better notation? What does this mean? Better perf? Does that mean performance? if yes, then I am not really surprised at all — after the Swiss leaks it was very clear that Typhoon had several weaknesses, even the “2015 Typhoon” that included a large number of enhancements (some of which remains to be implemented) did not really impress — the Rafale (with much fewer enhancements) still scored higher in most categories. The SH is a decent machine, although it also does have several weak points, in particular compared to the Rafale (and the F-35 of course).

http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf

The “Typhoon 2015” of the Swiss eval was P1E, nothing more, nothing less, its implemented, and if i understood the report correctly, in the danish evaluation the SH got better evaluations in Recon and in ATG, and worse in ATA, i doubt that anyone in this board will be particulary surprised.
The cost numbers for the F-35A are surprisingly low, so much in fact that i will make the exact same comment that i´ve did in 2008 when the Norwegians released theirs, there´s an awfull lot of wishfull thinking in there.

Exactly what I think.

What exactly almost everyone thinks.

The only effect of the provocative US air and naval presence in the SCS

?!!!!

Potsdam Declaration (Japan’s surrender) was supposed to prevent Japanese postwar expansion to islands

Nope.
What it actually says is precisely this:
“The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.“

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html

BS.
Russia sell too all countries in Asia.
PAK, India, china etc

Russia, sells their latest military hardware to “all countries in Asia”…
Like Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, etc, and all those countries with a very close military relationship with a certain “US of A”.
On top of that, what do you think would be the reaction of China to a few batteries of double digit SAM sold to Taiwan?
Yes, the Kremlin would risk the close relation with Beijing for Taiwan… Right.

If an order is placed in 2018, there’ll probably be a 1.5-2 year gap in deliveries (2019-2021). I doubt that’ll be enough for EF to close the production lines (esp. if the 2018 order is assured), but any longer without firm orders and the overhead + labour will make the project far too expensive to continue.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/11/12/bae-curtailing-typhoon-production/75640236/

Cheers

No, it is not. That is why FMS contracts can be adjusted downward if there is a reduction in associated costs based on what the US services are paying. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-seoul-s-f-x-iii-backdown-raises-thorny-questions-about-competition-390941/

Thanks for the article, it puts a new perspective to what i´ve read, thanks.

Missing the point, None of the competitors could meet the 60 aircraft for 7 billion (though I believe the Boeing offer was close). I get what you are saying, based on Eurofighter’s offer, they would have supplied 60 Typhoons on their bid. But, it is essentially wrong to say that you can buy 60 Typhoons to 40 F-35 based on a contract proposal from the F-X III competition. Lockheed’s offer was not a fixed price contract (which was an issue)

Both Boeing and Eurofighter offered packages inside the 7,43 billion US$ with 60 airframes, Eurofighter got disqualified because it offered six twin seaters… Both these statements came directly from DAPA, no doubts on here.

No, what AESA technology was Eurofighter including? How would the associated support compare to Lockheed’s offer under an FMS deal. That is all very relevant.

Here was the offer presented to Congress in 2013:
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/korea_13-10_0.pdf

The AESA set would be very similar to what has been on the table for the last three years, namely what Kuwait will get, the suport sets would be based on South Korean specifications.

Perhaps at the time it was true (FMS rules) the US offer was based on the LRIP costs circa 2012 (which I’m too lazy to look up, though LRIP batch 5 were around 160 million each).

No, the FMS offer was not based on the 2012 APUC, it was based on what was estimated to be the “Fly Away Unit Cost” (per the Pentagon Budget) of the year in wich the aircrafts were going to be contracted, an FMS fee, 50% of concurrency, training, manuals, suport, plus whatever the South Koreans asked. An aircraft to be delivered in 2020 would have been contracted in 2018, and that estimate would have ended in the FMS offer.

The F-35’s APUC has decreased with each new batch. Typhoon’s unit costs probably have not deviated that much in the last four years. What S. Korea would/will end up paying for F-35, or Typhoon in unit cost probably does not allow for the purchase of 1/3 more Typhoons.

It almost certainly would, the contract would be binding.

The contract includes all the goodies (simulators, associate FMS support, spares), that the ToT requirements that recently caused an uproar in S. Korea over what was actually contracted.

Its irrelevant, Eurofighter and Boeing would have offered identical packages.