We are going around the definitions of what an aircraft price is: flyaway or full price. Both versions of the price are correct.
This does not justify an unfair comparison.
You say my number is not correct because its 3 years old even that it comes from Saab?
I already knew that it comes from Saab, I suspected that you were using Saab's estimate from 3 years ago that are now outdated and just because it came from Saab does not make it a correct number for last or this year because the estimate made in mind of what would Gripen NG/E/F would cost in 2012 before Gripen NG/E/F development being finished.
[/QUOTE]Show me the numbers from Saab.[/QUOTE]
Translated via Google Translate;
"In these deals, the focus is usually on the plan itself. But, according to Ulf Nilsson, the plan appears only for 25-30 percent of the whole affair when Brazil buys Gripen. The rest of the money goes to ground, tactical support systems, simulators, support, and everything else required for the plan in practice to be used."
I said all along 80 million fully loaded. Your Brazilian guy said 50 million plus subsystems,
It isn't 80 million USD for complete plane, Brazilian guy didn't say 50 million USD plus subsystems.
so you have not showed what the actual fly away price is including everything for the version and features that were bought.
You want to believe that because you're either in denial or you simply didn't bother to do proper research.
You're basically saying that a complete fighter isn't complete despite having being complete in first place.
Its nonsense to expect that the price will drop from 80 million to 50 million in 3 years.
You are still want to believe that an estimate is the actual price despite being an estimate and not actual price of the jet also it is nonsense to expect that technology has advanced considerably in 3 years and that Saab engineers managed to find ways to reduce cost while maintaining the quality in those 3 years?
"We have reduced the number of flight tests by 40 percent and overall had significantly lower development costs. That's probably where we stand out the most compared to competitors, says Ulf Nilsson."
Since when that guy is a credible reference and without details of those subsystems?
What subsystems? He mentioned systems not subsystems, you want to believe that he meant subsystems which ofcourse is thanks to your ignorance because he was talking about Tactical Support System.
"The rest of the money goes to ground, tactical support systems, simulators, support, and everything else required for the plan in practice to be used."
If you knew about Brazl's Gripen NG deal then you would have been aware of Tactical Support Systems which is for example such as this:
AN/SQQ-34 AIRCRAFT CARRIER TACTICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM (CV-TSC)
Did you forgot that Brazil has two aircraft carriers and that they want to develop a SeaGripen?
you just want to avoid admitting a mistake and you go around the bushes, understandable for young kids.
How can I admit that I have made a mistake when I didn't, should I lie to you and myself to satisfy you? So I am a kid despite being over 20 years old? Sure, adults are now kids so you're a kid too if we follow your definition/standards...
You believe that I made a mistake, you didn't consider that the reality is actually the opposite and that you have made mistakes because of your poorly done research involving Gripen and Brazil's deal.
Brazil payed 4.68 billion USD for 36 Gripen NG's, that's full price including what is usually included in those deals. If you want to argue about price definitions, then you have to first specify what price are you talking about, both versions of the price are correct and both are used, flyaway and full price.
Gripen NG deal isn't usual, far from it, its more like those rare ones like Japan, Israel and South Korea...
I am not arguing about price definitions as I am arguing about you continuing to make unfair comparison and you're asking for specify despite I have already done and you ignored it as you continued to make unfair/invalid comparison.
A tactical ground support aircraft will get used to soften up positions assuming that it can survive. You don't want to understand that that type of aircraft can't survive in a conflict with china. By the way, for that role, Vietnam will get the Yak-130 so the one that is speculating with those ideas is you.
I only saw speculations that VIetnam was interested in getting Yak-130.
I know for a fact that the export price of MIG-35 was offered at 35 million because I read it more than once and I can find the articles if I dedicate some time to it.
Fact according to you yet I dedicated time to find it and I find out that it is 35 million USD for Russia in 2013 and 43.5 million USD for Egypt in 2014.
My speculation about Egypt's price is reasonable, the arabs always pay top price.
I love that myth, show's how people are delusional and think Arabs are dumb... hahaha
How the article that says Sweden pays 150 million proves me wrong?
Look at the date of the article, you keep using outdated information.
If you claim that my information is outdated, then show me more recent information that is credible.
You're incompetent.
Saabs flygchef byter strategi | SvD
Saab’s Annual Gripen Seminar 2015
Before using L39 for ground support, you need to control the airspace, which I don't think Viet Nam could do it against PLA.
India and Viet Nam are cooperating with each other since both have territory disputes with China, if China engages Viet Nam then it will need to allocate substantial resources to have a good chance of winning war which would mean allocating/sending three times the force of what Viet Nam has.
The Syrian airforce are using them right now for ground support and they are falling down like pigeons from ground fire (heavy machine guns and some obsolete MANPAD). Those L39 will have zero chance against a well-equipped and modern army.
If you didn't know, Viet Nam is either going to replace or upgrade L39 to NG standard.
The best and cheapest way for VPA is to use the shovel and dig hole & trenches and buy tons of MANPADS and JAVELINS-types, fight a dirty war and forget about those expensive aircrafts and the ground support from air.
So it is your interest that VPA has high losses by using strategy/tactics that you are suggesting.
And the VPA infantry doctrine and training doesn't rely much on air support, they more into ground support fire from artillery, missiles and mortars
Remember Gulf War?
By the way, we all know those European jetfighters are freaking expensive.
Just look how many and which countries in the world operate them. They are few and they are all rich countries
You're ignoring Russia and you're wrong, is Hungary, Czech Republic, Thailand or South Africa rich? No.
My take is that the SU-30SM compares nicely with the Eurofighter.
No, it doesn't and only an uninformed people would have said that.
There is no need to get the expensive Eurofighter and a whole new logistical chain.
If that was the case then Viet Nam would't consider western aircraft nor it would have shown interest in Eurofighter Typhoon if there wasn't some need for it, maybe because its something China doesn't have?
To get a European aircraft just because of the Meteor missile is not a good idea long term.
How is it not a good idea? So according to you, it is good for Viet Nam to depend solely on Russian jets?
Viet Nam doesn't need Typhoon or Gripen NG to use Meteor since Gripen C/D can use it.
The Russian jets are currently using the R-77 as the air to air long range missile. The Meteor is better, but the Russians are upgrading the R-77 to version R-77M1 and that one will have a range of 175 km and a much improved AESA radar seeker, so at that point there is no advantage to having the Meteor.
You're spreading misinformation, R-77M1 aka R-77-PD development stopped in 1999 while longest range R-77 available to SU-30's is R-77-1 which has 110 kilometer range also R-77 that is highly improved and has AESA can only be used on PAK FA.
Just imagine the power of a SU-30MK2 using the R-77M1 missile and later an upgraded radar.
Imagine Su-30MK2 having that non-existent missile and getting shotdown by Eurofighter Typhoon with Meteor missiles from 150+ kilometers away while SU-30MK2 pilot during all that time doesn't know the location of Typhoon that moved away from SU-30MK2 the moment it launched Meteor and still tracking SU-30MK2 and updating each other via dual-link communication..