'll give you fewer airplanes for those 6 billion USD..."

Why would LM be different to Dassault or Boeing or Saab or Eurofighter in this case?

flyingturtle · Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:50 pm

Ozair wrote:
An article on FlightGlobal earlier in the year indicated that a referendum would still have to be held but it would cover only approval for the funding and not for the specific aircraft selected. Do you know of a proposed date or expectation for the referendum?

A constitutional change comes with a mandatory referendum. But as a law is being challenged, opponents first have to collect 50'000 signatures from adult citizens within 100 days; this deadline begins when the law is published in the federal gazette, which presumably is in end of December. So we can expect the vote in end of September or end of November 2020 at the earliest.

Ozair wrote:
Good news, it was a suboptimal plan at best…

As long as I don't really know what the purpose of the Swiss Air Force is, I'd say we should spend as little money as possible...

...it's funny that Switzerland always finds enough political will to buy fighter jets, but since the Junkers 52, we haven't bought any transport airplanes. Even if they would come in very handy for disaster relief, or for supporting the NATO mission in Kosovo.

Ozair wrote:
Why would LM be different to Dassault or Boeing or Saab or Eurofighter in this case?

I didn't say LM would be more annoyed than Dassault or Saab when they're being slapped with compensation deals...

Ozair · Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:20 am

flyingturtle wrote:

A constitutional change comes with a mandatory referendum. But as a law is being challenged, opponents first have to collect 50'000 signatures from adult citizens within 100 days; this deadline begins when the law is published in the federal gazette, which presumably is in end of December. So we can expect the vote in end of September or end of November 2020 at the earliest.

So the expectation is that the Swiss people won’t know what aircraft has been selected before they vote to spend the money, unlike last time where the choice of Gripen may have influenced the vote?

flyingturtle wrote:

As long as I don't really know what the purpose of the Swiss Air Force is, I'd say we should spend as little money as possible...

...it's funny that Switzerland always finds enough political will to buy fighter jets, but since the Junkers 52, we haven't bought any transport airplanes. Even if they would come in very handy for disaster relief, or for supporting the NATO mission in Kosovo.

The pointy end of the Air Force always gets more money, perhaps it is simply the nostalgic nature of flying fighter jets…

flyingturtle wrote:

I didn't say LM would be more annoyed than Dassault or Saab when they're being slapped with compensation deals...

Fair enough, I just wasn’t sure why you singled out LM compared to the other vendors given all would be challenged to meet a 100% offset clause. If that offset/compensation clause is mandated it will significantly impact every vendors bid.

art · Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:39 am

flyingturtle wrote:
Ozair wrote:
An article on FlightGlobal earlier in the year indicated that a referendum would still have to be held but it would cover only approval for the funding and not for the specific aircraft selected. Do you know of a proposed date or expectation for the referendum?

A constitutional change comes with a mandatory referendum. But as a law is being challenged, opponents first have to collect 50'000 signatures from adult citizens within 100 days; this deadline begins when the law is published in the federal gazette, which presumably is in end of December. So we can expect the vote in end of September or end of November 2020 at the earliest.

I think 50.000 signatures were required to force a referendum on the Gripen deal approved by the Swiss government. That was what happened. The referendum rejected the government's decision. If the objection at the time was an objection to any fighter being ordered (rather than Gripen being ordered), has the sentiment of the Swiss public changed?

What would the government do if a referendum rejected the government's proposal? Would they try again with a smaller budget?

Noshow · Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:19 pm

I am not Swiss but if I would be I'd support the Gripen E. Isn't this exactly what Switzerland needs? Small enough sized for mountain tunnels, capable, easy to maintain, fast turnaround air to air and air to ground capable, latest radar and US engine. Support available for the upcoming future. Not overly expensive. "Neutral" country manufactured.
Disclaimer: Not related to SAAB in any way.

SAS A340 · Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:18 pm

Noshow wrote:
I am not Swiss but if I would be I'd support the Gripen E. Isn't this exactly what Switzerland needs? Small enough sized for mountain tunnels, capable, easy to maintain, fast turnaround air to air and air to ground capable, latest radar and US engine. Support available for the upcoming future. Not overly expensive. "Neutral" country manufactured.
Disclaimer: Not related to SAAB in any way.

My thoughts exactly, They also had the perfect opportunity to offer Sweden their Pilate training as Sweden is in dire need of a new one. On paper, it looks like the perfect marriage, but they even rouled out SAAB before the evaluation even started for real..... don't get it to be onest.

