[QUOTE=GunFox;44849540]You are spending the money to maintain the pilots and equipment for forty useless jets. Buy 10 or 15 useful ones and you'll save money in the long term. Again something you can buy the rights to and produce domestically so the money goes largely back into your economy.
Maintaining jets isn't cheap. Why bother maintaining a fleet of jets that are worthless? That seems like a giant waste of money.[/QUOTE]
Our aircraft will most likely never be used in an actual war though, and if someday we're invaded by the Fourth Reich or something a couple of new fancy planes won't make a difference. But seriously, a war in central Europe in the near-ish future doesn't sound plausible at all to me.
Realistically the only purpose of our air force is to defend in the eventuality of a terrorist attack, and old planes can do the job just fine.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;44850059]Our aircraft will most likely never be used in an actual war though, and if someday we're invaded by the Fourth Reich or something a couple of new fancy planes won't make a difference. But seriously, a war in central Europe in the near-ish future doesn't sound plausible at all to me.
Realistically the only purpose of our air force is to defend in the eventuality of a terrorist attack, and old planes can do the job just fine.[/QUOTE]
Those old planes only work for so long, once they finally break down we won't have anything to secure our airspace.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;44850059]Our aircraft will most likely never be used in an actual war though, and if someday we're invaded by the Fourth Reich or something a couple of new fancy planes won't make a difference. But seriously, a war in central Europe in the near-ish future doesn't sound plausible at all to me.
Realistically the only purpose of our air force is to defend in the eventuality of a terrorist attack, and old planes can do the job just fine.[/QUOTE]
But they aren't sufficient for even that. Their radar maxes out at 10 nautical miles ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153[/url]). Even standard heat seeking missiles have a greater range than that. The F-5E and F variants were the first to even HAVE radar. All previous variants of the F-5 did not possess any at all. That is how early we're talking in fighter aircraft history. They are also slow, and max out at a top speed of Mach 1.6 at altitude.
Meanwhile an F-15 variant can exceed mach 2.5, and is equipped with a significantly better radar system, possibly even an AESA system. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-63[/url]. This would allow the use of AIM-120 AMRAAMS, which are medium range missiles. Depending on the variant, they can engage targets out to 97 nautical miles, which is roughly 180 kilometers. The widest point of Switzerland is 348 kilometers. You'd gain an aircraft that can launch and engage fast enough to actually be useful.
If you get the F-15E strike eagle variant, you could even get rid of the old F/A-18 Hornets. More money saved through simplification. The F-15E is excellent at what it does and you don't have to utilize a design that was supposed to be carrier launched.
The alternative is to just get rid of the air supremacy wing entirely, which is certainly also viable. Like seriously, they are actually useless. They aren't on duty to intercept terrorist threats and they can't engage enemy fighter aircraft period. A single Mig-29 could likely kill as many F-5's as it had missiles and still might take a few more out with cannon fire. I'm not engaging in hyperbole when I say they are not useful for combat of any sort. It costs a not insignificant sum of money to keep forty jets, even old ones, in functional condition. If they can't do what they are there to do, then why waste the money?
[QUOTE=GunFox;44852095]But they aren't sufficient for even that. Their radar maxes out at 10 nautical miles ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153[/url]). Even standard heat seeking missiles have a greater range than that. The F-5E and F variants were the first to even HAVE radar. All previous variants of the F-5 did not possess any at all. That is how early we're talking in fighter aircraft history. They are also slow, and max out at a top speed of Mach 1.6 at altitude.
Meanwhile an F-15 variant can exceed mach 2.5, and is equipped with a significantly better radar system, possibly even an AESA system. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-63[/url]. This would allow the use of AIM-120 AMRAAMS, which are medium range missiles. Depending on the variant, they can engage targets out to 97 nautical miles, which is roughly 180 kilometers. The widest point of Switzerland is 348 kilometers. You'd gain an aircraft that can launch and engage fast enough to actually be useful.
If you get the F-15E strike eagle variant, you could even get rid of the old F/A-18 Hornets. More money saved through simplification. The F-15E is excellent at what it does and you don't have to utilize a design that was supposed to be carrier launched.
