FX impact on the MMRCA?

[Crusader2000]

Will the winner of Brazils FX Contest. Have any impact on India's selection for the MMRCA?

[zeven]

Will the winner of Brazils FX Contest. Have any impact on India's selection for the MMRCA?

NO.
Of one simple reason. India and Brasil are two different countries with different. agenda and politics.

[Crusader2000]

NO.
Of one simple reason. India and Brasil are two different countries with different. agenda and politics.


Well, India and Russia are two very different countries with different Agendas and Politics.



Sorry, your logics escapes me...........:confused:

[zeven]

Well, India and Russia are two very different countries with different Agendas and Politics.



Sorry, your logics escapes me...........:confused:

OK what possible gain can India have of the outcome from FX?
India and brasil. i can't see the logic in your question.

India only cares for its own agenda. and which platform that suits their needs best, Brasils needs and Indias is not the same.

its like you want to buy the same car as your neighbour only because he bought one.

[Crusader2000]

OK what possible gain can India have of the outcome from FX?
India and brasil. i can't see the logic in your question.

India only cares for its own agenda. and which platform that suits their needs best, Brasils needs and Indias is not the same.

its like you want to buy the same car as your neighbour only because he bought one.


Increasing numbers always helps to drive down costs. Plus, more partners can jointly fund future upgrades, and lower the cost of ownership.


Let's not forget the Gripen NG and Rafale have yet to win any export orders. The Super Hornet on the otherhand has only won one small order for just 24 F/A-18F's. (i.e. RAAF)

[zeven]

Increasing numbers always helps to drive down costs. Plus, more partners can jointly fund future upgrades, and lower the cost of ownership.


Let's not forget the Gripen NG and Rafale have yet to win and export order. The Super Hornet on the otherhand has only won one small order for just 24 F/A-18F's. (i.e. RAAF)

In Gripens case will NG users be part of the same upgrading path as the C/D users. So it really does not matter how many NG users there will be. In Indias case i have not seen any indication that lack of other users would be problematic.

[Crusader2000]

In Gripens case will NG users be part of the same upgrading path as the C/D users. So it really does not matter how many NG users there will be. In Indias case i have not seen any indication that lack of other users would be problematic.



So, your saying it doesn't matter the numbers of aircraft sold or number of users???:confused:

[zeven]

So, your saying it doesn't matter the numbers of aircraft sold or number of users???:confused:
No i did not say that, i believe the lack of export success is the biggest disadvantages for Rafale. oh BTW Dassault do have one customer..

[Crusader2000]

No i did not say that, i believe the lack of export success is the biggest disadvantages for Rafale. oh BTW Dassault do have one customer..



So, the Winner of the FX Contest could have an impact on the MMRCA Process?


BTW I said the Rafale had no export orders. Sorry, the French Air Force and Navy don't count.

[zeven]

So, the Winner of the FX Contest could have an impact on the MMRCA Process?


BTW I said the Rafale had no export orders. Sorry, the French Air Force and Navy don't count.

I dont think FX will have anything to say about the choice India make.

[Crusader2000]

I dont think FX will have anything to say about the choice India make.


You seem to be missing the point???


Brazil would not be directly involved in the selection of India's MMRCA. Yet, the winner of the FX could make for a more tempting offer.:tasty

[Feanor]

The degree to which it would make a difference would be very minor. Which is why it would not be likely to turn up as a factor in the decision making process on the Indian side.

[Salty Dog]

Increasing numbers always helps to drive down costs. Plus, more partners can jointly fund future upgrades, and lower the cost of ownership.


This works when there is a mass order such as several countries placing their orders at the very same time. This is not the case for F-X2 and MRCA where the dynamics of ad-hoc sales are different since these orders will enter the system at different times, numbers may change, and order dates may be delayed (the original F-X program started in 1996). Thrown into this is yet to be resolved "local" assembly and manufacturing which can actually drive the cost up. So, in the case of F-X2 and MRCA, cost scaling is a moot point.

[swerve]

So, your saying it doesn't matter the numbers of aircraft sold or number of users???:confused:
No, he's saying that Gripen C/D users & numbers sold count as part of the same tally as NG users & numbers.

You seem to be missing the point???

Brazil would not be directly involved in the selection of India's MMRCA. Yet, the winner of the FX could make for a more tempting offer.:tasty
No, you are missing the point. See Salty Dogs post for an explanation of why.

Well, India and Russia are two very different countries with different Agendas and Politics.

Sorry, your logics escapes me...........:confused:
Then you must be very stupid, as well as incapable of spelling, punctuating, or writing coherently. Russia & India have a long history of co-operation. India has been buying, modifying, & building under licence Russian weapons for 50 years. There is no such (or any significant) relationship between India & Brazil. They are not comparable in the slightest degree.

[JackMS]

Jane's:

Super Hornet favourite in Indian and Brazilian tenders


By Reuben F Johnson
30 October 2009

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is well placed to fulfil both the Indian and Brazilian fighter requirements, the company and its industry partners said on 28 October.

Boeing and its Team Super Hornet partners – Raytheon and General Electric (GE) – presented a broad-ranging review of the F/A-18E/F's position in both the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Medium-Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) programme for 163 aircraft plus 63 options and the Brazilian Air Force's F-X2 tender for the first 36 of what is projected to be a total of 120 fighters.

Boeing stated that two major factors make the Super Hornet competitive in both markets: the first one being that the economies of scale that result from both the aircraft and its major subsystems are still hot (active) production lines and hence have steadily reduced the unit cost of the aircraft; the other is that the modular nature of the aircraft's sensors and propulsion system permit technology insertion that dramatically increases performance at minimal expense.

"The history of the F/A-18E/F's development has now seen a negative slope in terms of cost and a positive slope in terms of capability. For this reason we feel for the first time we are competing on even terms with the [Lockheed Martin] F-16 in terms of price," stated Boeing Military Aircraft IDS President Chris Chadwick.

Raytheon representatives, who also briefed during the New Delhi conference, emphasised that "Raytheon provided the first AESA [active electronically scanned array] radar sets to both the USAF [US Air Force] and USN [US Navy]", and that the company continues to leverage technological improvements across its product lines in improving the Super Hornet's AN/APG-79 radar.

