In the absence of big problems affecting the A (but not the C) it does not make sense to me to consider dropping the A.

Re: possibly reducing the US orders to 1,500 from 2,400+ I see no cost death spiral if it is predicted to increase unit costs by less than 10%. Cost has already risen by far more than 10% without procurement numbers changing.

drop the A. You can’t land the A on a carrier but you can land the C on land.
always prioritize the Navy over the Air Force!

Whuch is pretty irrelevant. You will have to look at the Airframe both Engines are attached on.. duh.

How much space and weapons weight can you carry on Rafale when it hauling 2*DT?
Or do you think any potencial Customer would care of such thing?

Rafale with external fuel tank can fly further than Su-30 (i dont know about the su-35) and this does not include inflight refueling. So far I have not seen the SU-30 with external fuel tanks.

Afghanistan, Libya, Mali showed that Rafale can still carry quite a bit even with big gas cans on the side.

su-35 could carry more but since we’ve never seen it or its 27, or 30 ancestors doing the same in actual operations.. hard to say if it really can do what you think it does.

Did i state that IAF do not use Tanker support?

because they obviously do, just like Rafale.

My point was, Su-35S would need much less Tanker Support vs Rafale.
The Su-35S even have plumeting hardpoint for 2000L DT.

your point is irrelevant because it depends what the customer will use it for. Switzerland or Belarus may not even wonder about such a point.

Try and get your head around this cost effective issue, fuel cost is a bitch these days, and so is Tanker Support.

and its probably likely the Flanker series in general has less fuel efficient engines.

Russia backs the ROK takeover of North Korea, because Russia wants to connect railway, gas pipe, and electrical grid with the ROK, but North Korea’s blocking it.

Wrong, North Korea has only 300 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, and these would be neutralized in the matter of hours.

You mean the resumption of war. That incident does not trigger an automatic invasion of North Korea in the current war manual; the popular revolt and the transfer of North Korean nukes outside of North Korea does.

russia would not support ROKs take over but would do the take over themselves
here’s the russian plan of how they did it.

Raison will return to Russia very quickly and the inhabitants would probably get a better chance at life.

Cost effective in what way?
Hope not you mean all the Tankers that have to follow Rafale..
See Libya for clues..

Su-35S would be much less depended on Tanker support. And thrust me, Tanker support cost a lot!

are you so sure about that? Indians bring their tankers for their MKIs in many other events.