https://archive.ph/2wmoN

Switzerland in 3-Level F-35 Trap: First Losses Near $1B, Next Steps Look Even Tougher

If Switzerland ditches the F-35 for a European jet, it faces a three-layer trap where money and time are lost at each step. In 2021 Switzerland chose the F-35 to replace its F/A-18C/D fleet, placing an order in 2022 for 36 aircraft worth 6.25 billion Swiss francs (about 6.55 billion USD at the time). But now the country finds itself in a trap of this procurement. First, the contract did not include a fixed price, and the cost has already risen to 7.3 billion francs (9.1 billion USD). Second, Switzerland has been hit by the 39% additional tariffs on Swiss exports introduced by Trump. The blow to watches and coffee has become a major catalyst for the growing calls to cancel the deal. Yet whatever option Switzerland takes will mean losses of both money and time.

I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further

The main problem is that the service life of the 30 existing F/A-18C/Ds ends in 2030. If Switzerland cancels the F-35, signs a new contract for an alternative, and then waits for deliveries, the country risks being left without a combat air force. Therefore, it would be necessary to invest in extending the service life of the current fighters. The government has estimated the cost of extending the Hornets' service to 2035–2037 at 0.8–1 billion francs (about 1–1.24 billion USD). That equals roughly 33–41 million USD per aircraft for an additional 5–7 years of service. But this is only the first level of the trap created by the decision to buy the F-35 three years ago. If Switzerland truly abandons the F-35 in favor of a European alternative, it will have only three choices: Rafale, Eurofighter, and Gripen.

Three years ago Switzerland calculated that 36 F-35s would cost 6.55 billion USD in total, or about 182 million USD per jet, including the whole package. The latest known Rafale export price, from the deal with Serbia, is 225 million euros per aircraft. That is not only much higher than the F-35's old price, but almost equal to its current cost for Switzerland of about 253 million USD (220 million euros). On top of that, Rafale production is already booked with a delivery queue stretching up to nine years. Gripen, on the other hand, is likely the cheapest Western 4+ generation fighter currently available, with a recent Thai contract priced at 138.25 million USD per unit without weapons. But the F-35 trap still applies: Gripen uses the American F414-GE-39E engine from General Electric, along with several other U.S. components. That means Switzerland would need U.S. approval to purchase Gripen — approval that may not come if the F-35 deal is canceled, straining relations with Washington. As for Eurofighter, its latest export price is unknown since it hasn't been sold abroad in a long time, but it is unlikely to be much cheaper than Rafale or F-35. All of this means that walking away from the F-35 program is not at all a simple decision for Switzerland.

it's probably never going to happen, but it'd be incredibly funny if Western countries start buying Chinese jets since the Western MIC is apparently incapable of actually delivering anything within a reasonable timeframe

whats going on in indonesia?

70,000 Rally Across Serbia in Support of President Vucic - Telesur English

Ukraine long range strike capabilities, Part 2.

~~This one will be short and sweet, because there's not much to talk about.~~ The above was wrong. The topic is Ukraine's "Long Neptune" cruise missile.

What is it? Long Neptune is an enlarged version of Ukraine's Neptune anti ship cruise missile that can also hit ground targets deep inland. The original Neptune is a Ukrainian made version of the Kh-35 Bal/SSC-6 Sennight Soviet and Russian made cruise missile. The specifications for the Kh-35 in ground or ship/helicopter launch configuration are well known, 4.4m length, 0.42m body diameter, 1.33m wingspan, 145kg warhead and a 610kg Max Takeoff Weight, with a 300km maximum range. Guidance is INS, with terminal active radar guidance for hitting ships. It can cruise at an altitude of between 10-15m over the sea, at a maximum speed of between 980kph and 1040kph. 90kg and 0.55m of that consists of the solid fuel rocket booster at the rear of the missile that initially launches it up into the air from the missile battery on the ground, and detaches afterwards.

What Long Neptune does is it significantly widens the diameter of the missile and lengthens it, to accommodate more fuel and extended the range by over 300%, to 1000km. The cruciform wings and control surfaces are also proportionally enlarged, which does provide more lift, but also more drag. It's interesting that there is no change to a planar wing, like with the Kh-55 that uses the same engine. In this respect the Long Neptune is essentially an enlarged Kh-35, similar to variants of North Korea's Kumsong-3/Kn-19. The missile is the exact same, just bigger.

The real difference between Long Neptune and the original Neptune/Kh-35 is the seeker, and how good this new seeker is will determine how effective the Long Neptune is at striking ground targets. The INS and active radar seeker has been ditched, likely for a GNSS(Satellite navigation) + INS solution, potentially with DSMAC or TERCOM navigation to allow the Long Neptune to fly close to ground over variable terrain like it does at sea, and navigate independent of GNSS should jamming occur. While Long Neptune is significantly smaller than the FP-5 Flamingo and significantly harder to detect, it's still far from a true stealth or low observable design, and will rely primarily on flying low to the ground to remain undetected and survivable. So just how effective it is all depends on the performance of this new seeker, both in accuracy and survivability. Remember, the maximum range of an S-300P air defence system against nap of the earth/very low flying cruise missiles is 25km, and the original S-300P systems were designed with such a cruise missile in mind as the primary target over 40 years ago. S-400 systems, if equipped with newer missiles, have a longer range against such targets, but are still limited by the radar horizon/curvature of the earth without third party tracking from an aerial sensor such as an A-50 AWACS or Su-35 datalinked to the S-400.

S-300PMU-2 engagement zone:

S-400 engagement zones:

1000km range will allow it to strike targets deeper into Russia and to be launched from deeper within Ukraine to avoid Russian left of launch defeat, via Iskander M ballistic missile strikes, the first of which occurred today. The 145kg warhead impacting at high subsonic speeds can do considerably more damage than a one way attack drone impacting six times slower, and with half of the payload. But not as much as two FAB-500s from an FP-5 Flamingo. Production capacity will rely on all newly built components, so there won't be a surge in production from ready made off of the shelf components. The Neptune/Kh-35 type threat is well understood by Russia now, this was the missile that sank the Moskva at the start of the war after all. They just have to defend against it at significantly further range and over land now, something the Soviets did in the 1980s against Tomahawk/Gryphon and AGM-86.