Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Not offered by LM, not asked by the Swiss Air Force, not in the competition.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

There are plenty of thing that can change until any decision is made. Don't forget that this is a dual request dedicated to build a complete set of air defense for Switzerland. In other words, Swiss are open to all the suggestion.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

Trouble is the (intelligent in my mind) dual request is little by little being split in two parts.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

What are the two parts?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

The Swiss market is tailor made for the Gripen E/F, capabilities be damned. IMO, this is a two horse race: Gripen/Rafale. The shame is that there are probably Typhoon tranche 1 that could be available for lease (looking at Spain, Germany), that would meet Swiss needs at the fraction of the cost of a new procurement.

The Gripen is burdened with the loser and paperplane image though.
And T1 Typhoon? So Swiss AF will run out of spares a few years after delivery? No one wants T1. I'd rather have used F-16s.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

eagle - It matters for drag and RCS. Yes AN/ALQ-214 does have DRFM from (V)2 onwards actually. That HMCS does not match Striker II for performance. The Gripen is a much smaller airframe that will be inundated with tanks and pods to perform any mission because its fuel fraction is so low, so its clean RCS is irrelevant. Rafale isn't much smaller, but the Typhoon radar aperture area is about 50% greater than either. The Typhoon was already close for SA and Ident and ahead on Engagement in 2008 even with the mechanically scanned unit. For aircraft performance it will blitz the other 4 as it did with Gripen and Rafale last time.

Drag and RCS? Yes but not IRST performance. That was the point. EF's IRST is not superior because it's integrated. It might be superior if it's... well, superior.
Didn't Rafale not have an HMCS in 2008, whereas EF did? Results don't inspire confidence that somehow Rafale with HMCS is now worse.
Not many tanks and no pods are required for air defence missions (except SH). Fuel fractions are actually pretty comparable now, provided Gripen won't gain even more weight.
Agreed Typhoon has the advantage in radar size. But it had the same advantage in 2008. Given an aperture area 1.5 times greater it surely didn't impress in detection, identification and acquisition. What makes you think only EF got better in the meantime?
Only one plane actually got improved performance, that is the Gripen. Slightly better TWR, again provided weight is kept at 8 t. No idea about Rafale weight gain, but it probably didn't lose any. EF gained 100 kg thanks to the AESA alone, and that's in the nose, i.e. needs balancing. Structural reinforcements for CFT support and increased MTOW surely added a few pounds aswell. It doesn't really matter though, there's plenty of power.

Every aircraft is known for problems in the Luftwaffe because they don't maintain them properly and have most of them sitting in a state of inoperability. Can't blame the plane for that.

The press and the public can and do. It's not as bad as in Austria, where Typhoon is useless junk for probably the majority. But it is known as the "Problemflieger".
Maybe Germany should not be allowed to run export campaigns in the future so the jet can be sold as British. But there won't be a next time in Switzerland, hopefully.

The only plane they can afford is the Gripen, but to say the Typhoon is 'underkill'. Underkill how exactly? The F-35 has the most impressive systems by a mile but the Typhoon is at least on par with the Rafale, SH and Gripen E on systems this time around.

No the budget is 8 billion Swiss francs. Surely one can afford some Typhoons with that amount.
Typhoon as a weapon system just doesn't impress very much, that's why I don't consider it overkill as someone has suggested. If that's overkill, so is everyone else.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

TomcatViP - They preferred the Rafale last time but they selected the Gripen because of price. I believe they also have mountain hangars that only the Gripen would fit it. Any other aircraft would have to have a folding fin.

Gripen was selected for political reasons, to sell it to the public as the reasonable choice. Obviously because of price, but could have selected Rafale easily.

If NFK doesn't fit into the caverns, they will have to be enlarged again. No folding fins.
Maybe the caverns were enlarged beyond the minimum required to fit F-18C/Ds... When that was done, dimensions of future fighters were well known. After all Jäger 90 aka Eurofighter first flight was in 1994.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

Bwah. If it has to go on a pylon it's an afterthought. But the radar is smaller anyway.

The Typhoon had Striker in 2008 but Striker II with integrated night-vision is available now, very similar to F-35 helmet.

The Gripen fuel fraction is below 30% and any external stores will degrade it further because it's a smaller aircraft. Higher % weight and drag increase per store.

In 2008 it was an old mechanically scanned radar, which would massively affect range, detection, acquisition, NCTR/ident and subsequently SA and QRA too, not to mention the lack of simultaneous A2G/A2A, SAR, passive modes, swash plate AoR etc. The old mechanically scanned radar still won on engagement though.

Let's not forget that Typhoon scored maximum for performance last time and won by a mile and a marginal weight increase is offset by the 1kN improvement between the Mk.100 and Mk.101. The balance is negligible relative to fuel movements.

Well hopefully the Swiss military are less demented than the press and public.

8bn Swiss Francs. That would buy about 60 Typhoon, Rafales or F-35s, but when you start adding training course material, weapons, spares, GME and logistics support, it becomes a very small air force and of course overheads become relatively larger as numbers decline.

Everything is probably overkill for Swiss needs, F-35 massively so, but the Typhoon is by no means least impressive once you factor in Captor-E, the CFTs, integration of EPWII, UK Paveway IV, Brimstone, Storm Shadow, and DASS upgrade, new countermeasures, BriteCloud. When you go back to your chart, factor in all the improvements in the affected sectors that amounts to on top of the fact that it won Performance, Pilot Workload and Engagement with maximum points in two, that's a very filled out chart for the Typhoon. The only unaffected sectors are probably CNI and data dissemination.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

But it is true for eery contender. All of them evolved.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

Bwah. If it has to go on a pylon it's an afterthought. But the radar is smaller anyway.

