Sorry, the Typhoon is not more capable than the F-35 in any sense of the word.

Do you mean that an aircraft that was designed primarily to excel as a fighter at supersonic speeds is in all ways less capable of doing so than an aircraft designed primarily to excel as a strike aircraft?

As a matter of fact Typhoon production will end just as the Lightning starts………………

Nobody knows when the Lightning will start. Nobody knows when Typhoon production will end – production of another 50+ Typhoon frames for Arabia seems very possible; India might want 125+ frames; Greece might want 50+…

Well, the supporter of the LCA never seem to see the end of the tunnel??? As it stands at this very moment the program has been in development for nearly 30 years and its own Air Force considers it as totally unexceptable……..:

Correct me if I am wrong but the LCA has suffered from capability creep, hasn’t it? If you keep altering or increasing capability requirements whatever has been designed to meet your earlier specified capability automatically becomes unacceptable.

Dont forget that LM posts f-35 prices in 2002 dollars.

How many per cent would one need to add to the “To Comp” price highlighted to get a price in 2014 dollars? 20% / 30% / 40%? Even $79 million + 20% is over $95 million. Is the US govt really going to subsidise Norway to the tune of $35+ million per frame?

This sounds cloud cuckooland stuff to me. What would the reaction be if the US govt said to a Boeing 737 customer that it would would subsidise the purchase price to ensure it was cheaper than the A320?

You make many valid observations. I can’t comment directly since the system won’t let me quote your post for some reason.

It appears that the only people who believe in the $58 million firm F-35 flyaway cost are determined LM supporters unwilling to be swayed by any of the evidence and pointers to the contrary.

As far as Norway is concerned, its intention to wait until 2014 to sign a contract does mean that it has a period of grace in which it can scrap its choice should a re-evaluation show that the F-35 would be far, far more expensive to procure and operate than the doctored figures in the first evaluation would leave the Norwegian public and parliament to believe.

Certainly Brazil is a very good chance as the FAB already operates the Mirage 2000, Dassault is offering a very attractive package and The Super Hornet is probably too much aircraft for what they want, the main threat is Gripen which offers a very affordable package.

What can the Super Hornet do that the Rafale cannot do? And pricewise if the Australians were not taken to the cleaners with their 24 plus support deal @ US$200+ million per airframe, I think the Rafale would be cheaper.

India is really a must win for a Dassault, the other Western types on offer (Typhoon, Gripen and F16) don’t fit easily into Indias ORBAT as they don’t share any weapons or logistical equipment for the current fleet. Rafale would share with the Mirage 2000 logistic chain in place, Dassault is offering an amazing offset package including support (and possibly integration) of the Kaveri.

I think it would make sense to buy a Kaveri engined Rafale, if possible. India would then have a common engine – assuming the SNECMA deal goes ahead – for Tejas (post first 20 GE powered aircraft), Rafale and MCA (if pursued). However, IIRC the SNECMA joint venture upgrade to Kaveri is expected to take 5+ years. Could India wait 5+ years for a new MMRCA?

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Firiks%2Farticle2798506.ece&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en

“Fighter acquisition will Norway to the memory bit of a banana republic,” said Robert Hewson, editor of the military magazine Jane’s.

I bet that’s not what he said. I bet he said something in English.:)

There seems to be a fair amount of speculation and some accusations in this thread. People are free to think and say almost whatever they want, of course, but I don’t see why some people have the need to come up with unfounded accusations.

Internal and external evaluations confirm that the F-35 is the only aircraft which meets the requirements set by Norway. RNoAF fighter pilots seem to be very pleased with the choice. I trust these people. Blame me as much as you want.

The question here is – are the accusations unfounded? You think so and I beg to disagree.

A) When the swedish government calculates operational costs based on expericence of 120 000 logged flight hours of their Gripens and the norwegian government comes up with operational costs 250% higher than – this you get confused.

B) When you add the fact that Eurofighter team left the tender because they thought it was biased in favor of the winner JSF – you get even more interested.

C) On top of this experts from for example Jane’s thought that Gripen NG suited Norwegian needs better than JSF.

Don’t get me wrong. Norway has all the rights to choose whatever fighter you want. But if you want to go for a political choice rather than a fair tender – tell your neighbours and friends – and stand up for that decision.

[/QUOTE]

I have the impression that some “controlling mind” or set of “controlling minds” was desperate to make sure that the F-35 would win the cost contest between the 2 candidates and went ridiculously far in pursuing that end. I find such a disparity in estimated Gripen costs quite, quite implausible. More like impossible.

If “controlling minds” in Norway wanted to select the F-35 from the start, fine. A bit blinkered. That’s their own problem. But producing figures that make the unwanted candidate’s product appear many times more expensive than historical data indicates it should be is neither ethical nor constructive.

Norway has done itself no favours in apparently subjecting SAAB costs to an absurd degree of massaging. Until a detailed explanation is forthcoming, I think almost nobody will believe that the evaluation was anything more than a pre-ordained sham.

I await the release of details in the debrief with interest.