I'm not either. I'm actually interested in knowing how they are pushing their agenda in the petition.
Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
I'm not either. I'm actually interested in knowing how they are pushing their agenda in the petition.
Federal popular initiative against the F-35 Version of 1 July 2021
2 Table of contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Arguments against the F-35 4
2.1 Too big, too expensive 4
4 2.2 High life cycle costs
2.3 Can it fly? 5
2.4 Unsuitable for real-life conflict situations 6
2.5 What influence does the USA have? 7
3 Initiative text 9
1 Introduction
On 27 September, the Swiss population accepted Project Air2030 by a very narrow majority. This close result underlines the strong opposition among the population to spending billions on luxury fighter jets. On 30 June 2021, the Federal Council decided to buy 36 F-35A Lightning IIs from Lockheed Martin for more than 5 billion francs, showing that it is not prepared at all to take a step towards the largest possible minority, the 49.9% who voted NO last September. Of course, close results are part of democracy and must be respected. However, if the population had not voted on an opaque and undemocratic planning decree but on a concrete procurement project with a particular model of fighter aircraft, the result would certainly have been different. It should be noted that during the campaign, the two US models clearly emerged as the most controversial. It is now a question of avoiding the worst and allowing the population to express its opinion on a concrete acquisition project. It is out of the question that Switzerland buys a stealth fighter that is extremely expensive to maintain, such as the F-35. Moreover, with the F-35, the CIA is still on board and Switzerland would not even have full access to the programmes' source codes. Switzerland would therefore not be able to use these fighters autonomously. From the point of view of the unitary committee, however, this is far from being the only fighter aircraft that should be vehemently rejected. 4
2 Arguments against the F-35
2.1 Too big, too expensive
It is far from clear why a fighter aircraft for Switzerland should be equipped with stealth technology, as is the case with the F-35. Moreover, it is foreseeable that this technology will become obsolete in the next few years due to new detection techniques. The F-35 is an oversized and overpriced luxury toy for a few army officers. This view is shared by the most senior US Air Force officer, Charles Brown, who has called the F-35 a Ferrari used in a totally wrong way.1 Other senior members of the US armed forces even call the F-35 a worthless aircraft.2 It is an oversized aircraft designed only for combat and not for air policing missions, which must be carried out in an unquestionable way. If this luxury fighter aircraft is used for daily air policing missions, the equipment will wear out far too quickly. These aircraft will then become a financial drain, something that Switzerland cannot afford in the wake of the pandemic. Sending a warplane like the F-35 into the air to intercept airliners, tourist and sports planes makes no sense at all. Light combat aircraft are more than sufficient for these missions and we support their purchase.
2.2 High Life Cycle Costs
Various reports from abroad show that if Switzerland were to buy the F-35, it would have to reckon with enormous life cycle costs. An hour of flight time with an F-35 currently costs the US Air Force $44,000, although Lockheed Martin has been promising a reduction to $25,000 by 2025 for years.3 The Canadian government commissioned a study by the renowned auditing firm KPMG, which concluded that the F-35, with a purchase volume of C$9 billion, would cost more than C$45 billion over its lifetime. This corresponds to a factor of 1 to 5 compared to the purchase price alone. Doing the same calculation for Switzerland, this would amount to a spectacular total cost of 25 billion Swiss francs for a purchase price of six billion francs. The former head of the army, André Blattmann, estimates annual costs of 12% of the purchase price, which would result in life-cycle costs of CHF 23 billion over 30 years.
1 1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...35-stealth-fighter-hasfailed/?sh=5cd633501b16.
2 Is The F-35 Irrelevant? - AVweb
3 https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-...35-as-usaf-programme-under-newpressure/142501.
article 4 See: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reportspublications/equipment/next- generation-fighter-capability-annual-update-2014.html
5 The Norwegian Ministry of Defence, which has purchased F-35 fighter jets, uses a factor of 3.75. For Switzerland, this would mean total costs of CHF 18.75 billion, which is significantly higher than the DDPS estimate of CHF 15.5 billion for the new fighter aircraft over their lifetime. Such high lifetime costs for the new fighter jets would put other parts of the armed forces under massive pressure to make savings or force the Federal Council to increase the armed forces budget even more, which would lead to budget cuts in other departments. Spain and Japan are also struggling with the high costs of the F-35 for air policing missions. Spain has already opted for a lighter aircraft. In fact, using super fighter aircraft for air policing missions is like shooting sparrows with guns. Not only is this completely absurd, but it would also cost hundreds of millions of francs of our tax money. This madness must be prevented.
