Israel will likely be flying against MiG-21s and F-4s at best, assuming the group they choose to attack even has an airforce, which usually it doesn’t. In fact it’s been 31 years since they fought an enemy that even had fighter jets and 40 years since it last had to ‘defend’ itself.

Mig-29s and Mig-25s in Syria, Mig-29s and F-14s in Iran, F-16s in Egypt and soon in Iraq, F-15s in Saudi, Mig-29s in Sudan…

I also suppose it depends how you define “fought an enemy” given that Israel has executed multiple air strikes against targets in both Syria and Sudan in recent years, both of which have Mig-29s.

So basically you are way off target.

er… serbia had half a dozen (yes, 6) Mig-29s which received no upgrades nor vital parts for almost ten years… they had most of the times radars that didn’t work, RWR systems that were just about the same and with that half a dozen aircraft they had about 300 latest tech aircraft against them… supported by AWACS and so on while serbia couldn’t start a radar without drawing attention to it attracting a HARM shot almost automatically… so, basically: six almost modern (non supported) aircraft, taking off pretty miuch blind against 300 aircraft having a full picture of what was going on, and you consider an achievement they didn’t score? (shots they did take a couple, but the shooting mig got shot in return)

There haven’t been a lot of examples of combat between modern fighters in the last twenty years, so people spend a great deal of time putting the few available examples under the microscope.

I never said it was a fair fight, nor even that they had a chance of somehow winning. Nonetheless, the AMRAAM (and the rest of the system) did exactly what it was designed to do in real world combat and there is no reason to think the outcome would have been appreciably different if Serbia had had 60 Mig-29s instead of six.

It is a limited example, but in this case the AMRAAM showed itself to be an extremely effective weapon.

Of course it depends on what you count in your estimation. No matter if you have a single jet or hundred of them, you still have to pay the guy that sweeps the runway at the same cost.

My point exactly. If you compare the total cost of operating three squadrons of Gripens compared to the total cost associated with operating three squadrons of Rafales, the difference will be far smaller (as a percentage) than people on the internet tend to believe based solely on reported operating costs.

It is fair to say that the Gripen is cheaper than the Rafale, it is. (though not by 50% once all costs are counted) The problem is when people then make the leap to claiming “I would prefer to have 6 squadrons of Gripens than 3 squadrons of Rafales.” The math doesn’t come close to supporting that.

Note that Jane’s study compared (estimated) apples to (estimated) apples, but the final results indeed depends on the limit of the study.

http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes

The Jane’s study faild, and I am honestly kind of surprised they put it out there given how glaring some of the errors are.

Any time you start grabbing numbers from difference sources, with different agendas, you are getting onto shaky ground.

Within the Jane’s study they show CPFH of $11,000 and $21,000 for the Super Hornet, $21,000 and $31,000 for the F-35, and $8,200 and $18,000 for the Eurofighter, all of these depending on the source and assumptions. (Even within the US government the operating costs of the F-35 are a hot topic with estimates varying widely.)

They state that they believe the $8,200 cost per flight hour of the Eurofighter represents fuel only, yet they list the Gripen at $4,700 per flight hour. The Gripen has 41% of the Eurofighter’s dry thrust. 11,000/(13,500*2) Assuming equal efficiency, the Gripen’s fuel costs would be about $3,400 per flight hour. (8,200*.41) That would leave just $1,300/hour for everything else associated with operating the Gripen. Sorry, that just isn’t plausible.

It would also mean that Jane’s believes that 46% (8,200/18,000) of the Eurofighter’s total cost per flight hour is fuel, but that 72% of the Gripen’s costs (3,400/4,700) are fuel. Or another way of putting it, ignoring fuel costs for both (fuel cost should be the Gripen’s biggest advantage) you can operate ~7.5 Gripens for each Eurofighter. (18,000-8,200)/(4,700-3,400)

These numbers simply aren’t plausible.

That’s also why the primary factor when evaluating airplane costs is the one that is directly dependent of the jets and it’s related equipement, since you can’t lower costs on the fixed airbase costs easily (hence the shrinking number of airplane in most air forces).

It depends what you are trying to calculate. Both numbers are valid in the proper context. The problem is when people start mixing the two.

Says @hopsalot,
meanwhile, RTAF says F-16 cost twice as much & Su-30 four times as much, SweAF says F-18 etc cost about 4 times as much,
You already saw Janes study, i’m pretty sure i read Swiss claim three times lower cost, SAAB claim F-18 is about four times more costly to operate,
while F-35 is expected to cost 5 times more.

It all depends what you count and how. That is where the Jane’s “study” failed. They grabbed a bunch of numbers from different sources, but they were not compared on an apples to apples basis.

Just because you see a claim that plane X costs half as much to operate as plane Y, which may actually be true under certain conditions, doesn’t mean you can actually operate two squadrons of plane X for the cost of one squadron of plane Y.

That is why you don’t see buyers lining up around the block for Gripens or other extremely low cost options. (If the Swiss deal goes through it will be the first purchase of the Gripen by an export buyer that was not operating within extreme budgetary pressures.) Simply manning, training, basing, etc a unit costs a huge amount of money, thus even if you are flying an inexpensive jet the costs of having the unit are still substantial.

That being the case most forces choose to spend somewhat more and get a more capable aircraft.

Yes, you are right since the global cost includes many variables. I was however not explicitly referring to Jane’s costs study here, but to the public report of the Swiss Security committee. We don’t have absolute value here, but there are “enormous differences” when comparing the operating costs and life cycle costs estimated by the SAF (which include everything but “future technical development costs”), which have been a “determinant criteria when choosing the airplane”. Just to give an idea, we had various numbers quoted in the media, ranging from 5000 CHF/flight hour to 22’00CHF/h, both of which are correct depending on what you include in the calculation (the latter include everything, such as personnel salaries and depreciation of SAF buildings).

Your others numbers are somewhat interesting, but utterly useless to make any LCC comparison I’m afraid.

The numbers I provided illustrate two things, that while the Gripen may be cheaper to buy its advantage is not nearly so large as people tend to claim it is. The French offered to provide 18 Rafales for the price of 22 Gripens.(including the equipment required by Switzerland) Those numbers also illustrate the great variability that is possible within a package depending on what is included.

The Gripen’s operating costs are also lower than those of the Rafale or pretty much any other modern jet for that matter, but again, not to the extent people here tend to claim. If you limit your calculation to nothing more than fuel, lubricants, tires, etc, then the Gripen will be half or less of the cost of many of its competitors, but that is only part of the picture. Once you add back in everything associated with running a fighter squadron the Gripen will retain an advantage, but a smaller one.

Bottom line, you can’t buy and operate two squadrons of Gripens for the cost of buying and operating one squadron of Rafales (the ratio people around here like to throw out) because the costs of basing/maintaining/manning a squadron are substantial even before you consider the acquisition and operating costs of the jets themselves.