If you’re a civilian, you shouldn’t still be in Aleppo.

no, you mis-read the question, he asked for any documented case where a manufacturer attempted to bump up range by dropping tanks,
you said it happen often so name one case with a link confirming DT are dropped on the way home as standard practice to extend range

Can you prove that no manufacturers have done this? Can you prove that the Gripen NG vs F-35 figures are apples to apples, i.e. same mission, retaining DTs. Of course not, yet you falsely assume the onus is on me to prove otherwise. Furthermore note altitudes (5,000-25,000ft), are these the same for Gripen NG figures because 5,000ft makes one hell of a difference.

i dont follow your logic, simply put,
first you state that dropping tanks are outlawed and will result in court and punishment, unless extra ordinary circumstances,
then in the next breath you state that drop tanks will be dropped as per standard procedure and regulation
on a typical mission, regardless.

do you have a link to back up either of the statements ?
or at the bare minimum logical reasoning as oppose to how you feel about the whole thing
an email reply from SAAB will do in the latter case, and i think i can live without an attempt on the former

It does but manufacturers attempting to bump up range figures often state the range when discarding tanks. And a Gripen with 3 huge DTs will fly like a granny carrying the shopping.

Do you have a link to state that it isn’t with discarded DTs?

What we also need is a range figure without DTs.

Agreed. But where does that profit come from?

You can only raise the rate of corporation-tax once; unless you plan to raise the rate every year?

And even if you did companies would simply raise their prices next year to compensate, or they’d go out of business, or move abroad, or their customers would take their money to a company not paying so much corporation-tax in another country.

Well that only proves that the market isn’t competitive if companies already making a profit raise their prices simply because they’re asked to actually pay taxes.

no, that is not reality, its a conclusion based on your imagination

Which nevertheless reflects reality.

i presume DT are to be retained lest a fight is coming up,
whats IFR got to do with anything ?
yes, the cost was for C, so how can it then not be in service after 20 odd years in service ?
grasping for straw are we ?
if i remember well, SAAB claimed gripen NG CPFH would be no more than US$ 10.000, when the brazil deal was around looming

But are they in the Gripen range figures because surely a small aircraft carrying that much garbage would have terrible drag.

Every company in existence passes on costs for everything, including corporation-tax, to its consumers; what other source of income or profit does it have?

The profit it’s already making that it should be paying tax on.