Perpetual Defense Thread (Defense & non-commercial Space Nerds ITT)

Japan is relaxing it's military export restrictions, which seems to be related to possibly joining the F-35 coalition (I can't find the specific article I saw that in). It should be interesting to see where that leads over the next few years.

Obama is making good a promise delivering a Patriot missile battery to Poland under terms negotiated during the Bush administration. <BR><BR>Funny twist though--the missiles' armaments apparently aren't included in the deal. They'll be stored in Germany, rendering the timely defense capabilities of the device rather suspect much to the exasperation of the Polish gov't.

Well, we're rolling out our first national security cutters, to replace the 40 year old ships that's been doing that mission.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PsionEdge:<BR>All right, so I know there's a few people here in the SB that enjoy defense discussions and toys when they come up, I'm wondering if there's enough info and action (hopefully just in the acquisition realm) to keep this alive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There's an interesting story developing in some of China's neighbors. Just within the past month or so, Vietnam ordered 6 Kilo-class submarines as well as a dozen Su-30MK2 fighters. Additionally, Australia released a white paper advocating a strengthened naval presence to counter the growth of China as a military power. <BR><BR>This comes as China has been taking about adding aircraft carriers to its fleet, with even some work being done on the Ukrainian carrier they purchased a few years ago. This follows Japan's introduction of a helicopter <STRIKE>carrier</STRIKE>, sorry, destroyer with another on the way. <BR><BR>Simultaneously we also have two incidents with the USNS Impeccable being harassed by Chinese civilian ships as it searched for submarines in the South China Sea. <BR><BR>All in all a pretty impressive, yet subtle, arms build up.

Good thread topic. This kinda stuff is always a fun topic to discuss.<BR><BR>Russia currently has some of the best equipment for the buck right now and it seems a lot of countries are stocking up on their tanks (T-90) and aircraft. I believe the Indian air force recently had a big competition to evaluate several different planes with the Mig-35 being the favored (but still yet undecided I think)<BR><BR>http://www.janes.com/defence/a.../jdi070620_1_n.shtml<BR><BR>I'm not totally sold on the idea of the F-22 and F-35. Mega-expensive considering our current fighers (F-18, 15 and 16) could probably be remodernized and upgraded at bargain prices.

I agree on that last one. Why not a new F15 variant with the thrust vector tech that was developed for the F-22?<BR><BR>I still do not understand why we destroy the facility to produce capable and cost-effective aircraft (the A-10 is a prime example). <BR><BR>We can't make new ones because we destroyed key tooling...<BR><BR>WHY? Once it proved to be a successful, cost effective, and combat proven aircraft why not keep at least a small scale capability to re-produce them. Now we have nothing even CLOSE to the same effectivness coming up, and what we do have costs 2 metric fuckloads of cash.<BR><BR>Is it REALLY that bad expensive to simply mothball the machines and tooling in a warehouse somewhere and drag em out every 5 years or so to make replacement parts and aircraft? How much can it possibly take to have a few guards and a climate controlled warehouse set aside for storage. it cannot possibly cost more than the Billions upon billions to build new super-weapons.<BR><BR>Keep things as long as they do their job. The B-52 is still the best at what it does, and will be so for the foreseeable future... Don't retire things untill they have truly been supplanted by a better system. Why replace the F-15 when it's never (to my knowledge) taken a combat loss... is perfect not good enough? Why are we screaming for F-22s and F35s when noone can touch the last 2 generations of tech we put out.<BR><BR>As experimental, research.... sure, fine. Knowing how to do things doesn't mean we need to upgrade everyone asap.

