FlapOperator wrote:

Irt wrote:

johns624 wrote:

That's today. What about 30 years from now? Geopolitical ties change over the years. I remember when Venezuela was our "friend" and we sold them F16s. At that time, due to the drug trade, Colombia was the "enemy". Now, their roles are reversed.

Yeah i mean in 30 years time maybe Europe is at war with the US, who knows?

I would say its far more likely there will be no US forces in Europe on that timeline.

Nobody knows. That's why you have to always have a strong defense. Once the threat arises, it's already too late to rearm. Sweden and Switzerland didn't stay neutral in World War Two because they were soft. It was because they had a decent military. There were other factors, too. Look how much good Dutch and Belgian neutrality did them.

flyingturtle wrote:

Alfons wrote:

They had to memorize every corner of every mountain so they could "fly around blindly". The idea was, in case of an enemy infiltration by air, to use the mountains as a hide and seek tool to win any dogfight.

I absolutely believe that. Also, using ridges and valleys in order to sneak up on enemy ground forces.

I dont know whether you guys know this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qoJ8hEsmI0#t=12m15s

Mach loop is like a playground in comparison...

johns624 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Irt wrote:

Yeah i mean in 30 years time maybe Europe is at war with the US, who knows?

I would say its far more likely there will be no US forces in Europe on that timeline.

Nobody knows. That's why you have to always have a strong defense. Once the threat arises, it's already too late to rearm. Sweden and Switzerland didn't stay neutral in World War Two because they were soft. It was because they had a decent military. There were other factors, too. Look how much good Dutch and Belgian neutrality did them.

Completely agree. The Swiss are wisely buying insurance.

rheinwaldner wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Alfons wrote:

They had to memorize every corner of every mountain so they could "fly around blindly". The idea was, in case of an enemy infiltration by air, to use the mountains as a hide and seek tool to win any dogfight.

I absolutely believe that. Also, using ridges and valleys in order to sneak up on enemy ground forces.

I dont know whether you guys know this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qoJ8hEsmI0#t=12m15s

Mach loop is like a playground in comparison...

Jeebus... that freaks me out...

At https://youtu.be/4qoJ8hEsmI0?t=1061 you see the Mirage jets being lifted by cranes inside the cavern. The hard points to make this possible was one of the reasons why the Mirage procurement was so frigging expensive...

flyingturtle wrote:

The hard points to make this possible was one of the reasons why the Mirage procurement was so frigging expensive...

Actually not that much. The wings of any aircraft is designed to take the mass of the aircraft, including fuel and weapons at many times the number of G's.

The wing is stout enough that to include provision for the lifting point would only involve a few strategically placed nut plates for the lift fitting/lugs to be attached.

This is done for the commercial airplane and fuselage all the time time.

bt

flyingturtle wrote:

Alfons wrote:

They had to memorize every corner of every mountain so they could "fly around blindly". The idea was, in case of an enemy infiltration by air, to use the mountains as a hide and seek tool to win any dogfight.

I absolutely believe that. Also, using ridges and valleys in order to sneak up on enemy ground forces.

I wonder if Switzerland would have bought the Harrier in an alternate universe. Hiding these planes just anywhere, with zero chance of the enemy spotting the bases. Except by trying to pick up radio transmissions.

They certainly evaluated the Harrier very closely in the 70's, as a Venom and Hunter replacement, bottom line, the Harrier was not cheap and the F-5E was, as well as being offered with local production.
Further up the thread, you mentioned that the Mirage III became a cost and procurement nightmare due to the Swiss AF wanting attack capabilities, wasn't the real issue the shoehorning in of the Hughes radar, fire control and Falcon AAM's, unique to the Mirage and for air defence?

I think the idea that Biden pressured the Swiss to go for the F-35 risible and comes from kneejerk anti US sentiment.
The real reason it seems to me is simple, it's a type expected to be around, including in production, with a wider user base than the others.

It's not as if the Swiss AF is still the purely defensive, hunkered in it's mountain shelters AF any more, in recent times they've deployed to the UK to exercise with the RAF and no doubt other AF's too.

GDB wrote:

Further up the thread, you mentioned that the Mirage III became a cost and procurement nightmare due to the Swiss AF wanting attack capabilities, wasn't the real issue the shoehorning in of the Hughes radar, fire control and Falcon AAM's, unique to the Mirage and for air defence?

I thought I was making a brainfart with the Swiss Harriers...

Yes, the hardpoints for lifting up the Mirages in the caverns was just one reason for the massive cost overruns. The others were, indeed, adding an US radar and US air-air missiles to the French jet. Another reason was that nobody issued specifications - the small commission (two air force officers plus a defense contractor employed by the air force) was free to select the world's top-notch fighter jet, without caring about what the air force actually needs.

The camera pods for the reconnaissance version were also a costly problem; and the reconnaissance planes were introduced after lots of delays.

In the end, for about 150% of the budgeted cost we just got about 40% of the planes. A training squadron, an air defense/ground attack squadron, and a reconnaissance squadron with too few jets to fulfil the doctrine the jet was bought for - destroying enemy ground troops long before they arrive near Switzerland.

The caverns for the Mirages were inofficially called "Miragelöcher", literally "Mirage holes". But it also rhymes with the German for "we assholes"...

GDB wrote:

I think the idea that Biden pressured the Swiss to go for the F-35 risible and comes from kneejerk anti US sentiment.

