Swiss Air Force combat fighter competition 2.0

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

As maintenanced is already included in contract as to be done by RUAG in a different item, i doubt F-35 can reach that.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

I see the US buying a lot of cheese, chocolate, and clocks ;)

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

Unaware of the political angle. Would you be able to inform me better, please?

I thought this was already posted here, but apparently it wasn't...
Here's a source in German: https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/kuhhandel-mit-kampfjets-angebot-aus-deutschland-stoesst-bei-schweizer-politikern-auf-skepsis-134370184
Basically, Germany's official in charge offered to cooperate in areas like Zurich airport approach corridors and railway infrastructure projects. Provided Switzerland buys EF of course.

Which is absurd if you ask me. There are signed treaties regarding that stuff. Treaties the Germans for years, decades even were unable to fulfil. And now they might actually do something about it, but only if Switzerland buys EF? What is that?

Well I'm sure "misunderstandings" like those can be settled at a higher political level, but coupled with the inabilty of Airbus/Eurofighter to send AESA equipped aircraft, a mere 11 years after the previous evaluation and the bad image EF enjoys, I don't see how this could end well for Airbus/Eurofighter.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

I see the US buying a lot of cheese, chocolate, and clocks ;)

you always see that... chocolate is a new name for F-35?

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 593

okay but.. how do you intercept a liner or a light aircraft that has communications problem, or something along the lines of "I need help!", hummm? ^^

air policing and assistance is 99% of operational job of every european nations air force...

well right now the suggestion is to send two manned jets, probably worth about $150+ million to that job. and if for whatever reason you can't send them up within 5 minutes, you're putting lives and national security at risk
by contrast UTAP-22 is so cheap and simple that you can have loads of them stationed all over the country, read to be launched at the push of a button
so cost wise, we're talking $4 million guaranteed effectiveness vs $150 million if the pilots didn't get food poisoning overkill
also from a strategic viewpoint it's easy to overload such an expensive system, send in one "lost" aircraft to draw off these jets while the real drug smuggler/suicide bomber aircraft makes his run

as for actually helping lost aircraft, I doubt most pilots are fluent in sign language, so most of this is limited wobbling your wingtips as a sign to follow me, something a drone can do perfectly well
more interestingly you can probably easily put a neon sign on a drone that allows you to communicate clearly in 50 languages. bolting that onto a $80 million jet seems less practical, and fighter pilots certainly won't think it's very sexy

in the 1% that these drones might not suffice, you can still keep a handful of manned jets for emergencies. but even then a cheap UTAP-22 can still carry an impressive array of short and even a few long range missiles, if that doesn't suffice I'm not sure a manned jet will fare much better, but is a much more valuable asset to lose to... euhm... I don't know, who would actually invade Swiss air space? does Lichtenstein have any ambitions of military conquest, and do they have a fleet of Su-57s?

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

as for actually helping lost aircraft, I doubt most pilots are fluent in sign language, so most of this is limited wobbling your wingtips as a sign to follow me, something a drone can do perfectly well?

er, it's part of a pilot's formation, for one, and secondly making a drone capable of fighter aircraft performance, and equipped to handle such situations means making a fighter aircraft with serious upgrade in computing power on board.. it's cheaper to buy fighter aircraft as such... ;)

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 2,626

UTAP-22 is not on the list for evaluation so to me it is not relevant.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 593

er, it's part of a pilot's formation, for one, and secondly making a drone capable of fighter aircraft performance, and equipped to handle such situations means making a fighter aircraft with serious upgrade in computing power on board.. it's cheaper to buy fighter aircraft as such... ;)

Boeing flew UCAVs in autonomous formation back in 2005, China is preparing to field drones in swarms, so yes you can let them operate independently.
For air combat there was a computer program a few years ago that trashed human pilots in simulated dog fights, running off a low end pc, so computing power isn't much of an issue either.
Not that you need to, the USAF fired a Stinger missile from a Predator at an Iraqi Mig-25 back in 2002, so the UCAV can wait for the order to engage. Just like a human fighter pilot who would not open fire, especially over a potentially populated area, without express orders from ground controllers.

UTAP-22 is not on the list for evaluation so to me it is not relevant.

The F-35 wasn't on the previous list, it is now.
If the Swiss people block the proposed purchase again (I don't see why they wouldn't, not much has changed), then going for a cheaper UCAV option might actually be the only way to upgrade the Swiss Air Force.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271


The F-35 wasn't on the previous list, it is now.
If the Swiss people block the proposed purchase again (I don't see why they wouldn't, not much has changed), then going for a cheaper UCAV option might actually be the only way to upgrade the Swiss Air Force.

You're delusional. If voters should block new fighters, the Hornets will either have to soldier on or the AF will have to exit the fighter business.

F-35s have arrived @ Payerne, after an involuntary stop in Vermont it seems. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72nPZYJkk7I
The channel has videos from all contenders. Super duper resolution (ProRes) videos are available on the vbs page, click "Videomaterial und Fotos": https://www.vbs.admin.ch/de/verteidigung/schutz-des-luftraumes.html

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 2,626

If voters should block new fighters, the Hornets will either have to soldier on or the AF will have to exit the fighter business.

