Switzerland without Gripen

[CHSubZero]

What a sad day! Swiss citizens votes against Saab Gripen E/F...

[Brisse]

Indeed. It's all over the news here in Sweden right now.

[Scrim]

Good. You get what you pay for. Being cheap about it doesn't help. What's wrong with their F/A-18s?

[Brisse]

The Gripen were intended to replace their aging fleet of F-5's, not the F/A-18.

[Scrim]

So they can buy more F/A-18s then. The Gripen is the result of half a dozen decades of Swedish national and international lies about neutrality and the ability to rely solely on domestic weapons.

[taps]

So they can buy more F/A-18s then.

 

As far as I know the idea is not to have any additional (fighter-)planes at all.

[EtherealN]

So they can buy more F/A-18s then.

 

You get what you pay for indeed: in the case of the Gripen, you get a lot more flight hours than you get from the Hornets. Depending on what you actually intend to do, that can be critical.

 

Or are you of the opinion that they should try buying F-22's instead? :P That would be a very expensive air policing jet... :)

 

Jet fighters is not just a case of throwing money at something making it better.

[joey45]

Why not get armed hawks to replace the F-5s..

[Scrim]

Jet fighters is not just a case of throwing money at something making it better.

 

Indeed, but it's not a matter of picking the cheapest thing you can get without buying Eastern European jets either. The Gripen's single virtue over any of its Western competition is its price tag. That is what was in mind when designing it.

[Revan]

Eh, just go buy some F-4s from Germany, Israel, or Turkey. They'll work just fine.

[sobek]

Yeah, i'm sure those are really a steal to maintain nowadays. :)

[mig29movt]

Indeed, but it's not a matter of picking the cheapest thing you can get without buying Eastern European jets either. The Gripen's single virtue over any of its Western competition is its price tag. That is what was in mind when designing it.

 

So is the F-5, but I think that one is/was far worse then the Gripen E will be.

The Gripen would have been the best solution for us.

Or what do you think about buying Hornets without having a carrier nor access to sea, to only equip it with Air-Air missiles?

Look at the mass of equipment the Hornet would be capable to carry! This still seems to me like buying a Ferrari but only using its 1st and reverse gear :doh:

 

Anyway a sad story.

If I had to go vote tomorrow on the hold of our armed forces or better a change into a improved civil protection service (for floods, earthquakes, forest fires etc.) I would definately vote yes.

[tsumikae]

I can understand. Why spend more money on air defense if your italian and french neighbours are doing the job for you ;)

 

However, while as a friendly neighbour I'm glad we can be of service, as a french citizen i demand either a tax decrease, or an annual invitation for a week stay at a palace in Geneva :p

[Scrim]

So is the F-5, but I think that one is/was far worse then the Gripen E will be.

The Gripen would have been the best solution for us.

Or what do you think about buying Hornets without having a carrier nor access to sea, to only equip it with Air-Air missiles?

Look at the mass of equipment the Hornet would be capable to carry! This still seems to me like buying a Ferrari but only using its 1st and reverse gear :doh:

 

From all that I've read, the Switz F/A-18s are capable of AG, and have been included in such an upgrade with targeting pods since a few years back.

 

It might seem like buying something very expensive for your needs, but buying a whole new fleet of aircraft just to cover the AG aspect that the existing, superior jets can do just fine.

[brydling]

..., superior jets can do just fine.

 

Actually, I don't think the F/A-18 C/D will be superior to the Gripen E at all. That is even without counting the fact that you will get more fighters and more flight hours per fighter with the Gripen.

[Scrim]

The day the Americans for political reasons decide to block exports of military technology that is used for Gripen, it's dead in the water in terms of even trying to compete with other Western fighters.

 

Also, last time I checked, the Gripen couldn't even be armed for SEAD missions. That's a pretty big flaw right there.

[EtherealN]

The Gripen's single virtue over any of its Western competition is its price tag. That is what was in mind when designing it.

 

Incorrect.

 

It's fairly cheap to buy, yes. But purchase price is a miniscule part of the equation. (If we compare from the MRCA bids in India, btw, the russian planes was not that much cheaper in flyaway cost, but they are more expensive to operate.)