LOL
Such naivety is so cute.

sebolino wrote:

GDB wrote:

I think the idea that Biden pressured the Swiss to go for the F-35 risible and comes from kneejerk anti US sentiment.

LOL
Such naivety is so cute.

What do you call not having a clue about something and only able to see anything through the distorted lens of your hatreds?
Not 'cute' just smug ignorance, if anyone being being 'naive' it isn't me.
Fact; The F-35 though on one hand a surprising choice, when you factor in length of it's likely production life, number of worldwide users and support network, upgrades to keep them 'current' some decades from now, it's more logical. Looking out over the next few decades, even with a higher cost up front

Plus it has to go through another of those referendums so not a done deal, the Swiss had a chance to vote to accept the Gripen and rejected it. If you must know, I thought that was a then more obvious choice. Was that a massive US plot on the whole Swiss electorate? Are you that far gone to think that?

GDB wrote:

I think the idea that Biden pressured the Swiss to go for the F-35 risible and comes from kneejerk anti US sentiment.

When this scenario has been played out so many times all over the world, European air forces included it is only a reasonable concern to have.

GDB wrote:

Fact; The F-35 though on one hand a surprising choice, when you factor in length of it's likely production life, number of worldwide users and support network, upgrades to keep them 'current' some decades from now, it's more logical.

Plus it has to go through another of those referendums so not a done deal, the Swiss had a chance to vote to accept the Gripen and rejected it.

When could any referendum start being organised and how long would it take? I guess there would be enough people (a) opposed to buying any replacement fighter (b) opposed to buying the chosen fighter for a referendum to take place. I presume that there is a time limit for a government decision to be challenged by way of a referendum.

art wrote:

When could any referendum start being organised and how long would it take? I guess there would be enough people (a) opposed to buying any replacement fighter (b) opposed to buying the chosen fighter for a referendum to take place. I presume that there is a time limit for a government decision to be challenged by way of a referendum.

A referendum can be initiated against any federal law, and takes 50'000 signatures by Swiss citizens within 100 days. Then there will be a vote, the simple majority counts.

An initiative can be initiated to change the constitution, e.g. "Switzerland shall not buy US fighter jets". I takes 100'000 signatures within 18 months. Then, there will be a vote. Both the majority of the voters and the majority of the cantons must approve the change, meaning that the voters in conservative and sparsely populated cantons have a certain advantage. (Think of the electoral college in the US...)

A government decision (like which fighter type to buy) is not a law, only an ordinance, and can thus only be legally challenged. That's why the GSoA takes the way of an initiative, instead of the easier referendum.

flyingturtle wrote:

A referendum can be initiated against any federal law, and takes 50'000 signatures by Swiss citizens within 100 days. Then there will be a vote, the simple majority counts.

Thanks.

I guess there is a convention within Swiss politics that if a referendum looks like a possibility, further action by the government (in this case signing contracts) is suspended until the referendum process is concluded.

A month or so to gather 50,000 calls for a referendum? Another month to organise and conduct it? Perhaps less than 3 months from now to get a yes/no?

LHAM wrote:

GDB wrote:

I think the idea that Biden pressured the Swiss to go for the F-35 risible and comes from kneejerk anti US sentiment.

When this scenario has been played out so many times all over the world, European air forces included it is only a reasonable concern to have.

It's also been 'played out' plenty of times in the other direction too.
Each AF that for instance orders, outside of the nations that designed and built them, that buys Typhoons or Rafales, or Gripens is not buying a US aircraft.
Even if they already operate US equipment too.
So this whole simplistic idea does not hold up.

Does the US sometimes pressure AF's to buy their equipment? Yes.
So do the French, plus the consortium that built Typhoon.
The huge sales by the UK to mainly Saudi Arabia in the 80's and 90's took many by surprise, they were controversial and it later transpired that what we call corruption and what the Saudi's call doing business, were a part of it.
In short, exactly what the US is often accused of and often has done.
Ditto the French.

GDB wrote:

LHAM wrote:

GDB wrote:

I think the idea that Biden pressured the Swiss to go for the F-35 risible and comes from kneejerk anti US sentiment.

When this scenario has been played out so many times all over the world, European air forces included it is only a reasonable concern to have.

It's also been 'played out' plenty of times in the other direction too.
Each AF that for instance orders, outside of the nations that designed and built them, that buys Typhoons or Rafales, or Gripens is not buying a US aircraft.
Even if they already operate US equipment too.
So this whole simplistic idea does not hold up.

Does the US sometimes pressure AF's to buy their equipment? Yes.
So do the French, plus the consortium that built Typhoon.
The huge sales by the UK to mainly Saudi Arabia in the 80's and 90's took many by surprise, they were controversial and it later transpired that what we call corruption and what the Saudi's call doing business, were a part of it.
In short, exactly what the US is often accused of and often has done.
Ditto the French.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges when you are comparing the US's political and diplomatic pressure exerted in such deals with that of the EU countries.
Now that is not only simplistic but outright ignorant.

GDB wrote:

sebolino wrote:

GDB wrote:

I think the idea that Biden pressured the Swiss to go for the F-35 risible and comes from kneejerk anti US sentiment.

LOL
Such naivety is so cute.

