It is also true that being a biligirant country requires strong armed forces. there is not really a trend line here for you to argue off. there is no real colleration between the two statistics it can be explained historically.
Finland and Sweden have spent the last 100 years with a hungry teritorial grabbing russian bear on its border not to mention their repeated attempts to conquer eachother before hand. And Switzerland in the middle of a politicaly instable EU for the last 150 years, which argueable settled down from the mid 60s.
So what is "exactly" contempoary needs for a military determine spending and its size not neutrality. i am yet to hear a convincing arguement for a NEED.
what we are doing here is arguing about different contracts for "Volcano Insurance".
You also have not responded to my point about a risk assessment. Without a long term strategy based on a risk assessment any purchases are pointless.
i have no problem with people spending the money on what will be used. PLAN then SPEND. ask questions, critic the responses and then move forward.
the thrust of my arguement was towards will they ever be used in combat. remaining nuetral all but totally guarantees they will come out for air shows and that is really about it. if CH engages in the european defence alliances they could be sent of towards theatres like Libya and be USED.
Would Switzerland join NATO (extremely unlikely) it could REDUCE its forces quite considerably as they are per-capita and per square-kilometer far above NATO average.
Your question about a visible need for an army can be answered short and clear with NO, as there is no visible need. Those who argue in favour of having your own armed forces point to the fact that you cannot foretell the future. They say that you cannot build up an army within 3 months.
Air shows are good entertainment, sure, but most of all they are P.R. shows of the Defence Ministry in charge.
The doctrine of the Swiss armed forces is to act as a deterrent and only getting into combat if the country would come under attack.
Switzerland managed to remain neutral in WWII because it maintained a strongly armed neutrality, and made sure that the combatants knew this by engaging in shooting when its airspace and land were violated. In the long term this would not have been enough, but it bought enough time that the original threat dissolved. What this was worth to Switzerland in the 1940s was clearly far more than it cost the country.
As to NATO, documents unearthed by a Swiss historian late last century in the London Public Records Office show that CH had a longstanding arrangement to fight alongside NATO in the event of the Cold War escalating.
The following 3 users would like to thank marksmadsen for this useful post:
22 Saab Gripens. Another cop out from the EMD. This airplane is a single engined Swedish design with basically the same engine as the current Hornet fleet. It will be militia pilot compatible, but won't replace the Hornet when that airframe is no longer upgradeable.
22 airplanes won't equip the current three militia squadrons, but are enough for two squadrons at full level with some spares.
Of course a bunch of folk will now try and block this decision with a referendum. But that's a whole different issue.
__________________ Home is where the ILS takes us into land
22 Saab Gripens. Another cop out from the EMD. This airplane is a single engined Swedish design with basically the same engine as the current Hornet fleet. It will be militia pilot compatible, but won't replace the Hornet when that airframe is no longer upgradeable.
22 airplanes won't equip the current three militia squadrons, but are enough for two squadrons at full level with some spares.
Of course a bunch of folk will now try and block this decision with a referendum. But that's a whole different issue.
A good choice indeed. Good not least in regard to price and technological and industrial co-operation. To bring this purchase through will be THE job of Defence Minister Maurer in the coming years. I wish the "old tricky dick" all success and luck required
And how will this fighter stack up to others in performance? And how much better against the hornet ?
A) the Hornet is a so-called air-superiority-fighter, and is NOT up for replacement. It is the F-5 Tiger that are to be replaced
B) While also the advanced version of the Gripen will be below both the Eurofighter and the Rafale, the Gripen program will create more jobs in Switzerland than the two competitors
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
A) the Hornet is a so-called air-superiority-fighter, and is NOT up for replacement. It is the F-5 Tiger that are to be replaced
B) While also the advanced version of the Gripen will be below both the Eurofighter and the Rafale, the Gripen program will create more jobs in Switzerland than the two competitors
A) the Hornet is a so-called air-superiority-fighter, and is NOT up for replacement. It is the F-5 Tiger that are to be replaced
B) While also the advanced version of the Gripen will be below both the Eurofighter and the Rafale, the Gripen program will create more jobs in Switzerland than the two competitors
About "the advanced version of the Gripen...." - in the IT business this is called buying the Powerpoint
Myself I do not see the logic in spending 3 Billion to buy inferior performance planes that will provide some Swiss based jobs.
Compare this with the decision to spend well over 100 Billion buying euros which did not provide any jobs.
Instead of spending 3 billion on inferior fighters why not spend the 3 billion on creating some Swiss jobs & at the same time providing real benefits like improved infrastrucute e.g. new roads or railways or children playgrounds or public toilets along major road routes or, or ??
