All right, for the wish of Mr.Sign, let me make another “fair comparison” for Mr.Sign:

According to the Mr.Sign’s data (Personally, I think this data is very pro-Typhoon and extremely unfair to Rafale ~ Do someone here really believe that the fuel consumption of Rafale is > 16% higher than Eurofighter ??):

EF-2000: 4,996 kg fuel for 2600km ferry range –> 3,843 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.

Gripen NG: 3,500 kg fuel for 2500km ferry range –> 2,800 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.

F-18: 6,780 kg fuel for 2,346km ferry range –> 5,780 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.

Rafale: 4,700 kg fuel 2,100km ferry range –> 4,476 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.

Mig-35: 4,800 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.

F-16: 3,160 kg fuel for 1,750km ferry range –> 3,611 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.

And according to the data mentioned above:

Empty Weight:
F/A-18E: 14,552 kg
MIG-35: 12,000 kg
EF-2000: 11,150 kg
Rafale C: 10,000 kg
F-16 IN: 9,979 kg
Gripen NG: 7,100 kg

Internal Fuel:
F/A-18E: 6,780 kg
EF-2000: 4,996 kg
MIG-35: 4,800 kg
Rafale C: 4,700 kg
Gripen NG: 3,500 kg
F-16 IN: 3,160 kg

A2A Combat Taking-off Weight (fuel for 2,000 km ferry range according to Mr.Sign’s data+ 6 MRAAM and 2 SRAAM):
F/A-18E: 21,700 kg
MIG-35: 18,300 kg
EF-2000: 16,350 kg
Rafale C: 15,675 kg
F-16 IN: 14,950 kg
Gripen NG: 11,200 kg

Sea-level Static Thrust, AB and Max Mil:
F/A-18E: 9,980 kg*2 / 6,395 kg*2 (F414-GE-400*2)
EF-2000: 9,185 kg*2 / 6,125 kg*2 (EJ-200*2)
MIG-35: 9,000 kg*2 / 5,400 kg*2 (RD-33MK*2)
Rafale C: 7,650 kg*2 / 5,100 kg*2 (M88-2*2)
F-16 IN: 14,740 kg*1 / 8,620 kg*1 (F110-GE-132*1)
Gripen NG: 9,980 kg*1 / 6,395 kg*1 (F414G*1)

Sea-level A2A Combat Taking-off T/W ratio, AB and Max Mil:
EF-2000: 1.124 / 0.749
F-16 IN: 0.986 / 0.577
MIG-35: 0.984 / 0.590
Rafale C: 0.976 / 0.651
F/A-18E: 0.920 / 0.589
Gripen NG: 0.891 / 0.570

well, i dont think rafale is underpowered, only if you compare it to EF, and you should compare the A/C for a similar mission, otherwise its not apples and apples.
All A/C have its ups and downs, EF has its speed and TWR. Rafale has its EW, sensorfusion and strike ability etc.
Still TWR isnt everything, for example, Close-coupled canard bleeds much less energy in turns which favor Rafale and Gripen.

But it seems like rafale to have a too high fuelconsumption for western tech, i could agree on that..still its a looong way to F-35 and MIG-35 in this field 🙂

[QUOTE=eagle1;1730595]

So if we talk about pure kinetic aircraft performances, I will tell you that a rafale can carry more, futher while being the most maneuverable aircraft of the competition. After all it manage to toast Typhoon 8-1 in pure gun dogfight, repeatedly dominate the F16 in various exercises, crush the gripen as well in 2007 without forgetting the SH vs rafale M encounters. It even old its own against the mighty F22 (dogfights). I don’t think that any other aircraft of the MMRCA competition has such a proven record.

[QUOTE]
any source on the gripen domination? then only one i heard was a french pilot interview about dogfight high alt, and “Rafale have better sustained turnrate especially at high alt” not “domination”. Also remember its Gripen C/D we are comparing with..

of course no 😉

well thats called defamation, and is something we dont need in this forum.

Sea-level A2A Combat Taking-off T/W ratio, AB and Max Mil:
EF-2000: 1.046 / 0.697
F-16 IN: 1.016 / 0.594
MIG-35: 0.984 / 0.590
Rafale C: 0.968 / 0.646
F/A-18E: 0.879 / 0.563
Gripen NG: 0.839 / 0.537

EF goes 2600km with specifide fuel amount.
Gripen NG goes 2500km
F-18 goes 2346km?
Rafale 2100km
Mig-35 2000km
F-16 1750km?

Fair comparison??

Sweden magical aerospace industry : the more complex the plane, the less expensive it is.

If they had developed an F-22, it would have cost the price of a piper club :p

yes its exactly like that..
The less you have, the more innovative you get 😉
The more complex, the more you should buy OTS to keep costs down.

Systems like RM12 is very expensive, F414 is much less..
To develop a new radar for only gripen jets from scratch isnt cheap, to develop it together with selex and other platforms on the base of dubble the amount of earlier development programs/expertise is cheaper.
the list goes on..
if there are hardware in the international market that fit the requirement why develop again?
more money left for development of the things that really needs some heavy development.
And there you have it. More for less.

This is the way Saab works, its cheaper and less risky. But still there are critics of this way of integration. Yes it isnt all swedish, french, brittish or american, its a mix and international and cheaper.

F-22 is a very bad examble of political steering and destruction of a program with superspecialized hardware led to a superexpensive jet.

wouldnt it be better to make a cheap version of the f-22 frame?
cheaper RAM, incorp. a “lighter” F35 avionics, no or cheaper thustvectoring etc.

This will also be what f-22 should have been in numbers..

F-15 in general is still extremly old platform and isnt a step forward…Silent Eagle exist only because F-22 didnt become bigger in numbers, exportrestricted and expensive..

I believe he’s talking about the overall package price, not individual aircraft price and as the Super Hornet package price includes a large weapon, sensor and support package, but it is unclear if the other proposals do or whether these would be an additional cost, the prices are hardly worth being used to ‘prove any sort of point’.

Unless it is an apples to apples contest with similar overall packages, quoting a price is futile.

like to see a source thou..
i´m kind of sceptic to such a claim to be polite..