“Saab is to modify 60 Gripen C fighters to the enhanced E-model configuration for the Swedish air force”

So it says, and if true, will offer less performance than a new built.
An alternative is that the wording was meant for domestic consumption, so the entire airframe will be new built, with new electronic architecture,
and only ejection seat and a few other items will carry over.

That alternative interpretation is my understanding – that the Swedish public find the notion of “modification” of existing Gripens more palatable than new builds, presumably because it sounds less expensive. If the reality of the proposal is to build new frames but to cannibalise existing aircraft for serviceable components, that does make sense to me. For example, why buy a new ejector seat if there is a perfectly good one already available?

In the case of engine for AMCA (& also for Tejas MK2, if it can be done… as the deal for F414 have not yet been closed)… choose the Klimov route than the “free” sanction, unreliable and pocket ripping route.

True, tere is no official publicity on the development and is no where in sight…

Too late for Tejas Mk2 IMO.

In the case of engine for AMCA (&This article from May 2007 says Klimov started the development of the 5th Gen engine in 2006. If funding for this 5th Gen engine was not in priority list till now (which is likely), then the recent news of LMFS will give us a hint that the Russsian Govt funding is going to come in for the project in the future.

This new engine is likely to be based on the RD-33MK (which is a new engine anyway) but with a new 5th Gen core with thrust upto 12t. If they can manage to keep the dry weight at the current 1055Kg, then even better.

Cost of new engine is hard to speculate. But one thing is clear it will be considerably cheaper than the Western engines.

Sounds like an option worth considering.

Your guess is as good as mine. No announcement has been made on whether kaveri would be definitely used on the prototype.

I thought that development of Kaveri as an aero engine had been abandoned after the SNECMA re-work proposal fell through.

If a Advanced-Medium-Combat-Aircraft can be made available by 2018…

Less than 4 years to design and build and get it into the air?

Your wrong the F-35 will be every competitive in price. Especially, when compared to well equipped and highly capable 4.5 Generation Fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-16 Blk 60 Viper.

“Will be”… If I have a fleet of 600 trucks and need to start replacing them in 2017 I need to know the price of replacement trucks in 2017. If a manufacturer needs 2 years to build them, I need to sign a contract in 2015. Before signing a contract I need time to consider what is on offer in an informed manner. If a manufacturer cannot in good time give me a firm price for delivery in 2017 I should not be dealing with him. Being reassured by a manufacturer that the projected price for his trucks will be lower years after I need to buy them is of little interest to me.

Now, Scooter et al, what is the price of F-35A for delivery in 2017? Is it $150+ million? $150 million? $125 million? $100 million? Less than $100 million? You don’t know, do you? LM don’t know, do they? Yet you assert that unquestionably the best thing for the European F-16 users to do (where their armed forces biggest ticket item is an F-16 replacement) is to commit to F-35 whatever the cost.

Speaking of…
F15 empty weight: 12’700kg, dry thrust 130KN
F35 empty weight: 13’300kg, dry thrust 125KN

Basically Norway is getting a fighter in the same class as an F15 (at least when counting weight and thrust).

I think that the basic problem for European F-16 users (with the exception of Norway) is that the F-35 is not what it was touted to be – an F-16 replacement. It is the absence of any US aircraft suitable as an F-16 replacement that has caused those countries big, big problems in selecting a replacement. If they want to buy American they have the option of choosing a much more expensive aircraft (F-35) or… nothing. This is a little bit like a Boeing 737 user being told by Boeing that it is developing a replacement and then discovering soon before it needs new metal that the replacement on offer is the 787. Far more capable, indeed, but guaranteed to put the airline out of business if what is needed is a 737 replacement.

Can anyone dig up the figures for the Swiss F-18 C/D and F-5 and before Someone comes up with F-18 C/D is not the same as E/F it will still be nice to see how Gripen stands up when when next to what the Swiss pay for F-18 & F-5 as this is what Brazil is about to do swap F-5 for Gripen the same as the Swiss

The big problem I find with any figures given by countries is that they are not usually expressed as marginal cost of flying a type for an additional 1 hour (additional fuel & maintenance costs compared with leaving the aircraft in the hangar). If other costs are included it becomes extremely difficult to compare costs of different types. For example let’s say it costs $20 million a year to operate a base from which 1 x F-15 flies 1,000 hours a year and 1 x F-16 flies a 1,000 hours per year. Including the cost of basing in cost per hour to fly each type will distort the cost of flying each type considerably and always work against the type which costs less in fuel and maintenance per hour flown when the 2 types are compared eg

F-15 cost = $10 million basing + $15 million cost of actually flying = $25 million total = $25,000 per hour
F-16 cost = $10 million basing + $7.5 million cost of actually flying = $17.5 million total = $17,500 per hour

Is this apples to apples comparison of $25,000 per hour for F-15 and $17,500 per hour for F-16 in any way helpful in trying to choose between buying one or other of the types (unless the basing cost is known)?