One benefit of this deal is that it’ll shut up those irritating people who’ve taunted the French over Rafale’s lack of export success, but unfortunately the French Rafale fanboys will be insufferable for a while.

Fixed for ‘ya! 😉

Hitchhiker’s guide to arms dealing (or any kind of state-level deal actually):

1) Identify the most suitable product for your needs (from manufacturer A)
2) Make the world aware of it
3) Let the situation settle down
4) At the very last moment, complain about prices and conditions
5) Let the world know that you are going to turn to another product from manufacturer B
6) Share price of manufacturer A decreases by 10%
7) Buy a gazillion shares of manufacturer A
8) Buy the product from manufacturer A with a 15% discount
9) Share price of manufacturer A increases by 20%
10) Sell your gazillion shares of manufacturer A
11) Pay yourself a yacht with the difference and get congratulated for your control over military expenditures

(I wonder why I put this on this particular thread. ;))

Build quality?? capability?? take your pick

Probably both, plus much sleeker lines and a better looking green tint for the HUD. Given that manufacturing each of the two wings in separate countries should obviously tend to drag prices down, we do have to find the very reasons elsewhere.

they actually are that complicated. I’m surprised that you thought that they were simpler. All these are parameters for evaluation of the engine..how else do you think that the IAF evaluated the fighters over 643 parameters ? 😉

That was a pun. Please read again: I wrote “as”, not “more”!

On several occasions here I did highlight the fact that people can spend good amounts of time discussing things they don’t really grasp, and can’t really grasp actually.

Secret things are secret. Behaving like they are not won’t suddenly reveal the big picture. But you’ll always find people trying to gain kudos from the gullible. (Talented ones are paid high wages for taking this at state level.)

inadequate doesn’t just refer to thrust- there are a hundred other parameters that the IAF would be interested in.

for e.g. How is the MTBO and MTBF for the engine? How easy is it to maintain? How much time does it take to change an engine and how many men are needed for that? How many man-hours of maintenance required for each flight hour? How automated are the systems on board? How responsive is the engine in flight to throttle changes? Can the throttle be pushed back and forth carefree and get good response from the engine (the quality of the FADEC may define that)..

How reliable are they overall? What is the possibility of thrust growth for the engine family without a very significant redesign?

Please stop making things look as complicated as they are. 😉

Cyber attacks against F-35 on French/German TV now (Arte).

Thanks Nic.

75kN (full power with AB) * 50% = 37,5kN
37,5kN / 50kN (military power) = 75%

So when did the various European countries start to actively think about Stealth?

Could someone please define the word in bold in MrMalaya’s quote above? I’ve never had the opportunity to came across a satisfying definition in the past…