Certain payloads cannot be carried by anything except for B-52s. I think in the early days after Sept 11 the air force was using B-52s for heavy carpet bombing in areas and also using daisy-cutter bombs. UAVs and F-15/18 fighters cannot come close to that level of payload.<BR><BR>The Russians have essentially been upgrading their already excellent models, the Mig-29 and Su-27 over the years which is extremely cost-effective. Take an excellent model and keep tweaking it with better electronics. <BR><BR>I do see the need for continued research and creation of newer military equipment but not scrapping everything we have. Keep a small batch of F-22s and F-35s then supplement the remainder of the fleet with upgraded fighters (F-15,16,18).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sciencegeek:<BR>Good thread topic. This kinda stuff is always a fun topic to discuss.<BR><BR>Russia currently has some of the best equipment for the buck right now and it seems a lot of countries are stocking up on their tanks (T-90) and aircraft. I believe the Indian air force recently had a big competition to evaluate several different planes with the Mig-35 being the favored (but still yet undecided I think)<BR><BR>http://www.janes.com/defence/a.../jdi070620_1_n.shtml<BR><BR>I'm not totally sold on the idea of the F-22 and F-35. Mega-expensive considering our current fighers (F-18, 15 and 16) could probably be remodernized and upgraded at bargain prices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>India has an existing and large investment in Russian made equipment it makes sense for them to continue in that vein, especially with India's history with the USA and Russia and Pakistan's relationship with the USA.<BR><BR>1) The BLU-82 is not in use anymore. Not to say they can't be manufactured again, but why bother when we've got a new bigger and better bang with the GBU-43?<BR><BR>2) Also the BLU-82 cannot be deployed from the B-52, same with the GBU-82, they can only be delivered by Hercules. So the B-52 use status on these bombs is a non issue.

A good place to lurk and learn, especially the forums:<BR><BR>http://smallwarsjournal.com/

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by .milFox:<br>Well, we're rolling out our first national security cutters, to replace the 40 year old ships that's been doing that mission. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Gonna be a bitch having to repaint every time the threat level changes. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --<br>And no you can't park/drydock them on my lawn. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fchall:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by .milFox:<br>Well, we're rolling out our first national security cutters, to replace the 40 year old ships that's been doing that mission. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Gonna be a bitch having to repaint every time the threat level changes. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --<br>And no you can't park/drydock them on my lawn. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Damnit, I thought you lived near Todd's.<br><br>Oh, and I doubt we'll ever need to change from stealthy high gloss white with a big red stripe. Or high-vis orange helos.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still do not understand why we destroy the facility to produce capable and cost-effective aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What's a cost-effective aircraft? More modern design may cost more upfront but cost way less to use by lower fuel consumption and reduced maintenance hours.<BR><BR>For example a fighter AESA radar will cost a lot but won't fail and require repair every 50 hours...<BR><BR>The B-52 is actually less cost-effective than a B1B when maintenace and fuel costs are considered. Of course, the F-22 or B-2 manage to combine both huge tag prices AND maintenace costs thanks to their stealth design but it's possible to make modern fighters that are both relatively affordable and maintenace-friendly (e.g. Gripen, Rafale and perhaps F-35).<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why replace the F-15 when it's never (to my knowledge) taken a combat loss... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It has never faced a serious air force with modern equipment either... A F-15 going into a country using Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-18, F-16 (MLU or block 52/60), Mirage 2000 (mk2 or -9) would be in for a nasty surprise (and that's just Western stuff that we've sold all over the world).<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Going off my memory I believe the following countries are trying to replace some old fighters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Denamrk, Norway and Netherlands will all go for the F-35 thanks to the "shared development" scam. <BR><BR>Interesting (IMHO) competitions are: <BR><BR>India (MMRCA contract, 100+ fighters but as it's India it will take forever, may even be canceled and in the end it will be a political decision - likely a US plane).<BR><BR>Brazil: FX-2 program, contenders are F-18, Rafale and Gripen (I'd say Gripen is likely due to budget reasons, with Rafale a close second).<BR><BR>Switzerland: contenders are Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter (no guess here, Rafale is rumored to lead the technical evaluation but Germany is putting serious pressure on Switzerland for the EF2000).<BR><BR>Beyond that, Lybia is trying to decide between Su-35 and Rafale, playing both France and Russia against each other. There are also talks between the UAE and France for an order of 60 Rafale but nothing final yet.<BR><BR>I almost forgot Japan who is in talks for the Eurofighter but everyone knows that in the end they'll buy more F-15 (or perhaps F35) - Dassault did not even bother to answer the RFP.