263 of 509 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2009

[Crusader2000]

Jane's:


In the case of cost vs capability. I think its going to be hard to beat the Super Hornet in both contests. Yet, how is the Brazilian President going to explain the loss of the Rafale. If, in fact the Super Hornet would wins???

[swerve]

Jane's:
Misleading headline. Boeing says the Super Hornet is the leading contender /= it is the leader.

[Crusader2000]

Clearly, every member in the MMRCA believe they have the best contender.............Its just my personal opinion the Super Hornet has made the best case.

[zeven]

Clearly, every member in the MMRCA believe they have the best contender.............Its just my personal opinion the Super Hornet has made the best case.
Those opinions of yours have been wrong quite often lately. you nor I can really tell which offfer is the best, because neither of us have all the specifics about the requriements or offers

[Crusader2000]

Those opinions of yours have been wrong quite often lately. you nor I can really tell which offfer is the best, because neither of us have all the specifics about the requriements or offers



That is your opinion :roll2



Personally, I find it hard to believe that you never express an opinion. Without knowing all the specifics. I was of course just talking in general terms. Clearly, the Super Hornet is by far the most mature of the contenders by far. While, still offering State of the Art Technology. (i.e. APG-79, HMD, AIM-9X, AIM-120's, JDAMs, SDB's, etc. etc.) Its also reasonably price and has low cost of ownership. All back by the American Military Complex and is in use by the USN in great numbers. Which, will fund many upgrades for decades to come.

[Feanor]

Those aren't the only factorbs in the decision making process. ToT is an issue. So is maintenance which would have to be set up from scratch. And the SH is a fairly expensive platform (relatively). There are also the political implications of the decision. The process is not that simple.

[Haavarla]

That is your opinion :roll2

Clearly, the Super Hornet is by far the most mature of the contenders by far. While, still offering State of the Art Technology. (i.e. APG-79, HMD, AIM-9X, AIM-120's, JDAMs, SDB's, etc. etc.) Its also reasonably price and has low cost of ownership. All back by the American Military Complex and is in use by the USN in great numbers. Which, will fund many upgrades for decades to come.

And yet there is no evidence that the JAS cannot perform in acordance to the FX2 requirements.
I find it hard to answer your posts crusader. Your many claims are relative and speculative.



Thanks

[zeven]

That is your opinion :roll2



Personally, I find it hard to believe that you never express an opinion. Without knowing all the specifics. I was of course just talking in general terms. Clearly, the Super Hornet is by far the most mature of the contenders by far. While, still offering State of the Art Technology. (i.e. APG-79, HMD, AIM-9X, AIM-120's, JDAMs, SDB's, etc. etc.) Its also reasonably price and has low cost of ownership. All back by the American Military Complex and is in use by the USN in great numbers. Which, will fund many upgrades for decades to come.

Its not easy to answer someone who build their argumentation on "own opinions" its like trying to convince a christian God does not exist! but ok i'll give it a shot.

First, platforms are designed from different outsets for diffirent needs. so you can't look at fancy stats and say this is the best platfrom! you need to look at the different requirements the specific country has. all the platforms might look the same for you but thats just a mirage.

things needed to be taken in the evalution process. (depending the country's requirements / location / politaclly stands / region / economy / industry / future threats / and so on

1 performance
2 LCC / maintaince (economy)
3 ToT and offsets
3 weapon systems
4 primary objective and role in your future air-force. (what will be your air-force role)
5 politics
6 economy / budget
8 infra structure / docttrine
9 program funds / upgrade path / cost estimations
10 possibltiy for domestic systems / domestic industry / custome made platfoms possibilities

I can continue. but i dont believe you toke all this into account when you shaped your personal opinion. then i really dont believe you have enough information about the platforms in question and what their advantages and disadvantates are! and even less what Brasil needs are!

if it was simple and only one was right! everyone would have had the same platform and everyone would have purchased new platforms as soon as them enter service.

cheers

[zeven]

That is your opinion :roll2



[QUOTE]Personally, I find it hard to believe that you never express an opinion.[/QUOTE
I never give personal opnions in debates like this, because personal opinions are worthless as long as there exist requirements and proven stats.


[QUOTE]] Without knowing all the specifics. I was of course just talking in general terms. Clearly, the Super Hornet is by far the most mature of the contenders by far. While, still offering State of the Art Technology i would have been rather suprised if a mature platform did not offered state of the art technology!


. (i.e. APG-79, HMD, AIM-9X, AIM-120's, JDAMs, SDB's, etc. etc.)
Please tell me which other platform does not offer a huge weaponpackage? similar to this? oh yes Rafale mainly french stuff Gripen? offer the most independent choice when it comes to weapon and systems, SH? hmm mainly american made systems and weapons. guess your personal opinion showed lack of knowledge again.

Its also reasonably price and has low cost of ownership. All back by the American Military Complex and is in use by the USN in great numbers. Which, will fund many upgrades for decades to come. so how is SH future upgrade capability compered to the other options? not quite as good is it?? when did american made systems become relative sheap to operate? do you know the MTBF stats for the platforms in question? if not you might wanna check it out before you base your argumentation on it. True US operates great number TODAY! but how many numbers will US operate 2035? how many major upgrades are the US willing to do now when F-35 soon enter service??

PS.
you might be right! SH may just be the best choice! i personally don't know and therefor i don't speculate, But i do know one thing. Brasil will chose the platform that theybelieve suits their agenda/needs best and thats th only thing that counts!

[B3LA]

I have to add a sad reminder to the numbered list above.

11 Bribes

Unfortunately there is also the matter of corruption in many or most arm deals.
This factor may vary considerable between a mature western democratic nation and a young fledgling state in the third world, but as westerners we should not be too overconfident in the moral supremancy of our leaders. Most leaders of nations have the power for a brief span of their life, either to the next election or to the next revolution.
Time is of essence and you better grab what you can from where you can as fast as you can...

[zeven]

I have to add a sad reminder to the numbered list above.

11 Bribes

Unfortunately there is also the matter of corruption in many or most arm deals.
This factor may vary considerable between a mature western democratic nation and a young fledgling state in the third world, but as westerners we should not be too overconfident in the moral supremancy of our leaders. Most leaders of nations have the power for a brief span of their life, either to the next election or to the next revolution.
Time is of essence and you better grab what you can from where you can as fast as you can...

Indeed you're right!.

