By: alexz
- 11th July 2018 at 14:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They basically need a low cost QRA and air policing fighter. Why don't they look into uprading their existing F-5s to say a standard similar to thailand's F-5ST Super Tigris? Low operating costs with modern radar, missile and HMD.
By: Spyhawk
- 11th July 2018 at 15:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I recollect that around 2010 the F-5 replacement programme was launched and that some time later Boeing withdrew from the competition. Unless I am mistaken there was a problem with the Superhornet wingspan exceeding the maximum that could be accomodated in bunkers dug into hillsides. What has changed? Would the cost of enlarging those bunkers be added to any quote from Boeing when evaluating Superhornet?
The small bunkers too narrow/hangars too low issues was not specific to the Super Hornet. It applied to the Rafale and Eurofighter too, and 500 millions were expected to be added to the quote should one of these aircraft be chosen.
I'm not 100% sure why Boeing left the competition, but I believe I've read something about tech transfer as being the reason. We'll see if Boeing/LM answer the RFI positively.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 11th July 2018 at 15:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How so? They are flying F-5s and F-18s now without an issue.
Its just not as practical Spud. It was a dumb move then and a dumb move now if they decide on anything outside the EU.
By: TomcatViP
- 11th July 2018 at 16:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Corsair: it was specified in the RFP and underlined here that the concept of operation is compatible with the off-line optional mode of ALIS. One again, it his annoying that we have to re-write the same points when the old threa is not gone!
For the maintenance issue, please remind that this is a factor of cost ( low cost - how awkward?). If Swiss want to be fully autonomous... Yes they can!
By: SpudmanWP
- 11th July 2018 at 16:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not commenting on high level maintenance conducted in foreign territory.
Any country is welcome to setup their own MRO&U and depot facilities. They can even shut off their national ALIS feed but will have to be willing to then stock their own parts. Without JPO ALIS feedback the PHM will be less accurate and they will have to start doing a lot more preventative and manual maintenance.
All of these things cost more money, but they are free to do it.
By: eagle
- 11th July 2018 at 17:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I recollect that around 2010 the F-5 replacement programme was launched and that some time later Boeing withdrew from the competition. Unless I am mistaken there was a problem with the Superhornet wingspan exceeding the maximum that could be accomodated in bunkers dug into hillsides. What has changed? Would the cost of enlarging those bunkers be added to any quote from Boeing when evaluating Superhornet?
Nothing has changed, the larger aircraft would require enlargement of the caverns (not sure about the F-35 actually). Surely the cost would be added. There's not really another option.
Looking at CPFH, it seems a big jump from F-5 CPFH (I guess under $5,000) to at least double that (if not triple or more) for all the types offered except Gripen E. I do not know how many hours a year Swiss F-5's were flown on missions that did not warrant the capability of the Hornets but having to fly air patrols at a CPFH increased by 100% or 150% or 200% compared to F-5 (or possibly even more) seems a massive waste of money to me if it can be avoided. Of the companies invited to quote for supplying fighters only SAAB can offer a product that might not cost several times more to fly each hour than F-5.
Since this is an F-18 replacement, you need to compare with F-18 cost.
F-5s don't fly real missions anymore, they are used as training aircraft, sparring partners, aggressors to conserve Hornet airframe hours.
Swiss F-5s have pretty low airframe hours. I can't remember the exact number, but it was something around 3000 hours I think... Old age and number of take-offs/landings are probably of more concern. Plus of course short transit times and hard use in many training fights. Switzerland is not the US where you need to fly 30min to reach training air spaces or fly 10 hour missions over sand without anything happening. Several retired airframes had cracks despite the rel. low hours.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 11th July 2018 at 22:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ The F-35 is not a bunker jet. This sounds like a perfect application for a 4+ gen workhorse.
By: Fedaykin
- 12th July 2018 at 13:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Before we talk about what fighter the Swiss could buy we need to consider the main barrier to it happening the GSoA (Group for a Switzerland Without an Army), they have enough members now to get a referendum on blocking any fighter procurement. It was them who got the referendum to block the Gripen procurement which was also their first victory.