It is an afterthought. But that also doesn't affect IRST performance. The radar is smaller yes, but probably pretty good otherwise.

The Typhoon had Striker in 2008 but Striker II with integrated night-vision is available now, very similar to F-35 helmet.

Rafale had nothing. I.e. a substantial improvement in 2018.

The Gripen fuel fraction is below 30% and any external stores will degrade it further because it's a smaller aircraft. Higher % weight and drag increase per store.

I'm aware. EF fuel fraction is 31.25% at 11 tons empty. So slightly lower for T3 jets. Not a big difference.

In 2008 it was an old mechanically scanned radar, which would massively affect range, detection, acquisition, NCTR/ident and subsequently SA and QRA too, not to mention the lack of simultaneous A2G/A2A, SAR, passive modes, swash plate AoR etc. The old mechanically scanned radar still won on engagement though.

Let's not forget that Typhoon scored maximum for performance last time and won by a mile and a marginal weight increase is offset by the 1kN improvement between the Mk.100 and Mk.101. The balance is negligible relative to fuel movements.

Again you make it sound as if 2018 Typhoon is competing against 2008 rivals. In a shocking move, Boeing, Dassault, LM and Saab have decided to offer their 2018 models aswell...
Fuel could be moved before the weight was added. Of course, an unstable FBW aircraft can cope with 100kg easily but it will affect performance somewhat. Definitely not improving it.

8bn Swiss Francs. That would buy about 60 Typhoon, Rafales or F-35s, but when you start adding training course material, weapons, spares, GME and logistics support, it becomes a very small air force and of course overheads become relatively larger as numbers decline.

It will be a small force because the requirement is for 30-40 jets depending on performance and mixture of fighters and SAMs.

Everything is probably overkill for Swiss needs, F-35 massively so, but the Typhoon is by no means least impressive once you factor in Captor-E, the CFTs, integration of EPWII, UK Paveway IV, Brimstone, Storm Shadow, and DASS upgrade, new countermeasures, BriteCloud. When you go back to your chart, factor in all the improvements in the affected sectors that amounts to on top of the fact that it won Performance, Pilot Workload and Engagement with maximum points in two, that's a very filled out chart for the Typhoon. The only unaffected sectors are probably CNI and data dissemination.

There's needs and there's requirements. Requirements at least are demanding. CFTs and many A/G stores are irrelevant for Switzerland. It depends of course what Swiss AF wants, but Storm Shadow is probably not on their list. GP Bombs however...
And again, EF doesn't have exclusive rights on improving their product.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

Hm I cant edit posts...

Anyway, I just wanted to add that none of the contestants actually has operational CFTs.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

Depends on pylon stability. But you said the systems of the EF were the 'least impressive'. A system is about more than one thing. Having an external pylon system increases the drag, weight and RCS of that system. The cons begin to outweigh the pros of having it.

I get the feeling that the helmet wasn't the only thing affecting the huge difference in pilot workload though.

Typhoon isn't as affected by external stores as a larger aircraft though, then we get on to the 0.9 T/W of the Gripen vs 1.15 for Typhoon.

But the lack of AESA radar was the big killer for Typhoon in most categories. I should add that it will obviously affect the ECCM aspect of EW too.

The plumbing for the CFT likely balances the AESA weight and the affect is negligible on a 16t aircraft + stores anyway.

Small forces cause problems. Far better to have 60+ jets.

Yeah, I can't edit posts either, another forum hiccup. But the CFT are plumbed, making them operational would be easy. F4 however is some way off.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

EDIT - I menat smaller aircraft for line 3.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Mark my words, if the Swiss MOD goes ahead with a public consultation/vote for the acquisition of the new fighters and wins before the RFP final selection, then the F-35A is the front runner, if the MOD does not go ahead with a public/vote on the matter, its Gripen.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

But it is true for eery contender. All of them evolved

Hallo, true, but in 2008 one of the two Rafale twin seaters that the Swiss evaluated had an AESA in the nose, and while SAAB sent a pair of Gripen D´s, they were proposing to deliver an "all dancing, all singing" Gripen E´s. Eurofighter was proposing to deliver in 2015... P1E...

Member for

12 years 6 months

Posts: 374

Hallo, true, but in 2008 one of the two Rafale twin seaters that the Swiss evaluated had an AESA in the nose, and while SAAB sent a pair of Gripen D´s, they were proposing to deliver an "all dancing, all singing" Gripen E´s. Eurofighter was proposing to deliver in 2015... P1E...

The Rafale versions offered to Switzerland had the PESA radar. It's characteristics are highlighted in the Swiss evaluation. The second analysis of that report, which focus on variants to be delivered in 2015, state that the Rafale version would be F3+, which does have an AESA radar.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

The Rafale versions offered to Switzerland had the PESA radar. It's characteristics are highlighted in the Swiss evaluation.

No.
From the two twin seaters that Dassault sent to Emmen, one of them had a PESA, the other one was equiped with an AESA prototype. This was was openly told by Dassault to the specialized press at the time.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Eagle

Agreed Typhoon has the advantage in radar size. But it had the same advantage in 2008. Given an aperture area 1.5 times greater it surely didn't impress in detection, identification and acquisition. What makes you think only EF got better in the meantime?

Because this time around both Rafale and Typhoon will be evaluated with an actual AESA in the nose, not just the Rafale.