Impressive considering the F-15 had its maiden flight almost 40 years ago…
So what happens to the 100 or so Saudi F-15C/D?

They will be retired and replaced by either the new F-15SA and/or Typhoons.

Normandie-Niémen, the fourth FAF’s Rafale frontline squadron, shall formally enter service during the summer, 2012.

http://www.air-cosmos.com/defense/201109010164765/premier-rafale-aux-couleurs-du-normandie-niemen.html

Même si l’EC-2/30 ne devrait être mis en service opérationnel qu’à l’été 2012 (année qui marquera également les 70 ans du prestigieux “Neu-Neu”), un premier noyau de cinq à six avions doit être mis en place courant septembre sur la base landaise. Les appareils, prélevés sur le parc de l’EC-1/7 “Provence”, permettront une montée en puissance progressive de l’unité. Les premiers équipages assignés à l’EC-2/30 ont été identifiés depuis longtemps, et certains d’entre eux participent déjà aux opérations sur la Libye depuis la base sicilienne de Sigonella. A ce jour, il est toujours prévu que ce troisième escadron Rafale ne soit équipé que d’appareils monoplaces et prenne en charge tout le spectre des missions conventionnelles.

Thanks for the info. So the unit hasn’t been formally inaugurated yet. Appears to be similar to the previous procedure of building up the squadron first within another unit and formally inaugurate it at a time it is at least close to FOC state.

One shouldn’t forget about the fact that the Swiss AF originally intended to purchase 33 aircraft to replace its 54 F-5E/F. They soon realised that the allocated funds (2.2 bln sfr) were insufficient and the Swiss reduced their planned buy to just 22 aircraft. Even for those more funds are required, even for the Gripen. The Swiss ultimately opted for the cheapest solution. I agree that the evaluation was subsequently moot, though I don’t think that Switzerland intended to go that way from the very beginning. At the end of the day the Gripen is for sure a good choice as a replacement for the F-5, whether it’s the most viable option when it comes to replacing the F-18C/D in the future is yet another question and the Swiss AF may end up with another type to replace the F-18. What type it will be remains to be seen, but there are too many options in the post 2020 time frame. The Rafale could once again being reconsidered, but who knows.
Btw the claim about “fewer Rafales could do the same job as 22 Gripens” was an argument brought up by Dassault, not the Swiss AF. What must be kept in mind that numbers can matter and the Swiss AF certainly has a requirements for a specific number of aircraft to sustain training at a high enough level and have an appropriate number of aircraft available at any given time and in possibly two different locations. This couldn’t be assured with a much lower number of aircraft. The ability to lug around a certain amount of stores on one aircraft instead of two is one thing, but to have a certain number of aircraft in different places is yet another question.

Imagine the Swiss AF had bought 12 or even 15 Rafales or Typhoons, they could only afford to equip a single squadron. Now you have at least two ac on alert for QRA and one or two spare aircraft. Add those aircraft not available due to maintenance and the number of additional aircraft for training is rather limited, let alone the number of aircraft required to sustain a QRA commitment in two places for example. Things like these shouldn’t be overlooked. Of course it’s frustrating, but it’s not always the best product that wins. That’s no news at all, is it?

Nice images of the CdG!:) Weren’t the SEMs scheduled for retirement this year or are these images older?

Typhoon at LIMA 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XHJrkq74SlE

Here is an article from the recent deployment of the No.6 sqn to Malaysia.

The comment of an Australian exchange pilot:

“I’d rather go to war in a Typhoon than in a F-18 (Super) Hornet” an Aussie exchange pilot says

It was also the first time that the new Striker helmet has been used during a deployment.

During Bersana Lima 11, the British Typhoons, that had their baptism of fire in the air-to-surface role during the Air War in Libya, faced Malaysian Mig 29s, Australian F-18s (C and F) and Singaporean F16s using for the first time during an operational deployment, their electric hat (HMSS/HEA – Helmet Mounted Simbology System/Helmet Equipment Assembly the Typhoon JHMCS equivalent) and “easily came out on top in all engagements.”

http://theaviationist.com/2011/12/05/typhoon-malaysia/

Cost comparisons are always difficult and depend on a number of different factors. Operational costs are even trickier than acquisition costs and the latter are already difficult.

Much depends on how many aircraft you purchase, on how many airbases you base them, what infrastructure building is conducted and whether non aircraft related work (refurbishing the tower and what not) is counted into the operational costs. What are the fuel costs in the country and how is the aircraft employed, what are the personal costs, what concept do you employ, how many spares do you buy with the aircraft, how does the support arrangements with the manufacturer look like, do you plan to deploy the aircraft on a regular base or not, how often do you upgrade the aircraft, what are the environmental conditions and how are they affecting the aircraft’s reliability etc. There are in fact so many factors that it is impossible to make claims like “costs this or that to run”. This might be true for an established customer, but it isn’t necessarily true for new customers. MTBF figures are somewhat misleading as well, as different parts have different MTBFs, TBOs etc. and the costs of the related components/systems vary as well, that’s also true for a single aircraft type with different configurations/equipment. In most cases costs aren’t directly comparable even for the same aircraft type without noticing the countless differences.