eagleThe recent order from Belgium should help any F-35 enthusiast in Switzerland to push their case forward.
As if anyone cared. Facts and figures are available, but still people chose to believe what they want to believe. F.e. just last week there was an article in my local paper describing the F-35 as the most expensive option by far. And thats not a tabloid.
eaglei think, imho that Gripen-E and the F/A-18E/F are the best bets for the Swiss.
the F-35A is too expensive and concidering Switserland has no desire to use theyre fighters in foreign wars, its stealth capabilities are irrelevant for pure defencive purposes.
The F-35 is not too expensive. Rafale and Typhoon cost more.
However, because the public thinks the F-35 is super expensive, politicians might shy away from selecting the JSF.
the Typhoon is a bit overkill and too expensive to operate, however, if Austria decides to keep its Typhoon fleet, they might jointly operate the type and the SwAF can learn from Austrian experience.
Overkill it isn’t, more like the opposite. The most expensive to operate probably, yes. Austria operating the type won’t help Switzerland.
as for the Rafale, i doubt the swiss will buy it, as France has a tendency to botch up its own export potential within europe.
Rafale is the favourite imho. Was already the preferred choice of the military last time.
Gripen has a very good chance of winning as it was previously selected to replace the F-5E, if it wasnt for the referendum on the deal (witch was a ver close call of 51/49 against) it would have ordered the type already and additional aircraft could be ordered to replace the Hornets.
Because this time round its the Hornet replacement and Gripen lost the referendum, the chances are less good imho.
the F/A-18E/F speaks for itsself as the SwAF already operates the classic hornet and the SH would offer some degree of commonality with the type and ease transition of pilots and personel.
The SH is old. And the least impressive. Boeing should offer the F-15X. :eagerness:
In my opinion, this is a numbers game. Around 72 aircraft are needed to fully fulfill the air defence requirement, 50-60 for some degree of fulfillment (can’t remember the exact word used, but look at Norways or Finlands requirement…). As only 30-40 are on the table now, this means this goal can no longer be achieved. Thus the best choice imho is the one that affords the most jets, and results in the highest sortie rates.
eaglePicture is dated 2015-06-12. Spotter’s Day loadout.
https://www.waltervanbelphotography.be/Aviation/Special-Events/20150612SpottersdagN%C3%B6rvenich/
eagle58 rafales will be ordered in this latest standard in two tranches : 28 in 2022-2024 taht will incorporate as much F4 standard upgrade as possible and then a second tranche of 30 F4 rafales to be delivered up to 2030.
To clarify, the 28 from the first tranche are already ordered. These not-full-F4-standard Rafales make up the not yet delivered rest of the 180 ordered so far. That means 152 Rafales delivered to French forces to date.
The 30 newly ordered full standard F4 Rafales bring the total to 210.
Any chance of additional orders beyond those 210? The 55 updated Mirage 2000D retiring in 2030 would leave only 210 combat aircraft, less than the target of 225. So maybe 15 more plus some attrition replacement. I guess any orders beyond that will depend on the progress of the NGF programme.
eagleI always thought it could. Supercruise speed here would be no more than mach 1.2 of course – and the F-35 may need to use afterburner to reach this speed. But really the F-35 was never designed to be a supercruiseer – none of its mission profiles specify supercruise – but it’s just a fact though that most combat jets today can supercruise if they carry little or no external stores, the F-35 is no exception.
The F-35 can’t. It has been discussed ad nauseam so I can’t be bothered to search for a source.
Maybe things will chance with more powerful engines.
eagleThen again, Croatia would never buy new F-15s or F-18s, so Boeing might actually not mind. Better make some money on support than no money at all.
But since the Israeli F-15s are really old and more expensive to run, this will not happen anyway.
eagle…and a sustained 1.2 mach on dry thrust for 250km.
No, the F-35 can’t sustain supersonic speeds on dry thrust aka supercruise.
Very much unlike fourth-gen aircraft that are weighed down badly by hardpoints and external weapons / tanks
Weapons and fuel weigh exactly the same whether carried externally or internally. Same goes for hardpoints actually.
Pylons true, but they’re not that heavy.
…armed with maybe 2 x AIM-9X internal.
AIM-9X is external only.
eagleCaptain Hwang became the first pilot in combat aviation history to single-handedly and simultaneously destroy two enemy aircraft during a single intercept using radar-guided missiles. In recognition to his achievement, he was awarded the Mackay Trophy on September 14th, 2001 in Washington, D.C. The aircraft flying as Hwang’s wingman during the shootdown (84-0014) later scored a kill during Operation Desert Storm. On March 20th, 1991, Captain John T. Donesky was credited with one Iraqi SU-22 kill with the same F-15 involved in this recording.
