I initially wanted to give a longer answer – just saying these numbers seem dubious. That dry/afterburner thrust ratio would indicate a bypass ratio unsuiteable for supercruise.

Assuming a single stage fan for the bypass flow…

The Storm Shadows would be on separate pylons.

Erm. I meant only certain pylons were rated to certain bring-back levels.

i.e. only the centreline pylon may be rated for bringing back 1.2 tonnes.

Rafale is a better jet than Typhoon.

I think you mean “Rafale is, right now, a more flexible jet than Typhoon”. 😉

I think that is pretty hard for anyone to argue against.

I find it appalling that US soldiers and Marines are better networked while off duty (IPhones, ‘Droids and Blackberries) than when on duty. I would bet that most 14 year old Junior High School students are better networked than on-duty soldiers and Marines.

Indeed.

See that F-35 helmet…. why is there not an infantry version with the HMD giving all sorts of information to the infantryman?

It wouldn’t be overly hard to have symbolic representations of bodies hidden from direct line of sight view, but visible to the UAV overhead – on say thermal imaging.

The helmet could even be used for cuing for indirect fire support.

All the money the USN and USAF are wasting on F-35/Ohio replacement/Arleigh Burke replacement etc could be much better spent on providing new technologies to the guys that are actually doing the fighting – the infantry.

Whenever they make statements like:

These include improved fuel efficiency, short landing and take-off capability, and the ability to transport cargo.

This will give the aircraft 25% lower acquisition costs, 25% lower operating costs and 50% lower maintenance costs than existing turboprop regional aircraft, says NAL.

“Many towns and cities remain unconnected due to the cost of operations. Short take-off and landing abilities, capability to land on ill-equipped airfields, including all weather operations, can be of very high benefit,”

You wonder how seriously they are going to be taken…

Rough field and STOL capabilities do not come for free.

It it arrogant bordering on stupidity to assert you can include the compromises necessary for rough-field and cargo loading, and yet still demolish the competitors (Q400 and ATR-72) in the 3 key competitive yardsticks.

It is a pattern I have seen before though with… shall we say… “offshore” engineering firms promising the world and delivering nothing but problems… which then costs the OEM more money to fix before getting the work back on track.

[The problem is not confined to “offshore” firms either… even crowds like Atkins are good at talking the talk and stumbling the walk]

Anecdotes and ‘everybody knows’ are not facts

Erm. Actually, things that do indeed happen are facts, regardless of whether they suit your argument or not.

If it’s that sensitive, should you really be dropping hints about it all over the Internet? 😎

Nah… I haven’t really said anything that no-one in the industry already knows.

They are coming.

Can you also tell who will use them? Boeing on their 737 replacement, or Airbus. Perhaps Embraer or Bombardier?

I could… but it wouldn’t be altogether wise for my current and future employment prospects. 🙂