The MiG-29K comment is weird. What use are MiG-29K airframes that one can’t afford to fly? That would be a bunch of expensive paperweights. One might as well use the same amount of money to increase the current fleet’s readiness so that it can be ready 24/7.
I got no dog in this fight, but suggesting MiG-29K is just nonsense. If Switzerland doesn’t want to or can’t spend the money to maintain a fast jet fleet, then Switzerland should not buy anything at all. Adding more airframes will not solve the issue. If anything, it will make the maintenance burden worse.
Purchase costs are only part of the acquisition story. MiG-29K is a wing-folding Fulcrum design that is capable of fitting into Swiss tunnels. It is not in any competition there, so don’t worry it’s just not an option. I was contrasting the reason MiG-29K quickly becomes untenable. Fuel costs, pilot salaries, crew salaries, etc. suddenly catch up to the user and the cheapest plane actually becomes one of the more expensive options.
Rafale and F-35B purchase costs are a bit too high for them, but lifetime costs quickly add a nail to the coffins. The Gripen NG isn’t technically cheaper to buy than F-35A (unlike F-35B, it’s likely cheaper than Gripen NG), but lifetime costs quickly escalate over the Gripen NG.
So the choice is an economic choice and it falls back to Gripen due to costs.
Sign In
