eagleThe only thing not covered by contracts today is the B61-12 and a long range SEAD/DEAD weapon, Spear 3 would be at the top of the list.
Which is not cheap.
Also, a SEAD version may require an Emitter Location System.
No its not and specificaly speaking on a German early 2020´s scenario, its almost certainly cheaper by a great gigantic margin. The entire logistic, training and suport infrastructure is already in place, and the aircrafts will be built in Germany.
While i wont comment about any 2025 Midle East deal, that could go either way, there´s no freaking chance of a Typhoon Luftwaffe acquisition based on the Kuwaiti/Qatari specifications being more expensive than a FMS F-35A deal.
I was thinking solely acquisition cost. Pretty sure an off the shelf F-35 in 2025 is cheaper than a T4 EF with R&D.
Operating cost is not important imho. Overhead in the GAF is so high, it doesn’t really matter which planes are parked at Büchel and Jagel.
eagleOn the subject of nuclear Typhoon, I would imagine the German Defence Ministry has the very best idea what it would take to make Typhoon B61 capable, as opposed to buying a totally different system.
The politicians probably have the least amount of technical knowledge. They most likely have no idea what it costs, maybe haven’t even considered the issue before releasing that statement. Nuclear sharing is not something they like to think about.
But Airbus will make a “reasonable” offer for sure. :very_drunk:
In what way would the integration of the B-61/12 be particulary diferent from the one on the Tornado that is ocurring right now?
The Tornado is an old hat.
AFAIK, the new B61 is smart and requires more interfacing with the aircraft. No one has issues with giving the Americans insight into 70s/80s technology. EF is another matter.
Also, Tornado is nuclear hardened, EF is not.
eagle1. German Air Force wants to procuring about 40 new fighters for replacing the 85 Tornado fighter-bomber it has now.
If German chooses F-35, or anything other than Eurofighter for replacing Tornado fighter-bomber, then they will have to pay a lot of money for procuring, supporting, and maintaining a completely different fighter with the number of just 40.
Again, do you have a source for that number, 40 a/c to replace 85?
If Germany chooses EF to replace Tornado, they will have to pay a lot of money to develop Typhoon into a Tornado replacement. Typhoon is already more expensive than F-35.
eagleIIRC, they weren’t bought for the air defense role (which was apparently handled by other NATO powers over the Germany at the time so there might have been some political limitations involved as well, perhaps even German ones), but to replace the F-104G’s.
The F-4F was indeed bought for the air defence role, replacing the F-104G in that role. Two fighter wings were equipped with F-4s.
Two additional fighter bomber wings transitioned from F-104 to F-4 due to the shift in strategy, flexible response instead of massive retaliation. F-4s were much superior in the conventional attack role.
Edit: one of those fighter bomber wings was actually a G.91 unit before flying Phantoms.
RF-4E replaced F-104G in the recce role.
F-4F replaced F-104G in the air defence and conventional attack role.
Tornado IDS later replaced F-104G in the nuclear strike role.
eagleSo if the Germans are being sensible and looking to replace Tornado with Typhoon, is the main stumbling block the wiring for the nukes and can this be overcome with a new batch of Typhoons per haps optimised for operations alongside UCAVS (to replace the Tornado more thoroughly)?
Apart from the nuke issue, additional capabilites would have to be developed/bought. So it won’t be cheap, more expensive than an off the shelf purchase of F-35. But Airbus probably wouldn’t mind.
There are no plans for UCAVS to replace Tornado.
eagleNorthrop Going All-in On Next Growler Jammers
The pod under that Canadair looks like an AN/ASQ-236 SAR pod.
eagleThe F-16 in the Norwegian air force also regularly operates from 800 metre runways as well as the F-35 following it. I should think any tactical combat aircraft can fly from an 800 m field if its lightly loaded enough. Su-27, armed with 4 missiles can take off with a 450 metre run.
Are you sure about that? Which Norwegian runway is only 800 m? That’s about 2650 feet which a light F-16 can manage on a cold day at sea level with drag chute. But not something you would use on a routine basis I imagine.
All future US F-35 bases are required to have a runway of at least 8000 feet or 2400 m btw.
eagleIf details have not been released yet how do you know it is going to be on par with RecceLite XR?
Because both feature similar sensor suites. Near IR TV, short wave IR and mid wave IR sensors.
eagleIn 2008 both the Typhoon and the Gripen offered the exact same Reccelite pod and were ranked at an almost identical level (Gripen 5.38, Typhoon 5.14, both way below the Rafale at 7.57), i imagine that the diference between the two would have been a direct relation to how much advanced the integration work had been by the time of the Swiss tests.
Cheers
You’re right my bad. Somehow I remembered that different.