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
About "the advanced version of the Gripen...." - in the IT business this is called buying the Powerpoint
Myself I do not see the logic in spending 3 Billion to buy inferior performance planes that will provide some Swiss based jobs.
Compare this with the decision to spend well over 100 Billion buying euros which did not provide any jobs.
Instead of spending 3 billion on inferior fighters why not spend the 3 billion on creating some Swiss jobs & at the same time providing real benefits like improved infrastrucute e.g. new roads or railways or children playgrounds or public toilets along major road routes or, or ??
About "the advanced version of the Gripen...." - in the IT business this is called buying the Powerpoint
Myself I do not see the logic in spending 3 Billion to buy inferior performance planes that will provide some Swiss based jobs.
Compare this with the decision to spend well over 100 Billion buying euros which did not provide any jobs.
Instead of spending 3 billion on inferior fighters why not spend the 3 billion on creating some Swiss jobs & at the same time providing real benefits like improved infrastrucute e.g. new roads or railways or children playgrounds or public toilets along major road routes or, or ??
A) the jobs provided will benefit RUAG, the union-owned corporation, which has enormous clout in Bern
B) the purchasing of Euros was absolutely necessary, and helped to save jobs as soon as the required additional steps like increasing the money volume were done
C) I also am in favour of the infrastructure, BUT only if the decision is REAL which means the total abolishment of the armed forces. As long as the armed forces are existing, the air force is needed, and the new version of the Gripen is sufficient for the job in view, which means to replace the F-5 Tiger.
According to the Sunday papers the new fighters will be delivered in 2015 or 2020 or 2025; most likely 2020 (not earlier than the Swedish air force take delivery). By which time the Hornet will be ready for replacement.
Not exactly a transparent or easy to understand situation........
According to the Sunday papers the new fighters will be delivered in 2015 or 2020 or 2025; most likely 2020 (not earlier than the Swedish air force take delivery). By which time the Hornet will be ready for replacement.
Not exactly a transparent or easy to understand situation........
The F-18 will be "ready for replacement" by 2020, but will only get replaced in between 2025 and 2030. And that will be a very different topic. While most/many people agree that the F-5 need to be replaced, nobody know whether people in 8 years will consider the replacement of the F-18 necessary.
Add two things to this:
A) By 2020, Mr Maurer will no longer be in charge of Military in Switzerland but enjoy his retirement
B) if things in Europe develop nicely, the GSOA long before 2020 will launch another Armeeabschaffungsinitiative and may WIN
According to todays Swiss papers the Swiss Version of the Gripen only exists on paper.
The new wings are just a design in a computer. The radar is a prototype & because of the overall increased weight the Gripen will have to be lengthened.
Only 7 of the 98 additional components requested for the Swiss version could be fitted for a test flight last week.
According to todays Swiss papers the Swiss Version of the Gripen only exists on paper.
The new wings are just a design in a computer. The radar is a prototype & because of the overall increased weight the Gripen will have to be lengthened.
Only 7 of the 98 additional components requested for the Swiss version could be fitted for a test flight last week.
What is special about a new vehicle only existing on paper ? I once ordered a new FIAT UNO, which was not yet existing except as a project. I was one of the first customers worldwide and so could specify my personal wishes. The car was produced in Torino more than a month after I had placed my order. I "approved" project changes twice. It was quite a spectacular experience ! So that the "Swiss Gripen" may well be a very special airplane.
To admit it, I prefer the Rafale over the Gripen clearly.
Why not go down the defensive path? Spend money on ground defence. I.e anti aircraft batteries hidden in the mountains etc? Realisticaly is there a possibility that France, Germany or Italy will attack SUI? Any outside force that has the capability to penetrate past the said countries defence is surely going to make mince meat of any Swiss air defence. If for example Russia comes in with a hundred plus top line fighters will the Swiss air force hold up to this? Missile batteries have to be cheaper and furthermore the personel are pretty well protected within a mountain or hiding literaly behind trees, yes?
Anybody aware of "Game Theory"? It was presented mathematicaly by a cirtain John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind"). Basicaly it works like this. If one does not provide a deterent then the opposition will take advantage and most likely attack. Google video "Game Theory". This is the argument of the parties who want these up-to-date jets.