Noshow · Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:25 pm

AFAIK: Their point was that the Gripen E was still in development and they formally only wanted to consider existing airplanes ready for delivery. (Practically it would not have made a difference. Maybe the delay during their selection process can even help somehow?)

SAS A340 · Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:39 pm

If so, first, they shouldn't even have invited SAAB to the competition from the beginning, second, the spec and performance of Gripen E are well known, and third, it will be well within service by 2025. But it is what it is, but I think it would have been a good opportunity for both Switzerland and Sweden :wave:

mxaxai · Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:52 pm

Officially, they only wanted solutions that could be demonstrated today on serial production aircraft.

IMHO, there was a political decision to exclude the Gripen. It's so close to EIS and Saab probably could've provided a test frame for demonstration purposes.
(a) The previous deal with Gripens had been rejected in the referendum. Nothing about the aircraft or air force has changed. Why vote twice on the same matter?
(b) The Gripen is (on paper) a great fit for Switzerland and pretty cheap too; cheaper than Eurofighter and Rafale at least. People might ask why the Gripen's capabilities don't suffice for Switzerland. They might think that Switzerland is wasting money on top-tier jets when second tier equipment can do the job. Exclude the cheap solution and you don't get to ask that question.
(c) It's much easier to directly compare similar jets (Eurofighter vs. Rafale) than very different ones (M346 vs. Gripen vs. F-35). Cost-Capability tradeoffs can become a pain. Restricting choice makes it easier to reach a decision that everyone can understand and support.

But it is what it is and the Swiss people will (might?) get to vote on the eventual choice, so if they're happy with the decision, why bother them with what could have been?

Ozair · Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:14 pm

If the competition was only about cost then the Gripen would be in with a chance. As the competition encompasses both cost, capability, political considerations and by the sound of it industrial offsets then Gripen was an outsider.

On a cost perspective as mxaxai states the Gripen is not much cheaper than the other eurocanards and when you factor in capability it falls distinctly behind. The last Swiss evaluation found the following,

Note that since that expected 2015 evaluation of Gripen (what the aircraft was supposed to be in 2015 and was the E variant) the aircraft increased in empty weight by over one ton or approximately 13% heavier. For example this data was sourced from another website (but freely available info) comparing the F-16 and Gripen E at max fuel states.

F-16

Gross weight = 26,500
Mil Power = 17,155
AB = 29,588
T:W = .64/1.11

Gripen E

Gross weight = 25132.698
Mil Power = 13,000
AB = 22,000
T:W = .51/.87

You can see the Gripen is grossly underpowered, especially when you consider the air policing and DCA mission set that seems the priority for the Swiss and this matches with the 2008/2015 assessments conducted.

Yes there is more to a fighter selection than capability but the Gripen isn’t an order of magnitude cheaper to sustain, nor is it an order of magnitude cheaper to acquire and it will be just as expensive, if not more, to upgrade in 15 years time because there is and will remain such a small user base.

texl1649 · Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:53 pm

True, Ozair but then again the single engined Gripen E did demonstrate Mach 1.2 in super cruise somehow. With an open architecture, absent the future pricing abuses of Lockheed, I can see interoperability with future data links and weapons being not particularly more expensive, either.

The main benefit to Eurofighter/Rafale would seem to be the twin engines, but any Swiss CAP will operate pretty close to available airfields, and let’s face it, they are unlikely to lead a lot of offensive/strike operations. That said, I’d still expect the Swiss to favor the Dassault.

Ozair · Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:28 pm

texl1649 wrote:
True, Ozair but then again the single engined Gripen E did demonstrate Mach 1.2 in super cruise somehow.

The Gripen that supercruised was the two seat NG version back in 2009 with no external stores other than wingtip missiles (which improve the aerodynamics). While the E has broken the sound barrier we have not heard a single announcement that the aircraft has supercruised. Strange don’t you think given the first supersonic test was in 2017 and a whole lot of flight tests since then but no trumping of a validated supercruise capability?

texl1649 wrote:
With an open architecture, absent the future pricing abuses of Lockheed, I can see interoperability with future data links and weapons being not particularly more expensive, either.