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Switzerland: contenders are Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter (no guess here, Rafale is rumored to lead the technical evaluation but Germany is putting serious pressure on Switzerland for the EF2000). </div>
</blockquote>
<br>The whole deal is pretty much suspended.<br>The Swiss defense political scene is kinda frozen right now.<br>We changed Defense minister and Army chief a few months ago and pretty much every decisions are frozen till both those guys decide where to go.<br><br>The fact that the fighter purchase is pretty much the only Ace in our sleeve when it comes to defending our sacro sanct -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- secret banking system doesn't help.<br><br>Another interesting market is Israel. They've been lobbying very hard to get their hands on F-22s but since everything that you hand to the Israelis ends up in the Chinese' hands it seems unlikely they'll get them.<br>Hell, their second option, the F-35, seems to be a dead-end too.<br>Other options would be the usual trifecta of European planes, probably no qualms there as all those manufacturers are desperate to sell their planes, anyone!

The F-16 is a good fit for Egypt because they are familiar with maintaining and operating them. Switching to anything else would be much more work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blue Apple:<BR>[F-15] It has never faced a serious air force with modern equipment either... A F-15 going into a country using Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-18, F-16 (MLU or block 52/60), Mirage 2000 (mk2 or -9) would be in for a nasty surprise (and that's just Western stuff that we've sold all over the world). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Agreed, but what else is there as a credible opposition? The Su-30MK's, ok, but there's just not that many of them around. China and India have credible fleets, Malaysia has some and Algeria, Venezuela and Vietnam (iirc) will bump up their inventory to 25-35 or so. Other than that, not much. <BR><BR>(To put it another way, there's just a dozen or so more Su-30MK's exported globally than the number of Gripens operated by the Swedish Air Force alone.)<BR><BR>That doesn't mean the F-15 can just be kept, of course, they're coming apart (on a couple of occasions in mid air, even).<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Denamrk, Norway and Netherlands will all go for the F-35 thanks to the "shared development" scam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Agreed that this is the likely outcome, but it is turning into a rather interesting matter. One should of course keep in mind that big aircraft acquisitions almost always turn into infected internal political fights in small but prosperous western parliamentary systems (and elsewhere too), so one shouldn't make too much of it, but still ... it's shaping up to be a spectacle.<BR><BR>Norway was first out, and that is already a scandal. For those that haven't followed it, a brief (and yes, Gripen-biased) recap.<BR><BR>Norway signed on to the F-35 development project, but stated that they'd let others compete as well. Eurofighter and SAAB did so, but EF withdrew almost immediately stating that the Norwegian acquisition process was not serious and it was a foregone conclusion that they'd go with the JSF. SAAB stayed in, and offered the Gripen NG (in development 39E/F). <BR><BR>Norway hasn't signed on to any deal and will not do so until 2011 (iirc), but a major milestone was due in December 2008. In November, the government cut that short and announced that they wanted the JSF because it was not only better than the Gripen NG for Norway's defense needs, but it was also cheaper. This obviously raised quite a bit of eyebrows. <BR><BR>Regarding the capabilities evaluation, that's still classified but from what's been made public it's clear that they put an enormous emphasis on stealth, and also evaluated the F-35 very highly in the air-to-air role. This is problematic, to put it lightly, since unlike the F-22 (which has decent all-aspect stealth) F-35 stealth is optimized for the strike role and not for the aerial combat role. This is pretty damn important since there's serious questions about the air-air performance of the F-35 if the stealth doesn't work as LM claims (thrust/weight, loadout, range, etc). <BR><BR>Whether the Norwegian defence acquisition analysts are competent to rate the F-35 versus the Gripen NG is also pretty much up in the air (ha ha). Norway has never built aircraft and they only have experience of operating 3d generation birds: exactly how are they competent to evaluate a 4.5gen offering based on a 4gen platform (Gripen NG) against a 5gen offering that's barely flown? Since very little has been declassified, we don't know, but the Norwegian are telling us their computer simulations are 'very advanced' ... (advanced enough to use F-16 rates of attrition for the Gripen, apparently).<BR><BR>Moving on, costs, which was the really big wtfbbq moment of the Norwegian statement. Again, most of this is classified, but some of it has leaked out or been made public. They actually claim that buying F-35s would be several billions cheaper over 30 years than going with the Gripen. Unsurprisingly, it turns out some creativity was needed to arrive at this conclusion, such as (and this is from memory so I could have some of it wrong):<BR><BR>* Changing around numbers of total aircraft to be purchased without telling SAAB (buying 57 would of course likely mean a lower per unit price than buying 48, but if you don't tell SAAB, well...) <BR><BR>* Changing around other things without telling SAAB, like equipment and avionics etc<BR><BR>* Using a historically low dollar to Norwegian crown exchange rate to calculate the F-35 acquisition cost (they used a rate of 1:5.2 when 1:6.5 is the balanced historical rate).