eagleCan F-22 deploy AIM-9X?
No.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123447344
http://www.janes.com/article/51375/f-22-notches-first-guided-aim-9x-sidewinder-firing
Note they are planning to modify only 220 launchers ie 110 AIM-9X capable and available Raptors.
eagleYeah they carry them..Here’s the SG carrying
Thanks, but I know about F-15s that are not E models carrying X Sidewinders.
…so, any pics/vids of F-15Es with X winders?
eagleAny signs ie pics or videos of F-15E models with AIM-9X?
eaglewhat is that green thing under the belly ?
It’s the arrestor hook fairing.
eaglething is, by the time the replacement comes into service, the F-18s will be close to their retirement, so it is likely to replace all their fighters.
One of the problems they noted with the Gripen is the lack of range as when they had to intercept an f-18 simulating and airliner (high subsonic) before it exits their airspace, the gripen called bingo fuel before the intercept. the newer one may have bigger range, but its price isn’t the same and its performance still remains to be really tested
Yes, if I remember the story correctly, the Gripen ran out of fuel on full power before it reached the target. The alternative was to slow down or carry drop tanks, both of course led to unsatisfactory scores relative to the Hornet. I hope Gripen E is ready for test flights this time and its range has been improved enough to pass this test.
Price shouldn’t be an issue though as it’s supposed to cost less. And it’s certainly cheaper than all other options.
eagleRafale cannot compete with Gripen here.. Nothing twin engined can.. If life cycle cost is to be the decisive factor, then it’s already decided. But in the past, Swiss have already surprised us with picking the Hornet which was clearly the costlier option compared to Mirage 2000.. and IMHO, not necessarily the better suited one..
My bets still go on the Gripen but time will tell..
The final decision was between the F-16 and F-18… Mirage was out. In 1988, the Hornet had some real advantages over the competition, so it wasn’t that much of a surprise. It was also the replacement for the high part in the Swiss hi-lo mix if you like, the Mirage IIIS. And it was before the massive 90s force reductions so cost wasn’t as important as it is nowadays.
But your point still stands, there were some surprising or rather strange decisions in Swiss AF history.
eagleAlready funded for integration in P3E
CFTs;
Storm Shadow MLU (anti-ship capability);
Brimstone II, anti-tank and DEAD capability, up to 18;
Paveway IV dual racks, up to 12 in total;
ASRAAM upgrade (unspecified, based on CAMM?);
Meteor;
DASS upgrade;
Striker II helmet;
AESA radar (Captor-E).
Do you have a source?
The twin rack surely look like a mock-up to me. And it isn’t a new proposal, anyone remember this one:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237216[/ATTACH]
eagleI’m aware of the result of the vote, but I do believe the choice of Gripen increased votes in favor of the Next Fighter Aircraft. Price and cost effectiveness of Gripen were a major topic (at least in lefties part of the country), and more than a few percents of “pro-NFA” tax payers would have voted against it if the choice would have been a costlier aircraft, myself included.
Mabye so, but how many would have voted yes without Hurter and co’s anti Gripen campaign? Price and cost effectiveness were regarded as negative a la Gripen the unfinished do-it-yourself IKEA fighter. On the other hand a pro Rafale campaign from those circles and the French side could have helped. But who knows, it’s all water under the bridge now.
Unless you were living under a rock on the Mars planet, you might be aware the political events of February 2014 had a huge repercussion against right politics on this side of the rostigraben :p
Yes I vaguely remember that 😀
eagleI did (I’m living in Western Switzerland) and I agree that offsets issues were mostly irrelevant. As is the choice of Gripen as an aircraft for the SwAF. Unlike eagle, I do not believe the choice of Gripen as the NFA made a difference in the vote results. It is true that some voters voted against Gripen because a “better” aircraft wasn’t selected, but these are far more than outnumbered by people that’d preferred a more reasonably priced aircraft.
But Gripen was the most reasonably priced aircraft available.
I don’t think the selection of Gripen by Maurer made a huge impact, only a few percent, but that might have been enough. (result was 53.4 vs. 46.6)
If you really want to understand why the vote failed, you’d have to look at more than the technical data of the aircraft. Such as having a broader picture of Swiss politics and cultural aspects, including the schism between the German and Latin speaking part of the country. As a hint, a good start would be to look in the previous vote that occurred a few months earlier than the Gripen vote. It is seemingly unrelated, but it eventually made a huge difference in the Latin speaking votes.