With their level of support they will almost certainly get another referendum making this a public political issue! Any choice will have to be sold to the Swiss public in a manner that can deflect any arguments made by the GSoA!
By: EC 5/25 Corsair
- 12th July 2018 at 15:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any country is welcome to setup their own MRO&U and depot facilities. They can even shut off their national ALIS feed but will have to be willing to then stock their own parts. Without JPO ALIS feedback the PHM will be less accurate and they will have to start doing a lot more preventative and manual maintenance.
All of these things cost more money, but they are free to do it.
For the maintenance issue, please remind that this is a factor of cost ( low cost - how awkward?). If Swiss want to be fully autonomous... Yes they can!
It seems that we agree that the F-35 would be outright much more expensive than its counterparts to achieve the same level of operational autonomy then.
By: Spyhawk
- 12th July 2018 at 16:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Before we talk about what fighter the Swiss could buy we need to consider the main barrier to it happening the GSoA (Group for a Switzerland Without an Army), they have enough members now to get a referendum on blocking any fighter procurement. It was them who got the referendum to block the Gripen procurement which was also their first victory.
With their level of support they will almost certainly get another referendum making this a public political issue! Any choice will have to be sold to the Swiss public in a manner that can deflect any arguments made by the GSoA!
This time, the referendum will happen before the final decision by the government. Swiss people will vote on the whole concept of air defense modernisation and maximum budget, not on any aircraft type or number of aircraft.
By: Spitfire9
- 12th July 2018 at 17:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This time, the referendum will happen before the final decision by the government. Swiss people will vote on the whole concept of air defense modernisation and maximum budget, not on any aircraft type or number of aircraft.
If I read you correcly, (a) a fighter purchase (b) the maximum to be spent on it would need to be approved before going any further. That is a LOT more sensible than going through a complex and expensive selection process then asking the electorate if it was all going to be a complete waste of time and money.
By: SpudmanWP
- 12th July 2018 at 17:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems that we agree that the F-35 would be outright much more expensive than its counterparts to achieve the same level of operational autonomy then.
That's the price you pay, pun intended, in order to lower the lifetime O&S costs.
By: Spyhawk
- 12th July 2018 at 18:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. The referendum will happen in spring 2020, while the aircraft and SAM system will be chosen at the end of the same year by the government. I'm actually not sure if the budget itself will be voted on, but there isn't much room here unless cut are done in othe critical part of the army.
By: Sintra
- 12th July 2018 at 19:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. The referendum will happen in spring 2020, while the aircraft and SAM system will be chosen at the end of the same year by the government. I'm actually not sure if the budget itself will be voted on, but there isn't much room here unless cut are done in othe critical part of the army.
Thats a huge plus for the most capable (and expensive) platforms. With the Swiss MOD not having to go through a gruelling referendum AFTER the platform has been chosen they can aim for the most capable ones, unlike the last time when they choose the cheapest.
By: Fedaykin
- 12th July 2018 at 19:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
12th July 2018, 16:55 #33 Spyhawk Spyhawk is offline
Rank 42 Registered User
Join Date
Dec 2011
Location
Switzerland
Posts
166
Before we talk about what fighter the Swiss could buy we need to consider the main barrier to it happening the GSoA (Group for a Switzerland Without an Army), they have enough members now to get a referendum on blocking any fighter procurement. It was them who got the referendum to block the Gripen procurement which was also their first victory.
With their level of support they will almost certainly get another referendum making this a public political issue! Any choice will have to be sold to the Swiss public in a manner that can deflect any arguments made by the GSoA!
This time, the referendum will happen before the final decision by the government. Swiss people will vote on the whole concept of air defense modernisation and maximum budget, not on any aircraft type or number of aircraft.
Thanks I remember now, in effect they are banking on the Swiss public baulking at the idea of no air defences whatsoever!
By: Spitfire9
- 13th July 2018 at 11:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With the Swiss MOD not having to go through a gruelling referendum AFTER the platform has been chosen they can aim for the most capable ones, unlike the last time when they choose the cheapest.
