Fair enough. There should definitely be a standardized price quotation, regardless of the aircraft. As it is today, a particular price being quoted by industry might not even include the cockpit!! And nobody in public would ever know this until after the fact – God bless us all.

Maybe someone can take a peek into the USN budget. Anyway, I checked out the contractual history on the APG-79. It appears Boeing as the Primary Contractor was responsible for purchasing the radar for all new-build SHs and entered into subcontracts with Raytheon accordingly.
The DoD also entered into purchase contracts directly with Raytheon for APG-79s but these were radar units that were intended to be retrofitted into existing aircraft already in the inventory.
Pending any credible document to the contrary, I’m inclined to assume that Boeing’s price for the new batch of SH/Growlers includes the APG-79.

GE quoted the lowest price and possibly will only require minimum modification as compared to Eurojet.

Obama visit may be huge.

I recall reading that Boeing was offering the F414EPE in its bid. Was the bid for the Tejas engine the plain vanilla F414 or the EPE variant?

That’s a lot of money going into upgrades of the BUFF’s weapon systems. I wonder what kind of new weapons its destined to get?

Of course everything has a cost.
OK, I believe the ATFLIR pod is a standard feature on all SHs. Is its cost built -in or must it be added on? Really, what I really wanted to know is what comprises government-supplied equipment and which is built into boeing’s price. It would help quantify the true cost of the aircraft.

… and that his enemies were sitting in fragile machines without armor or self-sealing tanks.

Those fragile machines without armor and self-sealing tanks did a pretty good job of dominating early on on the war. In the hands of experienced pilots, they were deadly.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/118261/threat-to-rafale-as-uae-look-at-super-hornet.html

The UAE is holding the cards and we may see how desperate the french are to close a sale.

The US is putting in place resources and technology that will enable it to better respond to future threats. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that your opponent will always act rationally when history has proven time and again that the opposite is true and millions have died as a result. An enemy may have a totally different appreciation of risks involved in any military action and act accordingly.

One can see why the US is putting a lot of money into long-range strike capability. Hypersonic platforms and weapons will also greatly ensure shorter response times if the need arises.