[Salty Dog]

In the case of cost vs capability. I think its going to be hard to beat the Super Hornet in both contests. Yet, how is the Brazilian President going to explain the loss of the Rafale. If, in fact the Super Hornet would wins???

Whatever explanation President Lula gives, it will be pretty much accepted as most folks do not know any better and they don't really care. The (4) Scorpenes + SSN package Brazil signed with the French was far more costly than going back to buy more HDW SSKs. Alarms initially went up with the high costs of the French package which was quickly justified by the President's office and Brazilian Navy. Brazil is one place where yesterday's news is long forgotten.

[Bonza]

Please tell me which other platform does not offer a huge weaponpackage? similar to this? oh yes Rafale mainly french stuff Gripen? offer the most independent choice when it comes to weapon and systems, SH? hmm mainly american made systems and weapons. guess your personal opinion showed lack of knowledge again.

when did american made systems become relative sheap to operate?

Quite a fan of the Gripen, are we? So because the Super Hornet's weapon package is American in origin, and "less independent" as you imply, it's somehow less capable? Don't know if that's what you meant to say, but you're talking as if the Super Hornet's weapon package is some kind of limiting factor...

[Crusader2000]

Those aren't the only factorbs in the decision making process. ToT is an issue. So is maintenance which would have to be set up from scratch. And the SH is a fairly expensive platform (relatively). There are also the political implications of the decision. The process is not that simple.


How very true......


Yet, all in all I believe the Super Hornet makes the best case. If, some members like we can start another thread to debate the MMRCA / FX Contest in detail??? (Again):confused:

[zeven]

Quite a fan of the Gripen, are we? So because the Super Hornet's weapon package is American in origin, and "less independent" as you imply, it's somehow less capable? Don't know if that's what you meant to say, but you're talking as if the Super Hornet's weapon package is some kind of limiting factor...

Actually you way wrong! That was not what i said! i said Gripen offer a more independent choice when it comes to weapon, I DID NOT SAY THEY OFFER MORE OR BETTER OR WORSE .

do you deni the fact that its better options from a MTBF/maintaince point of view than SH/F-16/F-15? are do you believe US platforms are superior in all catagories? if you do, then we know who's the fanboy in here don't we :) cheers

I'm not a fan of any specific platform, because all have advantages / disadvantages so it comes down to the customer in question which platform i woud think is the best choice.

You have to excuse me, but i get offended when ppl use the "fanboy card" especially when it comes to obvious things like stated above..

[zeven]

How very true......


Yet, all in all I believe the Super Hornet makes the best case. If, some members like we can start another thread to debate the MMRCA / FX Contest in detail??? (Again):confused:
You're entitled to your opinion. i'll not argue, because you seems to have inside knowledge.
But i want to ask you where the euro/canards comes short to SH. except politically. ( i will make it clear, that i dont think SH is a worse option, but we dont know what Brasil believe is the most important. yet) thats why this circus going on between diffirent departments and industry

[Bonza]

Actually you way wrong! That was not what i said! i said Gripen offer a more independent choice when it comes to weapon, I DID NOT SAY THEY OFFER MORE OR BETTER OR WORSE .

do you deni the fact that its better options from a MTBF/maintaince point of view than SH/F-16/F-15? are do you believe US platforms are superior in all catagories? if you do, then we know who's the fanboy in here don't we :) cheers

I'm not a fan of any specific platform, because all have advantages / disadvantages so it comes down to the customer in question which platform i woud think is the best choice.

That's why I said "I don't know if that's what you meant to say". I wanted clarification. But thankyou for taking the time to tell me how wrong I am and what a fanboy I am. What reason you have for bringing up the MTBF of the F-15/16 when they're not even in the competition is beyond me.

Whether there are maintenance issues for the Super Hornet depends on the logistics and support capability of the Brazilians. I've not heard anything to indicate the Super is a maintenance hog (I know it's supposed to be a lot easier on the maintenance side than the F-14 it replaced), but that's going by the US Navy's operational and maintenance tempo. Whether this is different for Brazil remains to be seen, as I know nothing of their requirements or capabilities in that field.

For the record, I do think the Super Hornet is a good choice in the context of strengthening military ties with the United States. If Brazil is looking to develop or modify their air doctrine based on the FX acquisition, there's worse people to learn from. Whether you like it or not, the United States knows more about the application of airpower than any other nation on earth.

But I guess that makes me a fanboy, right?

[zeven]

[QUOTE=Bonza;183770For the record, I do think the Super Hornet is a good choice in the context of strengthening military ties with the United States. If Brazil is looking to develop or modify their air doctrine based on the FX acquisition, there's worse people to learn from. Whether you like it or not, the United States knows more about the application of airpower than any other nation on earth.

But I guess that makes me a fanboy, right?[/QUOTE]

You were the one who brought the "fanboy" card up in the first place! and like i said, i toke it as an offence. thats why i "over" reacted.
Which platform that would be the best for Brazil i don't know. may primary point was: all platforms in question have advantages and disadvantages. and from the operational cost /maintaince point of view SH is far from the best choice, When it comes to weapon system: all three platforms offer a huge variarity of weapons. but in Rafales case there is mainly French systems, SH mainly US made systems, Gripen however can offer a customer a more independent choice. it does not mean better or worse / more or less. just diffirennces between the platforms in question..

this was what i tried to point out, when someone called me a fanboy and therefor i reacted on the same level. but im mature enough to apologize for my reactions too. cheers and good night

[Bonza]

You were the one who brought the "fanboy" card up in the first place! and like i said, i toke it as an offence. thats why i "over" reacted.
Which platform that would be the best for Brazil i don't know. may primary point was: all platforms in question have advantages and disadvantages. and from the operational cost /maintaince point of view SH is far from the best choice, When it comes to weapon system: all three platforms offer a huge variarity of weapons. but in Rafales case there is mainly French systems, SH mainly US made systems, Gripen however can offer a customer a more independent choice. it does not mean better or worse / more or less. just diffirennces between the platforms in question..

this was what i tried to point out, when someone called me a fanboy and therefor i reacted on the same level. but im mature enough to apologize for my reactions too. cheers and good night

Ah, now I see - when I said "Quite a fan of the Gripen, are we?" I meant in the context of the FX competition. Your post seemed to indicate you thought operating cost was an important factor, and you mentioned the weapons package of the Gripen specifically.

I wasn't implying you were some frothing Gripen devotee with a shrine etc.

Thus I used the word "fan", not the word "fanboy". :)

[zeven]

i stand corrected and i apologize again. I totally missunderstood you.

[Bonza]

All good mate :)

[the road runner]

Actually you way wrong! That was not what i said! i said Gripen offer a more independent choice when it comes to weapon, I DID NOT SAY THEY OFFER MORE OR BETTER OR WORSE .

More independent Eh?Please explain what you mean by this?


and from the operational cost /maintaince point of view SH is far from the best choice,.

Really?care to explain your point of view on this with some links?Just the APG-79 ASEA has a mean time between Failures of some 2000 hours approx.(info from Defence Today Mag)

But i want to ask you where the euro/canards comes short to SH..

I would argue that if Brazil (and INDIA)wants to use Aircraft of a Carrier,they can with the F18EF as its a Carrier capable Aircraft.I myself see the EF as a very capable plane,but so is the F18 and Gripen..

NO one can MATCH what the USA spends on Research and development,this is a point that alot of people just dis regard.The USA will constantley Upgrade all there systems,with astranomical amounts of $$$$ going into R&D.

Regards..

[zeven]

More independent Eh?Please explain what you mean by this?




Really?care to explain your point of view on this with some links?Just the APG-79 ASEA has a mean time between Failures of some 2000 hours approx.(info from Defence Today Mag)



I would argue that if Brazil (and INDIA)wants to use Aircraft of a Carrier,they can with the F18EF as its a Carrier capable Aircraft.I myself see the EF as a very capable plane,but so is the F18 and Gripen..

NO one can MATCH what the USA spends on Research and development,this is a point that alot of people just dis regard.The USA will constantley Upgrade all there systems,with astranomical amounts of $$$$ going into R&D.

Regards..

With independet i mean: you are less dependent on the country where the platform origin from. you can choose avionics/weaponry from a wider variarity of countries.

Gripen is a more cost effective choice from an operational and LCC point of view, its desgined to be in a greater extend than the other two, its a singel egine configuration too
and the MTBF / MTBM is supreme

something that LM have worked hard to increase for F-35 for an axample.

LM and US in general have not always been best at cost management. its not the amount that is important but how you use the money! (Yes i Know US is in the frontier thanks for the huge amount of money they spend) so no need to repeat that. but because of that does not mean other platforms may suit a specific country better or worse. Rafale's upgrade program is 100 per cent funded too. i just want to point out, that SH does not score highest on all important stats.

[the road runner]

With independet i mean: you are less dependent on the country where the platform origin from. you can choose avionics/weaponry from a wider variarity of countries. .

But you do realise that if you try and intergrate a US Missle/bombs ect onto a non US platform,you will be paying for intergration costs?The US/EU may not even let the weapon be intergrated onto other countrys platforms......This ADDS to the COST,and i wont even go into intergrating avionics.

Gripen is a more cost effective choice from an operational and LCC point of view, its desgined to be in a greater extend than the other two, its a singel egine configuration too
and the MTBF / MTBM is supreme

So you keep saying,but supreme how so?I am under the impression that the Gripen uses a US developed engine too.

something that LM have worked hard to increase for F-35 for an axample.

Your comparing Gripen program with the JSF program???:ohwell

i just want to point out, that SH does not score highest on all important stats.

Scores pretty high for the US Navy,they seem to think the Aircraft is a goer,and what are these IMPORTANT stats your refering to?

Regards.

[swerve]

But you do realise that if you try and intergrate a US Missle/bombs ect onto a non US platform,you will be paying for intergration costs?The US/EU may not even let the weapon be intergrated onto other countrys platforms......This ADDS to the COST,and i wont even go into intergrating avionics....
Ah! You mean like Tornado, Typhoon, Viggen, Draken, Harrier, AMX, Hawk, L159, and of course, Gripen, all of which have or had a variety of US weapons integrated, before a single export customer even expressed an interest. Even Rafale has some US weapons integrated, & in use by France.

The EU has nothing to do with what weapons are integrated on anything. There is no such thing as an EU weapon. The USA does object sometimes to the integration of particular weapons, but then one can always buy a non-US alternative. For example, JASSM is quite restricted, but one can always buy Taurus or Scalp. Both are available in range-limited versions for countries where MTCR is an issue. The USA seems to have few worries about integration of lower-end PGMs, though, & both Typhoon & Gripen have AIM-120 & AIM-9 in addition to European AAMs.

It's actually pretty normal for everyone except the French, Russians & Chinese to integrate a selection of US weapons on their aircraft.

[zeven]

But you do realise that if you try and intergrate a US Missle/bombs ect onto a non US platform,you will be paying for intergration costs?The US/EU may not even let the weapon be intergrated onto other countrys platforms......This ADDS to the COST,and i wont even go into intergrating avionics.



So you keep saying,but supreme how so?I am under the impression that the Gripen uses a US developed engine too.



Your comparing Gripen program with the JSF program???:ohwell



Scores pretty high for the US Navy,they seem to think the Aircraft is a goer,and what are these IMPORTANT stats your refering to?

Regards.

1, read Swerves post for an answer. (independence)
2, I never compared Gripen to JSF, i said LM have done more work to decrease the LCC and operational costs for F-35 compared to previously platforms.
3. because something scores high for US navy does not mean it scores high for other countries? you're aware that all countries does not have the same needs/requriements as US navy? because when reading your posts i got that expression.

[SpudmanWP]

2, I never compared Gripen to JSF, i said LM have done more work to decrease the LCC and operational costs for F-35 compared to previously platforms.

Little know factoid is that nearly half of the software being written for the F-35 has to do with logistics and the attempt to reduce LCC.

[Salty Dog]

Little know factoid is that nearly half of the software being written for the F-35 has to do with logistics and the attempt to reduce LCC.

Are you addressing the F-35 Autonomic Logistics (AL) (http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm) solution? AFAIK this is comprehensive logistics system for LCC management.

[SpudmanWP]

Are you addressing the F-35 Autonomic Logistics (AL) (http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm) solution? AFAIK this is comprehensive logistics system for LCC management.

I believe so.

A while back, I came across two presentations with audio. The are almost 1.5 hours in total. It was a comment made during one of them that this was said.

Links and instructions here:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=159138#159138

Someone else converted them to swf and mp3 files here:
zSHARE - Bossert_Rosa_JSF.rar (http://www.zshare.net/download/662491619ee11112/)

The Rick Rosa one is the presentation that deals with the software development and is the likely one.

[the road runner]

Ah! You mean like Tornado, Typhoon, Viggen, Draken, Harrier, AMX, Hawk, L159, and of course, Gripen, all of which have or had a variety of US weapons integrated, before a single export customer even expressed an interest. Even Rafale has some US weapons integrated, & in use by France..

So how dose this make you more independant?
Is it because you purchase a number of weapons off different countries,that will make you independant:confused:

The EU has nothing to do with what weapons are integrated on anything. There is no such thing as an EU weapon. The USA does object sometimes to the integration of particular weapons, but then one can always buy a non-US alternative. For example, JASSM is quite restricted, but one can always buy Taurus or Scalp. Both are available in range-limited versions for countries where MTCR is an issue. The USA seems to have few worries about integration of lower-end PGMs, though, & both Typhoon & Gripen have AIM-120 & AIM-9 in addition to European AAMs..

Thankyou.
So the US will have issues with intergrating high end weapons on non USD platforms?


It's actually pretty normal for everyone except the French, Russians & Chinese to integrate a selection of US weapons on their aircraft.

A few exceptions like French Tigre with hellfire.
Thanx Swerve for you informative post

Regards

[the road runner]

1, read Swerves post for an answer. (independence).

Read it,very informative post,but hopefully someone can answer why its more INDEPENDANT to purchase avionics/missles/bombs from a number of sources?

With independet i mean: you are less dependent on the country where the platform origin from. you can choose avionics/weaponry from a wider variarity of countries
Would this not add more risk?Having a number of contractors delivering weapons/sensors ect.
I would think the PRIME contractor would be the one to go for,to reduce risk.....

2, I never compared Gripen to JSF, i said LM have done more work to decrease the LCC and operational costs for F-35 compared to previously platforms

Agreed,My misunderstanding.


3. because something scores high for US navy does not mean it scores high for other countries? you're aware that all countries does not have the same needs/requriements as US navy? because when reading your posts i got that expression.

Sory for that impression,

Regards

[Salty Dog]

Many pundits of the Rafale in the Brazil F-X2 competition have been slamming the Super Hornet and Gripen NG as they both contain US components, an issue for some when it comes to ToT and embargo fears. The French MoD Hervé Morin admitted to Brazil's MoD Nelson Jobim that the Rafale does indeed have US source technology components. This complicates the French promise for 100% ToT for both F-X2 and MRCA.

Original article (in Portuguese):
Jatos Rafale têm tecnologia dos EUA, admite ministro francês (http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/nacional,jatos-rafale-tem-tecnologia-dos-eua-admite-ministro-frances,460689,0.htm)

[Vivendi]

Many pundits of the Rafale in the Brazil F-X2 competition have been slamming the Super Hornet and Gripen NG as they both contain US components, an issue for some when it comes to ToT and embargo fears. The French MoD Hervé Morin admitted to Brazil's MoD Nelson Jobim that the Rafale does indeed have US source technology components. This complicates the French promise for 100% ToT for both F-X2 and MRCA.

Original article (in Portuguese):
Jatos Rafale têm tecnologia dos EUA, admite ministro francês (http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/nacional,jatos-rafale-tem-tecnologia-dos-eua-admite-ministro-frances,460689,0.htm)

Thanks for this -- when I tried Google Translate I got something about "tiles". Is it explained what US components the Rafale actually contain?

One non-French component I am aware of is the Martin-Baker ejection seat -- I believe that's a UK company?

Another would be any GPS navigation systems aboard; since the GPS satellite system is US, I assume the French would at least need some kind of licence agreement?

[Salty Dog]

Thanks for this -- when I tried Google Translate I got something about "tiles". Is it explained what US components the Rafale actually contain?


The word is "tijolos" which translates to "building blocks". The French MoD downplays that these are small components and that within a globalized world with complex technologies there could be some "minute" origin from the "mentioned" country.

[Rythm]

It could have an impact on indian MMRCA competition, it depends where India sees its future. If India wishes to further develop south-south cooperation, say via IBSA or something similar, then the brazilian outcome could have an impact.

[swerve]

Read it,very informative post,but hopefully someone can answer why its more INDEPENDANT to purchase avionics/missles/bombs from a number of sources?

Because you are not dependent on one supplier. You can substitute weapons from alternative suppliers. Your suppliers know this, & are likely to give you better terms.
Would this not add more risk?Having a number of contractors delivering weapons/sensors ect.
I would think the PRIME contractor would be the one to go for,to reduce risk.....
For an aircraft, you have to buy from a prime contractor, which generally buys in sensors, etc. Lockheed Martin & Boeing don't make radars, for example, they get them from Northrop Grumman & Raytheon. Dassault gets radars from Thales, Saab used to buy radars from Ericsson, until it bought Ericsson. It's now buying in a radar from Selex, which SAAB-Ericsson will modify. Etc.

For weapons, why would buying everything from a prime contractor reduce risk? Single source is inherently more risky than diversified sources. One political falling-out & you're stuffed.

BTW, I've worked for industrial firms that deliberately bought a proportion of critical components from what they considered the second best source. That was a risk reduction measure, in case of problems (strikes, fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.) with their preferred supplier.

[swerve]

So the US will have issues with intergrating high end weapons on non USD platforms?
Not in general. What the USA does do is restrict exports of some high end weapons. E.g. JASSM can be integrated onto non-US platforms, but not everyone is allowed to buy it. Some countries (even close allies) weren't allowed to have AIM-120 at one time, while at the same time other countries (e.g. the UK & Sweden) were allowed to integrate it onto non-US aircraft.

The USA sometimes forbids the integration of non-US weapons onto US aircraft, BTW. For example, the UAE was restricted in the US weapons it could buy for its F-16Es, & was not allowed to integrate foreign equivalents of the weapons the USA wouldn't sell. To get the weapons it wanted, it had to buy non-US weapons & put them on non-US aircraft - hence the Mirage 2000-9 with Black Shaheen (a range-limited version of Scalp) from France.

[aaaditya]

hey guys, i have a couple of doubts here:

1) several times i have come across the rafales weights given as 9500 kgs (loaded),does this mean the weight of the aircraft fully loaded with all the onboard equipment minus internal fuel and weapons?

2)what would be the maximum all up weight of the rafale with the full internal fuel load and the full weapon load?

3)how does rafale's loaded weight,maximum all up weight and thrust to weight ratio under both the load conditions compare with the ef-2000's.

[the road runner]

For an aircraft, you have to buy from a prime contractor, which generally buys in sensors, etc. Lockheed Martin & Boeing don't make radars, for example, they get them from Northrop Grumman & Raytheon. Dassault gets radars from Thales, Saab used to buy radars from Ericsson, until it bought Ericsson. It's now buying in a radar from Selex, which SAAB-Ericsson will modify. Etc.

For weapons, why would buying everything from a prime contractor reduce risk? Single source is inherently more risky than diversified sources. One political falling-out & you're stuffed..

Ah so you would purchase the Aircraft,seansors,radar from the Prime.The Prime would sub contract out the radars,seansors ect to Lock,Boeing or Thales(depending on aircraft type selected).

Then you would shop around for missles/bombs from a number of vendors?

*I was assuming a Package deal would be cheaper..........

BTW, I've worked for industrial firms that deliberately bought a proportion of critical components from what they considered the second best source. That was a risk reduction measure, in case of problems (strikes, fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.) with their preferred supplier.

So you reduce risk,but you are saying you purchase from both suppliers?
I would assume less risk by going down this path,but it would add to cost Swerve?

Thanx for pointing me in the right direction,and molding my mellon:crazy

Regards

[zeven]

hey guys, i have a couple of doubts here:

1) several times i have come across the rafales weights given as 9500 kgs (loaded),does this mean the weight of the aircraft fully loaded with all the onboard equipment minus internal fuel and weapons? this is empty wheight.

2)what would be the maximum all up weight of the rafale with the full internal fuel load and the full weapon load? MTOW is 24.500 kg

3)how does rafale's loaded weight,maximum all up weight and thrust to weight ratio under both the load conditions compare with the ef-2000's.


Rafale (MTOW 24.500 kg)
* Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
* Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN with M88-Eco >90 kN after 2010 (17,000 lbf) each

Eurofighter: (MTOW 21.000 kg)
thrust 60 kN (90 kN with AB) x2 (twin engine configuration)

[swerve]

Rafale (MTOW 24.500 kg)
* Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
* Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN with M88-Eco >90 kN after 2010 (17,000 lbf) each

Eurofighter: (MTOW 21.000 kg)
thrust 60 kN (90 kN with AB) x2 (twin engine configuration)

Eurofighter Tranche 2 MTOW 24500 kg according to a recent press briefing reported elsewhere.

Eurofighter Tranche 1 reported in the same briefing to be currently limited to 20000 kg in service, despite having demonstrated TOW of over 24500 kg in tests. Thought to be for fatigue life reasons.

[swerve]

Ah so you would purchase the Aircraft,seansors,radar from the Prime.The Prime would sub contract out the radars,seansors ect to Lock,Boeing or Thales(depending on aircraft type selected).

Then you would shop around for missles/bombs from a number of vendors?

*I was assuming a Package deal would be cheaper..........

So you reduce risk,but you are saying you purchase from both suppliers?
I would assume less risk by going down this path,but it would add to cost Swerve?

Thanx for pointing me in the right direction,and molding my mellon:crazy

Regards
The sensors are (except for external sensor pods) built in to the aircraft, & it's not really practical to buy them separately. You can sometimes specify alternate equipment, as with F-16s with a choice of engines, but that's via the aircraft manufacturer.

Weapons (& external sensor pods) are separate pieces of equipment, which can be & often are bought separately. For export sales, they're sometimes supplied as part of a package, but I think that's as much for convenience as price.

In the cases I mentioned, buying from multiple suppliers added slightly to cost, & I expect that would usually be true. It was thought worth it for the risk reduction. Like buying insurance, really. That's also an extra cost, to reduce risk.

[swerve]

Back on topic - Gripen Demo is now flying with the ES05 Raven AESA radar.

Gripen - The wings of your nation - Gripen NG Demo returns to the skies (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2009/gripen_ng_demo_returns_to_the_skies.htm)

[Salty Dog]

Ah so you would purchase the Aircraft,seansors,radar from the Prime.The Prime would sub contract out the radars,seansors ect to Lock,Boeing or Thales(depending on aircraft type selected).

Then you would shop around for missles/bombs from a number of vendors?

*I was assuming a Package deal would be cheaper..........

Regards

In the case of purchases from the USA, fighter aircraft, some subsystems, and certainly weapons falls under MDE (major defense equipment) which can only be purchase via FMS (foreign military sales) which is a gov't - to - gov't purchase. The US Gov't is the purchasing agent and is represented by a designated service, Army, Navy, or Air Force. This means that the purchasing gov't does not sign a contract with the "prime contractor", the USG does the purchase on behalf of the purchasing gov't. Thus each item in the FMS "package" is procured by the USG then transferred to the foreign government. There are advantages to the FMS process:
- The USG as the procurement agent certifies all equipment prior to acceptance/delivery. In the case of the Super Hornet, this is the US Navy.
- The USG works guarantee and warranty issues.
- The USG has in-country reps at US Embassies.
- Purchases can be made in "lots" along with USG purchases to take advantage of "cost scaling"
- Maintenance and support package can be included.
- A single FMS contract can contain the aircraft, subsystems, spares, weapons, maintenance, training, etc.
- Multiple FMS contracts may be implemented as necessary.
- A form of financing is available via a payment schedule to the USG.
- The purchaser pays the same price as the USG.

It's important to note the last bullet above as President Lula specifically requested to President Sarkozy that the Rafale price for Brazil be the same as paid by the French. To date, France has not mentioned any agreement to this important detail. When recently queried about the Rafale price (the highest of the F-X2 contenders), the French MoD responded with all the "political advantages" of the Rafale purchase, obviously skirting the price issue.

[swerve]

Interesting, that. Eurofighter sales are direct by the companies, & may not be at a lower price than that charged to the four Eurofighter countries. The governments levy a 7% fee on exports to recover development costs, though that may be waived.

[Salty Dog]

A French news source has divulged that Dassault has not agreed to a 40% reduction in price of the Rafale offered to Brazil. The price reduction was made by the French government as requested by President Lula to President Sarkozy

This 40% price reduction (from the initial Euro 98M price) was one of President' Lula's requirements to seal the Rafale deal once he backtracked from an earlier statement saying the Rafale was the final choice.

The French are now going to pin their hopes on a "political decision".

article in Portuguese:
Dassault nega redução de 40% em preço do Rafale para o Brasil (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u648560.shtml)

article in French:
Le prix du Rafale en piqué pour favoriser une vente au brésil (http://www.liberation.fr/economie/0101601516-le-prix-du-rafale-en-pique-pour-favoriser-une-vente-au-bresil)

[zeven]

UK support bolsters Sweden's Gripen offer to Brazil


By Craig Hoyle: Fligtglobal 06/11/09

Brazil is expected to make an announcement about its initial 36-aircraft FX-2 fighter deal around late November, following an evaluation involving the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale and Saab Gripen NG.

Industry sources say a platform selection should be confirmed by Brazil's National Defence Council - chaired by president Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva - following the delivery of a 26,000-page report compiled by the nation's air force and overseen by service chief Lt Brig Juniti Saito.

With a decision close at hand, Saab has mounted a final push to promote its Gripen NG, which it claims is the preferred candidate of both the Brazilian air force and Embraer, which will partner the selected company for local production of the chosen aircraft.

The Swedish company's efforts have also gained late support from the UK government, which has thrown its weight firmly behind the Gripen following the selection of Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems' Vixen 1000E/ES05 Raven active electronically scanned array radar for the NG model.

The UK Trade & Investment body says British content in the Gripen NG currently stands at 20% by value, primarily thanks to the radar selection, and that the possible integration of additional equipment could increase this to around 25%.

The outcome of the FX-2 contest appeared to have already been determined on 7 September, when da Silva and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy held a joint press conference in which the Rafale was named as the preferred candidate.

However, the Brazilian defence ministry swiftly distanced itself from the claim, and invited a second round of best and final offers from all three bidding companies.

One industry source says Saab is fearful that political motives could see the Rafale win in Brazil, with a selection to further strengthen the nation's strategic relationship with France.[qoute]

I can't wait for this to end.

Da Silva's government has already inked deals worth around $12 billion to acquire French-supplied equipment including Eurocopter EC725 helicopters and submarines.

Saab is promoting the Gripen NG's promised lower acquisition and operating costs over its twin-engine rivals, and has made significant pledges on industrial and technical partnership deals.

"Our sole intention is to share our technology," says a company official, who adds: "we can make a material difference to their industry."

Sweden's final offer includes an offset package worth 175% of the FX-2 contract's value, with this to include joint development activities on the Gripen NG. Saab's intention is to enable first production examples to roll off production lines in Brazil and Sweden simultaneously during 2014.

Its offer would also allow Embraer to lead future export campaigns in Latin America. Saab has already identified potential sales opportunities with Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru.

Sweden will evaluate the KC-390 transport if Brazil picks the Gripen

Additional benefit to Brazilian industry could come via a Saab proposal to pitch Embraer's EMB-314 Super Tucano turboprop trainer and developmental KC-390 tanker/transport to the Swedish air force. Stockholm needs to acquire replacements for its aged Saab 105s and Lockheed Martin C-130s within around the next decade, it notes.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...to-brazil.html

[swerve]

A French news source has divulged that Dassault has not agreed to a 40% reduction in price of the Rafale offered to Brazil. The price reduction was made by the French government as requested by President Lula to President Sarkozy

This 40% price reduction (from the initial Euro 98M price) was one of President' Lula's requirements to seal the Rafale deal once he backtracked from an earlier statement saying the Rafale was the final choice.

The French are now going to pin their hopes on a "political decision".

I'd very much like to know the basis for the 98 mn Euro price. IIRC France is paying 50+ million for the aircraft, nothing more. All spares, etc. are paid for separately. The AESA radar will put the purchase price up a bit, though probably reduce life time cost. Is 98 million the contract price, or the bare aircraft price? It seems extraordinarily high for the latter.

Additional benefit to Brazilian industry could come via a Saab proposal to pitch Embraer's EMB-314 Super Tucano turboprop trainer and developmental KC-390 tanker/transport to the Swedish air force. Stockholm needs to acquire replacements for its aged Saab 105s and Lockheed Martin C-130s within around the next decade, it notes.

SAAB & Embraer would be able to offer almost a complete air force if they got together. Fighters, AEW, MPAs, trainers, tanker/transports . . .

[Feanor]

SAAB & Embraer would be able to offer almost a complete air force if they got together. Fighters, AEW, MPAs, trainers, tanker/transports . . .

As well as provide both the Swedes and Brazilians with a market for their products, between the two countries. It seems like a really graceful solution to Saabs problems with shrinking domestic purchases, and offers pretty major technology incentives to Brazil.

[dragonfire]

A French news source has divulged that Dassault has not agreed to a 40% reduction in price of the Rafale offered to Brazil. The price reduction was made by the French government as requested by President Lula to President Sarkozy

This 40% price reduction (from the initial Euro 98M price) was one of President' Lula's requirements to seal the Rafale deal once he backtracked from an earlier statement saying the Rafale was the final choice.

The French are now going to pin their hopes on a "political decision".

article in Portuguese:
Dassault nega redução de 40% em preço do Rafale para o Brasil (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u648560.shtml)

article in French:
Le prix du Rafale en piqué pour favoriser une vente au brésil (http://www.liberation.fr/economie/0101601516-le-prix-du-rafale-en-pique-pour-favoriser-une-vente-au-bresil)

Now if that happens then it could definitely figure in the MMRCA finalisation as price always plays an important role, it could definitely hedge the negative feeligs for Dassault which came about when they asked for a huge price for modernising and upgrading the Mirage 2000 fleet with the IAF.

Also will economies of scale come into play if there is a brazilian order followed by an Indian order. Is there scope of the price dropping due to big orders

[Salty Dog]

Now if that happens then it could definitely figure in the MMRCA finalisation as price always plays an important role, it could definitely hedge the negative feeligs for Dassault which came about when they asked for a huge price for modernising and upgrading the Mirage 2000 fleet with the IAF.