Odd they found time to hand out awards on that date… turns out Hwang got the trophy in 1999.
Also didn’t know the F-15 is capable of time travelling. :very_drunk:
eagleIf a new F-15 were to emerge as a attractive assets for USAF, then i feel Boeing only option is the Merge/fuse the F-15E with F-15C, or in other works, somehow make the F-15C a multirole fighter.
That way it will be much more cost effective. USAF can order them to perform both F-15C and E missions.
Obviously every new F-15 is multirole.
If the USAF would replace the C fleet with new built Eagles, the Cs would be retired, not turned into multirole fighters. Not sure what your point is.
Or are you implying 200 new multirole Eagles can replace both the C and E fleets? They can’t unless you order 400. If you think 200 multirole airframes are enough to do all the Eagles jobs, there is no need to replace anything as the E is already multirole.
eagleWow the possible F-15X sale must really upset the pro F-35 gang. Or is it just anti-F-15 or Boeing? Or pro anything Lockheed Martin? Anyhow it will be interesting to see where this goes.
In other news, the one half of the Japanese F-15 fleet that is going to be replaced with F-35s might find its way back to Asia. The article says Southeast Asia, Taiwan maybe, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, or even Vietnam?
Btw, the Boeing video [USER=”4698″]bring_it_on[/USER] posted in #1303 features scenes taken from the 2013 Raytheon Trophy video. Seems like just about every F-15 film has scenes from that excellent video.
eagleGetting 100 more on top of the 42 ordered, ones set to replace the F-4s, doesn’t fare well for the prospect of new Japanese air superiority fighter. If half of the F-15s are replaced by F-35s, then the case for financing a new fighter is quite hard to win. To pay tens of billions just to replace 100 F-15s remaining? Even if the new fighter eventually somehow replaces the smaller planes like the F-2, that’s still some 180 planes in total. Seems rather unsustainable for Japanese finances. Unless Japan desires to significantly increase its air forces (by a factor of 30-50%) or co-develops that plane with someone, halving the development costs.
Replacing the F-2 fleet along with the 100 or so F-15MJ with F-3 has been the plan for some time. 180 is not a small number, like the F-22 coincidentally, and about twice the number of F-2s.
Besides, development is going to be very expensive, no matter how many they build. It’s a political choice whether or not they want so spend x billion on development. How much depends on design choices, from something like souped up F-15 to completely new 6th gen F-3, not on numbers built.
eagleIt seems that they don’t need the two guns. Hence by “adaptation” I meant something new around the better canon.
If they need two guns, they can carry the twin pod.
If they want the newer DEFA in the single pod, surely that could be done.
Same kind of mission as these guys: air interdiction with a pinch of CAS (These are current operational loadout used by the USAF in Sirya)
The GBU-24 on the Mirage 2000D is the A/B version with the Blu-109 body, intended to destroy hardened targets or underground facilities. (like IS tunnels in Sirya for example)
None of the bombs there are GBU-24s or unguided Mk 82s. Which is exactly my point. If you ever see an F-15E toting GBU-24s, it will probably (as in 99.9% probability) not carry Mk 82s at the same time.
eagleOn the contrary, it is a specific configuration asked by the French Air Force for the MLU of the Mirage 2000D. It is currently under test and it is certainly intended to be used (The French Air Force doesn’t have money to waste on a useless config photo shoot)
Really? What kind of mission needs a GBU-24, usually used against high-value targets, gun, usually required for CAS, and 2 iron bombs?
I would have preferred to see an an adaptation of the Taiwan pod (a pair of modern DEFA 554 canons):
Why an adaption? As you can see it’s already integrated. No need for an adaption.
But it blocks the centerline. The raison d’être for adapting the other gun pod is it allows to still carry heavy stuff under the fuselage.
eagleWhat are you talking about? The gun is operational…
A problem that can ground the fleet can occur at any point in the programs lifetime. What would happen? It would be fixed.
eagleI don’t think they will be doing SRVL or STOVL with that much on the wings.
Probably not hence I don’t think it’s a big deal.
Besides, the Roll posts are more for control rather than lift so a little obstruction should not be an issue.
Well they provide around 10% of total thrust or around 2000 lbs each. That’s like a T-38’s J85 in dry thrust. I seriously doubt you would want to put ordnance under that exhaust.
Sign In
