@randomradio is obliged to summarize dozens of pages of arguments with me in one post. This explains that he glorifies me a little, so that PDF forumers more readily accept the conclusions we have reached.
I am actually encouraging them to ask questions, especially to you, instead of simply washing it all away as lies.
There has been lot of water under the bridge since MMRCA and the version on offer is I believe superior to the one presented for evaluation earlier with perceived deficiencies covered up.
Actually no MMRCA contender can match up to the Rafale's specific functions regardless of how well they are upgraded. There are a few reasons for that.
1. Rafale is the primary weapons delivery platform for the French. So they have put all of their knowledge into it. They don't have an alternative aircraft planned yet.
2. Due to the French policy of not accepting help from others during security problems, especially the US, they have geared their MIC towards being independent in all technologies. That's why they did not wait for the US and UK to conduct SEAD operations before they started their own operations in Libya. The French have only recently joined NATO.
3. The French have put so much money into the Rafale since the beginning that only the F-35 program can match up to it in terms of technologies in the West. The Rafale's electronics suite, particularly Spectra, has been under development since the early 90s and has consumed billions in funding. If Boeing is expected to replicate the capabilities of the Rafale, they will need billions of dollars and many years of research to match up. The same for any of the other contenders.
4. Only the Rafale is capable of nuclear strike. This has been a major deciding factor for the Make in India program.
5. Rafale can launch low earth satellites. A bonus feature.
As for the SH in particular, the SH version may have been upgraded since MMRCA, but nothing of that is really operationally flying as of now. The USN version is obsolete even by MMRCA standards, let alone the higher standards IAF is looking for today. The upgraded Block 3 version of the SH only matches older versions of Rafale, not the upcoming F3R version. And the SH has woefully inadequate performance even if Boeing introduces a 9G capable aircraft. The older versions of Rafale can easily manage 11G and the newer versions will be getting a new uprated engine of 8.3 tons thrust. The Rafale carries superior weapons. The SH is not nuclear capable either. So there really is no question of comparing the SH's "slightly lower price" versus the Rafale's next gen capabilities.
Anyway, there is some misconception about price. The SH's contract price to the RAAF was $6B in total for 24 jets.
Australia's new Super Hornet warplane unveiled
Australia's first new Super Hornet to be acquired under a $US6 billion ($A7.6 billion) deal has been unveiled in a glitzy ceremony held in a cavernous aircraft hangar at the Boeing factory in St Louis, USA.
That comes to $250M a unit. And this is for the basic USN version and not even the MMRCA version offered to the IAF. And this version doesn't include the extra cost for modifying 12 of them to the Growler version, which by the way is obsolete compared to Rafale. Not to mention the price is almost a decade old now.
Compared to that, the version of Rafale offered to the IAF is a generation ahead, is highly customized, and is expected to cost less than $250M.
Euro 2.5B unit costs for 36 jets
Euro 2B in customization
Euro 1.4B in basing, for 1 base
Euro 1B for 10 years spares
Euro 1B for weapons
Total = Euro 7.9B or Euro 220M/jet = $245M/jet
The Rafale is actually cheaper than the regular Super Hornet, forget a customized version.
