Spitfire9House panel blocks A-10 retirement
“Not only does [the amendment] prohibit the retirement of any A-10s, it prevents any additional back door attempts at mothballing these aircraft, such as placing them in backup status,” McSally said in a statement. “I’ll continue to work with my colleagues to make sure our troops on the ground have the support they deserve and that we don’t retire this critical capability without a replacement.”
The amendment and the full bill now head to the full House floor for a vote, and the Senate will mark up its version of the bill later this year. Multiple senators, including Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have vowed to protect the jet.
The vote came as the Air Force rescinded a warning that keeping the A-10 would delay the deadline of making the F-35 deployable.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2015/04/30/house-armed-services-markup-keeps-a10/26627591/
To me it is strange that retaining the A-10, which IIRC was said to prevent A-10 maintainers transferring to F-35 maintenance, is now no longer a reason for delaying the deployment of the F-35. If it was a few days ago, how come it is not now?
Spitfire9Inviting other participants is simply about giving Switzerland more bartering leverage with Saab, but apart from that it’s a done deal.
Why do you think that inviting other participants is simply about giving Switzerland more bartering leverage with Saab? Just curious as to your reasoning.
Spitfire9Well, they have some surplus old (but with many airframe hours left) Gripens which can be upgraded, & a credible upgrade path to keep them as effective as possible can’t be a bad thing. They’re available sooner, & cheaper, than JAS39E.
There are also operators of C/D with no plans to replace them with anything newer in the foreseeable future, so an affordable upgrade path for them is good, & perhaps potential C/D sales in the short term which could be helped by product improvements.
I see keeping Gripen C updated as a good business gamble. There might be a market for quite a few C/D aircraft in coming years, given that quite a few countries do not have the funds to buy new, more sophisticated fighters. South America, ex-communist eastern Europe for example. In addition Sweden is not going to retire all its C/D aircraft for a long time so it allows the Swedish air force to improve its capability while Gripen C remains in service.
Spitfire9Congratulations (and loadsa money) to Dassault. With a minimum of 48 to be delivered to Egypt and Qatar (wanted ASAP, I understand) when would any be available for delivery to India, if required? India urgently needs more fighters.
Spitfire9Maybe they should have a referendum on whether they want a fighter first to save everybody the trouble.
That is a sensible suggestion. I’m not sure, however, that in the context of military procurement those involved in the process are capable of recognising sensible suggestions for what they are.
Maybe the tender should be about supply by any tenable means, from purchase to leasing to even subletting another owner, and have it span operational costs for the period of say 15 years.
The previous referendum was to save the money for social programs. It had nothing to do with the Gripen choice per se.
Mmmm… Wasn’t the previous proposition about how to spend the existing military budget? I don’t think failure to approve an F-5 replacement was going to release funds for spending on non-military programs.
Spitfire9Even the m346 might do at a pinch [somewhat countering my earlier statement I suppose].
From the defence minister’s comments (he mentioned Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon), it seems the government is still interested in a supersonic fighter as the F-5 replacement.
I wonder if it might make sense to restrict the candidates to light fighters. When Gripen was voted down last year, I do not think it was because the public wanted a higher performance fighter than the aircraft selected. I think it was because some of the ‘no’ voters did not want an F-5 replacement and most of the balance of ‘no’ voters were not prepared to pay the cost for a replacement. Selecting a medium fighter that is more expensive still than the package rejected in 2014 would make it even more likely the public would reject it IMO.
Spitfire9The problem for Switzerland is from my point of view rater to have an useful airforce and to keep the airforce running independent over a longer perjode (months) of a crisis. But when there is no will to have an independent airforce on political, economical an cultural level, why to have an airforce? Why to have an army? And why to have an police?
Switzerland is not planning to scrap its air force. It is planning to scrap its F-5 aircraft and replace them. Even if the chosen replacement is vetoed by the public it will still have an independent air force with supersonic fighters.
Spitfire9Something I don’t understand at all in engine prices: LRIP1 (4 engines) @ $21 million each then LRIP2 (16 engines) @ $31 million each. How come the higher rate engines have a higher price?
