Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 41

Thread: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,703

    Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted

    Switzerland on Friday kicked off a multibillion-franc competition to replace its ageing fleet of F-5 fighter jets, and older model F/A-18 fighters, inviting five European and U.S. weapons makers to submit bids by January.

    The Swiss defence ministry asked for bids from European aerospace group Airbus, France’s Dassault and Sweden’s Saab, as well as Boeing and Lockheed Martin from the United States.
    The Swiss procurement agency said it was asking the firms to submit pricing for 30 or 40 planes, including logistics and guided missiles, as well as an assessment of the number of aircraft necessary to fulfil the Swiss Air Force’s needs.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/swis...-idUSL8N1U242W

    So all the normal candidates (except F/A-18) will be considered. I find it interesting that the OEM's making the more expensive aircraft will be arguing that while more expensive than Gripen E a smaller number will be needed to do the same job. I see some nice fat profits on the cards for LM, Dassault or Eurofighter if they win.
    Sum ergo cogito

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,703
    ERROR

    Sorry - can't edit my post. I missed seeing Boeing is included so I guess that means F/A-18 IS included.
    Sum ergo cogito

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    32
    I really see Switzerland going with the cheap option. And that is not bad plan when you are Switzerland and never go to war.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,264
    as they require to perform the test flights, I wonder how it will go on with LM, as there's no two seater F-35 and I doubt they train a swiss pilot (or more) "just in case" to let him to whatever he wants with the aircraft

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,328
    So you do think that you buy an F-35 without ever trying it? Just like an icecream?
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 9th July 2018 at 16:20.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    It's can't cost that much to go through F-35 school.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,264
    Well, all buyers until now did, in Canada, who wanted to try the contenders, LM said "there's no need to try, we're the best"... several LM supporters said on several occasions that there's little chance that a potentially buying country does a flight test as there's no two seater (all tests for other contenders are done with a qualified pilot in a back seat, as a safety measure).. so I simply wondered what LM will respond to the "flight test requirement"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Who says that the "flight test" has to be a Swiss pilot? Not doubting, just asking.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,264
    I guess the swiss... they did all their testing until now... they have their own test pilots, flight test unit, procedures and so on.. so, as says a buddy of mine, (diver) "wet and sea"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,328
    I think this point was already cleared with the RFI published some month ago Would be good to go through the old thread.
    And why does we have to have this new one ?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Hence my "why not train a pilot" thought.

    On a more serious note, what really would be gained by having a Swiss pilot in the cockpit that could not be also gained by a combination of sending a Swiss pilot through the course and observing an LM/DoD/JPO pilot with a DART pod attached?

    The coursework & simulator time will make them aware of the pilot workload & how it responds to pilot inputs and the DART will confirm physical & kinematic attributes. BDA is self evident. Also, would anyone turn away the F-22 given the same restrictions?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,264
    I don't know, that's why I wondered how it will turn out

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    This is the only part of the RFP that pertains to testing that I could find.

    {translated from French}
    4.1 Requirements imposed
    4. At least part of the flight and ground tests shall be carried out in Switzerland for all candidates for the acquisition of the next aircraft of fight

    4.2 Desirable characteristics
    1. As far as possible, the evaluated combat aircraft will be flown by Swiss pilots during flight tests.
    2. To improve knowledge of the system, it would be wise to have a core team composed of Swiss industry and army personnel collaborates with the manufacturer or a representative of the manufacturer for the final assembly of the next aircraft beats. Final assembly in Switzerland is not a requirement, but this possibility However, it is not excluded either.
    3. To increase the degree of autonomy, efforts should be made to acquire the rights of for the autonomous development of C2 software (Bodluv, system of airspace surveillance).
    https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/mes...ents/51784.pdf
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 9th July 2018 at 17:22.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Don't forget that the RFP includes a SAM component. My personal pic, NASAMs with AMRAAM-ER for the medium-range SAM and land-based SM-6 for the long-range SAM.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,426
    Switzerland like to pride itself on neutrality. The F-35 is a defacto military alliance with the US. So Im not sure why its even in the competition.

    It would be most practical to deal with someone in continental Europe. That's the Gripen or the Dassault.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    How so? They are flying F-5s and F-18s now without an issue.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    123
    SM-6s and F-35s for Switzerland, hah!! Can't think of a worse match, hm, why not some B-21s?

    Also, Swiss have expressed concern a couple of years back regarding control over AMRAAMs and GPS codes. ALIS (heck, the whole JSF) is surely a worrying beast for any country that cares a bit about operational autonomy and doesn't have US support for granted.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Plenty of nations have bought F-16s & F-18s (including the Swiss) without getting access to the "codes" and it did not seem to bother them.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,328
    And the "Alis" concerns, as we should put it for you, are already answered in the RFI (and in the old thread).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    What specific ALIS concern?