What do you call not having a clue about something and only able to see anything through the distorted lens of your hatreds?
Not 'cute' just smug ignorance, if anyone being being 'naive' it isn't me.
Fact; The F-35 though on one hand a surprising choice, when you factor in length of it's likely production life, number of worldwide users and support network, upgrades to keep them 'current' some decades from now, it's more logical. Looking out over the next few decades, even with a higher cost up front

Plus it has to go through another of those referendums so not a done deal, the Swiss had a chance to vote to accept the Gripen and rejected it. If you must know, I thought that was a then more obvious choice. Was that a massive US plot on the whole Swiss electorate? Are you that far gone to think that?

Hatred ? Calm down dude, you're the only one with hatred here.
If you're not aware of the huge geo-political interests of the US in Europe, you're just misinformed.
I don't blame the US at all here, what they're doing is very logical and even fair. They have western countries under their protection umbrella, and it comes at a cost.
I blame Switzerland to give in so easily, and I can't wait to see the report of the CF on their choice. For the moment, and as far as we know today (things can change of course), they just bought a flawed aircraft, which can't fly near a thunderstorm, and is only able to shoot itself so far in addition to putting the buyers in a technological dependance. Time will tell if the so-called experts of this forum will have their wishes come true, and frankly, I hope they will, otherwise, what a waste of money !

About simulator use, I don't see how it can make the F-35 more competitive, considering other aircraft also have simulators.

I've seen in a video that when the US sold F18 to Switzerland, they lied about its size, so that it was supposed to fit in the aforementioned hidden caches, but in the end it didn't fit and it cost a pretty penny to upgrade the caches. True/false ?

I'm sure in 20 years the F-35 will have most of its issues fixed, and it has a smaller radar cross-section for sure. Don't know if that will still be relevant by then (who can say better radars, SAMs, and drones, will not change the picture completely ?). But it will be difficult to convince me that the choice is really about cost.

This time they did fitting tests at Meiringen air base which is said to have underground facilities. Mind you the swiss legacy F-18s are the old model smaller sized ones.

LHAM wrote:

GDB wrote:

LHAM wrote:

When this scenario has been played out so many times all over the world, European air forces included it is only a reasonable concern to have.

It's also been 'played out' plenty of times in the other direction too.
Each AF that for instance orders, outside of the nations that designed and built them, that buys Typhoons or Rafales, or Gripens is not buying a US aircraft.
Even if they already operate US equipment too.
So this whole simplistic idea does not hold up.

Does the US sometimes pressure AF's to buy their equipment? Yes.
So do the French, plus the consortium that built Typhoon.
The huge sales by the UK to mainly Saudi Arabia in the 80's and 90's took many by surprise, they were controversial and it later transpired that what we call corruption and what the Saudi's call doing business, were a part of it.
In short, exactly what the US is often accused of and often has done.
Ditto the French.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges when you are comparing the US's political and diplomatic pressure exerted in such deals with that of the EU countries.
Now that is not only simplistic but outright ignorant.

Thanks for telling me how ignorant I am, want to do a test on this? I'm game.
For instance, look at a very notorious case, selling the F-104 to European NATO nations, which was however NOT a result a US diplomatic pressure but a plain and simple bribe by Lockheed to some European, notably German politicians. Illegal too.
When it it came out in 1975 it was however very embarrassing for the US. And very damaging for Lockheed.

Interestingly, that was also the same year that the F-16 was picked to replace those F-104's, another case of US diplomatic pressure or commercial bribes? It was a General Dynamics aircraft then, not LM.
Actually no, not this time, can YOU think of a more suitable aircraft then to take those NATO nations into the 1980's and beyond?
I can't, Mirage F1E? Not going to be modern post late 1980's against later expected Soviet types.
Saab 37? Not a NATO nation, great aircraft but separate versions for attack/recce and air defence.
YF-17? Recently rejected by the USAF for the YF-16 as it was then, F-18 not quite a going concern at that time.

In the 1980's and 90's the US was loath to sell Taiwan certain hardware, being more interested in pleasing China, the ROC really wanted a BVR capability for it's F-16's.
Eventually they gave up and brought Mirage 2000's instead.
I bet the US were pissed off at that, not only annoying China but of course missing out on sales.
Not much they could do about it though.

Closer to home, after UK scientists who made up 20% of the Manhattan project and did much of the early science before joining that project, were booted out 1946 and agreements on cooperation torn up, did the UK, bankrupted by WW2 just accept it?
No, the Attlee government went ahead with a UK program.
As did France a bit later.

In the mid 60's the UK came under great diplomatic and economic pressure to join the US in Vietnam, not for material more political support. LBJ's insults, snubs to PM Wilson made no difference.
There is a reason why LBJ is the only US President not to have a state visit to the UK, the only POTUS the Queen in 69 years on the Throne has never met.

20 years back, reporting in the UK press of how Clinton put a lot of pressure on PM Blair to adopt advanced versions of the AMRAAM for Typhoon upgrades and future applications, AMRAAM was already in service with the RAF on Typhoons, Tornado F3's and RN Sea Harrier FA2's.
One leaked letter had Clinton saying 'I feel very strongly about this issue'.
However, the UK led MBDA project won out, now in service on Typhoons. The Meteor AAM.
Ditto the pressure 15 years before to adopt HARM rather than the BAe ALARM.