2.3 Can it fly?
Even after decades of development, the F-35 remains the problem child of the US Air Force and Navy. Apart from amusing incidents such as its inability to fly in thunderstorms, the model has significant technical flaws: - In theory, Lockheed Martin's system should automatically order spare parts. However, this software is also faulty, so that the parts have to be ordered again manually. Lockheed Martin charges the resulting additional costs to the customers. - A large part of the F-35 fleet in the US is still not operational. There are still more than 800 known defects - nearly a dozen of which are so serious that they could cause the aircraft to crash or endanger the lives of pilots. - Engines for the US F-35 programme are not being delivered quickly enough, so up to 6% of the fleet is expected to fail because of this problem alone. The US Air Force's F-35 readiness rate also remains consistently below target. For example, the Department of Defense has set a goal that 80% of all F-35s should always be capable of performing at least one mission, which is currently only possible for 69%. For the F-35A, i.e. for the model that Switzerland
5 https://defence-blog.com/news/airbus-unveils-concept-of-future-light-combat-aircraft.html and Japan Is About To Waste Its F-35s Shadowing Chinese Planes
6 https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/12/an-engine-shortage-is-the-newest-problem-to-hit-the-f-35- enterprise/
For the F-35A, i.e. for the model that Switzerland wants to buy, the Department of Defence has set itself a target of 70% and has also achieved it, although this figure is very low. By buying 40 aircraft, Switzerland would therefore have to count with 12 grounded aircraft. - The outer layer of the F-35 is regularly and very quickly damaged.
7 Instead of continuing to invest in improving the F-35 programme, senior US military officials are now openly considering developing an entirely new fighter aircraft or reverting to the F-16.
8 Recently, for example, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Q. Brown said that the F-35 would be a good choice for the U.S. Army. Brown, declared the F-35 a failure
9 Christoph Miller, Acting Secretary of Defense under Trump, even called the jet a "piece of shit".
10 This raises the question of whether Switzerland should really buy a jet that may no longer be produced and developed for the US in just a few years.
2.4 Unsuitable for real conflict situations
Proponents of the new fighter jets like to emphasise that Switzerland and the Swiss army must be prepared for all scenarios, however improbable they may be. However, in the event of war, which is the only other operational situation for combat aircraft apart from air policing, combat aircraft are totally unsuitable. Current wars, such as the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh
11 or the conflict in eastern Ukraine,
12 show that combat aircraft have played a secondary, if any, role in the war. Instead, cheaper drones and guided weapons have been increasingly used. Russian-made Iksander-M ballistic missiles, such as those used by Armenia, have a range of up to 500 km. These would paralyse the entire Swiss air force in a few hours by destroying the runways. The former head of the Swiss Army André Blatmann shares this view.
13 Thus, in his opinion, combat aircraft are designed to deal with adversaries that no longer really exist in crises and conflicts near Switzerland.
7 The Defense Department still isn’t meeting its F-35 readiness goals
8 US admits F-35 failed to replace F-16 as planned, needs new fighter jet
9 Siehe: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...t-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighterhas-failed
10 Press Gaggle With Acting Secretary Miller En Route to Washington, D.C.
11 https://caspiannews.com/news-detail...akh-region-raiseserious-questions-2021-4-4-0/
12 https://belarusfeed.com/missile-system-crashes-village-house/
13 Critique inattendue – L’ancien chef de l’armée torpille l’achat de 40 nouveaux avions
7 2.5 What influence does the USA have?
Two US officers are already stationed in Dübendorf to regularly inspect weapons systems and aircraft purchased from the US. The basis for this is the strict US ITAR legislation, according to which the US remains the only country worldwide responsible for the storage of particularly sensitive technical components.14 The control of the software of the F/A-18 is a matter for the US government to decide. Control of the F/A-18 software remains in the hands of the manufacturer Boeing. Switzerland must obtain Washington's permission to fire short-range guided missiles. The navigation system also only works with codes that are delivered once a month from the US. The increasing technical complexity makes Switzerland even more dependent on the US. The ALIS system installed in the F-35, for example, provides Lockheed Martin with mission data after each flight. Officially, this is supposed to guarantee the automatic replenishment of spare parts, but the system goes much further. In this way, Switzerland also provides the US military with detailed information about its missions and much more. It can be assumed that Switzerland would not be able to maintain its air sovereignty against the will of the US. Either the fighters would remain directly on the ground due to built-in backdoors, or they would be prevented from taking off at the latest if the supply of spare parts by the manufacturers does not materialise. If this supply chain is interrupted, the aircraft may not be able to fly within six months. In the case of longer missions, comparable to the war in Iraq in the early 2000s, Switzerland could also be forced to let US fighter planes fly overhead. The US military-industrial complex and armed forces ensure that the economic and geostrategic interests of the government and big business are safeguarded, if necessary, by force or military intervention. Lockheed Martin is one of the largest producers of military goods. The company produces nuclear weapons as well as other prohibited weapons. Switzerland would therefore pay six billion to a company that produces weapons banned in Switzerland. The US military makes no secret of the fact that the sale of military goods also serves to promote its own interests. With the considerable development of communications between the various military systems, there is a risk that Swiss aircraft will not only be used to protect Swiss airspace in the future. So far, the DDPS has not clarified this point, although it raises many questions. With a US fighter, Switzerland would be taking another step towards NATO. In the case of the F-35, for example, it is very openly announced that it is an ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). See interpellation 21.3148, https://www.parlament.ch/fr/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20213148 8 what the real objective of a sale of this aircraft is: the integration of all users into a common military structure.