The alternative is to just get rid of the air supremacy wing entirely, which is certainly also viable. Like seriously, they are actually useless. They aren't on duty to intercept terrorist threats and they can't engage enemy fighter aircraft period. A single Mig-29 could likely kill as many F-5's as it had missiles and still might take a few more out with cannon fire. I'm not engaging in hyperbole when I say they are not useful for combat of any sort. It costs a not insignificant sum of money to keep forty jets, even old ones, in functional condition. If they can't do what they are there to do, then why waste the money?[/QUOTE]
If the last round of planes, that were considered for our airforce, is any indication (Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter), it's more likely that an European jet will finally be bought. Politics, you know :v:
[QUOTE=GunFox;44852095]But they aren't sufficient for even that. Their radar maxes out at 10 nautical miles ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153[/url]). Even standard heat seeking missiles have a greater range than that. The F-5E and F variants were the first to even HAVE radar. All previous variants of the F-5 did not possess any at all. That is how early we're talking in fighter aircraft history. They are also slow, and max out at a top speed of Mach 1.6 at altitude.
Meanwhile an F-15 variant can exceed mach 2.5, and is equipped with a significantly better radar system, possibly even an AESA system. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-63[/url]. This would allow the use of AIM-120 AMRAAMS, which are medium range missiles. Depending on the variant, they can engage targets out to 97 nautical miles, which is roughly 180 kilometers. The widest point of Switzerland is 348 kilometers. You'd gain an aircraft that can launch and engage fast enough to actually be useful.
If you get the F-15E strike eagle variant, you could even get rid of the old F/A-18 Hornets. More money saved through simplification. The F-15E is excellent at what it does and you don't have to utilize a design that was supposed to be carrier launched.
The alternative is to just get rid of the air supremacy wing entirely, which is certainly also viable. Like seriously, they are actually useless. They aren't on duty to intercept terrorist threats and they can't engage enemy fighter aircraft period. A single Mig-29 could likely kill as many F-5's as it had missiles and still might take a few more out with cannon fire. I'm not engaging in hyperbole when I say they are not useful for combat of any sort. It costs a not insignificant sum of money to keep forty jets, even old ones, in functional condition. If they can't do what they are there to do, then why waste the money?[/QUOTE]
Would scrapping the AF and beefing up on air defense artillery work?
[QUOTE]Latest results also showed that two-thirds of voters backed a plan to impose a lifelong ban against convicted paedophiles working with children.
[/QUOTE]
I thought that laws like this were pretty universal in the western world anyway?
[QUOTE=GunFox;44852095]But they aren't sufficient for even that. Their radar maxes out at 10 nautical miles ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153[/url]). Even standard heat seeking missiles have a greater range than that. The F-5E and F variants were the first to even HAVE radar. All previous variants of the F-5 did not possess any at all. That is how early we're talking in fighter aircraft history. They are also slow, and max out at a top speed of Mach 1.6 at altitude.
Meanwhile an F-15 variant can exceed mach 2.5, and is equipped with a significantly better radar system, possibly even an AESA system. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-63[/url]. This would allow the use of AIM-120 AMRAAMS, which are medium range missiles. Depending on the variant, they can engage targets out to 97 nautical miles, which is roughly 180 kilometers. The widest point of Switzerland is 348 kilometers. You'd gain an aircraft that can launch and engage fast enough to actually be useful.
If you get the F-15E strike eagle variant, you could even get rid of the old F/A-18 Hornets. More money saved through simplification. The F-15E is excellent at what it does and you don't have to utilize a design that was supposed to be carrier launched.
The alternative is to just get rid of the air supremacy wing entirely, which is certainly also viable. Like seriously, they are actually useless. They aren't on duty to intercept terrorist threats and they can't engage enemy fighter aircraft period. A single Mig-29 could likely kill as many F-5's as it had missiles and still might take a few more out with cannon fire. I'm not engaging in hyperbole when I say they are not useful for combat of any sort. It costs a not insignificant sum of money to keep forty jets, even old ones, in functional condition. If they can't do what they are there to do, then why waste the money?[/QUOTE]
Yeah that last part is kinda what I wanted to say. We should just give up the idea of air supremacy, and I'd totally support massively reducing the size of our air force.
I don't see how F-5's wouldn't suffice against terrorists though (as long as they are actually on duty ofc)? Because we're talking about a civilian plane here, which would have to fly through at least one other country's air space before getting there.
Haha eat swiss.
U-S-A U-S-A!
Seriously, though, that came to a vote? $25 minimum wage? How about just lowering prices
[quote]"But critics argued that it would raise production costs and increase unemployment."[/quote]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ecrF3TL.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Kljunas;44847869]Yeah but what for? We're a landlocked neutral country and our only neighbours are the EU and Liechtenstein. Who are we going to dogfight with? France, Italy, Germany? Good luck with that.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_702"]Not to mention that our air force is a joke and doesn't intervene outside office hours.[/URL][/QUOTE]
An hour and a half lunch break and not being on call outside of operating hours? Sweet gig.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.