I could cite many more cases but why bother?
At the end of the day, the Swiss are not in NATO, always procured what they want to, so the idea that the new US President somehow strong armed the Swiss into making a choice that was already a possibility, is yes, risible and ignorant.

art wrote:

I guess there is a convention within Swiss politics that if a referendum looks like a possibility, further action by the government (in this case signing contracts) is suspended until the referendum process is concluded.

A month or so to gather 50,000 calls for a referendum? Another month to organise and conduct it? Perhaps less than 3 months from now to get a yes/no?

Well, they have 100 days to collect the 50'000 signatures. And a referendum is done pretty quickly. The GSoA can draw upon the Social Democrats as well as the Greens, maybe also labor unions. And from handing in the signatures (both referendum and initiative), there will be about 1 to 3 years until the citizens get to vote on it.

When we collected the referendum signatures against the Gripen, the federal assembly did its decision in fall, meaning we had to collect the signatures in winter... which is a bit more difficult.

Noshow wrote:

This time they did fitting tests at Meiringen air base which is said to have underground facilities. Mind you the swiss legacy F-18s are the old model smaller sized ones.

It has underground facilities. I think there are even pictures of Mirage III on airliners.net, showing the entrance to the caverns.

I know.
https://www.mediathek.admin.ch/media/im ... 692eca1429

Start of signatures collection will be mid-August, when summer holidays are over. https://www.watson.ch/!183557957

I'd be very surprised if the referendum doesn't get 100'000 quite quickly – the U.S. has lost a lot of lustre in the 4 Trump years, and political trajectories that were completely unthinkable in not-leftist circles only a few years ago appear quite possible, even probable today.

sebolino wrote:

Hatred ? Calm down dude, you're the only one with hatred here.

I disagree. GDB has posted a very logical and level headed argument. You are the one that first mentioned Biden political interference with no evidence because your favourite jet didn't win. I just searched your posts in the off topic forum and your hatred for the US and the Republican side runs deep.

The F-35 won fair and square. When it continues to win in more contests moving forward it will no doubt continue to ruffle many feather. It is not the "lemon" portrayed on the fake news clickbait websites.

flyingturtle wrote:

When we collected the referendum signatures against the Gripen, the federal assembly did its decision in fall, meaning we had to collect the signatures in winter... which is a bit more difficult.

So with a population of 8.5 million getting 50,000 votes is fairly small. With social media it allows small issues to get votes quickly.

49.9% of the Swiss population in a referendum on September 2020 said they should have NO fighters!

https://www.aerotime.aero/26007-50-1-of ... ghter-jets

So now with the F-35 decision going to a referendum it only takes a swing of 0.2% of people who hate the US and the F-35 deal is blocked.

If a Rafale or Eurofighter were to get purchased there would be 0.2% anti French or anti German people to block the deals.

So at this stage with the broken Swiss system no fighters can be purchased moving forward. Even if they were built in Switzerland it would get blocked as you would have people who realise how much money is being wasted. This percentage of people is then added on top of the 49.9% of people who think there should be no fighters.

The Swiss air force should look into doing short term wet lease contracts for the F-35. That will get around the clearly broken system.

Maybe those Patriot SAM’s part of the package not only helped to swing it for the F-35 as a complete system but also allowed the Swiss to hedge their bets living as they do in a nation where if that poll is correct, nearly half of the electorate don’t want ANY fighters?

Being British, I would have liked to have seen Typhoon win of course, with the RAF doing all those often high speed intercepts of Russian bombers with their transponders off, the type is well suited in that respect.
But the Swiss AF are not the RAF, some different requirements of course but guess what? I can live with the choice made, it makes sense long term and that is surely the major issue for them, the Swiss run their fleets for decades.
Of course it helps that the F-35, even the A model, has a decent amount of UK content!

How anyone can get all conspiracy theory about it is beyond me, certainly beyond their knowledge of the aircraft, the issues with the Swiss procurement and they haven’t explained the original choice from SAAB, did the CIA rig the referendum that rejected it?

RJMAZ wrote:

So now with the F-35 decision going to a referendum it only takes a swing of 0.2% of people who hate the US and the F-35 deal is blocked.

No, it will be a people initiative (as the aim is not to reject a law decided by the parliament). A such people initiative requires not only the majority of voters but also the majority of cantons (=states). And that second criteria is hard to win for left wing demands. To the degree, that the F-35 buy is safe imho...

GDB wrote:

At the end of the day, the Swiss are not in NATO, always procured what they want to, so the idea that the new US President somehow strong armed the Swiss into making a choice that was already a possibility, is yes, risible and ignorant.

Given all the the things going on here in the states, I think President Biden has more pressing issues than a relatively small arms sale to a neutral nation.

LMP737 wrote:

all the the things going on here in the states, I think President Biden has more pressing issues than a relatively small arms sale to a neutral nation.

Other than US banking laws, not sure if ther is any leverage the US have on Swiss.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

sebolino wrote:

Hatred ? Calm down dude, you're the only one with hatred here.

I disagree. GDB has posted a very logical and level headed argument. You are the one that first mentioned Biden political interference with no evidence because your favourite jet didn't win. I just searched your posts in the off topic forum and your hatred for the US and the Republican side runs deep.

The F-35 won fair and square. When it continues to win in more contests moving forward it will no doubt continue to ruffle many feather. It is not the "lemon" portrayed on the fake news clickbait websites.

