Switzerland selects F-35

[JasonC]

7 hours ago, Slater said:

and are reasonably capable against TBM's.

 

Avengers? I should certainly hope so.

[11bravo]

5 hours ago, dov said:

Well, that's a perfectly correct statement you made here. If only I had based my statement on a message on the Internet.

No, that is not so.

With several decades of expertise after studying the relevant subjects at the university, working in practical aviation is one of them.

On the other hand, I had the opportunity to follow the discussions that were going on in Israel on this topic.

The rest is common sense.

Everything that is spread on the Internet should be treated with caution.

If this aircraft were such a great thing, this American fighter would not have been designed as a strike aircraft and would be sold very differently.

Have you seen this machine at an air show?

In a mock dogfight?

Certainly not.

The F-22, on the other hand, cuts a completely different figure.

Although it is eternally unreliable and remains. Prone on oxygen supply!

 

Happy modelling

I know 2 current F-35 pilots.   Both say that it's a very maneuverable, powerful jet.   They rated it superior to an F-18 in everything except very slow speed, high AoA fights and about the equal of a late block F-16.  Need to keep in mind that other jets might be much more maneuverable in airshow configuration but load them down with eternal missiles, fuel tanks, ecm pods, targeting pods, etc and that advantage is quickly lost, compared to an F-35 which carries everything internally.    I think you are misinformed or just biased because it's not a European product that was selected.   Also, you conveniently forgot to mention that since it's the only jet in the competition that is LO, if employed correctly, it should be able to take the shot without ever being seen by it's adversary, let alone having to get into a dogfight.   And, uh..yes, I've seen the F-35 at multiple airshows.  

 

Happy modeling to you as well! 

[11bravo]

10 minutes ago, JasonC said:

 

Avengers? I should certainly hope so.

Pretty sure in this case TBM = Theater Ballistic Missile.   Not sure I'm a big fan of the Patriot system.   In these days where any electronic emissions can be quickly geolocated and targeted, having a large, fixed SAM site may be a bit risky. 

[Slater]

Patriot was essentially downsized, made more mobile, and given 360 degree capability with the MEADS program (later the TLVS iteration in Germany). This seems to have been unsuccessful, though. Mainly due to the costs involved. Germany appears to have settled for a Patriot upgrade instead.

[PLC1966]

6 hours ago, dov said:

Well, that's a perfectly correct statement you made here. If only I had based my statement on a message on the Internet.

No, that is not so.

With several decades of expertise after studying the relevant subjects at the university, working in practical aviation is one of them.

On the other hand, I had the opportunity to follow the discussions that were going on in Israel on this topic.

The rest is common sense.

Everything that is spread on the Internet should be treated with caution.

If this aircraft were such a great thing, this American fighter would not have been designed as a strike aircraft and would be sold very differently.

Have you seen this machine at an air show?

In a mock dogfight?

Certainly not.

The F-22, on the other hand, cuts a completely different figure.

Although it is eternally unreliable and remains. Prone on oxygen supply!

 

Happy modelling

I get it, you don't actually know how good a fighter the F-35 is any more than any other internet pundit. 

 

I suspect the idea of the L.O. in the case of fighters is you aim to not actually get into a dogfight in the first place.

 

P.S. I don't think you will need to bold the words all over the place.

[JasonC]

16 hours ago, 11bravo said:

Pretty sure in this case TBM = Theater Ballistic Missile.   Not sure I'm a big fan of the Patriot system.   In these days where any electronic emissions can be quickly geolocated and targeted, having a large, fixed SAM site may be a bit risky. 

 

 

Oh, that makes much more sense. I'll crawl back to the WW2 forum now. 

[exdraken]

I am rather curious how all this will work out!

The USAF committed to the F-35.. but not fully it seems, hard to belief they will buy the numbers originally promised... 

But they make everybody else buy into it.... maybe to leverage cost a bit?

[tempestfan]

On 7/1/2021 at 10:51 AM, Beermonster1958 said:

Ps. Sorry for the "negativity". Its just that when I consider how the UK MOD often (mis)manages major procurement issues, its very difficult not to be cynical

😊

That is no MoD privilege - I would be hard pressed to name a well-managed major procurement project for the German forces in the past 30 years...

On 7/1/2021 at 11:04 AM, alex said:

We have no AWACS, no ships, no satellites, no airborne ISTAR, nothing which could be integrated, just a few ground based radars. But hey, it's network-centric! 😁 I was 15 years officer in the swiss air force, and I still have no clue what they are thinking.

Alex

Hey, that means more business possibilities! Maybe the USN would be willing to sell an early Nimitz, which could then travel up the Rhine and be based in the Zürichsee. OK, the final 50kms would be a bit tough possibly. Satellites and AWACS may be bought too (who needs a requirement)...