It also costs about a quarter as much to operate, per hour, compared to F-18's, Eurofighters, and Rafales.

It has excellent shortfield capability, which is nice for countries with either dispersal doctrine (like sweden, unsure about Switzerland) or mountainous terrain (like Switzerland).

It has a range issue, but the model discussed in this instance has a considerable range extension over the older versions - and that's not a problem at all for Switzerland, since that is a small country by area with no foreign engagements.

It's mission readiness is excellent, even with basic, conscript, maintenance crews.

 

If you were to fill the requirement with more F-18's, what you'd get is:

 

- Less planes.

- Less flight hours.

- Less readiness.

 

Now, if you have a big budget or (like the British and French) concerns about deploying your airforce with global reach... Yeah, there are better things to buy. But as a small country with defence/air policing as the main task for the plane, the Gripen is optimal. It gives you what you need at a good price to buy, good readiness (meaning you need less planes than you would with other jets), and cheap maintenance.

 

Now of course, if I understand the result of this correctly, the option that the people selected was to simply not buy any new jets at all. I think you'll find that all jets, including the F-18, fall short of meeting a pricetag requirement of 0. :)

 

The day the Americans for political reasons decide to block exports of military technology that is used for Gripen, it's dead in the water in terms of even trying to compete with other Western fighters.

 

Huh? You mean the Americans would block export of british, french, swedish and brazilian technology? We're talking about the 39E/F here, remember? The one that will use european technology and weapons? Hint hint! ;)

 

What remains that is american is that the engine is a GE-derivative. Weapons will be french and euro, radar systems swedish (possibly with Brazilian involvement) etc. So yeah, I guess the yankees might decide to block old Volvo Aero (now known as GKN plc of the United Kingdom) from building engines developed from the old GE F404's and newer F414's. I'm sure the british know how to handle that situation, should it occur. ;)

 

The F414, btw, is an upgraded version of the engine the Swiss already are using on their F-18's. In the older, current service Gripens, it would in fact be the same engine.

 

Also, last time I checked, the Gripen couldn't even be armed for SEAD missions. That's a pretty big flaw right there.

 

Gripen can already equip multiple cruise missiles, so it can perform DEAD fine, using missiles developed by Bofors and EADS. The future capabilities in this department of the E/F is not set in stone: if the Swiss had elected to buy and wanted it, it would get it. By definition, since the deal the Swiss would have signed would have included exactly the ability to be in on deciding what it should get.

 

Seriously, you should remember that there are currently two key versions of the Gripen flying - the A/B and the C/D. Those have received upgrades within their class as well. The C/D is the one with NATO-compatibility. But the swiss were not considering the purchase of either of those - they were considering the Gripen E/F and a seat at the table of deciding what said plane should get.

Edited May 19, 2014 by EtherealN

[Scrim]

Regarding costs, the purchase isn't everything I had in mind.

 

The short take off is hardly a big virtue. That exists due to the reality detached Swedish Cold War concept of basing every single fighter on highways with scant maintenance facilities.

 

The software is to a considerable part developed by American companies, and the later models are to a considerable degree about being NATO compatible, and thus relying on the biggest NATO member for the software and hardware required to make it NATO compatible.

 

Cruise missiles don't make a plane SEAD capable any more than bombs and a cannon. If it had, no one would've bothered developing ARMs.

 

 

And besides, buying a new set of A fighter jets to replace older B ones when you already have a third, C, that are capable of anything the A planes might do and more, is definitely a bad economic decision, regardless of how much the A jets cost to have.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Scrim

[EtherealN]

The short take off is hardly a big virtue. That exists due to the reality detached Swedish Cold War concept of basing every single fighter on highways with scant maintenance facilities.

 

As I said. But it's not only good for that. It is also good for mountain terrain. Check out Switzerland. STOL-capability is very nice when large parts of your terrain is mountainous, allows you much greater freedom in where you operate within your territory.

 

The software is to a considerable part developed by American companies, and the later models are to a considerable degree about being NATO compatible, and thus relying on the biggest NATO member for the software and hardware required to make it NATO compatible.

 

Are you talking about the C/D's again?

Also, how is this in any way an issue that the swiss don't already have?

