Patrouille Suisse future is insecure
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrouille Suisse future is insecure
The vote on 18 May rejected a planned procurement of 22 Gripen fighter jets, under a program worth $3.5 billion. The Swiss Air Force planned to purchase the Gripen as a successor for the F-5E/F that has been in service since 1976. F-5 Tiger aircraft will be retired in 2016, so the new fighter deal was vital for Swiss Air Force.
Patrouille Suisse future is insecure
Patrouille Suisse future is insecure
They have some Hornets.
While they sort this out, their capability is better than nil.
Any idea what's behind the order cancellation?
While they sort this out, their capability is better than nil.
Any idea what's behind the order cancellation?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Any idea what's behind the order cancellation?
-RP
LW - the Gripen buy was, of course, the subject of a referendum at the weekend - If memory serves, if campaigners gain 100,000 signatures, they automatically force a referendum on the issue upon which they are campaigning. The vote (one of at least three) went against the procurement because of the arguments that (a.) Switzerland doesn't need the Gripen and (b.) the funding would require cuts to other budgets such as for education.
Thanks for the replies, it fleshes out the outline of the story.
Not familiar enough with the Swiss Air Force to do a comprehensive assessment. Here's a back of the napkin look ...
Looking at raw numbers, the Hornet component of their air order of battle is about a third of the strike/fighter class of aircraft. Retiring all of the F-5E's leaves a pretty big hole in the GCI and other fighter type mission areas. As I read the offer, replace over 40 F-5E with 22 Gripen. Seems a decision based on a variety of factors, one being cost and sustainability, the other being a qualitative upgrade versus a one for one quantity replacement. (This would also provide a smaller manpower footprint in terms of how many pilots one has to keep in the force structure, and the size of the maintenance force needed to maintain the aircraft ...). That makes the Gripen/Hornet mix roughly fifty fifty, with a few more Hornets (C/D) all told.
While I am not up to scratch on F-5 readiness rates, I suspect that part of their retirement decision has to do with parts and spares, as well as fatigue life. (Nearly 40 years of service for the Swiss, nice job Tiger II!
)
From a budget standpoint, any replacement aircraft is seen as an opportunity cost vis a vis other non mil programs. Understood, we see the same thing on this side of the pond.
Is the idea in opposing the order to simplify order of battle and get a few more Hornets, try to drive the price of Saab's down, or consider a smaller lot, or to assert that "we don't need an Air Force this big?"
Not familiar enough with the Swiss Air Force to do a comprehensive assessment. Here's a back of the napkin look ...
Looking at raw numbers, the Hornet component of their air order of battle is about a third of the strike/fighter class of aircraft. Retiring all of the F-5E's leaves a pretty big hole in the GCI and other fighter type mission areas. As I read the offer, replace over 40 F-5E with 22 Gripen. Seems a decision based on a variety of factors, one being cost and sustainability, the other being a qualitative upgrade versus a one for one quantity replacement. (This would also provide a smaller manpower footprint in terms of how many pilots one has to keep in the force structure, and the size of the maintenance force needed to maintain the aircraft ...). That makes the Gripen/Hornet mix roughly fifty fifty, with a few more Hornets (C/D) all told.
While I am not up to scratch on F-5 readiness rates, I suspect that part of their retirement decision has to do with parts and spares, as well as fatigue life. (Nearly 40 years of service for the Swiss, nice job Tiger II!
) From a budget standpoint, any replacement aircraft is seen as an opportunity cost vis a vis other non mil programs. Understood, we see the same thing on this side of the pond.
Is the idea in opposing the order to simplify order of battle and get a few more Hornets, try to drive the price of Saab's down, or consider a smaller lot, or to assert that "we don't need an Air Force this big?"
'We don't need an air force at all' appeared to be the driver for one significant strand of thr campaign; another view was that 32 aircraft (the Hornets) was more than enough for the nation's needs. I can't recall where I read it now, but one of the 'no' campaigners offered a clear and cogent argument to this effect - well, if you overlooked the fact that he clearly thinks that all 32 airframes are serviceable at all times and will never run out of fatigue life...
This offers some insights.
This offers some insights.
Thank you sir, the link was educational.
I note the report cited a 55% voter turnout for the referendum.
Is that low, high, or about the usual?
The usual tired wheeze from the brainless, I see.
I note the report cited a 55% voter turnout for the referendum.
Is that low, high, or about the usual?
The pacifist "Switzerland without an Army" group said the outcome of the vote was a step for peace.
