Well, the SH has a bigger combat radius than an EF, both planes in similar configuration (internal only, 1 EFT, 2 EFTs, 3 EFTs, internal + future conformals).

No, the Typhoon has a bigger range on internal, and it has a slightly smaller combat Radius on external because no one asked Eurofighter for 2000L external´s (the SH external Tanks are twice the size than the ones for Phoon).
On July 7, 2009, IPA7 with six EPIV, two IRIS-T and four AIM-120 flew for more than two hours (two hours and seven minutes) on internal only, a SH wont do that.

So the USAF has to choose between the trainer that could directly replace the F-16 from the training course and save money by reducing overall flight training hours, or go to the ground-based simulator heavy training model proposed by BAE.

The T-50 is vastly more expensive to operate than a Hawk, the Raptor is a very, very, very small part of the USAF fleet and i would love to see your sources for the details of Northrop/BAE proposal…

This is the price you pay for a straight purchase of the F414.

The Indian deal included tech transfer and tooling(RR offered to lease the tooling, while GE offered to give away the tooling) for a license production, and that’s why it cost 50% more.

?!
Offcourse that its the cost of a straight purchase, i´ve taken the number directly from the US Navy budget!

wtf ?!
I asked a friend who sells GE engines, IIRC the price for an F414 was around $700.000,
i’ll ask again when she comes back in a couple of months tho

In 2012 each GE414 costs the US Navy 4,592 million US$.

Cheers

Now you’re standing it on its head. Over the years this has been going on, for every time anyone’s given the numbers that way round I’ve seen ten cases of someone comparing the F-35 flyaway price (often in 2002 prices) with the programme cost of Typhoon.

Exactly what you are describing was a specialty of Jack De Vries, the ex Dutch state secretary for defense procurement (who after getting out of the government ended up employed by a lobbying company who worked for Lockheed Martin). In several ocasions he compared a theoretical ” Fly Away Unit Cost” for the F-35A with program costs or export package costs of the competition, the Typhoon, the Rafale, Gripen, etc.
He did this on the press, on the parlament, etc, etc…
Anyone who have any doubts on what i am saying just have to google.
Mind you, by 2001 LM and DOD officials were doing that trick in every European MOD secretary, i dont have any doubts that this particular “methodology” (comparing a theoretical “Recurring Fly Away Unit Costs” for thousands of JSF´s with program costs for the competition) was official policy.

It’s obvious that your sole purpose is to make trouble.

You think so?

Is there any central, audited cost analysis for the Typhoon program akin to that published by the US DoD for the F-35 program, particularly one that provides various costings calculated using a defined methodology

Yes, both the UK NAO and the Spanish Mindef publish every year their acounts for the Eurofighter program.
Being an English speaking forum i´ll leave here the relevant links for the UK NAO.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/major_projects_report_2011.aspx

The yearly report on the major projects report.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/management_of_typhoon_project.aspx

The latest NAO “Phoon only” doc.

(similar to those used by the US DoD)?

No, the methodology used by the US DOD is not identical to their British and generaly speaking, to their European counterparts (who use vastly diferent methods between them).
You wont find a UK MOD document with a line called “Recurring Unit Fly Away Cost”.

And, of course, the Israelis have built & exported one, in two variants.

I was thinking in terms of air launched munitions, but yes, Harpy and Harop fit the requirement.

It’s still a high price–175 million each. More expensive then an F 35.

Well maybe that will happen in the future, but not today.
The JSF program unit cost might end cheaper if the production numbers are maintained (far from certain) and if the Development and procurement costs dont go up (they have been going up every year).
If those two variables dont change (2443 JSF´s for 395.7$ billion), then yes, the Program unit cost would be in the vicinity of 161$ million in “then year dollars”, so cheaper that the equivalent number for the Eurofighter.

If we were comparing today´s “Unit Program Costs” we would have to divide the number of F-35 contracted till now by the amount spent till now… An absolutely terrifying number… Wich would have been a bit silly, because unless the Mayan prediction for the end of the world in 2012 really happens, there will be more production contracts.
In the end, the JSF “Program Unit Cost” (and every program) is dependent on the numbers that get built, the production is starting now, while the Eurofighter closing is not that far ahead, its a bit early to make a direct comparison.

Cheers

ps- The Eurofighter program proved that politics can “boondoongle” entirely the costs for any given military program, four assembly lines for a production run of +- 600 airframes, briliant, absolutely briliant…