@Arthuro,
I think you confuse the development stage of radars like the ES/05A Raven and Captor-E with the overall efforts in the AESA fighter radar business here. Selex, Thales and EADS Defence Electronics (at its time GEC, DASA and Thomson-CSF) started the AMSAR programme back in 1993. There were possibly even earlier national efforts in that direction. AMSAR was concluded at the end of 2008 and there were a couple of other programmes ongoing. Do you know how many engineers were involved in all those projects and how much money has been spent? Are you aware of the fact that Selex is also responsible for the Vixen series and the ARTS. I think you apply the wrong measure here. There was certainly more dedication to an AESA radar for the Rafale, than for the Gripen or Typhoon, but that doesn’t tell you about the overall efforts and experience of the respective manufacturers in that area.

It is doubtfull that SAAB/Selex could come as easily and so quickly with a credible radar.

It’s not like Saab and Selex weren’t working on AESA tech or didn’t invest nothing. Look at how long NORA was proposed by the Swedes (Erricson now Saab). Selex is what earlier was GEC Ferranti, so not just yesterdays experience.

@Sens,
I spoke about payload not weapons load. Payload includes ETs, pods etc. as well.

@Paralay,
the F-15Es empty weight is reportedly 14379 kg for the original version. Additional equipment may have added some weight, but the 16550 kg figure you state likely includes the CFTs and possibly even decoys, gun ammo, dispensables… Internal fuel load is 6105 kg+~5000 kg for the CFTs.

At the end it is not of much relevance either, the Su-34 is a different design more a hybrid between tactical striker and strategic bomber. It is much larger and heavier than the F-15E. The Su-30MK is a better suited for a comparison.
But if you go this way the F-15E has up to 19 HPs, 6 alone on each CFT. You can easily load 4 x AAMs, 2 x pods, 3 x ETs and a dozen 227 kg bombs. There is the option to use the outer wing pylons as well if the need arises.

More important are the weapon options, sensors and avionics than the exact number of weapons or payload weight.

Known within a small margin of error. As I have already said, flight tests are to verify/confirm performance/characteristics NOT learn of them.

Deviations can occur on a fair margin. You can’t simulate/calculate everything. And of course you also learn from the flight tests about things you haven’t thought about or you weren’t able to predict accurately.

Well the F-15E can ferry 5745km without aerial refueling. The Su-34 can ferry 6000km with 2 aerial refuelings..

Apples and oranges. The Su-34 flew a simulated strike mission, were there any drop tanks carried at all? Max range on internal fuel is stated with 4000 km, but this has little meaning for combat range as such. You compare the theoretical max range of the F-15E with 3 x 600 G tanks and 2 x CFT in optimal cruise condition with a strike mission of the Su-34 with a weapons load and possibly not even EFTs.

The Su-30MKIs top speed is stated with mach 2, not mach 2.3 and this is mainly owed to the higher drag of the risen canopy not the canards. Climb rate is stated with 230 m/sec for this model and the combat weight of the MKI isn’t 39t either, that’s the MTOW with overload. And the Rafale and M2k just being 1.2 to 2.2t lighter? Lol

To put this i prespective
One of Gripens biggest designgoals was to be at least 40% cheaper than Saab Viggen. Viggen was in its time, cheaper than F-16A.

Gripen C/D was to be cheaper than A/B (probably less service intensive, better supplychain, avionics etc).

And a designgoal for Gripen E/F(SwAF NG) is to be cheaper than C/D (Think this is the last step from 3000USD to 2500USD). Which probably not be any problem due to PESA vs AESA(gracius degradation) and RM12 vs F414G.

Due to this is a big design goal(with its type validation), and sweden have a rather cost sensitive to its defenceexpences. I dont think they could ever got away with any hidden costs. Remember this is SwAF that calculated these costs, not SAAB.

I doubt that the Gripen NG will get cheaper to operate, it is heavier and has a more powerful and thereby thirsty engine which alone will increase the fuel costs. The AESA radar might reduce the operating costs, whether there will be any significant savings due the new engine is questionable. Anyway I doubt this figure includes everything necessary to operate the aircraft from front to end. But feel free to believe what you want.