LOL
I hate Trump and the morons who invaded the capitol, yes !
I don't hate the US nor Biden.

And once again, you're mistaken, I have no "favorite jet". I'm just a little upset that European are unable to work together on this subject as well as many others.

sebolino wrote:

I'm just a little upset that European are unable to work together on this subject as well as many others.

Than maybe the European corporations should get together and build a stealth fighter. Until then, if you want one, you have to buy American.

johns624 wrote:

sebolino wrote:

I'm just a little upset that European are unable to work together on this subject as well as many others.

Than maybe the European corporations should get together and build a stealth fighter. Until then, if you want one, you have to buy American.

What do you mean by “buy American”?

There are eight international program partners in the F-35 program: the U.S. (primary), United Kingdom (Tier 1) Italy and Netherlands (Tier 2), Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada (Tier 3).

Outside the U.S one FACO is in Italy and another one is in Japan.

Are you still sure that if you buy an F-35 you buy “American”?

777 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

sebolino wrote:

I'm just a little upset that European are unable to work together on this subject as well as many others.

Than maybe the European corporations should get together and build a stealth fighter. Until then, if you want one, you have to buy American.

What do you mean by “buy American”?

There are eight international program partners in the F-35 program: the U.S. (primary), United Kingdom (Tier 1) Italy and Netherlands (Tier 2), Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada (Tier 3).

Outside the U.S one FACO is in Italy and another one is in Japan.

Are you still sure that if you buy an F-35 you buy “American”?

I was replying to the poster who said that the American president forced Switzerland to buy an American product. I know other countries are involved, I just didn't feel like I had to give a complete background to the project to him. Too many here think that second (or third) best is good enough. War and deterrence isn't supposed to be a fair fight. Also, it's not good telling your military that you're sending them off to fight without the best equipment. It's one thing if you can't afford it; quite another if you're just cheap.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-439.pdf
Seems like the GAO isn’t quite as optimistic about promised future cost reductions for the F-35 program as the Swiss government.

Considering how the F-35 program has gone so far (hundreds of billions over budget, for starters), you'd be hard pressed to sell to Europeans the idea of going the same route. And we wouldn't build 2 or 3 thousands of them to spread that cost..

Buying the plane without having any prior involvement with the program is kind of a good deal in a way, fewer headaches.

Aesma wrote:

Considering how the F-35 program has gone so far (hundreds of billions over budget, for starters), you'd be hard pressed to sell to Europeans the idea of going the same route. And we wouldn't build 2 or 3 thousands of them to spread that cost..

Buying the plane without having any prior involvement with the program is kind of a good deal in a way, fewer headaches.

I like how people here make crazy statements with no actual concept of how much money has been spent. Shows how little they actually understand about the F-35. It also shows where they get their news from.

Aesma an FYI, saying hundreds of billions over budget when the whole program hasn't spent hundreds of billions of dollars seems a bit silly. The dev program was 60 billion and even if all aircraft sold were 200 million each, reality is half that, that would only be 120 billion extra. Bit hard to be hundreds of billions over budget don't ya think.

philzh wrote:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-439.pdf
Seems like the GAO isn’t quite as optimistic about promised future cost reductions for the F-35 program as the Swiss government.

Gotta love GAO, playing for the crowd.

FYI LM has only 40% of operating cost within their control, P&W has 11% and the USAF or USMC or USN has 49%. Seems like if the Swiss don't want to operate the aircraft like the USAF etc then they should just fine. https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 77.article

philzh wrote:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-439.pdf
Seems like the GAO isn’t quite as optimistic about promised future cost reductions for the F-35 program as the Swiss government.

Yes the F-35 might not hit the original crazy low hourly flight cost but that is irrelevant here as it is far cheaper than any mix of aircraft of similar capability.

If you want to provide basic radar coverage then ground radar combined with a smaller unarmed AWAC will do the job.

It is hard to think of a situation where Switzerland needs any fighters at all. Any threat to Switzerland would be taken out by NATO aircraft.

But for comparison's sake let's take an interdiction mission similar to where Israel attacked the Iraq nuclear reaction which was 860nm away. Maybe the secret Swiss chocolate recipe was captured by terrorists.

A flight of just 4 F-35 could perform that mission with near zero risk self escorting with a bomb each. No inflight refueling required.

The Eurofighter option would need 8 fighters, 4 bombing, 2 providing counter air and 2 providing SEAD. A tanker would be needed along with 2 escorts. That is a big package.

Going Gripen would require an extra two aircraft for bombing. The tanker would need to go deeper and require more escorts to keep risk at similar levels. Maybe 20+ aircraft to perform the mission of 4 F-35.

RJMAZ wrote:

philzh wrote:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-439.pdf
Seems like the GAO isn’t quite as optimistic about promised future cost reductions for the F-35 program as the Swiss government.

But for comparison's sake let's take an interdiction mission similar to where Israel attacked the Iraq nuclear reaction which was 860nm away. Maybe the secret Swiss chocolate recipe was captured by terrorists.

A flight of just 4 F-35 could perform that mission with near zero risk self escorting with a bomb each. No inflight refueling required.

The Eurofighter option would need 8 fighters, 4 bombing, 2 providing counter air and 2 providing SEAD. A tanker would be needed along with 2 escorts. That is a big package.

Going Gripen would require an extra two aircraft for bombing. The tanker would need to go deeper and require more escorts to keep risk at similar levels. Maybe 20+ aircraft to perform the mission of 4 F-35.