 

Cruise missiles don't make a plane SEAD capable any more than bombs and a cannon. If it had, no one would've bothered developing ARMs.

 

Which is where the part you ignored is sort of relevant. ;)

 

And besides, buying a new set of A fighter jets to replace older B ones when you already have a third, C, that are capable of anything the A planes might do and more, is definitely a bad economic decision, regardless of how much the A jets cost to have.

 

The thing is that the "B" jets are getting so old the HAVE to be replaced.

 

The options then are to replace them with more of what you already have, which is expensive, or replace them with something that is cheaper and designed to perform exactly the same job the things that are being replaced were doing.

 

Seriously, the Gripen has better serviceability, better readiness, and STOL, at a fraction of the cost to get new F-18's to do the same job. The Gripens are not being asked to replace the F-18's. They would get there to replace the F5's that have to be phased out no matter what due to age.

 

The swiss people did, however, elect to just not replace said F5's.

 

Here's the thing you don't seem to quite follow: replacing the F5's with new F18's would, for the same capability at the job they are supposed to do require MORE airframes, that each costs more than the Gripen to buy, and each costs more to operate.

 

At the same time, going Gripen E/F instead of F-18's for the F5 replacement would REDUCE the vulnerability to US export embargoes.

 

...and, at the same time, they'd get to decide exactly what capabilities the E/F should have as a full partner.

 

You seem to be arguing as if they were considering the purchase of Gripen C/D. They're weren't.

[brydling]

The software is to a considerable part developed by American companies, and the later models are to a considerable degree about being NATO compatible, and thus relying on the biggest NATO member for the software and hardware required to make it NATO compatible.

 

If NATO-compatibility is such a bad thing, how is any other western fighter better? :)

 

The Gripen had it's own tactical link that was superior to Link16, but if you want to play with the big boys you have to downgrade to the same old standards that they use. As a side note, the Draken had the first operational airborne data link ever and the JA 37 had the first fighter-to-fighter data link :)

Edited May 19, 2014 by brydling

[Scrim]

As I said. But it's not only good for that. It is also good for mountain terrain. Check out Switzerland. STOL-capability is very nice when large parts of your terrain is mountainous, allows you much greater freedom in where you operate within your territory.

 

...

 

Are you talking about the C/D's again?

Also, how is this in any way an issue that the swiss don't already have?

 

...

 

Which is where the part you ignored is sort of relevant. ;)

 

...

 

The thing is that the "B" jets are getting so old the HAVE to be replaced.

 

The options then are to replace them with more of what you already have, which is expensive, or replace them with something that is cheaper and designed to perform exactly the same job the things that are being replaced were doing.

 

Seriously, the Gripen has better serviceability, better readiness, and STOL, at a fraction of the cost to get new F-18's to do the same job. The Gripens are not being asked to replace the F-18's. They would get there to replace the F5's that have to be phased out no matter what due to age.

 

The swiss people did, however, elect to just not replace said F5's.

 

Here's the thing you don't seem to quite follow: replacing the F5's with new F18's would, for the same capability at the job they are supposed to do require MORE airframes, that each costs more than the Gripen to buy, and each costs more to operate.

 

At the same time, going Gripen E/F instead of F-18's for the F5 replacement would REDUCE the vulnerability to US export embargoes.

 

...and, at the same time, they'd get to decide exactly what capabilities the E/F should have as a full partner.

 

You seem to be arguing as if they were considering the purchase of Gripen C/D. They're weren't.

 

I don't quite see the need to base Gripens in places in Switzerland where STOL is required, considering the size of the country. The only thing the Gripen's STOL ability is good for is controlled crash landings, and the hilariously disillusioned concept of highway bases.

 

No, I'm regarding software I'm talking about things from before the Gripen was even finished. If it hadn't been for American software, that plane would've been crashing relatively often to this day.

 

Buying a whole new fleet of fighter jets to get to vote on maybe getting ARMs? That doesn't sound like a smart move. If Swedish made ARMs turn out to be lacking, they'd be in a pickle. Swedish arms manufacturers are generally quite good at what they do, but if they mess something up, they're still very likely to make the deal, as Swedish domestic politics force the Swedish military to buy Swedish weapons, regardless of their quality. The only things they don't have to buy domestically are things that are simply too expensive to develop in country.

