eagleI believe he means “not good enough from an uninformed (misinformed?) voters point of view”. In practice, the Gripen E is most probably the best replacement of the Tiger/Hornet Switzerland could dream of.
Yes that’s what I meant. Those 29% from post #1552.
I also agree Gripen is still the best option for Switzerland. But I’m afraid it will fight an uphill battle when the time comes to replace the F-18.
eagleF-18C/D is out of production and Boeing decided not to offer the Super Hornet. It too most likely won’t be around in 2025-2035 to replace the legacy Hornets.
A couple of years back, when Malaysia seemed to want to replace their 8 D models with F models, thought has been given to buy those examples. That ship has sailed so the chances of additional Swiss Hornets are around nil.
eaglePointless. TTE (Tiger Teil Ersatz, Tiger partial replacement) is dead. Even more pointless considering Gripen failed among other reasons because it wasn’t considered good enough.
The next fighter procurement will be the Hornet replacement. If the Koreans wish to offer T-50, or more likely F-50, it will lose against whatever else is available.
eagleYes that isn’t the biggest difference but big enough they went back to 1000lbs bombs for the F-35B and threw some more commonality out of the window to save weight. Those older designs surely look less stubby as does the X-35 if you ask me. CALF was to weigh less than 24k lbs – F-35B weighs more than 32k lbs.
eagleRD – I’m sorry for your fatigue, but facts are facts, and the single engine, wingspan and short fuselage, not to mention the broad cross-section aft of the cockpit, are all STOVL-driven. Conversely, designing a CV/CTOL configuration can be done quite easily. Ask the French.
The problem is the combination of Navy and Marine Corps requirements. When all the Navy’s precious programs (A-12, NATF, A-X…) failed and they joined JSF, they tried to cram as much of those programs into the F-35 as possible. Like more range and payload. USAF/USMC didn’t need 2 2000lbs bomb capacity f.e. Since maximum length, width and height were still fixed, the thing got fat… Without the -C, the F-35 would probably have the same spotting factor, but with a slimmer airframe. Without the -B, the F-35 probably would have grown all around. So yes, basically its all the USN’s fault.
eagleAh, before I drink the Mil/indust complex kool aid, I would say there would be much more liason between all the countries that surround Switzerland, my point about them being surrounded by friendly countries was that they will get plenty of warning once an intruder enters their air space, a Hawk can easily keep up with an airliner.
It’s nice to argue for more spend and better planes when it’s not your money I guess…..
The feasibility of subsonic trainers doing QRA work has been discussed ad nauseam. Simply doesn’t work. Even the JAS 39C wasn’t good enough for the Swiss AF in that regard! It can’t climb and accelerate fast enough when armed. A Hawk carrying 2 Sidewinders and a gun pod is way too slow. And it would be blind of course.
Besides, the task of the Swiss AF is not only to provide QRA. The Gripen would have been needed to regain A/G and recce capabilites as well as upgrading air defence capabilites. For QRA duties, 32 Hornets are more than enough. Hungary and the Czech Republic make do with 14 Gripens.
eagleDon’t forget to give it a fadec-equipped F125 or afterburning Adour 821 that would also use fadec. Or pull off a J85-21 PMP reset like the USAF did for the J85-5A –> J85-5R. Fewer parts, better life, more modern engineering, less cost to operate. Adour has a bigger install base as Mk821 is mostly a refit Mk871 already in wide use, but it’s heavier and less performance than the Honeywell option. It is a great engine, a core with a solid track record. I think the single, slim F125 would be riskier to pull off, but give a substantial dry thrust increase and be less risky once in use. Sort of an F-5G lite program.
Buying Gripens would have simplified everything. But now they have to use what they got and live with it. Making over the F-5 into a modern fighter wouldn’t be anything as good as a Gripen NG, but it’s something. Ironically Brazil could help them out with an avionics upgrade.
A new engine for the Tiger is out of the question. A single engined rebuilt version even more. Not to mention all those engines offer no increase in thrust. You do realise the J85-5R for the T-38 is all about better take-off performance at the cost of high speed performance? Not sure the T-38C is still supersonic… definately not what you want for a fighter.