Agreed, but nevertheless I think those differences are not what killed Gripen. They have always been there. Well, maybe a bit more in recent years.
eagleThe Swiss chose the F-5 because it was simpler to maintain than the F-16….
Not at all. Read about the history of Swiss Tigers. An attack plane was wanted, A-7 and Dassault Milan were tested. A-7 wiped the floor, but the French protested. As a compromise, additional second hand Hunters were bought for the A/G role and Tigers to free the Hunters from the A/A role. The F-16 was only evaluated in the late 80ies, when the F-18 was selected.
eagleThe RAF thinks Typhoon FGR4 is multi-role. The Luftwaffe thinks Typhoon is multi-role, judging by their replacing Tornado (ground-attack) with Typhoon and using Typhoon as an interceptor.
The Germans never intended to replace their Tornado fleet with Eurofighters. But since they’re obliged to buy 140 EFs and without money to replace Tornado with someting else, what else would they do but re-equip some Tornado units with EFs and declare them multirole. Actually, only one wing (TaktLwG 31 Boelcke) has converted from Tornado to Tyhpoon.
It remains to be seen what happens with the rest of the Tornado fleet, around 85 IDS and ECR jets.
Only in that it is A2G capable. A2A was definitely the primary design focus though, for all the very obvious reasons mentioned repeatedly already.
I agree here. The Brits wanted to replace the light attack Jaguar fleet and for that, an A/G capable but pure A/A design of medium weight was enough. It would have been different if a direct replacement for Tornado or the Spanish Hornets had been wanted.
eagleA further point is the big No in the west and south part of Switzerland. And this is on a way logic. The major part of the companies which will profit from offset contracts are in the german part of Switzerland, so there is no real economic benefit for the french and italien part of Switzerland.
These regions are generally more leftist. I don’t think the issue of offsets was really that important. It hasn’t come up much during the debate at all. I didn’t follow french/italian speaking news though.
eagleIf you want to speak about lazy patterns of thinking, perhaps you should look at the geography of Switzerland. It is a natural fortress. But perhaps the the reason I recognize that fact is due to my “lazy island thinking”
At least you used to slightly mask your utter dislike of the West.
Geography is one thing. The alps are a fortress for sure, thing is though most people live outside the alps in the so called mittelland/swiss plateau. More than two thirds and that doesn’t include other non alps regions like Basel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Plateau#Population
eagleFrom 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.
No. Gripen lost because it wasn’t considered good enough by many voters on the pro air force/military side. So yes, many wanted something better. Of course, the poor pro campaign is to blame aswell.
Those voting no because they don’t want an F-5 replacement or want to scrap the armed forces altoghether would have voted no regardless of which jet was up for debate.
A better campaign and/or Rafale or Tyhpoon would have been enough to win the vote imho.
So this time round, anything less than Gripen E is a non starter, jet trainers are completely useless anyway. Hence the candidates Gripen/Rafale/F-xx plus maybe Tyhpoon.
Hopefully, they will communicate what they really want i.e. is air to ground and recce still on the table, or is it all about air policing? Another Maurer campaign with flak from (literally) left and right, this will end in another disaster. Unless of course, they decide a referendum isn’t necessary this time which would solve a lot of problems. Legally, it’s perfectly fine, Maurer had the idea to let the people vote so he could have his deal sanctioned by the people. But politically not having a referendum would be an issue…
Some other points:
-Yes, air defence is critical, and Typhoon most certainly is the quickest after break release. But most important is time from alarm to target, which might be completely different. Suppose jet A reaches the target 1 minutes faster, but jet B is airborne 2 minutes faster. Jet B wins. Also, a single mission is one thing, but sustaining operations is another… a slower sortie is better than a hangar queen.
– Some jets won’t fit into the cavern. It has been said though regarding the SH, modifying the caverns would cost less than the price of a single SH. So anyone too big is certainly at a disadvantage, but nothing serious.
– Air policing isn’t contracted out after office hours as far as i know, Switzerland is neutral afterall. There just isn’t any active air policing after office hours. To be changed soon to full 24/7 coverage though.
eagleThe F35A weighs 13,3 tonnes. The F15C weighs 12,7 tonnes
Actually, the F-15A is ~12’700 kg. F-15C MSIP weighs ~13’300 kg so almost exactly the same as the F-35A. To be fair though, the F-15C isn’t a modern multi-role aircraft, that would be something like a singe seat F-15E which would weigh over 14t I guess.
Sign In
