And CEAM sayed specs were largely exceeded, citing a double range.

So I hear. Point I was trying to make is that even a modest sized radar like Rafale has ranges going well past 100km for fighter sized targets – comfortably exceeding the NEZ of most missiles. With makes either jamming or LO, vital to the aircraft’s survivability. And being able to reliably jam a frequency agile AESA before it can generate a tracking solution… is a gamble, to put it mildly.

139km for detection of 3m^2 target, 111km for tracking. Does a PESA->AESA upgrade increase outright range or just practical range in an EW environment? I would imagine that the power and detection abilities are similar but the frequency agility gives LPI and jamming immunity.

The specs/requirements for the RBE-2AA called for a 50% increase in range over the PESA. May have been coupled with software upgrades perhaps.

For the sake of intelectual honesty, let’s add engine costs to you LRIP unit prices, please. Unless you’re not interested in a fair comparison with current Rafale/EF flyway costs.

Engine price is included in that URFC figure. Without engines the F-35A is about $95M/unit.

That is if you assume that the F-35 will be tracked and targeted by RF seekers only. Actualy, Its VLO feature apply to a limited range of the EM spectrum. It surely helps but it also impacts negatively other aspects of the aircraft (agility, maintenance costs).

There are no substitutes to a radar. An ESM system only detects radiating targets; every silent aircraft supported by off-board targeting will be invisible to it. Even something like the C-17 is akin to a stealth aircraft for an aircraft relying primarily on its ESM sensors.

As for IR sensors, they are still very limited in range esp. against head-on targets and are susceptible to inclement weather and environmental conditions. While air forces would like to have them, none of them seem willing to depend on them. The Rafale being an apt example, wherein a very significant amount of investment has gone into AESA tech, while most F3s as well as the upcoming F3R are fielded without an IRST. Even for the older ones, (correct me if I’m wrong) the IR feeds are not sensor fused by the aircraft, and our independently employed by the pilot/WSO.

The F-35’s physical performance while hardly superlative like the F-22, is still fairly decent by most measures – F-16 like agility with the high AoA performance of the F-18. O&M costs for the F-16 are about 20% lower than the F-35.

But all this has already been discussed to death in the appropriate topic…

True but you could say that about 75% of all ongoing debates on the forum.

There’s a difference between a goal and the actual acheivement of a goal.

You have no idea what if the exchange rate $/€ will be more favorable at the time of decision-making for the current prospects. Which made a clear difference for all these new contracts signed with Dassault.

Do you really want to use the prices of these recent contracts as a benchmark for the Rafale’s real cost?

And there is no evidence of a flyaway cost reduction when history shows us it has only gone up since the very beginning of the JSF program while order booking increased at the same time.

LRIP 1: $250M/unit
LRIP 8: $108M/unit

No need to dig for evidence here.

A flyaway price decrease of the Rafale is, on the other hand, something you can be certain of.

By how much? Lets how many aircraft are earmarked for the AdlA upto 2020 before coming to any conclusions.

1:1.5 ratio: South Koreans settling for 40 F35s instead of the 60 aircraft specified by the original competition’s criteria.

You’re assuming the budget remains the exactly the same. (40 F-35s – round number, two squadrons)

The post-SDD cost for F-35 remains to be determined. Over the years, projected FRP-cost has gone nowhere but up.

Current flyaway cost is $108 mil. FRP estimate is $85 mil. They aim to bring it down to $80 mil or lower. But even at $90 mil its competitive on cost with the Euros.

The F-35’s advantages over other aircraft, if/when it finally becomes operational, are a moving target because its rivals are evolving all the time.

The F-35 is also evolving (see APG-81 T/R count for example). But no amount of evolution will give its competitors VLO capability.

In the original competition, the Lockheed-Martin bid was rejected on cost. LM factoring in offsets – as you allege – was not deemed enough to meet the cost criterium. Possible explanations, assuming your claim is right:
– offsets did not amount to enough to outweigh the higher per unit cost
– offsets were not part of the competition’s criteria
Eurofighter, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were bidding to the same criteria. The budget cap not being the same as the final contract price would then apply to all – F-35 as well.

It did apply to the F-35. That’s the point. That the EF offer was the cheaper than the F-35 is not in question. The issue is your cost ratio of 1:1.5 which is not supported by evidence. You’re not comparing like to like here.

That which is offered without proof can be rejected without proof.

The F-35 post-SDD phase will be the same cost bracket as the EF & Rafale (its pretty close even now), while fielding a VLO airframe with all the advantages that confers in air combat as well as operations in contested airspace. Not of particular use to a country like Brazil or Switzerland (and not available to countries like Egypt & Qatar), but valuable to foreseeing the possibility of conflict against a first rate adversary.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…. you haven’t seriously tried to put the F-35 into the same league with Gripen regd. cost effectiveness, have you? Haven’t you spent too much time in Norway recently? 🙂

‘Different classes serving different requirements’. Can’t be compared directly but yes they are both cost effective aircraft, though I’ve been a little apprehensive when it comes to the Gripen E ever since the Swiss figures were released.