I stand corrected. Thank you.

It use to be: Rafale B : 10 450 kg. Rafale C : 9 850 kg. Rafale M : 10 196 kg.

Hence 450 kg (~900lb)

Source:
Wiki

A better source than Wiki: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale-334383/

says that the weight difference is “about 300 kg” and that they have “80% commonality”.

The Rafale is an amazingly good design, had it been made in the US it would have sold much more than the SH ever did (my guess is it would have even taken some of the F-15 sales, in addition to the SH exports, and perhaps even some of the latest F-16 sales).

Technologically it is surpassed only by the F-35 (and F-22 of course). A true 4.5 generation fighter with excellent sensors, EWS, LO, and true sensor fusion. The French have a good reason to be proud. The price is high, but it has to be since almost all components are made exclusively for the Rafale, in a high-cost country (France). C’est la vie.

Now back to the F-35:

In his last scathing report on the F-35, outgoing top Pentagon weapon tester Michael Gilmore gave early 2019 as an optimistic target date for initial operational test and evaluation. Even as the F-35 Joint Programme Office plans to reduce time in developmental testing in order to move ahead with IOT&E, Gilmore warns that hundreds of deficiencies will push full combat tests to late 2018 or early 2019 at the earliest.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hundreds-of-deficiencies-could-push-f-35-tests-to-2-433177/

Now it is up to F-35 team to prove him wrong!

I disagree, it would be highly disruptive, push up program costs and risk death spiral. Cutting 8% off the program is a crazy idea at this point…then again Trump is a bit of a wild card.

Look Trump is already into face saving, it is all talk and bluster.

Why would cutting 8% of the planned production number lead to a death spiral? It is also the one that has progressed the least — the other two have progressed much further and are closer to finalization. Also there are no international partners.

Fleet pilots say the violent vertical oscillations seen during carrier launches of the U.S. Navy’s F-35 variant are a safety concern, even as the Pentagon races to fix the …

Full story: http://aviationweek.com/defense/pilots-say-f-35-carrier-launch-problem-safety-concern

Perhaps one should soon expect to see an Advanced SH take on the F-35C?

Donald Trump moments ago!

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/trump-again-hints-at-f-35-f-18-competition

So perhaps he is really going to pitch the F-35C perhaps against the Advanced SH for the USN. And keep the B and A for the others.

AFAIK only the USN is interested in the C? Wheras Singapore, Israel, the UK, Italy and possibly Spain are into B’s? With As for the rest?

If they go for the Advanced SH they could switch to the 6. gen sooner, which may be what they want to do as well…

As you might be aware Saab had offered the C/D model together with the AEW package for the MRCA programme. They offered the C/D models as the E was not yet available. Now, with the MRCA programme pushed back to 2020, Saab’s offer now involved 18 of the E/F models. The new offer was made late last year to the Defence Ministry, industry sources told Malaysian Defence.

http://www.malaysiandefence.com/gripen-e-malaysia/

Because children like playing with paper airplanes. 😀

This is the best response I have seen for quite some time on this thread — now where is the Like button?

ahem.

Did anybody notice the posting I just posted, linking to the latest blog post of Hanche…?

You know, about the F-35?

Which is supposed to be ON-TOPIC?

(just wondering)

It was a widely reported story.

The FAB may have preferred the Gripen (the cost would make follow-on orders more likely), but Roussef was not legally or ethically bound by the FAB’s preferences. That’s where the political aspect comes in.

“Widely reported” rumor still makes it just a rumor.

I think Sintra is probably much closer to the situation in Brazil than you, and has a much better understanding of what is really going on.

This report is more in line with what Sintra is saying:

But it is important to take the Brazilian claim that its post-Snowden tensions with the United States are responsible for the rejection of the Boeing bid with a grain of salt. While former President Lula’s administration had favored the Rafale, the Rousseff government cited Dassault’s high price tag — $8 billion overall — as prohibitive. The Saab bid, by contrast, totals $4.5 billion. This reflects the lower capabilities of the single-engine Gripen, which has a*31,000 lb maximum takeoff weight compared to the twin-engine Rafale and Super Bug’s*54,000 lb and*66,000 lb, respectively. While an advanced aircraft, the Gripen is not in the same class as the Rafale*or*Super Hornet.

Given that the Boeing deal was priced at $7.5 billion for an aircraft far more similar to the Rafale than the Gripen, this suggests that the Super Hornet was rejected for cost or technology transfer issues rather than simply political reasons. Brazil faces no major external threats and enjoys good relations with its neighbors, which is reflected in its erratic and at 1.5 percent of GDP comparatively-low defense spending, lower than its BRIC peers (Brazilian defense spending as a percentage of GDP is neither high nor low by South American standards, though it is far higher in absolute terms).With limited resources and this mild defense outlook, it is entirely plausible that Brazil judged the smaller, lighter, and more affordable Saab Gripen as sufficient for its needs. If this is the case, then comments that Brazilian anger over the Snowden revelations influenced the decision are most likely an opportune jab at America.

https://smokeandstir.org/2013/12/18/gripens-to-brazil-what-role-did-snowden-play/