If, you want to compare Capability vs Price the Super Hornet is hard to beat.

Then why has it sold so poorly outside the USN? Unlike Dassault, Boeing can hardly blame it on politics?

As for the Super Hornet winning the FX2. A month ago I would have likely agreed with you. Yet, the New Brazilian Government is taking another look and the Air Force prefers the Super Hornet. So, the Super Hornet is clearly in the fight……plus the Rafale is very expensive! Clearly, a big factor for Brazil.

Correction: according to Hammer, the Air Force was split; one fraction preferred the SH whereas another preferred the NG. In any case it will not be the FAB that decides, but the politicians. Therefore, as already stated, it will be industrial and political factors that will decide.

However I agree that the FX2 race is now open, IMHO any of the three has some strong cards and may win; Rafale due to the strategic defence partnership and “independence” from US/UK; SH may be chosen to improve relations to the US, and NG may be chosen because it is cost-effective and offer some good industrial opportunities for Brazilian industry. My guess is either Rafale of NG will win.

The Gripen would be cheaper no doubt. Yet, it’s less capable and not near as mature…….

The capabilities of NG will no doubt come as a surprise to you…;)

The reason why F-16 keeps selling whereas SH has sold only 24 outside the USN is that most countries are (for the time being) happy with the performance of the F-16, and it’s cheaper.

Keep in mind SH has been marketed for sale for quite some time now. It’s not like Boieng waited for FOC before they started talking to prospective customers. Just like LM started sales campaigns of F-35 years ago… Still only one SH export…. terrible sales figures for a US company… SH may win in India but apart from that it looks pretty bleak.

Therefore if you simply divide the project costs by the number of aircraft and consider each aircraft has 2x engines you get a unitary cost of $8m per engine. Now this is wrong, because it doesn’t include the support package or PBL contract, but even so, adding the airframe and engine unitary costs, shows that Australia payed less than $65m per aircraft.

Not a bad price considering the capability being delivered…

True however a single engine Gripen NG will be even cheaper — and operating costs will be lower.

There is probably a reason why the SH has not sold much outside the USN….

What about comparing to the French Forces?

Both UK and French Forces have nuclear weapons, and nuclear subs. Both have aircraft carrier. And both are European high-cost countries.

I believe also the French Forces are professionals?

AFAIK the French Forces also perform operations far away but perhaps less than the UK?

Are the French and UK numbers comparable in terms of what they include?

According to Wiki the 2009 expenditures were as follows:
UK:
69,271,000,000 USD
France:
67,316,000,000 USD

Perhaps the reason why there seems to be a big discrepancy is that the above figures are historical figures; after all the UK has had a rather large air force, navy and army (and still does) but this will change dramatically, and presumably also the expenditures will drop dramatically as well?

Saying NG has higner probability to export because C/D exports is like saying Rafale will export because Mirage 2000 did. Or saying it wont because Mirage 4000 did not. In short it makes little sense as an argument

No it’s not — Mirage 2000, Gripen C/D and Gripen NG are all single-engine, light-weight fighters. They tend to sell. Twin-engine fighters like Rafale is always a much harder sell.

If his argument was that a fighter with components from many different countries will not sell then that is refuted by using the current Gripen C/D as an example.

Had Rafale been a “Mirage 2000 NG” perhaps it would have sold already, e.g. it would probably have won the original MMRCA competition in India…

well, considering they probably won’t be exporting subs, they should’ve been gone else where for them, because, in fighter business, they get dependent on france with the rafale, or dependend on swede, USA, italy, UK and god only know who else with the gripen NG

just look at the european nonsense when they need to get everybody to agree upon a decision.. now imagine that for brasil who wants to export its new fighter…

Well, consider that Gripen has been exported to South Africa, Hungary, Czheckia, and Thailand, I think the probability of sucessfully exporting NG will be much larger than the probability of exporting Rafale…

What “european nonsense” are you refering to, by the way?

Never said the F-35 would never suffer a lost. Just that its Performance is only surpassed by the F-22.

Currently it’s performance is probably surpassed by most 4. gen fighters out there — because the F-35 is still being developed.. 😉

Perhaps you meant to say “its performance (once it’s ready) will only be surpassed by the F-22”.

However that statement may or may not hold for very long. F-35 will be amazing, but how will it fare compared to PAK FA and J-20? That will be the more interesting discussion. Alas it will be very hypothetical discussion until those 3 a/c are actually ready….