<BR><BR>* Roughly <I>doubling</I> the estimated maintenance and operation costs of the Gripen NG (over 30 years) supplied by SAAB <I>and</I> FMV (Swedish defense acquisition board) without telling SAAB/FMV. It's fine to make your own estimates of course, you have to do that, but if you're telling FMV which has 15 years of experience of maintaining and operating the Gripen platform that their <I>public</I>numbers (you can't hide this stuff, it's in public budgets) are off by 100%, one might think you'd ask for some clarification or something. Nopes.<BR><BR>* Roughly <I>halving</I> the per unit acquisition cost of the F-35. The Norwegians and LM would like the Norwegian public to think that Norway which may buy 57 F-35's will pay about half the unit cost of the US military which will buy 1500+ ... <BR><BR>* Etc.<BR><BR>--^*^--<BR><BR>Now, reasonable people can certainly disagree on the merits of the F-35 versus the Gripen NG (or the EF etc) for an air force like Norway's. That does not change the fact that the Norwegian process has been a farce, and by Scandinavian standards actually quite mean-spirited from the Norwegian government side. As Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's <I>Air Launched Weapons</I> said, "It makes Norway look a bit like a Banana Republic". <BR><BR>I shouldn't gripe too much though -- if the Norwegian gov had not been so over the top and instead just quietly said "the Gripen is great and all but we think we prefer the JSF" everyone would have accepted that and moved on, score one for the JSF. Since they gladly donned the clown costume, other's are going 'wtf is up with <I>that</I>?' and really looking at it. <BR><BR>Will they go with the F-35? Yes, unless there's a major breakdown in the program they will. But their actions have guaranteed that this will be a lingering scandal that just won't go away -- that's what happens when you promise the moon and won't be able to deliver. <BR><BR>--^*^--<BR><BR>Denmark? Probably F-35 but since their low key acquisition process so far appears to be somewhat decent it's a bit more open, I think. The Norwegian debacle certainly put Danish politicians in a difficult spot: they tend to favour the F-35 but they don't want to come off like Norway. <BR><BR>Netherlands? F-35. They're too deep in since they're second tier in the dev, imo. Looks like it may well turn into a good dog and pony show like Norway, however. <BR><BR>Other than that, there's smaller acquisitions on the European horizon in Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania. Also the large Greek tender that I know little about. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> India (MMRCA contract, 100+ fighters but as it's India it will take forever, may even be canceled and in the end it will be a political decision - likely a US plane). </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>In my view, this is currently not a serious acquisition project. They're waving around this paper product (which is of course endlessly postponed) to attract major military-industrial attention for political and industrial purposes. As you say, it's completely political and it doesn't even make any sense from a military point of view -- the aircraft included in the process are very disparate compared to the stated role spec, so they've covered that up by changing around their shopping standards and even breaking them up into tiers in what looks more like an attempt to attract as many as possible rather than decrease this fluff in the process. Makes sense from a political/industrial perspective, not from a military one. Business as usual in India, in other words. <BR><BR>(Why was Dassault ejected like that and then allowed back in, though? Never understood it, can you clue me in? Edit: aha, they claimed tech transfer issues.)<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Brazil: FX-2 program, contenders are F-18, Rafale and Gripen (I'd say Gripen is likely due to budget reasons, with Rafale a close second). </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR>I think range could be an issue here, but yes, if the political chips fall the right way Gripen has a decent chance. <BR><BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Switzerland: contenders are Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter (no guess here, Rafale is rumored to lead the technical evaluation but Germany is putting serious pressure on Switzerland for the EF2000). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This one is completely up in the air imo, at least we can expect it to be relatively free of political shenanigans. The Swiss need to decide what their air doctrine really is, once they have done that they will buy the aircraft best fitted to it, end of story. The problem is, of course, if they bungle the imho necessary doctrinal review. <BR><BR>--^*^--<BR><BR>As you say, Japan and the F-35 saga will be interesting to follow. Even more so, Australia. <BR><BR>Good thread initiative by Psion, btw.