But linking game theory to the need for jets is flawed. Jets don't rule the ground. To do that troops are needed. Sure jets can strike ground targets but they can not take a heavily fortified mountain complex etc. Bunker busting bombs are pretty amazing but they have limitations and a fix is simply to dig deeper and maintain secrecy about their locations. My wife's father witnessed a big talking Swiss man being dragged away by the Swiss military and the next morning he was shot for talking to the public about a local anti aircraft installation. (it's now a museum so I'm safe!)
Why have jets at Davos when helicopters and/or ground defensive positions in the mountains can do the same job? Not to mention that a single jet costs boat loads of tens of thousands of Franks to run per hour and to train 1 pilot costs millions of franks! How much does it cost to train a soldier with a ground to air missile? In fact how much does it cost to light up a heap of tyres thus creating zero view of the ground for air attackers.
The reason why jets were above Davos is to create fear. The intelectual elite flexing their claws.
But I do think at least a couple of jets should remain in service. Why? Because without all the missiles attached they look...
Jets don't rule the ground. To do that troops are needed... Why have jets at Davos when helicopters and/or ground defensive positions in the mountains can do the same job?...
I've often wondered why the Swiss Airforce wanted high performance fighters, after all turn on the afterburners and you're out of Switzerland very quickly, It would be more logical (and I think also valid from a military perspective) to concentrate on VTOL aircraft and helicopter gunships and tankbusters.
Look at it this way, any significantly sized invading force would be likely to take out Basel, Zurich, Bern and Geneva pretty quickly, but then would get seriously bogged down in the Alps. With VTOL fighter bombers and helicopter gunships and tankbusters popping up out of hidden valleys, attacking enemy supply lines, depots and columns, then disappearing back into the hidden nooks and crannies of the Alps, wearing down the enemy forces, it would turn any enemy campaign into a war of attrition and one I am certain the Swiss would win (I understand this is how the partisans in Northern Italy and Yugoslavia pinned down so many German troops in WWII [albeit without VTOL aircraft and choppers ]). This approach, if I recall/understand correctly, was the core of the Swiss defensive plan in WWII had the Nazis invaded: retreat from the plains, blow up the Alpine tunnels and passes and harry the enemy from the Alps.
Mind you, it's all rather academic as I don't see Germany, France, Itlay, Austria or Liechtenstein being a credible threat to Swiss sovereignity in the foreseeable future.
Why not go down the defensive path? Spend money on ground defence. I.e anti aircraft batteries hidden in the mountains etc?
-
Anti-aircraft guns are already existing, not just in the mountains, but also in urban areas, for instance around Zürich. And a lot of money is spent on ground defence
Realisticaly is there a possibility that France, Germany or Italy will attack SUI? Any outside force that has the capability to penetrate past the said countries defence is surely going to make mince meat of any Swiss air defence.
-
Military planners consider the (remote) possibility that France breaks up and that one of their armies might try to break out into Switzerland
If for example Russia comes in with a hundred plus top line fighters will the Swiss air force hold up to this? Missile batteries have to be cheaper and furthermore the personel are pretty well protected within a mountain or hiding literaly behind trees, yes?
-
Russia plaid a heavy role in the military planning in Switzerland in the 1950ies, 60ies, 70ies and 80ies. But what already then in reality was unrealistic is even more unrealistic now. Missile batteries btw. have lots of metal which can easily be spotted by any fighter-bomber
But linking game theory to the need for jets is flawed. Jets don't rule the ground. To do that troops are needed. Sure jets can strike ground targets but they can not take a heavily fortified mountain complex etc. Bunker busting bombs are pretty amazing but they have limitations and a fix is simply to dig deeper and maintain secrecy about their locations.
My wife's father witnessed a big talking Swiss man being dragged away by the Swiss military and the next morning he was shot for talking to the public about a local anti aircraft installation. (it's now a museum so I'm safe!)
-
Your wife's father described something which has never happened
Why have jets at Davos when helicopters and/or ground defensive positions in the mountains can do the same job? Not to mention that a single jet costs boat loads of tens of thousands of Franks to run per hour and to train 1 pilot costs millions of franks! How much does it cost to train a soldier with a ground to air missile?
-
Helicopters are very useful but in case of doubt far too slow. Fighters allow to patrol the various regions / valleys without any loss of time. And anti-aircraft guns in fact are very expensive. Soldiers doing service in the FLAB/FLAK have a basic training (RS = Rekrutenschule) of roughly 4 months, then for 8 years a repetition course of 3 weeks per year (WK = Wiederholungskurse) and then for another 8 years 1 week every 2nd year. Corporal, and office staff and kitchen staff have 4 additional days per service, and officers an additional week per service. Corporals have, in addition to the RS the UO (Unteroffiziers-Schule) plus a full RS as Corporal. a lieutenant the OS (Offiziersschule) plus a full RS, and a captain a full RS as captain. Interesting is to see that FLAB has the same structure as the artillery.