The sustainment and upgrade costs for a fighter jet have a direct relationship to the number in service. The greater the number then the easier it is to upgrade and sustain.

texl1649 wrote:
The main benefit to Eurofighter/Rafale would seem to be the twin engines, but any Swiss CAP will operate pretty close to available airfields, and let’s face it, they are unlikely to lead a lot of offensive/strike operations. That said, I’d still expect the Swiss to favor the Dassault.

We just need to review the previous Swiss evaluation to understand what they are after from a new jet fighter. There is nothing magical about the Gripen, it is a lightweight fighter jet that would have struggled to fulfil the Swiss requirements. That a production ready example was not available for the Swiss to test is another reason to knock it out of the competition. Finland doesn’t have the same restrictions and is happy to use Saab aircraft for their evaluations so perhaps it is simply politics and the Swiss Air Force didn’t want a repeat of the last competition.

I agree though, the Rafale will be hard to beat for the Swiss competition. It has the right mix and maturity to be what the Swiss need. It was the favourite last time except for budget concerns but the platform has come a long way since then.

art · Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:30 am

I think the only way Gripen E could have a chance would be if there were a referendum rejecting the current proposition. If the Swedish government offered to buy Pilatus trainers and SAAB could price Gripen E to significantly undercut the competition, a deal might be possible. I recall that the previous selection was for a replacement for F-5. If some of the fighters are required for this role, a medium weight fighter would cost a lot more to operate than a light single.

Gripen E: underkill as an F-18 replacement, overkill as an F-5 rreplacement. Big industrial advantage if Pilatus got to supply the SWAF with trainers.

Others: good/very good as an F-18 replacement, overkill/big overkill as an F-5 rreplacement. No big industrial advantage.

kanye · Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:16 pm

Ozair wrote:
You can see the Gripen is grossly underpowered, especially when you consider the air policing and DCA mission set that seems the priority for the Swiss and this matches with the 2008/2015 assessments conducted.

Yes there is more to a fighter selection than capability but the Gripen isn’t an order of magnitude cheaper to sustain, nor is it an order of magnitude cheaper to acquire and it will be just as expensive, if not more, to upgrade in 15 years time because there is and will remain such a small user base.

In a questioning a few months ago in the Swedish Parliament The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration said they right now working on increasing the power in the Gripen E engine.
No more information than this.
From what i can read on Internet there is an EPE version of the engine boosting the thrust with up to 20%.

angad84 · Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:35 pm

kanye wrote:
Ozair wrote:
You can see the Gripen is grossly underpowered, especially when you consider the air policing and DCA mission set that seems the priority for the Swiss and this matches with the 2008/2015 assessments conducted.

Yes there is more to a fighter selection than capability but the Gripen isn’t an order of magnitude cheaper to sustain, nor is it an order of magnitude cheaper to acquire and it will be just as expensive, if not more, to upgrade in 15 years time because there is and will remain such a small user base.

In a questioning a few months ago in the Swedish Parliament The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration said they right now working on increasing the power in the Gripen E engine.
No more information than this.
From what i can read on Internet there is an EPE version of the engine boosting the thrust with up to 20%.

Doesn't seem to have made the news anywhere -- got a link, or was this hearsay?

Ozair · Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:22 pm

angad84 wrote:
kanye wrote:
Ozair wrote:
You can see the Gripen is grossly underpowered, especially when you consider the air policing and DCA mission set that seems the priority for the Swiss and this matches with the 2008/2015 assessments conducted.

Yes there is more to a fighter selection than capability but the Gripen isn’t an order of magnitude cheaper to sustain, nor is it an order of magnitude cheaper to acquire and it will be just as expensive, if not more, to upgrade in 15 years time because there is and will remain such a small user base.

In a questioning a few months ago in the Swedish Parliament The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration said they right now working on increasing the power in the Gripen E engine.
No more information than this.
From what i can read on Internet there is an EPE version of the engine boosting the thrust with up to 20%.

Doesn't seem to have made the news anywhere -- got a link, or was this hearsay?

My understanding is the F414 EPE is unfunded, it didn't make the list of enhancements to the SH Blk III.

But Boeing is in ongoing discussions with both the Navy and General Electric about how to proceed on a new engine, even though there is still no formal re-engining effort in place.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... es-to-come

I doubt highly the Swedes will fund the enhancement themselves, it would add considerably to the Gripen development cost. Nor as far as I know has it been proposed for other competitions such as Finland. The other side of this is the upgrades proposed for the F414 are either an increase in thrust or increase in durability.