[alex]

Nah, we buy only the newest and most expensive stuff, even if we have no use for it.

 

BTW, we bought some years ago a "Führungsinformationssystem" (I guess it's called battlefield management system), which was first tested in the air force, and then if it was performing well, it would have been introduced a few years later for the rest of the army. It was intended to be mobile, encrypted, down to the individual soldier level and all the nice things the IT departments will promise you. Cost overrun, late delivery, only a fraction of the promised performance was achieved... those who speak german can google "FIS Heer" and be surprised. The same people were not able to introduce a model-airplane-sized drone in time (because the frequencies were already reserved by our national telecom company), they are again a few years late on the new drone (because they changed the whole desing of something they initially bought off the shelf), they upgrade some personnel carrier for a higher price than new vehicules would have cost (google DURO Modernisierung) and are struggling with the new mobile mortar system, which is again few years late.

 

So, as I said on another forum - if they have to purchase something that is more complex than a lawn mower, they fail. Not sure if we should give them a few billions to buy new planes...

 

Alex

 

[Slater]

Historically, Swiss rifles and pistols have a good reputation worldwide. So some things are done well.

[Sundowner14]

I’d be very surprised if dogfighting capability was top of the Swiss priority list to be honest. Air combat has evolved and whilst ACM is important, technology, situational awareness, flexibility and integrated operations dictate future wars and conflicts. IMHO.

[Slater]

Presumably the USAF experience in Vietnam won't be repeated, whereby BVR AIM-7 Sparrow shots were thought to be the future of air combat. But that degenerated into close-range maneuvering combat and the gun was seen as necessary again. 

[zigster]

If I remember correctly, it was all due to politics, which required "visual confirmation" b4 letting loose any rockets. That, of course, gave the advantage to MiG's with guns at closer range.

That's why US went to inventing Top Gun and so-on. This days AWAC's telling friend from foe. Can work in the air, yet does not on the ground.

Check "friendly fire" deaths in Kuwait / Iraqi wars, or shooting passenger train in Serbia.

If Swiss Army is like everyone else, they would like "new toy". If they can afford it, they will get it. Do they really need it?

It's just a matter of wording in the local newspapers to feel population proud of OUR ARMY capability to defend our values, democracy and Swiss Watches   😉  

Zig

[Giorgio N]

8 hours ago, Slater said:

Presumably the USAF experience in Vietnam won't be repeated, whereby BVR AIM-7 Sparrow shots were thought to be the future of air combat. But that degenerated into close-range maneuvering combat and the gun was seen as necessary again. 

 

The results of BVR missiles in Vietnam should be put in context, keeping in mind some specific problems:

- Rules of engagement required visual identification. This alone meant negating some of the advantages of using a BVR missile. Of course there were situations when crews stated to have visually identified the opponent even when this was pretty hard to believe...

- The Sparrow system was relatively new and technology of the day did not guarantee very high level of reliability. Launch parameters were stricter, meaning that very often crews launched well outside the optimum envelope. Better training improved things of course but reliability of the Sparrow was never very high in those years.

 

Now clearly things have changed today, if only because the Vietnam war ended over 45 years ago ! In these 45 years missile technology has massively improved and the reliability of electronics in general is on a totally different level.

[exdraken]

45 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

 

 

Now clearly things have changed today, if only because the Vietnam war ended over 45 years ago ! In these 45 years missile technology has massively improved and the reliability of electronics in general is on a totally different level.

but so have countermeasures and tactics..... I'd assume that no 3rd world airforce is going to invade Switzerland.... (maybe Austria -- it is the only one around... )

[dov]

Hello

 

It's really funny and dreadful.

Here we should leave the church in the village.

And just talk about the basic. The development and the task of the F-35.

The aircraft was almost finished after a very long time.

Since the time required for the development was not exactly short, the costs have become very high.

Too high. The USA cannot bear these costs, so one tries to distribute it a little among friends.

The fact that the purpose of developing the F-35 was to attack, of course, with a bit of advertising and good PR, turns into defense.

 

The essential thing about such ultra-modern complex systems is that the development time is so long that the antidote has already been developed by the time it is used for the first time.

No matter which system. The fragmentary information about each new weapon system is well enough to develop exactly the right countermeasures to face a real baptism of fire.

This information, in turn, is necessary to inform customers on the world market about the new product.

So that they then become paying customers.

 

The recent past with Corona has shown that many heads of state in the world are not exactly smart, responsible and trustworthy.

That is why I consider such weapons to be dangerous, even in the possession of Switzerland. Too close to my front door.

 

Happy modelling