    I can operate for long periods "off the net" and can filter outgoing data to ensure that any sensitive data is not "passed up the chain".
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,703
    I recollect that around 2010 the F-5 replacement programme was launched and that some time later Boeing withdrew from the competition. Unless I am mistaken there was a problem with the Superhornet wingspan exceeding the maximum that could be accomodated in bunkers dug into hillsides. What has changed? Would the cost of enlarging those bunkers be added to any quote from Boeing when evaluating Superhornet?

    Looking at CPFH, it seems a big jump from F-5 CPFH (I guess under $5,000) to at least double that (if not triple or more) for all the types offered except Gripen E. I do not know how many hours a year Swiss F-5's were flown on missions that did not warrant the capability of the Hornets but having to fly air patrols at a CPFH increased by 100% or 150% or 200% compared to F-5 (or possibly even more) seems a massive waste of money to me if it can be avoided. Of the companies invited to quote for supplying fighters only SAAB can offer a product that might not cost several times more to fly each hour than F-5.
    Sum ergo cogito

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    F-16V would be a good choice.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    323
    They basically need a low cost QRA and air policing fighter. Why don't they look into uprading their existing F-5s to say a standard similar to thailand's F-5ST Super Tigris? Low operating costs with modern radar, missile and HMD.

    http://alert5.com/2017/08/02/rtaf-f-...igris-program/

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    What specific ALIS concern?

    I can operate for long periods "off the net" and can filter outgoing data to ensure that any sensitive data is not "passed up the chain".
    The figure I've seen is 30 days in degraded conditions.

    "Operational autonomy" doesn't mean "operational autonomy for 30 days".

    I'm not commenting on high level maintenance conducted in foreign territory.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9
    I recollect that around 2010 the F-5 replacement programme was launched and that some time later Boeing withdrew from the competition. Unless I am mistaken there was a problem with the Superhornet wingspan exceeding the maximum that could be accomodated in bunkers dug into hillsides. What has changed? Would the cost of enlarging those bunkers be added to any quote from Boeing when evaluating Superhornet?
    The small bunkers too narrow/hangars too low issues was not specific to the Super Hornet. It applied to the Rafale and Eurofighter too, and 500 millions were expected to be added to the quote should one of these aircraft be chosen.
    I'm not 100% sure why Boeing left the competition, but I believe I've read something about tech transfer as being the reason. We'll see if Boeing/LM answer the RFI positively.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,426
    How so? They are flying F-5s and F-18s now without an issue.
    Its just not as practical Spud. It was a dumb move then and a dumb move now if they decide on anything outside the EU.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,328
    Corsair: it was specified in the RFP and underlined here that the concept of operation is compatible with the off-line optional mode of ALIS. One again, it his annoying that we have to re-write the same points when the old threa is not gone!

    For the maintenance issue, please remind that this is a factor of cost ( low cost - how awkward?). If Swiss want to be fully autonomous... Yes they can!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    I'm not commenting on high level maintenance conducted in foreign territory.
    Any country is welcome to setup their own MRO&U and depot facilities. They can even shut off their national ALIS feed but will have to be willing to then stock their own parts. Without JPO ALIS feedback the PHM will be less accurate and they will have to start doing a lot more preventative and manual maintenance.

    All of these things cost more money, but they are free to do it.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    I recollect that around 2010 the F-5 replacement programme was launched and that some time later Boeing withdrew from the competition. Unless I am mistaken there was a problem with the Superhornet wingspan exceeding the maximum that could be accomodated in bunkers dug into hillsides. What has changed? Would the cost of enlarging those bunkers be added to any quote from Boeing when evaluating Superhornet?
    Nothing has changed, the larger aircraft would require enlargement of the caverns (not sure about the F-35 actually). Surely the cost would be added. There's not really another option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    Looking at CPFH, it seems a big jump from F-5 CPFH (I guess under $5,000) to at least double that (if not triple or more) for all the types offered except Gripen E. I do not know how many hours a year Swiss F-5's were flown on missions that did not warrant the capability of the Hornets but having to fly air patrols at a CPFH increased by 100% or 150% or 200% compared to F-5 (or possibly even more) seems a massive waste of money to me if it can be avoided. Of the companies invited to quote for supplying fighters only SAAB can offer a product that might not cost several times more to fly each hour than F-5.
    Since this is an F-18 replacement, you need to compare with F-18 cost.
    F-5s don't fly real missions anymore, they are used as training aircraft, sparring partners, aggressors to conserve Hornet airframe hours.

    Swiss F-5s have pretty low airframe hours. I can't remember the exact number, but it was something around 3000 hours I think... Old age and number of take-offs/landings are probably of more concern. Plus of course short transit times and hard use in many training fights. Switzerland is not the US where you need to fly 30min to reach training air spaces or fly 10 hour missions over sand without anything happening. Several retired airframes had cracks despite the rel. low hours.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,426
    ^ The F-35 is not a bunker jet. This sounds like a perfect application for a 4+ gen workhorse.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES