Gripen is about USD40mio (current exchange rates). Su-30 I don’t know, some incredibly low numbers circulate. China payed USD1.5bio for 40 Su-30MKK in 2000. India payed USD1.8bio for 40 Su-30. That would translate into USD40mio (!) per ship, but no info if that’s fly-away or system.

A quick comparison of acquisition costs FY03:
F-16C USD30mio
F-16E USD50mio
F-18E USD60mio+
EF2000 USD70mio+
Rafale USD70mio+ (estimation)
F-35 CTOL USD40mio (estimation/projection)

I really don’t think the CTOL F-35 will cost anywhere near the EF2000. That would simply be not affordable. Such inflated prices would be an absolute showstopper for the programme. The only reason for a price in the USD80mio region would be massive cuts in overall production numbers. And since neither side invented the magic toolbox yet, maintainance costs will not dramatically differ I guess, but that we won’t be able to tell before 2012-15.

“-Does the JSF require special maintenance caution, a la B2 with the fragile skin surface?”
> Yes, if you really want to be radar-stealthy.

“I don’t see JSF as an interceptor although tests will tell.”
> Ja, we’ll see. The weight-thrust-ratio of the F-35 CTOL (16 to 19.5) should be somewhat better than the EF’s (17 to 18), but EF will have better performance on higher flight levels due to its engine characteristics and delta wing. F-35 on the other hand will have less drag due to internal weapons carriage. Everything tells us, that the F-35 CTOL’s radius of action will be spectecular. The EF doesn’t go far w/o large external fuel tanks.

Look, what I wrote was: “on internal fuel the Gripen had a combat radius of considerably under 100km against a supersonic target flying at FL500+.”

I didn’t say anything about “range”. Doing a liitle simplyfied math: 5000lbs fuel internal, 18000lbs thrust in A/B, SFC 1.8. An intercept against a supersonic target at FL500+ needs A/B all the time. Plus two AIM-120 on pylons causing some additional drag (only a genius-pilot could hit a target as assumed with a Sidewinder, as the kill zone would be very, very small.) Additionally the fuel needed for taxing, takeoff, plus reserves for the landing. All that equals a combat radius of under 100km. In that particular scenario. (Btw there are a lot of aircraft that don’t have vastly better performance – again, in that particular scenario.)

I sometimes write things here that might be conceived as controversial – I do that as long as it is about opinions. But I’m not bs’ing here when it comes to facts as I happen to know them. And that figure is accurate, and no, I can’t and I won’t tell the source.

There was an evaluation done on Gripen’s loadout capabilities and the result was, that thing would hardly go supersonic with AMRAAMs. Another thing shown was, that on internal fuel the Gripen had a combat radius of considerably under 100km against a supersonic target flying at FL500+. It is highly unrealistic, that such heavy loads as sampled above would be seen on an operational Gripen.
(@Phil: That’s no slur, but I won’t tell the source.)

Afaik flight testing of serial-production single-seaters haven’t even started yet.

The US just purchased quite a few strykers, an original Swiss design. Switzerland hasn’t been involved in a war since Napoleon. Does that make the stryker design bad?
>>> Yes, the Stryker is AWFUL. But wait, no! Best MP vehicle ever.

Well, there are three customers for the Gripen up to now, and a couple more potential ones. The Gripen with its carefree and low maintanance cost design seems a rather good choice for the less affluent Eastern European, South African and South American countries. One additional asset: It makes them less dependent on the US (spare parts: Look what happend to the Swiss with the F/A-18) and less vulnerable to blackmailing, which should suit some pretty well. It’s not big a suprise to see Americans sneering at the Gripen
>>> South Africa – can’t pay. Nine 39B purchased. Huge.
Hungary – can’t agree on A/G for almost two years now. Perhaps one day they’ll get 14. Immense.

Yepyepyep – that’s the point “makes them less dependent on the US”. It is every thinking man’s duty to fight off those evil Bush-ites! Those blackmailing enemys of freedom and democracy! Those warmongering hypocrites and capitalistic exploiters!

S – P – A – R – E … M – E !!!!!

In the early 80’s Cmdr. C.J. ‘Heater’ Heatley was inspired by the paintings of aviation artist Keith Ferris, who himself “borrowed” those disruptive and deceiving camouflage patterns from the ones used on WW1 and WW2 ships and by the German Luftwaffe during both wars.
Remark: Cmdr. Heatley can be seen a very short moment in the “Top Gun” film with Tom Cruise.

http://www.keithferrisart.com/keith-ferris-gallery.htm

There are not only more F-16 in the air than there are other models.
They also fly a lot more, there are units in the USAF clocking 450 to 500 fh/y.
And a very considerable percentage of that flying is done under combat conditions.

Only a nitpicker can argue the F-16 is unsave because of a rate of 4.5. There were times USAF and USN had double-digit rates and nobody cared because they did a good job! The job of a fighter-pilot is no life insurance.

And regarding the Czechs – that sorry bunch – all that hubbub about a dozen jets!