eagleNo, the range is 2200km for A and C variants.
Here is the proof (the second to last line):
The link is kinda strange but it’s how the LM site is made. You could check it yourself here: https://www.f35.com/
Go to: About F-35 -> Fast Facts
Please…
It says “Range (internal fuel) >1,200 nm / 2,200 km (USAF profile)”
Meaning it’s combat range when flying the USAF profile. Or simply USAF profile combat radius times two.
Note also the “>”.
If max. range really would be only 1200 nm, an A/A combat radius of 760 nm would be pretty hard to achieve wouldn’t it.
Max. ferry range has not been disclosed afaik. But safe to say it’s more than 2x 760 nm or > 2815 km.
eagleI think everyone can agree that F-35s dimensions weren’t driven by aerodynamic requirements alone. The F-35A, or the aircraft in its place more likely, would look different if it weren’t for the joint requirement. I’m pretty sure it would be way more sleek for starters.
Even with the Navy requirement only, i.e. without the STOVL compromises. Originally, the CTOL/STOVL were planned with 40 degree wing sweep f.e., later dumped for commonality reasons. 40 degrees as it happens is exactly the same as found on another jet, designed to be the best ACM machine. Hmm…
The F-35 is not design by aerodynamics, it’s why I don’t like the program. The jet itself, the F-35A at least, is probably the best outcome given the requirements though.
Other programs are not hampered by CTOL/STOVL requirements. Them being more sleek is no coincidence, it’s what happens when you design by aerodynamics.
eagleYes the F-104. Most definitely the sexiest of the era. How could Hamburger forget about the Starfighter?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”USAF-F-104A-LO–serial-number-56-0770.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3866552}[/ATTACH]
For my air force I would buy the Mirage III though. The most versatile. And pretty good combat record.
eagleNote it says first Block 50. Block 40 jets reached 10k hours before that, don’t know if this was the first, but at Aviano in 2018 f.e.: Facebook link
And there’s the F-15E of course. The first to clock 10k hours did so in 2012: https://theaviationist.com/2012/02/10/f-15e-10000/
At an estimated aircraft age of 22 years…
In 2018, the 4th FW already had 10 jets over 10k hours. https://www.blogbeforeflight.net/201…ing-hours.html
Not to forget though, we’re talking USAF flying hours here. That means endless patrols over Deserts, i.e. flying straight, and when at home, long transit times to training areas.
eagleLittle “off” info. Tests in Payerne were catastrophic. Look down capability poor , follow ground capabilities and worse, when asked what about numbers of Cat 1 failures? The answer was we a re fully aware those will be fixed quickly of course”. Not to talk about capability to fly in alps environment. Trust me or not, F-35 finished last. Just ahead of EFT
You got a source for that?
That kind of info is not what you’d expect to be shared with the press or spotters.
But it is the Swiss AF, I guess the Rafale mafia is strong especially @ Payerne. :rolleyes:
eagleThat doesn’t seem too hard to achieve. If existing AIM-9X doesn’t have enough space, just go with a slightly bigger diameter or something like ASRAAM.
It’s not only space for this and that. The missile also needs to be strong enough to endure an ejection. AIM-9X was not designed to be ejected.
What you’re proposing is in the end a new missile.
If they adapt AIM-9 or AIM-132 for internal carriage, it would likely be rail launched from a trapeze mounted rail. No need to redesign missiles.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tfetch?id=3662625&d=1435849760.jpg Views:t0 Size:t23.5 KB ID:t3864439″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3864439″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”fetch?id=3662625&d=1435849760.jpg”}[/ATTACH]
No internal SRAAM seems like an unnecessary compromise.
True but that compromise is what was written in the requirements. LM is probably not coming up with a solution unless someone requires it – and pays for it.
Edit: here’s an image showing wind tunnel testing of the trapeze launcher. I didn’t remember this idea actually got that far.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”thumb”,”data-attachmentid”:3864440}[/ATTACH]
eagleIf new fighters are blocked again, how much longer could the Hornets remain in service before becoming prohibitively expensive to operate? Would there be time for one last attempt to sanction a fighter purchase 2-3 years down the line?
Well that depends. Switzerland would be the only legacy Hornet operator beyond 2030. That means spares will become an issue. Who knows what Boeing will charge. So it depends on factors the Swiss gov. can’t control and it also depends on your definition of prohibitively expensive.
At least engines are not a problem thanks to T-X etc.
My main concern in this scenario wouldn’t be cost but safety. There are plenty of flight hours left but one flight hour is not like the other… Swiss AF for example rarely flies straight lines over the seas. Transition times are very short. So at some point, probably rather sooner than later, the airframes reach the end of life. Rebuilding might be an option. But an F-18 is not an F-5, no idea if the Swiss industry would be capable of doing that alone. And this option would be very expensive.
That being said, a couple of years more than currently planned to execute an emergency purchase surely would be possible. IMHO.
Switzerland is very unusual in not having a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year fighter force available. If the Swiss public have been content with part time fighter cover, they would perhaps accept no fighter force at all. At which point considering UCAV’s seems an option for providing indigenous air cover.
Not as unusual as you might think. But as has been stated repeatedly, 24/7 QRA will be operational in 2020.
The Swiss public was not really content with part time fighter cover. Most people probably had no clue.
Why would the Swiss AF get UCAVs if it can’t have fighters? Why would the Swiss public be ok with UCAVs, but not ok with fighters? These wouldn’t be some cheap recce drones. This debate always comes up, cheaper alternatives like drones or turboprop trainers, but that’s all useless of course. Besides, Swiss AF already operates cheap recce UAVs. And not to forget SAMs.
