Every single other Viper or SH proposed sale surpassed by quite a decent margin the Brasilian and Swiss SAAB offers.

Some of them:
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/oman-f-16-aircraft
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales…-16-aircraft-0
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales…rcraft-support

True, but as has been mentioned about a thousand times by now, careful with FMS figures they are estimates (and usually quite high). Getting an accurate figure for the actual costs associated with the deals that were executed is difficult.

The FMS system provides for estimated prices and estimated payment schedules. The final price
of an FMS item or service generally will not be known until after it is delivered. The final price is
determined by actual USG contract cost and other authorized FMS charges that are applied under the
provisions of U.S. laws and regulations.
The fact that the final LOA cost is generally lower than the initial LOA price estimate is a distinctive
feature of the government-to-government FMS agreement

This is a good breakdown of the difference in FMS & DCS for those who are interested: http://www.discs.dsca.mil/documents/greenbook/15_Chapter.pdf

d these are only the ones I’ve seen during a quick pass. This is what happens when you dig the internet for strawman, a scarecrow pops up and laughs his head off at you. At least check your sources for integrity before wasting our time.

actually, I think that we’ve already established that the information is mostly correct on that site, not to mention the others that use the exact same figure for the EJ200

So, now it is on you to find one, one corroborating source to support your claim that the .74 SFC is correct. But you can’t, you never can. B.S. is a poor substitute for doing even a modicum of research before making claims you can’t support.

hile I completely agree that the SFC figures almost certainly apply to test bench conditions and have nothing to do with supercruise, why is 0.74 “wrong” and 0.81 “right”? Coming as they both do from the same source(s) – and a rather authoritative one (manufacturer, ultimately) at that – with no qualifying notes?

Fair point, let’s look at the veracity of the information out there.

Without an explanation as to why you consider 0.81 more likely you are just as guilty of cherry-picking data to suit your intended narrative. Is it because figures of around 0.8 are more widespread in other sources? Well, (without having checked, so sue me) I’d wager that the most frequent quote for the F-22’s empty weight is still the wildly optimistic development target of 14-odd tons that was commonly used as a placeholder until the real value was published a couple of years ago. The most widely quoted figure isn’t necessarily the most accurate…

Let’s look at the information for US engines as I have a study from RAND that got the information directly from the manufacturers, and compare that the the list on the site listing all military engines.
http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1596.pdf
use page 67-68 of the RAND study
F100-100 (RAND SFC .72, engine site .72)
F100-22 (RAND SFC .73, engine site .732)
TF30P-3 (Rand SFC .63, engine site .637)
F402RR-408 (RAND SFC .75, engine site .76)
M88-2 (SNECMA SFC .78, engine site .775)
F404-400 (RAND SFC .81, engine site .853)
There are some engines with missing data such as the incomplete information listed for the F414 as Ryan pointed out (likely because there was no manufacturer data available at that time). As you can see, the site uses accurate information from the manufacturers when available.

The other two sources… One is “Aircraft Propulsion” from Saeed Farokhi PH.D of the Aerospace Engineering department at the University of Kansas. Do you think he wouldn’t reach out to the engine manufacturer before publishing the book? Lastly, there is the Military Technology magazine, Oct. 2000. All of those sources list the SFC between .79-.81.

Now, despite the five sources, all credible, listing the SFC right around .8, is it possible that the SFC listed on Wikipedia (which was taken as one of the values from RR) is correct? Sure, but it isn’t probable consider the multiple sources (there are more), listing the SFC as I said.

Now, lets look at Ryan’s claims. First:

It’s the lowest SFC that you take for a comparison. It’s fundamentally obvious from the higher pressure ratio and higher BPR that the efficiency will be higher too, not to mention the variable inlet guide vanes on the HP comp.
And no, almost every source does not say 0.81, most take the lower figure because that’s the one relevant to optimal cruise. The 0.74-0.81 figure pertains to supercruise where the fixed geometry ramp will cause efficiency to vary.