Iraq? I guess you meant Iran…

777 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

philzh wrote:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-439.pdf
Seems like the GAO isn’t quite as optimistic about promised future cost reductions for the F-35 program as the Swiss government.

But for comparison's sake let's take an interdiction mission similar to where Israel attacked the Iraq nuclear reaction which was 860nm away. Maybe the secret Swiss chocolate recipe was captured by terrorists.

A flight of just 4 F-35 could perform that mission with near zero risk self escorting with a bomb each. No inflight refueling required.

The Eurofighter option would need 8 fighters, 4 bombing, 2 providing counter air and 2 providing SEAD. A tanker would be needed along with 2 escorts. That is a big package.

Going Gripen would require an extra two aircraft for bombing. The tanker would need to go deeper and require more escorts to keep risk at similar levels. Maybe 20+ aircraft to perform the mission of 4 F-35.

Iraq? I guess you meant Iran…

Not if this one is being referred to;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

(Didn't know that Iran, after the outbreak of the war with Iraq, also had a go at it too).

Not that there is any prospect of the Swiss having to do anything comparable.

deleted

GDB wrote:

Not if this one is being referred to;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

That's the one.

That style of mission would be bread and butter for the F-35. No other aircraft in the world could do it alone without significantly higher risk. Even the B-2 bomber wouldn't do that mission alone without a fighter sweep and electronic jamming.

But I assume the strength of the F-35 is that it can fly over Switzerland without any neighbouring country knowing that it is on patrol. A great deterrent for border incursions. If NATO gets involved in a conflict they might overfly Switzerland on the way to the target if they don't see any Swiss fighters in the air. With the F-35 NATO wouldn't risk flying over Switzerland.

Also the EOS system makes a great reconnaissance aircraft.

johns624 wrote:

777 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Than maybe the European corporations should get together and build a stealth fighter. Until then, if you want one, you have to buy American.

What do you mean by “buy American”?

There are eight international program partners in the F-35 program: the U.S. (primary), United Kingdom (Tier 1) Italy and Netherlands (Tier 2), Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada (Tier 3).

Outside the U.S one FACO is in Italy and another one is in Japan.

Are you still sure that if you buy an F-35 you buy “American”?

I was replying to the poster who said that the American president forced Switzerland to buy an American product. I know other countries are involved, I just didn't feel like I had to give a complete background to the project to him. Too many here think that second (or third) best is good enough. War and deterrence isn't supposed to be a fair fight. Also, it's not good telling your military that you're sending them off to fight without the best equipment. It's one thing if you can't afford it; quite another if you're just cheap.

Hey guy, stop putting words in my mouth.
I've never said it was "forced". There was pressure, as it's commonly done in this kind of deal and other commercial deal. I don't see why you're shocked by this.
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Iran with sanctions ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US are putting pressure on the EU to drop the taxes on Digital companies ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Turkey not to buy Russian missile systems ? (without success but with retaliation now)
Yet, that's the reality. Live with it, the world is not what you think it is.

Now, your idea is "If you want to have a stealth fighter, you have to buy a F-35". OK, and the sky is blue also. Thanks for the piece of news.

sebolino wrote:

johns624 wrote:

777 wrote:

What do you mean by “buy American”?

There are eight international program partners in the F-35 program: the U.S. (primary), United Kingdom (Tier 1) Italy and Netherlands (Tier 2), Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada (Tier 3).

Outside the U.S one FACO is in Italy and another one is in Japan.

Are you still sure that if you buy an F-35 you buy “American”?

I was replying to the poster who said that the American president forced Switzerland to buy an American product. I know other countries are involved, I just didn't feel like I had to give a complete background to the project to him. Too many here think that second (or third) best is good enough. War and deterrence isn't supposed to be a fair fight. Also, it's not good telling your military that you're sending them off to fight without the best equipment. It's one thing if you can't afford it; quite another if you're just cheap.

Hey guy, stop putting words in my mouth.
I've never said it was "forced". There was pressure, as it's commonly done in this kind of deal and other commercial deal. I don't see why you're shocked by this.
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Iran with sanctions ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US are putting pressure on the EU to drop the taxes on Digital companies ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Turkey not to buy Russian missile systems ? (without success but with retaliation now)
Yet, that's the reality. Live with it, the world is not what you think it is.

Now, your idea is "If you want to have a stealth fighter, you have to buy a F-35". OK, and the sky is blue also. Thanks for the piece of news.

what you fail to explain is how "US Pressure" changed the scoring of the competition or the technical evaluation, both of which were completed long before Biden came to town. The FACT the F-35 scored so highly in the technical evaluation irrespective of pressure is clear, the FACT the cost was cheaper than the nearest alternative by 2 billion irrespective of pressure is clear, these were submitted months before your claim of pressure occurred. The FACT the competition and evaluation was reviewed and audited by an independent Swiss Bank long before the "US pressure" was applied is clear.

It is easy to say you were wrong is making a claim, just say it, and don't be a sore loser about it. You are wrong on pretty much most of your other claims on the capability of the F-35, as the Swiss Air Force have made clear. Time to fess up to this one as well.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Considering how the F-35 program has gone so far (hundreds of billions over budget, for starters), you'd be hard pressed to sell to Europeans the idea of going the same route. And we wouldn't build 2 or 3 thousands of them to spread that cost..