If new fighters are blocked again, how much longer could the Hornets remain in service before becoming prohibitively expensive to operate? Would there be time for one last attempt to sanction a fighter purchase 2-3 years down the line?

Switzerland is very unusual in not having a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year fighter force available. If the Swiss public have been content with part time fighter cover, they would perhaps accept no fighter force at all. At which point considering UCAV's seems an option for providing indigenous air cover.

I have forgotten - does Switzerland have an arrangement with Italy to provide interception fighters when the Swiss air force is not available?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271


If new fighters are blocked again, how much longer could the Hornets remain in service before becoming prohibitively expensive to operate? Would there be time for one last attempt to sanction a fighter purchase 2-3 years down the line?

Well that depends. Switzerland would be the only legacy Hornet operator beyond 2030. That means spares will become an issue. Who knows what Boeing will charge. So it depends on factors the Swiss gov. can't control and it also depends on your definition of prohibitively expensive.
At least engines are not a problem thanks to T-X etc.
My main concern in this scenario wouldn't be cost but safety. There are plenty of flight hours left but one flight hour is not like the other... Swiss AF for example rarely flies straight lines over the seas. Transition times are very short. So at some point, probably rather sooner than later, the airframes reach the end of life. Rebuilding might be an option. But an F-18 is not an F-5, no idea if the Swiss industry would be capable of doing that alone. And this option would be very expensive.

That being said, a couple of years more than currently planned to execute an emergency purchase surely would be possible. IMHO.

Switzerland is very unusual in not having a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year fighter force available. If the Swiss public have been content with part time fighter cover, they would perhaps accept no fighter force at all. At which point considering UCAV's seems an option for providing indigenous air cover.

Not as unusual as you might think. But as has been stated repeatedly, 24/7 QRA will be operational in 2020.
The Swiss public was not really content with part time fighter cover. Most people probably had no clue.

Why would the Swiss AF get UCAVs if it can't have fighters? Why would the Swiss public be ok with UCAVs, but not ok with fighters? These wouldn't be some cheap recce drones. This debate always comes up, cheaper alternatives like drones or turboprop trainers, but that's all useless of course. Besides, Swiss AF already operates cheap recce UAVs. And not to forget SAMs.

I have forgotten - does Switzerland have an arrangement with Italy to provide interception fighters when the Swiss air force is not available?

Yes, with Italy, France, Germany and since 2018 with Austria aswell. But these arrangements only allow one nation's jets to keep escorting while entering another nation's airspace. No use of force allowed.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 593

You're delusional. If voters should block new fighters, the Hornets will either have to soldier on or the AF will have to exit the fighter business.

if the Swiss people keep rejecting a new fighter purchase (why wouldn't they, they are surrounded by very powerful close allies, they're not worried about invasions), then Switzerland will end up with an obsolete air force until at least 2030
but if the military can buy a fleet of UCAVs at a fraction of the price to fulfill the intercept role at a fraction of the operational cost, I imagine the Swiss people would be willing to support that, it's not that different from buying missiles
100 UTAP-22s would cost $200 million, even with (minimal) training and support equipment cost that'll be a fraction of the $8 billion needed for a manned fighter purchase
that's 100 reusable cruise missile that can do recon, drop bombs, escort air intruders
or if you put Stingers or Sidewinders on there, they'll pose a serious threat to any aircraft, if only because they can be launched from literally anywhere and don't use radar, making them very hard to see coming, like a SAM

in addition as technological evolution speeds up, it'll be possible to upgrade even obsolete F-18 and F-5 at fraction of the cost with the latest technology and weapons
for example the Marines are upgrading their F-18Cs with AESA radars (for about $3 million each), as well as extending their service life, meant to keep them operationally relevant until 2030: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/01/22/marines-classic-hornet-jets-get-upgraded-radar.html
alternatively there's the Malaysian upgrade program for about $2 million per F-18 that's said to put them on par with the F-18E/F: https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/07/260429/more-lethal-sting-rmafs-hornets
$5 million to get $70 million worth of ability for 10 years is a good deal

Why would the Swiss AF get UCAVs if it can't have fighters? Why would the Swiss public be ok with UCAVs, but not ok with fighters? These wouldn't be some cheap recce drones.

the UTAP-22 would cost as little as $2 million, essentially flies itself (so minimal cost for pilot training and ground control station) and has a flight envelope similar to an F-16 without an afterburner
payload is small but still enough for a pair of SDBs or Sidewinders, which also makes sales much easier legally speaking (they've been pre-approved by Congress to all major US allies) so delivery could take place as soon as next year probably (if there's room in Kratos' production schedule, the USAF probably ordered a few hundred already)