In fact how much does it cost to light up a heap of tyres thus creating zero view of the ground for air attackers.
-
A) until the tyres are burning, the enemy fighters will have arrived and re-departed
B) modern fighhter-bombers can locate positions even without visual sight
I've often wondered why the Swiss Airforce wanted high performance fighters, after all turn on the afterburners and you're out of Switzerland very quickly, It would be more logical (and I think also valid from a military perspective) to concentrate on VTOL aircraft and helicopter gunships and tankbusters.
Look at it this way, any significantly sized invading force would be likely to take out Basel, Zurich, Bern and Geneva pretty quickly, but then would get seriously bogged down in the Alps. With VTOL fighter bombers and helicopter gunships and tankbusters popping up out of hidden valleys, attacking enemy supply lines, depots and columns, then disappearing back into the hidden nooks and crannies of the Alps, wearing down the enemy forces, it would turn any enemy campaign into a war of attrition and one I am certain the Swiss would win (I understand this is how the partisans in Northern Italy and Yugoslavia pinned down so many German troops in WWII [albeit without VTOL aircraft and choppers ]). This approach, if I recall/understand correctly, was the core of the Swiss defensive plan in WWII had the Nazis invaded: retreat from the plains, blow up the Alpine tunnels and passes and harry the enemy from the Alps.
Mind you, it's all rather academic as I don't see Germany, France, Itlay, Austria or Liechtenstein being a credible threat to Swiss sovereignity in the foreseeable future.
While I in fact always felt opposed to buying a very small number of high performance jets instead of a a serious number of less sophisticated stuff, I have to ask you whether you have seen such top fighters at airshows ? While everybody speaks about their Mach 3 capabilities, those fighters are quite excellent at comparatively low speeds Their major forte in fact is not their speed but their hightech equipment.
While I in fact always felt opposed to buying a very small number of high performance jets instead of a a serious number of less sophisticated stuff, I have to ask you whether you have seen such top fighters at airshows?.
indeed I have. One year I was invited to a trade/military only day at the Farnborough air show and was most amazed by what planes (and the test pilots) can do. I even saw one chopper pretty much loop-the-loop....
Certainly these crammed-to-the-gunwales-with-high-tech planes can work effectively at slower speeds, but a determined grunt with a good surface-to-air missile can really ruin a pilot's day...
I think that you are spot on about needing less sophisticated weaponry, the Russians proved that in WWII. The Panther and Tiger were much more sophisticated than the T34, but the T34s broke down less often, were easier to fix and it was also easy to train illiterate peasants to crew the T34s. The same was also seen in the comparison between the German Mg34 and the Russian P54 machine gun/machine pistol (right name/terminology?)? The Russians were also able to produce thousands of these weapons faster than the Germans could destroy them.... (better crude, unsophisticated and available in large quantities today, than high tech sophisticated and available in small quantities maybe day-after-tomorrow)
High tech wizardry I think will only take you so far, ultimately it's down to the determination of the fighting man.
I think that you are spot on about needing less sophisticated weaponry, the Russians proved that in WWII. The Panther and Tiger were much more sophisticated than the T34, but the T34s broke down less often, were easier to fix and it was also easy to train illiterate peasants to crew the T34s. High tech wizardry I think will only take you so far, ultimately it's down to the determination of the fighting man.
Hmmmmm, hate to rain on your parade but you are wrong on so many levels. Firstly, T 34 was developed much earlier so it is only logical that issues with it were dealt earlier, Panther and Tiger were rushed in to combat prematurely, even with problems they were far superior weapons. Second thing, Soviets were not exactly stupid, their tank development took a somewhat different turn from primitive T 34. Evolution of T series brought T 55 shortly after WW2, and guess what, it was much closer to the Panther than the T 34, infact it was 50% heavier and had much bigger gun than the T 34. Obviuosly they learnt a thing or two during the conflict. Third thing, theory about illiterate peasants operating such complicated weapons is laughable, do you realize what happens in a tank? Imagine traveling over rough ground while being shoot at in tiny, noisy and hot enviroment while trying to defend yourself by co-ordinating with three other humans whose ability to see outside is limited by tiny openings, not to mention working together with numerous other tanks, infantry, artillery, air force etc. Operating tanks is a very complicated to say the least.
(it's now a museum so I'm safe!)
Linear Mode