Buying the plane without having any prior involvement with the program is kind of a good deal in a way, fewer headaches.

I like how people here make crazy statements with no actual concept of how much money has been spent. Shows how little they actually understand about the F-35. It also shows where they get their news from.

Aesma an FYI, saying hundreds of billions over budget when the whole program hasn't spent hundreds of billions of dollars seems a bit silly. The dev program was 60 billion and even if all aircraft sold were 200 million each, reality is half that, that would only be 120 billion extra. Bit hard to be hundreds of billions over budget don't ya think.

Any google search, even a neutral one, will give results in the trillions.

How much has been sunk matters, however if the program isn't cancelled, then what I said will happen.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

sebolino wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I was replying to the poster who said that the American president forced Switzerland to buy an American product. I know other countries are involved, I just didn't feel like I had to give a complete background to the project to him. Too many here think that second (or third) best is good enough. War and deterrence isn't supposed to be a fair fight. Also, it's not good telling your military that you're sending them off to fight without the best equipment. It's one thing if you can't afford it; quite another if you're just cheap.

Hey guy, stop putting words in my mouth.
I've never said it was "forced". There was pressure, as it's commonly done in this kind of deal and other commercial deal. I don't see why you're shocked by this.
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Iran with sanctions ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US are putting pressure on the EU to drop the taxes on Digital companies ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Turkey not to buy Russian missile systems ? (without success but with retaliation now)
Yet, that's the reality. Live with it, the world is not what you think it is.

Now, your idea is "If you want to have a stealth fighter, you have to buy a F-35". OK, and the sky is blue also. Thanks for the piece of news.

what you fail to explain is how "US Pressure" changed the scoring of the competition or the technical evaluation, both of which were completed long before Biden came to town. The FACT the F-35 scored so highly in the technical evaluation irrespective of pressure is clear, the FACT the cost was cheaper than the nearest alternative by 2 billion irrespective of pressure is clear, these were submitted months before your claim of pressure occurred. The FACT the competition and evaluation was reviewed and audited by an independent Swiss Bank long before the "US pressure" was applied is clear.

It is easy to say you were wrong is making a claim, just say it, and don't be a sore loser about it. You are wrong on pretty much most of your other claims on the capability of the F-35, as the Swiss Air Force have made clear. Time to fess up to this one as well.

How old are you ? Seriously, you sound like a teenager. Please tell me which claims I made on the F-35 that were proven wrong ... I'm curious.

About the price of the F-35 maybe ????

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_fo ... 87038.html
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07 ... ity-cliff/


And again, if you think there's no pressure in this kind of deal, well, you're definitely very young.

sebolino wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

sebolino wrote:

Hey guy, stop putting words in my mouth.
I've never said it was "forced". There was pressure, as it's commonly done in this kind of deal and other commercial deal. I don't see why you're shocked by this.
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Iran with sanctions ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US are putting pressure on the EU to drop the taxes on Digital companies ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Turkey not to buy Russian missile systems ? (without success but with retaliation now)
Yet, that's the reality. Live with it, the world is not what you think it is.

Now, your idea is "If you want to have a stealth fighter, you have to buy a F-35". OK, and the sky is blue also. Thanks for the piece of news.

what you fail to explain is how "US Pressure" changed the scoring of the competition or the technical evaluation, both of which were completed long before Biden came to town. The FACT the F-35 scored so highly in the technical evaluation irrespective of pressure is clear, the FACT the cost was cheaper than the nearest alternative by 2 billion irrespective of pressure is clear, these were submitted months before your claim of pressure occurred. The FACT the competition and evaluation was reviewed and audited by an independent Swiss Bank long before the "US pressure" was applied is clear.

It is easy to say you were wrong is making a claim, just say it, and don't be a sore loser about it. You are wrong on pretty much most of your other claims on the capability of the F-35, as the Swiss Air Force have made clear. Time to fess up to this one as well.

How old are you ? Seriously, you sound like a teenager. Please tell me which claims I made on the F-35 that were proven wrong ... I'm curious.

About the price of the F-35 maybe ????

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_fo ... 87038.html
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07 ... ity-cliff/


And again, if you think there's no pressure in this kind of deal, well, you're definitely very young.

So what plane should the Swiss have chosen?

Aesma wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Considering how the F-35 program has gone so far (hundreds of billions over budget, for starters), you'd be hard pressed to sell to Europeans the idea of going the same route. And we wouldn't build 2 or 3 thousands of them to spread that cost..

Buying the plane without having any prior involvement with the program is kind of a good deal in a way, fewer headaches.

I like how people here make crazy statements with no actual concept of how much money has been spent. Shows how little they actually understand about the F-35. It also shows where they get their news from.

Aesma an FYI, saying hundreds of billions over budget when the whole program hasn't spent hundreds of billions of dollars seems a bit silly. The dev program was 60 billion and even if all aircraft sold were 200 million each, reality is half that, that would only be 120 billion extra. Bit hard to be hundreds of billions over budget don't ya think.

Any google search, even a neutral one, will give results in the trillions.

How much has been sunk matters, however if the program isn't cancelled, then what I said will happen.

Oh so when you said billions over budget you meant future billions over budget, makes sense and not sure why I read it the logical way I did. What happens if the program ends tomorrow, another F-35 never flies again and no further money is spent, what happens to those future billions over budget?