15 https://www.defensenews.com/opinion...nteroperability-tech-strengthens-usalliances/
The Dassault way of life : "always on time, on specifications, on budget".
It's written well enough to create doubt in the minds of novices, especially because of Gen Brown's comments on the F-35 and the F-16 replacement. Also the issue with sovereignty.
In fact, the discriminating argument for buying the F-35 is only stealth, on all other points, the balance between the stated ambitions and the calamitous development gives a negative image of the object's interest. But stealth is degraded for export!
Scribd
This document was released by the Canadian government and discloses that the export version of the F-35 reduces the SER of previous generation aircraft by 95%. (see the 3rd line of second page)
As for radar performance, the size of a fighter is taken as equivalent to a SER of 3 m2, which gives the F-35 a SER of 0.15 m2 instead of 0.0015 m2
And this can be explained if we consider the following contracts:
AND
Here's a job description of an engineer on the delta version.
Thats fun and interesting... where did you get this gem from? This essentially makes F-35 a 4.5 Gen fighter.
Where it hurts is that 95% reduction in SER, that's only 50% reduction in the distance at which a radar detects the F-35.
I was a business intelligence specialist
Fiction is indeed fun and interesting. This whole export version thing is a Boeing smear, which naturally fits the Russians and French.
And the Canadian document is also a Boeing invention?
I would hope so for the French sake, because if it is true and the Swiss evaluated an export version and still dominated the Rafale by 40% then the real thing must be so far ahead of the Rafale we've all just wasted decades of discussion on this topic.
Well it would be funny if the Swiss join up the air forceless country club in the West.
Total 1 country: NZ
No, if this is true, it shows that the Swiss evaluation is bogus and that, as with the Gripen, Swiss politicians have other criteria than technical ones to choose their aircraft. And this would also explain all the precautions that have been taken to ensure that no evaluator has access to all the evaluations.
During his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas, Texas, over the weekend, Trump let loose with this line explaining his strategy on polling:
"If it's bad, I say it's fake. If it's good, I say that's the most accurate poll ever."
I've been watching the development of the F-35 for 10 years and I think I'm competent to judge whether the programme is going well or not. And I think it's the worst-run programme I've ever seen. What's worse is that Lockheed Martin doesn't behave like a proper aeronautics company, they are liars who hide their incompetence as much as they can even if it means accidents, which is unethical for any aeronautics company. So I have a certain constancy in my opinion and it is not the vicissitudes of a call for tender that will make me change.
You've been watching the program with your head up your a** if you believe F-35's that fly with other nations are somehow downgraded.
-
PARIS --- Are the United States developing a “dumbed-down” version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for export customers, or not?
Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, rejected a claim by Boeing executives that Washington was selling a "dumbed down" version of the F-35 to international partners, Reuters reported June 16 from the Paris Air Show.
"I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today," Reuters quoted Heinz as saying in an interview. He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but [that] the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
"So for Boeing to make statements about a 'dumbed down' variant ... is absolutely incorrect and it is speculative and I believe, a very disappointing marketing ploy to drum up business" [for its F-15 Silent Eagle], Heinz added.
Like I said... You've been following this program with your head up your a** not doing real research and only believing what your french ears want to hear. You need to prepare your butt for much more pain than it is in right now because Finland is going to select the F-35 pretty much hitting the final nail on the Rafail coffin when it comes to selling to first world nations. Actually Austria will be the last country Rafail has a chance to finally get a contract but I don't see it happening if the F-35 is offered. Dassault would have to payoff a lot of Burgermeisters just like they did to Indian politicians only maybe this time Dassault can do it without media finding out, ja? Lulz!
I am simply not naive enough to believe the program executive officer for the F-35 when he denies information that would harm the F-35. He's in the right place when he says that, and if he didn't he'd get fired.
In fact, the discriminating argument for buying the F-35 is only stealth, on all other points, the balance between the stated ambitions and the calamitous development gives a negative image of the object's interest. But stealth is degraded for export!