Spitfire9Socialism is a sickness in modern society than drains the life out of culture.
That’s interesting to hear. How wrong you are depends greatly on what you mean by the term ‘socialism’. I won’t check just now if you’ll forgive me but I think the European countries (seen as ‘socialist’ by many in the US) spend much more per capita on the arts and culture than does the US.
Previously we’ve seen sustainable double digit defense spending whereas today most countries can count the percent on one hand.
Spending on defence should be as low as possible. In terms of economics, the object of economic activity is to create wealth, not to create the means to destroy wealth.
Spitfire9I wonder how much the requirement will have changed since the last requirements were formulated quite a few years ago. Is there anything a fighter will need to do beyond what it needed to do last time round? There has been a rise in Russian nationalism which has resulted in considerable instability in Ukraine and a general deterioration in relationships between Russia and the western European countries. Switzerland, however, is not under any threat from Russia. Being a neutral country Switzerland does not get involved with international operations (Libya/Kosovo etc) so I presume any offensive A2G capability in a fighter will count for little.
Ultimately it is not a matter of what is the most appropriate fighter to provide a defensive capability. It is a matter of what the Swiss public want. I don’t know what proportion want nothing at all, preferring to see F-5 retired with no replacement and what proportion will vote for/against a replacement based on cost. Given the possibilty of a public veto on whatever is selected, what will the Swiss government do if the air force comes up with a requirement likely to be vetoed?
Spitfire9Aviation Week opinion: 36 initial Gripens to be followed by 70 more, Sea Gripen later.
Being a ground-floor partner in the development of a fighter aircraft is a very big deal for Brazil. This was clear at the LAAD defense show in Rio de Janeiro earlier this month, from the long lines of showgoers waiting for a chance to pose in the cockpit of Saab’s Gripen mock-up (photo), next to the all- or part-indigenous weapons under its wings or at the many “we’re-on-Gripen” exhibits around the hall.
Together with the equally ambitious Prosub submarine project, Gripen is swallowing much of Brazil’s acquisition budget, delaying other projects. But the first 36 aircraft are expected to be followed by about 70 more JAS 39E/Fs for the air force and Sea Gripens for two planned new aircraft carriers in the late 2020s. Brazil is leading development of the JAS 39F two-seater and would do the same for the carrier jet.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-brazil-not-rushing-gripen-project
Spitfire9Bolivia looking for 20 fighters… for next to nothing!
Defense analyst Samuel Montaño said he thought the Government would seek training aircraft. “If you look at the market, neither the US nor Europe will sell us fighters. The Mig 21, either Russian or Chinese models, cost 5 to 10 million dollars each. If we go for the cheapest solution, that would come to 100 million dollars, and it’s too much. And it would pay ony for the aircraft themselves.”
Spitfire9Italy, Germany, and France are larger nations that can project power into Switzerland with relative ease and speed as they share common borders. Sweden is a smaller nation that is separated from Switzerland both geographically and geopolitically (buffer states). As such, Switzerland has less reason to fear Swedish belligerence than Italian, German, or French belligerence.
I suggest you read some European history. I suggest you also look at a physical geography map of Switzerland.
Spitfire9Now Austria are going to invade Switzerland? I wasn’t aware so much hostility was around in central Europe. In that case they should definitely get the Typhoon because a Gripen won’t stand a chance against a Typhoon BVR and couldn’t catch one either, or fly as high, so Typhoons would just be flying over the top of them at Mach 2.35 and disrupting their airspace….. in fantasy world hostile Europe.
You may not be aware of reports that Austria is finding Typhoon to be more expensive to operate than expected. It’s not a question of Austria being a poor country. The air force has finances limited by a budget. So does the Swiss air force. If the funds are not there to pay what is required to fly an aircraft for the number of hours intended, you can’t fly it for the number of hours intended.
Spitfire9A German, French, or Italian threat to Switzerland is remote possibility to be sure
Right.
but no less remote than a Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, British, American or any other kind of threat one could envision that could reasonably call for a fast jet element.
Wrong.
Sign In
