eagleeagleNo drop tanks would indeed disadvantage the F-35B, but the A-variant should hold its own regardless.
Fighter wings tend to be oversized for cruise/loiter (= more wetted area than necessary). I’m too lazy to check, but I suspect the F-35 might actually have a slightly higher aspect ratio than the Eurocanards too.
But even if they’re oversized, they’re not optimized for max. range/endurance. And I doubt F-35 wings fall into that category. I once compared wing area without fuselage area as used in reference wing area. F-35A wing is about 24.5 sqm – F-16 20.5 sqm. So to have comparable wing loadings at empty weight, you’d need an F-16 at 11 tons… not even the latest twin seat Viper with CFTs and spine can offer that (yet… I think…).
And the BPR at 0.57 isn’t actually that high. It just happens that all the other engines in the competition have very low BPRs.
eagleExactly what makes you draw that conclusion? The F-35A has similar range to every one of the competitors carrying two EFT on an air to air mission profile (Rafale with two EFT being the best).
I should have said relatively. In absolute terms, thanks to lots of internal fuel, range and endurance will be good.
But I expect fuel flow to be pretty high when loitering.
The only way any of the competitors (Rafale) would have a significant combat radius advantage over the F-35 in such a mission scenario would be loading them up with three EFT, not exactly realistic for any mission profile other than CAP/Air policing.
Well Eurocanard fuel fractions are comparable once you load them up with 3 tanks each – 1250 l for the Rafale (0.42), 1000 l for Gripen (0.4) and EF (0.39). Rough numbers, F-35 is 0.38.
But I agree only the Rafale can offer a significant advantage, when using the fat tanks. OK for CAP, not so much for interceptions.
eagleGerards post –> not only Mavericks, but I’m pretty sure those are Mk 81s under the CFT stations. More:
https://twitter.com/MbKS15/status/981492094756900867
eagleThe Swiss wont have to pay for F4 development.
And they wouldn’t. The requirements cleary say
…no “helvetisation”, i.e. the systems (combat aircraft
and ground-based air defence) shall be introduced to and operated by Switzerland in
the same configuration as by the producer state and released for export.
So I’m afraid Rafale CS is not an option. :highly_amused:
eagleGripen E could comfortably fulfill the needs of the Swiss ToolCool_12f, it comfortably outperforms the Tiger and let’s not forget they have operated single engine fighters before like the Mirage-III. Frankly you are making up excuses to suit the Rafale by inferring they need a twin engine type. Gripen E won the first contest much to the wailing, tearing of clothes and general gnashing of teeth from the Rafale fan brigade! It was later rejected by the Swiss public in a referendum for rather silly politically driven reasons imho.
Tiger is irrelevant.
That’s like saying EF Typhoon only needed Jaguar like performance.
eagleDoesn’t really make a difference – what does Switzerland know that Sweden (which is several times the size, compounding any such issue) supposedly missed? As I said, not everything that is considered an essential requirement on paper actually makes sense in real world.
It does make a difference because while Gripen C/D has enough range to cover all of Switzerland, it will run out of fuel very quickly on full burners. Difference to Sweden: What TooCool_12f said.
Whether or not this Swiss requirement makes sense is another question, agreed. It was kind of questionable for an F-5 replacement, but now it makes more sense. Gripen E will do better having a fuel fraction much more comparable to the other contestants.
I’m not all that familiar with the F-35 development schedule, but by the time the Swiss airframes would be coming up for delivery drop tanks might be available too. Sure, it probably won’t match the Rafale, but if Typhoon and Gripen-E are adequate, why isn’t the F-35B? With its relatively high BPR engine it’ll do quite well in terms of endurance anyway.
No drop tanks are planned for the F-35.
I’m pretty sure the somewhat higher BPR won’t offset the smaller wings. I don’t expect the F-35A to score that well on endurance.
At least it has only one engine (or 1.5, if you wish). As for operational pros, ask Israel – they’re in the same boat in some respects and have been thinking out loud about acquiring some B-models. In the end I don’t care all that much either, I’m just a bit surprised that LM isn’t making such a pitch.
Gripen is single engined too :eagerness:
Yeah Israel would be a benchmark. But they are even smaller and prepare for all out warfare. Same can’t be said about Switzerland, 30-40 jets just isn’t enough. I’d say better invest in some runway reparing kit, and keep some sleeping bases.
eagleAdd to this the combination of ADS and fighter jets. If any referendum there is, it would be hard for them to campaign for something that will ask Swiss to put their defense down and stand naked at the times we live… Not even in Switzerland*.
That list includes some BS.
Is from 2010 though.
eagleThe impression I get is the reason that they are proposing a single type fleet with a contest that will replace the Hornet and the Tiger is to head off disruption from the increasingly powerful “Group for a Switzerland Without an Army” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_…ithout_an_Army they were the ones who got enough support for a referendum on the Gripen purchase and I am certain they could get enough again to try and stop this purchase through another referendum. By making it a contest to switch to a single new type it in effect makes it a referendum on having offensive combat jets at all. I would presume the Swiss MOD and Airforce will be hoping that the average Swiss voter will baulk at that and vote it through.
The reason they propose a single typ fleet is the Tiger won’t be replaced or rather (since the Tiger doesn’t have an active combat role anymore) the Swiss AF will not grow to a 50+ active fleet. For 30-40 jets to be acquired at the same time, a mixed fleet would be senseless.