Scribd
www.scribd.com
This document was released by the Canadian government and discloses that the export version of the F-35 reduces the SER of previous generation aircraft by 95%. (see the 3rd line of second page)
As for radar performance, the size of a fighter is taken as equivalent to a SER of 3 m2, which gives the F-35 a SER of 0.15 m2 instead of 0.0015 m2
I've read this before. It appears more like they are talking about average RCS. The Russians also claimed that the Su-57's average RCS is similar to the F-22 and F-35. It's the frontal RCS that is supposed to be very small.
We can be very certain the RCS of the Rafale when we consider average figures will be much larger in comparison since RCS measures have mainly been optimised for the front.
The lower capability export version is wrong and has been discredited. All partners are operating the same version as the USAF, with the same levels of stealth.
You can explain all your views in normal language. No need to use derogatory words.
Actually, "watered down F-35" might be really a thing. LM was aware a contract to develop "partner version" of JSF. TWICE.
Lockheed Martin has been handed another $134 million contract to develop a "partner version" of the JSF "that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible." That's on top of $603 million awarded for the same basic job four years ago.
That's pretty close to the billion dollars that USAF Lt.Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, said would be needed to create a sanitized F-22 for Japan.The Delta SDD program mentioned in the contract documents is an interesting beast. Look at papers from the Netherlands from 2004 -- when opposition politicians asked after the 2003 contract whether it meant that the Netherlands were getting a less-stealthy JSF. They stress that the Delta SDD covers things like nationally required features (for instance, Norway wants a braking parachute) and nationally specific weapons -- if someone wants IRIS-T, for example.But that clashes with the bald statement in the Pentagon contracts that the $737 million program is about security and protecting US technology, by delivering air vehicles that are different from US air vehicles -- "as common as possible". Also, features such as nationally required weapons wouldn't be covered in SDD, which has a defined set of weapons to be cleared for the Block 3 configuration -- the endpoint of SDD.Does this mean that there are two or more versions of the JSF, with differing uses of sensitive technology -- meaning, in most people's eyes, stealth? It's certainly possible, because key LO features -- such as the edges of the wing and chine and surface coatings -- are built in secure facilities and added after major assembly -- as can be seen in an unpainted F-22.
The decision on whether to release stealth technology is also not up to the JSF program office, but to a high-level group called the LO/Counter-LO Executive Commitee (LO/CLO-Excom).
Lockheed Martin has been handed another $134 million contract to develop a "partner version" of the JSF "that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible." That's on top of $603 million awarded for the same basic job four years ago.
That's pretty close to the billion dollars that USAF Lt.Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, said would be needed to create a sanitized F-22 for Japan.The Delta SDD program mentioned in the contract documents is an interesting beast. Look at papers from the Netherlands from 2004 -- when opposition politicians asked after the 2003 contract whether it meant that the Netherlands were getting a less-stealthy JSF. They stress that the Delta SDD covers things like nationally required features (for instance, Norway wants a braking parachute) and nationally specific weapons -- if someone wants IRIS-T, for example.But that clashes with the bald statement in the Pentagon contracts that the $737 million program is about security and protecting US technology, by delivering air vehicles that are different from US air vehicles -- "as common as possible". Also, features such as nationally required weapons wouldn't be covered in SDD, which has a defined set of weapons to be cleared for the Block 3 configuration -- the endpoint of SDD.Does this mean that there are two or more versions of the JSF, with differing uses of sensitive technology -- meaning, in most people's eyes, stealth? It's certainly possible, because key LO features -- such as the edges of the wing and chine and surface coatings -- are built in secure facilities and added after major assembly -- as can be seen in an unpainted F-22.
The decision on whether to release stealth technology is also not up to the JSF program office, but to a high-level group called the LO/Counter-LO Executive Commitee (LO/CLO-Excom).
The Delta SDD is being misunderstood. This is only a program similar to Rafale ISE, but for F-35 customers.
This concept of dumbing down never existed.
If it was real, then everybody would have been talking about it even today. LM and Pentagon would have admitted to it in committee hearings as well.
There's no need to dumb down an aircraft when you have a kill switch through ODIN/ALIS.
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/201213%20Audit%20Report%20No%206.pdf?acsf_files_redirect
In 2003, an ‘International Commonality Effort’ program was initiated to define a generic JSF Program partner version and a Foreign Military Sales version of the F‐35 and to complete the necessary preliminary design activity. This ‘delta’ SDD phase would produce a partner version JSF Contract Specification, establish the process for handling country‐specific requirements, and create separate ‘delta’ design reviews.This concept of dumbing down never existed.
If it was real, then everybody would have been talking about it even today. LM and Pentagon would have admitted to it in committee hearings as well.
There's no need to dumb down an aircraft when you have a kill switch through ODIN/ALIS.