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

if the Swiss people keep rejecting a new fighter purchase (why wouldn't they, they are surrounded by very powerful close allies, they're not worried about invasions), then Switzerland will end up with an obsolete air force until at least 2030
but if the military can buy a fleet of UCAVs at a fraction of the price to fulfill the intercept role at a fraction of the operational cost, I imagine the Swiss people would be willing to support that, it's not that different from buying missiles
100 UTAP-22s would cost $200 million, even with (minimal) training and support equipment cost that'll be a fraction of the $8 billion needed for a manned fighter purchase
that's 100 reusable cruise missile that can do recon, drop bombs, escort air intruders
or if you put Stingers or Sidewinders on there, they'll pose a serious threat to any aircraft, if only because they can be launched from literally anywhere and don't use radar, making them very hard to see coming, like a SAM

in addition as technological evolution speeds up, it'll be possible to upgrade even obsolete F-18 and F-5 at fraction of the cost with the latest technology and weapons
for example the Marines are upgrading their F-18Cs with AESA radars (for about $3 million each), as well as extending their service life, meant to keep them operationally relevant until 2030: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/01/22/marines-classic-hornet-jets-get-upgraded-radar.html
alternatively there's the Malaysian upgrade program for about $2 million per F-18 that's said to put them on par with the F-18E/F: https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/07/260429/more-lethal-sting-rmafs-hornets
$5 million to get $70 million worth of ability for 10 years is a good deal

the UTAP-22 would cost as little as $2 million, essentially flies itself (so minimal cost for pilot training and ground control station) and has a flight envelope similar to an F-16 without an afterburner
payload is small but still enough for a pair of SDBs or Sidewinders, which also makes sales much easier legally speaking (they've been pre-approved by Congress to all major US allies) so delivery could take place as soon as next year probably (if there's room in Kratos' production schedule, the USAF probably ordered a few hundred already)

once again: there is NO suitable UCAV for swiss needs, zero, nada... period.. forget it

you can buy a bunch of Cessnas 172 for a fraction of the cost of the UCAVs and they would be just as useful..

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

Are you suggesting a Swiss airborne invasion of the Moscow's red square?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

There is a misunderstanding of the complexity of the infrastructure required to effectively operate a fleet of UAVs.

The UAV infrastructure has some elements which are similar to those of manned airplanes and other elements which are UAV unique.

Similar elements are:
1. Basic pilot training (flight school and learning the basics of how airplanes operate, radio protocols and how to navigate in manned airspace)
2. Squadron organization and manning (Operations group and Maintenance group)
3. Aircraft maintenance and logistics

Unique elements are:
1. Sense and avoid capability since there is no pilot onboard to perform that function versus an non-cooperative target
2. A high level of autonomy since there is no pilot to manage systems (lots and lots of software to develop, test and maintain)
3. UAV operator advanced training (specifics of UAV flight performance, sensors, operating limitations, emergency procedures, tactics, techniques and procedures)
4. Unique facilities (control rooms with software more complex than that on the jet, line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight communications, airframe-unique hangar requirements)
5. Unique maintenance capabilities (laptop control of subsystem functions during maintenance/refuel/rearm, and the ability to rescue a malfunctioning UAV which lands at a divert airfield)

The bottom line is there is no cost saving for the Swiss by switching to UAVs. For simple, routine tasks like air policing, it is more cost effective to buy more manned airplanes.

Let computers/UAVs do what they do best, such as extremely long endurance and extremely hazardous sorties, and let men/manned jets do the "easy" stuff where danger and fatigue are not a factor.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

I see the US buying a lot of cheese, chocolate, and clocks ;)

And make potus cry because US cheese, chocolate and clocks are perfectly as good? (joking)

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 2,626

From the SAAB press release:

Upon an invitation from armasuisse, Saab submitted a proposal for Gripen E on 25 January 2019. Since the submission of the proposal in January, the armasuisse’ expectations on the flight tests have evolved to expect participation of operationally ready aircraft. As Gripen E is yet to become operational, Saab has presented solutions to perform the Swiss flight tests in 2019. An offer to complement the Gripen E test aircraft with an operational Gripen C aircraft for the flight tests in June 2019 has not been accepted by armasuisse. Competitors have showcased capabilities on existing platforms, which are different to the versions offered for delivery.

SAAB do have 2 points to make there if what SAAB say is correct:

1 the goalposts have been moved - aircraft to be evaluated did not need to be operational when the contest started but now they do
2 competitors are bringing aircraft for evaluation with capabilities that differ from those to be supplied

I am not sure of the wisdom of the Armasuisse approach. I see a risk of a referendum blocking procurement again on unacceptable cost grounds where perhaps a lower Gripen E cost might have been acceptable.

I note that SAAB has not withdrawn its offer and that SAAB's Gripen E offer still stands

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

From the SAAB press release:

a lower cost Gripen C/D NG might have been acceptable.

Didn't you mean that? The E frenzy was devoid of much logic.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 2,626

a lower cost Gripen C/D NG might have been acceptable

Didn't you mean that? The E frenzy was devoid of much logic.

You referred to Gripen C as the low cost option. I think the E version will cost far less to fly for 6000 hours than all the others. Perhaps in the region of $10K CPFH rather than closer to $20K CPFH for the twins and in excess of $20K CPFH for F-35.