Personally, if I were a regional power on the order of Brazil with no designs on conquering my neighbors or playing in the international arena and looking to fill out my air force with something modern, I'd go Gripen all the way, no questions asked. It's just far too attractive from a bang-for-buck standpoint, seems to be excessively capable for just about anything except going up against the NATO or Russia or China, and dammit, it's just a fine looking little aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Changing around numbers of total aircraft to be purchased without telling SAAB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Didn't they do this to offset a supposedly much higher (and unrealistic) attrition rate?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Other than that, there's smaller acquisitions on the European horizon in Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania. Also the large Greek tender that I know little about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Croatia, Bulgaria & Romania would favor the Gripen (or US F-16) as they don't need the bigger planes.<BR><BR>Greece is a mystery. They initially declared they were going to buy the EF2000, then lack of money (thanks to the Olympics) and political pressure from other countries meant that the deal was suspended. France is now pushing for the Rafale and the US the latest F-18 block.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(Why was Dassault ejected like that and then allowed back in, though? Never understood it, can you clue me in? Edit: aha, they claimed tech transfer issues.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Conspiration theory: the Rafale is the most suited plane of the selected one so they had to dismiss it early before selecting the F-18.<BR><BR>Most likely explanation: the French botched their answers to what looks like a tedious and over-zealous administrative process.<BR><BR>Anyway, it took 20+ yeras for India to select (and get) a new jet trainer only to cancel the follow-up order two years later so I don't believe any contender expect an order anytime soon.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Personally, if I were a regional power on the order of Brazil with no designs on conquering my neighbors or playing in the international arena and looking to fill out my air force with something modern, I'd go Gripen all the way, no questions asked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Brazil is a huge country and the Gripen (even in its NG version) has a limited combat range. The Rafale offers a lot more range as well as commonality with the Mirage 2000 that the FAB already operates.<BR><BR>But for a smaller country, Gripen does make a lot of sense (like Kuweit, they recently selected the Gripen over the Rafale because they had no use for the extra range and capabilities).