I think that what aircraft and SAM are chosen will depend on:
(a) entire budget for SAM's and aircraft (I assume the 8 billion Swiss franc spend mentioned is not set in stone)
(b) cost of minimum acceptable performance demanded from both systems
I guess the Swiss armed forces will then argue between themselves for the best air defence system at the cost of a better performing fighter and vice versa.
By: Spyhawk
- 13th July 2018 at 11:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The procedure of acquisition is actually detailed in the official report (section 2.6.1, in French).
2.6.1 Evaluation
Combat aircraft
Since November 2017, interviews have been held with aircraft manufacturers, in a first
time with the ministries of defense and then in the context of mixed groups (representatives
ministries of defense and manufacturers). In July 2018, a first call
tenders called request for proposal will be sent to manufacturers. These will have to submit
offers for 30 and 40 fighter planes (including guided gears and a logistic package
defined by the end of January 2019 and calculate how many aircraft would be needed to
be able to have four airplanes permanently in the air for four weeks.
This first step will not fix the final number of aircraft. The call for tenders for 30
to 40 aircraft must provide a basis for a reliable cost comparison. The second
approach allows to establish the optimal ratios between the number of planes and the package
logistics - there is indeed an inverse relationship between the number of aircraft and the cost of
logistics: more logistics can achieve the same degree of presence
in the air with a reduced number of aircraft since downtime
on the ground can be reduced. The other objective of this second approach is to define the
minimum number of aircraft required for each model.
Between May and July 2019, combat aircraft must be tested one after the other
in Swiss. Compared with the 2008 evaluation and based on the experiences of
the time (which show which data are worth checking), the test program
is optimized, which makes it faster. The planes must be based in Payerne, but
take off and also land at Meiringen to allow noise measurements at both
locations. The tests carried out in Switzerland are a sine qua non requirement; if this requirement does
may be filled, the aircraft concerned is rejected.
In November 2019, a second call for tenders will be launched and to which
by the end of May 2020. From June to the end of 2020, the evaluation report will be drawn up and
submitted to the Federal Council for the choice of aircraft model, together with the report
on the ground-air defense system.
Ground-to-air defense system
Preparation of the evaluation began in September 2017 with a market analysis
ground-to-air defense systems, which resulted in an initial (long list) selection of
systems to consider. For this market analysis, interviews were conducted with the
ministries of defense in countries where these systems are manufactured or used. the
In spring 2018, the list was reduced to three short list systems, which are currently
evaluated.
The evaluation of the ground-to-air defense is carried out in parallel with the evaluation of the new
combat aircraft. However, it is not the systems in their entirety that are
tested in Switzerland, but only the sensors.
Unsurprisingly, the approach used to define the number of minimal aircraft required (4 aircraft continuously airborne for 4 weeks) is a long time requirement of the Swiss Air Force. It will advantage whichever system designed to
sustain high sortie rates with minimum support over long period of time. :p
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 11th July 2018 at 05:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-16V would be a good choice.
Posts: 300
By: alexz - 11th July 2018 at 14:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They basically need a low cost QRA and air policing fighter. Why don't they look into uprading their existing F-5s to say a standard similar to thailand's F-5ST Super Tigris? Low operating costs with modern radar, missile and HMD.
http://alert5.com/2017/08/02/rtaf-f-5-super-tigris-program/
Posts: 128
By: EC 5/25 Corsair - 11th July 2018 at 14:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The figure I've seen is 30 days in degraded conditions.
"Operational autonomy" doesn't mean "operational autonomy for 30 days".
I'm not commenting on high level maintenance conducted in foreign territory.
Posts: 175
By: Spyhawk - 11th July 2018 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The small bunkers too narrow/hangars too low issues was not specific to the Super Hornet. It applied to the Rafale and Eurofighter too, and 500 millions were expected to be added to the quote should one of these aircraft be chosen.
I'm not 100% sure why Boeing left the competition, but I believe I've read something about tech transfer as being the reason. We'll see if Boeing/LM answer the RFI positively.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 11th July 2018 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its just not as practical Spud. It was a dumb move then and a dumb move now if they decide on anything outside the EU.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 11th July 2018 at 16:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Corsair: it was specified in the RFP and underlined here that the concept of operation is compatible with the off-line optional mode of ALIS. One again, it his annoying that we have to re-write the same points when the old threa is not gone!