 

I don't follow. Why would the Swiss have to buy more F/A-18s than Gripens to replace their F-5s?

 

The issue I'm pointing out regarding American export restrictions is that if they rely on the Gripen, they rely on a third nation to keep good relations with the US. Regardless of their own healthy relationship, they'd still end up with hopelessly outdated Gripens if American-Swedish relations take a turn for the worse, in which case they'd have to pay up a whole lot more for American companies to take on and modernize their Gripens, like how Israeli and American companies have upgraded WP weapons for countries around the world.

 

 

If NATO-compatibility is such a bad thing, how is any other western fighter any better? :)

 

The Gripen had it's own tactical link that was superior to Link16, but if you want to play with the big boys you have to downgrade to the same old standards that they use. As a side note, the Draken had the first operational airborne data link ever :)

 

NATO compatibility is bad in the sense that the Swiss would be forced to rely on American-Swedish relations to ensure that Swiss Gripens wouldn't become obsolete due to a lack of upgrades.

 

As for the Gripen's tactical link being superior, no one else than SAAB says that, so I'll chalk that up along with McDonnell Douglas saying that the F/A-18 was superior to the F-22/F-35 (can't remember which one it was) as far as credibility goes.

[brydling]

No, I'm regarding software I'm talking about things from before the Gripen was even finished. If it hadn't been for American software, that plane would've been crashing relatively often to this day.

 

Please explain which American software in the Gripen has anything to do with preventing crashes.

[Scrim]

During the development of Gripen, they had to bring in Calspan to work out the mess they'd made of the FCS which caused the two first prototypes to crash when the test pilot lost all control of the plane.

[brydling]

From what I can see, Calspan is a simulator that was used. The software is not American.

[EtherealN]

I don't quite see the need to base Gripens in places in Switzerland where STOL is required, considering the size of the country. The only thing the Gripen's STOL ability is good for is controlled crash landings, and the hilariously disillusioned concept of highway bases.

 

It's a capability. Depends entirely on what their doctrine is, which I don't know. A small country may actually help that, since if you come under attack you would otherwise have very few and very obvious targets. All depends on how they want to organize things, it's a capability that they have available.

 

Buying a whole new fleet of fighter jets to get to vote on maybe getting ARMs? That doesn't sound like a smart move.

 

You're not following.

 

If they want them, they would get them. Your accusation about them not having ARM's being a problem is completely false since precisely that - if they wanted them, they would indeed get them. If they don't want them, no problem. They're were looking at buying a patrol and aerial policing thing anyhow, so ARM's aren't really relevant.

 

If Swedish made ARMs turn out to be lacking, they'd be in a pickle.

 

...except they're not locked into Swedish weapons. As already mentioned: the C/D already operates with swedish, american, european and french weapons. The E/F can operate with anything it wants from the west, including americans. If they decide they want american ARM's, they'd get them. And they could even buy them directly from the americans. So what is the problem?

 

I don't follow. Why would the Swiss have to buy more F/A-18s than Gripens to replace their F-5s?

 

Because the Gripen has a higher readiness ratio.

 

If you want to maintain a constant capability of 4 aircraft ready on alert for intercepts, you'll need a smaller total fleet with Gripen than you would with the F-18. (And the maintenance done is also a lot cheaper, and the flight hours is about a quarter of the F-18 - but the plane still has all of the nice buddy-launch capabilities and so on you have come to expect from a modern fighter like the Typhoon etc. What it doesn't have is a huge radar. Relevance in Switzerland? Not so much. But it is an AESA at least.)

 

The issue I'm pointing out regarding American export restrictions is that if they rely on the Gripen, they rely on a third nation to keep good relations with the US.

Regardless of their own healthy relationship, they'd still end up with hopelessly outdated Gripens if American-Swedish relations take a turn for the worse

 

How fortunate that BAE and those guys have bought up all of that stuff, then. Swedish-American relations are, in the case of the E/F, irrelevant for everything except the engine. Though really not even there either, since it's fundamentally the same engine the Swiss are already using, and what used to be Volvo Aero is now a british company.

 

I repeat: this is not the C/D!

Edited May 19, 2014 by EtherealN