[sukhoi-30mki]

The information on the chart is rather dated and not entirely accurate. The cost of the UAE’s F-16 Block 60 at the begining of the last decade was about 80 million a-piece, so the F-16IN (based on the Block 60) would roughly only be a few million dollars cheaper in the face in inflation and cost of adding new systems.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=9877

The supercruise entry is a typo-the Rafale folks have claimed that their bird can do it with the newer M-88-3 engines and payload of 4 AAMs.

[Bender2]

Re: The information on the chart is rather dated and not entirely accurate.

Didn't I say "...if the pricing above is correct..." and I still stand by my saying "...of all 6 entrants, the F-18 & F-16 are very well proven in extended wartime operations while..." the others are not and that is not a typo.

BTW which of the above do you favor?

While I'm not saying the French, Euro, Ruski or Swedish aircraft are not worth the effort, but it is rigorous pilot training and a well trained mechanical/support/logistics element that makes any aerial combat force effective, deadly and worth the cost. Neither of the other four have the combat experience or combat track record that the F-16 & F-18 have.

But then again, it is the Indian pilots and civilian's lives they protect that are at stake here if it comes down to war, isn't it?

[Yo-Yo]

The supercruise entry is a typo-the Rafale folks have claimed that their bird can do it with the newer M-88-3 engines and payload of 4 AAMs.

There's supercruise and then there's supercruise.