The issue is that the gripen c costing was compared with F-16, FA-18, typhoon and rafale, but gripen fans took it for cheaper than everything including golden eagles.

You can compare the current gripen c being offered, and the current F-16, whether it is upgraded or brand new. IMO the only advantage of gripen c for now is the integration of the Meteor missile.

Ananda, i understand that you are from Indonesia,

Define “huge” upgrade to FA-50 and care to comment on the Gripen C evaluation by Switzerland?

http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale/pdf/12332.pdf

I don’t have any illusion that the FA-50 is just a lightweight fighter, but a lot of people have an illusion that the Gripen C is not a lightweight fighter and is better than a Hornet or a Viper. PAF is not going to have FA-50 as its MRF anyway as it is already choosen for the SAA/LIFT platform. Even if KAI builds the F-50, it would still be a lightweight fighter, not in the same league as Hornets, Vipers and such.

I am absolutely not making your point.

I don’t quote the FAB contract as the FAB gripen e does not take into consideration the final cost with the 25 year loan by saab that is needed to pay off the program. Saab sales has already put the 25 year loan into consideration when they put out the contract cost.

You can argue all the fine details of brand new gripen e vs new f-16v, but for the philippines, even the gripen c is barely affordable for them, what more a gripen e.

So in the phillipines case for MRF
1. Brand new lightweight fighters like gripen c, fc-1, tejas gives little performance advantage over its current FA-50. Swiss evaluation puts the gripen c performance below its current f/a-18s so it is not something on par with hornets or vipers.
2. Brand new medium fighters like gripen e, f-16v, super hornets while performs better than the gripen c, fc-1, tejas, they are way beyond what they can afford.

True,

But im putting that out to show that 200hours annually is what people fly. So with SLEP, the F-16 could be flown for as long as what people fly brand new fighters for. Check my post #21 for links on F-16 new increased fatigue life. All this info on the increased life of the F-16 with the SLEP to 13,856 hours, which from the solicitation is a minor upgrade of the F-16 airframe, costing about 1.5 million usd in parts, is only known in 2017. So a lot of prior studies did not take this into account as it is simply unavailable at that time. Now with the previously unthinkable high remaining flight hours of F-16 platform, which i think is unmatchable by any other fighter, with its wide range of tried and tested weapons, electronics suite, AESA radar, conformal tanks, IMO it would be foolish for any cash strapped air force to pick anything other than the F-16 for their MRF.

In the philippines context, if they want to save money, they could always fly their SSA/LIFT platform more, which from botswana’s KAI offer is said to have 1/3rd of gripen life cycle costs. The more expensive MRF F-16 platform could be flown less, for QRA and important strategic patrols in spratlys area, which requires long legs. F-16 with conformal tanks would be ideal for such missions, saving fuel costs with less drag than small fighters needing external tanks. Take also into account the swiss gripen c evaluation, which is a more representative comparison rather than saabs glossy brochures, that put its performance worse than their current F/A-18C/D in various mission profiles.

https://quwa.org/2017/08/24/korea-aerospace-industries-pushes-fa-50-gripen-botswana-combat-aircraft-bid/

This is in the case of comparing the used F-16c/d with the newish gripen c. If you take the gripen E/F into account, you could even get brand new F-16V for less than the gripen E/F. Bahrain is getting 19 new F-16V with weapons, and support (10 advisers and 75 contract technicians) for 2.785 billion usd. Compare to the old swiss offer of 22 gripen E/F for 3.5 billion usd. In any case that is an amount the philippines could barely afford. And there would be very little difference in capability between a new F-16V and used F-16C/D upgraded to V standards. So it would be an acceptable tradeoff to go for used.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/government-bahrain-f-16v-aircraft-support

It is not just some parts. Almost all parts except the airframe is used.

Obviously remaining life of used F-16 now is not like other used fighters. When you compare with the F-16 that is now tested and certified to be able to go to 13,856 hours, which is like twice the equivalent life of other fighters, there is no disadvantage in getting used F-16s.

Flying hours.

A normal air force outside USAF usually fly about 200 hours annually for each of their fighters. For example australian hornets, used since 1984, has on average 6,000 hours when it is to be retired in a few years time. This link on hungary’s gripen, has them flying only 2,000 hours annually for 14 aircraft, which is just like 150 hours annually for each airframe.

https://www.upi.com/Hungary-gets-more-flight-time-on-leased-Gripen-fighters/7041487789472/

So even if you pull out an airframe from davis-monthan with an acumulated 6,000 hour example, after putting it through SLEP and upgrades with plenty of new parts, you are still getting a better deal than with the gripen c.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2017/March%202017/March%2021%202017/USAF-Regenerates,-Delivers-F-16s-to-Indonesia.aspx

Let say the used F-16 has 6,000 hours minus 13,856 hours available. That is 7,856 hours remaining, and if you fly 200 hours annually, that is 39 years worth of service.

USAF themselves are planning to use 300-489 the F-16s up till 2048 and beyond. That is a confirmation of a major user flying the F-16 to at least 30 years from now. So no issue of supportability, and assured upgrade options up till 2048 for sure.