1425 for the Typhoon by the way.

1620+ for the F-35

Well, Norwegians obviously do..

Do you have a source handy?
btw, The Norwegian contest was with the Gripen “NG”, not the Gripen “C”.

I know that there was an RFI process that all the suppliers agreed to as part of the process.

There is no “supposed” lifetime, it’s what each supplier claimed. On that issue, the F-35A has complete its third “lifetime” of stress testing to verify its claims, has the EF done anything similar?

Multiple recent foreign contests have shown that the F-35 is cheaper to buy, maintain, & upgrade than the Eurofighter. I am sure the Belgian program will show the same. One thing that may not show in the Belgian decision is that the bid is for a fixed number of airframes and support through 2030. As the Denmark decisdion shows, the EF will “wear out” 2000 (25%) hours sooner than F-35 and will need either extensive (ie very expensive) rebuilds or more airframes to share the load. These future costs are not reflected in the Belgian RFP but may appear in the final decision.

Even if you break the above down on a per-airframe price, the EF was more expensive. One of the key drivers that make the EF’s lifetime cost so much more is that the Eurofighter is only a 6000-hour airframe while the F-35 is an 8000-hour airframe in addition to the Eurofighter’s higher maint cost.

The estimated life-cycle costs are lowest for the Joint Strike Fighter, second-lowest for the Super Hornet and the highest for the Eurofighter. The reason is primarily that the airframe of the Joint Strike Fighter is designed to be capable of flying 8,000 hours, whereas the Eurofighter and the Super Hornet are both designed to fly 6,000 hours. In order to perform the required portfolio of tasks over a period of 30 years, fewer Joint Strike Fighter airframes are therefore required compared to the Eurofighter or the Super Hornet. The calculations in the economic model have identified a need for 28 Joint Strike Fighter airframes, 34 Eurofighter airframes and 38 Super Hornet airframes, respectively, in order to perform the same portfolio of tasks. Another reason is that the Super Hornet is a two-seat aircraft, which implies a greater need for flight instruction hours and training of crews than the Eurofighter and the Joint Strike Fighter. Furthermore, the Eurofighter has higher maintenance costs per flight hour than the Joint Strike Fighter and the Super Hornet. The procurement price per aircraft is the highest for the Eurofighter.

http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf

Don’t forget that replacing the Tornado means primarily doing strike missions (with EFTs and LGBs not to mention flight profiles) which wear out airframe hours quicker than A2A missions (with semi-conformal AAMs).

I am hoping that Finland & Belgium (and someday Canada, lol) are as open when they make their decisions.

Just for reference, here is the Belgian RFP.
http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/default/files/articles/Request%20for%20Government%20Proposal_0.pdf

Yup…

there are those who back the F35 who have said that countries who don’t buy it aren’t supporting NATO.

Then they are wrong.

Correct.. Sorry for missing that clarification.

kinematic rival that of Meteor

Given that it has the motor equiv of a 9X, it does not come close to the Meteor.