General Electric has proposed both “Enhanced Durability” and “Enhanced Performance” concepts in the past, that would increase the life expectancy of the engines and performance. The F414-Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) offered the potential for a 20 percent increase in thrust.

Generally the upgrade will one or the other and the USN's interest has previously been for the durability version, not the performance.

If the SH program continues along the same lines as the Classic Hornet then the hope for an engine upgrade rests with the Kuwaitis. They funded the F404 engine enhancements that were applied to a significant number of US Classic Hornets and are still set to get the SH. You would think if it was going to happen it would have been announced by now though.

angad84 · Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:30 pm

Ozair wrote:
You would think if it was going to happen it would have been announced by now though.

Exactly, hence my skepticism. That said, my Arabic and Swedish are both poor, and there's a lot of good political/defence reporting happening in native languages that we english-speakers tend to miss out on

kanye · Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:31 am

angad84 wrote:
kanye wrote:
Ozair wrote:
You can see the Gripen is grossly underpowered, especially when you consider the air policing and DCA mission set that seems the priority for the Swiss and this matches with the 2008/2015 assessments conducted.

Yes there is more to a fighter selection than capability but the Gripen isn’t an order of magnitude cheaper to sustain, nor is it an order of magnitude cheaper to acquire and it will be just as expensive, if not more, to upgrade in 15 years time because there is and will remain such a small user base.

In a questioning a few months ago in the Swedish Parliament The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration said they right now working on increasing the power in the Gripen E engine.
No more information than this.
From what i can read on Internet there is an EPE version of the engine boosting the thrust with up to 20%.

Doesn't seem to have made the news anywhere -- got a link, or was this hearsay?

Only in Swedish. Good we have Google translate. It’s not much information about it more than the cost of 100 million SEK (approx. 10 million€) and it’s to increase the power of the engine.
Seems like a very low cost for EPE so I would guess it’s a minor update, maybe just software “trading” more thrust but with increased maintenance.
We’ll see in the future if something official comes up.

https://www.svd.se/beskedet-gripen-e-ka ... ativt-2021

art · Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:53 am

I wonder if most of the weight increase from Gripen C to E is the result of moving the landing gear from the wings to the fuselage in order to increase range on internal tanks. If an increase in range was seen as desirable at the cost of thrust/weight ratio, Sweden made its choice about performance priorities. I guess that with the increased range the E would have succeeded in Swiss interception tests where the C failed on range and the Gripen E would have been high in the list of contenders.

I would think that occasional interception of unidentified civil aircraft is the main role for which Switzerland is likely to use a fighter. Would an EPE be necessary for Switzerland?

Of course, Gripen E is not a contender in the current competition, so another one would be needed for Gripen E performance to matter.

Ozair · Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:16 pm

kanye wrote:
Only in Swedish. Good we have Google translate. It’s not much information about it more than the cost of 100 million SEK (approx. 10 million€) and it’s to increase the power of the engine.
Seems like a very low cost for EPE so I would guess it’s a minor update, maybe just software “trading” more thrust but with increased maintenance.
We’ll see in the future if something official comes up.

https://www.svd.se/beskedet-gripen-e-ka ... ativt-2021

Thanks for the link. 10 million doesn’t get you anything of real value when it comes to engine redesign today so I doubt beyond a couple of academic studies how far this would go.

art wrote:
I wonder if most of the weight increase from Gripen C to E is the result of moving the landing gear from the wings to the fuselage in order to increase range on internal tanks. If an increase in range was seen as desirable at the cost of thrust/weight ratio, Sweden made its choice about performance priorities. I guess that with the increased range the E would have succeeded in Swiss interception tests where the C failed on range and the Gripen E would have been high in the list of contenders.

The weight increase wasn’t intended to be nearly so much… Look at the below graphic to see where Saab was originally pitching the aircraft,

Empty weight went to 7600kg and is now at 8000kg. https://saab.com/globalassets/commercia ... et--en.pdf

The E did increase in size but the aircraft now has to trade fuel for weapons payload in meaningful configurations so the advantages of increasing the size has been negated.

art wrote:
I would think that occasional interception of unidentified civil aircraft is the main role for which Switzerland is likely to use a fighter. Would an EPE be necessary for Switzerland?