One could argue it was not the GSoA who got enough support to win the Gripen referendum, but the deciding factor where those who opposed Gripen for not being good enough, while generally those people are pro military.
I agree though it’s an all or nothing vote, including SAMs, so a “No” would mean the end of Swiss air defence. Hard to imagine even hardcore infantry only people (of which there are many) would want that.
eagleThe only really pertinent factor among those is cost though.
Cost is a pretty important issue though.
Internal gun – is the pod really that much of a nuisance? It even offers the opportunity of not purchasing a gun for every aircraft.
Gun is useful for air policing. The pod is an additional hassle. The opportunity of not purchasing a gun for every aircraft? You sound like an accountant 😀
Range? I never quite got the point of the apparently quite severe range requirement that the C-model Gripen (built to the needs of a country several times the size of Switzerland) had a hard time matching – just because something’s a requirement doesn’t mean it makes sense (as the non-B versions of the F-35 quite graphically demonstrate). Quite apart from the fact that from a conventional take-off the F-35B should just about meet any range specification that the Typhoon or Rafale can.
It’s not max. range, but combat radius on an intercept mission where the Gripen comes short. Basically flying on full afterburners from take off until target has been intercepted. That’s where having a low fuel fraction really hurts. F-35B is still around the same as Gripen E though, but less than Rafale/EF. Plus those two can perform reasonably well while carrying drop tanks.
The other issue is endurance. The required 24/7 CAP for 4 weeks would require more of the short legged planes. Gripen E at least can carry lots of external fuel.
These are all cons, where are the pros? Why have more expensive jets with higher maintenance needs and less performance? But its a moot points as only the F-35A is on the table 😉
eagleOne thing I find remarkable is that it’s the F-35A that is being offered – apart from the lack of an internal gun (for Axalp purposes ) and higher cost, the B-model would bring some interesting capabilities to the table for Switzerland. Despite the significant penalty compared to the A-variant, internal fuel fraction actually remains pretty damn good for a STOVL aircraft (comparable to the Eurocanards), so range should be sufficient for Swiss needs. Just goes to show how among the three versions the B is the “original F-35” (the one which drove most of the design), I guess!
Of course it’s the F-35A and it’s not remarkable at all. You give some reasons yourself (highlighted).
The B is basically an A with much more moving parts instead of fuel. Not only does that increase procurement cost, but also operating cost. Nice.
And why on earth should Switzerland be the only country to operate STOVL jets for air defence? Because it’s small? Other countries are small too.
At least you didn’t suggest basing the B in Geneva, close to France. So that French commuters don’t have a long drive :very_drunk:
Just to be clear: The new jets will be based at Payerne. And another “secret base”. So I guess they’re gonna close Meiringen… :sleeping:
eagleA T-38 is not a PC-21…
Most people probably don’t know about militia pilots and thus don’t care. More popular things were cut like military horses – mostly anway.
Part time fighter pilots worked well when the air force had several hundred relatively simple aircraft.
eagleOfficial media release, in english even: https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releases.msg-id-70209.html
NFK is not really a replacement for both the F-5E and F-18C. The F-5s will be retired before NFK enters service. Already, the previous 3 F-5 squadrons have been merged into a single sqn. And although the requirements do not specify an exact number of aircraft (a good move imho), the budget will be enough for only 30-40 jets. 34 Hornets have been acquired, so…
It will be a tough run for the Gripen. Even if great care has dictated the redaction of this Document to not discriminate any competitor, the fact that the classic Hornet is now to be replaced invite bidder to submit an airplane with greater overall performances… Something that wasn’t an evidence during the former competition with the Gripen.
It has already been decided which airplanes will be included in the evaluation: EF Typhoon, JAS 39E, Rafale, F-18E, F-35A. No word about the exact model i.e. twin seaters yes/no. I really wish they would be more specific… and get the nomenclature right.
As a side note, including the Tiger fleet replacement here would means that the ease of conversion from trainer to Combat squadron will play a big role. The tradition of w.e warrior has an impact here.
The Tiger fleet hasn’t been used in the conversion role for a long time now. If by w.e warrior you mean weekend warriors i.e. militia pilots flying the Tiger, pretty sure those days will be over soon. As said, this is not a Tiger replacement. TTE i.e. Gripen in 2012 would have been, but even then, it was not clear if milita pilots would ke kept on a Gripen/Hornet fleet.
That being said, the conversion trainer role will have to be considered in this evaluation… One of the contestants doesn’t offer a twin seater and Swiss AF doesn’t have an advanced jet trainer. To go from PC-21 directly to F-35 seems like a big step to me…
eagleJanes’ has confirmed that a Saudi F-15 was recently hit by a missile:
Well, they say “hit” in the key points, but the article actually says “intercepted” and that the F-15 was able to deal with it. So who knows. The video could be doctored.
There was this one: https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/0…city-of-sanaa/
Seems flares were released but were inefficient(?).
Releasing flares might not work if you hit the afterburners and keep on flying in a straight line.
eagle1. The general wasn’t sacked. He was sent to retirement. I know a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
2. Budget reality is developing a new EF variant costs more than buying off the shelf (no matter what). So in the end the Luftwaffe may spend more and get less… depending on how the budget is structured. This is not an air force budget question, but a national aerospace industry issue. If they’re willing to spend money, fine – better to support their own industry for sure. But don’t expect it to cost less or even the same.
Sign In