Ok, now it’s the lowest SFC you take for a comparison? No, you take the static/sea level one as thats how manufacturers usually list them. Next, notice how he bluffs with the supercruise explanation? Pure B.S. Let’s see if Ryan can find one article, one citation that lists the EJ200 SFC as .74 other than the range given by MTU since in his words

“And no, almost every source does not say 0.81, most take the lower figure”

What are those “most” he is referring to?

Another good example:

The 0.74 figure you claim is from wikipedia originated from an old Rolls-Royce page which is no longer available and clearly MTU still back up this figure

Notice how the wikipedia figure now comes from a RR page? That link is listed at the bottom of the wikipedia page for the EJ200. Now, no one would know he was B.S.ing had a poster not linked to that RR page on this very site back in 2004 and quoted the same figures as the MTU datasheet. In other words, he claimed the RR datasheet listed the SFC as .74, it didn’t, it was the same figures .74-.81.

So, we can throw out the professor’s book, the website with accurate manufacturer’s engine data, the magazine highlighting European Turbofan development, that all list the SFC around .8 (which also correlates with the manufacturers data of .74-.81) and stick with Ryan’s that was accessed via wikipedia.

On this particular statement I am not so sure — Gripen was designed specifically for being operated from primitive road bases with very limited personnel. Perhaps the F-35 is designed in a similar manner; I do not know?

No, the F-35A isn’t specifically designed to operate from primitive road bases. The F-35B is, and will operate from M-FARPS.

The original Gripen does have a short runway capability, but let’s stop using the Gripen A-C and the E/F capabilities as interchangable. The new aircraft is larger and considerably heavier. The issue with dispersed basing is the manpower costs. Sweden did away with the BAS90 due to costs and instituted the BAS 04. They really weren’t primitive road bases, they were dispersed runways near the main base (hardened highways modified to act as runways in some cases). The myth of the fighters operating from some remote unprepared highway isn’t really accurate.

Edit- here is an old AvWeek article on Gripen and BAS90:
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1987/1987%20-%200351.PDF

Provided the dispersed runways were long enough (and hardened for a heavy aircraft), the F-35A could operate in a similar basing system. The question is, “Would Finland want to implement an expensive and manpower intensive basing option like that”?

With the LRIP costs coming down [not being particularly low in recent days] and there’s still a lot of problems being fixed, there’s no guarrantee that the F-35 ever will be so cheap that is claimed. I don’t see how Finland would get a cheaper deal than e.g. Norway or Denmark seeing as Finland never gave any funding to the program and is not a NATO member. JSF would not be able to guarrantee any industrial benefits for Finland, as LHM have already set up everything in terms of deals for all partner members in Europe. All money spent on the JSF would go to the JSF. Little if anything would go back into Finlands economy.

Finland would go through FMS, the FMS deals with S. Korea and Japan were based on the LRIP prices at the time of the contract. It is important to remember that those agreements are estimated on the high side, now compare them to contracts signed for Rafale and F-15. As far as industrial benefits, those are outlined in the RFI. Saying that there would be no industrial benefit for Finland is silly, that is part of the process.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/industrial-value-to-influence-finnish-fighter-competition-outcome

ou can’t deny the fact that the Gripen is the most cost-effective solution. It screams SISU. It’s a smart fighter. A fighter that focuses on availability, combat readiness and strategic solutions. Having a few F-35’s with limited time in the air, grouped together into one airfield due to budget constraints is not SISU. Until the F-35 shows that it can use dispersed and improvised runways, be tactically placed around Finland with a high combat readiness, the JSF is not a real option. And remember, at this point we haven’t even begun to talk about the comprehensive industrial and bilateral package that the Gripen/SwAF would contribute to Finland and the FAF.

Marketing terms like “smart fighter” mean little. The Gripen E/F just flew for the first time last week. I would say there is some risk involved in a project that is just starting flight testing and integration. The basing decisions are wholly predicated on FAF, the F-35 would operate from the same airfields as the Gripen. There is nothing about the Gripen E/F that makes it more conducive to dispersed basing.