If that thrust increase improved acceleration then yes it would be meaningful but the likelihood is it would only marginally improve the aircraft. The EPE would likely come with increased fuel burn to achieve that 20% thrust improvement as well which may negate the thrust advantage anyway.

aumaverick · Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:16 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
Today, the Representatives have approved buying fighter jets for 6 billion CHF (6.07 billion USD). The Senators have done so earlier.

The government will decide the type of aircraft to be purchased. A proposal by democratic socialists to buy cheaper all-purpose Leonardo M-346 and to restrict the faster, already purchased F/A-18 to QRA missions was defeated.

The senators and the representatives still disagree on how much of the deal shall be compensated. Senators want that the manufacturer must, in turn, buy Swiss technology products for 6 billion USD (compensation of 100%), and the representatives are happy with 60%. A compensation is basically a subsidy to Swiss manufacturers, because they'll get contracts without having to compete for them. But, of course, if Lockheed Martin has to buy Swiss stuff for billions, they'll just say "Duh, we'll give you fewer airplanes for those 6 billion USD..."

It appears almost half the Swiss fleet of fighters (22 F-5s) will head to the US to lead dissimilar air combat training. While not quite $6B, does this $39M help the US entrants' chances? When will the F-5s leave the fleet?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-15/switzerland-plans-to-send-its-old-fighter-jets-back-to-the-u-s

Ozair · Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:21 pm

Switzerland have released their updated RFP for the fighter/GBAD requirement. This RFP has factored in the work completed in evaluating the respective aircraft last year so should be more clear to the manufacturers on what Switzerland is after and how to respond to the requirements.

I still think the Rafale is in a good position for this competition but certainly any of the OEMS could potentially win and also expect that EuroSAM is the favourite for the GBAD component.

Swiss issue second RFP for fighter/GBAD replacements

Switzerland has issued a second request for proposal (RFP) for its Air2030 requirement to procure new combat aircraft and ground-based air defence (GBAD) systems.

The supplementary solicitation, which came about 12 months after the first RFP, was issued by the country's Armasuisse defence procurement agency on 10 January.

As noted by the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection, and Sport (VBS [previously DDPS]) that announced the new RFP, the second request builds on data already gathered from tests and evaluations of the five candidate fighter aircraft and two GBAD types.

For the requirement to replace the Swiss Air Force's current Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II and Boeing F/A-18 Hornet fleets, Air2030 is considering the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Saab Gripen E, and Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). For the GBAD requirement, Air2030 is considering the Eurosam SAMP/T and Raytheon Patriot.

For the fighter aircraft element, the companies contacted via the government authorities are requested to submit the most advantageous offer for Switzerland. The proposal should include prices for 36 and 40 aircraft (including logistics and weapons), as well as other defined industrial aspects of the bid including offsets.

"The starting point for determining the number of fighter aircraft are the requirements to cope with a situation of increased tension. In such a situation, the Swiss Air Force must be able to permanently conduct air patrols with at least four aircraft for at least four weeks in order to preserve air sovereignty, prevent unauthorised use and violations of Swiss air space, and thus contribute to keep Switzerland out of armed conflict. In addition, the Swiss Air Force will use the new fighter aircraft for air policing around the clock, and, in case of armed attack, defend the air space for a limited period of time and support the ground forces," the RFP said.

...

https://www.janes.com/article/93660/swi ... placements

Nick614 · Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:30 am

F-16 with the new AESA radar would be a great option. I'm sure it could even be built in Switzerland if they want that much industrial value back.

art · Wed May 13, 2020 1:21 pm

Air2030: Second Call for Tenders Extended Until November 2020

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... ember.html

Ozair · Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:38 am

Missed this article from a couple of weeks ago. Switzerland will hold a referendum on the procurement of a new fighter aircraft. It won’t be a referendum about which aircraft, that won’t be put to a national vote, only on whether the expenditure is approved by the people.

Swiss set date for fighter referendum

Switzerland is to hold a national referendum on its Air2030 requirement to procure new combat aircraft on 27 September.

The date, announced by the government on 26 June, will see the population decide on whether or not to proceed with a planned procurement of a new aircraft type to replace the Swiss Air Force’s ageing Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II and Boeing F/A-18 Hornet fleets. As previously reported though, the type selection itself will not be subject to a vote.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... referendum

Only four aircraft as left now, the F-35, SH, Rafale and Eurofighter after the Gripen E was excluded due to immaturity.

flyingturtle · Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:44 pm

Today were some national votes...