Also will economies of scale come into play if there is a brazilian order followed by an Indian order. Is there scope of the price dropping due to big orders

I had addressed this "economies of scale" issue earlier. In the case of both F-X2 and MRCA should the same aircraft win, IMHO it will not happen for two reasons:
1) The orders will come at different times, and
2) The aircraft will need to be manufactured locally.

[dragonfire]

I had addressed this "economies of scale" issue earlier. In the case of both F-X2 and MRCA should the same aircraft win, IMHO it will not happen for two reasons:
1) The orders will come at different times, and
2) The aircraft will need to be manufactured locally.

If the Brazillians are given a special price then there is no way India will even think of paying a rupee more :D

Even if India doesnt finalize the rafale in order to India to consider it the price will have to be at par with what has been offered earlier to other customers and then that will become the base price post which India will negotiate further stating that the Indian Order size is directly three times the brazilian order

[Salty Dog]

Dassault still refuses to budge on price reduction for the Rafale F-X2 offer.

Admiral Edouard Guillaud a special envoy for Sarkozy during an interview with O Globo (http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/mat/2009/11/13/cacas-na-reta-final-da-concorrencia-dassault-oferece-itens-adicionais-para-tentar-vender-rafale-para-brasil-914743381.asp), pledged unrestricted technology transfer including source codes for the Rafale. Guillaud went on to say the FAB may make any modifications to create a "Super Rafale". He refused to talk about the Rafale cost and pushed for a "strategic partnership" with Brazil.

[Vivendi]

Dassault still refuses to budge on price reduction for the Rafale F-X2 offer.

Admiral Edouard Guillaud a special envoy for Sarkozy during an interview with O Globo (http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/mat/2009/11/13/cacas-na-reta-final-da-concorrencia-dassault-oferece-itens-adicionais-para-tentar-vender-rafale-para-brasil-914743381.asp), pledged unrestricted technology transfer including source codes for the Rafale. Guillaud went on to say the FAB may make any modifications to create a "Super Rafale". He refused to talk about the Rafale cost and pushed for a "strategic partnership" with Brazil.

google translate:

Despite that mention of price, both he and Guillaud avoided mentioning specific figures on the cost of the Rafale - except the fact that it would be 4% more expensive than the F-18 Super Hornet, the American Boeing. This difference, they argued, would disappear over the 15-year contract to be signed with Brazil, because of currency fluctuations during that period.

I presume the above has either been mistranslated by Google, or that the journalist dropped a zero?

[Crusader2000]

google translate:



I presume the above has either been mistranslated by Google, or that the journalist dropped a zero?



How would the French Admiral know that the Rafale was 4% more expensive than the Super Hornet???:confused:

[Salty Dog]

google translate:

I presume the above has either been mistranslated by Google, or that the journalist dropped a zero?

Correct, it should have stated 40% (http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/mat/2009/11/12/franca-contra-ataca-lobbies-das-empresas-concorrentes-na-venda-de-cacas-ao-brasil-914730606.asp)

[Scorpion82]

I'm certain we'll see more details in the future. Weren't Super Hornets to cost some 80-90 mln $? I know about Boeings offer to produce additional aircraft for just 50 mln $, but that's not yet the case. The Rafale costs somewhat in the range of ~50 - 60 mln €.

[Salty Dog]

The actual F-X2 price and costs have not been made public due to confidentiality in the bid process. However, rough order of magnitude (ROM) price and cost figures have been circulating as follows.

The F-X2 finalists submitted their "Best and Final Offers" in mid-August and continue with price negtiations.

Dassault Rafale - Euro 50M
Boeing F/A-18E - USD 55M
Saab Gripen NG - USD 50M

Cost per flight hour:
Rafale: $16,000
F/A-18E: $10,000
Gripen: $4,500

Life cycle costs said to be on par with the flight hour costs.

This is where conclusions are drawn that the Rafale has 40% greater cost than the Super Hornet.

[Vivendi]

It seems Lula has done it again:

Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.correiodoestado.com.br%2F%3Fcon teudo%3Dnoticia_detalhe%26idNoticia%3D52184&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=)

If he really has "included the Rafale" in a formalized agreement before the evaluation process has been completed, could Saab and Boeing then sue Brazil for not following their own process?

I know that in Europe Saab sued Poland because Saab suspected that a deal was completed not according to the rules. But Poland is an EU member...

What are the rules for such processes internationally? Are there any rules?

[Salty Dog]

It seems Lula has done it again:

Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.correiodoestado.com.br%2F%3Fcon teudo%3Dnoticia_detalhe%26idNoticia%3D52184&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=)

If he really has "included the Rafale" in a formalized agreement before the evaluation process has been completed, could Saab and Boeing then sue Brazil for not following their own process?

I know that in Europe Saab sued Poland because Saab suspected that a deal was completed not according to the rules. But Poland is an EU member...

What are the rules for such processes internationally? Are there any rules?

We're all waiting for the backlash as this is the same type of statement Lula made when Sarkozy was in Brazil for Independence Day activites. This seen as another political statement to be kind to the host country as Lula is in France. Note that Dassault is not celebrating this recent news.

So, yes, there would be legal concerns about the bid process.

The FAB has not submitted their final F-X2 recommendation.

The Brazilian National Security Council has final approval for the F-X2 winner which until now it has not.

[zeven]

The actual F-X2 price and costs have not been made public due to confidentiality in the bid process. However, rough order of magnitude (ROM) price and cost figures have been circulating as follows.

The F-X2 finalists submitted their "Best and Final Offers" in mid-August and continue with price negtiations.

Dassault Rafale - Euro 50M
Boeing F/A-18E - USD 55M
Saab Gripen NG - USD 50M

Cost per flight hour:
Rafale: $16,000
F/A-18E: $10,000
Gripen: $4,500

Life cycle costs said to be on par with the flight hour costs.

This is where conclusions are drawn that the Rafale has 40% greater cost than the Super Hornet.

I don't recognize those numbers regarding Gripen. Last time i checked it was 2.500-3000.

[Vivendi]

I don't recognize those numbers regarding Gripen. Last time i checked it was 2.500-3000.
That sounds more like the fuel costs

[zeven]

That sounds more like the fuel costs

Flight hour cost, and im 99.9 per cent sure im right here.

[Grand Danois]

Flight hour cost, and im 99.9 per cent sure im right here.

Gripen cost is spares & vendor support and fuel. The other figures probably also include all other costs not associated with the manufacturer of the jet.