For the maintenance issue, please remind that this is a factor of cost ( low cost - how awkward?). If Swiss want to be fully autonomous... Yes they can!
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 11th July 2018 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any country is welcome to setup their own MRO&U and depot facilities. They can even shut off their national ALIS feed but will have to be willing to then stock their own parts. Without JPO ALIS feedback the PHM will be less accurate and they will have to start doing a lot more preventative and manual maintenance.
All of these things cost more money, but they are free to do it.
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 11th July 2018 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nothing has changed, the larger aircraft would require enlargement of the caverns (not sure about the F-35 actually). Surely the cost would be added. There's not really another option.
Since this is an F-18 replacement, you need to compare with F-18 cost.
F-5s don't fly real missions anymore, they are used as training aircraft, sparring partners, aggressors to conserve Hornet airframe hours.
Swiss F-5s have pretty low airframe hours. I can't remember the exact number, but it was something around 3000 hours I think... Old age and number of take-offs/landings are probably of more concern. Plus of course short transit times and hard use in many training fights. Switzerland is not the US where you need to fly 30min to reach training air spaces or fly 10 hour missions over sand without anything happening. Several retired airframes had cracks despite the rel. low hours.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 11th July 2018 at 22:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^ The F-35 is not a bunker jet. This sounds like a perfect application for a 4+ gen workhorse.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 12th July 2018 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Before we talk about what fighter the Swiss could buy we need to consider the main barrier to it happening the GSoA (Group for a Switzerland Without an Army), they have enough members now to get a referendum on blocking any fighter procurement. It was them who got the referendum to block the Gripen procurement which was also their first victory.
With their level of support they will almost certainly get another referendum making this a public political issue! Any choice will have to be sold to the Swiss public in a manner that can deflect any arguments made by the GSoA!
Posts: 128
By: EC 5/25 Corsair - 12th July 2018 at 15:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems that we agree that the F-35 would be outright much more expensive than its counterparts to achieve the same level of operational autonomy then.
Posts: 175
By: Spyhawk - 12th July 2018 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This time, the referendum will happen before the final decision by the government. Swiss people will vote on the whole concept of air defense modernisation and maximum budget, not on any aircraft type or number of aircraft.
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 12th July 2018 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I read you correcly, (a) a fighter purchase (b) the maximum to be spent on it would need to be approved before going any further. That is a LOT more sensible than going through a complex and expensive selection process then asking the electorate if it was all going to be a complete waste of time and money.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 12th July 2018 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's the price you pay, pun intended, in order to lower the lifetime O&S costs.
Posts: 175
By: Spyhawk - 12th July 2018 at 18:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. The referendum will happen in spring 2020, while the aircraft and SAM system will be chosen at the end of the same year by the government. I'm actually not sure if the budget itself will be voted on, but there isn't much room here unless cut are done in othe critical part of the army.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 12th July 2018 at 19:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats a huge plus for the most capable (and expensive) platforms. With the Swiss MOD not having to go through a gruelling referendum AFTER the platform has been chosen they can aim for the most capable ones, unlike the last time when they choose the cheapest.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 12th July 2018 at 19:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks I remember now, in effect they are banking on the Swiss public baulking at the idea of no air defences whatsoever!
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 13th July 2018 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think that what aircraft and SAM are chosen will depend on:
(a) entire budget for SAM's and aircraft (I assume the 8 billion Swiss franc spend mentioned is not set in stone)
(b) cost of minimum acceptable performance demanded from both systems
I guess the Swiss armed forces will then argue between themselves for the best air defence system at the cost of a better performing fighter and vice versa.
Posts: 175
By: Spyhawk - 13th July 2018 at 11:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The procedure of acquisition is actually detailed in the official report (section 2.6.1, in French).
Unsurprisingly, the approach used to define the number of minimal aircraft required (4 aircraft continuously airborne for 4 weeks) is a long time requirement of the Swiss Air Force. It will advantage whichever system designed to
sustain high sortie rates with minimum support over long period of time. :p
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 13th July 2018 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Skyhawk
Thanks for the info.