I have forgotten – does Switzerland have an arrangement with Italy to provide interception fighters when the Swiss air force is not available?
Yes, with Italy, France, Germany and since 2018 with Austria aswell. But these arrangements only allow one nation’s jets to keep escorting while entering another nation’s airspace. No use of force allowed.
eagleThe F-35 wasn’t on the previous list, it is now.
If the Swiss people block the proposed purchase again (I don’t see why they wouldn’t, not much has changed), then going for a cheaper UCAV option might actually be the only way to upgrade the Swiss Air Force.
You’re delusional. If voters should block new fighters, the Hornets will either have to soldier on or the AF will have to exit the fighter business.
F-35s have arrived @ Payerne, after an involuntary stop in Vermont it seems. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72nPZYJkk7I
The channel has videos from all contenders. Super duper resolution (ProRes) videos are available on the vbs page, click “Videomaterial und Fotos”: https://www.vbs.admin.ch/de/verteidigung/schutz-des-luftraumes.html
eagleSo Su-35 landing distance is 750 m and it has been cut in half for the Su-57?
I’ll believe it when I see it.
600 m take off run is certainly possible but it is already 2 times 300 m.
Until then, there’s only the Swedish fighters that have been optimised for STOL and they need 600 – 800 meters.
For reference, here’s the F-16C Block 52 landing distance, on a dry runway, with brake chute and full brakes. Worse conditions increase landing distance obviously.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”F-16C-52_landing_distance.png”,”data-attachmentid”:3863463}[/ATTACH]
eagle– Ground based STOVL makes little to no sense, now high TWR fighters can take off and land in a mater of 300 m. It is simply impossible to destroy the roads and runways of a country to the extent that not healthy stretch of this length can be found.
Which fighter can take off and land on a 300 m strip? With ordnance of course. Answer: none.
The closest to that is the Gripen. It can operate from a 600 m strip, probably not with a heavy load though.
eaglepilot rate F-35 radar better than F-15C but worse than F-15E
Basically, APG-63 v3 < APG-81 < APG-82
But since APG-63v3 aperture is so much bigger than APG-81, shouldn’t it is also better than Apg-81?
That is based on the opinions of 2, in words two F-15C pilots. And it doesn’t say if they compared APG-63 (V)1, (V)2 or (V)3.
Maybe they were simply impressed with A/G modes, easy feat.
7 F-15E pilots without info on the radar aswell. I wouldn’t read too much into it.
eagleUnaware of the political angle. Would you be able to inform me better, please?
I thought this was already posted here, but apparently it wasn’t…
Here’s a source in German: https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/kuhhandel-mit-kampfjets-angebot-aus-deutschland-stoesst-bei-schweizer-politikern-auf-skepsis-134370184
Basically, Germany’s official in charge offered to cooperate in areas like Zurich airport approach corridors and railway infrastructure projects. Provided Switzerland buys EF of course.
Which is absurd if you ask me. There are signed treaties regarding that stuff. Treaties the Germans for years, decades even were unable to fulfil. And now they might actually do something about it, but only if Switzerland buys EF? What is that?
Well I’m sure “misunderstandings” like those can be settled at a higher political level, but coupled with the inabilty of Airbus/Eurofighter to send AESA equipped aircraft, a mere 11 years after the previous evaluation and the bad image EF enjoys, I don’t see how this could end well for Airbus/Eurofighter.
eagleFurthermore, i don’t think F-35 recon mode is limited with optical sensor, it is likely that APG-81 and ASQ-239 are used as well
Sure. But it’s not like Rafale/Gripen/SH have to choose between optical sensors and radar/EW-suite. Those are always there with the pod being an option F-35 and EF can’t offer.
It’s nice btw. to see the Rafales arriving with all the gizmos. I didn’t expect Sniper though.
EF on the other hand is out imho, for political reasons. I’ve said it before, shouldn’t have let ze Germans run the business.
Here’s a longer video of Rafales at Payerne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKwcxJFqNJw
eagleSecond the total amount is 100% and who told you in switzerland th fleet sustainlment could be part of offset calculation in switzerland? Your faith?
No it has been reduced to 60% total – 20% direct and 40% indirect offsets. https://www.vbs.admin.ch/fr/defense/protection-espace-aerien.html
More important, the SAM procurement has been split from the fighter deal. It’s now CHF 6 billion for the new jets, though some have already said this isn’t enough, demanding the budget to be raised to 7 billion.
However, since Belgium pays EUR 4 billion for their 34 F-35 aircraft, which is about CHF 4.5 billion, I’d say 6 billion is good enough for 40 jets.
eagleThe most annoying part of this thread for Swiss ppl might be outsider judging their defense needs and their aspiration for the operational capability of their Airforce just by the say of it.
Swiss defense strategy has always been to be the harder nut to crack in the lot against Warsaw pact for example. They have a conscript army very much like Israel (but men only – at least what I remember). So why will ppl prejudge of Israel absolute need for the 35 while looking down a the Swiss airforce?
Israel though operates a lot more than 40 fighters. And while both have conscription armies (yes men only in Switzerland), Israeli army is fully equipped. Swiss army is a lot of folklore, some might say this has always been the case. I mean Hunters in the 90s? Would not have been nice against WP armies.
But still the need for new fighters is there. F-35 or not doesn’t really matter imho. Provided operating cost are comparable.
Sign In
