Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffrallen | Hacker News Reader

Switzerland is currently debating how to replace a 30 year old fleet of F/A-18s. I've advocated that we should turn our back on what I see as 20th century thinking in the fighter jet market and instead design something for our context, but people don't believe me when I say that designing with off the shelf engines, radars and weapons should be possible on the cheap today. Mostly, I don't see why my tax dollars should build up American or French industry, when we know that Swiss engineers are smart enough to zig where the world around then zags. (See also Solar Impulse and Alinghi.)

View on HN

> say that designing with off the shelf engines, radars and weapons should be possible on the cheap today

I'm afraid this largely underestimates the complexity of designing a combat aircraft. Keep in mind it is useless to be "good enough" for a fighter, you must be on par or superior to the others on at least a some aspects.

Actually the citizens don't know that for sure... The military has not shared with us the list of required missions, just that the list exists and is so comprehensive that only the most expensive fighters could possibly meet it. Saab was forced to bow out of competition for example. I suspect that the list of missions is unreasonable and that if the military was forced by a no vote to get reasonable about what a Swiss Air Force is actually for, they'd be able to use modern design tools to out build and underspend the neighbors. Cleverness comes from constraints.

Switzerland GDP is 30 times smaller than US GDP. Switzerland alone cannot afford full stack modern military industry.

Also, don’t produce something when it’s cheaper to buy it.

I do agree with the first idea. The second one is not always the best line of thought, especially when it's about sovereignty or defense.

Suppose you buy fighter jets from China, but tensions rise and you somehow cut diplomatic ties. How are you going to get maintenance parts. Very inaccurate example but just to illustrate that yes, economically, your idea makes sense. Geopolitically, it depends.

> How are you going to get maintenance parts.

Buy the planes with spare parts and training. When calculating a price for a plane, include not just the price tag, but also the risks of getting these planes unusable in ten years.

So yes, buying jets from China might be not the best idea even if they initially seem cheaper. But that’s not the case for US jets.

Spare parts and training are not enough to maintain a fleet of fighter jets. You need experienced in-house technicians to provide the maintenance and replace the black-box electronics, which means you're still at the mercy of whatever country manufactures the jets. Doesn't matter if it's China or the US, if they decide a year down the line that they don't like you, guess what? No servicing for you, and your fleet of fancy jets will only last until they break down, or get remotely disabled/bricked/self-destructed with a kill switch.

Maintaining a Sovereign Nation 101 is that you do not entrust your national security to another country. Sure, it's more expensive to do your own R&D and manufacturing, but you get the peace of mind that your continued existence does not depend on a foreign government's continual blessing.

Doesn't Sovereign Nation 101 teach, that if you spend too much GDP on military, soon you are in debt and then failed state, and no longer sovereign?

> But that’s not the case for US jets.

Why? It's hard to predict how relationships with the US will look over the next 40 years (F-18 is 37 years old). Especially with relationships on a downward trajectory during Bush's and Trump's presidency.

Sure, the risk is a lot smaller than with China, but it does exist

It takes 6 minutes for a fighter jet to cross the whole of the longest possible stretch of Swiss territory. How many defense missiles for the price of one F35?

if your enemy is flying over your territory the bombs have already dropped, you need to intercept them at range and have some leeway on top because missiles aren't guaranteed to hit and you have to have time to decide to send a second wave of missiles

so you are (as a non-NATO-member) defending your territory by effectively moving combat to the area of the most powerful military alliance there is today (heck, even Germany, where the army is in a, uuuhm, "sorry" state still has an air force comparable in size to countries like Saudi Arabia (which are smaller, but spend excessively on military)).

The only possible attackers then are either NATO states (which are largely democratic and "civilized" so that the people wouldn't tolerate a surprise attack on another "white"-country) or some foes attacking NATO. In both cases they are screwed anyway and unless they decide to attack NATO with an outside foe, I'd be glad to see some American made, Swiss-flown CAP over Europe (which, sincerely is the most likely outcome if Switzerland really is democratic and not just a safe haven for corrupt elites).

Switzerland has a modern military industry, and produces for itself and for export. Superpower economics are not the only way to manage self sovereignty.

Switzerland may have modern military industry, but it cannot produce everything it need to defend, instead it produces, for example, guns, and import bullets, or produces tanks and import planes, or produces radars and imports radar jammers.

I think I see why you think it would be good idea, but considering the size of Swiss army it would be very costly effort.

Its not only about figuring out next gen avionics (which is a feat on its own with unstable constructions these days), but also integration with radar, weapon systems and overall integration within the battlefield.

Since Suisse align on most if not all levels to west culture/mindset, I would say they should buy/rent some western-built ones. Anyway the idea of surviving major air conflict with any superpower is laughable. If you consider neighbors, France, Germany and possibly Italy would also decimate air force quickly (no clue about Austrians).

Maybe not the highest and most expensive tech since it won't be used in any real conflict anyway. A-10 equivalent would be a good choice for ground support for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com