With a majority of just 50.1%, the Swiss citizens approved the purchase of the F-5 and F-18 replacements. The proponents were able to convince just 8760 voters more.

In the coming months and years, the government will evaluate the various proposals.

RJMAZ · Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:05 am

Surely the F-35 would win in terms of capability per dollar. Will the swiss go with a slightly cheaper option if it results in drastically reduced capability?

I personally think the F-35B is their best choice. With such a small land buffer the runways are extremely vulnerable. It adds a whole new dimension. The fact that the Swiss has never purchased a VTOL fighter does not give an indication how valuable they find such capability. It simply means there was never a highly capable VTOL aircraft for them to buy.

If this drags on another year or two Boeing could offer a T-7 with a radar. It is only a matter of time before Boeing turns the T-7 into the budget fighter of choice for competitions like this.

keesje · Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:56 am

Is there a preference for a dual engined fighter replacing the F5 and F18?

sekant · Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:48 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Surely the F-35 would win in terms of capability per dollar. Will the swiss go with a slightly cheaper option if it results in drastically reduced capability?

I personally think the F-35B is their best choice. With such a small land buffer the runways are extremely vulnerable. It adds a whole new dimension. The fact that the Swiss has never purchased a VTOL fighter does not give an indication how valuable they find such capability. It simply means there was never a highly capable VTOL aircraft for them to buy.

If this drags on another year or two Boeing could offer a T-7 with a radar. It is only a matter of time before Boeing turns the T-7 into the budget fighter of choice for competitions like this.

The F-35A is being offered and considered. There are plenty of makeshift runways that integrated in the system, if you drive through the Alps you come across quite a few of them.

flyingturtle · Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:11 pm

sekant wrote:
There are plenty of makeshift runways that integrated in the system, if you drive through the Alps you come across quite a few of them.

Quite a few parts of the autobahn *can* be used as makeshift runways. But the last such exercises happened before 1995. I guess our Air Force keeps that capability.

And there are a lot of alpine airfields that date back to WW2, like the ones in St. Stephan (LSTS) and Ulrichen and Airolo. But they see zero fighter trainings nowadays. Currently, the Air force operates from a few larger ones - Payerne, Meiringen, Dübendorf and Emmen. The government's jets operate from Bern, and the helicopters from Alpnach.

(If you have a flight simulator, pick a heavy jet and try your skills in St. Stephan.)

RJMAZ wrote:
With such a small land buffer the runways are extremely vulnerable.

Yes, but we have plenty of mountains where to put a whole lot of good radars... and incidentally, the Armed Forces are slated to get a new air defense system. Until now, we have Stinger, Rapier and those machine guns.

Noshow · Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:37 pm

What happened to SAAB to not be considered with their latest Gripen E and F? They seem to be the closest to what the Swiss actually need like affordability, easy turnaround, versatility and tunnel hangar operations capability?

mxaxai · Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:57 pm

Noshow wrote:
What happened to SAAB to not be considered with their latest Gripen E and F? They seem to be the closest to what the Swiss actually need like affordability, easy turnaround, versatility and tunnel hangar operations capability?

Noshow wrote:
AFAIK: Their point was that the Gripen E was still in development and they formally only wanted to consider existing airplanes ready for delivery. (Practically it would not have made a difference. Maybe the delay during their selection process can even help somehow?)

Officially, SAAB was unable to provide a suitable demonstrator and did not fulfill the product maturity requirements.

art · Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:50 am

mxaxai wrote:
Officially, SAAB was unable to provide a suitable demonstrator and did not fulfill the product maturity requirements.

As I remember things, some time ago the Swedish government rescheduled delivery to the Swedish air force by a year. I wonder if the aircraft would otherwise have reached the maturity threshold required for evaluation by Switzerland

Now that the funding for new fighters and ground-based air defence materiel has been approved, is there a defined procurement budget for each of those 2 componenrs?

flyingturtle · Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:58 am

art wrote:

Now that the funding for new fighters and ground-based air defence materiel has been approved, is there a defined procurement budget for each of those 2 componenrs?

No, not that I know of... and there was only a popular vote on the jets, not on the SAM system. The SAM didn't get much opposition.

In 2021, the government will decide the type of the jets as well as the kind of SAM system. Obviously, they should be interoperable. The two possible SAMs are MIM-104 Patriot and then the French/German SAMP/T-system with Aster missiles.