I wonder though why Saab didn’t offer the Modular Reconnaissance Pod System.
eagleDetails on AdvEOTS has not been released yet. There are a few items that can be found like it’s going to be NIR/SWIR (two sensors), larger aperture, fit within the same sensor bay, etc.
Advanced EOTS looks like it’s on par with RecceLite XR.
But the RecceLite equipped Typhoon was ranked way lower than Gripen and Rafale which both feature dedicated recce pods.
Without dedicated recce equipment, F-35 and Typhoon will again score the lowest against Gripen, Rafale and SH.
I don’t know if recce and A/G is part of the current competition though… there’s no clear concept it seems.
eagleA poll on a news site is hardly going to influence the decision…?
Probaby not.
But it shows the cheapest option (Gripen) is not automatically the most preferred by the public. The anti military left will oppose anything while many on the pro military side prefer Rafale or F-35.
Re. Super Hornet: What made the F-18C a good choice, namely radar, -402 increased performance engines and low drag pylons, actually speaks against SH. It’s radar is not clearly above the competition as was APG-65/73 vs. APG-68. No IPEs available. No low drag pylons on the table. The SH combines the worst raw performance with high cost of a heavy twin engine design. Plus it’s not exactly at the beginning of its life cycle.
eagleA clean Gripen displays an 800 meter takeoff.
No.
That Gripen is not clean.
And it’s not an 800 m take-off. But it’s using an 800 m airstrip. The video does not mention how many meters it actually needed.
eagleI proposed the Bee from LM especially to alleviate one of the problem in the communication that is max mach (even if Switzerland wouldn’t benefit much from the gain in speed if time to alt and acceleration are identical or better). With networked basing (offset from the main population center), a VTOL aircraft (with a supporting platform) will generate capital (to help alleviate the cost of owning an airforce), increases favorable public perception, lower drastically fighter nuisances and increases resilience (tactical, strategical and cyber).
Not sure if serious…
The idea of F-35Bs performing take-offs and landings somewhere in the Swiss countryside is hilarious. I.e. completely unrealistic. Swiss AF bases are already away from main population centers (apart from Emmen maybe, but no active fighter sqns are based there). But there are people living in the countryside too… and there are tourists. For this reason, every summer, flying stops for a couple of weeks from Meiringen AB so hikers have their peace and quiet. Basing some here and there would worsen the noise problem with complaints coming from here and there also instead of just the couple of bases.
Even more funny and unrealistic is the idea to “generate capital”. Forward bases are way more expensive and a logistic nightmare. From a cost perspective, it’s best to have everything at one base. Like Norway (Yes I know about the forward based QRA at Evenes).
If a combined offer 35B/53K is done, it could even offer embedded projection capability to the Swiss armed force, inducing in that country a new set of needed string to play its partition on the international scene* and motivate the population (nothing better to please the taxpayer than offloading tons of rice in front of the camera).
CH-53K? Switzerland is not Germany.
eagleIt is, two things might be against it, a) “F-104 ASA syndrome” (last chaps to acquire a platform and so on) and b) if i remember correctly (read it a long time ago) one of the things that sunk the Viper offer in the nineties was its landing and take off performance, but that was a long time ago (i might be incorrect), i have the idea that LM didnt offer the Viper (or was not asked to offer) in 2008 because of this.
It was mainly weak radar performance. First evaluations were in 1988, and they had F-16B and CF-18B in Switzerland for testing I think. No surprise the Hornets avionics/armament combo beat the Viper A model hands down in the all weather interceptor role.
F-16s flimsy landing gear didn’t help but was probably a minor issue.
eagleMy guess would be that the SH would most likely rank highr than the Typhoon, and probably also above the Rafale. Main reason is cost; however they currently operate the Hornet and I am sure some within the Swiss Air Force will find the SH more attractive than a light fighter like the Gripen, after flying the Hornet for such a long time. I also think the F-35 will be offered not the F-16, and that the F-35 does have a chance. Rafale will be pushed down; More expensive than both SH and F-35, and much less capable than F-35. SH and F-35 I give even odds; Any air force would strongly prefer the F-35 over the SH and will push strongly for the F-35. SH may still be slightly cheaper(?) and more acceptable politically.
At Sion airshow back in september this year, Airbus, Dassault, LM (promoting F-35, not F-16) and Saab had a booth. Not Boeing. Or I didn’t see it… but I’m quite sure they weren’t there. Free hats and stuff for everyone (well, Dassault were “sold” out, too bad).
So if Boeing want to participate, they already have some catching up to do. But they might decide not to bother and I think they would be right.
Check this story, there’s a poll included: https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/fuenf-flieger-im-schweizer-test-tarnjet-f35-inklusive/story/29587506
Rafale, which was favoured both by military and general public back in 2012, is in the lead again. I think it’s between Rafale, F-35 and Gripen.
Sign In