Anyone have any info on the current status of the USAF Boeing/NG Tanker debacle? It's completely dropped out of the news AFAICT.<BR><BR>As for the Greeks, they budgeted ~€7.5 billion for 4th gen fighters (playing keeping up with the Joneses on the planned Turkish JSF purchase and also replacement of their 2nd gen F-16 fleet) back in 2006 - the thinking then that it was a straight up fight between the EF & F22 but as stated nothing has been in the news recently.<BR><BR>And Brazil - The Russians are competing (with the SU-35) and dangling the possibility of letting the Brazilians manufacture them themselves. Saab is in with the Gripen NG, not sure of others.<BR><BR>Finally - the Netherlands. Hiphink's comments about it turning into a soap opera are pretty on the mark. The Dutch court of Audit recently released a report stating that essentially the process (which was suspended till '10 in '06 after the collapse of the government following the Srebrenica report) was geared towards the JSF to the exclusion/detriment of competitors.<BR><BR>Still since the cost of withdrawing from the the JSF program could be half-a-billion dollars they will probably end up with the JSF.

It seems Boeing is set on refreshing the good ol' F-15 airframe for another round:<BR><BR>http://www.defensenews.com/sto...=4122001&c=AME&s=AIR<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Boeing is pitching the new jet, primarily, to several nations that already purchase F-15s, such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Israel, according to company officials.<BR><BR>Boeing would like to sell 190 to 200 of the newly configured jets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I suppose they are trying to find an export product since it seems the US Gov doesn't seem to want to let the F-22 be exported and the assembly lines of those will soon be shut down.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sciencegeek:<BR>I do see the need for continued research and creation of newer military equipment but not scrapping everything we have. Keep a small batch of F-22s and F-35s then supplement the remainder of the fleet with upgraded fighters (F-15,16,18). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I wouldn't be surprised if this is the last generation of manned, cutting-edge, combat aircraft anyway. Last generation was about 20-25 years, and in two decades I think combat UAVs will be up to the task. Thinking along those lines, I'm not too concerned about spending a ton of money on these ones if their replacements will likely be much lower-cost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The gist is the USAF is saying they don't need 17xx F-35s, but it won't drop below 1500. The author says that if the upcoming QDR (due in 2010) could find that much fewer F-35s are necessary, under 1000.<BR><BR>Higher cost to produce all the others I suppose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You know, that's the same scenario all fighters go through nowadays.<BR>Governments go to the manufacturers, ask for a new fighter and promises to buy a shit load of them and when the manufacturer after almost decade long delays finally gets to deliver the .gov tells them they actually only want to buy a small fraction of the initial amount.

Apparently Boeing wants to develop a version of the F-15 called the F-15SE (silent eagle). Neato<BR><BR>http://www.flightglobal.com/ar...-million-f-15se.html

@PsionEdge - I find it very interesting that the general complaint is very similar to the one they levelled at the AF concerning the tanker bid process.<BR><BR>I have a feeling that Boeing have hit on a guaranteed money-maker here - the bids and evaluations are so complicated and the process so convoluted that it is almost always possible to pick holes in it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Brazil is a huge country and the Gripen (even in its NG version) has a limited combat range. The Rafale offers a lot more range as well as commonality with the Mirage 2000 that the FAB already operates.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Dunno about the range thing. Going from the Wikipedia stats (always a dangerous choice), the Gripen A combat radius of 800km + the alleged %40 improvement the NG will bring 1120km. I think combat radius is usually measured as max cruise to and from station + 1 hour loiter + 5 minutes on afterburner + reserve. So for strike and interdiction missions it's range would probably be a lot better than that, especially with the supercruise capability.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ridiculous. There needs to be some serious acquisition reform. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What it comes down to is people, and our defense-industrial complex is characterized by the same bunch of fat crooked pricks, they all travel in the same circles, play golf together, etc...<BR><BR>Our culture is fundamentally broken, the scum has risen to the top, and they all look out for their own interests first - no amount of bureaucratic rule making will fix it. <BR>We need a cull.<BR><BR>The defense industry is only a particularly egregious example of this, but it is true of the society in general. <BR><BR>When a country with a population less than one of our major cities can put large numbers of something as capable as Gripen into service, while we are still mostly dicking around with creaky 20-30yo airframes (despite our <I>ludicrous</I> defense budget) and making silly boutique quantities of the (admittedly awesome) F-22, something is seriously fucked...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bad Monkey!:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Brazil is a huge country and the Gripen (even in its NG version) has a limited combat range. The Rafale offers a lot more range as well as commonality with the Mirage 2000 that the FAB already operates.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Dunno about the range thing. Going from the Wikipedia stats (always a dangerous choice), the Gripen A combat radius of 800km + the alleged %40 improvement the NG will bring 1120km. I think combat radius is usually measured as max cruise to and from station + 1 hour loiter + 5 minutes on afterburner + reserve. So for strike and interdiction missions it's range would probably be a lot better than that, especially with the supercruise capability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>1800km+ for the Rafale still makes it a better choice, especially when you're already familiar with the manufacture. <BR><BR>The Gripen is no doubt a great aircraft, but the Rafale still beats it for large countries at least on paper.

