@Bluewings: I don´t think we´re far apart on this at all, I think I even added a bit about strike-roles, avoiding interceptors to get the real job done, before I decided this is all pointless and deleted my post since this stuff won´t decide *MMRCA* anyways, only price will. I could get further into details you bring up, but I don`t want to un-necessarily fan the fanboy wars since again I don`t think they`re relevant to deciding MMRCA at this point 🙂

I think the most relevant thing anybody can share are the most recent AdA maintenance man-hour numbers for Rafale…
And I suppose availability numbers and turn-around times could be relevant as well, in terms of cost per sorty per day, etc.

And I have one other question: How does Snecma`s work on the 100kN Kaveri Mk.2 relate to MMRCA? Could Dassault `utilize` infrastructure already planned (and budgeted for) from that program (to the extent it doesn`t conflict) at no cost, essentially? Certainly in `life time costs`, with `Super Kaveri` compatable with Rafale, that should effect Rafale costs once that engine is available, sharing economics of Tejas fleet.

Yeah, but earlier this thread or the last one (or the one before that) was in the context of MMRCA,
When Pepe reported it was many many months if not a year ago in the Brazilian FX-2 thread,
where comparisons to Eurofighter were irrelevant because EF was not in the FX-2 running any longer.
To my knowledge, nobody really took that claim as gospel then, much further than ´Rafale has lower RCS than SH´.
For it to be true, Rafale would need to have RCS on par with F-35, essentially.
Further, conflating actual RCS with any type of electronic jamming/cancellation is just daft in my book. Of course, jamming/cancellation is great, you can emphasize the reduction in detect/track distance that the electronics contribute, but you don´t mix up the two.
And to my knowledge, Pepe has not strongly defended that piece of info as rock-solid truth since then, either…

As to your RN article, all I can say is it comes down to how much F35 costs, and how that money could be spent towards VLO UCAVs and other platforms like persistent (lighter than air?) AWACS UAVs, etc. If those are within the budget anyways, F-35 is most realistic unless major political splits with the US are planned on as a possibility. But when is budget NOT going to be an issue, right? In that case, relying on other platforms (UAV) for stealth rather than giving those platforms up to have the so-so stealth of F-35 seems preferable… With the side-benefit of lining up future RN manned requirements with the MN whever Rafale is replaced. Hmm… Sounds like a new thread, eh? 😉

Please keep it on topic people…
How Russian plans for BSF correspond with wiping the floor with the Azeris if need be? OK.
But this isn´t even a capability comparison of two alleged Azeri force-structures vs. Russian BSF,
it seems like it´s bringing in some other debate re: MiG-35 from another thread completely.

I think the plans for BSF are definitely not over-kill, this is one of the most likely regions for Russia to actually face a war.
(Iran most likely if it gets into a hot war with Azeris and Russia feels helping Azeris out is to it´s interest…
Russian action against Azeris themselves or Turkmen is just as likely if not more IMHO.)

BTW, J-20, when you quote a line like this:

Azeris have been buying quite a few things from Russia lately, where have you been? Smerch, Mi-35, Tigr, etc.

and respond with:

yeah and the Chinese are claiming the Azeris are buying FC-1s too. So where are they?

That is going to read as a direct questioning of the plausibility of what he mentioned, you are setting up FC-1s as an equivalent to what he wrote. If you don´t want to be seen as ´questioning´ such things, don´t take cheap shots like that… Even if you want to under-cut another poster, if you aren´t seriously addressing what they are writing, don´t quote it.

Edited to add
– Ive done it again ive been suckered in havent I –

Life really is better when you make use of the Ignore List. 😉

There is no debate if you put GoldenPawn on Ignore.

this thread should end and a new Rafale vs Typhoon thread be opened, because that’s all it is now :diablo:

and yes I believe the Rafale unit price is cheaper..
but its parts and weapons systems are much more expensive, especially over the long term.

OK, first, are `life time weapons costs` included in this price comparison?
Personally, I rather doubt it. For one, it certainly could not be ´life time` but `the immediate near future`,
because what weaponry India will be using in 15 years is certainly not some fixed fact.
I personally think MoD will leave weapon purchases aside, certainly if they aren`t included in the MMRCA deal
(i.e. at maximum I see the inclusion of `basic weapon set` to allow training, assessment of standard weapon set)

The main higher price of Rafale`s weaponry is going to be MICA vs. ASRAAM/IRIS-T.
But with Meteor, there is really no reason why India need persist with MICA, and instead integrate some other weapon, e.g. IRIS-T.
India is developing it`s own LGB, and the Rafale is just as capable of using American weaponry as Typhoon.
If India feels the need to acquire AASM, that need would exist if it purchases Typhoon just as much,
and Rafale has more Amçerican A2G munitions currently integrated anyways..
And again, I don`t think weapon COSTS, i.e. of weapons themselves, will be dealt with at this stage,
the only thing that would be looked at is costs to have capabilities integrated, and that will favor Rafale.

What parts of Rafale are more expensive?
This in the context of independent Indian production, so zero advantage for larger Typhoon production run (EF partners aren`t going to liquidate their own workforce and industry capability to save money… if they were willing, they could have already done that by rationalizing EF production), and Rafale has already optimized it`s production techniques for a fleet equivalent to India`s MMRCA purchase. M88-ECO is almost certainly much cheaper than EJ200 to maintain. EF Partners want to reduce the maintenance costs, but how much credit can India give for `plans` to reduce costs?

All the signs I see are MoD saying `after the 2 remaining bidders` updated commercial bids are analyzed, the L1 bidder will be selected for detailed negotiations…`. The only hope for EF is if somehow offsets are factored into price, and they can massively win that… but I don`t really say that so much, Thales and Snecma (w/ interests in CFM) just have a hell of alot commercial interests they can invest in, and nobody is really going to take a loss just to get a win… Cassidian is already underperforming for EADS.

Hmmm… 18 thats only a fraction of the UK tranche 3b, even so that would be a maximum 14% reduction in the total price, not an insignificant number I’m sure you’ll agree, and possibly more due to other partner nations 3b units.

But 18 is already around the number of MMRCA that are allowed to be delivered from foreign assembly. If you start reducing european production beyond that, and switching it to Indian assembly lines, that starts drastically increasing the costs of european assembled birds once production numbers drop, reducing economics. The whole point with the situation of EF partner governments barely funding it is their budgets, so thinking that they will take a budget hit is wishful thinking IMHO… Especially for Spain, who doesn´t have as much industrial involvement in EF as the other partners. The attraction of finding export buyers is that it may bring down costs, so if it turns out to do exactly the opposite, I don´t there will be that much enthusiasm.

The life cycle costs is the big one (approx 60%) of total cost of ownership, The Typhoon was slated for a colossal figure for each flight hour, but that was when there were only a couple of dozen flying and all teh support cost were included, that figure is expected to come down with more airframes to a level similar to legacy aircraft.

CUrious, how exactly does Indian MoD account for ´expected to come down´, etc, etc? I mean, Rafale is offering the ECO engine, which is basically done and has extensive tests backing it up, so those figures are at least semi-solid, but on what basis could the MoD believe that EF maintenance costs (which are much more multi-faceted than simply the engine) will in fact reduce drastically (of course, they can expect their own costs to be higher at first, what with learning curve, but apart from that)? This is a serious question, is there some methodology for assessing risk in planned programs, assigning ´partial credit´, etc?