They don't happen. Which is what plenty in the US military have been asking for literally decades now, but hasn't happened, and won't happen.

These future billions matter a lot for Switzerland though, since they're "promised" a certain price and certain operating costs, that are not going to materialize.

sebolino wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

sebolino wrote:

Hey guy, stop putting words in my mouth.
I've never said it was "forced". There was pressure, as it's commonly done in this kind of deal and other commercial deal. I don't see why you're shocked by this.
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Iran with sanctions ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US are putting pressure on the EU to drop the taxes on Digital companies ?
Are you shocked if I say that the US did put pressure on Turkey not to buy Russian missile systems ? (without success but with retaliation now)
Yet, that's the reality. Live with it, the world is not what you think it is.

Now, your idea is "If you want to have a stealth fighter, you have to buy a F-35". OK, and the sky is blue also. Thanks for the piece of news.

what you fail to explain is how "US Pressure" changed the scoring of the competition or the technical evaluation, both of which were completed long before Biden came to town. The FACT the F-35 scored so highly in the technical evaluation irrespective of pressure is clear, the FACT the cost was cheaper than the nearest alternative by 2 billion irrespective of pressure is clear, these were submitted months before your claim of pressure occurred. The FACT the competition and evaluation was reviewed and audited by an independent Swiss Bank long before the "US pressure" was applied is clear.

It is easy to say you were wrong is making a claim, just say it, and don't be a sore loser about it. You are wrong on pretty much most of your other claims on the capability of the F-35, as the Swiss Air Force have made clear. Time to fess up to this one as well.

How old are you ? Seriously, you sound like a teenager. Please tell me which claims I made on the F-35 that were proven wrong ... I'm curious.

About the price of the F-35 maybe ????

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_fo ... 87038.html
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07 ... ity-cliff/


And again, if you think there's no pressure in this kind of deal, well, you're definitely very young.

Ha ha, apparently when I say logical things I am a teenager. Even if I was does that make anything I wrote incorrect? You can add links to media reports all you want but if you don’t understand the facts then you will forever just be noise with no substance.

What it costs the US is almost meaningless, if you want to operate the aircraft like the US does then you will pay US costs. If you want to operate the aircraft like other nations do, at half the cost of the US today let alone years into the future, then you can. The Swiss have made a good choice that was billions cheaper than the alternatives.

No pressure is again a stupid statement but nice to see you are backing away from your silly Biden claims. Should we say there was no pressure from France to buy the Rafale, Parly didn’t visit Switzerland a couple of weeks before the announcement (is this pressure) and she didn’t issue statements after the F-35 selection about Swiss not choosing European, or comments on Germany choosing the P-8.

Pressure is always there and from all sides but what decided the competition was the selection criteria, technical, cost and industry for Switzerland. The F-35 won the first two overwhelmingly and did enough in the last to win the competition overall. Pressure from any side didn’t change the result of the evaluation.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

sebolino wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

what you fail to explain is how "US Pressure" changed the scoring of the competition or the technical evaluation, both of which were completed long before Biden came to town. The FACT the F-35 scored so highly in the technical evaluation irrespective of pressure is clear, the FACT the cost was cheaper than the nearest alternative by 2 billion irrespective of pressure is clear, these were submitted months before your claim of pressure occurred. The FACT the competition and evaluation was reviewed and audited by an independent Swiss Bank long before the "US pressure" was applied is clear.

It is easy to say you were wrong is making a claim, just say it, and don't be a sore loser about it. You are wrong on pretty much most of your other claims on the capability of the F-35, as the Swiss Air Force have made clear. Time to fess up to this one as well.

How old are you ? Seriously, you sound like a teenager. Please tell me which claims I made on the F-35 that were proven wrong ... I'm curious.

About the price of the F-35 maybe ????

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_fo ... 87038.html
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07 ... ity-cliff/


And again, if you think there's no pressure in this kind of deal, well, you're definitely very young.

Ha ha, apparently when I say logical things I am a teenager. Even if I was does that make anything I wrote incorrect? You can add links to media reports all you want but if you don’t understand the facts then you will forever just be noise with no substance.

What it costs the US is almost meaningless, if you want to operate the aircraft like the US does then you will pay US costs. If you want to operate the aircraft like other nations do, at half the cost of the US today let alone years into the future, then you can. The Swiss have made a good choice that was billions cheaper than the alternatives.

No pressure is again a stupid statement but nice to see you are backing away from your silly Biden claims. Should we say there was no pressure from France to buy the Rafale, Parly didn’t visit Switzerland a couple of weeks before the announcement (is this pressure) and she didn’t issue statements after the F-35 selection about Swiss not choosing European, or comments on Germany choosing the P-8.

Pressure is always there and from all sides but what decided the competition was the selection criteria, technical, cost and industry for Switzerland. The F-35 won the first two overwhelmingly and did enough in the last to win the competition overall. Pressure from any side didn’t change the result of the evaluation.

Pfff ...
Sorry boy, but what you say has no logic in it, it's just driven by your desperate need to show your manhood: "It is easy to say you were wrong is making a claim, just say it, and don't be a sore loser about it. You are wrong on pretty much most of your other claims on the capability of the F-35".
You didn't tell me which claim I made which was proven wrong. I'm still waiting.

"Pressure is always there and from all sides". You see , you're starting to learn.