Range is certainly an issue with the Gripen NG if selected for Brazil. <BR><BR>Even more so, however, is imo that Gripen represents a somewhat different way of doing BVR. It was designed for the Swedish steel bath scenario: an overwhelming WarPac aerial assault within an extremely compact time frame but relatively generous physical space. This meant going up against huge Soviet packages, since that's how the Soviets do BVR -- big aircraft with lots of missiles in large formations. The Gripen was meant to defeat that by refusing to front up and instead use small packages hitting them from several directions where these would take turns acting as tracker/killer for each other. The bird(s) getting a lock is normally not supposed to do the kill, that task is outsourced to another package. Since any Gripen can use the PS-05 radar track/lock of any other Gripen within TIDLS range (~500km iirc), it is possible for package A to light up the opfor and let package B (with their radars silent) do the actual launch, the AIM-120s/Meteors being vectored in by team B using the PS-05 live data from team A. If the missiles are set to terminal independent engage very late, this should theoretically be very difficult to defend against and/or evade. <BR><BR>However, this mode of fighting is quite taxing in terms of doctrinal changes, training, support organization, etc, if the air force in question has never done it this way. Since buyers tend to shop according to set doctrines rather than the other way around, what should be one of the main advantages of the Gripen for 'lesser air forces' rarely comes into play during the acquisition phase. It's not just an aircraft/platform, it's also a somewhat different way of fighting, and many prospective buyers don't want that.

In a shocking development of the Swiss fighter purchase, the resident anti-militarists managed to get enough signatures to have a votation on the subject.<BR><BR>And by shocking I mean, the water is wet, fire burns and birds fly.<BR><BR>The text asks for a 10 year moratorium on fighter purchases.<BR><BR>Let me also give you a splendid quote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The national councilor Josef Lang (Green) said that Switzerland has no reason to buy a fightr/bomber. Those planes are designed to operate preventive attacks on enemy positions over the border which is highly unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I guess then we ought to buy a pure fighter plane... hmmm... that leaves us with the Eurofighter and the F-22?<BR>Oh wait, those are now also fighter/bombers...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vlip:<BR>The text asks for a 10 year moratorium on fighter purchases.<BR><BR>Let me also give you a splendid quote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The national councilor Josef Lang (Green) said that Switzerland has no reason to buy a fightr/bomber. Those planes are designed to operate preventive attacks on enemy positions over the border which is highly unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I guess then we ought to buy a pure fighter plane... hmmm... that leaves us with the Eurofighter and the F-22?<BR>Oh wait, those are now also fighter/bombers... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>What exactly is the purpose of the fighter purchase in the first place? Pretty much any attack on Switzerland could be called "unlikely", so what theoretical scenario are they supposed to be a deterrent for? A non-military, Sept. 11th style attack?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What exactly is the purpose of the fighter purchase in the first place? Pretty much any attack on Switzerland could be called "unlikely", so what theoretical scenario are they supposed to be a deterrent for? A non-military, Sept. 11th style attack? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Basically air police and protecting the airforce's know-how.<BR>Combat of any kind is extremly unlikely nowadays but who can say what happens in 50 years? We all know how Europe felt in the 20s and how that turned out...