So Maths looks harder for you than for me… so tell me which part you didn’t get instead of trying to escape. 6 billion for 24 F18 or 9 billion for 36 Rafale. Please tell us how much it is different.

If you don’t get why the various contracts Australia has signed since 2007 regarding the SH differ from the current contract being negotiated between India and France, I cannot help you. I just pointed out that your comparison is wrong, most who read what you wrote and understand contracts will understand that your premise is flawed. You can either accept it, or continue to repeat a (frankly) stupid notion.

If you quote my post please make the effort to read it. Then if it doesn’t look so clear, read it again. And if it is still unclear please tell me which part I could explain better, or I can not make it more simple for you.

Understood it perfectly. You got butt hurt because you made a claim that the Australian SH deal was comparable to the Rafale contract. I corrected your misinformation. In no way are the costs close, nor are the deals similar (btw, in saying this, I’m not implying that the Rafale is expensive, or the deal is a poor value).

You can break it down as simply as you choose, when you start with a flawed premise everything else you state to defend it or deflect criticism is flawed too.

The price paid by Indians is nothing else than standard price, same range than the F18 price Australians are obliged to pay due to delay with their F35. They got a good offset claus in addition. So at the end it is a good deal for them and a good deal for france.
I guess a big part of the Indian deal will be paid with UK taxpayer money anyway, so who cares.

What are you smoking? The Australian F-18 E/F contract is expected to be in the range of 4.5-6 billion for the 24 aircraft with all the FMS training and support/logistics for the initial decade of use. Remember, FMS estimates are usually high and are revised lower as needed.
(2.3 billion for the initial FMS: aircraft, spares, training, 1.5 billion support/logistics contract + several separate weapon, decoy, 0&S contracts since 2007.)

Here was the 2013 FMS contract proposal for additional F-18:
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-fa-18ef-super-hornet-and-ea-18g-growler-aircraft
3.7 billion for 12 F-18 E/F, 12 Growler with the following additions: 6 spare engines, 35 radars, 80 JHMCS, on and on.

Or the 2015 FMS sustainment contract here: http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-fa-18ef-super-hornet-and-ea-18g-growler-aircraft-sustainment

Remove the 50% offsets and you fall to 150 mil / Plane. With support, weapons & infrastructure it’s not nearly as expensive anymore.

Nic

Not how offsets work. Your assuming that the 50% offsets double the cost of the contract. Considering that what the IAF is looking for is both : a platform and some of the associated technology. Without the details on what type, and what specific offsets are included other than some value associated with tech transfers, it would be near impossible to parse exactly how much of this contract is associated only with procurement of the aircraft.

I recall some years ago that SAAB said Gripen E was expected to be cheaper to build than Gripen C, due to the lower cost of the F414 engine to be used in the Gripen E. If that is still the case, Gripen E may cost closer to $50 million than $100 million. Of course whether the flyaway cost of the aircraft is $60 million or $70 million or $80 million has only a minor bearing on the overall cost of procuring and operating the type.

No, so far the two statements coming from Swedish AF, and the Swiss officials have put the unit cost at 90-100 million. This was stated before the Brazil contract was signed so cost estimates may be revised lower as production ramps up. Fifty million dollars in FY2016 will not get you a new Gripen C (roughly 58 million circa 2012), F-16 Block 50/52 (roughly 67 million in 2016), or any other western fighter.

Addition- Even the used Tranche 1 EF offered by Spain were in the 60+ million range.

Exactly. There’s nothing to suggest that the FMS contract signed with LM was restricted to the same parameters* as what was evaluated under the scrapped competition (the size of the acquisition was different for starters). Which is why its a mistake to interpret the deal to mean you could have bought 60 EFs for the cost of 40 F-35As (even without factoring in subsequent drops in its price).

That was exactly my point as well, in the initial rounds of bidding none of the competitors could meet the 60 aircraft for 7+ billion ( I’ve seen 7.5, 7.7 Billion). Boeing and EADS were able to modify the terms of the bids in ways not possible with the FMS bid from Lockheed. Most likely, reductions in some aspect of support offered. FMS contracts tend to look expensive, but considering they are all inclusive and guaranteed, they are popular.

@ Sintra:123.8 mil to be exact. Talk with the DAPA chaps, their numbers not mine. It will all depend on whats on the contract. In 2009 the Eurofighter partners payed roughly 8 billion us$ for 112 aircrafts and 241 engines.

126-128 million (tough to round off 700 million to 500 million). That very well, may be. That is not what a new operator set to buy the Typhoon is going to pay. Basically, without knowing what was in the bid, the Boeing and EADS bids could have been bare bones offers that would have required additional contracts for supporting the F-15 or Typhoon.

Moreover, when you look at the contracts and anticipated contracts for the Rafale and Typhoon in the Middle East and India, you see deals that look very similar to FMS contracts as that is what some customers prefer. And the costs of those contracts are considerable as shown by recent news.