Hi all
Not a mil pilot, but a swiss voter. The Gripen was chosen after a very brief evaluation against Eurofighter and Rafale. This was not the most transparent process and the motivation for selecting the Gripen wasn't convincing to the public.
The vote itself was about whether to spend the allocated budget on military aircraft, which was to be taken in some part at the expense of other budgets.
I think the whole process never sat right with the electorate, and in fact the GsoA (the ones who want to abolish the army) didn't campaign hard against it - they let the regular political parties debate instead. That was pretty shrewd - they didn't taint the campaign against with their lunatic utopia arguments.
In the end it was pretty close and the Gripen supporters made good ground up until the vote took place - the polls taken in the run up showed a bigger but reducing majority who opposed the purchase.
Now they're already making noises about replacing the F/A 18's and I think it'll come down to one campaign finding a solution for both aircraft replacements. They're also talking to Austria about co-operation and sharing air defence duties.
During the Gripen campaign someone commented 'with an airforce, Switzerland will last 48 hours, without an airforce, 24 hours'. I think the confidence that the little airforce here could do much damage is low.
I mean, I'm not a military strategist, but a bunch of supersonic bombers screaming in over Basel at low level will be over Zürich and Bern before our pilots have even put down their coffees - there's little time to respond with such a small and closed in territory. I know - radar etc - but if the enemy comes hurtling up an alpine valley from the AUS or ITA border - would we see them coming ?
Not a mil pilot, but a swiss voter. The Gripen was chosen after a very brief evaluation against Eurofighter and Rafale. This was not the most transparent process and the motivation for selecting the Gripen wasn't convincing to the public.
The vote itself was about whether to spend the allocated budget on military aircraft, which was to be taken in some part at the expense of other budgets.
I think the whole process never sat right with the electorate, and in fact the GsoA (the ones who want to abolish the army) didn't campaign hard against it - they let the regular political parties debate instead. That was pretty shrewd - they didn't taint the campaign against with their lunatic utopia arguments.
In the end it was pretty close and the Gripen supporters made good ground up until the vote took place - the polls taken in the run up showed a bigger but reducing majority who opposed the purchase.
Now they're already making noises about replacing the F/A 18's and I think it'll come down to one campaign finding a solution for both aircraft replacements. They're also talking to Austria about co-operation and sharing air defence duties.
During the Gripen campaign someone commented 'with an airforce, Switzerland will last 48 hours, without an airforce, 24 hours'. I think the confidence that the little airforce here could do much damage is low.
I mean, I'm not a military strategist, but a bunch of supersonic bombers screaming in over Basel at low level will be over Zürich and Bern before our pilots have even put down their coffees - there's little time to respond with such a small and closed in territory. I know - radar etc - but if the enemy comes hurtling up an alpine valley from the AUS or ITA border - would we see them coming ?
Sir:
Thanks for the insights from within.
You'll have EW from European partners, or folks in NATO, if your government chooses to make such arrangements. Any bomber has to come over somewhere else to get to you. Fight over someone else's air space, and maybe no bombs fall on you. 
Now if there's a Scud in the picture ...
Thanks for the insights from within.
I mean, I'm not a military strategist, but a bunch of supersonic bombers screaming in over Basel at low level will be over Zürich and Bern before our pilots have even put down their coffees - there's little time to respond with such a small and closed in territory. I know - radar etc - but if the enemy comes hurtling up an alpine valley from the AUS or ITA border - would we see them coming ?
Now if there's a Scud in the picture ...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Textron are offering their new aircraft to fill the void.
Textron to offer Scorpion jet to Swiss Air Force - IHS Jane's 360
Textron to offer Scorpion jet to Swiss Air Force - IHS Jane's 360
Their defence capability is..they have no major resources, and everyone and his St Bernard has a gun and knows how to use it. Same applies to Tennessee and Afghanistan. None are worth invading.
Oh, and evil megalomaniacs with white cats have to stash their ill-gotten gains somewhere. Their best defence remains no-questions-asked banking, not 3 fighter squadrons.
Oh, and it's simply too boring to be worth invading. Cuckoo clocks as a weapon; who'd a thought it?
LSD was discovered in Basel. I asked a guy from Basel about that. He said "Best way out of Basel, but anything would do"
Oh, and evil megalomaniacs with white cats have to stash their ill-gotten gains somewhere. Their best defence remains no-questions-asked banking, not 3 fighter squadrons.
Oh, and it's simply too boring to be worth invading. Cuckoo clocks as a weapon; who'd a thought it?
LSD was discovered in Basel. I asked a guy from Basel about that. He said "Best way out of Basel, but anything would do"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts