Any news on the projected cost of the ex-RAAF aircraft? This deal could be good for both customer and supplier at quite a low cost. I guess Australia would scrap them if Canada did not buy them so no pressure to get a high price. Any money received would be an unexpected financial boost to Australia’s MOD.

Northrop proposes canister-launched UAV for E/A-18 upgrade

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-proposes-canister-launched-uav-for-ea-18-u-443943/

A group of F-22aircraft flying Alaska-Hawaii used less fuel than a control group flying at a lower speed

The concept of increased speed, although seemingly counter-intuitive, was first explored by the 618th Air Operations Center in 2014. They discovered that flying at a higher speed could save total fuel consumption and flight hours, but it still needed to be proven in action.

To demonstrate the concept, one cell of F-22s and an accompanying tanker for refueling, flew at a higher velocity, while the other cell flew the standard profile and acted as a control group. Throughout the five-hour flight, researchers collected multiple data points in order to compare results from both cells. The faster cell was able to cut about ten percent off the total flight time and six percent of the fuel required for this type of aircraft re-deployment.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/188958/us-air-force-finds-flying-faster-cuts-f_22-fuel-usage.html

Surprising to me. Good news – get to the target area more quickly with more fuel reserves. Wonder if F-35 might also be capable of this.

Boeing took the SH from the 2008 competition, they´ve already stated that this time they are going to compete.

Was that not due to its size? IIRC Super Hornet does not fit the protective bays used to protect Hornet and the cost of enlarging the bays was expected to be too high to be acceptable. The budget for the last proposed fighter procurement was far smaller than this time round.

I see Gripen E as the sensible solution to replacing both F-5 and F-18 over time – a single moderately priced type to replace 2 types has got to be much cheaper to support than 2 types to replace 2 types. Additionally since Gripen is reported be have the lowest cost to fly per hour of any western fighter it should be comparatively cheap to operate.

I have the impression that the people of Switzerland are not interested in their air force having the shiniest fighter with the most bells and whistles but see a fighter force rather as an undesirable necessity to be bought and used at the lowest cost possible.

Ueli Maurer isn’t there anymore etc.

Et alors (so what)? Are you suggesting that the defence minister at that time did not give an informed and honest opinion of what was best for Switzerland capability/cost wise? Or are you perhaps suggesting that another decision maker might not give an informed and honest opinion of what is best for Switzerland capability/cost wise? It seems very unlikely to me that Rafale or Typhoon have become more cost effective in a combination of performance/cost terms than Gripen E. If anything the de-risking of Gripen E (it is in production now but was not during the first evaluation) makes it even more compelling than it was during the first evaluation.