Noshow · Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:09 am

Now with the voter's green light if I would be Swiss I would consider the latest version Gripen as well. Especially as they have moved ahead from "promise" to "reality" with the new modifications. When do you get a custom tailored competitor with upgrades right when you need it? Whatever they finally select is still their decision. But excluding it doesn't make sense from my point of view.

Another one I miss is the late production F-16. Proven design, successful over Norway's mountains and not overly expensive.

art · Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:21 am

flyingturtle wrote:
art wrote:

Now that the funding for new fighters and ground-based air defence materiel has been approved, is there a defined procurement budget for each of those 2 componenrs?

No, not that I know of... and there was only a popular vote on the jets, not on the SAM system. The SAM didn't get much opposition.

In 2021, the government will decide the type of the jets as well as the kind of SAM system. Obviously, they should be interoperable. The two possible SAMs are MIM-104 Patriot and then the French/German SAMP/T-system with Aster missiles.

Found a source that says 6 billion Sw francs budgeted for fights, 2 billion for missile defence system.

Even if the planning decree relating to the new combat aircraft has been accepted by popular vote, the Federal Council will present the acquisition more concretely to Parliament in the message on the army, probably in 2022, and according to the planned financial limits (aircraft 6 billion francs, ground-to-air defense 2 billion francs).

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... argin.html

What happens with Rafale where A2A missiles are concerned? Since F-18 uses AIM-9 and AMRAAM, would the existing stock need to be dumped, accompanied by a big spend on new missiles if Rafale is selected.

Ozair · Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:15 pm

Noshow wrote:
Now with the voter's green light if I would be Swiss I would consider the latest version Gripen as well. Especially as they have moved ahead from "promise" to "reality" with the new modifications. When do you get a custom tailored competitor with upgrades right when you need it? Whatever they finally select is still their decision. But excluding it doesn't make sense from my point of view.

Saab couldn't provide a production representative Gripen for evaluation compared to the other vendors. They still don't have a production representative aircraft with all systems installed.

Noshow wrote:
Another one I miss is the late production F-16. Proven design, successful over Norway's mountains and not overly expensive.

Norway is replacing the F-16 though. The Swiss already evaluated the F-16 when they selected the Hornet. No reason to include it now although likely no reason LM couldn't have offered it but clearly the swiss are politically able to acquire F-35 so why bother with F-16.

art wrote:

Found a source that says 6 billion Sw francs budgeted for fights, 2 billion for missile defence system.

Beat me to it, was just about to post that number.

art wrote:
What happens with Rafale where A2A missiles are concerned? Since F-18 uses AIM-9 and AMRAAM, would the existing stock need to be dumped, accompanied by a big spend on new missiles if Rafale is selected.

New weapons as it is unlikely the Rafale would receive AIM-9X or AMRAAM integration from both access by US vendors to Rafale systems and Dassault resistance.

keesje · Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:31 pm

The Swiss would simply sell their AMRAAM's and AIM-9's to other approved operators. The price would depend on age, quantities, mod status, condition etc.

flyingturtle · Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:20 pm

In the past (Tiger and before), the Air Force wished for aircraft that could be flown by militia pilots, which would, outside of crisis times and after basic training, only show up for some weeks of active duty every year. Until the Hawker Hunters were phased out (in 1994), there were even farmers among the military fighter pilots.

Since 2001, the Air Force only has professional military pilots. You can still sign up as a militia pilot if you'll work as a professional civilian pilot after serving your time in one long bloc.

Mortyman · Tue Sep 29, 2020 9:36 pm

Have Switzerland ever considered the F-16 ( in the past or now ) and if no, why not ?

Ozair · Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:15 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Have Switzerland ever considered the F-16 ( in the past or now ) and if no, why not ?

As per reply #95, the Swiss evaluated the F-16 against the F/A-18 and Mirage 2000 (and maybe early Gripen...) in their initial selection of the Hornet.

keesje wrote:
The Swiss would simply sell their AMRAAM's and AIM-9's to other approved operators. The price would depend on age, quantities, mod status, condition etc.

While there likely wouldn't be any opposition to that it does require US approval and the respective age and flight hours of the missiles would be a big factor in either their sale or more likely disposal.

art · Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:53 pm

Mortyman wrote:
They could however get some very cheap 40 year old Norwegian F-16AM's from Norway ...

What would your percentage be?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net