The Swiss Tigers will be retired in 2016 without replacement. Unless of course something else is in the works which is highly unlikely.
eagleA wasted opportunity to be at the forefront of fighter tech if you ask me. For the Swiss AF the no vote means a capability gap for the next few years. At the moment, it doesn’t look like something else like leased Gripens is on the table. The Hornet fleet will reach the end of their service life of 5000 hours in 2025 already since they need to fly more. What happens then is anyone’s guess. Maybe a SLEP but the Swiss AF might be the only Hornet operator left, to go for it alone for a fleet of 32 jets seems unlikely. The gov probably will seek some 50 fighters to regain capabilities. Compared to that, 22 Gripens will look like a bargain so that will cause quite a stir. IMHO, the Gripen will have a hard time because it failed once… Rafale anyone? If its still in production that is 😉 If not, options are really limited. Maybe a Rafale NG, or JAS 39 G/H? Maybe another chance for participation.
For Sweden, the situation isn’t that bad with the Brazilian order and increased domestic needs. They’re down from 82 to 70 at the moment plus the FAB order. And the Swedish AF should be relieved knowing the don’t have to buy the PC-21 😀 I hear they favour a jet trainer.
eagleAnd there is a reason for this. The main complain of the Swiss Air Force is number. Dassault could claim that 15 Rafales could do the job of 22 Gripen as much as they want, fact is the number of aircraft available at any time is what counts (all others parameters being judged as being satisfactory). Gripen is not only cheaper, it has also been designed for high MTBF, low MTTR, fast turnaround, meaning force multiplier and more time in the air. In the Swiss context, 22 Gripen are worth more than 22 Rafales.
I couldn’t agree more. Thank god no one seriously considered the 15/18 jet option.
eagleBoth Swiss and Brazilian Air Forces say the same data : 5,0-5,2 tonnes of maximum external load. They have received complete data from Saab for Gripen NG, they have published them officialy.
I don’t really care about external load. 5.2t or something like 2 GBU-10, 2 fuel tanks, 2 METEOR, 2 IRIS-T is good enough for Switzerland. Empty weight and size figures still look fishy to me, as I said, I think those are from the demo aircraft. Remember, its a paper aircraft, so no complete data exists, right? The ‘official’ documents show an outdated version btw.: landing gear, wingtip rail pods, cooling intake at fin base are different now.
Anyhow, target audience for these factsheets are probably mainstream media, so I’d take these with a pinch of salt.
Switzerland has not allowed Dassault and Eurofighter to offer less than 22 fighters. So the CHF 4 billion value is for 22 Eurofighter or Rafale.
You’re probably right, I don’t really remember about the other offers. Just that there were talks about 15 resp. 18 jets, probably to be able to offer the same price.
eagleYes, official source, Swiss government evaluation of Gripen E :
DDPS site about Gripen E
PDF Caractéristiques techniques Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter from 18/11/2013
which says :
– empy mass = 7‘800 kg;
– weapons = 5‘000 kg maximum.
So on one hand, its a paper airplane, but on the other hand, the Swiss MoD know its exact specs. Right…
My guess: those are the demo airframe figures. For the real thing, let’s wait and see.
Re cost: The 4 billion are for how many jets? 15 Typhoons and 18 Rafales, or 22 jets?
Re Swiss Air Force squadrons: there are 3 Hornet squadrons and 3 Tiger squadrons, mainly flown by reservists. Some F-5Es and the Fs are used as aggressors, trainers, aerial target, ECM, and a secondary air/air role.
eagleYou do not realize, that the wet thrust is not the question, but the dry or cold-one. That is critical for the F-35B.
Not really. AFAIK, the B-model is limited by the amount of power the liftfan clutch can handle. Which is already maxed out by the current engine, hence the tight weight growth margin. Any increase in thrust only benefits the conventional wingborne performance.
eagleI expected more from an aviation forum…
It’s a weather balloon, obviously :very_drunk:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]227550[/ATTACH]
eagleYes, and tomorrow’s lesson is on:
D – R – A – G
:eagerness:
Drag from ECM pods isn’t that bad. See the attached table from EA-6B NATOPS flight manual. NGJ pods look more streamlined too, if those powerpoint CGIs look anything like the real pod.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]227216[/ATTACH]
eagleOr any other F-16 version:
http://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/sargent-fletcher-arts-pod-f-16-vista/
Sign In
