i havent seen it untill now for active radar guided missile.

It must be related to the fact that since the clinton administration, killingthe european military industryis a priority.

even if you mix 50:50 old and new the price comes to around $53m. but it does not include the $2B development cost of radar, ew suite. also they were flying mirages for 2 decades. F-16 is complete new machine for them. M2K-9 for newly built is no less than F-16E in price range. and you are comparing it to very cheap F-16blk52+.

The F-16 isn’t the super cheap fighter that everyone knows since the F-16A.
The fact that these guys use old mirage isn’t THAT important you know.
totally different avionics, totally new training …..

how is F-16Blk52+ or F-16E is five years from now? it is already fully developed planes like M2K-9.

You weren’t talking of mirage or falcon but mmissiles.

So do you think M2K-9 is less than $75million? you forget to mention that this $75m includes every thing from training to infrastructure. M2K-9 user already has these two things to begin with and still it is very expensive. export version of Rafale is even more.

Prove it !!!
UAE bought 33 mirage -9 + the upgrade of 30 mirage to he -9 standard + black shaheen many more for 34 billions of french francs.
A brand new Super rafale for an AF who hasn’t a single french aircraft is around these 75 millions.

Because Mirage is available with MICA EM and IIR version. so you have to compare current weopons not some thing in future or probabilities.

The USAF want to buy F-35 and F-22,which aren’t rady yet.
The french AF want tobuy Rafale F3 whicharen’t ready yet.
The RAF want to buy Typhoon tranche 3 which aren’t ready yet.
Korea bought F-15K which weren’t ready at that time.
Do you see the pattern ?
You can’t buy a plane availble in 4 or 5 years by a comparison using 2005 capabilities.

that $8b involves $2B worth of weopons. the same you can add weopon cost to M2K. M2K-9 new built is much more expensive than F-16E let alone advance F-16C/D.

I know that the mirage 2000 is expensive but stop that please. The AESA and all new sub systems used by the block 60 aren’t free.
80 block 60 for 6 billions ? So 75 millions per planes.
Still very expensive, and, as I said, on rafale prices range.
The Rafale was the less expensives planes in the Koean shortlist (and with the AESA 😀 )

M2K-5 with MICA is inferior to F-16A(AIM-120C, AIM-9X) combination.

France like the concept of versatile system, and it’s right to point that MICA hasn’t the range of the AIM 120 or the boresight capabilities of the AIM-9X.
But from an IAF point of view, the comparison would be more like MICA-Python 4.
But still, perhaps the newer version of the AIM-120 allowed to regain some differences in pure range, I would like to know the real difference.

RDY-2 is nothing more than SAR mode to RDY while APG-68V9 has much greater improvement over APG-66V2 of F-16MLU.

Sorry, it’s wrong.
The electronic has been update and is way smaller so that the size of the antenna has been icrease for a higher output and a better sensibility.
The detection range is said to be 15% better.

A comparison with a block 60 is pointless I think.
Sure, it’s way better than a miage 2000 but it’s asexpensive as a Rafale 🙂

That datasheet was an early one from Dassault. Well, it was inthe cold war period when France assumed that our ally would easily allowed us to adapt weapons suchlike the AMRAAM and so on.

Which country in Europe has found the optimum balance between socialism and capitalism, is it UK or some other country.

I would say Sweden

The F3 won’t have M88-3 engines.

Well, it’s too early to say if the active RBE2 or the new radar of the eurofighter will have a noticiable gap of performance.

I thikn the Spectra will be quite a good point for the rafale.

Since both RCS must be close, well, very very hard to tell I think.

Over G
The EF200 is more unstable.
The rafale has been made as a multirole since the begining, meanwhile the Typhoon was a pure interceptor.